The Chinese Communist Party’s Exploration of China’s Independent Knowledge System during the Yan’an Period

On April 25, 2022, General Secretary Xi Jinping pointed out during his inspection of Renmin University of China: “To accelerate the construction of philosophy and social sciences with Chinese characteristics is, in the final analysis, to construct China’s independent knowledge system.” Observing the development of Chinese philosophy and social sciences requires a broad perspective, one that situates it within the grand history of the world. Therefore, examining this from a historical angle is an inherent part of deepening research into philosophy and social sciences with Chinese characteristics, especially China’s independent knowledge system. Historically, the Chinese Communist Party (CPC) is not only the leading subject in the construction of China’s independent knowledge system but also the constructing subject, having made historic contributions to its formation. During the Yan’an Period, the content of China’s independent knowledge system included both the innovative development of Sinicized Marxist theory and the fruitful achievements of philosophy and social sciences under its guidance. This period gradually established some key terms, core concepts, and important methods within

2022年4月25日,习近平总书记在中国人民大学考察时指出:“加快构建中国特色哲学社会科学,归根结底是建构中国自主的知识体系。”观察中国哲学社会科学的发展,需要有一个宽广的视角,应放到世界的大历史中。因此,从历史的角度考察是深化中国特色哲学社会科学特别是中国自主知识体系研究的题中应有之义。历史地看,中国共产党不仅是中国自主知识体系建构的领导主体,而且是中国自主知识体系的建构主体,为建构中国自主知识体系作出了历史性贡献。延安时期,中国自主知识体系的内容既有中国化马克思主义理论的创新发展,又包含在此指导下的哲学社会科学的丰硕成果,这一时期逐步确立了中国自主知识体系中的一些关键术语、核心概念和重要方法。

As a mirror for observing and understanding the transformation of modern Chinese academic thought, the philosophy and social sciences under the leadership of the Chinese Communist Party during the Yan’an period formed a set of cognitive methods with distinct Chinese characteristics, composing a “Yan’an chapter” in the construction of China’s independent knowledge system. How, then, did this exploration during the Yan’an period unfold? What changes occurred in foreign and traditional thought and culture during the process of modern Chinese ideological and cultural transformation? And what impacts did it produce? This article attempts, from the perspective of grand history, to examine the theory and practice of the Chinese Communist Party’s exploration of China’s independent knowledge system during the Yan’an period, to reconstruct the intellectual landscape of the nascent independent knowledge system of China in that era, to deepen the understanding of “China in scholarship,” and to provide some historical inspiration for the current construction of China’s independent knowledge system.

作为观察和理解中国现代学术思想变迁的一面镜子,延安时期中国共产党领导下的哲学社会科学形成了一套颇具中国特色的认知方法,谱写了建构中国自主知识体系的“延安篇章”。那么,延安时期的这种探索是如何展开的?国外和传统的思想文化在中国现代思想文化转换的过程中发生了哪些变化?又产生了哪些影响?本文试图从大历史的角度对延安时期中国共产党探索中国自主知识体系的理论和实践进行探讨,再现延安时期中国自主知识体系萌蘖的思想图景,深化对“学术中的中国”的认识,并对当前中国自主知识体系建构提供一些历史的启发。

I. The Intellectual Genesis of the Chinese Communist Party’s Promotion of the Construction of China’s Independent Knowledge System during the Yan’an Period

一、延安时期中国共产党推进中国自主知识体系建构的思想生成

Generally speaking, a knowledge system emerges within a specific historical and cultural ecology. The Chinese Communist Party’s exploration of China’s independent knowledge system during the Yan’an period had its own era-specific background. This historical practice not only inherited the developmental lineage of modern Chinese intellectual history but was also embedded in the historical process of the Chinese Communist Party’s continuous advancement of adapting Marxism to the Chinese context, while being closely intertwined with the changes in the contemporary political situation.

一般来说,知识体系是在一定的历史文化生态中产生的。延安时期中国共产党对中国自主知识体系的探索,有其生成的时代背景,这一历史实践不仅承继了近代中国思想史的发展脉络,而且内含在中国共产党不断推进马克思主义中国化的历史过程中,同时也与近世时局的变化息息相关。

(I) The Chinese Communist Party’s Intellectual Inheritance from Modern Explorations of China’s Independent Knowledge System

(一)中国共产党对近代探索中国自主知识体系的思想承继

In modern China, with the opening of the country’s doors, the intellectual world underwent an overwhelming baptism. This new tide produced two cultural consequences: first, it gradually shook the knowledge system inherent in China’s feudal civilization; second, it caused the knowledge system of Western industrial capitalist civilization to gradually flood China’s intellectual sphere. Both presented a core issue to all intellectual subjects exploring China’s independent knowledge system in modern times: how to handle the relationship between Chinese and Western cultures? Faced with this issue, on the one hand, traditional Chinese culture fell into an “epistemological crisis” of “interpreting China through the West”; on the other hand, the influx of Western doctrines seemed to form a beautiful “whole.” However, this “holistic” perspective on Chinese and Western cultures inevitably gave rise to an absolutist mindset of wholesale negation or wholesale affirmation of both sides, spawning two important poles among the many intellectual forces of modern times: one was the extreme conservative forces, beginning with the diehard faction of the landlord class and periodically reviving; the other was the “wholesale Westernization school,” which advocated that China should imitate capitalist civilization in everything. Most other intellectual factions oscillated between these two poles, attempting to explore a modern Chinese knowledge system through the reconciliation of Chinese and Western cultures.

近代中国,随着国门洞开,知识界经受了一场扑面而来的洗礼。这种新潮产生了两个文化后果:一是逐步动摇了中国封建文明所固有的知识体系,二是使得西方工业资本主义文明的知识体系逐渐充斥中国的思想界。两者给近代一切探索中国自主知识体系的思想主体提出了一个核心议题:如何处理中西文化的关系?在这个议题面前,一方面中国传统文化陷入了“以西释中”的“知识论危机”,另一方面纷至沓来的西方学说似乎成为一个美好的“整体”。然而,这种看待中西文化的“整体性”视角,不可避免地造成了一种对两方持整体性否定或整体性肯定的绝对化思维,衍生出近代诸多思想势力中的重要两端:一端是以地主阶级顽固派为肇始并且不时复苏的极端保守势力,另一端是主张中国一切都要模仿资本主义文明的“全盘西化派”。更多的思想派别游走于这两端之间,试图在中西文化的调和中探索出一种中国式的现代知识体系。

The May Fourth New Culture Movement dealt the most fatal blow to the old knowledge system. Traditional Chinese culture rapidly lost its due value. Even Hu Shi, who advocated sorting out the national heritage with a so-called “scientific attitude,” faced widespread criticism, because this advocacy, to some extent, “provided an excuse for extreme conservatives to blindly worship tradition.” Hence, Chen Duxiu criticized Hu Shi for “searching for perfume in a pile of filth.” In short, no matter how extravagantly the knowledge and thought of the feudal tradition were praised, their proponents could never explain the basic fact of China’s defeat in modern times. However, properly handling the positioning of traditional Chinese culture within the modern knowledge system, to some extent, aligned with the emotional inclination of modern Chinese people’s ideal of national rejuvenation—namely, that historical China did not leave only “a mess of chicken feathers” for modern China. This inclination flowed quietly through the course of modern intellectual development, and the construction of an indigenous modern knowledge form remained a constant pursuit of the intellectual world.

五四新文化运动带给旧知识体系最为致命的一击,传统中国文化迅速失去应有的价值,即使是建议以所谓“科学态度”来整理国故的胡适也遭到了广泛的批判,因为这一提倡在某种程度上“为极端保守分子盲目崇拜传统提供了口实”,所以陈独秀批评胡适是“要在粪秽里寻找香水”。简言之,不管封建传统的知识与思想被吹捧得如何天花乱坠,倡议者都始终无法解释中国在近代的失败这一基本事实。然而,妥善处理好中国传统文化在现代知识体系中的定位问题,在某种程度上契合了近代国人的民族复兴理想的情感倾向,即历史的中国并非只给现代中国留下“一地鸡毛”,这一倾向悄然声息地流淌在现代思想发展的历程中,对现代本土知识形态的建构始终是思想界的追求目标。

If the relationship between Chinese and Western cultures was a prerequisite issue that all modern Chinese knowledge systems had to address, then the extent to which they could answer the era’s question of national salvation and survival was the fundamental criterion for testing a knowledge system. As Marx said: “The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways; the point is to change it.” From the landlord class’s Self-Strengthening Movement advocating “Chinese learning as the essence, Western learning for practical use,” to the bourgeois reformists’ Hundred Days’ Reform, and then to the bourgeois revolutionaries’ Xinhai Revolution, various forces took turns on stage, only to fall one after another. The October Revolution brought Marxism-Leninism to China with a single cannon shot. As the political subject of Marxism in China, the Chinese Communist Party, once established, gave a completely new complexion to the Chinese revolution. By the Yan’an period, the Chinese Communist Party, having gradually mastered Marxism as an ideological weapon, on the one hand correctly handled the issue of the relationship between Chinese and Western cultures, and on the other hand provided a way out of China’s history of backwardness and suffering. The Chinese Communist Party, at the level of intellectual history, answered the two major questions faced in the exploration of an independent knowledge system since modern times, thereby making the construction of China’s independent knowledge system possible.

假若中西文化的关系是所有近代中国知识体系的建构都必须处理的前置问题,那么在何种程度上能够解答救亡图存的时代之问则是检验一个知识体系的根本标准,正如马克思所言:“哲学家们只是用不同的方式解释世界,问题在于改变世界。”从地主阶级宣扬“中体西用”的洋务运动、资产阶级维新派的戊戌变法,到资产阶级革命派的辛亥革命,各方势力你方唱罢我登场,却又接连落下马来。十月革命一声炮响,给中国送来了马克思列宁主义。作为马克思主义在中国的政治主体的中国共产党一经成立,便使得中国革命的面貌焕然一新。到了延安时期,逐渐熟练掌握马克思主义这一思想武器的中国共产党,一方面正确处理了中西文化的关系问题,另一方面为中国落后挨打的历史提供了一种突围方式,中国共产党在思想史层面回答了近代以来探索自主知识体系所面临的两大问题,从而使中国自主知识体系的建构具备了可能。

(II) The Chinese Communist Party’s Early Understanding of the Construction of China’s Independent Knowledge System

(二)中国共产党对中国自主知识体系建构的早期认识

The Chinese Communist Party’s idea of adapting foreign theory to the Chinese context existed as early as the founding period of the Party. Early Chinese Communists had an innate pursuit of an independent Chinese thought and culture, regarding “social science” as a sharp weapon for national salvation. In 1923, Yun Daiying, in his article “Academia and National Salvation,” proposed: “To destroy, we need social science; to build, we still need social science. Suppose society is a factory; social science is the factory management method… Relying solely on technical science to save the nation is nonsense that ignores the national conditions.” In effect, he elevated the construction of China’s cultural-ethical progress to a level prior to the construction of material civilization. The following year, in his article “Further Discussion on Academia and National Salvation,” Yun Daiying pointed out: “We must resolutely break the erroneous idea that any academic discipline can save the nation.” He believed that only “social science” could cure the ills of Chinese society. Although other disciplines also had their uses, “without the academic discipline of national salvation, and only other things, one can never achieve the effect of national salvation in the end.” At that time, Chinese Communists actually adopted a “take-what-you-need” attitude toward Western social science, because the traditional Chinese knowledge system had, to some extent, already been “overthrown,” and moreover, “social science originally has no national boundaries; it is only due to historical relations that isolated cultural units have formed, making people feel that each country has its own ‘national essence,’ which is in fact a social illusion, stuck on formal differences.” Based on these two points, it became possible for foreign social science theories to be transplanted into China. And the “social science” they referred to also had a clear target, namely Marxism, which had come from afar.

中国共产党试图将外来理论中国化的想法,早在建党初期就已经存在。早期中国共产党人对中国自主的思想文化有一种先天的追求,将“社会科学”视为救国利器。1923年,恽代英在《学术与救国》一文中提出:“要破坏,需要社会科学;要建设,仍需要社会科学。假定社会是一个工厂,社会科学是工厂管理法……单靠技术科学来救国,只是不知国情的昏话”,实际上把中国的精神文明建设提到了先于物质文明建设的高度。次年,恽代英又在《再论学术与救国》一文中指出:“我们定要打破任何学术都可以救国的谬想”,他认为救治中国社会的病象唯有“社会科学”一途,尽管别的学术亦有用处,“但是没有救国的学术,而只有别的东西,终究永远不能收救国的成效”。当时的中国共产党人在面对西方的社会科学时其实有一种“拿来主义”的态度,因为中国传统的知识体系在某种程度上已被“打倒”,而且“社会科学本无国界,仅因历史的关系,造成相隔离的文化单位,所以觉得各国有各国的‘国粹’,其实不过是社会的幻觉,泥滞于形式上的差别”。基于上述两点,外来社会科学理论便有被移植进入中国的可能。而他们所谓的“社会科学”其实也有明确指向,即远道而来的马克思主义。

In fact, faced with a Western theory such as Marxism, the early Chinese Communists also harbored a spirit of skepticism and a critical attitude. Mao Zedong once proposed: “I see the Russian-style revolution as a last resort taken when every road was blocked and all paths were exhausted, not as a case where there were better methods that were abandoned and not adopted, and this terrifying method was chosen instead.” In 1919, Li Dazhao published “My View of Marxism” in the fifth issue of the sixth volume of *New Youth*, systematically introducing Marxist theory for the first time. In the article, he stated: “To be fair, Marx’s doctrine is truly a product of its era; in Marx’s time, it was truly the greatest discovery. Now we certainly cannot take a doctrine shaped by one era and one set of circumstances to explain all of history, nor can we take it whole and apply it to the society in which we live; yet we also must not erase its value in that era and that particular discovery.” This indicates that the intellectuals who had initially accepted communist ideas already possessed a conscious awareness of the need to adapt Marxism to the Chinese context.

实际上,面对马克思主义这样的西方理论,早期的中国共产党人也曾抱有一种怀疑精神和批判态度,毛泽东曾提出:“我看俄国式的革命,是无可如何的山穷水尽诸路皆走不通了的一个变计,并不是有更好的方法弃而不采,单要采这个恐怖的方法。”1919年,李大钊在《新青年》第六卷第五号发表了《我的马克思主义观》一文,首次系统地介绍了马克思主义理论,其在文中提出:“平心而论马氏的学说,实在是一个时代的产物,在马氏时代,实在是一个最大的发见。我们现在固然不可拿这一个时代一种环境造成的学说,去解释一切历史,或者就那样整个拿来,应用于我们生存的社会,也却不可抹煞他那时代的价值,和那特别的发见。”这表明初步接受共产主义思想的知识分子其实已具有使马克思主义中国化的自觉意识。

After the failure of the Great Revolution in 1927, the question “Where should the revolution go?” was placed squarely before the Chinese Communists. Mao Zedong and others began to reflect: Was copying the Russian experience the only option? Was it possible to find a different path, a better one? From 1928 to 1930, Mao Zedong successively wrote works such as “Why Can China’s Red Political Power Exist?”, “The Struggle in the Jinggang Mountains”, and “A Single Spark Can Start a Prairie Fire”, gradually elevating the temporary tactic of going up the mountains to wage guerrilla warfare into the revolutionary strategy of “armed independent regimes of workers and peasants”. [8]8 Ai Siqi, “On China’s Particularity,” *Chinese Culture*, Vol. 1, Issue 1, 1940. Ye Qing was a former CPC member who became a critic of Mao’s line on adaptation to the Chinese context. Thereafter, during the Yan’an period, the Chinese Communists represented by Mao Zedong continuously promoted the integration of the fundamental tenets of Marxism with China’s specific realities, gradually answering a series of issues concerning the object, tasks, driving forces, nature, and prospects of the Chinese revolution, and elevating many practical problems to the level of philosophical analysis. From the perspective of constructing an independent knowledge system, it can be said that a set of “revolutionary knowledge systems” that were reasonable in argument and effective in practice took shape. Later, the fundamental reason why Marxism’s historical fate differed so greatly from that of other ideological theories introduced from the West was largely that the Chinese Communist Party could adapt Marxism to the Chinese context, whereas various Western learning could only “be in China”.

1927年大革命失败后,“革命向何处去”的问题现实地摆在了中国共产党人的面前。毛泽东等人开始思考照搬俄国经验是否是唯一的选择?有没有可能另辟蹊径找到一条更好的道路?从1928年到1930年,毛泽东先后撰写了《中国的红色政权为什么能够存在?》《井冈山的斗争》《星星之火,可以燎原》等著作,将上山打游击的临时策略逐渐升华为“工农武装割据”的革命战略。此后,到了延安时期,以毛泽东为代表的中国共产党人不断推动马克思主义基本原理同中国具体实际相结合,逐步回答了中国革命的对象、任务、动力、性质、前途等一系列议题,并把许多现实问题提高到哲学的高度进行分析,从自主知识体系建构的角度看,可以说形成了一套言之有理、行之有效的“革命知识体系”。而到后来,马克思主义与其他西学东渐的思想理论的历史命运之所以完全不同,很大程度上在于中国共产党可以把马克思主义中国化而各种西学却只能“在中国”。

(3) The Realistic Motivations for the Chinese Communist Party to Promote the Construction of a Chinese Independent Knowledge System

(三)中国共产党推进中国自主知识体系建构的现实动因

On October 19, 1935, the Party Central Committee arrived in Wuqi Town in northern Shaanxi together with the Central Red Army, beginning its thirteen-year history in Yan’an. During the Yan’an period, the Chinese Communist Party effectively responded to a series of major challenges, led and directed the national revolutionary struggle, and also conducted preliminary explorations into advancing philosophy and social sciences rooted in China. Mao Zedong proposed: “We Communists have struggled for many years not only for China’s political revolution and economic revolution but also for China’s cultural revolution.” In this period, the Chinese Communist Party enriched and developed Marxism, giving rise to Mao Zedong Thought, a Marxist theory adapted to the Chinese context. This theory not only provided scientific guidance for the Chinese revolution but was itself an important component of the construction of a Chinese independent knowledge system. As Ai Siqi stated: “The Party Central Committee and Comrade Mao Zedong are our brilliant models in this regard. To take the greatest examples, the theory of the New Democratic nature of the Chinese revolution, the knowledge of the laws of the protracted war of resistance against Japan, and the theory of the strategies and tactics of the united front are many new things that the Chinese Party has added to the entire treasure house of Marxism.” The formation of Mao Zedong Thought, on the one hand, continued the aforementioned intellectual recognition of the Chinese Communists’ attempt to localize Marxism; on the other hand, it was closely related to the realistic changes the Chinese Communist Party was facing at the time.

1935年10月19日,中共中央随中央红军到达陕北吴起镇,开启了其在延安十三年的历史。延安时期,中国共产党有力应对了一系列重大挑战,领导和指挥了全国的革命斗争,同时也对推进立足中国的哲学社会科学进行了初步探索,毛泽东提出:“我们共产党人,多年以来,不但为中国的政治革命和经济革命而奋斗,而且为中国的文化革命而奋斗。”在这一时期,中国共产党丰富和发展了马克思主义,产生了毛泽东思想这一中国化的马克思主义理论。这一理论不仅为中国革命提供了科学指导,其本身也是中国自主知识体系建构的重要组成部分。正如艾思奇所言:“党中央和毛泽东同志,在这一方面就是我们辉煌的模范。举最大的来说,例如中国革命的新民主主义性质的理论,抗日的持久战的规律知识,统一战线的战略策略的理论,就是中国的党在全部马克思主义的宝库中增加进去的许多新的东西。”而毛泽东思想的形成,一方面延续了前述中国共产党人试图把马克思主义本土化的思想认识,另一方面也与中国共产党当时面临的现实变化息息相关。

In July–August 1935, Georgi Dimitrov proposed at the Seventh Congress of the Communist International that “a broad anti-imperialist united front be established in the colonies and semi-colonies” and emphasized that it should be applied flexibly and concretely “proceeding from the characteristics of each country”. In December of the same year, the Party Central Committee held an enlarged meeting of the Politburo in Wayaobao, clearly stating that the Party’s basic strategy and task was to establish a broad anti-Japanese national united front. [9]9 Wuxie, “The New Democratic Cultural Movement in 1940,” *Chinese Culture*, Vol. 2, Issue 6, 1941. The “28th year of the Republic” refers to 1939, and the “29th year” to 1940, using the Republic of China calendar. Subsequently, the communication of the spirit of the Seventh Congress of the Communist International provided certain external conditions for the Chinese Communist Party to propose the theoretical proposition of “adapting Marxism to the Chinese context” during the Yan’an period. When discussing the issue of the “national bourgeoisie” at the Wayaobao meeting, Mao Zedong, in response to Bo Gu’s continued application of the dogma that “the intermediate forces are the most dangerous”, stated his position: “I analyze Chinese problems based on the fundamental principles and basic stand of Marxism-Leninism, and propose uniting with the national bourgeoisie to resist Japan.” Zhang Wentian, in a later Politburo meeting discussing the resolutions of the Seventh Congress of the Communist International, also proposed: “The resolutions speak more about issues in Europe; we should nationalize them, make them suitable for our specific environment.” [10]10 The phrase “rich fruits” (丰美的果实) is a quotation from Mao Zedong’s “On New Democracy,” where he describes the expected outcome of the new-democratic cultural movement. This indicates that the Chinese Communist Party’s theoretical understanding of adapting Marxism to the Chinese context was continuously deepening, and the proposition of “adapting Marxism to the Chinese context” was on the verge of being formally articulated.

1935年7 8月,季米特洛夫在共产国际第七次代表大会上提出要“在殖民地和半殖民地建立广泛的反帝统一战线”,并强调要“从每个国家的特点出发”灵活而具体地运用。同年12月,中共中央在瓦窑堡举行政治局扩大会议,明确提出党的基本策略和任务是要建立广泛的抗日民族统一战线。随后,共产国际七大精神的传达,为延安时期中国共产党提出“马克思主义中国化”的理论命题提供了一定的外部条件。毛泽东在瓦窑堡会议上讨论“民族资产阶级”问题时,就对博古仍然套用“中间势力是最危险的”这一教条的情况摆明自己的立场:“我是根据马列主义基本原理和基本立场来分析中国问题,提出联合民族资产阶级抗日的”,张闻天在后来讨论共产国际第七次代表大会决议的中央政治局会议上也提出“决议中关于欧洲的问题讲得多些,我们应该使之民族化,使之适合于我们的具体环境”的观点。这表明,中国共产党对于马克思主义中国化的理论认识正在不断深化,“马克思主义中国化”命题已经呼之欲出。

In 1938, Mao Zedong formally proposed the proposition of “adapting Marxism to the Chinese context” at the enlarged Sixth Plenary Session of the Sixth Central Committee of the CPC, clearly emphasizing: “The sinicization of Marxism, so that it manifests Chinese characteristics in every one of its expressions, that is to say, to apply it according to China’s characteristics, has become a problem that the whole Party urgently understands and needs to solve.” [11]11 Heinrich Heine, *On the History of Religion and Philosophy in Germany* (1834). The quote is paraphrased; Heine’s original text states that Kant’s *Critique of Pure Reason* inaugurated a philosophical revolution in Germany. During this period, Mao Zedong, integrating the new changes in China’s situation during the War of Resistance against Japan and the new requirements arising from the Chinese Communist Party having become a political party with significant influence within the country, deeply studied the characteristics and laws of the Chinese revolution and successively published important works such as “Introducing *The Communist*”, “The Chinese Revolution and the Chinese Communist Party”, and “On New Democracy”, systematically elaborating the theory of New Democracy. On the basis of summing up the experience of military struggle during the Agrarian Revolutionary War, Mao Zedong also successively wrote military works such as “Problems of Strategy in China’s Revolutionary War”, “Problems of Strategy in Guerrilla War against Japan”, “On Protracted War”, and “Problems of War and Strategy”, elevating guerrilla warfare to the strategic level and creatively developing Marxist military theory. Works on the method of thinking, such as “On Practice”, “On Contradiction”, “Preface and Postscript to *Rural Surveys*”, and “Some Questions Concerning Methods of Leadership”, were also created during this period. From the dimension of constructing an independent knowledge system, a “revolutionary knowledge system” constructed by Mao Zedong and other Chinese Communists was gradually taking shape. The facts show that in the process of promoting the construction of a Chinese independent knowledge system in the field of philosophy and social sciences, the Chinese Communist Party not only assumed the important function of political leadership but also played the main role in knowledge production. The Chinese Communist Party is both the leading subject and the constructing subject of the construction of a Chinese independent knowledge system.

1938年,毛泽东在中共扩大的六届六中全会上正式提出“马克思主义中国化”命题,明确强调:“马克思主义的中国化,使之在其每一表现中带着中国的特性,即是说,按照中国的特点去应用它,成为全党亟待了解并亟需解决的问题。”在这一时期,毛泽东结合抗战时期中国形势的新变化和中国共产党已经成为国内具有重要影响力的政党的新要求,深刻研究了中国革命的特点和规律,并陆续发表了《<共产党人>发刊词》《中国革命和中国共产党》《新民主主义论》等重要著作,系统阐述了新民主主义理论。在总结土地革命战争时期军事斗争经验的基础上,毛泽东还陆续撰写了《中国革命战争的战略问题》《抗日游击战争的战略问题》《论持久战》《战争和战略问题》等军事著作,把游击战争提高到了战略层面,创造性地发展了马克思主义军事理论。思想方法层面的《实践论》《矛盾论》《<农村调查>的序言和跋》《关于领导方法的若干问题》等著作也都是在这一时期创作的。从自主知识体系建构的维度论,一个由毛泽东等中国共产党人所构建的“革命知识体系”正逐渐成形。事实说明,中国共产党在推动哲学社会科学领域建构中国自主知识体系的过程中,不仅承担了政治领导的重要职能,亦发挥了知识生产的主体作用。中国共产党既是中国自主知识体系建构的领导主体,又是中国自主知识体系的建构主体。

It should be pointed out that the changes in the Chinese Communist Party in the political sphere also profoundly influenced the realm of academic thought. After the conclusion of the Wayaobu Conference[12]12 “Adapting Marxism to the Chinese context and the needs of the times” (马克思主义中国化时代化) and “popularizing it” (大众化) are standard formulations in CPC discourse, referring to the ongoing process of making Marxism relevant to Chinese conditions and accessible to the masses., Liu Shaoqi, on assignment from the Party Central Committee, went to the North China region to establish the Anti-Japanese National United Front, and “carried out a great deal of effective work on the cultural united front,”[13]13 This quotation is from a later Party document or historical account summarizing Liu Shaoqi’s work in North China; the exact source is not specified in the original text. which powerfully promoted the development of the New Enlightenment Movement[14]14 The New Enlightenment Movement (1936–1939) was a leftist intellectual campaign led by the CPC to synthesize Chinese cultural heritage with Marxism, aiming to create a new national culture distinct from both the May Fourth tradition and Western bourgeois thought.. The rise of the New Enlightenment Movement reflected the reflections of Chinese Communist Party members and left-wing intellectuals on the May Fourth New Culture Movement[15]15 The May Fourth New Culture Movement (c. 1915–1920s) was a Chinese intellectual and cultural reform movement that promoted modernization, science, democracy, and vernacular language, often critical of traditional Confucian values.. Ai Siqi summarized in 1937: “The old enlightenment movement did not complete what it set out to do,” while “a new culture cannot be said to have been established at all; what remains are only fragmentary and scattered achievements, and these are preserved only in the hands of a very few people, without having reached the stage of popularization and massification.” The old enlightenment movement had not completed the task of establishing an entire Chinese culture of its own; “what it left behind were only bits and pieces of achievements (such as the sorting out of national heritage) and introductions of various foreign cultures.” Therefore, the task of the New Enlightenment Movement was “to give it a new synthesis.” In 1936, the “New Enlightenment Movement” was first initiated by Chen Boda, then head of the Propaganda Department of the Northern Bureau of the CPC Central Committee. He successively published articles such as “The National Defense Mobilization of Philosophy: Self-Criticism of New Philosophers and Proposals on the New Enlightenment Movement” and “On the New Enlightenment Movement” to issue the call. Under the leadership of the Chinese Communist Party, scholars such as Ai Siqi, He Ganzhi, and Hu Sheng successively joined this movement and conducted in-depth discussions on Chinese philosophy and social sciences. For example, He Ganzhi later summarized in his book *A History of the Modern Chinese Enlightenment Movement*: “The New Enlightenment Movement is a movement to establish a new culture of modern China.” He emphasized the need to use China’s actual empirical materials to develop the existing knowledge system, stating: “The rediscovery of Chinese history can enrich the historical system; the completion of Chinese economic theory can fill a certain blank in generalized economics. All these are the most precious elements for creating a new culture of modern China.” He also encouraged economists to let “the true face of Chinese society reappear before people’s eyes and ears,” thereby enriching “economic methodology and its system.”

需要指出的是,中国共产党在政治上的变化也深刻影响了学术思想领域。在瓦窑堡会议结束后,刘少奇受中共中央的指派到华北地区建立抗日民族统一战线,在“文化统一战线方面做了大量的卓有成效的工作”,有力推动了新启蒙运动的开展。新启蒙运动的兴起,反映了中国共产党人和左翼知识分子对五四新文化运动的反思,艾思奇在1937年总结道:“旧的启蒙运动没有把它所要做的事完成”,而“新的文化完全说不上建立,所有的只是片段零碎的成绩,并且也只是保存在极少数人的手里,没有能够达到普遍化、大众化的地步”,旧启蒙运动没有完成建立整个中国自己文化的任务,“它所留下的只是零零碎碎的成绩(如国故整理之类)和各式各样的外来文化的介绍”,所以新启蒙运动的任务就是要“给它来一个新的综合”。1936年,“新启蒙运动”首先由时任中共中央北方局宣传部部长的陈伯达发起,他先后发表了《哲学的国防动员———新哲学者的自己批判和关于新启蒙运动的建议》《论新启蒙运动》等文章进行号召。在中国共产党的领导下,艾思奇、何干之、胡绳等学者陆续参加了这一运动,并对中国的哲学社会科学进行了深入探讨。例如,何干之后来就在《近代中国启蒙运动史》一书中总结道:“新启蒙运动是建立现代中国新文化运动”,他强调要利用中国现实的经验材料对已有的知识体系进行发展,指出:“中国历史的重见天日,可以充实历史体系,中国经济理论的完成,可以补足广义经济学的某个空格。凡此种种都是创造现代中国新文化的最可宝贵的要素”;他还鼓励经济学者应该让“中国社会的本来面目,再现于人们的视听中”,从而使“经济学方法论及其体系”更加丰富。

The changing situation of the War of Resistance Against Japan was another important practical motivation for the Chinese Communist Party to promote the construction of China’s independent knowledge system. Under the leadership of the Chinese Communist Party, the New Enlightenment Movement powerfully advanced the theoretical exploration of indigenous philosophical and scientific content in academic circles. However, the full-scale outbreak of the War of Resistance Against Japan caused the standard-bearers of the New Enlightenment Movement to leave the movement’s centers in Beiping and Shanghai one after another and head to Yan’an, Chongqing, and other places. Nevertheless, during this movement, the academic pursuit of establishing a Chinese paradigm for philosophy and social sciences gradually emerged, particularly laying a certain foundation for the later “Sinicization of Academia” movement led by the Chinese Communist Party. At the same time, under the severe national crisis, the Chinese Communist Party’s construction of modern ideology and culture took on a more national character. Japan implemented enslavement education in the occupied areas, attempting to destroy the national consciousness of the Chinese people spiritually. “Under the sun flag, every Chinese person could only be a docile subject, a beast of burden, not allowed to have the slightest trace of Chinese spirit.” Therefore, at this time, it was particularly important for the Chinese Communist Party to reassess the national cultural heritage and revive the national confidence of the Chinese people. In promoting the development of indigenous philosophical and scientific content, the Chinese Communist Party’s emphasis on characteristics such as “national character,” “autonomy,” and “Sinicization” was in fact a powerful measure to boost national confidence.

抗日战争形势的变化是中国共产党推进中国自主知识体系建构的另一重要现实动因。在中国共产党的领导下,新启蒙运动有力推进了学界对本土哲学科学内容的理论探讨,但抗日战争的全面爆发,使新启蒙运动的旗手们纷纷离开北平、上海这些运动中心并前往延安、重庆等地。不过在这一运动中,建立中国范式的哲学社会科学的学术追求已渐渐浮现,特别是为后来中国共产党领导的“学术中国化”运动的开展奠定了一定基础。同时,在严峻的民族危机下,中国共产党对现代思想文化的建构也更具民族色彩。日本在沦陷区推行奴化教育,企图在精神上摧毁中国人民的民族意识,“在太阳旗下,每个中国人只能当顺民,做牛马,不许有一丝一毫的中国气”,所以在这个时候,中国共产党重估民族文化遗产、重振国人的民族自信就显得尤为重要。中国共产党在推动本土哲学科学内容的发展中,对“民族性”“自主性”“中国化”这些特点的强调实则也是提振民族自信的有力举措。

II. Preliminary Attempts by the Chinese Communist Party to Promote the Construction of China’s Independent Knowledge System during the Yan’an Period

二、延安时期中国共产党推进中国自主知识体系建构的初步尝试

During the Yan’an Period, the Chinese Communist Party powerfully promoted the in-depth development of philosophy and social sciences with Chinese characteristics. On the basis of studying and absorbing Chinese and foreign intellectual resources, especially the basic principles of Marxism, and integrating them with China’s concrete realities, it Sinicized foreign intellectual resources, composing a “Yan’an chapter” in the construction of China’s independent knowledge system. These attempts included: first, the Chinese Communist Party established and perfected the revolutionary theoretical system of Mao Zedong Thought, which was crucial to the success or failure of the Chinese revolution, providing a series of ideological guidance for the construction of an independent knowledge system; second, leaders of the Chinese Communist Party represented by Mao Zedong personally participated in and encouraged academic innovation, creating favorable academic conditions and a good academic atmosphere for academic workers; third, the Chinese Communist Party consciously strengthened its leading role in the academic movement to construct an independent knowledge system.

延安时期,中国共产党有力推动了中国特色哲学社会科学的深入发展,在学习和吸收中外思想资源特别是马克思主义基本原理的基础上,结合中国的具体实际思考,把外来思想资源中国化,谱写了建构中国自主知识体系的“延安篇章”。这些尝试包括:一是中国共产党建立和完善了毛泽东思想这一事关中国革命成败的革命理论体系,为自主知识体系的建构提供了一系列思想指引;二是以毛泽东为代表的中国共产党领导人亲自参与和鼓励学术创新,为学术工作者创造了有利的学术条件和良好的学术氛围;三是中国共产党自觉加强在建构自主知识体系的学术运动中的领导作用。

(I) Deepening Theoretical Innovation to Provide Ideological Guidance for the Construction of China’s Independent Knowledge System

(一)深化理论创新,为中国自主知识体系建构提供思想指引

Since the beginning of the May Fourth New Culture Movement, China had produced a new cultural force. Mao Zedong pointed out: “This new force has achieved tremendous development in the fields of social sciences and literature and art, whether in philosophy, economics, political science, military science, history, literature, or art (including drama, film, music, sculpture, and painting).” By the Yan’an Period, the Chinese Communist Party had not only led Chinese philosophy and social sciences to achieve a series of accomplishments, but its own theoretical innovation had also made breakthrough progress, guiding the construction of China’s independent knowledge system with Mao Zedong Thought.

自五四新文化运动始,中国就产生了一支新的文化生力军,毛泽东指出:“这支生力军在社会科学领域和文学艺术领域中,不论在哲学方面,在经济学方面,在政治学方面,在军事学方面,在历史学方面,在文学方面,在艺术方面(又不论是戏剧,是电影,是音乐,是雕刻,是绘画),都有了极大的发展。”到了延安时期,中国共产党不仅领导中国哲学社会科学取得了一系列成就,其自身的理论创新也取得突破性进展,并以毛泽东思想指引中国自主知识体系建构。

First, emphasis on the autonomous orientation of knowledge. The autonomy of knowledge has two meanings: first, the source of knowledge should be based on China’s own experience, or at least proven by China’s own experience. This is because any theory of knowledge, only when combined with local experience, has a clear meaning and orienting function; this is also the criterion for judging whether it can form explanatory and practical significance. Mao Zedong believed that even if the knowledge in books were all truth, it would still have inherent limitations: “In a certain situation, this kind of knowledge is still one-sided for them; this knowledge has been proven by others, but has not yet been proven by them.” [16]16 Mao Zedong, “Rectify the Party’s Style of Work” (1942). Speaking constantly of “Greece” [17]17 A phrase from Mao Zedong’s “Reform Our Study” (1941), criticizing those who mechanically cited Western sources (ancient Greece) without regard for China’s actual conditions. and blindly following others not only makes it difficult to form original theoretical methods but also fails to solve China’s practical problems. In April 1938, Ai Siqi first proposed the thesis of “the Sinicization and realization of philosophical research” in *The Current Situation and Tasks of Philosophy*, advocating that philosophy should speak Chinese and speak the language of the common people. Mao Zedong, as the pioneer who combined the basic principles of Marxism with China’s specific reality and achieved major results, first proposed the thesis of “adapting Marxism to the Chinese context” at the Sixth Plenary Session of the Sixth Central Committee [18]18 The Sixth Plenary Session of the Sixth Central Committee of the CPC, held in Yan’an in September–November 1938, where Mao Zedong delivered the report “The Role of the Chinese Communist Party in the National War,” formally raising the thesis of adapting Marxism to the Chinese context., and was the first within the Party to explicitly oppose treating Marxism as dogma. Mao Zedong later further summarized in the preface to *Rural Surveys* that only through investigation and research “can we have the most basic knowledge of China’s social problems,” while “looking east and west, listening to hearsay, will certainly yield no complete knowledge.” These theoretical reflections of Mao Zedong played an important guiding role in the exploration of China’s independent knowledge system during the Yan’an period. Influenced by this, Zhang Wentian, then president of the Central Research Institute, specially organized the Yan’an Rural Investigation Team to conduct field research in northern Shaanxi and northwestern Shanxi, and wrote a number of investigation reports. In his report to the Central Committee, *Notes on Returning from the Outset*, Zhang Wentian further refined the theoretical method of investigation and research, enriching China’s sociological theory. Second, the application of knowledge should also be oriented toward China’s own problems, and must be able to solve the special problems China faced. Mao Zedong emphasized that only by transforming abstract foreign ideas into concrete thinking that conforms to China’s reality, and Sinicizing these foreign resources, could problems be solved; otherwise, “if not used for China’s reality, they cannot defeat the enemy.” For those whose theory was divorced from China’s reality, Mao Zedong suggested revoking their so-called “theorist” qualification, because he believed that “only those who use the Marxist viewpoint to study practical problems and can solve practical problems count as real theorists.” Ai Siqi also advocated “establishing our own philosophy,” proposing that the creation of a new philosophy should “establish its own philosophy by targeting the important practical problems before us,” and under the conditions of the time, “the most important problem was the problem of national crisis.” Under the Anti-Japanese National United Front, the practical task of resisting Japan and saving the nation became a major problem facing the Chinese Communist Party; therefore, the extent to which this problem could be solved became an important criterion for testing the CPC’s promotion of the development of China’s independent knowledge system. As Hu Sheng said: “The practice of the War of Resistance became a touchstone for all thought and theory.”

第一,注重知识的自主性导向。知识的自主性有两方面含义:一是知识的来源应该是基于中国自己的经验,或者至少是被中国自己的经验所证明。这是因为,任何一种知识理论只有与本土经验相结合,才有明确的意义和指向功能,这也是判断其能否形成解释和实践意义的标志。毛泽东认为,就算书本上的知识都是真理亦存在内在局限性,“就一定的情况说来,这种知识对于他们还是片面性的,这种知识是人家证明了,而在他们则还没有证明的”。“言必称希腊”、亦步亦趋,不仅难以形成原创的理论方法,也解决不了中国的实际问题。1938年4月,艾思奇在《哲学的现状和任务》中首次提出“哲学研究的中国化、现实化”命题,倡导让哲学说中国话、说老百姓的话。毛泽东作为把马克思主义基本原理同中国具体实际相结合并取得重大成果的开创者,在党的六届六中全会上首次提出“马克思主义中国化”命题,在党内最早明确反对把马克思主义当成教条。毛泽东后来在《农村调查》一书的序言中更是进一步地总结,只有调查研究“才能使我们具有对中国社会问题的最基础的知识”,而“东张西望,道听途说,决然得不到什么完全的知识”。毛泽东的这些理论思考对延安时期探索中国自主知识体系产生了重要的指导作用。受其影响,时任中央研究院院长的张闻天曾专门组织延安农村调查团前往陕北晋西北等地进行实地调研,并撰写了一批调查报告。在写给中央的报告《出发归来记》中,张闻天进一步提炼了调查研究的理论方法,丰富了中国的社会学理论。二是知识的应用也应面向中国自己的问题,要能够解决中国面临的特殊问题。毛泽东强调只有把抽象的外来思想改造成符合中国实际的具体思考、把这些外来资源中国化,才能解决问题,否则“不用于中国的实际,打不得敌人”。对于理论脱离中国实际的人,毛泽东建议取消其所谓“理论家”的资格,因为他认为“只有用马克思主义观点来研究实际问题、能解决实际问题的,才算实际的理论家”。艾思奇也主张“建立自己的哲学”,提出新哲学的创立要“针对着眼前的重要现实问题来建立自己的哲学”,而在当时的条件下,“最重要的问题是民族危机的问题”。在抗日民族统一战线下,抗日救国的现实任务成为中国共产党面临的重大问题,所以,在何种程度上能够解决这一问题成为检验中国共产党推动中国自主知识体系发展的重要标准,正如胡绳所言:“抗战的实践,对于一切思想理论成为一个试金石。”

Second, emphasis on the systematic construction of knowledge. The realization of the systematization of knowledge is an inherent requirement for constructing China’s independent knowledge system. During the Yan’an period, the Chinese Communist Party also made considerable theoretical explorations in this regard. With the development of the War of Resistance situation, Mao Zedong deeply felt that the Party’s systematic construction of knowledge was insufficient at the time. For example, although Mao Zedong praised the Party’s political work, he also pointed out “the inadequacy of comprehensiveness and systematization,” especially that the Party’s summarization and refinement of the experience and achievements of the correct line in military struggle were still insufficient. He proposed compiling the *Series on the War of Resistance Against Japan* and designated Luo Ruiqing to be responsible for organizing the writing of *Political Work in the Anti-Japanese Army*. Ai Siqi, in promoting the establishment of a new philosophy, also held the same view, believing that “a philosopher is merely someone who can systematize a philosophy.” Everyone has their own philosophy of life, but not everyone is a philosopher; a philosopher’s theory “is stated more systematically and more completely,” and “the philosophy we want to establish is one that can guide our own lives and is closely integrated with our own lives; it must be able to run consistently throughout our lives, so it can also form a complete system, but it is not a system of empty theory or empty logic.” In 1945, at the Seventh National Congress of the CPC, as the War of Resistance was nearing its end, Mao Zedong emphasized: “Solving problems systematically is called science; if it is not systematic but fragmentary, even if correct, it is not scientific.” So-called theory “is systematic knowledge”; only a theory that is organized and systematized can fully explain the scientific nature of the Chinese revolutionary movement. Therefore, the knowledge of past revolutionary struggles had to be systematically organized. As the crystallization of the collective wisdom of Chinese Communists, the formation and perfection of Mao Zedong Thought during the Yan’an period was the most typical achievement of the autonomy and systematization of Chinese knowledge, serving as the best model for other philosophy and social science workers exploring China’s independent knowledge system.

第二,强调知识的体系化建构。对于知识的系统化的实现,是建构中国自主知识体系的题中应有之义。延安时期,中国共产党也曾在这一方面作了颇多理论探索。随着抗战形势的发展,毛泽东深感当时党内对知识的体系化建构存在不足。比如,毛泽东虽然对党的政治工作进行表扬,但也指出“综合性和系统性的不足”,特别是党内对军事斗争中正确路线的经验和成绩总结、提炼得还不够,提出编辑《抗日战争丛书》,并指定罗瑞卿负责组织撰写《抗日军队中的政治工作》。艾思奇在推动建立新哲学的过程中,也持同样观点,认为“一个哲学家,不过是能够把一种哲学造成系统罢了”,人人都有自己生活的哲学,但并非人人都是哲学家,哲学家的理论“是说得更有系统、更完全”的,而“我们要建立的哲学,就是能指导自己的生活,和自己的生活密切地结合着的哲学,它要能够始终一贯地贯串在我们的生活里,所以它也可以成套成系统,但并不是空理论空逻辑的系统”。1945年在党的七大上,随着抗日战争临近尾声,毛泽东强调指出:“系统地解决问题才叫做科学,不是系统的而是零碎的,就是正确的也不是科学的”,所谓理论“就是有系统的知识”,只有条理化、系统化的理论才能充分说明中国革命运动的科学性,因而必须对过去革命斗争的知识进行体系化整理。作为中国共产党人集体智慧的结晶,毛泽东思想在延安时期的形成和完善,就是中国知识实现自主性和系统化的最典型成果,为其他哲学社会科学工作者探索中国自主知识体系发挥了最好的模范作用。

(2) Valuing academic research to create favorable conditions for the construction of China’s independent knowledge system

(二)重视学术研究,为中国自主知识体系建构创造有利条件

During the Yan’an period, the Chinese Communist Party had to both oppose imperialist aggression and deal with the occasional harassment of the Kuomintang. Conducting academic research in such a social environment was by no means easy for social science workers in the base areas. Yet under such arduous wartime conditions, Chinese Communists represented by Mao Zedong attached great importance to research in philosophy and social science, creating a favorable academic atmosphere for promoting the construction of China’s independent knowledge system, and personally participated in academic exchanges and discussions.

延安时期,中国共产党既要反对帝国主义的侵略,又需应对国民党的不时侵扰,根据地的社会科学工作者在这样的社会环境下进行学术研究绝非易事。然而在这样艰苦的战时条件下,以毛泽东为代表的中国共产党人高度重视哲学社会科学的研究,为推动中国自主知识体系建构营造了良好的学术氛围,并亲自参与到学术交流和讨论中。

First, promoting the construction of China’s independent knowledge system through academic contention. Mao Zedong had a profound foundation in both Chinese and Western learning, and always maintained a strong interest in philosophy and social sciences. In 1936, during American journalist Edgar Snow’s visit to Yan’an, because a guest had brought him several new philosophy books, Mao Zedong discussed with Snow the possibility of rescheduling their conversation, then spent three or four nights concentrating on reading these new books. During the Yan’an period, Mao Zedong frequently engaged in academic exchanges with philosophy and social science workers. On the one hand, he offered his own insights on the research of academic workers, improving the quality of academic results through academic discussion. For example, in a 1939 letter to Zhang Wentian, Mao Zedong raised his own “points for discussion” regarding Chen Boda’s “Confucius’ Philosophical Thought,” noting that “the article lacks a general concept, making it seem unsystematic to beginners.” To some extent, this also emphasized that academic research should focus on refining signature concepts; in fact, when reading the book “A Course in Dialectical Materialism,” he himself had annotated that “concepts are deeper than sensations, they are a further step.” On the other hand, Mao Zedong was also very eager to engage in academic exchanges and discussions with others. In 1939, he sent his article “The Politics and Culture of New Democracy” to Wu Yuzhang, humbly stating: “I have written a theoretical piece, mainly aimed at refuting the diehards. Please read it and give me your corrections and guidance—I would be very grateful!” Under the leadership of the Chinese Communist Party, a large number of high-quality academic results were continuously produced, powerfully promoting the formation of indigenous concepts, theories, discourses, and methods within China’s independent knowledge system. In terms of academic research, a number of academic groups and research institutions were established, including the Central Research Institute, the New Philosophy Society, the Anti-Japanese War Research Association, the Modern Chinese History Research Association, the Political Economy Research Association, and the Current Affairs Research Association. A cohort of Marxist theorists emerged, such as Ai Siqi, Zhang Ruxin, Jian Bozan, Fan Wenlan, Wu Liping, Yang Song, Li Da, He Ganzhi, Deng Chumin, Wu Liangping, and Wang Xuewen, producing a wealth of achievements across multiple disciplines, including philosophy, political science, economics, history, sociology, law, journalism, and literature, providing important theoretical support for solving practical problems. From today’s perspective, the main constructors of philosophy and social sciences are the “five armies,”[19]19 The “five armies” (五路大军) refers to the five main groups involved in philosophy and social science research in contemporary China: researchers in Party schools, universities, academies of social sciences, military academies, and policy research departments. but it should not be overlooked that the Chinese Communist Party itself is also an important constructor of China’s independent knowledge system. In particular, Chinese Communist Party leaders such as Mao Zedong, Liu Shaoqi, and Zhang Wentian also contributed their own academic strength to the construction of China’s independent knowledge system, powerfully advancing its construction.

第一,在学术争鸣中推动中国自主知识体系建构。毛泽东具有深厚的中学和西学基础,并始终对哲学社会科学有着浓厚的兴趣。1936年在美国记者斯诺访问延安期间,因一个客人带了几本哲学新书给他本人,毛泽东便与斯诺商量改期再谈,然后花了三四夜来专心研读这些新书。延安时期,毛泽东经常与哲学社会科学工作者进行学术交流。一方面,他对学术工作者的研究提出自己的见解,在学术讨论中提高学术成果的质量,如1939年毛泽东给张闻天的信中就对陈伯达《孔子的哲学思想》一文提出了自己的“几点可商榷之处”,谈到“文没有一个总的概念,使初学看了觉得缺乏系统性”,这在某种程度上也在强调学术研究应注重对标识性概念的提炼,其实他本人在阅读《辩证法唯物论教程》一书时也曾批注“概念比感觉更为深刻,是进一步的东西”;另一方面,毛泽东也十分渴望与他人进行学术交流和讨论,1939年,他就把自己撰写的《新民主主义的政治与新民主主义的文化》一文送给吴玉章,并谦虚地说:“写了一篇理论性质的东西,目的主要为驳顽固派,送上请赐阅正、指示为感!”在中国共产党领导下,一大批高质量的学术成果不断地被生产出来,有力推动了中国自主知识体系中本土概念、理论、话语和方法的形成。在学术研究方面,建立中央研究院、新哲学会、抗日战争研究会、中国现代史研究会、政治经济学研究会、时事问题研究会等一批学术团体和研究机构,涌现出艾思奇、张如心、翦伯赞、范文澜、吴黎平、杨松、李达、何干之、邓初民、吴亮平、王学文等一批马克思主义理论家,在哲学、政治学、经济学、史学、社会学、法学、新闻学、文学等多个学科领域创造了一批丰硕的成果,为解决现实问题提供了重要的学理支撑。以今天观点来看,哲学社会科学的建构主体主要是“五路大军”,但也不应忽视中国共产党自身也是中国自主知识体系的重要建构主体,特别是毛泽东、刘少奇、张闻天等中国共产党领导人同样为中国自主知识体系的建构贡献了自身的学术力量,有力推进了中国自主知识体系建构。

Second, promoting the construction of China’s independent knowledge system through independent innovation. Philosophy and social science theory is a high-level generalization of concepts, ideas, and methods. During the Yan’an period, Mao Zedong brought his critical and practical spirit into the field of philosophy and social sciences, particularly emphasizing the need to construct China’s own philosophy and social science theory. This was an important conclusion he drew in the process of opposing “dogmatism.” In 1941, in his report “Reform Our Study,” Mao Zedong stressed the need to strengthen study and research using the Marxist-Leninist method, and specifically pointed out: “The economic history of the last hundred years, the political history of the last hundred years, the military history of the last hundred years, the cultural history of the last hundred years—hardly anyone has yet seriously set about studying them.” To address this problem, he also proposed: “We should gather personnel, divide the work and cooperate, and overcome the state of being unorganized.” In September 1941, the Institute of Marxism-Leninism was renamed the Central Research Institute, becoming an important academic institution for studying historical and practical problems using the Marxist-Leninist method. This institution adopted the principle of setting up offices by discipline, with Party experts serving as directors to guide the work. For example, Zhang Ruxin served as director of the Chinese Political Research Office, Wang Sihua as director of the Chinese Economic Research Office, Ouyang Shan as director of the Chinese Literature and Art Research Office, Ke Bainian as director of the International Issues Research Office, and Li Weihan as director of the Chinese Education Research Office and the Chinese Journalism Research Office. These practices strengthened the organized nature of academic research. In 1942, at the opening ceremony of the Central Party School of the Chinese Communist Party, Mao Zedong also discussed the need to elevate “perceptual knowledge” to “rational knowledge,” stating that Chinese Communist Party theorists should not “only know how to recite Marxist economics or philosophy by rote,” but should “be able, based on the Marxist-Leninist standpoint, viewpoint, and method, to correctly explain the practical problems arising in history and revolution, and to provide scientific explanations and theoretical elucidations on various issues concerning China’s economy, politics, military, and culture.” He not only put forward such requirements in theory but also frequently encouraged innovative research by academic workers. For instance, when He Ganzhi, director of the China Issues Research Office at the Northern Shaanxi Public School, mentioned his hope to study national history, Mao Zedong replied with encouragement: “There are not many comrades among us with an interest in and determination to study Chinese history… You are thinking of writing a national history, which is very good. I hope you will do it earnestly.” Another example: after reading the lecture outline on a brief history of Chinese classical studies by Fan Wenlan, then director of the History Research Office of the Institute of Marxism-Leninism, Mao Zedong highly praised it, saying: “This is the first time Marxism has been used to settle accounts with classical studies.” After receiving Mao Zedong’s personal reply of encouragement, Fan Wenlan quickly organized the outline into an article, published serially in the journal “Chinese Culture” under the title “The Evolution of the History of Chinese Classical Studies.” In addition, Mao Zedong entrusted Fan Wenlan with compiling “A Brief Compilation of General Chinese History.” This work is widely recognized as the first general history of China written from a Marxist-Leninist viewpoint with a scientific system, highly innovative in content and structure, and exerting a profound influence on later generations. In the field of economics, Wang Yanan, based on the needs of China’s social transformation, successively published articles such as “On the Possibility and Necessity of Establishing Chinese Economics” and “On the Research Object and Research Method of Chinese Economics,” clearly proposing the task of establishing “Chinese economics.” In journalism, in 1943, Lu Dingyi’s article “Our Basic Views on Journalism,” published in the “Liberation Daily,” summarized some debates and basic theoretical issues in previous journalistic work, enriching and developing China’s Marxist theory of journalism. Besides Mao Zedong, other Chinese Communist Party leaders also focused on creating favorable conditions for scholars’ research. For example, Zhou Enlai, then in Chongqing, was very concerned about academic workers. After the outbreak of the Southern Anhui Incident,[20]20 The Southern Anhui Incident (皖南事变) occurred in January 1941, when Nationalist forces ambushed and largely destroyed the Communist New Fourth Army in southern Anhui, severely straining the United Front during the War of Resistance Against Japan. when the political atmosphere in Chongqing was very oppressive and many Party and non-Party personnel were evacuating one after another, Zhou Enlai encouraged Hou Wailu, who remained, saying: “The situation is not favorable for large-scale open activities, but this is also an opportunity. Those with research ability can take this opportunity to sit down and do some research. Seize the time to deepen your self-cultivation, delve deeply into a few issues, and if you want to write any books, hurry up and write them out.” He particularly urged him to strengthen the development and construction of the Marxist historical front. Zhou Enlai inspired a group of scholars in Chongqing. Many important works, such as Guo Moruo’s “Ten Critiques,” Hou Wailu’s “On Chinese Social History,” and Jian Bozan’s “Outline of Chinese History,” were begun or completed during this period, making foundational and pioneering contributions to the independent development of Chinese history and other disciplines.

第二,在自主创新中推动中国自主知识体系建构。哲学社会科学理论是对概念、思想和方法的高度概括。延安时期,毛泽东把自己的批判精神和实践精神带进了哲学社会科学领域,特别强调要建构中国自己的哲学社会科学理论,这是他在反对“教条主义”的过程中得出的一个重要结论。1941年,毛泽东在《改造我们的学习》的报告中,强调要以马克思列宁主义的方法来加强学习和研究工作,并特别指出:“近百年的经济史,近百年的政治史,近百年的军事史,近百年的文化史,简直还没有人认真动手去研究”,针对这一问题,他还提出,“应聚集人材,分工合作地去做,克服无组织的状态”。1941年9月,马列研究院被改为中央研究院,成为用马克思列宁主义方法研究历史与现实问题的重要学术机关,这一机构采取分科设室的原则,并由党内专家担任主任来指导工作,如张如心担任中国政治研究室主任、王思华任中国经济研究室主任、欧阳山任中国文艺研究室主任、柯柏年任国际问题研究室主任、李维汉任中国教育研究室和中国新闻研究室主任,这些做法加强了学术研究的有组织化。1942年,毛泽东在中共中央党校开学典礼上又谈到,要注重将“感性知识”上升为“理性知识”,中国共产党理论家不能“只知背诵马克思主义的经济学或哲学”,而要“能够依据马克思列宁主义的立场、观点和方法,正确地解释历史中和革命中所发生的实际问题,能够在中国的经济、政治、军事、文化种种问题上给予科学的解释,给予理论的说明”。他不仅在理论上提出了这样的要求,还经常对学术工作者的创新研究予以鼓励,比如在陕北公学中国问题教研室主任何干之提到希望研究民族史时,毛泽东就回信鼓励:“我们同志中有研究中国史的兴趣及决心的还不多……你又在想作民族史,这是很好的,盼望你切实地做去”;再如毛泽东在读了时任马列学院历史研究室主任范文澜关于中国经学简史的讲演提纲后高度评价说:“用马克思主义清算经学这是头一次”。范文澜在收到毛泽东的亲笔回信的鼓励后,很快将提纲整理成文,以《中国经学史的演变》为题陆续发表在《中国文化》杂志上。此外,毛泽东还委托范文澜编写《中国通史简编》,这部著作是公认的第一部用马列主义观点撰写、有科学体系的中国通史,在内容和体例上有很强的开创性,对后世产生了深远影响。在经济学领域,王亚南根据中国社会变革的需要,相继发表了《关于中国经济学建立之可能与必要的问题》《关于中国经济学之研究对象与研究方法的问题》等文章,鲜明提出建立“中国经济学”的任务。在新闻学方面,1943年,陆定一在《解放日报》上发表的《我们对于新闻学的基本观点》一文对此前新闻工作中的一些争论和基本理论问题进行总结,丰富和发展了我国的马克思主义新闻理论。除了毛泽东,中共其他领导人也注重为学者的研究创造有利条件,例如当时在重庆的周恩来就十分关心学术工作者。皖南事变发生后,在重庆政治空气十分沉闷、许多党内外人士陆续撤离的情况下,周恩来鼓励留居的侯外庐说:“形势不利于大规模地搞公开活动,但这也是一个机会。有研究能力的人,尽可以利用这个机会,坐下来搞点研究。抓紧时间深造自己,深入研究几个问题,想写什么书,赶快把它写出来”,还特别勉励他要加强马克思主义史学阵地的开拓与建设。周恩来鼓舞了一批在重庆的学者,郭沫若的《十批判书》、侯外庐的《中国社会史论》、翦伯赞的《中国史纲》等许多重要著作都在这一时期开始撰写或完成,对中国历史等学科的自主发展作出了奠基性和开拓性的贡献。

(3) Leading academic movements, providing organizational guarantees for the construction of China’s independent knowledge system

(三)领导学术运动,为中国自主知识体系建构提供组织保障

In 1938, Mao Zedong’s proposal of the proposition “adapting Marxism to the Chinese context” [1]1 “Adapting Marxism to the Chinese context” (马克思主义中国化) is a core concept in CPC theory, first formally proposed by Mao Zedong at the Sixth Plenary Session of the Sixth Central Committee in 1938. It refers to the application of Marxist principles to China’s specific historical, cultural, and practical conditions. stimulated the theoretical consciousness of philosophy and social science workers in the base areas, opening a new historical starting point for the Chinese Communist Party’s leadership of the cause of philosophy and social science. Mao Zedong emphasized: we must “learn from our historical heritage and give it a critical summation using the Marxist method,” and “from Confucius to Sun Yat-sen, we should sum them up, and we must inherit this precious legacy. Inheriting the legacy, in turn, becomes a method, and it is of great help in guiding the great movement of the present. Communists are internationalist Marxists, but Marxism must be realized through national forms.” [2]2 Mao Zedong, “The Role of the Chinese Communist Party in the National War,” October 1938, *Selected Works of Mao Zedong*, Vol. 2. Mao Zedong’s call for “adaptation to the Chinese context” and his emphasis on “national forms” at this meeting had a major impact in academic circles. Zhang Shenfu, a non-Party figure, believed: “From this passage, one can further symbolize a great advance in China’s recent thought and opinion,” and “many foreign things, we think, should be adapted to the Chinese context when used in China.” [3]3 Zhang Shenfu, “On the Adaptation of Things to the Chinese Context,” *Current Affairs*, Issue 12, 1939. The thought proposed by Mao Zedong directly promoted the “academic adaptation to the Chinese context” movement. A series of original viewpoints concerning Chinese philosophy and social science were elucidated in this movement, and a large number of academic workers, through theoretical discussion and academic practice, advanced the autonomy of Chinese philosophy and social science by a great step. The Chinese Communist Party played a core leadership role in this movement, providing strong organizational guarantees for the construction of China’s independent knowledge system.

1938年毛泽东对“马克思主义中国化”命题的提出,激发了根据地的哲学社会科学工作者的理论自觉,开辟了中国共产党领导哲学社会科学事业的历史新起点。毛泽东强调:要“学习我们的历史遗产,用马克斯(原文如此———引者注)主义的方法给以批判的总结”,“从孔夫子到孙中山,我们应该给以总结,我们要承继这一份珍贵的遗产。承继遗产,转过来就变为方法,对于指导当前的伟大运动,是有着重要的帮助的。共产党员是国际主义的马克思主义者,但马克思主义必须通过民族形式才能实现”。毛泽东在这次会议上对“中国化”的号召、对“民族形式”的强调,在学术界产生了重大影响。党外人士张申府认为:“由这一段话,更可以象征出来中国最近思想见解上的一大进步”,“许多外来的东西,我们以为,用在中国就应该中国化”。毛泽东提出的这一思想,对“学术中国化”运动产生了直接的推动作用,一系列有关中国哲学社会科学的原创性观点在这场运动中得到阐发,一大批学术工作者通过理论探讨和学术实践将中国哲学社会科学的自主性向前推进了一大步。中国共产党在这一运动中发挥了核心领导作用,为中国自主知识体系建构提供了坚强的组织保障。

First, the Chinese Communist Party actively organized and carried out the “academic adaptation to the Chinese context” movement. “Academic adaptation to the Chinese context” was proposed in response to “adapting Marxism to the Chinese context.” This movement first began in theoretical circles in Chongqing, but the magazines that actively promoted this slogan were in fact mostly led by the Chinese Communist Party. In April 1939, the 3rd issue of Volume 1 of the *Reading Monthly* magazine, edited by Ai Hansong and Shi Mei, specially set up a column on “The Problem of Academic Adaptation to the Chinese Context,” publishing Pan Shu’s “The Beginning of the Problem of Academic Adaptation to the Chinese Context,” Liu Yan’s “On Adaptation to the Chinese Context,” and Di’s reading notes “On ‘Adaptation to the Chinese Context’.” Later, this publication was hosted and edited by Hu Sheng, further promoting the movement. In the same month, the magazine *Theory and Reality*, edited by Chinese Communist Party member Shen Zhiyuan, was founded, publishing Pan Zinian’s “The Tasks of the Academic Movement in the New Stage,” Hou Wailu’s “China’s Academic Tradition and the Academic Movement in the Present Stage,” and Shen Zhiyuan’s “The Origin of My Writing ‘Lectures on Practical Materialism’,” further discussing the problem of “academic adaptation to the Chinese context.” Most of the scholars participating in the “academic adaptation to the Chinese context” movement in Chongqing were Chinese Communist Party members or left-wing scholars influenced by the Chinese Communist Party. A considerable number, including Pan Zinian, Hu Sheng, Shen Zhiyuan, and Ai Hansong, were even key members of the “China Academic Research Society,” the Chongqing branch of the Yan’an New Philosophy Society led by the Chinese Communist Party. Other regions such as northern Shaanxi and Shanghai also had extensive and in-depth discussions on this. One researcher at the time proposed: “In the social sciences, the work of adaptation to the Chinese context is relatively more in northern Shaanxi.” [4]4 “The Problem of Academic Adaptation to the Chinese Context,” *Reading Monthly*, Vol. 1, Issue 3, April 1939. The “academic adaptation to the Chinese context” movement conducted considerable theoretical exploration on why and how to construct an “adapted to the Chinese context” scholarship, emphasizing that the central slogan of this academic movement was “adaptation to the Chinese context and realization,” but it was not about “affirming the narrowness of academic nation-states, nor was it exclusively about excessively praising China’s inherent culture and scholarship while blindly rejecting the study of advanced foreign academic thought.” [5]5 Pan Zinian, “The Tasks of the Academic Movement in the New Stage,” *Theory and Reality*, Vol. 1, Issue 1, April 1939. As the movement developed, these reflections became the ideological consensus for philosophy and social science scholars exploring China’s independent knowledge system at the time. Regarding “adaptation to the Chinese context,” Ji Wenfu once summarized it with a formula: “Neither foreign nor old, yet both foreign and old; at once the expedient and the real; the profound contained in the shallow; all are based on reality as the foundation.” [6]6 Ji Wenfu, “On the Adaptation of Scholarship to the Chinese Context,” *New Dawn*, Vol. 1, Issue 2, 1939. For the evaluation of “academic adaptation to the Chinese context,” the phrase “all are based on reality as the foundation” captures the essence. While affirming the positive significance of the “academic adaptation to the Chinese context” movement, it is also necessary to recognize that many works at the time failed to properly handle the relationship between scholarship and politics, overemphasizing academic research serving immediate political needs, which consequently had some negative effects on the development of philosophy and social science.

第一,中国共产党积极组织开展“学术中国化”运动。“学术中国化”是为响应“马克思主义中国化”而提出的,这一运动最早在重庆理论界开展起来,但积极宣传这一口号的杂志实际上大多由中国共产党领导。1939年4月,艾寒松、史枚主编的《读书月报》杂志第1卷第3期特别设置“学术中国化问题”专栏,发表潘菽的《学术中国化问题的发端》、柳湜的《论中国化》、逖的读书笔谈《谈“中国化”》等文章,后来这个刊物由胡绳主持、编辑,进一步推动了运动发展。同月,由中共党员沈志远主编的《理论与现实》杂志创刊,发表了潘梓年的《新阶段学术运动的任务》、侯外庐的《中国学术的传统与现阶段学术运动》、沈志远的《我写<实践唯物论讲话>的缘起》等文章,进一步讨论了“学术中国化”问题。在重庆参与“学术中国化”运动的多数学者,都是中共党员或是受中国共产党影响的左翼学者,潘梓年、胡绳、沈志远、艾寒松等相当一部分人更是由中国共产党领导的延安新哲学会在重庆的分会———“中国学术研究会”的主要成员。陕北、上海等其他地区也对此有广泛而深入的讨论,有研究者当时即提出:“在社会科学方面,中国化的工作,陕北比较的多些”。“学术中国化”运动对为什么以及如何建构“中国化”的学术进行了颇多的理论探索,强调这一学术运动的中心口号是“中国化和现实化”,但并不是要“肯定学术之民族国家的狭隘性,更不是专门以过分颂扬中国固有文化学术为能事,一味拒绝外国前进的学术思想之研究”。随着运动的发展,这些思考成为当时哲学社会科学者探索中国自主知识体系的思想共识。对于“中国化”,嵇文甫曾用一口诀概括:“非洋非旧,也洋也旧,即权即实,寓浅于深,一是皆以现实为本。”对“学术中国化”的评价,“一是皆以现实为本”一句得其要领,既要肯定“学术中国化”运动的积极意义,又要看到在当时许多著作未能处理好学术与政治的关系、过度强调学术研究为现实政治服务的现象,因而对哲学社会科学的发展也产生了一些不好的影响。

Second, the Chinese Communist Party actively guided the transformation of the “academic adaptation to the Chinese context” movement into the “new-democratic culture” movement. In 1940, the magazine *Chinese Culture*, sponsored by the Shaanxi-Gansu-Ningxia Border Region Cultural Association, was an important platform in Yan’an for discussing and advancing the “academic adaptation to the Chinese context” movement. Under Mao Zedong’s influence, a large number of academic workers continued in-depth discussions on related topics in the “academic adaptation to the Chinese context” movement, gradually developing it into the “new-democratic culture” movement. Mao Zedong published “The Politics of New Democracy and the Culture of New Democracy” in the inaugural issue of *Chinese Culture*, guiding the further development of the “academic adaptation to the Chinese context” movement. He pointed out: “To establish a new culture for the Chinese nation, that is our goal in the cultural sphere,” and “the so-called new culture of the Chinese nation is the new-democratic culture.” [7]7 Mao Zedong, “On New Democracy,” *Chinese Culture*, Issue 1, February 1940. Subsequently, *Chinese Culture* published a series of articles conducting theoretical discussion and academic practice on the problem of “adaptation to the Chinese context.” For example, Ai Siqi’s article “On China’s Particularity” used the law of “the universal and the particular” to counter Ye Qing’s slanderous remarks against “academic adaptation to the Chinese context,” pointing out that it was “a sophistry that confuses right and wrong… its characteristic lies in verbally stealing the terms of progressive thought.” [8]8 Ai Siqi, “On China’s Particularity,” *Chinese Culture*, Vol. 1, Issue 1, 1940. Ye Qing was a former CPC member who became a critic of Mao’s line on adaptation to the Chinese context. Lü Zhenyu then published an article in *Theory and Reality*, “The Problem of Creating a New National Culture and Inheriting the Cultural Heritage,” advancing “academic adaptation to the Chinese context” to the “new-democratic culture” stage. In 1941, an article under the pen name Wuxie summarized: “If we say that the basic slogan of China’s cultural circles in the 28th year of the Republic [1939] was ‘academic adaptation to the Chinese context,’ then the basic slogan of last year [1940] was ‘new-democratic new culture’.” [9]9 Wuxie, “The New Democratic Cultural Movement in 1940,” *Chinese Culture*, Vol. 2, Issue 6, 1941. The “28th year of the Republic” refers to 1939, and the “29th year” to 1940, using the Republic of China calendar. He believed the directions of the two slogans were consistent, so “academic adaptation to the Chinese context moved towards new-democratic new culture.” Under the leadership of the Chinese Communist Party, “academic adaptation to the Chinese context” and “new-democratic culture” formed a progressively advancing relationship. If the former was still a vague academic appeal, the latter was a dominant framework plan, supplementing the former and making it explicit. Thus, academic research in the base areas, under the leadership of the Chinese Communist Party, had a clear direction: first, to value the national cultural heritage and excavate the contemporary value of traditional scholarship in developing an independent knowledge system; second, to value the local transformation of foreign knowledge systems, fully utilizing the world’s outstanding civilizational achievements so that foreign scholarship could solve Chinese problems based on Chinese practice. Within this dual consideration, the construction of China’s independent knowledge system led by the Chinese Communist Party yielded “rich fruits.” [10]10 The phrase “rich fruits” (丰美的果实) is a quotation from Mao Zedong’s “On New Democracy,” where he describes the expected outcome of the new-democratic cultural movement.

第二,中国共产党积极引导“学术中国化”运动向“新民主主义文化”运动的转变。1940年,由陕甘宁边区文化协会主办的《中国文化》杂志是延安讨论和推进“学术中国化”运动的重要阵地。在毛泽东的影响下,一大批学术工作者继续就“学术中国化”运动中的相关议题进行深入讨论,将运动逐渐发展至“新民主主义文化”运动。毛泽东在《中国文化》创刊号发表《新民主主义的政治与新民主主义的文化》,引导“学术中国化”运动的进一步发展,他指出:“建立中华民族的新文化,这就是我们在文化领域中的目的”,而“所谓中华民族的新文化,就是新民主主义的文化”。随后,《中国文化》发表了一系列文章对“中国化”问题进行了理论探讨和学术实践,例如艾思奇的《论中国的特殊性》一文就运用“一般与特殊”的规律对叶青污蔑“学术中国化”的言论进行了反击,指出其是一种“颠倒是非的诡辩法……特点就在于口头上窃取进步思想的名词”。吕振羽随即在《理论与现实》杂志上发表文章《创造民族新文化与文化遗产的继承问题》,将“学术中国化”推进到“新民主主义文化”阶段。1941年,一篇笔名为无邪的文章总结道:“假使说民国二十八年中国文化界的基本口号是‘学术中国化’,那么去年(二十九年)的基本口号就是‘新民主主义的新文化’”,他认为两个口号的方向是一致的,所以“学术中国化就走向了新民主主义的新文化”。在中国共产党的领导下,“学术中国化”和“新民主主义文化”呈一种逐渐递进的关系,如果说前者还是一种模糊的学术呼吁,那么后者则是一种主导型的框架方案,补充了前者并使之明确化。由此,根据地的学术研究在中国共产党的领导下有了明确的方向:一是重视民族文化遗产,在发展自主知识体系中挖掘传统学术的时代价值;二是要重视外来知识体系的本土转化,充分利用世界的优秀文明成果,使外来学术能够基于中国实践解决中国问题。在这样一种双向考量中,中国共产党领导的中国自主知识体系建构取得了“丰美的果实”。

Heine once said: “Germany was led by Kant onto the path of philosophy, and thus philosophy became a national cause.” [11]11 Heinrich Heine, *On the History of Religion and Philosophy in Germany* (1834). The quote is paraphrased; Heine’s original text states that Kant’s *Critique of Pure Reason* inaugurated a philosophical revolution in Germany. During the Yan’an period, through the advocacy and promotion of Mao Zedong and other Chinese Communists, theoretical innovation had become an important cause of the Chinese Communist Party. At this stage, the Chinese Communist Party’s exploration of China’s independent knowledge system fully utilized the political role of Marxist scholarship, provided rich academic resources for adapting Marxism to the Chinese context, formed a “theoretical system” with distinct local characteristics, promoted the development of the theory of adapting Marxism to the Chinese context at the practical level, advanced the popularization of philosophy and social science theory among the masses, raised the political consciousness and revolutionary awareness of the people, and effectively propelled the historical process of adapting Marxism to the Chinese context and the needs of the times and popularizing it. [12]12 “Adapting Marxism to the Chinese context and the needs of the times” (马克思主义中国化时代化) and “popularizing it” (大众化) are standard formulations in CPC discourse, referring to the ongoing process of making Marxism relevant to Chinese conditions and accessible to the masses.

海涅曾说过:“德国被康德引入了哲学的道路,因此哲学变成了一件民族的事业。”延安时期,经由毛泽东等中国共产党人的提倡和推动,理论创新已成为中国共产党的一项重要事业。在此阶段,中国共产党对中国自主知识体系的探索,充分发挥了马克思主义学术的政治作用,为中国化马克思主义提供了丰富的学理资源,形成了颇具本土特色的“理论体系”,在实践层面推动了中国化马克思主义理论的发展,促进了哲学社会科学理论的大众化普及,提高了民众的政治觉悟和革命意识,有力地推进了马克思主义中国化、时代化、大众化的历史进程。

III. The Experience and Lessons of the Chinese Communist Party’s Promotion of the Construction of China’s Independent Knowledge System during the Yan’an Period

三、延安时期中国共产党推进中国自主知识体系建构的经验启示

During the Yan’an period, the Chinese Communist Party made preliminary explorations into the construction of China’s independent knowledge system. On the one hand, it deepened the construction of a revolutionary “knowledge system” and continuously advanced the adaptation of Marxism to the Chinese context, especially when the Seventh National Congress of the CPC enshrined Mao Zedong Thought in the Party Constitution. On the other hand, the Chinese Communist Party also provided strong leadership over the academic enterprise of constructing China’s independent knowledge system, facilitating the birth of a number of outstanding achievements in philosophy and social sciences. These early explorations by the Chinese Communist Party during the Yan’an period into constructing China’s independent knowledge system laid the historical foundation for advancing the in-depth development of Chinese philosophy and social sciences after the founding of New China, and also hold enlightening significance for further constructing China’s independent knowledge system today.

延安时期,中国共产党对中国自主知识体系建构作了初步的探索,一方面对革命的“知识体系”进行深化建构,不断推进马克思主义中国化,特别是中共七大将毛泽东思想写入党章;另一方面中国共产党也对建构中国自主知识体系的学术事业进行了坚强领导,促成了一批优秀的哲学社会科学成果诞生。延安时期中国共产党对建构中国自主知识体系的这些早期探索,奠定了新中国推进中国哲学社会科学深入发展的历史基础,也对当下进一步建构中国自主知识体系具有启示意义。

(I) Adhere to the Guidance of Marxism and Strengthen the Scientific Nature of the Construction of the Independent Knowledge System

(一)坚持马克思主义为指导,加强自主知识体系建构的科学性

The late Ming and early Qing thinker Huang Zongxi once said: “Generally speaking, where learning has a guiding principle, that is where the scholar gains his strength, and it is also the entry point for learners.” For China’s independent knowledge system, Marxism is the “guiding principle” to be followed. During the Yan’an period, a prominent feature of the Chinese Communist Party’s promotion of the construction of an independent knowledge system was its consistent adherence to the guidance of Marxism. In this regard, Mao Zedong compared Marxism-Leninism to an “arrow” and the actual movement of the Chinese revolution to a “target,” and the task of the Chinese Communist Party was to find this “arrow” to shoot at the target of the Chinese revolution and the Eastern revolution. However, adhering to the guidance of Marxism absolutely does not mean treating it as a dogma, but rather focusing on mastering its standpoints and methods for observing and solving problems. Therefore, Mao Zedong said: “If our Party has one hundred to two hundred comrades who have systematically, not fragmentarily, and practically, not hollowly, mastered Marxism-Leninism, it will greatly enhance our Party’s fighting strength.” [21]21 Mao Zedong, “The Role of the Chinese Communist Party in the National War,” Selected Works of Mao Zedong, Vol. 2. [This is a standard reference to Mao’s speech at the Sixth Plenary Session of the Sixth Central Committee of the CPC in October 1938.] In the “Sinicization of Academia” movement, Ji Wenfu proposed: “As long as we unfurl the apricot-yellow banner, we need not fear falling into the Ten Absolute Formations,” [22]22 Ji Wenfu (1895–1963), a Chinese historian and philosopher; the “Ten Absolute Formations” (十绝阵) is a reference to a deadly battle formation in the Ming dynasty novel *Investiture of the Gods* (Fengshen Yanyi), used here as a metaphor for intellectual pitfalls. where this “apricot-yellow banner” referred to modern progressive scientific thought—dialectical materialism. Pan Zinian also emphasized using dialectical materialism to “study Chinese history, China’s social formations, the various changes brought about by the War of Resistance in Chinese society, and how to steer these changes toward a progressive direction and develop them more rapidly,” thereby “establishing China’s social sciences.” History has proven that contemporary Chinese philosophy and social sciences began with the entry of Marxism into China and have gradually developed under the guidance of Marxism. To construct China’s independent knowledge system, we need to continue to exert the guiding role of Marxism. On the one hand, we must continue to advance adapting Marxism to the Chinese context and the needs of the times; on the other hand, we must adhere to using Marxism to lead the in-depth development of philosophy and social sciences, consciously integrate Xi Jinping Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era throughout the entire process of teaching and research, and learn to use scientific methods of thinking to promote the construction of China’s independent knowledge system.

明末清初的思想家黄宗羲曾言:“大凡学有宗旨,是其人之得力处,亦是学者之入门处。”对于中国自主知识体系来说,马克思主义就是其要遵循的“宗旨”。延安时期,中国共产党推动自主知识体系建构的一个突出特征就是始终坚持马克思主义的指导。对此,毛泽东把马克思列宁主义比作“矢”,把中国革命的实际运动比作“的”,而中国共产党的任务就是找到这根“矢”射中国革命和东方革命这个“的”。但是,坚持马克思主义的指导绝不是要将其奉为圭臬,而是要着重掌握其观察问题和解决问题的立场和方法,因此,毛泽东言:“如果我们党有一百个至二百个系统地而不是零碎地、实际地而不是空洞地学会了马克思列宁主义的同志,就会大大地提高我们党的战斗力量”。在“学术中国化”运动中,嵇文甫提出“只要展开杏黄旗,就不怕陷入十绝阵”,这面“杏黄旗”指的就是现代进步的科学思想———唯物辩证法;潘梓年也强调用唯物辩证法来“研究中国历史,中国的社会形态,中国社会在抗战中所起的各方变化,怎样来使这些变化向进步的方向走去,更快的发展前去”,从而“建立起中国的社会科学”。历史证明,当代中国哲学社会科学是以马克思主义进入我国为起点的,也是在马克思主义指导下逐步发展起来的。我们建构中国自主知识体系需要继续发挥马克思主义的指导作用,一方面继续推进马克思主义中国化时代化;另一方面要坚持用马克思主义引领哲学社会科学深入发展,自觉把习近平新时代中国特色社会主义思想贯穿教学和研究的全过程,学会运用科学的思维方法推动中国自主知识体系建构。

(II) Promote Fine Traditional Chinese Culture and Strengthen the National Character of the Construction of the Independent Knowledge System

(二)弘扬中华优秀传统文化,加强自主知识体系建构的民族性

Culture is the root of a nation’s survival. The Chinese Communist Party’s emphasis on the revival of fine traditional Chinese culture is neither a cultural restorationism that clings rigidly to the nation’s own cultural traditions, nor a Chinese cultural standardism with a tendency toward “cultural determinism.” Rather, it seeks to find the points of convergence and integration between fine traditional Chinese culture and the study of Marxist theory. Mao Zedong pointed out: “Today’s China is a development of historical China. We are Marxist historicists; we should not cut off history. From Confucius to Sun Yat-sen, we should sum it up and inherit this precious legacy.” On the one hand, the introduction of Marxism into China itself required integration with China’s indigenous thought and culture, endowing Marxism not only with the “outer garment” of a modern discourse system but also with a composite “body” that incorporates China’s own reflections on thought and culture. On the other hand, traditional culture also constitutes an important component of modern knowledge resources; many essences of Chinese traditional culture remain relevant today. The “national form” of modern knowledge promoted by the Chinese Communist Party does not aim at restorationism, nor does it insist on a “Chinese cultural standard.” Rather, it seeks to critically receive it in order to facilitate the advancement of a local “new culture.” The unique temperament and charm of Chinese culture precisely forge an exclusive cultural identity for the nationalization of China’s knowledge system, distinguishing it from Western philosophy and social sciences while breaking free from dependence on Western discourse theory. Therefore, in the current process of constructing China’s independent knowledge system, we should regard fine traditional Chinese culture as an important intellectual resource for achieving spiritual independence and self-reliance in China today, earnestly excavate its academic resources, continuously promote the creative transformation and innovative development of fine traditional Chinese culture in the Sinicized study of concrete issues, and construct a new knowledge system on the basis of the Sinicization of specific principles.

文化是民族存亡之根。中国共产党强调对中华优秀传统文化的复兴,并非固守本民族文化传统的文化复古主义,也非带有“文化决定论”倾向的中国文化本位主义,而是要找到中华优秀传统文化与马克思主义理论研究的契合点与结合点。毛泽东指出:“今天的中国是历史的中国的一个发展;我们是马克思主义的历史主义者,我们不应当割断历史。从孔夫子到孙中山,我们应当给以总结,承继这一份珍贵的遗产。”一方面,马克思主义传入中国本身就是要与中国本土思想文化融合,使马克思主义不仅具有现代话语体系的“外衣”,还有融合中国自己对思想文化的思考的复合“身躯”。另一方面,传统文化也是构成现代知识资源的重要组成部分,中国传统文化中有许多精华依然没有过时。中国共产党推动现代知识的“民族形式”并非要复古,也不是要坚持“中国文化本位”,而是要批判地接收,以利于推进本土“新文化”。中华文化独特的气质神韵恰好为中国知识体系的民族化打造了专属的文化身份,它既区别于西方的哲学社会科学,又摆脱了对西方话语理论的依赖。因此,在当前建构中国自主知识体系的过程中,我们应把中华优秀传统文化作为今日中国在精神上实现独立自主的重要思想资源,认真挖掘其中的学术资源,不断推动中华优秀传统文化在具体问题的中国化研究中的创造性转化和创新性发展,在具体原理的中国化基础上建构新的知识体系。

(III) Serve the Practical Needs of National Rejuvenation and Strengthen the Practical Character of the Construction of the Independent Knowledge System

(三)服务民族复兴现实需要,加强自主知识体系建构的实践性

The era is the mother of thought; practice is the source of theory. The materialist conception of history holds: “It is not consciousness that determines life, but life that determines consciousness.” [23]23 This is a paraphrase of a key thesis of historical materialism, originally from Marx and Engels, *The German Ideology* (1845–46). Knowledge innovation requires not only “reflection of thought” but also “reflection of reality,” combining “reflection of reality” with “reflection of thought” and elevating practical experience into theory, thereby achieving a leap in thought. In fact, “reflection of reality” is the foundation and driving force of “reflection of thought.” All knowledge systems in history have, consciously or unconsciously, conducted “reflection of thought” on the basis of “reflection of reality,” thereby establishing corresponding theoretical systems. The construction of China’s independent knowledge system is not a matter of scholarship confined to the study; in the final analysis, it must take China as the focus and the era as the reference. On this point, the Chinese Communist Party during the Yan’an period paid close attention to the application of theoretical knowledge in practice, emphasizing that scholarship must serve the central task. Focusing on reality, contemplating reality, engaging with reality, and transforming reality became important characteristics of the Chinese Communist Party’s promotion of the development of philosophy and social sciences during the Yan’an period. For example, He Ganzhi, while at North China United University, originally planned to study Chinese ethnic history, cultural history, and modern history, but to address the practical economic difficulties in the border region, he shifted to research on “fiscal and economic issues of the Jin-Cha-Ji Anti-Japanese Base Area.” [24]24 He Ganzhi (1906–1969), a Chinese Marxist historian and educator; the Jin-Cha-Ji Border Region was one of the main anti-Japanese base areas established by the CPC during the War of Resistance against Japan (1937–1945). The facts are just as Mao Zedong said in “On Practice” and “How to Study the History of the Chinese Communist Party”: “If you want knowledge, you must take part in the practice of changing reality. If you want to know the taste of a pear, you must change the pear by eating it yourself”; “To study China, we must take China as the center, sit on China’s body to study the things of the world… If we do not study China’s characteristics but instead copy foreign things, we cannot solve China’s problems.” The history of the Chinese Communist Party’s leadership of philosophy and social sciences during the Yan’an period proves that the great practice of the Chinese revolution was the driving force for the development of philosophy and social sciences, and the great achievements of the Chinese revolution were the source of progress in philosophy and social sciences. Rooted in the New Era, the construction of China’s independent knowledge system must also focus on answering the questions of China, the questions of the world, the questions of the people, and the questions of the era, serve the cause of the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation, and construct a disciplinary system, academic system, and discourse system that take China’s actual conditions as their starting point. As General Secretary Xi Jinping emphasized during his inspection of Renmin University of China: “We must take China as the focus and the era as the reference, base ourselves on China’s actual conditions, solve China’s problems… take manifesting China’s path, China’s governance, and China’s rationale as our intellectual pursuit, and demonstrate real skill and achieve good results in researching and solving major issues concerning the overall, fundamental, and critical aspects of the Party and the state.”

时代是思想之母,实践是理论之源。唯物主义历史观主张:“不是从观念出发来解释实践,而是从物质实践出发来解释各种观念形态”。知识创新不仅需要“思想的反思”,更需要“现实的反思”,将“现实的反思”与“思想的反思”结合、实践经验上升为理论,从而实现思想上的飞跃。实际上,“现实的反思”是“思想的反思”的基础和动力。历史上的一切知识体系都是自觉不自觉地在“现实的反思”的基础上进行“思想的反思”,以此建立相应的理论体系。中国自主知识体系的建构不是书斋里的学问,归根到底要以中国为观照、以时代为参照。对于这点,中国共产党在延安时期就高度关注理论知识在实践中的应用,强调学术要服务中心任务。关注现实、思考现实、投身现实、变革现实,成为延安时期中国共产党推动哲学社会科学发展的重要特点。如何干之在华北联合大学时原本计划要研究中国民族史、文化史和近代史等,但为解决边区现实存在的经济困难,转而进行“晋察冀抗日根据地财政经济等问题”的研究。事实正如毛泽东在《实践论》和《如何研究中共党史》中所说的:“你要有知识,你就得参加变革现实的实践。你要知道梨子的滋味,你就得变革梨子,亲口吃一吃”;“我们研究中国就要拿中国做中心,要坐在中国的身上研究世界的东西……不研究中国的特点,而去搬外国的东西,就不能解决中国的问题”。延安时期中国共产党领导哲学社会科学的历史证明,中国革命的伟大实践是哲学社会科学发展的动力,中国革命的巨大成就是哲学社会科学进步的源泉。立足新时代,中国自主知识体系的建构也要聚焦回答中国之问、世界之问、人民之问、时代之问,服务于中华民族伟大复兴事业,建构以中国实际为起点的学科体系、学术体系、话语体系,正如习近平总书记在中国人民大学考察时强调:“要以中国为观照、以时代为观照,立足中国实际,解决中国问题……以彰显中国之路、中国之治、中国之理为思想追求,在研究解决事关党和国家全局性、根本性、关键性的重大问题上拿出真本事、取得好成果。”

(IV) Enhance the Global Influence of Chinese Scholarship and Strengthen the Professional Character of the Construction of the Independent Knowledge System

(四)提高中国学术世界影响,加强自主知识体系建构的专业性

During the Yan’an period, the Chinese Communist Party placed great emphasis on raising the level of academic professionalism in advancing the construction of an independent knowledge system. In this period, the Party’s leadership over the development of philosophy and social sciences was neither the helpless, forced acceptance of modern China in the face of Western cultural colonial assault, nor a parrot-like imitation of the West, but rather a cultural self-consciousness that dared to speak out and act with confidence. Knowledge is inherently borderless; since ancient times, the knowledge systems of China and the West have gradually taken shape through cultural exchange. In 1944, Ji Wenfu wrote in his essay “Chinese Culture and World Culture”: “In my view, world culture is a great confluence formed by the intricate interweaving, fusion, and permeation of many national cultures… and what is called Chinese culture or Western culture is all within this great current, rising and falling, rolling back and forth, and neither can exclude the other.” [25]25 Ji Wenfu (嵇文甫, 1895–1963) was a Chinese historian and philosopher of the Marxist school, known for his work on ancient Chinese thought. However, modern China’s political and military defeats left its people persistently skeptical about their own knowledge system and whether a new independent knowledge system could be constructed. During the Yan’an period, the Chinese Communist Party promoted the in-depth development of Chinese philosophy and social sciences, achieving fruitful results in fields such as philosophy, history, economics, and sociology, greatly raising the level of professionalism in constructing an independent knowledge system, and fundamentally reversing the former mentality of “academic inferiority.” In 1946, Hou Wailu stated in the preface to the second edition of *A History of Ancient Chinese Thought and Doctrine*: “Chinese scholars have already surpassed the stage of merely imitating the language of Western Europe; they can now use their own language to explain their own history and currents of thought. In the past, when they raised questions, they always first looked to the footprints of Europe, America, and Japan, but now it is different. On their own soil, they can fearlessly use new methods to excavate their own national cultural tradition. I believe the fork in the road is temporary, and it will soon become clear which is correct and which is biased. At the same time, I believe that research in one area will present its achievements to the world’s literary circles, and although it may still be somewhat immature, steady progress can already be seen from the learning stage.” [26]26 Hou Wailu (侯外庐, 1903–1987) was a Chinese Marxist historian and philosopher, a leading figure in the study of the history of Chinese thought. This passage can be seen as a summary of the period when China’s independent knowledge system was initially established. What is called “using new methods to excavate one’s own national cultural tradition” means applying Marxist theory to guide China’s philosophy and social science research. This was undoubtedly a great transformation in the history of the development of Chinese philosophy and social sciences. Not coincidentally, Hu Sheng also summarized in 1948: “Now, China’s culture and scholarship are no longer like the ‘pioneering work through hardships to open up the mountains and forests’ of the early May Fourth period, nor are they like babbling imitations of Western languages; they have begun to achieve their own accomplishments.” [27]27 Hu Sheng (胡绳, 1918–2000) was a Chinese Marxist historian and theorist, later a senior official in the Chinese Communist Party’s propaganda system. From this sincere and confident statement, we may see Chinese philosophy and social sciences moving from the “learning stage” toward maturity. At present, we must not only let the world know about “China on the tip of the tongue” but also let the world know about “China in scholarship,” “China in theory,” and “China in philosophy and social sciences.” Therefore, it is necessary to further strengthen the systematic and professional construction of China’s independent knowledge system, continuously promote the innovative development of the disciplinary system, academic system, and discourse system, and enhance China’s voice and influence in the international academic community.

延安时期,中国共产党在推进自主知识体系建构中十分注重提高学术的专业性水平。这一时期,中国共产党领导哲学社会科学的发展,既不是近代中国对西方文化殖民冲击的无可奈何、被迫接受,也不再是鹦鹉学舌似地模仿西方,而是敢于发声、自信敢为的文化自觉。知识本无国界,自古以来中西方的知识体系就是在文化交流中逐渐形成的,1944年嵇文甫在《中国文化与世界文化》一文中言:“照我的意见,世界文化乃是由许多种民族文文(应为“文化”之误———引者注)错综交织融贯沦洽而成的一大总汇……而所谓中国文化或西洋文化,都是在这个大流中,头出头没,滚来滚去,谁也不能排拒谁”。然而,近代中国在政治和军事上的失败使国人对自身的知识体系以及能否建构一种新的自主知识体系始终持怀疑态度。中国共产党在延安时期推动了中国哲学社会科学的深入发展,在哲学、历史学、经济学、社会学等领域取得了丰硕成果,极大提高了自主知识体系建构的专业性水平,从根本上扭转了从前那种“学术自卑”的心态。1946年,侯外庐在《中国古代思想学说史·再版序言》中说:“中国学人已经超出了仅仅于仿效西欧语言之阶段了,他们自己会活用自己的语言而讲解自己的历史与思潮了。从前他们讲问题在执笔时总是先看取欧美和日本的足迹,而现在却不同了。他们在自己土壤上无所顾虑地能够自己使用新的方法,掘发自己民族的文化传统了。我以为歧路是暂时的,不久将来就能明白孰正孰偏。同时我相信一方面的研究会在业绩方面呈现于全世界的文坛,虽则说并不脱离其幼稚性,而安步总在学步之时可以看出来的”。从这段话可以看作是对中国自主知识体系初步建立时期的一个总结。所谓“使用新的方法,掘发自己民族的文化传统”,就是运用马克思主义理论指导中国的哲学社会科学研究。这无疑是中国哲学社会科学发展史上的一次伟大变革。无独有偶,胡绳在1948年也总结道:“到现在,中国的文化学术,已不是‘五四’初期‘筚路褴褛,以启山林’似地披荆斩棘,也不再是喃喃学舌似地模仿西方的语言,而已经开始能有自己的成就了。”从这段真诚自信的话语中,我们或许可以看到中国哲学社会科学从“学步”正在走向成熟。在当前,我们不仅要让世界知道“舌尖上的中国”,还要让世界知道“学术中的中国”“理论中的中国”“哲学社会科学中的中国”。因此,必须进一步加强中国自主知识体系的系统性和专业性建构,不断推进学科体系、学术体系、话语体系的创新发展,提高我国在国际学术界的话语权和影响力。

Since modern times, Eastern culture has been helpless and defeated in the face of the Western offensive. Western civilization entered the house and occupied China’s ideological realm. In the 20th century, after Western culture invaded China, traditional society disintegrated day by day. Against this backdrop, Chinese intellectuals felt a stronger sense of mission in dealing with the relationship between Chinese and Western cultures. This was because intellectuals were more sensitive to China’s “peril”; the consciousness that “Heaven is about to entrust a great responsibility to this person” naturally grew accordingly. [28]28 This is a classical allusion to a passage from *Mencius* (《孟子》), which states that when Heaven is about to entrust a great responsibility to a person, it first subjects them to hardships. Although the sense of mission of Chinese intellectuals originated from tradition, especially Confucianism, in an era of great social upheaval and ideological transformation, it broke free from tradition and gained new life. It could combine with any foreign thought to form a force for China’s pursuit of change and renewal. However, in modern times, whether it was scholars of the late Qing dynasty or great Confucians of the Republic of China, due to historical limitations, none truly constructed an independent knowledge system for China. The Chinese Communist Party, holding high the great banner of Marxism, skillfully handled the relationship between Chinese and Western cultures during the Yan’an period through strong leadership, critical absorption, creative thinking, and equal exchange. It found a way for a backward and beaten China to break through civilization, changed the course of the modern eastward transmission of Western learning, and thus reshaped and reconfigured China’s indigenous knowledge landscape. It should be pointed out that in the process of creating and transforming new culture, the Chinese Communist Party did not “sit and discuss” but focused on “rising and acting,” bidding farewell to abstract theoretical concepts, summarizing the “logic of practice” from thinking about concrete problems, evoking a more national, autonomous, and sinicized style of philosophy and social sciences, and endowing it with Chinese thinking, Chinese wisdom, and Chinese character. Driven by a strong sense of self-consciousness and responsibility, the Chinese Communist Party untied the small braid of contextualized theory that had been tied up with Western theories, returned to the original state of disheveled hair, reinterpreted it with new sinicized academic theories, retied the small braid of Chinese culture, and promoted the development of Chinese philosophy and social sciences in a direction that is indigenous, independent, scientific, and autonomous, facilitating the transformation of China’s independent knowledge system from ontology to epistemology and methodology. This shift not only reflected the historical trend of the sinicization of philosophy and social sciences but also achieved historic accomplishments, produced historic impacts, and wrote the “Yan’an chapter” of China’s academic development. At present, changes unseen in a century are accelerating, the world has entered a new period of turbulence and transformation, and the questions of China, the world, the people, and the times all urgently need answers. This requires continuing to advance adapting Marxism to the Chinese context and the needs of the times under the leadership of the Chinese Communist Party, and continuously exploring the construction of an independent knowledge system for China, so that as China increasingly moves toward the center of the world stage, philosophy and social sciences with Chinese characteristics can truly stand tall in the world’s academic forest.

近代以来,东方文化在面对西方的进攻时束手无策、败下阵来。西方文明登堂入室并占据中国的思想界。20世纪在西方文化侵入中国后,传统社会一天一天地在解体,在此背景下,中国知识分子对如何处理中西文化关系问题的使命感更强了。这是因为,知识分子对中国的“危亡”比较敏感,“天将降大任于斯人也”的意识自然随之增长。中国知识分子的使命感虽源自传统,尤其是儒家,但在一个社会大变动、思想大转换的时代,却从传统中游离了出来,获得了新的生命。它可以和任何外来思想结合,形成一股为中国求变求新的力量。然而在近代,无论是晚清学人还是民国大儒,由于历史局限性都没有真正建构起中国自主知识体系。中国共产党高举马克思主义的伟大旗帜,在延安时期通过强有力的领导、批判性的吸收、创造性的思考、平等化的交流,熟练处理了中西文化关系问题,为落后挨打的中国找到了文明突围的方式,改变了近代西学东渐的径流,才重塑、型构了中国本土的知识图景。需要指出的是,中国共产党在创造和转化新文化的过程中,并没有“坐而论”,而是着眼于“起而行”,挥别抽象的理论概念,从具体问题思考中总结出“实践的逻辑”,唤起更具民族性、自主性、中国化的哲学社会科学样式,并赋予其中国思维、中国智慧、中国性格。中国共产党在强烈的自觉意识和责任感的驱使下,把过去用西方理论扎起来的脉络化理论的小辫子重新打散,回到披头散发的原始状态,用新的中国化的学术理论进行阐释,重新扎起中国文化的小辫子,按照本土、独立、科学、自主的方向推动中国哲学社会科学的发展,促进中国自主知识体系由本体论向认识论、方法论的转化。这一转向既体现了哲学社会科学中国化的历史走向,又取得了历史性成就、产生了历史性影响、书写了中国学术发展的“延安篇章”。当下,百年未有之大变局加速演进,世界进入新的动荡变革期,中国之问、世界之问、人民之问、时代之问都迫切需要回答,这就要求在中国共产党的领导下继续推进马克思主义中国化时代化,不断探索建构中国自主知识体系,从而使得中国在日益走近世界舞台中央的同时,让中国特色哲学社会科学真正屹立于世界学术之林。

About the authors: Dong Jia, Vice Dean of the Institute for the Thirteen Years in Yan’an and Chinese-Path Modernization, and Professor at the School of CPC History and Party Building, Renmin University of China; Wen Ruiqin, Doctoral Candidate at the School of Marxism, Renmin University of China.

作者简介：董佳，中国人民大学延安十三年与中国式现代化研究院副院长、中共党史党建学院教授；文瑞钦，中国人民大学马克思主义学院博士研究生。