“The Two Combinations” represent a major theoretical innovation of our Party in the new era, and their profound implications and far-reaching significance call for an in-depth scholarly elucidation. The key to academically interpreting “The Two Combinations” lies in clarifying the fundamental and core question: “What exactly does ‘combination’ mean?”—and in clearly defining this central concept of “combination.” Whether we undertake a comprehensive study of “The Two Combinations” or focus more closely on “the Second Combination,” we must first get clear about what “combination” truly entails. We need to establish “combination” as an important theoretical concept or philosophical category, and then rigorously define and clarify it academically. “Combination” possesses both rich内涵 and broad applicability, as well as relatively precise theoretical definitions and ideological boundaries. Once we have avoided a vague understanding of “combination,” we will have laid a solid foundation and a clear direction for further deepening our research.

1

As a philosophical concept, “combination” holds a specific meaning and occupies an important position within the materialist dialectics. Combination is a phenomenon that frequently occurs and is universally present in the world; thus, it requires a generalized conceptual expression. Consequently, “combination” should become a key concept. This concept is imbued with profound ideological content and philosophical implications, and in a certain sense, it constitutes a philosophical category. Since it reflects the dialectical relationship between specific entities, we must observe and grasp the phenomenon of combination from the perspective of materialist dialectics and define the concept of “combination” accordingly. From this standpoint, so-called “combination” refers to the state in which different entities are interconnected and integrated with each other based on practical needs and intrinsic compatibility, as well as the developmental trend toward their fusion into a new entity. Marx once said that the coexistence, struggle, and fusion of two mutually contradictory aspects into a new category constitute the essence of dialectical movement. Thus, in materialist dialectics, combination is not only a category reflecting the general principle of interconnectedness and embodying the deep-seated relationships among specific entities, but also a category of contradiction theory, illustrating the transformation and integration of opposing sides and serving as a crucial manifestation of the law of unity of opposites. In the process of human activity, the phenomenon of combination refers to people closely linking two or more entities together. Therefore, when discussing the issue of combination, we should adopt a more subjective perspective and examine it from the standpoint of people’s social activities.

The concept of “combination” has a specific context and special significance within the Party’s innovative theories. In our Party’s ongoing effort to adapt Marxism to China’s contemporary conditions and make it relevant to the times, the notion of “combination” has been emphasized as never before, ultimately giving rise to the theory of “two combinations.” Within this theoretical framework, “combination” does not refer generally to any possible integration in human society; rather, it specifically denotes the integration of the fundamental principles of Marxism with China’s concrete national conditions. Given that China’s national conditions encompass both its social and historical-cultural realities, the integration of Marxist fundamental principles with China’s national conditions further concretizes into two distinct propositions: first, the integration of Marxist fundamental principles with China’s specific reality—the “first combination”; and second, the integration of Marxist fundamental principles with China’s outstanding traditional culture—the “second combination.” If we say that the overall integration of Marxist fundamental principles with China’s national conditions embodies the relationship between the universal and the particular, then the “first combination” specifically reflects the relationship between universal theory and particular practice, while the “second combination” specifically reflects the relationship between universal theory and particular historical and cultural contexts. Among these, the particularity of the “second combination” deserves especially close attention. This is because both the relationship between the universal and the particular, and the relationship between theory and practice, are issues with which we are relatively familiar and have long paid close attention to—issues rich in successful experience. However, the relationship between Marxism and China’s outstanding traditional culture represents the relationship between the theoretical foundation of our Party’s guiding ideology and our country’s indigenous resources—the relationship between “spirit” and “roots.” To grasp this relationship, particularly the integration of the two, we cannot simply apply the conventional paradigm of combining theory with practice; instead, we must embark on a fresh exploration.

We must not only grasp the theoretical essence of “integration” but also uncover its underlying mechanisms. To fully understand “integration” itself, we need not only to define its conceptual meaning and scope theoretically and to grasp its essential nature, but also to further reveal the internal mechanisms and principles governing “integration.” In other words, we must clarify exactly how “integration” occurs, how it unfolds, and how it is realized. This is not only crucial for clearly articulating the concept of “integration,” but also particularly important for overcoming the current bottlenecks and sticking points in research. At present, most studies on “integration” itself have remained at the stage of confirming its organic nature—that is, demonstrating that it is not a mere mechanical assemblage but rather an organic integration. However, the precise nature of this “organic integration” itself still requires further investigation. If we fail to elucidate its internal mechanisms, we will neither be able to explain “integration” clearly from a theoretical standpoint nor effectively put it into practice.

To unravel the intrinsic mechanisms of “combination,” it is necessary to introduce and clarify the concept of “mode of combination.” The introduction of this new concept aims to reveal both the ways in which “combination” manifests itself and the means by which it is realized. For human activities—especially collective ones—there always exists a question of “mode”: namely, the question of in what form an activity should be carried out. In a certain sense, we might even say that a particular activity is precisely its mode of execution; thus, grasping the mode of an activity is tantamount to grasping the activity itself. As we know, the “mode of production” is a key category in the materialist conception of history. It has evolved from a relatively concrete concept into a more general, overarching category—a theoretical expression of the organic unity between productive forces and relations of production. Only by fully grasping the “mode of production” can we gain a profound understanding of “production” itself. Similarly, only by fully grasping the “mode of life” can we gain a deep understanding of “life” itself; only by fully grasping the “mode of thinking” can we gain a deep understanding of “thinking” itself—and so on. Therefore, only by fully grasping the “mode of combination” can we gain a profound understanding of “combination” itself. The mode of combination reflects the different types of how things are combined; it is in itself an intrinsic criterion and set of rules for classification. Moreover, the mode of combination also embodies the choice of paths and methods for realizing combination. Thus, clarifying the mode of combination also clarifies the paths and methods for achieving combination.

“Combination” is inherently diverse, and the ways in which combinations occur are equally varied. Combination is a remarkably widespread phenomenon, and the concept of combination itself is quite broad, encompassing a wide range of approaches and types. If we focus on directional understanding, we can classify combination methods into two basic types: one is external combination—mechanical juxtaposition—and the other is internal combination—organic integration. Perhaps mechanical patchwork and external combination are, under certain conditions—especially during the initial exploratory stage—difficult to completely avoid. However, only when we achieve genuine internal organic integration can we truly capture the essence and typical characteristics of “combination.” General Secretary Xi Jinping pointed out: “‘Combination’ is not a ‘mix-and-match platter,’ nor is it a simple ‘physical reaction’; rather, it is a profound ‘chemical reaction’ that gives rise to a new cultural entity—a unified, organic whole.” What he emphasized here is precisely this internal, organic form of combination. This important statement provides us with a clear direction. We must follow this path in our specific explorations, further refining and grasping the various types of combination.

2

“The first ‘combination’” had its own specific connotations and approaches. Historically, dogmatists within the Party lacked a proper understanding of this combination; they never even considered carrying it out, instead believing that it was sufficient simply to directly adopt the doctrines of the classical authors. Comrade Mao Zedong explicitly pointed out: “We must study the ‘original texts’ of Marxism, but we must also combine them with China’s actual conditions.” This in itself represented a major innovation. At the same time, Comrade Mao Zedong put forward the proposition of “Sinicization of Marxism,” advocating that theories adapted to Chinese conditions should guide Chinese practice, thereby further clarifying the approach to this combination. By applying the universal truths of Marxism to China’s actual situation, we advanced both the Chinese revolution and the cause of socialist construction, and thus developed theoretical achievements through the Sinicization of Marxism. In this way, universality and particularity, theory and practice were unified within the Party’s guiding ideology, transforming it into a systematic body of thought and theory that not only encompasses the fundamental principles of Marxism but also incorporates the contemporary, sinicized theoretical achievements of Marxism.

The “second integration” should also have its own specific approach to realization. The “Sinicization of Marxism” serves as the mode of integration for both the “first integration” and the “second integration.” However, the “second integration” differs from the “first integration” in that it does not address the relationship between theory and practice; rather, it deals with the relationship between two distinct ideological and cultural systems. Therefore, we need to examine the issue of integration modes from a cultural perspective. These two cultures emerged under different historical and spatial conditions: one originated in modern Western Europe, while the other arose in ancient China. Due to the inevitability of historical development, these two cultures now coexist within the same social and temporal space in modern China, where they interact and influence each other, gradually entering a process of integration. To better advance the “second integration,” we need to clarify exactly what possible or effective integration approaches exist. Broadly speaking, we can further promote the “second integration” from such perspectives as language, academia, theory, and practice.

The integration at the linguistic level means enabling Marxism to speak Chinese—translating Marxist classics into Chinese, and conducting Marxist theoretical research and interpretation in the Chinese language. Although this form of integration may seem superficial, even somewhat external, it is nonetheless essential and forms the foundation for other types of integration. The Chinese language and characters are an important component of China’s outstanding traditional culture and serve as crucial carriers of its heritage. Expressing Marxist theory in Chinese allows the “second integration” to take place in the native tongue. First and foremost, there is the issue of translating Marxist classics into Chinese. Currently, most of the key classic works have already been translated into standard modern Chinese by relevant institutions, ensuring their reliability and authority. Of course, the international project to compile a new, historically critical edition of the “Complete Works of Marx and Engels” (MEGA2) is still ongoing, and our Chinese-language complete edition is being published gradually; it will take some time before the entire project is completed. We must approach and advance this work from the perspective of promoting the “two integrations,” especially the “second integration.” Furthermore, we should continue refining Marxist theoretical terms and concepts in modern Chinese, thereby perfecting the standards for expressing Marxist theory in the Chinese language. The languages used by the classical authors—primarily German and Russian—differ significantly from Chinese in terms of vocabulary and syntax. Their modes of expression possess distinctive features and advantages of their own; however, as Chinese Marxist theorists, our articulation of Marxist theory should more fully reflect Chinese grammatical habits, particularly the conciseness and efficiency characteristic of Chinese grammar.

Marxism and China’s outstanding traditional culture are two distinct intellectual and cultural systems, as well as two separate academic traditions. The integration of the two naturally involves the realm of academic research—and indeed, it is of utmost importance. For only through consciously conducting relevant academic research can we provide a solid scholarly foundation for the “Second Integration.” This scholarly endeavor does not merely entail studying Marxist theory or China’s outstanding traditional culture in isolation; rather, it calls for examining the relationship between the two, especially conducting comprehensive, systematic, and in-depth research centered on their integration. We must not only explore the necessity and inevitability of this integration but also investigate its feasibility and practicality; we must not only analyze the essence and structure of the integration but also identify effective pathways and concrete measures for achieving it. In our research, we must remain problem-oriented and strive to address the various challenges that arise during the integration process. We should also strengthen the building of an academic community, using organized, large-scale scientific research to advance the study of the “Second Integration.” In particular, we need to enhance collaboration and integration between two key scholarly groups: first, the group of scholars engaged in Marxist studies, and second, the group of scholars dedicated to researching China’s outstanding traditional culture. We must break down cognitive limitations and academic barriers, and work closely together around the theme of the “Second Integration” to jointly promote academic research.

Continuously advancing the Party’s theoretical innovation is, in itself, the primary means of realizing the “Second Combination.” The Party’s series of theoretical innovations are not only the fruits of the “First Combination,” but also the crystallization of the “Second Combination.” Throughout the Party’s more than a century of struggle, this combination has already been carried out at various stages, yielding abundant theoretical achievements. Mao Zedong Thought and the Theory System of Socialism with Chinese Characteristics both embody the Communist Party of China’s absorption, transformation, and innovation of China’s outstanding traditional culture. In particular, Xi Jinping Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era more prominently embodies the “Second Combination” and vividly showcases the brilliance of Chinese culture. Xi Jinping Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era is an open and evolving theoretical system; as the cause of socialism with Chinese characteristics in the new era continues to advance, this thought will surely be further enriched and developed, and the “Second Combination” will likewise be further promoted.

The foundation of theory lies in practice, and the driving force behind its development also resides in practice. Under new historical conditions, advancing the “Second Combination” requires not only employing innovative theoretical approaches but also adopting innovative practical methods. The great practice of socialism with Chinese characteristics in the new era—especially the grand endeavor of comprehensively promoting national rejuvenation and building a strong country through Chinese-style modernization—is both the source and driving force behind the Party’s theoretical innovation and development, as well as the source and driving force for our Party to further advance the “Second Combination.” Whether we promote the “Second Combination” through linguistic and discursive means or through academic and theoretical approaches, we must never lose sight of the great practice of socialism with Chinese characteristics in the new era. Undoubtedly, this practice extends far beyond the realm of thought and culture; yet it remains the foundation and ultimate goal of cultural work. Those theoretical workers committed to advancing the “Second Combination” from a professional perspective must wholeheartedly engage in the practice of construction and reform on this new journey, continuously deepening the “Two Combinations,” forging powerful synergies, and propelling the cause of socialism with Chinese characteristics forward ever more vigorously.