I believe that the struggle between emphasizing politics and opposing it has now advanced to a new stage. There are still those who openly oppose giving priority to politics, resisting the principle of “the Four Firsts,” and rejecting efforts to strengthen political and ideological work. For example, a credit union director in Zhejiang once said, “Politics is just theory; theory is merely talk; and talking is nothing but boasting.” However, such people are becoming increasingly rare. The number of individuals who openly advocate putting business first or prioritizing figures has greatly diminished—they have become more shrewd—but they remain unwilling to emphasize politics or to abandon their purely instrumentalist, business-oriented stance. This so-called “bacon bone” is not genuine emphasis on politics. Pressed by circumstances, they have resorted to compromise, adopting a syncretistic approach.

In the realm of politics and business, there are three possible approaches. The first places politics first and business second, with politics guiding and commanding business. The second reverses this order, making business primary and politics secondary, reducing politics to a servant of business. The third claims that both politics and business should be given equal priority—what is known as “two firsts.” Of these three, the first is correct, while the second is clearly wrong. But what about the third? It goes without saying that it, too, is mistaken. Nevertheless, some people remain unable to distinguish its error. Why do certain individuals fail to see through the fallacy of “both politics and business come first”? The reason lies in their insufficient understanding of the true nature of syncretism.

Let me now outline the key characteristics of syncretism.

Syncretism is marked by five distinct features.

The first is its substitution of dualism for, or its pretense of, or even its outright theft of, Marxism’s dialectical method of looking at things from two sides. According to this method, when we examine any phenomenon or analyze any contradiction, we must consider both of its aspects. For instance, in a review, we acknowledge achievements while also recognizing shortcomings; we draw lessons from successes just as we learn from failures. Yet, Marxists do not treat these two sides as equally important, as if they were exactly balanced. Rather, they rigorously distinguish between the principal and the secondary, between the focal point and the periphery, between the mainstream and the marginal currents. Comrade Lin Biao’s analysis of four pairs of contradictions in the field of political and ideological work provides a clear illustration: the relationship between people and material resources is crucial in both respects, but living thought takes precedence; living thought comes first. This is the principle of focusing on the principal contradiction. There is a primary and a secondary element, a commanding and a commanded role. Similarly, when addressing ideological problems versus practical ones, both are important, but resolving the former remains paramount.

Marxism insists on this principle of prioritizing the principal contradiction because it is the dominant aspect that determines the essential nature of any phenomenon. If one confuses the principal with the secondary, one cannot grasp the true essence of a matter, cannot discern right from wrong, and thus cannot carry out effective work. Syncretism seeks to supplant, masquerade as, or outright steal Marxism’s dialectical method by eliminating its focus on the principal contradiction. Instead, it treats all aspects of a problem or all sides of a contradiction as equivalent, assigning no special weight to either, blurring the distinction between primary and secondary, between the mainstream and the fringe. As a result, the real truth is obscured, the underlying nature of things becomes indistinct, and people find themselves unable to distinguish right from wrong in their work, leading them astray.

Marxism holds that in the relationships between politics and the military, between politics and the economy, between politics and business, and between politics and technology, politics always occupies the primary position; it serves as the commander, the head, the leader—guiding the military, the economy, business, and technology. In the contradiction between politics and business, the principal side is undoubtedly politics. To remove politics from this equation is tantamount to stripping away the soul. Without a soul, one loses one’s bearings and runs into obstacles at every turn. Therefore, politics must come first, must lead and direct business; they cannot be placed on an equal footing. Any attempt to set them side by side constitutes syncretism.

Some argue for alternating priorities between politics and business—“this year we emphasize politics, next year we emphasize business”; “we focus on politics during slack periods and on business when things get busy.” Such notions represent a syncretistic tendency and are fundamentally flawed.

The second characteristic of syncretism lies in its replacement of Marxism’s dialectical materialism—the doctrine of unity—with a philosophy of indiscriminate mixing and harmonization. A common tactic employed by syncretists is to combine, without principle, opposing viewpoints, contradictory terms, and disparate elements. This kind of unprincipled amalgamation is precisely what syncretism entails: blending, reconciling, and compromising.

However, syncretism’s doctrines of mixing and reconciliation stand in stark contrast to Marxism’s principle of unity. Syncretism knows no distinction between friend and foe, between classes, or between right and wrong. Take modern revisionism, for example: it advocates peaceful coexistence and peaceful competition between socialism and imperialism, calls for the abolition of armies, urges the abandonment of struggle, and even suggests that Communist parties in capitalist countries refrain from armed insurrection, worker strikes, and peasant uprisings against landlords, instead pursuing some form of “peaceful transition.” From this we can plainly see that syncretism is, at its core, a variety of revisionism—a rejection of struggle and revolution.

Syncretism blurs the lines between friend and foe, between right and wrong, embodying a philosophy of conciliation and fusion. For instance, there are those who refuse to engage in class struggle; they neither criticize nor confront illegal capitalists, effectively erasing the boundary between friend and enemy. In your province of Zhejiang, there was a case involving a landlord who behaved very dishonestly. A Party member among the staff criticized him, and when the manager learned of this, he summoned the Party member for a reprimand, telling him, “That landlord already leans toward the Kuomintang. By confronting him like that, you’re only pushing him further in that direction. Don’t do it again.” This manager succumbed to “goodism”—he showed personal sympathy, overlooked others’ flaws, and tolerated actions that harmed the interests of the Party and the state, yet failed to offer constructive criticism or take firm action. This attitude—avoiding moral judgment, eschewing ideological struggle, seeking only superficial harmony and temporary, unprincipled unity—is itself a form of syncretism. Once one falls into that cesspool, it is easy to become thoroughly mired in it. Goodism is widespread, so we must all remain vigilant.

The third characteristic of syncretism is its use of specious, ambiguous arguments to masquerade as and replace dialectics. When judging matters, syncretists invariably claim that both this view and that view can be valid. By employing such tactics to pass off their positions as dialectical, they easily deceive the masses, manipulate situations, and exploit confusion to their advantage. As Lenin pointed out in his essay “The State and Revolution,” when transforming Marxism into opportunism, “the most effective way to fool the masses is to substitute syncretism for dialectics.”

Consider someone who says, “I don’t adhere strictly to a purely business-oriented or a purely political perspective. In my unit, both politics and business are emphasized. Only by giving equal weight to both can one achieve a truly comprehensive outlook. To stress either politics or business alone is to adopt a one-sided stance.” At first glance, this may sound reasonable and well-rounded, seemingly balancing both political and business considerations. Yet upon closer examination, it reveals itself to be pure syncretism. It merely presents itself under the guise of comprehensiveness, peddling nothing but syncretistic nonsense, thereby easily confusing and misleading the public.

The fourth characteristic concerns those who harbor syncretistic tendencies: they often fancy themselves deeply politicized, when in fact their minds are woefully devoid of genuine political substance. What passes for their “political awareness” is usually no more than slogans on their lips, promises on paper, and resolutions made in meetings. After quietly uttering a few words about emphasizing politics, they immediately follow up with loud proclamations about the need to prioritize business, as though they could not bear the thought of being perceived as overly focused on politics. Indeed, one cannot help but wonder why they seem so anxious whenever political and ideological work begins to gain traction, as if they fear it might inconvenience their own interests.

The fifth characteristic is that philosophical syncretism inevitably leads to political opportunism and revisionism. By distorting the fundamental relationships between politics and the military, between politics and the economy, between politics and business, and between politics and technology—by depriving these spheres of their guiding spirit—the inevitable outcome is, at best, a narrow, purely instrumentalist approach to business, and at worst, a full-blown slide into revisionism.

Such, then, are the five defining characteristics of syncretism.

All those who hold syncretistic views or leanings share one common trait: deep down, they oppose giving priority to politics; they do not place politics first.