The Emergence, Interaction, and Evolution of the Concept of “Modernization” during the Period of the New Democratic Revolution

The successful practice of modernization in China is inseparable from in-depth theoretical exploration of it. Whether it was Deng Xiaoping’s initial proposal of “Chinese-style four modernizations” [1]1 The “four modernizations” (四个现代化) were a set of goals for modernizing agriculture, industry, national defense, and science and technology, first proposed by Zhou Enlai in 1964 and later revived by Deng Xiaoping. “Chinese-style four modernizations” (中国式的四个现代化) was a phrase Deng used in 1979 to signal that China’s modernization would follow its own path, not simply copy Western models. on the basis of the “four modernizations” in the early period of reform and opening up, or General Secretary Xi Jinping’s systematic summary of the distinctive features of Chinese-path modernization at the Fifth Plenary Session of the 19th Central Committee of the CPC in the New Era, followed by his comprehensive and systematic exposition of Chinese-path modernization at the 20th National Congress of the CPC and his outline of the grand blueprint of “promoting the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation on all fronts through Chinese-path modernization” [2]2 This is a direct quotation from Xi Jinping’s report to the 20th National Congress of the CPC in October 2022, where “Chinese-path modernization” (中国式现代化) was systematically defined., all of these have sparked heated academic discussions on the issue of modernization. Regarding the Chinese Communist Party’s understanding of the issue of modernization, for a long time there has been a view that after the founding of New China, Mao Zedong proposed to “‘build our country into a socialist country with modern industry, modern agriculture, and modern science and culture.’ This was the embryonic form of the Chinese Communists’ thinking on modernization.” [3]3 The quotation is from Mao Zedong’s 1957 speech “On the Correct Handling of Contradictions Among the People,” where he listed modern industry, modern agriculture, and modern science and culture as goals; “modern national defense” was later added to form the standard “four modernizations.” However, in recent years, many scholars have keenly noticed that during the period of the New Democratic Revolution, discussions surrounding modernization within Chinese intellectual circles were already lively and intense, even “opening up the forerunner of research on Chinese modernization thought.” [4]4 This refers to the period of the New Democratic Revolution (1919–1949), when the CPC was leading the anti-imperialist, anti-feudal revolution before the founding of the People’s Republic. How did the concept of “modernization” emerge? Why, in the process of its dissemination, did it merge with the concept of “national rejuvenation” to form an ideological germ that has influenced the present day? How did the Chinese Communist Party and the left-wing intellectuals it led examine the concept of “modernization” and related issues from the standpoint of historical materialism? These questions can all be interpreted through the historical evolution of the emergence, interaction, and transformation of the concept of “modernization.”

现代化在中国的成功实践，离不开对其理论上的深入探索。无论是改革开放初期邓小平在“四个现代化”基础上首次提出“中国式的四个现代化”[1]，还是新时代习近平总书记在党的十九届五中全会上系统总结中国式现代化的显著特征，随后又在党的二十大全面系统阐释中国式现代化，并勾勒“以中国式现代化全面推进中华民族伟大复兴”[2]的宏伟蓝图，都引发了学术界对现代化问题的热切讨论。关于中国共产党对现代化问题的认识，长期以来有观点认为，新中国成立后毛泽东提出要“‘将我国建设成为一个具有现代工业、现代农业和现代科学文化的社会主义国家’。这是中国共产党人现代化思想的雏形”[3]。然而近年来不少学者敏锐地注意到，新民主主义革命时期中国思想界围绕现代化的讨论已经纷繁热烈，甚至“开辟了中国现代化思想研究的先导”[4]。“现代化”概念如何出场？其在传播过程中为何与“民族复兴”概念融合形成了影响至今的思想萌芽？中国共产党及其领导的左翼知识分子又如何站在历史唯物主义立场审视“现代化”概念及其相关问题？这些都可以在“现代化”概念的出场、互动、嬗变的历史演进中给予解读。

I. The Emergence and Dissemination of the Concept of “Modernization”

一、“现代化”概念的出场与传播

In the 1920s, the concept of “modernization” was already known within academic circles, but discussions were not yet heated. In early 1922, an article in *The Eastern Miscellany* stated that George Russell’s poetry was “comparatively more modernized” [5]5 George Russell (1867–1935) was an Irish poet, painter, and nationalist; the article cited is from *The Eastern Miscellany* (东方杂志), a major Chinese intellectual journal.; this should be the earliest expression of “modernization” found in available literature. At that time, the concepts of “modernization” and “modernization” (in the sense of becoming modern) were semantically close and often used interchangeably, leaning more towards the meanings of “modern” and “novel,” and were also frequently regarded by Westernization advocates of the period as synonyms for “Westernization” or “Europeanization.” It was not until after the 1930s, with the widespread dissemination of the concept of “modernization,” that “in the new debates, the concept of ‘modernization’ was proposed to replace the narrow concept of ‘Westernization’” [6]6 This is a paraphrase of a common view in 1930s Chinese debates, often attributed to thinkers like Zhang Xiruo, who argued that “modernization” was a more accurate and less culturally biased term than “Westernization.”; only then did Chinese people gradually begin to examine China’s development issues from the perspective of world modernization.

20世纪20年代，“现代化”概念已经为学界所知悉，但是讨论并不火热。1922年初，《东方杂志》中的一篇文章提出，乔治·鲁素尔的诗“比较的更多现代化”[5]，这应当是目前可查阅文献中对“现代化”的最早表述。此时“现代化”与“近代化”等概念语义接近、时常混用，更偏向于“摩登”“新颖”之意，也时常被该时期的西化论者视为“西化”“欧化”的近义词。直到20世纪30年代以后，伴随“现代化”概念的广泛传播，“在新的论争中提出了‘现代化’的概念来代替‘西化’这个偏狭的概念”[6]，此后国人才逐渐站在世界现代化的角度审视中国发展问题。

(1) Discussions in Intellectual Circles in the 1920s Surrounding “Modern Civilization” Provided the Context for the Emergence of the Concept of “Modernization”

（一）20世纪20年代思想界围绕“现代文明”的讨论，为“现代化”概念提供了出场语境

In modern times, Western powers forcibly opened China’s door with military force, dragging China into the historical process of world modernization. In 1919, the May Fourth Movement not only spread new ideas and new culture but also inspired and enlightened the Chinese people, causing a strong shockwave within Chinese intellectual circles. On the basis of profound self-reflection on traditional Chinese culture, how to view Western civilization and Eastern civilization became a common concern for advanced elements of the time. This also led to the fact that in the 1920s, the terms “modern civilization” and “modern civilization” (in the sense of recent civilization) were semantically closer to today’s concept of “modernization.” Many intellectuals, including Qu Qiubai, Hu Shi, Fan Shoukang, and Chang Yansheng, participated in related discussions.

近代以来西方列强用武力打开了中国的国门，使得中国被卷入了世界现代化的历史进程之中。1919年，五四运动不仅传播了新思想新文化，也鼓舞和启发了中国人民，更引起了中国思想界的强烈震荡。在对中国传统文化深刻自省的基础上，如何看待西方文明和东方文明，也成为当时先进分子普遍关注的问题。这也导致20世纪20年代，“现代文明”“近代文明”在语义上更加接近今日的“现代化”概念。瞿秋白、胡适、范寿康、常燕生等诸多知识分子都参与过相关讨论。

As early as 1923, Qu Qiubai wrote the article “The Problem of Modern Civilization and Socialism,” in which he examined the differences between socialist modern civilization and capitalist modern civilization from a keen perspective. Although Qu Qiubai did not explicitly use the concept of “modernization” here, he, based on historical materialism, saw that the development of modern Western technology could not truly “liberate humanity.” He believed that only “after the social revolution gradually completes the transformation of relations between people will the path of technological development become vastly different.” [7]7 Qu Qiubai (1899–1935) was an early leader of the CPC, a Marxist theorist, and a key figure in introducing Marxist thought to China; the article cited is from 1923. It is not difficult to see that Qu Qiubai’s understanding of “modern civilization” was very advanced within the intellectual circles of the time. He believed that so-called “modern civilization” included not only the civilization of science and technology but also the liberation of humanity itself; indeed, the rapid advancement of genuine science and technology must be based on the revolutionary transformation of relations between people. This was undoubtedly an important elaboration on the issue of modernization from the standpoint of historical materialism.

早在1923年，瞿秋白便撰写了《现代文明的问题与社会主义》一文，文中他以敏锐的视角审视了社会主义现代文明和资本主义现代文明的差异。尽管瞿秋白在此处并没有明确使用“现代化”概念，但是他立足唯物史观看到，西方现代技术的发展并不能真正地“解放人类”，他认为只有“社会革命渐次完成改造人与人之间的关系之后，技术发展的途径便大不同了”[7]。不难发现，瞿秋白对“现代文明”的理解在当时的思想界来看是十分超前的，他认为所谓“现代文明”不仅包括科学技术的文明，还包括了人类自身的解放，甚至真正的科学技术的快速推进，必须是建立在人与人之间关系获得革命的基础上，这无疑是站在历史唯物主义角度对现代化问题作出的重要阐述。

In the 1920s, one of the earlier figures to provoke the debate on “modern civilization” was Hu Shi. Continuing the logical thread of the debate on Eastern and Western cultures during the May Fourth New Culture Movement, Hu Shi equated “modern civilization” or “modern civilization” (in the sense of recent civilization) with “Western civilization,” believing that the latter differed greatly from Eastern civilization. For example, in his article “Our Attitude Towards Modern Western Civilization,” Hu Shi pointed out that the “dissatisfaction” within Western culture drove the continuous advancement of science and technology in Western countries and the process of political democratization, stating that “the extent to which modern Western civilization can satisfy the demands of the human soul is far beyond what Eastern old civilization can dream of.” [8]8 Hu Shi (1891–1962) was a leading liberal intellectual, a key figure in the May Fourth Movement, and a proponent of gradual reform and Westernization; the article cited is from 1926. During this period, there were also those who disagreed with Hu Shi’s views. Although they, like Hu Shi, believed that “civilization” included not only material technology but also spiritual concepts, they considered Hu Shi’s equation of “modern civilization” or “modern civilization” with “Western civilization” to be biased. For instance, Chang Yansheng directly criticized Hu Shi for “repeatedly using the term ‘modern civilization’ to replace Western civilization” [9]9 Chang Yansheng (1898–1975) was a historian and political scientist who often debated Hu Shi on cultural issues.; Fan Shoukang also published an article refuting Hu Shi that same year, pointing out that “in my personal opinion, there is no clear-cut distinction between Eastern civilization and Western civilization; both contain material and spiritual aspects, and both are advancing on the same plane, only that at present, the degree of advancement is slightly different, with one ahead and the other behind.” [10]10 Fan Shoukang (1896–1983) was a philosopher and educator who argued for a more balanced view of Eastern and Western civilizations.

20世纪20年代，较早挑起“现代文明”争论的人，当数胡适。出于对五四新文化运动中东西方文化论战思维逻辑的延续，胡适将“现代文明”或“近代文明”等同于“西洋文明”，认为二者同东方文明具有较大差异。比如胡适在《我们对于西洋近代文明的态度》一文中指出，西方文化中的“不知足”催动了西方国家科技的不断前进以及政治的民主化进程，“西洋近代文明能够满足人类心灵上的要求的程度，远非东洋旧文明所能梦见”[8]。该时期，也有人不同意胡适的观点。尽管他们都跟胡适一样，认为“文明”不仅包括物质技术，也应当涵盖精神观念，但是他们认为胡适这种将“现代文明”或“近代文明”等同于“西洋文明”的观点有失偏颇。如常燕生直接批评了胡适“屡使用‘近代文明’字样来代替西方的文明”[9]的做法；范寿康同年也发文驳斥胡适，指出“照我个人的私见，东方文明与西洋文明决没有截然的区别，二者同是含有精神物质的两方面，并且二者同是在同一方面上进行着，不过在于现今，进行的程度略有先后之分而已”[10]。

It can be seen that although the concept of “modernization” was not yet popular in the 1920s, discussions on “modern civilization” within intellectual circles were already very heated. Whether it was Qu Qiubai’s elaboration, based on historical materialism, on the important significance of human liberation within “modern civilization,” or Hu Shi’s somewhat “Westernizing” viewpoint, or Fan Shoukang and Chang Yansheng’s criticism of Hu Shi, all of these demonstrated that intellectual circles at the time were attempting to explore the essential reasons for China’s backwardness relative to the West from a broader, holistic perspective. That is, China’s backwardness was not due to any inherent deficiency in the Chinese nation or its culture, but merely that it had fallen behind in the historical process of world modernization. As Zhou Gucheng recalled in his 1943 article “On China’s Modernization,” “Since the May Fourth Movement, what people called the differences between Chinese and Western cultures, the differences between Chinese and Western societies, ultimately came to be understood as differences in the degree of evolution of things of the same nature between the two sides.” [11]11 Zhou Gucheng (1898–1996) was a historian and professor; the article cited is from 1943, during the War of Resistance Against Japan. The opening of this global perspective laid an important foundation for the widespread dissemination of the concept of “modernization” in the 1930s.

可见，尽管20世纪20年代“现代化”概念尚不火热，但是思想界对“现代文明”的讨论已经十分热烈，无论是瞿秋白立足唯物史观对“现代文明”中人的解放的重要意义的阐述，还是胡适略带“西化”色彩的观点，抑或范寿康、常燕生对胡适的批评，都表现出此时的思想界试图从一个更加宏大的整体性视角探寻中国落后于西方的本质原因。即中国的落后，并非中国在民族或文化上有先天不足，仅仅是在世界现代化的历史进程中落后了而已。正如1943年周谷城在《论中国之现代化》一文中回忆道，“五四运动以来，国人所谓中西文化之不同，中西社会之不同，终知是两方性质相同之事情，进化程度有差异而已”[11]。这一世界视野的开启，为20世纪30年代“现代化”概念的广泛传播埋下了重要伏笔。

(2) The Dissemination of the Concept of “Modernization” in the 1930s Prompted Intellectual Circles to Begin Examining China’s Problems from the Holistic Perspective of World Modernization

（二）20世纪30年代“现代化”概念的传播，推动思想界开始从世界现代化的整体性视角审视中国问题

After the 1930s, accompanied by the calls within intellectual circles to save the nation from subjugation and ensure its survival, numerous newspapers and periodicals such as *Shen Bao Monthly*, *The Independent Review*, *New China*, *China Youth*, *Century Review*, and *October Talks* published the views of intellectuals and political figures on the issue of “modernization.” In particular, the special issue “On the Problem of China’s Modernization” published by *Shen Bao Monthly* in 1933 promoted the concept of “modernization.” This discussion on modernization received a total of 10 short essays and 16 special treatises, with authors including notable figures such as Yang Xingzhi, Chen Gaoyong, Tao Menghe, and Wu Juenong. Although their understandings of the concept of “modernization” differed considerably, they all began to consciously break through the logical limitation of the “Chinese-Western opposition” in the 1920s debate on Eastern and Western cultures, and began to consider China’s way out from the holistic perspective of the world modernization wave.

20世纪30年代以后，伴随思想界救国救民的呼声，《申报月刊》《独立评论》《新中华》《中国青年》《世纪评论》《十月谈》等众多报刊，纷纷刊载了知识分子、政界人士对“现代化”问题的看法。特别是1933年《申报月刊》推出的“中国现代化问题号”特辑，让“现代化”概念得到推广。这次关于现代化的讨论共收到10篇短论、16篇专论，作者包括了杨幸之、陈高傭（陈高佣）、陶孟和、吴觉农等知名人士。尽管他们对“现代化”概念的理解差异较大，但是都开始自觉突破20世纪20年代东西方文化论战中“中西对立”的逻辑局限，开始站在世界现代化浪潮的整体性视角思考中国的出路。

The reason for this is that behind the heated discussion of the concept of “modernization” in Chinese intellectual circles during this period lay, in essence, the scholars’ profound self-reflection on China’s various problems in the process of world modernization, as well as their endless anxiety over China’s domestic troubles and foreign threats. “A strong sense of urgency and mission of the times prompted intellectual circles to more clearly raise the issue of ‘modernization’ and launch the first formal major discussion of modernization in modern and contemporary history.” [12]12 Luo Rongqu, “Seeking Answers from History: The Origin and Evolution of the Concept of ‘Modernization’ in China,” *Journal of Peking University (Philosophy and Social Sciences)*, 1996, no. 3, p. 12. After the 1930s, the modernization efforts of Western capitalist countries and the Soviet socialist country became increasingly familiar to the Chinese people, yet China at this time remained in a state of desolation. This feeling was precisely as Yang Xingzhi stated at the outset when discussing China’s modernization: “China is a backward country. Precisely because it is backward, it shows a trend of decline day by day, becoming even more backward, thus constituting a non-modern country that seems to stand outside the circle of twentieth-century civilization.” [13]13 Yang Xingzhi, “The Modernization of China,” *Shen Bao Monthly*, vol. 2, no. 7, July 15, 1933. This description of China’s backward condition appears in almost all articles discussing China’s modernization. It is also as someone noted in 1933 when analyzing why “modernization” was widely discussed: “Well-intentioned people, seeing that ‘revolution’ and ‘reform’ had no real effect, have specially raised the issue of ‘modernization,’ hoping for a change of approach so that China, stuck in the ‘medieval’ era, could leap into a ‘modern’ country.” [14]14 “Modernization and the Modernization of China,” *Shen Bao Monthly*, vol. 2, no. 7, July 15, 1933.

究其原因，该时期中国思想界对“现代化”概念热切讨论的背后，实质上是学者们对世界现代化进程中中国各类问题的深刻自省，以及对中国内忧外患状况的无尽忧虑。“强烈的忧患意识和时代使命感，促使思想界更明确地提出‘现代化’问题，并展开近现代史上第一次正式的现代化问题大讨论。”[12]20世纪30年代以后，西方资本主义国家和苏联社会主义国家的现代化建设愈发为国人熟悉，而此时中国仍旧是一片萧条。这种感受正如杨幸之在探讨中国现代化时开宗明义指出的，“中国是一个落后的国家。惟其落后，故又显呈江河日下之势，而愈益落后，而构成现在这样一个似乎是站在二十世纪文明圈外的非现代的国家”[13]。这种对中国落后现状的描述，几乎存在于各类讨论中国现代化的文章之中。也正如1933年有人在分析“现代化”广泛为人们所谈论的原因时指出的，“热心人士，见得‘革命’‘维新’都无实效，所以特别提出‘现代化’问题，希望换换口味，可使滞留‘中古’的中国，一蹴而为‘现代’的国家”[14]。

From a content perspective, the discussions on modernization in intellectual circles in the 1930s focused mainly on two topics: first, how China could achieve modernization. Some believed that “a modernized country has two conditions: one is order, the other is discipline”; [15]15 “Modernization and the Modernization of China,” *Shen Bao Monthly*, vol. 2, no. 7, July 15, 1933. others held that China “should take transportation construction as the starting point to step onto the great road of modernization”; [16]16 “Modernization and the Modernization of China,” *Shen Bao Monthly*, vol. 2, no. 7, July 15, 1933. and so on. Second, what kind of culture China needed to construct to achieve modernization. The concept of “modernization,” which emerged from the discussions of “Eastern civilization” and “Western civilization,” naturally continued the exploration of cultural differences between China and the West during its dissemination. For example, in 1933, Chen Gaoyong clearly stated in his article “How to Make Chinese Culture Modern”: “Only if we can make Chinese culture suitable for the modern era can the Chinese nation survive in the modern world.” [17]17 Chen Gaoyong, “How to Make Chinese Culture Modern,” *Shen Bao Monthly*, vol. 2, no. 7, July 15, 1933.

从内容层面看，20世纪30年代思想界围绕现代化的讨论主要集中于两个论题：一是中国如何实现现代化。有人认为，“现代化的国家有两个条件，一是秩序，一是纪律”[15]；也有人认为，中国“走上现代化的大路，应该以交通建设为起点”[16]；等等。二是中国实现现代化需要构建何种文化。从“东方文明”“西洋文明”的讨论中出场的“现代化”概念，自然在传播过程中延续了对中西方文化差异性的探讨，如1933年，陈高傭在《怎样使中国文化现代化》一文中明确指出，“我们能使中国文化适合于现代，中国国家然后可以存立于现代”[17]。

In this series of discussions, many scholars reaffirmed and clarified the concepts of “Westernization” and “modernization.” A representative example is Zhang Xiruo (Zhang Xiruo), who clearly stated in his article “Total Westernization and Chinese Substance”: “Modernization can include Westernization, but Westernization cannot include modernization. This is not a quibble over a meaningless empty term; it contains many facts of different natures. Complex social conditions do not allow us to be vague.” [18]18 Zhang Xiruo, “Total Westernization and Chinese Substance,” *National Culture*, no. 1, August 10, 1935. It can be said that after the 1930s, with its dissemination and discussion, the concept of “modernization” began to further break away from the undertone of “Westernization.” When examining the differences between China and the West, Chinese intellectual circles also began to abandon a purely cultural perspective. This undoubtedly marked a more rational state of understanding regarding the differences between Chinese and Western civilizations in Chinese intellectual circles.

在这一系列的讨论中，不少学者再次重申并厘清“西化”和“现代化”概念。比较有代表性的是张熙若（张奚若），他在《全盘西化与中国本位》一文中明确指出：“现代化可以包括西化，西化却不能包括现代化。这并不是斤斤于一个无谓的空洞名词，这其中包含着许多性质不同的事实。复杂的社会情况是不容许我们笼统的。”[18]可以说，“现代化”概念在20世纪30年代以后，伴随传播和讨论开始进一步脱离“西化”的底色。中国思想界在审视中西方差异的时候，也开始摈弃单纯的文化视角，这无疑标志着中国思想界对待中西方文明差异性的认识达到了更加理性的状态。

In addition, the discussions around the concept of “modernization” in intellectual circles during this period also showed a tendency toward gradual generalization, meaning that not only was there the relatively common issue of “national modernization,” but many extended topics also emerged. For instance, in 1933, Chen Xujing’s “The Sinicization and Modernization of Education” discussed the evolutionary characteristics of educational work in the process of modernization; in 1935, Hu Zhaochun’s “A Preliminary Discussion on the Cooperation between Modernized Museums and Schools” can be considered one of the earliest articles discussing the modernization of museums; in 1936, Ning Hu’s “The Modernized Italian Navy” explored the role of modernization in promoting the development of the Italian navy; and so on. In addition, articles emerged discussing the modernization of railway construction, architectural design, urban planning, libraries, and many other topics, reflecting that “modernization” had by this time become an important concept widely accepted by Chinese intellectual circles.

除此之外，该时期思想界围绕“现代化”概念的讨论还有逐渐泛化的特点，即不仅有较为普遍的“国家现代化”问题，还出现了诸多延伸议题。如1933年陈序经的《教育的中国化和现代化》探讨了教育工作在现代化过程中的演进特点；1935年胡肇椿的《现代化博物馆与学校合作问题初论》可以说是最早讨论博物馆现代化发展的文章之一；1936年宁瑚的《现代化的意大利海军》探讨了现代化对意大利海军发展的推动作用；等等。除此之外，还涌现了探讨铁路建设现代化、建筑设计现代化、城市规划现代化、图书馆现代化等诸多文章，反映出此时“现代化”已经成为中国思想界普遍接受的重要概念。

II. The Convergence and Interaction of the Concepts of “Modernization” and “National Rejuvenation”

二、“现代化”与“民族复兴”概念的交汇与互动

During the New Democratic Revolution period, the process of the emergence and dissemination of the concept of “modernization” was also a process of convergence and interaction with other concepts. As early as 1929, Hu Shi emphasized in his article “The Conflict of Cultures” that “China must take a selective path of modernization… hoping that China, like Japan, might achieve a cultural renaissance.” [19]19 Hu Shi, “The Conflict of Cultures,” *China Christian Yearbook*, 1929. This was an early instance in Chinese intellectual circles of placing the concepts of “modernization” and “rejuvenation” together. In the 1930s, if the discussions around “modernization” gave Chinese intellectual circles a broader global perspective, then the fervent spread of the concept of “national rejuvenation” greatly stimulated the national consciousness of the Chinese people. The two concepts, within a specific historical background and historical context, produced a series of interactions, forming the ideological foundation that has influenced China to this day.

新民主主义革命时期，“现代化”概念出场、传播的过程，也是与其他概念发生交汇与互动的过程。早在1929年，胡适便在《文化的冲突》一文中强调，“中国必须走选择性的现代化道路……希望中国也可能像日本那样实现文化复兴”[19]，这是中国思想界较早将“现代化”和“复兴”概念放置于一起的讨论。20世纪30年代，如果说围绕“现代化”的讨论给予了中国思想界更为广阔的世界性视角，那么“民族复兴”概念的火热传播则极大地激发了国人的民族自觉，两个概念在特定的历史背景和历史语境中，产生了一系列相互作用，形成了影响中国至今的思想基石。

(1) The convergence of the concepts of “modernization” and “national rejuvenation” was a phenomenon that emerged alongside the Chinese people’s rational examination of the nation’s future and national culture.

（一）“现代化”与“民族复兴”概念的交汇，是伴随国人对民族前途和民族文化理性审视而出现的一个现象

After the outbreak of the War of Resistance Against Japan in 1931, Chinese intellectual circles engaged in another round of fierce debate over the differences between Chinese and Western cultures. This debate involved topics such as Chinese substance culture and the Asiatic mode of production, but in terms of its ideological core, this East-West cultural debate differed from the “anti-tradition” of the May Fourth New Culture Movement. Very few people at this time fully supported the total Westernization views of Chen Xujing and others. Even Hu Shi, an important representative of the Westernization faction, explained during this period that his original intention of “total Westernization” was merely “full cosmopolitanization.” Therefore, “national rejuvenation,” as an important concept encompassing elements such as reshaping national culture and revitalizing the national economy, was quickly recognized by intellectual circles and various political forces.

1931年抗日战争爆发后，中国思想界围绕中西方文化差异展开了又一轮唇枪舌战。这次论战涉及中国本位文化、亚细亚生产方式等诸多议题，但从思想内核上看，此次东西方文化论战，区别于五四新文化运动的“反传统”。这一次完全支持陈序经等全盘西化观点的人非常少见，就连西化派重要代表之一的胡适也在这一时期解释自己“全盘西化”的本意仅仅是“充分世界化”而已。因此，“民族复兴”作为内含了重塑民族文化、振兴民族经济等诸多要素的重要概念，很快为思想界和各政治力量所认可。

For example, in the first issue of the first volume of *The Renaissance Monthly* published in September 1932, apart from summaries of domestic and international current events, all articles contained the word “rejuvenation,” such as Huan Cheng’s “The Rejuvenation of the Chinese Nation and Its Relationship with the World,” Zhao Zhengping’s “A Historical Observation of the Issue of Chinese National Rejuvenation,” Liu Linsheng’s “Literature in the Age of Rejuvenation,” Shen Yiyun’s “Rejuvenation? Every Man and Woman Bears Responsibility,” and so on. In addition, during this period, there were also “rebirth faction” figures such as Zhang Junmai, Zhang Dongsun, Luo Longji, Liang Shiqiu, and Pan Guangdan, who also engaged in heated discussions on national rejuvenation through the journal *Rebirth*. According to data from the Shanghai Library’s “Full-Text Database of Late Qing and Republican Periodicals,” various propaganda reports on national rejuvenation in society increased year by year during the 1930s, peaking between 1934 and 1936, with over 500 articles per year directly containing the term “national rejuvenation” in their titles, fully demonstrating the fervor of discussions on national rejuvenation at this time.

例如1932年9月，《复兴月刊》第1卷第1期所刊载的文章中，除了国内外时事摘要外，无不带有“复兴”字眼，如寰澄的《中华民族之复兴与世界之关系》，赵正平的《中华民族复兴问题之史的观察》，刘麟生的《复兴时代的文学》，沈亦云的《复兴？匹妇有责》，等等。除此之外，该时期还有张君劢、张东荪、罗隆基、梁实秋、潘光旦等“再生派”，也依托《再生》杂志对民族复兴展开了热烈讨论。根据上海图书馆“晚清和民国期刊全文数据库”数据统计，20世纪30年代社会上围绕民族复兴的各种宣传报道逐年递增，在1934年到1936年期间达到峰值，每年有500余篇文章标题中直接带有“民族复兴”字眼，足可见关于民族复兴的讨论在此时的火热程度。

In the 1930s, the concepts of “national rejuvenation” and “modernization” often appeared together in scholarly discussions. Judging by the content of these discussions, they focused primarily on two topics: “culture” and “the countryside.” The first was the emphasis on “cultural rejuvenation” and “cultural modernization.” This was mainly because this topic had been a focus of intellectual circles since the May Fourth New Culture Movement, leading many scholars to regard cultural modernization as an important component of achieving national rejuvenation. For example, in 1933, Chen Gaoyong pointed out in his article “How to Make Chinese Culture Modern” that “the culture we need today is not the decadent culture of capitalism, nor the culture of utopian socialism, but a culture that liberates the nation and rejuvenates the nation.” [20]20 Chen Gaoyong, “How to Make Chinese Culture Modern,” *Shenbao Monthly*, Vol. 2, No. 7, 1933. The second was the emphasis on “rural rejuvenation” and “rural modernization.” This was mainly because after the 1930s, China’s countryside fell into increasing decline, with various problems emerging one after another, leading many intellectuals to regard modernization as the cornerstone of rural rejuvenation, and rural rejuvenation in turn as a prerequisite for national rejuvenation. In articles specifically discussing rural rejuvenation, there were also many reflections on agricultural modernization. For instance, in 1935, Zuo Qingchun, in his “Humble Opinions on Rural Rejuvenation,” discussed seven aspects necessary for rural rejuvenation: strengthening rural education, improving agricultural cultivation, promoting rural sideline industries, advancing cooperative undertakings, focusing on farmers’ health, improving farmers’ entertainment, and completing farmer self-governance. [21]21 Zuo Qingchun, “Humble Opinions on Rural Rejuvenation,” *Agricultural Monthly*, Vol. 2, No. 5, 1935. In essence, this put forward seven tasks for China’s agricultural modernization.

20世纪30年代，“民族复兴”与“现代化”概念时常在学者的讨论中一起出现。从讨论的内容看，主要聚焦于“文化”和“农村”两个议题。一是强调“文化复兴”和“文化现代化”。这主要是因为该话题自五四新文化运动以来，一直为思想界所关注，因此不少学者认为文化的现代化是实现民族复兴的重要一环。如1933年，陈高傭在《怎样使中国文化现代化》一文中指出，“我们今日所需要的文化，不是没落的资本主义文化，亦不是空想的世界主义文化，而是怎样解放民族，复兴民族的文化”[20]。二是强调“农村复兴”和“农村现代化”。这主要是因为20世纪30年代以后，中国农村日益凋敝，各类问题层出不穷，以至于不少知识分子将现代化视为农村复兴的基石，而农村复兴又是民族复兴的前提条件。在专门讨论农村复兴的文章中，亦有不少针对农业现代化的思考，如1935年左庆春在《农村复兴刍议》中谈到农村复兴需加强农村教育、改良农业种植、提倡农村副业、推行合作事业、注重农民卫生、改善农民娱乐、完成农民自治等七个方面[21]，实质上就是提出了中国农业现代化的七个任务。

(II) The convergence of the concepts of “national rejuvenation” and “modernization” completed their complementarity in terms of national perspective and theoretical elucidation.

（二）“民族复兴”与“现代化”概念的交汇，完成了二者在民族视角和学理阐释上的互补

After the 1930s, both the concepts of “modernization” and “national rejuvenation” emerged against the backdrop of an increasingly severe national crisis. The growing sense of national identity among the Chinese people and their sense of responsibility for national salvation were important factors enabling the rapid spread and interaction of these two concepts. The convergence and interaction of these two concepts produced at least two important effects.

20世纪30年代以后，无论是“现代化”或是“民族复兴”概念，都是在日益严重的民族危机中出场的。国人不断增强的民族认同感以及救国图存的责任感，是这两个概念得以迅速传播且发生互动的重要因素。这两个概念的交汇互动至少产生了两个重要作用。

First, “national rejuvenation” provided a national perspective for “modernization,” accelerating the disenchantment with the “Westernization theory” behind it. When the concept of “modernization” first emerged, many regarded it as a variant of the concept of “Westernization.” However, with the fervent discussion of national rejuvenation in the 1930s, the concept of “modernization” began to be endowed with more of a national perspective. As Feng Youlan stated: “In the past, people often said we should Westernize; now people often say we should modernize or become modern. This is not merely a change in terminology; it indicates a change in people’s views in recent times.” [22]22 Feng Youlan, “On the Comparison of Chinese and Western Cultures,” *Shenbao Weekly*, Vol. 1, No. 10, 1935. This “change in views” to some extent meant that intellectual circles began to discuss modernization from the perspective of China’s national conditions or national characteristics. This was mainly reflected in two aspects. On the one hand, intellectual circles generally believed that to achieve modernization, China must resolve the reality of the Chinese nation being oppressed, that is, “to revitalize China and set it on the path of modernization, fundamentally, imperialism must be overthrown.” [23]23 “The Direction of Chinese Modernization,” *Declaration of the Chinese Society for Modernization*, 1933. On the other hand, many recognized that China’s modernization should have its own national characteristics. For example, when emphasizing several issues that should be noted in the modernization of Chinese culture, Chen Gaoyong pointed out that China’s cultural construction must “take the liberation of the nation as the central issue… and take the development of national capital as the concrete task.” [24]24 Chen Gaoyong, “Several Issues in Chinese Cultural Construction,” *Culture and Education*, Vol. 1, No. 1, 1935. Hu Qiuyuan, opposing wholesale Westernization and “Soviet-style civilization,” [25]25 Hu Qiuyuan, “On the So-Called ‘Wholesale Westernization’ and ‘Soviet-Style Civilization’,” *Reading and Life*, Vol. 1, No. 2, 1935. proposed that “so-called modernization is nothing else; it means industrialization and mechanization; it means national industrialization.” [26]26 Hu Qiuyuan, “On the So-Called ‘Wholesale Westernization’ and ‘Soviet-Style Civilization’,” *Reading and Life*, Vol. 1, No. 2, 1935. It was through this convergence and collision that the concept of “modernization” was no longer equated with “Westernization.” The idea of forging a path of modernization with national characteristics and in line with China’s national conditions gradually became a concept among the Chinese people.

一是“民族复兴”为“现代化”提供了民族性视角，加速了对其背后“西化论”的祛魅。“现代化”概念出场时被不少人视为“西化”概念的变形，但是伴随20世纪30年代对民族复兴的热切讨论，“现代化”概念开始被赋予了更多的民族性视角。正如冯友兰所言：“以前人常说我们要西洋化，现在人常说我们要近代化或现代化。这并不是专是名词上的改变，这表示近来人的一种见解上底改变。”[22]这种“见解上底改变”某种程度上就是指思想界开始从中国国情或民族特性角度谈论现代化。这主要体现在两个方面。一方面，思想界普遍认为中国要实现现代化必须解决中华民族被压迫的现实，即“使中国振兴，踏上现代化的道路，根本上应该打倒帝国主义”[23]。另一方面，不少人认识到中国的现代化应当有自身的民族特点。如陈高傭在强调中国文化现代化应当注意的几个问题时指出，中国文化建设必须“以解放民族为中心问题……以发展民族资本为具体任务”[24]。胡秋原在反对全盘西化和“苏维埃式的文明”[25]的基础上，提出“所谓现代化不是别的，就是工业化，机械化的意思，就是民族工业化的意思”[26]。正是在这种交汇碰撞中，“现代化”概念不再等同于“西化”。走出一条具有民族特点、符合中国国情的现代化道路，开始逐渐成为国人的观念。

Second, “modernization” provided a more theoretical analytical perspective for “national rejuvenation,” prompting the Chinese people to scientifically examine the basic paths of national rejuvenation from various angles such as cultural construction, economic development, and science and technology. If the early elaboration of the concept of “national rejuvenation” carried more of an emotional expression of national salvation, then the concept of “modernization” introduced a rational and concrete analytical approach. For instance, in debates surrounding cultural issues, Zhang Xiruo believed that cultural modernization not only required promoting industrial construction and developing natural sciences but also advocating modern scholarship and scientific thought. “Without these diverse modern scholarly disciplines, it is impossible to satisfy complex modern life and thought, nor can one become a modern nation.” [27]27 Zhang Xiruo, “Wholesale Westernization and Modernization,” *Independent Review*, No. 139, 1935. Similar views more or less influenced the discussions on national rejuvenation at the time, such as Zhang Junmai’s advocacy of the “academic foundation for national rejuvenation.” [28]28 Zhang Junmai, *The Academic Foundation for National Rejuvenation*, 1935. In his view, “academics” carried a more rational connotation, meaning that “if our country’s philosophical circles can indeed produce great works like those of Kant and his ilk, the social and natural sciences can produce great works like those of Hegel, List, and Humboldt, and the literary and artistic circles can produce great works like those of Dante and Goethe, then with all these, the nation’s thoughts will have a standard, the people’s emotions will flourish, national discourse will be unified, and how can the great undertaking of nation-building fail to be realized? This is what I call the academic foundation for national rejuvenation.” [29]29 Zhang Junmai, *The Academic Foundation for National Rejuvenation*, 1935. It is not difficult to see that the academic foundation for national rejuvenation that Zhang Junmai spoke of was, in essence, the basic path of cultural modernization.

二是“现代化”为“民族复兴”提供了更为学理性的分析视角，促使国人从文化建设、经济发展、科学技术等诸多角度科学审视民族复兴的基本路径。如果说“民族复兴”概念的早期阐发，更多承载了救亡图存的情感表达，那么“现代化”概念则为其引入了一个理性的、具体的分析思路。比如在围绕文化问题的争论中，张熙若认为，文化现代化不仅要促进工业化建设、发展自然科学，还需要提倡现代学术和科学化思想，“没有这些多方面的现代学术，也是无法满足复杂的现代生活和思想，也不能成为一个现代的国家”[27]。类似观点也或多或少影响了当时围绕民族复兴问题的探讨，如张君劢所倡导的“民族复兴之学术基础”[28]。在他看来，“学术”更多带有一种理性意味，即“今后吾国哲学界诚有如康德辈之大创作，社会科学与自然科学界，诚有如黑格尔，李斯德，洪蒲尔之大创作，文艺界诚有如但丁，歌德之大创作，有此种种，则全国思想有所折衷，人民情绪欣欣向荣，国论出于一致，民族建国之大业，何患其不能实现？此我所谓民族复兴之学术基础也”[29]。不难看出，张君劢所谓民族复兴之学术基础，其本质就是文化现代化的基本路径。

III. New Interpretations of the Modernization Issue by Chinese Communists

三、中国共产党人对现代化问题的新阐释

During the period of the New Democratic Revolution, intellectual circles, through a series of debates, continuously promoted the spread of the concept of “modernization” in China. At this time, Chinese Communists rarely used the concept of “modernization,” but this does not mean they lacked reflection on the modernization issue. The reason was that during the period of the New Democratic Revolution, “the special circumstances of the Chinese Communist Party made it impossible for it to openly participate in these debates.” [30]30 Luo Rongqu, *A New Discussion on Modernization: The Process and Prospects of Modernization in the World and China*, Beijing: Peking University Press, 1993, p. 339. In fact, during the period of the New Democratic Revolution, Chinese Communists’ understanding of the modernization issue differed from that of ordinary intellectuals. Specifically, it had the following two characteristics: first, it was based on the Marxist historical materialism to understand the essence and connotation of modernization; second, it held that the Chinese Communist Party should dedicate itself to China’s industrialization in the coming period.

新民主主义革命时期，思想界通过一次次争论，不断推动“现代化”概念在中国的传播。此时的中国共产党人虽然较少使用“现代化”概念，但并不意味着他们对现代化问题缺少思考，其原因是新民主主义革命时期“中国共产党的特殊处境使它不可能公开投入这些论战”[30]。事实上，新民主主义革命时期中国共产党人对现代化问题的理解不同于一般知识分子。具体来说有以下两个特征：一是立足马克思主义的唯物史观来理解现代化的实质及内涵；二是认为中国共产党在接下来的一段时期应当致力于中国的工业化建设。

(I) Making a new interpretation of the modernization issue based on historical materialism

（一）立足唯物史观对现代化问题作出新的解读

During the period of the New Democratic Revolution, Chinese Communists and left-wing intellectuals influenced by Marxism did not stop at a metaphysical understanding of the modernization issue from the perspective of cultural differences between China and the West. Through a series of discussions, they believed that China’s modernization required the guidance of scientific theory, especially the need to correctly understand the essence of modernization based on Marxist historical materialism, and then to explore the basic path for China to achieve modernization starting from the transformation of human social production methods and the principal contradiction facing China.

新民主主义革命时期，中国共产党人及受马克思主义影响的左翼知识分子并非止步于形而上地从中西方文化差异来理解现代化问题。他们通过一系列讨论，认为中国现代化需要科学理论的指导，尤其需要立足马克思主义唯物史观正确认识现代化的实质，进而从人类社会生产方式转变及中国面临的主要矛盾出发探索中国实现现代化的基本路径。

First, whether China’s modernization requires the guidance of scientific theory. In 1933, the journal *Shuowang Banyuekan* published an article by the left-wing intellectual Wang Yiming titled “‘Isms,’ ‘Problems,’ and ‘Modernization.’” The editor-in-chief of *Shuowang Banyuekan*, Xu Langxi, was a famous democratic revolutionary in modern China; around 1933 he maintained very close ties with the underground organizations of the CPC and often implicitly supported and propagated Marxist theoretical viewpoints. In terms of content, this article criticized Hu Shi’s “Introductory Remarks on the Problem of Nation-Building,” arguing that Hu Shi’s abstract discussion of nation-building was mistaken. On the one hand, the article proposed that China’s modernization needed to be guided by scientific theory. China’s modernization process is not an abstract theoretical problem but a concrete practical problem; it requires not only considering whether revolution is necessary but also considering the stance of the revolution. As the article stated, “How to build? Who will build? This relates to the ‘isms’ that Dr. Hu detests” [31]31 Wang Yiming, “‘Isms,’ ‘Problems,’ and ‘Modernization,’” *Shuowang Banyuekan*, vol. 1, no. 3 (1933), p. 10. [This is a reference to Hu Shi’s 1933 article “Introductory Remarks on the Problem of Nation-Building,” which argued for a pragmatic approach to national reconstruction and against reliance on abstract ideologies.], which clearly aligns closely with the proletarian stance emphasized by Marxist theory. On the other hand, the article also highly affirmed the Soviet socialist path of modernization, arguing that the early socialist revolution in Russia not only did not cause economic stagnation but actually rapidly advanced its modernization process: “Speaking of the Soviet Union, even Dr. Hu cannot deny its progress; there is no need for us to elaborate further” [32]32 Ibid., p. 11.. Although the article did not mention “Marxism” and even expressed the concept of “revolution” euphemistically, this was likely compelled by the political situation in Shanghai around 1933.

一是中国的现代化是否需要科学理论指导。1933年，《朔望半月刊》刊发了左翼知识分子王以明发表的《“主义”“问题”与“现代化”》一文。《朔望半月刊》的主编徐朗西是中国近代著名民主革命家，他在1933年前后与中共地下党组织联系十分密切，时常隐晦地支持和宣传马克思主义的理论观点。从内容上看，这篇文章对胡适《建国问题引论》展开了批评，认为胡适抽象地讨论建国问题是错误的。一方面，文章提出中国的现代化需要以科学理论为指导。中国的现代化过程不是一个抽象的理论问题，而是一个具体的实践问题，不仅需要思考是否需要革命，还需要思考革命的立场。正如文章提到的，“如何建立？谁来建立？这便关系到胡博士所憎恶的‘主义’了”[31]，这显然与马克思主义理论所强调的无产阶级立场高度契合。另一方面，文章也高度肯定了苏联社会主义的现代化道路，认为早期俄国的社会主义革命非但没有让俄国经济停滞，反而快速推动了其现代化进程，“说到苏联，即胡博士也不能否认其进步，无须我们多做说明”[32]。文章虽然未提“马克思主义”，甚至对“革命”概念也作了委婉表达，但这应当是出于1933年前后上海政治形势所迫。

Second, how to examine the essence of modernization from the standpoint of historical materialism. In 1936, Ai Siqi published an article titled “What Is Called Progress?” In this article, Ai Siqi specifically discussed the great significance of Britain’s invention of the steam engine and pointed out that attributing Britain’s invention of the steam engine and its Industrial Revolution to geographical determinism was clearly very biased. He stated, “The nature of production in human society drives humanity to strive forward, and human striving in turn affects their social production, enabling social production to achieve progress. This is an interactive effect, one of the dialectics in human life” [33]33 Ai Siqi, “What Is Called Progress?” *Dushu Shenghuo*, vol. 1, no. 2 (1936), p. 28.. Although Ai Siqi did not directly use the concept of “modernization,” it is well known that the invention of the steam engine was a prominent marker of Europe’s Industrial Revolution and its gradual advance toward modernization. Moreover, he conducted a philosophical analysis of social “progress” from the standpoint of historical materialism, pointing out that the “progress” of a country or society cannot be simply reduced to geographical determinism or technological determinism. Returning to the Marxist perspective of historical materialism, the essence of this “progress” should be examined in the dialectical relationship between human interaction and the development of society’s productive forces. Therefore, the “progress” Ai Siqi discussed here clearly bears a very similar meaning to the concept of “modernization” in the Marxist context.

二是如何立足唯物史观审视现代化的实质。1936年，艾思奇发表了《什么叫做进步？》一文。文中艾思奇特别谈到了英国发明蒸汽机的重要意义，且指出将英国发明蒸汽机和开展工业革命归结于地理因素论显然是非常偏颇的。他指出，“人类社会的生产性质促进着人类向前努力，人类的努力又影响到他们的社会生产，使社会生产获得进步。这是交互作用，是人类生活中的辩证法之一”[33]。虽然艾思奇并没有直接使用“现代化”这一概念，但是众所周知，蒸汽机的发明就是欧洲开始工业革命并逐步迈向现代化的显著标志，他还立足唯物史观对社会“进步”进行了哲学剖析，指出一个国家或社会的“进步”不能简单归结为地理因素论或科技决定论。回归马克思主义唯物史观，这种“进步”的实质应当在人的交往和社会生产力发展的辩证关系中得以审视。因此，艾思奇这里谈论的“进步”显然和马克思主义语境中的“现代化”概念有着极其相似的意思。

Third, how to use the method of contradiction analysis to clarify the preconditions for China’s realization of modernization. During the period of the New Democratic Revolution, intellectual circles engaged in many discussions on whether China’s modernization required certain preconditions, which can be roughly categorized into the following four types. First, some believed that cultural revival and rural revival were the prerequisites for China’s modernization. This type of view basically continued the line of thinking from the debate over Chinese and Western culture, either holding that China’s traditional culture and rural areas had completely decayed and that without learning from the West it would be absolutely impossible to embark on the path of modernization, or believing that China’s traditional culture and rural areas had their particularities and that learning from the West was unworkable, so traditional ethical morality and rural order had to be rebuilt. Second, some believed that China should first carry out the construction of a rule-of-law system. “Because if laws and regulations are ineffective, industrialization will immediately fail” [34]34 Gu Xiancheng, “The Prerequisites for China’s Modernization,” *Duli Pinglun*, no. 250 (1933), p. 12.; this type of view mainly emphasized learning from the West’s spirit of contract to prevent disorder during the modernization process. Third, some believed that China’s modernization required sufficient capital. “Using capital in various undertakings with a planned order of priority and urgency—I believe this is the prerequisite for promoting modernization” [35]35 Wu Jingchao, “The Prerequisites for China’s Modernization,” *Duli Pinglun*, no. 251 (1933), p. 8.. Fourth, some believed that China’s modernization required many conditions and was a relatively complex issue. “A sound economy, clean politics, a stable society, appropriate education, and a good mentality… all these are prerequisites for implementing China’s modernization” [36]36 Zhang Xiruo, “The Prerequisites for China’s Modernization,” *Duli Pinglun*, no. 252 (1933), p. 15.. From these four types of views, it can be seen that intellectuals of this period often understood the preconditions for modernization based on their personal subjective perceptions.

三是如何立足矛盾分析法厘清中国实现现代化的前提条件。新民主主义革命时期，思想界围绕中国开展现代化是否需要一定的前提条件有诸多讨论，大致分为以下四类。其一，认为文化复兴和农村复兴是中国开展现代化的先决条件。此类观点基本延续了中西文化论战的基本思路，要么认为中国传统文化和农村已经彻底衰败，不学习西方便断然无法踏上现代化的道路，亦或认为中国传统文化和农村有其特殊性，学习西方是行不通的，必须重建传统伦理道德和农村秩序。其二，认为中国应当率先开展法治化建设。“因为法令章程无效，工业化就要立刻失败”[34]，此类观点主要侧重强调向西方学习其契约精神，防止现代化过程中出现失序。其三，认为中国现代化必须有充足的资金。“将资金用在先后缓急有计划的各种事业上，我以为这是促进现代化的先决条件”[35]。其四，认为中国现代化需要的条件很多，是一个比较复杂的问题。“健全之经济，清明之政治，安定之社会，适当之教育，及良好之心理……凡此皆属实行中国现代化之先决条件”[36]。通过这四类观点可以发现，该时期知识分子对现代化先决条件的理解往往出于个人主观认知。

As is well known, Marxist theory itself is a response to the problems brought about by the Industrial Revolution and modernization—that is, it calls on the proletariat of the whole world to unite and carry out revolution in order to create a new society. On this basis, “revolution” naturally became an important prerequisite for realizing China’s modernization in the eyes of Chinese Communists and left-wing elements. Mao Zedong’s 1937 work *On Contradiction* also states: “In China’s case, imperialism occupies the principal position in the contradiction that forms a semi-colony, oppressing the Chinese people, while China has changed from an independent country into a semi-colony” [37]37 Mao Zedong, “On Contradiction,” in *Selected Works of Mao Zedong*, vol. 1 (Beijing: People’s Publishing House, 1991), p. 321.. Only by launching revolution and eliminating a series of major contradictory factors such as imperialism, feudal forces, and bureaucratic capital could it be possible to establish a new China. The Chinese Communists’ analysis of the preconditions for China’s modernization, grounded in Marxism, also profoundly influenced the left-wing elements of this period. Yang Xingzhi, deeply influenced by left-wing thought, in his article “On China’s Modernization,” quoted extensively from the *Communist Manifesto*’s interpretation of modern capitalist production methods and offered high praise. He believed that Marx and Engels had already clearly pointed out the inevitability of China’s transformation, that history would inevitably dig the grave for capitalism, and that the Soviet socialist path of modernization was necessarily the path to victory. However, to embark on this path, “the answer, of course, is to first eliminate the reactionary strongholds that hinder China’s progress and wrest China back from the clutches of imperialism and feudal forces” [38]38 Yang Xingzhi, “On China’s Modernization,” *Zhongguo Jingji*, vol. 2, no. 1 (1934), p. 45..

众所周知，马克思主义理论本身就是对工业革命和现代化所带来问题的回应，即呼唤全世界无产者团结起来开展革命，从而打造一个新的社会。基于此，“革命”自然成为中国共产党人和左翼分子眼中实现中国现代化的重要前提。毛泽东1937年撰写的《矛盾论》也指明：“就中国的情形来说，帝国主义处在形成半殖民地这种矛盾的主要地位，压迫中国人民，中国则由独立国变为半殖民地。”[37]只有发动革命，铲除帝国主义、封建势力、官僚资本等一系列重大矛盾因素，才有建立新中国的可能。中国共产党人立足马克思主义对中国现代化前提条件的分析，也深刻影响了该时期的左翼分子。深受左翼思潮影响的杨幸之在《论中国现代化》一文中，大段引用了《共产党宣言》对现代资本主义生产方式的解读，并作出高度评价。他认为，马克思和恩格斯已经明确地指出了中国转变的必然，历史必将为资本主义掘好坟墓，苏联社会主义现代化道路必然是胜利之途径，然而想要踏上这条道路，“答案当然是须先消灭障碍中国前进的反动堡垒，把中国从帝国主义和封建势力的魔掌里夺回来”[38]。

(II) Emphasizing industrialization as the starting point, outlining the blueprint for New China’s modernization

（二）强调以工业化开局，勾勒新中国现代化的蓝图

In fact, by the 1930s, many Chinese Communists had already directly used the concept of “modernization.” For example, in January 1938, Zhou Enlai, summarizing the experience of protracted resistance against Japan, stated, “The improvement of military technology and the modernization of equipment are urgently needed” [39]39 Zhou Enlai, “The Current Situation and the Tasks of the Anti-Japanese War,” in *Selected Works of Zhou Enlai*, vol. 1 (Beijing: People’s Publishing House, 1980), p. 87.; in May of the same year, Mao Zedong, in his published *On Protracted War*, also emphasized, “Reforming the military system cannot be separated from modernization” [40]40 Mao Zedong, “On Protracted War,” in *Selected Works of Mao Zedong*, vol. 2 (Beijing: People’s Publishing House, 1991), p. 500.; also in May 1938, Zhu De, summarizing the experience of guerrilla warfare against Japan, indicated that victory in the War of Resistance required “a modernized national revolutionary army as the main force to achieve the goal” [41]41 Zhu De, “On Guerrilla Warfare,” in *Selected Works of Zhu De* (Beijing: People’s Publishing House, 1983), p. 45., and so on. It is not difficult to see that when Chinese Communists of this period spoke of “modernization,” they mostly focused on the modernization of the military, equipment, and technology, which clearly stemmed from a profound understanding of the actual conditions of the Chinese revolution. As Mao Zedong pointed out in 1938 in *On the New Stage*, “There is no doubt that we should look at problems from reality; in reality, what is actually fighting is a large quantity of low-grade weapons” [42]42 Mao Zedong, “On the New Stage,” in *Collected Works of Mao Zedong*, vol. 2 (Beijing: People’s Publishing House, 1993), p. 210.. Without an industrial foundation, China would inevitably fall again into the bitter plight of being oppressed by imperialism. It was precisely this logic of seeking truth from facts that laid the ideological foundation for the Chinese Communists to begin construction with industrialization. Entering the 1940s, the Chinese Communists’ vision for China’s future became increasingly clear and firm: under the guidance of Marxism, to take the socialist road and realize China’s industrialization and agricultural modernization, thereby changing China’s reality of poverty, weakness, backwardness, and vulnerability to attack. This is one of the important factors why, during the period of the New Democratic Revolution, the Chinese Communists tended to discuss “industrialization” rather than “modernization.”

事实上，20世纪30年代已经有不少中国共产党人直接使用“现代化”概念。如，1938年1月周恩来在总结持久抗战经验时提出，“军队技术的提高，装备的现代化，是迫切需要的”[39]；同年5月毛泽东在发表的《论持久战》中也强调，“革新军制离不了现代化”[40]；同年5月朱德在总结抗日游击战经验时也表示，抗战的胜利需要“现代化的国民革命军作为主力才能达到目的”[41]，等等。不难发现，此时中国共产党人在谈论“现代化”时，大多聚焦于军事、装备、技术的现代化，这显然源于对中国革命实际的深刻认识。正如毛泽东1938年在《论新阶段》中指出的，“毫无疑义，我们应该从实际看问题，在现在，实际上战斗着的是大数量的低级武器”[42]。倘若没有工业基础，中国难免再次陷入备受帝国主义压迫的苦难境地，正是这种实事求是的思维逻辑，奠定了中国共产党以工业化建设开局的思想基础。进入20世纪40年代，中国共产党对中国未来前途的设想愈发清晰和坚定，即在马克思主义的引领下，走社会主义道路，实现中国的工业化和农业近代化，以此改变中国积贫积弱、落后挨打的现实。这是中国共产党在新民主主义革命时期更加偏向于讨论“工业化”而非“现代化”的重要因素之一。

In 1940, the ninety-eighth and ninety-ninth combined issue of the journal *Liberation* carried Mao Zedong’s essay “On New Democracy,” which scientifically answered the question “Whither China?” “We want not only to change a China that is

1940年《解放》杂志的第九十八、九十九期合刊登载了毛泽东的《新民主主义论》一文，科学回答了“中国向何处去”的问题。“我们不但要把一个政治上受压迫、经济上受剥削的中国，变为一个政治上自由和经济上繁荣的中国，而且要把一个被旧文化统治因而愚昧落后的中国，变为一个被新文化统治因而文明先进的中国。”[43]毛泽东虽然没有使用“现代化”的表述，但是却强调新中国应该是政治自由、经济繁荣、文明先进，指明了新中国现代化的大体方向。

Before the victory of the War of Resistance against Japan in 1944, Mao Zedong clearly pointed out that the Chinese Communist Party must strive for China’s industrialization and called on Chinese Communists to break away from abstract “revolutionary work” and “learn the various technical knowledge needed to industrialize China” [44]44 “On Coalition Government” (1945) is a political report by Mao Zedong to the Seventh National Congress of the CPC, outlining the Party’s post-war program.. Subsequently, in a conversation with British journalist Gunther Stein, Mao again emphasized that China needed to develop industrialization and expressed agreement with some of Sun Yat-sen’s views on industrialization.

1944年抗战胜利前，毛泽东明确指出中国共产党必须努力于中国的工业化建设，并号召中国共产党人从抽象的“革命工作”中脱离出来，“学习使中国工业化的各种技术知识”[44]。随后毛泽东在同英国记者斯坦因的谈话里，再次强调了中国需发展工业化，并对孙中山一些关于工业化建设的观点表示赞同。

In 1945, Mao Zedong clearly stated in “On Coalition Government” that after the realization of the new democratic society, it would be necessary to “gradually establish heavy and light industry over a number of years, transforming China from an agricultural country into an industrial country” [45]45 The Seventh National Congress of the CPC (April–June 1945) was a key meeting that established Mao Zedong Thought as the Party’s guiding ideology and set the course for the final phase of the war and post-war reconstruction., and emphasized that “without the efforts of the Chinese Communist Party, without the Chinese Communists as the mainstay of the Chinese people, China’s independence and liberation are impossible, and China’s industrialization and agricultural modernization are also impossible” [46]46 The War of Liberation (1945–1949) was the Chinese Civil War between the CPC and the Kuomintang, ending with the CPC’s victory and the founding of the People’s Republic of China.. From then on, phrases such as “transforming from an agricultural country into an industrial country,” “China’s industrialization and agricultural modernization,” and “realizing industrialization” became common expressions in the speeches of Mao Zedong and other leading comrades of the Central Committee. In the same year, the Seventh National Congress of the CPC was convened. “Mao Zedong’s vision for the new China at the Seventh National Congress differed from the relevant discussions in works such as ‘On New Democracy,’ not only being more specific but also more practical and operational” [47]47 Dong Biwu (1886–1975) was a founding member of the CPC and a senior leader who served as acting chairman of the People’s Republic of China.. He summarized the Party’s historical experience of more than 20 years and formulated a series of lines, programs, and strategies, reflecting the CPC’s systematic thinking on the issue of modernization.

1945年，毛泽东在《论联合政府》中明确指出，等到新民主主义社会实现以后，需要在“若干年内逐步地建立重工业和轻工业，使中国由农业国变为工业国”[45]，并且强调，“没有中国共产党的努力，没有中国共产党人做中国人民的中流砥柱，中国的独立和解放是不可能的，中国的工业化和农业近代化也是不可能的”[46]。自此，“由农业国变为工业国”“中国的工业化和农业近代化”和“实现工业化”等话语，成为毛泽东以及其他中央领导同志讲话的常用语。同年，党的七大召开，“毛泽东在中共七大上对新中国的构想，与《新民主主义论》等著作的相关论述有所不同，不仅更具体，而且更具实践性和操作性”[47]。他总结了中国共产党20多年的历史经验，制定了一系列路线、纲领和策略，体现了中国共产党对现代化问题的系统性思考。

In August 1947, as the War of Liberation advanced victoriously, Dong Biwu proposed at the National Land Conference that “after the revolution achieves nationwide victory in the future, we must industrialize China, and we will gradually focus on developing industry” [48]48 The National Land Conference (1947) was a CPC meeting that formulated the Outline Land Law of China, abolishing feudal land ownership.; only then could rapid development be achieved in fields such as agricultural production and transportation. One month later, Dong Biwu again emphasized the importance of Mao Zedong’s work directive “develop production and ensure supply” at the Financial and Economic Conference of the Shanxi-Chahar-Hebei Border Region. Dong Biwu not only pointed out that “in terms of developing production, we should develop industry and should move toward industrialization” [49]49 The Shanxi-Chahar-Hebei Border Region was one of the main base areas of the CPC during the war, located in northern China., but also stated that “we have not much machine production, mostly within the scope of military industry” [50]50 The Second Plenary Session of the Seventh Central Committee (March 1949) was a crucial CPC meeting that set the policies for the transition from rural to urban focus and the founding of the new state.; therefore, it was necessary to correctly understand the relationship between industrialization and the practical needs of the people’s daily lives: “What are the most basic and greatest needs of our lives? Clearly, they are food and clothing, that is, grain and clothes” [51]51 The Common Program (1949) served as the provisional constitution of the People’s Republic of China until the adoption of the 1954 Constitution..

1947年8月，伴随解放战争节节胜利，董必武在全国土地会议上提出，“将来革命在全国胜利以后，我们要使中国工业化，我们逐渐要着重发展工业”[48]，只有这样，农业生产、交通运输等各领域才能获得快速发展。一个月后，董必武在晋察冀边区财经会议上再次强调了毛泽东提出“发展生产，保障供给”这一工作指示的重要性。董必武不仅指出，“就发展生产来说，我们应当发展工业，应当趋向工业化”[49]，同时也谈道，“我们有不很多的机器生产，多属于兵工范围”[50]，因此还要正确认识工业化和人民群众现实生活需要的关系，“我们生活最基本、最大量的需要是什么呢？很明显的，那就是吃的和穿的，就是粮食和衣服”[51]。

In March 1949, the Second Plenary Session of the Seventh Central Committee of the CPC was convened. With victory in the War of Liberation imminent, Mao Zedong further pointed out at the session that “China already has approximately ten percent modern industrial economy, which is progressive” [52]52 The Four Modernizations (agriculture, industry, national defense, and science and technology) were a set of goals first proposed by Zhou Enlai in 1964 and later advanced by Deng Xiaoping.; only by mastering this could the lifeline of national development be truly grasped. At the same time, regarding the relatively backward, scattered, and individual agricultural and handicraft economies, Mao proposed “cautiously, step by step, yet actively guiding them toward modernization and collectivization” [53]53 The War of Resistance against Japan (1937–1945) is also known as the Second Sino-Japanese War., which was undoubtedly a clear judgment on the process of China’s industrialization. In June of the same year, Mao Zedong again emphasized at the celebration of the 28th anniversary of the founding of the CPC that “the state of the people’s democratic dictatorship must solve the problem of national industrialization step by step” [54]54 “National rejuvenation” (中华民族伟大复兴) is a key political slogan of the CPC, referring to the goal of restoring China’s historical status as a major world power., further elucidating the relationship between consolidating the socialist political power and industrialization. In September of the same year, the “Common Program of the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference” not only clearly stated that carrying out land reform work was the foundation of national industrialization, but its Article 35 also explicitly stipulated that “the focus should be on restoring and developing heavy industry in a planned and step-by-step manner, such as mining, iron and steel, power, machine manufacturing, electrical, and major chemical industries, to establish the foundation of national industrialization” [55]55 Sinicization and localization refer to the process of adapting foreign concepts, particularly Marxism, to Chinese conditions.; thus, the basic content of the new China’s industrialization path became increasingly clear. This series of theoretical judgments also prepared the ideological and theoretical groundwork for the formal proposal after the founding of New China of “socialist industrialization” and the “Four Modernizations.”

1949年3月，党的七届二中全会召开，面对解放战争胜利在即，毛泽东在会议上进一步指出，“中国已经有大约百分之十左右的现代性的工业经济，这是进步的”[52]，掌握了这些才能真正把握住国家发展的命脉。同时对于相对落后的分散的个体的农业经济和手工业经济，毛泽东提出“谨慎地、逐步地而又积极地引导它们向着现代化和集体化的方向发展的”[53]，这无疑是对中国工业化进程作出的明晰判断。同年6月，毛泽东在庆祝中国共产党成立28周年时再次强调，“人民民主专政的国家，必须有步骤地解决国家工业化的问题”[54]，进一步阐明了巩固社会主义政权和工业化的关系。同年9月《中国人民政治协商会议共同纲领》不仅明确指出开展土地改革工作是国家工业化的基础，同时其第三十五条还明确规定，“应以有计划有步骤地恢复和发展重工业为重点，例如矿业、钢铁业、动力工业、机器制造业、电器工业和主要化学工业等，以创立国家工业化的基础”[55]，至此新中国工业化道路的基本内容愈发明确。这一系列理论判断，也为新中国成立后正式提出“社会主义工业化”“四个现代化”等，作好了思想理论准备。

Conclusion

结论

Through a historical investigation of the concept of “modernization” during the New Democratic Revolution period, the following conclusions can be readily drawn: First, the promotion of the emergence of the concept of “modernization” by China’s intellectual circles during this period reflected the urgent desire of Chinese intellectuals to seek a brand-new China. The discussions surrounding modernization enabled them to gradually break free from the limitations of the early Sino-Western cultural debates and begin to examine China’s issues from a broader global perspective. Second, based on the real background of the outbreak of the War of Resistance against Japan at that time, the two concepts of “modernization” and “national rejuvenation” became popular almost simultaneously. They continuously intersected and collided, achieving complementarity at the levels of national perspective and scholarly interpretation. Third, although Chinese Communists used the concept of “modernization” infrequently during the New Democratic Revolution period, this does not mean they did not think about it. Their greatest difference from other intellectuals in the intellectual circles was their firm belief that the solution to China’s problems required the scientific guidance of Marxist theory. They recognized that social progress could only be achieved by breaking through all factors hindering the development of productive forces through revolution. In particular, Mao Zedong soberly realized that China’s modernization must be combined with the reality of China’s revolution and construction, “using the proletarian world outlook as a tool for observing the fate of the country and reconsidering one’s own problems” [56], thereby laying the important foundation for the idea that China’s modernization should begin with industrialization. It was precisely this series of theoretical explorations and the historical practice of the CPC leading the Chinese people to successfully advance the New Democratic Revolution that promoted the Sinicization and localization of the concept of “modernization” and its related issues.

通过对新民主主义革命时期“现代化”概念展开历史考察，不难得出以下几个方面的结论：一是该时期中国思想界对“现代化”概念出场的推动，反映出中国知识分子对谋求一个崭新中国的迫切渴望，围绕现代化的讨论使其逐渐跳出早期中西文化论战的局限，开始以更为宏大的世界性视角审视中国问题；二是基于当时抗日战争爆发的现实背景，“现代化”与“民族复兴”两个概念几乎同时火热起来，二者不断交汇碰撞，在民族视角和学理阐释层面实现了互补；三是中国共产党人在新民主主义革命时期虽然对“现代化”概念使用不多，但并不是没有思考，其有别于思想界其他知识分子的最大特点就是，他们坚信中国问题的解决需要马克思主义理论的科学指导，他们认识到社会的进步必须通过革命破除一切阻碍生产力发展的因素才可实现。特别是毛泽东清醒地认识到，中国的现代化必须结合中国革命和建设实际，“用无产阶级的宇宙观作为观察国家命运的工具，重新考虑自己的问题”[56]，由此奠定中国的现代化应以工业化开局的重要思路。正是这一系列的理论探索以及中国共产党带领中国人民成功推进新民主主义革命的历史实践，推动了“现代化”概念及其议题的中国化、本土化。

(Author’s bio: Xu Cenchen, Researcher at the Jiangsu Institute for the Theoretical and Practical Innovation of Party Building.)

（作者简介：徐岑琛，江苏党的建设理论与实践创新研究院研究员。）

Online editor: Tongxin

网络编辑：同心