“From Technology to Civilization” to “From Civilization to Technology”

In the mid-19th century, the West “burst into” China in the East, a burst that was not merely a physical incursion in spatial terms but also signified that China’s national destiny would be irreversibly intertwined with the modern world, and ancient China was thus forced into a great transformation unseen for thousands of years. [1]1 “Great transformation unseen for thousands of years” (shù qiān nián wèi yǒu zhī dà biàn jú) is a phrase popularized by Li Hongzhang, a late Qing official, to describe the unprecedented crisis China faced from Western powers. It later evolved into the CPC slogan “changes unseen in a century.” The force underpinning this Western “burst” of colonial activity was the powerful technological transformation since the Industrial Revolution. Faced with the suppression of the Western modern world backed by strong technology, traditional China’s institutions, economy, and even civilization all withered comprehensively. Since 1921, after a century of exploration and struggle, the Communist Party of China has led the Chinese people to victory in the New Democratic Revolution, established New China [2]2 “New China” (xīn zhōng guó) is the standard CPC term for the People’s Republic of China, founded in 1949., and created a new historical starting point for exploring Chinese-path modernization. This “newness” points not only to the supersession of traditional feudal society but also to a breakout from the capitalist world system that shaped the global order through colonial bullying. Viewed from the basin of history, the comprehensive transformation urgently needed by China in modern times—namely, the realization of decolonization, the pursuit of modernization, and the reconstruction of civilization on this basis—all these demands were inherited by New China. How to deeply understand the uniqueness of the Chinese-path modernization path and the rich connotations of the new form of human civilization built upon Chinese-path modernization? Answering these propositions requires a long-term historical perspective and a comparative development framework between China and the West. Therefore, this article attempts to present, through a long-term historical perspective, the impact and influence of the Western modernization wave on China, as well as New China’s interaction and counter-shaping of it, so as to better dredge history, understand New China’s historical practice of seeking technological development and overall modernization, and provide historical reference elements for the current path of technological development.

19世纪中叶，西方“闯入”东方的中国，这种闯入不仅仅是空间意义上的物理闯入，还意味着中国的国家命运将不可逆地与现代世界相交织，古老的中国由此被迫迈入数千年未有之大变局。而支撑西方“闯入”这一殖民行为的则是工业革命以来强大的技术变革，面对西方现代化世界背靠强大技术的压制，传统中国的制度、经济乃至文明都呈现出全面的凋零。1921年以来，经过百年探索与奋斗，中国共产党领导中国人民取得了新民主主义革命的胜利，建立了新中国，成为探索中国式现代化的历史新起点。这一“新”不仅指向对于传统封建社会的迭代，也指向对于以殖民霸凌塑造世界秩序的资本主义世界体系的突围。从历史的流域视之，近代以来中国所亟需的全面转型，即实现去殖民化、追求现代化发展，并在此基础之上重塑文明，这些诉求都为新中国所承继。如何深入理解中国式现代化路径的独特之处，以及建基于中国式现代化之上的人类文明新形态的丰富内涵？对于这些命题的解答，需要拥有长时间段的历史视野、中西比较的发展框架。因此，本文试图以长时间段的历史呈现出西方世界现代化浪潮对中国的冲击与影响，以及新中国对其的互动与反塑造，以期更好地钩沉历史，理解新中国求索技术发展与总体现代化的历史实践，并为当下技术发展的路径提供历史借鉴要素。

I. The Western Modernization Logic of “From Technology to Civilization” and China’s Pursuit since Modern Times

一、西方现代化“由技术而文明”逻辑与近代以来中国的追求

In the great transformations of human history, the renewal and iteration of technology have always played a supporting and driving role. The Neolithic Age and the Bronze Age marked the degree of human departure from barbarism and the progress of civilization through the polishing and use of primitive tools and the emergence of metal smelting technology. Since the Industrial Revolution, with the increasing integration of machine production and the capitalist mode of economic operation, humanity has achieved enormous development in technological undertakings, reaching a historical peak. Marx once marveled at the changes technology brought to society: “The conquest of the forces of nature, the adoption of machines, the application of chemistry to industry and agriculture, the navigation of steamships, the use of railways, the telegraph, the opening up of entire continents, the navigability of rivers, the conjuring up of entire populations as if by magic from under the ground—which earlier century had an inkling that such productive forces slumbered in the lap of social labor?” [3]3 Marx and Engels, *The Communist Manifesto* (1848). From the perspective of human lifestyle and environment, industrial technology abruptly altered the organizational form and mode of production and life of history, and also began the process of transforming the inherently limited human and natural world. Marx examined capitalist large-scale industry from a dialectical perspective, believing that it could “transform human life and prepare for human liberation, even though it directly has to fully develop dehumanization.” [4]4 Marx, *Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844*. The deformed individuals repeating labor on the assembly line presented in *Modern Times* [5]5 *Modern Times* (1936) is a silent film by Charlie Chaplin satirizing industrial capitalism and the dehumanizing effects of factory work. precisely show the dehumanizing discipline imposed on workers by modern technology in confluence with the capitalist mode of production.

在人类历史的大变革中，技术的更新迭代总扮演着支撑性的推动作用，新石器时代、青铜时代即以原始工具的打磨使用，金属冶炼技术的登场标定了人类脱离蛮荒、文明演进的程度。工业革命以来，随着机器生产与资本主义经济运行方式的日益结合，人类在技术事业上获得了巨幅发展，达到了历史的峰值。马克思曾在喟叹技术给社会带来的变革：“自然力的征服，机器的采用，化学在工业和农业中的应用，轮船的行驶，铁路的通行，电报的使用，整个大陆的开垦，河川的通航，仿佛用法术从地下呼唤出来的大量人口——过去哪一个世纪料想到在社会劳动里蕴藏有这样的生产力呢？”从人类生活方式与环境层面而言，工业技术一举更迭了历史的组织方式、生产生活形态，也开启了改造本质有限的人类与自然界的历程。马克思以辩证的视角审视资本主义大工业，认为其能够“改造人的生活，并为人的解放作准备，尽管它不得不直接地使非人化充分发展”。《摩登时代》中所呈现的在流水线上重复劳作的畸零人，即呈现出其时与资本主义生产方式合流的现代技术对工人所进行的非人化的规训。

At the level of international intercourse, advanced transportation and communication technologies began to include regions and countries distributed across continents in a unified vision in minute detail, and the world formally entered world history. Driven by the thirst for capital accumulation and expansion, Western capitalist industrial countries successively embarked on the path of global colonization. For the Western world that first entered industrial civilization and grasped the keys to advanced technology, they could naturally overpower agricultural civilizations and even more backward tribal groups in terms of strength, and then seize and control the latter’s minerals, crops, population, markets, and other resources. However, to match the bourgeois democratic revolutionary movements advocating “democracy, independence, and freedom” that were rising domestically, and also to normalize and systematize colonial activities, Western industrial countries also needed to ideologically solve the problem of their legitimacy. This is the background of the conscious emergence of the “civilized-barbarian” binary discourse. In the process of opening up overseas colonies, supported by religious ideas such as “Manifest Destiny,” [6]6 “Manifest Destiny” was a 19th-century American ideology justifying territorial expansion as divinely ordained. the early-developing countries roughly divided the world’s regions and countries into three categories based on modes of production, degree of social organization, and technological development: civilized humanity, barbarous humanity, and the lowest level, savage humanity. Among civilized countries, “agriculture has become technicalized and scientificized, manufacturing is on a large scale, literature, science, and all technologies have reached a very high level, and commerce is global.” [7]7 This description of “civilized humanity” draws on 19th-century European international law theorists such as James Lorimer. At the same time, “civilized” countries have also made considerable progress in military and public institutions. In contrast, “barbarian” or “semi-civilized” groups appear crude and backward in both productive forces and customs. It can be seen that such a judgment standard consciously takes technology and productive forces as the measure of human ability and civilization, forming the logic of “from technology to civilization.” Furthermore, the logic of “from technology to civilization” is not only used to determine the attributes of a country or region but is also portrayed as a value-laden historical development trend. That is, among the three types of subjects—civilized, barbarian, and semi-civilized—only civilized nations with advanced productive force technology are qualified to join the community that maintains world order and treat each other as equals, while the latter two types of groups are objects to be conquered and civilized; the object can only obtain the status of civilization if it follows the path exogenously given by the subject civilization. In this sense, the “civilized countries” turning “barbarian” or “savage” groups and regions into colonies and appropriating their natural and human resources is not oppression or plunder but an act in line with the trend of global modern civilization progress and saving backward civilizations. As this discourse spread widely in the Western world and was written into textbooks, the order of “civilization” ruling and conquering “barbarism” was established and promoted, colonization gained legitimacy, obscuring the underlying logic of using technological strength to determine the relationship between ruler and ruled. The East and the Global South, forced into globalization, were not only in a state of voicelessness but also became beings lacking subjectivity in the ranking of civilizations. In Lenin’s metaphor, in this capitalist world system, backward countries were doomed to become only “the object of imperialist international politics,” and their “existence is only to serve as fertilizer for capitalist culture and civilization.” [8]8 Lenin, “The Imperialist War and the Tasks of the Social Democrats” (1914), paraphrasing his critique of the imperialist world system. After World War II, although the old colonial system gradually disintegrated, this underlying value system remained unchanged. Whether it was Dulles claiming when preparing to negotiate with the Soviet Union, “We should negotiate from a position of strength, not from a position of weakness,” [9]9 John Foster Dulles, US Secretary of State under Eisenhower, made this statement in the 1950s. or the recent China-US meeting where the US spoke of dealing with China from a position of strength, we can all perceive the consistent hegemonic implication. The logic of “from technology to civilization,” either implicitly or explicitly, persistently shaped the modern world order and profoundly influenced China’s historical choices after being forced into the world system. Since modern times, the four characters “strong ships and powerful guns” (jiān chuán lì pào) have become the most common Chinese expression describing foreign provocations and aggression, showing that the immense gap in technology between China and foreign countries constituted the most direct and vivid feeling of the modern world for China. Due to technological backwardness, China’s national defense was weak; modern China suffered repeated humiliation, large tracts of territory were lost piece by piece, economic lifelines were controlled, and areas such as justice and education were fully invaded from outside. Moreover, under the logic of civilization ruling barbarism, the Chinese people were imagined in the West as inferior, immoral, and unhealthy “Sick Men of Asia” and “Yellow People”—these terms, from their inception, were identity definitions full of Orientalism [10]10 “Orientalism” refers to Edward Said’s concept of Western representations of the East as exotic, backward, and inferior. and colonial color. Behind these discourses lay the disintegration and denial of traditional Chinese civilization. Thus, the Western modern world’s blow to China ran through technological suppression from beginning to end, culminating in the degradation of civilization.

而从国际交往层面而言，发达的交通与通讯技术开始将分布于各个大陆的地区与国家巨细无遗地纳入统一的视野，全球正式进入世界历史。出于对资本积累与扩张的渴求，西方各资本主义工业国先后踏上全球殖民的道路。对于率先进入工业文明、掌握先进技术秘钥的西方世界而言，它们自然能够在实力上轻易压倒农业文明以及更为落后的氏族部落，进而攫取并操控后者的矿产、作物、人口、市场等各种资源。然而，为匹配其国内兴起的鼓吹“民主、独立、自由”的资产阶级民主革命运动，另外也出于将殖民运动常规化、秩序化的考量，西方工业国还需要在意识形态上解决其合法性何在的问题。这就是“文明-野蛮”二分话语自觉登场的时代背景。在开拓海外殖民地的过程中，以“天定命运”等宗教理念为支撑，根据生产方式、社会组织程度、技术发展等情况，先发国家将全球各区域与国家大致区分为三种类别，即文明主体（civilized humanity），野蛮部落（barbarous humanity）以及最低层级的未开化族群（savage humanity）。在文明国家中，“农业已经技术化和科学化，制造业规模宏大，文学、科学和所有的技术已经达到一种非常高的水平，商业遍布全球。”同时“文明”国家在军事与公共机构事业上也得到了长足的发展。与之对照，“野蛮”或“半开化”族群无论是在生产力还是风化习俗上都显得粗放与落后。可见，这样的分判标准自觉地将技术、生产力作为决定人类能力与文明的尺度，形成了“由技术而文明”的逻辑。更进一步，“由技术而文明”的逻辑并非仅仅用于判定国家或区域的属性，更被描绘为具有价值导向的历史发展趋势。即在文明、野蛮、半开化这三类主体中，只有拥有先进生产力技术的文明民族有资格加入维系世界秩序的共同体，彼此间平等相待，而后两种类别的群体则是需要被征服与教化的对象，客体只有按照主体文明自外而给定的道路亦步亦趋地前进，才可能获得文明之身份。在这一意义上，“文明国家”将“野蛮”或“未开化”的族群区域转变为殖民地，占取其天然与人力资源也就并非一种压榨或掠夺，而是符合全球现代化文明进步趋势、挽救落后文明的举动。随着这套话语在西方世界得到了广泛的传播并写入教科书，“文明”对“野蛮”统治与征服的秩序得到确立与推广，殖民行为也就获得了合法性，遮蔽了其以技术实力决定统治与被统治关系的底层逻辑。而被迫卷入全球化的东方、南方世界不仅处于失语状态，也成为文明排序上失却主体性的存在。以列宁的譬喻而言，在这一资本主义世界体系中，落后国家注定只能成为“帝国主义国际政治的客体”，它们的“存在只是为了给资本主义文化和文明当肥料”。第二次世界大战后，虽然旧有殖民体系逐渐瓦解，但是这一套底层价值体系依然没有改变。无论是杜勒斯在准备与苏联谈判时声称：“我们应该从实力地位出发进行谈判，而不是从荏弱的地位出发”，还是近年中美会晤中美国放言要从实力的地位出发与中国打交道。我们都可以从中体会出贯穿始终的霸权意蕴。“由技术而文明”的逻辑或隐或显地绵延塑造了现代世界的格局，也深刻影响了中国被迫卷入世界体系后的历史抉择。近代以来，“船坚炮利”四字成为中国形容外来挑衅与侵犯最常见的话语，可见中外技术的天壤之别构成了中国对现代化世界最直接与鲜明的感受。由于技术落后中国国防衰弱，近代中国屡受凌辱，国土连片沦丧，经济命脉受辖，司法教育等领域全线受到外来入侵。不仅如此，在文明统治野蛮的逻辑下，中国民众在西方想象中成为了劣等的，不道德以及不健康的东亚病夫、黄人，这些统称在诞生之初都是充满东方主义与殖民色彩的身份定义，在这些话语背后是对传统中国文明的瓦解与否弃。由此，西方现代化世界对中国的打击由技术压制贯穿始终，而以文明降维作结。

In traditional Chinese culture, the relationship between “instrument” (qì) and “Way” (dào) is an important pair of concepts: “That which is above form is called the Way; that which is below form is called the instrument.” [11]11 From the *Book of Changes* (Yijing), “Appended Judgments,” Part I. Since modern times, the function of the instrument has broken free from the domination of the Way, gradually gaining its own independent significance, and even turned to determine the survival and form of the Way. Faced with a situation unseen for several millennia, the Chinese people actively sought a way out and soon discovered that whether they possessed strong industrial technology and whether they could progress from an “agricultural world” to an “industrial world” became a major matter concerning the survival of the nation. Kang Youwei once sighed: “Now is the time of advancing from the agricultural world to the industrial world. The strength of England, the prosperity of Europe and America, the steamships and cars covering the earth and dominating the world—it is all because of industry. What our country lacks most is industry. I wonder when a large factory will appear in our country? Then the day of our country’s strength will come.” [12]12 Kang Youwei, a leading reformist thinker in late Qing, wrote this in his *Book of Great Harmony* (Datong Shu). To achieve China’s self-rescue and keep up with the great waves of the times, men of insight initiated the Westernization Movement [13]13 The Westernization Movement (yáng wù yùndòng, 1861–1895) was a series of reforms aimed at adopting Western military and industrial technologies while preserving Confucian values. to “learn the superior technology of the barbarians to control them,” while the Hundred Days’ Reform [14]14 The Hundred Days’ Reform (wù xū biàn fǎ, 1898) was a failed attempt by Emperor Guangxu and reformer Kang Youwei to modernize China’s political and educational systems. and the May Fourth Movement [15]15 The May Fourth Movement (1919) was a cultural and political protest against the Treaty of Versailles that spurred the New Culture Movement and later the founding of the CPC. demanded a complete change in institutions and national spirit, respectively. Since modern times, the arduous exploration of national rejuvenation has followed this progressive logic of “from technology to civilization”: from simply discarding traditional skills and seeking modern technology, to pursuing a comprehensive modern civilization based on industrialization.

在传统中国文化中，“器”与“道”的关系是一组重要的概念，“形而上者谓之道，形而下者谓之器”。而近代以降，器之功用从道的统摄中挣拔而出，逐渐获得自身独立的意义，甚至转而决定了“道”的存亡与形态。面对几千年来未有之变局，国人积极寻求出路，并很快发现是否拥有强大的工业技术，是否能从“农世”进益为“工世”成为关系国家兴亡的大事。康有为曾喟叹道：“方今由农世进为工世时，英之强也，欧美之盛也，轮船、汽车周于大地，而霸大地，惟工之故，吾国所最乏者工也，不知何时拉土高出现于吾国乎？则吾国强盛之日至矣。”为实现中国的自救，紧跟时代的巨浪，有志之士曾发起“师夷长技以制夷”的洋务运动，而戊戌变法、“五四运动”则分别在制度与国民精神上要求全面改弦更张。近代以来，民族复兴的艰辛探索正是依循了这条“由技术而文明”的递进逻辑：从单纯否弃传统技艺寻觅现代化技术，转而追求以工业化为基石的全方位的现代文明。

The socialist revolution and construction led by the Chinese Communists was a continuation of the modern movement for national salvation and survival. Therefore, its problematic must include how to respond to and dissolve the challenges of the external modern world; correspondingly, the theme of its revolution and construction must also contain the historical mission of the country leaping into industrialization and realizing large-scale machine production. In this process, the exploration of technological progress has been consistent. But on the other hand, the practice of New China also inherited the value orientation of Marxism, and in deepening the pursuit of modernization, it gradually exceeded the framework of Western modernization, presenting a different development logic of the relationship between technology and civilization as the times developed.

中国共产党人所领导的社会主义革命与建设，是近代以来救亡图存运动的延续，因此其问题意识必然含括如何应对、化解外部现代化世界的挑战；相应的，其革命建设主旨也必然蕴含着国家跃入工业化，实现机器大生产的历史使命，在这一过程中，对技术进步的探索是一以贯之的。但另一方面，新中国的实践又接承马克思主义的价值取向，在深化对现代化追求中又逐渐溢出了西方现代化的框架，随时代发展呈现出了技术与文明关系的另一种发展逻辑。

II. The Quest within the Framework of “From Technology to Civilization”: Building an Industrial State and Striving for Subjectivity

二、“由技术而文明”框架内的求索：工业立国与争取主体性

Just before the founding of New China, Mao Zedong delivered a speech at the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference. This speech outlined the Chinese people’s struggle since modern times and at the same time depicted the future prospects of New China. He said: “Delegates and gentlemen, we have a common feeling: our work will be written in human history, and it will show: the Chinese, who make up one-quarter of humanity, have stood up from now on. The Chinese have always been a great, brave, and industrious nation; it is only in modern times that they have fallen behind... The work of national-scale economic construction is already before us... With the advent of the climax of economic construction, an inevitable climax of cultural construction will also appear. The era when the Chinese people were considered uncivilized has passed. We will appear in the world as a nation with a high level of culture.” [16]16 Mao Zedong, “The Chinese People Have Stood Up” (1949), opening speech at the first plenary session of the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference. This contains several issues worth pondering: First, why were modern Chinese defined as backward? Second, why could cultural construction based on economic construction end the era when the Chinese people were “considered” uncivilized? Behind these questions lies the hidden relationship between technology, modernization, and civilization. In terms of agricultural civilization, China possessed splendid ritual and music civilization, a huge bureaucratic system, a far-reaching Confucian culture, and exquisite handicraft skills; late Qing China had not completely lost these advantages. This shows that the root of China’s “backwardness” in modern times lies in: within the world system dominated by strong countries, the frame of reference for judging whether a country is civilized had shifted. In the changing historical trend, New China needed to correspondingly pursue a new civilization upon a new economic and technological foundation.

在新中国即将成立前，毛泽东曾在中国人民政治协商会议上进行讲话，这次演讲勾勒了中国人民从近代以来的斗争历程，同时又描绘新中国未来发展的远景，他说道：“诸位代表先生们，我们有一个共同的感觉，这就是我们的工作将写在人类的历史上，它将表明:占人类总数四分之一的中国人从此站立起来了。中国人从来就是一个伟大的勇敢的勤劳的民族，只是在近代是落伍了……全国规模的经济建设工作业已摆在我们面前……随着经济建设的高潮的到来，不可避免地将要出现一个文化建设的高潮。中国人被人认为不文明的时代已经过去了，我们将以一个具有高度文化的民族出现于世界”。这其中蕴藏着几个值得深思的问题：第一，近代国人为何被定义为落伍的？第二，为什么基于经济建设的文化建设，能够让中国人“被认为”是不文明的时代结束？在这些问题背后实质隐藏着技术、现代化与文明的关系。依照农业文明而言，中国拥有灿烂辉煌的礼乐文明、系统庞大的文官体制、辐射辽阔的儒家文化、精湛发达的手工技艺，清末之中国并没有完全丢失这些优势，这说明近代以来中国“落伍”的根源在于：由强势国家所主导的世界体系中，标定各国文明与否的参照系发生了位移，在变化的历史趋势中，新中国则需要相应地在全新的经济技术之上追逐新文明。

After the era of large-scale industry, the degree of development of industrial technology and industrial economy became the core standard for determining whether a country possessed modern civilization. Even socialist countries, as “rebels” of the capitalist system, had to share, to a certain extent, the competition rules set by the early-developing countries in order to win the right to develop in the real world. For example, during the Cold War, the arms race, technology race, and foreign economic aid between the United States and the Soviet Union were meant to prove that their own systems could more effectively advance the cause of modernization (whether for their own countries or for allied states), thereby confirming their legitimacy and progressiveness. In 1957, the Soviet Union launched the world’s first artificial satellite; Mao Zedong considered this a key sign that “the East wind prevails over the West wind.” [17]17 Mao Zedong, speech at the Second Plenary Session of the Eighth CPC Central Committee (1956), using the metaphor “the East wind prevails over the West wind” to signify socialist superiority. For the United States, technological aid was equally crucial for expanding its sphere of influence and proving its leadership role in the world: “The key to helping the Third World avoid collapse lies in America’s technological success. Money alone cannot do it; only technology and the diffusion of corresponding expertise can help the Third World quickly pass through this period of uncertainty threatened by communism. And the acceptance of American technology by Third World countries means that they accept America’s leadership role in the global movement toward modernity.” [18]18 Quoted from a study on US foreign aid policy; the source is likely a secondary analysis by a Western scholar. It can be seen that the legitimacy of modernization defined by the development of technology and productive forces does not fail in one of the two—capitalism and socialism—just because of the distinction. After the wave of modernization swept the globe, the logic of obtaining modern civilization through technological and productive force development became an ideology and practical law that no country could avoid. In this trend of the times, in order to re-win national subjectivity in the modern world, New China’s modernization needed at least two characteristics: first, the modernization China was to achieve was a modernization dominated by China itself, not one controlled by other countries; second, the modernization China was to achieve was progressive modernization, not backward modernization. The Communist Party of China, precisely along this dual goal, carried out a deep and down-to-earth historical exploration within the framework of “from technology to civilization,” taking a key step toward advancing the journey of rejuvenation.

大工业时代后，工业技术、产业经济的发达程度成为了决定一个国家是否拥有现代文明的核心标准。即便作为资本主义体系“反叛者”的社会主义国家，为在现实世界中赢得发展权，一定程度上也必须共享由先发国家制定的竞赛法则。例如冷战时期，美苏两国所展开的军备竞赛、技术竞赛、对外经济援助，就是为了佐证自身的制度能够更有力地推进现代化事业（无论是针对本国还是联盟国的），而证成自身的正当性与先进性。1957年，苏联发射世界第一颗人造卫星，毛泽东认为这成为了“东风压倒西方”的关键标志。对于美国而言，技术援助对于扩大势力范围、证成自身对世界的领导地位同样具有举足轻重的意义：“能帮助第三世界、使其避免崩溃的关键，在于美国在技术上的成功。金钱本身做不到这一点，只有技术及相应的专门知识的扩散，才能帮助第三世界迅速度过这段受共产主义威胁的充满不确定性的时期。而第三世界国家接受美国技术，也就意味着他们在通往现代性的全球运动中接受了美国的领导角色。”可见，由技术生产力发展所定义的现代化的正当性，并不因资本主义与社会主义之别而在其中一者中失效。在现代化进程席卷全球之后，通过技术、生产力发展而获得现代文明的逻辑是各国均无法回避的意识形态与现实法则。在这一时代趋势中，为在现代世界重新争取国家主体性，新中国的现代化至少需要具备两点特质：其一，中国要实现的现代化是由中国自身主宰的现代化，而非受他国操控的现代化；其二，中国要实现的现代化是进步的现代化，而非落后的现代化。中国共产党正是沿着这双重目标，在“由技术而文明”框架内进行了深切踏实的历史探索，为推进复兴征程迈出了关键一步。

(A) Establishing an Independent and Complete Industrial System: One Path of New China’s Technological Development

（一）建立独立完整的工业体系：新中国技术发展路径之一

“Our Communist Party is striving for China’s industrialization.” [19]19 Mao Zedong, “On the Coalition Government” (1945). As a group that personally witnessed the humiliating situation of semi-colonialization under the powerful ships and guns of modern China and upheld the socialist ideal of breaking out of the imperialist system, the Chinese Communists consciously shouldered the historical mission of promoting China’s transformation from an agricultural country to an industrial one. “The general task of economic construction is to gradually transform China from a backward agricultural country into a strong industrial country... Industrialization—this is the dream of our people for a hundred years, and this is the basic guarantee that our people will no longer be bullied by imperialists and no longer live in poverty. Therefore, this is the supreme interest of the whole people.” [20]20 Zhou Enlai, “Report on the First Five-Year Plan” (1955). It can be seen that achieving industrialization was a necessary path to defend the country and its people, and also a historical choice in line with the common interests of the people and the nation. However, simply possessing industrial industries does not mean that a country truly has mastered new and powerful industries, let alone achieved autonomous industrialization and modernization. This can be reflected by the situation in India before independence: “Does India have industry? Undoubtedly yes. Is India’s industry developing? Yes, it is developing. But... the industry there is completely subordinate to British industry. This is the special method of imperialism—developing industry in the colonies so that it is subject to the suzerain state, subject to imperialism.” [21]21 Mao Zedong, “On the Question of the Industrialization of the Soviet Union and China” (1950s), citing a description of India’s colonial economy. That is to say, colonial India’s industry could not produce or layout according to the development will of its own nation; it could not produce means of production and means of labor, but had to rely on technological supply from other countries, becoming a low-end appendage link in the British Empire’s global economic expansion. Such industrial development not only failed to become a national instrument for safeguarding sovereignty but became an economic chain deepening India’s dependency. In contrast, New China clearly recognized that achieving independence and self-reliance in politics, military, and diplomacy was only the beginning and prerequisite of breakout; it also needed an independent economic system as a solid foundation to break colonial fetters. “To complete national independence in the economic sphere,” [22]22 Zhou Enlai, “Report on the Work of the Government” (1954). the key step was to establish an independent and complete industrial system. Among these, the requirements of “independence” and “completeness” support each other. Only by getting rid of foreign interference, changing the simple reliance on technology transfer from advanced countries, abandoning the copying of foreign development models, exploring paths and industrial layouts through self-reliance, and conducting exchanges and mutual learning with China as the main body, can we avoid external manipulation and build a complete industrial chain. At the same time, only by maximizing the perfection of the national industrial system, especially mastering autonomy in industrial sectors related to the national lifeline, can we truly and durably defend China’s independent and self-reliant status and better carry out broader foreign technological exchanges and trade on an equal footing. As General Secretary Xi Jinping summarized: “Practice has repeatedly told us that key and core technologies cannot be obtained by begging, buying, or bargaining. Only by mastering key and core technologies in our own hands can we fundamentally ensure national economic security, national defense security, and other security.” [23]23 Xi Jinping, speech at the Academician Conference of the Chinese Academy of Sciences and Chinese Academy of Engineering (2018).

“我们共产党是要努力于中国的工业化的。”作为亲眼见证近代中国在坚船利炮下沦为半殖民地的屈辱境遇，秉持着从帝国主义体系中突围的社会主义理想的群体，中国共产党人自觉肩负着促使中国从农业国向工业国转型的时代使命。“经济建设的总任务就是要使中国由落后的农业国逐步变成强大的工业国……工业化——这是我国人民百年来梦寐以求的理想，这是我国人民不再受帝国主义欺侮不再过穷困生活的基本保证，因此这是全国人民的最高利益。”可见，实现工业化是保卫国家人民的必经之途，也是合乎人民与国家共同利益的历史选择。不过，单纯具备工业产业，并不意味着国家真正拥有掌握了新式强大的工业，更不意味着就此实现自主的工业化现代化，这一点可以镜鉴印度独立前的发展状况“印度有没有工业呢？无疑是有的。印度的工业是不是在发展呢？是的，在发展。但是……那里的工业完全隶属于英国的工业。这是帝国主义的特殊方法——在殖民地发展工业，使它受制于宗主国，受制于帝国主义。”也就是说，殖民时期的印度工业并不能依照本民族的发展意愿进行生产与布局，无法进行生产资料与生产工具的生产，而不得不仰仗依赖他国的技术供给，从属于英帝国全球经济扩张的低端附庸环节。这样的工业发展不仅无法成为保障主权的国之重器，反而成为了加深印度依附处境的经济锁链。与之对照，新中国明确认知在政治、军事、外交上实现独立自主仅仅是实现突围的开端与前提，它还需要独立自主的经济体系作为打破殖民羁縻的坚实基础，“在经济上完成民族独立”，关键步骤即为建立独立的完整的工业体系。其中“独立”与“完整”的要求互为支撑。只有摆脱他国干涉，改变单纯仰仗先进国家技术输送，舍弃照搬照抄他国发展模板，自力更生地进行道路探索与产业布局，以我为主地进行交流互鉴，才能免受外来操控，进行完整产业链的搭建。同时，也只有最大限度地完善本国工业体系，特别是在关涉国家命脉的产业领域掌握自主权，才能真正持久地捍卫中国独立自主的地位，更好地在平等基础上开展更为广泛的对外技术交流与贸易往来。正如习近平总书记所总结的：“实践反复告诉我们，关键核心技术是要不来、买不来、讨不来的。只有把关键核心技术掌握在自己手中，才能从根本上保障国家经济安全、国防安全和其他安全。”

Through arduous struggle, New China established a relatively comprehensive industrial system, completely changed the tragic fate of modern China as a supplier of raw materials and cheap labor to capitalist core countries, and provided the strongest industrial structure support for China’s deep integration into and participation in the world economy after reform and opening up, as well as for unswervingly advancing the cause of the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation amidst global political and economic fluctuations. Entering the New Era, China has further strengthened supply-side structural reform, improved the industrial chain to promote industrial upgrading, and formed and consolidated “the most complete and largest industrial system in the world,” and “is the only country in the world that possesses all industrial categories in the United Nations industrial classification catalog.” [24]24 From a report on China’s industrial capabilities, frequently cited in CPC official documents. In the accelerating stage of changes unseen in a century in the world, facing the new global landscape of ebbing economic globalization, rising protectionism and unilateralism in some countries, and increasing instability and uncertainty, possessing an independent, complete, and huge industrial system remains an inexhaustible driving force for ensuring that China has sufficient economic potential and tenacious development resilience.

经过艰苦卓绝的奋斗，新中国建立了较为全面的工业体系，彻底改变了近代中国沦为资本主义中心国家原料与廉价劳动力输送地的悲惨命运，为改革开放后中国深度融入参与世界经济，在全球政治经济波动中坚定不移地推进中华民族伟大复兴的事业供给了最有力的产业结构支撑。步入新时代，中国进一步加强供给侧改革，完善产业链促进产业升级，形成巩固了“全球最完整、规模最大的工业体系”，“是世界上唯一拥有联合国产业分类目录中所有工业门类的国家”。在世界进入百年未有之大变局的加速阶段，面对经济全球化退潮、部分国家保护主义和单边主义抬头、不稳定不确定因素加强的全球新格局，拥有独立完整庞大的工业体系，依然是保障我国具有充足经济潜力、顽强发展韧性的不竭动力。

(B) Developing Cutting-Edge Technology and Mobilizing Mass Science: Another Path of New China’s Technological Development

（二）发展尖端科技与动员群众科学：新中国技术发展路径之二

After the founding of New China, the international environment changed somewhat. The weakening of European countries and the impact of national independence movements made colonialism increasingly decline. However, the hegemonic logic based on modern technological strength continued to prevail. Isolation, blockade, political intervention, and armed provocation remained the historical background that New China could not avoid. The collective memory of “lagging behind leads to being beaten” in modern times, superimposed on the severe geopolitical environment faced by New China, led China to possess a characteristic of “forced catch-up” in its quest for modernization. In addition, China, as a country with a large population and a long historical civilization, subjectively harbored a strong desire to realize the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation. Whether rejuvenation is achieved also involves the question of whether socialist China can gain initiative and discourse in the modern world. Therefore, under the dual effect of the “forced catch-up” characteristic and the “subjective catch-up” enthusiasm, for New China, only progressive rather than backward modernization achievements could meet historical expectations and satisfy the needs and well-being of the people. To achieve this goal, in terms of technological development, China adopted a construction orientation that balanced the development of cutting-edge technology and the mobilization of mass science.

新中国成立后，国际环境有所转变。欧洲国家的衰弱与民族独立运动的冲击，使得殖民主义日益消落，然而以现代化技术实力为基础的争霸逻辑依然大行其道，孤立封锁、政治干预、武力挑衅依然是新中国无法回避的历史大背景。近代“落后挨打”的集体记忆，叠加新中国所面对的严峻地缘政治环境，使得中国在求索现代化时存在一种“被迫赶超”的特性。此外，中国作为一个人口与历史文明都体量庞大的国家，则在主观上怀有强烈的实现中华民族复兴的愿望，复兴与否也同时涉及到社会主义的中国能否在现代世界上获得主动性与话语权的问题。因而，在“被迫赶超”特性与“主观赶超”热情的双重作用下，对于新中国而言，唯有进步而非落后的现代化成果才能够符合历史预期与满足人民的需求与福祉。为实现这一目标，在技术发展方面中国采用了兼顾发展尖端科技与动员群众科学的建设取向。

In the first half of the twentieth century, emerging trends in global technological development appeared: the invention of ultra-high-temperature, ultra-high-pressure, and ultra-high-speed machinery led to the development of special-property materials science; the application of atomic energy became a new source of power for human production; the use of electronics made production automation, remote control, and the substitution of part of mental labor possible, and so on. Zhou Enlai once judged: "These latest achievements bring humanity to the eve of a new scientific-technological and industrial revolution." [25]25 Zhou Enlai, "On the Question of Intellectuals" (January 14, 1956). Just as a new round of technological explosion was brewing, New China also promptly grasped the pulse of the times. In 1956, the Science Planning Commission of the State Council compiled the "Outline of the Long-Range Plan for the Development of Science and Technology for 1956–1967," which outlined China's key science and technology projects from a comprehensive long-term development perspective, providing a basic guide for promoting research, development, and innovation in cutting-edge technology and catching up with the world's technological wave. Inspired by the call to "March toward Science," [26]26 "March toward Science" was a slogan and campaign launched in 1956 to mobilize the nation to catch up with world scientific levels. New China achieved historic and great accomplishments. For example, it successfully developed the first large-scale computer, designed and built the first oceanographic research vessel, deep-well oil drilling rig, 10,000-ton ocean liner, and artificial satellite, comprehensively expanding the breadth and depth of the understanding of nature as well as science and technology. In this process, China's atomic energy industry also quietly "got under way" under blockade, gradually developing from civilian to military use, thereby defending China's overall security and modernization with strength. In the current world, a new round of information technology revolution is unfolding; subversive technologies such as artificial intelligence, human-computer interaction, virtual reality, and quantum computing are constantly renewing the boundaries of human knowledge and the forms of production organization. To become a scientific and technological power and to seize the strategic high ground in the race for the future, China in the New Era is persistently advancing exploration in cutting-edge technology, striving to develop new quality productive forces, and has "achieved major results in manned spaceflight, lunar exploration, Mars exploration, deep-sea and deep-earth exploration, supercomputers, satellite navigation, quantum information, nuclear power technology, new energy technology, large aircraft manufacturing, biomedicine, etc., and has entered the ranks of innovative countries." [27]27 Quoted from the report of the 20th National Congress of the CPC (2022).

二十世纪上半叶，世界技术发展出现了新兴趋势：超高温、超高压、超高速机械发明带来了特殊性能材料学的发展；原子能的运用成为人类生产新的动力能源；电子学的运用使得生产自动化、遥控化，以及替代部分脑力劳动成为可能等等。周恩来曾判断：“这些最新的成就，使人类面临着一个新的科学技术和工业革命的前夕。”在新一轮技术爆发酝酿之际，新中国也及时扣听到时代脉搏，1956年国务院科学规划委员会编制了《1956-1967年科学技术发展远景规划纲要》，以全局长远的发展视角勾勒了中国科技发展重点项目，为推进尖端科技的研发创新，赶超世界技术浪潮提供了基本指南。在“向科学进军”的鼓舞下，新中国取得了历史性的伟大成就。例如成功研制了首台大型计算机，自行设计制造了第一台海洋科考船、深井石油钻井机、万吨级游轮、人造卫星等等，全面拓展了对自然的理解以及科学技术的广度与深度。在这一过程中，中国的原子能事业也在封锁中悄然“上马”，并逐渐从民用发展至军用，以实力捍卫了中国的整体安全与现代化事业。当下世界，新一轮信息技术革命方兴未艾，人工智能、人机交互技术、虚拟现实技术、量子计算等颠覆性科技正不断更新人类的知识边界与生产组织形式。为实现科技强国，在角逐未来的赛道上掌握战略制高点，新时代中国正持之以恒地推进在尖端科技领域的探索，努力发展新质生产力，在“载人航天、探月探火、深海深地探测、超级计算机、卫星导航、量子信息、核电技术、新能源技术、大飞机制造、生物医药等取得重大成果，进入创新型国家行列”。

In addition to deep cultivation in high-precision and cutting-edge technologies, New China also placed special emphasis on fully mobilizing the wisdom of the masses and tapping local indigenous production technologies as a boost to accelerate modernization. There seems to be a contradiction here: encouraging the use of local indigenous production technologies is consistent with China's independent development path, but indigenously grown technologies are often crude and relatively backward; how can they match the development goal of "progress"? This contains the dialectical working method of the Communist Party of China in leading economic construction. From the perspective of horizontal social development, pushing forward industrialization in a vast country that started in a state of poverty and blankness [28]28 "Poverty and blankness" (一穷二白) is a Maoist term describing China's economic underdevelopment and low cultural level after 1949. and where small-peasant farming had prevailed for millennia is certainly a long process, but this does not mean that the masses can only wait for the arrival of advanced technologies to carry out modernization. For example, when the degree of industrialization was limited and the penetration rate of agricultural machinery was low, in order to continuously promote agricultural modernization, encouraging the masses to use local experiential wisdom could maximize the stimulation of local potential production vitality, effectively improve production efficiency, and boost the "progress" of production results, thereby achieving the transformation from quantitative change to qualitative change through cumulative small steps. From the perspective of vertical technological development, indigenous technologies contain the possibility of progress: "Many small things will become medium-sized, many medium-sized things will become large; just as backward things will become advanced and indigenous methods become foreign methods, this is the objective law of development." [29]29 Mao Zedong, "Talk on the Question of the Cooperative Transformation of Agriculture" (July 31, 1955). For example, the artemisinin that alleviates pain and suffering was precisely hidden as clues in folk antimalarial recipes, secret formulas, and ancient classical Chinese medical antimalarial literature, and it was during large-scale mass campaigns [30]30 This refers to the large-scale "Project 523" mass campaign (1967–1978) that coordinated research on antimalarial drugs, leading to the discovery of artemisinin. that "the process from discovery to invention of artemisinin was completed, and the artemisinin drug met the requirements for appraisal." Hybrid rice, which played a huge foundational role in solving China's food problem and achieving the goal of a moderately prosperous society [31]31 "Moderately prosperous society" (小康社会) is a translation of "xiaokang society", a target first set by Deng Xiaoping to achieve a decent standard of living for all. and still benefits many developing countries today, was also selected, applied, and popularized on the basis of large-scale collaboration across dozens of provinces in the north and south of the country and broad mass participation in tackling key problems. It can be seen that respecting the pioneering spirit of the masses and gathering and accumulating wisdom from the front line of production helps to nurture the technological seeds excavated from local resources at the historical cross-section, and to cultivate "progressive" technologies grown from Chinese soil with full confidence.

除却在高精尖端技术方面进行深耕外，新中国还格外强调充分动员群众智慧，挖掘地方本土的生产技术作为加快实现现代化的助推力。此处似乎存在一个矛盾，鼓励运用地方本土的生产技术固然符合中国独立自主的发展路线，然而本土生长的技术往往是粗糙的，较为落后的，又如何能够匹配“进步”的发展目标？这其中蕴藏着中国共产党领导经济建设时的辩证工作方法。从横向社会发展层面来看，在一个起点为一穷二白、小农作业形式蔓延千年的庞大国家推进工业化转型固然是漫长的过程，但这并不意味着人民群众只能等待着先进技术的降临以展开现代化建设。例如在工业化程度有限、农业机械普及率较低之际，为持续推动农业现代化事业，鼓励群众运用本土的经验智慧能够最大限度地激发地方潜在的生产活力，有效提升生产效率，助推生产成果的“进步”，以点滴积累实现量变到质变。从纵向技术发展层面而言，本土的技术则蕴藏着进步的可能性：“许多小的会变成中的，许多中的会变成大的，同落后的会变成先进的、土法的会变成洋法的一样，这是客观发展的规律。”例如纾疾解痛的青蒿素，正是在民间抗疟单方、秘方和古代经典中医药抗疟文献中留下草灰蛇线，并于大型群众会战中完成了“青蒿素从发现到发明的过程,使青蒿素药物达到鉴定要求”。对中国解决温饱问题、实现小康事业发挥巨大奠基作用；至今仍惠及广大发展中国家的杂交水稻，也正是在全国南北数十省大协作、群众广泛参与攻关的基础上实现选育、应用与推广。可见，尊重群众的首创精神，汇聚积攒生产一线的智慧，有助于在历史的横断面上呵护从本土资源中挖掘的技术胚芽，以满怀的自信培育出从中国大地上生长的“进步”的技术。

III. Transcending the Logic of Hegemony: Moving toward a Modernization of "Civilization to Technology"

三、超越霸权逻辑：走向“由文明而技术”的现代化

Looking back at history, since the advent of the Industrial Revolution, the overarching logic of "technology to civilization" has never faded. In modern times, it was wrapped in the ideology of a hierarchical world civilization order, appearing in the form of colonizer-colonized relations. Because technology, productive forces, and morality and civilization were linked, the Western world completed all-dimensional high-to-low blows against late-developing countries, from military and economic to civilizational aspects. After World War II, the tide of national liberation arose, and colonialism formally receded, replaced by the confrontation between the two blocs of the United States and the Soviet Union during the Cold War and the struggle for the intermediate zone. [32]32 "Intermediate zone" was Mao's geopolitical concept for countries between the US and Soviet blocs. At that time, between the two alliances, this logic appeared in the form of competition and confrontation. Whether it was the direct application of military force in the intermediate zone, or the competition in productivity speed and space race, the foundation of competition stemmed from the degree of technological development, and the purpose of competition was to compete for the exclusive right to interpret and represent modern civilization, thereby gaining the status of leading the world. Within the alliance groups, the logic of "technology to civilization" was presented through leader-led relations. It used more refined and gentler methods than past colonialism to import technology, capital, and management models into led countries, promising that this was the only correct path to modern civilization. After the drastic changes in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, [33]33 The collapse of communist regimes in Eastern Europe (1989) and the dissolution of the Soviet Union (1991). neoliberalism and the "end of history" thesis [34]34 Francis Fukuyama's thesis that liberal democracy is the endpoint of human ideological evolution. became prevalent, arguing that the forces impeding the universalist expansion of the United States had disappeared, and the Western free market and liberal democratic system had become "the final form of human government." [35]35 Fukuyama, *The End of History and the Last Man* (1992).

回首历史，自工业革命到来之后，“由技术而文明”的统摄逻辑始终未曾消退。在近代，它被包裹在世界文明等级秩序的意识形态中，以殖民-被殖民的关系出现。因技术、生产力与道德和文明相勾连，西方世界完成了对后发国家由军事、经济至文明的全方位降维打击。第二次世界大战后，民族解放浪潮兴起，殖民主义在形式上消退，取而代之的则是冷战时期美苏两大集团的对峙，以及对中间地带的争夺。此时在两大联盟之间，这一逻辑通过竞争与对抗的方式出现。无论是直接在中间地带施加武力，还是生产力速度、太空争霸的比拼，其竞争基础都源于技术发展程度的高下，竞争目的则是角逐对现代文明排他性的代言权阐释权，由此获得领导世界的地位。而在盟国集团内部，“由技术而文明”的逻辑通过领导-被领导的关系呈现，它运用比过往殖民主义更精致与温和的方式，向被领导国家输入技术、资金与管理模式的支持，许诺这是通往现代文明唯一正确的道路。苏东剧变之后，新自由主义、历史终结论大行其道，认为阻遏美国普遍主义扩张的力量已经消失，西方自由市场与自由民主的制度成为了“人类最后一种统治形式”。

Over several centuries of iteration, although the form of "technology to civilization" has changed, its historical narrative mode and essential substance have already influenced the deep order and real laws of the modern world, transcending geographical barriers, changes in international units, and ideological conflicts to become a true "universal value," which always serves the strong nations, becoming their basis for manipulating international affairs and judging the modernization paths of other countries. Fundamentally, only nations and states with technological material strength can occupy a place in the world system; those outside this either face the risk of being absorbed and tamed by other countries, or exist in a state of near-silence in the world—that is, their existence is tantamount to non-existence. The efforts of New China to promote technological development, as described above, clearly fit the framework of obtaining civilizational discourse power through technological strength: whether it is building a complete industrial chain to consolidate the national economy, strengthening the security foundation, and establishing the nation among the forest of nations, or actively promoting the construction of modern achievements of progress to gain initiative in the industrial age, it indeed followed a path of achieving modern civilization through developing technology. However, this does not mean that New China ultimately succumbed to this value system and became assimilated into it. In the discourse of "technology to civilization" controlled by the Western world, advanced technology guides the direction of civilization and also guides the development trend of backward technology. That is to say, not only are what is advanced and what is civilized defined, but also there is a prescribed, universal path from backwardness to advancement. In its development, China chose to break through this prescribed "universal" path and instead explored a construction plan suited to its national conditions, showing a tendency that constantly overflows the framework. As a New China that continues Marxism and upholds socialist ideals, its technological development direction not only has a strong desire to join the modern world, but also harbors a grand blueprint for a new modernity that transcends the logic of "technology to civilization." It is in this sense that China is no longer a passive bearer of Western logic since modern times, but an active transformer and transcender. Starting from the historical starting point of "making the peasant peoples subordinated to the bourgeois peoples, making the East subordinated to the West," [36]36 Marx and Engels, *The Communist Manifesto* (1848). the emerging Eastern China, in the process of exploring Chinese-path modernization, continuously responds to and reshapes the hegemonic logic embedded in "technology to civilization." Through the three major steps of negative recognition, value deconstruction, and substantive transcendence, it moves toward a modernization of "civilization to technology," leading to the birth of a new form of human civilization.

在几个世纪的迭代中，“由技术而文明”虽然在表现形式上有所变化，但其历史叙事方式与主旨实质已经影响了现代世界的深层秩序与现实法则，跨越地理屏障、国际单位的变迁以及意识形态之争，一跃成为真正的“普世价值”，并始终为强势国家服务，成为其操纵国际事务，臧否他国现代化路径的凭据。从根底而言，只有拥有技术物质实力的民族与国家才有可能在世界体系中占据一席之地，而在此之外者，则或面对被他国吸收与驯化的风险，或在世界上处于几近失语的状态，也就是说其存在等同于非存在。前述新中国推动技术发展的努力，在全貌上显然符合以技术实力获取文明话语权的框架：无论是建构完整产业链巩固国民经济，夯实安全基础，立国于世界之林，还是积极推进建设获取进步的现代化成果，在工业时代争取主动性，的确遵循了一条通过发展技术而获取现代文明的道路。但是这并不意味着新中国最终屈服于这一价值体系并与之同化。在由西方世界掌握的“由技术而文明”的话语中，先进的技术指引着文明的方向，也指引着落后技术的发展趋势。也就是说，不仅何谓先进何谓文明都是被定义的，同时，如何从落后走向先进也有了一条规定的、具有普遍性的道路。而中国在发展中选择突破这种被规约的“普遍”道路，转而探索一条符合中国国情的建设方案，展现出不断溢出框架的趋向。作为延续马克思主义、秉持社会主义理想的新中国，其技术发展方向，不仅具有强烈的跻身现代世界的渴望，同时还怀揣着超越“由技术而文明”逻辑的一种全新的现代性的宏图。也正是在这个意义上，中国不再是近代以来西方逻辑的被动承受者，而是其主动改造者与超越者。从“使农民的民族从属于资产阶级的民族，使东方从属于西方”的历史起点出发，新兴的东方中国在探索中国式现代化的过程中不断回应冲击并反塑造着“由技术而文明”所蕴藉的霸权理路，在否定性承认、价值解构、实质超越的三大步骤中走向“由文明而技术”的现代化，引领着人类文明新形态的孕育诞生。

(I) Revealing the Existence of the Logic of "Technology to Civilization" in a Negative Sense

（一）在否定的意义上揭示“由技术而文明”逻辑的存在

After the fading of past colonial forms, although the power-consciousness that divides civilization grades and international status based on technological strength has always exerted a deeply ingrained practical influence, its straightforward, naked expression narrative gradually consciously moved behind the scenes, replaced by more hidden and refined discursive forms. For example, in the early Cold War, the United States still blatantly emphasized the need to "establish positions of strength in all parts of the free world (i.e., the capitalist world)" and that "Western countries and their Far Eastern allies must participate in meetings with the Communists in Geneva on the basis of positions of strength." [37]37 The author cites US Cold War documents; the specific sources are in the original Chinese paper. However, under the influence of the socialist camp's "peace offensive" [38]38 The "peace offensive" was a Soviet propaganda campaign in the 1950s promoting peaceful coexistence. and the strong desire for peace among the world's people, the United States was forced to formulate a "Peace Plan" [39]39 Refers to the "Peace Plan" proposed by US President Dwight Eisenhower in 1953 to counter Soviet peace initiatives. to reverse its moral disadvantage, attempting to downplay the reality of power politics. To promote a U.S.-Soviet condominium of the world, the Soviet side also cooperated by asserting that the Cold War and the "position of strength" policy had basically ended. On this issue, China and the Soviet Union had completely different perspectives. China also realized that the West's position-of-strength policy was once difficult to maintain in name, but "that was because the previous Cold War policy was disadvantageous to them, so they made some changes, which eased the situation." [40]40 The author cites Chinese diplomatic analysis; original source appears in the Chinese text. That is to say, whether détente or tension, both are means for hegemonic powers to maximize their interests; once world détente becomes disadvantageous to them, the United States and the West may once again stir up tension. Therefore, fundamentally, this still constitutes a manifestation of the "position of strength" in a broad sense. Advocating the end of this policy before the historical exit of power politics actually constitutes a concealment and whitewashing of reality, which may confuse people's understanding of the situation and relax their demands for national independence and self-reliant production. Pointing out that "position of strength" will still exist for a long period constitutes a revelation of a structural crisis and a theoretical boost to the national liberation and construction movement. Therefore, similar to the narrative logic of "backwardness leads to being bullied," [41]41 "Backwardness leads to being bullied" (落后就要挨打) is a common Chinese political phrase summarizing the lesson from the century of humiliation. the emphasis on power status expresses not what ought to be, but what is historically real. At the same time, to establish an equal international order, it is not enough to rely on the games and "handouts" of big powers; backward countries, after achieving national independence, need to enhance their industrial strength and unite to control their own destiny. Thus, New China's following the development logic of "technology to civilization" is not just a realistic compromise; it contains a historical dialectic of struggle. China's pursuit of technology and strength is not to comply with this logic in order to dominate and control other countries, but to become a force for maintaining world peace and development on the basis of safeguarding its own sovereignty and security. China's recognition of the practical influence of power politics is also not to consolidate the hegemonic "technology to civilization" ideology led by hegemonic states, but to acknowledge and reveal the actual existence of this logical system in a negative sense, and to shake and negate it, thereby breaking the historical pattern of the East subordinated to the West in the real world rather than in the fantasy of ideas.

在过往殖民主义形式消退后，以技术实力划分文明等级、国际地位的强权意识虽始终发挥着根深蒂固的现实影响力，但其直白裸露的表达叙事则逐渐自觉地走向历史幕后，以更为隐蔽精致的话语形态取而代之。例如，在冷战初期，美国仍然张扬强调要在“在自由世界（按指资本主义世界）各地建立实力地位”，“西方国家及其远东的盟国必须以实力地位来参加与共产党在日内瓦举行的会议”。但在社会主义阵营“和平攻势”以及世界人民对和平强烈渴盼的影响下，迫使美国为转圜道义上的劣势地位而制定了“和平计划”，试图淡化实力政治的存在现实。为促成苏美共治世界的格局，苏联方面也曾配合作出冷战与“实力地位”政策基本结束的论断。针对这一问题，中苏之间拥有截然不同的解读视角。中国同样意识到西方的实力地位政策一度在名义上难以维系，但“那是因为以往的冷战政策对他们不利了，所以才有些改变，才使形势缓和下来”。也就是说，无论缓和还是紧张都是霸权国家实现利益最大化的手段，一旦世界缓和对其不利，美西方依然有可能重新挑动紧张，因此从根本上说这依然属于广义上“实力地位”的展现。在实力政治的历史退场前就宣扬这一政策的终结，实际上构成了对现实的掩盖与粉饰，可能使人民对局势的认识产生混淆而松懈了对民族独立与自立生产的要求。而指明“实力地位”仍将长时期存在，构成了一种结构性危机的揭示与对民族解放与建设运动的理论助力。因此，与“落后就要挨打”的叙事逻辑相似，对实力地位的强调所表达的并非应然价值，而是实然历史。同时，为了建立平等的国际秩序，不能仅靠大国间的博弈与“施舍”，而需要落后国家在实现民族独立后提升工业化实力，团结起来掌握自身的命运。可见，新中国遵循“由技术而文明”的发展逻辑，不仅仅是一种现实妥协，更包含着历史的斗争辩证法。中国追求技术与实力发展，并非为了顺从这一逻辑去统治与操控其他国家，而是在保障自身主权安全的基础上成为维护世界和平与发展的力量。中国承认实力政治的现实影响力，亦非为了巩固由霸权国家主导的“由技术而文明”的意识形态法则，而是在否定的意义上承认揭示这一逻辑体系的现实存在，并对此进行动摇与否弃，在现实的世界而非理念的幻象中破解东方从属于西方的历史格局。

(II) With Peaceful Development as the Tune: Decoupling Civilization and Technology

（二）以和平发展为基调：文明与技术的脱嵌

New China's impact on and transcendence of the "technology to civilization" framework began with separating civilization from technology. Civilization premised on technological strength essentially still belongs to the politics of force. Decoupling civilization from technology means that human civilization should have independent connotations separate from technology. Continuing Lenin's logic of "advanced Asia, backward Europe," [42]42 V. I. Lenin, "Backward Europe and Advanced Asia" (1913). New China reversed the connotations of civilization previously controlled by the Western world. In a talk with a delegation of young Africans, Mao Zedong sharply questioned the Western discourse on civilization: "The Western imperialists think they are civilized and that the oppressed are barbaric... The imperialists occupied our China—that is very barbaric. We in China, in the past and now, have never occupied other countries, and in the future we will not go to occupy the United States or Britain as colonies. Therefore, we have always been civilized countries, and so are you... They like to say we are dirty, unclean, and unsanitary. I don't think so—we are actually cleaner. You must have self-confidence." [43]43 Mao Zedong, "Talk with a Delegation of Young Africans" (July 11, 1963). The exact wording is paraphrased in the author's text. Defining civilization from the perspective of "relations," civilization is not entirely determined by economic prosperity or technological advancement; it also depends on whether a country upholds a concept of equal and just international order and whether it respects the will of other nations to independently explore modernization paths suited to their national conditions. Therefore, modern civilization in this context is an open concept that advances with the times. It necessarily becomes enriched as people of all nations explore and summarize experiences in their quest for modernization. This also determines that China's modernization is one that follows a path of peaceful development and encourages common development for all peoples of the world. Currently, the world faces complex and intertwined severe challenges: "Governance deficit, trust deficit, peace deficit, and development deficit are growing... The Cold War mentality of containment, encirclement, confrontation, and threat is resurging; hegemonism and power politics are rampant; and the law of the jungle and zero-sum game have found new soil." [44]44 Quoted in the author's text from Chinese official documents on global governance. At another historical juncture of where humanity is headed, China unswervingly "stands on the right side of history and on the side of human civilization and progress," [45]45 Phrase from Chinese official statements, e.g., Xi Jinping's speech at the United Nations. calling on all countries to join hands in solidarity under the banner of peace and unity, pursue win-win development through the Belt and Road Initiative, jointly address global challenges such as climate change, public health problems, terrorism, and environmental pollution, build a community with a shared future for mankind, and collectively explore answers to the questions of China, the world, the people, and the times.

新中国对“由技术而文明”框架的冲击与超越始于将文明与技术进行剥离。以技术实力为前提的文明，本质依然从属于强力的政治。而文明与技术的脱嵌意味着人类文明应拥有独立于技术的内涵。延续列宁“先进的亚洲，落后的欧洲”之逻辑，新中国翻转了以往被西方世界把控的文明内涵。在同黑非洲青年代表团谈话时，毛泽东就对西方文明话语进行了颇为犀利的反诘：“西方帝国主义者自以为是文明的，说被压迫者是野蛮的……帝国主义占领我们中国，这就很野蛮。我们中国过去、现在都没有占领别的国家，将来也不会去占领美国、英国作殖民地。所以我们始终是文明国家，你们也是如此……它们喜欢说我们很脏、很不干净、很不卫生。我看也不见得，我们还干净点。要有自信心。”以“关系”的视野界定文明，文明并非完全由经济的强盛抑或技术发达程度决定，还要看一个国家是否秉持一种平等正义的国际秩序观念，能否尊重其他民族独立探索符合国情的现代化道路的意愿。因此，这一语境中的现代文明是一个不断随时代向前的开放概念。它必然随着世界各族人民求索现代化过程中对经验的探索与总结而不断丰富。这同时也决定了中国的现代化是走和平发展道路的现代化，鼓励世界各国人民实现共同发展的现代化。当下全球面临着复杂交织的严峻挑战，“治理赤字、信任赤字、和平赤字、发展赤字越来越大……围堵遏制、对抗威胁的冷战思维沉渣泛起，霸权主义、强权政治甚嚣尘上，丛林法则、零和博弈找到新的土壤”。在人类何去何从的又一个历史节点，中国始终坚定不移地“站在历史正确的一边、站在人类文明进步的一边”，以和平团结的旗帜号召广大国家同舟共济，以“一带一路”谋求共赢发展，携手应对全球气候变迁、公共卫生难题、恐怖主义、环境污染等人类的共同挑战，构建人类命运共同体，以共同探索回答中国之问、世界之问、人民之问、时代之问。

(III) Emphasizing the People-Centered Development Path: Moving toward a Modernization of "Civilization to Technology"

（三）凸显人民性的发展之路：走向“由文明而技术”的现代化

When stripping away the decisive role of technological strength in defining civilization, it is necessary to reconstruct a more reasonable coordinate system between the two. After the Industrial Revolution, machine production combined with the capitalist economic model not only produced a pile of goods with high productivity but also caused global polarization of wealth, making the vast working people servants of industrial technology and falling into a state of alienation—this became the target of Marx's critique. Currently, the world has entered a period of changes unseen in a century; a new technological explosion is already imminent. At the moment of deciding what kind of future humanity will move toward, it is necessary to call for a new civilization to guide and constrain the essentially infinite path of technological development. The guidance of civilization over technology means that while pursuing technological development, one must also think about the antecedent questions of in what manner to develop technology and for what purpose to develop technology. New China has continued the value orientation of Marxism, forming a new form of civilization that highlights the people's position in the gestation and formation of Chinese-path modernization, and clearly proposes that innovation and development of science and technology should be "led by humans, serve humanity, and conform to human values." [46]46 This phrasing appears in Chinese Communist Party documents on science and technology policy. On the basis of a new view of civilization, it has achieved the historical shift from "technology to civilization" to "civilization to technology," providing new answers and new practices for the times regarding developing technology for the people and relying on the people for development.

在剥离技术实力对定义文明的决定性作用时，有必要在二者间重建一种更为合理的坐标系。工业革命之后，机器生产叠加资本主义经济运行模式，不仅以高生产率制造出大量产品堆积，也造成全球范围内的贫富分化，使广大劳动者成为工业技术的奴仆，陷入异化状态，这成为马克思批判的对象。当前，世界进入百年未有之大变局，新的技术爆炸已然迫在眉睫，在决定人类将走向怎样的未来之际，需要重新呼唤新的文明引领、约束本质无限的技术发展之路。文明对技术的引领，意味着在追求技术发展的同时，还需要思考以怎样的方式发展技术、为了什么而发展技术的先决性问题。新中国接续了马克思主义的价值取向，在中国式现代化的酝酿生成中形成了彰显人民立场的文明新形态，明确提出科学技术的创新与发展要“由人类主导、为人类服务、符合人类价值观”。在新文明观的基础上，实现了“由技术而文明”到“由文明而技术”的历史转向，给予时代为了人民发展技术，以及依靠人民进行发展的新答案与新实践。

Developing technology for the people. "Fundamentally, all construction carried out by our country is for the welfare of the masses of the people." [47]47 Quoted in the author's text from a Chinese Communist Party document. Seeking happiness for the Chinese people and rejuvenation for the Chinese nation is the original aspiration and founding mission of the Communist Party of China, and it is also the fundamental purpose of New China's pursuit of modernization transformation. Therefore, all progress in productive forces and the power of science and technology should serve the enhancement of the people's well-being. In the process of advancing the construction of the socialist modernization cause, China has always attached importance to maintaining and improving the interests of the people in the composite dimensions of space and intergenerational equity, demonstrating that Chinese-path modernization is one committed to achieving common prosperity for all people and also one that follows the path of harmonious coexistence between humans and nature. In spatial terms, Chinese-path modernization pursues regional integration and coordinated development, using the tangible results of industrialization to bridge the urban-rural gap and promote rural revitalization: "Rural roads have increased by more than 900,000 kilometers in the past decade; the rural power supply network has been continuously optimized and upgraded; the penetration rate of rural tap water has increased to about 84%; all townships and administrative villages with conditions have been connected to paved roads and bus services; all administrative villages and villages lifted out of poverty have 100% broadband coverage; a three-level logistics distribution network of county, township, and village has been basically established." [48]48 The author cites data from Chinese official reports on infrastructure development. This has provided crucial infrastructure support for China's comprehensive victory in the battle against poverty, [49]49 "Battle against poverty" (脱贫攻坚战) was a national campaign launched in 2015 to eradicate absolute poverty by 2020. achieving a moderately prosperous society, and moving toward common prosperity. In intergenerational terms, China's new modernization path maintains attention to and emphasis on the well-being of the people, with its subject not only including the current generation but also the people of future time dimensions. This means that China's development path adheres to a long-term development perspective, balancing current and long-term interests, and focusing on maintaining and protecting the natural environment on which human survival and development depend. By promoting high-quality development and environmental governance, controlling total carbon emissions while pioneering an energy revolution to address global climate change, it ensures the long-term well-being of future generations across time and space, realizing the vision of a better life that values both "green waters and green mountains" and "gold mountains and silver mountains." [50]50 "Green waters and green mountains are gold mountains and silver mountains" (绿水青山就是金山银山) is a famous statement by Xi Jinping on ecological civilization.

为了人民而发展技术。“从根本上说，我们国家所进行的一切建设，都是为了人民群众的福利。”为中国人民谋幸福，为中华民族谋复兴是中国共产党的初心使命，也是新中国谋求现代化转型的根本目的。因此，一切生产力的进步，科学技术的伟力都应该服务于人民福祉的增益。中国在推进建设社会主义现代化事业的进程中，始终在空间与代际的复合维度上重视维护与提升人民的利益，展现了中国式现代化是致力于实现全体人民共同富裕的现代化，也是遵循人与自然和谐共生的现代化。在空间上，中国式现代化追求区域融合协调发展，以工业化水平提高的切实成效作为弥合城乡差距、推进乡村振兴的重要助力，“农村公路10年间净增90多万公里，农村供电网络不断优化提升，农村自来水普及率提高到84%左右”，“具备条件的乡镇和建制村全部通硬化路、通客车。行政村、脱贫村100%通宽带。县乡村三级物流配送体系基本建成。”为中国全面打赢脱贫攻坚战、步入小康、走向共同富裕供给了基础设施的重要支撑。在代际上，中国的现代化新路对人民福祉保持关注与强调，其主体指向不仅仅包括当下的人民，还涵盖着未来时间向度的人民。这意味着中国的发展路径秉持着长远的发展视角，平衡当前利益与长远利益，注重维系保护人类生存发展的自然环境。通过推动高质量发展与环境治理，控制碳排放总量兼顾开辟能源革命以应对全球气候变迁，在代际的时空中保障子孙后代的长远福祉，实现既要金山银山，又要绿水青山的美好生活愿景。

Rely on the people to carry out development. General Secretary Xi Jinping pointed out: 'The people are the creators of history and also the creators of the era. In the grand struggle of the people, fiery chapters that create history are leaping everywhere, and when gathered together they constitute an epic of the people.' The people are the ultimate goal of technological development and also the fundamental driving force for creating technology; technology as a thing should not in turn control and oppress the people as creators. At present, a new round of information technology revolution is imminent. Frontier technologies such as virtual technology, artificial intelligence, and biotechnology have brought new economic growth points and historical development opportunities to China, but on the other hand, 'the rapid development of informatization and intelligence poses challenges that cannot be ignored to the forms of existence, modes of activity, and ethics of human life.' How to understand the actual results of the interactive influence between humans and technology, how to envision the boundaries of technological development and application, and what kind of technology can more comprehensively serve to enhance the well-being of the people? Answering these questions requires tracing the path of technological development adopted by humanity. Although technological development has been updated and iterated for a long time, it is still necessary for us to review the development experience from the early days of New China, to pick out development principles that should not be altered from the changing history, to review the history of 'mass science' [51]51 'Mass science' (群众科学) refers to the policy of involving ordinary workers and the masses in scientific and technological innovation, characteristic of the early People's Republic of China's approach to technology development., and to value the path of developing technology by relying on the people. In 1956, when formulating the Long-Range Plan for Science and Technology, the plan of the strategic weapons department represented by Qian Xuesen and Nie Rongzhen [52]52 Qian Xuesen (1911–2009) was a key figure in China's aerospace and missile programs; Nie Rongzhen (1899–1992) was a military leader who oversaw the nuclear and missile development as head of the State Science and Technology Commission. Their strategic weapons plan was adopted in 1956. was adopted, and thus 'China's science, technology, and national defense system embarked on an alternative development path of "advanced weaponry + mass line."' In building China's aerospace, nuclear industry, and electronic information industry, China 'abandoned the bureaucratic model of traditional manufacturing and adopted the form of engineering projects and special task groups.' This new production model, on the basis of emphasizing overall management and centralized decision-making, decentralizes power, expands communication channels between technical researchers and decision-making leadership, and achieves flexible mobilization across departments and systems and flat collaborative organization, reflecting the organic unity of centralization and democracy. Subsequently, this innovative management model with socialist attributes was extended from the strategic weapons departments to various production fields, generating a unique 'mass science' path in promoting technological R&D innovation and application implementation. For example, in the three major machinery plants of the industrial provinces, new organizational production modes characterized by close collaboration among cadres, experts, and ordinary workers emerged. This management system enabled specialized departments to receive production feedback and new creations from ordinary workers' labor in a timely manner, and also helped workers access necessary theoretical knowledge, breaking down barriers and making factory workshops simultaneously composite sites for production, design, trial production, and scientific research. This new form of management collaboration had a broad worldwide influence, inspiring the emergence of Japan's Toyota model and becoming a practical resource for 'post-Fordism.' Compared with capitalism's expropriation of workers' production skills through monopolizing knowledge, downgrading them to mechanical force of the body, and continuously producing workers 'deprived of knowledge,' New China's unique path of technological development not only expanded the connotation and extension of modern science, standardized the purpose of technological development, made 'Mr. Science' [53]53 'Mr. Science' (赛先生) was a slogan from the New Culture Movement (1910s–1920s) advocating scientific modernization; here it signifies science made accessible and subservient to the people. no longer aloof but become knowledge and technology closely related to the people's production and life, and also urged the broad masses to continuously move toward re-skilling and intellectualization, becoming the main body in modern production. This is also the source of confidence for the broad masses of workers to improve their scientific literacy and actively participate in building socialist modernization with the spirit of being masters. In the process of New China's search for a new path to modernization, it points toward transcending the development logic of 'from technology to civilization' [54]54 'From technology to civilization' and the inverted phrase 'from civilization to technology' contrast two logics: the former treats technology as the driver of civilizational progress, the latter makes civilization's values the guide for technological direction.. Its main purpose is not to overthrow modern civilization but to correct its shortcomings. In international relations, China rejects a world order based on technological strength to determine civilization, calls for forming fair and just relations between countries, and at the same time adjusts the coordinates of civilization and technology, so that civilization with a people-oriented character leads the path and direction of technological development, reflecting the development thread of relying on the people and for the people. China's reflection on modern civilization and its unique path of technological development have had a profound impact on the world, making valuable explorations in combining the relationship between the people and technology. In summary, New China's thinking on the relationship between technological development and civilization, while influenced by the impact of Western modernization, is able to respond flexibly from its own standpoint and shape the modern world; its spiritual essence has both a realism-oriented side and a side that leads the people and the world with ideals from a strategic perspective. In the arduous process of exploration, there are achievements and experiences. This path is not in the perfect tense but is still open to China in the New Era and the future world of mankind.

依靠人民进行发展。习近平总书记指出：“人民是历史的创造者，也是时代的创造者。在人民的壮阔奋斗中，随处跃动着创造历史的火热篇章，汇聚起来就是一部人民的史诗。”人民是技术发展的旨归，也是创造技术的根本动力，作为物的技术不应转而操控、压抑作为创造者的人。目前，新一轮的信息技术革命一触即发，虚拟技术、人工智能、生物技术等前端科技给中国带来新的经济增长点与历史发展机遇，但另一方面“信息化智能化迅猛发展，对人类生命的存在形式、活动方式、伦理道德等提出了不可忽视的挑战”。如何理解人与技术交互影响的现实结果，如何展望技术发展与施用的边界，怎样的技术能够更全面地为提升人民福祉而服务？对于这些问题的解答需要追踪人类所采用的技术发展路径。虽然技术发展更新迭代已久，但我们依然有必要回顾新中国成立初期的发展经验，在变迁的历史中撷取不应更易的发展原则，重温“群众科学”的历史，重视依靠人民发展技术的道路。1956年，在制定科学技术远景规划时，以钱学森与聂荣臻为代表的战略武器部方案被采纳，由此“中国的科技和国防体制走上了一条‘尖端武器＋群众路线’的另类发展道路”。在建构中国航天、核工业、电子信息产业方面，中国“舍弃了传统制造业的科层模式，采用了工程项目和特别任务小组的形式”。这种新型生产模式在强调统筹管理、集中决策的基础上进行权力下放，拓展技术科研人员与决策领导层的沟通渠道，实现跨部门跨系统的灵活动员与扁平化的协作组织，体现了集中与民主的有机统一。此后，这一具有社会主义属性的创新管理模式从尖端武器部门扩展至各个生产领域，在推进技术研发创新、运用落地时生成了一条独特的“群众科学”道路。例如，在工业大省的三大机械厂，均出现了使干部、专家、普通工人紧密协作为特质的新型组织生产方式。这一管理制度能够让专业部门及时接受生产反馈与运用普通工人劳作中的新创造，也助益工人接触必要的理论知识，打破隔阂，使工厂车间同时成为生产、设计、试制、科学研究的复合场域。这一新型管理协作形式产生了广泛的世界影响，启发日本丰田模式的出现，成为“后福特主义”的实践资源。相较于资本主义通过垄断知识褫夺劳动者生产技能，将其降格为肉体的机械力，不断制造出被“被剥夺了知识的”工人，新中国独特的技术发展路径既拓展了现代科学的内涵与广延，规范了技术发展的目的，使“赛先生”不再高高在上，而成为与人民生产生活密切关联的知识与科技，同时敦促广大人民不断走向再技能化与知识化，成为现代化生产中的主体，这也是广大劳动者提升具备科学素养，以主人翁的精神积极参与建设社会主义现代化的信心源泉。在新中国求索现代化新路的进程中，指向了对“由技术而文明”发展逻辑的超越，其主旨并非对现代文明的颠覆，而是对其弊端的矫正。在国际关系上，中国摒弃以技术实力论文明的世界秩序，呼吁形成公平与正义的国家间关系，同时调整文明与技术的坐标，使得具有人民性的文明引领技术发展的路径与方向，体现了依靠人民与为了人民的发展脉络。中国对现代文明的反思与独特的技术发展道路对世界形成了深远的影响，在结合人民与技术的关系上做出了可贵的探索。总结而言，新中国在技术发展与文明关系方面的思考，既受到西方现代化冲击的影响，又能够从自身出发，富有弹性地回应与塑造着现代的世界；其中的精神主旨既有以现实主义导向的一面，又有高屋建瓴，以理想引领人民与世界的一面。在艰辛探索的过程中，成就有之，经验有之，这条道路并非完成时，而依然向新时代的中国与未来人类世界敞开。

(The author is a lecturer at the School of Marxism, Central Party School (National Academy of Governance) [55]55 The Central Party School (中共中央党校) is the top training institution for Chinese Communist Party cadres; in 2018 it merged with the National Academy of Governance (国家行政学院), which trains government officials..)

（作者系中共中央党校（国家行政学院）马克思主义学院讲师）

Online editor: Ma Jingren

网络编辑：马京仁