Marx and Engels’ Thought on Modernization and Its Contemporary Implications

As a clearly defined research topic, modernization theory first emerged in Western countries, led by the United States, after the end of the Second World War, and then spread to the rest of the world. “Modernization research focuses on the development paths of newly emerging developing countries, which has strong practical significance for Western countries, led by the United States, in formulating new foreign policies.” However, as a trend of social development, “modernization” is closely related to “the modern” and “modern society.” Marx and Engels “keenly noted the social changes brought about by the rise of modern industry and put forward theories related to modern capitalist society.” In this sense, just as Marx, Weber, and Durkheim are hailed as the three great founders of modern social theory, the focus of Marx and Engels’ theory of social development is on the development of modern society—that is, their thought on modernization.

作为一项明确的研究议题，现代化理论在第二次世界大战结束后首先在以美国为首的西方国家兴起，然后扩展到全世界。“现代化研究，所关注的是新兴发展中国家的发展道路问题，这对以美国为首的西方国家制定新的外交政策，具有强烈的现实意义。”然而，作为一种社会发展潮流，“现代化”与“现代”“现代社会”密切相关，马克思恩格斯“敏锐地注意到现代工业的兴起所造成的社会变革，并提出了与现代资本主义社会相关的理论”，正如马克思、韦伯、涂尔干被誉为现代社会理论三大奠基人一样。在此意义上，马克思恩格斯社会发展理论的重点是关于现代社会的发展问题，也就是其现代化思想。

I. Three Prerequisite Dimensions of Modernization

一、现代化的三个前提性向度

Engels pointed out in *The Condition of the Working Class in England*: “The industrial revolution has the same significance for England as the political revolution for France and the philosophical revolution for Germany.” [1]1 “Chinese-path modernization” (中国式现代化): The official term for China’s modernization model, distinct from Western models, emphasizing socialist characteristics, national conditions, and peaceful development. Beginning with the 18th-century English Industrial Revolution, the French Political Revolution, and the German Philosophical Revolution, the global process of modernization accelerated, and Marx and Engels’ thought on modernization laid the theoretical foundation for it. In fact, Engels’ assertion points us toward three prerequisite dimensions of modernization: the modernized person, the modernized state, and the modernized mode of material production.

恩格斯在《英国工人阶级状况》中指出:“工业革命对英国的意义，就像政治革命对法国，哲学革命对德国一样。”从18世纪的英国工业革命、法国政治革命和德国哲学革命开始，世界的现代化进程加速行进，马克思恩格斯的现代化思想奠定了现代化的理论基础。实际上，恩格斯的论断向我们指出了现代化的三个前提性向度:现代化的人、现代化的国家和现代化的物质生产方式。

First, the philosophical revolution and the modernized person. In the sense of modernization, the philosophical revolution changed people’s subjective understanding of the development of knowledge and practical problems. As early as before the German philosophical revolution, Rousseau clearly stated: “Of all the kinds of knowledge available to humanity, the most useful and the one we possess the least is knowledge about humanity.” [2]2 “The positive transcendence of private property…”: Quotation from Marx’s *Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844*. The German philosophical revolution made outstanding contributions to the question of how “knowledge about humanity” is possible, guiding people to reflect on the limits of human reason. Classical German philosophy both exalted human reason (dividing reason into theoretical reason and practical reason, proclaiming that humanity legislates for nature and for morality) and emphasized the human soul, consciousness, and spirit (grasping the interconnection between body and soul through reflection, emphasizing that humanity makes decisions for itself). People use reason to understand appearances and acquire knowledge about nature; the “ideal of the highest good” drives people to transcend the phenomenal world and reach the moral world, enabling people to freely engage in practical activities that can bring them happiness. These concepts greatly elevated the subject status of humanity, viewing people as moral beings possessing reason, freedom, and purpose.

第一，哲学革命和现代化的人。在现代化的意义上，哲学革命改变了人们对知识发展和现实问题的主体性理解。早在德国哲学革命之前，卢梭就明确表示:“在人类所有的各种知识中，对我们最有用但是我们掌握的最少的，是关于人的知识。”德国哲学革命在关于“人的知识”何以可能上做出突出贡献，引导人们思考人类理性的限度。德国古典哲学既高扬人的理性(把理性划分为理论理性和实践理性，宣扬人为自然立法、为道德立法)，又强调人的灵魂、意识和精神(在反思中把握身体与灵魂的相互联系，强调人为自己作决定)。人运用理性去认识表象、获得关于自然的知识，“最高的善的理想”驱使人超越现象世界而通达道德世界，使人自由地践行能使自己获得幸福的实践活动。这些观念极大提高了人的主体地位，把人看做拥有理性、自由、作为目的的道德人。

The philosophical revolution grasped an important characteristic of the modernized person: “The characteristic of the modern person is to make decisions on their own in all matters that, under such circumstances, require careful consideration.” [3]3 “unable to contain the wealth it has itself created”: Quotation from Engels, *Socialism: Utopian and Scientific*. People themselves decide human affairs; to a certain extent, “thinking is the most distinctive thing by which humanity distinguishes itself from livestock.” [4]4 “first produces its own gravediggers”: Quotation from Marx and Engels, *The Communist Manifesto*. It can be said that it is precisely because the philosophical revolution elevated humanity to the status of “subject” that “in modern society, individual human beings have acquired an independent moral identity, an independent legal identity, and an independent political identity… The positional status and equal relations of individual human beings are the most fundamental characteristic of modern society and the most important distinction between it and ancient society.” [5]5 “Modernization is not a multiple-choice question…”: Quotation from Xi Jinping.

哲学革命把握到现代化的人的一个重要特征——“现代人的特征是在所有要求在如此这般情况下有必要深思熟虑的事情中都由自己本身作出决定”，人自身决定人的事务，在一定程度上，“思维是人借以和牲畜区别开来的最自己的东西”。可以说，正是由于哲学革命把人提高到“主体”地位，“在现代性社会里，人类个体获得了独立的道德身份、独立的法律身份、独立的政治身份……人类个体的本位地位与平等关系，是现代性社会最根本性的一个特征，也是它不同于古代社会最重要的一个分别”。

Second, the political revolution and the modernized state. “Social revolution is the true revolution; political and philosophical revolutions necessarily lead to social revolution.” [6]6 “History cannot be created by formulas”: Quotation from Marx, *Letter to the Editorial Board of Otechestvennye Zapiski*. The logic of constructing the modernized state presents a development model that organically unifies political revolution and social revolution. The French Revolution was a far-reaching political revolution; it overthrew the French feudal monarchy and promulgated the first constitutional document in French history—the *Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen*. The *Declaration* established the basic rights of people (e.g., freedom of speech, publication, and writing; property; security; resistance to oppression; expression of opinions), clarified the basic role of law in social governance—prohibiting actions harmful to society and embodying the general will—and linked people’s various rights to the “nation”: “The principle of all sovereignty resides essentially in the nation.” [7]7 “The relation of capital and labor…”: Quotation from Marx, *Wage Labour and Capital*. What was thereby advanced was a modernized state completely different from feudal monarchical rule.

第二，政治革命和现代化的国家。“社会革命才是真正的革命，政治的和哲学的革命必定通向社会革命”，现代化国家的建构逻辑呈现出政治革命和社会革命有机统一的发展模式。法国大革命是一场影响深远的政治革命，它推翻了法国封建君主制，颁布了法国历史上第一个宪法性文件——《人权宣言》(即《人和公民的权利宣言》)。《人权宣言》确定了人的基本权利(例如言论、出版、著述的自由，财产，安全，反抗压迫，发表意见等)，阐明了法律在社会治理中的基本作用——禁止有害于社会的行为、体现公共意志，并把人们的各种权利与“国民”联系在一起——“整个主权的本原主要是寄托于国民”。由此所推进的是与封建君主统治完全不同的现代化的国家。

Compared with the Machiavellian theory of the state prevalent in modern Europe, the theory of the state advocated by the French Revolution and the *Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen* made great progress in terms of ideological foundation, people’s rights, and the mode of state governance. In terms of ideological foundation, it eliminated the role of religion in the construction of state politics. Although Machiavelli’s theory of the state advocated the theory of the principality, emphasized the rule of the prince, and weakened the role of spirits and the church, it did not and could not openly oppose religion; rather, it held that “only such a principality is secure and happy.” [8]8 “a social form in which the full and free development of each individual forms the ruling principle”: Quotation from Marx, *Capital*, Volume 1. In the theory of the state advocated by the French Revolution and the *Declaration*, the church and religion left no trace and could find no foothold. In terms of people’s rights, the former extolled the civil principality, arguing that “if a person becomes prince through the support of the people, he should maintain friendly relations with the people,” [9]9 “discovering, creating, and satisfying new needs…”: Paraphrase of a concept from Marx’s *Grundrisse*. but this friendly relationship was entirely based on utilitarian motives, because the people are easily satisfied—“they only wish not to be oppressed” [10]10 “destroys all barriers…”: Quotation from Marx, *Grundrisse*.—which is most conducive to the prince’s rule. The latter clarified the basic rights of the people. In terms of the mode of state governance, the former explored all kinds of measures conducive to maintaining the prince’s rule; the latter revered law and advocated acting according to law: “Law is the expression of the general will.” [11]11 “an association, in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all”: Quotation from Marx and Engels, *The Communist Manifesto*.

与近代欧洲盛行的马基雅维里的国家理论相比，法国大革命和《人权宣言》所倡导的国家理论在思想基础、人民权利以及国家治理方式上有了很大进步。在思想基础上，消除宗教在国家政治建构中的作用，虽然马基雅维里的国家理论倡导君主国理论、强调君主的统治、弱化了神灵和教会的作用，但他并没有也不可能旗帜鲜明地反对宗教，而是认为“只有这样的君主国才是安全和幸福的”;在法国大革命和《人权宣言》倡导的国家理论中，教会和宗教则杳无踪迹，找不到立足之地。在人民权利上，前者推崇市民的君主国，主张“如果一个人由于人民的赞助而成为君主的话，他应该同人民保持友好关系”，但这种友好关系完全出自功利之心，因为人民很容易就能得到满足——“只是希望不受压迫而已”，这最有利于君主的统治;后者厘清了人民的基本权利。在国家治理方式上，前者探讨一切有利于维护君主统治的种种措施;后者推崇法律并主张依法行事，“法律是公共意志的表现”。

Third, the industrial revolution and the modernized mode of material production. The English Industrial Revolution was a social revolution in the sphere of capitalist production and the logical starting point of England’s modernization process. The Industrial Revolution brought about fundamental changes in material production: in terms of economic scale, in the second decade of the 19th century (1811–1821), the proportion of industrial production in England’s industrial structure gradually surpassed that of agriculture, becoming the primary mode of material production, and England transformed from an old-fashioned agricultural country into a modernized industrial country; in terms of labor methods, the new machine-based large-scale industry replaced traditional handicraft industry—“machine labor defeated manual labor in the main branches of English industry” [12]12 Friedrich Engels, *The Condition of the Working Class in England* (1845).; in terms of the achievements of material production, the modernized mode of production supported by scientific and technological progress not only laid the material foundation of English civilized society but also opened the prelude to human industrial civilization with modernization as its content.

第三，工业革命和现代化的物质生产方式。英国工业革命是资本主义生产领域的社会革命，是英国现代化进程的逻辑起点。工业革命促使物质生产发生根本性变化:从经济体量看，19世纪第二个十年(1811—1821)，工业生产在英国产业结构中所占比重逐渐超过农业，成为最主要的物质生产方式，英国由旧式的农业国向现代化的工业国转型;从劳动方式看，新的机器大工业取代传统的手工工业，“机器劳动在英国工业的各主要部门战胜了手工劳动”瑏瑡;从物质生产成就看，以科技进步为支撑的现代化生产方式不仅奠定了英国文明社会的物质基础，更是开创了以现代化为内容的人类工业文明序幕。

Although Marx and Engels rarely used the word “modernization” directly, in the limited instances they did use it, it was almost always closely related to the “modern” mode of production—that is, the meaning of “making it modern.” For example, when Marx discussed the process of capital accumulation, he argued that “the modernized capitalist, however, regards accumulation as ‘abstinence’ from his own impulse to enjoyment” [13]13 Karl Marx, *Capital*, Volume 1 (1867), Chapter 24.; when discussing forced migration, he considered “large-scale modernization of agriculture” [14]14 Karl Marx, “Forced Migration” (1853), an article for the *New-York Daily Tribune*. as one of the important reasons; when discussing usury, he argued that it was first “modernized” in the Netherlands, “subordinated to productive capital or commercial capital.” [15]15 Karl Marx, *Capital*, Volume 3 (1894), Chapter 36. When Engels discussed fortifications, he repeatedly used “modernized”: “modernized fortress,” “modernized reconstruction,” “modernized stronghold,” “more modernized, mortar-equipped warships,” etc.; in the postscript to *On the Social Question in Russia*, he mentioned the “more modernized textile industry” already existing in Moscow, Vladimir, and the Baltic coastal regions. [16]16 Friedrich Engels, “Postscript to ‘On the Social Question in Russia’” (1894). It is not difficult to see that Marx and Engels identified “modernization” as the inevitable manifestation and inevitable result of “the modern,” and that it was concentratedly reflected in the mode of production.

尽管马克思恩格斯较少直接使用“现代化”这个词，但在有限使用的情况下，几乎都与“现代”的生产方式密切相关，也就是“使其现代”的含义。譬如，马克思谈到资本的积累过程时认为“现代化的资本家却能把积累看做是对自己的享受冲动的‘禁欲’”;谈到强迫移民时认为“农业大规模现代化”是重要原因之一;谈到高利贷时认为它最早在荷兰“现代化”，“从属于生产资本或商业资本”。恩格斯在谈到工事时多次使用现代化，“现代化的堡垒”“经过现代化的改建”“现代化要塞”“较现代化的、用臼炮装备的舰艇”等;在《论俄国的社会问题》跋中讲到在莫斯科、弗拉基米尔以及波罗的海沿岸边区已有的“较现代化的纺织工业”。我们不难看出，马克思恩格斯把“现代化”认定为“现代”的必然呈现和必然结果，并且集中反映在生产方式上。

II. The Manifestation of Human Subjective Power

二、人的主体力量彰显

Taking “real individuals” and “socialized humanity” as the logical starting point of historical materialism, Marx and Engels revealed the general laws of the development of human society, clarified that people are the creators of historical activities, redefined the stipulations of modernization, the subject of modernization, and the goal of modernization, and presented a mode of modern civilization that unifies the progressiveness of the political party with the subjectivity of the people.

马克思恩格斯以“现实的人”和“社会化的人类”作为唯物史观的逻辑起点，揭示了人类社会发展的一般性规律，阐明了人是历史活动的创造者，重构了现代化的规定、现代化的主体和现代化的目标，呈现了政党的先进性与人民的主体性相统一的现代文明方式。

First, “real historical humans” are the practical subjects of modernization and the socio-historical force that drives the modernization process. Marx and Engels, grounded in the principle that “historical activity and thought are the activity and thought of the masses,” re-examined the socio-historical role of the practical subjects of modernization and deepened the understanding of human subjectivity. This both corrected the modern rationalist view of history on the basis of human subjective force and placed humanity’s understanding of social history on the scientific judgment of historical materialism. That humans are the subjects of historical activity includes a dual meaning: they are subjects of labor (productive activity) and of reproducing themselves, and they are also subjects of social connections and of all social relations. No one can exist outside social being; the essence of humans is not abstract, atomistic individuals, but socio-historical beings in the dimension of “real sociality.” Chinese-path modernization is the modernization of living, individual Chinese people; the broad masses of the people are the subjects of modernization practice and the true creators of history. At the same time, Chinese-path modernization implies the concretization and enrichment of the connotation of “human modernization,” a continuous manifestation of humanity’s essential forces. Advancing Chinese-path modernization requires correctly handling the relationship between the subjects in the historical process and the actions that, accumulated through subjective force, change history.

第一，“现实的历史的人”是现代化的实践主体，是推进现代化进程的社会历史性力量。马克思恩格斯立足“历史的活动和思想就是‘群众’的思想和活动”，重新审视了现代化实践主体的社会历史作用，深化了关于人的主体性认识。这既以人的主体性力量为基础矫正了近代理性主义的历史观，又使人类对社会历史的认识建立于唯物史观的科学判断之上。人是历史活动的主体包括双重含义:既是劳动的(进行生产的)主体和再生产自身的主体，也是社会联系的主体、发生一切社会关系的主体。任何人都不能游离于社会存在之外，人的本质不是抽象的原子式个人，而是处于“现实社会性”之维的社会历史存在。中国式现代化是一个个鲜活的中国人的现代化，广大人民群众是现代化实践的主体，是历史的真正创造者;同时，中国式现代化意味着“人的现代化”内涵的具体化丰富化，是人的本质力量的不断显现。推进中国式现代化需要正确处理历史进程中的主体与由主体性力量而积聚起改变历史的行动之间的关系。

Second, the historical practice of modernization is the practice of “real historical humans,” a practice that gathers the total social force. Engels’ “theory of the resultant of historical forces” [17]17 Engels’ “theory of the resultant of historical forces” (Geschichtsresultantetheorie) holds that history is the product of the interaction of countless individual wills, each shaped by material conditions, resulting in a collective outcome that no single actor fully intends or controls. is a representative theory in which the basic principles of historical materialism highly correspond with the laws of development of Chinese-path modernization. The “theory of the resultant of historical forces,” based on the reality of the intertwining of the production and reproduction of material means of subsistence with individual wills, correctly answers the question of the driving force of socio-historical development. It recognizes both that each individual’s will exerts a certain “resultant effect” on the outcome of history and that there is a “resultant effect” among the wills of people who make history. Individual will and collective resultant force are important dimensions for gathering the force of social subjects and an important support for promoting the development of Chinese-path modernization.

第二，现代化的历史实践是“现实的历史的人”的实践，是汇聚社会总体性力量的实践。恩格斯的“历史合力论”是唯物史观基本原理与推进中国式现代化的发展规律高度契合的代表性理论。“历史合力论”基于物质资料的生产和再生产与个人意志相交织的现实，正确回答了社会历史发展的动力问题。既看到每一个人的意志都对历史的结果发生一定的“合力作用”，又看到创造历史的人们意志之间的“合力作用”。个体意志与群体合力，是汇聚社会主体力量的重要维度，是推动中国式现代化发展的重要支撑。

Third, the determination of the combination of material production and spiritual production is a socio-historical product of “humanized practice” and, moreover, an internal driving force of modernization development. Marx and Engels elucidated the essence of modernization development based on the mode of production, but their analysis of the basic elements of civilization was not limited to material production. Instead, they re-examined the composition of the elements of civilization from the determination of the organic unity of material production and spiritual production. Among these, material production plays a decisive role in the development of civilization, while spiritual production is an important condition and important content for creating human civilization. Based on a scientific judgment of his era, Marx proposed the theory of “world history,” pointing out that “the more the original closed state of nations is eliminated due to increasingly perfected modes of production, intercourse, and the naturally formed division of labor among different nations arising from intercourse, the more history becomes world history.” Capitalism is the beginning of modernity and modernization; modernization is necessarily world-historical. Modernization possesses a powerful internal driving force that pushes history to transform into world history. In its concrete evolution, modernization presents a state of “one origin, multiple paths” [18]18 “One origin, multiple paths” (一元多线) is a Chinese academic formulation arguing that while modernization originates from a common source (capitalist industrialization), it can develop along multiple institutional and cultural trajectories, including the socialist path. and inevitably faces the question of the interrelationship between material production and spiritual production, and between material civilization and spiritual civilization. In a comparative sense, we can better understand that Chinese-path modernization “not only has the common characteristics of the modernization of all countries but also has Chinese characteristics based on its own national conditions,” and is “modernization in which material civilization and spiritual civilization are coordinated.”

第三，物质生产和精神生产相结合的规定性，是“人化实践”的社会历史产物，更是现代化发展的内在动力。马克思恩格斯立足生产方式阐明现代化发展的本质，但是对文明基本要素的分析并不仅仅局限于物质生产，而是从物质生产和精神生产有机统一的规定性进而重新审视文明的要素构成。其中，物质生产对文明发展起着决定性作用，精神生产是创造人类文明的重要条件和重要内容。马克思基于对所处时代的科学判断，提出了“世界历史”理论，指出“各民族的原始封闭状态由于日益完善的生产方式、交往以及因交往而自然形成的不同民族之间的分工消灭得越是彻底，历史也就越是成为世界历史”。资本主义是现代以及现代化的开端，现代化必然是世界历史的。现代化有一种强大的内驱动力，推动历史向世界历史转变。现代化在具体演进中呈现“一元多线”状态，也必然要面临物质生产和精神生产、物质文明和精神文明的相互关系问题。在对照的意义上，我们更能理解中国式现代化“既有各国现代化的共同特征，更有基于自己国情的中国特色”，是“物质文明和精神文明相协调的现代化”。

The modernization thought of Marx and Engels focuses on the “modern production” of “modern humans,” elaborating on the practical subjects, historical resultant force, and internal driving force of modernization. In terms of its fundamental attribute, Chinese-path modernization is a socialist modernization led by the Communist Party of China. It must not only develop more advanced social productive forces but also generate more advanced social relations of production; it is a modernization that unifies material abundance and spiritual enrichment.

马克思恩格斯的现代化思想聚焦“现代的人”的“现代生产”，对现代化的实践主体、历史合力、内在动力作了阐述。中国式现代化从根本属性说，是中国共产党领导的社会主义性质的现代化，不仅要发展出更先进的社会生产力，而且要产生出更先进的社会生产关系，是物质富足和精神富有相统一的现代化。

III. The Value Orientation of the Free and Comprehensive Development of Humans

三、人的自由全面发展的价值旨归

Chinese-path modernization is the result of the common practical struggle of all Chinese people, aiming to realize the “modernization of humans.” Through the critique of capitalism and the analysis of the practical essence of humans, Marx and Engels proposed the value goal of “the free and comprehensive development of humans,” which conforms to the laws of social development and the needs of human purposes. This not only provides a basis for reflecting on and criticizing Western modernization and continuously transforming the mode of modernization but also points the direction for Chinese-path modernization to strive for a leap in the level of modernization.

中国式现代化是全体中国人民共同实践奋斗的结果，旨在实现“人的现代化”。马克思恩格斯通过对资本主义的批判和人的实践本质的分析，提出了“人的自由全面发展”的价值目标，合乎社会发展规律和人的目的需求，既为反思和批判西方现代化、不断变革现代化方式提供了依据，又为中国式现代化努力实现现代化层次的跃迁指明了方向。

First, taking “the free and comprehensive development of humans” as the value pursuit, making “developing individuals” truly the purpose of modernization development. The “humans” here mainly refer to “developing individuals,” who are “definite individuals who engage in productive activity in a definite way, entering into definite social and political relations.” The “development” here is mainly manifested in humans’ comprehensive development capacity and free individuality. The developmental demands of any human point toward “comprehensively” developing their “abilities in all aspects,” which implies a full openness and rich possibility facing the future, including humans’ thinking ability, labor power or labor capacity, and humans’ social relations, among others.

第一，以“人的自由全面发展”为价值追求，使“发展的个人”真正成为现代化发展的目的。这里的“人”主要指“发展的个人”，是“以一定的方式进行生产活动的一定的个人，发生一定的社会关系和政治关系”。这里的“发展”主要体现为人的全面发展能力、人的自由个性。任何人的发展诉求都指向了“全面地”发展自己的“各方面的能力”，即意味着一种面向未来的充分敞开性和丰富可能性，其中包括人的思维能力、劳动力或劳动能力、人的社会关系，等等。

Second, through “the comprehensive realization of individuals,” forming the satisfaction, completeness, and richness of human needs; Chinese-path modernization is a modernization that truly serves the people’s good life. “The comprehensive development of individuals only ceases to be an ideal, a duty, etc., when the external world’s driving effect on the actual development of individual abilities is mastered by the individuals themselves.” On the one hand, through “free, conscious activity,” humans fully appropriate their own essence. Marx, from the perspective of historical materialism, revealed the exploitative nature of alienated labor and revealed that under communist conditions, “free, conscious activity” is the manifestation of the human essence, i.e., the manifestation of free individuality and capacity. On the other hand, labor is the most direct material basis of life for the laborer, the positive realization of the individual’s existence; people “affirm their individual life in labor,” which is the organic unity of humans’ natural attributes and social attributes.

第二，以“个人的全面实现”形成人的需要的满足、完整与丰富，中国式现代化是真正为人民美好生活服务的现代化。“个人的全面发展，只有到了外部世界对个人才能的实际发展所起的推动作用为个人本身所驾驭的时候，才不再是理想、职责等等”。一方面，以“自由自觉的活动”全面占有自己的本质。马克思从唯物史观视域中揭示了异化劳动的剥削本质，并揭示共产主义条件下“自由自觉的活动”是人类的本质显现，即自由的个性和能力的彰显。另一方面，劳动是劳动者最为直接的物质生活基础，是个人存在的积极实现，人们“在劳动中肯定了自己的个人生命”，是人的自然属性和社会属性的有机统一。

Third, the comprehensive development of humans is closely related to the comprehensive progress of society. Marx and Engels viewed the historical evolution of civilized society with a progressive view of history. On the one hand, civilized society changes with changes in the mode of production; the development of productive forces drives the evolution of social relations. On the other hand, the modern mode of civilization is the objectified existence of humans’ essential forces; the degree of humans’ comprehensive development and society’s comprehensive progress is the main measure of modern civilization. Starting from the mode of production, Marx and Engels revealed the dialectical narrative of capitalist civilized society. While affirming the historical contributions of capitalist civilization, they revealed its internal tension: “With every step forward of civilization, inequality also advances a step. All institutions established by society for itself with the emergence of civilization turn into the opposite of their original purpose.” Marx proposed “re-establishing individual property on the basis of the achievements of the capitalist era, that is, on the basis of cooperation and the common possession of the land and the means of production produced by labor itself,” so that, through the disappearance of the old division of labor and the opposition between mental and manual labor, the high development of productive forces and the abundant flow of social wealth, distribution according to need, and labor becoming the primary need of life, the free and comprehensive development of humans can be realized.

第三，人的全面发展与社会全面进步密切相关。马克思恩格斯以一种进步史观来看待文明社会的历史演进。一方面，文明社会随着生产方式的变化而变化，生产力的发展推动社会关系的演变;另一方面，现代文明方式是人的本质力量的对象化存在，人的全面发展和社会全面进步的程度是现代化文明的主要衡量标准。马克思恩格斯从生产方式入手揭示了资本主义文明社会的辩证叙事，在肯定资本主义文明历史贡献的同时，揭示了内在张力，“文明每前进一步，不平等也同时前进一步。随着文明而产生的社会为自己所建立的一切机构，都转变为它们原来的目的的反面”。马克思提出“在资本主义时代的成就的基础上，也就是说，在协作和对土地及靠劳动本身生产的生产资料的共同占有的基础上，重新建立个人所有制”，以旧式分工以及脑体劳动的对立消失、生产力高度发展与社会财富充分涌流、按需分配、劳动成为生活第一需要，从而实现人的自由全面发展。

Marx and Engels oriented the core value of modernization toward the free and comprehensive development of humans, requiring us to concretize this concept in creating a new situation for Chinese-path modernization. We must realistically address the major issues of the people’s sense of gain, happiness, and security—their survival and life needs—based on the needs and capacities of “real historical humans,” and spare no effort in creating conditions for the comprehensive development of humans and the comprehensive progress of society.

马克思恩格斯使现代化的核心价值指向人的自由全面发展，要求我们在开创中国式现代化新局面中把这一理念具体化，以“现实的历史的人”的需要和能力来现实地解决人民的获得感、幸福感和安全感等生存需要和生活需要的重大问题，并不遗余力地为人的全面发展和社会全面进步创造条件。

IV. The Logic of Thought in Confronting the Issues of the Times

四、直面时代问题的思维逻辑

In their works, through the analysis of a series of categories such as modern class, modern society, and modern productive forces, Marx and Engels, on the one hand, elucidated the positive historical significance of capitalist modernization in advancing the development of productive forces and thereby promoting human modernization; on the other hand, they thoroughly criticized capitalist modernity, transforming the unipolar conception, oppositional thinking, and linear developmental logic of capitalist modernization, clarified the issue of the choice of a country’s modernization path, and provided theoretical preconditions for the emergence of the Chinese-path modernization.

马克思恩格斯在著作中通过对现代阶级、现代社会、现代生产力等一系列范畴的分析，一方面阐明了资本主义现代化推进生产力发展，进而推动人类现代化的正面历史意义;另一方面彻底批判了资本主义现代性，变革了资本主义现代化的单极观念、对立思维和线性发展逻辑，阐明了一国现代化路径的选择问题，为中国式现代化道路的出场提供了理论维度的前置性条件。

First, Marx and Engels revealed the paradox of capitalist modernity, presenting their dialectical logic of negation regarding capitalist civilization. On the one hand, Marx and Engels highly affirmed the driving role of the Industrial Revolution and capitalism in the process of world modernization. The progressiveness of capitalist civilization is manifested not only in its transcendence of the feudal system but also in its shaping of a new world. The development of productive forces under capitalist conditions opened a new phase of human industrial civilization, conducive to the creation of elements for a higher social formation. On the other hand, Marx and Engels thoroughly criticized the social form of the modernity in which they lived, namely the capitalist system. Behind the appreciation of capital lies the depreciation of the human being; modern society falls into the developmental paradox of capitalist modernity. Starting from a realistic perspective, they revealed the situation of the proletariat, the nature, conditions, and objectives of the struggle for liberation, and exposed the barbarism of the capitalist system from the depths of history. The anti-civilizational character of capitalism lies in its making the pursuit of the maximization of surplus value an absolute imperative. Therefore, Marx and Engels’ comprehensive critique of capitalist modernity provides an important mirror for today’s modernization development. Coordinating comprehensive and balanced development, holistic awareness and dialectical thinking, systemic concepts and practical innovation are the civilizational wisdom that Marx and Engels’ thought on modernization bestows upon us.

第一，马克思恩格斯揭示了资本主义现代性的悖反，呈现其关于资本主义文明的辩证否定逻辑。一方面，马克思恩格斯高度肯定了工业革命和资本主义对世界现代化进程的推动作用。资本主义文明的进步性不仅体现在它对封建制度的超越，更在于它是对新世界的塑造。资本主义条件下生产力的发展开创了人类工业文明的新局面，有利于更高级社会形态要素的创造。另一方面，马克思恩格斯对身处其中的现代性的社会形式即资本主义制度进行了彻底批判，在资本升值背后是人的贬值，现代社会陷入资本主义现代性的发展悖论。他们从现实角度入手揭示了无产阶级处境、解放斗争性质、条件和目的，并从历史深处揭露了资本主义制度的野蛮性，资本主义的反文明性在于其把追求剩余价值最大化作为绝对律令。因此，马克思恩格斯对资本主义现代性的全面批判为今天的现代化发展提供了重要镜鉴。统筹全面与协调发展、全局意识与辩证思维、系统观念与实践创新是马克思恩格斯的现代化思想给予我们的文明智慧。

Second, Marx and Engels expounded on the generality and particularity of the development model of modernization. On the one hand, they dialectically considered the expansiveness of the capitalist mode of production. After comparing the similarities and differences between “Asian society” and “Western society,” they clearly pointed out that the model of modernization is not singular; specific factors such as historical culture, national elements, and geographical forms profoundly influence a country’s choice of modernization path and its development. On the other hand, in their critique of the economic crises, ecological crises, and social crises triggered by capitalist modernization, Marx and Engels believed that the fundamental way to extricate capitalist modern civilization from this degraded predicament lies in eliminating the shackles of the logic of capital, that is, fundamentally transcending the capitalist mode of production and abolishing the capitalist system. “The positive transcendence of private property, as the appropriation of human life, is the positive transcendence of all estrangement, and thus the return of man from religion, family, state, etc., to his human, i.e., social existence,” presenting a new modernity that transcends capital modernity. Therefore, only through an innovative developmental layout and systematic promotion of construction and development can the real practical difficulties and sustainable development issues of modernization be truly resolved.

第二，马克思恩格斯阐述了现代化发展模式的一般性和特殊性。一方面，他们对资本主义生产方式的扩张性加以辩证思考，在对比了“亚洲社会”和“西方社会”的异同后，明确指出现代化模式并不是单一的，历史文化、民族因素、地理形态等具体要素深刻影响国家的现代化道路选择和发展。另一方面，在对资本主义现代化引发的经济危机、生态危机和社会危机等批判中，马克思恩格斯认为使资本主义现代文明摆脱这种堕落境遇的根本出路在于消除资本逻辑的束缚，亦即从根本上超越资本主义生产方式，消灭资本主义制度。“对私有财产的积极的扬弃，作为对人的生命的占有，是对一切异化的积极的扬弃，从而是人从宗教、家庭、国家等等向自己的合乎人性的存在即社会的存在的复归”，呈现一种超越资本现代性的新现代性。因此，只有以创新的发展布局，系统性地推进建设与发展，才有可能真正解决现代化的现实难题和持续发展问题。

Third, Marx and Engels pointed the direction for the modernization of human society. First, the replacement of capitalist modernity by a new socialist modernity is an inevitability in the historical development of human society. There exists an antagonistic contradiction and conflict between the socialization of production and the private appropriation of the means of production in capitalist society, making class opposition increasingly severe, and it is even “unable to contain the wealth it has itself created.” With the rapid development of large-scale industry, the domination of labor by the power of capital has led to the normalization of the antagonism between labor and capital. This means that capitalist society “first produces its own gravediggers”; the “personification of capital” is a concrete expression of the paradoxical logic of capital. Second, modernization is not a transcendental, predetermined universal formula. “Modernization is not a multiple-choice question. The diversity of historical conditions determines the diversity of development paths chosen by different countries.” “History cannot be created by formulas”; the transformation of social formations means that social change is a “dynamic process.” The goal of Marx and Engels’ critique of capitalist modernity is to reveal the social formation towards which the future modernization of humanity is directed. Therefore, dialectical thinking, historical perspective, and humanistic pursuit, as the logical content of Marx and Engels’ thought on modernization, are both the mode of thought for criticizing capitalist modernity and the method of thinking for exploring the future direction of human social development.

第三，马克思恩格斯为人类社会现代化指明了方向。其一，社会主义新现代性取代资本主义现代性是人类社会历史发展的必然。资本主义社会的生产社会化与生产资料私人占有之间存在着对抗性矛盾和冲突，使社会阶级对立愈益严重，更是“容纳不了它本身所造成的财富了”。随着大工业的迅猛发展，资本力量对劳动力量的统摄，造成了劳动与资本对抗的常态化。这意味着，资本主义社会“首先生产的是它自身的掘墓人”，“资本的人格化”是资本逻辑悖反的具体表达。其二，现代化并不是一种先验设定的普遍公式。“现代化不是单选题。历史条件的多样性，决定了各国选择发展道路的多样性。”“历史是不能靠公式来创造的”，社会形态的变迁意味着社会变化是一个“动态过程”。马克思恩格斯的资本主义现代性批判的目标是，揭示未来人类的现代化所指向的社会形态。因此，辩证的思维、历史的视野和人类的追求，作为马克思恩格斯现代化思想的思维逻辑内容，既是批判资本主义现代性的思想方式，也是探寻人类社会未来发展方向的思维方法。

The theoretical presentation of the problems of the era reveals the thought logic of the modernization plan. “The relation of capital and labor is the axis around which our entire modern social system revolves.” Marx and Engels regarded the concrete unfolding of capital modernity as a process full of internal contradictions. Capitalist modernization subordinates human development to the valorization of capital, which is essentially the alienation of the human being. Chinese-path modernization, by constructing a high-level socialist market economic system, both exerts the decisive role of an effective market and leverages the macro-control capacity of a capable government, adheres to the people-centered development thought, takes promoting social fairness and justice and enhancing the people’s well-being as its starting point and ultimate goal, effectively overcomes the inherent predicament of capitalist modernity, and achieves a substantive transcendence of Western modernization.

时代问题的理论化呈现出现代化方案的思想逻辑。“资本和劳动的关系，是我们全部现代社会体系所围绕旋转的轴心”，马克思恩格斯将资本现代性的具体展开视为一个充满内在矛盾的过程，资本主义现代化使人的发展从属于资本的增殖，实质是对人的异化。中国式现代化通过构建高水平社会主义市场经济体制，既发挥有效市场的决定性作用，又发挥有为政府的宏观调控能力，坚持以人民为中心的发展思想，以促进社会公平正义、增进人民福祉为出发点和落脚点，有效克服了资本主义现代性的固有困境，对西方现代化形成了实质性超越。

V. The Practical Orientation of Envisioning the Future of Civilization

五、憧憬文明未来的实践指向

Communist civilized society is the developmental vision for the future society that Marx and Engels unfolded on the basis of their critique of capitalist civilization, taking the realization of the free and comprehensive development of the human being as the value objective of their thought on modernization. Among this, the highly developed productive forces and the immensely abundant social products created by modernization lay the material foundation for the free and comprehensive development of the human being; the world-historical character formed by modernization provides the basic condition for the universal “association” of human beings necessary for the realization of communism. Communism is “a social form in which the full and free development of each individual forms the ruling principle.”

共产主义文明社会是马克思恩格斯在批判资本主义文明的基础上对未来社会展开的发展设想，将实现人的自由全面发展作为现代化思想的价值旨归。其中，现代化所创造的高度发达的生产力、极大丰富的社会产品为人的自由全面发展奠定了物质基础;现代化所形成的世界历史性为实现共产主义提供了人的普遍“联合”的基本条件。共产主义是“以每一个个人的全面而自由的发展为基本原则的社会形式”。

First, by establishing the “association of free individuals,” lay the ontological foundation for the shared destiny of humanity. The “association of free individuals,” based on the inevitable trend of the continuous integration and development of world history, reveals the historical fact that the destinies of humanity are closely intertwined; taking humanity as the subject, it regards the whole of humanity as an interdependent organism. In the process of modernization, the continuous satisfaction of human needs makes the human being becoming human the essence of the modernization that humanity pursues. The “association of free individuals,” taking “shared destiny” as its ontological foundation, focuses on planning the long-term interests of humanity as a whole, establishing a value community with inclusive coexistence as its core, and transcending the narrow “Western-centric theory” and “clash of civilizations theory.” The “universal values” loudly propagated by Western countries led by the United States are the abstraction, absolutization, and eternalization of capitalist value concepts, which factually obscure the “concrete human being” with the “abstract human being.” Chinese-path modernization is a modernization that follows the path of peaceful development. The Communist Party of China, based on the real survival and development needs of humanity, has proposed the common values of all mankind. This is a historical materialist plan that seeks value consensus on the basis of respecting individual differences, transcending the centrism and universalism of Western modernization in both logic and fact.

第一，以建立“自由人联合体”，奠定人类命运与共的存在论基础。“自由人联合体”基于世界历史不断融合、发展的必然趋势，揭示了人类命运休戚与共的历史事实;以人类为主体，将整个人类视为相互依存的有机体。在现代化过程中，人的需要不断得到满足，使人之为人是人类追寻的现代化实质。“自由人联合体”以“命运与共”为存在论基础，着眼于从整体上谋划人类长远利益，建立以包容共生为内核的价值共同体，超越狭隘的“西方中心论”和“文明冲突论”。以美国为首的西方国家大肆宣扬的“普世价值”是资本主义价值理念的抽象化、绝对化与永恒化，是以“抽象的人”事实地遮蔽了“具体的人”。中国式现代化是走和平发展道路的现代化，中国共产党根据人类的现实的生存和发展需要，提出全人类共同价值，是在尊重个体差异的基础上寻求价值共识的唯物史观方案，从逻辑和事实上超越了西方现代化的中心主义和普世主义。

Second, by breaking “the power that dominates everything,” lead the value orientation of “a community with a shared future for mankind.” According to the viewpoint of historical materialism, the development of individual capacities means “discovering, creating, and satisfying new needs arising from society itself.” In capitalist society, capital “destroys all barriers that hinder the development of productive forces, the expansion of needs, the diversification of production, and the exploitation and exchange of natural and spiritual forces.” The bourgeoisie, under the pretext of safeguarding universal interests, presents its own interests as universal interests. This “split between the community and the individual” is an inevitable consequence of the “illusory community” and “the power that dominates everything,” hindering the free and comprehensive development of the human being. The communist society established through the proletarian revolution is “an association, in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all,” and is the real community with a shared future for mankind.

第二，以破除“支配一切的权力”，引领“人类命运共同体”价值取向。按照唯物史观的观点，个人能力的发展意味着要“发现、创造和满足由社会本身产生的新的需要”。在资本主义社会，资本“摧毁一切阻碍发展生产力、扩大需要、使生产多样化、利用和交换自然力量和精神力量的限制”，资产阶级以维护普遍利益为幌子，把自己的利益说成是普遍的利益，这种“共同体与个人的分裂”是“虚幻的共同体”“支配一切的权力”的必然后果，阻碍人的自由全面发展。通过无产阶级革命建立起来的共产主义社会，是“这样一个联合体，在那里，每个人的自由发展是一切人的自由发展的条件”，是现实的人类命运共同体。

Third, to renovate the mode of development through “human emancipation” and shape the communist form of civilization. Whether modernization theory can embed a future dimension, a human dimension, and a civilizational dimension within its core concepts is a fundamental and prerequisite question for whether the practice of modernization can truly point toward human freedom, emancipation, and development. On the one hand, human emancipation and the development of world history possess an intrinsic unity. Only by achieving universal intercourse and globalization can “separate individuals … rid themselves of the various national and local limitations, become engaged in the practical intercourse with the production (including intellectual production) of the whole world and be put in a position to acquire the capacity to enjoy this all-sided production of the whole earth (the creations of man)”[19]19 Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, *The German Ideology* (excerpt), in *Marx and Engels Collected Works*, vol. 5 (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1976), p. 51. [Translator’s note: The English text follows the standard MECW translation.]; on the other hand, the social-historical power of human beings is the fundamental guarantee for shaping the communist form of civilization. Only when “this power is organized and thus no longer separates itself from human beings as a political power, only then will human emancipation be completed.”[20]20 Karl Marx, “On the Jewish Question,” in *Marx and Engels Collected Works*, vol. 3 (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1975), p. 168. [Translator’s note: The English text follows the standard MECW translation.] Chinese-path modernization is the contemporary practice of Marx and Engels’ thought on modernization, and shaping the communist form of civilization is the inevitable developmental requirement of Chinese-path modernization.

第三，以“人的解放”革新发展方式，塑造共产主义文明形态。现代化理论如何在其核心观念中内置未来向度、人类向度和文明向度，是现代化实践能否真正指向人的自由、解放和发展的根本性前提性问题。一方面，人类解放与世界历史发展具有内在统一性。只有实现普遍交往和全球化，“单个人才能摆脱种种民族局限和地域局限而同整个世界的生产(也同精神的生产)发生实际联系，才能获得利用全球的这种全面的生产(人们的创造)的能力”;另一方面，人的社会历史性力量是塑造共产主义文明形态的根本保障，只有当“把这种力量组织起来因而不再把社会力量以政治力量的形式同自身分离的时候，只有到了那个时候，人的解放才能完成”。中国式现代化是马克思恩格斯的现代化思想的当代实践，塑造共产主义文明形态是中国式现代化的必然发展要求。

Marx and Engels’ thought on modernization represents the developmental trend of modern civilization and the practical aspiration of the vision of modern civilization. We must uphold the epochal core of their thought on modernization, exert concerted efforts within the Five-Sphere Integrated Plan and the Four-Pronged Comprehensive Strategy, actively promote the building of a community with a shared future for mankind, advance the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation comprehensively through Chinese-path modernization, and strive to create a new form of human civilization.

马克思恩格斯的现代化思想表征了现代化文明的发展趋势和现代化文明憧憬的实践诉求。我们要秉持其现代化思想的时代性内核，在“五位一体”总体布局和“四个全面”战略布局中同向发力，积极推动构建人类命运共同体，以中国式现代化全面推进中华民族伟大复兴，努力创造人类文明新形态。

Online editor: Paul

网络编辑：保罗