The Historical Transformation of the Mode of Production: The Practical Premise of Chinese-Path Cultural Modernization

Chinese-path cultural modernization is a great exploration carried out by the Chinese people under the leadership of the Communist Party of China in the cultural sphere. It is embodied both in the emergence and development of the modern content and form of Chinese cultural patterns, and in the conscious identification with and active promotion of modern culture by the broad masses of the people. An in-depth discussion of the premises of Chinese-path cultural modernization helps us understand the historical process by which Chinese culture acquired modern attributes and once again led the development of world culture. Academic research on Chinese-path cultural modernization mainly follows the research approach of cultural history, the core of which is to explain the premises of Chinese-path cultural modernization from the ideological dimension. Some scholars focus on describing the impact of differentiated cultural blending on Chinese culture, arguing that “the liberal Westernization faction, the conservative modern New Confucian faction, and the Chinese Marxist faction together” promoted the development of Chinese-path cultural modernization [1]1 Li Shitao, “The Triple Logic of the Formation of the Discourse System of Chinese-Path Cultural Modernization,” *Seeking Truth* 49, no. 6 (2022): 26.; some scholars, based on the vitality of fine traditional Chinese culture, hold that “excavating the contemporary value of traditional Chinese culture can awaken the cultural consciousness of the entire people, stimulate national cultural confidence, and build a modern cultural power” [2]2 Chen Xi, “The Contemporary Value of Traditional Culture and the Construction of a Modern Cultural Power,” *Social Science Front* no. 5 (2015): 155.; still other scholars, proceeding from the advanced nature of socialist culture, argue that Chinese-path cultural modernization is essentially about building a “socialist culture that is oriented toward modernization, toward the world, and toward the future, that is national, scientific, and popular” [3]3 Jiang Jianguo, “Strive to Build a Socialist Cultural Power,” *Qiushi* no. 12 (2019): 4.. Research from the perspective of cultural history is conducive to fully grasping the ferment and blending of various ideas in the process of Chinese-path cultural modernization, providing a solid theoretical foundation for understanding the ideological premises of Chinese-path cultural modernization. However, we still need to further explore: What drove the blending of differentiated cultures? How is the “contemporary” in “the contemporary value of traditional culture” defined? Where should the nature of socialist culture be sought? The perplexities of the ideological premise require answers from the practical premise. From the perspective of historical materialism, the transformation of the mode of production is the practical premise for the transformation of cultural forms; the modernity of culture is rooted in the modernity of the mode of production. The shaping of the modern content and form of a society’s mainstream culture, and the conscious development of modern culture by cultural subjects, depend on the establishment of the dominant position of the modern mode of production within the social production system. It is necessary, guided by historical materialism and based on the historical transformation of China’s mode of production, to explore the material foundation of Chinese-path cultural modernization and the generative logic of subjective consciousness, thereby further clarifying its practical premise.

中国式文化现代化是中国共产党领导中国人民在文化领域展开的伟大探索，既体现为中国文化形态的现代内容和形式的产生发展，也体现为广大人民群众对现代文化的自觉认同与主动发扬。深入探讨中国式文化现代化的前提条件，有助于我们理解中国文化获得现代属性并重新引领世界文化发展的历史进程。学界对中国式文化现代化的研究主要遵循文化史的研究理路，核心在于从思想维度阐释中国式文化现代化的前提条件。有学者重点描述差异性的文化交融对中国文化的影响历程，认为“自由主义西化派、保守主义的现代新儒家派与中国马克思主义派一起”推动中国式文化现代化的发展；有学者立足中华优秀传统文化的生命力，认为“挖掘中华传统文化的当代价值，可以唤起全民文化自觉、激发民族文化自信并建设现代文化强国”；还有学者从社会主义文化的先进性出发，认为中国式文化现代化本质上是建设“发展面向现代化，面向世界，面向未来的，民族的科学的大众的社会主义文化”。文化史角度的研究有利于充分把握中国式文化现代化进程中各种思想的激荡与交融，为理解中国式文化现代化的思想前提提供了坚实的学理基础。然而，我们仍需进一步探讨：什么推动了差异性的文化交融？传统文化的当代价值中的“当代”是如何被定义的？社会主义文化的性质应到何处寻找？思想前提的困惑需要实践前提的回答。在历史唯物主义视域下，生产方式的变革是文化形态变革的实践前提，文化的现代性根源于生产方式的现代性。社会主流文化的现代内容和形式的塑造、文化主体对现代文化的自觉发扬，依赖于现代生产方式在社会生产体系中主导地位的确立。有必要在历史唯物主义指引下，基于中国生产方式的历史性变革探讨中国式文化现代化的物质基础和主体自觉的生成逻辑，进一步明确其实践前提。

I. The Dialectical Relationship between the Mode of Production and Cultural Forms from the Perspective of Historical Materialism

一、历史唯物主义视域下生产方式与文化形态的辩证关系

Since the birth of human society, the mode of production and cultural forms have constituted two fundamental systems of the social structure, interdependent and interacting with each other. In the pre-capitalist social period, limited by a relatively low level of productive forces and a single cultural form, production and culture existed in a state of chaotic unity. People were unable to fully contemplate the inherent laws of material production and the essential driving forces of cultural development, let alone clearly grasp the relationship between the two. With the progress of the modern Enlightenment and the Industrial Revolution, both culture, marked by its spiritual nature, and production, marked by its material nature, developed rapidly. Thinkers gradually began to explore various problems existing in the development of capitalist society, starting either from the mode of production or from cultural forms. On this basis, perspectives explaining the development path of society and changes in the world situation emerged, using either economic determinism or cultural determinism. The former weakens the active role of culture in material production, while the latter obscures the material interest conflicts behind cultural contradictions; neither can correctly handle the dialectical relationship between the mode of production and cultural forms. From the perspective of historical materialism, the mode of production and cultural forms are not a matter of pure one-way determination, but rather a two-way dialectical unity. Understanding this dialectical relationship requires a deep critique of the theoretical defects of both material determinism and cultural determinism, grasping the fundamental driving role of changes in the mode of production in the development of cultural forms, and understanding the internal logic by which cultural forms react upon the mode of production.

自人类社会诞生以来，生产方式与文化形态便构成了社会结构的两大基本系统，它们相互依存、相互作用。在前资本主义社会时期，受限于较低的生产力水平和单一的文化形态，其生产与文化以混沌统一的方式存在，人们无法充分思考物质生产的内在规律和文化发展的本质动力，更无法明确把握二者的关系。随着近代启蒙运动与工业革命的进展，以精神性为内在标识的文化与以物质性为内在标识的生产都得到了迅速发展，思想家们逐渐从生产方式或文化形态出发，探讨资本主义社会发展中存在的各类问题。在此基础上衍生出用经济决定论或文化决定论的视角解释社会的发展路径与世界局势变化，前者弱化了文化对物质生产的能动作用，后者遮蔽了文化矛盾背后的物质利益冲突，两者都不能正确处理生产方式与文化形态之间的辩证关系。在历史唯物主义视域中，生产方式与文化形态并不是纯粹的单向决定，而是双向的辩证统一，对二者辩证关系的理解需要深入批判物质决定论与文化决定论的理论缺陷，把握生产方式变革对文化形态发展的根本性推动作用，并理解文化形态反作用于生产方式的内在逻辑。

The critique of economic determinism and cultural determinism by historical materialism provides the theoretical premise for clarifying the dialectical relationship between the mode of production and cultural forms. Economic determinism has taken different forms in different periods and countries. In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, its typical representatives were the “economic factor measurement theory” and “economic spontaneity theory” proposed by Second International theorists such as Kautsky and Bernstein [4]4 The Second International (1889–1916) was an international socialist organization. Karl Kautsky (1854–1938) and Eduard Bernstein (1850–1932) were prominent German social democrats whose revisionist interpretations of Marxism were criticized by orthodox Marxists.; in the mid-to-late 20th century and the early 21st century, its typical representative was cultural materialism proposed by the American anthropologist Marvin Harris. There are differences between these two forms of economic determinism. The former adopts Marx’s dichotomy of economic base and superstructure, emphasizing that with the development of the economic base, politics and culture will change naturally, and uses this as a theoretical basis to negate socialist revolution in Western Europe or Russia. The latter replaces the dichotomy of economic base and superstructure with a trichotomy of infrastructure, structure, and superstructure, viewing all social changes as the transmission from the infrastructure composed of production and reproduction to structure and superstructure. Although there are differences in their theoretical formulations, their philosophical foundations and their views on the relationship between the mode of production and cultural forms are consistent. From the perspective of philosophical foundation, economic determinists understand historical development as a “subjectless” technique, stubbornly adhering to “‘foundationalism’ and ‘reductionist’ ways of thinking, mechanically interpreting the relationship between economic base and superstructure, and emphasizing the sole determining role of economic factors” [5]5 Wang Shuang, “The Theoretical Defects of Economic Determinism and the Practical Turn of Historical Materialism,” *Jianghan Tribune* no. 7 (2019): 47.. From the perspective of the relationship between the mode of production and cultural forms, economic determinists ignore the dialectical part of historical materialism, completely treating cultural forms as appendages of the mode of production. They believe that innovation in cultural forms “is unlikely to be spread and expanded if it is functionally inconsistent with the existing mode of production and mode of reproduction” [6]6 Marvin Harris, *Cultural Materialism: The Struggle for a Science of Culture* (New York: Random House, 1979), 60., thereby obscuring the contradictory relationship between cultural forms and the mode of production, and the relative independence of culture in the development of social history is eliminated. The vulgar materialist philosophical foundation of economic determinism and its mode of thinking lacking dialectics determine its inherent theoretical defects. First, the dogmatism brought about by economic determinism is not conducive to the full development of social science. Engels criticized economic determinists for sticking various clichés as labels onto all kinds of things, “without further study, that is, once they have stuck this label on, they think the problem is solved” [7]7 Friedrich Engels, “Letter to Conrad Schmidt,” in *Marx and Engels Collected Works*, vol. 39 (Beijing: People’s Publishing House, 1974), 406.. Engels’s critique remains relevant today; some scholars use the yardstick of economic determinism to measure and cut everything, using the phrase “in the final analysis” to ignore or even belittle specific fields, especially research and exploration in the cultural field. Second, economic determinism eliminates the subject status of human beings and negates the ability of humanity to transcend the present and actively construct an ideal future. Lenin pointed out that the economic determinists’ neglect of ideological struggle is essentially replacing political and ideological struggle with the struggle for economic interests, which would lower “the political consciousness and revolutionary initiative of the masses” [8]8 V. I. Lenin, “What Is to Be Done?” in *Lenin Collected Works*, vol. 6 (Beijing: People’s Publishing House, 1986), 57.. His critique still has reference significance for developing Marxism in the 21st century. Human beings are not production tools under the perspective of economic determinism, but the historical subject around which the entire production process must revolve. The great cause of human liberation requires the masses of the people, on the basis of mastering historical laws, to develop the historical initiative spirit and actively construct an ideal society.

历史唯物主义对经济决定论与文化决定论的批判，为明晰生产方式与文化形态之间的辩证关系提供了理论前提。经济决定论在不同时期和国家具有不同的表现形式。在19世纪末20世纪初，其典型代表为第二国际理论家考茨基和伯恩施坦等提出的“经济因素衡量论”和“经济自发论”；在20世纪中后期以及21世纪初，其典型代表是美国人类学家马文·哈里斯提出的文化唯物主义。两种经济决定论存在差异，前者采用马克思对经济基础与上层建筑的二分法，强调伴随经济基础的发展，政治与文化将自然而然地发生变化，并以此为理论基础否定西欧或俄国的社会主义革命；后者则以基础结构、结构以及上层建筑的三分法取代经济基础与上层建筑的二分法，将一切社会变化都视为由生产和再生产组成的基础结构对结构和上层建筑的传导。尽管二者在理论述说方面存在差异，但二者的哲学基础以及对生产方式与文化形态之间关系的观点具有一致性。从哲学基础上看，经济决定论者将历史的发展理解为“无人身”的技巧，固守“‘基础主义’和‘还原论’的思维方式，机械地解读经济基础和上层建筑的关系，强调经济因素的唯一决定性”。从生产方式与文化形态之间的关系看，经济决定论者忽略了历史唯物主义中的辩证法部分，将文化形态完全视为生产方式的附属品，认为文化形态的创新“如果与现存生产方式和再生产方式在功能上不一致，就不大可能被传播和扩大”，从而遮蔽了文化形态与生产方式之间的矛盾关系，文化在社会历史发展中的相对独立性地位被取消。经济决定论的庸俗唯物主义哲学基础和缺乏辩证法的思维方式决定了其内在理论缺陷。首先，经济决定论带来的教条主义不利于社会科学的充分发展。恩格斯批判经济决定论者将各种套语以标签的方式贴到各种事物上去，“再不作进一步的研究，就是说，他们一把这个标签贴上去，就以为问题已经解决了”。恩格斯的批判在今天仍未过时，部分学者拿经济决定论的尺子四处衡量与裁剪，以“归根到底”的言辞忽视乃至贬低具体领域，尤其是对文化领域的研究探索。其次，经济决定论取消了人的主体地位，否定了人类超越当下主动建构理想未来的能力。列宁指出，经济决定论者对意识形态斗争的忽视，本质上是用经济利益的斗争取代政治与意识形态的斗争，会降低“群众的政治意识和革命积极性”。他的批判对发展21世纪的马克思主义仍有借鉴意义，人不是经济决定论视域下的生产工具，而是整个生产过程必须围绕的历史主体，人类解放的伟大事业需要人民群众在掌握历史规律的基础上发扬历史主动精神，主动建构理想社会。

Representative views that analyze social-historical development and change through cultural determinism include Max Weber’s theory of the capitalist spirit, Antonio Gramsci’s theory of cultural hegemony, and Arnold Toynbee’s theory of the rise and fall of civilizations. Weber regarded the formation of the capitalist spirit as the premise for the emergence of the capitalist mode of production; his logic of argumentation is that Protestant ethics prompted the germination of the capitalist spirit, and “wherever the capitalist spirit appears and is able to function, it produces its own capital and money supply as a means to achieve its own ends.” The capitalist spirit drove the development of industry and commerce, promoting the formation of the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. Gramsci interpreted the reasons for the maintenance of the capitalist mode of production from the perspective of cultural hegemony. He believed that the state’s “most important function is to raise the moral and cultural level of the broad masses to a certain standard, to adapt to the developmental requirements of the productive forces, and thus also to adapt to the interests of the ruling class.” The mode of rule in mature capitalist countries is no longer through violence, but through their hegemonic position in the cultural sphere, making the people accept a series of their moral and legal constraints, thereby achieving the goal of rule. Unlike Weber and Gramsci, who emphasized the particularity of capitalist society, Toynbee believed that the differentiated civilizations shaped by various cultures follow common laws of growth and disintegration. “The growth stage and the disintegration stage of civilization can both be broken down into a series of challenges and responses.” The challenges encountered by culture prompt changes in the mode of production; the growth of culture promotes the development of the mode of production; the disintegration of culture brings about the demise of the mode of production. Culture both determines the particularity of the mode of production and contains the driving force for its change and development. The views of Weber, Gramsci, and Toynbee all have an idealist character. Weber and Gramsci regarded spiritual culture as the logical starting point of social construction and existence, while Toynbee regarded culture itself as the ontology of social history. Marx’s critique of the Young Hegelians applies to both: “Real, life production is regarded as something non-historical, while the historical is regarded as something separate from everyday life, something outside and above the world.” Culture does not possess absolute independence; “its birth, death, and all development and change are still determined by people and their needs.” The theoretical defect of cultural determinism lies in mistaking the appearance of culture’s relative independence for the essence of absolute independence, exaggerating culture’s influence on individuals into a decisive role for culture in the evolution of the social mode of production, and ultimately reducing the path to solving social problems to cultural transformation. The theoretical conception of cultural determinism obscures the real development of production and conflicts of material interests in human society with spiritual and cultural movements. Historical development proves that attempts to change cultural forms without changing the relations of production often degenerate into the cerebral ecstasy and self-satisfaction of a few intellectuals, hardly stirring waves in the long river of history. As Marx said, “‘Ideas’ which ‘leave’ ‘interests’ will inevitably make themselves look ridiculous.”

以文化决定论分析社会历史发展变化的代表观点包括马克斯·韦伯的资本主义精神论、葛兰西的文化霸权论以及汤因比的文化兴亡论。韦伯将资本主义精神的形成作为资本主义生产方式产生的前提，其论证逻辑是新教伦理促使资本主义精神萌发，“只要是资本主义精神出现并能发挥作用的地方，它就能生产自己的资本和货币供给，以之作为达到自身目的的手段”，资本主义精神驱使工商业发展，推动资产阶级与无产阶级的形成。葛兰西从文化霸权的角度解读资本主义生产方式得以维系的原因。他认为国家“最重要的职能就是把广大国民的道德文化提高到一定的水平，与生产力的发展要求相适应，从而也与统治阶级的利益相适应”，成熟资本主义国家的统治方式不再是通过暴力，而是通过其在文化领域的霸权地位，让人民接受他们一系列道德、法律约束，达到统治的目的。与韦伯和葛兰西强调的资本主义社会的特殊性不同，汤因比认为各种文化所塑造的差异性文明遵循共同的成长与解体规律。“文明的成长阶段和解体阶段都可以分解成一连串的挑战与应对”，文化遭遇的挑战促使生产方式发生变化，文化的成长推动生产方式的发展，文化的解体带来生产方式的消亡，文化既规定生产方式的特殊性，也内蕴生产方式变化发展的动力。韦伯、葛兰西以及汤因比的观点都具有唯心主义色彩，韦伯和葛兰西将精神文化视为社会建构和存在的逻辑起点，汤因比将文化自身视为社会历史的本体。马克思对青年黑格尔派的批判适用于二者，“现实的生活生产被看成是某种非历史的东西，而历史的东西则被看成是某种脱离日常生活的东西，某种处于世界之外和超乎世界之上的东西”。文化并不具备绝对独立性，“其生生灭灭和一切发展变化，还是被人及其需求决定的”。文化决定论的理论缺陷在于，将文化相对独立性的外观错认为具有绝对独立性的本质，将文化对个体的影响夸大为文化对社会生产方式的演变起决定性作用，最终将社会问题的解决路径归结于文化的变革。文化决定论的理论构思以精神文化运动遮蔽了人类社会真实的生产发展与物质利益冲突，历史的发展证明，不改变生产关系却妄想改变文化形态的尝试往往沦为个别知识分子的颅内高潮和自我满足，难以激起历史长河的浪花，正如马克思所言，“‘思想’一旦离开‘利益’，就一定会使自己出丑”。

From the perspective of historical materialism, the mode of production and cultural forms possess a dialectical unity. The mode of production is the fundamental force driving social-historical development. Culture is rooted in the mode of production; it both acquires new forms along with the historical transformation of the mode of production and matures continuously along with the development of the mode of production itself. As the maturity of cultural forms increases, the relative independence of culture strengthens, enabling it to influence the pace of transformation of the mode of production and the formation process of cultural forms in the next historical stage by shaping individual and group consciousness. Analyzing from the perspective of the transformation of the mode of production driving the transformation of cultural forms, the mode of production, as the unity of productive forces and relations of production, shapes the material foundation of society and determines people’s ideas, values, and even the entire cultural system. Analyzing from the perspective of the development of the mode of production promoting the maturity of cultural forms, the growth of a specific cultural form depends on the level of the mode of production in which it is rooted. Marx pointed out that “the production of ideas, of conceptions, of consciousness, is at first directly interwoven with the material activity and the material intercourse of men, the language

在历史唯物主义视域中，生产方式与文化形态具有辩证统一性。生产方式是推动社会历史发展的根本力量，文化根植于生产方式之中，既伴随生产方式的历史性变革而获得新形式，也伴随生产方式自身的发展不断走向成熟；伴随文化形态成熟度的提高，文化的相对独立性不断增强，能够通过塑造个体意识与群体意识，影响生产方式的变革节奏和下一历史阶段文化形态的形成过程。从生产方式变革推动文化形态转化的角度分析，作为生产力和生产关系相统一的生产方式塑造社会的物质基础，决定人们的思想观念、价值取向乃至整个文化体系。从生产方式发展推动文化形态成熟的角度分析，特定文化形态的成长依赖于其根植的生产方式的水平。马克思指出，“思想、观念、意识的生产最初是直接与人们的物质活动，与人们的物质交往，与现实生活的语言交织在一起的”，只有物质生产发展到一定程度，二者才分离开来。生产方式的发展程度决定社会关系的丰富性，而“人在精神上的现实丰富性完全取决于他的现实关系的丰富性”。例如，封建主义发展至巅峰的明清时期的社会关系比秦朝的社会关系丰富，人的文化生活也更为富足；同理，成熟资本主义时期的社会关系比资本主义萌芽时期的社会关系复杂，人的文化生活也更加充裕和多元。马克思指出，历史唯物主义“不是在每个时代中寻找某种范畴，而是始终站在现实历史的基础上，不是从观念出发来解释实践，而是从物质实践出发来解释各种观念形态”。生产方式的发展促使生产者不断认识自身的生存处境和思想难题，逐步明晰自身的利益诉求和价值追求，持续探索理想的社会结构和生活状态，并以相对独立的文化形态表述自己的处境、追求以及理想。

Once a culture is formed, it possesses its own relative independence, but the strength of this independence is closely related to the degree of cultural development; the stronger the relative independence, the deeper the counter-effect on the mode of production. Marx once pointed out that "the ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas, i.e. the class which is the ruling material force of society, is at the same time its ruling intellectual force."[n9] The more stable and the longer the ruling class maintains its dominance, the tighter its cultural control over society becomes, and the stronger the relative independence of culture grows. This independence manifests in culture's ability to transcend the economic base, forming its own unique logic and laws, and, by influencing the thinking patterns of individuals and the social consciousness of groups, reacting back upon the mode of production, affecting the rhythm and direction of its transformation. Some scholars have pointed out that China missed the opportunity for capitalist development in the 16th and 19th centuries because it possessed a feudal cultural system with mature theory and comprehensive coverage; the solidity of China's feudal political-economic system lay not only in the system itself "but also in the support and reinforcement it received from the long-standing and profound Confucian cultural system built upon this foundation; thus, China's self-sufficient development system became completely unassailable."[n10] Old cultural forms hinder the formation of new modes of production, while cultures compatible with new modes of production can also promote the establishment of new modes of production. The humanist thought of the Renaissance laid the ideological foundation and cultural support for the primitive accumulation of capitalism; the rationalist spirit of the Enlightenment provided an ideal blueprint for the establishment of capitalist political systems; and the scientific socialist theory of Marx and Engels supplied the intellectual wisdom for the socialist construction of the Soviet Union and China. Various cultural forms, embodying different worldviews, outlooks on life, value systems, and methodological systems, all play a core and crucial role of relative independence in different eras and among different nations.

文化一经形成便具有自己的相对独立性，但独立性的强弱与文化的发展程度密切相关，相对独立性越强，对生产方式的反作用越深刻。马克思曾指出，“统治阶级的思想在每一时代都是占统治地位的思想。这就是说，一个阶级是社会上占统治地位的物质力量，同时也是社会上占统治地位的精神力量”。统治阶级的统治地位越稳固、统治时间越长，其对社会的文化控制就越严密，文化的相对独立性就越强。这种独立性体现为文化能够超越经济基础，形成自己特有的逻辑和规律，通过影响个体的思维方式和群体的社会意识，反过来作用于生产方式，影响其变革的节奏和方向。有学者指出，中国在16世纪和19世纪错失资本主义发展的契机是因为中国具有理论系统成熟、覆盖范围全面的封建主义文化系统，中国封建政治经济体制的牢固性不仅在制度本身，“还在于它得到建立在这一基础之上的悠久深厚的儒家文化系统的支持与加固，这样，中国的自足发展体系就完全牢不可破了”。旧的文化形态阻碍新生产方式的形成，与新生产方式相适应的文化也可以推动新生产方式的建立。文艺复兴时期的人文主义思想为资本主义的原始积累奠定了思想基础和文化支撑、启蒙时期的理性主义精神为资本主义政治制度的建立提供了理想蓝图、马克思和恩格斯的科学社会主义理论为苏联和中国的社会主义建设供给了思想智慧。蕴含不同世界观、人生观、价值观以及方法论体系的各式文化形态，在不同时代和不同民族都发挥着核心且关键的相对独立性作用。

The transformation of the mode of production determines the transformation of cultural forms, and the degree of development of the mode of production influences the degree of maturity of the corresponding cultural forms; the higher the degree of maturity of a cultural form, the more pronounced its relative independence, and the deeper its counter-effect on the mode of production. The dialectical unity between the mode of production and cultural forms is not a static mutual influence but a dynamic socio-historical developmental process. If one discusses the transformation of the mode of production in isolation from cultural forms, one may fall into vulgar materialism, thereby failing to perceive the possibility of humanity transcending the current historical stage; conversely, discussing the development of cultural forms in isolation from the mode of production may fall into the mysterious quagmire of idealism, thereby failing to grasp the objective reasons for cultural change. The study of Chinese-path cultural modernization requires, from the perspective of historical materialism, exploring the material foundation and subjective consciousness of culture's transition from tradition to modernity from the angle of the transformation of the mode of production.

生产方式的变革决定文化形态的变革，生产方式的发展程度影响与之相适应的文化形态的成熟程度；文化形态的成熟程度越高，其相对独立性越显著，对生产方式的反作用也更为深刻。生产方式与文化形态之间的辩证统一关系并非静态的相互影响，而是动态的社会历史发展过程。如果脱离文化形态谈论生产方式的变革，可能陷入庸俗的唯物主义，从而无法洞察人类超越当下历史阶段的可能性；反之，脱离生产方式谈论文化形态的发展，可能落入唯心主义的神秘泥潭，从而无法把握文化发生变化的客观原因。对中国式文化现代化的研究，需要在历史唯物主义的视域下，从生产方式变革的角度探索文化从传统走向现代的物质基础与主体自觉。

II. The Historical Leap in Productive Forces Lays the Material Foundation for Chinese-Path Cultural Modernization

二、生产力的历史性飞跃奠定中国式文化现代化的物质基础

A cultural form is a composite that includes cultural content condensed from ideas and concepts and the cultural forms that carry this content. The process of cultural modernization involves not only the modernization of cultural content but also the modernization of cultural forms; these two constitute the dual dimensions of cultural modernization. There is an adaptability between cultural content and forms; a change in either can cause a change in the other. Formal change can promote content change, as seen in the influence of newspapers and popular reading materials on the Enlightenment movement; content change can also promote formal change, as seen in the shaping of European classical art by the romanticism of the French Revolution. However, if we proceed only from the internal mechanisms of cultural forms, it is difficult to identify the stable causes that drive changes in cultural forms, so we need to explore further outside cultural forms. From the perspective of historical materialism, the understanding of Chinese-path cultural modernization should start from the historical leaps in productive forces, investigating the material foundations laid by changes in productive forces in different historical periods for the modernization of cultural content and cultural forms.

文化形态是一个包含思想观念凝聚而成的文化内容和承载这些内容的文化形式的复合体。文化的现代化进程不仅涉及文化内容的现代化，也包括文化形式的现代化，这两者构成了文化现代化的双重维度。文化的内容和形式之间具有适配性，任何一方的变革都可能引起另一方的变化，形式变革可以推动内容变革，如报纸和通俗读物对启蒙运动的影响；内容变革也可以推动形式变革，如法国大革命的浪漫主义对欧洲古典艺术的塑造。然而，如果仅从文化形态的内部机制出发，很难确定推动文化形态发生变化的具有稳定性的原因，所以需要在文化形态的外部进一步探索。在历史唯物主义视域下，对中国式文化现代化的理解应当从生产力的历史性飞跃出发，探究各个不同历史时期的生产力变革为文化内容和文化形式的现代化奠定的物质基础。

The relationship between productive forces and cultural forms is manifested in the influence of the application of science and technology on the forms of cultural expression, and the influence of workers' use of labor tools on the themes of cultural content. Science and technology are an important component of productive forces. Every emergence of a new science or technology "has become the basis for new inventions or new improvements in production methods," and each major innovation profoundly changes the external forms of cultural expression. From the history of the development of cultural forms, the maturity of printing and papermaking promoted the flourishing of literature and art; the application of optoelectronic technology promoted the development of film and television art; the popularization of computers, the internet, and mobile terminals gave rise to the blossoming of cyberculture. "Technology continuously extends the boundaries of time and space, creating new modes of media communication." These new modes of media communication gradually shift cultural forms from singularity to diversity, from simplicity to complexity, constantly expanding the connotation and extension of cultural forms. If science and technology are considered the "software component" of productive forces, then workers and labor tools constitute the substantive component of productive forces. As the direct bearers of productive forces, workers' choice and use of labor tools more deeply influence the content and value orientation of culture. "The hand-mill gives you society with the feudal lord; the steam-mill gives you society with the industrial capitalist." In agricultural society, workers used simple tools for agricultural production, individuals directly exchanged matter with nature, and the harmonious development of humans and nature was a distinctive feature of the culture of that period. After the First Industrial Revolution, the widespread use of machinery inspired people to understand the movement of things through a "segmented" mode of thinking, and cultural content with a linear rationalist character was widely favored by people. Unlike the First Industrial Revolution, the use of electricity in the Second Industrial Revolution changed the rationalist character of culture to a certain extent. McLuhan pointed out, "The greatest reversal occurred with the advent of electric energy, which broke the sequence of things, coming and going in an instant." The speed of electricity destroyed the linear thinking constructed in the mechanical age, making the wholeness of the world once again the focus of the cultural horizon. When the Third Industrial Revolution and the Fourth Industrial Revolution unfolded before humanity, the explosion of information technology and the development of artificial intelligence once again brought about enormous changes in the way humans live and exist. People no longer dwell on thinking about their relationship with nature but instead delve into thinking about their relationship with their own creations. Cultural products with the exploration of human-machine relations as their main content have become a new growth point for culture. In the development process of cultural forms and cultural content, the succession of science and technology and workers' use of higher-level labor tools together lay the material foundation for the transformation of cultural forms. Understanding the process of the modern transformation of Chinese cultural forms requires, based on the relationship between productive forces and cultural forms, especially in conjunction with the birth and transformation of modern media and the use of machine systems and artificial intelligence in the field of production, to reveal the logic of the emergence of Chinese-path cultural modernization at the material level.

生产力与文化形态之间的关系体现为科学技术的应用影响文化的表现形式，以及劳动者对劳动工具的使用影响文化的内容主题。科学技术是生产力的重要组成部分，每一项科学技术的出现“都成了新的发明或生产方法的新的改进的基础”，其每一次重大革新都深刻地改变文化形态的外在表现形式。从文化形式的发展史看，印刷术与造纸术的成熟推动了文学艺术的繁荣，光电技术的应用推动了影视艺术的发展，计算机、互联网以及移动终端的普及催生了网络文化的绽放。“技术通过不断延展时空界限，创造出新的媒介传播方式”，这些新的媒介传播方式使文化的形式逐渐从单一走向多元、从简单走向复杂，不断拓展文化形式的内涵与外延。如果认为科学技术是生产力的“软件构成”，那么劳动者和劳动工具则是生产力的实体构成。劳动者作为生产力的直接承担者，其对劳动工具的选择和使用更深层次地影响文化的内容与价值取向。“手推磨产生的是封建主的社会，蒸汽磨产生的是工业资本家的社会。”在农业社会，劳动者使用简单工具进行农业生产，个体与自然界直接进行物质交换，人与自然的和谐发展是该时期文化的显著特征。在第一次工业革命之后，机械的广泛使用激发人们以“切分”的思维方式理解事物的运动过程，具有线性理性色彩的文化内容广受人们喜爱。与第一次工业革命不同，第二次工业革命中电的使用在一定程度上改变了文化的理性主义色彩。麦克卢汉指出，“最大的逆转与电能的问世同时发生，电能打破了事物的序列，它倏忽而来，转瞬即去”。电的速度破坏了机械时代建构起来的线性思维，使世界的整体性重新成为文化视野中的焦点。当第三次工业革命和第四次工业革命在人类面前展开，信息技术的爆炸与人工智能的发展使人类的生存与生活方式再次发生巨大变化，人们不再执着于思考自己与自然的关系，而是深入思考自己与自己所造物的关系，以探讨人机关系为主要内容的文化产品成为新的文化增长点。在文化形式与文化内容的发展历程中，科学技术的更迭和劳动者对更高水平劳动工具的使用共同奠定文化形态发生转换的物质基础。对中国文化形态的现代转换过程的理解，需要基于生产力与文化形态之间的关系，尤其是结合现代传媒的诞生与变革、机器体系和人工智能在生产领域的使用，在物质层面揭示中国式文化现代化的发生逻辑。

The birth and transformation of modern media have driven the modernization of Chinese cultural forms, providing technical support for the development and flourishing of socialist culture. Under the leadership of the Communist Party of China, China's cultural modernization has advanced continuously in waves. The four most significant high tides are the May Fourth Movement during the period of the New Democratic Revolution, the construction of socialist culture in the early days of the founding of New China, the ideological emancipation movement during the period of reform and opening up, and the practice of creative transformation and innovative development in the New Era of socialism with Chinese characteristics. The May Fourth Movement was a thorough ideological emancipation movement in modern China, and its achievements were closely related to the development of the modern newspaper industry in China. Cultural producers and disseminators were no longer limited to special strata such as the gentry, gradually forming the power of the newspaper literati stratum. If the modernization of cultural forms during the May Fourth Movement period was the development of the newspaper industry oriented toward intellectuals, then the modernization of cultural forms in the early days of the founding of New China was the development of new cultural forms such as radio and film oriented toward the broad masses of the people. The sound and image information of socialist culture spread from cities to the countryside, greatly breaking down the cultural barriers between urban and rural areas, conducive to shaping the people's simple cognition of socialism and New China, and stimulating the people's inner motivation to participate in socialist construction. Compared with radio and film, television, as another form of mass media, has outstanding advantages in news dissemination, discussion of social hot issues, and narration of historical stories. Thanks to the development of satellite transmission technology in the 1980s, the penetration rate of television in China increased rapidly, playing an important role in the ideological emancipation movement during the period of reform and opening up. The dubbing of overseas film and television dramas, and the development of domestic television news, special features, TV series, and variety shows, pushed socialist culture to break free from the constraints of traditional narrative methods, facing the public in rich, diverse, and vibrant cultural forms, broadening the people's horizons and ways of understanding society. As socialism with Chinese characteristics enters the New Era, realizing the creative transformation and innovative development of fine traditional Chinese culture has become an important issue of the times. Behind the development of contemporary Chinese culture lies the prosperity of big data and the electronic information industry. "Modern technology transforms the infinite imagination in creative thinking into rich real-life scenarios, greatly expanding the space for creativity and giving rise to new forms of expression." China has seized the historical opportunity in this round of media transformation, promoting the growth of new cultural forms such as cyberculture and digital entertainment through economic incentives and policy encouragement. This has not only greatly promoted the flourishing of socialist culture domestically but also achieved cultural dissemination internationally, allowing the world to appreciate the charm of Chinese culture.

现代传媒的诞生与变革推动中国文化形式走向现代化，为社会主义文化的发展与繁荣奠定了技术性支撑。在中国共产党领导下，中国文化现代化持续推进、浪潮迭起，最为显著的四次高潮分别为新民主主义革命时期的五四运动、新中国成立初期的社会主义文化建设、改革开放时期的思想解放运动以及中国特色社会主义新时代创造性转化和创新性发展的实践。五四运动是近代中国一次彻底的思想解放运动，其成就与中国近代报刊产业的发展密切相关，文化生产者和传播者不再局限于士绅等特殊阶层，逐渐形成了报刊文人阶层的力量。如果说五四运动时期的文化形式现代化是面向知识分子的报刊产业的发展，那么新中国成立初期的文化形式现代化则是面向广大人民群众的广播与电影等新文化形式的发展，社会主义文化的声音和影像信息从城市走向乡村，极大程度地打破了城乡间的文化壁垒，有利于塑造人民群众对社会主义和新中国的朴素认知，激发人民群众参与社会主义建设的内在动力。相较于广播和电影，同样作为大众传媒的电视在新闻传播、社会热点问题讨论、历史故事叙述等方面有突出优势。得益于20世纪80年代卫星传播技术的发展，电视在中国的普及率迅猛提升，在改革开放时期的思想解放运动中扮演了重要角色。海外影视剧的译制，本土电视新闻、专题片、电视剧以及综艺节目的发展推动社会主义文化突破传统叙事方式的束缚，以丰富多样和充满活力的文化形式面向大众，拓宽了人民群众的视野和认识社会的方式。中国特色社会主义进入新时代，实现中华优秀传统文化的创造性转化和创新性发展成为重要的时代课题，当代中国文化发展的背后是大数据和电子信息产业的发达。“现代科技使创作思维中的无限想象转化为丰富的现实情境，极大地拓展了创意空间，催生出新的表现形式。”中国已在本轮传媒方式变革中抢占历史先机，以经济刺激、政策鼓励等方式助推网络文化、数字娱乐等新文化形式的成长，不仅在国内极大程度地促进了社会主义文化的繁荣，更在国际上实现了文化传播，让世界领略中国文化的魅力。

The application of machine systems and artificial intelligence in the sphere of production has laid a productive premise for the epochal transformation of cultural content, and has established a material foundation for socialist culture to reflect the problems of the times and explore the direction of the future. After the founding of New China, industrialization in the sphere of production accelerated, and machine systems were widely used in every production department and every link of production. “Under the leadership of the Party, through arduous efforts and struggle, the whole nation took less than thirty years to basically build an independent, fairly comprehensive and complete socialist modern industrial system.” As Marx said, “The establishment of industry has become a matter of life and death for all civilized nations.” The widespread use of machine systems not only changed the Chinese people’s mode of production and form of social organization, but also gradually caused the extinction of the small-peasant production of men ploughing and women weaving and the social structure based on clans, thereby dissolving the foundation on which traditional culture existed. While dissolving the foundation of Chinese traditional culture, the widespread use of machine systems also laid a material foundation for the development of modern socialist culture, giving rise to cultural content with themes such as reflecting the process of industrialization, eulogizing the worker collective, and advocating the spirit of scientific rationality. With the deepening of industrialization, the content of China’s modern socialist culture grew increasingly rich. Besides an affirmative culture toward machines and industry, a reflective culture toward machines and industry gradually emerged. The paths of reflection can basically be summarized as “cultural revivalism,” which advocates returning to the past, and “historical progressivism,” which emphasizes the future society. A thorough examination of the intellectual threads of the two reveals that “cultural revivalism” is not truly a revival of the past, but rather an attempt to construct an idealized “past” in order to “correct the deviations” of the present; while “historical progressivism” does not entirely negate the present, but rather attempts to achieve human liberation on the basis of fully absorbing the excellent achievements of the industrial age. The two have enriched and developed the content of China’s modern socialist culture at different levels. Because China’s industrialization process lagged behind that of the developed Western countries, China’s modern socialist culture’s reflection on the problems of the machine age was largely in a state of “apprenticeship.” However, the widespread application of artificial intelligence in the sphere of production changed this state. China’s artificial intelligence industry is in a leading position globally, prompting China to be the first to face social problems brought by the rapid development of AI technology, such as changes in employment structure, challenges to privacy protection, and ethical and moral crises. Reflecting the plight of humanity in the AI era, exploring the direction for building a community with a shared future for mankind, and contemplating the possible conditions of humanity’s future society have become important content of China’s contemporary socialist culture.

机器体系和人工智能在生产领域的应用为文化内容的时代转换厚植生产性前提，为社会主义文化反映时代问题、探寻未来方向奠定了物质基础。新中国成立后，生产领域工业化加速推进，机器体系在各个生产部门和生产环节普遍使用。“在党的领导下，全国人民通过艰苦卓绝的努力和奋斗，仅用了不到30年时间就基本建成了一个独立、门类比较齐全和完整的社会主义现代工业体系。”如马克思所言，“工业的建立已经成为一切文明民族的生命攸关的问题”。机器体系的广泛运用不仅改变了中国人的生产方式和社会组织形式，也使男耕女织的小农生产和以宗族为单位的社会结构逐渐消亡，从而瓦解了传统文化存在的根基。机器体系的广泛使用在瓦解中国传统文化根基的同时，也为现代社会主义文化的发展奠定了物质基础，催生了反映工业化进程、歌颂工人群体、倡导科学理性精神等主题的文化内容。伴随工业化的持续深入，中国现代的社会主义文化内容日益丰富，除了对机器与工业的肯定性文化，也逐渐诞生了对机器与工业的反思性文化，反思的路径基本可以概括为提倡回到过去的“文化复古主义”和强调未来社会的“历史进步主义”。深入考察二者的思想脉络可以发现，“文化复古主义”并非真正的复古，而是试图建构一种理想的“过去”以实现对当下的“纠偏”；而“历史进步主义”也并非完全否定当下，而是试图在完全吸收工业时代优秀成果的基础上进一步实现人类的解放，二者在不同层面丰富和发展了中国现代的社会主义文化内容。由于中国工业化进程落后于西方发达国家，中国现代的社会主义文化对机器时代问题的反思更多处于“学徒”状态，但人工智能在生产领域的广泛应用改变了这一状态。中国的人工智能产业在全球范围内处于领先地位，促使中国率先面临人工智能技术快速发展带来的就业结构变化、隐私保护挑战以及伦理道德危机等社会问题，反映人工智能时代的人类困境、探索人类命运共同体的建构方向以及思考人类未来社会的可能情况，成为中国当代社会主义文化的重要内容。

In the process of Chinese culture moving from tradition to modernity, the historical evolution of productive forces laid the material foundation for Chinese-path cultural modernization; the development of modern media provided technical support for the intergenerational transformation of cultural forms; and the widespread application of machine systems and artificial intelligence laid a productive premise for the epochal transformation of cultural content. A further question that needs to be asked is: in the process of Chinese-path cultural modernization, does a change in the objective material foundation necessarily bring about a change in cultural forms? The answer is no. Between the material foundation and cultural forms there also exists the subject that links the two: human beings. Humans choose relations of production that are compatible with the productive forces based on the state of development of the productive forces, and within specific relations of production they construct the state of existence between humans and between humans and things. Compared with the objective materiality of the productive forces, relations of production shape the subjective world of humans by regulating their interactions, influencing the process of shaping cultural forms from the dimension of the subject. Therefore, to deeply understand the causes of the transformation of Chinese cultural forms, we must start from the historical evolution of relations of production and explore how the subject that drives the transformation of Chinese cultural forms is generated.

在中国文化从传统走向现代的过程中，生产力的历史性演变为中国式文化现代化奠定物质基础，现代传媒的发展为文化形式的代际变迁提供技术性支撑，机器体系和人工智能的普遍应用为文化内容的时代转换厚植生产性前提。需要进一步追问的是，在中国式文化现代化进程中，客观物质基础的变化一定会带来文化形态的变化吗？答案是否定的，在物质基础与文化形态之间还存在联结二者的主体——人。人基于生产力的发展状况选择与生产力相适配的生产关系，在具体的生产关系中建构人与人和人与物的存在状态。与生产力的客观物质性相比，生产关系通过规范人的交往行为塑造人的主观世界，从主体的维度影响文化形态的塑造过程。因此，要深入理解中国文化形态转变的动因，我们必须从生产关系的历史性演变出发，探讨推动中国文化形态转变的主体是如何生成的。

III. The Historical Transformation of Relations of Production Arouses the Subjective Initiative of Chinese-Path Cultural Modernization

三、生产关系的历史性嬗变激发中国式文化现代化的主体自觉

Chinese-path cultural modernization not only possesses the universality of the cultural modernization of all nations in the world, but also exhibits its own unique historical rhythm and themes. Its emergence and development are not a two-stage linear evolution accompanying the different stages of capitalist development, but rather a composite transformation achieved on the basis of the socialist system and values, through a dual critique of both pre-capitalist society and capitalist society. In the process of Chinese-path cultural modernization, a minority of intellectuals and literary and artistic workers certainly played an important role, but the subject that brought about the overall and comprehensive transformation of cultural forms is the broad masses of the people. The crux of the issue is: what factor caused the masses to change from passive recipients of cultural modernization to conscious promoters and creators? To answer this question, it is necessary, on the basis of understanding the logical relationship among relations of production, the interest demands of the masses, and cultural forms, to combine this with the historical transformation of modern China’s relations of production, and to examine holistically the acquisition of subjective initiative by the masses in the process of cultural modernization.

中国式文化现代化不仅具有世界各民族文化现代化的普遍性，而且展现出自己独特的历史节奏和主题，其发生与发展不是伴随资本主义的不同发展阶段所实现的两次线性演进，而是在社会主义制度和价值观的基础上，伴随对前资本主义社会和资本主义社会的双重批判所实现的复合型转换。在中国式文化现代化的进程中，少数知识分子和文艺工作者固然发挥了重要作用，但实现文化形态发生整体性和全局性变革的主体是广大人民群众。问题的关键在于，何种因素导致人民群众从文化现代化的被动接受者转变为自觉推动者和创造者？对该问题的回答，需要在理解生产关系、人民群众的利益诉求以及文化形态三者逻辑关系的基础上，结合现代中国生产关系的历史性嬗变，整体性考察人民群众在文化现代化进程中主体自觉性的获得。

From the perspective of historical materialism, relations of production determine the interest demands of the masses, and the interest demands of the masses in turn profoundly shape the cultural forms of society. The means of labor, the objects of labor, and the laborers within the productive forces can only be combined within certain social relations. “All production is the appropriation of nature by individuals within and through a definite social form.” Under different relations of production, the material interest demands of the masses show significant differences. For example, in the relations of production of primitive communal ownership, the interest demands of all members of the commune were consistent, with individual interests and the overall interest integrated into one. Under private ownership of the means of production, the realization of the interest demands of the owners of the means of production depends on the expropriation and appropriation of the interests of other members of society, while the expropriated and appropriated members can only defend their interests through various forms of struggle. In socialist and communist society, relations of production based on public ownership can enable the interest demands of various social groups and members of society to achieve fundamental consistency. Marx pointed out, “Consciousness can never be anything else than conscious being, and the being of men is their actual life-process.”

在历史唯物主义视域下，生产关系决定人民群众的利益诉求，而人民群众的利益诉求又深刻塑造社会的文化形态。生产力中的劳动资料、劳动对象以及劳动者只有在一定的社会关系中才能结合起来，“一切生产都是个人在一定社会形式中并借这种社会形式而进行的对自然的占有”。在不同的生产关系中，人民群众的物质利益诉求呈现显著差异。例如，在原始公有制生产关系中，公社全体成员的利益诉求具有一致性，个人利益和整体利益融为一体。在生产资料私有制中，生产资料占有者利益诉求的实现依靠侵吞和占有其他社会成员的利益才能实现，被侵吞和占有的社会成员只能以各种抗争方式维护自己的利益。在社会主义和共产主义社会中，以公有制为基础的生产关系能够促使各个社会集团、社会成员的利益诉求在根本上达成一致。马克思指出，“意识［das Bewußtsein］在任何时候都只能是被意识到了的存在［das bewußte Sein］，而人们的存在就是他们的现实生活过程”。

In the relations of production dominated by feudalist private ownership, the masses defended their own interests on the premise of observing the hierarchical system, and the pursuit of a benign hierarchical order was the core of culture in that period. In the relations of production dominated by capitalist private ownership, the masses defended their own interests on the basis of insisting on being independent individuals. At the same time, due to the control of relations of production by the logic of capital valorization, individualism, commodity fetishism, and consumerism together constituted the cultural core of that period. In the relations of production of socialism and communism based on public ownership, “the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all.” Individuals also need to actively integrate into the historical movement of communism. Collectivism, revolutionary heroism, and revolutionary optimism together form the cultural core of socialism and communism. Since the founding of New China, China’s relations of production have undergone two historical transformations: the first was the transformation of feudalist ownership into a single form of socialist public ownership through the Three Great Transformations [13]13 The Three Great Transformations (三大改造) refers to the socialist transformation of agriculture, handicraft industry, and capitalist industry and commerce carried out in China from 1953 to 1956, which converted private ownership into public ownership.; the second was the transformation of a single form of public ownership into a system of multiple forms of ownership with public ownership as the main body through reform and opening up. These two transformations reshaped the interest demands of the masses at different levels, prompted the masses at different levels to consciously critique the ills of pre-capitalist cultural forms and capitalist cultural forms, and aroused their subjective initiative in constructing socialist culture.

在封建主义私有制主导的生产关系中，大众在遵守等级制度的前提下维护自身的利益，寻求良性的等级秩序是该时期文化的内核。在资本主义私有制为主导的生产关系中，大众在坚持独立个体的基础上维护自身的利益，同时由于资本增殖逻辑对生产关系的控制，个人主义、商品拜物教和消费主义共同构成该时期的文化内核。在社会主义与共产主义以公有制为基础的生产关系中，“每个人的自由发展是一切人的自由发展的条件”，个体也需要积极融入共产主义的历史运动，集体主义、革命英雄主义和革命乐观主义共同形成社会主义与共产主义的文化内核。新中国成立以来，中国的生产关系经历了两次历史性变革：第一次是通过三大改造将封建主义所有制转变为社会主义的单一公有制，第二次是通过改革开放将单一公有制转变为以公有制为主体的多种所有制。两次变革在不同层面上重塑了人民群众的利益诉求，在不同意义上促使人民群众自觉批判前资本主义文化形态和资本主义文化形态的弊病，激发其构建社会主义文化的主体自觉性。

Under the leadership of the Communist Party of China, the victory of the New Democratic Revolution and the socialist revolution marked the end of China’s more than two thousand years of feudal relations of production and the establishment of socialist relations of production. This historical transformation of relations of production enabled the masses to deeply recognize the oppression of feudal relations of production on their interests and the protection of their interests by socialist relations of production, thereby enabling them to consciously criticize the backwardness of feudal culture and actively promote the advanced nature of socialist culture. Under feudal relations of production, the cultural life of the masses was constrained by strict social hierarchy and patriarchal concepts; cultural content mostly reflected the will and aesthetic tastes of the ruling class, while the cultural creativity and aesthetic needs of the broad working people were suppressed. “The old cultural system, cultural concepts, cultural life, cultural customs, etc., constantly influenced the broad masses of the people; backward culture could hardly support economic recovery and growth, and even posed a major obstacle to the restoration and development of the national economy.” The establishment of socialist relations of production completely broke the shackles of feudal culture on social progress and human development. Socialist culture, as a reflection of socialist relations of production, advocates advanced concepts such as equality, freedom, democracy, and science, encourages the innovative spirit and individual development of the masses, and provides a powerful spiritual driving force for the comprehensive progress of society. The subjective consciousness of the masses in developing advanced socialist culture is rooted in the establishment of socialist relations of production, but the awakening and application of this subjective consciousness must be attributed to the ideological emancipation movement led by the Communist Party of China. In the early period of the founding of New China, under the guidance of Marxism, the Communist Party of China launched ideological and cultural movements such as the transformation of customs and habits, the rectification of literature and art, the ideological remolding of intellectuals, and the “Three-Anti” and “Five-Anti” campaigns.[14]14 The “Three-Anti” campaign (1951–1952) targeted corruption, waste, and bureaucracy within the Party, government, and state-owned enterprises; the “Five-Anti” campaign (1952) targeted bribery, tax evasion, theft of state property, cheating on government contracts, and stealing state economic information among private business owners. These cultural movements not only targeted specific objects but also broadly mobilized the broad masses of the people to participate. In the movement-style cultural governance led by the Communist Party of China, the Chinese people not only conducted in-depth criticism of feudal culture but also systematically criticized capitalist culture. “The broad masses, from the liberation of their status to the awareness of their political and economic rights, achieved an unprecedented improvement,” and their cultural taste and aesthetic interest developed unprecedentedly.

在中国共产党的领导下，新民主主义革命和社会主义革命的胜利标志着中国结束了两千多年的封建主义生产关系，并确立了社会主义生产关系。这一历史性的生产关系变迁使得人民群众深刻认识到封建主义生产关系对其利益的压迫以及社会主义生产关系对其利益的保障，从而能够自觉地批判封建主义文化的落后性，并积极发扬社会主义文化的先进性。在封建主义生产关系下，人民群众的文化生活受到严格的社会等级制度和宗法观念束缚，文化内容多反映统治阶级的意志和审美情趣，广大劳动人民的文化创造力和审美需求被压抑。“旧的文化制度、文化观念、文化生活、文化习俗等无时无刻不在影响着广大人民群众，落后的文化难以支撑经济恢复与增长，甚至对恢复和发展国民经济产生巨大阻碍作用。”社会主义生产关系的建立，彻底打破了封建主义文化对社会进步和人的发展的桎梏。社会主义文化作为社会主义生产关系的反映，倡导平等、自由、民主、科学等先进理念，鼓励人民群众的创新精神和个性发展，为社会的全面进步提供了强大的精神动力。人民群众发展社会主义先进文化的主体自觉，根植于社会主义生产关系的建立，但这种主体自觉的唤醒与运用必须归功于中国共产党领导的思想解放运动。在新中国成立初期，中国共产党在马克思主义的指引下开展了移风易俗治理、文艺整风、知识分子思想改造、“三反”“五反”等思想文化运动。这些文化运动不仅针对特定对象，也广泛动员广大人民群众参与其中。中国共产党领导中国人民在运动式文化治理中，不仅针对封建主义文化进行深入批判，也对资本主义文化进行系统批评，“广大群众从身份解放到政治经济权利意识都得到了空前提高”，其文化品位和审美趣味空前发展。

The policy of reform and opening up promoted the gradual improvement of the socialist market economy system with Chinese characteristics and facilitated its development to a high level. In this process, the relations of production in Chinese society underwent a transformation from a single public ownership system to a system with public ownership as the mainstay and diverse forms of ownership developing together. The rapid development of industry and commerce enabled the masses to gain a more comprehensive and profound understanding of the inherent essence and value pursuit of socialism, and on this basis, they consciously constructed a more three-dimensional and comprehensive socialist modern culture. The rapid economic growth and structural optimization laid a solid material foundation for the improvement of the people’s living standards and also provided the necessary economic support for subsequent cultural development. Before reform and opening up, although China had established a relatively systematic industrial production sector, the level of industrialization was not high, and only a small portion of the people were incorporated into the industrial production system. The low proportion of the industrial population and the high proportion of the agricultural population determined that, although the cultural form of China before reform and opening up had undergone the baptism of socialism, it still retained a strong pre-modern temperament, and the subjective consciousness of the masses in promoting Chinese-path cultural modernization needed further enhancement. Since reform and opening up, the improvement of the market economy has provided the possibility for the rise of the cultural industry; the rapid growth of the urban population and the non-agricultural employed population has laid the foundation for the expansion of the cultural consumption market. China’s cultural industry “has grown from nothing, from small to large, and has formed a completely new industry in the national economic system.” Along with the development of the cultural industry, culture has transformed from an appendage of political consciousness into a commodity that meets the spiritual consumption needs of the people. The number of subjects consciously engaged in the creation and dissemination of socialist culture has become increasingly abundant, and the types of subjects have gradually diversified. The presentation of socialist cultural products has gradually become more diversified and has shown three-dimensional characteristics, with their attractiveness, cohesion, and leading power continuously strengthening. The masses’ understanding of the inherent essence and value pursuit of socialism has also deepened continuously in the diversified and three-dimensional development of cultural products.

改革开放政策推动了中国特色社会主义市场经济体制的逐步完善，并促进了其向高水平发展。在此过程中，中国社会的生产关系经历了从单一公有制向以公有制为主体、多种所有制经济共同发展的转变。工业和商业的快速发展使人民群众对社会主义的内在本质和价值追求有了更全面深刻的理解，并在此基础上自觉构建更为立体全面的社会主义现代文化。经济的快速增长与结构的优化，为人民群众生活水平的提升奠定了坚实的物质基础，也为后续的文化发展提供了必要的经济支撑。在改革开放之前，中国虽然已经建立起较为系统的工业生产部门，但工业化水平并不高，被纳入工业生产体系的人民只占整体的小部分。工业人口的低比例和农业人口的高比例，决定了中国改革开放前的文化形态虽经历了社会主义的洗礼，但仍有浓厚的前现代气质，人民群众推动中国式文化现代化的主体自觉有待进一步增强。改革开放以来，市场经济的完善为文化产业的兴起提供了可能，城市人口和非农就业人口的迅猛增长为文化消费市场的扩大奠定了基础，我国的文化产业“从无到有、从小到大，已经在国民经济体系中形成一个全新的产业”。伴随文化产业的发展，文化从政治意识的附属品转变为满足人民精神消费需求的商品，自觉进行社会主义文化创造与传播的主体数量日益丰富且主体类型逐渐多元化，社会主义文化产品的呈现渐趋多样化并显现立体性特征，其吸引力、凝聚力以及引领力不断增强，人民群众对社会主义内在本质和价值追求的理解也在文化产品的多样化和立体化发展中持续深入。

Chinese-path cultural modernization is a historical activity led by the Communist Party of China and carried out by the Chinese people over a long period. It is a historical process in which China’s cultural forms and cultural subjects jointly acquire modern attributes. The historical transformation of the mode of production is the practical premise of Chinese-path cultural modernization. Through the transformation of relations of production, it reshapes the interest demands of the masses and stimulates their subjective consciousness in constructing socialist culture. Explaining Chinese-path cultural modernization on the basis of the historical transformation of the mode of production is conducive both to grasping new cultural growth points at the present moment of the leapfrog development of new quality productive forces and to guarding against the destructive impact of the logic of capital proliferation on the process of socialist cultural modernization in today’s rapid development of the market economy. As long as China remains vibrant in the field of production, as long as the Chinese people can continuously pursue and satisfy their longing for a better life, Chinese-path cultural modernization could, can, and will continue to create and produce excellent cultural products worthy of a great nation and a great era, achieving the flourishing development of Chinese culture.

中国式文化现代化是中国共产党领导中国人民长期进行的历史性活动，是中国的文化形态和文化主体共同获得现代属性的历史过程。生产方式的历史性变革是中国式文化现代化的实践前提，通过生产关系的变革重塑人民群众的利益诉求，激发其构建社会主义文化的主体自觉。基于生产方式的历史性变革来阐释中国式文化现代化，既有利于在新质生产力飞跃发展的当下把握新的文化增长点，也有利于在市场经济迅猛发展的今天警惕资本增殖逻辑对社会主义文化现代化进程的破坏性影响。只要中国在生产领域充满活力，只要中国人民能够不断追求并满足对美好生活的向往，中国式文化现代化在过去可以、在今天可以、在未来依旧可以创造生产出无愧于伟大民族和伟大时代的优秀文化产品，实现中国文化的繁荣发展。

Web editor: Paul

网络编辑：保罗