The Internal Logic of Marx's View of Civilization and the Chinese Context

The history of human civilization has passed through stages of development from the lower to the higher. Ancient Egypt, ancient India, ancient Babylon, and China correspond to the Nile River valley, the Tigris-Euphrates River valley, the Indus River valley, and the Yellow River valley, the regions where the earliest forms of human civilization emerged. Among these, only the civilizational process of the Chinese nation has never been interrupted, always renewing itself with the ancient. Since the Enlightenment, modern civilization, generated and evolved with the development of science and technology, has pushed human history to a new stage, creating a material civilization, political civilization, cultural-ethical progress, ecological civilization, and social civilization oriented toward the future, presenting a new atmosphere different from classical culture. Based on historical research and realistic investigation, Marx held that the emergence and development of culture (Kultur) and civilization (Civilisation) are rooted in people's practical material production and life. Proceeding from the movement of the fundamental contradictions of society, he profoundly expounded the internal logic of civilizational evolution, providing contemporary enlightenment for the practical creation of a new form of civilization. Today, to develop a "truly universal civilization" oriented toward the future, we must deeply understand Marx's discourse on "civilization," objectify its far-reaching theoretical enlightenment in the practical course of Chinese-path modernization, promote the creative transformation and innovative development of the fine traditional Chinese culture, and create a new form of human civilization.

人类文明史经历了从低级到高级的发展阶段。古代埃及、古代印度、古代巴比伦和中国对应着尼罗河流域、两河流域、印度河流域、黄河流域这些人类文明最早形成的地域，其中，只有中华民族的文明进程未曾断流，始终与古为新。启蒙以来伴随科技发展而生成演进的现代文明将人类历史推向新阶段，创造了面向未来的物质文明、政治文明、精神文明、生态文明、社会文明，呈现了不同于古典文化的新气象。基于历史研究和现实考察，马克思认为文化（Kultur）与文明（Civilisation）的产生与发展根植于人们的物质生产生活实践。从社会基本矛盾运动出发，他深刻阐述了文明演进的内在逻辑，为文明新形态的实践创造提供了当代启示。今天，发展面向未来的“真正的普遍的文明”，要深刻理解马克思关于“文明”的论述，将其深远的理论启示对象化于中国式现代化的实践历程，促进中华优秀传统文化创造性转化、创新性发展，创造人类文明新形态。

I. An Overview of Marx's Discourse on Civilization

一、马克思关于文明的论述概观

In his youth, Marx already had several discourses on "civilization." His earliest citation of "Civilisation" appeared in his commentary on the press law: "The debater again interrupts us by saying that if German press freedom were to become free press freedom, this would be a misfortune for German morality, because press freedom produces 'internal moral corruption, which seeks to destroy faith in the highest mission of man, and at the same time destroys the foundation of true civilization.'" In his *Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right*, written in 1843, he first used this concept: "Our age, the age of civilization, on the contrary commits the opposite error. It separates man's objective essence from man as something merely external and material; it does not regard the content of man as his actual immediate reality." Furthermore, in the editorial of the *Kölnische Zeitung* No. 179, Marx pointed out: "Various external manifestations prove that philosophy has acquired such significance: it is the living soul of civilization, philosophy has become the philosophy of the world, and the world has become the world of philosophy—such external manifestations are the same in all ages." In this article, Marx also spoke of the civilizations of ancient Greece and ancient Rome, considering them the extremely high historical civilizations among the peoples of the ancient world. At this time, he began to use the age of civilization to refer to modern society and the capitalist mode of production, to a certain extent influenced by the Scottish Enlightenment thinkers, which is more fully reflected in the *Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844*.

马克思在青年时代即对“文明”有若干论述，他最早引述“Civilisation”是在关于新闻出版法的评论中：“辩论人又打断我们的话说，如果德国新闻出版成为自由的新闻出版，这将是德国道德的不幸，因为新闻出版自由造成‘内部的道德败坏，这种道德败坏企图摧毁对人的最高使命的信仰，同时也摧毁真正文明的基础’。”在写于1843年的《黑格尔法哲学批判》中，他最早使用这个概念：“我们的时代即文明时代，却犯了一个相反的错误。它使人的对象性本质作为某种仅仅是外在的、物质的东西同人分离，它不认为人的内容是人的直接现实。”此外，在《科隆日报》第179号社论中，马克思指出：“各种外部表现证明哲学已获得了这样的意义：它是文明的活的灵魂，哲学已成为世界的哲学，而世界也成为哲学的世界，——这样的外部表现在所有的时代里都是相同的。”在这篇文章中，马克思还谈到古希腊和古罗马的文明，认为这是古代世界各民族中极高的历史文明。这时他开始用文明时代指称现代社会以及资本主义生产方式，在一定程度上受到苏格兰启蒙思想家的影响，这在《1844年经济学哲学手稿》中得到较为充分的体现。

In Notebook I of this manuscript, Marx, speaking of the worker's alienation in his object, pointed out: "The more civilized the object the worker creates, the more barbarous the worker himself." In Notebook II, speaking of the landowners, he held that these "idle, meddlesome grain speculators" "exploit all the benefits of modern civilization like usurers." "The civilizing victory of capital consists precisely in the fact that capital discovers and impels human labor, instead of dead things, to become the source of wealth." In Notebook III, speaking of the transcendence of private property, Marx also pointed out: "The abstract negation of the entire world of culture and civilization, the regression to the unnatural simple state of the poor, undemanding man—who has not only not surpassed the level of private property, but has never even reached it—proves precisely that this transcendence of private property is by no means a true appropriation." Speaking of the "civilized state," Marx excerpted the views of Adam Smith and Jean-Baptiste Say, the former holding that "in the civilized state, every man is a merchant, and society is a commercial society"; the latter holding that "in the civilized social state, exchange becomes necessary." In addition, in his excerpts from James Mill's *Elements of Political Economy*, Marx spoke of "civilized society" and excerpted Mill's discussion of "workers and capitalists as two different kinds of people" within it.

在这部手稿的笔记本I中，马克思谈到工人在其对象中异化时指出，“工人创造的对象越文明，工人自己越野蛮”。在笔记本II中谈到土地所有者时，他认为这些“无所事事的、只会碍事的粮食投机商”“像高利贷一样剥削现代文明的一切利益”。“资本的文明的胜利恰恰在于，资本发现并促使人的劳动代替死的物而成为财富的源泉”。在笔记本Ⅲ中谈到对私有财产的扬弃时，马克思还指出：“对整个文化和文明的世界的抽象否定，向贫穷的、需求不高的人——他不仅没有超越私有财产的水平，甚至从来没有达到私有财产的水平——的非自然的简单状态的倒退，恰恰证明私有财产的这种扬弃决不是真正的占有。”谈及“文明状态”，马克思摘录了亚当·斯密和巴蒂斯特·萨伊的观点，前者认为，“在文明状态中，每个人都是商人，而社会则是商业社会”；后者认为，“在文明的社会状态中，交换才成为必要的”。此外，在詹姆斯·穆勒《政治经济学原理》一书摘要中，马克思谈及“文明社会”，并摘录了穆勒关于其中“工人和资本家是两类不同的人”的论述。

In *The Holy Family*, written in the same year, Marx, criticizing Szeliga's criticism, pointed out: "The secret of the critical narration of the 'Mysteries of Paris' is the secret of the speculative Hegelian structure. Herr Szeliga presents 'barbarism in civilization' and 'lawlessness in the state' as secrets, that is, dissolves them into the category of 'the secret,' and then compels 'the secret' to begin its speculative life-course." Speaking of "French materialism and English materialism," Marx held that the difference between the two corresponds to the two peoples: "The French endowed English materialism with wit, gave it flesh and blood and eloquence. They gave it the temperament and grace it had never had. They civilized it." Later, Marx repeatedly discussed the "civilizing tendency" of capital and revealed a new condition and tendency of "barbarization" hidden within it. Speaking of the hypocrisy of the modern civilized world, Marx also quoted Fourier to show: "The crimes that barbarism commits in simple form, civilization endows with complex, ambiguous, double-faced, hypocritical forms of existence."

在写于同年的《神圣家族》中，马克思在批判施里加的批判时指出，“对‘巴黎的秘密’所做的批判的叙述的秘密，就是思辨的黑格尔结构的秘密。施里加先生把‘文明中的野蛮’和‘国家中的无法纪’说成秘密，也就是把它们消溶在‘秘密’这个范畴之中，接着就迫使‘秘密’开始自己的思辨的生命历程。”谈到“法国唯物主义和英国唯物主义”时，马克思认为二者的区别与这两个民族相适应，“法国人赋予英国唯物主义以机智，使它有血有肉，能言善辩。他们使英国唯物主义具有从未有过的气质和优雅风度。他们使它文明化了”。后来，马克思多次谈论“资本的文明化”趋势，并揭示了其中隐藏的一种新的“野蛮化”状况与趋势。当谈及现代文明世界的伪善，马克思还引用傅里叶的话表明：“野蛮以简单的形式所犯下的罪恶，文明都赋之以复杂的、暧昧的、两面性的、伪善的存在形式。”

In the "Feuerbach" chapter of *The German Ideology*, written the following year, Marx pointed out: "The opposition between town and country begins with the transition from barbarism to civilization, from tribal system to state, from local limitation to nation, and runs through all of civilized history down to the present." He held that large-scale industry "first created world history, because it made the satisfaction of the needs of every civilized country and of every individual within them dependent on the whole world, and because it destroyed the previously existing naturally formed state of seclusion of each country." Speaking of modern forms of ownership, Marx stated: "Here appears the difference between naturally produced instruments of production and instruments of production created by civilization." In the chapter on "Saint Max," Marx spoke of: "With the development of civil society, that is, with the development of personal interests into class interests, legal relations changed, and their mode of expression also became more civilized." What is discussed here is the form of civilization corresponding to the modern mode of production, by which the modern state is called by Marx a "civilized state," in which social production, distribution, exchange, and consumption have modern characteristics.

在写于次年的《德意志意识形态》“费尔巴哈”章中，马克思指出：“城乡之间的对立是随着野蛮向文明的过渡、部落制度向国家的过渡、地域局限性向民族的过渡而开始的，它贯穿着文明的全部历史直至现在。”他认为大工业“首次开创了世界历史，因为它使每个文明国家以及这些国家中的每一个人的需要的满足都依赖于整个世界，因为它消灭了各国以往自然形成的闭关自守的状态”。谈到现代所有制形式时，马克思表明：“这里出现了自然产生的生产工具和由文明创造的生产工具之间的差异。”在“圣麦克斯”章中，马克思谈到，“随着市民社会的发展，即随着个人利益之发展到阶级利益，法律关系改变了，它们的表现方式也变文明了”。这里所谈的是与现代生产方式相适应的文明样态，现代国家由此被马克思称为“文明国家”，其中的社会生产、分配、交换和消费具有现代性特质。

After historical materialism was initially established, Marx revealed the regular characteristics of civilizational development, clarifying the relationship between the antagonism of production and civilizational evolution. For example, in the article "Dr. Georg Kuhlmann of Holstein, or the Prophecy of 'True Socialism,' 'The New World, or the Kingdom of God on Earth,'" Marx pointed out: "All idealists, whether philosophical or religious, whether old or new, believe in inspiration, revelation, saviors, miracle-workers, and whether this belief takes a crude, religious form or a civilized philosophical form depends only on their level of education." As a concept reflecting the new meaning of modern modes of thinking and attitudes toward life since the Enlightenment, civilization encompasses the mode of production of modern society and the relations of intercourse embodied therein. On this, Marx further stated in *The Poverty of Philosophy*: "From the moment civilization begins, production begins to be founded on the antagonism of ranks, estates, and classes, and finally on the antagonism of accumulated labor and immediate labor. Without antagonism there is no progress. This is the law that civilization has followed down to this day."

当历史唯物主义初步确立后，马克思揭示了文明发展的规律性特征，阐明生产的对抗性与文明演进的关系。例如，在《“霍尔斯坦的格奥尔格·库尔曼博士”或“真正的社会主义”的预言“新世界或人间的精神王国”》一文中，马克思指出：“一切唯心主义者，不论是哲学上的还是宗教上的，不论是旧的还是新的，都相信灵感、启示、救世主、奇迹创造者，至于这种信仰是采取粗野的、宗教的形式还是文明的哲学的形式，这仅仅取决于他们的教育程度。”作为启蒙以来反映现代思维方式与生活态度的新意涵的概念，文明涵盖了现代社会的生产样态及其中体现的交往关系。对此，马克思在《哲学的贫困》中进一步表明：“当文明一开始的时候，生产就开始建立在级别、等级和阶级的对抗上，最后建立在积累的劳动和直接的劳动的对抗上。没有对抗就没有进步。这是文明直到今天所遵循的规律。”

In a letter to Pavel Annenkov dated December 28, 1846, Marx pointed out: "In order not to forfeit the fruits of civilization, men are compelled to change all their inherited social forms as soon as the mode of commerce no longer suits the productive forces they have acquired." In the *Communist Manifesto*, he offered a dialectical analysis of modern civilization's creation and its supersession of traditional civilization, holding that "the ancient national industries have been destroyed and are still being destroyed every day. They are dislodged by new industries, whose establishment becomes a question of life and death for all civilized nations." In speaking of the historical role played by the bourgeoisie, Marx stated: "The bourgeoisie, by the rapid improvement of all instruments of production, by the immensely facilitated means of communication, draws all, even the most barbarian, nations into civilization," and "just as it has made the country dependent on the towns, so it has made barbarian and semi-barbarian countries dependent on civilized ones, nations of peasants dependent on nations of bourgeois, the East on the West." At this point, confronting the grim reality of bourgeois development and class antagonism, the proletariat must unite and achieve liberation through united struggle: "United action, of the leading civilized countries at least, is one of the first conditions for the emancipation of the proletariat."

在1846年12月28日致安年科夫的信中，马克思指出：“为了不致失掉文明的果实，人们在他们的交往［commerce］方式不再适合于既得的生产力时，就不得不改变他们继承下来的一切社会形式。”他在《共产党宣言》中对现代文明创造及其对传统文明的替代进行了辩证的分析，认为“古老的民族工业被消灭了，并且每天都还在被消灭。它们被新的工业排挤掉了，新的工业的建立已经成为一切文明民族的生命攸关的问题”。在谈到资产阶级发挥的历史作用时，马克思表明：“资产阶级，由于一切生产工具的迅速改进，由于交通的极其便利，把一切民族甚至最野蛮的民族都卷到文明中来了”，“正像它使农村从属于城市一样，它使未开化和半开化的国家从属于文明的国家，使农民的民族从属于资产阶级的民族，使东方从属于西方”。这时，面对资产阶级的发展与阶级对抗的严峻现实，无产阶级必须联合起来，在团结奋斗中获得解放，“联合的行动，至少是各文明国家的联合的行动，是无产阶级获得解放的首要条件之一”。

This line of thought was further developed in the manuscripts of *Capital*. For example, in the *Economic Manuscripts of 1857–1858*, Marx noted: "The capitalist, regardless of all 'pious' phrases, seeks every means to stimulate the workers' consumption, to give his commodities new allurements, to impose new needs on the workers, and so on. This aspect of the relation between capital and labor is precisely an important civilizing factor, and on it rests the historical justification of capital and its present power." From the perspective of the objectification of labor time, free time embodies a profound civilizational content: "Since all free time is time for free development, the capitalist has stolen from the worker the free time he has created for society, that is, he has stolen civilization, and in this sense Wade is right that capital equals civilization." In the *Economic Manuscripts of 1861–1863*, Marx further elaborated the civilizational determination of free time and its intrinsic relation to social development, pointing out the antagonistic essence of production: "The free time of the non-laboring part of society is based on surplus labor or overwork, on the surplus labor time of the laboring part: the free development of one side is based on the workers having to devote all their time, and hence all the space for their development, to the production of certain use values; the development of one side's capacities is based on the restriction of the other side's development—all civilization up to now has developed on the basis of this antagonism."

上述思路在《资本论》手稿中得到进一步发展，例如，马克思在《1857—1858年经济学手稿》中指出，“资本家不顾一切‘虔敬的’词句，寻求一切办法刺激工人的消费，使自己的商品具有新的诱惑力，强使工人有新的需求等等。资本和劳动关系的这个方面正好是重要的文明因素，资本的历史的合理性就是以此为基础的，而且资本今天的力量也是以此为基础的。”而从劳动时间的对象化角度看，自由时间体现了深刻的文明内涵，“既然所有自由时间都是供自由发展的时间，所以资本家是窃取了工人为社会创造的自由时间，即窃取了文明，从这个意义上说，威德认为资本等于文明，又是对的”。在《1861—1863年经济学手稿》中，马克思进一步指出自由时间的文明规定及其与社会发展的内在关系，指出生产的对抗性的实质：“不劳动的社会部分的自由时间是以剩余劳动或过度劳动为基础的，是以劳动的那部分人的剩余劳动时间为基础的：一方的自由发展是以工人必须把他们的全部时间，从而他们发展的空间完全用于生产一定的使用价值为基础的；一方的人的能力的发展是以另一方的发展受到限制为基础的迄今一切文明的发展都是以这种对抗为基础的。”

In the French edition of Volume I of *Capital*, Marx stated: "In all social conditions, people must necessarily be concerned with the time required for the production of means of subsistence, although the degree of concern varies at different stages of civilization. Finally, once people labor for one another in some way, their labor also assumes a social form." Labor assumes a social form at different stages of civilization, and credit also occupies different positions at different stages of civilization. Marx likewise indicated in his *Notes on Adolph Wagner's "Lehrbuch der politischen Ökonomie"*: "Credit is either 'consumption credit' or 'production credit'; the former predominates at the lower stages of civilization, the latter at the 'higher' stages." The mere pursuit of wealth is a social condition that has prevailed since the formation of the logic of capital; it is not the long-term logic of civilizational development. In his *Excerpts from Lewis Henry Morgan's "Ancient Society"*, Marx profoundly stated: "The mere pursuit of wealth is not the ultimate destiny of humanity. The time that has elapsed since the beginning of the age of civilization is only a small fraction of the time humanity has already lived through."

在《资本论》第一卷法文版中，马克思谈道：“在一切社会状态下，人们对生产消费资料所必要的时间必然是关心的，虽然在不同的文明阶段上关心的程度不同。最后，一旦人们以某种方式彼此为对方劳动，他们的劳动也就取得社会的形式。”劳动不仅在不同的文明阶段取得社会的形式，信贷在不同的文明阶段也占有不同的地位，马克思在《评阿·瓦格纳的“政治经济学教科书”》一文中也表明，“信贷或者是‘消费信贷’，或者是‘生产信贷’，前者在文明的低级阶段占主要地位，后者在‘高级’阶段占主要地位。”对财富的单纯追求是资本逻辑形成以来的社会状况，并非文明发展的长线逻辑。在《路易斯·亨·摩尔根〈古代社会〉一书摘要》中，马克思深刻表明：“单纯追求财富不是人类最终的命运。自从文明时代开始以来所经过的时间，只是人类已经经历过的生存时间的一小部分。”

The above roughly reflects the important content of Marx's discourse on "civilization," broadly covering the genesis and development of civilization, the determination of civilizational forms, the laws of civilizational development, and the characteristics of the age of civilization. From this it can be seen that civilization is the fruit of human practice based on the level of development of the productive forces and the forms of ownership. By contrast, when Marx and Engels spoke of "culture," they did so more from the angles of "cultural level," "degree of culture," "cultural condition," and "cultural cultivation" to indicate a certain state of people's spiritual life; hence they made several analyses of "cultural history," and also compared the German "Kultur" with the "civilization" commonly used by French Enlightenment thinkers, actually revealing the modern connotation of civilization. In this sense, Marx's discourse on civilization roughly manifests four dimensions, involving the determination of civilization and the progressiveness of the age of civilization, the fundamental driving force and modes of expression of civilizational progress, the dual dimensions of capital civilization, and the future of civilization and human liberation, thereby presenting an inner logic.

以上大致体现了马克思关于“文明”论述的重要内容，大致涵盖了关于文明的发生发展、文明形态的规定、文明发展规律、文明时代的特征等方面，从中可见文明是基于生产力发展水平和所有制形式的人类实践成果。相比而言，马克思和恩格斯谈及“文化”的时候，更多是从“文化水平”“文化程度”“文化状况”“文化教养”的角度表明人们一定的精神生活状态，因而对“文化史”做了若干分析，也曾以德语中的“文化”与法国启蒙学者常用的“文明”相比较，实际揭示了文明具有的现代意蕴。在这个意义上，马克思关于文明的论述大致体现为四重维度，涉及文明的规定以及文明时代的进步性、文明进步的根本动力及表现方式、资本文明的双重维度、文明的未来与人的解放，从而呈现了一种内在逻辑。

II. The Inner Logic of Marx's View of Civilization

二、马克思文明观的内在逻辑

First, Marx held that civilization is a degree of development compared with the uncivilized, barbarous, and primitive state of existence. He divided the age of civilization into the stages of ancient civilization and modern civilization. As products of history, the human life of each different stage of development manifests a state of civilization, and the development of production at each stage of the age of civilization always represents a progress over earlier ages. Marx pointed out: "The age of civilization is the period of learning to further process natural products, the period of genuine industry and art." Civilization takes many centuries to establish itself, "Greece and Rome are the nations of the ancient world with the highest 'historical civilization,'" but even at the height of ancient Greek civilization, the Greeks "were still barbarians in their treatment of women." At the same time, civilization is a relative category: compared with later, more civilized ages, ancient civilizations bear the features of semi-barbarism. Hence, in commenting on British rule in India, Marx noted: "From a human feeling, it is painful to see these countless industriously managed patriarchal, harmless social organizations collapse one by one, cast into a sea of suffering, and to see each of their members lose both their ancient form of civilization and their inherited means of livelihood; but we should not forget that these idyllic rural communes, however harmless they may appear, have always been the solid foundation of Oriental despotism, confining the human mind within the narrowest limits, making it a docile tool of superstition, a slave to traditional rules, incapable of any great deed or historical initiative." In his assessment of Morgan's *Ancient Society*, Marx also stated: "The monogamous family; the marriage of exclusive cohabitation between one man and one woman; it is chiefly the family of civilized society, essentially modern in nature." In this regard, Engels quoted Morgan, dividing human civilization into "three principal stages—savagery, barbarism, and civilization," holding that Morgan had rediscovered in his own way the materialist conception of history that Marx had expounded forty years earlier, and had arrived at the same conclusions as Marx, showing that in the age of civilization "the division of labor, the exchange between individuals arising from it, and the commodity production that combines the two, attained full development and completely transformed the whole of prior society."

首先，马克思认为文明是与未开化的、野蛮的、原始的生存状态相比较而言的发展程度。他将文明时代划分为古代文明与现代文明发展阶段。作为历史的产物，不同发展阶段的人类生活都体现为一种文明状态，文明时代每一阶段的生产发展较之前的时代总是体现为一种进步。马克思指出：“文明时代是学会对天然产物进一步加工的时期，是真正的工业和艺术的时期。”文明要经过好多世纪才能建立起来，“希腊和罗马就是古代世界各民族中具有极高‘历史文明’的国家”，但纵然在古希腊文明的鼎盛时期，古希腊人“在对待女性方面仍然是野蛮人”。同时，文明是一个相对的范畴，相比于后来更文明的时代，古老的文明就带有半开化的特征。因而，在评论不列颠在印度的统治时，马克思指出：“从人的感情上来说，亲眼看到这无数辛勤经营的宗法制的祥和无害的社会组织一个个土崩瓦解，被投入苦海，亲眼看到它们的每个成员既丧失自己的古老形式的文明又丧失祖传的谋生手段，是会感到难过的；但是我们不应该忘记，这些田园风味的农村公社不管看起来怎样祥和无害，却始终是东方专制制度的牢固基础，它们使人的头脑局限在极小的范围内，成为迷信的驯服工具，成为传统规则的奴隶，表现不出任何伟大的作为和历史首创精神。”在评析摩尔根的《古代社会》时，马克思也表明，“专偶制家庭；一男和一女实行独占同居的婚姻；它主要是文明社会的家庭，本质上是现代的东西。”对此，恩格斯曾引述摩尔根的话，将人类文明区分为“三个主要时代——蒙昧时代、野蛮时代和文明时代”，认为摩尔根以自己的方式重新发现了40年前马克思阐述的唯物史观，并得出了与马克思相同的结论，表明文明时代的“分工、由分工而产生的个人之间的交换，以及把这两者结合起来的商品生产，得到了充分的发展，完全改变了先前的整个社会。”

Second, Marx held that the fundamental driving force of civilizational progress derives from material production practice, is closely related to the development of social production and the relations formed therein, constitutes the practical determination for the transformation of cultural concepts, and that the progress of civilization embodies the growth of productive forces. As he said, "all the progress of civilization, or in other words, any increase in social productive forces (which may also be said to be the productive forces of labor itself), will not enrich the worker but only enrich the capitalist, that is, will only further increase the power of domination over labor, will only increase the productive forces of capital—the objective power dominating labor." Engels, in a commentary context, stated: "Civilization is a practical matter, a social quality." Thus, civilization in the modern context manifests substantive content, reflecting the new spirit of people's material life and their world of ideas. The modern state system related to civilization, in Marx's era, took the form of bourgeois society: "The different states of the different civilized countries, whatever their diverse forms, have one thing in common: they are all founded on modern bourgeois society, differing only in the degree of capitalist development of that society." Modern civilization in its form of production manifests as the development of the social division of labor; its inner essence presents the economic laws that people ought to follow, while also being influenced by geographical environment, cultural traditions, technological level, and religious activities. If social production lacks social organization, lacks the important social function of undertaking public works, a single devastating war could cause a backward country to lose all its civilization. And "the concentration of capital is absolutely necessary for capital to exist as an independent force. The destructive influence of this concentration on the world market is merely the display on a large scale of the inner laws of political economy itself that are currently at work in every civilized city." In a word, "the mode of production of material life conditions the whole process of social, political, and intellectual life." This not only shows that the mode of production of material life has a foundational and conditioning role, but also shows that the development of material civilization and cultural-ethical progress [1]1 Pavel Annenkov (1813–1887) was a Russian liberal landowner and literary critic who corresponded with Marx in the 1840s; the letter cited is a critique of Proudhon's *The Philosophy of Poverty*. proceed within the same historical process.

其次，马克思认为文明进步的根本动力源自物质生产实践，与社会生产发展及其形成的关系密切相关，是实现文化观念转化的现实规定，文明的进步体现了生产力的增长。正如他所说，“文明的一切进步，或者换句话说，社会生产力（也可以说劳动本身的生产力）的任何增长，都不会使工人致富，而只会使资本家致富，也就是只会使支配劳动的权力更加增大，只会使资本的生产力——支配劳动的客观权力增长。”恩格斯在一种评述的语境中表明：“文明是实践的事情，是社会的素质。”因而，文明在现代语境中彰显实体性内容，映现了人们物质生活和观念世界的新精神。与文明相关的现代国家制度在马克思所处的时代体现为资产阶级社会的形式：“不同的文明国度中的不同的国家，不管它们的形式如何纷繁，却有一个共同点：它们都建立在现代资产阶级社会的基础上，只是这种社会的资本主义发展程度不同罢了”。现代文明在生产形式上体现为社会分工的发展，其内在本质呈现了人们应当遵循的经济规律，同时受到地理环境、文化传统、技术水平、宗教活动的影响。如果社会生产缺乏社会的有组织性，缺乏举办公共工程的重要社会职能，一次毁灭性的战争就可能使一个落后的国家失去全部的文明。而“资本的集中是资本作为独立力量而存在所十分必需的。这种集中对于世界市场的破坏性影响，不过是在大范围内显示目前正在每个文明城市起着作用的政治经济学本身的内在规律罢了。”一言以蔽之，“物质生活的生产方式制约着整个社会生活、政治生活和精神生活的过程。”这不仅表明物质生活的生产方式具有基础性和制约作用，而且表明物质文明和精神文明的发展处于同一历史进程。

Relative to pre-modern society, Marx and Engels usually used the term civilized countries to refer to modern capitalist countries. In Engels's view, "owing to the rapid development of industry in all civilized countries, especially in America and Germany, competition on the world market has greatly intensified." In analyzing questions such as ground rent and landed property, Marx pointed out: "If small landed property creates a class of barbarians who stand half outside society, combining all the crudeness of primitive social forms with all the misery and suffering of civilized countries, then large landed property destroys the labor force in the last field where its natural energies find refuge, in the countryside itself, where it serves as the reserve force for renewing the vital energy of the nation." In Marx's view, "the quantity of so-called primary needs of life and the manner of satisfying them depend in large measure on the state of civilization of society, that is, they are themselves products of history, so that what counts as necessary means of subsistence in one country or one period is not necessary means of subsistence in another country or another period." The state of civilization of a society is formed in history, and is the material precondition for people's intellectual production and cultural life; the development of civilization means a dialectical process of evolution in which "one negates the other." Modern civilization, based on a specific mode of production, transcends previous stages of civilization, but "modern bourgeois civilization is built on the slavery of wage labor," [2]2 John Wade (1788–1875) was a British journalist and historian whose claim that "capital equals civilization" Marx cites approvingly in the *Grundrisse*. which plunges modern civilization into a somber predicament. In this sense, Marx and Engels proposed a revolutionary path that transcends the modernity of capital and realizes the transformation of modern civilization, and clearly identified its historical subject and developmental trend: "In reality, our Association is merely the international bond between the advanced workers of the civilized countries of the world"; "since the elite of the working class of all civilized countries belong to the International and are thoroughly imbued with its ideas, they are bound to march at the head of the workers' movement everywhere."

相对于前现代社会而言，马克思和恩格斯通常用文明国家指称现代资本主义国家。在恩格斯看来，“由于一切文明国家，特别是美国和德国的工业的迅速发展，世界市场上的竞争大大加剧了。”在分析地租和土地所有制等问题时，马克思指出：“如果说小土地所有制创造出了一个半处于社会之外的未开化的阶级，它兼有原始社会形式的一切粗野性和文明国家的一切贫困痛苦，那么，大土地所有制则在劳动力的天然能力借以逃身的最后领域，在劳动力作为更新民族生活力的后备力量借以积蓄的最后领域即在农村本身中，破坏了劳动力。”在马克思看来，“所谓的第一生活需要的数量和满足这些需要的方式，在很大程度上取决于社会的文明状况，也就是说，它们本身就是历史的产物，所以，在某一国家或某一时期属于必要的生活资料的东西，在另一国家或另一时期却不是必要的生活资料。”一个社会的文明状况是在历史中形成的，是人们从事精神生产和文化生活的物质前提，文明的发展意味着“以一个否定另一个方式彼此联系着”的辩证演进过程。现代文明基于特定的生产方式，超越了以往的文明阶段，但“现代资产阶级文明是建筑在雇佣劳动的奴隶制基础上的”，这就使现代文明沉入一种晦暗的境遇。在这个意义上，马克思和恩格斯提出了超越资本现代性与实现现代文明转型的革命路径，并明确其历史主体和发展趋势，“实际上，我们的协会只是文明世界各国先进工人之间的国际纽带”，“既然所有文明国家的工人阶级的精华都属于国际，而且都浸透了国际的思想，他们在各地的工人阶级运动中就定然会走在最前面。”

Third, Marx dialectically regarded "the great civilizing influence of capital," calling the productive forces "already acquired" by humanity "the fruits of civilization," thereby presenting the dual dimension of capital civilization. On the one hand, "the civilizing aspect of capital" manifests in that its mode and conditions of extracting surplus value, "compared with earlier forms such as slavery and serfdom, are more favorable to the development of productive forces, more favorable to the development of social relations, and more favorable to the creation of the elements of a higher new form." The bourgeoisie, in less than one hundred years of class rule, created more and greater productive forces than the sum total of all productive forces created by all previous generations, establishing the shape of a new world, demonstrating that the pace of modern civilizational development far exceeds that of the past; on the other hand, "our epoch, the epoch of civilization, has committed the opposite error. It separates from man his objective essence as something merely external and material; it does not regard the content of man as his true reality." [3]3 Adolph Wagner (1835–1917) was a German economist of the "state socialist" school; Marx's marginal notes on his textbook, written in 1879–1880, are a late critique of vulgar political economy. Such an epoch of civilization encounters the paradox of civilization, compelling people to re-examine the limits of its transcendence of "barbarism"; Marx further revealed the elements of transformation inherent in modern civilization: "the 'propertyless worker' as the 'basic principle' is, rather, merely a product of civilization, and indeed a product of the historical stage of 'capitalist production.' It is a law of 'expropriation,' not a law of 'appropriation.'" [4]4 Lewis Henry Morgan (1818–1881) was an American anthropologist whose *Ancient Society* (1877) provided the ethnographic basis for Engels's *The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State*.

再次，马克思辩证地看待“资本的伟大的文明作用”，将人类“已经获得的生产力”称作“文明的果实”，从而呈现了资本文明的双重维度。一方面，“资本的文明面”表现为其榨取剩余价值的方式和条件“同以前的奴隶制、农奴制等形式相比，都更有利于生产力的发展，有利于社会关系的发展，有利于更高级的新形态的各种要素的创造。”资产阶级在它不到100年的阶级统治中创造了比过去一切时代人们创造的全部生产力的总和还要多还要大的生产力，建立起新世界的形相，体现了现代文明发展速度远超以往；另一方面，“我们的时代即文明时代，却犯了一个相反的错误。它使人的对象性本质作为某种仅仅是外在的、物质的东西同人分离，它不认为人的内容是人的真正现实。”这样的文明时代遭遇了文明的悖论，使人们重审其超越“野蛮”的限度，马克思进而揭示了现代文明内蕴的实现变革的要素，“‘无所有权的劳动者’作为‘基本原则’，倒不如说只是文明的产物，而且是‘资本主义生产’这个历史阶段上的产物。这是一种‘剥夺’规律，不是‘占有’规律”。

Through the critique and transcendence of the logic of capital, Marx and Engels discovered that capitalist society produces many "civilized" empty phrases; some so-called "civilized" acts in reality manifest as enslavement and "barbarism": "the civilized victory of capital lies precisely in the fact that capital discovers and causes human labor to replace dead things as the source of wealth." [5]5 The "three principal stages" of savagery, barbarism, and civilization is Morgan's periodization of human prehistory and history, adopted by Engels in *The Origin of the Family* (1884). Indeed, a strange phenomenon even appears: the more civilized the objects the worker creates, the more barbaric the worker himself becomes. Hence, Marx proposed casting off the sinful civilization built on the slavery of labor, inheriting and developing its civilizational achievements while sublating capitalist civilization, forming a great conception of the transformation of modern civilization. He foresaw the developmental trend of human civilization, emphasized overthrowing all relations that make man a degraded, enslaved, abandoned, and despised being, thereby unfolding the essential power of humanity, and creating in the future ideal society "a civilization that can give happiness to all people." In this sense, truly civilized people ought to carry out material exchange under conditions most worthy of and most suited to their human nature. "In fact, the realm of freedom begins only where labor determined by necessity and external purposiveness ceases; thus by the nature of the thing, it lies beyond the sphere of actual material production. Just as the barbarian must struggle with nature to satisfy his needs, to maintain and reproduce his life, so must the civilized man; and he must do so in all social forms, under all possible modes of production." That is to say, it is necessary to change the mode of production that does not suit the development of productive forces and the economic relations formed therein; the new civilization thus constructed embodies the social nature of productive forces and reflects the modern developmental path in which the means of production are socially appropriated and controlled in their entirety.

通过对资本逻辑的批判与超越，马克思和恩格斯发现资本主义社会制造了很多“文明”的空话，有些所谓“文明”的行为实则体现为奴役和“野蛮”，“资本的文明的胜利恰恰在于，资本发现并促使人的劳动代替死的物而成为财富的源泉”。甚至出现了一种奇怪的现象，工人创造的对象越文明，自己越野蛮。因而，马克思提出摆脱建立在劳动奴役制上的罪恶的文明，在扬弃资本主义文明的同时继承发展其文明成果，形成了关于现代文明转型的伟大构想。他预见了人类文明发展趋势，强调推翻使人成为被侮辱、被奴役、被遗弃和被蔑视的东西的一切关系，进而展现人类的本质力量，在未来理想社会创造“能给所有的人以幸福的文明”。在这个意义上，真正的文明人应当在最无愧于和最适合于其人类本性的条件下来进行物质变换。“事实上，自由王国只是在必要性和外在目的规定要做的劳动终止的地方才开始；因而按照事物的本性来说，它存在于真正物质生产领域的彼岸。像野蛮人为了满足自己的需要，为了维持和再生产自己的生命，必须与自然搏斗一样，文明人也必须这样做；而且在一切社会形式中，在一切可能的生产方式中，他都必须这样做。”也就是说，要改变不适合生产力发展的生产方式以及从中形成的经济关系，由此建构的新文明体现了生产力的社会本性，反映了由社会占有和支配全部生产资料的现代发展路径。

Finally, Marx measures the degree of civilization by the progress of human development, presenting the future of civilization as a vision of human freedom and all-round development, a future vision of civilizational development that is realized through human emancipation. As early as in his letter to Feuerbach dated August 11, 1844, Marx pointed out: "History is turning these 'barbarians' of our civilized society into the practical factors of human emancipation." He held that "'emancipation' is brought about by historical relations, by industrial conditions, commercial conditions, agricultural conditions, and conditions of intercourse," which is manifested not only in the development of society's productive forces, but also in the realization of the public interest through a rational public order, and in the elevation of people's civilizational attainments. To cast off the shackles of the logic of capital, one should establish a logic of labor that promotes the transformation of modern civilization, recognizing that the internal driving force of civilizational development reflects the continuous enhancement of humanity's essential powers. In advancing along the path of civilization, people better realize themselves; "every step forward in culture was a step towards freedom." In creating a new civilization, people move toward a "community of free individuals," forming a new civilizational epoch with this as the basic form of social structure. Such a civilizational future is based on the associated individuals' appropriation of the totality of social productive forces, enabling people to move from necessity to freedom.

最后，马克思以人的发展进步状况衡量文明程度，将文明的未来展现为人的自由与全面发展的图景，这种文明发展的未来图景体现为人的解放的实现。早在1844年8月11日致费尔巴哈的信中，马克思就指出：“历史正在把我们文明社会的这些‘野蛮人’变成人类解放的实践因素。”他认为“‘解放’是由历史的关系，是由工业状况、商业状况、农业状况、交往状况促成的”，这不仅体现为社会生产力的发展，而且体现为以合理的公共秩序促进公共利益的实现，体现为人们文明素养的提升。摆脱资本逻辑的束缚，应当确立促进现代文明转型的劳动逻辑，认识到文明发展的内在动力反映了人的本质力量的不断增强。人们在走向文明进步的途中更好实现自我，“文化上的每一个进步，都是迈向自由的一步。”人们在创造新文明的途中走向“自由人的联合体”，形成以此为社会结构基本形式的新文明时代。这样的文明未来基于联合起来的个人对全部社会生产力的占有，使人们从必然走向自由。

III. The Chinese Context of Marx's View of Civilization

三、马克思文明观的中国语境

Marx studied the China question from the perspective of civilizational evolution, analyzing the nature of the two Opium Wars and the future direction of Chinese society, emphasizing that Chinese civilization "possesses glorious historical significance," and holding that China, with its long-standing civilization, would surely display "the dawn of a new era in Asia." From the 1840s onward, Marx began reading European scholars' works on China, as well as European media reports on Chinese current affairs and accounts of China by travelers to the country, paying attention to the plight of modern Chinese society within a world-historical perspective. In the hundreds of articles he wrote on the China question, Marx, reflecting on the capitalist crisis, analyzed the causes, processes, and effects of the two Opium Wars on world revolution. Together with Engels, he pointed out that the Western powers that had launched the Opium Wars were once again turning their gaze toward China, condemning the Western powers for using cannons to knock down China's walls, carrying out "unparalleled cruel devastation and slaughter," "violating all the laws of war in their relations with the Chinese," forcing China into the opium trade, with war pretexts that were hypocritical and hollow—such conduct was by no means a righteous act of spreading civilization, but an unjust deed of plundering China's wealth and violating China's sovereignty, unprecedented in the annals of human history. They also commented on the British government's China policy and the debates in the British Parliament over that policy, analyzed the expansionist designs of Tsarist Russia, exposed the deceptions of the Western media, described the realities of modern Chinese society, and pointed out the limitations of the natural economy and the historical causes of the decline of the late Qing Empire.

马克思从文明演进角度研究中国问题，分析了两次鸦片战争的性质和中国社会的未来走向，强调中华文明“具有光辉的历史意义”，认为文明源远流长的中国必将展现“亚洲新纪元的曙光”。自19世纪40年代起，马克思开始阅读欧洲学人的中国论著以及当时欧洲媒体报道的中国要闻和旅华人士记述的中国见闻，在世界历史视域关注近代中国社会的遭遇。在以中国问题为主题的数百篇文章中，思考资本主义危机的马克思分析了两次鸦片战争的起因、过程及其结果对世界革命的影响。他和恩格斯指出，当时发动鸦片战争的西方列强再次将目光投向中国，为此谴责西方列强用大炮轰倒中国的围墙，进行“无比残忍的蹂躏屠杀”，“在对中国人的关系上把战争的所有国际法准则破坏无遗”，强迫中国进行鸦片贸易，战争的理由虚伪和空洞，这种行为绝不是所谓传播文明的义举，而是劫掠中国财富、侵犯中国主权的不义行径，在人类历史记录上绝无仅有。他们还评论了英国政府的对华政策以及英国议会围绕对华政策展开的争论，分析了沙皇俄国的扩张企图，揭露了西方媒体的骗局，描述了近代中国社会现实，指出自然经济的局限性和晚清帝国衰落的历史成因。

In Marx's view, "the invention of gunpowder, the compass, and printing" "were necessary preconditions for bourgeois development." The Chinese, "calm, composed, and courteous," displayed the cultural attainments of a land of rites, but if this Eastern ancient state with a backward economic structure persisted in "sticking to old ways" and "resting content with the status quo," remaining outside world civilization in seclusion, it would plunge social life into a state of stagnation and encounter great danger under the trampling of Western hooves. Marx pointed out that "the social base remained motionless, while the persons and races who seized the political superstructure changed continually" was the fundamental reason why feudal China gradually fell behind the world. That late Qing China became a target for partition by the Western powers was because, in its "rotten" and "semi-civilized" state, it was blind to the situation and content in self-deception, lacking the economic and military strength to resist the great powers. To emerge from this "semi-civilized" state, it was necessary to transform the rotten political rule of feudal China and to nurture a new world in revolution.

在马克思看来，“火药、指南针和印刷术的发明”“是资产阶级发展的必要前提”。“心平气和、冷静沉着、彬彬有礼”的中国人展现了礼仪之邦的文化素养，但经济结构落后的东方古国如果一味“墨守成规”“安于现状”，在闭关自守中居于世界文明之外，就将使社会生活陷于停滞状态，在西方铁蹄的践踏下遭遇极大的危险。马克思指出，“社会基础停滞不动，而夺得政治上层建筑的人物和种族却不断更迭”，是封建中国逐渐落后于世界的根本原因。晚清中国之所以成为西方列强意欲瓜分之地，是因为在“腐朽的”“半文明的”状态中昧于形势、甘于自欺，没有抵御列强的经济实力和军事实力。走出这种“半文明的”状态，必须变革封建中国腐朽的政治统治，在革命中孕育新世界。

Marx placed the Chinese revolution within the world-historical structure, holding that the spark suppressed in China during the Opium Wars would inevitably erupt, and that "the hour of death of old China is rapidly approaching." He pointed out: "The Chinese revolution will throw the spark into the overloaded mine of the present industrial system and ignite the long-prepared general crisis," and therefore this revolution and the European revolution were "poles apart yet connected," and would inevitably promote the development of world civilization. He affirmed the heroic feats of the Chinese people's anti-colonial struggle, holding that in resisting the armies of the Western powers, various forms of struggle should be adopted—mass uprisings, revolutionary war, guerrilla warfare—and that the Chinese people's war to "defend their altars and homes" was "a people's war for the preservation of the Chinese nation." China, having experienced the two Opium Wars, could no longer close its doors to the world, but should seek a new path for the development of modern civilization. "Opium did not have a narcotic effect; on the contrary, it had an awakening effect." China, "this living fossil," would not forever drift and sink in the wind and rain, but would be reborn in the impending social revolution, thereby establishing a new industrial civilization and carrying out modern commercial trade.

马克思将中国革命置于世界历史格局中，认为在鸦片战争中压抑的中国的火种必将爆发，“旧中国的死亡时刻正在迅速临近”。他指出，“中国革命将把火星抛到现今工业体系这个火药装得足而又足的地雷上，把酝酿已久的普遍危机引爆”，因而，这场革命与欧洲革命是“两极相联”的，必将对世界文明发展起到促进作用。他肯定了中国人民反殖民战争的英勇壮举，认为在抵抗西方列强军队时，应采取群众起义、革命战争、游击队等多种斗争形式，中国人“保卫社稷和家园”的战争是“维护中华民族生存的人民战争”。经历两次鸦片战争的中国不能再闭关自守了，而应探求现代文明发展的新路。“鸦片没有起催眠作用，反而起了惊醒作用。”中国“这块活的化石”不会始终在风雨中飘摇、沉沦，而会在即将到来的社会革命中新生，由此建立新的工业文明，开展现代商业贸易。

Marx's historical analysis of the civilizational conditions of modern China and the tenacious struggles of its men of insight in the face of historical transformation revealed the regular features of modern civilizational development and its transcendence of pre-modern civilization: "The representatives of the antiquated world are moved by righteousness, while the representatives of the most modern society fight for the privilege of buying cheap and selling dear—truly a strange elegiac couplet that no poet would dare to imagine." The modern Western states opened the gates of the ancient country in a barbaric manner, reducing the antiquated late Qing to a colony and semi-colony, fully displaying the superiority of modern modes of production over pre-modern society, and making people hear the elegy of a pre-modern society. To rise up and struggle for national independence and liberation, one could not merely express some kind of righteous indignation within pre-modern production and life, but had to explore a path suited to the modernization of the Chinese nation, to find a way different from the appropriation of raw material sources and consumer markets characterized by the logic of capital and colonial aggression, to realize the vital renewal and modern transformation of Chinese civilization, and to activate the great power of Chinese civilization condensed over more than five thousand years of history in the real movement toward emancipation. The spread of Marxism in China changed the historical destiny of the Chinese nation, activated the excellent factors in traditional Chinese culture and endowed them with new connotations of the times, enabling the Chinese people to truly stand up spiritually.

马克思对近代中国的文明状况与有识之士面对历史变局而顽强抗争的历史分析，揭示了现代文明发展及其超越前现代文明的规律性特征，“陈腐世界的代表是激于道义，而最现代的社会的代表却是为了获得贱买贵卖的特权——这真是任何诗人想也不敢想的一种奇异的对联式悲歌”。西方现代国家以野蛮的方式打开古老中国的大门，使陈腐的晚清成为殖民地和半殖民地，使现代生产方式优越于前现代社会的情状尽显，使人们听到一场前现代社会的悲歌。为了民族独立和解放奋起抗争，不能只是在前现代生产生活中表达某种义愤，而要探索一条适合中华民族走向现代化的道路，找到一种不同于以资本逻辑和殖民侵略为特征的占有原料产地和消费市场的方式，实现中华文明的生命更新和现代转型，在实现解放的现实的运动中激活在五千余年历史中凝结的中华文明的伟力。马克思主义在中国的传播改变了中华民族的历史命运，激活了中华传统文化中的优秀因子并赋予其新的时代内涵，使中国人在精神上真正站立起来了。

Over more than a hundred years, the Marxist view of civilization has been integrated with China's concrete realities and with China's excellent traditional culture, demonstrating that the path to socialism is formed in history and should conform to the specific historical conditions of each country. In Marx's view, China would explore a path to socialism different from Europe's: "Although China's socialism has as much in common with European socialism as Chinese philosophy has with Hegelian philosophy, one thing remains gratifying: the oldest and most firmly established empire in the world has, under the influence of the British bourgeoisie's large quantities of printed calico over eight years, already been on the eve of social transformation, and this transformation will inevitably bring extremely important results to the civilization of this country." In applying historical laws to study the direction of social development, he and Engels transcended the limitations of Eurocentrism, foreseeing the transformation of the modern world's developmental structure, holding that the Pacific would, like the Atlantic in the past, "play the role of a great world waterway," and that China on the shores of the Pacific would play an important role in the future international economy and politics, becoming one of the "pivotal countries in Asia."

百余年来，马克思主义文明观同中国具体实际相结合、同中华优秀传统文化相结合，表明实现社会主义的道路是在历史中形成的，应当符合各国具体的历史条件。在马克思看来，中国将探索出一条不同于欧洲的社会主义道路，“虽然中国的社会主义跟欧洲的社会主义像中国哲学跟黑格尔哲学一样具有共同之点，但是，有一点仍然是令人欣慰的，即世界上最古老最巩固的帝国8年来在英国资产者的大批印花布的影响之下已经处于社会变革的前夕，而这次变革必将给这个国家的文明带来极其重要的结果”。他和恩格斯在运用历史规律研究社会发展走向的过程中超越了欧洲中心主义局限，预见到现代世界发展格局的变迁，认为太平洋将像以往的大西洋一样，“起着伟大的世界水路交通线的作用”，而在太平洋沿岸的中国将在未来国际经济政治中发挥重要作用，成为“亚洲举足轻重的国家”之一。

Since modern times, the Chinese people, having traversed suffering and glory, have explored the use of a new culture to revive the confidence of the Chinese nation and establish the spiritual support for its rebirth through fire. Since its founding, the Communist Party of China has taken the building of a new culture for the Chinese nation as an important mission, uniting and leading the people in pioneering the great cause of Chinese-path modernization, developing a national, scientific, and popular culture that faces the world, faces modernization, and faces the future, continuously giving play to the inspirational and guiding role of cultural construction. In the course of Chinese-path modernization, the fine traditional Chinese culture, integrated with the basic tenets of Marxism, has achieved practical transformation and innovative development. The Chinese nation solves practical problems with theories tested in practice, comprehensively advances the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation through Chinese-path modernization, and expands the path for developing countries to achieve modernization. The revival of civilization is a reflection of the comprehensive strength of a nation's social development. Inheriting the fruits of human civilization, activating the endogenous driving force of Chinese civilization, and creating, in the practical field of world modernization, a cultural form different from one dominated by the logic of capital, embodies the practical logic of Chinese-path modernization. The cultural form of Chinese-path modernization has stepped out of the conceptual constraints of the superiority-of-civilization theory and the clash-of-civilizations theory, generating, in a new mode of production and a new pattern of relations, cultural concepts that avoid the crisis of modernity and their objectification paths, conforming to the laws of socialist construction and the laws of human social development, and manifesting the Chinese approach and Chinese wisdom for solving global problems.

近代以来，经历苦难辉煌的中华儿女探索以新文化重振中华民族的自信力，确立中华民族浴火重生的精神支撑。中国共产党自成立起就把建设中华民族的新文化作为重要使命，团结带领人民开创中国式现代化伟业，发展民族的、科学的、大众的文化，使之面向世界、面向现代化、面向未来，不断发挥文化建设的感召和引领作用。在中国式现代化进程中，同马克思主义基本原理相结合的中华优秀传统文化实现了实践转化和创新发展。中华民族以经过实践检验的理论解决现实问题，以中国式现代化全面推进中华民族伟大复兴，拓展了发展中国家实现现代化的道路。文明复兴是一个民族的社会发展综合实力的反映。继承人类文明的果实，激活中华文明的内生动力，在世界现代化的实践场域中创造一种不同于由资本逻辑主导的文化形态，体现了中国式现代化的实践逻辑。中国式现代化的文化形态走出了文明优越论和文明冲突论的观念束缚，在一种新的生产方式和关系格局中生成避免现代性危机的文化观念及其对象化路径，符合社会主义建设规律和人类社会发展规律，彰显了解决全球问题的中国方案和中国智慧。

Today, upholding the cultural mission of the New Era and constructing the contemporary form of the Marxist view of civilization in China, we must answer the civilization questions of our time and promote the practical creation of a new form of civilization for our era. Facing the accelerated evolution of changes unseen in a century, strengthening exchanges and mutual learning among civilizations requires promoting the progress of civilization in our time on the basis of learning from each other's strengths and complementing advantages through a harmonious view of civilizational development. General Secretary Xi Jinping has put forward the Global Civilization Initiative, emphasizing "respecting the diversity of world civilizations, transcending civilizational estrangement through civilizational exchange, transcending civilizational clashes through civilizational mutual learning, and transcending civilizational superiority through civilizational coexistence,"[n] which has gained broad recognition from the international community. On June 7, 2024, the 78th session of the United Nations General Assembly adopted by consensus the resolution on establishing an International Day for Dialogue among Civilizations proposed by China, injecting the power of civilization into the common prosperity of humanity. On the new journey of the New Era, integrating the Marxist view of civilization with Chinese civilization in an intrinsic way, enabling the fine traditional Chinese culture to achieve creative transformation and innovative development, enabling the new culture of our era to exert practical effects on economic and political development, comprehensively advancing the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation through Chinese-path modernization, writing a splendid chapter in the history of civilization at the intersection of time and space in world history, enhancing mutual understanding and respect among different civilizations, realizing civilizational exchange and international cooperation in keeping with the spirit of the times, improving the modern order of civilizational development, and promoting the common values of all humanity—these are the inherent needs of creating a new form of human civilization and the civilizational path of building a community with a shared future for mankind.

今天，秉持新时代的文化使命，建构中国马克思主义文明观的当代形态，要回答我们时代的文明之问，促进我们时代文明新形态的实践创造。面对百年未有之大变局加速演进，加强文明交流互鉴，要以文明和谐发展观在取长补短、优势互补的基础上促进我们时代的文明进步。习近平总书记提出全球文明倡议，强调“尊重世界文明多样性，以文明交流超越文明隔阂、文明冲突超越文明互鉴、文明优越超越文明共存”，得到国际社会广泛认同。2024年6月7日，第78届联合国大会协商一致通过中国提出的设立文明对话国际日决议，为人类共同繁荣注入了文明的力量。新时代新征程，将马克思主义文明观同中华文明内在融通，使中华优秀传统文化实现创造性转化、创新性发展，使我们时代的新文化发挥实际作用于经济和政治发展，以中国式现代化全面推进中华民族伟大复兴，在世界历史的时空交汇中书写文明史的华彩乐章，增进不同文明之间相互理解和尊重，实现符合时代精神的文明交往与国际合作，完善文明发展的现代秩序，弘扬全人类共同价值，是创造人类文明新形态的内在需要，也是构建人类命运共同体的文明进路。

Online editor: Tongxin

网络编辑：同心