The Historical Materialist Connotations of the Phenomenon of Innovation, Innovative Practice, and Innovative Thinking

Human civilization, which has come from barbarism and remains open to the future, derives its flourishing and development from innovative practice as a vital driving force, takes the phenomenon of innovation as the key marker of its iteration and replacement, and is led internally by effective innovative thinking. "In today's world, economic and social development increasingly depends on innovation in fields such as theory, institutions, science and technology, and culture, and new advantages in international competition are increasingly embodied in innovative capacity. Whoever takes the lead in innovation will hold the initiative in leading development." Since the New Era, the achievements of China's reform and development have shown the world in the most direct way the truth that "only reformers advance, only innovators grow strong, and only reform-minded innovators prevail." In particular, over the past year, the notable results of the coordinated progress of China's scientific and technological innovation and institutional innovation prove that innovation is a system and ecosystem in which subject and object, economic base and superstructure are highly dialectically unified. Whether it is the dual breakthrough in basic research and core technology tackling, or the development and application of artificial intelligence large models and cognitive models; whether it is quantum computing leading the world, or the leap in deep-space and deep-sea exploration capabilities; whether it is the enhancement of the autonomy of the lithography machine industrial chain, or the implementation of the green sand-blocking and protection belt project "encircling" the Taklamakan Desert—all are led by the innovative thinking embodied in the new development philosophy, guided by the overall layout of building a new development pattern, and guaranteed by the innovation ecosystem shaped by sustained reform on the new journey of the New Era. Looking to the future, to understand the concept of innovation encompassing material production and social institutions, one must proceed from the broad view of history and grasp its scientific connotations and historical evolution in accordance with the general laws of social development in historical materialism.

从蛮荒走来且向未来敞开的人类文明，其勃兴与发展的重要推动力来自创新实践，其迭代与更替的关键标识是创新现象，其内在的引领则来自有效的创新思维。“当今世界，经济社会发展越来越依赖于理论、制度、科技、文化等领域的创新，国际竞争新优势也越来越体现在创新能力上。谁在创新上先行一步，谁就能拥有引领发展的主动权。”新时代以来，中国改革和发展的成就以最为直观的方式向世人展现了“惟改革者进，惟创新者强，惟改革创新者胜”的真理。尤其是过去一年，中国科技创新和制度创新协同并进的显著成效证明，创新是一个主体与客体、经济基础与上层建筑高度辩证统一的系统和生态。不论是基础研究与核心技术攻关的双重突破，还是人工智能大模型与认知模型的发展应用；不论是领先全球的量子计算，还是深空深海探测能力的跃升；不论是光刻机产业链自主性的增强，还是“合围”塔克拉玛干沙漠的绿色阻沙防护带工程的落地，都以新发展理念所蕴含的创新思维为引领，都以构建新发展格局的整体布局为牵引，都以新时代新征程持续改革所塑造的创新生态为保障。面向未来，要理解涵盖物质生产与社会制度的创新概念，必须从大历史观出发，依据历史唯物主义关于社会发展的一般规律来把握其科学内涵与历史演变。

I. The Human Essence of the Phenomenon of Innovation and Its Objective Conditions

一、创新现象的属人本质及其客观条件

Innovation is both a historical phenomenon and a social phenomenon. In the development of human civilization, innovation is the key to the survival of a particular civilization and the key event shaping the evolution of the content and form of human civilization. Innovation in productive forces enables humanity to continuously adjust its relationship with objective reality—from ignorance to standing on equal footing, and then to mastery and coexistence; innovations in the capacity and tools for transforming the world, and in the thinking and concepts for understanding the world, allow the limits of human subjectivity to be continuously recognized and transcended. Innovation in relations of production leads humanity to persistently pursue a more benign social state—from hierarchical societies of personal dependence or ritual-customary societies, to the assertion of relative independence based on material possession, and then to a community of free individuals in which individuality truly develops; innovations in concepts, morality, belief, theory, institutions, and culture continuously advance the development of humanity's world of meaning and normative systems.

创新既是一个历史现象，也是一个社会现象。在人类文明的发展中，创新是决定特殊文明存续的关键，也是塑造人类文明内容与形式演变的关键事件。生产力之创新让人类不断调整与客观实在的关系，由蒙昧到平视，再到驾驭与共生，改造世界的能力与工具、认知世界的思维与观念的创新使得人类的主体性限度被不断认知与突破。生产关系之创新让人类持续追求更为良善的社会状态，从人身依附的等级社会或礼俗社会到基于物质占有的相对独立性的伸张，再到个性真正得到发展的自由人联合体，观念、道德、信仰、理论、制度与文化的创新不断推动着人类意义世界与规范体系的发展。

In the structure of interconnection and interaction between internal and external elements of human society, innovation achieves the integration of internal and external elements of the social system, driving the achievements of civilization within a certain time and space from quantitative change to qualitative change. The conflict between the new and the old is reconciled in the moment of innovation; the various elements constituting the old social structure are sublated by innovative practice and innovative concepts, and a new social structure is generated on the basis of the old one. The interaction between the material and the spiritual is deepened and expanded in the form of innovation: new material elements compel old spiritual elements to become more objectively truthful, while new spiritual elements drive old material elements to continuously negate and transcend themselves. Looking back on the history of human innovation, the phenomenon of innovation is intuitively embodied in three main levels of connotation.

在人类社会内外要素关联与交互的结构中，创新实现了社会系统内外要素的整合，推动着一定时空范围内的文明成就由量变迈向质变。新与旧的冲突在创新的片刻得到和解，构成旧的社会结构的各种要素被创新实践与创新观念所扬弃，新的社会结构在旧的社会结构基础上得以生成。物质与精神的交互以创新为形式得到深化和拓展，新的物质要素倒逼旧的精神要素更具客观真实性，新的精神要素则推动着旧的物质要素不断否定与超越自身。回溯人类的创新史，创新现象直观地体现为三个层面的主要内涵。

First, it is the direct embodiment of the development of productive forces. The foundational phenomenon is the qualitative leap in the elements of productive forces, including the innovation of laborers' production skills (from craftsmen in the workshop stage to engineers of artificial intelligence), the revolution in instruments of production (from the steam engine to information technology), and the expansion of objects of labor (from natural objects to virtual space). The process phenomenon is the leap from quantitative change to qualitative change—for example, the energy revolution from the steam engine to controlled nuclear fusion, from the quantitative accumulation of the Newcomen engine and Watt's steam engine up to the internal combustion engine, to the qualitative leap of the Manhattan Project and the Obninsk Nuclear Power Plant up to modern photovoltaic power generation technology and China's "artificial sun." Another example is the semiconductor industry from the transistor to the intelligent era, from the quantitative accumulation of Bell Labs' invention of the transistor up to Moore's Law, to the qualitative leap of Intel's first microprocessor up to the current 5G and AI computing power.

一是作为生产力发展的直接体现。其中基础现象是生产力要素的质变飞跃，包括劳动者生产技能的革新（从手工工场阶段的工匠到人工智能的工程师）、生产工具革命（从蒸汽机到信息技术）和劳动对象扩展（从自然物到虚拟空间）。过程现象是从量变到质变的飞跃，例如，从蒸汽机到可控核聚变的能源革命，从纽可门机和瓦特蒸汽机直至内燃机的量变积累，到曼哈顿计划和奥布宁斯克核电站直至现代光伏发电技术和中国“人造太阳”的质变飞跃。又如，从晶体管到智能时代的半导体产业，从贝尔实验室发明晶体管直至摩尔定律提出的量变积累，到英特尔推出首个微处理器直至当前的5G和AI算力的质变飞跃。

Second, it is the intuitive manifestation of the adjustment of relations of production. The core phenomenon is the innovation space opened up by the adjustment of relations of production. Innovations in forms of ownership and changes in distribution systems not only drive people to change their concepts of property rights but also profoundly adjust the relations of interest between people. New relations of production will inevitably give rise to demand for new things. For example, after the Industrial Revolution, the iteration cycle of the elements of productive forces became increasingly shorter, because the emergence of new technologies accelerates the adjustment of relations of production, forcing people to adjust political institutions, governance methods, and production organization in order to resolve the contradiction between newer relations of production and productive forces, thereby accelerating the development of productive forces. Another example is that changes in relations of production produce social demands that force the targeted acceleration of technological development. Over the past decade or more, with the rapid development of new quality productive forces integrating the digital and the real, and their deep integration into global modes of exchange, people have been forced to promote the transformation of digital technology in order to maintain their existing mode of existence and seek development, causing global data volume to grow from 1ZB in 2010 to an estimated 175ZB by 2025, with storage technology forced to break through to atomic-level storage.

二是作为生产关系调整的直观表现。其中核心现象是生产关系调整所打开的创新空间。所有制形式的创新和分配制度的变革，不仅推动着人们改变产权观念，而且深刻地调整着人与人之间的利益关系。新的生产关系必然会推动产生对新事物的需求。例如，在工业革命之后生产力要素迭代周期越来越短，因为新技术的涌现推动着生产关系调整加速，迫使人们为了解决更新的生产关系与生产力的矛盾，不得不调整政治制度、治理方式和生产组织，进而加速生产力的发展。又如，生产关系的变化会产生迫使技术定向加速发展的社会需求。过去十几年，随着数实交融的新质生产力快速发展并且深度融入全球交往方式，迫使人们为了维持现有的存在方式并且谋求发展而推动数字技术的变革，使得全球数据总量从2010年1ZB增长至2025年预计175ZB，存储技术被迫突破原子级存储。

Third, it is the dynamic relationship between the economic base and the superstructure as an institutional manifestation. The economic base and the superstructure interact and innovate consciously; this is a clear historical mainline in the history of revolutions and reforms since modern times. Among these, the revolutionary phenomenon is the leapfrog development driven by the replacement of old and new institutions. The critique and destruction of the old superstructure is often the key opportunity for the leapfrog development of civilization. For example, the French Revolution destroyed the land monopoly of feudal guilds, the aristocracy, and the church, established capitalist private property rights and a unified domestic financial market, and drove France to accelerate early industrialization in the footsteps of Britain. Another example is China's land revolution, which abolished the feudal exploitative land ownership of the landlord class, liberated the peasants, and released unprecedented agricultural productive forces. The constructive phenomenon is that institutional reform and cultural change can effectively promote the development of productive forces. For example, from reform and opening up to comprehensive deepening of reform, China has welcomed the great leap from getting rich to becoming strong. Another example is the rise of the women's liberation movement since the end of the 19th century and the implementation of corresponding laws and institutions protecting women's rights, which have continuously raised the global female labor force participation rate, releasing and activating a large number of labor subjects that had been constrained by traditional institutions and cultural concepts.

三是作为制度表现的经济基础与上层建筑的动态关系。经济基础与上层建筑是自觉地互动创新的，这在近代以来的革命史与改革史之中是一条明晰的历史主线。其中，革命性现象是新旧制度交替所推动的跨越式发展。旧的上层建筑被批判和摧毁往往是文明跨越式发展的关键契机。例如，法国大革命摧毁了封建行会、贵族与教会的土地垄断，建立了资本主义私有产权制度和统一的国内金融市场，推动法国紧跟英国的步伐加速推动初期工业化。又如，中国的土地革命废除了地主阶级封建剥削的土地所有制，解放了农民并释放了前所未有的农业生产力。建构性现象是制度改革和文化变迁能有效推动生产力的发展。如从改革开放到全面深化改革，使得中国迎来了从富起来到强起来的伟大飞跃。又如，19世纪末以来妇女解放运动的兴起以及相应的妇女权益保障法律与制度的实施，使得全球女性劳动参与率不断提高，释放与激活了大量被传统制度与文化观念束缚的劳动主体。

In the history of civilization, the phenomenon of innovation has brought humanity the delight and wonder of progress and development, as well as the confusion and fear of flux and conflict. Only in a "prefigurative society" [1]1 A term from Margaret Mead's anthropology, referring to a society in which elders learn from the young, and change is rapid and consciously embraced. was the accumulation of the phenomenon of innovation a long and spontaneous process, which made people's perception of the phenomenon of innovation relatively dull—either "turning a blind eye" to technological innovations borne aloft by accumulated experience, or regarding changes in social institutions and concepts as "the collapse of rites and music." [2]2 A classical Chinese expression lamenting the breakdown of traditional ritual order and moral norms, originally used to describe the decline of the Zhou dynasty's feudal hierarchy. In a "postfigurative society," [3]3 Mead's term for a society in which adults learn from children, and innovation is expected and normalized. by contrast, the phenomenon of innovation has become a social goal consciously pursued by people—such as technological innovation actively sought to improve production efficiency, institutional reform carried out to optimize social cooperation, and revolution launched to liberate human beings themselves.

在文明史上，创新现象为人类带来了进步与发展的欣喜与惊异，也为人类带来了流变与冲突的困惑与惶恐。只不过在“前喻社会”中，创新现象的积累过程是漫长且自在的，这使得人们对创新现象的感知相对迟钝，或是对经验积累所托举而出的技术创新“熟视无睹”，或是将社会制度与观念的变革视为“礼崩乐坏”。而在“后喻社会”中，创新现象又成了人们自觉追求的社会目标，如为了提高生产效率而主动追求的技术创新、为了优化社会合作而开展的制度改革、为了解放人本身而发动的革命。

Although people may draw analogies between the phenomenon of innovation and natural phenomena, or even attribute the phenomenon of innovation to transcendental hypotheses, the essence of the phenomenon of innovation is always human—that is, human practice, human cognition, and human intention. The human essence of the phenomenon of innovation is manifested in the natural process, unifying the subjective and the objective, by which humanity creates history. Marx expressed this natural process as follows: “Just as all natural things must come into being, so too does man have his own process of coming into being, namely history, but history is for man a history that is recognized as such, and hence, as a process of coming into being, it is a process of coming into being that consciously supersedes itself. History is man’s true natural history.” [4]4 Marx, “Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844,” in Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, Collected Works, vol. 3 (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1975), p. 336; translation modified. In fact, innovative practice with the significance of a qualitative leap most typically embodies the characteristic of “consciously superseding oneself.” Therefore, the phenomenon of innovation is a historical marker indicating humanity’s “true natural history.” The phenomena of innovation that brew and emerge in the processes of life and production converge within the social structure into a historical resultant force that repeatedly transforms the shape of human civilization, while the cognition and analysis of this historical resultant force await the gaze and retrospective examination of the successive promoters of future innovative phenomena. The human essence of innovation is manifested in three dimensions.

虽然人们会将创新现象与自然现象进行类比，甚至将创新现象归因于超验的假设，但是创新现象的本质始终是属人的，即人的实践、人的认知、人的意图。创新现象的属人本质体现为人类创造历史的主客观相统一的自然过程。这个自然过程被马克思表述为：“正像一切自然物必须形成一样，人也有自己的形成过程即历史，但历史对人来说是被认识到的历史，因而它作为形成过程是一种有意识地扬弃自身的形成过程。历史是人的真正的自然史。”事实上，具有质变飞跃意义的创新实践最典型地体现了“有意识地扬弃自身”的特征。因此，创新现象是标示人类“真正的自然史”的历史标志物。生活和生产过程中酝酿、生发的创新现象在社会结构中汇聚成一次又一次改变人类文明形态的历史合力，而对这种历史合力的认知和分析又有待于未来创新现象的接续推动者的凝视和回溯。创新的属人本质体现为三个维度。

First, the phenomenon of innovation is a human activity distinct from natural phenomena. The emergence of productive forces and innovation enable humanity to consciously transcend animal attributes, while innovation in relations of production and the superstructure enables humanity to consciously supersede the existing state of society. Innovative achievements are consciously accumulated, transmitted, and advanced across generations—thereby enabling the form of civilization to evolve toward the modern and the future. Although biological evolution is also a developmental process from quantitative change to qualitative change, it remains always constrained by the instincts prescribed by nature and by the mode of interaction with the external environment; its agency and consciousness fall far short of human innovative practice. By contrast, the human phenomenon of innovation has become the key to determining the progress of civilization, and has in fact already created achievements that far surpass natural evolution in terms of speed, breadth, and depth. “Looking back at the course of world development since the modern era, one can clearly see that the innovative capacity of a country and a nation fundamentally influences, and even determines, the future and destiny of that country and nation.” [5]5 Xi Jinping, “Speech at the 19th Academician Conference of the Chinese Academy of Sciences and the 14th Academician Conference of the Chinese Academy of Engineering” (May 28, 2018), in Xi Jinping: The Governance of China, vol. 3 (Beijing: Foreign Languages Press, 2020), p. 247. “Since the 16th century, human society has entered an unprecedented period of vigorous innovation. In the few hundred years since, the innovative achievements humanity has made in science and technology exceed the total of the previous several thousand years. In particular, since the 18th century, the world has witnessed several major scientific and technological revolutions, such as the birth of modern physics, the steam engine and machinery, electricity and transportation, relativity and quantum theory, and the development of electronics and information technology. Driven by these, the world economy has undergone multiple industrial revolutions, such as mechanization, electrification, automation, and informatization. Each scientific, technological, and industrial revolution has profoundly changed the face and structure of world development.”

第一，创新现象是有别于自然现象的属人的活动。生产力的出现与创新使得人类有意识地超越动物属性，生产关系和上层建筑的创新则使得人类自觉扬弃现有的社会状态。创新成果在代际间有意识地积累、传递、推进——从而使得文明形态向着现代和未来进化。生物进化虽然也是从量变到质变的发展过程，但却始终受制于自然所规定的本能及其与外在环境的交互方式，其能动性和自觉性与人类的创新实践差距甚远。相比之下，人类的创新现象却成了决定文明进步的关键，而且事实上已经创造出了在速率、广度和深度层面远超自然进化的成就。“回顾近代以来世界发展历程，可以清楚看到，一个国家和民族的创新能力，从根本上影响甚至决定国家和民族前途命运。”“16世纪以来，人类社会进入前所未有的创新活跃期，几百年里，人类在科学技术方面取得的创新成果超过过去几千年的总和。特别是18世纪以来，世界发生了几次重大科技革命，如近代物理学诞生、蒸汽机和机械、电力和运输、相对论和量子论、电子和信息技术发展等。在此带动下，世界经济发生多次产业革命，如机械化、电气化、自动化、信息化。每一次科技和产业革命都深刻改变了世界发展面貌和格局。”

Second, whether a phenomenon of innovation is established depends on human cognition. What is called the new and the old is not meaningless historical flux, but a change in the state of the objective and subjective world that is perceived and recognized by people. An innovative process that has not yet been “named as new” remains to be completed; it may not only be swallowed up by the old, but may also fail by being ignored and rejected. An innovative process erroneously attributed to divine creation or fate is likewise incomplete, because the real experience contained in the phenomenon of innovation is suspended, replaced by an eternal, illusory false narrative. For example, Plato held that “Apollo invented the arts of archery, medicine, and divination… the Muses invented the various arts, Hephaestus invented metallurgy, and Pallas invented weaving, all under the guidance of Eros, while Zeus himself ‘the art of ruling gods and men’ was also invented under the guidance of Eros.” [6]6 Plato, Philebus, 16c; the quotation is a paraphrase of Socrates’ account of the gods’ inventions under Eros’ guidance. However, the truthfulness, timeliness, and universality of cognition of the new and the old depend on the degree of development of civilization. The more underdeveloped civilization is and the lower the degree of social intercourse, the more sluggish human cognition of the new things one has created, and it is often mixed with imagination and superstition, while geographical separation and backward intercourse delay humanity’s overall cognition of the phenomenon of innovation. Only in modern society, as world history gradually takes shape, do human beings have sufficient confidence to fully understand the phenomenon of innovation as the result of practice, and only then can they, in universal intercourse, rapidly push the phenomenon of innovation and its cognition to every corner of the world, whether actively or passively.

第二，创新现象是否成立有赖于属人的认知。所谓新旧，并非无意义的历史流变，而是被人感知和认识到的主客世界状态的更迭。尚未被“命名为新”的创新过程是有待完成的，不仅可能被旧事物吞噬，而且可能被忽视和拒斥而失败。错误地归因于神创或者宿命的创新过程同样也是不完整的，因为创新现象所蕴含的真实经验被悬置了，取而代之的是永恒、虚幻的错误叙事。例如，柏拉图认为“阿波罗发明了射箭、医药和占卜的技艺……缪斯发明了各种艺术，赫淮斯托斯发明了冶炼，帕拉斯发明了纺织，这些都是由于爱神的引导，而宙斯本人‘对诸神和凡人的统治术’也是在爱神的指引下发明的”。然而，新旧认知的真实性、时效性和普遍性有赖于文明的发展程度。越是在文明不发达且社会交往程度低的阶段，人类对自己所创造出来的新事物的认知就越迟钝且往往掺杂着想象与迷信，而地理分隔和交往的落后又迟滞了人类对创新现象的整体认知。唯有在世界历史逐渐形成的近现代社会，人类才有足够的自信将创新现象完全理解为实践的结果，才能在普遍交往中将创新现象及其认知以主动或被动的方式迅速地推向世界各个角落。

Third, the scenario on which the phenomenon of innovation depends contains human intention. The phenomenon of innovation occurs in a particular spatiotemporal situation, where the subject, out of some subjective intention, changes the subjective world and objective existence through objectifying activity, and repeatedly tests through practice the degree to which the intention is realized until the emergence of the phenomenon of innovation is finally confirmed. Of course, the intention that stimulates such innovation may be spontaneous—for example, the subject seeks the new merely out of dissatisfaction with existing production technology or production tools, or seeks change because the existing state of existence and standard of living feel unbearable. But even the most spontaneous intention is grounded in the subject’s real experience, not illusory imagination. Of course, the scenario of the phenomenon of innovation also depends on the contradictory movement between process feedback and the internal expectation of the dominant intention—that is, within the spatiotemporal situation that gives rise to the dominant intention, the subject can only carry out innovative exploration under given subjective and objective conditions, using repeated testing and trial and error to make the innovative result approach its expectation to the greatest extent.

第三，创新现象所依赖的场景蕴含着人的意图。创新现象发生在特殊的时空境遇之中，主体出于某种主观意图，以对象化活动改变主观世界与客观存在，以实践反复检验意图的实现程度直至最终确认创新现象的涌现。当然，这类激发创新的意图可能是自在的，例如，主体仅仅是出于对现有生产技术或生产工具的不满而去求新，抑或由于感到现有生存状态和生活水平难以忍受而去求变。但即使是最为自在的意图，其基础也是主体真实的经验，而不是虚幻的想象。当然，创新现象的场景还有赖于过程反馈与主导意图的内在预期之间的矛盾运动，即在造成主导意图的时空境遇中，主体只能以既定的主客观条件展开创新探索，以反复的检验和试错使创新结果最大程度地接近其预期。

The human phenomenon of innovation not only confirms humanity’s capacity to create infinite possibilities from finite existence, but also constitutes an important criterion for the periodization of the history of human civilization. The phenomenon of innovation marks the different stages of development of the productive forces, dynamically displays the internal driving force of the evolution of relations of production, and explains the key reasons for the rise and fall of different civilizations. Among the various phenomena of innovation, the most fundamental is the productive forces, of which the most intuitive is the instruments of production; hence we name different stages of civilization by the transformation of iconic instruments of production. Therefore, Marx emphasized that both the productive forces and the relations of production are “produced” by humanity—that is, “In acquiring new productive forces, men change their mode of production; and in changing their mode of production, in changing the way of earning their living, they change all their social relations. The hand-mill gives you society with the feudal lord; the steam-mill, society with the industrial capitalist.” [7]7 Marx, The Poverty of Philosophy (1847), in Collected Works, vol. 6, p. 166. Apart from innovation in the productive forces as the most fundamental marker of civilization, innovation in the relations of production is the most visible marker of the development of civilization. In Wage Labour and Capital, Marx held that what constitutes society—especially “a society at a definite stage of historical development” or “a society with a distinctive character”—is not purely material conditions, but the totality of relations of production that “change and transform with the change and development of the material means of production and the productive forces.” [8]8 Marx, Wage Labour and Capital (1849), in Collected Works, vol. 9, p. 212. The forms of society that people can clearly distinguish and eagerly discuss in various historical narratives—ancient classical society, feudal society, bourgeois society, and so on—are all “totalities of relations of production,” in which “each totality of relations of production also marks a particular stage in the development of human history.”

属人的创新现象不仅印证了人类以有限存在创造无限可能的能力，更构成了人类文明史分期的重要标准。创新现象标示了生产力发展的不同阶段，动态展现了生产关系演变的内在动力，并且创新现象解释了不同文明兴衰的关键原因。在诸种创新现象中，最为根本的是生产力，其中最为直观的则是生产工具，故而我们会以标志性生产工具的变革来命名不同的文明阶段。因此，马克思强调生产力和生产关系都是人类“生产出来的”，即“随着新生产力的获得，人们改变自己的生产方式，随着生产方式即谋生的方式的改变，人们也就会改变自己的一切社会关系。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”。除开生产力之创新这一最为根本的文明标识，生产关系之创新则是文明发展最为显在的标志。在《雇佣劳动与资本》中，马克思认为构成社会——尤其是构成“一个处于一定历史发展阶段上的社会”或“具有独特的特征的社会”——的并非是纯然的物质条件，而是“随着物质生产资料、生产力的变化和发展而变化和改变的”生产关系的总和。人们在各类历史叙事中能够清晰区分和津津乐道的古典古代社会、封建社会和资产阶级社会等社会形态，都是“生产关系的总和”，在其中“每一个生产关系的总和同时又标志着人类历史发展中的一个特殊阶段”。

At a macro level, innovation for human civilization is an open proposition that extends from productive forces to relations of production. Within this proposition, humanity not only creates new history and the corresponding concepts and cultures but also, for the sake of survival, practices, tests, and develops the productive forces and relations of production provided by all past innovative activities. However, the human essence does not mean that the phenomenon of innovation is arbitrary. The objectivity of the phenomenon of innovation, independent of human will, is quite pronounced. Even the subjective motives contained within the phenomenon of innovation are shaped by objective historical conditions. People’s motives for pursuing new technologies or even new lives are not purely driven by curiosity; rather, they are the inevitable result of the constant collision between old and new historical conditions and social structural systems. As Engels analyzed in *The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State*, “In the Old World, the domestication of animals and the breeding of herds opened up unprecedented sources of wealth and created entirely new social relations,” which led humanity to unconsciously innovate the life paradigm from fishing and hunting civilization to agricultural civilization—that is, “Hunting, which was once a necessity, has now become a luxury.” This objectivity can even manifest as a kind of rigid mechanism, causing human attempts at innovation to fail once they ignore objective conditions and the relationship between subject and object. For example, the social system innovation adopted by the utopian socialists—"to achieve their goals through peaceful means, and to attempt to open the way for the new social gospel through small-scale, certainly unsuccessful experiments, through the power of example"—although “corresponding to the proletariat’s initial instinctive longing for the general transformation of society,” failed because the objective class basis and proletarian consciousness were not yet mature. Therefore, innovation is the continuous impact on and breakthrough of specific material and institutional obstacles under particular historical conditions. As Xi Jinping pointed out when working in Zhejiang: “As is well known, each era has its own problems. As long as we scientifically understand, accurately grasp, and correctly solve these problems, we can continuously advance our society forward.” The essential connotation of the phenomenon of innovation is the process of recognizing new problems, solving new problems, and then discovering new problems. It not only demonstrates the ability to combine existing knowledge, experience, technology, tools, resources, and methods in new ways to meet new challenges but also embodies the human spirit of continuously exploring unknown fields. New problems are the product of historical development, the result of the resolution and sublation of old problems. Only by facing new problems squarely and recognizing and grasping them with an attitude of seeking truth from facts can we optimize existing subjective and objective conditions. Of course, recognizing and solving new problems is a process of systematic evolution. Therefore, the starting point of the phenomenon of innovation often exhibits the characteristic of being “forced” by new problems. When the existing subjective and objective conditions of a system cannot cope with new internal and external contradictions, in order to maintain the system’s survival, it must rely on new elements, new tools, and even new organizational structures to achieve the system’s self-adjustment and upgrading. In this process of self-renewal driven by internal causes, new problems are gradually solved, achieving a qualitative leap from nothing to something, from low efficiency to high efficiency, and from extensive to intensive.

宏观而言，创新之于人类文明是一个由生产力到生产关系的开放命题，在该命题中人类不仅创造着新的历史以及相应的观念和文化，更为了生存而去实践、检验和发展过去一切创新活动所提供的生产力和生产关系。但是，属人的本质并不意味着创新现象是随心所欲的。创新现象不以人的意志为转移的客观性是颇为显著的。甚至，创新现象所蕴含的主观动机也是客观的历史条件所塑造的。人们追求新技术甚至新生活的动机不是纯粹出于好奇的冲动，而是在新旧历史条件、社会结构系统的不断碰撞之中必然产生的结果。如恩格斯在《家庭、私有制和国家的起源》中所分析的，“在旧大陆，家畜的驯养和畜群的繁殖，开发出前所未有的财富的来源，并创造了全新的社会关系”，这就使得人类在不知不觉中创新了由渔猎文明到农业文明的生活范式，即“打猎在从前曾经是必需的，如今也成了一种奢侈”。这种客观性甚至可以表现为某种刚性的机制，使得人类的创新尝试一旦忽视客观条件和主客观关系就会遭遇失败。例如，空想社会主义者所采取的社会制度创新——“通过和平的途径达到自己的目的，并且企图通过一些小型的、当然不会成功的试验，通过示范的力量来为新的社会福音开辟道路”，虽然是“同无产阶级对社会普遍改造的最初的本能的渴望相适应的”，却因为客观的阶级基础以及无产阶级意识尚不成熟而失败了。因此，创新就是在特定历史条件下对特有的物质与制度阻碍进行的持续冲击与突破。正如习近平在浙江工作时所指出的：“众所周知，每个时代总有属于它自己的问题，只要科学地认识、准确地把握、正确地解决这些问题，就能够把我们的社会不断推向前进。”创新现象的本质内涵就是认识新问题、解决新问题、再发现新问题的过程，既展现了将已有知识、经验、技术、工具、资源和方法以新方式组合以应对新挑战的能力，也体现了人类不断探索未知领域的精神。新问题是历史发展的产物，是旧问题得到解决和扬弃的结果。只有正视新问题，并以实事求是的态度对其认知和把握，才能对现有主客观条件进行优化。当然，认识和解决新问题是一个系统演进的过程。因此，创新现象的起点往往体现了被新问题“倒逼”的特征。当一个系统的现有主客观条件无法应对新的内外部矛盾，为了维持系统的存续，就必须依靠新元素、新工具乃至新的组织结构实现系统的自我调整和升级。在这个由内因推动的自我更新的过程中，逐步解决新问题，实现从无到有、从低效到高效、从粗放到集约的质变飞跃。

II. The Object-Oriented Structure of the Practice of Innovation

二、创新实践的对象性结构

The objectivity of the phenomenon of innovation determines that the practice of innovation is also necessarily constrained by specific historical conditions and social structures. From the perspective of historical conditions, the phenomenon of innovation is not without aim; the object of innovation depends on the depth and breadth of human understanding of the objective world under specific historical conditions. From the perspective of social structure, the phenomenon of innovation is not an isolated event; the systematic nature contained in the results of innovation depends on the degree of development of the interactive relationships between humans and nature, and between humans and humans.

创新现象的客观性决定了创新实践也必然受制于特定的历史条件和社会结构。从历史条件而言，创新现象不是无的放矢，创新的对象取决于特定历史条件下人类认识客观世界的深度和广度。从社会结构而言，创新现象不是孤立事件，创新的结果所蕴含的系统性有赖于人与自然、人与人的交互关系的发展程度。

In modern times, many theories have emerged to explain the phenomenon of innovation, but because they all lean toward either the subjective or the objective dimension, they fail to present the objective, universal, and necessary basis of the phenomenon of innovation. Rationalism, because it places the innovation of concepts before objective reality, always “translates” the object-oriented relationships of the practice of innovation into a purely conceptual process; mechanical materialism, because it denies subjective initiative through the objectivity of nature, always understands the subjective intention and creativity contained in the phenomenon of innovation as a purely natural flux; constructivism, because it uses intellectual categories to summarize everything humans can understand, always explains the process of innovation as a purely epistemological category. Only historical materialism can both define the objective reality of the subject and object of the general concept of innovation and the corresponding dialectical relationship, and point out the inherent unity of phenomena such as material and spiritual, production and concept, custom and institution. “Society is always developing, and new situations and new problems are always emerging. Some of these can be dealt with and solved using old experience and old methods, but at the same time, many cannot be dealt with and solved by old experience and old methods.” Historical materialism not only faces the positive and negative experiences of humanity’s existing material production and social systems but also faces the contradiction between existing experience and the problems of the times, continuously pointing out the direction of innovation for the liberation of productive forces and the liberation of humanity. This direction is to understand the process of innovation with a historical and practical attitude.

近现代，曾经出现过许多解释创新现象的理论，但都由于偏废于主观或客观的维度而无法呈现创新现象的客观、普遍与必然的基础。理性主义因其以观念之创新先于客观实在，故而创新实践的对象性关系总是被“转译”为纯粹观念的过程；机械唯物主义则因其以自然的客观性否定主观能动性，故而创新现象所蕴含的主观意图与创造性总是被理解为纯粹自然的流变；建构主义则因其以知性的范畴概括人类所能理解的一切事物，故而创新的过程总是被解释为纯粹的认识论的范畴。唯有历史唯物主义，既能够界定一般的创新概念的主体与对象的客观实在性以及相应的辩证关系，又能够指明物质与精神、生产与观念、习俗与制度等创新现象的内在统一性。“社会总是在发展的，新情况新问题总是层出不穷的，其中有一些可以凭老经验、用老办法来应对和解决，同时也有不少是老经验、老办法不能应对和解决的。”历史唯物主义不仅面向人类已有的物质生产和社会制度的正反经验，更面向已有经验与时代问题的矛盾，持续地对生产力解放与人的解放提出创新的方向，这个方向就是以历史的实践的态度来理解创新的过程。

Generally speaking, practice is a dynamic object-oriented activity with humans as the subject, and the practice of innovation is no exception. In Marx’s view, for humanity to prove that it is a “species-being” depends on the “process of transforming the objective world,” and this process is not an instinctive reaction like that of animals, but a productive practice as “active species-life.” This practice makes nature humanity’s “work” and “reality.” Compared with general practice, which has experience to refer to, methods to follow, and results to anticipate, the object-oriented relationships constituting the practice of innovation have a more prominent contradiction between subject and object. Marx expressed this contradiction in his *Theses on Feuerbach* as the contradiction between human activity or self and the environment, that is, “The coincidence of the changing of circumstances and of human activity or self-change can be conceived and rationally understood only as revolutionary practice.” The essence of this “revolutionary practice” is effective innovative practice.

一般而言，实践是以人类为主体的能动的对象性活动，创新实践也不例外。在马克思看来，人类要证明“自己是类存在物”有赖于“改造对象世界的过程”，而该过程并不是动物式的本能的反应，而是作为“能动的类生活”的生产实践，这种实践使得自然界成为人类的“作品”和“现实”。相比有经验可参照、有方法可遵循、有结果可预期的一般的实践，构成创新实践的对象性关系具有更为突出的主体与对象之间的矛盾。马克思在《关于费尔巴哈的提纲》中将这一矛盾表述为人的活动或自我与环境之间的矛盾，即“环境的改变和人的活动或自我改变的一致，只能被看做是并合理地理解为革命的实践”。这种“革命的实践”的实质就是有效的创新实践。

The contradiction in the existential situation of the subject and the object determines that the practice of innovation is an inevitable historical trend. The contradiction between subject and object is the fundamental driving force for the practice of innovation. The object of the subject, that is, the objective world outside the self-consistent, self-aware “I,” includes both the material world that can be objectified and the social consciousness and social systems that are objectified. Objectification means that the subject can, through practice, externalize subjective intentions and subjective consciousness, and realize and confirm this externalization in the transformed object. This is a practical process where the subjective is seen in the objective; mere gazing, contemplation, or imagination cannot achieve the process of objectification. The only motive that triggers this process is the real and objective contradiction between the subject and the object.

主体与对象的存在境遇的矛盾，决定了创新实践是必然的历史趋势。主体与对象的矛盾是推动创新实践的根本动力。主体的对象，即在自洽、自知的“我”之外的对象世界，其中既包括能够对象化的物质世界，又包括被对象化的社会意识与社会制度。对象化意味着主体可以通过实践，将主观意图与主观意识外化，并且在改造之后的对象中实现和确证这种外化。这是一个主观见之于客观的实践过程，仅是凝视、沉思或者想象并不能实现对象化的过程。触发这一过程的动因唯有主体与对象真实且客观的矛盾。

First, the objectification of the material world originates from the primordial scenario in which the subject seeks self-preservation. This scenario contains the subject’s conscious and active intentions and activities, and is therefore distinct from the natural state of animals limited by instinct in their struggle for survival. In this scenario, the contradiction between subject and object is manifested in the fact that the means of subsistence required by the subject—"food, drink, shelter, and clothing"—are not automatically supplied by nature, and is further manifested in the dangers that nature imposes on the subject. To address this contradiction, humans innovated means of survival distinct from those of animals, as Engels stated: "The normal conditions of existence of animals are given in the natural environment to which they are adapted at any given time; but once man has emerged from the narrow animal condition, his normal conditions of existence—which have never existed ready-made—are only created by subsequent historical development. Man is the only animal capable of escaping the purely animal state—his normal state is one appropriate to his consciousness, one that he himself must create." Through innovative practice, humans not only obtained the material conditions to escape the animal state but also entered a history of civilization marked by the means of labor. In Volume I of *Capital*, Marx pointed out the revolutionary significance of innovation in the means of labor for the history of civilization: "It is not what is made but how, and by what instruments of labor, that distinguishes different economic epochs. The instruments of labor are not only the measure of the development of human labor power, but also the indicator of the social relations under which labor is carried on."

首先，物质世界的对象化源自主体谋求自我保存的原初场景。该场景蕴含着主体自觉且能动的意图与活动，故而有别于受限于本能的动物为求生存的自然状态。在该场景中，主体与对象的矛盾体现为主体所需的“吃喝住穿”的生活资料并不会自动地从自然界得到供给，更体现为自然界强加给主体的危险。为了应对该矛盾，人类创新了有别于动物的生存手段，即恩格斯所说的：“动物的正常生存条件，是在它们当时所生活和所适应的环境中现成具有的；而人一旦从狭义的动物中分化出来，其正常生存条件却从来就不是现成具有的，这种条件只是由以后的历史的发展造成的。人是唯一能够挣脱纯粹动物状态的动物——他的正常状态是一种同他的意识相适应的状态，是需要他自己来创造的状态。”人类通过创新实践，不仅有了可以摆脱动物状态的物质条件，而且进入了以劳动资料为标识的文明史。马克思在《资本论》第一卷中指出了劳动资料创新对于文明史革命的意义：“各种经济时代的区别，不在于生产什么，而在于怎样生产，用什么劳动资料生产。劳动资料不仅是人类劳动力发展的测量器，而且是劳动借以进行的社会关系的指示器。”

Second, the objectification of social institutions originates from the subject’s conscious pursuit of a more benign social state. The emergence of the social state itself is the result of human innovation. As Engels pointed out: "In order to emerge from the animal state and achieve the greatest progress in nature, another factor was needed: the combined strength and collective action of the group to compensate for the inadequacy of individual self-defense." By innovating the means of labor, humans created surplus products beyond what animal instinct could produce, thereby making possible the emergence of a social state based on group living. However, no matter what kind of social state, it inevitably entails institutional "costs." The root of these "costs" lies in the long-term subjugation of humans to backward productive forces and the narrow relations of production resulting therefrom, forcing the vast majority of individuals to accept the dominated and oppressed social institutions as a necessary precondition for entering the social state.

其次，社会制度的对象化源自主体对更为良善的社会状态的自觉追求。社会状态的产生，就是人类创新的结果。正如恩格斯指出的：“为了在发展过程中脱离动物状态，实现自然界中的最伟大的进步，还需要一种因素：以群的联合力量和集体行动来弥补个体自卫能力的不足。”人类通过创新劳动资料创造了超越动物本能所能创造的剩余产品，从而使得基于群居的社会状态的出现成为可能。但是不论是何种社会状态，都必然有其制度性的“代价”。这些“代价”的根源在于人类长时间受制于落后的生产力状况以及由此导致的狭隘的生产关系，迫使绝大多数个体必须将在其中被支配、被压迫的社会制度作为进入社会状态的必要前提。

Of course, opposed to institutional "costs" are the institutional "dividends" that drive innovative practice. No matter how cruel the oppressive system, it cannot stop the development of innovative practice driven by production, life, and interaction within the social state. As Marx pointed out, even within ancient communities, as long as humans had entered a social state of transforming nature, new social elements would inevitably emerge: "In the act of reproduction itself, not only are the objective conditions changed—e.g., the village becomes a town, the wilderness becomes a cleared field, etc.—but the producers themselves are changed, acquiring new qualities, developing and transforming themselves through production, creating new powers and new ideas, new modes of intercourse, new needs, and new language." What Marx and Engels called in the *Communist Manifesto* "the history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles" is in fact a process of innovative practice that constantly challenges the boundaries of existing social institutions as modes of intercourse and social needs develop. From primitive tribes to slave-owning city-states, to feudal empires, and even to capitalist states, humans have continuously taken old institutions as objects of reflection and transformation under new social conditions, thereby objectifying political ideas that once existed only in the mind into new social institutions. At the macro level, this process of objectification follows universal and objective historical laws, so different civilizations must pass through the developmental process from slave society to communist society. However, at the micro level, it manifests as diversity under different geographical environments and cultural backgrounds—that is, "Differences in history, culture, and social systems among countries have existed since ancient times and are inherent attributes of human civilization. Without diversity, there would be no human civilization. Diversity is an objective reality and will persist for a long time."

当然，与制度性“代价”相对立的则是推动创新实践的制度性“红利”，不论是何种残酷的压迫制度都无法阻挡社会状态下生产生活交往所推动的创新实践的发展。正如马克思指出的，即使是在古代共同体当中，只要人类已经开启了改造自然界的社会状态，新的社会要素就会不可阻挡地出现：“在再生产的行为本身中，不但客观条件改变着，例如乡村变为城市，荒野变为开垦地等等，而且生产者也改变着，他炼出新的品质，通过生产而发展和改造着自身，造成新的力量和新的观念，造成新的交往方式，新的需要和新的语言。”马克思恩格斯在《共产党宣言》中所说的“至今一切社会的历史都是阶级斗争的历史”，实际上就是一个随着交往方式和社会需要的发展而不断冲击现有社会制度边界的创新实践的过程。从原始部落到奴隶制的城邦，再到封建帝国乃至资本主义国家，人类不断地在新的社会状态下将旧制度作为反思和改造的对象，进而将原先只是存在于头脑中的政治理念对象化为新的社会制度。这个对象化的过程从宏观上来说遵循普遍且客观的历史规律，故而不同的文明都需经过从奴隶社会向共产主义社会的发展过程，但是在微观层面却表现为不同地理环境和文化背景下的多元性，即“各国历史文化和社会制度差异自古就存在，是人类文明的内在属性。没有多样性，就没有人类文明。多样性是客观现实，将长期存在”。

Therefore, in essence, contradictions in the objectifying relations between humans and nature, and between humans and society, are objective and inevitable. Hence, innovative practice with an objectifying structure, driven by these contradictions, is also inevitable. Innovative practice is a systematic and dynamic objectifying structure. From the perspective of the subject, it is mainly composed of two basic dimensions: the subject that innovates through self-sublation and the intermediary that innovates by breaking through limits.

因此，从本质上说，在人与自然、人与社会的对象性关系中矛盾是客观且必然的，故而由矛盾所驱动的具有对象性结构的创新实践也是必然的。创新实践是一个系统动态的对象性结构，就主体的方面来看主要由两个基本维度构成，即自我扬弃而创新的主体和突破限度而创新的中介。

The innovation of the subject is not the generational replacement of natural life, but the innovation of the potential subjectivity that the subject confirms and realizes. The existence of the subject in the form of a subject and the establishment of subjectivity both require certain historical conditions. In the stage of barbaric and primitive civilization, because humans had not yet fully escaped the animal state, subjectivity was constrained by natural laws. In ancient society, due to the dependence of humans on other humans, subjectivity was constrained by various "man-eating" institutions and customs. In capitalist society, subjectivity remains abstract and incomplete. Especially in the material relations of capitalist private property, the separation of the laborer from the means of labor and the product of labor ultimately manifests as "man becomes object-like to himself, and at the same time, precisely, becomes an alien and inhuman object; his life expression is his life externalization, his actualization is his deactualization, an alien actuality." To fully appropriate his own reality—that is, to realize subjectivity comprehensively and actively—Marx pointed out that it is necessary to achieve "the positive supersession of private property," which in reality manifests as the revolutionary practice of innovating economic relations and the social institutions arising therefrom. Revolution is the most direct form of innovative practice in the social sphere. Its objective inevitability lies in the fact that old relations of production cannot, in any social form, withstand the new contradictions and new problems brought about by the development of productive forces. Its subjective initiative lies in the struggle that the oppressed class must inevitably undertake to realize its subjectivity to the greatest extent possible under existing conditions of productive forces.

主体的创新不是自然生命的代际更迭，而是其所确认并且予以实现的潜在主体性的创新。以主体为形式的存在以及主体性的确立都需要一定的历史条件。在蒙昧与原始的文明阶段，由于尚未完全摆脱动物状态，主体性受制于自然法则；在古代社会，由于人与人的依附关系，主体性受制于各种“人吃人”的制度与习俗。到了资本主义社会，主体性仍然是抽象和残缺的，尤其在资本主义私有财产这种物质关系中，劳动者和劳动资料、劳动产品的分离最终表现为“人变成对自己来说是对象性的，同时，确切地说，变成异己的和非人的对象；他的生命表现就是他的生命的外化，他的现实化就是他的非现实化，就是异己的现实”。为了全面占有自身的现实，即全面且能动地实现主体性，马克思指出必须实现“对私有财产的积极的扬弃”，这在现实中就表现为创新经济关系以及由此产生的社会制度的革命实践。革命是最为直接的社会领域的创新实践，其客观必然性在于旧生产关系无法以任何社会形式抵御生产力发展所带来的新矛盾和新问题，其主观能动性在于被压迫阶级为了能够在现有生产力条件下最大程度实现其主体性而必然采取的斗争。

The innovation of the intermediary is manifested in the innovation of labor tools and ideology. This is the phased result of the subject’s attempt to transform and master the object within the objectifying structure. Among the objectifying relations of all living beings with the material world, the particularity of humans lies in possessing labor tools as intermediaries. It is precisely because humans do not deal with material objects solely with their limbs and physical strength, but use some tool as an intermediary to observe, understand, appropriate, and transform objects, that through innovation (a potential unique to humans) they "make the whole of nature—first as man’s direct means of subsistence, and then as the object (material) and tool of his life activity—into his inorganic body." The "whole of nature" that Marx refers to is not the actual existence already incorporated into the objectifying structure, but an objective expectation based on the possibility that humans can continuously innovate labor tools and thereby expand the object. Marx’s expectation was scientific and accurate, because in the history following the emergence of industry, the innovation of labor tools that brought about automated production has continuously amplified and transferred the results of the subject’s own innovative development (physical and intellectual strength) onto the object of labor, and even the skills used in the process of employing labor tools have "been transferred from the worker to the machine along with the labor tools."

中介的创新体现为劳动工具和意识形态的创新，这是主体在对象性结构之中试图去改造和驾驭对象的阶段性成果。在各种有生命的存在者与物质世界的对象性关系中，人类的特殊性在于拥有作为中介的劳动工具。正是因为人们并不是仅凭四肢和体力与物质对象打交道，而是以某种工具为中介去观察、理解、占有和改造对象，故而通过创新（唯有人类才具有这样的潜能）“把整个自然界——首先作为人的直接的生活资料，其次作为人的生命活动的对象（材料）和工具——变成人的无机的身体”。马克思所说的“整个自然界”并不是实然的已经被纳入对象性结构的存在，而是基于人类能够不断创新劳动工具进而产生拓展对象之无限可能的客观预期。马克思的预期是科学和准确的，因为在工业产生之后的历史中，带来自动化生产的劳动工具的创新不断地将主体自身创新发展的结果（体力和智力）加以放大并且转移至劳动对象之上，甚至连使用劳动工具过程中的技巧也“同劳动工具一起，从工人身上转到了机器上面”。

In the object-oriented structure through which humans innovate social systems, ideology plays a mediating role similar to that of other intermediaries. The creation and innovation of social conditions by humans have always been guided by established mediating thought. Mediating thought consists of ideology and non-ideological elements; the former directly influences people’s choice of direction and method for innovating social systems, encompassing both transcendent social ideals and value norms based on everyday experience. Of course, ideology is in essence a false consciousness with social or class intent, as Engels wrote in his letter to Franz Mehring: “Ideology is a process accomplished by the so-called thinker consciously, indeed, but with a false consciousness.” [12]12 Engels’s letter to Franz Mehring, July 14, 1893. However, with regard to ideology itself as a mediator for innovating social systems, the relationship between its own innovation and the object of its innovation is dialectical. Ideology manifests contradictoryly in the course of socio-historical development: on the one hand, ideology as a system of concepts such as politics, law, philosophy, and theology “has in every scientific field a certain body of material which is formed independently from the thinking of previous generations and has run through an independent course of development in the brains of these successive generations”; on the other hand, ideology itself is always understood as a mere “fruit of the thought process.” This contradictory manifestation reflects that, in the historical process of innovating social systems, people’s reflection on ideology is spontaneous and even deficient. Although ideology provides a conceptual mediator for articulating and institutionalizing “better” social conditions and even social ideals, it is always treated as an a priori absolute truth or eternal truth. Therefore, Lenin emphasized: “To truly know an object, we must grasp and study all its aspects, all its connections, and ‘mediations.’”

在人类对社会制度加以创新的对象性结构中，意识形态发挥了与之相似的中介作用。人类创造与创新社会状态始终是在既定的思维中介引导下进行的。思维中介由意识形态和非意识形态构成，前者直接影响人们选择社会制度创新的方向和方法，其中既包括具有超越性的社会理想，也包括基于日常经验的价值规范。当然，意识形态在本质上是一种具有社会意图或阶级意图的虚假意识，即恩格斯在致弗兰茨·梅林的信中所说：“意识形态是由所谓的思想家通过意识、但是通过虚假的意识完成的过程。”但是，就作为创新社会制度之中介的意识形态本身而言，其自身的创新与其创新的对象的关系是辩证的。意识形态在社会历史发展过程中具有矛盾的表现：一方面，表现为政治、法律、哲学、神学等观念体系的意识形态“在每一科学领域中都有一定的材料，这些材料是从以前的各代人的思维中独立形成的，并且在这些世代相继的人们的头脑中经过了自己的独立的发展道路”；另一方面，意识形态本身却总是被理解为单纯“思维过程的果实”。这种矛盾表现反映了在社会制度创新的历史过程中人们对意识形态的反思是自在乃至缺失的，意识形态虽然为“更好”的社会状态乃至社会理想提供了言说和制度化的观念性中介，但却总是被当作先天存在的绝对真理或永恒真理。因此，列宁强调：“要真正地认识事物，就必须把握住、研究清楚它的一切方面、一切联系和‘中介’。”

In sum, the object-oriented structure of innovation practice is both the basic structure of the relationships between subject and object, subject and mediator, and subject and subject inherent in the creation and innovation that distinguishes humans from animals by transcending instinct, and the historical characteristic of humans as finite beings who continuously create new conditions of existence through spontaneous or conscious self-sublation. In the sphere of material production, the innovation of scientific theory and technology is prominently embodied at the level of agency in the renewal of knowledge and skills possessed by laborers, and the consequent renewal of the means of labor. The most typical example of this characteristic at present is new quality productive forces, whose basic connotation is “the leap in laborers, means of labor, objects of labor, and their optimized combination,” which implies a profound grasp of the object-oriented structure in the process of material production. The historical experience of this object-oriented structure shows that whether it is the innovation of productive forces or social systems, it requires the self-innovation of the subject as a prerequisite, the innovation of the mediator as the key, and the continuous renewal of the object of innovation as its result.

总之，创新实践的对象性结构既是人类有别于动物的超越本能的创造与创新所蕴含的主体与对象、主体与中介、主体与主体之间关系的基本结构，也是人类作为有限存在者通过自在或者自觉的自我扬弃不断创造新的生存条件的历史特征。在物质生产领域，科学理论和技术的创新在其能动性层面突出地体现为劳动者所掌握的知识与技能的更新，以及由此带来的劳动资料的更新。这种特征在当下最为典型的例证就是新质生产力，其基本内涵是“劳动者、劳动资料、劳动对象及其优化组合的跃升”，这蕴含着对物质生产过程中的对象性结构的深刻把握。这一对象性结构的历史经验表明，不论是生产力还是社会制度的创新，都需要以主体的自我创新为前提，以中介的创新为关键，接续更新的创新对象成为其结果。

III. Innovation Thinking as the Forerunner of Practice

三、作为实践先导的创新思维

Xi Jinping, when working in Zhejiang, once pointed out: “Sharpening the axe does not delay the cutting of firewood; thought is the forerunner of action. Gains in thought and understanding are more far-reaching than gains in development.” [13]13 Xi Jinping, “Sharpening the Axe Does Not Delay the Cutting of Firewood,” in *Zhijiang Xinyu* (Zhejiang: Zhejiang People’s Publishing House, 2007), p. 83. “Sharpening the axe does not delay the cutting of firewood” is a Chinese proverb meaning that preparation saves time. While thought and concepts are indeed determined by the historical conditions created by practice, the initiation of innovation practice and the emergence of innovation phenomena require specific innovation thinking as a condition. From the general dialectical relationship between thought and practice, the forerunning character of thought manifests in two aspects. On the one hand, at the epistemological level, the active counter-effect of consciousness is reflected in humans’ ability to grasp objective laws through thought, thereby forming anticipatory guidance for practice. Marx pointed out in *Capital*: “What distinguishes the worst architect from the best of bees is this, that the architect raises his structure in imagination before he erects it in reality.” On the other hand, at the historical level, in the spiraling upward process of “practice-cognition-repractice-recognition,” the “repractice” link is the key to innovation practice, and its forerunner is reflection and summation based on original practical experience.

习近平在浙江工作时曾指出：“磨刀不误砍柴工，思想是行动的先导。在思想认识上的收获，比我们在发展上的收获更有长远意义。”思维观念诚然由实践所创造的历史条件所决定，但是创新实践的发起和创新现象的出现则需要以特定的创新思维为条件。从思维和实践的一般的辩证关系来看，思维的先导性表现为两个方面。一方面，在认识论层面，意识的能动反作用体现为人类能够通过思维把握客观规律从而形成具有预见性的实践指导。马克思在《资本论》中指出：“最蹩脚的建筑师从一开始就比最灵巧的蜜蜂高明的地方，是他在用蜂蜡建筑蜂房以前，已经在自己的头脑中把它建成了。”另一方面，在历史层面，在“实践－认识-再实践-再认识”的这个螺旋式上升的过程中，“再实践”环节是创新实践的关键，而其先导则是基于原有实践经验的反思和总结。

Therefore, innovation thinking is the forerunner of innovation practice. This is an important marker distinguishing the renewal of human civilization from the development of nature, and also a key element in the iterative evolution of innovation phenomena. For individual innovation practice, the conceptual forerunner it requires relies more on experience. Because in a relatively stable and determinate object-oriented structure, the practical subject can always find historically accumulated, socially formed concepts and methods; even the intention and motivation of its practice are themselves part of socio-historical experience. The benefit lies in that, under stable technological and institutional conditions, the experience formed in the application of previous innovations can be inherited relatively stably and completely. The problem lies in that individuals find it difficult to form the consciousness to break through existing technological and institutional bottlenecks, because the “comfort zone” of production and life formed by experience restricts individual reflection, and even creates interest circles based on shared existing experience. Hence, in the early modern period, Francis Bacon, one of the pioneers of the experimental method, maintained a dialectical attitude toward experience. On the one hand, Bacon emphasized exploring objective truth starting from experience tested by experiment, holding that “natural science is the true science, and sensory physics is the most important part of natural science”; on the other hand, Bacon opposed dogmatism and fantasy based on particular experience, “always seeking their own little world rather than the great common world.”

因此，创新思维是创新实践的先导，这是人类文明更新有别于自然界发展的重要标志，也是创新现象迭代演进的关键要素。个体的创新实践，其所需要的观念先导更多地依赖于经验。因为在相对稳定、确定的对象性结构中，实践主体总能找到历史积累的、社会形成的观念、方法，甚至其实践的意图和动机本身也是社会历史经验的一部分。其益处在于，在稳定的技术和制度条件下，原先创新的成果在其应用过程中所形成的经验能够得到较为稳定和完整的承袭。其问题在于，个体难以形成突破现有技术和制度瓶颈的自觉，因为经验所形成的生产和生活的“舒适圈”会限制个体的反思，更会造成基于共享已有经验的利益圈层。故而在近代早期，作为实验方法开创者之一的弗朗西斯·培根对经验保有辩证的态度，一方面，培根注重从实验所检验的经验出发去探究客观的真理，认为“自然科学是真正的科学，而感性的物理学则是自然科学的最重要的部分”；另一方面，培根又反对依据特殊经验的独断和空想，“总是求诸他们自己的小天地，而不是求诸公共的大天地”。

Innovation practice, especially practice that breaks through existing productive forces and adjusts existing relations of production under highly complex social coordination, cannot rely solely on experience as its forerunner. Instead, it must actively sublate existing experience, and the subjective form of this sublation is innovation thinking. General Secretary Xi Jinping pointed out: “Looking at the history of human development, innovation has always been an important force for the development of a country and a nation, and has always been an important force driving the progress of human society.” [14]14 Xi Jinping, “Speech at the Conference of the Chinese Academy of Sciences and the Chinese Academy of Engineering,” May 30, 2016. The subjective distillation of this force is innovation thinking. If innovation thinking is effective, clear, and conscious, then civilization’s initiative to overcome obstacles to development and renew itself is stronger. A nation adept at summarizing developmental experience is more likely to adapt to new conditions in nature and society.

创新实践，尤其是在高度复杂的社会协作下形成的突破现有生产力和调整现有生产关系的实践，其先导就不能仅仅依赖于经验，而是要对现有经验进行积极扬弃，扬弃的主观形态则是创新思维。习近平总书记指出：“纵观人类发展历史，创新始终是一个国家、一个民族发展的重要力量，也始终是推动人类社会进步的重要力量。”这一力量的主观提炼即创新思维。创新思维若有效、清晰、自觉，文明克服发展之阻碍并革新自身的主动性则更强。善于总结发展经验的民族，更易于适应自然与社会的新状况。

Innovation thinking is the “rehearsal” at the level of thought of the developmental link of the negation of negation. Thought forms the first negation link with respect to existing experience, whose object is practical experience, giving rise to the direction and conception of innovation. Practice based on this then forms the second negation link, whose object is innovation thinking, giving rise to the externalization of thought into a new reality of technology and institutions. The first negation link points to the real foundation of innovation thinking, namely the systematic summation of existing experience, consciously grasping the strengths and weaknesses of existing experience, and thereby actively planning the object of sublation and the direction of development. Therefore, fantasy without a practical basis, although it can provide some inspiration or even material for innovation thinking, cannot effectively guide innovation practice. For example, in the process of socialism’s development from utopia to science, the decisive role was played by the maturing class foundation and more universal social intercourse that accompanied the Industrial Revolution. The second negation link points to the landing point of innovation thinking, namely the conception and method always oriented toward practice. For a certain thought to be confirmed as innovation thinking rather than other thinking, it must, under existing conditions, gradually narrow the distance between conception and reality through practice. As Xi Jinping, when working in Zhejiang, evaluated the reform and development achievements of Yiwu: “Yiwu’s development is simply ‘inexplicable’ development, ‘creating something from nothing’ development, ‘turning stone into gold’ development.” [15]15 Xi Jinping, “Inexplic “Inexplicable” means transcending existing experience and paradigms through emancipating the mind; “creating something from nothing” means creating conditions through the exertion of subjective initiative; “turning stone into gold” means grasping the principal contradiction to drive a key leap.

创新思维是否定之否定的发展环节在思维层面的“预演”。思维对已有经验形成了首个否定环节，其对象是实践经验，形成了创新的方向与设想。在此基础之上的实践则又形成了第二个否定环节，其对象是创新思维，形成了将思维外化为技术与制度的新的现实。第一个否定环节所指向的是创新思维的现实基础，即对已有经验的系统总结，自觉地把握已有经验的优劣，进而主动谋划扬弃的对象与发展的方向。因此，没有实践基础的空想，虽然也能为创新思维提供一些灵感乃至素材，但并不能有效地指导创新实践。例如，在社会主义从空想到科学的发展过程中，起决定性作用的是随着工业革命而逐渐成熟的阶级基础和更为普遍的社会交往。第二个否定环节所指向的是创新思维的落脚点，即始终面向实践的设想与方法。某种思维要被确认为创新思维而不是别的思维，必须在现有条件下通过实践逐步缩小设想与现实的距离。正如习近平在浙江工作时对义乌的改革发展成就的评价：“义乌的发展简直是‘莫名其妙’的发展、‘无中生有’的发展、‘点石成金’的发展”，“莫名其妙”就是以解放思想对现有经验与范式的超越，“无中生有”就是以主观能动性之发挥来创造条件，“点石成金”就是抓住主要矛盾推动关键跃升。

Of course, effective innovation thinking is not determined by thinking itself, but by the degree of alignment between innovation practice and historical conditions and their developmental trends. This alignment is not a mechanical and passive reflection, but an active “pre-enactment” at the level of thinking of the moment of negation of the negation. This “pre-enactment” is a general characteristic of the unity of human thought with history at the logical level, as Engels pointed out: “Where history begins, the process of thought must also begin, and the further development of the process of thought is nothing but the reflection of the historical process in an abstract and theoretically consistent form.” This characteristic is even more pronounced in innovation thinking, because it can both objectively reflect and absorb the constructive achievements of productive forces and social systems at a specific historical stage, and also possess a transcendent awareness of the limitations of these achievements. In fact, effective innovation thinking has two notable characteristics: objectivity and systematicity.

当然，有效的创新思维并非取决于思维本身，而是由创新实践与历史条件及其发展趋势的契合度所决定的。这种契合度不是机械和被动的反映，而是否定之否定的环节在思维层面的能动“预演”。这种“预演”是人类思想在逻辑层面与历史相统一的一般特征，如恩格斯指出：“历史从哪里开始，思想进程也应当从哪里开始，而思想进程的进一步发展不过是历史过程在抽象的、理论上前后一贯的形式上的反映”。这种特征在创新思维之中更为明显，因其既能够客观反映并吸纳特定历史阶段的生产力和社会制度的建设性成果，又能够对这些成果的局限性有着超越性的觉知。事实上，有效的创新思维具有客观性与系统性两个显著特征。

The first is objectivity. The objectivity of innovation thinking lies not only in objectively reflecting society’s need for innovation, but also in objectively recognizing the boundaries of existing innovation achievements so as to explore new and effective innovation methods. This objectivity is fundamentally the result of the development of the objectifying relationship between humans and nature—that is, humanity’s conscious summation and active adjustment in response to the contradictions between itself and the natural world. This is the development of humanity itself driven by innovation in the objectifying relationship between humans and nature, as characterized by productive forces, which is what Engels meant when he said: “To the extent that man learns to change nature, to that extent his intelligence develops.” Precisely because humanity as a whole is always able to explore new relationships and new contradictions between itself and nature on the principle of objectivity, humans not only obtain richer and more stable material wealth through innovation practice that transforms nature, but also learn the ability to face reality objectively, historically, and dialectically—especially the ability to use the same innovation thinking to innovate superstructural elements such as morality, law, art, culture, and social systems. The emergence and development of innovation thinking that is effective because of its objectivity proves that human civilization has advanced to a stage of constantly and consciously transcending itself. At this stage, humanity “on the one hand continues the inherited activity under completely changed circumstances, and on the other hand modifies the old circumstances through a completely changed activity.” As General Secretary Xi Jinping pointed out: “Each era has its own problems, and each generation has its own mission.” Innovation practice at different stages of development requires corresponding innovation thinking to identify the problems unique to that stage.

一是客观性。创新思维的客观性不仅在于客观地反映社会的创新需求，更在于客观地体现现有创新成果的界限从而去探索新的、有效的创新方法。这种客观性从根本上来说是人与自然的对象性关系发展的结果，即人类针对自身与自然界的矛盾发展的自觉总结和主动调整。这是以生产力为表征的人与自然的对象性关系的创新所驱动的人自身的发展，即恩格斯所说的：“人在怎样的程度上学会改变自然界，人的智力就在怎样的程度上发展起来。”正是由于人类整体上总是能以客观性为原则去探索自身与自然界的新关系和新矛盾，人类不仅能通过改造自然界的创新实践获得更为丰富和稳定的物质财富，更学会了客观地、历史地、辩证地面对现实的能力，尤其是以同样的创新思维来创新道德、法、艺术、文化和社会制度等上层建筑要素的能力。因其客观而有效的创新思维的出现和发展，证明了人类文明已经行进至不断地自觉超越自身的阶段，在该阶段人类“一方面在完全改变了的环境下继续从事所继承的活动，另一方面又通过完全改变了的活动来变更旧的环境”。正如习近平总书记指出的：“一个时代有一个时代的问题，一代人有一代人的使命。”处于不同发展阶段的创新实践都需要相应的创新思维来辨识所处阶段特有的问题。

The second is systematicity. Innovation thinking is a systematic synthesis of new viewpoints, new methods, and new problems based on existing experience—that is, the stages of the old and the new, and the various parts of the structure, are no longer simply superimposed, but through interaction form a renewal of form and an overflow of content that exceeds the sum. The more complex the innovation practice, the more pronounced the characteristic of emergent systematicity. The wholeness of a system, or emergence, which people often say means the whole is greater than the sum of its parts, is in essence that the system as a whole possesses properties and functions that the parts of the system, or even the simple sum of the parts, do not have. Holland said, “We must study both the parts and the interactions between the parts,” and “emergence, in this sense, occurs only when the behavior of the whole is not equal to the simple sum of the behaviors of the parts. In terms of emergence, the behavior of the whole is indeed far more complex than the sum of the behaviors of the parts.” To achieve the emergence of a system, it is necessary not only to coordinate the interactions of system elements and subsystems at the hierarchical level, but also to ensure open and orderly interaction of information and energy between the system and the external environment at the level of internal and external interaction. The key here is that the system always develops with innovation as its goal. General Secretary Xi Jinping pointed out in his report to the 20th National Congress of the

二是系统性。创新思维是基于现有经验的新观点、新方法、新问题的系统综合，即新旧之阶段、结构之各部分不再是简单的叠加，而是在相互作用之中形成的超出总和的形式更新和内容溢出。越是复杂的创新实践，其系统性涌现的特征就越为明显。系统的整体性，或称涌现（emergence），即人们常说的系统整体大于部分，其实质是作为整体的系统具有系统中各部分乃至各部分简单相加所不具有的性质和功能。霍兰说，“我们必须既研究各个部分，又研究各部分之间的相互作用”，“涌现，就这种意义来说，仅仅发生在整体行为不等于各个部分行为的简单加总的情况下。就涌现而论，整体行为确实远比各部分行为的总和更复杂”。要实现系统的涌现，不仅要在层次结构上协调系统要素与子系统的相互作用，更要在内外交互层面确保系统与外部环境的信息与能量的开放且有序的互动。其中的关键是系统始终以创新为目的的发展。习近平总书记在党的二十大报告中指出：“我们从事的是前无古人的伟大事业，守正才能不迷失方向、不犯颠覆性错误，创新才能把握时代、引领时代。”

However, these characteristics of innovation thinking and the effectiveness constituted by these characteristics are determined by specific socio-historical conditions. This is because, whether directed at material production or at social systems, effective innovation thinking emerges as a necessary demand in the process of practical accumulation only because this process itself has already reached the critical point of quantitative change leading to qualitative change. For example, in the realm of material production, the development of productive forces in modern society has thoroughly transformed the objectal structure between humanity and nature, as well as the corresponding conceptual thinking—that is, “the object of the subject’s objectal activity, both in breadth and depth, has undergone and continues to undergo enormous changes, far exceeding the scope that people encounter and understand in daily life. No object, nor any determination, attribute, essence, or law of an object, can any longer be understood or treated in a singular, isolated manner. Between subject and object, the various forms of mediation constituting practical and cognitive relations have become increasingly diversified and complex.” [16]16 Xia Zhengtong, “On the Subject-Object Relationship in the Process of Practice and Understanding,” *Social Sciences in China*, No. 3, 1983. Another example: in the realm of social systems, the accumulation and completion of capitalist relations of production have enabled the concept of pursuing secular material interests to openly constitute people’s spiritual world—that is, “to be freed from political shackles is at the same time to be freed from the fetters that bind the egoistic spirit of civil society. Political emancipation is also the emancipation of civil society from politics, even from the illusion of a universal content”; “feudal society has disintegrated, leaving only its foundation—man, but man as its true foundation, namely, egoistic man.” [17]17 Karl Marx, “On the Jewish Question,” *Marx and Engels Collected Works*, Vol. 1, People’s Publishing House, 2009, pp. 45, 46. However, the innovation in material production and social systems driven by capital since modern times is not the endpoint of history, because the productive forces and human liberation it can achieve remain confined within the political and economic operations of particular interests, and the innovation thinking it can stimulate remains bound by narrow ideological frameworks. Specifically, in capitalist society, the “significant discount” in the effectiveness of innovation thinking manifests as a dual deficiency.

但是，创新思维的这些特征以及由这些特征所构成的有效性，是由一定的社会历史条件所决定的。因为不论是针对物质生产还是针对社会制度的有效创新思维，其之所以能够作为某种必然的需求在实践积累的过程中涌现，是因为这一过程本身就已经达到了量变到质变的临界点。例如，在物质生产领域，生产力在近代社会的发展彻底地改变了人类与自然的对象性结构及相应的思维观念，即“主体对象性活动的客体，无论在广度还是在深度上也发生了和继续发生着巨大的变化，远远超出了人们在日常生活中所接触和所理解的范围。任何客体或客体的任何规定、属性、本质和规律，都再不能单一地、孤立地加以理解和对待了。在主体和客体之间，构成实践的和认识的关系的各种形式的中介，愈来愈多样化、复杂化了”。又如，在社会制度领域，资本主义生产关系的积累和完成，使得追求世俗物质利益的观念得以公开地构成人们的精神世界，即“摆脱政治桎梏同时也就是摆脱束缚住市民社会利己精神的枷锁。政治解放同时也是市民社会从政治中得到解放，甚至是从一种普遍内容的假象中得到解放”，“封建社会已经瓦解，只剩下了自己的基础——人，但这是作为它的真正基础的人，即利己的人”。然而，近代以来以资本驱动的物质生产与社会制度的创新并不是历史的终点，因为其所能实现的生产力与人的解放仍然局限于特殊利益的政治经济运作之中，其所能激发的创新思维也仍然被狭隘的意识形态架构所束缚。具体而言，在资本主义社会中，创新思维有效性的“大打折扣”体现为双重匮乏。

The first is a deficiency in objectivity. Questions such as whether innovation is needed, who should undertake it, and in what direction it should proceed determine the objective effectiveness of innovation thinking. However, properly answering these questions depends on the external conditions of thinking, namely, the level of material productive forces and the social system. In class society, innovation thinking has always been constrained by particular interests, to the extent that the ideas that propelled civilization from antiquity to modernity were long regarded by people as accidental, divinely bestowed “miracles.” If a particular ruling class and its political rule are conditioned by a given level of productive forces and relations of production, then its political rule is necessarily opposed to conscious innovation thinking. For conscious innovation thinking inevitably arises from conscious reflection on and transcendence of the existing state of affairs, and the practice it guides will inevitably impact the mode of production and the social system. Non-conscious innovation thinking, constrained by particular interests, may not only be ineffective but even dangerous. Once innovation thinking serves only to satisfy the interests of specific groups, it exhibits abstract historical characteristics—either a premature, forced-growth type that wastes resources, or a stagnant, lagging type that misses development opportunities. As Lenin pointed out: “If the axioms of geometry offended people’s interests, they would certainly be refuted.” [18]18 V. I. Lenin, “On the Slogan for a United States of Europe,” *Lenin Collected Works*, Vol. 28, People’s Publishing House, 1990, p. 131. Especially in the contemporary era, global risks and challenges concerning the fate and well-being of all humanity occur frequently, yet narrow thinking confined to particular interests, partial interests, and immediate interests consistently obstructs the formation of global consensus and the conduct of global cooperation. This fully demonstrates that “on global issues such as climate change, if one adopts a utilitarian mindset, hoping to gain more advantages and bear fewer responsibilities, the end result will be harming others without benefiting oneself.” [19]19 Xi Jinping, “Working Together to Build a Community with a Shared Future for Mankind,” *Selected Readings of Xi Jinping’s Works*, Vol. 1, Foreign Languages Press, 2018, p. 437.

首先是客观性的匮乏。是否需要创新、依靠谁来创新、往何处创新等问题，决定了创新思维的客观有效性。但是要妥善地回答这些问题，取决于思维的外在条件，即物质生产力水平和社会制度。在阶级社会，创新思维始终受到特殊利益的束缚，以至于推动文明由古代走向近代的观念在很长一段时间都被人们视为偶然的、天降的“神迹”。如果特定的统治阶级及其政治统治的状况是以一定的生产力和生产关系为条件的，其政治统治就必然地与自觉的创新思维相对立。因为自觉的创新思维必然来自对现存状况的自觉的反思与超越，其所指引的实践必然会对生产方式与社会制度发起冲击。而非自觉的创新思维，受制于特殊利益的创新思维，则不仅可能是无效的，甚至是危险的。创新思维一旦只是为了满足特定群体的利益诉求，就会出现抽象的历史特征，或是揠苗助长式的超前而造成资源浪费，或是裹足不前式的滞后而导致错失发展机遇。正如列宁指出的：“几何公理要是触犯了人们的利益，那也一定会遭到反驳的。”尤其在当代，涉及全人类命运和福祉的全球性风险和挑战频发，但是囿于特殊利益、局部利益、眼前利益的狭隘思维却始终阻碍全球共识的形成和全球合作的开展，这充分说明“对气候变化等全球性问题，如果抱着功利主义的思维，希望多占点便宜、少承担点责任，最终将是损人不利己”。

The second is a systemic deficiency. The fundamental driving force for the systemic emergence of innovation lies in the resultant force formed by the various elements of the social structure moving in a direction oriented toward a certain transformation of productive forces or social revolution. However, in class society, especially in capitalist society, individuals are shaped by the division of labor dominated by capital into one-sided information acquirers or isolated links in social cooperation. Coupled with the cultural industry supply and its information cocoons tailored for different groups, individuals find it difficult to view changes in production and institutions from a holistic and systemic perspective. In the realm of material production, individuals struggle to grasp the contradiction between productive forces and relations of production through their own experience, leading to the peculiar phenomenon of Neo-Luddism. In the realm of social institutions, even if individuals perceive severe oppression and the necessity for change, they find it difficult to systematically judge the possibility and timing of institutional innovation. This is what Lenin described as the masses and intellectuals in late Tsarist Russia—they “from the time they were weaned” had absorbed the “principles, habits, traditions, and beliefs” of the old system, so that they “could not see and could not possibly see” what the “new system that was ‘beginning to take shape’” looked like, “which social forces were ‘shaping’ this new system and how they were ‘shaping’ it,” and “which social forces were capable of eliminating the countless particularly severe disasters peculiar to the era of ‘transformation’.” [20]20 V. I. Lenin, “What Is to Be Done?” (1902), in *Collected Works*, vol. 5 (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1961), p. 369. The quotation is Lenin’s paraphrase of a passage from the Russian writer Mikhail Saltykov-Shchedrin.

其次是系统性的匮乏。创新的系统涌现的根本动因在于社会结构各要素形成了朝着某个生产力变革或者社会革命的方向运动的合力。但是，在阶级社会，尤其是在资本主义社会，个体被资本所主导的分工塑造成片面的信息获取者或者孤立的社会合作环节，加之针对不同群体打造的文化工业供给及其信息茧房，使得个体难以从全局的、系统的角度看待生产与制度的变革。在物质生产领域，个体难以凭借自身经验把握生产力与生产关系的矛盾，以至于出现了新卢德主义（Neo-Luddism）的奇特现象。在社会制度领域，个体即使感知到了严重的压迫以及变革的必要性，也难以系统地判断制度创新的可能性与时机，即列宁所描述的沙皇俄国末期的群众和知识分子——他们“从吃母亲奶的时候起”就接受了旧制度的“原则、习惯、传统和信仰”，以至于“看不出也不可能看出‘开始形成’的新制度是什么样子，是哪些社会力量在‘形成’这种新制度以及怎样‘形成’这种新制度，哪些社会力量能够消除‘变革’时代所特有的无数特别深重的灾难”。

How can this dual deficiency be resolved, so that innovation thinking can continuously emerge as a universal social consciousness? The key lies in breaking the old and establishing the new from the social structure to social consciousness, which in history is mainly manifested in progress at the micro and macro levels.

这种双重匮乏何以破解，从而使得创新思维能够作为普遍的社会意识不断涌现，关键在于从社会结构到社会意识的破旧立新，这在历史中主要体现为微观和宏观两个层面的进展。

At the micro level, it means using thorough ideological critique to remove various concepts that constrain innovation thinking, and using Marxism to activate the potential and efficacy of human innovation thinking. Marxism removes the constraints of old concepts from class society on innovation thinking, providing an unprecedented objective and systematic theoretical guidance for the development of innovation thinking in keeping with the times. Dialectical materialism, with its scientific worldview and methodology, guides innovation thinking to systematically grasp the dynamic object relations between thinking and being, between humans and nature, and between humans and humans. The binary oppositional thinking contradictions that have always entangled human innovation practice—especially metaphysical thinking that focuses only on the immediate without regard for the long term, sees only special interests without regard for social benefits, and grasps only the part without regard for the whole—have, after more than a century of sustained critique by dialectical materialism, been replaced by innovation thinking that is connected, developmental, and systemic. Historical materialism, with its scientific view of history, guides innovation thinking to transcendently understand the dialectical relationship between practice and theory, and between the economic base and the superstructure. This subjects concepts and institutional fetters once considered “eternal truths” to the continuous interrogation of the laws of history, guiding the thinking methods of cultural innovation, institutional innovation, and even innovation in the forms of civilization for human liberation to continuously emerge in the practice of revolution and construction.

微观而言，就是要以彻底的意识形态批判解除束缚创新思维的各种观念，就是要以马克思主义激活人类创新思维的潜能与效能。马克思主义解除了来自阶级社会的旧观念对创新思维的束缚，为创新思维与时俱进的发展提供了前所未有的客观、系统的理论引领。辩证唯物主义以科学的世界观和方法论，引导着创新思维系统把握思维与存在、人与自然、人与人的动态的对象性关系。始终缠绕着人类创新实践的二元对立的思维矛盾，尤其是只顾当下不顾长远、只见特殊利益不见社会效益、只抓局部不顾整体的形而上学思维，经过辩证唯物主义一个多世纪的持续批判，终被联系的、发展的、系统的创新思维所替代。历史唯物主义以科学的历史观引导着创新思维超越性地理解实践与理论、经济基础与上层建筑的辩证关系。这使得曾经被认为是“永恒真理”的观念与制度枷锁持续接受历史规律的拷问，引导着人类解放的文化创新、制度创新乃至文明形态创新的思维方法在革命与建设的实践中不断涌现。

At the macro level, it means providing innovation thinking with social and historical conditions no longer controlled by special interests. That is, “as soon as the rule of a class ceases to be the form of the social system, that is to say, as soon as it is no longer necessary to represent a particular interest as the general interest or the ‘general interest’ as the ruling interest, the whole illusion that the rule of a particular class is merely the rule of certain ideas naturally disappears of its own accord.” [21]21 Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, *The German Ideology* (1845–1846), in *Collected Works*, vol. 5 (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1976), p. 60.

宏观而言，就是要为创新思维提供一个不再受制于特殊利益所主宰的社会历史条件，即“只要阶级的统治完全不再是社会制度的形式，也就是说，只要不再有必要把特殊利益说成是普遍利益，或者把‘普遍的东西’说成是占统治地位的东西，那么，一定阶级的统治似乎只是某种思想的统治这整个假象当然就会自行消失”。

“The people are the creators of history; the masses are the true heroes.” [22]22 A well-known formulation from Mao Zedong, “Speech at the Memorial Meeting for Comrade Zhang Side” (1944), in *Selected Works of Mao Tse-tung*, vol. 3 (Beijing: Foreign Languages Press, 1965), p. 227. The people are also the creators of innovation phenomena. Whether innovation thinking is effective must, in the final analysis, be tested by the people’s innovation practice. In modern history, the proletariat, as the part of the people that masters advanced productive forces, leads the innovation of material production practice and the revolution of social systems. Because of its thoroughness and revolutionary character, the proletariat not only sheds special interests and retains the most dynamic historical consciousness, but also, due to its long-term position at the forefront of innovation practice and the deepest levels of civilizational development, possesses the most profound power of innovation. Marx pointed out: “History is for man the recognized history, and hence as a formation process it is a consciously self-transcending formation process.” [23]23 Karl Marx, *Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844*, in *Collected Works*, vol. 3 (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1975), p. 346. Guided by scientific theory, the proletariat has, over the past century and more, always stood at the height of all humanity and the forefront of civilizational progress to explore, practice, and test various innovation thinking, and has created the socialist system with fearless courage as the fundamental institutional guarantee for promoting innovation practice. In the history since the October Revolution, the proletariat, with the Marxist political party as its leading force, has formed an organized and strong force to oppose decadent and conservative forces, continuously promoting the liberation of people and the liberation of productive forces. This cause of liberation is currently concentratedly manifested in the innovative effectiveness and innovative potential of the institutional advantages of socialism with Chinese characteristics. The institutional advantages of concentrating resources to accomplish major tasks, long-term strategic planning capabilities, an innovation-driven ecological system, and an open and cooperative international vision not only enable China’s innovation to lead the world but will also help transform more scientific and technological achievements into development achievements shared by all humanity. History will witness: our innovation will surely converge into a resultant force of historical progress.

“人民是历史的创造者，群众是真正的英雄。”人民也是创新现象的创造者。创新思维是否有效，归根到底，须经过人民的创新实践的检验。在近代以来的历史中，无产阶级作为掌握先进生产力的人民之中的一部分，领导着物质生产实践的创新和社会制度的革命。无产阶级因其彻底性与革命性，不仅摆脱了特殊利益而保有最为能动的历史自觉，更因其长期处于创新实践的最前沿与文明发展的最深处，从而具备最为深厚的创新伟力。马克思指出：“历史对人来说是被认识到的历史，因而它作为形成过程是一种有意识地扬弃自身的形成过程。”在科学理论的指导下，无产阶级在过去一个多世纪，始终站在全人类的高度与文明进展的最前沿探索、实践和检验各种创新思维，并且以无所畏惧的勇气创造了社会主义制度作为推动创新实践的根本制度保障。在十月革命以来的历史中，无产阶级以马克思主义政党为领导力量，形成了有组织的对抗腐朽守旧势力的坚强力量，持续推动人的解放与生产力的解放。这一解放的事业在当下则集中表现为中国特色社会主义制度优势的创新成效和创新潜能，集中力量办大事的体制优势、长期战略规划能力、创新驱动的生态体系以及开放合作的国际视野，不仅使得中国之创新能够引领全球，更将助力更多的科技成果转化为全人类共享的发展成就。历史将见证：我们的创新，必将汇聚成历史进步的合力。

(Author’s bio: Bao Dawei, Researcher and Doctoral Supervisor at the School of Marxism, Zhejiang University)

（作者简介：包大为，浙江大学马克思主义学院研究员、博士生导师）

Online editor: Tongxin

网络编辑：同心