Marx’s Discourse on Eastern Society and Chinese-Path Modernization

Theory and practice always advance each other in interaction. Practice stimulates and calls for theoretical exploration; theoretical exploration promotes and enhances the consciousness of practice. The proposal of “Chinese-path modernization” signifies a theoretical consciousness of the great practice we are carrying out and will continue to unfold—that is, a consciousness of the path, means, and goals of China’s march toward modern civilization. Looking back, the journey toward this consciousness has been a long one: from “Chinese learning as the substance, Western learning for practical use” to the “Three Principles of the People”; from the identification of China’s society as “semi-feudal and semi-colonial” in the debate on the nature of Chinese society, to the establishment of the Chinese revolutionary path of “integrating the universal truth of Marxism with the concrete practice of the Chinese revolution,” and the assertion that “without the Communist Party of China… China’s industrialization and agricultural modernization would also be impossible”; from the early years of the People’s Republic of China when we “learned comprehensively from the Soviet Union,” to the exploration of a socialist modernization path with Chinese characteristics since the reform and opening up in 1978, and the final proposal of “Chinese-path modernization.” In this course of nearly a century and a half, many factors of practical experience and ideological theory have stimulated and propelled this consciousness. For example, Western scholars’ reflections and critiques of Western-style modernization; the explorations by Chinese scholars such as Liang Shuming, Wu Jingchao, and Fei Xiaotong on how China could move toward modern civilization; the disastrous consequences of some “Third World” countries imitating the Western modernization path; and the twists and turns experienced in China’s socialist modernization construction. Among all these factors, the theory of Marx, as the principal founder of Marxism, is undoubtedly one of the most important factors that contributed to and promoted the theoretical consciousness of “Chinese-path modernization,” and it will continue to deepen the breadth and depth of this theoretical consciousness. And if historical materialism provides macro-level epistemological and methodological guidance for the formation and development of the theory of “Chinese-path modernization,” then Marx’s discourse on Eastern society is undoubtedly more directly and specifically relevant to the theory of “Chinese-path modernization.”

理论和实践总在互动中彼此推进。实践刺激、呼唤理论探索，理论探索促进、提升实践的自觉。“中国式现代化”的提出，意味着对于我们正在进行着并将持续展开的伟大实践的一种理论自觉，即对于中国走向现代文明的道路、手段、目标的自觉。回顾既往，走向这种自觉经历了一个相当长的过程：从“中体西用”到“三民主义”;从中国社会性质论争中对于“半封建半殖民地”社会性质的认定，到“把马克思主义普遍真理与中国革命具体实践相结合”的中国革命道路的确立，以及“没有中国共产党……中国的工业化和农业近代化也是不可能的”的论断；从中华人民共和国成立初期的“全面学习苏联”，到1978年改革开放以来对于中国特色社会主义现代化道路的探索以及“中国式现代化”的最终提出。在这近一个半世纪的历程中，有许多现实经验的和思想理论的因素或力量，刺激、推动了这种自觉。比如，西方学者对于西式现代化的反思与批判，梁漱溟、吴景超、费孝通等中国学者对于中国如何迈向现代文明的探索，一些“第三世界”国家模仿西式现代化道路所带来的灾难性后果，我国社会主义现代化建设曾经历的曲折，等等。在所有这些因素中，作为马克思主义主要创立者的马克思的理论无疑是促成、推动“中国式现代化”理论自觉的最重要的因素之一，并且还将继续不断地推进这种理论自觉的广度和深度。而如果说，历史唯物论对于“中国式现代化”理论的形成和发展具有认识论、方法论的宏观指导意义，那么，马克思的东方社会论述对于“中国式现代化”理论无疑具有更具体的直接相关性。

In 1851, the Taiping Heavenly Kingdom movement [1]1 Karl Marx, *Grundrisse der Kritik der politischen Ökonomie* (Berlin: Dietz Verlag, 1953), p. 387. English translation: Karl Marx, *Grundrisse: Foundations of the Critique of Political Economy*, trans. Martin Nicolaus (London: Penguin, 1973), p. 487. broke out in China. This major event in the distant East immediately attracted the attention of Marx, who possessed both a profound “world-historical” perspective and a keen sense of reality. In his article “Revolution in China and in Europe,” written in May 1853, based on the global interconnection of the modern economic system, especially the trade system, and the profound impact of the Taiping movement on world trade and economy, Marx believed: “The next uprising of the European people, their next struggle for republican freedom and for a clean government, will probably depend more on what is currently happening in the Celestial Empire (the direct opposite of Europe) than on any other existing political cause, even more than on the Russian threat and its possible consequences of a general European war.” Although the Taiping Heavenly Kingdom movement failed, and “the next uprising of the European people” did not occur exactly as Marx predicted, the research, discourse, and insights on China and Eastern society triggered by this event provide profound inspiration for us to understand and comprehend Eastern society, especially the fate of traditional Chinese society in the modern process of “world history,” and thereby to understand and comprehend Chinese-path modernization.

1851年，中国爆发了太平天国运动。这一发生在遥远东方的重大事件，立刻引起了兼具宏深的“世界历史”眼光和敏锐现实感的马克思的关注。在写于1853年5月的《中国革命和欧洲革命》一文中，基于现代经济体系特别是贸易体系的世界性关联和太平天国对于世界贸易、经济的深刻影响，马克思认为：“欧洲人民的下一次起义，他们下一阶段争取共和自由、争取廉洁政府的斗争，在更大的程度上恐怕要决定于天朝帝国（欧洲的直接对立面）目前所发生的事件，而不是决定于现存其他任何政治原因，甚至不是决定于俄国的威胁及其带来的可能发生全欧战争的后果。”虽然，太平天国运动失败了，“欧洲人民的下一次起义”也没有完全像马克思预言的那样发生，但是，由此引发的马克思对于中国、对于东方社会的研究、论述和洞见，却为我们认识和理解东方社会，特别是传统中国社会在现代“世界历史”进程中的命运，进而认识和理解中国式现代化提供了深刻的启迪。

I

一

Marx’s discourse on China, on the history of Eastern society and its fate in the process of “world history” initiated by large-scale capitalist industry, is a component of his overall theory of human history and is subordinate to his general view on the development of human history as a whole. Therefore, Marx’s discourse on Eastern society and its modern fate must also be understood within the framework of his general view on the overall process of human history.

马克思关于中国、关于东方社会历史及其在资本主义大工业所开创的“世界历史”进程中的命运的论述，是他关于人类整体历史理论的一个组成部分，是从属于其关于人类整体历史发展的一般观点的。因此，马克思关于东方社会及其现代命运的论述，也必须放到他关于人类整体历史进程的一般观点中来理解。

So, how did Marx view the general process of human history? From the methodological perspective of historical materialism, Marx depicted the historical development of human society in general as the following basic process or universal direction: “Relations of personal dependence (entirely spontaneous at the outset) are the first social forms, in which human productive capacity develops only to a slight extent and at isolated points. Personal independence founded on objective [sachlicher] dependence is the second great form, in which a system of general social metabolism, of universal relations, of all-round needs and universal capacities is formed for the first time. Free individuality, based on the universal development of individuals and on their subordination of their communal, social productivity as their social wealth, is the third stage. The second stage creates the conditions for the third. Therefore, the patriarchal, ancient (and feudal) states decline as commerce, luxury, money, and exchange value develop, and modern society grows apace with these things.” [2]2 Ibid., pp. 387–388; English translation, pp. 487–488. In other words, although the course of history is not without various setbacks and detours, it generally presents a progression from a state of “relations of personal dependence,” where individuals are merely “appendages of a certain narrow community” and “property of the community,” through the bourgeois “political revolution” that fully establishes and affirms “personal independence founded on objective dependence” characteristic of modern bourgeois society, and then toward a state of “free individuality, based on the universal development of individuals and on their subordination of their communal, social productivity as their social wealth,” toward a social condition where “each individual gains his freedom in and through his association with others.” [3]3 The Manchu dynasty refers to the Qing dynasty (1644–1912), China’s last imperial dynasty, ruled by the Manchu ethnic group.

那么，马克思是如何看待人类历史的一般进程的？在历史唯物主义的方法论视角下，马克思将人类社会的历史发展在总体上描绘成这样一个基本进程或者说普遍方向：“人的依赖关系（起初完全是自然发生的），是最初的社会形式，在这种形式下，人的生产能力只是在狭小的范围内和孤立的地点上发展着。以物的依赖性为基础的人的独立性，是第二大形式，在这种形式下，才形成普遍的社会物质变换、全面的关系、多方面的需要以及全面的能力的体系。建立在个人全面发展和他们共同的、社会的生产能力成为从属于他们的社会财富这一基础上的自由个性，是第三个阶段。第二个阶段为第三个阶段创造条件。因此，家长制的，古代的（以及封建的）状态随着商业、奢侈、货币、交换价值的发展而没落下去，现代社会则随着这些东西同步发展起来。”换言之，历史的进程，虽然其间不乏各种顿挫回旋，但总体上呈现为从个体只是“一定的狭隘人群的附属物”、只是“共同体的财产”的“人的依赖关系”的状况，通过资产阶级“政治革命”而全面确立和肯定“以物的依赖性为基础的人的独立性”为特征的现代资产阶级社会，进而迈向“建立在个人全面发展和他们共同的社会生产能力成为他们的社会财富这一基础上的自由个性”、迈向“各个人在自己的联合中并通过这种联合获得自己的自由”的社会状况的进程。

Carefully savoring Marx’s description of the process of human history, it is not difficult to find that beneath the tone of objective narration and judgment of existing history (the first and second stages) and future trends (the third stage), there lies a strong and distinct value concern, namely, a concern for human freedom and human liberation. In short, in Marx’s view, the historical development of human society should promote human freedom and human liberation; and, looking back at the actual course of human history from the perspective of human freedom and liberation, it does generally present itself as a process moving toward human freedom and human liberation. The reason why, in Marx’s writing, the “is” of human history and the “ought” of human history tend to converge overall is that the “freedom” or “liberation” Marx speaks of does not merely refer to the negative, formal freedom inherent in a single isolated individual, but rather to positive, substantive freedom as the full realization of human potential and the all-round development of the individual. This kind of freedom is a goal that must be continuously approached in the course of historical development: “The fully developed individual, whose social relations are their own communal relations, also subject to their own communal control, is not a product of nature, but of history.” [4]4 Karl Marx, “Revolution in China and in Europe,” *New-York Daily Tribune*, June 14, 1853. See *Marx and Engels Collected Works*, vol. 12 (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1979), pp. 93–94. It is precisely the continuously developing and improving productive forces and corresponding social factors in the historical process that provide the real conditions for the all-round development of human beings and for the deepening and broadening of human freedom. It is for this reason that the history of human society generally presents itself as a process moving toward human freedom and human liberation.

仔细体味马克思对人类历史进程的这一描述，不难发现，在其对既有历史（第一、第二阶段）和未来趋势（第三阶段）客观叙述与判断的笔调下，蕴含着一种强烈而鲜明的价值关怀，那就是对人的自由、人的解放的关切。质言之，在马克思看来，人类社会的历史发展，应该促成人的自由、人的解放；而从人的自由和解放的角度回顾人类实际的历史进程，则在总体上也确实呈现为一个迈向人的自由、人的解放的进程。之所以在马克思笔下人类历史的“实然”和人类历史的“应然”在总体上会趋于一致，原因在于，马克思所说的“自由”或“解放”，并不仅仅是指单个的孤立个体所固有的消极、形式意义上的自由，更是指积极的、实质性的、作为人的潜能的充分实现、人的全面发展的自由。这种自由是需要在历史发展进程中不断趋近的目标：“全面发展的个人——他们的社会关系作为他们自己的共同的关系，也是服从于他们自己的共同的控制的——不是自然的产物，而是历史的产物。”正是在历史进程中不断发展提高的生产力以及相应的各种社会因素，为人的全面发展、人的自由向更深更广的方向发展提供了现实的条件。也正因此，人类社会的历史在总体上会呈现为一个迈向人的自由、人的解放的进程。

Of course, this is only in terms of the general direction of the overall historical process. At certain specific stages or links within this overall process, the concrete forms of historical development, especially the social (political) forms adopted by the forward breakthrough of productive forces, may and often do deviate from humanity’s nature of freedom, thereby manifesting “the tyranny of history.” At such times, a tense conflict arises between history and human nature, or between history and human morality. In analyzing modern capitalist society, Marx pointed out that this society, on the one hand, creates such enormous material achievements that it provides greater real possibilities for the realization of greater freedom and human liberation; on the other hand, because these material achievements are all built on the foundation of exploiting and enslaving labor, are obtained amid the conflict and antagonism between members of a society divided into classes, and are acquired through the dispossession of colonies and other backward countries and nations, and because these material achievements also manifest themselves socially as an antagonistic force both among internal social members and between external nations and peoples, therefore, under the capitalist social formation, for the vast majority of people, these material achievements are not only not the prerequisite conditions for their freedom but also confront them as an alienated force; they constitute the limits of their freedom rather than its conditions. Marx also pointed out: “The ancient conception, in which man always appears (in however narrowly national, religious or political a definition) as the aim of production, seems very lofty when contrasted with the modern world, in which production is the aim of man and wealth the aim of production.” [1]1 Karl Marx, *Grundrisse der Kritik der politischen Ökonomie* (Berlin: Dietz Verlag, 1953), p. 387. English translation: Karl Marx, *Grundrisse: Foundations of the Critique of Political Economy*, trans. Martin Nicolaus (London: Penguin, 1973), p. 487. That is to say, in antiquity, material forces always served the purpose of man, and thus possessed moral legitimacy, whereas in modernity, man is alienated into a tool serving material forces, and is therefore unjust. Does this then mean that one should abandon modernity and return to antiquity? Marx immediately continues: “In fact, however, when the narrow bourgeois form has been peeled away, what is wealth if not the universality of needs, capacities, enjoyments, productive forces, etc., of individuals, produced in universal exchange? What is wealth if not the full development of man’s mastery over the forces of nature—over the so-called ‘natural forces’ as well as over the forces of his own nature? What is wealth if not the absolute unfolding of man’s creative potentialities, with no other precondition than the preceding historical development, which makes this totality of development, i.e., the development of all human powers as such the end in itself, not as measured on a predetermined yardstick? Here, man does not reproduce himself in any one determined form, but produces his totality; he does not seek to remain something formed by the past, but is in the absolute movement of becoming.” [2]2 Ibid., pp. 387–388; English translation, pp. 487–488. The material forces of the modern world, or modernization itself, contain enormous potential for liberation. Therefore, for the sake of human liberation, the “narrow bourgeois form” of modernization must be discarded, but modernization itself cannot and must not be sacrificed for it. It cannot be sacrificed because it is the material force that human liberation must rely upon; it must not be sacrificed because it is the most active, most dynamic, and most proactive factor in the historical process—that is, the inevitable trend driven by the forward development of productive forces. What modernization requires is further healthy development and growth after the removal of the narrow bourgeois social form.

当然，这只是就总体上的历史进程的大方向而言。在这个总体进程的某些具体的阶段或环节上，历史发展的具体形式，特别是生产力向前突破所采取的社会（政治）形式，则可能甚至常常会背离人类的自由本性，从而表现出“历史的暴虐”。这时，就会出现历史与人性，或者说历史与人类道义之间的紧张冲突。在分析现代资本主义社会时，马克思指出，这个社会一方面创造了如此巨大的物质成就，从而为实现更大的自由、为人的解放提供了更大的现实可能性；另一方面由于这些物质成就都是建立在剥削、奴役劳动的基础上的，是在分裂为阶级的社会成员之间的冲突对抗中取得的，是在对殖民地及其他落后国家与民族的剥夺中取得的，同时这些物质成就在其社会性上也表现为内部社会成员之间以及外部民族与民族之间的对抗力量，因此，在资本主义社会形态下，对于绝大多数人来说，这种物质成就不仅不是他们获得自由的前提条件，而且还作为一种异己的力量与他们离异，它们构成的是他们自由的限制而非条件。马克思还指出：“古代的观点和现代世界相比，就显得崇高得多，根据古代的观点，人，不管是处在怎样狭隘的民族的、宗教的、政治的规定上，总是表现为生产的目的，在现代世界，生产表现为人的目的，而财富则表现为生产的目的。”也就是说，在古代，总是物质的力量服务于人这个目的，因而具有道义上的正当性，而在现代，人却异化侍奉物质力量的工具，因而是不义的。那么，这是不是意味着应该抛弃现代回归古代呢？马克思紧接着说：“事实上，如果抛掉狭隘的资产阶级形式，那么，财富不就是在普遍的交换中产生的个人的需要、才能、享用、生产力等等的普遍性吗？财富不就是人对自然力——既是通常所谓的‘自然’力，又是人本身的自然力——的统治的充分发展吗？财富不就是人的创造天赋的绝对发挥吗？这种发挥，除了先前的历史发展之外没有任何其他前提，而先前的历史发展使这种全面的发展，即不以旧有的尺度来衡量的人类全部力量的全面发展成为目的本身。在这里，人不是在某一种规定性上再生产自己，而是生产出他的全面性；不是力求停留在某种已经变成的东西上，而是处在变易的绝对运动之中。”现代世界的物质力量或者说现代化包含着巨大的解放潜能，因此，为了人的解放，现代化的“狭隘的资产阶级形式”必须被抛弃，但是，现代化本身却不可、也不能为之殉葬。不可，是因为它是人的解放所必须凭借的物质力量；不能，是因为它是历史进程中最积极、最活跃、最主动的因素，即生产力向前发展所带动的必然趋势。现代化所需要的，是在去除了狭隘的资产阶级社会形式下的进一步的健康发展和生长。

II

二

Under this general view of the overall historical process of humanity, how did Marx regard the fate of the Eastern world at that time, especially Chinese society? Let us examine Marx’s description: The prestige of the Manchu dynasty [3]3 The Manchu dynasty refers to the Qing dynasty (1644–1912), China’s last imperial dynasty, ruled by the Manchu ethnic group. vanished at the first encounter with British guns and ships; the superstition of the Celestial Empire’s eternal existence was shattered; the barbaric, closed-door, isolated state cut off from the civilized world was broken, and contact with the outside world began, a contact that rapidly developed thereafter under the attraction of Californian and Australian gold. The destructive factors affecting China’s finance, social customs, industry, and political structure were fully developed under the bombardment of British cannons in 1840; British cannons destroyed the authority of the emperor and forced the Celestial Empire into contact with the earthly world. Complete isolation from the outside had been the primary condition for preserving old China, and when this isolation was violently broken by Britain, the process of disintegration inevitably followed, just as a mummy carefully preserved in an airtight coffin inevitably disintegrates once it comes into contact with fresh air. [4]4 Karl Marx, “Revolution in China and in Europe,” *New-York Daily Tribune*, June 14, 1853. See *Marx and Engels Collected Works*, vol. 12 (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1979), pp. 93–94.

在上述这种关于人类整体历史进程的一般观点下，马克思是如何看待当时的东方世界，特别是中国社会的命运的呢？且看马克思的描述：满族王朝的声威一遇到英国的枪炮就扫地以尽，天朝帝国万世长存的迷信破了产，野蛮的、闭关自守的、与文明世界隔绝的状态被打破，开始同外界发生联系，这种联系从那时起就在加利福尼亚和澳大利亚黄金的吸引之下迅速地发展起来。影响着中国的财政、社会风尚、工业和政治结构的破坏性因素，到1840年在英国大炮的轰击之下得到了充分的发展；英国的大炮破坏了皇帝的权威，迫使天朝帝国与地上的世界接触。与外界完全隔绝曾是保存旧中国的首要条件，而当这种隔绝状态通过英国而为暴力所打破的时候，接踵而来的必然是解体的过程，正如小心保存在密闭棺材里的木乃伊一接触新鲜空气便必然要解体一样。

Two points in Marx’s above description deserve special attention. First, in his account, old China was already a mummy in the modern world; once it came into contact with the external modern world, disintegration was its inescapable fate. Second, what pushed old China into the modern world was the bloody violence of “the bombardment of British cannons.” It is evident that what is being enacted here is precisely the tense conflict between “history” and “morality” in the process of the “modern world’s” global expansion, or in other words, the violent expansion of the modern world in its “narrow bourgeois form” into Eastern society.

马克思的上述描述中有两点值得特别注意。第一，在他的笔下，旧中国在现代世界中已经是木乃伊一具，一旦与外部现代世界相接触，解体是其无法逃脱的命运；第二，把旧中国推入现代世界的，是“英国大炮的轰击”的血腥暴力。显而易见，这里上演的正是“现代世界”在向全球扩张进程中的“历史”与“道义”之间的紧张冲突，或者说，是“狭隘的资产阶级形式”下的现代世界向东方社会的暴力扩张。

Marx thoroughly exposed the brutality, hypocrisy, shamelessness, and baseness of the Western countries representing “modern civilization,” especially Britain, in this process: the illegal opium trade, year after year, filled the British treasury by ruining human lives and corrupting morals; in the so-called “legal” trade, customs duties were often evaded by bribing lower-level officials, thereby depriving the Chinese government of its legitimate revenue from the import and export of goods; those deceived Chinese contract laborers, sold to the coasts of Peru to be treated worse than beasts of burden, or sold to Cuba as indentured slaves, were subjected to violent atrocities “even to the point of murder”; on the pretext of a fictitious “Chinese provocative act endangering British lives and property,” the Second Opium War was provoked, causing “innocent residents and peaceful merchants to be cruelly slaughtered, their homes razed by artillery fire, and human rights grossly violated.” [5]5 Karl Marx, “The Opium Trade,” *New-York Daily Tribune*, September 20, 1858. See *Marx and Engels Collected Works*, vol. 16 (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1980), pp. 15–16. British hypocrisy and shamelessness also lay in the fact that, as an “imperial government,” it pretended to have nothing to do with the contraband opium trade and even concluded treaties prohibiting such trade, but as the “Indian government,” it forced Bengal and other provinces to cultivate poppies, and refined and prepared opium according to the tastes of Chinese smokers, ultimately shipping it to China, thereby reaping its greatest profits from the “illegal” opium trade. [6]6 Ibid., pp. 14–15.

马克思淋漓尽致地揭示了在这一进程中代表着“现代文明”的西方国家，特别是英国的残暴、虚伪、无耻和下作：非法的鸦片贸易年年靠摧残人命和败坏道德来填满英国国库；在所谓“合法”的贸易中常常通过贿赂下级官吏逃避关税，从而使中国政府失去在商品进出口方面的合法收入；对那些被卖到秘鲁沿岸去当不如牛马的奴隶、被卖到古巴去当契约奴隶的受骗契约华工横施暴行“以至杀害”;借口子虚乌有的“中国人的挑衅行为危及英国人的生命和财产”而挑起第二次鸦片战争，从而使许许多多“无辜的居民和安居乐业的商人惨遭屠杀，他们的住宅被炮火夷为平地，人权横遭侵犯”。英国的虚伪和无耻还在于，作为“帝国政府”，它假装同违禁的鸦片贸易毫无关系，甚至还订立禁止这种贸易的条约，但是作为“印度政府”，它又强迫孟加拉省等地种植罂粟，并按照中国吸食者的口味提炼和调制鸦片，最终运到中国，从而从“不合法”的鸦片贸易中获得其最大的利益。

Compared to the injustice of Britain, the representative of the modern civilized world, the “barbarians” or “semi-barbarians” of the old world instead showed adherence to moral principles. Under circumstances where the opium trade could not actually be prohibited, legalizing the opium trade would have been advantageous for the Chinese government: in 1830, imposing a 25% tariff on this trade would have brought in $3.85 million in revenue, and by 1837, it would have doubled that amount. Indeed, some ministers had proposed legalizing the opium trade. However, “the barbarians of the Celestial Empire,” mindful that “this most pernicious trade poisons the people,” firmly rejected such a tax that “would inevitably increase as the people became more depraved,” and even when the Qing dynasty’s situation was extremely difficult in 1853, they still adhered to this policy. “The semi-barbarian stood on the principle of morality, while the civilized man opposed him with the principle of selfishness. … In this duel, the representative of the antiquated world was actuated by moral motives, while the representative of the most modern society sought only the privilege of buying cheap and selling dear—truly a strange, paradoxical elegy, such as no poet would ever have dared to imagine.” [7]7 Karl Marx, “The Opium Trade,” *New-York Daily Tribune*, September 20, 1858. See *Marx and Engels Collected Works*, vol. 16, p. 17.

相比于作为现代文明世界之代表的英国的不义，旧世界的“野蛮人”或“半野蛮人”反而显示出对于道义的坚持。在鸦片贸易事实上无法禁绝的情况下，将鸦片贸易合法化对于中国政府是有利的：在1830年，如果对此项贸易征收25%的关税，就会带来385万美元的收入，到1837年，就会双倍于此。实际上也确实有大臣提出过将鸦片贸易合法化的建议。但是，“天朝的野蛮人”鉴于“此种万恶贸易毒害人民”，坚定地拒绝了这样一项“随着人民的堕落的程度而必定会增大的税收”，即使到了清王朝的处境无比艰难的1853年，也依然恪守着这个政策。“半野蛮人坚持道德原则，而文明人却以自私自利的原则与之对抗。……在这场决斗中，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”。

However, those who are “aroused by morality” are, after all, representatives of the “old world,” while those who “confront it with the principle of selfishness” are representatives of the “most modern society.” Marx did not believe that the “morality” displayed by the old world could save it from its doom, just as the base and unjust way in which Britain dragged ancient China into the modern world was no reason to refuse entry into modern civilization. Just as modernization is both inevitable and necessary in the general historical process of humanity as a whole, so too is the old world’s merging into modern civilization and its consequent demise both inevitable and necessary. It is “inevitable” because, ever since large-scale industry first created “world history,” thereby making “the satisfaction of the needs of every civilized country and every individual in those countries dependent on the whole world,” the “former state of self-sufficiency and isolation of each country” became impossible: “The self-sufficient and closed state of local and national life has been replaced by the universal interdependence of nations in all aspects of mutual intercourse… The one-sidedness and narrow-mindedness of nations are becoming increasingly impossible… 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… It compels all nations, on pain of extinction, to adopt the bourgeois mode of production; it compels them to introduce what it calls civilization into their midst, i.e., to become bourgeois themselves. In a word, it creates a world after its own image.” [8]8 This passage is adapted from Marx and Engels, *The Communist Manifesto* (1848), describing the globalizing role of the bourgeoisie. It is “necessary” because, even beneath the surface of the old world’s “morality” and even its tender sentiments, there has always lurked an ancient and profound sorrow and ignorance. When discussing the decline of the “Asiatic social formation” under the destruction of Western colonial forces, Marx calmly stated: “From a human feeling, it is painful to see these countless, industriously managed, patriarchal, harmless social organizations collapse one after another, cast into a sea of suffering, and to see each of their members lose both their ancient form of civilization and their ancestral means of livelihood; but we must not forget that these idyllic village communities, however harmless they may appear, have always been the solid foundation of Oriental despotism, that they confined the human mind within the narrowest limits, making it a docile tool of superstition, a slave to traditional rules, incapable of any great deeds or historical initiative.” [9]9 This passage is from Marx, “The British Rule in India” (1853), where he discusses the destructive impact of British colonialism on traditional Indian village communities. Unlike some (such as Liang Shuming [10]10 Liang Shuming (1893–1988) was a Chinese philosopher and rural reconstruction activist who defended traditional Chinese culture and criticized wholesale Westernization.), who deeply regretted the decline of traditional Chinese society, Marx, from a perspective that combined concern for human history and reality, saw the end of the old world—including traditional Chinese society—and its turn toward modernization as both proper and inevitable. In fact, under the pressure of the modern world, if the ancient world, including traditional China, did not move toward modern civilization, it could not ultimately hold on to even its own traditional “morality.” As mentioned earlier, even in the extremely difficult circumstances of 1853, the Qing Dynasty still refused to legalize the opium trade. However, by 1858, it could no longer hold out. In that year, the Qing Dynasty signed the “Treaty of Tientsin” [11]11 The Treaty of Tientsin (1858) was one of the unequal treaties imposed on China after the Second Opium War, legalizing the opium trade and opening more ports to foreign trade. with Britain, legalizing the opium trade, imposing a “foreign opium tax,” and immediately began to grow, produce, and sell opium domestically.

但是，“激于道义”的，终究是“陈腐世界”的代表，那“以自私自利的原则与之对抗”的，才是“最现代的社会”的代表。马克思并不认为旧世界所显示的“道义”能挽救其走向末日的命运，就像英国将古老中国拖入现代世界之方式的卑劣不义不是拒绝进入现代文明世界的理由一样。如同在人类整体历史的一般进程中现代化是必然的也是必须的，旧世界之汇入现代文明而终结也是必然且必须的。之所以是“必然”的，是因为，自从大工业首次开创了“世界历史”，从而“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”以后，“各国以往自然形成的闭关自守的状态”就再也不可能了：“过去那种地方的和民族的自给自足和闭关自守状态，被各民族的各方面的互相往来和各方面的互相依赖所代替了。……民族的片面性和局限性日益成为不可能……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。……它迫使一切民族——如果它们不想灭亡的话——采用资产阶级的生产方式；它迫使它们在自己那里推行所谓的文明，即变成资产者。一句话，它按照自己的面貌为自己创造出一个世界。”而之所以是“必须”的，则是因为，即使在旧世界的“道义”甚至温情脉脉的表面之下，掩藏的始终是古老而深重的悲哀和愚昧。在谈到“亚细亚社会形态”受到西方殖民势力的破坏而没落时，马克思曾冷静地说：“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。”与某些人（如梁漱溟等）面对中国传统社会的衰亡而深深惋惜不同，在马克思的兼具人类历史与现实关怀的视野下，包括传统中国社会在内的旧世界的终结和走向现代化既是应该的，也是必然的。实际上，面对现代世界的压力，包括传统中国在内的古老世界如果不走向现代文明，它自己传统上的那点“道义”最终也坚守不住。前面提到，即使到了处境无比艰难的1853年，清王朝依然拒绝将鸦片贸易合法化，但是，到1858年，它终于坚持不住了，在这一年，清王朝还是与英国签订了《中英通商章程善后条约》，承认鸦片贸易合法化，对鸦片开征“洋药税”，并随即开始在国内自种、自产、自销鸦片。

III

三

As discussed above, ever since large-scale industry created “world history,” the “former state of self-sufficiency and isolation of each country” could no longer persist. All countries and nations, including ancient China, whether willing or unwilling, active or passive, would universally enter the modern world. In other words, once Western countries initiated modernization in their own way (the capitalist way) and expanded it globally, modernization became a worldwide trend, or fate. Modernization is a choice that every country and nation cannot avoid making; no country or nation, including ancient China, can forever remain outside this trend or fate. However, it must be recognized that when various countries and nations embark on modernization and enter the modern world, the characteristics they formed in their specific natural environments and historical conditions during their previous periods of mutual isolation do not simply disappear. On the contrary, these characteristics profoundly and persistently influence the way they enter the modern world and modern civilization, constraining their respective paths of modernization.

如上所述，自从大工业开创了“世界历史”以后，“各国以往自然形成的闭关自守的状态”就再也不可能存续了，包括古老中国在内的所有国家、民族，不管愿意还是不愿意，主动还是被动，都将普遍地进入现代世界。换言之，自从西方国家以自己的方式（资本主义的方式）开启了现代化并将它向全世界扩张以后，现代化便成为世界性的潮流或者说命运。现代化是每一个国家、民族不能不做出的选择，包括古老中国在内的所有国家、民族谁也不可能永远地自外于这个潮流或命运。但是必须看到，在各个国家、民族开启现代化而进入现代世界之时及之后，它们以往各自在相互隔绝的情况下于特定的自然环境和历史条件中形成的特征并不就此消失。相反，这些特征会深刻并持久地影响它们进入现代世界、现代文明的方式，约束它们各自的现代化路径。

So, what are the characteristics of traditional Chinese society? The answer to this question actually depends on the angle from which one observes, analyzes, and grasps a society. Marx’s angle for observing, analyzing, and grasping the basic characteristics of a specific society is undoubtedly the specific relations of production that match the productive forces: “The totality of these relations of production constitutes the economic structure of society, the real foundation, on which arises a legal and political superstructure and to which correspond definite forms of social consciousness.” [12]12 This is from Marx, *A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy* (1859), Preface, where he outlines the base-superstructure model. “The sum total of these relations of production constitutes the social relations, constitutes what is called society, and constitutes a society at a specific stage of historical development, a society with unique characteristics.” [13]13 This is from Marx, “Wage Labour and Capital” (1849), where he defines society as the sum of relations of production. So, from the perspective of relations of production, what is the most basic characteristic of traditional Chinese society? This involves the “Asiatic mode of production” that Marx pointed out and elaborated in his analysis of Eastern societies, including ancient China.

那么，传统中国社会的特征是什么？对这个问题的回答实际上取决于观察、分析、把握一个社会的角度。而马克思观察、分析、把握一个特定社会之基本特征的角度，无疑是与生产力相匹配的特定生产关系：“生产关系总合起来就构成所谓社会关系，构成所谓社会，并且是构成一个处于一定历史发展阶段上的社会，具有独特的特征的社会。”那么，在生产关系的视角下，传统中国社会最基本的特征是什么？这就涉及马克思在分析包括古老中国在内的东方社会时所指出和阐述的“亚细亚生产方式”了。

What is the “Asiatic mode of production”? Countless scholarly ink has been spilled on this question, and I do not wish to add to the verbosity here. Instead, I will simply analyze and explain, based on Marx’s own relevant accounts, the impact of this social characteristic on the modernization path of Eastern societies, especially Chinese society. In a letter to Engels written in 1853, Marx stated that the basis of all phenomena in Eastern societies is “the absence of private property in land,” which is “the real key to understanding the Oriental heaven.” [14]14 This refers to Marx’s letter to Engels of June 2, 1853, where he discusses the absence of private land ownership in Asia as key to understanding its social structure. In the section “Forms of Production before Capitalist Production” in the *Grundrisse* (1857–1858), Marx further clarified the basic characteristics of the “Asiatic mode of production” with its “absence of private property in land”: In most of the basic Asiatic forms, the overarching unity that stands above all these small communities appears as the higher owner or the sole owner, and the actual communes therefore appear merely as hereditary possessors. Because this unity is the actual owner and the actual premise of communal property, the unity itself can appear as a special entity above these many actual individual communities, and in these individual communities, each individual person in fact loses property, or property—that is, the relationship in which the individual regards the natural conditions of labor and reproduction as belonging to him, as his own objective body in inorganic natural form—is for this individual person indirect property, because this property is granted to him by the overarching unity, embodied by the despotic monarch as the father of these many communities, mediated through these special communes. Therefore, the surplus product—which, in fact, is legislatively stipulated as the fruit of actual possession through labor—belongs without question to this highest unity. [15]15 This passage is from Marx, *Grundrisse* (1857–1858), in the section on pre-capitalist economic formations, analyzing the Asiatic mode of production.

什么是“亚细亚生产方式”？对此问题的讨论已经耗费了学者们无数的笔墨，在此笔者不想再来饶舌，而只想根据马克思本人的相关叙说来简要分析说明这种社会特征对于东方社会特别是中国社会现代化路径的影响。在1853年写给恩格斯的一封信中，马克思说，东方社会一切现象的基础是“不存在土地私有制”，这是“了解东方天国的一把真正的钥匙”。在《1857—1858年经济学手稿》的“资本主义生产以前的各种形式”一节中，马克思进一步明确地阐释了“不存在土地私有制”的“亚细亚生产方式”的基本特征：在大多数亚细亚的基本形式中，凌驾于所有这一切小的共同体之上的总合的统一体表现为更高的所有者或唯一的所有者，因而实际的公社只不过表现为世袭的占有者。因为这种统一体是实际的所有者，并且是公共财产的实际前提，所以统一体本身能够表现为一种凌驾于这许多实际的单个共同体之上的特殊东西，而在这些单个的共同体中，各个个别的人事实上失去了财产，或者说，财产——即单个的人把劳动和再生产的自然条件看做属于他的条件，看做他的主体的以无机自然形式存在的客观躯体这样一种关系——对这个别的人来说是间接的财产，因为这种财产，是由作为这许多共同体之父的专制君主所体现的总的统一体，以这些特殊的公社为中介而赐予他的。因此，剩余产品——其实，这在立法上被规定为通过劳动而实际占有的成果——不言而喻地属于这个最高的统一体。

Clearly, the so-called “absence of private property in land” does not mean that the Asiatic mode of production is primitive communism, but rather that it is a system of royal land ownership (“All land under heaven belongs to the king” [16]16 This is a classical Chinese phrase from the *Book of Songs* (Shijing), often cited to express the concept of royal ownership of all land under the monarch.), meaning that above the small communities—the village communes or hamlets (which are merely “hereditary possessors” of the land, or trustees of the land owned by the despotic monarch)—there exists a despotic monarch or a centralized autocratic government that monopolizes land ownership. Marx further analyzed why a despotic monarch or government monopoly over national land ownership formed in the East: because here, large-scale public works such as water conservancy and transportation were undertaken by the despotic government standing above small communities like the village communes; that is, the government had to assume large-scale economic and social functions, whereas in the West, these functions were directly undertaken by the small communities themselves.

显然，所谓“不存在土地私有制”，并不意味着亚细亚生产方式是原始共产制，而是指土地王有制（“普天之下，莫非王土”），是指在作为小共同体的农村公社或村社（它们不过是土地的“世袭占有者”，或者说是专制君主所有的土地的托管者）之上存在一个垄断土地所有权的专制君主或专制集权的中央政府。马克思又进一步分析指出了为什么在东方会形成专制君主或政府对于全国土地所有权的垄断：因为在这里，水利、交通等大型的公共工程是由高居于村社等小共同体之上的专制政府来举办的，即政府要承担大规模的经济和社会职能，而在西方，这种职能是直接由小共同体来承担的。

Thus, we can roughly discern the basic characteristics of the “Asiatic mode of production”: (1) The despotic monarch or central government, as the “supreme unity” standing above many small individual communities, i.e., villages or rural communes, monopolizes ownership of all land in the country. (2) The despotic monarch or central government undertakes large-scale economic and social functions nationwide; the undertaking of these functions is both the main cause of royal land ownership and the basis for the legitimacy of despotic rule. (3) The village communities and their members are merely “hereditary possessors” of the land, or trustees of the land owned by the despotic monarch. Since they are not the owners of the land, the surplus product does not belong to the village communities and their members but is appropriated by the despotic monarch as the supreme unity in the form of “the unity of rent and tax.” The despotic monarch’s or central government’s ownership of land and the consequent appropriation of surplus product are both the foundation for its performance of public functions and the basis of its despotic rule. (4) Within each small community, i.e., the village community, the economy is a simple natural economy. This natural economy manifests primarily at two levels: “The first level is that the individual person is closely integrated with his own family, independently laboring on the plot of land allocated to him, with men plowing and women weaving. The most basic means of subsistence can be obtained from one’s own labor products. The second level is that within a village community, a certain degree of division of labor exists, so that the entire village community’s means of subsistence can be resolved from within the village community.”

这样，我们可以大致看出“亚细亚生产方式”的基本特征：（1）作为凌驾于许多单个小共同体即村社或乡村公社之上的“最高统一体”的专制君主或中央政府垄断全国土地的所有权。（2）专制君主或中央政府承担全国性的大规模的经济和社会职能，这种职能的承担，既是土地王有制的主要成因，也是专制统治合法性的基础。（3）村社及其成员只不过是土地的“世袭占有者”，或者说是专制君主所有的土地的托管者，由于不是土地的所有者，剩余产品就不属于村社及其成员，而是以“地租和赋税合为一体”的形式归属于作为最高统一体的专制君主。专制君主或中央政府对于土地的所有权以及以此为基础的对于剩余产品的占有，既是其履行公共职能的基础，也是其专制统治的基础。（4）在一个个的小共同体即村社内部，其经济是简单的自然经济。这种自然经济主要表现为两个层次：“第一个层次是，单个的人同自己的家庭紧密结合在一起，独立地在分配给他的份地上劳动，男耕女织。最基本的生活资料可以从自己的劳动产品中获得。第二个层次是，在一个村社内部，实行一定程度的分工，从而使整个村社的生活资料可以从村社内部解决。”

What impact did this “Asiatic mode of production” have on Eastern societies, including China? The impact is multifaceted, but focusing on the issues discussed in this article, the most prominent is the so-called “stagnation” of social development, or in other words, the difficulty in advancing modernization. The self-sufficient natural economy itself possesses great resilience. In multiple articles such as “The Anglo-Chinese Treaty” and “Trade with China,” Marx repeatedly pointed out that the main factor hindering British trade with China was the Chinese socio-economic structure based on the combination of small-scale agriculture and household industry. Under the Asiatic social form, this resilience is even stronger, making it harder to disintegrate and thus more difficult to transition to modernity. This is because, although the undertaking of large-scale public functions is the cause of the despotic monarch’s or central government’s monopoly over national land ownership and the corresponding centralized despotic rule standing above many small village communities, once this monopoly and centralized despotic rule are established, maintaining this monopoly and rule becomes its primary objective, or rather, its interest. To this end, this despotic royal power, standing above countless small village communities, will strive to maintain a state of dispersed small landholdings. On the one hand, this helps to maintain and expand the area of taxable cultivated land, increasing fiscal revenue obtained in the form of “the unity of rent and tax”; on the other hand, it can suppress the emergence of local strongmen who might threaten its own despotic ruling power. At the same time, this despotic royal power, standing above countless small village communities, will spare no effort to prevent exchanges and interactions between these small village communities and the outside world, because such exchanges and interactions will inevitably disintegrate the self-sufficient natural economy of the village communities. Marx distinguished between two types of division of labor or exchange: one is exchange based on natural differences between different communities: “Different communities find different means of production and different means of subsistence in their natural environment. Hence, their mode of production, mode of life, and products are all different. This natural difference, when communities come into contact, leads to the mutual exchange of products, thereby gradually transforming these products into commodities.” The other is the opposite: within a community (first within the family, then within the clan), a natural division of labor arises on a physiological basis due to differences in sex, age, etc. The former forms division of labor through exchange; the latter generates exchange through division of labor. The former can be called external exchange or division of labor; the latter is internal division of labor or exchange. But the problem is that without the impetus of external exchange, the internal division of labor based on physiological differences can never change the self-sufficient natural economy of the community. As long as those countless scattered small village communities cannot break out of this state of self-sufficient natural economy, society will find it difficult to enter the door of the modern world. The key to creating this situation, which Marx called “the real key to understanding the Oriental Celestial Empire,” lies in the difference between Eastern and Western societies: here, above each village community stands a despotic royal power, or a centralized despotic central authority, that monopolizes national land ownership, appropriates all surplus products, and thereby controls the entire society.

这样一种“亚细亚生产方式”给包括中国在内的东方社会带来了怎样的影响？影响当然是多方面的，而着眼于本文所讨论的问题，则最突出的就是造成了所谓社会发展的“停滞”，或者说，造成了现代化的举步维艰。自给自足的自然经济本身具有强大的韧性。在《英中条约》《对华贸易》等多篇文章中，马克思曾多次指出，阻碍英国对华贸易的主要因素，是依靠小农业与家庭工业相结合而存在的中国社会经济结构。而在亚细亚社会形式下，这种韧性就更强，更不容易瓦解，从而也就更加难以向现代转型。这是因为，虽然大型公共职能的承担是凌驾于许多单个小共同体即村社之上的专制君主或中央政府垄断全国土地所有权以及相应的专制集权统治的成因，但是，这种垄断和专制集权统治一旦形成，维护这种垄断和统治就成为其首要的目的或者说利益所在。而为此目的，这个凌驾于无数村社小共同体之上的专制王权便会努力维持分散的小土地占有状态。这一方面有利于维护和扩大纳税耕地面积，增加以“地租和赋税合为一体”的方式获取的财政收入，另一方面则可以抑制有可能威胁自己专制统治权力的地方豪强的产生。与此同时，这个凌驾于无数村社小共同体之上的专制王权还会不遗余力地阻止村社小共同体与外部世界的交往交换，因为这种交往交换必然会瓦解村社共同体自给自足的自然经济。马克思曾区分了两种分工或交换：一种是基于不同共同体之间的自然差别的交换：“不同的共同体在各自的自然环境中，找到不同的生产资料和不同的生活资料。因此，它们的生产方式、生活方式和产品，也就各不相同。这种自然的差别，在共同体互相接触时引起了产品的互相交换，从而使这些产品逐渐转化为商品。”另一种与此正好相反，是在共同体内部（先是在家庭内部，然后是在氏族内部），由性别、年龄等差异而在生理的基础上产生的自然分工。前者由交换形成分工，后者由分工产生交换；前者可称为外部交换或分工，后者是内部分工或交换。但问题在于，如果没有外部交换的推动，基于生理差异的内部分工永远不可能改变共同体自给自足的自然经济。只要那无数分散的村社小共同体走不出这种自给自足的自然经济状态，社会也就难以走进现代世界的大门。而造成这种局面的关键，也就是马克思所说的“了解东方天国的一把真正的钥匙”，则在于东方社会与西方社会不同，在这里，于一个个村社共同体之上耸立着一个垄断全国土地所有权并占有所有剩余产品的，进而控制着整个社会的专制王权或者说专制集中的中央权力。

If the key to China’s difficulty in entering the door of the modern world lies first in the fact that above a society composed of many scattered village communities stands a despotic royal power, or a despotic, centralized central authority, that monopolizes national land ownership, appropriates all surplus products, and thereby controls the entire society, then it is obvious that the first step toward China’s modernization must be to overcome and remove this obstacle, i.e., to transform and reform this despotic royal power, or this despotic, centralized central authority, especially to change its monopoly over national land ownership and its domination over society. Only in this way can the vitality and creativity of society and the market be unleashed, and can people display the “great deeds and historical initiative” necessary for modernization. In this regard, China’s situation is quite different from that of European societies that first embarked on the path of modernization. In medieval Europe, there was no centralized government like China’s despotic royal power standing

如果说中国难以走进现代世界大门的关键，首先在于在一个个分散的村社共同体所总加而成的社会之上耸立着一个垄断全国土地所有权并占有所有剩余产品的，进而控制着整个社会的专制王权或者说专制、集中的中央权力，那么显而易见，中国要走向现代化的第一步，无疑是要克服、消除这个障碍，即要对这个专制王权或者说专制、集中的中央权力进行改造变革，特别是要改变其对于全国土地所有权的垄断以及对于社会的宰制。唯有如此，才能释放出社会和市场的活力和创造性，才能使人们表现出走向现代化所必需的“伟大的作为和历史首创精神”。在这一点上，中国的情形和率先走上现代化道路的欧洲社会相当不同。在欧洲的中世纪，并不存在一个像中国的专制王权那样凌驾于各个封建领主之上的中央集权政府。在那里，成为早期资本主义工商业发展的主要障碍的，正是这些封建领主本身。不过，领主与领主之间的各种竞争也为日后成为现代社会之滥觞的工商业自治城市的自由生长和发展开启或者说留下了空间。秦晖曾经就认为，西方（西欧）传统上是“小共同体本位”的社会，而中国传统上是一个“大共同体本位”的社会。西方从小共同体本位的传统社会向个体本位的现代社会演进需要经过一个“公民（市民）与王权的联盟”，而中国从大共同体本位的传统社会向现代社会的演进则要以“公民与小共同体的联盟”作为中介。在“公民（市民）与王权联盟”的情形下，为了避免公民（市民）被王权所利用，要走社会（小共同体）改造先行之路，即先在“传统”王权之下变小共同体本位社会为公民（市民）社会，而后再以公民（市民）社会组织为纽带制衡王权，变王朝国家为公民国家。而在“公民与小共同体联盟”的情形下，就要求走国家（大共同体）改造先行之路。即先在“传统”小共同体之上变传统国家为公民国家（民主国家），然后再以民主国家为依托制约“庄主”，变小共同体本位为公民（市民）社会组织。尽管秦晖主要着意的是与“国家”相对的“社会”现代转型，并且，对其所说的“公民与小共同体的联盟”在中国的现实可能性，笔者也持保留态度，但是，他认为的中国的现代化须走国家（大共同体）改造先行之路，笔者认为，无疑是正确的。

Four

四

Unlike Western modernization, which first had to break the stranglehold of numerous large and small feudal lords, China’s modernization must take the path of first reforming the state—it must first transform and change that autocratic, centralized central power. However, it must be pointed out that transforming and changing the autocratic power of the state does not mean weakening the role of state power (government) in the process of modernization. On the contrary, it means, on the basis of imposing necessary constraints on the operation of state power (government) through means such as law-based governance, further transforming it from a conservative, introverted, and self-serving power into a modernization-oriented, pioneering and enterprising power, so that it can play a more active and more forceful role in the process of modernization. Compared with the Western countries that first initiated modernization, in China’s modernization process, the state (government) must and inevitably will play a stronger role and assume a more proactive part.

与西方现代化先须破除大大小小的封建领主的掣肘不同，中国的现代化须走国家（state）改造先行之路，须先对那个专制、集中的中央权力进行改造变革。但是，必须指出，对国家专制权力的改造变革并不意味着要弱化国家权力（政府）在现代化进程中的作用，恰恰相反，是要在以法治等手段对国家权力（政府）的运作进行必要约束的基础上，进一步使其由保守、内敛、自私的权力，转变为现代化导向的、开拓进取型的权力，从而在现代化进程中发挥更加积极、更加强有力的作用。相比于率先开启现代化的西方国家，在中国的现代化进程中，国家（政府）必须也必然要发挥更强的作用，扮演更主动的角色。

The modernization paths of various countries and nations are influenced not only by the distinctive features they each formed in isolation from one another in the past, but also by the global configuration in which they find themselves when they embark on modernization. As noted earlier, after large-scale capitalist industry inaugurated “world history,” “the former state of isolation and self-containment of each country” [17]17 Marx and Engels, “Manifesto of the Communist Party” (1848). became impossible. No country or nation can exist and develop in isolation from this increasingly integrated world system. However, within this increasingly interconnected global division of labor, different countries and nations occupy different positions. As early as an 1848 speech on “free trade,” Marx analyzed that, in the “international division of labor” brought about by so-called “free trade,” already-modernized capitalist developed countries (the metropolitan powers) would do everything possible to turn their colonies into mere sources of cheap raw materials. They enrich themselves “at the expense of other nations,” just as, within their own countries, one class enriches itself at the expense of another. [18]18 Marx, “Speech on the Question of Free Trade” (1848). That is to say, within this increasingly integrated global configuration, the already-modernized capitalist developed countries occupy a dominant, controlling position, while colonial and semi-colonial countries like India and China are in a disadvantaged, controlled position. The former, for their own interests, inevitably deprive and sacrifice the latter. For the former, all relations with the latter are merely based on calculations of interest: safeguarding their own interests, expanding their own interests, and, for the sake of their own interests, depriving and sacrificing the interests of the latter. Just as Britain used guns and opium to pry open the gates of ancient China, it was not to bring modern civilization to China but for its own interests; therefore, anything “that does not bring in money” was not within Britain’s considerations. [19]19 Marx, “The Future Results of British Rule in India” (1853). Marx’s above analysis, or viewpoint, was later further elaborated in “dependency theory.” Dependency theory distinguishes between an “undeveloped” state and an “underdeveloped” state: the former refers to the state before the modernization of Western developed countries, when there were no developed countries anywhere in the world, nor an integrated but unequal global economic configuration; the latter refers to a state of disadvantage and subordination within an unequal global economic configuration. These are two entirely different states. Therefore, the modernization path and experience of Western developed capitalist countries, which started from an “undeveloped” state, are not replicable for later countries, including China, that are in an “underdeveloped” state—most obviously, the modernization of these countries and nations can never rely on the path of aggression and colonization.

各个国家、民族的现代化路径，除了会受到它们以往各自在相互隔绝的情况下形成的鲜明特征的影响，还会受到它们开启现代化之时所置身其中的世界格局的影响。如前所述，在资本主义大工业开启了“世界历史”之后，“各国以往自然形成的闭关自守的状态”就再也不可能了。任何国家、民族都不可能离开这个日益一体化的世界体系而孤立地存在和发展。但是，在这个日益联系在一起的世界分工体系中，不同国家、民族所处的地位是不一样的。早在1848年的一个关于“自由贸易”的演讲中，马克思就分析指出，在所谓的“自由贸易”引起的“国际分工”中，那些已经现代化的资本主义发达国家（宗主国）会想方设法地将其殖民地变成单纯的廉价原料生产地，它们通过“牺牲别国”而致富，就像在它们国内，一个阶级通过牺牲另一个阶级而致富一样。也就是说，在这个日益一体化的世界格局中，那些已经现代化的资本主义发达国家处于支配、控制的地位，而像印度、中国这样的殖民地半殖民地国家则处于劣势的、被控制的地位。前者为了自己的利益不可避免地会剥夺后者，牺牲后者。对于前者来说，与后者的一切关系都不过是基于利益的考量：维护自身的利益，扩大自身的利益，为了自己的利益而剥夺、牺牲后者的利益。就像英国用枪炮和鸦片打开古老中国的大门，绝不是为了给中国带来现代文明，而是为了自身的利益，因此一切“不能带来钱财的问题”都不在英国的考量范围之内。马克思的上述分析或者说观点后来在“依附理论”中得到了进一步的阐释。“依附理论”区分了“未发展”（undeveloped）状态和“不发达”（underdeveloped）状态：前者指的是西方发达国家现代化启动之前的状态，那时全世界都还没有发达国家，更没有一体化但不平等的世界经济格局；后者是指在一种不平等的世界经济格局中处于劣势的、受控制的地位的状态。这是两种全然不同的状态。因此，从“未发展”状态起步的西方发达资本主义国家所走过的现代化道路及其经验，在后来那些包括中国在内的处于“不发达”状态的国家那里并没有可复制性——最显而易见的，这些国家、民族的现代化绝不可能借助侵略殖民之路。

Countries, including ancient China, that are in an “underdeveloped” state must take their own path of modernization. For these countries, their subordinate and controlled position in the unequal global configuration has become a key factor preventing them from naturally and spontaneously moving toward modernization, as the developed countries could at their outset. Therefore, for these countries, the first priority of modernization is to change this relationship between themselves and the developed capitalist countries within the global configuration, including political sovereignty and independence, economic liberation from a controlled and subordinate position, and equal cooperation on this basis. All of this undoubtedly requires a stable, non-arbitrary, strong, and modernization-oriented state (government) to play a much stronger and more active role than the early modernizing Western countries (especially in the initial and early stages of their modernization), including defending political and economic independence, driving and controlling the pace and rhythm of the modernization process, organizing and formulating modernization plans and programs, and even directly intervening in certain economic construction activities. In this regard, the large-scale economic and social functions traditionally undertaken by Eastern states do not need to be simply terminated in their modernization process; rather, they require creative transformation under the guidance of modernization.

包括古老中国在内的处于“不发达”状态的国家必须走自己的现代化道路。对于这些国家来说，在不平等的世界格局中被支配被控制的地位已成了其无法像发达国家当初起步时那样自然自发地走向现代化的一个关键因素，因此，对于这些国家来说，现代化的第一项要务，就是要改变世界格局中自身与发达资本主义国家之间的这种关系，包括政治上的主权独立，经济上的摆脱被控制、被支配的地位以及在此前提下的平等合作等。而这些，无疑都需要一个稳定而不任性的、强有力的、现代化导向的国家（政府）发挥远比西方早发现代化国家更强、更积极的作用（特别是在其现代化的起步和早期阶段），包括捍卫政治和经济的独立、推动和控制现代化的进程节奏、组织制定现代化的规划方案，乃至直接介入某些经济建设活动等。就此而言，东方国家传统上承担的大规模的经济和社会职能，在其现代化进程中，需要的不是简单的终结，而是在现代化导向下的创造性转型。

V

五

If the unique characteristics of traditional Chinese society, as signified by the “Asiatic mode of production,” [20]20 “Asiatic mode of production” (亚细亚生产方式): A concept used by Marx to describe a distinct pre-capitalist social formation in which the state, rather than private landowners, controlled the means of production (especially land) and organized large-scale public works, such as irrigation. It has been a subject of debate among Marxists regarding its applicability to Chinese history. and China’s disadvantageous position in the modern global configuration when it embarked on modernization, indicate that China’s modernization can only take its own path and that taking the path of Western-style modernization is “impossible” (which, of course, does not mean that there are no commonalities in the means and paths of modernization among countries worldwide), then the problems inherent in Western-style modernization itself, as analyzed and pointed out by Marx, indicate that Western-style modernization is “undesirable.” “Impossibility” and “undesirability” together demonstrate the inevitability of Chinese-path modernization.

如果说，“亚细亚生产方式”所表征的传统中国社会的独特特征，以及中国开启现代化进程时在现代世界格局中所处的不利地位，表明了中国的现代化只能走自己的道路，表明了走西式现代化道路的“不可能”（当然，这并不意味着世界各国的现代化在手段路径上完全没有共通之处），那么，马克思所分析指出的西式现代化本身所存在的问题，则表明了西式现代化的“不可欲”。“不可能”和“不可欲”，共同表明了中国式现代化的必然性。

As noted earlier, in his analysis of modern capitalist society, Marx pointed out that this society, on the one hand, has created enormous material achievements, thereby providing greater real possibilities for realizing greater freedom and human emancipation; on the other hand, because these material achievements have been attained within the “narrow bourgeois form” and are also confined within this “narrow bourgeois form,” in the capitalist social formation, for the vast majority of people, these material achievements are not only not a precondition for their freedom but also confront them as an alienated force, constituting a limitation on their freedom rather than a condition for it. This is the fundamental problem of capitalist modernization, or Western-style modernization. To fully unleash the potential of modernization’s material achievements for human emancipation, this “narrow bourgeois form” must be broken and discarded. At the end of “The Future Results of British Rule in India,” Marx clearly states that bourgeois industry and commerce are creating the material conditions for a new world, just as geological changes created the earth’s surface. However, “only when a great social revolution has mastered the results of the bourgeois epoch, the world market and modern productive forces, and subjected them to the common control of the most advanced peoples, will human progress cease to resemble that hideous pagan idol who would not drink nectar except from the skulls of the slain.” [21]21 Marx, “The Future Results of British Rule in India” (1853).

如前所述，在分析现代资本主义社会时，马克思指出，这个社会一方面创造了巨大的物质成就，从而为实现更大的自由、为人的解放提供了更大的现实可能性；另一方面由于这些物质成就都是在“狭隘的资产阶级形式”下取得的，并且也被禁锢在这个“狭隘的资产阶级形式”之中，因而，在资本主义社会形态下，对于绝大多数人来说，这种物质成就不仅不是他获得自由的前提条件，而且还作为一种异己的力量和他离异，它们构成的是他们自由的限制而非条件。这就是资本主义现代化或者说西式现代化的根本问题。要充分地释放出现代化之物质成就对人的解放潜能，必须破除和抛弃这个“狭隘的资产阶级形式”。在《不列颠在印度统治的未来结果》一文的结尾，马克思明确指出，资产阶级的工业和商业正在为新世界创造物质条件，正如地质变革创造了地球表层一样，但是，“只有在伟大的社会革命支配了资产阶级时代的成果，支配了世界市场和现代生产力，并且使这一切都服从于最先进的民族的共同监督的时候，人类的进步才会不再像可怕的异教神怪那样，只有用被杀害者的头颅做酒杯才能喝下甜美的酒浆”。

The modernization governed by the “great social revolution” is, from today’s perspective, undoubtedly socialist modernization. In fact, scholars have long pointed out that the confrontation between the capitalist camp and the socialist camp formed after the Second World War can, from the present viewpoint, be understood as a struggle between two paths or models of modernization, rather than a difference between two stages of human social development. Undoubtedly, in certain specific techniques, means, and mechanisms for achieving modernization, the capitalist model has elements worth learning from for the socialist model, and China’s reform and opening up has already been and continues to explore and respond to this. However, overall, whether in the basic path of modernization or (especially) in the direction of modernization’s goals, the socialist model of modernization is undoubtedly more in line with the essence of human nature that Marx cared about. When discussing the “Chinese path” of Chinese-path modernization, people often tend to think of particularity as opposed to universality. In fact, Chinese-path modernization is less a matter of being relative to “universality” than of being relative to the “Western style” as a particular form of modernization. As mentioned earlier, the base and unjust way in which the British Empire dragged ancient China into the modern world is not a reason for China to refuse to enter the modern civilized world, but conversely, the inevitability of China’s modernization cannot turn this base injustice into noble justice. Socialist Chinese-path modernization, whether in its basic path or its goal direction, must reject this base injustice and must return to human freedom and liberation. Some basic connotations of Chinese-path modernization, such as common prosperity for all the people, coordination between material civilization and cultural-ethical progress, harmonious coexistence between humanity and nature, and taking the path of peaceful development, are the breaking and stripping away of the “narrow bourgeois form” of modernization, and are a return, in the Chinese way, to the universal direction of human history pointed out by Marx: human liberation. In this sense, Chinese-path modernization is not only possible but also desirable.

由“伟大的社会革命”所支配的现代化，在今天看来，无疑就是社会主义现代化。实际上，早就有学者指出，第二次世界大战以后形成的资本主义阵营和社会主义阵营的对峙，从现在的角度看，可以理解为两种现代化道路或模式之争，而不是人类社会两个发展阶段的不同。无疑，在实现现代化的一些具体的技术、手段、机制上，资本主义模式不乏值得社会主义模式借鉴之处，对此中国的改革开放已经并且还在继续做出自己的探索和回答。但是，从总体上看，无论在现代化的基本路径上，还是在（尤其在）现代化的目标方向上，社会主义的现代化模式无疑更加合乎马克思所关心的人性本质。在谈到中国式现代化的“中国式”时，人们往往比较容易想到与普遍性相对的特殊性，实际上，中国式现代化与其说是相对于“普遍性”而言，不如说是相对于作为一种现代化之特殊形态的“西式”而言。前面曾提到，英帝国将古老中国拖入现代世界之方式的卑劣不义不是中国拒绝进入现代文明世界的理由，但反过来，中国现代化的必然性也不能将这种卑劣不义变成高尚正义。社会主义的中国式现代化，无论在基本路径还是目标方向上都必须拒绝这种卑劣不义，都必须回归人的自由和解放。中国式现代化的一些基本内涵，如，全体人民共同富裕、物质文明和精神文明相协调、人与自然和谐共生、走和平发展道路等，是对现代化的“狭隘的资产阶级形式”的破除与剥离，是以中国的方式向马克思所指出的人的解放这一人类历史普遍方向的回归。在此意义上，中国式现代化，不仅仅是可能的，而且是可欲的。

Just as Marx distinguished between “the modern” and its “narrow bourgeois form,” Wallerstein, deeply influenced by Marx’s “world-historical outlook,” once distinguished two modernities: technological modernity and liberating modernity. The pursuits and essences of these two modernities are very different, even opposed to each other, yet historically they have been deeply entangled, leading to extreme confusion, vacillation, and much disappointment and disillusionment: initially, because both defenders of technological modernity and defenders of liberating modernity faced the same powerful political enemy, the two modernities were linked together, and the distinction between them was difficult to articulate; later, the hegemonic rule of liberal ideology (which co-opted nationalism) as the ideological symbol of the capitalist world system, fully committed to technological modernity, concealed the conflict between the two modernities while also suppressing liberating modernity; until today (from the rise of various Western new social movements in the 1960s to the present), the tension and conflict between the two modernities have finally been fully revealed, and thus liberating modernity, which had been suppressed in practice, has re-emerged. Wallerstein says: “Let false modernity (i.e., the modernity that liberal ideology falsely claims unites the two modernities but in fact suppresses liberating modernity—author’s note) come to an end, and let a true liberating modernity set sail!” As a socialist Chinese-path modernization unfolding in a country with a huge population and profound civilization, it will undoubtedly become a prominent, even the most prominent, manifestation of “a true liberating modernity setting sail.” The unfolding, advancement, and achievements of Chinese-path modernization will surely open new paths for human modernization, accumulate new experiences, write new chapters, push Marx’s envisioned human liberation to a new stage, and thereby promote the formation of a new form of human civilization. At the same time, as an open system of thought, Marxism, especially its ideas on the richness of forms of human civilization, the diversity of development paths, and the universality of development direction, will surely draw new nourishment, gain new life, and move toward a new stage and new form in the unfolding, advancement, and achievements of Chinese-path modernization.

如同马克思区分了“现代”与其“狭隘的资产阶级形式”，深受马克思的“世界历史观”影响的沃勒斯坦曾区分了两种现代性:技术现代性和解放现代性。这两种现代性的追求和实质非常不同，甚至互相对立，但是在历史上却又是深深地纠缠在一起，由此导致了极度的混淆、摇摆不定和诸多的失望与幻灭:最初由于无论是捍卫技术现代性者还是捍卫解放现代性者都面对着同样强大的政治敌人，因此两种现代性被串联在一起，其间的区别难以言表;后来作为资本主义世界体系之意识形态象征的、完全投身于技术现代性的自由主义意识形态（笼络了民族主义）的霸权统治，掩盖了两种现代性的冲突，同时也压制了解放现代性;直到今天（从20世纪60年代西方各种新社会运动兴起至今），两种现代性之间的紧张冲突终于彻底彰显，从而，一直在事实上被压抑的解放现代性才重新浮出水面。沃勒斯坦说:“让虚假的现代性（即自由主义意识形态所伪称的两种现代性同一而事实上压抑了解放现代性的现代性——引者注）终结吧，而让一种真正的解放现代性扬帆起航!”作为在人口规模巨大、文明积累深厚的国度展开的社会主义的中国式现代化，无疑必将成为“真正的解放现代性扬帆起航”的显著的、甚至最为显著的表征。中国式现代化的展开、推进和成就，必将为人类现代化开辟新道路，积累新经验，书写新篇章，将马克思所憧憬的人的解放推向新阶段，并进而促成人类文明新形态的形成。与此同时，作为一种开放的思想体系，马克思主义，特别是其关于人类文明形态的丰富性、发展路径的多样性、发展方向的普遍性的思想，则必将在中国式现代化的展开、推进和成就中汲取新养料，获得新生命，迈向新阶段新形态。

(Author’s biography: Wang Xiaozhang, Professor and Doctoral Supervisor at the School of Public Administration, Hangzhou Normal University, Member of the Teaching Steering Committee for Sociology Majors under the Ministry of Education)

（作者简介：王小章, 杭州师范大学公共管理学院教授，博士生导师，教育部高等学校社会学类专业教学指导委员会委员）

Online editor: Paul

网络编辑：保罗