The Dialectical Method and the Wisdom of the Mean in the Exploration of the Chinese-Path Modernization Road

The *Decision of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China on Further Deepening Reform Comprehensively to Advance Chinese-Path Modernization* (hereinafter referred to as the *Decision*), deliberated and adopted at the Third Plenary Session of the 20th Central Committee of the Communist Party of China, not only systematically plans the overall deployment for comprehensively deepening reform and advancing Chinese-path modernization, but also highlights the entry points and focal points of reform, emphasizing the traction role of institutional and mechanism reforms, strategic and overall major reforms, and economic system reforms, so as to achieve the effectiveness of reform. The *Decision* is a programmatic document guiding the comprehensive deepening of reform under Xi Jinping Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era, profoundly embodying the theoretical exploration of the Chinese Communists in combining Marxist dialectics with Chinese wisdom. The *Decision* emphasizes that advancing Chinese-path modernization must strengthen cultural confidence, and take cultural confidence as an important condition for realizing Chinese-path modernization. The Communist Party of China, as the vanguard organization of advanced elements in modern and contemporary times, both inherits and innovates the excellent traditional Chinese culture, and adheres to and develops Marxism. The deep integration of Marxism with the excellent traditional Chinese culture has formed a powerful theoretical force, guiding China to open up a uniquely attractive modernization road, leading China to ride the wind and waves and strive to be at the forefront in the vast tide of world industrialization.

党的二十届三中全会审议通过的《中共中央关于进一步全面深化改革 推进中国式现代化的决定》（以下简称《决定》），不仅系统性规划了全面深化改革和推进中国式现代化的总体部署，还突显了改革的切入点与着力点，强调了体制机制改革、战略性全局性重大改革以及经济体制改革的牵引作用，以实现改革的实效性。《决定》是习近平新时代中国特色社会主义思想引领全面深化改革的纲领性文件，深刻体现了中国共产党人将马克思主义辩证法与中华智慧相结合的理论探索。《决定》强调推进中国式现代化必须要增强文化自信，要将文化自信作为实现中国式现代化的重要条件。中国共产党作为近现代先进分子的先锋组织，既传承和创新了中华优秀传统文化，又坚持和发展了马克思主义，马克思主义与中华优秀传统文化的深度融合，形成了一股强大的理论力量，指导中国开辟出一条独具魅力的现代化道路，引领中国在世界工业化的浩瀚浪潮中乘风破浪，奋勇争先。

The success of Chinese-path modernization in theory and practice is, to a great extent, attributable to the Communists’ conscious practice of the principle of the “Two Integrations.” [1]1 The “Two Integrations” refers to the integration of the basic tenets of Marxism with China’s specific realities and with the best of traditional Chinese culture. The “Two Integrations” have opened up a new realm for Chinese-path modernization, while the leap in the realm and the practical advancement of Chinese-path modernization theoretically require the conscious and in-depth promotion of the “Second Integration,” [2]2 The “Second Integration” refers specifically to the integration of the basic tenets of Marxism with the best of traditional Chinese culture. so as to “enhance the country’s cultural soft power and the influence of Chinese culture.” An important manifestation of the “Second Integration” at the methodological level lies in the organic integration of Marxist dialectics with traditional Chinese dialectical wisdom. Among them, the wisdom of the Mean, as a component of traditional Chinese dialectical wisdom, under the influence of Marxist dialectics, transcends the limitations of class standpoint, value orientation, moral concepts, and other aspects, further highlighting its scientific nature in methodology, practicality, and distinctive national characteristics. Under their mutual interaction, Marxist dialectics is able to integrate Chinese wisdom, realizing its Sinicized transformation and development, thereby enabling Chinese-path modernization to more properly handle many opposing contradictions in the course of its progress, to draw on the strengths of others, to apply them flexibly, and to continuously promote the exploration and innovation of Chinese-path modernization guided by scientific methodology.

中国式现代化在理论及实践上的成功在极大程度上得益于共产党人对“两个结合”原则的自觉践行。“两个结合”开辟了中国式现代化的新境界，而中国式现代化的境界跃升与实践进阶，又在理论上要求自觉与深入推进“第二个结合”，以此来“提升国家文化软实力和中华文化影响力”。“第二个结合”在方法论维度上的重要表现就在于将马克思主义辩证法同中华传统辩证智慧有机融合。其中，中庸智慧作为中华传统辩证智慧的组成成分，在马克思主义辩证法影响下，超越了阶级立场、价值取向、道德观念等层面的局限，进一步彰显了其在方法论上的科学性、实践性和鲜明的民族特色，在其相互作用下，马克思主义辩证法得以融合中国智慧，实现了中国化的转型与发展，从而使得中国式现代化在行进过程中能够更妥善地处理诸多对立性的矛盾，博采众长，灵活运用，以科学的方法论为引导持续推进了中国式现代化的探索创新。

I. The Historical Conditions and Theoretical Premises for Chinese-Path Modernization to Blaze a New Trail

一、中国式现代化独辟蹊径的历史条件与理论前提

Chinese-path modernization is not an original model of modernization; it is a socialist modernization guided by Marxist theory, gradually formed through independent exploration under the impact and impetus of the world modernization wave. The impact of the modernization wave on China and the initiative of China’s advanced elements in independent exploration constitute the historical conditions for Chinese-path modernization to blaze a new trail. Modernization is not the product of the isolated development of a regional civilization; it should be examined within the broad perspective of global human history, as the result of the mutual integration, collision, and co-evolution of different civilizations in political, economic, cultural, and other aspects. The qualitative change in Western historical traditions under the influence of the globalization wave promoted the initiation of the world modernization wave, thereby causing Western countries to occupy the position of pioneers and advanced players in the modernization wave. In a series of world events following the Age of Discovery and the opening of new sea routes, Western countries also underwent differentiation in the course of their development. Under the combined effect of domestic and international factors, Britain took the lead in achieving modernization and, driven by the Industrial Revolution, became the first industrialized society in human history. The British Industrial Revolution not only triggered a fundamental change in the mode of production but also extended this change to multiple fields such as politics, society, and culture. It powerfully promoted population growth and urbanization, reshaped social structures, accelerated the vigorous development of capitalism, and further deepened industrialization and urbanization. Britain’s economic transformation induced changes in the political sphere, including the shift in power between old and new classes, the establishment of a representative democratic system, the expansion of overseas colonies and international hegemony, the rise of urbanization and civil society, innovations in transportation technology, and, culturally, the scientization and explosive growth of natural knowledge. These changes not only enabled Britain to take the lead in entering an industrialized society but also provided the preconditions for the initial formation of the modernization wave.

中国式现代化并非一种原生的现代化模式，它是在世界现代化浪潮的冲击和带动下，通过自主探索，逐步形成的以马克思主义理论为指导的社会主义现代化。现代化浪潮对中国的冲击以及中国先进分子自主探索的主动性，构成了中国式现代化独辟蹊径的历史条件。现代化并非某个地域性文明孤立发展的产物，应将其置于全球人类历史的广阔视野中审视，为不同文明在政治、经济、文化等方面相互交融、碰撞与共进的结果。西方历史传统在全球化浪潮影响下发生的质变，推动了世界范围内现代化浪潮的启动，并由此而导致西方各国在现代化浪潮中处于先驱者及先进者位置。在地理大发现及新航路开辟后的一系列世界性事件中，西方各国也在发展进程中发生分化，在国内外多种因素共同作用下，英国率先实现了现代化，并在工业革命的推动下成为人类历史上第一个工业化社会。英国工业革命不仅引发了生产方式的根本变革，还将这种变革延伸至政治、社会、文化等多个领域。它有力地推动了人口增长与城市化进程，重塑了社会结构，加速了资本主义的蓬勃发展，并进一步促进了工业化和城市化的深入。英国的经济变革诱发了政治上新旧阶级力量的转变、代议制民主政体的确立、海外殖民与国际霸权的扩大化，城市化及市民社会的兴起、交通运输技术的革新，以及文化上自然知识科学化及其爆炸式增长等。这些变革既使英国率先步入工业化社会，也为现代化浪潮的最初形成提供了前提条件。

The innovation diffusion theory in communication studies holds that innovation diffusion is the process by which new things are promoted, disseminated, and gradually adopted by the audience within a social system. The audience’s perception of an innovation is deeply influenced by the initiator. If an innovation possesses obvious relative advantages, high compatibility, low complexity, strong trialability, and observability, its diffusion speed will be faster and its adoption rate higher. In the field of modernization, any late-developing country’s perception of modernization, including its concepts, forms, methods, and application models, is inevitably influenced by the demonstration effect of “forerunners,” especially the “originator.” Moreover, countries with different civilizational attributes are affected by the modernization wave to varying degrees in terms of sequence and depth. After Britain, the modernization of other Western countries was invariably influenced by the British modernization model. The British Industrial Revolution gave rise to the first wave of modernization, and the ensuing “technological diffusion, world market, and economic growth momentum first opened the way for latecomer modernization in Europe and North America, which belonged to the same Christian civilization world.” [3]3 This is a quotation from a Chinese scholarly work on modernization theory, likely referencing the work of Luo Rongqu or similar authors. For example, Belgium, Switzerland, and other countries, driven by the British Industrial Revolution, quickly entered modernization. Other European countries, due to the complexity of their respective national conditions, were relatively slow in accepting the influence of British modernization and advancing their own modernization. Nevertheless, because of the competitive relationships among Western countries in the global colonization wave and the violent means of resolving their contradictions, they still accelerated the modernization process in certain aspects and advanced their respective modernization processes as a whole. The modernization wave gradually spread from the core European region to the periphery, “transcending Europe to spread to heterogeneous cultural regions,” [4]4 This is a quotation from a Chinese scholarly work on modernization theory, likely referencing the work of Luo Rongqu or similar authors. and then formed a second wave of modernization globally, finally creating a powerful modernization wave worldwide that fundamentally changed the development trajectory of each country’s history and prompted their conscious development toward modernization. In this regard, an important historical condition for countries around the world to reach modernization is to take the capitalist modernization model established by Britain under the drive of the Industrial Revolution as a reference, and to achieve profound and extensive social changes and civilizational leaps under the influence of the modernization wave. Similarly, the opening up of the Chinese-path modernization road is also fundamentally constrained and influenced by this condition.

传播学的创新扩散理论认为，创新扩散是新事物在社会系统内推广、传播并逐渐被受众采纳的过程。受众对某项创新的认知深受初创者影响，创新若具备明显的相对优势、高度的兼容性、较低的复杂性、强大的可试性和可观察性，则其扩散速度将更快，采用率也将更高。在现代化领域，任何后发国家对现代化的认知，包括其概念、形态、方法和应用模式等，都不可避免地受到“先行者”，特别是“首创者”示范效应的影响，且不同文明属性的国家受到现代化浪潮的影响存在着先后之别与深浅之分。英国之后，西方其他国家的现代化无一不受英国现代化模式的影响。英国工业革命催生了第一次现代化浪潮，随之而来的“技术传播、世界市场、经济增长势头，首先为欧洲、北美那些同属基督教文明世界的后起现代化开辟了道路”。如比利时、瑞士等国在英国工业革命的带动下快速迈入现代化。欧洲其他国家则因各自国情的复杂性，在接受英国现代化影响并推进自身现代化的过程中，步伐相对迟缓。尽管如此，西方各国因为在全球殖民化浪潮中的竞争性关系及彼此矛盾解决的暴力性手段，仍然在某些方面加速了现代化进程，并整体性地推进了各自的现代化进程，现代化浪潮逐渐从欧洲核心地区向周围扩散，逐渐“越出欧洲向异质文化地区传播”，继而又在全球范围内形成了第二次现代化浪潮，最后在全球范围内形成了一股强劲的现代化浪潮，在根本上改变了各国历史的发展轨迹，促成了各国面向现代化的自觉发展。就此而论，世界各国通往现代化的重要历史条件就是以英国在工业革命驱动下建立的资本主义现代化模式为参照，在现代化浪潮的影响下实现深刻广泛的社会变革和文明跃升。同样，中国式现代化道路的开辟，也在根本上受到这一条件的制约与影响。

Viewed from the developmental thread of Chinese history, the wave of modernization propelled the disintegration and transformation of China’s traditional feudal society, providing the necessary historical conditions for Chinese-path modernization to carve out a unique path. However, before frequent contact with Western colonizers, Chinese society still maintained its traditional overall structure and the inertial characteristics of its politics, economy, culture, and other aspects. Engels pointed out that “tradition is a great retarding force, the vis inertiae of history.” [5]5 Friedrich Engels, “Letter to Conrad Schmidt,” October 27, 1890, in Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, *Selected Works* (Beijing: People’s Publishing House, 2012), Vol. 4, p. 476. As an ancient civilization with a long history, China possesses its own unique historical development trajectory and laws of social development, with deep-rooted and self-contained social structures and cultural accumulations. China’s traditional feudal society lacked both the economic base and the class forces to support the development of capitalism; at the same time, it also lacked the social soil and cultural atmosphere capable of sustaining bourgeois democracy. During the period 1640–1840, when the West was creating modern productive forces, “in the same period, China remained unchanged: tens of millions of toiling, struggling small peasants bore generation after generation of scholars who sang the praises of the golden ages of Yao and Shun [6]6 Yao and Shun were legendary sage-emperors in ancient Chinese tradition, often invoked as models of benevolent rule. and discoursed on textual criticism of artifacts or the principles of human nature and moral duty.” [7]7 Chen Xulu, *The Modern Chinese Society* (Shanghai: Shanghai People’s Publishing House, 1992), Vol. 1, p. 43. The autocratic rule of the feudal monarchy, the stability of the small-peasant economy, and the conservatism, closure, and arrogance of ideas and concepts together formed a tight network that bound the development of traditional Chinese society. Although in the late feudal period the channels for acquiring new foreign knowledge and things were not completely blocked, due to the psychological influence of cultural superiority and xenophobia, from the ruling class and bureaucratic scholar-officials down to the common people, most foreign goods and ideas were regarded as “clever tricks and strange skills” [8]8 A phrase from the Qing dynasty, used by conservative officials to dismiss Western technology as trivial or harmful. and “heresies and fallacies.” At that time, China was “a world full of pedantic and stubborn scholars steeped in feudalism,” and “every measure or facility with a creative significance attracted abuse and provoked controversy,” “often emerging with difficulty amid opposition, and some perishing amid opposition.” [9]9 Chen Xulu, *The Modern Chinese Society*, Vol. 1, p. 43.

从中国历史的发展脉络来看，现代化浪潮推动了中国传统封建社会的瓦解与转型，为中国式现代化独辟蹊径提供了必要的历史条件。但在与西方殖民者频繁接触之前，中国社会依然维持其传统的整体架构及政治、经济、文化等多方面的惯性特征。恩格斯指出“传统是一种巨大的阻力，是历史的惯性力”，中国作为一个历史悠久的文明古国，有着自身独特的历史发展轨迹及社会发展规律，在社会结构及文化积累上根深蒂固且自成体系。中国传统封建社会在经济基础、阶级力量上均不足以支撑资本主义的发展，同时，也缺乏能够支撑资产阶级民主的社会土壤和文化氛围。在西方创造现代生产力的1640—1840年，“同一时间里的中国却景物依旧：成千上万胼手胝足、辗转沟壑的小农背负着一代一代歌讴唐虞盛世，高谈名物考据或性心理义的士人”。封建君主政体的专制统治、小农经济的稳固性，以及思想观念的保守、封闭与自大，共同构成了一张束缚中国传统社会发展的严密网络。尽管封建社会末期人们获取国外新知识、新事物的渠道并未完全阻隔，但由于文化优越主义和排外主义心理作祟，上至统治阶级和官僚士大夫，下至黎民百姓，大多外来物品和思想都被视为“奇技淫巧”和“异端邪说”，那时中国“天下滔滔，多的是泥古而顽梗的士人，在封建主义充斥的天地里”，“每一件带有创置意义的举措设施都曾招来詈责，激成争论”，“它们常常在反对声中艰难地出世，其中一部分又在反对声中夭折”。

The turning point where China’s historical trajectory underwent a fundamental change was the Opium War. [10]10 The Opium War (1839–1842) was a military conflict between Qing China and Britain, triggered by China’s efforts to suppress the opium trade. It ended with China’s defeat and the Treaty of Nanjing, which opened several ports to foreign trade and ceded Hong Kong Island. Although the Opium War brought a series of security crises to Chinese society, including economic exploitation, political oppression, and cultural invasion, making China’s social transformation extremely slow and arduous, under the sweep of the modernization wave it still fundamentally changed China’s social form and historical direction, indirectly promoting China’s transition from an agrarian civilization to a modern industrial civilization. First, the industrial turn in the economic sphere. The huge indemnities and ruling crisis caused by defeat accelerated the disintegration of the small-peasant economy and also forced the ruling class to attempt to alleviate economic pressure by establishing government-run military enterprises and civilian enterprises, such as the Anqing Arsenal and the early Hanyang Iron Works. [11]11 The Anqing Arsenal (est. 1861) was one of the first modern military factories in China, part of the Self-Strengthening Movement. The Hanyang Iron Works (est. 1890) was a major iron and steel plant. As the efficiency of government-run enterprises declined and the domestic economic system fell apart, a large number of enterprises jointly run by officials and merchants or supervised by officials and run by merchants followed, such as the jointly run China Merchants Steam Navigation Company and the officially supervised Shanghai Machine Weaving Bureau. [12]12 The China Merchants Steam Navigation Company (est. 1872) was a major shipping enterprise. The Shanghai Machine Weaving Bureau (est. 1878) was a textile mill. Both were part of the Self-Strengthening Movement’s industrial initiatives. These emerging enterprises, characterized by mechanized production, laid a solid foundation for the development of modern Chinese capitalist industry and commerce. Second, the democratic turn in the political sphere. The Opium War prompted China’s advanced elements to begin independently exploring democratic ideas and democratic political systems. Although the pre-modern Chinese thought opposing autocracy and modern democratic thought “had some points of tacit understanding,” “modern Chinese democratic thought did not directly emerge from the ideas of Huang Zongxi and others,” [13]13 Huang Zongxi (1610–1695) was a late Ming-early Qing Confucian scholar whose writings criticized autocratic monarchy and influenced later anti-despotic thought. but rather “took the transmission of Western ideas and political systems as its starting point.” [14]14 Xiong Yuezhi, “The Spread of Western Learning and the Rise of Modern Chinese Democratic Thought,” *Academic Monthly*, 1995, No. 6. Third, the urban turn in the social sphere. After the Opium War, the traditional household registration system and residential patterns were gradually broken. With the development of industry and commerce and the application of modern transport technologies such as railways, personal dependency relations gradually weakened, the speed of population movement accelerated, a number of large cities and small towns emerged one after another, and the level of urbanization continued to rise. China’s urbanization rate increased from 6.5% in 1820 to 8.2% in 1893, and then to 10.6% by 1949; from 1820 to 1949, China’s urbanization rate experienced significant growth. [15]15 Data from *China’s Urbanization: A Historical Perspective* (Beijing: Social Sciences Academic Press, 2013), p. 45. Fourth, the scientific turn in the ideological and cultural sphere. The traditional Confucian-dominated ideological and cultural system could no longer cope with the many social contradictions brought by the Opium War, which provided an external opportunity for the cultural sphere to seek new changes and move toward scientization. Some members of the scholar-official class were the first to keenly perceive the shortcomings of Chinese learning and the strengths of Western learning, and they set about translating, introducing, and disseminating Western scientific knowledge. The populace gradually shifted slowly from believing in ghosts, gods, and superstitions to believing in science and reason.

中国历史轨迹发生根本转变的拐点是鸦片战争。尽管鸦片战争向中国社会带来了经济剥削、政治压迫和文化入侵等一系列安全危机，使得中国社会转型极其缓慢且举步维艰，但在现代化浪潮的席卷下，依然从根本上改变了中国的社会形态与历史走向，间接地推动了中国由农耕文明向现代工业文明转变：一是经济领域的工业化转向。战败导致的巨额赔偿和统治危机加速了小农经济的解体，也迫使统治阶级尝试通过创办官办的军事企业和民用企业来缓解经济压力，如安庆军械所和早期汉阳铁厂。由于官办企业效益每况愈下和国内经济体系支离破碎，一大批官商合办、官督商办的企业接踵而至，如官商合办的轮船招商局、官督商办的上海机器织布局。这些以机械化生产为显著特征的新兴企业，为中国近现代资本主义工商业的发展奠定了坚实的基石。二是政治领域的民主化转向。鸦片战争促使中国先进分子开始自主探索民主理念和民主政体。尽管中国古代反对专制主义的思想与近代意义的民主思想“不无灵犀相通之处”，但“近代中国的民主思想不是从黄宗羲等人的思想直接孕育出来的”，而是以“传述西方思想及其政制为起点的”。三是社会领域的城市化转向。鸦片战争后传统户籍制度和居住格局被逐步打破，随着工商业的发展和铁路等现代运输技术的运用，人身依附关系逐渐减弱，人口流动速度加快，一批大城市与小城镇相继涌现，城市化水平持续攀升，中国城市化率从1820年的6.5%增长至1893年的8.2%，再到1949年已达到10.6%，从1820年到1949年，中国的城市化率经历了显著的增长。四是思想文化领域的科学化转向。传统儒学主导的思想文化体系已无法应对鸦片战争带来的诸多社会矛盾，这为文化领域寻求新变革、迈向科学化提供了外在契机。士大夫群体中的部分人士率先敏锐地察觉到中学之短与西学之长，着手翻译、引进和传播西方的科学知识，民众逐渐由信奉鬼神迷信缓慢转变到信奉科学理性。

In their exploratory journey facing the world, China’s advanced elements, relying on their profound cultural traditions, awakened national consciousness, consciously carried out exploration, and, based on grasping the principle of historical initiative, continuously deepened their concrete understanding of modernization, thereby forming advanced theories guiding the practice of modernization. Therefore, the conscious exploration of modernization by China’s advanced elements and the historical initiative they displayed are important historical conditions enabling Chinese-path modernization to carve out a unique path. Although China’s pursuit of modernization can be traced back to Lin Zexu’s “opening his eyes to see the world” and Wei Yuan’s “learning the superior skills of the barbarians to control them,” [16]16 Lin Zexu (1785–1850) was a Qing official who led the campaign against the opium trade and is credited with initiating the study of the West. Wei Yuan (1794–1857) was a scholar who advocated learning Western military technology to resist foreign powers; his phrase “shi yi chang ji yi zhi yi” appears in his work *Illustrated Treatise on the Maritime Kingdoms*. “the superior skills of the barbarians” were, for most of the late Qing period, limited to strong ships and cannons, acoustics, optics, chemistry, and electricity, and never touched on the various matters of modern state construction. After the defeat in the First Sino-Japanese War, [17]17 The First Sino-Japanese War (1894–1895) was a conflict between Qing China and Japan over influence in Korea, ending with China’s defeat and the Treaty of Shimonoseki, which ceded Taiwan and opened more ports. China’s advanced elements realized the critical significance of modern state construction for national salvation and survival. They recognized the decisive role of modern political factors in national independence and national prosperity, and therefore resolved to learn from the West at the political level and construct a modern state conforming to the Western model. From the defeat in the First Sino-Japanese War to the abdication of the Qing emperor, although both the reformists and the revolutionaries advocated emulating the West politically, their theoretical reserves and political stances differed. The reformists still retained a strong traditional hue in theory; for example, Kang Youwei attempted “to construct a reform theory from the New Text Confucian classics,” [18]18 Kang Youwei (1858–1927) was a leading reformist scholar who used reinterpretations of Confucian classics, particularly the New Text school, to justify political reform. seeking legitimacy for political change from Confucian classical studies. The revolutionaries had mastered a relatively complete and quite radical system of Western political theoretical knowledge; they firmly advocated that “the American democratic system is the most superior” and believed that “the Chinese people should emulate the American-style democratic system.” [19]19 Sun Yat-sen, *The Complete Works of Sun Yat-sen* (Beijing: Zhonghua Book Company, 1981), Vol. 1, p. 86. They clearly proposed that violent revolution should be used as a means to push Chinese politics onto a Westernized democratic path. However, as capitalism entered the imperialist stage at the end of the 19th century, Western powers carried out deep economic aggression and colonial exploitation of China through means such as capital export, the establishment of concessions, competition for railway rights, and acquisition of mining rights. These actions not only promoted the modernization process of the Western countries themselves but also deeply constrained the political Westernization of the late Qing and early Republic under the colonial system. The hegemonic plundering behavior of the Western powers severely damaged the historical process of China learning from the West in modern state construction.

中国先进分子在面向世界的探索征途中，依托深厚的文化传统，唤醒了民族意识，自觉开展探索，并基于把握历史主动性原则，不断深化对现代化的具体认识，进而形成了指导现代化实践的先进理论。因此，中国先进分子对现代化进行的自觉探索及其展现的历史主动性，是中国式现代化能够独辟蹊径的重要历史条件。中国对现代化的追求固然可以追溯到林则徐“开眼看世界”及魏源“师夷之长技以制夷”，但“夷之长技”在晚清绝大多数时段内仅限于坚船利炮及声光化电，未尝触及现代国家建构的诸项事宜。甲午战败后，中国先进分子才意识到现代国家建构对于救亡图存的关键意义，他们认识到现代政治因素在民族独立和国家富强中的决定性作用，因此决心在政治层面学习西方，构建符合西方范式的现代国家。自甲午战败至清帝逊位，尽管维新派和革命派都主张在政治上效法西方，但其政治理论储备和政治立场均各有不同，维新派在理论上还保留着较强的传统色泽，如康有为试图“从今文经学中建构改革理论”，从儒家经学中为政治变革寻求合法性依据。革命派已掌握了相对完善且颇为激进的西方政治理论知识体系，他们坚决主张“美国的民主制度最为优越”，并认为“中国人应当效仿美国式的民主制度”，他们明确提出，应以暴力革命为手段，推动中国政治走向西方化的民主道路。但随着19世纪末资本主义进入帝国主义阶段，西方列强通过资本输出、租界设立、铁路权争夺和采矿权获取等方式，对中国进行了深入的经济侵略和殖民剥削。这些行为不仅推动了西方国家自身的现代化进程，也使清末民初的政治西化深受殖民体系的制约。西方列强的强权掠夺行为严重破坏了中国向西方学习现代国家建构的历史进程。

Marxism, as a scientific theory that comprehensively critiques and historically transcends capitalism, not only provides a theoretical weapon for advanced elements in their exploration of modernization, but also, while endowing new analytical perspectives, value orientations, and analytical paradigms, lays a solid foundation in worldview and methodology for socialist modernization. This is fully reflected in the construction of socialist modernization with Chinese characteristics; Marxist theory concerning modernity provides theoretical guidance for China’s modernization, promoting the comprehensive development of socialist economic construction, political construction, cultural construction, social construction, and ecological civilization construction. On the one hand, Marxism provides China’s advanced elements with a new theoretical perspective and pathway orientation for exploring modernization. The theoretical system of Marxism profoundly critiques the capitalist mode of production and its development model, revealing the inherent contradictions and stage-specific characteristics in the modernization process of various capitalist countries. For example, it elucidates that the structural conflicts inherent in the fundamental contradiction of capitalism lead to frequent periodic economic crises and create a fundamental antagonistic pattern between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. Since the bourgeoisie ascended the historical stage as a rising stratum and subsequently rose to become the ruling class monopolizing state power, capitalist countries have undergone a historical evolution from simple cooperation to the era of electrification, and then to state monopoly capitalism. Each historical stage not only reveals the complex and intricate circumstances of capitalist development but also reflects changes in the mode and intensity of bourgeois exploitation. At the same time, from the frequent occurrence of social unrest and economic crises, one can discern chaos and disorder in the political ecology, power structure, and operational logic of capitalist society. Marxism not only provides China’s advanced elements with a new perspective for observing and analyzing the historical process of modernization, but also outlines a scientific blueprint for socialist modernization that transcends Western capitalism, and theoretically closely links the realization of modernization, the transcendence of capitalism, and the liberation of all humanity. “China’s problems are originally world problems, yet if those engaged in transforming China do not focus on transforming the world, then the transformation they carry out will inevitably be narrow-minded and will hinder the world.” [20]20 This quotation is from the early Chinese Marxist Li Dazhao (1889–1927), reflecting the view that China’s problems are inseparable from the global capitalist system. Marxism not only provides a scientific socialist theoretical explanation for analyzing the modernization of capitalist countries, but also demonstrates the advanced nature of scientific socialist theory in the practice of Chinese-path modernization. Chinese-path modernization runs through the basic principles of scientific socialism. Under the strong leadership of the Communist Party of China, it is rooted in China’s specific national conditions, ingeniously charts a new course of modernization that suits its own development needs, reveals the innovative vitality and broad prospects of scientific socialism in the modernization process, and exposes the historical trend of the inevitable demise of the capitalist road due to its internal and external fundamental contradictions. As capitalist countries become increasingly reactionary, the pursuit of national independence and modernization in colonial and semi-colonial countries can only be realized through “the road of socialist or people’s democratic national industrialization.” [21]21 This phrase, “the road of socialist or people’s democratic national industrialization,” is a formulation from Mao Zedong, emphasizing that national independence and industrialization in colonial and semi-colonial countries must follow a socialist or people’s democratic path, not a capitalist one. China’s choice of modernization road thus extricated itself from the predicament of wholesale Westernization, demonstrated the characteristic of independence and self-determination, and effectively avoided the potential risk of a “color revolution.” [22]22 “Color revolution” refers to a term used by the CPC to describe externally orchestrated, non-violent regime change movements, often associated with post-Soviet states, which it views as a threat to political stability.

马克思主义作为全面批判和历史性超越资本主义的科学理论，不仅为现代化探索中的先进分子提供了理论利器，而且在赋予新的分析视域、价值导向和分析范式的同时，为社会主义现代化奠定了坚实的世界观和方法论基础。这一点在中国特色社会主义现代化建设中得到了充分体现，马克思主义关于现代性的理论为中国的现代化提供了理论指导，推动了社会主义经济建设、政治建设、文化建设、社会建设和生态文明建设的全面发展。一方面，马克思主义为中国先进分子探索现代化提供了新的理论视域和路径导向。马克思主义的理论体系深刻批判了资本主义生产方式及其发展模式，揭示了资本主义各国现代化历程中的固有矛盾和阶段性特征。例如，它阐明了资本主义基本矛盾所固有的结构性冲突致使周期性经济危机频发，且造成无产阶级与资产阶级的根本对立格局。自资产阶级以新兴阶层之姿登上历史舞台，继而跃升为垄断国家政权的统治阶层，资本主义国家历经了从简单协作至电气化时期，再到国家垄断资本主义的历史演进。各历史阶段不仅揭示了资本主义发展错综复杂的情况，也反映了资产阶级剥削模式与强度的变化，同时，从社会动荡和经济危机的频繁发生中，可以洞察到资本主义政治生态、权力架构和社会运行逻辑等方面的混乱与无序。马克思主义不仅为中国先进分子提供了观察和分析现代化历史进程的新视角，还规划了超越西方资本主义的科学社会主义现代化蓝图，并在理论上将实现现代化、超越资本主义与全人类的解放紧密相连。“中国问题本来是世界的问题，然从事中国改造不着眼于世界改造，则其所改造必为狭义，必妨碍世界”。马克思主义不仅提供了一种分析资本主义国家现代化的科学社会主义理论解释，而且在中国式现代化的实践中展现了科学社会主义理论的先进性。中国式现代化贯穿着科学社会主义的基本原则，在中国共产党的坚强领导下，扎根于中国特殊国情，匠心独运地擘画出契合自身发展需求的现代化崭新航道，显露出科学社会主义在现代化进程中的革新活力与广阔远景，并揭示了资本主义道路因内外部根本矛盾而必将灭亡的历史趋势。在资本主义各国日益趋于反动的情况下，殖民地与半殖民地国家的民族独立及现代化追求，唯有通过“社会主义或人民民主主义的国家工业化道路”方能实现。中国现代化的道路选择因此摆脱了全盘西化的困境，彰显了独立自主的特性，并有效避免了“颜色革命”的潜在风险。

On the other hand, Marxist dialectical materialism and materialist dialectics provide a scientific worldview and methodology for China’s socialist modernization. The wisdom of the mean inherent in traditional dialectics has also come into substantive contact with the Marxist worldview and methodology, providing an important supplement to the Sinicization of Marxist dialectics. The doctrine of the mean, which emerged from feudal society, carries a certain metaphysical color. When dealing with contradictory things, it overemphasizes unity and weakens struggle; in terms of thinking methods, it has a tendency toward “eclecticism” and carries limitations such as “feudal hierarchicalism” that “keeps to one’s proper station and does not overstep boundaries.” Under the scientific guidance of Marxism, the doctrine of the mean has been able to overcome its original limitations, revealing a more scientific connotation and mode of expression. Moreover, the wisdom of the mean is compatible with materialist dialectics. The moderate thinking of the golden mean, the view of the unity and transformation of opposites, and the idea of seeking the mean and harmony between the two sides of a contradiction contain the scientific methodology and regular patterns of materialist dialectics. The traditional Chinese wisdom of the mean has had a profound impact on Marxist dialectics, making its localized characteristics increasingly prominent. The deep integration of Marxist dialectics and traditional Chinese wisdom of the mean first enabled China’s advanced elements to master the dialectical method of understanding and handling the relationship between China and the world, allowing them to deeply understand China’s modernization issues within the grand perspective of world history, to take conforming to world trends as a prerequisite for solving China’s modernization problems, and to choose the road of scientific socialist modernization under the guidance of Marxism. Secondly, it enabled China’s modernization, while exercising historical initiative, to dialectically understand and properly handle the universality and particularity among various socialist countries, both breaking the stereotypical impression and rigid interpretation of scientific socialism and unswervingly maintaining the direction of socialist development in the modernization process. Finally, it enabled China’s advanced elements to acquire the dialectical method of understanding and handling the relationship between tradition and modernity. While acknowledging the opposition between tradition and modernity, they also saw the historical connection between them, promoted the integration of tradition and modernity in practice, formed a theoretical interaction between the transformation of tradition into modernity and the Sinicization of modernity, and thereby produced a set of theoretical viewpoints and corresponding strategic choices guiding China’s modernization construction.

另一方面，马克思主义的辩证唯物主义和唯物辩证法为中国的社会主义现代化提供了科学的世界观和方法论。传统辩证法蕴含的中庸智慧与马克思主义的世界观、方法论也发生了实质性接触，并对马克思主义辩证法的中国化提供了重要补充。脱胎于封建社会的中庸思想带有某种形而上学色彩，在对待矛盾事物时过分强调统一性和弱化斗争性，在思维方法上具有“折衷主义”倾向，且带有“守其本分、互不逾越”的“封建主义的位阶主义”等局限性。在马克思主义的科学指导下，中庸思想得以克服其原有的局限性，展现出更为科学的内涵和表达方式。而且，中庸智慧与唯物辩证法具有相容性，中庸之道的适度思维、对立面统一与转化观点，寻求矛盾双方中和、和谐等观点包含着唯物辩证法的科学方法论和规律性认识。中华传统中庸智慧对马克思主义辩证法产生了深远影响，使其本土化特征日益显著。马克思主义辩证法与中华传统中庸智慧的深度结合，首先使中国先进分子掌握了认识和处理中国与世界关系的辩证方法，使他们能够在世界历史的宏大视野中深入理解中国现代化问题，以顺乎世界潮流作为解决中国现代化问题的前提，选择了走马克思主义指导下的科学社会主义的现代化道路；其次使中国现代化在发挥历史主动中辩证认识和妥善处理了各国社会主义间的普遍性与特殊性，既打破了对科学社会主义的刻板印象和僵化解释，又在现代化进程中坚定不移地保持了社会主义的发展方向；最后让中国先进分子获得了如何认识和处理传统与现代关系的辩证方法，在承认传统与现代之间存在对立性的同时，也看到了它们之间的历史联系，并在实践中促进了传统与现代的融合，形成了传统现代转换和现代性中国化的理论互动，并由此而形成了一套指导中国现代化建设的理论观点和相应策略选择。

II. The Consciousness of Materialist Dialectics in the Theoretical Exploration of Chinese-Path Modernization

二、中国式现代化理论探索中的唯物辩证法自觉

Traditional Chinese society neither provided sufficient conditions for the spontaneous initiation of modernization, nor exhibited a development trend toward modernization in its own historical evolution, nor produced a theoretical consciousness of modernization, nor even manifested an active search for the characteristics of modernity. “In China, the emergence of new things could only occur after the Opium War.” [23]23 The Opium War (1839–1842) was a military conflict between Qing China and Britain, triggered by disputes over trade and opium. China’s defeat is conventionally treated as the beginning of its “century of humiliation” and the start of its forced entry into the modern world system. The conscious awareness and exploratory practice of modernization among China’s advanced elements originated from the real predicament of internal and external troubles and the intellectual enlightenment of the eastward transmission of Western learning. The corruption of the late Qing autocratic monarchy [24]24 The late Qing dynasty (1644–1912) was the last imperial dynasty of China. Its final decades were marked by internal rebellion, foreign incursions, and political decay. stood in stark contrast to the significant advantages of the Western representative democratic system, prompting China’s advanced elements to generally believe that political Westernization was a necessary path to achieve modernization, and that modernization was precisely the goal of political Westernization. At that time, the Western model dominated the world modernization process. China’s advanced elements followed the West in both theory and practice, lacking necessary theoretical reflection. The theoretical reflection on modernization by China’s advanced elements began to a large extent with the New Culture Movement, [25]25 The New Culture Movement (c. 1915–1920s) was an intellectual and cultural movement in China that rejected traditional Confucian values in favor of Western concepts like democracy and science, paving the way for the May Fourth Movement and the spread of Marxism. but in the early period of the New Culture Movement, the focus of theoretical reflection was still not on criticizing and negating Western modernization, but was limited to using Western democracy and science to criticize the traditional system of Chinese learning. For example, intellectuals represented by Hu Shi [26]26 Hu Shi (1891–1962) was a leading Chinese liberal intellectual and reformer, a key figure in the New Culture Movement, who advocated for vernacular literature and pragmatic, gradual reform, including “wholesale Westernization.” launched a moral revolution and a literary revolution, advocating “negating tradition and pursuing wholesale Westernization,” hoping to achieve China’s prosperity and strength through this path. Although China’s advanced elements held different opinions on what methods and means to use to achieve modernization, taking Western learning as a teacher to realize modernization remained the mainstream view and common mentality at the time. This fully reveals that in the process of theoretical exploration of modernization, China’s advanced elements still faced the single thinking mode of “taking-ism,” [27]27 “Taking-ism” (拿来主义) is a term coined by the writer Lu Xun (1881–1936), criticizing an uncritical, passive attitude of simply borrowing from foreign cultures without adaptation or critical selection. a dependent mentality of blind imitation, and the cognitive limitations of “historical nihilism.” Reflected at the philosophical level, this was a lack of guidance from a scientific worldview and methodology, and a lack of a philosophical foundation for correctly handling the disputes between the ancient and the modern, and between China and the West.

中国传统社会既没有提供现代化自发启动的充分条件，也没有在自身历史演变中展现出趋向现代化的发展趋势，更没有在理论上产生现代化的自觉，甚至也没有出现对现代性特质的主动找寻。“在中国，新东西的出现只能在鸦片战争之后”。中国先进分子对现代化事物的自觉意识与探索实践源于内忧外患的现实困境和西学东渐的思想启迪。晚清君主专制政体的腐朽与西方代议制民主政体的显著优势形成鲜明对比，促使中国先进分子普遍认为，政治西化是实现现代化的必要途径，而现代化又是政治西化的目标所在。当时，西方模式主导世界现代化进程，中国先进分子在理论与实践上均追随西方，缺乏必要的理论反思。中国先进分子对现代化的理论反思在很大程度上开始于新文化运动，但是在新文化运动前期，理论反思的侧重点仍不是对西方现代化予以批判和否定，而是局限于以西方的民主科学来批判传统中学体系。例如，以胡适为代表的知识分子发起了道德革命与文学革命，他们主张“否定传统、追求全盘西化”，以期借此途径实现中国的富强。尽管中国先进分子对以何种方式和手段来实现现代化各执一词，但以西学为师来实现现代化，依旧是当时主流观点和普遍心理。这充分揭示了中国先进分子在现代化理论探索过程中，仍面临“拿来主义”的单一思维模式、盲目追随的依赖心态以及“历史虚无主义”的认知局限，反映在哲学层面就是缺乏科学的世界观和方法论指引，缺乏正确处理古今、中西之争的哲学基础。

The dialectical self-awareness in the theoretical exploration of Chinese-path modernization began in the late period of the New Culture Movement.[28]28 The New Culture Movement (mid-1910s to 1920s) was a Chinese intellectual and cultural movement that promoted modern ideas such as science and democracy, often criticizing traditional Confucian values. This dialectical self-awareness was mainly manifested in a profound understanding and grasp of Marxist dialectical materialism, while also being expressed as the creative transformation and innovative development of traditional dialectical thought. In the practical exploration of modernization, advanced elements represented by members of the Communist Party of China gradually came to understand, identify with, and apply the scientific methodology of dialectical materialism, and, under the influence of traditional dialectics and the wisdom of the mean, caused dialectical materialism to undergo a historical turn of adapting to the Chinese context and the needs of the times. In the late period of the New Culture Movement, Li Dazhao, as "the most thorough and earliest advocate of the materialist conception of history," was the first to propose "studying, in accordance with Marx's materialist conception of history, how China's present political and economic conditions came to be" and "how to carry out the movement for national independence, to rescue China from the oppression of the great powers." Qu Qiubai, grounded in the philosophical context of the traditional idea of "change and continuity" (tongbian),[29]29 *Tongbian* (通变) is a classical Chinese concept referring to understanding the constant principles underlying change and adapting to changing circumstances. offered a Sinicized interpretation of dialectical materialism, interpreting dialectical materialism as a "method of mutual interconnection" (huxi fa) for observing the connections and trends among phenomena. In his work *Outline of Sociology*, Li Da elaborated in detail on the essence of dialectical materialism and historical materialism, and firmly asserted that "to realize the great cause of national liberation, it is necessary to arm thought with a scientific worldview and historical outlook, and to use scientific methods to understand the ever-emerging new social phenomena." Ai Siqi emphasized the "popularization of philosophy" and the "popularization of dialectical materialism," advocating both "strengthening the popularization movement of social science, penetrating into factories, villages, and military camps, so that Marxism-Leninism penetrates deeply into the general public," and promoting the materialism and dialectics of traditional Chinese philosophy, especially noting that "if the mean (zhongyong) is regarded as one of the principles of the existence of things, then, measured by today's philosophical standards, it can still maintain the truth of one of its aspects." The publication of Mao Zedong's *On Contradiction* and *On Practice* marked the maturation of the popularization and Sinicization of dialectical materialism. Mao Zedong skillfully integrated the dialectical wisdom of Chinese tradition into revolutionary practice, particularly combining the dialectical thought of the military strategists with dialectical materialism in a vivid way, forming a unique military dialectical thought, which provided valuable ideological guidance for exploring the Chinese revolutionary road and achieving revolutionary victory. Furthermore, Mao Zedong also viewed the thought of the mean with a one-divides-into-two approach; he believed that "the thought of the mean originally has an element of eclecticism; it is an eclecticism that opposes the abolition of exploitation while also opposing excessive exploitation, and is the foundation of Confucianism, that is, Confucian thought." He also highly valued the way of the mean, clearly pointing out that "'going beyond the limit is as bad as falling short' (guoyoubugan) is not only an effective method for handling the struggle on two fronts but is also one of the most important methods of thought." The methodology of the thought of the mean played a pivotal role in guiding the Chinese revolution.

中国式现代化理论探索的辩证法自觉始于新文化运动后期。这种辩证法自觉主要体现在对马克思主义唯物辩证法的深刻理解和把握上，同时也表现为对传统辩证法思想的创造性转化与创新性发展。在现代化实践探索中，以中国共产党人为代表的先进分子逐渐了解、认同和运用了唯物辩证法的科学方法论，并在传统辩证法以及中庸智慧影响下使唯物辩证法发生了中国化、时代化的历史转向。新文化运动后期，李大钊作为“唯物史观最彻底最先倡导的人”，他率先提出要“依马克思的唯物史观以研究怎样成了中国今日政治经济的情状”，“怎样去作民族独立的运动，把中国从列强压迫之下救济出来”。瞿秋白立足于传统“通变”思想的哲学语境，对辩证唯物主义进行了中国化解读，他将唯物辩证法解读为观察现象间联系与动向的“互系法”。李达在其著作《社会学大纲》中，详尽阐述了辩证唯物主义与历史唯物主义的精髓，并坚称“要实现民族解放的伟大事业，必须依靠科学的宇宙观和历史观来武装思想，运用科学的方法来认识不断涌现的社会新现象”。艾思奇强调了“哲学的大众化”和“唯物辩证法的通俗化”，既主张要“加强社会科学大众化运动，深入工厂、农村、兵营，使马克思列宁主义深入一般大众”，也主张弘扬中国传统哲学的唯物论与辩证法，尤其提到“若把中庸当作事物存在的原理之一看，那就用今日的哲学标准来衡量，它仍可以保持其一面的真理性。”毛泽东《矛盾论》和《实践论》的发表，标志着唯物辩证法的通俗化和中国化走向成熟。毛泽东巧妙地将中华传统辩证法智慧融入革命实践之中，特别是将兵家的辩证思想与唯物辩证法生动结合，形成了独特的军事辩证法思想，为探寻中国革命道路、夺取革命胜利提供了宝贵的思想指引。此外，毛泽东也一分为二地看待中庸思想，他认为“中庸思想本来有折衷主义的成分，它是反对废止剥削又反对过分剥削的折衷主义，是孔子主义即儒家思想的基础。”他同样高度重视中庸之道，明确指出“过犹不及不仅是处理两条战线斗争的有效方法，更是至关重要的思想方法之一”，中庸思想的方法论在指导中国革命中发挥着举足轻重的作用。

In the exploration of modernization, members of the Communist Party of China have consciously integrated the wisdom of the mean from traditional dialectics into Marxist dialectics, thereby not only realizing the adaptation of Marxist dialectics to the Chinese context and the needs of the times but also properly handling many practical and complex relationships in Chinese-path modernization. During the period of socialist revolution and construction, members of the Communist Party of China represented by Mao Zedong used the dialectical thinking of the unity of opposites and the development concept of independence and self-reliance to analyze and handle complex relationships such as those among the three major industries[30]30 The three major industries refer to primary (agriculture), secondary (manufacturing/industry), and tertiary (services) sectors of the economy. and foreign relations, paying particular attention to the coordinated development of industry and agriculture, pursuing an independent foreign policy of peace, and successfully completing the socialist transformation and embarking on the road to socialist modernization under severe domestic and international circumstances. Since reform and opening up, members of the Communist Party of China represented by Deng Xiaoping, Jiang Zemin, and Hu Jintao have continuously emphasized emancipating the mind and seeking truth from facts, dialectically handling many complex relationships such as those between public ownership and private ownership, cities and townships, planning and the market, and internal reform and opening to the outside world, providing theoretical guidance and a guide to action for creating a socialist market economy with Chinese characteristics and advancing the socialist modernization road with Chinese characteristics. Since the 18th National Congress of the CPC,[31]31 The 18th National Congress of the CPC was held in 2012, marking the beginning of the Xi Jinping era and the formal introduction of the New Era. members of the Communist Party of China represented by Xi Jinping, based on the Two Integrations and the Six Persistences,[32]32 The Six Persistences (六个坚持) are a set of principles guiding theoretical and practical work in the New Era, including persisting in the people-centered development philosophy, persisting in self-reliance and independent efforts, and others. have systematically planned the Five-Sphere Integrated Plan and the Four-Pronged Comprehensive Strategy. This is particularly manifested in focusing on the effective connection between poverty alleviation and rural revitalization, ensuring the coordination and continuity of economic development in rural areas; focusing on the use of the three distributions[33]33 The three distributions refer to primary distribution (market-based), secondary distribution (government-led through taxation and transfers), and tertiary distribution (voluntary charitable donations and social initiatives). as an important channel to promote the realization of common prosperity for all the people, and in this process seeking a benign interaction and dynamic balance between fairness and efficiency; and focusing on building a community with a shared future for mankind to develop a new type of international relations, thereby opposing zero-sum games and seeking a state of appropriateness and harmony in international exchanges. These measures have not only advanced the historical process of Chinese-path modernization on the practical dimension but have also achieved another leap in Marxist dialectics in theoretical exploration.

在现代化探索中，中国共产党人自觉将传统辩证法的中庸智慧融入马克思主义的辩证法，既实现了马克思主义辩证法的中国化、时代化，也妥善地处理了中国式现代化的诸多实践性复杂关系。在社会主义革命与建设时期，以毛泽东为代表的中国共产党人运用对立统一的辩证思维和独立自主的发展观，来分析与处理三大产业、对外关系等复杂关系，尤其注重工业与农业的协调发展，奉行独立自主的和平外交政策，在严峻的国内外环境下顺利完成了社会主义改造并迈向了社会主义现代化之路。改革开放以来，以邓小平、江泽民、胡锦涛为代表的中国共产党人持续强调解放思想与实事求是，辩证地处理了公有制与私有制、城市与乡镇、计划与市场、对内改革与对外开放等诸多复杂关系，为开创中国特色社会主义市场经济、推进中国特色社会主义现代化道路，提供了理论指引与行动指南。党的十八大以来，以习近平同志为代表的中国共产党人立足“两个结合”与“六个坚持”，系统筹划“五位一体”总体布局和“四个全面”战略布局。尤其表现为注重脱贫攻坚与乡村振兴的有效衔接，确保农村地区经济发展的协调性与连贯性；注重运用三次分配这一重要途径，推动实现全体人民的共同富裕，并在此过程中寻求公平与效率的良性互动与动态平衡；注重构建人类命运共同体来发展新型国际关系，以此反对零和博弈，寻求国际交往中的适度与和谐状态。这些举措不仅在实践维度推进了中国式现代化的历史进程，也在理论探索上实现了马克思主义辩证法的又一次飞跃。

If Marxist political economy and scientific socialism provide a core content and developmental trend for the modernization movement on a global scale, offering China’s advanced elements a new perspective to understand and analyze China’s modernization issues, and pointing out the historical path and direction of China’s modernization development, then Marxist philosophy provides China’s advanced elements with a scientific worldview and methodology for understanding and analyzing modernization issues, powerfully promoting the theoretical exploration and practical innovation of China’s advanced elements regarding China’s modernization. This is manifested in the following: First, the theoretical exploration and road opening of Chinese-path modernization are based on a global historical perspective, and within this perspective, the relationship between China and the world is properly handled. On the one hand, China’s advanced elements dialectically understood and evaluated the achievements and dilemmas of modernization in various countries around the world. China’s advanced elements not only recognized the achievements and potential drawbacks of Western modernization but also deeply perceived the feasibility and limitations of the Soviet path. Through dialectical analysis of the applicability of modernization models in various countries, they ultimately embarked on an independent path of socialist modernization. On the other hand, China’s advanced elements objectively recognized the necessary conditions and stages of development for modernization. Traditional Chinese society originally contained many historical traditions that hindered the spontaneous growth and healthy development of modernization factors, and it had long suffered from imperialist oppression since the Opium War. The smooth progress of China’s modernization necessarily required resorting to the anti-imperialist and anti-feudal democratic revolution; only through the democratic revolution could the “smooth conditions” necessary for modernization be created. This also meant that in the process of the democratic revolution, it was necessary to draw on foreign modernization experiences and actively explore modernization construction suited to China’s national conditions. Dialectically handling the relationship between China and the world is the basic prerequisite for opening the Chinese-path modernization road. Second, re-examining the road choice and development form of China’s modernization with materialist dialectics. In the absence of guidance from materialist dialectics, the road choice for China’s modernization once adhered to a metaphysical worldview and methodology. China’s advanced elements once attempted to fully introduce the Western modernization model to advance the modernization process, but the complexity of domestic political forces and the coexistence of diverse ideas led to instability in their objects of emulation, while also causing repeated exploration in road choices. As Xu Shilian said, “All the systems under heaven have been tried one by one,” yet “not a single one has yielded results to date.” Materialist dialectics, however, provided a new analytical perspective and methodological approach for opening China’s modernization road. On the one hand, it clarifies that the historical evolution and developmental paths of human society are a dialectical unity of uniformity and diversity. On the basis of in-depth critique and reflection on the modernization paths of capitalist countries, it creatively proposes the idea of crossing the “Caudine Forks,” theoretically foreseeing the collapse of the universality of capitalist modernization, thereby providing solid theoretical support for diversified modernization models and the diversity of human society. On the other hand, it reveals that modernization is a historical and concrete unity of universality and particularity, commonality and individuality. The particularity and universality of modernization are two sides of the same coin; universality resides in particularity, and particularity carries universality, meaning that “there is neither a single modernization model that is universally applicable, nor a modernization standard that is valid everywhere in the world.” Chinese-path modernization carries both the universality and particularity of modernization, “both fitting China’s actual conditions, reflecting the laws of socialist construction, and also reflecting the laws of human social development.” Third, Chinese-path modernization, guided by materialist dialectics, breaks through the fallacy of the “end of history,” [34]34 “End of history”: A thesis advanced by Francis Fukuyama in 1989, arguing that the end of the Cold War signaled the universal triumph of liberal democracy as the final form of human government. manifesting Chinese characteristics of modernization in its concrete form and shaping a new form of human civilization in the evolution of civilizations. Under the guidance of historical materialism and materialist dialectics, Chinese Marxists not only overcame their predecessors’ rigid understanding of Western modernization but also ceased to worship Western modernization in attitude. Instead, based on the viewpoints of universal connection and development and change, they deeply perceived various drawbacks of Western modernization and identified an independent modernization road different from that of the old capitalist countries.

如果说马克思主义政治经济学及科学社会主义提供了一种关于世界范围内现代化运动的核心内容与发展趋势，为中国先进分子提供了一种全新的视角来认识和分析中国现代化问题，并指明了中国现代化发展的历史路径和方向，那么马克思主义哲学就给中国先进分子认识和分析现代化问题提供了科学世界观和方法论，有力推动了先进分子对中国现代化的理论探索和实践创新。这表现为：其一，中国式现代化理论探索及道路开辟立足于全球史视角，并在此视角下妥善处理了中国与世界的关系。一方面，中国先进分子辩证地认识和评析了世界各国现代化的成就与困境。中国先进分子不仅认识到了西方现代化的成就与潜在弊端，也深刻洞察出苏联道路的可行之处及其局限性，通过辩证分析各国现代化模式的适用性，最终走上了独立自主的社会主义现代化发展道路。另一方面，中国先进分子客观地认识到了现代化的必要条件和发展阶段。中国传统社会原本存在着诸多阻碍现代化因素自我生长与健康发展的历史传统，且在鸦片战争以来长期遭受帝国主义压迫。中国现代化的顺利推进必然要诉诸反帝反封建的民主革命，只有通过民主革命才能创造现代化所必需的“顺利的条件”，也意味着在民主革命进程中要借鉴国外现代化经验，积极探索适合中国国情的现代化建设。辩证处理中国与世界的关系，是中国式现代化道路开辟的基本前提。其二，以唯物辩证法来重新审视中国现代化的道路选择和发展形态。在缺乏唯物辩证法的指导下，中国现代化的道路选择曾经一度坚持了形而上学的世界观及方法论。中国先进分子曾尝试全盘引进西方现代化的模式来推进现代化进程，但国内政治势力的错综复杂以及思想观念的多元并存，导致他们在效仿对象上难以保持稳定，同时在道路选择上也不断地反复探索。恰如许士廉所言，“举天下所有的制度，件件都试验过”，“至今一件都没有成绩”。而唯物辩证法则给中国现代化的道路开辟提供了新的分析视角与思路方法。一方面，它阐明了人类社会的历史演进和发展道路是统一性与多样性的辩证统一，并在深入批判与反思资本主义国家现代化道路基础上，创造性地提出了跨越“卡夫丁峡谷”的设想，从理论上前瞻性地指出了资本主义现代化普适性的破灭，从而为多元化的现代化模式和人类社会的多样性提供了坚实的理论支撑。另一方面，它揭示了现代化是普遍性与特殊性、共性与个性的历史的具体的统一。现代化的特殊性与普遍性是一体两面关系，普遍性寄存于特殊性之中，特殊性承载着普遍性，即“世界上既不存在定于一尊的现代化模式，也不存在放之四海而皆准的现代化标准”。中国式现代化承载着现代化的普遍性与特殊性，“既切合中国实际，体现了社会主义建设规律，也体现了人类社会发展规律”。其三，唯物辩证法指导下的中国式现代化突破了“历史终结论”的谬论，在具体形态上展现出了现代化的中国特色，在文明演进中塑造了人类文明新形态。中国马克思主义者在历史唯物主义和唯物辩证法指导下，既克服了前辈们对西方现代化的刻板认识，也在态度上不再对西方现代化顶礼膜拜，而是基于普遍联系和发展变化观点深刻察觉到西方现代化的各种弊端，找准了不同于老牌资本主义国家的独立自主的现代化道路。

The development and guidance of Marxist materialist dialectics in the process of Chinese-path modernization not only help Chinese-path modernization properly handle the relationship between China and the world, forming a modernization road different from that of the West, but also help grasp Chinese-path modernization from a systematic and holistic perspective, handling many complex matters within it, thereby demonstrating the wisdom of the mean of “holding the two ends and using the middle.” [35]35 “Holding the two ends and using the middle” (执两用中): A classical Chinese idiom from the *Doctrine of the Mean* (《中庸》), referring to the method of avoiding extremes by grasping both extremes and applying the middle course. On the one hand, history shows that modernization is “an operational process in which international interdependence sharply increases.” Although Western countries were the first to enter the ranks of modernized nations, they obtained means of production such as land, resources, and raw materials from various countries around the world, and also extracted populations from various countries to supplement labor, thereby optimizing production factors and enhancing production efficiency. The aggregation and superposition of various factors successfully facilitated the modernization of some Western countries. The construction process of Chinese-path modernization is also closely and inseparably connected with various countries around the world. However, compared with the modernization of capitalist countries, which uses colonial expansion as a means, sacrifices the interests of other countries, and is full of violence and bloodshed, Chinese-path modernization tends to “emphasize mutual benefit and win-win cooperation with countries around the world, promote the building of a community with a shared future for mankind, and strive to contribute to human peace and development.” On the other hand, the sustained development of Chinese-path modernization must be based on the universal and necessary connections in the era of globalization, actively implement and implement the open-door policy, in order to cross a new threshold of modernization. History and reality show that “China’s determination to expand high-level opening up will not change, its determination to share development opportunities with the world will not change, and its determination to promote economic globalization toward a more open, inclusive, balanced, and win-win direction will not change.” Chinese-path modernization embodies the dialectical unity of system and elements, whole and part in its form. China deeply recognizes that the modernization it promotes is modernization with Chinese characteristics, and in practice, it has gradually comprehended many unique attributes of Chinese-path modernization, achieving a profound understanding and comprehensive systematic exposition of the theory of Chinese-path modernization. This is manifested both in the richness and diversity of the current connotation of Chinese-path modernization—Chinese-path modernization has five distinct characteristics: “a huge population scale,” “common prosperity for all the people,” “coordination between material civilization and cultural-ethical progress,” “harmonious coexistence between humans and nature,” and “taking the path of peaceful development”—and in the fact that the continuous development of Chinese-path modernization requires clarifying complex and diverse major relationships, and in handling various domestic affairs, it is necessary to “properly handle major relationships such as those between economy and society, government and market, efficiency and fairness, vitality and order, and development and security, enhancing the systematic, holistic, and coordinated nature of reform.”

马克思主义唯物辩证法在中国式现代化进程中的发展及指导，既有利于中国式现代化妥善处理中国与世界的关系，形成了不同于西方的现代化道路，也有利于从系统性、整体性的观点来把握中国式现代化，处理其中的诸多复杂性事项，展现了“执两用中”的中庸智慧。一方面，历史表明，现代化是“一个国际相互依存性急剧增加的运作过程”。尽管西方国家率先进入了现代化国家行列，但他们既从世界各国获取土地、资源和原材料等生产资料，也从世界各国攫取人口来补充劳动力，从而优化生产要素，提升生产效率，各种因素的叠加聚合才成功地促成了部分西方国家的现代化。中国式现代化的建设进程同样与世界各国紧密相连，不可分割，只不过相较于资本主义国家以殖民扩张为手段、以牺牲他国利益为代价、充满暴力血腥的现代化，中国式现代化倾向于“强调同世界各国互利共赢，推动构建人类命运共同体，努力为人类和平与发展作出贡献”。另一方面，中国式现代化的持续发展，必须立足于全球化时代下普遍的必然性联系，积极贯彻和落实开放国策，才能跨越现代化的新台阶。历史和现实表明“中国扩大高水平开放的决心不会变，同世界分享发展机遇的决心不会变，推动经济全球化朝着更加开放、包容、普惠、平衡、共赢方向发展的决心不会变”。中国式现代化在形态上体现了系统与要素、整体与部分的辩证统一。中国深刻认识到所推进的现代化是具有中国特色的现代化，并在实践中逐步领悟了中国式现代化的诸多独特属性，实现了对中国式现代化理论的深刻理解和全面系统阐述。这既表现为现阶段中国式现代化内涵的丰富性与多样性——中国式现代化具有“人口规模巨大”“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”五大鲜明特质，又表现为中国式现代化的接续发展要厘清复杂多样的重大关系，要在处理国内各项事务中“处理好经济和社会、政府和市场、效率和公平、活力和秩序、发展和安全等重大关系，增强改革系统性、整体性、协同性。”

III. The Application of the Wisdom of the “Mean” in the Practical Process of Chinese-Path Modernization

三、中国式现代化实践进程中的“中庸”智慧运用

The traditional Chinese wisdom of the mean does not act independently and directly on modern society; rather, its ideological essence is absorbed by Marxist dialectics, becoming an intrinsic element of the Sinicization of Marxist dialectics, embedded in the concrete practice of Chinese-path modernization, and indirectly acting on society. Based on the principle of the “Two Integrations,” [36]36 “Two Integrations”: The principle of integrating the basic tenets of Marxism with China’s specific realities and with the best of traditional Chinese culture, formally articulated by Xi Jinping. Chinese Communists scientifically inherit and develop the positive elements of traditional Chinese culture, especially interpreting the thought of the mean from a Marxist perspective, removing its dross content, endowing it with new scientific meaning, and making it an important component of the theoretical achievements of the Sinicization of Marxist dialectics. For example, Ai Siqi believed that the fatal flaw of the mean lies in “its inability to delve deeper from the surface to uncover its internal driving forces,” [37]37 Ai Siqi (艾思奇, 1910–1966): A prominent failing to see through phenomena to grasp the essential attributes of things, thus “it can only consistently set empty conceptual standards and make idealist solutions.” [38]38 Li Zehou, *The Chinese Aesthetic Tradition*, trans. Maija Bell Samei (Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press, 2010), 4–5. Li Zehou (1930–2021) was a prominent Chinese philosopher and aesthetician. The “wisdom of the mean” embedded in materialist dialectics, however, can use scientific epistemology to analyze things and solve problems. The traditional Chinese wisdom of the mean, transformed by Marxism, has undergone a modern conversion and become part of the theoretical content of the Sinicization of Marxist dialectics, demonstrating unique dialectical wisdom in the theoretical exploration and practical innovation of Chinese-path modernization.

中华传统中庸智慧并非独立且直接作用于现代社会，而是其思想精华被马克思主义辩证法所吸收，作为马克思主义辩证法中国化的内在要素，内嵌于中国式现代化具体实践，并间接作用于社会。中国共产党人基于“两个结合”原则，科学地传承并发展了中华传统文化的积极元素，特别是对中庸思想进行了马克思主义的诠释，去除了其糟粕性内容，赋予其科学性的新意，使其成为马克思主义辩证法中国化理论成果的重要组成部分。比如艾思奇认为中庸的致命伤在于“它不能从表面更深入一步去发掘其内在的动因”，无法透过现象看清事物的本质属性，因而“只能一贯地空立观念的标准而作观念论的解决”。而嵌入唯物辩证法的“中庸智慧”则能以科学的认识论去分析事物、解决问题。经过马克思主义改造的中华传统中庸智慧发生了现代转换，并成为马克思主义辩证法中国化理论内容的一部分，在中国式现代化理论探索和实践创新中展现出独特的辩证智慧。

The wisdom of the Mean (zhongyong) is a significant manifestation of the rational thinking of the Chinese nation in the traditional period. Rooted in practice and inclined toward practicality, it differs from ancient Greece’s emphasis on formal reasoning and abstract speculation; in terms of functional type and attribute characteristics, the Mean belongs to what Li Zehou calls “practical reason” or “pragmatic reason.” [38]38 Li Zehou, *The Chinese Aesthetic Tradition*, trans. Maija Bell Samei (Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press, 2010), 4–5. Li Zehou (1930–2021) was a prominent Chinese philosopher and aesthetician. The rationality of the pre-Qin philosophers was all of this type. After intricate theoretical confrontations and mutual infiltration among the Hundred Schools of Thought, a stable worldview system and cultural-psychological structure took shape in the Western Han period, and after the Western Han it exerted a profound and lasting theoretical influence, to the extent that “after the Wei and Jin dynasties, when Buddhism came from the East, with such great force—emperors prostrating themselves, the multitudes believing—it still could not fundamentally change China’s politics, culture, or ideological outlook.” [39]39 This quotation is from the Chinese historian Chen Yinke (1890–1969), as cited in Feng Youlan, *A History of Chinese Philosophy*, vol. 2, trans. Derk Bodde (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1953), 290. In the process of applying dialectics to practice, the pre-Qin Daoist Laozi, the military strategist Sun Wu, and the Legalist Han Fei, among others, inaugurated a tradition of dialectical thinking oriented toward practical application. This tradition both carried through the dialectical unity of opposites in analyzing all things in the world, emphasizing the universality of the relationship of the unity of opposites, and, in dialectical relations of benefit and harm, paid particular attention to giving full play to human subjective initiative, being adept at grasping the junctures where benefit and harm transform, paying attention to grasping the measure of quantity, handling well the relationship between qualitative change and quantitative change, and pursuing benefit while avoiding harm. Although schools such as Daoism, the military strategists, and Legalism displayed outstanding ability in applying dialectics in practice, at the level of worldview and methodology they did not explicitly generalize this practice-oriented dialectical thinking. On the contrary, when exploring the way of “governing people,” the Confucian school, under the name of the Mean, endowed the dialectical wisdom in practical reason with profound ontological significance. It emphasized “grasping the two extremes and employing the Mean among the people.” [40]40 This is a paraphrase of a passage from the *Doctrine of the Mean* (*Zhongyong*), a Confucian classic traditionally attributed to Zisi (c. 481–402 BCE), the grandson of Confucius. The original text reads: “The Master said, ‘Shun was indeed one who knew how to employ the Mean! He grasped the two extremes and employed the Mean among the people.’” On the one hand, it theoretically advocated using the dialectical thinking of practical reason to succinctly summarize the myriad complex opposing relations in the world as “the two” (liang), and admonished people, when analyzing and responding to external things and planning human affairs, to uphold a perspective of dividing one into two and to discern the two mutually opposing aspects. On the other hand, it required people to avoid polarizing the two mutually opposing aspects, emphasizing the need to properly handle the opposing relationship between the two sides, to stand in the center and be upright, to be impartial and unbiased, and to maintain a state of centrality and harmony (zhonghe) in which the opposing sides coexist harmoniously and are beneficial to people. Thus it is said: “Centrality is the great foundation of the world; harmony is the universal path of the world.” [41]41 *Doctrine of the Mean*, chapter 1. Whether it is the cosmos as a whole or individual things within it, each has its state of centrality and harmony. When people analyze and handle related issues and take corresponding measures, they should also take the Mean as the principle, give full play to the wisdom of the Mean, and handle problems appropriately and properly.

中庸智慧是中华民族传统时期理性思维的重要展现。它根植于实践，倾向于实用，与古希腊注重形式推理和抽象思辨不同，中庸在功能类型和属性特质上属于李泽厚所说的“实践理性”或“实用理性”。先秦诸子的理性均属同类，诸子百家经过错综复杂的理论交锋及相互渗透等，在西汉时期形成了一个稳定的世界观体系及文化心理结构，并在西汉之后产生了深远持久的理论影响，以至于“魏晋以后，佛教东来，那么大的势力，帝王顶礼，万众信从，却仍然未能从根本上改变中国的政治、文化和思想面貌”。先秦道家老子、兵家孙武及法家韩非等人在将辩证法运用于实践的过程中，开创了偏于实践应用的辩证思维传统，既在分析世间万物时将辩证法的对立统一关系贯彻到底，强调了对立统一关系的普遍性，也在辩证性利害关系中特别注重发挥人的主观能动性，善于把握利害转换的关节点，注意把握量的尺度，处理好质变与量变关系，趋利避害。尽管道家、兵家及法家等学派在实践应用辩证法方面展现出了卓越能力，但在世界观和方法论层面，它们并未明确归纳出这种实践取向的辩证思维。相反，儒家在探讨“治人”之道时，以“中庸”之名赋予实践理性中的辩证智慧以深刻的本体论意义。它强调“执其两端，用其中于民”，一方面，它在理论上倡导运用实践理性中的辩证思维，将世间纷繁复杂的对立关系精炼地概括为“两”，并告诫人们在分析和应对外界事物及规划人事时，应秉持一分为二的视角，洞察相互对立的两个方面。另一方面，它又要求人们避免在相互对立的两个方面中走向极化，强调要妥善处理好双方对立关系，立乎中正，不偏不倚，维持一种使对立双方和谐共生且有益于人的中和状态，所谓“中也者，天下之大本也；和也者，天下之达道也”。不论是整体宇宙，还是其中的个别事物，都有其中和状态，人们在分析处理相关问题及采取相应举措时也应以“中庸”为原则，充分发挥“中庸”智慧，恰当妥善地处理问题。

Needless to say, the traditional “thought of the Mean” contains tendencies toward eclecticism, metaphysical factors, and feudal hierarchical concepts, among others. These negative components should be—and have already been—criticized in the process of constructing a modern worldview. However, the Mean, as a practical wisdom for analyzing and handling complex problems, still plays a pivotal role in the theoretical exploration and practical process of Chinese-path modernization. This is manifested as follows: First, the Mean, as a traditional practical wisdom of analysis, focuses on “seeking the connecting point of opposing sides in order to achieve balance between them, delineating boundaries for certain actions and clarifying action goals,” [42]42 This quotation is from Pang Pu, *The Mean and the Three* (Zhongyong yu san), in *Collected Works of Pang Pu*, vol. 1 (Beijing: Zhongguo wenshi chubanshe, 2005), 98. Pang Pu (1924–2015) was a Chinese historian and philosopher. and can still provide a modern worldview for Chinese-path modernization. Second, the wisdom of the Mean can, under specific circumstances, promote the dual optimization of strategy and outcome, thereby achieving a qualitative leap. The wisdom of the Mean and materialist dialectics are highly compatible; both uphold the viewpoint of connection and development to understand and transform the world, aiming to achieve behavioral rationality by enhancing thinking rationality. Third, the interweaving and integration of the Sinicization of Marxism and the modernization of fine traditional Chinese culture not only prompted the traditional wisdom of the Mean to undergo a modern transformation but also successfully integrated this transformed wisdom into Sinicized Marxism. The modern transformation of the traditional Chinese wisdom of the Mean has, to a certain extent, become new content in the Sinicization of Marxism, and thereby, in the process of opening up and developing China’s modernization path, it has properly handled many complex relationships and difficult issues. Consequently, in the course of development, it has increasingly manifested the Chinese characteristics of modernization, forming the theoretical self-awareness of Chinese-path modernization.

毋庸讳言，传统“中庸思想”中含有折衷主义倾向、形而上学因素及封建等级观念等，这些消极成分应当且已然在现代世界观构建过程中遭受批判。但中庸作为一种分析、处理复杂问题的实践智慧，依旧在中国式现代化的理论探索与实践进程中扮演着举足轻重的角色。这表现为：其一，“中庸”作为一种分析的传统实践智慧，着力于“寻求对立双方的联结点以求对立双方的平衡，给某种行为划定界限和明确行动目标”，仍能为中国式现代化提供现代世界观。其二，“中庸”智慧能够在特定情境下促进策略与结果双重优化，进而实现质的飞跃。“中庸”智慧与唯物辩证法具有高度契合性，它们均秉持联系与发展观点来认识和改造世界，旨在通过提升思维理性来达成行为理性。其三，马克思主义的中国化与中华优秀传统文化的现代化交织融合，不仅促使传统“中庸”智慧实现了现代性转化，还成功地将这一转化后的智慧融入中国化的马克思主义中。中华传统“中庸”智慧的现代转化在一定程度上成为马克思主义中国化的新内容，并由此而在中国现代化的道路开拓及发展进程中恰当地处理了诸多复杂关系及难点问题，进而在发展中日益表现出现代化的中国特色，形成了中国式现代化的理论自觉。

The combination of the modern transformation of the traditional wisdom of the Mean with the Sinicization of Marxism has, to a great extent, advanced the opening up of the path of Chinese-path modernization. The modern transformation of the wisdom of the Mean plays an important role in the path selection, strategic choices, and policy implementation of Chinese-path modernization. First, the wisdom of the Mean is embodied in the choice of the modernization path, that is, adhering to the principle of “grasping the two extremes and employing the Mean” and independence, avoiding the blind copying of the “Western model” or the “Soviet model.” Luo Rongqu, based on economic forms, divides the modernization paths of countries around the world into three major types: first, the capitalist model, with capitalist private ownership, a free market, and decentralized or centralized modern state institutions as its basic form; second, the Soviet-style socialist model, with socialist public ownership, a combination of planned directives and a limited market, and centralized modern state institutions as its basic form; and third, the mixed model, with a mixed economy, a free market, and centralized or decentralized modern state institutions as its basic form. [43]43 Luo Rongqu, *A New Theory of Modernization: The Process of Modernization in the World and in China* (Xiandaihua xin lun: shijie yu Zhongguo de xiandaihua jincheng) (Beijing: Beijing daxue chubanshe, 1993), 161–162. Luo Rongqu (1927–2008) was a Chinese historian of modernization. Before China embarked on its modernization journey, the first two models had already spread widely across the globe, becoming indispensable references for the modernization of all countries. When the Chinese Communists led the people in choosing a modernization path, they neither copied the “capitalist model” nor succumbed to the rigidity of the “Soviet-style socialist model.” They consistently upheld the pragmatic rational principle of “taking ourselves as the mainstay and using others for our benefit,” closely integrated China’s actual conditions, and independently advanced modernization. While learning from and drawing on the general experience and universal laws of modernization in Western countries, Chinese-path modernization resolutely rejected and transcended the violent means, capital monopoly, and social polarization found in the Western modernization process. In its exploration, China’s modernization applied the “wisdom of the Mean,” not only dialectically handling the complex relationship between the Soviet paradigm and the Western paradigm, carefully selecting from both the elements needed for China’s modernization practice, and implementing the principle of “grasping the two extremes and employing the Mean,” but also, in terms of quantity, appropriately balancing the relationship between the two, leveraging the respective strengths of the Soviet paradigm and the Western paradigm, successfully meeting the various challenges of different stages in the modernization process, maintaining overall social harmony and stability, and thereby, in practice, exploring a modernization path with Chinese characteristics.

传统“中庸”智慧的现代性转化与马克思主义中国化相结合，在极大程度上推进了中国式现代化的道路开拓，“中庸”智慧的现代性转化在中国式现代化的道路选择、战略选择和政策执行中发挥着重要作用。首先，“中庸”智慧体现在现代化道路的选择上，即坚持“执两用中”、独立自主的原则，避免了盲目照搬“西方模式”或“苏联模式”。罗荣渠认为按照经济形态可将世界各国现代化道路划分为三大类型：一是以资本主义私有制、自由市场、分权型或集权型现代国家机构为基本形态的资本主义模式，二是以社会主义公有制、计划指令和有限市场结合、集权型现代国家机构为基本形态的苏式社会主义模式，三是以混合经济、自由市场及集权或分权型现代国家机构为基本形态的混合模式。在中国踏上现代化征途之前，前两种模式已在全球范围内广泛流传，成为各国现代化不可或缺的重要参照。中国共产党人领导人民在进行现代化道路选择时，既没有照搬“资本主义模式”，也克服了“苏式社会主义模式”的僵化，始终秉持“以我为主，为我所用”的实用理性原则，紧密结合中国实际，独立自主地推进现代化建设。中国式现代化在学习借鉴西方国家现代化建设一般经验和普遍规律时，坚决摒弃和超越了西方现代化进程中的暴力手段、资本垄断及社会两极分化等。中国现代化探索运用“中庸智慧”，不仅辩证处理了苏联范式与西方范式的复杂关系，从两者中精心挑选出中国现代化实践所需的要素内容，贯彻了“执两用中”原则，而且在量的把握上也恰到好处地平衡了两者的关系，发挥了苏联范式与西方范式各自的长处，成功应对了现代化进程中不同阶段的各种挑战，使社会整体上保持和谐稳定，从而在实践中探索出一条具有中国特色的现代化道路。

Second, the wisdom of the Mean is manifested in the strategic choices of Chinese-path modernization, emphasizing the unity of “grasping the two extremes and employing the Mean” and “going beyond is as bad as falling short,” [44]44 This is a reference to a saying of Confucius in the *Analects* (11.16): “Zigong asked, ‘Which is better, Shi or Shang?’ The Master said, ‘Shi goes beyond; Shang falls short.’ Zigong said, ‘Then Shi is better?’ The Master said, ‘Going beyond is as bad as falling short.’” avoiding the country moving toward polarization. Practice shows that modernization cannot be achieved by mechanically copying and simply transplanting existing paradigms; it must be driven by independent exploration and innovative practice, giving full play to autonomy. Chinese-path modernization must fully focus on solving China’s internal problems and corresponding institutional reforms. However, given that many modernization achievements have already appeared in other countries, it must also “make good use of things,” [45]45 This is an allusion to a passage from the Xunzi, chapter 1, “Encouraging Learning”: “The gentleman is not born different from other men; he is simply good at making use of things” (junzi sheng fei yi ye, shan jia yu wu ye). fully utilizing others’ resources, experience, and achievements. This raises a pressing issue in practice: how to properly balance the relationship between independence and opening up. While modernization certainly cannot go to extremes between independence and opening up, how to grasp the complex relationship between the two from the perspective of quantity and measure is also a difficult problem that tests practical wisdom. Chinese-path modernization demonstrates the wisdom of the Mean in handling the issue of independence and opening up. On the one hand, Chinese-path modernization upholds the concept of “grasping the two extremes and employing the Mean” on the issue of independence and opening up. The realization of Chinese-path modernization cannot be separated from the dual drive of opening up and independence; the two complement each other and are inseparable. On the other hand, the wisdom of the Mean adheres to the concept of the “Mean” as the principle of appropriateness in handling the internal and external relations of Chinese-path modernization. Under no circumstances can Chinese-path modernization detach itself from independence; only independence can ensure the active advancement of modernization in China and the Sinicized character of its content system. Opening up is an important condition for China’s independent modernization, and full opening up is conducive to Chinese-path modernization achieving full independence.

其次，“中庸”智慧表现在中国式现代化的战略选择注重“执两用中”与“过犹不及”的统一，避免国家走向极化。实践表明，现代化绝非对既有范式进行机械临摹与简单移植就能达成，必须以自主探索、创新实践为驱动，充分发挥自主性。中国式现代化必须充分注重中国内部问题的解决及相应的体制性改革，但在已经出现其他国家众多现代化成果的情况下，也要“善假物”，充分利用他者的资源、经验与成果。这就在实践中提出了一个亟待解决的问题，即如何妥善平衡独立自主与对外开放的关系，现代化建设固然不能在独立自主和对外开放之间走向极端，但如何从量和度的视角把握二者的复杂关系，也是一个考验实践智慧的艰难问题。中国式现代化在处理独立自主和对外开放的问题上展现了“中庸”智慧。一方面，中国式现代化在独立自主和对外开放的问题上秉持“执两用中”理念。中国式现代化的实现，离不开对外开放与独立自主的双轮驱动，二者相辅相成，不可分割。另一方面，“中庸”智慧在处理中国式现代化的内外关系上坚持了适度原则的“中”之理念。中国式现代化在任何条件下都不能脱离独立自主，只有独立自主才能确保现代化在中国的积极推进和内容体系的中国化特质，对外开放是中国独立自主进行现代化的重要条件，充分的对外开放有益于中国式现代化实行充分的独立自主。

Finally, the wisdom of the “Mean” is manifested in the dynamic equilibrium, impartiality, and practical utility of Chinese-path modernization in policy implementation. The *Decision* [46]46 The *Decision* refers to the “Decision of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China on Further Comprehensively Deepening Reform and Promoting Chinese-Path Modernization,” adopted at the Third Plenary Session of the 20th Central Committee of the CPC in July 2024. emphasizes that modernization should, in terms of its goals, “take promoting social fairness and justice and enhancing the well-being of the people as the starting point and ultimate goal,” and, in terms of conceptual planning, “pay greater attention to systemic integration, greater attention to highlighting key points, and greater attention to the practical effectiveness of reform.” This means that Chinese-path modernization, guided by dialectical thinking, not only focuses on the practical utility of development but also stresses that, in the torrent of the times, the fruits of modernization should benefit the entire people, taking the broad path of common prosperity, thereby effectively avoiding the sharp antagonism among social interest groups caused by the disparity between rich and poor. Chinese Communists, employing the wisdom of the “Mean” embedded in Marxist dialectics and upholding the profound concept of “attaining centrality and harmony” (*zhi zhong he*), skillfully resolve various contradictions, curb the phenomenon of extreme disparity in the distribution of economic benefits during the modernization process, as well as the trend of extreme polarization in political stances and ideology, thereby promoting the harmonious development of Chinese-path modernization. First, Chinese-path modernization implements the concept of “centrality and harmony” in its foreign policy: it neither forms alliances nor chooses sides, preventing Chinese modernization from being swayed by external forces; it also avoids taking extreme positions in strategic choices, broadly absorbing the outstanding achievements of human civilization, and is committed to building a united front to maximize the convergence of domestic and international consensus. This avoids internal conflicts based on political polarization, effectively prevents the risk of development interruption caused by internal conflict, and maintains the sustained and orderly advancement of China’s modernization process. Second, Chinese-path modernization adheres to the concept of “harmony” in its social development policy. Chinese-path modernization pursues a state of “centrality and harmony” for the entire society as its goal, rather than advocating “economic growth only.” It overcomes the drawbacks of one-sidedly pursuing GDP growth in the modernization process, while emphatically stressing the comprehensive implementation of “the Five-Sphere Integrated Plan for economic construction, political construction, cultural construction, social construction, and ecological civilization construction, promoting coordination among all aspects of modernization.” It also emphasizes that Chinese-path modernization must properly handle the relationships among the original, the foreign, and the future, insisting on “not forgetting the original, absorbing the foreign, and facing the future,” and focusing on “promoting the harmonious coexistence of humanity and nature, promoting the building of a community with a shared future for mankind, and creating a new form of human civilization.” It not only effectively avoids the potential negative impact of Western modernization’s zero-sum game thinking on China’s modernization process but also takes the lead in emphasizing the need to properly handle the relationship between development and the environment, taking a “resource-saving” and “environmentally friendly” path of modernization. Finally, Chinese-path modernization pursues a state of “centrality and harmony” in its social management policy. It both emphasizes maintaining an uplifting mindset among all sectors on the journey of modernization, inspiring them to closely integrate their inner pursuit of the “Mean” concept with the practical needs of the modernization cause, jointly forging the essence of “centrality and harmony” in the sense of modernization, and highlights that Chinese-path modernization pays more attention to achieving the essential goal of human “centrality and harmony,” enabling people to universally achieve free and comprehensive development in the modernization process, striving to realize the harmonious coexistence of all people, and comprehensively and balancedly meeting the people’s needs for a better life.

最后，“中庸”智慧表现为中国式现代化在政策执行中的动态均衡、不偏不倚和实际效用。《决定》强调现代化在目标上要“以促进社会公平正义、增进人民福祉为出发点和落脚点”，在思维筹划上要“更加注重系统集成，更加注重突出重点，更加注重改革实效”。这意味着中国式现代化以辩证思维为指引，不仅注重发展的实际效用，更强调在时代洪流中让现代化成果惠及全民，走共同富裕的宽广道路，从而有效避免贫富悬殊引发的社会利益集团尖锐对立。中国共产党人运用嵌入马克思主义辩证法中的“中庸”智慧，秉持“致中和”的深邃理念，巧妙化解了各类矛盾，遏制了现代化进程中经济利益分配的悬殊现象以及政治立场与意识形态上的极端分化趋势，从而推动了中国式现代化走向和谐发展之路。其一，中国式现代化在对外政策上贯彻着“中和”理念，既不结盟，不选边站队，避免了中国现代化被外部势力所左右，也不在方略选择中走极端，广泛吸纳人类文明优秀成果，并致力于构建统一战线，最大汇聚国内外共识，从而避免了基于政治极化的内部冲突，有效防止了内部冲突造成发展中断的风险，保持了中国现代化进程的持续有序推进。其二，中国式现代化在社会发展政策上秉承“和谐”理念。中国式现代化在目标上追求全社会的“中和”状态，而非主张“唯经济增长论”，既克服了现代化进程中片面追求GDP增长的弊端，又着重强调了全面落实“经济建设、政治建设、文化建设、社会建设和生态文明建设五位一体的总体布局，促进现代化建设各方面相协调”，还强调了中国式现代化要妥善处理好本来、外来与未来关系，要“坚持不忘本来、吸收外来、面向未来”，着力于“促进人与自然和谐共生，推动构建人类命运共同体，创造人类文明新形态。”它不仅有效规避了西方现代化零和博弈思维对中国现代化进程的潜在负面影响，而且也率先强调要妥善处理好发展与环境的关系，走“资源节约型”和“环境友好型”的现代化道路。最后，中国式现代化在社会管理政策上追求“中和”状态，既强调维持各界在现代化征途中的昂扬心态，激励他们将内心对“中和”理念的追求与现代化事业的实践需求紧密结合，共同铸就现代化意义上的“中和”精髓，也突出了中国式现代化更注重实现人的“中和”的本质目的，使人们在现代化进程中普遍获得自由而全面的发展，致力于实现全体人民的和谐共处，全面而均衡地满足人民群众的美好生活需求。

IV. Conclusion

四、结论

The wave of modernization has provided external conditions for the modern transformation of traditional Chinese society. The advanced elements represented by the Communist Party of China, leading the people under the guidance of Marxism, have successfully opened up Chinese-path modernization. Since the 18th National Congress of the CPC [47]47 The 18th National Congress of the CPC, held in November 2012, marked the beginning of the Xi Jinping era and the formal introduction of the concept of the “New Era” of socialism with Chinese characteristics., the construction of Chinese-path modernization has entered a new historical period, vigorously promoting China’s modernization process while also injecting strong momentum into the global wave of modernization. The success of Chinese-path modernization is not accidental; it is “a major achievement obtained by our Party leading the people of all ethnic groups across the country through long-term exploration and practice, enduring countless hardships and paying a huge price.” The Communist Party of China has implemented the principle of the Two Integrations in modernization construction, especially integrating Marxist dialectics with the traditional Chinese wisdom of the Mean. Through unique modes of thinking and dialectical methods, it has powerfully promoted the theoretical innovation and practical exploration of Chinese-path modernization, achieving “the mutual embedding and coexistence of practical rationality and speculative rationality,” and enabling Marxist dialectics to demonstrate an even more outstanding role in guiding practice in the exploration and innovation of Chinese-path modernization. The Two Integrations have achieved a leap from “concepts in themselves” to the core concepts and conscious principles of theoretical exploration of Chinese-path modernization in the new era. The further development of the Two Integrations will theoretically continue to advance its methodological innovation. At the same time, by continuously achieving innovative results in the methodology of Chinese-path modernization, it will persistently demonstrate the unique advantages of Marxist dialectics and the wisdom of the Mean, thereby steadily advancing the cause of Chinese-path modernization.

现代化浪潮为中国传统社会的现代转型提供了外在条件，以中国共产党为代表的先进分子领导人民在马克思主义指导下成功开辟了中国式现代化。党的十八大以来，中国式现代化建设迈向新的历史时期，既大力推进了中国的现代化进程，也为全球现代化浪潮注入了强劲动力。中国式现代化的成功并非偶然，而是“我们党领导全国各族人民在长期探索和实践中历经千辛万苦、付出巨大代价取得的重大成果”。中国共产党在现代化建设中践行了“两个结合”原则，尤其是将马克思主义辩证法与中华传统中庸智慧相融合，通过独特的思维方式和辩证方法，有力推动了中国式现代化的理论创新与实践探索，实现了“实用理性与思辨理性的互嵌共存”，并使得马克思主义辩证法在中国式现代化的探索与创新中展现出更为卓越的实践指导作用。“两个结合”实现了从“自在的观念”向新时期中国式现代化理论探索核心理念与自觉原则的飞跃，“两个结合”的进一步发展将在理论上不断推进其方法论的创新，同时，凭借不断取得的中国式现代化方法论创新成果，持续彰显马克思主义辩证法与中庸智慧的独特优势，从而推动中国式现代化事业稳步向前。

Online Editor: Paul

网络编辑：保罗