Marx and Engels’ Theoretical Exploration of Modernization Paths for Late-Developing Countries and Its Contemporary Value

Both Marx and Engels produced discourses on the theory of modernization for late-developing countries, yet their expositions exhibit certain differences. Many Western scholars have expressed their views on this divergence. Some scholars endorse Engels’ perspective. For instance, the British scholar Eric Hobsbawm argues that Marx’s views on the modernization of late-developing countries tended toward populist theory and proved fundamentally untenable. Other scholars contend that Engels’ theory distorted Marx’s thought. For example, the American scholar Norman Levine attributes the cause of this divergence to an opposition between Marx and Engels in their conceptions of history. He argues that Engels’ view of history is a form of unilinear evolutionism, different from Marx’s. In Engels’ account, history can only pass sequentially through primitive society, slave society, feudal society, capitalist society, and finally develop into communist society. Both views conclude that there is an ideological opposition between Marx and Engels, which is a misreading of the Marxist theory of modernization for late-developing countries. In reality, the difference in the views of Marx and Engels manifests the distinction between the unfinished form and the completed form of the theory of modernization for late-developing countries. Marx constructed his own theory of modernization on the basis of moving from belief in capitalist modernization theory to critique and then to transcendence. Building on his earlier theoretical foundations, in his later years Marx made an initial attempt to combine the universality of modernization theory with the particularity of late-developing countries, proposing the possibility of crossing the “Caudine Forks” [1]1 “Caudine Forks” (卡夫丁峡谷) refers to the Caudine Forks, a mountain pass in ancient Italy where the Samnites inflicted a humiliating defeat on the Roman army in 321 BCE. Marx used this metaphor to suggest the possibility of a late-developing country like Russia bypassing the capitalist stage of development, avoiding the “pangs” of capitalist modernization.. After Marx’s death, Engels continued to advance theoretical exploration on this basis, inquiring into the prerequisites for achieving such a crossing and endowing the possibility of this realization with concrete conditions. Marx and Engels’ continuous exploration of the theory of modernization for late-developing countries embodies the methodological significance of proceeding from reality in everything and seeking truth from facts, serving as an important theoretical support for Chinese-path modernization. As we advance toward the second centenary goal of the Communist Party of China [2]2 The “second centenary goal” (第二个百年奋斗目标) refers to the goal of building China into a modern socialist country that is prosperous, strong, democratic, culturally advanced, harmonious, and beautiful by the middle of the 21st century, marking the centenary of the founding of the People’s Republic of China in 2049., correctly understanding the theoretical differences between Marx and Engels’ relevant thoughts and the causes of these differences helps us promote Chinese-path modernization with an attitude of proceeding from reality in everything and seeking truth from facts, and strengthens our confidence in Marxist theory.

马克思恩格斯都有关于后发国家现代化理论的论述，不过他们的论述呈现出一定的差异。对于这种差异，很多西方学者发表了自己的见解。一些学者认同恩格斯的观点。例如英国学者霍布斯鲍姆认为，马克思在后发国家现代化问题上的观点倾向于民粹派的理论，并被证明根本站不住脚。还有一些学者认为，恩格斯的理论歪曲了马克思的思想。例如美国学者莱文将这种差异产生的原因归结为马克思与恩格斯在历史观上的对立。他认为恩格斯的历史观是一种单线进化论，与马克思的不同。在恩格斯那里，历史只能依次通过原始社会、奴隶社会、封建社会、资本主义社会，最后发展到共产主义社会。这两种观点都得出了马克思与恩格斯之间存在思想对立的结论，是对马克思主义后发国家现代化理论的误读。实际上，马克思恩格斯观点的不同表现出的是后发国家现代化理论的未完成形态与完成形态之间的差异。马克思在对资本主义现代化理论从信仰到批判再到超越的基础上构建了自己的现代化理论。基于早年的理论基础，马克思晚年做出了探索现代化理论的普遍性与后发国家的特殊性相结合的初次尝试，提出跨越“卡夫丁峡谷”的可能。马克思去世后，恩格斯在此基础上继续推进理论的探索，追问实现跨越的前提，赋予这种实现的可能以现实的条件。马克思恩格斯对于后发国家现代化理论的不断探索体现出了一切从实际出发，实事求是的方法论意义，是中国式现代化的重要理论支撑。在向中国共产党第二个百年奋斗目标迈进的今天，正确认识马克思恩格斯相关思想的理论差异及造成差异的原因有助于我们以一切从实际出发，实事求是的态度推进中国式现代化，坚定马克思主义理论的自信。

I. The Construction of Marx’s Theory of Modernization and Its Preliminary Exploration of Nationalization

一 马克思现代化理论的构建及其民族化的初步探索

Since the 18th century, human society has gradually entered the historical process of modernization. Yet where does the direction of modernization lie? What is its endpoint? Different thinkers have given different answers. In the view of bourgeois thinkers, the political democracy and economic freedom that capitalism pursues on the basis of breaking feudal autocracy are the most important, even the sole, indicators for measuring the degree of modernization. This theory ultimately developed into Fukuyama’s “End of History” thesis [3]3 “End of History” thesis: Francis Fukuyama’s 1992 argument that the end of the Cold War signaled the universal triumph of liberal democracy as the final form of human government.. However, alongside the development of capitalist modernization theory, many thinkers have continuously questioned whether this path of modernization is correct, constantly reflecting on the problems inherent in it and the possibility of transcending it. The Marxist theory of modernization is a highly representative school among these. The construction of Marx’s theory of modernization underwent two processes: first, the process of establishing it from belief in capitalist modernization theory to critique and then to transcendence; second, the process of exploring the combination of modernization theory with the particularity manifested by late-developing countries. However, due to various constraints, the exploration of the second process remained in an unfinished state at the time of Marx’s death.

18世纪以来，人类社会开始逐步进入现代化的历史进程。然而现代化的方向何在？它的尽头是什么？不同的思想家给出了不同的答案。在资产阶级思想家看来，资本主义建立在打破封建专制基础上所追求的政治民主和经济自由就是用来衡量现代化程度的最重要的甚至是仅有的指标。这种理论最终发展成为福山的“历史终结论”。然而在资本主义现代化理论发展的同时，很多思想家也不断地对这条现代化道路是否正确产生质疑，不断地思考其中存在的问题以及对它的超越。马克思主义的现代化理论就是其中颇有代表性的一派。马克思的现代化理论构建经历了两个过程：其一是对资本主义现代化理论从信仰到批判直至超越的建立过程；其二是对现代化理论与后发国家所体现出的特殊性相结合的探索过程。但由于各方面的限制，马克思去世时对第二个过程的探索仍然体现为未完成的状态。

(1) The Process of Establishing Marx’s Theory of Modernization

（一）马克思现代化理论的建立过程

The construction of Marx’s theory of modernization underwent a process from belief in the capitalist modernization process to critique, and finally to transcendence. Before 1844, Marx was generally in a state of belief regarding the capitalist modernization process and its goals. The degree of economic development and political democracy were the most important indicators he used during this period to measure modern society. By comparing the political systems of Germany and France, Marx pointed out: “The struggle against the political present of the Germans is the struggle against the past of the modern nations” [4]4 Marx, “Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Law: Introduction” (1844).. Yet during the same period, Marx, “as editor of the *Rheinische Zeitung*, found himself for the first time in the embarrassing position of having to express an opinion on so-called material interests” [5]5 Marx, “Preface” to *A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy* (1859)., which prompted him to begin studying economics.

马克思现代化理论的构建经历了一个对资本主义现代化进程从信仰到批判，最终实现超越的过程。在1844年之前，马克思对资本主义现代化进程及其目标总体而言是处于信仰的状态。经济的发达程度和政治的民主程度是他在这一时期衡量现代社会最重要的指标。通过将德国与法国的政治制度进行对比，马克思指出：“对当代德国政治状况作斗争就是对现代各国的过去作斗争。”但是在同一时期，马克思“作为《莱茵报》的编辑，第一次遇到要对所谓物质利益发表意见的难事”，这促使他开始研究经济学。

Accompanying Marx’s study of economics was the transformation of his attitude toward capitalist modernization from belief to critique. Marx gradually recognized the problems inherent in capitalist modernization and subjected them to critique. In the *Communist Manifesto*, Marx identified the problem of capitalist modernization as “the essential condition for the existence and rule of the bourgeois class is the accumulation of wealth in private hands, the formation and augmentation of capital” [6]6 Marx and Engels, *The Communist Manifesto* (1848), Chapter I.. The capital-centered model of modernization has brought about the vast majority of problems existing in modern society, leading to the dual accumulation of wealth and poverty as well as periodic economic crises. In modern society, people are dominated by things. At the same time, with the continuous development of productive forces, “the bourgeois relations of production have become too narrow to contain the wealth they themselves have created” [7]7 Ibid.. The modern society of capitalism is destined to be replaced by a new social formation. All these factors indicate that the modern society envisioned by capitalist modernization is not the endpoint of human historical development. Marx’s critique demonstrated a transcendence of capitalist modernization theory and its ideal of modern society.

与马克思研究经济学的过程相伴随的是他对资本主义现代化的态度从信仰到批判的转变。马克思逐渐认识到资本主义现代化存在的问题并加以批判。在《共产党宣言》中，马克思找到了资本主义现代化存在的问题是“资产者阶级赖以生存和统治的基本条件，是财富积累在私人手里，是资本的形成和增殖”。以资本为中心的现代化模式带来了现代社会存在的绝大多数问题，导致财富和贫穷的双重积累以及周期性的经济危机。在现代社会里，人被物统治着。同时，随着生产力的不断发展，“资产阶级的关系已经太狭窄了，再容纳不了它们本身所造成的财富了”。资本主义的现代社会注定会被一种新的社会形态取代。种种因素均表明，资本主义现代化所构想的现代社会并非人类历史发展的终点。马克思的批判表现出了对资本主义现代化理论及其理想中的现代社会的超越。

After completing the transformation from belief in capitalist modern society to critique, Marx put forward his own ideas on modernization. Unlike opponents of modernization such as Bakunin and Tkachev [8]8 Mikhail Bakunin (1814–1876) was a Russian anarchist and revolutionary; Pyotr Tkachev (1844–1886) was a Russian revolutionary and proponent of Jacobin-style insurrection. Both opposed capitalist modernization as a path for Russia., Marx did not abandon the pursuit of modernization because of the problems existing in capitalist society. Marx fully recognized the dual character of the capitalist modernization process, affirmed the significance of capitalist modernization, and achieved a transcendence of this theory of modernization. Marx’s ideas on modernization are revealed in the theory of the three forms of society in the *Grundrisse* (1857–1858). He divided the development of human history into three stages, corresponding to three different forms of society. The first form of society is relations of personal dependence; the second form is personal independence founded on objective dependence; the third form is the free individuality of the fully developed individual [9]9 Marx, *Grundrisse* (1857–1858), “Forms Which Precede Capitalist Production.”. Capitalist modernization signifies the transition from the first form to the second, that is, the development from pre-modern society to modern society. The progressive change accompanying this process is the breaking of relations of personal dependence, manifested as personal independence. However, after escaping the bonds of personal dependence, people still put on the yoke of objective dependence. Therefore, after modern society, humanity will enter a higher form of society, namely, future society. The basic characteristic of future society is “free individuality, based on the universal development of individuals and on the subordination of their communal, social productivity as their social wealth” [10]10 Ibid.. At this point, Marx achieved a transcendence of capitalist modernization theory and also completed the construction of his own theory of modernization. This universal theory takes human development as the standard for measuring the degree of modernization, successively passing through three stages: dependence of people on people, dependence of people on things, and finally the free development of individual personality.

在完成了对资本主义现代社会从信仰到批判的转变之后，马克思提出了自己的现代化思想。与巴枯宁、特卡乔夫等现代化的反对者不同，马克思并没有因为资本主义社会存在的问题而放弃对现代化的追求。马克思充分认识到资本主义现代化进程的二重性，肯定资本主义现代化的意义并实现了对这种现代化理论的超越。马克思的现代化思想在《1857—1858年经济学手稿》的社会三形态理论中得到展现。他将人类历史的发展分为三个阶段，分别对应三种不同的社会形态。第一种社会形态为人的依赖关系，第二种社会形态为以物的依赖性为基础的人的独立性，第三种社会形态为个人的全面发展。资本主义现代化意味着从第一种形态向第二种形态的过渡，即从前现代社会向现代社会的发展。伴随这一过程而来的具有进步意义的变化是人与人的依赖关系被打破，表现为人的独立性。但是摆脱了人的依赖关系后，人们依旧会戴上物的依赖性的枷锁。因此，在现代社会之后，人类还将步入更高级的社会形态，即未来社会。未来社会的基本特征是“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”。至此，马克思实现了对资本主义现代化理论的超越，也使自己的现代化理论构建得以完成。这种普遍性的理论以人的发展为衡量现代化程度的标准，依次经历人对人的依赖、人对物的依赖直到人的个性自由的发展三个阶段。

(2) Marx’s Preliminary Exploration of Combining Modernization Theory with Late-Developing Countries in His Later Years

（二）马克思晚年将现代化理论与后发国家相结合的初步探索

Through more than a decade of exploration, Marx summarized a unique theory of modernization that transcended capitalist modernization. However, how exactly should the universality of theory be combined with the particularity manifested by various nations and countries? In particular, can the universal theory that Marx explored using the template of Western European developed countries be applied to other countries and regions? This remained a question requiring further exploration. In his later years, Marx obtained an opportunity to apply modernization theory to the exploration of development paths for late-developing countries. This opportunity arose from the reforms in Russia and the ensuing upsurge of revolutionary fervor within the country. The relevant theories are reflected in the letter to the editorial board of *Otechestvennye Zapiski* and the letter to Vera Zasulich [11]11 Vera Zasulich (1849–1919) was a Russian Marxist revolutionary. In 1881, she wrote to Marx asking whether Russia could bypass capitalism and build communism on the basis of the peasant commune (*obshchina*). Marx’s draft replies explored the possibility of such a non-capitalist path..

通过十多年的探索，马克思总结出了一套超越资本主义现代化的独特的现代化理论。但是理论的普遍性究竟应该如何与各民族和国家体现出的特殊性相结合？特别是马克思以西欧发达国家为模板探索出来的普遍性的理论究竟能否被运用于其他国家和地区，这是仍然需要探索的问题。在晚年，马克思获得了将现代化理论运用于探索后发国家发展道路的契机。这个契机是由俄国的改革和随之而来的国内高涨的革命热情带来的。相关的理论体现在《给〈祖国纪事〉杂志编辑部的信》以及《给维·伊·查苏利奇的复信》中。

In his “Letter to the Editorial Board of *Otechestvennye Zapiski*,” Marx emphasized that the historical origin of Western European capitalism he described in *Capital* does not apply to all nations. If Russia continued its reforms, turning large numbers of peasants into proletarians and establishing extensive capitalist relations of production, “then it would lose the best chance that history ever offered to a people, and would have to endure all the disastrous vicissitudes of the capitalist system.” [12]12 The “Letter to the Editorial Board of *Otechestvennye Zapiski*” (1877) and the “Letter to Vera Zasulich” (1881) are two of Marx’s late writings in which he considered whether Russia could bypass capitalist development. In the first draft of his “Letter to Vera Zasulich,” Marx further analyzed in detail Russia’s particularity and its potential unique path of development. Marx’s analysis is mainly reflected in three aspects: First, Marx analyzed the historical stage in which Russia found itself and the corresponding international environment. In the late 19th century, Russia had not transcended the developmental stage of pre-modern society and remained at a certain distance from modern society. The land in the hands of Russian peasants had never become their private property. The existence of the serfdom system prevented the vast majority of Russia’s population, the peasants, from escaping relations of personal dependence. The country was still in the first social form of the three-form theory of society. [13]13 Marx’s “three forms of society” theory, outlined in the *Grundrisse*, distinguishes pre-capitalist societies based on personal dependence, capitalist societies based on material dependence, and a future communist society based on individual freedom. However, this state of Russia did not exist in isolation; it coexisted with capitalist modern society without having undergone colonization. The advantages and shortcomings of capitalism were clearly manifested in this era. “Because it is contemporaneous with capitalist production, it can appropriate all its positive achievements without undergoing the terrible vicissitudes of capitalist production.” Second, Marx analyzed the characteristics of the Russian rural commune and its possible fate. The Russian rural commune bore the features of a higher form of pre-modern society, exhibiting a duality in which public ownership and private ownership coexisted. The outcome of its development could only be “either the private property element contained in it triumphs over the collective element, or the latter triumphs over the former.” Third, Russia could take a unique path that bypasses the “Caudine Forks” of capitalism [14]14 The “Caudine Forks” (Latin: Furculae Caudinae) were a mountain pass in ancient Italy where the Samnites forced a Roman army to surrender and pass under a yoke, a symbol of humiliation. Marx uses the phrase metaphorically to mean a painful or disastrous ordeal. while enjoying the fruits of capitalist modernization. The capitalist crisis “can only end with the abolition of capitalism, with the return of modern society to a higher form of the ‘archaic’ type of collective ownership and collective production.” This archaic type of collective ownership was precisely what Russia could provide. But unfortunately, it was in the process of dying out. Therefore, “to save the Russian commune, there must be a Russian revolution.”

在《给〈祖国纪事〉杂志编辑部的信》中，马克思强调自己在《资本论》中提到的西欧资本主义起源的历史并不适用于一切民族。如果俄国继续改革，把大量的农民变成无产者，建立起广泛的资本主义生产关系，“那它将会失去当时历史所能提供给一个民族的最好的机会，而遭受资本主义制度所带来的一切灾难性的波折”。在《给维·伊·查苏利奇的复信》初稿中，马克思又详细地分析了俄国的特殊性及其潜在的独特发展路径。马克思的分析主要体现在三个方面：第一，马克思对俄国所处的历史阶段以及与之相应的国际环境进行了分析。俄国在19世纪末并没有超越前现代社会的发展阶段，与现代社会有一定的距离。俄国农民手中的土地从来没有成为他们的私有财产。农奴制度的存在使占俄国绝大多数人口的农民没有办法摆脱人的依赖关系。这个国家仍然处于社会三形态理论中的第一种社会形态。但是俄国的这种状态并非孤立地存在，它是在没有经历殖民的前提下与资本主义现代社会并存的。资本主义的优势及不足在这个时代明显地表现出来。“正因为它和资本主义生产是同时存在的东西，所以它能够不经受资本主义生产的可怕的波折而占有它的一切积极的成果。”第二，马克思对俄国农村公社的特征及其可能的命运进行了分析。俄国农村公社带有前现代社会高级形态的特征，呈现出一种公有制和私有制同时存在的二重性。其发展的结果只能是“或者是它所包含的私有制因素战胜集体因素，或者是后者战胜前者”。第三，俄国可以走出一条不通过资本主义“卡夫丁峡谷”而享有资本主义现代化成果的独特道路。资本主义危机“只能随着资本主义的消灭，随着现代社会回复到‘古代’类型的集体所有制和集体生产的高级形式而告终”。这种古代类型的集体所有制正是俄国所能提供的。但不幸的是它正在消亡。因此，“要挽救俄国公社，就必须有俄国革命”。

Overall, Marx’s attitude toward the modernization of late-developing countries in his later years is reflected in two aspects. First, it is possible for late-developing countries to modernize in a non-capitalist way. Second, for late-developing countries to modernize in a non-capitalist way, certain conditions must be met. In Russia, this condition was embodied in the preservation of the system of communal land ownership, which could transcend the limitations of capitalism. It appears that in his later years Marx completed an attempt to integrate his theory of modernization with the particularity of late-developing countries represented by Russia, putting forward a complete theory of leapfrog development. However, the theory proposed in this first draft remained only at this stage. Before formally replying to Zasulich, Marx drafted four versions of the letter. These drafts showed a gradual reduction in length: the second and third drafts were less than half the length of the first, and the fourth draft and the final formal reply were reduced to about one-tenth of the first draft. The rich analysis in the first draft was continuously cut. In the final formal reply, while Marx made clear that the relevant theory in *Capital* was limited to Western Europe and could not be mechanically applied to Russia, he made only a principled summary of the Russian commune in a single sentence: “This rural commune is the fulcrum of Russia’s social regeneration; but for it to function in this way, the destructive influences assailing it from all sides must first be eliminated, and it must then be ensured the normal conditions for its natural development.” Marx and Engels never gave a clear explanation for the deletion of the rich discussion. What is certain, however, is that the rigorous scholar Marx had already seen that the modernization of late-developing countries could take a non-capitalist path; he had made a preliminary exploration and given a directional answer. For specific areas he had not truly thought through, he would not rush to give answers. Therefore, in his preliminary exploration, Marx had already clearly seen that bypassing the “Caudine Forks” required specific historical conditions as prerequisites. But what exactly were these prerequisite historical conditions? Did Russia in the late 19th century still possess such conditions? These questions required further inquiry and research. Until Marx’s death in 1883, the question of bypassing the “Caudine Forks” remained in an unfinished state.

总体而言，马克思晚年对后发国家现代化的态度体现为两个方面。第一，后发国家存在以非资本主义的方式进行现代化的可能。第二，后发国家以非资本主义的方式进行现代化需要满足一定的条件。在俄国，这种条件体现为能够突破资本主义局限性的土地公社所有制得到保存。看似马克思在晚年完成了将自己的现代化理论与以俄国为代表的后发国家的特殊性相结合的尝试，提出了一套完整的跨越式发展理论。然而这一初稿中提出的理论也仅仅停留于此。马克思在正式回复查苏利奇之前共拟了四版草稿，这些文稿在篇幅上呈现出逐渐缩减的趋势，二稿和三稿的篇幅不到初稿的一半，四稿和正式复信的篇幅更是缩减到了初稿的十分之一左右。初稿中丰富的分析被不断地删减。在最终正式的复信中，马克思在明确《资本论》中相关的理论限于西欧不能照搬到俄国的同时，对于俄国公社仅用一句话做了原则性的概括：“这种农村公社是俄国社会新生的支点；可是要使它能发挥这种作用，首先必须排除从各方面向它袭来的破坏性影响，然后保证它具备自然发展的正常条件。”关于内容丰富的论述被删掉的原因，马克思恩格斯并没有给出过明确的解释。不过可以肯定的是，治学严谨的马克思已经看到了后发国家的现代化可以走出一条非资本主义的道路，他也做出了初步的探索并给出了方向性的答案。对于自己没有真正思考清楚的具体领域，他不会急于给出答案。因此，马克思在自己的初步探索中已经很清楚地看到跨越“卡夫丁峡谷”需要有特定的历史条件作为前提。但是这些前提性的历史条件究竟是什么？俄国在19世纪末是否仍然具备这样的条件？这些问题需要进一步追问与研究。直到马克思1883年去世，跨越“卡夫丁峡谷”的问题仍然表现出了一种未完成的状态。

II. Engels’s Continued Exploration of the Theory of Modernization for Late-Developing Countries in His Later Years

二 恩格斯晚年对后发国家现代化理论的继续探索

The theory that ultimately appeared in an unfinished state in Marx’s exploration was completed in Engels’s continued exploration. “The different answers and different stances of Marx and Engels were not given on the same occasion to the same person.” Engels’s exploration of the modernization of late-developing countries also went through a process; his understanding was gradually constructed in the course of exploration.

在马克思的探索中最终表现为未完成状态的理论在恩格斯的继续探索中得以完成。“马克思、恩格斯的不同回答、不同表态，并不是在同一场合针对同一个人而言的。”恩格斯对后发国家现代化问题的探索也经历了一个过程，他的认识是在探索过程中逐步构建起来的。

“From the existing literature, Engels’s research on this issue began earlier and lasted longer than Marx’s, and left more relevant texts.” Engels’s earliest systematic exposition is found in his 1874 work *On the Social Question in Russia* and its introduction. Here, he criticized the view advocated by populist theorists represented by Tkachev, [15]15 Pyotr Tkachev (1844–1886) was a Russian revolutionary and populist theorist who argued that Russia could transition directly to socialism based on its peasant commune, without passing through capitalism. who argued that Russia did not need to rely on the advanced achievements of capitalism but could transition directly to future society by means of the rural commune and the artel. [16]16 The artel (артель) was a traditional Russian form of cooperative labor association, often used in agriculture, crafts, and small-scale industry. Engels’s view at this time was basically consistent with Marx’s ideas in the letter to Zasulich, specifically reflected in two aspects. First, Russia had not entered modern society, nor did it possess factors that could, solely by relying on itself, achieve a leap to future society. The Russian populists put forward the “theory of the superiority of backwardness,” arguing that the widespread existence of the artel and communal land ownership brought Russia closer to future society. Engels pointed out in response that the artel and communal land ownership had existed widely among various peoples in certain historical periods and were not unique to Russia. As for the artel, it “is a spontaneously arising, and therefore still very undeveloped, form of cooperative, and is not a purely Russian or purely Slavic cooperative form.” On the issue of communal land ownership, “in Western Europe, including Poland and Little Russia, this communal ownership became, at a certain stage of social development, a fetter and obstacle to agricultural production, and was therefore gradually eliminated.” The widespread existence of the artel and communal land ownership was merely a manifestation of Russia’s backward productive forces and could not serve as evidence of being closer to future society. Second, there was a possibility for Russia to take a non-capitalist path of modernization, but it required certain conditions to be realized. Communal ownership contained positive elements of public ownership, but it was insufficient to achieve a leap to a higher stage solely by relying on itself. Engels emphasized that external factors were needed to enable communal ownership to transition to a higher stage. “If anything can still save Russian communal ownership and make it possible to become a truly viable new form, it is precisely the proletarian revolution in Western Europe.” Only the revolution in Western Europe could provide the necessary conditions for the transition of Russian communal land ownership; only when the necessary conditions were met would a leap to a higher stage become possible.

“从现有文献来看，恩格斯对这一问题的研究比马克思更早、更久，留下的相关文本也更多。”恩格斯最早的系统论述见于1874年的《论俄国的社会问题》及其导言。在这里，他批判了以特卡乔夫为代表的民粹派理论家鼓吹的俄国不需要借助资本主义的先进成果，而可以借助农村公社和劳动组合直接向未来社会过渡的观点。恩格斯此时的观点与马克思在写给查苏利奇的复信中的思想基本一致，具体体现在两个方面。第一，俄国没有进入现代社会，也没有仅仅依靠自身就可以向未来社会飞跃的因素。俄国民粹派提出“落后优越论”，认为劳动组合与土地公社所有制的广泛存在使俄国更加接近于未来社会。恩格斯据此指出，劳动组合与土地公社所有制是在一定的历史时期广泛存在于各民族之中的，并非俄国独有。就劳动组合而言，它“是一种自发产生的，因而还很不发达的合作社形式，并且也不是纯俄罗斯或纯斯拉夫的合作社形式”。而在土地公社所有制的问题上，“在西欧，包括波兰和小俄罗斯在内，这种公社所有制在社会发展的一定阶段上，变成了农业生产的桎梏和障碍，因而渐渐被消除了”。劳动组合与土地公社所有制的广泛存在只是俄国生产力落后的表现，不能成为更加接近未来社会的证据。第二，俄国存在走出一条非资本主义的现代化道路的可能，但需要一定的条件才能实现。公社所有制存在公有制的积极因素，但不足以仅依靠自身实现向更高阶段的飞跃。恩格斯强调需要有外部因素的介入才能使公社所有制过渡到更高的阶段。“如果有什么东西还能挽救俄国的公社所有制，使它有可能变成确实富有生命力的新形式，那么这正是西欧的无产阶级革命。”只有西欧的革命向俄国土地公社所有制提供过渡的必要条件，在满足了必要条件的前提下，向更高的阶段的飞跃才会成为可能。

After Marx’s death, Engels continued to explore the modernization of late-developing countries and pushed the theory to its completed form. Especially after the 1890s, there were many relevant expositions, specifically reflected in the postscript to *On the Social Question in Russia* and in his correspondence with Danielson [17]17 Nikolai Danielson (1844–1918) was a Russian economist and populist who translated Marx’s *Capital* into Russian and corresponded with Marx and Engels about Russia’s economic development. and others. During this period, while affirming the possibility of leapfrog development for late-developing countries, Engels also held a pessimistic attitude toward the situation in Russia. His theory mainly had the following two characteristics.

在马克思去世后，恩格斯继续探索后发国家的现代化问题，并将理论推向了完成形态。尤其在19世纪90年代以后，相关的论述较多，具体体现在为《论俄国的社会问题》写的跋以及与丹尼尔逊等人的通信中。这一时期，恩格斯在肯定后发国家具有实现跨越式发展的可能性的基础上，也对俄国现状持有一种悲观态度。其理论主要有以下两方面的特征。

First, Engels still acknowledged the possibility that Russia could rapidly develop toward a future society through communal land ownership. In his later years, Engels’ discussion of leapfrog development for late-developing countries appears relatively pessimistic. It is precisely for this reason that the widely popular “opposition thesis” of Marx and Engels emerged in Western academia. However, until his death, Engels did not deny that late-developing countries could take a development path that leaps over the “Caudine Forks.” [18]18 “Leaping over the Caudine Forks” (跨越“卡夫丁峡谷”) is a metaphor used by Marx, referring to the ancient Roman defeat at the Caudine Forks, to mean bypassing the capitalist stage of development. On the contrary, he emphasized: “When the proletariat of the Western European nations achieves victory and the means of production are transferred to public ownership, those countries that have only just entered capitalist production while still preserving clan systems or remnants of clan systems can use the remnants of public ownership and the corresponding popular customs as powerful means to greatly shorten their process of development toward socialist society and to avoid most of the suffering and struggles we in Western Europe had to endure while opening up the path.” [19]19 Friedrich Engels, “Afterword to ‘On the Social Question in Russia’” (1894), in *Marx and Engels Collected Works*, vol. 27, p. 439. For Russia, “the commune, and to some extent the artel, contain certain germs that, under certain conditions, can develop and save Russia from having to endure the torments of the capitalist system.” [20]20 Ibid. Therefore, Engels’ pessimistic attitude does not mean he abandoned his earlier position; rather, he saw in reality more restrictive conditions for this mode of development.

第一，恩格斯仍然承认俄国存在通过公社土地所有制向未来社会快速发展的可能。恩格斯晚年对后发国家跨越式发展的论述显得较为悲观。也正因为如此，在西方学界广为流行的马克思恩格斯的“对立论”得以产生。但是直到恩格斯去世，他也没有否认后发国家可以走出一条跨越“卡夫丁峡谷”的发展道路。相反，他强调：“当西欧各民族的无产阶级取得胜利和生产资料转归公有之后，那些刚刚进入资本主义生产而仍然保全了氏族制度或氏族制度残余的国家，可以利用公有制的残余和与之相适应的人民风尚作为强大的手段，来大大缩短自己向社会主义社会发展的过程，并避免我们在西欧开辟道路时所不得不经历的大部分苦难和斗争。”对于俄国而言，“公社，在某种程度上还有劳动组合，都包含了某些萌芽，它们在一定条件下可以发展起来，拯救俄国不必经受资本主义制度的苦难”。因此，恩格斯的悲观态度不意味着他放弃了此前的主张，只是他在现实中看到了更多这种发展方式的限制性条件。

Second, Engels more clearly specified the preconditions required for achieving leapfrog development, while also recognizing that in the Russia of his time these preconditions were gradually disappearing. On the one hand, to achieve leapfrog development, the favorable factors within the commune needed to be preserved, but Russia’s favorable factors had already been undermined by the end of the nineteenth century. Concern over the destruction of Russia’s communal land ownership runs almost continuously through Engels’ later attention to the Russian question. In his final years, Engels repeatedly stressed this issue. In an 1892 letter to Danielson, he noted: “It seems clear to me that ‘Russia’s large-scale industry will inevitably destroy the agricultural commune,’ unless some other great change occurs that helps preserve this commune.” [21]21 Engels to Nikolai Danielson, 18 June 1892, in *Marx and Engels Collected Works*, vol. 49, p. 512. In 1893, Engels’ stance on this issue became even firmer. He stated: “Now the kulaks and wealthy peasants in your country are likewise ruthlessly destroying the commune. I fear this system is doomed to perish.” [22]22 Engels to Nikolai Danielson, 24 February 1893, in *Marx and Engels Collected Works*, vol. 50, p. 138. Initially, such relatively pessimistic judgments remained in private correspondence. Later, this view, which had existed in private letters, was made public in the postscript to “On the Social Question in Russia”: “I dare not judge whether this commune is still preserved so intact that, at a certain moment, as Marx and I hoped in 1882, it could combine with the transformation of Western Europe and become the starting point for communist development.” [23]23 Engels, “Afterword to ‘On the Social Question in Russia’” (1894), in *Marx and Engels Collected Works*, vol. 27, p. 435. Communal ownership was a positive factor for Russia as a late-developing country to achieve leapfrog development, but it had already been severely damaged. “To preserve this surviving commune, it is first necessary to overthrow the tsarist autocracy; a revolution must be carried out in Russia.” [24]24 Ibid., p. 440. Once the positive factors disappear, the opportunity for leapfrog development also vanishes. On the other hand, the transition required an external factor to serve as a model, but this ultimately did not materialize, and the possibility of its emergence was diminishing. In an 1893 letter to Danielson, Engels pointed out: “In Russia, it is as impossible as anywhere else to develop a higher social form out of primitive agricultural communism unless this higher form already exists in some other country and serves as a model.” [25]25 Engels to Nikolai Danielson, 24 February 1893, in *Marx and Engels Collected Works*, vol. 50, p. 139. To save Russia and avoid the torments of capitalism, “the first necessary condition is an external impulse, namely a change in the economic system of Western Europe, the elimination of the capitalist system in those countries where it first arose.” [26]26 Engels, “Afterword to ‘On the Social Question in Russia’” (1894), in *Marx and Engels Collected Works*, vol. 27, p. 440. Without an external model, leapfrog development from a pre-capitalist society to a future society was doomed to fail. “Unfortunately, our progress is too slow; the economic consequences that would bring the capitalist system to its critical point are only just beginning to develop in the countries around us.” [27]27 Engels to Nikolai Danielson, 24 February 1893, in *Marx and Engels Collected Works*, vol. 50, p. 139.

第二，恩格斯更加明确了实现跨越式发展所需要的前提条件，同时他也看到了在当时的俄国这些前提条件正在逐渐消失。一方面，想要实现跨越式发展，公社内部的有利因素需要被保留下来，可是俄国的有利因素在19世纪末已经遭到破坏。对俄国土地公社所有制遭到破坏的担忧几乎贯穿了恩格斯晚年对俄国问题关注的始终。恩格斯在生命的最后几年曾经反复强调过这个问题。在1892年与丹尼尔逊的通信中，他就提到：“在我看来，很明显，‘俄国的大工业必将扼杀农业公社’，假如不发生其他有助于保留这种公社的巨大变化的话。” 1893年，恩格斯对这个问题的态度更加坚定。他提到：“现在你们国家的富农和富豪也在同样无情地破坏着公社。恐怕这一制度注定要灭亡。”起初，这种较为悲观的论断还停留在私人通信中。到后来，这种存在于私人通信中的观点在为《论俄国的社会问题》写的跋中被公之于众：“我不敢判断目前这种公社是否还保存得这样完整，以致在一定的时刻，像马克思和我在1882年所希望的那样，它能够同西欧的转变相配合而成为共产主义发展的起点。”公社所有制是作为后发国家的俄国实现跨越式发展的积极因素，但是已经遭到严重的破坏。“要想保全这个残存的公社，就必须首先推翻沙皇专制制度，必须在俄国进行革命。”积极因素一旦消失，实现跨越式发展的机会也将随之消失。另一方面，过渡需要有外部因素作为参照的样板，但是这最终并没有出现，出现的可能也在减小。在1893年给丹尼尔逊的信中，恩格斯指出：“在俄国，从原始的农业共产主义中发展出更高的社会形态，也像任何其他地方一样是不可能的，除非这种更高的形态已经存在于其他某个国家并且起着样板的作用。”要想拯救俄国，避免资本主义的苦难，“第一个必要条件，是外部的推动，即西欧经济体制的变革，资本主义体制在它最先产生的那些国家中的消灭”。如果没有外界的样板作用，从前资本主义社会向未来社会的跨越式发展是注定不可能成功的。“不幸的是，我们的进展太慢，那些会使资本主义体制达到临界点的经济后果，目前在我们周围的各个国家只是刚刚开始发展。”

Engels’ attention to the modernization of late-developing countries in his later years underwent a process of development. Through continuous exploration, Engels ultimately recognized that countries in the pre-capitalist stage, provided the conditions were met, could bypass the capitalist stage and directly achieve a leap to a future society. However, this leap was subject to a series of constraints and could only be realized under specific historical conditions. First, the pre-capitalist country itself must possess factors capable of breaking through the limitations of modern society. Second, the model effect of other countries is indispensable. Yet, in the case of Russia, the favorable factor of communal land ownership was undoubtedly gradually disappearing, and the international environment showed no signs of positive factors. This is the reason for the gradual pessimism in Engels’ attitude toward the leapfrog development of late-developing countries.

恩格斯晚年对后发国家现代化问题的关注经历了一个发展过程。通过不断探索，恩格斯最终认识到，处于前资本主义阶段的国家在条件具备的前提下可以不经过资本主义阶段，直接实现向未来社会的跨越。可是这一跨越受到一系列限制，只能在特定的历史条件下实现。其一，处于前资本主义时代的国家自身要有打破现代社会局限性的因素。其二，其他国家的样板作用必不可少。可是就俄国的个案来看，公社土地所有制这个有利因素无疑在逐渐消失，国际环境也没有带来积极因素的迹象，这是导致恩格斯在后发国家跨越式发展问题上的态度逐渐悲观的原因。

III. A Comparison of Marx and Engels’ Conceptions of Leapfrog Development for Late-Developing Countries

三 马克思恩格斯关于后发国家跨越式发展构想的比较

Based on the above research, it is not difficult to see that while Marx and Engels’ theories on the modernization path of late-developing countries share a common value orientation, they also exhibit certain differences. Their common value orientation is reflected in the preface to the second Russian edition of the *Communist Manifesto* in 1882: “If the Russian revolution becomes the signal for a proletarian revolution in the West, so that both complement each other, then the present Russian common ownership of land can serve as the starting point for communist development.” [28]28 Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, “Preface to the Second Russian Edition of the *Communist Manifesto*” (1882), in *Marx and Engels Collected Works*, vol. 24, p. 426. It can be said that until their respective deaths, Marx and Engels never changed this view. Therefore, “our understanding and interpretation of the ‘leapfrog theory’ should be strictly based on this ‘only possible answer,’” [29]29 The “only possible answer” refers to the formulation in the 1882 preface. and any differences are raised on the basis of this common value orientation.

基于以上研究，不难看出的是，马克思恩格斯关于后发国家现代化发展道路的理论存在共同的价值旨归的同时，也表现出了一定的差别。他们的共同价值旨归在1882年《共产党宣言》俄文第二版的序言中得到了体现：“假如俄国革命将成为西方无产阶级革命的信号而双方互相补充的话，那么现今的俄国土地公有制便能成为共产主义发展的起点。”可以说，直到马克思恩格斯相继去世，他们也没有改变这种观点。所以，“我们理解和阐释‘跨越论’，应该严格以这个‘唯一可能的答复’为基础”，任何差异都是建立在共同的价值旨归之上提出的。

The “only possible answer” is built on two consensuses between Marx and Engels. The two consensuses are: First, both Marx and Engels believed that late-developing countries had the possibility of taking a non-capitalist path of modernization. In the first draft of his reply to Vera Zasulich, Marx pointed out that the Russian rural commune, gradually shedding its primitive features, coexisted with capitalist production. Thus, Russia “has the possibility of not passing through the Caudine Forks of the capitalist system, while appropriating all the positive achievements created by the capitalist system.” [30]30 Karl Marx, “First Draft of the Letter to Vera Zasulich” (1881), in *Marx and Engels Collected Works*, vol. 24, p. 346. This point was upheld in Engels’ theory and remained unchanged until his death. In the postscript to “On the Social Question in Russia,” Engels emphasized: “When the proletariat of the Western European nations achieves victory and the means of production are transferred to public ownership, those countries that have only just entered capitalist production while still preserving clan systems or remnants of clan systems can use the remnants of public ownership and the corresponding popular customs as powerful means to greatly shorten their process of development toward socialist society and to avoid most of the suffering and struggles we in Western Europe had to endure while opening up the path.” [31]31 Engels, “Afterword to ‘On the Social Question in Russia’” (1894), in *Marx and Engels Collected Works*, vol. 27, p. 439. In terms of textual evidence, Marx and Engels are consistent and indistinguishable on the question of the possibility of late-developing countries leaping over the “Caudine Forks” in modernization. Second, both Marx and Engels recognized that achieving the “leap” required meeting certain preconditions. The most important of these preconditions was preserving the favorable factors of the late-developing country itself. For the Russian commune to become a factor in the renewal of Russian society, the destruction of communal land ownership in the course of reforms had to be avoided. “To save the Russian commune, a Russian revolution is necessary.” “To preserve this surviving commune, it is first necessary to overthrow the tsarist autocracy; a revolution must be carried out in Russia.” [32]32 Ibid., p. 440. This consistency accompanied Marx and Engels throughout their reflections on the modernization of late-developing countries and also reflects the distinction between Marxists and the Narodniks.

“唯一可能的答复”建立在马克思恩格斯两条共识的基础之上。两条共识为：第一，马克思恩格斯都认为后发国家存在走出非资本主义现代化道路的可能。在写给查苏利奇的复信的初稿中，马克思指出逐步摆脱原始特征的俄国农村公社与资本主义生产是同时存在的。因而俄国“有可能不通过资本主义制度的卡夫丁峡谷，而占有资本主义制度所创造的一切积极的成果”。这一点在恩格斯的理论中得到了坚持，直到他去世也没有改变。在《〈论俄国的社会问题〉跋》中，恩格斯强调：“当西欧各民族的无产阶级取得胜利和生产资料转归公有之后，那些刚刚进入资本主义生产而仍然保全了氏族制度或氏族制度残余的国家，可以利用公有制的残余和与之相适应的人民风尚作为强大的手段，来大大缩短自己向社会主义社会发展的过程，并避免我们在西欧开辟道路时所不得不经历的大部分苦难和斗争。”从文本依据上看，马克思恩格斯在关于后发国家现代化跨越“卡夫丁峡谷”可能性问题上是一致的，没有区别。第二，马克思恩格斯都认识到实现“跨越”需要满足一定的前提条件。前提条件中最重要的一点是使后发国家自身的有利因素得到保留。要想使俄国公社成为俄国社会新生的因素，就要避免公社土地所有制在改革中消失。“要挽救俄国公社，就必须有俄国革命。”“要想保全这个残存的公社，就必须首先推翻沙皇专制制度，必须在俄国进行革命。”这种一致性始终伴随着马克思恩格斯思考后发国家现代化的过程，也体现出马克思主义者和民粹派之间的区别。

Yet it must be acknowledged that there are also certain differences in their thinking. What Marx saw was more the positive side, namely the possibility for late-developing countries to leap from pre-capitalist society to a future society. What Engels saw, however, was more the preconditions required for such a leap and the difficulties facing Russia’s actual situation. Therefore, we must not only recognize the common value orientation of Marx and Engels but also pay attention to their differences on the question of modernization in late-developing countries.

但不得不承认，他们的思想也存在着一定的差异。马克思看到的更多是积极的一面，即后发国家实现从前资本主义社会向未来社会跨越的可能性。而恩格斯看到的更多是实现跨越需要的前提条件以及俄国现实状况面临的困难。因此，我们既要看到马克思恩格斯共同的价值旨归，也要注意他们在后发国家现代化问题上的差异。

At present, domestic academic circles mostly explain this difference in terms of historical logic, that is, changes in the context of dialogue or the times. They hold that “because Marx and Engels were situated in different social-historical backgrounds and addressed different specific issues, their relevant discussions and explanations inevitably contain some differences. Yet these differences not only fail to create an opposition between the two men’s views but instead allow their views to complement and perfect each other, thereby enriching and developing the conception of ‘crossing the Caudine Forks’.” [33]33 “Crossing the Caudine Forks” (卡夫丁峡谷) is a metaphor used by Marx and Engels, drawn from a Roman military defeat, to refer to the capitalist stage of development that a society might avoid under certain conditions. This view is correct; it forcefully refutes the “opposition” interpretive paradigm prevalent in Western academia. At the same time, however, we should recognize that changes in historical logic also brought about the deepening development of theoretical logic. Behind the differences in the views of Marx and Engels lie different stages in the development of theory from universality to particularity. After constructing his own universal theory of modernization, Marx attempted to combine the universality of theory with the particularity of specific nations and countries, thereby raising the possibility of late-developing countries leaping to a future society. Unfortunately, time left to Marx was only enough for him to complete a preliminary exploration of the theory. When Marx died in 1883, the theory still appeared in an unfinished state, and this unfinished state was concretely manifested in the need to deepen the understanding of the preconditions. After Marx’s death, Engels continued to explore the preconditions for leapfrog development in late-developing countries, making it clearer that for a late-developing country to leap to a future society, the preservation of favorable internal factors and the existence of an external model are both indispensable; therefore, such a leap can only be realized within a certain historical period. By the end of the 19th century, the developmental conditions of both Russia and the major developed countries of Europe had already become very different from those during Marx’s lifetime. Correspondingly, the advent of the era of imperialism endowed capitalism with greater capacity for self-regulation, and the model effect, which was one of the necessary conditions, did not appear in time. Engels saw that “the economic development of the European continent was not yet mature enough to eliminate capitalism” and that “the capitalists had changed their former naked mode of exploitation and were making ‘concessions to justice and benevolence’.” [34]34 Engels’s observation on European capitalism’s insufficient maturity for elimination and capitalists’ shift toward “justice and benevolence” reflects his later assessment of capitalism’s adaptability. Meanwhile, the advance of reforms in Russia caused the favorable factors that had once been widely present there to disappear completely. Russia was losing the opportunity to achieve leapfrog development. The contrast between theory and reality led Engels to a relatively pessimistic conclusion. “If Engels expressed new views in his later years, it was that he became more firmly convinced that Russia would inevitably take the capitalist road, and this conviction came with additional conditions, consistent with Marx’s thinking.” [35]35 This quotation summarizes the scholarly view that Engels’s later position on Russia’s capitalist path was more definite but remained consistent with Marx’s framework. With this, Engels completed the basic construction of the theory of modernization in late-developing countries that he had explored together with Marx.

当前，国内学界多从历史逻辑，即以对话语境或时代的变化来解释这种差异，认为“由于马克思与恩格斯所处社会历史背景及其具体针对性的不同，他们的相关探讨与阐释不可避免地存在着一些差异性，但这些差异性不但没有造成二人观点上的对立性，反而使得他们的观点得以互补与完善，进而丰富与发展了跨越‘卡夫丁峡谷’设想”。这种观点是正确的，它有力地驳斥了流行于西方学界的“对立论”解读范式。不过与此同时，我们应当看到的是历史逻辑的变化也带来了理论逻辑的深入发展。马克思恩格斯观点差异的背后体现出的是理论从普遍性向特殊性发展的不同阶段。马克思构建了自己的现代化普遍性理论之后，尝试着将理论的普遍性与特定民族、国家的特殊性相结合，提出了后发国家实现向未来社会跨越的可能性。可惜留给马克思的时间只够他完成理论的初步探索。1883年马克思去世时，理论仍然呈现为未完成的状态，这种未完成的状态具体表现在对于前提条件的认识仍需深化。恩格斯在马克思去世后继续探索后发国家实现跨越式发展的前提条件，更加明确对于后发国家向未来社会的飞跃而言，内部有利因素的保留与外部样板作用的存在二者缺一不可，因此，这种飞跃只能在一定的历史时期之内来实现。19世纪末，无论是俄国还是欧洲主要的发达国家，其发展状况都已经与马克思生前时的状况有很大不同。与之相应的是，帝国主义时代的到来赋予了资本主义更强大的自我调节能力，作为必要条件之一的样板效应没有及时出现。恩格斯看到“欧洲大陆经济发展状况还没有成熟到能够铲除资本主义的程度”，以及“资本家改变了以前赤裸裸的剥削方式，正向 ‘正义和仁爱让步’”。而俄国改革的推进又使得原本自身广泛存在的有利因素消失殆尽。俄国正在失去实现跨越式发展的机会。理论与现实的对照使恩格斯得出了相对悲观的结论。“如果说恩格斯晚年发表了新看法，那就是他对俄国不可避免地走资本主义道路更加坚定，这种坚定是有附加条件的，和马克思的思想是一致的。”恩格斯至此完成了他与马克思共同探索的后发国家现代化理论的基本构建。

The combination of a universal theory with specific national conditions inevitably produces some particular conclusions. For late-developing countries to achieve modernization, corresponding preconditions are required. Everything must be contingent on historical conditions. Only under specific conditions will the expected conclusions emerge. “An examination of Marx and Engels’s study of the Russian commune issue should be conducted comprehensively in light of the historical background in which they lived and the logical thread of their theoretical exposition, adhering to the standpoint of historical materialism and scientific communism.” [36]36 This passage cites a contemporary Chinese scholarly argument for analyzing Marx and Engels’s work on the Russian commune through historical and logical lenses. Marx and Engels’s exploration of the prospects for modernization in late-developing countries not only grasped the dialectical relationship between the universality and particularity of contradictions but also embodied the methodological principle of seeking truth from facts in the process of theoretical exploration.

普遍性的理论与具体国情相结合必然会产生一些特殊性的结论。后发国家实现现代化需要具备相应的前提条件。一切要以历史的条件为转移。只有在特定的条件下，预期中的结论才会产生。“对马克思恩格斯研究俄国公社问题的考察应结合他们所处的时代背景和理论阐述的逻辑思路来全面分析，坚持历史唯物主义和科学共产主义的立场。”马克思恩格斯对后发国家现代化前景的探索既把握了矛盾的普遍性与特殊性相结合的辩证关系，也体现了理论探索的过程中坚持实事求是的方法论原则。

IV. The Practice of Marx and Engels’s Theory of Modernization in Late-Developing Countries and Its Contemporary Value

四 马克思恩格斯后发国家现代化理论的实践及其当代价值

The process of Marx and Engels’s exploration of the theory of modernization in late-developing countries embodies a very rigorous scientific spirit. On the one hand, they saw that late-developing countries could take a path of modernization different from that of the developed capitalist countries, bypassing the capitalist “Caudine Forks” while appropriating all the achievements of capitalist modernization. On the other hand, they also saw that for late-developing countries to cross the capitalist “Caudine Forks,” it was necessary to combine their own favorable factors with external model factors. Favorable internal factors can break through the limitations of capitalist modernization; external model factors can provide advanced experience for appropriating the achievements of capitalist modernization. Neither is dispensable. This conclusion was reached under the condition of Marx and Engels’s continuous interrogation of the preconditions, and it contains the methodological principle of proceeding from reality in everything and seeking truth from facts, providing theoretical guidance for the practice of later generations.

马克思恩格斯对后发国家现代化理论的探索过程体现了十分严谨的科学精神。一方面，他们看到了后发国家可以走出一条与发达资本主义国家不同的现代化道路，不经过资本主义的“卡夫丁峡谷”而占有资本主义现代化的一切成果；另一方面，他们也看到了后发国家跨越资本主义“卡夫丁峡谷”需要自身的有利因素和外部的样板因素相结合。自身的有利因素可以突破资本主义现代化的局限性，外部的样板因素可以提供占有资本主义现代化成果的先进经验，二者缺一不可。这是在马克思恩格斯不断地对前提进行追问的条件下得出的结论，其中蕴涵着一切从实际出发，实事求是的方法论原则，为后人的实践提供了理论上的指引。

After the deaths of Marx and Engels, a number of socialist countries carried out practical explorations of Marx and Engels’s theory of modernization. Among them, Russia, on which Marx and Engels had placed great hopes, took the lead. After the October Revolution, Soviet Russia became the first socialist country in human history. Marx and Engels’s exploration of the theory of modernization in late-developing countries was continued in the construction of Soviet power in Russia. Compared with the situation before Engels’s death, the era environment Russia faced after his death underwent even greater changes. From the perspective of the international situation, Soviet power in Russia was established in the era of imperialism at the beginning of the 20th century. At this time, capitalism’s capacity for self-repair had been further enhanced, socialist revolutions in the developed capitalist countries were nowhere in sight, and the model effect did not materialize. From the domestic perspective, in the 20 years after Engels’s death, Russian capitalism developed further, the communal land system further disintegrated, and favorable domestic factors were also not well preserved. The builders of Soviet Russia saw that Russia in 1917 did not possess the conditions for a direct leap to a future society, which objectively posed new demands for the practice of the theory of modernization in late-developing countries. “Under circumstances where socialist revolution still had not occurred in the developed capitalist countries, how late-developing countries could make good use of the developed productive forces of capitalism became an important factor determining the success or failure of the path of crossing the Caudine Forks.” [37]37 This quotation addresses the challenge for late-developing countries to utilize capitalist productive forces when no socialist revolution occurs in advanced countries. Lenin keenly noted this point. In the process of building Soviet power, he implemented the New Economic Policy, applying the logic of the commodity economy to socialist construction and steadily advancing the development of the productive forces of the nascent Soviet regime. He recognized: “To prepare for the transition to communism (prepared through many years of work), it is necessary to pass through transitional stages such as state capitalism and socialism.” [38]38 Lenin’s statement on transitional stages (state capitalism, socialism) comes from his writings on the New Economic Policy, which introduced market mechanisms into Soviet socialism. In this way, by a roundabout method, the two preconditions required for late-developing countries to cross the “Caudine Forks” were satisfied, achieving an innovation on Marx and Engels’s theory of modernization in late-developing countries and also embodying the theoretical spirit of seeking truth from facts. Unfortunately, this theoretical quality could not be consistently carried through in the process of Soviet socialist construction. After Lenin’s death, for a considerable historical period, the Soviet socialist modernization enterprise suffered from the problem of rushing toward a transition to a future society without regard for the actual level of the productive forces. “At a stage when the level of the productive forces was still low, pursuing an excessively high proportion of public ownership in the economy constrained the vitality of economic development, and the contradiction between the productive forces and the relations of production grew increasingly acute, leading to insufficient momentum for modernization.” [39]39 This passage critiques the Soviet Union’s later overemphasis on public ownership at low productivity levels, contributing to its dissolution. This ultimately became an important cause of the dissolution of the Soviet Union.

在马克思恩格斯去世后，不少社会主义国家对马克思恩格斯的现代化理论进行了实践探索，其中被马克思恩格斯寄予厚望的俄国率先开始。十月革命后，苏维埃俄国成为人类历史上的第一个社会主义国家。马克思恩格斯对后发国家现代化理论的探索在俄国苏维埃政权建设中得到了继续。相比于恩格斯去世前，其去世后俄国面临的时代环境发生了更大的变化。从国际局势来看，俄国的苏维埃政权是在20世纪初的帝国主义时代建立的，此时资本主义的自我修复能力得到了更大的提升，发达资本主义国家的社会主义革命遥遥无期，样板作用没有产生。从国内来看，在恩格斯去世后的20年里，俄国资本主义进一步发展，公社土地所有制进一步解体，国内的有利因素也没有得到很好保存。苏维埃俄国的建设者们看到，1917年的俄国并不具备直接向未来社会跨越的条件，这在客观上对后发国家现代化理论的实践提出了新的要求。“在资本主义发达国家仍然没有发生社会主义革命的情况下，后发国家怎么利用好资本主义的发达生产力，成为决定跨越卡夫丁峡谷之路是否成功的重要因素。”列宁敏锐地注意到了这一点，在苏维埃政权建设的过程中实行新经济政策，将商品经济的逻辑运用于社会主义建设中，稳步推进新生苏维埃政权的生产力发展。他认识到：“为了作好向共产主义过渡的准备（通过多年的工作来准备），需要经过国家资本主义和社会主义这些过渡阶段。”这样就通过一种迂回的方式解决了后发国家跨越“卡夫丁峡谷”所需要的两个前提条件，实现了对马克思恩格斯后发国家现代化理论的创新，也体现了实事求是的理论精神。可惜这种理论品质在苏联社会主义建设过程中没有能够被贯彻到底。列宁去世后，苏联的社会主义现代化事业在相当长的历史时期内出现不顾现实的生产力水平而急于向未来社会过渡的问题。“在生产力水平尚低的阶段，追求过高的公有制经济比重制约了经济发展的活力，生产力与生产关系的矛盾日趋尖锐而导致现代化的后劲不足。”这最终成为导致苏联解体的一个重要原因。

Unlike the practice of the Soviet Union, China has explored a path of Chinese-path modernization suited to its own national conditions from a different route. As Lenin anticipated: “In the Eastern countries, where the population is immensely numerous and social conditions are immensely complex, the coming revolution will undoubtedly bear even more distinctive features than the Russian revolution.” [40]40 V. I. Lenin, “Address to the Second All-Russia Congress of Communist Organizations of the Peoples of the East,” November 22, 1919, *Collected Works*, vol. 30, p. 161. The Communist Party of China recognized the particularities within China’s socialist modernization endeavor, did not blindly pursue a rapid leap to communism, but fully acknowledged China’s more complex national conditions, endowing the exploration of Chinese-path modernization with the spirit of proceeding from reality in everything and seeking truth from facts. Mao Zedong pointed out: “The ‘textbook’ of Marxism must be studied, but it must be integrated with China’s actual conditions.” [41]41 Mao Zedong, “Oppose Book Worship,” May 1930, *Selected Works of Mao Zedong*, vol. 1, p. 112. Seeking truth from facts is the essence of Mao Zedong Thought and the ideological line of the Communist Party of China. In certain historical periods, due to a lack of historical experience, China’s modernization construction once committed “Left” or Right errors, but under the requirement of the ideological line of proceeding from reality in everything and seeking truth from facts, the Communist Party of China promptly summarized historical experiences and lessons, deeply analyzed the principal contradiction of Chinese society in each period and its laws of change, shifted everything according to time, place, and conditions, and continuously questioned the prerequisites for China’s practice of the theory of modernization for late-developing countries. “To uphold and develop Marxism, it must be integrated with China’s specific realities.” [42]42 Xi Jinping, “Speech at the Ceremony Marking the Centenary of the Communist Party of China,” July 1, 2021. In the process of advancing Chinese-path modernization, the implementation of two measures ensured the effective integration of the classical Marxist writers’ theory of modernization for late-developing countries with China’s specific realities. First, the leadership role of the Communist Party of China and the establishment of the basic socialist economic system jointly guaranteed the socialist nature and fundamental characteristics of Chinese-path modernization from both political and economic aspects. The positive factors required for socialist modernization are thus also manifested. Second, through reform and opening up and the construction of the socialist market economy, Chinese-path modernization actively absorbs and draws upon the most advanced achievements of all human civilization. By combining the positive factors of socialist public ownership with the most advanced achievements of human civilization, China has achieved in less than a century what Western countries took centuries to accomplish through capitalist modernization. The Communist Party of China follows the theory of modernization for late-developing countries explored by Marx and Engels, while adhering to integrating theory with practice and shifting everything according to time, place, and conditions, enabling Chinese-path modernization to transcend both the Western capital-centered modernization model and the rigid traditional socialist modernization model. “The Communist Party of China has led the people of all ethnic groups across the country to successfully embark on the path of Chinese-path modernization, answering the question of how to use Chinese-path modernization to leap over the ‘Caudine Forks’ of capitalism, [43]43 “Caudine Forks” (Latin: Furculae Caudinae) is a historical reference to a humiliating defeat of the Roman army by the Samnites in 321 BCE, used by Marx to metaphorically describe a society’s transition to a higher mode of production without passing through all the intermediate stages of capitalist development. highlighting the scientific socialist essence of modernization, enabling scientific socialism to burst forth with new vitality in the 21st century, and providing a feasible path and method for realizing the free and comprehensive development of the individual.” [44]44 Xi Jinping, “Speech at the Ceremony Marking the Centenary of the Communist Party of China,” July 1, 2021.

与苏联的实践不同，中国从另外一条道路探索出了符合自身国情的中国式现代化道路。正如列宁预料到的：“在东方那些人口无比众多、社会情况无比复杂的国家里，今后的革命无疑会比俄国革命带有更多的特殊性。”中国共产党看到了中国社会主义现代化事业中的特殊性，没有盲目地追求向共产主义的快速飞跃，而是充分认识到了中国更加复杂的国情，赋予中国式现代化道路的探索以一切从实际出发，实事求是的精神。毛泽东指出：“马克思主义的‘本本’是要学习的，但是必须同我国的实际情况相结合。”实事求是是毛泽东思想的精髓，是中国共产党的思想路线。在一定的历史时期，由于缺少历史经验，中国的现代化建设曾经犯过“左”的或右的错误，但是在一切从实际出发，实事求是思想路线的要求下，中国共产党及时总结历史的经验和教训，深入分析每一时期的中国社会的主要矛盾及其变化规律，一切以时间、地点和条件为转移，不断地追问中国对后发国家现代化理论进行实践的前提条件。“坚持和发展马克思主义，必须同中国具体实际相结合。”在中国式现代化推进的过程中，两方面举措的实施确保了马克思主义经典作家的后发国家现代化理论与中国具体实际的有效结合。第一，中国共产党的领导作用与社会主义基本经济制度的确立从政治和经济两个方面共同保障了中国式现代化的社会主义性质与根本特征。社会主义现代化所需要的积极因素也由此体现出来。第二，通过改革开放与社会主义市场经济的建设，中国式现代化积极吸收和借鉴一切人类文明最先进的成果。通过将社会主义公有制的积极因素与人类文明最先进的成果结合，中国在不到一个世纪的时间里取得了西方国家通过资本主义现代化的方式花费数百年取得的成就。中国共产党遵循马克思恩格斯探索出的后发国家现代化理论，同时坚持理论联系实际，一切以时间、地点和条件为转移，使中国式现代化在超越西方以资本为中心的现代化模式的同时，也超越了僵化的传统社会主义现代化模式。“中国共产党带领全国各族人民成功走出中国式现代化道路，回答了如何以中国式现代化跨越资本主义‘卡夫丁峡谷’的问题，凸显了现代化的科学社会主义本质，使科学社会主义在21世纪迸发出新的活力，为实现人的自由全面发展提供了切实可行的路径与方式。”

Under the guidance of the spirit of seeking truth from facts embodied in Marx and Engels’ in-depth exploration of the modernization path for late-developing countries, the Communist Party of China has combined the universality of the theory of modernization for late-developing countries with the particularity of China’s national conditions, transforming the classical Marxist writers’ theory into the practice of Chinese-path modernization. The advancement of Chinese-path modernization, in turn, realizes the Sinicization and modernization of classical Marxist theory in practice, enriching and developing the theory of modernization for late-developing countries. “Practice has no end, and theoretical innovation has no end.” [45]45 Xi Jinping, “Report to the 19th National Congress of the Communist Party of China,” October 18, The practice of Chinese-path modernization will inevitably demonstrate its more profound world significance, contributing more Chinese wisdom to the world socialist movement and the modernization cause of all humanity. (Author’s affiliation: Peking University)

在马克思恩格斯深入探索后发国家现代化道路过程中体现出的实事求是精神的指导下，中国共产党将后发国家现代化理论的普遍性与中国国情的特殊性相结合，将马克思主义经典作家的理论转化为中国式现代化的实践。中国式现代化的推进又在实践中实现着马克思主义经典理论的中国化与时代化，丰富发展着后发国家现代化理论。“实践没有止境，理论创新也没有止境。”中国式现代化的实践必将展现出其更加深刻的世界意义，为世界社会主义运动和全人类的现代化事业贡献更多的中国智慧。（作者单位：北京大学）

Online editor: Paul

网络编辑：保罗