Ideological Superstructure: A Key Category of State Governance under Historical Materialism

I. Introduction

一、引言

The Third Plenary Session of the 20th Central Committee of the CPC emphasized the need to continue improving and developing the system of socialism with Chinese characteristics and to modernize the state governance system and governance capacity. This is a further clear arrangement by the Party Central Committee regarding the specific goals and timelines for the modernization of state governance, following the Third Plenary Session of the 18th Central Committee, which first raised the major theoretical and practical proposition of modernizing the state governance system and governance capacity and made it one of the overall goals of comprehensively deepening reform, and the Fourth Plenary Session of the 19th Central Committee, which made detailed arrangements specifically for upholding and improving the system of socialism with Chinese characteristics and advancing the modernization of the state governance system and governance capacity. It is particularly noteworthy that the "Decision" of the Third Plenary Session of the 20th Central Committee, in its opening section on major significance and overall requirements, explicitly states that to further comprehensively deepen reform, it is necessary to "promote better alignment between the relations of production and the productive forces, between the superstructure and the economic base, and between state governance and social development, so as to provide strong impetus and institutional guarantees for Chinese-path modernization." Placing "better alignment between state governance and social development" in a progressive relationship with "better alignment between the relations of production and the productive forces" and "between the superstructure and the economic base" reflects a full recognition of the structural and complex nature of historical materialism, possessing significant theoretical exploration value and practical guiding significance.

党的二十届三中全会强调，要继续完善和发展中国特色社会主义制度，推进国家治理体系和治理能力现代化。这是党中央继十八届三中全会首次提出国家治理体系和治理能力现代化这一重大理论与实践命题并将其作为全面深化改革总目标之一，以及十九届四中全会专门就坚持和完善中国特色社会主义制度、推进国家治理体系和治理能力现代化作出详细部署之后，对国家治理现代化具体目标和时间节点所作的进一步明确安排。尤其值得注意的是，二十届三中全会《决定》在开篇有关重大意义和总体要求部分明确提出，进一步全面深化改革必须“推动生产关系和生产力、上层建筑和经济基础、国家治理和社会发展更好相适应，为中国式现代化提供强大动力和制度保障”。将“国家治理和社会发展更好相适应”与“生产关系和生产力”“上层建筑和经济基础”更好相适应形成递进关系，体现了对历史唯物主义的结构性、复杂性的充分认识，具有重要的理论探索价值和实践指导意义。

State governance is an important theme in political science research. Although multiple disciplines in the social sciences regard topics related to state governance as important research objects, the classical literature, theoretical hypotheses, and conceptual categories of political science undoubtedly remain the dominant discourse system in the field of state governance. From Weber's theory of bureaucracy, Locke and Rousseau's social contract theory, to Tilly and others' theories of modern state building, and even the theory of state capacity closely related to state governance, political science research has laid an indispensable theoretical foundation for state governance. However, this does not mean that other disciplines have no say in state governance as a matter of community affairs. On the contrary, whether it is economics, sociology, or history, the observation and study of the state and its organizational structure, behavioral characteristics, and performance are all important foundational theoretical components. The relevant themes, analytical methods, and perspectives of state governance theory have been enriched and developed precisely through this process of interdisciplinary integration. For example, the school of institutional analysis represented by Ostrom has proposed a theoretical interpretation of polycentric governance for the management of social public affairs; game theory has also provided new analytical tools for the formation of governance rules and the solution of game equilibria.

国家治理是政治学研究的重要主题。尽管社会科学多个学科都将国家治理相关主题视为重要的研究对象，但政治学的经典文献、理论假说和概念范畴，无疑仍是国家治理领域支配性的话语体系。从韦伯的官僚制学说、洛克和卢梭的社会契约论到蒂利等人的现代国家建构学说，乃至与国家治理密切相关的国家能力理论，政治学研究为国家治理奠定了不可或缺的理论基础。但这并不是说，国家治理作为一个共同体事务，其他学科就没有发言权。恰恰相反，无论是经济学、社会学还是历史学，对国家及其组织结构、行为特征和绩效的观察与研究，都是重要的基础理论组件，而国家治理理论的相关主题、分析方法和视角，也正是在这种多学科的交融过程中得以丰富与发展的。例如，以奥斯特罗姆为代表的制度分析学派就针对社会公共事务管理提出了多中心治理的理论诠释；博弈论也为治理规则的形成和博弈均衡的求解提供了新的分析工具。

To seek new thinking and new perspectives on state governance within the framework of historical materialism, it is important to find a key analytical category. The search for this analytical category must both remain within the theoretical system of historical materialism and build upon its original categories, while also possessing clear directionality, without altering the original object of analysis or explanation. Just as contemporary Western Marxist political economy schools, such as the Regulation School and the Social Structure of Accumulation School, introduced categories like the industrial production paradigm, institutional forms, modes of regulation, and social structure of accumulation in order to establish a more concrete connection between the productive forces and the relations of production and to explore the specific mechanisms and conditions for "determination and reaction," these categories must be subdivisions of the category of relations of production in different fields, but without changing the original object of analysis. Through this multi-layered analysis, the Regulation School and the Social Structure of Accumulation School have accurately depicted the key changes in post-war capitalist development and accumulation and their realization mechanisms, and these advances have enriched and developed historical materialism.

在历史唯物主义框架内寻求国家治理的新思维、新视角，重要的是找到一个关键的分析范畴。对这一分析范畴的探寻，既要在历史唯物主义的理论体系之内和原有范畴基础之上，又需要具有明确的指向性，同时不改变原有的分析或解释对象。正如调节学派、社会结构积累学派等当代西方马克思主义政治经济学流派为了在生产力和生产关系之间建立起更为具象的联系，探索“决定和反作用”的具体实现机制和实现条件，引入了工业生产范式、制度形式、调节模式和社会结构积累等范畴一样，这些范畴必须是对生产关系这一范畴在不同领域中的细分，但同时不改变原有的分析对象。通过对这种多层次的剖析，调节学派和社会结构积累学派对战后资本主义发展和积累的关键变化及其实现机制进行了准确的刻画，而这些进展丰富和发展了历史唯物主义。

"Better alignment between state governance and social development" involves the interaction among the superstructure, the economic base (relations of production), and the productive forces. Specifically, it involves the modernization of the state governance system and governance capacity, the improvement of the basic economic system, and the development of productive forces to meet the people's needs for a better life and realize the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation. In further concretizing the economic base-superstructure relationship, the primary issue of "better alignment between state governance and social development" is the mutual coordination and mutual promotion between the basic economic system and the state governance system, that is, realizing the mutual reinforcement of institutional advantages and governance effectiveness. Since the founding of the People's Republic of China, every adjustment to the basic economic system has reflected the influence of the state governance system and governance capacity; and the continuous development and improvement of the basic economic system have also been accompanied by the continuous enhancement and development of the state governance system and governance capacity. In the process of building socialism with Chinese characteristics, the superstructure, including the state governance system, also needs to continuously adapt to and promote the improvement and development of the basic economic system.

“国家治理和社会发展更好相适应”涉及上层建筑—经济基础（生产关系）—生产力的相互作用。具体而言，就是国家治理体系和治理能力现代化—基本经济制度的完善—满足人民美好需要、实现中华民族伟大复兴的生产力发展。在经济基础—上层建筑的进一步具体化上，“国家治理和社会发展更好相适应”的首要问题，就是基本经济制度与国家治理体系之间的相互协同、相互促进，也即实现制度优势和治理效能之间的相互促进。新中国成立以来，基本经济制度的每一次调整无不体现出国家治理体系与治理能力的影响；而基本经济制度的不断发展和完善，同时也伴随着国家治理体系和治理能力的不断提升与发展。在建设中国特色社会主义的过程中，包括国家治理体系在内的上层建筑，也需要不断适应和促进基本经济制度的完善与发展。

The problem lies in the fact that to clarify the specific mechanisms and conditions for "determination and reaction," it is necessary to find an appropriate analytical category and theoretical approach between the superstructure of state governance and the economic base of the basic economic system. Only in this way can the following questions be explained: As an institutional system, how does the state governance system interact with and influence the basic economic system, which is also an institutional system? Under specific economic and social conditions, what are the possible outcomes of the interaction between the two institutional systems, and what are the key factors affecting these outcomes? For a given country, what determines the characteristics of its governance system and the differences in its governance performance?

问题在于，要将“决定和反作用”的具体实现机制和实现条件明晰化，就需要在国家治理这一上层建筑和基本经济制度这一经济基础两者之间，找到合适的分析范畴和理论进路，惟其如此才能对下述问题作出解释：作为一个制度体系的国家治理体系，与同样作为一个制度体系的基本经济制度之间是如何相互作用、相互影响的？在特定的经济社会条件下，两个制度体系相互作用的可能性结果以及影响这一结果产生的关键因素是什么？对一个国家而言，决定其治理体系特征和治理绩效差异的原因是什么？

The remainder of this article is arranged as follows: First, it reviews the expositions of classical writers, distinguishing the superstructure into an ideological superstructure and a political superstructure. Second, it discusses the role of the ideological superstructure in state building and the formation and development of state capacity. Finally, in conjunction with China's state governance, it analyzes and looks ahead to the people-centered [n1] core concept of the ideological superstructure and its fundamental safeguarding role in realizing state governance under socialism with Chinese characteristics.

余文安排如下，首先对经典作家的论述进行梳理，对上层建筑做思想上层建筑和政治上层建筑的区分；继而讨论思想上层建筑在国家建构、国家能力形成和发展中的作用；最后结合中国的国家治理，对人民为中心这一思想上层建筑的核心理念及其对实现中国特色社会主义国家治理的基础性保障作用作出分析和展望。

II. State Governance and the Superstructure: Expositions of Classical Writers

二、国家治理与上层建筑：经典作家的论述

In studying state governance in the process of building and developing socialism with Chinese characteristics, historical materialism possesses irreplaceable methodological significance. This is because: First, historical materialism grasps the laws of human social development from a grand historical perspective. The scientific judgments of "the two inevitables" [n2] and "the two will nevers" [n3] are deeply rooted in the precise extraction of historical experience and profound insight into historical trends. China's developmental journey from a semi-colonial and semi-feudal society to the primary stage of socialism precisely provides long-term and authentic practical support for this historical outlook. Second, as a scientific historical outlook that acknowledges diverse development paths, historical materialism emphasizes that the application of its principles must be based on specific historical conditions. This not only provides a key for analyzing the uniqueness of China's development path but also, with its inclusive thinking, lays a philosophical foundation for building a community with a shared future for mankind. Third, the core judgment of historical materialism that "the people are the creators of history" fundamentally answers the essential questions of "why to develop," "for whom to develop," and "on whom to rely for development."

研究中国特色社会主义建设与发展过程中的国家治理，唯物史观具有不可替代的方法论意义。这是因为：首先，唯物史观以宏大历史视野把握人类社会发展规律，“两个必然”与“两个绝不会”的科学论断深植于对历史经验的精准提炼以及对历史趋势的深刻洞察，而中国从半殖民地半封建社会到社会主义初级阶段的发展历程，恰好为这一史观提供了长期且真实的实践支持。其次，作为承认多样性发展道路的科学史观，唯物史观强调原理的运用需立足具体历史条件，这不仅为分析中国发展道路的独特性提供了钥匙，更以包容性思维为人类命运共同体的构建奠定了哲学基础。第三，唯物史观关于“人民群众是历史创造者”的核心论断，从根本上回答了“为何发展”“发展为了谁”“发展依靠谁”的本质问题。

In the study of state governance theory, the value of historical materialism is by no means limited to a principled explanation of the principle of “action and reaction.” The legitimacy foundation of political rule lies in the effective performance of social functions; only by coordinating conflicts of economic interests and maintaining the basic order of society can state power obtain the legitimacy for sustained operation. “Political rule everywhere is based on the performance of some social function, and political rule can only continue as long as it performs this social function.” [n] In the view of the classical writers, the core mission of this social management essentially consists in reconciling class contradictions through institutionalized means, preventing society from falling into self-depletion amid conflicts of interest, and thereby creating a stable institutional environment for the development of productive forces. In other words, the core function of social management is “to keep these opposites, these classes with conflicting economic interests, from destroying themselves and society in a futile struggle.” [n] Proceeding from historical materialism, the relationship between state governance and the basic economic system is, in essence, a concrete manifestation of the law of interaction between the superstructure and the economic base. The dynamic connection between the two is reflected not only in the reaction of the institutional framework upon the relations of production but also in whether the goals of governance serve the criterion of promoting the development of productive forces.

在国家治理理论研究中，唯物史观的价值绝非仅限于对“作用与反作用”原理的原则性阐释。政治统治的合法性根基在于社会职能的有效履行；唯有通过协调经济利益冲突、维护社会基本秩序，国家权力才能获得持续运行的正当性。“政治统治到处都是以执行某种社会职能为基础，而且政治统治只有在它执行了它的这种社会职能时，才能持续下去。”在经典作家看来，这种社会管理的核心使命，本质上在于通过制度化手段调和阶级矛盾，避免社会在利益对抗中陷入自我损耗，从而为生产力发展创造稳定的制度环境。易言之，社会管理的核心职能是为了“使这些对立面，这些经济利益互相冲突的阶级，不是在无谓的斗争中把自己和社会消灭”。从唯物史观出发，国家治理与基本经济制度的关系，本质上是上层建筑与经济基础互动规律的具体呈现。二者的动态关联，不仅体现在制度架构对生产关系的反作用上，更体现在治理目标是否服从促进生产力发展这一标准上。

Marx used the term “superstructure” in his major works on philosophy, political science, and political economy, and endowed it with three metaphorical meanings depending on the context: thought and consciousness; political structure, political system, and political behavior; and credit and fictitious capital, among others. Among these, the use of the concept of superstructure to metaphorically refer to thought and ideas appears mainly in works such as *The German Ideology* and *The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte*. For instance, in his 1852 work *The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte*, he stated: “Upon the different forms of property, upon the social conditions of existence, rises an entire superstructure of distinct and peculiarly formed sentiments, illusions, modes of thought and views of life. The entire class creates and forms these out of its material foundations and the corresponding social relations.” [n] In other works and articles, Marx used the term “superstructure” in the sense of the social-political structure or state power. For example, in his 1859 “Preface to *A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy*,” he pointed out: “The sum total of these relations of production constitutes the economic structure of society, the real foundation, on which rises a legal and political superstructure and to which correspond definite forms of social consciousness.” [n]

马克思在其重要的哲学、政治学、政治经济学著作中都使用过上层建筑一词，并根据不同语境赋予了它三种喻义：思想、意识，政治结构、政治制度及政治行为，信用与虚拟资本等。其中，用上层建筑概念喻指思想、观念，主要是在《德意志意识形态》《路易·波拿巴的雾月十八日》等著作中。如，他在1852年的《路易·波拿巴的雾月十八日》中提出：“在不同的占有形式上，在社会生存条件上，耸立着由各种不同的、表现独特的情感、幻想、思想方式和人生观构成的整个上层建筑。整个阶级在它的物质条件和相应的社会关系的基础上创造和构成这一切。”在另一些著作和文章中，马克思则是在社会政治结构或国家政权意义上使用上层建筑一词。如，他曾在1859年的《〈政治经济学批判〉序言》中指出：“生产关系的总和构成社会的经济结构，即有法律的和政治上层建筑竖立其上并有一定的社会意识形式与之相适应的现实基础。”

Overall, the superstructure as discussed by Marx comprises two major components: the political superstructure and the ideological superstructure. The political superstructure includes political and legal systems as well as related institutions, such as the military, police, courts, and prisons; these systems and institutions are designed to maintain the economic base of society and ensure the stability of social order. The ideological superstructure includes political and legal thought, moral concepts, religious beliefs, and so on. For a long time, attention to the superstructure has mainly focused on the political superstructure, while the ideological superstructure has received relatively little attention. However, in fact, the superstructure in the sense of ideas and concepts held an even richer meaning for Marx than tangible organizations and systems. Especially in *The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte*, the specific content referred to by the term “superstructure” includes not only modes of thought and views of life but also sentiments and even illusions—that is, it is closely linked to “old memories, personal grudges, anxieties and hopes, prejudices and illusions, sympathies and antipathies, convictions, creeds, and principles.” [n] Marx emphasized that “individuals who have inherited these sentiments and views through tradition and education may take them to be the real motives and starting points of their actions.” [n] Regarding the ideological superstructure, which has such a broad meaning, Marx also made a key statement: in general, the term “superstructure” is used here to summarize the spiritual factors determined by interests, mainly including people’s modes of thought, views of life, sentiments, and illusions. [n] It can be seen that, here, Marx even regarded the ideological superstructure as the main component of the superstructure.

总体来看，马克思所说的上层建筑包含政治上层建筑和思想上层建筑两大组成部分。政治上层建筑包括政治、法律制度以及相关设施，如军队、警察、法庭、监狱等，这些制度和设施旨在维护社会的经济基础，确保社会秩序的稳定。思想上层建筑则包括政治法律思想、道德观念、宗教信仰等。长期以来，对上层建筑的关注主要停留在政治上层建筑上，对思想上层建筑则相对缺少重视。然而，事实上，思想观念意义上的上层建筑在马克思那里甚至有着比有形的组织、制度更为丰富的含义。尤其是在《路易·波拿巴的雾月十八日》中，上层建筑一词所指涉的具体内容不仅有思想方式，有人生观，还有情感甚至幻想，亦即它与“旧日的回忆、个人的仇怨、忧虑和希望、偏见和幻想、同情和反感、信念、信条和原则”等紧密相连。马克思强调，“通过传统和教育承受了这些情感和观点的个人，会以为这些情感和观点就是他的行为的真实动机和出发点。”对于含义如此广泛的思想上层建筑，马克思还有一句抓住关键的论述：总的说来，上层建筑一词在这里用来概括为利益所决定的精神因素，主要包括人的思想方式、人生观、情感及幻想等。可见，在这里，马克思甚至将思想上层建筑当成了上层建筑的主要组成部分。

Therefore, we can metaphorically compare the ideological superstructure, the political superstructure, and the relations of production (the basic economic system) to, respectively: the internal load-bearing framework of a building, the tangible components of a building, and the underlying foundational support of a building. The ideological superstructure, as a collection of thoughts, concepts, and customs, is deeply rooted in existing relations of production and embodies people’s interest demands; the tangible political superstructure takes the ideological superstructure as its core and support. The relationship between the two, in the language of institutional economics, is that between formal institutions and informal institutions—that is, the relationship between formal institutions and their implementing organizations and the institutional environment in which they are embedded. In this sense, the superstructure can also be understood as the collection of formal institutions, informal institutions, and their organizational carriers related to political order. State governance, as a concrete expression of the superstructure, can be divided into the state governance system and state governance capacity. Among these, the state governance system is a collection of institutions (organizations), while state governance capacity is reflected in institutional performance. In traditional conceptions, the superstructure often exists as an abstract static concept, whereas the state governance system is usually explicitly assigned the meaning of directing implementation. If the state governance system is regarded as the political superstructure within the superstructure, then the governance process, governance subjects, and governance effectiveness can all be included in the category of the political superstructure. The problem is that the superstructure is not only the tangible political superstructure but also includes the superstructure in the sense of ideas and concepts. How, then, can the state governance system encompass this kind of superstructure?

因此，我们可以将思想上层建筑、政治上层建筑和生产关系（基本经济制度）分别比喻为：建筑物的内在承重架构、建筑物的有形构件和建筑物的底层基础支撑。思想上层建筑作为思想、观念、习俗的集合，深深植根于既有的生产关系，体现着人们的利益诉求；有形的政治上层建筑则是以思想上层建筑为内核和依托，它和思想上层建筑的关系，用制度经济学的话语来说，就是正式制度和非正式制度之间的关系，亦即正式制度及其实施组织与它们所嵌入的制度环境之间的关系。从这个意义上说，上层建筑也可以理解为政治秩序相关的正式制度、非正式制度及其组织载体的集合。而国家治理作为上层建筑的具体表达，可以分为国家治理体系和国家治理能力。其中，国家治理体系是制度（组织）集合，国家治理能力则体现于制度绩效。传统观念中，上层建筑往往作为一个抽象的静态概念而存在，国家治理体系则通常被明确赋予指向执行的含义。如果将国家治理体系视为上层建筑中的政治上层建筑，那么，治理过程、治理主体、治理效能均可纳入政治上层建筑范畴。问题在于，上层建筑并不仅仅是有形的政治上层建筑，还包括思想观念意义上的上层建筑。对于这种上层建筑，国家治理体系又如何包纳呢？

The author believes that it is precisely in the sense of ideas and concepts that state governance theory and the concept of the superstructure in historical materialism find their greatest intersection of analytical categories. The reason why, in state governance theory, there exists a distinction between the “state” (in the traditional sense of imperial power and the modern sense of a political community) and the “government” (the bureaucratic apparatus), and why the thesis of the integration of state and bureaucracy is widely criticized, is precisely because it overlooks the fact that the state, as an “imagined community,” [n] is first and foremost a shared collection of ideas and concepts—or, rather, the state is the political expression of this shared concept. Therefore, above the “government” (the bureaucratic apparatus), there exists an ideological superstructure that defines the political community as “common” and operates in the sense of ideas and concepts. This concept has different connotations at different stages of social development; it can be sovereignty in the monarch, sovereignty in the people, or the divine right of kings, religious doctrine, or even blood lineage and clan ties. The political organization that inherits this concept thereby obtains indisputable legitimacy. The reason for this legitimacy is that the concept it inherits is one that the community unanimously recognizes. In this sense, the reason a community becomes a community is precisely that it achieves consistency in this conceptual superstructure, realizing the recognition of the legitimacy of the established political order and identity.

笔者认为，正是在思想观念意义上，国家治理理论与唯物史观的上层建筑概念找到了分析范畴的最大交集。国家治理理论中，之所以存在“国家”（传统意义上的皇权和现代意义上的政治共同体）与“政府”（官僚体制）的区别，之所以国家—官僚体制的一体化论调饱受诟病，就是因为忽视了这样一个事实：国家作为“想象的共同体”，首先是一个思想观念的共有集合，或者说，国家就是这个共有观念的政治表达。因此，“政府”（官僚体制）之上，还有一个规定政治共同体成为“共同”的、思想观念意义上的上层建筑。这个观念在不同的社会发展阶段有着不同的内涵，它可以是主权在王，也可以是主权在民，还可以是君权神授、宗教教义甚至血缘宗亲；承接这种观念的政治组织，也因此而具有无可争辩的合法性。之所以有合法性，是因为其承接的观念是共同体一致认可的。从这个意义上说，一个共同体之所以成其为共同体，就是因为在这种观念性的上层建筑上取得了一致性，实现了对既定政治秩序的合法性认可与身份认同。

From the perspective of state-building, an effective process of shaping a modern state can be understood from three dimensions: first, the formation of a political community; second, the issue of constructing state institutions and systems; and third, the process of shaping and enhancing state capacity. [n] These three aspects complement each other and form an inseparable whole. Among them, the second and third aspects concern the relationship between institutional form and institutional performance; the first point, that is, the formation of a political community, has a foundational logical significance for the latter two. Because political communities in different periods exhibit major differences in their shared concepts, the corresponding state institutions and state capacities are also completely different. Therefore, the neglect of the ideological superstructure is, in essence, a neglect of the fundamental cause of the formation of a political community. This neglect not only easily blurs the difference between the state and the government in terms of governance but also easily leads to overlooking the organic connection between the political superstructure and the ideological superstructure, thereby making it difficult to grasp, from a conceptual standpoint, the immense influence of a political community’s shared concepts on state governance.

从国家建构的角度看，一个有效的现代国家塑造过程可以从三个维度来理解：第一是政治共同体的形成；第二是国家机构与制度建设的问题；第三是国家能力塑造和增强的过程。②这三者相辅相成，是一个不可分离的整体。其中，第二、第三两个方面涉及的是制度形式与制度绩效之间的关系；第一点，亦即政治共同体的形成，则对后两者具有底层逻辑的意义。因为不同时期的政治共同体在共有观念上存在重大差异，与之对应的国家机构与国家能力也完全不同。因此，对思想上层建筑的忽视，本质上是对政治共同体形成之根本原因的忽视。这种忽视，不仅容易淡化国家与政府在治理意义上的差异，而且容易造成对政治上层建筑和思想上层建筑之间有机联系的忽视，进而难以从观念上把握一个政治共同体的共有观念对国家治理的巨大影响。

III. The Ideological Superstructure: The “Code” That Determines the Nature of State Governance

三、思想上层建筑：决定国家治理性质的“密码”

The concept of the ideological superstructure not only constitutes the bridge between historical materialism and the theory of state governance, but also constitutes the key code for our understanding of the transition from state rule to state governance. First, the ideological superstructure does not emerge out of thin air. As Marx pointed out in *The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte*, the content of the ideological superstructure may appear complex and diverse, but its essence is the reflection of different interests. As ideas reflecting interests, the basis of their formation is the basic economic system, that is, what Marx emphasized as “the different forms of property, the material conditions and corresponding social relations of the entire class.” [13]13 Karl Marx, *The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte* (1852). In this way, a connection is established between the state governance system and governance capacity, on the one hand, and the basic economic system, on the other. Second, the ideological superstructure is not a passive existence but possesses powerful agency. It acts like an invisible baton, profoundly influencing the construction of the political superstructure. Conversely, once the institutions and facilities of the political superstructure are established, they in turn become a key factor influencing the evolution of the ideological superstructure, especially ideology and prevailing ideas. This interaction causes the ideological superstructure and social reality to constantly grind against and adjust to each other, jointly promoting social development. Finally, the ideological superstructure not only determines the legitimacy of the political order in the ideational sense of the community, but also determines the structural and functional orientation of the superstructure in the sense of political organization.

思想上层建筑概念不仅构成了唯物史观与国家治理理论之间的桥梁，也构成了我们理解从国家统治到国家治理的关键密码。首先，思想上层建筑并不是凭空产生的，正如马克思在《路易·波拿巴的雾月十八日》中指出的，思想上层建筑的内容看似纷繁复杂，但本质是不同利益的反映。作为利益反映的观念，其形成的基础是基本经济制度，也就是马克思所强调的“各阶级不同的占有形式，整个阶级的物质条件和相应的社会关系”。这样就在国家治理体系和治理能力与基本经济制度之间建立起了联系。其次，思想上层建筑并非被动的存在，而是具有强大的能动性。它如同隐形的指挥棒，深刻影响着政治上层建筑的构建。反过来，政治上层建筑的制度和设施一旦建立，又会成为影响思想上层建筑尤其是意识形态、通行观念演变的关键因素。这种相互作用使得思想上层建筑与社会现实不断磨合、调适，共同推动社会发展。最后，思想上层建筑不仅在共同体的观念意义上决定了政治秩序的合法性，也决定了政治组织意义上的上层建筑的结构与功能取向。

From the perspective of the relationship between the ideological superstructure and the political superstructure, the so-called political convergence theory or theory of universal values in the West is “false” in its proposition precisely because: it uses the formally presupposed optimal consistency of the political superstructure to cover up what may be the abysmal performance of governance; it assumes that the ideological superstructures of all political communities should not only converge but also be singular in their ideas, thereby completely ignoring the differences in development paths and historical cultures among different countries. In fact, even typical Western political scholars such as Samuel Huntington and Francis Fukuyama unanimously acknowledge that the important political distinction between countries lies in the effectiveness of the government in securing the state and ordering the realm, not in the form of government. For example, in Huntington’s view, the necessary condition for effective state governance is the possession of a strong, adaptable, and cohesive political system; the primary and most basic purpose of state governance is to maintain political order. Fukuyama goes further, regarding whether a state possesses state capacity, rather than the form of its political institutions, as the watershed between state success and failure.

从思想上层建筑和政治上层建筑的关系来看，西方所谓的政治趋同论或普世价值论，其命题之“伪”就在于：它用政治上层建筑形式上预设的最优一致性，掩盖可能存在治理绩效的不堪；它假定所有政治共同体的思想上层建筑不仅应当趋同，而且观念应当唯一，从而完全忽视了不同国家发展道路和历史文化的差异。事实上，即使是亨廷顿、福山这样典型的西方政治学者，也无一例外地承认，国家之间重要的政治分野在于政府安邦定国的有效程度，而不在于政府的形式。例如，在亨廷顿看来，有效的国家治理的必要条件是具备强大的、有适应能力和内聚力的政治体制；国家治理首要的和最基本的目的是维护政治秩序。福山更是将是否具有国家能力，而非国家政治制度的形式，视为国家成功与失败的分水岭。

As a reflection of interests, the ideological superstructure has extremely complex and diverse content, but for the purpose of constructing a political community so that it can achieve the formation of an “imagined community,” [14]14 A reference to Benedict Anderson’s concept of the nation as an “imagined community,” introduced in his 1983 book *Imagined Communities*. the ideas related to the source of legitimacy of political power are undoubtedly decisive. This difference in ideas is reflected not only in the forms of ancient Chinese and Western states, but also in the process of formation of modern and contemporary states. Ancient Chinese and Western states generally adhered to the concept of legitimacy “in the king” or “in God,” but after the rise of the modern nation-state with popular sovereignty as its main theme, the identity of “who constitutes the people” became the key concept of the community. The ideological superstructure not only directly influences the political superstructure, but also, as a reflection of interests, refracts the different characteristics of the economic system.

作为利益的反映，思想上层建筑有着极为复杂多样的内容，但对于构建一个政治共同体使之达到可以形成“想象的共同体”的目的而言，与政治权力合法性来源相关的理念无疑是决定性的。这种观念差别，不仅体现在中西方古代国家的形式上，也体现在近代和现代国家形成过程中。中西方古代国家，大体都秉承了“在王”“在神”的合法性观念，而以主权在民为主旨的现代民族国家兴起之后，“何为民”的身份认同就构成了共同体的关键概念。思想上层建筑不仅直接影响着政治上层建筑，同时作为利益的反映，也折射出经济制度的不同特征。

Once formed, the ideological superstructure possesses relative stability, but this does not mean it is immutable. On the contrary, as a reflection of interests, within the ideological superstructure, whether it concerns ideas about the legitimacy of the community’s superstructure or the religions and customs concerning the spiritual life of community members, all may change due to various reasons and be endowed with new meanings. Once such ideas change, the corresponding political superstructure, that is, the actual political organizations serving as the carriers of state rule or governance, will also undergo corresponding changes in function and form. Here, the ideological superstructure and the political superstructure must not only reflect the inherent requirements of the economic base, that is, the dominant basic economic system, but also adapt to the development trends of the productive forces.

思想上层建筑一旦形成，就具有相对的稳定性，但这并不意味着它是不变的。恰恰相反，作为利益的反映，在思想上层建筑中，无论是关乎共同体上层合法性的观念，还是关乎共同体成员精神生活的宗教与习俗，都可能因各种原因发生变动，并被赋予新的含义。一旦这种观念发生变化，相应的政治上层建筑，亦即作为国家统治或治理载体的实际政治组织，也会发生相应的功能和形式变化。在这里，思想上层建筑、政治上层建筑不仅要体现经济基础，也即主导性的基本经济制度的内在要求，还要适应生产力的发展趋势。

Table 1 Different Types of Superstructure and Basic Economic System

表1 不同的上层建筑与基本经济制度类型

Source: Compiled by the author based on relevant literature.

资料来源：作者根据相关文献整理。

Taking China as an example, its four great historical transformations—the transformation from the Shang to the Zhou, the transformation from the Zhou to the Qin, the transformation from the Tang to the Song, and the transformation from ancient to modern times after the late Qing—refer not only to drastic changes in community customs and values, but also to enormous changes in the concept of the legitimacy of rule. It could even be said that the change in these four transformations lies first and foremost in the change in the concept of the political legitimacy of the community. The Shang dynasty was dominated by the idea that the Mandate of Heaven resided in the Shang people; guided by this idea, foreign wars, slaughter, and human sacrifice were the main content of political life. The Zhou dynasty replaced the idea of “the Mandate of Heaven in the clan” with the idea of “the Mandate of Heaven in the Son of Heaven,” [15]15 The Son of Heaven (天子) was the title of the Zhou king, who ruled by the Mandate of Heaven (天命). enfeoffing relatives to shield the Zhou, relying on the Son of Heaven–feudal lords–nobles–commoners to form a political order of “all under Heaven as one family,” thereby realizing the transition from the Shang to the Zhou. However, in terms of adaptability to the productive forces, the Shang-Zhou transformation was the replacement of a mobile pastoral-commercial civilization with a settled agricultural civilization. After the Zhou-Qin transformation, the ideological superstructure not only needed to emphasize the source of legitimacy through inheritance, but also, in order to form a centralized system of rule, it became extremely important to highlight in ideas the unique status of communities such as Huaxia, [16]16 Huaxia (华夏) is an ancient term for the Chinese cultural sphere, often used to distinguish it from surrounding “barbarian” groups. All under Heaven, and the Central States. [17]17 The Central States (中国) is an ancient term for the central plain region of China, the heartland of Chinese civilization. The Qin dynasty not only realized the transition from feudal fragmentation to great unity in terms of territory, but also achieved direct rule through the system of commanderies and counties in terms of the mode of rule, which was directly related to the rise of agricultural tools such as iron implements and bamboo slips, and means of information dissemination: the new mode of production destroyed the basis for the existence of the original well-field system, [18]18 The well-field system (井田制) was a land tenure system in ancient China, often idealized as a communal arrangement, where land was divided into a grid of nine squares, with the central plot farmed for the lord. laid the foundation for the rise of private land ownership as a basic economic system, and ultimately replaced the well-field system with the land-grant system. [19]19 The land-grant system (授田制) was a system under which the state allocated land to individual households, replacing the well-field system. The Tang-Song transformation moved Chinese social structure from a society of powerful clans to a society of commoners, and economically realized the replacement of a barter economy with a monetary economy. The transformation from ancient to modern times beginning in the late Qing meant that China began a difficult transition from an ancient society to a modern society. Looking at these four great transformations in Chinese history, there is a close interactive relationship between the ideological superstructure, the political superstructure, the basic economic system (land ownership), and the productive forces. The fundamental force for change comes from the productive forces; the basic economic system determines the transformation of the superstructure, but the transformation of the superstructure, especially the transformation of the ideological superstructure, plays an important role that cannot be ignored in the stability and governance orientation of the political community.

以中国为例，其历史上的四次巨变，即商周之变、周秦之变、唐宋之变、清末之后的古今之变，不仅是指共同体生活习俗、价值观方面的剧烈变迁，更是指统治合法性观念的巨大变化。甚至可以说，四变之变，首先就在于共同体政治合法性观念之变。商以天命在商族人为主导观念，在此观念引导下，对外战争、杀戮和人祭就是政治生活的主要内容。周则以“天命在天子”的观念替换“天命在族”的观念，通过封建亲戚，以藩屏周，依托天子—诸侯—贵族—平民形成天下一家的政治秩序，从而实现了从商朝到周朝的转型。但从生产力的适应性来看，商周之变是以定居的农业文明替代流动的游牧商贸文明。周秦之变之后，思想上层建筑中不仅需要强调继承的合法性来源，而且为了形成权力集中的统治体系，在观念上凸显华夏、天下、中国这样的独一无二的共同体地位也极为重要。秦不仅在领土上实现了从分封割据到大一统的转变，而且在统治方式上实现了郡县制的直接统治，而这与铁器、竹简等农业生产工具、信息传播手段的兴起直接相关：新的生产方式破坏了原有井田制存在的基础，为土地私有制这种基本经济制度的兴起奠定了基础，并最终以授田制实现了对井田制的替代。唐宋之变则让中国社会结构从豪族社会进入到平民社会，在经济上实现了货币经济对实物经济的替代。而清末开始的古今之变意味着中国开始从古代社会向现代社会艰难转型。从中国历史上这四次巨变来看，思想上层建筑、政治上层建筑、基本经济制度（土地所有制）与生产力之间，存在着密切的互动关系。根本性的变革力量来自于生产力，基本经济制度决定着上层建筑的变革，但上层建筑的变革，尤其是思想上层建筑的变革，对政治共同体的稳定性和治理取向具有不可忽视的重要作用。

It is worth noting that, from the perspective of changes in ideas, although the history of human beings forming political communities is long, truly placing the interests of the people at the core of the community’s shared beliefs—that is, forming an ideological superstructure “centered on the people”—is extremely rare. Whether it was the successive dynasties in China after the Qin or the feudal states of Europe, although there was no lack of discourses on “the people as the foundation,” the rulers who controlled political power often first emphasized the particularity of their own identity in the ideas they promoted. This particular identity was not only exclusive, but was also said to originate from divine power or otherworldly salvation, and was therefore something that the底层 masses lacked, desired, and feared. This made the purpose of ancient political communities not to take the development, prosperity, and freedom of community members as the primary goal, but to place the legitimacy of divine power (imperial power) in the first position. For imperial power, the greatest danger was not the stagnation of community welfare or the hardship of the底层 people’s lives, but the inability to manifest the legitimate authority of the Mandate of Heaven or divine grant through omens, celestial phenomena, and coping with external pressure. Between imperial power and the bureaucracy, powerful clans, kings and nobles, there existed a consistency in extracting economic benefits from the producing classes. When this consistency conflicted with the ideas about the source of legitimacy of imperial power, various forms of tension in the principal-agent chain would manifest themselves.

值得注意的是，从观念变化看，尽管人类形成政治共同体的历史悠久，但真正将民众利益置于共同体共有信念之中，亦即形成“以人民为中心”的思想上层建筑的，可谓少之又少。无论是中国自秦之后的历代王朝还是欧洲的封建国家，尽管都不乏“民为本”的论述，但掌控政治权力的统治者，其推行的观念往往首先强调的是自己身份的特殊性。这种特殊身份不仅具有排他性，而且被说成是源于神的力量或者来世的救赎，从而是底层民众缺乏、渴望和畏惧的。这就使古代政治共同体的目的，并不是将共同体成员的发展、富裕、自由作为首要目标，而是将神权（皇权）的合法性置于第一位。对皇权而言，最大的危险并不是共同体福利的停滞、底层人民的生活困顿等，而是无法通过感应、天象和应对外部压力来彰显天授、神授的合法性权威。皇权与官僚、豪强、王与贵族之间，存在通过榨取生产阶层获取经济利益的一致性，当这种一致性与皇权合法性来源的观念产生冲突时，委托—代理链条上各种形式的紧张关系就会表现出来。

Since the rise of nation-states, most countries have affirmed “popular sovereignty” in their constitutions, which are the core of the ideological superstructure. Does this mean, then, that all modern states are consistent in their concepts of community legitimacy? The answer is no.

自民族国家兴起以来，大部分国家都在作为思想上层建筑之核心的宪法中，对“主权在民”这一点给予了肯定。那么，这是否意味着所有现代国家都在共同体合法性观念上具有一致性呢？答案是否定的。

Taking the United States as an example, the core ideas reflected in its federal constitution are “popular sovereignty,” “separation of powers,” and “division of powers between the federal government and the states.” Among these, “popular sovereignty” is placed first — “We the People” even exists semantically in the U.S. Constitution as the declarer and initiator of provisions. Therefore, merely in terms of proclaiming that “power originates from the people,” the American-style popular sovereignty is not only no different from Rousseau-style popular sovereignty, but also no different from the concept that “power is conferred by the people” held by the vast majority of modern states, including China. However, this does not mean that all modern states have achieved consensus on the ideological superstructure concerning the concept of community legitimacy. For the real difference lies not in whether power is acknowledged as conferred by the people — that is, not in how to answer the question of to whom power “belongs” — but in how to answer the question of whom power “serves.” In other words, merely acknowledging “popular sovereignty” and emphasizing “people-centeredness” actually represent two very different “people orientations”: one emphasizes the source of authorization for public power, while the other emphasizes the ultimate purpose, subject, and means of public service and social development. In Western states dominated by the logic of capital, although the source of public power is acknowledged to be “in the people,” it is difficult to say, judging from the primary service targets of their public policies, that it is truly “in the people.” In fact, under the private ownership system and the election system driven by capital, the so-called people’s interests in Western countries often manifest as a vicious cycle of “promises — distribution — elections” and the corresponding “rigid high welfare — debt-ridden government — rising populism.” In this costly competition of “money politics,” [20]20 “Money politics” (献金政治) refers to a political system in which electoral campaigns and policy influence are heavily dependent on large financial contributions from corporations, interest groups, and wealthy individuals, a term commonly used in Chinese political discourse to critique Western electoral systems. “the state, which theoretically belongs to all the people, is in fact the state of the ruling class and interest groups; the state of popular sovereignty in legal principle is in fact the state of the ruling class’s sovereignty; the formally objective and neutral state and state governance are, in essence, state governance that follows the will of the ruling class, realizes the interests of the ruling class, and maintains the ruling order.”

以美国为例，其联邦宪法所反映的核心思想就是“主权在民”“三权分立”和“联邦与州分权”，其中，“主权在民”被置于首位——“我们人民”（we the people）在美国宪法中甚至是作为宣誓者和条款发起者的语义学存在。因此，仅就宣称“权力源于人民”这一点而言，美国式的人民主权不仅与卢梭式的人民主权没有什么差别，而且与包括中国在内的绝大部分现代国家的“权力为人民所赋予”观念也没有什么差别。但是，这并不意味着所有现代国家就在有关共同体合法性理念的思想上层建筑上取得了一致。因为真正的差别并不在于是否承认权力为人民所赋，亦即不在于如何回答权力“归属谁”的问题，而在于如何回答权力“服务谁”的问题。换言之，仅仅承认“主权在民”和强调“以人民为中心”，实际上代表了两种非常不同的“人民取向”：一个强调公共权力的授权来源，一个强调公共服务和社会发展的终极目的、主体和手段。西方式的资本逻辑主导的国家，尽管承认公共权力的来源“在民”，但从其公共政策的主要服务对象来看，却很难说是“在民”。事实上，在私有制及其所决定的资本推动的选举制度下，西方国家所谓的人民利益，往往表现为“承诺—分配—选举”以及与之相对应的“刚性高福利—债务型政府—民粹主义高涨”的恶性循环。在这种耗资甚巨的“献金政治”角逐中，“理论上由全体人民所有的国家，实际上是统治阶级和利益集团所有的国家，法理上人民主权的国家，实际上是统治阶级主权的国家，形式上客观中立的国家和国家治理，本质上是按照统治阶级意志，实现统治阶级利益和维护统治秩序的国家治理。”

In stark contrast to Western countries, contemporary China not only acknowledges popular sovereignty in its ideological superstructure, but also insists on taking the more richly connotative “people-centered” approach as the fundamental guiding principle for national development and governance. Thus, on the questions of to whom power “belongs” and whom power “serves,” it has truly achieved internal consistency between concept and institution, enabling “respecting the people’s principal position and ensuring the people as masters of the country” to gain a solid subjective and objective foundation in the concrete practices of political construction, state governance, and social governance. The Chinese-style people-centered approach emphasizes the people as masters of the country, and emphasizes development for the people, development relying on the people, and development achievements shared by the people. This is a production-oriented and subject-participatory type of people-centeredness, which has completely different meanings and modes of realization from the Western-style people’s interest orientation, which grants capital priority in the distribution of benefits and relies solely on the “trickle-down effect” to benefit labor. Corresponding to this concept of ideological superstructure, contemporary China has also comprehensively embodied the fundamental value principle of people-centeredness in the construction of its political superstructure, basic economic system, and state governance system.

与西方国家截然不同，当代中国不仅在思想上层建筑上承认主权在民，而且坚持把内涵更丰富的“以人民为中心”作为国家发展与治理的根本指导原则，从而在权力“归属谁”和“服务谁”的问题上真正实现了观念与制度的内在一致，使“尊重人民主体地位，保证人民当家作主”在具体的政治建设、国家治理和社会治理实践中获得了坚实的主客观基础。中国式的以人民为中心，强调人民当家作主，强调发展为了人民、发展依靠人民、发展成果由人民共享。这是一种生产型和主体参与型的人民为中心，与赋予资本在利益分配中的优先性、仅靠“涓滴效应”惠及劳动的西方式人民利益导向有着完全不同的含义和实现方式。与这一思想上层建筑理念相对应，当代中国在政治上层建筑、基本经济制度和国家治理体系构建中，也全方位体现了以人民为中心的根本价值原则。

First, the core issue that China’s political system strives to resolve lies in embodying and safeguarding the people’s principal position and ensuring the people’s attribute of state power through the system of people’s congresses, and in truly realizing the constitutional provisions on the source of power by building a law-based state and a law-based government that exercise administration according to law. That is, ensuring that “people’s congresses at all levels are produced through democratic elections, are responsible to the people, and are subject to their supervision; all state administrative organs, judicial organs, and procuratorial organs are produced by people’s congresses, are responsible to them, and are subject to their supervision.”

首先，中国的政治制度着力解决的核心问题在于，通过人民代表大会制度体现和保障人民的主体地位、保证国家权力的人民属性，以及通过构建依法行政的法治国家、法治政府，真正实现宪法关于权力来源的规定，亦即，确保“各级人民代表大会都由民主选举产生，对人民负责、受人民监督；各级国家行政机关、审判机关、检察机关都由人民代表大会产生，对人大负责、受人大监督”。

Second, the basic economic system of socialism with Chinese characteristics, including the ownership structure, the basic distribution system, and the mode of resource allocation, is likewise aimed at realizing this production-oriented, participatory people-centered concept. Practice has proven that this institutional structure possesses the dual advantages of promoting the development of productive forces and maintaining social fairness. To continue unleashing these advantages, in addition to further adhering to the dominant position of public ownership, the principle of distribution according to work, and the mode of resource allocation that coordinates government and market, it is also necessary to guard against production, distribution, and resource allocation deviating from the productive sphere, and to curb the expansion of non-productive activities and the formation of a rentier class. To this end, in the process of constructing a governance system compatible with this economic institutional structure, the principles of “people-centeredness” and “developing productive forces” must be further highlighted to ensure the internal unity of institutional operation and governance orientation.

其次，中国特色社会主义基本经济制度，包括所有制结构、基本分配制度和资源配置方式，同样旨在实现这种生产型、参与型的人民中心理念。实践证明，这一制度结构兼具促进生产力发展与维护社会公平的双重优势。要继续释放这种优势，除了需要进一步坚持公有制主体地位、按劳分配原则以及政府与市场相协同的资源配置方式外，还需谨防生产、分配及资源配置偏离生产性领域，遏制非生产性活动扩张及食利阶层形成。为此，在构建与这一经济制度结构相适配的治理体系过程中，必须进一步突出“以人民为中心”和“发展生产力”原则，确保制度运行与治理导向的内在统一。

Finally, differences in the ideological superstructure and the basic economic system rooted within it also give rise to significant differences between China and Western countries in terms of state governance. As some scholars have pointed out, “The state governance of the Chinese Communists is essentially different from the governance of the state by traditional Chinese rulers, and is also different from Western governance theory and its propositions in terms of value orientation and political stance.” The “value orientation” and “political stance” referred to here are, in essence, the embodiment of the ideological superstructure.

最后，思想上层建筑方面以及植根其中的基本经济制度差异，还造成了中国与西方国家在国家治理方面的显著差异。正如有学者指出的，“中国共产党人的国家治理既在本质上区别于中国传统统治者的治理国家，又在价值取向和政治主张上，区别于西方的治理理论及其主张。”这里所说的“价值取向”和“政治主张”，本质上就是思想上层建筑的体现。

IV. The People-Centered Ideological Superstructure and the Modernization of State Governance with Chinese Characteristics

四、以人民为中心的思想上层建筑与中国特色国家治理现代化

As mentioned above, whether in *The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte* or in the “Preface to *A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy*,” Marx emphasized that the foundation of the superstructure is “its material conditions and the foundation of corresponding social relations,” and that “the sum total of these relations of production constitutes the economic structure of society.” This indicates that the object to which the superstructure needs to correspond and upon which it can exert a dynamic effect is the basic economic system that constitutes the foundational part of the economic and social relations among people. At the level of social operation, it manifests as the constantly recurring socio-economic structure in the process of social reproduction. The active construction of the superstructure and its dynamic effects can profoundly shape the socio-economic structure, but its influence must ultimately conform to the fundamental requirements of the development of productive forces. If the forward-looking and dynamic adjustments and interventions of the superstructure on the economic base fail to promote an adaptive improvement between the relations of production and the development of productive forces, then such dynamic effects often have only short-term effects, making it difficult to form a sustainable mechanism of action, and there may even be the possibility of reverse adjustment.

如前所述，无论是在《路易·波拿巴的雾月十八日》中，还是在《〈政治经济学批判〉序言》中，马克思都强调上层建筑的基础是“它的物质条件和相应的社会关系的基础”，是“生产关系的总和构成社会的经济结构”。这表明上层建筑需要与之相适应并能动地对之产生作用的对象，乃是构成人与人之间经济社会关系之基础部分的基本经济制度。在社会运行的层次，它体现为社会再生产过程中不断复现的社会经济结构。上层建筑的主动构建及其能动性效应，能够深刻塑造社会经济结构，但其影响终究还是要契合生产力发展的根本要求。若上层建筑对经济基础前瞻性、能动性的调整和干预，未能促成生产关系与生产力发展的适配性提升，则这种能动性影响往往仅具短期效应，难以形成可持续的作用机制，甚至存在逆向调整的可能性。

A typical characteristic of a relationship of production-economic base-superstructure that cannot adapt to the development of productive forces is that, after a period of economic and social development, the socio-economic structure undergoes profound changes. The rentier group centered on non-productive activities gradually takes control of the superstructure, thereby dominating the direction of economic operation. Currently, the contradictions exposed by capitalist countries represented by the United States profoundly reflect this: the network of relations of production centered on financial capital and the military-industrial complex constitutes the real foundation of their socio-economic operation; the superstructure shaped by capital dominance is falling into functional imbalance; the distribution mechanism of power and resources is increasingly tilted toward the rentier class, ultimately causing legal regulations to favor the maintenance of capital monopoly; political decision-making is constrained by the interests of financial oligarchs, and social ideology degenerates into a tool for justifying capital accumulation. This dysfunctional superstructure has lost the ability to actively adjust the economic base: it can neither break the siphon effect of financial capital on the productive sphere through institutional innovation, nor construct a resource allocation mechanism conducive to the development of the real economy, nor can it handle the social contradictions exacerbated by polarization in distribution.

一种不能适应生产力发展的生产关系—经济基础—上层建筑的典型特征，往往是在经历一段时间的经济社会发展之后，社会经济结构发生了深层的变革，以非生产性活动为核心的食利群体逐步掌控上层建筑，进而主导经济运行方向。当前，以美国为代表的资本主义国家所暴露出的矛盾就深刻地映射出了这一点：以金融资本、军工复合体为核心的生产关系网络构成了其社会经济运行的现实根基；由资本主导塑造的上层建筑正陷入功能性失衡；权力与资源的分配机制日益向食利阶层倾斜，并最终使法律规制偏向维护资本垄断地位；政治决策受制于金融寡头的利益诉求，社会意识形态沦为资本增殖的辩护工具。这种失能的上层建筑已丧失了主动调整经济基础的能力：既无法通过制度创新打破金融资本对生产领域的虹吸效应，也难以构建有利于实体经济发展的资源配置机制，更无法处理因分配极化而不断加剧的社会矛盾。

Behind the categories of productive forces, the basic economic system, and the superstructure lie structured human beings with different interests; therefore, it is necessary to systematically consider changes in “human interests” from the perspective of “human beings.” It is not difficult to understand that the basic economic system, as the core framework supporting social operation, continuously shapes the socioeconomic landscape in a dynamic manner through the organic combination of the form of ownership of the means of production, the rules for distributing surplus value, and the operational mechanisms of the market economy. The form of ownership of the means of production (ownership system) establishes the dominant subjects and the boundaries of rights and responsibilities in economic activities, determining whether production organization unfolds as public cooperation, private employment, or a mixed ownership form. The rules for distributing surplus value (distribution mode) not only define the logic of dividing the fruits of labor (such as distribution according to work, distribution according to factors of production, or redistribution regulation), but also reshape the flow of property increments through the transmission of disparities in primary distribution, government regulation in secondary distribution, and social coordination in tertiary distribution. Under different distribution systems, it is possible to form channels of class mobility that incentivize innovation, or to lead to a solidifying effect where wealth concentrates among a minority. The operational mechanism of the market economy (resource allocation system) determines the efficiency of combining production factors such as labor, capital, and technology through price signals, competition mechanisms, and contractual relations. The aforementioned basic economic system forms a linkage effect in the cycle of production, distribution, exchange, and consumption, continuously reshaping the economic and social structure. In this process, the core function of the superstructure lies in maintaining social fairness and developmental vitality through institutional adaptation. This requires continuous institutional innovation and governance upgrading, enabling the basic economic system to maintain efficiency advantages while solidifying the bottom line of fairness in dynamic adjustments, thereby providing inexhaustible impetus for the sustained progress of productive forces.

生产力、基本经济制度、上层建筑范畴的背后是结构化的、具有不同利益的人，故此有必要从“人”的角度系统考虑“人的利益”的变化。不难理解，基本经济制度作为支撑社会运行的核心架构，通过生产资料占有形式、剩余价值分配规则与市场经济运行机制的有机结合，在动态中不断塑造着社会经济格局。生产资料占有形式（所有制）确立了经济活动的支配主体与权责边界，决定了生产组织是以公有协作、私有雇佣还是混合所有制形式展开。剩余价值分配规则（分配方式）不仅界定了劳动成果的分割逻辑（如按劳分配、按要素分配或再分配调节），更通过初次分配的差距传导、二次分配的政府调节、三次分配的社会协同，重塑财产增量的流向。在不同的分配体系下，既可能形成激励创新的阶层流动通道，也可能导致财富向少数群体集中的固化效应。市场经济运行机制（资源配置体制）则通过价格信号、竞争机制和契约关系，决定了劳动力、资本、技术等生产要素的组合效率。上述基本经济制度在生产、分配、交换、消费的循环中形成联动效应，不断重塑着经济社会结构。在此过程中，上层建筑的核心功能就在于通过制度适配维持社会公平与发展活力。这就需要通过持续的制度创新与治理升级，使基本经济制度在动态调整中既保持效率优势，又筑牢公平底线，为生产力的持续进步提供不竭动力。

In the process of interaction between the economic base (social structure) and productive forces, the ideological superstructure is a key variable. Particularly important is that it can profoundly influence “whom the political superstructure serves” and “for what purpose it governs.” The fundamental reason contemporary Western developed countries commonly fall into multiple dilemmas such as capital supremacy, the welfare trap, and party struggles breeding populism is that their ideological superstructure only points to from whom power comes, not to whom it serves. In other words, it is an exceptionally conservative and rigid ideological superstructure that has caused these countries to be mired in the harsh reality of what Robert Michels called the “iron law of oligarchy”: “The hereditary transmission of political power has always been an effective means of maintaining the ruling position of a class.” Indeed, the political logic of “controlled by capital, serving capital” pervasively dominates the political and economic life of contemporary capitalism, becoming an invisible dominating force within its ideological superstructure. For a long time, whether authoritarian state theory or neo-statism, in explaining differences in national development, has failed to touch upon the importance of the concept of community within the ideological superstructure, which is precisely the key connection point between political order and social structure. It is different shared or community concepts that cause differences among countries in governance methods, governance goals, and governance performance. This difference is concentratedly reflected in: whether state governance is for long-term interests or short-term interests, for the interests of the minority or the interests of the majority, and whether the interests of the minority can be sacrificed for the interests of the majority.

在经济基础（社会结构）—生产力的交互影响过程中，思想上层建筑是一个关键变量。尤为重要的是，它能够对政治上层建筑“为谁服务”以及“出于何种目的而治理”产生深刻影响。当代西方发达国家之所以会普遍陷入资本至上、福利陷阱、党争滋生民粹等多重困境，根本原因就在于其思想上层建筑仅仅指向权力来自谁，而不指向服务谁。换言之，正是一种异常保守、僵化的思想上层建筑造成了这些国家深陷（罗伯特·米歇尔斯所说的）“寡头铁律”的严酷现实：“政治权力的世系传递始终是维护阶级统治地位的有效手段。”的确，“由资本所控制、为资本服务”的政治逻辑无所不在地宰制着当代资本主义的政治经济生活，成为其思想上层建筑中无形的支配力量。而长期以来，无论是威权国家理论还是新国家主义，在解释国家发展的差异性时都未能触及思想上层建筑中关于共同体理念的重要性，而这恰好是政治秩序与社会结构的关键连接点。正是不同的共有或共同体理念，造成了不同国家在治理方式、治理目标和治理绩效上的差异。这个差异集中体现在：国家治理究竟是为了长久的利益还是为了短期的利益，是为了少数人的利益还是为了多数人的利益，以及为了少数人的利益是否可以牺牲多数人的利益。

The fundamental and core aspect of state governance under socialism with Chinese characteristics lies in adhering to the ideological superstructure of the “people-centered” principle. This ideological superstructure not only guides the construction and operation of the political superstructure but also actively leads the development of relations of production. In the practice of state governance, whether resolving economic and social contradictions or implementing macroeconomic management, the people-centered value orientation runs through the entire process. The high degree of unity of this value orientation in the ideological superstructure, the political superstructure, and the process of state governance stems from the fundamental nature of the Communist Party of China. As a proletarian party, the CPC’s purpose of serving the people wholeheartedly and its Marxist ideology determine that state governance must take enhancing the people’s interests as its fundamental starting point. In the process of promoting a virtuous cycle among the economic base, social structure, and productive forces, the Party’s nature, governing program, and ideology play a key role. After the founding of New China, the Party took “political independence, institutional innovation, independent industrialization, and the people’s welfare” as the core elements of the ideological superstructure, emphasizing: political independence is the fundamental prerequisite for national development, institutional innovation is the fundamental guarantee for maintaining developmental vitality, independent industrialization is the necessary path to rapidly enhance economic strength, and improving the people’s welfare is the ultimate goal of all development. Since reform and opening up, the most notable new feature of the Party in the ideological superstructure has been, without a doubt, unswervingly adhering to socialism with Chinese characteristics while uncompromisingly resisting neoliberalism. Fundamentally, socialism with Chinese characteristics and Western-style neoliberalism represent two completely different principles for constructing relations of production.

中国特色社会主义国家治理，其根本和核心就在于坚持“以人民为中心”原则的思想上层建筑。这一思想上层建筑不仅指导着政治上层建筑的构建与运行，还能动地引领生产关系发展。在国家治理实践中，无论是化解经济社会矛盾，还是实施宏观经济管理，以人民为中心的价值取向都贯穿始终。这一价值取向在思想上层建筑、政治上层建筑以及国家治理过程中的高度统一，源于中国共产党的根本属性。中国共产党作为无产阶级政党，其全心全意为人民服务的宗旨与马克思主义意识形态决定了国家治理必须以增进人民利益为根本出发点。在推动经济基础、社会结构与生产力发展实现良性循环的过程中，党的性质与执政纲领、意识形态发挥了关键作用。新中国成立后，党把“政治独立、制度创新、自主工业化、人民福祉”作为思想上层建筑的核心要素，强调：政治独立是国家发展的根本前提，制度创新是保持发展活力的根本保障，自主工业化是快速提升经济实力的必由之路，增进人民福祉则是一切发展的最终目标。改革开放以来，党在思想上层建筑方面最显著的新特征，莫过于旗帜鲜明地坚持中国特色社会主义的同时毫不妥协地抵制新自由主义。从根本上说，中国特色社会主义与西方式新自由主义代表了两种截然不同的生产关系构建原则。

The importance of the ideological superstructure is also reflected in the state’s infrastructural power emphasized by scholars such as Michael Mann and Linda Weiss. As mentioned earlier, the formation of a political community is inseparable from the shaping and enhancement of state capacity, and the foundation of the former lies in the configuration of the ideological superstructure. According to the classification of Michael Mann and Linda Weiss and others, state power can be divided into despotic power and infrastructural power. Among them, despotic power, based on the monopoly of violence, only provides a security guarantee capability and is therefore regarded as a typical feature of pre-modern states. Infrastructural power is a capacity for mobilization, activation, and deployment, based on sustained interaction between the state and society, and is sustainable. Since infrastructural power represents “the capacity to mobilize resources for developmental goals” or “the capacity to increase penetration and extraction of social resources and redistribute them where needed,” it plays an extremely important role in economic and social development. In contemporary Western political theory, whether a state possesses infrastructural power is usually regarded as the primary criterion for determining whether a country is a modern state.

思想上层建筑的重要性，也体现在迈克尔·曼和维斯等人所强调的国家建制性能力上。如前所述，政治共同体的形成和国家能力塑造与增强有着密不可分的关系，而前者的基础就在于思想上层建筑的型构。按照迈克尔·曼和维斯等人的划分，国家能力可以分为专制性能力和建制性能力。其中，以暴力垄断为基础的专制性权力所带来的只是一种安全保障能力，因此被视为前现代国家的典型特征。建制性能力则是一种动员、激发、调用的能力，它以国家与社会的持续互动为基础，具有可持续性。由于建制性能力代表了“为发展目标而调用资源的能力”，或者“能够增加对社会渗透和资源的汲取度并且再分配到有需要的地方的能力”，其对经济社会发展具有极为重要的作用。在当代西方政治理论中，是否具有建制性能力，通常被视作判定一个国家是不是现代国家的首要标准。

The formation of infrastructural power means that the state can use various forces to establish institutionalized cooperative relations with society. It has three dimensions: penetration capacity, extraction capacity, and negotiation capacity. Therefore, the modern construction of state governance capacity is embodied in the coordinated operation of three core mechanisms: the penetration mechanism, the extraction mechanism, and the multi-stakeholder negotiation mechanism. Among them, the core of the penetration mechanism lies in the transmission efficiency of the state in transforming governance intentions into social actions. The extraction mechanism is an institutional tool for the state to coordinate economic and social resources and achieve public goals; its core lies not in the one-way control of resources by a “strong government,” but in achieving a virtuous cycle of “taking from the people and using for the people” through building an “effective government” and a “capable government.” The multi-stakeholder negotiation mechanism reflects the state’s capacity to build institutionalized cooperative networks with multiple subjects such as the market and society. Penetration, extraction, and negotiation are interdependent, forming an organic system of governance effectiveness: penetration capacity provides a legitimacy foundation for resource extraction and an accessibility network for negotiation mechanisms; resource extraction capacity can provide material support for penetration mechanisms and space for interest adjustment for negotiation mechanisms (such as bargaining chips for public resource allocation in negotiations); and negotiation capacity can in turn feed back into the efficiency of penetration and extraction. Only by establishing a virtuous interactive cycle among these three can the modern transformation from “rule” to “governance” be achieved, laying the institutional foundation for the modernization of state governance.

建制性能力的形成意味着国家可以借助各种力量与社会建立起制度化的合作关系。它具有三重维度：渗透能力、汲取能力和协商能力。因此，国家治理能力的现代化建构，也就体现为渗透机制、汲取机制与多元协商机制等三种核心机制的协同运作。其中，渗透机制的核心在于国家将治理意图转化为社会行动的传导效能。汲取机制是国家统筹经济社会资源、实现公共目标的制度工具，其核心不在于“强政府”对资源的单向控制，而在于通过建设“有效政府”和“有为政府”，实现“取之于民、用之于民”的良性循环。多元协商机制则体现的是国家与市场、社会等多元主体构建制度化合作网络的能力。渗透、汲取与协商三者相互依存，构成治理效能的有机系统：渗透能力为资源汲取提供合法性基础，为协商机制提供可达性网络；资源汲取能力则可以为渗透机制提供物质支撑，为协商机制提供利益调节空间（如公共资源分配的协商筹码）；而协商能力又可以反哺渗透与汲取的效率。唯有建立三者的良性互动循环，才能实现从“统治”到“治理”的现代转型，为国家治理现代化奠定制度性根基。

In short, the cultivation of institutional capacity means that the state can deeply embed itself in society, and society can be guided and mobilized, thereby actively “moving” together with the state. Once supported by strong institutional capacity, society is no longer a passively managed object but can, under the state’s guidance, achieve self-mobilization and development through forms such as citizen participation and coordination by social organizations, forming a virtuous cycle of mutual promotion and joint “movement” between state and society. However, in reality, a state’s institutional capacity may be complete—that is, simultaneously possessing the three capacities of penetration, extraction, and consultation—or it may be incomplete, possessing only the capacities of penetration and extraction but lacking the capacity for consultation. The difference lies in the fact that a state with only penetration and extraction capacities can maintain basic state-society interaction in a static environment or over the short term, whereas a state that simultaneously possesses all three capacities has a more complete governance system. In other words, only when it also possesses the capacity for consultation can a state continuously adjust the state-society relationship in response to changes in social structure, thereby maintaining effective interaction between the two over the long term. An indispensable condition for shaping this crucial capacity for consultation is that the state and society, as the two parties to consultation, share common knowledge or a common mental model, and this especially requires extensive support from the ideological superstructure.

简言之，建制性能力的养成，意味着国家可以深度嵌入社会，社会可以被引领、被动员，进而主动地和国家一起“运动”。一旦形成强有力的建制性能力支撑，社会就不再是被动接受管理的客体，而是能够在国家引导下，通过公民参与、社会组织协同等形式，实现自我动员与发展，形成国家与社会相互促进、共同“运动”的良性循环。然而，现实来看，一个国家的建制性能力可能是完整的，即同时具备渗透、汲取和协商三种能力，也可能是残缺的，如仅具备渗透和汲取两种能力，而不具备协商能力。其差异在于，仅具备渗透和汲取能力的国家，能够在静态环境或短期内维系国家与社会的基本互动；同时具备三种能力的国家则拥有更为完善的治理体系。换言之，唯有同时也具备协商能力，一个国家才可能因应社会结构变迁不断修正国家与社会的关系，进而长期保持二者之间的有效互动。对塑造这种至关重要的协商能力来说，一个不可或缺的条件是作为协商双方的国家与社会具备共同知识（common knowledge）抑或共有心智模型（common mental mode），而这，尤其需要思想上层建筑的广泛支持。

V. Conclusion

五、结语

In the dynamic mutual construction of the economic base, social structure, and productive forces, the ideological superstructure not only fundamentally shapes the value attributes of the political superstructure—determining the source of its power legitimacy and the orientation of its institutional framework—but also, by transmitting a shared governance vision, frames the fundamental goals, objects of action, and practical paths of state governance. The core concepts embedded in the ideological superstructure (such as views of fairness, views of power, and community consciousness) are, like “governance genes,” embedded in institutional design, causing the operation of the political superstructure to exhibit specific value orientations (such as efficiency first or fairness paramount), thereby profoundly influencing resource allocation methods, policy intervention intensity, and even social mobilization models.

在经济基础、社会结构与生产力的动态互构过程中，思想上层建筑不仅从根本上塑造着政治上层建筑的价值属性——决定其权力合法性来源与制度架构取向，更通过传导共同的治理愿景，框定国家治理的根本目标、作用对象及实践路径。思想上层建筑所蕴含的核心理念（如公平观、权力观、共同体意识等），如同“治理基因”般嵌入制度设计，使政治上层建筑的运行呈现出特定的价值取向（如效率优先或公平至上），进而深刻地影响着资源分配方式、政策干预强度乃至社会动员模式。

Distinguishing between the political superstructure and the ideological superstructure is not intended to sever the symbiotic relationship between them, for the two already form an organic whole through the “institutionalization of ideas” and the “ideologization of institutions.” The significance of emphasizing the ideological superstructure lies in grasping the ideational driving force behind state governance, especially the shared beliefs that sustain the existence of the political community. As the spiritual bond connecting the economic base with political practice, the core value concepts in the ideological superstructure not only shape the legitimacy foundation of the political community but also determine the goal orientation and practical path of state governance. The formation of the state governance system with Chinese characteristics stems from a precise grasp of the core elements of the ideological superstructure. The governing concept of “people-centeredness,” as the soul of the ideological superstructure, constructs the ultimate source of the legitimacy of political power—the fundamental goal of state governance is anchored in realizing the people’s interests, promoting social fairness, and achieving common prosperity. In practice, this concept is concretely transformed into policy orientations such as “independence and self-reliance,” “poverty alleviation,” “common prosperity,” and “Chinese-path modernization.” It can be said that it is precisely because of the cohesive power of the ideological superstructure that China has been able to rapidly gather broad social consensus when responding to various major risks and challenges, and that the Communist Party of China has been able to firmly adhere to its original aspiration and founding mission amid the turbulent changes of history.

区分政治上层建筑与思想上层建筑，并不是要割裂政治上层建筑与思想上层建筑的共生关系，因为二者本就通过“观念制度化”与“制度观念化”而形成一个有机整体。强调思想上层建筑的意义在于把握国家治理背后的观念驱动力，尤其是支撑政治共同体存续的共有信念。作为连接经济基础与政治实践的精神纽带，思想上层建筑中的核心价值理念不仅塑造着政治共同体的合法性根基，更决定着国家治理的目标导向与实践路径。中国特色国家治理体系的形成，源于对思想上层建筑核心要素的精准把握。“以人民为中心”的执政理念作为思想上层建筑的灵魂，构建了政治权力合法性的终极来源——国家治理的根本目标被锚定在实现人民利益、促进社会公平与共同富裕上。在实践中，这一理念被具体转化为“独立自主”“脱贫攻坚”“共同富裕”“中国式现代化”等政策导向。可以说，正是源于思想上层建筑的凝聚力，中国才得以在应对各种重大风险挑战时迅速凝聚起广泛的社会共识，中国共产党才得以在波诡云谲的历史变迁中牢牢坚守住初心使命。

The modernization of state governance is not only the optimization of the institutional framework but also the systematic construction of core value concepts. Only by starting from the deep logic of the ideological superstructure and grasping the fundamental questions of why to govern and for whom to govern can the stability and adaptability of the governance system be maintained amid complex changes in social structure. The great practice of Chinese governance, through the creative transformation of the ideological superstructure, provides a new path for modern state governance that balances historical tradition with the needs of the times and integrates institutional design with value guidance, thereby demonstrating the directional guiding role of the ideological superstructure in state governance. (Author’s affiliation: Institute of Economics, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences)

国家治理现代化不仅是制度架构的优化，更是核心价值理念的系统性建构。唯有从思想上层建筑的深层逻辑出发，把握为何治理、治理为谁的根本问题，才能在复杂的社会结构变迁中保持治理体系的稳定性与适应性。中国之治的伟大实践，正是通过思想上层建筑的创造性转化，为现代国家治理提供了一条兼顾历史传统与时代需求、融合制度设计与价值引领的新型路径，彰显了思想上层建筑在国家治理中的方向导引作用。（作者单位：中国社会科学院经济研究所）

Online editor: Paul

网络编辑：保罗