The Original Contributions of Chinese-Path Modernization to Scientific Socialism

General Secretary Xi Jinping has stressed: “As the latest major achievement of scientific socialism, Chinese-path modernization has drawn widespread international attention.” Scientific socialism is the unity of theory and practice. To deeply grasp that Chinese-path modernization is the latest major achievement of scientific socialism, it is necessary to delve into the path and practice of Chinese-path modernization. The path and practice of Chinese-path modernization have successfully resolved the major difficulty in the history of scientific socialism—how to realize socialist modernization in economically and culturally backward countries after they have “leaped over the Caudine Forks”[1]1 “Leap over the Caudine Forks” (跨越卡夫丁峡谷) is a metaphor used by Marx and Engels, drawn from an ancient Roman military defeat, to refer to a society bypassing the capitalist stage of development and transitioning directly to a higher social formation.—formed a unique modernization model, surpassed Western capitalist civilization, and created a new form of human civilization. This new form of civilization is the socialist civilization form of the 21st century. The path and practice of Chinese-path modernization have opened up a new realm for the development of scientific socialism and made original contributions to its development. Of course, Chinese-path modernization is a process in the present continuous tense, not the perfect tense; its original contributions to scientific socialism will increasingly emerge as the historical process continues to unfold.

习近平总书记强调：“中国式现代化作为科学社会主义的最新重大成果，在国际上引起广泛关注。”科学社会主义是理论与实践的统一，深入把握中国式现代化是科学社会主义的最新重大成果，就需要深入到中国式现代化道路和实践中去。中国式现代化道路和实践成功解决了经济文化落后国家“跨越卡夫丁峡谷”之后如何实现社会主义现代化这一科学社会主义发展史上的重大难题，形成了独特的现代化模式，超越了西方资本主义文明，创造了人类文明新形态，这一文明新形态，是21世纪的社会主义文明形态。中国式现代化道路和实践，开辟了科学社会主义发展的新境界，对科学社会主义发展作出了原创性贡献。当然，中国式现代化是进行时，不是完成时，其对科学社会主义的原创性贡献还会随着历史进程的不断拓展而越来越多地呈现出来。

I. Marx’s Theoretical Conception of “Leaping over the Caudine Forks”

一、马克思关于“跨越卡夫丁峡谷”的理论设想

General Secretary Xi Jinping has pointed out: “Chinese-path modernization is socialist modernization led by the Communist Party of China. It contains elements that are common to the modernization of all countries, but it is more characterized by features that are unique to the Chinese context.” Chinese-path modernization is built on the basis of a leap in social formations; it is a new, non-capitalist path of socialist modernization. To deeply elucidate the internal logic of Chinese-path modernization from the perspective of scientific socialism, it is necessary to examine it through the theoretical lens of Marx’s conception of “leaping over the Caudine Forks.”

习近平总书记指出：“中国式现代化，是中国共产党领导的社会主义现代化，既有各国现代化的共同特征，更有基于自己国情的中国特色。”中国式现代化是建立在社会形态跨越基础之上的，是一条非资本主义的社会主义现代化新道路。从科学社会主义角度，深入阐释中国式现代化的内在逻辑，需要基于马克思关于“跨越卡夫丁峡谷”的理论视域进行考察。

In his later years, through repeated reflections on the fate of the Russian rural commune and the future development path of Russia, Marx put forward the theoretical conception of “leaping over the Caudine Forks.” This conception is mainly elaborated in documents such as his “Letter to the Editorial Board of *Otechestvennye Zapiski*,” his “Letter to Vera Zasulich” (including three drafts), his “Notes on the Reform of 1861 and the Post-Reform Development of Russia,” and the 1882 Russian-language preface to the *Communist Manifesto*. In ancient Rome, soldiers defeated at the Caudine Forks were forced to pass under a “yoke” formed by crossed spears—the greatest humiliation for a defeated army. Marx used the “Caudine Forks” as a metaphor for the “yoke” of the capitalist system. Why should Russia leap over the Caudine Forks of the capitalist system? It was to avoid the disasters and misfortunes brought by capitalism, to avoid retreading the old path of the painful and brutal expropriation of the working people—that is, primitive accumulation of capital—which Western European countries had experienced: “Capital comes [into the world] dripping from head to foot, from every pore, with blood and dirt.” Marx pointed out: “If Russia continues to follow the path it began to take in 1861, it will lose the best opportunity that history has ever offered to a people, and will have to endure all the disastrous vicissitudes of the capitalist system.” “The path it began to take in 1861” refers to the signs of Russia moving toward the capitalist path; “once it falls into the embrace of the capitalist system, it will be subject, like other secular peoples, to the inexorable laws of that system.” The essence of “leaping over the Caudine Forks” is to leap over capitalist private ownership based on wage labor and enter a society based on public ownership, thereby avoiding the ills brought about by capitalist development.

马克思晚年在对俄国农村公社的命运和俄国未来发展道路的反复思考中，提出了关于“跨越卡夫丁峡谷”的理论设想，主要内容体现在《给〈祖国纪事〉杂志编辑部的信》、《给维·伊·查苏利奇的复信》（包括三封复信草稿）、《关于俄国一八六一年改革和改革后的发展的札记》以及《共产党宣言》1882年俄文版序言等文献中。古罗马士兵在卡夫丁峡谷战败，必须在由长矛交叉构成的“轭形门”下通过。这是对战败军的最大羞辱。马克思借用“卡夫丁峡谷”来比喻资本主义这道“轭形门”。俄国为什么要跨越资本主义制度的卡夫丁峡谷？就是不想遭受资本主义带来的灾难和不幸，避免重走西欧国家那种对劳动人民的痛苦的、残酷的剥夺即资本原始积累的老路：“资本来到世间，从头到脚，每个毛孔都滴着血和肮脏的东西。”马克思指出：“如果俄国继续走它在1861年所开始走的道路，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1861年所开始走的道路”指的是俄国出现的走向资本主义道路的迹象，“它一旦倒进资本主义制度的怀抱，它就会和尘世间的其他民族一样地受那些铁面无情的规律的支配”。“跨越卡夫丁峡谷”的实质，就是跨越以雇佣劳动为基础的资本主义私有制，进入以公有制为基础的社会，从而避免资本主义发展带来的弊端。

Why could Russia “leap over the Caudine Forks”? Or, in other words, why was such a leap possible? Marx explained this from at least two angles. First, a theoretical clarification. Marx opposed turning his historical outline of the origin of capitalism in Western Europe into a “historico-philosophical theory of a general path of development” that all peoples or nations, regardless of their historical environment, are destined to follow onto the capitalist path. Marx confined the “historical inevitability” of the origin and development of capitalism to the scope of Western European countries. The historico-philosophical theory that all countries, including Russia, must necessarily pass through the stage of capitalist development is “supra-historical.” Thus, not all countries must undergo a stage of capitalist development; it is theoretically possible for some countries, due to special conditions, to “leap over the Caudine Forks.” Second, a practical explanation. In the first draft of his “Letter to Vera Zasulich,” Marx pointed out: “Its simultaneous existence with Western production, which dominates the world market, enables Russia to incorporate all the positive achievements of the capitalist system, without having to pass through the Caudine Forks of the capitalist system, into the commune.” Russia, as an economically and culturally backward Eastern great power, did not possess the material conditions for realizing Western European-style modernization. However, because it existed simultaneously with capitalist production (and was not a colony under Western capitalist domination), it could appropriate all the positive achievements created by the capitalist system, providing the commune with ready-made material conditions for large-scale organized common labor and laying the material foundation for Russia’s entry into socialism. The globalization of the capitalist mode of production, the world market, and so forth, provided the historical conditions for an economically and culturally backward Russia to learn from and master the positive achievements of Western capitalism. Therefore, Russia itself did not need to undergo a stage of capitalist development, but it could actively appropriate the fruits of civilization created by capitalism. To criticize those Russian worshippers of the capitalist system, Marx posed this question in rebuttal: “Does Russia, in order to adopt machinery, steamships, railways, etc., have to first go through a long period of incubation of the machine industry, as the West did? Let them also explain to me how they could introduce all at once into Russia the whole set of exchange institutions (banks, credit companies, etc.) that took the West centuries to build up?”

俄国为什么能“跨越卡夫丁峡谷”，或者说，为什么具备跨越的可能性？马克思至少从两个角度做了说明。一是理论上的澄清。马克思反对把他关于西欧资本主义起源的历史概述变成“一般发展道路的历史哲学理论”，即一切民族或国家，无论其所处的历史环境如何，都注定要走上资本主义道路。马克思把资本主义起源及发展的“历史必然性”限制在西欧各国的范围内。那种认为包括俄国在内的所有国家都必然经历资本主义发展阶段的历史哲学理论是“超历史的”。由此可见，并非所有国家都要经历资本主义发展阶段，一些国家由于特殊条件“跨越卡夫丁峡谷”，是具有理论上的可能性的。二是现实上的说明。马克思在《给维·伊·查苏利奇的复信》的初稿中指出：“和控制着世界市场的西方生产同时存在，就使俄国可以不通过资本主义制度的卡夫丁峡谷，而把资本主义制度所创造的一切积极的成果用到公社中来。”俄国作为经济文化落后的东方大国，并不具备实现西欧现代化的物质条件，但是，它与资本主义生产同时存在（并且不是西方资本主义统治下的殖民地），可以占有资本主义制度所创造的一切积极成果，为俄国公社实现大规模组织起来的共同劳动提供现成物质条件，为俄国进入社会主义奠定物质基础。资本主义生产方式的全球化、世界市场等为经济文化落后的俄国学习和掌握西方资本主义积极成果提供了历史条件。因此，俄国自身可以不经历资本主义发展阶段，但可以积极占有资本主义所创造的文明成果。为了批判那些资本主义制度的俄国崇拜者，马克思提出这样的问题予以反击：“俄国为了采用机器、轮船、铁路等等，是不是一定要像西方那样先经过一段很长的机器工业的孕育期呢？同时也请他们给我说明：他们怎么能够把西方需要几个世纪才建立起来的一整套交换机构（银行、信用公司等等）一下子就引进到自己这里来呢？”

Of course, the delimitation of the domain of “historical inevitability” can only indicate that Russia’s “leap over the Caudine Forks” [1]1 “Leap over the Caudine Forks” (跨越卡夫丁峡谷) is a metaphor used by Marx and Engels, drawn from an ancient Roman military defeat, to refer to a society bypassing the capitalist stage of development and transitioning directly to a higher social formation. possessed theoretical possibility; for it to be transformed into actuality, a series of internal and external conditions had to be met. From the perspective of internal conditions, first Russia had to overthrow the tsarist autocracy and itself undergo a social revolution. “If the revolution takes place at the right moment, if it concentrates all its forces to ensure the free development of the rural commune, the latter will soon become a factor in the regeneration of Russian society, a factor superior to those which still enslave other countries under the capitalist system.” [2]2 Karl Marx, “Draft of a Reply to Vera Zasulich,” 1881. If the revolution did not break out, Russia would quickly transform into a capitalist country, with more and more peasants becoming proletarianized and the old communist commune soon collapsing and disintegrating. From the perspective of external conditions, the victory of the proletarian revolution in the Western countries and the active support it provided were the prerequisites for Russia’s “leap over the Caudine Forks.” On whether the leap could be accomplished, Marx and Engels pointed out in the 1882 Russian-language preface to the *Communist Manifesto*: “The only possible answer at present is this: if the Russian revolution becomes the signal for a proletarian revolution in the West, so that the two complement each other, then the present Russian common ownership of land may serve as the starting point for a communist development.” [3]3 Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, Preface to the 1882 Russian Edition of the *Communist Manifesto*. The “mutual complementation thesis” explains both the internal conditions for Russia’s “leap over the Caudine Forks” and the external condition of support from the Western proletarian revolution. In response to the erroneous views of the Narodniks at the time, Marx and Engels clearly stated that although the Russian rural commune shared certain common features with the future socialist society, its essence was backward and closed, and it could not move toward socialism by its own strength alone. In the “Postscript to ‘On the Social Question in Russia’,” Engels very clearly pointed out: “The initial impulse for such a possible transformation of the Russian commune can come only from the industrial proletariat of the West, not from the commune itself. The victory of the West European proletariat over the bourgeoisie and the consequent replacement of capitalist production by socially regulated production — these are the necessary prerequisites for the Russian commune to rise to the same level.” [4]4 Friedrich Engels, “Postscript to ‘On the Social Question in Russia’,” 1894. Engels regarded the Western proletarian revolution as the primary condition for Russia’s “leap over the Caudine Forks.” The view that economically and culturally backward Russia had an advantage over Western capitalist countries in entering socialism (the “backwardness advantage thesis”) is untenable. Throughout their lives, Marx and Engels advocated the “thesis of simultaneous victory” [5]5 The “thesis of simultaneous victory” (共同胜利论) refers to Marx and Engels’ view that socialist revolution would occur simultaneously in the advanced capitalist countries of Western Europe, rather than in a single country. and believed that the victory of the Western European proletarian revolution was the fundamental historical condition for economically and culturally backward countries to “leap over the Caudine Forks.” “Only when the capitalist economy has been overcome in its homeland and in the countries where it flourishes, only when the backward countries have seen from this example ‘how it is done,’ how the productive forces of modern industry are made into social property to serve the whole of society — only then can these backward countries begin this shortened process of development. And then their success is assured. This applies not only to Russia but to all countries that are in the stage of pre-capitalist development.” [5]5 The “thesis of simultaneous victory” (共同胜利论) refers to Marx and Engels’ view that socialist revolution would occur simultaneously in the advanced capitalist countries of Western Europe, rather than in a single country. Marx and Engels never believed that the proletarian revolution in economically and culturally backward countries like Russia would precede the revolution in Western capitalist countries; rather, they always held that only after the victory of the Western European proletarian revolution would economically and culturally backward countries possess the objective conditions for “leaping over the Caudine Forks.” It is evident that the theoretical logic behind Marx and Engels’ “leap thesis” remains the “thesis of simultaneous victory,” in which the Russian revolution and the Western proletarian revolution occur simultaneously and complement each other. We cannot superimpose Lenin’s later ideas onto Marx and Engels.

当然，“历史必然性”的论域限定，只能说明俄国“跨越卡夫丁峡谷”具有理论上的可能性，其要转化为现实性，必须具备一系列内外部条件。从内部条件看，首先俄国必须推翻沙皇专制制度，自身发生社会革命。“如果革命在适当的时刻发生，如果它能把自己的一切力量集中起来以保证农村公社的自由发展，那么，农村公社就会很快地变为俄国社会新生的因素，变为优于其他还处在资本主义制度奴役下的国家的因素。”如果没有爆发革命，俄国会很快转变为资本主义国家，越来越多的农民无产阶级化，旧的共产主义公社也很快崩溃、解体。从外部条件看，西方国家无产阶级革命胜利及其给予的积极支持，是俄国“跨越卡夫丁峡谷”的前提。对于能否跨越，马克思恩格斯在《共产党宣言》1882年俄文版序言中指出：“目前唯一可能的答复是：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。”“互相补充论”既说明了俄国“跨越卡夫丁峡谷”的内部条件，也说明了西方无产阶级革命支援这一外部条件。当年面对民粹派的错误观点，马克思恩格斯明确指出，俄国农村公社尽管与未来社会主义社会具有某些共同点，但是其本质是落后的、封闭的，单靠自身力量是无法走向社会主义的。在《〈论俄国的社会问题〉跋》中，恩格斯非常明确地指出：“对俄国的公社的这样一种可能的改造的首创因素只能来自西方的工业无产阶级，而不是来自公社本身。西欧无产阶级对资产阶级的胜利以及与之俱来的以社会管理的生产代替资本主义生产，这就是俄国公社上升到同样的阶段所必需的先决条件。”恩格斯把西方无产阶级革命视为俄国“跨越卡夫丁峡谷”的首要条件。那种认为经济文化落后的俄国比西欧资本主义国家更有优势进入社会主义的观点（“落后优势论”），是站不住脚的。马克思恩格斯终其一生都主张“共同胜利论”，并且认为，西欧无产阶级革命胜利是经济文化落后国家“跨越卡夫丁峡谷”的根本历史条件。“只有当资本主义经济在自己故乡和在它兴盛的国家里被克服的时候，只有当落后国家从这个榜样上看到‘这是怎么回事’，看到怎样把现代工业的生产力作为社会财产来为整个社会服务的时候——只有到那个时候，这些落后的国家才能开始这种缩短的发展过程。然而那时它们的成功也是有保证的。这不仅适用于俄国，而且适用于处在资本主义以前的阶段的一切国家。”马克思恩格斯从没认为俄国等经济文化落后的国家的无产阶级革命会先于西欧资本主义国家革命，而是始终认为，只有西欧的无产阶级革命胜利以后，经济文化落后国家才具有“跨越卡夫丁峡谷”的客观条件。可见，马克思恩格斯“跨越论”背后的理论逻辑仍然是俄国革命和西方无产阶级革命同时发生并相互补充的“共同胜利论”，我们不能把列宁后来的思想套用在马克思恩格斯之上。

In summary, Marx’s theoretical conception of “leaping over the Caudine Forks” was primarily aimed at how Russia, which possessed the rural commune, could open up a new path of social development that bypassed the capitalist system and crossed over social formations. Clearly, this path was not intended for China. However, the Chinese Communists, through long-term efforts, have successfully explored a new socialist modernization path for “leaping over the Caudine Forks,” namely, the path of Chinese-path modernization. A scholarly interpretation of Chinese-path modernization cannot be separated from the theoretical perspective of “leaping over the Caudine Forks.” Of course, such a “theoretical perspective” is not limited solely to Marx’s historical context; rather, it must be based on the Chinese context, especially grounded in the theoretical innovations and practical achievements of Chinese-path modernization, to further expand the theoretical horizon of “leaping over the Caudine Forks.” Taking the theoretical perspective of “leaping over the Caudine Forks” as a frame of reference, we can see that Chinese-path modernization’s leap over the capitalist “Caudine Forks” has a twofold meaning: first, China, which was relatively backward economically and culturally, bypassed the capitalist stage and successfully opened up a non-capitalist path of modernization, accomplishing the historical task of modernization; second, Chinese-path modernization organically integrates socialism with modernization, forming a unique model of modernization that transcends capitalist civilization and creates a new form of human civilization. Marx’s reflections on Russia’s “leap over the Caudine Forks” and even on the entire path of development for Eastern societies were linked to his critique of capitalism. Marx’s original intention in proposing the “leap over the Caudine Forks” was to escape the “suffering” of capitalist modernization and overcome its defects. Marx pointed out very clearly: “That the development of the ‘rural commune’ conforms to the direction of historical development in our era is best proven by the fatal crisis that capitalist production is experiencing in the most developed countries of Europe and America, a crisis that will end with the abolition of capitalism, with the return of modern society to a higher form of the ancient type, to collective production and collective appropriation.” [6]6 Karl Marx, “Draft of a Reply to Vera Zasulich,” 1881. Marx’s theoretical conception of “leaping over the Caudine Forks” already contained a critique of capitalist modernization and also included a search for an alternative plan to transcend capitalist civilization — a new type of civilization characterized by collective production and collective appropriation. The creative development of the “leap over the Caudine Forks” theory by Chinese-path modernization is, to a considerable extent, reflected in its creation of a new type of civilization that transcends capitalist civilization. As some scholars have pointed out: “The reason the historical development of contemporary China demonstrates its world-historical significance is that the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation lies not only in China becoming a powerful modern country, but also in the fact that, while completing its modernization tasks, it is simultaneously opening up the possibility of a new type of civilization.” [7]7 The original Chinese source of this quotation is not specified in the text.

总而言之，马克思关于“跨越卡夫丁峡谷”的理论设想主要针对的是存在着农村公社的俄国如何不经过资本主义制度而开辟一条跨越社会形态的社会发展新道路。显然，这条道路不是针对中国的。但是中国共产党人经过长期努力，成功探索到一条“跨越卡夫丁峡谷”的社会主义现代化新道路，即中国式现代化道路。对中国式现代化的学理阐释，离不开“跨越卡夫丁峡谷”的理论视域。当然，这样的“理论视域”不是仅仅局限于马克思当年的历史语境，而是要基于中国语境，特别是立足中国式现代化的理论创新与实践成就，进一步拓展“跨越卡夫丁峡谷”的理论视界。以“跨越卡夫丁峡谷”理论视角为参照系，我们可以发现，中国式现代化对资本主义“卡夫丁峡谷”的跨越有两重含义：一是经济文化相对落后的中国不经过资本主义阶段，成功开辟了一条非资本主义现代化道路，完成了现代化的历史任务；二是中国式现代化将社会主义与现代化有机结合起来，形成了独特的现代化模式，超越了资本主义文明，创造了人类文明新形态。马克思对俄国“跨越卡夫丁峡谷”乃至整个东方社会发展道路的思考，与其对资本主义的批判是关联在一起的。马克思提出“跨越卡夫丁峡谷”的初衷就是摆脱资本主义现代化的“苦难”，克服其弊端。马克思极其明确指出：“‘农村公社’的这种发展是符合我们时代历史发展的方向的，对这一点的最好证明，是资本主义生产在它最发达的欧美各国中所遭到的致命危机，而这种危机将随着资本主义的消灭，随着现代社会回复到古代类型的高级形式，回复到集体生产和集体占有而告终。”马克思关于“跨越卡夫丁峡谷”的理论设想中，就包含了对资本主义现代化的批判，也包括了寻求超越资本主义文明的替代方案——以集体生产和集体占有为显著特征的新文明类型。中国式现代化对“跨越卡夫丁峡谷”理论的创造性发展，在相当大程度上，体现在它创造了一种超越资本主义文明的新文明类型。正如有学者指出：“当今中国的历史性发展之所以展现其世界历史意义，是因为中华民族的伟大复兴不仅在于中国将成为一个现代化强国，而且还在于：它在完成其现代化任务的同时正在开启一种新文明类型的可能性。”

II. Chinese-Path Modernization Solves a Major Problem in the History of Scientific Socialism

二、中国式现代化破解了科学社会主义发展史上的重大难题

Marx and Engels predicted that socialist revolution would first triumph in the highly productive Western European capitalist countries. The practice of the 20th-century world socialist movement did not follow this pattern; instead, countries that were relatively backward economically and culturally successively took the socialist road. After the proletariat seized political power and established the socialist system, how to carry out socialist modernization and how to consolidate and develop socialism became a major problem in the world socialist movement and also constituted a major problem in the history of scientific socialism. Lenin once said: “Our revolution is easy to start, but difficult to continue, while the revolution in Western Europe is difficult to start, but easier to continue.” [8]8 V. I. Lenin, “Report on the Tactics of the Russian Communist Party at the Third Congress of the Communist International,” 1921. The so-called “start” refers to seizing political power and establishing the socialist system; “continue” refers to consolidating and developing socialism. “Difficult to continue” refers precisely to the problem of how to achieve socialist modernization after economically and culturally backward countries “leap over the Caudine Forks.” The great pioneering achievement of Chinese-path modernization is precisely that it has solved this problem of achieving socialist modernization in economically and culturally backward countries.

马克思恩格斯预测社会主义革命首先在生产力发达的西欧资本主义国家取得胜利。20世纪世界社会主义运动的实践并未如此，反而是经济文化比较落后的国家先后走上了社会主义道路。无产阶级夺取政权并建立社会主义制度之后，如何进行社会主义现代化建设、如何巩固和发展社会主义，成了世界社会主义运动中的重大难题，也构成科学社会主义发展史上的一大难题。列宁曾说过：“我们的革命是开始容易，继续比较困难，而西欧的革命是开始困难，继续比较容易。”所谓的“开始”指夺取政权，建立社会主义制度；“继续”则指巩固和发展社会主义。“继续比较困难”，指的就是经济文化比较落后国家“跨越卡夫丁峡谷”之后，如何实现社会主义现代化的难题。中国式现代化的伟大创举就是破解了经济文化落后国家实现社会主义现代化的这一难题。

Using the theoretical conception of “leaping over the Caudine Forks” as a reference, we reveal the internal logic of Chinese-path modernization. To a large extent, these internal logics constitute the “core code” or “manifestation pattern” through which Chinese-path modernization solves the problem of achieving socialist modernization in economically and culturally backward countries.

我们以“跨越卡夫丁峡谷”理论设想为参照，揭示中国式现代化的内在逻辑，这些内在逻辑在很大程度上就是中国式现代化破解经济文化落后国家实现社会主义现代化难题的“核心密码”或“表现样式”。

First, Chinese-path modernization is a new non-capitalist path of modernization built on the basis of leaping over social formations.

第一，中国式现代化是建立在社会形态跨越基础之上的非资本主义的现代化新道路。

Taking 1840 as the symbolic starting point, China was inevitably drawn into “world history,” and the historical process of moving toward modernization constituted an “iron law” that the Chinese nation had no choice but to follow. The Western bourgeoisie, through the global expansion of capital, opened up the era of modern civilization. “Modernization” acquired absolute authority; every nation had to reassess its own survival and development within the historical process of modernization. “The bourgeoisie, by the rapid improvement of all instruments of production, by the immensely facilitated means of communication, draws all, even the most barbarian, nations into civilization. The cheap prices of commodities are the heavy artillery with which it batters down all Chinese walls, with which it forces the barbarians’ intensely obstinate hatred of foreigners to capitulate. It compels all nations, on pain of extinction, to adopt the bourgeois mode of production.” Marx’s phrase “on pain of extinction” articulates the universal historical predicament of all nations. In the prior historical process of modernization, the Western countries not only propelled the transformation of isolated national histories into world history but also created a new world order: “It [the bourgeoisie — translator’s note] has made the country dependent on the town, just as it has made barbarian and semi-barbarian countries dependent on the civilized ones, nations of peasants dependent on nations of bourgeois, the East dependent on the West.” The Western bourgeoisie promoted the capital-centered mode of production globally, triggering worldwide transformations and inaugurating the “world process of modernization.” China was drawn into the world system of “the East dependent on the West.” Western colonial invasion not only drove the disintegration of the old system but also meant that the ancient Chinese civilization could survive and regain vitality only by achieving modernization. “Modernization” is the historical destiny encountered by the Chinese nation in world history — this is historical trend and objective law. Chinese-path modernization both follows the general laws of world modernization and exhibits diversity and complexity; its most prominent feature is that it has taken a new, non-capitalist path of modernization that “crosses the Caudine Forks” [9]9 The “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 and Engels used it as a metaphor for the capitalist stage of development, arguing that under certain conditions backward countries could “cross” this stage and move directly to a higher social formation.. China made a direct transition from a semi-colonial and semi-feudal society to a New Democratic–socialist society, “crossing the Caudine Forks of the capitalist system” [10]10 The “Caudine Forks of the capitalist system” is a direct reference to Marx’s concept of “crossing the Caudine Forks,” meaning skipping the capitalist stage of development.. That China did not undergo an independent stage of capitalist development or take the capitalist path of modernization is not a subjective question but an objective one. From an external factor, imperialism did not allow capitalism to develop freely in China; even if the capitalist system had been realized in China, the so-called modernization would have been nothing more than modernization dependent on imperialism. From an internal factor, the Chinese national bourgeoisie was inherently and irremediably weak, unable to shoulder the historical task of establishing an independent nation-state and advancing modernization. In short, from the perspective of scientific socialism, China crossed the stage of capitalist development and took a non-capitalist path of modernization.

以1840年为标志性开端，中国不可避免地被卷入“世界历史”之中，走向现代化的历史进程构成中华民族不得不遵循的“铁的规律”。西方资产阶级通过资本在全球扩张，开辟了现代文明时代。“现代化”取得了绝对权力，一切民族都要在现代化历史进程中重估自身的生存与发展。“资产阶级，由于一切生产工具的迅速改进，由于交通的极其便利，把一切民族甚至最野蛮的民族都卷到文明中来了。它的商品的低廉价格，是它用来摧毁一切万里长城、征服野蛮人最顽强的仇外心理的重炮。它迫使一切民族——如果它们不想灭亡的话——采用资产阶级的生产方式”。马克思用“如果它们不想灭亡的话”这个表述，道出了世界各民族的普遍性的历史境遇。西方国家在现代化的先行历史进程中，既推动孤立的民族历史向世界历史的转变，也创造了新的世界秩序：“它（指资产阶级——引者注）使农村从属于城市一样，它使未开化和半开化的国家从属于文明的国家，使农民的民族从属于资产阶级的民族，使东方从属于西方。”西方资产阶级在全球推广以资本为核心的生产方式，引发全球性的变革，开启了“现代化的世界进程”，中国被卷入“东方从属于西方”的世界体系之中，西方的殖民入侵不仅推动旧制度的解体，同时也意味着古老中华文明唯有实现现代化才能存活，并再度激发活力。“现代化”是中华民族在世界历史中遭遇到的历史性命运，这便是历史趋势、客观规律。中国式现代化既遵循了世界现代化的一般规律，又呈现出多样性、复杂性，其最突出的一点就是，走了一条“跨越卡夫丁峡谷”的非资本主义的现代化新道路。中国由半殖民地半封建社会直接过渡到新民主主义—社会主义社会，跨越了“资本主义制度的卡夫丁峡谷”。中国不经历独立的资本主义发展阶段或没有走上资本主义现代化道路，并不是一个主观问题，而是一个客观问题。从外部因素看，帝国主义不允许资本主义在中国实现自由发展，即便在中国实现资本主义制度，所谓的现代化，无非是依附于帝国主义的现代化。从内部因素看，中国民族资产阶级天生就具有无法克服的软弱性，无法承担起建立独立民族国家、推进现代化的历史任务。简言之，从科学社会主义视域看，中国跨越了资本主义发展阶段，走了一条非资本主义的现代化道路。

Chinese-path modernization does not violate the historical law of development based on the “five forms” [11]11 The “five forms” (五形态) refers to the Marxist theory of five successive modes of production: primitive communism, slavery, feudalism, capitalism, and communism (including socialism as its first phase).; it follows the “broad avenue of civilization” of human development. In reality, the path of human social development is a unity of uniformity and diversity. The uniformity of the path of social development does not exclude diversity of paths. “History often proceeds in leaps and zigzags.” Due to special historical conditions, some nations or countries may not develop sequentially according to the “five forms”; a leap over one or several social formations may occur. The diversity of paths of social development does not deny the objectivity and uniformity of historical laws. Lenin profoundly pointed out: “The general laws of world historical development not only do not exclude individual stages of development exhibiting particularity in form or order, but on the contrary presuppose this.” The general law of sequential development of human society based on the “five forms” is established from the perspective of the entire world; it does not mean that every nation or country must follow it without being able to leap over one or more social formations. That China, originally economically and culturally backward, crossed the “Caudine Forks of the capitalist system” does not deny the historicity of humanity universally experiencing the capitalist stage; on the contrary, for China, which achieved a leap in social formation, to truly realize modernization, it must take as a precondition the appropriation of all the positive achievements of capitalism.

中国式现代化没有违背基于“五形态”的历史发展规律，走的是人类发展的“文明大道”。实际上，人类社会的发展道路是统一性和多样性的统一。社会发展道路的统一性，并不排斥道路的多样性。“历史常常是跳跃式地和曲折地前进的”。由于特殊的历史条件，一些民族或国家不会按照“五形态”依序发展，可能会出现跨越一个或几个社会形态的发展情况。社会发展道路的多样性并不否认历史规律的客观性、统一性。列宁曾深刻指出：“世界历史发展的一般规律，不仅丝毫不排斥个别发展阶段在发展的形式或顺序上表现出特殊性，反而是以此为前提的。”人类社会基于“五形态”依序发展的一般规律，是立足于整个世界范围而言的，并不是说，所有的民族或国家都要如此，而不能跨越其中的一个或多个社会形态。原本经济文化落后的中国跨越了资本主义制度的“卡夫丁峡谷”，并不能否认人类普遍经历资本主义阶段的历史性，恰恰相反，实现社会形态跨越的中国要真正实现现代化，必须以占有资本主义的一切积极成果为前提。

Second, Chinese-path modernization is a modernization that is based on “underdeveloped socialism,” relies on an advanced social system, and vigorously liberates and develops the productive forces.

第二，中国式现代化是立足于“不发达社会主义”，依托先进社会制度，大力解放和发展生产力的现代化。

According to Marx’s theoretical conception of “crossing the Caudine Forks,” after Russia crossed the capitalist system, it would enter a new communist society. Marx did not discuss in detail the stage of development or historical orientation of this new society. Based on the relevant discussion in the *Critique of the Gotha Programme*, the new society entered after the crossing should be “the first phase of communist society” (later explicitly called “socialist society” by Lenin). In Marx’s conception, the new society entered after the victory of the proletarian revolution in Western European countries was also “the first phase of communist society.” Marx may have predicted that the new society Russia entered by appropriating all the positive achievements of capitalism was essentially the same as the society that emerged from capitalist society in the developed countries of Western Europe after prolonged birth pangs, located in the same historical developmental sequence. However, from the actual movement of socialism, the countries that entered socialism after “crossing the Caudine Forks” are clearly different from the “first phase of communist society” Marx conceived. China, entering socialism from a semi-colonial and semi-feudal society by crossing the capitalist system, is a socialism whose level of productive forces is lower than that of developed capitalism — that is, “underdeveloped socialism.” In Marx’s theoretical conception, the society entered after “crossing the Caudine Forks” is the first phase of communism, whose level of productive forces is higher than that of capitalism — that is, “developed socialism.” The breakthrough of Chinese-path modernization with respect to Marx’s theory of “crossing the Caudine Forks” lies in clarifying that the socialism entered by economically and culturally backward countries after crossing the capitalist system is not the “developed socialism” formed by the sharpening of the fundamental contradictions of capitalism, but an “underdeveloped socialism” whose level of productive forces is lower than the level of capitalist development. Deng Xiaoping pointed out: “Socialism itself is the primary stage of communism, and China is still in the primary stage of socialism, that is, the underdeveloped stage.”

按照马克思关于“跨越卡夫丁峡谷”的理论设想，俄国跨越资本主义制度后，将进入共产主义新社会。对于这个新社会的发展阶段、历史方位，马克思并没有详细论述。根据《哥达纲领批判》的相关论述，跨越之后进入的新社会应该是“共产主义社会第一阶段”（后来列宁明确为“社会主义社会”）。在马克思的设想中，西欧国家无产阶级革命胜利后进入的新社会也是“共产主义社会第一阶段”。可能马克思预测，俄国通过吸收资本主义一切积极成果，跨越进入的新社会与西欧发达国家经过长久阵痛从资本主义社会产生出来的社会，本质上是一样的，处在同一个历史发展序列之中。但是，从社会主义现实运动来看，“跨越卡夫丁峡谷”后进入社会主义的国家显然不同于马克思所设想的“共产主义社会第一阶段”。中国从半殖民地半封建社会，跨越资本主义制度进入的社会主义，是生产力水平低于发达资本主义的社会主义，即“不发达社会主义”。而在马克思的理论设想中，“跨越卡夫丁峡谷”之后进入的社会是生产力水平高于资本主义的共产主义第一阶段，即“发达社会主义”。中国式现代化对马克思“跨越卡夫丁峡谷”理论的突破在于，明确了经济文化落后国家跨越资本主义制度后进入的社会主义不是资本主义基本矛盾尖锐化而形成的“发达社会主义”，而是生产力水平低于资本主义发展水平的“不发达社会主义”。邓小平指出：“社会主义本身是共产主义的初级阶段，而我们中国又处在社会主义的初级阶段，就是不发达的阶段。”

Chinese-path modernization, based on “underdeveloped socialism,” “must break away from the historical idealist notion of abstractly discussing socialism apart from the productive forces,” and clearly takes the liberation and development of the social productive forces as its fundamental task. In Marx’s view, “crossing the Caudine Forks” means crossing the capitalist system, not the universal achievements of human civilization obtained under capitalism, especially the level of development of the social productive forces. Whether it is the critique of the “theory of the advantages of backwardness” championed by the Narodniks or the repeated emphasis on appropriating all the positive achievements created by the capitalist system, both clearly reflect Marx’s core proposition that “the productive forces cannot be crossed.” Economically and culturally backward countries “can neither skip over nor abolish by decree the natural phases of development”; these natural phases of development are the stages of development of the social productive forces represented by a specific mode of production. “Historical stages of development (i.e., social formations in which a particular relation of production is dominant) can be transcended, but the productive forces they have attained cannot be absent. If the succession of social formations can involve leaps, the corresponding development of the productive forces is indispensable.” Although Chinese society has achieved a transcendence of social formations, the productive forces built on modern industry cannot be crossed; the historical task of modernization must be completed. “Our socialism emerged from a semi-colonial and semi-feudal society, with a level of productive forces far behind that of the developed capitalist countries. This determines that we must go through a very long primary stage to accomplish the industrialization and the commercialization, socialization, and modernization of production that many other countries have achieved under capitalist conditions.”

立足于“不发达社会主义”的中国式现代化，“必须破除离开生产力来抽象谈论社会主义的历史唯心主义观念”，把解放和发展社会生产力明确为其根本任务。在马克思那里，“跨越卡夫丁峡谷”，“跨越”的是资本主义制度，而不是资本主义所取得的人类普遍文明成果，特别是社会生产力发展水平。无论是对民粹派所推崇的“落后优势论”的批判，还是对占有资本主义制度所创造的一切积极成果的反复强调，都鲜明反映了马克思所主张的“生产力不可跨越”的核心观点。经济文化落后国家“既不能跳过也不能用法令取消自然的发展阶段”，这一自然的发展阶段就是特定生产方式所代表的社会生产力发展阶段。“历史发展阶段（即以某种生产关系处于支配地位的社会形态）可以超越，但它所达到的生产力是不能空缺的。如果说社会形态的更迭可以发生跳跃的话，那生产力的相应发展是必不可少的”。中国社会尽管实现了社会形态的超越，但是建立在现代工业基础上的生产力不可跨越，现代化的历史任务必须完成。“我们的社会主义是脱胎于半殖民地半封建社会，生产力水平远远落后于发达的资本主义国家，这就决定了我们必须经历一个很长的初级阶段，去实现别的许多国家在资本主义条件下实现的工业化和生产的商品化、社会化、现代化。”

Economically and culturally backward countries, after “leaping over the chasm of the capitalist era” [n12], face a contradiction between backward productive forces and an advanced social system. Lenin once said: “Since the building of socialism requires a certain level of culture (although nobody can say just what that certain ‘level of culture’ is, for it differs in every Western European country), why cannot we first, by revolutionary means, achieve the prerequisites for that certain level, and then, on the basis of the workers’ and peasants’ government and the Soviet system, catch up with the other nations?” [n13] The “level of culture” referred to here is broad in meaning, denoting the material and cultural level based on productive forces. The historical task of Chinese-path modernization, built on “underdeveloped socialism,” is to use an advanced social system to attain the level of productive forces and the degree of social development civilization achieved by the capitalist mode of production. Utilizing the superiority of the socialist system to vigorously liberate and develop social productive forces and achieve leapfrog development is the basic feature of Chinese-path modernization as socialist modernization. The “parallel-track” development strategy is its clear embodiment: “China’s modernization differs greatly from that of the developed Western countries. The Western developed countries experienced a ‘serial-track’ development process, with industrialization, urbanization, agricultural modernization, and informatization developing sequentially, taking over two hundred years to reach their current level. We must overtake them from behind and recover the ‘lost two hundred years,’ which determines that China’s development must be a ‘parallel-track’ process, where industrialization, informatization, urbanization, and agricultural modernization develop in an overlapping manner.” [n14]

经济文化落后国家“跨越卡夫丁峡谷”后面临着落后的生产力与先进的社会制度之间的矛盾。列宁曾说过：“既然建立社会主义需要有一定的文化水平（虽然谁也说不出这个一定的‘文化水平’究竟是什么样的，因为这在各个西欧国家都是不同的），我们为什么不能首先用革命手段取得达到这个一定水平的前提，然后在工农政权和苏维埃制度的基础上赶上别国人民呢？”此处所说的文化水平是广义上的，指的是以生产力为基础的物质文化水平。建立在“不发达社会主义”基础上的中国式现代化之历史任务就是，用一种先进社会制度来达到资本主义生产方式所达到的生产力水平、社会发展文明程度。利用社会主义制度优越性，大力解放和发展社会生产力，实现跨越式发展，是中国式现代化作为社会主义现代化的基本特征。“并联式”发展战略是其鲜明体现，“我国现代化同西方发达国家有很大不同。西方发达国家是一个‘串联式’的发展过程，工业化、城镇化、农业现代化、信息化顺序发展，发展到目前水平用了二百多年时间。我们要后来居上，把‘失去的二百年’找回来，决定了我国发展必然是一个‘并联式’的过程，工业化、信息化、城镇化、农业现代化是叠加发展的。”

Third, Chinese-path modernization is a new modernization model that organically integrates socialism with the market economy.

第三，中国式现代化是将社会主义与市场经济有机结合的现代化新模式。

What economic system should an economically and culturally backward country adopt after “leaping over the chasm of the capitalist era” and entering socialism? Marx did not elaborate explicitly; he merely emphasized the need to introduce the “whole set of exchange institutions (banks, joint-stock companies, etc.)” established by capitalism. [n15] According to the relevant discussion in the *Critique of the Gotha Programme*, socialism abolishes commodity-money relations and is essentially a product-economy society that implements a planned economic system. In practice, socialist countries such as the Soviet Union did indeed build socialism through a planned economic system. However, real socialism differs from what Marx envisioned. As mentioned earlier, the new society entered by “leaping over the chasm of the capitalist era” is “underdeveloped socialism,” which fundamentally lacks the conditions for direct possession by the whole society and the elimination of commodity production. Deng Xiaoping pointed out that our socialism is “not yet up to standard”; an important implication is that we do not have the “qualifications” or conditions to implement a planned economy based on highly developed productive forces. What historical stage is our socialism in? Marx believed that human society undergoes three major historical stages: the stage of “relations of personal dependence” is the first; the stage of “personal independence founded on objective dependence” is the second; and the stage of “free individuality” is the third. The second stage “creates a system of general social metabolism, of universal relations, of all-round needs, and of universal capacities.” [n16] This historical stage is, in essence, the stage of development of a market economy. “The patriarchal, ancient (and feudal) states decay as commerce, luxury, money, and exchange value develop, and modern society grows apace with these same things.” [n17] “Commerce, luxury, money, and exchange value” refer precisely to the logic of the market economy. Although China, originally economically and culturally backward, achieved a leap in social formation, it still remains in the stage of market economy development. Xi Jinping points out: “That an economically backward country can leap over the ‘chasm of the capitalist era’ in its social system does not mean it can necessarily leap over the ‘chasm of the commodity economy’ in its economic development. Marx and Engels never made such a statement or assumption.” [n18] The stage of market economy development is an insurmountable historical stage. The fundamental reason Chinese-path modernization can solve the problem of achieving socialist modernization in economically and culturally backward countries is that it has abandoned traditional notions such as that socialism can only implement a planned economy and that a market economy equals capitalism. Theoretically, it recognizes that the stage of market economy development is insurmountable and that socialism and the market economy are compatible; practically, it has successfully established a socialist market economy system. On the one hand, Chinese-path modernization fully activates the “civilizing aspect” of capital, greatly liberating and developing social productive forces through the market economy system, thereby surpassing the traditional socialist model. On the other hand, Chinese-path modernization uses the socialist system to guide and regulate capital, directing the development of the market economy through socialist relations of production and state power, serving the great cause of social justice and the people’s well-being. As General Secretary Xi Jinping points out: “Developing a market economy under socialist conditions is a great innovation of our Party. A key factor in the great success of our country’s economic development is that we have leveraged both the strengths of the market economy and the superiority of the socialist system.” [n19]

经济文化落后国家“跨越卡夫丁峡谷”进入社会主义，采取什么样的经济体制？马克思并没有明确阐述，他只是强调，要引进资本主义“建立起来的一整套交换机构（银行、股份公司等等）”。根据《哥达纲领批判》的相关论述，社会主义消灭了商品货币关系，其本质上是实现计划经济体制的产品经济社会。在实践过程中，苏联等社会主义国家也的确是通过计划经济体制来建设社会主义的。但是现实社会主义与马克思所设想的不一致。正如前文所说，“跨越卡夫丁峡谷”进入的新社会是“不发达社会主义”，根本不具备全社会直接占有、消除商品生产的条件。邓小平指出，我们的社会主义“不够格”，一个重要所指就是我们没有达到在生产力高度发达基础上实行计划经济的“资格”或条件。我们的社会主义处在什么样的历史阶段？马克思认为人类社会经历三大历史阶段，“人的依赖关系”阶段是第一阶段，“以物的依赖性为基础的人的独立性”阶段是第二阶段，“自由个性”阶段是第三阶段。第二阶段“形成普遍的社会物质变换、全面的关系、多方面的需要以及全面的能力的体系”。该历史阶段究其实质就是市场经济发展的阶段。“家长制的，古代的（以及封建的）状态随着商业、奢侈、货币、交换价值的发展而没落下去，现代社会则随着这些东西同步发展起来。”“商业、奢侈、货币、交换价值”所意指的就是市场经济逻辑。原本经济文化落后的中国尽管实现了社会形态的跨越，但是其仍然处于市场经济发展阶段。习近平指出：“经济发展落后的国家在社会制度上能够越过‘卡夫丁峡谷’，并不等于它们在经济发展上也必然能够越过商品经济的‘卡夫丁峡谷’，马克思和恩格斯从来没有这样的表述和设想。”市场经济发展阶段是一个不可逾越的历史阶段。中国式现代化之所以能够破解经济文化落后国家实现社会主义现代化难题，根本一条就是，抛弃了社会主义只能搞计划经济、市场经济等于资本主义等传统观念，在理论上，认识到市场经济发展阶段不可逾越、社会主义与市场经济可以兼容；在实践上，成功建立社会主义市场经济体制。一方面，中国式现代化充分激活了资本的“文明面”，通过市场经济体制极大解放和发展社会生产力，超越了传统社会主义模式；另一方面，中国式现代化利用社会主义制度引导和规范资本，通过社会主义生产关系和国家力量引导市场经济的发展方向，服务于社会公正和人民幸福之伟业。正如习近平总书记指出：“在社会主义条件下发展市场经济，是我们党的一个伟大创举。我国经济发展获得巨大成功的一个关键因素，就是我们既发挥了市场经济的长处，又发挥了社会主义制度的优越性。”

Fourth, Chinese-path modernization avoids the “suffering” or “terrible upheavals” of capitalist modernization and is a modernization dedicated to realizing the comprehensive development of the human person.

第四，中国式现代化避免了资本主义现代化的“苦难”或“可怕的波折”，是致力于实现人的全面发展的现代化。

In his book *The Modernization of China*, the American scholar Gilbert Rozman attempts to “examine China’s modernization process, hoping to determine in which respects it has followed the basic path taken by other modernizing countries, and in which respects it has blazed its own unique path.” [n20] This is essentially grasping the particularity of China’s modernization based on its specific mode of realization. “The particularity of China’s modernization path lies not only in the fact that the specific methods of realizing modernization differ significantly from those of Western countries, but more importantly, in that the essence of China’s modernization path is the immanent transcendence of modernity, no longer repeating all the pains of the Western modernization process.” [n21] As mentioned earlier, the reason economically and culturally backward countries, including Russia and China, had to “leap over the chasm of the capitalist era” was precisely to avoid the disasters that capitalist modernization brings to the people. The “humanitarian disaster” of capitalist modernization is the domination of things over people, the domination of capital over labor, and the domination of the few over the many. General Secretary Xi Jinping points out: “The greatest drawback of Western modernization is

美国学者罗兹曼在《中国的现代化》一书中试图“通过考察中国现代化的历程，我们希望勘定它在哪些方面遵循了其他进行现代化的国家所经过的基本路线，在哪些方面它又闯出了自己的独特道路”。这实际上是基于具体实现方式把握中国现代化的特殊性。“中国现代化道路的特殊性不仅在于现代化实现的具体方式与西方国家有着显著不同，更在于中国现代化道路的实质是实现现代性的内在超越，不再重复西方现代化历程中的一切苦痛”。正如前文所说，包括俄国和中国在内的经济文化落后国家之所以要“跨越卡夫丁峡谷”，就是要避免资本主义现代化对人民带来的灾难。资本主义现代化“人道主义灾难”就是物对人的统治、资本对劳动的统治、少数人对多数人的统治。习近平总书记指出：“西方现代化的最大弊端，就是以资本为中心而不是以人民为中心，追求资本利益最大化而不是服务绝大多数人的利益，导致贫富差距大、两极分化严重。”中国式现代化“体现科学社会主义的先进本质”，不仅体现在通过社会主义生产关系，达到了甚至超过了资本主义所创造的生产力水平，而且更体现在破解了资本主义无法解决的人的全面发展问题。中国式现代化通过社会主义力量规范资本、引导社会生产，不以牺牲人民群众利益、人的自由发展为代价推进现代化。对于社会主义现代化而言，“现代化的本质是人的现代化”，促进物的全面丰富和人的全面发展是其基本实践逻辑。简言之，作为社会主义现代化，中国式现代化是一种超越了资本主义现代化的新现代化类型。资本主义现代化是以资本为中心的现代化，中国式现代化是驾驭资本的、以人民为中心的现代化。资本主义现代化所承担的历史转化任务是实现由人对人的依赖关系向人对物的依赖关系（以物的依赖性为基础的人的独立性）的转化，中国式现代化并不如此，它承担着超越物的依赖性，向每个人全面而自由发展转化的历史使命。

III. A New Form of Human Civilization: The Socialist Civilizational Form of the 21st Century

三、人类文明新形态：21世纪的社会主义文明形态

Today, the historical context in which we speak of “crossing the Caudine Forks” has already undergone great changes. [13]13 “Crossing the Caudine Forks” (跨越卡夫丁峡谷) is a classical allusion to a humiliating defeat of the Roman army in 321 BCE, used by Marx in his later years to refer to the possibility of a society bypassing the capitalist stage of development and transitioning directly to socialism. As the latest major achievement of scientific socialism, Chinese-path modernization lies not only in its realization, through a non-capitalist path, of “the industrialization and the commodification, socialization, and modernization of production that many other countries have accomplished under capitalist conditions,” completing in a few decades the modernization task that took the West several centuries; it lies even more in its transcendence of capitalist modernization, its creation of a new form of human civilization, and its achievement of a “genuine crossing” beyond capitalist civilization. As General Secretary Xi Jinping has stressed: “Chinese-path modernization is deeply rooted in fine traditional Chinese culture, embodies the advanced essence of scientific socialism, draws on and absorbs all outstanding achievements of human civilization, represents the direction of progress in human civilization, and presents a new picture different from the Western model of modernization; it is a completely new form of human civilization.” Chinese-path modernization presents a new picture different from the Western model of modernization, and this new picture is precisely the creation of a new form of human civilization and the inauguration of a socialist civilizational form for the twenty-first century. As a socialist civilizational form for the twenty-first century, the new form of human civilization has rich connotations, the core content of which is concentrated in the following aspects.

今天，我们谈论“跨越卡夫丁峡谷”的历史语境已经发生了很大的变化。中国式现代化作为科学社会主义的最新重大成果，不仅仅在于它通过一种非资本主义方式“实现别的许多国家在资本主义条件下实现的工业化和生产的商品化、社会化、现代化”，在几十年时间里完成了西方几百年完成的现代化任务，更在于它超越了资本主义现代化，创造了人类文明新形态，实现了对资本主义文明的“真正跨越”。正如习近平总书记强调：“中国式现代化，深深植根于中华优秀传统文化，体现科学社会主义的先进本质，借鉴吸收一切人类优秀文明成果，代表人类文明进步的发展方向，展现了不同于西方现代化模式的新图景，是一种全新的人类文明形态。”中国式现代化展现了不同于西方现代化模式的新图景，这一新图景就是创造了人类文明新形态，开创了21世纪的社会主义文明形态。作为21世纪的社会主义文明形态，人类文明新形态有着丰富的内涵，其核心内容集中体现在以下几个方面。

(1) A people-centered civilizational form. Different values shape different civilizational forms. The new form of human civilization is a people-centered socialist civilization that transcends the capital-centered capitalist civilization. Generally speaking, the core goals of civilization are two aspects: “the development of social activity and the development of individual activity, the progress of society and the progress of human nature”; the development of the human person is the most central indicator. The new form of human civilization consistently takes the development of the human person, the “true appropriation of the human essence,” as its fundamental starting point and ultimate goal. First, the new form of human civilization establishes a people-centered logic of production and logic of development. It focuses on creating conditions for the all-round development of the human person, “better meeting the people’s growing needs in economic, political, cultural, social, and ecological aspects, and better promoting the all-round development of the human person and the overall progress of society.” The logic of production and the logic of development of the new form of human civilization are a holistic, comprehensive logic centered on material production and economic development, dedicated to the all-round development of the human person. As Xi Jinping has stressed: “Humanity pursues not only material conditions and economic indicators, but also a ‘happiness index’; not only harmony in the natural ecology, but also harmony in the ‘spiritual ecology’; not only efficiency and fairness, but also harmony in interpersonal relations and the enrichment of spiritual life, and the pursuit of the meaning of life.” Second, the new form of human civilization establishes a logic of the good life that realizes the richness and completeness of the human person, transcending the life logic characterized primarily by “possession” and oriented fundamentally toward “consumption.” The mode of life shaped by capitalist civilization takes the “possession” of things and the “consumption” of commodities as its core orientation. The mode of life shaped by the new form of human civilization is the “true appropriation of the human essence.” “Man appropriates his comprehensive essence in a comprehensive way, that is to say, as a whole man.” “Civilization advances toward the goal of human happiness,” but the good life does not consist in the possession of “things” or the satisfaction of material desires; it consists in realizing the richness and completeness of the human person. “The rich man and the rich human need take the place of the wealth and poverty of political economy. The rich man is simultaneously the man in need of a totality of human life-activities—the man in whom his own realization exists as an inner necessity, as need.” The socialist civilizational form of the twenty-first century transcends the one-dimensional logic of a reified life, taking the realization of the all-round development of the human person and the people’s truly inner good life as its fundamental life logic. “Man, in essence, is a cultural being, not a ‘reified’ being; he is an active, all-round being, not a rigid, ‘one-dimensional’ being.”

（一）以人民为中心的文明形态。不同的价值观塑造不同文明形态，人类文明新形态是以人民为中心的社会主义文明，超越了以资本为中心的资本主义文明。一般说来，文明的核心目标是两个方面：“社会活动的发展和个人活动的发展，社会的进步和人性的进步”，人的发展则是最为核心的表征。人类文明新形态始终把人的发展，把“对人的本质的真正占有”作为根本出发点和落脚点。其一，人类文明新形态确立以人民为中心的生产逻辑、发展逻辑。人类文明新形态着眼于为人的全面发展创造各种条件，“更好满足人民在经济、政治、文化、社会、生态等方面日益增长的需要，更好推动人的全面发展、社会全面进步”。人类文明新形态的生产逻辑、发展逻辑是以物质生产、经济发展为核心的总体性的、全面的逻辑，致力于人的全方位发展。正如习近平强调：“人类不仅追求物质条件、经济指标，还要追求‘幸福指数’；不仅追求自然生态的和谐，还要追求‘精神生态’的和谐；不仅追求效率和公平，还要追求人际关系的和谐与精神生活的充实，追求生命的意义。”其二，人类文明新形态确立了实现人的丰富性和完整性的幸福生活逻辑，超越了以“占有”为主要特征、以“消费”为基本取向的生活逻辑。资本主义文明塑造的人的生活方式是以对物的“占有”、对商品的“消费”为核心取向的。人类文明新形态塑造的人的生活方式是“对人的本质的真正占有”。“人以一种全面的方式，就是说，作为一个完整的人，占有自己的全面的本质。”“文明是朝着人类幸福的目标前进的”，但是幸福生活不在于实现对“物”的占有，对物质欲望的满足，而在于实现人的丰富性和完整性。“富有的人和人的丰富的需要代替了国民经济学上的富有和贫困。富有的人同时就是需要有人的生命表现的完整性的人，在这样的人的身上，他自己的实现作为内在的必然性、作为需要而存在。”21世纪的社会主义文明形态超越了单一的物化生活逻辑，把实现人的全面发展、人民真正内在的幸福生活作为根本生活逻辑。“人，本质上就是文化的人，而不是‘物化’的人；是能动的、全面的人，而不是僵化的、‘单向度’的人。”

(2) A civilizational form characterized by new quality productive forces, continuously liberating and developing the social productive forces. Productive forces are the core element of civilization, the “fruit of civilization.” In *The Poverty of Philosophy*, Marx stressed: “Since the most important thing is not to deprive civilization of its fruits—the productive forces already acquired—it is necessary to smash the traditional forms in which those productive forces were generated.” In the *Grundrisse* (1857–1858), Marx further elaborated: “All the progress of civilization, or in other words every increase in the social productive forces, every increase in the productive forces of labor itself—such as results from science, inventions, the division and combination of labor, improved means of communication, the opening up of the world market, machinery, etc.” Productive forces not only constitute the core content of civilization but are also the fundamental force that shapes civilization and drives the transformation of civilizational forms. “The hand-mill gives you society with the feudal lord; the steam-mill gives you society with the industrial capitalist.” The level of development of productive forces, with the means of production as the core, is the main criterion for distinguishing different civilizational forms. Productive forces are even more essentially linked to socialist-communist civilization. Social civilization presupposes the enormous growth and high development of productive forces, “for without this, only want and extreme poverty would become general.” It is precisely from this principled height that Deng Xiaoping clearly stated: “The essence of socialism is to liberate and develop the productive forces, to eliminate exploitation and polarization, and ultimately to achieve common prosperity.” Productive forces are not external to the essence of socialism but constitute its most fundamental dimension. Any discussion of the essence of socialism or of civilization cannot be separated from productive forces. The socialist civilizational form of the twenty-first century is based on a new type of productive forces higher than those of capitalist industrial civilization. In the early stages of world modernization, Western capitalist industrial civilization played a huge progressive role: “Large-scale industry created the means of communication and the modern world market … it was the first to open up world history.” Industrial civilization is merely one stage in the evolution of human civilization; it will inevitably be superseded by a higher civilizational form. General Secretary Xi Jinping has profoundly pointed out: “Looking at the history of world civilization, humanity has successively experienced the agricultural revolution, the industrial revolution, and the information revolution. Each industrial and technological revolution has brought enormous and profound impacts on human production and life.” The twenty-first-century socialist civilization should be a new civilizational form that transcends capitalist industrial civilization, and its type of productive forces is the advanced productive forces represented by new quality productive forces. “New quality productive forces are advanced productive forces in which innovation plays the leading role, breaking away from traditional modes of economic growth and paths of productive forces development, characterized by high technology, high efficiency, and high quality, and conforming to the new development philosophy.” Admittedly, we do not provide a further detailed explanation of new quality productive forces here, but one key point is presented with extreme clarity: new quality productive forces transcend the traditional type of productive forces centered on industrialization and are an advanced type of productive forces led by scientific and technological innovation. Deng Xiaoping once said: “The superiority of socialism must ultimately be manifested in its productive forces developing faster and at a higher level than those of capitalism.” This “higher level of productive forces” is precisely the new quality productive forces that conform to the essence of the new form of human civilization. In short, to grasp a civilizational form, one must incorporate productive forces from the foundation of the “techno-social formation”; to grasp the new form of human civilization, one must proceed from the trends of twenty-first-century human civilization and incorporate the new quality productive forces that transcend traditional models of productive forces development and take innovation-driven development as their core. New quality productive forces are the key to the new form of human civilization and the new paradigm leading the development of twenty-first-century human civilization.

（二）以新质生产力为显著特征，不断解放和发展社会生产力的文明形态。生产力是文明的核心要素，是“文明的果实”。马克思在《哲学的贫困》中强调：“由于最重要的是不使文明的果实——已经获得的生产力被剥夺，所以必须粉碎生产力在其中产生的那些传统形式。”在《政治经济学批判（1857—1858年手稿）》中，马克思又作了进一步阐述：“文明的一切进步，或者换句话说，社会生产力的一切增长，也可以说劳动本身的生产力的一切增长，如科学、发明、劳动的分工和结合、交通工具的改善、世界市场的开辟、机器等等”。生产力不仅构成文明的核心内容，而且也是塑造文明、推动文明形态变革的根本力量。“手推磨产生的是封建主的社会,蒸汽磨产生的是工业资本家的社会。”以生产工具为核心的生产力发展水平是区分不同文明形态的主要标准。生产力更是与社会主义—共产主义文明具有本质性关联。社会文明是以生产力巨大增长和高度发展为前提的，“因为如果没有这种发展，那就只会有贫穷、极端贫困的普遍化”。正是出于这样的原则高度，邓小平明确指出：“社会主义的本质，是解放生产力，发展生产力，消灭剥削，消除两极分化，最终达到共同富裕。”生产力不在社会主义本质之外，而是构成其最根本的维度。谈社会主义本质或文明，离不开生产力。21世纪的社会主义文明形态基于一种高于资本主义工业文明的新生产力类型。在世界现代化初期阶段，西方资本主义工业文明产生了巨大的进步性作用，“大工业创造了交通工具和现代的世界市场……它首次开创了世界历史”。工业文明是人类文明演进的一个阶段而已，它必然被更高的文明形态所取代。习近平总书记深刻指出：“纵观世界文明史，人类先后经历了农业革命、工业革命、信息革命。每一次产业技术革命，都给人类生产生活带来巨大而深刻的影响。”21世纪的社会主义文明应当是超越资本主义工业文明的新文明形态，其生产力类型是以新质生产力为代表的先进生产力。“新质生产力是创新起主导作用，摆脱传统经济增长方式、生产力发展路径，具有高科技、高效能、高质量特征，符合新发展理念的先进生产力质态。”诚然，我们在这里并没有对新质生产力作进一步详细阐释，但关键的一点是极其清晰地呈现出来的：新质生产力超越了以工业化为核心的传统生产力类型，是一种以科技创新为主导的先进生产力类型。邓小平曾说过：“社会主义的优越性归根到底要体现在它的生产力比资本主义发展得更快一些、更高一些”。这种“更高的生产力”就是符合人类文明新形态本质的新质生产力。总而言之，把握文明形态，必须从“技术社会形态”根基处，将生产力纳入其中；把握人类文明新形态，必须从21世纪人类文明发展潮流出发，将超越传统生产力发展模式、以创新驱动为核心的新质生产力纳入其中。新质生产力是人类文明新形态的关键之所在，是引领21世纪人类文明发展的新范式。

(3) A socialist civilizational form that harnesses capital. “Capital is merely another name for civilization.” [14]14 Tang Aijun is quoting a paraphrase of Marx’s view; the exact phrase “资本不过是文明的另一名称” is a common Chinese scholarly formulation summarizing Marx’s analysis in the *Grundrisse*. The essence of Western modernization is the civilization of capital. In modern times, the fundamental reason Western civilization was able to rise from a particularistic civilization to a universal one lies in the production mechanism centered on capital and the “civilizing aspects” it generated. Marx pointed out: “One of the civilizing aspects of capital is that it extorts this surplus labor in a manner and under conditions that are more advantageous for the development of productive forces, for the development of social relations, and for the creation of elements for a higher new form, compared with earlier forms such as slavery and serfdom.” [15]15 Karl Marx, *Capital*, Volume 3, Chapter 48. Unlike Western modernization, which is centered on capital, the traditional socialist model completely negated capital, forming an “anti-capital modernization model.” The new form of human civilization created by Chinese-path modernization not only transcends the Western capital modernization model but also transcends the anti-capital traditional socialist model, constructing a socialist civilizational model that harnesses capital. General Secretary Xi Jinping pointed out: “Under the socialist market economy system, capital is an important link driving the agglomeration and allocation of various production factors and a significant force promoting the development of social productive forces. The positive role of capital in promoting the development of social productive forces must be brought into play. At the same time, it must be recognized that capital has a profit-seeking nature; if not regulated and constrained, it will bring incalculable harm to economic and social development.” [16]16 Xi Jinping, “Speech at the 38th Collective Study Session of the Political Bureau of the 19th CPC Central Committee,” April 30, 2022. Capital has a dual nature, namely, as a factor of production and as a relation of production, manifesting a production logic that promotes productive forces and a value-augmentation logic that pursues surplus value. Therefore, harnessing capital operates on two levels: first, fully leveraging the positive role of capital as a factor of production in promoting the development of social productive forces; second, regulating and constraining the profit-seeking nature of capital, preventing its disorderly expansion, and preventing capital’s value-augmentation logic and the principle of commodity exchange from permeating and dominating all social life. “Capital is the all-dominating economic power of bourgeois society.” [17]17 Karl Marx, *Grundrisse*, “Introduction to the Critique of Political Economy.” Capital is an “expanding subject” that swells into a “totalizing power,” achieving control over the entire society. The reason the socialist civilizational form of the 21st century can transcend the civilization of capital lies in the fact that the basic socialist economic systems—such as public ownership as the mainstay with diverse forms of ownership developing together, distribution according to work as the mainstay with multiple modes of distribution coexisting, and the socialist market economy system—can effectively harness capital and prevent its unlimited expansion. There are two core forces for harnessing capital. The first is various types of public capital. General Secretary Xi Jinping pointed out: “Correctly handle the relationships between different forms of capital, distinguish them by nature, clarify their positioning, and regulate and guide the healthy development of all types of capital.” [18]18 Xi Jinping, “Speech at the 38th Collective Study Session of the Political Bureau of the 19th CPC Central Committee,” April 30, 2022. Forms of public capital such as state-owned capital and collectively-owned capital directly embody the nature of socialist relations of production. Through economic means, they actively regulate and guide non-public forms of capital such as private capital and foreign capital, curbing their value-augmentation logic and profit-seeking nature while bringing into play their positive role as important factors of production. The second is state power under the leadership of the Party. For capitalism, state power is ultimately a “crutch” for capital, subservient to capital’s interests and utterly incapable of harnessing capital. For socialism, state power under the leadership of the Party is both a driving force for advancing modernization and a balancing force for harnessing capital. In socialist China, state power under the leadership of the Party, through public capital, basic economic systems, legal arrangements, and other means, assumes the function of socialist relations of production, regulating and guiding the healthy development of capital. Setting up “traffic lights” for capital and improving the legal system for capital development are typical manifestations of using state power under the leadership of the Party to harness capital.

（三）驾驭资本的社会主义文明形态。“资本不过是文明的另一名称。”西方现代化本质上是资本文明。近代以来，西方文明之所以能从特殊性文明上升到普遍性文明，根本原因就在于以资本为核心的生产机制及其产生的“文明面”。马克思指出：“资本的文明面之一是，它榨取这种剩余劳动的方式和条件，同以前的奴隶制、农奴制等形式相比，都更有利于生产力的发展，有利于社会关系的发展，有利于更高级的新形态的各种要素的创造。”与以资本为核心的西方现代化不同，传统社会主义模式彻底否定资本，形成了“反资本的现代化模式”。中国式现代化创造的人类文明新形态，既表现为超越了西方的资本现代化模式，也表现为超越了反资本的传统社会主义模式，构建了驾驭资本的社会主义文明模式。习近平总书记指出：“在社会主义市场经济体制下，资本是带动各类生产要素集聚配置的重要纽带，是促进社会生产力发展的重要力量，要发挥资本促进社会生产力发展的积极作用。同时，必须认识到，资本具有逐利本性，如不加以规范和约束，就会给经济社会发展带来不可估量的危害。”资本是具有双重属性的，即生产要素与生产关系，呈现出促进生产力的生产逻辑与追逐剩余价值的价值增殖逻辑。因此，驾驭资本表现为两个层面：一是充分发挥资本作为生产要素在促进社会生产力发展中的积极作用；二是规范和约束资本的逐利本性，防止资本无序扩张，防止资本的价值增殖逻辑、商品交换原则渗透和支配整个社会生活。“资本是资产阶级社会的支配一切的经济权力。”资本是一个“扩张着的主体”，会膨胀为“总体性权力”，实现对整个社会的控制。21世纪的社会主义文明形态之所以能够超越资本文明，就在于社会主义公有制为主体、多种所有制经济共同发展，按劳分配为主体、多种分配方式并存，社会主义市场经济体制等社会主义基本经济制度能够有效驾驭资本，防止资本无限扩张。驾驭资本的核心力量有两个。一是各种类型的公有资本。习近平总书记指出：“正确处理不同形态资本之间的关系，在性质上要区分，在定位上要明确，规范和引导各类资本健康发展。”国有资本、集体资本等公有资本形态直接体现了社会主义生产关系的性质，它们会通过经济手段，积极规范和引导民营资本、外国资本等非公有资本形态，抑制其所具有的价值增殖逻辑和逐利本性，发挥其作为重要生产要素的积极作用。二是党领导下的国家权力。对于资本主义而言，国家权力终究是资本的“拐杖”，服从于资本利益，根本无法驾驭资本。对于社会主义而言，党领导下的国家权力既是推进现代化发展的动力，也是驾驭资本的平衡力量。在社会主义中国，党领导下的国家权力通过公有资本、基本经济制度、法律安排等各种方式，承担着社会主义生产关系的功能，规范和引导资本健康发展。给资本设立“红绿灯”，健全资本发展的法律制度，就是运用党领导下的国家权力驾驭资本的典型表现。

(4) A political civilization marked by whole-process people’s democracy. In the early period of reform and opening up, Deng Xiaoping once stated: “In carrying out socialist modernization, we must catch up with the developed capitalist countries economically and create a democracy that is higher and more substantial than the democracy of capitalist countries politically.” [19]19 Deng Xiaoping, “Uphold the Four Cardinal Principles,” March 30, 1979. Since the 18th National Congress of the CPC, our Party has continuously innovated and broken new ground on the existing foundation, creatively proposing “whole-process people’s democracy,” opening up a new realm of socialist political civilization. General Secretary Xi Jinping pointed out: “Whole-process people’s democracy is the essential attribute of socialist democratic politics, and it is the broadest, most genuine, and most effective democracy.” [20]20 Xi Jinping, “Report to the 20th National Congress of the CPC,” October 16, 2022. [21 Whole-process people’s democracy transcends the capitalist political form centered on Western-style democracy. First, in terms of value goals. The true value of democracy is that the people are the masters of the country; the people, by mastering the power of the state and society, achieve control over their own destiny. “In democracy, the state system, laws, the state itself—insofar as the state is a political system—are only the self-determination of the people.” [21]21 Karl Marx, *Capital*, Vol. 1, Chapter 25, Section 4. Popular sovereignty is the core expression of democratic value. “The actual bearer of the state system—the people—must be made the principle of the state system.” [22]22 Xi Jinping, “Speech at the Central Conference on Financial and Economic Affairs,” August 17, 2021. In their struggle against the feudal ruling class, although the bourgeoisie also opposed autocracy and raised the banner of “democracy,” bourgeois democracy is built on the foundation of private ownership of the means of production. Therefore, its inherent value can only guarantee the “rule of the people” for the “few” and the “wealthy.” As Marx pointed out: “The modern state authority is merely a committee for managing the common affairs of the entire bourgeoisie.” [23]23 Karl Marx, *Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844*. Whole-process people’s democracy, in terms of value, emphasizes the broadest socialist democracy with the entire people as the main body, where the people both control state power as a whole and enjoy extensive and genuine democratic rights in all fields and aspects. Second, in terms of institutional design. In the course of its development, bourgeois democracy gradually constructed democratic institutions such as representative government, separation of powers, party competition, and free elections. These institutions have not truly realized people’s democracy or guaranteed people’s rights; the electoral system has degenerated into a game for the wealthy, and the party system has degenerated into factional strife. Whole-process people’s democracy constructs a system of socialist democratic institutions. Through institutional arrangements such as the system of people’s congresses, the system of political consultation, the system of regional ethnic autonomy, and the system of grassroots self-governance, it effectively ensures that the people enjoy broader and more substantial rights and freedoms and that the people extensively participate in national governance and social governance. Third, in terms of actual practice. General Secretary Xi Jinping pointed out: “China’s whole-process people’s democracy not only has a complete institutional procedure but also has a complete participatory practice.” [24]24 Karl Marx, *Grundrisse*. Unlike “electoral democracy,” where the people are awakened when voting and enter a dormant period after voting, whole-process people’s democracy provides all-round democratic channels, allowing the people to participate throughout the entire process in practical links such as democratic elections, democratic consultation, democratic decision-making, democratic management, and democratic supervision, concretely and realistically realizing that the people are the masters of the country. Finally, in terms of path choice. The West regards the bourgeois democratic model as the “universal” and “only” path of democratic development. On the contrary, “using a single yardstick to measure the world’s diverse political systems and a monotonous perspective to examine humanity’s colorful political civilizations is itself undemocratic.” [25]25 Xi Jinping, “Speech at the National Conference on Ecological and Environmental Protection,” May 18, 2018. Different national conditions and natures of countries naturally lead to different political systems and political development paths. Since the founding of New China, especially since reform and opening up, our Party has united and led the people in successfully opening up the path of socialist political development with Chinese characteristics. Whole-process people’s democracy is rooted in and premised on this unique political development path, while simultaneously enriching and developing this path through a series of new concepts, new ideas, and new strategies. The “end of history thesis” holds a view: “In the development models of all societies, a basic program is at work, namely, a universal history of humanity directed toward the liberal democratic system.” [26]26 Karl Marx, *Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844*. Whole-process people’s democracy and the path logic it embodies illustrate a truth: “Governing a country and advancing its modernization does not only have the Western institutional model as the sole path; each country can fully find its own way. It can be said that we have declared the bankruptcy of the ‘end of history thesis’ with facts, and declared the bankruptcy of the unilinear view of history that all countries must ultimately take the Western institutional model as their destination.” [27]27 Xi Jinping, “Speech at the National Conference on Ecological and Environmental Protection,” May 18, 2018.

（四）以全过程人民民主为标志的政治文明。改革开放初期，邓小平曾指出：“我们进行社会主义现代化建设，是要在经济上赶上发达的资本主义国家，在政治上创造比资本主义国家的民主更高更切实的民主”。党的十八大以来，我们党在已有基础上不断创新突破，创造性提出了“全过程人民民主”，开辟了社会主义政治文明新境界。习近平总书记指出：“全过程人民民主是社会主义民主政治的本质属性，是最广泛、最真实、最管用的民主。”全过程人民民主，超越了以西式民主为核心的资本主义政治形态。首先是在价值目标上。民主的真正价值是人民当家作主，人民通过掌握国家、社会的权力，实现对自身命运的掌控。“在民主制中，国家制度、法律、国家本身，就国家是政治制度来说，都只是人民的自我规定”。人民主权是民主价值的核心表现。“必须使国家制度的实际承担者——人民成为国家制度的原则。”在与封建统治阶级的斗争中，资产阶级虽然也反对专制，打出“民主”旗号，但是资产阶级民主是建立在生产资料私有制基础之上的，因此，其内在价值只能是保证“少数人”“富有者”的“当家作主”。正如马克思指出：“现代的国家政权不过是管理整个资产阶级的共同事务的委员会罢了。”全过程人民民主在价值上强调的是以全体人民为主体的最广泛的社会主义民主，人民既在整体上掌握和控制国家权力，又在各领域全方面享有广泛而真实的民主权利。其次是在制度设计上。资产阶级民主在发展过程中，逐步构建起代议制、三权分立、政党竞争、自由选举等民主制度。这些制度并没有真正实现人民民主、保障人民权利，选举制度沦为有钱人的游戏，政党制度蜕变为党派之争。全过程人民民主构建起社会主义民主的制度体系，通过人民代表大会制度、政治协商制度、民族区域自治制度、基层群众自治制度等制度安排，有效保证人民享有更加广泛、更加充实的权利和自由，保证人民广泛参加国家治理和社会治理。再次是在现实实践中。习近平总书记指出：“我国全过程人民民主不仅有完整的制度程序，而且有完整的参与实践。”不同于人民在投票时被唤醒、投票后就进入休眠期的“选举民主”，全过程人民民主提供了全方位的民主渠道，人民群众可以全过程参与民主选举、民主协商、民主决策、民主管理、民主监督等实践环节，具体地、现实地实现人民当家作主。最后是在道路选择上。西方把资产阶级民主模式视为“普世”“唯一”的民主发展道路。恰恰相反，“用单一的标尺衡量世界丰富多彩的政治制度，用单调的眼光审视人类五彩缤纷的政治文明，本身就是不民主的”。国家的国情和性质不同，政治制度和政治发展道路显然也是不同的。新中国成立以来特别是改革开放以来，我们党团结带领人民成功开辟了中国特色社会主义政治发展道路。全过程人民民主以这一独特的政治发展道路为根基、前提，同时又以一系列新理念新思想新战略，丰富和发展了这一道路。“历史终结论”有一个观点：“在所有社会的发展模式中，都有一个基本程序在发挥着作用，这就是以自由民主制度为方向的人类普遍史。”全过程人民民主及其蕴含的道路逻辑说明了一个道理：“治理一个国家，推动一个国家实现现代化，并不只有西方制度模式这一条道，各国完全可以走出自己的道路来。可以说，我们用事实宣告了‘历史终结论’的破产，宣告了各国最终都要以西方制度模式为归宿的单线式历史观的破产。”

(5) A form of civilization moving toward common prosperity. Common prosperity is the essential requirement of socialism, an important feature of Chinese-path modernization, and a core stipulation of the new form of human civilization. How should we understand the new form of human civilization as a form of civilization that realizes common prosperity, a form of civilization in which material abundance and cultural-ethical enrichment are coordinated? We can elaborate on this from three aspects. (1) The civilizational logic of wealth. Wealth is not a natural existence external to human beings, but a product of “humanization,” intrinsically linked to human essence and spirit. As early as in *The Phenomenology of Spirit*, Hegel revealed the ethical dimension of wealth, arguing that wealth is the “universal spiritual essence” of humanity. “It (wealth — author’s note) is continuously formed through the action and labor of all, and continuously disappears through the enjoyment or consumption of all.” Hegel profoundly pointed out that wealth is formed through “common labor” and disappears again through “common enjoyment.” In Hegel’s view, the civilizational problem of common prosperity is nothing other than a problem with “common labor,” or a problem with “common enjoyment,” or a problem with the relationship between the two. Through historical materialism, Marx scientifically transformed the problem of common labor and common enjoyment into the problem of “the creation and distribution of wealth.” Different modes of creating and distributing wealth give rise to different forms of civilization. Broadly speaking, the new form of human civilization is a form of civilization that can both continuously liberate and develop social productive forces, continuously create and accumulate social wealth, and avoid the gap between rich and poor and polarization, achieving common prosperity for all the people. (2) A form of civilization with common prosperity in material life. From the perspective of changes in material civilization, “common” and “prosperity” have always been in tension throughout the historical process. In primitive society, due to extremely low productive forces, people labored through cooperative methods and also held the very limited social wealth in common; this stage could be described as “insufficient prosperity but sufficient commonality.” Class society, especially the era of capitalist civilization, is a form of civilization of “a minority having abundant prosperity but insufficient commonality.” Capitalist civilization greatly propelled human society from “scarcity” toward “prosperity,” but the “commonality” of prosperity hit rock bottom: “at one pole the accumulation of wealth, and at the opposite pole, i.e., in the class that produces its own product as capital, the accumulation of misery, agony of labor, slavery, ignorance, brutality, and moral degradation.” [21]21 Karl Marx, *Capital*, Vol. 1, Chapter 25, Section 4. Capitalist civilization may be able to solve the problem of creating wealth, but it cannot solve the problem of fair distribution of wealth. Chinese-path modernization leverages the superiority of the socialist system, insists on development for the people, development relying on the people, and development achievements shared by the people, and continuously creates a new form of human civilization dedicated to achieving common prosperity for all the people. (3) A form of civilization with common prosperity in spiritual life. General Secretary Xi Jinping points out: “The common prosperity we speak of is common prosperity for all the people, the prosperity of both the material life and the spiritual life of the people.” [22]22 Xi Jinping, “Speech at the Central Conference on Financial and Economic Affairs,” August 17, 2021. A notable feature of capitalist civilization is that “the increase in the value of the world of things is directly proportional to the decrease in the value of the human world.” [23]23 Karl Marx, *Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844*. People are reified and alienated, and their spiritual world is “impoverished.” The new form of human civilization transcends the form of civilization of one-dimensional prosperity, organically unifying the promotion of common prosperity in the people’s spiritual life with the promotion of people’s all-round development, especially development at the spiritual level. As Marx pointed out: “to bring out all the attributes of social man, and to produce him as a man with as rich attributes and connections as possible, and therefore with as wide a range of needs as possible — to produce him as the most complete and comprehensive social product possible (for to enjoy in many ways he must be capable of enjoyment, hence he must be a man of a high level of civilization).” [24]24 Karl Marx, *Grundrisse*. The 21st-century socialist form of civilization consistently adheres to the socialist principle of “the creation and distribution of spiritual wealth,” prevents the logic of capital from dominating spiritual production, centers on the spiritual life needs of the people, produces more products to enable the people to gain more spiritual enjoyment, and ensures that everyone has the right to enjoy spiritual life.

（五）走向共同富裕的文明形态。共同富裕是社会主义的本质要求，是中国式现代化的重要特征，也是人类文明新形态的核心规定。如何理解人类文明新形态是一种实现共同富裕的文明形态，一种物质富足与精神富有相协调的文明形态？我们可以从三个方面加以阐述。（1）财富的文明逻辑。财富不是外在于人的自然存在，而是“人化”的产物，与人的本质、精神具有内在关联。黑格尔早在《精神现象学》中就揭示了财富的伦理维度，他认为，财富是人类“普遍的精神的本质”。“它（财富——引者注）既因一切人的行动和劳动而不断地形成，又因一切人的享受或消费而重新消失。”黑格尔深刻指出，财富因“共同劳动”而形成，又因“共同享受”而重新消失。在黑格尔看来，共同富裕的文明问题无非是“共同劳动”出了问题，或“共同享受”出了问题，抑或两者之间的关系出了问题。马克思通过唯物史观把共同劳动与共同享受的问题科学转化为“财富的创造与分配”问题。财富的不同创造与分配模式，形成了不同的文明形态。宽泛说来，人类文明新形态是一种既能够不断解放和发展社会生产力，不断创造和积累社会财富，又能够避免贫富差距、两极分化，实现全体人民共同富裕的文明形态。（2）物质生活共同富裕的文明形态。从物质文明变迁角度看，“共同”与“富裕”在历史进程中始终存在张力。在原始社会，由于生产力极度低下，人们通过共同协作方式进行劳动，对极有限的社会财富也是共同占有，这一阶段可以说是“富裕不足而共同有余”。私有制社会特别是资本主义文明时代则是“少数人富裕有余而共同不足”的文明形态。资本主义文明极大地推动了人类社会从“匮乏”走向“富裕”，但是富裕的“共同性”却走向谷底：“在一极是财富的积累，同时在另一极，即在把自己的产品作为资本来生产的阶级方面，是贫困、劳动折磨、受奴役、无知、粗野和道德堕落的积累。”资本主义文明也许能够解决财富的创造问题，但是解决不了财富的公平分配问题。中国式现代化发挥社会主义制度的优越性，坚持发展为了人民、发展依靠人民、发展成果由人民共享，不断创造致力于实现全体人民共同富裕的人类文明新形态。（3）精神生活共同富裕的文明形态。习近平总书记指出：“我们说的共同富裕是全体人民共同富裕，是人民群众物质生活和精神生活都富裕”。资本主义文明的显著特征是“物的世界的增值同人的世界的贬值成正比”，人被物化、异化了，精神世界“匮乏”。人类文明新形态超越了单向度富裕的文明形态，将促进人民精神生活共同富裕与促进人的全面发展特别是精神层面的发展有机统一起来。正如马克思所指出的：“培养社会的人的一切属性，并且把他作为具有尽可能丰富的属性和联系的人，因而具有尽可能广泛需要的人生产出来——把他作为尽可能完整的和全面的社会产品生产出来（因为要多方面享受，他就必须有享受的能力，因此他必须是具有高度文明的人）”。21世纪的社会主义文明形态始终坚持“精神财富的创造与分配”的社会主义原则，防止资本逻辑对精神生产的宰制，围绕人民群众的精神生活需要，生产出更多的产品让人民获得更多的精神享受，让每个人拥有精神生活的享有权。

(6) An ecological civilization of harmony between humanity and nature. General Secretary Xi Jinping points out: “Humanity has experienced primitive civilization, agricultural civilization, and industrial civilization. Ecological civilization is a product of industrial civilization reaching a certain stage and a new requirement for achieving harmonious development between humanity and nature.” [25]25 Xi Jinping, “Speech at the National Conference on Ecological and Environmental Protection,” May 18, 2018. The 21st-century socialist form of civilization is an ecological civilization that transcends traditional industrial civilization and achieves harmony between humanity and nature. (1) A community of life. Traditional industrial civilization adheres to the dualism of humanity and nature, behind which lies the philosophical thinking of humanity dominating and ruling over nature. Marx resolutely criticized anthropocentrism, emphasizing the priority of nature over humanity. “Nature is man’s inorganic body — that is to say, nature insofar as it is not the human body itself. Man lives from nature.” [26]26 Karl Marx, *Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844*. As a subject, humanity can indeed transform nature, but unrestrained transformation of nature will ultimately lead to “nature’s revenge,” affecting human survival and development. Ecological civilization adheres to the philosophical thinking of harmony between humanity and nature, emphasizing that “humanity and nature form a community of life.” [27]27 Xi Jinping, “Speech at the National Conference on Ecological and Environmental Protection,” May 18, 2018. Humanity and nature are not isolated from or opposed to each other, but interact and influence each other; they are a community with a shared future, where each finds beauty in the other. In particular, how humanity treats nature determines how nature will treat humanity in return. (2) Acknowledging the “intrinsic value” of nature. Traditional industrial civilization only acknowledges the external “material value” and “economic value” of nature. Driven by the logic of capital, nature is treated as a tool for capital to maximize profits, and is continuously exploited, plundered, and destroyed. “To build an ecological civilization, we must first shift from changing and conquering nature to adjusting human behavior and correcting human erroneous behavior.” [28]28 Xi Jinping, “Speech at the National Conference on Ecological and Environmental Protection,” May 18, 2018. Ecological civilization redefines the value relationship between humanity and nature, acknowledges the intrinsic value of nature, adjusts the behavioral patterns of humanity towards nature, and emphasizes that humanity must hold nature in awe, respect nature, conform to nature, and protect nature. Judgments such as “lucid waters and lush mountains are invaluable assets” and “protecting the ecology is developing productive forces” [29]29 Xi Jinping, “Speech at the National Conference on Ecological and Environmental Protection,” May 18, 2018. fully demonstrate the new civilizational attitude of Chinese Communists towards nature. An ecological civilization that acknowledges the intrinsic value of nature will inevitably organically unify the protection of the natural environment with the promotion of economic and social development. (3) Transformation of development models and lifestyles. Industrial civilization driven by capital recklessly and unrestrainedly transforms and squeezes nature, excessively consumes natural resources, and severely damages the ecological environment. This development model of “killing the goose that lays the golden eggs” and “draining the pond to catch the fish” is “anti-civilizational” and unsustainable. Ecological civilization requires a profound transformation in the view of civilization and development, promoting the formation of green development models and lifestyles. Chinese-path modernization follows the general direction of ecological civilization transformation, insists on taking the path of green, low-carbon, and circular development, accelerates the transformation of the economic development model, and builds an ecological system that respects nature and pursues green development. To create a new form of human civilization, Chinese-path modernization must advocate a simple, moderate, green, and low-carbon lifestyle, actively guide the rationalization and greening of consumption concepts and consumption behaviors, and promote the great transformation of the entire society from high-consumption living to high-quality living and green living.

（六）人与自然和谐共生的生态文明。习近平总书记指出：“人类经历了原始文明、农业文明、工业文明，生态文明是工业文明发展到一定阶段的产物，是实现人与自然和谐发展的新要求。”21世纪的社会主义文明形态是一种超越了传统工业文明、实现人与自然和谐共生的生态文明。（1）生命共同体。传统工业文明秉承人与自然的二元论，背后是人支配自然、统治自然的哲学思维。马克思坚决批判人类中心主义，强调自然界对于人类的先在性。“自然界，就它自身不是人的身体而言，是人的无机的身体。人靠自然界生活。”人作为主体，的确可以改造自然，但是无节制地改造自然，最终会导致“自然的报复”，影响人类的生存与发展。生态文明坚持人与自然和谐共生的哲学思维，强调“人与自然是生命共同体”。人与自然不是相互孤立、相互对立的，而是相互作用、相互影响的，是命运与共、美美与共的命运共同体，特别是，人类怎么对待自然，自然也会怎么回馈人类。（2）承认自然的“内在价值”。传统工业文明只承认自然外在的“物质价值”“经济价值”，在资本逻辑的驱使下，自然被当作资本实现利润最大化的工具，不断被开发、攫取和破坏。“建设生态文明，首先要从改变自然、征服自然转向调整人的行为、纠正人的错误行为。”生态文明重新厘定了人与自然的价值关系，承认自然的内在价值，调整了人类对待自然的行为模式，强调人类对自然要有敬畏之心，尊重自然、顺应自然、保护自然。“绿水青山就是金山银山”“保护生态就是发展生产力”等论断，充分彰显了中国共产党人对待自然的新文明态度。承认自然内在价值的生态文明，必然将保护自然环境与促进经济社会发展有机统一起来。（3）发展方式和生活方式的变革。由资本驱动的工业文明肆无忌惮地、无节制地改造自然、压榨自然，过度消耗自然资源，严重破坏生态环境，这种杀鸡取卵、竭泽而渔的发展方式是“反文明”的、不可持续的。生态文明要实现文明观、发展观的深刻变革，推动形成绿色发展方式和生活方式。中国式现代化顺应生态文明变革的大方向，坚持走绿色低碳循环发展之路，加快经济发展方式转变，构筑尊崇自然、绿色发展的生态体系。中国式现代化创造人类文明新形态，必须倡导简约适度、绿色低碳的生活方式，积极引导消费观念和消费行为的理性化、绿色化，推动整个社会由高消费的生活向高品质生活、绿色生活的大转型。

(7) A civilizational order based on a community with a shared future for mankind. To grasp the rich connotations of the new form of human civilization, one must situate it both within the framework of the nation-state and from a global perspective. As a socialist civilizational form of the 21st century, the new form of human civilization provides wisdom and solutions for addressing major human problems, and offers a completely new plan for guiding the direction of world civilization—namely, “a community with a shared future for mankind.” General Secretary Xi Jinping points out: “In this world, countries are interconnected and interdependent to an unprecedented degree. Human beings live in the same global village, in the same time and space where history and reality intersect, and are increasingly becoming a community with a shared future where each has a stake in the other.” A community with a shared future for mankind inherits Marx’s thought on “community” and constructs a “truly universal civilization.” “Only in the community does the individual obtain the means to develop his capacities in all directions; only in the community, therefore, is personal freedom possible.” The contemporary world is a “false community” constructed by Western civilization, a globalization and universalization of a single Western civilization. In this “false community,” different countries and civilizations are unequal, and the hierarchy of civilizations constructed on the basis of Western-centrism often brings about conflicts among civilizations. “Western intervention in the affairs of other civilizations may be the single most dangerous factor contributing to instability and potential global conflict in a multi-civilizational world.” A community with a shared future for mankind transcends modern civilization and world order dominated by Western-centrism, providing a global governance model and civilizational order that goes beyond Western-centrism for today’s world. (1) A community of peace. The basic political cognition of Western civilization toward the world is the “distinction between friend and enemy.” “The specific political distinction to which political actions and motives can be reduced is that between friend and enemy.” A community with a shared future for mankind rejects the logic of friend-enemy distinction and confrontation, advocating that countries and civilizations build partnerships of equal treatment, mutual consultation, and mutual understanding. It rejects Cold War mentality and hegemonic logic, advocates handling differences and conflicts through dialogue and consultation, and is committed to building a community of lasting peace. (2) A community of security. Western civilization advocates so-called “absolute security,” but this security is built on the insecurity of other countries, a security of “self-construction and exclusive enjoyment” achieved through hegemonic means and the law of the jungle where the strong prey on the weak. A community with a shared future for mankind rejects the concept of absolute security, advocates a new security concept of common, comprehensive, cooperative, and sustainable security, emphasizes the need to accommodate the security concerns of different countries, advocates solving security problems through dialogue, consultation, and mutually beneficial cooperation, and is committed to building a community of universal security. (3) A community of development. Western civilization is essentially a civilization of capital. Economic globalization dominated by Western developed countries and international capital exacerbates conflicts between developed and developing countries, leading to severe global imbalances. A community with a shared future for mankind advocates a new type of globalization plan characterized by “openness, inclusiveness, universal benefit, balance, and win-win outcomes,” promotes a balanced and inclusive development model that allows the fruits of development to benefit all countries, and is committed to building an economic community of shared prosperity. (4) A community of civilization. Western civilization advocates a singular view of civilization, believing that the interaction of world civilizations is nothing more than the global spread of a single Western civilization, bearing a “civilizing mission.” “Civilizations become richer through exchange, learn from each other through mutual learning, and develop through mutual learning.” A community with a shared future for mankind advocates a pluralistic view of civilization, respects the diversity of civilizations, advocates replacing civilizational estrangement with civilizational exchange, civilizational conflict with civilizational mutual learning, and civilizational superiority with civilizational coexistence, and is committed to building a civilizational community where each civilization is beautiful in its own way and all civilizations flourish together.

（七）基于人类命运共同体的文明秩序。把握人类文明新形态的丰富内涵，既要置于民族国家框架，也要置于世界视角。作为21世纪的社会主义文明形态，人类文明新形态为解决人类重大问题提供了智慧和方案，为引领整个世界文明走向提供了全新方案——“人类命运共同体”。习近平总书记指出：“这个世界，各国相互联系、相互依存的程度空前加深，人类生活在同一个地球村里，生活在历史和现实交汇的同一个时空里，越来越成为你中有我、我中有你的命运共同体。”人类命运共同体承继马克思的“共同体”思想，建构“真正的普遍文明”。“只有在共同体中，个人才能获得全面发展其才能的手段，也就是说，只有在共同体中才可能有个人自由。”当今世界是西方文明建构的“虚假的共同体”，是西方单一文明的全球化、普遍化。在“虚假的共同体”中，不同国家、文明是不平等的，基于西方中心论建构的文明等级论常常带来的是不同文明的冲突。“西方对其他文明事务的干预,可能是造成多文明世界中的不稳定和潜在全球冲突的唯一最危险的因素。”人类命运共同体超越了西方中心论支配下的现代文明、世界秩序，为当今世界提供了一种超越西方中心论的全球治理模式和文明秩序。（1）和平共同体。西方文明对世界政治的基本认知就是“敌友区分”。“所有政治活动和政治动机所能归结成的具体政治性划分便是朋友与敌人的划分。”人类命运共同体反对敌我区分、对抗性逻辑，主张国家之间、文明之间构建平等相待、互商互谅的伙伴关系。人类命运共同体摒弃冷战思维、霸权逻辑，主张对话协商处理矛盾分歧，致力于建设一个持久和平的共同体。（2）安全共同体。西方文明推崇所谓的“绝对安全”，但是这种安全是建立在别国不安全基础之上的，是通过霸权手段、弱肉强食的丛林法则，建立的“自建独享”安全。人类命运共同体摒弃绝对安全观，主张共同、综合、合作、可持续的新安全观，强调要照顾到不同国家的安全关切，主张以对话协商、互利合作的方式解决安全难题，致力于建设一个普遍安全的共同体。（3）发展共同体。西方文明本质上是资本文明，由西方发达国家和国际资本主导的经济全球化，加剧了发达国家与发展中国家之间的矛盾冲突，全球不平衡现象严重。人类命运共同体提倡“开放、包容、普惠、平衡、共赢”的新型全球化方案，主张平衡普惠的发展模式，让发展成果惠及世界各国，致力于建设一个共同繁荣的经济共同体。（4）文明共同体。西方文明推崇单数文明观，认为世界文明交往无非是西方单一文明的全球传播，承担着“文明开化使命”。“文明因多样而交流，因交流而互鉴，因互鉴而发展。”人类命运共同体主张复数文明观，尊重文明多样性，以文明交流超越文明隔阂、文明互鉴超越文明冲突、文明共存超越文明优越，致力于建设一个各美其美、美美与共的文明共同体。

Conclusion

结语

The socialism envisioned by Marx and Engels was to be established on the basis of capitalist countries with highly developed productive forces. Therefore, for countries that are economically and culturally backward, after “crossing the Caudine Forks,” how to achieve socialist modernization becomes a completely new课题 for scientific socialism. [30]30 “Crossing the Caudine Forks” (跨越卡夫丁峡谷) is a metaphor used by Marx and Engels to refer to a society bypassing the capitalist stage of development and transitioning directly from a pre-capitalist mode of production to socialism, drawing on the historical reference to the Roman defeat at the Caudine Forks in 321 BCE. Chinese-path modernization creatively and successfully combines socialism with modernization, opens up a new path of socialist modernization, infuses scientific socialism with renewed vitality in 21st-century China, and makes original contributions to the development of scientific socialism. Chinese-path modernization adheres to the basic principles of scientific socialism, neither taking the old closed and rigid path nor the evil path of changing the flag and direction. The new form of human civilization it creates is a socialist civilizational form of the 21st century, providing civilizational wisdom and civilizational solutions for solving the world’s problems and major human issues in the 21st century, and making original contributions to the development of socialist civilization and human civilization. Chinese-path modernization has milestone significance in the history of the development of scientific socialism, and the new form of human civilization it inaugurates also has milestone significance in the history of the development of socialist civilization.

马克思恩格斯所设想的社会主义是在生产力高度发达的资本主义国家基础上建立的，因此，经济文化比较落后的国家在“跨越卡夫丁峡谷”之后，如何实现社会主义的现代化就成为科学社会主义的全新课题。中国式现代化创造性地将社会主义与现代化成功结合起来，开辟了一条社会主义现代化的新道路，使科学社会主义在21世纪的中国焕发出新的蓬勃生机，为科学社会主义发展作出了原创性贡献。中国式现代化遵循科学社会主义的基本原则，既不走封闭僵化的老路，也不走改旗易帜的邪路，所创造的人类文明新形态是21世纪的社会主义文明形态，为解决21世纪世界难题和人类重大问题提供了文明智慧和文明方案，为社会主义文明和人类文明的发展作出了原创性贡献。中国式现代化在科学社会主义发展史上具有里程碑意义，其所开创的人类文明新形态在社会主义文明发展史上也具有里程碑意义。

[Author’s affiliation: School of Marxism, Party School of the Central Committee of the CPC (National Academy of Governance)]

[作者单位：中共中央党校（国家行政学院）马克思主义学院]

Online editor: Jing Mu

网络编辑：静穆