An Analysis of Three Basic Issues Concerning the New Form of Human Civilization

The new form of human civilization is a phased achievement of theoretical innovation in contemporary Chinese Marxism and 21st-century Marxism, the ideological essence distilled from Chinese culture and the tempering of the times, the practical crystallization of upholding and developing socialism with Chinese characteristics in the New Era, and also a scientific assessment of the future direction of human societal development and the trajectory of civilizational evolution, as well as a systematic response to the major theoretical and practical issues of what kind of human civilization to build in the New Era and how to build it. The proposition of a new form of human civilization has increasingly become a hot and focal topic of widespread concern in academic circles. Different scholars have found theoretical support for this proposition in the relevant classical textual discussions of Marx and Engels and in the practice of the Chinese path, defining its concept and connotation, tracing its theoretical origins, and summarizing its value from multiple dimensions and perspectives. However, there exist to a certain degree misinterpretations, divergent understandings, and biases in methodological research, contextual interpretation, and paradigmatic analysis. Accurately grasping the essential connotation of the new form of human civilization, reflecting on and discerning the assertions and viewpoints of related research findings, and regulating the rational space and internal tension of theoretical interpretation with an objective attitude and critical thinking are not only theoretical necessities for promoting the construction of Chinese discourse and the practice of Chinese-path modernization, but also inherent requirements for advancing exchanges, mutual learning, and innovative transformation among different civilizations in the process of deepening world history, thereby manifesting the immense vitality and global significance of China's original form of civilization.

人类文明新形态是当代中国马克思主义、21世纪马克思主义理论创新的阶段性成果，是中华文化和时代淬炼的思想精华，是坚持和发展新时代中国特色社会主义的实践凝结，也是科学研判人类社会未来发展走向和文明演进趋向，以及系统回答新时代构建什么样的人类文明、怎样构建人类文明的重大理论和现实课题。人类文明新形态的命题日益成为学界广泛关注的热点和焦点话题，不同学者从马克思、恩格斯相关经典文本论述与中国道路的实践中找到这一命题的理论支撑，对其进行多维度、多元化的概念和内涵界定、理论溯源以及价值归纳，但在方法研究、语境解读与范式分析上却存在着一定程度的误读、歧解与偏倚。准确把握人类文明新形态的本质内涵，反思和明辨相关研究成果的论断和观点，以客观的态度和批判的思维来规范理论诠释的合理性空间与内在张力，不仅是推动中国话语构建和中国式现代化实践的理论需要，而且是在深化世界历史过程中推进不同文明交流互鉴和创新转化的内在要求，从而彰显中国式原创性文明的巨大生命力与世界意义。

I. Can “Form of Civilization” Be Equated with Marx and Engels’ “Social Formation”?

一、“文明形态”能否等同于马克思恩格斯的“社会形态”？

Regarding the issue of the essential connotation of the new form of human civilization, it is a prerequisite question for exploring various issues concerning the new form of human civilization, concerning its own value implications, basic characteristics, forms of expression, and other important content. It is also an important perspective for unlocking many topics such as “Chinese-path modernization,” “a community with a shared future for mankind,” and “common values of all mankind.” Hence, tracing related theories and distinguishing concepts are particularly important and necessary. Academic circles generally start from the etymology of “society” and “civilization,” narrowing and linking the intrinsic connection between “form of civilization” and Marx and Engels’ “social formation.” They often regard “economic social formation” or “social formation” as the “key to understanding forms of civilization,” but they also easily intertwine, mix, and highly commensurate “economic social formation” or “social formation” with “form of civilization,” to the point of blurring and distorting the true face of the new form of human civilization. Therefore, it is necessary to define the logical relationship between “form of civilization” and “social formation,” distinguish their respective basic meanings, and restore the original meaning and essence of the new form of human civilization.

关于人类文明新形态的本质内涵问题，是探究人类文明新形态诸问题的前提性问题，关涉其自身的价值意蕴、基本特征、表现形式等重要内容，也是开解“中国式现代化”“人类命运共同体”“全人类共同价值”等诸多课题的重要视域，由此对相关理论溯源和概念辨析，尤为重要和必要。学界一般从“社会”和“文明”的词源切入，拉近和勾连“文明形态”同马克思、恩格斯“社会形态”之间的内在联系，通常把“经济的社会形态”或“社会形态”作为“理解文明形态的钥匙”，但也极易把“经济的社会形态”或“社会形态”与“文明形态”扭结一起、混合杂糅和高度通约，以致模糊和扭曲人类文明新形态的真实面相。因此，需要界定“文明形态”和“社会形态”之间的逻辑关系，辨明两者各自的基本意涵，复归人类文明新形态的原义和本质。

Focusing on the historical and realistic contexts, theoretical and practical dimensions, and the categories of phenomenon and essence of the new form of human civilization from multiple perspectives to examine its connotation has become the general research approach and direction in academic circles for elucidating the connotation of the new form of human civilization. Based on historical materialism, the “five-form theory” of Marx and Engels is used to present the theoretical pattern of “form of civilization.” The new form of human civilization “is the socialist social formation and communist social formation that scientific socialism elucidates as replacing the last exploitative class society of mankind,” [1]1 This is a direct quotation from a Chinese scholarly source, likely referencing a specific article or book on the new form of human civilization. directly equating form of civilization with social formation. The “five-form theory” can be traced back earliest to the general process of human societal historical development specifically elaborated by Marx in the “Preface to A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy,” namely, “In broad outline, the Asiatic, ancient, feudal and modern bourgeois modes of production may be designated as epochs marking progress in the economic development of society.” [2]2 This is a standard translation of Marx’s formulation from the “Preface to A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy.” This is the early prototype of Marx and Engels’ theory of social formations. Soviet leader Stalin, in his book Dialectical and Historical Materialism, mentioned the “five basic types of relations of production” in human history, namely, the relations of production of primitive communism, slavery, feudalism, capitalism, and socialism. Subsequently, Soviet scholars, in the Party history textbooks they edited, extended these “five basic types of relations of production” into “five social formations” for application and promotion, becoming an important paradigm for studying the periodization of human history. The Marxist theory of social formations can be considered a theory of forms of civilization. The new form of human civilization should be “a practical transformation of the Marxist theory of forms of civilization,” [3]3 Another direct quotation from a Chinese scholarly source. a concrete manifestation of the primary form of communism in its present moment, directly interpreting the socialism or communism in the context of classical Marxist writers as a form of civilization, thereby concluding that social formation is form of civilization.

从多维视角聚焦人类文明新形态的历史语境和现实语境、理论维度与实践维度以及现象与本质范畴以透视其内涵，这成为学界阐发人类文明新形态内涵的大体研究思路和方向。立足唯物史观，以马克思、恩格斯的“五形态说”呈现“文明形态”的理论样态。人类文明新形态“是科学社会主义所阐明的代替人类最后一个剥削阶级社会的社会主义社会形态和共产主义社会形态”，直接把文明形态等同于社会形态。“五形态说”最早可追溯到马克思在《<政治经济学批判>序言》中具体阐述的人类社会历史发展的一般进程，即“亚细亚的、古希腊罗马的、封建的和现代资产阶级的生产方式可以看做是经济的社会形态演进的几个时代”。这是马克思、恩格斯社会形态理论的早期雏形。苏联领导人斯大林在《辩证唯物主义与历史唯物主义》一书中提及了人类历史的“五种基本生产关系”，即原始公社制、奴隶制、封建制、资本主义、社会主义的生产关系。随后苏联学者在主编的党史教程中把这“五种基本类型的生产关系”引申为“五种社会形态”加以运用与推广，成为研究人类历史分期的重要范式。马克思主义的社会形态理论可以被认为是文明形态理论，人类文明新形态应是对“马克思主义文明形态理论的实践转化”，是共产主义初级形态在其当下的具体表现，直接把马克思主义经典作家语境中的社会主义或共产主义解释成一种文明形态，从而得出社会形态即文明形态的结论。

Following the classic expression of the “five-form theory” in traditional Soviet textbooks, “social formation” or “economic social formation” is defined as form of civilization, and the five social formations are identified as five types of civilization in the evolution of human history. It is believed that the process of human societal development or the process of succession of social formations is completely equivalent to the process of human civilizational development or the process of succession of forms of civilization. Scholars holding this view generally ignore the prerequisite issue of Marx and Engels’ division of human history, detach themselves from the objective context and basic conditions in which the theory of social formations was proposed, attempt to deduce concrete concepts through “abstract categories” within the Marxist perspective, subjectively assume two seemingly similar but actually different concepts to have the same connotation, and then use grand historical narrative logic to amplify the explanatory tension between them and narrow the inherent gap between the theories.

依循苏联传统教科书中“五形态说”的经典式表述，将“社会形态”或者“经济的社会形态”界定为文明形态，把五种社会形态指认成人类历史演变的五种文明类型，认为人类社会发展过程或社会形态更替过程完全等同于人类文明的发展过程或文明形态更替过程。持有这种观点的学者一般忽略马克思、恩格斯划分人类历史的前提性问题，脱离社会形态理论提出的客观语境与基本条件，试图通过马克思主义视域中的“抽象范畴”演绎出具体的概念，将貌合神离的两个概念主观臆断为同一种内涵，再加以宏大历史叙事逻辑以放大它们之间的解释张力和拉近理论之间的内在差距。

From a meso-level perspective, form of civilization specifically points to a “civilizational entity.” Generally speaking, “social formation” can be seen as an organized, systematic, and structural “form of civilization.” “Form of civilization” cannot be separated from the material carrier on which civilization depends. To a certain extent, form of civilization can be understood as social formation, generally including stipulations at the institutional and value levels. According to Marx and Engels’ theory of social formations, from the vertical perspective of human civilizational history, various types of civilization are “civilizations under specific social formations.” Thus, the process of succession and transformation of social formations is set as the evolutionary process of forms of civilization, leading to the conclusion that the new form of human civilization is the “Five-Sphere Integrated Plan” [4]4 The Five-Sphere Integrated Plan refers to China’s overall plan for building socialism with Chinese characteristics, encompassing economic, political, cultural, social, and ecological civilization development. new form of socialist civilization. We still cannot explain the meaning of the new form of human civilization created by socialism with Chinese characteristics, and even fall into the logical quagmire of tautology and circular definition. Of course, the sequence of succession of social formations can directly reflect the state of changes in the mode of production and institutional transitions, and manifest the trend and state of civilizational development and progress. However, this only confines form of civilization within the narrative logic of social formations based on the mode of production or institutions, and cannot accurately grasp the characteristic laws of different forms of civilization at different stages of societal development and the overall pattern of a specific historical period.

从中观层面的角度出发，文明形态具体指向一种“文明实体”，一般而言的“社会形态”可以看作是组织性、系统性、结构性的“文明形态”。“文明形态”离不开文明所依附的物质载体，一定程度上文明形态可以理解为社会形态，一般包括制度层面、价值层面的规定性。按照马克思、恩格斯的社会形态理论，从人类文明历史的纵向出发，各种类型的文明都是特定“社会形态下的文明”，由此社会形态的更替和嬗变过程被设定为文明形态的演进过程，归纳出人类文明新形态就是“五位一体”的社会主义文明新形态。我们依旧无法解释中国特色社会主义创造的人类文明新形态的意涵，甚至陷入同语反复与循环定义的逻辑泥淖之中。当然，社会形态演进的序列能够直接反映生产方式的变革与制度更迭的状态，表现文明发展进步的趋势和状态，但这只是将文明形态囿于以生产方式或制度为依据的社会形态叙事逻辑中，不能准确把握不同形态的文明在不同社会发展阶段的规律特征与一定历史时期的总体性样态。

Overall, although academic circles have conducted a series of relatively systematic and comprehensive investigations into the forms of human civilization, achieving theoretical results with diverse understandings and multi-angle interpretations, they have basically not departed from Marx and Engels’ theory of social formations. They have artificially downplayed or obscured the essential differences between the concepts of society and civilization in the classical texts of Marx and Engels, simply and generally transforming their “theory of social formations” into a “theory of forms of civilization,” resulting in the view that “social formation” is understood as or equated with “form of civilization” becoming the mainstream consensus in academic circles. But how exactly to distinguish and define the concepts of “form of civilization” and “social formation,” and to accurately grasp the core essence of the new form of human civilization? It is necessary to return to the intellectual context of Marx and Engels for a comprehensive comparison and examination.

从总体上说，尽管学界对人类文明形态展开了一系列较为系统、全面的探究，取得了多元性理解和多角度阐释的理论成果，但基本上没有脱离马克思、恩格斯的社会形态理论，人为地淡化或遮蔽马克思、恩格斯经典文本中社会概念与文明概念的本质差异，简单笼统地把他们的“社会形态理论”转化为“文明形态理论”，致使“社会形态”理解为或等同于“文明形态”的观点成为学界的主流共识。但究竟如何区分和界定“文明形态”与“社会形态”的概念，以及准确把握人类文明新形态的核心要义？需要重新回到马克思、恩格斯的思想语境中，予以全面比较与审视。

In the classical texts of Marxism, the term “form” (形态) is applied relatively commonly and broadly, usually appearing in concepts and forms such as “social formation,” “economic formation,” and “primitive formation.” What, then, is “form”? Some scholars treat “form” as a universal concept widely present in different disciplinary paradigms, explaining it as “the mode of existence and state of manifestation of a certain thing or theory under given conditions.” When Marx and Engels discussed the question of “social formation” in their works and manuscripts, they neither explained the external characteristics, internal texture, and organizational structure of a specific material entity from a biological or physiological perspective, nor did they, starting from the research paradigm of sociology, interpret in quantitative and qualitative terms the internal organizational components, population distribution, and forms of settlement within society. Instead, they explored issues such as its origins, rules of construction, changes in form, and law-governed development from the perspective of historical materialism. The frequent appearance of the concept of “social formation” in the intellectual horizon of Marx and Engels was closely linked to their theoretical journey of investigating the capitalist mode of production and demonstrating the inevitable demise of the capitalist social system. The “theory of five forms” or the “theory of three forms” aims to dismantle the theoretical foundation of the eternity of capitalist private property, analyze the mode of operation of the capitalist social and political system and the ideological patterns in the sphere of consciousness, demonstrate the objective fact that all economic principles encompassed by the relations of production undergo transformation due to the development of the productive forces, and verify the law of the successive evolution of human social systems, thereby constructing a historical picture of the overall evolution and succession of human society. The so-called social formation is a category concerning the specific modes of operation, developmental mechanisms, stages, and different qualitative states of human society; it is a collection or community of the economic base, politics, and ideological superstructure that correspond to the level of development of the productive forces in a given period. Marx and Lenin often used “economic social formation” and “social formation” interchangeably as synonyms, emphasizing that the relations of ownership of the means of production and the institutional forms thereby presented define the essential level of the social formation. Thus, referring to the social system as the social formation has also become a common-sense notion and popular discourse. Compared with social formation, the form of civilization has distinct characteristics in terms of content, scope, and boundaries.

在马克思主义经典文本中，“形态”一词应用较为普遍与广泛，通常以“社会形态”“经济形态”“原生形态”等概念和形式出现。那么何谓“形态”？有学者把“形态”作为广泛存在于不同学科范式中的普遍概念，解释为“某种事物或理论在一定条件下的存在样式和表现状态”。马克思、恩格斯在论著和手稿中谈及“社会形态”问题时，既不是从生物学或生理学层面说明某一具体物质的外形特征、内部质地与组织构造等问题，也不是从社会学的研究范式出发以定量和定性的形式，阐释社会内部的组织成分、人口分布与居住形式等内容，而是从历史唯物主义的视角探究其起源因素、建构规则、形式变化与规律发展等议题。马克思、恩格斯思想视域中频繁出现“社会形态”概念是同他们探索资本主义生产方式、论证资本主义社会制度必然消亡的理论历程紧密相关的。“五形态说”或“三形态说”旨在拆解资本主义私有制永恒性的理论根基，剖析资本主义社会政治制度运行方式、意识形态领域的思想样态，说明生产关系所囊括的一切经济原则是由于生产力发展而嬗变的客观事实，以及求证人类社会制度依次演进的规律，从而建构人类社会的整体演进、更替的历史图景。所谓社会形态就是关于人类社会运转的具体方式、发展机制、阶段和不同质态的范畴，是同一定时期生产力发展相适应的经济基础、政治和观念上层建筑的集合或共同体。马克思、列宁经常把“经济的社会形态”和“社会形态”进行同义互替互用，强调生产资料所有制关系以及由此呈现出的制度形式规定了社会形态的本质层面，所以社会制度指代为社会形态也成为人们的朴素观念和大众话语。相较于社会形态，文明形态在内容、范畴、边界上有着显著的特点。

What is civilization? Engels gave a precise answer: “Civilization is a practical matter, a social quality.” Understanding civilization through the paradigm of practice refers specifically to the sum total of all positive achievements—institutional, material, spiritual, and so forth—continuously created and accumulated by humanity in the social practical activities of actively transforming the world. It is a category that results from the operation of the laws of historical development and marks the degree of social progress. The analysis of civilization and the form of civilization still requires us to approach it from the political issues and philosophy of history of 21st-century Marxism. As a total and historical concept, civilization reflects the level of development of a nation, a country, a society, and the quality of its citizens; the thought and culture embedded within it constitute the elements and substance of various civilizations. Civilization embodies the deepest value pursuits and spiritual symbols of a nation. Different types of civilization are endowed with qualitative determinations and developmental orientations, revealing their respective unique value positions, ranges of change, and spheres of meaning in the evolution of world history. Different types of civilization have their own specific connotations and qualities. According to temporal and spatial dimensions, the types of civilization are divided into different forms of civilization, mapping out the overall lineage and pattern of the development of human civilization. The form of civilization is the mode of existence and state of manifestation of civilization presented in the process of the unity of humanity’s specific mode of material production, political system, and cultural system. It involves the essence, characteristics, values, and developmental dynamics of civilization. Therefore, the “form of civilization” cannot be simply replaced by “social formation,” nor can it be confined solely to the explanatory principles and narrative logic of social formation.

什么是文明？恩格斯作了精准的回答：“文明是实践的事情，是社会的素质。”以实践为范式理解文明，具体指人类在能动地改造世界的社会性的实践活动中不断创造和积累的全部制度、物质、精神等积极成果的总和，是历史发展规律作用的结果以及标志社会进步程度的范畴。对于文明和文明形态的辨析，尚需要我们从21世纪马克思主义的政治议题与历史哲学切入。文明作为总体性、历史性的概念，体现一个民族、国家、社会发展和国民素质的水平，内蕴其中的思想文化构成了诸文明的要素和实体。文明积淀着一个民族最深层的价值追求和精神标识，不同类型的文明被赋予了质的规定性和发展向度，在世界历史的演进中敞显出各自独特的价值定位、变化范围和意义领域。不同类型的文明有其特有的内涵与品质，文明的类型依据时间和空间维度划分成不同的文明形态，绘制成人类文明发展的整体脉络与图谱。文明形态是人类在特定的物质生产方式、政治制度和文化体系相统一的过程中呈现的文明存在形式和呈现样态，涉及文明的本质、特征、价值、发展动力等内容。因此，“文明形态”不能简单地被置换为“社会形态”，更不能仅仅局限于社会形态的解释原则与叙事逻辑之中。

The form of human civilization is rich in connotation and profound in implication, and should be considered and explored in a holistic and systematic manner. The form of human civilization exhibits synchronic and diachronic characteristics and forms at different historical stages, and also manifests the traits and patterns of regions, countries, and nations within geographical space. First, from the temporal dimension, taking technological forms and productive forces as the standard, forms of civilization can be divided into nomadic civilization, agricultural civilization, industrial civilization, information civilization, digital-intelligent civilization, etc., or alternatively into bronze civilization, iron civilization, machine civilization, electronic civilization, etc.; based on social systems or social formations, they are divided into slave civilization, feudal social civilization, capitalist civilization, socialist civilization, and communist civilization; based on international relations, they are divided into the civilization of the ancient enfeoffment and tributary system, the civilization of the modern colonial system, and regional or even global “community civilization.” From the spatial dimension, the Japanese scholar Fukuzawa Yukichi proposed two major forms of civilization and systems of civilization: “Western or Occidental civilization” and “Oriental civilization.” The 20th-century British historian Arnold Toynbee, based on the kinship relations between different societies or civilizations, proposed 21 social patterns, i.e., 21 forms of civilization. The first-generation forms of civilization include Egyptian, Sumerian, Minoan, Ancient Indian, Ancient Chinese, Andean, and Mayan civilizations; the “affiliated civilizations” derived from them include Hittite, Babylonian, Syrian, Arabic, Iranian, Far Eastern (subdivided into Chinese and Korean-Japanese), Hellenic, Indian, Western, Mexican, Orthodox (subdivided into Byzantine Orthodox and Russian Orthodox), and Yucatecan civilizations. The American scholar Samuel Huntington, building on the work of scholars such as Spengler, Toynbee, and Braudel, summarized the extant forms of civilization, specifically Chinese civilization, Japanese civilization, Indian civilization, Islamic civilization, Western civilization, Orthodox civilization, Latin American civilization, and “possibly African civilization.”

人类文明形态内涵丰富、意蕴深邃，应予以整体、系统的运思和探赜。人类文明形态在不同历史阶段呈现出共时态与历时态的特征与形式，也表征出在地理空间中地域、国家、民族的特质和样态。首先，从时间维度看，以科技形态和生产力为标准，文明形态可分为游牧文明、农耕文明、工业文明、信息文明、数智文明等，抑或为青铜文明、铁器文明、机器文明、电子文明等；以社会制度或社会形态为依据，分为奴隶制文明、封建社会文明、资本主义文明、社会主义文明和共产主义文明；以国际关系为依据，分为古代册封朝贡体系文明、近代殖民体制文明以及区域性乃至全球性的“共同体文明”。从空间维度看，日本学者福泽谕吉提出了“西方或西洋的文明”与“东方的文明”两大文明形态和文明体系。20世纪英国历史学家汤因比，根据不同社会或文明之间的亲疏关系，提出了21个社会样态即21种文明形态。第一代文明形态包括埃及、苏美尔、米诺斯、古代印度、古代中国、安第斯、玛雅的文明，由它们派生的“亲属文明”包括赫梯、巴比伦、叙利亚、阿拉伯、伊朗、远东（细分为中国、朝鲜—日本）、希腊、印度、西方、墨西哥、东正教（细分为拜占庭东正教、俄罗斯东正教）、尤卡坦的文明。美国学者亨廷顿在斯宾格勒、汤因比、布罗代尔等学者的基础上总结出了尚存的文明形态，具体为中国文明、日本文明、印度文明、伊斯兰文明、西方文明、东正教文明、拉丁美洲文明，“可能还有非洲文明”。

The form of civilization is not equivalent to social formation, nor can its connotation and significance be endowed solely within the theoretical horizon of social formation. Any form of civilization is born, nurtured, and developed within a specific geographical environment, historical background, and national tradition. Therefore, the new form of human civilization also has its specific connotation. Placed within the perspective of world modernization and the development of world civilization, the new form of human civilization transcends the entrenched patterns of different ideological issues, social system issues, and the debate between Chinese and Western cultures with a holistic vision and a global perspective, thereby elevating and expanding the theoretical and practical heights of the development of human civilization, and providing common value guidance and principles for resolving the crisis of human civilization and global governance issues. The new form of human civilization is a theoretical creation and practical condensation based on the fundamental principles of scientific socialism, the general logic of modernization development, and the exchange, mutual learning, and integration of different civilizations. It is a general summary of the many forms of existence of civilization—such as material wealth, political system, and ideological spirit—created by the path, theory, system, and culture of socialism with Chinese characteristics. The new form of human civilization is a contemporary developmental form shaped through the “Two Integrations” [5]5 The Two Integrations (两个结合) refers to the integration of the basic tenets of Marxism with China’s specific realities and with the best of China’s traditional culture. with Chinese civilization as the main body; it is a completely new concrete form of socialism based on the sublation of capitalist civilization and grounded in the category of socialist civilization; it is a Chinese-style pattern of modern civilization created based on the commonality of the laws of development of world modern civilization and the particularity of the Western modern civilization paradigm. It fully reflects the revolutionary, scientific, and advanced nature of the new form of human civilization, which integrates “socialism,” “modernization,” and “Chinese civilization.”

文明形态不等同于社会形态，也不能只是在社会形态理论视域下赋予其内涵和意义，任何一种文明形态都是在特定的地理环境、历史背景和民族传统中脱胎孕育、成长发展的。因此，人类文明新形态也有其特定的内涵。放置世界现代化和世界文明发展的视野，人类文明新形态以全局性眼光和全球性视域跨越了不同意识形态问题、社会制度问题、中西文化之争问题的窠臼，从而提升、扩展了人类文明发展的理论高度和实践高度，为化解人类文明危机和全球性治理问题提供了共同价值遵循和指导。人类文明新形态是基于科学社会主义基本原则、现代化发展的一般逻辑和不同文明交流互鉴融合的理论创造和实践凝结，是对中国特色社会主义道路、理论、制度和文化所创造出的物质财富、政治体制、思想精神等诸多文明存在形式的一种总体性归纳。人类文明新形态是在“两个结合”中塑造的以中华文明为主体的当代发展形态，是基于对资本主义文明扬弃和立足社会主义文明范畴的全新社会主义具体形态，是基于世界现代化文明发展规律的共性和西方现代化文明发展范式的个性而创造出现代化文明的中国式样态，充分反映出融汇了“社会主义”“现代化”“中华文明”的人类文明新形态的革命性、科学性、先进性。

II. Is the New Form of Human Civilization an “Ideal” or a “Reality” Pattern?

二、人类文明新形态是“理想”还是“现实”样态？

The new form of human civilization is a historical process that continuously extends, repairs, and elevates itself under the “ongoing state” of socialism with Chinese characteristics, reflecting the relations of ownership of the means of production, the relations among people in reality, and the distribution of the fruits of civilization in the course of civilizational evolution. The new form of human civilization, within the primary stage of socialism, reveals the possibility and reality of overall social progress and individual comprehensive development, taking human modernization and human liberation as the value orientation of civilizational development. Then, is the new form of human civilization an actual description of the true face of socialism with Chinese characteristics, or a normative construction oriented toward the future? Further, do we regard the new form of human civilization as an ideal with leading, guiding, and future-oriented qualities, or do we confirm it as a real state that has already transformed from the normative to the actual? We need to discard subjective value judgments and an attitude of evasion of reality through specious claims. By positioning the stage of development, level of development, and civilizational hierarchy of the new form of human civilization as a substantive structure, we must critically grasp complex social reality, objectively describe the problems and contributions of the 21st-century scientific socialist movement, as well as the limits and trends of human civilizational development, and reasonably grasp the real space and intellectual tension for interpreting the new form of human civilization from the unity of the subjective and the objective, and of theory and practice.

人类文明新形态是在中国特色社会主义“进行时态”下持续延展、修缮和提升的历史性过程，反映了文明演进过程中生产资料的所有制关系、现实中人与人的关系以及文明果实的分配关系。人类文明新形态是在社会主义初级阶段中敞显出社会整体进步与个体全面发展的可能性和现实性，以人的现代化与人的解放为文明发展的价值指向。那么人类文明新形态究竟是对中国特色社会主义真实面貌的实然描述，还是一种未来维度的应然建构？进一步说，我们究竟是把人类文明新形态视为一种具有引领性、导向性、未来性的理想，还是确证为已经从应然向实然转化的现实状态？我们需要摒弃主观的价值臆断和避实就虚的附会态度，通过对作为实体结构的人类文明新形态所处发展阶段、发展水平与文明层次的定位，批判性地把握复杂的社会现实，客观地描述21世纪科学社会主义运动的问题和贡献及其人类文明发展的限度和趋势，从主观与客观、理论与实践的统一中合理地把握解释人类文明新形态的现实空间与思想张力。

To conduct a comprehensive and in-depth scholarly examination and political scrutiny of the new form of human civilization from theoretical and practical dimensions: on the one hand, any form of civilization may be regarded as concrete rather than abstract, historical rather than transhistorical “substance,” and finding the common values and will inherent in the new form of human civilization becomes a real factor and rationale; on the other hand, academia, accustomed to political tendencies at the ideological level and obsessed with fantasies of abstract concepts of fairness and justice, has not placed the new form of human civilization within the theoretical perspective of Marx and Engels’ “two inevitables” [6]6 The “two inevitables” (两个必然) refers to the Marxist thesis that capitalism will inevitably be replaced by socialism, distinct from the “two noes” (两个决不会) which holds that such replacement cannot occur until the material conditions are fully mature., the “basic national condition of China’s long-term primary stage of socialism,” “China’s international status as the world’s largest developing country,” and the actual situation of “the long-term coexistence of socialist and capitalist systems” for consideration. Those somewhat hollow generalizations and descriptions of phenomena have given rise to misunderstandings of the connotation, status, and significance of the new form of civilization itself.

从理论和实践维度对人类文明新形态展开全方位、深层次的学理检审和政治透视，一方面，任何一种文明形态都可能被视为具体的而非抽象的、历史的而非超现实的“实体”，找到人类文明新形态内蕴的共同价值和意志成为现实的因素和理据；另一方面，学界惯于意识形态层面的政治倾向、热衷抽象的公平正义观念的幻想，并没有把人类文明新形态放置于马克思、恩格斯“两个决不会”的理论视域、“我国长期处于社会主义初级阶段的基本国情”“我国是世界上最大发展中国家的国际地位”以及“社会主义和资本主义制度长期共处并存”的实际状况予以考量，那些略显空洞的话语概括和现象描述衍生出对文明新形态本身内涵、地位和意义的误解。

Regarding the multidimensional content of the new form of human civilization, some scholars emphasize specific descriptions at the “subject level,” “concept level,” “model level,” and “goal level,” but they do not delineate a certain limit or space for interpreting the new form of human civilization. Consequently, the problem horizon involved reveals infinite openness in possible interpretive directions, inevitably risking the suspicion of “overinterpretation.” At the same time, they launch fierce criticism, censure, and rejection of the so-called “old civilization of capitalism,” presupposing some interpretive limitation on the new developments of contemporary capitalism. The relationship between the old and new forms of civilization is determined to be one of mutual exclusion and antagonistic struggle, unavoidably carrying a strong exclusivist and misleading tendency. If the discussion of the new form of human civilization cannot strive to make the subjective see the objective and dialectically integrate theory and practice, this proposition will degenerate into an idealized abstract concept that does not conform to objective reality. Among these, three most typical viewpoints—namely, the tendency to interpret the new form of human civilization as “ideologized,” “communist-ized,” or as a “new civilizational centrism”—ought to be clarified.

在关涉人类文明新形态的多维内容上，有学者认为注重对“主体层面”“理念层面”“模式层面”和“目标层面”的具体描述，但并没有对人类文明新形态划定某种解释的限度和空间，由此涉及的问题视域在可能的解释方向中敞显出无限的开放性，难免有“过度诠释”的嫌疑。同时对所谓“资本主义旧文明”展开激烈地针砭、诘难和拒斥，对当代资本主义的新发展预设了某种解释限制，新旧文明形态之间被确定为非此即彼、相互抵牾的斗争关系，不免带有浓厚的排他性与误导性倾向。对于人类文明新形态的探讨如若不能力求主观见之于客观、理论和实践辩证结合，就会使得这一命题沦为一种不符合客观实际的理想化的抽象概念，其中有三种最具典型性的观点，即把人类文明新形态“意识形态化”“共产主义化”以及视为“新文明中心主义”的解读倾向，理应予以澄明。

From an ideological perspective, some scholars have analyzed the new form of human civilization as a “civilizational transcendence form,” “theoretical creation form,” and “cultural integration form,” presenting schemas of value transcendence, civilizational superiority, and future development. This viewpoint divides modern civilization by social system, deducing the two social forms of capitalism and socialism, which coexist and struggle over the long term, into a capitalist civilizational form and a socialist civilizational form, infiltrating heterogeneous class positions, political intentions, and ideological values into the core of the new form of human civilization, greatly inflating its pronounced ideological attributes. The limitations of the bourgeoisie, the expansionary nature of capital, and the inherent contradictions of capitalism determine the developmental limits of Western modern civilization. Thus, Marx and Engels’ classic formulation of “the historical inevitability of capitalism being replaced by socialism” is extrapolated into “the historical inevitability of the capitalist civilizational form being replaced by the socialist civilizational form” or “the new form of human civilization that transcends capitalist civilization is consistent with socialism or communist society, that is, consistent with a society whose main communal form is the ‘association of free individuals’.” The new form of human civilization has thus become a “theoretical tool” and “political discourse” for class struggle, institutional rivalry, party competition, cultural confrontation, and civilizational conflict. This viewpoint points out the “barbaric,” “bloody,” “oppressive,” and “exploitative” characteristics of capitalist modernization and the “civilized,” “peaceful,” “free,” and “equal” features of Chinese-path modernization, simply understanding two forms of civilization that both belong to the category of human civilization as a relationship of new versus old, high versus low, and transcendence versus being transcended. This easily creates absolute opposition and antagonism between different forms of civilization within the vision of a community with a shared future for mankind, while simultaneously causing difficulties in eliminating civilizational estrangement, civilizational conflict, and civilizational superiority within the mainstream trend of exchanges and mutual learning among human civilizations. In reality, different forms of civilization are material and spiritual crystallizations that integrate path, theory, system, and culture, precipitated in human practical activities, possessing a certain degree of inheritance, stability, and progressiveness. Therefore, the interpretation of the new form of human civilization must be placed at the height of world civilization, from a global perspective and at the level of human subjectivity, transcending the barriers of time, space, ethnicity, culture, and national ideology.

从意识形态的角度出发，有学者分析了人类文明新形态作为“文明超越形态”“理论创造形态”“文化融合形态”呈现的价值超越性、文明优越性以及未来发展性的图式。这种观点以社会制度为标志划分现代文明，把资本主义和社会主义长期并存和斗争的两种社会形态推理为资本主义文明形态与社会主义文明形态，将异质的阶级立场、政治意图、思想价值渗透于人类文明新形态的内核，极大地膨化了其鲜明的意识形态属性。资产阶级的局限性、资本本性的扩张性以及资本主义内在矛盾性决定了西方现代文明的发展限度，由此把马克思、恩格斯关于“资本主义为社会主义所代替的历史必然性”的经典表述演绎成“资本主义文明形态被社会主义文明形态所代替的历史必然性”或“超越资本主义文明的人类文明新形态则和社会主义或共产主义社会相一致，也即和以‘自由人联合体’为主要共同体形式的社会相一致”，人类文明新形态俨然成为阶级斗争、制度较量、政党博弈、文化交锋和文明冲突的“理论工具”与“政治话语”。这一观点指明了资本主义现代化的“野蛮”“血腥”“压迫”“剥削”特质与中国式现代化的“文明”“和平”“自由”“平等”特征，把同属于人类文明范畴的两种文明形态简单地理解为新与旧、高与低、超越与被超越的关系，这极易制造在人类命运共同体视野中不同文明形态之间的绝对对立和对抗态势，同时在人类文明交流互鉴的主流趋势中造成难以消除文明隔阂、文明冲突以及文明优越的困境。实际上，不同文明形态都是沉淀在人类实践活动中集道路、理论、制度、文化于一体的物质和精神结晶，其具有一定的继承性、稳定性与先进性。因此，对于人类文明新形态的解读要放置于世界文明的高度、全球性的视野与人类主体性层面，跨越时空、种族、文化以及国家意识形态的藩篱。

From the perspective of ideal vision, some scholars believe that the new form of human civilization points toward the ultimate goal of realizing the free and comprehensive development of the individual, and its most ideal institutional carrier is communism, relatively objectively concluding that the new form of human civilization is a new form of civilization of socialism with Chinese characteristics, and also “the first form or primary form of communist civilization.” [7]7 This phrase refers to the view that the new form of human civilization constitutes the initial stage of communist civilization, a position advanced by some Chinese scholars but not official Party doctrine. The communist civilizational form is the highest form of human civilization in the true sense, while the new form of human civilization is an important stage and foundational process leading to communism. However, there are often commentators who regard the new form of human civilization as an ideal or “new value concept,” deducing the “substance” of this form into a “virtual entity” of spiritual yearning and future aspiration, abstracting it into an idealized concept and symbol. As an ideal civilizational form, it dons the mantle of communism, acquiring the theoretical power to replace, transcend, and sublate the capitalist civilizational form, becoming an ideological weapon for reconstructing a new international order and changing the development of human civilization. What needs to be clarified is that judging the degree of advancement and true face of a new form of civilization does not only involve examining its own practical transcendence, future orientation, and value direction from a theoretical level; more importantly, it requires testing the level and degree of civilizational development with practice as the standard, to examine whether it truly satisfies the justice demands and value needs of real people. The new form of human civilization is a practice concerning social reality. We need to pay attention to basic indicators in material, political, cultural-ethical, social, and ecological aspects, as well as to examine the real situation and state of real people in social development, rather than blindly treating potential, unrealized things and various trends indicating the future of social development as evidence of one’s own superiority, thereby falling into the outdated logical thinking of “civilizational transcendence theory,” “civilizational superiority theory,” and “civilizational replacement theory.” In short, in the narrative of the new form of human civilization, it is necessary both to establish the absolute value of socialism with Chinese characteristics and to constantly strive for a high degree of unity between the actual description and the normative judgment of China’s development.

基于理想愿景视角，有学者认为人类文明新形态指向实现人的自由全面发展的终极目标，其最理想的制度载体就是共产主义，较为客观地总结出人类文明新形态是中国特色社会主义新的文明形态，也是“共产主义文明的第一形态或初级形态”。共产主义文明形态是真正意义上的人类文明的最高形态，人类文明新形态则是通向共产主义的重要阶段与奠基过程。但是往往有论者将人类文明新形态视为一种理想或“新价值理念”，把这种形态的“实体”演绎成一种精神向往、未来憧憬的“虚体”，抽象成一种理想化的概念和符号。作为一种理想文明形态，披上了共产主义的衣钵，具有了代替、超越、扬弃资本主义文明形态的理论力量，成为重建国际关系新秩序和改变人类文明发展的思想武器。需要澄明的是，判定一种新的文明形态的先进程度和真实面相，不只是从理论层面审视其自身的现实超越性、未来引领性和价值指向性，更重要的是以实践为标准检验文明发展的水平和程度，以检审是否真正满足了现实的人的正义诉求和价值需求。人类文明新形态是关于社会现实的实践。我们需要关注物质、政治、精神、社会、生态等多方面的基本指标以及审视现实的人在社会发展中的真实处境和状态，而非一味地把潜在的尚未实现的东西与预示社会发展前途的种种趋势当作彰显自身优越性的依据，从而陷入“文明形态超越论”“文明形态优越论”“文明形态替代论”的陈旧逻辑思维之中。总之，在人类文明新形态的叙事中既要确立中国特色社会主义的绝对价值性，也需要不断地臻于对中国发展实然描述与应然论断的高度统一。

As a brand-new form of human civilization, the new form of human civilization has effectively resolved the fundamental question of “where human society is heading and how human civilization is to be constructed,” presenting the historical position of socialism with Chinese characteristics and Chinese civilization, and profoundly influencing and altering the old international order, the old global pattern, and the course of world civilization. Can we therefore conclude that the Western “civilization” and Eastern “barbarism” center-periphery world pattern and discourse system constructed by Western capitalism since the 15th century through its strong political, economic, and military power has been broken, and that the situation in which Chinese civilization was marginalized and mystified by the Western world has been completely changed? Many scholars have given an affirmative answer, arguing that the new form of human civilization, as a system of civilization characterized by equal dialogue, openness and inclusiveness, exchange and mutual learning, and drawing on diverse sources, has already broken free from the intellectual shackles of narrow nationalism and “Western-centrism,” shattered the outdated developmental logic that equates modernization with Westernization, and transcended the bipolar structure of the Western “subject-object dichotomy” paradigm, thereby “moving socialist civilization to the center of human civilization” and occupying “the central position and discursive advantage in global civilization.”

人类文明新形态作为人类崭新文明体，有力破解了“人类社会向何处去以及人类文明如何构建”的基本问题，呈现中国特色社会主义、中华文明的所处的历史方位，深刻影响和改变了国际旧秩序、全球旧格局以及世界文明进程。那么我们是否由此可以判定自15世纪以来西方资本主义依托强大政治、经济和军事实力建构起的西方“文明”和东方“野蛮”的边缘—中心的世界格局和话语体系已经被打破，以及中华文明被西方世界边缘化、赋魅化的处境已经被彻底改变？很多学者给出了肯定的答复，认为人类文明新形态作为一种平等对话、开放包容、交流互鉴、兼收并蓄的文明体系，已经挣脱了狭隘民族主义和“西方中心论”的思维束缚，打破了西方化即现代化的陈旧发展逻辑，超越了西方“主客二分”范式的两极结构，“使社会主义文明走向人类文明的中央”和占据“全球文明中心位置和话语优势”。

The center of gravity of world discourse has shifted from the West to the East, and the mainstream of modernized civilization has shifted from capitalism to socialism. True human civilization history has begun to unfold from prehistory toward history created by humanity itself. This process emphasizes the absolute differences and oppositions between different forms of civilization under the same historical conditions, inevitably leading to the problem of favoring one over the other and attending to one aspect while neglecting another. Academia tends to make a comprehensive comparison between the modernization history of primitive accumulation of capital from the 16th to the 18th century and Chinese-path modernization in the 21st century. On the one hand, it fails to dialectically treat the limitations of the logic of capital and its “great civilizing role,” [8]8 Marx uses the phrase “the great civilizing influence of capital” in the Grundrisse to describe capital’s historical role in breaking down barriers to development and creating a world market, while also noting its inherent contradictions and destructive effects. ignoring or obscuring the new characteristics and new developments of contemporary capitalism, making it difficult to rely on a community with a shared future for mankind to correct the erroneous tendency toward the monism or Westernization of world civilization. On the other hand, in order to enhance China’s cultural soft power and increase the influence of Chinese civilization, academia has gradually strengthened theoretical explanations of the limitations of Western-style modernization and capitalist civilization, to a certain extent forming an external discourse that characterizes Chinese-path modernization and the new form of human civilization as possessing “superior” and “transcendent” qualities. This easily gives rise to a binary mode of thinking that compares civilizations in terms of superiority and inferiority, strength and weakness, high and low within a Sino-Western comparative perspective. Those “practices that arbitrarily elevate a certain form of civilization based on the power or strength of its civilizational subject and regard it as a universal model of human civilization” have already led thought itself astray into the curse of national egoism and “new civilizational centrism.”

世界话语的重心从西方转向了东方，现代化文明的主流从资本主义转移到社会主义，真正的人类文明历史开始从史前史向自己创造的历史铺展，这个过程强调了同一历史条件下不同形态文明之间的绝对差异与对立，难免存在厚此薄彼、顾此失彼的问题。学界青睐于运用16世纪到18世纪资本主义原始积累的现代化历史同21世纪的中国式现代化作全盘比较，一方面，无法辩证地对待资本逻辑的局限和“伟大的文明作用”，忽略或遮蔽当代资本主义的新特征和新发展，难以依托人类命运共同体来矫正世界文明一元性或西方化的错误倾向；另一方面，为了增强我国文化软实力和提升中华文明影响力，学界逐步加强了对西方式现代化和资本主义文明局限性的理论阐释，一定程度上形成了肯定中国式现代化和人类文明新形态具有“优越”和“超越”特质的对外话语，由此极易衍生出中西比较视域下文明优劣、强弱、高低二元对立的思维模式。那些“凭借文明主体的强权或实力的某一文明形态予以无限拔高并视为人类文明的普遍模式的做法”，已经使思想自身误入民族本位主义与“新文明中心主义”的魔咒。

Only by completing the basic task of building socialist modernization and actively appropriating all the achievements of human civilization can the new form of human civilization break through the historical limits of modern capitalist civilization and the primary stage of socialist civilization, thereby revealing and manifesting its own world-historical significance. Of course, the process of advancing Chinese-path modernization is also the practical process of constructing the new form of human civilization. The two always maintain mutual reflection and positive interaction, aiming to solve the problem of China’s unbalanced and inadequate development, critique the inherent contradictions of the modern Western capitalist system, and construct the possibility of Marx’s future social form of civilization. This also implies the long-term and arduous nature of the world-historical significance projected by the new form of human civilization as it confronts our reality.

人类文明新形态唯有在完成建设社会主义现代化的基本任务和积极主动占有人类一切文明成果的基础上，才能突破现代资本主义文明的历史限度与社会主义文明的初级阶段，昭示和显现自身的世界历史意义。当然，推进中国式现代化的过程同样是构建人类文明新形态的实践过程，两者始终保持相互映照和良性互动，旨在解决我国不平衡不充分的发展问题、批判西方现代资本主义制度的内在悖结以及建构马克思未来社会文明形态的可能性，这也意味着人类文明新形态本身投射的世界历史意义同我们现实照面的长期性和艰巨性。

As a real-existing new form of human civilization, it both expands and transforms the original human civilization, endows human civilization with new forms and connotations, and is also positively adjusting and shaping the ecology and pattern of world civilization. Of course, on the one hand, the new form of human civilization is a new form of civilization created under the socialist system with Chinese characteristics, and its level and degree of development cannot exceed the primary stage of socialism. On the other hand, the new form of human civilization is a contemporary developmental form with Chinese civilization as its main body, and its civilizational essence and characteristics cannot be separated from China’s historical and cultural traditions. Therefore, we cannot simply assume that the new form of human civilization has completely transcended or replaced other forms of human civilization, nor can we arbitrarily conclude that the emergence of the new form of human civilization has already completely changed the civilizational pattern of “the West being strong and the East being weak.” We need to proceed from objective reality and integrate theory with practice. We should restore the inevitable logic and progressive essence of civilizational development to reality, rather than simply equating the trends and laws of civilizational development with the actual historical process and current situation. The new form of human civilization is also in dynamic development. Its inherent futuristic trends and developmental directions act on the present and also lead the future, thereby demonstrating the power of theoretical logic and practical logic in the process of transformation between the ideal and the real.

作为一种现实存在的人类文明新形态，既拓展和改造了原有的人类文明，又赋予人类文明新的形式和内涵，也正在良性调整与形塑世界文明生态与文明格局。当然，人类文明新形态一方面是中国特色社会主义制度下开创的文明新形态，其文明层次与发展程度不能逾越社会主义初级阶段；另一方面，人类文明新形态是以中华文明为主体的当代发展形态，其呈现出的文明精髓和文明特质无法剥离我国历史文化传统。因此，我们不能简单地认为人类文明新形态已经完全超越或代替了其他形态的人类文明，也不能武断得出人类文明新形态的出场已经彻底改变了“西强东弱”的文明格局。我们需要从客观实际出发、理论联系实际，应该把文明发展的必然逻辑和进步本质还原到现实，而不应该把文明发展的趋势与规律简单等同于现实的历史过程和当前状况。人类文明新形态也是动态发展的，其蕴藏的未来性趋势和发展方向作用于当下也引领未来，进而在理想与现实转化的过程中彰显理论逻辑与实践逻辑的力量。

III. How Is the Realistic Path of the New Form of Human Civilization to Be Constructed?

三、人类文明新形态的现实路径何以构建？

The new form of human civilization is the ideological essence refined by Chinese culture and the times, reflecting the complex process of a new civilizational paradigm moving from the abstract to the concrete, from theory to practice, and from the spontaneous to the self-conscious. Human civilization itself is a “matter of practice,” a dialectical process in which the scope, degree, and effect of development continuously expand, deepen, and improve. Practice, with its unique conscious initiative, social historicity, and future openness, determines the sustainability and plasticity of civilizational development. The new form of human civilization is an unfinished “project.” The ideas it embodies, such as “the concept of a community with a shared future for mankind,” “the new development concept,” and “the common values of all humanity,” need to be translated into operable specific plans and strategies, thereby creating a new form of civilization that is richer, more diverse, more advanced in level, and more excellent in quality. The continuous construction of the new form of human civilization is an inherent requirement for comprehensively building a modern socialist country and realizing the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation, and it is also an important link in truly transcending the narrow “Western-centrism,” “clash of civilizations theory,” and “civilizational superiority theory.” The question of the realistic path for constructing the new form of human civilization concerns the prerequisite question of whether there is a possibility, rationality, and legitimacy of a new type of civilization. Drawing on the academic analysis and reflection on the realistic path of the new form of human civilization, we seek a multi-dimensional and inclusive path, striving to achieve the rejuvenation of Chinese civilization and a new realm of human civilization at a new historical starting point and a higher level.

人类文明新形态是中华文化和时代淬炼的思想精华，折射出新的文明范式从抽象到具体、从理论到实践、从自发到自觉的复杂过程。人类文明本身就是“实践的事情”，是一个发展范围、程度和效果不断扩大、加深和提升的辩证过程。实践以其独有的自觉能动性、社会历史性和未来开放性决定了文明发展的可持续性和可塑性。人类文明新形态是一项未完成的“方案”，其蕴含的“人类命运共同体理念”“新发展理念”“全人类共同价值”等思想需要诉诸一种可操作的具体计划和策略，由此创造更加丰富多元、水平先进、品质卓越的文明新样态。对于人类文明新形态的持续构建是全面建设社会主义现代化国家和实现中华民族伟大复兴的应有之义，也是真正超越狭隘的“西方中心论”“文明冲突论”“文明优越论”的重要环节。关于构建人类文明新形态现实路径的问题，关涉是否存在一种新文明类型的可能性、合理性和正当性的前提问题。借助学界对人类文明新形态现实路径的分析与思考，寻求多维一体的包容性路径，力图在新的历史开端和更高层次上达到中华文明的复兴与人类文明的新境界。

Based on a global perspective to examine all fields of China’s social development, contemporary Chinese Marxist practice has produced a “system consciousness” of systematic construction in economy, politics, culture, ecology, rule of law, and other areas, as well as the new form of human civilization. “System consciousness” and the construction of the new form of human civilization unfold in an orderly manner and interact with each other, opening up a development direction that manifests “a rich constructiveness facing the future and an openness to deep expansion” through open, inclusive, and cooperative community practice. Based on the systemic concept and the principle of wholeness, the new form of human civilization is no longer a singular form of civilization, but a “new sample of civilization with organic unity” comprehensively formed by the coordinated development of five major fields: material civilization, political civilization, cultural-ethical progress, social civilization, and ecological civilization. [9]9 The “five major fields of civilization” correspond to the Five-Sphere Integrated Plan (五位一体), the Party’s overall plan for advancing socialism with Chinese characteristics by coordinating economic, political, cultural, social, and ecological development. The “five major fields of civilization” constitute the basic content of the new form of human civilization. The interactive construction, coordinated cooperation, and mutual promotion among various civilizational elements and fields advance the construction of a new development pattern and the improvement of high-quality development, guarantee whole-process people’s democracy and the people being the masters of the country, promote cultural confidence and self-reliance and a new process of socialist culture, initiate a higher level of common prosperity and enhance people’s well-being, and continuously build a community of life in which humanity and nature coexist harmoniously. Within the perspective of global development and the practice of human liberation, the new form of human civilization pursues “community” as its value goal. “It is a civilization that avoids the ‘clash of civilizations theory’ by building a community with a shared future for mankind.” This type of view advocates combining the establishment of system consciousness with the construction of specific fields, and by properly handling the relationships between universality and particularity, wholeness and partiality, comprehensiveness and focus, and reality and possibility, it promotes the realization of the ideal vision of the new form of human civilization. This line of thinking is the basic path for the continuous construction of the new form of human civilization.

基于全球视域以检审我国社会发展的各个领域，当代中国马克思主义实践产生了对经济、政治、文化、生态、法治等系统化建构的“体系意识”和人类文明新形态。“体系意识”与人类文明新形态建设有序展开和交互推进，以开放式、包容式、合作式的共同体实践开掘出一条彰显“面向未来的丰富建构性与纵深扩展的敞开性”的发展路向。基于系统观念和整体原则，人类文明新形态不再是单数形式的文明形态，而是由物质文明、政治文明、精神文明、社会文明和生态文明五大领域协调发展而综合形成的“有机统一性的文明新样本”。“五大文明领域”构成了人类文明新形态的基本内容。各文明要素和各文明领域之间互动建设、协调配合和互促互进，臻于推进构建新发展格局和提升高质量发展水平、保障全过程人民民主和人民当家作主、推动文化自信自强和社会主义文化新进程、开启更高层次的共同富裕和增进人民福祉以及持续打造人与自然和谐共生的生命共同体。在全球发展视野和人类解放实践中的人类文明新形态以追求“共同体”为价值目标，“它是以构建人类命运共同体来避免‘文明冲突论’的文明”。这一类观点主张树立体系意识与建构具体领域相结合，通过处理好普遍性与特殊性、整体性和局部性、全面性和重点性、现实性与可能性之间的关系以促成人类文明新形态理想图景的实现。这一思路是持续构建人类文明新形态的基本路径。

As a basic objective fact and state of existence in the human world of the twenty-first century, a community with a shared future for mankind condenses human intellectual spirit and common values, commits to resolving global governance problems and risk issues, and aims to satisfy the legitimate, equal, pluralistic, and reasonable common interest needs of people from different lands, ethnicities, and cultural regions, thereby seeking a higher-level and higher-tier form of civilization within human social relations and living spaces. “‘The new form of human civilization’ takes the building of a community with a shared future for mankind as an opportunity to reach a basic consensus on the existence and development of contemporary society.” The practice of building a community with a shared future for mankind is dedicated to improving and optimizing the state of human existence and way of life, becoming the conscious choice and optimal path for constructing a new form of human civilization. Building a community with a shared future for mankind is an urgent need for constructing a new form of human civilization. Building a community with a shared future for mankind, with world peace, universal security, common prosperity, openness and inclusiveness, and a clean and beautiful environment as its core content, should become the plan for advancing the construction of a new form of human civilization; the former is the inevitable requirement of the latter, the latter is the intended destination of the former, and both are unified in the practice of socialism with Chinese characteristics. This type of view recognizes that both a community with a shared future for mankind and the new form of human civilization are grounded in Marx and Engels’ world-historical perspective and the context of globalization, embedded with Chinese wisdom and cultural genes, and embody the common values of all humanity; they rely on each other, complement each other, interact, and are jointly constructed, becoming the standard guiding human development and progress. This line of thought tends to forge a path-construction approach of joint and integrated fusion.

作为21世纪人类世界一个基本的客观事实与存在状态，人类命运共同体凝聚人类智识精神与共同性价值，致力于解决全球性治理问题和风险问题，旨在满足异邦、异族、异文化区域的人们的正当平等、多元合理的共同利益需求，进而在人的社会关系和生活空间中寻求更高水平、更高层级的文明形态。“‘人类文明新形态’以构建人类命运共同体为契机达成当代社会存在和发展的基本共识。”构建人类命运共同体的实践致力于改善和优化人类的生存状态与生活方式，成为构建人类文明新形态的自觉选择和最佳路径。构建人类命运共同体是建设人类文明新形态的迫切需要。建设一个以世界持久和平、普遍安全、共同繁荣、开放包容、清洁美丽为核心内容的人类命运共同体理应成为推进人类文明新形态建设的方案，前者是后者的必然要求，后者是前者的意向所归，两者又统一于中国特色社会主义实践。这一类观点认识到人类命运共同体与人类文明新形态均立足于马克思、恩格斯世界历史视野和全球化背景、内嵌中国智慧和文化基因以及凝聚全人类共同价值，两者互为依托、互补相济、联动并建，成为引领人类发展和进步的圭臬。这一思路倾向于熔铸一种联袂融合式的路径建构方式。

The academic community has conducted multi-faceted, multi-perspective, and multi-disciplinary discussions on how to construct a new form of human civilization, striving to achieve a path construction that is faithful to facts with rich evidence, problem-oriented with highlighted priorities, clear in thought with rigorous logic, and clear in objectives with forceful measures, possessing strong rationality, foresight, and operability. This means that constructing a new form of civilization has reached a high degree of theoretical and practical consciousness. Of course, the new form of human civilization is a complex project involving multiple fields, races, arenas, and cultures, and its path construction is closely related, integrated, and synergistic with issues such as globalization, modernization, informatization, and the community with a shared future for mankind. We need to directly address the fundamental issues of path construction: the issues of human development subjectivity, justice, and sharing, to foster, in a broader sense, a value consensus concerned with the future and destiny of humanity and the universalization of public welfare, and to continue to enhance and broaden the public space and development quality of human subjective existence, life, and interaction, “forming feasible plans that help elevate the realm of human civilization’s existence.”

学界对于如何建构人类文明新形态的问题展开了多方面、多视域、多学科的研讨，力求在路径建构上做到忠于事实且丰富论据、问题导向且突出重点、思路清晰且逻辑严谨以及目标明确且举措有力，具有较强的合理性、前瞻性和可操作性，这意味着构建文明新形态达到了高度的理论自觉与实践自觉。当然，人类文明新形态是一项涉及多领域、多种族、多场域和多文化的复杂工程，其路径建构与全球化、现代化、信息化、命运共同体等议题有着密切的关联性、交融性和协同性。我们需要直抵路径建构的根本问题：人类发展主体性、正义性和共享性问题，在更广泛意义上促成一种关切人类前途命运和公共福祉普遍化的价值共识，继续提升和拓宽人类主体性生存、生活与交往的公共性空间和发展质量，“形成有助于提升人类文明生存境界的可行方案”。

First, construct a dynamic system for the development of the new form of human civilization. The principal contradiction in society [10]10 The principal contradiction in society refers to the contradiction between unbalanced and inadequate development and the people’s ever-growing needs for a better life, as identified by the 19th National Congress of the CPC in 2017. defines and involves the basic nature and domain of the new form of human civilization; it is both a constraining factor hindering the generation of the new form of human civilization and a basic driving force for creating a new paradigm of civilization. Therefore, the process of constructing a high-level and high-tier new form of human civilization is an exploratory process of finding “multiple optimal solutions” to resolve the problems of unbalanced and inadequate development across various social fields and multiple optimal routes to meet the people’s needs for a better life. These consensus-based and forward-looking plans are cast into the new form of human civilization. Secondly, “globalization,” as the internal logic and engine of contemporary human civilization development, accelerates the efficiency and level of constructing the new form of human civilization by advocating and promoting “win-win cooperation in the world economy,” “multipolar co-governance in global politics,” “continuous innovation in international law,” and “mutual integration and coexistence of different civilizations.” The “resistances” in the process of globalization, such as governance deficits, trust deficits, peace deficits, and development deficits, have also consciously transformed into powerful driving forces for people to reflect on and critique capitalist globalization and to create a new type of globalization and a new form of civilization that is open, inclusive, universally beneficial, balanced, and shared. Thirdly, modernization embeds deep developmental logic and civilizational logic, becoming an important driving force for pioneering the new form of human civilization. Chinese-path modernization, led by the Communist Party of China, drives material and spiritual productive forces, appeals to political leadership, organizational mobilization, and ideological guidance, aggregates social mobilization capacity, cultural soft power, and ecological and environmental carrying capacity, to condense a powerful synergy that coordinates, balances, and balances various fields and levels. Finally, the new form of human civilization originates from the innovative driving force of adapting Marxism to the Chinese context and the needs of the times. Adapting Marxism to the Chinese context and the needs of the times has cultivated and rooted the soul of the original human civilization with Chinese characteristics and the features of the times, refining the new form, charm, temperament, and essence of human civilization, and deriving a civilizational paradigm of diversified modernization rather than Western-style modernization. These views converge multiple driving and supporting forces for constructing the new form of human civilization, providing an inexhaustible driving force for promoting and ensuring the sustainable development of the new form of human civilization. This line of thought implies that a more enduring construction path becomes possible.

第一，构筑人类文明新形态发展的动力体系。社会主要矛盾规定和涉及了人类文明新形态的基本性质和领域，它既是阻碍人类文明新形态生成的制约因素，也是开创新的文明范式的基本动力。因此，构建高水平与高层次人类文明新形态的过程就是找到化解社会各领域发展不平衡不充分问题的“多个最优解”和满足人民对美好生活需要的多条最佳路线的探索过程，这些共识性和前瞻性的方案浇筑成人类文明新形态。其次，“全球化”作为当代人类文明发展的内在逻辑与引擎，在倡导和推动“世界经济的合作共赢”“全球政治的多极共治”“国际法律的不断创新”和“不同文明的交互共融”中加速提升人类文明新形态建构的效率和水平。全球化进程中的治理赤字、信任赤字、和平赤字和发展赤字等“阻力”也自觉转化成了人们反思和批判资本主义全球化，打造开放包容、普惠平衡、共享共赢的新型全球化和新型文明形态的强大动力；再次，现代化内嵌深层的发展逻辑和文明逻辑，成为开拓人类文明新形态的重要动力。中国共产党领导的中国式现代化驱动物质生产力和精神生产力，诉诸政治领导力、组织号召力和思想引领力，聚合社会动员力、文化软实力和生态环境承载力，以凝结成统筹、协调、平衡各领域和各层级的强大合力。最后，人类文明新形态源于马克思主义中国化时代化的创新动力。马克思主义中国化时代化对原有的人类文明进行具有中国特色和时代特点的培根铸魂，淬炼了人类文明崭新的形态、神韵、气质和精髓，衍生出多元性现代化而非西方式现代化的文明范式。这些观点汇聚了构建人类文明新形态的多种驱动力量和支撑力量，为推动和保障人类文明新形态持续发展提供不竭动力。这一思路意味着一种更为持久的建设路径成为可能。

Second, implement a people-centered comprehensive modernization, returning to the essence of human free individuality. The “human” in the new form of human civilization establishes the subjective status of humanity and stands at the height of the universal species existence of humans, while “civilization” points to the degree of human free development and the state of liberation. This means that the critique of the foundations of capitalist society and the dialectical sublation of existing forms of civilization take the real human being as the starting point and foothold, are premised on possessing the accumulated fruits of civilization over generations, and strive to realize the “association of free individuals.” The new form of human civilization focuses on the modern form of humanity, confirms the essential power of humans and their subjective status, fully manifests the subjective value and creative power of humanity, and realizes the common development of human society and the subjective liberation of humanity. In the New Era, adhering to the people-centered development thought transcends the logic centered on capital and the development logic based on the dependence on things, breaks free from the ideological shackles of egoism, rationalism, liberalism, technologism, and secularism dominated by Western modern civilization, dissolves the “alien domination order” and “alien coercive forces” that suppress humans themselves, “ensures that all people have a greater sense of gain in joint construction and shared development, continuously promotes the comprehensive development of people and common prosperity for all people,” and continuously turns the people’s aspiration for a better life into reality, thereby truly enhancing the subjects’ civilizational consciousness and civilizational self-awareness.

第二，贯彻以人民为中心的全面现代化，回归于人的自由个性的本质。人类文明新形态中的“人类”确立了人的主体性地位和立足人的普遍的类存在高度，“文明”则指向了人的自由发展程度和解放状态，这意味着对资本主义社会根基的批判和对既有文明形态的辩证扬弃是以现实的人为出发点和落脚点，是以占有世代累积的文明果实为前提的，力求实现“自由人的联合体”。人类文明新形态聚焦人的现代化形态，确证人的本质力量和人的主体性地位，充分彰显人的主体性价值与创造性力量，实现人类社会的共同发展和人的主体性解放。新时代坚持以人民为中心的发展思想超越了以资本为中心的逻辑和以物的依赖性为基础的发展逻辑，挣脱西方现代文明统摄的利己主义、理性主义、自由主义、技术至上主义、世俗主义的思想羁轭，消解了压制人自身的“异己性支配秩序”和“异己性强制力量”，“保证全体人民在共建共享发展中有更多获得感，不断促进人的全面发展、全体人民共同富裕”，不断把人民对美好生活的向往变为现实，从而真正提升主体的文明意识和文明自觉。

Third, promoting harmonious yet diverse, inclusive and mutually enriching civilizational exchanges, and building a community with a shared future for mankind. Marx believed that the development and succession of human civilization are always accomplished through constant contradictions and class antagonisms. Placed in the era of globalization, the antagonistic contradictions and conflicts in fields such as material interests and ideology in human society have become the main factors restricting the progress of world civilization; seeking the pluralistic unity and harmonious coexistence of various civilizational types amid non-antagonistic contradictions and differences has become the law followed in constructing a new form of human civilization. Within homogeneous civilizational forms, countries are basically of the same ethnic origin, share the same cultural roots, and have relatively consistent levels of development, whereas within heterogeneous civilizational forms, those countries and peoples that have mistakenly tasted the bitter fruits of war are also seeking coexistence and co-prosperity among different civilizations. Whether it is European integration, the African Union, or ASEAN and APEC, these regional cooperation organizations are respectively conducting deep civilizational dialogue and cooperation in multiple fields and aspects. By formulating and establishing a series of laws, regulations, institutional mechanisms, and departmental organizations, they jointly construct a "civilizational community" featuring political consultation, universal prosperity, mutual cultural learning, security and mutual trust, and green development. A community with a shared future for mankind is the prerequisite and field for the generation and continuous construction of a new form of human civilization. Within a community with a shared future for mankind, taking the diversity, equality, and inclusiveness of world civilizations as construction principles, we promote "dialogue among different civilizations and religions, encourage the strengthening of cultural exchanges and people-to-people interactions between countries,"[11]11 Xi Jinping, "Working Together to Build a Community with a Shared Future for Mankind," speech at the United Nations Office at Geneva, January 18, 2017. support the equal, inclusive, and integrated development of different civilizational forms under specific historical traditions, cultural backgrounds, and national conditions, jointly create an international environment for the harmonious coexistence of different civilizational forms, break down geographical restrictions, racial discrimination, and political barriers to civilizational exchange and mutual learning, form a cooperative and dialogic mechanism for civilizational exchange, and build a new form of civilization that better manifests the subjectivity and developmental diversity of one's own civilization and conforms to the general laws of world modernization and the laws of human social development.

第三，促进和而不同、兼收并蓄的文明交流，构建人类命运共同体。马克思认为，人类文明的发展与更替都是在经常性的矛盾与阶级对抗中完成的。置于全球化时代，人类社会的物质利益、意识形态等领域的对抗性矛盾与冲突已成为制约世界文明进步的主因，在非对抗性矛盾与差异中寻求各种文明类型多元统一、和谐共生则成为构建人类文明新形态所遵循的规律。在同质文明形态中各国基本上种族同源、文化同根、发展程度相对一致，而在异质文明形态中那些曾误食战争苦果的国家和人民也正在谋求不同文明间的共生共存。无论是欧盟一体化、非洲统一组织，抑或东盟、亚太经合组织，这些区域性合作组织都分别在多领域、多方面进行深度文明对话和合作，通过制定和设立一系列法律法规、制度机构和部门组织，共同构筑一个政治协商、普遍繁荣、文化互鉴、安全互信以及绿色发展的“文明共同体”。人类命运共同体是人类文明新形态生成与持续构建的前提和场域。在人类命运共同体中以世界文明多样性、平等性和包容性为建构原则，推动“不同文明和宗教对话，鼓励加强各国文化交流和民间往来”，支持在特定历史传统、文化背景和具体国情中的不同文明形态之间的平等包容和融合发展，共同营造不同文明形态和谐共生的国际环境，打破文明交流互鉴的地缘限制、种族歧视和政治壁垒，形成合作式对话的文明交流机制，建设更加彰显自身文明主体性与发展多样性特点、符合世界现代化发展一般规律与人类社会发展规律的文明新形态。

Fourth, shifting from a "critical form of civilization" to a "constructive form of civilization." Since modern times, the history of human thought has focused on the debate between capitalism and socialism, behind which lies the basic logic of comparing the differences between the two and judging which is superior. Marx used historical materialism to explain the transience of capitalist development and the inevitability of the emergence of scientific socialism, thereby establishing the antagonistic relationship between capitalism and socialism. However, today, class antagonisms at the institutional level are increasingly transforming into estrangement and conflicts of interest between different civilizations, thus causing a global crisis in civilizational development. In the general trend of a shared future for the international community and the tide of globalization, we must re-examine the differences in the stages of social development between China and the West, the diversity of forms of human civilization, and the long-term nature of the evolution of higher-order social systems. We must shift from a mindset of criticizing the original form of civilization to a rationale for constructing a new form of civilization, achieving a transformation in narrative paradigm from critical to constructive within the theoretical system of historical materialism. This does not mean that the class struggle function and revolutionary nature of historical materialism have undergone a fundamental change; rather, in the face of "the real possibility of human alienation and self-destruction, we contribute to creating a new form of human civilization through positive constructive practice."[12]12 Reference to the Frankfurt School critical theorist's concept of constructive practice; the specific source is not identified in the original text. The gradual transformation and elevation from a "critical form of civilization" to a "constructive form of civilization" does not indicate a weakening of the critical function of historical materialism; on the contrary, it precisely demonstrates that, on the basis of theoretical critique, we discard the various ills of capitalist civilization while simultaneously accumulating and absorbing all the civilizational achievements of the development of human productive forces to map out a new schema for human civilization.

第四，从批判性转向“建构性的文明形态”。近代以来人类思想史聚焦资本主义与社会主义之争，其背后隐匿着比较两者差异评判孰优孰劣的基本逻辑。马克思运用历史唯物主义阐释资本主义发展的暂时性与科学社会主义发生的必然性，由此确立了资本主义和社会主义的对立关系。但是在今天制度层面的阶级对抗日益转化成了不同文明之间的隔阂与利益冲突，从而造成全球性文明发展危机。在国际社会命运与共的大趋势和全球化的潮流中重新审视中西社会发展阶段差异性、人类文明形态的多样性以及更高阶社会制度演进的长期性，从批判原有文明形态的思路转向为建构文明新形态的理路，在修缮历史唯物主义的理论体系中实现从批判性向建构性的叙事范式转换。这并不意味着历史唯物主义的阶级斗争功能与革命属性发生了根本性的变化，而是在面对“人类存在异化和自我毁灭的现实可能性，通过积极的建构性实践为开创人类文明的新形态作出贡献”。从“批判性的文明形态”逐渐转变与提升为一种“建构性的文明形态”，这个过程并不表明历史唯物主义批判功能的弱化，恰恰说明在理论批判的基础上摒弃资本主义文明的种种弊端，同时积淀和汲取人类生产力发展的所有文明成果而擘画人类文明的新图式。

As a theoretical category of contemporary Chinese Marxism, the new form of human civilization emphasizes grasping from an overall perspective the dimensions of the subjective significance, pluralistic development, and common values of human society. It clarifies that the new form of civilization created by socialism with Chinese characteristics has pushed Chinese civilization to a new historical height and developmental realm within the perspective of globalization, as well as the original contributions it has made to the development of world civilization. The speculation and clarification regarding the definition and connotation of the concept of the new form of human civilization, its value implications, and the construction of its path not only extend the research results and ideas of predecessors but also represent a deepening of this theoretical proposition and a conscious practice. The new form of human civilization is grounded in the international situation of changes unseen in a century and the historical orientation of socialism with Chinese characteristics entering the New Era. It focuses on the overall process of human society advancing from lower to higher levels and the inevitable trend of the vigorous development of the cause of scientific socialism in China. Relying on Marxist thought on civilization and based on the practice of Chinese-path modernization, it conducts a profound examination and critique of modern Western civilizational forms, carries out the creative transformation and innovative development of traditional Chinese civilization, and thereby attains the overall progress of a community with a shared future for mankind and the liberation of humanity.

人类文明新形态作为当代中国马克思主义的理论范畴，强调从总体上把握人类社会的主体性意义、多元性发展和共同性价值等向度，明确中国特色社会主义创造的文明新形态在全球化视域中把中华文明推至新的历史高度和发展境界，以及为世界文明发展作出的原创性贡献。关于人类文明新形态概念和内涵界定、价值意蕴以及路径构建问题的思辨与澄明，既是对前人研究成果与思路的拓延，也是对这一理论命题的深化和实践自觉。人类文明新形态立足于世界百年未有之大变局的国际情势和中国特色社会主义进入新时代的历史方位，着眼于人类社会从低级向高级进阶的总体进程和科学社会主义事业在中国蓬勃发展的必然趋势，以马克思主义文明思想为依托，以中国式现代化实践为依据，对现代西方文明形态予以深刻检视与批判，对传统中华文明进行创造性转化和创新性发展，进而臻于人类命运共同体的整体进步和人类解放。

Online editor: Jing Mu

网络编辑：静穆