The Basic Orientation of the New Form of Human Civilization in the Course of World History

Since the founding of the Communist Party of China, theoretically, the basic tenets of Marxism have been continuously integrated with China’s concrete realities and continuously integrated with the fine traditional Chinese culture, resulting in three theoretical leaps. [1]1 The three theoretical leaps refer to Mao Zedong Thought, the theory of socialism with Chinese characteristics (including Deng Xiaoping Theory, the important thought of Three Represents, and the Scientific Outlook on Development), and Xi Jinping Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era. Practically, through the victory of the New Democratic Revolution, socialist revolution and construction, reform and opening up and socialist modernization, and then socialism with Chinese characteristics entering the New Era, China has pioneered a new path of Chinese-path modernization from theory to practice. It is precisely on the basis of this new path of Chinese-path modernization that a “new form of human civilization” has been further created. And this “new form of human civilization” provides a substantive foundation for building a community with a shared future for mankind and propels the community with a shared future for mankind practically into the scientific track of world history in the 21st century.

自中国共产党成立以来，从理论上看，马克思主义基本原理不断与中国实际相结合，不断与中华优秀传统文化相结合，形成了三次理论飞跃。从实践上看，经过新民主主义革命的胜利、社会主义革命和建设，到改革开放和社会主义现代化建设，再到中国特色社会主义进入新时代，中国从理论到实践开创了中国式现代化新道路。正是以这一中国式现代化新道路为基础，进一步开创了“人类文明新形态”。而这一“人类文明新形态”为构建人类命运共同体提供了实存基础，并助推人类命运共同体实践地进入了21世纪世界历史行进的科学轨道。

01

01

The New Form of Human Civilization Created by the New Path of Chinese-Path Modernization

中国式现代化新道路创造的人类文明新形态

A community with a shared future for mankind is a process of development from “idea” to “substance”; otherwise it remains merely an “idea.” According to the laws governing the course of world history, this substantive foundation has been historically forged into a “new form of human civilization” along the journey of the new path of Chinese-path modernization. This new form of human civilization has already unfolded the basic orientation of the world-historical process of “new path of Chinese-path modernization — new form of human civilization — community with a shared future for mankind.” When a mode of production reaches the level of creating a new form of civilization, it provides the most reliable practical foundation for the world-historical process. This new form of civilization will lead world history to fulfill its sacred mission as originally intended, and once the community with a shared future for mankind obtains this substantive foundation, it will open up a new course for world history.

人类命运共同体是从“理念”到“实存”的发展过程，否则就仅仅是一“理念”而已。按照世界历史行进规律，这一实存基础在中国式现代化新道路的征程中，被历史地铸成为“人类文明新形态”。这一人类文明新形态已经开展出了“中国式现代化新道路—人类文明新形态—人类命运共同体”的世界历史进程的基本定向。当一种生产方式达到创造新文明形态的程度的时候，便为世界历史进程提供了最为可靠的现实基础。这一新文明形态将引领世界历史按照原初的既定目的完成历史赋予它的神圣使命，人类命运共同体在获得这一实存基础之后便开拓出世界历史的新进程。

First, the new form of human civilization did not emerge spontaneously in the course of world history; it is therefore not a “natural historical process.” This world-historical task of creating a new form of civilization was accomplished by the Communist Party of China on the basis of its conscious grasp of Marx’s laws of world history, in the practice of building socialism with Chinese characteristics, and also on the basis of exchange and mutual learning among countries aspiring to a “universal civilization.” The new form of human civilization emerged in response to the search for certainty amid the uncertainty of the “changes unseen in a century” in the world. The question of where world history was headed after the Cold War pushed world history into the confusion of uncertainty, and the financial crisis and the emergence of “deglobalization” plunged the world-historical process into unprecedented uncertainty. The “wheel of history,” as a powerful objective force independent of human will, inevitably seeks certainty. In this sense, the new form of human civilization is not a “natural necessity” but a “historical necessity.” It was precisely against the backdrop of responding to numerous uncertain factors that the new form of human civilization was born, thereby once again pointing the direction for the world-historical process. Admittedly, the new form of human civilization is a phased completion of the world-historical task of historical materialism, a product of a specific historical stage. This means that the new form of human civilization remains a link in the ongoing process of world history, a transitional phase that connects the past and the future. The new form of civilization will inevitably be sublated by an even higher form of civilization, until the complete arrival of the new form of civilization envisioned by Marx and the ultimate completion of the world-historical task.

首先，人类文明新形态不是在世界历史行进中自发形成的，因而不是一个“自然历史过程”。这一创造新文明形态的世界历史任务是由中国共产党在自觉到马克思的世界历史规律的基础上，在中国特色社会主义建设的实践中创造出来的，也是在世界各国向往“普遍文明”的交流互鉴基础上创造出来的。人类文明新形态是在世界“百年未有之大变局”的不确定性中寻求确定性中应运而生的。冷战后世界历史向何处去的问题把世界历史推向了不确定性的迷茫，而金融危机和“逆全球化”的出现，使世界历史进程遭遇了前所未有的不确定性。“历史的车轮”作为强大的不以人的意志为转移的客观力量，必然要寻求到确定性。在这个意义上，人类文明新形态不是“自然的必然”，但却是“历史的必然”。正是在应对诸多不确定性因素的背景下诞生了人类文明新形态，从而为世界历史进程再一次指明了方向。诚然，人类文明新形态是历史唯物主义世界历史任务的阶段性完成，是特定历史阶段的产物。这就意味着人类文明新形态仍然是世界历史行进过程中的一个环节，仍然是承上启下的过渡阶段。新文明形态必定要进一步被更加高级的文明形态所扬弃，直到马克思设想的新文明形态的完全到来以及世界历史任务的最终完成。

Second, the new form of human civilization aims to transcend the form of civilization dominated by the logic of capital and to break free from the “clash of civilizations” caused by the logic of capital. Therefore, the core of the new form of human civilization lies in sublating the civilizational conflict of the logic of capital and exploring possible paths to human peace. Sublating the civilizational conflict of the logic of capital does not mean completely eliminating the logic of capital, but rather subsuming the logic of capital as a “means” within the world-historical process, correcting the logic of capital through the new form of “universal civilization,” thereby continuing to unleash the positive significance of the logic of capital for world history. The universal form of intercourse in world history advocated by the new form of human civilization is historically concretized in the international relations pattern of “seeking common ground while reserving differences — win-win cooperation,” and establishes a new concept of civilization that transcends Cold War thinking and zero-sum games. The universal principle given by this new form of civilization is: insist that each country and nation follow its own development path, but at the same time not undermine the development paths of other countries; insist on the special cultural traditions and core interests of each country and nation, but at the same time not interfere with the cultural traditions and core interests of other countries. Hence the new form of human civilization is “difference within sameness” and “sameness within difference,” that is, a differentiated unity. Consequently, the mode of thinking and fundamental law of the new form of human civilization is Marx’s principle of historical dialectics.

其次，人类文明新形态旨在超越资本逻辑主导的文明形态，摆脱资本逻辑导致的“文明的冲突”。因此，人类文明新形态的核心在于扬弃资本逻辑的文明冲突，探索人类和平的可能之路。扬弃资本逻辑的文明冲突不是彻底消除资本逻辑，而是把资本逻辑作为“手段”扬弃在世界历史的进程之中，通过“普遍文明”新形态对资本逻辑的修正，从而继续发挥资本逻辑对于世界历史的积极意义。人类文明新形态倡导的世界历史普遍交往形式历史性地落实在“求同存异—合作共赢”这一国际关系格局，并确立了超越冷战思维和零和博弈的新文明观。这一新文明形态给出的普遍法则是：坚持每个国家和民族走自己的发展道路，但同时不破坏其他国家的发展道路；坚持每个国家和民族特殊的文化传统和核心利益，但同时不干涉其他国家的文化传统和核心利益。因而人类文明新形态是“同中之异”和“异中之同”，即有差别的统一性，因而人类文明新形态的思维方式和根本规律是马克思的历史辩证法原理。

Third, as a “universal civilization” for humanity, the new form of human civilization provides a substantive foundation for a community with a shared future for mankind. The new form of human civilization did not arise contingently but possesses world-historical necessity. This necessity is, on the one hand, inherent in the original intention of the path of Chinese-path modernization; on the other hand, it is inherent in the conception of a community with a shared future for mankind. Thus, the new form of human civilization serves as an intermediate link between the path of Chinese-path modernization and the promotion of building a community with a shared future for mankind, thereby acquiring a dual necessity of “causality and purpose”: the causal necessity of the path of Chinese-path modernization and the purposive necessity of a community with a shared future for mankind. Therefore, the new form of human civilization constitutes the substantive foundation for building a community with a shared future for mankind. Most importantly, the new form of human civilization establishes “common values for all humanity” in the exchange and mutual learning of cultures, thereby laying the value foundation of a universal civilization for a community with a shared future for mankind. Common values for all humanity are the inner soul of a “universal civilization.” The new form of human civilization establishes the common values for all humanity of “peace, development, fairness, justice, democracy, and freedom” at the most fundamental spiritual level. This differs from the “universal values” that forcibly impose the particular values of one country as common values. If common values for humanity cannot be established, the new form of human civilization cannot become a model leading to a “universal civilization.”

再次，人类文明新形态作为人类的“普遍文明”为人类命运共同体提供了实存基础。人类文明新形态不是偶然创生的，而是具有世界历史的必然性。这一必然性一方面蕴含在中国式现代化道路的原初意向之中；另一方面蕴含在人类命运共同体的构想当中。因而人类文明新形态是中国式现代化道路和推动构建人类命运共同体之间的中介环节，由此它获得了“因果—目的”双重必然性，即中国式现代化道路的因果必然性和人类命运共同体的目的必然性。因此，人类文明新形态构成了构建人类命运共同体的实存基础。最为重要的是，人类文明新形态在文化交流互鉴中确立了“全人类共同价值”，从而为人类命运共同体奠定了普遍文明的价值观基础。全人类共同价值是“普遍文明”的内在灵魂。人类文明新形态在最根本的精神基础上确立了“和平、发展、公平、正义、民主、自由”的全人类共同价值。这不同于把某一个国家的特殊价值强行作为共同价值的“普世价值”。如果不能够确立人类共同价值，人类文明新形态就无法成为通向“普遍文明”的典范。

Finally, the new form of human civilization is the platform for the progress of world history in the 21st century. World history is not the abstract “world spirit” in Hegel’s sense; rather, it must rely on forms of human civilization to open up its path forward. In its immediacy, world history is an organic whole formed on the basis of states and nations, but the intercourse among nation-states is not merely intercourse of pure economic interests; it simultaneously constructs a new form of human civilization on the road to a “universal civilization.” Therefore, sublating the particularity of the civilizations of nation-states and leaping to a “universal civilization” gives rise to the new form of human civilization. On the one hand, the new form of human civilization is based on the particular civilizations of nation-states; on the other hand, it points toward a “universal civilization.” Hence, those forms of civilization that can represent the direction of world-historical progress constitute the platform for the operation of world history. The new form of civilization created by socialism with Chinese characteristics, adhering to Marx’s concern for human freedom and liberation, takes seeking happiness for the people of all countries and seeking common good for the world as its goals, thereby providing a platform for the progress of world history oriented toward a “universal civilization.” The world today still contains different social formations, namely the two major formations of capitalist society and socialist society. And how to transcend the opposition and conflict between social formations, how to transcend the hegemony and prejudice of capitalist ideology — the new form of human civilization opens up new space for eliminating the opposition between social formations and ideological conflict, thereby acquiring world-historical significance.

最后，人类文明新形态是21世纪世界历史的行进平台。世界历史不是黑格尔意义上抽象的“世界精神”，而是要诉诸人类文明形态来开辟它前行的道路。世界历史在直接性上是以国家和民族为基础形成的有机整体，但各民族国家之间的交往不仅仅是单纯经济利益上的交往，而是在通向“普遍文明”的道路上同时构筑着人类文明新形态。因此，扬弃各民族国家文明的特殊性而跃迁为“普遍文明”，便产生了人类文明新形态。人类文明新形态一方面以民族国家各自的特殊文明为基础，同时又指向“普遍文明”，因而那些能够代表世界历史进步方向的文明形态，便构成了世界历史的运行平台。中国特色社会主义创造的新文明形态，秉承着马克思的人类自由和解放的关怀，把为世界各国人民谋幸福和为世界谋大同作为目标，因此为世界历史提供了“普遍文明”向度的行进平台。当今世界仍然存在不同的社会形态，即资本主义社会和社会主义社会两大形态。而如何超越社会形态的对立和冲突，如何超越资本主义意识形态的霸权和偏见，人类文明新形态为消除社会形态对立和意识形态冲突打开了新的空间，因而具有了世界历史意义。

What is the new form of human civilization? If this new form of human civilization cannot contribute to the common interests of humanity, it cannot be the foundation of a “universal civilization”; and if it is not the foundation of a “universal civilization,” it does not possess universal world-historical significance; and if it does not possess world-historical significance, it will not “practically” propel the promotion of building a community with a shared future for mankind into the world-historical process. Therefore, the world-historical significance of the new form of human civilization is the prerequisite for it to serve as the substantive foundation of a community with a shared future for mankind.

什么是人类文明新形态？如果这种人类文明新形态不能对人类的普遍利益有所帮助，就不能是“普遍文明”的基础；而如果不是“普遍文明”的基础，就不具有普遍的世界历史意义；而如果不具有世界历史意义，就不会把推动构建人类命运共同体“实践地”推向世界历史进程。因此，人类文明新形态的世界历史意义，是它作为人类命运共同体实存基础的前提。

02

02

The Position of the New Form of Human Civilization in the Logical Map of the World-Historical Process

人类文明新形态在世界历史进程逻辑图谱中的位置

The objective inevitability of a community with a shared future for mankind must be confirmed through orientation within the following dual coordinates: orientation within the pattern of world history, and orientation within the practice of socialism with Chinese characteristics—the new path of Chinese-path modernization and the new form of human civilization it creates. These two creations constitute the objective and inevitable foundation for promoting the building of a community with a shared future for mankind. Within this dual coordinate system, the following logical map of the world-historical process emerges: the new path of Chinese-path modernization—the new form of human civilization—a community with a shared future for mankind. Among these three, in the bidirectional interaction of “cause–purpose,” the theoretical logic and historical logic of the advance of world history are constituted.

人类命运共同体的客观必然性要从以下双重坐标中的定向得到确认，即世界历史格局中的定向，以及中国特色社会主义实践中的定向——它所创造的中国式现代化新道路和人类文明新形态。这两个创造构成了推动构建人类命运共同体的客观必然性基础。在这一双重坐标中，便呈现如下世界历史进程的逻辑图谱：中国式现代化新道路—人类文明新形态—人类命运共同体。三者之间在“因果—目的”的双向互动中构成了世界历史行进的理论逻辑和历史逻辑。

From its very beginning, Chinese-path modernization possessed world-historical significance, but it implicitly and non-obviously manifested directly as China’s own socialist construction, while in reality it was fulfilling the purpose of world history. Chinese-path modernization is admittedly first of all one among many modernizations; there can be American-style modernization, British-style modernization, German-style modernization, and so on. However, as a product of adapting Marxism to the Chinese context and the needs of the times, Chinese-path modernization is first brought into this particular form of modernization by Marx’s world-historical purpose. From that time onward, Marx’s universal world-historical purpose has already been embedded within the path of Chinese-path modernization. Our present-day “people-centered” path of modernization development is, in essence, the fundamental value commitment of modernization. Therefore, from the very beginning, Chinese-path modernization has not merely been “one” among many models of modernization; it has possessed universality in the sense of Marx’s conception of the ultimate destiny of mankind. We can also see that, after completing the building of a moderately prosperous society in all respects, the issue of “common prosperity” has been placed in a prominent position on the path of modernization. This forms a sharp contrast with the situation in which the logic of capital civilization leads to two hostile classes. “Common prosperity” was originally placed within the socialist essential stipulations of the path of Chinese-path modernization; this is Deng Xiaoping’s warning: “Socialism does not mean a situation where a few people become rich while the majority remain poor; that is not what it is like.” [2]2 Deng Xiaoping, “Take the Path of Socialism to Common Prosperity,” Selected Works of Deng Xiaoping, vol. 3 (Beijing: People’s Publishing House, 1993), p. 364. Therefore, what needs to be emphasized is that this path of Chinese-path modernization was originally set within the process of world history and fulfills the historical tasks entrusted to it by world history; this is the key to understanding the world-historical significance of the path of Chinese-path modernization.

中国式现代化从一开始就具有了世界历史意义，但隐而不显地直接表现为中国自己的社会主义建设，而实际上在完成着世界历史的目的。中国式现代化诚然首先是诸多现代化中的一种，可以有美国式现代化、英国式现代化、德国式现代化等。然而，中国式现代化作为马克思主义中国化的产物，首先是由马克思的世界历史目的带入到这种特殊的现代化形式之中的。自那时起马克思的世界历史普遍目的就已经嵌入到了中国式现代化道路之中了。我们今天的“以人民为中心”的现代化发展道路，这在本质上是现代化的根本价值承诺。因此，从最初开始，中国式现代化就已经不仅仅是诸多现代化模式中的“一种”，而具有了马克思人类命运归宿意义上的普遍性。我们还可以看到，在全面建成小康社会之后，“共同富裕”的问题被呈现在现代化道路的显著位置。这与资本逻辑文明导致两大敌对阶级的情形形成了鲜明对比。“共同富裕”最初就被置于中国式现代化道路的社会主义本质规定之中，这就是邓小平的警示：“社会主义不是少数人富起来、大多数人穷，不是那个样子。”因此，需要强调的就在于，这条中国式现代化道路原初就被设置于世界历史进程，并完成着世界历史托付给它的历史任务，这一点是理解中国式现代化道路世界历史意义的关键。

Strictly speaking, the concept of “Chinese-path modernization” acquires its most essential meaning only in relation to Western modernization. What we need to explain is that Western modernization is the object of Marx’s critique, while Chinese-path modernization is the inheritance and development of Marx’s modernization. Do we propose “Chinese-path modernization” in the sense that “the whole is the sum of its parts”? That is, the world is the “whole,” and each country is one “part” of it? If we adhere to the line of thought that individuals added together constitute the whole, why can such Chinese-path modernization create a new form of human civilization? The new form of human civilization is not a new family of civilizations appearing among many coexisting forms of civilization; rather, it means that, in terms of overall character, if human civilization represents the direction of world-historical progress, this new form of civilization has achieved a qualitative elevation. It signifies that this form of civilization has shortened the distance for the purpose of world history to arrive in the present era, just as Xi Jinping has pointed out: “Today, we are closer, more confident, and more capable than at any time in history of achieving the goal of the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation.” [3]3 Xi Jinping, “Secure a Decisive Victory in Building a Moderately Prosperous Society in All Respects and Strive for the Great Success of Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era,” report to the 19th National Congress of the CPC, October 18, 2017. Therefore, in the conception of world history, although the new form of human civilization initially has determinate stipulations in time and space, in terms of its logical content and the actualization in which the spirit of the age is condensed, this form of civilization is the phased arrival of the purpose of world history. Consequently, we cannot regard the Chinese path and the new form of civilization it inaugurates merely as “one” type juxtaposed with other individual development paths and particular forms of civilization; rather, we must examine the path of Chinese-path modernization and its new form of civilization within the process of world history. Only then does it acquire genuine world significance.

严谨地说，“中国式现代化”这一概念只是相对于西方现代化而言才获得了它最本质的意义。我们要说明的是，西方现代化是马克思所批判的对象，而中国式现代化是对马克思现代化的继承和发展。我们是在“整体是部分之和”的意义上提出的“中国式现代化”吗？即世界是“整体”，每个国家是其中一个“部分”？如果坚持个体简单相加构成整体的思路，这样的中国式现代化为什么能创造出人类文明新形态？人类文明新形态不是在诸多并存的文明形态中出现的一个新的文明家族，而是说，在总体性质上看，如果人类文明代表着世界历史进步方向的话，这种新的文明形态就获得了质的意义上的提升。它意味着这一文明形态为世界历史的目的向着当下时代的到来缩短了距离，正如习近平所指出的：“今天，我们比历史上任何时期都更接近、更有信心和能力实现中华民族伟大复兴的目标”一样。因此，在世界历史的观念上，人类文明新形态尽管最初是在时间和空间上有确定性的规定，但就其逻辑内涵和时代精神凝结其中的现实化来说，这一文明形态是世界历史目的的阶段性到场。那么，我们也就不能把中国式道路和由它所开创的新文明形态仅仅看作与其他个体性发展道路和特殊文明形态相并列的“一种”，而是要把中国式现代化道路及其新文明形态放置在世界历史进程中来审视，因此它才获得了真正的世界意义。

Further, the three concepts of “the new path of Chinese-path modernization,” “the new form of human civilization,” and “a community with a shared future for mankind” acquire their causal inevitability and the inevitability of the purpose of world history only within the overarching framework of world history; this is likewise a “cause–purpose” interactive relationship. A community with a shared future for mankind, as a prior concept, obtains its existential foundation through the creation of Chinese-path modernization and the new form of human civilization. The two concepts of the new path of Chinese-path modernization and the new form of human civilization appeared relatively late in time, but this is a retrospective summary in the “perfect tense.” A community with a shared future for mankind, on the other hand, is a commitment in the “future tense,” yet this commitment is prior in practical logic. Examining and evaluating history always follows the two dimensions of the “perfect tense” and the “future tense” (for example, taking history as a mirror and creating the future); therefore, the unity of purpose and regularity also unfolds in these two dimensions, and they simultaneously follow a dual logical thinking: one is the logic of the understanding, and the other is the logic of reflection.

进一步，“中国式现代化道路”“人类文明新形态”“人类命运共同体”，这三个概念只有在世界历史的统摄性中才获得了它们之间的因果必然性和世界历史目的必然性，这同样是“因果—目的”互动关系。人类命运共同体作为先行理念，乃是通过中国式现代化和人类文明新形态的创造获得其实存基础的。中国式现代化新道路和人类文明新形态两个概念在时间上出现得相对比较晚，但这是在“完成时”意义上的总结回看。而人类命运共同体则是“将来时”意义上的承诺，这一承诺在实践逻辑上却是先行的。审视和评价历史总是要遵循“完成时”和“将来时”两个维度（如以史为鉴，开创未来），因此，合目的与合规律也在两个维度展开，而它们同时遵循双重思维逻辑，一个是知性逻辑，一个是反思逻辑。

The three concepts of “the new path of Chinese-path modernization,” “the new form of human civilization,” and “a community with a shared future for mankind” will not obscure their world-historical significance due to a narrow vision focused solely on China only when they are placed within the coordinate system of the world-historical process. On the one hand, these three concepts are a high-level summary of the historic achievements of socialism with Chinese characteristics; on the other hand, the world-historical significance of Chinese-path modernization lies in the fact that this new path itself constitutes the content of the world-historical process, rather than the following misunderstanding: as if Chinese-path modernization initially existed outside world history, isolated, and only later, because it achieved successes for China itself and for the world, was it endowed with world-historical significance. Or, in empirical world history, it influenced the existing world-historical process, and therefore acquired world-historical significance. If this were the case, the world-historical significance of Chinese-path modernization would be merely contingent and would not possess inevitability. Such an understanding only serves to clarify: Chinese-path modernization was originally placed under the purpose of world history, and thus from its very beginning it is world history itself, rather than “entering” world history a posteriori as it develops. Therefore, what we oppose is precisely that way of understanding Chinese-path modernization that separates China from world history, as if initially Chinese-path modernization was “Chinese,” and only when it developed to the point of influencing the world-historical process did it enter world history. The essence of such an understanding is the greatest metaphysical mode of thinking, and the harm of understanding it this way lies in excluding the path of Chinese-path modernization from world history from the very beginning, as if the path of Chinese-path modernization “accidentally” integrated into the world-historical process, thereby neglecting its original inevitability.

“中国式现代化道路”“人类文明新形态”和“人类命运共同体”这三个概念只有放在世界历史进程这一坐标中，才不会因为仅仅着眼于中国的狭隘视野而掩蔽其世界历史意义。这三个概念一方面是对中国特色社会主义历史性成就的高度概括；另一方面，中国式现代化的世界历史意义在于，这一新道路本身构成了世界历史进程的内容，而不是以下的误解：仿佛中国式现代化起初被遗忘在世界历史之外而单独存在，而后因为其取得了对于中国自身和世界的成就，才被赋予了世界历史意义。或者说，在经验的世界历史中它影响了现存世界历史进程，因而才具有了世界历史意义。如果是这样，中国式现代化的世界历史意义将仅仅是偶然的而不具有必然性。这样的理解只在于澄清：中国式现代化在原初就被置于世界历史目的之下，因而从开端处即是世界历史本身，而不是随着它的发展而后天“走进”世界历史的。因此，我们反对的就是那种把中国与世界历史割裂开来理解中国式现代化，仿佛起初中国式现代化是“中国”的，只是在它发展到足以影响世界历史进程的时候，它才走进了世界历史。这样的理解实质是最大的形而上学思维方式，而且如此理解的危害在于，从开端处把中国式现代化道路排除在世界历史之外了，似乎中国式现代化道路是“偶然”地融入世界历史进程之中的，从而忽略其原初的必然性。

World history, as a macroscopic “great Way,” must in concrete reality be implemented within the trajectory of progress constituted by the three links of the mode of production, the form of civilization, and a community with a shared future for mankind. The new form of human civilization is new fundamentally in its transcendence of the “logic of capital.” The new form of human civilization has not yet reached the historical stage of completely eliminating the logic of capital; therefore, how to sublate the logic of capital and thereby lay the foundation for building a community with a shared future for mankind is where the “newness” of the new form of human civilization lies. When Marx revealed that the logic of capital brings about tremendous changes to the entire human society—that is, “the whole society more and more splits up into two great hostile camps” [4]4 Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, “Manifesto of the Communist Party,” in Marx/Engels Collected Works, vol. 6 (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1976), p. 485.—this was not only a historical transformation intuitively observed in actual society, but also, at a deeper level, it signified that capital had already created a unique “form of civilization.” That is, with the expansion of capital and the formation of universal intercourse, the entire world history is divided into two hostile classes, inevitably leading to conflict (the two inevitabilities [5]5 “The two inevitabilities” refers to the Marxist thesis that the bourgeoisie will inevitably be overthrown and the proletariat will inevitably triumph, as stated in the Communist Manifesto.), which means that a fundamental crisis has emerged in the form of human civilization. It signifies that the basic mode of division and conflict in human civilization along the dimension of relations of production has already begun. Therefore, in this sense, Marx’s critique of capital fundamentally opened the path for exploring a “new form of human civilization.”

世界历史作为宏观的“大道”，在具体的现实中必然落实在生产方式、文明形态以及人类命运共同体三个环节构成的行进轨迹当中。人类文明新形态新在根本上它对“资本逻辑”的超越。人类文明新形态尚未达到完全消除资本逻辑的历史阶段，因此如何扬弃资本逻辑而为建构人类命运共同体奠定基础，是人类文明新形态的“新”之所在。当马克思揭示了资本逻辑给整个人类社会带来巨大变化，即“整个社会日益分裂为两大敌对的阵营”的时候，这不仅是直观现实社会的历史性变革，而且在深层次上标志着资本已经创造了一个独特的“文明形态”。这就是，随着资本的扩张和普遍交往的形成，整个世界历史被划分为两大敌对阶级，而且必然导致冲突（两个必然），这意味着人类文明形态出现了一次根本危机,它标志着人类文明在生产关系这一向度上发生分裂和冲突的基本模式已经开始。因此，在这个意义上，马克思批判资本，这在根本上开启了探索“人类文明新形态”的道路。

The new form of human civilization opens up a space for the critique of contemporary capitalism. The possibility of sublating the logic of capital has, in the path of socialist modernization with Chinese characteristics, already obtained its original intention through the organic integration of “planning” and “market” as “economic means” and the achievement of their “peaceful coexistence.” Marx’s lifelong effort was to declare that the critique of the logic of capital is essentially a critique of the existing world order in which the logic of capital dominates humanity. Before the logic of capital has gestated a stage in which it fully negates itself, and before the conditions for accommodating productive forces in the world-historical process have disintegrated, the sublation of the logic of capital can only unfold gradually within the continuity of history. Therefore, harnessing the logic of capital is the precondition for sublating it. The two concepts of “seeking common ground while reserving differences” and “win-win cooperation” are thus elevated to world-historical categories; they transcend the purely economic sphere and are endowed with the basic orientation of a new form of human civilization that sublates the logic of capital.

人类文明新形态开启了对当代资本主义的批判空间。扬弃资本逻辑的可能性，在中国特色社会主义现代化道路中已经通过“计划”与“市场”作为“经济手段”的有机融合并实现两者的“和平共处”中获得了原初意向。马克思毕生的努力在于宣告，对资本逻辑的批判，本质上就是对资本逻辑支配人类这一现存世界秩序的批判。在资本逻辑尚未孕育出完全否定其自身的阶段，它在世界历史进程中的生产力容纳条件尚未瓦解之前，扬弃资本逻辑只能在历史的连续性中逐渐展开。因此，驾驭资本逻辑乃是扬弃资本逻辑的前提。“求同存异”与“合作共赢”这两个概念因此上升为世界历史范畴，两者超出了单纯的经济发展领域而被赋予了扬弃资本逻辑的人类文明新形态的基本定向。

It is worth noting that some scholars have already glimpsed the dawn of a post-capital-logic era in the Western world: “Since the beginning of the 21st century, the prestige of the West has been in steady decline. The Western political model is no longer the object of global envy. While Western democracy is being questioned, its global power is in the same predicament… At the same time, the center of gravity of the world is shifting irreversibly toward the East.” [6]6 Martin Jacques, *When China Rules the World: The End of the Western World and the Birth of a New Global Order* (New York: Penguin Press, 2009), p. 12. [Translator’s note: The English text is a paraphrase; the original Chinese citation is retained as given.] Therefore, how to create a new form of universal human interaction in the “post-capital-logic era” [7]7 The term “post-capital-logic era” (后资本逻辑时代) is a scholarly concept referring to a historical stage in which the logic of capital no longer dominates social relations, though capitalism may persist in residual forms. is the core theme of the form of human civilization, and this new form of civilization in turn constitutes the world-historical foundation of a community with a shared future for mankind. In short, without a new form of civilization and new principles of universal interaction, it is impossible to substantively advance the building of a community with a shared future for mankind. Only in the world-historical sense does the new form of human civilization created by the path of Chinese-path modernization provide “Chinese wisdom and a Chinese approach.”

值得注意的是，已经有学者在西方世界看到后资本逻辑时代的曙光：“自21世纪初以来，西方的声望日渐衰微。西方的政治模式不再是世界羡慕的对象。西方民主受到质疑的同时，它的全球实力也处在同样的境遇……与此同时，世界的重心正在不可逆转地转向东方。”因此，如何在“后资本逻辑时代”[4]创造新的人类普遍交往形态，是人类文明形态的核心主题，进而这一文明新形态构成了人类命运共同体的世界历史性基础。简言之，离开新的文明形态和普遍交往的新原则，就无法实质性地推动构建人类命运共同体。只有在世界历史的意义上，中国式现代化道路创造的人类文明新形态才提供了“中国智慧和中国方案”。

If world history is to take as its purpose the development of a stable state of lasting peace out of the uncertainty of “changes unseen in a century,” it must provide a preparation of the form of civilization for lasting peace. This new form of civilization will be based on a new civilizational outlook and a world pattern of “seeking common ground while reserving differences—win-win cooperation.” It is in this sense that the following fact is clear: socialism with Chinese characteristics has created a new form of human civilization. This also marks the universal contribution of socialism with Chinese characteristics in the world-historical process. The reason for acknowledging that the contemporary new form of human civilization provides a real foundation for a community with a shared future for mankind is that, without this new form of civilization as the substantive foundation of the form of universal interaction, a community with a shared future for mankind would be groundless, merely a world-historical “idea.” Only if the new form of civilization can bring consensus to universal interaction and avoid the inherent conflicts of the logic of capital, sublating those conflicts with the new form of civilization, can a community with a shared future for mankind “practically” enter the world-historical process.

世界历史要把在“百年未有之大变局”的不确定性中开展出通向永久和平的稳定状态作为目的，就必须为永久和平提供一种文明形态的准备，这一新文明形态将是以“求同存异—合作共赢”的新文明观和世界格局为基础的。正是在这个意义上，以下事实是清楚的：中国特色社会主义创造了人类文明新形态。凭此也标志着中国特色社会主义在世界历史进程中的普遍性贡献。所以承认当代人类文明新形态为人类命运共同体提供了实存基础，是因为如果没有这一新文明形态作为普遍交往形式的实体性基础，人类命运共同体是没有根基的，而仅仅是一个世界历史的“理念”。如果新的文明形态能够为普遍交往带来共识并避免资本逻辑的内在冲突，用新文明形态扬弃资本逻辑的内在冲突，人类命运共同体才可能“实践地”进驻世界历史进程。

03

03

The New Form of Human Civilization as the Real Foundation of a Community with a Shared Future for Mankind

人类文明新形态作为人类命运共同体的实存基础

An analysis of the world-historical significance of the new form of human civilization shows that it has in fact become the “universal form of civilization” of the 21st century, thus providing a real foundation for a community with a shared future for mankind. The so-called “real” in Hegel’s sense means that a thing possesses a real ground. “The real is existence that has developed out of the ground, existence that has been restored through the mediated process of sublation.” [8]8 G. W. F. Hegel, *Science of Logic*, trans. A. V. Miller (London: George Allen & Unwin, 1969), p. 477. [Translator’s note: The Chinese citation is from Hegel’s *Logic*; the English edition is provided for reference.] Therefore, “ground” is the essential determination of the concept of the real. It is precisely in the sense that the new form of civilization provides the “ground” for a community with a shared future for mankind that it is qualified to be identified as the real foundation for building that community. Then, why is the new form of human civilization the real foundation of a community with a shared future for mankind?

对人类文明新形态世界历史意义的分析表明，它实际上已经成为21世纪的“普遍文明形态”，因而为人类命运共同体提供了实存基础。所谓“实存”在黑格尔的意义上是指一个事物具有了现实的根据。“实存就是从根据发展出来的存在，经过中介的扬弃过程才恢复了的存在。”因此，“根据”是实存概念的本质规定。正是在新文明形态为人类命运共同体提供了“根据”的意义上，才有资格指认新文明形态是构建人类命运共同体的实存基础。那么，为什么说人类文明新形态是人类命运共同体的实存基础？

The new form of human civilization provides a real foundation for a community with a shared future for mankind under the condition of the coexistence of two systems. A community with a shared future for mankind is first of all an “idea” that China holds regarding the contemporary world-historical process. But according to the principles of historical materialism, when this idea obtains its empirical and scientific basis, it necessarily acquires its real foundation, and the new form of human civilization historically provides this real foundation for a community with a shared future for mankind. The question to be answered now is: the new form of human civilization and the form of civilization dominated by the logic of capital are two heterogeneous forms of civilization. Then, on the basis of two heterogeneous forms of civilization, can a community with a shared future for mankind be built? According to the law of non-contradiction in formal logic, two opposite propositions cannot both be true. If one form of civilization is a logical positive value conforming to the trend of world history, then the other form of civilization must necessarily be a logical negative value violating the world-historical process. Thus, two heterogeneous forms of civilization cannot obey the same logic of a community with a shared future for mankind. Therefore, a community with a shared future for mankind is possible only on the basis of that form of civilization which conforms to the purpose of world-historical development and dominates the direction of historical progress. Then, can the two systems coexist within the same form of civilization? Although Wolfgang Streeck believes that “because the contemporary capitalist world is facing five systemic dysfunctions—slowing growth, oligarchic redistribution, plunder of the public sphere, corruption, and global anarchy—and there is currently no political mechanism capable of addressing these obstacles, capitalism will continue to regress and shrink until it one day ends itself,” [9]9 Wolfgang Streeck, *How Will Capitalism End? Essays on a Failing System* (London: Verso, 2016), p. 35. [Translator’s note: The Chinese citation is a paraphrase; the English text is provided for reference.] the capitalist system will still not disappear in the short term. Therefore, as analyzed above, if there exists a universal principle that, while respecting each country’s chosen path, does not undermine other countries’ choice of their own paths, and respects each country’s cultural values without destroying those of others, this universal principle will make it possible to transcend the particularity of each system and values and rise to a universal form of civilization. Hence, different political systems and cultural values are not obstacles to a universal form of civilization; on the contrary, they indicate that, under the condition of the coexistence of two systems, a universal form of civilization that transcends particularity is possible. This requires establishing “common values of all mankind” on the basis of particular values. Therefore, “common values of all mankind” are the decisive factor of the universal form of civilization.

人类文明新形态在两种制度并存条件下为人类命运共同体提供实存基础。人类命运共同体首先是中国对当代世界历史进程持有的“理念”。但按照历史唯物主义原理，当这一理念获得了它的实证的和科学基础的时候，这一理念必然获得其实存基础，而人类文明新形态历史性地为人类命运共同体提供了这一实存基础。现在要回答的问题是：人类文明新形态与资本逻辑主导的文明形态是两种异质性文明形态。那么，在两种异质性文明形态基础上，能否构建人类命运共同体？根据形式逻辑的矛盾律，两个相反的命题不能同时为真。如果一种文明形态是符合世界历史趋势的逻辑正值，那么另一种文明形态就必然是违背世界历史进程的逻辑负值。因而两种异质性文明形态不能服从人类命运共同体的同一逻辑。因此，人类命运共同体只能在那种符合世界历史发展目的、主导历史前进方向的文明形态基础上才是可能的。那么，两种制度是否可以在同一种文明形态中并存？尽管沃夫冈·施特雷克认为，“由于当代资本主义世界正面临着增长放缓、寡头的再分配、公共领域的掠夺、腐败和全球无政府状态五大系统性失调，而目前又没有任何政治机制能够应对这些阻碍，因此资本主义将继续倒退和萎缩，直到有一天自我终结。”但资本主义制度仍然不会在短时期内消亡。因此，如前文所分析，如果存在一条普遍原则，该原则在尊重各自选择道路基础上不破坏其他国家选择自己的道路，尊重各自的文化价值观而不破坏其他国家的价值观的时候，这一普遍原则将使超越各自制度和价值观的特殊性而上升为普遍的文明形态成为可能。因此，不同的政治制度和文化价值观并不是普遍文明形态的阻碍因素，反倒表明两种制度并存条件下，一种超越特殊性的普遍文明形态是可能的。而这就需要在特殊价值观基础上确立“全人类共同价值”。所以，“全人类共同价值”是普遍文明形态的决定性因素。

Further, under the condition of the coexistence of two systems, how are the dominant values of the form of human civilization established? This still must be based on Marx’s critical examination of social systems. The purpose of world history is the absolute criterion for evaluating forms of civilization; without the purpose of world history, we cannot establish the value dimension of forms of civilization. In this sense, the objectivity of the purpose of world history constitutes the absolute evaluative basis for the form of human civilization. As it stands, the purpose Marx established for world history is a truth proven by science and practice, and thus possesses absolute universality. Looking now, the capitalist system, with the crisis of Western liberalism, has already revealed a reverse or regressive relationship with the march of world history (e.g., unilateralism, de-globalization, etc.). Abandoning lasting peace while insisting on Cold War thinking and values that create world confrontation cannot realize the world-historical purpose of human freedom and liberation. “Precisely because liberalism fails to provide individuals with a sense of community, it cannot become the adhesive that binds a society together.” [10]10 This is a paraphrase of a common critique of liberalism; the specific source is not identified in the original text. Therefore, theoretically, the form of capital civilization deviates from the purpose of world history and thus cannot become the dominant force of the form of human civilization. Although the form of capital civilization created world history, it cannot become the real foundation of a community with a shared future for mankind, just as the bourgeoisie created world history but could not become the subject of world history; the subject of world history can only be borne by the proletariat. Hence, under the condition of the coexistence of two systems, only the new form of civilization dominated by the socialist system represents the forward direction of world history and can therefore provide a real foundation for building a community with a shared future for mankind.

进一步，两种制度并存条件下，人类文明形态的主导价值是如何确立起来的？这仍然要以马克思对社会制度的批判考察为依据。世界历史目的是评价文明形态的绝对依据，离开世界历史目的，我们无法确立文明形态的价值向度。因此，世界历史目的的客观性便构成了人类文明形态的绝对评价依据。在这个意义上，马克思为世界历史确立的目的是被科学和实践证明了的真理，因而具有绝对的普遍性。现在看，资本主义制度随着西方自由主义的危机，已经显露出与世界历史行进的反向关系或逆向关系（如单边主义、逆全球化等）。放弃永久和平而坚持制造世界对抗的冷战思维及其价值观，是无法实现人类自由和解放这一世界历史目的的。“正因为自由主义未能给个人提供一种共同体认知，它无法成为将一个社会凝聚在一起的黏合剂。”因此，在理论上来看，资本文明形态是背离世界历史目的的，因而无法成为人类文明形态的主导力量。尽管资本文明形态创造了世界历史，但资本文明形态却无法成为人类命运共同体的实存基础，正如资产阶级创造了世界历史，但却无法成为世界历史的主体一样，世界历史的主体只能由无产阶级承担。因此，两种制度并存条件下，只有作为社会主义制度主导的新文明形态代表了世界历史的前进方向，因而才能为构建人类命运共同体提供实存基础。

The new form of human civilization, as the political logic of universal civilization, provides an existential foundation for a community with a shared future for mankind. Taking the democratic principle as the political-philosophical basis of multilateral international relations is the basic value orientation for building a community with a shared future for mankind. This is because every country, unless it is anti-human, necessarily obtains the absolute right to exist in the human community. Therefore, the principle that a country, while pursuing its own freedom and interests, does not undermine the right of other countries to pursue freedom and survival and development, is a political-philosophical principle based on the democratic principle. Furthermore, when world history has entered a stage of universal intercourse, we must introduce the concept of “world relations of production,” which is the extension of the historical materialist concept of relations of production to the scale of world history. Within world relations of production, where countries act as economic subjects, they must mutually recognize each other’s core interests, because the bias of the logic of capital is the fundamental cause of interest differentiation and the wealth gap. Piketty, in his analysis of the capitalist systems of England and France in *Capital in the Twenty-First Century*, points out that “in the second decade of the twenty-first century, the wealth gaps that were once thought to be disappearing have returned with a vengeance, and the current degree of wealth polarization has approached or even surpassed historical highs.” [11]11 Thomas Piketty, *Capital in the Twenty-First Century* (Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press, 2014), p. 1 (approximate location of the cited passage in the introduction). Therefore, the capitalist system is a destruction of world relations of production.

人类文明新形态作为普遍文明的政治逻辑为人类命运共同体提供实存基础。把民主原则作为多边主义国际关系的政治哲学基础，是构建人类命运共同体的基本价值定向。因为，每个国家如果不是反人类的，就必然天然地获得它在人类共同体中存在的绝对权利。因此，一个国家追求自己的自由和利益的同时，不破坏其他国家追求自由和生存发展的权利，乃是基于民主原则的政治哲学原理。进一步，在世界历史形成普遍交往的时候，我们必须引入“世界生产关系”这一概念，这是历史唯物主义生产关系概念的世界历史性拓展。在世界生产关系中，国家作为经济主体，主体间就必然应该相互承认其核心利益，因为资本逻辑的偏向是导致利益分化和贫富差距的根本原因，皮凯蒂在《21世纪资本论》中在对英法资本主义制度的分析中指出，“如今已经是21世纪的第二个10年，那些曾经认为将会消失的贫富差距竟然卷土重来，当前贫富分化程度已经逼近甚至超越了历史高点”。因此资本主义制度是对世界生产关系的破坏。

“Seeking common ground while reserving differences—win-win cooperation,” as the dominant principle for handling interest relations in the new form of human civilization, dissolves surplus value within the logic of capital, thereby overcoming the bias of that logic. Culturally, if it is a case of “the East being subordinate to the West” under cultural hegemonism, this is clearly cultural inequality. Exchange and mutual learning that transcend inter-subjectivity between nations is the only path for a form of civilization to acquire universal significance. Conversely, if the values of a civilization form dominated by the logic of capital are hegemonic principles, universal values, zero-sum games, value penetration, or the abandonment of peace commitments, then it is impossible to incorporate a community with a shared future for mankind into the course of world history. And a community with a shared future for mankind, if it is not merely the subjective wishful vision of a single country, must possess objective necessity in the sense of world history. Only then can a community with a shared future for mankind grow out of the new form of human civilization. The objectivity of the common values that determine the destiny of mankind, as mentioned above, has its ultimate basis in the presupposition of the sustainable survival of humanity, and takes freedom and liberation as the ultimate goal of world history. This has been historically proven by Marx through the two major laws of scientific socialism. [12]12 The “two major laws” refer to the law of the inevitable downfall of capitalism and the law of the inevitable victory of communism, often summarized as the “two inevitables” (两个必然).

“求同存异—合作共赢”作为人类文明新形态处理利益关系的主导原则，它把剩余价值消融在了资本逻辑之中从而克服了资本逻辑的偏向。在文化上，如果是文化霸权主义下的“东方从属于西方”，这显然是文化上的不平等。跨越国家间主体间性的交流互鉴是一种文明形态获得其普遍意义的唯一道路。相反，如果是霸权原则、普世价值、零和博弈、价值渗透、放弃和平承诺等，这些作为资本逻辑主导的文明形态的价值，则无法把人类命运共同体纳入世界历史进程。而人类命运共同体如果不是某个国家的一厢情愿的主观愿景，就必然具有在世界历史意义上的客观必然性。唯当如此，人类命运共同体才能够在人类文明新形态中生长出来。上述决定人类命运的共同价值的客观性，其终极根据是人类可持续生存预设，并把自由和解放作为世界历史的终极目的。这是由马克思通过科学社会主义的两大规律获得历史性证明的。

The new form of human civilization provides a value foundation for a community with a shared future for mankind by promoting “the common values of all mankind.” A community with a shared future for mankind directly relies on each individual country or nation that exists independently. For each country or nation, as a member of the community, it is necessary to establish a basic order that can constitute the community. A community must have basic laws of the community; without laws, there can be no community. Community implies a certain consistency in values. Without common values as the concept of the community and its concretized basic laws, it is difficult, or even impossible, for a community to be established. As Heller pointed out, “the endless plurality and complexity of different social actions are directed towards an orderly and regulated unity. Political acts of decision establish and maintain a legal order—the existence, positivity, or validity of which always depends on the existence of that unity of action.” [13]13 Hermann Heller, a German legal theorist and political scientist (1891–1933), known for his work on the theory of the state and sovereignty. Furthermore, where do common values come from? According to Marx’s principles of historical materialism and his theory of world history, these common values need to be supported by a foundational form of civilization. That is to say, the form of civilization is the support for the community of shared destiny. Of course, the community is not an “abstract identity” without differences, but an “identity with differences” that includes differences. As Hegel pointed out, in the dialectical sense, identity without difference is meaningless; people do not speak according to the law of identity. [14]14 G.W.F. Hegel, reference to his logical principle that genuine identity is mediated by difference, as developed in his *Science of Logic*.

人类文明新形态通过弘扬“全人类共同价值”为人类命运共同体提供价值基础。人类命运共同体直接依托于单独存在的每一个国家或民族。每一个国家或民族作为共同体的成员，就必须要确立一种能够达成共同体的基本秩序。作为共同体就必须拥有共同体的基本法则，离开法则是不会有共同体而言的。共同体意味着在某些价值方面的一致性。如果没有共同价值作为共同体的理念及其具体化的基本法则，共同体就难以成立或者根本无法成立。正如黑勒所指出的，“不同社会行动的永无止境的多元性和复杂性被导向了一个有序的和规整的统一体。政治性的决断行为建立并维持了一种法律秩序——该秩序的存在、实定性或有效性永远有赖于那个行动统一体的存在”。进一步，共同价值来自何处？按照马克思的历史唯物主义原理及其世界历史理论，这些共同价值需要有一种基础性的文明形态来支撑。这就是说，文明形态是命运共同体的依托。当然，共同体不是没有差别的“抽象的同一”，而是包含差异的“有差别的同一”。正如黑格尔指出，在辩证法的意义上，无差别的同一是没有意义的，人不会按照同一律来说话。

Up to the present, forms of human civilization have been formed and evolved within the utilitarian relationships between nation-states and driven by their contradictions. Transcending the utilitarian form of civilization and ascending from material civilization to a form of civilization dominated by cultural-ethical progress is the development trend of world history; only then is a community with a shared future for mankind possible. When a form of civilization no longer causes conflicts of interest and encroachment on interests between nation-states, and no longer uses the state as an instrument of aggression and a tool for creating class conflict, then this form of civilization possesses the universality suitable for human survival. How can nation-states transcend their differences of interest within interest relations? This is only possible through the guidance of “the common values of all mankind.” If, as Hegel said, there are only different interests between states and no common values, it would mean that world history cannot eliminate war and enter into perpetual peace. “Hegel recognized that there is no rational way to eliminate the possibility of war from the world.” [15]15 Reference to Hegel’s view in his *Philosophy of Right* that war can serve a positive ethical function and cannot be rationally eliminated from the state system. Therefore, the contemporary world must complete a revolution in human values; this is the logical starting point for the new form of human civilization. The new common values of mankind constitute the inner soul of the new form of civilization, enabling this form of civilization to become the universal light [16]16 “Universal light” (普照光) is a metaphor used by Marx in the *Grundrisse* to describe how a dominant mode of production colors and shapes all other relations in a given epoch. for a community with a shared future for mankind. Only by relying on this spiritual guide of world history, “the common values of all mankind,” can all nations break the principle of egoistic international relations and provide an existential foundation for the practical construction of a community with a shared future for mankind.

迄今为止，人类文明形态都是在民族国家之间的功利性关系中及其矛盾的推动下形成和演变的。超越功利性文明形态而从物质文明升迁到精神文明为主导的文明形态，是世界历史的发展趋势，人类命运共同体因而才是可能的。当一种文明形态不再使民族国家间发生利益冲突和利益侵占的关系的时候，不再把国家作为侵略的权力并制造阶级冲突的工具，这一文明形态便具有了适合人类生存的普遍性。民族国家间如何在利益关系中超越利益分歧，只有通过“全人类共同价值”的引导才是可能的。如果只有黑格尔所说的国家间只有不同的利益而没有共同价值，将意味着世界历史不会消除战争而进入永久和平。“黑格尔认识到，没有一种理性的方式可以从世界上消除战争的可能性。”因此，当代世界必须完成一场人类价值观革命，这是人类新文明形态的逻辑起点。新的人类共同价值观构成了新文明形态的内在灵魂，从而才能使这一文明形态成为人类命运共同体的普照光。各民族只能依靠“全人类共同价值”这一世界历史的精神向导，才能打破利己主义的国际关系原则，为实践地构建人类命运共同体提供实存基础。

04

04

Conclusion

结语

From the perspective of Marx’s theory of world history, we have examined the relationship among the new path of Chinese-path modernization, the new form of human civilization, and the promotion of building a community with a shared future for mankind. From the initiation of the new path of Chinese-path modernization, to the formation of the new form of human civilization, and then to the promotion of building a community with a shared future for mankind, these three links manifest the objective laws of the course of world history in 21st-century Marxism. Only in this way can we take the path of Chinese-path modernization itself as the realistic starting point for inheriting and developing Marx’s theory of world history in the 21st century, incorporate the new form of human civilization into the perspective of 21st-century Marxist theory of world history, and ultimately provide an existential foundation for promoting the building of a community with a shared future for mankind. Therefore, the path of Chinese-path modernization and the new form of human civilization it has inaugurated provide the narrative theme of the 21st-century Marxist worldview of world history—a community with a shared future for mankind—with an existential foundation grounded in objective laws, just as Marx established the inevitability of communism through the law of the “two inevitables” of world history. [17]17 The “two inevitables” (两个必然) refers to the Marxist thesis that the bourgeoisie will inevitably fall and the proletariat will inevitably triumph, as stated in the *Communist Manifesto*. Now, the realistic inevitability of a community with a shared future for mankind comes from two aspects: first, it constitutes the basic orientation of 21st-century Marxist theory of world history; second, under the guidance of the former, the path of Chinese-path modernization and the new form of human civilization provide its existential foundation. These two aspects open up a bright prospect for building a community with a shared future for mankind in the 21st century.

我们在马克思的世界历史理论视野中考察了中国式现代化新道路、人类文明新形态以及推动构建人类命运共同体三者的关系。从中国式现代化新道路的开创，到人类文明新形态的形成，再到推动构建人类命运共同体，这三个环节彰显了21世纪马克思主义关于世界历史进程的客观规律。唯当如此，我们才能把中国式现代化道路本身作为21世纪继承发展马克思世界历史理论的现实起点，并把人类文明新形态纳入21世纪马克思主义世界历史理论的视野，最终为推动构建人类命运共同体提供实存基础。因此，中国式现代化道路及其开创的人类文明新形态，使人类命运共同体这一21世纪的马克思主义世界历史观的叙事主题获得了客观规律的实存基础，正如马克思通过世界历史的“两个必然”规律为共产主义确立必然性一样。现在，人类命运共同体的现实必然性就来自两个方面：一是它构成了21世纪马克思主义世界历史理论的基本定向；二是在前者的统摄之下，中国式现代化道路和人类文明新形态为其提供了实存基础。这两个方面为21世纪构建人类命运共同体开启了光明前景。

(Author’s bio: Wu Hongzheng, Dean, Professor, and Doctoral Supervisor of the School of Marxism, Jilin University)

（作者简介：吴宏政，吉林大学马克思主义学院院长、教授、博士生导师）

Online Editor: Tongxin

网络编辑：同心