Chinese-Path Modernization under the Global Modernity Predicament: An Analysis of a Systemic-Structural Response Plan

Chinese-path modernization, as a Chinese solution to the current global modernity predicament, derives its effectiveness from the systemic-structural character of the modernity model. Dialectical materialism generalizes the characteristic of the interrelation and interaction of elements within things as “systemic-structural character,” which is embedded in three levels of Chinese-path modernization: the unity of universality and particularity in its value concepts, the consistency between overall orientation and specific constraints in its institutional principles, and the coordination between main line and paths in its practical forms. Exploring the layered mechanisms of Chinese-path modernization from the perspectives of multi-subject interaction, institutional relationship analysis, and optimization of the state of human social existence helps to tap its modernity-converging function, bring into play the comparative advantages of the socialist system, and provide theoretical support for a new form of human civilization.

中国式现代化作为应对当下世界现代性困境的中国方案，其有效性体现在作为现代性模式的系统结构性中。唯物辩证法将事物内部各要素关联作用的特性概括为“系统结构性”，它蕴含在中国式现代化的价值理念普遍性和特殊性相统一，制度原则的总体导向和具体限定相一致以及实践形态的主线和路径相协调的三重层次中。从多元主体互动、制度关系研判、人类社会存在状态优化的视角探讨中国式现代化的层次机理，有助于挖掘其现代性聚力作用、发挥社会主义制度比较优势，并为人类文明新形态提供理论支撑。

I. Innovation and Reflection on Modernity Models under the Global Modernity Predicament

一、世界现代性困境下的现代性模式创新与反思

(I) The Essence of Global Modernity and Its Triple Predicament

（一）世界现代性的本质及其三重困境

From a conceptual perspective, the assessment of a particular society’s “modernization” cannot be separated from the determination of its “modernity” attributes. Capitalism, as an important component underpinning the global modernity, constructs the framework of global modernity through production relations centered on capital, making itself “one of the names of modernity.”[1]1 The author here draws on the idea that capitalism has become synonymous with modernity in mainstream Western discourse. First, in historical stages, capitalism has served as a driving mechanism for the development of human society: “The conditions and forms under which this surplus labor is extorted differ from those of earlier forms such as slavery or serfdom, but they are all more conducive to the development of productive forces, to the development of social relations, and to the creation of elements for a higher new form.”[2]2 Karl Marx, *Capital*, Vol. 3, Chapter 48, on the conditions for the development of a higher social form. By enhancing humanity’s appropriation of nature and social relations, capitalist modernity accelerated the transition of human society to modernity. Second, in the real-world arena, to achieve self-valorization, capital not only created “a system of universal exploitation of natural and human qualities”[3]3 Karl Marx, *Grundrisse*, on capital’s creation of a system of universal exploitation. but also, through its global expansion, broke down geographical barriers, bringing about sustained, homogenized, and comprehensive transformation of human society. “The more the original closed state of various nations is eliminated due to increasingly perfected modes of production, intercourse, and the naturally formed division of labor among different nations arising from intercourse, the more history becomes world history.”[4]4 Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, *The German Ideology*, on the transition to world history. Third, in power structures, the logic of capital constitutes the core of dominant power relations. “The modern world order signifies the domination and rule of comprehensive power—greater power over lesser power—with capital as its pivot.”[5]5 A reference to the concept of capital as the pivot of comprehensive power in modern world order, drawing on critical theories of global capitalism. In terms of the scope of power, capital becomes an “economic power” dominating external things, while simultaneously extending into political, social, cultural, and other fields, rising to become the abstract law of each domain. In terms of the nature of power, the centralizing expansion of capital gives rise to international capital that not only operates beyond the scope of nation-state power but also, under the guise of “promoting” the legitimacy of world modernization, imposes coercive transformation on nation-states and places itself above state power. Thus, the logic of global modernity gradually becomes intertwined with the logic of capitalist modernity. This is reflected not only in capital’s inherent attribute of “things” dominating “people” and its external manifestation of spatial expansion but also, with the endorsement of modernity’s “legitimacy of ends” and “moral priority,” in its growing effectiveness in scope and capacity for control.

从概念范畴上看，针对特定社会“现代化”的评估，离不开对其“现代性”属性的认定。资本主义作为世界现代性底色的重要构成，通过以资本为核心的生产关系建构世界现代性框架，使自身成为“现代性的名称之一”。一是在历史阶段上，资本主义充当了人类社会发展的动力机制，“它榨取这种剩余劳动的方式和条件，同以前的奴隶制、农奴制等形式相比，都更有利于生产力的发展，有利于社会关系的发展，有利于更高级的新形态的各种要素的创造”。通过提升人类对自然界和社会关系的占有，资本主义现代性加速了人类社会向现代的进阶。二是在现实场域上，资本为实现自我增殖，不仅创造了“一个普遍利用自然属性和人的属性的体系”，同时借资本的全球扩张打破地理隔碍，使人类社会得到持续性、同质化和全局性改造。“各民族的原始封闭状态由于日益完善的生产方式、交往以及因交往而自然形成的不同民族之间的分工消灭得越是彻底，历史也就越是成为世界历史。”三是在权力结构上，资本逻辑构成主导权力关系的核心。“现代世界秩序则意味着以资本为枢轴的综合权力——较大权力对于较小权力——的支配和统治。”在权力涵盖方面，资本成为支配外物的“经济权力”，同时向政治、社会、文化等领域蔓延并上升为各领域抽象法则；在权力属性方面，资本的集权扩张催生出不仅游离于民族国家权力范畴之外，还假借“助推”世界现代化合法性之名，对各民族国家实施强制改造，并凌驾于国家权力之上的国际资本。由是，世界现代性逻辑逐步同资本主义现代性逻辑相互勾连，其不仅体现为资本以“物”支配“人”的内在属性和空间扩张的外在表征，且在现代性“目的合法”和“道义优先”的加持下，在权力范围和控制能力上日益广泛有效。

Capitalism aims to stabilize the global capitalist system under the cloak of modernity. Although it objectively introduced relatively modern modes of production worldwide, its purposes of capital valorization, spatial expansion, and tendency toward power domination have not substantially changed. This has led to a triple predicament of global modernity: value alienation, institutional differentiation, and the intertwining of modernization and de-globalization. First, the deepening of value alienation. In terms of the alienation of human subjective value, capitalist modernity uses the logic of capital to counteract the essential determination of human beings, making people sacrifice their own ends for the external goals of capital and turning them into instruments of capital’s greed and lust for power. In terms of the alienation of civilization’s ontological value, capitalist modernity not only reduces civilization to a utilitarian category driven by interests but also, at the cost of alienating the external world—nature, interpersonal relations, and society—for capital valorization, triggers ecological crises, interpersonal indifference, and social antagonism, continuously squeezing the space for human civilizational progress. Second, the intensification of institutional differentiation. From the perspective of the universal and the particular, the inherent contradictions of the capitalist system mean that “in the same relations in which wealth is produced, poverty is also produced; in the relations in which productive forces are developed, a force producing oppression is also developed.”[6]6 A paraphrase of Marx’s observation on the contradictory effects of capitalist development, from the *Grundrisse* or *Capital*. This uneven development spreads through international intercourse, causing late-developing countries to constantly replicate the universality of uneven development brought by the capitalist system. From the perspective of the whole and the parts, the capitalist system forces countries at different stages of modernity to compete and cooperate on the same stage, making the disparities in their development increasingly evident. According to the World Economic Forum’s *Global Risks Report 2022*, GDP growth in late-developing countries is expected to be 5.5% lower than projected over the next two years, while developed countries will exceed projections by 0.9%, with polarization continuing to widen. Thus, the capitalist system will exacerbate the economic fragmentation, institutional gaps, and relational barriers of modernity. Third, the intertwining of modernization and de-globalization at the practical level. On the one hand, in terms of individual gains, capitalist modernity, while promoting global development, has also created “winners” and “losers” of modernization. Some “losers” have turned to populism, unilateralism, protectionism, and other forces to fuel the wave of de-globalization, increasing the risk of international conflict. On the other hand, in terms of systemic structure, the global modernity system built by capitalism since the Industrial Revolution is loosening due to risks of economic recession, contradictions in political management, crises in the legitimacy of international institutions, and a lack of incentives for individuals. Capitalism is neither able to address the partial imbalances among these elements nor to rectify the overall disorder of the modernity system, leading to an intensification of the de-globalization trend.

资本主义旨在借现代性外衣实现资本主义全球体系的稳固，虽在客观上将相对现代的生产方式向全球推介，但其资本增殖目的、空间扩张动向和权力宰制倾向并无实质改变，由此陷入价值异化、制度分化、逆全球化的世界现代性三重困境：一是价值异化的加深。从人的主体价值异化来看，资本主义现代性以资本逻辑反制了人的本质规定性，使人为了资本的外在目标而牺牲了个体的目的性，成为了资本贪欲和权势欲的工具；从文明的本体价值异化来看，资本主义现代性不仅使文明沦为了利益驱动下的功利主义范畴，且以人与自然、人与人、人与社会等外部世界异化为资本增殖代价，引致生态危机、人际冷漠和社会对立，不断挤压人类文明的进步空间。二是制度分化的加剧。从普遍与特殊视角看，由于资本主义制度的内在矛盾使它“在产生财富的那些关系中也产生贫困；在发展生产力的那些关系中也发展一种产生压迫的力量”，这种发展不平衡随国际交往扩散，以致后发国家现代性不断复制资本主义制度带来的不平衡发展普遍性；从整体与部分视角看，资本主义制度使处于不同现代性阶段的国家被迫在同一舞台上竞争合作，以致各方发展的级差日益明显。据世界经济论坛2022年《全球风险报告》预测，后发国家未来两年GDP增幅将低于预期5.5%，发达国家则将高出0.9%，两极分化持续扩大。可见，资本主义制度将加剧现代性经济撕裂、制度鸿沟和关系隔碍等困境。三是实践层面现代化与逆全球化的交织。一则在个体收益上，资本主义现代性在推动全球发展的同时也塑造了现代化的“赢家”和“输家”，部分“输家”转而以民粹主义、单边主义、保护主义等助推逆全球化浪潮，加剧国际冲突爆发风险；二则在系统结构上，资本主义自工业革命以来构建的世界现代性体系，正因其经济衰退风险、政治管理矛盾、国际制度合法性危机及对个体激励的乏力而松动；资本主义既无法应对上述要素的局部失调，也难以整肃现代性体系的总体紊乱，导致逆全球化趋势加剧。

(II) Innovation and Reflection on Global Modernity Models

（二）世界现代性模式的创新和反思

Against the backdrop of the global modernity predicament induced by capitalist modernity, seeking a better solution for modernity models has become a focus of relevant theoretical schools. Among the most representative are Western modernity theory from European and American schools, neo-Marxist modernity theory, developmentalism and dependency theory from Latin American schools, and world-systems theory. Based on their differing goals, these theories can be divided into two categories: “Western-centric modernity” and anti-Western-homogenization “multiple modernities.”

在资本主义现代性诱发世界现代性困境背景下，寻求现代性模式的更优解成为相关理论流派的关注点，其中尤以欧美学派的西方现代性理论、新马克思主义现代性理论、拉美学派的发展主义与依附理论以及世界体系理论等最具代表性。依据其目标诉求分野，上述理论可分为“西方中心主义现代性”和反西方同质化的“多元现代性”两类。

First, Western-centrism attributes the solution to the modernity predicament to the self-adjustment of the capitalist modernity model, along with the imitation of this model by late-developing countries. In other words, late-developing countries must both inject the “prime mover” of capitalist productive forces and replicate each stage of capitalist modernization. However, this “unilinear” thinking on modernity not only fails to resolve the developmental crises of the West itself but also, with its undifferentiated “gradualist” developmental rhetoric, lacks attention to the relationship between universal demands and specific contexts of modernity. It deliberately exhibits a nihilistic view of history, an abstract theory of development, and an illusory reality, leading to turmoil in many late-developing countries during the global export of its representative theory—neoliberalism—and prompting reflection on the actual utility of this model.

其一，西方中心主义将应对现代性困境的方案归结为资本主义现代性模式的自我调适，连同后发国家对该模式的仿效。同言之，后发国家既要注入资本主义生产力的“原动力”，又要复刻资本主义现代化各阶段。然而，这种现代性“单线”思维非但不能解决西方自身发展危机，且无差别的“渐序”发展论调也缺乏对现代性普遍诉求与特殊情境关系的观照，蓄意表现出虚无的历史观、抽象的发展论和乌有的现实性，以致在其代表理论——新自由主义的全球输出过程中，招致诸多后发国家动荡，促使人们反思该模式的实际效用。

Second, the theory of multiple modernities has become a stone from another mountain [1]1 The author here draws on the idea that capitalism has become synonymous with modernity in mainstream Western discourse. for some Western leftist scholars who inherit the tradition of criticizing modernity while responding to the predicaments of modernity in values, institutions, and practical paths. First, neo-Marxist theory regards the capitalist mode of production as the cause of the global modernity predicament, but in practice, it both takes the establishment of a socialist system as the “minimum condition” for escaping the predicament and upholds the capitalist market economy as a precondition for modernity; this means that “all the changes they propose are changes within this economic-political system.” [2]2 Karl Marx, *Capital*, Vol. 3, Chapter 48, on the conditions for the development of a higher social form. Second, developmentalism and dependency theory created a “center-periphery” analytical framework, arguing that the inequality of modernity stems from the structure of capital flows—international capital controlled by developed countries occupies the “center” of modernity, and through unequal exchange it plunders the “peripheral” late-developing countries. Late-developing countries must either “decouple” from this capital structure or seek “dependent” development through the alliance of domestic and international capital. This one-sided external determinism that emphasizes the “center-periphery” exploitation of capital neglects the subjective agency of late-developing countries, and the “dependency” strategy also undermines the independence of late-developing countries, planting hidden dangers of uneven development in their modernization process. Third, world-systems theory, building on dependency theory, further subdivides the global landscape into “core-semiperiphery-periphery” and views modernization as the result of interaction among these zones. However, the theoretical abstraction of this approach makes it difficult to generalize, and it fails to specify the concrete conditions of interaction between capitalism and socialism. The above views show that the utopian tendency within the theory of multiple modernities, in its attempt to transcend capitalist modernity, reflects the theoretical incompleteness of this approach, and therefore it cannot serve as an effective basis for leading the world out of the modernity predicament.

其二，多元现代性理论成为部分西方左翼学者传承现代性批判传统，同时应对现代性价值困境、制度困境、实践道路困境的他山之石。第一，新马克思主义理论将资本主义生产方式视作世界现代性困境的诱因，但实际操作中，他们既将建立社会主义制度作为摆脱困境的“最低限定条件”，又奉资本主义市场经济为现代性前提；这使得“他们所提议的所有变化都是在这种经济—政治体制内的变化”。第二，发展主义和依附理论创立了“中心—外围”的分析框架，认为现代性的不平等源于资本的流动结构——发达国家控制的国际资本居于现代性“中心”，其借助不等价交换对“外围”后发国家实施掠夺。后发国家要么同这种资本结构“脱钩”，要么借国内国际资本联合寻求“依附式”发展。这种片面强调资本“中心—外围”剥削的外因决定论忽视了后发国家的主观能动作用，且“依附”策略也贬损了后发国家的独立性，埋下它们在现代化进程中非均衡发展的隐患。第三，世界体系理论在依附理论基础上细分出“中心—半边缘—边缘”的全球区块，并将现代化视作各区块互动的结果。然而，理论抽象性导致其缺乏可推广性，同时未能指出资本主义和社会主义互动的具体情况。上述观点表明：多元现代性理论在试图超越资本主义现代性中的空想倾向，体现出其理论的不彻底性，因而无法成为带领世界走出现代性困境的有效凭借。

In his planning of the model of modernity, Marx put forward two major propositions with foresight. First, the necessary path of socialist modernity. The “two inevitables” and the “two never-wills” [3]3 Karl Marx, *Grundrisse*, on capital’s creation of a system of universal exploitation. indicate the long-term nature and the non-sustainability of capitalism; its modernity will be superseded by a socialist modernity marked by the “association of free individuals.” [4]4 Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, *The German Ideology*, on the transition to world history. Second, the universal applicability of socialist modernity. For the advanced “European civilized countries,” when confronted with the challenge of the rise of modern America in the mid-19th century, they could escape their “dependency” on America through socialist revolution; for the backward “Oriental countries,” they could, under certain conditions, leap over the “Caudine Forks” [5]5 A reference to the concept of capital as the pivot of comprehensive power in modern world order, drawing on critical theories of global capitalism. to reach the advanced stage of socialist modernity while simultaneously appropriating the achievements of capitalist modernity. The reality, however, is this: on the one hand, capitalism has not yet entered a historical period of complete self-negation; it can still transfer its own contradictions through the unequal exchange of international capital, and its control over the global model of modernity has not weakened. On the other hand, constrained by the level of productive forces, the conditions for establishing the “association of free individuals” model of modernity are still lacking, and the exploration of socialist modernity represented by the Soviet Union was tortuous, once subjecting Marx’s vision of modernity to criticism. In response to this, Chinese-path modernization has served as a reliable model with systematic-structural characteristics, gradually revealing its brilliance [6]6 A paraphrase of Marx’s observation on the contradictory effects of capitalist development, from the *Grundrisse* or *Capital*. within the historical constraints of a full reflection on the global modernity predicament.

在对现代性模式的规划上，马克思曾前瞻性地提出两大观点：一是社会主义现代性的必由之路。“两个必然”和“两个绝不会”指明资本主义的长期性与不可延续性，其现代性将被以“自由人联合体”为标志的社会主义现代性超越。二是社会主义现代性的普遍适用度。针对发达的“欧洲文明国家”，在遭遇19世纪中叶现代美国崛起的挑战时，可通过社会主义革命摆脱对美国的“依附”；针对落后的“东方国家”，则可有条件地跨越“卡夫丁峡谷”到达社会主义现代性高级阶段，同时占有资本主义现代性成果。现实则是：一方面，资本主义尚未进入完全否定自身的历史时期，还能借国际资本不等价交换对自身矛盾予以转移，对世界现代性模式的控制力仍未减弱；另一方面，受生产力水平所限，“自由人联合体”的现代性模式建立还缺乏条件，且以苏联为代表的社会主义现代性探索曲折，一度使马克思的现代性设想遭受非议。对此，中国式现代化充当了具有系统结构性特征的可靠样板，在充分反思世界现代性困境的历史限定中渐露圭角。

II. Chinese-Path Modernization: A Response Plan Confronting the Global Modernity Predicament

二、中国式现代化：直面世界现代性困境的应对方案

Taking the global modernity predicament as its problem orientation, and taking the comprehensive building of a great modern socialist country and the comprehensive advancement of the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation as its practical goals, China has gradually developed, in the course of its modernization, a systematic structure of Chinese-path modernization comprising three dimensions: value, institution, and practice. These three dimensions are: interpreting the value orientation of modernity in the concern for human development, shaping the basic characteristics of modernity under the guidance of the socialist system with Chinese characteristics, and indicating the practical forms of modernization along the dimensions of economic-social formation and technological-social formation. The above three dimensions manifest the progressive and interconnected characteristics of “value principle—institutional principle—practical form.” They not only exert a positive systemic effect through multi-dimensional balance, but also integrate China’s economic and social development experience from the perspective of reflecting on the hidden worries of global modernity, providing a beneficial plan committed to leading the world out of the global modernity predicament.

以世界现代性困境为问题导向、以全面建成社会主义现代化强国、全面推进中华民族伟大复兴为现实目标，中国在现代化历程中逐步发展出一套包含价值、制度和实践立体层次的中国式现代化系统结构，分三个层次：在关注人的发展中诠释现代性价值取向，在中国特色社会主义制度导向中形塑现代性基本特征以及在经济社会形态、技术社会形态的维度指征现代化实践形式。上述三个层次彰显了“价值理念—制度原则—实践形态”的递进联动特性，既在多维平衡中发挥正的系统效应，又站在反思世界现代性隐忧视角对我国经济社会发展经验予以整合，提供了致力于走出世界现代性困境的有益方案。

(1) The Concern for Human Development Interprets the Value Orientation of Chinese-Path Modernization

（一）关注人的发展诠释了中国式现代化的价值取向

According to the systemic theory of modernity, the prerequisite for the modernization transformation of a given society lies in establishing the value legitimacy and priority of its modernity concept, so as to provide a basis for the withdrawal of the existing value system of that society and the evolution of its social formation. Chinese-path modernization not only takes “the human” as its value yardstick, embodying unity with the Marxist value pursuit, but also ensures the Two Integrations [7]7 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 traditional Chinese culture, a guiding principle for adapting Marxism to the Chinese context. at the theoretical foundation and takes root in China’s reality in its practical orientation, demonstrating a value purport distinct from other models of modernity.

依据现代性系统论观点，特定社会现代化转型的前提在于确立其现代性理念的价值正当性与位序优先性，以便为该社会现存价值体系的退出和社会形态的演进提供依据。中国式现代化既将“人”作为价值标度，体现了同马克思主义价值追求的统一，又在理论基础上确保“两个结合”、在实践指向上扎根中国现实，显示了异于其他现代性模式的价值旨归。

First, in terms of theoretical foundation, Chinese-path modernization, on the path of integrating the basic tenets of Marxism with China’s specific realities and with the best of traditional Chinese culture, displays two major value characteristics. One is, at the individual level, highlighting the value core of the free and comprehensive development of the individual. Aiming at the liberation of the human subject, modernization in the Marxist context is intended to guarantee two kinds of development, namely, “ensuring the extremely high development of the productive forces of social labor while at the same time ensuring the most comprehensive development of each individual producer.” [8]8 This is a paraphrase of a passage from Engels’s *Anti-Dühring* (Part III, Chapter 2), often cited in Chinese Marxist discourse to describe the goal of communist society. The spiritual traits and developmental forms of the best of traditional Chinese culture, such as “advocating benevolence, valuing the people, upholding good faith, esteeming righteousness, promoting harmony, and seeking common ground,” [9]9 This phrase is a standard formulation in official Chinese discourse summarizing the core spiritual traits of traditional Chinese culture, frequently invoked in discussions of the Two Integrations. also contain a simple longing for the equal development of the individual. Moreover, in the course of China’s development since modern times, awakening the individual consciousness of the people has also constituted an orientation of the Chinese nation’s modern transformation—“this movement of individual liberation is simultaneously accompanied by a movement for great unity and solidarity.” [10]10 This quotation is from the Chinese Marxist philosopher Li Dazhao (1889–1927), a co-founder of the CPC, reflecting his synthesis of individual liberation and collective unity. These ideas have provided a dual value accumulation for the generation of Chinese-path modernization. The other is, at the collective level, embodying the value pursuit of national rejuvenation and human progress. In order to fully manifest the individual personality in modern society, Marx took the association of free individuals as the limiting condition of modernity, thereby avoiding the contradictions brought about by the false interpersonal relations of capitalism. The best of traditional Chinese culture, with its value endowments of ethnic collectivism and symbiosis, has generated the ethnic unit of the Chinese nation in a substantive sense, and has constructed a collective cognition of “heaven-earth-self-others” through the sentiment of “the world is shared by all” and the concept of “harmony among all nations.” [11]11 “The world is shared by all” (天下为公) is a classical ideal from the *Book of Rites* (Liji), associated with the Confucian vision of a harmonious society; “harmony among all nations” (协和万邦) is from the *Book of Documents* (Shangshu), an ancient text advocating peaceful international relations. Through the integration of Marxism and the Chinese cultural lineage, Chinese-path modernization has generated a value core centered on the axis of national rejuvenation and drawing concentric circles of human common progress, thereby more consciously standing at the lofty dimension of the great trend of human development, the great pattern of world change, and the great history of China’s development, promoting the expansion of the value space of modernity and the elevation of its value connotation.

其一，在理论基础方面，中国式现代化在马克思主义基本原理同中国具体实际相结合、同中华优秀传统文化相结合的道路上显示了两大价值特性：一是在个体意义上，彰显个人自由全面发展的价值核心。以人的主体解放为目标，马克思主义语境中的现代化旨在保障两大发展，即“在保证社会劳动生产力极高度发展的同时又保证每个生产者个人最全面的发展”。中华优秀传统文化中“讲仁爱、重民本、守诚信、崇正义、尚和合、求大同”的精神特质和发展形态则同样蕴含对个体平等发展意愿的朴素憧憬，且在中国近代以来的发展历程中，唤起民众的个体意识也构成中华民族现代性变革的取向，“这个性解放的运动,同时伴着一个大同团结的运动”，上述理念为中国式现代化生成提供了双重价值积淀。二是在群体意义上，体现民族复兴、人类进步的价值追求。为使人的个性在现代社会中充分彰显，马克思将自由人联合体作为现代性限定条件，以此规避由资本主义虚假人际关系带来的矛盾。中华优秀传统文化则以族群主义、共生主义的价值资赋，从实体意义上生成中华民族这一族群性单位，又在“天下为公”情怀、“协和万邦”理念中建构起“天地—人己”的群体性认知。经马克思主义与中华文脉的融合，中国式现代化生成了围绕民族复兴枢轴线、绘制人类共进同心圆的价值内核，从而更加自觉地站在人类发展大潮流、世界变化大格局、中国发展大历史的崇高维度，推动现代性价值空间的拓展与价值内涵的跃升。

Second, the practical orientation of Chinese-path modernization embodies the forging of modern values in light of concrete conditions, including the realization of high-quality development, the development of whole-process people’s democracy, the enrichment of the people’s spiritual world, the achievement of common prosperity for all the people, the promotion of harmonious coexistence between humanity and nature, and the advancement of building a community with a shared future for mankind. First, high-quality development and common prosperity, as the orientation for advancing modernization in a country with a huge population, reflect the essential requirements of socialism. As of 2021, China’s total economic output exceeded 110 trillion yuan, and per capita GDP surpassed 80,000 yuan, thereby confirming that Chinese-path modernization can ensure the common development of all the people through advantages such as broad coverage, a large population reached, good economic returns, and a strong sense of gain among the masses. Second, the development of whole-process people’s democracy, the enrichment of the people’s spiritual world, and the promotion of harmonious coexistence between humanity and nature, as expressions of the richness and completeness of the human person, provide guarantees for China’s modernization goal of coordinating material and cultural-ethical progress and aligning interpersonal harmony with ecological harmony. China follows the principle of “coordinatedly advancing the economic, political, social, cultural, and environmental rights of all the people, striving to maintain social fairness and justice, and promoting the all-round development of the human person,” [12]12 State Council Information Office of the People’s Republic of China, “Progress in Human Rights in thereby embodying the value mission of ensuring the multi-dimensional modernization of all the people. Third, building a community with a shared future for mankind manifests the unity of developing one’s own country and benefiting the world under the theme of “taking humanity as the foundation,” and is a sublimation of the value orientation of China’s peaceful development path. Modernization is in essence an issue concerning all of humanity; individuals can only “acquire the capacity to utilize this global comprehensive production (the creations of human beings)” [13]13 Marx's three-stage theory of economic-social formations is outlined in his *Grundrisse* (1857–1858). The three stages are: (1) pre-capitalist societies based on personal dependence; (2) capitalist society based on dependence on things (commodities, money); (3) communist society based on the free development of individuals. within world-historical interconnections. By building a community with a shared future for mankind, China confirms the inclusive and universally beneficial nature of its own modern values and contributes the value force that advances the common progress of human society.

其二，中国式现代化的实践指向体现了结合实际对现代性价值的锻造，包含实现高质量发展，发展全过程人民民主，丰富人民精神世界，实现全体人民共同富裕，促进人与自然和谐共生，推动构建人类命运共同体等价值要求。第一，高质量发展和共同富裕作为在人口规模巨大的中国推进现代化的导向，体现了社会主义的本质要求。截至2021年，我国经济总量破110万亿元，人均国内生产总值超8万元，由此确证中国式现代化能够以覆盖范围广、辐射人口多、经济效益佳、群众获得感高等优势，确保全体人民共同发展。第二，发展全过程人民民主，丰富人民精神世界、促进人与自然和谐共生作为人的丰富性和完整性的体现，为我国物质文明和精神文明相协调、人际和谐与生态和谐相一致的现代化目标提供保障。我国以“协调增进全体人民的经济、政治、社会、文化、环境权利，努力维护社会公平正义，促进人的全面发展”为遵循，体现出确保全体人民多维现代化的价值使命。第三，构建人类命运共同体彰显了“以人类为本”主旨下发展本国与造福世界的统一，是对中国走和平发展道路这一价值取向的升华。现代化本质上是涉及全人类的议题，个体唯有在世界历史性关联中方能“获得利用全球的这种全面的生产（人们的创造）的能力”。我国以构建人类命运共同体确证自身现代性价值的包容普惠性，贡献了推动人类社会共同进步的价值力量。

(II) The Socialist System with Chinese Characteristics Shapes the “Historical-Structural” Features of Chinese-Path Modernization

（二）中国特色社会主义制度形塑了中国式现代化的“历史性-结构性”特征

The realization of Chinese-path modernization depends not only on the legitimacy of its modern value orientation but also on the feasibility of that value orientation being fully manifested under the regulation of the system. The unity of value and system constitutes the intrinsic determination of Chinese-path modernization. The specific institutional constraints of the socialist system with Chinese characteristics—such as its institutional orientation, institutional principles, institutional concepts, and institutional impetus—cause Chinese-path modernization to exhibit “historical-structural” features, specifically reflected in two aspects: the coordination of overall progressiveness with developmental stages, and the coordination of overall goal orientation with strategic systematicity.

中国式现代化的实现，既取决于其现代性价值取向的正当性，又有赖于价值取向在制度规制下充分呈现的可行性。价值和制度的统一构成中国式现代化的内在规定性。中国特色社会主义制度的制度导向、制度原则、制度理念、制度动力等具体制度限定使中国式现代化呈现“历史性-结构性”的特征，具体体现在整体进步性与发展阶段性相协调、目标总体性与战略系统性相配合两方面。

From the historical dimension, socialism with Chinese characteristics provides the overall institutional norms for Chinese-path modernization, ensuring the unity of its overall progressiveness and developmental stages. First, in terms of internal logic, Chinese-path modernization both conforms to the logical inevitability of socialist development, in which changes in the economic base bring about “a more or less rapid transformation” [14]14 This quotation is from Wang Huning, *Political Parties and Modernization* (1990), a study of the role of political parties in the modernization processes of various countries. of the superstructure, and follows the goal orientation of the intermediate stage that serves as a “political transition period” from capitalism to communism. [15]15 This quotation is from a speech by Xi Jinping, likely at a high-level UN meeting or a similar Guided by socialism with Chinese characteristics, Chinese-path modernization enables China to transcend the primary forms of “underdevelopment” and “not yet qualifying” and to move toward the bright prospect of communism, thereby both establishing the theoretical basis of its own modernity and reflecting the system’s driving role in modernization practice. Second, in terms of external process, a given institutional form must take the objective historical conditions of the preceding stage as its developmental premise and also serve as the condition for the sustained development of the subsequent stage. Socialism, as the “first phase” of communism born in a specific environment, inevitably exhibits a stepwise progressive character of quantitative change promoting qualitative change in its advance to a higher phase. Since socialism with Chinese characteristics also conforms to the socialist characteristics of gradual development and stage-by-stage breakthroughs, Chinese-path modernization under its institutional constraints displays successively elevated forms such as “adequate food and clothing, a moderately prosperous society, a comprehensively moderately prosperous society, and basic modernization.” [16]16 The drastic changes in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe (苏东剧变) refers to the collapse of communist regimes in the Soviet Union and Eastern European countries between 1989 and 1991. Moreover, the character of socialism with Chinese characteristics—advancing in waves and spiraling upward—propels Chinese-path modernization into a new stage of development, thereby providing methodological guidance for completing the “two-step” strategy [17]17 “A strong country is bound to seek hegemony” (国强必霸) is a common phrase in Chinese political discourse, summarizing a perceived pattern in capitalist great-power history. of basically realizing modernization by 2035 and building China into a great modern socialist country by the middle of this century.

从历史性维度看，中国特色社会主义为中国式现代化提供总体制度规范，确保后者整体进步性和发展阶段性统一。一是在内在逻辑性上，中国式现代化既符合由经济基础变更带来的上层建筑“或慢或快地发生变革”的社会主义发展的逻辑必然性，又遵循作为从资本主义进入共产主义这一“政治上的过渡时期”的中间阶段的目标导向性。在中国特色社会主义导引下，中国式现代化促使我国超越“不发达”、“不够格”的初级形态，并迈向共产主义光明前景，既标明自身现代性的立论依据，又体现制度对于现代化实践的促动作用。二是在外在过程性上，某一制度形态既要把前一阶段的客观历史条件作为发展前提，又要将自身作为后一阶段持续发展的条件。社会主义作为诞生于特定环境的共产主义“第一阶段”，其进入高级阶段的过程势必呈现以量变促质变的阶梯式递进特征。由于中国特色社会主义同样符合渐进发展、阶段突破的社会主义特性，其制度限定下的中国式现代化才会展示出“温饱、小康、全面小康、基本实现现代化”等接续提升形态；而中国特色社会主义波浪前进、螺旋上升的品格，又推动中国式现代化进入新发展阶段，进而为完成2035年基本实现现代化、本世纪中叶建成社会主义现代化强国的“两步走”战略提供了方法论指导。

From the structural dimension, Chinese-path modernization takes the comprehensive building of a great modern socialist country as its overall plan and achieves the systematic advancement of modernization through the combined force of specific institutional principles, institutional concepts, and institutional impetus. First, the requirement of “comprehensively” building a great modern socialist country determines that Chinese-path modernization follows the dual stipulations of coordinated advancement of the Five-Sphere Integrated Plan and coordinated promotion of the Four-Pronged Comprehensive Strategy, ensuring the panoramic unfolding of a socialist market economy, democratic politics, advanced culture, a harmonious society, and ecological civilization, as well as the domain-linked tasks of comprehensively building a modern socialist country, comprehensively deepening reform, comprehensively governing the country according to law, and comprehensively and strictly governing the Party. The interconnected framework formed by the Five-Sphere Integrated Plan and the Four-Pronged Comprehensive Strategy, through the complementary advantages and stable operation of institutional principles, provides Chinese-path modernization with a complete institutional guarantee. Second, the qualitative stipulation of building a “great” modern socialist country constitutes a high-level condensation of the modernization goal of “prosperity, democracy, civility, harmony, and beauty” [18]18 “Hegemony inevitably leads to decline” (霸极必衰) is a corollary phrase, suggesting that hegemonic overreach leads to a power’s eventual decline. and also makes the new development concept of “innovation, coordination, greenness, openness, and sharing” the fundamental focus of Chinese-path modernization. With innovation as the primary driving force, coordination as an inherent characteristic, greenness as a universal form, openness as the necessary path, and sharing as the fundamental purpose, Chinese-path modernization, guided by the new development concept, achieves optimization of development quality, enhancement of development efficiency, and elevation of development impetus. Third, the long-term goal and progress plan of comprehensively “building” a great modern socialist country make upholding and improving the socialist system with Chinese characteristics and advancing the modernization of the national governance system and governance capacity the systematic driving force of Chinese-path modernization. From the practical level, China’s national governance system provides the institutional premise and political transmission force for our modernization achievements, demonstrating the realistic logic of the mutual reinforcement of institutional construction and modernization practice—this is also the objective reason for continuing to uphold and improve the national governance system. From the theoretical level, with the advancement of modernization and the deepening of the Party’s understanding of modernization, elements such as “modernization of the governance system and governance capacity” have gradually been incorporated into the scope of Chinese-path modernization issues, fully demonstrating the unity of China’s institutional construction, governance system, and governance capacity building with the goal of “building” a great modern socialist country, and forcefully proving that Chinese-path modernization will inevitably move toward a new mature stage of theoretical completeness, comprehensive content, and structural perfection.

从结构性维度看，中国式现代化将全面建成社会主义现代化强国作为总体部署，并在具体制度原则、制度理念、制度动力的合力中实现对现代化的系统推进。其一，“全面”建成社会主义现代化强国的要求，决定了中国式现代化遵循统筹推进“五位一体”总体布局、协调推进“四个全面”战略布局的双重规定，确保社会主义市场经济、民主政治、先进文化、和谐社会、生态文明建设的全景式铺展以及全面建设社会主义现代化国家、全面深化改革、全面依法治国、全面从严治党任务的领域式联动；“五位一体”、“四个全面”形成的关联性骨架，又以制度原则的优势互补和稳序运行，为中国式现代化提供完善的制度保障。其二，全面建成社会主义现代化“强国”的性质规定，构成对“富强民主文明和谐美丽”的现代化目标的高度凝练，也促使“创新、协调、绿色、开放、共享”的新发展理念成为中国式现代化的根本着力点。以创新为第一动力、以协调为内生特点、以绿色为普遍形态、以开放为必由之路、以共享为根本目的，促使中国式现代化在新发展理念指引下获得发展质量的优化、发展效率的裨增和发展动力的擢升。其三，全面“建成”社会主义现代化强国的远景目标和进度规划使坚持和完善中国特色社会主义制度、推进国家治理体系和治理能力现代化成为中国式现代化的系统牵引。从实践层面看，我国的国家治理体系为我们取得现代化成就提供了制度前提和政治传动力，展现了制度建设与现代化实践相辅相成的现实逻辑，这也是继续坚持和完善国家治理体系的客观原因；从理论层面看，随着现代化的推进和党对现代化认知的深化，“治理体系和治理能力现代化”等内容逐步加入中国式现代化议题范畴，充分显示出我国制度建设、治理体系与治理能力建设同“建成”社会主义现代化强国目标的统一，力证了中国式现代化必将迈向理论周延、内容详备、结构完善的新的成熟阶段。

(III) The Economic Social Formation and the Technological Social Formation Indicate the Comprehensive Practical Form of Chinese-Path Modernization

（三）经济社会形态、技术社会形态指征了中国式现代化的综合实践形式

Chinese-path modernization contains within itself the pursuit of Chinese modern values and institutional concepts, while also indicating the form in which values and institutions enter into modernization practice. The history of modernization in human society is usually manifested in the evolution of social formations from lower to higher levels; the interactive connection between diverse social elements and modernization practice constitutes the source driving force of social formation progress. In this sense, a comprehensive analysis of Chinese-path modernization practice can be conducted through examination in the two dimensions of economic social formation and technological social formation.

中国式现代化内蕴中国现代性价值追求和制度理念，同时指证价值和制度进入现代化实践的形式。人类社会的现代化历史通常表现在社会形态由低级向高级的演进中，多元社会要素与现代化实践的关联互动构成社会形态进步的源动力。在此意义上，可借助在经济社会形态、技术社会形态两个维度的考察对中国式现代化实践予以综合分析。

First, on the dimension of economic-social formations, Chinese-path modernization manifests a practical mainline of the deepening development of the socialist market economy. Based on the nature of relations of production and the state of human development, Marx divided economic-social formations into three successive stages: the stage of a natural economy society embodying "relations of personal dependence," the stage of a commodity economy society embodying "personal independence founded on objective dependence," and the stage of a product economy society realizing "the free development of individuals." [13]13 Marx's three-stage theory of economic-social formations is outlined in his *Grundrisse* (1857–1858). The three stages are: (1) pre-capitalist societies based on personal dependence; (2) capitalist society based on dependence on things (commodities, money); (3) communist society based on the free development of individuals. Classified by the standard of modernity, commodity economy society is the mark of humanity's acquisition of modernity; both capitalism and socialism belong to this stage, with the goal of reaching product economy society, that is, the highest stage of communist modernity. For a long time, Chinese-path modernization, by combining the two logics of socialism and the market economy, has in practice accumulated the preconditions for advancing to a higher stage of economic-social formation: in practical thinking, it makes full use of both domestic and international markets and both types of resources to plan the modernization process, manifesting a strategic overall vision and dialectical, coordinated thinking; in practical safeguards, it both builds a high-level socialist market economy system and leverages China's institutional advantages in opening up, demonstrating the stabilizing and anchoring role of institutions and mechanisms for modernization through internal and external linkages; in practical structure, it focuses on constructing a new development pattern with domestic circulation as the mainstay and domestic and international circulations mutually reinforcing, using the two-way pull of internal and external circulations to open up a path of win-win development for world modernization. In sum, in the practice of unifying the purposiveness of human development with the regularity of the socialist market economy, Chinese-path modernization enables humanity to achieve liberation from the stage of "dependence on things," gathering the impetus for the economic-social formation to "irresistibly" tend toward the qualitative state of a "higher form."

一是在经济社会形态维度，中国式现代化显示出社会主义市场经济深化发展的实践主线。依据生产关系性质和人的发展状况，马克思划分了经济社会形态前后相继的三阶段：体现“人的依赖关系”的自然经济社会阶段，体现“以物的依赖性为基础的人的独立性”的商品经济社会阶段以及实现“人的全面发展”的产品经济社会阶段。以现代性标准划分，商品经济社会是人类获得现代性的标志，资本主义和社会主义皆属于该阶段，目标是到达产品经济社会，亦即共产主义现代性最高阶段。长期以来，中国式现代化通过结合社会主义和市场经济两大逻辑，在实践中厚植了通往经济社会形态更高阶段的前置因素：在实践思维上，充分利用国内国际两个市场、两种资源规划现代化进程，彰显了战略全局视野和辩证统筹思维；在实践保障上，一面构建高水平的社会主义市场经济体制，一面发挥我国在对外开放中的制度优势，在内外联动中彰显体制机制对现代化的压舱和定盘作用；在实践格局上，重点构建以国内大循环为主体、国内国际双循环相互促进的新发展格局，以内外循环的双向牵引开拓世界现代化共赢发展的路径。总之，在人的发展合目的性与社会主义市场经济合规律性相统一的实践中，中国式现代化促使人类从“对物的依赖性”阶段获得解放，汇集了经济社会形态“不可遏止地”朝着“更高形式”质态趋归的动力。

Second, on the dimension of techno-social formations, Chinese-path modernization has planned a practical path of new industrialization, informatization, urbanization, and agricultural modernization. Techno-social formation refers to the classification of social formations based on productive forces, the level of science and technology, and the corresponding industrial structure. First, following the "iron necessity" law of the boosting effect of productive forces and science and technology on modernization, Chinese-path modernization adheres to the gradual logic of entering industrial society and information society from agricultural society, while simultaneously exhibiting the "parallel" characteristic of synchronous development of new industrialization, informatization, urbanization, and agricultural modernization. There is no single model of modernization in the world; Chinese-path modernization neither ignores the diachronic evolutionary laws of techno-social formations nor takes shortening the modernization cycle as its mission. On one hand, it deeply taps its own development endowments; on the other, it accelerates development by leveraging the historical opportunities of world modernization and the favorable conditions created by pioneering countries, achieving a latecomer's catch-up through the synchronic advancement of modernization fields. Second, following the value orientation of "realizing the modernization of people," agricultural modernization and urbanization constitute important measures of Chinese-path modernization. Capitalist modernization mostly focuses on industrialization and informatization, while agricultural modernization is relegated to the issue of "agricultural transformation" in a context where the subject is absent; it neither touches the essence of the "modernization" problem nor causes some farmers to fall into development difficulties. Chinese-path modernization, in contrast, fully considers China's national conditions of a huge population size and a high proportion of rural population, using agricultural modernization and urbanization to drive the improvement of agricultural levels, the optimization of rural social structure, and the advancement of farmers' production and lifestyle, thereby promoting the realization of the modernization goal of "the undifferentiated development of people." Third, following the three-dimensional structural characteristics of techno-social formations as a social system, Chinese-path modernization emphasizes the coordination and cooperation of practical measures, continuously making modernization conform to the qualitative stipulations of higher-level techno-social formations. In terms of content, it ensures that agricultural modernization lays the foundation, urbanization provides a development platform, informatization raises the technological level of industry and agriculture and the level of urban intelligence, and new industrialization drives the optimization of the overall modernization structure; in terms of space, it emphasizes the national chessboard, coordinating regional development, industry distribution weights, and the degree of industrial agglomeration, thereby ensuring the balance, coordination, and sustainability of various modernization fields; in terms of factors, it both fully utilizes emerging factors such as technology, data, and information, and ensures the structural coupling of factors such as tradition and modernity, entity and virtuality, macro and micro, unleashing the synergistic boosting effect of various factors on modernization. In sum, through temporal co-advancement, spatial integration, and factor linkage, Chinese-path modernization manifests the coordination of the entire system of techno-social formations, continuously driving China's modernization to evolve and iteratively advance.

二是在技术社会形态维度，中国式现代化规划了新型工业化、信息化、城镇化、农业现代化的实践路径。技术社会形态指以生产力、科技水平及其相适应的产业结构为标准对社会形态进行的划分。第一，依据生产力和科技对现代化助推作用的“铁的必然性”规律，中国式现代化遵循从农业社会进入工业社会、信息社会的渐进逻辑，同时呈现新型工业化、信息化、城镇化、农业现代化同步发展的“并联式”特征。世界上不存在定于一尊的现代化样式，中国式现代化既未枉顾技术社会形态历时演进规律，又以缩短现代化周期为己任，一面深入挖掘自身发展禀赋，一面借世界现代化历史机遇和先发国家创造的有利条件加快发展，以现代化领域的共时推进实现本国发展的后来居上。第二，依据“实现人的现代化”的价值旨归，农业现代化、城镇化构成中国式现代化的重要举措。资本主义现代化多以工业化和信息化为重点，农业现代化则被归为主体缺席语境中的“农业转型”议题，既未触及“现代化”的问题本质，还造成部分农民陷入发展困境。中国式现代化则充分考虑我国人口规模巨大、农村人口占比高的国情，通过农业现代化、城镇化带动农业水平提升、农村社会结构优化和农民生产生活方式进阶，促使“人的无差别发展”的现代化目标实现。第三，依据作为社会系统的技术社会形态的立体结构性特征，中国式现代化侧重实践举措的协调配合，使现代化不断符合更高层次技术社会形态质的规定性。从内容上看，确保农业现代化奠定基础、城镇化提供发展平台、信息化提升工农业技术层次和城镇智能化水平、新型工业化带动现代化整体结构优化；从空间上看，强调全国一盘棋，统筹兼顾地区发展、行业分配权重和产业集聚程度，以此保障现代化各领域平衡性、协调性和可持续性；从要素上看，既充分利用技术、数字、信息等新兴要素，又确保传统与现代、实体与虚拟、宏观与微观等要素结构性耦合，发挥各要素对现代化的协同助推效应。总之，通过时序共进、空间融合与要素联动，中国式现代化彰显了技术社会形态全系统意义的协调，不断驱动我国现代化持续演进并迭代进阶。

III. The Internal Mechanism of Chinese-Path Modernization

三、中国式现代化的内在机理

The systematic-structural characteristics of Chinese-path modernization in terms of value concepts, institutional principles, and practical forms, from three macro perspectives—interaction among multiple subjects, examination of the relationship between two systems, and optimization of the state of human social existence—reveal the complete meaning and internal mechanism of gathering the joint forces of world modernity, releasing the advantages of the socialist system, and building a new form of human civilization. In the process of responding to changes in the world, the times, and history, Chinese-path modernization makes its due contribution to innovating the theoretical genealogy of world modernity and advancing the process of human civilization development.

中国式现代化在价值理念、制度原则和实践形态上的系统结构性特征，从多元主体互动、制度关系研判、人类社会存在状态优化三个宏观视角，昭示了凝聚世界现代性合力、释放社会主义制度优势、建设人类文明新形态的完整意涵和内在机理。在应对世界之变、时代之变、历史之变的过程中，中国式现代化为创新世界现代性理论谱系、推进人类文明发展进程做出应有贡献。

(I) Gathering the Joint Forces of World Modernity through the Interaction of Multiple Subjects

（一）在多元主体的互动中凝聚世界现代性合力

In the value horizon of Chinese-path modernization, the Communist Party of China is the leading subject, the people are the acting subject, and humanity is the co-advancing subject. This cognition, which emphasizes the co-presence and mutual influence of multiple subjects, is both a value refutation of capitalist modernity's subordination of human subjectivity to the logic of capital and an expansion of the traditional epistemological thinking of a single subject. It embodies the unity of three logics—the advancement of the Party's cause, the participation and action of the people, and the progress of human society—and manifests the value truth of the harmonious unity of the leading subject and the coordinating subject, the factual subject and the value subject.

在中国式现代化的价值视域中，中国共产党是领导主体，人民是行动主体，人类则是共进主体。这种强调多元主体共同在场且相互影响的认知，既是对资本主义现代性以资本逻辑贬抑人的主体性的价值反驳，又拓展了单一主体的传统认识论思维，体现党的事业推进、人民参与行动、人类社会进步三重逻辑的一致，彰显了领导主体与协同主体、事实主体与价值主体和谐统一的价值真义。

"Political parties are so important in the modernization competition of all contemporary societies that the modernization paths taken by different societies are often determined by political parties." [14]14 This quotation is from Wang Huning, *Political Parties and Modernization* (1990), a study of the role of political parties in the modernization processes of various countries. The Communist Party of China takes Marxism as its fundamental guidance, thus inherently containing the lofty ideals of criticizing capitalist modernity and constructing socialist modernity, as well as the specific orientation of realizing, safeguarding, and developing the fundamental interests of the people. Under the premise of advancing the country's own modernization, attending to the common modernity dilemmas faced by humanity and promoting the overall progress of world modernization become manifestations of the Party's broad vision, open outlook, and mutual benefit view. "Adhere to the people-centered development philosophy, place promoting development and ensuring people's livelihood in a prominent position in global macro policies, implement the United Nations 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, promote synergy and efficiency among existing development cooperation mechanisms, and promote balanced global development." [15]15 This quotation is from a speech by Xi Jinping, likely at a high-level UN meeting or a similar Based on the proletarian party's due concern for the development of all humanity, the Communist Party of China, with the orientation of the great abundance of material goods, the comprehensive development of people, and the coordinated progress of the international community, and with an intersubjective thinking of the harmonious unity of leadership and coordination, factuality and value, has constructed a "Party–People–Humanity" multi-subject collaborative modernization co-advancement model. This model not only endows the Party's special experience in leading China's modernization with universal value but also provides positive reference for, under the world modernity dilemma, using the approach of凝聚 modernity consensus and gathering modernization joint forces to achieve the integration of forces within individual nation-states and the union of forces among different nation-state groups.

“政党在所有当代社会的现代化竞争中如此重要，以至于不同社会所走的现代化道路往往是由政党所决定的。”中国共产党以马克思主义为根本指导，因而内在地包含资本主义现代性批判、社会主义现代性建构的崇高理想以及实现好、维护好、发展好人民根本利益的具体指向。在推进本国现代化的前提下，关照人类共同面临的现代性困境、推动世界现代化总体进步成为党的大局观、开放观、互利观的体现。“坚持以人民为中心的发展思想，把促进发展、保障民生置于全球宏观政策的突出位置，落实联合国2030年可持续发展议程，促进现有发展合作机制协同增效，促进全球均衡发展。”基于无产阶级政党对全人类发展的应有关切，中国共产党以物的极大丰富、人的全面发展和国际社会的协同进步为定位，以领导与协同、事实性和价值性和谐统一的主体间思维，建构了“政党—人民—人类”多主体协作的现代化共进模式。这一模式不仅使党领导我国现代化建设的特殊经验获得了普遍性价值，也为在世界现代性困境下以凝聚现代性共识、汇集现代化合力的思路、实现各民族国家内部力量整合、不同民族国家群体力量联合提供了积极的借鉴。

(II) Releasing the Advantages of the Socialist System through Scientifically Handling the Relationship between the Two Systems

（二）在科学处理两种制度的关系中释放社会主义制度优势

The coexistence of socialist and capitalist modernity constitutes the basic pattern of world modernity today, and the relationship between the two systems—socialism and capitalism—that provide legitimacy for their respective modernities becomes a key issue in the modernity discourse. Chinese-path modernization, through scientifically examining and handling the mutual relationship between the two systems, has brought about a significant shift in their contest in favor of socialism.

社会主义、资本主义的现代性并存构成当下世界现代性基本格局，而为各自现代性提供合法性依据的社会主义与资本主义两种制度的关系则成为现代性议题中的重点。中国式现代化通过科学研判和处理两种制度的相互关系，使二者的较量发生了有利于社会主义的重大转变。

“Institutions are the rules of the game in a society, or, more formally, are the humanly devised constraints that shape human interaction.” Socialism and capitalism are both inevitable outcomes of the world modernization process, and in their coexistence and competition they interactively influence the modern belonging of human society. First, with regard to socialism itself, the drastic changes in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe once cast a shadow over the prospects of socialism, and the modernity values it represents have been continuously obscured by the encirclement of the Western “classical” modernity model and the rise of “innovative” modernity models in late-developing countries. Chinese-path modernization, which takes socialism with Chinese characteristics as its institutional foundation, rationally integrates the universal significance and explanatory function of the socialist system with the specific field and implementation goals of modernization, thereby reaffirming the logic of the objective necessity of socialism. At the same time, it uses its practical institutional content to guide China’s modernization efforts toward fruitful results, confirming institutional superiority through tangible material development, thus refuting the criticism of socialism’s “historical exit” and providing factual grounds for its ideal path of transcending capitalism and reaching communism. Second, with regard to the competitive-cooperative relationship between socialism and capitalism, the inherent ideological attributes of the two, together with capitalism’s long-term strategy of Westernization and division, determine that competition between them is inevitable. At the same time, the symbiosis of economic globalization and world modernization has forged deep common interests between them, and they also face more challenges that require joint responses. Chinese-path modernization takes into account both institutional differences and the consistency of modernization goals, practicing an open socialist stance within the reasonable tension between the two systems. It not only contributes global development opportunities through its own development, but also provides a path choice, through the reference and supply of institutional solutions, for jointly emerging from the global modernity predicament together with capitalist countries. Third, with regard to the influence of socialism on capitalism, China is continuously building “a socialism that is superior to capitalism.” At present, China has fully recognized that the capitalist system is the root cause of the global modernity predicament, and that it is continuously consuming its own advanced nature and superiority as an institutional form due to the limits of its own development. Using the inherent prescriptiveness of the socialist system with Chinese characteristics to correct capitalism’s “capital-centered modernization, polarized modernization, modernization driven by materialist expansion, and modernization based on external expansion and plunder” not only conforms to the theoretical logic of using socialist institutional justice to rectify the direction of global modernity, but also centrally presents the practical logic of China demonstrating its own comparative advantages in modernity.

“制度是一个社会的博弈规则，或者更规范地说，它们是一些人为设计的、形塑人们互动关系的约束。”社会主义、资本主义既是世界现代化进程中的必然结果，又在并存博弈中交互影响人类社会的现代性归属。第一，就社会主义自身而言，苏东剧变一度使社会主义的前景蒙尘，其代表的现代性价值也在西方“经典”现代性模式的围堵、后发国家“创新”现代性模式的崛起中被不断遮蔽。以中国特色社会主义为制度基础的中国式现代化则将社会主义制度的普遍意义和解释功能、现代化的特定场域和实施目标予以合理融汇，借此重申社会主义的客观必然性逻辑；同时，还以符合实际的制度内涵指导我国现代化建设取得丰硕成果，用切实的物质发展确证了制度优越性，从而驳斥社会主义“历史性退场”的非议，为其超越资本主义、到达共产主义的理想进路提供了事实依据。第二，就社会主义与资本主义的竞合关系而言，二者固有的意识形态属性，连同资本主义长期的西化分化策略，决定了二者竞争不可避免；同时，经济全球化与世界现代化的伴生又使二者缔结了深厚的共同利益，也面临更多需要携手应对的挑战。中国式现代化则兼顾制度的差异性和现代化目标的一致性，在两种制度的合理张力中践行社会主义的开放立场，既以自身发展贡献全球发展机遇，又以制度性方案的参照和供给提供了与资本主义国家共同走出世界现代性困境的路径选择。第三，就社会主义对资本主义的影响而言，中国正不断建设“对资本主义具有优越性的社会主义”。当前我国已充分认识到，资本主义制度是诱发世界现代性困境的总根源，其正因自身发展的限度，不断消耗作为制度形态的先进性和优越性。而以中国特色社会主义制度的内在规定性矫治资本主义“以资本为中心的现代化、两极分化的现代化、物质主义膨胀的现代化、对外扩张掠夺的现代化”，不仅符合以社会主义制度正义匡扶世界现代性方向的理论逻辑，也集中呈现了我国彰显自身现代性比较优势的现实逻辑。

(3) Creating a new form of human civilization in optimizing the state of existence of human society

（三）在优化人类社会的存在状态中创造人类文明新形态

“Civilization is a matter of practice, it is the quality of society.” The concrete forms of human civilization are generally manifested in the state of existence of human society created through practice. The economic and social forms and technological social forms formed through the practice of Chinese-path modernization, because they have achieved optimization of specific states of existence such as the relationship between humans and nature, humans and society, humans and humans, and humans and the world, have become entry points for contributing ideas on building a new form of human civilization.

“文明是实践的事情，是社会的素质。”人类文明的具体形式，一般表现在通过实践创造的人类社会的存在状态当中。经中国式现代化实践形成的经济社会形态和技术社会形态，由于实现了对人与自然、人与社会、人与人、人与世界关系等具体存在状态的优化，成为贡献人类文明新形态建设思路的切入点。

At the level of construction ideas, by promoting the coordinated development of socialist material civilization, political civilization, cultural-ethical progress, social civilization, and ecological civilization, Chinese-path modernization optimizes the state of existence of subjects and objects, providing systematic ideas for building a new form of human civilization. On the one hand, it coordinates the state of existence between humans and nature, providing a model for resolving the global predicament of ecological alienation. “Ecological civilization is a product of industrial civilization at a certain stage of development, and is a new requirement for achieving harmonious development between humans and nature.” Chinese-path modernization, in terms of technological social form, is the simultaneous development of new industrialization, informatization, urbanization, and agricultural modernization, thereby forming a state of mutual growth and coexistence among agricultural civilization, industrial civilization, and information civilization. This not only transcends the inertial thinking under the capitalist modernity perspective where civilizational elements conflict with or replace each other, but also derives ecological civilization as a new form of civilization from the harmonious interaction of the basic picture, internal mechanisms, and development paths of civilizational elements. It takes the rational use of productive forces accumulated by nature as a prerequisite, achieving a true restoration of the relationship between humans and nature. On the other hand, Chinese-path modernization optimizes the state of existence between humans and humans, and between humans and society, contributing wisdom to avoiding the divisions and conflicts among parties in global modernity. Through the practical form of promoting modernization via the socialist market economy, Chinese-path modernization both meets the requirements for the comprehensive development of individuals and ensures the rational and efficient allocation of social resources. Within an economic and social form framed by strong institutions, supported by an effective market, and maintained by orderly interpersonal relations, Chinese-path modernization forms a special recognition of the connotation of modern civilization and an original design of the path of modern civilization, thereby contributing ideas for building a new form of human civilization.

在建设思路层面，通过促进社会主义物质文明、政治文明、精神文明、社会文明、生态文明协调发展，中国式现代化优化了主体与客体的存在状态，为人类文明新形态建设提供系统性思路。一方面，协调了人与自然的存在状态，为破解世界生态异化困境提供范本。“生态文明是工业文明发展到一定阶段的产物，是实现人与自然和谐发展的新要求。”中国式现代化在技术社会形态上是新型工业化、信息化、城镇化、农业现代化同步发展的，由此形成了农业文明、工业文明、信息文明相生共长状态，不仅超越资本主义现代性视野下文明要素彼此冲突或相互替代的惯性思维，还在文明要素基本图景、内在机制及其发展路径的和谐互动中衍生出生态文明这一文明新形态；它以合理利用自然积蓄的生产力为前提，实现了人与自然关系的真正复位。另一方面，中国式现代化优化了人与人、人与社会的存在状态，为规避世界现代性中的各方分裂矛盾贡献了智慧。借社会主义市场经济推动现代化这一实践形式，中国式现代化既满足了人全面发展的要求，又保障了社会资源配置合理高效；在有力制度框定、有效市场加持、有序人际维系的经济社会形态当中，中国式现代化形成了对现代文明内涵的特殊认定和对现代文明道路的原创设计，由此贡献人类文明新形态的建设思路。

At the level of concrete practice, China has created a new form of human civilization with elevated quality, expanded connotation, and sublimated purpose. First, the elevation of civilizational quality. If a certain form of civilization represents the overall progressive direction of world history rather than the development path of a single entity, it will gain a qualitative elevation. The capitalist world habitually views China as a “follower” of Western modernization and a “chaser” of modern civilization, which both denies the uniqueness of China’s modernization and diminishes the substantive utility of the inheritance of Chinese civilization for the progress of human civilization. In fact, Chinese-path modernization has both the spatiotemporal prescriptiveness of realizing the modernization of the Chinese nation and the trans-spatiotemporal purposiveness of promoting the overall evolution of human history through the development of the Chinese nation. Therefore, the form of civilization it creates is not merely juxtaposed with other forms of civilization, but also manifests the essence of civilization at the height of world history. Second, the expansion of civilizational connotation. The directions of civilization in the modern world vary greatly; “‘cross-civilization dialogue’ alone signifies a hopeful prospect for humanity.” China promotes the overall progress of human civilization through exchange and mutual learning, providing strong support for the diverse development of human civilization. Third, the sublimation of civilizational purpose. “Peace” and “development” in the process of modernization often lead to a certain paradox, especially the capitalist modernity orientation of “a strong country is bound to seek hegemony” and “hegemony inevitably leads to decline,” along with its mode of operation, which deepens the development predicament under the background of conflicts among multiple civilizations. Chinese-path modernization insists that “mutual respect, solidarity and cooperation, and harmony and coexistence are the correct path for the development of human civilization,” using its own civilizational wisdom to bridge the divergence between peace and development, to take into account the differences in development goals of different civilizational entities, and to manifest the lofty purpose of the new form of human civilization.

在具体实践层面，中国创造了质态提升、内涵拓展、旨趣升华的人类文明新形态。一是文明质态的提升。若某一文明形态代表世界历史的总体进步方向而非单一个体的发展道路，则将获得质的意义的提升。资本主义世界惯常将中国视为西方现代化的“跟从者”和现代文明的“追赶者”，这既否定我国现代化独特性，也贬损了中华文明传承对于人类文明进步的实质效用。事实上，中国式现代化既有实现本民族现代化的时空规定性，又有以本民族发展促使人类历史总体演进的超时空目的性。因此它创造的文明形态不止同其他文明形态并列，还彰显了世界历史高度上的文明本质。二是文明内涵的拓展。现代世界中的文明指向千差万别，“‘跨文明对话’方始意味着人类有希望的前景”。中国在交流互鉴中促进人类文明的整体进步，提供了对于人类文明多元发展的有力支撑。三是文明旨趣的升华。现代化进程中的“和平”与“发展”往往导向某种悖论，特别是资本主义“国强必霸”、“霸极必衰”的现代性取向及其运行方式，加深了多元文明冲突背景下发展困境。中国式现代化则坚持“相互尊重、和衷共济、和合共生是人类文明发展的正确道路”，用本国的文明智慧弥合和平与发展的背离、兼顾不同文明体发展目标的差异，彰显了人类文明新形态的崇高旨趣。

Online editor: Tongxin

网络编辑：同心