A Comparison of “Two Systems”: Three Modalities of Modernization Theory and Modernization Practice

Modernization practice gives rise to modernization theory and constantly tests the vitality and scientific validity of different theories; modernization theory guides the direction of modernization practice and is repeatedly tested and transformed in practice. From a practical perspective, modernization practice since the Industrial Revolution has manifested as the capitalist first-mover predatory type, the capitalist latecomer dependent type, and the socialist latecomer independent type. Capitalist modernization theory and practice once played a very important role in the progress of human history. However, capitalist modernization, which “fastened the first button” incorrectly, will only reveal its own absurdity and gradually move toward the historical “garbage heap” the further it develops. To date, humanity has experienced three waves of modernization. The capitalist modernization model “dominated the world” during the first and second waves, but in the third wave, it was exposed in practice by the emerging socialist modernization, which represents the direction of historical progress, revealing its absurd and reactionary essence. Guided by the scientific truth of Marxism, a Chinese-path modernization path has gradually taken shape—one that neither depends on developed capitalist countries and international financial monopoly capital nor plunders or exploits backward countries. Chinese-path modernization has become a brilliant model of socialist latecomer independent modernization and has also provided entirely new ideas and solutions for the cause of human modernization.

现代化实践催生现代化理论并时刻检验着不同理论的生命力与科学性，现代化理论指引着现代化实践的前进方向并在实践中被反复检验与发生嬗变。从实践层面来看，自工业革命以来的现代化实践呈现出资本主义先发掠夺型、资本主义后发依附型与社会主义后发独立型。资本主义的现代化理论与实践在人类历史进步中曾发挥了极为重要的作用，然而从“第一颗扣子”就已扣错的资本主义现代化，只会越往前发展，越使自己出丑并逐渐走向历史的“垃圾堆”。迄今为止，人类经历了三次现代化浪潮，资本主义现代化模式在第一次和第二次现代化浪潮中“一统天下”，却在第三次现代化浪潮中被新兴的、代表历史前进方向的社会主义现代化在实践中揭露了荒谬性和反动性的实质。在马克思主义科学真理指引下，一条既不依附于发达资本主义国家与国际金融垄断资本，也不对落后国家实施掠夺剥削的中国式现代化道路逐渐形成，中国式现代化成为社会主义后发独立型现代化的光辉典范，同时也为人类现代化事业提供了全新的破题思路与解题方案。

I. Capitalist and Socialist Modernization Theory

一、资本主义与社会主义现代化理论

(A) Capitalist Modernization Development Theory after World War II

（一）二战以后资本主义的现代化发展理论

Modernization theory and modernization practice are closely linked; shifts in the locus of practical needs often constitute an important driving force for the emergence and success of theory. In 1776, Adam Smith published the monumental work in the history of human economic thought, *An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations* (abbreviated as *The Wealth of Nations*). The liberal revolution he initiated firmly grasped the main thread of capitalist enrichment of the nation and development of the economy, and the series of policy proposals he put forward provided theoretical guidance for capitalist modernization development. At this time, Britain had already launched the first wave of modernization centered on industrialization, creating the original modality of modernization. Subsequently, many economists produced a wealth of research results on core issues such as value creation and value distribution in the process of capitalist economic development, providing theoretical support for capitalist modernization. After World War II, the third and most extensive and profound wave of modernization in human society arrived, and the Third World faced difficulties in economic and social development. Against this backdrop, a new discipline—development economics—emerged in response to the needs of the times. Its main research content included how poor and backward Third World countries could achieve modernization centered on industrialization. Economist Hollis Chenery divided development economics into the neoclassical school, the neo-Marxist school, and the structuralist school, a classification widely recognized in academia. Chinese development economist Zhang Peigang changed “school” to “theory,” dividing development economics into neoclassical economic development theory, structuralist economic development theory, radical economic development theory, and neo-Marxist economic development theory. The main representative scholars of structuralist economic development theory include Paul Rosenstein-Rodan, Ragnar Nurkse, Hans Singer, W. Arthur Lewis, Hollis Chenery, and Karl Gunnar Myrdal. They generally believed that the economic development of underdeveloped countries should not be dominated by market forces; they advocated strengthening government intervention in resource allocation during the modernization process, formulating priority development strategies, and implementing import-substitution industrialization policies and planned management systems. The main representative scholars of neoclassical economic development theory include Deepak Lal, Jacob Viner, Gottfried Haberler, and Peter Thomas Bauer. They highly affirmed the role of market mechanisms in resource allocation, advocated individualism, supported privatization, opposed government intervention, and advocated trade liberalization and financial liberalization reforms. The essence of the debate between these two major economic development theories is whether to implement economic control or *laissez-faire*; the core of the debate is the role of market mechanisms in modernization development. Fundamentally, they do not touch upon the issue of ownership, and therefore cannot resolve the fundamental contradictions of capitalism. In the historical test of practice, they are bound to be riddled with errors. As Engels described in the preface to the English edition of *Capital*, “*Capital* is often called on the Continent ‘the Bible of the working class.’ No one who is familiar with the working-class movement will deny that the conclusions arrived at in this work are becoming more and more the fundamental principles of the great working-class movement.” Economic thought has a distinct class character. The economic ideas produced by bourgeois economists are often mixed with the selfish desires and demands of interest groups. While neoclassical and structuralist economists may have differences in their views on economic development theory, sometimes even clashing and criticizing each other, their fundamental stance is highly consistent: it is all aimed at maintaining the rule of international monopoly groups, achieving the reform of the capitalist system, and stabilizing the capitalist international political and economic order. Scholars from developed capitalist countries often avoid mentioning their class stance, offering a series of theoretical “prescriptions” to the Third World under the banner of universality. However, once these ideas and viewpoints are tested in practice, they reveal the “bloodthirsty fangs” of the international monopoly capital groups behind them. Monopoly is an inevitable trend of capitalist development, and the intensification of exploitation it brings has extended from the domestic to the international sphere. Whether structuralist or neoclassical, scholars generally advocate that the Third World develop manufacturing by relying on foreign capital, which in practice often evolves into international value transfer and exploitation. It is worth noting that the analytical methods, some ideas, and policy proposals of Western scholars have a certain reference value. However, if they are copied mechanically and absorbed wholesale, they will more often than not bring endless side effects.

现代化理论与现代化实践是紧密相连的，实践层面需求落点的转移通常构成理论产生与获得成功的重要驱动力。1776年，亚当·斯密发表人类经济思想史上的巨著《国民财富的性质和原因的研究》（简称《国富论》），开启的自由主义革命紧紧抓住了资本主义富国裕民、发展经济的主线，提出的一系列政策主张为资本主义现代化发展提供了理论遵循。而此时的英国已然开启了以工业化为核心内容的第一次现代化浪潮，正在创造现代化的原生样态，此后，许多经济学家围绕资本主义经济发展过程中的价值创造、价值分配等核心议题产生了丰硕的研究成果，为资本主义的现代化提供了理论支撑。第二次世界大战以后，影响人类社会最为广泛、深刻的第三次现代化浪潮来临，第三世界面临经济社会发展的难题。在此背景下，一门新兴学科——发展经济学随着时代需求而兴起，其主要研究内容包括贫困落后的第三世界如何实现以工业化为核心内容的现代化。经济学家霍利斯·钱纳里将发展经济学分为新古典学派、新马克思学派和结构学派，这一划分方式得到了学界的广泛认可。中国发展经济学家张培刚则将“学派”改称为“理论”，把发展经济学分为新古典主义的经济发展理论、结构主义的经济发展理论、激进的经济发展理论和新马克思主义的经济发展理论。结构主义的经济发展理论的主要代表学者有保罗·罗森斯坦·罗丹、拉格纳·纳克斯、汉斯·辛格、威廉·阿瑟·刘易斯、霍利斯·钱纳里和卡尔·冈纳·缪尔达尔等。他们总体上认为欠发达国家的经济发展不应由市场力量主导，主张加强政府对现代化进程中资源配置的干预，制定优先发展战略，实施进口替代工业化政策和计划管理体制。新古典主义的经济发展理论的主要代表学者有狄帕尔·拉尔、雅各布·瓦伊纳、戈特弗里德·哈伯勒、彼得·托马斯·鲍尔等。他们高度肯定市场机制在资源配置中的作用，倡导个人主义，主张私有化，反对政府干预，主张贸易自由化与金融自由化改革。这两大经济发展理论争论的实质是实行经济统制还是自由放任，争论的核心是市场机制在现代化发展中的作用，从根本上并不触及所有制问题，也就无法解决资本主义的根本矛盾，在历史的实践检验中必将是错漏百出的。也正如恩格斯在《资本论》英文版序言中所描述的，“《资本论》在大陆上常常被称为‘工人阶级的圣经’。任何一个熟悉工人运动的人都不会否认：本书所作的结论日益成为伟大的工人阶级运动的基本原则”，经济思想具有鲜明的阶级属性。资产阶级经济学家产生的经济思想往往掺杂着利益团体的私欲与诉求，而新古典主义与结构主义经济学家对经济发展理论的观点或许有所分歧，甚至有时针锋相对、相互非难，但根本立场却是高度一致的，皆是以维护国际垄断集团统治、实现资本主义制度改良与资本主义国际政治经济秩序稳定为根本目的。发达资本主义国家的学者往往讳言自己的阶级立场，打着普世性的旗号为第三世界提出一系列理论“药方”，而这些思想观点一经实践检验便露出其背后国际垄断资本集团“嗜血的獠牙”。垄断是资本主义发展的必然趋势，其带来的剥削加剧已然从国内延伸至国际。无论是结构主义还是新古典主义的学者总体上主张第三世界通过依靠外资发展制造业，这在实践中往往演化为国际范围的价值转移与剥削。值得注意的是，西方学者的分析方法、部分思想观点与政策主张具有一定的借鉴价值，但如果照搬照抄、全盘吸收，更多时候可能会带来无尽的副作用。

(B) The Social Development Thought of the Classical Marxist Writers

（二）马克思主义经典作家的社会发展思想

Although Marx and Engels never used the term “modernization,” their rich theoretical constructions produced many groundbreaking theoretical judgments on important issues such as the stage-based division of economic and social development, the driving forces of social development, the mechanisms of international capitalist exploitation, and the basic features of socialist society. In particular, they produced two major discoveries—historical materialism and the theory of surplus value—that have had a profound impact on and provided methodological guidance for the modernization of human society. As early as his work at the *Rheinische Zeitung*, Marx paid close attention to practical problems, focusing on the material interests of the impoverished populace in issues such as the theft of wood. While criticizing the Prussian government, he initially developed the embryonic form of a theory of social development centered on human development, which holds important theoretical significance for studying the modernization of human beings. In works such as *The German Ideology* and *The Communist Manifesto*, Marx and Engels engaged in profound reflections on the industrial birth of capitalism and its global expansion, the unevenness of industrial development, and the economic development of a future communist society. For example, in *The German Ideology*, Marx and Engels concentrated on expounding the basic principles of historical materialism, revealing the laws of development in human social history, and providing a method of thought for studying economic and social development. At the same time, Marx and Engels analyzed the origins of capitalist modernization, arguing that the new era characterized by the world market generated demands that exceeded the products of English manufacture, and that “this overproduction of demand was the driving force that gave rise to the third period of private property development since the Middle Ages; it produced large-scale industry—the application of natural forces to industrial purposes, the adoption of machine production, and the most extensive division of labor.” [1]1 Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, *The German Ideology* (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1976), p. 72. They also pointed out the tendency of capitalist modernization, centered on industrialization, to expand into peripheral countries: “The big industry of the developed countries also influences those countries that are more or less non-industrial, because those countries are drawn into the universal competitive struggle through world intercourse.” [2]2 Ibid., p. 73. In *The Communist Manifesto*, Marx and Engels depicted a future vision of social development premised on the abolition of private property, with steps such as the expropriation of landed property, the use of ground rent for state expenditure, the imposition of a heavy progressive or graduated income tax, and the abolition of inheritance rights, while simultaneously dissolving “the exploitation of one nation by another.” [3]3 Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, *The Communist Manifesto* (London: Penguin, 2002), p. 241. In *Capital*, that great economic-theoretical work, Marx systematically studied the laws of capitalist economic development, putting forward important theses such as “The country that is more developed industrially only shows, to the less developed, the image of its own future,” [4]4 Karl Marx, *Capital*, Volume I (London: Penguin, 1990), p. 91. providing encyclopedic intellectual support for the innovative development of socialist modernization theory.

马克思、恩格斯虽未使用过现代化一词，但在其丰富的思想建构中，围绕经济社会发展的阶段划分、社会发展动力、资本主义国际剥削机制、社会主义社会的基本特征等重要理论问题产生了许多具有开创性的理论研判，尤其是产生了唯物史观与剩余价值学说这两大对人类社会现代化具有深刻影响与方法论指导意义的重要发现。早在《莱茵报》工作期间，马克思就极为关注现实问题，在林木盗窃案等议题上对贫困百姓物质利益问题予以了关注，在批判普鲁士政府的同时，初步产生了以人的发展为出发点的社会发展思想雏形，对于研究人的现代化发展具有重要理论意义。在《德意志意识形态》《共产党宣言》等著作中，马克思、恩格斯对资本主义的工业化诞生及其世界扩张、工业化发展的不平衡性、未来共产主义社会的经济发展等问题进行了深邃思考。例如，在《德意志意识形态》中马克思、恩格斯集中阐释了历史唯物主义的基本原理，揭示了人类社会历史的发展规律，为研究经济社会发展提供了思想方法。同时，马克思、恩格斯还分析了资本主义现代化的起源，认为以世界市场为基本特征的新时期产生了超出英国工场手工业产品的需求，而“这种超过了生产力的需求正是引起中世纪以来私有制发展的第三个时期的动力，它产生了大工业——把自然力用于工业目的，采用机器生产以及实行最广泛的分工”。他们还指出了以工业化为核心的资本主义现代化向外围国家扩张的趋势，“大工业发达的国家也影响着那些或多或少是非工业性质的国家，因为那些国家由于世界交往而被卷入普遍竞争的斗争中”。在《共产党宣言》中，马克思、恩格斯描绘了以消灭私有制为条件，以剥夺地产、把地租用于国家支出、征收高额累进税、废除继承权等为实现步骤，同时消解“民族对民族剥削”的未来社会发展图景。在《资本论》这一经济理论巨著中，马克思又系统研究了资本主义的经济发展规律，提出了“工业较发达的国家向工业较不发达的国家所显示的，只是后者未来的景象”等重要论述，为社会主义现代化理论的创新发展提供了百科全书式的思想支撑。

Lenin led the creation of the world’s first socialist state and initiated the process of creating the original modality of socialist modernization. In the practical exploration of leading the Soviet regime, many theoretical and intellectual crystallizations were born that both conformed to the characteristics of the era and met the practical needs of building socialism in backward countries. These provided important theoretical guidance for the subsequent socialist modernization of the Soviet Union and for other countries embarking on the path of socialist modernization. First, Lenin advocated the rational absorption and utilization of the beneficial elements of capitalism to consolidate Soviet power, and put forward the famous formula: “Soviet power + Prussian railway order + American technology and trust organizations + American national education, etc., etc. ++ = sum = socialism.” [5]5 V. I. Lenin, “The Immediate Tasks of the Soviet Government,” *Collected Works*, Vol. 27 (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1965), p. 259. Second, Lenin advocated taking science and technology as the supporting driving force for economic and social development, from which he further proposed that “Communism is Soviet power plus the electrification of the whole country.” [6]6 V. I. Lenin, “Report on the Work of the Council of People’s Commissars,” *Collected Works*, Vol. 31 (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1966), p. 516. He believed that for Russia at that time to escape the status of a small-peasant country and prevent the restoration of capitalism, it was necessary to “transfer the economy, including agriculture, to a new technical basis, to the technical basis of modern large-scale production. Only electricity can serve as such a basis.” [7]7 V. I. Lenin, “Our Foreign and Domestic Position and the Tasks of the Party,” *Collected Works*, Vol. 31 (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1966), p. 419. At the same time, Lenin made education a key focus for achieving electrification, emphasizing: “When we are illiterate, it is impossible to achieve electrification.” [8]8 V. I. Lenin, “The Work of the People’s Commissariat for Education,” *Collected Works*, Vol. 32 (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1965), p. 137. Third, Lenin believed that the masses of the people were the supporting force for socialist modernization and the ultimate service target of modernization. He pointed out that the electrification of the Soviet state must rely closely on the broad masses of workers, peasants, and intellectuals including scientists and engineers: “The war on the economic front is more difficult and more protracted; to win on this front, more workers and peasants must become active, proactive, and loyal.” [9]9 V. I. Lenin, “The Immediate Tasks of the Soviet Government,” *Collected Works*, Vol. 27 (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1965), p. 259. At the same time, he clearly established serving the people as the fundamental purpose of socialist modernization, and sharply stated: “Everything done under capitalism is for the upper classes. It cares nothing for the lower classes.” [10]10 V. I. Lenin, “The State and Revolution,” *Collected Works*, Vol. 25 (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1964), p. 462. Finally, Lenin emphatically stressed the leading role of the Communist Party in socialist modernization and economic management. In his 1921 article “The Party Crisis,” he criticized syndicalist tendencies, pointing out that “the vanguard of the proletariat—the Communist Party—leads the non-party masses of workers, enlightening, training, educating, and cultivating these masses (the ‘school’ of communism), first the workers, then the peasants, so that they can and indeed do concentrate the management of the entire national economy in their own hands.” [11]11 V. I. Lenin, “The Party Crisis,” *Collected Works*, Vol. 32 (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1965), p. 45. Lenin’s thought on socialist modernization was a theoretical innovation based on practice. While inheriting and verifying the truth of Marx and Engels’ thought on economic and social development, it also provided guidance for economically and culturally backward countries to catch up in modernization. In Lenin’s view, modernization had to be combined with specific national conditions, actively utilize capitalism, always adhere to the leadership of the proletarian party, and always rely on and serve the people. This series of theoretical propositions has had an important historical impact on the opening up of the Chinese-path modernization, and still holds significant reference value for the strategic choices of comprehensively building a modern socialist country today and in the future.

列宁领导创立了世界上第一个社会主义国家，领导开启了社会主义现代化原生样态的创造历程，在其领导苏维埃政权的实践探索中诞生了许多既符合时代特征，又契合落后国家建设社会主义现实需要的思想理论结晶，为之后苏联的社会主义现代化建设以及其他走上社会主义现代化发展道路的国家提供了重要的思想理论指引。首先，列宁主张合理吸收与利用资本主义的有益因素以巩固苏维埃政权，并提出了“苏维埃政权+普鲁士的铁路秩序+美国的技术和托拉斯组织+美国的国民教育等等等等++=总和=社会主义”这一著名公式。其次，列宁主张将科学技术作为经济社会发展的支撑动力，由此又提出了“共产主义就是苏维埃政权加全国电气化”，他认为当时的俄国要想摆脱小农国家和防止资本主义复辟，就必须把“经济，包括农业在内，转到新的技术基础上，转到现代大生产的技术基础上。只有电力才能成为这样的基础”。与此同时，列宁把教育作为实现电气化的重要着力点，他强调：“当我们有文盲的时候是不可能实现电气化的。”再次，列宁认为人民群众是社会主义现代化建设的依靠力量与现代化的最终服务对象。他指出苏维埃国家电气化要紧紧依靠包括广大工人、农民以及科学家、工程师等在内的知识分子，“经济战线上的战争更困难、更持久；要在这条战线上获胜，必须使更多的工人和农民变得主动、积极和忠诚”。同时，他还明确把服务人民确立为社会主义现代化的根本旨归，并鲜明指出“资本主义制度所做的一切都是为了上层。对下层它是不关心的”。最后，列宁突出强调了共产党在社会主义现代化建设与经济管理中的领导作用。他在1921年发表的《党内危机》中批判了工团主义问题，指出“无产阶级先锋队——共产党，领导非党的工人群众，启发、训练、教育、培养这些群众（共产主义的“学校”），先是工人，然后是农民，以便使他们能够做到并且确实做到把全部国民经济的管理集中在自己手中”。列宁的社会主义现代化思想是在实践基础上的理论创新，在继承并验证马克思、恩格斯经济社会发展思想真理性的同时，也为经济文化落后国家实现现代化赶超提供了指导。在列宁看来，现代化要与具体国情相结合，积极利用资本主义，始终坚持无产阶级政党领导，始终依靠人民并为了人民。这一系列思想理论主张对中国式现代化道路的开辟有着重要的历史影响，对于今天乃至未来全面建设社会主义现代化国家的战略选择依然有着重要的参考价值。

(III) Foreign Left-Wing Radical Theories of Modernization Development

（三）国外左翼激进主义的现代化发展理论

First, it must be clarified that the radical theory of modernization development generally belongs to the Marxist paradigm of thought, is deeply influenced by Marxism in its propositions for political-economic transformation, and has also broadened the theoretical boundaries of the Marxist paradigm through innovative development. Cheng Enfu and Hu Leming argue that the innovative concepts and theories of radicalism, such as “the political economy of underdevelopment,” “late capitalism,” “center–periphery,” and “world-systems,” have achieved an organic integration of the inheritance and innovation of Marxist economic theory; contemporary foreign Marxist economic theory research is an important driving force for the dissemination and development of Marxist economics. On the one hand, radical thought and theory generally take Marxism as their intellectual source. Radical scholars generally adhere to the worldview and methodology of dialectical materialism and historical materialism, comprehensively apply specific methods such as class analysis, and absorb intellectual elements such as the Marxist labor theory of value and the theory of capital accumulation. At the same time, the radical scholars’ commitment to changing the existing international unequal order reflects the core values of Marxism in pursuing the liberation of all humanity, which is clearly different from the neoclassical and structuralist theories of economic development at the level of value pursuit. In terms of specific strategies for change, many radical scholars also advocate overthrowing capitalism through class struggle and violent revolution, thereby promoting the modernization of the economy and society. On the other hand, radical thought and theory differ to a certain extent from the “original intent” of Marxist economic theory. Zhang Jianxin believes that neo-Marxist dependency theory is a nonlinear development of Marxism, and world-systems theory is in turn a nonlinear development of neo-Marxism. In the formation process of the radical theory of modernization development, radical scholars represented by Wallerstein showed a tendency toward synthesis and interdisciplinarity, achieving cross-fertilization between economics and disciplines such as philosophy, sociology, history, geography, and ecology. In addition, some radical scholars, such as Prebisch, also absorbed and drew on the viewpoints of structuralist economic development theory; as a result, many scholars often regard the early Prebisch as a representative of structuralist theory. Although it has drawn on some research results from capitalist modernization theory, the main research purpose of the radical theory of modernization development is to explore a new path for the Third World to achieve modernization, to expose and criticize the decadent backwardness and reactionary nature of the capitalist system, and to demonstrate the necessity of establishing a socialist system. This is fundamentally different from the modernization theory of Western bourgeois scholars, which takes the maintenance of capitalist rule as its criterion.

首先需要明晰的是，激进主义的现代化发展理论总体上归属于马克思主义的思想范式，在政治经济的变革主张方面深受马克思主义影响，同时也在创新发展中拓宽了马克思主义思想范式的理论边界。程恩富、胡乐明认为“不发达政治经济学”“晚期资本主义”“中心—外围”“世界体系”等激进主义的创新概念与理论的提出实现了马克思主义经济理论传承与创新的有机结合；当代国外马克思主义经济理论研究是马克思主义经济学传播和发展的重要推动力量。一方面，激进主义的思想理论总体上是以马克思主义为思想之源的。激进主义学者总体上坚持辩证唯物主义与历史唯物主义的世界观与方法论，综合运用了阶级分析等具体方法，并吸收了马克思主义劳动价值论与资本积累理论等思想因子。同时，激进主义学者致力于改变现存国际不平等秩序的主张反映了马克思主义追求全人类解放的核心价值观，这在价值追求层面与新古典主义与结构主义的经济发展理论明显不同。在具体变革策略方面，不少激进主义学者也主张通过阶级斗争与暴力革命的形式推翻资本主义，进而推动经济社会的现代化发展。另一方面，激进主义的思想理论与马克思主义经济理论的“原旨”有一定的不同。张建新认为，新马克思主义依附论是马克思主义的非线性发展，世界体系理论又是新马克思主义的非线性发展。在激进主义的现代化发展理论形成过程中，以沃勒斯坦为代表的激进主义学者有着综合化与跨学科的倾向，实现了经济学与哲学、社会学、历史学、地理学、生态学等学科的交叉融合。另外，普雷维什等部分激进主义学者还吸收借鉴了结构主义的经济发展理论观点，由此，许多学者常常将早期的普雷维什视为结构主义理论的代表。虽然借鉴吸收了资本主义现代化理论的部分研究成果，但激进主义现代化发展理论的主要研究目的在于探索第三世界实现现代化的崭新道路，在于揭露和批判资本主义制度的腐朽落后性与反动本质，在于论证建立社会主义体制的必要性，这和西方资产阶级学者以维护资本主义统治为准则的现代化理论有着本质的不同。

The radical theory of modernization development was born in the 1950s. In 1952, the American Marxist scholar Paul Baran published “The Political Economy of Backwardness,” creatively proposing the political economy of underdevelopment; thus, Paul Baran is often regarded as the founder of the radical school. In 1957, he published *The Political Economy of Growth*, taking “economic surplus” as the central concept to conduct research on the economic relations between developed and underdeveloped capitalism. He argued that economic growth is the result of the size and utilization of the surplus; the Third World falls into poverty due to a lack of economic surplus, while developed countries have a large surplus but cannot use it efficiently. He referred to the economic surplus under socialism as the planned economic surplus, “as a planned economic surplus, its use is to achieve the long-term optimal development of the entire society’s human and material resources.” It can be seen from this that the attitude of radical scholars toward socialism is completely different from that of neoclassical and structuralist scholars. Radical scholars highly affirm the positive role of socialism in leading the progress of human civilization and still regard overthrowing the capitalist system and taking the socialist road as important development goals for the Third World.

激进主义的现代化发展理论诞生于20世纪50年代。1952年，美国马克思主义学者保罗·巴兰发表的《论落后问题的政治经济学》，创造性地提出了不发达政治经济学，由此，保罗·巴兰常常被视为激进主义学派的开创者。1957年，他发表的《增长的政治经济学》以“经济剩余”为中心概念，展开了对发达和不发达资本主义经济关系的研究。他认为经济的增长是剩余的大小及其利用的结果，第三世界因缺少经济剩余而陷入贫困，发达国家存在大量剩余却无法高效利用，并将社会主义存在的经济剩余称为计划经济剩余，“作为有计划的经济剩余，它的使用是取得全社会的人力和物质资源的长期最佳发展”。由此看出，激进主义学者对于社会主义的态度与新古典主义、结构主义学者完全不同，激进主义学者高度肯定社会主义在引领人类文明进步方面的积极作用，依然将推翻资本主义制度和走上社会主义道路作为第三世界的重要发展目标。

In the 1960s, the radical theory of modernization development entered a fast track of growth and expansion. A large number of scholars and political figures began to study the problem of dependent development in the modernization process of Latin American countries, gradually forming the dependency theory school. Its main representative scholars include Andre Gunder Frank, Raúl Prebisch, Theotonio Dos Santos, Samir Amin, Immanuel Wallerstein, Fernando Henrique Cardoso, Giovanni Arrighi, and others. The main intellectual sources of dependency theory include the thought and theory of Marx and Engels, Lenin’s theory of imperialism, and Mao Zedong Thought. Dos Santos once pointed out: “Mao Zedong made a decisive contribution to the theory of underdevelopment and dependency.” The core proposition that concerns dependency theorists is the relationship between dependency and development. Radical dependency theorists, represented by Frank, adhere to the theory of external causes, believing that dependency and development are irreconcilable and fundamentally opposed, and that dependency leads to the lag of modernization. In contrast, reformist dependency theorists, represented by former Brazilian president and economist Fernando Henrique Cardoso, emphasize the reform of the internal political and economic system, arguing that within the capitalist system, the Third World still has room to rationally utilize foreign capital to achieve economic takeoff and modernization development. But regardless of which specific faction of dependency theory, dependency theorists generally divide the capitalist world system into “center” and “periphery,” believing that the center countries continuously carry out international exploitation of the periphery countries, leading to the backwardness of the periphery. They all do not deny that external factors have a prominent negative impact on the modernization development of the Third World, and they also all oppose the neoclassical economic development theory’s argument that attributes the root cause of the Third World’s backwardness to internal factors. Moreover, most of them still tend to take the socialist road in their choice of modernization path. The internationally renowned Marxist economist Samir Amin once pointed out: “I think this is the only possible development path: in the process of the national democratic revolution, objective conditions force this revolution either to develop in the direction of socialism or to slide back onto the path of economic dependence on imperialism.”

20世纪60年代，激进主义的现代化发展理论步入了发展壮大的快车道，一大批学者和政要开始研究拉美国家现代化过程中依附型发展问题，并逐渐形成了依附论学派，其主要代表学者有安德烈·冈德·弗兰克、劳尔·普雷维什、特奥托尼奥·多斯桑托斯、萨米尔·阿明、伊曼纽尔·沃勒斯坦、费尔南多·卡多佐、乔万尼·阿里吉等。依附论的主要思想来源包括马克思、恩格斯的思想理论，列宁的帝国主义理论和毛泽东思想。多斯桑托斯曾指出：“毛泽东对不发达和依附理论作出了决定性的贡献。”依附论学者关心的核心命题是依附与发展间的关系，以弗兰克为代表的激进依附论学者坚持外因论，认为依附与发展是难以调和、根本对立的，依附导致了现代化的滞后。而以巴西前总统、经济学家费尔南多·卡多佐为代表的改良主义依附论学者，则强调对内部政治经济体制的改良，认为在资本主义体系中第三世界仍然存在合理利用外资从而实现经济腾飞与现代化发展的空间。但无论是依附论的哪一具体派别，依附论学者总体上都将资本主义世界体系分为“中心”和“边缘”两个部分，认为中心国家不断对边缘国家进行国际剥削从而导致边缘国家的落后，都不否认外部因素在第三世界的现代化发展方面具有突出的消极影响，同时也都反对新古典主义的经济发展理论将第三世界落后的根源归结为内部原因的说辞，并且大都在现代化的路径选择上依然倾向于走社会主义道路。国际著名马克思主义经济学家萨米尔·阿明曾指出：“我想，这就是唯一可能的发展道路：在民族民主革命过程中，客观条件迫使这个革命不是向社会主义方向发展，就是重新滑到对帝国主义经济依附的道路上去。”

In the 1970s, Wallerstein, drawing on Marxist theories of capital accumulation and Kondratiev’s long-wave economic theory, and building on the “center–periphery” analytical framework of dependency theory, divided the capitalist world system into a tripartite structure of “core, semi-periphery, and periphery,” thereby proposing world-systems theory. Wallerstein rejected the practice of defining internality as what lies within a country’s political borders, advocating instead for taking the world system as the unit of analysis. “Capitalism has the characteristics of a world system; it is a specific type of world system that I call a ‘world-economy.’ State structures exist within this world system.” [13]13 Immanuel Wallerstein, *The Modern World-System I: Capitalist Agriculture and the Origins of the European World-Economy in the Sixteenth Century* (New York: Academic Press, 1974), p. 15. In 1972, Wallerstein published *The Rise and Future Demise of the World Capitalist System: Concepts for Comparative Analysis*, the foundational work of world-systems theory; thereafter, many dependency theorists, including Frank, also turned to world-systems analysis. Within the study of world-systems theory, it is broadly divided into the multiple-world-systems school represented by Wallerstein and the single-world-system school represented by Frank. The multiple-world-systems school holds that the capitalist economic system develops unevenly, that there is dynamic evolution among the three structures, and that semi-peripheral and peripheral regions may also become core countries; at the same time, it maintains that capital accumulation in peripheral regions is dependent accumulation, and that unequal exchange exists between the core and other regions, transferring economic surplus to the core countries, thereby enabling the structural stability of this system of core exploitation of the periphery. In works such as *ReOrient: Global Economy in the Asian Age*, Frank opposed Eurocentrism, arguing that “it is not Europe on the periphery, but China that is more qualified to claim the status of ‘center.’” Wallerstein believed that the analysis of a China-centered world history had certain problems, but he also held that this kind of world-systems analysis “will depend on the evolution of the modern world system itself in the coming decades.” That is to say, with the enhancement of China’s comprehensive national power and the continued restructuring of the international political and economic order, a single-world-system theory centered on China may be corroborated at the practical level. Overall, world-systems theory compensates for the inadequacy of the simplistic external-cause theory in traditional dependency theory, without falling into internal-cause theory; it also provides a profound analysis and prediction of the causes of the stagnation and underdevelopment of modernization in the Third World, as well as the decline of U.S. hegemony. For example, specific measures proposed by scholars such as Emmanuel—raising wages to drive economic development and taxing export commodities to prevent the outflow of excess surplus value—have a certain research value.

20世纪70年代，沃勒斯坦吸收借鉴马克思主义资本积累理论以及康德拉季耶夫的经济长波理论等思想，在依附论“中心—外围”的分析框架基础上将资本主义世界体系分为“中心区、边缘区、半边缘区”三元结构，提出了世界体系论。沃勒斯坦反对将内部性定义为一个国家政治边界内部的做法，主张把世界体系作为分析单位。“资本主义具有世界体系的特征，是一种我称之为‘世界经济’的特定类型的世界体系。国家结构是在这种世界体系中存在的。”1972年，沃勒斯坦发表的《世界资本主义体系的兴起和未来衰亡：比较分析观》是世界体系论的开山之作，此后弗兰克等许多依附论学者也转向了世界体系分析。在世界体系论的研究中，大体分为以沃勒斯坦为代表的世界诸体系论和以弗兰克为代表的单一世界体系论。世界诸体系论认为资本主义经济体系是不平衡发展的，三元结构之间存在动态演进，半边缘、边缘地区也有可能成为中心国家，但同时也认为边缘地区的资本积累是依附积累，且中心地区和其他地区存在不平等交换，不平等交换使经济剩余转移至中心国家，这使这种中心剥削外缘的体系结构能够保持一定的稳定性。弗兰克在《白银资本：重视全球化的东方》等著作中反对欧洲中心论，认为“不是处于边缘的欧洲，而是中国更有资格以‘中心’自居”。沃勒斯坦认为世界历史的中国中心观分析存在一些问题，但他也认为这种世界体系的分析“将取决于现代世界体系本身在未来几十年的演变”。也就是说，随着中国综合国力的提升与国际政治经济秩序重构的持续推进，以中国为中心的单一世界体系论可能在实践层面得到印证。总体来看，世界体系论弥补了传统依附论中简单外因论的不足，并且没有陷入内因论，还对第三世界现代化迟滞与不发达的根源以及美国霸权的衰落进行了深刻剖析与预测，如以伊曼纽尔为代表的学者提出的增加工资推动经济发展、对出口商品征税来防止超额剩余价值外流等具体措施，具有一定的研究价值。

In general, radical theories of modernization and development are still in a stage of continuous refinement and development and still need to be tested by history and practice. But it must first be acknowledged that radical modernization and development theories, originating from the Marxist paradigm of thought, have powerfully refuted capitalist modernization theory and have contributed to the construction of a non-capitalist theory of modernization.

总的来说，激进主义的现代化发展理论尚处于不断完善与发展的阶段，仍需要经过历史与实践的检验。但首先要承认的是，源于马克思主义思想范式的激进主义现代化发展理论对资本主义现代化理论进行了强有力的批驳，为构建非资本主义的现代化理论作出了贡献。

II. Practical Modalities of Capitalist First-Mover Predatory Modernization and Latecomer Dependent Modernization

二、资本主义先发掠夺型与后发依附型现代化的实践样态

Capitalist modernization can be roughly divided into first-mover predatory modernization and latecomer dependent modernization. “Predation” and “dependency” refer to the basic characteristics of the modernization process and do not encompass the basic characteristics of economic and social development after achieving industrialization-centered modernization (some scholars refer to post-industrial development as “re-modernization,” “second modernization,” etc.). Some countries that have taken the path of first-mover predatory modernization may, after achieving the first modernization centered on industrialization, shift into a certain degree of dependent development when the global political and economic landscape undergoes violent upheaval and the international balance of power undergoes profound transformation. As one scholar points out: “Western Europe remains to a large extent a protectorate of the United States, and Central Europe increasingly so. Britain is a secondary actor and is essentially dependent on the United States.” Since the establishment of the U.S. hegemonic system, capitalist countries around the world have been in a state of dependency, differing only in the depth of dependency and the specific areas and manifestations of dependency.

资本主义现代化大致可分为先发掠夺型现代化与后发依附型现代化，“掠夺”与“依附”指的是现代化过程的基本特征，并不含括实现以工业化为核心的现代化之后经济社会发展（有学者将步入工业社会之后的发展称为“再现代化”“第二次现代化”等）的基本特征。部分走先发掠夺型现代化道路的国家，在实现以工业化为核心的第一次现代化之后，在全球政治经济格局发生剧烈动荡、国际力量对比发生深刻转变时，也可能会转入某种程度的依附性发展状态。正如有学者指出：“西欧在很大程度上仍然是美国的保护地，中欧也越来越如此。英国是一个次要角色并基本上依附于美国。”自美国霸权体系建立以来，资本主义世界各国基本处于依附状态，只不过依附的程度有深有浅、依附的具体领域与表现有所区别罢了。

(1) First-Mover Predatory Modernization

（一）先发掠夺型现代化

Scholars at home and abroad have studied and defined the basic types of modernization according to different classification criteria. According to the source of the driving force of modernization, it can be divided into endogenous modernization and exogenous modernization; incorporating the starting time of modernization as a criterion, it can be divided into early-start endogenous modernization and late-start exogenous modernization; taking the economic form as a criterion, it can be roughly divided into capitalist modernization, socialist modernization, and mixed modernization. The process of modernization is dynamic and extremely complex; many variables such as economy, politics, and culture converge to form the distinctive modernization models of different countries, so the classification criteria should not be overly detailed. However, the widely used classification types in previous academic circles in fact lack a certain value judgment or confuse value judgments, and cannot truly reflect the basic characteristics exhibited by each country throughout the entire process of modernization. At the same time, modernization theory has an ideological character; classification methods such as endogenous and exogenous carry ideological risks, easily lending themselves to Eurocentric interpretations by some scholars, thereby providing opportunities for them to smuggle in their own biases, engage in historical nihilism, and deny the achievements of socialist construction. Some scholars have even applied endogenous and exogenous as evaluative criteria, trumpeting that China’s modernization construction before reform and opening up was “similar in form but not in spirit,” [14]14 “Similar in form but not in spirit” (形似神不似) is a Chinese idiom meaning that something appears to resemble a model or ideal on the surface but lacks its essential qualities. wildly negating the great explorations of socialist modernization before reform and opening up.

国内外学者按照不同的划分标准对现代化的基本类型进行了研究与界定。按照现代化推动力的来源可分为内源的现代化与外源的现代化；将现代化起始时间纳入划分标准，则可分为早发内生型现代化与后发外生型现代化；以经济形态为划分标准，则可大致分为资本主义型现代化、社会主义型现代化与混合型现代化。现代化的进程是动态变化、极为复杂的，经济、政治、文化等诸多变量聚合在一起形成了不同国家各具特色的现代化模式，因此划分的标准不宜十分详细。但是，以往学界广泛使用的划分类型事实上缺乏一定的价值判断或者混淆了价值判断，无法真正体现各国在现代化全过程中所展现出的基本特性。同时，现代化理论具有意识形态性，内生型、外生型这类划分方法存在意识形态风险，容易被部分学者用于西方中心主义式的解读，从而为其夹杂私货、大搞历史虚无主义、否定社会主义建设成就提供可能。部分学者就曾套用内生型、外生型作为评判标准，鼓吹中国改革开放前的现代化建设是“形似神不似”，大肆否定改革开放前社会主义现代化的伟大探索。

Capitalism accumulates assets by invading and plundering other countries. The fundamental criterion for judging whether a modernization path is outdated or backward lies not in whether it appeared early or late, nor in whether it has existed for a long or short time, and still less in whether many or few countries have taken it, but rather in whether it conforms to the fundamental interests of the broadest masses of the people, and in whether it serves a small minority or the vast majority. All this requires us to examine it from an overall perspective with a grand view of history, [15]15 “Grand view of history” (大历史观) refers to a macro-historical perspective that examines long-term historical processes and structural transformations rather than isolated events. and not to take the characteristics of a brief period as the overall features of a development path. Based on this, this paper, building on previous classification criteria, further divides the basic types of modernization into capitalist first-mover predatory, capitalist latecomer dependent, and socialist latecomer independent.

资本主义是靠侵略和掠夺别的国家而积累资产的。衡量现代化道路是否过时、是否落后，根本标准不在于它出现的时间是早或晚，也不在于它存在的时间是长或短，更不在于走这条路的国家是多或寡，而在于它是否符合最广大人民群众的根本利益，在于它是为少部分人服务还是为绝大多数人服务，这些都要求我们以大历史观从整体的角度来考量，而不能将某一短暂时期的特点作为发展道路的总体特征。基于此，本文在以往划分标准的基础上将现代化的基本类型进一步分为资本主义先发掠夺型、资本主义后发依附型与社会主义后发独立型。

The countries that have taken the capitalist first-mover predatory modernization path are mainly Britain, France, the United States, Germany, Japan, and others. Capitalist first-mover predatory modernization emphasizes two dimensions: one is the historical dimension, and the other is the dimension of value judgment based on practice. On the one hand, the “first-mover” referred to in this article is mainly relative to the third wave of modernization; countries that achieved modernization during the first wave of modernization and the second wave of modernization can all be called first-mover countries of modernization. The core of early modernization was undoubtedly industrialization, so the historical periodization of the first wave of modernization and the second wave of modernization roughly resembles the periodization of the Industrial Revolution. The first wave of modernization first began in Britain in the late 18th century. Driven by the material and technological foundation of coal and iron, Britain’s productive forces achieved rapid development; around 1840, Britain basically completed the Industrial Revolution and modernization, successfully creating the original model of capitalist modernization. In the later period of the first wave of modernization, countries such as France, Germany, and the United States also successively began their industrialization processes, but the completion of industrialization and the maturation of modernization models in these countries were achieved during the second wave of modernization. The second wave of modernization roughly began in the second half of the 19th century. France, the United States, Germany, and Japan basically achieved modernization during this period and created modernization models with their own national characteristics. Other Western European countries and immigrant countries such as Canada and Australia also became important driving forces in the modernization process during this period. On the other hand, the “predatory” referred to in this article mainly means that a country achieves primitive accumulation of capital by exploiting and oppressing other countries and nations, thereby promoting rapid modernization development, and at the same time, in its own development process, uses first-mover advantages and technological monopolies to promote the construction of an international political and economic order centered on its own interests, including dominating unequal value transfers in international trade. When Marx explored the historical process of the global expansion of capitalist relations of production and exchange relations and the development of foreign trade, he scientifically foresaw this trend of intensified international exploitation and its underlying mechanism. He pointed out: “The country that is in a favorable position exchanges less labor for more labor in exchange, although this difference, this surplus, is always pocketed by a certain class, just as usually happens in the exchange between labor and capital.” [16]16 Karl Marx, *Capital*, Vol. 3, in *Marx and Engels Collected Works*, Vol. 25, p. 265. [Translator’s note: This is a standard citation format for the Chinese edition; the English edition reference is *Capital*, Vol. 3, Chapter 20, p. 265 in the International Publishers edition.] In the early 20th century, Lenin, based on a large amount of historical practical material, formed a more systematic and comprehensive understanding of international value exploitation. He provided a detailed enumeration of the colonies occupied by countries such as Britain, the United States, France, Germany, and Japan, and pointed out in this regard: “Finance capital and the international policy corresponding to it, which in the final analysis is the international policy of the great powers struggling for the economic and political division of the world, has created many transitional forms of state dependence.” [17]17 V. I. Lenin, *Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism*, in *Lenin Collected Works*, Vol. 27, p. 398. [Translator’s note: Standard Chinese edition citation; English edition reference is *Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism*, Chapter 6, p. 398 in Progress Publishers edition.] Lenin’s list of dependent countries included Argentina in Latin America. At the same time, Lenin also analyzed Britain, this “model” of capitalist first-mover predatory modernization: “It controls most of the land on the earth, ranks first in the world in wealth, and it creates this wealth not only by the labor of its own workers, but mainly by exploiting vast colonies, by the immense power of British banks… it can be said without exaggeration that there is no piece of land on the earth that is not in the clutches of this capital, no piece of land that is not entangled by the thousands of ropes of British capital.” [18]18 V. I. Lenin, *Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism*, in *Lenin Collected Works*, Vol. 27, p. 395. [Translator’s note: Standard Chinese edition citation; English edition reference is *Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism*, Chapter 6, p. 395 in Progress Publishers edition.] To this day, this economic “colonialism” has not disappeared with the political independence of the colonies; the exploitation mechanism carefully constructed by the monopoly bourgeoisie is still operating efficiently globally. In the international political and economic pattern designed by capitalism with itself at the center, the Third World is forced to survive according to the “rules of the game” of the developed countries, that is, through specific set rules such as exchanging a large amount of simple labor for a small amount of complex labor, thus giving rise to another type of capitalist modernization—the latecomer dependent type.

走资本主义先发掠夺型现代化道路的国家主要是英国、法国、美国、德国、日本等。资本主义先发掠夺型现代化强调两个维度：一是历史维度，二是实践基础上的价值判断维度。一方面，本文所说的“先发”主要是相较于第三次现代化浪潮来说的，在第一次现代化浪潮与第二次现代化浪潮中实现现代化的国家皆可被称为现代化的先发国家。早期现代化的核心无疑是工业化，因此，第一次现代化浪潮与第二次现代化浪潮的历史分期与工业革命的分期大致相似。第一次现代化浪潮率先开启于18世纪后期的英国，在煤炭与铁的物质技术基础驱动下，英国的生产力取得突飞猛进的发展；1840年前后，英国基本完成了工业革命与现代化，成功开创了资本主义现代化的原生模式。在第一次现代化浪潮的后期，法国、德国、美国等国家也先后开启了工业化进程，但这些国家工业化的完成与现代化模式的成熟是在第二次现代化浪潮中实现的。第二次现代化浪潮大致开启于19世纪下半叶，法国、美国、德国、日本在这一时期基本实现了现代化并开创了具有本国特色的现代化模式，西欧其他国家和加拿大、澳大利亚等移民国家也在这一时期成为现代化进程的重要驱动力量。另一方面，本文所说的“掠夺”主要是指一国通过剥削压迫其他国家与民族实现资本原始积累，从而推动现代化快速发展，同时在本国的发展进程中利用先发优势与技术垄断推动构建以自身利益为核心的国际政治经济秩序，包括在国际贸易中主导不平等的价值转移。马克思在探讨资本主义生产关系与交换关系向全球扩张及对外贸易发展的历史进程时就科学地预见了这种国际剥削加剧的趋势及其背后机理，他指出：“处在有利条件下的国家，在交换中以较少的劳动换回较多的劳动，虽然这种差额，这种余额，同劳动和资本之间进行交换时通常发生的情况一样，总是会被某一个阶级装进腰包。”20世纪初，列宁基于大量的历史实践素材对国际价值剥削形成了更为系统全面的认识。他对英国、美国、法国、德国、日本等国家占有的殖民地进行了详细列举，并就此指出：“金融资本和同它相适应的国际政策，即归根到底是大国为了在经济上和政治上瓜分世界而斗争的国际政策，造成了许多过渡的国家依附形式。”列宁列举的依附型国家中就包括拉美的阿根廷。与此同时，列宁还对英国这一资本主义先发掠夺型现代化的“典范”进行了剖析：“它控制了地球上的大部分土地，财富居世界首位，它创造这些财富不单是靠本国工人的劳动，而主要是靠剥削广大的殖民地，靠英国银行拥有极大的力量……可以毫不夸大地说，已经使得地球上没有一块土地不处在这个资本的魔掌之中，没有一块土地不被英国资本的千百条绳索缠住。”时至今日，这种经济“殖民”并未因殖民地的政治独立而消失，垄断资产阶级精心构建的剥削机制仍在全球高效运转。在资本主义设计的以其为中心的国际政治经济格局中，第三世界被迫按照发达国家的“游戏规则”，即如通过大量的简单劳动来换取少量的复杂劳动等被设定的具体规则存活，从而产生了资本主义现代化的另一种类型——后发依附型。

(II) Latecomer Dependent Modernization

（二）后发依附型现代化

As some scholars have pointed out: “Modern war has often become an unconscious tool for promoting modernization.” [19]19 The original Chinese text does not provide a specific source for this quotation; it is a general scholarly observation. World War II profoundly changed the history of human modernization. While opening a new third wave of modernization, it also gave birth to countless countries taking the capitalist latecomer dependent modernization path. Engels clearly pointed out: “The victory of violence is based on the production of weapons, and the production of weapons is in turn based on the entire production, that is, on ‘economic power,’ on ‘economic conditions,’ on the material means available for violence.” [20]20 Friedrich Engels, *Anti-Dühring*, in *Marx and Engels Collected Works*, Vol. 20, p. 182. [Translator’s note: Standard Chinese edition citation; English edition reference is *Anti-Dühring*, Part II, Chapter 3, p. 182 in International Publishers edition.] After World War II, the capitalist colonial system rapidly disintegrated. The United States, which had been an onlooker in the early stages of the war, achieved a “coronation of the king” after the war by virtue of its formidable strength, carefully constructing a capitalist world system centered on itself, reaching out to countless marginal countries that had been shattered by the war and were destitute, striving to fabricate a modernization myth of capitalism dominating the world. At this time, although it was a development pattern of “one globe, two systems,” the world was still in the era of imperialism pointed out by Lenin. The monopoly organizations and finance capital with the United States as their home country strengthened their rule over the capitalist world to an unprecedented degree. Newly born capitalist countries almost simultaneously began their modernization processes, but at this time the objective conditions for achieving modernization during the period of free competition capitalism no longer existed. The room for independent and autonomous modernization was infinitely squeezed by the rule of finance capital. The beautiful hope of newly born capitalist countries to independently and autonomously leap to the status of modernized countries gradually fell short, ultimately turning from colonies subjected to naked political rule and resource plunder into dependent modernization countries continuously subjected to hidden exploitation.

正如有学者指出：“现代战争经常成为不自觉地推动现代化的工具。”第二次世界大战深刻地改变了人类的现代化历史，在开启第三次现代化新浪潮的同时，也催生了无数走资本主义后发依附型现代化道路的国家。恩格斯曾明确指出：“暴力的胜利是以武器的生产为基础的，而武器的生产又是以整个生产为基础，因而是以‘经济力量’，以‘经济状况’，以可供暴力支配的物质手段为基础的。”二战以后，资本主义殖民体系快速瓦解，战争初期作为旁观者的美国在战后凭借雄厚实力实现“王者加冕”，精心构建起以自身为中心的资本主义世界体系，将手伸向无数被战争打烂、一穷二白的边缘国家，力求编造资本主义一统天下的现代化神话。此时，虽然是“一球两制”的发展格局，但世界依然处于列宁所指明的帝国主义时代，以美国为母国的垄断组织与金融资本对资本主义世界的统治空前加强，新生的资本主义国家几乎同时开启了现代化进程，但此时已不存在自由竞争资本主义时期实现现代化的客观条件，独立自主实现现代化的余地被金融资本的统治无限挤压，新生的资本主义国家独立自主向现代化国家跃升的美好愿望逐渐步向落空，最终只是从被赤裸裸的政治统治与资源掠夺的殖民地转而成为不断受到隐性剥削的依附型现代化国家。

The specific circumstances and manifestations of countries taking the capitalist latecomer dependent modernization path vary, and some countries may simultaneously exhibit problems in several aspects. First, economically, industrial sectors related to the national economy and people’s livelihood or with important competitiveness are controlled or highly infiltrated by foreign capital, and they are in a disadvantageous position in the international trade and international division of labor system, often playing the role of primary product exporters or low-value-added outsourced manufacturing bases. Technologically, their independent research and development capabilities are weak, and they excessively rely on technology spillovers and technology transfers from multinational corporations controlled by international financial monopoly capital. Second, politically, domestic political processes and policy choices are controlled by hegemonic countries, political power is manipulated by elite elements colluding with Western countries, and Western political and economic systems are completely or partially transplanted. Third, in terms of ideology and culture, national traditional culture is eroded, a large number of intellectuals receive Western-style education, and Western values, lifestyles, cultural products, etc., dominate the lives of the people. Fourth, militarily, military strength is weak, they are under the military protection of NATO or the United States, and part of the country’s military power is ceded to relevant organizations or hegemonic countries. Dependent modernization countries also have some other manifestations, such as weak ability to resist financial risks, and these manifestations also mutually penetrate and interact. Regardless of the specific manifestations of countries taking the dependent modernization path, they all reflect the rule and manipulation of international financial monopoly capital centered on the Wall Street financial groups of the United States, so the vast majority of benefits ultimately flow to the side of the capital controllers.

走资本主义后发依附型现代化道路的国家的具体情况与表现各有不同，部分国家可能同时出现几个方面的问题。一是经济上，关系国计民生或具有重要竞争力的产业部门受到国外资本把控或高度渗透，在国际贸易与国际分工体系中处于不利地位，往往扮演着初级产品出口国或低附加值外包制造业基地的角色，技术上自主研发能力较弱，过度依赖国际金融垄断资本掌控的跨国公司技术外溢与技术转移。二是政治上，国内政治进程与政策选择受到霸权国家的控制，政治权力受到与西方国家勾结的精英分子操控，完全或部分移植西方政治经济体制。三是思想文化上，民族传统文化受到侵蚀，大量知识分子接受西式教育，西方的价值理念、生活方式、文化产品等统治民众生活。四是军事上，军事力量薄弱，处于北约或美国的军事庇护下，国家的部分军事权力让渡给相关组织或霸权国家。依附型现代化国家还存在一些其他表现，比如抵御金融风险能力较弱等，同时这些表现也是相互渗透、相互作用的。走依附型现代化道路的国家无论具体表现如何，都体现出以美国华尔街财团为核心的国际金融垄断资本的统治与操纵，因此绝大多数的利益最终也是流向资本掌控者一方。

Countries that take the capitalist late-development dependent modernization path are not only economically backward developing nations; in fact, they also include some developed countries that serve as “showcases” of capitalist modernization and frontline zones in the confrontation between the “two systems.” For a long time, the “Korean model” has been praised and imitated by some parts of the Third World, but South Korea is in essence a thoroughgoing capitalist late-development dependent modernization country. After the end of World War II, the Korean Peninsula, which had no advantages in resource endowment or geographical location, did not possess the conditions for rapid modernization. Some foreign scholars once pessimistically predicted: “Korea’s future will by no means be rosy; the people will live in hardship and difficulty.” However, after World War II, under the leadership of the Communist Party of China, the Chinese people gradually embarked on the socialist development path, and the Korean War [21]21 The Korean War (1950–1953) was a conflict between North Korea (supported by China and the Soviet Union) and South Korea (supported by the United States and other UN forces), which solidified the division of the Korean Peninsula along Cold War lines. enabled the banner of socialism to be successfully raised on the Korean Peninsula, thereby highlighting South Korea’s importance in geopolitical terms. As the frontline of the confrontation between the socialist and capitalist camps during the Cold War, South Korea received large amounts of economic aid and technology transfer from the United States. This was the foundation for South Korea’s economic miracle and the beginning of its path of capitalist late-development dependent modernization. National defense is a guarantee of a country’s modernization, yet South Korea has been highly subordinate to the United States militarily since its inception. Based on the 1966 Agreement on the Status of United States Forces in Korea (SOFA), the supreme command of the South Korean military is vested in the ROK-U.S. Combined Forces Command, with the commander being an American. Economically, the chaebol economy controls the lifelines of South Korea’s national economy, and U.S. capital indirectly controls South Korea’s economic lifelines by manipulating the chaebols. Data released by the International Monetary Fund show that in 2022, South Korea’s nominal GDP was $1.67 trillion, with the top five chaebols accounting for 40%–50% of GDP, and behind these chaebols lie Wall Street financial groups represented by Citigroup and JPMorgan Chase. The largest chaebol, Samsung Group, operates in major industries including electronics, semiconductors, construction, chemicals, and defense. In 2022, the output value of Samsung Electronics alone, a subsidiary of Samsung Group, reached as high as $239.739 billion, accounting for about 14% of GDP. However, the equity structure disclosed by Samsung Group shows that foreign capital accounts for 52% of common shares and as much as 69% of preferred shares, with a large portion of profits being seized by U.S.-led financial monopoly capital. History has harshly mocked South Koreans who are intoxicated by Korean ethnic superiority, while also reminding us with ironclad facts that only socialism can create an independent form of modernization.

走资本主义后发依附型现代化道路的国家并不只是经济落后的发展中国家，事实上也包含一些作为资本主义现代化“橱窗”与“两制”对抗前沿的发达国家。一直以来，“韩国模式”备受部分第三世界的吹捧与模仿，但韩国本质上却是一个彻头彻尾的资本主义后发依附型现代化国家。二战结束后，资源禀赋与地理位置都不占优势的朝鲜半岛并不存在快速实现现代化的条件。国外一些学者曾悲观地认为：“韩国的未来绝不会是玫瑰色的，人民将生活在艰难困苦之中。”然而，二战结束后，在中国共产党的领导下，中国人民逐步走上了社会主义发展道路，朝鲜战争又使社会主义的旗帜顺利在朝鲜半岛上树立起来，这使韩国在地缘政治层面的重要性得到了凸显。作为冷战时期社会主义与资本主义两大阵营较量的前线，韩国接收了美国提供的大量经济援助与技术转移，这是韩国创造经济奇迹的基础，也是其走上资本主义后发依附型现代化道路的开端。国防是一个国家现代化的保障，而韩国自诞生以来在军事上就高度受制于美国。以1966年签订的《驻韩美军地位协定》（SO-FA）为基准，韩国军队的最高指挥权归韩美联合军司令部所有，总司令由美国人担任。在经济上，财阀经济控制韩国国民经济命脉，美国资本通过操控财阀间接控制韩国经济命脉。国际货币基金组织公布的数据显示，2022年韩国名义GDP为1.67万亿美元，五大财阀高占GDP的40%～50%，而这些财阀背后隐藏的却是以花旗、摩根大通为代表的华尔街金融财团。第一大财阀三星集团的业务涉及电子、半导体、建筑、化工、军工等主要行业，2022年仅三星集团旗下的三星电子产品产值就高达2397.39亿美元，约占GDP的14%。但三星集团披露的股权结构图显示，普通股外资占比达到52%，优先股外资占比则高达69%，大量的利润被以美国为首的金融垄断资本所攫取。历史狠狠地嘲讽了被韩民族优越主义冲昏头脑的韩国人，同时也以铁的事实提醒我们，只有社会主义才能开创现代化的独立形态。

III. The Practical Creation of Socialist Late-Development Independent Modernization

三、社会主义后发独立型现代化的实践创造

(I) The “Russian-style” Exploration of Socialist Late-Development Independent Modernization

（一）社会主义后发独立型现代化的“俄式”探索

Beginning in the 1870s, capitalism gradually moved from free competition to the monopoly stage, which Lenin called the “imperialist stage.” At the beginning of the 20th century, the inherent contradictions of capitalism further intensified, contradictions and the risk of war among imperialist countries rapidly escalated, and this triggered two world wars and the 1929–1933 economic crisis of the capitalist world. The modernization processes of most capitalist countries correspondingly experienced about 30 years of stagnation and hesitation, which some scholars have called the “first developmental crisis.” It was also during this period that Lenin led the Bolsheviks to create the world’s first socialist state, taking the lead in achieving a historic transformation of the political system. They quickly signed the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk with the German-led Central Powers, withdrew from the world war, focused on consolidating Soviet power, and gradually embarked on the path of socialist modernization. In early 1921, Russia began implementing the New Economic Policy. During this period, the Soviet regime replaced the surplus appropriation system with a grain tax, creatively utilized state capitalism to build socialism, vigorously developed a socialist commodity economy, introduced foreign capital and foreign technology by signing agreements such as the Treaty of Rapallo with Germany and other countries, and deeply participated in capital market management and resource allocation, promoting the recovery and development of the national economy and laying the material foundation and institutional prerequisites for the Soviet Union’s subsequent realization of socialist modernization. In January 1924, Lenin died, and Stalin gradually became the supreme leader of the Soviet Party and state. Under his leadership, the Soviet Union established the policy of agricultural collectivization in 1927, using the “price scissors” between industry and agriculture [22]22 The “price scissors” (工农业“剪刀差”) refers to the Soviet policy of setting low prices for agricultural products and high prices for industrial goods, effectively transferring surplus from agriculture to finance industrial investment. to provide large amounts of capital accumulation for industrialization, and from 1928 began implementing the first Five-Year Plan, “developing the national economy in a planned manner with state-owned enterprises and collectivized agriculture as the leading forces,” forging a path of modernization that used political modernization to drive economic modernization, prioritized the development of heavy industry in a backward country through the construction of a highly centralized planned economy, and thereby achieved independent and self-reliant development. In 1936, the Constitution of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics was promulgated, and the “Soviet model” was formally established. The following year, the Soviet Union successfully completed its second Five-Year Plan under the encirclement of Western capitalism, creating a developmental miracle. Looking at Soviet modernization indicators: the average annual growth rate of total industrial output value during the first Five-Year Plan was as high as 19.3%, during the second Five-Year Plan it was 17.1%, and during the three pre-war years of the third Five-Year Plan the average growth rate was 13.2%; by the end of the second Five-Year Plan, Soviet industrial output ranked second in Europe and third in the world, with the share of industrial output in total industrial and agricultural output rising from 48% to 70% over the same period; the urban population as a proportion of the total national population grew from 18% in 1917 to 32.5% in 1940; agricultural collectivization was fully achieved in 1937; the number of scientific and technical workers increased from 12,000 in 1913 to 98,000 in 1940, and by 1939 the widespread illiteracy among the Soviet working people had been basically eliminated. The 18th Congress of the All-Union Communist Party (Bolsheviks) pointed out: due to the completion of the two Five-Year Plans, “the Soviet Union has become an economically independent country, capable of supplying all the technical equipment necessary for its own economy and national defense.” It can be said that by the end of the 1930s, the Soviet Union had basically achieved modernization centered on industrialization, and had made world-renowned achievements in the fields of education and culture, successfully creating the original form of socialist modernization. This greatly enhanced the influence of socialism worldwide and inspired the fighting enthusiasm of the proletariat in various countries for the struggle for socialism. Although the economic management system model formed during the Stalin period had many drawbacks, it was still highly effective in achieving independent and self-reliant modernization, and the relevant policies and measures were studied and emulated by various countries, including capitalist ones, after the war. At the same time, the Soviet Union, adhering to the principle of proletarian internationalism, provided assistance and guidance to many socialist countries after the war. This assistance and guidance were an important manifestation of the superiority of socialism, providing sources of funding and practical reference for many newly established socialist countries in promoting modernization.

19世纪70年代开始，资本主义逐步由自由竞争走向垄断阶段，列宁称之为“帝国主义阶段”。20世纪初，资本主义固有的矛盾进一步激化，帝国主义国家间的矛盾与战争风险急速加剧，并由此引发了两次世界大战和1929—1933年资本主义世界的经济危机，大部分资本主义国家的现代化进程也相应出现了30年左右的停滞与徘徊，有学者将其称为“第一次发展性危机”。也正是在这一时期，列宁领导布尔什维克缔造了世界上第一个社会主义国家，率先实现了政治制度的历史性变革，并迅速与以德国为首的同盟国签订了《布列斯特条约》，退出世界大战，着力巩固苏维埃政权，逐渐走上了社会主义现代化道路。1921年初，俄国开始实行新经济政策。这一时期，苏维埃政权以征收粮食税代替余粮收集制，创造性地利用国家资本主义建设社会主义，大力发展社会主义商品经济，通过与德国等国家签署《拉巴洛条约》等协议引入外资与国外技术，并深度参与资本市场管理与资源调配，推动了国民经济的恢复与发展，奠定了此后苏联实现社会主义现代化的物质基础与制度前提。1924年1月列宁逝世，斯大林逐步成为苏联党和国家的最高领导人。在其领导下，苏联于1927年确立农业集体化方针，通过工农业“剪刀差”为工业化提供大量资本积累，并从1928年起实行第一个五年计划，“有计划地发展以国营企业和集体化农业为主导的国民经济”，走出了一条以政治现代化带动经济现代化，通过构建高度集中的计划经济体制，在落后国家优先发展重工业进而实现独立自主的现代化发展道路。1936年，苏联《苏维埃社会主义共和国宪法》颁布，“苏联模式”正式确立。次年，苏联在西方资本主义包围下顺利完成了第二个五年计划，创造了发展的奇迹。从苏联现代化指标来看，“一五计划”工业总产值年均增长速率高达19.3%，“二五计划”年均增长速率为17.1%，“三五计划”战前三年的平均增长速率为13.2%；“二五计划”结束时，苏联工业产值已居欧洲第二位、世界第三位，工业产值占工农业总产值比重从同期的48%增长到70%；城市人口占全国总人口比重从1917年的18%增长到1940年的32.5%;1937年全部实现农业集体化；科技工作者数量从1913年的1.2万增长到1940年的9.8万，1939年苏联劳动人民普遍不识字的现象基本上已消除。联共（布）第十八次代表大会指出：由于两个五年计划的完成，“苏联已变成一个经济独立的国家，它已能供给本国经济和国防所必需的一切技术装备”。可以说，苏联在20世纪30年代末基本实现了以工业化为核心的现代化，且在教育文化等领域取得了举世瞩目的成就，顺利开创了社会主义现代化的原生样态。这极大地提升了社会主义在世界范围的影响力，鼓舞了各国无产阶级争取社会主义的斗争热情。斯大林时期形成的经济管理体制模式虽然存在许多弊端，但在实现现代化的独立自主方面依然是卓有成效的，相关的政策措施在战后被包括资本主义国家在内的各国学习借鉴。同时，奉行无产阶级国际主义原则的苏联为战后的许多社会主义国家提供了援助与指导，这些援助与指导是社会主义优越性的重要体现，为许多新成立的社会主义国家推动现代化提供了资金来源与实践借鉴。

The practice of Russia shaped a new modality in which political modernization drives economic modernization, and at the same time revealed to the world that institutions are the key factor determining the direction and characteristics of modernization. On the one hand, as the *Communist Manifesto* points out: “The question of property is the fundamental question of the movement,”[23]23 Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, *Manifesto of the Communist Party* (1848), Chapter 2. public ownership of the means of production forged the highly controllable economic power of the socialist state, enabling socialist modernization to develop in the direction of independence and self-determination. Lenin once regarded the monopoly of foreign trade as the decisive condition for economic independence in the process of modernization, stating: “If industry is not protected, the industrial proletariat will absolutely be unable to restore its own industry and make Russia an industrial country, and only the monopoly of foreign trade can protect industry.”[24]24 V. I. Lenin, *On the Monopoly of Foreign Trade* (1922). The realization of the monopoly of foreign trade, however, is highly dependent on socialist public ownership. Stalin pointed out: “What is impossible or nearly impossible for bourgeois states is entirely possible for the proletarian state. For the proletarian state possesses advantages that bourgeois states do not have and perhaps cannot have. Nationalized land, nationalized industry, nationalized transport and credit, monopolized foreign trade, domestic trade regulated by the state—all these are new sources of ‘additional capital’ that can be used to develop our industry, sources that have never existed in any bourgeois state.”[25]25 J. V. Stalin, *The Economic Situation of the Soviet Union and the Policy of the Party* (1926). On the other hand, the issue of utilizing foreign capital has always been an important factor determining whether a country’s modernization takes a dependent path or maintains independence and self-determination. The socialist system created the possibility for socialist countries to achieve independent modernization without utilizing foreign capital or by flexibly utilizing it. The economic system based on public ownership of the means of production greatly enhanced the ability of socialist modernization to withstand external risks and shocks. Although the Soviet Union, in the course of its modernization, once utilized state capitalism to receive foreign capital and foreign technology to promote its own modernization, this state capitalism was state capitalism under the socialist system, the kind Lenin described as “capitalism that can be restricted and whose scope can be defined.”[26]26 V. I. Lenin, *On the Tax in Kind* (1921). Due to the encirclement and hostility of capitalism, the scale of the Soviet Union’s utilization of foreign capital was very limited. Stalin once stated: “We can carry out our industrialization without foreign loans.”[27]27 J. V. Stalin, *On the Tasks of Economic Executives* (1931). In practice, the Soviet Union’s modernization was, on the whole, a modernization guaranteed by the socialist system, relying on its own strength to achieve capital accumulation and thereby promote comprehensive national development. It neither invaded nor plundered other countries and nations, nor did it rely on “foreign loans,” truly pioneering a new path of independent modernization.

俄国的实践塑造了以政治现代化带动经济现代化的新样态，同时也向世人昭示，制度是决定现代化发展方向与特性的关键因素。一方面，正如《共产党宣言》指出的：“所有制问题是运动的基本问题”，生产资料的公有制铸就了社会主义国家高度可控的经济权力，使社会主义现代化能够朝着独立自主的方向发展。列宁曾将对外贸易垄断作为现代化过程中经济独立的决定性条件，他指出：“如果工业得不到保护，工业无产阶级是绝对不能恢复自己的工业、使俄国成为工业国的，而能保护工业的只是对外贸易垄断。”而对外贸易垄断的实现则高度依赖于社会主义的公有制。斯大林指出：“对资产阶级国家是不可能的或者几乎是不可能的事情，对无产阶级国家却是完全可能的。因为无产阶级国家在这方面具有资产阶级国家所没有的，也许是不可能有的优越性。国有化的土地、国有化的工业、国有化的运输业和信贷业、垄断化的对外贸易、由国家调整的国内贸易，——这一切都是能够用来发展我国工业的‘追加资本’的新泉源，这些新泉源在任何一个资产阶级国家中都不曾有过。”另一方面，国外资本的利用问题一直是影响一个国家的现代化是走依附型还是保持独立自主的重要因素。社会主义制度为社会主义国家在不利用外资或灵活运用外资的情况下实现独立自主的现代化创造了可能。以生产资料所有制为基础的经济制度极大地提升了社会主义现代化抵御外部风险和冲击的能力，苏联在现代化的发展过程中，虽然曾经利用国家资本主义接收过外资与国外技术以推动本国现代化，但这种国家资本主义是在社会主义制度下的国家资本主义，是列宁所说的“能够加以限制、能够规定其范围的资本主义”。由于资本主义的包围与敌视，苏联利用外资的规模十分有限，斯大林曾提出：“我们没有外来的贷款还是能够实行我国的工业化的。”从实践来看，苏联的现代化总体上依然是以社会主义制度为保障、依靠本国力量实现资本积累进而推动国家全面发展的现代化，既没有侵占和掠夺其他国家与民族，也没有依靠“外来的贷款”，真正开创了独立自主现代化的新道路。

For some time, some people have blindly applied the foreign academic discourse of the “Stalin model,”[28]28 “Stalin model” (斯大林模式): A term used in Western and post-Soviet scholarship to describe the highly centralized political and economic system established in the Soviet Union under Stalin, characterized by state ownership, central planning, and one-party rule; often invoked critically in debates about the Soviet Union’s historical trajectory. loudly trumpeting that the shortcomings of the “Stalin model” were the root cause of the Soviet Union’s dissolution, attempting thereby to attack the idea of achieving modernization on the basis of socialist public ownership. This is pure nonsense and deliberate misleading by careerists. In terms of historical facts, between 1950 and 1982, U.S. national income and gross industrial output value increased by 1.8 times and 2.1 times respectively; the United Kingdom’s increased by 1 time and 0.9 times respectively; and West Germany’s increased by 3.4 times and 3.9 times respectively. Meanwhile, between 1950 and 1984, the Soviet Union’s national income and gross industrial output value increased by 9.9 times and 14 times respectively.[29]29 The source for these comparative growth figures is not provided in the original text; they are cited as historical data by the authors. Professor Elena Veduta of Moscow State University in Russia has also shown in her research that the only alternative to capitalism is socialism. From War Communism to the New Economic Policy to the path of industrialization, the Soviet Union demonstrated how to gradually accumulate experience in balanced planned economy; it was the first attempt to organize a non-capitalist, proportionally developing economy, steering it toward a prosperous future.[30]30 Elena Veduta (埃琳娜·韦杜塔): A contemporary Russian economist at Moscow State University, known for research on cybernetic planning and the history of Soviet economic thought. As some scholars have pointed out, the root cause of the Soviet Union’s collapse and the dissolution of its Party was not the Soviet socialist model, but the degeneration and transformation of the CPSU—that is, from the Khrushchev clique to the Gorbachev clique, they gradually departed from, deviated from, and ultimately betrayed Marxism, socialism, and the fundamental interests of the broadest masses of the people. It was not adherence to Marxism and socialism that caused the stagnation and premature demise of Soviet development; on the contrary, it was the betrayal of Marxism and socialism that led to the collapse of the Soviet Union and its Party. The Chinese Communists have an extremely profound and extremely correct understanding of this. As early as 1979, Comrade Deng Xiaoping emphasized the necessity of upholding the socialist road, upholding the dictatorship of the proletariat, upholding the leadership of the Communist Party, and upholding Marxism-Leninism and Mao Zedong Thought, and regarded these as the fundamental prerequisites for achieving the “four modernizations.”[31]31 “Four modernizations” (四个现代化): A policy goal first proposed by Zhou Enlai in 1964 and revived by Deng Xiaoping after 1978, targeting modernization in agriculture, industry, national defense, and science and technology. History shows that it was precisely by adhering to the fundamental direction of socialism that the Communist Party of China led the people of all ethnic groups across the country to successfully forge the path of Chinese-path modernization, and only by unswervingly upholding socialism can independent modernization be realized.

一段时间以来，有人盲目套用国外学界“斯大林模式”的话术，大肆鼓吹“斯大林模式”的弊端是苏联解体的根本原因，企图借此攻击社会主义公有制基础上实现现代化的设想，这纯属无稽之谈和野心家的刻意误导。就历史事实而言，1950年至1982年间，美国国民收入、工业总产值分别增长1.8倍和2.1倍，英国分别增长1倍和0.9倍，联邦德国分别增长3.4倍和3.9倍；而1950年至1984年间，苏联国民收入、工业总产值则分别增长9.9倍和14倍。俄罗斯莫斯科国立大学教授埃琳娜·韦杜塔也在研究中表明，资本主义的唯一替代方案就是社会主义，从战时共产主义到新经济政策再到工业化道路，苏联展示了如何逐步积累平衡的计划经济经验，它首次尝试组织非资本主义的、按比例发展的经济，使其向着繁荣的未来发展。正如有学者指出，苏联亡党亡国的根本原因不在于苏联社会主义模式，而在于苏共蜕化变质，即从赫鲁晓夫集团到戈尔巴乔夫集团，他们逐渐脱离、背离乃至最终背叛马克思主义、社会主义和最广大人民群众的根本利益。不是坚持马克思主义、社会主义使苏联的发展停滞并走向夭折，恰恰是背叛马克思主义、社会主义使苏联亡党亡国。中国共产党人对此有着极为深刻、极为正确的认知。早在1979年，邓小平同志就强调必须坚持社会主义道路，必须坚持无产阶级专政，必须坚持共产党的领导，必须坚持马列主义、毛泽东思想，并认为这是实现“四个现代化”的根本前提。历史表明，正是坚持了社会主义这个根本方向，中国共产党才带领全国各族人民成功走出中国式现代化道路，也只有坚持社会主义不动摇，独立自主的现代化才能实现。

(II) The “Chinese-style” Exploration of Socialist Late-Developing Independent Modernization

（二）社会主义后发独立型现代化的“中国式”探索

Since the Opium War,[32]32 Opium War (鸦片战争): The First Opium War (1839–1842) between Britain and Qing China, which ended with the Treaty of Nanjing and is conventionally seen as the beginning of China’s semi-colonial period. China was gradually drawn into the capitalist world system. Amid the interweaving and resonance of internal and external factors, achieving modernization became the development goal tirelessly pursued by the Chinese nation. However, China’s modernization process was extremely arduous. The feudal landlord class and the bourgeoisie successively put forward plans for modernization, yet they were never able to change China’s poverty and backwardness. Clearly, modernization, as a systematic and comprehensive process of social revolution, could hardly take root in semi-colonial and semi-feudal China.[33]33 Semi-colonial and semi-feudal (半殖民地半封建社会): The official CPC characterization of Chinese society from the Opium War to the founding of the PRC, denoting a condition of partial foreign domination and a pre-capitalist agrarian economy. The founding of the Communist Party of China was a monumental event in the history of China’s modernization—a Marxist political party aimed at smashing the old society and building a new society and a new state for the Chinese nation officially became the leading force and political guarantee for the Chinese nation’s realization of modernization. During the periods of the Agrarian Revolution, the War of Resistance Against Japan, and the War of Liberation,[34]34 Agrarian Revolution (土地革命, 1927–1937), War of Resistance Against Japan (抗日战争, 1937–1945), and War of Liberation (解放战争, 1945–1949): The three successive military-political phases of the CPC’s revolutionary struggle before 1949. the Communist Party of China initiated preliminary explorations of socialist modernization in the base areas, producing theoretical achievements such as *Must Pay Attention to Economic Work*, *Our Economic Policy*, and *Economic Problems and Financial Problems*.[35]35 *Must Pay Attention to Economic Work* (1933), *Our Economic Policy* (1934), and *Economic Problems and Financial Problems* (1942): Three texts by Mao Zedong on economic management in the CPC’s rural base areas. After the founding of the People’s Republic of China, the Communist Party of China, on the one hand, drew on Soviet experience to clarify the basic ideas for national modernization; on the other hand, it adhered to independence and self-reliance, leading the Chinese people to independently explore a socialist modernization path suited to China’s national conditions, forming modernization theories and policy propositions with Chinese characteristics, and laying a solid foundation for reform and opening up and the comprehensive promotion of socialist modernization.

鸦片战争以来，中国逐渐卷入资本主义世界体系，在内外因素的交织共振中，实现现代化成为了中华民族孜孜以求的发展目标。然而，中国的现代化进程极为坎坷，封建地主阶级、资产阶级先后给出了现代化的方案，却始终未能改变中国贫穷落后的局面。显然，现代化作为一个系统的全面的社会革命进程，在半殖民地半封建社会的中国是难以落地生根的。中国共产党成立是中国现代化历程中开天辟地的大事件，一个旨在砸烂旧社会、建设一个中华民族的新社会和新国家的马克思主义政党正式成为中华民族实现现代化的引领力量和政治保障。土地革命、抗日战争与解放战争时期，中国共产党在根据地开启了社会主义现代化建设的初步探索，并在实践中产生了《必须注意经济工作》《我们的经济政策》《经济问题与财政问题》等理论成果。新中国成立以后，中国共产党一方面借鉴苏联经验明确了国家现代化建设的基本思路，另一方面坚持独立自主、自力更生，领导中国人民独立探索符合中国国情的社会主义现代化道路，形成了具有中国特色的现代化理论与政策主张，并为改革开放、全面推进社会主义现代化建设奠定了坚实基础。

In the late 1980s and early 1990s, the socialist regimes in Eastern Europe collapsed one after another, the world’s first socialist state, the Soviet Union, disintegrated in an instant, world socialism entered a low ebb, and the forces of socialist modernization worldwide suffered a major blow. The rhetoric trumpeting the uniqueness of Western-style modernization became rampant. Many developing countries, encouraged by the West, implemented reforms of government minimization, rapid privatization, and market liberalization, gradually integrating into the neoliberal international order and being forced to adopt the international division of labor policy of “comparative advantage,” thereby falling into the trap of comparative advantage and a state of dependent development, losing the possibility of achieving independent modernization. Faced with the extreme low ebb of socialism, the Communist Party of China unswervingly upheld the Four Cardinal Principles,[36]36 Four Cardinal Principles (四项基本原则): The four political principles enunciated by Deng Xiaoping in 1979: upholding the socialist road, the dictatorship of the proletariat, the leadership of the CPC, and Marxism-Leninism and Mao Zedong Thought. defended socialism with Chinese characteristics in the face of severe tests, and united and led the Chinese nation to create economic and social development miracles that will go down in history. Since the 18th National Congress of the CPC,[37]37 18th National Congress of the CPC (党的十八大): Held in November 2012, the congress that formally inaugurated Xi Jinping as General Secretary and launched the political discourse of the New Era. the Party Central Committee with Comrade Xi Jinping at its core has coordinated the overall strategic situation of the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation and the changes unseen in a century, implemented the new development philosophy, and, on the basis of achieving the First Centenary Goal,[38]38 First Centenary Goal (第一个百年奋斗目标): The goal of building a “moderately prosperous society in all respects” (全面建成小康社会) by the centenary of the CPC’s founding in 2021, declared achieved in July 2021. smoothly embarked on the new journey of comprehensively building a modern socialist country, marching toward the Second Centenary Goal.[39]39 Second Centenary Goal (第二个百年奋斗目标): The goal of building a “modern socialist country that is prosperous, strong, democratic, culturally advanced, and harmonious” by the centenary of the PRC’s founding in 2049.

20世纪80年代末90年代初，东欧社会主义政权接连垮台，世界上第一个社会主义国家苏联顷刻解体，世界社会主义步入低潮，世界范围内的社会主义现代化力量遭受重大打击，鼓吹西式现代化唯一性的论调甚嚣尘上。不少发展中国家在西方的鼓动下实施政府最小化、快速私有化、市场自由化改革，逐渐融入新自由主义国际秩序，被迫实施“比较优势”的国际分工政策，从而逐渐落入了比较利益陷阱与依附型发展状态，丧失了独立自主实现现代化的可能性。面对社会主义极端低潮的到来，中国共产党毫不动摇坚持四项基本原则，在严峻考验面前捍卫了中国特色社会主义，并团结带领中华民族创造了彪炳史册的经济社会发展奇迹。党的十八大以来，以习近平同志为核心的党中央统筹把握中华民族伟大复兴战略全局和世界百年未有之大变局，贯彻新发展理念，在实现第一个百年奋斗目标的基础上，顺利开启了全面建设社会主义现代化国家新征程，向第二个百年奋斗目标进军。

A review of the century-long struggle of the Communist Party of China reveals that the “Chinese-style” exploration of socialist late-developing independent modernization has the following main characteristics.

纵观中国共产党的百年奋斗历程，社会主义后发独立型现代化的“中国式”探索主要有以下几点特征。

First, strengthening and improving the leadership of the Communist Party of China through self-revolution.

第一，以自我革命加强和改进中国共产党的领导。

The Party Central Committee came first, then New China—this generative logic determines that the key to opening up and advancing the Chinese-path modernization lies in the CPC. In the century-long process of exploring the Chinese-path modernization, the CPC has always treated answering the epochal question of how to break out of the historical cycle of rise and fall [40]40 The “historical cycle of rise and fall” (治乱兴衰历史周期率) refers to the traditional Chinese dynastic cycle of founding, prosperity, decline, and collapse, which the CPC aims to break out of through self-revolution and Party building. as a rope hanging from a beam and an awl piercing the bone [41]41 “A rope hanging from a beam and an awl piercing the bone” (悬梁之绳、刺骨之锥) is a classical allusion to the ancient Chinese stories of Sun Jing and Su Qin, who used extreme methods (tying their hair to a beam or pricking their thigh with an awl) to stay awake while studying, here used metaphorically to describe the CPC’s constant vigilance and self-discipline., insisting on turning the blade inward and self-tempering, forever preserving the advanced nature and purity of the CPC, continuously forging itself through self-revolution, thereby being able to effectively exert the political leadership, ideological guidance, organizational mobilization, and strategic planning functions of a Marxist political party in the process of exploring the Chinese-path modernization, continuously stimulating the strong impetus for building Chinese-path modernization, and thus pushing Chinese-path modernization from success to success.

先有中国共产党，再有新中国，这样一个生成逻辑决定了中国式现代化道路开辟与拓展的关键在中国共产党。在探索中国式现代化道路的百年历程中，中国共产党始终把回答好如何跳出治乱兴衰历史周期率的时代课题作为悬梁之绳、刺骨之锥，坚持刀刃向内、自我淬炼，永葆中国共产党的先进性和纯洁性，以自我革命不断锤炼自身，从而能够在中国式现代化道路的探索过程中有效发挥马克思主义政党的政治领导、思想引领、组织动员与战略谋划作用，持续激发建设中国式现代化的强劲动力，进而推动中国式现代化不断从成功走向成功。

Second, adhere to the modernization orientation of putting the people first.

第二，坚持人民至上的现代化取向。

The question of the human being is the “touchstone” for testing the nature and development direction of modernization. Putting the people first is an essential requirement of socialism, a principled stance and valuable experience in exploring the Chinese-path modernization, and a distinctive feature of Chinese-path modernization. Only by always adhering to the people-centered development thought and continuously carrying forward the practical experience of putting the people first can one have a correct outlook on development and modernization. Adherence to this experience has enabled Chinese-path modernization to successfully break the capitalist model that takes the modernization of things as its single development dimension, and has pushed Chinese-path modernization to achieve a leap from the modernization of things to the modernization of the human being.

人的问题是检验现代化性质与发展方向的“试金石”。坚持人民至上是社会主义的本质要求，是探索中国式现代化道路的立场原则与宝贵经验，是中国式现代化的鲜明特质。只有始终坚持以人民为中心的发展思想，不断发扬人民至上的实践经验，才能有正确的发展观、现代化观。对这一经验的坚守使中国式现代化成功打破了以物的现代化为单一发展向度的资本主义模式，并推动中国式现代化实现从物的现代化到人的现代化的跃进。

Third, adhere to guiding modernization with theoretical innovation.

第三，坚持以理论创新引领现代化。

Practice is the source of theory; theory guides the direction of practice. Adhering to adapting Marxism to the Chinese context and the needs of the times and guiding practice with innovative theory is an important experience gained by the CPC from its century-long exploration of the Chinese-path modernization. After the October Revolution, revolutionary pioneers represented by Li Dazhao [42]42 Li Dazhao (1889–1927) was a co-founder of the CPC and the first Chinese to systematically introduce Marxism, executed by the warlord Zhang Zuolin. began the process of studying and disseminating Marxism. Marxism illuminated the path for the Chinese nation to seek its own liberation with the light of truth, and while promoting the founding of the CPC, it also provided the fundamental theoretical guidance for opening up the Chinese-path modernization. At the same time, generations of CPC members, in the process of exploring the Chinese-path modernization, did not fall into the shackles of dogmatism, insisted on integrating the basic tenets of Marxism with China’s specific realities and with the fine traditional Chinese culture, forming a series of innovative theoretical achievements in adapting Marxism to the Chinese context and the needs of the times, and using these to guide Chinese-path modernization to continuously achieve new successes.

实践是理论的来源，理论指引实践前进的方向。坚持推进马克思主义中国化时代化，以创新的理论指导实践，是中国共产党从中国式现代化道路的百年探索中得来的一项重要经验。十月革命以后，以李大钊为代表的革命先驱开启了马克思主义研究与传播的历程，马克思主义以真理之光照亮了中华民族寻求自身解放的道路，在推动中国共产党成立的同时也为中国式现代化道路的开辟提供了根本理论遵循。与此同时，一代代中国共产党人在探索中国式现代化道路的过程中，没有陷入教条主义的桎梏，坚持把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，形成了马克思主义中国化时代化的一系列创新理论成果，并以此指引中国式现代化不断取得新的成就。

Fourth, adhere to an independent and self-reliant modernization path.

第四，坚持独立自主的现代化道路。

As early as the era of revolutionary war, the CPC members represented mainly by Comrade Mao Zedong placed great emphasis on opposing dogmatism and advocated taking the path of encircling the cities from the countryside and seizing state power by armed force to strive for national independence and the liberation of the people. It was precisely because of unswervingly taking this independent and self-reliant development path, which differed from the Russian practice, that the CPC successfully led the entire people to achieve victory in the New Democratic Revolution. After the founding of the People’s Republic of China, the CPC, on the one hand, drew on Soviet experience to develop the productive forces, and on the other hand, also placed great emphasis on taking the Soviet Union as a mirror, striving to explore an independent and self-reliant development path. Comrade Mao Zedong explicitly stated in “On the Ten Major Relationships”: “In the past we took fewer detours because we learned from their experience and lessons; now of course we must take even more warning from them.” [43]43 “On the Ten Major Relationships” (《论十大关系》) was a 1956 speech by Mao Zedong analyzing ten key contradictions in socialist construction, marking an early attempt to adapt Soviet-style socialism to Chinese conditions. The Third Plenary Session of the 11th Central Committee [44]44 The Third Plenary Session of the 11th Central Committee (1978) was a landmark meeting that launched the reform and opening up policy, shifting the Party’s focus from class struggle to economic modernization. shifted the focus of the Party’s work and the attention of the entire people to socialist modernization, while at the same time emphasizing independence and self-reliance as the basic spirit of the plenary session and the ideological principle for future work. In the process of exploring the Chinese-path modernization, the CPC deeply realized that blindly following the West, relying on external forces, and copying the experience and development models of other countries could never achieve the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation. Independence and self-reliance are not only the basic foothold for China to build socialism, but also a distinctive feature of Chinese-path modernization, and the key to the success of China’s development. [Editor: Zhong Jie]

早在革命战争年代，以毛泽东同志为主要代表的中国共产党人就极为注重反对教条主义，主张沿着农村包围城市、武装夺取政权的道路争取民族独立、人民解放。正是因为坚定不移地走这条有别于俄国实践的独立自主发展道路，中国共产党才成功领导全国人民实现了新民主主义革命的胜利。中华人民共和国成立后，中国共产党一方面借鉴苏联经验发展生产力，另一方面也极为注重以苏联为鉴，着力探索独立自主的发展道路。毛泽东同志在《论十大关系》中曾明确提出：“过去我们就是鉴于他们的经验教训，少走了一些弯路，现在当然更要引以为戒。”党的十一届三中全会把全党的工作重点和全国人民的注意力转移到社会主义现代化建设上来，同时把独立自主作为全会的基本精神和今后工作的思想原则来着重强调。在中国式现代化道路的探索过程中，中国共产党深刻认识到，对西方亦步亦趋，依靠外部力量，照搬他国经验与发展模式，是决不能实现中华民族伟大复兴的。独立自主既是中国建设社会主义的基本立足点，也是中国式现代化的鲜明特色，还是中国发展的成功要义。[编辑：钟洁]

(Author bios: Zheng Yifan, doctoral candidate at the School of Marxism, Tsinghua University, and member of the Academic Committee of the Research Center for Intra-Party Regulations and State Supervision, University of Chinese Academy of Social Sciences; Zhou Miao, director and researcher of the Research Office of Foreign Left-wing Thought, Institute of Marxism, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences)

（作者简介：郑宜帆，清华大学马克思主义学院博士研究生，中国社会科学院大学党内法规与国家监察研究中心学术委员会委员；周淼，中国社会科学院马克思主义研究院国外左翼思想研究室主任、研究员）

Online editor: Zhong Yao

网络编辑：钟尧