On the Relationship between the “Two Inevitabilities” and the “Two Will Nevers” – A Reflection Based on the Idea of Leaping over the “Caudine Forks” of the Capitalist System

The “two inevitabilities,” namely “the inevitable doom of capitalism and the inevitable victory of socialism,” are the core propositions of scientific socialism. They reveal the objective laws of the development of human society and elucidate the historical inevitability of socialism replacing capitalism. The “two will nevers” point out that “no social formation ever perishes before all the productive forces for which there is room in it have developed; and new, higher relations of production never appear before the material conditions of their existence have matured in the womb of the old society itself.” This essentially reveals the preconditions for the realization of the “two inevitabilities,” emphasizing that the decisive factor in the replacement of social formations is the contradictory movement between productive forces and relations of production.

“两个必然”，即“资本主义必然灭亡，社会主义必然胜利”，是科学社会主义的核心命题，揭示了人类社会发展的客观规律，阐明了社会主义代替资本主义的历史必然性。“两个决不会”则指出，“无论哪一个社会形态，在它所能容纳的全部生产力发挥出来以前，是决不会灭亡的；而新的更高的生产关系，在它的物质存在条件在旧社会的胎胞里成熟以前，是决不会出现的”。这从本质上揭示出“两个必然”实现的前提条件，强调了社会形态更替的决定因素是生产力与生产关系的矛盾运动。

Current domestic research on the “two inevitabilities” and the “two will nevers” mostly focuses on elucidating their relationship and practical significance, emphasizing the analysis of their internal logic from the perspective of what ought to be, which has effectively promoted a scientific understanding of this thesis. However, there is a lack of systematic research from the perspective of what actually is, exploring how the “two will nevers” specifically constitute the conditions for realizing the “two inevitabilities.” Specifically, how does the contradictory movement between productive forces and relations of production, as revealed by the “two will nevers,” inevitably lead to the doom of capitalism and the victory of socialism? What differences exist in the forms of manifestation and paths of realization of this historical inevitability in the social realities of developed capitalist countries and relatively economically and culturally backward countries? Without in-depth analysis of actual conditions, the “two inevitabilities” can easily degenerate into abstract dogmas detached from historical contexts. Therefore, the core of the issue lies in: how to analyze, from the perspective of what actually is, the internal logic of the “two will nevers” as the conditions for realizing the “two inevitabilities.” Marx’s later idea of leaping over the “Caudine Forks” of the capitalist system provides a key perspective for solving this theoretical puzzle. This idea does not negate that the “two will nevers” are the objective premise of the “two inevitabilities”; rather, it bridges the gap between the ultimate goal and actual conditions in the context of backward countries, explaining the special path by which backward countries, under specific historical conditions, can leap over the stage of capitalist development and utilize its positive achievements to move toward socialism. This idea has been verified in the practice of socialism with Chinese characteristics, especially in the modernization process since reform and opening up.

当前国内关于“两个必然”与“两个决不会”的研究成果多集中于阐释两者的关系及其现实意义，侧重于从应然层面分析其内在逻辑，有力推动了对该论断的科学化认识。但缺乏从实然层面出发，系统探讨“两个决不会”如何具体构成“两个必然的”实现条件的研究。具体而言，“两个决不会”揭示的生产力与生产关系的矛盾运动如何必然导致资本主义灭亡和社会主义胜利?这种历史必然性在发达资本主义国家和经济文化相对落后国家的社会现实中，其表现形态和实现路径存在哪些差异?若缺乏对现实条件的深入分析，“两个必然”便易沦为脱离历史情境的抽象教条。因此，问题的核心在于：如何从实然层面分析“两个决不会”作为“两个必然”实现条件的内在逻辑。马克思晚年的跨越资本主义制度“卡夫丁峡谷”设想，为破解这一理论难题提供了关键视角。该设想并未否定“两个决不会”是“两个必然”的客观前提，而是弥合了落后国家语境下终极目标与现实条件之间的鸿沟，阐释了落后国家在特定历史条件下跨越资本主义发展阶段、利用其积极成果走向社会主义的特殊路径。这一设想在中国特色社会主义实践，尤其是改革开放以来的现代化进程中得到了验证。

Based on this, this paper takes the idea of leaping over the “Caudine Forks” of the capitalist system as a theoretical lens to re-examine the internal relationship between the “two inevitabilities” and the “two will nevers.” This reflection aims to deepen the understanding of the principles of scientific socialism, dispel misconceptions about the historical fate of capitalism and the prospects of socialism, and provide important theoretical support for constructing a theoretical system of Chinese-path modernization with global significance.

基于此，本文以跨越资本主义制度“卡夫丁峡谷”设想为理论透镜，重新审视“两个必然”与“两个决不会”的内在关系。这一反思旨在深化对科学社会主义原理的理解，破除关于资本主义历史命运与社会主义前途的认识误区，并为构建具有世界意义的中国式现代化理论体系提供重要理论支撑。

I. The Dialectical Relationship between the “Two Inevitabilities” and the “Two Will Nevers” from the Perspective of Historical Materialism

一、唯物史观视域下“两个必然”与“两个决不会”的辩证关系

Marxism reveals the basic connotations of the historical trend of the “two inevitabilities” and the historical conditions of the “two will nevers” in the development of human society. The key to deeply understanding the relationship between the two lies in: when the conditions for socio-historical development specified by the “two will nevers” are met, does the new social form replacing the old one, as predicted by the “two inevitabilities,” necessarily become a reality? To this end, we need to rely on historical materialism to deeply analyze the socio-historical development conditions set by the “two will nevers,” grasp the internal logic of their dual determinations, and thereby elucidate the possibility of “leaping over” in the transition from capitalism to socialism inherent in the “two inevitabilities.”

马克思主义揭示了人类社会发展的“两个必然”历史趋势与“两个决不会”历史条件的基本内涵。深刻理解两者关系的关键在于：当“两个决不会”所指明的社会历史发展条件得以满足时，“两个必然”所预示的新社会形态取代旧社会形态是否就必然成为现实。为此，我们需要依据唯物史观，深入剖析“两个决不会”所设定的社会历史发展条件，把握其两重规定性的内在逻辑，从而阐明“两个必然”中蕴含的资本主义向社会主义过渡的“跨越”可能性。

The core idea of the “two inevitabilities” originates from Marx and Engels’ proposition in the *Communist Manifesto* that “the fall of the bourgeoisie and the victory of the proletariat are equally inevitable,” i.e., the “two inevitabilities” [1]1 The Chinese text here uses “两个不可避免” (two inevitabilities) to refer to the same proposition from the *Communist Manifesto*, which is distinct from the standard Chinese rendering of the “two inevitabilities” (两个必然) as a core thesis of scientific socialism. The author is quoting the original phrasing from the *Manifesto*., and was succinctly summarized by Lenin as the “inevitability” of the transformation of the capitalist system into the socialist system. The fundamental basis for Marx and Engels reaching this conclusion was their profound analysis of the laws of economic movement in modern society (capitalism), revealing that the contradiction between socialized large-scale production and capitalist private ownership inevitably leads to the replacement of capitalist private ownership by socialist public ownership. Lenin further pointed out that the “two inevitabilities” are in fact “one inevitability,” namely that capitalism will inevitably be replaced by communism (socialism), also known as the theory of replacement or transformation. The “two inevitabilities” are the basic conclusion Marx and Engels reached by applying historical materialism to analyze capitalist society. Their core connotations include two points: first, the abolition of capitalist private ownership, i.e., the abolition of the capitalist mode of appropriation of the means of production; second, the resolution of the contradiction between socialized large-scale production and capitalist private ownership, a contradiction that manifests in class relations as the sharp antagonism between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. This conclusion is not only reflected in the “two inevitabilities” proposed in the *Communist Manifesto* but is also the final verdict of *Capital*, namely, “The knell of capitalist private property sounds. The expropriators are expropriated.”

“两个必然”的核心思想源于马克思恩格斯在《共产党宣言》中提出的“资产阶级的灭亡和无产阶级的胜利是同样不可避免的”，即“两个不可避免”，并被列宁精辟概括为资本主义制度转变为社会主义制度的“必然性”。马克思恩格斯得出这一结论的根本依据，是对现代社会(资本主义)经济运动规律的深刻剖析，揭示了社会化大生产与资本主义私人占有之间的矛盾必然导致资本主义私有制被社会主义公有制所取代。列宁进一步指出，“两个必然”实为“一个必然”，即资本主义必然被共产主义(社会主义)所代替，又称代替论或转变论。“两个必然”是马克思恩格斯运用唯物史观分析资本主义社会得出的基本结论。其核心内涵包括两点：一是消灭资本主义私有制，即消灭生产资料的资本主义占有方式；二是解决社会化大生产与资本主义私人占有之间的矛盾，这一矛盾在阶级关系上表现为无产阶级与资产阶级的尖锐对立。这一结论不仅体现在《共产党宣言》提出的“两个不可避免”中，也是《资本论》的最终论断，即“资本主义私有制的丧钟就要响了。剥夺者就要被剥夺了”。

Marx put forward the idea of the “two will nevers” in the *Preface to A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy*, profoundly elucidating the objective material conditions necessary for the replacement of social formations and the realization of the “two inevitabilities.” This idea not only deepened the thesis of the “two inevitabilities,” providing it with a solid foundation in historical materialism, but also revealed the long-term, complex, and tortuous nature of this historical process. It must be emphasized that the “two will nevers” are a scientific conclusion Marx and Engels reached based on an in-depth analysis of the typical form of the capitalist mode of production in Western Europe, and in this process, they revealed the general laws of the evolution of human social formations.

马克思在《〈政治经济学批判〉序言》中提出“两个决不会”思想，深刻阐明了社会形态更替和实现“两个必然”所必需的客观物质条件。这一思想不仅深化了“两个必然”的论断，为其提供了坚实的唯物史观基础，也揭示了这一历史进程的长期性、复杂性和曲折性。需要强调的是，“两个决不会”是马克思恩格斯基于对西欧资本主义生产方式这一典型形态的深入剖析得出的科学结论，并在此过程中揭示了人类社会形态演进的一般规律。

Specifically, the “two will nevers” constitute a system of conditional theory, encompassing general material conditions, specific conditions of capitalist society, and possible development paths for non-capitalist societies, reflecting historical materialism’s emphasis on historical specificity. It clearly points out that the realization of the “two inevitabilities” depends on the high development of productive forces and the maturity of the material prerequisites for new relations of production. However, this view is not equivalent to the “theory of capitalist conditions,” which holds that one must go through the stage of capitalist development to reach socialism. If the “two will nevers” are dogmatically reduced to the “theory of capitalist conditions,” it will create a contradiction between the historical trend of the “two inevitabilities” and the actual requirements of the “two will nevers,” and may even lead to the conclusion that the realization of the “two will nevers” does not necessarily lead to the “two inevitabilities.” Conversely, if one only abstractly discusses “general material conditions” while ignoring the specific historical forms of conditions, it will sever the internal connection between the “two inevitabilities” and the “two will nevers,” denying that the conditions stipulated by the latter are the premise for the realization of the former. Whether it is the dogmatic “theory of capitalist conditions” or the abstract “theory of general material conditions,” their fundamental error lies in discussing the possibility of conditions detached from specific socio-historical contexts. The historical specificity emphasized by historical materialism requires us to examine whether a society—including non-capitalist societies—at its specific stage of development truly possesses the material conditions necessary for realizing the “two inevitabilities.” As Marx said, “These abstractions in themselves, divorced from real history, have no value whatsoever.” Therefore, the “two inevitabilities” and the “two will nevers” must be understood within specific historical backgrounds and stages of development; otherwise, it is easy to fall into dogmatism or subjective conjecture.

具体而言，“两个决不会”构成了一个条件论体系，涵盖了一般性的物质条件、资本主义社会的特定条件以及非资本主义社会的可能发展路径，体现了唯物史观对历史具体性的强调。它明确指出，“两个必然”的实现有赖于生产力的高度发展以及新生产关系物质前提的成熟。但这一观点并不等同于主张必须经过资本主义发展阶段才能走向社会主义的“资本主义条件论”。若将“两个决不会”教条化为“资本主义条件论”，便会在“两个必然”的历史趋势与“两个决不会”的现实要求之间制造矛盾，甚至可能得出“两个决不会”的实现未必走向“两个必然”的结论。反之，若仅抽象谈论“一般性物质条件”，忽视条件的具体历史形态，则会割裂“两个必然”与“两个决不会”的内在联系，否认后者所规定的条件是前者实现的前提。无论是教条化的“资本主义条件论”，还是抽象的“一般性的物质条件论”，其根本错误都在于脱离具体社会历史情境来讨论条件的可能性。唯物史观强调的历史具体性，要求我们必须考察一个社会——包括非资本主义社会——在其特定发展阶段是否真正具备实现“两个必然”所必需的物质条件。正如马克思所言：“这些抽象本身离开了现实的历史就没有任何价值。”因此，必须将“两个必然”与“两个决不会”置于具体的历史背景和发展阶段中去理解，否则便容易陷入教条主义或主观臆断。

The logic of the realization of the “Two Necessities” is internal to the dialectical movement between the development of capitalist productive forces and the maturation of the material conditions for socialism. The “Two Will Nevers” contain a twofold determination: first, the demise of an old social formation takes as its universal condition the full development of the productive forces it can accommodate, but this does not equate to a requirement that a stage of highly developed capitalism must be passed through; second, the crux of the matter is that the full development of productive forces creates the material prerequisites for socialism. These two determinations are interrelated but operate on different levels: the former is a possible outcome of the internal contradictions of capitalism. As Marx profoundly elaborated on the basis of revolutionary experience in *The Class Struggles in France, 1848 to 1850*: “No real revolution is possible so long as the productive forces of bourgeois society are developing as vigorously as they can within the framework of bourgeois relations. Only when these two factors, modern productive forces and the bourgeois form of production, come into contradiction with each other can such a revolution take place.” This reflects Marx’s objective dialectical understanding of the laws of capitalist development. The latter points to the material foundation required for socialism, the core of which is a new type of condition capable of meeting human developmental needs. This raises a fundamental question: must the material conditions required for new relations of production presuppose the completion of a full stage of capitalist development? If the answer is negative, it means that in societies where capitalism is not yet fully developed, humanity may be able to explore a new path directly leading to socialism. Therefore, based on the concrete application of historical materialism, the twofold determination of the “Two Will Nevers” presents multiple possibilities in the unfolding of history: one path is the full development of capitalism’s internal contradictions and its eventual supersession; another path is to bypass the typical capitalist stage and, under specific historical conditions, directly nurture the material foundation for new relations of production.

“两个必然”的实现逻辑，内在于资本主义生产力发展与社会主义物质条件成熟之间的辩证运动。“两个决不会”包含两重规定性：第一，旧社会形态的灭亡，以其所能容纳的生产力得到充分发展为普遍条件，但这并不等同于要求必须经历资本主义高度发展的阶段；第二，问题的关键在于，生产力的充分发展为社会主义创造物质前提。这两个规定性相互关联但层次不同：前者是资本主义内在矛盾的一种可能结果。正如马克思在《1848年至1850年的法兰西阶级斗争》中基于革命经验所深刻阐述的：“在资产阶级社会的生产力正以在整个资产阶级关系范围内所能达到的速度蓬勃发展的时候，也就谈不到什么真正的革命。只有在现代生产力和资产阶级生产方式这两个要素互相矛盾的时候，这种革命才有可能。”这体现了马克思对资本主义发展规律的客观辩证认识。后者则指向社会主义所需的物质基础，其核心是能够满足人的发展需求的新型条件。由此引出一个根本性问题：新生产关系所需的物质条件，是否必须以经历完整的资本主义发展阶段为前提?若答案是否定的，则意味着在资本主义尚未充分发展的社会中，人类有可能探索出一条直接通向社会主义的新道路。因此，基于唯物史观的具体化运用，“两个决不会”的两重规定性在历史展开中呈现出多种可能性：一条路径是资本主义内在矛盾充分展开并最终被取代；另一条路径是不经历典型的资本主义阶段，而是在特定历史条件下直接孕育新生产关系的物质基础。

The inevitable demise of capitalism and the inevitable victory of socialism, as different aspects of socio-historical development, together embody the general laws of historical development. However, the “Two Necessities” as revealed by historical materialism are first and foremost a theoretical possibility. To transform them into reality, one must advance from philosophical argumentation to the concrete analysis of political economy, grasping the “essential determinations” and the “real things” through a critical examination of the capitalist mode of production and its internal contradictions. The real basis for realizing this transformation depends on two key factors: first, the victory of socialism must presuppose the full absorption of the achievements of capitalist civilization and the resolution of the internal contradictions of its mode of production; second, whether a country or nation follows a gradual, conventional path or achieves leapfrog development is fundamentally determined by the degree of development of its productive forces and forms of intercourse, as well as its specific situation in world history. As history transforms into world history, the contradiction between productive forces and relations of production also unfolds on a global scale. This makes conflicts between regions, countries, and nations with relatively backward relations of production and those with a higher degree of productive forces appear frequently on the stage of world history, thereby compelling the former to use the technological means and productive forces platform of the latter to implement revolutionary changes in their own relations of production and social systems, thus achieving a leapfrog or skip-stage development of the mode of production. Therefore, when applying the “Two Necessities” and the “Two Will Nevers” to the analysis of specific countries, they cannot be treated as ready-made answers; one must delve into the social existence and historical reality of each country and make concrete judgments. The idea of crossing the “Caudine Forks” of the capitalist system, proposed by Marx in his later years, is precisely a theoretical model that combines the general principles of historical materialism with specific historical conditions. It not only provides a key for understanding the evolution of pre-capitalist social formations but also opens a theoretical path for backward countries to achieve a skip-stage development of their social systems and move toward socialism.

资本主义必然灭亡与社会主义必然胜利，作为社会历史发展的不同面向，共同体现了历史发展的一般规律。但唯物史观所揭示的“两个必然”首先是一种理论可能性，要将其转化为现实，就必须从哲学论证推进至政治经济学的具体分析，通过对资本主义生产方式及其内在矛盾的批判性考察，把握其“本质的规定”与“现实的东西”。实现这种转化的现实基础取决于两个关键因素：其一，社会主义的胜利必须以充分吸收资本主义文明成果、破解其生产方式内在矛盾为前提；其二，一个国家或民族究竟走渐进式常规道路，还是实现跨越式发展，从根本上取决于其生产力与交往形式的发展程度，以及它在世界历史中的具体境遇。随着历史向世界历史的转变，生产力和生产关系的矛盾也在全球范围内展开，这使得生产关系较为落后的地区、国家和民族与生产力发展程度较高的地区、国家和民族之间的冲突，会频繁地出现在世界历史舞台上，从而迫使前者借助于后者的技术手段和生产力平台对其生产关系和社会制度施行革命性变革，进而实现生产方式的跳跃式或跨越式发展。因此，在将“两个必然”与“两个决不会”运用于具体国家的分析时，不能将其视为现成答案，而必须深入各国的社会存在与历史现实，作出具体判断。马克思晚年提出的跨越资本主义制度“卡夫丁峡谷”设想，正是唯物史观一般原理与具体历史条件相结合的理论典范，它不仅为理解前资本主义社会形态的演进提供了钥匙，也为落后国家实现社会制度跨越、走向社会主义开辟了理论路径。

II. The Idea of Crossing the “Caudine Forks” of the Capitalist System Further Deepens the Theoretical Connotation of the “Two Will Nevers” and Reveals a Special Path for the Realization of the “Two Necessities”

二、跨越资本主义制度“卡夫丁峡谷”设想进一步深化“两个决不会”的理论内涵和揭示“两个必然”的特殊实现路径

The idea of crossing the “Caudine Forks” of the capitalist system, proposed by Marx in his later years in response to the social reality of Russia, differs from the logical inference in the *Communist Manifesto* and *Capital* that capital expansion spontaneously disintegrates the old mode of production. It does not refer to the imminent demise of capitalism due to the intensification of its internal contradictions and the outbreak of crises, but rather explores two possible development paths for backward countries where capitalism is not fully developed: one is to go through a capitalist stage based on private ownership, and the other is to transition directly to socialism based on public ownership under certain conditions. Marx and Engels affirmed the latter possibility, believing that backward countries could enter socialism without passing through a typical capitalist stage. Although this idea has given rise to multiple interpretations in later generations and is not a definitive historical conclusion, its core viewpoint is clear: Eastern countries possess the possibility and necessity of choosing a unique development path, a path that should, as much as possible, avoid the sufferings of capitalism while maximizing social progress and the improvement of people’s lives. From the perspective of crossing the “Caudine Forks” of the capitalist system, we need to further consider: why does this idea not overturn the premise that the “Two Will Nevers” serve as the condition for realizing the “Two Necessities,” but instead deepen the specific content of the “Two Will Nevers” and provide an important supplement to the path of realizing the “Two Necessities”?

马克思晚年针对俄国社会现实提出的跨越资本主义制度“卡夫丁峡谷”的设想，不同于《共产党宣言》和《资本论》中由资本扩张自发瓦解旧生产方式的逻辑推论。它不是指资本主义因内在矛盾激化、危机爆发而即将灭亡，而是探讨在资本主义未充分发展的落后国家，面临两条可能的发展路径：一条是经历以私有制为基础的资本主义阶段，另一条是在一定条件下直接向以公有制为基础的社会主义过渡。马克思恩格斯肯定了后一种可能，认为落后国家可以不经过典型的资本主义阶段而进入社会主义。尽管这一设想在后世引发了多种解读，也并非确定的历史结论，但其核心观点明确：东方国家具备选择独特发展道路的可能性与必要性，这条道路应尽可能规避资本主义的苦难，同时最大限度促进社会进步和人民生活改善。从跨越资本主义制度“卡夫丁峡谷”的视角出发，我们需进一步思考：为何这一设想并未颠覆以“两个决不会”作为实现“两个必然”的前提条件，反而深化了“两个决不会”的具体内容，并为“两个必然”的实现路径提供了重要补充。

The reason the idea of crossing the “Caudine Forks” of the capitalist system is “subversive” lies in its challenge to the established conclusion that the “Two Will Nevers” are the sole precondition for realizing the “Two Necessities.” Based on Western European experience, Marx once depicted a unilinear development picture: the capitalist mode of production inevitably replaces pre-capitalist social formations, and on this basis, is itself replaced by socialism. This picture implies that the realization of the “Two Necessities” must presuppose the historical conditions set by the “Two Will Nevers.” However, while adhering to the general historical trend that capitalism will eventually be superseded by socialism, Marx, through his analysis of Russia’s specific conditions, reached a new conclusion: the Russian commune need not be disintegrated by capitalism, nor does Russia need to repeat the primitive accumulation of capital of Western Europe. On the contrary, under a specific world-historical background, it can use internal and external conditions to cross the “Caudine Forks” of the capitalist system and move directly toward socialism. This idea does not negate the “Two Will Nevers,” but rather injects concrete historical content into them, and also provides a new answer to the question of the path of socialist victory within the “Two Necessities.”

跨越资本主义制度“卡夫丁峡谷”设想之所以具有“颠覆性”，在于它挑战了“两个决不会”作为实现“两个必然”唯一前提条件的既有结论。马克思基于西欧经验，曾描绘出一幅单线发展图景：资本主义生产方式必然取代前资本主义社会形态，并在此基础上被社会主义所取代。这一图景意味着，“两个必然”的实现必须以“两个决不会”所设定的历史条件为前提。然而，马克思在坚持资本主义终将被社会主义所取代这一历史大趋势的同时，通过对俄国具体条件的分析得出了新的结论：俄国公社不必被资本主义瓦解，俄国也无需重复西欧的资本原始积累道路。相反，它可以在特定的世界历史背景下，利用内外条件，跨越资本主义制度的“卡夫丁峡谷”，直接走向社会主义。这一设想并非否定“两个决不会”，而是为其注入了具体的历史内涵，也为“两个必然”中社会主义胜利的路径问题提供了新的解答。

The “subversive” nature of this idea regarding the conclusion that the “Two Necessities” are realized under the condition of the “Two Will Nevers” is specifically manifested in two aspects. First, it acknowledges the diversity of historical development paths and explicitly denies that the capitalist stage has “historical inevitability” for all nations and countries. Russia and other similar societies have the possibility of bypassing the typical capitalist stage. Second, it reveals that the highly developed material conditions necessary for realizing the “Two Necessities” do not have a single source or formation path. The classical path emphasizes that these conditions must be generated by the full development of capitalism within a given country. The “skip-stage” path, in contrast, proves that these conditions can be achieved in part by absorbing the achievements of capitalist civilization from the outside, combined with the internal activation and transformation of pre-capitalist forms of public ownership. Through historical and anthropological research in his later years, Marx discovered the particularity of Eastern social structures.

这一设想对以“两个决不会”为条件实现“两个必然”的结论的“颠覆性”具体体现在两个方面。第一，它承认了历史发展道路的多样性，明确否定了资本主义阶段对一切民族国家都具有“历史必然性”。俄国及其他类似社会存在不经过典型资本主义阶段的可能性。第二，它揭示了实现“两个必然”所必需的高度发达的物质条件，其来源和形成路径并非唯一。经典路径强调这些条件必须由本国资本主义在其内部充分发展而生成，而“跨越”路径则证明，这些条件可以部分地通过从外部吸收资本主义文明成果，与内部激活并改造前资本主义公有制形式相结合的方式来实现。马克思晚年通过历史学和人类学研究，发现了东方社会结构的特殊性。

According to the foregoing analysis, the idea of crossing the “Caudine Forks” of the capitalist system indeed challenges the conclusion that the “Two Necessities” are realized under the condition of the “Two Will Nevers.” However, if we return to Marx’s original intention in using historical materialism to explain the relationship between the two, we find that although the classical path and the “skip-stage” path represent two different development models, the skip-stage idea proposed by Marx in his later years did not depart from the theoretical analytical framework constituted by the “Two Necessities” and the “Two Will Nevers.”

按照前述分析，跨越资本主义制度“卡夫丁峡谷”设想确实挑战了以“两个决不会”为条件实现“两个必然”的结论。然而，若回到马克思运用唯物史观阐释两者关系的原意便可发现，尽管经典路径与“跨越”路径代表了两种不同的发展模式，但马克思晚年提出的跨越设想，并未脱离“两个必然”与“两个决不会”所构成的理论分析框架。

First, the leapability of the capitalist system’s “Caudine Forks” embodies the particularity and diversity of socio-historical development, while the un-leapability of the “Two Will Nevers” manifests the universality and generality of the laws of social development. The particular leap in the development paths of various nations is precisely realized under the fundamental constraint that universal laws cannot be violated. In Marx’s view, although a particular development path differs from law, it is not external to law. The path is the concrete mode of realization of the laws of historical development in a given country or nation. The relationship between the leapability of the conception of leaping over the “Caudine Forks” of the capitalist system and the un-leapability of the “Two Will Nevers” is not a contradictory relationship of either/or in analytical thinking, but a relationship of the unity of opposites in dialectical thinking. Hegel pointed out that analytical thinking, adhering to the principle of “either/or,” strictly opposes universality and particularity, and the universality thus formed is in essence “abstract universality.” This theoretical dilemma is particularly evident in the field of social history. In his later years, in response to misunderstandings of *Capital* by Mikhailovsky and others, Marx explicitly opposed turning his “historical sketch of the genesis of capitalism in Western Europe into a historico-philosophical theory of the general path of development,” because such an understanding turns historico-philosophical theory into an abstract universality, that is, a “formula” for historical paths. [5]5 The “Caudine Forks” (卡夫丁峡谷) refers to the Caudine Forks, a mountain pass in ancient Samnium (modern-day Italy) where the Romans suffered a humiliating defeat in 321 BCE. Marx used this metaphor to describe the “pangs” of capitalist development that backward countries might avoid. The “Two Necessities” (两个必然) refers to the inevitability of the demise of capitalism and the victory of socialism, as stated in the *Communist Manifesto*. The “Two Will Nevers” (两个决不会) refers to Marx’s statement in the 1859 Preface to *A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy*: “No social order is ever destroyed before all the productive forces for which it is sufficient have been developed, and new superior relations of production never replace older ones before the material conditions for their existence have matured within the framework of the old society.” “Abstract universality” cannot truly understand real history, and thus it is difficult to accurately grasp specific historical objects and their substantive content. In contrast, the materialist conception of history advocates a “concrete universality” rooted in social reality, capable of embodying the actuality of things themselves. The real possibility of the Russian path is precisely the application of this principle to specific socio-historical conditions and actual development paths. Regarding the inherent duality of the Russian rural commune at that time and its two possible historical destinies, Marx repeatedly pointed out that both outcomes had real possibility, and taking a non-capitalist path was only one option for Russia’s social development, and “everything depends upon the historical environment in which it is situated.” [6]6 Karl Marx, “Letter to the Editorial Board of *Otechestvennye Zapiski*” (1877). Therefore, the diversity of historical paths revealed by the conception of leaping over the “Caudine Forks” of the capitalist system is not a deviation from the scientific principle of the “Two Will Nevers,” but rather a creative application of that principle under specific historical conditions. It roots the universal principle in the real soil of Eastern society, not only demonstrating the powerful explanatory power of the materialist conception of history but also realizing the dialectical unity of universality and particularity.

第一，资本主义制度“卡夫丁峡谷”的可跨越性体现了社会历史发展的特殊性与多样性，而“两个决不会”的不可跨越性则彰显了社会发展规律的普遍性与一般性。各民族发展道路的特殊跨越，正是在普遍规律不可违背这一根本约束下实现的。在马克思看来，特定发展道路虽然不同于规律，但并不外在于规律。道路是历史发展规律在一个国家、民族的具体实现方式。资本主义制度“卡夫丁峡谷”设想的可跨越性和“两个决不会”的不可跨越性之间不是知性思维中非此即彼的矛盾关系，而是辩证思维中的对立统一关系。黑格尔指出，知性思维由于秉持“非此即彼”的原则，将普遍性与特殊性严格对立起来，由此形成的普遍性在本质上是“抽象的普遍性”。这一理论困境在社会历史领域表现得尤为明显。马克思晚年针对米海洛夫斯基等人关于《资本论》的误解，明确表示反对将他的“关于西欧资本主义起源的历史概述彻底变成一般发展道路的历史哲学理论”，因为这种理解将历史哲学理论变成了抽象的普遍性，即关于历史道路的“公式”。“抽象的普遍性”无法真正理解现实历史，从而也就难以准确把握特定历史对象及其实体性内容。与之相对，唯物史观主张的是一种根植于社会现实、能够体现事物自身现实性的“具体的普遍性”。俄国道路的现实可能性，正是将这一原则贯彻于特定的社会历史条件与现实发展路径之中。针对当时俄国农村公社固有的二重性及其面临的两种历史命运，马克思一再指出，两种结局都具有现实可能性，走非资本主义道路只是俄国社会发展的选项之一，而“一切都取决于它所处的历史环境”。因此，跨越资本主义制度“卡夫丁峡谷”设想所展现的历史道路的多样性，不仅不是对“两个决不会”科学原理的背离，反而是该原理在特定历史条件下的创造性运用。它将普遍原理植根于东方社会的现实土壤，既彰显了唯物史观的强大解释力，也实现了普遍性与特殊性的辩证统一。

Second, the conception of leaping over the “Caudine Forks” of the capitalist system points to the leapability of the development path, while the “Two Will Nevers” emphasize the un-leapability of the development foundation, the latter constituting the premise of the former. Specifically, the leapability of the capitalist system’s “Caudine Forks” means that Russia, under specific historical conditions, might bypass the capitalist system itself and the suffering it brings, exploring a development path that both absorbs the fruits of capitalist civilization and utilizes the advantages of the rural commune. What is leapable here is the capitalist relations of production and the specific path, not the material foundation it creates or the process of developing productive forces. The “Two Will Nevers” reveal the universal law of the succession of social formations: the development of productive forces is the fundamental driving force of social change, and this process cannot be leaped over. The final establishment of any social formation must depend on the maturity of the material conditions of existence. Marx’s exploration of the conception of leaping precisely proves that this core principle not only remains valid but is also strengthened amidst the diversity of historical paths. For backward countries to realize socialist revolution and construction, they need to satisfy highly complex internal and external conditions, mainly including: first, material foundation conditions, i.e., fully utilizing internal and external advanced productive forces and the full development of world intercourse. Based on his investigation of Russian social reality, Marx pointed out, “the common ownership of land gives it the natural basis for collective appropriation, and its historical environment, its contemporaneity with capitalist production, provides it with the ready-made material conditions for cooperative labor organized on a large scale.” [7]7 Karl Marx, “Drafts of a Reply to Vera Zasulich” (1881). Second, socio-political conditions, such as winning independence through revolution and obtaining a favorable external support environment. Third, subjective and institutional-cultural conditions, including the maturity of the proletariat and adaptive changes in social culture. Thus, the conception of leaping over the “Caudine Forks” of the capitalist system not only does not violate the law of social development revealed by the “Two Will Nevers,” but also elucidates how to promote the maturation of material conditions under non-typical capitalist conditions, thereby providing a richer theoretical explanatory path for the realization of the “Two Necessities.”

第二，资本主义制度“卡夫丁峡谷”设想指向发展道路的可跨越性，“两个决不会”则强调发展基础的不可跨越性，后者构成前者的前提。具体而言，资本主义制度“卡夫丁峡谷”的可跨越性，是指俄国在特定历史条件下，有可能绕过资本主义制度本身及其带来的苦难，探索一条既吸收资本主义文明成果、又利用农村公社优势的发展道路。这里可跨越的是资本主义的生产关系和具体道路，而非其创造的物质基础和生产力的发展过程。“两个决不会”揭示了社会形态更替的普遍规律：生产力的发展是社会变革的根本动力，这一过程不可跨越。任何社会形态的最终确立，都必须依赖物质存在条件的成熟。马克思对跨越设想的探讨恰恰证明，这一核心原则不仅依然有效，而且在历史道路的多样性中得到了强化。落后国家实现社会主义革命与建设，需要满足高度复杂的内外条件，主要包括：一是物质基础条件，即充分利用内外部先进生产力与世界性交往的充分发展。基于对俄国社会现实的考察，马克思指出，“土地公有制赋予它以集体占有的自然基础，而它的历史环境，即它和资本主义生产同时存在，则为它提供了大规模组织起来进行合作劳动的现成的物质条件”。二是社会政治条件，如通过革命争取独立、获得有利的外部支持环境等。三是主体与制度文化条件，包括无产阶级的成熟、社会文化的适应性变革等。由此可见，跨越资本主义制度“卡夫丁峡谷”的设想非但没有违背“两个决不会”揭示的社会发展规律，反而阐明了在非典型资本主义条件下如何促成物质条件的成熟，从而为“两个必然”的实现提供了更为丰富的理论阐释路径。

Third, the conception of leaping over the “Caudine Forks” of the capitalist system clarifies that realizing the “Two Necessities” under the condition of the “Two Will Nevers” depends both on the state of development of productive forces and on the exertion of subjective initiative. People’s subjective initiative and the objective laws of historical development constitute a relationship of mutual interaction. The former embodies the right of a nation or country to autonomously choose its development path; the latter reveals that this choice is necessarily constrained by objective laws. Marx and Engels pointed out that historical laws are immanent in people’s activities and are realized through practice. Although people’s historical activities carry conscious intentions and expected purposes, they cannot create history arbitrarily; they can only serve their own purposes by understanding and utilizing objective laws. Therefore, people’s initiative must be understood within the constraints of objective laws. This constraint is mainly manifested in the following four aspects: First, it is constrained by the actual state of development of productive forces. Productive forces fundamentally shape relations of production and determine the entire economic base and superstructure of society. Second, it is constrained by the results of the实践活动 of the previous generation and their interrelations. “Each stage of history encounters a definite material result, a definite sum of productive forces, a definite relation between man and nature and between individuals historically formed, handed down from the preceding generation.” [8]8 Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, *The German Ideology* (1845-1846). Third, it is constrained by the degree of people’s understanding of objective laws and their level of conscious application. The deeper people’s understanding of laws and the more conscious their application, the stronger their initiative in practice. Fourth, it is constrained by the given historical environment. This means that the same universal law may have completely different concrete forms and practical results under different conditions. As Marx pointed out in Volume I of *Capital*, “A country should and can learn from others. Even when a society has discovered the natural laws of its own movement... it can neither skip over nor abolish by decree the natural phases of development. But it can shorten and lessen the birth pangs.” [9]9 Karl Marx, *Capital*, Volume I, Preface to the First German Edition (1867). This passage is often simplistically understood as the basis for a “unilinear theory” or “economic determinism” that treats historical development as a purely natural process governed solely by economic laws. However, this understanding overlooks the deeper meaning contained in “shorten and lessen the birth pangs.” Indeed, “can neither skip over nor abolish by decree” reveals the objectivity of historical laws, but Marx did not negate people’s initiative. In fact, the laws of social movement revealed by Marx are not a linear causal relationship of monistic determinism, but a non-linear causal relationship of probabilistic determinism. Therefore, laws often provide people’s activities not with a single possibility, but with a space of possibilities composed of multiple possibilities. The assertion of “shorten and lessen the birth pangs” precisely indicates that specific nation-states, while following the laws of historical development, can also exert their active role through people’s conscious practice, actively exploring and choosing a development path suitable for their own national conditions.

第三，跨越资本主义制度“卡夫丁峡谷”设想阐明，以“两个决不会”为条件实现“两个必然”，既取决于生产力发展状况，也依赖主观能动性的发挥。人们的主观能动性与历史发展的客观规律，构成一种相互作用的关系。前者体现了一个民族或国家自主选择发展道路的权利；后者则揭示了这种选择必然受到客观规律的限制。马克思恩格斯指出，历史规律内在于人们的活动之中，并通过实践得以实现。虽然人们的历史活动带有自觉的意图和预期的目的，但他们并不能随心所欲地创造历史，只能通过认识并利用客观规律，来为实现自身目的服务。因此，必须在客观规律的制约中理解人们的能动性。这种制约主要体现在以下四个方面：其一，受现实的生产力发展状况的制约。生产力从根本上塑造生产关系，并决定整个社会的经济基础与上层建筑。其二，受前一代实践活动结果及其相互关系的制约。“历史的每一阶段都遇到一定的物质结果，一定的生产力总和，人对自然以及个人之间历史地形成的关系，都遇到前一代传给后一代的大量生产力、资金和环境”。其三，受人们对客观规律的认识程度与自觉运用水平的制约。人们对规律的认识越深刻、运用越自觉，其在实践中的主动性就越强。其四，受既定历史环境的制约。这使得同一普遍规律在不同条件下，其具体形式与实践结果也可能截然不同。正如马克思在《资本论》第一卷中指出的，“一个国家应该而且可以向其他国家学习。一个社会即使探索到了本身运动的自然规律……它还是既不能跳过也不能用法令取消自然的发展阶段。但是它能缩短和减轻分娩的痛苦”。这段论述常被简单理解为历史发展是纯粹自然过程、仅受经济规律支配的“单线论”或“经济决定论”的依据。然而，这种理解忽视了“缩短和减轻分娩的痛苦”蕴含的深层含义。诚然，“不能跳过也不能用法令取消”揭示了历史规律的客观性，但马克思没有否定人们的能动性。实际上，马克思揭示的社会运动规律，不是单义决定论的线性因果关系，而是或然决定论的非线性因果关系，因此，规律对人们的活动所提供的往往不是一种可能性，而是由多种可能性组成的可能性空间。“缩短和减轻分娩的痛苦”这一论断恰恰表明，具体的民族国家在遵循历史发展规律的同时，也能通过人们的自觉实践发挥能动作用，主动探索并选择适合自身国情的发展道路。

Fourth, the conception of leaping over the “Caudine Forks” of the capitalist system explored a special form of realization of the “Two Necessities” in non-typical capitalist societies; it did not exceed the basic laws of human historical development, nor did it alter the general direction revealed by historical materialism. Marx’s conception of leaping over the “Caudine Forks” of the capitalist system was built on a solid theoretical foundation and concrete social analysis. Its theoretical roots can be traced back to the profound revelations of the laws of capitalist development in works such as the *Communist Manifesto* and *Capital*. Marx always took the direction of the evolution of human society as demonstrated by the experience of Western Europe as his macroscopic background and theoretical premise, but he resolutely opposed mechanically applying this overview to other regions, and even more so refused to abstract it into a transhistorical philosophy-of-history formula. It was precisely on the basis of a comprehensive study and judgment of the internal structure of the Russian rural commune, the world-historical environment in which it was situated, and the interaction of internal and external forces that he cautiously arrived at the conclusion that Russia might leap over the “Caudine Forks” of the capitalist system. Here, the classical path and the “leaping path” are not mutually exclusive but rather complementary, revealing the multiple possibilities for backward countries on the road of economic development. The former is the regular evolutionary form of social development, while the latter belongs to an unconventional leap. The universal law of historical development opens up for itself the forward direction toward the “Two Necessities” precisely through countless special and concrete paths. As some scholars have pointed out, in Marx’s theoretical system, the law by which Western European capitalism drives history toward communist development and the possibility of the Russian commune leaping over capitalism are not two parallel laws, but rather lie at different levels of analysis: the former is a universal law abstracted from the overall movement trend of human society, while the latter is an exploration of the development path of a specific social form under the domination of this law.

第四，跨越资本主义制度“卡夫丁峡谷”设想探索了“两个必然”在非典型资本主义社会的特殊实现形式，并未超出人类历史发展的基本规律，亦未改变唯物史观揭示的总体方向。马克思的跨越资本主义制度“卡夫丁峡谷”设想建立在坚实的理论基础和具体的社会分析之上。其理论根源可追溯至《共产党宣言》《资本论》等著作对资本主义发展规律的深刻揭示。马克思始终以西欧经验所昭示的人类社会演进方向为宏观背景和理论前提，但他坚决反对将这一概述简单套用于其他地区，更拒绝将其抽象为超历史的历史哲学公式。正是基于对俄国农村公社的内部结构、所处世界历史环境及内外力量交互作用的综合研判，他才审慎得出俄国可能跨越资本主义制度的“卡夫丁峡谷”的结论。在此，经典路径与“跨越路径”并非相互排斥，而是互为补充，展现了落后国家在经济发展道路上的多元可能。前者是社会发展的常规演进形式，后者则属于一种非常规的跨越。历史发展的普遍规律，正是通过无数特殊形态的具体道路，为自己开辟着通往“两个必然”的前进方向。正如有学者指出的，在马克思的理论体系中，西欧资本主义推动历史向共产主义发展的规律与俄国公社跨越资本主义的可能性并非并列的两种规律，而是处于不同分析层次：前者是从人类社会总体运动趋势中抽象出的普遍规律，后者则是在这一规律支配下对具体社会形态发展道路的探讨。

In summary, Marx’s conception of leaping over the “Caudine Forks” of the capitalist system both adhered to the historical trend of the “Two Necessities” and the preconditions of the “Two Will-Nots,” and, based on an analysis of Russia’s special historical conditions, deepened the understanding of the types and dual determinations of the conditions for socio-historical development in the “Two Will-Nots,” revealing a non-capitalist path for realizing the “Two Necessities.” This not only expanded historical materialism’s understanding of the laws of social development and their concrete forms of manifestation, but also provided important intellectual resources for comprehending the diversity and complexity of human historical development.

综上所述，马克思的跨越资本主义制度“卡夫丁峡谷”设想，既坚守了“两个必然”的历史趋势与“两个决不会”的前提条件，又基于对俄国特殊历史条件的剖析，深化了“两个决不会”关于社会历史发展条件类型与两重规定性的理解，揭示了实现“两个必然”的非资本主义路径。这不仅拓展了唯物史观对社会发展规律及其具体表现形式的认识，也为理解人类历史发展的多样性与复杂性提供了重要思想资源。

III. The Inspirational Significance of the Principle of the Relationship between the “Two Necessities” and the “Two Will-Nots,” Based on the Conception of Leaping over the “Caudine Forks” of the Capitalist System, for Constructing the Theoretical System of Chinese-Path Modernization

三、基于跨越资本主义制度“卡夫丁峡谷”设想论“两个必然”与“两个决不会”关系原理对构建中国式现代化理论体系的启发意义

The October Revolution and the subsequent series of socialist revolutions in relatively backward countries confirmed the diversity of paths of historical development revealed by Marx’s conception of leaping over the “Caudine Forks” of the capitalist system. These practices show that the socialist system is not necessarily born in highly developed capitalist societies. For backward countries in the process of modernization, the key to realizing the “Two Necessities” lies in following the laws of social development revealed by the “Two Will-Nots,” and exploring a path of socialist development that can both “shorten and lessen” the pains of the capitalist stage and avoid its inherent drawbacks, while also conforming to the country’s actual conditions. The theoretical achievement of the century-long exploration carried out by the Communist Party of China leading the people is concentratedly embodied in the theoretical system of Chinese-path modernization. This system profoundly answers the major epochal question of what kind of socialist modernized power to build and how to build it in a country that is economically and culturally relatively backward. At present, the theoretical system of Chinese-path modernization has taken initial shape, demonstrating strong vitality, and is constantly being enriched and developed in practice. Therefore, deeply understanding the relationship between the “Two Necessities” and the “Two Will-Nots” in the conception of leaping over the “Caudine Forks” of the capitalist system has important theoretical value and practical guiding significance for further deepening, systematizing, and innovating the theoretical system of Chinese-path modernization.

十月革命及此后一系列社会主义革命在相对落后国家的胜利，印证了马克思跨越资本主义制度“卡夫丁峡谷”设想所揭示的历史发展道路的多样性。这些实践表明，社会主义制度并非必然诞生于高度发达的资本主义社会。对正处于现代化进程中的落后国家而言，实现“两个必然”的关键在于遵循“两个决不会”揭示的社会发展规律，探索一条既能“缩短和减轻”资本主义阶段痛苦、避免其固有弊端，又符合本国实际的社会主义发展道路。中国共产党领导人民进行的百余年探索，其理论成果集中体现为中国式现代化理论体系。这一体系深刻回答了在经济文化相对落后的国家，建设什么样的社会主义现代化强国、怎样建设社会主义现代化强国这一重大时代课题。当前，中国式现代化理论体系已初步形成，展现出强大生命力，并在实践中不断丰富发展。因此，深入理解跨越资本主义制度“卡夫丁峡谷”设想中“两个必然”与“两个决不会”的关系，对进一步深化、系统化和创新中国式现代化理论体系，具有重要的理论价值与现实指导意义。

First, scientifically grasp the general trend of historical development revealed by the relationship between the “Two Necessities” and the “Two Will-Nots,” and deeply understand the scientific connotation and truth-power of the “inevitable victory of socialism.” Constructing the theoretical system of Chinese-path modernization must first clarify the inherent essence of the core concept of “Chinese-path modernization.” Currently, when analyzing the relationship between the “Two Necessities” and the “Two Will-Nots,” domestic related research often focuses on argumentation at the level of “what ought to be,” while insufficiently exploring the concrete conditions for realizing the transformation from “what ought to be” to “what is.” As Lukács pointed out when criticizing the theorists of the Second International, simply equating “what ought to be” with “what is” easily overlooks the complex conditions and real vehicles necessary for realizing socialism. Therefore, the core issue is not whether socialism *ought* to triumph, but how to understand and realize the historical inevitability of this transformation. In the academic exploration of this transformation path, there are two typical misunderstandings: First, one-sidedly emphasizing the absolute opposition between socialism and capitalism, and refusing to draw on the civilizational achievements of capitalism. In this regard, Deng Xiaoping clearly stated: “Learning certain good things from capitalist countries, including methods of management and administration, does not mean adopting capitalism. It is socialism using these methods to develop social productive forces. Treating this as a method will not affect socialism as a whole, nor will it lead back to capitalism.” This clearly shows that absorbing the beneficial achievements of capitalism is a methodological reference and does not change the systemic attributes of socialism. Second, denying the essential difference between socialism and capitalism, and questioning the historical legitimacy of China taking the socialist road. To respond to such views, one must return to the historical premise of China’s socialist revolution and its choice of the socialist system. The practice of more than 40 years of reform and opening up has irrefutably proven that China has always adhered to the theoretical core of scientific socialism, neither taking the old closed and rigid road nor the wrong road of changing the banner, but successfully initiating and developing socialism with Chinese characteristics. As General Secretary Xi Jinping pointed out: “Taking our own road is the foothold of all the Party’s theory and practice, and it is even more the historical conclusion drawn from the Party’s century-long struggle.” The theoretical system of Chinese-path modernization is precisely the theoretical summation and sublimation of this great historical exploration. Therefore, constructing the theoretical system of Chinese-path modernization must firmly grasp the fundamental positioning that Chinese-path modernization is a socialist modernization led by the Communist Party of China. Socialism fundamentally defines the nature and direction of Chinese-path modernization and is the core feature that distinguishes it from other modernization models. Advancing Chinese-path modernization on the new journey must adhere to the path of socialism with Chinese characteristics and unswervingly take our own road.

第一，科学把握“两个必然”与“两个决不会”关系揭示的历史发展总趋势，深入理解“社会主义必然胜利”的科学内涵与真理伟力。建构中国式现代化理论体系，必须首先厘清“中国式现代化”这一核心概念的内在本质。当前，国内相关研究在分析“两个必然”与“两个决不会”的关系时，往往侧重于“应然”层面的论证，而对如何实现从“应然”向“实然”转化的具体条件探讨不足。正如卢卡奇在批判第二国际理论家时所指出的，将“应然”与“实然”简单等同，容易忽视实现社会主义所必需的复杂条件和现实载体。因此，核心问题不在于社会主义是否应当胜利，而在于如何理解和实现这一转化的历史必然性。在这一转化路径的学理探讨中，存在两种典型误区：其一，片面强调社会主义与资本主义的绝对对立，拒绝借鉴资本主义文明成果。对此，邓小平明确指出：“学习资本主义国家的某些好东西，包括经营管理方法，也不等于实行资本主义。这是社会主义利用这种方法来发展社会生产力。把这当作方法，不会影响整个社会主义，不会重新回到资本主义。”这清晰表明，吸收资本主义有益成果属于方法论层面的借鉴，并不改变社会主义的制度属性。其二，否定社会主义与资本主义的本质区别，质疑中国走社会主义道路的历史合法性。回应此类观点，需回归中国进行社会主义革命和选择社会主义制度的历史前提。改革开放40多年的实践雄辩地证明，中国始终坚持科学社会主义的理论内核，既不走封闭僵化的老路，也不走改旗易帜的邪路，而是成功开创和发展了中国特色社会主义。正如习近平总书记指出的：“走自己的路，是党的全部理论和实践立足点，更是党百年奋斗得出的历史结论。”中国式现代化理论体系正是对这一伟大历史探索的理论总结与升华。因此，构建中国式现代化理论体系，必须牢牢把握中国式现代化是中国共产党领导的社会主义现代化这一根本定位。社会主义从根本上规定了中国式现代化的性质与方向，是其区别于其他现代化模式的核心特征。在新征程上推进中国式现代化，必须坚持中国特色社会主义道路，坚定不移地走好自己的路。

Second, we must scientifically grasp the practical applicability of the relationship between the “Two Inevitabilities” and the “Two Will Nevers,” base ourselves on the concrete realities of our own country, and consolidate the theoretical and practical foundations for comprehensively building a great modern socialist country. At present, an important reason for the emergence of cognitive misunderstandings regarding the “Two Inevitabilities” lies in the confusion between the objective laws of their realization process and the normative nature of their proper direction. Some people do not proceed from the universal laws of the historical development of human society, but instead presuppose an idealized model for the realization of the “Two Inevitabilities,” and attempt to tailor historical reality to this abstract model, even asserting that all societies will follow the same development path. In fact, realizing the “Two Inevitabilities” on the basis of the objective material conditions revealed by the “Two Will Nevers” requires both a profound understanding of their essential connotations and an acknowledgment that there exist autonomous choices and diverse possibilities in the specific pathways and methods of realization. The key intermediary between the law and the concrete path is precisely “conditions.” In a letter to Vera Zasulich in 1885, Engels pointed out: “Marx’s theory of history is the fundamental condition for any steadfast and consistent revolutionary strategy; to find this strategy, what is needed is only to apply this theory to the economic and political conditions of one’s own country.” This enlightens us that abstractly discussing the relationship between the “Two Inevitabilities” and the “Two Will Nevers” in isolation from concrete social realities easily confuses the distinction between the universal laws of historical development and specific paths. Similarly, to profoundly reveal the reasons for the successful development of socialism in China, it is necessary to accurately grasp the dialectical unity between the essential characteristics and core content of socialism (which are immutable) and its pathways and forms of realization (which are selectable). To this end, constructing the theoretical system of Chinese-path modernization requires us to base ourselves on the state of social development in different historical periods of our country, closely adhere to the changes in the principal contradiction in the New Era, and clarify the target connotations and practical pathways of a great modern socialist country within the broad perspective of world history. Although the modernization paths of various countries each have their own characteristics, the “conditions” required for successfully advancing modernization share commonalities. We should actively draw on the beneficial experiences of pioneering countries, proactively construct new relations of production and social structures compatible with socialist goals, and open up pathways for the leapfrog development of productive forces, thereby laying a solid foundation of internal and external conditions for comprehensively building a great modern socialist country in the fields of economy, politics, culture, society, and ecological civilization.

第二，科学把握“两个必然”与“两个决不会”关系的现实适用性，立足本国具体实际，夯实全面建成社会主义现代化强国的理论与实践根基。当前对“两个必然”产生认识误区，一个重要原因在于混淆了其实现过程的客观规律性与应然方向的规范性。一些人不是从人类社会历史发展的普遍规律出发，而是预设“两个必然”实现的理想化模式，并试图以这种抽象模式剪裁历史现实，甚至断言所有社会都将遵循相同的发展路径。事实上，在“两个决不会”揭示的客观物质条件基础上实现“两个必然”，既要求我们深刻理解其本质内涵，也意味着在具体实现途径与方式上存在自主选择和多样可能。而规律与具体道路之间的关键中介，正是“条件”。恩格斯在1885年致查苏利奇的信中指出：“马克思的历史理论是任何坚定不移和始终一贯的革命策略的基本条件；为了找到这种策略，需要的只是把这一理论应用于本国的经济条件和政治条件。”这启示我们，脱离具体社会现实条件，抽象讨论“两个必然”与“两个决不会”的关系，极易混淆历史发展的普遍规律与具体道路的区别。同理，要深刻揭示社会主义在中国成功发展的原因，就必须准确把握社会主义本质特征与核心内容(不可变)及其实现途径与形式(可选择)之间的辩证统一。为此，构建中国式现代化理论体系，需立足我国不同历史时期的社会发展状况，紧扣新时代社会主要矛盾的变化，在世界历史的宏阔视野中明确社会主义现代化强国的目标内涵与实践路径。各国现代化道路虽各具特色，但成功推进现代化所需的“条件”具有共性。我们应积极借鉴先发国家的有益经验，主动构建与社会主义目标相适应的新型生产关系和社会结构，为生产力跨越式发展开辟道路，从而在经济、政治、文化、社会、生态文明等各领域，为全面建成社会主义现代化强国奠定坚实的内部与外部条件基础。

Third, we must scientifically grasp the practical requirements of the relationship between the “Two Inevitabilities” and the “Two Will Nevers,” follow the law of the movement of the basic contradiction of society, and always anchor the direction of communism, which realizes the comprehensive development of the individual, in the course of modernization. General Secretary Xi Jinping has pointed out: “The Communist Manifesto states: ‘The fall of the bourgeoisie and the victory of the proletariat are equally inevitable.’ This is the ‘Two Inevitabilities,’ which refers to the general trend of the overall development of human history and is the inevitable direction of historical laws. Here we must also mention Marx’s ‘Two Will Nevers.’ Marx said: ‘No social order is ever destroyed before all the productive forces for which it is sufficient have been developed, and new superior relations of production never replace older ones before the material conditions for their existence have matured within the framework of the old society.’ This important thesis of Marx can help us understand why capitalism has not completely perished to this day, why socialism has experienced twists and turns such as the dissolution of the Soviet Union and the drastic changes in Eastern Europe, and why the communism foreseen by Marxism still requires a very long historical development to be realized.” This scientific worldview and methodology for understanding and researching the historical development of society provides us with an important theoretical basis for comprehending why capitalism continues to exist, the twists and turns in the development of socialism, and the protracted nature of the realization of communism. Whether modernization is socialist or capitalist in nature, its fundamental issue lies in clarifying the core tasks that modernization must address and the value goals on which the realization of these tasks depends. Unlike Western modernization, which relies on predatory accumulation to address the contradiction between productive forces and relations of production, Chinese-path modernization is based on the historical stage of the transition from capitalism to socialism and makes a major theoretical response to the fundamental issues of modernization development. Its core essence is to explore a modernization path that is rooted in national conditions and resolves the basic contradiction of society. This plan takes the “Two Will Nevers” of historical materialism as its premise, prioritizes the development of “social productive forces” over “capital’s productive forces,” and opens up a new path of modernization that utilizes capital but ultimately transcends the logic of capital. At the same time, it takes the social ownership of the means of production as its institutional foundation, aiming to make “the productive forces of modern industry serve the whole of society as social property,” fundamentally overcoming the contradiction under capitalist private ownership where the fruits of labor are appropriated by a minority, achieving the unity of productive forces and relations of production, and providing institutional guarantees for the comprehensive development of the individual. The contradictory movement of productive forces and relations of production constitutes the basis for the evolution of all social formations. Under socialist conditions, this contradiction is concretely manifested as the dialectical unity between social productive forces and people-centered relations of production. This unity not only reveals the historical transcendence of the socialist mode of production over the capitalist mode of production but also heralds the historical inevitability of socialism ultimately replacing capitalism. Constructing the theoretical system of Chinese-path modernization must follow the practical requirements of the “Two Inevitabilities” and the “Two Will Nevers,” follow the law of the movement of the basic contradiction of society, and, in the practice of transcending capitalist modernization, create a new form of human civilization and march toward communism. At the same time, it should be recognized that under current historical conditions, the replacement of capitalist relations of production by socialism is a long-term process of peaceful competition. This process requires, through continuous institutional innovation and a revolution in productive forces, the creation of labor productivity higher than that of capitalism, thereby gaining a comparative advantage in global competition and effectively demonstrating the institutional superiority and historical transcendence of socialism.

第三，科学把握“两个必然”与“两个决不会”关系的实践要求，遵循社会基本矛盾运动规律，在现代化建设中始终锚定实现人的全面发展的共产主义方向。习近平总书记指出：“《共产党宣言》提出：‘资产阶级的灭亡和无产阶级的胜利是同样不可避免的。’这就是‘两个必然’，是就人类历史总的发展趋势而言的，是历史规律的必然指向。这里还要说到马克思提出的‘两个决不会’，马克思说：‘无论哪一个社会形态，在它所能容纳的全部生产力发挥出来以前，是决不会灭亡的；而新的更高的生产关系，在它的物质存在条件在旧社会的胎胞里成熟以前，是决不会出现的。’马克思的这一重要论点，可以帮助我们理解为什么资本主义至今没有完全消亡，为什么社会主义还会出现苏联解体、东欧剧变那样的曲折，为什么马克思主义预见的共产主义还需要经过很长的历史发展才能实现。”这一认识和研究社会历史发展的科学世界观和方法论，为我们理解资本主义何以持续存在、社会主义发展过程中出现曲折以及共产主义实现的长期性，提供了重要理论依据。现代化无论是社会主义性质还是资本主义性质，其根本问题都在于明确现代化所需解决的核心课题以及实现这些课题所依托的价值目标。与西方现代化在应对生产力与生产关系矛盾时依赖掠夺性积累不同，中国式现代化立足于资本主义向社会主义过渡的历史阶段，对现代化发展的根本问题作出重大理论回应。其核心要义，是探索一条立足国情、解决社会基本矛盾的现代化路径。该方案以唯物史观的“两个决不会”为前提，通过优先发展“社会生产力”而非“资本生产力”，开辟出一条利用资本但最终超越资本逻辑的现代化新路。同时，它以生产资料社会占有为制度基础，旨在使“现代工业的生产力作为社会财产来为整个社会服务”，从根本上克服资本主义私有制下劳动成果归少数人占有的矛盾，实现生产力与生产关系的统一，为人的全面发展提供制度保障。生产力与生产关系的矛盾运动构成一切社会形态演进的基础。在社会主义条件下，这一矛盾具体表现为社会生产力与以人民为中心的生产关系之间的辩证统一。这种统一不仅体现出社会主义生产方式对资本主义生产方式的历史超越性，也昭示着社会主义最终取代资本主义的历史必然性。构建中国式现代化理论体系，必须遵循“两个必然”与“两个决不会”的实践要求，遵循社会基本矛盾运动规律，在超越资本主义现代化的实践中开创人类文明新形态，迈向共产主义。同时应当认识到，在当前的历史条件下，社会主义对资本主义生产关系的替代是一个长期的和平竞争过程。这一过程需要通过持续的制度创新与生产力革命，创造出高于资本主义的劳动生产率，从而在全球竞争中赢得比较优势，切实彰显社会主义的制度优越性与历史超越性。

In summary, in the present era, examining the relationship between the “Two Inevitabilities” and the “Two Will Nevers” within the theoretical perspective of the idea of crossing the “Caudine Forks” of the capitalist system helps us to scientifically grasp the general trend of world historical development, profoundly understand the laws of the world socialist movement, strengthen historical confidence and enhance historical initiative on the new journey of the New Era, and provide fundamental guidance for upholding and developing socialism with Chinese characteristics and comprehensively advancing the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation. General Secretary Xi Jinping has pointed out: “As early as over 170 years ago, Marx and Engels scientifically revealed the historical law that socialism will inevitably replace capitalism. This is an irreversible general trend in the development of human society, but it requires a very long historical process. In this process, we must base ourselves on reality, grasp the general trend of each historical stage, and do the work at hand well.” Guided by the directional orientation of the general trend of human social development, the successful practice of Chinese-path modernization powerfully confirms the strong vitality of scientific socialism and injects new and powerful momentum into the world socialist movement. At the same time, the theoretical system of Chinese-path modernization provides a Chinese solution with important implications for the future development of human society. It not only establishes goals and pursuits higher than those of capitalist modernization at the value level but also profoundly influences the direction of world history in practice, revealing an even brighter prospect.

总之，在当今时代，将“两个必然”与“两个决不会”的关系置于跨越资本主义制度“卡夫丁峡谷”设想的理论视野中加以审视，有助于我们科学把握世界历史发展大势，深刻洞察世界社会主义运动规律，在新时代新征程上坚定历史自信、增强历史主动，为坚持和发展中国特色社会主义、全面推进中华民族伟大复兴提供根本遵循。习近平总书记指出：“马克思、恩格斯早在170多年前就科学揭示了社会主义必然代替资本主义的历史规律。这是人类社会发展不可逆转的总趋势，但需要经历一个很长的历史过程。在这个过程中，我们要立足现实，把握好每个阶段的历史大势，做好当下的事情。”在人类社会发展总趋势的方向性指引下，中国式现代化的成功实践，有力印证了科学社会主义的强大生机，为世界社会主义运动注入了新的强劲动力。同时，中国式现代化理论体系为人类社会的未来发展提供了具有重要启示的中国方案。它不仅从价值层面确立了高于资本主义现代化的目标追求，更在实践中深刻影响着世界历史的前进方向，展现出更加光明的前景。