“The Conceptual Logic of the Emergence and Connotation of ‘New Quality Productive Forces’”

On 7 September 2023, at the forum on promoting the comprehensive revitalisation of Northeast China held in Harbin, Heilongjiang Province, General Secretary Xi Jinping first proposed “new quality productive forces”; from 11 to 12 December of the same year, the Central Economic Work Conference was held in Beijing, and General Secretary Xi Jinping again stressed: “Use disruptive technologies and cutting-edge technologies to spawn new industries, new models, and new drivers of growth, and develop new quality productive forces.” This conference for the first time proposed making “promoting high-level self-reliance and self-strengthening in science and technology” an overall requirement for economic work, while “using scientific and technological innovation to lead the building of a modern industrial system” also became the first of the nine key tasks deployed by the Party Central Committee for 2024. [1]1 The “nine key tasks” refer to the nine priority areas for economic work in 2024 outlined at the Central Economic Work Conference in December 2023, with “using scientific and technological innovation to lead the building of a modern industrial system” listed first. The fact that the concept of “new quality productive forces” was placed at the level of national development planning as soon as it was proposed is no accident; it is a major judgement made by the Chinese Communist Party at the historical intersection formed by a new round of scientific and technological revolution and industrial transformation, intensified competition among major powers, and the transformation of China’s economic development. On the afternoon of 31 January 2024, during the eleventh collective study session of the Political Bureau of the CPC Central Committee that he chaired, General Secretary Xi Jinping further provided a detailed explanation of “new quality productive forces.”

2023年9月7日，习近平总书记在黑龙江省哈尔滨市主持召开的新时代推动东北全面振兴座谈会上首次提出了“新质生产力”；同年12月11日至12日，中央经济工作会议在北京召开，习近平总书记再次强调：“以颠覆性技术和前沿技术催生新产业、新模式、新动能，发展新质生产力。”此次会议首次提出将“推动高水平科技自立自强”作为经济工作的总体要求，而“以科技创新引领现代化产业体系建设”也成为党中央2024年九项重点任务部署中的首项。“新质生产力”概念一经提出就被置于国家发展规划的高度，这不是偶然，而是中国共产党在新一轮科技革命和产业变革、大国竞争加剧以及我国经济发展转型所形成的历史交汇点上所做出的重大判断。2024年1月31日下午，习近平总书记在主持召开的中共中央政治局第十一次集体学习时进一步对“新质生产力”做出了详明阐释。

Facing changes in the contemporary economic situation directly, and basing itself on the great practice of Xi Jinping Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era, the academic community has reached a general consensus on constructing an independent knowledge system for socialist political economy with Chinese characteristics. As the latest theoretical achievement in adapting Marxism to the Chinese context and the needs of the times, the concept of “new quality productive forces” has a guiding significance for setting the direction on why China should develop productive forces and what kind of productive forces it should develop at this historical intersection. In the eleventh collective study session of the Political Bureau of the CPC Central Committee, General Secretary Xi Jinping, with a strategic vision, distilled the essence of new quality productive forces, which contains profound theoretical significance and major practical significance. General Secretary Xi Jinping’s speech has complex layers and profound theory, placing high demands on comprehensively grasping and studying new quality productive forces. Since the concept of “new quality productive forces” was proposed, scholars have explained its background, causes, characteristics, and formation pathways, profoundly revealing the reasoning, theoretical principles, and philosophical principles contained in the concept. However, what deserves our attention is that “the establishment of any concept must be reasonable; it must conform to the basic principles of scientific theory.” [2]2 This is a quotation from a Chinese scholar, likely from a discussion on the rigorous definition of concepts in Marxist theory. There remains a non-negligible problem in the definition of the concept of “new quality productive forces”: the essence of “new quality productive forces” is “productive forces.” As a core concept of Marxist political economy, “productive forces” has a rigorous and clear academic definition. One cannot casually reduce “new quality productive forces” to “new economy,” “new business forms,” “new industries,” etc., nor can one treat the causes, conditions, and especially the characteristics and functions of the emergence of new quality productive forces as the connotation of “new quality productive forces.” These are all instances of blurring the connotation and extension of the concept of “productive forces,” that is, manifestations of conceptual confusion. The theoretical elaboration of the concept of “new quality productive forces” needs to return to Marx’s concept of “productive forces” and seek the logic of the emergence of the concept of “new quality productive forces” in the practice of China’s economic development. Only in this way can we truly understand the comprehensive, accurate, and rigorous connotation of “new quality productive forces.”

直面当代经济形势变化，立足习近平新时代中国特色社会主义思想的伟大实践，构建中国特色社会主义政治经济学自主知识体系是学界的普遍共识。“新质生产力”概念作为马克思主义中国化时代化的最新理论成果，对处于历史交汇点上的中国为什么发展以及发展什么样的生产力具有举旗定向的指导意义。习近平总书记在中共中央政治局第十一次集体学习中高屋建瓴式地凝练了内蕴深刻理论意义和重大现实意义的新质生产力要义。习近平总书记的讲话具有复杂的层次、深厚的理论，对全面领会和学习新质生产力提出了较高要求。自“新质生产力”概念提出以来，学者们从新质生产力的生发背景、原因、特点和形成途径等进行阐释，深刻揭示了“新质生产力”概念所蕴含的道理、学理和哲理。然而，值得我们注意的是，“任何概念的成立都要言之有理，它必须符合科学理论的基本原理”。“新质生产力”的概念界定仍存在一个不可忽视的问题：“新质生产力”的本质是“生产力”，“生产力”作为马克思主义政治经济学的核心概念有着严谨、明确的学术定义，不可随意将“新质生产力”落脚为“新经济”“新业态”“新产业”等，也不能将新质生产力产生的原因、条件，尤其是特征和功能视为“新质生产力”的内涵，这些都是对“生产力”概念内涵和外延的模糊，也就是概念混用的表现。“新质生产力”概念的学理化阐释需要回到马克思的“生产力”概念，并在中国经济发展实践中找寻“新质生产力”概念的生发逻辑，这样才能真正理解“新质生产力”全面、准确而严谨的内涵。

I. Returning to Marx’s Concept of “Productive Forces”

一、回到马克思的“生产力”概念

The “new quality productive forces” that drive China’s high-quality development are “productive forces” in the Marxist theoretical sense, not some other kind of productive forces. “New quality productive forces” are developed by combining Marx’s concept of “productive forces” with China’s level of development of productive forces and changes in the mode of production. The scientific concept of “new quality productive forces” is established on the basis of correctly understanding Marx’s concept of “productive forces.” A comprehensive and scientific understanding of this concept is the theoretical prerequisite for answering the questions of why to develop new quality productive forces and what kind of new quality productive forces to develop. As one of the most fundamental categories of Marxist theory, the concept of “productive forces” has always been a complex concept of greatest concern to the academic community, with scholars leaving behind much research on it. Chinese scholars have also made difficult and tortuous efforts on the path to correctly understanding Marx’s concept of “productive forces.” In *Capital*, Karl Marx uses more than twenty different concepts of productive forces, such as “labour productivity,” “productive forces,” “living labour-power,” “productive power of capital,” “productivity of useful, concrete labour,” “natural forces,” etc. This indicates to a certain extent that Marx’s concept of productive forces is a complex concept with a broad background in the history of ideas and containing different levels. Any concept of productive forces with a single orientation is a narrow understanding of Marx’s concept of productive forces.

推动我国高质量发展的“新质生产力”是马克思主义理论意义上的“生产力”，而不是别的生产力。“新质生产力”是以马克思的“生产力”概念结合中国生产力发展水平、生产方式变革而发展出来的，科学的“新质生产力”概念建立在正确理解马克思“生产力”概念的基础上，对其概念进行全面而科学的理解，是回答为什么要发展新质生产力以及发展什么样的新质生产力问题的理论前提。“生产力”概念作为马克思主义理论最基本的范畴之一，一直都是学界最关注的一个复杂概念，学者们为此留下诸多研究，我国学者也在正确理解马克思“生产力”概念的道路上付出了艰难而曲折的努力。马克思（Karl Marx）在《资本论》中多次使用“劳动生产力”“生产力”“活的劳动力”“资本的生产力”“有用的、具体的劳动的生产力”“自然力”等二十余种不同的生产力概念，这在一定程度上说明马克思的生产力概念是一个具有广阔思想史背景、内蕴着不同层次的复杂概念，任何一个单一指向的生产力概念都是对马克思生产力概念的狭隘理解。

Influenced by Soviet textbooks, the Chinese academic community formed a convention of explaining the concept of “productive forces” through the “factor theory,” which led to a long-standing debate over whether productive forces consist of two, three, or even five factors. Later, some scholars argued that the direct consequence of this “factor theory” was that whenever people mentioned productive forces, they would associate them with very concrete, material things such as tools, machines, resources, and energy, thus deviating from the fundamental signified and original context of Marx’s concept of “productive forces.” This constitutes a fundamental misreading of Marx’s concept of “productive forces.” After the late 1970s, although many scholars understood “productive forces” in terms of production results as different connotations such as “conquest theory,” “control theory,” “transformation theory,” “influence theory,” and “adaptation theory,” they generally settled on “productive forces” as a kind of “ability” or “force,” breaking away from the “entity theory of productive forces factors.”

受苏联教科书的影响，我国学界形成以“要素说”解释“生产力”概念的惯例，这就导致学界长期存在生产力二要素、三要素甚至五要素的争论，后有学者认为这种“要素说”带来的直接影响就是人们一提起生产力就会联想起工具、机器、资源、能源等非常具象的实体性东西，而偏离了马克思“生产力”概念的根本能指与原初语境，这是对马克思“生产力”概念的一种根本性误读。进入20世纪70年代末以后，很多学者虽然从生产结果上将“生产力”理解为“征服说”“控制说”“改造说”“影响说”“适应说”等不同的内涵，但总体上将“生产力”落脚为一种“能力”或“力量”，摆脱了“生产力要素实体说”。

On this basis, as Chinese Marxist scholars improved their ability to understand concepts through original texts, some scholars conducted in-depth research on *The German Ideology* (hereinafter referred to as *The German Ideology*), where Marx first used the concept of “productive forces” in a theoretical-constructive sense. They traced the term “productive forces” (Produktivkraft) used by Marx back to the history of ideas, restoring the original context of Marx’s concept of “productive forces” from the clue of Adam Smith’s “labour productivity” in British classical political economy, as well as three clues in the German-language context from Wilhelm Schulz, Moses Hess, and Friedrich List. With the in-depth research and advancement of Marx’s technological notebooks, the *Brussels Notebooks* and the *Manchester Notebooks*, the influence on Marx’s study of technology of representatives of German general technology studies, such as Johann Beckmann and Johann Heinrich Moritz Poppe, and representatives of British bourgeois technology studies, such as Charles Babbage and Andrew Ure, has attracted the attention of scholars. It can be said that the academic community has already achieved important academic results in restoring the formation process of Marx’s concept of productive forces and sorting out the history of the concept of productive forces. This provides a more scientific, comprehensive, and abundant possibility for understanding the connotation of productive forces under the new round of scientific and technological revolution.

在此基础上，随着中国马克思主义学者以原著文本来理解概念的能力的提高，有学者深入研究马克思首次在理论建构意义上使用“生产力”概念的《德意志意识形态》（以下简称为《形态》），从马克思所使用的“生产力”（Produktivkraft）一词追溯到思想史，从英国古典政治经济学家亚当·斯密（Adam Smith）的“劳动生产力”线索，以及舒尔茨（Wilhelm Schulz）、赫斯（Moses Hess）和李斯特（Friedrich List）三条德语语境线索中还原了马克思“生产力”概念的原初语境。随着马克思的工艺学笔记《布鲁塞尔笔记》和《曼彻斯特笔记》的深入研究和推进，德国一般工艺学研究代表人物约翰·贝克曼（Johann Beckmann）和约·亨·摩·波佩（Johann Heinrich Moritz Poppe），以及英国资产阶级工艺学研究代表人物查理·拜比吉（Charles Babbage）和安德鲁·尤尔（Andrew Ure）对马克思工艺学研究的影响引起了学者们的关注。可以说，学界已经在还原马克思生产力概念的形成过程、梳理生产力概念思想史方面有了重要学术成果，这为理解新一轮科技革命下的生产力内涵提供了更科学、全面和丰盈的可能。

First, productive forces are the ultimate determining force of social development. In the “Introduction” to *A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy*, Marx states: “The object before us, to begin with, is material production.” This is consistent with the description of the premise of human history in *The German Ideology*: as long as human society exists, the production and reproduction of material means of subsistence are the premise. This is an anthropological cognition that “all epochs of production have certain common features, common determinations.” In this dimension, productive forces are the “degree, capacity, and level exerted by a certain mode or structure of production in its actual operation.” Marx was the first to consciously elevate material production to the level of philosophical totality, and “productive forces” became a concept with “foundational” significance in historical materialism. Second, as a socio-historical concept, “productive forces” inherently contain the dimension of relations of production. “A certain mode of production, or industrial stage, is always combined with a certain mode of cooperation, or social stage, and this mode of cooperation is itself a ‘productive force’ (eine Produktivkraft).” It should be noted that in the original German edition of *The German Ideology*, Marx placed “productive force” in quotation marks and preceded it with the indefinite article “eine” (a, one), but this indefinite article was omitted in the Chinese translation. Therefore, this sentence should be understood as composed of five “certain” elements: “a certain mode of production, a certain industrial stage, a certain mode of cooperation, a certain social stage, and a certain productive force.” This more strongly emphasizes that a certain level of productive forces determines a certain mode of production, which in turn determines the nature of the entire society. That is to say, productive forces and relations of production are formed simultaneously by people in the same production process through a certain mode of production. “Productive forces,” as an abstract concept, refers to the “capacity,” “power,” and “level” in the production process, while “relations of production” are likewise abstracted from this production process to refer to the dimension of human relations formed in production. Productive forces are always productive forces within certain relations of production, and relations of production are always relations manifested within a certain level of productive forces; there is no independent, separate “productive forces” and “relations of production.” Finally, unlike labor, which is the sole source of value creation, productive forces are determined by multiple factors and refer to the useful, concrete labor that provides the capacity to create use value. At the very beginning of *Capital*, Marx states unequivocally: “The wealth of societies in which the capitalist mode of production prevails appears as an ‘immense accumulation of commodities.’” Using the scientific method of abstraction, Marx distinguishes the commodity form of wealth into two aspects: use value and value. The purpose of analyzing value is to reveal the essence of the bourgeoisie’s uncompensated appropriation of surplus value and thus exploitation of the proletariat, aiming to provide a theoretical weapon for the proletarian revolution. However, “whatever the change in the productivity of labor, the same labor, during the same length of time, always yields the same amount of value.” Value itself cannot measure the level of productive forces. The level of productive forces is determined by the use value created by useful, concrete labor. Marx’s “productive forces” and “productivity of labor” can be “used interchangeably as concepts with the same connotation.” The fundamental reason is that the essence of productive forces is the productivity of labor, that is, “the productivity of useful, concrete labor.” Unlike “dead things” such as factory buildings, raw materials, tools, and machinery, the laborer, as the only living subject in this process, possesses a natural “gift of nature”: labor power, as a special commodity, acts like “living yeast” when exercising its use value. As long as it comes into contact with these “dead things,” it can revive them as factors in the labor process. The labor process is not a “solo performance” of concrete labor but a process in which concrete labor combines with other factors of production to create use value. The level of the factors of production and the dynamic combination among them are all influencing factors of the level of productive forces. Thus, Marx states: “The productivity of labor is determined by multiple circumstances, among which are: the average degree of skill of the workers, the level of development of science and its degree of technological application, the social organization of the process of production, the extent and effectiveness of the means of production, and the natural conditions.” At the same time, based on the laws of development of productive forces, Marx scientifically predicted that “with the development of large-scale industry, direct labor itself ceases to be the basis of production.” Materialized labor, i.e., the material elements of labor, especially science and technology, plays an increasingly important role in enhancing productive forces.

首先，生产力是社会发展的最终决定力量。马克思在《<政治经济学批判>导言》中指明：“摆在面前的对象，首先是物质生产。”这与《形态》中关于人类历史前提的描述是一致的，只要人类社会存在，物质生活资料的生产与再生产就是前提，这是“生产的一切时代有某些共同标志，共同规定”的人类学认知。在这一维度上，生产力就是人们以“一定的生产方式或结构在实际运作中发挥出来的程度、能力和水平”，马克思第一次将物质生产自觉提升至哲学总体的高度，“生产力”也成为唯物史观中具有“基始”意义的概念。其次，“生产力”作为一个社会历史性概念，内蕴着生产关系维度。“一定的生产方式或一定的工业阶段始终是与一定的共同活动方式或一定的社会阶段联系着的，而这种共同活动方式本身就是‘生产力’（eine Produktivkraft）。”需要注意的是，马克思在德文原版《形态》中将生产力加上了引号，且前面还有一个不定冠词“eine”（一个、一种），但这个不定冠词在中文翻译的过程中被省略了，因此这句话应该是由“一定的生产方式、一定的工业阶段、一定的共同活动方式、一定的社会阶段和一定的生产力”这五个“一定的”所构成，更加强调了一定的生产力水平决定一定的生产方式，进而决定整个社会的性质；也就是说，生产力和生产关系是人们在同一生产过程中以一定的生产方式同时形成的，“生产力”作为人们抽象出来的概念，指称在生产过程中的“能力”“力量”和“水平”，而“生产关系”则同样是人们从这一生产过程中抽象出来指称生产过程中所形成的人与人的关系维度。生产力一定是一定生产关系中的生产力，生产关系一定是在一定生产力水平中表现出来的关系，根本不存在彼此独立、割裂的“生产力”与“生产关系”。最后，与劳动是价值创造的唯一源泉不同，生产力是由多种情况决定的有用的、具体的为劳动提供创造使用价值的能力。《资本论》一开篇就开宗明义地提出：“资本主义生产方式占统治地位的社会的财富，表现为‘庞大的商品堆积’。”马克思运用科学的抽象法将财富的商品形式区分为使用价值和价值两方面。价值分析的目的在于揭示资产阶级无偿占有剩余价值从而剥削无产阶级的本质，目的是为无产阶级革命提供理论武器；但是，“不管生产力发生了什么变化，同一劳动在同样的时间内提供的价值量总是相同的”，价值本身无法衡量生产力水平。生产力水平由有用的、具体的劳动创造的使用价值决定，马克思的“生产力”和“劳动生产力”可以作为“内涵一致的概念交互使用”。其根本原因在于生产力的本质就是劳动生产力，就是“有用的、具体的劳动的生产力”。区别于厂房、原料、工具、机器等“死的物”，劳动者作为这个过程中唯一有生命的活的主体具备一种天然的“自然恩惠”，那就是劳动力作为特殊商品在发挥使用价值时像“活的酵母”，只要同这些“死的物”接触，就能使它们复活为劳动过程中的因素。劳动过程不是具体劳动的“独角戏”，而是具体劳动和其他生产要素结合起来创造使用价值的过程，生产要素水平及各要素之间的动态组合水平都是生产力水平的影响因素。由此，马克思说：“劳动生产力是由多种情况决定的，其中包括：工人的平均熟练程度，科学的发展水平和它在工艺上应用的程度，生产过程的社会结合，生产资料的规模和效能，以及自然条件。”同时，马克思根据生产力发展规律科学预判了“随着大工业的这种发展，直接劳动本身不再是生产的基础”，物化劳动即劳动的物质要素，尤其是科学技术对生产力的提高起着越来越重要的作用。

II. The Inevitable Generative Logic from “Productive Forces” to “New Quality Productive Forces”

二、从“生产力”到“新质生产力”的必然生发逻辑

There is a profound logic of inevitability between Marx’s concept of “productive forces” and General Secretary Xi Jinping’s first proposal of “new quality productive forces.” The ancient meaning of the character “生” (sheng) includes life, growth, and transformation. The term “生发” (shengfa) emphasizes the sense of life and power of a new thing growing from its root and developing according to its laws. The new concept of “new quality productive forces” takes Marx’s concept of “productive forces” as its foundation and is formed in the practice of building a socialist economy with Chinese characteristics under the guidance of historical materialism. However, we need to further elaborate on its theoretical inevitability and practical inevitability.

从马克思的“生产力”概念到习近平总书记首次提出“新质生产力”之间具有深刻的必然性逻辑。“生”字的古义即有生命生长、生化之义。“生发”一词强调一新物自根而生、循律而发的生命感和力量感。“新质生产力”这一新概念是以马克思的“生产力”概念为基始，在唯物史观指导下的中国特色社会主义经济建设实践中形成。但是，我们需要进一步阐释其理论必然性和实践必然性。

1. Grasping the Inevitable Generation from “Productive Forces” to “New Quality Productive Forces” from the Perspective of Historical Materialism

1.在唯物史观视野中把握从“生产力”到“新质生产力”的必然生发

First, historical materialism requires that the political economy of socialism with Chinese characteristics must take productive forces as an important object of study. As one of Marx’s two great discoveries, historical materialism is not a mechanical dogma but a guide for socio-historical development. General Secretary Xi Jinping points out: “To uphold Marxism, the most important thing is to uphold the basic principles of Marxism and the positions, viewpoints, and methods that run through them.” This is the guiding significance of historical materialism as a fundamental worldview and methodology. As early as his review of Volume I of *Capital*, Friedrich Engels clearly warned that anyone who tries to find the true secret doctrine and panacea of socialism in *Capital*, or to find what the communist millennium actually looks like from it, would be “greatly mistaken.” “Creating ‘socialism with Chinese characteristics’ or ‘contemporary Marxism’ inherently means opposing all dogmatism that mechanically copies and transplants.” Therefore, adhering to historical materialism inevitably means that, on the theoretical path of Marx’s concept of “productive forces” and its development, a concept of productive forces that conforms to China’s actual conditions must be generated. As is well known, productive forces were not Marx’s object of study. Marx wrote *Capital* with “the capitalist mode of production and the relations of production and exchange corresponding to it” as his object of study. This was determined by Marx’s research background and purpose. Under the capitalist system, labor power and all means of production become the private property of the capitalist before entering the production process. The products produced by these means of production under the action of the worker’s labor as “living yeast” also belong to the capitalist. Thus, the wealth of capitalist society, i.e., its productive forces, all appear as the productive forces of capital. Moreover, the more capital’s productive forces develop, the poorer the workers become and the harsher their living conditions. Therefore, researching how to enrich the capitalist was certainly not Marx’s intention. Unlike Marx’s envisioned victory of the proletarian revolution, which could only be achieved after immense development of material productive forces, the People’s Republic of China was established on backward economic and social conditions. The working people of the proletariat have become the masters of the country. The masses of the people are the subjects of the development of social productive forces, and the development of social productive forces is consistent with the interests of the masses. At present, the principal contradiction in Chinese society is the contradiction between the people’s ever-growing needs for a better life and unbalanced and inadequate development. [3]3 The “principal contradiction” (主要矛盾) is a key concept in Maoist and post-Mao Chinese Marxist theory, referring to the central social contradiction that determines the nature and tasks of a given historical stage. The formulation cited here was officially adopted at the 19th National Congress of the CPC in 2017. Theory and reality urgently require us not only to take productive forces as an important object of study but also to seek truth from facts and keep pace with the times in studying what kind of productive forces China needs to develop today.

其一，唯物史观要求中国特色社会主义政治经济学必须将生产力作为重要的研究对象。作为马克思一生两大发现之一的唯物史观不是机械的教条主义，而是社会历史发展的指南。习近平总书记指出：“坚持马克思主义，最重要的是坚持马克思主义基本原理和贯穿其中的立场、观点、方法。”这是唯物史观作为根本世界观和方法论的指导意义所在。恩格斯（Friedrich Engels）早在为《资本论》“第一卷”写的书评中就明确警告：谁要是想从《资本论》中寻找社会主义真正的秘密学说和万灵药房，或是想从这个来找到共产主义的千年王国到底是什么样子，那就“大错特错了”，“创建‘中国特色社会主义’或‘当代马克思主义’，其宗旨本身就意味着反对一切照搬照抄的教条主义”。因此，坚持唯物史观，就必然意味着要在马克思的“生产力”概念及其发展的理论路径上生发出符合中国实际的生产力概念。众所周知，生产力不是马克思的研究对象，马克思创作《资本论》是以“资本主义生产方式以及和它相适应的生产关系和交换关系”为研究对象，这是由马克思的研究背景和目的所决定的。在资本主义制度下，劳动力和所有的生产资料在进入生产过程以前就成为资本家的私人所有物，这些生产资料在工人劳动“活酵母”的作用下生产出来的产品也都归资本家所有。由此，资本主义社会的财富即生产力都表现为资本的生产力，并且资本的生产力越发展工人就越贫穷、生存条件就越恶劣。所以，那些为资本家研究如何发财致富的目的当然不是马克思的本意。与马克思设想的无产阶级革命在物质生产力取得极大发展后才能取得的胜利不同，中华人民共和国建立在落后的经济社会条件上，无产阶级劳动人民已经成为国家的主人，人民群众是社会生产力发展的主体，社会生产力发展与人民群众具有一致性。当下，人民日益增长的美好生活需要和不平衡不充分的发展之间的矛盾是当前社会的主要矛盾，理论与现实迫切要求我们不仅要以生产力作为重要研究对象，还要实事求是、与时俱进地研究当前中国需要发展什么样的生产力。

Second, historical materialism requires understanding the historical revolutionary role of productive forces in the dynamic process of the dissolution of “old quality” and the formation of “new quality.” Engels said that Marx “regarded science first of all as a great historical lever, as a revolutionary force in the most literal sense of the word.” [4]4 Engels, “Speech at the Grave of Karl Marx,” *Marx and Engels Collected Works*, vol. 24, p. 467. “The historical lever role of science” is a concise distillation of the revolutionary significance of productive forces from the perspective of historical materialism. “Capital itself is the contradiction in process.” [5]5 Marx, *Grundrisse*, *Marx and Engels Collected Works*, vol. 30, p. 394. With the development of large-scale industry, “the creation of real wealth depends less on labor time and on the amount of labor expended… than on the general level of science and technological progress, or on the application of this science to production.” [6]6 Marx, *Grundrisse*, *Marx and Engels Collected Works*, vol. 30, p. 91. Thus, the development of labor itself, on the one hand, reduces labor time to a minimum, and on the other hand, makes labor time the sole measure and source of wealth, until the development of science and technology means that “direct labor in its immediate form ceases to be the great source of wealth, and labor time ceases and must cease to be its measure.” [7]7 Marx, *Grundrisse*, *Marx and Engels Collected Works*, vol. 30, p. 91. At this point, “the means which capital uses to produce on the basis of its limited foundation” become the material conditions for destroying the entire foundation. [8]8 Marx, *Grundrisse*, *Marx and Engels Collected Works*, vol. 30, p. 91. Only then does the foundation of productive forces create the necessity for another, higher form of society. “The evolution of productive forces follows certain laws. From the perspective of major changes in productive forces, human society has experienced the productive forces of the agricultural era, the industrial era, and the information era.” [9]9 Source not provided in the original text. Marx did not use the term “new quality productive forces” to refer to the newly emerging productive forces of each era, but in *The German Ideology* he discussed “new productive forces”: “any new productive force, insofar as it is not merely a quantitative extension of previously known productive forces (for example, the clearing of land), leads to a further development of the division of labor,” and “the various stages of development in the division of labor are just so many different forms of ownership.” [10]10 Marx and Engels, *The German Ideology*, *Marx and Engels Collected Works*, vol. 5, pp. 32-33. At present, mechanical machinery, as the principal means of labor in society, is gradually being replaced by digital-intelligent automata. Digital technologies represented by big data, artificial intelligence, algorithms, brain-computer interfaces, etc., are forcefully driving human society from the traditional industrial era into the digital information era. Productive forces are constantly developing in the dynamic process of the dissolution of “old quality” and the formation of “new quality,” and this developmental process is inevitably accompanied by fundamental changes in ownership, that is, in the relations of production.

其二，唯物史观要求在“旧质”瓦解和“新质”形成的动态过程中理解生产力的历史革命作用。恩格斯说马克思“把科学首先看成是一个伟大的历史杠杆，看成是按最明显的字面意义而言的革命力量”。“科学的历史杠杆作用”是在唯物史观视野中，对生产力革命意义的精要凝练。“资本本身是处于过程中的矛盾”，随着大工业的发展，“现实财富的创造较少地取决于劳动时间和已耗费的劳动量……而是取决于科学的一般水平和技术进步，或者说取决于这种科学在生产上的应用”。由此，劳动本身的发展一方面把劳动时间缩减到最低限度，另一方面又使劳动时间成为财富的唯一尺度和源泉，直至科学技术的发展使“直接形式的劳动不再是财富的巨大源泉，劳动时间就不再是，而且必然不再是财富的尺度”。这时，“资本用来从它的有限的基础出发进行生产的手段”就成为摧毁整个基础的物质条件。此时的生产力基础才会造成另一种更高级的社会形态的必然性。“生产力演进遵循一定规律。从生产力的重大变化来看，人类社会经历了农业时代、工业时代、信息时代的生产力变迁。”马克思没有以“新质生产力”指称各时代新生的生产力，但在《德意志意识形态》中讨论过“新的生产力”，“任何新的生产力，只要它不是迄今已知的生产力单纯的量的扩大（例如，开垦土地），都会引起分工的进一步发展”，而“分工的各个不同发展阶段，同时也就是所有制的各种不同形式”。当下，作为社会主要劳动资料的机械机器正逐步被数智化的自动机所取代，以大数据、人工智能、算法、脑机接口等为代表的数字技术强势推动人类社会由传统工业时代向数字信息时代跨越，生产力总是在“旧质”瓦解和“新质”形成的动态过程中不断发展，而这个发展过程必然伴随着所有制即生产关系的根本变革。

2. Developing new quality productive forces is an inevitable requirement for promoting high-quality development

2.发展新质生产力是推动高质量发展的必然要求

In Marx’s view, “any productive force is an already acquired force, the product of previous activity.” [11]11 Marx, “Letter to P.V. Annenkov,” *Marx and Engels Collected Works*, vol. 38, p. 95. “New quality productive forces” are not a tree without roots or water without a source; rather, they are the product of productive forces achieved by China in the New Democratic Revolution, socialist revolution and construction, reform and opening up and socialist modernization, and the construction of socialism with Chinese characteristics in the New Era. They are the inevitable choice for China as it enters the stage of high-quality development and faces new risks and new challenges.

在马克思看来，“任何生产力都是一种既得的力量，是以往的活动的产物”。“新质生产力”不是无根之木、无源之水，而是中国在新民主主义革命、社会主义革命和建设、改革开放和社会主义现代化建设以及新时代中国特色社会主义建设中取得的生产力产物，是中国进入高质量发展阶段面临新风险新挑战的必然选择。

Marx pointed out that the so-called general conditions applicable to all production are merely abstract elements, and with these elements it is impossible to understand any real, historical stage of production. [12]12 Marx, “Introduction to the Critique of Political Economy,” *Marx and Engels Collected Works*, vol. 28, p. 23. Marx’s concept of “productive forces,” as the most fundamental theoretical cornerstone of historical materialism, possesses the general connotation of “broad historical materialism.” It is an abstraction of the essential laws of social history applicable to all stages of human social history. In a certain sense, it can be considered “non-phenomenal,” meaning it cannot be directly pointed to in life nor directly verified by sensory experience. Understanding the productive forces of a “real, historical stage of production” requires entering into the specific relations of production of that specific social-historical stage. From the history of human productive forces, “the hand-mill gives you society with the feudal lord; the steam-mill gives you society with the industrial capitalist.” [13]13 Marx, *The Poverty of Philosophy*, *Marx and Engels Collected Works*, vol. 6, p. 166. Any specific relation of production is a relation within a certain level of productive forces; any specific productive forces inherently contain a specific dimension of relations of production. In the process of the development of productive forces, when the relations of production can no longer adapt to the requirements of the development of productive forces, that is, when they transform from forms of development of productive forces into fetters on productive forces, a comprehensive transformation of the relations of production is inevitably required, replacing the original relations of production, which have lost their necessity, with new relations of production suitable for the development of productive forces. It is undeniable that, in the stage of capitalist production, the bourgeoisie, with this mode of production, “created more massive and more colossal productive forces than have all preceding generations together” in “its rule of scarce one hundred years.” [14]14 Marx and Engels, *Manifesto of the Communist Party*, *Marx and Engels Collected Works*, vol. 6, p. 489. However, the capitalist relations of production, based on the essence of private ownership of the means of production, are ultimately, due to their own narrowness, completely incapable of accommodating the modern productive forces generated by large-scale socialized production. The knell of capitalist private property is inevitably sounded; “bourgeois ownership is doomed to perish,” [15]15 Marx and Engels, *Manifesto of the Communist Party*, *Marx and Engels Collected Works*, vol. 6, p. 496. and it will inevitably be replaced by a more advanced form of ownership of the means of production.

马克思指出，所谓一切生产都适用的一般条件不过是一些抽象要素，用这些要素不可能理解任何一个现实的历史生产阶段。马克思的“生产力”概念作为唯物史观最根本的理论基石，具有“广义历史唯物主义”的一般内涵，是抽象出来的适用于一切人类社会历史阶段的社会历史本质规律，一定意义上可以认为其是“无现象”的，即不能直接在生活中指认，也不能用感性经验直接证实。理解“现实的历史的生产阶段”的生产力需要进入具体社会历史阶段的具体生产关系当中。从人类生产力历史来看，“手推磨产生的是封建主的社会，蒸汽磨产生的是工业资本家的社会”。任何一种具体的生产关系都是一定生产力水平中的关系，任何具体的生产力都内蕴具体的生产关系维度。在生产力发展过程中，当生产关系已经完全不能适应生产力发展的要求时，即由生产力的发展形式变成生产力的桎梏时，就必然要求生产关系的全面变革，用适合生产力发展的新生产关系代替原来的、业已丧失必然性的生产关系。不可否认的是，在资本主义生产阶段，资产阶级用这样的生产方式在“它的不到一百年的阶级统治中所创造的生产力，比过去一切世代创造的全部生产力还要多，还要大”。然而，以生产资料私有制为本质的资本主义生产关系终究因其自身的狭隘性根本无法容纳由于社会化大生产而产生的现代生产力，资本主义私有制的丧钟不可避免地要敲响，“资产阶级所有制必然灭亡”，取而代之的必然是更为先进的生产资料所有制关系。

After the founding of the People’s Republic of China, especially after the completion of the socialist transformation in 1956, [16]16 The socialist transformation (1953-1956) was the process by which the CPC transformed private ownership of the means of production into socialist public ownership, marking the establishment of the socialist system in China. our country, based on the fundamental national conditions of a late-developing country, engaged in arduous exploration on the path of the socialist economic system and development. It achieved great successes but also experienced serious setbacks. Through reform and opening up, our country ultimately established the basic economic system for the primary stage of socialism. It is precisely this basic socialist economic system that has brought us from the situation of being able to “make tables and chairs, make tea bowls and teapots, and grow grain” [17]17 A phrase from Mao Zedong’s 1956 speech “On the Ten Major Relationships,” referring to China’s then-limited industrial capacity. onto the development track of being “closer to the goal of the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation than at any other time in history.” [18]18 Xi Jinping, “Speech at the Ceremony Marking the Centenary of the Communist Party of China,” July 1, 2021. The Chinese Communists, with Comrades Mao Zedong, Deng Xiaoping, Jiang Zemin, Hu Jintao, and Xi Jinping as their main representatives, united and led the Chinese people through arduous and extraordinary struggles, and finally completed the building of a moderately prosperous society in all respects in 2021. [19]19 The “moderately prosperous society in all respects” (xiaokang shehui) is a goal set by the CPC to lift the entire population out of poverty and achieve a decent standard of living by 2021, the centenary of the Party’s founding. According to statistical data, in 2020, “China’s gross domestic product exceeded 100 trillion yuan, and per capita GDP exceeded 10,000 US dollars.” [20]20 Source not provided in the original text. China is “advancing with vigor and confidence towards the second centenary goal of building China into a great modern socialist country in all respects.” [21]21 The “second centenary goal” refers to building China into a great modern socialist country that is prosperous, strong, democratic, culturally advanced, harmonious, and beautiful by the centenary of the People’s Republic of China in 2049. However, we must recognize that the situation of competition among major powers is severe, a new round of technological revolution is surging, and building a great modern socialist country in all respects faces various risks and challenges. It is precisely in this historical context that the Party Central Committee with Comrade Xi Jinping at its core has consistently adhered to the historical mission of the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation and the development of productive forces, creatively proposing “new quality productive forces.” New quality productive forces are formed in the practice of China’s economic construction, nurtured within the basic economic system of the primary stage of socialism, and will inevitably, under the guarantee of this basic economic system, become a solid foundation for building a great modern socialist country in all respects.

中华人民共和国成立后，特别是1956年社会主义改造完成以后，我国以后发国家基本国情为基础，在社会主义经济制度和发展道路上进行了艰苦探索，既取得了伟大成就，也经历过严重曲折。经过改革开放，我国最终建立了社会主义初级阶段的基本经济制度，正是这样的社会主义基本经济制度使我们从“能造桌子椅子，能造茶碗茶壶，能种粮食”的境遇中走到“我们比历史上任何时期都更接近中华民族伟大复兴的目标”的发展轨道上。以毛泽东同志、邓小平同志、江泽民同志、胡锦涛同志、习近平同志为主要代表的中国共产党人团结带领中国人民经过艰苦卓绝的努力奋斗，终于在2021年全面建成了小康社会。据统计数据显示，2020年“我国国内生产总值超过100万亿元，人均国内生产总值超过1万美元”，中国“正在意气风发向着全面建成社会主义现代化强国的第二个百年奋斗目标迈进”。但是，我们应该看到，大国竞争局势严峻，新一轮科技革命势头迅猛，全面建成社会主义现代化强国面临各种风险和挑战。正是在这样的历史方位下，以习近平同志为核心的党中央始终坚持中华民族伟大复兴和发展生产力的历史使命，创造性地提出“新质生产力”。新质生产力在中国经济建设实践中形成，在社会主义初级阶段的基本经济制度中孕育，也必将在基本经济制度的保障下成为全面建成社会主义现代化强国的坚实基础。

In October 2022, General Secretary Xi Jinping pointed out in the report to the 20th National Congress of the CPC: “High-quality development is the primary task in building a modern socialist country in all respects.” [22]22 Xi Jinping, “Hold High the Great Banner of Socialism with Chinese Characteristics and Strive in Unity to Build a Modern Socialist Country in All Respects,” Report to the 20th National Congress of the CPC, October 16, 2022. In January 2024, during the 11th collective study session of the Political Bureau of the 20th CPC Central Committee, General Secretary Xi Jinping further pointed out: “Developing new quality productive forces is an inherent requirement and a key focus for promoting high-quality development.” [23]23 Xi Jinping, “Speech at the 11th Collective Study Session of the Political Bureau of the 20th CPC Central Committee,” January 31, 2024. A profound understanding of this important exposition by General Secretary Xi Jinping, closely linked to the systematic framework of the 20th National Congress of the CPC on promoting Chinese-path modernization through high-quality development, makes it clear that this is General Secretary Xi Jinping’s specific answer to the era-defining question posed at the 20th National Congress of the CPC: how can China achieve high-quality development to build a modern socialist country in all respects? Developing new quality productive forces is an inherent requirement and a key focus for promoting high-quality development. The development of new quality productive forces has already been embedded in the inevitable logical chain of achieving high-quality development and building a modern socialist country in all respects.

2022年10月，习近平总书记在党的二十大报告中指出：“高质量发展是全面建设社会主义现代化国家的首要任务。”2024年1月，在二十届中共中央政治局第十一次集体学习中，习近平总书记进一步指出：“发展新质生产力是推动高质量发展的内在要求和重要着力点。”深刻理解习近平总书记这一重要论述，紧密联系党的二十大关于以高质量发展推进中国式现代化的系统建构。我们不难发现，这是习近平总书记回应二十大中对于中国如何以高质量发展实现全面建设社会主义现代化国家这一时代课题的具体回答。发展新质生产力是推动高质量发展的内在要求和重要着力点，发展新质生产力已然嵌入实现高质量发展、全面建设社会主义现代化国家的必然逻辑链条中。

III. A Multi-Dimensional New Interpretation of the Concept of “New Quality Productive Forces”

三、“新质生产力”概念的多维新释

General Secretary Xi Jinping emphasizes: “High-quality development requires new theories of productive forces to guide it, and new quality productive forces have already taken shape in practice and demonstrated a strong driving and supporting force for high-quality development, requiring us to summarize and conceptualize them theoretically.” The basic connotation of new quality productive forces has multiple layers of complexity and a deep theoretical foundation, which can generally be understood on three levels. First, compared with traditional modes of production, the “new quality” of new quality productive forces is characterized by high technology, high efficiency, and high quality. Second, in contrast to the extensive growth of productive forces, the core of developing new quality productive forces lies in breakthroughs in disruptive technologies in key fields; “technological revolutionary breakthroughs, innovative allocation of production factors, and deep industrial transformation” become the three driving forces of new quality productive forces, among which data, algorithms, and computing power, as the “trinity” of digital technology, will inevitably become the key to the “multiplier effect” of new quality productive forces. At the same time, core technologies cannot be obtained, bought, or begged for; high-level scientific and technological innovation based on self-reliance is a necessary condition for developing new quality productive forces. Finally, as the result of people’s practical capabilities, new quality productive forces are essentially advanced labor productivity, stemming from people’s exertion of their subjective creativity, a process in which, through the dynamic combination of laborers, means of labor, and objects of labor, they creatively develop important forces from the means of production, natural forces, collective forces, and “general intellect.”

习近平总书记强调：“高质量发展需要新的生产力理论来指导，而新质生产力已经在实践中形成并展示出对高质量发展的强劲推动力、支撑力，需要我们从理论上进行总结、概括。”新质生产力基本内涵的层次复杂、理论根基深厚，总的来说可以分为三个层面来理解。首先，与传统生产方式相比，新质生产力的“新质”具有高科技、高效能和高质量特征。其次，相比于生产力外延式增长，发展新质生产力的核心在于突破关键领域的颠覆性技术，“技术革命性突破、生产要素创新配置、产业深度转型”成为新质生产力的三大催生力量，其中数据、算法和计算能力作为数字科技的“三位一体”必将成为新质生产力发挥“乘数效应”的关键所在。同时，核心科技是要不来、买不来、讨不来的，高水平科技创新的自立自强是发展新质生产力的必要条件。最后，新质生产力作为人们实现应用能力的结果，本质上是先进劳动生产力，来自人们发挥其主观创造性，在劳动者、劳动资料和劳动对象动态组合间创造性地开发来自生产资料、自然力、集体力和“一般智力”等重要力量的过程。

1. Analysis of the Connotation of “New Quality Productive Forces”

1.“新质生产力”的内涵厘析

First, what is the “new quality” of “new quality productive forces”? “New quality” distinguishes new things, new content, or new characteristics from “old quality,” but the term “new quality” itself has no specific content; it is an abstract expression of the qualitative leap in productive forces under the new round of the scientific and technological revolution. Productive forces, as the result of people’s practical capabilities, “are themselves determined by the conditions in which people find themselves, by the productive forces already previously acquired.” [24]24 Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, *The German Ideology* (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1976), p. 49. “New quality” is based on already acquired productive forces, placing high importance on the immense productive forces of contemporary “disruptive technologies in key fields”; “new quality” emphasizes not isolation or separation from the productive forces of previous historical stages; on the contrary, it is the unique quality of amplifying the productive forces already acquired in the first two industrial revolutions through its distinctive “multiplier effect.” Thus, “to better promote the development of new quality productive forces, it is necessary not only to develop new industries well but also to use new technologies and new techniques to accelerate the transformation and upgrading of traditional industries, so as to form a combined force for the development of new quality productive forces.” [25]25 Xi Jinping, “Speech at the Symposium on the Development of New Quality Productive Forces,” *Qiushi*, 2024, no. 6.

首先，何为“新质生产力”的“新质”？“新质”区别于“旧质”的新事物、新内容或新特征，但就“新质”二字而言并无具体内容，这是对新一轮科技革命下生产力发生质量跃迁的抽象表达。生产力作为人们实践能力的结果，“这种能力本身决定于人们所处的条件，决定于先前已经获得的生产力”。“新质”是在已经获得的生产力基础上，对当代“关键领域的颠覆性技术”所具有的巨大生产力的高度重视，“新质”强调的不是与前历史阶段生产力的孤立或割裂；相反，是其以独特的“乘数效应”放大前两次工业革命已经获得的生产力的独特之质。由此，“要想更好地推动新质生产力发展，不仅要发展好新产业，还应采用新科技、新技术加快对传统产业的改造升级，才能形成新质生产力发展的合力”。

Second, the core of developing new quality productive forces lies in promoting high-level scientific and technological innovation. In his exposition of “narrow historical materialism,” Marx distinguished between the extensive and intensive expansion of surplus value: “If the field of production is enlarged, it is extensive expansion; if the efficiency of the means of production is increased, it is intensive expansion.” [26]26 Karl Marx, *Capital*, vol. 2 (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1967), p. 195. New quality productive forces are primarily intensive expansion, representing advanced productive forces characterized by high technology, high efficiency, and high quality. “The core engine of new quality productive forces is scientific and technological innovation.” [27]27 Xi Jinping, “Speech at the 20th National Congress of the Communist Party of China,” *People’s Daily*, October 17, 2022. From the perspective of the history of China’s scientific and technological productive forces, the historical convergence of the new round of the scientific and technological revolution and industrial transformation with China’s accelerated transformation of its economic development model provides a major opportunity for the “new quality” burst of productive forces. From the steam engine to the intelligent machine, this is an important intuitive manifestation of the “qualitative” change brought to productive forces by technological change. Coal, oil, and natural gas, accompanying the two industrial revolutions, became key to developing productive forces, while data, a new production factor, has become the “new oil” since the third scientific and technological revolution. Data, algorithms, and computing power together constitute the “trinity” of digital technology, becoming the key to the “multiplier effect” of new quality productive forces. China has traversed in several decades the industrialization journey that took developed countries several centuries, leaping from a “follower” in the first two industrial revolutions to a “runner-up” or even “leader” in digital technology under the third scientific and technological revolution. China was the first to propose treating data as a new production factor and has continuously improved the top-level design for promoting the healthy development of the digital economy. According to the “China Digital Economy Development Research Report (2023)” released by the China Academy of Information and Communications Technology, the scale of China’s digital economy, driven by digital technology as its core force, reached 50.2 trillion yuan in 2022, a nominal year-on-year increase of 10.3%, significantly higher than the nominal GDP growth rate for 11 consecutive years, with the digital economy accounting for 41.5% of GDP. [28]28 China Academy of Information and Communications Technology, *China Digital Economy Development Research Report (2023)* (Beijing: CAICT, 2023), p. 5. The digital economy has become a strategic industry for the development of new quality productive forces, and digital technology has become the undisputed core “new quality” of new quality productive forces. The unique “multiplier effect” of this “new quality” is reflected in two parts: digital industrialization and industrial digitalization. Digital industrialization includes but is not limited to new industries such as the electronic information manufacturing industry, the software and information technology services industry, and the internet and related services industry. While creating new productive forces, these industries provide digital technologies, products, services, infrastructure, and solutions to traditional industries, serving as the core industries of the digital economy. Industrial digitalization refers to “the increase in output and efficiency improvement brought about by the application of digital technologies in traditional industries.” [29]29 Ibid., p. 12. In 2022, the economic penetration rates of China’s service, industrial, and agricultural sectors reached 44.7%, 24.0%, and 10.5%, respectively, increasing by 1.6, 1.2, and 0.4 percentage points year-on-year. The digital transformation of the service, industrial, and agricultural sectors has deepened, and digital technology, with its unique “multiplier effect,” plays a significant role in the deep transformation and upgrading of industries. Of course, without digital technology, there would be no new quality productive forces, but new quality productive forces are not limited to digital technology; they also rely on many core key technologies in strategic emerging industries and future industries such as high-end equipment manufacturing, new materials, biotechnology, and new energy.

其次，发展新质生产力的核心在于推动高水平科技创新。马克思在“狭义历史唯物主义”的阐述中区分了剩余价值的外延式扩大和内涵式扩大，“如果生产场所扩大了，就是在外延上扩大；如果生产资料效率提高了，就是在内涵上扩大”。新质生产力是以内涵式扩大为主，具有高科技、高效能、高质量特征的先进生产力。“新质生产力的核心引擎是科技创新。”从中国科技生产力发展历史来看，新一轮科技革命和产业变革与中国加快转变经济发展方式所形成的历史性交汇，为生产力的“新质”迸发提供重大机遇。从蒸汽机到智能机，是科技变革给生产力带来“质”变的重要直观表现，煤炭、石油、天然气伴随两次工业革命成为发展生产力的关键，数据这一新生产要素则成为第三次科技革命以来的“新石油”，数据、算法和计算能力一起构成数字科技的“三位一体”，成为新质生产力发挥“乘数效应”的关键所在。中国用几十年的时间走过发达国家几百年走过的工业化历程，从前两次工业革命的“跟跑者”向第三次科技革命下数字科技的“并跑者”甚至“领跑者”跨越。我国率先提出把数据作为一种新的生产要素来看待，并不断完善推动数字经济健康发展的顶层设计。据中国信息通信研究院发布的《中国数字经济发展研究报告（2023年）》，中国以数字科技为核心驱动力量的数字经济规模在2022年达到50.2万亿元，同比名义增长10.3%，已连续11年显著高于同期GDP名义增速，数字经济占GDP比重达到41.5%前言1，数字经济成为新质生产力发展的战略性产业，数字科技成为新质生产力当之无愧的核心“新质”。这一“新质”独特的“乘数效应”体现在数字产业化和产业数字化两部分，数字产业化包括但不限于电子信息制造业、软件和信息技术服务业、互联网和相关服务业等新产业，它们在创造新生产力的同时为传统产业提供数字技术、产品、服务、基础设施和解决方案，是数字经济发展的核心产业。产业数字化即“传统产业应用数字技术所带来的产出增加和效率提升部分”，2022年我国服务业、工业、农业的经济渗透率分别达到44.7%、24.0%和10.5%，同比分别提升1.6、1.2和0.4个百分点，服务业、工业和农业数字化转型深度推进，数字科技以独特的“乘数效应”对产业深度转型升级发挥显著作用。当然，没有数字科技就没有新质生产力，但新质生产力不是只有数字科技，它还离不开高端装备制造产业、新材料产业、生物产业、新能源产业等战略性新兴产业和未来产业中的诸多核心关键技术。

Third, self-reliance and self-strengthening are necessary conditions for developing new quality productive forces. Taking digital technology research and development as an example, like all cutting-edge technologies, digital technology R&D is extremely complex and costly, involving technologies from multiple fields such as materials, energy, and chemical engineering. A tiny chip that determines data computing power alone requires multiple technologies such as silicon materials, lithography machines, and chip design software; this is precisely the crux of the bottleneck China faces due to the US chip war. China’s technological development has never been smooth sailing. Modern China, beset by internal and external troubles, successively missed the First Industrial Revolution and the Second Industrial Revolution. Shortly after the founding of the People’s Republic of China, the United States, relying on its nuclear weapons, launched the Korean War. Comrade Mao Zedong profoundly lamented: “In today’s world, if we do not want to be bullied by others, we cannot do without this thing (the atomic bomb).” After requesting help from the Soviet Union and being refused, the Communist Party of China and the Chinese people resolutely started from scratch to research the “two bombs, one satellite” [30]30 “Two bombs, one satellite” refers to China’s development of nuclear weapons (the atomic bomb and the hydrogen bomb), ballistic missiles, and artificial satellites, a major national science and technology project initiated in the 1950s and 1960s., ultimately achieving successful launches. Breakthroughs from nothing were achieved in multiple technological fields, laying a solid foundation for developing new quality productive forces. Since the rise of the Third Technological Revolution, for most of the period from 2000 to 2020, China’s spending on imported chips exceeded its spending on imported oil. However, unlike oil, the supply of chips is monopolized by the US government and a few top-tier digital technology companies. The Chinese people have always understood that core technologies cannot be begged, bought, or bargained for. General Secretary Xi Jinping has emphasized on multiple occasions: “If core components and devices are heavily dependent on foreign countries, and the ‘vital gate’ of the supply chain is in others’ hands, it is like building a house on someone else’s foundation; no matter how big or beautiful it is, it may not withstand wind and rain, and may even collapse at a single blow.” Therefore, it is not difficult to understand why, after proposing “new quality productive forces,” General Secretary Xi Jinping, at the Central Economic Work Conference in December of the same year, while again emphasizing the development of new quality productive forces, included “high-level scientific and technological self-reliance and self-strengthening” for the first time in the overall requirements of China’s economic work. Whether it was the US threatening China with nuclear technology in the 1950s or using chip blockades to constrain China’s economy in recent years, today’s military power is “more dependent than ever on chips, such as powerful processors running artificial intelligence algorithms, large storage chips for processing data, and perfectly tuned analog chips for sensing and generating radio waves.” Core technologies, to a significant extent, determine the security and future industrial development capacity of a country’s strategic core fields such as agriculture, industry, and military. They are “an important material and technological foundation for Chinese-path modernization and high-quality development.” The self-reliance and self-strengthening of core technologies are the lifeblood of new quality productive forces.

再次，自立自强是发展新质生产力的必要条件。以数字科技研发为例，与所有高精尖科技一样，数字科技研发极其复杂且成本高昂，牵涉材料、能源、化工等多领域技术，仅决定数据计算能力的一块小小的芯片就需要硅材料、光刻机和芯片设计软件等多项技术，这也正是中国被美国芯片战卡脖子的关键所在。中国的科技发展历程从来就不是一帆风顺，内忧外患下的近代中国先后错过第一次工业革命和第二次工业革命，中华人民共和国刚成立，美国就自恃核武器而发动朝鲜战争，毛泽东同志深切感慨：“在今天的世界上，我们要不受人家欺负，就不能没有这个东西（原子弹）。”在向苏联请求帮助而被拒绝后，中国共产党和中国人民毅然决然地从头开始研究“两弹一星”，最终成功发射。在多个科技领域实现从无到有的突破，为发展新质生产力奠定了坚实的基础。第三次科技革命兴起以来，在2000—2020年的大部分时间里，中国进口芯片的花费超过进口石油，但与石油不同，芯片的供应被美国政府和几家顶端数字技术公司所垄断。中国人民从来就明白核心科技是要不来、买不来、讨不来的，习近平总书记在多个场合强调：“如果核心元器件严重依赖外国，供应链的‘命门’掌握在别人手里，那就好比在别人的墙基上砌房子，再大再漂亮也可能经不起风雨，甚至会不堪一击。”因此，我们不难理解习近平总书记在提出“新质生产力”后，紧接着在12月份的中央经济工作会议中再次强调发展新质生产力的同时将“高水平科技自立自强”首次列入中国经济工作的总体要求里。不论是20世纪50年代美国以核技术威胁中国，还是近几年来以芯片封锁中国经济，现在的军事力量也“比以往任何时候都更加依赖芯片，比如运行人工智能算法的强大处理器，处理数据的大存储芯片，以及感知和产生无线电波的完美调谐模拟芯片”。核心科技在相当大程度上决定了国家农业、工业、军事等战略性核心领域的安全与未来产业的发展能力，“是中国式现代化和高质量发展的重要物质技术基础”，核心科技的自立自强就是新质生产力的命脉所在。

Finally, the essence of new quality productive forces is advanced labor productivity. When we return to Marx’s concept of “productive forces,” we emphasize that Marx’s “productive forces” and “labor productivity” can be used interchangeably as concepts with consistent connotations. In fact, whether traditional productive forces or new quality productive forces, as “the result of the application of people’s abilities,” their essence is people’s ability to create use-values in useful, concrete labor. The difference is that new quality productive forces rely more on people’s complex mental labor. Although all labor is the combined result of physical and mental labor, in a narrow sense, the labor mode of the First and Second Industrial Revolutions, which mainly relied on muscles to operate tools and machines, can be called physical labor. In contrast, modern labor using computers, large-scale experimental equipment, and the like, engaged in scientific and technological R&D, manufacturing of major national equipment, and R&D of aerospace and deep-sea vehicles, can be called mental labor. Physiologically, people’s physical strength is limited. Although athletes at the Olympic Games continue to push the limits of various human physiological boundaries, this is always within certain limits. However, the development of human mental capacity can, to a certain extent, be said to be unlimited. The system of large-scale machinery liberates human hands and saves human physical strength, but it does not liberate the human brain. If the First and Second Industrial Revolutions were breakthroughs against people’s limited organs and limited physical strength, then the new quality productive forces brought by the Third Technological Revolution represent a process of people continuously breaking through the limits of mental capacity and intelligence. In essence, it remains the process of people, in the objectification of complex mental labor, discovering the scientific laws of nature and forming scientific principles, inventing science and technology to overcome constraints of subjective and objective conditions, and thereby further enhancing their ability to adapt to, transform, and protect nature.

最后，新质生产力的本质是先进的劳动生产力。我们在回到马克思的“生产力”概念时强调，马克思的“生产力”和“劳动生产力”可以作为内涵一致的概念交互使用。事实上，不论是传统生产力还是新质生产力，作为“人们应用能力的结果”其本质上都是人们在有用的、具体的劳动中创造使用价值的能力，不同的是新质生产力更多依靠人们的复杂脑力劳动。虽然说任何劳动都是体力劳动和脑力劳动综合作用的结果，但狭义上可以将第一次工业革命和第二次工业革命中主要依靠肌肉操作工具和机器的劳动方式称为体力劳动，而现代以计算机、大型实验设备等为劳动工具，从事科学技术研发、大国工器制造、航空深海航行器研发的劳动称之为脑力劳动。从生理上来说，人们的体力是有限的，尽管奥林匹克运动会上的运动健儿仍在不断突破人类的各项生理极限，但总是在一定限度内，而人的脑力开发在一定程度上可以说是无限的。大机器体系解放人手、节省人的体力，但并未解放人脑。如果说第一次工业革命和第二次工业革命是对人们有限的器官和有限体力的突破，那么第三次科技革命带来的新质生产力就是人们不断突破脑力和智力限制的过程，本质上仍是人们在复杂的脑力劳动对象化过程中发现自然界的科学规律并形成科学原理，发明科学技术以克服主客观条件限制而进一步提高的适应自然、改造自然和保护自然的能力。

2. The Multidimensional Presentation of “New Quality Productive Forces”

2.“新质生产力”的多维呈现

The essence of new quality productive forces is people’s advanced labor productivity, but labor productivity alone cannot constitute new quality productive forces. In the concrete labor process that creates productive forces, besides the workers’ own level of ability, the breadth of the subject of labor, the efficiency of the instruments of labor, natural conditions such as air and water, and the level of social division of labor and cooperation all greatly influence labor efficiency, thereby affecting the level of productive forces. As an upgraded version of traditional productive forces, new quality productive forces must also have a qualitative leap in the influencing factors of productive forces. Therefore, new quality productive forces have richer forms of presentation.

新质生产力的本质是人的先进劳动生产力，但只有劳动生产力无法构成新质生产力。在创造生产力的具体劳动过程中，除了劳动者自身的能力水平外，劳动对象的广度、劳动工具的效率、空气与水等自然条件以及社会分工与协作水平都会极大影响劳动效率，进而影响生产力水平。新质生产力作为传统生产力的升级版本，必然也在生产力的影响因素上有质的飞跃，新质生产力因此有了更丰富的呈现形式。

First, new quality productive forces manifest as a leapfrog improvement in the means of production. The means of production are divided into the subject of labor and the instruments of labor. These two, as material factors, together with purposeful activity or labor itself, constitute the simple elements of the labor process. “All raw materials are subjects of labor, but not every subject of labor is raw material.” The subject of labor includes objects existing in a natural state and raw materials that have been altered through labor. In early human history, processed stones, wood, bones, shells, including domesticated plants and animals, were important instruments of labor. After entering the era of the Industrial Revolution, pipes, barrels, baskets, and jars, which served as the vascular system of production, as well as mechanical instruments of labor, which served as the skeletal and muscular systems of production, were all important means of production in the era of large-scale industry. It is undeniable that the “mechanical, physical, and chemical properties of things” discovered during the Second Industrial Revolution remain an important production foundation today. However, after entering the 21st century, the means of production have achieved a dual leapfrog improvement in both quality and quantity under the development of new quality productive forces. On the one hand, this confirms Marx’s statement that “people cannot freely choose their own productive forces” and can only develop on the basis of inherited productive forces. On the other hand, “the distinction between various economic epochs lies not in what is produced, but in how it is produced, and with what instruments of labor it is produced.”

其一，新质生产力表现为生产资料的跨越式提升。生产资料分为劳动对象和劳动资料，二者作为物的因素和有目的的活动或劳动本身构成了劳动过程的简单要素。“一切原料都是劳动对象，但并非任何劳动对象都是原料。”劳动对象包含自然状态存在的物和经过劳动而发生变化的原料。在人类历史的早期，加工的石块、木头、骨头、贝壳，包括经过驯化的动植物都是重要的劳动资料。进入工业革命时期后，作为生产的脉管系统的管、桶、篮、罐以及作为生产的骨骼系统和肌肉系统的机械性劳动资料，都是大工业时代重要的生产资料。不可否认的是，第二次工业革命时期所发现的“物的机械的、物理的、化学的属性”在今天依旧是重要的生产基础。但进入21世纪后，生产资料在新质生产力发展下取得了质与量的双重跨越式提升，这一方面印证了马克思所说的“人们不能自由选择自己的生产力”，只能在继承的生产力基础上发展；另一方面，“各种经济时代的区别，不在于生产什么，而在于怎样生产，用什么劳动资料生产”。

Objects of labor and means of labor determine the breadth, depth, and intensity of people’s productive forces. “Labour is, first of all, a process between man and nature.” The reason new quality productive forces are called “new quality” lies not only in the substantial enhancement of productive forces in traditional fields but also in their breakthrough of existing natural conditions and even physical spatiotemporal limits. In the agricultural sector, hybrid rice technology discovered naturally high-yielding rice seedlings; through cultivation and research, combined with AI irrigation and fertilization systems and large-scale mechanized harvesting, it has greatly surpassed existing grain output, achieving an overall leap in productive forces in agriculture. In the industrial sector, new energy sources, new materials, and new equipment emerge in an endless stream; fully automated smart factories operate 24 hours a day; China continues to lead in the field of new-energy electric vehicles; and major national instruments such as the BeiDou satellites, the deep-sea Jiaolong submersible, the space station, and tunnel boring machines all embody China’s new quality productive forces. In the tertiary sector, China is the country with the largest number of personal AI devices; these data, as new factors of production, deeply participate in every aspect of people’s daily life—clothing, food, housing, and transport. The widespread adoption of computer technology and smart terminal devices has made China’s everyday life scenes highly digitized; one could even say that a completely new digital world has been created alongside the real physical world, and this digital world coexists with and synchronously interacts with the real physical world. People complete social activities such as socializing, entertainment, work, and shopping in this invisible and intangible digital world, creating new quality productive forces unique to the digital age. It is worth mentioning that the digital life of Yaya in the Chinese sci-fi film *The Wandering Earth 2* is not an unrealistic prospect for the future development of new quality productive forces. The film presents an extension of life through brain-computer interfaces. Although this technology has not yet been realized in real life and raises many ethical issues, it represents the rich imagination of the Chinese people regarding future productive forces in the fields of aerospace and digital life, providing a blueprint for people to continue achieving leapfrog development of productive forces and proving the infinite potential and grand prospects of China’s development of new quality productive forces.

劳动对象和劳动资料决定了人们生产力的广度、深度和力度。“劳动首先是人和自然之间的过程”，新质生产力之所以被称为“新质”，不仅在于其在传统领域上生产力的大幅提升，更在于其对既有自然条件甚至物理时空限制的突破。从农业领域来说，杂交水稻技术发现了自然界天然高产水稻苗株，经过培育研发，结合人工智能灌溉、施肥系统、大机器收割作业，大大突破了既有粮食产量，实现了农业领域生产力的整体跃升。从工业领域来说，新能源、新材料、新设备层出不穷，全自动化智能工厂全天24小时工作，中国在新能源电车领域持续领跑，北斗卫星、深海蛟龙、航天站、盾构机等大国重器无一不体现了中国的新质生产力。在第三产业，我国是持有个人人工智能设备最多的国家，这些数据作为新生产要素深度参与到每一个人的衣食住行；计算机技术和智能终端设备的普及使我国日常生活场景高度数字化，甚至可以说是在现实物理世界之外创造了一个全新的数字世界，并且这个数字世界和现实物理世界相生相随、同步联动，人们在这个看不见摸不着的数字世界完成社交、娱乐、工作、购物等多项社会活动，创造了独属于数字时代的新质生产力。值得一提的是，中国科幻电影《流浪地球2》中丫丫的数字生命不失为未来新质生产力的发展前景，片中呈现了通过脑机接口实现了生命的另一种延长，虽然这项技术在现实生活中尚未得到实现，也存在诸多伦理问题，但这是中国人在航空航天领域和数字生命领域对未来生产力的丰富畅想，为人们继续实现跨越式生产力发展提供蓝图，并证明了中国发展新质生产力的无穷潜力和宏伟前景。

Second, new quality productive forces manifest as the high-quality development of natural forces. William Petty said: “Land is the mother of wealth, and labor is the father of wealth.” Although Petty confused the relationship between wealth and value, he already recognized the significant importance of nature for the creation of wealth. Marx correctly recognized the true value in the production process of natural objects such as land, wind, water, iron in ore veins, and trees in primeval forests—all means of production that exist naturally without human assistance serve as formative elements of use value. This is “the greater natural productivity of labour that is bound up with the utilisation of a natural force.” Under the premise of capitalist private ownership, “this natural force is a natural force that can be monopolised,” and the monopoly formed by the possession of this natural force becomes a condition for higher productivity. However, we must note that the surplus profit generated by utilizing a waterfall arises only from capital’s exploitation of a monopolized natural force, and this monopoly over natural forces is lawful and legitimate under conditions of private ownership. In this case, the surplus profit falls into the hands of the owner of the waterfall.

其二，新质生产力表现为自然力的高质量开发。威廉·配第（William Petty）说：“土地是财富之母，劳动是财富之父。”配第虽然混淆了财富和价值的关系，但已经认识到大自然对于财富创造的重要意义。马克思正确认识到土地、风、水、矿脉中的铁、原始森林中的树木等自然物在生产过程中的真正价值，一切未经人的协助就天然存在的生产资料充当使用价值的形成要素，这是“一种自然力的利用结合在一起的劳动的较大的自然生产力”。在资本主义私有制前提下，“这种自然力是一种可以垄断的自然力”，这种自然力占有所形成的垄断成为较高生产力的条件。但是，我们要注意，利用瀑布而产生的超额利润只是产生于资本对垄断的自然力的利用，而这种对自然力的垄断在私有制条件下是合法合规的，在这种情况下，超额利润也就落入瀑布的所有者手中。

In China, with its vast territory and abundant resources, there are countless mountains, rivers, and mineral deposits—all natural forces awaiting utilization. It is important to distinguish that, first, the natural forces generated by wind power and hydropower do not come entirely from nature; the core elements are wind power and hydropower technologies, along with the labor contributed by various mechanical equipment and maintenance workers in this process. However, once these infrastructure projects are completed, the wind driving the turbine blades and the pressure from the great drop in water flow are gifts from nature. Although labor’s development of nature is the source of value for this part of productive forces, natural conditions are the material basis for the generation of these productive forces and the formative elements of the use value of this electricity. Second, under China’s public ownership of the means of production, China’s Constitution clearly stipulates that mountains, seas, lakes, forests, and trees are state assets and cannot be privately owned, preventing private capital from unrestrained and unplanned development and utilization of natural forces for the purpose of unlimited pursuit of profit. On the one hand, China leverages its advantage of concentrating resources to accomplish major undertakings, mobilizing the entire nation to build large-scale infrastructure, thereby developing the productive forces of natural forces on a larger scale, more scientifically, more intensively, at the lowest cost, and in the largest batches. Taking China’s ongoing “East Data, West Computing” project as an example, data processing work needed in the eastern and southern regions is carried out in the western regions, enhancing the utilization efficiency of renewable energy in the western regions. On the other hand, the gifts of natural forces that would, under private ownership, fall into the pockets of individual capitalists are now, with a people-oriented attribute and in coordination with national resource needs, allocated uniformly under the state’s top-level design. This has enabled the completion of projects such as “West-to-East Electricity Transmission,” “West-to-East Gas Transmission,” “East Data, West Computing,” and “East Data, West Storage”—things that other countries simply cannot accomplish—truly harnessing the power of nature for the benefit of the country, the people, and the national economy and people’s livelihoods.

在地大物博的中国，自然中有不计其数的山川河流、矿藏脉络，它们都是有待使用的自然力。需要注意区分的是，首先，由风力发电、水力发电等所产生的自然力不完全来自大自然，其中最为核心的是风力发电和水力发电技术，以及在这个过程中各种机械设备和运维工人所付出的劳动。但是，一旦这些基础设施建设完成，大自然风力带动风车扇叶、水流巨大落差产生的压力都源于大自然的馈赠。虽然劳动对大自然的开发是这部分生产力的价值来源，但大自然条件是这部分生产力得以产生的物质基础和这些电力使用价值的形成要素。其次，在中国的生产资料公有制条件下，我国宪法明确规定，山海湖泊、森林树木都属于国有资产，不可私人占有，杜绝私人资本对自然力无节制、无规划，以无限度追求利润为目的进行开发和利用。一方面，中国以集中力量办大事的优势，集全国之力兴办大型基础设施，更大规模、更科学、更集约地以最低成本最大批量发挥自然力的生产力。以我国正在实施的“东数西算”工程为例，东部和南方所需要的数据处理工作放在西部地区进行，提升了西部地区可再生能源的利用效率。另一方面，这部分在私有制下落入个人资本家腰包的自然力馈赠，现在以人民属性配合全国资源需要，在国家顶层设计的统一调配下完成了“西电东送”“西气东输”以及“东数西算”“东数西存”等这些别的国家根本不可能完成的事情，真正做到了将大自然的力量为国为民计民生。

Third, new quality productive forces manifest as the innovative utilization of collective forces. In addition to natural forces from nature, Marx also mentioned a type of productive force in *Capital*—“the social natural force of labour,” which can also be called “collective force.” In large-scale industrial machine production, collective force manifests as the additional productive force generated by cooperation and division of labor. With the vigorous development of China’s digital economy, digital technology has not only brought about a revolution in productive forces such as new quality productive forces but has also achieved unprecedented innovation in society’s collective force.

其三，新质生产力表现为集体力的创新性利用。除了来自大自然的自然力，马克思在《资本论》当中还提到了一种生产力——“劳动的社会自然力”，也可称之为“集体力”。在大工业机器生产中，集体力表现为由协作和分工产生的额外的生产力。伴随中国数字经济的蓬勃发展，数字技术不仅带来了新质生产力这样的生产力革命，也实现了社会集体力前所未有的创新。

The development of China’s digital economy has achieved an innovative development of society’s collective force. Marx once used the example of 100 people harvesting hay to illustrate that the hay can be harvested before it rots “only as a result of the simultaneous labour of 100 people.” This is a cognition already contained in people’s production and life experience, and it can be extended analogously to the development of China’s digital economy, especially the development of the platform economy. Take ride-hailing platforms as an example. The platform can capture the behavioral characteristics of both ride-hailing drivers and ride-hailing users because, during peak traffic hours, the ride-hailing platform can adjust travel routes based on real-time traffic conditions, allocate the number of drivers, and even set differentiated prices for different users. This means a considerable number of platform users are using the same platform to request rides at the same time, and these collaborative behaviors are transmitted to the platform in the form of data, completing a series of allocation activities under the algorithmic framework. “The force that is here generated is not that of the isolated individual, but can only arise when he acts simultaneously with others.” The data produced by a large number of digital users through collaboration over a 24-hour cycle cannot be completed by a single digital user working alone for 100 days, nor can it be completed by 100 digital users working separately for 100 days without data aggregation. This part of the productive force originates from the social natural force generated by the collaborative activities of a large number of digital users.

中国数字经济发展实现了对社会集体力的创新式开发。马克思曾以100个人收割干草来举例，干草之所以能在未腐烂以前被收割掉，“只是由于100个人同时进行同一劳动的结果”。这是已经包含在人们生产生活经验中的认知，同理可扩展至中国数字经济发展特别是平台经济发展中。以网约车平台为例，平台之所以能捕获网约车司机、打车用户这两大群体的行为特征，因为在交通高峰时期，网约车平台能根据交通实时路况调整出行路线、分配司机数量，甚至对不同用户进行差异定价，这就有相当数量的平台用户在同一时间，使用同一平台，进行叫车活动，而这些协作行为都以数据的形式传输到平台，在算法构架下完成一系列的调配活动。“这里产生的力量，不是单个人孤立地所具有的，而是只有在他和其他人同时协同动作时才能产生。”大量数字用户通过协作在24小时周期中所生产的数据，不仅一个数字用户生产100天完成不了，而且100个数字用户单独生产100天而不进行数据叠加也完成不了，这部分生产力就来源于大量数字用户的协同活动所产生的社会自然力。

Fourth, new quality productive forces manifest as the universal empowerment of “general intellect.” Marx put forward the concept of “general intellect” in the *Grundrisse* (1857–1858). To understand this concept, it is necessary to adopt the method of historical materialism and view the whole of social production organically. Human history arises from people’s actual production and life; once it arises, it is a unity of production and life, matter and consciousness, economic base and superstructure. There is no such thing as first producing productive forces, then relations of production, then generating a mode of production on the basis of productive forces and relations of production, and finally artificially constructing a superstructure on top of the economic base. We must scientifically understand human society through the logical relations among these categories, rather than assuming that human society is mechanically generated and completed in this categorical order. In their actual production and life, people produce production and life itself; therefore, while producing productive forces, they also have the existing level of productive forces and continue to live. The determining role of the economic base is manifested in the fact that it determines every aspect of production and life. “General intellect” is understood in this sense: “to what degree general social knowledge has become a direct force of production, and hence to what degree the conditions of the process of social life itself have come under the control of the general intellect and been transformed in accordance with it.” [35]35 Karl Marx, *Grundrisse der Kritik der politischen Ökonomie* (1857–1858), in *Marx-Engels-Werke*, vol. 42, p. 601. The translation follows the standard English edition: *Grundrisse: Foundations of the Critique of Political Economy*, trans. Martin Nicolaus (London: Penguin, 1973), p. 706.

其四，新质生产力表现为“一般智力”的普惠发力。马克思在《1857—1858年经济学手稿》中提出了“一般智力”的概念，理解这个概念需以唯物史观的方法，有机地看待整个社会生产。人类历史是人们在现实的生产生活中产生的，一经产生就是生产与生活、物质与意识、经济基础和上层建筑的统一体，不存在先生产、再生产关系，又在生产力和生产关系的基础上产生生产方式，最后在经济基础之上人为建构上层建筑，我们必须是在这些范畴之间的逻辑关系下科学地理解人类社会，而不是说人类社会就是按着这样的范畴顺序机械地产生和完成。人们在现实生产生活中生产着生产生活本身，因此，也在生产生产力的同时，有了现有的生产力水平并持续生活。经济基础的决定作用就体现了它决定着生产生活的方方面面，“一般智力”就是在这个意义上而言，“一般社会知识，已经在多么大的程度上变成了直接的生产力，从而社会生活过程的条件本身在多么大的程度上受到一般智力的控制并按照这种智力得到改造”。

New quality productive forces realize the universal empowerment of “general intellect” throughout society. We do not live under a specific level of science and technology, nor under the level of science and technology in a single field; rather, we live under the general level of social productive forces. This existing level of productive forces determines the basic level of our clothing, food, housing, and transportation. New quality productive forces are not only embodied in the above-mentioned levels of workers’ ability and literacy, means of production, utilization of natural forces, and development of social collective forces; they are even more embodied in the impact of new quality productive forces on the overall living standards of society as a whole, permeating every aspect of people’s production and life. For example: the popularization of mobile payments such as WeChat Pay and Alipay; the convenience of life brought by shared bicycles and ride-hailing services; the extension of people’s lifespans under generally improved medical and health care; and the intelligence of life brought by smart home appliances such as sweeping robots and dishwashers. These are all new quality productive forces that people can perceive and experience in daily life. New quality productive forces exist not only in high-precision scientific laboratories but also in people’s daily lives. This is the best manifestation of new quality productive forces being “development relying on the people and development for the people.”

新质生产力实现了“一般智力”在整个社会的普惠发力。我们不是在一个具体的科学技术水平下生活，也不是在一个领域的科学技术水平下生活，而是在社会生产力的一般水平下生活，这个既有的生产力水平决定了我们衣食住行的基本水平。新质生产力不仅体现为以上所说的劳动者能力素养、生产资料水平、自然力利用水平、社会集体力发展水平，更体现为新质生产力对整个社会整体生活水平的影响，它渗透于人们生产生活的方方面面。例如：微信、支付宝等移动支付的普及，共享单车、网约车等的生活便利化，普遍提升的医疗保健水平下人们寿命的延长，扫地机器人、洗碗机等智能家居带来的生活智能化等。这些都是人们在日常生活中可感可知的新质生产力，新质生产力不是只存在于高精尖的科学实验室中，也存在于人们的日常生活中，这是新质生产力“发展依靠人民、发展为了人民”的最好体现。

IV. Conclusion

四、结论

Before Marx began his study of political economy, classical political economy had already put forward numerous theories of productive forces, but it was not until Marx’s *Capital* was published that a scientific theory of productive forces was born. The process of a theory’s birth is often arduous. Large-scale machine industry was a new thing that had never appeared in history for Marx at that time. Facing the phenomenon of “machines devouring people” under the layers of capital’s obscuration and the impassioned defenses of vulgar bourgeois economists, Marx and Engels not only put forward the scientific concept of productive forces but also left behind the key to unlocking the secrets of social history—historical materialism. Entering the 21st century, the technological revolution has forcefully swept people into an era of digital existence. People’s production and life have undergone earth-shaking changes under the powerful impact of technologies such as the internet, artificial intelligence, data models, and algorithms. 24-hour unmanned automated factories, platform gig economies that break through traditional employment relations, and various large-scale AI robots are all things that did not exist in Marx’s era. There is no doubt that these new industries and future industries create far more material wealth than the era of traditional large-scale machine production. So, have these productive forces surpassed the productive forces Marx spoke of? How should we understand and develop the current productive forces? The answer still lies in Marx’s theory of productive forces.

在马克思开始研究政治经济学以前，古典政治经济学已经提出了众多生产力理论，但直到马克思的《资本论》问世，科学的生产力理论才得以诞生。理论的诞生过程往往是艰难的，大机器工业生产对于当时的马克思来说是历史上不曾出现的新事物，面对资本层层遮蔽下的“机器吃人”现象和庸俗资产阶级经济学家的激情辩护，马克思和恩格斯不仅提出了科学的生产力概念，还留下了打开社会历史秘密的钥匙——唯物史观。进入21世纪后，科技革命强势裹挟人们进入数字化生存时代，人们的生产生活在互联网、人工智能、数据模型、算法等科技的强势冲击下发生天翻地覆的变化。24小时无人自动工厂、突破传统雇佣关系的平台零工经济、各类大型AI机器人等无一不是马克思所处的时代所没有的。毫无疑问，这些新型产业和未来产业创造了比传统大机器生产时代更多的物质财富，那么这些生产力超越了马克思所说的生产力了吗？我们该如何认识和发展当下的生产力呢？答案还在于马克思的生产力理论。

Marx’s theory of productive forces is not a rigid dogma but a living methodology. Facing the historical confluence of the vigorous rise of a new round of technological revolution, the volatile and unstable world situation, and China’s comprehensive construction of a great modern socialist country, General Secretary Xi Jinping creatively proposed the development of new quality productive forces. This is an inevitable requirement for China to achieve high-quality development and comprehensively build a great modern socialist country. The scientific connotation of new quality productive forces must be understood through Marx’s concept of productive forces and the theoretical path of its development. First, Marx’s concept of productive forces is the theoretical foundation of new quality productive forces. Only by adhering to the Marxist theory of productive forces can we grasp labor productivity as the fundamental force amid complex and diverse economic phenomena, and uphold the people-centered nature of socialism with Chinese characteristics, which differs from capitalism. Second, Marx’s historical materialism is the methodology guiding the development of China’s new quality productive forces. We cannot expect Marx to have presupposed all the development issues of the 21st century in his works, but Marx left behind the scientific laws of social and historical development. Adhering to the guiding position of Marx’s theory of productive forces means fully emphasizing the important power of science and technology as productive forces. “New quality” refers to the high-quality, high-efficiency, high-potential connotative growth force brought by technological development. Finally, new quality productive forces are the result of productive forces achieved by China only after the New Democratic Revolution, the socialist revolution and construction, reform and opening up and socialist modernization, and the construction of socialism with Chinese characteristics in the New Era. “New quality” is not an isolated quality, but the characteristic of modern technology amplifying the productive forces of traditional industries, emerging industries, and future industries through a unique multiplier effect. Balancing tradition and the future, and paying attention to multiple influencing factors of new quality productive forces such as labor, means of production, natural forces, collective forces, and “general intellect,” are inevitable requirements for developing new quality productive forces at present.

马克思的生产力理论不是僵死的教条，而是活的方法论。面对新一轮科技革命强势兴起、世界局势变动不安和中国全面建成社会主义现代化强国所形成的历史交汇点，习近平总书记创造性地提出发展新质生产力，这是中国实现高质量发展和全面建成社会主义现代化强国的必然要求，新质生产力的科学内涵要在马克思的生产力概念及其发展的理论路径上得以理解。首先，马克思的生产力概念是新质生产力的理论根基。只有坚持马克思主义理论的生产力理论，才能在纷繁复杂的经济现象中抓住劳动生产力这一根本力量，坚守中国特色社会主义不同于资本主义的人民属性。其次，马克思的唯物史观是指导中国新质生产力发展的方法论。我们不能奢求马克思在著作中将21世纪的发展问题全部预设，但马克思留下了社会历史发展的科学规律，坚持马克思生产力理论的指导地位意味着要充分重视科学技术生产力的重要力量，“新质”即科技发展带来的高质量、高效能、高潜力的内涵式增长力量。最后，新质生产力是中国历经新民主主义革命、社会主义革命和建设、改革开放和社会主义现代化建设以及在新时代中国特色社会主义建设中才取得的生产力结果，“新质”非孤立之质，而是现代科技以独特的乘数效应放大传统产业、新兴产业、未来产业生产力的特质，兼顾传统与未来，重视劳动力、生产资料、自然力、集体力和“一般智力”等多种新质生产力影响因素是当下发展新质生产力的必然要求。

(Author’s bio: Zhang Xiaojing, Assistant Researcher at the China University of Mining and Technology Base of the Jiangsu Provincial Research Center for Xi Jinping Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era)

（作者简介：张晓晶，江苏省习近平新时代中国特色社会主义思想研究中心中国矿业大学基地助理研究员）

Online editor: Tongxin

网络编辑：同心