Chinese-Path Modernization: The Effective Integration of Socialism and Modernization

The successful advancement and expansion of Chinese-path modernization has not only fundamentally transformed the destiny of the Chinese nation but also achieved an innovative breakthrough in the theory and practice of socialist modernization, representing a major innovation in global modernization theory and practice. Chinese-path modernization is in essence socialist modernization, and its theoretical significance lies in constructing a theoretical system of non-capitalist modernization, namely, a theory of socialist modernization. This article aims to elucidate the relationship between “socialism” and “modernization,” revealing that Chinese-path modernization is a new type of modernization characterized by the effective integration and mutual construction of socialism and modernization.

中国式现代化的成功推进和拓展，不仅彻底改变了中华民族的命运，还实现了社会主义现代化理论和实践的创新突破，是对世界现代化理论和实践的重大创新。中国式现代化本质上是社会主义现代化，其理论意义在于构建起一种非资本主义现代化的理论体系即社会主义现代化理论。本文旨在通过阐释“社会主义”与“现代化”的关系，揭示出中国式现代化是一种社会主义与现代化有效结合、双向建构的现代化新类型。

I. The Integration of Socialism and Modernization in Economically and Culturally Backward Countries

一、经济文化落后国家社会主义与现代化的结合

“Socialist modernization” is a familiar concept that seems to require no clarification, but in reality, “socialism” and “modernization” underwent a process of continuous integration before forming “socialist modernization.” Marx and Engels, in their time, confronted capitalist modernization. In the *Communist Manifesto*, they both highly praised the productive forces created by capitalist modernization and fiercely criticized its nature, contradictions, and drawbacks. Of course, capitalist modernization is merely one type of modernization; modernization is not equivalent to capitalization, nor is it equivalent to Westernization. However, we must also point out, in a spirit of seeking truth from facts, that Marx and Engels never encountered socialist modernization at the practical level, nor did they systematically elaborate on it theoretically. Their presentation of predictive and principled ideas about socialist modernization emerged in the process of critically reflecting on capitalist modernization. The epochal question of how socialism could be organically integrated with modernization to form a socialist modernization distinct from capitalist modernization required Marxists to engage in continuous exploration in practice.

“社会主义现代化”是一个耳熟能详、似乎无须澄明的概念，但实际上，“社会主义”与“现代化”有一个不断结合、进而形成“社会主义现代化”的过程。马克思、恩格斯当年面对的是资本主义现代化。在《共产党宣言》中，他们既对资本主义现代化所创造的生产力给予了极高的评价，又对其性质、矛盾、弊端进行了激烈的批判。当然，资本主义现代化只是现代化的一种类型，现代化不等于资本主义化，也不等于西方化。但是，我们也要实事求是地指出，马克思、恩格斯并没有遇到实践层面的社会主义现代化，在理论上也并没有对其进行过系统阐述，他们是在对资本主义现代化进行批判性反思的过程中，呈现了关于社会主义现代化的预测性、原则性设想。社会主义如何才能与现代化有机结合起来，形成不同于资本主义现代化的社会主义现代化这一时代课题，需要马克思主义者在实践中进行接续探索。

The victory of the October Revolution in Russia turned socialist modernization from a theoretical conception into practical exploration, and socialism and modernization began to converge in the specific space of economically and culturally backward Eastern countries. For Marx and Engels, socialism was a post-capitalist social formation, and socialist revolution could only first occur in advanced capitalist countries. The success of the Russian socialist revolution broke through Marx and Engels’ original conception. More importantly, it fundamentally transformed the function of actually existing socialism: from building socialism on the basis of a capitalism that had already completed industrialization and modernization, to achieving industrialization and modernization through socialist means. The fundamental problem or historical theme facing actually existing socialist countries (economically and culturally backward Russia and China alike) was not, as in Western developed countries, to critique and transcend capitalism and transition to a future ideal society, but rather how to achieve industrialization and modernization through the socialist system, thereby consolidating and developing socialism. The epochal question of how economically and culturally backward countries could achieve socialist modernization was also a difficult problem for the world socialist movement. It required them to effectively integrate, at the practical level, socialist construction guided by the principles of scientific socialism with the construction of a modern state centered on industrialization.

俄国十月革命的胜利，使得社会主义现代化由理论设想走向实践探索，社会主义与现代化在经济文化落后的东方国家这一特殊空间开始走向结合。在马克思、恩格斯那里，社会主义是后资本主义的社会形态，社会主义革命只能首先发生在发达资本主义国家。俄国社会主义革命的成功突破了马克思、恩格斯的原初设想，更为重要的是，它使得现实社会主义的功能发生了根本性转换：从在完成工业化和现代化的资本主义基础上建设社会主义，转换到通过社会主义方式实现工业化和现代化。现实社会主义国家（经济文化落后的俄国、中国都是如此）面临的根本问题或历史主题不是像西方发达国家那样批判和超越资本主义、向未来理想社会过渡，而是如何通过社会主义制度实现工业化和现代化，进而巩固和发展社会主义。经济文化落后国家如何实现社会主义现代化这一时代课题，也是世界社会主义运动的难题。需要它们在实践层面上将以科学社会主义原则为导向的社会主义建设和以工业化为核心的现代国家建设有效结合起来。

That economically and culturally backward countries achieved victory in socialist revolution and faced the historical theme of realizing socialist modernization only demonstrates the necessity of integrating socialism and modernization; the crux of the issue lies in whether such integration is theoretically possible. The prerequisite for answering this question is to understand what the integration of socialism and modernization means. Their integration implies that a non-capitalist path to modernization is possible. Before the 1870s, Marx believed that all nation-states had to undergo the historical process of capitalist modernization: “The bourgeoisie… draws all, even the most barbarian, nations into civilization… It compels all nations, on pain of extinction, to adopt the bourgeois mode of production; it compels them to introduce what it calls civilization into their midst, i.e., to become bourgeois themselves. In one word, it creates a world after its own image.” After the mid-1870s, through his study of Eastern societies, Marx reflected on his previous theories. In 1877, in a letter to the editor of *Otechestvennye Zapiski*, he explicitly limited the historical process of capitalist modernization to Western European countries, stating that his “historical sketch of the genesis of capitalism in Western Europe” was not “a historico-philosophic theory of general development.” In 1881, in the first draft of his reply to Vera Zasulich, Marx pointed out that because the Russian rural commune coexisted with capitalist production, it “might… not undergo the shocks of the capitalist regime… while appropriating all its positive achievements.” [1]1 This refers to Marx’s concept of bypassing the “Caudine Forks” of capitalism, an allusion to a humiliating defeat of the Roman army in 321 BCE, used here to mean avoiding the painful stage of capitalist development. In 1882, in the preface to the Russian edition of the *Communist Manifesto*, Marx and Engels stated: “If the Russian Revolution becomes the signal for a proletarian revolution in the West, so that the two complement each other, then the present Russian common ownership of land may serve as the starting point for a communist development.” In short, in his later years, Marx believed that economically and culturally backward Eastern countries could potentially avoid “all the disastrous upheavals of the capitalist regime,” [2]2 This phrase is from Marx’s drafts of the letter to Vera Zasulich, referring to the possibility of Russia avoiding the destructive consequences of capitalism. leap over the “Caudine Forks,” [3]3 The “Caudine Forks” (Latin: Furculae Caudinae) were a narrow mountain pass in ancient Samnium (southern Italy) where the Romans suffered a major defeat in 321 BCE, forced to surrender and pass under the yoke. Marx used this metaphor to signify the painful and humiliating experience of capitalist development. and directly transition to a socialist society.

经济文化落后国家取得社会主义革命胜利、面临实现社会主义现代化这一历史主题，只是说明社会主义与现代化有了结合的必要性，问题的关键在于二者的结合是否具有理论上的可能性。解答这一问题的前提是弄明白社会主义与现代化的结合意味着什么。二者的结合意味着一种非资本主义的现代化道路是可能的。19世纪70年代之前，马克思认为所有民族国家都要经历资本主义现代化历史进程：“资产阶级……把一切民族甚至最野蛮的民族都卷到文明中来了……它迫使一切民族——如果它们不想灭亡的话——采用资产阶级的生产方式；它迫使它们在自己那里推行所谓的文明，即变成资产者。一句话，它按照自己的面貌为自己创造出一个世界。”70年代中期之后，通过对东方社会的研究，马克思反思了以往的理论，1877年，在给《祖国纪事》杂志编辑部的信里，他明确将资本主义现代化历史进程限制在西欧国家，指出他“关于西欧资本主义起源的历史概述”不是“一般发展道路的历史哲学理论”。1881年，在给维·伊·查苏利奇的复信初稿中，马克思指出，俄国的农村公社由于是和资本主义生产同时存在的事物，那么它就“有可能不通过资本主义制度的卡夫丁峡谷，而占有资本主义制度所创造的一切积极的成果”。1882年，马克思、恩格斯在《共产党宣言》俄文版序言中指出：“假如俄国革命将成为西方无产阶级革命的信号而双方互相补充的话，那么现今的俄国土地公有制便能成为共产主义发展的起点。”总之，马克思晚年认为，经济文化落后的东方国家有可能不经受“资本主义制度所带来的一切灾难性的波折”，跨越“卡夫丁峡谷”，直接过渡到社会主义社会。

Marx’s prophecy theoretically revealed the historical possibility of Eastern countries taking the socialist modernization path. If Marx primarily revealed the theoretical possibility of integrating socialism with modernization, then Lenin’s contribution lay in transforming this integration from theoretical possibility into practical reality, and thereby articulating, at a more concrete level, the theoretical legitimacy on which that practical reality rested. Lenin achieved this goal mainly by breaking through the theory of the conditions for socialist revolution. In his *Letter to the Workers’ Parliament*, Marx expounded the theory of the conditions for socialist revolution: “The English working class, having created the boundless productive forces of modern industry, has thereby fulfilled the first condition for the emancipation of labour. It must now fulfil the other condition for that emancipation. It must free these forces of wealth production from the shameful fetters of monopoly and place them under the common control of the producers…” The first condition is the economic precondition, the condition for achieving modernization — capitalist industrialization and modernization (especially the developed productive forces they create) constitute the economic foundation for achieving socialism; the second condition, the political precondition, is the condition for achieving socialism — the proletariat seizing state power and exercising the dictatorship of the proletariat constitutes the political foundation for achieving socialism. That is to say, carrying out a revolution in the superstructure and transforming the socialist system is the second condition for building socialism. Lenin broke through the theory of the conditions for socialist revolution as conceived by Marx; the transformative element lay not in the conditions themselves, but in changing their order. Marx followed a “first economy, then politics” theory of conditions, that is, a developmental logic in which (capitalist) modernization comes first and socialism (socialist revolution, construction) comes later. On the question of socialist modernization, Lenin reconstructed the historical order of the theory of the conditions for socialist revolution: at the time, some people followed the logic of “first economy, then politics,” arguing that “Russia’s productive forces have not yet developed to a level that can sustain socialism,” while Lenin advocated “first politics, then economy,” that is, a historical order in which the socialist revolution is carried out first and modernization is undertaken later. He said: “We are able to use methods different from all other Western European countries to create the fundamental preconditions for developing civilization,” and “Since the establishment of socialism requires a certain level of culture (although no one can say exactly what this certain ‘level of culture’ is, because it differs in each Western European country), why can we not first use revolutionary means to obtain the preconditions for reaching this certain level, and then, on the basis of the workers’ and peasants’ government and the Soviet system, catch up with other countries?” The “level of culture” here is used in a broad sense, referring to the level of material culture based on modern industry. By reconstructing the order of the conditions for socialist revolution, Lenin placed socialism on a completely different practical foundation or historical space — Eastern countries that had not completed the tasks of industrialization and modernization and whose economic and cultural levels were far below those of capitalist countries. The primary task facing the integration of socialism with modernization in economically and culturally backward countries was to use socialist forces to complete as quickly as possible the tasks of industrialization, modernization, etc., that other countries had accomplished under capitalist conditions, thereby laying the foundation for consolidating and developing the socialist system. As Lenin pointed out: “Soviet power + Prussian railway order + American technology and trust organizations + American national education, etc., etc. ++ = sum = socialism,” and “Communism is Soviet power plus the electrification of the whole country,” and so on.

马克思的这一预言从理论上揭示了东方国家走社会主义现代化道路的历史可能性。如果说马克思主要揭示了社会主义与现代化结合的理论上的可能性，那么，列宁的贡献在于将二者的结合由理论上的可能性转化为实践上的现实性，并也就从更为具体的层面言说了实践上的现实性所依托的理论合法性。列宁主要是通过对社会主义革命条件论的突破来达成这一目标的。在《给工人议会的信》中，马克思阐释了社会主义革命条件论：“英国工人阶级既然创造了现代工业的无穷无尽的生产力，也就实现了劳动解放的第一个条件。现在它应当实现劳动解放的另一个条件。它应当把这些生产财富的力量从垄断组织的无耻的枷锁下解放出来，使它们受生产者共同监督……”第一个条件是经济前提，是实现现代化的条件——资本主义工业化和现代化（尤其是其创造的发达生产力）是实现社会主义的经济基础；第二个条件即政治前提，是实现社会主义的条件——无产阶级夺取政权，进行无产阶级专政是实现社会主义的政治基础。也就是说，进行上层建筑革命、社会主义制度变革是建设社会主义的第二个条件。列宁突破了马克思所设想的社会主义革命条件论，其变革性不在于条件本身，而在于改变了条件的顺序。马克思遵循的是“先经济后政治”的条件论，即（资本主义）现代化在前、社会主义（社会主义革命、建设）在后的发展逻辑。在社会主义现代化问题上，列宁重构了社会主义革命条件论的历史顺序：当时一些人遵循“先经济后政治”的逻辑，认为“俄国生产力还没有发展到可以实行社会主义的高度”，而列宁主张“先政治后经济”，即先进行社会主义革命后开展现代化建设的历史顺序。他说道：“我们能够用与西欧其他一切国家不同的方法来创造发展文明的根本前提”，“既然建立社会主义需要有一定的文化水平（虽然谁也说不出这个一定的‘文化水平’究竟是什么样的，因为这在各个西欧国家都是不同的），我们为什么不能首先用革命手段取得达到这个一定水平的前提，然后在工农政权和苏维埃制度的基础上赶上别国人民呢？”这里的“文化水平”是广义上的，是指以现代工业为基础的物质文化水平。列宁通过对社会主义革命条件的顺序重构，把社会主义置于完全不同的现实基础或历史空间——未完成工业化和现代化任务的、经济文化水平远远低于资本主义的东方国家。社会主义与现代化在经济文化落后国家结合所面临的首要任务就是，通过社会主义力量，尽快完成其他国家在资本主义条件下所完成的工业化、现代化等任务，为巩固和发展社会主义制度奠定基础。正如列宁指出的：“苏维埃政权+普鲁士的铁路秩序+美国的技术和托拉斯组织＋美国的国民教育等等等等++=总和=社会主义”，“共产主义就是苏维埃政权加全国电气化”，等等。

Through an examination of Marx’s theory of Eastern society and Lenin’s theory of the conditions for socialist revolution, we can grasp with relative clarity the positive outcome formed by the integration of socialism with modernization — socialist modernization. The basic logic of socialist modernization is as follows: First, in economically and culturally backward countries, the integration of socialism with modernization does not mean that actually existing socialism has completed the tasks of modernization and should immediately and rapidly transition to communism; on the contrary, it faces insurmountable historical tasks. Under the socialist system, realizing the tasks of industrialization and modernization manifests as the active appropriation of all the fruits of capitalist civilization, constituting the primary historical task of socialist countries. Second, the socialism on which socialist modernization is based is not a post-capitalist socialist society — a developed socialism that has completed the tasks of modernization and whose productive forces are higher than those of capitalism — but rather an underdeveloped socialism whose productive forces are lower than those of capitalism. Actually existing socialist modernization is established on the integration of underdeveloped socialism with modernization. Socialist countries must base themselves on reality and build a socialism oriented toward modernization, rather than building socialism on the basis of the basic characteristics and ideal principles of developed socialism.

通过对马克思东方社会理论、列宁社会主义革命条件论的探讨，我们可以较为清晰地把握社会主义与现代化相结合所形成的积极成果——社会主义现代化。社会主义现代化的基本逻辑是：其一，在经济文化落后国家，社会主义与现代化的结合，并不意味着现实社会主义完成了现代化任务，要立刻快速向共产主义过渡，恰恰相反，它面临着不可逾越的历史任务。在社会主义制度下，实现工业化、现代化任务，表现为对资本主义一切文明成果的积极占有，构成了社会主义国家首要的历史课题。其二，社会主义现代化所立足的社会主义不是后资本主义的社会主义社会——完成现代化任务、生产力水平高于资本主义的发达社会主义，而是生产力水平低于资本主义的不发达社会主义。现实的社会主义现代化是建立在不发达社会主义与现代化的结合上的。社会主义国家要立足于现实，建设以现代化为基本趋向的社会主义，而不是基于发达社会主义的基本特征、理想原则建设社会主义。

II. Socialism Must Be Integrated with Modernization

二、社会主义要与现代化相结合

The successive victories of the October Revolution in Russia and the Chinese Revolution brought socialism and modernization toward integration at the practical level, and Russia and China each began to explore the path of socialist modernization. There is a significant difference between “integration” and “effective integration” or “successful integration.” Chinese-path modernization, as the product of the effective integration of socialism with modernization, involves a two-way integration and two-way construction: on the one hand, socialism must be integrated with modernization, embodying the connotations and requirements of modernization; on the other hand, modernization must be integrated with socialism, adhering to the principles and direction of socialism.

俄国十月革命和中国革命的先后胜利，使得社会主义与现代化走向现实层面的结合，俄国和中国各自开始探索社会主义现代化道路。“结合”与“有效结合”或“成功结合”是有着重大差别的。中国式现代化作为社会主义与现代化有效结合的产物，涉及双向结合、双向建构的问题：一方面，社会主义要与现代化相结合，体现现代化内涵和要求；另一方面，现代化要与社会主义相结合，坚持社会主义的原则和方向。

(I) The Traditional Socialist Model That Diluted the Connotations of Modernization

（一）弱化现代化内涵的传统社会主义模式

After Lenin’s death, the Soviet model of socialist construction gradually ossified. Socialism and modernization were not effectively integrated, and the Soviet Union failed to open up a path of socialist modernization. From 1953 onward, China began its transition to socialism. The Chinese Communists held that China’s advance toward socialism must pass through a transitional period. “Once the political conditions of New Democracy are secured, the Chinese people and their government must take concrete steps to gradually establish heavy and light industry over a number of years, transforming China from an agricultural into an industrial country.” In subsequent practice, the transitional period in the sense of modernization merged with the period of transition to socialism, achieving the simultaneous pursuit of industrialization and socialization. “From the founding of the People’s Republic of China to the basic completion of the socialist transformation, this is a transitional period. The Party’s general line and general task in this transitional period is, over a fairly long period, gradually to realize the country’s socialist industrialization and gradually to realize the socialist transformation of agriculture, handicrafts, and capitalist industry and commerce.” Socialist industrialization constituted the embryonic form of China’s socialist modernization. After the completion of the socialist transformation, from 1956 onward, China embarked on the historical process of socialist modernization. Socialism and modernization began to integrate in a China that was economically and culturally backward, generating a profound “chemical reaction” and opening up a new path of modernization. Due to various complex factors, during the period of socialist revolution and construction China did not achieve a truly effective integration of socialism and modernization, nor did it succeed in forging a successful path of modernization. The errors and lessons were manifold. From a theoretical perspective, the root cause lay in being confined by traditional socialist concepts and institutions, and failing to correctly grasp the relationship between socialism and modernization. Traditional socialist concepts and institutions did not truly hit upon the basic logic of building socialist modernization in economically and culturally backward countries. Their fundamental error was this: in the practice of socialist construction, they weakened the connotations and requirements of modernization, merely appending modernization to socialism in a simplistic way, without effectively integrating socialism with modernization. The consequences were evident. On the one hand, in the process of socialist construction, many elements or features of modernization—such as marketization, urbanization, social differentiation, secularization, and instrumental rationality—were regarded as uniquely capitalist and therefore rejected, leading to an opposition between socialism and modernization. On the other hand, rather than proceeding from the principle of promoting the effective development of modernization, practice was regulated by the basic features or abstract principles of an ideal socialist society, steering it toward utopianism. Traditional socialist concepts and institutions misunderstood both socialism and modernization. “Many things that fetter the development of the productive forces and do not possess the essential attributes of socialism, or that are only suited to particular historical conditions, were stubbornly upheld as ‘socialist principles.’ Many things that, under socialist conditions, are conducive to the development of the productive forces and to the commodification, socialization, and modernization of production were opposed as ‘capitalist restoration.’”

列宁去世后，苏联的社会主义建设（苏联模式）逐渐僵化，社会主义与现代化没能有效结合，苏联并未成功开辟一条社会主义现代化道路。从1953年起，中国开始向社会主义过渡。中国共产党人认为，中国迈向社会主义必须有一个过渡时期。“在新民主主义的政治条件获得之后，中国人民及其政府必须采取切实的步骤，在若干年内逐步地建立重工业和轻工业，使中国由农业国变为工业国。”在后来的实践中，现代化意义上的过渡时期与向社会主义转化的时期合二为一了，实现了工业化与社会主义化并举。“从中华人民共和国成立，到社会主义改造基本完成，这是一个过渡时期。党在这个过渡时期的总路线和总任务，是要在一个相当长的时期内，逐步实现国家的社会主义工业化，并逐步实现国家对农业、对手工业和对资本主义工商业的社会主义改造。”社会主义工业化构成了中国社会主义现代化的雏形。社会主义改造完成后，从1956年起，中国开启了社会主义现代化历史进程，社会主义与现代化在经济文化落后的中国开始结合，开始发生深刻的“化学反应”、开辟新的现代化道路。由于各种复杂因素，中国在社会主义革命和建设时期并没有实现社会主义与现代化的真正有效结合，没能走出一条成功的现代化道路。其中的失误、教训是多方面的，从理论角度看，囿于传统社会主义观念和体制的束缚，没能正确把握社会主义与现代化的关系是根源。传统社会主义观念和体制并没有真正切中经济文化落后国家搞社会主义现代化的基本逻辑，其根本失误在于：在社会主义建设实践中，弱化了现代化的内涵和要求，只是把现代化简单附加于社会主义之后，社会主义没有与现代化有效结合起来。它带来的后果是明显的：一方面，在社会主义建设过程中，把现代化诸多要素或特征（如市场化、城市化、社会分化、世俗化、工具理性等）看成资本主义独有的东西而加以排斥，从而导致了社会主义与现代化的对立；另一方面，从理想社会主义社会的基本特征或抽象原则而不是促进现代化有效发展的原则出发，规制现实社会主义现代化实践，使其走向了空想。传统社会主义观念和体制既误解了社会主义，又误解了现代化。“许多束缚生产力发展的、并不具有社会主义本质属性的东西，或者只适合于某种特殊历史条件的东西，被当做‘社会主义原则’加以固守；许多在社会主义条件下有利于生产力发展和生产商品化、社会化、现代化的东西，被当做‘资本主义复辟’加以反对。”

(II) The Theoretical Link in the Effective Integration of Socialism and Modernization

（二）社会主义与现代化有效结合的理论环节

Since reform and opening up, on the basis of prolonged exploration and practice, the Communist Party of China has continuously achieved theoretical and practical innovations and breakthroughs, successfully advancing and expanding Chinese-path modernization. A core reason for this is that Chinese-path modernization has broken free from the constraints of traditional socialist concepts and institutions. Focusing on the logic of effective modernization, it has bridged the vast gap between the ideal pursuit of socialism and the actual national conditions of economic and cultural backwardness, achieving an effective integration of socialism and modernization. Why has Chinese-path modernization been able to promote the effective integration of socialism and modernization? In summary, it has done so primarily by resolving three key theoretical problems.

改革开放以来，在长期探索和实践的基础上，中国共产党不断实现理论和实践上的创新突破，成功推进和拓展了中国式现代化。之所以能够如此，一个核心原因在于，中国式现代化跳出了传统社会主义观念和体制的束缚，着眼于现代化有效发展逻辑，逾越了社会主义理想追求与经济文化落后的现实国情之间的巨大鸿沟，实现了社会主义与现代化的有效结合。〖JP+1〗中国式现代化为何能够推动社会主义与现代化的有效结合？概而言之，主要是因为它解决了三个关键性的理论难题。

First, it resolved the question of the foothold for the integration of socialism and modernization. The Communist Party of China put forward the theory of the primary stage of socialism, solving the problem of what social and historical conditions or stage of development the integration of socialism and modernization should be based on. This constitutes the theoretical foundation of Chinese-path modernization. The primary stage of socialism refers specifically to the particular stage that China must inevitably pass through when building socialism under conditions of backward productive forces and an underdeveloped commodity economy. “In the primary stage of socialism, the historical task to be accomplished in developing the social productive forces is to realize industrialization and the commodification, socialization, and modernization of production.” The historical theme of the primary stage of socialism is the realization of modernization, and its core task is the transformation from a traditional agricultural country to a modern industrial one. The primary stage of socialism and socialist modernization are a synchronous historical process. In this stage, the primary principle for establishing new relations of production is the principle of modernization development oriented toward socialism. In short, socialism and modernization are concretely integrated under conditions of underdeveloped socialism, the basic national conditions of economic and cultural backwardness (and the principal contradiction), and so forth. Building socialism on the basis of the basic national conditions constitutes the fundamental stance of socialist modernization, eliminating the utopianism of promoting development in an economically and culturally backward China from the standpoint of an ideal socialism.

第一，解决了社会主义与现代化结合的立足点问题。中国共产党提出了社会主义初级阶段理论，解决了社会主义与现代化是立足于什么样的社会历史条件或发展阶段进行有效结合的问题，这构成了中国式现代化的立论基础。社会主义初级阶段特指中国在生产力落后、商品经济不发达条件下建设社会主义必然要经历的特定阶段。“在社会主义初级阶段，发展社会生产力所要解决的历史课题，是实现工业化和生产的商品化、社会化、现代化。”社会主义初级阶段的历史主题是实现现代化，核心任务是实现从传统农业国到现代工业国的转型。社会主义初级阶段与社会主义现代化是一个同频共振的历史进程，在此阶段，建立新的生产关系依据的首要原则是以社会主义为基本趋向的现代化发展原则。概言之，社会主义与现代化是在不发达社会主义、经济文化落后的基本国情（以及主要矛盾）等条件下，进行的具体结合。从基本国情出发建设社会主义，构成了社会主义现代化的基本立场，破除了从理想社会主义出发推动经济文化落后的中国发展的空想论。

Second, it clarified the fundamental criterion for the integration of socialism and modernization. The productive forces are the fundamental driving force of human social development and progress, and the key to achieving the effective integration of socialism and modernization. The essence of socialism is to liberate and develop the productive forces. Modernization is the historical process of major transformations and great developments in the productive forces driven by successive industrial revolutions, scientific and technological revolutions, and industrial revolutions since modern times. The criterion of the productive forces constitutes the core content of the theory of socialist modernization. Establishing this criterion eliminated theoretical confusion or misunderstanding about the integration of socialism and modernization. First, it clarified the fundamental task. The fundamental task of socialist modernization is to liberate and develop the productive forces. The productive forces are the point of integration between socialism and modernization. Being conducive to liberating and developing the productive forces is the fundamental direction guiding their integration. “We must eliminate the idealist conception of history that abstractly discusses socialism in isolation from the productive forces.” Second, it clarified the evaluation standard. The highest evaluation standard for the effectiveness of socialist modernization and the effectiveness of the integration of socialism and modernization can only be the criterion of the productive forces. “If we depart from the criterion of the productive forces and judge life by abstract principles and utopian models, we can only discredit Marxism.” When the practice of modernization comes into conflict with the ideal goals of socialism, concepts and institutions should be adjusted in accordance with the general laws of the development of the productive forces and the laws of modernization, not the other way around. “Everything conducive to the development of the productive forces conforms to the fundamental interests of the people and is therefore required by socialism, or permitted by socialism. Everything not conducive to the development of the productive forces violates scientific socialism and is not permitted by socialism.” Third, it clarified the logic of reform. For socialism to be effectively integrated with modernization, institutional and systemic reform is inevitably involved. Clarifying the criterion of the productive forces also clarifies the fundamental logic for resolving the contradictions between the productive forces and the relations of production, and between the economic base and the superstructure: focusing on liberating and developing the social productive forces, and adjusting the relations of production and the superstructure in accordance with the achieved level of development of the productive forces, so that they meet the requirements of the further development of the productive forces. In sum, the criterion of the productive forces makes clear the dual demands of the integration of socialism and modernization: first, the objective requirement of realizing China’s modernization through liberating and developing the productive forces; second, the ideal goal of realizing socialism in China through liberating and developing the productive forces.

第二，明确了社会主义与现代化结合的根本标准。生产力是人类社会发展进步的根本动力，是实现社会主义与现代化有效结合的根本和关键。社会主义的本质是解放生产力、发展生产力，现代化是近代以来由历次工业革命、科技革命和产业革命推动的生产力大变革大发展的历史进程。生产力标准构成了社会主义现代化理论的核心内容，确立这一标准破除了社会主义与现代化结合的理论上的困惑或误解。一是明确了根本任务。社会主义现代化建设的根本任务是解放和发展生产力，生产力是社会主义与现代化的结合点，有利于解放和发展生产力是指引二者结合的根本方向，“必须破除离开生产力来抽象谈论社会主义的历史唯心主义观念”。二是明确了评价标准。社会主义现代化建设成效、社会主义与现代化结合成效的最高评价标准只能是生产力标准，“离开了生产力标准，用抽象原则和空想模式来裁判生活，只能败坏马克思主义的声誉”。当现代化实践与社会主义理想目标发生冲突的时候，应该按照生产力发展的一般规律和现代化的规律来调整观念和体制，而不是相反。“一切有利于生产力发展的东西，都是符合人民根本利益的，因而是社会主义所要求的，或者是社会主义所允许的。一切不利于生产力发展的东西，都是违反科学社会主义的，是社会主义所不允许的。”三是明确了改革逻辑。社会主义要与现代化有效结合，必然涉及体制机制改革。明确生产力标准，也就明确了解决生产力与生产关系、经济基础与上层建筑之间矛盾的根本逻辑：着眼于解放和发展社会生产力，依据已经获得的生产力发展水平来调整生产关系和上层建筑，使之适应生产力进一步发展的要求。总之，生产力标准使得社会主义与现代化结合的两重诉求得以清晰呈现：一是通过解放和发展生产力实现中国现代化的客观要求，二是通过解放和发展生产力在中国实现社会主义的理想目标。

Third, the core link in the integration of socialism and modernization has been constructed. One of the greatest theoretical creations of the Chinese Communist Party is the theory of the socialist market economy. In the primary stage of socialism, whether socialism can be effectively integrated with modernization hinges on how correctly one understands and handles the relationship between the socialist system and the market economy. Traditional views held that the market economy was something unique to capitalism and fundamentally opposed to socialism. In fact, Marx clearly pointed out in the *Grundrisse der Kritik der politischen Ökonomie (Economic Manuscripts of 1857–1858)* that human society undergoes three major social formations, and that the stage of “personal independence founded on objective [sachlicher] dependence” is the second major formation, a historical stage that “creates a system of general social metabolism, of universal relations, of all-round needs and universal capacities.” This historical stage is in fact the stage of development of the market economy, an independent, inevitable, and insurmountable historical stage. “The patriarchal, ancient (and feudal) states declined as commerce, luxury, money, and exchange value developed, and modern society grew up step by step with them.” What is referred to here as “commerce, luxury, money, and exchange value” is the logic of the market economy. The market economy is a basic feature of modern society; both capitalist society and socialist society follow the general logic of the market economy. The Chinese Communists, with Comrade Deng Xiaoping as their chief representative, upheld the general laws of the development of human society and broke through the ideological shackles of “market economy = capitalism” and “planned economy = socialism.” “Whether there is more planning or more market is not the essential distinction between socialism and capitalism. A planned economy is not equivalent to socialism, because capitalism also has planning; a market economy is not equivalent to capitalism, because socialism also has markets. Planning and market are both economic means.” The market economy belongs to the instrumental-means level and does not fall within the category of the basic social system. This resolved the ideological obstacle to integrating the basic socialist system with the market economy. The integration of the two has made an original contribution to socialist modernization. “Developing a market economy under socialist conditions is a great innovation of our Party. A key factor in the tremendous success of our country’s economic development is that we have given play to both the strengths of the market economy and the superiority of the socialist system.”

第三，构建了社会主义与现代化结合的核心环节。中国共产党的最大理论创造之一就是提出了社会主义市场经济理论。在社会主义初级阶段，社会主义能否与现代化有效结合，关键在于如何正确认识和处理社会主义制度与市场经济之间的关系。传统观念认为，市场经济是资本主义特有的东西，与社会主义是根本对立的。实际上，马克思在《政治经济学批判（1857—1858年经济学手稿）》中就明确指出，人类社会经历三大社会形态，“以物的依赖性为基础的人的独立性”发展阶段是第二大形态，这一历史阶段“形成普遍的社会物质变换、全面的关系、多方面的需要以及全面的能力的体系”。这一历史阶段实际上就是市场经济发展阶段，是独立的、必然的、不可逾越的历史阶段。“家长制的，古代的（以及封建的）状态随着商业、奢侈、货币、交换价值的发展而没落下去，现代社会则随着这些东西同步发展起来。”这里所谓的“商业、奢侈、货币、交换价值”就是市场经济逻辑。市场经济是现代社会的基本特征，无论是资本主义社会，还是社会主义社会，都遵循着市场经济的一般逻辑。以邓小平同志为主要代表的中国共产党人坚持了人类社会发展的一般规律，破除了“市场经济=资本主义”“计划经济=社会主义”的思想束缚。“计划多一点还是市场多一点，不是社会主义与资本主义的本质区别。计划经济不等于社会主义，资本主义也有计划；市场经济不等于资本主义，社会主义也有市场。计划和市场都是经济手段。”市场经济是工具—手段层面的，不属于社会基本制度范畴。这就解决了社会主义基本制度与市场经济结合的思想障碍。这二者的结合对社会主义现代化具有原创性贡献。“在社会主义条件下发展市场经济，是我们党的一个伟大创举。我国经济发展获得巨大成功的一个关键因素，就是我们既发挥了市场经济的长处，又发挥了社会主义制度的优越性。”

III. Modernization Must Be Integrated with Socialism

三、现代化要与社会主义相结合

For Chinese-path modernization, not only must socialism be integrated with modernization, but modernization must also be integrated with socialism. The former emphasizes the logic of modernization, aiming to transcend the traditional socialist model that weakens the content of modernization; the latter emphasizes the logic of socialism, aiming to transcend the capitalist modernization model that dissolves the socialist character.

对于中国式现代化而言，不仅社会主义要与现代化相结合，而且现代化也要与社会主义相结合。前者强调的是现代化逻辑，旨在超越弱化现代化内涵的传统社会主义模式；后者强调的是社会主义逻辑，旨在超越消解社会主义性质的资本主义现代化模式。

(1) The “Ends–Means” Theory That Dissolves the Socialist Character

（一）消解社会主义性质的“目的—手段”论

On the relationship between modernization and socialism, a rather popular interpretive approach is the “ends–means” approach: the relationship between modernization and socialism (and capitalism) is one of ends and means. Countries moving toward modernization can take either the capitalist road or the socialist road; capitalism and socialism are merely a strategic choice. Under this interpretive approach, the end is one-dimensional and fixed, while the means are multi-dimensional and variable. The theoretical consequences of the “ends–means” theory are severe: capitalist modernization and socialist modernization are not essentially different, only different in the paths of realization, and both ultimately lead to some homogenized “modern society”; “different paths to the same destination” is inevitable. Under this line of argument, from a practical perspective, it becomes meaningless for Chinese-path modernization to uphold the socialist nature and direction of modernization. We absolutely must not confine ourselves to grasping capitalism and socialism from the angle of the means of modernization development; instead, we must proceed from the dimension of social formations to reveal the essential difference between socialist modernization and capitalist modernization, and thereby present the socialist nature of Chinese-path modernization. First, the ownership foundations on which socialist modernization and capitalist modernization rely are different. Modernization always has a certain character of the mode of production and ownership attributes. Capitalist modernization originates from the primitive accumulation of capital, “driven by the most ruthless and barbaric means, under the impulse of the most sordid, filthy, mean, and odious greed,” and through the expropriation of peasants, ultimately forms capital and wage labor. Capital’s domination over wage labor (the core of capitalist private ownership) constitutes the ownership foundation of capitalist modernization. In contrast, socialist modernization is modernization built on the foundation of socialist public ownership; taking public ownership as the main body constitutes the ownership foundation of Chinese-path modernization. Second, the methods by which socialist modernization and capitalist modernization realize modernization are different. The methods referred to here are not understood in a general sense but are embodied in the handling of certain contradictory relationships in the process of modernization. From the perspective of the relationship between the measure of things and the measure of people, capitalist modernization in some respects develops at the expense of sacrificing people’s development and the interests of the masses; it “is opposed to that part of the population which forms the foundation of this entire development.” Socialist modernization, regardless of the development strategy adopted, never takes the reification and one-sided development of people as a means, nor does it sacrifice people’s free and comprehensive development and the fundamental and long-term interests of the masses; “production will be for the benefit of all people.” Taking capitalist modernization as a frame of reference, socialist modernization, while absorbing all the civilizational achievements created by capitalist modernization, can avoid the ills of capitalist modernization. Specifically, capitalist modernization is centered on capital, while socialist modernization manages to harness capital, both activating the civilizing aspect of capital and avoiding its negative effects. Third, the historical missions of socialist modernization and capitalist modernization are different. From the general logic of modernization, the common historical mission of the two is to realize the transformation from a traditional agricultural society to a modern industrial society. However, from the perspective of social formations, the historical mission of socialist modernization is by no means to realize the transformation from relations of personal dependence to relations of objective dependence (personal independence founded on objective dependence); its ultimate direction is the comprehensive development of the individual and the generation of free individuality. Although it is a long historical stage for economically and culturally backward countries to move toward socialism in realizing industrialization and modernization, the type of modernization they are to realize is higher than the type of capitalist modernization, and its ultimate mission is “to ensure the highest development of the social productive forces while ensuring the most comprehensive development of each individual producer.”

在现代化与社会主义的关系问题上，颇为流行的是一种“目的—手段”的阐释路向：现代化与社会主义（以及资本主义）的关系是一种目的与手段的关系，各国走向现代化，既可以走资本主义道路，也可以走社会主义道路，资本主义与社会主义只是一种策略上的选择。在这一阐释思路下，目的是单维的、确定的，手段是多维的、不确定的。“目的—手段”论的理论后果是严重的：资本主义现代化与社会主义现代化没有本质上的不同，只是实现路径的不同，最终都走向某种同质化的“现代社会”，“殊途同归”是必然。在这种论调下，从实践角度看，中国式现代化坚持现代化的社会主义性质和方向就没有任何意义。我们绝对不能囿于从现代化发展手段的角度去把握资本主义、社会主义，而是应当从社会形态这一维度出发，揭示社会主义现代化与资本主义现代化的本质区别，进而呈现中国式现代化的社会主义性质。其一，社会主义现代化与资本主义现代化所依托的所有制基础不同。现代化总是具有一定的生产方式性质和所有制属性的现代化。资本主义现代化源于“用最残酷无情的野蛮手段，在最下流、最龌龊、最卑鄙和最可恶的贪欲的驱使下”的资本原始积累过程，它通过对农民的剥夺，最终形成了资本与雇佣劳动。资本对雇佣劳动的统治权（资本主义私有制的核心）构成了资本主义现代化的所有制基础。相反，社会主义现代化是建立在社会主义公有制基础上的现代化，以公有制为主体构成了中国式现代化的所有制基础。其二，社会主义现代化与资本主义现代化实现现代化的方式不同。这里所说的方式不是从一般意义上说的，而是体现在对现代化进程中一些矛盾关系的处理上。从物的尺度与人的尺度的关系来看，资本主义现代化在某些方面的发展是以牺牲人的发展和人民群众的利益为代价的，“是和构成整个这一发展基础的那一部分人口相对立的”。社会主义现代化不管采取什么样的发展战略，始终不以人的物性化、片面化发展为手段，不以牺牲人的自由而全面发展与人民群众的根本利益和长远利益为代价，“生产将以所有的人富裕为目的”。以资本主义现代化为参照系，社会主义现代化在吸收资本主义现代化所创造的一切文明成果的同时，能够避免资本主义现代化的弊病。具体说来，资本主义现代化是以资本为中心的，社会主义现代化是驾驭资本的，既激活了资本的文明面，又规避了资本的负面影响。其三，社会主义现代化与资本主义现代化的历史使命不同。从现代化的一般逻辑看，二者共同的历史使命是实现从传统农业社会向现代工业社会的转型。但是从社会形态角度看，社会主义现代化的历史使命绝不是实现由人对人的依赖关系转化为人对物的依赖关系（以物的依赖性为基础的人的独立性），其最终指向是个人全面发展、自由个性的生成。尽管经济文化落后国家走向社会主义是一个漫长的实现工业化和现代化的历史阶段，但是其所要实现的现代化类型是高于资本主义的现代化类型的，其最终使命是“保证社会劳动生产力极高度发展的同时又保证每个生产者个人最全面的发展”。

(2) Theoretical Links in the Effective Integration of Modernization and Socialism

（二）现代化与社会主义有效结合的理论环节

That modernization must be integrated with socialism strengthens the socialist logic of Chinese-path modernization. In the theoretical system of Chinese-path modernization, realizing the effective integration of modernization and socialism involves many theoretical contents, the core links of which are the following three aspects.

现代化要与社会主义相结合，强化的是中国式现代化的社会主义逻辑。在中国式现代化理论体系中，实现现代化与社会主义有效结合，涉及诸多理论内容，其核心环节有以下三个方面。

First, clarify the fundamental nature and decisive factors of the integration of modernization and socialism. Chinese-path modernization must conform to the connotations and requirements of modernization, but its fundamental nature is socialist. In the most general sense, Chinese-path modernization is a socialist modernization distinct from capitalist or any other kind of -ism; socialism constitutes its most core qualitative determination. The socialist attributes of Chinese-path modernization are embodied in many aspects and have many supporting guarantees, but its decisive factor is the leadership of the Communist Party of China. “Chinese-path modernization is a socialist modernization led by the Communist Party of China.” The leadership of the Communist Party of China is the most essential feature of socialism with Chinese characteristics and the greatest strength of the socialist system with Chinese characteristics, and it also determines the fundamental nature of Chinese-path modernization. The purpose, nature, original aspiration and founding mission, faith and convictions, and policies and propositions of the Communist Party of China determine that Chinese-path modernization is socialist modernization, not some other kind of modernization. The focus of the explanation here is not to elaborate in detail from the dimension of political discourse on why the leadership of the Communist Party of China constitutes the decisive factor in the fundamental nature of Chinese-path modernization, but rather to explain from a theoretical perspective why the superstructure can determine the fundamental nature of a social system or a country’s economic and social development model, and whether this violates the basic principles that the economic base determines the superstructure and determines the basic nature and development direction of a society. To clarify this doubt, there are two possible lines of thought: First, the relations of production have a counteractive effect on the productive forces, and the superstructure has a counteractive effect on the economic base. “Under certain conditions, the political superstructure can also play a decisive counteractive effect on the economic base.” Under certain conditions, “political development can be ahead of social and economic development.” In the primary stage of socialism, the Communist Party of China and its leadership, which belong to the category of the superstructure, have played a decisive role in the historical process of Chinese-path modernization. Second, under specific circumstances, the superstructure is embedded within the economic base; as a part of the economic base, it plays a decisive role in the basic nature and development direction of society. The relationship between the economic base and the superstructure is not an abstract dualism; it must be understood both from the perspective of structural elements and from the perspective of function. As long as a certain element of the superstructure functionally plays the role of relations of production, it can enter the category of relations of production and even play a decisive role within them. “In human history, political, legal, ideological, and even kinship relations and institutions, as long as they functionally directly determine the ownership of the means of production, the allocation of labor, and the distribution of products, assume the function of relations of production.” In socialist China, the Party and the government play an extremely important role not only in the political sphere but also in the economic sphere, possessing powerful political and economic functions. Xi Jinping once pointed out: “The socialist market economy is a dialectical unity of economy and politics. Its inherent essential movement of the politicization of the economy and the economization of politics requires that the establishment and development of the socialist market economy must give full play to the advantages of both the economic and political aspects.” The “politicization of the economy” and the “economization of politics” mentioned here illustrate that under the socialist market economy system, the superstructure is embedded within the economic base. Under socialist conditions, the political superstructure is dual in function; it is not external to the economic base but constitutes a part of it, not external to the market economy but functioning within it. It can thus be seen that the Communist Party of China inevitably determines the fundamental nature of Chinese-path modernization and ensures the socialist goals and direction of Chinese-path modernization.

第一，明确现代化与社会主义结合的根本性质及决定性因素。中国式现代化要符合现代化的内涵和要求，但其根本性质是社会主义。从最一般意义来说，中国式现代化是不同于资本主义或其他什么主义的社会主义的现代化，社会主义构成其最核心的质的规定性。中国式现代化的社会主义属性体现在诸多方面，也有着诸多的支撑性保障，但是其决定性因素是中国共产党的领导。“中国式现代化，是中国共产党领导的社会主义现代化”，中国共产党领导是中国特色社会主义最本质的特征，是中国特色社会主义制度的最大优势，也决定了中国式现代化的根本性质。中国共产党的宗旨、性质、初心使命、信仰信念、政策主张，决定了中国式现代化是社会主义现代化，而不是别的什么现代化。这里阐释的重点不在于从政治话语维度详细论述中国共产党的领导构成中国式现代化根本性质的决定性因素，而在于从学理角度说明为什么上层建筑能够决定一个社会制度或一个国家的经济社会发展模式的根本性质，这是否违反了经济基础决定上层建筑、决定一个社会基本性质和发展方向等基本原理。澄清这一疑问，可以有两个方面的思路：其一，生产关系对于生产力、上层建筑对于经济基础具有反作用。“政治上层建筑在一定条件下对经济基础也会起到决定性的反作用。”在一定条件下，“政治发展有可能超前于社会和经济的发展”。在社会主义初级阶段，作为上层建筑范畴的中国共产党及其领导对中国式现代化历史进程起到了决定性作用。其二，在特定情况下，上层建筑是嵌入经济基础之中的，它作为经济基础的一部分，对社会基本性质和发展方向起到了决定性作用。经济基础与上层建筑的关系不是抽象的二元论，既要从结构要素角度也要从功能角度去理解二者的关系。上层建筑中的某一要素只要在功能上起到生产关系的作用，它就能进入生产关系范畴，甚至在其中起到决定性的作用。“在人类历史上，政治的、法律的、意识形态的甚至血缘的关系和制度，只要它们在功能上直接决定生产资料的归属、劳动力的配置和产品的分配，就担负了生产关系的功能。”在社会主义中国，党和政府不仅在政治领域而且在经济领域都发挥着极其重要的作用，具有强大的政治功能、经济功能。习近平曾指出：“社会主义市场经济是经济与政治的辩证统一，其内在的政治经济化和经济政治化的本质运动，要求社会主义市场经济的建立和发展必须充分发挥经济和政治两个方面的优势。”这里所说的“政治经济化”和“经济政治化”就说明了，在社会主义市场经济体制下，上层建筑是嵌入经济基础之中的。社会主义条件下政治上层建筑在功能上是具有两重性的，它不是外在于经济基础的，而是构成了经济基础的一部分，不是外在于市场经济的，而是在市场经济内部发挥作用的。由此可见，中国共产党必然决定中国式现代化的根本性质，确保中国式现代化的社会主义目标与方向。

Second, define the value pursuit of the integration of modernization and socialism. For modernization to integrate with socialism, the first thing to integrate is the value standpoint and ideal goals. Engels once said: “Our aim is to establish a socialist system that will provide all people with healthy and beneficial work, provide all people with ample material life and leisure time, and provide all people with genuine and full freedom.” This statement clearly points out that adhering to the supremacy of the people and realizing the free and comprehensive development of the individual are the fundamental value pursuits and value standpoints of socialism. The integration of modernization with socialism means embedding the value concept of adhering to the supremacy of the people throughout the entire process of Chinese-path modernization. For Chinese-path modernization, “the essence of modernization is the modernization of the people,” and “the ultimate goal of modernization is to realize the free and comprehensive development of the individual.” Chinese-path modernization insists on taking the realization of the people’s aspiration for a better life as the starting point and落脚点 [n7] of modernization construction, striving to maintain and promote social fairness and justice, striving to promote common prosperity for all the people, and resolutely preventing polarization. Adhering to the value pursuit of the supremacy of the people is concentratedly manifested in the modernization of promoting common prosperity for all the people. If modernization is not integrated with socialism, it will inevitably result in the polarization of wealth and the gap between rich and poor. In *Capital in the Twenty-First Century*, Thomas Piketty, by elaborating that the rate of return on capital is always higher than the growth rate of wages, proves the objective reality and development trend of the intensifying polarization of wealth in contemporary capitalist countries. This is an inevitable result of capital-centered modernization. Chinese-path modernization, which adheres to the supremacy of the people and is people-centered, moves forward along the direction of common prosperity at the value level; at the practical level, it harnesses capital through socialist forces such as socialist public ownership, the form of political power of the dictatorship of the proletariat, Marxist ideology, and the masses of the people, ensuring the people-centered nature of modernization. Furthermore, adhering to the socialist value standpoint of the supremacy of the people requires avoiding not only the consequences of polarization in capitalist modernization but also its consequences of reification. Capital-centered modernization is a modernization characterized by the expansion of materialism. Under the domination of capital, people pursue the possession of things, regarding the acquisition of material wealth as the sole purpose of life, while neglecting people’s own abilities, free individuality, and spiritual life, leading to the reification and one-dimensionalization of people. Material abundance and spiritual abundance are the fundamental requirements of socialist modernization. Chinese-path modernization is a modernization that coordinates material civilization and cultural-ethical progress, pursuing dual development: promoting the comprehensive enrichment of things and the comprehensive development of the individual, with the former being subordinate to the latter. Chinese-path modernization is essentially the modernization of people, not the modernization of things, and even less the reification of people. “People, in essence, are cultural people, not ‘reified’ people; they are dynamic, comprehensive people, not rigid, ‘one-dimensional’ people.” The value pursuit of the supremacy of the people established by socialism is rooted in the practical process of Chinese-path modernization and guides its correct direction.

第二，规定现代化与社会主义结合的价值追求。现代化要与社会主义相结合，首先要结合的是价值立场、理想目标。恩格斯曾说过：“我们的目的是要建立社会主义制度，这种制度将给所有的人提供健康而有益的工作，给所有的人提供充裕的物质生活和闲暇时间，给所有的人提供真正的充分的自由。”这段话鲜明指出，坚持人民至上、实现人的自由而全面发展是社会主义根本的价值追求、价值立场。现代化与社会主义相结合，意味着坚持人民至上的价值理念嵌入中国式现代化的全过程。对于中国式现代化而言，“现代化的本质是人的现代化”，“现代化的最终目标是实现人自由而全面的发展”。中国式现代化坚持把实现人民对美好生活的向往作为现代化建设的出发点和落脚点，着力维护和促进社会公平正义，着力促进全体人民共同富裕，坚决防止两极分化。坚持人民至上的价值追求集中表现为促进全体人民共同富裕的现代化。如果现代化不与社会主义相结合，必然呈现贫富分化、两极分化的结果。在《21世纪资本论》中，托马斯·皮凯蒂通过阐述资本的回报率总是高于工资的增长率，证明了贫富分化在当代资本主义国家愈演愈烈的客观现实和发展趋势。这是以资本为中心的现代化的必然结果。坚持人民至上、以人民为中心的中国式现代化，在价值层面上，沿着共同富裕的方向前行；在实践层面上，通过社会主义公有制、无产阶级专政的政权形式、马克思主义意识形态、人民群众等社会主义力量驾驭资本，确保现代化的人民性。此外，坚持人民至上的社会主义价值立场，既要避免资本主义现代化分化的后果，也要防止其物化的后果。以资本为中心的现代化是一种物质主义膨胀的现代化，在资本统摄下，人们追求对物的占有，把获取物质财富当做人生的唯一目的，人的自身能力、自由个性和精神生活被忽视，导致人的物化、片面化。物质富足、精神富有是社会主义现代化的根本要求。中国式现代化是一种物质文明和精神文明相协调的现代化，追求双重发展：促进物的全面丰富和人的全面发展，并且前者是服从于后者的。中国式现代化本质上是人的现代化，而不是物的现代化，更不是人的物化。“人，本质上就是文化的人，而不是‘物化’的人；是能动的、全面的人，而不是僵化的、‘单向度’的人。”社会主义确立的人民至上的价值追求植根于中国式现代化的实践进程，指引着其正确方向。

Third, constructing the institutional system of socialism with Chinese characteristics. When combined with different systems, different modernization models emerge. In this regard, some scholars have proposed three types of modernization: first, the Western capitalist modernization type (capitalist private ownership + free market + decentralized or centralized modern state institutions); second, the Soviet-style socialist modernization type (socialist public ownership + combination of planned directives and limited market + centralized modern state institutions); third, the mixed modernization type (mixed economy + free market + centralized or decentralized modern state institutions). For modernization to be integrated with socialism, the key is integration with the socialist system. The socialist logic of Chinese-path modernization is, to a large extent, manifested as the logic of the socialist system. The institutional logic of Chinese-path modernization is neither the logic of the traditional socialist system model nor the logic of the Western capitalist system model, but rather the logic of the socialist system model with Chinese characteristics. “The socialist system with Chinese characteristics is a rigorous and complete scientific institutional system, in which the fundamental systems, basic systems, and important systems serve as the four beams and eight pillars…”[n] The fundamental systems include the system of the Party’s centralized and unified leadership and comprehensive leadership, the system of people’s congresses, the system of Marxism’s guiding position in the ideological domain, the social governance system of joint contribution, joint governance, and shared benefits, and the system of the Party’s absolute leadership over the people’s armed forces. Basic systems cover and are embodied in various fields and aspects. For example, in the political domain, these are the three basic political systems: the system of multiparty cooperation and political consultation under the leadership of the Communist Party of China, the system of regional ethnic autonomy, and the system of grassroots self-governance; in the economic domain, these are the three basic economic systems: public ownership as the mainstay with diverse forms of ownership developing together, distribution according to work as the mainstay with multiple modes of distribution coexisting, and the socialist market economy system. Important systems include the economic system, political system, cultural system, social system, ecological civilization system, rule-of-law system, and Party building system. Chinese-path modernization is a type of modernization integrated with the socialist system, a new type of modernization different from capitalism. The socialist logic of Chinese-path modernization is primarily characterized by ensuring direction and bringing superiority into play. So-called ensuring direction means that Chinese-path modernization, through the institutional system of socialism with Chinese characteristics, guarantees the socialist direction of modernization. For example, the basic economic system of public ownership as the mainstay with diverse forms of ownership developing together is an important component of the socialist system with Chinese characteristics. The institutional arrangement of public ownership’s dominant position plays a role in determining direction, has a decisive impact on the nature of the economic system and the mode of economic development, and ensures that Chinese-path modernization follows the correct path of socialism. As Xi Jinping pointed out: “The dominant position of public ownership cannot be shaken, and the leading role of the state-owned economy cannot be shaken. This is an institutional guarantee for ensuring that people of all ethnic groups in our country share the fruits of development, and it is also an important guarantee for consolidating the Party’s governing position and upholding our country’s socialist system.” So-called bringing superiority into play means that Chinese-path modernization, through the institutional system of socialism with Chinese characteristics, brings the superiority of the socialist system into play in the practical process of advancing modernization—liberating and developing social productive forces, concentrating resources to accomplish major tasks, safeguarding social fairness, justice, and people’s rights, ensuring and improving people’s livelihoods and enhancing their well-being, taking the path of common prosperity, and so on. For example, the socialist market economy system can organically integrate the socialist system with the market economy, which is conducive both to liberating and developing social productive forces and improving people’s lives, and to maintaining social fairness and justice and achieving common prosperity.

第三，构建中国特色社会主义制度体系。与不同制度相结合，会形成不同的现代化模式。对此，有学者提出了三种现代化类型：一是西方资本主义现代化类型（资本主义私有制+自由市场+分权型或集权型现代国家机构）；二是苏联式的社会主义现代化类型（社会主义公有制+计划指令与有限市场结合+集权型现代国家机构）；三是混合式现代化类型（混合经济+自由市场+集权或分权型现代国家机构）。现代化要与社会主义相结合，关键是要与社会主义制度相结合，中国式现代化的社会主义逻辑在很大程度上表现为社会主义制度逻辑。中国式现代化的制度逻辑既不是传统社会主义制度模式的逻辑，也不是西方资本主义制度模式的逻辑，而是中国特色社会主义制度模式的逻辑。“中国特色社会主义制度是一个严密完整的科学制度体系，起四梁八柱作用的是根本制度、基本制度、重要制度……”根本制度包括党的集中统一领导制度和全面领导制度、人民代表大会制度、马克思主义在意识形态领域指导地位的制度、共建共治共享的社会治理制度、党对人民军队的绝对领导制度。基本制度覆盖和体现在各领域各方面。例如，在政治领域，就是中国共产党领导的多党合作和政治协商制度、民族区域自治制度、基层群众自治制度这三大基本政治制度；在经济领域，就是公有制为主体、多种所有制共同发展，按劳分配为主体、多种分配方式并存，社会主义市场经济体制等三大基本经济制度。重要制度包括经济体制、政治体制、文化体制、社会体制、生态文明体制、法治体系、党的建设制度等。中国式现代化是一种与社会主义制度相结合的现代化，是不同于资本主义的现代化新类型。中国式现代化的社会主义逻辑，重点表征为保证方向与发挥优越性。所谓保证方向是指中国式现代化通过中国特色社会主义制度体系保证了现代化的社会主义方向。例如，公有制为主体、多种所有制经济共同发展的基本经济制度，是中国特色社会主义制度的重要组成部分，公有制的主体地位的制度安排起着规定方向的作用，对经济制度属性和经济发展方式具有决定性影响，确保了中国式现代化走社会主义道路的正确方向。正如习近平指出的：“公有制主体地位不能动摇，国有经济主导作用不能动摇。这是保证我国各族人民共享发展成果的制度性保证，也是巩固党的执政地位、坚持我国社会主义制度的重要保证。”所谓发挥优越性是指中国式现代化通过中国特色社会主义制度体系，在推进现代化的实践进程中，发挥了社会主义制度优越性——解放和发展社会生产力，集中力量办大事，保障社会公平正义和人民权利，保障和改善民生、增进人民福祉，走共同富裕道路，等等。例如，社会主义市场经济体制能够把社会主义制度和市场经济有机结合起来，既有利于解放和发展社会生产力、改善人民生活，又有利于维护社会公平正义、实现共同富裕。

In summary, the socialist system is more capable than the capitalist system of providing or guaranteeing dynamism, order, and fairness. The above three aspects are a clear manifestation of the socialist logic of Chinese-path modernization.

总而言之，社会主义制度比资本主义制度更能够提供或保障动力、秩序、公平，上述三个方面是中国式现代化的社会主义逻辑的鲜明体现。

Online editor: Tongxin

网络编辑：同心