New Quality Productive Forces and the New Horizon of Adapting Marxist Productive Forces Theory to the Chinese Context

The Marxist theory of productive forces, as expounded by Marx and Engels, focuses on the obstructive role of capitalist relations of production in the development of productive forces. Chinese Communists have achieved a series of important theoretical results in the process of integrating the Marxist theory of productive forces with China’s concrete realities. In the practical context of socialism with Chinese characteristics for a New Era, Xi Jinping’s important discourse on new quality productive forces has made original elaborations on the development of productive forces themselves under given relations of production, profoundly elucidated the laws governing the development of socialist productive forces, especially those of socialism with Chinese characteristics for a New Era, and comprehensively expounded and developed the historical materialist theory of the contradictory movement between productive forces and relations of production.

马克思主义生产力理论在马克思、恩格斯那里的阐述重点在于资本主义生产关系对生产力发展的阻碍作用。中国共产党人在把马克思主义生产力理论同中国具体实际相结合的过程中取得了一系列重要的理论成果。在新时代中国特色社会主义的实践语境中，习近平关于新质生产力的重要论述对既定生产关系条件下生产力本身的发展问题作出了原创性的阐述，对社会主义生产力发展规律尤其是新时代中国特色社会主义生产力的发展规律作出了深刻的阐发，对历史唯物主义生产力与生产关系矛盾运动理论作出了全面的阐释与发展。

The theory of productive forces is an important component of historical materialism. Marx and Engels, proceeding from historical materialism, profoundly interpreted the dialectical relationship between productive forces and relations of production, laying an important ideological foundation for the scientific concept of the economic base and the construction of the entire theory of historical materialism. For them, productive forces can only be an element within the economic base, and cannot be some isolated existence divorced from actual relations of production, regardless of whether this isolated existence is interpreted as Adam Smith’s so-called labor productivity based on the division of labor in economics, or Friedrich List’s so-called productive capacity based on some spiritual force. Marx and Engels’ theory of productive forces not only directly promoted the maturation of their philosophical thought, but also powerfully facilitated their achievement of a scientific methodology in the critique of political economy. Of course, the specific background of revolutionary practice also determined that their interpretation of the theory of the contradictory movement between productive forces and relations of production focused more on the obstructive role of specific relations of production in the development of productive forces, while they did not systematically expound on issues such as the space for the development of productive forces that could be accommodated and expanded under given relations of production. In the practical context of socialism with Chinese characteristics for a New Era, the proposal and application of new quality productive forces, as well as the elaboration on the development space and new pathways for productive forces under the conditions of a socialist market economy, not only constitute an original development of the Marxist theory of productive forces, but also represent an important advancement of the entire Marxist theory of the mode of production and the economic base. As an original achievement of adapting Marxism to the Chinese context and the needs of the times, the proposal of new quality productive forces will inevitably exert an important influence on the history of Marxist social development theory.

生产力理论是历史唯物主义理论的重要内容。马克思、恩格斯从唯物史观出发，深刻解读了生产力与生产关系之间的辩证关系，为科学的经济基础概念及整个唯物史观理论的建构奠定了重要的思想基础。对他们来说，生产力只能是经济基础中的一个要素，而不可能是脱离现实生产关系的某种孤立的存在，不管这种孤立的存在被解释为亚当·斯密式的基于经济学分工的所谓劳动生产力，还是弗里德里希·李斯特式的那种基于某种精神力量的所谓生产能力。马克思、恩格斯的生产力理论不仅直接推动了其哲学思想的成熟，而且还有力地促成了他们在政治经济学批判中的科学方法论的达成。当然，特定的革命实践背景也决定了他们对生产力与生产关系矛盾运动理论的解读更多侧重于具体的生产关系对生产力发展的阻碍作用，而对既定生产关系条件下可容纳和增长的生产力发展空间等问题没能展开系统的论述。在新时代中国特色社会主义的实践语境中，新质生产力的提出与运用，以及对社会主义市场经济条件下生产力的发展空间与崭新路径的阐述，不仅对马克思主义生产力理论作出了原创性的发展，也对整个马克思主义生产方式及经济基础理论作出了重要的推进。作为马克思主义中国化时代化的原创性成果，新质生产力的提出必然在马克思主义社会发展理论史上产生重要的影响。

I. The Elaboration of Productive Forces by Marxist Classical Writers

一、马克思主义经典作家关于生产力的阐释

Although Marx also mentioned the concept of productive forces in texts such as “Critical Notes on the Article ‘The King of Prussia and Social Reform. By a Prussian’” [1]1 This refers to Marx’s 1844 article “Critical Notes on the Article ‘The King of Prussia and Social Reform. By a Prussian’,” which contains early discussions of the concept of productive forces., his and Engels’ positive elaboration of this concept should be found in *The German Ideology*. However, the focus of their elaboration of this concept in this text is on emphasizing the law of the contradictory movement between productive forces and forms of intercourse, as well as the alienated characteristics of productive forces under conditions of division of labor or private property, rather than on interpreting the concept of productive forces itself. In the contexts of constructing historical materialism and criticizing private property, this perspective of their interpretation of the concept of productive forces is entirely understandable. Moreover, it is precisely based on this interpretive perspective that Marx and Engels, in their interpretation of the concept of productive forces, completed the critique and transcendence of the views of Adam Smith, Moses Hess, and others. When discussing the development of productive forces based on the division of labor, Marx and Engels pointed out, “The level of development of the productive forces of a nation is most clearly manifested in the degree of development of the division of labor within that nation. Any new productive force, insofar as it is not merely a quantitative expansion of previously known productive forces (for example, the reclamation of land), will lead to the further development of the division of labor.” [2]2 Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, *The German Ideology* (1845-1846), Chapter 1, “Feuerbach.” Looking at this passage alone, it seems that their view is no different from Adam Smith’s elaboration on the development of labor productivity from the perspective of the division of labor. But the key issue is that what they discuss immediately after this view is not Smith’s circular argument between division of labor and exchange, but the historical connection between division of labor and property forms: “The various stages of development in the division of labor are at the same time the various forms of property; i.e., each stage of the division of labor also determines the relations of individuals to one another with respect to the material, instrument, and product of labor.” [3]3 Ibid. When discussing the relationship between people’s cooperative activity and productive forces, they said: “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.’ Further, the sum total of the productive forces accessible to people determines the condition of society; hence, the ‘history of humanity’ must always be studied and treated in relation to the history of industry and exchange.” [4]4 Ibid. Looking solely at the view in this passage that the mode of cooperation itself is productive forces, Marx and Engels’ view seems similar to Hess’s. But the key issue is that they did not, like Hess, interpret cooperative activity at the level of abstract humanism, but rather linked it to a specific mode of production or industrial stage.

虽然在《评弗里德里希·李斯特的〈政治经济学的国民体系〉》等文本中马克思也曾提到生产力概念，但他与恩格斯对这一概念的正面阐述应该是在《德意志意识形态》中。不过，他们在这一文本中对这一概念的阐述重点在于对生产力与交往形式的矛盾运动规律以及在分工或私有制条件下生产力的异化特性等观点的强调上，而不在于对生产力概念本身作出阐释。在唯物史观建构、私有制批判等语境中，他们对生产力概念的这种阐释视角是完全可以理解的。而且，正是基于这样的阐释视角，马克思、恩格斯在对生产力概念的解读上完成了对亚当·斯密、莫泽斯·赫斯等人观点的批判与超越。在谈到基于分工的生产力发展时，马克思、恩格斯指出，“一个民族的生产力发展的水平，最明显地表现于该民族分工的发展程度。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”。单看这段话，似乎他们的观点与亚当·斯密从劳动分工的角度对劳动生产力发展的阐述没什么不同，但问题的关键是他们谈完这一观点之后接着谈论的，不是斯密的那种分工与交换的循环论证，而是分工与所有制的历史性关联，“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。这就是说，分工的每一个阶段还决定个人在劳动材料、劳动工具和劳动产品方面的相互关系”。在谈到人们的共同活动与生产力的关系时，他们说：“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’；由此可见，人们所达到的生产力的总和决定着社会状况，因而，始终必须把‘人类的历史’同工业和交换的历史联系起来研究和探讨。”单看这段引文中的共同活动方式就是生产力的观点，马克思、恩格斯的观点似乎与赫斯的观点很相似，但问题的关键是他们没有像赫斯那样把共同活动放在抽象的人本学层面上来加以解读，而是把它与一定的生产方式或工业阶段联系了起来。

In the dimension of criticizing capitalist private property, the theory of productive forces in *The German Ideology* also played an important role. Marx and Engels focused on discussing this from the perspective of the inherent contradiction between rapidly developing productive forces and capitalist private property: “It [the bourgeoisie] has created enormous productive forces, and for these productive forces, private property has become a fetter, just as the guild system was a fetter for manufacture, and small-scale rural production was a fetter for the developing handicraft industry. Under the rule of private property, these productive forces have only achieved one-sided development, and for the majority of people, they have become destructive forces; and many of these productive forces cannot be utilized at all under private property.” [5]5 Ibid. It should be said that this was the theoretical task that their newly constructed theory of productive forces had to confront in the revolutionary context of the time. At that time, capitalist society was already mired in multiple crises. Marx and Engels, guiding the practical workers’ movement, could not possibly discuss whether capitalist relations of production might accommodate more space for the development of productive forces; they could only interpret the theoretical basis for the inevitable demise of capitalist private property. This interpretive path of theirs received a more classic expression in *The Communist Manifesto*. In this text, Marx and Engels clearly stated, “The productive forces at the disposal of society no longer tend to further the development of the conditions of bourgeois property; on the contrary, they have become too powerful for these conditions, by which they are fettered, and so soon as they overcome these fetters, they bring disorder into the whole of bourgeois society, endanger the existence of bourgeois property. The conditions of bourgeois society are too narrow to comprise the wealth created by them.” [6]6 Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, *The Communist Manifesto* (1848), Chapter 1, “Bourgeois and Proletarians.”

在资本主义私有制批判的维度上，《德意志意识形态》中的生产力理论也发挥了重要作用。马克思、恩格斯着重从迅猛发展的生产力与资本主义私有制之间的内在矛盾的角度来谈论这一点：“［它］造成了大量的生产力，对于这些生产力来说，私有制成了它们发展的桎梏，正如行会成为工场手工业的桎梏、小规模的乡村生产成为日益发展的手工业的桎梏一样。在私有制的统治下，这些生产力只获得了片面的发展，对大多数人来说成了破坏的力量，而许多这样的生产力在私有制下根本得不到利用。”应该说，这是他们新建构的生产力理论在当时的革命语境中所必须面对的理论任务。当时的资本主义社会已陷入重重危机，为现实工人运动指引方向的马克思、恩格斯不可能去谈论资本主义生产关系是否有可能容纳更多的生产力发展空间的问题，而只会去解读资本主义私有制必然灭亡的理论依据。他们的这种阐释路径在《共产党宣言》中得到了更为经典的表述。在这一文本中，马克思、恩格斯明确地指出，“社会所拥有的生产力已经不能再促进资产阶级文明和资产阶级所有制关系的发展；相反，生产力已经强大到这种关系所不能适应的地步，它已经受到这种关系的阻碍；而它一着手克服这种障碍，就使整个资产阶级社会陷入混乱，就使资产阶级所有制的存在受到威胁。资产阶级的关系已经太狭窄了，再容纳不了它本身所造成的财富了”。

Generally speaking, the critique of capitalist relations of production is the main keynote of Marx and Engels’ theory of productive forces. This is reflected not only in the aforementioned early works of Marx and Engels, but also in Marx’s later *Capital* and its manuscripts. The reason why the starting point of the exposition in Volume I of *Capital* is the commodity with its inherent contradictions (the contradiction between use-value and value, the contradiction between concrete labor and abstract labor), rather than starting from a single exchange value as classical economists like Smith did, is an important one: Marx placed capitalist relations of production within the historical development process of private ownership relations of production, that is, within the process of the contradictory movement between productive forces and relations of production. In other words, the capitalist relations of production in Marx’s view are not those commodity exchange relations at the empirical level, but those relations of production that constitute an inherent contradiction with the development of capitalist productive forces. Within this interpretive horizon, the value-form of the commodity is no longer an abstract value-form divorced from the content of value, but a scientific value-form that constitutes an inherent contradictory relationship with the content of value. On this basis, the use-value of the commodity substantively enters the theoretical core of Marx’s critique of political economy, unlike Smith and others, who, after acknowledging that the commodity has a use-value function, no longer allow it to occupy any theoretical position in their thinking on political economy. From the use-value of the commodity closely linked to value, to the special use-value of the special commodity labor-power, and then to the construction of the theory of surplus value, Marx’s critique of political economy unfolds a completely new theoretical picture. Marx himself repeatedly spoke of the background of productive forces behind the concept of relations of production. When discussing the capital-labor relation, he pointed out, “The specific determination of the relations of production, i.e., the categories — here capital and labor — becomes real only with the development of a specific material mode of production and at a specific stage of development of industrial productive forces. (In general, this should be particularly elaborated later when discussing this relation [between labor and capital], because it is already included in the relation itself here, while when examining abstract determinations like exchange value, circulation, money, this still belongs more to our subjective reflection.)”[7]7 Marx, *Grundrisse* (1857–1858 manuscript), Chinese edition, *Collected Works of Marx and Engels*, Vol. 30, p. 255. It can be said that the capital-labor relation already contains the dimension of specific productive forces, which fully demonstrates how important the theory of productive forces is in Marx’s critique of political economy.

从总体上说，对资本主义生产关系的批判是马克思、恩格斯生产力理论的主基调。这不仅体现在上述所提及的马克思、恩格斯的早期著作中，而且也体现在马克思后期的《资本论》及其手稿中。《资本论》第一卷的阐述起点之所以是具有内在矛盾（使用价值与价值的矛盾、具体劳动与抽象劳动的矛盾）的商品，而不是像斯密等古典经济学家那样从单一的交换价值入手，一个重要的原因就在于马克思是把资本主义生产关系放在私有制生产关系的历史发展进程之中的，即放在生产力与生产关系的矛盾运动过程之中的。也就是说，马克思眼中的资本主义生产关系，不是那种经验层面上的商品交换关系，而是与资本主义生产力发展构成内在矛盾的那种生产关系。在这一解读视域中的商品的价值形式，便不再是与价值内容相脱节的抽象的价值形式，而是与价值内容构成内在矛盾关系的科学的价值形式。基于此，商品的使用价值在实质上进入马克思政治经济学批判的理论内核，而不像斯密等人那样，在承认了商品具有使用价值功能之后，便不再让它在其政治经济学的思考中占有任何的理论地位。从与价值紧密相连的商品的使用价值，到劳动力这一特殊商品的特殊的使用价值，再到剩余价值理论的构建，马克思的政治经济学批判便展现出了一幅全新的理论图景。马克思自己也多次讲到生产关系概念背后的生产力背景，在谈到劳资关系时，他指出，“生产关系的即范畴的——这里指资本和劳动的——特殊规定性，只有随着特殊的物质生产方式的发展和在工业生产力的特殊发展阶段上，才成为真实的。（一般来说，这一点在以后谈到［劳动和资本的］这种关系时应该特别加以阐述，因为这一点在这里已经包括在关系本身中了，而在考察交换价值、流通、货币这些抽象规定时，这一点还更多地属于我们的主观反思。）”。可以说，在劳资关系中已经包含了特定生产力的维度，这充分展现了生产力理论在马克思的政治经济学批判中发挥着多么重要的作用。

Of course, it must be pointed out that Marx and Engels’ theory of productive forces is not entirely devoid of exposition on the development space of productive forces themselves. Taking Marx’s works as an example, Marx discussed the development of productive forces themselves under given relations of production in the following two premises: First, when the capitalist mode of production at a specific historical stage can temporarily still accommodate the development of its productive forces. In *The Class Struggles in France, 1848 to 1850*, Marx pointed out, “In this general prosperity, when the productive forces of bourgeois society are developing as vigorously as they can within the limits of bourgeois relations generally, there can be no question of a real revolution. Such a revolution is possible only when the two factors, modern productive forces and the bourgeois mode of production, come into contradiction with each other... A new revolution is possible only after a new crisis. But it is as certain as the new crisis.”[8]8 Marx, *The Class Struggles in France, 1848 to 1850*, Chinese edition, *Collected Works of Marx and Engels*, Vol. 4, pp. 540–541. This is Marx’s identification and interpretation at the factual level that capitalist productive forces themselves still have room for growth. Second, from the perspective of a new mode of production after capitalism, he expounded on the characteristics of the development of productive forces. In the *Grundrisse* (1857–1858 manuscript), Marx pointed out, “Although capital, according to its nature, is itself narrow, it strives for the universal development of productive forces, and thus becomes the premise of a new mode of production, which is based not on the development of productive forces for the purpose of reproducing a given state or at most expanding it, but rather where the free, unhindered, progressive and universal development of productive forces itself constitutes the premise of society, and hence of social reproduction; here the only premise is the going beyond the starting point.”[9]9 Marx, *Grundrisse* (1857–1858 manuscript), Chinese edition, *Collected Works of Marx and Engels*, Vol. 30, p. 539.

当然，需要指出的是，马克思、恩格斯的生产力理论也不是一点没有关于生产力本身发展空间的论述。我们以马克思的著作为例，在以下两种前提下，马克思谈到了既定生产关系条件下生产力本身的发展问题：一是当特定历史阶段的资本主义生产方式暂时还能容纳其生产力发展的时候。在《1848年至1850年的法兰西阶级斗争》中，马克思指出，“在这种普遍繁荣的情况下，即在资产阶级社会的生产力正以在整个资产阶级关系范围内所能达到的速度蓬勃发展的时候，也就谈不到什么真正的革命。只有在现代生产力和资产阶级生产方式这两个要素互相矛盾的时候，这种革命才有可能……新的革命，只有在新的危机之后才可能发生。但新的革命正如新的危机一样肯定会来临”。这是马克思在事实层面对资本主义生产力本身尚有增长空间的指认与解读。二是从资本主义之后的新生产方式的视角入手，对生产力发展的特征等问题进行了阐述。在《政治经济学批判（1857—1858年手稿）》中，马克思指出，“尽管按照资本的本性来说，它本身是狭隘的，但它力求全面地发展生产力，这样就成为新的生产方式的前提，这种生产方式的基础，不是为了再生产一定的状态或者最多是扩大这种状态而发展生产力，相反，在这里生产力的自由的、无阻碍的、不断进步的和全面的发展本身就是社会的前提，因而是社会再生产的前提；在这里唯一的前提是超越出发点”。

In the author’s view, the free, unhindered, progressive and universal development of productive forces under the future new mode of production (communism) that Marx pointed out in the above quotation is his clearest exposition of the future form of productive forces. First, he pointed out that the development path of new productive forces is free and unhindered, fundamentally different from the traditional development path of productive forces under conditions of private ownership. Marx had already clearly elucidated in *Capital* and its manuscripts that the development path of productive forces under capitalist private ownership is self-limiting; that is, the more capital’s productive forces develop, the more they constitute an inherent contradiction with capitalist relations of production, leading to crises in the capitalist economic process. When Marx says that the development of future new productive forces is free and unhindered, he has obviously realized that the driving force for the development of these new productive forces can no longer be the capitalist accumulation model based on the exploitation of surplus value, but must be a fundamentally different development model. Second, he pointed out that the development trend of new productive forces is progressive and universal, fundamentally different from the one-sidedness (i.e., manifesting only as development in the economic dimension) and the constant interruption by periodic economic crises that characterize the development process of productive forces under conditions of private ownership. Considering that Marx’s *Capital* and its manuscripts are precisely analyses and explanations of capital’s exploitation of wage labor, capitalist economic crises, and other issues, it is reasonable to infer that Marx had already developed some new thoughts on the driving force for the development of new productive forces (although they have not been fully expressed).

马克思在上述引文中所指出的在未来的新生产方式（共产主义）条件下生产力所获得的自由的、无阻碍的、不断进步的和全面的发展，在笔者看来，是他对生产力之未来形态最清晰的阐述。首先，他指出了新生产力的发展路径是自由的和无阻碍的，是跟私有制条件下生产力的传统发展路径有着本质区别的。马克思在《资本论》及其手稿中已经明确地阐明了资本主义私有制条件下生产力的发展路径是自我限制的，也就是说，资本的生产力越发展，就越跟资本主义生产关系构成内在矛盾，从而导致资本主义经济过程的危机。而当马克思说未来的新生产力的发展是自由和无阻碍的时候，他显然已经意识到了这种新生产力的发展动力不可能再是基于剩余价值剥削的资本主义积累模式，而必然是与此有着根本不同的另外一种发展模式。其次，他指出了新生产力的发展态势是不断进步的和全面的，是跟私有制条件下生产力发展过程中所呈现出来的片面性（即只表现为经济维度的发展）和不断被周期性的经济危机所打断等特征根本不同的。考虑到马克思的《资本论》及其手稿就是分析和阐释资本对雇佣劳动的剥削、资本主义经济危机等问题的，因此，有理由推断，马克思在新生产力的发展动力等问题上已经有了一些新的思考（尽管还没有充分地表达出来）。

However, looking at Marx and Engels’ theory of productive forces as a whole, we must still acknowledge that their exposition of the development of productive forces themselves under given relations of production has not been fully developed. If the theory of productive forces has two dimensions — the development of productive forces themselves that can be accommodated by given relations of production, and the obstruction to the development of productive forces that given relations of production have already constituted — then the focus of Marx and Engels’ exposition is undoubtedly the latter, i.e., the critique of the inherent contradictions of capitalist relations of production. They did not fully develop an exposition of the development of productive forces themselves that can be accommodated either by capitalist relations of production or by future communist relations of production, let alone an exposition of the development of productive forces themselves that can be accommodated under socialist relations of production in a specific context (such as the relations of production in China’s primary stage of socialism). And it is precisely this that constitutes the intellectual space for Chinese Communists to deepen and develop Marxist theory of productive forces based on China’s specific realities.

不过，从马克思、恩格斯生产力理论的整体来看，我们还是必须承认，他们对既定生产关系条件下生产力本身的发展问题的阐述尚未充分展开。如果说生产力理论有两个维度，即既定生产关系可容纳的生产力本身的发展问题和既定生产关系已构成的对生产力发展的阻碍问题，那么，马克思、恩格斯的阐述重点无疑是后者，即对资本主义生产关系内在矛盾性的批判。他们不管是对资本主义生产关系还是对未来的共产主义生产关系可容纳的生产力本身的发展问题都没有展开充分的论述，更不要说对特定语境中的社会主义生产关系（如中国的社会主义初期阶段的生产关系）条件下可容纳的生产力本身的发展问题的阐述了，而这正是中国共产党人从中国的具体实际出发深化和发展马克思主义生产力理论的思想空间。

II. The Specific Realities of China’s Productive Forces Development in the New Era and the Proposal of New Quality Productive Forces

二、新时代中国生产力发展的具体实际与新质生产力的提出

Socialism with Chinese characteristics in the New Era has entered a new stage of development, embarking on a new journey of comprehensively building a modern socialist country, and the development of China’s productive forces has also entered a new stage. Broadly speaking, this is a stage of transitioning from high-speed economic growth to high-quality economic development. Specifically, it has the following three characteristics:

新时代中国特色社会主义进入新发展阶段，开启了全面建设社会主义现代化国家的新征程，中国生产力的发展也进入一个新的阶段。概括地说，这是从经济高速增长转入经济高质量发展的阶段。具体地说，它有以下三个方面的特点：

First, the new stage of development presents both opportunities and challenges for the development of China’s productive forces. Since the founding of New China, and especially through more than 40 years of unremitting effort since reform and opening up, China’s economic strength has risen to a new level, making it the world’s second-largest economy, the largest industrial nation, the largest trading nation in goods, and the largest holder of foreign exchange reserves. It is on this solid foundation that we have entered the new stage of development, which gives us reason and ability to set higher requirements for the mode of development of productive forces, making it more in line with the new standards of high-quality development. But at the same time, it must be recognized that when the development of productive forces reaches a relatively high level, the urgency of breaking free from traditional paths that constrain the development of productive forces will also increase day by day. “At present, the environment for China’s economic development has changed, especially the relative advantages of production factors have changed. Labor costs are gradually rising, the carrying capacity of resources and the environment has reached a bottleneck, the old combination mode of production functions has become unsustainable, and the importance of science and technology has risen comprehensively.”[10]10 Xi Jinping, “Correctly Grasping and Vig Faced with this situation where opportunities and challenges coexist, we must choose a new path of high-quality economic development and construct an advanced form of productive forces that conforms to the new development philosophy.

第一，新发展阶段给中国生产力的发展提供了机遇和挑战。经过新中国成立特别是改革开放以来40多年的不懈努力，我国的经济实力已经跃升到了一个新的台阶，成为世界第二大经济体、第一大工业国、第一大货物贸易国、第一大外汇储备国。我们是在这样的坚实基础上进入新发展阶段的，这就使我们有理由和有能力对生产力发展的模式提出更高的要求，使其更加符合高质量发展的新标准。但同时必须看到的是，当生产力发展达到一个较高的水准时，我们对摆脱限制生产力发展的传统路径的紧迫性也会与日俱增，“当前，我国经济发展环境出现了变化，特别是生产要素相对优势出现了变化。劳动力成本在逐步上升，资源环境承载能力达到了瓶颈，旧的生产函数组合方式已经难以持续，科学技术的重要性全面上升”。面对这种机遇和挑战并存的局面，我们必须选择经济高质量发展的新路，建构一种符合新发展理念的先进生产力形态。

Second, the new development philosophy sets higher requirements for the path selection of productive forces development. The Fifth Plenary Session of the 18th CPC Central Committee[11]11 Mao Zedong, “On the Correct Handling of Contradictions among the People” (February 27, 1957). put forward the new development philosophy of innovation, coordination, green, openness, and sharing, setting new requirements for the direction and path of China’s productive forces development. The 19th National Congress of the CPC[12]12 Xi Jinping, speech at the 11th collective study session of the Politburo of the 20th CPC Central Committee (January 31, 2024). emphasized that the principal contradiction facing Chinese society has transformed into the contradiction between the people’s ever-growing needs for a better life and unbalanced and inadequate development, and positioned this transformation as a historic change affecting the overall situation, thereby setting higher requirements for implementing the new development philosophy and achieving high-quality development. If in the past we could still implement factor-driven or investment-driven development of productive forces, then in the practical context of implementing the new development philosophy, these traditional modes of economic growth clearly cannot conform to development concepts such as coordination, green, and sharing; we must shift to a new model of innovation-driven productive forces development. Only by adhering to a development path of productive forces led by innovation can we truly implement the new development philosophy and effectively solve the problem of unbalanced and inadequate development. For example, if we do not adhere to innovation-driven development, we will be unable to truly solve many “bottleneck” problems in the field of science and technology, making it extremely difficult to solve the problem of inadequate development.

第二，新发展理念对生产力发展的路径选择提出了更高的要求。党的十八届五中全会提出了创新、协调、绿色、开放、共享的新发展理念，对中国生产力发展的方向和路径提出了新要求。党的十九大强调了我国社会主要矛盾已经转化为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，并把这种转化定位为关系全局的历史性变化，这就给贯彻新发展理念、实现高质量发展提出了更高的要求。如果说，我们在以往的生产力发展中还能实施要素驱动或投资驱动的话，那么，在贯彻新发展理念的实践语境中，这些传统的经济增长方式显然无法与协调、绿色、共享等发展理念相符合，我们必须转向创新驱动型生产力发展的新模式。只有坚持以创新为主导的生产力发展路径，才能真正做到贯彻新发展理念，并切实解决发展不平衡不充分的问题。譬如，如果我们不坚持创新驱动，那就无法真正解决科技领域中的诸多“卡脖子”问题，要想解决发展不充分的问题就会难上加难。

Third, building the new development pattern exerts a certain positive pressure on the path selection of China’s productive forces development. In recent years, as economic globalization has encountered headwinds and the pattern of international economic circulation has undergone profound adjustments, China has accelerated the construction of a new development pattern with domestic circulation as the mainstay and domestic and international circulations reinforcing each other, and has elevated it to the level of a major strategic task affecting the overall situation of China’s development to grasp and advance. This is a strategic layout by contemporary Chinese Communists to seize the initiative in future development, and also a major measure to implement the new development philosophy. The key to building the new development pattern lies in the smoothness of economic circulation. Xi Jinping pointed out, “At the current stage of China’s development, the main task for smoothing economic circulation is to ensure effective supply on the supply side. Strong effective supply capacity can penetrate circulation blockages, eliminate bottlenecks and constraints, create employment and provide income, thereby forming demand capacity. Therefore, we must persist in deepening supply-side structural reform as the main line, continue to complete the important tasks of ‘cutting overcapacity, reducing excess inventory, deleveraging, lowering costs, and strengthening areas of weakness,’[13]13 Xi Jinping, speech at the 11th collective study session of the Politburo of the 20th CPC Central Committee (January 31, 2024). comprehensively optimize and upgrade the industrial structure, enhance innovation capacity, competitiveness, and comprehensive strength, strengthen the resilience of the supply system, form a more efficient and higher-quality input-output relationship, and achieve a dynamic balance of the economy at a high level.”[14]14 Xi Jinping, speech at the 11th collective study session of the Politburo of the 20th CPC Central Committee (January 31, 2024). That is to say, in order to actively advance the new development pattern, the development of China’s productive forces, in addition to making efforts in technological innovation, also needs to work on deep transformation and upgrading of the industrial structure and more efficient allocation of production factors.

第三，构建新发展格局给中国生产力的发展路径选择施加了一定的正向压力。在近年来经济全球化遭遇逆流、国际经济循环格局发生深度调整的情况下，我国加快构建以国内大循环为主体、国内国际双循环相互促进的新发展格局，并把它提升到关系我国发展全局的重大战略任务的高度来加以把握和推进。这是当代中国共产党人把握未来发展主动权的战略性布局，也是贯彻新发展理念的重大举措。构建新发展格局的关键在于经济循环的畅通。习近平指出，“在我国发展现阶段，畅通经济循环最主要的任务是供给侧有效畅通，有效供给能力强可以穿透循环堵点、消除瓶颈制约，可以创造就业和提供收入，从而形成需求能力。因此，我们必须坚持深化供给侧结构性改革这条主线，继续完成‘三去一降一补’的重要任务，全面优化升级产业结构，提升创新能力、竞争力和综合实力，增强供给体系的韧性，形成更高效率和更高质量的投入产出关系，实现经济在高水平上的动态平衡”。也就是说，为了积极推进新发展格局，中国生产力的发展除了要在技术创新上下功夫外，还需要在产业结构的深度转型升级、生产要素的更高效率配置等方面做文章。

This is the concrete reality of China’s productive forces development. Marxist productive forces theory must be integrated with this concrete reality in order to produce a productive forces theory with distinct Chinese characteristics that guides the current development of China’s productive forces. Xi Jinping emphasized during the 11th collective study session of the Political Bureau of the 20th CPC Central Committee,[15]15 Xi Jinping, “Speech at the 10th Collective Study Session of the Politburo of the 18th CPC Central Committee” (January 29, 2016). “New quality productive forces are an advanced form of productive forces characterized by innovation playing a leading role, breaking away from traditional modes of economic growth and paths of productive forces development, and possessing features of high technology, high efficiency, and high quality, conforming to the new development philosophy. They are driven by revolutionary technological breakthroughs, innovative allocation of production factors, and deep transformation and upgrading of industries, with the basic connotation being the leap in the quality of laborers, means of labor, objects of labor, and their optimized combination, and the core marker being a substantial increase in total factor productivity. Their characteristic is innovation, the key is quality excellence, and the essence is advanced productive forces.”[16]16 Karl Marx, *Critique of the Gotha Programme* (1875). As an important achievement in adapting Marxist productive forces theory to the Chinese context, new quality productive forces not only provide a theoretical summary and generalization of the new quality productive forces practice currently being advanced in China at the new stage of development, but also point out the direction for the next step in the new development practice of China’s new quality productive forces.

这就是中国生产力发展的具体实际，马克思主义的生产力理论要同这种具体实际相结合，才能产生指导中国当下生产力发展、具有鲜明中国特色的生产力理论。习近平在中共中央政治局第十一次集体学习时强调指出，“新质生产力是创新起主导作用，摆脱传统经济增长方式、生产力发展路径，具有高科技、高效能、高质量特征，符合新发展理念的先进生产力质态。它由技术革命性突破、生产要素创新性配置、产业深度转型升级而催生，以劳动者、劳动资料、劳动对象及其优化组合的跃升为基本内涵，以全要素生产率大幅提升为核心标志，特点是创新，关键在质优，本质是先进生产力”。作为马克思主义生产力理论中国化的重要成果，新质生产力不仅对处于新发展阶段的中国正在推进的新质生产力实践作出了理论上的总结和概括，还对下一步中国新质生产力的新发展实践指明了方向。

III. The Innovative Development of Marxist Productive Forces Theory by New Quality Productive Forces

三、新质生产力对马克思主义生产力理论的创新发展

Chinese Communists have always been models of adhering to and developing Marxist productive forces theory, whether during the periods of the new-democratic revolution, socialist revolution, and socialist construction, when they adhered to and applied Marxist productive forces theory from the perspective of revolution as the liberation of productive forces, or during the new period of reform and opening up and socialist modernization, when they applied and developed Marxist productive forces theory from the perspectives of reform as the liberation of productive forces and science and technology as the primary productive force. Since the 18th National Congress of the CPC, Chinese Communists, with Comrade Xi Jinping as their main representative, have, through the elucidation and application of new quality productive forces, elevated the application and development of Marxist productive forces theory to a new height.

中国共产党人历来是坚持和发展马克思主义生产力理论的典范，不管是在新民主主义革命、社会主义革命和建设时期从革命是解放生产力等角度对马克思主义生产力理论的坚持和运用，还是在改革开放和社会主义现代化建设新时期从改革是解放生产力、科学技术是第一生产力等角度对马克思主义生产力理论的运用与发展。党的十八大以来，以习近平同志为主要代表的中国共产党人，通过对新质生产力的阐释与运用，把对马克思主义生产力理论的运用与发展提到了一个新的高度。

First, an original exposition has been made on the issue of the development of productive forces themselves under given relations of production. As mentioned earlier, the focus of Marx and Engels’ exposition on the issue of productive forces was the inherent contradiction between the given level of development of productive forces and capitalist relations of production; they only made sporadic and incidental discussions on the issue of the development of productive forces under given relations of production. In texts such as “The Condition of England: The Eighteenth Century” and “The Condition of the Working Class in England,” Engels did indeed discuss the role of the British Industrial Revolution in promoting the development of productive forces, but the key point is that what he discussed here was actually the premise of productive forces that facilitated the construction of capitalist relations of production, rather than positively explaining how to promote the development of productive forces under the conditions of capitalist relations of production. In *Capital* and its manuscripts, when discussing the system of machinery and large-scale machine industry, Marx also mentioned the role of elements such as “general intellect” and scientific knowledge in promoting the development of social productive forces, but he discussed this from the perspective of the civilizing role played by capital when it violates its own nature: “This tendency is inherent in capital, but at the same time it contradicts the narrow form of production of capital, thus driving capital toward dissolution. This tendency distinguishes capital from all previous modes of production, and at the same time means that capital is merely a transitional point.”[17]17 The “new development philosophy” (新发展理念) refers to the five concepts of innovation, coordination, green development, openness, and sharing, which guide China’s economic and social development in the New Era. That is to say, his discussion of this development of productive forces was intended to prove the inevitable demise of capitalist relations, not to explain how to promote the development of productive forces themselves under given capitalist relations of production. This leaves a broad space for theoretical growth in this dimension of Marx and Engels’ productive forces theory.

第一，对既定生产关系条件下生产力本身的发展问题作出了原创性的阐述。正如前文所提到的，马克思、恩格斯在生产力问题上的阐释重点是既定的生产力发展水平与资本主义生产关系之间的内在矛盾，他们对既定生产关系条件下生产力的发展问题只是作了零星的、附带的论述。恩格斯在《英国状况·十八世纪》《英国工人阶级状况》等文本中的确论述了英国工业革命对生产力发展的促进作用，但问题的关键是他此处所论述的，其实是促成资本主义生产关系建构的生产力前提，而没有从正面阐释在资本主义生产关系条件下如何促进生产力的发展。马克思在《资本论》及其手稿中谈到机器体系、机器大工业时，也曾提到“一般智力”、科学知识等要素对社会生产力发展的促进作用，但他是在资本违反了自己的本性的前提下所发挥的文明作用的角度来谈这一点的，“这种趋势是资本所具有的，但同时又是同资本这种狭隘的生产形式相矛盾的，因而把资本推向解体，这种趋势使资本同以往的一切生产方式区别开来，同时意味着，资本不过表现为过渡点”。也就是说，他谈论这种生产力的发展是为了证明资本关系的必然灭亡，而不是去阐释既定的资本主义生产关系条件下如何促进生产力本身的发展。这就使马克思、恩格斯生产力理论中的这一维度有着广阔的理论增长空间。

The research of Chinese Communists on the development of productive forces themselves under the conditions of socialist relations of production has a long history. In 1957, Mao Zedong pointed out, “Since 1956, the situation has fundamentally changed. Nationwide, the main force of counter-revolutionaries has been eliminated. Our fundamental task has shifted from liberating the productive forces to protecting and developing them under the new relations of production.” [11]11 Mao Zedong, “On the Correct Handling of Contradictions among the People” (February 27, 1957). His discussions in texts such as *On the Ten Major Relationships* and *On the Correct Handling of Contradictions among the People* on mobilizing all positive factors to participate in socialist construction marked the thinking of Chinese Communists in the early period of socialist construction on the issue of the development of productive forces themselves under the conditions of socialist relations of production. In the new period of reform and opening up and socialist modernization, ideas such as “science and technology are the primary productive forces” in Deng Xiaoping Theory, “the CPC always represents the development requirements of China’s advanced productive forces” in the Important Thought of Three Represents, and “adhering to a people-oriented, comprehensive, coordinated and sustainable development concept” in the Scientific Outlook on Development all represent important advances and deepening of this theoretical dimension within Marxist productive forces theory.

中国共产党人对社会主义生产关系条件下生产力本身的发展问题的研究由来已久。毛泽东在1957年就指出，“从一九五六年以来，情况就根本改变了。就全国说来，反革命分子的主要力量已经肃清。我们的根本任务已经由解放生产力变为在新的生产关系下面保护和发展生产力”。他在《论十大关系》《关于正确处理人民内部矛盾的问题》等文本中对调动一切积极因素参加社会主义建设的论述，标志着中国共产党人在社会主义建设初期对社会主义生产关系条件下生产力本身发展问题的思考。在改革开放和社会主义现代化建设新时期，邓小平理论中的“科学技术是第一生产力”、“三个代表”重要思想中的“中国共产党始终代表中国先进生产力的发展要求”、科学发展观中的“坚持以人为本，全面、协调、可持续的发展观”等思想，都是对马克思主义生产力理论中的这一理论维度的重要推进和深化。

As socialism with Chinese characteristics enters a New Era, China’s economic development has entered a new stage. The Party Central Committee with Comrade Xi Jinping at its core has insisted on promoting high-quality development, continuously liberating and developing social productive forces, and made a series of major decisions and deployments, enabling China’s level of productive forces to achieve breakthrough development and forming a new qualitative state of productive forces development. The proposal of new quality productive forces provides a comprehensive and innovative exposition of the issue of the development of productive forces themselves under established relations of production (i.e., the socialist market economy). First, the core element of new quality productive forces is innovation, especially scientific and technological innovation. “Scientific and technological innovation can give rise to new industries, new models, and new drivers of growth; it is the core element for developing new quality productive forces. It is necessary to strengthen scientific and technological innovation, especially original and disruptive scientific and technological innovation, accelerate the achievement of high-level self-reliance and self-strengthening in science and technology, fight the tough battle for key core technologies, so that original and disruptive scientific and technological innovations emerge in abundance, cultivating new drivers for developing new quality productive forces.” [12]12 Xi Jinping, speech at the 11th collective study session of the Politburo of the 20th CPC Central Committee (January 31, 2024). If, under the conditions of the previous round of the scientific and technological revolution, the core element driving the development of China’s productive forces was applying the most advanced scientific and technological achievements to all fields of material production, then, under the conditions of the current new round of the scientific and technological revolution and industrial transformation, the core element driving the development of China’s productive forces has risen to the level of strengthening original and disruptive scientific and technological innovation. This is because this round of the scientific and technological revolution is unfolding under the premise that the changes unseen in a century are accelerating, and scientific and technological innovation has become the main battlefield of international strategic games. Coupled with the fact that the new round of the scientific and technological revolution has already driven profound changes in the paradigm of scientific research, the breadth, depth, speed, and precision of scientific and technological innovation have all been significantly enhanced. Moreover, “after years of effort, the overall level of China’s science and technology has greatly improved; we fully have the foundation, confidence, and capability to seize the opportunities of the new round of the scientific and technological revolution and industrial transformation, to ride the momentum and achieve great success.” [13]13 Xi Jinping, speech at the 11th collective study session of the Politburo of the 20th CPC Central Committee (January 31, 2024). This is the reason why innovation must be emphasized as playing a leading role in the development of China’s new quality productive forces.

中国特色社会主义进入新时代，我国经济发展进入了新阶段，以习近平同志为核心的党中央坚持推动高质量发展，不断解放和发展社会生产力，作出一系列重大决策部署，使我国生产力水平实现突破性发展，形成了生产力发展的新的质态。新质生产力的提出，对既定生产关系（即社会主义市场经济）条件下生产力本身的发展问题作出了全面和创新性的阐述。首先，新质生产力的核心要素是创新尤其是科技创新，“科技创新能够催生新产业、新模式、新动能，是发展新质生产力的核心要素。必须加强科技创新特别是原创性、颠覆性科技创新，加快实现高水平科技自立自强，打好关键核心技术攻坚战，使原创性、颠覆性科技创新成果竞相涌现，培育发展新质生产力的新动能”。如果说在上一轮科技革命的条件下推动中国生产力发展的核心要素是把最先进的科技成果应用于物质生产的各个领域，那么，在当下新一轮科技革命和产业革命的条件下，推动中国生产力发展的核心要素已经跃升到加强原创性、颠覆性科技创新的层面上，因为这一轮科技革命是在当今世界百年未有之大变局加速演进，科技创新成为国际战略博弈的主要战场的前提下展开的。再加上新一轮科技革命已经推动了科学研究范式的深刻变革，科技创新的广度、深度、速度、精度都得到了显著加强，而“经过多年努力，我国科技整体水平大幅提升，我们完全有基础、有底气、有信心、有能力抓住新一轮科技革命和产业变革的机遇，乘势而上，大展宏图”。这就是必须强调创新在中国新质生产力发展中起主导作用的原因。

Second, the basic connotation of new quality productive forces is the leap in laborers, means of labor, subjects of labor, and their optimized combination, and its core hallmark is a substantial increase in total factor productivity. We know that the basic elements of productive forces are the means of labor, the subjects of labor, and laborers. Under the premise of traditional economic growth models and paths of productive forces development, the process of laborers using certain means of labor to act upon subjects of labor can drive the development of productive forces. However, under the premise of the current new round of the scientific and technological revolution and industrial transformation, these three basic elements all need to leap forward. Laborers must leap to a level commensurate with the requirements of developing new quality productive forces and promoting high-quality development. Means of labor must leap, through original and disruptive scientific and technological innovation, to a level matching the requirements of accelerating the achievement of high-level self-reliance and self-strengthening in science and technology. Subjects of labor, as the breadth and depth of scientific and technological innovation continuously increase, expand into ever newer fields. At the same time, the degree of optimized combination among these three basic elements must also achieve a good leap. It is necessary to realize the leap in optimized combination by perfecting the modern industrial system. “It is necessary to promptly apply the achievements of scientific and technological innovation to specific industries and industrial chains, transform and upgrade traditional industries, cultivate and strengthen emerging industries, plan and build future industries, and perfect the modern industrial system. It is necessary to layout industrial chains around the development of new quality productive forces, enhance the resilience and security level of industrial and supply chains, and ensure that the industrial system is independently controllable, safe, and reliable.” [14]14 Xi Jinping, speech at the 11th collective study session of the Politburo of the 20th CPC Central Committee (January 31, 2024). This is also an important pathway for substantially increasing the total factor productivity in China’s new quality productive forces.

其次，新质生产力的基本内涵是劳动者、劳动资料、劳动对象及其优化组合的跃升，其核心标志是全要素生产率的大幅提升。我们知道，生产力的基本要素是劳动资料、劳动对象和劳动者。在传统经济增长方式和生产力发展路径的前提下，劳动者运用一定的劳动资料作用于劳动对象的过程，便能推动生产力的发展。但在当下的新一轮科技革命和产业变革的前提下，这三个基本要素都需要跃升。劳动者要跃升到与发展新质生产力、推动高质量发展的要求相适应的层面，劳动资料要通过原创性、颠覆性的科技创新跃升到与加快实现高水平科技自立自强的要求相匹配的层面，劳动对象随着科技创新的广度和深度的不断加大而拓展到越来越新的领域。与此同时，上述这三个基本要素之间的优化组合程度也必须得到很好的跃升。要通过完善现代化产业体系来实现优化组合的跃升，“要及时将科技创新成果应用到具体产业和产业链上，改造提升传统产业，培育壮大新兴产业，布局建设未来产业，完善现代化产业体系。要围绕发展新质生产力布局产业链，提升产业链供应链韧性和安全水平，保证产业体系自主可控、安全可靠”，而这也是大幅提高中国新质生产力中全要素生产率的重要途径。

Finally, the essence of developing new quality productive forces is to promote the development of advanced productive forces. The reason why China’s new quality productive forces constitute advanced productive forces is that they conform to the new development philosophy. Regarding the new development philosophy, Xi Jinping pointed out, “At the Fifth Plenary Session of the 18th CPC Central Committee, I put forward the development concepts of innovation, coordination, green, openness, and sharing, emphasizing that the innovation concept focuses on solving the problem of development momentum, the coordination concept focuses on solving the problem of unbalanced development, the green concept focuses on solving the problem of harmony between man and nature, the openness concept focuses on solving the problem of internal and external linkage in development, and the sharing concept focuses on solving the problem of social fairness and justice, emphasizing that adhering to the new development philosophy is a profound transformation concerning the overall situation of China’s development.” [15]15 Xi Jinping, “Speech at the 10th Collective Study Session of the Politburo of the 18th CPC Central Committee” (January 29, 2016). This qualitative state of productive forces, which takes innovation as the fundamental driving force and features coordination, green, openness, and sharing as important characteristics, is both the fundamental requirement for the development of China’s productive forces in the primary stage of socialism and the fundamental requirement put forward for the development of productive forces when China enters a new stage of development. We know that the classical Marxist writers once described the advanced nature of productive forces in future social forms. In the *Critique of the Gotha Programme*, Marx organically linked the development of productive forces in the higher phase of communist society with the all-round development of individuals: “After labor has become not only a means of life but life’s primary want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-round development of the individual, and all the springs of cooperative wealth flow more abundantly—only then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!” [16]16 Karl Marx, *Critique of the Gotha Programme* (1875). Of course, Marx did not and could not have discussed the advanced nature of productive forces in the primary stage of socialism. On the basis of inheriting and developing the theoretical achievements of adapting Marxism to the Chinese context and the needs of the times, Xi Jinping has not only enriched and developed, in the practical context of socialism with Chinese characteristics for a New Era, the ideas of the comprehensive abundance of things and the all-round development of people mentioned by the classical Marxist writers when discussing future productive forces, from the perspective that Chinese-path modernization is a modernization of material civilization and cultural-ethical progress in harmony. He has also, from the perspective of the five major elements of the new development philosophy, provided an original definition and explanation of the thought on advanced productive forces under the conditions of the primary stage of socialism.

最后，发展新质生产力的本质是推动先进生产力的发展。中国的新质生产力之所以是一种先进生产力，其原因就在于它是符合新发展理念的。关于新发展理念，习近平指出，“在党的十八届五中全会上，我提出了创新、协调、绿色、开放、共享的发展理念，强调创新发展注重的是解决发展动力问题，协调发展注重的是解决发展不平衡问题，绿色发展注重的是解决人与自然和谐问题，开放发展注重的是解决发展内外联动问题，共享发展注重的是解决社会公平正义问题，强调坚持新发展理念是关系我国发展全局的一场深刻变革”。这种以创新为根本动力，以协调、绿色、开放、共享为重要特征的生产力质态，既是社会主义初级阶段中国生产力发展的根本要求，也是我国迈入新发展阶段时对生产力发展所提出的根本要求。我们知道，马克思主义经典作家对未来社会形态中生产力的先进性曾作出过描述。在《哥达纲领批判》中，马克思把共产主义社会高级阶段中的生产力发展与个人的全面发展有机地联系了起来：“在劳动已经不仅仅是谋生的手段，而且本身成了生活的第一需要之后；在随着个人的全面发展，他们的生产力也增长起来，而集体财富的一切源泉都充分涌流之后，——只有在那个时候，才能完全超出资产阶级权利的狭隘眼界，社会才能在自己的旗帜上写上：各尽所能，按需分配！”当然，马克思没有也不可能对社会主义初级阶段生产力的先进性作出论述。在继承和发展马克思主义中国化时代化理论成果的基础上，习近平不仅从中国式现代化是物质文明和精神文明相协调的现代化的角度，对马克思主义经典作家在论述未来生产力时所说的物的全面丰富和人的全面发展的思想，在新时代中国特色社会主义实践语境中加以丰富和发展，而且还从新发展理念的五大要素的角度，对社会主义初级阶段条件下先进生产力的思想进行了原创性的界定和阐释。

Second, it profoundly elucidates the laws governing the development of socialist productive forces and the laws governing the development of productive forces under socialism with Chinese characteristics for a New Era. We know that classical writers such as Marx and Engels did not systematically expound on the issue of the development of productive forces themselves; their main effort was devoted to demonstrating the obstructive effect of private-ownership relations of production, especially capitalist relations of production, on the development of productive forces. But this does not mean that in their view productive forces develop automatically. Engels’s descriptions in texts such as *The Condition of England: The Eighteenth Century* and *The Condition of the Working Class in England* of the role of the Industrial Revolution in promoting the development of Britain’s productive forces are in fact a preliminary inquiry into the laws of Britain’s capitalist productive forces when they were still in their ascending phase. Marx’s descriptions in *Capital* and its manuscripts of the role of capitalist machine-based large-scale industry in promoting the development of productive forces are in fact an exposition of the first dimension of the inherent contradiction of capital relations (on the one hand striving to develop productive forces in all respects, on the other hand fundamentally obstructing the development of productive forces). For Marx and Engels, it was only in the communist stage, the realm of freedom, that the development of productive forces could be free, unobstructed, continuously progressive and comprehensive. But even at that stage, “free” does not mean automatic; productive forces in any social formation, if separated from human effort, cannot develop automatically. Just as Marx pointed out in *Critique of the Gotha Programme*, productive forces in the communist stage grow continuously with the all-round development of individuals. It should be said that Marx and Engels only made a preliminary exploration of the laws of development of socialist and communist productive forces, and had not yet undertaken systematic research.

第二，对社会主义生产力的发展规律、新时代中国特色社会主义生产力的发展规律作出了深刻的阐发。我们知道，马克思、恩格斯等经典作家并没有对生产力本身的发展问题进行系统的阐释，他们的主要精力在于论证私有制生产关系尤其是资本主义生产关系对生产力发展的阻碍作用。但这并不意味着在他们的眼里生产力是自动发展的。恩格斯在《英国状况·十八世纪》《英国工人阶级状况》等文本中关于工业革命对英国生产力发展的促进作用的描述，其实是对尚处于上升期的英国资本主义生产力规律的初步探讨。马克思在《资本论》及其手稿中关于资本主义机器大工业对生产力发展的促进作用的描述，其实是对资本关系内在矛盾性（一方面力求全面发展生产力，另一方面又对生产力的发展起根本上的阻碍作用）中前一个维度的阐释。对马克思、恩格斯来说，只有到了共产主义这一自由王国阶段，生产力的发展才可能是自由的、无阻碍的、不断进步的和全面的。但即使到了这一阶段，“自由的”也不意味着自动的，任何社会形态中的生产力如果脱离了人的努力都不可能自动地得到发展。正像马克思在《哥达纲领批判》中所指出的那样，共产主义阶段的生产力是随着个人的全面发展而不断增长起来的。应该说，马克思、恩格斯对社会主义、共产主义生产力的发展规律只是作了初步的探索，还尚未展开系统的研究。

In the practical context of reform and opening up and socialist modernization, Deng Xiaoping Theory, the important thought of the Three Represents, and the Scientific Outlook on Development all advanced the research and exposition of the laws of development of socialist productive forces, especially productive forces under socialism with Chinese characteristics. For example, Deng Xiaoping deepened the understanding of this law from the dimension of combining the liberation of productive forces with the development of productive forces: “After the basic system of socialism is established, it is still necessary to fundamentally change the economic system that fetters the development of productive forces, and establish a socialist economic system full of vitality and dynamism, so as to promote the development of productive forces. This is reform, so reform is also the liberation of productive forces. In the past, we only spoke of developing productive forces under socialist conditions, and did not speak of liberating productive forces through reform; that was incomplete. We should speak fully of both liberating productive forces and developing productive forces.” Moreover, he explicitly put forward the view that “science and technology are a primary productive force”: “I say science and technology are a primary productive force. In the last ten or twenty years, how fast world science and technology have developed! A breakthrough in a high-tech field drives the development of a whole range of industries. In our own case in recent years, could we have grown so fast without science and technology? We must promote science, and only by relying on science can we have hope.”

在改革开放和社会主义现代化建设的实践语境中，邓小平理论、“三个代表”重要思想、科学发展观都推进了对社会主义生产力尤其是中国特色社会主义生产力的发展规律的研究与阐释。譬如，邓小平从解放生产力和发展生产力相结合的维度深化了对这一规律的认识：“社会主义基本制度确立以后，还要从根本上改变束缚生产力发展的经济体制，建立起充满生机和活力的社会主义经济体制，促进生产力的发展，这是改革，所以改革也是解放生产力。过去，只讲在社会主义条件下发展生产力，没有讲还要通过改革解放生产力，不完全。应该把解放生产力和发展生产力两个讲全了。”而且，他还明确地提出了“科学技术是第一生产力”的观点：“我说科学技术是第一生产力。近一二十年来，世界科学技术发展得多快啊！高科技领域的一个突破，带动一批产业的发展。我们自己这几年，离开科学技术能增长得这么快吗？要提倡科学，靠科学才有希望。”

In the practical context of socialism with Chinese characteristics for a New Era, Xi Jinping’s series of important discourses and major deployments on developing new quality productive forces have elevated the understanding of the laws of development of socialist productive forces, especially the laws of development of productive forces under socialism with Chinese characteristics for a New Era, to a new height. First, the proposal of new quality productive forces further deepens the understanding of the dialectical unity of liberating productive forces and developing productive forces under socialist conditions. On the one hand, Xi Jinping further emphasizes the importance of comprehensively deepening reform for developing new quality productive forces: “Relations of production must be adapted to the requirements of the development of productive forces. To develop new quality productive forces, we must further comprehensively deepen reform and form new types of relations of production that are compatible with them.” This is an inheritance and development of the idea of liberating productive forces through reform and thereby developing productive forces. On the other hand, he clearly points out the idea of promoting the development of productive forces with innovation as the leading force. This innovation refers not only to scientific and technological innovation, especially original and disruptive scientific and technological innovation, but also to the innovative allocation of factors of production, the deep transformation and upgrading of industries, etc. Under the premise that socialism with Chinese characteristics for a New Era has entered a new stage of development, this is Xi Jinping’s innovative exposition of the law of development of socialist productive forces, which greatly deepens the understanding of the law of development of socialist productive forces.

在新时代中国特色社会主义的实践语境中，习近平关于发展新质生产力的一系列重要论述、一系列重大部署把对社会主义生产力发展规律尤其是新时代中国特色社会主义生产力发展规律的认识提升到一个崭新的高度。首先，新质生产力的提出进一步深化了对社会主义条件下解放生产力和发展生产力辩证统一的认识。一方面，习近平进一步强调了全面深化改革对发展新质生产力的重要性，“生产关系必须与生产力发展要求相适应。发展新质生产力，必须进一步全面深化改革，形成与之相适应的新型生产关系”。这是对通过改革来解放生产力进而发展生产力思想的继承与发展。另一方面，他又明确地指出了以创新为主导来推动生产力发展的思想。这种创新既是指科技创新特别是原创性、颠覆性的科技创新，还包括生产要素的创新性配置、产业深度转型升级等。这是在新时代中国特色社会主义进入新发展阶段的前提下，习近平对社会主义生产力发展规律的创新性阐释，极大地深化了对社会主义生产力发展规律的认识。

Second, the proposal of new quality productive forces further deepens the understanding of the standards and direction for the development of advanced productive forces under socialist conditions. Xi Jinping points out, “Developing new quality productive forces is an intrinsic requirement and a key focus for promoting high-quality development. We must continue to do a good job of innovation and accelerate the development of new quality productive forces.” This is a scientific judgment on the basic direction of the development of new quality productive forces, namely, that new quality productive forces must develop along the direction of high-quality development. At the same time, Xi Jinping points out that new quality productive forces are “a qualitative state of advanced productive forces that conforms to the new development philosophy.” This is a scientific judgment on the basic standard for the development of new quality productive forces, namely, that new quality productive forces are a qualitative state of productive forces that conforms to the new development philosophy.

其次，新质生产力的提出进一步深化了对社会主义条件下先进生产力发展的标准和方向的认识。习近平指出，“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，必须继续做好创新这篇大文章，推动新质生产力加快发展”。这是对新质生产力发展基本方向的科学判断，即新质生产力必须沿着高质量发展的方向来发展。同时，习近平指出，新质生产力是“符合新发展理念的先进生产力质态”。这是对新质生产力发展的基本标准的科学判断，即新质生产力就是符合新发展理念的生产力质态。

In the process of combining the views of classical Marxist writers on the standards of advanced productive forces in future society with the concrete realities of China’s socialist construction, Chinese Communists have achieved a series of important theoretical results. Deng Xiaoping’s strategic conception of a moderately prosperous society is one of them. In 1984, Deng Xiaoping pointed out: “Quadrupling the GNP and reaching a per capita GNP of US$800 means establishing a moderately prosperous society in China by the end of the century. This moderately prosperous society is called Chinese-style modernization. Quadrupling, a moderately prosperous society, Chinese-style modernization – these are all our new concepts.” As socialism with Chinese characteristics entered a New Era, Chinese Communists, with Comrade Xi Jinping as their main representative, keenly grasped the new changes in the principal contradiction in society, clearly put forward the new development philosophy, and emphasized that China’s economy has shifted from a stage of high-speed growth to a stage of high-quality development. That is to say, the standard for developing advanced productive forces under socialism with Chinese characteristics for a New Era must be driven primarily by innovation, and cannot continue the resource-driven path of traditional economic growth models; it must be able to solve the problem of coordinated development among regions, between urban and rural areas, and between economic and social factors, and cannot focus only on economic development while neglecting the improvement of overall development effectiveness; it must be able to solve the problem of harmony between humans and nature, and cannot base economic growth on environmental imbalance; it must be able to solve the problem of improving the quality of opening up and the internal-external linkage of development, and cannot oppose opening up to safeguarding national economic security; it must be able to allow the broad masses of the people to share the fruits of reform and development, and cannot base economic development on widening the gap between rich and poor. It should be said that the new recognition of the standard of productive forces from the height of the new development philosophy embodied in new quality productive forces is a scientific judgment, made at the level of deepening the understanding of the law of development of socialist productive forces, on the standard of China’s advanced productive forces at a new stage of development: “We say that we should not simply judge heroes by the growth rate of GDP, but should look at the overall level of work; that is, we should develop according to the law of development of productive forces, and not act recklessly in violation of the law. We must correctly apply the standard of productive forces to promote the unity of the continuous enrichment of things and the all-round development of human beings.”

中国共产党人在把马克思主义经典作家关于未来社会先进生产力标准的观点与中国社会主义建设的具体实际相结合的过程中取得了一系列重要的理论成果。邓小平小康社会的战略构想就是其中之一。1984年，邓小平指出：“翻两番，国民生产总值人均达到八百美元，就是到本世纪末在中国建立一个小康社会。这个小康社会，叫做中国式的现代化。翻两番、小康社会、中国式的现代化，这些都是我们的新概念。”中国特色社会主义进入新时代，以习近平同志为主要代表的中国共产党人敏锐地抓住了社会主要矛盾的新变化，明确地提出了新发展理念，强调了我国经济已经从高速增长阶段转向了高质量发展阶段。也就是说，新时代中国特色社会主义发展先进生产力的标准必须是以创新为主要驱动的，而不能延续传统经济增长方式中的资源驱动路径；必须是能够解决区域、城乡、经济和社会等要素之间的协调发展问题的，而不能只顾经济发展而不顾发展的整体效能的提高；必须是能够解决人与自然之间的和谐问题的，而不能把经济增长建立在环境失衡的基础之上；必须是能够解决提高对外开放的质量和发展的内外联动问题的，而不能把对外开放与维护国家经济安全对立起来；必须是能够让广大人民群众共享改革发展成果的，而不能把经济发展建立在贫富差距拉大的基础上。应该说，新质生产力从新发展理念的高度对生产力标准的新认知，是站在深化对社会主义生产力发展规律的层面上对处在新发展阶段的中国先进生产力标准的科学判断，“我们讲不要简单以国内生产总值增长率论英雄，要看全面工作水平，就是说要按照生产力发展规律去发展，而不要违背规律蛮干。我们要正确运用生产力标准，推动实现物的不断丰富和人的全面发展的统一”。

Third, it has made a comprehensive elaboration and development of the theory of the contradiction between productive forces and relations of production in historical materialism. When we usually speak of the historical materialist theory of the contradiction between productive forces and relations of production, we always think of Marx’s famous exposition in the “Preface to A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy”: “In the social production of their existence, men inevitably enter into definite relations, which are independent of their will, namely relations of production appropriate to a given stage in the development of their material forces of production. … At a certain stage of development, the material productive forces of society come into conflict with the existing relations of production or—this merely expresses the same thing in legal terms—with the property relations within the framework of which they have operated hitherto. From forms of development of the productive forces these relations turn into their fetters. Then begins an era of social revolution. The changes in the economic foundation lead sooner or later to the transformation of the whole immense superstructure.” Consequently, we usually interpret the theory of the contradiction between productive forces and relations of production as the contradiction between productive forces that have developed to a certain stage and the existing relations of production, which drives the transformation of the existing relations of production. This interpretation is of course correct, and it is clearly the most important dimension in which Marx elaborated the theory of the contradiction between productive forces and relations of production in the context of the critique of capitalism. But the question now is whether this interpretation represents the entire content of Marx’s theory of the contradiction between productive forces and relations of production.

第三，对历史唯物主义的生产力与生产关系矛盾运动理论作出了全面的阐释和发展。我们通常在谈到唯物史观关于生产力与生产关系矛盾运动理论时，总会想到马克思在《〈政治经济学批判〉序言》中的著名论述：“人们在自己生活的社会生产中发生一定的、必然的、不以他们的意志为转移的关系，即同他们的物质生产力的一定发展阶段相适合的生产关系……社会的物质生产力发展到一定阶段，便同它们一直在其中运动的现存生产关系或财产关系（这只是生产关系的法律用语）发生矛盾。于是这些关系便由生产力的发展形式变成生产力的桎梏。那时社会革命的时代就到来了。随着经济基础的变更，全部庞大的上层建筑也或慢或快地发生变革。”于是，我们通常会把生产力生产关系矛盾运动理论解释为发展到一定阶段的生产力与现存的生产关系发生矛盾，并推动现存生产关系的变革。这种阐释当然是正确的，并且显然是马克思在资本主义批判的语境中阐释生产力生产关系矛盾运动理论的最重要维度。但现在的问题是这种阐释是否代表了马克思生产力生产关系矛盾运动理论的全部内容？

In fact, in the same text, immediately following the above passage, Marx also put forward the following important view: “Just as one does not judge an individual by what he thinks about himself, so one cannot judge such a period of transformation by its consciousness, but, on the contrary, this consciousness must be explained from the contradictions of material life, from the conflict existing between the social forces of production and the relations of production. No social order is ever destroyed before all the productive forces for which it is sufficient have been developed, and new superior relations of production never replace older ones before the material conditions for their existence have matured within the framework of the old society.” This is the famous view of the “two inevitables” [18]18 The “two inevitables” (两个决不会) refers to Marx’s proposition in the 1859 Preface that a social order is never destroyed before all the productive forces it can accommodate have developed, and new relations of production never appear before the material conditions for their existence have matured within the old society. This is distinct from the “two inevitabilities” (两个必然) of the *Communist Manifesto*—the inevitable fall of the bourgeoisie and the inevitable victory of the proletariat.. Here Marx clearly emphasizes another dimension of the contradictory movement between productive forces and relations of production, namely, that before all the productive forces that a given set of relations of production can accommodate have been brought into play, these relations of production will not perish. Although Marx, in the context of the critique of capitalism, when discussing this view, still focused on the determining role of the level of development of productive forces in the perishability of specific relations of production (i.e., the timing and pace of their demise), if we connect this with the relevant ideas Marx elaborated elsewhere on the development of productive forces under non-capitalist conditions, we can see another dimension of Marx’s theory of the contradiction between productive forces and relations of production: the contradiction between relations of production that have developed to a certain stage and the fact that the level of development of the productive forces they can accommodate has not yet been fully brought into play. In the *Grundrisse* (1857–1858), when discussing the development of productive forces in a future new mode of production, Marx pointed out that this kind of productive forces is “free, unobstructed, continuous and universal development.” Connecting this view with the view of the “two inevitables,” we can see that although Marx, when discussing the theory of the contradiction between productive forces and relations of production, did not focus on its second dimension—the contradiction between given relations of production and the productive forces they can accommodate that have not yet been fully brought into play (this is to some extent because he had not yet fully developed his research on the development of productive forces in the socialist stage)—this part of the view does exist in embryonic form within his thought. If emphasizing the first dimension of the above theory was the inevitable choice for Marx in the context of the critique of capitalism, then for us in the context of socialist construction, it is obviously particularly important to fully understand the dialectical relationship between the two dimensions in the above theory.

其实，就在上述文本中，紧接着上面这段论述，马克思还提出了如下重要观点，“我们判断一个人不能以他对自己的看法为根据，同样，我们判断这样一个变革时代也不能以它的意识为根据；相反，这个意识必须从物质生活的矛盾中，从社会生产力和生产关系之间的现存冲突中去解释。无论哪一个社会形态，在它所能容纳的全部生产力发挥出来以前，是决不会灭亡的；而新的更高的生产关系，在它的物质存在条件在旧社会的胎胞里成熟以前，是决不会出现的”。这就是著名的“两个决不会”的观点。马克思在这里明确地强调了生产力与生产关系矛盾运动的另一个维度，即在既定生产关系所能容纳的全部生产力发挥出来之前，这种生产关系是不会灭亡的。虽然处于资本主义批判语境中的马克思在谈到这一观点时，仍然把重点放在了生产力的发展水平对具体生产关系之灭亡性（即走向灭亡的时间与进度等）的决定作用上，但如果联系马克思在其他地方阐述非资本主义条件下生产力发展问题时所提出的相关思想，我们就能看到马克思生产力与生产关系矛盾运动理论中的另一个维度，即发展到一定阶段的生产关系与它所容纳的生产力发展水平尚未充分发挥出来之间的矛盾。在《政治经济学批判（1857—1858年手稿）》中谈到未来新生产方式中的生产力发展时，马克思指出，这种生产力是“自由的、无阻碍的、不断进步的和全面的发展”。把这种观点与“两个决不会”的观点联系起来，我们就能看出，虽然马克思在谈到生产力与生产关系矛盾运动理论时，没有重点谈论其第二个维度，即既定生产关系与它所容纳的生产力尚未充分发挥出来之间的矛盾（这在一定程度上是因为他尚未充分展开对社会主义阶段生产力发展问题的研究），但这一部分观点确实是以萌芽的形式存在于其思想之中的。如果说强调上述理论中的第一个维度是站在资本主义批判语境中的马克思的必然选择，那么，对于站在社会主义建设语境中的我们来说，完整地理解上述理论中两个维度之间的辩证关系就显然尤其重要了。

Xi Jinping has keenly grasped the dialectical relationship between the “two inevitabilities” and the “two inevitables,” and has made a profound elaboration and development of the above two dimensions of the theory of the contradiction between productive forces and relations of production in historical materialism and their interrelationship. Xi Jinping pointed out: “Marx and Engels, applying the law of the development of society driven by its fundamental contradictions, made scientific predictions about the development of future society. The *Communist Manifesto* put forward: ‘The fall of the bourgeoisie and the victory of the proletariat are equally inevitable.’ This is the ‘two inevitabilities,’ referring to the general trend of human history, the inevitable direction of historical laws. Here we must also mention Marx’s ‘two inevitables.’ Marx said: ‘No social order is ever destroyed before all the productive forces for which it is sufficient have been developed, and new superior relations of production never replace older ones before the material conditions for their existence have matured within the framework of the old society.’” Xi Jinping also emphasized that the worldview and methodology of historical materialism have important guiding significance for us in continuously raising the level of development of socialist productive forces and the people’s living standards, and in making the superiority of our country’s socialist system continuously manifest and enrich itself.

习近平敏锐地抓住了“两个必然”和“两个决不会”之间的辩证关系，对历史唯物主义生产力与生产关系矛盾运动理论中的上述两个维度及其相互关系作出了深刻的阐释与发展。习近平指出：“马克思、恩格斯运用社会基本矛盾推动社会发展的规律，对未来社会发展作出了科学预见。《共产党宣言》提出:‘资产阶级的灭亡和无产阶级的胜利是同样不可避免的。’这就是‘两个必然’，是就人类历史总的发展趋势而言的，是历史规律的必然指向。这里还要说到马克思提出的‘两个决不会’，马克思说：‘无论哪一个社会形态，在它所能容纳的全部生产力发挥出来以前，是决不会灭亡的；而新的更高的生产关系，在它的物质存在条件在旧社会的胎胞里成熟以前，是决不会出现的。’”习近平还强调历史唯物主义的世界观和方法论，对于我们不断提高社会主义生产力发展水平和人民生活水平，使我国社会主义制度优越性不断显现和丰富起来具有重要的指导意义。

Through the above investigation, we can find that new quality productive forces are not only a systematic grasp of the two dimensions of the theory of the contradiction between productive forces and relations of production in historical materialism; the discussion of the path for developing new quality productive forces also makes original contributions to historical materialism. The view that developing new quality productive forces must further comprehensively deepen reform and opening up and form new types of relations of production compatible with them is, in the context of the new stage of development, an inheritance and development of the view in the theory of the contradiction between productive forces and relations of production that the development requirements of productive forces drive the transformation of existing relations of production. The view in the thought of new quality productive forces of constructing, through innovation, an advanced quality of productive forces with the characteristics of high technology, high efficiency, and high quality, conforming to the new development philosophy, is, in the context of the new stage of development, an innovative development of the view in the classical exposition of historical materialism that was not yet systematically elaborated—the view of the contradiction between given relations of production and the productive forces they can accommodate that have not yet been fully brought into play. The relations of production of the socialist market economy are the relations of production most suited to the development of productive forces under socialism with Chinese characteristics in the New Era; the level of development of productive forces they can accommodate and drive has very broad space for development. What we must do now is to keep in mind the requirements of high-quality development, fully implement the new development philosophy, accelerate the development of new quality productive forces, and strive to resolve the contradiction between the relations of production of the socialist market economy, which has superiority, and the fact that all the productive forces it can accommodate and drive have not yet been fully brought into play. The systematic application and creative development of the two dimensions of the theory of the contradiction between productive forces and relations of production in historical materialism by new quality productive forces has opened up a new horizon for adapting Marxism to the Chinese context and the needs of the times, and will certainly play an important guiding role in the development of China’s advanced productive forces in the New Era.

通过以上考察我们可以发现，新质生产力不仅是对历史唯物主义生产力与生产关系矛盾运动理论中两个维度的系统把握，关于新质生产力发展路径问题的探讨，对历史唯物主义同样作出了原创性的贡献。发展新质生产力必须进一步全面深化改革，形成与之相适应的新型生产关系的观点，是在新发展阶段的语境中，对生产力与生产关系矛盾运动理论中生产力的发展要求对现存生产关系变革的驱动性观点的继承和发展。而新质生产力思想中通过创新来建构起具有高科技、高效能、高质量特征，符合新发展理念的先进生产力质态的观点，则是在新发展阶段的语境中对唯物史观经典表述中尚未系统阐述出来的、既定生产关系与其所容纳的生产力尚未充分发挥出来之间的矛盾的观点的创新性发展。社会主义市场经济的生产关系是最符合新时代中国特色社会主义生产力发展的生产关系，它能容纳和驱动的生产力发展水平是有非常广阔的发展空间的。我们当下要做的，就是牢记高质量发展的要求，全面贯彻新发展理念，推动新质生产力加快发展，努力解决具有优越性的社会主义市场经济这一生产关系与其所容纳和驱动的全部生产力尚未充分发挥出来之间的矛盾。新质生产力对历史唯物主义生产力与生产关系矛盾运动理论中两个维度的系统运用和创造性发展，开辟了马克思主义中国化时代化发展的新境界，必将对新时代中国先进生产力的发展发挥重要的指导作用。

(Author: Professor and Doctoral Supervisor, Department of Philosophy and Center for Studies of Marxist Social Theory, Nanjing University)

（作者：南京大学马克思主义社会理论研究中心暨哲学系教授、博士生导师）

Online Editor: Youheng

网络编辑：有恒