The Logic of Values Transformation in Chinese-Path Modernization and the Creation of a New Form of Human Civilization

Values are the cipher and deep cultural gene of human civilization. Correctly understood values constitute the soul of social development and progress, determining the direction of humanity’s advance. Values likewise serve as the internal positioning compass and goal guidance for social modernization. Throughout the historical practice of social modernization, there has always been a contest, conflict and confrontation of values arising from differences in historical tradition, institutional nature, cultural ideology, etc., as well as the autonomous selection and discrimination of reasonable values.

价值观是人类文明的密码和深层文化基因。被正确理解了的价值和价值观，构成社会发展与进步的灵魂，决定着人类前行的方向。价值观同样是社会现代化的内在定位罗盘和目标引领。社会现代化的历史实践中，自始至终伴随着因历史传统、制度性质、文化意识形态等的差异所导致的价值观的博弈、冲突与较量，以及合理价值观的自主性选择与甄别。

In his important speech at the opening ceremony of the seminar on studying and implementing the spirit of the 20th National Congress of the CPC, General Secretary Xi Jinping pointed out: “The unique worldviews, values, views of history, views of civilization, views of democracy, views of ecology, etc., contained in Chinese-path modernization, along with their great practice, constitute a major innovation in the theory and practice of world modernization.” [1]1 The 20th National Congress of the CPC was held in October 2022. Xi Jinping’s speech at the opening ceremony of the seminar on studying and implementing its spirit was delivered on February 7, 2023. Then, what exactly is the meaning of “values” as referred to here, and how to comprehensively understand and accurately express it? Scholars’ views are actually not consistent. It is necessary to base ourselves on the theoretical stance, viewpoint and methodological principles of Marx’s historical materialism, draw on the theoretical analysis and interpretive methods of modern value philosophy, and, from the combined meaning of history and reality, theory and practice, observe and elaborate its rich connotations from multiple dimensions, angles and levels.

习近平总书记在学习贯彻党的二十大精神研讨班开班式上的重要讲话中指出：“中国式现代化蕴含的独特世界观、价值观、历史观、文明观、民主观、生态观等及其伟大实践，是对世界现代化理论和实践的重大创新。”那么，此处所谓“价值观”的含义究竟是什么，如何全面理解和准确表达，学者们的看法其实并不一致，需要立足马克思唯物史观的理论立场、观点和方法论原则，借鉴现代价值哲学的理论分析和诠释方式，从历史和现实、理论和实践相结合的意义上，对其丰富内涵做多维度、多角度、多层次的观照和阐述。

Over the more than seventy years since the founding of New China, the reason why Chinese-path modernization under the leadership of the CPC has achieved great success, and why it possesses exemplary and leading significance, is, from the perspective of social values, that this great historical process must have “discovered,” “identified,” and “grasped” some kind of true value with universal significance, and, through Chinese means, successfully practiced and realized this “value,” thereby contributing an outstanding and exemplary value-thinking mode and practical wisdom strategy to world modernization. The concepts, paradigms and logic of Chinese-path modernization, the path and model of Chinese-path modernization, the experience of its theoretical exploration and practical success—accompanied by the correction of Western modernization values, the adjustment of coordinate orientation, and the resetting of the value foundation of new modernization models and new paths, accompanied by innovative exploration of value relations, value-practice logic, and value evaluation standards consistent with the requirements for creating a new form of human civilization—its series of unique contributions provide the most direct background and resources for deeply thinking about and reconstructing a new form of Chinese value theory from the commanding heights of truth, politics and morality.

新中国成立七十多年来，中国共产党领导下的中国式现代化之所以取得巨大的成功，之所以具有典范性、引领性，从社会价值观的角度做审视，这一伟大历史进程一定是“发现了”“看准了”“抓住了”某种具有普遍性意义的真价值，并通过中国的方式，成功地实践了、实现了这种“价值”,从而向世界现代化贡献了一种卓越的、典范性的价值思维方式与实践智慧方略。中国式现代化的理念、范式、逻辑，中国式现代化的道路和模式，其理论探索和实践成功的经验，伴随着对西方现代化价值观的矫正、坐标方位的调整以及现代化新模式、新道路价值基础的重置，伴随着对与人类文明新形态的创造要求相一致的价值关系、价值实践逻辑以及价值评价标准等的创新性探索，其一系列独特贡献，提供了立足真理制高点、政治制高点以及道义制高点，深入思考、重建当代中国价值论新形态的最直接的背景、资源。

I. A Dialectical Rational Examination and Value-Philosophical Observation of the Historical Practice of Western Modernization

一、 西方现代化历史实践的辩证理性审视与价值哲学观照

The development of human society, as a historical process that unites “conformity to law” and “conformity to purpose,” cannot do without the guidance of reasonable values and the intervention of an appropriate narrative logic of values. The evolutionary course of human civilization and progress can, in a certain sense, be regarded as a process of discovering, pursuing, verifying and realizing some kind of reasonable social public value.

人类社会的发展作为一个“合规律性”与“合目的性”相统一的历史过程，离不开合理价值观的引领与确当性的价值观叙事逻辑的介入。人类文明、进步史的演进历程，在某种意义上可以视为是发现、追求、确证并实现某种合理性的社会公共价值的过程。

To reach substantive intellectual consensus and agreement on the examination and exploration of the value foundation of social modernization requires not only objectivity and prudence in the sense of the sociology of knowledge, but also a paradigm consciousness in the sense of cultural anthropology and philosophical anthropology. Because in the historical process of social modernization, the “value” it affirms is unfolded and presented in multiple dimensions from various fields of social life. One absolutely undeniable fact here is that if the issue of value is limited to the level of satisfying basic needs, then the driving role of the great transformation of modernization for the entire historical development, progress and civilizational cause of humanity will inevitably be treated narrowly. In recent years, the German sociologist Ulrich Beck’s theory of “reflexive modernization” has provided a new perspective for understanding and interpreting the value foundation of social modernization. In his view: “So-called ‘modernity’ refers to the social organizational model, cultural form and way of life of the Western world. It emerged roughly in 16th- and 17th-century Europe, and in subsequent eras, to varying degrees, exerted influence worldwide and expanded to other regions. … Capitalism and industrialization are the two basic dimensions of modernity. So-called modernization is the product of the combination of capitalism and industrialization. The emergence of capitalism preceded the development of industrialism, and, due to the need for capital accumulation and expansion, provided the driving force for the emergence of industrialism. Industrial production and the continuous technological revolution associated with it created more efficient and cheaper production processes.” However, the negative consequences of modernization are equally obvious. The renowned contemporary German philosopher Jürgen Habermas points out: “Today, the language of the market penetrates everywhere, incorporating all interpersonal relationships into a model oriented toward emphasizing self-interest and self-priority. The social bonds and ethical-moral norms formed by mutual understanding and mutual recognition have been destroyed by contractual, means-end rational, and utility-maximizing choices and modes of behavior. Power and wealth have become the highest goals pursued by people.”

社会现代化价值基础的审视和探究问题，要达成实质性的理智共识和一致，不仅要具有知识社会学意义的客观与审慎，更需要文化人类学、哲学人类学意义的范式自觉。因为社会现代化的历史过程中，其所认定的“价值”被从社会生活的各领域敞开、多维度呈现了。这其中绝对不可忽视的一个事实就是，对待价值问题，如果仅限于基本需要满足层面，那么现代化伟大变革之于整个人类历史发展、进步和文明事业所具有的推动作用就必然被狭隘化对待。近年来，德国社会学家乌尔里希·贝克有关“反思的现代化”理论，提供了理解和诠释社会现代化价值观基础的新的视角。在他看来：“所谓‘现代性’,是指西方世界的社会组织模式、文化形态和生活方式，它大约出现在16世纪、17世纪的欧洲，并且在此后的时代里，程度不同地在世界范围内产生影响并扩张到其他地区。……资本主义和工业化是现代性的两个基本维度，所谓现代化，即是资本主义与工业化相结合的产物。资本主义的出现先于工业主义的发展，而且由于资本增殖和扩张的需要，为工业主义的产生提供了原动力。工业生产和与之相关的持续不断的技术革命，创造了效率更高和更为廉价的生产过程。”但是，现代化的负面后果同样显而易见。当代著名德国哲学家于尔根·哈贝马斯指出：“如今，市场语言无孔不入，把所有的人际关系都纳入以强调自我利益、自我优先权为导向的模式。由相互理解和相互承认而结成的社会纽带和伦理道德规范已经被契约的、目的—手段理性的以及最大功利化的选择和行为方式所摧毁。权力和财富成为人所追求的最高目标。”

Compared with the prior practice of modernization, rational reflection and examination on the part of human intellect are often belated. Although, in this process, profound ideas and precise theoretical paradigms have never been absent. When social modernization enters the field of modern value philosophy, what human intellect focuses on is a concern for whether it possesses a conscious and appropriate value-rational belief. Modernization not only inherits and transforms some kind of historical mode of human existence, but is also a process of examining and transforming previous value concepts. As a new mode of being, modernization requires “value legislation” and cultural-rationality justification that match and correspond to its concepts and logic. Lacking the latter, modernization will inevitably degenerate into a purely economic fact, thereby deviating from the original intention of modernization. Focusing on the historical facts of human modernization, people find that value belief essentially manifests as the establishment and verification of reasonable norms guiding modernization. A fact from the history of ideas is that, in the historical process of social modernization, accompanied by reflections and rational demonstrations in various social science fields including historical philosophy, social philosophy, political philosophy, legal philosophy and cultural philosophy, concerning historical laws, social structure, the basis of human collective action logic, etc., there is a near-common-sense and indisputable objective fact: modernization, as a profound, comprehensive and lasting social transformation, has from the very beginning had a “value commitment” with conceptual priority. Among the advocates and practitioners of modernization theory and practice, this value is intrinsic, self-evident, and goes without saying. Becoming a cultural grammar of thought and a codified regulation of human existence and practice is the essence of everything we call “value.” In the process of the self-development and evolution of human history and civilization, that which is called “value” will certainly, according to some reasonable mode of intervention, enter the fields of history, institutions, thought and the everyday life world of ordinary people, exerting on them influence that is either direct or indirect, either conspicuous or latent. The social forms created in the course of human historical evolution are not uniform. As far as the intervention of value in social history is concerned, generally speaking, a homogenized society will never produce the true value that humanity expects. The true value of social culture is always the product of a differentiated society. The way value realizes and proves itself never lies in a non-critical analogy to the practice of a particular historical institution and its thought and culture, but in constantly maintaining a reflective and transcendent stance, forming and establishing its own independent quality and realm.

相较于在先性的现代化的实践，人类理智层面的反思、审视，往往是后知后觉的。尽管这一过程之中，深刻性的思想观念和精当性的理论范式从来不曾缺场。进入现代价值哲学视域中的社会现代化，人类理智所聚焦的，是对于它是否有一种自觉的、确当性的价值理性信念的关切。现代化不仅承接着、变革着某种人类的历史性生存范式，同时更是对既往的价值观念的审视与变革过程。作为一种新的存在样态，现代化需要与其理念、逻辑相匹配、相适应的“价值立法”和文化合理性辩护。缺少后者，现代化必然沦为一种纯粹的经济事实，从而背离现代化的初衷。着眼人类现代化的历史事实，人们发现，价值信念实质上表现为指导现代化的合理性规范的确立与证成问题。一个观念史的事实是，社会现代化的历史进程中，伴随着包括历史哲学、社会哲学、政治哲学、法哲学以及文化哲学等各门社会科学领域内，有关历史规律、社会结构以及人类集体行动逻辑的根据等问题的思考与理证。一个近乎常识性的不争的客观事实是，现代化作为一场深刻、全面而持久的社会变革，从一开始就有一种理念优先性的“价值承诺”。在现代化理论和实践的倡导者、实践者那里，这种价值是内在的、自明性的、不言而喻的。成为思想文化语法和人类存在与实践的成文化规制，是一切我们称之为“价值”的那个东西的本质。人类历史和文明自我发展和演化的过程中，被称之为“价值”的那个东西，一定会依照某种合理性的介入方式，进入历史、制度、思想领域和普通民众的日常生活世界之中，对其发生或直接、或间接，或显著、或内隐的影响。人类历史演进过程中，所创制的社会形态并非统一。就价值对社会历史的介入而言，通常来说，同质化的社会绝对不会产生人类所期待的真价值。社会的文化的真价值，一定是差异化社会的产物。价值实现和证明自己的方式，从来不在于对于特定历史制度实践及其思想文化的非批判性比附，而在于时刻保持一种反思、超越的立场，形成确立自己的独立品质与境界。

From ancient times to the present, many so-called “values” discovered and recognized by human reason have appeared on the stage in turn, in ways approaching authority, approaching normative law, and as the inspiration of ideal goals, and have tried to dominate and concern themselves with all of human existence and life according to what they considered a rational logic. However, in the subsequent complex evolution and development, because they could not escape their historical and epochal limitations, they became important but not exclusive rhetorical discourses on the condition of human existence and life, and ultimately could not escape the fate of being abandoned. The reason for this is that those self-righteous values forgot that they were actually the ideals of only a part of human life, not of all people. In fact, ever since human thought, culture, and value systems began, the real world and the situation of existence have been the result of the simultaneous participation and regulation of multiple, multidimensional ideas. For a long historical period, the choice of which type of thought and value pattern to use as the congenital background of existence and life was entirely the result of the coercive imposition and guidance of non-ideological, non-cultural factors. But even so, this was actually only a limited formal presentation of the diverse forms of value and human life. The way we regard value is essentially not much related to the majority of people. As a relatively systematic and comprehensive preliminary reflection on the historical practice of modernization, a trend of thought studying modernization emerged in the United States after the 1950s, forming the so-called “classical modernization theory.” American sociologist of the functionalist school C. E. Black pointed out that social modernization is a double-edged sword; it brings humanity all possibilities for improving the conditions of existence and life, but while humanity enjoys all the benefits brought by modernization, it is forced to bear its various evil consequences and sufferings: “It offers new opportunities, but it may also exact a terrible price of confusion and suffering. Our age is one that, more than any earlier age, is filled with assassinations, civil wars, religious wars, and all forms of mass slaughter and concentration camps; never before in history has humanity so casually taken human life for immediate goals.” In the view of sociologist Marion J. Levy Jr., “The atmosphere of the modern world gives one a feeling that a catastrophe is about to occur.” The negative effects of Western social modernization are obvious; its main consequences and characteristics are prominently manifested in such aspects as the “reification of social relations,” “the loss of subjectivity,” “the crisis of the world of meaning,” “the excessive expansion and alienation of technological rationality,” “the confrontation between heaven and man caused by narrow anthropocentrism,” and “the increasing tension in interpersonal relations.” Anthony Giddens emphasized: “Modernity is inherently globalizing.” Barrington Moore Jr. was even more direct: “Modernization is the overall transition of traditional societies, like those of the advanced Western countries, toward economically prosperous and politically stable societies.” The core idea of Talcott Parsons (the famous American sociologist, representative of the structural functionalist school, known as the “pioneer of modernization theory” in the United States) was that the fundamental reason for the backwardness of non-Western traditional countries lies in their backward institutions and ideas. His views and propositions were even more blatant: “There is only one model of modernization, and that is the Western social system led by the United States… The modernization of the entire world should not only be ‘Westernization,’ but even more so ‘Americanization.’”

从古到今，为人类理智所发现、认可的诸多所谓“价值”,曾经以近乎权威、近乎规范性法则，以及理想性目标感召等的方式轮番登场亮相，并试图依照自己认为是合理化的逻辑，君临、关注人类生存与生活的全部。但是，在后来的复杂演化、发展中，都因为其难以摆脱的历史的、时代的局限，变成了人类生存与生活境遇的重要但非唯一的修辞性话语，最终难逃被遗弃的命运。所以如此，在于那些自以为是的价值忘掉了它其实只是人类生活中部分人而并非所有人的理想。实际上，自有人类的思想文化和价值形制开始，现实的世界和生存情景，就是多维、多元理念同时参与规制的结果。很长一个历史时期以来，选择何种思想与价值样式作为生存与生活的先天性背景，完全是非思想性、非文化性因素强制性给予和引导的结果。但即使这样，其实也只是价值与人类生活之多样态的一种有限的形式呈现。我们视之为价值的方式，本质上与大多数人其实并没有多大关系。作为对现代化历史实践之较为系统、全面的初步反思，20世纪50年代以后在美国掀起了研究现代化的思潮，形成了所谓“经典的现代化理论”。美国社会功能学派学者布莱克指出，社会现代化是一把双刃剑，它为人类带来了改善生存和生活条件的一切可能，但是人类在享受现代化所带来的一切好处的同时，被迫承受其种种恶果和痛苦：“它既提供了新的机会，也可能使人类付出混乱和痛苦的极大代价。现时代是这样一个时代：它比以往任何时代都充满暗杀、国内战争、宗教战争以及各种形式的大众残杀和集中营，人类为了眼前的目标而如此草菅人命在历史上还不曾有过。”在社会学家李维看来，“现代世界的气氛，令人有一种要发生灾祸的感觉。”西方社会现代化的负面效应是明显的，其主要后果和特征，突出地表现在“社会关系的‘物化’”“主体性的失落”“意义世界的危机”“科技理性的过度膨胀与异化”“狭隘的人类中心主义所导致的天与人对峙”,以及“人际关系日趋紧张”等几个方面。吉登斯(A.Giddens)则强调指出：“现代性就是内在的全球化。”摩尔就更是直截了当：“现代化就是传统社会像西方先进国家那样的向经济富裕、政治稳定的社会的总体过渡。”塔尔科特·帕森斯 (T.Parsons, 美国著名社会学家、结构功能主义流派的代表人物，被称为美国的“现代化理论的先驱者”)的核心观念是：非西方的传统国家落后的根本原因，在于制度与观念落后。其观点和主张更是露骨：“现代化只有一种模式，那就是美国领导的西方社会体系……全世界的现代化，不仅应是‘西方化’,更应是‘美国化’。”

In an era of excessive material wealth and abundance, adopting a tranquil and ethereal attitude toward daily life is almost a luxury. As early as the Enlightenment in the 18th century, the romantic thinker Rousseau had already warned modern people in a prophetic tone that what modern people call and regard as civilization is actually something very worthy of vigilance. Modern civilization is entirely armed with technology as its soul; it cannot represent dignified, noble human reason, cannot represent the totality of human intellectual progress, and cannot express the whole of human life. The reason for this is that civilization is a paradoxical existence. Humans create a “form of civilization” in their own way, but soon discover that it is actually not what they truly hoped for and expected, but is full of internal conflicts and contradictions. In extreme cases, humans even detest it intensely, wishing to escape this form of civilization, its values, and the field of “civilized life” with their entire body and mind. Thus, civilization has become an inescapable burden for modern people, a “weight that life cannot bear,” just as modern people truly experience and feel. Modern Western civilization has not strictly adhered to its proper role; instead, it constantly expresses its existence in an inhuman and anti-human way. Civilization always seems to intentionally or unintentionally conceal its true essence. Most of the various novel and radical propositions are defenses of specific realities. Once a reality based on theory is established, it will form an unchangeable life cycle according to its own logic. In the view of the postmodernist thinker Jacques Derrida, “We know very well that what we call globalization today is actually equivalent to the hegemony promoted by certain countries, certain groups of countries, and certain concentrated capitals; globalization has become a pretext for coercion by the powerful. … We all know that under the banner of globalization, they are waging wars for hegemony. We must realize that when they preach the universal equality and great harmony brought by globalization, there have never been so many men and women in human history who have lost their jobs, gone hungry, and lived in hardship. Therefore, the key issue at present is to recognize what is hidden behind the names of worldization and globalization that echoes actual or potential hegemonism.”

在一个外在的物质财富过分丰裕、充实的时代，对于日常生活采取一种恬静和空灵的态度，是近乎奢侈的事情。早在18世纪启蒙运动时期，浪漫主义思想家卢梭就已经以先知先觉般的口吻警告现代人，现代人称之为、奉为文明的东西，其实是非常值得警惕的。现代文明完全是以技术为灵魂武装起来的，并不能代表尊严的、高贵的人类理性，不能代表人类智识进步的总体，不能表达人类生活的全部。所以如此，其根由在于，文明是一种悖谬性存在。人按照自己的方式创制了一种“文明形态”,却很快发现，那其实并不是自己真心所希望和期许的，而是充满了内在性冲突与悖反。极端的情形是，人甚至极度厌恶，希望整个身心都逃离这种文明形态、文明价值以及“文明化了的生活”场域。如此，文明成了现代人无法摆脱的负累，成为“生命不能承受之重”,正如现代人所真实经历、所真切感受的那样，现代性西方文明都没有严格恪守它的本分，而是不断地采取一种反人性的、对抗人性的方式表达自己的存在。文明似乎总是有意无意地自我遮蔽自己的真实本质。各种五花八门的新锐的主张，大多数是对于特定现实的辩护。基于理论的现实一旦确立，就会按照自己的逻辑形成不可改变的生存周期。在后现代主义思想家德里达看来，“我们很清楚，今天我们所说的全球化实际上等同于某些国家、某些国家集团、某些集中资本所推行的霸权，全球化已成为强权压制的托词。……我们都清楚，它们打着世界化的旗帜，进行着争夺霸权的战争。要知道，当它们鼓吹全球化所带来的普遍平等、世界大同的时候，人类历史上却从来没有过这么多的男人、女人失去工作、忍饥挨饿、生活艰难。因此当前的关键问题，就在于认清世界化与全球化名目下究竟隐藏着什么在与现实的或潜在的霸权主义相呼应。”

The theoretical and historical exploration of social modernization, and the internal logic of value rationality it follows, indicate that “value” is by no means an abstract postulate detached from the historical practice of human modernization. Real, genuine value is generated, realized, and self-validated in the concrete historical process of human existence and life. “Value,” when correctly understood, defined, and properly interpreted, represents the logic of historical totality, practical subjectivity, value transcendence, and shared meaning. At the theoretical level, “values” refer to the selection, discrimination, identification, and practice of a consensus belief based on universal and public value cognition by specific communities and individuals regarding the most fundamental issues of human historical development and the practice of civilizational progress. A scientific, normative, and correct value system consistent with a certain path, theory, system, and culture represents, in terms of rationality and legitimacy, the lofty spiritual and cultural orientation of a specific nation, determining the interests and choices of individuals, nations, and states in a specific historical period, as well as the corresponding basic norms of conduct. In this sense, social modernization is a carrier of values, and its advancement must be accompanied by a commitment to and clarification of certain genuine social values. Of course, regarding the same “value,” due to fundamental differences in social historical traditions, institutional natures, and cultural ideologies, there have always been fierce conflicts in the understanding of values and the strategies for their implementation.

社会现代化的理论和历史探索经验本身及其所遵循着的内在的价值理性逻辑表明，“价值”绝不是一种游离于人类现代化历史实践之外的抽象性悬设，真实的、真正的价值，就生成、实现和自我确证于人类生存和生活的具体历史过程中。被正确理解、规定和得到确当性阐释的“价值”,其所表征的是历史总体性、实践主体性、价值超越性以及意义共享性的逻辑。学理层面的“价值观”,指涉的是特定共同体以及个体有关人类历史发展、文明进步实践等最根本性问题上，一种基于普遍性公共性价值认知上的共识性信念的选择、甄别以及认同和践履。一种与某种道路、理论、制度以及文化相一致的科学、规范和正确的价值观所表征的，是合理性与正当性意义上，特定民族崇高的精神文化指向，决定着特定历史时期个人、民族和国家的利益取舍，以及相应的基本行为准则。在这个意义上，社会现代化是一个价值的载体，其推进过程一定伴随着对某种社会真价值的承诺与澄明。当然，同是“价值”,由于社会历史传统、制度性质以及文化意识形态等的根本性差异，在价值观问题的理解以及实践方略等的理解方面，向来存在着激烈的冲突。

The practice of Western-style modernization is accompanied by the discovery, discrimination, creation, realization, autonomous possession, and evaluation of social historical values and human values; it is a process of practical confirmation through the rational intervention and effective planning of all value elements. Western-style modernization has generated and established its own mode of interpretation and justification for this practical process in a way it considers reasonable and proper, and has self-righteously and presumptuously spread this understanding to the whole world. “Universal values” and “the superiority of Western civilization” are concentrated expressions of this narrow, ethnocentric value thinking. The reason Western-style modernization has fallen into difficulties, leading to material abundance but spiritual distress, emptiness, and nihilism, turning the value subject into a deformed “possessive personality,” and causing confusion about meaning, is fundamentally due to the one-sided thinking of this type of modernization on basic value issues.

西方式现代化实践伴随着社会历史价值、人的价值等的发现、甄别、创造、实现、自主拥有以及评价的过程，是全价值要素合理介入与有效筹划的实践确证的过程。西方式现代化依照自己认为合理、确当性的方式，生成、确立了其对于这一实践过程的诠释与辨护方式，并自以为是地以想当然的方式将这种理解向全世界扩散，“普世价值”“西方文明优越论”等，就是这种狭隘的民族利益本位的价值思维方式的集中体现。西方式现代化之所以陷入困境，导致物质丰裕但精神生活的困顿、空虚与虚无，价值主体成为畸形的“占有型人格”,出现意义的迷茫等，从根本上讲，是与这一类型的现代化在基本价值观问题上的片面性思维所导致的。

II. The Deep Maladies of Enlightenment Modernity’s Value Beliefs and the Intellectual Reference for Chinese-Path Modernization

二、 启蒙现代性价值信念的深刻病症与中国式现代化之智识性参照

In the long, tortuous and complex course of human historical evolution, relying on the development of productive forces, technological progress, changes in social relations and the rational practice of institutions, humanity has gradually cast off numerous constraints and limitations from nature, society and the self, and has discovered and established, in the course of civilizational progress, a logic of autonomous and self-determining human existence and life that pursues holistic meaning and integral value beliefs.

人类历史漫长、曲折演进的复杂历程中，依靠生产发展、技术进步、社会关系变革以及制度理性实践等，逐渐摆脱了来自自然、社会和人自身的诸多束缚和限制，发现、确立了文明进步历程中，作为整体性意义和整全性价值信念追求的人的自主性、自为性生存与生活逻辑。

Social modernization is in essence a narrative of value rationality that accords with historical dialectics. The theory and practice of modernization worldwide has from beginning to end been accompanied by the simultaneous presence of determinate presuppositions of value concepts, clear guidance and regulation by values, and value goals and visions. In a certain sense, the practice of modernization worldwide is a process of discovering value, creating value, realizing and confirming some kind of rational value, a process of pursuing and forming a consensus of appropriate value rationality. In other words, the process of social modernization is accompanied by the search for, design and establishment of a specific nation’s valued and value-based mode of existence. What this effort aims at is the practical rational dialectic of the value-based existential law of human civilization in the sense of social ontology.

社会现代化本质上是一种合乎历史辩证法的价值合理性叙事。世界范围内的人类现代化的理论和实践，自始至终伴随着某种确定性的价值理念预设、明晰的价值观引导与规制，以及价值目标和愿景等的同时在场。在某种意义上可以说，世界范围内的人类现代化的实践，就是发现价值、创造价值、实现并确证某种合理性价值的过程，是一种追求并形成确当性的价值理性共识的过程。质言之，社会现代化的过程伴随着关于特定民族之价值化、价值性存在方式的寻索、设计与确立。这一努力所指向的，是社会本体论意义上人类文明之价值论生存大法的实践合理性辩证。

Value concepts and values, as endogenous, immanent and intrinsic elements of human activity, are markers of the consciousness and presence of human historical and practical activity. In a certain sense, value judgments and value choices determine the nature, standpoint, direction and goals of human activity, and influence the effects of human activity, the degree of human civilization and the distinction between higher and lower realms of existence. An indisputable objective reality is that, in the historical process of social modernization, owing to differences in historical tradition, nature of the system, culture and ideology, a theoretical fact objectively emerges: although all are values, when viewed from the standpoint and height of historical totality, existential rationality, practical subjectivity, civilizational leadership and moral transcendence, their actualization process inevitably involves a distinction between “true” and “false,” between “rational” and “irrational,” and between appropriate and inappropriate, thereby vividly reflecting the fierce contestation and internal conflict among multiple value standpoints in the course of human modernization practice. Over the past three centuries, Western Enlightenment modernity and its modernization practice have been accompanied by the obscuring and distortion of the logic of social truth-value. What Enlightenment modernity and the social modernization practice it guides uphold are the value concepts of bourgeois society and the capitalist system, dominated by the free market economy, the logic of capital, wealth maximization and instrumental rationality. After the 1950s, the rise of anti-modernization intellectual currents worldwide, and the profound reflection on the deep maladies and a series of negative and adverse consequences of the historical practice of social modernization, have already proven the “presumptuous falsity of the premise” of the value self-justification logic of value discovery, value creation and value realization that this type of modernization practice regards as its cardinal principle.

价值理念、价值观作为人类活动的内生性、内设性、内在性要素，是人类历史性、实践性活动自觉性、在场性的标志。在某种意义上，价值判断、价值选择决定着人类活动的性质、立场、方向和目标，影响着人类活动的效果、人类文明的程度以及生存境界的高下界分。一个不争的客观现实是，社会现代化的历史进程中，因历史传统、制度性质以及文化和意识形态等的差异，客观上生成这样一种理论事实，即同为价值，但从历史总体性、生存合理性、实践主体性以及文明引领性与道义超越性等的立场和高度着眼，其现实化的过程却一定有“真”“伪”之分，“合理性”与“非合理性”之别，以及确当性与否的分野，从而鲜明地体现了人类现代化实践历程中多元价值立场的激烈博弈与内在冲突。近三百年来，西方启蒙现代性及其现代化实践，伴随着社会真理性价值逻辑的被遮蔽、被扭曲。启蒙现代性及其所引导的社会现代化实践，其所秉持的，是自由市场经济体制、资本逻辑、财富最大化、工具理性主导的资产阶级社会、资本主义制度的价值理念。20世纪50年代以后，全球范围内的反现代化思想潮流的兴起，对社会现代化历史实践之深刻病症以及一系列消极的、负面的后果的深痛反思，业已证明这一类型的现代化实践所奉为圭臬的价值发现、价值创造和价值实现之价值自证逻辑的“前提虚妄性”。

At a deeper level, values concern the universal spiritual life of humanity, and the most direct rationale and support for history as history, institutions as institutions, culture as culture, and human beings as human beings. In the process of Western modernization, enormous progressive costs were paid and borne, and the most grievous and enduring of these costs was the self-dissolution and eventual collapse of values themselves. What is even more lamentable is that the practice of Enlightenment modernity deliberately distorted, willfully destroyed, or even fundamentally deconstructed and demolished basic human values, in order to conform to the wishes, goals and will of a particular interest group or group in a specific historical period, and by means of substitution, whether openly or covertly, directly or indirectly, replaced the core values universally recognized by human reason with the narrow values they affirmed, thereby leading the logic of human value thinking and the practice of value and the direction of value life astray.

价值观在更深层的意义上关涉人类普遍意义的精神生活，关涉历史之为历史、制度之为制度，以及文化之为文化、人之为人的最直接的理据与支撑。西方现代化过程中为此付出并承担着巨大的进步代价，而其中最为惨痛、最为持久性的代价，就是价值观自我的消解并终至崩溃。更为可悲的是，启蒙现代性的实践，是故意扭曲、刻意破坏、甚或从根本上解构和摧毁人类基本性的价值，以符合特定历史时期某个特定利益集团或者群体的意愿、目标和意志，以偷梁换柱的方式，或公开、或隐蔽、或直接、或间接地以他们所认定的狭隘的价值观，公开置换人类理性公认的核心价值，将人类价值思维的逻辑和价值实践以及价值生活的方向引入歧途。

The historical unfolding of social modernization is also a process of empirical cognition and subjective confirmation by humanity of what constitutes the true value of social history. In other words, in the sense of the generation and self-confirmation of value autonomy, modernization is merely the “carrier” consciously chosen by a certain value concept. In the *Communist Manifesto*, Marx and Engels fully affirmed the achievements of capitalism, the market economy and modernization: “The bourgeoisie, during its rule of scarce one hundred years, has created more massive and more colossal productive forces than have all preceding generations together. Subjection of Nature’s forces to man, machinery, application of chemistry to industry and agriculture, steam-navigation, railways, electric telegraphs, clearing of whole continents for cultivation, canalisation of rivers, whole populations conjured out of the ground—what earlier century had even a presentiment that such productive forces slumbered in the lap of social labour?” After the publication of the first volume of Marx’s *Capital*, Engels commented: “The relation of capital and labour is the axis around which our entire modern social system turns.” In *Capital*, Marx scientifically demonstrated the historical trajectory of capitalist development: “The greater the social wealth, the functioning capital, the extent and energy of its growth, and therefore also the greater the absolute mass of the proletariat and the productiveness of its labour, the greater is the industrial reserve-army. But the same causes which develop the expansive power of capital, develop also the labour-power at its disposal. The relative mass of the industrial reserve-army increases therefore with the potential energy of wealth. But the greater this reserve-army in proportion to the active labour-army, the greater is the mass of a consolidated surplus-population, whose misery is in inverse ratio to its torment of labour. The more extensive, finally, the lazarus-layers of the working-class, and the industrial reserve-army, the greater is official pauperism. *This is the absolute general law of capitalist accumulation*.” “This law determines an accumulation of misery, corresponding with accumulation of capital. Accumulation of wealth at one pole is, therefore, at the same time accumulation of misery, agony of toil, slavery, ignorance, brutality, mental degradation, at the opposite pole.”

社会现代化的历史展开过程，同时也是人类有关何为社会历史的真价值的经验性认知和主体性确认的过程。换言之，在价值自主性生成和自我确证的意义上，现代化不过是某种价值理念所自觉选择的“载体”。在《共产党宣言》中，马克思和恩格斯对于资本主义、市场经济、现代化的成就给予充分的肯定：“资产阶级在它的不到一百年的阶级统治中所创造的生产力，比过去一切世代创造的全部生产力还要多，还要大。自然力的征服，机器的采用，化学在工业和农业中的应用，轮船的行驶，铁路的通行，电报的使用，整个大陆的开垦，河川的通航，仿佛用法术从地下呼唤出来的大量人口——过去哪一个世纪料想到在社会劳动里蕴藏有这样的生产力呢?”马克思《资本论》第一卷出版以后，恩格斯在评论中指出：“资本和劳动的关系，是我们全部现代社会体系所围绕旋转的轴心。”在《资本论》中，马克思科学论证了资本主义发展的历史走向：“社会的财富即执行职能的资本越大，它的增长的规模和能力越大，从而无产阶级的绝对数量和他们的劳动生产力越大，产业后备军也就越大。可供支配的劳动力同资本的膨胀力一样，是由同一些原因发展起来的。因此，产业后备军的相对量和财富的力量一同增长。但是同现役劳动军相比，这种后备军越大，常备的过剩人口也就越多，他们的贫困同他们所受的劳动折磨成反比。最后，工人阶级中贫苦阶层和产业后备军越大，官方认为需要救济的贫民也就越多。这就是资本主义积累的绝对的、一般的规律。”“这一规律制约着同资本积累相适应的贫困积累。因此，在一极是财富的积累，同时在另一极，即在把自己的产品作为资本来生产的阶级方面，是贫困、劳动折磨、受奴役、无知、粗野和道德堕落的积累。”

Since modern times, the question of the rational value foundation and basis of social modernization has been repeatedly raised, questioned and examined, for the reason that the participants in the historical practice of modernization, and the researchers and examiners of modernization issues, have simultaneously discovered that, in the complex situations of concrete social modernization, different nation-states, when it comes to which value should be established as the highest and most fundamental value to follow in modernization, and how to rationally rank the basic value types presented by modernization, often exhibit huge and obvious differences due to differences in historical background and the circumstances of the subject’s existence and life. In terms of type, modernization is usually divided into “early endogenous” and “late exogenous” types. The historical practice of Western-style modernization, which began in the 17th and 18th centuries, relying on the free market economy, technological rationality and the logic of capital, generated and established, in a manner it considered appropriate, a mode of interpretation of this practice with the distinct cultural-ideological attributes of a nation-state, and disseminated this understanding worldwide by a certain hegemonic and coercive means. “Universal values,” “the superiority of Western civilization,” and so on, are the concentrated expression of this narrow, national-interest-based mode of value thinking. This is not the essence and crux of the problem. A more common paradoxical situation is that most modern nation-states entering the historical scene of modernization, often consciously or unconsciously, are compelled to begin a process of usurpation and replacement of universal “value” by particular “interest.”

近代以来，社会现代化的合理性价值根据、根基问题之所以被不断提出、不断追问和审视，理由在于，现代化历史实践的亲历者、现代化问题的研究者和审视者们同时发现，具体的社会现代化的复杂情境中，各个民族国家在究竟应该将何种价值确立为现代化的最高的、最根本的价值依循、如何为现代化所呈现的基本价值类型合理排序问题上，历史背景、主体生存和生活的境遇不同，往往会出现巨大的明显的差异。现代化就类型而言，通常被分为“先发内生型”与“后发外生型”两种。肇始于17世纪、18世纪的西方式现代化的历史实践，依托自由市场经济、技术理性和资本逻辑，依照自己认为确当性的方式，生成、确立了具有鲜明民族国家之文化—意识形态属性的对于这一实践过程的诠释方式，并以某种强制性的霸权方式，将这种理解向全世界扩散，“普世价值”“西方文明优越论”等，就是这种狭隘的民族利益本位的价值思维方式的集中体现。这还不是问题的实质和关键。更为常见的吊诡性情形是，进入现代化历史场景中的大多数现代民族国家，往往自觉不自觉地，被迫开始了以特殊“利益”对于普遍性“价值”本身的僭越、置换过程。

The historical task and core theme of social modernization worldwide is to rely on specific institutions, through continuous technological progress, improvement in the level of productive forces, and the perfection of social relations and systems, to create ever-increasing material and spiritual wealth in the practice of rational development concepts and civilizational progress, to change the unbalanced and uncoordinated state of economic and social development, and to continuously meet the people’s needs for a better and happy life. However, when it comes to the creation of modernization and civilizational forms, differences in theoretical standpoints, the nature of institutions, and core value orientations fundamentally determine vast differences in their evolutionary direction, goals and visions, and social-historical consequences. Investigation and analysis of the history of social modernization show that the market economy and social modernization are born together, mutually presuppose each other, and promote each other. Taking the early-modernizing Europe as an example, the biggest problem existing in Western society within the historical process of modernization, or in the modernization practice of Western society, is the confusion of the “market economy” with the “market society.” From the perspective of specific historical practice, objectively speaking, the superiority of the market economy over other economic arrangements lies in its enabling human individuals to freely exercise their autonomous creativity to satisfy their various needs and enjoy the fruits of their labor. The market economy contributes to individual freedom, to the exchange of commodities and services, and to humanity’s attainment of a better standard of living. Today, the positive characteristics of the market economy have been widely recognized by people. “However, there exists in the spirit of our times a confusion that conflates the market economy system and its virtues with a clear and reasonably complete conception of what a good life and a good society should be. Due to a lack of economic moderation, a tendency has emerged for the market economy to transform into a market society. When people’s attitudes, social norms, and values become subordinated to economic transactions, when the concept of economic efficiency invades all spheres of public and private life and permeates various social relations…, when social policies are neither enlightened nor guided by an ideal orientation and a coherent set of effective moral principles, then the market society becomes prominent. In this process of degeneration,… the pursuit of profit becomes the prevailing social goal;… furthermore, the resources of interpersonal and social relations among human individuals become scarce and depleted—because human interpersonal and social relations do not possess a commercialized nature; they can only adapt to generosity, friendship, and simple joyful enjoyment.” Not only that, in a marketized society, “…the pursuit of material welfare will become the dominant goal…”, “…there will be a worship of money…”, “…the political system and political operations will decline…” According to Marx’s thesis on “the independence of man through the possession of things,” the early-modernizing Western capitalist countries have, from beginning to end, been constrained by a paradoxical phenomenon in the value logic of modernization: that is, the human subject of modernization, in the creation and possession of wealth and things, is enslaved by things, loses the self, loses a definite direction in life, and falls into confusion and distress over meaning. The reason Western-style modernization has fallen into difficulties, leading to material abundance but spiritual emptiness, and value subjects becoming deformed “possessive personalities,” is fundamentally caused by the one-sided thinking of this type of modernization on basic value issues. In the more than two hundred years since the Enlightenment, a prominent feature of the practice of social modernization worldwide has been the deep-seated conflict, transformation, and reconstruction of values. Objectively speaking, an inherent internal drawback of Western social modernization is the loss of direction at the level of values. Accompanied by the logic of capital, wealth maximization, and expansion, colonization, and aggression in the practice of modernization, the value crisis and ethical crisis of Western modernization are concentratedly manifested in liberal individualism, narrow anthropocentrism, consumerist hedonism, developmentalism, and technological optimism.

世界范围内社会现代化的历史任务与核心主题，是依托特定的制度，依靠不断的技术进步、生产力水平的提高、社会关系与体制的完善，在合理性发展理念和文明进步的实践中，创造日益增长的物质和精神财富，改变经济社会发展的不平衡、不协调现状，不断满足人民美好、幸福生活的需要。但是，同是现代化和文明形态的创造，理论立足点、制度性质，以及核心价值取向的不同，从根本上决定了其演进方向、目标愿景以及社会历史后果的巨大差异。社会现代化历史的考察、分析表明，市场经济与社会现代化相伴而生，互为前提、相互促进。以先发现代化的欧洲为例，现代化历史进程中的西方社会或者西方社会的现代化实践中，存在着的一个最大的问题，就是将“市场经济”与“市场社会”相混淆。从特定的历史实践着眼，客观地讲，市场经济优于其他经济安排的优越性，是它使人类个体能够自由地发挥自主创造性，以满足其各种需要，享受其劳动成果。市场经济有助于个体自由，有助于商品交换和服务交换，有助于人类达到更好的生活水准。今天，市场经济的积极性特质已经得到人们的广泛承认。“但是，在我们的时代精神中，却存在着这样一种混乱，即把市场经济制度及其美德混淆于一种清晰而又合理完备的、关于好生活和好社会应该如何的观念。由于缺乏经济适度，所以出现了市场经济向市场社会转化的趋势。当人们的态度、社会的规范和价值都依附于经济交易，经济效率的观念侵入所有公共生活领域和私人生活领域并渗透于各种社会关系……之中时，当社会的各种政策既不开明又缺乏一种理想导向和一组连贯有效的道德原则的规范时，市场社会便凸显出来了。在这种堕落的过程中，……利益追求成为普遍盛行的社会目标；……进而，人类个体的人际关系和社会关系资源也变得稀罕枯竭起来——因为人类人际关系和社会关系不具备一种商业化的本性，它们只能适应于慷慨大方、友爱和单纯的快乐享受。”不仅如此，在市场化社会，“……对物质福利的追求将会成为宰制性的目标……”“……将会出现金钱崇拜”“……政治体制和政治运作将会衰落……”依照马克思关于“人通过物的占有所表现出的独立性”的论断，先发现代化的西方资本主义国家，在现代化的价值逻辑方面，却自始至终被一种悖反性现象所钳制，这就是：作为现代化主体的人在对财富、物的创造、占有中为物所役，迷失了自我，失去了确定性的生活方向，陷入意义的迷茫和困顿。西方式现代化之所以陷入困境，导致物质丰裕但精神生活的空虚，价值主体成为畸形的“占有型人格”等，从根本上讲，是与这一类型的现代化在基本价值观问题上的片面性思维所导致的。启蒙以来二百多年，世界范围内社会现代化实践的一大突出特征，是深层的价值观的冲突、变革与重建。客观地讲，西方社会现代化的一大固有的内在弊端，就是价值观层面的迷失。伴随着现代化实践中的资本逻辑、财富最大化，以及扩张、殖民与侵略，西方现代化的价值危机与伦理危机，集中体现为自由个人主义、狭隘的人类中心主义、消费享乐主义、发展至上主义与技术乐观主义等。

Over two hundred years of Western practice of Enlightenment modernity and modernization have generated and established its “self-righteous” and “taken-as-true” subjective logic of value discovery, value practice, and value confirmation. The “formally rational but substantively irrational” value narrative logic that this theoretical, practical, and cultural paradigm provides to human civilization boils down to nothing more than the actualization of the following two general principles of value theory, practical beliefs, and discursive expression logic: First, the deepest and most direct root of so-called “value” lies in the rationality of the desire for infinite enjoyment and the legitimacy of the realization of free will. The essence of value is the establishment of self-subjectivity and the confirmation of self-worth. This is the basic reason why value is value and why value is recognized as value. Without this, all discourse on value is abstract. Second, the only reasonable form of human value practice is the affirmation of the secularized desire pursuit of the liberal individualist market economy practice system, the logic of capital as the standard, the maximization of bourgeois wealth, and hedonism. There is no doubt that the results of Western modernity theory and modernization practice are accompanied by the tension between tradition and modernity, the loss of genuine social values, the distortion of development practice and human nature that accompanies this loss, and the confusion of development goals. The harm of this subjective and willful value logic is specifically manifested in: (1) sacrificing natural-ecological values through the possession of wealth and the maximized satisfaction of desires, losing reverence for nature and recognition of the intrinsic value of nature-ecology, producing an alienation of the human-nature relationship, and leading to a severe ecological crisis; (2) using the immediate acquisition of benefits and hedonism to eliminate steadfast defense of historical tradition and profound value concern for the bonds of community and society, leading to spiritual distress and widespread nihilism; (3) using the supremacy of narrow national interests to overstep and sacrifice the common interests and shared well-being of all humanity for the sustainable existence of humankind.

两百多年启蒙现代性与现代化的西方实践，生成并确立了其“自以为是”且“信以为真”的充满主观性的价值发现、价值实践与价值确证逻辑。这一理论、实践和文化范型向人类文明所提供的“形式合理性但实质非合理性”的价值叙事逻辑，归结起来，无非是以下两个方面的价值观理论通则、实践信念和话语表达逻辑的现实化：其一，所谓“价值”之最深刻的、最直接的根源，在于无穷享乐欲望的合理性、自由意志实现的正当性。价值的本质，就是自我主体性的确立与自我价值的证成，这是价值所以为价值，价值所以被承认的价值的基本理由。舍此，一切有关价值的言说都是抽象的；其二，人类价值实践的唯一合理形式，就是对自由个人主义的市场经济实践体制、资本逻辑本位、资产阶级财富最大化以及享乐主义等的世俗化欲望追求的认肯。毫无疑问，西方现代性理论与现代化实践的结果，伴随着传统和现代的紧张，以及社会真价值的丧失，伴随着与这一迷失相伴而生的发展实践的扭曲、人性的扭曲，伴随着发展目标的迷茫。这一主观、任性的价值逻辑的危害，具体表现在：(1)以财富的占有、欲望最大化的满足，牺牲自然—生态价值，失去了对自然的敬畏和自然—生态之内在价值的认肯，产生人与自然关系的疏离，导致严峻生态危机；(2)以对当下的利益获取和享乐性，消弭对历史传统的坚定守护、对共同体和社会之纽带性的深刻价值关切，导致精神生活的困顿和普遍的虚无；(3)以狭隘的民族国家利益至上性，僭越并牺牲全人类人类永续存在的公共利益和共同福祉。

III. The Value Construction of the People’s Subjectivity Standard in Chinese-Path Modernization

三、 中国式现代化之人民主体性本位的价值观建构

Traditionally, when discussing value and values, it has been basically in accordance with the subject-object relationship mode of thinking of modern rationalist philosophy, taking the purposive demands of the survival and development of a single human subject as the basic regulation, and thereby clarifying the connotation of value. From the current perspective, this way of cognizing, understanding, expressing, and interpreting value, as well as the instrumental rationality meaning of ontological logic, actually closes off the autonomous path of value generation. The core and essence of value is the “real individual.” For human practical activity to become value-laden, on the one hand, it must and certainly is for the sake of safeguarding and defending the legitimate rights and dignity of human beings; on the other hand, this activity should equally establish human responsibility towards the uncertain objective world and towards the survival and development of humanity itself. In this sense, the process of the generation, establishment, realization, and confirmation of value includes, at a minimum, the co-existence of multiple factors such as the necessary examination of premises, the purposive orientation of the process, and the meaning examination of the goal.

传统意义上，论及价值、价值观，基本上是依照近代理性主义哲学所谓主客关系思维模式，以单一的人类主体的生存、发展的合目的性诉求为基本规制，并以此明晰价值的内涵的。现在看来，这样一种认知、理解、表达和诠释价值以及存在论逻辑等工具理性意义的方式，实际上封闭了价值的自主性生成路向。价值的核心、实质是“现实的个人”,人类的实践活动要成为价值性的，一方面就必须、一定是为着守护、捍卫人的正当性权路和尊严，另一方面这一活动同样应该是确立人对于充满非确定性的对象世界以及人类自身生存发展的责任。在这个意义上，价值的生成、确立、实现和确证的过程，就至少包括了前提的必要审视、过程的目的定向、目标的意义审视等多维因素的并生共在。

The reason the theoretical exploration and practical experience of Chinese-path modernization have succeeded can, in plain terms, be attributed to the dialectical integration and organic coupling of the multiple elements that this great undertaking must follow: the “law–teleology,” the “morality–subjectivity,” and the “culture–civilization” dimensions. An examination of social modernization from the perspective of value philosophy and value thinking aims to show that the values discovered, safeguarded, realized, and confirmed by Chinese-path modernization are concentrated in the following aspects: first, on the basis of critical reflection on so-called “universal values” (freedom, democracy, equality, human rights), an affirmation of the universal and shared positive values generated by the practice of human modernization; second, adherence to the principle of the creative transformation and innovative development of fine traditional Chinese culture, upholding the interest-based standard of survival, development, and progress in the course of the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation; third, the people-centered stance of the value-practice subject and the consistent pursuit of the value goal of a better life; fourth, based on the ideal of “common values of all mankind” (peace, development, fairness, justice, democracy, freedom) and “a community with a shared future for mankind,” a reasonable balancing and unremitting advancement of global prosperity, stability, human well-being, and the maximization of common interests from the standpoint of public value.

中国式现代化的理论探索和实践经验之所以成功，通俗地说，是因为实现了这一伟大事业所必须遵循的“规律—目的论”“道义—主体论”以及“文化—文明论”多维要素的辩证融通与有机耦合。对社会现代化做价值哲学、价值思维层面的审视的结果，旨在表明，中国式现代化所发现、所守护、所实现和所确证的价值，集中体现在以下几个方面：一是对所谓“普世价值”(自由、民主、平等、人权)反思批判基础上，对人类现代化实践所生成的普遍性、共享性之积极的、正向价值的肯定；二是秉持中华优秀传统文化创造性转化“创新性发展”的原则，对中华民族伟大复兴历程中生存、发展与进步之利益本位的坚持；三是价值实践主体的人民性立场以及美好生活价值目标的一以贯之；四是立足“全人类共同价值”(和平、发展、公平、正义、民主、自由)与“人类命运共同体”的理想，以公共价值的立场对全球繁荣、稳定与人类福祉和共同利益最大化的合理兼顾和不懈推进。

(I) The Wisdom of Value Thinking in Chinese-Path Modernization and Its Inner Implications

(一)中国式现代化之价值思维智慧及其内在意蕴

The enlightening significance of the theory and practice of Chinese-path modernization for philosophical reflection on value lies in the fact that this great practice, in a manner conforming to both law and purpose, has transformed the value logic of Enlightenment modernity in modernization, providing a new value paradigm for social modernization in late-developing countries—one guided by holistic concern, relational-rational regulation, and a rational anthropological teleology. It turns abstract theoretical presuppositions of value into concrete existential and life realities, and actually implements them through the power of a fine institutional community, guided by the new development philosophy, to meet the people’s needs for a better life.

中国式现代化的理论和实践之于价值的哲学思考的启发性意义在于，这一伟大的实践，以合乎规律性和目的性的方式，变革了现代化的启蒙现代性的价值逻辑，提供了一种总体性关切、关系理性规制以及合理性人学目的论引领的后发型国家社会现代化的新的价值范型，将一个个抽象的价值理论预设变为活生生的具体的生存论与生活论现实，并实际地落实到以优良制度共同体的力量，以新发展理念为指引，满足人民对于美好生活的需要。

Human beings cannot completely escape absolute dependence on material goods and wealth to survive in a vacuum. What makes humans human, and civilization civilization, lies precisely in the correct attitude toward things and wealth. A comprehensive examination of the theory and practice of Chinese-path modernization from the logic of value rationality reveals its unique Chinese wisdom and world significance, mainly embodied in the following aspects:

人不可能完全摆脱对物质和财富的绝对依赖而在真空中生存。人之为人，文明之为文明，恰恰就在于其对于物和财富的正确的态度。从价值合理性逻辑对中国式现代化的理论和实践做全面审视，其独特的中国智慧和世界性意义，主要体现在以下几个方面：

First, the overall logic of value discovery, value practice, and value generation and practice—that is, the establishment of a holistic cognition and interpretive horizon concerning social development and civilizational progress, grounded in the existential ontology of modernization’s history and reality, China and the world. Chinese-path modernization has broken free from the abstract presuppositions of previous value philosophy regarding “what value is” and “what value ought to be,” placing the discovery, understanding, interpretation, and confirmation of genuine social value within the concrete scene of social historical processes and civilizational progress, allowing it to manifest autonomously according to its natural, inherent, and self-possessed logic. Chinese-path modernization has discovered the rational and appropriate way for value to be what it is and as it is, establishing a new overall logic of value generation. Genuine social value and human value itself are generated and established within this relational ontological logic; any single aspect alone is insufficient to generate value. Even if it does, it can only be value in one particular aspect.

一是价值发现、价值实践以及价值生成和实践的总体性逻辑，即基于现代化的历史与现实、中国与世界生存本体论意义上关于社会发展和文明进步的总体性认知与诠释视野的确立。中国式现代化摆脱了以往价值哲学关于“价值是什么”以及“价值应如何””等问题的抽象性预设，将对社会真价值的发现、理解、诠释和确证方式，置于具体的社会历史过程和文明进步论的场景之中，让其依照如其所是的自然生成性与本然性、本己性逻辑得以自主的呈现。中国式现代化发现了价值是其所是、如其所是的合理性和恰当性方式，确立了价值生成的新质的总体性逻辑，社会真价值、人自身的价值就生成、确立于这一关系本体性逻辑之中，单有其中的任何一个方面，都不足以生成价值。即使有，也只能是某一个方面的价值。

Second, Chinese-path modernization has demonstrated the value-practice logic that “development makes life better.” Development is the main theme of modernization, but the results of modernization under different development value orientations are vastly different. The process of establishing the value-philosophical foundation of Chinese-path modernization has been accompanied by reflection on and reconstruction of the value of development, correcting the logic of development and wealth, establishing a view of development that regards survival through development, taking the good life as an intrinsic element and organic component of development, and using rational development to continuously promote the realization of the people’s good life.

二是中国式现代化证成了“发展让生活更美好”的价值实践逻辑。发展是现代化的主旋律，但不同的发展价值观所支配和导致的现代化的结果截然不同。中国式现代化价值哲学基础的确立过程，伴随着对发展价值的反思与重建，矫正了发展与财富的逻辑，确立了以发展看待生存，将美好生活作为发展的内在要素与有机构成，以合理发展不断促进人民美好生活的实现。

Third, Chinese-path modernization elucidates and bears a civilizational existential ideal based on the belief in the common values of all mankind. The most outstanding value achievement and contribution of Chinese-path modernization is the creation of a new form of human civilization, and this new form of human civilization is the highest-level value representation of humanity’s public existential wisdom. Chinese-path modernization not only concerns itself with China’s development and progress but also possesses a world-historical consciousness and a sense of human destiny, incorporating the practice and realization of the common values of all mankind and the advancement of a community with a shared future for mankind as inherent connotations of its grand goals.

三是中国式现代化阐明并承载着基于全人类共同价值信念的文明型生存论理想。中国式现代化之最突出的价值成就和贡献，就是创造了人类文明新形态，而人类文明新形态正是人类公共性生存智慧的最高层次的价值表征。中国式现代化不仅仅关注中国的发展和进步，而且兼具世界历史意识和人类命运情怀，将践行并实现全人类共同价值、推进人类命运共同体作为中国式现代化宏伟目标的题中应有内涵。

(II) Chinese-Path Modernization: The Establishment of Social Public Value Oriented Toward Rational Human Existence

(二)中国式现代化：面向人的合理性生存的社会公共价值的确立

Whether the individual or the community, private interest or public interest, is the foundation is a hallmark of Enlightenment modernity and the problems of its era. The existential logic of Enlightenment modernity is the logic of capital, a logic of division and confrontation, a logic that deliberately manufactures global inequality, a logic of hegemony that violates the nature of human civilization. The self-establishment of this logic is considered to conform to human “innate self-interest,” essentially a logic of abstract human nature, forcibly separating humans from the social community in which they actually exist and live, reducing human existence once again to an animal-like logic of self-being. Yet such a “logic of regression,” under the guise of pursuing human freedom and equality, has unabashedly become the basic guideline for social modernization and so-called “civilized” practice worldwide.

个体还是共同体、私人利益还是公共利益本位，是启蒙现代性及其所处时代问题的表征。启蒙现代性的生存逻辑是资本逻辑，是分裂、对抗的逻辑，是刻意制造全球不平等的逻辑，是违背人类文明本性的霸权逻辑，这种逻辑的自我确立方式被认为符合人的“天生自利”的本性，本质上是一种抽象人性论的逻辑，是将人与其实际地生存和生活于其中的社会共同体强制分离，使得人的生存重新降格为动物般的自在性逻辑。但是，就是这样一种“倒退的逻辑”,竟然假人性自由、平等追求之名，堂而皇之地成为世界范围内社会现代化和所谓“文明”性实践的基本依循。

“Value,” when viewed from the perspective of human civilization, concerns objects that are essentially all-encompassing in domain, process, relation, and ecology; what it demands is the ought-to-be logic of the authentic existence of the world as world. All activities undertaken by civilized humanity have a definite purpose and goal within them. The dual nature of human goodness and evil determines that actual human history will permanently be in fierce conflict and struggle between “private interest” and “public interest.”

进入人类文明视域中的“价值”,其所关涉的对象，本质上是全领域、全过程、全关系、全生态的，其所诉求的，是整个世界所以为世界的本真性存在的应然逻辑。文明人类所从事的一切活动，都有一种确定性的目的和目标在其中。人性的善恶二重性本性使然，决定了现实的人类历史必然会永久性地处于“私人利益”与“公共利益”的激烈冲突和博弈之中。

Viewed through the lens of modern practical anthropology, value is the self-cultivation, self-correction, and self-clarification of human nature’s continuous purification in the course of complex historical development. It relies on and substantively points toward some ideal form of institutional community practice whose highest and ultimate purpose is universal human well-being. In the sense of the elevation of civilized humanity’s realm, it thereby constitutes the deepest foundation, logic, and harmonious character of what makes humans human and the world the world. In an existential sense, true, genuine value is essentially a systemic quality based on the organic integration of theory and practice. In this sense, value is the totality of fine, graceful human nature and social relations in the process of continuous self-perfection. According to the objective logic of the existence of things, value for modern people is initially in a state of concealment, not fully manifested, and thus full of mystery. People can only appreciate it and experience its beauty, but cannot express it in precise language. Even with the unfolding of various conscious, purposeful activities of human existence, people do not have a collective intellectual awareness of value that is actually being generated like a shadow. In that mode of existence, value is contingent, and its significance for the purpose, goal, and direction of human activity is not very clear.

以现代实践人学的理论相观照，价值是复杂的历史发展中人性本质不断纯良化的自我修炼、自我修正和自我澄明，它依托并实质性地指向某种以人类普遍福祉为最高、最终旨归的理想形态的制度共同体实践，在文明人类境界性提升的意义上，借此构成人之为人、世界之为世界的最深刻的根据、逻辑和圆融性特质。在生存论意义上，真正的、真实的价值，本质上是一种理论和实践有机融通基础上的系统质。在这个意义上，价值是不断迈向自我完善历程中优良的、优雅人性和社会关系的总体。依照事物存在的客观性逻辑，价值之于现代人，一开始是遮蔽态的、未充分展现的，因而充满神秘的色彩。人们只可以欣赏她、体验她的美妙，但却无法用精确的语言表达她。即使有人类的存在有意识、有目的的各种活动的展开，人们对于实际上如影随形地正在生成中的价值，其实并没有一种集体理智自觉意义上的自觉。在那种存在情态中，价值是偶然的，其对于人类活动的目的、目标和方向的意义也不是非常明确的。

Social modernization, consistent with human history and the direction of progress, pursues, strives to justify, and practices public value. Public value, correctly understood and interpreted, coexists with human civilization. Public value, as seen through the critical perspective of modernity, based on the broad vision of modern public theory and practice, seeks a profound practical-rational reflection and effective regulation of the reasonable relationship between humans and the entire objective world. It seeks, in the ultimate sense of existential ontology and human development, the rational grounds and legitimate logic that make all forms of value possible. Public value is not only theoretical but also practical. At the national level, it concerns fairness and justice—this is the meta-level of public value; at the social level, it concerns public order and good customs based on the protection of rights; at the individual level, it concerns the civic personality of modern individuals who care about the world. Therefore, the deepest purport of public value concerns and points to the most profound and enduring basis for why the world is the world, why society is society, why culture is culture, and why individuals are individuals. It is the truest purport of all human thought and theoretical forms, including philosophy: (1) The public and value are mutually representational. On the one hand, the public is the noumenon of value; public value is the highest level of value, the goal toward which all forms of value strive. On the other hand, value is essentially an expression of the public pursuit of human reason; publicness is the greatest commonality of all values. (2) Public value is, in the ideal sense, the root of universal human well-being, the deepest rationale of human thought and theory, the matrix of human culture, and the highest norm and internal regulation of all human theoretical and practical activities. (3) Public value is the fundamental characteristic, internal driving force, and direction of development for all human cognition and practice. Public value relies on specific institutional communities and represents a collective effort by humanity to move toward a public society and a public mode of existence.

与人类历史和进步方向相一致的社会现代化所追求、所努力证成和实践的，是公共价值。被正确理解和诠释了的公共价值与人类文明相始终，现代性反思批判视野中的公共价值，立足现代公共性理论与实践的宏阔视野，诉求的对于人与整个对象世界之合理关系的一种深刻的实践理性观照和有效规约，所寻求的是生存本体论和人类发展之终极性意义上，一切价值形态所以可能的合理性理据和正当性逻辑。公共价值不仅是理论的，更是现实的。从国家层面来讲，关乎公平正义，这是公共价值的元层面；从社会层面，关乎权利保护基础上的公序良俗；从个人层面，关乎现代个体之心怀天下的公民性人格。因此，公共价值之最深刻的旨趣，关切并指向世界所以为世界，社会所以为社会，文化所以为文化，以及个人之所以为个人的最深层、最持久根据的东西，是包括哲学在内人类一切思想和理论形态的最真实旨趣：(1)公共与价值互为表征。一方面，公共是价值的本体，公共价值是价值的最高层级，是一切形态的价值努力以赴的目标；另一方面，价值本质上是人类理性公共性追求的体现，公共性是一切价值的最大通约性。(2)公共价值是理想意义上人类普遍福祉的本根，是人类思想理论之最深刻的理据，是人类文化的母体，是人类一切形态的理论和实践活动的最高规范和内在规约；(3)公共价值是人类一切认识和实践活动的根本特质、内在动力和发展方向。公共价值依托于特定的制度共同体，是人类迈向公共性社会、公共性生存境界的集体努力。

The construction of public value is a practical cultural manifestation of the level of civilization that human nature can achieve through evolution. Further, the exploration of public value and the good life is based on a universal reflection on and critique of human nature, pursuing the rationality and humanization of development. Entering the New Era of socialist modernization with Chinese characteristics, the Party Central Committee with Comrade Xi Jinping at its core, taking the common values of all humanity and a community with a shared future for mankind as the goals of public value, has proposed a series of forward-looking and transcendent systems and plans. These provide Chinese wisdom and Chinese solutions for solving troubled and confused global conflicts, and offer a new humanistic development paradigm for building a just and harmonious beautiful new world. This follows the shaping of excellent human nature by the socialist system with Chinese characteristics, leading civilized humanity to a new realm of richness and wholeness. In essence, China, with the public-spirited mindset of "the world is for all" [9]9 "The world is for all" (天下为公) is a classical Confucian ideal from the *Book of Rites* (*Liji*), describing a utopian society where public spirit prevails and resources are shared for the common good. embodied in a community with a shared future for mankind, stands at the height of creating a new form of human civilization, pursues the practical stance of the good life, and unremittingly takes Marxist values as its theoretical guide, insisting on the free and comprehensive development of the individual.

公共价值的建构是人性进化所能达到的文明高度的实践文化表征，进一步说，公共价值与美好生活的探索是在对人性普遍反思、批判的基础上，追求发展的合理性与人性化趋势。进入中国特色社会主义现代化建设新时代，以习近平同志为核心的党中央，以全人类共同价值与人类命运共同体为公共价值目标，提出了一系列具有前瞻性和超越性的制度和方案，为困顿、迷茫的全球冲突问题的解决提供中国智慧和中国方案，为构建一个公正、协调的美丽新世界提供了新的人文化发展范式，其遵循的是中国特色社会主义制度对优良人性的塑造，将文明人类引向丰富、整全性的新境界。质言之，中国以人类命运共同体之“天下为公”的胸怀，站在人类文明新形态创制的高度，追求美好生活的实践立场，不懈地以马克思主义价值观为理论指导，坚持人的自由全面发展。

Chinese-path modernization has created and contributed all the elements necessary for the emergence and autonomous construction of new values. The essence of the theoretical and practical exploration of Chinese-path modernization is that three types of values are simultaneously present: the guidance of Marxist values of the free and comprehensive development of the individual, the foundation of excellent traditional Chinese cultural values, and the advocacy, adherence to, and practice of the common values of all humanity. This generates the Chinese value concept and Chinese value logic of social modernization: the value guidance of the new development philosophy, the value practice of the people-centered approach, and the value goal of pursuing the good life, ultimately committed to realizing the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation.

中国式现代化创造了、贡献了新价值得以出场和自主性建构的全部要素，中国式现代化理论和实践探索的实质，有三种价值观同时在场：马克思主义人的自由全面发展的价值观引领、中国优秀传统文化价值观的奠基，以及对全人类共同价值的倡导、坚持与践履，从而生成了社会现代化的中国价值理念、中国价值逻辑：新发展理念的价值引领、人民性的价值实践，以及美好生活追求的价值目标，最终致力于实现中华民族的伟大复兴。

The values and value philosophy of Chinese-path modernization, due to their political high ground, truth high ground, and moral high ground, have been transcendent and forward-looking from the start, gaining insight into and mastering the truth of human value-based existence. This is manifested in two aspects: First, the logic of relational ontology. That is, a new understanding of what makes value concepts and modes of value existence possible provides a Chinese way, Chinese logic, and Chinese expression for discovering, understanding, and interpreting value concepts as the profound rationale of modernization. It explicitly identifies that value is the overall logic and holistic wisdom of human existence and life. This new type of value concept and value form takes into account both natural ecology and social development, considers the legitimate concerns of other countries while pursuing national interests, and advocates the value of multilateral public governance. Second, the logic of rational practice. It contributes a rational relational field that makes value generation and value practice possible, indicating that value is never isolated but is a systemic quality highly compatible and consistent with many elements, such as a rational paradigm of human existence and development, excellent institutional practice, and a new form of human civilization. None of these single elements alone is sufficient to bring about the generation of value in a philosophical sense.

中国式现代化的价值观、价值哲学，因其政治制高点、真理制高点、道义制高点，一开始就具有了超越性和前瞻性，洞悉并掌握了人类价值化生存的真理，其具体表现为两个方面：一是关系性本位逻辑。即价值理念、价值存在方式所以可能的新理解，提供了发现、理解和诠释作为现代化之深刻理据的价值理念的中国方式、中国逻辑和中国表达，明确指认，价值是人类生存与生活的总体性逻辑、整体性智慧。这一新质的价值理念和价值观样态兼顾自然生态与社会发展，兼顾追求本国利益时兼顾他国合理关切，倡导多边主义的公共治理价值；二是合理性实践逻辑。贡献了价值生成与价值实践所以可能的合理性关系场域，表明价值从来都不是孤立的，而是一种与人类合理的生存与发展范式、与优良制度实践、与人类文明新形态等诸多要素高度契合、一致的系统质，其中的任何一种单一要素，都不足以促成一种哲学意义的价值的生成。

(III) The Logic of Civilizational Narrative in Chinese-Path Modernization: The Constant Presence of the Value Ideal of a Good Life Based on the Subjectivity of the People

(三)中国式现代化的文明叙事逻辑：人民主体性本位的美好生活的价值理想的始终在场

The Western logic of social modernization and the market economy has another most distinct and prominent feature: the expansion of the logic of capital and the establishment of the dominant position of technological rationality. The logic of capital embodies and represents the will of the capitalist system and the interests of the bourgeoisie. In such an ideology, technological rationality inevitably becomes a servant of the market and the logic of capital. The result of the combination of the above elements is that, with technological progress and the continuous improvement of market rationality, the more wealth is created, the more the phenomenon of social polarization between rich and poor caused by unfair distribution intensifies. Polarization, turmoil, and conflict become inevitable. In this sense, the living conditions of the proletariat and the broad masses of the people, as the direct creators of wealth, have not correspondingly improved with the increase in social wealth. On the contrary, unfair phenomena and a widespread sense of deprivation become a common mentality.

社会现代化和市场经济的西方逻辑，还有一个最鲜明、最突出的特征，就是资本逻辑的膨胀和技术理性之主导性地位的确立。资本逻辑体现、代表的，是资本主义制度的意志、资产阶级的利益，在这样一种意识形态中，技术理性必然沦为市场、资本逻辑的奴仆。上述要素结合起来所产生的结果就是，随技术进步、市场理性的不断健全，财富创造的越多，由分配的不公平所引发和导致的社会的贫富分化现象愈是不断加剧，分化、动荡、冲突不可避免。在这个意义上，作为财富直接创造者的无产阶级和广大人民群众的生存境况，并没有随社会财富的增加而相应地得到改善，相反，非公平现象以及普遍的被剥夺感成为共同的心态。

The socialist market economy with Chinese characteristics is the institutional foundation for the creative practice of Chinese-path modernization and the new form of human civilization. From the very beginning, it is fundamentally different from a "market society." On the one hand, the socialist nature of the system determines that this great creative practice, in establishing its theoretical foothold, practical logic, and value goals, pursues and adheres to the concept of institutional justice. This is not the maximization of the interests of individual interest groups, capital, or a minority, but the continuous progressive improvement of people's well-being based on the subjectivity of the people and the primacy of social public interests. On the other hand, the exploratory practice of creating Chinese-path modernization and the new form of human civilization has profoundly transformed the concept of "developmentalism" as an ideology that dominates Western modernization and civilizational creation, as well as its erosion and distortion of the values of the entire socio-economic life, political life, and daily life. It consistently adheres to the unity of the regularity and purposiveness of social history, generating and establishing the theoretically original new development philosophy of "innovation, coordination, green, openness, and sharing," and using this as the guide for social modernization and the creation of a new form of civilization. The persistence and efforts in the above two aspects ensure the continuous endogenous driving force for the creative practice of Chinese-path modernization and the new form of human civilization, showcasing to the world the beautiful image of an ancient Eastern civilization peacefully rising.

中国特色社会主义市场经济是中国式现代化和人类文明新形态创造实践的体制性依托，自一开始与“市场化社会”有本质的不同。一方面，制度的社会主义性质决定了这一伟大的创造性实践，在理论立足点、实践逻辑以及价值目标的确立等方面，其所追求和坚持的制度正义的理念，不是个别利益集团甚或资本或少数人利益的最大化，而是人民主体性、社会公共利益本位基础上民众福祉的不断累进性提升；另一方面，中国式现代化和人类文明新形态创造 的探索性实践，深刻地变革了主导西方现代化和文明创造实践的作为意识形态的“发展主义”的理念，以及其对整个社会经济生活、政治生活以及日常生活价值观的侵蚀、扭曲，始终坚持社会历史的合规律性与合目的性相统一，生成、确立了具有理论原创性意义的“创新”“协调”“绿色”“开放”“共享”的新发展理念，并以此作为社会现代化和文明新形态创造的指针。上述两个方面的坚持和努力，确保了中国式现代化和人类文明新形态创造实践之源源不断的内生性动力，向世界展示了和平崛起中的东方文明古国的美好形象。

Determined by the advanced nature and superiority of its path, theory, institutions and culture, we have ample reason and confidence to make the following assertion: the values embedded in Chinese-path modernization are in fact Chinese values, the concentrated embodiment of China’s stance, wisdom and proposals on the question of world values, and they signify a new theoretical height attained by humanity in the exploration and practice of values and value philosophy. The values of Chinese-path modernization are the crystallization of the adaptation of basic Marxist value theory to the Chinese context and the needs of the times, containing reflection on, critique of and transcendence of Western social values, and containing the creative transformation and innovative development of the values of fine traditional Chinese culture. The theoretical exploration and great practical process of Chinese-path modernization follow a clear logic of autonomous value transformation. Discovering, creating and correctly understanding value, thereby forming a normative-rational mode of presenting Chinese-characteristic values distinct from Western modernization, is the key to Chinese-path modernization acquiring its clear spiritual and cultural identity and thus gaining discursive power at the level of values; it is also the hallmark of Chinese-path modernization possessing universal historical significance and comparative advantages and traits in terms of civilizational forms.

由道路、理论、制度以及文化的先进性和优越性所决定，我们有充分的理由和自信做出如下表达，即：中国式现代化所蕴含着的价值观，其实就是中国价值观，是世界价值观问题上中国立场、中国智慧和中国方案的集中体现，表征着人类在价值观、价值哲学探索和实践问题上所达到的新的理论高度。中国式现代化的价值观，是马克思主义基本价值观理论中国化、时代化的结晶，包含着对西方社会价值观的反思、批判与超越，包含着对中华优秀传统文化之价值观的创造性转化与创新性发展。中国式现代化的理论探索和伟大实践过程，遵循着明确的价值观自主变革逻辑。发现、创造价值、正确地理解价值，从而形成一种规范理性意义上，有别于西方现代化的中国特色价值观的呈现方式，是中国式现代化获得其明确的精神文化标识，从而取得价值观层面上话语权的关键所在，更是中国式现代化具有普遍历史性意义和文明形态比较性优势和特质的标志。

The value transformation brought about by Chinese-path modernization is all-encompassing, involving the examination, rectification and correction of multiple relationships: between humanity and nature, between humanity and the social community, and between humanity and itself. In terms of its complete theoretical logic, core content and mode of presentation, the transformation and transcendence of Western modernization theory and its value goals by Chinese-path modernization theory on the question of values is mainly manifested in the following six aspects:

中国式现代化所引起的价值观变革是全方位的，是人与自然、与社会共同体、与人自身等多方面关系的审视、纠偏与矫正。就其完整的理论逻辑、核心内容及其呈现形态来看，价值观问题上，中国式现代化理论对西方现代化理论及其价值目标的变革与超越，主要体现在以下六个方面：

First, the “ecological values” of harmonious coexistence between humanity and nature. Chinese-path modernization does not follow the wrong path of draining the pond to catch all the fish driven by the logic of capital, but instead seeks the way of harmonious coexistence between humanity and nature. It integrates the Chinese civilizational wisdom of “the unity of heaven and humanity” [10]10 “The unity of heaven and humanity” (天人合一) is a classical Chinese philosophical concept emphasizing the harmonious integration of the natural order and human affairs. into the ecological ethical reconstruction of a new-quality modernity in the post-developmentalist, post-globalization era, emphasizing the protection of the natural home on which all humanity depends for survival from the standpoint of modern ecological citizens, guided by “total ecological consciousness,” sound ecological rationality and an ecological justice outlook.

一是人与自然和谐共生的“生态价值观”。中国式现代化不走资本逻辑驱使下竭泽而渔的歪路，而是谋求人与自然和谐共生之道，把“天人合一”的中华文明智慧，融入后发展主义、后全球化时代新质的现代性的生态伦理重构，强调以“全生态意识”、健全的生态理性和生态正义观，以现代生态公民的立场，守护全人类赖以生存的自然家园。

Second, the social justice values based on community well-being. On the relationship between the individual and society, it resolves the dilemma of polarization under Western liberalism. Chinese-path modernization does not follow the divergent path of extreme wealth disparity, class solidification and social fragmentation. Instead, it creatively combines socialism with the market economy, transcends the logic of polarization, crosses the “middle-income trap,” [11]11 The “middle-income trap” refers to the phenomenon where economies that reach middle-income levels stagnate and fail to transition to high-income status. takes the transition from moderate prosperity in all respects to achieving common prosperity for all the people as an important goal and main characteristic, upholds and promotes social fairness and justice, and achieves coordination and unity between individual interests and overall interests.

二是共同体福祉本位的社会正义价值观。在个体与社会的关系上，破解西方自由主义的两极分化困境。中国式现代化不走贫富悬殊、阶层固化、社会分裂的歧路，而是把社会主义与市场经济创造性地结合起来，超越两极分化的逻辑，跨域“中等收入陷阱”,以从全面小康迈向实现全体人民共同富裕为重要目标和主要特征，维护和促进社会公平正义，实现个体利益与整体利益相协调、相统一。

Third, the development values guided by the goal of a “better life.” The values of Chinese-path modernization emphasize the new development concepts of “innovation,” “green,” “coordination,” “openness” and “sharing,” transcend the narrow materialist and wealth-based value logic of the “rational economic man,” effectively resolve the “development paradox” and the politics and ideology of “developmentalism,” take as its purpose the fundamental aim of development being to satisfy the people’s pursuit of a better life, strive to realize the people’s shared enjoyment of development achievements, and fundamentally overcome the shortcomings of developmentalist values.

三是“美好生活”目标引领的发展价值观。中国式现代化价值观强调“创新”“绿色”“协调”“开放”“共享”的新发展理念，超越“理性经济人”的狭隘的物质至上和财富本位的价值逻辑，有效破解“发展悖论”以及“发展主义”的政治与意识形态，以发展的根本目的在于满足人民对于美好生活的追求为宗旨，努力实现发展成果的人民共享，从根本上克服了发展主义价值观的弊端。

Fourth, the people-centered values. Unlike Western modernization centered on capital, Chinese-path modernization transcends the logic of capital and consistently adheres to the development logic of putting the people first and being people-centered. The socialist modernization led by the Communist Party of China, uniting and leading the Chinese people, is a modernization for the people and by the people. General Secretary Xi Jinping points out: “The people are both the creators of history and the witnesses of history; they are both the ‘actors in the drama’ and the ‘playwrights of history.’” [12]12 Xi Jinping, “Speech at the Forum on Literature and Art Work” (October 15, 2014), in *Selected Readings of Xi Jinping’s Important Speeches*, Foreign Languages Press, 2016, p. 190. Chinese-path modernization consistently takes the people’s standpoint as its fundamental value standpoint, places the people’s interests in the supreme position, highlights the value foundation of Xi Jinping Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era, and in practice endows “the people are the creators of history” with contemporary connotations. “People-centered” is the intrinsic characteristic and realm of the unique values inherent in Chinese-path modernization.

四是以人民为中心的价值观。与以资本为中心的西方式现代化不同，中国式现代化超越资本逻辑，始终坚持人民至上、以人民为中心发展逻辑。中国共产党团结带领中国人民所进行的社会主义现代化建设，就是为了人民、依靠人民的现代化。习近平总书记指出：“人民既是历史的创造者、也是历史的见证者，既是历史的‘剧中人’,也是历史的‘剧作者’。”中国式现代化始终把人民立场作为根本价值立场，将人民利益置于至高无上的地位，彰显了习近平新时代中国特色社会主义思想的价值底色，更在实践中赋予了“人民是历史的创造者”的时代内涵，“以人民为中心”是中国式现代化内蕴的独特价值观的内在特质和境界。

Fifth, proposing and comprehensively practicing the common values of all humanity with “peace, development, fairness, justice, democracy and freedom” as core content, committed to rebuilding new international relations, a new international order and new values of international interaction, and, from the standpoint of public values, balancing and unremittingly advancing global prosperity, stability, human well-being and the maximization of common interests. General Secretary Xi Jinping points out: “Peace and development are our common cause; fairness and justice are our common ideal; democracy and freedom are our common pursuit.” [13]13 Xi Jinping, “Jointly Shouldering the Responsibility of the Times and Promoting Global Development,” keynote speech at the opening ceremony of the Boao Forum for Asia Annual Conference 2021, April 20, 2021. On the relationship between nation-states and the world, the common values of all humanity aim to resolve the zero-sum game dilemma of Western hegemonism. Chinese-path modernization advocates a new path of peaceful development, opposes the unequal logic of unilateralism, advocates comprehensively advancing the theory and practice of a community with a shared future for mankind through multilateralism, and is committed to a new world of peace, stability, justice and order.

五是提出并全面践行以“和平、发展、公平、正义、民主、自由”为核心内容的全人类共同价值，致力于重建新的国际关系、国际秩序以及国际交往价值观，以公共价值的立场，对全球繁荣、稳定与人类福祉和共同利益最大化的兼顾和不懈推进。习近平总书记指出：“和平与发展是我们的共同事业，公平正义是我们的共同理想，民主自由是我们的共同追求。”在民族国家与世界的关系上，全人类共同价值旨在破解西方霸权主义的零和博弈困境。中国式现代化倡导和平发展新路，反对单极主义的不平等逻辑，主张以多边主义全面推进人类命运共同体的理论和实践，致力于一个和平、稳定、正义和秩序的新世界。

Sixth, resolving the thinking patterns of “tradition” versus “modernity,” “advanced” versus “backward,” and “center” versus “periphery” that are practiced and promoted by Western modernization on the question of civilizational views, emphasizing that the process of creating Chinese-path modernization as a new form of human civilization is accompanied by the generation and establishment of new “civilizational values” with unique historical depth and contemporary height. On March 15, 2023, at the High-level Dialogue between the Communist Party of China and World Political Parties, General Secretary Xi Jinping proposed for the first time the Global Civilization Initiative to the world, “jointly advocating respect for the diversity of world civilizations,” opposing the “theory of Western civilizational centrality”; “jointly advocating the importance of civilizational inheritance and innovation,” emphasizing the inheritance, innovation and development of the fine cultural traditions of all nations; “jointly advocating the strengthening of international people-to-people and cultural exchanges and cooperation,” substantively crossing the “clash of civilizations trap” through dialogue, exchange and communication. [14]14 The Global Civilization Initiative was proposed by Xi Jinping on March 15, 2023, at the High-level Dialogue between the Communist Party of China and World Political Parties, calling

六是破解西方现代化文明观问题上所奉行和推崇的“传统”与“现代”、“先进”与“落后”以及“中心”与“边缘”的思维定势，强调中国式现代化作为一种人类文明新形态的创造过程，伴随着具有独特的历史深度和时代高度的新“文明价值观”的生成、确立。2023年3月15日，在中国共产党与世界政党高层对话会上，习近平总书记面向世界首次提出全球文明倡议，“共同倡导尊重世界文明多样性”,反对“西方文明中心论”;“共同倡导重视文明传承和创新”,强调对各民族优良文化传统的继承、创新和发展；“共同倡导加强国际人文交流合作”,以对话、交流和沟通实质性地跨越“文明冲突陷阱”。

In summary, the values of Chinese-path modernization include adherence to reasonable and advanced common human values, and reflection on the distorted values of Western social modernization theory and practice. Through the above efforts, it aims to transcend the narrowness and bias of so-called “universalism” versus “particularism” in the paradigm of modern value thinking; and to transcend the limitations and errors of the binary oppositions in Western discursive regulation of modernity, such as “culture” versus “ideology,” “instrumental rationality” versus “value rationality,” “equality” versus “efficiency,” and “wealth” versus “virtue,” in the interpretation and justification of Western modern values. It provides a new value-interpretation logic for a new type of human modernization.

综上，中国式现代化的价值观，有对人类合理的、先进的人类公共价值的坚守，有对于西方社会现代化理论和实践畸形价值观的反思。通过上述努力，旨在超越现代化价值思维范式问题上，所谓“普遍主义”与“特殊主义”的狭隘与偏颇；西方现代性价值诠释与辩护问题上所谓“文化”与“意识形态”、“工具理性”与“价值理性”、“平等”抑或“效率”、“财富”还是“德性”等现代性的西方话语规制之二元对立的局限与误区，提供了人类新型现代化的价值诠释逻辑。

Conclusion

结 语

Value is the inner order of human existence, the profound foundation and deep rationale for proper existence established through humanity’s free and autonomous activities, and the direction and guidance for human development and progress. Without value or lacking clear values, human existence and activity are inconceivable. That which modern civilization, modern society, modern people and modern thought and theory call “value” must possess the characteristics of self-consistency, self-sufficiency and self-evidence; it must necessarily signify and represent something sacred and sublime that needs and deserves human reverence, awe, protection and care, and something to be observed, cherished and passed on. It is precisely the existence of these things that gives the objective world a solemn order, gives human existence and life norms, dignity and intrinsic meaning, gives the multitude in secular society a transcendent guidance, enabling them to face complexity, setbacks and absurdity directly, to overcome the hardships of existence and life with courageous and resolute effort, and to see hope, dawn and a beautiful vision.

价值是人类生存的内在秩序，是经由人的自由自主的活动所确立的确当性生存的深厚根基、深刻理据，是人类发展、进步的方向和引领。没有价值或者缺少明确价值观，对属人的生存与活动而言是不可思议的。现代文明、现代社会、现代人、现代思想理论称之为“价值”的那个东西，一定具有自洽性、自足性以及自明性特质，一定是意味着、表征着某种需要、值得人们去敬畏、敬仰，去守护、去呵护的神圣而崇高的东西，去遵守、去珍视、去传承的东西。正是这些东西的存在，给了对象世界以庄严的秩序，给了人的生存和生活以规范、尊严和内在性意义，给了世俗社会中芸芸众生以超越性的引领，让他们直面复杂、挫折与悖谬，以勇毅果敢的努力，克服生存与生活的艰难，看到希望、曙光与美好愿景。

About the author: Yuan Zushe, Professor, Faculty of Marxism, Shaanxi Normal University.

作者简介：袁祖社，陕西师范大学马克思主义学部教授。