The Philosophical Foundation of the Theoretical Narrative of Chinese-Path Modernization — Based on a Critique of Eurocentrism

General Secretary Xi Jinping has pointed out: “When it comes to interpreting Chinese practice and constructing Chinese theory, we should have the greatest right to speak, but in reality, the voice of China’s philosophy and social sciences on the international stage is still relatively weak; we are still in a situation where we have something to say but cannot say it, or can say it but cannot get it across.” (Xi Jin

习近平总书记指出：“在解读中国实践、构建中国理论上，我们应该最有发言权，但实际上我国哲学社会科学在国际上的声音还比较小，还处于有理说不出、说了传不开的境地。”(《习近平谈治国理政》第2卷，第346页)对中国式现代化的重大历史、现实、未来之问作出学理性阐释，构建具有自主性、原创性的中国式现代化理论叙事，是当代中国理论界的迫切任务。这一任务面临的首要挑战，源自长期以来对中国现代化进程进行系统性扭曲的西方中心主义叙事。因此，我们必须首先在哲学层面上完成对西方中心主义的批判与超越，确立中国式现代化自主阐释的理论自信与方法自觉。

I. Western Challenges to the Theoretical Narrative of Chinese-Path Modernization

一、中国式现代化理论叙事面临的西方挑战

The Western discourse system harbors a fragmented and disintegrated historical perspective shaped by the peculiar trajectory of Western historical transformation, a linear view of history and the historical-teleological foundation of the philosophy of history, as well as the narrative undertone of civilizational superiority, all of which seek to achieve ideological domination over late-developing countries. Regarding China’s modernization process, the Western discourse system constructs a hegemonic framework of thought and knowledge system centered on three core issues—the source of impetus, the choice of path, and global impact—in order to undermine the endogenous nature, legitimacy, and peaceful character of Chinese-path modernization.

西方话语体系深藏着基于西方特殊历史变迁轨迹而形成的碎片化与割裂化的历史视角、线性史观与历史目的论的史观基础，以及文明优越论的叙事底色，试图实现对后发国家的思想支配。对于中国的现代化进程，西方话语体系主要围绕动力来源、路径选择和世界影响三大核心问题，构建霸权性思维框架和知识体系，以消解中国式现代化的内生性、合法性与和平性。

(i) A Fragmented and Disintegrated Historical Perspective

(一)碎片化、割裂化的历史视角

The fragmented and disintegrated historical perspective of the Western discourse system is closely related to the transformation of the spirit of the age during the Western historical transition. After the 19th century, the West, in order to justify its colonial expansion and imperialist policies, urgently needed to portray the non-Western world as stagnant, backward, and in need of enlightenment and salvation. Consequently, the praise of Chinese civilization by Western thinkers of the Enlightenment era was replaced by “stagnation theory” and “despotism theory.” From Hegel’s 19th-century assertion that China had no history, to the arguments of John King Fairbank and Joseph Levenson in the 1950s and 1960s that denied Chinese civilization’s capacity for self-development through paradigms such as “impact-response” and “tradition-modernity,” all served this major narrative shift.

西方话语体系碎片化、割裂化的历史视角与西方历史转型过程中的时代精神变迁密切相关。19世纪后，西方为论证其殖民扩张与帝国主义政策的合法性，迫切需要将非西方世界塑造为停滞、落后、需要被启蒙和拯救的对象。于是，启蒙时代西方思想家对中华文明的赞美被“停滞论”“专制论”取代。从19世纪黑格尔关于中国没有历史的断言，到20世纪五六十年代费正清、列文森以“冲击-反应”范式、“传统-现代”范式等否定中华文明具有自我发展能力的论证，都服务于这一大的叙事转向。

Within this narrative shift, the Western discourse system places Chinese and Western civilizations within a simplistic framework of tradition-modernity and backwardness-advancement, taking the trajectory of Western social historical change as the standard. It either questions why China did not experience similar phenomena or predicts the direction of China’s development. This leads to obscuring the fundamental impetus for China’s realization of modernization on the issue of the source of impetus, questioning the socialist modernization path on the issue of path choice, and forcibly applying the Western logic of “a strong country is bound to seek hegemony” to stigmatize Chinese-path modernization on the issue of global impact.

在此叙事转向中，西方话语体系将中西文明置于传统-现代、落后-先进的简单框架中，以西方社会历史变迁轨迹为标准，或质疑中国何以未发生与之类似的现象，或预判中国的发展方向，由此导致在动力来源问题上遮蔽中国实现现代化的根本动力，在路径选择问题上质疑社会主义现代化道路，以及在世界影响问题上强行用西方“国强必霸”的逻辑对中国式现代化进行污名化。

Regarding the issue of the source of impetus, the Western discourse system often focuses on the 19th-century historical cross-section when the “time lag” between Chinese and Western modernization emerged, framing its narrative with the question, “Compared with the West, which achieved modernization in the 19th century, where did China go wrong?” The method employed is typically to identify one or more differences between China and the West and designate these differences as the key factors that caused the divergence in the 19th century. These factors are identified by scholars as economic, institutional, cultural, social, or religious, among others, without consistency. Among them, the most influential is the “impact-response” paradigm proposed by John King Fairbank. Fairbank argued that China’s 19th-century class structure, Confucian ideology, and related institutions became major impediments to China’s modernization, and that the impetus for China’s modernization could only come from external sources. Based on this logic, he interpreted China’s modernization process as a response to Western impact since the 1840s. In his view, the Chinese response to this Western impact in the 1840s and 1850s was that it was “an unbearable blow”; in the 1860s to 1890s, it was “a model to emulate”; and by the 20th century, it was an “ideological source” for revolution. (See Fairbank, p. 132)

就动力来源问题而言，西方话语体系往往聚焦于中西现代化出现“时差”的19世纪这一历史横断面，以“与西方在19世纪实现了现代化相比，中国错在哪里”为设问方式来展开叙事。其采取的方法往往是找出一个或多个中西差别，将这个或这些差别指认为中西在19世纪产生差异的关键因素。这些因素被学者们或指认为经济因素，或指认为制度因素，或指认为文化因素，或指认为社会因素，或指认为宗教因素等，不一而足。其中，最有影响力的是费正清提出的“冲击-反应”范式。费正清认为，19世纪中国的阶级结构、儒家意识形态和相关制度，成为中国实现现代化的重大阻滞因素，中国实现现代化的动力只能来源于外部。基于这一逻辑理路，他将中国的现代化进程解释为对19世纪40年代以来西方冲击的反应。在他看来，对于西方的这一冲击，19世纪40年代和50年代中国人的反应是，它是“使人难以支持的打击”;19世纪60年代到90年代中国人的反应是，它是“仿效的榜样”;到了20世纪中国人的反应是，它是进行革命的“思想来源”。(参见费正清，第132页)

The “impact-response” paradigm has profoundly shaped the cognitive schema and narrow perspective of Western scholars regarding China’s modernization process. Paul A. Cohen noted: “Although as a serious academic analytical framework, the heyday of the impact-response approach was in the 1950s and 1960s, its influence on textbooks and other university teaching materials remains undiminished to this day.” (Cohen, p. 117) Mark Elvin, starting from the question of “why did technological stagnation occur in late traditional China,” proposed the “high-level equilibrium trap” theory, arguing that “the way in which economic forces developed in late traditional China made profitable invention increasingly difficult” (Elvin, p. 315), and that this trap “could hardly be changed by internal forces” (ibid., p. 312). “The historical contribution of the modern West was to alleviate and break China’s ‘high-level equilibrium trap’.” (ibid., p. 315) Kenneth Pomeranz, starting from the question of “why did China and Europe diverge in the 19th century,” proposed the “Great Divergence” thesis, arguing that China, by “increasingly relying on labor-intensive methods to solve the problem of ecological overload” (Pomeranz, p. 321), moved further away from European-style industrialization. The commonality in research perspectives and methods among these Western scholars far outweighs their differences in viewpoints: they all take the historical period when the “time lag” between Chinese and Western modernization emerged as their standpoint, ignoring the historical trajectory of Chinese civilization’s own development and depriving China’s modernization narrative of its subjectivity. This historical perspective, which disregards the integrity of Chinese civilization and selectively truncates the historical period of the “time lag” between Chinese and Western modernization as its standpoint, is undoubtedly fragmented and disintegrated.

“冲击-反应”范式深刻塑造了西方学者对中国现代化进程的认知基模和偏狭视野。柯文指出：“尽管作为严肃的学术分析框架，冲击-回应取向的鼎盛时期是在五十年代与六十年代，但是它对教科书和其他大学教学资料的影响则至今不衰。”(柯文，第117页)伊懋可从传统后期的中国“为什么会出现技术停滞”问题入手，提出了“高水平平衡陷阱”理论，“传统后期的中国经济力量发展的方式，使得有利可图的发明变得越来越难”(伊懋可，第315页),并认为这一陷阱“几乎不可能通过内部力量发生改变”(同上，第312页)。“减轻并且打破中国的‘高水平平衡陷阱’,是近代西方所做出的历史贡献。”(同上，第315页)彭慕兰从“中国、欧洲为何在19世纪分道扬镳”问题入手，提出了中国通过“劳动力密集程度日益提高的手段来解决生态不堪负荷的问题”(彭慕兰，第321页),越发远离欧洲式工业化的“大分流说”。这些西方学者在研究视角、研究方法上的共同性远远大于观点上的差异性，即都以中西现代化出现“时差”的历史时期为立足点，无视中华文明自身发展的历史脉络，剥夺中国现代化叙事的主体性。这种无视中华文明整体性、片面截取中西现代化出现“时差”的历史时期为立足点的历史视角，无疑是碎片化、割裂化的。

(ii) Linear View of History and Historical Teleology

(二)线性史观与历史目的论

The Western discourse system is deeply embedded with a linear view of history and historical teleology—that human social history will inevitably advance along a single track toward the predetermined endpoint of capitalism—which achieved its completed form in Hegel’s philosophy of history. Hegel explained the mechanism of historical movement as: “The activity of reason, on the one hand, lets things act according to their own nature, mutually influencing and weakening each other, while it itself does not directly intervene in the process, but at the same time precisely realizes its own purpose” (Hegel, p. 394). Human agency is dissolved into the mysterious manifestation of absolute reason, which prescribes the inevitable course of world history. In this philosophy of history, the Western form of modernization is regarded as the highest realization of absolute reason in history, possessing universal inevitability, and serving as the common destination for all other countries and nations. The ideological myth of “modernization = Westernization” has its historical roots here, and Francis Fukuyama’s “end of history” thesis can be seen as a contemporary theoretical echo of this philosophy of history.

西方话语体系中深嵌着一种线性史观与历史目的论——人类社会历史必将沿着单一轨道，朝着资本主义预定的终点不断发展——后者在黑格尔的历史哲学中实现了完成形态。黑格尔将历史运动的机制解释为，“理性的活动一方面让事物按照它们自己的本性，彼此互相影响，互相削弱，而它自己并不直接干预其过程，但同时却正好实现了它自己的目的”(黑格尔，第394页)。人的能动性被消解在绝对理性的神秘显现中，后者规定了世界历史的必然进程。在这一历史哲学中，西方的现代化形态被视为绝对理性在历史中的最高实现形式，具有普遍必然性，是世界上其他国家、民族的共同归宿。“现代化=西方化”的意识形态神话的史观根源即在于此，福山的“历史终结论”可谓这一历史哲学在当代的理论回响。

Regarding the issue of path choice, this philosophy of history is prominently manifested in two Western arguments that undermine the legitimacy of Chinese-path modernization. One argument, from the perspective of the evolution of social formations, treats capitalism “as a natural outcome of long-standing and universalized human practice” (Wood, p. 20), and then accuses all pre-capitalist societies that have failed to transition to capitalism of obstructing and violating the basic trend of human social development due to human factors. The specific method employed by this argument is to search for factors in Chinese history that are identical to those in the Western modernization process, such as commercialization or the sprouts of capitalism, thereby questioning the legitimacy of Chinese-path modernization. Within this logic, the difficulties, setbacks, and challenges encountered in the process of Chinese-path modernization are all attributed to the path choice violating the basic trend of human social development.

就路径选择问题而言，这种历史哲学突出地表现在西方消解中国式现代化合法性的两种论调中。一种论调是从社会形态演进的角度，将资本主义“视为由来已久且普遍化的人类实践的自然成果”(伍德，第20页),进而指责一切未能转型为资本主义社会的前资本主义社会因人为因素阻滞违背了人类社会发展的基本趋势。这种论调采用的具体方法是，在中国历史上寻找与西方现代化进程中相同的因素，如商业化、资本主义萌芽等，质疑中国式现代化的合法性。在这一逻辑理路中，中国式现代化进程中遇到的困难、曲折和挑战皆被归因于路径选择违背了人类社会发展的基本趋势。

Another argument takes abstract socialism, conceived as an extension of the Western historical process, as its reference concept, focuses on the similarities between socialism with Chinese characteristics and Western capitalism, and thereby questions the socialist nature of Chinese-path modernization. The specific method employed by this argument is to seek out differences between socialism with Chinese characteristics and the socialism found in classical Marxist works, asserting that the achievements of Chinese-path modernization result from China’s practical adoption of capitalist economic elements, and claiming that China’s economic model after reform and opening up has degenerated into “state capitalism” due to the introduction of markets and capital, thereby fundamentally negating the socialist nature and continuity of Chinese-path modernization.

另一种论调则是以西方历史进程延长线上的抽象的社会主义为参照概念，聚焦中国特色社会主义与西方资本主义的相似之处，进而质疑中国式现代化的社会主义性质。这种论调采用的具体方法是，在中国特色社会主义中寻找与马克思主义经典著作中的社会主义的不同之处，主张中国式现代化的成就是因为中国在实践中对资本主义经济要素的采纳，断言改革开放后中国的经济模式因引入市场与资本而蜕变为“国家资本主义”,从根本上否定中国式现代化的社会主义性质及其连续性。

In essence, both of the above arguments attempt to force the great creation of Chinese-path modernization back into the Western discursive framework of “modernization = Westernization,” thereby seeking to dissolve the legitimacy, originality, and transcendence of Chinese-path modernization.

上述两种论调，就其实质而言，都是将中国式现代化的伟大创造重新塞回“现代化=西方化”的西方话语框架中，进而想要消解中国式现代化的合法性、独创性和超越性。

(3) The Theory of Civilizational Superiority, Which Separates the Temporality and Nationality of Civilization

(三)文明的时代性与民族性相分立的文明优越论

The reason the West feels superior to other civilizations is that Western civilization was the first in human history to achieve modernization; material abundance and economic prosperity are taken as proof of Western civilizational superiority. As Michael E. Latham points out, “They believed they had reached the pinnacle of modernization, and it was from this pinnacle that they viewed the world” (Latham, p. 95), and further, “they drew a sharp cultural line between the ‘advanced’ nations and the developing world they sought to analyze” (ibid., p. 100). The theory of civilizational superiority constitutes the narrative foundation of the Western discursive system and manifests itself in two distinct orientations.

西方之所以对自身文明感到优越，是因为西方文明是人类历史上最早实现现代化的文明，物质丰富和经济繁荣被视为西方文明优越的证明。正如雷迅马指出的，“他们认为自己已达到了现代化的顶峰，而他们正是站在这个顶峰上看世界”(雷迅马，第95页),进而“从文化方面在‘先进’国家和他们试图要分析的发展中世界之间划下一条泾渭分明的界限”(同上，第100页)。文明优越论构成了西方话语体系的叙事底色，并以两种不同取向呈现出来。

One orientation uses the temporality of civilization to erase the nationality of civilization. Based on the advanced nature displayed by Western civilization in terms of temporality, having been the first to achieve modernization, this orientation erases and denies the active role of the nationality of other civilizations (such as their historical and cultural traditions) in the dynamic process of social and historical change, asserting that developing countries’ “culture is incompatible with modernization and must be discarded or abolished; to successfully modernize, a society must completely Westernize” (Huntington, p. 52). For example, the Western discursive system, based on the temporal problem of modern China’s failure to achieve modernization, often treats China’s historical and cultural traditions as something that must be negated and discarded in order to catch up with the “advanced” West, which mutually corroborates the “modernization = Westernization” approach to path selection. From Weber to Levenson, although they were already aware that the value orientation and spiritual pursuits of traditional Chinese culture differed sharply from the cultural spirit of capitalism, they still could not break free from the framework of linking value judgments about civilization to the sequence of modernization, believing that China could only achieve its own modernization by taking the West as its model.

一种取向是以文明的时代性抹杀文明的民族性。该取向基于西方文明率先实现现代化而在时代性方面表现出的先进性，抹杀、否定其他文明的民族性(如历史文化传统等)在社会历史变迁中的能动性作用，主张发展中国家的“文化与现代化不相容，必须抛弃或废除；为了成功地实现现代化，社会必须完全西方化”(亨廷顿，第52页)。例如，西方话语体系往往基于近代中国未能实现现代化的时代性问题，将中国历史文化传统视为要追赶西方的“先进”而必须否定和抛弃的东西，这与路径选择问题上的“现代化=西方化”相互佐证。从韦伯到列文森，尽管已经意识到中国传统文化的价值取向、精神追求与资本主义的文化精神迥异，但是仍然未能超出将对文明的价值评判与现代化先后顺序挂钩的思维框架，认为中国只有以西方为范本才能实现自身的现代化。

The other orientation uses differences in the nationality of civilization to obscure the temporal contradictions of civilization. Given that “civilization is a culture writ large” (ibid., p. 20), and that “the roots of conflict are fundamental differences in society and culture” (ibid., p. 201), Huntington believed that the economic rise of Eastern countries represented by China after World War II, accompanied by their identification with their own culture and their no longer regarding Western civilization as a model to be imitated, would constitute a major source of world conflict in the 21st century. The clash of civilizations theory treats the diversity of civilizations as an assault of the backward on the advanced, of the barbaric on the civilized; its underlying view is that all progressive forms of human civilization reside in the West, and that Eastern civilizations’ identification with their own civilizational particularities will bring conflict and turmoil to the world. The essence of this argument is to use differences in the nationality of civilization to negate the common values shared by human civilizations, thereby obscuring the deep-seated roots of conflict in the modern world—the temporal contradictions of modern Western civilization centered on capital. The modernization process of Western civilization is essentially a process in which capital establishes its dominant position over society. Capital systematically exploits differences in the nationality of civilization to create turmoil and conflict around the world, transforming them into opportunities for its own accumulation, thereby fundamentally undermining the common value foundation of human civilization.

另一种取向则是以文明的民族性差异遮蔽文明的时代性矛盾。鉴于“文明是放大了的文化”(同上，第20页),其“冲突的根源是社会和文化方面的根本差异”(同上，第201页),亨廷顿认为，第二次世界大战后以中国为代表的东方国家在经济上的崛起与其对自身文化的认同相伴随，不再将西方文明视为应该予以模仿的榜样，将构成21世纪世界冲突的重要根源。文明冲突论将文明的多样化视为落后对先进、野蛮对文明的冲击，其潜在观点是，人类文明的一切进步形式都在西方，东方文明对自身文明特殊性的认同将给世界带来冲突和动荡。这种论调的实质是，以文明的民族性差异否定人类文明具有的共同价值，遮蔽现代世界冲突的深层根源——以资本为中心的现代西方文明的时代性矛盾。西方文明的现代化进程，本质上是资本确立其对社会支配性地位的进程。资本系统性地利用文明的民族性差异在世界各地制造动荡和冲突，将其转化为增殖的机遇，从根本上破坏着人类文明的共同价值基础。

Therefore, the Western discursive system, with the theory of civilizational superiority as its narrative foundation, is not only incapable of correctly evaluating the great significance and global impact of Chinese-path modernization as a completely new model of modernization, but also dissolves the possibility of resolving the crisis of human civilization through mutual learning among civilizations.

因此，以文明优越论为叙事底色的西方话语体系，不仅无法正确评判中国式现代化作为全新的现代化模式的重大意义和世界影响，而且消解了在文明互鉴中破解人类文明危机的可能。

We can see that in the Eurocentric narrative, Chinese-path modernization, as a major achievement obtained by the Chinese people under the leadership of the CPC after enduring countless hardships and paying a tremendous price, is absorbed by the established framework of segmentation and becomes a supplement to the Western discursive system. China’s predicament of “having reason but being unable to articulate it, and being unable to spread it even when articulated” on the international stage is primarily rooted in this. Breaking through and transcending the narrow historical perspective, erroneous foundation of historical views, and narrative orientation of the Eurocentric narrative is the primary prerequisite for constructing a theoretical narrative of Chinese-path modernization.

我们看到，在西方中心主义叙事中，中国式现代化作为中国共产党领导中国人民历经千辛万苦、付出巨大代价取得的重大成果，被既成体系的细分化框架吸收，成为对西方话语体系的补充。中国在国际上“有理说不出、说了传不开”的处境主要根源于此。突破和超越西方中心主义叙事的狭隘历史视角、错误史观基础和叙事取向，是构建中国式现代化理论叙事的首要前提。

II. The Methodological Foundation of the Theoretical Narrative of Chinese-Path Modernization

二、中国式现代化理论叙事的方法论基础

General Secretary Xi Jinping pointed out that we must “establish a grand historical perspective, analyzing the mechanisms of change and exploring historical laws from the long river of history, the tide of the times, and the global situation” (Xi Jinping: The Governance of China, Vol. 4, p. 511). Constructing a theoretical narrative of Chinese-path modernization requires us to use a grand historical perspective to break through and transcend the questioning methods and theoretical frameworks of the Eurocentric narrative, providing methodological support for correctly explaining the historical inevitability, cultural connotation, and unique advantages of Chinese-path modernization in realizing the self-sublation, self-development, and self-transcendence of Chinese civilization.

习近平总书记指出，要“树立大历史观，从历史长河、时代大潮、全球风云中分析演变机理、探究历史规律”(《习近平谈治国理政》第4卷，第511页)。构建中国式现代化理论叙事，要求我们以大历史观突破和超越西方中心主义叙事的设问方式和理论框架，为正确阐释中国式现代化实现中华文明自我扬弃、自我发展、自我超越的历史必然、文化内涵和独特优势提供方法论支撑。

(1) Viewing Chinese-Path Modernization at the Intersection of the Historical Trajectory of Chinese Civilization and the Temporal Process of World History

(一)在中华文明历史脉络和世界历史时代进程的纵横交错中看待中国式现代化

From the theoretical perspective of a grand historical view, on the one hand, we must break through the fragmented perspective of the Western discursive system, which focuses on a particular historical fragment, denies the cultural subjectivity and vigorous vitality of Chinese civilization, and questions the continuity of Chinese civilization. We must accurately grasp the main historical thread of Chinese-path modernization at the intersection of the historical trajectory of Chinese civilization’s own development and the Western impact. The so-called modernization “time lag” before the collision of Chinese and Western history is essentially a temporal difference based on the internal logic and rhythm of the respective developments of Chinese and Western civilizations, not a binary opposition between backward and advanced civilizations. Kenneth Pomeranz refers to China’s high population growth from the 16th to the 19th centuries as an “East Asian miracle in feeding people and creating skills, whose economic achievements were fully comparable to the ‘European (industrial) miracle’” (Pomeranz, p. 12). The Western impact of the 19th century was an external challenge encountered by Chinese civilization in the historical trajectory of its own development, not the primary driving force of its modernization. In modern times, although China learned from the West, it failed to save the nation from peril, which precisely proves that the theories that guided the West to achieve modernization cannot serve as the ideological source for China’s modernization. The main historical thread of Chinese-path modernization is the historical process of Chinese civilization’s self-development, response to challenges, and creation of new prospects.

从大历史观的理论视野出发，一方面，我们要突破西方话语体系聚焦某一历史片段、否定中华文明的文化主体性和旺盛生命力、质疑中华文明连续性的碎片化视角，在中华文明自身发展的历史脉络与西方冲击的纵横交错中，准确把握中国式现代化的历史主线。所谓中西历史碰撞前产生的现代化“时差”,本质上是中西文明基于各自发展的内在逻辑与节奏而产生的时序差异，而非中西文明落后与先进的二元对立。彭慕兰将中国在16—19世纪人口的高增长称为中国“在供养人民、创造技能等方面的一场‘东亚奇迹’,其经济成就完全比得上‘欧洲(的工业化)奇迹’”(彭慕兰，第12页)。19世纪的西方冲击是中华文明在自我发展的历史脉络中遭遇的外部挑战，而非其现代化的第一推动力。近代以来，中国尽管向西方学习，但未能拯救民族危亡，这恰恰证明了主导西方实现现代化的理论无法作为中国实现现代化的思想来源，中国式现代化的历史主线是中华文明自我发展、回应挑战和开创新局的历史进程。

On the other hand, we must break through the fragmented perspective of the Western discursive system, which opposes East and West, tradition and modernity, and dissolves the integrity of Chinese civilization and human civilization, as well as the integrity of China’s historical and cultural traditions and Chinese-path modernization. We must explain the historical inevitability, cultural connotation, and unique advantages of Chinese-path modernization within the interweaving and integration of the continuous evolution of Chinese civilization and the historical development of world modernization. General Secretary Xi Jinping pointed out: “The path of modernization a country chooses is determined by many factors, including its historical traditions, social system, development conditions, and external environment” (Xi Jinping: The Governance of China, Vol. 5, p. 76). A grand historical perspective requires us to understand the autonomy and historical inevitability of Chinese-path modernization in the interaction between China and the world; and to explain the activation of the excellent genes of Chinese civilization by Chinese-path modernization, as well as the distinctive features and unique advantages formed on this basis, within the organic transformation of tradition and modernity.

另一方面，我们要突破西方话语体系将东方与西方、传统与现代对立看待，消解中华文明与人类文明、中国历史文化传统与中国式现代化的整体性的割裂化视角，在中华文明赓续演进和世界现代化历史发展的交织交融中，阐释中国式现代化的历史必然、文化内涵和独特优势。习近平总书记指出：“一个国家选择什么样的现代化道路，是由其历史传统、社会制度、发展条件、外部环境等诸多因素决定的。”(《习近平谈治国理政》第5卷，第76页)大历史观要求我们在中国与世界的互动中，理解中国式现代化的自主性和历史必然性；在传统与现代的有机转化中，阐释中国式现代化对中华文明优秀基因的激活，以及基于此而形成的鲜明特色和独特优势。

(2) Elucidating the Internal Logic of Chinese-Path Modernization in the Dialectical Relationship between Historical Laws and Human Agency

(二)在历史规律与人的能动性活动的辩证关系中阐明中国式现代化的内在逻辑

Starting from the theoretical method of the grand historical perspective, one must first replace metaphysical method with dialectical method, understanding Chinese-path modernization in the self-sublation, self-development, and self-transcendence of the social organism. Lenin pointed out, “What Marx and Engels called the dialectical method (as opposed to the metaphysical method) is nothing other than the scientific method in sociology, which regards society as a living organism in constant development (rather than something mechanically combined and thus capable of arbitrarily combining various social elements).” [13]13 V. I. Lenin, *Collected Works*, Vol. 1, p. 32. The Western discourse system separates and opposes East and West, tradition and modernity, and the epochal and national character of civilization, using “modernization = Westernization” to negate the possibility of diverse paths and forms of human modernization. The method it employs is essentially the metaphysical method of “thinking in absolutely irreconcilable opposites.” [14]14 *Collected Works of Marx and Engels*, Vol. 9, p. 24. Starting from this method, the West has never regarded Chinese-path modernization as the dialectical process of self-sublation, self-development, and self-transcendence of Chinese civilization as a “living organism.” In this regard, this metaphysical method becomes the methodological root of the West’s difficulty in correctly understanding Chinese-path modernization. Western arguments that question the legitimacy of Chinese-path modernization or the continuity of socialism precisely fail to deeply understand the actual conditions of the Chinese social organism, instead basing their judgments on the knowledge system formed by the Western modernization process. As Mizoguchi Yūzō stated, “The ‘socialism’ that serves as their object of cognition is merely conceptual knowledge derived from Western historical theory. They have never explored the question of ‘what socialism means in China’ starting from actual conditions.” [15]15 Mizoguchi Yūzō, p. 11.

从大历史观的理论方法出发，首先要以辩证方法取代形而上学方法，在社会有机体的自我扬弃、自我发展、自我超越中理解中国式现代化。列宁指出，“马克思和恩格斯称之为辩证方法(它与形而上学方法相反)的，不是别的，正是社会学中的科学方法，这个方法把社会看做处在不断发展中的活的机体(而不是机械地结合起来因而可以把各种社会要素随便配搭起来的一种什么东西)”。(《列宁选集》第1卷，第32页)西方话语体系将东方与西方、传统与现代、文明的时代性与民族性割裂、对立起来，以“现代化=西方化”否定人类现代化路径和形态多样化的可能性，其运用的方法本质上是“在绝对不相容的对立中思维”(《马克思恩格斯文集》第9卷，第24页)的形而上学方法。从这一方法出发，西方从未将中国式现代化视为中华文明作为“活的机体”之自我扬弃、自我发展、自我超越的辩证过程，就此而言，这一形而上学方法成为西方难以正确理解中国式现代化的方法论根源。质疑中国式现代化合法性或是社会主义连续性的西方论调，正是因为没有深入了解中国社会有机体的现实情况，而将判断建基于西方现代化进程形成的知识体系之上。正如沟口雄三所言，“作为他们认识对象的‘社会主义’不过是产生自西方的历史理论中的观念性知识。他们并未从现实情况出发探讨过‘社会主义在中国意味着什么’的问题”。(沟口雄三，第11页)

Second, one must elucidate the internal logic by which Chinese-path modernization realizes the self-sublation, self-development, and self-transcendence of Chinese civilization within the dialectical relationship between historical laws and human agency. Distinguished from linear views of history and historical teleology, historical materialism reveals the mechanism of historical movement within the dialectical relationship between historical laws and human agency. Engels pointed out: “According to the materialist conception of history, the ultimately determining element in history is the production and reproduction of real life.” [16]16 *Selected Works of Marx and Engels*, Vol. 4, p. 604. “The production and reproduction of real life” is ultimately based on material production, so economic factors play a decisive role in the development of social history. The historical process of human society manifests as “the economic movement as necessity advances through an endless host of contingencies,” [17]17 Ibid. and in historical movement, “the economic relations… constitute a single thread running through all the phenomena and the only one that leads to understanding.” [18]18 Ibid., p. 649. Whether human agency can push history to move in the same direction as the economic movement becomes the key to whether it conforms to the general trend of history and grasps historical initiative. The fundamental problem faced by the Chinese nation in the 19th century was how to respond to the crisis in the “production and reproduction of real life” of the social organism under the combined effects of internal social contradictions and external Western impact. The Communist Party of China respects historical laws, grasps historical initiative, and has united and led the Chinese people to achieve great successes in the New Democratic Revolution, socialist revolution and construction, reform and opening up and socialist modernization, and socialism with Chinese characteristics for a New Era. The Chinese nation has achieved a great leap from standing up and growing prosperous to becoming strong. As a concrete manifestation of historical materialism in the contemporary era, the grand historical perspective enables us to see that the internal logic by which Chinese-path modernization realizes the self-sublation, self-development, and self-transcendence of Chinese civilization is deeply rooted in the historical agency and cultural subjectivity of the CPC in promoting the Chinese social organism to move in the same direction as the economic movement through the Two Integrations, thereby leading the Chinese nation from the profound suffering of modern times toward the bright prospect of the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation.

其次要在历史规律与人的能动性活动的辩证关系中阐明中国式现代化实现中华文明自我扬弃、自我发展、自我超越的内在逻辑。与线性史观和历史目的论相区别，唯物史观在历史规律和人的能动性活动的辩证关系中揭示了历史运动的机制。恩格斯指出：“根据唯物史观，历史过程中的决定性因素归根到底是现实生活的生产和再生产。”(《马克思恩格斯选集》第4卷，第604页)“现实生活的生产和再生产”归根到底以物质生产为根本，因此经济因素对于社会历史发展而言具有决定性作用。人类社会历史进程表现为“经济运动作为必然的东西通过无穷无尽的偶然事件……向前发展”(同上),在历史运动中，“经济关系……构成一条贯穿始终的、唯一有助于理解的红线”(同上，第649页)。能否推动历史与经济运动沿着相同方向运动，成为人的能动性活动是否顺应历史大势、把握历史主动的关键所在。中华民族在19世纪面对的根本性问题是，如何应对在社会内部矛盾作用和西方冲击下社会有机体陷入“现实生活的生产和再生产”危机。中国共产党尊重历史规律，把握历史主动，团结带领中国人民取得了新民主主义革命、社会主义革命和建设、改革开放和社会主义现代化建设、新时代中国特色社会主义的伟大成就，中华民族迎来了从站起来、富起来到强起来的伟大飞跃。作为唯物史观在当代的具体表现，大历史观使我们看到，中国式现代化实现中华文明自我扬弃、自我发展和自我超越的内在逻辑深植于中国共产党以“两个结合”推动中国社会有机体实现与经济运动沿相同方向运动，使中华民族从近代的深重苦难走向伟大复兴的光明前景的历史能动性和文化主体性之中。

(3) Based on the grand historical perspective, innovate the mode of posing questions that manifests Chinese cultural subjectivity

(三)以大历史观为基础，创新彰显中华文化主体性的设问方式

General Secretary Xi Jinping pointed out: “The starting point of theoretical thinking determines the outcome of theoretical innovation. Theoretical innovation can only begin with problems.” [19]19 *Xi Jinping: The Governance of China*, Vol. 2, p. 342. Taking the grand historical perspective as the methodological foundation requires us to innovate the mode of posing questions and the theoretical framework, providing explanations that manifest Chinese cultural subjectivity for the major historical, practical, and future questions of Chinese-path modernization.

习近平总书记指出：“理论思维的起点决定着理论创新的结果。理论创新只能从问题开始。”(《习近平谈治国理政》第2卷，第342页)以大历史观为方法论基础，要求我们创新设问方式和理论框架，对中国式现代化的重大历史、现实、未来之问作出彰显中华文化主体性的阐释。

On the question of the source of impetus, we must break through the Western narrative’s mode of posing the question “where China went wrong,” break the theoretical framework of “impact-response” and “tradition-modernity,” transcend the research approach of seeking in Chinese history the same factors as those in the Western modernization process to prove that China either has them or does not, and, within the dialectical relationship between the movement of social contradictions in modern China and the “cultural subjectivity and vigorous vitality” of the Chinese nation, clearly explain how Chinese-path modernization was able to respond to complex domestic and international challenges, turn passivity into initiative, and successfully recover the rhythm of the self-sublation, self-development, and self-transcendence of Chinese civilization.

在动力来源问题上，要突破西方叙事中“中国错在哪里”的设问方式，打破“冲击-反应”“传统-现代”的理论框架，超越在中国历史上寻找与西方现代化进程中相同的因素来证明中国也有或中国没有的研究理路，在近代中国社会矛盾运动和中华民族的“文化主体性与旺盛生命力”的辩证关系中，讲清楚中国式现代化何以能够应对国内外复杂挑战，化被动为主动，成功找回中华文明自我扬弃、自我发展、自我超越的节奏。

On the question of path choice, we must break through the Western narrative’s mode of posing the question “why China did not develop capitalism,” break the theoretical framework of “modernization = Westernization,” transcend the research approach of using the special trajectory of Western modernization as the standard to question the legitimacy of Chinese-path modernization, and, within the dialectical relationship between the universal laws of world modernization and the historical agency and cultural subjectivity of the Chinese nation, focus on whether Chinese-path modernization conforms to historical laws, what historical connections Chinese-path modernization has with the long-standing Chinese civilization, and clearly explain how Chinese-path modernization differs from Western modernization in its historical logic and cultural connotations, as well as the unique advantages of the new form of human civilization it creates.

在路径选择问题上，要突破西方叙事中“中国为什么没有发展出资本主义”的设问方式，打破“现代化=西方化”的理论框架，超越以西方现代化变迁的特殊轨迹为标准来质疑中国式现代化合法性的研究理路，在世界现代化的普遍规律性与中华民族的历史能动性、文化主体性的辩证关系中，聚焦中国式现代化是否合乎历史规律，中国式现代化与源远流长的中华文明有何历史渊源，讲清楚中国式现代化何以不同于西方现代化的历史逻辑、文化内涵，以及由此创造的人类文明新形态的独特优势。

On the question of world influence, we must break through the Western narrative’s mode of posing the question “China has no reason not to follow the Western old path of ‘a strong country is bound to seek hegemony,’” break the theoretical framework of “the separation of East and West,” transcend the narrative orientation that uses the epochal character of civilization to erase its national character and uses cultural differences to obscure the deep roots of world conflicts, and, within the dialectical relationship between the mechanism of the mode of production and the characteristics of civilization, reveal the deep roots of contemporary world conflicts, focus on how the people-centered Chinese-path modernization transcends the capital-centered Western modernization, and clearly explain how Chinese-path modernization can transcend the Western logic of “a strong country is bound to seek hegemony,” cross the barriers of the clash of civilizations, and contribute Chinese wisdom to promoting the progress of human civilization.

在世界影响问题上，要突破西方叙事中“中国没有理由不走西方‘国强必霸’的老路”的设问方式，打破“东方与西方分立”的理论框架，超越用文明的时代性抹杀文明的民族性、以文化差异遮蔽世界冲突的深层根源的叙事取向，在生产方式的作用机理与文明特性的辩证关系中，揭示当今世界冲突的深层根源，聚焦以人民为中心的中国式现代化对以资本为中心的西方现代化的超越之处，讲清楚中国式现代化何以能够超越西方“国强必霸”的逻辑、跨越文明冲突的藩篱，为推动人类文明进步贡献中国智慧。

III. Three Dimensions of the Theoretical Narrative of Chinese-Path Modernization

三、中国式现代化理论叙事的三重维度

Using the innovative mode of posing questions and theoretical framework as the analytical framework, providing scholarly explanations of the historical inevitability, cultural connotations, and unique advantages of Chinese-path modernization from the three dimensions of the source of impetus, path choice, and world influence is the focal point for constructing an autonomous theoretical narrative of Chinese-path modernization.

以创新的设问方式和理论框架为分析框架，从动力来源、路径选择、世界影响三重维度对中国式现代化的历史必然、文化内涵和独特优势作出学理性阐释，是构建具有自主性的中国式现代化理论叙事的着力点。

(A) Chinese-Path Modernization as the Self-Development of Chinese Civilization as a “Living Organism”

(一)中国式现代化作为中华文明“活的机体”的自我发展

General Secretary Xi Jinping pointed out: “Chinese civilization is the only great civilization in the world that has continued uninterrupted and developed in the form of a state to this day. This fully proves that Chinese civilization has the cultural subjectivity and vigorous vitality for self-development, responding to challenges, and opening up new prospects.” [20]20 Xi Jinping, p. 2. As the self-development of Chinese civilization as a “living organism,” Chinese-path modernization is a modernization initiated by the “economic necessity” of the movement of internal contradictions within Chinese society, rendered exceptionally complex and tortuous by external shocks, and ultimately successfully responded to challenges, opened up new prospects, and achieved self-development by the Chinese people under the leadership of the CPC.

习近平总书记指出：“中华文明是世界上唯一绵延不断且以国家形态发展至今的伟大文明。这充分证明了中华文明具有自我发展、回应挑战、开创新局的文化主体性与旺盛生命力。”(习近平，第2页)作为中华文明“活的机体”的自我发展，中国式现代化是由中国社会内部矛盾运动的“经济的必然性”发起，因外部冲击而变得异常复杂曲折，最终由中国共产党领导中国人民成功回应挑战、开创新局、实现自我发展的现代化。

First, the impetus for Chinese-path modernization is deeply rooted in the “economic necessity” of the self-development of Chinese civilization.

第一，中国式现代化的动力深植于中华文明自我发展的“经济的必然性”中。

Historical materialism holds that in the historical movement created by people themselves, “the economic movement is the most powerful, the most primordial, and the most decisive” (Selected Works of Marx and Engels, Vol. 4, p. 614), and “the necessity that forces its way through all contingencies is in the final analysis economic necessity” (ibid., p. 649). The fundamental driving force of Chinese-path modernization originates from the “economic necessity” formed by the movement of internal contradictions within Chinese society. By the 19th century, Chinese civilization had already entered a process of self-sublation. In this process, if state power and the economic movement “act in opposite directions,” then “after a certain period they will collapse” (cf. ibid., p. 610). As Qian Mu noted, “Popular uprisings arose on all sides, repeatedly suppressed yet repeatedly emerging”; even if the Qing government expended great effort to suppress them, “the root cause still existed, not diminished in the slightest. Therefore, even if the Qing government had not encountered Sino-Western intercourse and had not been invaded by Western forces, it would still have collapsed before long” (cf. Qian Mu, pp. 166-167). From the mid-19th century to the early 20th century, the late Qing government implemented a series of reforms, from the Westernization Movement to the Hundred Days’ Reform and the New Policies of the late Qing, yet none of these could prevent its collapse. The deep-seated reason was its failure to promote, from the dimension of “economic necessity,” a comprehensive transformation of society into a social organism capable of providing advanced productive forces. The Western impact was merely an external condition, acting through the movement of internal contradictions within Chinese society.

唯物史观认为，在人们自己创造的历史运动中，“经济运动是最强有力的、最本原的、最有决定性的”(《马克思恩格斯选集》第4卷，第614页),“通过各种偶然性来为自己开辟道路的必然性，归根到底仍然是经济的必然性”(同上，第649页)。中国式现代化的根本动力源自中国社会内部矛盾运动形成的“经济的必然性”。19世纪的中华文明已经进入自我扬弃的过程。在此过程中，国家权力与经济运动如果“沿着相反方向起作用”,那么“经过一定的时期都要崩溃”。(参见同上，第610页)正如钱穆所言，“民变四起，屡扑屡兴”,纵使满清政府费大气力将其压平，“但病根依然存在，一些也没有减。所以此后满清政府即使不遇到中西交通，没有西洋势力侵入，不久也仍得要垮台”。(参见钱穆，第166-167页)从19世纪中叶到20世纪初，晚清政府实行了从洋务运动到戊戌变法、清末新政等一系列变革，但这些变革皆不能阻止其垮台，深层根源在于未能从“经济的必然性”维度推动社会向能够提供先进生产力的社会有机体全面变迁。西方冲击只是一个外部条件，它通过中国社会内部的矛盾运动而起作用。

Second, the Western impact was an external variable in the main historical thread of Chinese civilization’s self-development.

第二，西方冲击是中华文明自我发展历史主线的外部变量。

Just as feudal society was disintegrating and Chinese civilization had already entered a process of self-sublation, the Western impact dragged China into the abyss of semi-colonialism, plunging China into a passive position in modernization. Mizoguchi Yūzō argued: “In the mid-19th century, when China was about to fall into its most chaotic state, it was extremely unfortunate for China that external capitalism (imperialism), an unprecedented great enemy, invaded China to seize markets, bringing even greater chaos to China’s politics, society, and economy” (Mizoguchi Yūzō, p. 100). This was manifested concretely in two aspects. On the one hand, with regard to the state power of modern China that “acted in the opposite direction” to the economic movement, imperialism made it a pillar and reactionary ally for its own rule over China. This meant that the Western impact, in the form of imperialism, increased the resistance faced by the Chinese people in using revolutionary force to clear away obstacles to modernization, and also increased the difficulty of Chinese civilization’s self-sublation. On the other hand, Western colonial invasion accelerated the destruction of modern China’s old economic structure. However, because this acceleration came from outside, there was no new large-scale industrial structure within China to supplement it, and the crisis of “the production and reproduction of real life” intensified. Engels had made a precise prediction about this: “Since there is not even a large-scale Chinese industry there to balance it, hundreds of millions of inhabitants will be reduced to a state where they cannot survive” (Marx and Engels, p. 170). The imperialist powers not only failed to support the development of China’s national industry but instead “imposed direct economic oppression on China’s national industry, directly hindering the development of China’s productive forces” (Selected Works of Mao Zedong, Vol. 2, p. 629), which greatly exacerbated the turbulence of China’s social change and development. Thus, the Western impact was by no means the primary driving force of China’s modernization; in fact, the Western powers attempted through violent means to distort, disrupt, and obstruct the process of Chinese civilization’s self-development.

在封建社会逐渐解体、中华文明已经进入自我扬弃之际，西方冲击把中国拖入了半殖民地的深渊，使中国陷入现代化的被动局面。沟口雄三认为：“在中国将陷入最为混乱状态的十九世纪中叶，对中国而言，极为不幸的是：来自外部的资本主义(帝国主义)这一未曾遭遇过的大敌为了占有市场而侵入中国，给中国的政治、社会以及经济带来了更大的混乱。”(沟口雄三，第100页)具体表现在，一方面，对于近代中国与经济运动“沿着相反方向起作用”的国家权力，帝国主义将其作为自己统治中国的支柱和反动同盟。这使得以帝国主义形式存在的西方冲击增大了中国人民以革命力量清除现代化障碍的阻力，也增加了中华文明自我扬弃的难度。另一方面，西方的殖民入侵加速摧毁了近代中国的旧经济结构，但由于这种加速来自外部，中国内部尚没有新的大工业结构予以补充，“现实生活的生产和再生产”危机加剧。对此，恩格斯曾作出过精准预测：“由于那里甚至没有中国的大工业来予以平衡，亿万居民将陷于无法生存的境地。”(马克思、恩格斯，第170页)帝国主义列强非但不支持中国民族工业的发展，反而“对中国的民族工业进行直接的经济压迫，直接地阻碍中国生产力的发展”(《毛泽东选集》第2卷，第629页),这就大大加剧了中国社会变化、发展的动荡。由此可见，西方的冲击绝非中国现代化的第一推动力，事实上，西方列强试图用暴力方式扭曲、扰乱并阻碍中华文明自我发展的进程。

Third, Chinese civilization provided a powerful spiritual force for Chinese-path modernization to regain its own rhythm of self-development.

第三，中华文明为中国式现代化找回自我发展节奏提供了强大精神力量。

Marx pointed out: “Men make their own history, but they do not make it as they please; they do not make it under self-selected circumstances, but under circumstances existing already, given and transmitted from the past” (Marx and Engels Collected Works, Vol. 2, pp. 470-471). The decay and disintegration of the old social organism under the action of internal social contradictions, together with the impact of Western imperialism, constituted the historical circumstances of “the East being subordinate to the West” that modern China faced in exploring the path of modernization. Faced with these “existing, given” historical circumstances (conditions), Chinese civilization, with its prominent characteristics of continuity, innovation, unity, inclusiveness, and peace, nurtured and nourished the excellent qualities of the Chinese nation, such as discarding the old and embracing the new, ceaseless self-renewal, and embracing all things with virtue. These provided a powerful spiritual force for Chinese-path modernization to reverse the passive situation of “the East being subordinate to the West.” Qian Mu pointed out that amid change, “the unchanging original source is what is called historical tradition. The longer the tradition, the greater the reliability of this great foundation and origin should be. In other words, its vitality is all the stronger” (Qian Mu, p. 56).

马克思指出：“人们自己创造自己的历史，但是他们并不是随心所欲地创造，并不是在他们自己选定的条件下创造，而是在直接碰到的、既定的、从过去承继下来的条件下创造。”(《马克思恩格斯文集》第2卷，第470-471页)旧的社会有机体在社会内部矛盾作用下的衰败解体，以及西方帝国主义的冲击，构成了近代以来的中国探索现代化道路所面临的“东方从属于西方”的历史境遇。面对这种“直接碰到的、既定的”历史境遇(条件),以连续性、创新性、统一性、包容性、和平性为突出特性的中华文明孕育、滋养了中华民族革故鼎新、自强不息、厚德载物等优秀品格，为中国式现代化扭转“东方从属于西方”的被动局面提供了强大精神力量。钱穆指出，在变动中的“不变的本源，这便是所谓历史传统。传统愈久，应该此大本大原之可靠性愈大。换言之，即是其生命力益强”(钱穆，第56页)。

The Communist Party of China, as “the inheritor of all the finest traditions of Chinese culture, thought, and morality” (The Communist International, the CPSU(B), and the Chinese Communist Party during the Anti-Japanese War: 1937–1943.5, p. 372), activated the cultural subjectivity of Chinese civilization through Marxism, which reflects on the Western path of modernization. This enabled Chinese civilization to burst forth with powerful spiritual force in the process of reversing the passive modernization situation of “the East being subordinate to the West” and realizing the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation. As General Secretary Xi Jinping pointed out: “At the most critical moment in modern China, the Chinese Communists found Marxism-Leninism and insisted on integrating Marxism-Leninism with China’s actual conditions, using the power of Marxist truth to activate the great civilization created by the Chinese nation over thousands of years, causing Chinese civilization to once again burst forth with powerful spiritual force” (Xi Jinping: The Governance of China, Vol. 4, p. 509). “The history of the Communist Party of China uniting and leading the Chinese people in the pursuit of national rejuvenation over more than one hundred years is also a history of continuously exploring the path of modernization” (Xi Jinping: The Governance of China, Vol. 5, p. 433). From the New Democratic Revolution, the socialist revolution and construction, to reform and opening up and socialist modernization, and then to the New Era of socialism with Chinese characteristics, the Communist Party of China has correctly grasped the principal contradiction in Chinese society, led the Chinese people in clearing away internal and external obstacles to the modernization process, and independently blazed a path of Chinese-path modernization suited to its own national conditions.

中国共产党作为中华民族“一切文化、思想、道德的最优秀传统的继承者”(《联共(布)、共产国际与抗日战争时期的中国共产党：1937—1943.5》,第372页),以对西方现代化道路进行反思的马克思主义激活中华文明的文化主体性，使中华文明在扭转“东方从属于西方”的现代化被动局面、实现中华民族伟大复兴的过程中迸发出强大精神力量。正如习近平总书记指出：“在近代中国最危急的时刻，中国共产党人找到了马克思列宁主义，并坚持把马克思列宁主义 同中国实际相结合，用马克思主义真理的力量激活了中华民族历经几千年创造的伟大文明，使中华文明再次迸发出强大精神力量。”(《习近平谈治国理政》第4卷，第509页)“中国共产党一百多年团结带领中国人民追求民族复兴的历史，也是一部不断探索现代化道路的历史。”(《习近平谈治国理政》第5卷，第433页)从新民主主义革命、社会主义革命和建设，到改革开放和社会主义现代化建设，再到中国特色社会主义新时代，中国共产党正确把握中国社会的主要矛盾，领导中国人民清除现代化进程的内外障碍，独立自主地走出一条符合自身国情的中国式现代化道路。

We can see that the driving force of Chinese-path modernization is deeply rooted in the dialectical relationship between the movement of contradictions in Chinese society and the “cultural subjectivity and vigorous vitality” of Chinese civilization. Chinese-path modernization is the achievement of the Communist Party of China leading the Chinese people, supported by the vitality accumulated from over five thousand years of historical and cultural tradition, in overcoming the interference of external shocks and regaining the rhythm of Chinese civilization’s self-development. From its very origins, it possesses a distinct subjectivity.

我们看到，中国式现代化的动力深植于中国社会矛盾运动和中华文明的“文化主体性与旺盛生命力”的辩证关系中。中国式现代化是中国共产党领导中国人民在五千多年历史文化传统积淀的生命力的支撑下，克服外部冲击干扰、重新找回中华文明自我发展节奏的成果，从源头上具有鲜明的主体性。

(II) The Historical Necessity of Chinese-Path Modernization as the Path for Realizing the “Old State, New Mandate” of the Chinese Nation [21]21 “Old state, new mandate” (旧邦新命) is a classical Chinese expression, originating from the Book of Songs (诗经), meaning an ancient state receiving a new divine mandate; it is often used to describe the renewal and revitalization of a long-standing civilization or nation in a new historical era.

(二)中国式现代化作为中华民族“旧邦新命”实现路径的历史必然

General Secretary Xi Jinping pointed out: “Only by grounding ourselves in the magnificent history of Chinese civilization spanning over five thousand years can we truly understand the historical necessity, cultural connotation, and unique advantages of the Chinese path” (Xi Jinping, p. 5). Chinese-path modernization is a new path of modernization for the self-sublation, self-development, and self-transcendence of Chinese civilization, taken by the Communist Party of China by grasping historical and cultural initiative through the Two Integrations, and thereby creating a new form of human civilization.

习近平总书记指出：“只有立足波澜壮阔的中华五千多年文明史，才能真正理解中国道路的历史必然、文化内涵与独特优势。”(习近平，第5页)中国式现代化是中国共产党把握历史主动、文化主动，以“两个结合”走出的中华文明自我扬弃、自我发展、自我超越的现代化新路，并由此创造了人类文明新形态。

First, Chinese-path modernization is a new path of modernization that conforms to objective laws, pioneered by the Communist Party of China (CPC) by seizing historical initiative. Regarding the possible paths for Eastern countries to achieve industrialization, Engels, taking Russia as an example, proposed three conceptions: the first was to complete industrialization before the expansion of Western capitalist countries reached Russia; the second was to “become India, to become a country economically dominated by the world’s factory, Britain” (Selected Works of Marx and Engels, Vol. 4, p. 627); the third was to find “appropriate and advantageous instruments for organizing modern production and transforming its capitalist form into a socialist form” (ibid., p. 629). Engels’s “third conception” is a further deepening of Marx’s later statement that “without experiencing the capitalist system… to take possession of those fruits which capitalist production has enabled humanity to enrich itself with” (Collected Works of Marx and Engels, Vol. 3, p. 576), and it is also an effective path for China to change its fate of being dominated.

第一，中国式现代化是中国共产党把握历史主动开创的合规律性的现代化新路。对于东方国家实现工业化的可能路径，恩格斯曾以俄国为例提出了三种构想：第一种是在西方资本主义国家的扩张波及俄国之前完成工业化；第二种是“成为印度，成为一个在经济上受世界大工厂英国支配的国家”(《马克思恩格斯选集》第4卷，第627页);第三种是找到“组织这种现代生产和变这种生产的资本主义形式为社会主义形式的适当而又有利的工具”(同上，第629页)。恩格斯所说的“第三种构想”是对马克思晚年所说的“不经历资本主义制度……而占有资本主义生产使人类丰富起来的那些成果”(《马克思恩格斯文集》第3卷，第576页)的进一步深化，也是中国改变被支配命运的有效途径。

Unlike abstract socialism built on the extended trajectory of Western historical change, Chinese-path modernization must both satisfy society’s demand for a higher level of productive forces while coexisting for a long period with capitalist society, and avoid falling into the predicament of Western modernity caused by the domination of social production by the logic of capital. Only in this way can Chinese-path modernization withstand the test of the mechanism of “the most powerful, most primordial, and most decisive” (Selected Works of Marx and Engels, Vol. 4, p. 614) “economic movement” in historical motion. We know that Marx and Engels did not point out the specific method for realizing the “third conception,” and the failure of Soviet socialist practice in the 1990s gave the West an excuse to strengthen the equation “modernization = Westernization,” plunging socialism into a low ebb for a time. For China, how to transform the capitalist form of organizing modern production into a socialist form became the key to realizing Engels’s “third conception.”

与建立在西方历史变迁轨迹延长线上的抽象的社会主义不同，中国式现代化既需要在与资本主义社会的长期并存中满足社会对更高水平生产力的需求，又要避免陷入资本逻辑统摄社会生产而造成的西方现代性困境。唯有如此，中国式现代化才能经受得住历史运动中“最强有力的、最本原的、最有决定性的”(《马克思恩格斯选集》第4卷，第614页)“经济运动”作用机制的检验。我们知道，马克思恩格斯并未指出实现“第三种构想”的具体方式，而20世纪90年代苏联社会主义实践的失败则给了西方强化“现代化=西方化”的借口，使社会主义一度陷入低潮。对于中国来说，如何把组织现代生产的资本主义形式转变为社会主义形式，成为实现恩格斯所说的“第三种构想”的关键。

The CPC integrates the basic tenets of Marxism with China’s specific realities, taking the unity of “the development of productive forces” and the “ownership of productive forces by the people” as its internal logic (cf. Collected Works of Marx and Engels, Vol. 2, p. 689). Under the socialist system, by consciously adjusting relations of production and unswervingly liberating and developing productive forces, it has not only resolved China’s social crisis since modern times, enabling China to achieve continuous development in a manner conforming to historical laws, “completing in several decades the industrialization process that took Western developed countries several hundred years” (Xi

中国共产党将马克思主义基本原理同中国具体实际相结合，以实现“生产力的发展”与生产力“归人民所有”相统一为内在逻辑(参见《马克思恩格斯文集》第2卷，第689页),在社会主义制度下，通过自觉调整生产关系，坚定不移地解放和发展生产力，既解决了近代以来中国的社会危机，使中国以符合历史规律的方式实现不断发展，“用几十年时间走完西方发达国家几百年走过的工业化历程”(《习近平谈治国理政》第5卷，第80页),体现了科学社会主义的先进本质，又避免了许多国家“不仅苦于资本主义生产的发展，而且苦于资本主义生产的不发展”(《马克思恩格斯文集》第5卷，第9页)的现代化困境，从而使中国式现代化实现了对“简单延续我国历史文化的母版”“简单套用马克思主义经典作家设想的模版”“其他国家社会主义实践的再版”以及“国外现代化发展的翻版”的超越。(参见《习近平谈治国理政》第3卷，第76页)

Second, Chinese-path modernization is a new path of modernization by which the Communist Party of China seizes the cultural initiative to continue and develop Chinese civilization. General Secretary Xi Jinping points out: “Culture concerns the foundation and destiny of a country.” (Xi Jinping, p. 1) An important reason why Marxism, after its introduction into China, was able to rapidly stand out from the multitude of Western intellectual currents and be accepted first by China’s advanced intellectuals and then by the broad masses of the people is that the basic tenets of Marxism and the fine traditional Chinese culture are mutually compatible. Mizoguchi Yūzō holds: “The soil for socialism exists in China; as a folk social mechanism, life ethic, and political governing principle, it was originally present.” (Mizoguchi Yūzō, p. 124) By seizing the cultural initiative, the Communist Party of China transformed the mutual compatibility of the basic tenets of Marxism and the fine traditional Chinese culture into their mutual integration, activating the genes of the fine traditional Chinese culture. The resulting “chemical reaction” gave birth to a “new cultural life-form” and propelled “the life-renewal and modern transformation of Chinese civilization.” (Cf. Xi Jinping, p

第二，中国式现代化是中国共产党把握文化主动赓续中华文明的现代化新路。习近平总书记指出：“文化关乎国本、国运。”(习近平，第1页)马克思主义传入中国后之所以能够迅速地从众多西方思潮中脱颖而出，被中国先进知识分子进而被广大人民群众接受，一个重要原因在于马克思主义基本原理与中华优秀传统文化彼此契合。沟口雄三认为：“社会主义的土壤在中国，作为民间的社会机制、生活伦理以及政治上的统治理念本来就是存在的。”(沟口雄三，第124页)中国共产党把握文化主动，使马克思主义基本原理同中华优秀传统文化从彼此契合转化为相互结合，激活了中华优秀传统文化基因，由此产生的“化学反应”生成了一种“新的文化生命体”,推动了“中华文明的生命更新和现代转型”。(参见习近平，第6页)中华优秀传统文化基因融入现代化进程，塑造了现代化的中国特色，并鲜明地体现在物质文明、政治文明、精神文明、社会文明、生态文明协调发展的人类文明新形态之中。

Viewed from the perspective of material civilization, the social ideals of a world shared by all and great harmony under heaven in fine traditional Chinese culture resonate with the communist ideal of Marxism. Chinese-path modernization has created a miracle of rapid economic development, progressing from a relatively backward level of productive forces to the steady development of new quality productive forces, with the overall economic output firmly ranking second in the world, continuously promoting the realization of high-quality development. The Fourth Plenary Session of the 20th Central Committee of the Communist Party of China [22]22 The Fourth Plenary Session of the 20th Central Committee of the CPC, held in July 2024, focused on comprehensively deepening reform and advancing Chinese-path modernization. pointed out: “By 2035, China’s economic strength, scientific and technological strength, national defense strength, comprehensive national power, and international influence will have increased significantly; per capita gross domestic product will have reached the level of moderately developed countries; the people’s lives will be better and happier; and socialist modernization will have been basically realized.” (Compilation of Documents from the Fourth Plenary Session of the 20th Central Committee of the Communist Party of China, p. 6) Chinese-path modernization adheres to the principle that “production will aim at the enrichment of all people” (Marx and Engels Collected Works, Vol. 8, p. 200), transcending the Western modernization path in which a few countries are wealthy while the majority are poor, and a few individuals are wealthy while the majority are poor, thereby laying a solid material foundation for realizing the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation.

从物质文明看，中华优秀传统文化中天下为公、天下大同的社会理想与马克思主义的共产主义理想彼此契合，中国式现代化创造了经济快速发展奇迹，从生产力水平比较落后到新质生产力稳步发展，经济总量稳居世界第二，不断推动实现高质量发展。党的二十届四中全会指出：“到二〇三五年实现我国经济实力、科技实力、国防实力、综合国力和国际影响力大幅跃升，人均国内生产总值达到中等发达国家水平，人民生活更好幸福美好，基本实现社会主义现代化。”(《中国共产党第二十届中央委员会第四次全体会议文件汇编》,第6页)中国式现代化坚持“生产将以所有的人富裕为目的”(《马克思恩格斯文集》第8卷，第200页),超越了少数国家富有、多数国家贫穷，少数人富有、多数人贫穷的西方现代化道路，为实现民族复兴奠定坚实物质基础。

Viewed from the perspective of political civilization, the people-centered political thought in fine traditional Chinese culture, which regards the people as the foundation of the state, resonates with the Marxist view of history that “the masses of the people are the creators of history.” Chinese-path modernization upholds the value concept of putting the people first, adheres to the organic unity of Party leadership, the people being the masters of the country, and law-based governance, and concretely implements this as a socialist democratic politics of whole-process people’s democracy. Whole-process people’s democracy achieves the unity of procedural democracy and substantive democracy, procedural democracy and substantive democracy, direct democracy and indirect democracy, and people’s democracy and the will of the state. It is a democracy that covers all chains, all aspects, and all areas, and is the broadest, most genuine, and most effective form of socialist democracy. Developing whole-process people’s democracy ensures that the people are the masters of the country, consolidates and develops a lively, stable, and united political situation.

从政治文明看，中华优秀传统文化中民为邦本的民本思想与马克思主义“人民群众是历史的创造者”的群众史观彼此契合，中国式现代化坚持人民至上的价值理念，坚持党的领导、人民当家作主、依法治国有机统一，具体落实为全过程人民民主的社会主义民主政治。全过程人民民主实现了过程民主和成果民主、程序民主和实质民主、直接民主和间接民主、人民民主和国家意志相统一，是全链条、全方位、全覆盖的民主，是最广泛、最真实、最管用的社会主义民主。发展全过程人民民主，保障人民当家作主，巩固和发展生动活泼、安定团结的政治局面。

Viewed from the perspective of cultural-ethical progress, value concepts such as advocating benevolence, valuing harmony, respecting propriety, and benefiting the collective in fine traditional Chinese culture resonate with Marxism’s critique of capitalism’s profit-seeking and egoism, and its emphasis on the unity of individual value and social value. Chinese-path modernization adheres to “using Marxism to activate the excellent factors in fine traditional Chinese culture and endow them with new contemporary connotations” (Xi Jinping: The Governance of China, Vol. 5, p. 296), promotes and practices the core socialist values, develops advanced socialist culture, promotes revolutionary culture, inherits fine traditional Chinese culture, cultivates the entire nation’s spirited and enterprising temperament, and provides strong spiritual impetus for promoting the comprehensive development of the individual and the overall progress of society.

从精神文明看，中华优秀传统文化中崇仁、贵和、尊礼、利群等价值理念与马克思主义批判资本主义唯利是图、利己主义，强调个人价值和社会价值相统一彼此契合，中国式现代化坚持“用马克思主义激活中华优秀传统文化中的优秀因子并赋予其新的时代内涵”(《习近平谈治国理政》第5卷，第296页),弘扬和践行社会主义核心价值观，发展社会主义先进文化，弘扬革命文化，传承中华优秀传统文化，涵养全民族昂扬奋发的精神气质，为推动实现人的全面发展和社会全面进步提供强大精神动力。

Viewed from the perspective of social civilization, the social ethics of cultivating the self, regulating the family, governing the state, and pacifying the world; honoring commitments and promoting harmony; and putting oneself in the place of others in fine traditional Chinese culture resonate with Marxism’s opposition to viewing people as isolated individuals and its advocacy of the concept of community. Chinese-path modernization adheres to common prosperity for all the people, effectively promotes and maintains social fairness and justice, and constructs a “social governance community in which everyone has responsibility, everyone fulfills their duty, and everyone enjoys the benefits” (Xi Jinping: The Governance of China, Vol. 5, p. 42). It has created a miracle of long-term social stability, forming a vibrant, orderly, and sound social landscape.

从社会文明看，中华优秀传统文化中修齐治平、讲信修睦、推己及人的社会伦理与马克思主义反对把人看作孤立个体，主张共同体理念彼此契合，中国式现代化坚持全体人民共同富裕，有效促进和维护社会公平正义，构建“人人有责、人人尽责、人人享有的社会治理共同体”(《习近平谈治国理政》第5卷，第42页),创造社会长期稳定奇迹，形成生机勃勃、井然有序的良好社会风貌。

From the perspective of ecological civilization, the ecological concepts of the unity of heaven and humanity and the coexistence of all things in fine traditional Chinese culture are mutually compatible with the Marxist view of nature that “man and nature are unified.” Chinese-path modernization is a modernization in which man and nature coexist in harmony. “Green development is the distinctive background of Chinese-path modernization” (Compilation of Documents from the Fourth Plenary Session of the 20th Central Committee of the Communist Party of China, p. 58), accelerating the comprehensive green transformation of economic and social development, and building a beautiful China.

从生态文明看，中华优秀传统文化中天人合一、万物并育的生态理念与马克思主义“人与自然相统一”的自然观彼此契合，中国式现代化是人与自然和谐共生的现代化，“绿色发展是中国式现代化的鲜明底色”(《中国共产党第二十届中央委员会第四次全体会议文件汇编》,第58页),加快经济社会发展全面绿色转型，建设美丽中国。

(III) The Unique Advantages of Chinese-Path Modernization as a Solution to the Problems of Modernity

(三)中国式现代化作为现代性问题解决方案的独特优势

General Secretary Xi Jinping points out: “Chinese-path modernization has broken the myth that ‘modernization equals Westernization,’ presented another picture of modernization, expanded the path choices for developing countries to achieve modernization, and provided a Chinese solution for humanity’s exploration of a better social system” (Xi Jinping: The Governance of China, Vol. 5, p. 81). By achieving national rejuvenation through Chinese-path modernization, China will never take the old path of “a strong country is bound to seek hegemony,” and it can contribute Chinese wisdom to addressing the problems of human modernity and transcending the barriers of civilizational conflict.

习近平总书记指出：“中国式现代化，打破了‘现代化=西方化’的迷思，展现了现代化的另一幅图景，拓展了发展中国家走向现代化的路径选择，为人类对更好社会制度的探索提供了中国方案。”(《习近平谈治国理政》第5卷，第81页)以中国式现代化实现强起来的中国决不会走西方“国强必霸”的老路，并且能够为应对人类现代性问题、跨越文明冲突的藩篱贡献中国智慧。

First, the people-centered Chinese-path modernization fundamentally overcomes the logic of capital-centered Western modernization. Huntington asserts: “All other great powers… in the era of rapid industrialization and economic growth, or in the years immediately following, engaged in external expansion, self-assertion, and imperialism. There is no reason to believe that China will not act similarly when its economic and military power increases” (Huntington, p. 205). From the perspective of historical materialism, the expansionist path of “a strong country is bound to seek hegemony” has a structural connection with the capital-centered logic of domination in Western modernization. The latter requires other countries to serve as sites for cost-shifting and value realization, achieving prosperity at the expense of the backwardness and dependency of others. Marx reveals that the capitalist form of production inherently contains the unavoidable contradiction that “production expands faster than the market” (Marx and Engels Collected Works, Vol. 8, p. 263), which determines that capitalism cannot sustain the “production and reproduction of real life” of society within the confines of a single country or region. Its expansionism is not subject to anyone’s subjective will. Western colonialism since the 19th century, the two world wars, and contemporary Western hegemonic practices all originate from this.

第一，以人民为中心的中国式现代化从根源上克服了西方现代化以资本为中心的逻辑。亨廷顿主张：“所有其他大国……在经历高速工业化和经济增长的同时或在紧随其后的年代里，都进行了对外扩张、自我伸张和实行帝国主义。没有理由认为，中国在经济和军事实力增强后不会采取同样的做法。”(亨廷顿，第205页)从唯物史观来看，“国强必霸”的扩张主义路径与西方现代化以资本为中心的支配逻辑存在结构性关联，后者需要将他国作为成本转嫁地和价值实现场，以他国的落后与依附为代价实现繁荣。马克思揭示出生产的资本主义形式内在具有“生产比市场扩大得快”(《马克思恩格斯文集》第8卷，第263页)的无法避免的矛盾，这决定了资本主义无法在一国、一地的范围内维持其社会“现实生活的生产和再生产”,其扩张性不以任何人的主观意志为转移。19世纪以来西方的殖民主义、两次世界大战以及西方当代的霸权行径皆根源于此。

Chinese-path modernization adheres to a people-centered approach, taking the satisfaction of the people’s aspiration for a better life as its starting point and ultimate goal, liberating and developing productive forces through the hard work of all the people, achieving the unity of “the development of productive forces” and the “ownership of productive forces by the people,” and constructing a virtuous cycle mechanism for the “production and reproduction of real life” of society. It does not need to transfer internal contradictions through expansion, nor does it need to rely on the oppression and plunder of other countries and nations to achieve development, thereby fundamentally transcending the inherent expansionism of Western modern civilization. General Secretary Xi Jinping points out: “Whether a modernization path can ultimately succeed and remain stable depends crucially on whether it adheres to a people-centered approach” (Xi Jinping: The Governance of China, Vol. 5, p. 432). Chinese-path modernization adheres to the path of peaceful development, which is the inevitable extension and logical unfolding of the core logic of being people-centered in international relations. It proves that the modernization process can completely abandon colonial plunder and hegemonic practices at the expense of the backwardness and dependency of other countries, carrying profound world-historical significance.

中国式现代化坚持以人民为中心，以满足人民对美好生活的向往为出发点和落脚点，以全体人民的辛勤劳动解放和发展生产力，实现了“生产力的发展”与生产力“归人民所有”相统一，构建起社会“现实生活的生产和再生产”的良性循环机制，无需通过扩张转移内部矛盾，无需依靠对其他国家、民族的压迫、掠夺实现发展，从根源上超越了西方现代文明内在的扩张性。习近平总书记指出：“现代化道路最终能否走得通、行得稳，关键要看是否坚持以人民为中心。”(《习近平谈治国理政》第5卷，第432页)中国式现代化坚持走和平发展道路，是以人民为中心的核心逻辑在国际关系上的必然延伸和逻辑展开。它证明了现代化进程完全可以摒弃以他国的落后与依附为代价的殖民掠夺和霸权行径，具有深远的世界历史意义。

Second, Chinese-path modernization contributes Chinese wisdom to addressing the problems of human modernity, demonstrating unique advantages in dealing with the problems of human modernity across four dimensions: the relationship of humans to themselves, the relationship between humans, the relationship between humans and nature, and the relationship between civilizations.

第二，中国式现代化为应对人类现代性问题贡献了中国智慧，在人自身、人与人的关系、人与自然的关系、文明与文明的关系四个维度展现出应对人类现代性问题的独特优势。

From the dimension of the relationship of humans to themselves, “the ultimate goal of modernization is to realize the free and comprehensive development of the individual” (Xi Jinping: The Governance of China, Vol. 5, p. 432). The realization of this goal must be based on people’s “common social productive forces becoming social wealth subordinate to them” (Marx and Engels Collected Works, Vol. 8, p. 52). Chinese-path modernization adheres to “development for the people, development relying on the people, and development achievements shared by the people” (Xi Jinping: The Governance of China, Vol. 5, p. 78), laying the foundation for realizing the free and comprehensive development of the individual and making an important contribution to promoting human civilization to break free from the shackles of the logic of capital.

从人自身的维度看，“现代化的最终目标是实现人自由而全面的发展”(《习近平谈治国理政》第5卷，第432页),这一目标的实现要以人们“共同的、社会的生产能力成为从属于他们的社会财富”(《马克思恩格斯文集》第8卷，第52页)为基础。中国式现代化坚持“发展为了人民、发展依靠人民、发展成果由人民共享”(《习近平谈治国理政》第5卷，第78页),为实现人自由而全面的发展奠定了基础，为推动人类文明摆脱资本逻辑的束缚作出了重要贡献。

From the dimension of the relationship between humans, Chinese-path modernization achieves a fundamental transcendence over Western modernization through shared and harmonious social relations, overcoming the situation where “everyone hinders the realization of everyone else’s interests” (Marx and Engels Collected Works, Vol. 8, p. 50) and society appears as “a war of every man against every man” (Hobbes, p. 95). Chinese-path modernization gathers the immense force for advancing modernization, providing human society with a new choice that transcends the antagonistic development model.

从人与人的关系维度看，中国式现代化以共享、和谐的社会关系实现了对“每个人都互相妨碍别人利益的实现”(《马克思恩格斯文集》第8卷，第50页),社会表现为“每一个人对每个人的战争”(霍布斯，第95页)的西方现代化的根本超越。中国式现代化凝聚起了推进现代化发展的磅礴伟力，为人类社会提供了一种超越对抗性发展模式的新选择。

From the dimension of the relationship between humans and nature, Chinese-path modernization both transcends the passive dependence on nature in agricultural civilization and the barbaric conquest of nature in Western modern industrial civilization, achieving a dialectical unity between respecting the laws of natural ecosystem operation and meeting the people’s needs for a better life. It provides a Chinese solution for countries around the world, especially developing countries, on how to coordinate the relationship between modernization development and environmental protection.

从人与自然的关系看，中国式现代化既超越了农业文明对自然的被动依从，又超越了西方现代工业文明对自然的野蛮征服，实现了尊重自然生态系统运行规律与满足人民美好生活需要的辩证统一，为世界各国尤其发展中国家如何协调现代化发展与环境保护的关系提供了中国方案。

From the dimension of the relationship between civilizations, Chinese-path modernization is a modernization that promotes civilizational exchange, mutual learning, inclusive coexistence, and common prosperity, overcoming the exclusive, antagonistic zero-sum thinking and narrow-mindedness behind the “strong country is bound to seek hegemony” thesis, the “clash of civilizations” thesis, and the “civilizational superiority” thesis. Chinese-path modernization provides new opportunities, new impetus, and new contributions to world development, achieving the unity of conforming to the historical trend of interdependence among countries in the era of globalization with the pursuit of common human well-being, and contributing Chinese wisdom to transcending the barriers of civilizational conflict.

从文明与文明之间的关系看，中国式现代化是推动文明交流互鉴、包容并存、共同繁荣的现代化，克服了“国强必霸论”“文明冲突论”“文明优越论”背后的排他性、对抗性的零和思维与狭隘格局。中国式现代化为世界发展提供了新机遇、新助力和新贡献，实现了顺应全球化时代各国相互依存的历史大势同追求人类共同福祉的统一，为跨越文明冲突的藩篱贡献了中国智慧。

The organic connection between tradition and modernity achieved by Chinese-path modernization not only provides real power support for “standing on the right side of history” (Xi Jinping: The Governance of China, Vol.

中国式现代化实现的传统与现代的有机衔接，不仅为“站在历史正确的一边”(《习近平谈治国理政》第4卷，第477页)提供了现实力量支撑，也为构建人类命运共同体提供了新的动力机制、发展方向，展现了中华文明的时代价值。

In summary, within the interweaving and integration of the historical lineage of Chinese civilization and the global process of modernization, Chinese-path modernization profoundly embodies the historical initiative and cultural subjectivity of Chinese civilization in achieving self-sublation, self-development, and self-transcendence through responding to challenges. It is not only an important component of world modernization but also provides a全新的现代化模式 [a completely new model of modernization] for human civilization. Extracting Chinese theory from the great practice of Chinese-path modernization and constructing a theoretical narrative of Chinese-path modernization with Chinese cultural subjectivity is of great significance for realizing the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation and promoting the progress of human civilization.

综上所述，在中华文明历史脉络和世界现代化进程的交织交融中，中国式现代化深刻体现了中华文明在回应挑战过程中实现自我扬弃、自我发展、自我超越的历史能动性和文化主体性，不仅是世界现代化的重要组成部分，而且为人类文明提供了一种全新的现代化模式。从中国式现代化的伟大实践中提炼出中国理论，构建具有中华文化主体性的中国式现代化理论叙事，对于实现中华民族伟大复兴、推动人类文明进步，具有重要意义。