Tang Aijun: The Original Contributions of Chinese Modernization to Scientific Socialism
General Secretary Xi Jinping has emphasized: "As the latest major achievement of scientific socialism, Chinese-path modernization has garnered widespread international attention." Scientific socialism constitutes a unity of theory and practice. To deeply grasp Chinese-path modernization as the latest major achievement of scientific socialism, one must delve into the path and practice of Chinese-path modernization itself. The path and practice of Chinese-path modernization have successfully resolved a major conundrum in the history of the development of scientific socialism: how a country with a backward economy and culture can achieve socialist modernization after "crossing the Caudine Forks" [1]. It has formed a unique model of modernization, transcended Western capitalist civilization, and created a new form of human civilization. This new form of civilization is the socialist civilization of the 21st century. The path and practice of Chinese-path modernization have opened a new realm for the development of scientific socialism and made original contributions to its evolution. Of course, Chinese-path modernization is a work in progress, not a finished product; its original contributions to scientific socialism will become increasingly evident as the historical process continues to expand.
I. Marx's Theoretical Hypothesis on "Crossing the Caudine Forks"
General Secretary Xi Jinping noted: "Chinese-path modernization is socialist modernization led by the Communist Party of China. It shares the common features of modernization of all countries, but more importantly, it has Chinese characteristics based on its own national conditions." Chinese-path modernization is built upon the crossing of social formations [2]; it is a new, non-capitalist path of socialist modernization. From the perspective of scientific socialism, a deep explanation of the inner logic of Chinese-path modernization must be examined based on Marx’s theoretical horizon regarding the "crossing of the Caudine Forks."
In his later years, through repeated reflections on the fate of the Russian rural commune and Russia's future development path, Marx proposed the theoretical hypothesis of "crossing the Caudine Forks." The main content is reflected in documents such as his Letter to the Editorial Board of Otechestvennye Zapiski [3], his Letter to Vera Zasulich (including three drafts), the Notes on the 1861 Reform and Russia's Post-Reform Development, and the Preface to the 1882 Russian edition of the Manifesto of the Communist Party. Ancient Roman soldiers defeated at the Caudine Forks were forced to pass under a "yoke" formed by crossed spears, which was the greatest humiliation for a defeated army. Marx used the "Caudine Forks" as a metaphor for the "yoke" of the capitalist system. Why did Russia need to cross the Caudine Forks of the capitalist system? It was to avoid suffering the disasters and misfortunes brought by capitalism and to avoid retracing the old path of the West European countries—the painful and brutal dispossession of the working people, namely the primitive accumulation of capital. As Marx wrote: "Capital comes [into the world] dripping from head to foot, from every pore, with blood and dirt." Marx pointed out: "If Russia continues to pursue the path it has followed since 1861, it will lose the finest chance ever offered by history to a people and undergo all the fatal vicissitudes of the capitalist regime." The "path it has followed since 1861" refers to the signs of Russia moving toward capitalism; "once it has fallen into the arms of the capitalist system, it will be subject to its pitiless laws like other profane nations." The essence of "crossing the Caudine Forks" is to leap over capitalist private ownership based on wage labor and enter a society based on public ownership, thereby avoiding the maladies brought by capitalist development.
Why was Russia able to "cross the Caudine Forks," or rather, why did the possibility of crossing exist? Marx provided explanations from at least two perspectives. First was theoretical clarification. Marx opposed turning his historical sketch of the genesis of capitalism in Western Europe into an "historico-philosophical theory of the marche générale [general path]" imposed by fate upon every people, whatever the historic circumstances in which it finds itself, to end up in the capitalist path. Marx limited the "historical inevitability" of the origin and development of capitalism to the countries of Western Europe. The historico-philosophical theory suggesting that all countries, including Russia, must necessarily go through a stage of capitalist development was "extra-historical." Thus, not all countries must undergo a capitalist stage; it is theoretically possible for some countries, due to special conditions, to "cross the Caudine Forks." Second was reality-based explanation. In the first draft of his Letter to Vera Zasulich, Marx pointed out: "The contemporaneous existence of [Western] production... allows Russia to incorporate into the commune all the positive acquisitions devised by the capitalist system without passing through its Caudine Forks." As a large Eastern country with a backward economy and culture, Russia did not possess the material conditions to achieve West European modernization; however, because it existed contemporaneously with capitalist production (and was not a colony under Western capitalist rule), it could appropriate all the positive fruits created by the capitalist system. This provided the ready-made material conditions for the Russian commune to realize large-scale organized labor and laid the material foundation for Russia's entry into socialism. The globalization of the capitalist mode of production and the world market provided the historical conditions for an economically and culturally backward Russia to learn and master the positive achievements of Western capitalism. Therefore, Russia itself would not need to experience the capitalist stage of development but could actively appropriate the fruits of civilization created by capitalism. To counter the Russian admirers of the capitalist system, Marx posed a retaliatory question: "In order to utilize machines, steamships, railways, etc., was Russia forced, like the West, to pass through a long incubation period in the engineering industry? Let them also explain to me how they managed to introduce in the blink of an eye the whole mechanism of exchange (banks, credit companies, etc.), which it took the West centuries to devise?"
Of course, the limitation of the domain of "historical inevitability" only illustrates that Russia's "crossing of the Caudine Forks" was a theoretical possibility; to transform this into reality, a series of internal and external conditions were required. Regarding internal conditions, Russia first had to overthrow the Tsarist autocracy and undergo a social revolution. "If the revolution takes place at an opportune moment, if it concentrates all its forces... to ensure the unfettered rise of the rural commune, the latter will soon develop as a regenerating element of Russian society and an element of superiority over the countries enslaved by the capitalist system." Without the outbreak of revolution, Russia would quickly transform into a capitalist state, more and more peasants would be proletarianized, and the old communist communes would rapidly collapse and disintegrate. Regarding external conditions, the victory of the proletarian revolution in Western countries and their active support were the prerequisites for Russia's "crossing the Caudine Forks." Regarding the possibility of crossing, Marx and Engels stated in the Preface to the 1882 Russian edition of the Manifesto of the Communist Party: "The only answer to that possible today is this: If the Russian Revolution becomes the signal for a proletarian revolution in the West, so that both complement each other, the present Russian common ownership of land may serve as the starting point for a communist development." This "complementation theory" explained both the internal conditions of the Russian revolution and the external condition of support from the Western proletarian revolution. At that time, facing the erroneous views of the Populists [4], Marx and Engels clearly pointed out that although the Russian rural commune shared certain commonalities with the future socialist society, its essence was backward and closed; it could not move toward socialism by its own strength alone. In the Afterword to "On Social Relations in Russia", Engels stated very clearly: "The initiative for such a possible transformation of the Russian commune can come only from the industrial proletariat of the West, and not from the commune itself. The victory of the West European proletariat over the bourgeoisie... is the necessary precondition for the raising of the Russian commune to the same stage." Engels regarded the Western proletarian revolution as the primary condition for Russia's "crossing the Caudine Forks." The "advantage of backwardness" theory—which holds that an economically and culturally backward Russia had an advantage over Western European capitalist countries in entering socialism—is untenable. Throughout their lives, Marx and Engels advocated for the "simultaneous victory theory" [5] and believed that the victory of the Western European proletarian revolution was the fundamental historical condition for backward countries to "cross the Caudine Forks." "Only when the capitalist economy has been overcome in its home-country and in the countries where it flourished... only then can these backward countries begin this shortened process of development. Then, however, their success is guaranteed. This applies not only to Russia but to all countries at the pre-capitalist stage." Marx and Engels never believed that the proletarian revolution in backward countries like Russia would precede the revolution in Western capitalist countries; rather, they always maintained that only after the victory of the Western proletarian revolution would backward countries possess the objective conditions to "cross the Caudine Forks." It is evident that the theoretical logic behind Marx and Engels' "Crossing Theory" remained the "simultaneous victory theory," where the Russian revolution and the Western proletarian revolution occur concurrently and complement each other. We cannot retrospectively apply Lenin's later ideas [6] to Marx and Engels.
In summary, Marx’s theoretical hypothesis of "crossing the Caudine Forks" primarily addressed how Russia, with its rural communes, could forge a new path of social development that bypassed the capitalist stage. Clearly, this path was not originally intended for China. However, after long-term efforts, the Chinese Communists successfully explored a new path of socialist modernization that "crossed the Caudine Forks"—namely, the path of Chinese-path modernization. The scholarly explanation of Chinese-path modernization cannot be separated from the theoretical horizon of "crossing the Caudine Forks." Naturally, this "theoretical horizon" is not confined solely to Marx’s historical context of that time; rather, it must be based on the Chinese context, particularly on the theoretical innovations and practical achievements of Chinese-path modernization, to further expand the vision of "crossing the Caudine Forks." Using the "crossing the Caudine Forks" theory as a frame of reference, we can see that China's crossing of the capitalist "Caudine Forks" has a dual meaning: first, an economically and culturally backward China did not pass through the capitalist stage but successfully opened a non-capitalist path of modernization and completed the historical tasks of modernization; second, Chinese-path modernization organically integrates socialism with modernization, forming a unique modernization model that transcends capitalist civilization and creates a new form of human civilization. Marx’s reflections on Russia's "crossing the Caudine Forks" and the development path of Eastern societies as a whole were linked to his critique of capitalism. Marx's original intention in proposing the "crossing of the Caudine Forks" was to escape the "suffering" of capitalist modernization and overcome its maladies. Marx pointed out extremely clearly: "The development of the 'rural commune' is in harmony with the historic trend of our age... the best proof of this is given by the fatal crises now being undergone by capitalist production in those European and American countries where it has reached its highest peak... a crisis that will end only with the elimination of capitalism and the return of modern society to a higher form of an 'archaic' type, to collective production and collective appropriation." Marx’s theoretical hypothesis on "crossing the Caudine Forks" contains both a critique of capitalist modernization and a search for an alternative to capitalist civilization—a new type of civilization characterized by collective production and appropriation. The creative development of the "crossing the Caudine Forks" theory by Chinese-path modernization is, to a large extent, reflected in its creation of a new type of civilization that transcends capitalist civilization. As some scholars have pointed out: "The reason why the historical development of contemporary China demonstrates its world-historical significance is that the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation [7] lies not only in China becoming a modernized power, but also in the fact that, while completing its modernization tasks, it is opening up the possibility of a new type of civilization."
II. Chinese-path Modernization Has Cracked a Major Conundrum in the History of the Development of Scientific Socialism
Marx and Engels predicted that the socialist revolution would first achieve victory in the developed Western European capitalist countries.
The practice of the 20th-century world socialist movement did not unfold in this manner; instead, countries with relatively backward economies and cultures successively embarked on the socialist path. After the proletariat seized political power and established a socialist system, how to conduct socialist modernization and how to consolidate and develop socialism became major challenges for the world socialist movement, as well as significant hurdles in the history of the development of scientific socialism. Lenin once remarked: "Our revolution was easy to start but difficult to continue, while the revolution in Western Europe is difficult to start but easy to continue." The so-called "start" refers to the seizure of power and the establishment of the socialist system; "continue" refers to the consolidation and development of socialism. The phrase "difficult to continue" points precisely to the conundrum of how to achieve socialist modernization after countries with backward economies and cultures have "crossed the Caudine Forks" [8]. The great creative undertaking of Chinese-path modernization has solved this very problem of achieving socialist modernization in economically and culturally backward countries.
By taking the theoretical hypothesis of "crossing the Caudine Forks" as a reference point, we can reveal the inner logic of Chinese-path modernization. To a large extent, these inner logics constitute the "core code" or "manifestation" of how Chinese-path modernization has solved the problem of achieving socialist modernization in economically and culturally backward countries.
First, Chinese-path modernization is a new non-capitalist path of modernization built upon a leap in social forms. Starting from the landmark year of 1840 [9], China was inevitably swept into "world history," and the historical process of moving toward modernization became an "iron law" [10] that the Chinese nation had no choice but to follow. Through the global expansion of capital, the Western bourgeoisie ushered in the era of modern civilization. "Modernization" acquired absolute power; every nation had to reassess its own survival and development within the historical process of modernization. "The bourgeoisie, by the rapid improvement of all instruments of production, by the immensely facilitated means of communication, draws all, even the most barbarian, nations into civilization. The cheap prices of commodities are the heavy artillery with which it batters down all Chinese walls, with which it forces the barbarians’ intensely obstinate hatred of foreigners to capitulate. It compels all nations, on pain of extinction, to adopt the bourgeois mode of production." In using the phrase "on pain of extinction," Marx voiced the universal historical predicament faced by all nations across the world. In the pioneering historical process of modernization, Western countries pushed the transition from isolated national histories to world history while simultaneously creating a new world order: "Just as it [the bourgeoisie—Editor's note] has made the country dependent on the towns, so it has made barbarian and semi-barbarian countries dependent on the civilized ones, nations of peasants on nations of bourgeois, the East on the West." The Western bourgeoisie promoted the mode of production centered on capital globally, triggering a worldwide transformation and initiating the "universal process of modernization." China was swept into a world system characterized by the "dependence of the East on the West." Western colonial invasion not only fueled the disintegration of the old system but also meant that the ancient Chinese civilization could only survive and regain its vitality by achieving modernization. "Modernization" was the historical fate encountered by the Chinese nation within world history; this is the historical trend and objective law. Chinese-path modernization both follows the general laws of world modernization and exhibits diversity and complexity. Its most prominent feature is that it has taken a new, non-capitalist path of modernization by "crossing the Caudine Forks." China transitioned directly from a semi-colonial and semi-feudal society to a New-Democratic—and then socialist—society, crossing the "Caudine Forks of the capitalist system." That China did not experience an independent stage of capitalist development or follow the path of capitalist modernization was not a subjective issue, but an objective one. From the perspective of external factors, imperialism would not allow capitalism to develop freely in China; even if a capitalist system were established in China, the so-called modernization would be nothing more than a modernization dependent on imperialism. From the perspective of internal factors, the Chinese national bourgeoisie was born with an insuperable weakness and was unable to take on the historical task of establishing an independent nation-state and advancing modernization. In short, from the perspective of scientific socialism, China bypassed the capitalist stage of development and took a non-capitalist path of modernization.
Chinese-path modernization does not violate the historical laws of development based on the "five forms" [11]; rather, it follows the "main road of civilization" for human development. In reality, the path of development for human society is the unity of universality and diversity. The universality of the social development path does not exclude the diversity of paths. "History often proceeds by leaps and zigzags." Due to special historical conditions, some nations or countries may not develop sequentially according to the "five forms" and may leap over one or several social forms. The diversity of social development paths does not negate the objectivity and universality of historical laws. Lenin once profoundly pointed out: "The general laws of world-historical development, far from excluding in any way the peculiarities in the form and sequence of development at individual stages of development, on the contrary, presuppose them." The general law of the sequential development of human society based on the "five forms" is grounded in the scope of the world as a whole; it does not mean that all nations or countries must follow suit without being able to leap over one or more of these social forms. The fact that an originally economically and culturally backward China crossed the "Caudine Forks" of the capitalist system does not negate the historicity of humanity generally experiencing the capitalist stage. On the contrary, for a China that has achieved a leap in social forms to truly realize modernization, it must take the appropriation of all the positive achievements of capitalism as its premise.
Second, Chinese-path modernization is a modernization based on "undeveloped socialism," relying on an advanced social system to vigorously liberate and develop the productive forces. According to Mark’s theoretical hypothesis regarding "crossing the Caudine Forks," after Russia crossed the capitalist system, it would enter a new communist society. Marx did not discuss the developmental stages or historical positioning of this new society in detail. According to relevant discussions in Critique of the Gotha Programme, the new society entered after the crossing should be the "first phase of communist society" (later clearly defined by Lenin as "socialist society"). In Marx’s conception, the new society entered by Western European countries after the victory of the proletarian revolution was also the "first phase of communist society." Marx likely predicted that the new society Russia would enter by absorbing all the positive achievements of capitalism and the society emerging from capitalist society after long birth pangs in developed Western European countries would be essentially the same and occupy the same historical sequence. However, from the perspective of the actual socialist movement, countries that entered socialism after "crossing the Caudine Forks" are clearly different from the "first phase of communist society" envisioned by Marx. The socialism China entered by crossing the capitalist system from a semi-colonial and semi-feudal society is a socialism with levels of productive forces lower than those of developed capitalism—that is, "undeveloped socialism." In Marx's theoretical hypothesis, the society entered after "crossing the Caudine Forks" is a first phase of communism with levels of productive forces higher than those of capitalism—that is, "developed socialism." The breakthrough of Chinese-path modernization regarding Marx's "Caudine Forks" theory lies in clarifying that the socialism entered by economically and culturally backward countries after crossing the capitalist system is not "developed socialism" formed by the intensification of the basic contradictions of capitalism, but "undeveloped socialism" where the level of productive forces is lower than the level reached by capitalist development. Deng Xiaoping pointed out: "Socialism itself is the primary stage of communism, and we in China are in the primary stage of socialism, which is the undeveloped stage."
Chinese-path modernization based on "undeveloped socialism" "must eliminate the historical-idealist concept of discussing socialism in the abstract, divorced from the productive forces," and must clearly define the liberation and development of social productive forces as its fundamental task. For Marx, "crossing the Caudine Forks" meant "crossing" the capitalist system, not the universal civilizational achievements humanity attained through capitalism, especially the developmental level of social productive forces. Whether in his critique of the "advantage of backwardness" promoted by the Narodniks [12] or his repeated emphasis on appropriating all the positive achievements created by the capitalist system, Marx’s core viewpoint that "productive forces cannot be leaped over" is vividly reflected. Economically and culturally backward countries can neither "clear by leaps nor sweep away by legal enactments the obstacles offered by the successive phases of its normal development"; this natural phase of development is the stage of social productive forces represented by a specific mode of production. "Historical stages (that is, social forms in which a certain relation of production is dominant) can be bypassed, but the productive forces they have attained cannot be absent. If leaps can occur in the succession of social forms, then the corresponding development of productive forces is indispensable." Although Chinese society achieved a leap in social forms, the productive forces built on the foundation of modern industry cannot be leaped over; the historical task of modernization must be completed. "Our socialism emerged from a semi-colonial and semi-feudal society, and the level of productive forces lags far behind those of developed capitalist countries. This determines that we must go through a very long primary stage to achieve the industrialization and the commercialization, socialization, and modernization of production that many other countries achieved under capitalist conditions."
After "crossing the Caudine Forks," economically and culturally backward countries face the contradiction between backward productive forces and an advanced social system. Lenin once said: "If a definite level of culture is required for the building of socialism (although nobody can say just what that definite 'level of culture' is, for it differs in every Western European country), why cannot we began by first achieving the prerequisites for that definite level of culture in a revolutionary way, and then, with the aid of the workers' and peasants' government and the Soviet system, proceed to overtake the other nations?" The "level of culture" mentioned here is used in a broad sense, referring to the level of material culture based on the productive forces. The historical task of Chinese-path modernization, built on the foundation of "undeveloped socialism," is to use an advanced social system to reach the level of productive forces and the degree of social civilizational development attained by the capitalist mode of production. Utilizing the superiority of the socialist system to vigorously liberate and develop social productive forces and achieve leapfrog development is a basic feature of Chinese-path modernization as a socialist modernization. The "parallel" development strategy is a vivid manifestation of this: "Our modernization is very different from that of Western developed countries. The Western developed countries followed a 'serial' development process, where industrialization, urbanization, agricultural modernization, and informatization developed sequentially, taking over two hundred years to reach their current level. We must come from behind and regain the 'lost two hundred years.' This dictates that our development must necessarily be a 'parallel' process, in which industrialization, informatization, urbanization, and agricultural modernization develop in a superimposed manner."
Third, Chinese-path modernization is a new model of modernization that organically combines socialism with the market economy. Economically and culturally backward...
What economic system should be adopted after "crossing the Caudine Forks" into socialism? Marx did not elaborate on this explicitly; he merely emphasized the need to introduce the "entire set of exchange mechanisms (banks, joint-stock companies, etc.)" established by capitalism. According to relevant arguments in the Critique of the Gotha Programme, socialism abolishes commodity-money relations and is essentially a product-economy society that realizes a planned economic system. In the process of practice, socialist countries such as the Soviet Union did indeed construct socialism through a planned economic system. However, real-world socialism was inconsistent with what Marx had envisioned. As mentioned previously, the new society entered by "crossing the Caudine Forks" is an "underdeveloped socialism," which fundamentally lacks the conditions for direct social appropriation and the elimination of commodity production. When Deng Xiaoping pointed out that our socialism was "not up to mark" [13], one important implication was that we had not attained the "qualification" or conditions to implement a planned economy based on highly developed productive forces. What historical stage does our socialism occupy? Marx believed that human society passes through three major historical stages: the stage of "personal dependence" is the first; "personal independence based on objective dependence" is the second; and "free individuality" is the third. The second stage "forms a system of general social metabolism, universal relations, comprehensive needs, and versatile capacities." The essence of this historical stage is the stage of market economy development. "Patriarchal, ancient (as well as feudal) states decline with the development of commerce, luxury, money, and exchange value, while modern society develops in step with them." What "commerce, luxury, money, and exchange value" signify is precisely the logic of the market economy. Although China, which was originally economically and culturally backward, achieved a leap in its social formation, it remains in the stage of market economy development. Xi Jinping pointed out: "That a country backward in economic development can leap across the 'Caudine Forks' in terms of social system does not mean it can necessarily leap across the 'Caudine Forks' of the commodity economy in terms of economic development; Marx and Engels never made such a statement or projection." The stage of market economy development is an insurmountable historical stage. A fundamental reason why Chinese-path modernization has been able to solve the puzzle of achieving socialist modernization in economically and culturally backward countries is that it abandoned traditional concepts—such as the idea that socialism can only involve a planned economy or that a market economy equals capitalism. Theoretically, it recognized that the market economy stage cannot be bypassed and that socialism and the market economy are compatible; in practice, it successfully established the socialist market economy system. On one hand, Chinese-path modernization fully activated the "civilizing aspect" of capital, greatly liberating and developing the social productive forces through the market economy system and transcending the traditional socialist model. On the other hand, Chinese-path modernization uses the socialist system to guide and regulate capital, utilizing socialist relations of production and state power to direct the orientation of the market economy to serve the great cause of social justice and the people’s well-being. As General Secretary Xi Jinping pointed out: "Developing a market economy under socialist conditions is a great pioneering feat of our Party. A key factor in the tremendous success of our country’s economic development is that we have brought into play both the strengths of the market economy and the superiorities of the socialist system."
Fourth, Chinese-path modernization avoids the "misery" or "terrible twists and turns" of capitalist modernization and is a modernization dedicated to achieving the well-rounded development of the individual. In the book The Modernization of China, the American scholar Rozman attempted to "examine the process of China's modernization... hoping to survey in what ways it followed the basic lines passed by other modernizing countries, and in what ways it struck out on its own unique path." This is, in effect, grasping the particularity of Chinese modernization based on its concrete mode of realization. The particularity of the Chinese path to modernization lies not only in the fact that its concrete mode of realization is significantly different from that of Western countries, but more importantly, in the fact that the essence of the Chinese path to modernization is the realization of an internal transcendence of modernity, no longer repeating all the pain found in the historical course of Western modernization. As previously stated, the reason why economically and culturally backward countries, including Russia and China, sought to "cross the Caudine Forks" was precisely to avoid the disasters brought upon the people by capitalist modernization. The "humanitarian disaster" of capitalist modernization is the rule of things over people, the rule of capital over labor, and the rule of the few over the many. General Secretary Xi Jinping pointed out: "The greatest drawback of Western modernization is that it is capital-centered rather than people-centered; it pursues the maximization of capital interests rather than serving the interests of the vast majority, leading to a large wealth gap and serious polarization." That Chinese-path modernization "reflects the advanced nature of scientific socialism" is manifested not only in reaching or even exceeding the level of productive forces created by capitalism through socialist relations of production, but more significantly in solving the problem of well-rounded human development that capitalism cannot resolve. Chinese-path modernization regulates capital and guides social production through socialist power, advancing modernization without sacrificing the interests of the masses or the free development of the individual. For socialist modernization, "the essence of modernization is the modernization of the person"; promoting the comprehensive enrichment of things and the well-rounded development of people is its basic practical logic. In short, as socialist modernization, Chinese-path modernization is a new type of modernization that transcends capitalist modernization. Capitalist modernization is capital-centered; Chinese-path modernization is a people-centered modernization that harnesses capital. The historical task of transformation undertaken by capitalist modernization was the transition from personal dependence to objective dependence (personal independence based on objective dependence). Chinese-path modernization is different; it carries the historical mission of transcending objective dependence and transitioning toward the well-rounded and free development of every individual.
III. A New Model for Human Advancement: The Socialist Civilizational Form of the 21st Century
Today, the historical context in which we discuss "crossing the Caudine Forks" has undergone significant changes. As the latest major achievement of scientific socialism, the significance of Chinese-path modernization lies not only in the fact that it "achieves the industrialization, commodification, socialization, and modernization realized by many other countries under capitalist conditions" through a non-capitalist method—completing in a few decades the modernization tasks that took the West centuries—but also in the fact that it transcends capitalist modernization, creates a new model for human advancement, and achieves a "true crossing" of capitalist civilization. As General Secretary Xi Jinping emphasized: "Chinese-path modernization is deeply rooted in fine traditional Chinese culture, embodies the advanced nature of scientific socialism, draws on and absorbs all outstanding achievements of human civilization, represents the developmental direction of human progress, presents a new picture different from the Western modernization model, and is a brand-new model for human advancement." Chinese-path modernization displays a new landscape distinct from the Western modernization model; this new landscape is the creation of a new model for human advancement and the inauguration of a socialist civilizational form for the 21st century. As the socialist civilizational form of the 21st century, this new model for human advancement has rich connotations, the core content of which is concentrated in the following aspects.
(1) A people-centered civilizational form. Different values shape different civilizational forms. The new model for human advancement is a people-centered socialist civilization that transcends capital-centered capitalist civilization. Generally speaking, the core goals of civilization involve two aspects: "the development of social activity and the development of individual activity, the progress of society and the progress of humanity," with human development being the most central indicator. The new model for human advancement consistently takes human development and "the true appropriation of the human essence" as its fundamental starting point and ultimate goal. First, the new model for human advancement establishes a people-centered logic of production and development. This new model focuses on creating various conditions for the well-rounded development of the person, "better meeting the people's ever-growing needs in economic, political, cultural, social, and ecological fields, and better promoting the well-rounded development of the person and the overall progress of society." The logic of production and development in the new model for human advancement is a holistic and comprehensive logic centered on material production and economic development, dedicated to the all-around development of the person. As Xi Jinping emphasized: "Humanity must pursue not only material conditions and economic indicators but also a 'happiness index'; not only the harmony of natural ecology but also the harmony of 'spiritual ecology' [14]; not only efficiency and fairness but also the harmony of interpersonal relationships, the enrichment of spiritual life, and the meaning of life." Second, the new model for human advancement establishes a logic of happy life aimed at achieving human richness and integrity, transcending the life logic characterized primarily by "possession" and oriented toward "consumption." The lifestyle shaped by capitalist civilization is oriented toward the "possession" of things and the "consumption" of commodities. The lifestyle shaped by the new model for human advancement is "the true appropriation of the human essence." "Man appropriates his comprehensive essence in a comprehensive manner, that is to say, as a whole man." "Civilization moves toward the goal of human happiness," but a happy life does not consist in the possession of "things" or the satisfaction of material desires, but in the realization of human richness and integrity. "The rich human being and the rich human need take the place of the wealth and poverty of political economy. The rich human being is simultaneously the one who needs a totality of human manifestations of life—the man in whom his own realization exists as an inner necessity, as a need." The socialist civilizational form of the 21st century transcends the single logic of a reified life and takes the realization of well-rounded human development and the true inner happiness of the people as its fundamental logic of life. "Man is, in essence, a cultural being, not a 'reified' being; an active and well-rounded being, not a rigid or 'one-dimensional' being." [15]
(2) A civilizational form characterized by new quality productive forces and the continuous liberation and development of social productive forces. Productive forces are the core element of civilization...
"Fruits of civilization." In The Poverty of Philosophy, Marx emphasized: "Since the most essential thing is not to be deprived of the fruits of civilization—the productive forces already acquired—the traditional forms in which they were produced must be smashed." In the Economic Manuscripts of 1857–1858 (the Grundrisse), Marx further elaborated: "All progress of civilization, or in other words every increase in social productive forces, if you like, in the productive power of labor itself—such as results from science, inventions, division and combination of labor, improved means of communication, creation of the world market, machinery, etc." Productive forces not only constitute the core content of civilization but are also the fundamental force shaping and driving the transformation of civilizational forms. "The hand-mill gives you society with the feudal lord; the steam-mill society with the industrial capitalist." The level of development of productive forces, centered on the instruments of production, is the primary standard for distinguishing different civilizational forms.
Furthermore, productive forces have an ontological connection with socialist-communist civilization. Social civilization is predicated upon a massive increase and high level of development of productive forces, "for without it want is merely made general, and with destitution the struggle for necessities." It was from this height of principle that Deng Xiaoping clearly pointed out: "The essence of socialism is to liberate and develop the productive forces, to eliminate exploitation and polarization, and ultimately to achieve common prosperity." Productive forces are not external to the essence of socialism; rather, they constitute its most fundamental dimension. One cannot discuss the essence of socialism or civilization without productive forces.
The 21st-century socialist civilizational form is based on a new type of productive force that is superior to capitalist industrial civilization. In the early stages of world modernization, Western capitalist industrial civilization played a massive progressive role: "Big industry... created the means of communication and the modern world market... It produced world history for the first time." Industrial civilization is merely one stage in the evolution of human civilization; it will inevitably be replaced by a higher civilizational form. General Secretary Xi Jinping has profoundly noted: "Looking at the history of world civilization, humanity has sequentially experienced the agricultural revolution, the industrial revolution, and the information revolution. Every industrial and technological revolution has brought massive and profound impacts to human production and life." 21st-century socialist civilization should be a new civilizational form that transcends capitalist industrial civilization, and its type of productive force consists of advanced productive forces represented by new quality productive forces. "New quality productive forces are advanced productive forces in which innovation plays the leading role; they break away from traditional economic growth modes and development paths for productive forces, featuring high technology, high efficiency, and high quality, and align with the New Development Philosophy." Admittedly, we do not provide a further detailed exposition of new quality productive forces here, but one key point emerges with extreme clarity: new quality productive forces transcend traditional types of productive forces centered on industrialization and represent an advanced type led by scientific and technological innovation. Deng Xiaoping once said: "The superiority of socialism must, in the final analysis, be manifested in its productive forces developing faster and higher than those of capitalism." These "higher productive forces" are the new quality productive forces that conform to the essence of the human civilization's new form.
In short, to grasp a civilizational form, one must include productive forces at the foundation of the "techno-social formation." To grasp the human civilization's new form, one must proceed from the trend of 21st-century civilizational development and include new quality productive forces, which transcend traditional development models and are driven by innovation. New quality productive forces are the crux of the human civilization's new form and represent the new paradigm leading 21st-century civilizational development.
(3) A socialist civilizational form that harnesses capital.
"Capital is only another name for civilization." Western modernization is essentially a civilization of capital. Since the dawn of the modern era, the fundamental reason Western civilization was able to rise from a particular civilization to a universal one lies in the production mechanism centered on capital and the "civilizing aspects" it generated. Marx pointed out: "one of the civilizing aspects of capital is that it extorts this surplus labor in a manner and under conditions which are more advantageous to the development of the productive forces, to social relations, and to the creation of the elements for a new and higher formation than of the old systems of slavery, serfdom, etc." Unlike Western modernization centered on capital, the traditional socialist model completely negated capital, forming an "anti-capital modernization model." The human civilization's new form created by Chinese-path modernization manifests both as a transcendence of the Western capital-centered modernization model and as a transcendence of the anti-capital traditional socialist model, thereby constructing a socialist civilizational model that harnesses capital.
General Secretary Xi Jinping has noted: "Under the socialist market economy [16], capital is an important bond for mobilizing and allocating various factors of production, and an important force for promoting the development of social productive forces. We must give play to the positive role of capital... At the same time, it must be recognized that capital has a profit-seeking nature; if not regulated and constrained, it will bring immeasurable harm to economic and social development." Capital possesses a dual attribute: it is both a factor of production and a relation of production, exhibiting both a production logic that promotes productive forces and a value-valorization logic that chases surplus value. Therefore, harnessing capital manifests on two levels: first, fully utilizing capital's positive role as a production factor; second, regulating and constraining capital's profit-seeking nature, preventing the "disorderly expansion of capital" [17], and preventing the logic of value valorization and the principle of commodity exchange from penetrating and dominating the whole of social life.
"Capital is the all-dominating economic power of bourgeois society." Capital is an "expanding subject" that swells into a "totalizing power" to achieve control over the entire society. The reason 21st-century socialist civilization can transcend capital-civilization is that the basic socialist economic system—characterized by the dominance of public ownership with diverse forms of ownership developing together, the system of distribution according to work as the mainstay with multiple distribution modes co-existing, and the socialist market economy—can effectively harness capital and prevent its infinite expansion. The core forces for harnessing capital are two-fold. First, various types of public capital. General Secretary Xi Jinping pointed out: "We must correctly handle the relationship between different forms of capital, distinguishing them in nature and clarifying their positioning, to regulate and guide the healthy development of all types of capital." Forms of public capital, such as state-owned capital and collective capital, directly embody the nature of socialist relations of production; they use economic means to actively regulate and guide non-public capital forms like private and foreign capital, suppressing their inherent valorization logic and profit-seeking nature while leveraging their positive role as important factors of production. Second, the state power under the leadership of the Party. For capitalism, state power is ultimately a "crutch" for capital, subservient to capital's interests and fundamentally unable to harness it. For socialism, state power under the leadership of the Party is both a driver of modernization and a balancing force to harness capital. In socialist China, this state power—through public capital, the basic economic system, and legal arrangements—undertakes the functions of socialist relations of production. Setting "red and green lights" [18] for capital and improving the legal system for its development are typical manifestations of using state power under the leadership of the Party to harness capital.
(4) A political civilization marked by whole-process people’s democracy.
In the early period of Reform and Opening-up [19], Deng Xiaoping noted: "In carrying out socialist modernization, we aim to catch up with developed capitalist countries economically and to create a democracy that is higher and more practical than that of capitalist countries politically." Since the 18th National Congress of the CPC [20], our Party has continuously innovated on its existing foundations, creatively proposing "whole-process people’s democracy" and opening up a new realm of socialist political civilization. General Secretary Xi Jinping noted: "Whole-process people’s democracy is the essential attribute of socialist democratic politics; it is the most extensive, genuine, and effective democracy."
Whole-process people’s democracy transcends capitalist political forms centered on Western-style democracy. First, in its value objectives. The true value of democracy is that the people are the masters of the country [21]; by holding the power of the state and society, the people achieve control over their own destiny. "In democracy, the constitution, the law, and the state itself, insofar as it is a political constitution, is only the self-determination of the people." Popular sovereignty is the core expression of democratic value. "The people—the actual bearer of the state constitution—must be made the principle of the state constitution." In the struggle against the feudal ruling class, the bourgeoisie also opposed autocracy and raised the banner of "democracy," but bourgeois democracy is built on the private ownership of the means of production. Thus, its intrinsic value can only be to ensure that "the few" and "the wealthy" are the "masters." As Marx pointed out: "The executive of the modern state is but a committee for managing the common affairs of the whole bourgeoisie." In value, whole-process people’s democracy emphasizes the most extensive socialist democracy with the entire people as the subject; the people both hold and control state power as a whole and enjoy extensive and genuine democratic rights in all fields and aspects.
Second, in institutional design. In its development, bourgeois democracy gradually constructed institutional systems such as the representative system, the separation of powers, multi-party competition, and free elections. These institutions have not truly realized people’s democracy or guaranteed people’s rights; the electoral system has degenerated into a game for the rich, and the party system has devolved into partisan strife. Whole-process people’s democracy has constructed an institutional system for socialist democracy. Through institutional arrangements such as the system of people’s congresses, the system of political consultation [22], the system of regional ethnic autonomy, and the system of community-level self-governance, it effectively ensures that the people enjoy more extensive and substantial rights and freedoms, and ensures their broad participation in state and social governance.
Third, in practical implementation. General Secretary Xi Jinping noted: "Our whole-process people’s democracy has not only a complete set of institutional procedures but also complete participation practices." Unlike "electoral democracy" where the people are awakened only at the time of voting and go back into hibernation afterward, whole-process people’s democracy provides all-around democratic channels. The masses can participate in the entire process of democratic elections, consultations, decision-making, management, and supervision, realizing the people’s status as masters of the country in a specific and practical way.
Finally, in the choice of path. The West views the bourgeois democratic model as the "universal" and "only" path for democratic development. On the contrary, "it is undemocratic in itself to measure the world’s diverse political systems with a single yardstick or to view humanity’s colorful political civilizations with a monotonous gaze." Because the national conditions and natures of countries differ, their political systems and paths of development are clearly different. Since the founding of the People's Republic and especially since Reform and Opening-up, our Party has united and led the people in successfully opening the path of socialist political development with Chinese characteristics. Whole-process people’s democracy is rooted in this unique path and, at the same time, enriches and develops it through a series of new concepts, thoughts, and strategies. The "End of History" [23] thesis holds that a fundamental program is at work in the development models of all societies: a universal history of humanity directed toward liberal democratic systems. Whole-process people’s democracy and the path-logic it contains demonstrate a truth: "There is more than one road to governing a country and promoting its modernization; countries are entirely capable of walking their own paths. It can be said that we have used facts to announce the bankruptcy of the 'End of History' thesis and the bankruptcy of the unilinear historical view that all countries must eventually find their home in the Western institutional model."
(5) A civilizational form moving toward common prosperity.
Common prosperity is an essential requirement of socialism, an important feature of Chinese-path modernization, and a core stipulation of the human civilization's new form. How should we understand that the human civilization's new form is one that realizes common prosperity—a form where material abundance and spiritual richness are coordinated? We can elaborate from three aspects.
- The civilizational logic of wealth. Wealth is not a natural existence external to man; rather, it is the product of "humanization," possessing an intrinsic connection to the essence and spirit of man. As early as The Phenomenology of Spirit, Hegel revealed the ethical dimension of wealth, arguing that wealth is the "universal spiritual essence" of humanity. "It [wealth—Ed.] is both constantly formed through the actions and labor of all, and disappears again through the enjoyment or consumption of all." Hegel profoundly pointed out that wealth is formed due to "common labor" and disappears again due to "common enjoyment." In Hegel's view, the civilizational problem of common prosperity is nothing more than a problem with "common labor," a problem with "common enjoyment," or a problem with the relationship between the two. Through historical materialism, Marx scientifically transformed the question of common labor and common enjoyment into the question of the "creation and distribution of wealth." Different modes of wealth creation and distribution form different civilizational types. Broadly speaking, the new form of human civilization is a civilizational type that can both continuously liberate and develop the social productive forces—continuously creating and accumulating social wealth—and avoid the gap between rich and poor and polarization, thereby achieving common prosperity for all people.
(2) A civilizational form of common prosperity in material life. From the perspective of the evolution of material civilization, "commonality" and "prosperity" have lived in constant tension throughout the historical process. In primitive society, due to extremely low productive forces, people labored through common coordination and collectively possessed extremely limited social wealth; this stage could be described as having "insufficient prosperity but surplus commonality." Private property societies, especially the era of capitalist civilization, represent a civilizational form where "the minority has surplus prosperity while commonality is insufficient." Capitalist civilization greatly propelled human society from "scarcity" toward "prosperity," but the "commonality" of that prosperity hit rock bottom: "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, i.e., on the side of the class that produces its own product in the form of capital." Capitalist civilization may be able to solve the problem of wealth creation, but it cannot solve the problem of the equitable distribution of wealth. Chinese-path modernization gives play to the superiority of the socialist system, persists in development for the people, development relying on the people, and development fruits shared by the people, continuously creating a new form of human civilization dedicated to achieving common prosperity for all people.
(3) A civilizational form of common prosperity in spiritual life. General Secretary Xi Jinping has pointed out: "The common prosperity we speak of is common prosperity for all people; it is a prosperity in which the people are rich in both material and spiritual life." A salient feature of capitalist civilization is that the "increase in the value of the world of things is directly proportional to the decrease in the value of the human world"; man is reified and alienated, and the spiritual world remains "impoverished." The new form of human civilization transcends the civilizational form of one-dimensional prosperity [24], organically unifying the promotion of common prosperity in the people's spiritual life with the pursuit of well-rounded human development, particularly development at the spiritual level. As Marx noted: "The cultivation of all the qualities of the social human being, production of the same in a form as rich as possible in qualities and relations—hence producing him as the most total and universal possible social product, for in order to take gratification in a many-sided way, he must be capable of many pleasures, hence cultured to a high degree." The socialist civilizational form of the 21st century consistently upholds the socialist principle of the "creation and distribution of spiritual wealth," preventing the logic of capital from dominating spiritual production. It centers on the spiritual needs of the masses, producing more products to provide the people with greater spiritual enjoyment, ensuring that everyone possesses the right to enjoy a spiritual life.
(VI) Ecological civilization characterized by the harmonious coexistence of man and nature. General Secretary Xi Jinping has pointed out: "Humanity has experienced primitive civilization, agricultural civilization, and industrial civilization. Ecological civilization is the product of industrial civilization developing to a certain stage, and a new requirement for achieving the harmonious development of man and nature." The socialist civilizational form of the 21st century is an ecological civilization that transcends traditional industrial civilization and achieves harmonious coexistence between man and nature. (1) A community of life. Traditional industrial civilization adheres to the dualism of man and nature, underpinned by a philosophical mindset of man dominating and ruling nature. Marx resolutely criticized anthropocentrism, emphasizing the priority of nature over humanity. "Nature is man's inorganic body—that is to say, nature insofar as it is not the human body. Man lives from nature." As a subject, man can indeed transform nature, but unrestrained transformation will eventually lead to the "revenge of nature," affecting human survival and development. Ecological civilization adheres to the philosophical mindset of harmonious coexistence, emphasizing that "man and nature form a community of life." Man and nature are not isolated or opposed to one another; they interact and influence each other, forming a community with a shared future and shared beauty. In particular, how humanity treats nature is how nature will repay humanity. (2) Recognizing the "intrinsic value" of nature. Traditional industrial civilization only recognizes nature's extrinsic "material value" and "economic value." Driven by the logic of capital, nature is treated as a tool for capital to achieve maximum profit, leading to continuous exploitation, extraction, and destruction. "Constructing an ecological civilization must first shift from changing and conquering nature to adjusting human behavior and correcting human errors." Ecological civilization redefines the value relationship between man and nature, recognizes the intrinsic value of nature, and adjusts the behavioral patterns by which humanity treats nature. It emphasizes that humanity must have a heart of reverence for nature—respecting, conforming to, and protecting it. The propositions that "lucid waters and lush mountains are invaluable assets" [25] and "protecting the ecology is developing the productive forces" fully demonstrate the new civilizational attitude of Chinese Communists toward nature. An ecological civilization that recognizes nature's intrinsic value necessarily unifies the protection of the environment with the promotion of economic and social development. (3) Transformation of development and lifestyles. Industrial civilization driven by capital unscrupulously and unrestrainedly transforms and squeezes nature, excessively consuming natural resources and seriously damaging the ecological environment. This development model of "killing the hen to get the eggs" or "draining the pond to catch the fish" [26] is "anti-civilizational" and unsustainable. Ecological civilization must achieve a profound transformation in views of civilization and development, promoting the formation of green development modes and lifestyles. Chinese-path modernization aligns with the broad direction of ecological civilization reform, persisting in a path of green, low-carbon, and circular development, accelerating the shift in the mode of economic development, and building an ecological system that respects nature and green development. For Chinese-path modernization to create a new form of human civilization, it must advocate for simple, moderate, green, and low-carbon lifestyles, actively guiding the rationalization and "greening" of consumption concepts and behaviors, and promoting a major societal transition from high-consumption living to high-quality, green living.
(VII) A civilizational order based on a community with a shared future for humanity. Grasping the rich connotations of the new form of human civilization requires placing it both within the framework of the nation-state and within a global perspective. As the socialist civilizational form of the 21st century, the new form of human civilization provides wisdom and solutions for addressing major human problems and offers a brand-new proposal for leading the direction of world civilization—"a community with a shared future for humanity." General Secretary Xi Jinping has pointed out: "In this world, the degree of interconnection and interdependence among countries has deepened to an unprecedented extent. Humanity lives in the same global village, in the same time and space where history and reality intersect, increasingly becoming a community with a shared future where we are intermediate in each other." The community with a shared future for humanity inherits Marx's idea of "community" to construct a "true universal civilization." "Only in community [with others has each] individual the means of cultivating his gifts in all directions; only in the community, therefore, is personal freedom possible." The contemporary world is a "false community" constructed by Western civilization, representing the globalization and universalization of a single Western civilization. In this "false community," different nations and civilizations are unequal. The theory of civilizational hierarchy based on Western centrism often brings about the "clash of civilizations." "Western intervention in the affairs of other civilizations is probably the single most dangerous source of instability and potential global conflict in a multicivilizational world." The community with a shared future for humanity transcends the modern civilization and world order dominated by Western centrism, providing a global governance model and civilizational order that moves beyond Western centrism for today's world. (1) A community of peace. The basic perception of world politics in Western civilization is the "distinction between friend and foe." "The specific political distinction to which political actions and motives can be reduced is that between friend and enemy." The community with a shared future for humanity opposes the logic of friend-foe distinction and antagonism, advocating instead for the construction of partnerships between countries and civilizations characterized by equal treatment, mutual consultation, and mutual understanding. It rejects the Cold War mentality and the logic of hegemony, advocating for the handling of contradictions and differences through dialogue and consultation, and committing to the construction of a community of lasting peace. (2) A community of security. Western civilization prizes so-called "absolute security," but this security is built on the foundation of other countries' insecurity; it is a "self-built and self-enjoyed" security established through hegemonic means and the "law of the jungle" where the strong prey on the weak. The community with a shared future for humanity rejects the concept of absolute security, advocating instead for a new security concept that is common, comprehensive, cooperative, and sustainable. It emphasizes taking into account the security concerns of different countries and advocates for solving security dilemmas through dialogue, consultation, and mutually beneficial cooperation, committing to the construction of a community of universal security. (3) A community of development. Western civilization is essentially a capitalist civilization. Economic globalization led by Western developed nations and international capital has intensified the conflicts between developed and developing nations, resulting in serious global imbalances. The community with a shared future for humanity promotes a new type of globalization proposal that is "open, inclusive, universally beneficial, balanced, and win-win." It advocates for a balanced and universally beneficial development model, ensuring that the fruits of development benefit all countries, and committing to the construction of an economic community of common prosperity. (4) A community of civilizations. Western civilization promotes a singular view of civilization, believing that global civilizational interaction is nothing more than the global spread of a single Western civilization, carrying a "civilizing mission." "Civilizations are enriched by exchanges and mutual learning." The community with a shared future for humanity advocates for a pluralistic view of civilization, respecting civilizational diversity. It seeks to transcend civilizational barriers through exchanges, transcend civilizational conflict through mutual learning, and transcend civilizational superiority through coexistence, committing to the construction of a community of civilizations where each appreciates its own beauty and the beauty of others.
Conclusion The socialism envisioned by Marx and Engels was established on the foundation of capitalist countries with highly developed productive forces. Therefore, for countries with relatively backward economies and cultures, how to achieve socialist modernization after "crossing the Caudine Forks" [27] became a brand-new subject for scientific socialism. Chinese-path modernization creatively and successfully combines socialism with modernization, opening a new path for socialist modernization. This has allowed scientific socialism to radiate new and vigorous vitality in 21st-century China, making an original contribution to the development of scientific socialism. Chinese-path modernization follows the basic principles of scientific socialism; it neither takes the old path of being closed and stagnant, nor the "evil path" of changing flags and banners [28]. The new form of human civilization it has created is the socialist civilizational form of the 21st century, providing civilizational wisdom and solutions for solving global dilemmas and major human problems in the 21st century. Chinese-path modernization holds milestone significance in the history of the development of scientific socialism, and the new form of human civilization it has pioneered also holds milestone significance in the history of the development of socialist civilization.
[Unit of the Author: School of Marxism, Academy of Governance (Central Party School of the CPC)] Source: Social Sciences in China, Issue 7, 2025 Web Editor: Jing Mu