Guo Yunze and Liu Tongfang: An Analysis of Three Fundamental Issues Regarding the New Form of Human Civilization
The New Era [1] of Chinese-path modernization has produced a new form of human civilization as a landmark achievement of contemporary Chinese Marxism and 21st-century Marxism. This concept represents the ideological essence of Chinese culture tempered by the requirements of the times; it is the practical crystallization of upholding and developing socialism with Chinese characteristics in the New Era. Furthermore, it constitutes a scientific assessment of the future trajectory of human society and the evolutionary trends of civilization, providing a systematic theoretical and practical answer to the major question of what kind of human civilization should be constructed in the New Era and how to construct it. The proposition of a "new form of human civilization" has increasingly become a focal point of extensive academic attention. Various scholars have sought theoretical support for this proposition within the classical texts of Marx and Engels and the practice of the Chinese path. They have defined its concepts and connotations, traced its theoretical origins, and summarized its values from multi-dimensional and pluralistic perspectives. However, in terms of methodological research, contextual interpretation, and paradigmatic analysis, there remain certain degrees of misreading, divergent interpretation, and bias. Accurately grasping the essential connotation of this new form of human civilization—and reflecting upon and distinguishing the assertions and viewpoints of relevant research to standardize the rational space and internal tension of theoretical interpretation with an objective attitude and critical thinking—is not only a theoretical necessity for promoting the construction of Chinese discourse and the practice of Chinese-path modernization; it is also an inherent requirement for advancing exchanges, mutual learning, and the innovative transformation of different civilizations within the deepening process of world history, thereby demonstrating the immense vitality and global significance of this original Chinese civilization.
I. Can "Forms of Civilization" Be Equated with Marx and Engels’s "Social Formations"?
The question regarding the essential connotation of the new form of human civilization is a foundational one for investigating all related issues. It concerns its inherent value implications, basic characteristics, and modes of expression. It also serves as a critical horizon for resolving numerous topics such as "Chinese-path modernization," "a community with a shared future for humanity," and "common values for all humanity." Consequently, it is both important and necessary to trace the relevant theory and clarify these concepts. Academia generally begins with the etymology of "society" and "civilization" to bridge and link the internal connection between "forms of civilization" and the "social formations" [2] of Marx and Engels. Usually, "economic social formations" or "social formations" are treated as the "key to understanding forms of civilization." However, it is also quite easy to entwine, conflate, and highly commute "economic social formations" or "social formations" with "forms of civilization," to the extent that the true face of the new form of human civilization becomes blurred or distorted. Therefore, it is necessary to define the logical relationship between "forms of civilization" and "social formations," clarify their respective basic meanings, and return to the original meaning and essence of the new form of human civilization.
Focusing on the historical and realistic contexts, the theoretical and practical dimensions, and the categories of appearance and essence from a multi-dimensional perspective to peer into its connotation has become the general research trajectory for scholars explicating the new form of human civilization. Grounded in historical materialism, some use the "Five-Formation Theory" [3] of Marx and Engels to present the theoretical model of "forms of civilization." They argue that the new form of human civilization "is the socialist and communist social formation explained by scientific socialism that replaces the last exploitative class society of mankind," directly equating forms of civilization with social formations.
The "Five-Formation Theory" can be traced back to the general process of the historical development of human society specifically elaborated by Marx in his Preface to A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy, namely: "In broad outline, the Asiatic, ancient, feudal and modern bourgeois modes of production may be designated as epochs marking progress in the economic development of society." This was the early prototype of Marx and Engels’s theory of social formations. The Soviet leader Stalin, in his book Dialectical and Historical Materialism, mentioned the "five basic relations of production" in human history: the primitive communal, slave, feudal, capitalist, and socialist relations of production. Subsequently, Soviet scholars, in the party history textbooks they edited, extrapolated these "five basic types of relations of production" into "five social formations" [4] for application and promotion, which became an important paradigm for studying the periodization of human history. Some argue that the Marxist theory of social formations can be considered a theory of civilizations, and that the new form of human civilization should be a "practical transformation of the Marxist theory of civilizations," representing the specific current manifestation of the primary stage of communism. This directly interprets the "socialism" or "communism" found in the context of classical Marxist writers as a form of civilization, thereby reaching the conclusion that social formation is identical to civilization form.
Following the classical expression of the "Five-Formation Theory" in traditional Soviet textbooks, defining "social formations" or "economic social formations" as forms of civilization identifies the five social formations as five types of civilization in the evolution of human history. This view holds that the development process of human society or the replacement process of social formations is completely identical to the development process of human civilization or the replacement process of forms of civilization. Scholars holding this view generally ignore the foundational questions Marx and Engels asked when dividing human history and detach themselves from the objective context and basic conditions under which the theory of social formations was proposed. They attempt to derive specific concepts through the "abstract categories" within the Marxist horizon, subjectively asserting that two concepts which are only "similar in appearance but different in spirit" share the same connotation, and then employ a grand historical narrative logic to amplify the explanatory tension and bridge the internal gap between the theories.
From a meso-level perspective, a form of civilization specifically points to a "civilizational entity." Generally speaking, a "social formation" can be seen as an organizational, systemic, and structural "form of civilization." A "form of civilization" cannot be separated from the material carrier upon which it depends; to a certain extent, a form of civilization can be understood as a social formation, generally including the determinacy of the institutional and value levels. According to Marx and Engels’s theory of social formations, looking at the longitudinal axis of human history, various types of civilizations are all "civilizations under specific social formations." Thus, the process of replacement and transformation of social formations is set as the evolutionary process of forms of civilization. This leads to the conclusion that the new form of human civilization is a "five-sphere integrated" [5] new form of socialist civilization. Yet, we remain unable to explain the specific meaning of the new form of human civilization created by socialism with Chinese characteristics, even falling into the logical quagmire of tautology and circular definition. Certainly, the sequence of the evolution of social formations can directly reflect the transformation of modes of production and the state of institutional change, expressing the trends and states of civilizational progress. However, this merely confines the form of civilization within a narrative logic of social formations based on modes of production or institutions; it fails to accurately grasp the regular characteristics of different forms of civilization at different stages of social development or their holistic state during a certain historical period.
Broadly speaking, although academia has launched a series of relatively systematic and comprehensive inquiries into forms of human civilization—achieving theoretical results of pluralistic understanding and multi-angled interpretation—these have basically not departed from Marx and Engels’s theory of social formations. They artificially downplay or obscure the essential differences between the concepts of "society" and "civilization" in the classical texts of Marx and Engels, simply and crudely transforming their "theory of social formations" into a "theory of forms of civilization." This has led to the view that "social formation" is understood as or equated to "form of civilization" becoming the mainstream consensus in academia. But how, after all, do we distinguish and define the concepts of "form of civilization" and "social formation," and accurately grasp the core essence of the new form of human civilization? It is necessary to return to the intellectual context of Marx and Engels for a comprehensive comparison and examination.
In classical Marxist texts, the word "formation" (形态, xíngtài) is used quite commonly and extensively, usually appearing in forms and concepts such as "social formation," "economic formation," or "primary formation." What, then, is a "formation"? Some scholars treat "formation" as a universal concept existing widely across different disciplinary paradigms, explaining it as "the mode of existence and state of manifestation of a certain thing or theory under certain conditions." When Marx and Engels discussed the issue of "social formation" in their works and manuscripts, they were not explaining the external characteristics, internal texture, or organizational structure of a specific substance from a biological or physiological level; nor were they explaining the internal organizational components, population distribution, or forms of habitation in a quantitative or qualitative form from a sociological research paradigm. Rather, they explored topics such as origin factors, construction rules, changes in form, and regular development from the perspective of historical materialism. The frequent appearance of the concept of "social formation" in the thought of Marx and Engels is closely related to their theoretical journey of exploring the capitalist mode of production and demonstrating the inevitable demise of the capitalist social system. The "Five-Formation Theory" or "Three-Formation Theory" [6] aims to dismantle the theoretical foundation of the eternity of capitalist private property, analyze the operational modes of capitalist socio-political systems and the modes of thought in the ideological sphere, and illustrate the objective fact that all economic principles encompassed by the relations of production undergo transformation due to the development of productive forces. They sought to prove the laws of the sequential evolution of human social systems, thereby constructing a historical picture of the overall evolution and replacement of human society. The so-called social formation is a category concerning the specific way human society operates, its development mechanisms, stages, and different qualitative states; it is the collective or community of the economic base, politics, and conceptual superstructure compatible with the development of productive forces in a certain period. Marx and Lenin often used "economic social formation" and "social formation" interchangeably as synonyms, emphasizing that the ownership relations of the means of production and the institutional forms resulting therefrom define the essential level of the social formation. Therefore, the idea of the social system standing in for social formation has also become a common-sense notion and popular discourse. Compared to social formations, forms of civilization have distinct characteristics in terms of content, category, and boundaries.
What is civilization? Engels gave a precise answer: "Civilization is a matter of practice, a quality of society." Understanding civilization through the paradigm of practice refers specifically to the sum total of all positive institutional, material, and spiritual achievements continuously created and accumulated by human beings in their social practical activities of actively transforming the world. It is the result of the operation of the laws of historical development and a category marking the degree of social progress. For the differentiation between civilization and forms of civilization, we still need to approach from the political agenda and philosophy of history of 21st-century Marxism. Civilization, as a holistic and historical concept, reflects the level of development and the quality of the citizenry of a nation, state, or society; the thoughts and culture inherent within it constitute the elements and entities of various civilizations. Civilization precipitates the deepest value pursuits and spiritual hallmarks of a nation. Different types of civilizations are endowed with qualitative determinacy and developmental orientations, revealing their own unique value positioning, scope of change, and realm of meaning in the evolution of world history. Different types of civilizations have their own unique connotations and qualities. Types of civilization are divided into different forms of civilization according to time and space dimensions, drawing the overall thread and map of the development of human civilization. A form of civilization is the form of existence and state of manifestation of a civilization presented in the process of the unification of specific material modes of production, political systems, and cultural systems, involving the essence, characteristics, values, and driving forces of the civilization. Therefore, "forms of civilization" cannot be simply replaced by "social formations," and certainly cannot be limited solely to the interpretive principles and narrative logic of social formations.
The connotation of forms of human civilization is rich and its implications profound; it should be contemplated and explored holistically and systematically. Forms of human civilization exhibit synchronic and diachronic characteristics and forms at different historical stages, and also manifest the qualities and states of regions, states, and nations in geographical space. First, from the dimension of time, using technological forms and productive forces as the standard, forms of civilization can be divided into nomadic civilization, agrarian civilization, industrial civilization, information civilization, and digital-intelligent civilization, etc.; or into bronze civilization, iron civilization, machine civilization, electronic civilization, etc. Based on social systems or social formations, they are divided into slave civilization, feudal civilization, capitalist civilization, socialist civilization, and communist civilization. Based on international relations, they are divided into the ancient investiture-tribute system civilization, the modern colonial system civilization, and regional or even global "community civilizations." From the dimension of space, the Japanese scholar Fukuzawa Yukichi proposed two major forms and systems of civilization: "Western or Occidental civilization" and "Eastern civilization." In the 20th century, the British historian Toynbee, based on the relationships of affinity between different societies or civilizations, proposed 21 social models, namely 21 forms of civilization. The first generation of civilization forms included Egyptian, Sumerian, Minoan, Ancient Indian, Ancient Chinese, Andean, and Mayan civilizations. The "affiliated civilizations" derived from them included Hittite, Babylonian, Syriac, Arabic, Iranic, Far Eastern (subdivided into Chinese and Korean-Japanese), Hellenic, Indic, Western, Mexic, Orthodox Christian (subdivided into Byzantine Orthodox and Russian Orthodox), and Yucatec civilizations.
American scholar Samuel Huntington, building upon the work of scholars such as Spengler, Toynbee, and Braudel, summarized the extant forms of civilization as specifically: Sinic civilization, Japanese civilization, Hindu civilization, Islamic civilization, Western civilization, Orthodox civilization, Latin American civilization, and "possibly an African civilization." A form of civilization is not equivalent to a social formation, nor can its connotations and significance be assigned solely within the theoretical horizon of social formation theory. Any form of civilization is birthed, nurtured, and developed within a specific geographical environment, historical background, and national tradition. Consequently, the Chinese-path modernization also possesses its own specific connotations. When placed within the field of vision of global modernization and the development of world civilizations, the new form of human civilization adopts a holistic and global perspective that transcends the conventional constraints [7] of ideological issues, social systems, and the "China versus the West" cultural debate. In doing so, it elevates and expands the theoretical and practical height of human civilization's development, providing a common value-basis and guidance for resolving the crisis of human civilization and problems of global governance.
The new form of human civilization is a theoretical creation and practical crystallization based on the basic principles of scientific socialism, the general logic of modernization, and the exchange, mutual learning, and integration of different civilizations. It is a holistic summation of the material wealth, political systems, and ideological spirit created through the path, theory, system, and culture of socialism with Chinese characteristics. The new form of human civilization is a contemporary developmental form with Chinese civilization as its mainstay, shaped through the "Two Combinations" [8]. It is a brand-new, concrete socialist form based on the sublation [9] of capitalist civilization and situated within the category of socialist civilization. It is a Chinese style of modern civilization created based on the commonalities in the laws of world modernization and the particularities of the Western modernization paradigm. This fully reflects the revolutionary, scientific, and advanced nature of this new form of human civilization, which integrates "socialism," "modernization," and "Chinese civilization."
II. Is the New Form of Human Civilization an "Ideal" or "Real" Mode?
The new form of human civilization is a historical process of continuous extension, refinement, and elevation under the "present continuous tense" of socialism with Chinese characteristics. It reflects the ownership relations of the means of production, the actual relations between people, and the distribution of the fruits of civilization in the process of evolutionary progress. Within the primary stage of socialism, the new form of human civilization reveals [10] the possibility and reality of overall social progress and all-around individual development, taking the modernization and liberation of humanity as the value-orientation of civilizational development.
Is the new form of human civilization, then, a factual description of the true face of socialism with Chinese characteristics, or is it a normative construction of a future dimension? Furthermore, do we regard it as a leading, guiding, and future-oriented ideal, or confirm it as a reality that has already transformed from what "ought to be" into what "is"? We must abandon subjective value-judgments and the attitude of superficial forced analogies. By positioning the developmental stage, level, and civilizational tier of the new form of human civilization as a substantive structure, we must critically grasp complex social realities and objectively describe the problems and contributions of the 21st-century scientific socialist movement, as well as the limits and trends of human civilization’s development. We must rationally grasp the realistic space and intellectual tension in interpreting this new form of human civilization through the unity of the subjective and objective, and theory and practice.
Conducting a comprehensive and deep-level academic examination and political perspective on the new form of human civilization from both theoretical and practical dimensions reveals two sides. On one hand, any form of civilization can be regarded as a concrete rather than abstract, and historical rather than surreal, "entity." One must find the internal common values and the will of this new form of human civilization that serve as the factors and grounds for it becoming a reality. On the other hand, the academic community is often accustomed to political inclinations at the ideological level and remains keen on the illusions of abstract concepts of fairness and justice. It has at times failed to consider the new form of human civilization within the theoretical horizon of Marx and Engels’s "Two Never-Precludes" [11], the "basic national condition that China is and will remain in the primary stage of socialism for a long time," China's "international status as the world’s largest developing country," and the actual situation of the "long-term coexistence of socialist and capitalist systems." Those somewhat hollow discursive summaries and phenomenal descriptions have derived misunderstandings regarding the connotation, status, and significance of the new form of civilization itself.
Regarding the multi-dimensional content of the new form of human civilization, some scholars emphasize concrete descriptions of the "subjective level," "conceptual level," "model level," and "target level." However, they do not demarcate certain limits or spaces for interpretation. Consequently, the horizonal scope of the issues reveals an infinite openness in possible interpretive directions, which inevitably risks "over-interpretation." Simultaneously, the fierce criticism, questioning, and rejection of the so-called "old capitalist civilization" sets certain interpretive limits on the new developments of contemporary capitalism. The relationship between the new and old forms of civilization is thus defined as a "zero-sum" [12] relationship of mutual contradiction and struggle, which unavoidably carries a strong exclusionary and misleading tendency.
If the discussion of the new form of human civilization cannot strive for the realization of the subjective in the objective, and the dialectical combination of theory and practice, the proposition will degenerate into an idealized abstract concept that does not conform to objective reality. There are three most typical viewpoints—namely, the tendencies to "ideologize," "communize," or view the new form of human civilization as a "New Civilizational Centrism"—which ought to be clarified.
From an ideological perspective, some scholars have analyzed the schema of the new form of human civilization as a "transcendent form of civilization," a "form of theoretical creation," and a "form of cultural fusion," presenting its value transcendence, civilizational superiority, and future developmentality. This view classifies modern civilizations by social system, deducing that the two social formations of capitalism and socialism, which coexist and struggle over the long term, are a "capitalist civilizational form" and a "socialist civilizational form." By permeating the core of the new form of human civilization with heterogeneous class positions, political intentions, and ideological values, it greatly inflates its distinct ideological attributes. The limitations of the bourgeoisie, the expansionist nature of capital, and the internal contradictions of capitalism determine the developmental limits of Western modern civilization.
From this, the classic expression of Marx and Engels regarding the "historical inevitability of capitalism being replaced by socialism" is extrapolated into the "historical inevitability of the capitalist civilizational form being replaced by the socialist civilizational form" or that "the new form of human civilization that transcends capitalist civilization is consistent with socialist or communist society—that is, consistent with a society whose primary form of community is the 'association of free individuals.'" The new form of human civilization thus appears to become a "theoretical tool" and "political discourse" for class struggle, systemic competition, party rivalry, cultural confrontation, and the clash of civilizations. This viewpoint highlights the "barbaric," "bloody," "oppressive," and "exploitative" characteristics of Western modernization versus the "civilized," "peaceful," "free," and "equal" characteristics of Chinese-path modernization. It simplistically understands two civilizational forms belonging to the same category of human civilization as a relationship of new versus old, high versus low, or transcender versus transcended. This easily creates a state of absolute opposition and confrontation between different civilizational forms within the vision of a community with a shared future for humanity. Simultaneously, it creates difficulties in eliminating civilizational barriers, civilizational conflicts, and civilizational superiority within the mainstream trend of civilizational exchange and mutual learning. In fact, different civilizational forms are material and spiritual crystallizations—integrating paths, theories, systems, and cultures—precipitated in human practice; they possess a certain continuity, stability, and advancement. Therefore, the interpretation of the new form of human civilization should be placed at the height of world civilization, with a global vision and at the level of human subjectivity, transcending the barriers of time, space, race, culture, and national ideology.
From the perspective of an ideal vision, some scholars believe that the new form of human civilization points toward the ultimate goal of achieving the free and all-around development of human beings, and its most ideal institutional carrier is communism. They summarize somewhat objectively that the new form of human civilization is a new civilizational form of socialism with Chinese characteristics and is also the "first or primary form of communist civilization." The communist civilizational form is the highest form of human civilization in the true sense, while the new form of human civilization is an important stage and foundational process leading to communism.
However, commentators often treat the new form of human civilization as an ideal or a "new value concept," extrapolating the "entity" of this form into a "void" of spiritual aspiration and future longing, abstracting it into an idealized concept and symbol. As an ideal civilizational form cloaked in the mantle of communism, it gains the theoretical power to replace, transcend, and sublate the capitalist civilizational form, becoming an intellectual weapon for rebuilding a new order of international relations and changing the development of human civilization. It must be clarified that determining the degree of advancement and the true face of a new civilizational form does not only involve examining its own realistic transcendence, future guidance, and value orientation from a theoretical level. More importantly, it requires using practice as the standard to test the level and degree of civilizational development, to examine whether it truly meets the justice claims and value needs of real people. The new form of human civilization is a practice concerning social reality. We need to focus on basic indicators across material, political, spiritual, social, and ecological dimensions, and examine the true situation and state of real people in social development, rather than blindly taking potential, unearned things and various trends that foreshadow the future of social development as the basis for highlighting one's own superiority. This avoids falling into the old logical thinking of "civilizational transcendence-ism," "civilizational superiority-ism," or "civilizational replacement-ism." In short, the narrative of the new form of human civilization must both establish the absolute value of socialism with Chinese characteristics and continuously strive for a high degree of unity between the factual description of China's development and its normative judgments.
As a brand-new human civilizational entity, the new form of human civilization effectively cracks the fundamental questions of "where is human society going" and "how should human civilization be constructed." It presents the historical positioning of socialism with Chinese characteristics and Chinese civilization, profoundly influencing and changing the old international order, the old global pattern, and the process of world civilization. Can we, then, determine that the "periphery-center" world pattern and discourse system of Western "civilization" and Eastern "barbarism"—constructed by Western capitalism since the 15th century relying on strong political, economic, and military power—has been broken? And has the situation of Chinese civilization being marginalized and "enchanted" [13] by the Western world been completely changed? Many scholars have given an affirmative answer, believing that the new form of human civilization, as a civilizational system of equal dialogue, openness, inclusiveness, and mutual learning, has broken free from the shackles of narrow nationalism and "Western-centrism." They argue it has broken the old developmental logic that "Westernization equals modernization," transcended the bipolar structure of the Western "subject-object dichotomy" paradigm, and "moved socialist civilization toward the center of human civilization," occupying the "central position and discursive advantage of global civilization."
In this view, the center of gravity of world discourse has shifted from the West to the East, and the mainstream of modern civilization has shifted from capitalism to socialism; the history of true human civilization has begun to unfold from prehistory to a history created by itself. This process emphasizes the absolute differences and opposition between different forms of civilization under the same historical conditions, which inevitably leads to the problem of favoring one while neglecting the other. The academic community is fond of making a wholesale comparison between the modernization history of the primitive accumulation of capital from the 16th to 18th centuries and 21st-century Chinese-path modernization. On one hand, this fails to treat the limitations of the logic of capital and its "great civilizing influence" [14] dialectically; it ignores or obscures the new features and developments of contemporary capitalism, making it difficult to rely on a community with a shared future for humanity to correct the erroneous tendency of world civilizational monism or Westernization. On the other hand, to enhance China's cultural soft power and the influence of Chinese civilization, the academic community has gradually strengthened its theoretical explanation of the limitations of Western-style modernization and capitalist civilization. To a certain extent, this has formed an external discourse that affirms the "superior" and "transcendent" qualities of Chinese-path modernization and the new form of human civilization. This can easily derive a binary oppositional mode of thinking regarding the superiority/inferiority, strength/weakness, or high/low status of civilizations within the field of Sino-Western comparison. Those practices that "infinitely elevate a certain civilizational form and regard it as a universal model for human civilization based on the power or strength of the civilizational subject" have already led thought itself into the hex of national-essentialism and "New Civilizational Centrism."
Only through fulfilling the basic tasks of building socialist modernization and actively taking possession of all the fruits of human civilization can the new form of human civilization break through the historical limits of modern capitalist civilization and the primary stage of socialist civilization, thereby signaling and manifesting its own world-historical significance. Of course, the process of advancing Chinese-path modernization is simultaneously the practical process of constructing the new form of human civilization. The two maintain a constant mutual reflection and a virtuous interaction, aiming to resolve our country's problem of unbalanced and inadequate development, critique the inherent contradictions of the Western modern capitalist system, and construct the possibility of Marx's future societal civilization. This also means that the world-historical significance projected by the new form of human civilization possesses a long-term and arduous nature that confronts our current reality.
As a realistically existing new form of human civilization, it both expands and transforms existing human civilization while endowing it with new forms and connotations; it is also in the process of benignly adjusting and shaping the global civilizational ecosystem and landscape. Of course, on one hand, the new form of human civilization is a civilizational form initiated under the system of socialism with Chinese characteristics, and its civilizational level and degree of development cannot leapfrog the primary stage of socialism [15]. On the other hand, the new form of human civilization is a contemporary developmental form with Chinese civilization as its subject, and the civilizational essence and characteristics it presents cannot be detached from our country's historical and cultural traditions. Therefore, we cannot simply assume that the new form of human civilization has completely transcended or replaced other forms of human civilization, nor can we arbitrarily conclude that the emergence of this new form has thoroughly altered the civilizational landscape of the "strong West and weak East." We must proceed from objective reality, integrate theory with practice, and restore the inevitable logic and progressive essence of civilizational development to reality, rather than simply equating the trends and laws of civilizational development with the realistic historical process and current conditions. The new form of human civilization is also dynamically developing; its latent futuristic trends and developmental directions act upon the present while leading the future, thereby manifesting the power of theoretical and practical logic in the process of transforming ideals into reality.
III. How to Construct the Practical Path for the New Form of Human Civilization?
The new form of human civilization is the ideological essence tempered by Chinese culture and the times, reflecting the complex process of a new civilizational paradigm moving from the abstract to the concrete, from theory to practice, and from spontaneity to self-awareness. Human civilization itself is a "matter of practice," a dialectical process in which the scope, degree, and effect of development continuously expand, deepen, and improve. Practice, with its unique conscious initiative, socio-historical nature, and openness to the future, determines the sustainability and plasticity of civilizational development. The new form of human civilization is an incomplete "blueprint"; the ideas it contains—such as the "vision of a community with a shared future for humanity," the "new development philosophy," and "common values of humanity"—need to be translated into an operable, concrete plan and strategy, thereby creating a more diverse, advanced, and high-quality new configuration of civilization. The continuous construction of the new form of human civilization is an inherent requirement for comprehensively building a modern socialist country and achieving the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation; it is also a vital link in truly transcending narrow "Western-centrism," "clash of civilizations" theories, and "civilizational superiority" theories. The question of the practical path for constructing the new form of human civilization concerns the foundational issue of whether a new type of civilization possesses possibility, rationality, and legitimacy. By drawing on academic analysis and reflections on this practical path, we seek a multi-dimensional and inclusive approach, striving to achieve the rejuvenation of Chinese civilization and a new realm of human civilization at a new historical starting point and a higher level.
By examining all fields of our country's social development through a global lens, the practice of contemporary Chinese Marxism has generated a "systemic consciousness" and a new form of human civilization regarding the systematic construction of the economy, politics, culture, ecology, and the rule of law. This "systemic consciousness" and the construction of the new form of human civilization unfold in an orderly and mutually reinforcing manner, carving out a developmental path that manifests "rich future-oriented constructiveness and an openness that extends in depth" through the practice of an open, inclusive, and cooperative community. Based on systemic concepts and holistic principles, the new form of human civilization is no longer a singular form of civilization, but rather an "organic and unified new model of civilization" formed by the coordinated development of five major fields: material, political, spiritual, social, and ecological civilizations. These "five spheres of civilization" constitute the basic content of the new form of human civilization. The interaction, coordination, and mutual promotion between various civilizational elements and fields aim to promote the construction of a new development pattern and improve high-quality development, guarantee whole-process people's democracy and the people's status as masters of the country, promote cultural confidence and strength alongside the new process of socialist culture, initiate common prosperity at a higher level to enhance people's wellbeing, and continuously build a community of life where humanity and nature coexist in harmony. In the vision of global development and the practice of human liberation, the new form of human civilization takes the pursuit of "community" as its value goal: "It is a civilization that avoids the 'clash of civilizations' by building a community with a shared future for humanity." This perspective advocates for combining the establishment of systemic consciousness with the construction of specific fields, facilitating the realization of the ideal vision of the new form of human civilization by properly handling the relationships between universality and particularity, the whole and its parts, comprehensiveness and key priorities, and reality and possibility. This approach serves as the basic path for the continuous construction of the new form of human civilization.
As a fundamental objective fact and state of existence in the 21st-century human world, the community with a shared future for humanity condenses human intellectual spirit and common values. It is committed to solving global governance issues and risks, aiming to satisfy the legitimate, equal, diverse, and reasonable common interests of people from different nations, ethnic groups, and cultural regions, thereby seeking a higher level and higher tier of civilizational form within human social relations and living spaces. "The 'new form of human civilization' uses the building of a community with a shared future for humanity as an opportunity to reach a basic consensus on contemporary social existence and development." The practice of building a community with a shared future for humanity is dedicated to improving and optimizing the conditions of human existence and lifestyles, becoming the conscious choice and optimal path for constructing the new form of human civilization. Building a community with a shared future for humanity is an urgent necessity for the construction of the new form of human civilization. Building a community with a shared future for humanity—with lasting peace, universal security, common prosperity, openness, inclusiveness, cleanliness, and beauty at its core—should logically become the plan for advancing the construction of the new form of human civilization. The former is an inevitable requirement of the latter, the latter is the intentional destination of the former, and both are unified in the practice of socialism with Chinese characteristics. This view recognizes that both the community with a shared future for humanity and the new form of human civilization are grounded in the world-historical perspective of Marx and Engels and the context of globalization, embedded with Chinese wisdom and cultural genes, and consolidated through the common values of humanity. The two rely on, complement, and reinforce each other through joint construction, becoming the standard-bearer for leading human development and progress. This line of thought tends toward forging a collaborative and integrated mode of path construction.
The academic community has carried out multi-faceted, multi-perspective, and multi-disciplinary discussions on how to construct the new form of human civilization, striving for a path construction that is faithful to facts with rich evidence, problem-oriented with prominent focus, clear in thought with rigorous logic, and explicit in goals with powerful measures. This demonstrates a strong degree of rationality, foresight, and operability, meaning that the construction of the new form of civilization has reached a high level of theoretical and practical self-awareness. Of course, the new form of human civilization is a complex project involving multiple fields, races, arenas, and cultures; its path construction is closely linked, intertwined, and synergistic with issues such as globalization, modernization, informatization, and the community with a shared future. We need to reach the fundamental issues of path construction: the subjectivity, justice, and shared nature of human development. In a broader sense, we must facilitate a value consensus that concerns the future destiny of humanity and the universalization of public welfare, continuing to enhance and broaden the public space and developmental quality of human subjective existence, life, and interaction, "forming a feasible plan that helps to elevate the realm of human civilizational existence."
First, construct a power system for the development of the new form of human civilization. The principal contradiction in society [16] defines and involves the basic nature and fields of the new form of human civilization; it is both a constraining factor hindering the generation of the new form of human civilization and the basic driving force for creating a new civilizational paradigm. Therefore, the process of constructing a high-level and high-tier new form of human civilization is an exploratory process of finding "multiple optimal solutions" to resolve the problem of unbalanced and inadequate development in various social fields and discovering the best routes to meet the people's needs for a better life. These consensual and forward-looking plans cast the foundation of the new form of human civilization. Secondly, "globalization," as the internal logic and engine of contemporary human civilizational development, accelerates the efficiency and level of constructing the new form of human civilization by advocating and promoting "win-win cooperation in the world economy," "multipolar co-governance in global politics," "continuous innovation in international law," and the "intermingling and integration of different civilizations." The "resistance" in the globalization process—such as the governance deficit, trust deficit, peace deficit, and development deficit—has also been consciously transformed into a powerful impetus for people to reflect upon and critique capitalist globalization, creating a new type of globalization and a new civilizational form that is open, inclusive, balanced, and mutually beneficial. Third, modernization is embedded with deep developmental and civilizational logic, becoming an important driving force for opening up the new form of human civilization. Chinese-path modernization, led by the Communist Party of China, drives material and spiritual productive forces, appeals to political leadership, organizational mobilization, and ideological guidance, and aggregates social mobilization, cultural soft power, and ecological carrying capacity to condense into a powerful synergy that coordinates and balances various fields and levels. Finally, the new form of human civilization originates from the innovative power of the Sinicization and modernization of Marxism. The Sinicization and modernization of Marxism performs a "cultivation of roots and a molding of the soul" [17] on the original human civilization with Chinese characteristics and temporal features, tempering a brand-new form, spirit, temperament, and essence of human civilization, and deriving a civilizational paradigm of pluralistic modernization rather than Western-style modernization. These views bring together various driving and supporting forces for constructing the new form of human civilization, providing inexhaustible momentum for promoting and guaranteeing its sustained development. This approach makes a more enduring path of construction possible.
Second, implement a people-centered comprehensive modernization and return to the essence of the free individuality of the human being. The "human" in the new form of human civilization establishes the subjective status of the person and stands at the height of the universal "species-being" [18] of the person. "Civilization" points to the degree of free development and the state of liberation of the person. This means that the critique of the foundations of capitalist society and the dialectical sublation of existing civilizational forms take the realistic person as the starting point and end goal, premised on the appropriation of the fruits of civilization accumulated through generations, striving to realize the "association of free individuals." The new form of human civilization focuses on the modernized form of the person, confirming the essential power and subjective status of the person, fully manifesting the subjective value and creative power of the person, and achieving the common development of human society and the subjective liberation of the person. Adhering to the people-centered development philosophy in the New Era transcends the logic of capital-centrism and the developmental logic based on material dependence. It breaks free from the ideological shackles of egoism, rationalism, liberalism, technocentrism, and secularism subsumed under Western modern civilization. It dissolves the "alienated order of dominance" and "alienated coercive forces" that suppress the person. It "ensures that all people have a greater sense of gain in the process of joint construction and shared development, continuously promoting the well-rounded development of the person and common prosperity for all," continuously turning the people's aspirations for a better life into reality, thereby truly elevating the civilizational consciousness and self-awareness of the subject.
Third, promote civilizational exchanges that center on harmony without uniformity and inclusiveness, and construct a community with a shared future for humanity. Marx believed that the development and replacement of human civilizations were always completed amidst frequent contradictions and class antagonisms. Placed in the era of globalization, the antagonistic contradictions and conflicts in fields such as material interests and ideology in human society have become the primary factors constraining the progress of world civilization. Seeking the pluralistic unity and harmonious coexistence of various types of civilizations within non-antagonistic contradictions and differences has become the law followed in constructing the new form of human civilization. In homogeneous civilizational forms, countries basically share the same racial origins, cultural roots, and relatively consistent levels of development; whereas in heterogeneous civilizational forms, those countries and peoples who once tasted the bitter fruit of war are also seeking coexistence between different civilizations. Whether it is the integration of the European Union, the Organization of African Unity, or ASEAN and APEC, these regional cooperation organizations are conducting in-depth civilizational dialogues and cooperation in multiple fields and aspects. Through the formulation and establishment of a series of laws, regulations, institutional bodies, and departmental organizations, they collectively construct a framework for political consultation, universal prosperity, mutual cultural learning, security and mutual trust, and green development.
"Civilization community." A community with a shared future for humanity serves as the prerequisite and the field for the generation and continuous construction of the new form of human civilization. Within a community with a shared future for humanity, the principles of construction are the diversity, equality, and inclusiveness of world civilizations. This promotes "dialogue between different civilizations and religions, and encourages the strengthening of cultural exchanges and people-to-people ties between countries." It supports the equal, inclusive, and integrated development among different forms of civilization rooted in specific historical traditions, cultural backgrounds, and concrete national conditions. Together, these elements create an international environment of harmonious coexistence between different forms of civilization, breaking through the geographic restrictions, racial discrimination, and political barriers that hinder civilizational exchange and mutual learning. This forms a mechanism for civilizational exchange based on cooperative dialogue, building a new form of civilization that more clearly manifests its own civilizational subjectivity and developmental diversity, while conforming to the general laws of global modernization and the laws of human social development.
Fourth, the transition from a critical to a "constructive form of civilization." Since the dawn of the modern era, the history of human thought has focused on the struggle between capitalism and socialism; concealed behind this is a fundamental logic of comparing the differences between the two to judge which is superior. Marx utilized historical materialism to explain the transience of capitalist development and the inevitability of the emergence of scientific socialism, thereby establishing the oppositional relationship between capitalism and socialism. Today, however, class confrontation at the systemic level is increasingly transforming into estrangement and interest conflicts between different civilizations, resulting in a global crisis of civilizational development. Amidst the general trend of the international community sharing a common destiny and the tide of globalization, we must re-examine the differences in developmental stages between Chinese and Western societies, the diversity of human civilizational forms, and the long-term nature of the evolution toward higher-order social systems. We must shift from the mindset of criticizing original civilizational forms to the logic of constructing a new form of civilization, achieving a paradigm shift from a critical to a constructive narrative while refining the theoretical system of historical materialism. This does not mean that the class struggle function and revolutionary attributes of historical materialism have undergone a fundamental change. Rather, when faced with "the realistic possibility of human alienation and self-destruction, we contribute to the creation of a new form of human civilization through active constructive practice." The gradual transformation and elevation from a "critical form of civilization" to a "constructive form of civilization" does not indicate a weakening of the critical function of historical materialism. On the contrary, it demonstrates the blueprinting of a new schema for human civilization by discarding the various maladies of capitalist civilization on the basis of theoretical critique, while simultaneously accumulating and absorbing all the civilizational achievements of the development of human productive forces.
As a theoretical category of contemporary Chinese Marxism, the new form of human civilization emphasizes grasping the dimensions of the subjective significance, pluralistic development, and common values of human society from a holistic perspective. It clarifies that the new form of civilization created by socialism with Chinese characteristics pushes Chinese civilization to a new historical height and realm of development within the horizon of globalization, while making original contributions to the development of world civilization. The speculation on and clarification of the definition, value significance, and path construction of the concept of the new form of human civilization is both an extension of previous research and a deepening and practical consciousness of this theoretical proposition. The new form of human civilization is grounded in the international situation of the world's profound changes unseen in a century [19] and the historical orientation of socialism with Chinese characteristics entering a New Era. It focuses on the general process of human society advancing from lower to higher stages and the inevitable trend of the vigorous development of the cause of scientific socialism in China. Relying on Marxist civilizational thought and based on the practice of Chinese-path modernization, it profoundly examines and critiques modern Western civilizational forms, carries out the creative transformation and innovative development [20] of traditional Chinese civilization, and ultimately attains the holistic progress of a community with a shared future for humanity and human liberation.