Kang Fengyun and Mai Zhongjian: The New Narrative of Chinese-Style Modernization: Critique and Transcendence of Western Modernity
Up to the present, modernity has largely adopted Western concepts as its mainstay. It is a set of lifestyles and ideological concepts gradually established since the Enlightenment in tandem with socio-historical development. In previous discussions, "modernity" primarily referred to Western modernity—various standards of modernization prescribed by Western scholars based on their own national interests, political goals, and historical experiences to demonstrate the superiority of capitalism. However, with the successful advancement of the practice of Chinese-path modernization, "accelerating the construction of Chinese discourse and Chinese narrative systems" to bring a new standard of modernity to the world stage and provide new modernization models for the vast number of developing countries has become a new subject in current theoretical research on modernity. Currently, research on modernity mainly unfolds across several aspects: exploring the pluralistic references and developmental prospects of Western modernity from different positions and perspectives; analyzing methodological characteristics and the major significance for the construction of socialist modernization with Chinese characteristics based on Marx’s theory of the critique of modernity; and elucidating the historical transcendence of Chinese-path modernization over capitalist modernization from economic, political, cultural, and ecological dimensions. This article attempts to expose the essence of Western modernity from the perspective of discursive expression, elaborate on the transcendence and innovation of the new narrative of Chinese-path modernization over Western modernity, and discuss the principles and paths for constructing a discourse narrative system for Chinese-path modernization, thereby providing Chinese wisdom and Chinese solutions for developing countries to achieve modernization.
I. Modernity: The Expression and Essence of Western Ideological Discourse
In order to guide non-Western countries onto the path of capitalist modernization, Western scholars have strove to construct a system of Western modernity discourse narratives. This constitutive discourse narrative is not a pure description of events; rather, it possesses both political character and ideological positions. Naturally, the discourse of Western modernity cannot transcend the themes of capitalist ideology; it must instead be subordinate to these themes and serve the establishment of a modernized order that meets the interests and needs of the bourgeoisie. Consequently, once these discourses are accepted, non-Western countries fall into the modernization traps preset by Western nations and are forced to be "bundled" together with them, forming relationships of economic and political dependence and subordination. Recognizing the political instrumentality of Western modernity’s discursive expression is a prerequisite for revealing the essence of Western ideological hegemony.
First, by indulging in the progressive nature of its origins during the Enlightenment, Western modernity is packaged as a "never obsolete" spiritual legacy. Although scholars such as Calinescu [1] have noted that modernity has many faces, one point is beyond doubt: the Enlightenment is the prerequisite and starting point of modernity. In the West, Enlightenment originally meant using human reason to oppose religious obscurantism and establishing the supreme status of reason in the human world. It is precisely because of the Enlightenment that people were able to "emerge from their self-imposed immaturity," perceive changes in social life and the stimulation of new heterogeneities through their own intellect, and attempt to grasp these changes through reason. Some scholars believe that "rational self-critique, the public use of reason, and a free and just order of the rule of law are the never-obsolete legacies of Enlightenment philosophy (and its movement)." Modernity was produced precisely on the basis of these three major legacies. By emphasizing "reason" and "subjectivity," modernity constructed a narrative system of disenchantment, helping people rid themselves of blind faith in religion and teaching them to use the tools of reason to cultivate modern civilization. Thus, modernity acquired a sense of being "never obsolete" in its spiritual opposition to ignorance and a sense of "advancement" in its factual promotion of human social development. Together, these two elements constitute the primary basis upon which Western scholars strive to defend and affirm modernity.
Second, by virtue of the historical achievements of modernization, the West monopolizes the power to define the concept of modernity, the power to set the standards of modernity, and the power to interpret the theory of modernity. Modernity is both a description of fact and a value judgment. As a new value standard, modernity inaugurated modern history; it is the state of existence at a higher stage of social development after humanity emerged from ignorance and barbarism, marking a historic progression in human practice. In reality, regarding the standards for judging the transition from barbarism to civilization and the characteristics of a civilized society, every nation could define these using themselves as a reference, integrating their own national conditions and history. However, the bourgeoisie—by virtue of its enormous contribution to the modern social transformation—defined Western standards of modernity as universal standards. They propagated the idea that only by completing the transition to a capitalist system could one enter modern society, while all others with different lifestyles were labeled "traditional societies." This narrative logic inherits the unilinear-progressive view of history prevalent since the Western Enlightenment and the "barbarism-civilization" binary world-map of Western colonizers. Its hidden core view is that only the Western path is the path consistent with the laws of modernization, and all countries can only achieve the transformation from barbarism to civilization by unswervingly following this path. The American scholar Dean C. Tipps pointed out that this theory, like its 19th-century ancestors, continues to evaluate the progress of all nations through a perspective centered on the institutions and values of Western society, particularly Anglo-American society.
Third, the West exaggerates the rationality and superiority of the logic of capital, using capital expansion to transfer economic crises. In the early stages of capitalist development, in order to cope with the system of the union of church and state, the bourgeoisie established a spiritual faith centered on freedom, democracy, and human rights with the help of the Enlightenment. However, they were not concerned with the abstract idea of freedom, but rather with the necessity of freedom for the expansion of capital. Once capitalism crossed this stage, it no longer required this spiritual support: "it became an ideology itself—the connotation of liberal democracy was directly transformed into the motive for making money," and all behavior not aimed at profit-making became meaningless. Thus, capital became the basic institution of modern society, driving social production through a logic of blind development and tenacious accumulation. Within this system, only through continuous production and consumption to achieve capital valorization can economic vitality be maintained and economic crises avoided. This infinite greed of capital caused the logic of capital to irrevocably turn into a "catastrophe" of modernization after serving briefly as its "gospel." When capitalism could no longer expand domestically, it used the name of promoting the legitimacy of modernization to forcibly incorporate the world's modernization process into the logic of Western modernity. It created a world-overriding power of capital, forcing countries at different stages of development to compete and cooperate on the same stage. Developed countries transferred their economic crises to developing countries, causing the developmental gap between parties to become increasingly pronounced.
Fourth, the West constructs modernization theories to universalize and singularize the Western modernization model. After World War II, competing with the socialist camp headed by the Soviet Union for newly independent Third World countries became the top priority of U.S. global strategy. To counter the growing attraction of socialist and communist doctrines, a group of American scholars in the 1950s and 60s—with strong support from federal funding and corporate foundations—invested in the construction of modernization theory, making modernization research inevitably take on anti-communist ideological characteristics. Modernization itself is a diachronic objective process, but the ideological concepts and theoretical constructions concerning modernization are full of subjective intent. The American scholar Michael Adas (Nils Gilman) [2] pointed out that the idea of modernization was by no means within the scope of academic discussion; it was merely a tool for Americans to compete for world hegemony and "played an important role in the construction of national interests, foreign relations, and cultural identity during the Cold War era." With the drastic changes in Eastern Europe and the dissolution of the Soviet Union, U.S. modernization theory subsequently took on a posture of "sole global hegemony." In fact, U.S. modernization theory is an upgraded version of Western modernization theory. It pushed traditional modernization theory into a third stage of development, replacing the "barbarism-civilization" binary world-map with a "traditional-modern" civilizational classification. It trumpeted the capitalist civilizational form as the highest civilizational form in the world and regarded the American path of modernization as the only necessary road to this highest form.
Fifth, the West establishes the boundaries of modernity discourse, forcibly exporting the capitalist market economy and so-called "democratic politics" through value dissemination. Along with the "Great Geographical Discoveries" and "Great Scientific Inventions," and as the appeal of the capitalist market economy and "democratic politics" strengthened, modernity rapidly transcended nations and races to become a world phenomenon. This necessitated diversity and difference in modernization. However, Western capitalist countries used the foundational status of modernity to shape a discursive expression of "endogenous modernization" [3], thereby establishing the boundaries of modernization discourse to achieve their own economic and political goals. For example, they use the economic discourse of the logic of capital to mask the value logic of the materialist conception of history (群众史观) [4]; they use political discourse centered on the "separation of powers" to dissolve the socialist system; and they use the cultural discourse of "universal values" to replace the common values of all humanity. If the "Great Geographical Discoveries" and "Great Scientific Inventions" provided an objective spatial-temporal arena for the growth of modernity, then the capitalist market economy and "democratic politics"—as results of man-made value orientations, subjective value preferences, and even ideological intervention—endowed the institutional design of modernity with subjective purposiveness. "Since Western capitalist civilization, while opening up world history, achieved dominance in the material and ideological spheres, it obtained 'absolute right' as a link in world history at a specific stage." This absolute right means that modernity established a relationship of dominance and subordination both objectively and subjectively, "making barbarian and semi-barbarian countries dependent on the civilized ones, nations of peasants on nations of bourgeois, the East on the West." [5]
Stavrianos pointed out in The Global History that "each age writes its own history." That the discourse of Western modernity is so overbearing and arrogant is due to the historical achievements that sustain the discourse. This discourse starts from a Western-oriented view of history to shape its own legitimacy and righteousness, even going so far as to cover up the various defects of Western modernity. However, the trend of modernization in the contemporary world toward a more just and reasonable multipolar pattern is unstoppable. The misleading nature of Western modernity narratives and historical views is drawing the vigilance of the non-Western world and is increasingly being criticized and corrected.
II. Chinese-path Modernization: A New Narrative Breaking Through the Dilemma of Western Modernity
Max Weber repeatedly tried to apply the rational propositions about society he summarized from Western socio-historical facts to Eastern societies with different initial conditions, but he never succeeded. In his view, the Western path could not be generalized to the non-Western world; it was a path unique to the West. China also once attempted to follow the path of Western modernization, "but it did not work; the ideal could never be realized." [6] Thus, China broke away from the Western modernization model and committed itself to exploring a brand-new path that could both enjoy the civilizational fruits brought by capitalist modernity and avoid paying unnecessary costs, thereby inaugurating a landmark shift in the narrative of Chinese-path modernization.
First, Chinese-path modernization has broken through the dilemma caused by the "capital-centered" (资本本位) nature of Western-style modernization, which results in the inversion of subject and object and insufficient momentum for the development of productive forces. Being capital-centered is both the driving force and the result of Western modernity. On the one hand, the capital-centered nature determines the developmental logic of Western-style modernization. Western modernity takes capital valorization as its driving force; production and reproduction present a dynamic structure of infinite cycles, infiltrating capitalist relations of production into all social relations and transforming them into "pure money relations." All people become tools for the valorization of capital; capital thereby occupies the dominant position and acquires "subjectivity," with the developmental logic manifesting as the maximum extraction of surplus value. On the other hand, the capital-centered nature determines the institutional character of Western-style modernization. To maximize the pursuit of surplus value, Western-style modernization must persist in and maintain capitalist private ownership based on capital. However, the space for capital expansion and the accumulation of surplus value are not endless. While Western-style modernization develops continuously through capital expansion, it is inevitably plagued by the shrinking space for expansion and the reduction of surplus value, causing the "self-valorization" of capital to gradually turn into "self-devaluation." This creates a predicament where productive forces cease to develop or even regress after reaching a certain point. For Western-style modernization, this is tantamount to "drawing the fire from under the cauldron." [7]
Chinese-path modernization repositions the relationship between humanity and capital, transcending the standard of capital-centeredness and establishing the standard of people-centeredness. Chinese-path modernization and Western-style modernization are alike in that both rely on production and reproduction to lay the material foundation for social development; this is their commonality. The greatest difference lies in the fact that Chinese-path modernization corrects the inverted subject-object relationship of "capital-humanity" and establishes a modernization path centered on the people. This so-called "people-centeredness" means that the development of capital serves the lives of the people, the enhancement of productive forces aims to promote social progress, and the ultimate goal is to facilitate the free and well-rounded development of individuals. As Xi Jinping has pointed out: "The ultimate goal of modernization is to achieve the free and well-rounded development of people. Whether a modernization path can be navigated successfully and stably depends crucially on whether it persists in being people-centered." Chinese-path modernization eliminates the instrumentality of human beings and instead treats capital as a means to liberate and develop productive forces and promote modernization—a tool to satisfy the needs of people’s free and well-rounded development and their aspirations for a better life. In other words, Chinese-path modernization takes human development as both its starting point and its goal. Economic growth serves human development entirely; the final aim of liberating and developing productive forces is to abolish exploitation, eliminate polarization, and ultimately achieve common prosperity and the free and well-rounded development of individuals. Although Chinese-path modernization cannot dispense with capital, it simultaneously frames the developmental trajectory of capital through the value orientation of "putting the people above all else." On the one hand, the path of Chinese-path modernization insists on "giving full play to the decisive role of the market in resource allocation." Spontaneously regulating production through the "invisible hand," it allows market mechanisms to optimize resource allocation within the dynamic balance of supply and demand, achieving maximum benefit and optimal efficiency—this is where it shares commonalities with capitalist modernization. On the other hand, Chinese-path modernization insists on "better playing the role of the government." In China, the interests of the Party are identical to the interests of the people. Better playing the role of the government means that, under the comprehensive leadership of the Party, the "visible hand" is used to control the blind expansion of capital, ensuring that the ultimate purpose of the market’s decisive role in resource allocation is to realize, safeguard, and develop the fundamental interests of the broadest possible masses of the people. This is the unique characteristic and individuality of Chinese-path modernization. It scientifically answers and resolves the global puzzle of whether human subjectivity can be combined with the instrumentality of capital.
Second, Chinese-path modernization breaks through the predicament of the systemic crisis in economic, political, and social spheres brought about by the one-sided development of Western-style modernization. In Marx’s eyes, "modernity" is a holistic concept; the modernity Marx anticipated was the comprehensive development of society as a whole, rather than the realization of modernity in just one specific field. Western-style modernization is a modernization dominated by the logic of capital. Capital satisfies the ever-expanding needs of production and consumption growth by absorbing all elements favorable to its own development and eliminating all factors unfavorable to it, thereby creating modern industrial structures and modern lifestyles. Western-style modernization completed the liberation of humanity at the material level, yet plunged humanity into another tempest at the spiritual level: in the face of capital expansion, human virtues such as honesty, kindness, justice, and friendliness were cast aside, even becoming means to seek material gain. The spirit, culture, and life of the entire society serve capital expansion and, by extension, the improvement of productive forces. Consequently, capitalist society is left with nothing but brutal capital competition, and the profit-seeking nature of capital ultimately results in the polarization of the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer, tension and antagonism in human relations, and an ecological crisis caused by the endless consumption of natural resources.
Chinese-path modernization overcomes the defects of one-sided development and coordinately promotes the free and well-rounded development of individuals alongside comprehensive social progress. The process of opening the path of Chinese-path modernization has been a process of the comprehensive unfolding of modernization. Since its founding, the Communist Party of China has united and led the people of the whole country in continuous exploration and struggle on the road of modernization, achieving a great historical leap from "standing up" to "becoming prosperous" and then to "becoming strong." [8] Among these, "standing up" primarily focused on the political dimensions of national independence and people's liberation, clearing institutional obstacles for modernization; "becoming prosperous" primarily focused on liberating and developing productive forces and raising the people's standard of living, laying the economic foundation for realizing modernization; and "becoming strong" focuses on the Great Rejuvenation of the Chinese Nation and the comprehensive realization of the Two Centenary Goals. During the decade in which China has been committed to "becoming strong," its economic strength has achieved a historic leap, the system of socialism with Chinese characteristics has become more mature and finalized, the modernization of the national governance system and governance capacity has significantly improved, the system of ecological civilization institutions has become more robust, and the people's cultural confidence has notably strengthened, with their mental outlook becoming more vigorous and high-spirited. Standing at a new and higher historical starting point, Chinese-path modernization is gradually refining modern elements such as prosperity, democracy, civility, harmony, and beauty, [9] striding forward toward the modernization goal of comprehensive economic, political, cultural, social, and ecological development. With expectations for a better life, the Chinese people are gradually growing into free and well-rounded individuals. Building a modern socialist country in all respects means ensuring that all achievements of modernization are shared by all the people; it means the comprehensive realization of the modernization of the human person, and taking the free and well-rounded development of individuals as the ultimate goal of comprehensive modernization.
Third, Chinese-path modernization breaks through the predicament of the opposition between "the West and the rest" caused by the "either-or" civilizational standards of Western-style modernization. "Binary opposition" is the cognitive tradition of Western modern civilization. Neoliberalism fully affirms the achievements of modernity and emphasizes that there is only one path to realizing modernity—Western-style modernization. Although postmodernism recognizes the various negative effects brought about by the process of modern development, it views them as inevitable; thus, its ultimate conclusion is: either accept these negative effects or abandon modernization entirely. Whether from the perspective of neoliberalism or postmodernism, these views reflect the habitual "zero-sum game" thinking of the West, leading to a state of civilizational cleavage between "center and periphery." The monistic discourse of modernity and universalist modernization theory based on such views deconstruct diverse modernization discourses within a Cold War mentality of "if you are not with me, you are my enemy." Yet, they are unable to update their own modernization models to solve structural problems such as "ineffective pandemic response, social division, surging populism, decadent elites, and the 'vetocracy' of two-party politics," let alone provide effective solutions for other countries to escape their modernization dilemmas. To a certain extent, this portends the "bankruptcy of the unilinear view of history where all countries must ultimately converge toward the Western institutional model."
Chinese-path modernization promotes the building of a community with a shared future for humanity and stays committed to opening a new path of win-win cooperation. Chinese-path modernization demonstrates to the world a new road to realizing modernity, and moreover, a new road that transcends Western modernity. According to Marx’s vision, after entering capitalist society, backward developing countries could, on the basis of avoiding the negative effects brought by modernity, open up a new type of modernization path. Chinese-path modernization takes the realization of the people’s aspiration for a better life as its goal of struggle, transcending the materialism and consumerism of Western modernity; it emphasizes the coordinated advancement of the Five-Sphere Integrated Plan, transcending the one-sidedness manifested in the process of Western modernity; it proposes that the modernization to be built is one of harmony between humanity and nature, transcending the developmental mode of Western modernity that comes at the cost of the ecological environment; it proposes building a community with a shared future for humanity with the goal of realizing the common interests of mankind, transcending the "hegemonic" ideology of Western modernity. None of these could be proposed or resolved by Western modernity, which reveres individualism. As a measure to implement the building of a community with a shared future for humanity, the "Belt and Road" Initiative combines China’s development with that of countries along its routes and indeed all countries in the world. While developing itself, it takes into account the legitimate interest concerns of other countries, and while seeking its own development, it promotes the development of others. It endows the ancient Silk Road with new connotations of the New Era and promotes win-win cooperation through a tangible practice platform. The great changes occurring in China in the New Era show the world that Chinese-path modernization neither indiscriminately copies the roadmap planned by Marx in his time, nor replicates or imitates Western modernization models. The successful opening of the path of Chinese-path modernization both verifies the truth and scientific nature of Marx’s critique of modernity and makes an original contribution to world modernization theory, accumulating rich practical experience and theoretical material for the cause of world modernization.
In the century-long history of Chinese-path modernization, and especially since the 18th national congress of the CPC, China has made positive contributions to exploring a new path of modernization with Chinese characteristics and building a community with a shared future for humanity. However, for a long time, in the face of the prolific practical and theoretical achievements of Western modernization, Chinese scholars have often lacked theoretical self-awareness and self-confidence regarding their own modernization process. There remains a certain gap between this and the requirement put forward at the 20th national congress of the CPC to "strengthen international communication capacity building, comprehensively improve the effectiveness of international communication, and form an international discourse power commensurate with our comprehensive national strength and international status." Therefore, the discourse of Chinese-path modernity is still under construction. We must not only conduct comparative analysis of Western modernity discourse, learning with an open mind and engaging in mutual exchange and learning, but we must also base ourselves on traditional Chinese discourse and classical Marxist discourse, combined with the developmental advantages of Chinese-path modernization, to continue exploring how to shape a positive image of Chinese-path modernization, enhance its appeal, and thereby continuously improve the competitiveness of the discourse of Chinese-path modernity.
III. NEW MODERNITY: CONSTRUCTING THE DISCOURSE AND NARRATIVE SYSTEM OF CHINESE-PATH MODERNIZATION
The successful advancement of Chinese-path modernization has contributed a "Chinese path" to the diversified development of global modernization, contributed "Chinese wisdom" to transcending the monistic modernity standard of "Western-centrism," and contributed a "Chinese solution" to the creation of a new form of human civilization. Therefore, Chinese-path modernization must construct a new modernity discourse and narrative system within a global perspective. It should use language as a carrier to reproduce modernization events within specific time and space, and achieve theoretical innovation by inheriting, developing, expanding, and updating the knowledge system on the basis of the original theoretical knowledge of socialism with Chinese characteristics, thereby contributing "Chinese strength" to promoting the development of world modernization and the progress of human civilization.
First, to construct "new modernity"—that is, the discourse and narrative system of Chinese-path modernization—one must carry forward fine traditional Chinese culture. Chinese-style new modernity emerged from fine traditional Chinese culture; it is the result of the creative transformation and innovative development of that culture. What kind of path a country takes and in what way it develops is entirely determined by that country's "unique cultural traditions, unique historical destiny, and unique basic national conditions," but it must ultimately be rooted in unique cultural traditions. Every modern new idea can find its source in past culture. The internal structure of a nation or state may disintegrate under foreign invasion, but its culture must possess continuity. If this continuity of cultural inheritance is broken and the culture of another country is accepted wholesale, it would be like a plant graft—it would enrich the diversity of the other country and become part of that other country's historical development. "Cultural resources that lack the value of instrumental rationality during the modernization stage, and are regarded as worthless by Western values, may yet possess transcendent value." This "possessive" became a vivid reality in the process of Chinese-path modernization’s creative transformation and innovative development of fine traditional Chinese culture, embodying the ambition, backbone, and confidence of the Chinese nation within the external discourse system of Chinese-path modernization.
Second, constructing a discursive narrative system for a new modernity—namely, Chinese-path modernization—requires unfailing adherence to the Marxist view of the people. Historical materialism holds that history always emerges from the mutual conflict of many individual wills, and each will becomes what it is only because it is acted upon by a multitude of particular living factors. Thus, countless crisscrossing forces form a single resultant force [11] that drives history either forward or backward. In the knowledge system of Chinese-path modernization discourse, this resultant force is composed of positive forces, such as the leadership of the Communist Party of China (CPC), the creativity of the masses, and the collaborative progress of all humanity; it also includes negative forces, such as the discursive hegemony of Western modernity and the material suppression by capitalist states. In the process of "persisting in the people-centered development philosophy, placing the promotion of development and the protection of people's livelihoods at the center of global macro-policy, implementing the United Nations 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, promoting synergy among existing development cooperation mechanisms, and fostering balanced global development," the CPC has constructed a modernization model and discursive expression of multi-subject collaboration involving "the Party, the people, and humanity" through frameworks such as the "Two Upholds," "people first," and "common values of all humanity." This has contributed a Chinese solution [12] for building consensus on a new modernity, gathering the resultant forces of modernization, integrating internal forces within nation-states, and uniting the collective forces of different nations. Compared to the paradox of Western modernity, wherein the facticity and value of the people creating history are alienated, this cognition of multiple subjects jointly advancing modernization does not only contain an inherent critique of capitalist modernity and the lofty ideal of constructing socialist modernity—with the specific aim of realizing, safeguarding, and developing the fundamental interests of the masses—but also attends to the modernity dilemmas shared by humanity while shouldering the historical mission of promoting world modernization. Consequently, it inevitably brings the initiative, enthusiasm, and creativity of the masses into full play. The positive resultant force thus formed will surely offset the negative forces and continue to propel the great ship of Chinese-path modernization forward.
Third, constructing a discursive narrative system for a new modernity—namely, Chinese-path modernization—requires balancing the space for systemic coexistence. The coexistence of the socialist system and the capitalist system constitutes the basic landscape of contemporary world modernization. Chinese-path modernization must construct its discourse system of new modernity through a scientific assessment and handling of the relationship between these two systems. On the one hand, the socialist system was generated upon the achievements of capitalist modernization. In modern times, almost all non-Western countries "showed no great deeds or historical initiative" [13] in the historical process of world modernization. The holistic process of their transformation from traditional agrarian societies to modern industrial societies was a process in which the bourgeoisie "draws all, even the most barbarian, nations into civilization" and "creates a world after its own image." [14] The emergence of modernization in socialist countries followed this pattern. Russia began its pursuit of modernization "in the process of interaction, conflict, and war with the more advanced and powerful Western countries," while the narrative starting point of Chinese-path modernization must be traced back to its passive involvement in the wave of world modernization beginning in 1840. On the other hand, the continuous struggle between the socialist and capitalist systems determines the complexity of the global environment for modernization. Since the end of the Cold War, Western modernity has utilized strategies of "Westernization and disintegration" [15] based on its "classical" model to suppress and contain "innovative" modernization models in developing countries; simultaneously, economic globalization has rendered the two systems inseparable. The CPC is profoundly aware of this relationship of competition and cooperation, and confirms the superiority of the socialist system through high-quality development of production and the realization of the people’s aspirations for a better life, thereby refuting the "end of socialism" thesis. However, the purpose of refuting the "end of socialism" is not to create an "end of capitalism" thesis within the contemporary trends of peace, development, and win-win cooperation. Chinese-path modernization accounts for both the differences in systems and the consistency of modernization goals. It practices the open stance of socialism within the rational tension of systemic coexistence, developing itself through global opportunities while providing a path for capitalist countries to move beyond the global dilemmas of modernity together.
Fourth, constructing a discursive narrative system for a new modernity—namely, Chinese-path modernization—requires the creation of a new form of human advancement. By optimizing the specific existential states of the relationships between man and nature, man and society, man and man, and man and the world, Chinese-path modernization has created new economico-social and techno-social forms distinct from Western capitalist modern civilization, serving as an entry point for contributing to the construction of a new form of human advancement. In this process, the discourse of new modernity produced by Chinese-path modernization does not aim to manufacture a singular "Chinese-style" standard for modernity; rather, taking Chinese innovative modernity as a starting point, it is committed to building a pluralistic landscape of modernity based on the civilizations of all nations and countries within the global civilizational framework. Chinese modernity discourse provides systematic thinking for this pluralistic landscape. On the one hand, it coordinates the interaction between man and nature through the existential schema of "harmony between humanity and nature," providing a model for resolving the global dilemma of ecological alienation. The logic of Western modernization was "develop first, govern later, accumulate thereafter," developing through a sequence of industrialization, urbanization, agricultural modernization, and informatization. In this "series-style" [16] modernization process, Western countries achieved a forceful victory over nature by conquering and controlling it, exchanging a great abundance of material wealth for the plunder of resources and sacrifice of the environment, resulting in increasingly tense relations between man and nature. Differing from the Western sequence, Chinese-path modernization is a "parallel-style" process of superimposed development across these four areas. Within the harmonious interaction of this "four-fold modernization," it emphasizes the dual considerations of material wealth and social sustainability. In the practice of transforming economic growth patterns, it has successively proposed ecological concepts and development goals such as "Beautiful China" and "lucid waters and lush mountains are invaluable assets," [17] striving to achieve a true restoration of the relationship between man and nature. On the other hand, it uses a discourse of the people to optimize the existential state of relationships between man and man and man and society, contributing Chinese wisdom to the resolution of various contradictions within global modernity. Chinese-path modernization adheres to a "people first" value orientation, creatively regulating the orderly development of the market economy within the framework of the socialist system. This has formed an economico-social configuration where economic development and capital governance proceed in sync, material and spiritual civilizations are coordinated, and social progress and individual development promote one another. Simultaneously, Chinese-path modernization looks toward the common progress of human society, gathering consensus and providing a path for resolving the problem of human alienation. Guided by the concept of "building a community with a shared future for humanity," China has proposed and promoted the implementation of the Belt and Road Initiative, the Global Development Initiative, the Global Security Initiative, and the Global Civilization Initiative. These are of great significance for promoting global prosperity and represent a Chinese contribution to the promotion of global win-win cooperation.
In summary, the modernity discourse constructed by Chinese-path modernization is based on Chinese soil and rooted in Chinese reality. It is a vivid interpretation of the Sinicization and modernization of Marxism, an expression of the creative transformation and innovative development of fine traditional Chinese culture, and a fresh contribution to "creating new concepts, new categories, and new expressions that are easily understood and accepted by the international community." It not only highlights the value of Marxist truth and the intellectual power of fine traditional Chinese culture but also revitalizes the powerful vitality and demonstrates the immense superiority of Chinese-path modernization, making a global contribution to deconstructing the discursive hegemony of Western modernity and developing a pluralistic discourse system of modernity.