Xia Ying and Cui Juran: Chinese Modernization and the Issue of Capital: Theoretical Framework and Practical Wisdom
The path of Chinese-path modernization is an unprecedented modernization scheme developed with the orientation of socialist social development and the practical goal of continuously creating a better life and achieving common prosperity. On one hand, it possesses the common characteristics of modernization in all countries—namely, the acceleration of socio-economic development accompanied by the continuous improvement of science and technology. On the other hand, the unique past and present of Chinese social development inevitably distinguish it from the modernization paths completed by Western capitalist countries driven by the logic of capital. Proceeding from national conditions, Chinese-path modernization creatively integrates the path of modernization with the Sinicization of Marxism. As a new model of modernization development, it points toward a brand-new path that serves as a reference for late-developing countries. Consequently, "capitalization" is no longer a synonym for "modernization," and the modernization model forged by Western capitalist countries must be evicted from its universal altar as a metonym for the "path of modernization," returning to its objective positioning as a temporary and particular modernization scheme.
In the concrete practice of Chinese-path modernization, how to effectively regulate and control the important role played by "capital" in socio-economic development has become one of the key links concerning the success or failure of the Chinese-path modernization road. Marx’s research on political economy, centered on the question of capital, has maintained a role of theoretical guidance for the exploration of the contemporary path of Chinese-path modernization. In a certain sense, capital, driven internally by the compulsion of valorization [1], gave birth to the compulsion of progress within the Western modernization process; capital thus became its inherent logical foundation. As the Western modernization process spread globally, the compulsion of capital valorization itself directly became the evolutionary law structuring social development. Thus, "capital" appeared to possess a certain logic of its own, manifesting as a trend wherein production aimed at valorization constantly encounters its limits while simultaneously and continuously overcoming those boundaries.
This article will trace back to the historical lineage of the "logic of capital," sorting through the definition and internal prescriptions of the logic of capital in Marxist political economy, and exploring the internal origins between the "logic of capital," Western thought, and the modernization process. On this basis, proceeding from an exposition of the relationship between "Chinese-path modernization" and the "logic of capital," we attempt to answer in what sense Chinese-path modernization differs from Western modernization, and how to carry out the practical realization of "modernization" on the basis of the sublation [2] of the logic of capital.
I. Modernization Practice and the Birth of Political Economy Theory
Since the 20th century, the practice of "modernization" as consciously recognized by the academic community has attempted to describe the generation process of a modern society. However, this "modern times" [3], which presupposes the entire modernization process, has never been a concept merely in the dimension of time; it has become a "new era" compared to all that came before. It thus possesses a unique temporal starting point and initial process. The social critical theorist Habermas defined this new era as "the three centuries prior to roughly 1800. The three great events around 1500—the discovery of the New World, the Renaissance, and the Reformation—constitute the epochal threshold between modern times and the Middle Ages." Accompanied by the birth of the philosophy of history, the consciousness of modernity was first self-consciously recognized and studied by Hegel. His significant advancement of the problem of modernity was the establishment of an internal link between the "concept of modernity and the self-understanding of modernity won from the perspective of Western rationality." Consequently, the evolution of modernity became a process in which society increasingly manifested its inherent rationality. It was precisely in the process of gradually practicing this rationality that the West unfolded its unique path of modernization. The series of processes it contained also gradually gained the conscious recognition of thinkers: "The concept of modernization refers to a bundle of processes that are cumulative and mutually reinforcing: to the formation of capital and the mobilization of resources; to the development of the forces of production and the increase in the productivity of labor; to the establishment of centralized political power and the formation of national identities; to the proliferation of rights of political participation, of urban forms of life, and of formal schooling; to the secularization of values and norms; and so on." Strictly speaking, Habermas's enumeration of the concepts of modernization is not exhaustive and carries a degree of randomness; it fails to touch the core logic of the modernization process, nor can it indicate whether there exists a relationship of primary, secondary, or derivative importance among these multiple parallel dimensions.
Here, we might attempt to summarize this modernization process through the following two obvious dimensions: In the ideological dimension of modernity, centered around the core concept of "reason," revolve values such as enlightenment, freedom, and the awakening of self-consciousness. In the dimension of social life organization (i.e., during the modernization process), it manifests as an economic association developed from the omnipresent production and exchange within the sphere of social life—namely, the rise of what Hegel called "civil society." Hegel’s research on the "philosophy of right" essentially completed the work of linking this "ideological dimension" with the "dimension of social life organization," and through the systematization of his philosophy of right, he completed a normative study of the rationalization of modern society.
Hegel's philosophy of right encompasses the three major stages of Abstract Right, Morality, and Ethical Life (Sittlichkeit), wherein civil society is the transitional stage for the concept of "Ethical Life" to realize its own universality. Hegel divided the contradictory development process of "Ethical Life" into the family, civil society, and the state. On one hand is the "family"—a direct, natural, and subjective ethical spirit maintained by "ethical love endowed with legal significance." On the other hand is the "state"—the "absolutely rational thing in and for itself," representing an absolute spirit capable of mediating different interests within civil society. In the process of the universalization and objectification of "Ethical Life," civil society—existing as the intermediate link between the family and the state—is a realm dominated by "needs." This civil society, characterized by the "system of needs," refers precisely to the new historical period Hegel called modern society; it highlights the actual life itself that awaits "modernization" (rationalization). Hegel described this vista of life thus: "In these contrasts and their complexity, every passion is unchained, and those conditions which are common to all, as well as those which are particular and contingent, are free to express themselves... though their agitation is held in check by the power of the understanding [reason]."
Here, Hegel uses his distinction between the state and civil society to construct the core of this modernization logic. Within it, the contradiction between the state and civil society—especially the tension between universality and particularity, as well as the tension between society and the individual—caused Hegel to project his focus onto the question of how the transition from contingency to necessity, and from particularity to universality, is achieved. Civil society completes the transformation of particular "subjective needs" into objective and universal satisfaction. This process relies on a process called "intellect," manifested in the fact that the particular subjective needs of individuals can be harmonized and unified through two means: first, the consistent perception or cognition of external objects; second, the activities and labor undertaken based on this—practice here serves as the bridge from the subjective to the objective, and particular subjective needs thus obtain a path to discover and prove their objectivity and universality. In the Philosophy of Right, Hegel emphasizes that "civil society is the battlefield of individual private interest"; civil society, formed by selfish and egoistic individuals, "must have the state as something independent over against it," and civil society is the "mediation of the form of universality" [4], needing to realize itself within the state.
Hegel hoped that by distinguishing the state from civil society, he could eventually construct a method capable of mediating or even eliminating the dualistic opposition between the two. To a certain extent, Marx accepted this dualistic opposition proposed by Hegel but opposed his handling of the relationship between civil society and the state: civil society was endowed by Hegel with the status of particularity, which finally needed to lead to the state as universality. In A Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right, Marx inverted the relationship established by Hegel where the "state determines civil society" into "civil society determines the state." Marx pointed out incisively that for Hegel, "the actual relationship of the family and civil society to the state is conceived as the internal imaginary activity of the Idea," turning the facts themselves into "logical, pantheistic mysticism." For, as Marx pointed out, "the political state... cannot exist without the natural basis of the family and the artificial basis of civil society. They are its conditio sine qua non." Through his critique of Hegel’s philosophy of right, Marx revealed that the "state" is rooted in "material life relations" as its actual basis—that is, civil society.
To resolve the conflict between Hegel and Marx on this issue, we need to more deeply and thoroughly examine civil society. Marx guides us that "the anatomy of civil society is to be sought in political economy." The creation of the science of classical political economy was inherently and inseparably related to the birth and development of civil society. Hegel pointed out that civil society is a system of private needs, and the birth of political economy proceeded precisely from the viewpoint of "need and labor," searching for the principles of things among tangled complexities and particularities, thereby producing universal prescriptions. Hegel once held political economy in high regard: "It is one of the sciences which have arisen out of the conditions of the modern world... It does honor to thought because it finds laws in a mass of accidents." Political economy, by studying economic phenomena, elevates phenomena into economic laws. In other words, political economy is a science that explores the roles of various participating subjects and their relationships in the process of humans self-consciously and intentionally organizing production and exchange, discovering how things are interconnected and mutually influenced, and summarizing and refining the laws contained therein.
An economic association such as civil society demanded a secularized total explanation to replace the previously dominant theological worldview. Such a demand pointed toward the political economy that began with Adam Smith. Before Hegel, Smith focused on and studied "civil society"—this "realm of needs"—from an economic perspective. He believed that egoism constituted the foundation of social strength and prosperity: an individual’s needs cannot be independently determined by that individual; the labor of others is the means to satisfy the subject’s needs, and the subject also satisfies the needs of others through labor. Only social activities and labor can satisfy the universal needs of individuals. Smith constructed a model of "rational egoism–social interest": the behavior of rational and self-interested individuals, guided by the "invisible hand," ultimately realizes the interests of society. With the affirmation of individual freedom as a premise, Smith summoned a defense of individual interests, taking the realization of universal interests by the rational "economic man" as the vista of modernity. In other words, economic behavior completed by individuals driven by egoism—through a process of holistic interaction and reciprocal balancing—mysteriously brings about an effective and benign social order. From the perspective of economic theory, Smith established the idea that humans essentially pursue their own maximum interests in a rational way as a process that is natural and humane; thus, any class, policy, or measure that hinders this process lacks legitimacy. Therefore, the promotion of the "invisible hand" (the market's self-regulating capacity), support for government deregulation policies, and condemnation of government regulation of the economy were all implicit in Smith's theory. The birth of this theory signaled precisely the rise of capitalism. The bourgeoisie urgently needed to break free from the shackles placed on the development of "capital" by physiocracy and mercantilism, thirsting for the free development of trade and the protection of private property, and calling for a scientific system of liberal economics. The birth of political economy was precisely burdened with the earnest hopes and historical mission of the bourgeoisie.
Centered around this core concept, political economy, as a rationalizing interpretation of modern life, manifests the powerful superiority of market forces based on free competition. By extolling values such as rationality and egoism, establishing the sanctity of private property and the absolute status of the spirit of contract in the economic sphere, it provided theoretical support for the liberal ideas of the bourgeoisie. This movement endowed the particular values of the bourgeoisie with universality, which also predestined the class nature of political economy from the outset. Through the bourgeois totality-narrative established by this science, the ideological spirit and value orientations advocated by the bourgeoisie became the common values of society. Bourgeois concepts were elevated to absolute truths and fundamental explanations, permeating levels of morality, culture, law, and history. As Marx pointed out, "these economists treat the specific, particular, historical form that social labor takes in capitalist production as the general, eternal form, as natural truth, and describe these relations of production as the absolute (rather than historical), necessary, natural, and rational relations of social labor." These ideas became rooted in the moral sentiments of citizens, elevating bourgeois interests to the common interests of all members of society.
It is thus evident that civil society is a concept summarized by "Hegel following the precedents of the English and French of the 18th century." [5] Whether it is "civil society" or the theoretical system of political economy born alongside it, both originated in the Western context as specific products rooted in Western historical traditions, economic conditions, ideological concepts, and cultural politics, thereby constructing the theoretical narrative of the Western modernization process.
II. The Duality of the Logic of Capital in Modernization Practice
Since the 18th century, the process of Western modernization has advanced triumphantly, facilitating the accelerated development of human civilization. On this basis, it completed the universalized promotion of the modernization process, turning Western modernization—which originally belonged to the category of particularity—into a kind of universal logic that seemingly could govern the entire world. However, since the 19th century, this modernization process has clearly encountered its own developmental bottlenecks. The essence of capital has led to colonial expansion and the plunder of wealth, over-exploitation and destruction of nature, human alienation, and atomistic individualism. If Hegel’s high appraisal of political economy represented the intellectual community's affirmation of the path of modernization at that time, then Marx’s critique of political economy—especially his systematic research and discussion of the question of capital—constitutes a possible sublation [6] of the Western path of modernization. It was precisely in the exploration of this modernization path that Marx gradually focused the problem of the critique of classical political economy on capital and its intrinsic logic's framing and shaping of modern social life. As Marx pointed out, "the mode of production of material life conditions the general process of social, political, and intellectual life" and "it is only capital that creates bourgeois society, and the universal appropriation of nature and of the social nexus itself by the members of society." At this point, the path of modernization and the self-evolution of the logic of capital became two sides of the same coin.
In this sense, Marx’s investigation of the logic of capital through the critique of political economy—conducted from the dual perspective of "economics-philosophy"—is a theoretical exploration based on the existing path of modernization but not confined by it. This is centrally manifested in Marx’s analysis of the dual significance of the logic of capital for the modernization process. On the one hand, the effective advancement of the logic of capital brings about a positive affirmation of the fruits of civilization and therefore necessarily contains the common value ideals of modernization. On the other hand, the inherent contradictions of the logic of capital itself will eventually lead to the negation and invasion of the modernization process into the specific mode of human existence. The dual significance of capital's logic for the modernization process highlights two forms of capital's own existence: namely, "capital" as a factor of production and "capital" as a relation of production. The former constitutes a necessary factor for the development of social production in human society; the latter, however, in the process of changing the human way of life, renders humans slaves to the logic of capital, thereby ultimately violating the value ideals of the modernization process. To form a profound understanding of "capital" and respond to the above issues on this basis, one must return to the original context of Marx's political economy.
Marx pointed out in the Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts of 1857–1858 (hereafter referred to as the 1857–1858 Manuscripts) that the "inner tendency [of capital] appears as a compulsion exercised over it by other capital, which drives it ceaselessly onward, beyond the correct proportion, onward, onward!" The inner tendency of capital ensures that "the simple concept of capital must contain the civilizing tendency, etc., of capital in themselves; they do not appear merely as external results, as in the works on economics hitherto. It must likewise be noted that the contradictions which will later break out are already potentially contained in the simple concept of capital."
The civilizing tendency stems from a law of development inherently contained in "capital." This is an essential and inevitable objective process of development, manifesting as production based on capital, which continuously advances the social productive forces of labor. It "creates universal industrial labor, i.e., surplus labor, value-creating labor," placing productive forces at the service of its own value valorization. In "scarce one hundred years of class rule, it has created more massive and more colossal productive forces than have all preceding generations together." Capital's accelerated promotion of the modernization process is inseparable from its limitless pursuit of surplus value. Therefore, in a sense, the advancement of the logic of capital relies precisely on its constant adoption of different methods to expand the production of surplus value. This process of advancing capital's logic is simultaneously the modernization process. In the 1857–1858 Manuscripts, Marx provided a systematic elaboration on this: First, at the existing level of production, it breaks through geographical limitations and actively explores markets, "constantly widening the sphere of circulation." This judgment further echoes Marx's determination regarding the world market in the Communist Manifesto: "The need of a constantly expanding market for its products chases the bourgeoisie over the entire surface of the globe. It must nestle everywhere, settle everywhere, establish connexions everywhere." Second, it breaks through the limitations of the mode of production to increase productive forces. Former feudal property relations "had become so many fetters; they had to be burst asunder." By breaking the shackles of the feudal economy built on agrarian civilization, promoting modes of production compatible with capital, and establishing the absolute status of "production based on capital," the production link is subordinated to the exchange link. All production must be for the purpose of exchange, and all production of use-value can only be for the sake of obtaining value, or else it must be eliminated—thereby constructing the dominant position of capital in the social configuration. Third, it breaks through the limits of the scope of consumption. Within circulation, it continuously expands the scope of consumption: quantitatively expanding existing consumption, and producing new needs. This process manifests as creating new needs and then trivializing them. Capital drives this process, making needs increasingly diverse, and then continues this process in a recurring cycle. It is precisely this method of breaking consumer limits and creating new needs that has a positive impact on the modernization process of society. First, an innovative spirit is constantly nurtured. Marx particularly emphasized allocating the innovative spirit to production departments to overcome a state of being "satisfied with existing needs and reproducing old ways of life." Second, it relies on continuous new scientific discoveries and technological upgrades to bring about the constant improvement of productive forces. The use of new scientific and technological achievements will inevitably further increase productive forces, "exploring all of nature in order to discover new useful qualities of things" and "new use-qualities," incorporating nature into the production of capital. The study of nature has two prerequisites: one is breaking feudal superstition, moving from closure and ignorance to enlightenment and civilization, transforming from previous social stages' worship of nature to nature "no longer being recognized as a power for itself." Only by "overcoming the deification of nature" and regarding nature as "an object for man" and a "useful thing" is it possible to begin the journey of conquering and transforming nature. The second is that because the prerequisite for exploring nature is the research and development of natural science, it will objectively promote new scientific discoveries. Third, the "universal exchange of products of all climates and countries"—cross-regional and international trade—promotes the development of the communication and transport industries. Fourth, the "processing of natural objects by new (artificial) means, in order to impart new use-values to them"—that is, the optimization and enhancement of technology. As the Communist Manifesto states, "by the rapid improvement of all instruments of production, by the immensely facilitated means of communication, [the bourgeoisie] draws all, even the most barbarian, nations into civilization."
It is evident that Marx’s critique of capital bears a distinct dialectical character. If "capital" as a "relation of production" brings about human existential alienation and the "compulsion of progress" of the entire Western modernization process through its limitless pursuit of surplus value, then "capital" as a "factor of production" may become an effective driving force for the development of productive forces. A type of production with capital as its internal driving force is currently integrating creativity, science and technology, and labor, allowing productive forces to develop to an unprecedented degree. The high development of productive forces achieved through technology will, at the same time, further shorten social labor time. When a person’s time is no longer used solely to produce the material conditions they require, they begin to possess disposable free time. At this point, they obtain the opportunity for free development—namely, an opportunity for "the development of human powers and social potential (art, etc., science) which pursues no immediate practical end." Thus, the rational application of the logic of capital will provide the possible conditions for the self-sublation of human existential alienation.
III. The Limits of the Logic of Capital and the Path of the Critique of Political Economy
In the process of modernization, the logic of capital appears as a spontaneous process of value valorization. The development of productive forces and scientific and technological progress constitute the internal engine of modernization, but they cannot change its inherent paradox. It is precisely in his insight into this paradox that Marx revealed that the logic of capital is destined to move toward self-collapse in its own self-deduction. "The universality towards which [capital] irresistibly strives encounters barriers in its own nature, which will, at a certain stage of its development, allow it to be recognized as being itself the greatest barrier to this tendency, and hence will drive towards its own suspension through capital." Marx points out here that if capital is allowed to develop uncontrollably, it will inevitably encounter limits. These limits are the internal boundaries originating from capital itself that its production must encounter in the course of its development.
First, surplus value is the limit to surplus labor time and the development of productive forces: to pursue surplus value, capital continuously improves productive forces. However, accompanied by the development of social productive forces and technological progress, social necessary labor time decreases, the proportion of fixed (technological) capital rises, and the proportion of variable capital falls. This leads to a continuous increase in the organic composition of capital, and the profit rate shows a downward trend. As social necessary labor time decreases, the proportion of the value of living labor in the composition of capital value continuously declines, thereby leading to a reduction in the mass of surplus value. A decline in the mass of surplus value will lead to the gradual weakening of the driving force for the production of capital.
Secondly, "value based on exchange is the limit of production": the realization of surplus value is subject to the dual constraints of the supply side and the demand end. This limit strikes its final form in the increasing exploitation of workers, which leads to their ever-diminishing purchasing power. Under the relations of production formed upon capital, the relations of distribution necessitate the bourgeoisie possessing the vast majority of wealth while workers receive only meager wages. Thus, economic crises of overproduction become inevitable. Strictly speaking, the identification of this latter limit did not originate with Marx, but with the national economist Sismondi [7]. Marx once noted: "They [the political economists] on the one hand represent labor as absolute (because for them wage labor and labor are identical), and on the other hand represent capital as equally absolute—treating the poverty of the worker and the wealth of the non-worker as simultaneously the sole source of wealth. They move constantly in absolute contradictions without being aware of it (Sismondi, by perceiving such contradictions, opened an epoch in political economy)." In Sismondi’s view, political economy should examine "man's physical well-being" rather than merely studying wealth. Sismondi criticized political economy for rationalizing everything in existence, abstracting "man" away from economic relations, and constructing rational economic relationships between concepts. "They often sacrifice man and real interests for the sake of abstract theories," regarding wealth as everything "while man is of no account." The political economy he constructed emphasized the dimension of human needs and highlighted the consumer demand end—often neglected in political economy—possessing a certain reflective quality. As Marx said: "Sismondi relatively understood the specific limitations of capital." This limitation can be expressed as follows: political economy research focuses solely on the supply side, reflecting on how national wealth grows and asking why value continually increases within the dimension of production.
Sismondi emphasized that production must be unified with consumption and that supply should adapt to demand. He proposed that "those who strive to preach endless production are wrong," because "production itself is not yet income." He believed that the development of production is accompanied by a decline in income; proceeding from the perspective of the distribution of consumer goods, he pointed out that the basic contradiction of capitalism is the imbalance between supply and demand—that is, the mismatch between production and consumption. Marx likewise held that "capital is the direct unity of products and money" and "the direct unity of production and circulation." Although Sismondi had not yet reached an analysis of the relations of production, as Marx pointed out: "He [Sismondi] not only emphasized that production encounters limits, but also emphasized that this limit is produced by capital itself, and thus capital falls into contradiction; from this he predicted that these contradictions must lead to the destruction of capital." "Sismondi saw crudely, but to some extent correctly, the contradiction between production for the sake of production and distribution, which therefore excludes the absolute development of productivity."
Despite Sismondi pointing out the contradictions of capitalism and locating the root of capitalist crisis in the mismatch between supply and demand caused by under-consumption, he placed his hopes on regulating the relationship between production and distribution. By resorting to the correction of the government's "wrong economic policies" as the solution to the internal contradictions of capitalism, his attempts to overcome the limits of capital could only "scratch an itch through the boot" [8]. This is precisely why Marx evaluated his views on crisis as "crude." The crux lies in the fact that Sismondi failed to understand that capital is not only a "factor of production" but also a "relation of production" that can transform human ways of life.
Marx’s critique of political economy was completed on the basis of inheriting the existing research results of classical political economy. If classical political economy, represented by Adam Smith, Ricardo, and Say, persisted in a seemingly objective, neutral, and scientific analytical method—which, beneath the cloak of objective theoretical analysis, actually implied a celebration of capitalism and an admission of bourgeois society—then Sismondi went a step further by criticizing the consequences of industrialization and exposing the contradictions of capitalism to a certain extent. However, it was not until the emergence of Marx’s theory of the critique of political economy that the core of modern capitalism—social power—was profoundly revealed. Marx’s critique of political economy demonstrates that capital does not merely exist as a factor of production driving the growth of material wealth; simultaneously, through its coercive valorization by continuously seizing surplus value, it manifests the logic of capital as a relation of production. It is under the operation of the logic of capital in the sense of relations of production that laborers and the means of production are forced apart, and laborers are compelled to enter the labor market as "free" wage laborers. A mechanism of power that forces laborers inevitably into wage labor and the production of surplus value was constructed in this way.
The divergence between Marx and the classical political economists determined the different judgments they made regarding the future direction of capitalism: for the political economists, capitalism was the final social form; Marx, however, said: "Bourgeois production, due to its own internal laws, on the one hand is forced to develop the productive forces as if it were not production on a limited social basis, and on the other hand, after all, it can only develop the productive forces within the scope of this limitation—this situation is the deepest and most secret cause of crisis, the deepest and most secret cause of the various contradictions that erupt in crisis; bourgeois production moves within these contradictions, which, even seen crudely, show that bourgeois production is only a transitional historical form." Starting from the study of capitalist society, Marx exposed the bourgeois standpoint presented by classical political economy under the guise of objective and neutral description through his analysis of the concept and logic of capital, thereby forming the Marxist critique of political economy and sounding the death knell for capitalism.
The critique of political economy constructed by Marx around the production, circulation, and distribution of capitalist society essentially defines the core engine of modernization and also reveals the core contradiction of capitalist society—the contradiction between the socialized development of productive forces brought about by modernization and the capitalist relations of production characterized by private appropriation of wealth. This internal contradiction of capital ultimately brings about various dilemmas for the path of modernization in Western Europe. Marx’s revelation of the paradox of the logic of capital is therefore a revelation of the plight of the Western European path to modernization. This revelation ultimately brings forth not only a possible stance for transcending the logic of modernization (namely, communism), but also reveals in a practical dimension the particularity of the logic of modernization as belonging uniquely to the Western European context—a fact erased by the affirmative advancement of modernization. Before the development of human social life reaches the basic principles of communism, the transcendence of modernization can only be based on the sublation (Aufheben) of the logic of capital, rather than its total subversion. It will manifest as how to retain "capital" as a factor of production while discarding "capital" as a relation of production. The path of Chinese-path modernization requires a certain practical wisdom to complete the limitation of this logic of capital.
IV. The Practical Wisdom of Chinese-path Modernization
Marx’s dialectical critique of the logic of capital provides important theoretical resources for the practice of Chinese-path modernization in facing capital. In order to obtain and summarize a possible scheme for this practical wisdom, we first need to define the essential requirements of Chinese-path modernization, namely: "upholding the leadership of the Communist Party of China, adhering to socialism with Chinese characteristics, achieving high-quality development, developing whole-process people’s democracy, enriching the people’s spiritual world, achieving common prosperity for all, promoting harmony between humanity and nature, pushing for the building of a community with a shared future for humanity, and creating a new form of human civilization." Among these, it goes without saying that the most essential feature and the greatest advantage of Chinese-path modernization is the leadership of the CPC. In view of this, we may attempt to understand the possible paths of this practical wisdom from the following three aspects:
First, the nature of the CPC as a proletarian party ensures the socialist orientation of Chinese-path modernization, avoiding the risk of Chinese-path modernization being dominated by the logic of capital. A path of modernization developed with a socialist orientation means that this non-Western modernization aims for the common prosperity of the vast majority of the people; the dominant power of capital over people is curbed, replaced by the principle of putting people first, thereby fundamentally delineating the subordinate status of "capital." Under the socialist system, "capital" is stripped of its attributes as a relation of production and exists and functions only as an important factor of production in the socialist market economy. "Capital" was first proposed as a factor of production in the report of the 15th National Congress of the CPC: "Focus on developing markets for factors of production such as capital, labor, and technology." On the basis of breaking the shackles of ownership-centered dogma, the CPC utilizes "capital" to develop the socialist market economy, with "capital" as a factor of production allocating market resources. Therefore, for Chinese-path modernization, "capital" as a factor of production plays a positive role in allocating market resources, existing as a method and means of serving economic development. Thus, Chinese-path modernization is constructing a developmental process that has "capital" but no "capitalism."
Second, the CPC takes Marxism as its guiding ideology. The leading role of Marxist scientific theory allows the CPC to grasp historical initiative, correctly understand the universal laws of world-historical development, and profoundly grasp the essence of "capital." Utilizing and harnessing capital, and transcending the logic of capital, requires guidance obtained within Marxist theory. The CPC follows the pace of the times, advances with the times, profoundly understands the objective reality of China, continuously innovates and develops Marxism, and persists in combining the basic principles of Marxism with China’s specific reality and with fine traditional Chinese culture [9]. When writing the preface to the Manifesto of the Communist Party, Engels pointed out that the practical application of Marxist principles "will depend, everywhere and at all times, on the historical conditions for the time being." The CPC’s profound understanding and grasp of Marxist methodology is reflected in the Sinicization and modernization of Marxism, and the practical achievements of Sinicized and modernized Marxist theory in China are Chinese socialist revolution and construction, as well as the construction of socialism with Chinese characteristics. Since the Third Plenary Session of the 11th CPC Central Committee [10], our country has gradually opened up a path of socialism with Chinese characteristics, integrating Marxism throughout all links of the practice of modernization with Chinese characteristics, achieving the unification of Marxism and socialist modernization, and creating a new path for Chinese-path modernization. Since the reform and opening up, the CPC has stood on the ground of realistic practice, proceeded from national conditions, and closely combined Marxism with modernization. On the one hand, on the basis of a profound understanding of the basic principles of Marxism, it has combined theory with practice, integrating Marxism into every specific step of China’s modernization development. On the other hand, in the process of executing and completing modernization tasks, it has continuously enriched and expanded the connotations of Marxism.
In summary, the CPC, as a party with Marxism as its guiding ideology, is the practical subject of Chinese-path modernization. Therefore, the CPC establishes an essential connection between the path of modernization and Marxism. In the developmental practice of Chinese-path modernization, the CPC concretizes the universal laws of Marxism, forming a path of modernization that possesses the common characteristics of modernization across all countries while also possessing Chinese characteristics. The so-called common characteristics of modernization refer to fully exerting the function of capital in promoting the growth of social wealth, and developing productive forces and science and technology to bring about rapid economic development. The most unique and key point of the path of Chinese-path modernization lies in the important role played by the CPC in controlling the negative effects of "capital":
First, the construction of a high-level socialist market economy system. China has progressively explored and formed a basic economic system in which public ownership is the mainstay and diverse forms of ownership develop together, alongside an income distribution system where distribution according to work is the mainstay and multiple modes of distribution coexist. By continuously improving an income distribution system that reflects efficiency and promotes equity, China overcomes the negative consequences of the polarization of social wealth possession brought about by the trend of capital appreciation. Second, although the essence of capital determines the antagonism between capital and labor and the subsequent polarization of social wealth inherent in capital-centered relations of production, the leadership of the Communist Party of China (CPC) over the development of modernization ensures the correct political direction for grasping "capital." This leadership overcomes the factors of "capital" as a relation of production, prevents the "disorderly expansion of capital" [11], maintains fair market competition, and guides the healthy development of capital. Third, the CPC promotes the combination of an "efficient market" and a "capable government," properly handling the relationship between the market and the government to "give full play to the decisive role of the market in resource allocation and better play the role of the government." In classical philosophical systems represented by Hegel, not only are "civil society" and the "state" distinguished as the dual elements of modern social formation, but more importantly, the theoretical forms within this binary logic always result in an either-or choice. In the practice of the path to modernization carried out under the leadership of the CPC—since the CPC is the governing party representing the interests of the broadest possible range of the people—the relationship constructed between the state and civil society is by no means an antagonistic either-or relationship, but rather a mutually inclusive and win-win relationship. This unique attribute of the CPC determines that the developmental practice of Chinese-path modernization can truly achieve the integration of the "visible hand" and the "invisible hand." It uses the power of state political power to complete the regulatory tasks that Western countries, relying solely on the internal "invisible hand" of civil society, cannot possibly accomplish, exercising the government’s regulatory role in the market economy while respecting the rules of the market.
Furthermore, the CPC implements a people-centered philosophy of modernization, effectively coordinating the conflict of interests between capital and the people. With the fundamental purpose of "serving the people heart and soul" [12], it emphasizes that development is for the people, relies on the people, and its fruits are shared by the people. By overcoming the polarization of wealth possession, it avoids the emergence of capital as a relation of production in the sense of establishing economic power that dominates laborers. To be sure, Western-style modernization brought modernization and contemporary civilization to Western capitalist countries through the process of capital expansion and appreciation, but this does not mean the starting point or purpose of their modernization was to seek the well-being of the people. On the contrary, Western modernization appeared more as a "by-product" of capitalist development. The CPC consistently maintains "flesh-and-blood ties" [13] with the people, injecting a "people's standpoint" into every link of Chinese-path modernization. This developmental philosophy determines that this unique and brand-new model of modernization will inevitably actively appropriate the achievements of modern civilization by means of harnessing and utilizing capital.
As the practical exploration of Chinese-path modernization under the leadership of the CPC continues to deepen, the Party’s understanding of the essence of capital and its grasp of the laws of capital development are progressively intensifying. Its governance capacity to harness and utilize capital is bound to improve: by correctly utilizing the internal driving force of capital growth and expansion, it will vigorously develop the productive forces, continuously promote scientific progress and technological innovation, and improve the people's lives in all aspects. By understanding and grasping the internal contradictions of the logic of capital, it will effectively harness capital, allowing capital appreciation and corresponding technological progress to become the necessary conditions for human beings to obtain "free time" [14], and allowing the operation of capital to become an effective ladder toward the construction of common prosperity.