Tang Aijun: New Forms of Human Civilization from the Perspective of the Marxist View of Civilization
In his speech at the ceremony marking the 100th anniversary of the founding of the Communist Party of China, Xi Jinping pointed out: “As we have upheld and developed Socialism with Chinese Characteristics and driven the coordinated development of material, political, cultural-ethical, social, and ecological civilizations, we have pioneered a new and uniquely Chinese path to modernization and created a new form of human advancement.” The report to the 20th CPC National Congress noted that creating a new form of human advancement is an essential requirement of Chinese-path modernization. We endeavor to anchor ourselves in the perspective of the Marxist view of civilization to deeply interpret this important concept of a “new form of human advancement,” thereby providing the necessary academic support for the construction of a theoretical system of Chinese-path modernization.
The so-called Marxist view of civilization refers to the basic positions and viewpoints formed by Marx and Engels, based on historical materialism, regarding the essence of civilization, its origins, the structural levels of civilizational bodies, the drivers and laws of civilizational development, and the forms of civilization; these constitute a complete theoretical system. The consolidation of the Marxist view of civilization can be interpreted from multiple angles. This article primarily grasps it from three aspects—the theory of civilizational forms, the theory of civilizational structure, and the theory of civilizational subjectivity—and uses these as the scholarly framework for a deep interpretation of the new form of human advancement.
I. The Direction of Civilizational Evolution for the New Form of Human Advancement
Marx once categorized civilizational forms according to dimensions such as nation, state, and region, but the fundamental criterion remained the mode of production (as well as the mode of exchange). He grounded the interpretation of civilizational forms upon the basic framework of “social formations.” “Relics of bygone instruments of labour possess the same importance for the investigation of extinct economic forms of society as do fossil bones for the determination of extinct species of animals. It is not what is made but how, and by what instruments of labour, that distinguishes different economic epochs.” In the most abstract sense, the mode of production includes two aspects: the productive forces and the relations of production. Social formations categorized by the nature of the relations of production are termed “economic-social formations”; social formations categorized by the level of development of productive forces and technology (with the industrial form being the core indicator) are termed “technological-social formations.” Both serve as theoretical frameworks for interpreting civilizational forms.
Marx’s reliance on technological-social formations to grasp civilization through the core category of the mode of production is most directly expressed in his research on the origins of human civilization. The origin of civilization and the emergence of the age of civilization were themselves the results of the development of human productive forces and transformations in the mode of production. Only when human production technology developed to the point where they could use tools of their own making to process natural products did humanity enter the age of civilization. The age of civilization signifies a fundamental transformation in the relationship between man and nature, where humans began to transform and dominate nature according to their own will. Using the “progress in the production of the means of subsistence” as a yardstick, Lewis H. Morgan [1] divided human history into the ages of savagery, barbarism, and civilization, where “the period of civilization is the period in which man learns a more advanced application of work to the products of nature, the period of industry proper and of art.” Building on this, Marx and Engels explicitly proposed the concept of the mode of production to analyze the origins of civilization and the laws of civilizational development and evolution. The mode of exchange is determined by the mode of production and, simultaneously, constitutes a part of the mode of production itself. The mode of exchange is an important factor in dividing civilizational forms. “Civilization is that stage of development of society at which the division of labour, the resulting exchange between individuals, and the combined production of both these, reach their full development and revolutionize the whole of hitherto existing society.” Instruments of production are also core elements of the mode of production, constituting a distinctive sign of different social and civilizational formations. “The hand-mill gives you society with the feudal lord; the steam-mill, society with the industrial capitalist.” Furthermore, the mode of production encompasses a concretized industrial structure. Engels said: “We suggest the expressions ‘bourgeois society’ and ‘industrial and commercial society’ to denote the same stage of social development... the expression ‘commercial and industrial society’ refers more specifically to the mode of production and distribution characteristic of this historical stage.” Here, “bourgeois society” refers to capitalist society in the sense of an economic-social formation, while “industrial and commercial society” refers to industrial society within the sequence of technological-social formations.
From the perspective of production tools, human society has undergone the Stone Age, the Bronze and Iron Ages, the Steam and Electric Age, and the Information and Electronic Age. Different types of production tools determine different types of industrial structures. In the Stone Age, people subsisted on fishing and hunting; fishery and hunting were the primary industries, and this era can be called a hunter-gatherer society. In the Bronze and Iron Ages, with the help of new production tools, farming saw great development, and agriculture occupied the dominant position in the industrial structure; this era can be called an agrarian society. In the Steam and Electric Age, large-scale machine industry saw great development, and industry occupied the dominant position in the industrial structure; this era can be called an industrial society. In the Information and Electronic Age, information technology and Information Industries occupy the dominant position in the industrial structure (and the technological system); this era can be called an information society. Therefore, up to the present, human history has presented a process of evolution from hunter-gatherer society to agrarian society, then to industrial society, and finally to information society. Looking at the evolution of human civilization, after undergoing the long ages of savagery and barbarism (hunter-gatherer society), human society entered the age of civilization. Agricultural civilization, industrial civilization, and information civilization constitute the main historical stages of the age of civilization. Agricultural civilization is marked primarily by manual production, restricted to cultivation and production on small plots of land, where production and consumption are self-sufficient, and people are isolated from one another, lacking mutual interaction. Industrial civilization is marked primarily by large-scale machine production, built upon the foundation of large-scale industrial production modes and the market economy. Compared to traditional agricultural civilization, it represents a new mode of production as well as a new form of civilization. Information civilization is marked primarily by automated or intelligent production, with information and knowledge as the core elements of productive forces. “If industrial society is based on machine technology, post-industrial society is shaped by intellectual technology. If capital and labor are the structural features of industrial society, information and knowledge are those of post-industrial society.” [2]
A holistic and essential interpretation of the Marxist theory of civilizational forms helps us grasp the evolutionary direction and historical trends of the new form of human advancement from its foundation. As argued previously, agricultural, industrial, and information civilizations are civilizational forms categorized based on the mode of production. Xi Jinping has pointed out: “Looking at the history of world civilization, humanity has successively experienced the agricultural revolution, the industrial revolution, and the information revolution.” The civilization of the agrarian era, the civilization of the industrial era, and the civilization of the information era (or knowledge era) constitute the primary stages of human civilizational evolution. From the perspective of Marx’s technological-social formation theory, the “civilization of the information era” constitutes the evolutionary direction and evolutionary conditions for the new form of human advancement. As a new form of civilization that transcends industrial civilization, the civilization of the information era presents unique characteristics. Some scholars have described this in terms of knowledge, genetics, wealth, power, organization, competition, warfare, and culture. Based on the perspective of technological-social formations, the civilization of the information era has the following characteristics: (1) From the technological dimension, the entire society is built on highly developed information science and technology, which is widely applied in various social fields with profound impacts. (2) From the dimension of the mode of production or economic development model, the entire mode of social production is highly informatized, automated, and intelligent; the status and role of knowledge, information, science, and technology in production are increasingly prominent, and information has become the most important economic and social resource. (3) From the dimension of practical interaction, virtual practice and virtual interaction—relying on information technology, virtual technology, and the internet—have profoundly changed people’s way of survival and lifestyle. (4) From the dimension of social organizational structure, the social structure is becoming increasingly networked, flattened, virtualized, and personalized, with social organizational forms constantly diversifying. (5) From the cultural-spiritual dimension, cultural pluralism and the industrialization of culture continue to advance; the public’s demand for humanistic spirit and value beliefs is increasingly strong, and the differences and gaps between different groups in spiritual life and spiritual satisfaction are widening. Here, two points need clarification. First, the civilization of the information era is not identical to information civilization; the latter is the dominant factor of the former. The civilization of the information era is characterized by information civilization, which holds the dominant and governing position in the entire structure of social civilization, but this does not mean discarding other civilizational elements. The civilization of the information era is a systematic integration of agricultural, industrial, information, and ecological civilizations. Of course, information civilization is both a civilizational element and possesses the nature of a civilizational paradigm. Second, the new form of human advancement is not identical to the civilization of the information era; the latter is the evolutionary direction of the former. The new form of human advancement is a theoretical and practical creation of the CPC and the Chinese people, possessing rich connotations and practical content across different dimensions. On one hand, it is linked to the practice of Chinese-path modernization, possessing distinct Chinese characteristics and social-systemic attributes. On the other hand, it focuses on resolving the “civilization deficit” [3], transcending Western modern civilization, and leading the direction of world civilization, manifesting characteristics of universality, transcendence, and leadership for all human civilization. The second dimension of the new form of human advancement is directly related to the civilization of the information era. From the perspective of civilizational stages, the evolutionary direction of the new form of human advancement is the civilization of the information era, entering the stage of information civilizational development on the basis of the highly developed industrial civilization. From the perspective of technological-social formations, both the new form of human advancement and contemporary Western modern civilization are situated in or moving toward the civilization of the information era. In short, the new form of human advancement possesses many attributes; from the perspective of technological-social formations, its evolutionary direction is the civilization of the information era, situated at a higher civilizational stage than traditional industrial civilization.
In the world today, developed Western countries have already completed the task of industrialization and, on the basis of a highly developed industrial civilization, have entered the development stage of information civilization. Presently, China has not yet completed its industrialization task, remaining in the mid-to-late stage of development; similarly, the industrialization of its agriculture is not yet entirely complete. Viewed from the perspective of Marxist civilizational forms, a significant gap still exists between China and the West. Consequently, the new form of human civilization—which takes the civilization of the information age as its evolutionary direction—is not a "perfect tense" (completed) but a "progressive tense" (ongoing). Based on this developmental positioning, China has chosen a unique "parallel" path to modernization and a strategy of civilizational evolution: "China’s modernization is very different from that of developed Western countries. The developed Western countries underwent a 'series' development process, with industrialization, urbanization, agricultural modernization, and informatization developing sequentially; it took over two hundred years to reach their current level. For us to catch up from behind and recover the 'lost two hundred years,' it was determined that China’s development must necessarily be a 'parallel' process, in which industrialization, informatization, urbanization, and agricultural modernization develop in an overlapping manner."
The objective of Chinese-path modernization is to create a new form of human civilization. From the perspective of techno-social forms, its essence is to transcend traditional industrial civilization and enter the civilization of the information age. The civilizational evolution strategy of this new form of human civilization does not involve completing industrialization first and then proceeding to informatization (as well as urbanization and agricultural modernization). Instead, it proceeds simultaneously, following a path of new-type industrialization, using industrialization to drive informatization and informatization to enhance industrialization, thereby achieving the coordinated development of "the synchronized four synchronizations" (industrialization, informatization, urbanization, and agricultural modernization). The theoretical legitimacy of this "parallel" civilizational evolution strategy stems from two points:
First, the development of human civilization is a unity of gradual sequential development and leapfrog development. Under specific conditions, human civilization—particularly material civilization—can achieve leapfrog development. In creating a new form of human civilization, China can aim at the world's advanced technological levels, follow the trend of informatization, and achieve leapfrog development in the productive forces and science and technology. Second, the development of human civilization is a dialectical unity of universality and diversity. The continuous evolution of human civilization from agricultural to industrial to information civilization is a universal law of civilizational development; this is its universality. Both Eastern and Western development follow this objective law. However, different nations and countries possess different characteristics, forms, and paths in the process of civilizational development; this is the specific form of civilizational development—its diversity. The "parallel" strategy of civilizational evolution specifically embodies China's unique path of civilizational development.
In the New Era, China has entered a new journey of comprehensively building a modern socialist country, and the new form of human civilization continues to be created within this new historical process. The "Report to the 20th National Congress of the CPC," which proposed improving the system for technological innovation and accelerating the implementation of the innovation-driven development strategy, highlights the civilizational transformative significance of scientific innovation and the application of new technologies like information technology. Science and technology are the primary productive forces. The emergence of new knowledge, new science, new technology, and new machinery, and their application in production, can greatly promote the development of the productive forces and accelerate the developmental leap of material civilization and civilization as a whole. New knowledge, science, technology, and machinery themselves belong to the elements of civilization; their rapid development and effective combination directly bring about changes or even major transformations in the entire civilizational form. To create a new form of human civilization, we must use advanced science and technology, especially information technology, as a lead to drive transformations in economic development models and industrial structures. "Information technology has become the pioneering technology to penetrate all areas of economic and social life first; it will promote the transition from an economic development model based primarily on material production and material services to one based primarily on information production and information services. The world is entering a new period of economic development dominated by the information industry." Changes in development models and industrial structures ultimately bring about a major transformation in the form of civilization. In short, the "parallel" modernization development strategy constitutes the basic path for the practice of the new form of human civilization. In the process of comprehensively realizing modernization, we must fully leverage the driving role of technological innovation and information technology to achieve a civilizational leap in the new round of the information revolution.
II. The New Form of Human Civilization Characterized by an Integrated Civilization
In Marx's view, civilization is a comprehensive social category. The practical activities undertaken by humanity across various fields of the social system inevitably form and crystallize into a civilizational system composed of many civilizational elements.
Marx used categories such as "material production," "material life," and "material intercourse" to express thoughts related to material civilization; he also used "the fruits of civilization" to describe the core elements of material civilization. The Poverty of Philosophy points out: "Since the main thing is not to be deprived of the fruits of civilization, of the acquired productive forces, the traditional forms in which they were produced must be smashed." Here, civilization refers to material civilization. Of course, as the material result of transforming nature, material civilization includes not only aspects of material production but also material products; it indicates progress in human material production and improvement in material life. From the perspective of material production, material civilization includes natural elements, productive force elements, and industrial elements, the latter two being core. Among these, science and technology are the most revolutionary elements of the productive forces; once widely applied in production, they bring about the rapid elevation of material civilization and the comprehensive progress of society.
Industrial elements are important indicators for distinguishing types of (material) civilization. Engels pointed out that traditional agricultural society was "a civilization based on the combination of agriculture and handicrafts." Modern civilization is an industrial and commercial civilization. "Any nation that is deprived of industry and thus reduced to a mere collection of clod-hoppers cannot keep pace in civilization with other nations." Marx also said: "Capital is a collective force, a civilization." As the core of commercial exchange, capital itself is a part of modern civilization. From the perspective of material civilization, to create a new form of human civilization, we must unswervingly liberate and develop the social productive forces, focus on advanced technology, grasp the major trends of information civilization's evolution, and achieve leapfrog development of the productive forces; we must create immensely rich material products to meet the higher-level material life needs of the people.
Political civilization is a form of state power—namely, democratic politics—that stands in opposition to autocracy; it reflects the state of progress at the political level, the degree of enlightenment in human political practice and behavioral modes. Combining works such as A Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right and The Civil War in France, we can see that in Marx’s thought, political civilization involves three levels: civilization of political concepts, civilization of political institutions, and civilization of political behavior. Among these, the civilization of political institutions is the core. "The political constitution is the organism of the state, or the organism of the state is the political constitution." Marx’s exposition on the civilization of political institutions is mainly reflected in two levels: the democratic system and the legal system. At the level of the democratic system, Marx advocated for universal democracy and majority democracy. The state system is a work of the people’s free activity and the people’s self-determination. The future society must establish an entirely new civilization of political institutions based on the principle of true democracy. At the level of the legal system, Marx believed that the civilization of bourgeois political institutions was merely a civilizational system of the dictatorship of the few. Bourgeois legal systems superficially maintain fairness, justice, equality of rights, equality of obligations, and the universal harmony of interests, but in reality, they safeguard the interests of the bourgeoisie and consolidate a state machine through which the few exploit the vast majority. From the dimension of political civilization, the "newness" of the new form of human civilization lies centrally in the construction of a new type of civilization of political institutions. It embodies the will of the people, guarantees the rights and interests of the people, and stimulates the creative vitality of the people, using the institutional system to ensure that the people are the masters of the country. This new-type civilization of political institutions achieves "four efficacies": first, democratic efficacy—ensuring the people enjoy extensive and substantial rights and freedoms to better participate in national and social governance; second, coordination efficacy—effectively regulating national political relations, developing relations between political parties and social strata, and imbuing them with vitality; third, development efficacy—possessing the ability to concentrate resources to accomplish major tasks [4], effectively liberating and developing the productive forces, and promoting national modernization; and fourth, security efficacy—effectively maintaining national independence and autonomy, as well as national sovereignty, security, and development interests.
Neither Marx nor Engels directly proposed the category of "spiritual civilization" [5], but they used close concepts such as "spiritual production," "spiritual intercourse," "spiritual life," and "spiritual culture." Spiritual civilization refers to the progressive spiritual achievements created by people engaged in spiritual production activities; it is the collective name for political-legal thoughts, science, morality, philosophy, religion, art, and so on. Spiritual civilization belongs to the ideological superstructure. What specific civilizational elements does spiritual civilization include? First, philosophy is the soul of spiritual civilization. "The finest, most precious and most invisible essence of a people is contained in their philosophical ideas." Philosophy is the quintessence of the spirit of the age and the living soul of civilization. Second, science, art, and fine arts are the masterpieces of spiritual civilization. Third, morality, values, and ethics are the core and subject of spiritual civilization. The essential function of spiritual civilization is to educate and cultivate people, satisfy their spiritual enjoyment, and enable them to become individuals with spiritual freedom and comprehensive development. In capitalist society, the working class must struggle for every opportunity to "participate in spiritual enjoyments—to agitate for their own interests, to subscribe to newspapers, to attend lectures, to educate their children, to develop their tastes, etc.—the only way in which the sharing of civilization distinguishes the worker from the slave." Socialist spiritual production aims to continuously satisfy the people's growing needs for spiritual life, providing them with spiritual enjoyment and promoting their spiritual freedom and comprehensive development. Based on the reality of contemporary China, an important issue in constructing a new form of human civilization is promoting the common prosperity of the people's spiritual life, continuously meeting the diverse, multi-level, and multi-faceted spiritual and cultural needs of the masses. A prominent problem in capitalist civilization is the reification and nihilism of spiritual life caused by capital and exchange value. Breaking free from the reification of spiritual life and achieving common prosperity of spiritual life are inherent requirements for constructing a new form of human civilization.
Marx and Engels did not propose the category of "social civilization," but they had similar expressions, such as "social life," "social relations," and "the genuine resolution of the conflict between man and man." From their relevant discussions, so-called social civilization refers to the sum total of positive results formed by humanity in the process of transforming and constructing society, regulating social relations between people, shaping the state of social life, and maintaining social order; it reflects a social-based state of civilizational evolution. Social civilization generally includes the civilization of social subjects, the civilization of social relations, the civilization of social life, and the civilization of social governance. The civilization of social subjects involves the level of civilization and state of development of human beings (the social subjects); the civilization of social relations involves the degree of harmony and progress in the relations between people and between people and society; the civilization of social life involves the degree of enlightenment of social customs and lifestyles, as well as the living conditions of the masses; the civilization of social governance involves the level of good governance and the state of management conducted to promote the coordinated operation of the social system and achieve harmonious social development. Among these, the civilization of social relations is fundamental, primarily including the relations between individuals and between individuals and society. In class society, relations between people are mainly manifested as dependency-oppression relations, the extreme form of which is social antagonism—the war of all against all. Only in a future society can the phenomenon of human antagonism be eliminated, achieving harmony in relations between people and the genuine resolution of conflicts between man and man. In class society, the relation between man and society can ultimately be reduced to class relations, where the state, representing the interests of the ruling class in the name of society, realizes its rule over people. Achieving harmony between man and society in the future society means liberating man from alien social or state forces. Only in the future society, "when man has recognized and organized his 'forces propres' [own powers] as social powers, and, consequently, no longer separates social power from himself in the shape of political power, only then will human emancipation have been completed." The social program for creating a new form of human civilization aims to build a society of democracy and rule of law, fairness and justice, honesty and friendliness, vitality, stability and order, and harmony between man and nature. The highest state of social civilization is social harmony. In the historical process of continuously constructing a new form of human civilization, social harmony must be taken as the basic principle—seeking harmony while respecting differences [6], seeking common ground while reserving differences, and assimilating differences into commonality—gradually realizing a harmonious type of social interaction where everyone is equal and participates together in social affairs.
Marx and Engels gradually elucidated their thoughts on ecological civilization through discussions on the relationship between humanity and nature, and the respect for and utilization of natural laws. Ecological civilization refers to the sum total of positive material, institutional, and spiritual achievements gained by humanity in the process of transforming the objective world to improve the relationship between humanity and nature, create a favorable ecological environment, and maintain or construct a healthy and orderly system of ecological balance. The relationship between humanity and nature is the most fundamental relationship in human society and serves as the basic theoretical framework for Marx and Engels’ examination of ecological civilization. On one hand, nature is the material prerequisite for human survival and development. Human beings are a part of nature; nature is the "inorganic body" of man. Humans live from nature, which provides them with the means of subsistence and the means of production. On the other hand, humanity utilizes and transforms nature through practice. The relationship between humanity and nature is, in essence, a relationship of metabolic exchange (material transformation) that occurs between man and nature through human practical activity. In the era of modern civilization, humanity has overemphasized the appropriation, extraction, and conquest of nature, bringing about a series of ecological problems and leading to an imbalance in the ecosystem and the alienation of the relationship between humanity and nature. In the view of Marx and Engels, the root of the ecological crisis under the capitalist system lies in the logic of capital—in a mode of production centered on capital that drives humanity toward the predatory exploitation and unrestrained appropriation of nature. While it may appear that humanity has triumphed, in reality, humanity must suffer the "evil consequences of victory." The relationship between humanity and nature is not one of conquest and being conquered, or plunder and being plundered, but rather an integrated relationship of interdependence and harmonious coexistence. To solve the ecological crisis and achieve reconciliation between humanity and nature, one must respect and utilize natural laws and must transform the old modes of production of the past to achieve sustainable development. Addressing the series of ecological problems caused by old modes of production, "mere knowledge is not enough. For this, a complete transformation of our existing mode of production and, together with it, our whole contemporary social system is required." In the final analysis, ecological civilization is a transformation of the mode of production (as well as the mode of life). From the dimension of ecological civilization, constructing a New Form of Human Civilization means discarding modes of production that destroy the balanced relationship between humanity and nature, abandoning development models that damage the ecological environment, and shaping green modes of development and life. "Promoting the formation of green development modes and life modes is a profound revolution in the concept of development." Naturally, it is also a profound revolution in the concept of civilization. Implementing the New Development Philosophy and achieving modernization characterized by the harmonious coexistence of humanity and nature is the epochal mission of creating a New Form of Human Civilization.
III. A New Form of Human Civilization with All-Round Human Development as Its Value Orientation
Civilization manifests through two markers: "the development of social activity and the development of individual activity, the progress of society and the progress of humanity," with the latter being more fundamental. Human beings are the subjects of civilization, its creators and drivers, as well as the beneficiaries of its achievements. Human development is the main thread running through the Marxist view of civilization. Marx explicitly identified human development as the value orientation of civilization and grasped the evolution of civilization and its historical stages through human development; this helps us better explain the value logic of the New Form of Human Civilization.
First, human liberation and the free and all-round development of the individual are the value directions of civilization; the state of human development is the yardstick for evaluating civilization. From an ontological perspective, civilization is the objectification of the essential powers of man, signifying human subjectivity. Regarding its theoretical thrust—and distinct from Guizot’s historical theory of civilization or Morgan’s anthropological theory of civilization—Marx’s study of civilization possesses a strong revolutionary and class character, aiming to open a realistic path for the liberation of the proletariat and the masses and for the free and all-round development of the individual. The critique of capitalist civilization and the construction of a higher-level civilized society—"a higher form of society, a society in which the full and free development of every individual forms the ruling principle"—likewise takes human liberation and development as its focal point. That the human being is the subject of civilization is reflected not only in value principles but also in evaluative standards. Marx measured the degree of civilizational development based on the conditions of human existence and the extent of development. The degree of civilization in a society lies in: (1) The degree of improvement in the environment and conditions for human survival and development. Civilization stands in opposition to barbarism; the more humans break away from a state of barbarity and transcend animalistic basic survival needs, the more civilized and enlightened they become. There must be advanced productive forces to provide the material basis for human survival and development. Yet this alone is not enough; these forces must be transformed into a favorable environment and advantageous conditions for human life. The reason Marx criticized capitalism was that the living environment and conditions of the broad proletariat did not improve along with the development of productive forces and the growth of social wealth; in some respects, they even worsened: "man returns to living in a cave, which is now, however, contaminated with the mephitic breath of civilization." The reason socialism is superior to capitalism lies in its ability to better create the conditions for the survival and development of every individual. (2) The degree of increase in human freedom and independence, and the degree of realization and protection of human rights. The level of civilization in a society depends, to a great extent, on the degree of liberation and development of the people within that society. Human liberation means breaking free from the shackles of nature and society to continuously gain autonomy and independence; human development means the development of various human capacities and attributes, concentrated in the guaranteeing of various rights. (3) The degree of cultivation in human behavior and the degree of enlightenment in ideas and consciousness. Etymologically, in contrast to barbarism and the uncivilized, civilization denotes a "cultivated state" of human behavior and concepts. "'Cultivated' refers primarily to human behavior and conduct, to their social condition, their way of life, social intercourse, language, dress, etc." [7] For example, after undergoing the baptism of the Industrial Revolution and Enlightenment thought, British society was the first to break away from a backward, autocratic, and closed traditional society, presenting a higher level of civilization compared to other nations. "If civilization is a matter of practice, a social quality, then the English are indeed the most civilized people in the world."
Second, the development and historical process of civilization are examined according to the degree of human development. The historical process of human development roughly manifests as: "Relations of personal dependence... are the first social forms... Personal independence founded on objective [material] dependence is the second great form... Free individuality, based on the all-round development of individuals and on their subordination of their communal, social productivity as their social wealth, is the third stage." In the historical stage of "relations of personal dependence," individuals had no true independence: "The further back we go in history, the more does the individual, and accordingly also the producing individual, appear as dependent, as belonging to a greater whole." During historical stages with extremely low levels of productive forces, individuals were desperately dependent on nature; upon entering the age of civilization, individuals were completely subordinate to communities bound by blood and tribe. In the historical stage of "objective dependence" [8], with the emergence and development of the commodity economy, the "motley feudal ties that bound man to his 'natural superiors'" [9] were gradually severed. Individuals broke away from traditional relations of dependence, and their independence and degree of freedom increased significantly. Of course, individual independence and freedom were limited and formal. What the laborer possessed was the "freedom" to sell labor power on the market; while individuals could appears to decide their own actions independently, they were in substance governed by the logic of capital and the laws of the commodity economy. Reified social relations dominated man; the logic of "things" ruled the logic of "persons." "Personal independence founded on objective dependence" constitutes the salient feature of modern civilization, and human development proceeds amid the "paradox of progress" within civilization. In the stage of "free individuality," individuals break free from relations of objective dependence, social relations no longer exist as an alien force, and labor no longer exists as a mere means of making a living. The power of things and social forces are brought entirely under the collective control of humanity. Through free labor, individuals universally appropriate rich social relations, and in their free leisure time, they richly develop their own interests and hobbies, allowing their individuality to develop fully. Communism is such a society of "free individuality," an "association of free individuals" that allows for the free and all-round development of everyone. The degree of civilizational development is consistent with the degree of human development; every step forward in human civilization is due to the development of the human being and the elevation of the degree of human development. The history of the development of human civilization is a history of human liberation and development; meanwhile, the degree of human liberation and development constitutes the basic basis for demarcating the historical stages of human civilization. The development of human civilization thus presents itself as a historical process moving from "relations of personal dependence" and "personal independence founded on objective dependence" to "free individuality." In these three historical stages, the independence and freedom of individuals differ, thereby distinguishing the different stages of civilizational development.
The aforementioned exploration of the relationship between human development and civilization provides direct theoretical resources for us to elucidate the new form of human civilization. Its core conclusion is that the new form of human civilization focuses on critiquing the reification [10] of man caused by modern capital-based civilization, taking the realization of the people’s beautiful life and well-rounded human development as its value objective and evaluative yardstick. By taking the Marxist theory of the subject of civilization as our basic guide, we can better reveal the value coordinates of the new form of human civilization and use them as a normative force to guide the process of Chinese-path modernization.
The direct reference frame for the new form of human civilization is capitalist civilization based on capital as its fundamental institution (hereafter referred to as "modern capital-based civilization"). The core of modern capital-based civilization is capital, and capital possesses a "civilizing aspect": it greatly promotes the development of productive forces, benefits the development of social relations, cultivates the social attributes of man, and promotes the generation of new social elements, among others. Viewed from the perspective of human development, the "great civilizing" role of capital lies in the fact that it "creates such a stage of society, compared to which all previous stages appear only as local developments of humanity and as nature-worship." Capital liberated and developed man, but simultaneously led to the objectification, reification, alienation, and nihilism of man; in a word, "in bourgeois society, capital is independent and has individuality, while the living person is dependent and has no individuality." At the same time, capital has led to a series of social problems such as the polarization between rich and poor and social conflict. We shall not expand too much on this here, but rather draw out the following basic viewpoint: the new form of human civilization must transcend modern capital-based civilization, break through the logic of production, development, and life dominated by capital, and persist in taking well-rounded human development as the highest goal of the Chinese-path modernization process.
The key to the problem does not lie in our abstractly negating or completely abandoning capital, because China remains in the primary stage of socialism, and utilizing capital to liberate and develop productive forces still possesses historical rationality and legitimacy. The key lies in what is taken as the highest principle and highest evaluative standard for modernization and the resolution of social problems. Modern capital-based civilization is capital-centered, whereas the new form of human civilization is people-centered. Of course, it is not enough to remain merely at the level of what "ought to be." The liberation of man is a historical activity, "brought about by historical conditions, the development of industry, commerce, agriculture, and the conditions of intercourse." Realizing the liberation of man also depends on development, on the continuously developing productive forces and the material foundation they provide, "because without it, only want is made general, and with destitution the struggle for necessities and all the old filthy business would necessarily be reproduced."
In the historical practice of creating the new form of human civilization, we must: (1) Reject the developmental view that uses the development of "things" (objects) as its yardstick and establish a developmental view that uses the development of "people" as its yardstick. "Civilization moves toward the goal of human happiness." The fundamental goal pursued by civilization is not the development of objects, but the development of people. The development of objects is merely a means to promote civilizational progress and serves human development. Creating the new form of human civilization means continuously creating various conditions to improve people's living conditions and enhance human development, "to better satisfy the people's growing needs in economic, political, cultural, social, and ecological fields, and to better promote well-rounded human development and all-round social progress." (2) Reject the one-dimensional developmental view of man and establish a well-rounded developmental view of man. Human development is all-encompassing rather than one-sided. To realize the richness and integrity of man, it is necessary to "cultivate all the attributes of the social human being and produce him as a person with the greatest possible abundance of attributes and connections, and therefore as a person with the widest possible range of needs." At the level of social practice, creating the new form of human civilization manifests as promoting prosperity in both the material and spiritual lives of the people. (3) Reject the developmental view where a minority profits and establish a developmental view where everyone shares. The basic orientation of socialist and communist civilization is that "production will be calculated with the wealth of all in view" and "the common enjoyment by all of the benefits created by all." The new form of human civilization manifests the essential requirements of socialism. Allowing the people to share in the achievements of civilizational development and realizing common prosperity for all the people are prominent features where socialist civilization is superior to capitalist civilization.
The "new form of human civilization" is a major political proposition put forward by the Communist Party of China. The CPC is leading the Chinese people in continuously deepening and expanding the practice of this new form of human civilization. "Civilization is the most sublime bond of connection; under the banner of civilization, humanity gathers together." Today's China continues to move forward under the banner of the new form of human civilization. Using the Marxist view of civilization to grasp the essential definition of the new form of human civilization provides the basic path for the practice of Chinese-path modernization:
From the perspective of the Theory of Civilizational Forms, Chinese-path modernization must transcend the traditional industrial civilization model, take information-age civilization as its evolutionary direction, follow a path of new-type industrialization, and realize the coordinated development of "synchronous four-fold modernization" [11].
From the perspective of the Theory of Civilizational Structure, Chinese-path modernization must transcend the singular material civilization model. Taking the construction of a great modern socialist country that is prosperous, strong, democratic, culturally advanced, harmonious, and beautiful as its objective, it must forge a new path where material, political, spiritual, social, and ecological civilizations promote and coordinate with one another.
From the perspective of the Theory of the Subject of Civilization, Chinese-path modernization must transcend the capital-led modernization model. Taking the realization of the people’s beautiful life and common prosperity as its objective, it must forge a new path of harnessing capital so that it remains subordinate to the essential requirements of socialism and serves well-rounded human development.
(Author’s affiliation: School of Marxism, Central Party School (National Academy of Governance)) Web editor: Tong Xin Source: Marxism and Reality, No. 2, 2023.