Sun Hui: The Philosophical Foundation of the Theoretical Narrative of Chinese Modernization—Based on a Critique of Western-centrism
General Secretary Xi Jinping has pointed out: "We should have the greatest right to speak in interpreting Chinese practice and constructing Chinese theory, yet in reality, the voice of our country's philosophy and social sciences in the international arena is still relatively small. We remain in a state where our logic cannot be articulated, and even when articulated, it does not spread." (The Governance of China, Vol. 2, p. 341). Providing a scholarly explanation for the major historical, practical, and future questions of Chinese-path modernization, and constructing an autonomous and original theoretical narrative for it, is the urgent task of contemporary Chinese theoretical circles. The primary challenge facing this task stems from the Western-centric narrative that has long systematically distorted China's modernization process. Therefore, we must first complete the critique and transcendence of Western-centrism at the philosophical level, establishing theoretical confidence and methodological self-awareness for the autonomous interpretation of Chinese-path modernization.
I. Western Challenges Facing the Theoretical Narrative of Chinese-path Modernization
Deeply embedded within the Western discourse system is a foundational historical perspective that is fragmented and disjointed, a linear view of history, and a historical teleology—all formed based on the specific historical trajectory of Western transitions. These are colored by a narrative of civilizational superiority and seek to achieve ideological dominance over late-developing countries. Regarding China's modernization process, the Western discourse system primarily constructs a hegemonic thinking framework and knowledge system around three core issues: the source of momentum, the choice of path, and world influence. It does this to dissolve the endogenous nature, legitimacy, and peaceful character of Chinese-path modernization.
(1) A Fragmented and Disjointed Historical Perspective
The fragmented and disjointed historical perspective of the Western discourse system is closely related to the shifts in the Zeitgeist during Western historical transitions. After the 19th century, to justify its colonial expansion and imperialist policies, the West urgently needed to mold the non-Western world into an object that was stagnant, backward, and in need of enlightenment and salvation. Consequently, the praise for Chinese civilization by Western thinkers of the Enlightenment era was replaced by "stagnation theory" and "despotism theory." From Hegel's 19th-century assertion that China has no history, to the arguments of John K. Fairbank and Joseph Levenson in the 1950s and 60s—which used the "impact-response" [1] and "tradition-modernity" paradigms to deny Chinese civilization's capacity for self-development—all served this grand narrative shift.
In this narrative shift, the Western discourse system places Chinese and Western civilizations within a simplistic framework of tradition vs. modernity and backwardness vs. advancement. Using the trajectory of Western socio-historical change as the standard, it either questions why China failed to produce similar phenomena or predicts China's direction of development. This results in obscuring the fundamental internal drive for China's modernization regarding the source of momentum; questioning the socialist modernization path regarding the choice of path; and forcibly using the Western logic that "a strong country must seek hegemony" [2] to stigmatize Chinese-path modernization regarding world influence.
Concerning the source of momentum, the Western discourse system often focuses on the historical cross-section of the 19th century, when a "time gap" appeared between Chinese and Western modernization. It frames its narrative around the question: "Compared to the West achieving modernization in the 19th century, where did China go wrong?" The method adopted is usually to identify one or more differences between China and the West and designate these as the key factors for the divergence in the 19th century. These factors are identified by scholars as economic, institutional, cultural, social, or religious, to name but a few. Among these, the "impact-response" paradigm proposed by Fairbank is the most influential. Fairbank believed that 19th-century China's class structure, Confucian ideology, and related institutions became major obstacles to modernization, and that the momentum for China's modernization could only come from the outside. Based on this logic, he interpreted China's modernization process as a response to Western impact since the 1840s. In his view, the response of the Chinese in the 1840s and 50s was a "staggering blow"; from the 1860s to the 1890s, the response was to treat the West as a "model for imitation"; and by the 20th century, the response was to treat it as an "intellectual source" for revolution. (See Fairbank, p. 132).
The "impact-response" paradigm has profoundly shaped the cognitive schemas and narrow horizons of Western scholars regarding China's modernization process. Paul Cohen pointed out: "Although the peak period for the impact-response approach as a serious framework for scholarly analysis was in the 1950s and 60s, its influence on textbooks and other university teaching materials remains undiminished to this day" (Cohen, p. 117). Starting from the question of "why technological stagnation occurred" in late traditional China, Mark Elvin proposed the "high-level equilibrium trap" theory, arguing that "the way the late traditional Chinese economy developed made profitable inventions increasingly difficult" (Elvin, p. 315), and believed this trap was "almost impossible to change through internal forces" (ibid., p. 312). He claimed that "alleviating and breaking China's 'high-level equilibrium trap' was a historical contribution made by the modern West" (ibid., p. 315). Kenneth Pomeranz, starting from the question of "why China and Europe diverged in the 19th century," proposed the "Great Divergence" theory, suggesting that China solved its ecological overstress through "increasingly labor-intensive means" (Pomeranz, p. 321), moving further away from European-style industrialization. The commonalities in the research perspectives and methods of these Western scholars far outweigh their differences in opinion; specifically, they all take the historical period of the "time gap" between Chinese and Western modernization as their standpoint, ignore the historical continuity of Chinese civilization's own development, and strip the Chinese modernization narrative of its subjectivity. This historical perspective, which ignores the wholeness of Chinese civilization and one-sidedly selects the "time gap" period as its foundation, is undoubtedly fragmented and disjointed.
(2) Linear History and Historical Teleology
Deeply embedded in Western discourse is a linear view of history and a historical teleology—the belief that human society must necessarily develop along a single track toward a predetermined capitalist destination—which reached its finished form in Hegel's philosophy of history. Hegel explained the mechanism of historical movement as: "Reason's activity, on the one hand, lets things act upon each other according to their own nature and wear each other out, without directly interfering in the process, yet it is precisely in this way that it realizes its own goals" (Hegel, p. 394). Human agency is dissolved into the mystical manifestation of Absolute Reason, which dictates the inevitable course of world history. In this philosophy of history, the Western form of modernization is regarded as the highest realization of Absolute Reason in history, possessing universal necessity and being the common destination for all other countries and nations. Herein lies the historical-philosophical root of the ideological myth "modernization = Westernization." Francis Fukuyama's "End of History" can be described as a contemporary theoretical echo of this philosophy.
Regarding the choice of path, this philosophy of history is prominently manifested in two Western arguments aimed at dissolving the legitimacy of Chinese-path modernization. One argument, from the perspective of social formation evolution, regards capitalism as "the natural result of long-standing and universalized human practice" (Wood, p. 20), and goes on to accuse all pre-capitalist societies that failed to transition to capitalism of violating the basic trend of human development due to obstructive human factors. The specific method used by this argument is to search Chinese history for factors identical to those in the Western modernization process, such as commercialization or "sprouts of capitalism" [3], to question the legitimacy of Chinese-path modernization. Within this logic, the difficulties, twists, and challenges encountered in China's modernization process are all attributed to the choice of a path that violates the basic trend of human social development.
The other argument uses an abstract concept of socialism—modeled on the extension of Western historical processes—as a reference point, focusing on the similarities between socialism with Chinese characteristics and Western capitalism to question the socialist nature of Chinese-path modernization. The specific method used here is to look for differences between socialism with Chinese characteristics and the socialism described in classical Marxist works. It asserts that the achievements of Chinese-path modernization are due to China's adoption of capitalist economic elements in practice, claiming that after Reform and Opening-up, China's economic model degenerated into "state capitalism" due to the introduction of markets and capital, fundamentally denying the socialist nature and continuity of Chinese-path modernization.
The essence of these two arguments is to force the great creation of Chinese-path modernization back into the Western discourse framework of "modernization = Westernization," thereby attempting to dissolve its legitimacy, originality, and transcendent nature.
(3) Civilizational Superiority Based on the Separation of Epochal and National Character
The reason the West feels superior about its own civilization is that Western civilization was the first in human history to achieve modernization; material abundance and economic prosperity are viewed as proof of that superiority. As Michael Adas pointed out, they believe they have reached the "pinnacle of modernization" and view the world from this height, subsequently "drawing a clear boundary in cultural terms between 'advanced' nations and the developing world they seek to analyze" (Adas, p. 100). Civilizational superiority constitutes the narrative background of the Western discourse system and presents itself in two different orientations.
One orientation uses the "epochal character" [4] of civilization to erase its "national character." This orientation is based on the advancement shown by Western civilization in its epochal character—having been the first to modernize—to erase and deny the active role of the national character (such as historical and cultural traditions) of other civilizations in socio-historical change. It argues that for developing countries, "culture and modernization are incompatible and must be abandoned or abolished; to modernize successfully, a society must become thoroughly Westernized" (Huntington, p. 52). For example, Western discourse often takes the epochal problems of modern China failing to modernize as a basis for viewing Chinese historical and cultural tradition as something that must be denied and discarded to catch up with the "advanced" West. This supports the "modernization = Westernization" logic regarding path choice. From Max Weber to Levenson, although they realized that the value orientations and spiritual pursuits of Chinese traditional culture were vastly different from the cultural spirit of capitalism, they still failed to transcend a framework that links value judgments of civilization to the chronological order of modernization, believing that China could only modernize by using the West as a template.
The other orientation uses the differences in the "national character" of civilizations to obscure the "epochal contradictions" of civilization. Given that "civilization is culture writ large," and the "roots of conflict are fundamental differences in social and cultural aspects" (Huntington, p. 20, 201), Samuel Huntington argued that after World War II, the economic rise of Eastern countries, represented by China, was accompanied by an identification with their own culture. He argued they no longer viewed Western civilization as a model to be imitated, which would constitute a major source of world conflict in the 21st century. The "Clash of Civilizations" [5] theory regards civilizational diversity as an impact of the backward upon the advanced and the barbaric upon the civilized. Its underlying view is that all progressive forms of human civilization reside in the West, and that the identification of Eastern civilizations with their own particularity will bring conflict and instability to the world. The essence of this argument is to use national differences between civilizations to deny the common values of human civilization and to obscure the deep-rooted cause of modern world conflict—the epochal contradictions of modern Western civilization centered on capital. The modernization process of Western civilization is, in essence, a process of capital establishing its dominant position over society. Capital systematically utilizes national differences between civilizations to manufacture turmoil and conflict worldwide, transforming these into opportunities for valorization, thereby fundamentally undermining the common value foundation of human civilization.
Therefore, the Western discourse system, with civilizational superiority as its background, not only fails to correctly evaluate the profound significance and world influence of Chinese-path modernization as an entirely new mode of modernization, but also dissolves the possibility of resolving the crisis of human civilization through mutual learning between civilizations.
We see that in the Western-centric narrative, Chinese-path modernization—a major achievement secured by the Chinese people under the leadership of the Communist Party of China through untold hardships and at a great cost—is absorbed into a pre-existing, subdivided framework, becoming a mere supplement to the Western discourse system. This is the primary root of China's situation of "having logic but being unable to articulate it, and having it not spread even when articulated." Breaking through and transcending the narrow historical perspective, erroneous historical views, and narrative orientations of Western-centric discourse is the primary prerequisite for constructing a theoretical narrative of Chinese-path modernization.
II. The Methodological Foundation of the Theoretical Narrative of Chinese-path Modernization
General Secretary Xi Jinping has pointed out that we must...
"Establish a Great View of History—analyze evolutionary mechanisms and explore historical laws within the long river of history, the great tides of the era, and the swirling winds of the globe." (Xi Jinping: The Governance of China, Volume IV, p. 511). Constructing the theoretical narrative of Chinese-path modernization requires us to use the Great View of History to break through and transcend the questioning styles and theoretical frameworks of the West-centric narrative. This provides methodological support for correctly explaining the historical necessity, cultural connotations, and unique advantages of Chinese-path modernization as the realization of the Chinese civilization’s self-sublation [6], self-development, and self-transcendence.
(1) Viewing Chinese-path modernization through the intersection of the historical veins of Chinese civilization and the progression of the era of world history
From the theoretical perspective of the Great View of History, on the one hand, we must break through the fragmented perspective of the Western discourse system—which focuses on specific historical snippets, denies the cultural subjectivity and vigorous vitality of Chinese civilization, and questions its continuity. We must accurately grasp the historical main line of Chinese-path modernization within the horizontal and vertical intersection of Chinese civilization’s own historical development and the Western impact. The so-called "time lag" of modernization that emerged before the historical collision between China and the West is, in essence, a difference in temporal sequencing based on the internal logic and rhythm of development specific to each civilization, rather than a binary opposition between "backward" and "advanced" civilizations. Kenneth Pomeranz referred to China’s high population growth from the 16th to the 19th centuries as an "East Asian miracle" in terms of sustaining its people and creating skills, noting its economic achievements were fully comparable to the "European (industrialization) miracle" (Pomeranz, p. 12). The Western impact of the 19th century was an external challenge encountered by Chinese civilization within its own historical development, rather than the "prime mover" of its modernization. Since the beginning of the modern era [7], although China learned from the West, it failed to save the nation from peril; this precisely proves that the theories which guided the West in achieving modernization could not serve as the intellectual source for China’s modernization. The historical main line of Chinese-path modernization is a process of Chinese civilization developing itself, responding to challenges, and opening new vistas.
On the other hand, we must break through the divisive perspective of the Western discourse system, which views the East and West or tradition and modernity as opposites, thereby dissolving the integrity connecting Chinese civilization with human civilization and China’s historical-cultural traditions with Chinese-path modernization. We must explain the historical necessity, cultural connotations, and unique advantages of Chinese-path modernization within the interweaving and fusion of the continuous evolution of Chinese civilization and the historical development of world modernization. General Secretary Xi Jinping pointed out: "The modernization path a country chooses is determined by its historical traditions, social system, development conditions, external environment, and many other factors" (Xi Jinping: The Governance of China, Volume V, p. 76). The Great View of History requires us to understand the autonomy and historical necessity of Chinese-path modernization within the interaction between China and the world; it requires us to explain, within the organic transformation of tradition and modernity, how Chinese-path modernization activates the "excellent genes" of Chinese civilization and the distinct characteristics and unique advantages formed on this basis.
(2) Clarifying the internal logic of Chinese-path modernization through the dialectical relationship between historical laws and human agency
Proceeding from the theoretical method of the Great View of History, we must first replace metaphysical methods with dialectical methods to understand Chinese-path modernization through the self-sublation, self-development, and self-transcendence of the social organism. Lenin pointed out: "What Marx and Engels called the dialectical method—as opposed to the metaphysical method—is nothing else than the scientific method in sociology, which regards society as a living organism in a state of constant development (and not as something mechanically concatenated and therefore permitting of any arbitrary combination of individual social elements)" (Selected Works of Lenin, Vol. 1, p. 32). The Western discourse system severs and opposes the East and the West, tradition and modernity, and the epochal nature versus the national nature of civilization. By using the equation "modernization = Westernization," it denies the possibility of diverse paths and forms of human modernization. The method it employs is essentially a metaphysical one that "thinks in terms of absolutely irreconcilable antitheses" (Collected Works of Marx and Engels, Vol. 9, p. 24). Starting from this method, the West has never viewed Chinese-path modernization as a dialectical process of Chinese civilization—as a "living organism"—undergoing self-sublation, self-development, and self-transcendence. In this regard, this metaphysical method has become the methodological root of the West's inability to correctly understand Chinese-path modernization. Western arguments questioning the legitimacy of Chinese-path modernization or the continuity of socialism exist precisely because they have not deeply understood the reality of the Chinese social organism, but have instead based their judgments on the knowledge system formed during the Western modernization process. As Mizoguchi Yuzo stated, "The 'socialism' they take as an object of cognition is merely conceptual knowledge generated from Western historical theory. They have never explored the question of 'what socialism means in China' based on actual conditions" (Mizoguchi, p. 11).
Secondly, we must clarify the internal logic of Chinese-path modernization in realizing the self-sublation, self-development, and self-transcendence of Chinese civilization through the dialectical relationship between historical laws and human agency. Distinguishing itself from the linear view of history and historical teleology, historical materialism reveals the mechanisms of historical movement within the dialectical relationship between historical laws and human agency. Engels pointed out: "According to the materialist conception of history, the ultimately determining element in history is the production and reproduction of real life" (Selected Works of Marx and Engels, Vol. 4, p. 604). "The production and reproduction of real life" is ultimately rooted in material production; therefore, economic factors play a decisive role in socio-historical development. The historical process of human society manifests as "economic movement as something necessary through an endless cross-current of accidents... moving forward" (ibid.). In historical movement, "economic relations... constitute the red thread that runs through all the rest and affords the only means of understanding" (ibid., p. 649). Whether one can promote history and economic movement to move in the same direction becomes the key to whether human agency conforms to the general trend of history and grasps historical initiative. The fundamental problem the Chinese nation faced in the 19th century was how to respond to the crisis of the "production and reproduction of real life" into which the social organism had fallen under the influence of internal social contradictions and the Western impact. The Communist Party of China respects historical laws, grasps historical initiative, and has united and led the Chinese people to achieve great successes in the New Democratic Revolution, the socialist revolution and construction, the reform and opening up and socialist modernization, and socialism with Chinese characteristics in the New Era. The Chinese nation has welcomed a great leap from standing up and becoming prosperous to becoming strong. As a contemporary concrete manifestation of historical materialism, the Great View of History allows us to see that the internal logic of Chinese-path modernization—realizing the self-sublation, self-development, and self-transcendence of Chinese civilization—is deeply rooted in the historical agency and cultural subjectivity of the CPC. This is achieved through the "Two Combinations" [8], driving the Chinese social organism to move in the same direction as the economic movement, leading the Chinese nation from the profound suffering of the modern era toward the bright prospect of great rejuvenation.
(3) Innovating styles of questioning that manifest Chinese cultural subjectivity based on the Great View of History
General Secretary Xi Jinping pointed out: "The starting point of theoretical thinking determines the result of theoretical innovation. Theoretical innovation can only begin with problems" (Xi Jinping: The Governance of China, Volume II, p. 342). Using the Great View of History as a methodological basis requires us to innovate our styles of questioning and theoretical frameworks, providing interpretations of the major historical, realistic, and future questions of Chinese-path modernization that manifest Chinese cultural subjectivity.
Regarding the question of the source of momentum, we must break through the questioning style of "Where did China go wrong?" found in Western narratives. We must shatter the theoretical framework of "impact-response" and "tradition-modernity," and transcend the research logic of searching Chinese history for factors identical to those in the Western modernization process to prove China "also had them" or "lacked them." Within the dialectical relationship between the movement of social contradictions in modern China and the "cultural subjectivity and vigorous vitality" of the Chinese nation, we must clearly explain how Chinese-path modernization has been able to respond to complex domestic and international challenges, turn passivity into initiative, and successfully recover the rhythm of Chinese civilization’s self-sublation, self-development, and self-transcendence.
Regarding the question of path selection, we must break through the questioning style of "Why did China not develop capitalism?" found in Western narratives. We must shatter the theoretical framework of "modernization = Westernization" and transcend the research logic of questioning the legitimacy of Chinese-path modernization based on the specific trajectory of Western modernization transitions. Within the dialectical relationship between the universal laws of world modernization and the historical agency and cultural subjectivity of the Chinese nation, we must focus on whether Chinese-path modernization conforms to historical laws and its historical origins within the long-running Chinese civilization. We must clearly explain how Chinese-path modernization differs from the historical logic and cultural connotations of Western modernization, and the unique advantages of the new form of human civilization created as a result.
Regarding the question of world influence, we must break through the questioning style of "There is no reason China will not follow the old 'powerful nations must seek hegemony' path" found in Western narratives. We must shatter the theoretical framework of the "East-West divide" and transcend the narrative orientation that uses the epochal nature of civilization to erase its national character, or uses cultural differences to obscure the deep-seated roots of global conflict. Within the dialectical relationship between the mechanisms of the mode of production and the characteristics of civilization, we must reveal the deep roots of today’s world conflicts. We must focus on how people-centered Chinese-path modernization transcends capital-centered Western modernization, clearly explaining how Chinese-path modernization can transcend the logic that "powerful nations must seek hegemony," cross the barriers of the "clash of civilizations," and contribute Chinese wisdom to the progress of human civilization.
III. The Three Dimensions of the Theoretical Narrative of Chinese-Path Modernization
Using an innovative style of questioning and a theoretical framework as an analytical structure—and providing scholarly interpretations of the historical necessity, cultural connotations, and unique advantages of Chinese-path modernization through the three dimensions of source of momentum, path selection, and world influence—is the focal point for constructing an autonomous theoretical narrative of Chinese-path modernization.
(1) Chinese-path modernization as the self-development of the "living organism" of Chinese civilization
General Secretary Xi Jinping pointed out: "Chinese civilization is the only great civilization in the world that has continued uninterrupted and developed to this day in the form of a state. This fully proves that Chinese civilization possesses the cultural subjectivity and vigorous vitality to develop itself, respond to challenges, and open new vistas" (Xi Jinping, p. 2). As the self-development of the "living organism" of Chinese civilization, Chinese-path modernization was initiated by the "economic necessity" of the movement of China's internal social contradictions, became exceptionally complex and tortuous due to external impacts, and was ultimately realized by the CPC leading the Chinese people to successfully respond to challenges, open new vistas, and achieve self-development.
First, the momentum of Chinese-path modernization is deeply rooted in the "economic necessity" of Chinese civilization's self-development.
Historical materialism holds that in the historical movement created by people themselves, "economic movement is the most powerful, the most original, and the most decisive" (Selected Works of Marx and Engels, Vol. 4, p. 614), and "the necessity which works its way through all these accidents... is again ultimately economic necessity" (ibid., p. 649). The fundamental momentum of Chinese-path modernization stems from the "economic necessity" formed by the movement of internal social contradictions. By the 19th century, Chinese civilization had already entered a process of self-sublation. During this process, if state power and economic movement "work in opposite directions," then "after a certain period, they will collapse" (cf. ibid., p. 610). As Qian Mu stated, "civil unrest broke out everywhere, repeatedly suppressed and repeatedly rising"; even if the Qing government expended great effort to flatten them, "the root of the disease remained, not reduced in the slightest. Therefore, even if the Qing government had not encountered trade with the West or the intrusion of Western forces, it would have collapsed before long" (cf. Qian Mu, pp. 166-167). From the mid-19th century to the early 20th century, the late Qing government implemented a series of reforms ranging from the Westernization Movement [9] to the Hundred Days' Reform [10] and the Late Qing New Policies [11], yet none of these could prevent its downfall. The deep-rooted cause was the failure to promote the comprehensive transition of society toward a social organism capable of providing advanced productive forces from the dimension of "economic necessity." The Western impact was merely an external condition that acted through the movement of internal contradictions within Chinese society.
Second, the Western impact was an external variable in the historical main line of Chinese civilization's self-development.
At a time when feudal society was gradually disintegrating and Chinese civilization had already entered a stage of self-sublation, the Western impact dragged China into the abyss of a semi-colonial status, casting China into a passive situation regarding modernization. Mizoguchi Yuzo believed that...
"In the mid-nineteenth century, when China was about to fall into a state of utmost chaos, it was extremely unfortunate for China that a previously unencountered arch-enemy—external capitalism (imperialism)—invaded to seize markets, bringing even greater disorder to China's politics, society, and economy." (Mizoguchi Yūzō [12], p. 100) Specifically, on the one hand, regarding the state power that "acted in the opposite direction" to the economic movements of modern China, imperialism used it as a pillar of its own rule over China and as a reactionary alliance. This meant that the Western impact in the form of imperialism increased the resistance faced by the Chinese people in using revolutionary force to clear away obstacles to modernization; it also increased the difficulty of the self-sublation [13] of Chinese civilization. On the other hand, Western colonial invasion accelerated the destruction of the old economic structures of modern China. However, because this acceleration came from the outside, there was no new structure of large-scale industry within China to supplement it, intensifying the crisis of the "production and reproduction of real life." Regarding this, Engels once made an accurate prediction: "Since there is not even a domestic large-scale industry to balance it out, hundreds of millions of inhabitants will fall into a state in which they cannot survive." (Marx and Engels, p. 170) Far from supporting the development of China's national industry, the imperialist powers instead "exercised direct economic pressure on China's national industry and directly hindered the development of China's productive forces" (Selected Works of Mao Zedong, Vol. 2, p. 629). This greatly exacerbated the turbulence of Chinese social change and development. Thus, it can be seen that the Western impact was by no means the primary driving force of Chinese modernization; in fact, the Western powers attempted to use violent means to distort, disturb, and obstruct the process of Chinese civilization's self-development.
Third, Chinese civilization provided a powerful spiritual force for Chinese-path modernization to regain its own rhythm of self-development. Marx pointed out: "Men make their own history, but they do not make it as they please; they do not make it under self-selected circumstances, but under circumstances existing already, given and transmitted from the past" (Collected Works of Marx and Engels, Vol. 2, pp. 470–471). The decay and disintegration of the old social organism under the action of internal social contradictions, along with the impact of Western imperialism, constituted the historical situation of "the East being subordinated to the West" faced by China in its exploration of the road to modernization since modern times. Facing this "existing, given" historical situation (condition), Chinese civilization—with its prominent characteristics of continuity, innovativeness, unity, inclusiveness, and peacefulness—nurtured and sustained the excellent character of the Chinese nation, such as "discarding the old to establish the new" [14], "self-strengthening without cease" [15], and "holding the world with great virtue" [16]. This provided a powerful spiritual force for Chinese-path modernization to reverse the passive situation of "the East being subordinated to the West." Qian Mu [17] pointed out that in the midst of change, there is an "unchanging origin; this is what is called historical tradition. The longer the tradition, the greater the reliability of this fundamental origin. In other words, its vitality is all the stronger" (Qian Mu, p. 56).
As the successor to "all the finest traditions of culture, thought, and morality" of the Chinese nation (CPSU(B), the Comintern, and the CPC during the War of Resistance Against Japanese Aggression: 1937–May 1943, p. 372), the Communist Party of China has activated the cultural subjectivity of Chinese civilization through Marxism, which reflects upon the Western path of modernization. This allowed Chinese civilization to burst forth with powerful spiritual strength in the process of reversing the passive modernization situation of "the East being subordinated to the West" and realizing the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation. As General Secretary Xi Jinping pointed out: "At the most critical moment in modern China, Chinese Communists found Marxism-Leninism and persisted in combining Marxism-Leninism with China’s reality, using the power of Marxist truth to activate the great civilization created by the Chinese nation over thousands of years, causing Chinese civilization to again burst forth with powerful spiritual strength" (Xi Jinping: The Governance of China, Vol. 4, p. 509). "The history of the CPC uniting and leading the Chinese people to pursue national rejuvenation for over a hundred years is also a history of continuously exploring the path of modernization" (Xi Jinping: The Governance of China, Vol. 5, p. 433). From the New Democratic Revolution, the socialist revolution and construction, to reform and opening up and socialist modernization, and into the New Era of socialism with Chinese characteristics, the CPC has correctly grasped the principal contradiction in Chinese society, led the Chinese people to clear internal and external obstacles to the modernization process, and independently blazed a road of Chinese-path modernization that conforms to its own national conditions.
We see that the impetus for Chinese-path modernization is deeply rooted in the dialectical relationship between the movement of contradictions in Chinese society and the "cultural subjectivity and exuberant vitality" of Chinese civilization. Chinese-path modernization is the result of the CPC leading the Chinese people, supported by the vitality accumulated through more than five thousand years of historical and cultural tradition, to overcome the interference of external shocks and regain the rhythm of Chinese civilization's self-development. It possesses a distinct subjectivity from its very source.
(2) The Historical Inevitability of Chinese-path Modernization as the Path to Realizing the "New Mission of an Old State" [18]
General Secretary Xi Jinping pointed out: "Only by standing upon the magnificent 5,000-plus-year history of Chinese civilization can one truly understand the historical inevitability, cultural connotations, and unique advantages of the Chinese path" (Xi Jinping, p. 5). Chinese-path modernization is a new road of self-sublation, self-development, and self-transcendence for Chinese civilization, paved by the CPC through seizing historical and cultural initiative and applying the "Two Combinations." [19] Through this, a new form of human advancement has been created.
First, Chinese-path modernization is a new, law-governed road to modernization initiated by the CPC through seizing historical initiative. Regarding the possible paths for Eastern countries to achieve industrialization, Engels once proposed three conceptions using Russia as an example: the first was to complete industrialization before the expansion of Western capitalist countries reached Russia; the second was to "become India, a country economically dominated by the world's factory, Britain" (Selected Works of Marx and Engels, Vol. 4, p. 627); the third was to find "appropriate and advantageous tools for organizing this modern production and transforming the capitalist form of this production into a socialist form" (ibid., p. 629). What Engels called the "third conception" was a further deepening of what Marx said in his later years about "not undergoing the capitalist system... but possessing the fruits with which capitalist production has enriched humanity" (Collected Works of Marx and Engels, Vol. 3, p. 576); it is also the effective way for China to change its destiny of being dominated.
Unlike abstract socialism built on the extension of Western historical trajectories, Chinese-path modernization needs both to meet the social demand for higher-level productive forces through long-term coexistence with capitalist society, and to avoid falling into the Western modern predicament caused by the logic of capital dominating social production. Only in this way can Chinese-path modernization withstand the test of the mechanism of "economic movement," which is the "most powerful, most original, and most decisive" factor in historical movement (Selected Works of Marx and Engels, Vol. 4, p. 614). We know that Marx and Engels did not point out the specific way to realize the "third conception," while the failure of Soviet socialist practice in the 1990s gave the West an excuse to reinforce the idea that "modernization = Westernization," causing socialism to enter a temporary low ebb. For China, how to transform the capitalist form of organizing modern production into a socialist form became the key to realizing what Engels called the "third conception."
The CPC has combined the basic tenets of Marxism with China's specific realities, taking the unification of "the development of productive forces" and productive forces "belonging to the people" as its internal logic (see Collected Works of Marx and Engels, Vol. 2, p. 689). Under the socialist system, by consciously adjusting the relations of production and unswervingly liberating and developing the productive forces, the CPC has not only resolved the social crises of modern China and enabled China to achieve continuous development in a manner consistent with historical laws—"completing in decades the industrialization process that Western developed countries took centuries to walk" (Xi Jinping: The Governance of China, Vol. 5, p. 80), manifesting the advanced nature of scientific socialism—but has also avoided the modernization predicament faced by many countries that "suffer not only from the development of capitalist production, but also from the incompleteness of that development" (Collected Works of Marx and Engels, Vol. 5, p. 9). Thus, Chinese-path modernization has achieved a transcendence over being a "simple continuation of the master-copy of our country's history and culture," a "simple application of the template imagined by classical Marxist writers," a "reprint of other countries' socialist practices," or a "version of foreign modernization development" (see Xi Jinping: The Governance of China, Vol. 3, p. 76).
Second, Chinese-path modernization is a new road to modernization that continues Chinese civilization through the CPC's seizure of cultural initiative. General Secretary Xi Jinping pointed out: "Culture concerns the foundation and destiny of a nation" (Xi Jinping, p. 1). After Marxism was introduced to China, a key reason it was able to stand out quickly from numerous Western trends and be accepted by advanced Chinese intellectuals and subsequently by the masses was that the basic tenets of Marxism were compatible with the fine traditional Chinese culture. Mizoguchi Yūzō believed that "the soil for socialism exists in China; as a folk social mechanism, life ethics, and political ruling philosophy, it was originally there" (Mizoguchi Yūzō, p. 124). The CPC seized cultural initiative, transforming the compatibility between the basic tenets of Marxism and fine traditional Chinese culture into an active combination, activating the genes of fine traditional Chinese culture. The resulting "chemical reaction" generated a "new cultural life-form" and promoted the "life renewal and modern transformation of Chinese civilization" (see Xi Jinping, p. 6). The integration of fine traditional Chinese culture genes into the modernization process has shaped the Chinese characteristics of modernization, clearly reflected in the new form of human advancement characterized by the coordinated development of material, political, spiritual, social, and ecological civilizations.
From the perspective of material civilization, the social ideal of "the world belongs to the public" (tianxia wei gong) and "Great Harmony" (tianxia datong) in fine traditional Chinese culture is compatible with the Marxist ideal of communism. Chinese-path modernization has created a miracle of rapid economic development, moving from relatively backward productive forces to the steady development of new quality productive forces, with the total economic volume firmly ranked second in the world, continuously promoting high-quality development. The Fourth Plenary Session of the 20th CPC Central Committee pointed out: "By 2035, China's economic strength, scientific and technological strength, national defense strength, comprehensive national power, and international influence will have increased significantly; per capita GDP will reach the level of a moderately developed country; people's lives will be better and happier; and socialist modernization will be basically realized" (Compilation of Documents from the Fourth Plenary Session of the 20th CPC Central Committee, p. 6). Chinese-path modernization insists that "production will aim at the wealth of all" (Collected Works of Marx and Engels, Vol. 8, p. 200), transcending the Western modernization path where a few countries or a few people are wealthy while the majority are poor, thus laying a solid material foundation for realizing national rejuvenation.
From the perspective of political civilization, the "people-as-the-foundation" (minben) thought in fine traditional Chinese culture, which holds that the people are the basis of the state, is compatible with the Marxist historical materialist view that "the masses are the creators of history." Chinese-path modernization adheres to the value of putting the people first, maintaining the organic unity of Party leadership, the people as masters of the country, and the law-based governance of the country. This is specifically implemented as whole-process people’s democracy. Whole-process people's democracy realizes the unification of process-oriented democracy and result-oriented democracy, procedural democracy and substantive democracy, direct democracy and indirect democracy, and people's democracy and the will of the state. It is a full-chain, all-around, and full-coverage democracy—the most extensive, genuine, and effective socialist democracy. Developing whole-process people's democracy and ensuring that the people are masters of the country consolidates and develops a vivid, stable, and united political situation.
From the perspective of spiritual civilization, values in fine traditional Chinese culture such as "esteeming benevolence" (chongren), "valuing harmony" (guihe), "respecting rites" (zunli), and "benefiting the collective" (liqun) are compatible with the Marxist critique of capitalist profit-seeking and egoism, as well as the Marxist emphasis on the unity of individual and social value. Chinese-path modernization persists in "using Marxism to activate the excellent factors in fine traditional Chinese culture and endowing them with new connotations of the times" (Xi Jinping: The Governance of China, Vol. 5, p. 296), promoting and practicing the Core Socialist Values, developing advanced socialist culture, carrying forward revolutionary culture, and inheriting fine traditional Chinese culture. This nurtures the high-spirited spirit of the entire nation and provides a powerful spiritual driving force for promoting the well-rounded development of individuals and the all-around progress of society.
From the perspective of social civilization, the social ethics in fine traditional Chinese culture—such as "cultivating the self, regulating the family, governing the state, and bringing peace to the world" [20], "emphasizing good faith and cultivating harmony" [21], and "extending oneself to others" [22]—align with the Marxist opposition to viewing humans as isolated individuals and its advocacy for the concept of community. Chinese-path modernization persists in common prosperity for all, effectively promoting and maintaining social fairness and justice. It constructs a "social governance community in which everyone is responsible, everyone does their part, and everyone enjoys the benefits" (Xi Jinping: The Governance of China, Vol. 5, p. 42), creating the miracle of long-term social stability and forming a vibrant, orderly, and healthy social atmosphere.
From the perspective of ecological civilization, the ecological concepts in fine traditional Chinese culture—such as "the unity of Heaven and humanity" [23] and "the simultaneous nourishment of all things" [24]—align with the Marxist view of nature regarding the "unity of man and nature." Chinese-path modernization is the modernization of harmony between humanity and nature. "Green development is the defining feature of Chinese-path modernization" (Collection of Documents from the Fourth Plenary Session of the 20th CPC Central Committee, p. 58), accelerating the comprehensive green transformation of economic and social development to build a Beautiful China.
(III) The Unique Advantages of Chinese-path Modernization as a Solution to the Problems of Modernity
General Secretary Xi Jinping has pointed out: "Chinese-path modernization has shattered the myth that 'modernization equals Westernization,' displayed a different picture of modernization, expanded the pathway options for developing countries to achieve modernization, and provided a Chinese solution for humanity’s exploration of a better social system" (Xi Jinping: The Governance of China, Vol. 5, p. 81). A China that achieves strength through Chinese-path modernization will never follow the old path of Western powers where "a strong country must seek hegemony" [25]; rather, it can contribute Chinese wisdom to addressing the problems of human modernity and surmounting the barriers of the "clash of civilizations."
First, people-centered Chinese-path modernization fundamentally overcomes the capital-centered logic of Western modernization. Samuel Huntington argued: "All other great powers... during or in the decades immediately following periods of rapid industrialization and economic growth, have engaged in outward expansion, self-assertion, and imperialism. There is no reason to think that China will not do the same as its economic and military power increases" (Huntington, p. 205). From the perspective of historical materialism, the expansionist path of "a strong country must seek hegemony" has a structural connection with the capital-centered logic of dominance in Western modernization. The latter requires using other countries as sites for cost-shifting and value realization, achieving prosperity at the cost of the backwardness and dependence of other nations. Marx revealed that the capitalist form of production possesses an inherent and unavoidable contradiction where "production expands faster than the market" (Collected Works of Marx and Engels, Vol. 8, p. 263). This dictates that capitalism cannot maintain the "production and reproduction of real life" of its society within the scope of a single country or region; its expansiveness does not shift according to anyone's subjective will. Western colonialism since the 19th century, the two World Wars, and contemporary Western acts of hegemony all find their roots here.
Chinese-path modernization persists in being people-centered, taking the fulfillment of the people’s aspirations for a better life as its starting point and ultimate goal. By liberating and developing the productive forces through the diligent labor of all people, it achieves the unity of the "development of productive forces" and the productive forces "belonging to the people." It constructs a virtuous cycle for the "production and reproduction of real life" within society, without needing to shift internal contradictions through expansion or rely on the oppression and plunder of other countries and nations to achieve development. It fundamentally transcends the inherent expansiveness of Western modern civilization. General Secretary Xi Jinping noted: "Whether the path of modernization can ultimately be successful and steady depends crucially on whether it remains people-centered" (Xi Jinping: The Governance of China, Vol. 5, p. 432). Chinese-path modernization’s persistence in following the path of peaceful development is the inevitable extension and logical unfolding of its core people-centered logic in international relations. It proves that the modernization process can completely discard colonial plunder and hegemonic acts that come at the expense of others' backwardness and dependence, possessing profound world-historical significance.
Second, Chinese-path modernization contributes Chinese wisdom to addressing the problems of human modernity, demonstrating unique advantages across four dimensions: the individual, relations between people, relations between humanity and nature, and relations between civilizations.
From the dimension of the individual, "the ultimate goal of modernization is to realize the free and comprehensive development of human beings" (Xi Jinping: The Governance of China, Vol. 5, p. 432). The realization of this goal is based on people's "communal and social productive capacities becoming social wealth belonging to them" (Collected Works of Marx and Engels, Vol. 8, p. 52). Chinese-path modernization persists in "development for the people, development relying on the people, and development fruits shared by the people" (Xi Jinping: The Governance of China, Vol. 5, p. 78), laying the foundation for the free and comprehensive development of the person and making an important contribution to promoting human civilization's escape from the shackles of the logic of capital.
From the dimension of relations between people, Chinese-path modernization—through shared and harmonious social relations—achieves a fundamental transcendence of Western modernization, where "everyone obstructs the realization of the interests of others" (Collected Works of Marx and Engels, Vol. 8, p. 50) and society manifests as "a war of every man against every man" (Hobbes, p. 95). Chinese-path modernization has coalesced a majestic force for advancing modernization, providing human society with a new choice that transcends antagonistic development models.
From the dimension of relations between humanity and nature, Chinese-path modernization transcends both the passive dependence on nature of agricultural civilization and the savage conquest of nature of Western modern industrial civilization. It realizes the dialectical unity of respecting the laws of ecological systems and meeting the people’s needs for a better life, providing a Chinese solution for how countries—especially developing ones—can coordinate modernization with environmental protection.
From the dimension of relations between civilizations, Chinese-path modernization promotes exchange, mutual learning, inclusiveness, and coexistence. It overcomes the exclusive, antagonistic zero-sum thinking and narrow perspectives behind the theories of "a strong country must seek hegemony," the "clash of civilizations," and "civilizational superiority." Chinese-path modernization provides new opportunities and momentum for world development, aligning the historical trend of mutual dependence among nations in the era of globalization with the pursuit of the common well-being of humanity, contributing Chinese wisdom to surmounting the barriers of civilizational conflict.
The organic connection between tradition and modernity realized by Chinese-path modernization not only provides practical strength for "standing on the right side of history" (Xi Jinping: The Governance of China, Vol. 4, p. 477), but also provides a new driving mechanism and direction for building a community with a shared future for humanity, displaying the contemporary value of Chinese civilization.
In summary, within the interlacing of the historical context of Chinese civilization and the global modernization process, Chinese-path modernization profoundly embodies the historical agency and cultural subjectivity of Chinese civilization in achieving self-sublation, self-development, and self-transcendence while responding to challenges. It is not only an important component of world modernization but also provides a brand-new modernization model for human civilization. Distilling Chinese theory from the great practice of Chinese-path modernization and constructing a theoretical narrative of Chinese-path modernization with Chinese cultural subjectivity is of great significance for realizing the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation and promoting the progress of human civilization.
(Unit: School of Marxism, Jilin University) Source: Philosophical Research (Zhexue Yanjiu), Issue 12, 2025 Editor: Hui Hui