Liu Yang: The Civilizational Significance and Practical Logic of Building a Community with a Shared Future for Mankind
The fifth volume of Xi Jinping: The Governance of China (hereinafter referred to as Volume V) proposes a series of original new concepts, ideas, and strategies for governance. It centrally demonstrates the latest achievements in the Sinicization and modernization of Marxism, providing scientific answers to the questions of China, the world, the people, and the times [1]. Regarding the answer to the "questions of the world," Volume V clearly points out how to further address global development dilemmas—such as the peace deficit, development deficit, security deficit, and governance deficit—by building a community with a shared future for humanity. It profoundly recognizes and answers the major issue of "what kind of world to build and how to build it," highlighting the epochal value and world significance of building such a community. Particularly noteworthy is Volume V's elaboration on the significance of building a community with a shared future for humanity; it points out not only that this concept innovates the paradigm of global governance thinking and outlines a future vision for the world order, but more importantly, emphasizes that it is quietly changing the developmental course of human civilization. Clearly, this further highlights the original intention and essence of building a community with a shared future for humanity. That is to say, building a community with a shared future for humanity aims to transcend the modern civilization dominated by "Western-centrism" and to re-formulate a totality-based plan for the developmental process of 21st-century human civilization. This involves crucial aspects such as the developmental values, the nature of its connotation, the structural paradigm, rules of engagement, and developmental goals of civilization. Therefore, grasping the significance of building a community with a shared future for humanity from the perspective of civilizational innovation and progress is of great importance.
I. Origins and Foundations: The Civilizational Mission and Intellectual Sources of Building a Community with a Shared Future for Humanity
To examine the origins of the concept of building a community with a shared future for humanity from a civilizational perspective, one must grasp the contemporary situation of modern civilization. The West was the first to lay the foundations of modernization through the British Industrial Revolution and the French Revolution, initiating the process of modern human civilization and successfully creating a Western path to modernization and a Western form of human civilization. This allowed "Western-centrism" to exist in the form of hegemony for a long historical period. However, 21st-century human civilization has not developed in the direction envisioned by the West; history has not reached its "end" within Western-centrism. On the contrary, Western civilization, with Anglo-Saxon civilization as its underlying hue, is facing multiple crises. General Secretary Xi Jinping has pointed out that "at present, the changes of the world, of our times, and of history are unfolding in ways like never before," and that "acts of hegemony, high-handedness, and bullying—such as the strong dominating the weak, taking by force or trickery, and zero-sum games—are causing grave harm. The peace deficit, development deficit, security deficit, and governance deficit are intensifying, and human society faces unprecedented challenges." These crises are clearly closely related to the West-dominated model of human civilization, pointing directly to the failure and disorder of Western civilizational concepts. This constitutes the civilizational background for building a community with a shared future for humanity. Building this community is precisely the Chinese solution for responding to the changes of the world, the times, and history.
The "changes of the world" reflect major transformations in the development of global civilization. They contain the fundamental question of "what kind of world to build and how to build it," constituting the historical context for building a community with a shared future for humanity. The entry of humanity into modern civilization and the transition of history into world history were both closely related to the generation and development of capitalist civilization. To be sure, this form of civilization once created historical brilliance; Marx and Engels compared its achievements to "miracles" that were "totally different from Egyptian pyramids, Roman aqueducts, and Gothic cathedrals," and "expeditions" that were "totally different from the migrations of nations and the Crusades." However, today's world and today's civilization both indicate that capitalist civilization "is like the sorcerer who is no longer able to control the powers of the nether world whom he has called up by his spells." From the US subprime mortgage crisis and the Greek sovereign debt crisis to trade wars and tariff wars, the global economic recovery is sluggish. From Al-Qaeda and "ISIS" to the Russia-Ukraine conflict, the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, and the Israel-Iran conflict, international politics is in a state of turbulent change. Non-traditional security issues such as global climate change, cybersecurity, public health crises, nuclear wastewater pollution, and refugee crises have become increasingly prominent. With Brexit, the US withdrawal from various international organizations, the intensifying trends of nationalism and populism, and the rising tide of protectionism and isolationism, the wave of deglobalization has turned from a surging undercurrent into a frantic rampage. These facts all demonstrate that while capitalist civilization continuously assimilates the world, it also continuously divides it. The crisis of modern civilization under the rule of capital has broken through national boundaries, presenting global characteristics through the interactions between civilizations. Faced with global fragmentation and civilizational fracture, rethinking the direction of the world and civilization has become the most significant and urgent global task of the contemporary era.
The "changes of the times" reflect the vigorous development of the modern power of Chinese civilization. They contain the fundamental question of "what China should do to move from catching up with the times to leading the times," constituting the realistic basis for promoting the building of a community with a shared future for humanity. This era is a historical era in which "the Chinese nation has ushered in a great leap from standing up and becoming prosperous to becoming strong." "Becoming strong" means not only that our comprehensive national strength is continuously increasing, but also that we are capable of "continuously making new and greater contributions to humanity." Therefore, facing the contemporary predicament of global civilizational development, Chinese Communists possess both the sentimental commitment and the ability to contribute Chinese wisdom and propose Chinese solutions. On the one hand, the great achievements of socialism with Chinese characteristics during the 40-odd years of reform and opening up—especially in the New Era—are our greatest source of confidence in promoting the development of global civilization. From the beginning of the new period to the entry into the New Era, our Party has persisted in seeking truth from facts and liberating the mind, leading the people to boldly experiment and bravely reform, carving out a new world. This has provided a distinguished leadership core, scientific theoretical guidance, stronger political guarantees, more refined institutional guarantees, a more solid material foundation, and more proactive spiritual strength for the rejuvenation of the Chinese nation—all of which serve as our foundation of confidence. On the other hand, in the historical era of "becoming strong," the Communist Party of China upholds the promise of "continuously making new and greater contributions to humanity," demonstrating a global vision and the responsibility of a major party. Since the 18th CPC National Congress, General Secretary Xi Jinping has consistently focused on the future and destiny of humanity with a world-oriented vision. Proceeding from the major trends of human development, the overall pattern of world change, and the long history of China’s development, he has correctly understood and handled relations with the outside world, proposing the important judgment that "only when the world is well can China be well; only when China is well can the world be better." Such confidence, sentiment, and responsibility have laid a solid foundation for building a community with a shared future for humanity.
The "changes of history" reflect profound shifts in the balance of power between two civilizational forces. They contain the fundamental question of "unity or division, openness or closure, cooperation or confrontation," constituting the core issue of building a community with a shared future for humanity. As socialism with Chinese characteristics enters the New Era, the center of the world socialist movement has shifted to China, and scientific socialism has radiated greater vitality in the East. We have not only held the great banner of socialism high and steady in the world, but have also pushed scientific socialism to a brand-new stage. Meanwhile, socialist countries such as Vietnam, Cuba, Laos, and North Korea continue to explore development models with their own national characteristics, achieving impressive results in economic, political, and cultural construction. The left wing has successively taken power in countries like Mexico, Argentina, Peru, Bolivia, Chile, Honduras, and Colombia, and the "progressive axis of Latin America" continues to expand. Some capitalist countries have also begun to draw on socialist elements to varying degrees to solve their own internal malaise. All these facets display the dawn of a revival of world socialism. A major shift in favor of socialism has occurred in the historical evolution and contest between the two ideologies and social systems of socialism and capitalism. In the future, the problems faced by capitalist civilization will continue to increase, while the influence of socialist civilization will continue to expand. How these two systems and two civilizations coexist has become the core question within the "changes of history." The world once again stands at a crossroads of history: Unity or division? Peace or conflict? Cooperation or confrontation? People of all countries need to make an important choice.
Only by deeply intuiting and analyzing the questions of the world, the times, and history can we clarify the necessity of promoting the building of a community with a shared future for humanity, and further grasp the mission and responsibility of this community from a civilizational perspective. Of course, the proposal of the concept of a community with a shared future for humanity stems not only from a sober recognition of the changing world situation, the pulse of the times, and the general trend of history, but more importantly, from the inheritance and sublimation of China's own intellectual resources and cultural genes. If the former constitutes the necessity and the logic of practice, the latter represents the possibility and the theoretical logic; both are indispensable for the proposal of the concept. Regarding theoretical possibility, the key reason the CPC can propose this concept is its adherence to the methodology of the "Two Combinations," [2] unifying the "soul-vein" [3] and the "root-vein." [4] This has allowed the unique civilizational outlook contained within fine traditional Chinese culture to achieve creative transformation and innovative development in the New Era.
On one hand, Marx’s thoughts on civilization provide strong theoretical support for the concept of a community with a shared future for humanity. The civilizational crisis of modern society had already begun to emerge during the era of free-competition capitalism in which Marx lived. Standing at the height of historical materialism, Marx analyzed the universal laws of the development of human civilization and the specific laws of the operation of capitalist civilization, constructing a brand-new conception of human civilization. Marx’s thoughts on civilization profoundly reveal three core questions: How do various local civilizations with distinct forms "synthesize" into a human civilization of universal significance (world-historical significance)? Why does capitalist civilization provide only a "false universality"? And where lies the possibility of building a new type of human civilization with true universality? In Marx's view, "The bourgeoisie, by the rapid improvement of all instruments of production... draws all, even the most barbarian, nations into civilization," and "in one word, it creates a world after its own image." At this point, a modern "universal human civilization" subordinate to the bourgeoisie began to take shape. However, Marx adhered to historical dialectics, scrutinized the civilizational paradoxes under the dominance of the logic of capital, and pointed out that capitalist civilization would inevitably move toward self-destruction due to the internal contradictions of its mode of production. Human civilization will then move from "false universality" into a higher stage of true universality, reaching a civilizational state of "free individuality." Chinese Communists have profoundly grasped the essence of Marx’s civilizational thought, recognized the history and laws of development, clarified the root causes of contemporary civilizational chaos, and perceived the trends and goals of development. All of this provides solid theoretical support for building a community with a shared future for humanity.
On the other hand, the civilizational outlook contained in fine traditional Chinese culture provides rich cultural nourishment for the concept. The civilizational outlook in traditional Chinese culture takes "when the Great Way prevails, the world is shared by all" [5] as its core concept and ultimate ideal, encompassing various aspects such as "the man of humanity loves others," [6] "toiling from head to foot for the benefit of the world," [7] and "harmony and Great Unity." [8] "The man of humanity loves others" reflects the righteousness of the world (tianxia zhi yi) and is the basic prerequisite for the Great Way; it fully demonstrates the wisdom of the ancient Chinese civilizational outlook in social conduct, containing concepts such as "do not do to others what you would not have them do to you" and "seeking harmony among all nations." "Toiling from head to foot for the benefit of the world" reflects the interest of the world (tianxia zhi li); it is the principled criterion for the Great Way, signifying that civilizational interaction is for common development. One must both "enrich the country and strengthen the military" to achieve one's own development and uphold the concept that "when planning for profit, one should plan for the profit of the whole world" to achieve common development. "Harmony and Great Unity" reflects the destination of the world (tianxia zhi gui); it is the fundamental goal of the Great Way, advocating for social peace, loving others, and regarding all people as one's kin and all things as one's kind (minbao wuyu). It emphasizes selecting the virtuous and capable and pursuing common development. This is the depiction of the ideal state of society in fine traditional Chinese culture and the universal expectation of humanity for a better society. It is precisely because Chinese Communists have fully grasped the unique civilizational outlook of traditional Chinese culture that they can consistently adhere to the principle of "appreciating the beauty of one's own civilization, appreciating the beauty of others' civilizations, admiring each other's beauty, and achieving Great Unity in the world." [9] This provides deep cultural nourishment for the concept of a community with a shared future for humanity.
II. Breakthrough and Innovation: Civilizational Transcendence and Reconstruction in the Building of a Community with a Shared Future for Humanity
The reason the concept of building a community with a shared future for humanity can conform to the trend of the times and meet the expectations of people from all countries is, fundamentally, that it creates a new path for the development of human civilization based on a profound insight into the defects of Western civilization. Western civilization is dominated by capital, driven by interest, and aimed at hegemony, which consequently manifests in its civilizational nature, values, connotations, interactions, and goals as follows:
Characteristics such as "deconstructive," "universalist," "homogenizing," "hierarchical," and "shortsighted" have become the source of the quagmire facing world civilizations. The deficiencies of Western civilization are precisely the point of entry for the breakthroughs and innovations of the concept of a community with a shared future for humanity. By promoting new civilizational propositions—centered on the people, upholding the fundamentals and breaking new ground, exchange and mutual learning, shared destiny, and harmony in co-existence—this concept achieves the transcendence and reconstruction of Western civilization, thereby becoming a realistic solution for breaking through the global civilizational dilemma.
1. Reconstructing the Intrinsic Quality of Civilization After the establishment of the capitalist system, Western countries on the one hand engaged heavily in internal industrialization, commodification, and urbanization, accumulating vast wealth; on the other hand, they actively expanded outward, dumping goods, exporting capital, and plundering raw materials in pursuit of exclusive development. In this process, the state of isolation and insulation between different countries and civilizations was thoroughly shattered, and human society began to enter an era of economic globalization dominated by the West. Confronted with the intertwining and collision of different civilizations under the tide of economic globalization, Western countries relied on their late-mover advantage and used capitalism as the civilizational yardstick to propose a differentiated world civilizational schema of "traditional vs. modern," "civilized vs. barbaric," "progressive vs. conservative," and "Western vs. non-Western." They presumed to stand at the very pinnacle of the ladder of human civilization, declaring that "civilization" was synonymous with the power to dominate the world, while "barbarism" meant being enslaved and conquered. Driven by this rhetoric of "civilizational superiority," Western countries—under the guise of opposing tradition and eliminating ignorance—wantonly committed aggression against and colonized other countries, attempting to use Western civilization to deconstruct all non-Western civilizations and replace pluralism with monism, thereby incorporating all non-Western states into the evolutionary path and civilizational genealogy of capitalism. Consequently, the diversity of human civilization was dissolved and replaced by the singularity of capitalist civilization; the "garden of human civilizations" [10] began to wither within the deconstructive civilizational narrative of the West.
Distinct from the "deconstructive" attitude of Western civilization toward the world, the community with a shared future for humanity advocates a proactive, constructive outlook on civilization. General Secretary Xi Jinping has pointed out: "Promoting the building of a community with a shared future for humanity is not about replacing one system with another, or one civilization with another. Rather, it is about countries with different social systems, different ideologies, different histories and cultures, and different levels of development realizing a symbiosis of interests, sharing of rights, and co-sharing of responsibilities in international affairs, thereby creating the greatest common divisor for building a better world." Clearly, the concept of a community with a shared future for humanity manifests a "constructive" civilizational outlook that is diametrically opposed to that of the West. On one hand, this constructiveness is reflected in the concept’s proactive moderation of the relationship between civilizations. It pursues a new ecosystem of exchange and mutual learning between civilizations and critiques the Western dissolution of other cultures: "It is foolish to believe that one's own race or civilization is superior and to insist on transforming or even replacing other civilizations; in practice, it is catastrophic!" On the other hand, this constructiveness is reflected in the concept's portrayal of a future world vision and the clarification of a program for a beautiful world. Whether it is the construction of the "five worlds" [11]—covering the fields of politics, security, economy, culture, and ecology—or the characteristics of creativity and peace it embodies, all signify that the concept of a community with a shared future for humanity intends to forge a better world and a more brilliant civilization. It aims to build a new order of human civilization by promoting the integration and complementarity of different civilizations, thereby achieving a transcendence of the "deconstructive" civilizational orientation of capitalism.
2. Innovating the Value Concepts of Civilization Modern Western civilization emerged from the Christian tradition. Perfectionism, universalism, and soteriology based on abstract human nature theory have long permeated and shaped its psychological structure, in turn giving rise to a deeply rooted "savior" complex. To realize their specific interests, the bourgeoisie are adept at dressing their particular interest preferences, developmental orientations, and institutional choices in the garb of "universalism," generalizing them into abstract and absolute value symbols that transcend time, space, history, nations, and ethnicities; "universal values" are the typical representative of this. They export and peddle Western values such as "freedom," "democracy," and "human rights" everywhere, plotting to achieve global hegemony. These "universal values" are, in essence, an ideological smokescreen used by Western civilization to achieve its own interests; they have failed to be "universally applicable" either to Western civilization itself or to human civilization as a whole. Problems such as racial discrimination, money politics, labor-capital antagonism, and the lack of guaranteed human rights have persisted and intensified in Western societies over the long term. Acts of "peaceful evolution" [12] such as "color revolutions" and the "Arab Spring" stand in stark contrast to the "universal values" preached and flaunted by the West.
In response to the "universal values" rhetoric of Western civilization, the concept of a community with a shared future for humanity opposes the artificial elevation of a specific civilizational form as the sole yardstick of civilization or the packaging of a single civilizational will as the "福音书" (Gospel) for all humanity. It advocates that we should "understand the understanding of different civilizations regarding value connotations with a broad mind, and not impose our own values and models on others." It asserts that we must refine a true basic consensus on values for all humanity on the basis of seeking common ground while reserving differences, and promote the common values of humanity: "peace, development, fairness, justice, democracy, and freedom." The common values of humanity contain the shared aspirations and universal expectations of different civilizations. Among them, peace is the eternal hope of all peoples; development is the necessary prerequisite for prosperity; fairness and justice are the moral foundation of the international order; and democracy and freedom are the significant hallmarks of all-round human development. By promoting the common values of humanity, a new civilizational value concept, distinct from Western "universal values," is established. On one hand, it provides full understanding of the unique value connotations of different civilizations, respects the paths taken by different civilizations to realize their own values, and vigorously supports the rights of different countries to pursue the happiness of their people. On the other hand, it distills the basic value consensus of all humanity, outlines a "value concentric circle" that transcends differences and disagreements, and finds the greatest common divisor between civilizations. In this way, the community with a shared future for humanity opens up a vast space for the diverse development of civilizations within the unity of commonality and individuality, and universality and specificity. At the same time, it lays the value foundation for the common prosperity of different civilizations, thereby driving the transformation of human civilizational development from "taking the West as the standard of beauty" to "each appreciating its own beauty, and appreciating the beauty of others to achieve shared beauty" [13].
3. Enriching the Connotations of Civilizational Development In the modern transformation of Western civilization, capital has been the core force behind it; the developmental history of modern Western civilization is actually a history of the expansion and evolution of capital. Modern Western civilization was born of capital and flourished because of capital; therefore, the principle of capital is its primary principle, and the logic of capital deeply saturates its civilizational fabric as an inescapable base color. For capital, the realization of maximum appreciation (valorization) is its highest goal. This dictates that Western civilization must treat the economic rationality of optimal efficiency and maximum profit as its supreme tenet, serving as an escort for the limitless growth of capital. From the "compulsion for progress" logic pursued in capitalist production, to the "supremacy of money" rule implemented in social interaction, and finally to the "winner-takes-all" norm reflected in civilizational interaction—everything is weighed and selected on the scales of interest. Everything must submit and give way to the "supreme" principle of maximizing economic interest. Consequently, Western civilization, caught in the whirlpool of economic rationality and growth-ism, has degenerated into a singular civilizational form centered on material modernization. Although it has accumulated immense material wealth, the economic, social, cultural, ecological, and spiritual-moral crises caused by this narrowing of civilization have been pushed to an extreme. The so-called "Pareto optimality" ultimately resulted in a "dead end" for its civilizational development, as well as persistent global turmoil and stagnation.
Confronted with the "prisoner's dilemma" of Western civilization under a singular economic rationality, the concept of a community with a shared future for humanity stands on the ground of the world’s sustainable development and lasting prosperity. It clearly points out that human civilization is a complex organism composed of various aspects including economy, politics, culture, society, and ecology, whose elements are interconnected, mutually reinforcing, and inseparable. Only when all civilizational elements advance together in a coordinated and unified manner can there be a balancer and stabilizer to ensure sustainable development. Therefore, "the international community must make efforts in areas such as partnerships, security patterns, economic development, civilizational exchange, and ecological construction" in order to build a "world of lasting peace, universal security, common prosperity, openness and inclusiveness, and cleanliness and beauty." Specifically, this means: politically, adhering to dialogue rather than confrontation and partnership rather than alliance, and building a new type of partnership characterized by friendship across generations, high mutual trust, and shared destiny; economically, taking into account both the present and the long term, both making the "cake" bigger and dividing it well, and promoting economic globalization toward a more inclusive, balanced, and win-win direction; in terms of security, establishing a new outlook of common, comprehensive, cooperative, and sustainable security to provide a safety umbrella for all peoples; in terms of civilization, drawing on each other’s strengths for common progress to build a "garden of world civilizations"; and ecologically, advocating green, low-carbon, circular, and sustainable modes of production and life to achieve the organic unity of developed production, affluent life, and a sound ecosystem. The concept of a community with a shared future for humanity greatly broadens the horizons of human civilization and enriches its connotations. With the high-level wisdom of comprehensive, coordinated, and sustainable development, it achieves a thorough Aufhebung (sublation) of the singular economic rationality of Western civilization, providing a practical guide for world prosperity and stability.
4. Remodeling the Paradigm of Civilizational Interaction Given the inherent exclusivism of Western civilization, the global civilizational interaction paradigm and governance structure dominated by it also exhibit a distinct "center-periphery" characteristic, defined by the hegemony of a single power or the rule of a few. In order to ensure that the global political and economic landscape always implements the capitalist will and leans toward the capitalist side, Western countries engage heavily in ideological demarcation and bloc-forming. They gang up to piece together "arbitrary and dictatorial" small circles and distribute power according to the so-called "strength-based hierarchy" principle, thereby forming a unidirectional global governance pattern that decreases in intensity outward from a core of a few countries. In this pattern, the Western "center" countries firmly control the discourse power over the world's political, economic, cultural, and security orders. Using an extreme pragmatism of "use it if it fits, discard it if it doesn't," they arbitrarily tamper with international rules, while the vast number of "periphery" countries can only unconditionally obey their arrangements and instructions. any behavior or opinion that runs contrary to the will of the "center" countries is stigmatized as "rebellious" or "alien" and suffers heartless isolation and sanctions. In this way, the equal relationship between civilizations is completely destroyed. The vast number of late-developing countries have long been suppressed within a distorted order of "control and dependency," following the lead of Western countries and becoming victims of capitalist development.
In response to the hegemonism, power politics, and bullying practiced in the Western paradigm of civilizational interaction, the concept of a community with a shared future for humanity—with a global perspective and a sense of "Tianxia" (all under heaven) [14] characterized by symbiosis of interests, sharing of rights, and co-sharing of responsibilities—asserts that although countries vary in size and strength, they are all equal members of the international community and should receive undifferentiated treatment and respect. Any practice of monopolizing international affairs, hogging developmental advantages, or dominating the fate of other countries will only lead to global developmental imbalance, security disorder, and governance failure. Ultimately, in the bipolar confrontation of "the rich staying rich and the poor staying poor," human civilization will suffer a backlash. Therefore, the establishment of a civilizational order "cannot allow whoever has the 'biggest arm' [15] to have the final say." Different countries and civilizations should, under the premise of equality of rights, opportunities, and rules, replace civilizational suppression with civilizational exchange and replace civilizational superiority with mutual learning. In this way, they can jointly write international rules, jointly govern global affairs, jointly control the world's destiny, and jointly share the world's fruits. Only when global affairs are discussed by everyone, the governance system is built by everyone, and the fruits of governance are shared by everyone can different civilizations move toward exchange and mutual learning. Only then can their unique charms and profound heritages shine and complement each other in an integrated symbiosis. At that point, the entire paradigm of civilizational interaction will move from a "solo performance" by one party to a "concerted symphony" by many. Within a new civilizational order of extensive consultation, joint contribution, and shared benefits, all parties will join hands to create a new future for the development of human society.
5. Defining the Goals of Civilizational Progress From the perspective of historical materialism, human civilization is always advancing within the contradictory movement between productive forces and relations of production, presenting a dynamic process of evolution. However, capitalism eternalizes its own limited civilizational progressiveness, complacently treating...
They position themselves as "creators of civilization," proclaiming capitalism to be an "eternal law" and an everlasting "millennial kingdom." Especially after the collapse of the Soviet Union at the end of the 20th century, the apologists of capitalism went so far as to propagate the anti-intellectual rhetoric of the "end of history," falsely claiming that capitalist civilization is the "endpoint of mankind's ideological evolution" and the "final form of human government." They assert that "it is difficult for us today to imagine a world that is fundamentally better than ours, or a future that is not essentially democratic and capitalist." With such an extremely distorted mentality of civilizational narcissism, they gloss over capitalism as a universal panacea for the world's ills and enchant Western civilization as the supreme goal and state of "ultimate perfection" in the evolution of human civilization. Ironically, it is precisely this so-called "ultimately perfect" form of civilization that—when faced with today’s world of intertwined chaos and change and rising risks and challenges—has manifested a deep sense of powerlessness and exhaustion. It can only resort to "building fences and walls," "decoupling and severing chains," and "breaking treaties and withdrawing from groups" [16] as a means of reluctant self-preservation. The myth of the "end of history" has gone bankrupt.
The paradox of Western civilization proves to us that capitalism is by no means the pinnacle of human civilizational development; the "end of history" conforms neither to common sense nor to objective laws. Facing a human world undergoing great development and transformation, we must never pin our hopes on a twilight, decaying Western civilization. Instead, we must stand on the right side of history and the side of human progress. Supported by the construction of a community with a shared future for humanity, we must closely unite countries with different social systems, ideologies, historical cultures, and levels of development. We must break down barriers to civilizational exchange with a broad mind that "encompasses all rivers" [17] and absorb the nutrients of various civilizations with an inclusive attitude. By doing so, we can establish new thinking for civilizational exchange oriented toward the future, aggregate new wisdom for global governance, open a new order for international interaction, depict a new vision for a beautiful world, and create a new form of human civilization. This new form of human civilization is a great creation based on a profound insight into the general trend of world development, an accurate grasp of the common aspirations of the world’s people, and a deep exploration of the laws of economic and social development. It is the "correct path for humanity" (niánjiān zhèngdào) [18] that conforms to the laws of civilizational development and follows the trends of history. Consequently, the concept of a community with a shared future for humanity has redrawn the future blueprint of world civilizational development and achieved a major innovation in the theory and practice of civilizational development. It provides not only a brand-new choice for the development of all countries but also contributes Chinese wisdom to breaking through the predicament of human civilization, serving as a distinct banner led by China in the 21st century to guide the direction of human civilization.
III. Expansion and Sublimation: Promoting the Construction of a Community with a Shared Future for Humanity Under the Leadership of a New Form of Human Civilization
At present, the changes unseen in a century are accelerating, and humanity once again stands at a crossroads of history. In response, General Secretary Xi Jinping has pointed out: "Faced with the test of high winds, turbulent waves, and even perilous storms, all countries should uphold a correct worldview, historical outlook, and perspective on the big picture, translating the concept of a community with a shared future for humanity into action and turning the vision into reality." However, in the process of transforming concepts into action and visions into reality, we will inevitably encounter practical difficulties such as value divergences, interest games, cognitive differences, and misaligned responsibilities. This requires us to use the implementation of the four major Global Initiatives [19] as a starting point to promote the systematic renewal of global value consensus, developmental order, civilizational concepts, security systems, and governance patterns, thereby promoting the continuous expansion and sublimation of the great practice of building a community with a shared future for humanity.
First, we must further grasp new civilizational values, break through the value alienation caused by the differing interests of nation-states, and create a conceptual community based on extensive consultation and consensus. Consolidating consensus on value concepts is the basic prerequisite for building a community with a shared future for humanity. Only when there is mutual recognition and acknowledgment can hearts think alike and efforts be directed toward a single purpose to co-build a beautiful world. The deep development of economic globalization has made the connections between countries increasingly close; the international community has increasingly become a community with a shared future where "you are in me and I am in you." Yet, limited by differences in historical and cultural traditions, social system models, and core interest demands, the reality of "symbiosis of interests" has failed to translate into a "universal consensus" at the level of values. This has led to difficulties in cooperation regarding interest coordination and rule-making. Some Western countries consistently fail to face the reality of the diversity of world civilizations, even placing their own value systems above the world’s pluralistic civilizations in an attempt to use "universal values" to unify the values of all nations. This is not a genuine consensus of value concepts, but rather an ideological tool for interfering in the internal affairs of other countries and dominating the international order. To a certain extent, the "9/11" attacks, the war in Afghanistan, the Iraq war, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and the Russia-Ukraine conflict are all manifestations of conflicts in value systems. In view of this, the community with a shared future for humanity consistently upholds the common values of humanity as a universal principle and ideal pursuit. At the level of global governance, it utilizes the Global Development Initiative, the Global Security Initiative, the Global Civilization Initiative, and the Global Governance Initiative to aggregate a broad value consensus, providing a basic framework for breaking down value barriers between nations. This new civilizational consensus does not attempt to dissolve the specific values of each country through common values; rather, it emphasizes seeking the "greatest common denominator" of all countries’ interests through dialogue and consultation on the basis of respecting value differences. However, for the countries of the world to truly consolidate a consensus on value concepts, in addition to having common values of humanity that represent the shared pursuits of all people, these values must also become a "conscious choice" based on each country’s own rational judgment and interest calculations. Therefore, consolidating value consensus can neither avoid differences nor amplify confrontations. We must construct a dialogue mechanism in which multiple subjects participate equally, promoting exchange and consultation among all countries on their respective core concerns. This allows countries with different social systems, ideologies, historical cultures, and development levels to seek common ground while reserving differences and to cluster commonalities while resolving differences in international affairs. Only in this way can we break through the value alienation caused by the differing interests of nation-states and truly create a conceptual community based on extensive consultation and consensus.
Second, we must further grasp new civilizational achievements, break through the "interest barriers" caused by the inequality in the division of labor within global industrial chains, and create a development community of joint construction and interconnectivity. The community with a shared future for humanity is committed to narrowing the North-South gap, resolving developmental imbalances, and ensuring that all countries can participate in and enjoy the fruits of world economic development. Although the current global industrial chain division of labor has achieved great success in improving efficiency and creating wealth, its inherent inequality has increasingly become the core crux of global developmental imbalance. In the global division of labor, a few developed countries have long occupied the high value-added segments at both ends of the "smile curve," [20] seizing the vast majority of gains brought by the division of labor. Meanwhile, most developing countries are situated at the bottom of the "smile curve" in low value-added segments such as raw material supply and low-end processing and manufacturing, only obtaining meager benefits and falling into the trap of "growth without development." The fundamental reason lies in the extension and intensification of the internal contradictions of capitalist civilization on a global scale. The global community driven by this is essentially a "false community" coerced by the logic of capital, where the "shared nature" of the community is alienated into the "exclusivity" of capital. Consequently, the global division of labor loses its attribute of "mutual benefit and win-win results," degenerating into a channel for the unidirectional plunder of capital. In response, the community with a shared future for humanity must adhere to a logic of civilizational development where all countries are equal and progress together. By promoting the Global Development Initiative, it aims to achieve equalization of development opportunities, universal benefit of development results, and sustainability of development models, "unifying the interests of one's own people with the interests of people all over the world," so that the global division of labor benefits the people of all countries more broadly and fairly. On one hand, we must first "make the cake bigger," responding to the universal development aspirations of all countries. Taking the global industrial chain as a link, we should strengthen international cooperation, promote technology sharing, and jointly cultivate and strengthen new quality productive forces to inject lasting impetus into world economic growth. On the other hand, we must "divide the cake well," promoting countries to take into account the reasonable concerns of others while pursuing their own interests, and to promote the common development of all countries while seeking their own development. This ensures that the dividends of the global industrial chain benefit all nations. Ultimately, by making the cake of economic development bigger and dividing it well, we will realize a vision of civilizational development where each country applies its strengths, does its best, and finds its proper place.
Third, we must further grasp new civilizational safeguards, break through survival threats caused by traditional and non-traditional security issues, and create a security community of co-governance and coexistence. Security issues concern the future and destiny of the world and the survival of humanity. The community with a shared future for humanity aims to form a balanced, effective, and sustainable security architecture so that the people of every country can live and work in peace. Currently, human security faces a grim situation: traditional security issues such as territorial disputes and arms races have not been eradicated, while non-traditional security threats such as terrorism, separatism, religious extremism, and cyber security are intertwined. The interweaving of traditional and non-traditional security threats seriously endangers the lives of people everywhere, and achieving common international security urgently requires new concepts and methods. However, some developed countries practice the supremacy of power and pursue absolute security, causing the global community dominated by capitalism to fall into a security dilemma. Instead of forming a synergy to jointly deal with new security challenges, they have become an important cause of the intensification of the global security deficit. Therefore, the key to escaping the global security dilemma lies in sublated the national security logic advocated by capitalist civilization with the Global Security Initiative, which aims to promote shared safety and danger. We must establish a new security outlook that is common, comprehensive, cooperative, and sustainable. Specifically, the community with a shared future for humanity must first ensure that all countries establish an awareness of the equality of security interests, respecting and safeguarding the security of every country. We must ensure that no country can place its own security above that of others, let alone at the cost of harming others' security, thereby promoting a shift in national security strategies from "exclusive defense" to "inclusive co-governance." On this basis, we must, on one hand, plan the maintenance of security in both traditional and non-traditional fields, building a comprehensive and multi-layered security system. We must be alert to the interweaving and mutual intensification of these two types of risks, using the stability of traditional security as a foundation for addressing non-traditional security, while using the governance of non-traditional security to eliminate potential triggers for traditional security issues. On the other hand, we should coordinate the promotion of security governance through dialogue and cooperation, constructing multilateral security mechanisms and giving play to the synergistic roles of the United Nations and the coordination among major powers. This will enable countries to form a joint force to respond to security threats in both traditional and non-traditional fields. Only by building a global security governance system that covers both fields can we push human society from the security dilemma of "fighting each on their own" toward a security pattern of "co-governance and coexistence," providing a solid guarantee for the survival of human civilization.
Fourth, we must further grasp the new civilizational pattern, break through the contradiction between man and nature caused by traditional views of development, and create an ecological community of symbiosis and beauty. The progress of human civilization should not be achieved at the expense of nature but should realize sustainable development through the harmonious coexistence of man and nature. The community with a shared future for humanity aims to hold the environmental bottom line for nature and strive to build a planetary home where man and nature coexist in harmony. Since the advent of industrial civilization, the development model of conquering nature and plundering resources—while allowing human society to develop rapidly in a short period—has led to increasingly severe ecological issues such as global environmental pollution, climate warming, the sharp decline of biodiversity, and shortages of energy and resources, seriously threatening human survival and development. As the pioneers and greatest beneficiaries of industrial civilization, Western developed countries are the parties historically responsible for the global ecological crisis. However, regarding ecological issues, they have adopted...
Practices of "double standards" and "shifting the burden" involve, on the one hand, extracting cheap resources from nature and developing countries to sustain one's own development while transferring the ecological costs of high pollution and high emissions back onto nature and those developing nations. On the other hand, certain powers portray themselves as "environmental guardians," setting stringent environmental standards for developing countries while passively failing to fulfill their own commitments regarding emission reduction targets, financial assistance, and technical support. This selfish, traditional outlook on development has exacerbated the contradiction between humanity and nature, becoming the primary obstacle to global ecological governance. Facing the predicament of global ecological governance, the international community must collectively fulfill the principle of persisting in the harmonious coexistence between humanity and nature as advocated by the Global Development Initiative. Within the framework of a community with a shared future for humanity, we must work together to build a life community for humanity and nature [21] and jointly seek a path for their harmonious coexistence. On one hand, all countries should firmly establish the ecological civilization concept of "respecting, adapting to, and protecting nature." They should transcend traditional views of development by employing the "New Development Philosophy of innovation, coordination, greenness, openness, and sharing," and advocate for "green, low-carbon, circular, and sustainable" modes of production and lifestyle. This will continuously expand a path of civilized development characterized by productive development, prosperous lives, and sound ecology, achieving a synergy of economic, social, and ecological benefits. On the other hand, the international community should adhere to the concept of "common but differentiated" global ecological responsibilities [22]. Nations must actively fulfill international obligations and carry out global actions; in particular, Western developed countries need to face up to the "ecological debt" accumulated during their own processes of industrial civilization. They must honor their commitments of financial aid, technical support, and energy conservation and emission reduction through practical actions, working with developing countries to promote global ecological governance and leave a clean and beautiful world to future generations.
Fifth, further grasp the new civilizational goal to break through the struggle for global power distribution arising from the diffusion and eastward shift of international power, and create a cooperation community of mutual benefit and win-win results. The ultimate aim of a community with a shared future for humanity is to build a cooperation community of mutual benefit, realizing the value objective where "countries with different social systems, different ideologies, different histories and cultures, and different levels of development share symbiotic interests, shared rights, and shared responsibilities in international affairs." The realization of this goal will inevitably be affected by international power struggles. With the collective rise of emerging market economies and developing countries, the global power structure is exhibiting a trend of general diffusion and an "eastward shift." The essence of this shift is a profound adjustment of international power from "monopoly by a few countries" toward "participation by multiple subjects." This adjustment touches upon the fundamental architecture and future direction of the international order, breaking the global governance system dominated by Western countries led by the United States that was formed after World War II. Western countries, led by the U.S., are unwilling to easily relinquish their dominance over existing rules and attempt to exclude the Global South from the power system; meanwhile, the Global South, composed of emerging markets and developing countries, urgently hopes to participate in global governance and enhance its representation and voice within the global governance system. The difficulty in reconciling the interests and demands of various parties has triggered a global scramble for power and a contest over rules. Facing the objective trend of the evolving international power structure, we must build a cooperation community of mutual benefit and promote the steady transition of the global governance system from "Western-dominated" to "multilateral co-governance." On one hand, facing common human challenges and global governance dilemmas, we must follow the Global Governance Initiative to actively promote "North-South dialogue," allowing developed and developing countries to resolve differences, build consensus, and reach cooperation through equal communication. This involves deeply integrating the advantages of developed countries with the potential of developing countries to form a "1+1>2" win-win pattern, thereby transforming the original power game into a driving force for collaborative development and weakening the antagonistic nature of power struggles. On the other hand, we must improve the implementation mechanisms of the Global Civilization Initiative to transcend differences in history, culture, geography, and systems. This will allow the Global South to transform from a collection of scattered demand-expressers into unified participants in governance, deepening practical cooperation in regional and specific sectoral governance around common demands. By forming a collective force sufficient to promote the reform of international rules, we can drive global governance toward a more just and reasonable direction. Ultimately, by creating a cooperation community of mutual benefit and win-win results, we can realize friendly cooperation between countries of different social systems, different stages of development, and different sizes, moving continuously toward the human ideal of the "association of free individuals."
About the Author: Liu Yang is a Professor and Doctoral Supervisor at the School of Marxism, Shanghai University of Finance and Economics. Source: Marxism Studies (《马克思主义研究》), Issue 12, 2025. Editor: Huihui