 |
| Pix credit here: Unite, Work Hard for China's Prosperity to Speed Up the Struggle to Realize the 4 Modernizations |
Versión en español
Chinese Marxist-Leninism has never strayed far from one of its key core organizing premises--modernization. This is modernization--development of a nation's productive forces-- that understands production in a comprehensive way. It touches not just on economic development, but also social, cultural, religious, political, etc. All of the productive forces of a nation must be modernized to a quite specific purpose--to guide the nation toward an efficient and effective positive progress along a socialist path toward the realization of a communist society, a goal reached in the perfection of all productive forces as an in themselves. It is at this stage of development that the state would wither, the divide between capital and labor would become irrelevant, and permanent stability could be achieved.
It is at this point that Leninism--as a very specific form of vanguardism tied to the trajectories of Marxist progressivism--becomes a critical element in the management and guidance of social progress through the necessary stages of collective evolution toward that communist ideal state. Within the Russian context (then Soviet and in variation Marxist-Leninist governance circles), Leninist vanguardism progressed from a state of vanguardist professional revolutionaries (Lenin's What is to be Done?, 1902), to the managers of social, political. economic, cultural, etc. transformation that, at the hands of this Communist vanguard of leading social forces, could efficiently and deliberately guide the nation through the stages of its historical evolution to more efficiently reach the end of the socialist path initially within the structures of a dictatorship of the proletariat
"The Party is the highest form of organisation of the proletariat. The Party is the principle guiding force within the class of the proletarians and among the organisations of that class. But it does not by any means follow from this that the Party can be regarded as an end in itself, as a self-sufficient force. The Party is not only the highest form of class association of the proletarians; it is at the same time an instrument in the hands of the proletariat for achieving the dictatorship, when that has not yet been achieved and for consolidating and expanding the dictatorship when it has already been achieved. "(Josef Stalin, Foundations of Leninism, 1924 Part VIII).
Marx had suggested something like an inevitable organic progress in that respect; and he might have considered that Germany and the U.K. were, as the most advanced societies of the day, closer to reaching that goal. Lenin and then Mao Zedong are representative types for schools of thought that were built on a presumption that even societies stuck in much earlier stages of development could be scientifically managed forward in ways that substantially compressed the time to realization of the communist goal and thus the overall minimization of the suffering to be endured over a longer time period of development in getting there. Thus Marxist historical progression operates as an inevitable background text in liberal democracies, perhaps enhanced or constraint by its own vanguardist structures. Marxist Leninists rejected this idea in its Soviet phase (Josef Stalin, Foundations of Leninism, 1924, contextualizing Marxism within the stage of the historical development of Europe in the middle 19th century; a discursive approach that finds its way in a differently elaborated form within Chinese Marxist-Leninism); in Marxist States Leninism operates as the driver and guide, operating consciously and actively on the theoretical inevitabilities of Marxist predictive trajectories (in both cases the emerge of a communist society in which labor and capital, as traditional objects and subjects, become irrelevant) (For one version of the structuring of those debates, see, Leszek Kolakowski, Main Currents of Marxism (first published OUP, 1978).
 |
| Pix credit here |
In contrast, for emerging 19th and 20th century non-Soviet and post-Soviet and non-Marxist Leninism, the revolution IS American efficiency, one that required no ultimate objective other than the fulfillment of its highest forms of expression, guided by the vanguard built to facilitate those ends, like those around which Marxist realization of the perfection of the human condition might be realized, but here in whatever form might yet be revealed. That also placed development/modernization at the center of the project of the vanguard--but the point of value creation and of assessment would be different. And its techniques would reflect that foundational difference--markets versus planning; regulated fields of autonomy versus control, etc. But at the center--modernization and the striving toward whatever was conceived within the cognitive cages of each of these life-worlds, as perfection. See also my discussion (1) The American Leninist-Brain Trust Republic: Text of President Trump's Executive Order, "Launching the Genesis Mission," and the Press Release "President Trump Launches the Genesis Mission to Accelerate AI for Scientific Discovery"; and (2) Brief Reflections on Rahm Emanuel, "Trump's Research Cuts Play Into China's Hands".
 |
| Pix credit here (1st Ann. Prolet. Victory) |
In China, the idea that modernization does not mean “Westernization” long predates the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). “Chinese substance, Western application” (中体西用) was the slogan of reform-minded intellectuals after the defeat in the Opium Wars. Its essence has been carried on by the CCP whose leaders have emphasized that China will not pursue a “Western-style” but a “Chinese-style modernization” (中国式现代化). One that modernizes industry, agriculture, army and science and technology – but does not include political liberalization or democracy. The latter, the CCP believes, has led to social conflict within Western societies – something that China can only avoid through the leadership of the CCP and socialist modernization (社会主义现代化). (China Media Project; Modernization)
Assuming a unified Marxist Leninist Vanguard, and assuming stability and consensus about the Socialist Path, and assuming discussion at a purely theoretical level, then, what does change from one stage of China's historical development to another, as committed Chinese Leninist patriots would say, is the content and focus of modernization. That has been the basis on which the theorization of modernization and its relationship to the Socialist Path, and the constitution of the political economic model under the leadership and guidance of the Communist Party has developed since the Cultural Revolution in a more of less stable way. But what gets lost in all of this, especially the detail of crafting an apparatus through which the comprehensive process of modernization might be achieved to bring the backward forward, is the essential alignment of modernization as the meta-norm within which Marxist scientific and deterministic aspirationalism, the possibility of accelerating Marxist progress, and the role of a Leninist vanguard constituted and directed toward that effort, around which the institutions of State and Party, and its normative core are manifested and shaped.
Modernization, then, is not merely the object and the forms of the Socialist Path (toward the establishment of a communist society, the context of which changes during the stages of historical development and the character of each stage's general contradiction); it is both the object (manifestation) and the signification (the context in which meaning becomes meaningful) of both the initial institutional context f the post-revolutionary context of the dictatorship of the proletariat (now the people's democratic dictatorship) and of the vanguard party as the essence/incarnation and leader/guide of this objectives based mandate toward its (unavoidable per Marx) goal. Modernization (as development) assumes a critical role in non-Marxist and non-Marxist-Leninist systems overseen or guided through some form of vanguardist architecture; but the goals as articulated are different and the means for its realization much more fundamentally incompatible with Marxist-Leninist modernization--in theory at east, though there will be substantial points of functional convergence as to effect (for a comparative analysis on functional/historical frameworks from a Chinese perspective, see Guiguo Wang, The Right to Development: Contributions of the New Haven School of Jurisprudence and Chinese Traditional Culture, Yale J. Int'l L. (2024); for an internationalist Global South position, see here; the U.N. perspective here; and here. And all of this, of course, understanding modernization in its post-global sense: development of a nation's productive forces, one that touches not just on economic development, but also social, cultural, religious, political, virtual and every other form of object/process producing consequences for the collective undertaking modernization.
 |
| Pix credit here (2024) |
Versión en español
It is with this background firmly in mind that one might approach The Communist Party's current teaching on socialist modernization, 从世界历史纵深把握中国式现代化的时代价值 [Grasping the Contemporary Value of Chinese Modernization from the Depth of World History] It appeared in “人民要论” [People's Key Essays], a core column of the People's Daily Theoretical Edition, which focuses on contemporary and important major theoretical and practical issues, expressing the Communist Party's position in a way that is relevant to study by the people. Its author, Zhang Guanzi [张冠梓], is the current Director of the Institute of Chinese Modernization at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences. Its essence remains fundamentally aligned with the pronouncement of the 1978 poster reproduced above: 团结一致奋发图强为加速实现四个现代化而奋斗 [Unite, work hard for the prosperity of the country, to speed up the struggle to realize the Four Modernizations].
The entirety of the argument is laid out in the first paragraph of the essay:
Recast within the structures developed above, tis argument might be understood as this; (1) modernization is inevitable and embedded in the collective human condition; (2) modernization has assumed the character of a right, in the language of modernity and that of the collective of States; (3) modernization is not merely a movement; there is a science to modernization, a rule system to which conformity is required if progress, measured against the premises and values of modernization so conceived, is to be achieved; (4) the "general laws" of modernization may be realized differently as a function of the characteristics of the collective to which it is applied (many paths toward the same place); (5) the modernization trend has intensified as the (in the Marxist Leninist conception of progress from Soviet times, but also see Rosa Luxembourg) for of imperialism (generally amalgamated as "the West") continue their decline and drown in their own corrupting contradictions; (6) the Chinese modernization path is better aligned with the times, especially if it is toward the realization of a communist society that a collective aspires; and (7) the inevitable trajectories of the forward movement of stages in historical development (another though meta-form of modernization) reveal that the Chinese path is the better one.实现现代化是世界发展的历史潮流，是各国人民的共同向往。习近平总书记指出：“实现现代化是世界各国不可剥夺的权利”“一个国家走向现代化，既要遵循现代化的一般规律，更要符合本国实际、具有本国特色”。当今世界百年未有之大变局加速演进，国际力量对比深刻调整。西方现代化模式的局限与弊端日益凸显，世界迫切呼唤新的现代化路径。作为一种全新的现代化模式，中国式现代化打破了“现代化=西方化”的迷思，为世界现代化提供了新方案。深刻认识世界现代化的历史进程和中国式现代化的世界意义，有助于我们从世界历史纵深把握中国式现代化的时代价值，更加自觉、更加自信地推进和拓展中国式现代化。[Achieving modernization is a historical trend in global development and a shared aspiration of peoples worldwide. General Secretary Xi Jinping has pointed out: "Achieving modernization is an inalienable right of all countries in the world." He further noted: "As a country pursues modernization, it must follow the general laws of modernization while, more importantly, conforming to its own national realities and possessing its own distinctive characteristics." In today's world, the "profound changes unseen in a century" are accelerating in their evolution, and the global balance of power is undergoing deep adjustments. The limitations and drawbacks of the Western model of modernization are becoming increasingly evident, and the world is urgently calling for a new path to modernization. As a brand-new model of modernization, Chinese modernization shatters the myth that "modernization equals Westernization," offering a new solution for global modernization. A profound understanding of the historical trajectory of global modernization—as well as the global significance of Chinese modernization—enables us to grasp the contemporary value of Chinese modernization from the deep perspective of world history, thereby allowing us to advance and expand Chinese modernization with greater consciousness and confidence.] (从世界历史纵深把握中国式现代化的时代价值)
Pix credit here
The rest is intensely interesting detail.
The Essay starts with the principle of leapfrogging, the realization of which is made more efficient by an attuned Leninist vanguard. The Essay notes that though much of the contemporary character of modernization is marbled with and reflects the normative and cultural context of Western developed states, "it is imperative to recognize profoundly that numerous civilizations across the globe have all made significant contributions to the genesis and advancement of the global modernization process" [然而必须深刻认识到，全球各地众多文明对孕育和推动世界现代化进程都作出了重要贡献。] (从世界历史纵深把握中国式现代化的时代价值) That is an important stage setting for the premise that there are multiple pathways toward modernization. But the argument runs deeper. First it suggests that there is no such thing as a sui generis development of Western modernization. "西方的现代化不是在真空中孤立完成的内生演进，而是深深植根于全球文明的交流网络。[Western modernization was not an endogenous evolution accomplished in isolation within a vacuum; rather, it was deeply rooted in a global network of civilizational exchange.].(从世界历史纵深把握中国式现代化的时代价值). Second, it suggests that "the global modernization process was not a unidirectional diffusion driven by a "Eurocentric" perspective." []世界现代化进程也不是单向的“欧洲中心论”式的扩散。(Id.). Here Chinese Chinese Marxist-Leninists modernize and contextualize Marx in a way that parallels a similar effort by Stalinist-Marxist Leninists in Europe but to different effect.
Marx and Engels did not hesitate to lavish praise upon the elevation of productive forces under capitalism and the role it played in forging a global market. At the same time, it must be recognized that within this process, the non-Western world—encompassing Asia, Africa, and Latin America—was not merely a passive recipient; rather, by virtue of their vast markets and abundant resources, these regions became integral links in the global division of labor, irreversibly swept up into and integrated within the magnificent tide of global modernization. [马克思、恩格斯毫不吝啬地盛赞资本主义生产力水平的提升及其推动世界市场形成的作用。同时要看到，在这一进程中，亚非拉等非西方世界并非单纯的被动接受者，而是以庞大的市场、丰富的资源成为全球分工体系的重要一环，不可逆转地被卷入并融入了波澜壮阔的世界现代化大潮之中。] (从世界历史纵深把握中国式现代化的时代价值).
This premise then serves as a foundation for the leapfrogging argument extracted by the author from Marx: "马克思对人类社会发展普遍规律进行深刻洞察，指出东方社会“有可能不通过资本主义制度的卡夫丁峡谷，而占有资本主义制度所创造的一切积极的成果”，从而加速历史进程。" [Through profound insights into the universal laws governing the development of human society, Karl Marx noted that Eastern societies possessed the "possibility of appropriating all the positive results created by the capitalist system without passing through the Caudine Forks of the capitalist system itself," thereby accelerating the historical process. ] (Id.) The notion ties modernization to the essential value of a Marxist Leninist vanguard who is capable of guiding this leapfrogging, and as a consequence, of shortening the time and increasing the intensity of appropriate modernization without the pain of the traditional movement toward stages of historical development.
 |
| Pix credit here |
From here the necessary conclusions and insights may be drawn. Western modernization is merely one path toward development. But it is path dependent. "Institutionally speaking, Western modernization is a form of modernization realized under a capitalist system, driven at its core by the ceaseless accumulation and expansion of capital." [从制度上看，西方现代化是资本主义制度下的现代化，核心驱动力是资本的无限增殖与扩张] (从世界历史纵深把握中国式现代化的时代价值). Though wildly successful its adaptation poses problems for other cultures/civilizations that do not share the ordering premises of that context--and it is especially irrelevant--and corrupting--for Marxist Leninist systems of modernization, or at least to systems still committed as much to their Marxism as they are to the forms of Leninism that are adapt toward the realization of Marxist goals. That point is then elaborated by Zhang Guanzi in a summary of the traditional Marxist critique of capitalist modernization with substantial though transformed echoes of the old Soviet-Classical Maoist class struggle. But those echoes must now be bent to the current general contradiction: "the tension between unbalanced and inadequate development and the people's ever-growing needs for a better life," with respect to which one might note Slavoj Zizek's Introduction to the English Translation of Mao Zedong's On Practice and COntradiction (Verso, 2007). The general contradiction of a stage of historical development can as has been evident during the leadership of General Secretary Xi, have profound effects on the approach to and implementation of modernization strategies in a Marxist-Leninist system. (see, e.g., The 3rd Plenum Official Gloss--习近平：关于《中共中央关于进一步全面深化改革、推进中国式现代化的决定》的说明 [Xi Jinping: Explanation on the "Decision of the CPC Central Committee on Further Comprehensively Deepening Reforms and Promoting Chinese-style Modernization"]).
In the section of the essay that follows, 中国式现代化实现了对西方现代化理论和实践的重大超越 [Chinese Modernization Represents a Major Transcendence of Western Modernization Theory and Practice], Zhang Guanzi then moves from comparison in context to transcendence in a post-global context--the current stage of historical development of what passes for a world ordering.
|
| Pix credit here (Celebrate the 34th Anniversary of the PRC--The Motherland's 4 Modernizations Compose a New Hymn |
Zhang Guanzi starts by recapping the fundamental insight of the essay:
History has amply demonstrated that there is no single, ready-made template that can be mechanically applied to achieve modernization. As a nation embarks on the path toward modernization, it must not only adhere to the universal laws governing this process but, more importantly, remain firmly grounded in its own specific national conditions and cultivate its own unique characteristics. [历史充分表明，实现现代化没有模板可以套用。一个国家走向现代化，既要遵循现代化的一般规律，更要立足本国国情、具有本国特色。] (从世界历史纵深把握中国式现代化的时代价值)
And then he suggests the reasons, as a function of China's modernization success, that China provides the better version of the general template for modernization, which can then be adjusted to suit local conditions. It is here that the essay, in line with contemporary Chinese International initiatives, seeks to sell China as the appropriate baseline for Global South development:
Chinese-style modernization embodies a unique worldview, set of values, historical perspective, civilizational outlook, democratic philosophy, and ecological ethos. Having already achieved remarkable success, it is now regarded as a paradigmatic example of a late-developing nation striving to catch up and successfully forging a novel path toward modernization—one that represents a significant transcendence of Western theories and practices of modernization. [中国式现代化蕴含独特世界观、价值观、历史观、文明观、民主观、生态观等，已经取得显著成就，被视为一个后发国家奋力追赶并成功开辟现代化新道路的典范，实现了对西方现代化理论和实践的重大超越，] (Id.).These selling points are divided into three broad categories of alignment. First, Chinese modernization prioritizes people over capital [以人民至上超越资本至上]. Second they provide a structure for for transcending self-interest through harmonious co-existence [以和合共生超越损人利己]. Third, they avoid what must be understood as private monopolies in favor of openness and inclusion [以开放包容超越系统垄断]. This last point echoes arguments made, at the level of the state system, by Fidel Castro in the context of his critique of globalization (see, Ideologies of Globalization and Sovereign Debt: Cuba and the IMF, Penn State Int'l LRev 2006).
The essay ends with a consideration of Chinese style modernization, in which its own ideological stances and imperatives are deeply embedded, can change the fundamental laws of modernization and in that way displace or de-nature Western global structural elements of modernization. The template here is the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation--to displace the New American Golden Age.
"The new form of human civilization pioneered by Chinese modernization has not only achieved the continuity, iteration, and innovation of its own civilizational form, but has also, across multiple dimensions, explored the universal laws governing the resurgence of human civilization—particularly for developing nations and late-modernizing countries. This endeavor holds broad and profound global significance." [中国式现代化开创的人类文明新形态，不仅实现了自身文明形态的延续、迭代与创新，也在多个维度上探寻人类文明尤其是发展中国家和后发现代化国家文明复兴的普遍规律，具有广泛而深远的世界意义] (从世界历史纵深把握中国式现代化的时代价值).
That displacement is not merely pragmatic but also profoundly theoretical--grounded in the way in which some Chinese theorists choose to sketch the US-China oppositional cognitive binary; a subject on which there is substantially more to say. Zhang Guanzi asserts, for example, that "The successful practice of Chinese modernization has heralded the bankruptcy of the linear, teleological view of history—the notion that all nations of the world are ultimately destined to converge upon the Western institutional model. [中国式现代化的成功实践，宣告了那种认为世界各国终将归于西方制度模式的单线式历史观的破产] (Id.). And yet that cannot be entirely true. It is not so much that linear teleology is overcome, it is that non-Marxist linear teleology must overlay and serve as the converging framework for the historically driven none-linear pathways toward inevitable communism. It is the objective, not the process that appears to matter--at least theoretically--and that serves as a basis for asserting a necessary displacement. But again, every system comes with its own baggage, a point that Zhang Guanzi also makes though to different ends. And so one ends where one might have begun--in the market for orienting theories, each infused with the premises and perspectives from out of which they arose, each claiming for themselves a better version of the discovery and applicaiton of core principles--which remain quite broad--and each offering way to global ordering that is created in their respective images.
The only thing that remains constant is modernization itself. And it is in this sense that one might understand the larger point--that at least from the time of the Enlightenment, the conceptual cages of political collectives have understood themselves, have constituted themselves and see in their reflection nothing is not development and modernization. It is that concept, however elaborated, that then serves as the critical core element around which social collectives organize, asses and compete among themselves even they they frame their contests in virtually any language but that of modernization (as object), as signification (modernization to what ends) and as the understanding of collective human activity (how a modernizing collective is organized; how it operates from principle to pragmatics).
张冠梓 《人民日报》（2026年05月06日 第 09 版）
实现现代化是世界发展的历史潮流，是各国人民的共同向往。习近平总书记指出：“实现现代化是世界各国不可剥夺的权利”“一个国家走向现代化，既要遵循现代化的一般规律，更要符合本国实际、具有本国特色”。当今世界百年未有之大变局加速演进，国际力量对比深刻调整。西方现代化模式的局限与弊端日益凸显，世界迫切呼唤新的现代化路径。作为一种全新的现代化模式，中国式现代化打破了“现代化=西方化”的迷思，为世界现代化提供了新方案。深刻认识世界现代化的历史进程和中国式现代化的世界意义，有助于我们从世界历史纵深把握中国式现代化的时代价值，更加自觉、更加自信地推进和拓展中国式现代化。
世界现代化进程是全人类共同探索和推动的
习近平总书记指出：“人类社会创造的各种文明，都闪烁着璀璨光芒，为各国现代化积蓄了厚重底蕴、赋予了鲜明特质，并跨越时空、超越国界，共同为人类社会现代化进程作出了重要贡献。”世界现代化进程是从西方资本主义国家开始的，当今世界的发达国家也主要是欧美国家和深受西方文明影响的资本主义国家。然而必须深刻认识到，全球各地众多文明对孕育和推动世界现代化进程都作出了重要贡献。
马克思对人类社会发展普遍规律进行深刻洞察，指出东方社会“有可能不通过资本主义制度的卡夫丁峡谷，而占有资本主义制度所创造的一切积极的成果”，从而加速历史进程。与此同时，他坚决反对“一切民族，不管它们所处的历史环境如何，都注定要走这条道路”的僵化观点，强调“正确的理论必须结合具体情况并根据现存条件加以阐明和发挥”。这表明，现代化道路并不会局限于单一模式。发展道路多元多样，才是世界应有的样子。迄今为止，实现现代化的国家大都是西方资本主义国家，一些人因此形成了“现代化=西方化”的错觉，却忽略了世界现代化是全人类共同探索和推动的过程。
一方面，西方的现代化不是在真空中孤立完成的内生演进，而是深深植根于全球文明的交流网络。在漫长的历史时期，其他文明体系的诸多智慧成果持续传入欧洲并得到广泛应用。比如，中国的造纸术与印刷术打破了教会对知识和文化的垄断，指南针推动了地理大发现，火药则动摇了欧洲的封建统治。正如马克思所指出的：“火药、指南针、印刷术——这是预告资产阶级社会到来的三大发明。”这些成果并非简单的技术进步，而是切实成为思想解放与生产力发展的催化剂，成为西方现代化进程得以启动和推进不可或缺的社会历史条件。
另一方面，世界现代化进程也不是单向的“欧洲中心论”式的扩散。在西方资本主义力量向外拓展之前，不同地域的人群早已通过古老的贸易网络，以各自的方式参与并深刻塑造了世界现代化的早期“蓄水池”。工业革命的爆发迅速将世界市场联结在一起，极大促进了资本、技术、劳动力及原材料等生产要素在全球范围的流动与重新配置。马克思、恩格斯毫不吝啬地盛赞资本主义生产力水平的提升及其推动世界市场形成的作用。同时要看到，在这一进程中，亚非拉等非西方世界并非单纯的被动接受者，而是以庞大的市场、丰富的资源成为全球分工体系的重要一环，不可逆转地被卷入并融入了波澜壮阔的世界现代化大潮之中。
历史地看，西方现代化只是世界现代化的一种方式，根植于特定条件。从制度上看，西方现代化是资本主义制度下的现代化，核心驱动力是资本的无限增殖与扩张。这种方式尽管在特定历史阶段释放了巨大生产力，但也不可避免带来人的异化和社会的撕裂。资本逻辑把人当作资本增殖的工具和手段而非社会发展的目的，使得劳动不再是创造性活动而是劳动者被迫谋生的苦役，这种异化导致了普遍的精神空虚、意义丧失和物质主义膨胀，与人的自由全面发展这一现代化的目标背道而驰。资本追求利润最大化的本能，如果得不到有效规范和约束，必然导致严重的贫富分化，侵蚀社会公平正义，进一步引发社会阶层固化、民粹主义泛滥等后果。从伦理上看，西方现代化的历史充满战争、贩奴、殖民、掠夺等血腥罪恶。这决定了其现代化路径的非正义性与非普惠性，也使殖民地和半殖民地的国家和人民陷入悲惨境地。正如美国学者沃勒斯坦所指出的，资本主义世界经济体系的中心、半边缘和边缘地区分别被指派承担不同的经济角色，处于中心地区和半边缘地区的统治集团为了维持他们自己的生产和就业水平，将会以牺牲边缘地区为代价。可以说，西方现代化在很大程度上是以西方以外的国家和地区的长期欠发达为代价而得以推进的，这给广大发展中国家带来了深重苦难。
中国式现代化实现了对西方现代化理论和实践的重大超越
习近平总书记指出：“中国式现代化既有各国现代化的共同特征，更有基于自己国情的鲜明特色。”现代化不是少数国家的“专利品”，也不是非此即彼的“单选题”，不能搞简单的千篇一律、“复制粘贴”。历史充分表明，实现现代化没有模板可以套用。一个国家走向现代化，既要遵循现代化的一般规律，更要立足本国国情、具有本国特色。
中国式现代化的成功推进和拓展有其内在规定性，植根于深厚的历史土壤。鸦片战争后，中国曾尝试移植西方的技术、制度乃至文化，但均未成功，反而陷入了家国破碎、水深火热的境地，探索现代化道路的重任历史地落到了中国共产党身上。我们党以马克思主义为指导思想，在独立自主的探索精神、坚持走自己的路的信心决心支撑下，不断把中国的现代化推向前进。新中国成立后，我们党带领人民用几十年时间走完了西方发达国家几百年走过的工业化历程，成功推进和拓展了中国式现代化，创造了人类文明新形态。中国式现代化展现出宏阔的历史纵深与文明高度，得益于中华民族5000多年优秀传统文化的滋养。比如，“天下为公”的价值追求，推动中国式现代化规避两极分化、贫富悬殊的陷阱；又如，“天人合一”的宇宙观和“道法自然”的生态理念，推动中国式现代化尊重自然、顺应自然、保护自然，彰显人与自然和谐共生的鲜明特点。
当前，越来越多的国家不再盲目追随西方现代化模式，而是积极探索符合本国国情、符合人类社会发展规律的发展道路。中国式现代化蕴含独特世界观、价值观、历史观、文明观、民主观、生态观等，已经取得显著成就，被视为一个后发国家奋力追赶并成功开辟现代化新道路的典范，实现了对西方现代化理论和实践的重大超越，这里列举几个方面。
以人民至上超越资本至上。西方现代化以资本为中心。在资本逻辑主导下，西方现代化推崇工具理性，人的主体价值被不断消解甚至抽空，这也使西方现代化不可避免地陷入社会撕裂、治理失灵等多重困境。中国式现代化尊重人的主体性、彰显人的价值，将人视为发展的根本目的，坚持以人民为中心的发展思想，着力在发展中保障和改善民生，解决人民群众急难愁盼问题，并引导资本服务于社会主义现代化建设和人的全面发展，让现代化建设成果更多更公平地惠及全体人民。
以和合共生超越损人利己。西方现代化内嵌二元对立思维，热衷零和博弈。从基于暴力征服的劫掠到基于霸权体系的收割，从对自然资源的无节制索取到对生态环境的破坏性开发，西方现代化贯穿着种种有形和无形的掠夺，带来的是少数国家的利益凌驾于多数国家之上、全球贫富差距拉大，同时也引发了物质与精神的失衡、人与自然的对立以及广泛的社会失序。中国式现代化推崇和衷共济、和合共生，注重可持续发展，坚持走生产发展、生活富裕、生态良好的文明发展道路，不断拓展和平发展、合作共赢的广度和深度。
以开放包容超越系统垄断。为了维护自身利益垄断的格局，西方现代化在实践中塑造并推广了一个依附、封闭的垄断系统，企图将这种利益垄断结构固定化乃至永久化。中国式现代化则以开放包容、命运与共的天下情怀观照世界，同包括广大发展中国家在内的世界各国一道实现现代化。比如，中国以高质量共建“一带一路”为重要平台，着眼推进平等有序的世界多极化、普惠包容的经济全球化，促进各国互利合作、实现共同发展。
中国式现代化对世界现代化进程产生深远影响
中华民族伟大复兴是在世界现代化大潮中展开的，追求的不仅是本国的繁荣富强，更是人类文明的发展进步。中国式现代化开创的人类文明新形态，不仅实现了自身文明形态的延续、迭代与创新，也在多个维度上探寻人类文明尤其是发展中国家和后发现代化国家文明复兴的普遍规律，具有广泛而深远的世界意义。
打破了西方现代化模式的神话，证实了现代化道路的多样性。长期以来，西方世界通过持续向非西方世界施加其所谓的“文明开化”，牢牢控制对“文明”的解释权、裁量权和话语权，西方现代化理论往往基于西方中心主义的预设，从而导向了系统性的认知偏见和实践误差。不同的区域、民族、国家和文明如何在自身所处的特定条件下实现发展和演进，是一个非线性、非均衡的具体历史过程。中国式现代化的成功实践，宣告了那种认为世界各国终将归于西方制度模式的单线式历史观的破产。从这个意义上看，中国式现代化不仅深刻改变了中国自身，也改写了长期以来由西方主导的现代化叙事，证明了真正的现代化不是唯我独尊式的神话，而是发展多样性的彰显；不是单一模式的强行输出，而是多元道路的自主选择；不是所谓的“历史终结”，而是人类文明面向未来的共同进步。
提供了不同于西方现代化的发展哲学和治理思路。对于许多民族而言，在当前国际环境下，通过模仿西方现代化获取在世界体系中的合理位置，面临重重压迫和阻碍。中国式现代化走出的现代化新路，恰恰能够提供有益的破解之道。中国式现代化坚持走独立自主的发展道路，凭借强有力的政治核心，确保了国家发展战略的长期稳定与连贯执行，牢牢掌握发展的主动权。中国式现代化实现了对发展目标的持续校正，从脱贫攻坚战取得全面胜利到在高质量发展中扎实推进共同富裕，体现了坚持以人民为中心的发展思想。中国式现代化提供了更为丰富的治理思路，比如，社会主义市场经济体制推动有效市场和有为政府更好结合，打破了“市场原教旨主义”与“政府干预理论”二元对立和“市场与政府非此即彼”的思维定式。
重塑世界现代化格局，推进人类现代化进程。一方面，中国式现代化将极大改变现代化的世界版图。14亿多人口整体迈入现代化，能够深刻改变世界现代化的力量对比和格局，将有效破除一些西方国家试图以西方中心主义的世界观框定的现代化世界版图，对破解人类社会发展难题、推进人类现代化进程具有重要意义。另一方面，中国式现代化的接续推进，在为全球发展贡献动能和机遇的过程中拓展了世界现代化的发展空间。中国与世界各国深化交流合作，推动构建人类命运共同体，为各国搭乘中国发展快车、共享发展机遇创造了条件，为全球南方国家突破发展瓶颈、增强在全球事务中的话语权提供了重要机遇，将推动各国在世界现代化进程中携手共进，达到人类文明的新高度。
（作者为中国社会科学院中国式现代化研究院院长）
Grasping the Contemporary Value of Chinese Modernization from the Depth of World History (People's Tribune)
Zhang Guanzi | *People's Daily* (May 6, 2026, Page 9)
Achieving modernization is a historical trend in global development and a shared aspiration of peoples worldwide. General Secretary Xi Jinping has pointed out: "Achieving modernization is an inalienable right of all countries in the world." He further noted: "As a country pursues modernization, it must follow the general laws of modernization while, more importantly, conforming to its own national realities and possessing its own distinctive characteristics." In today's world, the "profound changes unseen in a century" are accelerating in their evolution, and the global balance of power is undergoing deep adjustments. The limitations and drawbacks of the Western model of modernization are becoming increasingly evident, and the world is urgently calling for a new path to modernization. As a brand-new model of modernization, Chinese modernization shatters the myth that "modernization equals Westernization," offering a new solution for global modernization. A profound understanding of the historical trajectory of global modernization—as well as the global significance of Chinese modernization—enables us to grasp the contemporary value of Chinese modernization from the deep perspective of world history, thereby allowing us to advance and expand Chinese modernization with greater consciousness and confidence.
**The Process of Global Modernization Has Been Jointly Explored and Advanced by All of Humanity**
General Secretary Xi Jinping has pointed out: "The various civilizations created by human society all shine with dazzling brilliance; they have accumulated a rich heritage and endowed distinct characteristics to the modernization efforts of various nations. Moreover, transcending time, space, and national borders, they have collectively made significant contributions to the process of human societal modernization." While the process of global modernization originated in Western capitalist nations—and while the developed countries of the contemporary world remain predominantly European and North American nations, or capitalist states deeply influenced by Western civilization—it is imperative to recognize profoundly that numerous civilizations across the globe have all made significant contributions to the genesis and advancement of the global modernization process.
Through profound insights into the universal laws governing the development of human society, Karl Marx noted that Eastern societies possessed the "possibility of appropriating all the positive results created by the capitalist system without passing through the Caudine Forks of the capitalist system itself," thereby accelerating the historical process. At the same time, he firmly rejected the rigid view that "all nations, regardless of their historical circumstances, are destined to follow this specific path," emphasizing instead that "correct theory must be integrated with concrete situations and elucidated and developed in accordance with existing conditions." This demonstrates that the path to modernization is not confined to a single model. A diversity of developmental paths—plural and varied—is precisely how the world ought to be. To date, the nations that have successfully achieved modernization have predominantly been Western capitalist states; consequently, some have fallen prey to the misconception that "modernization equals Westernization," while overlooking the fact that global modernization is a collective process, explored and advanced by all of humanity.
On one hand, Western modernization was not an endogenous evolution accomplished in isolation within a vacuum; rather, it was deeply rooted in a global network of civilizational exchange. Over the course of a long historical epoch, numerous intellectual achievements from other civilizational systems continuously flowed into Europe and found widespread application. For instance, China’s inventions of papermaking and printing broke the Church’s monopoly on knowledge and culture; the compass facilitated the Age of Discovery; and gunpowder shook the foundations of feudal rule in Europe. As Marx observed: "Gunpowder, the compass, and printing—these were the three great inventions that heralded the advent of bourgeois society." These achievements were not merely simple technological advancements; they served, in a tangible sense, as catalysts for intellectual liberation and the development of productive forces—becoming the indispensable socio-historical conditions that enabled the Western modernization process to be initiated and sustained.
On the other hand, the global modernization process was not a unidirectional diffusion driven by a "Eurocentric" perspective. Long before the outward expansion of Western capitalist forces, peoples across different regions had already—through ancient trade networks and in their own distinct ways—participated in and profoundly shaped the early "reservoir" of global modernization. The outbreak of the Industrial Revolution rapidly interconnected global markets, vastly accelerating the worldwide flow and reallocation of productive factors such as capital, technology, labor, and raw materials. Marx and Engels did not hesitate to lavish praise upon the elevation of productive forces under capitalism and the role it played in forging a global market. At the same time, it must be recognized that within this process, the non-Western world—encompassing Asia, Africa, and Latin America—was not merely a passive recipient; rather, by virtue of their vast markets and abundant resources, these regions became integral links in the global division of labor, irreversibly swept up into and integrated within the magnificent tide of global modernization.
From a historical perspective, Western modernization represents but one specific modality of global modernization—one that is deeply rooted in a particular set of conditions. Institutionally speaking, Western modernization is a form of modernization realized under a capitalist system, driven at its core by the ceaseless accumulation and expansion of capital. Although this approach unleashed immense productive forces during a specific historical phase, it inevitably brought about human alienation and social fragmentation. The logic of capital treats human beings merely as tools and means for the accumulation of capital, rather than as the ultimate purpose of social development; consequently, labor ceases to be a creative endeavor and devolves instead into a form of grueling toil that workers are compelled to endure simply to earn a living. This alienation gives rise to widespread spiritual emptiness, a loss of meaning, and rampant materialism—outcomes that run directly counter to the goal of modernization: the free and comprehensive development of the human being. The innate capitalist drive to maximize profit—if left unchecked by effective regulation and restraint—inevitably leads to severe wealth disparity, erodes social equity and justice, and further triggers such consequences as the ossification of social classes and the rampant spread of populism. From an ethical standpoint, the history of Western modernization is rife with bloody atrocities—including wars, the slave trade, colonialism, and plunder. This history underscores the fundamentally unjust and non-inclusive nature of the Western path to modernization, a path that plunged colonized and semi-colonized nations and peoples into dire misery. As the American scholar Wallerstein observed, the core, semi-periphery, and periphery regions within the capitalist world-economy system are assigned distinct economic roles; the ruling elites in the core and semi-periphery regions, in their efforts to sustain their own levels of production and employment, do so at the direct expense of the periphery regions. In essence, Western modernization was advanced, to a significant degree, by exacting a heavy toll: the prolonged underdevelopment of nations and regions outside the Western sphere—a reality that has inflicted profound suffering upon the vast majority of developing countries.
Chinese Modernization Represents a Major Transcendence of Western Modernization Theory and Practice
General Secretary Xi Jinping has pointed out: "Chinese modernization shares the common characteristics of modernization across all nations, yet it possesses distinct features rooted in China's own national conditions." Modernization is not the exclusive "patent" of a select few nations, nor is it a rigid, "either-or" multiple-choice question; it cannot be achieved through simplistic uniformity or a mere process of "copy-and-paste." History has amply demonstrated that there is no single, ready-made template that can be mechanically applied to achieve modernization. As a nation embarks on the path toward modernization, it must not only adhere to the universal laws governing this process but, more importantly, remain firmly grounded in its own specific national conditions and cultivate its own unique characteristics.
The successful advancement and expansion of Chinese modernization are underpinned by an inherent logic and are deeply rooted in a rich historical soil. Following the Opium War, China attempted to transplant Western technologies, institutions, and even culture; however, these efforts met with failure. Instead, the nation plunged into a dire state of fragmentation and profound suffering. Consequently, the momentous responsibility of charting a path toward modernization historically fell upon the shoulders of the Communist Party of China. Guided by Marxism, and bolstered by a spirit of independent exploration—along with the unwavering confidence and resolve to follow its own distinct path—our Party has continuously advanced China's modernization drive. Since the founding of the New China, our Party has led the people in accomplishing, within a mere few decades, an industrialization process that took Western developed nations several centuries to complete. In doing so, we have successfully advanced and expanded a unique model of Chinese-style modernization, thereby creating a new form of human civilization. Chinese-style modernization exhibits profound historical depth and a lofty civilizational stature, a distinction owed to the nourishment it has received from the Chinese nation's excellent traditional culture, spanning over 5,000 years. For instance, the pursuit of the value "the world belongs to all" (Tianxia Weigong) has enabled Chinese-style modernization to steer clear of the pitfalls of polarization and widening wealth disparities. Furthermore, the cosmology of "unity between Heaven and humanity" and the ecological philosophy of "following the Way of Nature" have inspired Chinese-style modernization to respect, adapt to, and protect the natural world—thereby highlighting its distinctive characteristic of harmonious coexistence between humanity and nature.
Currently, an increasing number of nations are no longer blindly emulating Western models of modernization; instead, they are actively exploring development paths that align with their own specific national conditions and the universal laws governing the development of human society. Chinese-style modernization embodies a unique worldview, set of values, historical perspective, civilizational outlook, democratic philosophy, and ecological ethos. Having already achieved remarkable success, it is now regarded as a paradigmatic example of a late-developing nation striving to catch up and successfully forging a novel path toward modernization—one that represents a significant transcendence of Western theories and practices of modernization. The following points illustrate several key aspects of this achievement.
Prioritizing the People Over Capital. Western modernization is fundamentally centered on capital. Dominated by the logic of capital, Western modernization exalts instrumental rationality; consequently, the intrinsic value of the human being is progressively eroded—and at times, completely hollowed out. This inherent dynamic has inevitably ensnared Western modernization in a multitude of predicaments, ranging from social fragmentation to systemic governance failures. Chinese modernization respects human agency and highlights human value, regarding the human being as the fundamental purpose of development. It upholds a people-centered philosophy of development, focusing on safeguarding and improving people's livelihoods amidst development, addressing the urgent difficulties and pressing concerns of the masses, and guiding capital to serve the construction of socialist modernization and the comprehensive development of the individual—thereby ensuring that the fruits of modernization benefit the entire population more extensively and equitably.
Transcending Self-Interest through Harmonious Coexistence. Western modernization is embedded with a mindset of binary opposition and is predisposed toward zero-sum games. Ranging from plunder rooted in violent conquest to economic extraction based on hegemonic systems, and from the unrestrained exploitation of natural resources to the destructive development of ecological environments, Western modernization has been permeated by various forms of tangible and intangible predation. This has resulted in the interests of a few nations taking precedence over those of the majority, a widening global wealth gap, and—simultaneously—an imbalance between material and spiritual realms, an antagonism between humanity and nature, and widespread social disorder. In contrast, Chinese modernization champions mutual assistance and harmonious coexistence; it prioritizes sustainable development and steadfastly pursues a path of civilized development characterized by productive growth, prosperous living, and a sound ecology, continuously expanding the breadth and depth of peaceful development and win-win cooperation.
Transcending Systemic Monopolies through Openness and Inclusiveness. In order to preserve a status quo defined by the monopoly of their own interests, Western modernization has, in practice, constructed and propagated a closed, dependency-based monopolistic system, attempting to entrench—and even render permanent—this structure of monopolized interests. Chinese modernization, conversely, views the world through a lens of openness, inclusiveness, and a shared destiny for all humanity, striving to achieve modernization in concert with nations across the globe—including the vast majority of developing countries. For instance, China utilizes the high-quality joint construction of the "Belt and Road Initiative" as a pivotal platform to advance an equal and orderly multipolar world and an inclusive, universally beneficial economic globalization, thereby fostering mutually beneficial cooperation among nations and realizing common development.
Chinese Modernization Exerts a Profound Influence on the Global Modernization Process
The great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation is unfolding amidst the sweeping tide of global modernization; what it seeks to achieve is not merely the prosperity and strength of its own country, but—more fundamentally—the development and progress of human civilization as a whole. The new form of human civilization pioneered by Chinese modernization has not only achieved the continuity, iteration, and innovation of its own civilizational form, but has also, across multiple dimensions, explored the universal laws governing the resurgence of human civilization—particularly for developing nations and late-modernizing countries. This endeavor holds broad and profound global significance.
It has shattered the myth of the Western model of modernization, thereby validating the diversity of modernization paths. For a long time, the Western world—by continuously imposing its so-called "civilizing mission" upon the non-Western world—firmly monopolized the authority to interpret, adjudicate, and shape the discourse surrounding "civilization." Consequently, Western theories of modernization were often predicated upon Eurocentric assumptions, leading to systemic cognitive biases and practical errors. The question of how diverse regions, ethnic groups, nations, and civilizations achieve development and evolution within their own specific contexts constitutes a concrete historical process—one that is inherently nonlinear and asymmetrical. The successful practice of Chinese modernization has heralded the bankruptcy of the linear, teleological view of history—the notion that all nations of the world are ultimately destined to converge upon the Western institutional model. In this sense, Chinese modernization has not only profoundly transformed China itself but has also rewritten the long-standing, Western-dominated narrative of modernization. It demonstrates that true modernization is not an egocentric myth, but rather a manifestation of developmental diversity; it is not the forceful export of a singular model, but the autonomous choice of pluralistic paths; and it is not the so-called "End of History," but rather the collective progress of human civilization toward the future.
It offers a philosophy of development and a framework for governance distinct from those of Western modernization. For many nations, navigating the current international landscape while attempting to secure a legitimate standing within the global system by merely mimicking Western modernization entails confronting formidable pressures and obstacles. The novel path to modernization forged by China offers precisely the kind of constructive solution needed to overcome these challenges. Chinese modernization steadfastly adheres to a path of independent and autonomous development; anchored by a robust political core, it ensures the long-term stability and consistent implementation of national development strategies, thereby firmly retaining the initiative in its own development trajectory. Furthermore, Chinese modernization has achieved a continuous process of calibrating its development objectives—ranging from the comprehensive victory secured in the battle against poverty to the steady advancement of "common prosperity" amidst high-quality development—thereby embodying a steadfast commitment to a people-centered philosophy of development. Chinese modernization offers a richer array of governance approaches; for instance, the socialist market economy system fosters a better integration of an "effective market" and a "capable government," thereby breaking the binary opposition between "market fundamentalism" and "theories of government intervention," as well as the rigid mindset that views the market and the government as mutually exclusive alternatives.
It reshapes the global landscape of modernization and advances the human modernization process. On one hand, Chinese modernization will profoundly alter the global map of modernization. The collective entry of a population exceeding 1.4 billion into the ranks of modernization will fundamentally shift the balance of power and the overall configuration of global modernization. This effectively dismantles the global modernization framework that certain Western nations have attempted to impose through a Eurocentric worldview, holding profound significance for resolving the complex challenges facing human societal development and propelling the human modernization process forward. On the other hand, the sustained advancement of Chinese modernization expands the scope for global modernization by contributing fresh momentum and opportunities to global development. By deepening exchanges and cooperation with nations worldwide—and by championing the building of a community with a shared future for mankind—China creates conditions enabling other countries to "board the express train" of China's development and share in its opportunities. Furthermore, it offers a vital opportunity for nations of the Global South to overcome development bottlenecks and enhance their voice in global affairs, thereby encouraging all nations to join hands in the global modernization process and collectively reach new heights of human civilization.
(The author is the Director of the Institute of Chinese Modernization at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences.)
No comments:
Post a Comment