How Chinese modernization represents a new form of human civilization

Chinese modernization embodies multiple attributes, including externally-driven modernization, socialist modernization, and the modernization of a developing country. When China embarked on its modernization journey, capitalist countries in the West had already completed this process, and the Soviet Union had achieved significant success in heavy industry through its four “Five-Year Plans” under the Stalinist model. Meanwhile, most developing countries were still engaged in fervent national liberation movements during the 1950s, lacking the political readiness for modernization.

However, as China entered the era of reform and opening up, achieving theoretical and practical breakthroughs in Chinese modernization, the global modernization landscape had undergone dramatic changes. Western capitalist countries transitioned from over two decades of post-war economic boom to a period of “stagflation,” with their models of modernization in crises. Although the Soviet Union’s socialist modernization, driven by its planned economy and Brezhnev’s reforms, initially showed promise, it soon became rigid and conservative. Developing countries, despite their strong desire to develop national economies, largely remained under the shadow of Western modernization models. In contrast, Chinese modernization, in both theory and practice, transcended these paths and models, highlighting a new form of human civilization.

Chinese Modernization Surpasses Western Capital-Centric, Violent, and Expansionist Modernization

Karl Marx wrote that “capital comes into the world dripping from head to foot, from every pore, with blood and dirt.” This sentiment, echoed by Thomas Dunning and popularized by Marx, emphasizes that “Capital eschews no profit, or very small profit, just as Nature was formerly said to abhor a vacuum. With adequate profit, capital is very bold… If turbulence and strife will bring a profit, it will freely encourage both.”

Western modernization began with external expansion. Following the first Industrial Revolution, Britain, as the then “workshop of the world”, initiated a phase of expansion through a combination of commercial prowess and military coercion. The second Industrial Revolution saw Western countries engage in expansion driven by capital and military strength, competing ferociously for spheres of influence. After World War II, Western countries exported their modernization models, attempting to constrain developing countries within the old political and economic order they dominated. These examples underscore that Western modernization blatantly centered around and served the interests of capital..

Western capital-centric modernization has two core characteristics. First, it has been inherently violent and bloody, evident in the conquest and division of numerous developing countries and the continuous wars among Western powers. Developing countries still suffer from the consequences of colonialism and imperialism, while the two world wars inflicted immense suffering globally. Second, Western modernization has always been an export-oriented model, starting with the export of goods during the first wave of modernization, followed by capital export in the second wave, and ultimately the export of development models post-World War II, establishing dominance in commodities (industrial), capital (financial), and values (ideological).

In contrast, Chinese modernization centers on people. Domestically, it upholds the principle of prioritizing people, emphasizing the people’s welfare in the direction of modernization. This people-centered approach is not only a characteristic but also an essential requirement and major principle of Chinese modernization. Internationally, it actively promotes the building of a global community of shared future for mankind. Having endured colonial oppression and modern warfare, Chinese modernization rejects the zero-sum game approach of Western modernization. Within the framework of Chinese modernization, a global community of shared future envisions a world of lasting peace, universal security, common prosperity, openness, inclusiveness, and ecological beauty. The approach to building this community emphasizes dialogue and consultation, co-construction and sharing, cooperation and win-win outcomes, exchange and mutual learning, and a commitment to green and low-carbon development.

Chinese Modernization Surpasses the Soviet Model’s Rigid, Planned Economy-Centric Modernization

The Chinese nation witnessed the grandeur of socialist modernization in the Soviet Union. The October Revolution opened a breach in the “imperialist chain,” introducing a socialist model to the global modernization landscape. Despite capitalist encirclement and containment, the Soviet Union embarked on socialist construction, pioneering a new modernization path distinct from the West’s. The modernization achievements of the Soviet Union over its brief 70-year history proved that the socialist path could lead to successful modernization.

The Soviet model, epitomized by the Stalinist approach, leveraged a highly centralized political and economic system to concentrate human, financial, and material resources on heavy industry, especially military industries, to surpass capitalism and ensure national security. The early success of this model solidified the Stalinist path. However, as the Soviet Union enshrined the Stalinist model as theoretically infallible, its modernization trajectory became rigid.

The rigidity of the Soviet modernization path stifled theoretical and practical innovation within and outside the Communist Party. Politically, a privileged class emerged within the party, distancing it from public oversight. From the 23rd to the 26th Party Congress of the CPSU, the re-election rate of the Central Committee members exceeded 90%, with the Politburo and Secretariat of the 26th Congress largely unchanged from the 25th. Economically, the party lacked the motivation and resolve for reform. Brezhnev’s economic reforms, which introduced market adjustments into the planned economy and saw initial success, were soon abandoned. After the 24th Party Congress in 1971, calls for deeper reform were criticized, and traditional economic theories excluding market elements regained dominance. Even during periods of steady economic growth, the Soviet Union did not focus on improving living standards but instead invested heavily in an arms race with the United States, neglecting the core socialist principles of democracy and prosperity.

The Soviet modernization path had a significant impact on China. China completed its socialist transformation and initial industrialization by learning from the Soviet model. However, early on, then leaders of the Communist Party of China like Mao Zedong proposed the “four modernizations” to break the heavy industry-centric focus. During the new period of socialist modernization and reform and opening up, Deng Xiaoping introduced the important concept of “Chinese-style modernization.” Since the 18th CPC National Congress, General Secretary Xi Jinping has advanced a series of new concepts, ideas, and strategies for Chinese modernization, reflecting on the Soviet experience and innovating the socialist approach to modernization.

In the early years of USSR, Lenin creatively charted a correct course for Soviet socialism with the New Economic Policy (NEP), which, based on Soviet realities, aimed at partially restoring state capitalism through grain tax, trade freedom, and the granting of concessions to foreign investors. This “state capitalism under communism” was unprecedented in theory or practice, but the NEP was prematurely abandoned in favor of rigid policies. Soviet modernization theories, such as “Socialism Achieved,” “Comprehensive Construction of Communism,” “Developed Socialism Achieved,” and “Starting Point of Developed Socialism,” failed to accurately reflect the developmental stages of Soviet socialism, eventually leading to its failure.

Chinese Modernization Surpasses Developing Countries’ Passive, Imitative Modernization

The Chinese nation, like many developing countries, has faced arduous modernization challenges. Overall, developing countries’ modernization efforts have been largely unsuccessful, whether in early-modernizing Latin America or later-modernizing Africa, where the path to modernization remains long and difficult.

Marx observed that “The country that is more developed industrially only shows to the less developed an image of its own future.” Western nations, as pioneers of modernization, had early starts and high degrees of maturity in modernization. Their influence exerted a powerful demonstration effect on late-modernizing countries, establishing Western theories and narratives as the dominant form. This has led to the perception that modernization equals Westernization.

When many developing countries reluctantly embarked on modernization, they faced continuous political turmoil and economic and social pressures, which were, in essence, consequences of prolonged Western colonial rule. Marx noted the dual historical mission of Western colonialism, using India as an example: “England has to fulfill a double mission in India: one destructive, the other regenerating the annihilation of old Asiatic society, and laying the material foundations of Western society in Asia.” Thus, the modernization of developing countries is marked by a significant contradiction: politically anti-Western, yet economically dependent on Western commerce, finance, and technology.

In the global wave of modernization in the latter half of the 20th century, most developing countries, lacking the initial conditions of early modernizing nations, transplanted Western economic development models, hoping that rapid economic growth would overcome backwardness. Raul Prebisch termed this as “imitative capitalism.” These efforts, measured by results, have all failed.

China, transforming from a poor, late-starting, populous developing country into the world’s second-largest economy, provides immense inspiration for other developing nations. This inspiration lies in China’s departure from transplanted modernization models, instead pursuing a self-determined development path. Chinese modernization is characterized by five features, with only its large population being a natural attribute; the other four result from proactive choices by the Communist Party of China. This modernization particularly values non-economic factors, such as establishing a strong government for sustained political stability, emphasizing cultural strength to foster national cohesion, and recognizing the importance of people in modernization – both as the driving force and ultimate beneficiaries.

As Xi Jinping stated, “In the whole history of mankind, no nation or state has ever been able to rise to power and rejuvenate itself by relying solely on external forces or blindly following others.” Thus, Chinese modernization offers developing countries not a template, but development concepts and experiences, as there is no universally applicable development path or model.

Continuous Innovation in Chinese Modernization

When Francis Fukuyama proclaimed “the end of history,” Chinese modernization faced internal and external challenges – externally, the adverse environment following the collapse of the Soviet Union and Eastern Bloc, and internally, theoretical confusion brought by new modernization practices. These challenges boiled down to one question: Is Chinese modernization viable? The Communist Party of China, leading the Chinese people, swiftly provided a robust answer: Chinese modernization not only works, but also creates a new form of human civilization that surpasses Western, Soviet, and developing country models.

“One who travels a hundred miles should consider ninety miles as halfway.” Although Chinese modernization shows a promising future, the road ahead will not be smooth. Externally, de-globalization, unilateralism, and protectionism are rising; the US and Western nations are exerting political pressure and economic “decoupling,” use ethnic and religious issues to destabilize China, and are attempting to hinder China’s modernization and the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation. Internally, Chinese modernization still requires theoretical innovation. The 20th National Congress of the CPC outlines a two-step strategy: basically realizing socialist modernization from 2020 through 2035; and building China into a great modern socialist country that is prosperous, strong, democratic, culturally advanced, harmonious, and beautiful from 2035 through the middle of this century. As China becomes a moderately developed country, or at the latest by the centennial of the founding of the People’s Republic, we will have achieved common prosperity, addressing the contradiction between the people’s growing needs for a better life and unbalanced development. And when that moment comes, will we face the transition from “the first stage of communism” to “the advanced stage of communism” as Marx predicted? But Deng Xiaoping stressed, “We should adhere to the basic line for a hundred years, with no vacillation.” This being said, after the second centenary goal is achieved, will we need to re-examine the primary stage of socialism theoretically? This is a profound question for China, the world, the people, and our times.

(Author: Li Lianguang is a lecturer at the School of Ethnology and Sociology, South-Central Minzu University for Nationalities)