当今极权国家的现代化假象The Modernization Mirage of Contemporary Authoritarian States: The Case of China

 以中国为例

表面上看，今日中国拥有高速铁路、互联网平台、庞大工业体系和现代化军队，这些似乎是“现代社会”的标志。然而，这种现代性并非中共政权内生发展的结果，而是中国在全球资本主义体系中被动嵌入、吸收西方文明成果的产物。若剔除西方科学、技术、资本和制度经验的输入，中共治下的社会逻辑与清朝高度相似，甚至在某些方面更为退步。本文将分析中共“嫁接的现代性”及其与威权政治的内在矛盾，揭示其现代化假象的本质。一、现代性的表象与实质中国今日的现代化成就——高铁、互联网、工业体系等——看似彰显国家实力，但这些并非中共自发孕育。相反，它们是全球化背景下西方技术、资本和制度输入的结果。若无此外部支持，中国的现代化进程可能仍停滞于苏联式计划经济的低效状态。相比清朝，中共治下的社会在某些方面甚至更显退步：

1. 社会治理的倒退：清朝保留一定的法治与礼治秩序，如地方乡绅自治和宗族制治理，民间社会具有一定自主性。而中共通过党国机器全面掌控社会，摧毁了民间自治空间。
2. 腐败的系统化：清朝的腐败多为个体行为，存在一定边界；而中共的腐败通过制度化垄断渗透至社会各领域，形成系统性掠夺。
3. 思想交流的封闭：清朝通过洋务运动和留学生潮积极吸收西方知识，而中共以意识形态为前提选择性借鉴，严格控制舆论与思想，阻碍自主创新。

因此，中共的现代性并非内生，而是**“嫁接的现代性”**，其核心逻辑仍带有前现代特征。二、嫁接现代性的历史逻辑

1. 技术与资本的输入
   改革开放以来，中国的工业化与城市化高度依赖外资、外企和全球市场。上海的制造业、深圳的电子产业链，皆为全球化嵌入的产物。若无此外部助力，中国经济可能仍受困于计划经济的低效。
2. 制度经验的借鉴
   现代行政管理、财政体系乃至“国家治理现代化”的理念，均源自西方政治学和公共管理学的成果。中共虽借鉴这些经验，却通过权力化改造，将其转化为维稳和强化统治的工具。
3. 教育与科学体系的引入
   中国的大学制度、科研方法和学科体系直接承袭西方模式。若无此体系，中国的科学技术可能仍停留在零散的传统匠人经验，难以形成现代科学共同体。

三、威权政治与现代性的矛盾中共嫁接的现代性与其威权政治逻辑存在根本张力：

• 理性与人治的冲突：现代性强调理性、规则和契约，而威权体制依赖人治、恣意和服从。
• 开放与封闭的矛盾：现代性需要开放交流以促进创新，而威权体制通过信息控制和思想审查维持统治。
• 权利与压制的对立：现代性以个体权利和尊严为核心，而威权体制将个体工具化，压制自由。

这种矛盾导致中国社会呈现出分裂景象：一方面拥有高铁、“天眼”、航天等现代技术成就；另一方面却存在大规模文字狱、互联网封禁和思想管制等前现代特征。现代化的外壳掩盖了威权统治的本质。四、清朝与中共的对比与清朝相比，中共治下的社会生态在某些方面更为封闭：

1. 民间空间的丧失：清朝保留了宗族、会馆、书院等多元化民间空间，社会具备一定自组织能力。而中共通过全面监控和党国渗透，消灭了民间社会的自主性。
2. 国家暴力的扩张：清朝中央权力有限，“天高皇帝远”为地方留下喘息空间。而中共通过现代技术实现了对社会的全面掌控，压缩了个体自由。
3. 思想自由的倒退：清末知识分子可自由接触西学、翻译外文著作，思想界逐渐多元化。而今日中国知识分子面临更严苛的言论与出版审查，思想生态更为单一。

若剔除西方文明的嫁接，中共的治理逻辑不仅未超越清朝，甚至在社会活力与思想自由度上更为落后。五、结论与警示中共的现代性是西方文明嵌入的副产品，而非其内生能力。其真正擅长的，是通过控制、垄断、宣传和暴力维持统治。任何将中共视为“现代化国家代表”的判断均失之偏颇。它仅是在西方文明的嫁接之上，披上现代化外壳，而其核心仍是一个前现代的威权机器。这一现代化假象对国际社会和国内民众皆有警示意义：

• 国际社会：应认清中共现代化的外部依赖性，避免高估其自主创新能力，同时警惕其通过技术外壳输出的威权影响。
• 国内治理：真正的现代化需建立在理性、开放和尊重个体权利的基础上，而非依赖压迫与封闭的威权逻辑。

只有超越“嫁接的现代性”，构建基于自由与公正的内生现代性，中国才能实现真正的长久繁荣。

At first glance, contemporary China appears to be a modern society: it boasts high-speed railways, internet platforms, a vast industrial system, and a modernized military. These seem to be the hallmarks of “modernity.” Yet this modernity is not the product of endogenous development under the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). Rather, it is the result of China’s passive integration into the global capitalist system and its absorption of Western civilizational achievements. If one were to strip away the inputs of Western science, technology, capital, and institutional experience, the CCP’s governance logic would strongly resemble that of the Qing dynasty—indeed, in some respects, it is even more regressive. This article analyzes the CCP’s “grafted modernity” and its intrinsic contradictions with authoritarian politics, thereby exposing the essence of its modernization as a façade.

---

I. The Appearance and Reality of Modernity

China’s modern achievements—high-speed railways, internet platforms, and industrial capacity—seem to demonstrate state power. Yet these are not the CCP’s own creations. They are the products of globalization: the infusion of Western technology, capital, and institutional knowledge. Without such external support, China’s modernization would likely have remained trapped in the inefficiencies of Soviet-style planned economy.

Compared with the Qing dynasty, CCP-ruled China in some respects shows greater regression:

• Decline of social governance: The Qing dynasty retained elements of legal and ritual order, such as local gentry autonomy and clan-based governance, which allowed a degree of societal self-rule. By contrast, the CCP has used the party-state apparatus to dominate society completely, eliminating spaces for self-governance.

• Systematized corruption: Corruption in the Qing dynasty was mostly individual and bounded, whereas under the CCP it is institutionalized and penetrates all sectors, producing systemic plunder.

• Closure of intellectual exchange: The Qing dynasty actively absorbed Western knowledge through the Self-Strengthening Movement and study-abroad initiatives. By contrast, the CCP borrows selectively under ideological constraints and enforces strict control over public opinion and thought, thereby obstructing genuine innovation.

Thus, the CCP’s modernity is not endogenous but rather a case of “grafted modernity” whose core logic remains premodern.

---

II. The Historical Logic of Grafted Modernity

1. Technology and Capital Imports
   Since the reform and opening era, China’s industrialization and urbanization have depended heavily on foreign investment, foreign enterprises, and global markets. Shanghai’s manufacturing base and Shenzhen’s electronics supply chains are products of global integration. Without such external assistance, the Chinese economy might still be mired in the inefficiencies of central planning.

2. Institutional Borrowing
   Modern administrative management, fiscal systems, and even the discourse of “state governance modernization” are derived from Western political science and public administration. The CCP has borrowed these frameworks but transformed them into tools for maintaining stability and reinforcing authoritarian rule.

3. Educational and Scientific Systems
   China’s university system, research methods, and academic disciplines were directly inherited from Western models. Without this imported structure, Chinese science and technology would likely have remained fragmented, rooted in artisanal traditions, and unable to form a modern scientific community.

---

III. The Contradiction Between Authoritarianism and Modernity

The CCP’s grafted modernity is fundamentally at odds with its authoritarian political logic:

• Rationality vs. Rule by Man: Modernity emphasizes rationality, rules, and contracts, while authoritarianism relies on arbitrary power and obedience.

• Openness vs. Closure: Modernity requires openness and exchange to foster innovation, but authoritarianism sustains itself through information control and censorship.

• Rights vs. Suppression: Modernity is grounded in individual rights and dignity, whereas authoritarianism treats individuals as tools and suppresses freedom.

This contradiction produces a fractured reality: on the one hand, China possesses high-speed rail, satellite surveillance systems, and space programs; on the other hand, it continues to practice mass imprisonment for speech, internet censorship, and ideological repression—features of a premodern order concealed beneath a modern façade.

---

IV. The Qing Dynasty and the CCP: A Comparison

When compared with the Qing dynasty, CCP-era China appears more closed in several respects:

• Loss of civic space: The Qing maintained diverse social spaces such as clans, guilds, and academies, which allowed for some degree of self-organization. The CCP, through comprehensive surveillance and party-state penetration, has eradicated civil society autonomy.

• Expansion of state violence: The Qing’s central authority was limited, with the proverb “Heaven is high and the emperor is far away” leaving room for local autonomy. The CCP, however, employs modern technology to exercise total control, compressing individual freedoms.

• Regression of intellectual freedom: Late Qing intellectuals could access Western learning freely and translate foreign works, fostering ideological diversity. Today, Chinese intellectuals face harsher censorship and publication restrictions, resulting in an increasingly homogenized intellectual environment.

Thus, without the grafting of Western civilization, CCP governance logic would not surpass the Qing dynasty; in fact, it is more regressive in terms of social vitality and intellectual freedom.

---

V. Conclusion and Warning

The CCP’s modernity is a byproduct of Western civilizational integration, not an inherent capacity. Its true expertise lies in control, monopoly, propaganda, and violence. Any portrayal of the CCP as a representative of “modernization” is deeply misleading. What appears modern is only an external shell; at its core, the regime remains a premodern authoritarian machine.

This modernization mirage carries warnings for both the international community and Chinese society:

• For the international community: Recognize the CCP’s dependence on external inputs and avoid overestimating its capacity for independent innovation, while remaining vigilant against its attempts to export authoritarian influence under a technological guise.

• For domestic governance: Genuine modernization must rest upon rationality, openness, and respect for individual rights, rather than authoritarian repression and closure.

Only by transcending this “grafted modernity” and constructing an endogenous modernity grounded in freedom and justice can China achieve sustainable prosperity.