一 撰写《中国产业结构演变史（1949—2019）》的意义

就我国学界来看，关于产业经济学的著作已问世多年，但研究产业结构史的著作迄今尚未见到。这个学科空白亟须填补。习近平总书记指出，“历史研究是一切社会科学的基础”6611711。显然，这个原理对于产业结构演变史研究也是完全适用的。对产业结构演变史的研究，不仅是进一步发展产业经济学的基础，而且由于它是整个经济史研究的重要组成部分，因而对于进一步发展经济史研究和经济学的研究也都是必要的。按照笔者的体会，这也是习近平总书记提出的中国哲学社会科学要不断推进学科体系、学术体系、话语体系建设和创新6611712的要求。正是基于这样的考虑，笔者试图在这方面做些探索，撰写本书以就教于学界同人。

二 撰写《中国产业结构演变史（1949—2019）》的指导思想

撰写本书必须坚持马克思主义的指导。马克思主义揭示了人类社会、自然和思维发展的普遍规律。近几年来，习近平总书记多次强调在哲学社会科学研究中坚持马克思主义为指导的极端重要的意义。他说：“坚持以马克思主义为指导，是当代中国哲学社会科学区别于其他哲学社会科学的根本标志。”“在我国，不坚持以马克思主义为指导，哲学社会科学就会失去灵魂，迷失方向，最终也不能发挥应有作用。”6611713“在坚持以马克思主义为指导这一根本问题上，我们必须坚定不移，任何时候任何情况下都不能动摇。”6611714

当然，马克思主义的应用必须结合实际，并且必须结合实际加以发展；否则，不仅不可能成为实践的指导思想，而且会成为贻害实践的僵化教条。这意味着坚持马克思主义为指导思想，就要坚持马克思主义普遍真理与中国实践和时代特征相结合的中国化马克思主义为指导思想。按照邓小平的说法，“我们坚信马克思主义，但马克思主义必须与中国实际相结合。只有结合中国实际的马克思主义，才是我们所需要的真正的马克思主义。”6611715

为了说明这一点，有必要简述中国化马克思主义发展历程。

毛泽东把马克思列宁主义一般原理与中国半殖民地半封建社会这个最大实际结合起来，从根本上否定了照搬资本主义国家革命道路的“左”倾教条主义，创立了新民主主义理论（包括民主主义革命论和新民主主义社会论）6611716，并领导中国人民推翻了帝国主义、封建主义和官僚资本主义反动统治，建立了中华人民共和国，完成了新民主主义革命，建立了新民主主义社会。继而又领导中国人民实现了由新民主主义社会到社会主义社会的过渡，建立了社会主义的基本经济制度，并初步建立了独立的比较完整的工业体系和国民经济体系。

邓小平把马克思主义的一般原理与中国社会主义初级阶段这个最大实际结合起来，并依据我国和世界社会主义各国经验的科学总结，从根本上否定了此前我国照搬苏联计划经济体制的错误，创立了中国特色社会主义理论。按照他自己的说法，“无论是革命还是建设，都要注意学习和借鉴外国经验。但是，照抄照搬别国经验、别国模式，从来不能得到成功。这方面我们有过不少教训。把马克思主义的普遍真理同我国的具体实际结合起来，走自己的道路，建设有中国特色的社会主义，这就是我们总结长期历史经验得出的基本结论。”6611717由邓小平开创的中国特色社会主义理论在党的十二大至十八大期间得到了进一步的重大发展。在这个理论的指导下，我国经济改革和经济发展取得了历史性成就，主要是：社会主义市场经济体制基本框架已经建立并趋完善；在实现总体小康的基础上，又在全面建成小康道路上迈出了决定性的步伐。

习近平总书记顺应时代发展潮流，从理论和实践结合上系统回答了新时代坚持和发展什么样的中国特色的社会主义，怎样坚持和发展中国特色社会主义这个最大的时代课题，创立了习近平新时代中国特色社会主义思想。党的十八大以来，在以习近平同志为核心的党中央坚强领导下，中国在改革和发展等方面取得了全方位开创性的成就，实现了深层次根本性的变革，把习近平新时代中国特色社会主义变成了生动的实践。这个实践充分证明了习近平新时代中国特色社会主义是中国化马克思主义新的发展历史阶段。

上述历史表明：在新中国成立以来的70年中，无论是其初期实行的新民主主义社会的经济纲领，或者是后来实现的社会主义革命和社会主义建设以及改革开放路线，都是在中国化马克思主义的指导下进行的。因此，从唯物论的视角看，撰写《中国产业结构演变史（1949—2019）》以中国化马克思主义为指导不过是真实地再现了这个历史发展过程。

坚持以马克思主义为指导必须遵循以下基本原则。

第一，必须坚持实事求是原则。

毛泽东曾经对实事求是原则做过完整的科学的界定。他说：“‘实事’就是客观存在着的一切事物，‘是’就是客观事物的内部联系，即规律性，‘求’就是我们去研究。我们要从国内外、省内外、县内外、区内外的实际情况出发，从其中引出其固有的而不是臆造的规律性，即找出事物的内部联系，作为我们行动的向导。而要这样做，就须不凭主观想象，不凭一时的热情，不凭死的书本，而凭客观存在的事实，详细地占有材料，在马克思列宁主义一般原理的指导下，从这些材料中引出正确的结论。”6611718

邓小平曾经高度评价了实事求是原则在马克思主义中的重要地位。他说：“实事求是，是无产阶级世界观的基础，是马克思主义的思想基础。实事求是是马克思主义的精髓。”6611719

因此，从史实出发，就成为撰写本书的基本出发点。如果不从史实出发，而从原则出发，就不可能完成它的使命。

但是，这里所说的史实，必须是经过批判地审查过的，去伪存真的，而不是虚实混杂的；是从事实的全部总和、从事实的联系去掌握事实，而不是片断的和随便拣出来的；是反映客观规律要求的大量事实，而不是个别的偶然现象；是表现本质的典型事实，而不是歪曲本质的假象。

用历史事实叙述这个产业结构演变的历史过程，是包括本书在内的所有史学著作在叙述形式上所必须具有的一个重要特点。这同经济学对问题的分析采取摆脱了具体历史形式的抽象论述，是有重大区别的。

与这个特点相联系，本书在篇章排列顺序上也有它的特点。马克思在论述政治经济学资本主义部分的经济范畴排列次序以及与此直接相联系的分篇时曾经指出：把经济范畴按它们在历史上起决定作用的先后次序来安排是不行的，是错误的。它们的次序倒是由它们在现代资产阶级社会中的相互关系决定的。与此不同，产业结构演变史的研究则必须按照历史发展阶段的先后顺序来分篇。

这样说，并不意味着本书可以不采用逻辑方法。事实上，产业结构演变史对某个历史阶段内各方面经济问题进行叙述时，也有一个诸方面先后次序的排列问题。而这诸方面由于均处于同一个历史阶段，就没有历史发展的先后次序之分；对这诸方面先后次序的安排，就不可能采取历史的方法，而只能依据它们在社会经济中的相互关系来决定。作为史学著作的本书分析某个具体经济问题所提出的各个论点的先后次序的排列，也存在这种情况。但是，史学在这两方面采用的逻辑方法，与政治经济学仍然不同：后者可以采取抽象的论点形式，而史学则必须通过历史事实来阐述。就这方面说，可以称为以历史方法为主，并与逻辑方法相结合的方法。

第二，必须坚持生产力标准。

列宁依据马克思主义关于生产力与生产关系以及经济基础与上层建筑相互关系的原理，强调了生产力在创立历史唯物主义方面的决定作用。他明确指出，“只有把社会关系归结于生产关系，把生产关系归结于生产力的水平，才能有可靠的根据把社会形态的发展看作自然历史过程。不言而喻，没有这种观点，也就不会有社会科学。”6611720

毛泽东把这个原理运用于中国新民主主义革命的实践。强调“中国一切政党的政策及其实践在中国人民中所表现的作用的好坏、大小，归根结底，看它对于中国人民的生产力的发展是否有帮助及帮助之大小，看它是束缚生产力的，还是解放生产力的”6611721。

后来，毛泽东把这个原理运用于中国社会主义革命的实践，又一次指出，“我国现在的社会制度比较旧时代的社会制度要优胜得多。如果不优胜，旧制度就不会被推翻，新制度就不可能建立。所谓社会主义生产关系比较旧时代生产关系更能够适合生产力发展的性质，就是指能够容纳生产力以旧社会所没有的速度迅速发展。因而生产不断扩大，因而使人民不断增长的需要能够逐步得到满足的这样一种情况。”6611722

邓小平把这个原理运用于中国改革开放的实践，并针对1958年以来长期存在的忽视这个原理的“左”的错误，以及当时改革进程中存在的这种倾向，反复强调：“社会主义的本质，是解放生产力，发展生产力，消灭剥削，消除两极分化，最终达到共同富裕。”“社会主义的任务很多，但根本的一条就是发展生产力，在发展生产力的基础上体现出优于资本主义，为实现共产主义创造物质基础。我们在一个长时期里忽视了发展社会主义社会的生产力。”他还针对改革中发生的改革姓“资”姓“社”的争论，旗帜鲜明地指出，“判断的标准，应该主要看是否有利于发展社会主义社会的生产力，是否有利于增强社会主义国家的综合国力，是否有利于提高人民的生活水平”6611723。

因此，撰写本书必须坚持生产力标准。这是历史唯物主义的基本要求。如果不坚持这个标准，而采用别的标准，那么，本书所要揭示的产业结构演变的历史进程，也不可能得到科学说明。就产业结构演变史来说，其变化的原因以及其优劣的评价的最重要标准必须而且只能是：是否有利于社会生产力的发展。

第三，必须坚持中国共产党的领导在经济变革和经济发展（包括产业结构变化）方面的决定作用。

因为中国新民主主义社会的建立，从新民主主义社会到社会主义社会的过渡，以及从计划经济体制到社会主义市场经济体制的转变，都是在党的领导下进行的。而且由我国国情决定的市场经济，不能是古典的、自由放任的市场经济，也不是一般的、现代的、有国家干预的市场经济，而是特殊的、有国家更多干预的市场经济。当然，这种干预是以市场为基础的，市场是社会生产资源配置的主要方式。这样，如果脱离了党的领导作用，那么，中国经济发展过程（包括顺利发展过程和遭受严重挫折过程），是不可能得到说明的。正因为这样，本书每篇在叙述新中国各个时期产业结构演变过程时，都要首先叙述党在这个时期提出的路线及其实施过程。这绝不是形式主义的做法，绝不是多余的，而是为了真实地再现中国经济发展的过程。当然，这绝不是说，党提出的路线，在各个时期和各个方面都是正确的，都起了积极作用。实际上，在某些时期或某些时期的某些方面是有缺陷和错误的，在不同程度上起了消极作用。这是需要依据各个时期经济发展的具体情况给予客观评价。但如果脱离了党的领导作用，中国经济发展的进程是无法得到说明的。中国在改革开放以后在发展经济方面取得的伟大成就，被国际舆论普遍誉为世界奇迹。其实，这个奇迹最重要的“谜底”，就是中国共产党的坚强领导。正是这一点，是中国社会主义初级阶段特有而其他任何国家都不可能具有的基本国情和基本优势。正如习近平总书记所总结的，“中国共产党的领导是中国特色社会主义最本质的特征。”“只要我们深入了解中国近代史、中国现代史、中国革命史，就不难发现，如果没有中国共产党领导，我们的国家、我们的民族不可能取得今天这样的成就，也不可能具有今天这样的国际地位。”6611724

强调这一点，同生产力决定生产关系以及经济基础决定上层建筑的历史唯物主义原理并不是矛盾的，而是统一的。关于这一点，毛泽东作过一个精辟的说明。他说：“生产力和生产关系的矛盾，生产力是主要的；理论与实践的矛盾，实践是主要的；经济基础和上层建筑的矛盾，经济基础是主要的，它们的地位并不相互转化。这是机械唯物论的见解，不是辩证唯物论的见解。诚然，生产力、实践、经济基础，一般地表现为主要的决定的作用，谁不承认这一点，谁就不是唯物论者。然而，生产关系、理论、上层建筑这些方面，在一定条件之下，又转过来表现为主要的决定的作用，这也是必须承认的。当着不变更生产关系，生产力就不能发展的时候，生产关系的变更就起了主要的决定的作用。当着如同列宁所说‘没有革命的理论，就不会有革命运动’的时候，革命理论的创立和提倡就起了主要的决定的作用。……当着政治文化等等上层建筑阻碍着经济基础的发展的时候，对于政治上和文化上的革新就成为主要的决定的东西了。我们这样说，是否违反了唯物论呢？没有。因为我们承认总的历史发展中是物质的东西决定精神的东西，是社会的存在决定社会的意识；但是同时又承认而且必须承认精神的东西的反作用，社会意识对于社会存在的反作用，上层建筑对于经济基础的反作用。这不是违反唯物论，正是避免了机械唯物论，坚持了辩证唯物论。”6611725

本书说的坚持中国共产党的领导在中国经济变革和发展中的决定作用，就是依据上述的毛泽东的理论。但这种决定作用包括两个方面：一是这些理论是由中国共产党在集中中国人民智慧的基础上形成的；二是这些理论是由中国共产党领导中国人民实现的。

第四，必须坚持作为基本经济制度的生产资料所有制和作为其实现形式的经济体制相互关系的理论。

历史表明：在多种社会经济制度下，都存在基本经济制度和经济体制这样两个方面。比如在封建主义制度下就先后存在过领主经济和地主经济这样两种经济体制，在资本主义制度下也先后存在过古典的自由放任的市场经济和现代的有政府调控的市场经济体制，在社会主义制度下也存在过计划经济和市场经济体制。一般说来，无论是基本经济制度还是经济体制，其产生发展变化都决定于是否适合社会生产力发展的要求。但二者都反作用于社会生产力的发展（包括促进社会生产力的发展或阻碍社会生产力的发展）。如果仅就二者本身的相互关系来说，基本经济制度是决定经济体制的，但经济体制也反作用于基本经济制度（包括促进基本经济制度的巩固和发展，或者阻碍基本经济制度的巩固和发展）。

因此，要如实地反映中国产业结构演进的客观过程，就必须同时叙述基本经济制度和经济体制这两方面的作用。如果只顾其中的一个方面，就不可能做到这一点。

第五，必须坚持作为辩证法的本质的“批判的和革命的”的精神。6611726

习近平总书记高度评价了这种精神。他说：“哲学社会科学要有批判精神，这是马克思主义最可贵的精神品质。”6611727这个精神是作为辩证法核心的矛盾统一法则的体现。按照《矛盾论》的观点，“矛盾的普遍性或绝对性这个问题有两方面的意义。其一是说，矛盾存在于一切事物的发展过程中；其二是说，每一事物的发展过程中存在着自始至终的矛盾运动。”6611728实际上，新中国各个时期的经济变革和经济发展（包括产业结构演变）过程也充满着矛盾斗争，特别是马克思主义路线与“左”的路线的斗争以及正确主张和错误主张的斗争。因此，在本书的撰写过程中如果忽视了马克思主义固有的批判的和革命的精神，那么，这个过程就不可能正确地说明。

但作为史学著作，这种批判主要寓于历史叙述过程中。这一点同经济理论著作是有区别的。

第六，坚持把数量关系的研究贯穿于全书。

经济发展与一切事物一样，都是质和量的统一。因此，如果只注意历史过程质的方面，而忽视量的方面，那就不可能全面反映历史过程。

现在有一种流行观点认为，把数量关系用于经济学的研究说成是现代西方经济学的独创。这是一种误解。马克思早就说过：一种科学只有当它达到了能够运用数学时，才算真正发展了。6611729马克思这里说的科学显然包括经济学。实际上，马克思在其巨著《资本论》中就在多处运用了数学。特别是他揭示的社会简单再生产和扩大再生产公式，更是在完整形态上运用数学揭示了社会再生产的运行过程。至今对世界各国的宏观经济调控仍然保持着指导意义。当然，伴随工业经济时代到知识经济时代的发展以及科学本身的发展，当代西方经济学在把数学用于经济学的研究方面，比马克思那个时代是大大向前发展了。

马克思是把数学作为研究工具用于经济学研究的，是为他要揭示的客观经济规律服务的。这同当前我国学界存在的某些为运用数学而运用数学，甚至通过不必要的复杂数学模型来故弄玄虚，是有原则差别的。

由于条件的限制，本书在以数量关系说明经济历史过程时主要还是运用了系统的统计资料。6611730在运用数学模型方面还是以后的努力方向。当然，运用系统的统计资料来叙述历史过程，也是经济史研究的一个不可或缺的重要方面。

第七，把创新原则贯穿于全书。

马克思说过：“如果事物的表现形式和事物的本质会直接合而为一，一切科学都成为多余的了”6611731。这意味着科学的任务就在于揭露事物本质的创新。习近平总书记高度评价了创新。他说：“理论的生命力在于创新。创新是哲学社会科学发展的永恒主题，也是社会发展、实践深化、历史前进对哲学社会科学的必然要求。”他还指出：“哲学社会科学创新可大可小，揭示一条规律是创新，提出一种学说是创新，阐述一个道理是创新，创造一种解决问题的方法也是创新。”6611732据此，本书沿着“党在各个历史时期提出的经济改革和经济发展（包括产业结构演变在内）的路线→由此导致产业结构演进的成就（这是多数时期）或失衡（这是少数时期）→产业结构演进的作用（包括正作用和副作用）及其经验和教训”的思路，试图构筑我国产业结构的演变史研究的总体框架。当然，这只是一种探索，妥当与否，还有待实践证实和读者鉴评。

三 《中国产业结构演变史（1949—2019）》的历史分期

依据上述的历史唯物主义基本理论，本书以生产关系和生产力的变化状况作为划分产业结构演变历史过程中各个阶段的标准。这既是历史唯物主义的具体运用，又有助于读者把握产业结构演变各个阶段的特征。

本书以社会基本经济制度或经济体制的变革作为产业结构演变史分期的主要标准，并以正标题表示；在大部分时期都以社会生产力的变化状况作为第二位标准，并以副标题表示；在个别时期还以政治因素作为次要标准，也以副标题表示。这样，新中国产业结构演变史的分期就是：

第一，新民主主义社会的产业结构——经济恢复时期的产业结构（1949年10月—1952年）；

第二，从新民主主义社会到社会主义社会的过渡时期的产业结构——社会主义工业化初步基础建立时期的产业结构（1953—1957年）；

第三，实行计划经济体制时期的产业结构（一）——“大跃进”时期的产业结构（1958—1960年）；

第四，实行计划经济体制时期的产业结构（二）——“文化大革命”时期的产业结构（1966—1976年）；

第五，从计划经济到社会主义市场经济时期的产业结构——从实现温饱到总体小康再向全面小康迈进阶段的产业结构（1979—2011年）；

第六，以经济改革为重点的全面深化改革时期的产业结构——迈向全面建成小康社会阶段的产业结构（2012—2019年）。

需要说明：1961—1965年实行的以调整为重点的“八字”方针是符合当时情况的，并对这个时期的经济恢复和发展起到重要作用。但当时并未根本改变“左”的社会主义建设总路线。1977—1978年在恢复和发展经济方面也取得了重要进展。但当时还是继续执行了“左”的社会主义建设总路线，因而这两个时期同1979年以后的情况根本不同，都不具有路线转变的重要意义，而且在产业结构变化方面的作用也不明显。为简略计，本书将这两个阶段产业结构演变的详细情况省去了，只在相关行文中做了很简略的叙述。

I. The significance of writing "The History of the Evolution of China's Industrial Structure (1949-2019)" From the perspective of Chinese academic circles, works on industrial economics have been published for many years, but works on the history of industrial structure have not yet been seen. This disciplinary gap needs to be filled urgently. General Secretary Xi Jinping pointed out that "historical research is the foundation of all social sciences" 6611711. Obviously, this principle is also fully applicable to the study of the history of industrial structure evolution. The study of the history of the evolution of industrial structure is not only the basis for the further development of industrial economics, but also necessary for the further development of economic history research and economic research because it is an important part of the entire economic history research. According to the author's experience, this is also the requirement put forward by General Secretary Xi Jinping that Chinese philosophy and social sciences should continuously promote the construction of discipline system, academic system, discourse system and innovative 6611712. It is based on this consideration that the author tried to do some exploration in this area and write this book to teach the academic community. II. The Guiding Ideology for Writing the History of the Evolution of China's Industrial Structure (1949-2019) The writing of this book must adhere to the guidance of Marxism. Marxism reveals the universal laws of human society, nature and the development of thinking. In recent years, General Secretary Xi Jinping has repeatedly stressed the extreme importance of adhering to Marxism as a guide in philosophy and social science research. He said: "Adhering to Marxism as the guide is the fundamental mark that distinguishes contemporary Chinese philosophy and social science from other philosophy and social sciences. "In our country, if we do not adhere to Marxism as the guide, philosophy and social science will lose its soul, lose its direction, and ultimately cannot play its due role." 6611713 "On the fundamental issue of upholding Marxism as our guide, we must be unswerving, and we must not waver at any time or under any circumstances." Of course, 6611714, the application of Marxism must be combined with reality and must be developed in light of reality; Otherwise, it will not only be impossible to become the guiding ideology of practice, but will also become a rigid dogma that harms practice. This means that to uphold Marxism as the guiding ideology, it is necessary to adhere to the Chinese-style Marxism that combines the universal truth of Marxism with China's practice and the characteristics of the times as the guiding ideology. According to Deng Xiaoping, "We firmly believe in Marxism, but Marxism must be integrated with China's reality." Only Marxism in light of China's actual conditions is the true Marxism we need. 6611715 in order to illustrate this point, it is necessary to briefly describe the development of Chinese-style Marxism. Mao Zedong combined the general principles of Marxism-Leninism with the greatest reality of China's semi-colonial and semi-feudal society, fundamentally negated the "left" dogmatism that copied the revolutionary path of capitalist countries, created the theory of new democracy (including the theory of democratic revolution and the theory of new democratic society) 6611716, and led the Chinese people to overthrow the reactionary rule of imperialism, feudalism and bureaucratic capitalism, establish the People's Republic of China, and complete the new democratic revolution. A new democratic society was established. He then led the Chinese people to realize the transition from a new democratic society to a socialist society, established the basic economic system of socialism, and initially established an independent and relatively complete industrial system and national economic system. Deng Xiaoping combined the general principles of Marxism with the greatest reality of the initial stage of socialism in China, and based on the scientific summation of the experience of China and other socialist countries in the world, fundamentally negated the previous mistake of our country in copying the Soviet planned economic system, and created the theory of socialism with Chinese characteristics. According to his own words, "Whether it is revolution or construction, we must pay attention to learning from and drawing on foreign experience." However, copying the experiences and models of other countries can never be successful. We have learned many lessons in this regard. Integrating the universal truth of Marxism with the specific reality of our country, following our own road, and building socialism with Chinese characteristics is the basic conclusion we have drawn by summing up our long-term historical experience. 6611717 the theory of socialism with Chinese characteristics pioneered by Deng Xiaoping was further developed significantly during the 12th to 18th National Congresses of the Communist Party of China. Under the guidance of this theory, China's economic reform and economic development have made historic achievements, mainly: the basic framework of the socialist market economy system has been established and improved; On the basis of achieving overall moderate prosperity, decisive steps have been taken on the road of building a moderately prosperous society in an all-round way. General Secretary Xi Jinping conformed to the trend of development of the times, systematically answered the biggest question of the times of what kind of socialism with Chinese characteristics to adhere to and develop in the new era, and how to adhere to and develop socialism with Chinese characteristics, from the combination of theory and practice, and founded Xi Jinping Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era. Since the 18th National Congress of the Communist Party of China, under the strong leadership of the Party Central Committee with Comrade Xi Jinping as the core, China has made all-round pioneering achievements in reform and development, achieved profound and fundamental changes, and turned Xi Jinping's socialism with Chinese characteristics for a new era into a vivid practice. This practice fully proves that Xi Jinping's socialism with Chinese characteristics in the new era is a new historical stage of the development of Chinese-style Marxism. The above history shows that in the 70 years since the founding of New China, both the economic program of the new democratic society implemented in its early days, or the socialist revolution and socialist construction and reform and opening up line realized later, were all carried out under the guidance of Chinese-style Marxism. Therefore, from a materialist point of view, writing "The History of the Evolution of China's Industrial Structure (1949-2019)" guided by Chinese-style Marxism is only a true reproduction of this historical development process. To persist in taking Marxism as the guide, we must follow the following basic principles. First, we must adhere to the principle of seeking truth from facts. Mao Zedong once made a complete scientific definition of the principle of seeking truth from facts. He said: "'Fact' is everything that exists objectively, 'is' is the internal relationship of objective things, that is, regularity, and 'seeking' is what we study." We should proceed from the actual situation at home and abroad, inside and outside the province, inside and outside the county, and inside and outside the region, and draw from it its inherent rather than imaginary regularity, that is, to find out the internal connection of things and serve as a guide for our actions. And in order to do so, it is necessary to possess the material in detail not on the basis of subjective imagination, not on the basis of momentary enthusiasm, not on the basis of dead books, but on the basis of objectively existing facts, and draw correct conclusions from these materials under the guidance of the general principles of Marxism-Leninism. 6611718 Deng Xiaoping spoke highly of the important position of the principle of seeking truth from facts in Marxism. He said: "Seeking truth from facts is the basis of the proletarian world outlook and the ideological basis of Marxism. Seeking truth from facts is the essence of Marxism. Therefore 6611719 starting from historical facts has become the basic starting point for writing this book. It is impossible to accomplish its mission without proceeding from historical facts but from principles. However, the historical facts mentioned here must be critically examined, de-falsifying the true, not mixing the false and the real; It is from the sum of all the facts, from the connection of facts to grasp the facts, not fragmentary and random selection; It is a large number of facts that reflect the requirements of objective laws, rather than individual accidental phenomena; It is a typical fact that expresses the essence, not an illusion that distorts the essence. The use of historical facts to describe the historical process of the evolution of this industrial structure is an important feature that all historical works, including this book, must have in terms of narrative form. This is a major difference from the abstract discourse taken by economics in its analysis of problems that is divorced from concrete historical forms. In connection with this feature, this book also has its own characteristics in the order of the chapters. Marx, in his discussion of the order of economic categories in the capitalist part of political economy and the directly related parts, pointed out that it is not possible to arrange economic categories according to the order in which they have played a decisive role in history, it is wrong. Their order is determined by their mutual relations in modern bourgeois society. In contrast, the study of the history of the evolution of industrial structure must be divided into chapters according to the order of historical development stages. This does not mean that the book can be left without a logical approach. In fact, when the history of the evolution of industrial structure describes various economic problems in a certain historical period, there is also a problem of the order of the various aspects. Since all these aspects are in the same historical stage, there is no order of historical development; The sequencing of these aspects cannot be made historically, but can only be determined by their interrelationship in the social economy. This is also the case with the order in which the various arguments raised by the analysis of a particular economic problem are presented in this book, which is a work of historiography. However, historiography's logical approach in these two respects is still different from political economy: the latter can take the form of abstract arguments, while historiography must be elaborated through historical facts. In this regard, it can be called a method that is dominated by historical methods and combined with logical methods. Second, productivity standards must be adhered to. Lenin, on the basis of Marxist principles on the relations between productive forces and production and between the economic base and the superstructure, emphasized the decisive role of productive forces in the creation of historical materialism. He clearly pointed out that "only by attributing social relations to the relations of production and to the level of productive forces can there be a reliable basis for viewing the development of social formations as a natural historical process." It goes without saying that without this view, there would be no social science. 6611720 Mao Zedong applied this principle to the practice of China's new democratic revolution. It is emphasized that "the policies and practices of all political parties in China play a good or bad role in Chinese the people, and in the final analysis, whether and how much they help the development of the productive forces of the Chinese people, and whether they constrain or emancipate the productive forces 6611721." Later, Mao Zedong applied this principle to the practice of China's socialist revolution, and once again pointed out, "China's current social system is much superior to the social system of the old era." If it does not win, the old system will not be overthrown and the new system will not be established. The so-called socialist relations of production are more suitable for the nature of the development of the productive forces than the relations of production in the old era, which means that they can accommodate the rapid development of the productive forces at a speed that the old society did not have. Thus the production expands so that the growing needs of the people can be gradually met. 6611722 Deng Xiaoping applied this principle to the practice of China's reform and opening up, and in view of the long-standing mistake of ignoring this principle since 1958 and the tendency that existed in the reform process at that time, he repeatedly emphasized: "The essence of socialism is to liberate the productive forces, develop the productive forces, eliminate exploitation, eliminate polarization, and ultimately achieve common prosperity." "There are many tasks of socialism, but the fundamental one is to develop the productive forces, to embody superiority over capitalism on the basis of the development of the productive forces, and to create a material basis for the realization of communism." For a long time we neglected the development of the productive forces of a socialist society. He also pointed out in a clear-cut manner that "the criterion for judgment should be whether it is conducive to developing the productive forces of socialist society, whether it is conducive to enhancing the comprehensive national strength of socialist countries, and whether it is conducive to improving the people's living standards 6611723." Therefore, writing this book must adhere to productivity standards. This is the basic requirement of historical materialism. If this criterion is not adhered to and other standards are adopted, then the historical process of the evolution of the industrial structure that this book aims to reveal cannot be scientifically explained. As far as the history of the evolution of the industrial structure is concerned, the most important criterion for the reasons for its changes and the evaluation of its advantages and disadvantages must and can only be: whether it is conducive to the development of social productive forces. Third, we must uphold the decisive role of the leadership of the Communist Party of China in economic change and economic development, including changes in industrial structure. Because the establishment of China's new democratic society, the transition from a new democratic society to a socialist society, and the transformation from a planned economic system to a socialist market economic system were all carried out under the leadership of the Party. Moreover, the market economy, determined by China's national conditions, cannot be a classical and laissez-faire market economy, nor a general, modern market economy with state intervention, but a special market economy with more state intervention. Of course, this intervention is based on the market, which is the main way to allocate social production resources. In this way, if it is separated from the party's leading role, then the process of China's economic development (including the process of smooth development and the process of suffering serious setbacks) cannot be explained. It is precisely for this reason that when describing the evolution of the industrial structure in various periods of New China, each article in this book must first describe the line proposed by the Party during this period and its implementation process. This is by no means a formalist approach, by no means superfluous, but to truly reproduce the process of China's economic development. Of course, this is by no means to say that the line put forward by the Party is correct and has played a positive role in all periods and in all aspects. In fact, certain periods or aspects of certain periods were flawed and wrong and played a negative role to varying degrees. This needs to be objectively evaluated according to the specific conditions of economic development in each period. But without the party's leading role, the course of China's economic development cannot be explained. China's great achievements in economic development after the reform and opening up have been widely praised as a world miracle by international public opinion. In fact, the most important "mystery" of this miracle is the strong leadership of the Communist Party of China. It is precisely this point that is unique to the initial stage of socialism in China and cannot be possessed by any other country. As General Secretary Xi Jinping summed it up, "The leadership of the Communist Party of China is the most essential feature of socialism with Chinese characteristics. "As long as we deeply understand China's modern history, China's modern history, and China's revolutionary history, it is not difficult to find that without the leadership of the Communist Party of China, our country and our nation would not have achieved the achievements we have today, nor could we have the international status we have today." 6611724 emphasize this point, which is not contradictory to the historical materialist principle that the productive forces determine the relations of production and that the economic base determines the superstructure, but is unified. On this point, Mao Zedong made an incisive explanation. He said: "The contradiction between productive forces and production relations, productive forces are the main thing; The contradiction between theory and practice, practice is the main thing; The contradiction between the economic base and the superstructure, the economic base is the main one, and their status does not transform into each other. This is the insight of mechanical materialism, not the insight of dialectical materialism. It is true that the productive forces, practice, and economic base are generally manifested in the role of the main determinants, and whoever does not recognize this is not a materialist. However, it must also be recognized that the relations of production, theory, and superstructure are, under certain conditions, in turn manifested as the main decisive role. When the productive forces cannot develop without changing the relations of production, the change of the relations of production plays the main decisive role. When, as Lenin said, 'Without revolutionary theory, there can be no revolutionary movement,' the creation and promotion of revolutionary theory played a major decisive role. ...... When the political culture and other superstructures hinder the development of the economic base, political and cultural innovation becomes the main decisive thing. Is it a violation of materialism when we say this? No. Because we recognize that in the general historical development, it is material things that determine spiritual things, and it is the existence of society that determines the consciousness of society; But at the same time, it is recognized and must be recognized that the reaction of spiritual things, the reaction of social consciousness to social existence, the reaction of the superstructure to the economic base. This is not a violation of materialism, it is precisely the avoidance of mechanical materialism and adherence to dialectical materialism. 6611725 book talks about upholding the decisive role of the leadership of the Communist Party of China in China's economic reform and development, based on the above-mentioned Mao Zedong theory. But this decisive role includes two aspects: first, these theories were formed by the Chinese Communist Party on the basis of concentrating the wisdom of the Chinese people; Second, these theories were realized by the Chinese people under the leadership of the Communist Party of China. Fourth, we must adhere to the theory of the interrelationship between ownership of the means of production as the basic economic system and the economic system as its realization form. History shows that under a variety of socio-economic systems, there are two aspects: the basic economic system and the economic system. For example, under the feudal system, there have been two economic systems, such as the lord economy and the landlord economy, under the capitalist system, there have also been a classical laissez-faire market economy and a modern market economy system with government regulation, and under the socialist system, there have also been a planned economy and a market economy system. Generally speaking, whether it is a basic economic system or an economic system, its development and changes are determined by whether it meets the requirements of the development of social productive forces. However, both act on the development of social productive forces (including promoting the development of social productive forces or hindering the development of social productive forces). If only in terms of the interrelationship between the two themselves, the basic economic system determines the economic system, but the economic system also acts on the basic economic system (including promoting the consolidation and development of the basic economic system, or hindering the consolidation and development of the basic economic system). Therefore, in order to faithfully reflect the objective process of China's industrial structure evolution, it is necessary to describe the roles of both the basic economic system and the economic system. This would not be possible if only one aspect of it was taken care of. Fifth, we must uphold the spirit of "critical and revolutionary" as the essence of dialectics. 6611726 General Secretary Xi Jinping spoke highly of this spirit. He said: "Philosophy and social science should have a critical spirit, which is the most valuable spiritual quality of Marxism. 6611727 this spirit is the embodiment of the law of contradiction unity that is at the heart of dialectics. According to The Theory of Contradiction, "the question of the universality or absoluteness of contradiction has two significances. One is that contradictions exist in the development of everything; The second is that there is a contradictory movement in the development of every thing from beginning to end. 6611728 fact, the process of economic transformation and economic development (including the evolution of industrial structure) in all periods of New China is also full of contradictions and struggles, especially the struggle between the Marxist line and the "left" line, as well as the struggle between correct and wrong claims. Therefore, if the critical and revolutionary spirit inherent in Marxism is ignored in the writing of this book, then this process cannot be correctly explained. But as a work of historiography, this critique lies mainly in the process of historical narrative. This is different from economic theory writings. Sixth, insist on the study of quantitative relations throughout the book. Economic development, like everything, is the unity of quality and quantity. Therefore, if we only pay attention to the qualitative aspects of the historical process and ignore the quantitative aspects, it is impossible to fully reflect the historical process. There is now a popular view that the use of quantitative relations in the study of economics is an original creation of modern Western economics. This is a misconception. Marx said long ago that a science can only be truly developed when it reaches the point where it can use mathematics. 6611729 science Marx is talking about here obviously includes economics. In fact, Marx used mathematics in many places in his magnum opus Capital. In particular, he revealed the formula of simple social reproduction and expanded reproduction, and used mathematics to reveal the operation process of social reproduction in a complete form. So far, it still maintains guiding significance for the macroeconomic regulation and control of all countries in the world. Of course, with the development of the era of industrial economy to the era of knowledge economy and the development of science itself, contemporary Western economics has greatly advanced in applying mathematics to the study of economics than in Marx's time. Marx used mathematics as a research tool for economic research, serving the objective economic laws he wanted to reveal. This is a principled difference from some of the current academic circles in China that use mathematics for the sake of using mathematics, and even through unnecessarily complex mathematical models to make mysteries. Due to the limitations of conditions, this book mainly uses systematic statistical information when describing the process of economic history in quantitative relations. 6611730 is still the way forward in the use of mathematical models. Of course, the use of systematic statistical data to describe historical processes is also an indispensable and important aspect of economic history research. Seventh, the principle of innovation is integrated throughout the book. Marx said: "If the manifestation of things and the essence of things are directly integrated, all science will become superfluous"6611731. This means that the task of science is to reveal the innovation of the nature of things. General Secretary Xi Jinping spoke highly of innovation. "The vitality of theory lies in innovation," he said. Innovation is the eternal theme of the development of philosophy and social sciences, and it is also an inevitable requirement for social development, deepening of practice and historical progress for philosophy and social sciences. He also pointed out: "Philosophy and social science innovation can be big or small, revealing a law is innovation, putting forward a theory is innovation, expounding a truth is innovation, and creating a way to solve problems is also innovation." Accordingly 6611732 this book follows the line of "economic reform and economic development (including the evolution of industrial structure) proposed by the Party in various historical periods→ which leads to achievements in the evolution of industrial structure (this is most periods) or imbalances (this is a few periods), → the role of industrial structure evolution (including positive effects and side effects) and its experience and lessons", and attempts to construct an overall framework for the study of the history of the evolution of China's industrial structure. Of course, this is just an exploration, and whether it is appropriate or not, it remains to be confirmed by practice and evaluated by readers. 3. The History of the Evolution of China's Industrial Structure (1949-2019) Based on the above-mentioned basic theory of historical materialism, this book takes the changes in production relations and productivity as the criteria for dividing each stage in the historical process of industrial structure evolution. This is not only a concrete application of historical materialism, but also helps readers grasp the characteristics of each stage of the evolution of industrial structure. This book takes the basic economic system of society or the change of economic system as the main criterion for the periodization of the history of the evolution of industrial structure, and is indicated by the main title; For most of the period, the changing state of social productivity is used as a second criterion and is indicated by subheadings; In individual periods, political factors are also used as secondary criteria, also indicated by subheadings. In this way, the phases of the history of the evolution of the industrial structure of New China are: first, the industrial structure of the new democratic society - the industrial structure during the period of economic recovery (October 1949-1952); second, the industrial structure in the transitional period from a new democratic society to a socialist society—the industrial structure during the period when the initial foundation of socialist industrialization was established (1953-1957); Third, the industrial structure during the period of the implementation of the planned economic system (I) - the industrial structure during the "Great Leap Forward" period (1958-1960); Fourth, the industrial structure during the implementation of the planned economy system (II) - the industrial structure during the "Cultural Revolution" (1966-1976); Fifth, the industrial structure from the planned economy to the socialist market economy - from the realization of food and clothing to the overall moderate prosperity and then to the overall moderate prosperity stage (1979-2011); Sixth, the industrial structure of the period of comprehensive deepening of reform with a focus on economic reform - the industrial structure of the stage of building a moderately prosperous society in an all-round way (2012-2019). It should be noted that the "eight-character" policy of focusing on adjustment implemented from 1961 to 1965 was in line with the situation at that time and played an important role in economic recovery and development during this period. At that time, however, there was no fundamental change in the general line of "left" socialist construction. Important progress was also made in 1977-1978 in the recovery and development of the economy. However, at that time, the general line of socialist construction of the "left" was continued, so these two periods were fundamentally different from the situation after 1979, neither of them had the importance of changing the line, and their role in the change of industrial structure was not obvious. For the sake of brevity, this book omits the details of the evolution of the industrial structure in these two stages, and only briefly describes them in the relevant texts.（AI翻译）