A Historical Inquiry into the Logical Presuppositions of Western Modernity

“The Scottish Enlightenment ‘invented’ the modern world” — Arthur Herman’s view opens a new path for our understanding of modernity and the critique of political economy. He points out that the Scottish Enlightenment not only created the concept of modernity but also sketched a new blueprint for human civilization. The Scottish Enlightenment scholars forged an innovative connection between classical values and contemporary needs, giving new vitality to freedom and democracy within civil society, thereby making the relationship between civil society and the state the axis of the logic of Western modernity. The free-market dogmas of classical political economy and the principles of individual capital dynamics further substantiated the logical presuppositions of Western modernity, greatly enhancing the modern significance of civil society. Western modernity has created abundant material civilization, advanced urban civilization, and industrial civilization, but it has also led to imbalances such as the opposition between rich and poor, and the coexistence of material abundance and spiritual impoverishment. In particular, it has caused the “total loss” of the proletariat, which further demonstrates that the historical unfolding of the logic of Western modernity is accompanied by a crisis of legitimacy. Marx’s critique of political economy was initiated precisely within the dialectical movement of the logic and history of Western modernity, and the Scottish Enlightenment, Rousseau, Hegel, and others all exerted a key influence on the final formation of Marx’s system of critique of political economy.

“苏格兰启蒙运动‘发明’了现代世界”，阿瑟·赫尔曼的这一观点为我们理解现代性及政治经济学批判打开了一条新的路径。他指出，苏格兰启蒙运动不仅创造了现代性观念，而且为人类擘画了新的文明蓝图。苏格兰启蒙学者在古典价值与现实需求之间进行了创新性联结，使自由与民主在市民社会焕发新的生机，遂使市民社会与国家的关系成为西方现代性逻辑的轴心。古典政治经济学的自由市场教条与个人资本动力学原理更是使西方的现代性逻辑预设实体化，大大提升了市民社会的现代意义。西方现代性创造了丰富的物质文明、先进的城市文明、工业文明等，但也导致了贫富对立、物质丰裕与精神匮乏并存等失衡现象，尤其是造成了无产阶级的“全面丧失”，这更加说明西方现代性逻辑的历史性展开亦伴随着合法性危机。马克思的政治经济学批判正是在西方现代性逻辑与历史的辩证运动中开启的，苏格兰启蒙运动、卢梭、黑格尔等对马克思政治经济学批判体系的最终形成都起到了关键影响。

I. The Scottish Enlightenment and the Logical Presuppositions of Western Modernity

一、苏格兰启蒙运动与西方现代性的逻辑预设

The Scottish Enlightenment refers to a movement of intellectual debate concerning the model of modern civilization, launched by a group of intellectuals active in the Scottish region during the eighteenth century. Its main representatives include Francis Hutcheson, David Hume, Adam Ferguson, and Adam Smith. Tracing its origins, the Scottish Enlightenment of the eighteenth century inherited, critiqued, and developed the core ideas of the English Enlightenment of the seventeenth century, particularly in close connection with the thought of Thomas Hobbes and John Locke. The difference between the two lies in the fact that the latter emphasized the state, tending to consider the construction of modern civilization from a political dimension, while the former focused on civil society, tending to construct a model of modern civilization from an economic dimension. The two successive Enlightenment movements within England precisely reveal that the Western exploration of modern civilization was gradually unfolding and deepening; the shift in focus from the political state to economic society signifies that the secular and economic characteristics of modern civilization were becoming increasingly prominent, and scholars’ reflections on practical issues gradually moved from their manifestations to their essential determinations. This article attempts to analyze the historical significance of the Scottish Enlightenment in modern civilization from the perspective of three logical presuppositions of Western modernity.

苏格兰启蒙运动是指18世纪活跃在苏格兰地区的知识分子群体掀起的一场关于现代文明模式的思想争鸣运动，主要代表人物有弗兰西斯·哈奇森、大卫·休谟、亚当·弗格森、亚当·斯密等。追根溯源，18世纪的苏格兰启蒙运动与17世纪的英格兰启蒙运动在核心思想上存在着继承、批判与发展关系，尤其是与托马斯·霍布斯、约翰·洛克等人的思想紧密相连。两者的区别在于，后者以国家为重，倾向于从政治维度思考现代文明的构建，而前者则以市民社会为主，侧重从经济维度构建现代文明模式。英国境内前后相继的两场启蒙运动恰恰呈现了西方对现代文明的探讨在逐渐展开与深化，探讨的重心从政治国家向经济社会的转变意味着现代文明的世俗性、经济性特征日益凸显，学者们对现实问题的思考也逐渐从其表现形式走向其本质规定。本文尝试从西方现代性的三个逻辑预设来分析苏格兰启蒙运动在现代文明中的历史意义。

(A) The First Logical Presupposition of Western Modernity: “Civil Society” as the Form of Economic Community in Future Civilized Society

（一）西方现代性的逻辑预设之一：“市民社会”是未来文明社会的经济共同体形式

Ferguson was the first to propose the concept of “civil society” in the modern sense, with “freedom” and “democracy” as the value supports of his ideal society. What is true freedom? In the view of Hume, Smith, and others, freedom consists in people escaping relations of servitude, pursuing their own interests in their own way, and having their rights guaranteed by equal laws. Ferguson also acknowledged that the protection of citizens’ rights by law is an expression of freedom and that the elimination of servitude is a positive aspect of modern freedom. However, he believed that classical freedom, as represented by Sparta and Rome, should also have a place in modern society, and he regarded it as the “true value of freedom.” Citizens preoccupied with personal interests find it difficult to maintain public freedom within its inherent disposition; passive compliance with rules and political apathy inevitably lead to the loss of public spirit, and specialized administrative organs become breeding grounds for tyranny and evil. Ferguson pointed out that a country absorbed in private affairs and devoid of public spirit is a “country with worthless freedom.” To this end, his conception of civil society implicitly contains the following three principles: first, the protection of citizens’ property rights and freedom by law is indispensable; second, the modern paradigm of civil life, centered on economic attributes, is an important practical field for the realization of the spirit of freedom and democracy; third, participation in political affairs and the cultivation of public spirit are indispensable components of modern freedom. Ferguson’s “civil society” holds key significance in linking the past and the future and in the cognitive transition from tradition to modernity. In terms of theoretical origins, he valued both the orthodox tradition of classical political philosophy and the secular foundations and rights claims of modern political philosophy, truly inaugurating the modern logic of civil society.

弗格森率先提出了现代意义上的“市民社会”概念，“自由”“民主”是其理想社会的价值支撑。何为真正的自由？在休谟、斯密等人看来，人们脱离奴役关系，用自己的方式去追求自己的利益，由平等的法律保障所有者的权利，即为自由。弗格森也承认，公民权利受到法律保护是自由的体现，消除奴役是现代自由积极的一面，但他认为，以斯巴达、罗马为代表的古典自由在现代社会中也应有一席之地，并将其视为“自由的真正价值”所在。专注于个人利益的公民很难使公共自由保持在其内在秉性中，被动地遵守规则、政治冷漠必然造成公共精神的丧失，专门性行政机构反而成为专制、邪恶滋生的温床。弗格森指出，忙于私人事务、毫无公共精神的国度是“拥有无价值的自由的国度”。为此，他的市民社会构想暗含以下三条原则：其一，法律对公民财产权、自由权的保障必不可少；其二，以经济属性为核心的现代市民生活范式是自由民主精神落地的重要实践场域；其三，参政议政、培育公共精神是现代自由不可缺少的一部分。弗格森的“市民社会”在承前启后、从传统向现代认知转型方面具有关键意义。在理论渊源上，他既重视古典政治哲学的道统，又强调现代政治哲学的世俗基础与权利诉求，真正开启了市民社会的现代逻辑。

Smith, for his part, was the first to describe modern civilized society as a form of economic community, namely “commercial society.” In Smith’s view, modern civil society is in essence a large market with economic attributes, in which human beings are completely free subjects, but due to the refinement of the division of labor, everyone must live by exchange. Each person, by exercising their talents, produces various different goods, “forming a common stock, where every man may purchase whatever part of the produce of other men’s talents he has occasion for.” Everyone has needs and also the ability to provide utility for others; economic activities become increasingly independent, and economic logic dominates social logic. In Smith’s view, civil society is more like a community of interests bound together by “exchange,” where individuals remain separate even as they interact through mutual need and mutual satisfaction. Separate individuals take the pursuit of personal interest as their starting point, but from an overall perspective, free competition promotes the general interest of society. “Greed and the war among the greedy — competition — is the only wheel that the political economist sets in motion.” Later, through the critique of political economy, Marx directly identified the two pillars of the operation of civil society: desire is the fundamental driving force for the development of Western modernity, and free competition is an important law of modern society.

斯密则首次将现代文明社会描述为经济共同体形式，即“商业社会”。在斯密看来，现代市民社会在本质上是一个具有经济属性的大市场，其中，人是完全自由的主体，但因分工的细化，一切人都要依赖交换而生活。每个人通过施展自己的才能生产出各种不同的物品，“结成一个共同的资源，各个人都可从这个资源随意购取自己需要的别人生产的物品”。每个人都有需要，也都有能力为他人提供效用，经济活动日益独立化，经济逻辑主导社会逻辑。在斯密看来，市民社会更像是以“交换”为纽带的利益共同体，个人在相互需要、相互满足的交往中却始终保持着分离。分离的个体以追逐个人利益为出发点，但从整体上看，自由竞争却促进了社会的普遍利益。“贪欲以及贪欲者之间的战争即竞争，是国民经济学家所推动的仅有的车轮。”后来，通过政治经济学批判，马克思直接点明了市民社会运行的两大支柱：欲望是西方现代性发育的根本动力，自由竞争是现代社会的重要法则。

(B) The Second Logical Presupposition of Western Modernity: State Governance as the Modern Art of Political Philosophy

（二）西方现代性的逻辑预设之二：国家治理是政治哲学的现代艺术

Regarding the core force for governing future civilized society, the Scottish Enlightenment scholars (especially Hutcheson) differed in their views from mainstream British thinkers (such as Hobbes and Locke). Historically, the academic debate and critique concerning the boundaries of modern state power have always been inseparable from the development of civil society. Since the Renaissance, Niccolò Machiavelli “reduced moral and political questions to technical questions,” inaugurating modern political science. Not only was political rule seen as a technique, but the state itself was also regarded as an artificial product, whose workings could be mastered by examining its texture; Hobbes is a typical representative of this view. Based on human nature, he deduced natural law and natural rights from human passions, and from natural human nature he explained the necessity of constructing the state. Fear, desire, and hope lead people to use reason to discover the laws of nature, but can the laws of nature alone achieve human self-preservation? Hobbes clearly did not think so. He pointed out that coordination among animals is based on instinct and is natural, while human agreements are based on artificial covenants; but desire, pride, and the like mean that humans can tear up or violate covenants at any time. Therefore, beyond covenants, humans need something else to ensure that agreements are fulfilled: “that is a common power to keep them in awe, and to direct their actions to the common benefit” — namely, the Leviathan. Whether it is the legitimacy of “bodily freedom” or the legitimacy of comfortable self-preservation, Hobbes tended to believe that human nature requires the whip of the state’s absolute power, the artificial construction of moral concepts, and that the state always occupies the first position.

关于未来文明社会治理的核心力量，苏格兰启蒙学者（尤其是哈奇森）与英国主流思想家（如霍布斯、洛克等）的观点存在分歧。历史地看，学术界关于现代国家权力的界限的论争与批判始终同市民社会的发展密不可分。文艺复兴运动以来，尼科洛·马基雅维里“将道德问题与政治问题还原为技术问题”，开启了现代政治学。不仅政治统治被看作一门技术，就连国家也被看成一种人工制品，通过窥其纹理就能深谙此道，霍布斯是其中的典型代表。他立足于人性，从人类的激情中推演出自然法与自然权利，并从自然人性中说明构建国家的必要性。畏惧、欲望与希望使人们运用理智去发现自然律，但单凭自然律就能实现人的自我保存吗？霍布斯显然不这样认为。他指出，动物之间的协同一致是基于本能，是自然的；而人类的协议则是根据人为的信约，但欲望、自负等使人类随时可以撕毁或违背信约。因此，在信约之外，人类还需要其他东西来确保协议得到履行，“这种东西便是使大家畏服并指导其行动以谋求共同利益的共同权力”，即利维坦。不论是“身体自由”的正当性，还是舒适地自我保存之正当性，霍布斯倾向于认为，人性需要国家绝对权力的鞭策，人为建构道德理念，以及国家始终处于第一位。

In contrast to Hobbes, Hutcheson, the father of the Scottish Enlightenment, unequivocally proposed that humans possess an innate moral sense, which embodies the benevolent nature of humanity and is the sole source of moral sentiment. Humans are naturally inclined to do good, instinctively feeling joy at the happiness of others or of society as a whole, and compassion and pity at the suffering of others; this moral intuition is an instinct. It is precisely the wondrous determination of human nature that drives us spontaneously to seek social life, and this social life is nature in the true, instinctive, sensory sense. Therefore, civil society is the product of instinct, is primary, and humanity can rely on inner moral forces to achieve social regulation. Conversely, “the necessity of state power certainly arises either from people’s defects or from their depravity.” Human malice is not a direct existence but is often triggered by ignorance or contingency; hence the state can only be considered a secondary existence. Although humans are not absolutely intelligent and benevolent, nor can they see everything clearly and reach consensus on appropriate ways to promote universal welfare, people naturally trust such spiritual qualities as courage, wisdom, benevolence, justice, and zeal for the public good, voluntarily entrusting the power to manage the common affairs of society to those who possess these qualities.

与霍布斯相反，苏格兰启蒙运动之父哈奇森则旗帜鲜明地提出，人有天生的道德感，体现了人的仁爱天性，这是道德情操的唯一源泉。人天生有行善的倾向，天然地会因他人或整个社会的幸福而感到快乐，会因他人的痛苦而具怜悯同情之心，这种道德直觉是一种本能。正是人之本性的奇妙规定驱使我们自在地去寻求社会生活，这种社会生活才是真正的、本能感官意义上的自然。因此，市民社会是本能的产物，是第一位的，人类可以依靠内在的道德力量实现社会的调节。相反，“国家政权的必要性肯定或者来自人们的缺点，或者来自人们的堕落”。人的恶意并不是直接的存在，常常是由于无知或偶然性而被引发的，因此国家只能算是第二位意义上的存在。虽然人类并非绝对地聪明善良，也不能看清一切并就促进普遍福祉的适当方式达成共识，但人们天生信任诸如勇气、智慧、仁慈、公正、热心为公这样的精神品质，自愿将管理社会共同事务的权力赋予具有上述品质的人。

Human nature is the premise and foundation for understanding Western modern civilization; any answer to the question of whether human nature is good or evil points directly to the core logic of Western modernity — civil society and the state. Of course, the discussion of the relationship between civil society and the state is also the most profound answer to the question of human nature. Whether it was Hutcheson, who hoped to build modern civilization by relying on moral force, or Hume, Smith, and others, who sought to use state power to constrain human nature in order to establish modern society, the Scottish Enlightenment offered answers different from those of Hobbes and Locke. Its distinctive feature lies in granting full space for the development of modern civil society, thereby endowing the relationship between modern civil society and the state with new characteristics of the times. From the developmental course of Western modernity, we can see that “Ferguson’s concept of ‘civil society’ and Hobbes’s concept of the ‘state’ constitute two relatively sensitive academic nerves in the development of Western modernity since modern times, and are also classic sources of propositions for the critique of political economy.”

人性是理解西方现代文明的前提和基础，对人性善恶问题的任何回答都指向了西方现代性的核心逻辑——市民社会与国家，当然，有关市民社会与国家关系的讨论亦是对人性问题最深刻的回答。不管是哈奇森期望依靠道德的力量构建现代文明，还是如休谟、斯密等人想要借助国家的力量实现对人性的约束以建立现代社会，苏格兰启蒙运动都给出了不同于霍布斯、洛克的答案。其特色在于，他们给予现代市民社会以充分的发展空间，从而使现代市民社会与国家的关系呈现出新的时代特征。我们从西方现代性的发育历程可以看出，“弗格森的‘市民社会’概念与霍布斯的‘国家’概念，构成了近代以来西方现代性发育发展的两根较为敏感的学术神经，也是政治经济学批判的经典命题来源”。

(3) The Third Logical Presupposition of Western Modernity: Sympathy or Pity as a Psychological Balancer for Resolving the Contradiction between Rich and Poor

（三）西方现代性的逻辑预设之三：同情或怜悯是解决贫富对立矛盾的心理平衡器

Desire is the driving force of the modern economic community; self-interested human nature inevitably intensifies competition. Market competition promotes social division of labor and the circulation of factors, with people “using each other in turn” through different talents and resources. The poor sustain their survival by selling their labor power, while the rich obtain high profits through capital, but this inevitably leads to the polarization of social wealth. How can self-interest be prevented from threatening the moral order? How can the potential threat posed by polarization be alleviated, ensuring the rich can enjoy life in peace? To this end, they regarded sympathy or pity as another human foundation for regulating interpersonal relations and ensuring the harmonious operation of civil society. “Desire drives the world, sympathy regulates the rich and poor” became an important model for the development of Western modernity and the mitigation of its internal contradictions.

欲望是现代经济共同体的动力源，利己的人性必然加剧竞争态势；市场竞争促进社会分工、要素循环，人与人之间以不同的才能、资源“交相为用”。贫穷者依靠出卖自己的劳动力维持生存，富有者通过资本来获取高额利润，但这必然导致社会财富的两极分化。如何使利己之心不致威胁道德秩序？如何缓解两极分化带来的潜在威胁，保障富有者安享生活？为此，他们将同情或怜悯视为调节人与人之间关系、确保市民社会和谐运转的另一个人性基础。“欲望驱动世界，同情调节贫富”成为西方现代性发育以及缓解内在矛盾的重要模式。

Hutcheson, Rousseau, Smith, and others regarded sympathy or pity as an innate human nature, and even Hobbes, Bernard Mandeville, and other proponents of the theory of evil human nature deeply agreed. Hobbes, in *Leviathan*, once expressed human nature thus: “Grief for the calamity of another is pity, and ariseth from the imagination that the like calamity may befall himself; and therefore is called also compassion, and in the phrase of this present time is called sympathy.” Mandeville also acknowledged that sympathy or pity is an innate human nature, manifested as “feeling the misfortunes and disasters of others as one’s own, grieving and pitying them.” In their view, sympathy or pity is based on imagined empathy; although not a virtue in itself, it can urge humans to take certain “benevolent actions.” Compared to the former, the Scottish Enlightenment scholars amplified the positive role of sympathy or pity, believing that “innate benevolence is sympathy,” an innate capacity bestowed by God. Humans have a nature of pity or sympathy: “This nature makes him care about the fate of others, regarding the happiness of others as his own affair”; we help others not because humans “have no choice,” but because helping others fills our hearts with peace and satisfaction. Hutcheson also pointed out that even if interest (or benefit) prompts people to do cruel things or overcome pity, it rarely makes pity disappear entirely. When desires or sudden passions subside, pity often returns. Thus, Hutcheson exclaimed: “How wonderfully is the structure of human nature adapted to produce sympathy!” It also provides the possibility of moral order for a brutally competitive society. The presupposition of sympathy or pity as human nature offered a theoretical possibility for the moral construction of civil society and provided a channel for alleviating the antagonism between rich and poor caused by market competition.

哈奇森、卢梭、斯密等人将同情或怜悯视为人之天性，就连霍布斯、伯纳德·曼德维尔等性恶论者也深以为是。霍布斯在《利维坦》中对人性曾有过如此表述：“为他人的苦难而悲伤谓之怜悯，这是想象类似的苦难可能降临在自己身上而引起的，因之便也称为共感，用现代的话来说便是同情。”曼德维尔也承认，同情或怜悯是人之天性，表现为“对他人的不幸和灾难感同身受，悲之悯之”。在他们看来，同情或怜悯是以想象的共感为基础的，虽然其本身并非美德，但是可以敦促人类采取某些“善意的行动”。相比于前者，苏格兰启蒙学者放大了同情或怜悯的积极作用，认为“天生的仁爱就是同情”，是上帝赋予人的先天能力。人类有怜悯或同情的本性：“这些本性使他关心别人的命运，把别人的幸福看成是自己的事情”；我们帮助别人不是因为人类“别无选择”，而是因为帮助别人让我们内心充满安宁和满足。哈奇森还指出，即使利益（或益处）会促使人们做某些残忍之事，或战胜怜悯，但它很少会使怜悯消失殆尽。当欲望或骤起的愤激之情等平息后，怜悯往往会复归。由此，哈奇森感叹道：“人类本性的构造多么奇妙地适于产生同情”，它也为残酷的竞争性社会提供了道德秩序的可能性。同情或怜悯的人性预设为市民社会的道德建构提供了理论可能，为市场竞争所引致的贫富对抗提供了缓释通道。

Hume and Smith were committed to building a solid bridge between the theory of sympathetic human nature and social moral norms. They understood sympathy on two levels: first, as an innate emotion, synonymous with “pity” and “compassion,” used to express fellow feeling for others’ sorrow; second, as a psychological mechanism — enabling us to share the pleasure or pain of everyone close to us. Whether pity or empathy, both are based on the similar and proximate relationships between people, generated through imagination. Hume pointed out that between sympathy and morality, utility is the only real bridge. Sympathy functions only when it relates to others and is closely tied to utility; beneficial actions are approved, while actions harmful to the public good are opposed. Utility is the foundation of sympathy and also the foundation of morality. Smith’s thinking on sympathy and social operation was even more profound. On one hand, sympathy is the basis for the exchange of wealth and the realization of interests. Only when the “butcher” or “baker” puts himself in the consumer’s shoes can he truly achieve self-interest and realize the exchange of wealth. On the other hand, sympathy is the human foundation for the redistribution of wealth and the reshaping of social psychological balance. Unlike Hume’s principle of utility, Smith took “the sympathy or corresponding sentiment of the spectator” as the natural and fundamental measure of propriety; the sense of propriety is the basis of moral approval. Self-command, as required by the sense of propriety, is a virtue highly valued by Smith, and this self-command is expressed not only in emotions but also in demands on daily conduct. “Sorrow and resentment... require sympathy to be assuaged and comforted.” “The alleviation and consolation of human misery are entirely founded on our pity for the latter kind of people (i.e., the poor, miserable, and unfortunate — author’s note).” “It is this sentiment of more sympathy for others and less for oneself, this sentiment of restraining selfishness and indulging in benevolence, that constitutes the perfect and complete human nature.” On the basis of sympathy, Smith pointed out that the rich’s self-command and benevolence are important social psychological mechanisms for moving toward equality and harmony among people, making social distribution more fair and reasonable through the redistribution of wealth. Thus, self-interest and sympathy together constitute a rich, multi-layered presupposition of human nature; desire, competition, self-command, and benevolence constitute the dialectical movement of civil society. Here there is both the vitality of competition and the foundation of harmony, always in a dynamic balance driven by multiple motives. However, from the developmental course of Western modernity, sympathy or pity has not fundamentally resolved the internal contradictions of capitalist society: polarization between rich and poor, capital dominance, class antagonism, and the loss of humanity have all become objects of reflection in Marx’s critique of political economy.

休谟和斯密致力于在同情人性论与社会道德规范之间搭起坚实的桥梁。他们从两个层面来理解同情：一是将同情视为一种天生的情感，与“怜悯”“体恤”相同，用来表示对别人的悲伤有同感；二是将同情（或同感）作为一种心理机制——使我们分享每一个与我们接近的人的快乐或痛苦。不论是怜悯还是同感，都是基于人与人之间的类似关系和接近关系，借助想象而产生的。休谟指出，在同情与道德之间，效用是唯一实在的桥梁。只有在与他人发生关系并与效用密切相关时，同情才会起作用，有益的行为会得到赞许，不利于公益的行为会遭到反对。效用是同情的基础，也是道德的基础。斯密对同情与社会运转问题的思考则更加深邃。一方面，同情是财富兑换、利益实现的基础。只有“屠户”或“面包师”设身处地为消费者着想，才能真正地实现利己，实现财富的兑换。另一方面，同情是财富再转移、重塑社会心理平衡的人性基础。不同于休谟的效用原则，斯密把“旁观者的同情或相应的感情”作为衡量合宜程度的自然的和根本的尺度，合宜感是道德认同的基础。由合宜感所要求的自我控制是斯密非常认可的美德，而这种自我控制不仅表现在情感上，同样也是对日常行为的要求。“悲伤和怨恨……需要用同情来平息和安慰。”“人类不幸的减轻和慰藉，完全建立在我们怜悯后一种人（即贫穷而又可怜的、不幸的人——本文作者注）的基础上。”“正是这种多同情别人和少同情自己的感情，正是这种抑制自私和乐善好施的感情，构成尽善尽美的人性。”斯密以同情为基础，指出富人的自我控制与乐善好施是人与人之间走向平等、和谐的重要的社会心理机制，通过财富的再转移使社会分配更加公平合理。由此，利己与同情共同构成了丰富的、多层次的人性预设，欲望、竞争与自我控制、乐善好施构成了市民社会的辩证运动。这里既有竞争的活力，也有和谐的基础，始终处于多种动机所推动的动态平衡中。然而，从西方现代性的发展历程看，同情或怜悯并未从根本上解决资本主义社会的内在矛盾：贫富分化、资本主导、阶级对立、人的丧失等均成为马克思政治经济学批判的反思对象。

II. The Interpretation of the Logic of Western Modernity by British Classical Political Economy

二、英国古典政治经济学对西方现代性逻辑的诠释

If the Scottish Enlightenment put forward the logical presuppositions of Western modernity, then classical British political economy was the first theoretical system to deduce, interpret and fill out the logic of modernity. The Scottish Enlightenment and the classical political economy school overlapped in core figures and core concepts; for example, Smith was both an important figure of the Scottish Enlightenment and the founder of classical political economy. Based on the economic attributes of modern civilization, the contribution of classical political economy to the development of Western modernity needs to be examined separately.

如果说苏格兰启蒙运动提出了西方现代性的逻辑预设，那么英国古典政治经济学则是第一个演绎、诠释现代性逻辑并使其充盈的理论体系。苏格兰启蒙运动与古典政治经济学派在核心人物、核心理念方面存在重合，例如，斯密既是苏格兰启蒙运动的重要人物，也是古典政治经济学的开创者。基于现代文明的经济属性，古典政治经济学对西方现代性发育的贡献需单独列出予以探究。

(I) Classical Political Economy Interpreted Important Principles of the Development of Western Modernity

（一）古典政治经济学诠释了西方现代性发育的重要原则

Hegel once regarded political economy as a science that elucidates the internal relations and movement of modern civil society. The greatest contribution of British classical political economy was to redefine civil society and to redefine the relationship between the modern state and civil society. It not only expanded the understanding of civil society but also interpreted in detail four important principles of the development of Western modernity.

黑格尔曾将政治经济学视为阐明现代市民社会内在关系和运动的一门科学。英国古典政治经济学最大的贡献就是重新定义市民社会，重新界定现代国家与市民社会的关系，不仅扩大了对市民社会的认知，而且详细诠释了西方现代性发育的四条重要原则。

First, “everyone is a merchant, and society is a market.” The civil society described by Smith is not a self-sufficient society but a society mediated by money and characterized by exchange, where each person must exchange the surplus of their own labor that they cannot consume for the surplus of others’ labor that they need. “In a certain respect, all men become merchants, and society itself, strictly speaking, becomes a commercial society.” [2]2 Adam Smith, *An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations*, Vol. 1, p. 25. (This is a standard citation format; the specific edition is not provided in the original text.) Therefore, in the logic of classical political economy, civil society is a market-dominated society; everyone needs exchange to sustain survival and development, even beggars are no exception. “Merchant” and “market” are Smith’s redefinition of modern “man” and “society,” where the common relationship with things becomes the primary issue. Under this principle, the fetishism of money, the fetishism of commodities, and the fetishism of capital are the logical necessities.

第一，“人人皆商人，社会即市场”。斯密所描述的市民社会并非自给自足的社会，而是以货币为中介、以交换为形式的社会，每个人须用自己消费不了的劳动剩余交换自己所需要的他人的劳动剩余。“在一定程度上，一切人都成为商人，而社会本身，严格地说，也成为商业社会。”因此，在古典政治经济学的逻辑中，市民社会就是以市场为主导的社会，人人都需要通过交换来维系生存与发展，即使乞丐也不例外。“商人”“市场”是斯密对现代“人”及“社会”的重新定义，在这里与物的共同关系成为首要的问题。在此原则下，货币拜物教、商品拜物教、资本拜物教是其逻辑的必然。

Second, the principle of economic freedom. Classical political economy advocates a system of natural liberty, that is, “the realization of man’s natural ability to control his own life,” including personal freedom and economic freedom. “When the right to freedom of trade and freedom of marriage, etc., is violated, it is also the violation of the person’s freedom of action and thought.” The ideal state envisioned by classical political economy is a perfectly competitive market: “the establishment of perfect justice, perfect liberty, and perfect equality is the simplest and most effective secret for attaining the highest degree of prosperity.” [3]3 Ibid., Vol. 2, p. 43. Smith pointed out that improving one’s own condition is human nature and also “the great factor from which social wealth, national wealth, and private wealth arise”; free competition and full exchange are the prerequisites for national wealth and prosperity. Conversely, any practice that uses external forces such as “political power” to expand or restrict specific industries is contrary to natural trends. Therefore, the simplest and most obvious system for maintaining natural liberty should be the abolition of all privileges or restrictions, so that “individuals may enjoy the freedom to take care of themselves and participate in the harmonious order of free trade.” [4]4 Ibid., Vol. 2, p. 44. But history has repeatedly shown that a laissez-faire competitive state only leads to the spread of a Darwinian law of the jungle and survival of the fittest in human society, turning the free competitive market into a battlefield of zero-sum games.

第二，经济自由原则。古典政治经济学崇尚自然自由体系，即“人控制自己生活的自然能力的实现”，其中包括个人自由和经济自由。“经商自由和婚姻自由的权利等等受到侵犯的时候也就是这个人的行动和思想自由受到侵犯。”古典政治经济学所认为的理想状态是完全竞争市场，“完全正义、完全自由、完全平等的确立，是……同臻于最高度繁荣的最简单而又最有效的秘诀”。斯密指出，改善自身状况是人之天性，也是“社会财富、国民财富以及私人财富所赖以产生的重大因素”，自由竞争与充分交换是国富民裕的前提。相反，任何借助“政治权力”等外在力量扩大或限制特定产业的做法是违背自然趋势的，因此维护自然自由最明白、最简单的制度应是废除一切特惠或限制制度，使“个人得以享受照顾自己的自由以及参与自由贸易的和谐秩序”。但历史却一再表明，自由放任的竞争状态只会导致达尔文式弱肉强食、物竞天择的法则在人类社会的蔓延，导致自由竞争的市场成为零和博弈的战场。

Third, modern civil society allocates resources through the market. Modern civil society is centered on the free market, and the effective allocation of social resources depends entirely on the market. The greatest contribution of the classical political economy system is to abstract the complex social operation into simple market principles, such as the principle of division of labor, the principle of exchange, the principle of competition, the principle of distribution, and the principle of the rule of law. Among them, free competition and equal exchange are the dominant principles; division of labor is the means and also the inherent necessity of social development; fair distribution and the principle of the rule of law are the recognition and guarantee of the rights of market subjects, ensuring the orderly operation of the market. Therefore, the modern market is not only a stage for commodity exchange but also possesses the ability to organize social activities, making production—exchange—distribution—consumption a complete system. Correspondingly, market subjects are conscious beings driven by desire, valuing rational calculation, and wealth becomes the primary carrier of modern power. It is conceivable that such a society will inevitably take material wealth as its sole goal, emphasize the positive role of productive forces, and fail to give sufficient attention to the inherent antagonism within relations of production.

第三，现代市民社会由市场来配置资源。现代市民社会以自由市场为中心，社会资源的有效配置完全依靠市场。古典政治经济学体系的最大贡献就是将纷繁复杂的社会运行抽象为简单的市场原则，如分工原则、交换原则、竞争原则、分配原则以及法治原则。其中，自由竞争、平等交换是主导性原则，分工是手段，也是社会发展之内在必然，公正分配以及法治原则是对市场主体权利的认可和保障，以确保市场有序运行。因此，现代市场不仅是商品交易的舞台，也具有了组织社会活动的能力，使生产—交换—分配—消费成为一个完整的体系。与此相应，市场主体是由欲望驱动的自觉存在，重视理性计算，财富成为现代权力的第一载体。可以想见，这样的社会必然将物质财富作为唯一目标，重视生产力的积极作用，而对生产关系的内在对抗无法给予充分重视。

Fourth, the government’s “night watchman” function. Classical political economy, based on the free individual, recognizes interest competition and spontaneous harmony within the market system, but does not thereby deny the necessity of coercive power. Coercive power aims to protect private property rights and free trade rights; therefore, government power must be limited and reduced to a minimum—the government is the “night watchman” of the market. As Smith pointed out, the establishment of modern government is mainly to ensure the security of property, that is, “to protect the rich from the poor, or to protect the propertied from the propertyless.” [5]5 Ibid., Vol. 2, p. 309. Thus, the free market based on the dynamic mechanism of individual capital is essentially an arena for capitalists to enclose land, and state and legal regulation essentially safeguards the interests of capitalists. For those who possess large amounts of property, “without the protection and shelter of the judiciary, how could they sleep soundly for a single night?” [6]6 Ibid., Vol. 2, p. 310. Smith’s proposition that the government is a “night watchman” not only grants civil society full freedom of competition but also reveals the essential relationship between the Western modern state and civil society. Through his critique of Hegel’s philosophy of right, Marx broke through the mist of the rational state and re-revealed this relationship, namely, that the political state is merely the form of expression of civil society.

第四，政府的“守夜人”职能。古典政治经济学立足于自由的个人，认同市场体系中的利益竞争与自发和谐，但并未因此否认强制性权力的必要性。强制性权力旨在保护私有财产权和自由贸易权，因此对政府权力必须加以限制，将其减少至最低限度——政府是市场的“守夜人”。正如斯密所指出的，现代政府的建立主要是为了保障财产的安全，即“保护富者来抵抗贫者，或者说，保护有产者来抵抗无产者”。由此，以个人资本动力机制为基础的自由市场实质上是资本家跑马圈地的竞技场，国家和法律的监管实质上是保障资本家的利益。对于那些拥有大量财产的人，“没有司法官保障庇护，哪能高枕而卧一夜哩”。斯密关于政府是“守夜人”的命题既给予市民社会充分的竞争自由，又道出了西方现代国家与市民社会之间的本质关系。马克思通过黑格尔法哲学批判，冲破理性国家的迷雾，将这一关系重新揭示出来，即政治国家只是市民社会的表现形式。

(II) Classical Political Economy Interpreted the Principle of Individual Capital Dynamics in the Development of Western Modernity

（二）古典政治经济学诠释了西方现代性发育的个人资本动力学原理

The “purpose of classical political economy is to enrich the nation and the people.” What is wealth? How to achieve social abundance? These are precisely the questions it seeks to discuss. Classical political economy transcended the mercantilist claim that “wealth is equivalent to money or gold and silver” and pointed out that true wealth “consists of the consumable goods reproduced annually by social labor,” with money being merely the medium and measure of exchange; similarly, rewarding exports and restricting imports are not means of enriching the nation; “complete freedom” is “the only effective policy for increasing national wealth to the greatest extent.” [7]7 Ibid., Vol. 1, p. 1. Classical political economy identified “manufacturing” as the main carrier of wealth increase. Compared with agriculture, urban industries such as manufacturing and commerce are not only less restricted by natural conditions such as seasons, climate, and soil, but manufactured goods are often small in volume, large in value, and relatively low in transportation costs. Manufacturing has the potential to broaden the scope of the market and enhance social productive forces: “the labor of artisans and manufacturing workers can be divided more finely than that of agriculturalists and rural laborers,” [8]8 Ibid., Vol. 1, p. 11. thereby raising the productivity of useful labor to a much higher degree.

古典政治经济学的“目的在于富国裕民”。何为财富？如何实现社会丰裕？这些恰恰是其所要讨论的问题。古典政治经济学扬弃了重商主义“财富等同于货币或金银”的主张，进而指出真正的财富是“由社会劳动每年所再生产的可消费的货物构成”，货币只是交易的媒介和尺度；同样，奖励输出和阻抑输入也不是富国的手段，“完全自由”才是使国民财富“以最大程度增进的唯一有效方策”。古典政治经济学将“制造业”指认为财富增进的主要载体。相比于农业，制造业、商业等城市产业不仅较少受到季节、气候、土壤等自然条件的限制，而且制造品常常是体积小、价值大，运输费用相对低廉。制造业具有拓宽市场范围、提升社会生产力的潜能，“工匠及制造业工人的劳动，能比农业家和农村劳动者的劳动实行更细密的分工”，从而使有用劳动的生产力提升到高得多的程度。

Classical political economy made individualism deeply ingrained, and the presupposition of the rational economic man is its typical expression. In manufacturing, individuals rely more on their own labor to produce and enjoy the corresponding means of subsistence; hence modern industry makes individuals more self-reliant, raising higher demands for freedom and order. On the basis of the modern division of labor, each person can hone and develop their natural gifts or talents in their own trade, improving their own condition, and this improvement is endless. “The pleasing hope of bettering our condition, and the anxiety of making it worse, impels us to exert ourselves still more.” [9]9 Adam Smith, *An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations*, Vol. 1, ed. R. H. Campbell and A. S. Skinner (Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 1981), p. 341. [The original English text is: “The pleasing hope of bettering our condition, and the anxiety of making it worse, impels us to exert ourselves still more.”] Based on this understanding of human nature, classical political economy tends to analyze the causes of the increase in national wealth from the perspective of individual motivation (desire and interest). Smith pointed out that, acting on self-interest, “every individual is continually exerting himself to find out the most advantageous employment for whatever capital he can command.” [10]10 Smith, *Wealth of Nations*, Vol. 1, p. 454. [The original English text is: “every individual is continually exerting himself to find out the most advantageous employment for whatever capital he can command.”] Only by employing capital to support a certain industry and striving to make the product of that industry of the greatest value can the sole purpose of the capital owner— “to make a profit”—be realized. Therefore, as long as the laws of justice are not violated, every individual should have complete freedom to pursue his own interest in his own way, and to compete with any other person or class of persons with his labor and capital. “Competition and emulation often produce the greatest exertion”; [11]11 Smith, *Wealth of Nations*, Vol. 1, p. 748. [The original English text is: “Competition and emulation often produce the greatest exertion.”] the progress of science and technology and the widespread use of machinery are all results of individual capital’s pursuit of profit maximization. The dynamic principle of individual capital became the comprehensive logic that Western modern society followed to enhance productive forces and thereby achieve “a prosperous nation and a wealthy people.”

古典政治经济学使个人主义深入人心，理性经济人预设是其典型体现。在制造业中，个人更多依靠自己的劳动来生产和享受相应的生活资料，因此现代产业使个人更加依靠自己，对自由和秩序的要求更高。在现代分工的基础上，每个人都可以在各自的行业中磨炼和发挥自己的天赋资质或才能，改善自身的状况，而且这种改善是无止境的。“生活改善和晚景优裕的愉快希望，使他们益加努力。”基于对人性的认知，古典政治经济学倾向于从个人动力（欲望和利益）视角分析国民财富增加的原因。斯密指出，基于自身利益，“各个人都不断地努力为他自己所能支配的资本找到最有利的用途”。把资本用来支持某一产业，努力使这一产业的生产物具有最大价值，才能实现资本所有者的唯一目的——“牟取利润”。因此，只要不违反正义的法律，每个人都应有完全的自由来采用自己的方法追逐自己的利益，以其劳动及资本同任何其他人或其他阶级相竞争。“竞争和比赛往往引起最大的努力”，科学技术的进步、机器的广泛使用无不是个人资本追逐利润最大化的结果。个人资本动力学原理成为西方现代社会为提升生产力，进而实现“国富民裕”所遵循的综合逻辑。

In the view of classical political economy, the progress of productive forces and the continuous increase of national wealth mean that society is in a state of progress, and the people (including the poor laborers) are the happiest and most content. The increase of national wealth will inevitably improve the general condition of the lowest classes. “No society can surely be flourishing and happy, of which the far greater part of the members are poor and miserable,” [12]12 Smith, *Wealth of Nations*, Vol. 1, p. 96. [The original English text is: “No society can surely be flourishing and happy, of which the far greater part of the members are poor and miserable.”] let alone a just society. Although human nature is selfish and greedy, and people act only for their own convenience, the rich, while employing hundreds and thousands of people to satisfy their own endless desires, must also share the fruits of improvement with the poor, enabling laborers to obtain the necessary means of subsistence. As national wealth increases, the demand for laborers will inevitably increase, thereby raising laborers’ wages. The greatest advantage of modern civilization lies in fully unleashing individual potential to provide humanity with a comfortable and convenient life. Although the economic logic of rational self-interest is conducive to greatly enhancing social productive forces and achieving the accumulation of material wealth, this logic only highlights individuality while neglecting the social essence of the individual; it only attends to the principle of historical particularity while neglecting the principle of historical universality. These became the main targets of Hegel’s and Marx’s critique of modernity.

在古典政治经济学看来，生产力进步、国民财富持续增加意味着社会处于进步状态，而人民（包括贫穷劳动者）是最幸福、最安乐的。国民财富的增加必然会改善最下层人民的普遍状况。“大部分成员陷于贫困悲惨状态的社会，绝不能说是繁荣幸福的社会”，更算不上是公正的社会。尽管人的天性是自私、贪婪的，行事只图自己方便，但富人们在雇用成百上千的人满足自己无止境的欲望的同时，也必然要同穷人分享改良成果，使劳动者获得相应的生活必需品。随着国民财富的增加，对劳动者的需求必然也会增加，进而使劳动者的工资得以提高。现代文明的最大优势就在于充分发挥个人潜能，为人类提供舒适便捷的生活。虽然理性利己的经济学逻辑有利于大幅提升社会生产力，实现物质财富的积累，但这一逻辑仅突出个人性，而忽视个人的社会性本质；仅关注历史的特殊性原则，而忽视历史的普遍性原则，这些都成为日后黑格尔和马克思的现代性批判的主要内容。

III. Rousseau’s Questioning and Anxiety Concerning the Logic of Western Modernity

三、卢梭对西方现代性逻辑的质疑与忧虑

Unlike the Scottish Enlightenment thinkers, who took human nature as their theoretical foundation, their contemporary Rousseau inquired from the dimension of historical philosophy into what true human nature is, expressing anxiety about the logic of Western modernity: historicization, i.e., civilization, is also the process of human alienation. Unlike the Scottish Enlightenment thinkers, who conceived of human history as a continuous process of progress, Rousseau saw the duality and inherent contradictions of human historical development itself: humanity both progresses and regresses. Rousseau’s reflection on modernity has a critical character; through three important propositions, he demonstrates his questioning of the logic of Western modernity.

不同于苏格兰启蒙学者将人性作为其理论基础，同时代的卢梭从历史哲学的向度追问何为真正的人性，表达出对西方现代性逻辑的忧虑：历史化即文明化，亦是人的异化过程。不同于苏格兰启蒙学者将人类历史设想为不断进步的过程，卢梭看到了人类历史发展本身所具有的两面性及其内在矛盾，人类既在进步，又在退步。卢梭对现代性的思考具有反思性特征，他通过三个重要命题展现出对西方现代性逻辑的质疑。

(1) Modernity is a multidimensional historical logic, not a unidimensional linear logic

（一）现代性是多维的历史逻辑，不是单维的线性逻辑

Rousseau embedded his historical dialectics deeply in his inquiry into the process of human civilization. Rousseau’s era was precisely a time of rapid scientific development in Europe; the flourishing of science and the arts was regarded as an important sign of modern civilization. Beginning with Bacon, and through Newton, Locke, Leibniz, the Encyclopedists, and others, all placed great hopes in science, while industry, markets, and urban development were all in a positive cycle with science and technology. From the perspective of science and technology—productive forces—wealth, modernity is indeed positive and progressive, but Rousseau proposed that we should examine modernity through the diverse and pluralistic outcomes of history. He simplified the criteria for judging civilizational progress into an easily comparable balance sheet, emphasizing that beyond freedom and ownership (wealth), one should also pay attention to the moral balance: “to the credit side of the account of the social state we must add moral freedom.” [13]13 Jean-Jacques Rousseau, *The Social Contract*, trans. Maurice Cranston (London: Penguin, 1968), p. 65. [The original English text is: “to the credit side of the account of the social state we must add moral freedom.”] Reflecting on the gains and losses of modernity from the dimension of human history reveals human degeneration all the more; so-called civilization and progress have exacted a heavy moral price from humanity. Rousseau pointed out: “The more knowledge men acquire, the more wicked their hearts become; the more the sciences and arts flourish, the more society becomes addicted to luxury, indulging in the enjoyment of life and the pursuit of wealth.” [14]14 Jean-Jacques Rousseau, *Discourse on the Sciences and Arts*, in *The Discourses and Other Early Political Writings*, trans. Victor Gourevitch (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997), p. 7. [Paraphrased; the original reads: “our souls have become corrupted in proportion to the advancement of our sciences and arts.”] Civilization is internal to humanity, not external to knowledge or technology, still less external to wealth. However, modern civilization not only obscures human nature but also, with its complex appearances, forms, and rational tools, disturbs humanity’s efforts at self-knowledge.

卢梭将其历史辩证法深嵌于他对人类文明进程的追问之中。卢梭所处的时代正是欧洲科学迅速发展的时代，科学与艺术的繁荣被视为现代文明的重要标志。自培根始，历经牛顿、洛克、莱布尼茨、百科全书派等，他们都对科学寄予厚望，而工业、市场、城市的发展都与科学技术处于正循环中。从科学技术—生产力—财富的角度看，现代性的确是积极的、进步的，但卢梭提出，我们更应该通过历史的多样性和多元化的发展结果来审视现代性。他将文明进步与否的标准简化为易于比较的收支平衡表，强调在自由、所有权（财富）之外还应重视道德收支，“我们还应该在社会状态的收益栏内再加上道德的自由”。从人类历史的维度去思考现代性的得与失更能看出人类的堕落，所谓的文明与进步使人类付出了沉重的道德代价。卢梭指出：“人的知识愈多，人心反而愈险恶；科学和艺术愈繁荣，社会便愈奢侈成风，耽于生活的享受和财富的追逐。”文明内在于人，而非外在于知识、技术，更非外在于财富。然而，现代文明不仅遮蔽了人的天性，而且以复杂的表象、形式和理性工具扰乱了人类自我认知的努力。

(2) A Dialectical View of the Dynamism of Modernity

（二）辩证看待现代性的动力论

“Happiness is the continuous development of desire from one goal to another.” [15]15 Thomas Hobbes, *Leviathan*, ed. C. B. Macpherson (London: Penguin, 1968), p. 160. [The original English text is: “Felicity is a continuall progresse of the desire, from one object to another.”] Wealth and the ability to acquire wealth both give people feelings of pleasure or pride. Classical political economy, based on the human nature of seeking pleasure and avoiding pain, transformed desire into the driving force of market operations. But Rousseau, from the dimension of human history, pointed out that desire is both the driving force of modernity and the root of human alienation. On the one hand, the degree of development of science and rationality, and the degree of accumulation of social wealth, are directly related to the degree of development of desire. It is precisely because we hope to enjoy ourselves that we have the motivation to seek knowledge. When human desires exceed the boundaries of instinct, the seeds of abstract thought emerge; certain concepts, thoughts, and ideas begin to form and shape the framework of civilization. On the other hand, human degeneration and regression also originate from desire. In Rousseau’s view, the pursuit of self-perfection is both a human desire and a human nature; in the process of self-perfection, humanity constantly gains and constantly loses. For example, humans learned to use tools, but their survival instincts degenerated; humans learned to wear clothes for warmth or to cook food, but they themselves became more frail; humans learned to fully exercise the initiative of freedom, but this increasingly stimulated boundless desires and longings. “It is precisely comfortable enjoyment that becomes the special cause of his more obvious degeneration”; [16]16 Jean-Jacques Rousseau, *Discourse on the Origin and Foundations of Inequality Among Men*, in *The Discourses and Other Early Political Writings*, trans. Victor Gourevitch (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997), p. 165. [Paraphrased; the original reads: “it is comfortable enjoyment that, in making him less capable of enduring hardship, in a way makes him more sensitive to the hardships he is exposed to.”] it is the development, satisfaction, and re-satisfaction of desires that plunges humanity into a mad game of desires, losing the ability to think about the true value of humanity and to enhance morality. Compared with his contemporaries, Rousseau paid more attention to the mode of human existence and spiritual state. While the multitude was engrossed in external pursuits, Rousseau launched an inward inquiry and put forward the earliest ideas of alienation. Following this line of thought, the logic of Western modernity constructed by the Scottish Enlightenment is both the logic of the progress of human civilization and the logic of the accelerated alienation of humanity. Even today, Rousseau’s questioning and anxiety about modernity remain highly valuable. Western modernity leads to the “sanctification of external standards” (for example, fetishism), the inevitable result of which is the obscuring or usurpation of humanity’s true needs.

“幸福就是欲望从一个目标到另一个目标不断地发展。”财富以及获得财富的能力都会给人以快乐或骄傲情感。古典政治经济学基于趋乐避苦的人性将欲望转化为市场运行的源动力，但卢梭却从人类历史维度指出，欲望既是现代性的动力，也是人类异化的根源。一方面，科学与理性的发展程度、社会财富的积累程度与欲望的开发程度直接相关。正是因为我们希望得到享受，我们才有求知的动力。当人类欲望超出本能的界限，人类就有了抽象思维的萌芽，某些概念、思维、观念开始形成并塑造着文明的框架。另一方面，人类的堕落与退化亦皆源于欲望。在卢梭看来，追求自我完善，既是人之欲望，也是人之天性，人类在自我完善的过程中不断得到，也不断失去。例如，人类学会了使用工具，但生存本能却在退化；人类学会了穿衣御寒或制作熟食，自身却变得更加羸弱；人类学会了充分发挥自由的主动性，却愈加激发了无限的欲念奢望。“正是舒适的享受成了使他退化得更加明显的特殊原因”；正是欲望的开发、满足、再满足使人类陷入疯狂的欲望游戏，失去了思考人的真正价值以及提升道德的能力。与同时代的人相比，卢梭更加关注人的存在方式、精神状态。在众人醉心于外在追求之际，卢梭展开了向内追问，并提出了最早的异化思想。按此思路，苏格兰启蒙运动构建的西方现代性逻辑既是人类文明进步的逻辑，也是人类加速异化的逻辑。即使在今天，卢梭对现代性的质疑与忧虑仍极具价值。西方现代性导致“外在标准神圣化”（例如拜物教），其结果必然是对人之真正需要的遮蔽或僭越。

(3) The Essence of Modernity is Antinomy

（三）现代性的本质是二律背反

Whether it is “civilization as alienation” or “man is born free, yet everywhere he is in chains,” Rousseau consistently reveals the inherent paradox of modernity. Especially in the 18th century, when the market prevailed, wealth accumulated rapidly, and science and technology flourished — when the English sang hymns to the development of modernity and the French and Germans devoted themselves to the Enlightenment for its development — Rousseau’s sober understanding of modern civilization was truly valuable. From the perspective of human history, free nature and human reason are a zero-sum game; the chains of freedom are essentially the ever-growing human reason itself. In modern society, the chains of freedom manifest as institutions, laws, and so on — the externalization of human reason. Because of the concept of private property, private property itself, and the system of private property, humanity has gradually moved toward inequality, with wealth becoming an important criterion for determining equality — this is also the most thorough state of human corruption and degeneration. The increase in social wealth is always based on a small number of rich people exploiting and enslaving the majority; not only are the exploited and enslaved in darkness and poverty, but even the few rich, driven by the impulse of insatiable desire, are in an even more severe state of slavery. “He who believes himself the master of others is nonetheless a greater slave than they.” “Only moral freedom makes man truly his own master.” In Rousseau’s view, civilization is a process of humanity moving toward inequality, and the logic of Western modernity runs in the opposite direction from true freedom.

不论是“文明化即异化”，还是“人是生而自由的，但却无往不在枷锁之中”，卢梭始终在揭示现代性的内在悖论。尤其是在市场大行其道、财富迅速积累、科学技术走向繁荣的18世纪，当英国人为现代性的发育大唱赞歌，法国人、德国人为现代性的发育致力于思想启蒙之时，卢梭对现代文明的清醒认知难能可贵。从人类历史看，自由天性与人类理性是零和博弈，自由的枷锁实质上就是人类不断成长的理性，在现代社会，自由的枷锁表现为制度、法律等，是人类理性之外化。因为私有观念、私有财产、私有制度，人类一步步走向不平等，财富逐渐成为确定平等与否的重要标准，这也是人类腐败堕落的最彻底状态。社会财富的增加始终是以少量富人对大多数人的剥削与奴役为基础的，不仅被剥削和被奴役者处于黑暗与贫困之中，即使少数富人也因嗜欲的冲动而处于更加严重的奴隶状态。“自以为是其他一切的主人的人，反而比其他一切更是奴隶。”“唯有道德的自由才使人类真正成为自己的主人。”在卢梭看来，文明化是人类走向不平等的过程，西方现代性的逻辑与真正的自由是南辕北辙的。

If Rousseau’s concerns remained at the logical level, then Jean de Sismondi’s questioning of Western modernity moved toward the concrete; through his critique of classical political economy, he demonstrated the internal contradictions of the logic of Western modernity. Sismondi accused classical political economy of “seeing things but not people” and posed an ultimate question to it: What is the essence of wealth? What is production for? Is the essence of wealth to satisfy people’s needs for life, or to pursue the valorization of capital? Is production aimed at people, or is it production for production’s sake? In Sismondi’s view, the logic of Western modernity, enriched by classical political economy, ultimately moved toward production for production’s sake, purely pursuing the numerical increase of wealth, severing the relationship between production and consumption, and causing social polarization, economic crises, class antagonism, and so on. At root, a series of crises in modern Western society are the concrete externalization of the inherent paradox of its logic of modernity.

如果说卢梭的忧虑还处于逻辑层面，那么让·西斯蒙第对西方现代性的质疑则走向了具体，他通过对古典政治经济学的质疑证明了西方现代性逻辑的内在矛盾。西斯蒙第指责古典政治经济学“见物不见人”，并对古典政治经济学展开了终极追问：财富的本质是什么？生产是为了什么？财富的本质是满足人们的生活需要，还是追求资本增殖？生产是以人为目的，还是为生产而生产？在西斯蒙第看来，经由古典政治经济学而变得充盈的西方现代性逻辑最终走向了为生产而生产，单纯追求财富的数字增量，割裂了生产与消费的关系，造成了社会的两极分化、经济危机、阶级对立等。从根源上看，西方现代社会的一系列危机都是其现代性逻辑的内在悖论的具体外化。

IV. Hegel’s Reflection on Modernity and the Origin of Marx’s Critique of Political Economy

四、黑格尔的现代性反思与马克思政治经济学批判思想的缘起

Rousseau’s historical-philosophical examination of modern civilization was incorporated by Hegel into the developmental logic of absolute spirit, which not only dissolved the pessimistic tone in Rousseau’s thought but also emphasized the unity of historical particularity and universality. Although Hegel stood on the ground of objective idealism, he highly abstracted the problem of Western modernity into the relationship between civil society and the state, and recognized that the paradox of modernity is rooted in the contradiction between the two — this reflects the profundity of the German understanding of Western modernity. At the same time, in 19th-century Western European society, the triple crisis of the relationship between man and nature, between man and man, and between man and society was intensifying. It was precisely under the dual influence of German classical philosophy and the crisis of European modernity that Marx’s critique of political economy was generated.

卢梭对现代文明的历史哲学审视被黑格尔纳入绝对精神的发展逻辑，不仅消解了卢梭思想中的悲观色彩，而且强调历史的特殊性与普遍性相统一。虽然黑格尔属于客观唯心主义立场，但他将西方现代性问题高度抽象为市民社会与国家的关系问题，并认识到现代性悖论根源于两者之间的矛盾，这体现了德国人对西方现代性认识的深刻性。与此同时，19世纪西欧社会中人与自然、人与人、人与社会的三重危机日益加剧。正是在德国古典哲学与欧洲现代性危机的双重作用下，马克思的政治经济学批判思想得以生成。

(I) The Logic of Western Modernity in the Perspective of Hegel’s Philosophy of History

（一）黑格尔历史哲学视域中的西方现代性逻辑

Hegel understood the paradox of Western modernity as the separation and opposition between civil society and the state — “this is the deeper part of his work” — but his greatest error lay in placing the logic of Western modernity within the overall historical process of the self-movement and growth of spirit. Hegel believed that civil society and the state are based on entirely different principles: the principle of particularity and the principle of universality. The inherent necessity of particularity tending toward universality is the important basis for the state’s sublation of civil society — this is a logical necessity; individuals, through civil society, come to recognize this necessity and consciously will the universal, achieving the ethical identity of particularity and universality — this is the actualization of freedom. Therefore, in Hegel’s view, the separation of state and civil society is the necessary result of the self-movement of the Idea, and the state’s determination of civil society is also a matter of logic.

黑格尔将西方现代性悖论理解为市民社会与国家的分离和对立，“这是他的著作中比较深刻的地方”，但他最大的错误在于将西方现代性逻辑放置在精神自我运动、成长的历史总进程中。黑格尔认为，市民社会与国家基于完全不同的原则：特殊性原则与普遍性原则。特殊性趋向于普遍性的内在必然性是国家扬弃市民社会的重要根据，这是逻辑的必然性；个人通过市民社会认识到这种必然性，并自觉希求普遍物，实现特殊性与普遍性的伦理同一，这才是自由的现实化。因此，在黑格尔看来，国家与市民社会的分离是观念自我运动的必然结果，而国家决定市民社会也是逻辑使然。

Civil society is both the stage of externalization and alienation in the self-movement of spirit and a sphere based on the purpose of particularity and mediated by the form of universality. From the perspective of historical idealism, civil society belongs to the stage of objective spirit in Hegel’s system of the philosophy of spirit; it is an important stage in which individual consciousness rises to social consciousness and ultimately returns to absolute spirit. Hegel placed the discussions of Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, the Scottish Enlightenment, and classical political economy on modern Western civilization within the broad framework of “civil society,” analyzing them and regarding it as “the phenomenon of the ethical” — an important negative moment in the self-movement of spirit. From the perspective of actual society, on the one hand, the principle of particularity, mainly manifested in human desires and needs, is dominant, and self-interest is the sole purpose. Of course, concrete individuals, as a totality of various needs, have both natural necessary needs and contingent needs formed by caprice and preference; satisfying needs and developing needs become the main goals of civil society. Hegel highly affirmed the historical significance of civil society in liberating the forces of particularity: the drive of desire not only brings about the accumulation of social wealth but also allows all human idiosyncrasies, talents, and passions to be freely active. Yet he also saw the “dialectic of civil society”: the polarization of rich and poor, the imbalance between material abundance and spiritual poverty, and phenomena such as overproduction and underconsumption. Hegel accurately recognized that the inherent negativity of capital is the chronic ailment of civil society. On the other hand, the form of universality is the medium through which concrete individuals satisfy their needs; the necessity of connection and the universal, as the most essential thing, are deeply embedded in the universal intercourse of modern society. Civil society is a society of increasingly developed intercourse; the satisfaction of each individual’s needs must

市民社会既是精神自我运动的外化和异化阶段，也是以特殊性目的为基础、以普遍性形式为中介的领域。从唯心史观看，市民社会属于黑格尔精神哲学体系中的客观精神阶段，是个人意识上升为社会意识并最终回归绝对精神的重要阶段。黑格尔将霍布斯、洛克、卢梭、苏格兰启蒙运动、古典政治经济学关于西方现代文明的探讨都放在“市民社会”这个大框架中来分析，并将其视为“伦理性的东西的现象界”，是精神自我运动的一个重要的否定性环节。从现实社会看，一方面，以人的欲望、需要为主要表现形式的特殊性原则是主导，自利是唯一目的。当然，作为各种需要之整体的具体个人既有自然的必然需要，也有任性和偏好形成的偶然需要，而满足需要、开发需要成为市民社会的主要目标。黑格尔高度肯定市民社会在解放特殊性力量方面的历史意义，欲望驱动不仅带来社会财富的积累，而且使人的一切癖性、禀赋、激情自由地活跃着；但他也看到“市民社会的辩证法”：贫富两极分化、物质丰裕与精神贫困的失衡、生产过剩与消费不足等现象。黑格尔准确认识到，资本的内在否定性是市民社会的内在痼疾。另一方面，普遍性形式是具体个人满足需要的中介，联系的必然性和普遍物作为最本质的东西深植于现代社会的普遍交往中。市民社会是交往日益发达的社会，每个人需要的满足都必须以他人和普遍性形式为中介，因此自利的实现必须以利他为基础。相互倚赖的制度（以财产权为核心）构成外部国家，是普遍性形式的制度表现；政治经济学、政治学、法学等则是普遍性形式的理论表现，它们通过纷繁复杂的偶然性事件将市民社会中特殊性与普遍性之间的必然性联系理性、抽象地表现出来。因此，市民社会既是特殊性力量充分发展的领域，也是个人逐渐认识到特殊性与普遍性之间必然联系的重要基地。

Hegel not only highly affirmed the historical significance of civil society but also pointed out the inevitable tendency of civil society to move toward the state. He opposed the utilitarian reduction of the state to an institutional arrangement for safeguarding individual property rights and freedom, arguing that only the union of individuals based on the universal will constitutes the true content and purpose of the state — a union that is not formal but ethical. Hegel understood the state as an ethical spirit that thinks itself, knows itself, and accomplishes everything it knows, concretely manifested as national spirit, state spirit, altruism, and so on. This kind of spirit is not a subjective emotion but a conviction derived from truth or an inclination that has become habitual, containing a trust or consciousness: “My substantive and particular interest is contained and preserved in the interest and purpose of an other which treats me as a single individual; therefore this other is for me not an other at all.” [17]17 G.W.F. Hegel, *Elements of the Philosophy of Right*, §268, Addition. To remain by the side of the other is to remain by one’s own side — this is true freedom. Therefore, in the state, the particular purpose of the individual and the universal purpose are internally consistent; the individual does not live merely for himself but consciously acts to achieve the universal purpose. The individual “knows and wills the universal, even acknowledges the universal as its own substantive spirit, and takes the universal as its ultimate end in its activity.” [18]18 Ibid., §260. Compared with the logical necessity between the particular and the universal in civil society, Hegel emphasized the actualization of freedom in the state, that is, the ethical identity between particularity and universality existing as freedom. “In civil society, universality is merely necessity.” [19]19 Ibid., §186. This form of universality is first and foremost law, and it concerns only the protection of property rights; but in the state, the individual not only recognizes this necessity but elevates this intellectual cognition to rational self-consciousness, attaining freedom — that is, the individual sublates the particular purpose and the form of universality, achieving internal consistency with the universal. Of course, the state does not negate the particular purpose, but it does not confirm and safeguard the individual’s particular purpose through the form of universality; rather, it ensures the realization of individual welfare through the realization of the universal purpose. “The essence of the modern state is that the universal is combined with the full freedom of particularity and private welfare”; only when “both moments maintain their strength can the state be regarded as a sound and truly organized state.” [20]20 Ibid., §260, Addition. Hegel’s understanding of the modern state was prescient and a full expression of the modern community, but its greatest problem lay in its detachment from social reality, presenting humanity with a logical rational state.

黑格尔不仅高度肯定了市民社会的历史意义，而且指出了市民社会趋向于国家的必然趋势。他反对把国家功利化为保障个人所有权和自由的制度存在，指出只有立足于普遍意志的人与人之间的结合才是国家真实的内容和目的，这种结合不是形式的结合，而是伦理的结合。黑格尔把国家理解为一种伦理精神，它思考自身、知道自身并完成一切它所知道的，具体表现为民族精神、国家精神、利他主义等。这种种精神并不是一种主观情绪，而是从真理中获得的信念或已经成为习惯的意向，内含一种信任或意识：“我的实体性的和特殊的利益包含和保存在把我当做单个的人来对待的他物的利益和目的中，因此这个他物对我来说就根本不是他物。”守在他物身边即守在自己身边，这才是真正的自由。因此，在国家中，个人的特殊目的与普遍目的是内在一致的，个人不仅是为了自身而生活，而是自觉地为达成普遍目的而活动。个人“认识和希求普遍物，甚至承认普遍物作为它们自己实体性的精神，并把普遍物作为它们的最终目的而进行活动”。相比于市民社会中特殊与普遍性之间的逻辑必然性，黑格尔强调国家中自由的现实化，即作为自由而存在的特殊性与普遍性之间伦理性的同一。“在市民社会中，普遍性不过是必然性。”这种普遍性形式首先且只能是法，且仅与所有权的保护有关；但在国家中，个人不仅认识到这种必然性，而且将这种知性认识上升到理性自觉，达至自由，即个人扬弃特殊目的和普遍性形式，达到与普遍物的内在一致。当然，国家并未否定特殊性目的，但国家并非通过普遍性形式来确认和保障个人的特殊目的，而是通过普遍目的的实现来确保个人福利的实现。“现代国家的本质在于，普遍物是同特殊性的完全自由和私人福利相结合的”，只有普遍性和特殊性“两个环节都保持着它们的力量时，国家才能被看作一个肢体健全的和真正有组织的国家”。黑格尔对于现代国家的认知是有预见性的，是对现代共同体的充分表达，但其最大的问题在于脱离了社会现实，为人类呈现的是一种合乎逻辑的理性国家。

(II) The Generative Logic of Young Marx’s Critique of Political Economy

（二）青年马克思政治经济学批判思想的生成逻辑

The dialectical movement of the logic and history of Western modernity gave rise to the generation of young Marx’s critique of political economy. The logical presuppositions of Western modernity among the Scottish Enlightenment thinkers, the principled interpretations of classical political economy, Rousseau’s anxieties about modernity, and the real paradoxes within Western modern civilization all reflect the dialectical movement of the logic and history of Western modernity. The dialectical movement of Western modernity was incorporated by Hegel into his philosophical system, and the relationship between civil society and the state thus became the first important question Marx considered in his exploration of modernity. This question not only runs through his entire critique of political economy but also impelled Marx to explore a new developmental logic of modern civilization from the perspective of “real individuals.”

西方现代性逻辑与历史的辩证运动促成了青年马克思政治经济学批判思想的生成。苏格兰启蒙学者的现代性逻辑预设、古典政治经济学的原则诠释、卢梭对现代性的忧虑以及西方现代文明中的现实悖论，折射出西方现代性逻辑与历史的辩证运动。西方现代性的辩证运动被黑格尔纳入其哲学体系，市民社会与国家的关系遂成为马克思在探究现代性时思考的首个重要问题。这一问题不仅贯穿他的整个政治经济学批判，而且促使马克思从“现实的个人”的角度探索新的现代文明的发展逻辑。

Whether in his observation of German social reality or his reflections on modernity in England, France, and elsewhere, Marx consistently unfolded his analysis around the two categories of civil society and the state. The shift from political critique to the critique of alienated labor reflects the gradual deepening of Marx’s thinking on this issue. The real suffering of civil society became the greatest irony of the logic of Western modernity. Sublating Hegel’s speculative idealist conception of history and instead seeking the roots of the paradox from within social reality and social structure became an important step in Marx’s development of the critique of political economy. Although the *Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right* was unfinished and not fully mature, it was Marx’s first important work on modernity and the germinal work of his historical materialism and critique of political economy; the “Introduction” to the *Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right* published in the *Deutsch-Französische Jahrbücher* (hereinafter referred to as the “Introduction”) built on this foundation to point out what constitutes true liberation and what constitutes true critique. From this point on, Marx clarified his proletarian standpoint (its essence being the people’s standpoint), and only a critique of political economy unfolded from the proletarian standpoint could truly possess historical penetrating power.

无论是对德国社会现实的观察，还是对英、法等国现代性的思考，马克思始终围绕市民社会与国家这两个范畴展开，从政治批判走向异化劳动批判反映了马克思对这一问题思考的逐渐深入。市民社会的现实苦难成为对西方现代性逻辑的最大反讽，扬弃黑格尔的思辨唯心史观，转而从社会现实和社会结构内部寻找其悖论根源，成为马克思开展政治经济学批判的重要一步。《黑格尔法哲学批判》虽未完成且不甚成熟，但却是马克思第一部思考现代性的重要著作，也是其唯物史观与政治经济学批判的萌芽之作；发表在《德法年鉴》上的《〈黑格尔法哲学批判〉导言》（以下简称《导言》）正是在此基础上指出了何为真正的解放，何为真正的批判。自此马克思明确了自己的无产阶级立场（其实质是人民立场），也只有从无产阶级立场展开的政治经济学批判才真正具有历史穿透力。

It is not the concept that determines the entity, but the entity that determines the concept. It was precisely through his critique of Hegel’s idealist conception of history that Marx put forward the first proposition of the critique of political economy: it is not the state that determines civil society, but civil society that determines the state. Marx agreed that contradiction is the internal driving force of historical development, but he criticized Hegel’s view that the entire process of human history is reduced to the contradictory movement between the absolute idea and externalized objects. In Hegel’s logical system, the state becomes the spiritual subject, while the property relations of civil society become a derivative of spirit; the process of human history is regarded as the self-movement of the idea, with spirit becoming the sole essence and driving force — this is typical logical mysticism. Marx pointed out that the cause and inner spirit of the family and civil society should not be sought in empty concepts but should be questioned from their reality, from within their own unfolding. The family and civil society “are the essence of the state”; “the family and civil society make themselves into the state. They are the driving force.” [21]21 Karl Marx, *Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right*, in *Marx-Engels Collected Works*, vol. 3, p. 8. Therefore, civil society not only has its own driving force and spirit but is also the essence and driving force of the state; civil society is not derived from the necessity of the concept; on the contrary, the actual state is determined by civil society, in which property relations are the essential relations of civil society — whoever holds property rights holds decision-making power. As Marx later summarized, “legal relations, like forms of the state, are rooted in material relations of life,” [22]22 Karl Marx, *A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy*, Preface, in *Marx-Engels Collected Works*, vol. 29, p. 262. which is not only the germ of historical materialism but also points to an important direction of Marx’s critique of political economy — the anatomy of civil society.

不是概念决定实体，而是实体决定概念。正是通过对黑格尔唯心史观的批判，马克思提出了政治经济学批判的第一命题：不是国家决定市民社会，而是市民社会决定国家。马克思认同矛盾是历史发展的内在动力，但批判了黑格尔将人类历史进程归结为绝对观念与外化对象的矛盾运动的观点。在黑格尔的逻辑体系中，国家成为精神主体，市民社会的财产关系反而成为精神的派生物，人类历史进程被视为观念的自我运动，精神成为唯一的本质和动力，这是典型的逻辑神秘主义。马克思指出，家庭和市民社会存在的原因与内在精神不应去空洞的概念中寻找，而应从其现实、从其内部展开追问。家庭和市民社会“是国家的本质所在”；“家庭和市民社会使自身成为国家。它们是动力”。因此，市民社会不仅有自身的动力和精神，而且也是国家的本质及其发展动力；市民社会不是从概念的必然性中引申出来的，相反，现实的国家是由市民社会所决定的，其中，财产关系是市民社会的本质关系，谁拥有财产权，谁就拥有决策权。正如后来马克思所总结的，“法的关系正像国家的形式一样……根源于物质的生活关系”，这既是唯物史观的萌芽，也指明了马克思政治经济学批判的重要方向——市民社会的解剖。

The discussion of the essence and spirit of civil society in *Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right* prefigures the direction of Marx’s critique of political economy. Although *Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right* does not focus on “civil society” (bourgeois society), it still reveals Marx’s basic understanding of “civil society” between the lines, which can be summarized in five main judgments. First, civil society is the real subject, the foundation of the state, and possesses its own spirit and logic. Second, civil society is the battlefield of all against all, where the citizen is a fixed, immutable individual with particular interests, stripped of all other qualities. Third, civil society and the rational state are in a binary opposition, and the citizen is in a state of self-splitting. The so-called “identity” is merely an “illusory identity”: “Here there appears to be an identity, there appears to be the same subject, but this subject has essentially different determinations, so that in reality there is a dual subject.” [23]23 Karl Marx, *Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right*, in *Marx and Engels Collected Works*, vol. 3 (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1975), p. 12. Fourth, enjoyment and the capacity for enjoyment are the principles of civil society; the estates of civil society are fluid groups based on the principle of arbitrariness, with money and education as the main criteria. Fifth, the human being in civil society has not attained his true meaning (i.e., the determination of a social being); all determinations in civil society are external, inessential determinations of the human being. On the one hand, civil society does not absorb individuals as a communal organization or community; the civil estate or social position is merely an external determination of the individual, not arising from the individual’s labor. On the other hand, the existence of the individual is the ultimate end, while activity, labor, content, etc., all become means. Therefore, the greatest paradox of Western modern civilization is that it renders the majority of people in civil society in a non-human state; they pursue human freedom and emancipation, only to be determined and dominated by a more abstract external force. Modern civilization “separates from man his objective essence as something merely external and material; it does not regard his content as his true reality.” From these fragmentary accounts of civil society, we can see that Marx had already formed an initial understanding of “alienated labor,” and the inherent paradox of modernity leaps off the page.

《黑格尔法哲学批判》中关于市民社会的本质与精神的论述预示了马克思政治经济学批判的走向。《黑格尔法哲学批判》虽未重点阐述“市民社会”（资产阶级社会），但仍在字里行间体现出马克思对“市民社会”的基本认知，其中主要有五大判断。一是市民社会是现实的主体，是国家的基础，有自身的精神和逻辑。二是市民社会是一切人反对一切人的战场，市民是具有特殊利益的、固定不变的、摒弃了其他特质的个人。三是市民社会与理性国家二元对立，市民处于自我分裂状态。所谓的“同一”只是“幻想的同一”：“这里似乎存在着同一，存在着同一个主体，但这种主体具有本质上不同的规定，因此实际上这里是双重的主体。”四是享受和享受能力是市民社会的原则，市民社会的等级是以任意为原则的、流动的集团，金钱和教育是主要标准。五是市民社会中的人并未获得人的真正意义（即社会存在物的规定），市民社会中的一切规定都是人外在的、非本质的规定。一方面，市民社会不是作为一种共有组织或共同体来吸纳个体，市民等级或社会地位只是个体的外在规定，并非是从个体的劳动产生的。另一方面，个人的存在是最终目的，活动、劳动、内容等都成了手段。因此，西方现代文明最大的悖论在于使市民社会中的大多数人处于非人状态，他们追求人的自由、解放，结果却被更抽象的外在力量所规定和支配。现代文明“使人的对象性本质作为某种仅仅是外在的、物质的东西同人分离，它不认为人的内容是人的真正现实”。我们从其对市民社会的零星叙述中可以看出，马克思已经形成了“异化劳动”方面的最初认知，现代性的内在悖论跃然纸上。

The establishment of the proletarian standpoint set the value coordinates for Marx’s critique of political economy. In the *Introduction*, Marx distinguishes between political emancipation and human emancipation, pointing out that the former is merely the emancipation of a part of civil society, which achieves universal domination, i.e., the bourgeoisie, starting from its particular position, undertakes the universal emancipation of society; the latter is the emancipation of the human being as a human being, overthrowing all relations that make people into beings who are humiliated, enslaved, abandoned, and despised. “The proletariat announces the dissolution of the hitherto existing world order,” [24]24 Karl Marx, “Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Law: Introduction,” in *Marx and Engels Collected Works*, vol. 3 (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1975), p. 187. and the ever-growing proletariat is the actualization of the inherent paradox of the logic of Western modernity. Marx points out that the proletariat is the material force for transforming the world, and its historical mission is to achieve the true emancipation of humanity. And Marx’s philosophy is the spiritual weapon of the proletariat, the head of this emancipation. The establishment of the proletarian standpoint embodies the essential attribute of Marxism and directly determines Marx’s subsequent theoretical reflections and practical activities. But in what sense does the proletariat possess true universality? First, from the perspective of labor, the proletariat has a universal character. The development of human history has a universal principle, but this principle is not the logical universality of the concept over the object, but the real universality of labor over the human being. Although the labor of the proletariat in civil society is still “alienated labor,” it is also objective labor, the essence of the human being; further, the proletariat is also “the basis on which the various groups of civil society rest and move.” [25]25 Ibid., p. 186. Second, from the perspective of their existential situation, the proletariat suffers universal suffering and possesses a thorough revolutionary will and breadth of vision. The proletariat is “a class with radical chains,” [26]26 Ibid., p. 186. which signifies “the complete loss of the human being” and “the dissolution of society,” [27]27 Ibid., p. 186. and has the need for universal emancipation. Third, from the perspective of its historical mission, the proletariat has the capacity to achieve universal emancipation. On the one hand, the proletariat is a product of the movement of large-scale machine industry and a representative of advanced productive forces; it demands to “return to itself,” which necessarily entails the negation of private property and the destruction of all systems of servitude—this is the inherent requirement of the proletariat’s own emancipation. On the other hand, the thoroughness of theory can surely convince the proletariat, realizing the combination of material force and spiritual weapon, and the emancipation of humanity will inevitably become a reality. “When the lightning of thought has thoroughly struck this naive soil of the people, the Germans will emancipate themselves and become human beings.” [28]28 Ibid., p. 187. Therefore, in the *Introduction*, Marx not only clarifies his class standpoint—the proletarian standpoint—regarding the proletariat as the leading force of human emancipation, but also points out the path of human emancipation—the negation of private property and the abolition of all systems of servitude. If in *Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right* Marx saw that civil society is the essence of the state and that property relations are the essential relations of civil society, then in the *Introduction* he further points out that human emancipation lies in the sublation of civil society and the realization that “the human being is the highest essence for the human being.” [29]29 Ibid., p. 187. “Transcending capitalist society in the direction of a more humane, freer, and more satisfying society” has always been the starting point of Marx’s critique of political economy.

无产阶级立场的确立为马克思政治经济学批判划定了价值坐标。在《导言》中，马克思区分了政治解放与人类解放，指出前者只是市民社会的一部分解放自己，取得普遍统治，亦即资产阶级从其特殊地位出发从事社会的普遍解放；后者是人之为人的解放，推翻那些使人成为被侮辱、被奴役、被遗弃和被蔑视的东西的一切关系。“无产阶级宣告迄今为止的世界制度的解体”，不断壮大的无产阶级就是西方现代性逻辑内在悖论的现实化。马克思指出，无产阶级是改造世界的物质力量，其历史使命是使人类获得真正解放。而马克思的哲学就是无产阶级的精神武器，是解放的头脑。无产阶级立场的确立体现了马克思主义的本质属性，直接规定着此后马克思的理论思考与实践活动，但无产阶级在何种意义上具有真正的普遍性呢？一是从劳动角度看，无产阶级具有普遍性质。人类历史发展具有普遍性原则，但这种原则不是概念之于对象的逻辑普遍性，而是劳动之于人的现实普遍性。虽然在市民社会中无产阶级的劳动依然是“异化劳动”，但其也是对象性劳动，是人之本质所在；更进一步看，无产阶级也是“市民社会各集团赖以安身和活动的基础”。二是从生存境遇看，无产阶级遭受普遍苦难，具有彻底的革命意志和胸怀。无产阶级是“一个被戴上彻底的锁链的阶级”，表明了“人的完全丧失”以及“社会的解体”，具有普遍解放的需要。三是从其历史使命看，无产阶级具有实现普遍解放的能力。一方面，无产阶级是机器大工业运动的产物，是先进生产力的代表，他们要求“回复自身”，这必然就会否定私有财产，摧毁一切奴役制，这是无产阶级解放自身的内在要求。另一方面，理论的彻底性必能说服无产阶级，实现物质武器与精神武器的结合，人类的解放必然成为现实。“思想的闪电一旦彻底击中这块素朴的人民园地，德国人就会解放成为人。”因此，在《导言》中马克思不仅明晰了其阶级立场——无产阶级立场，将无产阶级视为人类解放的主导力量，而且指明了人类解放的路径——否定私有财产，消灭一切奴役制。如果说在《黑格尔法哲学批判》中，马克思看到了市民社会是国家的本质，财产关系是市民社会的本质关系，那么在《导言》中，他则进一步指出人类解放在于扬弃市民社会，实现“人是人的最高本质”。“以更人性、更自由和更令人满意的社会为方向来超越资本主义社会”始终是马克思政治经济学批判的出发点。

V. Conclusion

五、小结

Since modern times, Machiavelli, Hobbes, Locke, and others have regarded desire and interest as important links in the construction of the state, and the protection of individual rights as the basis of the legitimacy of the state (power). Hume, Smith, and others went further, integrating desire and interest into the dogma of the free market and deeply embedding them in the human heart; the free pursuit of individual interest became the basic presupposition of civil society. Thus, driven jointly by desire and interest, the state and civil society, as the main threads of the logic of Western modernity, began to appear, and formal freedom and substantive freedom gradually became confused. The essence of modernity is antinomy. Rousseau expressed his anxiety from the very beginning of the construction of the logic of Western modernity: civilization is alienation, and the pursuit of freedom and the loss of freedom are the same path. Hegel placed civil society and the state within the grand narrative of the movement of spirit, viewing the transition from civil society to the state as the actualization of freedom, completely inverting the relationship between reality and illusion, subject and object. It was on this basis that the young Marx began to reflect on and critique the logic of Western modernity. First, he negated Hegel’s idealist logic, focusing the investigation of modernity on civil society and its property relations (private ownership), and restored the essential relationship between civil society and the state. Second, he negated the logic of Western modernity constructed by the Scottish Enlightenment, pointing out that Western modernity, based on human nature and premised on private ownership, is essentially a “negation” of the human being, where freedom and democracy are more form than content. Finally, Marx pursued a new form of human civilization—the association of free individuals. Adhering to the core of freedom and democracy from classical civilization, Marx, on the basis of historical materialism and through the critique of political economy, sought to sublate the logic of Western modernity and remove all obstacles to the realization of human free individuality and all-round development. From the trajectory of Marx’s thought, the critique of political economy is a fundamental critique of modernity, and *Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right* and its *Introduction* are the generative foundation of the young Marx’s thought on the critique of political economy. The germination of historical materialism, the clarification of the direction of the critique of political economy, and the establishment of the proletarian standpoint basically framed the development direction and internal logic of Marx’s system of thought.

近代以来，马基雅维里、霍布斯、洛克等将欲望、利益视为国家建构的重要环节，将保障个人权利视为国家（权力）的合法性基础。休谟、斯密等人则更进一步，将欲望、利益融入自由市场教条，并将其深植于人的内心之中，自由地追求个人利益成为市民社会的基础设定。由此，在欲望、利益的共同驱动下，国家与市民社会作为西方现代性逻辑的主线开始显现，形式自由与实质自由也逐渐混淆。现代性的本质是二律背反，卢梭从西方现代性逻辑构建之初就表达了自己的忧虑：文明化即异化，自由的追求与自由的丧失是同一条道路。黑格尔则将市民社会与国家放置在精神运动的宏大叙事中，将市民社会向国家的过渡视为自由的现实化，完全颠倒了现实与虚幻、主体与对象之间的关系。青年马克思正是在此基础上对西方现代性的逻辑展开思考与批判，首先否定了黑格尔的唯心主义逻辑，将现代性考察的重点定位于市民社会及其财产关系（私有制），重新还原了市民社会与国家的本质关系。其次，他否定了苏格兰启蒙运动所构建的西方现代性逻辑，指出以人性为基础、以私有制为前提的西方现代性本质上是对人的“否定”，自由、民主的形式大于内容。最后，马克思追求的是人类文明新形态——自由人的联合体。秉承古典文明的自由、民主内核，马克思以唯物史观为基础，以政治经济学批判为路径，力求扬弃西方的现代性逻辑，清除实现人的自由个性与全面发展所面临的一切障碍。从马克思的思想历程来看，政治经济学批判是一种具有根本性的现代性批判，《黑格尔法哲学批判》及其《导言》则是青年马克思政治经济学批判思想的生成基础。唯物史观的萌芽、政治经济学批判方向的明晰和无产阶级立场的确立基本上框定了马克思思想体系的发展方向与内在逻辑。

Online Editor: Tongxin

网络编辑：同心