The Position and Role of “Need” in the Framework of Historical Materialism

As early as the 1980s, Chinese academic circles began to explore the issue of need in Marxist philosophy from different angles, elaborating on topics such as “whether need is the essence of man,” “need and historical materialism,” and “need and social development.” In the 1990s, they initiated research on the category of “human need,” giving rise to explorations of specific disciplinary relationships such as need and rights, and need and psychological science. These explorations accompanied the rise of Marxist human studies in China and basically corresponded to the fundamental positioning that “value is the relationship in which an object satisfies the subject’s need.” Entering the 21st century, research on the Marxist theory of need revived again, and opened up numerous interpretive perspectives such as Chinese-path modernization, ecology, and rural revitalization. Overall, over more than four decades of research on the Marxist theory of need, Chinese scholars have both affirmed that need constitutes, in a general sense, the “driving force” of historical materialism, while also avoiding the direct substitution of need for the ultimately determining role of productive forces, and the research fields have increasingly shown a trend toward refinement. It is worth noting that previous research on the relationship between “need and historical materialism” has mostly treated need as a basic category of the materialist conception of history for comparative study. However, need is not a fixed category, but a mechanism that is constantly enriched and developed. Clarifying the relationship between need and the framework of historical materialism from the mechanism level can not only further straighten out the position of need within historical materialism, but also help to understand the theory of the principal contradiction in society within the theoretical system of socialism with Chinese characteristics, thereby promoting the development and innovation of the Marxist theory of need.

早在20世纪80年代，我国学界就开始从不同角度探讨马克思主义哲学中的需要问题，围绕“需要是不是人的本质”“需要与唯物史观”“需要与社会发展”等话题进行了阐发，并在20世纪90年代开启了“人的需要”的范畴研究，衍生出了需要与权利、需要与心理科学等具体学科关系的探讨。这些探讨同马克思主义人学在中国兴起相伴随，基本对应着“价值是客体满足主体需要的关系”这一基本定位。进入21世纪，对马克思主义需要理论的研究再度兴起，并拓新了中国式现代化、生态学、乡村振兴等众多解读视角。从总体上看，学界40多年来关于马克思主义需要理论的研究，既肯定了需要在一般意义上构成历史唯物主义的“动因”，同时又避免了用需要直接取代生产力的最终决定作用，并且在研究领域方面越来越呈现出细化的态势。值得注意的是，以往关于“需要与历史唯物主义”的关系研究更多是把需要作为一个唯物史观的基本范畴进行比较研究，然而需要并不是一个固定的范畴，而是一个不断丰富和发展的机制。从机制层面对需要与历史唯物主义框架的关系进行澄清，不仅能够进一步理顺需要在历史唯物主义中的位置，而且也有助于理解中国特色社会主义理论体系中的社会主要矛盾理论，推动马克思主义需要理论的发展和创新。

I. Problems Arising from the Categorical Positioning of “Need” in Historical Materialism

一、“需要”的历史唯物主义范畴定位所引发的问题

Since the 1990s, a mainstream view has formed in academic circles: need is a basic category of historical materialism. Under such a categorical positioning, scholars have conducted specific analyses of the manifestations of need, and some views have attempted to construct a “Marxist theory of human nature” on this basis. The problem brought about by the above positioning is how to handle the driving force of need on production and social life, and how to position need within the relationship between nature and society. If we refer to the relevant expressions in Engels’s “The Part Played by Labour in the Transition from Ape to Man,” we also need to clarify whether, in the process of transition from ancient ape to man, the need at the animal level has been preserved within historical materialism. If so, then to what extent has it been preserved, and what status and role does this preservation have within the entire social production and even human society? Faced with the above problems, if need is merely positioned as a basic category of historical materialism, it is easy to become confined to a comparative analysis of the relative importance of need and productive forces in social development, while neglecting that need is not only a basic content of historical materialism, but also an important content of the dialectics of nature. The entire mechanism of the generation, satisfaction, and reproduction of human need is the result of the joint action of human society and the entire material world. Overall, the approach of merely positioning need as a basic category of historical materialism faces the following challenges.

20世纪90年代以来，学界形成的一个主流观点是：需要是历史唯物主义的基本范畴。在这样的范畴定位下，学界对需要的表现形态进行了具体分析，并有观点试图以此为基础来建构“马克思主义的人性论”。上述定位所带来的问题是，如何处理需要对生产和社会生活的驱动以及如何在自然与社会之间的关系中定位需要？如果联系恩格斯《劳动在从猿到人转变过程中的作用》一文的相关表述，我们还需弄清，在从古猿到人的转变过程中，动物层面的需要是否在唯物史观中得到了保存？如果是的话，那么得到了何种程度的保存，这种保存在整个社会生产乃至人类社会中具有怎样的地位和作用？面对上述问题，如果仅将需要定位为历史唯物主义的基本范畴，就容易局限于对需要与生产力在社会发展中的作用孰高孰低的比较式分析，而忽视了需要并不仅仅是历史唯物主义的基本内容，还是自然辩证法的重要内容。人类需要的产生、满足及其再生产的整个机制，是人类社会和整个物质世界共同作用的结果。从总体上看，将需要仅仅定位为历史唯物主义基本范畴的思路面临着如下挑战。

First, the original source of need is not merely social in significance; it equally contains the level of the general life of nature. In this process, although distinctions can be made at the level of survival needs, development needs, enjoyment needs, and self-realization needs, or distinctions between natural needs and social needs according to domain, these distinctions themselves do not show which domain is “more important,” but rather demonstrate the multidimensionality of the social generation of human need and its logical trajectory of development. The importance of understanding the issue of need through historical materialism lies in its integration of the development of productive forces, social development, and the enrichment and evolution of human need, displaying the historical generation and social satisfaction of need in different dimensions across different historical stages, and endowing it with the uniqueness of the era. Human need has indeed undergone a process of historical development, but this process is not identical to the development process of productive forces and relations of production. At the level of productive forces and relations of production, there exists a pattern where the development of productive forces leads to new relations of production replacing old ones. Regarding the relationship between productive forces and need, there is no pattern where the high development of productive forces brings about the replacement of lower-level needs by higher-level needs. Instead, there exists a process in which, on the basis of continuous innovation in the mode of satisfying basic needs, new needs arise, while the forms of realizing needs become increasingly enriched and more civilized. In this process, the logical structure of human need is constantly enriched, and the pathways for realizing needs become increasingly diverse and free.

首先，需要的最初来源并不仅仅是社会意义上的，同样包含着自然界一般生命的层面。在此过程中，虽然可以在层级上进行生存需要、发展需要、享受需要和自我实现等需要的区分，或者按照领域进行自然需要与社会需要的区分，但这些区分本身并不能显示其中哪一个领域“更重要”，而只是展示了人的需要的社会生成的多维性及其逻辑发展轨迹。以历史唯物主义理解需要问题的重要性在于，它将生产力发展、社会发展与人的需要的丰富和演化融为一体，展示了不同历史阶段中不同维度的需要的历史生成和社会满足情况，并赋予其时代独特性。人类的需要的确经历了一个历史发展的过程，但这一过程与生产力和生产关系的发展过程并不相同。在生产力与生产关系层面，存在着一个由于生产力的发展，新的生产关系取代旧的生产关系的模式。对于生产力与需要的关系而言，并不存在生产力的高度发展带来高级需要取代低级需要的模式，而是存在一个在基本需要的满足方式不断创新的基础上产生新的需要、同时需要的实现形式不断丰富和更加文明的过程。在这一过程中，人的需要的逻辑结构不断丰富，需要的实现途径愈发多元和自由。

Second, need is not confined solely to the field of historical materialism; it also involves the field of the dialectics of nature. The basic physiological needs of humans are themselves the result of the long-term evolution of biological life in nature. Marx always paid close attention to the natural aspect of humans. In the *Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844*, when criticizing the Young Hegelians, Marx began to emphasize the naturalness of humans, that is, “man as a real, corporeal being, standing on the solid, round earth, breathing in and breathing out all the forces of nature.” In *The German Ideology*, when analyzing primitive human society, Marx pointed out that humans at that time “are still animal-like in their social life itself… The only difference between man and the sheep is that… his instinct is a conscious instinct.” The “instinct” here emphasizes that the emergence of human consciousness is not accompanied by the disappearance of natural instincts; on the contrary, humans can become aware of, and even guide and discipline, the satisfaction of instincts at the level of consciousness. Only on this basis can we understand the naturalness of Marx’s four logical sequences of “primitive history”: whether it is “the first premise of all human existence,” which is “that they must be able to live,” or “the first historical act,” which is “the production of new needs,” or the emergence of family relations and social relations premised on the instinct of “procreation,” all are built upon the foundation of natural instincts. From this perspective, human natural instincts constitute the biological premise of the development of human society. The analysis of this issue is precisely inseparable from the perspective of the dialectics of nature.

其次，需要并不仅仅局限于历史唯物主义领域，同样涉及自然辩证法领域。人类的基本生理需要本身就是自然界生物长期进化的结果。对于人的自然性方面，马克思始终给予高度关注。在《1844年经济学哲学手稿》中，马克思在批判青年黑格尔派时，就开始强调人的自然性，即“现实的、肉体的、站在坚实的呈圆形的地球上呼出和吸入一切自然力的人”。在《德意志意识形态》中，马克思在分析人类原始社会时，指出这时候的人“同这一阶段的社会生活本身一样，带有动物的性质……人和绵羊不同的地方只是在于……他的本能是被意识到了的本能”。此处的“本能”就是在强调人类意识的产生并不伴随自然本能的消失，相反，人能够在自觉性层面意识到乃至引导和规训本能的满足。只有在此基础上，我们才能理解马克思关于“原初的历史”的四个逻辑序列的自然性：无论是作为“一切人类生存的第一个前提”的“必须能够生活”，还是作为“第一个历史活动”的“新的需要的产生”，或是以“繁殖”本能为前提的家庭关系和社会关系的出现，都是建立在自然本能基础之上的。从这个意义上看，人的自然本能构成了人类社会发展的生物性前提。对这一问题的分析，恰恰离不开自然辩证法的视野。

Third, the relationship between the mechanism of need satisfaction and human physiological characteristics. In labor, “in order to appropriate natural materials in a form adapted to his own needs, man sets in motion the natural forces belonging to his own body: his arms, legs, head, and hands. By thus acting on the external world and changing it, he at the same time changes his own nature.” In short, humans and their social development within the perspective of historical materialism are built upon human physiological characteristics. In the production process, human physiological characteristics constitute the basic framework. In the use of the instruments of labor, “a natural object itself becomes his organ of activity, which he adds to his own bodily organs… thus lengthening his natural limbs.” That is to say, in the development of productive forces, it is not merely the development of productive capacity and the mode of production, because the development of both relies precisely on the conditions of humans and nature. In short, in Marx’s view, the mechanism of need satisfaction in the development of human society is built upon the natural form of human physiological characteristics, or rather, must be built upon the ultimate satisfaction of this natural form. If one departs from the relationship between human physiological characteristics and the paradigm of need satisfaction, it is possible to fall into a purely conceptual analysis between production and relations of production, and to treat need as an abstract category.

再次，需要满足的机制与人的生理特征之间的关系问题。在劳动中，“为了在对自身生活有用的形式上占有自然物质，人就使他身上的自然力——臂和腿、头和手运动起来。当他通过这种运动作用于他身外的自然并改变自然时，也就同时改变他自身的自然”。简言之，历史唯物主义视野中的人及其社会发展，是建立在人的生理特征之上的。在生产过程中，人的生理特征构成了基本框架，在劳动资料的使用中，“自然物本身就成为他的活动的器官，他把这种器官加到他身体的器官上……延长了他的自然的肢体”。也就是说，在生产力发展过程中，并不仅仅是生产能力和生产方式的发展，因为二者发展所依托的正是人和自然的条件。简言之，在马克思那里，人类社会发展中的需要的满足机制，是建立在人的生理特征的自然形式之上的，或者说，必须建立在对这种自然形式的最终满足之上。如果离开了人的生理特征与需要满足的范式之间的关系，就有可能陷入生产与生产关系之间的纯粹概念分析，并将需要作为一种抽象范畴加以处理。

Finally, the relationship between the position of need and the ultimate orientation of historical materialism—human emancipation. To define need from the perspective of category is still a conceptual discussion within the scope of epistemology. In reality, need occupies a foundational position in various domains within the framework of historical materialism. Need does not constitute the driving force of historical development, but rather the “problematic” of social development—the satisfaction of old needs and the emergence of new needs continuously raise new demands on the development of productive forces and relations of production. Nevertheless, need in its natural sense always occupies a foundational position; it is the unchangeable nature of human beings, and it fundamentally participates in the determination of the mode of social production. In stark contrast, need in its social sense manifests, to a higher degree, the issues of human subjectivity and intersubjectivity, determining a broader domain of development beyond human nature. Compared with natural need, social need is not a secondary need; rather, it involves the handling of the relationship between subjective need at a higher level and the entire world, including nature. This also implies that the progression from humanity’s basic survival needs to the ultimate social need of “human emancipation” is not merely an upgrade in the form of need, but also encompasses a enrichment of the content of need. In this context, Marx’s assertion that “the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all” also refers to the domain of humanized nature: the need for harmony between humans and nature, and among humans themselves. From this perspective, need can be said to be a foundational domain of Marxist theory, occupying a foundational position within the framework of Marxist theory.

最后，需要的地位与历史唯物主义的终极指向——人的解放——之间的关系。从范畴的角度对需要进行界定，仍然是认识论范围内的概念讨论。实际上，需要在历史唯物主义框架中的各个领域都具有基础性地位。需要并不构成历史发展的动力，而是社会发展的“问题域”——旧的需要的满足和新的需要的产生，不断对生产力和生产关系的发展提出了新的要求。但无论如何，自然意义上的需要始终构成基础性地位，是人的不可改变的自然，它从根本上参与社会生产方式的规定；与之形成鲜明对比的是，社会意义上的需要则在更高程度上显现出人的主体性和主体间性问题，规定着人的自然性之外更为宽广的发展领域。相较于自然需要，社会意义上的需要并不是次生需要，而是涉及更高层面上的主体性需要与包括自然在内的整个世界之间的关系处理问题。这同时也意味着，从人类的基本生存需要到“人的解放”这一社会最终需要，并不仅仅是需要形式的升级，同时也包含着需要内容的丰富。在这种情况下，马克思所指出的“每个人的自由发展是一切人的自由发展的条件”，同样也指涉人化自然领域：人与自然以及人与人和谐的需要。从这一意义来看，需要可以说是马克思主义理论的基础性领域，在马克思主义理论框架中占据基础性地位。

II. The Content Determination of “Need” within the Framework of Historical Materialism and Its Function

二、“需要”在历史唯物主义框架中的内容规定性及其作用

Overall, need involves both the domain of the dialectics of nature—which at least includes the three foundational areas of human naturalness, humanity’s transformation of the natural world, and the natural consequences arising from this transformation—and the domain of historical materialism, which includes the three major areas of the relationship between humans and nature, the relationship between humans and society, and the relationship between humans and themselves. The category of need does not negate the determination of the superstructure by the economic base or the determination of social consciousness by social being in historical materialism, nor can it replace the decisive role of productive forces over relations of production. Rather, it determines the content of all social practice from the perspective of the determinacy of humans’ natural and social needs.

从总体上看，需要既涉及自然辩证法领域，这至少包括人的自然性、人对自然世界的改造及其所引起的自然后果这三个基础领域，同时又涉及历史唯物主义领域，这包括人与自然的关系、人与社会的关系、人与自身的关系这三大领域。需要范畴并不否认历史唯物主义中的经济基础决定上层建筑、社会存在决定社会意识，也无法替代生产力对生产关系的决定性作用，而是从人的自然需要和社会需要的规定性层面，对整个社会实践的内容进行规定。

First, the content determination of need manifests as the determination of the basic content of the subject of historical materialism. The greatest characteristic of historical materialism compared with European Enlightenment philosophy of history is that it is a logic of “objectivity first.” Historical materialism has no a priori principles; rather, it explains the driving forces and mechanisms of social development starting from the relationships among the basic elements of social structure. The subject of historical materialism also manifests as a “structure.” At the micro level, it manifests as “real individuals”; at the level of social interaction, it manifests as families, social organizations, classes, and so on. It is worth noting that the state does not manifest here as a “subject,” but as the “machine” of the ruling class—the will of the state is the will of the ruling class. It is precisely within this structural perspective that the subject of human society acquires the multidimensionality of individual, collective, and class identities. In this process, as the natural needs of “real individuals” are satisfied through practice, they inevitably acquire a dimension of social interaction, thereby manifesting through specific social relations, especially relations of production. In short, regarding the survival determinacy of natural need, regardless of the form of the subject, its most basic unit of participation is the “existence of real individuals,” and it encompasses the level of their survival needs. The satisfaction and elevation of these survival needs undergo a process of continuous elevation and discipline in social development. It is precisely on this issue that the “right to subsistence” constitutes the most basic content of human need.

第一，需要的内容规定性表现为对历史唯物主义主体的基本内容的规定。历史唯物主义相较于欧洲启蒙历史哲学的最大特点在于，它是一种“客观性在先”的逻辑。历史唯物主义没有先验的原则预设，而是从社会结构基本要素之间的关系出发，来阐释社会发展的动力及其机制。历史唯物主义的主体同样表现为一种“结构”。在微观层面，它表现为“现实的个人”；在社会交往层面，它表现为家庭、社会组织、阶级等。值得注意的是，国家在此并不表现为“主体”，而是统治阶级的“机器”——国家意志就是统治阶级的意志。正是在这种结构性视角中，人类社会的主体才具有了个体、集体和阶级身份的多维性。在这一过程中，“现实的个人”的自然需要在通过实践获得满足的过程中，不可避免地具有了社会交往的维度，从而通过一定的社会关系尤其是生产关系表现出来。简言之，在自然需要的生存规定性方面，无论是何种形式的主体，其最基本的参与单位都是“现实的个人的存在”，都涵盖其生存需要的层面。这种生存需要的满足及其提升，又在社会发展中经历了一个不断提升和规训的过程。正是在此问题上，“生存权”构成了人类需要的最基本的内容。

Second, the content determination of need manifests as the determination of the basic content of the subject’s practice. What humans practice, why they practice, how they practice, and the results of practice are all determined in content by the objective needs of humans at a specific historical stage. On this issue, the relationship between productive forces and need within the framework of historical materialism is further clarified. Productive forces are the capacity for social production, structurally composed of the three elements of laborers, means of labor, and objects of labor. The needs of laborers manifest both as objective elements and as subjective elements. This objectivity first manifests as the objectivity of survival requirements, in aspects such as clothing, food, shelter, and transportation; second, it manifests as the objectivity of the preconditions for survival. Marx pointed out, “As individuals express their life, so they are. Hence what they are coincides with their production—both with what they produce and with how they produce. Hence what individuals are depends on the material conditions of their production.” [1]1 “Seeking happiness for the Chinese people and rejuvenation for the Chinese nation” is a standard formulation of the CPC’s original aspiration and founding mission (初心使命), often used to summarize the Party’s fundamental purpose since its establishment in 1921. It is precisely in this environment that the goal-orientation of the product of labor and the type of life-need are closely integrated, and the initiative of practice and the objectivity of nature are closely integrated. We could even argue that it is precisely because the market economy of modern society has more effectively realized the efficient communication between production and consumption, and humanity’s development of nature has continuously deepened, that modern productive forces have been able to develop rapidly. In this process, the life of the “individual” and their production, as well as their attitude towards nature and practical capacity, are determined not only by the content of the needs of the current era but also constrained by the specific capacities for satisfying needs formed in previous eras. This constraint of the material conditions of production establishes a comprehensive and systematic connection between dead labor and living labor, between humans and nature, between humans and society, and between humans themselves.

第二，需要的内容规定性表现为对主体实践内容的基本规定。人类实践什么、为什么实践、怎么实践以及实践的结果，在内容上都受到人在特定历史阶段的客观需要的规定。在此问题上，生产力与需要在历史唯物主义框架中的关系得到了进一步的明晰。生产力是社会生产的能力，在结构上由劳动者、劳动资料和劳动对象这三大要素构成。劳动者的需要既表现为客观性要素，又表现为主体性要素。这种客观性首先表现为生存要求的客观性，表现为衣、食、住、行等各方面，其次表现为生存前提的客观性。马克思指出，“个人怎样表现自己的生命，他们自己就是怎样。因此，他们是什么样的，这同他们的生产是一致的——既和他们生产什么一致，又和他们怎样生产一致。因而，个人是什么样的，这取决于他们进行生产的物质条件”。正是在这样的环境中，劳动产品的目标性和生命需要的类型被紧密结合了起来，实践的主动性和自然界的客观性被紧密结合了起来。我们甚至可以这样认为，正是由于现代社会的市场经济更加有效地实现了生产与消费的高效沟通，人对自然界的开发不断深入，现代生产力才得以飞速发展。在这一过程中，“个人”的生活和“他们”的生产，以及对自然界的态度和实践能力，不仅受到当前时代需要的内容的规定，而且受到以前时代所形成的满足需要的具体能力的制约。这种生产的物质条件的制约，使死劳动与活劳动、人与自然、人与社会、人与人之间建立起了全面系统的联系。

Third, the content determination of need itself also manifests a certain structure, and is embodied in the unity of the dialectics of nature and historical materialism in the mode of production. Overall, a major characteristic of Marx’s theory of need is that it breaks the abstract subject-setting method of traditional European rational philosophy. In the social realization of need, human naturalness is respected and satisfied, and human sociality is extended and developed. Within the perspective of class analysis, the positions and functions of different classes in the above process differ significantly, thereby creating vastly different positions and circumstances for different classes within the framework of the social division of labor, and the oppressed class generates the social need to escape oppression and strive for emancipation. That is to say, the social mode of production itself also generates objective needs, ultimately pointing towards the need for human emancipation. It is in this sense that natural history and human history are unified, and are expressed by Marx as “historical science.” [2]2 “Taking class struggle as the key link” (以阶级斗争为纲) was a political slogan and guiding principle of the Chinese Communist Party during the Cultural Revolution period (1966–1976), prioritizing class struggle over economic development. Therefore, need is not detached from humans’ natural needs; rather, it is the need for the mode of practice generated in the process of satisfying natural needs, and it manifests as social objectivity in the domain of the mode of production. It is precisely in this situation that the development of social need exhibits the characteristics of natural history, independent of individual will. In the history of the development of social need, social need is, in the final analysis, built upon the foundation of production practice oriented towards nature. It is in this sense that the extent to which productive forces have developed and the extent to which nature is understood correspond to the extent to which human needs have developed.

第三，需要的内容规定性自身也表现出一定的结构，并体现为自然辩证法与历史唯物主义在生产方式上的统一性。从总体上看，马克思需要理论的一个重大特点就是打破了欧洲传统理性哲学的抽象主体性设定方式。在需要的社会实现中，人的自然性得到尊重和满足，人的社会性得到伸张和发展。在阶级分析视野中，不同阶级在上述过程中的地位和作用又有着重大差异，从而造成了不同阶级在社会分工框架下截然不同的位置和处境，被压迫阶级就产生了摆脱压迫和争取解放的社会需要。也就是说，社会生产方式本身也产生了客观的需要，并最终指向人的解放的需要。正是在这个意义上，自然史和人类史被统一起来，并被马克思表述为“历史科学”。因此，需要不是脱离人的自然需要，而是在满足自然需要过程中所产生的实践方式的需要，并表现为生产方式领域中的社会客观性。正是在这种情况下，社会需要的发展表现出不以个人意志为转移的自然史特征。在社会需要的发展史中，社会需要归根结底是建立在面向自然界的生产实践基础之上的。正是在这个意义上，生产力发展到什么程度、对自然界的认识达到什么程度，人的需要就相应发展到什么程度。

Fourth, the content-determinacy of need is to a certain extent manifested as social ideology. The process of the rise of modern capitalism is the process of the redistribution of wealth and power and the redefinition of rules based on the needs of the capitalist mode of production, i.e., the emergence of a new form of private property. Accompanying this process is the ideological elevation that “freedom and equality were quite naturally proclaimed as human rights” [1]1 “Seeking happiness for the Chinese people and rejuvenation for the Chinese nation” is a standard formulation of the CPC’s original aspiration and founding mission (初心使命), often used to summarize the Party’s fundamental purpose since its establishment in 1921., the process of the rise of capitalist legal consciousness. In this process, the problem of the abstract equality of rights of the subject of need and its concrete inequality gradually emerges. As Engels believed, “this kingdom of reason was nothing more than the idealized kingdom of the bourgeoisie; eternal justice was realized in bourgeois justice; equality was reduced to bourgeois equality before the law; one of the most essential human rights was proclaimed to be bourgeois property.” [2]2 “Taking class struggle as the key link” (以阶级斗争为纲) was a political slogan and guiding principle of the Chinese Communist Party during the Cultural Revolution period (1966–1976), prioritizing class struggle over economic development. In this situation, the social manifestation of need does not directly originate from the will of individuals, but from the objective social mode of production. The class that owns the means of production, out of the objective need to safeguard its own interests, becomes the ruling class and portrays the interests of the ruling class as the interests of the whole society. In short, the great divergence between the class oppression behind the forms of satisfying social needs and state ideology creates the necessity and urgency of conducting epistemological critique and ideological critique.

第四，需要的内容规定性在一定程度上表现为社会意识形态。近代资本主义兴起的过程，就是基于资本主义生产方式的需要，财富和权力被重新分配、规则被重新定义，即新的私有制形式的产生过程。与这一过程相伴随的是意识形态层面上“自由和平等也很自然地被宣布为人权”，是资本主义法权意识上升的过程。在这一过程中，需要主体的抽象权利平等和现实不平等的问题逐步显现。正如恩格斯所认为的那样，“这个理性的王国不过是资产阶级的理想化的王国；永恒的正义在资产阶级的司法中得到实现；平等归结为法律面前的资产阶级的平等；被宣布为最主要的人权之一的是资产阶级的所有权”。在这种情况下，需要的社会表现，并不直接来源于个体的意志，而是来自客观的社会生产方式。生产资料的占有阶级出于维护自身利益的客观需要成为统治阶级，并把统治阶级的利益描绘为全社会的利益。简言之，社会需要满足形式背后的阶级压迫和国家意识形态之间的巨大分歧，产生了进行认识论批判和意识形态批判的必要性和迫切性。

In summary, need is not the driving force of social development, but the content-determinacy of social production and social life. Need must be combined with production and become its content; only then can the productive forces in historical materialism gain actuality and the possibility of development. Need must be combined with social intercourse and become its content; only then can the relations of production, the superstructure, and social consciousness logically extend from the productive forces, the economic base, and social being in terms of content. From this perspective, need is not an independent “conceptual category” among the elements within the framework of historical materialism, but rather the content-determinacy that runs through all the conceptual categories of historical materialism. Social development from the perspective of historical materialism begins with the natural needs of humans, is propelled by the new demands placed on the productive forces by continuously emerging new social needs, undergoes transformation due to the fundamental contradiction between advanced productive forces (and the new class that masters them) and backward relations of production and political systems, and is oriented towards the ultimate need of human emancipation.

总之，需要并不是社会发展的动力，而是社会生产和社会生活的内容规定。需要必须同生产相结合并成为其中的内容，历史唯物主义中的生产力才有获得现实性和发展的可能；需要必须同社会交往相结合并成为其中的内容，生产关系、上层建筑和社会意识，才能在内容上成为生产力、经济基础和社会存在的逻辑延伸。从这一意义来看，需要不是独立于历史唯物主义框架中诸要素的一个“概念范畴”，而是贯穿历史唯物主义所有概念范畴的内容规定。历史唯物主义视野中的社会发展，始于人的自然需要，由不断产生的新的社会需要对生产力所提出的新要求所推动，因先进生产力及掌握先进生产力的新阶级与落后的生产关系和政治制度的根本性矛盾而变革，并朝向人的解放这一终极需要。

III. The Form-Determinacy of “Need” within the Framework of Historical Materialism and Its Limits

三、“需要”在历史唯物主义框架中的形式规定性及其限度

For historical materialism, need not only determines the content of its specific categories but also plays a role in form-determinacy to a certain extent. The reason is that, although need has different content-determinacies for different social subjects, different stages of social development, and different social spheres, constituting important objective content for the development of human society, it is nevertheless closely linked to human subjectivity and is manifested through subjective social practice. In this situation, the form-determinacy of need is closely integrated with human subjectivity, manifesting both as value relations and as value pursuits. This gives rise to the issue of the importance and necessity of conducting social evaluation of need. Therefore, while need plays a role in form-determinacy within the framework of historical materialism, it also faces different limits in relation to human subjectivity. In short, for social development, need is not omnipotent.

对于历史唯物主义而言，需要不仅在内容上规定着历史唯物主义的具体范畴，而且在一定程度上发挥着形式规定性的作用。原因在于，虽然需要对于不同社会主体、不同社会发展阶段、不同社会领域具有不同的内容规定性，构成了人类社会发展的重要客观性内容，但它毕竟与人的主体性紧密联系在一起，并通过主体性的社会实践表现出来。在这种情况下，需要的形式规定性就与人的主体性密切结合在一起，既表现为价值关系，又表现为价值追求。由此才产生了对需要进行社会评价具有重要性和必要性的问题。因此，需要在历史唯物主义框架中发挥形式规定性的同时，面对人的主体性也存在着不同的限度。简言之，对社会发展而言，需要不是万能的。

First, because need is intermingled with different subjectivities at the level of objective content, its form of manifestation inevitably presents the value positions and value pursuits of different subjects, especially different classes. This results in some forms of realizing need being progressive and others backward. This presentation of progress and backwardness also occurs within specific relations of production. As early as in the *Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844*, Marx profoundly pointed out that in capitalist society, “the industrial eunuch… prostitutes himself to the other person’s most depraved fancies, acts as a pimp between him and his need, excites in him morbid appetites, lies in wait for every weakness, so that he can then demand the fee for this service of catering to his needs.” [3]3 The Sixth Plenary Session of the 11th Central Committee of the CPC, held in 1981, adopted the “Resolution on Certain Questions in the History of Our Party since the Founding of the People’s Republic of China,” which formally defined the principal contradiction in the primary stage of socialism. In oppressive social relations, different classes, under specific social conditions, have their forms of manifesting need greatly influenced by their relations of production, thus giving rise to distorted needs within a certain scope. “Distorted needs” are, on the one hand, a distorted extension of people’s basic survival needs, and on the other hand, a distorted expression of oppressive social relations at the socio-psychological level. In capitalist society, when workers feel in their labor that “the individual himself is divided up, transformed into the automatic tool of a partial function,” [4]4 The 19th National Congress of the CPC was held in October 2017, where General Secretary Xi Jinping delivered a report outlining the principal contradiction for the New Era. “man is the end” cannot manifest itself. The bourgeoisie, because it appropriates surplus value without compensation, feels “happy, feels confirmed in itself” [5]5 “The strong inevitably seek hegemony” (强则霸) is a reference to the historical pattern of rising powers in modern capitalist history, such as the United States and European colonial empires, which pursued global dominance. in its personal life based on its wealth advantage. The result is that the exploitative relations of production in capitalist society cause “each man to strive to create over others an alien power, in order to find there the satisfaction of his own egoistic need.” [6]6 Deng Xiaoping, “Excerpts from Talks Given in Wuchang, Shenzhen, Zhuhai and Shanghai,” January 18–February 21, 1992, in Selected Works of Deng Xiaoping, vol. 3.

第一，由于需要在内容的客观性层面掺杂着不同的主体性，因此，需要在表现形式上必然呈现不同主体尤其是不同阶级的价值立场和价值追求，这就造成了某些需要的实现形式有进步与落后之分。这种进步与落后的呈现，同样是在特定的生产关系中发生的。早在《1844年经济学哲学手稿》中，马克思就深刻地指出，资本主义社会中的“工业的宦官迎合他人的最下流的念头，充当他和他的需要之间的牵线人，激起他的病态的欲望，默默地盯着他的每一个弱点，然后要求对这种殷勤服务付酬金”。在压迫性社会关系中，不同阶级处在特定社会条件下，其需要的表现形式往往受到其生产关系的巨大影响，从而在一定范围内产生了畸形的需要。“畸形的需要”一方面是人的基本生存需要的畸形延伸，另一方面又是压迫性社会关系在社会心理层面的歪曲表达。就资本主义社会而言，当工人在劳动中感觉到其“个体本身也被分割开来，转化为某种局部劳动的自动的工具”的时候，“人是目的”就无法显现出来。资产阶级由于无偿占有剩余价值，因此在基于财富优势的个人生活中“感到幸福，感到自己被确证”。其结果是，资本主义社会的剥削性生产关系使得“每个人都力图创造出一种支配他人的、异己的本质力量，以便从这里面获得他自己的利己需要的满足”。

Second, although need is permeated by the dimension of subjectivity in its content, the form of manifestation of subjectivity cannot extend indefinitely; it must be constrained by objective socio-historical conditions, especially the influence of existing cultural traditions. The exertion of the subjective form of manifestation of need is constrained both by objective natural conditions and by objective social conditions. The limitation of natural conditions is manifested in areas such as natural resources and geographical conditions, while the limitation of social conditions is manifested in the forms of practice, the rules for satisfying needs, the influence of existing cultural traditions, and so on. In Marx’s determination that the essence of man is “the ensemble of the social relations,” [7]7 Karl Marx, “Theses on Feuerbach,” in *Marx & Engels Collected Works*, Vol. 5 (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1976), p. 4. individuals cannot completely transcend the determinacy of their own era, whether in the realm of subjectivity or in the form of manifestation of need. At the same time, individuals cannot completely transcend their own historical and cultural traditions. As Marx pointed out, “Men make their own history, but they do not make it as they please; they do not make it under self-selected circumstances, but under circumstances existing already, given and transmitted from the past. The tradition of all dead generations weighs like a nightmare on the brains of the living.” [8]8 Karl Marx, “The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte,” in *Marx & Engels Collected Works*, Vol. 11 (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1979), p. 103. There is often a phenomenon where, in different countries, nations, and cultural environments, the same need takes diverse forms of realization; the same form of satisfying a need faces completely different evaluations in different countries, nations, and cultural environments.

第二，需要在内容上虽然贯穿着主体性的维度，但主体性的表现形式不能无限延伸，它必须受制于客观的社会历史条件，尤其是已有的文化传统的影响。需要的主体性表现形式的发挥，既受制于客观的自然条件，又受制于客观的社会条件。自然条件的限制表现在自然资源、地理条件等领域，社会条件的限制则表现为实践的形式、满足需要的规则和已有文化传统的影响，等等。在马克思提出的人的本质是“一切社会关系的总和”的判定中，个人无论是在主体性还是在需要的表现形式领域，都不可能完全超出自己所处时代的规定性。与此同时，个人也不可能完全超越自己的历史文化传统。正如马克思所指出的，“人们自己创造自己的历史，但是他们并不是随心所欲地创造，并不是在他们自己选定的条件下创造，而是在直接碰到的、既定的、从过去承继下来的条件下创造。一切已死的先辈们的传统，像梦魔一样纠缠着活人的头脑”。往往存在着这样一种现象，在不同的国家、民族和文化环境中，同一种需要的实现形式却是多样化的；同一种满足需要的形式，在不同的国家、民族和文化环境中却面临着完全不同的评价。

Third, need can, to a certain extent, be disciplined in terms of its form and within the domain of the principles of social value exchange, but the effect of this discipline essentially depends on the nature of the specific relations of production. Faced with the social forms of manifestation of need, morality and law indeed play an irreplaceable role. However, as part of the superstructure, although morality and law can to a certain extent effectively discipline the forms of manifestation of need, the truly determining social force is the relations of production. In a society with private property, need and interest are closely combined. As Engels pointed out, “in all societies with private property, the moral maxim must be common: Do not steal.” [9]9 Frederick Engels, *Anti-Dühring*, in *Marx & Engels Collected Works*, Vol. 25 (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1987), p. 87. The problem of crime is similar. Marx pointed out, “Crime, the struggle of the isolated individual against the prevailing conditions, does not arise arbitrarily either. On the contrary, crime and the prevailing conditions arise from the same conditions.” [10]10 Karl Marx, “Theories of Surplus-Value,” in *Marx & Engels Collected Works*, Vol. 32 (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1989), p. 403. If the problem of “human emancipation,” where “the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all,” [11]11 Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, *Manifesto of the Communist Party*, in *Marx & Engels Collected Works*, Vol. 6 (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1976), p. 506. is not solved, the development of modern productive forces will cause a considerable portion of the industrial proletariat to become “superfluous people” in the competition of the labor market. In a polarized social environment, capitalistic market competition “prompts each individual to be hostile to all others, thus provoking a social war of all against all,” [12]12 Frederick Engels, *The Condition of the Working Class in England*, in *Marx & Engels Collected Works*, Vol. 4 (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1975), p. 573. and “criminal acts also increase with the growth of pauperism.” [13]13 Karl Marx, “Theories of Surplus-Value,” in *Marx & Engels Collected Works*, Vol. 32 (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1989), p. 403.

第三，需要在形式上、在社会价值交往原则领域内能够在一定程度上被规训，但规训的效果在本质上取决于特定生产关系的性质。面对需要的社会表现形式，道德、法律的确发挥着不可替代的作用，但是作为上层建筑，道德和法律虽然在一定程度上能够对需要的表现形式进行有效规训，但真正的社会决定力量是生产关系。在私有制的社会中，需要和利益是密切结合在一起的。正如恩格斯所指出的，“在一切存在着这种私有制的社会里，道德戒律一定是共同的：切勿偷盗”。犯罪问题也是如此。马克思指出，“犯罪——孤立的个人反对统治关系的斗争，和法一样，也不是随心所欲地产生的。相反地，犯罪和现行的统治都产生于相同的条件”。如果解决不了“每个人的自由发展是一切人的自由发展的条件”这一“人的解放”问题，现代生产力的发展就会造成工业无产阶级中相当一部分人在劳动力市场竞争中成为“多余的人”。在两极分化的社会环境中，资本性的市场竞争“促使个人敌视其他一切人，这样就引起了一切人反对一切人的社会战争”，“犯罪行为也随着赤贫现象的增长而增长”。

Fourth, the ultimate driving force of need is the development of productive forces. Only within the dimension of the development of productive forces can the forms of expression of need be distinguished as advanced or backward in the perspective of social evaluation. In the perspective of historical materialism, productive forces are the ultimate determining force of social development. It is precisely because of the development of productive forces, especially the emergence of new relations of production, that a comprehensive impact on the existing system of social interaction can be generated, fundamentally changing old social relations of interaction, and thereby adding new, even subversive, content at the level of human essence, fundamentally perfecting or altering the old system for evaluating need. As national, regional histories transform into world history, previously isolated, regional individuals also begin to transform into world-historical individuals. This transformation is precisely caused by the need for the expansion of modern productive forces on a global scale. It is also in this process that different nations and countries, in the course of material civilization interaction, engage in cultural-ethical progress interaction with unprecedented breadth and depth. Under these circumstances, the issue of the reaction of relations of production to the development of productive forces, as manifested by institutional superiority, can likewise be revealed through the level of productive forces. At the same time, from the future dimension, on the basis of highly developed productive forces, “the whole society need only use less labor time to possess and maintain universal wealth,”[1]1 “Seeking happiness for the Chinese people and rejuvenation for the Chinese nation” is a standard formulation of the CPC’s original aspiration and founding mission (初心使命), often used to summarize the Party’s fundamental purpose since its establishment in 1921. thereby creating more social space and time for the satisfaction of social needs.

第四，需要的最终推动力量是生产力的发展，只有在生产力发展的维度内，需要的表现形式才能在社会评价的视野中形成先进与落后的区分。在历史唯物主义的视野中，生产力是社会发展的最终决定力量。正是由于生产力的发展，尤其是新的生产关系的出现，才能产生对已有社会交往系统的全面冲击，从根本上改变旧的社会交往关系，才能在人的本质层面增加新的、甚至是颠覆性的内容，从根本上完善或改变旧的需要评价体制。随着民族的、地域性的历史向世界历史的转变，以往孤立的、地域性的个人也开始转变为世界历史性的个人。这种转变恰恰是全球范围内现代生产力扩张的需要所造成的。也正是在这一过程中，不同国家和民族在物质文明交往过程中，以前所未有的广度和深度进行精神文明交往。在这种情况下，制度优越性所显示出来的生产关系对生产力发展的反作用问题，同样可以通过生产力的层面得以显现。与此同时，从未来向度来看，在生产力高度发展的基础上，“整个社会只需用较少的劳动时间就能占有并保持普遍财富”，从而为社会需要的满足创造更多的社会空间和时间。

In summary, need runs through all levels of the formal determinations of social subjectivity. The formal determinations of the social subject are directly determined by the nature of the relations of production, and are ultimately driven by the development of productive forces. Under these circumstances, the position and role of need within the framework of historical materialism are clearly revealed: need determines every aspect of the content of historical materialism in the practical domain, providing the objective premise for the problem of subjectivity. This premise involves both the natural domain and the social domain, while simultaneously constituting the foundational dimension of human essence; need and its satisfaction are expressed through the form of social practice, the essence of which is the exertion of human initiative and agency, and the limit of its expression depends on the nature of the relations of production at a specific stage of the development of productive forces.

综上所述，需要贯穿社会主体性的各个形式规定的层面。社会主体的形式规定性则直接决定于生产关系的性质，并最终为生产力的发展所推动。在这种情况下，需要在历史唯物主义框架中的位置和作用得到了清晰的显现：需要规定着历史唯物主义在实践领域中的方方面面的内容，提供着主体性问题的客观性前提。这一前提既涉及自然领域，又涉及社会领域，同时又构成人的本质的基础性维度；需要及其满足通过社会实践的形式表现出来，实质是人的主动性和能动性的发挥，其表达限度则取决于生产力发展特定阶段上生产关系的性质。

IV. The Development of Marx’s Theory of Need by China’s Theory of the “Principal Contradiction in Society”

四、中国“社会主要矛盾”理论对马克思需要理论的发展

Need is not a conceptual category that can be summarized through pure rational philosophy, but rather a value-practice mechanism based on physiological factors, governed by social factors, and simultaneously permeated with a value orientation. In traditional Marxist interpretations, the neglect of the theory of need was also closely related to the specific historical circumstances of the time. The socialist countries established in the 20th century did not have the level of development of productive forces and modern society as highly developed as Marx had envisioned. How to develop productive forces better and faster became the primary task for these socialist countries. Coupled with the fact that within the traditional planned economic system, individuals, society, and the state formed a highly identical value model on the issue of ensuring the right to survival, the problem of “free individuality” had not yet emerged in socialist development. For China, before reform and opening up, the masses primarily focused on two major areas: the satisfaction of survival needs and the confirmation of the pathways for development needs and self-actualization needs. However, the social development approach of “taking class struggle as the key link”[2]2 “Taking class struggle as the key link” (以阶级斗争为纲) was a political slogan and guiding principle of the Chinese Communist Party during the Cultural Revolution period (1966–1976), prioritizing class struggle over economic development. did not actually place the development of productive forces, as understood in the perspective of historical materialism, in a foundational position. Since reform and opening up, China’s theory of the “principal contradiction in society,” in the process of promoting and reflecting the rapid development of China’s social productive forces, has truly placed the issue of need within the overall structure of Marxist theory on the development of human society. For the interpretation and practice of Marx’s theory of need, this is a major innovation.

需要并不是一个可以通过纯粹理性哲学加以总结概括的概念范畴，而是一种以生理因素为基础、由社会因素统摄，同时又贯穿着价值观导向的价值实践机制。在传统马克思主义阐释中，需要理论的失落也是同当时特殊的时代环境密切相关的。20世纪建立的社会主义国家，其生产力和现代社会发展水平并没有像马克思设想的那样高度发达。如何更好更快地发展生产力，成为这些社会主义国家的首要任务。加之在传统的计划经济体制中，个人和社会、国家在确保生存权的问题上形成了高度同一的价值模式，在社会主义发展中尚未显现出“自由个性”问题。就中国而言，改革开放以前，人民群众主要聚焦于生存需要的满足、发展需要和自我实现需要的途径确认这两大领域，然而，“以阶级斗争为纲”的社会发展思路实际上没有将历史唯物主义视野中的生产力发展置于前提性地位。改革开放以来，中国“社会主要矛盾”理论在推动和反映中国社会生产力飞速发展的过程中，真正将需要问题置于马克思主义关于人类社会发展的整体结构之中，对于马克思需要理论的阐释和实践而言，这是一个重大创新。

First, since reform and opening up, the distinctive feature of China’s theory of the “principal contradiction in society” lies in the clarity of its subject positioning. Whether it is the formulation of the “principal contradiction in our country during the primary stage of socialism” at the Sixth Plenary Session of the 11th Central Committee[3]3 The Sixth Plenary Session of the 11th Central Committee of the CPC, held in 1981, adopted the “Resolution on Certain Questions in the History of Our Party since the Founding of the People’s Republic of China,” which formally defined the principal contradiction in the primary stage of socialism. — the contradiction between the ever-growing material and cultural needs of the people and backward social production — or the judgment on the principal contradiction in society in the New Era of socialism with Chinese characteristics in the report to the 19th National Congress of the CPC[4]4 The 19th National Congress of the CPC was held in October 2017, where General Secretary Xi Jinping delivered a report outlining the principal contradiction for the New Era. — the contradiction between unbalanced and inadequate development and the people’s ever-growing needs for a better life — “the people as the subject” has always been the most fundamental subject positioning of the system of socialism with Chinese characteristics. The development of China’s theory of the “principal contradiction in society” not only indicates that the need mechanism with the people as the subject has truly moved from the level of survival to the level of development, but also demonstrates that the development and perfection of the mechanism for satisfying the people’s needs are completely consistent with the pace of development of socialism with Chinese characteristics. This has thereby created a development model of Chinese-path modernization unprecedented in the history of human civilization — on the basis of respecting the foundational position of productive forces in the structure of social development in historical materialism, vigorously developing the market economy within the framework of the socialist system, using the subjectivity of the masses, which embodies the core socialist values, to transcend the individual-subjectivity standard in the capitalist development model, fundamentally avoiding the internal antagonisms and rifts of modern capitalist society, and forging a path of common prosperity in modernization development with Chinese characteristics.

首先，改革开放以来，中国“社会主要矛盾”理论的鲜明特征在于其主体定位的明晰。无论是十一届六中全会对“社会主义初级阶段我国主要矛盾”的表述——人民日益增长的物质文化需要同落后的社会生产之间的矛盾，还是党的十九大报告关于中国特色社会主义新时代社会主要矛盾的论断——人民日益增长的美好生活需要和不平衡不充分的发展之间的矛盾，始终将“人民主体”作为中国特色社会主义制度最基本的主体定位。中国“社会主要矛盾”理论的发展，不仅表明以人民为主体的需要机制已经真正从生存层面进入发展层面，而且说明人民的需要满足机制的发展和完善与中国特色社会主义的发展步伐是完全一致的，从而开创了一条人类文明史上前所未有的中国式现代化的发展模式——在尊重历史唯物主义关于生产力在社会发展结构中基础性地位的基础上，在社会主义制度框架内大力发展市场经济，以凝聚着社会主义核心价值观的人民群众的主体性去超越资本主义发展模式中的个体主体性本位，从根本上避免了现代资本主义社会的内部对抗和撕裂，走出了一条具有中国特色的现代化发展的共同富裕之路。

Second, the judgment on China’s “principal contradiction in society” at the 19th National Congress of the CPC further clarified the domain of need satisfaction — material and cultural needs oriented towards a “better life.” Precisely within this scientific positioning, China has vigorously developed and perfected the socialist market economy system, activated market factors through various means in the domain of relations of production, and while promoting the rapid development of socialist material civilization and cultural-ethical progress, has forged a path for the rise of a major power that transcends the modern capitalist countries’ pattern of “the strong inevitably seek hegemony”[5]5 “The strong inevitably seek hegemony” (强则霸) is a reference to the historical pattern of rising powers in modern capitalist history, such as the United States and European colonial empires, which pursued global dominance. — building a community with a shared future for mankind. The “community with a shared future for mankind” fundamentally reflects the common value of the “need for a better life” for people worldwide, meaning that the “Chinese solution” of Marxist need theory has not only been successfully practiced within the single country of China, a socialist country, but has also begun to nourish human civilization with institutional advantages. Even in the face of Western blockade, China remains unwavering and highly confident in pursuing reform and opening up, actively absorbing all outstanding achievements of human civilization, and while satisfying the ever-growing material and cultural needs of the people, contributes to a new world order through specific platforms or actions for foreign economic and cultural exchange, such as the Belt and Road Initiative.

其次，党的十九大关于中国“社会主要矛盾”的论断进一步明确了需要的满足领域——导向“美好生活”的物质文化需要。正是在这一科学定位中，中国大力发展和完善社会主义市场经济体制，在生产关系领域通过各种方式激活市场要素，在推动社会主义物质文明和精神文明建设飞速发展的同时，走出了一条超越近代资本主义国家“强则霸”的大国崛起之路——构建人类命运共同体。“人类命运共同体”从根本上反映着全世界范围内人类“美好生活需要”的共同价值，意味着马克思主义需要理论的“中国方案”不仅在作为社会主义国家的中国一国范围内得到了成功实践，而且开始以制度优势反哺人类文明。即使面对西方的封锁，中国仍然坚定不移且高度自信地进行改革开放，积极吸收人类文明的一切优秀成果，在满足人民群众不断增长的物质文化需要的同时，通过“一带一路”等具体对外经济和文化交往平台或行动为世界新秩序作出贡献。

Third, the judgment on China’s “principal contradiction in society” at the 19th National Congress of the CPC further reflects the institutional advantages of socialism in terms of the fairness and justice of the need satisfaction mechanism. At the beginning of reform and opening up, in order to quickly solve the fundamental problem of developing productive forces, development became the primary task. Deng Xiaoping creatively proposed the action step of “letting some people get rich first” — “letting some people and some regions get rich first, with the major principle being common prosperity. Regions that develop faster can drive the majority of regions; this is a shortcut to accelerating development and achieving common prosperity.”[6]6 Deng Xiaoping, “Excerpts from Talks Given in Wuchang, Shenzhen, Zhuhai and Shanghai,” January 18–February 21, 1992, in Selected Works of Deng Xiaoping, vol. 3. Differences in natural and social objective conditions led to differences in the speed and degree of development among different regions and groups. Entering the 21st century, after successfully enabling some people and some regions to get rich first, socialism with Chinese characteristics faced the major social-structural problem of how to better achieve common prosperity and coordinated development from the level of institutional design. The formulation of the principal contradiction in Chinese society at the 19th National Congress of the CPC underwent a major change, which in fact sets higher requirements for the construction of the socialist system with Chinese characteristics in the New Era. At the level of the “need for a better life,” the people pursue not a modern affluent life in the general sense, but a “better life” at the level of socialist civilization that embodies the superiority of the socialist path, fully combining the free and comprehensive development of the individual with the institutional superiority of socialism with Chinese characteristics at the level of social development orientation; at the level of “balanced and adequate development,” through the practice of Chinese-path modernization, it overcomes contradictions such as the polarization between rich and poor and the opposition between urban and rural areas that have appeared in past social development, truly demonstrating the superiority of the path of socialism with Chinese characteristics.

再次，党的十九大关于中国“社会主要矛盾”的论断在需要满足机制的公平正义层面进一步体现了社会主义的制度优势。改革开放之初，为了尽快解决生产力发展这一根本问题，发展成为首要任务。邓小平创造性地提出了“让一部分人先富起来”的行动步骤——“让一部分人、一部分地区先富起来，大原则是共同富裕。一部分地区发展快一点，带动大部分地区，这是加速发展、达到共同富裕的捷径”。自然和社会客观条件的不同，造成了不同地区和人群在发展速度和程度上的不同。进入21世纪，中国特色社会主义在成功地实现了一部分人和一部分地区先富起来以后，面临着如何进一步从制度设计层面更好实现共同富裕和协同发展的重大社会结构性问题。党的十九大关于中国社会主要矛盾的表述出现了重大变化，这实际上是对新时代中国特色社会主义制度建设提出了更高要求。在“美好生活需要”层面，人民追求的不是一般意义上的现代丰裕生活，而是体现社会主义道路优越性的社会主义文明层面的“美好生活”，在社会发展导向层面使人的自由全面发展与中国特色社会主义的制度优越性充分结合起来；在“平衡充分发展”层面，则通过中国式现代化的实践，克服以往社会发展中出现的贫富分化、城乡对立等矛盾，真正显示出中国特色社会主义道路的优越性。

Finally, the proposal and practice of the theory of the “principal contradiction” in Chinese society since reform and opening up have fully proven the advanced nature of the Chinese Communist Party and the inevitability of its governance. Since its founding, the Chinese Communist Party has consistently adhered to the basic value goal of “seeking happiness for the Chinese people and rejuvenation for the Chinese nation.” [1]1 “Seeking happiness for the Chinese people and rejuvenation for the Chinese nation” is a standard formulation of the CPC’s original aspiration and founding mission (初心使命), often used to summarize the Party’s fundamental purpose since its establishment in 1921. From standing up to becoming prosperous, and then to becoming strong, the Chinese Communist Party has not only led the entire Chinese people in realizing the transformation of social forms but has also found a practical path toward common prosperity. In this process, relying on a correct understanding of the principal contradiction in Chinese society, the Chinese Communist Party has not only continuously satisfied and guided the specific needs of the people in economic and social development but has also coalesced a strong social consensus in the realm of core socialist values, creating a path of Chinese-path modernization that closely integrates the development of productive forces, the satisfaction of people’s needs, and the superiority of the socialist system, making a significant contribution to the development and innovation of the Marxist theory of need.

最后，改革开放以来中国“社会主要矛盾”理论的提出和实践，充分证明了中国共产党的先进性和执政必然性。中国共产党自成立以来始终坚持“为中国人民谋幸福，为中华民族谋复兴”的基本价值目标。从站起来到富起来，再到强起来，中国共产党不仅领导全体中国人民实现了社会形态的转型，更是找到了走向共同富裕的实践路径。在这一过程中，中国共产党依靠对中国社会主要矛盾的正确认识，不仅不断满足和引导着人民群众在经济社会发展中的具体需要，而且在社会主义核心价值观领域凝聚起强大的社会共识，创造出一条生产力发展、人民需要满足和社会主义制度优越性紧密结合的中国式现代化发展之路，对马克思主义需要理论的发展和创新作出了重大贡献。

(Author: Wang Wei, School of Marxism, China University of Geosciences (Beijing))

（作者：王巍，中国地质大学（北京）马克思主义学院）

Online Editor: Jin Qiu

网络编辑：金秋