In What Sense Is Marx an Egalitarian?

In the context of contemporary political philosophy, the question “Is Marx an egalitarian?” has sparked intense debate among numerous scholars. On the one hand, many believe that Marx’s critical analysis of inequality under capitalism, as well as his indignation at the exploited position of the proletariat, both demonstrate his profound concern for the ideals of social justice and equality. Marx’s exposition of the unequal distribution, the exploitation of the wage-labor relationship, and the harsh working conditions created by the capitalist system provides strong evidence for his “egalitarian” stance. For example, Kai Nielsen believes that Marx’s theory is essentially built upon a firm commitment to equality; Marx’s future ideal society does not merely emphasize freedom and prosperity but incorporates the fundamental requirement of equality.

在当代政治哲学的语境中，“马克思是不是平等主义者”的问题，引发了众多学者的激烈讨论。一方面，很多人认为，马克思对于资本主义不平等现象的批判性分析，以及他对无产阶级被剥削地位的愤慨，都体现出他对社会正义和平等理念的深切关注。马克思有关资本主义制度所造成的不平等分配、雇佣关系的剥削和严酷的劳动条件的阐释，为其“平等主义”的立场提供了有力佐证。例如，尼尔森（Kai Nielsen）相信，马克思的理论实质上是建立在对平等的坚实承诺之上，马克思的未来理想社会并非仅仅强调自由与繁荣，而是融入了平等的根本要求。

On the other hand, some scholars in recent decades have proposed a different understanding, arguing that Marx was not an egalitarian. For instance, Richard Miller argues that Marx never upheld equality as an independent and intrinsic normative value; he only provisionally accepted the concept of equality when it was conducive to promoting human freedom and self-realization. Allen Wood also emphasizes that Marx’s attitude towards equality was more instrumental: equality is valuable only insofar as it helps achieve a higher-order good, especially freedom. In short, although Marx paid close attention to the phenomenon of inequality under capitalism, he did not commit to an independently justifiable value of equality.

另一方面，一些学者近几十年则提出不同理解，认为马克思并非一个平等主义者。例如，米勒（Richard Miller）认为，马克思从未将平等作为一种独立且内在的规范性价值来维护，只有当平等有助于促进人类的自由和自我实现时，才暂时接受平等概念。伍德（Allen Wood）也强调，马克思对平等的态度更具工具性：平等只有在有助于实现更高层次的善（尤其是自由）时才有价值。质言之，马克思虽密切关注资本主义的不平等现象，但并不承诺某种可独立证成的平等价值。

This academic controversy over “whether Marx is an egalitarian” actually involves different interpretations of various aspects of Marx’s thought, and also concerns scholars’ understanding of the concept of “egalitarianism” itself. When we speak of “egalitarianism” in contemporary political philosophy, we often trace back to the egalitarian tradition proposed and formulated by John Rawls in *A Theory of Justice*, namely, that equality is a normative standard with independent intrinsic value. This tradition does not simply view equality as a tool for promoting other goods (such as freedom, self-realization, or prosperity), but regards equality itself as a value worth pursuing, not derivative from other values. Undoubtedly, to dispel a series of theoretical doubts, we need to return to Marx and examine how he viewed the concept of equality.

“马克思是不是平等主义者”这一学术争议，实际上涉及对马克思思想不同侧面的诠释，也关乎学者们对“平等主义”概念本身的理解。当我们在当代政治哲学中谈论“平等主义”，往往会回溯到罗尔斯（John Rawls）在《正义论》中所提出和形成的平等主义传统，即平等是一种具有独立内在价值的规范性标准。这一传统不是简单地将平等看作促进其他善（如自由、自我实现或繁荣）的工具，而是将平等本身作为值得追求的、非附属性的价值。毫无疑问，要消解一系列理论疑云，我们需要回到马克思，考察他如何看待平等概念。

Marx’s Critique of “Equality”

马克思对“平等”的批判

To understand Marx’s attitude towards equality, it is necessary to situate it within Marx’s overall critique of moral philosophy, ideology, and the values of bourgeois society. Marx inherited and “inverted” the philosophical tradition of Hegel, and within the framework of historical materialism, understood moral philosophy—including principles like equality—as an ideological product of specific historical conditions. For Marx, traditional moral theories could not provide universally applicable eternal truths; rather, they were often intellectual tools for maintaining specific social relations, modes of production, and the interests of the ruling class.

要理解马克思对平等的态度，必须结合马克思对道德哲学、意识形态和资产阶级社会价值观的总体批判。马克思继承并“颠倒”了黑格尔的哲学传统，同时在历史唯物主义框架下，将道德哲学——包括平等在内的原则——理解为特定历史条件下的意识形态产物。对马克思而言，传统的道德理论并不能提供普遍适用的永恒真理，而往往是维护特定社会关系、生产方式和统治阶级利益的思想工具。

Marx often referred to “equality” in a pejorative sense. So-called “equality” in capitalist society is often presupposed as “each person, as a simple owner of commodities, relates to others, exchanging equivalents for equivalents.” In Marx’s exposition, “equality” is a moral concept favored by the bourgeoisie, one of the core values of capitalism, listed alongside “freedom,” “property,” and “Benthamite egoism” (i.e., self-interest).

马克思常以贬义的方式提及“平等”。所谓“平等”，在资本主义社会常常被假定为“每个人作为商品的单纯所有者与他人建立关系，他们以等价交换等价”。在马克思的论述中，“平等”是资产阶级偏爱的道德观念，是资本主义核心价值观之一，与“自由”“财产”和“边沁式的利己主义”（即自我利益）并列。

The equality proclaimed by the bourgeoisie is often formal, that is, equality before the law and freedom of contract. However, under the capitalist wage-labor system, equality is merely a veil concealing real unequal relations. This concept of “equality” does not eliminate actual class differences and power asymmetries; instead, it provides a legitimizing cloak for capitalist exploitative relations. In this context, the capitalist concept of equality becomes an ideological means of maintaining class rule and distributive injustice. As Marx pointed out in *The Holy Family*, the new constitutional regime created by the July Revolution of 1830 [1]1 “Vulgar socialism” (庸俗社会主义) is a term Marx and Engels used to criticize socialist currents that focused narrowly on the distribution of consumption goods while ignoring the capitalist relations of production that determine distribution. It is associated with figures such as Pierre-Joseph Proudhon and Ferdinand Lassalle. did not realize the ideals of equality and freedom, but instead became the ultimate product of the “political expression” of bourgeois interests, a political recognition of the special interests of the bourgeoisie.

资产阶级宣扬的平等往往是形式上的，即法律地位上的平等与契约自由。然而，资本主义雇佣劳动制度下的平等不过是掩盖真实不平等关系的面纱。这种“平等”理念并未消除实际的阶级差异和权力不对称，反而为资本主义剥削关系提供了合法性包装。在这种情况下，资本主义的平等观念成为维护阶级统治与分配不公的意识形态手段。正如马克思在《神圣家族》中所指出的那样，1830年的七月革命所创造的新的立宪政体，非但没有实现平等与自由的理想，反倒成为资产阶级利益的“政治表达”的最终产物，是对资产阶级特殊利益的政治承认。

Capitalism relies on the concept of “equality” to construct a myth of “meritocracy”: the rich believe their status stems from their virtues of intelligence, diligence, effort, and frugality, and they need the poor to believe this too. If the poor believe the rich became wealthy through their own efforts, they cannot envy their rewards. Equally important is making the poor believe their poverty stems from a lack of talent and effort. Accepting this attribution makes it easier for the poor to accept their fate. For capitalist society, meritocracy is an ideology, a set of values established to maintain the ruling order. It helps the bourgeoisie proclaim that everyone is equal in a world of factual inequality; as long as the poor believe they have an equal chance of success, they cannot complain about poverty. As long as the poor accept this belief, the bourgeois order can be effectively maintained. However, the myth of “meritocracy” is built upon the unequal ownership of the means of production. It not only conceals the inequality in the distribution of power and resources but also provides powerful ideological support for the continued exploitation and domination of capitalist society.

资本主义依靠“平等”观念，构建起一套“优绩主义”神话：富人相信自己的地位源于他们的智慧、勤奋、努力和节俭等美德，他们需要穷人也相信这一点。如果穷人认为富人是靠自身努力致富，就无法嫉妒他们的回报。同样重要的是，让穷人相信自己的贫困源于缺乏天赋和努力。接受这种归因会让穷人更容易接受自己的命运。对资本主义社会来说，优绩主义是一种意识形态，即为了维护统治秩序而建立的价值观，它帮助资产阶级宣扬在一个事实不平等的世界中每个人是平等的，只要穷人相信自己有平等的成功机会，就不能抱怨贫困。只要穷人接受这种信念，资产阶级秩序便得以有效维持。然而，“优绩主义”神话却是建立在对生产资料的不平等占有之上。它不仅掩盖了权力与资源分配的不平等，也为资本主义社会的持续剥削与统治提供了强大的意识形态支撑。

Marx’s Appeal for “Equality”

马克思对“平等”的呼吁

It is also inaccurate to think that Marx completely ignored or denied the value of equality. In fact, in Marx’s texts, we can see him repeatedly, intentionally or unintentionally, expressing a longing for a truer, more substantive state of equality. Although Marx explicitly stated that the concept of equality in capitalist society is essentially false, he did not deny that, in transcending capitalism and achieving communism, social conditions would create the possibility for genuine human equality. When Marx analyzed the division of labor under capitalism, he pointed out that the division of labor shapes workers into “deformed monsters” possessing only specific skills. This stifling of people’s all-round development is itself a manifestation of inequality and alienation. To realize human freedom and all-round development, it is necessary to overcome the inherently unequal structures within these relations of production.

认为马克思全然忽视或否定平等的价值也是不准确的。事实上，在马克思的文本中，我们可以看到他多次有意或无意地提及对某种更真实、更实质的平等状态的向往。虽然马克思直言资本主义社会中的平等概念本质上是虚假的，但他并不否认在超越资本主义、实现共产主义时，社会条件会为真正的人类平等创造可能性。马克思分析资本主义劳动分工时指出，分工将工人塑造成只具备特定技能的“畸形怪物”，这种对人的全面发展的扼杀，本身就是不平等和异化的体现。若要实现人的自由与全面发展，就必须克服这种生产关系中固有的不平等结构。

In *Wage Labour and Capital*, Marx also clearly states that the development of capitalism will make the distribution of social wealth between capital and labor increasingly disparate, thereby deepening class rule and exploitation. Under such social conditions, inequality is not only detrimental to the exploited class but also imposes a potential spiritual fetters on the bourgeoisie itself—greed, anxiety, and the endless pursuit of wealth accumulation keep them psychologically on the verge of collapse. This clearly implies the need to move towards a social formation more equal than capitalism.

在《雇佣劳动与资本》中，马克思也明确指出，资本主义的发展会使社会财富在资本与劳动之间的分配愈加悬殊，进而加深阶级统治与剥削。在这种社会条件下，不平等并不仅仅对被剥削阶层不利，也对资产阶级本身产生了潜在的精神桎梏——贪欲、焦虑和对财富积累无止境的追求，使他们在心理上始终处于崩溃的边缘。这显然暗示着要迈向一种比资本主义更平等的社会形态。

Marx envisioned communist society as having two phases: the socialist transitional phase and the higher phase of communism. In the socialist phase, because the productive forces are not yet fully developed, society still bears the “birthmarks of the old society.” In this phase, according to the principle of “equal exchange of equal amounts of labor,” distribution still maintains a certain form of exchange of equivalents. Although the amount of labor is introduced here as a standard, attempting to achieve a certain degree of equality, because people’s natural endowments and abilities differ, this equality measured by labor units still produces de facto unequal results. Marx did not shy away from this; the “equality” of the socialist phase is still imperfect.

马克思设想共产主义社会分为两个阶段：社会主义过渡阶段和共产主义高级阶段。在社会主义阶段中，由于生产力尚未极大丰富，社会仍带有“旧社会的胎记”。在这一阶段，按照“等量劳动交换等量劳动”原则，分配依旧保持一定形式的等价交换。虽然这里引入了劳动量作为衡量标准，试图实现某种程度的平等，但由于人们的自然禀赋、能力高低有异，这种以劳动为计量单位的平等仍然会产生事实上的不平等结果。马克思对此并不讳言，社会主义阶段的“平等”仍是不完善的。

Only in the higher phase of communism, when the productive forces are fully developed, material conditions are abundant, and humanity is no longer constrained by resource scarcity, can the principle “from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs” be realized. In this higher-level society, the satisfaction of human needs will no longer be subject to the distribution of scarce resources, and the freedom and all-round development of each individual can truly become a reality. In this sense, the equal guarantee of meeting individual needs is no longer an abstract moral demand, but a factual manifestation inherent in human flourishing. However, this social condition does not emphasize “distributive equality” itself, but rather transcends the problem of distribution, integrating equality into the social relations and social structure among people themselves.

只有在共产主义的高级阶段，社会生产力极大丰富，物质条件充盈，人类不再受资源稀缺的限制时，“各尽所能，按需分配”的原则才能得以实现。在这一更高层次的社会里，人类需求的满足将不再受制于稀缺的资源分配方式，每个人的自由与全面发展才能真正成为现实。在此意义上，满足个人需求的平等保障不再是抽象的道德诉求，而是内在于人类繁荣中的一种事实呈现。然而，这种社会条件并非对“分配平等”本身加以强调，而是超越了分配问题，将平等融入人与人之间的社会关系和社会结构本身。

From “Distributive Equality” to “Relational Equality”

从“分配平等”到“关系平等”

Rather than being an egalitarian concerned with the distribution of resources or income among members of society—which is precisely the core concern of contemporary political philosophers since Rawls—Marx is more focused on the reconstruction of social relations and the fundamental transformation of power structures. Distributive egalitarians attempt to achieve a fair distribution of resources and opportunities through institutional design, thereby ensuring a certain degree of equal status among members of society. However, Marx consistently emphasizes that the mode of distribution is determined by the relations of production, and that distributive injustice is merely a derivative result of the mode of production. In other words, as long as capitalist relations of production exist, even if a certain degree of income equality is achieved, exploitation and alienation cannot be eradicated, let alone the true realization of human freedom. Therefore, focusing on equality at the level of distribution is ultimately futile for achieving individual liberation and human flourishing.

与其说马克思是一个关注资源或收入在社会成员间分配的平等主义者——而这正是自罗尔斯以降的当代政治哲学家们的核心关切，不如说他更关注社会关系的再造和权力结构的根本转换。分配平等主义者试图通过制度设计来实现一种公平的资源与机会分配，从而确保社会成员在一定程度上的平等地位。但是马克思一以贯之地强调分配模式是由生产关系决定的，分配不公只是生产方式派生的结果。换言之，只要资本主义生产关系存在，即便实现某种程度的收入平等，也无法根除剥削和异化，更无法确保人类自由的真正实现。因此，关注分配层面的平等对于实现个人解放和人类繁荣来说终究是无济于事的。

Interestingly, within contemporary discussions of distributive justice, there is also a trend moving from distributive equality toward relational equality. Some egalitarians are dissatisfied with distributive equality in the general sense, arguing that we must not only focus on the quantity of resources and the rules of distribution but also examine the power relations, institutional arrangements, and patterns of mutual recognition among members of society.

有意思的是，在当代分配正义的讨论中，也有一种从分配平等走向关系平等的趋势。一些平等主义者不满于一般意义上的分配平等，认为我们不仅要关注资源的数量和分配规则，还必须检视社会成员之间的权力关系、制度安排和相互认可的模式。

It can be seen that Marx’s position shares common ground with this relational egalitarianism: Marx is likewise concerned with eliminating class domination and exploitative relations, rather than simply targeting the equal distribution of wealth. In the *Communist Manifesto*, he reveals that the history of human society is the history of class struggle, and that class definition essentially concerns the asymmetrical distribution of domination, control, and power, rather than being drawn simply by the amount of wealth. In other words, Marx’s goal is not to achieve static equality through some redistributive scheme, but to realize a new type of human association through the reconstruction of social relations. In Marx’s view, a persistent focus on distributional issues is a characteristic of “vulgar socialism.” [1]1 “Vulgar socialism” (庸俗社会主义) is a term Marx and Engels used to criticize socialist currents that focused narrowly on the distribution of consumption goods while ignoring the capitalist relations of production that determine distribution. It is associated with figures such as Pierre-Joseph Proudhon and Ferdinand Lassalle. This type of socialism limits its goal to a fairer distribution of consumer goods, while neglecting the necessity of changing the conditions of production and the relations of production. Marx’s proposition is that the material conditions of production should be mastered by the producers themselves, thereby changing the nature of social relations. This position resonates with the modern form of relational egalitarianism: both hold that equality cannot be achieved merely by adjusting “who owns how much,” but requires a more profound transformation of “who controls what” and “what kind of social relations people use to mutually recognize and cooperate with each other.” In this sense, we can say that Marx is a relational egalitarian.

可以看到，马克思的立场与这种关系平等主义有相通之处：马克思同样关心消除阶级支配和剥削关系，而不是简单地将目标锁定在财富平等分配上。在《共产党宣言》中，他揭示了人类社会历史是阶级斗争的历史，阶级定义本质上关涉统治、控制与权力的不对称分布，而非单纯以财富多少划线。换句话说，马克思的目标并不是透过某种再分配方案来实现静态平等，而是通过重构社会关系实现一种新型的人类联合体。在马克思看来，对分配问题的保持专注是“庸俗社会主义”的特征。这种社会主义将目标局限于更公正的消费资料分配，却忽略了改变生产条件和生产关系的必要性。马克思的主张是要让生产的物质条件为生产者自身所掌握，从而改变社会关系的性质。这一立场与关系平等主义的现代形态有一定共鸣：都认为平等并非单靠调整“谁拥有多少”来实现，而需要对“谁控制什么”“人们之间以何种社会关系相互承认和协作”进行更深入的变革。在这个意义上，我们可以说马克思是一个关系平等主义者。

What Is Distinctive About Marx’s Relational Equality Proposition

马克思的关系平等主张有何特别

Of course, viewing Marx as a relational egalitarian requires careful differentiation, especially in the following three aspects, where Marx differs significantly from relational egalitarians in the general sense.

当然，将马克思视为关系平等主义者需要谨慎辨析，尤其在以下三个方面，马克思与一般意义上的关系平等主义者存在显著差异。

First, the theoretical focus of Marx is not on constructing an abstract, idealized normative theory of equality, but on the empirical analysis of capitalist society and its laws of historical development. He regards the structural inequality of social relations as a product of specific historical conditions, tracing its roots to the mode of production and class antagonism. In this sense, Marx is more like a social scientist, revealing the dynamic structure of inequality through critical social analysis, rather than a pure moral philosopher.

第一，马克思的理论重心不在于构建一套抽象、理想化的规范性平等理论，而是对资本主义社会及其历史发展规律的实证性分析。他将社会关系的结构性不平等视为特定历史条件下的产物，将其根源归于生产方式和阶级对立。在这一意义上，马克思更像是一位社会科学家，通过批判性的社会分析揭示不平等的动力结构，而非一位纯粹的道德哲学家。

Second, Marx does not regard relational equality as an a priori norm that ought to be, independently applicable. In his view, the equality of future social relations does not arise from the recognition of principles of justice, but is the inevitable result of historical development and the transformation of the relations of production. This means that so-called “relational equality” is not an a priori value judgment, but a prediction and expectation at the factual level. When the means of production are commonly controlled by all members of society and class exploitation no longer exists, people will naturally develop within equal social relations. Here, equality is no longer the goal of legislation or policy adjustment, but a “factual” state of equality brought about by changes in material conditions.

第二，马克思并未将关系平等视为一种应然的、独立适用的先验规范。在他看来，未来社会关系的平等并非来自对正义原则的认同，而是历史发展、生产关系变革的必然结果。这意味着所谓的“关系平等”并非一种先验的价值判断，而是一种事实层面的预测和期望。当生产资料由全体社会成员共同掌握，阶级剥削不复存在时，人们自然会在平等的社会关系中得到发展。在此，平等不再是立法或政策调整的目标，而是物质条件变化所带来的“事实性”平等状态。

Third, Marx emphasizes achieving the fundamental transformation of the relations of production through class struggle and social revolution. He does not place his hopes on top-down policy regulation, charity, or relief to alleviate inequality. On the contrary, he believes that only when the working people unite and overthrow the material foundation of the capitalist system can the class relations of domination and subordination be completely dissolved. Unlike contemporary relational egalitarianism, which tends to use policy reform, institutional design, and civic education as its means, Marx’s path is more direct and carries a more radical sense of political action.

第三，马克思强调通过阶级斗争和社会革命实现生产关系的根本转变。他不寄望于自上而下的政策调控、慈善或救济来缓解不平等。相反，他认为只有劳动者联合起来，推翻资本主义制度的物质基础，才能彻底消解支配与被支配的阶级关系。与当代关系平等主义倾向于以政策改革、制度设计和公民教育为手段不同，马克思的路径更直接，也更带有激进的政治行动意味。

(The author is an Associate Professor in the Department of Philosophy at East China Normal University)

（作者系华东师范大学哲学系副教授）

Online Editor: Huihui

网络编辑：慧慧