Marx’s Resolution of Rousseau’s “Freedom Paradox”

The opening theme of *The Social Contract* is: “Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains. One who thinks himself the master of others is nonetheless a greater slave than they. How this change came about I do not know. What can make it legitimate I believe I can answer.”

《社会契约论》开卷的题旨是:“人是生而自由的,但却无往不在枷锁之中。自以为是其他一切的主人的人,反而比其他一切更是奴隶。这种变化是怎样形成的?我不清楚。是什么才使这种变化成为合法的?我自信能够解答这个问题。”

In this “freedom paradox,” what Rousseau calls “chains” refers primarily to the political system established after humanity’s transition from the state of nature to civil society, because it legitimizes the servile social inequality brought about by private property. “Man is naturally good, and it is only institutions that make him evil!” As an important representative of the liberal trend of thought in the French Enlightenment, Rousseau’s “freedom paradox,” though directly targeting feudal autocracy, nonetheless struck at the common predicament faced by humanity in the process of institutionalization since entering civil society—namely, deepening alienation. It exposed the profound contradiction between the principle of freedom and the principle of equality within classical liberal theory, giving rise to a reflection on and interrogation of capitalist “modernity.” As Leo Strauss put it: “The first crisis of modernity occurred in the thought of Jean-Jacques Rousseau.” This reflection and interrogation inspired Marx’s thinking on the “riddle of history,” and ultimately, in the development of history itself—that is, in the “history of labor”—the true resolution was found.

在这个“自由悖论”中,卢梭讲的“枷锁”,主要是指人类从自然状态进入文明社会后建立的政治制度,因为它使私有制带来的奴役性的社会不平等合法化了,“人的天性是善良的,惟有那些机构,才使人变得邪恶!”作为法国启蒙运动自由主义思潮的重要代表,卢梭提出的这个“自由悖论”虽然直接针对的是封建专制,但是其锋芒所及,却是人类进入文明社会以来在制度化过程中面临的共同困境即不断加深的异化,显露了古典自由主义理论中自由原则与平等原则之间的深刻矛盾,形成了对资本主义“现代性”的反思和追问,正如列奥·施特劳斯所说:“现代性的第一次危机出现在让-雅克·卢梭的思想中。”这种反思和追问,启发了马克思对“历史之谜”的思考,最终在历史本身的发展即“劳动发展史”中找到了真正的解决之道。

I

一

The Enlightenment was a more self-conscious movement of intellectual liberation in European thought following the Renaissance and the Reformation. It began in Scotland and developed in France, with liberalism as its consistent core idea. “It is precisely in the works of the social philosophers and political economists of the Scottish Enlightenment that we find the first comprehensive and systematic exposition of the principles and foundations of liberalism.” “Man is born free” is a basic tenet of liberalism; liberalism is regarded as a doctrine that “affirms the value of individual freedom,” and individualism is its starting point and foundation.

启蒙运动是继文艺复兴、宗教改革之后欧洲思想界的一次更为自觉的思想解放运动,它始于苏格兰而发展于法兰西,自由主义是一以贯之的核心思想,“正是在苏格兰启蒙运动的社会哲学家和政治经济学家的著作中,我们发现了对自由主义原则和基础的第一次全面而系统的阐述”。“人生而自由”是自由主义的基本看法,自由主义就是被视为“对个人自由价值的信仰”的学说,个人主义是其出发点和立足点。

What is freedom? Locke points out: “So that Liberty, is to be free from restraint and violence from others; which cannot be, where there is no Law: But Freedom is not, as we are told, A Liberty for every Man to do what he lists: (For who could be free, when every other Man’s Humour might domineer over him?) But a Liberty to dispose, and order, as he lists, his Person, Actions, Possessions, and his whole Property, within the Allowance of those Laws under which he is; and therein not to be subject to the arbitrary Will of another, but freely follow his own.” [1]1 This passage is a direct quotation from Karl Marx, *Capital*, Volume 3, Chapter 48, “The Trinity Formula.” This definition of freedom contains a double meaning: the freedom to want to do something and the freedom to be able to do something. Freedom is being able to do what one wants according to one’s own will. Conversely, being unable to do what one wants according to one’s own will, or being able only to do what one does not want against one’s own will, is unfreedom.

何谓自由?洛克指出:“所谓自由就在于有能力,来按照自己的意志,做或不做某件事情,停或不停某件事情。”这个对自由的界定包含着两重含义:想做某事的自由和能做某事的自由,自由就是能够按照自己的意愿做自己想做的事情。反之,不能够按照自己的意愿做自己想做的事情或只能够违背自己的意愿做自己不想做的事情都是不自由。

Can a person always do what they want according to their own will in any situation? This is clearly impossible, and classical liberals do not deny it. However, in their view, the most important thing is that before discussing this question, one must first establish that “being able to do what one wants according to one’s own will” is a natural (innate) right of man. This right implies that every individual is independent and autonomous. Locke summarized the main content of this right to independence and autonomy as: life, liberty, and property.

人是否在任何情况下都能够按照自己的意愿做成自己想做的事情?这显然是不可能的,古典自由主义者对此并不否认,但是,在他们看来,最要紧的是,在讨论这个问题之前,首先要确立“能够按照自己的意愿做自己想做的事情”是人的一种自然(天赋)权利,这种权利意味着每个人都是独立自主的,洛克将这种独立自主权利的主要内容概括为:生命、自由和财产。

To demonstrate the natural (innate) character of this right, classical liberalism posited the hypothesis of a “state of nature,” arguing that this right originates in the natural law of that state. The state is the product of people voluntarily alienating their natural rights, its purpose being to enact laws to regulate human behavior and avoid the conflicts and contradictions endangering common life that would arise if everyone acted on their own. In Locke’s view, the most important issue here is the protection of property, because only by possessing property can one ensure autonomy of judgment and action. “The great and chief end, therefore, of men’s uniting into commonwealths, and putting themselves under government, is the preservation of their property; to which in the state of nature there are many things wanting.” This view already implies the exclusion of those without property from the political life of the state, even if these individuals are also citizens. As Arblaster notes: “His treatment of life, liberty and labour as fundamental possessions, and his inclusion of these under the single heading of ‘property’, reveals his thoroughly bourgeois cast of mind.”

为了论证这种权利的自然(天赋)性,古典自由主义提出了“自然状态”的假设,认为这种权利源于其中的自然法,国家即是人们自愿让渡自己自然权利的产物,目的是制定法律规范人们的行为,避免因每个人自行其是而导致危及共同生活的矛盾和冲突,在洛克看来,其中最重要的问题是财产的保护,因为只有拥有财产才能保证判断和行为的自主,“人们联合成为国家和置身于政府之下的重大的和主要的目的,是保护他们的财产;在这方面,自然状态有着许多缺陷”。这个看法已经隐含着将没有财产的人排斥在国家的政治生活之外,即便这些人也是公民。阿巴拉斯特指出:“他将生命、自由权和劳动视为基本的所有,并将这些包容在‘财产权’这一单一的标题下都表明了他彻底的资产阶级心境。”

Why must property rights be protected as an important natural right? The classical liberal answer is: it is the product of individual labor. Hugo Grotius, drawing on the Bible and starting from humanity’s natural instinct for self-preservation, argued that since the formation of the universe, God had granted all of humanity the right to rule over all things on earth. These things were the original common property of all humanity. Individual labor created the initial “first occupancy” of this common property. Subsequently, “property became private through a specific contract, agreement, or distribution, tacit consent, and occupation.”

为什么财产权是必须保护的重要自然权利?古典自由主义的回答是:它是个人劳动的产物。胡果·格劳秀斯以《圣经》为依据,从人类维护自我生存的自然本性出发,认为宇宙形成以来,上帝就赐予了全体人类以主宰地球上万物的权利,这些万物是全体人类共有的原始财产,个人劳动形成了对这些共同财产最初的“第一占有”,而后,“财物根据一种特定的契约、合意,或者分配,默契和占有,就变成了私有财产”。

Hobbes accepted Grotius’s view, proposing that “labour is the source of property.” Locke argued this point more concretely, believing that “whatsoever then he removes out of the state that nature hath provided, and left it in, he hath mixed his labour with, and joined to it something that is his own, and thereby makes it his property.” Equality is the “impartial” application of this right of possession: “all men are naturally in a state of perfect freedom to order their actions, and dispose of their possessions and persons, as they think fit, within the bounds of the law of nature, without asking leave, or depending upon the will of any other man.” [2]2 The *Kreuznach Notebooks* (1843) are Marx’s critical excerpts on the history of the French Revolution, the state, and political theory, written during his stay in Kreuznach after leaving the *Rheinische Zeitung*. Adam Smith further advanced the labor theory of value from an economic perspective and demonstrated the possibility and reality of satisfying individual profit-seeking processes for achieving wealth growth and social fairness under the guidance of the market, this “invisible hand.”

霍布斯接受了格老秀斯的看法,提出“劳动是财产的源泉”,洛克更为具体的论证了这个观点,认为“只要他使任何东西脱离自然所提供的和那个东西所处的状态,他就已经掺进他的劳动,在这上面参加他自己所有的某种东西,因而使它成为他的财产”。平等就是对这种占有权的“一视同仁”,“人们既然都是平等和独立的,任何人就不得侵害他人的生命、健康、自由或者财产”。亚当·斯密进一步从经济学提出了劳动价值论并论证了在市场这个“看不见的手的指导”下,满足个人获利的过程对于实现财富增长和社会公平的可能性和现实性。

Unlike these liberal thinkers, Rousseau, while affirming the close connection between property rights and individual freedom, focused on the problem of social inequality caused by private property: the amount of property one possesses largely determines one’s social identity and status, and thus, to a great extent, one’s freedom in society. Therefore, a persistent contradiction exists between the universal principle of freedom and the selective practice of freedom. Consequently, he revised Locke’s views. First, although property rights are inviolable, they are not an original “natural right” on par with life and liberty, but rather a product of the state of nature developing to a certain stage. Second, although property rights are related to labor, labor only creates the right of possession over property. To obtain the right of ownership over property, a social contract must be established and recognized by state law. The right of the first occupant “can become a true right only after the establishment of property rights.” Third, the social contract formed on the basis of unequal property ownership can be summarized as: “You need me, because I am rich and you are poor.” Civil society turns this inequality into a legitimate right, essentially a false equality of rights that protects the rich and harms the poor. Under this political system, human nature undergoes degeneration, decay, and alienation. Social inequality deepens amidst mutual harm, with everyone “pursuing their personal interests and desires in the name of the law.” This means humanity has returned to a new state of nature.

与这些自由主义思想家不同的是,卢梭在肯定财产权与个人自由之间存在紧密联系的同时,关注到了私有财产所导致的社会不平等问题:财产占有的多寡在很大程度上决定了人们的社会身份和地位,从而也在很大程度上决定着人们在社会中的自由,因此,普遍的自由原则和具有选择性的自由实践之间存在着持久的矛盾,于是,他修正了洛克的观点,其一,财产权虽然不可侵犯,但并不是与生命、自由同等原始的“天赋权利”,而是自然状态发展到一定阶段的产物;其二,财产权虽然与劳动相关,但是,劳动只是产生了财产的占有权,要获得财产的所有权,必须通过社会契约,被国家法律认可,第一占有者的权利“唯有在财产权确立之后,才能成为一种真正的权利”;其三,以往在财产不平等占有的基础上所形成的社会契约可以归纳为:“你需要我,因为我富而你穷”,公民社会把这种不平等变成合法的权利,实质上是保护富人损害穷人的虚假的权利平等,在这种政治制度下,人的自然本性发生了蜕变、堕落和异化,社会不平等在人们的互相为恶中日益加深,每个人都是“借法律的名义追逐个人的利益和欲念”。这意味着人类又回到了一种新的自然状态。

Therefore, “the problem is to find a form of association which will defend and protect with the whole common force the person and goods of each associate, and in which each, while uniting himself with all, may still obey himself alone, and remain as free as before.” The solution Rousseau offers is to re-establish a “moral and collective body.” First, it must take equality as its premise. Without equality, “freedom cannot exist.” Second, it must be based on a new social contract. “Each of us puts his person and all his power in common under the supreme direction of the general will, and, in our corporate capacity, we receive each member as an indivisible part of the whole.” [3]3 Karl Marx, *Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844*, MECW, Vol. 3, p. 332. Third, it must take morality as its foundation. “Obedience to a law which we prescribe to ourselves is liberty.” Fourth, it must be guided by the “common person.” “Each of us puts his person and all his power in common under the supreme direction of the general will, and, in our corporate capacity, we receive each member as an indivisible part of the whole.” Fifth, its aim is to restore man’s natural disposition. It shapes a social natural disposition or a natural social disposition.

因此,“要寻找出一种结合的形式,使它能以全部共同的力量来卫护和保障每个结合者的人身和财富,并且由于这一结合而使得每一个与全体相联合的个人又只不过是在服从其本人,并且仍然像以往一样地自由”。卢梭给出的方案是:重新建立一个“道德的与集体的共同体”,其一,以平等为前提。没有平等,“自由便不能存在”。第二,以新的社会契约为基础。“每个结合者及其自身的一切权利全部都转让给整个集体”。其三,以道德为根本。“唯有服从人们自己为自己所规定的法律,才是自由”。其四,以“共同人格”为主导。“每个人都以其自身及其全部的力量共同置于公意的最高指导之下,并且我们在共同体中接纳每一个成员作为全体之不可分割的一部分。”其五,以恢复人的自然天性为目的。塑造出一种具有社会性的自然天性或具有自然性的社会天性。

Rousseau was convinced: “A good social institution is one that knows how best to denature man, to take away his absolute existence and give him a relative one, and to transfer the ‘I’ into the common unity, so that each individual no longer regards himself as an independent person, but only as a part of the whole.”

卢梭确信:“好的社会制度是这样的制度:它知道如何才能够最好地使人改变他的天性,如何才能剥夺他的绝对的存在,而给他以相对的存在,并且把‘我’转移到共同体中去,以便使各个人不再把自己看作一个独立的人,而只看作共同体的一部分。”

Because of their particular emphasis on the status and role of equality, democracy, and the collective, these views are considered to have deviated at certain fundamental points from the classical liberal belief in the primacy of individual freedom; Rousseau is therefore often regarded as a “maverick” of liberalism. However, on the one hand, he affirmed that private property is “the origin and basis of inequality among men”; on the other hand, while hoping to retain rather than abolish, and to limit rather than transform, private property, he sought to appeal to the natural sentiment that “man is naturally good,” so that selfish humanity might move toward rational self-awareness and gradually construct a new system of freedom and equality. This could not but fall into the utopian dilemma: to establish “the best social institution,” one must have “the best people,” yet “the best people” can only be cultivated within “the best social institution.” Hence, “What kind of government can produce the most moral, the wisest, and the most broad-minded people?” Rousseau was aware of the difficulty of escaping this dilemma and had no choice but to appeal to religion: “To discover the best social rules that can suit each nation, one would need a supreme intelligence that sees all human passions and is subject to none; that has no relation to our nature yet knows its depths; … to give laws to mankind, one would need gods.”

这些看法,由于对平等、民主、集体等地位和作用的特别强调,被认为在一些基本点上已经偏离了古典自由主义关于个人自由价值第一位的信念,卢梭也因此常常被视为自由主义的“另类”,但是,一方面,他确认私有制是“人与人之间不平等的起因和基础”,另一方面,又希望在保留而不是消灭、限制而不是改造私有制的前提下,通过诉诸“人天生是善良的”的自然感情,让陷入自私的人类走向理性自觉,逐渐建构起自由平等的新制度,这就不能不陷入空想的困境:要建立“最好的社会制度”,必须要有“最好的人民”,而“最好的人民”又只有在“最好的社会制度”中才能培育,那么,“什么性质的政府才能培养出最有道德、最贤明和心胸最豁达的人民?”卢梭意识到走出这个困境的艰难,不得不诉求宗教:“为了发现能适合于各个民族的最好的社会规则,就需要有一个能够洞察人类的全部感情而又不受任何感情所支配的最高的智慧;它与我们人性没有任何关系,但又能认识人性的深处;……要为人类制定法律,简直是需要神明。”

Ten years after Rousseau’s death, the French Revolution broke out—a test of Rousseau’s thought. Although he did not endorse revolution, his “sovereignty of the people” was an important ideological banner that launched it. The revolution destroyed the absolute monarchy in France, spread ideas of freedom and democracy, and opened the path for the capitalist era. Yet the “best government” of equality and freedom that he had hoped for was never established. When European liberals summed up the historical lessons of the French Revolution, they mostly focused on the problem of the “Reign of Terror” during the Jacobin period. Benjamin Constant argued that this resulted from Rousseau’s illusory theory linking the principle of freedom with popular sovereignty, the root of which lay in confusing the freedom of the ancients—the freedom to participate in governmental decision-making power—with the freedom of the moderns—the freedom to guarantee an independent private sphere under the rule of law. In Marx’s view, the most important problem of the revolution was that “the rights of the poor” had not been resolved; peasant discontent ran through the entire revolution, the root being that “the real conditions of their emancipation and the conditions under which the bourgeoisie emancipates itself and society are fundamentally different.” Therefore, “the rational kingdom, Rousseau’s social contract, in practice manifested itself, and could only manifest itself, as the bourgeois democratic republic. The great thinkers of the eighteenth century, like all their predecessors, could not go beyond the limits imposed by their own era.”

卢梭去世十年之后,法国大革命爆发,这是对卢梭思想的一次检验。虽然他并不赞成革命,但其“主权在民”却是启动这场革命的重要思想旗帜,革命摧毁了法国的君主专制统治,传播了自由民主的思想,为资本主义时代的到来开辟了道路,但是,他所期待的平等自由的“最好的政府”并没有建立。欧洲的自由主义者在总结大革命的历史教训时大都在追究雅各宾派执政时期的“恐怖统治”问题,本杰明·贡斯当认为,这是卢梭将自由原则与人民主权的原则联系在一起的虚幻理论所致,根源在于混淆了古代人的自由即参与政府决策权力的自由和现代人的自由即在法治下保障个人独立空间的自由。而在马克思看来,大革命最重要的问题是“穷人的权利”没有解决,农民的不满贯穿于大革命的全过程,根源在于“他们获得解放的现实条件和资产阶级借以解放自身和社会的那些条件是根本不同的”。因此,“理性的王国、卢梭的社会契约在实践中表现为,而且也只能表现为资产阶级的民主共和国。18世纪伟大的思想家们,也同他们的一切先驱者一样,没有能够超出他们自己的时代使他们受到的限制”。

II

二

Among the many Enlightenment thinkers, Marx paid special attention to Rousseau. The reason, perhaps, is as Anthony Arblaster said: “Rousseau was one of the few Enlightenment thinkers who radically questioned private property rights. In this respect, the early thinkers of the Enlightenment, like many others, went beyond the boundaries of traditional liberalism toward socialism.”

在众多启蒙思想家中,马克思对卢梭有着特殊的关注,其原因,或许如安东尼·阿巴拉斯特所说:“卢梭是少数几个以激进的方式质疑私有财产权的启蒙思想家之一,启蒙运动的早期思想家在这方面与许多人一样,超出传统自由主义的界限而朝向社会主义。”

Marx’s library included many editions of Rousseau’s works. In the second notebook of the *Kreuznach Notebooks*, in his 88 excerpts in French from Rousseau’s *The Social Contract*, there are important discussions by Rousseau on the “freedom paradox.” At the end of the chapter “On Property,” Marx wrote in German: “Rousseau made a noteworthy (*merkwürdige*) note on the last sentence.” This note reads: “Under bad governments, this equality is only apparent; it can only keep the poor in poverty and the rich in possession. In fact, the law always favors those who possess wealth and harms those who have nothing; from this it follows that the social state is beneficial to mankind only when everyone has something and no one has too much.” This note indeed expresses Rousseau’s political thought, especially his view of private property. Marx’s particular attention to this note also indicates the focus of his study of Rousseau’s thought—the institution of private property rights.

马克思的藏书中包括卢梭著作的诸多版本,在《克罗伊茨纳赫笔记》第二笔记本他用法文对卢梭的《社会契约论》做的88段原文摘录中,就有卢梭对于“自由悖论”思考的一些重要论述,在“论财产权”一章的结尾处,马克思特别用德文写下:“对于最后一句话,卢梭做了一个值得注意的(merkwürdige)注释。”这个注释是:“在坏政府的下面,这种平等只是虚有其表;它只能保持穷人处于贫困,保持富人处于占有。事实上,法律总是有利于享有财富的人,而有害于一无所有的人;由此可见,唯有当人人都有一些东西而又没有人能有过多的东西的时候,社会状态才会对人类有益。”这个注释的确很能表达卢梭的政治思想特别是他对私有财产的看法,而对这个注释的特别关注,也表明了马克思对卢梭思想研究的聚焦点——私有财产权制度。

In the immediately following *Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844*, Marx discussed in depth the relationship between private property and alienated labor, pointing out: “From the relationship of alienated labor to private property it further follows that the emancipation of society from private property, etc., from servitude, is expressed in the political form of the emancipation of the workers. This is not because it is only the emancipation of the workers that is at issue, but because the emancipation of the workers contains universal human emancipation within it; the reason for this is that the whole of human servitude is involved in the relation of the worker to production, and all relations of servitude are but modifications and consequences of this relation.” Marx affirmed communism as “the positive transcendence of private property, as human self-estrangement,” and as the answer to the “riddle of history” concerning how to resolve the contradictions between man and nature, between man and man, and between existence and essence, objectification and self-confirmation, freedom and necessity, and the individual and the species.

在紧随其后的《1844年经济学哲学手稿》中,马克思深入讨论了私有制与异化劳动的关系,指出:“从异化劳动对私有财产的关系可以进一步得出这样的结论:社会从私有财产等等解放出来、从奴役制解放出来,是通过工人解放这种政治形式来表现的,这并不是因为这里涉及的仅仅是工人的解放,而是因为工人的解放还包含普遍的人的解放;其所以如此,是因为整个的人类奴役制就包含在工人对生产的关系中,而一切奴役关系只不过是这种关系的变形和后果罢了。”马克思将“私有财产即人的自我异化的积极扬弃”的共产主义确认为对如何解决人和自然界之间、人和人之间的矛盾,以及如何解决存在和本质、对象化和自我确证、自由和必然、个体和类之间的斗争的“历史之谜”的解答。

Although Marx wrote no monograph on Rousseau, from the development of Marx’s thought during this period, there is an inherent logical connection between his understanding of the “riddle of history” and his understanding of Rousseau’s “freedom paradox.” Within the overall problem domain of human emancipation, the latter is an important component of the former; the answer to the former contains the resolution of the latter. This resolution of Rousseau’s “freedom paradox” is an integral part of Marx’s theory of human emancipation.

虽然马克思没有专论卢梭的文章,但是从马克思这一时期的思想发展来看,对“历史之谜”认识与对卢梭“自由悖论”的认识之间存在着内在的逻辑联系,在人类解放这个总体问题域中,后者是前者的重要构成部分,对前者的解答包含着对后者的解决,这个对卢梭“自由悖论”的解决,是马克思的人类解放学说的题中应有之义。

Resolving Rousseau’s “freedom paradox” within the overall problem domain of human emancipation has as its core issue the understanding and disposition of private property. Rousseau regarded “private property” as the source of social inequality but did not advocate its abolition. He hoped, by enlightening human reason, to form a new social contract, making the “private” conform to the “general will” and narrowing the gap between rich and poor. This is the direct reason his resolution of the “freedom paradox” fell into a dilemma. But the fundamental problem still lay in his view of history.

在人类解放的总体问题域中解决卢梭的“自由悖论”,核心问题是对私有制的认识和处置,卢梭将“私有制”视为社会不平等之源,又不主张废除私有制,希望通过启迪人的理性,形成新的社会契约,使“私有”符合“公意”,缩小贫富差别,这是他解决“自由悖论”陷入困境的直接原因,但是根本问题还是出在历史观上。

From the Renaissance to the Enlightenment, the mainstream of European historical views took human nature as the root of history and the suppression of evil and promotion of good in human nature through reason as the guide of history. Although this was an advance over the medieval theological view of history, it essentially understood history in moral terms, obscuring historical reality.

自文艺复兴到启蒙运动,欧洲历史观的主流是以人性为历史的根源,以理性对人性的抑恶扬善为历史的导向,虽较之中世纪的神学历史观进步,但基本上是将历史做道德化的理解,遮蔽了历史真实。

Before Marx, Hegel had questioned this view of history. He believed that history belongs to objective spirit, and the essential characteristic distinguishing spirit from matter is freedom: “World history is nothing but the progress of the consciousness of freedom; a progress that we must recognize in its necessity.” “Law”—the laws that people recognize and establish—is “the existence of the free will.” In Hegel’s view, the previous moralized view of history lacked the objectivity of grasping freedom within necessity. Kant was like this, and so was Rousseau, who provided the “principle of freedom” for Kant. The biggest problem with Rousseau’s conception of the state of nature was that “it did not take into account the liberating moment contained in labor”; freedom was understood merely as the satisfaction of simple natural needs, “and thus as a crude and unfree state.” Moreover, so-called “contract is based on the arbitrary will, opinion, and express consent of individuals. … People, starting from abstract thought, establish the state system from scratch and seek to give it only an imaginary rational basis as its foundation.”

马克思之前,黑格尔对这种历史观提出了质疑,他认为,历史属于客观精神,精神区别于物质的本质特点就是自由,“世界历史无非是‘自由’意识的进展;这一种进展是我们必须在它的必然性中加以认识的”。“法”即人们认识和设定的规律就是“自由意志的定在”。在黑格尔看来,以往的道德化历史观,缺乏的就是在必然性中把握自由的客观性,康德是这样,为康德提供“自由原则”的卢梭也是这样,他的自然状态设想的最大问题是“没有考虑到劳动所包含的解放的环节”,自由仅仅被理解为满足简单的自然需要,“从而是粗野的和不自由的状态”。而所谓“契约乃是以单个人的任性、意见和随心表达的同意为其基础的。……人们根据抽象思想,从头开始建立国家制度,并希求仅仅给它以想象的理性东西为其基础”。

By determining freedom through necessity, Hegel viewed the history of the progress of freedom consciousness as a process of self-development in which absolute spirit realizes itself through the actual activities of human beings. This is both a rational process in which the egoistic activities of countless individuals ultimately fulfill the intention of absolute spirit toward freedom, and a law-governed process in which the developmental histories of individual nations are unified into the history of world development. In this process, the objectifying activity of labor confirms the objective existence of the human being, enabling the human being to acquire his own essence and also to change his own destiny, moving from alienation toward freedom.

以必然论自由,黑格尔将自由意识进展的历史视为绝对精神通过人的现实活动而实现的自我发展过程,这既是无数个人的利己活动最终成就绝对精神自由意图的合理性过程,也是个别民族发展历史统一成为世界历史发展的合规律过程。在这个过程中,劳动的对象性活动证实了人的对象性存在,使人获得了自己的本质,也改变着自己的命运,从异化走向自由。

Compared with earlier liberal conceptions of history, Hegel’s conception of history possessed a more profound dimension of thought, containing a solution to Rousseau’s “freedom paradox.” The young Marx was also deeply influenced by it, thinking through the question of “where is Germany heading” at that time by means of the determination of everything by dialectical reason. The “vexatious question” of material interests encountered during his work at the *Rheinische Zeitung* [1]1 This passage is a direct quotation from Karl Marx, *Capital*, Volume 3, Chapter 48, “The Trinity Formula.” changed Marx’s original intellectual orientation. The *Kreuznach Notebooks* [2]2 The *Kreuznach Notebooks* (1843) are Marx’s critical excerpts on the history of the French Revolution, the state, and political theory, written during his stay in Kreuznach after leaving the *Rheinische Zeitung*. were the result of Marx’s retreat from the “social stage back into the study” to conduct research on the political history of England, France, and other countries in order to resolve this question.

与之前的自由主义的历史观相比较,黑格尔的历史观有着更深刻的思想维度,包含着一种对卢梭“自由悖论”的解决方案,青年马克思也曾经深受影响,以辩证理性决定一切来思考当时德国“向何处去”的问题,《莱茵报》工作期间遇到的物质利益这个“苦恼的疑问”改变了马克思原有的思想导向,《克罗伊茨纳赫笔记》就是为解决这个疑问,马克思从“社会舞台退回书房”而进行的有关英、法等国的政治历史研究。

In his critical reflection on Hegel’s philosophy, Marx argued: “The greatness of Hegel’s *Phenomenology* and its final result—the dialectic of negativity as the moving and creating principle—lies, therefore, first of all in the fact that Hegel grasps the self-creation of the human being as a process, objectification as de-objectification, as externalization and the sublation of this externalization; that he, therefore, grasps the nature of labor and comprehends the objective human being—the true, because actual, human being—as the result of his own labor.” [3]3 Karl Marx, *Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844*, MECW, Vol. 3, p. 332. However, “the only labor Hegel knows and recognizes is abstract mental labor.” [4]4 Ibid., p. 333. Because “the essence of the human being, the human being, in Hegel’s view = self-consciousness. Therefore, all alienation of the human essence is nothing but alienation of self-consciousness.” [5]5 Ibid. In this way, “the entire history of externalization and the entire sublation of externalization is nothing but the history of the production of abstract, absolute thought, i.e., the history of logical, speculative thought.” [6]6 Ibid.

在对黑格尔哲学的批判性反思中,马克思认为:“黑格尔的《现象学》及其最后成果——辩证法,作为推动原则和创造原则的否定性——的伟大之处首先在于,黑格尔把人的自我产生看作一个过程,把对象化看作非对象化,看作外化和这种外化的扬弃;可见,他抓住了劳动的本质,把对象性的人、现实的因而是真正的人理解为他自己的劳动的结果。”但是,“黑格尔唯一知道并承认的劳动是抽象的精神的劳动”。因为“人的本质,人,在黑格尔看来=自我意识,因此,人的本质的全部异化不过是自我意识的异化”。这样,“全部外化历史和外化的全部消除,不过是抽象的、绝对的思维的生产史,即逻辑的思辨的思维的生产史”。

By reducing Hegel’s self-consciousness to “real individuals”—that is, individuals active in concrete historical practice, possessing an essence that is the “ensemble of social relations” [7]7 Karl Marx, *Theses on Feuerbach*, MECW, Vol. 5, p. 4.—Marx unfolded an analysis of the life-activity of the human being: the production of material subsistence. He penetrated from the surface of history to its depths—the economic structure of society—revealed the historical logic of production, and formed “a new school [that] found the key to the understanding of all social history in the history of the development of labor” [8]8 Friedrich Engels, *Ludwig Feuerbach and the End of Classical German Philosophy*, MECW, Vol. 26, p. 387. in terms of the conception of history. Applying the “weapon of critique” of this new conception of history, Marx further revealed the capital logic of production in his study of political economy, explaining the “tendency of the law of capitalist production to assert itself with iron necessity.” [9]9 Karl Marx, *Capital*, Vol. 1, Preface to the First German Edition, MECW, Vol. 35, p. 9. The establishment of historical materialism and the theory of surplus value transformed the critique of private property from utopian socialism into scientific socialism. This transformation enabled Marx to ultimately resolve Rousseau’s “freedom paradox.”

通过将黑格尔的自我意识还原为“现实的个人”亦即在具体历史实践中活动着的、具有“社会关系总和”本质的个人,马克思展开了对人的生命活动——物质生活资料生产的分析,从历史表象深入到了历史底层——社会的经济结构,揭示了生产的历史逻辑,形成了历史观上“在劳动发展史中找到理解全部社会史的钥匙的新派别”,运用新的历史观的“批判的武器”,马克思进一步在政治经济学研究中揭示了生产的资本逻辑,阐释了资本主义生产规律“以铁的必然性发生作用并且正在实现的趋势”。唯物史观和剩余价值学说的创立,使批判私有制的社会主义从空想转化为科学,这个转化使马克思最终解决了卢梭的“自由悖论”。

This ultimate resolution was not a simple falsification of Rousseau’s “freedom paradox,” but rather a historical and actual interpretation and elucidation, pointing out the theoretical and practical pathways out of the “paradox.” It was, in essence, a critical creative transformation and innovative development. Engels pointed out: modern socialism “in its theoretical form, it initially appears as a further and more seemingly thorough development of the principles advanced by the great French Enlightenment philosophers of the 18th century. Like every new theory, it had to begin by connecting itself with the intellectual stock-in-trade ready to hand, although its roots were deeply embedded in material economic facts.” [10]10 Friedrich Engels, *Socialism: Utopian and Scientific*, MECW, Vol. 24, p. 287. As an important representative of the French Enlightenment philosophers, Rousseau’s thought was precisely a piece of “intellectual stock-in-trade” for Marx’s creation of scientific socialism. The ultimate resolution of his “freedom paradox” could only exist within the new theory of scientific socialism, this “further and more seemingly thorough development.”

这种最终解决,不是简单地证伪卢梭的“自由悖论”,而是进行历史和现实的阐释和解读,指出走出“悖论”的理论和实践途径,实质上是一种批判性的创造性转化和创新性发展,恩格斯指出:现代社会主义“就其理论形式来说,它起初表现为18世纪法国伟大的启蒙学者们提出的各种原则的进一步的、据称是更彻底的发展。同任何新的学说一样,它必须首先从已有的思想材料出发,虽然它的根子深深扎在物质的经济的事实中”。作为法国启蒙学者的重要代表,卢梭思想正是马克思创立科学社会主义的一份“思想材料”,其“自由悖论”最终解决,也只能是存在于科学社会主义这种“进一步的、据称是更彻底的发展”的新的学说中。

First, in the understanding of the relationship between freedom and history, Marx affirmed that freedom is a historical pursuit of the human being, but criticized the view that freedom is merely an inherent will and consciousness of the human being. He argued that free will and consciousness originate from practical activity, pointing out that “legal relations as well as forms of the state are to be grasped neither from themselves nor from the so-called general development of the human mind, but rather have their roots in the material conditions of life,” [11]11 Karl Marx, *A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy*, Preface, MECW, Vol. 29, p. 262. which Hegel had defined as the “existence [Dasein] of the free will.” [12]12 G.W.F. Hegel, *Elements of the Philosophy of Right*, §29.

首先,在自由与历史关系的认识上,马克思确认自由是人的历史追求,但是批评了将自由仅仅理解为人固有的意志和意识的看法,认为自由意志和意识源于实践活动,指出,被黑格尔规定为“自由意志定在”的“法的关系正像国家的形式一样,既不能从它们本身来理解,也不能从所谓人类精神的一般发展来理解,相反,它们根源于物质的生活关系。”

The production of material subsistence is the basic form of the life-activity of the human being. Freedom is the conscious mastery of this life-activity of the human being, i.e., making one’s own life-activity itself the object of one’s own will and consciousness. “It is just because of this that his activity is free activity.” [13]13 Karl Marx, *Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844*, MECW, Vol. 3, p. 276. Animals have no freedom because they cannot consciously distinguish themselves from their own life-activity. Therefore, “the animal produces only itself, while the human being reproduces the whole of nature; the animal’s product belongs directly to its physical body, while the human being freely confronts his product. The animal builds only according to the standard and need of the species to which it belongs, while the human being knows how to produce according to the standard of any species, and knows how to apply the inherent standard to the object everywhere; therefore, the human being also builds according to the laws of beauty.” [14]14 Ibid., p. 277. Freedom is the unity of conformity to law and conformity to purpose realized by the human being in practice. Therefore, “freedom does not consist in the dream of independence from natural laws, but in the knowledge of these laws, and in the possibility this gives of systematically making them work towards definite ends… Freedom of the will means nothing but the capacity to make decisions with knowledge of the situation.” [15]15 Friedrich Engels, *Anti-Dühring*, MECW, Vol. 25, p. 105.

物质生活资料生产是人的生命活动的基本形式,自由就是对人的这种生命活动的自觉把握亦即使自己的生命活动本身变成自己意志和意识的对象,“仅仅由于这一点,他的活动才是自由的活动。”动物没有自由,因为它不能有意识地将自己同自己的生命活动区别开来,因此,“动物只生产自身,而人再生产整个自然界;动物的产品直接属于它的肉体,而人则自由地面对自己的产品。动物只是按照它所属的那个种的尺度和需要来生产,而人却懂得按照任何一个种的尺度来进行生产,并且懂得处处都把固有的尺度运用于对象;因此,人也按照美的规律来构造”。自由即是人在实践中所实现的合规律性与合目的性的统一。因此,“自由不在于幻想中摆脱自然规律而独立,而在于认识这些规律,从而能够有计划地使自然规律为一定的目的服务……意志自由只是借助于对事物的认识来作出决定的能力”。

The production of material subsistence is a historical activity, and freedom is also a historical product: “The first human beings who emerged from the animal kingdom were in all essentials as unfree as the animals themselves; but each step forward in civilization was a step towards freedom.” [16]16 Ibid., p. 104. In this process, the saving of labor time plays a decisive role. “The development of society, social enjoyment, and the comprehensiveness of social activity all depend on the saving of time. All economy ultimately reduces to the economy of time.” [17]17 Karl Marx, *Grundrisse*, Notebook I, MECW, Vol. 28, p. 109. On the one hand, because it reduces production costs, “this saving is equivalent to the development of productive forces.” [18]18 Ibid. On the other hand, it creates “disposable time, i.e., time for the production of science, art, etc.” [19]19 Ibid., p. 110. “The entire development of the human being, insofar as it goes beyond the development directly required by his natural existence, is nothing but the application of this free time, and the premise for the entire development of the human being is the use of this free time as a necessary foundation.” [20]20 Ibid., p. 109.

物质生活资料生产是历史的活动,自由也是历史的产物:“最初的、从动物界分离出来的人,在一切本质方面是和动物本身一样不自由的;但是文化上的每一个进步,都是迈向自由的一步。”在这个过程中,劳动时间的节约具有决定性的作用,“社会发展、社会享用和社会活动的全面性,都取决于时间的节省,一切节约归根到底都是时间的节约”。一方面,由于降低了生产费用,“这种节约就等于发展生产力”。另一方面,创造出“可以自由支配的时间,也就是创造产生科学、艺术等等的时间”。“整个人类的发展,就其超出人的自然存在所直接需要的发展来说,无非是对这种自由时间的运用,并且整个人类发展的前提就是把这种自由时间作为必要的基础。”

In a society based on the division of labor and private property: free time is opposed to labor time. “The free time of the non-laboring part of society is based on the surplus labor or overwork of the laboring part, on the surplus labor time of that part.” [21]21 Karl Marx, *Capital*, Vol. 1, MECW, Vol. 35, p. 530. Capitalism is the highest and also the final stage of this opposition. “The great historical aspect of capital is the creation of this surplus labor.” [22]22 Karl Marx, *Grundrisse*, Notebook VII, MECW, Vol. 29, p. 94. Driven by capital’s insatiable drive for enrichment, the productive forces of labor continuously develop to such a degree that the whole society needs only a small amount of labor time to possess and maintain universal wealth. In the increasingly abundant process of reproduction, the human being no longer engages in labor that can be performed by things instead. “Once that point is reached, the historical mission of capital is fulfilled.” [23]23 Ibid. Thus, “capital works against its own will to become a tool for creating conditions for socially disposable time, reducing the labor time of the whole society to a continuously decreasing minimum, thereby creating time for the development of all [members of society] themselves.” [24]24 Ibid., p. 95.

在分工和私有制的社会中:自由时间与劳动时间是对立的。“不劳动的社会部分的自由时间是以剩余劳动或过度劳动为基础的,是以劳动的那部分人的剩余劳动时间为基础的。”资本主义是这种对立的最高阶段也是最后阶段,“资本的伟大的历史方面就是创造这种剩余劳动”,在资本的无止境的致富欲望的驱动下,劳动生产力不断向前发展达到这样的程度:整个社会只须用较少的劳动时间就能占有并保持普遍财富,在越来越丰富的再生产过程中人不再从事那种可以让物来替人从事的劳动,“一旦到了那样的时候,资本的历史使命就完成了”。这样,“资本就违背了自己的意志,成了为社会可以自由支配的时间创造条件的工具,使整个社会的劳动时间缩减到不断下降的最低程度,从而为全体[社会成员]本身的发展腾出时间”。

After the elimination of the old division of labor and private property, “the associated producers, socialized human beings, will rationally regulate their material exchange with nature, placing it under their common control, instead of letting it rule them as a blind force; they will accomplish this material exchange with the least expenditure of energy, under conditions most worthy of and most suitable to their human nature. But this realm always remains a realm of necessity. Beyond it begins that development of human powers as an end in itself, the true realm of freedom, which, however, can flourish only on the basis of this realm of necessity. The shortening of the working day is its fundamental prerequisite.” [1]1 This passage is a direct quotation from Karl Marx, *Capital*, Volume 3, Chapter 48, “The Trinity Formula.”

在旧的分工和私有制消灭以后,“社会化的人,联合起来的生产者,将合理地调节他们和自然之间的物质变换,把它置于他们的共同控制之下,而不让它作为一种盲目的力量来统治自己;靠消耗最小的力量,在最无愧于和最适合于他们的人类本性的条件下来进行这种物质变换。但是,这个领域始终是一个必然王国。在这个必然王国的彼岸,作为目的本身的人类能力的发挥,真正的自由王国,就开始了。但是,这个自由王国只有建立在必然王国的基础上,才能繁荣起来。工作日的缩短是根本条件”。

Second, in understanding the relationship between freedom and equality, Marx affirms that equality is an important foundation of freedom, but criticizes the view that equality is merely a natural right, arguing that rights are products of socio-economic evolution, stating: “Right can never be higher than the economic structure of society and its cultural development conditioned thereby.”

其次,在自由与平等关系的认识上,马克思确认平等是自由的重要基础,但是批评了将平等仅仅理解为天赋权利的看法,认为权利是社会经济演进的产物,指出:“权利决不能超出社会的经济结构以及由经济结构制约的社会的文化的发展。”

Just as humanity has had a simple longing for freedom since its beginnings, equality also has an ancient, primitive conception—namely, the affirmation of certain natural commonalities that make humans human. From this primitive notion of equality to the modern conclusion that all members of society should have equal political status and standing, several thousand years of development were required. It was precisely “the economic progress of society … that placed the demand for the abolition of feudal fetters and the establishment of equality of rights through the elimination of feudal inequalities on the agenda.” As people’s activities of intercourse expanded and the system of bourgeois nation-states gradually took shape, this demand naturally acquired a universal character extending beyond individual national boundaries, and freedom and equality were naturally proclaimed as human rights.

正如人之初就有着对于自由的素朴憧憬一样,平等也有着古老的原始观念,这就是对于人之为人的某些自然共同点的确认,从这种原始平等观念到近代一切社会成员都应当有平等的政治地位和地位的结论,经过了几千年的发展,正是“社会的经济的进步……把摆脱封建桎梏和通过消除封建不平等来确立权利平等的要求提上了日程”,随着人们交往活动的扩大和资产阶级民族国家体系的逐步形成,这种要求很自然地获得了普遍的、超出个别国家范围的性质,而自由和平等也很自然地被宣布为人权。

Modern equality, i.e., capitalist equality, is essentially a product of the development of the commodity economy. “Equality and freedom are not only respected in exchange based on exchange values, but the exchange of exchange values is the productive, real basis of all equality and freedom. As pure ideas, equality and freedom are merely idealized expressions of the exchange of exchange values; as developed in legal, political, and social relations, equality and freedom are merely this basis raised to a higher power.”

现代平等即资本主义平等本质上是商品经济发展的产物,“平等和自由不仅在以交换价值为基础的交换中受到尊重,而且交换价值的交换是一切平等和自由的生产的、现实的基础。作为纯粹观念,平等和自由仅仅是交换价值的交换的一种理想化的表现;作为在法律的、政治的、社会的关系上发展了的东西,平等和自由不过是另一次方的这种基础而已。”

As value that can bring forth surplus value, capital can only increase in value if it buys the living labor of workers on the market. On the surface, this is a “contractual” relationship of equal rights between capital and labor power. However, once we enter the sphere of production, the exploitative relationship concealed by the “freedom” and “equality” of circulation is truly revealed: “The constant sale and purchase of labor power is the form. The content is that the capitalist constantly exchanges a portion of the already objectified labor of others, which he appropriates without giving an equivalent, for a still greater quantity of the living labor of others.”

作为能够带来剩余价值的价值,资本只有在市场上买到工人的活劳动才有可能增殖,表面上看,这是资本和劳动力之间权利平等的“契约”关系,然而,一旦进入到生产领域,被流通中的“自由”和“平等”所掩盖着的剥削关系便真实地显露了出来,“劳动力的不断买卖是形式。其内容则是,资本家用他总是不付等价物而占有的他人的已经对象化的劳动的一部分,来不断再换取更大量的他人的活劳动”。

Therefore, “from the moment the bourgeois demand for the abolition of class privileges was raised, simultaneously there arose the proletarian demand for the abolition of classes themselves.” This is a further development of the bourgeois demand for equality: equality should not be merely superficial, implemented only in the political sphere of the state; it should also be substantive, implemented in the social and economic spheres. Just as the transition from feudal inequality to formal equality under capitalism was a socio-economic advance, so too is the transition from formal equality under capitalist society to substantive equality under communist society—this is likewise a long historical process of development. In the first phase of communist society, because it has just emerged from capitalist society, it is inevitably still stamped in economic, moral, and intellectual respects with the birthmarks of the old society. In the distribution of means of consumption, it can only implement the principle of receiving a quantity of means of consumption equivalent to the labor one has contributed. “Here the same principle prevails as that which regulates the exchange of commodities, insofar as this is an exchange of equal values.” “Here, therefore, equal right is still in principle bourgeois right, although principle and practice are no longer in conflict.” Only in the higher phase of communist society, “after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor, and thereby also the antithesis between mental and physical labor, has vanished; after labor has become not only a means of life but life’s prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-around development of the individual, and all the springs of cooperative wealth flow more abundantly—only then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!” “With the disappearance of class distinctions, all social and political inequalities arising from them will disappear of themselves.”

因此,“从消灭阶级特权的资产阶级要求提出的时候起,同时就出现了消灭阶级本身的无产阶级要求”,它是对资产阶级平等要求的进一步发展:平等应当不仅仅是表面的,只是在国家的政治领域中实行,还应当是实质的,在社会的、经济的领域中实行。正如从封建不平等到资本主义形式上的平等是社会的经济进步一样,从资本主义社会形式上的平等到共产主义社会实质上的平等也是如此,这同样是一个长期的历史发展过程。在共产主义社会的第一阶段,由于刚刚从资本主义社会产生出来,在经济、道德和精神方面不可避免的还带着旧社会的痕迹,在消费资料的分配上还只能实行以提供了多少劳动来领得一分耗费同等劳动量的消费资料的原则,“这里通行的是调节商品交换(就它是等价的交换而言)的同一原则”,“在这里平等的权利按照原则仍然是资产阶级权利,虽然原则和实践在这里已不再互相矛盾”,只有在共产主义社会的高级阶段,“在迫使个人奴隶般地服从分工的情形已经消失,从而脑力劳动和体力劳动的对立也随之消失之后;在劳动已经不仅仅是谋生的手段,而且本身成了生活的第一需要之后;在随着个人的全面发展,他们的生产力也增长起来,而集体财富的一切源泉都充分涌流之后,——只有在那个时候,才能完全超出资产阶级权利的狭隘眼界,社会才能在自己的旗帜上写上:各尽所能,按需分配!”“随着阶级差别的消灭,一切由这些差别产生的社会的和政治的不平等也自行消灭。”

Third, in understanding the relationship between freedom and community, Marx affirms that individual freedom is possible only within a community, but criticizes the view that the community realizing freedom is the political state, arguing that the condition for realizing freedom is precisely the condition for the withering away of the state. When freedom is truly spoken of, the state itself no longer exists. Therefore, both the democratic state advocated by Rousseau and the constitutional monarchy advocated by Hegel are “illusory communities.”

再次,在自由与共同体关系的认识上,马克思确认只有在共同体中才可能有个人自由,但是批评了将实现自由的共同体理解为政治国家的看法,认为实现自由的条件,也就是国家消亡的条件,真正谈到自由的时候,国家本身就不再存在了,因此,无论是卢梭主张的民主制国家,还是黑格尔主张的君主立宪制国家都是“虚假共同体”。

As social beings, human history has always existed and developed in the form of community. “The further back we go in history, the more the individual, and hence also the producing individual, appears as dependent, as belonging to a larger whole: at first, quite naturally, in the family and the family expanded into the clan; later, in the various forms of commune arising from the conflict and fusion of clans.” In these natural communities, “the individual relates to the objective conditions of labor simply as his own, as the inorganic nature of his subjectivity which realizes itself through him. The main objective condition of labor itself is not a product of labor, but is already present nature.” In such communities, where the individual is completely “subordinate” to the whole, freedom as subjectivity has not yet taken shape.

作为社会存在物,人类历史总是以共同体的方式存在和发展,“我们越往前追溯历史,个人,从而也是进行生产的个人,就越表现为不独立,从属于一个较大的整体:最初还是十分自然地在家庭和扩大成为氏族的家庭中;后来是在由氏族间的冲突和融合而产生的各种形式的公社中”。在这些自然共同体中,“个人把劳动的客观条件简单地看作是自己的东西,看作是使自己的主体性得到自我实现的无机自然。劳动的主要客观条件本身并不是劳动的产物,而是已经存在的自然”。在这种个人对整体完全“从属”的共同体中,尚未形成主体性的自由。

The state, founded on the division of labor, private property, and class division, “developed in the course of the dissolution of naturally grown communities.” Individuals gained relatively independent activities of intercourse, and thus the possibility of relative freedom. However, in reality, “individual freedom exists only for individuals who develop within the ruling class, and only insofar as they are individuals of this class. The illusory community in which individuals have united up to now always took on an independent existence in relation to them; and since it was the union of one class against another, it was not only a completely illusory community for the ruled class, but also a new fetter.”

建立在分工、私有制和阶级划分基础上的国家是在“自然形成的共同体的解体过程中发展起来的”,个人有了相对独立的交往活动,也就有了相对自由的可能性,但是,现实的“个人自由只是对那些统治阶级范围内发展的个人来说是存在的,他们之所以有个人自由,只是因为他们是这一阶级的个人。从前各个人联合而成的虚假共同体,总是相对于各个人而独立的;由于这种共同体是一个阶级反对另一个阶级的联合,因此对于被统治的阶级来说,它不仅是完全虚幻的共同体,而且是新的桎梏”。

The true community is formed on the basis of the abolition of the division of labor. Its fundamental characteristic is that the means of production are owned by everyone, i.e., by society as a whole. “Once society takes possession of the means of production, commodity production will be eliminated, and with it the domination of the product over the producer. Anarchy within social production will be replaced by a planned, conscious organization. The struggle for individual existence ceases. In this sense, man finally separates himself from the animal world, passes from animal conditions of existence into truly human conditions of existence. The conditions of life surrounding and hitherto dominating men now come under the dominion and control of men, who for the first time become the conscious, real masters of nature, because they have become masters of their own social organization.” This socialized “human essence is the true community of man.”

真正的共同体是在消灭分工的基础上形成的,它的基本特征是生产资料为每个人也就是为全社会所占有,“一旦社会占有了生产资料,商品生产就将被消除,而产品对生产者的统治也将随之消除。社会生产内部的无政府状态将为有计划的自觉的组织所代替。个体生存斗争停止了。于是,人在一定意义上才最终地脱离了动物界,从动物的生存条件进入真正人的生存条件。人们周围的、至今统治着人们的生活条件,现在受人们的支配和控制,人们第一次成为自然界的自觉的和真正的主人,因为他们已经成为自身的社会结合的主人了。”这种社会化的“人的本质是人的真正的共同体”。

From the naturally formed “simple community” to the state-form “illusory community” and then to the communist “true community,” this is the process of humanity’s journey from the realm of necessity to the realm of freedom. The fundamental driving force is the development of productive forces. Its historical logic is: from the initial social form of “relations of personal dependence,” to “personal independence founded on objective dependence,” and then to “free individuality, based on the universal development of individuals and on the subordination of their communal, social productivity as their social wealth.”

从自然形成的“简单共同体”到国家形态的“虚假共同体”再到共产主义的“真正共同体”,是人类从必然王国走向自由王国的历程,根本动力是生产力的发展,其历史逻辑是:从“人的依赖关系”的最初社会形式,到“以物的依赖性为基础的人的独立性”,再到“建立在个人全面发展和他们共同的、社会的生产能力成为从属于他们的社会财富这一基础上的自由个性”。

Finally, in his understanding of the relationship between freedom and alienation, Marx confirmed that freedom is a process of liberation from alienated social relations, but he criticized the understanding of “alienation” as a process of self-development and self-return of some transcendental “original subject.” He argued that liberation is an objective historical process, pointing out: “The philosophers have seen in the individual who no longer submits to the division of labour the ideal they call ‘Man’; they have conceived the whole process of development we have described as the process of development of ‘Man,’ thus imposing ‘Man’ on every individual existing in every historical stage and describing ‘Man’ as the driving force of history. In this way, the whole historical process is seen as the self-alienation process of ‘Man’; essentially this is because they always impose the generalized individual of a later stage on the individual of an earlier stage and impose later consciousness on earlier individuals.”

最后,在自由与异化关系的认识上,马克思确认自由是从异己的社会关系中解放出来的过程,但是批评了将“异化”理解为某种先验的“原始主体”自我发展和自我复归过程,认为解放是客观的历史过程,指出:“哲学家们在不再屈从于分工的个人身上看到了他们名之为‘人’的那种理想,他们把我们所阐述的整个发展过程看做是‘人’的发展过程,从而把‘人’强加于迄今每一个历史阶段中所存在的个人,并把‘人’描述成历史的动力。这样,整个历史过程就被看成是‘人’的自我异化过程,实质上这是因为,他们总是把后来阶段的一般化的个人强加于先前阶段的个人,并且把后来的意识强加于先前的个人。”

The concept of alienation has deep roots in the history of European thought. During the Enlightenment, it was understood as the self-contradiction of reason in historical development. Rousseau was an important interpreter, and the “freedom paradox” is the concrete expression of Rousseau’s historical view of alienation. Generally speaking, the internal logic of the historical view of alienation is a three-stage formula: subject—alienation—return to subject. The only difference lies in the identity with which reason, as the subject, appears. In Rousseau, this “original subject” is natural human nature; in Hegel, it is self-consciousness; in Feuerbach, it is the “species” essence of man.

异化概念在欧洲思想史上有较深的渊源,启蒙运动中被理解为理性在历史发展中的自我背反,卢梭是重要阐释者,“自由悖论”就是卢梭异化论历史观的具体表述。一般而论,异化论历史观的内在逻辑是三段式:主体—异化—回归主体,区别仅在于理性作为主体以什么身份出场,在卢梭那里,这个“原始主体”是自然人性、在黑格尔那里是自我意识,在费尔巴哈那里则是人的“类”本质。

During the process of creating historical materialism, Marx was also influenced by this historical view, regarding the development of history as the “return of man.” Driven by his investigation of “material interests,” Marx turned to “studying and exploring ‘human history’ in connection with the history of industry and exchange.” This formed a new idea of understanding the foundation of social life as a socio-economic structure composed of the sum of certain relations of production, and further understanding “the development of the economic formation of society as a process of natural history.” Thus, he replaced the historical view of alienation with historical materialism.

唯物史观创立过程中,马克思也曾经受这种历史观的影响,将历史的发展看做“人的复归”。对“物质利益”的追究,马克思转入了“把‘人类的历史’同工业和交换的历史联系起来研究和探讨”,形成了把社会生活的基础理解为一定生产关系总和构成的社会经济结构、又将“经济的社会形态的发展理解为一种自然史的过程”的新思想,用唯物史观取代了异化史观。

From the perspective of historical materialism, the process of liberation from alienated social relations “is a historical activity, not a mental activity; ‘liberation’ is brought about by historical relations, by the state of industry, commerce, agriculture, and intercourse.” This process is filled with conflicts rooted in “the contradiction between productive forces and the form of intercourse.” The emergence of the division of labor and private property means that “from the very beginning of civilization, production began to be based on the antagonism of ranks, estates, and classes, and finally on the antagonism between accumulated labor and immediate labor. Without antagonism there is no progress. This is the law that civilization has followed up to the present day. So far, the productive forces have developed precisely by virtue of this law of class antagonism.”

在唯物史观的视域中,从异己的社会关系中解放出来的过程“是一种历史活动,不是思想活动,‘解放’是由历史的关系,是由工业状况、商业状况、农业状况、交往状况促成的”。其间充满着“根源于生产力和交往形式之间的矛盾”的冲突。分工和私有制的产生,使“文明一开始的时候,生产就开始建立在级别、等级和阶级的对抗上,最后建立在积累的劳动和直接的劳动的对抗上。没有对抗就没有进步。这是文明直到今天所遵循的规律。到目前为止,生产力就是由于这种阶级对抗的规律而发展起来的”。

The productive forces that develop amidst antagonism are also the force that ultimately eliminates antagonism. This is the dialectic of the development of civilization. On the one hand, only with the continuous development of productive forces can the material conditions and social revolutionary forces for abolishing the division of labor and private property emerge. “Without this development, there would only be poverty, the generalization of extreme poverty; and in conditions of extreme poverty, the struggle for necessities would have to begin anew, and all the old filthy things would revive.” On the other hand, only with the continuous development of productive forces can people’s universal intercourse be established, “the local individual is replaced by the world-historical, empirically universal individual,” so that “the single individual can escape the various national and local limitations and enter into actual connection with the production of the whole world (including spiritual production), and thus acquire the ability to utilize this global comprehensive production (the creation of people).” Ultimately, “in place of the old bourgeois society, with its classes and class antagonisms, there will be an association in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all.”

在对抗中发展起来的生产力又是最终消灭对抗的力量,这是文明发展的辩证法,一方面,只有随着生产力的持续发展,才能产生消灭分工和私有制的物质条件和社会革命力量,“如果没有这种发展,那就只会有贫穷、极端贫困的普遍化;而在极端贫困的情况下,必须重新开始争取必需品的斗争,全部陈腐污浊的东西又要死灰复燃。”另一方面,也只有随着生产力的持续发展,才能建立起人们的普遍交往,“地域性的个人为世界历史性的、经验上普遍的个人所代替”,“单个人才能摆脱种种民族局限和地域局限而同整个世界的生产(也同精神的生产)发生实际联系,才能获得利用全球的这种全面的生产(人们的创造)的能力。”最终,“代替那存在着阶级和阶级对立的资产阶级旧社会的,将是这样一个联合体,在那里,每个人的自由发展是一切人的自由发展的条件”。

III

三

Marx’s resolution of Rousseau’s “freedom paradox” has great significance in the history of thought. It completed Hegel’s inheritance and transformation of classical liberalism. Within the ideological system of historical materialism, it organically integrated the critical reflections on Enlightenment thought from different aspects by Rousseau and Hegel, truly embodying a transcendence of Enlightenment thought. It elevated human understanding of freedom to a new height, providing theoretical and practical guidance for us to analyze and resolve the dilemmas and challenges facing contemporary human freedom.

马克思对卢梭“自由悖论”的解决,具有重大的思想史意义,它完成了黑格尔对古典自由主义的继承和改造,在唯物史观的思想体系中,有机整合了卢梭和黑格尔等从不同方面对启蒙运动思想的批判性反思,真正体现了对启蒙运动思想的超越,将人类对自由的认识提升到新的高度,为我们分析和解决当代人类自由面临的困境和挑战提供了理论和实践的指南。

In the more than one hundred years since Marx’s death, the world has undergone complex and profound changes. The occurrence of two world wars and the Cold War, the rise of the new technological revolution and economic globalization, the birth of socialism and the formation of a long-term coexistence with capitalism—these have meant that, although the historical epoch has not fundamentally changed, it can be divided into yesterday and today. Since the end of the Cold War, and especially since the 21st century, the world has entered a period of changes unseen in a century. Changes in the world, the times, and history are unfolding in unprecedented ways. The international balance of power is undergoing profound adjustment, global problems are intensifying, the world has entered a new period of turbulence and transformation, and human society faces unprecedented challenges. Once again, the world stands at a crossroads of history.

马克思逝世以后的一百多年间,世界发生了复杂深刻的变化,两次世界大战和冷战的发生,新的科技革命和经济全球化的兴起,社会主义的诞生并与资本主义长期共存态势的形成,使得历史时代虽然没有根本变化但有了昨天和今天之分。冷战结束以后特别是21世纪以来,世界进入百年未有之大变局,世界之变、时代之变、历史之变以前所未有的方式展开,国际力量对比深刻调整,全球性问题加剧,世界进入新的动荡变革期,人类社会面临前所未有的挑战。世界又一次站在历史的十字路口。

Freedom remains an inevitable choice for humanity, but how to move toward freedom repeatedly becomes a problem. Fundamentally, it is still a matter of choosing a social system. Rousseau’s “freedom paradox” therefore retains its ever-renewed significance as a topic. Liberalism and Marxism, as the mainstream ideologies of the two major social systems—capitalism and socialism—continue to deepen their respective understandings of the problem within the common context of the modern development of world history.

自由仍然是人类必然的抉择,但是如何走向自由一再成为问题,根本还是社会制度的选择,卢梭的“自由悖论”因此保持着常新的课题意义。自由主义和马克思主义作为资本主义和社会主义两大社会制度的主流意识形态,在世界历史现代发展的共同境域中,各自继续深化着对问题的认识。

Over the past century, Western capitalism has experienced three long-cycle crises. In response to these crises, liberalism has undergone two theoretical adjustments. After the Great Depression crisis of the early 1930s, the laissez-faire economic theory and policies of classical liberalism were replaced by Keynes’s “revised” liberal theory and policies of state intervention in the economy. After the stagflation crisis of the 1970s, neoliberalism, which revived classical liberalism, replaced Keynesianism. These two theoretical adjustments focused on the old liberal concern of the relationship between the individual and the state. In the words of John Stuart Mill in *On Liberty*, it is “the nature and limits of the power which can be legitimately exercised by society over the individual.” After the French Revolution, classical liberalism, based on the principles of limited government and constitutionalism, successively proposed three distinctions: the distinction between modern liberty and ancient liberty (Constant), the distinction between liberty and democracy (Tocqueville), and the distinction between negative liberty and positive liberty (Berlin). The emphasis on the latter was considered likely to deviate from the true meaning of freedom, weakening, diluting, or even negating the basic stance of individualism, and moving toward the “tyranny of the majority” or totalitarianism. The questioning of Rousseau’s liberal thought is mainly based on these distinctions.

百年来,西方资本主义经济先后发生了三次长周期危机,为应对危机,自由主义进行了两次理论上的调整,20世纪30年代初的大萧条危机发生以后,古典自由主义自由放任的经济理论和政策被凯恩斯的“修正”的自由主义的国家干预经济的理论和政策所取代;20世纪70年代的滞胀危机发生以后,复兴古典自由主义的新自由主义又取代了凯恩斯主义。这两次理论上的调整,集中于个人与国家的关系这个自由主义关注的老问题,用约翰·密尔在《论自由》中的话讲,是“探讨社会所能合法施用于个人的权力的性质和限度”。法国大革命后,古典自由主义基于有限政府和宪政的原则,先后提出了三个区分:现代自由与古代自由的区分(贡斯当)、自由与民主的区分(托克维尔)、消极自由与积极自由的区分(伯林),对后者的强调被认为都有可能背离自由的真谛,弱化、淡化甚至否定个人主义的基本立场,走向“多数人暴政”或极权主义。对卢梭自由主义思想的质疑,主要就是基于这些区分。

Keynesianism was a continuation of the new liberalism (New Liberalism) that began with Mill in the mid-to-late 19th century and was developed by Oxford neo-Hegelianism. The rise of this new liberalism reflected the historical situation in British society at the time, where the responsibilities and functions of the state were gradually expanding and the regulatory and constraining role of law was becoming increasingly evident. It demanded an understanding of the relationship between the state and the individual from the perspective of organic unity, emphasizing that “the self is a social self,” and focusing on the government’s “visible hand” in macroeconomic regulation. In contrast, neoliberalism (Neo-Liberalism) demands a return to the theoretical principles of classical liberalism to resolve issues of freedom and equality in modern society. Among its influential strands are Hayek’s liberal economic thought and Rawls’s liberal political thought. Hayek resisted Keynesianism and opposed the Soviet planned economy model and welfare state programs. He argued that, due to the limitations of human reason and knowledge, only through market exchange and the price mechanism can resources be effectively allocated, achieving human prosperity and economic progress. Any attempt to construct an economic system for human society through an overall plan and design would ultimately lead to enormous economic disaster and backwardness. Therefore, “equality of general legal rules and general rules of conduct is the only kind of equality conducive to freedom,” while relying on the government to pursue social equality or distributive justice is a deviation from and reaction against freedom. Unlike Hayek, who emphasized equality in freedom, Rawls emphasized the freedom of equality, attempting to find a relatively just path of development under conditions of private property rights and social inequality. He proposed two principles of institutional justice: the principle of equal liberty, the principle of fair equality of opportunity, and the difference principle, requiring wealth distribution to tilt toward those in disadvantaged positions. Thus, he “provided a satisfactory intellectual framework for understanding the political debates surrounding the welfare state.”

凯恩斯主义是19世纪中后期从密尔开始提出、发展于牛津新黑格尔主义的新的自由主义(Newliberalism)的继续,这种新的自由主义的兴起,反映了当时英国社会中国家的责任和职能逐步扩展、法律的调节与制约作用愈来愈明显的历史情况,要求从有机体的统一上来理解国家与个人的关系,强调“自我乃是社会的自我”,注重政府“看得见的手”对经济过程的宏观调控。与此不同,新自由主义(NeoLiberalism)则要求回到古典自由主义的理论原则中来解决现代社会中的自由和平等问题,其中颇有影响的是哈耶克的自由主义经济学思想和罗尔斯的自由主义政治学思想。哈耶克抵制凯恩斯主义,反对苏联的计划经济模式和福利国家方案,认为由于人的理性和知识的有限,只有通过市场交换和价格机制才能有效地进行资源配置,实现人类社会的繁荣和经济进步,任何试图通过一个整体的计划和设计来建造人类社会的经济体制的努力,都会最终导致巨大的经济灾难和落后,因此,“一般性法律规则和一般性行为规则的平等,乃是有助于自由的唯一一种平等”,而依赖政府追求社会平等或分配正义等都是对自由的背离和反动。与哈耶克强调自由的平等不同,罗尔斯强调了平等的自由,试图在私有财产权和社会不平等存在的条件下,找到一条相对正义的发展路途,他提出制度正义的两个原则即平等自由的原则,机会公正平等的原则和差别原则,要求财富分配向那些处于不利地位的人倾斜。从而“为理解围绕福利国家进行的政治争论,提供了令人满意的智慧框架”。

Although these theoretical adjustments are quite divergent in some respects, they are essentially liberal “diagnoses” and “treatments” of the problems in the operation of the capitalist system. It cannot be denied that the “prescriptions” they offered once alleviated some contradictions in capitalist development, giving contemporary capitalism a series of new economic, political, and cultural characteristics, and also providing some new “ideological materials” for socialist reform. However, none of them have fundamentally found a way out of the crisis; they remain trapped in Rousseau’s “freedom paradox.” The fundamental reason is that these theoretical adjustments all aim to maintain and consolidate the capitalist system and are constrained by the logic of capital. As for capitalism, “all the progress of civilization, or in other words, every increase in the powers of social production, every increase in the powers of labor itself — such as the results of science, inventions, the division and combination of labor, the improvement of means of communication, the creation of the world market, machinery, etc. — does not enrich the worker, but only enriches capital; it thus only increases the power that dominates labor; it only increases the productive power of capital. For capital is the antithesis of the worker, and the progress of civilization only increases the power of the object that dominates labor.” [33]33 Karl Marx, “Fragment on Machines,” from the Grundrisse (1857–1858). Although today’s “developed” capitalist countries have long surpassed the total sum of all past eras in the production of material wealth, the “Occupy Wall Street” protests that swept across the United States after the 2008 global financial crisis and quickly spread to other countries and regions once again demonstrate that, in the absence of substantive equality, freedom cannot be realized.

这些理论上的调整尽管有些大相径庭,但实质上都是对资本主义制度运行中的问题进行的自由主义“诊断”和“治疗”,不可否认,其开出的“药方”曾经缓解了资本主义发展中的一些矛盾,使当代资本主义的发展具有了一系列新的经济、政治和文化特征,也为社会主义的改革提供了一些可资借鉴的新的“思想材料”,但是它们都没有从根本上找到摆脱危机的出路,仍然困于卢梭“自由悖论”,其根本原因在于,这些理论上的调整都以维护和巩固资本主义制度为主旨,受制于资本逻辑,而资本主义“文明的一切进步,或者换句话说,社会生产力的一切增长,也可以说劳动本身的生产力的一切增长,如科学、发明、劳动的分工和结合、交通工具的改善、世界市场的开辟、机器等等所产生的结果,都不会使工人致富,而只会使资本致富,也就是只会使支配劳动的权力更加增大;只会使资本的生产力增长。因为资本是工人的对立面,所以文明的进步只会增大支配劳动的客体的权力”。虽然当今资本主义“发达国家”在物质财富的生产上早就超过了过去时代的全部总和,但是2008年全球金融危机后席卷全美并迅速蔓延至其他国家和地区的“占领华尔街”抗议活动再一次表明,在缺失了实质平等的情况下,自由是不会到位的。

After Marx’s death, socialism was transformed from theory into a real system through practice. However, most of these new socialist countries were relatively backward economically and culturally, with a considerable gap from the future society Marx envisioned. In his later years, Marx briefly discussed the possibility that relatively backward Eastern countries and nations, under suitable internal and external conditions, could bypass the capitalist stage and leap over the “Caudine Forks” of the historical process to directly enter socialism. [34]34 “Caudine Forks” (Latin: Furculae Caudinae) refers to a narrow mountain pass in ancient Samnium (southern Italy) where the Romans suffered a humiliating defeat in 321 BCE. Marx used this metaphor to describe the possibility of backward societies bypassing the capitalist stage of development. However, he did not have time to conduct systematic analysis and research. For these countries, what socialism is and how to build it were new questions. Among them, how to eliminate poverty was of primary importance, because “poverty is not socialism; socialism means eliminating poverty.” [35]35 Deng Xiaoping, “Building a Socialism with a Specifically Chinese Character” (1984). Capitalism also has a demand for prosperity. The principled difference between socialism and capitalism on this issue is: is common prosperity necessary or not?

马克思逝世以后,社会主义从理论通过实践转化为现实的制度,但是,这些新的社会主义国家大都经济文化比较落后,与马克思设想的未来社会有较大的差距,马克思晚年曾经简要地论述了东方比较落后的国家和民族在内外条件具备的情况下,不经过资本主义阶段,跨越历史进程中的“卡夫丁峡谷”直接进入社会主义的可能性,但是没有来得及进行系统的分析和研究,对于这些国家而言,什么是社会主义,怎样建设社会主义是新的课题,其中,如何摆脱贫困具有首要的意义,因为“贫穷不是社会主义,社会主义要消灭贫穷”。资本主义也有富裕的要求,社会主义与资本主义在这个问题的原则分歧是,要不要共同富裕?

China has not experienced capitalism. The feudal society based on an agricultural civilization lasted for more than two thousand years. The pursuit of a moderately prosperous society (xiaokang shehui) with adequate food and clothing became the millennium-long dream of the Chinese nation. After the Opium War, [36]36 The Opium War (1839–1842) was a military conflict between the Qing Empire and Britain, triggered by China’s efforts to suppress the opium trade. It resulted in China’s defeat and the signing of the Treaty of Nanjing, the first of the “unequal treaties” that marked the beginning of China’s semi-colonial period. China fell into a semi-colonial and semi-feudal society, becoming impoverished and weak, generating hundreds of millions of impoverished people. “Live a good life!” became the most powerful slogan of the Communist Party of China in mobilizing the masses to make revolution.

中国没有经历过资本主义,以农耕文明为基础的封建社会延续了两千多年,追求温饱的小康社会,成为中华民族的千年梦想,鸦片战争以后,中国陷入半殖民地半封建社会,积贫积弱,生成了数亿贫困人口。过好日子!成为中国共产党动员人民群众闹革命最有力的口号。

After the founding of New China, to realize the aspirations of the people, in 1953, Mao Zedong, on behalf of the Party Central Committee, proposed the Party’s general line for the transition period, [37]37 The Party’s general line for the transition period (1953–1956) was a policy framework announced by Mao Zedong to achieve socialist industrialization and the socialist transformation of agriculture, handicrafts, and capitalist industry and commerce. which entailed two major tasks: first, to carry out industrialization; second, to transform private ownership and establish public ownership. The former aimed to solve China’s problem of being “poor and blank,” [38]38 “Poor and blank” (一穷二白) was a phrase used by Mao Zedong to describe China’s economic poverty and cultural backwardness after 1949, implying that this condition made it easier to “write the newest and most beautiful words” in building socialism. and the latter aimed to establish the institutional foundation for common prosperity. Mao Zedong pointed out: “Taking the capitalist road can also increase production, but it would take a long time and be a painful road.” [39]39 Mao Zedong, “On the Correct Handling of Contradictions Among the People” (1957). “Now we have adopted such a system, such a plan, that we can become richer and stronger year by year, and see ourselves richer and stronger year by year. And this wealth is common wealth, and this strength is common strength, in which everyone has a share.” [40]40 Mao Zedong, “Speech at the Supreme State Conference” (1955). In the 70 years of continuous struggle, the CPC has adhered to integrating the basic tenets of Marxism with China’s specific realities and the fine traditional Chinese culture, conforming to the general trend of world historical development. From “taking the Soviet Union as a mirror” [41]41 “Taking the Soviet Union as a mirror” (以苏为鉴) refers to Mao Zedong’s call in the mid-1950s to learn from the mistakes and shortcomings of the Soviet model of socialism, particularly after Khrushchev’s secret speech in 1956, and to find a Chinese path to socialist construction. to reform and opening up, it has taken the path of socialism with Chinese characteristics and successfully accomplished these two major tasks.

新中国成立以后,为了实现人民群众的愿望,1953年,毛泽东代表党中央提出了党在过渡时期总路线,要办两件大事,一是搞工业化,二是改造私有制建立公有制,前者是要解决中国的一穷二白问题,后者是要解决共同富裕的制度基础问题。毛泽东指出:“走资本主义道路,也可以增产,但时间要长,而且是痛苦的道路。”“现在我们实行这么一种制度,这么一种计划,是可以一年一年走向更富更强的,一年一年看到更富更强些。而这个富,是共同的富,这个强,是共同的强,大家都有份。”在70年的接续奋斗中,中国共产党坚持将马克思主义基本原理同中国具体实际和中华优秀传统文化相结合,顺应世界历史发展大趋势,从“以苏为鉴”到改革开放,走中国特色社会主义道路,办好了这两件大事。

On the issue of ownership, summarizing the experience and lessons of the “people’s commune movement,” [42]42 The people’s commune movement (1958–1984) was a campaign to collectivize rural life and production, merging agricultural cooperatives into large communes that managed farming, industry, militia, and local government. It was part of the Great Leap Forward and was later abandoned due to inefficiency and famine. the CPC moved from the one-sided pursuit of a single public ownership system characterized by “larger size and higher degree of public ownership” [43]43 “Larger size and higher degree of public ownership” (一大二公) was a slogan during the people’s commune movement, advocating for communes to be larger in scale and more collective in ownership, which led to excessive centralization and loss of individual incentives. to establishing a basic socialist economic system that includes public ownership as the mainstay with diverse forms of ownership developing together, distribution according to work as the mainstay with multiple forms of distribution coexisting, and a socialist market economy system. It proposed and unswervingly adhered to consolidating and developing the public sector of the economy, and unswervingly encouraged, supported, and guided the development of the non-public sector of the economy. This has greatly liberated and developed the productive forces, innovating Marx’s theory of ownership and economic development system for future society.

所有制的问题上,总结“人民公社化”的经验教训,从片面追求“一大二公”的单一公有制,到适应中国生产力多样性、不平衡发展状况,建立公有制为主体、多种所有制经济共同发展,按劳分配为主体、多种分配方式并存,社会主义市场经济体制等在内的社会主义基本经济制度,提出并坚持毫不动摇巩固和发展公有制经济,毫不动摇鼓励、支持、引导非公有制经济发展,极大地解放和发展了生产力,创新了马克思关于未来社会的所有制理论和经济发展体制的设想。

On the issue of industrialization, summarizing the experience and lessons of the “Great Leap Forward,” [44]44 The Great Leap Forward (1958–1962) was a campaign launched by Mao Zedong to rapidly industrialize China and collectivize agriculture, using mass mobilization and backyard steel furnaces. It resulted in severe economic disruption and a major famine. the CPC moved from the one-sided pursuit of a high-speed “catching up and surpassing” strategy [45]45 “Catching up and surpassing” (赶超) refers to the strategy during the Great Leap Forward of setting unrealistic production targets to overtake Britain in steel output and other industrial indicators within a short period. to comprehensive balance, overall consideration, and scientific development. Utilizing institutional advantages and latecomer advantages, it promoted the coordinated development of material civilization, political civilization, cultural-ethical progress, social civilization, and ecological civilization. It completed the industrialization process that took Western countries several hundred years in just a few decades, established the most complete modern industrial system in the world, became the world’s second-largest economy and the largest manufacturing country, won the largest battle against poverty in human history, historically resolved the problem of absolute poverty, created a new path of Chinese-path modernization, created a new form of human civilization, and innovated Marx’s theory of modernization and economic development path for future society.

在工业化的问题上,总结“大跃进”的经验教训,从片面追求高速度的“赶超”战略到综合平衡、统筹兼顾、科学发展,利用制度优势和后发优势,促进物质文明、政治文明、精神文明、社会文明、生态文明协调发展,用几十年时间走完了西方国家几百年走过的工业化路程,建立了全世界最完整的现代工业体系,成为世界第二大经济体、制造业第一大国,打赢了人类历史上规模最大的脱贫攻坚战,历史性地解决了绝对贫困问题,创造了中国式现代化新道路,创造了人类文明新形态,创新了马克思关于未来社会的现代化理论和经济发展道路设想。

Public ownership and common prosperity are Marx’s two most fundamental requirements for transcending capitalist civilization, the two most fundamental principles for resolving Rousseau’s “freedom paradox,” and also the two most fundamental points of divergence between Marxism and liberalism. The CPC has adhered to Marx’s thought, producing a great work on socialism with Chinese characteristics regarding what kind of public ownership to establish and how to advance common prosperity. This is an inheritance and development of Marx’s thought, and also a supplement and enrichment to Marx’s resolution of Rousseau’s “freedom paradox.”

公有制和共同富裕,是马克思对于超越资本主义文明的两个最基本要求,是解决卢梭“自由悖论”的两个最基本原则,也是马克思主义与自由主义的两个最基本分歧,中国共产党坚持马克思的思想,在建立什么样的公有制,如何推进共同富裕上作出了中国特色社会主义的大文章,是对马克思思想的继承和发展,也是对马克思解决卢梭“自由悖论”的补充和丰富。

At present, socialism with Chinese characteristics is in a New Era, and the principal contradiction in society has been transformed into the contradiction between the people's ever-growing needs for a better life and unbalanced and inadequate development. Common prosperity has acquired new connotations for the times. First, in terms of content, it has expanded from mainly resolving poverty in livelihood in the past to meeting the people's growing demands in such areas as democracy, the rule of law, fairness, justice, security, and the environment, making the people's sense of gain, happiness, and security more substantial, more assured, and more sustainable. Second, in terms of process, it has moved from mainly resolving backward production in the past to accelerating the development of new quality productive forces, promoting the deep integration of industrialization and informatization, taking the path of high-quality development through new industrialization, and laying a solid material foundation for the gradual realization of common prosperity in the comprehensive and coordinated advancement of the Five-Sphere Integrated Plan.

当前,中国特色社会主义处于新时代,社会主要矛盾已经转化为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,共同富裕具有了新的时代内涵,一是在内容上从过去主要解决生活贫困扩展到满足人民群众在民主、法治、公平、正义、安全、环境等方面日益增长的要求,使人民获得感、幸福感、安全感更加充实、更有保障、更可持续;二是在过程上从过去主要解决生产落后到加快发展新质生产力,促使工业化与信息化深度融合,走新型工业化的高质量发展道路,在全面协调推进五位一体建设中为逐步实现共同富裕奠定坚实的物质基础。

Xi Jinping has pointed out: "At present, the problem of global income inequality is prominent. In some countries, the gap between rich and poor is widening, the middle class is collapsing, leading to social tearing, political polarization, and the spread of populism—the lessons are very profound! Our country must resolutely prevent polarization between the rich and the poor, promote common prosperity, and achieve social harmony and stability." Indeed, after resolving the problem of absolute poverty, we still face the problem of relatively large gaps in urban-rural and regional development and in income distribution. The existence of this problem is, on the one hand, a legacy of history, and on the other hand, a result of the market economy. How to develop the productive forces by utilizing the market economy while avoiding the polarization that the market economy may bring, and how to handle the contradictory relationship between efficiency and fairness, is a worldwide problem. Capitalism cannot solve this problem; its development is built on the basis of polarization, and this is determined by its system. Socialism has the possibility of solving this problem; its essential characteristic is common prosperity, and this too is determined by its system. Moving from possibility to reality requires a series of internal and external conditions, one important issue being how to give play to and make good use of the role of capital in the operation of the socialist market economy.

习近平指出:“当前,全球收入不平等问题突出,一些国家贫富分化,中产阶层塌陷,导致社会撕裂、政治极化、民粹主义泛滥,教训十分深刻!我国必须坚决防止两极分化,促进共同富裕,实现社会和谐安定。”的确,解决了绝对贫困的问题以后,我们还面临城乡区域发展和收入分配差距仍然较大的问题,问题的存在,一方面是历史的遗留,另一方面是市场经济的结果。如何在利用市场经济发展生产力的同时避免市场经济可能带来的两极分化,处理好效率与公平的矛盾关系,是世界性的难题,资本主义不可能解决这个问题,它的发展就是建立在两极分化的基础上,这是制度使然,社会主义有可能解决这个问题,它的本质特征就是共同富裕,这也是制度使然。从可能性到现实性,需要具备一系列内外条件,其中一个重要问题是如何在社会主义市场经济的运行中发挥和利用好资本的作用。

In *Capital*, Marx profoundly analyzed the dual nature of capital: it is both the appropriation of the worker's surplus labor and the driving force of production. "One of the civilizing aspects of capital is that it extracts this surplus labor in a manner and under conditions that are more advantageous than earlier forms such as slavery and serfdom, more conducive to the development of the productive forces and to the development of social relations." In our country, capital is both an important factor of production in the socialist market economy and the value-existence form of various market entities, such as state capital, collective capital, private capital, foreign capital, and mixed capital. How to give full play to capital's important role as a link in driving the agglomeration and allocation of various factors of production and promoting the development of social productive forces, while at the same time regulating and constraining capital's profit-seeking nature, correctly handling the relationships among different forms of capital, distinguishing their natures, clarifying their positioning, and guiding the healthy development of all types of capital, is of great significance for advancing common prosperity. Over more than forty years of reform and opening up, we have accumulated valuable experience in this regard. However, to comprehensively and deeply understand and grasp capital under socialist conditions, we still need to excavate new materials, discover new problems, put forward new viewpoints, and construct new theories in the practice of comprehensively deepening reform and continuously improving the socialist market economy, using theoretical innovation to lead practical innovation. In the historical process of comprehensively advancing the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation through Chinese-path modernization, we provide a Chinese solution for humanity's exploration of a better social system on the road to freedom.

马克思在《资本论》中深刻地分析了资本的两重性:既是对工人剩余劳动的占有又是生产的动力,“资本的文明面之一是,它榨取这种剩余劳动的方式和条件,同以前的奴隶制、农奴制等形式相比,都更有利于生产力的发展,有利于社会关系的发展。”在我国,资本既是社会主义市场经济的重要生产要素,也是各类市场主体的价值存在形态如国有资本、集体资本、民营资本、外国资本、混合资本等,如何在充分发挥资本带动各类生产要素集聚配置的重要纽带作用,促进社会生产力发展的同时,规范和约束资本的逐利本性,正确处理不同形态资本之间的关系,区分性质,明确定位,引导各类资本健康发展,对于推进共同富裕意义重大。改革开放四十多年,我们已经在这方面积累了宝贵的经验,但是要全面深入的认识和把握社会主义条件下的资本,还需要在全面深化改革、不断完善社会主义市场经济的实践中去挖掘新材料、发现新问题、提出新观点、构建新理论,以理论创新引领实践创新,在以中国式现代化全面推进中华民族伟大复兴的历史进程中,为人类在走向自由的道路上“对更好社会制度的探索提供中国方案”。

Online editor: Paul

网络编辑：保罗