A Re-examination of Marx's Proposition on the Uneven Relationship and Its Cultural Implications

In the *Introduction to a Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy* (hereinafter referred to as the *Introduction*), Marx put forward the uneven relationship between the development of art and the development of material production: "the uneven relationship between the development of material production and, for example, that of art." Marx used two "by no means" to emphasize this uneven relationship: "In the case of the arts, it is well known that certain periods of their flowering are out of all proportion to the general development of society, hence also to the material foundation, the skeletal structure as it were, of its organization." Regarding the uneven relationship between the development of art and the development of material production, the academic community has not yet reached a relatively broad consensus. For example, some scholars hold that the uneven relationship between the development of art and the development of material production is "microscopic, partial, temporary, and accidental, while general balance and proportionality are macroscopic, holistic, long-term, and necessary," while other scholars hold that "the uneven development of material production and artistic production is necessary and absolute, while balance is accidental, relative, and temporary," and therefore believe that "'unevenness' is macroscopic unevenness, unevenness in the overall and general situation; unevenness is absolute and is the norm." The author believes that it is necessary to clarify and analyze the relevant controversies in the academic community. Examining the true meaning of Marx's proposition on the uneven relationship helps to grasp the objective laws of cultural production, thereby providing a reference basis for better undertaking the new cultural mission of the New Era.

马克思在《〈政治经济学批判〉导言》（以下简称《导言》）中提出了艺术发展与物质生产发展的不平衡关系：“物质生产的发展例如同艺术发展的不平衡关系。”马克思连用两个“决不是”来强调这种不平衡关系：“关于艺术，大家知道，它的一定的繁盛时期决不是同社会的一般发展成比例的，因而也决不是同仿佛是社会组织的骨骼的物质基础的一般发展成比例的。”关于艺术发展与物质生产发展的不平衡关系，学界还没有达成比较广泛的共识。例如，有学者认为艺术发展和物质生产发展的不平衡关系是“微观的、局部的、暂时的和偶然的，而大体平衡和成比例则是宏观的、整体的、长远的和必然的”，有学者则认为“物质生产与艺术生产发展不平衡是必然的、绝对的，平衡是偶然的、相对的、暂时的”，因此认为“‘不平衡’就是宏观不平衡，全局上总体上的不平衡；不平衡是绝对的，是常规”。笔者认为，有必要对学界的相关争议进行厘清和辨析。辨析马克思不平衡关系命题的真实意蕴，有助于把握文化生产的客观规律，从而为更好担负起新时代新的文化使命提供参考依据。

I. The Manifest Forms of the Uneven Relationship: Synchronic and Diachronic Unevenness

一、不平衡关系的表现形态：共时性与历时性的不平衡

In the most direct sense, the uneven relationship pointed out by Marx manifests as the unevenness between the high development of Greek art and epic poetry and the extreme backwardness of Greek material production. However, upon careful examination of this unevenness, it can be found that it can be investigated from two dimensions: one is synchronic unevenness, and the other is diachronic unevenness. Synchronic unevenness refers to the uneven relationship reflected in the comparison between the level of development of artistic production and the level of development of material production within the same era, or the uneven relationship reflected in the comparison with the level of development of artistic production in different countries. Synchronic unevenness points to the comparative relationship within the same era between artistic production and material production, and between artistic production and artistic production; it is the basic manifest form of the uneven relationship. Diachronic unevenness refers to the uneven relationship reflected in the comparison between the level of development of artistic production in an earlier era and the level of development of artistic production in a later era, as well as the uneven relationship reflected in the comparison between the level of development of artistic production in an earlier era and the level of development of material production in a later era. The diachronic uneven relationship is built on the basis of the synchronic uneven relationship, pointing to the comparative relationship between artistic production in an earlier era and artistic and material production in a later era; it is the extended manifestation of the uneven relationship. It can be said that without the synchronic uneven relationship, the diachronic uneven relationship would be out of the question; and the existence of the synchronic uneven relationship will inevitably give rise to the diachronic uneven relationship—this is an important aspect of the objective laws of artistic development. Below we illustrate this with the example of Greek art and epic poetry discussed by Marx.

在最直接的意义上，马克思指出的不平衡关系表现为希腊艺术史诗的高度发展与希腊物质生产水平的极端落后之间的不平衡。不过仔细辨析这里的不平衡，会发现不平衡可以从两个维度来考察：一是共时性的不平衡，二是历时性的不平衡。共时性的不平衡是指在同一时代的时间尺度上，艺术生产的发展水平与物质生产的发展水平相比较而体现的不平衡关系，或者与不同国度艺术生产的发展水平相比较而体现的不平衡关系。共时性不平衡关系指向的是同一时代内部的艺术生产与物质生产、艺术生产与艺术生产的比较关系，它是不平衡关系的基本表现形态。历时性的不平衡是指在不同时代中，较早时代艺术生产的发展水平与较晚时代艺术生产的发展水平相比较而体现的不平衡关系，以及较早时代艺术生产的发展水平与较晚时代物质生产的发展水平相比较而体现的不平衡关系。历时性不平衡关系建立在共时性不平衡关系的基础上，指向的是较早时代艺术生产与较晚时代艺术生产和物质生产的比较关系，它是不平衡关系的外延表现。可以说，没有共时性不平衡关系，历时性不平衡关系就无从谈起；而共时性不平衡关系的存在必然会引起历时性的不平衡关系，这是艺术发展的客观规律的重要方面。下面我们以马克思讨论的希腊艺术史诗为例予以说明。

Greek art and epic poetry are not only the source of Greek philosophy and culture, but also the inexhaustible treasure house and spiritual base of the entire Western world. For example, the Homeric epics, composed of the *Iliad* and the *Odyssey*, stand at the source of Western thought and culture, and with their majestic narrative momentum, brilliant structural arrangement, and eternal questioning that reaches directly into human nature, they radiate eternal intellectual charm and an unsurpassable classical aura to later generations. In this regard, the more Greek art and epic poetry move away from us with the gears of time, the more they manifest their outstanding and unique quality and style. First, the uneven relationship of Greek art and epic poetry spoken of by Marx refers to the extremely low level of ancient Greek material production. It is precisely on the basis of the backward state of Greek material production that the high development of Greek art and epic poetry appears so prominent and striking. Of course, it is also precisely by dwelling within the backward state of Greek material production that the high development of Greek art and epic poetry can be generated "in reverse"; otherwise, developed productive forces and their social relations would long ago have dissolved the soil in which Greek art and epic poetry were generated. As Marx pointed out: "The charm that their art exercises over us does not conflict with the undeveloped stage of society on which it grew. It is rather the product of this stage." The Greek "undeveloped stage of society" both generated the soil of Greek art and created the gap between the level of artistic development and the level of material development. Second, the uneven relationship refers to the level of development of ancient Greek art and epic poetry compared with other civilizational achievements of the same era. The Greek art and epic poetry mentioned by Marx roughly refer to the literary and artistic works of ancient Greek epic poetry, poetry, tragedy, and comedy between the 8th century BCE and the 3rd century BCE. Jaspers called this period the great breakthrough period of human civilization, namely the "Axial Age." [1]1 The "Axial Age" is a term coined by the German philosopher Karl Jaspers to describe the period from roughly 800 to 200 BCE, when independent intellectual and spiritual breakthroughs occurred in Greece, India, China, and the Near East. Although ancient Greek civilization, represented by art and epic poetry, together with ancient Indian civilization and Chinese civilization, constituted the axis of human civilization, compared with the level of civilization in the vast majority of regions of the world at the same time, ancient Greek civilization was an undisputed peak of civilization. In this regard, Greek art and epic poetry manifest a prominent synchronic uneven characteristic.

希腊艺术史诗不仅是希腊哲学与文化的源泉，而且是整个西方世界取之不尽、用之不竭的思想宝库和精神基地。例如，由《伊利亚特》和《奥德赛》构成的荷马史诗，屹立于西方思想文化的源头处，凭借其大气磅礴的叙事气势、精彩绝伦的篇章布局和直抵人性的永恒叩问而对后世的人们散发着永恒的思想魅力和难以超越的经典气象。就此而言，希腊艺术史诗越是伴随时间的演进齿轮而远离我们，就越是体现出其卓尔不群、独树一帜的品质风格。首先，马克思所言的希腊艺术史诗的不平衡关系是就古希腊物质生产的极端低下水平而言的。正是基于希腊物质生产的落后状况，希腊艺术史诗的高度发达才会显得那样突出、显著。当然，也正是存身于希腊物质生产的落后状况，希腊艺术史诗的高度发达才能“反向地”生成出来，否则发达的生产力及其社会关系早已把希腊艺术史诗得以生成的土壤消解掉。正如马克思所指出的：“它们的艺术对我们所产生的魅力，同这种艺术在其中生长的那个不发达的社会阶段并不矛盾。这种艺术倒是这个社会阶段的结果。”希腊“不发达的社会阶段”既生成了希腊艺术的土壤，又造就了艺术发展水平与物质发展水平之间的落差。其次，不平衡关系是就古希腊艺术史诗与同时代其他文明成果的发展水平而言的。马克思所提到的希腊艺术史诗大致是指公元前8世纪至公元前3世纪之间的古希腊史诗、诗歌、悲剧、喜剧等文学艺术作品，雅斯贝尔斯将这段时期称为人类文明的重大突破时期，即“轴心时代”。以艺术史诗为代表的古希腊文明尽管和古印度文明、中国文明共同构成了人类文明的轴心，但是相比于同时代世界绝大多数地区的文明水平，古希腊文明是当之无愧的文明高峰。就此而言，希 腊艺术史诗表现出突出的共时性不平衡特征。

Based on the high level of development within the synchronic uneven relationship, Greek art and epic poetry manifest a diachronic uneven relationship over the long span of human history. The diachronic uneven relationship of Greek art and epic poetry does not mean that their emergence occupied the sole commanding height of human civilization, but rather that Greek art and epic poetry, by virtue of their identity as the source of civilization, naturally possess the character of referring to the original beginning and concerning the beginning and end of all things, and, by virtue of their identity as classics of civilization, naturally possess the meaning of wisdom and originality, as well as the aura of being eternal once born. Therefore, the source quality and exemplary identity of Greek art and epic poetry mean that even when facing the numerous classic works of later generations in the Western world, they have never faded or fallen behind. Especially in contrast with the extremely low level of material production, the height, breadth, and depth reached by Greek art and epic poetry in their spiritual attributes cannot be replaced by anything else. For example, the Homeric epics, through the depiction of Achilles, who generously faces death for immortal honor, and Odysseus, who affirms life with wisdom and perseverance, profoundly reveal the Greek heroes' way of understanding honor and life and death, nature and custom, thereby providing endless material and sources for later generations to explore the eternal questions of humanity and divinity, existence and death, the finite and the infinite. The Greek tragedians Aeschylus, with the archaic gravity of his works, Sophocles, with the twists and reversals of his works, and Euripides, with the humanistic contemplation of his works, together constructed the unique position of Greek tragedy in the entire ancient world, namely that tragedy (and comedy) was a unique product contributed by the Greeks to the whole world, which never appeared in other civilizations of the same era, and it was only more than a thousand years after ancient Greece that later civilizations produced the art form of drama, thereby highlighting the超前性 [2]2 The Chinese term 超前性 (chāoqián xìng) here denotes the quality of being ahead of its time or anticipatory, indicating that Greek art and epic poetry preceded later artistic production in a pioneering manner., pioneering nature, and exemplary character of Greek art and epic poetry compared with later artistic production—this is the diachronic dimension of Marx's proposition on the uneven relationship of artistic production.

基于共时性不平衡关系中的高度发展水平，希腊艺术史诗在人类历史的长时段上表现出了历时性的不平衡关系。希腊艺术史诗的历时性不平衡关系并非意味着它的出场占据了人类文明唯一的制高点，而是说希腊艺术史诗既因其文明源头的身份天然地具有指涉原始发端、关乎万物始终的品格，又因其文明经典的身份自然地具备了智慧和原创的意味以及一经诞生便成永恒的气象。因此，希腊艺术史诗的源头品质与典范身份使其即使面对西方世界后世的众多经典作品，也丝毫不曾褪色与落伍。尤其是对照极低水平的物质生产背景，希腊艺术史诗在其精神属性上达到的高度、宽度与深度，是任何其他事物无法取代的。例如，荷马史诗通过对为不朽荣誉而慷慨赴死的阿喀琉斯和以智慧坚韧肯定生命的奥德修斯这两个人物的描绘，深刻地揭示了希腊英雄对荣誉与生死、自然与习俗的理解方式，从而为后人探索人性与神性、生存与死亡、有限与无限的永恒问题提供了无尽的素材与源泉。希腊悲剧作家埃斯库罗斯以其作品的古朴厚重、索福克勒斯以其作品的曲折反转、欧里庇得斯以其作品的人性观照共同构筑了希腊悲剧在整个古代世界的独一无二的地位，即悲剧（和喜剧）是希腊人贡献给全世界的独特产物，这在同时代其他文明中是从未出现的，而后世文明晚于古希腊上千年之后才出现戏剧这一艺术形式，由此就凸显出希腊艺术史诗相比于后世艺术生产的超前性、开创性和典范性，这是马克思关于艺术生产不平衡关系的历时性维度。

In short, when deeply investigating the objective laws of artistic development, we can find that the uneven relationship of artistic production does not exist on a single dimension, but is simultaneously embodied in the two dimensions of synchronicity and diachronicity; therefore, these two dimensions constitute the manifest forms of Marx's proposition on the uneven relationship.

总之，当深入考察艺术发展的客观规律时，我们能够发现艺术生产的不平衡关系并非在同一维度上，而是同时体现在共时性和历时性这两个维度上，因此这两个维度构成了马克思不平衡关系命题的表现形态。

II. The Inner Tension of the Uneven Relationship: Free Spiritual Production within Antagonistic Relations

二、不平衡关系的内在张力：敌对关系中的自由精神生产

Closely connected to the proposition on imbalance in the *Introduction* is another famous proposition Marx put forward in the *Economic Manuscripts of 1861–1863* concerning the relationship between artistic production and material production, namely the proposition on antagonism: “Capitalist production is hostile to certain branches of spiritual production, such as art and poetry.” If the synchronic and diachronic imbalances characterize the manifest forms of Marx’s proposition on imbalance, then the proposition on antagonism reveals, from the dimension of intrinsic nature, the tense relationship between commodity-based artistic production and free artistic production. This can be said to be the objective embodiment of imbalance within the sphere of artistic production, an imbalance that is the intrinsic attribute of artistic production as a form of spiritual production.

与《导言》中不平衡关系命题紧密相连的是马克思在《1861—1863年经济学手稿》中提出的关于艺术生产与物质生产关系的另一个著名命题，即敌对关系命题：“资本主义生产就同某些精神生产部门如艺术和诗歌相敌对。”如果说共时性和历时性的不平衡表征了马克思不平衡关系命题的表现形态，那么敌对关系命题则从内在性质的维度揭示出商品性艺术生产与自由艺术生产的紧张关系，这可以说是不平衡关系在艺术生产部门内部的客观体现，是艺术生产这一精神生产形式之内在属性的不平衡关系。

Marx pointed out in the *Introduction*: “When art production, as art production, once comes into being, it can no longer be created in the classical form that was epoch-making in world history.” The first “art production” refers to artistic production as pure art itself, bearing the qualities of non-utilitarianism, creativity, and self-sufficiency; the second “art production” refers to artistic production incorporated into commodity production and the logic of capital, at which point artistic production acquires strongly commodity-like, utilitarian, and profit-seeking qualities. Marx’s assertion signifies the conflict between free artistic production and commodity-based artistic production, namely that once free artistic production is brought onto the track of commodity production and the logic of capital, it loses its original artistic aesthetics and historical effect. However, Marx’s assertion is somewhat at odds with the development of art in the modern West. For example, since the Renaissance, numerous works have emerged that rival Greek epic art; taking only the Germany in which Marx himself lived, there are Lessing’s dramas and aesthetics, Goethe’s novels and dramas, Schiller’s tragedies and poetry, and many other works worthy of inclusion among the classics of human literature. Among the poets Marx loved most was Goethe. These classic works were, without exception, born in the material production process of capitalist production, which is commodity-like and utilitarian. How, then, should one explain the generation of German classic works within capitalist production? This requires a shift in interpretive approach, namely that the conflict in the imbalance between artistic production and material production can be understood as the transcendence of free artistic production over capitalist production, and this transcendence in essence becomes the internal conflict and sublation of imbalance within artistic production. If the Greek art to which Marx pointed could not be generated from the developed productive forces and social relations represented by “spinning-jennies, railways, locomotives, and the telegraph,” and thus became a manifestation of imbalance, then the generation of numerous classic works in the capitalist era expresses the precious quality of being “hostile” to capitalism, transcending capitalism, and pointing toward the eternal in human society, thereby characterizing the tension and transcendence of the intrinsic attributes within imbalance. In this regard, the proposition on antagonism becomes an important component of Marx’s proposition on imbalance.

马克思在《导言》中指出：“当艺术生产一旦作为艺术生产出现，它们就再不能以那种在世界史上划时代的、古典的形式创造出来。”第一个“艺术生产”是指作为纯粹艺术自身的艺术生产，带有无功利性、创造性和自足性的品质，第二个“艺术生产”是指被纳入商品生产和资本逻辑中的艺术生产，此时的艺术生产具有强烈的商品性、功利性和逐利性的品质。马克思的这一论断意指自由艺术生产与商品性艺术生产之间的冲突性，即当自由艺术生产一旦被纳入商品生产和资本逻辑的轨道上，那么自由艺术生产就会失去其原有的艺术审美及其历史效果。不过，马克思的这一论断与西方近现代以来的艺术发展存在一些龃龉之处，例如西方文艺复兴以来诞生了众多足以与希腊艺术史诗相媲美的作品，仅以马克思所身处的德意志而论，就有莱辛的戏剧和美学、歌德的小说与戏剧、席勒的悲剧与诗歌等足以跻身人类文学经典之列的众多作品。马克思最喜爱的诗人就包括歌德。这些经典作品无一例外地诞生于资本主义生产这一商品性、功利性的物质生产过程中，那么究竟该如何解释德意志经典作品在资本主义生产中的生成呢？这就需要解释思路的转变，即艺术生产与物质生产不平衡关系中的冲突，可以理解为自由艺术生产对于资本主义生产的超越，这种超越在实质上成为不平衡关系在艺术生产中的内在冲突与扬弃。如果说马克思所指认的希腊艺术无法生成于“走锭精纺机、铁道、机车和电报”所表征的发达生产力及其社会关系，从而成为不平衡关系的一种表现的话，那么众多经典作品于资本主义时代的生成，则表现出“敌对”资本主义、超越资本主义、指向人类社会之永恒的可贵品质，从而表征不平衡关系中的内在属性的张力与超越。就此而言，敌对关系命题成为马克思不平衡关系命题的重要组成部分。

With respect to spiritual production in the capitalist era, Marx divided it into two categories according to its relationship with capitalist production: one is the “ideological component” serving the ruling class, and the other is “free spiritual production,” and “free spiritual production” is precisely the form of artistic production that is hostile to capitalist production. “Because Storch does not examine material production itself historically, he treats material production as the production of material wealth in general, rather than as a definite, historically developed and specific form of this production, he therefore abstracts away the basis on which he stands, and only on this basis is it possible to understand both the ideological component of the ruling class and the free spiritual production of this definite social formation.” The essential characteristic of “free spiritual production” is the realization of spiritual production’s transcendence toward universality, and its fundamental function is to pursue humanity’s eternal values and realize humanity’s universal interests through expressions bearing transcendent significance. In the authentic form of “free spiritual production” as it is, it does not serve the capitalist but serves the broader universal interests that transcend the particular interests of the bourgeoisie. Because of its transcendent orientation, “free spiritual production” is intolerable to the bourgeoisie, and thus manifests an antagonistic relationship with capitalist production.

对于资本主义时代的精神生产，马克思按照其与资本主义生产的关系将其分为两类：一类是服务于统治阶级的“意识形态组成部分”，另一类是“自由的精神生产”，而“自由的精神生产”正是与资本主义生产相敌对的艺术生产的表现形式。“因为施托尔希不是历史地考察物质生产本身，他把物质生产当作一般的物质财富的生产来考察，而不是当作这种生产的一定的、历史地发展的和特殊的形式来考察，所以他就抽去了自己立足的基础，而只有在这种基础上，才能够既理解统治阶级的意识形态组成部分，也理解这种一定社会形态的自由的精神生产。”“自由的精神生产”的本质特征是精神生产向着普遍性的超越性实现，根本功能是以具有超越性意义的表达追求人类的永恒价值、实现人类的普遍利益。在“自由的精神生产”如其所是的本真形态中，它们并不为资本家服务，而是服务于超越资产阶级之特殊利益的更为广阔的普遍利益，“自由的精神生产”因其超越性指向而为资产阶级所不容，由此表现出与资本主义生产的敌对关系。

Specifically, the antagonism within the imbalance, that is, the transcendence of free spiritual production, is manifested in the following aspects.

具体来说，不平衡关系中的敌对关系，亦即自由精神生产的超越性体现在如下方面。

First, compared with the capital-nature of commodity-based artistic production, free spiritual production possesses autonomy. Commodity-based artistic production follows the law of value and submits to the logic of capital, which means that the spiritual attributes of artistic production can appear only insofar as they help realize the valorization of capital, and also means that the spiritual attributes of artistic production are subordinated to the scope demarcated by the logic of capital. In Marx’s words, commodity-based artistic production is in essence a kind of “productive labor”: “The same singer, employed by the theater owner, who lets her sing in order to make money, is a productive worker, because she directly produces capital. A teacher who gives lessons to others is not a productive worker. But if a teacher is hired into an institute together with other wage laborers, and uses his labor to make the money of the institute owner, who traffics in knowledge, valorize itself, he is a productive worker.” The so-called “productive labor” refers to labor that both produces the material determination of the commodity and creates the formal determination of surplus value; in particular, the creation of surplus value compels artistic production to submit to the logic of capital, an economic law external to artistic autonomy. Therefore, the supreme principle of commodity-based artistic production is the principle of the logic of capital, not the principle of art for art’s sake. By contrast, free spiritual production follows the laws of art and submits to the creator’s own spiritual world and its principles, which means that free spiritual production need only point toward the creator’s own spiritual pursuits and value orientations, without needing to satisfy the external world and its demands, including the logic of capital. Thus, free spiritual production is in a position to realize all possibilities consistent with artistic autonomy. As Marx said: “Milton, who wrote *Paradise Lost*, was a non-productive worker. In contrast, the writer who provides factory-like labor for a bookseller is a productive worker. Milton produced *Paradise Lost* as the silkworm produces silk, as the expression of his own nature.” If Milton’s supreme principle had been to satisfy the economic demands of the logic of capital, then *Paradise Lost* would likely have lost the depth of its content and been reduced to a vulgar work catering to the preferences of the petty bourgeoisie. This is an important manifestation of capitalist production’s “hostility” to free spiritual production.

一是相较于商品性艺术生产的资本性，自由精神生产具有自律性。商品性艺术生产遵循价值规律，服从资本逻辑，这使得艺术生产中的精神属性只有在有助于实现资本增殖的情况下才能呈现出来，也使得艺术生产的精神属性屈从于资本逻辑所划定的范围。用马克思的话来说，商品性艺术生产实质上是一种“生产劳动”，“同一个歌女，被剧院老板雇用，老板为了赚钱而让她去唱歌，她就是生产劳动者，因为她直接生产资本。给别人上课的教师不是生产劳动者。但是，如果一个教师同其他人一起作为雇佣劳动者被聘入一个学院，用自己的劳动来使贩卖知识的学院老板的货币增殖价值，他就是生产劳动者”。所谓的“生产劳动”是指既生产出商品这一物质规定性，又创造出剩余价值这一形式规定性的劳动，尤其是创造剩余价值这一点，促使艺术生产必须服从资本逻辑这一外在于艺术自律的经济规律，因此商品性艺术生产的至高原则是资本逻辑的原则，而不是艺术至上的原则。对比而言，自由精神生产遵循艺术规律，服从创作者自身的精神世界及其原则，这使得自由精神生产只需要指向创作者自身的精神追求和价值取向，而不需要去满足包括资本逻辑在内的外在世界及其要求。因此，自由精神生产有条件去实现符合艺术自律的所有可能。正像马克思所言：“弥尔顿创作《失乐园》，他是非生产劳动者。相反，为书商提供工厂式劳动的作家，则是生产劳动者。弥尔顿生产《失乐园》，像蚕生产丝一样，是他天性的表现。”如果弥尔顿的至高原则是满足资本逻辑的经济要求，那么《失乐园》很可能会失去内容意蕴的深度而降低为满足市民偏好的庸俗作品，这是资本主义生产“敌视”自由精神生产的重要表现。

Second, compared with the scale-oriented nature of commodity-based artistic production, free intellectual production possesses uniqueness. Because commodity-based artistic production follows the logic of capital and tracks market recognition, it inevitably pursues expansion, increment, and scale in quantity. This leads commodity-based artistic production to always cater to or stimulate consumers’ purchasing desires, taking the consumption of artistic commodities as the ultimate measure of its own reproduction. Marx points out: “For a product becomes a real product only through consumption, e.g., a garment becomes a really a garment only through the act of being worn; a house where no one lives is in fact not a real house.” The production Marx discusses here is production in a commodity economy, and thus naturally includes commodity-based artistic production oriented toward the realization of commodity value. If it does not transform itself into the value form and become a commodity in consumers’ hands, then commodity-based artistic production cannot exist. This applies equally to those works that were originally free intellectual production but, after transformation, appear in the world in commodity form. Marx once used the example of the ancient Roman poet Propertius’s *Elegies* being exchanged for snuff: “1 volume of Propertius’s elegies and 8 ounces of snuff may be the same exchange value, although the use values of tobacco and elegies differ greatly. … Commodities always equal one another in certain quantities, replace one another in exchange, and serve as equivalents; hence, despite their variegated appearances, they represent the same unity.” The “unity” here is precisely the identical money form behind the natural forms of existence of different commodities. By contrast, free intellectual production never pursues the increment of market scale or the maximization of monetary effects. Rather, the creator produces works that follow only the attributes of the human spirit, in accordance with the “laws of beauty.” As for the market effects and economic benefits of the works, these are not taken into the creator’s consideration, or at least do not become the creator’s primary consideration. Free intellectual production is the objectification of the creator’s essential powers and free, conscious creation, encompassing the creator’s own life course, emotional concepts, thought consciousness, and cultivation and taste. In other words, when a writer writes down a certain sentence of a classic work, or a musician composes a certain note of a classic piece, these sentences or notes are connected not only with the other sentences or notes of the work, but also with the creator’s life course and life experience, and even enter into a one-to-one relation of association solely with the creator himself, so that they cannot be replaced by anyone else. This is the uniqueness and irreplaceability of free intellectual production. Once any work of free intellectual production is created, it possesses a historical situation and spiritual value that cannot be replaced or replicated by other works, including the creator’s own other works: “With each new historical epoch, some particular type of artistic creation disappears: society continually casts off its aesthetic garments. Greek art, Renaissance painting, Shakespearean drama—all these particular forms of artistic flourishing cannot be revived.” In free intellectual production, the creator pursues the momentary manifestation of life force at the present instant. If it were replaced by other situations the creator had experienced, it would be equally difficult to evoke the creator’s motives and emotions, thought and inspiration. This is the fusion and penetration, in a complex and perfect manner, of the many spiritual factors of the creator within the work. Such moments are often encountered only by chance and cannot be sought, and still less can they be guided by economic ends, thereby forming a relation “hostile” to commodity-based artistic production.

二是相比于商品性艺术生产的规模性，自由精神生产具有唯一性。由于商品性艺术生产遵从资本逻辑、跟随市场认同，因此必然在数量上追求扩张、增量和规模化，这就导致商品性艺术生产总是要迎合或激发消费者的购买欲望，并以对艺术商品的消费作为自身再生产的终极尺度。马克思指出：“因为产品只是在消费中才成为现实的产品，例如，一件衣服由于穿的行为才现实地成为衣服；一间房屋无人居住，事实上就不成其为现实的房屋。”马克思在这里谈论的生产是商品经济中的生产，因此就自然包括了以商品价值的实现为指向的商品性艺术生产。如果不将自身转化为价值形式成为消费者手中的商品，那么商品性艺术生产就无法存在，这对于原本是自由精神生产但经过转化之后以商品形式呈现于世的那些作品而言同样如此。马克思曾以古罗马诗人普罗佩尔提乌斯的《哀歌集》和鼻烟相交换来举例：“1卷普罗佩尔提乌斯诗歌集和8盎司鼻烟可以是同一交换价值，虽然烟草和哀歌的使用价值大不相同。……商品总以一定的数量彼此相等，在交换时相互替代，当作等价物，因而尽管它们的样子形形色色，却代表着同一个统一物。”这里的“统一物”正是不同商品自然存在形式背后的同一的货币形式。与之不同的是，自由精神生产从不追求市场规模的增量化和货币效应的极大化，而是创作者按照“美的规律”来创造出只是遵从人类精神属性的作品，至于作品的市场效应与经济效益则不会被纳入创作者的考虑范围，至少不会成为创作者的主要考虑因素。自由精神生产是创作者本质力量的对象化和自由自觉的创造，包含创作者自己的生命历程、情感观念、思想意识和修养品位。换言之，当作家写下经典著作的某句话、音乐家谱写出经典乐曲的某个音符时，这些语句或音符不仅和作品的其他语句或音符关联，而且和创作者的生活历程与人生体验联系，甚至仅仅和创作者自身发生一对一的关联关系，从而无法被其他人代替，这就是自由精神生产的独一无二性和无可替代性。任何自由精神生产的作品一旦被创作出来，就具有其他作品包括创作者自己的其他作品所不能替代和复制的历史情境和精神价值：“每进入一个新的历史时代，随之都有某个艺术创作的特殊类型消失：社会不断抛弃着自己的审美服饰。希腊艺术，文艺复兴的绘画，莎士比亚的戏剧——所有这些艺术繁荣的特殊形式，都是不能复兴的。”在自由精神生产中，创作者追求的是生命力量在当下时刻的瞬时展现，如果换作创作者经历的其他情境，那么同样很难唤起创作者的动机与情感、思维与灵感，这是创作者精神上的众多因素以某种复杂而完美的方式于作品中的融会贯通，它们往往可遇而不可求，更不可能被经济目的引导，从而形成与商品性艺术生产“敌对”的关系。

Third, compared with the popular character of commodity-based artistic production, free intellectual production possesses thoughtfulness. Popular character does not mean that commodity-based artistic production descends into lowbrow taste, infecting people with negative qualities such as decadence, violence, or aggression, but rather that commodity-based artistic production often accommodates extremely disparate work forms, thought content understood at a glance, and artistic styles easy to accept. From the perspective of the spiritual level it stimulates in consumers, commodity-based artistic production attends both to people’s superficial sensory pleasure and relaxation and to people’s deep spiritual shock and sudden enlightenment. In the all-encompassing spiritual space constructed by commodity-based artistic production, people of different groups can all evoke their own cultural resonance and thereby experience a rich variety of distinct worlds of meaning. For example, *Harry Potter* can be both a best-selling novel sweeping the world and a grand-scale fantasy film; it can be designed as an interactive computer game and also composed into a beautiful original soundtrack. When this work expressing the same theme adopts different forms of presentation, the spiritual feelings it brings to people are different, but what is certain is that different people can all obtain spiritual feelings. In this respect, it displays an adaptive relation of universality to people’s spiritual life. In contrast to the popular character of commodity-based artistic production, free intellectual production exhibits such features as profound themes, deep thought, rich implication, and far-reaching philosophy, which ordinary people find difficult to grasp; these features can be collectively termed “thoughtfulness.” Reading works of free intellectual production is more like a process of tea tasting that requires continuous savoring and yields new discoveries only through careful tasting; they are works that yield new insights with each reading, and each reading or viewing tends to prompt the reader or viewer to feel that “the work is pointing to one’s own present moment.” This is precisely the truth of the saying “there are a thousand Hamlets in a thousand readers’ eyes.” Marx gives the highest praise to Greek art and epic poetry: “Why should they still give us artistic pleasure, and in certain respects count as a norm and an unattainable model?” Marx’s praise contains an important thought, namely, that Greek art and epic poetry, far removed from modern society, still give us moderns an irreplaceable “artistic pleasure”; as “a norm and an unattainable model,” they provide modern people with eternal value on the spiritual level, just as people in the twenty-first century, reading the seventeenth-century work *Hamlet*, can still find their own reflection in it. The thoughtfulness of free intellectual production does not exclude its mass character or universality, but its thoughtfulness occurs on a relatively profound level oriented toward eternity, rather than on the level of what is readily available and easily obtained, as manifested in commodity-based artistic production. In short, the relation between commodity-based artistic production and people is mostly contemporaneous, direct, and universally present in the moment, whereas the relation between free intellectual production and people is mostly trans-epochal, mediated by thought, and spanning time and space. This is an important content of the “hostile” relation between free intellectual production and capitalist production.

三是相较于商品性艺术生产的通俗性，自由精神生产具有思想性。通俗性并不是指商品性艺术生产流于低级趣味，使人们感染颓废、暴力、戾气等负面品质，而是指商品性艺术生产往往包容极为迥异的作品形式、一看就懂的思想内容和易于接受的艺术风格。从激发消费者的精神层次来看，商品性艺术生产既会关注人们表层的感官愉悦、心情放松，也会关注人们深层的心灵震撼、醍醐灌顶。在商品性艺术生产构造的包罗万象的精神空间中，不同群体的人们都能够唤起主体自身的文化波动，从而体验到各种丰富多彩和迥然不同的意义世界。例如《哈利·波特》既可以是风靡世界的畅销小说，也可以是规模宏大的魔幻电影；既可以被设计成互动体验的电脑游戏，也可以被谱成美妙动听的原声大碟。当这部表达了同一主题的作品采取了不同表现形式时，它带给人们的精神感受虽然是不同的，但可以肯定的是，不同的人都可以得到精神感受，就此而言，它对人们的精神生活也就表现出了普适性的适应关系。与商品性艺术生产的通俗性相对照，自由精神生产则表现出主题深邃、思想深刻、意蕴深沉、哲理深远等诸多普通人不易把握的特征，这些特征可以统称为“思想性”。阅读自由精神生产的作品更像是需要不断品尝并通过细心品尝才能带来新发现的品茗过程，它们是常读常新的，而每一次的阅读和观看往往都会促使阅读者、观看者产生“作品正指向自己的当下时刻”的感觉，这正是“一千个读者就有一千个哈姆莱特”的道理所在。马克思给予希腊艺术史诗以极高的赞美：“它们何以仍然能够给我们以艺术享受，而且就某方面说还是一种规范和高不可及的范本。”马克思的赞美蕴含着一种重要思想，即远离现代社会的希腊艺术史诗仍然给我们这些现代人以不可取代的“艺术享受”；它们作为“规范和高不可及的范本”，提供给现代人的是精神层面上的永恒价值，这就像21世纪的人们阅读17世纪的作品《哈姆莱特》时，仍然能够找到自己的影子那样。自由精神生产的思想性并不排斥其大众性、普适性，但其思想性的发生是在比较深刻、指向永恒的层面上的，而不是像商品性艺术生产所表现的俯拾即是、唾手可得的层面上的。总之，商品性艺术生产与人们的关系大多是同时代、直接发生、当下普遍的，而自由精神生产与人们的关系则大多是历时代、以思想为中介、跨越时空的，这是自由精神生产与资本主义生产“敌对”关系的重要内容。

It should be noted that although the expressive features of commodity-based artistic production and free spiritual production differ markedly, at the level of the material and social attributes of artistic and spiritual production, free spiritual production is not, as a whole, external to the process of commodity-based artistic production, nor is it isolated from the “ideological component”; that is, the autonomy of free spiritual production contains within itself the dominant principles or heteronomy of the society of its own time, and thus the autonomy of free spiritual production exhibits historical limits. Free spiritual production under the conditions of capitalist production often does not possess sharply demarcated, either-or characteristics—that is, it is not the case that one portion of artistic production belongs to “free spiritual production” while another portion belongs to commodity-based artistic production or the “ideological component.” Rather, purely free spiritual production often exists within the process of commodity-based artistic production, and obtains from the capitalist mode of production and the “ideological component” the necessary means of production and rich spiritual nourishment. Marx once asked with feeling: “Is the view of nature and of social relations on which the Greek imagination and hence Greek [art] is based possible in the age of self-acting mules, railways, locomotives and electric telegraphs? Where does Vulcan come in as against Roberts & Co.? Jupiter, as against the lightning-rod? Hermes, as against the Crédit Mobilier?”[9]9 Karl Marx, *Grundrisse* (1857–1858), in the section on the uneven development of material production and art; the passage cites Greek mythology’s gods (Vulcan, Jupiter, Hermes) to contrast them with modern capitalist institutions and technology. Although this passage emphasizes the mutual exclusivity and non-coexistence of the production of Greek art and epic poetry with the capitalist mode of production and social relations, what it contains as a universal objective fact is this: the free spiritual production of a particular era always draws means and nourishment from various resources of the contemporary era, such as the material mode of production, the system of social relations, and the forms of social development. For free spiritual production in the capitalist era, if it lacked the diffuse permeation of bourgeois ideology throughout society, and lacked the foundation of the commodity-based production process dominated by the bourgeoisie, then the process of free spiritual production would lose the soil for forming its inner tension and the root of shaping its profound contradictions. As Adorno put it: “The more artworks strive to rid themselves of external purposes, the more they are governed by the self-imposed principles constituting the process of production. In this way artworks reflect and internalize society’s domination.” This is the inner limit of the autonomy of free spiritual production, revealing the complex facets of free spiritual production in the capitalist era.

需要注意的是，虽然商品性艺术生产和自由精神生产的表现特征迥然不同，但是在艺术生产、精神生产的物质属性与社会属性层面上，自由精神生产并不在整体上外在于商品性艺术生产过程，也不孤立于“意识形态组成部分”，即自由精神生产的自律性内含着同时代社会的支配性原则或他律性，因而自由精神生产的自律性表现出历史的限度。资本主义生产条件下的自由精神生产，往往不具有泾渭分明、非此即彼的特征，即并不是一部分艺术生产属于“自由的精神生产”，另一部分艺术生产属于商品性艺术生产或“意识形态组成部分”，而是纯粹的自由精神生产往往存在于商品性艺术生产过程中，并从资本主义生产方式和“意识形态组成部分”中获取必要的生产手段和丰厚的精神养料。马克思曾经动情地反问道：“成为希腊人的幻想的基础、从而成为希腊[艺术]的基础的那种对自然的观点和对社会关系的观点，能够同走锭精纺机、铁道、机车和电报并存吗？在罗伯茨公司面前，武尔坎又在哪里？在避雷针面前，丘比特又在哪里？在动产信用公司面前，海尔梅斯又在哪里？”这段话虽然侧重强调希腊艺术史诗的产生与资本主义生产方式和社会关系的互斥性、非共存性，但其中蕴含着普遍性的客观事实是：特定时代的自由精神生产，总是从同时代的物质生产方式、社会关系体系、社会发展形式等各种资源中汲取手段与滋养。对于资本主义时代的自由精神生产，如果缺失了资产阶级意识形态对整个社会的弥散式渗透，缺失了资产阶级所主导的商品性生产过程的奠基，那么自由精神生产过程就会丧失形成其内在张力的土壤、形塑其深刻矛盾的根源。正如阿多诺所言：“艺术作品越是想方设法摆脱外在目的，越是受到组成创作过程的自设原则的制约。艺术作品也正是如此反映和内化了社会的支配作用。”这是自由精神生产的自律性的内在限度，体现出资本主义时代自由精神生产的复杂面向。

III. The Cultural Implications of Marx’s Proposition on Uneven Development

三、马克思不平衡关系命题的文化启示

In the nineteenth century in which Marx lived, the concept of culture had already become a fashionable concept in European academia, and it more often referred to spiritual achievements manifested through people’s thought, consciousness, and feeling—a usage pointing to the narrow conception of culture. At that time, however, Marx rarely used the concept of culture, instead discussing matters more often through concepts such as art, morality, spirit, science, and religion. Marx’s cautious use of the concept of culture stemmed from the idealist conception of history embedded in the nineteenth-century “cultural view of history,” which held that reason constitutes the cause of human culture, and that the development of culture in turn becomes the fundamental driving force of the development of human society. As an adherent of historical materialism, Marx naturally did not accept this “cultural view of history,” so it is easy to understand why he seldom used the concept of culture. After more than two centuries of cultural turbulence and civilizational conflict, culture, beyond its narrow usage, is often used in a broader sense, namely, as the sum total of humanity’s material productive capacity and spiritual productive capacity, as well as the material wealth and spiritual wealth created, acquired in the process of social practice. However, because the broad usage of the concept of culture is rather close to the meaning of human society, it is difficult to highlight the distinctiveness of the concept of culture; we therefore tend to understand culture as the representational mode of humanity’s historical existence and the mode of existence that people consciously or unconsciously follow. In this regard, whether the narrow or the broad concept of culture, both point to the way in which people create and develop all human achievements. In this sense, the Greek art and epic poetry that Marx mentioned can be seen as typical representations of culture, and we should reveal the “universal” cultural implications from the “particularity” of this typical representation. Thus Marx’s proposition on uneven development can give rise to cultural implications such as strengthening cultural confidence, promoting exchanges and mutual learning among civilizations, and advancing the coordinated development of material and cultural-ethical progress. This has important theoretical value and contemporary significance for our implementation of Xi Jinping’s Thought on Culture, the forging of new brilliance in socialist culture, and the building of the modern civilization of the Chinese nation.

在马克思生活的19世纪，文化概念已经成为欧洲学术界的流行概念，它更多地意指通过人们思想、意识、情感所表现出来的精神性成果，这一点指向了狭义文化概念的使用方式。不过当时的马克思很少使用文化概念，更多的是以艺术、道德、精神、科学、宗教等概念进行论述。马克思对文化概念的谨慎使用源自19世纪“文化史观”中所蕴含的唯心史观，这种“文化史观”认为理性构成人类文化的原因，而文化的发展又成为人类社会发展的根本动力。秉持着唯物史观的马克思自然不认同这种“文化史观”，因此马克思甚少使用文化概念也就容易理解了。在经过两个多世纪的文化激荡、文明冲突之后，文化除了狭义的使用方式，往往在更加宽泛的含义上被使用，即文化是人类在社会实践过程中所获得的物质生产能力和精神生产能力以及创造的物质财富和精神财富的总和。不过，由于广义文化概念的使用方式比较接近人类社会的含义，从而难以凸显文化概念的独特性，因此我们倾向于将文化理解为人的历史性存在的表征方式以及人的自觉或不自觉地遵循的生存方式。就此而言，无论是狭义文化概念还是广义文化概念，无不指向了人们创造和发展一切属人成果的方式。在这种意义上，马克思所言及的希腊艺术、史诗可以看作文化的典型表征，我们应当从这一典型表征的“特殊性”揭示出“普遍性”的文化意蕴，由此马克思不平衡关系命题能够生发出坚定文化自信、促进文明交流互鉴、推动物质文明和精神文明协调发展的文化启示作用，这对于我们贯彻落实习近平文化思想、铸就社会主义文化新辉煌、建设中华民族现代文明具有重要的理论价值和时代意义。

First, Marx’s proposition on uneven development, in its analysis of the high level of development displayed by cultural representations such as art and epic poetry, reveals that culture exhibits a clear comparative advantage relative to the material production of its own era, which provides an important theoretical basis for our inheritance and promotion of fine traditional Chinese culture and for shaping the cultural form of Chinese-path modernization. Xi Jinping points out: “The prosperity of a country and a nation is always supported by cultural flourishing; the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation requires the development and prosperity of Chinese culture as its condition.” An important reason why the Chinese nation has endured for thousands of years without interruption, and has remained resilient and powerful through repeated trials and tribulations, is that fine traditional Chinese culture has always, at the foundational level, supported the Chinese people in their unremitting struggle to overcome all kinds of difficulties and dangers. Culture is an important driving force for the Chinese nation’s historically strong position, and it is an even more important supporting force for the nation’s contemporary great rejuvenation. Along with the continuous strengthening of China’s hard power in politics, economy, and other spheres, the importance of cultural soft power for national strength and national rejuvenation is increasingly evident. To form cultural strength commensurate with our comprehensive national power and international status, we must fully tap the distinctive attributes of cultural activity revealed by Marx’s proposition on uneven development. We must both creatively transform and innovatively inherit fine traditional Chinese culture, turning this long-term unique advantageous resource of history into a tremendous driving force supporting rejuvenation in reality, and develop a socialist culture with Chinese characteristics guided by Marxism, creating the cultural form of Chinese-path modernization. Whether fine traditional Chinese culture or socialist culture with Chinese characteristics, both essentially pursue a relationship of balance within dynamic imbalance—that is, within the complex relational configuration of politics, economy, and culture, they seek an interest mechanism capable of balancing the interests of all parties and satisfying pluralistic demands, oppose the unilateralism and hegemonism dominated by the logic of capital that aims to reinforce existing imbalances, and provide Chinese wisdom for improving the global governance system in a fairer and more balanced direction.

首先，马克思不平衡关系命题对艺术史诗等文化表征展现出的高度发展水平的分析，揭示出文化相比于同时代物质生产表现出明显的比较优势，这为我们传承弘扬中华优秀传统文化、塑造中国式现代化的文化形态提供了重要的理论依据。习近平指出：“一个国家、一个民族的强盛，总是以文化兴盛为支撑的，中华民族伟大复兴需要以中华文化发展繁荣为条件。”中华民族之所以历经数千年而绵延不绝、之所以屡遭忧患而坚韧有力，一个重要的原因便是中华优秀传统文化始终在根基处支撑着中华儿女为战胜各种险阻而不懈斗争，文化是中华民族获得历史上强盛地位的重要推动力，更是中华民族实现当代的伟大复兴的重要支撑力量。伴随我国政治经济等硬实力的不断增强，文化软实力对于国家强盛、民族复兴的重要性越来越明显，而要形成同我国综合国力和国际地位相匹配的文化实力，就要充分挖掘马克思不平衡关系命题所揭示的文化活动的独特属性，既要创造性转化、创新性传承中华优秀传统文化，促使中华优秀传统文化这一历史上长期的独特优势资源转化为现实中支撑伟大复兴的巨大动力，又要发展以马克思主义为指导的中国特色社会主义文化，创造出中国式现代化的文化形态。无论是中华优秀传统文化，还是中国特色社会主义文化，本质上都追求一种动态不平衡中的平衡关系，即在政治经济文化的复杂关系格局中寻求一种能够平衡各方利益关系、满足多元诉求的利益机制，反对资本逻辑主导的旨在强化已有不平衡关系的单边主义和霸权主义，为全球治理体系朝着更加公平、均衡的方向改进提供中国智慧。

Secondly, Marx was long immersed in the academic atmosphere of German classical philosophy, while also fully absorbing the nourishment of British classical political economy, Anglo-French utopian socialism, and other scholarly theories. Marx's absorption of the three great theoretical peaks of philosophy, economics, and socialist theory in no way prevented him from according the highest affirmation to Greek culture. This attitude of appreciating the beauty of others and this open, inclusive breadth of mind, generated on the basis of the imbalance relation, is precisely what we need to undertake the new cultural mission of the New Era. Xi Jinping points out: "Different histories and national conditions, different ethnic groups and customs, have nurtured different civilizations, making the world more colorful and diverse. Civilizations have no distinction of superior or inferior, good or bad; they differ only in characteristics and region." Every culture and civilization has its own social soil in which it survives, and each embodies the profound reflection and intellectual pursuit of a nation and a country; therefore, each has its own irreplaceable value of existence. Viewed from the perspective of the imbalance thought, works in the cultural sphere naturally reject uniformity and the imposition of a single standard, and naturally pursue distinctive style and novel conception. This is the reason Marx proposed that "the concept of progress must not be understood in the usual abstract sense" with regard to culture. It is also because cultural styles differ and each has its own beauty that it is impossible to measure cultural works of different eras with the same yardstick. Therefore, the essence of culture lies in exchange and mutual learning: it becomes more splendid through exchange and richer through mutual learning. In essence, no culture loses its own subjectivity because it appreciates the brilliance of other cultures; rather, in the process of learning and absorbing the essence of other cultures, it becomes more conscious of the uniqueness of its own cultural self, thereby finding the opportunity for its own development. For example, the temples and architecture of ancient Greece absorbed stylistic elements from ancient Egypt, and the formation of ancient Greek drama was inseparable from the inspiration of Egyptian mythological stories; the Arab world preserved the cultural achievements of ancient Greece and Rome and reintroduced them to Western European countries in the eleventh and twelfth centuries, thereby triggering the Renaissance movement; although Tang dynasty Confucianism was squeezed by the foreign import of Buddhism, a group of scholars represented by Liu Zongyuan saw the reasonable elements beneath the Buddhist exterior, devoted themselves to uncovering the common ground between Confucianism and Buddhism, and played an important role in the flourishing of Tang culture and the formation of Song-Ming Neo-Confucianism.[10]10 Liu Zongyuan (773–819) was a Tang dynasty writer and official known for his prose and his efforts to reconcile Confucian and Buddhist thought. Marx's own intellectual growth benefited from the academic soil fostered by cultural exchange and civilizational integration among multiple European countries, and he was therefore able to fully utilize the conditions provided by the imbalance relation pattern to make the two great discoveries that shine in the annals of human intellectual history, thereby pointing the scientific path for human liberation. Today, we once again stand at a fork in the road of human social development, facing with growing urgency the question of the times: "What is wrong with the world, and what should we do about it?" The view of civilization of equality, mutual learning, dialogue, and inclusiveness proposed by General Secretary Xi Jinping powerfully guides the direction of development amid changes unseen in a century. We need to base ourselves on the imbalanced background of the present era, fully respect the unique and splendid civilizations of all countries, dismantle the arrogant mentality and hegemonic methods brought by the "clash of civilizations theory," the "superiority of civilizations theory," and the "Western civilizational centrism," and on the basis of equality, pluralism, inclusiveness, and interaction among all civilizations, promote the establishment of a global network of civilizational dialogue, exchange, and mutual learning, providing China's solution for every country to embark on a modernization path that is both rooted in its own civilization and capable of promoting the common values of all humanity.

其次，马克思长期沉浸于德国古典哲学的学术氛围，同时又充分汲取英国古典政治经济学、英法空想社会主义等学术理论的养分，马克思对哲学、经济学和社会主义理论这三大理论高峰的吸收，丝毫不妨碍他对希腊文化作出至高肯定，这种基于不平衡关系而生成的美人之美态度、开放包容的胸襟格局正是我们承担新时代新的文化使命所需要具备的。习近平指出：“不同历史和国情，不同民族和习俗，孕育了不同文明，使世界更加丰富多彩。文明没有高下、优劣之分，只有特色、地域之别。”每一种文化文明都有自己生存的社会土壤，都凝聚着一个国家和民族的深沉思考和智慧追求，因此都有自己不可取代的存在价值。以不平衡思想的视角观之，文化领域的作品天然地排斥整齐划一、强求一律，天然地追求风格独特、立意新颖，这是马克思提出“进步这个概念决不能在通常的抽象意义上去理解”文化的缘由，也正因为文化风格各异、各美其美，就不可能用同一把标尺去衡量各个时代不同的文化作品，因此文化的精髓在于交流互鉴，因交流而多彩，因互鉴而丰富。实质上，每一种文化都不会因为欣赏其他文化的精彩而失去自我的主体性，只会在学习吸取其他文化精华的过程中而更加自觉到文化自我的独特性，从而寻找到自我发展的契机。例如，古希腊的神殿和建筑吸收了古埃及的风格元素，古希腊戏剧的形成离不开埃及神话故事的启发；阿拉伯世界保存了古希腊罗马的文化成果，并在11、12世纪重新介绍给西欧国家，从而引发了文艺复兴运动；唐代的儒学虽然受到外来佛教的挤压，但是以柳宗元为代表的一批学者看到佛教外衣下的合理因素，致力于发掘儒佛相通之处，为唐代文化的兴盛和宋明理学的形成发挥了重要作用。马克思自己的精神成长受惠于欧洲多个国家文化交流、文明融通所促成的学术土壤，因此能够充分运用不平衡关系格局提供的条件做出人类思想史上彪炳史册的两大发现，从而为人类解放指明了科学道路。今天，我们再一次站在人类社会发展的分岔口上，日益紧迫地面对着“世界怎么了、我们怎么办”的时代之问，习近平总书记提出的平等、互鉴、对话、包容的文明观，有力地引领着百年变局的发展方向。我们需要立足于当今时代的不平衡性时代背景，充分尊重各国独特灿烂的文明，破解“文明冲突论”“文明优越论”“西方文明中心论”带来的傲慢心态和霸权方式，在各种文明平等、多元、包容、互动的基础上推动建立全球文明对话、交流、互鉴网络，为每个国家走上既植根于本国文明又能促进全人类共同价值的现代化道路提供中国方案。

Finally, Marx's discussion of the transcendence of free intellectual production within the imbalance relation enlightens us that human intellectual production activity has a value of existence uniquely its own, and that intellectual production activity cannot be examined simply from the perspective of the laws of material production. Spiritual enrichment is equally a fundamental requirement of socialist modernization. Xi Jinping emphasizes: "Chinese-path modernization is modernization in which material civilization and cultural-ethical progress are coordinated. Material abundance and spiritual enrichment are the fundamental requirements of socialist modernization." Spiritual enrichment includes both the individual-level dimensions of consciousness and faith, ideals and aspirations, learning and vision, and spiritual quality, and the social-level dimensions of value pursuit, moral climate, social mentality, and spiritual home. These aspects can never be replaced by material things such as material production or gross national product. "An anxious, impoverished person has no feeling for the most beautiful scenery; the merchant dealing in minerals sees only the commercial value of minerals, not the beauty and uniqueness of minerals; he has no mineralogical sense." Without the foundation of material abundance, spiritual enrichment is certainly unsustainable, but reaching a certain level of material abundance does not automatically bring full spiritual enrichment, and people's spiritual enrichment cannot be measured by value in the economic sense. At present, there are still some "poverty" problems in the spiritual sphere that urgently need to be addressed, such as the desolation of some people's spiritual homes, the erosion of the spiritual world by "slacker" culture such as "Buddha-like," "lying flat," and "giving up,"[11]11 "Buddha-like" (佛系), "lying flat" (躺平), and "giving up" (摆烂) are Chinese internet slang terms describing attitudes of passive resignation, withdrawal from competitive striving, and abandonment of effort, respectively. and the occasional appearance of nihilistic words and deeds such as defaming martyrs and distorting history. These spiritual "poverty" problems run counter to spiritual enrichment and hinder the progress of cultural-ethical progress. General Secretary Xi Jinping has put forward the important proposition of "spiritual enrichment" and elevated it to the height of the "fundamental requirement of socialist modernization." This means that promoting the overall development and progress of society necessarily requires enhancing people's spiritual cultivation, enriching people's spiritual world, and deepening people's spiritual foundation, so as to realize the people's aspiration for a better life through the good results of cultural-ethical progress. This is the essential requirement of people's free and comprehensive development, and it is moreover the inevitable choice of the path of Chinese-path modernization.

最后，马克思对不平衡关系中自由精神生产超越性的论述启发我们，人的精神生产活动有着独属于自身的存在价值，不能单纯地用物质生产规律的视角来考察精神生产活动，精神富有同样是社会主义现代化的根本要求。习近平强调：“中国式现代化是物质文明和精神文明相协调的现代化。物质富足、精神富有是社会主义现代化的根本要求。”精神富有既包括个体层面上的觉悟信仰、理想抱负、学识眼光和精神品质，又包括社会层面上的价值追求、道德风尚、社会心态和精神家园，这些方面绝不是物质生产、国民生产总值等物质性东西能代替的。“忧心忡忡的、贫穷的人对最美丽的景色都没有什么感觉；经营矿物的商人只看到矿物的商业价值，而看不到矿物的美和独特性，他没有矿物学的感觉。”离开物质富足的基础，精神富有固然不可持续，但是达到一定程度的物质富足，并不会自动带来充分的精神富有，而且人们的精神富有不能以经济意义上的价值来衡量。当前，人们精神领域还存在一些亟待解决的“贫困”问题，如一些人精神家园荒芜，“佛系”“躺平”“摆烂”等丧文化侵蚀精神世界，诋毁英烈、歪曲历史等虚无主义言行不时出现，这些精神“贫困”问题与精神富有相悖，阻碍了精神文明进步。习近平总书记提出“精神富有”的重要命题，并且将其提升到“社会主义现代化的根本要求”的高度，这意味着促进社会整体发展进步，必然要求增强人的精神素养，丰富人的精神世界，厚植人的精神底蕴，以精神文明建设的良好成效实现人民对美好生活的向往，这是人的自由全面发展的本质要求，更是中国式现代化道路的必然选择。

Source: Social Science Journal, 2024, Issue 6

文章来源：《社会科学辑刊》2024年第6期

Online editor: Jing Mu

网络编辑：静穆