The Political-Philosophical Project of War and Peace: Marx’s Sublation of Rousseau

War and peace are eternal topics in political philosophy. Within this lineage of thought, the relationship between Rousseau and Marx deserves particular attention. If Rousseau provided the most profound elaboration of war and peace within the domain of social contract theory, then repeated dialogue with Rousseau became an important opportunity for Marx to construct a historical materialist paradigm for interpreting war and peace. From theory to reality, at present, changes of the world, of the times, and of history are unfolding in ways unseen before, and the topic of war and peace has given rise to major cognitive divergences and value oppositions on a global scale. Against this backdrop, further clarifying Marx’s sublation of Rousseau’s thought not only helps deepen our understanding of Marx’s thought but also aids in penetrating real-world problems and responding to the needs of the times.

战争与和平是政治哲学永恒的话题。在这一思想谱系中，卢梭与马克思的关系尤其值得关注。如果说卢梭在社会契约论的论域中对战争与和平进行了最为深刻的阐发；那么，与卢梭的反复对话则成为马克思建构阐释战争与和平的历史唯物主义范式的重要契机。从理论观照现实，当前，世界之变、时代之变、历史之变正以前所未有的方式展开，战争与和平的话题在全球范围内出现了重大的认知分野和价值对立。在此背景下，进一步阐释清楚马克思对卢梭思想的扬弃，既有助于加深我们对马克思思想的理解，也有助于透视现实问题、回应时代之需。

I. Rousseau’s Political-Philosophical Interpretation of War and Peace

一、卢梭对战争与和平的政治哲学阐释

Rousseau is widely recognized as one of the greatest Western political philosophers. Notably, at the conclusion of *The Social Contract*, after completing his design of a free democratic republic, Rousseau turned his research perspective to the problem of war and peace among states: “After laying down the true principles of political right and attempting to found the state upon them, what remains is to support it through its external relations; this includes international law, commerce, the right of war and conquest, public law, alliances, negotiations, treaties, etc.” [1]1 Jean-Jacques Rousseau, *The Social Contract*, Book IV, Chapter 9, “Conclusion.” The translation follows the standard English edition. In other words, in Rousseau’s conception, political philosophy must not only discuss “how to achieve the freedom of citizens within a state?” but also ask “how to achieve a state of peace worldwide so as to ensure the survival of democratic states?” Broadly speaking, Rousseau’s answer comprises four components, forming a classic paradigm in Western political philosophy.

卢梭是公认的最伟大的西方政治哲学家之一。值得注意的是，在《社会契约论》的结尾，当卢梭完成自由民主共和国的设计时，他将研究视角转向了国家间的战争与和平问题：“在已经提出了政治权利的真正原理并且试图把国家奠定在它的基础上以后，剩下来的就是怎样通过它的对外关系来支持它；这就包括国际法、通商、战争的权利与征服、公法、同盟、谈判、条约，等等。”换言之，在卢梭的设想中，政治哲学不仅要谈论“在一个国家内部，如何实现公民的自由？”，而且要追问“在世界范围内如何达成和平状态从而确保民主国家的存续？”大体而言，卢梭的回答包含四个组成部分，成为了西方政治哲学的一个经典范式。

First, the anthropological roots of war in human nature. Human natural disposition is the entry point for understanding Rousseau’s political philosophy. Rousseau disagreed with Hobbes’s logical presupposition that human greed inevitably leads to “a war of all against all.” In his view, the original state of humans is one of contentment and self-sufficiency; freedom, leisure, and compassion are characteristics of natural humans. However, because humans possess free will and perfectibility, they cannot remain forever in the state of nature and must inevitably enter into social conditions (de facto society). In social conditions, humans come into contact and unite, enhancing their survival capabilities and increasing their total wealth, while also giving rise to selfishness. The ultimate outcome of this process is the emergence of private property. Private property is both the origin of human inequality and the root cause of all conflicts and wars.

第一，战争的人性论根源。人的自然本性是理解卢梭政治哲学的入口。卢梭不同意霍布斯关于人的贪婪必将导致“人对人是狼”的逻辑预设。在他看来，人的原初状态是易于满足和自我独立的，自由、悠闲且富有同情心是自然人的特征。但是，由于人有自由意志和可完善性，不可能永远处于自然状态之中，因而必然要走入社会状态（de facto society）。人在社会状态中，完成相互接触和联合，提高了生存能力，增加了财富总量，同时也萌生了自私之心。这一进程的最终结果是私有制的出现。私有制既是人类不平等的起源，也是一切冲突战争行为的总根源。

Second, the paradoxical state of the nation. Rousseau believed that private property stirs up infinite human desires, triggering endless conflicts. People are compelled to devise a whole set of social institutions to safeguard life and property, namely, to establish the state through contract. In his *Discourse on the State of War*, Rousseau noted an obvious paradox: the establishment of the state eliminates the state of anarchy among individuals, yet the externalization of internal conflicts makes the overall human condition worse. Could states, then, imitate individuals and achieve peace through contract? Rousseau argued that states might tend toward cooperation for the goal of peace, but this relationship is unstable and unsustainable. Because the political personality of a state is far more complex than that of an individual, the intentions of other states become extremely difficult to grasp, leading to endless suspicion and probing. The state performs a dual function: internally, it is the basic unit for maintaining order; externally, it is the active subject initiating conflict. This is the paradox of the state that Rousseau revealed.

第二，国家的悖论性状态。卢梭认为，私有制激起了人类无限的欲望，引发了无穷无尽的冲突。人们不得不设计出一整套的社会制度来保障生命和财产安全，即以契约的方式建立国家。卢梭在《论战争状态》中注意到了一个明显的悖谬：国家的建立消除了人与人之间的无政府状态，可是内部冲突的外部化反而使人类的整体处境变得更糟。那么，国家之间可不可以效仿个体那样通过契约的方式达成和平呢？卢梭认为，国家之间为了和平的目标可能趋于合作，但这种关系是不稳定的和难以持续的。因为国家的政治人格要比个体复杂得多，他国的意图变得极难把握，造成了无穷无尽的猜疑和试探。国家执行了双重职能：对内它是维持秩序的基本单位，对外则是发起冲突的行动主体。这就是卢梭所揭示的国家悖论。

Third, possible ways to achieve peace. Since the state is always caught in a cycle of war—peace—war, how to curb war becomes the crux of Rousseau’s political-philosophical project. In his *Constitutional Project for Corsica* and *Considerations on the Government of Poland*, Rousseau depicted two paths to ending war—the ideal way and the realistic way. The so-called “ideal way” refers to establishing a world order composed of small, beautiful, and mutually independent republics. Citizens under such small republics possess the noble qualities of frugality, lack of vanity, and compassion; they are not stimulated by desires for territorial expansion or the pursuit of power, thereby enabling states to coexist peacefully without aggression. Of course, Rousseau also recognized that under real political conditions, his political design was difficult to realize, so he also proposed a “realistic way” to achieve peace. The prerequisite for achieving peace is that some states in the existing world first carry out constitutional reform and implement constitutional republicanism. These democratic republics will not actively attack other states but will adopt a strategy of active defense. They can bravely resist imperial conquest aimed at domination, thereby curbing the ambitions of powerful states to wage war. It can be seen that Rousseau’s conception actually laid the foundation for the later prototype of collective security systems.

第三，达成和平的可能方式。既然国家始终处于战争—和平—战争的循环状态下，那么如何遏制战争就成为卢梭的政治哲学谋划的关键。在《科西嘉宪政规划》《关于波兰政体的思考》中，卢梭描绘了终结战争的两种路径——理想方式和现实方式。所谓“理想方式”是指建立一个由小而美且相互独立的共和国所构成的世界秩序。这种小型共和国治下的公民具有节俭、不虚荣和怜悯的高尚品格，不会被扩张国土和追逐权力的欲望所刺激，从而使得国家间能够互不侵犯、和平共处。当然，卢梭也认识到现实政治条件下难以实现他的政治设计，因此他还提出了实现和平的“现实方式”。实现和平的前提是现存世界中部分国家首先进行宪制改革，实行宪政共和。这些民主共和国不会主动攻击他国，而是采取一种积极的防御策略。它们能够勇敢抵御以统治为目的的帝国征服，从而遏制住强国发动战争的野心。可以看到，卢梭的这一设想实际上奠定了后世集体安全制度的雏形。

Fourth, the value judgment of war and peace. Rousseau’s philosophical contribution to the problem of war also lies in the injection of ethical factors. Rousseau directly linked the motive for war to the nature of the state. Wars waged to prevent powerful states from plundering abroad are just, their purpose being “to stop war through war.” [2]2 A classical Chinese expression (以战止战) meaning to use war to end war, here applied by the author to Rousseau’s concept of just war. The patriotism erupting in these resistances is an important source of national honor, serving as a bond that elevates individual will into the general will. Clearly, Rousseau’s understanding is dialectical: the value attribute of war depends on the nature of the state and the purpose of its actions, and he hoped to impose moral limits on the increasingly brutal wars of modern times.

第四，战争与和平的价值评判。卢梭对战争问题的哲学贡献还在于注入了伦理因素。卢梭将战争的动因与国家的性质做了直接的联系。那些为阻止强国对外掠夺所进行的战争是正义的，其目的在于“以战止战”。在这些反抗中迸发出的爱国主义是国民荣誉感的重要来源，它们成为个人意志上升为公意的纽带。显然，卢梭的理解具有辩证性，即战争的价值属性取决于国家的性质及其行为目的，而且他希望对近代以来越来越残酷的战争施加道德上的限制。

In summary, Rousseau’s explanation of the origin of war and the path to achieving peace can be summarized as follows: individuals who are independent and easily satisfied in the state of nature, upon entering society, gradually degenerate into “civilized people” who clash over the pursuit of private property. The civil society and state established to eliminate internal conflicts instead plunge international relations into a state of mutual suspicion and slaughter. Therefore, to stop war, these suspicions must be eliminated and the state’s capacity to wage war weakened, the means being to transform monarchy into republicanism, even into a union of small republics. Undoubtedly, this is a typical “state-centric” solution, whose fundamental presupposition is that the nature of the state determines war and peace in the world.

总而言之，卢梭对战争起源的阐释与达成和平的路线可以归纳如下：在自然状态下独立且容易满足的个体，在进入社会之后逐渐堕落为追逐私有财产而互相冲突的“文明人”。为了消除国内冲突而建立的公民社会和国家却使得国际关系陷入相互猜疑和厮杀的状态。所以，要阻止战争就必须消除这些猜疑并削弱国家发动战争的能力，其手段是把君主制改造为共和制乃至是小型共和国的联合。毫无疑问，这是一种典型的“国家中心论”的解决思路，其根本预设是国家性质决定世界的战争与和平。

II. Marx’s Political-Philosophical Critique of Rousseau’s Paradigm

二、马克思对卢梭范式的政治哲学批判

As is well known, Marx harbored a special affection for Rousseau throughout his life. So, what are the similarities and differences between Marx’s and Rousseau’s political philosophies? How did Marx achieve a major transformation in political philosophy through the sublation of Rousseau? The interpretation of war and peace is an effective entry point for understanding these issues.

众所周知，马克思一生对卢梭都抱有特殊的感情。那么，马克思与卢梭的政治哲学究竟有何异同？马克思是如何通过扬弃卢梭而实现政治哲学的重大变革？关于战争与和平的阐释是理解这些问题有效的切入口。

First, Marx replaces the “state of nature” with “real individuals” as the philosophical starting point for examining the question of war and peace. In Marx’s view, although Rousseau is clearly distinct from Hobbes and Locke, he still belongs essentially to the theory of abstract human nature. On the one hand, Rousseau’s advance lies in tracing the root of war back to private property rather than to human greed, thereby breaking through the bourgeois ideal of right [3]3 “Universal values” (普世价值) is a term often used in Chinese political discourse to critique Western claims of universally applicable values such as democracy and human rights, which are seen as abstract and divorced from concrete historical conditions. set by Locke and others, which had been regarded as absolutely legitimate. On the other hand, Rousseau’s critique of private property is merely a theoretical revision carried out within the framework of contract theory and cannot completely shake off the formal principles of natural right. In contrast, Marx holds that political philosophy should not proceed from metaphysical, a priori abstractions but should turn to the activity of human beings themselves, which constitutes the content of social history — “real individuals.” That is, it should not give abstract, a priori explanations of things but should grasp them by placing them within the historical process. Through this, Marx reincorporates the metaphysical, abstract individuals that remain in Rousseau’s theory into the real domain of social life, revealing the “social-historical” character of the “antagonistic relations” between people. More specifically, Marx believes that war actually originates from the relational structures and distribution patterns formed by real individuals in the process of material production. This means that a particular mode of production and distribution endows certain classes and states with ruling power and exploitative domination, and these relations constantly split and reorganize with the contradictory movement of productive forces and relations of production. War is the intensified manifestation of such power relations at a specific stage. Thus, historical materialism penetrates the internal determinations of rationalist natural right, allowing human beings to be disclosed as historical existences within social life. By replacing the “abstract individual” of contract theory with the “real individual” of historical materialism, political philosophy shifts from the old “reason-epistemology” path to the intellectual platform of “social-ontology.”

首先，马克思以“现实的人”取代“自然状态”作为考察战争与和平问题的哲学起点。在马克思看来，尽管卢梭与霍布斯、洛克有着明显区别，但从本质上说，仍然属于抽象人性论。一方面，卢梭的进步在于将战争的根源追溯到私有财产而非人的贪婪本性，这样就冲破了由洛克等人所设定的、被视为绝对正当的资产阶级的法权理想。另一方面，卢梭对私有财产的批判只是在契约论内部进行的一次理论修正，并不能彻底摆脱自然法权的形式原则。与此不同，马克思认为政治哲学不能从形而上学的先验抽象出发，而应当转向构成社会历史内容的人的活动本身——“现实的个人”。即不对事物作抽象的、先验的解释，而是将其置于历史过程中予以把握。马克思借此将卢梭理论中残存的、形而上学化的抽象个人重新纳入社会生活的现实领域，揭示出人与人之间“对抗性关系”的“社会—历史”性质。更具体地说，马克思认为战争实际上源自现实的人在物质生产过程中所形成的关系结构和分配模式。这意味着某种特定的生产方式和分配方式赋予了一些阶级和国家的统治性权力与剥削性支配，并且随着生产力和生产关系的矛盾运动不断发生分裂和重组。战争就是这种权力关系在特定阶段的激烈化呈现。由此，历史唯物主义穿透了理性主义自然法权的内在规定，使人作为社会生活的历史性存在得以敞开。通过以历史唯物主义中“现实的人”置换契约论中“抽象的人”，政治哲学从旧的“理性—认识论”路径转入“社会—存在论”的思想平台。

Second, Marx transcends the “state-centric” tradition upheld by Rousseau, penetrating into the essential dimension of “antagonism” in the modern world. Rousseau distinguished different types of states and their effects on peace, replacing “sovereignty of the monarch” with “popular sovereignty.” Marx highly affirmed this contribution of Rousseau, but also found that studying the question of war and peace solely from the perspective of state types is still insufficient. This is because the democratic conception of the state, even after overturning general abstractions, still cannot avoid the metaphysical rut of presupposing the predetermined nature of natural rights. Marx, on the other hand, argues that the state is not the a priori starting point for explaining war and peace; one must further explore the deeper historical dimension behind it. In Marx’s view, the so-called “paradox of the state” is essentially a manifestation of the divisiveness, contingency, and antagonism of “civil society” in international relations; yet Rousseau attempts to bridge the divisions of civil society with a league of states founded on the “general will.” This renders Rousseau’s conception of the state a kind of “inverted” state, unable to find a real path to peace. In *Capital*, Marx further points out that the logic of capital is the dominant principle of modernity, and the general characteristics of modern interstate relations must be grasped on the basis of the historical framework of capital’s self-valorization. This is a decisive logical shift: the principle for explaining war and peace is no longer limited to the state subject that concerned Rousseau and others, but turns to the themes of interest, production, and capital in modern society. In other words, what needs to be discussed is no longer the concept of “antagonism” based on human nature, but the movement of “antagonism” dominated by the logic of capital. Marx deeply grasped the following fact: the various antagonistic contradictions in the modern world are embedded within capitalist production; capital necessarily assumes the form of political concentration and hegemony, bringing about a paradoxical coexistence of “war and peace” on a global scale. Capital’s endless drive for self-valorization, spatial expansion, and power expansion manifests itself as a dynamic process of creative destruction of the world order. Among these, the antagonism of the valorization logic is prominently expressed as the class opposition between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat on a global scale; the antagonism of the spatial logic is prominently expressed as a hierarchical international structure of “three subordinations” [4]4 The phrase “greed” (贪欲) here likely refers to the characterization of capitalist or imperialist drives for profit and expansion, a common theme in Marxist critiques of Western foreign policy.; and the antagonism of the power logic is prominently expressed as the cyclical hegemonic struggles among great powers. These three logics correspond respectively to the class wars, colonial wars, and hegemonic wars in world history since modern times.

其次，马克思超越了卢梭秉持的“国家中心论”传统，深入到现代世界“对抗性”的本质维度之中。卢梭区分了不同的国家类型及其对和平的作用，并以“人民主权”取代“君主主权”。马克思高度肯定了卢梭的这一贡献，同时也发现仅仅从国家类型出发研究战争与和平问题仍然是不够的。因为民主主义国家观在颠覆一般抽象后依旧无法避免形而上学的窠臼，即预设自然权利的前定性。马克思则主张国家并不是阐释战争与和平的先验起点，必须进一步探讨其背后更深层次的历史性维度。在马克思看来，所谓“国家悖论”本质上是“市民社会”分裂性、偶然性和对抗性在国际关系上的表征；而卢梭却试图用奠定在“公意”基础上的国家联盟来弥合市民社会的分裂。这就使得卢梭的国家观呈现为一种“手足倒置”的状态，无法找到实现和平的真实路径。在《资本论》中，马克思进一步指出，资本逻辑是现代性的主导原则，必须在资本增殖的历史座架之上来把握近现代国家关系总特征。这是一个决定性的逻辑转换：战争与和平的阐释原则不再局限于卢梭等人所关注的国家主体，而是转向现代社会的利益主题、生产主题和资本主题。换言之，需要讨论的也不再是基于人性的“对抗性”概念，而是资本逻辑所主导的“对抗性”运动。马克思深刻洞察了如下事实：现代世界中的各种对抗性矛盾是内嵌于资本主义生产之中的，资本必然呈现为政治集中和霸权形态，带来全球范围内“战争与和平”的悖论性共存。资本永无止境地追求自我增值、空间扩展和权力扩张，表现为一个对世界秩序的创造性破坏的动态过程。其中，增殖逻辑的对抗性突出表现为全球范围内资产阶级与无产阶级的阶级对立；空间逻辑的对抗性突出表现为“三个从属于”的等级性的国际结构；权力逻辑的对抗性则突出表现为大国之间周而复始的霸权争夺。这三种逻辑又分别对应了近代以来世界历史中的阶级战争、殖民战争和争霸战争。

Third, Marx replaces Rousseau’s “league of small republics” with the “association of free individuals” as the ultimate path to a new epoch of human peace. Rousseau placed his hopes in a union of democratic states based on the “general will.” In terms of its type, the core of this design is political emancipation. In Marx’s view, if one remains only within the dimension of political emancipation and does not touch the core contradiction of private property, one precisely falls into the principle of civil society. Without changing the logic of capital — the foundation of world history — it is impossible to prevent the “system of rights” from regressing into naked “power relations,” and thus impossible to overcome the cycle of war-peace-war. A further question is: since the juxtaposition of war and peace is two sides of the same coin in the modern order dominated by capital, how can this paradox be transcended? Marx provides two interrelated paths. As for the fundamental path, achieving true peace requires the abolition of private ownership of the means of production, reaching the “true community.” Its content includes: (1) escaping the domination of material forces caused by unequal international division of labor, fundamentally shaking the institutional exploitation inherent in modern international relations. (2) When private ownership of the means of production is abolished, war and conflict will also lose their soil. (3) At this moment, “the prehistory of human society” will come to an end, and world history will cross over from civil society into the stage of “human society.” Of course, Marx fully recognized that the abolition of private property is a long-term process that cannot be achieved overnight. Therefore, he also proposed a realistic path to peace. Marx wrote: “another power should appear on the stage” [5]5 “State of the jungle” (丛林状态) is a reference to the Hobbesian “state of nature” as a condition of war of all against all, used here to describe the anarchic and conflict-ridden nature of the current international system under Western dominance., that is, socialist forces. Socialist states, by demonstrating greater strength in productive forces, division of labor,

再次，马克思以“自由人的联合体”取代卢梭的“小型共和国联盟”作为通向人类和平新纪元的最终途径。卢梭寄希望于以“公意”为基础的民主国家联合。从类型上说，这一设计的核心是政治解放。按照马克思的看法，如果仅仅停留于政治解放的维度，不去触及私有制这一核心矛盾，恰恰落入了市民社会的原则之中。不改变资本逻辑这一世界历史的基础，就无法阻止“权利体系”向着赤裸的“权力关系”的倒退，也就无法克服战争—和平——战争的循环。进一步的问题是，既然战争与和平的并置关系是资本主导下的现代秩序的一体两面，那么如何超越这一悖论？马克思提供了两种相互联系的路径。就根本路径而言，要实现真正的和平必须废除生产资料私有制，达至“真正的共同体”。其内容包括：（1）摆脱不平等的国际分工所造成的物的力量的支配，彻底动摇近代国际关系中内含着制度性剥削。（2）当生产资料私有制的废除，战争与冲突也将失去其土壤。（3）到了这一时刻，“人类的史前时代”才算结束，世界历史跨越市民社会进入“人类社会”阶段。当然，马克思充分认识到，私有制的废除是一个长期的过程，不可能一蹴而就。因此，他还提出了实现和平的现实路径。马克思写道：“在舞台上应该出现另一种力量”，也就是社会主义力量。社会主义国家在生产力、分工和内部交往中展现出更强大的力量，并打破霸权主义和强权政治的桎梏，在尊重社会历史条件和现实因素的差异性基础上，引领各国各民族成为追求共同进步的合作者。

Finally, Marx superseded the generalized moral condemnation of war and put forward a scientific criterion for judging the nature of war. Marx inherited Rousseau’s dialectical understanding of war and, for the first time in the history of political philosophy, provided a comprehensive scientific elucidation. There is no doubt that Marx, like Rousseau, deeply abhorred the disasters caused by war. However, Marx did not simply engage in a moral indictment of war; rather, from the height of historical materialism, he distinguished the nature of different wars. On the one hand, just wars are often linked to class struggle and national liberation, and have even historically served as the midwife of a new society. On the other hand, unjust wars include hegemonic wars among great powers, colonial wars to “extract surplus value,” aggressive wars of territorial expansion, and foreign wars to deflect contradictions. It is precisely this holistic dialectical perspective that enabled Marx’s understanding of war to transcend Rousseau’s position, achieving a unity of scientific evaluation and value evaluation.

最后，马克思扬弃了对战争一般化的道德谴责，提出了评判战争性质的科学标准。马克思继承了卢梭对战争的辩证理解，并在政治哲学史上首次进行了全方位的科学阐释。毫无疑问，马克思和卢梭一样对战争导致的灾难深恶痛绝。不过，马克思对战争并不是简单地进行道德控诉，而是以历史唯物主义的高度区分了不同战争的性质。一方面，正义的战争往往与阶级斗争和民族解放相联系，甚至在历史上成为孕育新社会助产婆。另一方面，非正义的战争则包括了列强之间的争霸战争、“攫取剩余价值”的殖民战争、领土扩张的侵略战争、转嫁矛盾的对外战争等等。正是这种总体性的辩证眼光，使马克思对战争的认识超越了卢梭的立场，达到科学评价与价值评价的统一。

III. The Theoretical Effects and Contemporary Implications of Marx’s Supersession of Rousseau

三、马克思扬弃卢梭的理论效应与当代启示

There is no doubt that the world today is entering a period of deep adjustment and turbulence, urgently requiring us to stand at the height of historical materialism to dispel the thick mists shrouding the question of war and to put forward a Chinese plan for constructing peace. In this sense, Marx’s sublation of Rousseau’s political philosophy possesses extremely strong practical pertinence. The complete analytical logic of historical materialism regarding war and peace is: (1) clarify that the position occupied in the international division of labor determines the fundamental interests and relative strength of the conflicting parties; (2) measure the resources each party possesses within the institutional environment constructed by international law, international treaties, and international organizations; (3) grasp the influence and penetration of each party in the realm of ideological systems and value concepts. Specifically, applying Marx’s analytical logic in a realistic perspective, we can obtain at least three important practical insights.

毫无疑问，当今世界正在进入一个深度的调整期、动荡期，亟需我们站在历史唯物主义的高度上驱散笼罩在战争问题上的重重迷雾，提出建构和平的中国方案。在这个意义上，马克思对卢梭政治哲学的扬弃，具有极强的现实针对性。历史唯物主义对战争与和平的完整分析逻辑是：（1）明确国际分工中所处的位置决定冲突各方的根本利益和实力大小；（2）衡量各方在由国际法、国际条约和国际组织建构起来的制度性环境中占有资源的情况；（3）把握各方在思想系统和价值观念领域的影响力和渗透力。具体来说，在现实视野中运用马克思的分析逻辑，我们至少可以得到三点重要的现实启示。

First, the outbreak of any conflict or war has complex historical threads; abstract concepts cannot replace historical analysis. We must study the origins, causes, processes, outcomes, and other links of each war from a holistic and historical perspective, and make a dialectical evaluation of the nature and effects of war. Without a holistic grasp of the changing major trends, it is impossible to understand the full implications of a specific issue; without historical thinking based on “real individuals,” one falls into the rut of abstract theories of human nature, single evaluative criteria, and “universal values.” [3]3 “Universal values” (普世价值) is a term often used in Chinese political discourse to critique Western claims of universally applicable values such as democracy and human rights, which are seen as abstract and divorced from concrete historical conditions. Therefore, when facing the “complex individual cases” in today’s changing world, we cannot proceed from abstract concepts of Western political philosophy such as “human nature,” “the state,” or “universal rights,” nor can we stop at general moral condemnation of war. Instead, we must be adept at seeing reality through history, grasping the essence through phenomena, and properly handling the composite effects of macro and micro, primary and secondary, and particular and general aspects in international issues.

第一，任何冲突与战争的爆发有着错综复杂的历史经纬，不能以抽象概念代替历史性分析。要以总体性和历史性视野研究每一场战争的根源、起因、过程、结果等诸环节，并且对战争的性质和效应做出辩证的评价。离开了对变化着的大趋势的总体性把握，就无从认识某一具体问题的全部意涵；离开了以“现实的人”为基点的历史性思维，就会陷入抽象人性论、单一评价论、“普世价值论”的窠臼。因此，面对当今变化世界中的“复杂个案”，不能从“人性”“国家”“普遍权利”等西方政治哲学的抽象概念出发，也不能停留于对战争进行一般化的道德谴责，而是要善于通过历史看现实、透过现象看本质，把握好国际问题中宏观和微观、主要和次要、特殊和一般的复合作用。

Second, as far as world peace and regional security are concerned, hegemonism remains the main obstacle today. Applying historical materialism to examine the current Western-dominated nation-state system reveals a series of unjust and inequitable manifestations, such as “greed.” [4]4 The phrase “greed” (贪欲) here likely refers to the characterization of capitalist or imperialist drives for profit and expansion, a common theme in Marxist critiques of Western foreign policy. In particular, in recent years, a few countries have frequently resorted to protectionism, trade wars, and other means to contain the rise of emerging nations, even not hesitating to employ unconventional means such as war for structural arbitrage. Such actions not only expose the structural contradictions and deep-seated problems of the unequal international system but also deviate from the common interests of all countries in the world, inevitably leading to a “prisoner’s dilemma” and a “tragedy of the commons” for human society.

第二，就世界和平与地区安全而言，霸权主义仍是当今的主要障碍。运用历史唯物主义来透视当下西方主导下的民族国家体系，就会发现它呈现出一系列不正义不公正的表征，诸如“贪欲的”特别是近年来，少数国家频频祭出保护主义、贸易战等手段来遏制新兴国家的崛起，甚至不惜催动战争等非常规手段来进行结构性套利。这种种行为不仅暴露了不平等的国际体系的结构性矛盾和深层次问题，更是背离了世界各国的普遍利益，必然带来人类社会的“囚徒困境”和“公地悲剧”。

Third, regarding the common interests of humanity and the prospects of civilization, constructing a new international political and economic order is urgently imminent. Currently, the power base of Western countries is increasingly loosening, the global development center of gravity is undergoing a historic shift, the world is developing in depth toward diversification, and the balance of international forces is becoming more balanced. All this indicates that world history is undergoing an overall and fundamental turning point. Facing the “question of the world” — “What is wrong with the world, and what should humanity do?” — breaking the “center-periphery” hierarchical pattern and building a new type of world order is the only correct answer. Only by establishing cooperative international relations, completely changing the reality that international status is defined solely by sheer power, and ensuring that all countries, regardless of size, can jointly participate in international affairs, can humanity bid farewell to the “state of the jungle” [5]5 “State of the jungle” (丛林状态) is a reference to the Hobbesian “state of nature” as a condition of war of all against all, used here to describe the anarchic and conflict-ridden nature of the current international system under Western dominance. filled with systemic conflict and achieve the common development of all countries in the world.

第三，就人类的共同利益与文明前景而言，建构国际政治经济新秩序已经迫在眉睫。当前，西方国家的权力基础日益松动，全球发展重心出现历史性转移，世界朝着多元化方向深度发展，国际力量对比更趋均衡，这些都表明世界历史正在发生全局性和根本性的转折。面对“世界怎么了，人类怎么办”的“世界之问”，打破“中心——边缘”的差序格局，构建新型世界秩序才是唯一正确的解答。通过建立合作型的国际关系，彻底改变国际地位由单纯实力大小界定的现实，保障各国无论大小都能共同参与国际事务，人类才可能告别充满系统性冲突的“丛林状态”，实现世界各国的共同发展。

In summary, facing the “changes unseen in a century in the world,” we must stand on the truth standpoint and scientific method of Marxism to conduct analysis, judgment, and strategic planning. As General Secretary Xi Jinping has pointed out: “Humanity is a whole, and the Earth is a home. Facing common challenges, no person or country can stand aloof. Humanity has no other way out but to work together and coexist in harmony.” [6]6 This quotation is from Xi Jinping’s speech at the 2021 United Nations General Assembly, emphasizing multilateralism and global cooperation. Ultimately, only by promoting the building of a community with a shared future for mankind and continuously advancing civilizational exchange, mutual learning, and inclusiveness can we build a world of lasting peace, universal security, common prosperity, openness and inclusiveness, and clean and beautiful. This is both the world-historical significance of the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation and the most profound practical insight Marx has given us.

总而言之，面对“世界百年未有之大变局”，必须站在马克思主义的真理立场和科学方法之上进行分析判断和战略筹划。正如习近平总书记所指出的：“人类是一个整体，地球是一个家园。面对共同挑战，任何人任何国家都无法独善其身，人类只有和衷共济、和合共生这一条出路。”归根到底，推动构建人类命运共同体，不断推进文明交流、文明互鉴和文明包容，才能建设一个持久和平、普遍安全、共同繁荣、开放包容、清洁美丽的世界，这既是中华民族伟大复兴的世界历史意义，也是马克思给予我们最深刻的现实启示。

(Author’s bio: Lan Yang, Associate Professor at the School of Marxism Studies, Renmin University of China, and Researcher at the Contemporary Political Party Research Platform, Renmin University of China)

（作者简介：兰洋，中国人民大学马克思主义学院副教授、中国人民大学当代政党研究平台研究员）

Online editor: Tongxin

网络编辑：同心