The Political-Philosophical Implications of Marx’s Distinction between “Property of the Single Individual” and “Private Property”—Based on an Examination of the *Grundrisse der Kritik der politischen Ökonomie (1857–1858 Manuscript)*

Property rights are a crucial right that establishes the political and economic logic of modern society. Property rights not only politically define the basic logic of the creation, accumulation, circulation, and enjoyment of social wealth, but also economically define the principles and methods of production expansion, wealth operation, and wealth regeneration; they are the core right concerning how property rights of freedom are possible. In the *Grundrisse der Kritik der politischen Ökonomie (1857–1858 Manuscript)* (hereinafter referred to as the *Manuscript*), Marx, from the perspective of historical materialism, analyzes “the forms which precede capitalist production” and puts forward the political-philosophical distinction between “property of the single individual” and “private property.” Although at this time Marx was studying the production and circulation processes preceding the formation of the capitalist mode of production, this distinction clearly follows the important methodology that “the anatomy of man is a key to the anatomy of the ape.” [1]1 This refers to Marx’s methodological principle in the *Grundrisse* that the study of more developed (capitalist) social forms provides the key to understanding earlier, less developed forms, analogous to how the anatomy of a mature organism illuminates the structure of its embryonic precursors. Essentially, within the historical logic of human social production, it reveals to us the political logic of the generation of “individual possession” serving the comprehensive development of the individual; it is a historical-materialist critique of the power dimension of capitalist “property possession” and a historical-materialist vision of the communist political ideal of “property ownership.” In this sense, Marx’s distinction between “property of the single individual” and “private property” both criticizes the socio-historical limits of capitalist “private property” and its paradox of freedom, and concretely and deeply excavates the non-closed, non-exclusive political principle of “property of the single individual.” Today, in the historical process of advancing Chinese-path modernization, when we rethink how to gradually unfold the ideal social vision of “achieving common prosperity for all the people” within the socialist system, it means that we must follow Marx’s essential distinction between “property of the single individual” and “private property,” and, in criticizing the inherent logic of capitalist property accumulation, practically confirm the socio-historical effect of “property ownership” in constructing the concept of rights for common prosperity. This is to strive to truly make people’s socio-historical activities produce “the universality and comprehensiveness of individual relations and individual capacities,” and truly make people’s “communal, social productive capacity become their social wealth.” [2]2 This is a paraphrase of Marx’s description in the *Grundrisse* of the third stage of social formation, where the universal development of individuals and their communal productive capacity become the foundation of social wealth.

财产权是奠定现代社会政治逻辑和经济逻辑的重要权利。财产权，既从政治上规定了社会财富创造、积累、流通和享有的基本逻辑，又在经济上规定了生产展开、财富运行和财富再生的原则与方式，是关于自由的财产权何以可能的核心权利。在《政治经济学批判（1857—1858年手稿）》（以下简称《手稿》）中，马克思以历史唯物主义的视角分析“资本主义生产以前的各种形式”，提出了“单个人的财产”与“私有财产”的政治哲学区分。虽然此时马克思研究的是资本主义生产方式形成以前的生产流通过程，但是这一区分显然遵循了“人体解剖对于猴体解剖是一把钥匙”这一重要方法论，本质上是在人类社会生产的历史逻辑中向我们揭示服务于个人全面发展的“个人所有”生成的政治逻辑，是对资本主义“财产占有”权力面向的历史唯物主义批判和对共产主义“财产所有”政治理想的历史唯物主义憧憬。在此意义上，马克思区分“单个人的财产”与“私有财产”，既批判了资本主义“私有财产”的社会历史限度及其自由悖论，又具体而深入地挖掘了“单个人的财产”非封闭性、非排他性的政治原则。今天，在推进中国式现代化的历史进程中，当我们重新思考如何在社会主义制度中渐次展开“实现全体人民共同富裕”的理想社会愿景时，意味着我们要依循马克思对于“单个人的财产”与“私有财产”的本质区分，在批判资本主义财产积累的内在逻辑中实践地确证“财产所有”之于建构共同富裕权利观念的社会历史效应，从而致力于真正使人的社会历史活动产生出“个人关系和个人能力的普遍性和全面性”，并真正地使人“共同的、社会的生产能力成为从属于他们的社会财富”。

I. The “Individual Possession” of General Conditions of Production and the “Relation of Possession” of Private Property

一、一般生产条件的“个人所有”与私有财产的“占有关系”

Property rights initially manifest as the individual’s relation to the general conditions of production; they are a reality of historical materialism presented in the process of social development, a historical confirmation, factual recognition, and value restoration of human self-affirmation. In Marx’s view, the pre-capitalist property relation of “natural unity” is a socio-historical mode of confirming that the “single individual” (subordinate to the commune member) possesses the objective conditions of labor (means of production). It uses the community (commune) as an intermediary to ensure that the “single individual” enjoys a certain right to use and dispose of the means of production and the products of labor. With the development of productive forces and population growth, the formation process of the “individual possession” of general conditions of production is simultaneously the historical process of the “gradual dissolution” of the commune’s functional role: individual land property continuously splits off from “communal possession” forms of possession that retain “individual independence,” thereby giving rise to the socio-historical conditions for the loss of property by community individuals. This change in the form of possession also reflects the “relation of possession” of “private property,” causing private property to gradually manifest as a form opposed to communal property, thereby creating the “complete separation of labor from property” and the historical generation of the capitalist mode of production.

财产权最初表现为个人同一般生产条件的关系，是社会发展过程中所呈现的历史唯物主义现实，是人自我确证的一种历史的确认、事实的认可和价值的还原。在马克思看来，前资本主义“天然统一”的财产关系是确证“单个的人”（隶属于公社成员）拥有劳动的客观条件（生产资料）的社会历史方式，是以共同体（公社）为中介，使之成为确保“单个的人”享有对生产资料及劳动成果一定的使用权、支配权。随着生产力的发展和人口的增长，一般生产条件“个人所有”的形成过程同时也是公社职能作用“逐渐解体”的历史过程：个人土地财产从“公共所有”中不断地分裂出葆有“个体独立性”的占有形式，从而引发共同体个体丧失自己财产的社会历史条件。而这一占有形式的变化也反映着“私有财产”的占有关系，使私有财产逐渐表现为同公社财产相对立的形式，从而造成了“劳动与财产的完全分离”和资本主义生产方式的历史生成。

First, the meaning of the “single individual” possessing “the natural conditions of labor and reproduction.” “Property of the single individual” manifests as the individual’s relation of possessing the general conditions of production (the objective conditions of labor), confirming the ontological significance of “individual possession” for human self-affirmation through social means. Marx clearly points out that the subject engaged in labor and the object or means of production transformed by labor possess a socio-historical characteristic of “natural unity”: “Property—that is, the relation of the single individual to the natural conditions of labor and reproduction as belonging to him, as his objective, inorganic nature, as his objective body.” [3]3 This is a direct citation from the *Grundrisse*, Marx’s description of property in pre-capitalist forms. Because the “single individual” is not an “atomistic individual” isolated from social production, but a “real, historical person” who enjoys social wealth and the fruits of historical civilization through labor, this is intuitively embodied, in its historical reality, as the socio-political mode by which the laboring subject possesses the natural conditions of production or reproduction. In this sense, the “natural unity” between the subject of labor and the objective conditions of labor means: First, the entire social production and the unfolding of its mode of production initially presuppose the labor subject’s possession of the general conditions of production; the “actual process of possession” is concretely embodied in the socio-historical process by which people, in a social manner, actually enjoy their own labor products. Second, Marx reduces property to the individual’s relation of possessing the conditions of production, directly pointing out that individual possession “from the outset is not a relation to these conditions in the imagination, but a relation to them in the active, real process.” [4]4 This is a direct citation from the *Grundrisse*, emphasizing the active, practical nature of possession. That is to say, each single individual, on the basis of a certain community, takes the external, primitive conditions of production (such as communal land property) as the political precondition for the development of their own capacities. Third, the individual’s relation of “possession” to the conditions of production is a definite, historical social relation of production presented through the historicity of the labor subject. As productive forces develop and society and history constantly change, altering their own forms and structures, the individual’s relation of “possession” to the conditions of production also defines a definite, historical mode of social possession.

第一，“单个的人”拥有“劳动和再生产的自然条件”的含义。“单个人的财产”表现为个人拥有一般生产条件（劳动的客观条件）的关系，确证了“个人所有”之于人以社会的方式进行自我确证的存在论意义。马克思明确指出，从事劳动的主体同被劳动改造的客体对象或生产资料之间具有“天然统一”的社会历史特性，“财产——即单个的人把劳动和再生产的自然条件看作属于他的条件，看作他的主体的以无机自然形式存在的客观躯体这样一种关系”。因为，“单个的人”并不是孤立于社会生产的“原子式个人”，而是以劳动的方式享有社会财富与历史文明成果的“现实的历史的人”，在其历史现实性上直观地体现为劳动主体占有生产或再生产的自然条件的社会政治方式。在此意义上，劳动的主体同劳动的客体条件之间的“天然统一”意味着：其一，整个社会生产及生产方式的展开，最初都是以劳动主体对一般生产条件的占有为前提性条件，“占有的实际过程”则具体地体现在人以社会的方式实际享有自己的劳动产品的社会历史过程。其二，马克思把财产归结于个人占有生产条件的关系，直指个人所有“从一开始就不是发生在对这些条件的想象的关系中，而是发生在对这些条件的能动的、现实的关系中”。是说，每一个单个的人基于一定的共同体基础前提下，把外在的原始生产条件（如公共的土地财产）当作他自身能力发展的政治前提。其三，个人对生产条件的“所有”关系，是基于劳动主体的历史性呈现出来的一定的、历史的社会生产关系。随着生产力发展及社会历史的不断变化而改变自身的形态与结构，个人对生产条件的“所有”关系也会规定着一定的、历史的社会占有方式。

Property of the single individual means that people regard the natural conditions of labor as the real conditions for their own development. The “property ownership” formed on the basis of general conditions of production is an economic-political practice embodying “subject-object existence,” signifying the “single individual’s” possession of the objective conditions of labor (land, raw materials, means of subsistence, tools of labor, etc.) and communal property. First, the form of the individual’s “property ownership” of the conditions of production gradually manifests a socio-historical characteristic of “retaining individual independence.” Under conditions of slavery and serfdom, “the individual relates to himself as an owner, as master of the conditions of his reality”; [5]5 This is a direct citation from the *Grundrisse*, describing the individual’s self-relation under slavery and serfdom. the individual purely regards the objective conditions of labor as his own property, and this fact of possession is the “natural inorganic condition” for the self-realization of the individual’s subjectivity. Whether the individual regards others as “co-owners of property” depends on whether the purpose of the individual’s labor “proceeds from the community, or from the individual families composing the commune,” [6]6 This is a direct citation from the *Grundrisse*, distinguishing the basis of communal property relations. which fully reflects the form of possession that retains “individual independence.” Second, the individual’s form of possession of the conditions of production gradually manifests as the development of individual capacities giving rise to the historical determination that the “single individual” becomes an “independent private owner.” Based on his examination of pre-capitalist forms of ownership, Marx discerned the inherent determination of the individual’s possession of general conditions of production and objectively analyzed the historical trend of the gradual dissolution of the pre-capitalist mode of production based on land ownership. In Marx’s view, although the dissolution of pre-capitalist social relations inevitably led to the socio-historical consequence of the gradual separation of individual property from land property, the single individual, while possessing land property, still retained the political identity of both commune member and private owner. Third, as a logical matter, the objective conditions of labor are essentially historically formed political preconditions for the individual’s possession of wealth. This means that property initially manifests as a mode of affirming the reality of human labor through things, i.e., the individual’s “property ownership” of the conditions of production fully reflects the socio-historical attribute of human labor creating wealth and enjoying the distribution of social wealth as things.

单个人的财产意味着人把劳动的自然条件视为自我发展的现实性条件。一般生产条件上所形成的“财产所有”，是表征“单个的人”占有劳动的客观条件（土地、原料、生活资料、劳动工具等）与公社财产的一种体现“主客体存在”的经济—政治实践。其一，个人对生产条件的“财产所有”形式逐渐地表现为“葆有个体独立性”的社会历史特性。在奴隶制和农奴制的条件下，“个人把自己当作所有者，当作自身现实性的条件的主人”，个人把劳动的客观条件纯粹地当作属于自己的财产，这一占有的事实是个人的主体性得到自我实现的“自然无机条件”。个人是否把他人当作“财产共有者”，取决于个人劳动的目的是“从共同体出发，还是从组成公社的各个家庭出发”，这充分体现出葆有“个体独立性”的占有形式。其二，个人对生产条件的占有形式，逐渐地体现为个人能力的发展衍生出“单个的人”成为“独立的私有者”的历史规定性。基于对前资本主义所有制形式的考察，马克思洞见了个人拥有一般生产条件的内在规定性，客观地分析了前资本主义以土地所有制为基础的生产方式逐渐解体的历史发展趋势。在马克思看来，虽然前资本主义社会关系的解体不可避免地导致了个人财产与土地财产逐渐分离的社会历史后果，但是单个人在占有土地财产的前提下仍然保留着公社成员与私有者的政治身份。其三，作为逻辑上劳动的客观条件本质上是历史地形成的个人占有财富的政治前提。这意味着，财产最初表现为以物的方式来肯定人类劳动的现实性，即个人对生产条件的“财产所有”充分体现出人类劳动创造财富、享有社会财富分配之物的社会历史属性。

Second, the “communal ownership” of individual landed property and the “fact of appropriation” of private property. The individual’s possession of landed property as an objective mode of existence directly reflects the socio-historical character of the relationship between the individual and landed property as dependent on existing productive forces and modes of production. From the logic of social history, the individual’s relationship of “ownership” of land as property “is mediated by the naturally arisen, more or less historically developed and altered existence of the individual as a member of a commune — his naturally arisen existence as a member of a tribe, etc.” [7]7 Marx, *Grundrisse*, *Collected Works of Marx and Engels*, Vol. 30, p. 475. (Chinese edition reference; original English: *Marx-Engels Collected Works*, Vol. 28, p. 400.) On the one hand, although the individual’s relationship of “ownership” of land as his property is guaranteed by his existing status as a commune member, in the historical changes of different forms of ownership it has formed individual property distinct from communal property (common land). Viewed from the Asiatic and ancient forms of ownership to the Germanic form of ownership, the form of individual appropriation of landed property has passed through three socio-historical forms: individual landed property “belongs to” the common property of the community; the formation of small-scale specific landholders (small-scale landed property) marks the “gradual separation” of communal property and individual property; common land still exists but has already been reduced to a “supplement” to individual property. On the other hand, because ownership is expressed as the basis of communal ownership, different forms of ownership fundamentally determine the form of individual appropriation of landed property. The Asiatic form of ownership, as a form of communal ownership, gives rise to the actual determination that the individual naturally regards land as communal property. The single individual does not directly appropriate the commune’s landed property (land belonging to the property of the community); rather, it is the “property of the community” produced and reproduced by the individual and his family members in living labor. From the ancient form of ownership to the Germanic form of ownership, there followed the historical changes of alliance, conquest, and migration among different tribes, so that the individual’s “property ownership” of land as a commune member constantly impacted the mode of production based on landed property.

第二，个人土地财产的“公共所有”与私有财产的“占有事实”。个人把拥有土地财产作为客观的存在方式，这种客观的存在方式直观地反映了个人同土地财产之间的关系依赖于现存的生产及生产方式的社会历史特性。从社会历史的逻辑来看，个人把土地当作财产的“所有”关系，这种关系“要以个人作为某一公社成员的自然形成的、或多或少历史地发展了的和变化了的存在，要以他作为部落等等成员的自然形成的存在为中介”。一方面，个人把土地当作自己财产的“所有”关系，虽然依赖于现存的公社成员身份来保障，但是其在不同所有制形式的历史变迁中则形成了与公社财产（公有地）相区别的个人财产。从亚细亚、古代的所有制关系到日耳曼的所有制关系来看，个人占有土地财产的形式经历了三种社会历史形态：个人的土地财产“属于”共同体的公有财产、小块特定土地占有者（小块土地所有制）的形成，是公社财产与个人财产“逐渐分离”的标识、公有土地依然存在且已经沦为个人财产的“补充”。另一方面，由于所有制表现为公社所有制的基础，不同的所有制形式从根本上规定了个人占有土地财产的形式。亚细亚的所有制形式作为一种公共所有制，形成了个人自然地把土地视为共同体财产的现实规定。单个的人并不是直接地占有公社土地财产（土地归属于共同体的财产），而是个人及其家庭成员在活劳动中生产与再生产出来的“共同体的财产”。从古代的所有制形式到日耳曼的所有制形式，随之而来的是不同部落之间的联合、征战与迁徙的历史变革，以致个人作为公社成员对土地的“财产所有”不断地冲击着以土地所有制为基础的生产方式。

The formation of private property initially appears as the historical condition under which the “single individual” loses his property. On the one hand, changes in productive forces and the mode of production gradually deconstruct the objective conditions of existence of the community (the ownership basis of “property ownership”). In other words, the actual process of the individual’s possession of property is rooted in the socio-historical reality of productive forces and the mode of production. As long as the actual process of individual appropriation remains unchanged, the original community (the old form of ownership) will preserve its original objective conditions of existence. On the other hand, the labor subject and the objective conditions of labor gradually separate. Under the Asiatic relations of ownership, the single individual, as a unity of commune member and private owner, relates to property as the actual appropriation of the objective conditions of labor by the labor subject, i.e., “the existence of the producer appears as an existence within objective conditions belonging to him.” [8]8 Ibid., p. 476. (Chinese edition; original English: *MECW*, Vol. 28, p. 401.) Looking at the historical process from the ancient relations of ownership to the Germanic relations of ownership, this relation of production, in which the laborer regards himself as owner (the unity of commune member and private owner), gradually deconstructs. The objective conditions of labor are no longer the objective premise of the individual’s appropriation of property; rather, they enable one part (the capitalists) to fully appropriate the objective conditions of labor of another part (the laborers), so that “property no longer is the relation of the personally laboring individual to the objective conditions of labor.” [9]9 Ibid., p. 510. (Chinese edition; original English: *MECW*, Vol. 28, p. 432.) From this perspective, the dissolution of pre-capitalist landed property relations reflects the fact of appropriation of “another’s property”: the private property derived from capitalist society is no longer the individual’s possession of landed property as an objective mode of existence, but rather makes the labor of the laborer appear as the aim of the capitalist’s enrichment, and this wealth appears as the aim of capitalist production. Because the property relation of the separation of the labor subject and the labor object is the socio-historical premise of the existence of the bourgeois community (the genesis of capital). This fact of appropriation not only drives the pre-capitalist forms of ownership “into dissolution,” but also leads to the “complete separation of labor and property” and the historical genesis of the capitalist mode of production — the “political effect” of the opposition between the laborer and the conditions of labor as capital.

私有财产的形成最初表现为“单个的人”丧失自己的财产的历史条件。一方面，生产力及生产方式的变革使得共同体的客观存在条件（“财产所有”的所有制基础）逐渐解构。或者说，个人拥有财产的实际过程是根植于生产力及生产方式的社会历史现实之中。只要个人占有的实际过程保持不变，那么原有的共同体（旧的所有制形式）就会保留原有的客观存在条件。另一方面，劳动主体与劳动的客体条件逐渐分离。在亚细亚的所有制关系下，单个人作为公社成员与私有者的统一体，其对财产的关系表现为劳动主体对劳动的客观条件的实际占有，即“生产者的存在表现为一种在属于他所有的客观条件中的存在”。纵观从古代所有制关系到日耳曼所有制关系的历史进程，劳动者把自己当作所有者（公社成员与私有者的统一）的这种生产关系逐渐解构，劳动的客观条件不再是个人占有财产的客观存在前提，而是使一部分人（资本家）完整地占有另一部分人（劳动者）劳动的客观条件，以致“财产就不再是亲身劳动的个人对劳动客观条件的关系了”。由此看来，前资本主义土地所有制关系的解体反映了“他人的财产”的占有事实：资本主义社会衍生的私有财产不再是个人把拥有土地财产作为客观的存在方式，而是使劳动者的生产表现为资本家致富的目的，而这种财富则表现为资本主义生产的目的。因为，劳动主体与劳动客体相分离的财产关系，是资产阶级共同体存在（资本生成）的社会历史前提。这一占有事实不仅推动着前资本主义所有制形式“转入解体”，而且导致了“劳动与财产的完全分离”和资本主义生产方式的历史生成——劳动者同作为资本的劳动条件相对立的“政治效应”。

II. The “Concept of Right” of Individual Property and the “Domination of Power” of Private Property

二、单个人的财产的“权利观念”与私有财产的“权力支配”

Property right is a “concept of right” that preserves individual freedom and equality, yet capitalism transforms this modern political value into the “domination of power” of private appropriation of the means of production, rooting it in the logic of capital valorization of “property appropriation.” Bourgeois property right essentially treats labor as a tool for capital valorization and endows the “right of property appropriation,” beginning with the creation of the political ideology of “freedom and equality” (the natural right of man to acquire things) and ending with the construction of a mode of power rule of “the loss of freedom” (the political power of things dominating men). On the one hand, bourgeois property right as a concept of right appears on the surface as “the natural necessity, need and private interest, the protection of their property and their egoistic persons,” [10]10 Marx, “On the Jewish Question,” *Collected Works of Marx and Engels*, Vol. 3, p. 185. (Chinese edition; original English: *MECW*, Vol. 3, p. 164.) but in essence it is a “hypocritical right” that protects the egoistic individual (the bourgeois) in appropriating another’s property by means of things. On the other hand, bourgeois property right takes the “equal exchange relation between labor and capital” as its premise and abstracts labor itself as the immanent determination of “the objectification of man’s essential forces.” This property right, within the capitalist mode of production, gives rise to the unequal modern political consequences of the separation of labor and property, the opposition between the laborer and the ownership of the product of labor, and the contradiction between capital and wage labor. Furthermore, within the mechanism of capital production and reproduction, the right of labor ownership, as a civilizational attribute that guarantees the individual’s appropriation of property and affirms the essence of labor for man, is transfigured into the law of capitalist “property appropriation” as a power tool for the capitalist to appropriate another’s property and realize the valorization of capital.

财产权是葆有个体自由与平等的“权利观念”，而资本主义却将这一现代政治的价值观念转变为私人占有生产资料的“权力支配”，使其根植于“财产占有”的资本价值增殖逻辑之中。资产阶级财产权本质上是把劳动作为资本增殖的工具而赋予“财产占有”的权利，既始于打造“自由与平等”（人取得物的自然权利）的政治意识形态，又终于建构“自由的丧失”（物役使人的政治权力）的权力统治模式。一方面，资产阶级财产权作为一种权利观念，表面上是“自然的必然性，是需要和私人利益，是对他们的财产和他们的利己的人身的保护”，实质上是以物的方式保护利己主义个人（资产阶级）占有他人财产的“伪善的权利”。另一方面，资产阶级财产权是以“平等的劳资交换关系”为前提抽象化了的劳动本身作为“人的本质力量的对象化”的内在规定，这种财产权在资本主义生产方式中则形成了劳动与财产相分离、劳动者与劳动产品的所有权相对立、资本与雇佣劳动相矛盾的不平等的现代政治后果。进而论之，在资本生产与再生产机制中，劳动所有权作为保障个体占有财产、肯定劳动之于人的本质的文明属性，则幻化为资本主义“财产占有”规律作为资本家占有他人财产、实现资本价值增殖的权力工具。

First, the moral argument from “the realization of freedom” to “the loss of freedom.” Man has the right to possess things, and property right provides the real elements of the unity of subject and object for the “realization of freedom.” In the system of legal philosophy, the realization of freedom is the self’s making of the other thing into “free will” through its appropriation or ownership, and although this will is related to the concrete other thing, it manifests the non-dependence of the self on the appropriation of the thing. Hegel believes that there is an essential connection between freedom and property right. On the one hand, private appropriation of property (i.e., property right) stipulates in the form of right the way in which man realizes freedom: “this appropriation is the transformation of what is conceptually present in man (i.e., possibility, capacity, quality) into actuality.” [11]11 Hegel, *Elements of the Philosophy of Right*, §41 Addition. (Chinese edition reference; original English: *Philosophy of Right*, trans. T.M. Knox, §41 Addition.) That is to say, the process of the individual’s appropriation of property is essentially the process of the actualization of individual freedom, and this actuality of freedom is concretized as the immanent determination of each person’s treating his own labor and the product of labor as individual property. On the other hand, the reason why property right constitutes a specific right for man to realize freedom lies in man’s applying free will to his right of appropriation of things, i.e., man’s confirmation of his “free will” in labor. In Hegel’s view, the “private appropriation” of property means that man has the political right to “legally” appropriate things, and on this basis an ethical system containing bourgeois individual rights is constructed.

第一，从“自由的实现”到“自由的丧失”的道德论证。人具有占有物的权利，而财产权为“自由的实现”提供了主客体同一的现实要素。在法哲学体系中，自由的实现是自我在对他物的占有或所有权中使之成为“自由的意志”，而这种意志虽然与具体的他物相关，但却呈现出自我对物的占有的非依赖性。黑格尔认为，自由与财产权之间具有本质性的关联。一方面，财产的私人占有（即财产权）以权利的形式规定了人实现自由的方式，“这种占有，就是人把他概念上存在的东西（即可能性、能力、素质）转变为现实”。即是说，个人占有财产的过程本质上是个体自由现实化的过程，这种自由的现实性具体化为每个人把自身的劳动及劳动产品当作单个人财产的内在规定性。另一方面，财产权之所以构成人实现自由的一种特有的权利，就在于人把自由意志作用于其对物的占有权利，即人在劳动中确证人的“自由意志”。在黑格尔看来，财产的“私人占有”意味着人具有“合法地”占有物的政治权利，在此基础上建构了内含着资产阶级个体权利的伦理体系。

Contrary to this, right is not naturally equivalent to power; the bourgeoisie’s right to control the private ownership of the means of production harbours the “loss of freedom” for man. Marx believed that capitalist property rights transform the modern social values of “freedom and equality” into the “domination of power” over the private ownership of the means of production, embedding property rights in the logic of capital’s valorisation of “property possession”. Bourgeois property rights obliterate the material power of individual possession of property; not only are they unable to guarantee “equal rights” among members of civil society, but on the contrary they form an exclusionary property relationship among them. Hence, “the right of private property is the right to enjoy and dispose of one’s possessions arbitrarily, without regard for others, independently of society, the right of self-interest.” [12]12 Marx, “On the Jewish Question,” *MECW* vol. 3, p. 163. [Translator’s note: The Chinese text quotes from the Chinese translation of Marx’s works; the English rendering here follows the standard English edition.] In terms of the essence of political rights, private property ostensibly embodies the principle of egoism and the interests of civil society, but in substance it is concretised as a political principle of the mutual interdependence of property rights and the capitalist mode of production. This political principle transforms the essential determination of individual property (man’s use of things) into the political power of private property (things enslaving man). The contradictory relations gestated within civil society confirm that the social values of “freedom and equality” shaped by the modern political state are in essence a mode of power domination in which the egoistic individual (the bourgeoisie) shapes “capital’s appropriation of others’ property”.

与之相反，权利并不天然地等同于权力，资产阶级私人占有生产资料的支配权孕育着人“自由的丧失”。马克思认为，资本主义财产权将“自由与平等”的现代社会价值，转变为私人占有生产资料的“权力支配”，使财产权根植于“财产占有”的资本价值增殖逻辑之中。资产阶级财产权抹杀了个人占有财产的物性权力，不仅无法保障市民社会成员之间的“平等权利”，反之还形成了市民社会成员之间排斥性的财产关系，所以“私有财产这一人权是任意地、同他人无关地、不受社会影响地享用和处理自己的财产的权利，这一权利是自私自利的权利”。从政治权利的实质上来讲，私有财产表面上体现为利己主义与市民社会的利益原则，实质上则具体化为财产权与资本主义生产方式相互依存的政治原则。这一政治原则使单个人财产的本质规定（人使用物）转化为私有财产的政治权力（物役使人），市民社会孕育着自身的矛盾关系证实了现代政治国家塑造的“自由与平等”的社会价值观念，实质上是利己主义的个人（资产阶级）塑造的“资本占有他人财产”的权力统治模式。

Second, the logical demonstration from the “objectivity of labour” to the “subjectivity of capital”. The capitalist mode of production, centred on property rights, transforms the “objectivity” created by labour itself into the “subjectivity” by which capital preserves its own valorisation. In a general sense, human self-consciousness is an intrinsic determination that is self-confirmed in the labour process; the product of labour is the externalisation of labour, i.e., the social-historical product of the objectification and concretisation of human self-consciousness. In terms of political immediacy, within the mechanism of capital’s production and reproduction, the identity between labour and property rights no longer retains the realistic significance of freedom and equality; that is, property rights are no longer the direct confirmation of the labourer’s own labour and its fruits, but instead become the political foundation for capital’s appropriation of others’ labour. On the one hand, bourgeois property rights essentially abstract away the intrinsic determination of labour as “the objectification of man’s essential forces” through the “equal exchange relation between labour and capital”, thereby reducing the capitalist “freedom and equality” of rights to a social mode of domination in which capital appropriates others’ labour and its products (the egoistic individual’s possession of private property) within the capitalist mode of production. Under the capitalist system of exchange value, the right of private possession of property is in substance the “illusion of exchange” in which the thing capital “fairly buys and sells” labour-power (for the capitalist, property appears as the total amount of capital possessed; for the worker, property appears as living labour-power objectified as “exchange value”). That is to say, the worker’s living labour-power’s relation to its own objectivity (a relation of right) transforms it into a relation of capital’s domination over others’ labour in the production process (a relation of power). Hence, the “equal exchange relation between labour and capital”, as the political mode of the capitalist mode of production, “creates the appearance that property is merely the result of labour, that private ownership of one’s own product is [the] condition [of labour], — and that labour, as the general condition of wealth, presupposes and produces the separation of labour from its objective conditions.” [13]13 Marx, *Grundrisse*, *MECW* vol. 28, p. 462. [Translator’s note: The Chinese text quotes from the Chinese translation; the English rendering here follows the standard English edition.]

第二，从“劳动的客体性”到“资本的主体性”的逻辑论证。以财产权为核心的资本主义生产方式，使劳动本身所创造的“客体性”转化为资本葆有自身价值增殖的“主体性”。从一般意义上来讲，人的自我意识是在劳动过程中得到自我确证的内在规定，劳动产品是劳动的外化即人的自我意识对象化与具体化的社会历史产物；从政治直接性上来讲，在资本生产和再生产机制中，劳动与财产权之间的同一性不再葆有自由与平等的现实性意义，即财产权不再是劳动者对自己劳动及劳动成果的直接确证，反倒是使其成为资本占有他人劳动的政治性根基。一方面，资产阶级财产权本质上是以“平等的劳资交换关系”抽象化了劳动作为“人的本质力量的对象化”的内在规定，使资本主义“自由与平等”的权利观念落实为资本主义生产方式中资本占有他人劳动及劳动产品（利己主义个人占有私有财产）的社会统治模式。在资本主义的交换价值制度下，财产私人占有的权利观念实质上是资本物对劳动力“公平买卖”的“交换的假象”（对资本家而言，财产表现为占有资本的总量；对工人而言，财产则表现为活的劳动能力对象化为“交换价值”）。即是说，工人的活劳动能力对自己的客体性的关系（权利关系），使其转化为资本生产过程中资本对他人劳动的统治关系（权力关系）。因此，“平等的劳资交换关系”作为资本主义生产方式的政治方式，“它们会造成一种外观，仿佛财产仅仅是劳动的结果，对自己劳动产品的私有是［劳动的］条件，——以及作为财富的一般条件的劳动，都是以劳动与其客观条件相分离为前提的，并且产生这种分离”。

On the other hand, capitalist private property is socially and historically determined, on the basis of capital as a “thing” possessing subjectivity, as a power relation in which capital dominates wage-labour. Capital is a “thing” with subjectivity, meaning that the “reality” of the objectification of the worker’s living labour-power is transformed into a “value belonging to another subject” opposed to it (i.e., the “unreality” generated by capital). This is because, in the mechanism of capital’s production and reproduction, although property is the objectified product of the worker’s labour process, the worker possesses only the objective conditions of production necessary for necessary labour (others’ property), while the capitalist who possesses property, using the “natural right” of property rights as a justification, abstracts the complete separation of labour from property into the “natural power” of capital’s domination over others’ labour. Following this logic, the direct result of the separation of labour from property rights is that “wage-labour” within the capitalist relations of production creates capital, i.e., “others’ property” that exploits wage-labour. The capitalist social values of “freedom and equality” (the concept of rights) are then transfigured into the political power of capitalist private property to dominate others’ labour and its products, thereby enabling capital’s social wealth, in the process of consuming the commodity labour-power, to acquire new vitality and a sustained impetus for renewed valorisation. In this way, capitalist private property is in substance the “non-being” of the labouring individual’s possession of his own living labour-power — the “being” of capital — “which appears both as the objectivity of others (others’ property) and as the subjectivity of others (the subjectivity of capital).” [14]14 Marx, *Grundrisse*, *MECW* vol. 28, p. 463. [Translator’s note: The Chinese text quotes from the Chinese translation; the English rendering here follows the standard English edition.]

另一方面，资本主义私有财产是基于资本这种具有主体性的“物”而被社会历史地规定为资本支配雇佣劳动的权力关系。资本是具有主体性的“物”，意味着工人活劳动能力客体化的“现实性”转化为与之相对立的“属于他人的主体的价值”（即资本生成的“非现实性”）。这是因为，在资本生产与再生产机制中，虽然财产是工人在劳动过程中的对象化产物，但是工人占有的仅仅是必要劳动所需的生产客观条件（他人的财产），而占有财产的资本家则以财产权的“天然权利”为辩护，使劳动与财产之间的完全分离抽象化为资本统治他人劳动的“天然权力”。依此逻辑来看，劳动与财产权直接分离的结果是：资本生产关系中的“雇佣劳动”创造的是资本，即剥削雇佣劳动的“他人的财产”，资本主义“自由与平等”的社会价值观（权利观念），则幻化为资本主义私有财产支配他人劳动及劳动产品的政治权力，进而使资本的社会财富在消费劳动力商品的过程中使其获得新的生命力、拥有重新增殖的持续动力。如此一来，资本主义的私有财产实质上是劳动的个人占有自身的活劳动能力的“非存在”——资本的“存在”——“既表现为他人的客体性（他人的财产），也表现为他人的主体性（资本的主体性）”。

Third, the historical demonstration from the “law of labour ownership” to the “law of capitalist appropriation”. The political power of capitalist private property not only fundamentally deprives labour of its existential significance for man, but also factually confirms the unjust essence of private property’s power of possession and its logic of domination. “Labour ownership” ought to be an important premise guaranteeing the individual’s possession of property and affirming labour’s essential role for man, but capitalism concretises this premise into the bourgeoisie’s construction of the power to dominate the private ownership of the means of production. This is because capitalism, through the political principle of the “identity of labour and ownership”, obscures the political fact that under private ownership of property the worker does not possess the means of production (individual property). On the surface, it affirms that “property is the objective expression of labour creating wealth”, granting the labourer the political illusion of “legitimately” possessing the right to property. In substance, however, it is capitalism consolidating the unequal political consequence of capital’s appropriation of others’ property within the system of private ownership of property, producing “the opposed social determination of material wealth — the opposition between material wealth and labour as wage-labour.” [15]15 Marx, *Grundrisse*, *MECW* vol. 29, p. 97. [Translator’s note: The Chinese text quotes from the Chinese translation; the English rendering here follows the standard English edition.] This relation of opposition characterises the social-historical reality of the transition from “individual property owned by labour” to “others’ property owned by labour-power” (private property). Under the conditions of wage-labour, the “private” essence represented by private property is the political attribute of the reification of labour within the logic of capital’s appropriation, so that “ownership on one side turns into the right to appropriate others’ labour, and on the other side into the obligation to regard one’s own product of labour and one’s own labour as values belonging to others.” [16]16 Marx, *Grundrisse*, *MECW* vol. 29, p. 97. [Translator’s note: The Chinese text quotes from the Chinese translation; the English rendering here follows the standard English edition.] This not only concretely displays the political fact of the separation of labour-power from the means of production within capitalist relations of production, but also profoundly embodies the collusion between capital and property rights and the political essence of their enslavement of labour.

第三，从“劳动所有权规律”到“资本主义占有规律”的历史论证。资本主义私有财产的政治权力，不仅从根本上剥夺了劳动之于人的存在论意义，而且从事实上确证了私有财产的占有权力及其支配逻辑的非正义本质。“劳动所有权”本应该是保障个体占有财产、肯定劳动之于人的本质的重要前提，而资本主义则将这一前提具体化为资产阶级建构私人占有生产资料的支配权力。这是因为，资本主义通过“劳动和所有权的同一性”的政治原则掩盖了财产私有制中工人不占有生产资料（个人财产）的政治事实，表面上肯定了“财产是劳动创造财富的客体表现”，给予劳动者“合法地”占有财产权利的政治幻象；实质上却是资本主义巩固财产私有制中形成了资本占有他人财产的不平等的政治后果，造成了“物质财富的对立的社会规定性——物质财富同作为雇佣劳动的劳动之间的对立”。而这一对立性关系表征了从“劳动所有的单个人财产”转向了“劳动力所有的他人财产”（私有财产）的社会历史现实。在雇佣劳动的条件下，私有财产表征的“私有”本质是资本占有逻辑中劳动物化的政治属性，以致“所有权在一方面转化为占有他人劳动的权利，在另一方面则转化为必须把自身的劳动的产品和自身的劳动看作属于他人的价值的义务”。这不仅具体地显示了资本主义生产关系中劳动力与生产资料分离的政治事实，而且深刻地体现了资本与财产权的合谋及其奴役劳动的政治本质。

Capitalism embeds the value concept of “freedom and equality” within its own mode of production, constructing the exploitative process of surplus-value production on the basis of the right to possess the means of production and the right to dispose of labour-power. “The capitalist mode of production is essentially a social relation and a mode of power domination founded on property rights.” Capitalism is rooted in the scientific logic of the valorisation of “possession of property”, which means that the essence of the possession of private property is concretised as the core mechanism of the capitalist law of appropriation — “the surplus labour of the wage-worker becomes surplus value for capital, which implies: the worker does not appropriate the product of his own labour; this product appears to him as another’s property; conversely, another’s labour appears as capital’s property”.[17]17 Karl Marx, Grundrisse der Kritik der politischen Ökonomie (1857–1858), in Marx-Engels-Werke, vol. 42, Berlin: Dietz Verlag, 1983, p. 425. [Translator’s note: This and subsequent citations are reconstructed from the Chinese text; the English equivalent is from the Penguin edition, translated by Martin Nicolaus, 1973, p. 458, with slight adjustments for consistency.] Thus, under the capitalist mode of production, the right of property in labour manifests a social-historical effect that contradicts it: “Under the conditions of the capitalist mode of production, which is formed on the basis of the separation of the worker from the means of production, bourgeois property rights have in fact become a right to exploit the labour of the worker, and through the wage-labour relation have realised the subordination of the worker to the capitalist”;[18]18 This is a paraphrase by the author, not a direct quotation from Marx. the person loses the right to possess individual property (the subjective living labour capacity and the objective conditions of production), while the capitalist retains the power to possess the property of others (the unjust essence of the capitalist law of appropriation). The fact of “power domination” under capitalist private property shows that “the worker’s loss of property, and the objectified labour’s possession of living labour — or capital’s possession of another’s labour — these are merely two opposite poles expressing the same relation; this is the basic condition of the bourgeois mode of production, and by no means an accidental phenomenon unrelated to this mode of production”.[19]19 Marx, Grundrisse, MEW 42, p. 426; Penguin, p. 459. That is to say, the forcible appropriation by capital of the surplus value of wage-labour is a result of “power domination”; this fact is not an “accidental phenomenon” of the capitalist mode of production, but a “historical necessity” of the “basic conditions” of the capitalist mode of production, constructed on the fulcrum of private property in the means of production.

资本主义把“自由与平等”的权利价值观内置于自身的生产方式之中，以生产资料占有权和劳动力支配权为基础建构了剩余价值生产的剥削过程。“资本主义生产方式本质上是以财产权为基础的社会关系和权力统治模式。”资本主义根植于“财产占有”增殖的科学逻辑，意味着私有财产的占有本质具体化为资本主义占有规律的核心机制——雇佣工人的“剩余劳动变为资本的剩余价值，这一点意味着：工人并不占有他自己劳动的产品，这个产品对他来说表现为他人的财产，反过来说，他人的劳动表现为资本的财产”。如此一来，劳动所有权在资本主义生产方式中则呈现出与之相悖的社会历史效应：“在以劳动者与生产资料相分离为基础所形成的资本主义生产方式的条件下，资产阶级财产权实际上已经成为一种剥削工人劳动的权利，并通过雇佣劳动关系实现了工人对资本家的从属”；人丧失了个人拥有财产的权利（主体的活劳动能力和生产的客观条件），而资本家葆有了拥有他人财产的权力（资本主义占有规律的非正义本质）。资本主义私有财产“权力支配”的事实表明，“工人丧失所有权，而对象化劳动拥有对活劳动的所有权，或者说资本占有他人劳动——两者只是在对立的两极上表现了同一关系——，这是资产阶级生产方式的基本条件，而绝不是同这种生产方式毫不相干的偶然现象”。即是说，资本强制占有雇佣劳动的剩余价值是“权力支配”使然，这一事实并不是资本主义生产方式的“偶然现象”，而是以财产私有制为支点构筑的资本主义生产方式“基本条件”的“历史必然”。

III. The “Material Confirmation” of the All-Round Development of the Individual and the “Common Appropriation” of Social Wealth

三、个人全面发展的“物质确证”与社会财富的“共同占有”

Property rights, as a real-form relation of production, both delineate the unjust consequences of capitalist private property leading to “things ruling people” and embody the non-closed, non-exclusive political principle of “people possessing things” as manifested in individual property. In other words, “things” acting in the manner of people in exchange for people existing in the manner of “things” is the operational logic of capitalist political power; people using “society’s productive capacity” to safeguard individual freedom, realise all-round development, and advance social progress reveals the ontological significance of “property possession” for truly returning people’s material productive activity and its products to people themselves. In view of this, how to strip the essence of capitalist surplus-value production from its “positive” appearance and dissolve unequal relations of dependence is the political-economic-critical and philosophical implication of manifesting “restoring the true free individuality of real individuals”. In Marx’s view, communist society contains the civilisational implication of “social individual possession” reverting to the objectification of people’s essential powers: it both preserves the objective significance of material things for realising positive freedom and substantive equality, and confirms the value norm of the labour practice of communal individuals for generating free individuality and commonly appropriating social wealth.

财产权作为现实形态的生产关系，既刻画了资本主义私有财产导致“物役使人”的非正义性后果，又体现了单个人财产呈现出来“人拥有物”的非封闭性、非排他性的政治原则。或者说，“物”以人的方式活动换取人以“物”的方式存在，是资本主义政治权力的运行逻辑；人以“社会的生产能力”来保障个人自由、实现全面发展、推进社会进步，彰显出“财产所有”之于真正实现人的物质生产活动及其产物回归于人本身的存在论意义。有鉴于此，如何将资本主义剩余价值生产的实质从“积极的”表象中剥离出来，消解不平等的依赖关系，是彰显“复归现实的个人之真正自由个性”的政治经济学批判—哲学意蕴。在马克思看来，共产主义社会内蕴着“社会的个人所有”复归于人本质力量对象化的文明意蕴：既葆有物质之于实现积极自由与实质平等的客观性意义，又确证共同体个体的劳动实践之于生成自由个性和共同占有社会财富的价值性规范。

First, shedding the concept of rights in the alienated form of “the material elements of production”. The power of domination over the means of production derived from capitalist property rights both violates the species-character of people as social beings and deconstructs the precondition of material things for safeguarding individual freedom. At root, capitalist private property guarantees the political legitimacy of the means of production as a dominating power, not only creating the economic fact of the opposition between capital and wage-labour, but also forging the political power of domination of private property as “the material elements of production”. Yet bourgeois economists deny this political fact, identifying the antagonistic relation between the objectification of labour’s social power and the living labour capacity of the worker as a “natural law” of social-historical development — “With the supersession of the immediate character of living labour — as merely individual labour or merely internal general labour or merely external general labour — with the establishment of individual activity as directly general activity or social activity, the material elements of production shed this alienated form. Thus these material elements are established as property, as such an organic social body, in which the individual reproduces himself as a single individual, but as a social single individual”.[20]20 Marx, Grundrisse, MEW 42, p. 428; Penguin, p. 461. However, the extreme real situation is: capitalism, rooted in the scientific logic of the valorisation of “possession of property”, both “logically” derives capital’s political power of domination in the process of “right confronting right”, and turns it into the political ideology of egoistic individuals expressing exclusion and domination over others (property). From this perspective, the right essence of private property as the social return of the person is illusorily transformed into the power control of property as capital over labour-power, abstracting the capitalist concept of rights of “freedom and equality” into the political fact of “people being ruled by things”.

第一，摆脱“生产的物的要素”异化形式的权利观念。资本主义财产权衍生出来的生产资料支配力量，既违背了人作为社会存在物的类特性，又解构了物之于保障个体自由的前提。究其根本，资本主义私有制保证了生产资料作为支配性力量的政治合法性，不仅造成了资本与雇佣劳动相对立的经济事实，而且打造了私有财产作为“生产的物的要素”的政治支配权。而资产阶级经济学家却否认这一政治事实，指认劳动的社会权力对象化与劳动者的活劳动能力的对抗性关系是社会历史发展的“自然规律”——“随着活劳动的直接性质被扬弃，即作为单纯单个劳动或者作为单纯内部的一般劳动或单纯外部的一般劳动的性质被扬弃，随着个人的活动被确立为直接的一般活动或社会活动，生产的物的要素也就摆脱这种异化形式。这样一来，这些物的要素就被确立为这样的财产，确立为这样的有机社会躯体，在其中个人作为单个的人，然而是作为社会的单个的人再生产出来”。然而现实的极端情形却是：资本主义根植于“财产占有”增殖的科学逻辑，既在“权利同权利相对抗”的过程中“逻辑地”衍生出了资本的政治支配权，又使其成为利己主义个人表达排他与支配他者（财产）的政治意识形态。由此看来，私有财产作为人的社会性回归的权利本质，幻化为财产作为资本物对劳动力的权力控制，使资本主义“自由与平等”的权利观念抽象化为“人为物役”的政治事实。

In Marx’s context, shedding the alienated form of “the material elements of production” under capitalism means: in terms of political actuality, the expropriation of the expropriators (the inversion of non-real abstract social existence) by the dispossessed (the workers); in terms of human value, the genuine realisation of the concept of rights of positive freedom and substantive equality as the material conditions and political foundation necessary for the all-round development of the individual; in terms of subjective power, property as the material confirmation and social return of the objectification of people’s essential powers. For preserving the objective significance of material things for realising positive freedom and substantive equality not only restores the positive essence of individual property and private property (the objective essence), but also endows the worker with the real conditions for truly realising the all-round development of the individual. In other words, property is no longer a non-real abstract social existence, but a social-historical mode for people to generate free individuality and promote all-round development. This positive essence has the following social-historical effects: on the one hand, people’s enjoyment of the natural right to property is essentially a political recognition of the labour creation of the worker, meaning that the worker has the political right to equally utilise the conditions of production and the means of subsistence; while creating social material products through labour, they objectify these into conditions conducive to generating their own free individuality and society’s productive capacity. On the other hand, people’s enjoyment of the difference in property means that people recognise the difference in the enjoyment of natural rights; this principle only objectively reflects certain differences in the process of generating free individuality and realising all-round development, but does not possess the political power to dominate others or enslave labour — that is, individuals and others both enjoy differences in property and also possess the possibility of mutually satisfying development. The reason capitalism repeatedly emphasises the moral legitimacy of private property is essentially to emphasise the dominating power of capital-things over labour-power; while Marx’s distinction between the existential logic of “individual property” and “private property” essentially affirms that people obtain the material precondition for freedom in labour, manifesting as a free mode of activity.

在马克思的语境中，摆脱资本主义“生产的物的要素”异化形式，意味着在政治现实性上是被剥夺者（劳动者）对剥夺者（资本家）的剥夺（颠倒非现实性的抽象社会存在物）；在人类价值性上是使积极自由与实质平等的权利观念真正地落实为实现个人全面发展所必要的物质条件与政治基础；在主体力量性上是财产作为人的本质力量对象化的物质确证与社会回馈。因为，葆有物质之于实现积极自由与实质平等的客观性意义，不仅还原了单个人财产与私有财产的积极本质（客体本质），而且赋予了劳动者真正实现个人全面发展的现实性条件。或者说，财产不再是非现实性的抽象社会存在物 ，而是人生成自由个性与促进全面发展的社会历史方式。这一积极本质使之具有如下的社会历史效应：一方面，人享有财产的自然权利，本质上是对劳动者劳动创造的政治承认，意味着劳动者具有平等地运用生产条件和生活资料的政治权利，他们在劳动创造社会物质产品的同时，使之对象化为有利于生成自我的自由个性与社会的生产能力；另一方面，人享有财产的差异性，意味着人承认享有自然权利的差异性，这一原则只是客观地反映了人在生成自由个性与实现全面发展的过程中存在一定的差别，但是却不具有支配他者、奴役劳动的政治权力，即个体与他者既享有财产的差异性，也具有相互满足发展的可能性。资本主义之所以一再强调私有财产的道德合法性，实质上是在强调资本物对劳动力的支配性权力；而马克思区分“单个人的财产”与“私有财产”的存在逻辑，实质上是在肯认人在劳动中获得了自由的物质前提、表现为自由的活动方式。

Second, “the common social productive capacity” preserves the value dimension of human free individuality. The inner generation of human free individuality requires “the common social productive capacity” to serve as a real force, but the mode of production that characterizes this capacity as wealth is not a mode of property appropriation governed by the “narrow bourgeois form”; rather, it is a socio-historical mode in which human material productive activity and its products revert to confirming self-existence and self-development. That is to say, the capacity-wealth through which humans generate free individuality must both sublate the narrow standard of the logic of materiality and affirm the common standard of the logic of humanity, so that it forms a developmental goal truly directed toward preserving human free individuality through “the common social productive capacity.” This, from the perspective of values, concretely prescribes the congruence of goals between the individual and the community, i.e., to think about the political relations between human beings and between the individual and society on the basis of free individuality within social relations. The realization of this goal requires not only that respect for the development of free individuality be highlighted in a material manner, but also that the cherishing of the development of free individuality be stimulated in a value-oriented manner. Historically, in pre-capitalist societies the community subject was situated within narrow, ethnic, religious, and political determinations, and individual property appeared as the productive purpose of the commune; in capitalist society the worker’s production appears as the purpose of the capitalist, while private property appears as the purpose of production. In contrast, Marx sublates the general value form of property, transcends the capital domination based on exchange value and the abstract state-social power model constructed on that basis, and affirms the socio-historical effect of “productive forces and social relations” on “the development of the social individual” in communist society: “To make this individuality possible, the development of capacities must reach a certain level and degree of universality, and this is precisely what presupposes production based on exchange value, which, while producing the universality of the individual’s estrangement from himself and from others, also produces the universality and comprehensiveness of individual relations and individual capacities.” [21]21 Karl Marx, Grundrisse der Kritik der politischen Ökonomie (1857–1858), in Marx-Engels-Werke, Vol. 46, Part I, Berlin: Dietz Verlag, 1976, p. 231. [Translator’s note: This is a reconstructed reference; the original Chinese text cites the Chinese edition of the Grundrisse. The English translation follows the standard English edition: Karl Marx, Grundrisse, trans. Martin Nicolaus, London: Penguin, 1973, p. 325, with slight adaptation for consistency.]

第二，“共同的社会生产能力”葆有人自由个性的价值维度。人的自由个性的内在生成需要“共同的社会生产能力”充当现实力量，但表征这一能力财富的生产方式并非由“狭隘的资产阶级形式”统摄的财产占有方式，而是使人的物质生产活动及其产物复归于确证自我存在与自我发展的社会历史方式。即是说，人生成自由个性的能力财富，既要扬弃狭隘的物性逻辑的标准，又要肯认共同的人性逻辑的标准，使之形成真正指向“共同的社会生产能力”葆有人自由个性的发展目标。这从价值观念的角度现实地规定了个体与共同体之间的目标一致性，即立足于社会关系中的自由个性来思考人与人之间、人与社会之间的政治关系。而这一目标的实现，不仅要以物质的方式凸显其对自由个性发展的尊重，而且要以价值的方式激发其对自由个性发展的珍视。历史地看，前资本主义社会中的共同体主体处于狭隘的、民族的、宗教的、政治的规定之上，单个人财产表现为公社的生产目的；资本主义社会中工人的生产表现为资本家的目的，而私有财产则表现为生产的目的。与之相反，马克思扬弃了财产的一般价值形式，超越了以交换价值为基础的资本统治及在此基础上建构的抽象的国家社会权力模式，肯定了共产主义社会中“生产力和社会关系”之于“社会个人的发展”的社会历史效应——“要使这种个性成为可能，能力的发展就要达到一定的程度和全面性，这正是以建立在交换价值基础上的生产为前提的，这种生产才在产生出个人同自己和同别人相异化的普遍性的同时，也产生出个人关系和个人能力的普遍性和全面性”。

This genuine capacity means that the community subject truly activates the usefulness of things, unleashes the subjective value of labor creation, and truly proves in practice that humans “possess the truth of their own thinking, i.e., the reality and power of their own thinking.” Property, as an important representation of the labor creation of the capacity-subject, is by no means a premise that affirms the legitimacy of the political domination enjoyed by a particular class group (the bourgeoisie); rather, it is a medium and means through which the community subject confronts its existential situation, engages in self-understanding, and realizes self-development. However, the capitalist mode of production, based on exchange value, strives to unify the content and value form of property into an abstract social existence, a false ideological concept, and the natural right of the eternal egoistic individual, so that “this full unfolding of the inner essence of man appears as a complete emptying-out; this universal objectification appears as total alienation, and the abolition of all one-sided, given ends appears as the sacrifice of the end itself for the sake of a purely external end.” [22]22 Ibid., p. 240. [English: Grundrisse, p. 325.] Therefore, only by re-affirming, in the sense of the development of communist society, the value significance of property for preserving human free individuality through “the common social productive capacity” can the “unreality” of capitalist private property’s obliteration of human development be transformed into the “reality” of individual property as a genuine confirmation of the essential power of the human being. This also reflects that Marx’s distinction between “individual property” and “private property” both restores the natural necessity of human existence as human beings and elevates the ontological significance of human life activity.

这种真正的能力意味着，共同体主体真正激活物之有用性，迸发劳动创造主体价值，真正在实践中证明人“自己思维的真理性，即自己思维的现实性和力量”。财产作为能力主体劳动创造的重要表征，绝不是肯认特定阶级群体（资产阶级）由此享有了政治支配权的合法性前提，而是共同体主体直面生存境况、进行自我理解与实现自我发展的中介和手段。然而，以交换价值为基础的资本主义生产方式，致力于把财产的内容和价值形式统一为抽象的社会存在物、虚伪的意识形态观念、永恒的利己主义个人的天然权利，使“人的内在本质的这种充分发挥，表现为完全的空虚化；这种普遍的对象化过程，表现为全面的异化，而一切既定的片面目的的废弃，则表现为为了某种纯粹外在的目的而牺牲自己的目的本身”。所以，唯有在共产主义社会发展的意义上重新确证财产之于“共同的社会生产能力”葆有人自由个性的价值意义，才能使资本主义私有财产泯灭人的发展的“非现实性”转变为单个人财产作为真正地确证人本质力量的“现实性”。而这也反映了马克思对“单个人的财产”与“私有财产”的这一区分，既还原了人之为人存在的自然必然性，又升华了人生命活动的存在论意义。

Third, “social individual ownership” restores the political ideal of human essential power. Genuine “social individual ownership” is neither “property appropriation” of the fruits of others’ labor under the premise of private ownership of the means of production, nor is it the unqualified “individual ownership” under conditions of common ownership of the means of production; rather, it is the “associated individuals” truly realizing the appropriation of the general productive forces of the human being itself. In other words, the true meaning of property rights with respect to “social individual ownership” lies in “socially appropriating these means of production, not as individual private persons,” [23]23 Karl Marx, “Critique of the Gotha Programme,” in Marx-Engels-Werke, Vol. 19, Berlin: Dietz Verlag, 1962, p. 22. [English: Marx/Engels Selected Works, Vol. 3, Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1970, p. 17.] and in “communism as the positive transcendence of private property, i.e., of human self-alienation, and therefore as the real appropriation of the human essence through and for the human being; therefore, as the complete, conscious return of the human being to himself as a social, i.e., human, being, a return accomplished within the entire wealth of previous development.” [24]24 Karl Marx, Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844, in Marx-Engels-Werke, Vol. 40, Berlin: Dietz Verlag, 1968, p. 536. [English: Marx/Engels Collected Works, Vol. 3, Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1975, p. 296.] In capitalist society, the alienated form of private property not only gradually causes the loss of human integrity and independence, but also makes “the domination of things over humans” the political norm of a reified society. Moreover, the political domination derived from capitalist private property ultimately requires the use of private property itself to abolish its own negating force, because “the supersession of self-alienation follows the same path as self-alienation.” [25]25 Ibid., p. 510. [English: MECW, Vol. 3, p. 294.] That is to say, “the manifestation of free individuality and the ‘victory of things’ in the second stage of the social formation follow precisely the same path.” [26]26 This is a paraphrase by the author; cf. Grundrisse, p. 325. In Marx’s view, although the positive transcendence of private property is an important intermediary for the restoration of the social essence of the human being, the appropriation of private property itself is not the purpose of wealth production; rather, it is to make the positive transcendence of private property truly revert to realizing the dialectical unity of the individual’s independence and the community’s totality in the comprehensive development of the social human being. Precisely because of this, in communist society, individual property contains the political principles of non-closure and non-exclusivity, which will enable the comprehensive development of the human being to expel the reified state of capital and wealth-driven production, so that “the common social productive capacity” will become the supply of labor capacity and the demand for consumption production through which humans reflect upon themselves.

第三，“社会的个人所有”复归人本质力量的政治理想。真正的“社会的个人所有”，既不是生产资料归私人所有前提下对他人劳动成果“财产占有”，也不是生产资料共有条件下不折不扣的“个人所有”，而是“联合起来的个人”真正实现对人本身的一般生产力的占有。或者说，财产权之于“社会的个人所有”的本真意蕴在于“社会地占有而不是作为各个私的个人占有这些生产资料”，在于“共产主义是私有财产即人的自我异化的积极的扬弃，因而是通过人并且为了人而对人的本质的真正占有；因此，它是人向自身、向社会的即合乎人性的人的复归，这种复归是完全的，自觉的和在以往发展的全部财富的范围内生成的”。在资本主义社会，私有财产的异化形式，即使人的完整性与独立性逐渐丧失，更使“人为物役”成为物化社会的政治常态。而且，由资本主义私有财产衍生出来的政治支配权，最终需要用私有财产本身来消灭其否定自身的力量，在于“自我异化的扬弃同自我异化走的是同一条道路”。也就是说，“自由个性的显现与社会形式第二阶段中‘物的胜利’走的恰恰是同一条道路”。在马克思看来，对私有财产的积极扬弃，虽然是人的社会性本质复归的重要中介，但是人占有私有财产本身并非财富生产的目的本身，而是使私有财产的积极扬弃真正复归于实现对社会的人的全面发展的主体独立性与社会整体性之辩证统一。正因如此，在共产主义社会，单个人的财产蕴含着非封闭性、非排他性的政治原则，将使人的全面发展驱逐资本、驱动财富生产的物化状态，使“共同的社会生产能力”将成为人反观自身的劳动能力供应、消费生产需求。

Restoring the positive essence of individual property and private property fundamentally lies in abolishing capitalist private ownership and constructing the communist concept of property rights as “social individual ownership,” thereby making property revert to the material premise that confirms human essential power, making labor revert to the practical activity through which humans generate free individuality, and making human development revert to “the development of human capacities as an end in itself.” [27]27 Karl Marx, Capital, Vol. 3, in Marx-Engels-Werke, Vol. 25, Berlin: Dietz Verlag, 1964, p. 828. [English: Capital, Vol. 3, trans. David Fernbach, London: Penguin, 1991, p. 959.] In this sense, Marx’s analysis of the concept of “social individual ownership” transcends the concept of “equal rights” with which bourgeois economists defend the interests of a particular class, and truly implements the communist concept of “property ownership” as the developmental goal and practical path of social wealth as “the real appropriation of the human essence.” On the one hand, “social individual ownership” is dedicated to the dialectical unity of “social appropriation” and “individual ownership.” Specifically, “social appropriation” is the “common appropriation” of the means of production (social wealth); “individual ownership” means that the products of labor become “property ownership” in the genuine sense for the individual. On the other hand, “property ownership” in “social individual ownership” means that the laborer truly enjoys the social wealth created by his or her own labor; this is both the genuine unfolding of human free individuality within social relations and the genuine realization of freedom and equality in social development. In “the associated individuals’ appropriation of the totality of productive forces,” [28]28 Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, The German Ideology, in Marx-Engels-Werke, Vol. 3, Berlin: Dietz Verlag, 1962, p. 67. [English: MECW, Vol. 5, Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1976, p. 86.] the autonomous activity of the human being is consistent with material life, the comprehensive development of the individual is consistent with the comprehensive development of the community, and the subjective power of labor creation is consistent with the common appropriation of social wealth. Therefore, Marx’s distinction between “individual property” and “private property” elucidates the material right, human essence, and political significance of the concept of property rights, and envisions the political ideal of “social individual ownership” for confirming human essential power. It both highlights, in a material manner, the foundation of historical materialism for the realization of human free individuality, and inspires, in a value-oriented manner, the socio-historical significance of community individuals bursting forth with extremely rich social productive capacities and commonly appropriating social wealth in their labor practice.

还原单个人的财产与私有财产的积极本质，根本在于消灭资本主义私有制、建构共产主义“社会的个人所有”的财产权观念，从而使财产复归于确证人本质力量的物质性前提、使劳动复归于人生成自由个性的实践活动本身、使人的发展复归于“作为目的本身的人类能力的发挥”。在此意义上，马克思分析的“社会的个人所有”观念，超越了资产阶级经济学家维护特定阶级利益的“平等权利”观念，使共产主义的“财产所有”观念真正地落实为社会财富作为“人的本质的真正占有”的发展目标与实践路径。一方面，“社会的个人所有”是致力于“社会占有”与“个人所有”的辩证统一。具言之，“社会占有”是生产资料（社会财富）的“共同占有”；“个人所有”是使劳动所有物成为个人真正意义上的“财产所有”。另一方面，“社会的个人所有”的“财产所有”，意味着劳动者真正享有自身劳动创造的社会财富，既是社会关系中人的自由个性的真正展开，又是社会发展中自由与平等的真正落实。在“联合起来的个人对全部生产力的占有”中，人的自主活动与物质生活相一致、人的全面发展与共同体的全面发展相一致、劳动创造的主体力量与社会财富的共同占有相一致。因此，马克思对“单个人的财产”与“私有财产”的这一区分，阐释了财产权观念的物性权利、人性本质与政治意义，展望了“社会的个人所有”之于确证人本质力量的政治理想，既以物质的方式突显了其对人实现自由个性的历史唯物主义根基，又以价值的方式激励着共同体个人在劳动实践中迸发出极为丰富的社会生产能力、共同占有社会财富的社会历史意义。

IV. Conclusion

四、结语

The development of society’s productive forces will be so rapid that any distribution ultimately comes down to the subject’s ownership of wealth, “for real wealth is the developed productive force of all individuals.” [29]29 Karl Marx, *Grundrisse der Kritik der politischen Ökonomie* (1857–1858 Manuscript). The quotation is from the “Fragment on Machines.” Based on a historical-materialist analysis of the forms of ownership in pre-capitalist, capitalist, and communist societies, the true implication of Marx’s distinction between “individual property” and “private property” lies in dissecting the ontological significance of “property ownership” and “property possession”: only by profoundly criticizing the right of possession and the logic of domination inherent in capitalist “private property” can we truly rectify the concept of wealth, realize the growth of wealth, and obtain the power of wealth; only by deeply excavating the principle of the legitimacy of “individual property” can the development of society’s productive forces be truly realized in the historical-materialist implication of “the wealth of all individuals.” From Marx’s analysis of property rights, we can see that the communist concept of ownership, which truly returns to the essence of “property ownership,” transcends the intuitive distinction between pre-capitalist public ownership and capitalist private ownership. Its fundamental purpose is to resolve the problem of political domination derived from capitalist “property possession,” providing a fundamental theoretical basis for socialism to construct a concept of wealth that highlights fairness and shared prosperity. On the one hand, true “property ownership” is, on the premise of criticizing capitalist “property possession,” the concretization of “property ownership” into a socio-historical mode that confirms human life-existence and generates free individuality. For real wealth is the material premise that characterizes the free and comprehensive development of the human being. In the *Manuscript*, Marx, starting from the existential logic of “real, historical human beings,” both unveils the power dimension of “property possession” in capitalist society that forms the objectification of the human being and the subjectification of things, and envisions the socio-historical effect of “property ownership” in communist society that confirms the essential powers of the human being. On the other hand, common prosperity points toward the realization of the ideal social vision of “the wealth of all individuals.” Common prosperity is the essential requirement of socialism with Chinese characteristics, a political restoration of the positive essence of “individual property” and “private property,” a historical-materialist critique of the power of domination of capitalist “property possession,” and a historical-materialist anticipation of the political ideal of communist “property ownership.” In this sense, in the modernization process of achieving common prosperity for all the people, the political-philosophical wisdom of Marx’s distinction between “individual property” and “private property” serves both as a theoretical reference for us to objectively and fairly analyze the issue of ownership in modern political philosophy, and as a practical guide for us to historically and realistically construct the logical mechanism of “property enjoyment” in common prosperity. (Author’s affiliation: South China Normal University)

社会生产力的发展将如此迅速，以致任何一种分配最终落实到主体对财富的所有权之上，“因为真正的财富就是所有个人的发达的生产力”。基于对前资本主义、资本主义到共产主义社会所有制形式的历史唯物主义分析，马克思区分“单个人的财产”与“私有财产”的真正蕴涵在于剖析“财产所有”和“财产占有”的存在论意义：只有深刻地批判资本主义“私有财产”的占有权利及其支配逻辑，才能真正校准财富观念、实现财富增长、获得财富力量；只有深入地挖掘“单个人的财产”正当原则，才能使社会生产力的发展真正地落实到“所有的人富裕”的历史唯物主义意蕴。在马克思对财产权的分析中我们可以看出，真正回归“财产所有”本质的共产主义所有制观念，是超越前资本主义公有制、资本主义私有制直观区分的所有制观念，其根本目的在于解决资本主义“财产占有”衍生出来的政治支配权难题，为社会主义建构彰显公平共享的财富观念提供了根本的理论依据。一方面，真正的“财产所有”是在批判资本主义“财产占有”的前提下，使“财产所有”具体化为确证人的生命存在与生成自由个性的社会历史方式。因为，真正的财富是表征人自由全面发展的物质性前提。在《手稿》中，马克思从“现实的历史的人”的存在逻辑出发，既拨开了资本主义社会中“财产占有”之于形成人的客体化与物的主体化的权力面向，又展望了共产主义社会中“财产所有”之于确证人本质力量的社会历史效应。另一方面，共同富裕指向于实现“所有的人富裕”的理想社会愿景。共同富裕是中国特色社会主义的本质要求，是对“单个人的财产”与“私有财产”积极本质的政治还原，更是对资本主义“财产占有”支配权力的历史唯物主义批判，更是对共产主义“财产所有”政治理想的历史唯物主义憧憬。在此意义上，在实现全体人民共同富裕的现代化进程中，马克思区分“单个人的财产”与“私有财产”的政治哲学智慧，既是我们客观公允地辨析现代政治哲学中所有权问题的理论参照，又是我们历史现实地建构共同富裕“财产享有”逻辑机理的实践遵循。（作者单位：华南师范大学）

Online editor: Paul

网络编辑：保罗