The Principled Contribution of the Common Values of All Humanity to Marxist Value Theory

Values are the core of any ideological and cultural system and an important component of social ideology. Different nations and cultural circles around the world each have their own core values. Core values are the spiritual bond that sustains a nation and the common ideological and moral foundation of a country. Different countries or cultural circles, different social systems and ideologies, and different historical stages each have core values with distinct forms, connotations, and characteristics, exhibiting significant regional, national, and historical features; a trans-historical and trans-spatial universalist value model does not exist. The common values of all humanity, as commensurable value norms on a synchronic dimension, are fundamentally heterogeneous to the trans-spatial and trans-temporal "value-in-general." They belong to a value consensus that transcends geographical boundaries and institutional differences, achieving a profound innovation in value concepts in human intellectual history through their pioneering and common value connotations. They serve as the basic guideline for the progress of human civilization and make a principled contribution to the development of Marxist value theory. The author once roughly discussed the principled contribution of the common values of all humanity in a theoretical propaganda article published in *People's Daily*, but due to space limitations and the positioning of the newspaper, it failed to fully reveal the falsity of so-called "universal values" and the transcendence of the common values of all humanity at the principled level. This article is now written to provide a relatively comprehensive and systematic answer to the question of in what sense the common values of all humanity transcend so-called "universal values" and in what sense they develop Marxist value theory.

价值观是一个思想文化体系的核心，是社会意识形态的重要内容。世界上不同的民族、不同的文化圈都有自己的核心价值观。核心价值观是一个民族赖以维系的精神纽带，是一个国家共同的思想道德基础。不同国家或文化圈、不同社会制度和意识形态、不同历史阶段，其核心价值观有其不同的形式、内涵和特点，具备显著的地域性、民族性和历史性特征，超越时空的普世主义价值模式是不存在的。全人类共同价值作为共时态维度上的通约性价值准则，根本异质于超时空的“价值一般”,属于超越地理边界与制度差异的价值共识，以开创性、共通性的价值内涵实现了人类思想史上一次深刻的价值理念创新，是引领人类文明进步的基本遵循，为发展马克思主义价值学说作出了原理性贡献。笔者曾在发表于《人民日报》的一篇理论宣传文章中粗略论述了全人类共同价值的原理性贡献,但受制于版面所限和报纸定位的原因，未能全面揭示所谓“普世价值”的虚假性以及全人类共同价值在原理层面的超越性，现撰此文以期较为全面系统地回答全人类共同价值究竟在何种意义上超越了所谓“普世价值”,又在何种意义上发展了马克思主义价值学说。

I. Different nations and cultural circles around the world all hope that their own values can illuminate all of humanity and become universal values, but in the end, most find this contrary to their wishes.

一、世界上不同民族和文化圈都希望自己的价值之光能够普照全人类，成为普遍的价值观，最后大都事与愿违

Different nations and cultural circles around the world all hope that their own values can transcend geographical, national, cultural boundaries, and institutional differences, illuminate all of humanity, and become universal values. Those most enthusiastic about peddling values to the world are, first and foremost, some Western countries.

世界上不同民族和文化圈都希望自己的价值之光能够超越地域、民族、文化边界和制度差异，普照全人类，成为普遍的价值观。热衷向全世界贩卖价值观，首推一些西方国家。

Western countries, adhering to a universalist religious sentiment, a philosophical tradition of idealism [n1], and a centrist mode of thinking, emphasize the rule of "abstract universality" over reality, pursue the dominance of Western thought and values, and regard the monopoly of thought as an important means of dominating the world. They proclaim the supremacy, universality, and hegemony of "value-in-general," advocating so-called "universal values" that transcend regions, nations, classes, and time and space. They attempt to "create a world after their own image" [n2], elevating the particular Western value model into the sole choice and standard answer applicable everywhere, and insist that countries, nations, and regions, regardless of their differences, should follow one value principle, choose one value model, and apply one value norm. The West has not only made the "production and consumption of all countries cosmopolitan" [n3], but has also made political thought and values originating from the bourgeoisie "cosmopolitan." Discourses such as the Western-centric theory, the end of history, and the superiority of civilization are essentially consistent with the "theory of universal values." In the West, the Renaissance raised the banner of "humanism," pitting humanity against divinity and human rights against divine rights, criticizing the theological worldview of Catholicism, with its core value pursuit expressed as "liberty, equality, fraternity." The Enlightenment raised the banner of "rationalism," criticizing absolutism, clericalism, and the hierarchical system, opening the way for capitalism and modern industrial society, elevating its core value propositions from "liberty, equality, fraternity" to "liberty, democracy, human rights." Today, so-called "universal values" mainly refer to these values and their forms of realization in the West.

西方国家秉持普世主义的宗教情怀、理念论的哲学传统和中心论的思维方式，强调“抽象的普遍性”对现实的统治，追求西方思想和价值观的统治，垄断思想是其称霸世界的重要手段。他们宣扬“价值一般”的至上性、普世性、宰制性，倡导超地域、超民族、超阶级、超时空的所谓“普世价值”,试图“按照自己的面貌为自己创造出一个世界”,将西方特殊的价值观模式提升为放之四海而皆准的唯一选择、标准答案，主张不分国别、民族、地域地遵从一种价值原则，选择一种价值模式，适用一种价值规范，西方不仅使一切国家的“生产和消费都成为世界性的了”,而且使源自资产阶级的政治思想和价值观念也成为“世界性”的了。西方中心论、历史终结论、文明优越论等论调，与“普世价值论”在本质上是一致的。在西方，文艺复兴高举“人文主义”旗帜，以人性对抗神性，以人权取代神权，批判天主教神学世界观，其核心价值追求表现为“自由、平等、博爱”。启蒙运动高举“理性主义”旗帜，批判专制主义、教权主义、等级制度，为资本主义和近代工业社会开辟了道路，其核心价值主张从“自由、平等、博爱”提升为“自由、民主、人权”。今天，所谓“普世价值”主要就是指上述这些价值观念及其在西方的实现形式。

The so-called "universal values" of Western countries are not genuine universal values. In appearance, they are universality stripped of particularity, dressing up their own value pursuits as the "universal values" of all humanity; in essence, they are particularity without universality, seeking the world hegemony of Western values. Genuine universality is not single, abstract universality or absolute identity, but universality that encompasses particularity and difference within itself. Why are Western countries so keen on weaving the myth of "false universality"? Marx and Engels revealed the secret: the bourgeoisie, as a new class replacing the old ruling class, "in order to attain its own ends, is compelled to represent its own interest as the common interest of all members of society, that is, expressed in ideal form: it has to give its ideas the form of universality, and represent them as the only rational, universally valid ones" [n4]. Similarly, in order to attain their own ends, Western countries are compelled to represent their own values as the "universal values" of all humanity, giving Western values the form of universality and portraying them as the only rational and universally significant value pursuit. However, the "universal values" pursued by Western countries are not genuine universality in essence, but universality disguised by Western particularity, that is, "false universalism." So-called "universal values" are essentially nothing more than the particular values of the West, core values born from the unique cultural soil of the West. Common values that truly conform to the interests of all humanity are by no means false ideology; once they emerge, they can attain a world-historical status. Once the universal values of humanity truly become a reality, the falsity of ideology will cease to exist. "As soon as the rule of a class is no longer the form of the social system, that is, as soon as it is no longer necessary to represent a particular interest as the general interest or the 'general interest' as the ruling interest, the illusion that a particular class is merely the representative of the general interest will naturally disappear" [n5].

西方国家所谓“普世价值”并非真正的普遍价值观，就其表象来说是剔除特殊性的普遍性，把自己的价值追求打扮成全人类的“普世价值”;就其实质来说是没有普遍性的特殊性，谋求西方价值观的世界霸权。真正的普遍性不是单一的普遍性、抽象的普遍性或绝对同一性，而是包容特殊和差异于其中的普遍性。西方国家为什么热衷编织“虚假普遍性”的神话?马克思、恩格斯揭示了其间的奥秘，资产阶级作为取代旧统治阶级的新阶级，“为了达到自己的目的不得不把自己的利益说成是社会全体成员的共同利益，就是说，这在观念上的表达就是：赋予自己的思想以普遍性的形式，把它们描绘成唯一合乎理性的、有普遍意义的思想”。同理，西方国家为了达到自己的目的，不得不把自己的价值说成是全人类的“普世价值”,赋予西方价值观以普遍性的形式，把它们描绘成唯一合乎理性的、有普遍意义的价值追求。然而，西方国家所追求的“普世价值”实质上并非真正的普遍性，而是由西方的特殊性伪装起来的普遍性，即“虚假的普遍主义”。所谓“普世价值”本质上不过是西方的特殊价值，是产生于西方独特文化土壤的核心价值观。真正符合全人类利益的共同价值绝不是虚假意识形态，它一旦出场，便可获得世界性的地位。一旦人类普遍价值真正成为现实，意识形态的虚假性也就不复存在了。“只要阶级的统治完全不再是社会制度的形式，也就是说，只要不再有必要把特殊利益说成是普遍利益，或者把‘普遍的东西’说成是占统治地位的东西，那么，一定阶级的统治似乎只是某种思想的统治这整个假象当然就会自行消失”。

Traditional China also hoped that its own value pursuits could illuminate the world, and similarly harbored grand value ideals such as "Great Harmony under Heaven" (天下大同) and "Harmony among All Nations" (协和万邦). To a certain extent, these value ideals possess some trans-historical and trans-spatial significance for all humanity, but as a cultural tradition, "merely something handed down from generation to generation, i.e., anything transmitted or handed down from the past to the present" [n6], they remain, in their fundamental nature, local knowledge and Eastern values. They inevitably have a unique historical context and unavoidable temporal and spatial limitations, and cannot automatically rise to become the universal values of all humanity without undergoing modern transformation. Ancient China established the political and social ethics of the "Three Cardinal Guides and Five Constant Virtues" (三纲五常) [n7], the doctrine of the mean of "holding the two ends and using the middle" (执两用中), the value goals of "benevolence, righteousness, propriety, wisdom, and fidelity" (仁义礼智信), the value orientation of "cultivating oneself, regulating the family, governing the state, and pacifying the world" (修齐治平) [n8], the value norms of the "Four Pillars of the State: Propriety, Righteousness, Integrity, and a Sense of Shame" (国之四维礼义廉耻) [n9], the value choice of "valuing righteousness above profit" (重义轻利), and the world ideal of "Great Harmony under Heaven" (天下大同). These core value concepts do not possess unconditional universality; they cannot unconditionally become the value pursuit of modern China, nor can they be unconditionally transplanted as the value norms of other countries, let alone unconditionally possess world-historical significance transcending time and space. Looking at past history, whether it is the cultural imagination of the pre-modern Chinese concept of "All under Heaven" (天下) or the value ideals of modern Western universalism, both ultimately lack the power to transform the real world because they are detached from specific times, places, and conditions.

传统中国同样期盼自己的价值追求能够观照世界，同样存在“天下大同”“协和万邦”诸如此类的宏大价值理想，这些价值理想在一定程度上虽具有某种超越时空的全人类意义，但作为一种文化传统，“仅只是世代相传的东西，即任何从过去延传至今或相传至今的东西”,就其根本性质来说仍然是地方性的知识和东方的价值，必定具有独特的历史语境和不可避免的时空局限，非经现代转换无从自动上升为全人类的普遍价值。古代中国确立了“三纲五常”的政治和社会伦理，“执两用中”的中庸之道，“仁义礼智信”的价值目标，“修齐治平”的价值取向，“国之四维礼义廉耻”的价值规范，“重义轻利”的价值选择，“天下大同”的世界理想等，这些核心价值理念并不具有无条件的普遍性，并不能无条件地上升为现代中国的价值追求，也不能无条件地移植为他国的价值准则，更不是无条件地具有超越时空的世界历史意义。从过往的历史看，不管是前现代中国“天下”观念的文化想象，还是现代西方普世主义的价值理想，最后都因其脱离具体的时间、地点、条件而缺乏改造现实世界的力量。

II. Marxist classical writers focused their critique on the hypocrisy of the bourgeoisie's so-called "universal values," but did not systematically discuss common values or value consensus that transcend social formations.

二、马克思主义经典作家着重批判了资产阶级所谓“普世价值”的虚伪性，但没有系统论述超越社会形态的共同价值或价值共识

Throughout history, it has always appeared as though ideas hold sway. When people examine the course of history, they are always accustomed to separating the ideas of the ruling class from the ruling class itself, making the ideas and concepts of the ruling class independent. The ruling class immerses itself in such fantasies it has fabricated for itself, and “is ready to accept these ideas and fantasies”; historians seem to do the same. They take it on faith that “the spirit holds supreme rule in history,” making a living by fabricating this class’s “fantasies about itself,” and concocting “chronicles of the ages” to uphold the class’s sanctity and historical continuity. In this way, “the ideas which are dominant will be increasingly abstract ideas, i.e., ideas which increasingly take on the form of universality.” For example, during the period of aristocratic rule, the dominant concepts were honor, loyalty, etc., while during the period of bourgeois rule, the dominant concepts are freedom, equality, and so on. However, abstract universal value concepts such as “freedom” and “equality,” once returned to the real life of Western society, reveal their hypocritical face, descending further into “idealistic phrases, conscious illusions, and deliberate hypocrisy,” becoming nothing more than a fig leaf for the privileges of capital and the hierarchical order in Western society. At best, they are merely “summaries of the most general results of abstractions derived from the observation of the historical development of men. These abstractions in themselves, divorced from real history, have no value whatsoever.”

历史上始终貌似是思想占统治地位。人们考察历史进程时，总是习惯于把统治阶级的思想和统治阶级本身分割开来，使统治阶级的思想、观念独立化。统治阶级沉浸在自己为自己编造的诸如此类幻想中，并且“准备接受这些思想和幻想”,历史编纂学家似乎也是如此，他们对“精神在历史上的最高统治”信以为真，以编造这一阶级关于“自身的幻想”当作谋生之道，为维护阶级神圣性与历史连续性捏造“岁月史书”。如此一来，历史上“占统治地位的将是越来越抽象的思想，即越来越具有普遍性形式的思想”,例如，在贵族统治时期占统治地位的概念是荣誉、忠诚等，而在资产阶级统治时期占统治地位的概念则是自由、平等，等等。然而，“自由、平等”等抽象的普世价值观念，一旦回到西方社会的现实生活中就会露出其虚伪的面貌，愈发下降为“唯心的词句、有意识的幻想和有目的的虚伪”,沦为西方社会资本特权与等级秩序的遮羞布，充其量不过是“从对人类历史发展的考察中抽象出来的最一般的结果的概括。这些抽象本身离开了现实的历史就没有任何价值”。

The classical Marxist writers profoundly exposed and criticized the hypocrisy of the core values of the bourgeoisie (i.e., “universal values”). Marx and Engels believed that capitalist society constructed great principles such as freedom, democracy, human rights, equality, and fraternity, and invented stirring phrases like “all men are born free and equal.” Yet the bourgeoisie, apart from carefully packaging these to whitewash reality, and apart from wantonly exporting and peddling these principles for value penetration, never actually realizes these principles in practice. Principles are one thing, practice another; the classical writers profoundly revealed the false substance of these principles.

马克思主义经典作家深刻揭批了资产阶级核心价值观(亦即“普世价值”)的虚伪性。马克思、恩格斯认为，资本主义社会建构了自由、民主、人权、平等、博爱等伟大的原则，发明了“人人生而自由平等”之类扣人心弦的词句，但资产阶级除了精心包装以粉饰现实外，除了肆意输出、贩卖这些原则进行价值渗透外，却从来不在实践中实现这些原则。原则是一回事，实践是另一回事，经典作家深刻揭露了这些原则的虚假实质。

So-called “freedom” is the freedom of “capital” and the possessors of capital. “In free competition, it is not individuals who are free, but capital.” It is the freedom of the asset-holder to exploit wage labor, the freedom to plunder colonies, the freedom of the asset-holder to appropriate the surplus value created by the proletarian, the freedom of the proletarian to sell his labor power to the asset-holder, the freedom of the colonized people to be plundered, the freedom of the buying and selling of labor power, the freedom that “most thoroughly abolishes all individual freedom,” the freedom to be “free as a bird, free of everything.” The hypocrisy of freedom is also reflected in bourgeois constitutions: “Each paragraph of the constitution contains its own antithesis, contains its own upper and lower house—freedom in the general phrase, abolition of freedom in the proviso. … No matter how thoroughly this freedom may be destroyed in its everyday reality, its existence in the constitution remains intact and inviolable.” In the West, “freedom is a great word, but it is under the banner of industrial freedom that the most predatory wars have been waged, under the banner of labor freedom that workers have been plundered,” under the banner of religious freedom that religious wars have been launched, under the banner of personal freedom that Native Americans have been massacred, under the banner of trade freedom that colonies have been plundered, under the banner of free trade that the Opium Wars were launched. Even in the 21st century today, certain Western countries still launch color revolutions under the banner of democratic freedom, wiretap leaders of multiple countries under the banner of press freedom, illegally detain entrepreneurs from other countries under the banner of free movement, and pursue anti-China policies in student recruitment under the banner of academic freedom—where is there any freedom?

所谓“自由”,就是“资本”和资本占有者的自由，“在自由竞争中，自由的并不是个人，而是资本”,就是资产者有剥削雇佣劳动的自由，掠夺殖民地的自由，就是资产者占有无产者创造的剩余价值的自由，就是无产者向资产者出卖劳动力的自由，就是殖民地人民被掠夺的自由，就是劳动力的买卖自由，就是“最彻底地取消任何个人自由”,就是“自由得一无所有”。自由的虚伪性还体现在资产阶级宪法中，“宪法的每一条本身都包含有自己的对立面，包含有自己的上院和下院：在一般词句中标榜自由，在附带条件中废除自由。……不管这种自由在日常现实中的存在怎样被彻底消灭，它在宪法上的存在仍然是完整无损、不可侵犯的”。在西方，“自由是个伟大的字眼，但正是在工业自由的旗帜下进行过最具有掠夺性的战争，在劳动自由的旗帜下掠夺过劳动者”,在宗教自由的旗帜下发动过宗教战争，在人身自由的旗帜下屠杀过印第安人，在贸易自由的旗帜下掠夺过殖民地，在买卖自由的旗帜下发动过鸦片战争。即使在21世纪的今天，西方某些国家也依然在民主自由的旗帜下发动颜色革命，在新闻自由的旗帜下监听多国领导人，在自由流动的旗帜下非法扣留他国企业家，在学术自由的旗帜下搞排华留学等，哪里有什么自由。

So-called “democracy” is democracy within the bourgeoisie, democracy among capitalists, a game for the rich. Marx criticized: “The bourgeoisie verbally professes itself to be a democratic class, but in reality it is not; it acknowledges the correctness of the principle, but never realizes this principle in practice.” The so-called universal suffrage democracy in the West is nothing more than a means to maintain the legitimacy of the established ruling order, granting the people illusory power and political fantasies of participating in national governance through elections, creating ideological illusions through formal democracy. The superstructure of a country, whether at the central or local level, does not depend on the votes of citizens, but is determined by the economic base of that country. In any era, a class that controls the dominant material forces in society will also necessarily control the dominant political forces in society. “The mode of production of material life conditions the general process of social, political, and intellectual life”—it has nothing to do with votes. Universal suffrage theoretically grants citizens equal voting rights, but in reality, it is merely a matter of “deciding once every few years which member of the ruling class is to misrepresent the people in parliament,” merely a game for the few wealthy and powerful who control the economic base and material forces. “The nature of elections does not depend on this name, but on the economic base, on the economic ties among voters,” on the power structure, distribution of power, and economic structure of society. The system of universal suffrage itself “cannot and never will provide anything more.” True democracy is “the people’s own work,” not a “puppet show” manipulated by capital; it is “the rule of the majority,” not a game of the few; it is whole-process democracy, not dormant democracy or a one-shot deal; it is “the principle of the proletariat, the principle of the masses,” not the principle of the bourgeoisie or the principle of the capitalist sharks.

所谓“民主”,就是资产阶级内部的民主，就是资本家之间的民主，就是有钱人的游戏。马克思批判道：“资产阶级口头上标榜自己是民主阶级，而实际上并不如此，它承认原则的正确性，但是从来不在实践中实现这种原则。”西方所谓普选民主，不过是为了维护既定统治秩序的合法性，以选举的方式赋予人民所谓的参与国家治理的虚假权力与政治幻想，通过形式民主制造意识形态幻象。一个国家不管中央还是地方层面的上层建筑，都不是取决于公民的选票，而是决定于这个国家的经济基础。任何时代，一个阶级掌握着社会上占统治地位的物质力量，也必然掌握社会上占统治地位的政治力量，“物质生活的生产方式制约着整个社会生活、政治生活和精神生活的过程”,与选票无关。普选权理论上赋予了公民平等的选举权，但实际上不过是每几年“决定一次由统治阶级中什么人在议会里当人民的假代表”,不过是掌控着经济基础和物质力量的少数富人权贵的游戏，“选举的性质并不取决于这个名称，而是取决于经济基础，取决于选民之间的经济联系”,取决于社会的力量格局、权力分配和经济结构，普选制本身“不能而且永远不会提供更多的东西”。真正的民主是“人民自己的作品”,而不是资本操纵的“傀儡戏”;“是多数人的统治”,而不是少数人的游戏；是全过程的民主，而不是休眠式民主、一锤子买卖；是“无产阶级的原则，群众的原则”,而不是资产阶级的原则，资本大鳄的原则。

So-called “human rights” are the rights of the bourgeoisie. “The equal exploitation of labor power is the first human right of capital.” “One of the most important human rights proclaimed is bourgeois ownership.” The bourgeoisie recognizes only one kind of human right that is common to all humanity, innate, eternal, standard, and abstract: it emphasizes that capitalists, wage workers, and all others are “human beings,” using human natural attributes to erase class antagonisms between people, replacing the inequality of status, identity, and class among people with the equal human rights stipulated by law, and substituting eternal, trans-social, trans-historical human rights for the historical and class nature of human rights. Human rights are a product of history. “Rights can never be higher than the economic structure of society and its cultural development conditioned thereby.” “The rights of citizens were graded according to property qualifications.” The core of bourgeois human rights is individualism. “None of the so-called human rights goes beyond the egoistic man, beyond man as a member of civil society.” The West’s advocacy of individual human rights being superior to collective human rights is nothing more than a defense for indulging individual rights; its advocacy of human rights being superior to sovereignty is nothing more than serving to interfere in the internal affairs of other countries and to open the way for big capital to go global.

所谓“人权”,就是资产阶级的权利，“平等地剥削劳动力，是资本的首要的人权”,“被宣布为最主要的人权之一的是资产阶级的所有权”。资产阶级只承认一种全人类所共有的、天赋的、永恒的、标准的、抽象的人权，这就是：强调资本家、雇佣工人等所有人都是“人”,以人的自然属性抹杀人与人之间的阶级对立，以法条规定的平等人权取代人与人之间地位、身份、阶级上的不对等，用永恒不变的超社会、超历史的人权代替人权的历史性、阶级性。人权是历史的产物，“权利决不能超出社会的经济结构以及由经济结构制约的社会的文化发展”,“公民的权利是按照财产状况分级规定的”。资产阶级人权的核心是个人主义，“任何一种所谓的人权都没有超出利己的人，没有超出作为市民社会成员的人”。西方鼓吹个人人权高于集体人权，不过是为放任个人权利做辩护；鼓吹人权高于主权，不过是为干涉他国内政服务，为大资本走向世界开辟道路。

So-called “equality” is “the equal exploitation of labor power,” “bourgeois equality before the law,” equality before the law of value, the principle of commodity exchange of “exchanging equivalents for equivalents,” the principle of equivalent exchange by which the asset-holder purchases the labor power of the proletarian, the equality of exchanging what my labor has created with me, the equality of buying and selling, “the practice of calling inequality equality itself.” The concept of equality itself is a product of history; its formation, like its “form of social existence,” requires all of past history. “Such a concept of equality can be called anything you like, but it cannot be called an eternal truth.” The idea that all men are born equal, the right to equality, is always confined “within a bourgeois framework.” Once we leave the sphere of commodity exchange, the dramatis personae of history undergo certain changes: “He who was previously the money-owner now strides out in front as a capitalist; the possessor of labor power follows behind as his worker. The one smirks, ambitious and eager; the other trudges along timidly, reluctant, like someone who has sold his own skin on the market and now has no future except to be tanned.”

所谓“平等”,就是“平等地剥削劳动力”,就是“法律面前的资产阶级的平等”,就是价值规律面前人人平等，就是“用等价物交换等价物”的商品等价交换原则，就是资产者购买无产者劳动力的等价交换原则，就是用我的劳动创造之物与我交换的平等，就是买卖平等，就是“简直把不平等叫做平等”。平等观念本身是一种历史的产物，这个观念的形成，同他的“社会存在形式”一般，需要全部以往的历史，“这样的平等观念说它是什么都行，就不能说它是永恒的真理”⑦⑦。人人生而平等的观念，平等的权力总还是被“限制在一个资产阶级的框框里”⑧⑧,一旦离开了商品交换领域，历史的剧中人物就起了某些变化：“原来的货币占有者作为资本家，昂首前行；劳动力占有者作为他的工人，尾随于后。一个笑容满面，雄心勃勃；一个战战兢兢，畏缩不前，像在市场上出卖了自己的皮一样，只有一个前途——让人家来鞣”。

So-called “fraternity” demands that the exploited cooperate in love with the exploiters, that the proletarian respect and love the bourgeois, and that the proletariat feel grateful and indebted to the bourgeoisie. “Fraternity” is a means used by the bourgeoisie to safeguard its own interests, a soporific used to expand domestic and international markets, a hypnotic and narcotic used to dissolve the revolutionary will of the proletariat. Genuine, universal human love can only be realized in a future society, and can only be completed in the pursuit of a “real and directly practical” communism. Marx and Engels profoundly exposed the true face of bourgeois “fraternity”: the French February Revolution of 1848 was jointly carried out by workers and the bourgeoisie. When the proletariat and the bourgeoisie fought side by side for universal suffrage, the words “French Republic! Liberty, Equality, Fraternity” appeared prominently on the walls of Paris, and the Paris proletariat “was intoxicated in this atmosphere of magnanimous and benevolent fraternity.” [11]11 Reference to the French Revolution of 1848 and the subsequent June Days Uprising, where the working class was violently suppressed by the bourgeois republic. However, the fruits of the revolution were monopolized by the bourgeoisie. When the proletariat launched the June Revolution for its own interests, it suffered “unheard-of cruel revenge” from the bourgeoisie in power. This “was civil war, the most terrible of civil wars—the war between labor and capital.” Once the fundamental interests of the bourgeoisie were threatened by the proletariat, they would “replace the republic’s motto ‘Liberty, Equality, Fraternity’ with the unambiguous ‘Infantry, Cavalry, Artillery’!” [12]12 Paraphrase of Marx’s *The Class Struggles in France, 1848 to 1850*, describing the shift from republican slogans to military force.

所谓“博爱”,就是要求被剥削者与剥削者互爱合作，就是要求无产者与资产者互敬互爱，就是要求无产阶级向资产阶级感恩戴德。“博爱”是资产阶级用来维护自身利益的手段，用来拓展国内和国际市场的迷魂汤，用来消解无产阶级革命意志的催眠剂、麻醉品，真实的、普遍的人类之爱只有在未来社会才能实现，只有在追求“现实的和直接追求实效的”共产主义才能完成。马克思、恩格斯深刻揭露了资产阶级“博爱”的真面目：1848年法国二月革命是由工人与资产阶级共同进行的，当无产阶级与资产阶级为了争取普选权并肩战斗时，巴黎各处墙壁上赫然出现“法兰西共和国!自由，平等，博爱”几个大字，巴黎无产阶级“沉醉在这种宽大仁慈的博爱气氛中了”。然而，革命的果实却被资产阶级独吞，当无产阶级为争取自身利益进行六月革命时，却遭到了掌权的资产阶级“闻所未闻的残酷报复”,这“就是内战，就是最可怕的国内战争——劳动与资本间的战争”。资产阶级的根本利益一旦受到无产阶级的威胁，他们就会“把共和国的‘自由，平等，博爱’这句格言代以毫不含糊的‘步兵，骑兵，炮兵’”!

While criticizing the hypocrisy of the values of the old society, Marx and Engels revealed the core value pursuits of the new society, namely: the free and comprehensive development of each individual, the liberation of all humanity, the reconciliation of humanity with nature, and the reconciliation of humanity with itself, and so on. These all belong to value ideals of a socialist nature. Although Marx and Engels envisioned a common value landscape for the future ideal society, just as they emphasized when distinguishing themselves from utopian socialism, “we do not wish to anticipate the future dogmatically, but only to discover the new world through the critique of the old world.” [13]13 From Marx’s letter to Ruge (September 1843), outlining the critical method of the *Deutsch-Französische Jahrbücher*. They did not explore the issue of common human values or value consensus under the conditions of the coexistence of “one globe, two systems.” This became a required question left by the classical Marxist writers for later generations.

马克思、恩格斯在批判旧社会价值观虚伪性的同时揭示了新社会的核心价值追求，这就是：每个人自由而全面的发展、全人类的解放、人同自然的和解以及人同自身的和解，等等，这些都属于社会主义性质的价值理想。马克思、恩格斯虽然展望了未来理想社会的共同价值图景，但正如他们在阐述自身同空想社会主义的区分时所强调的，“我们不想教条地预期未来，而只是想通过批判旧世界发现新世界”,他们没有探讨“一球两制”共存条件下的人类共同价值或价值共识的问题。这成为马克思主义经典作家留给后人的一道必答题。

III. The Common Values of All Humanity Transcend Geographical Boundaries and Social Systems, Forming a Principle of Common Value

三、全人类共同价值超越地理边界和社会制度，形成了共同价值原理

For a long time, Chinese Communists have emphasized the particularity, historicity, and class character of values. Although there have been some discussions on the issue of value consensus, i.e., common values, for all humanity—for instance, Mao Zedong pointed out as early as 1943 that “the freedom of nations and political democracy have become the unshakable principles of the new world, and we, the Chinese people, welcome the arrival of this new era” [14]14 Mao Zedong, “Message to the Chinese People on the Occasion of the Fourth Anniversary of the Anti-Japanese War” (1943), expressing support for Allied war aims.—overall, there has been a lack of systematic thought and systematic exposition. Entering the 21st century, with the deepening development of economic globalization, the fields and spaces of international exchange are increasingly extending. Global peace deficits, development deficits, security deficits, and governance deficits are becoming increasingly prominent. The global common market urgently needs to establish universally recognized value benchmarks. World universal exchange urgently needs to lay down common value norms. Global governance also urgently demands the search for points of converging interests that transcend ideology and political systems. Otherwise, a common market and universal exchange that cross national borders, religions, civilizations, social systems, and ideologies will become impossible. However, whether a value consensus that transcends geographical boundaries exists in the world market, whether world universal exchange can reach common value principles to be followed, and whether different human civilizations can find a common denominator of values universally accepted by all—these are the questions we must answer amidst the great changes.

长期以来，中国共产党人侧重强调价值观的特殊性、历史性、阶级性，对全人类的价值共识即共同价值问题虽有过一些论述，譬如，毛泽东早在1943年就指出：“民族的自由、政治的民主已经成为新世界的确定不移的原则，我们中国人民欢迎这个新时代的到来”,但总体来说缺乏系统化思考和体系化论述。进入21世纪，随着经济全球化的深入发展，国际交往领域和空间日益延伸，全球和平赤字、发展赤字、安全赤字、治理赤字日益凸显，全球共同市场亟待确立普遍认可的价值基准，世界普遍交往亟须奠定共同的价值规范，全球治理也迫切要求找寻超越意识形态和政治制度的利益交汇点，否则跨越国境、跨越宗教、跨越文明、跨越社会制度、跨越意识形态的共同市场和普遍交往将成为不可能。然而，世界市场是否存在超越地理边界的价值共识，世界普遍交往是否可以达成共同遵循的价值准则，人类不同文明是否能够找出大家普遍接受的价值公约数，这是我们在大变局之中必须回答的课题。

Since the New Era, the Party Central Committee with Comrade Xi Jinping at its core, focusing on the “value in general” that transcends social formations and the converging points of common human interests, has deeply grasped the value consensus and greatest common denominator of different nations and civilizations against the grand backdrop of world universal exchange and the coexistence of “one globe, two systems.” It has refined the common values of all humanity that transcend geographical boundaries, institutional differences, and ideological divides, thereby forming a principle of common value. The core connotations of this principle include the following.

新时代以来，以习近平同志为核心的党中央着眼于超越社会形态的“价值一般”和人类共同利益交汇点，在世界普遍交往、“一球两制”共存的宏大背景下深刻把握不同民族、不同文明的价值共识和最大公约数，提炼超越地理边界、制度差异和意识形态鸿沟的全人类共同价值，形成了共同价值原理。这一原理的核心内涵包括以下内容。

First, common values are the value principles for world universal exchange. As history transforms into world history, exchange correspondingly transforms into world universal exchange. For cross-cultural universal exchange to become possible, it must be premised on commonly followed rules and concepts of exchange. A value concept truly conducive to world universal exchange must possess a normative function, capable of effectively guiding and rectifying the behavior of world exchange, providing basic value norms for world exchange. Common values do not seek to replace one system with another, nor to replace one civilization with another, but are committed to reaching a value consensus that transcends social systems, ideologies, and historical cultures. Common values are a value consensus formed based on the common practical activities of all humanity, to meet the common needs and common interests of all humanity. This consensus is committed to “expanding the convergence of interests and drawing the largest concentric circle,” [15]15 A common metaphor in Chinese political discourse for maximizing consensus. committed to condensing the value common denominator of “people of different nations, beliefs, cultures, and regions,” [16]16 Xi Jinping, speech at the United Nations Office at Geneva (2017). providing value principles for the world market and world universal exchange, and consolidating the value foundation for building a better world.

第一，共同价值是世界普遍交往的价值遵循。随着历史转变为世界历史，交往也随之转变为世界普遍交往。跨文化的普遍交往要成为可能，必然以共同遵循的交往规则和交往理念为前提。一种真正有助于世界普遍交往的价值理念，必须具有规范功能，能够有效引导和匡正世界交往行为，为世界交往提供基本的价值准则。共同价值不谋求以一种制度代替另一种制度，不谋求以一种文明代替另一种文明，而是致力于达成超越社会制度、意识形态、历史文化的价值共识。共同价值是基于全人类的共同实践活动，为满足全人类的共同需要和共同利益而形成的价值共识。这种共识，致力于“扩大利益汇合点，画出最大同心圆”,致力于凝聚“不同民族、不同信仰、不同文化、不同地域人民”的价值公约数，为世界市场和世界性的普遍交往提供价值遵循，为建设美好世界夯实价值底座。

Second, peace, development, fairness, justice, democracy, and freedom are the common values of all humanity. Different nations and cultural circles have their own special value pursuits, but within these special value pursuits lie the common values of all humanity. Xi Jinping pointed out: We must shoulder the responsibility of condensing value consensus. “Countries have different histories, cultures, systems, and levels of development, but the people of all countries pursue the common values of all humanity: peace, development, fairness, justice, democracy, and freedom.” [17]17 Xi Jinping, speech at the CPC in Dialogue with World Political Parties High-Level Meeting (2021). Peace and development are the common cause of humanity; fairness and justice are the common ideal of humanity; democracy and freedom are the common pursuit of humanity. We must understand, with a broad mind, the different understandings of the connotation of values in different civilizations, not impose one’s own values and models on others, and not engage in ideological confrontation.

第二，和平、发展、公平、正义、民主、自由是全人类共同价值。不同民族和文化圈都有自己特殊的价值追求，寓于特殊价值追求之中的则是全人类的共同价值。习近平指出：我们要担负起凝聚价值共识的责任，“各国历史、文化、制度、发展水平不尽相同，但各国人民都追求和平、发展、公平、正义、民主、自由的全人类共同价值”。和平与发展是人类的共同事业，公平与正义是人类的共同理想，民主与自由是人类的共同追求,要以宽广胸怀理解不同文明对价值内涵的认识，不将自己的价值观和模式强加于人，不搞意识形态对抗。

Third, the common values of all humanity lay the value foundation for building a community with a shared future for mankind. A community with a shared future for mankind is a community of interests and also a community of values. “Humanity has only one Earth, and humanity also has only one common future” [18]18 Xi Jinping, speech at the UN General Assembly (2015). fully expresses the common interest relations and value pursuits of all humanity. “Common values” are a value consensus of universal significance for all humanity, laying the value foundation for building a community with a shared future for mankind. Xi Jinping pointed out: “We should vigorously promote the common values of all humanity of peace, development, fairness, justice, democracy, and freedom, and jointly provide correct conceptual guidance for building a better world.” [19]19 Xi Jinping, speech at the CPC in Dialogue with World Political Parties High-Level Meeting (2021).

第三，全人类共同价值为构建人类命运共同体奠定价值基础。人类命运共同体是利益共同体，也是价值共同体。“人类只有一个地球，人类也只有一个共同的未来”,充分表达了全人类共同的利益关系和价值追求。“共同价值”是全人类具有普遍意义的价值共识，为构建人类命运共同体奠定价值底座。习近平指出：“我们应该大力弘扬和平、发展、公平、正义、民主、自由的全人类共同价值，共同为建设一个更加美好的世界提供正确理念指引。”

The common values of all humanity represent a profound innovation in value concepts in the history of human thought. They are the highest abstraction and generalization of the universal value pursuits of all progressive forces in the world. They have laid a common value foundation for the common development of countries and nations with different regions, different social systems, different ideologies, and different religions. They have established basic value norms for the universal exchange of all humanity. They have provided a common value bond for the most extensive unity of the chaotic international community. If the new human civilization created by China is to occupy an important position in the world civilization landscape and truly become a world culture, it must, while manifesting the core socialist values, also reflect the common values of all humanity; while adhering to the premise of cultural subjectivity, it must merge into the great tide of the development of human civilization; while preserving its own value ideals, it must contribute value concepts and knowledge achievements of universality to the “sum total of human knowledge.” [20]20 Reference to Xi Jinping’s call for China to contribute to global knowledge, often cited in discussions of cultural confidence.

全人类共同价值，是人类思想史上一次深刻的价值理念创新，是对世界上一切进步力量普遍价值追求的最高抽象和概括，为不同地域、不同社会制度、不同意识形态、不同宗教的国家和民族共同发展奠定了共同价值基础，为全人类的普遍交往确立了基本价值规范，为纷乱的国际社会实现最广泛的团结提供了共同价值纽带。中国创造的人类新文明在世界文明版图中要占据重要位置，真正成为一种世界文化，就必须在彰显社会主义核心价值观的同时，反映全人类共同价值；在坚守文化主体性立场的前提下，汇入人类文明发展大潮；在保存自身价值理想的同时，为“人类知识的总和”贡献具有普遍性的价值理念和知识成果。

The core socialist values and the common values of all humanity constitute the two pillars of values in the New Era and the latest achievements of the Marxist theory of value; the two complement each other. The core socialist values emphasize particularity, while the common values of all humanity highlight the commonality embedded within particularity. The core values manifest the value characteristics and individuality of different social formations; the common values manifest the value consensus and the greatest common denominator among different countries. The core values aim to establish value norms for the state, society, and citizens; the common values aim to凝聚 value consensus for all humanity. The core values provide the fundamental value guidance for building a shared spiritual homeland for the Chinese nation; the common values lay a solid value foundation for building a community with a shared future for mankind. The core socialist values and the common values of all humanity, while adhering at the principled level to Marx and Engels’ value conception that “all value is ultimately value for human beings; humanity is the starting point of all value activities and also the destination of all value movements,” [21]21 The “two systems” (两制) refers to the socialist system and the capitalist system coexisting in the contemporary world. also expand the value content of “striving to make the simple laws of morality and justice which ought to govern the relations of private individuals the supreme law of the relations between nations,” [22]22 “A garden of civilizations where all beauties are shared” (美美与共的文明百花园) is a metaphor derived from the Chinese sociologist Fei Xiaotong’s phrase “各美其美，美人之美，美美与共，天下大同” (Each appreciates its own beauty, appreciates the beauty of others, shares beauty among all, and achieves great harmony under heaven), used here to describe a vision of harmonious coexistence of diverse civilizations. greatly enriching and developing the Marxist theory of value.

社会主义核心价值观和全人类共同价值构成新时代价值观的两根支柱，构成马克思主义价值学说的最新成果，二者相辅相成。社会主义核心价值观强调特殊性，全人类共同价值突出蕴藏于特殊性之中的共同性。核心价值观彰显了不同社会形态的价值特色、个性，共同价值观彰显了不同国家的价值共识和最大公约数。核心价值观旨在为国家、社会、公民确立价值规范，共同价值观旨在为全人类凝聚价值共识。核心价值观为构建中华民族共有精神家园提供了根本价值遵循，共同价值观为构建人类命运共同体奠定了坚实价值基础。社会主义核心价值观和全人类共同价值，既在原则高度坚守马克思和恩格斯“一切价值归根结底都是对人的价值，人是一切价值活动的出发点，也是一切价值运动的归宿”的价值构思，又扩展了“努力做到使私人关系间应该遵循的那种简单的道德和正义的准则，成为各民族之间的关系中的至高无上的准则”的价值内容，极大丰富和发展了马克思主义价值学说。

IV. The Principle of Common Values Is the Value Criterion Guiding the Progress of Human Civilization and Has Made a Principle-Level Contribution to the Development of the Marxist Theory of Value

四、共同价值原理是引领人类文明进步的价值准绳，为发展马克思主义价值学说作出了原理性贡献

The principle of common values is the latest achievement of Marxist values in contemporary China and the world today. It has profoundly restructured the core categories and important propositions of the Marxist theory of value through a series of landmark major concepts and original ideological viewpoints, making a principle-level contribution to the development of Marxism.

共同价值原理是马克思主义价值观在当代中国和当今世界发展的最新成果，以一系列标识性重大概念、原创性思想观点深刻重构了马克思主义价值学说的核心范畴、重要命题，为发展马克思主义作出了原理性贡献。

First, the principle of common values takes into account the dual connotations of value universality and value particularity, remedying the one-sidedness of the past that only addressed one aspect while neglecting the rest. In the past, both China and the West proceeded from the particularity of values, engaging in dialogue based on the core value pursuits of different societies and different systems; hence they were two parallel lines, never meeting at a point. The “universal values” promoted by Western countries are merely the core socialist values of capitalist society; the value ideal constructed by Marx is essentially the core socialist values of a future society; the core socialist values refined by contemporary Chinese Communists belong to contemporary China’s core socialist values. The core socialist values of the Western world and the core socialist values of contemporary China are two parallel lines, each speaking its own language. However, the common values of all humanity, oriented toward the goal of “surpassing civilizational estrangement with civilizational exchanges, surpassing civilizational conflict with civilizational mutual learning, promoting mutual understanding and affinity among peoples, and jointly building a garden of civilizations where all are beautiful in their own way,” [23] draw the “concentric circles” of values among different human civilizations while acknowledging the premise of differences in values among different countries, nations, social systems, and ideologies, focusing on highlighting value commonality and value universality.

首先，共同价值原理，兼顾价值一般与价值特殊的双重内涵，弥补了过去只及一点不及其余的片面性。过去中西双方都是从价值的特殊性出发，立足不同社会、不同制度的核心价值追求展开对话，所以是两条平行线，永无交汇点。西方国家推销的“普世价值”,不过是资本主义社会的核心价值观；马克思构建的价值理想，本质上是未来社会的核心价值观；当代中国共产党人提炼的社会主义核心价值观，则属于当代中国的核心价值观。西方世界的核心价值观与当代中国的核心价值观是两条平行线，各说各话。但是，全人类共同价值“以文明交流超越文明隔阂、以文明互鉴超越文明冲突，促进人民相知相亲，共建美美与共的文明百花园”为目标定向，在承认不同国家、不同民族、不同社会制度和意识形态价值差异性实践的前提下，画出了人类不同文明的价值“同心圆”,侧重彰显价值共同性和价值一般。

The so-called “universal values” promoted by Western countries are false universality—an absolute universality that erases differences, an abstract identity. They advocate constructing a homogeneous value order that transcends time and space, negate the particularity of values, and pursue an unconditional, undifferentiated, contradiction-free, and immutable absolute identity. The outcome is “sameness without harmony; sameness cannot sustain.” [24] The common values of all humanity advocated by China are true universality—a universality that embraces contradictions and differences, a concrete identity. They emphasize the commonality behind diversity and pursue a principled, differentiated harmonious coexistence. The outcome is “harmony in diversity; harmony gives birth to new things.” [25]

西方国家推销的所谓“普世价值”是假的普遍性，是消磨差异的绝对普遍性，是抽象的同一性，主张建构超越时空的同质性价值秩序，否定价值的特殊性，追求无原则、无差别、无矛盾和凝固不变的绝对同一，结局就是“同而不和”“同则不继”;中国倡导的全人类共同价值是真的普遍性，是包容矛盾和差异的普遍性，是具体的同一性，强调多样性背后的共同性，追求有原则、有差别的和谐共处，结局就是“和而不同”“和实生物”。

There is an essential difference between common values and “universal values” in terms of value commonality. First, regarding the scope of value commonality, common values emphasize the finitude of temporal, spatial, and subject conditions, and do not attempt to use a particular value to “cover” all countries, regions, nations, and subjects; “universal values” emphasize the infinitude of value commonality and do not set temporal, spatial, or subject boundaries for their own scope of application. Second, regarding the functional orientation of value commonality, common values “represent values with public characteristics that can be shared by people all over the world”; they reflect the basic value pursuits of all humanity, possess inherent resonance and recognition, and serve as value norms for action; “universal values” are essentially an ideology used by Western culture to confront non-Western cultures, and arrogantly declare: “There is currently no ideology claiming to be universally applicable that can compete with liberal democracy.” [26] This is a value discipline of conquest, expansion, and enslavement. Third, regarding the practical logic of value commonality, common values follow the logic of peace of “one Earth, one family” and “humanity as one body,” emphasizing the value tolerance of “mutual assistance in times of trouble” and “harmonious coexistence and symbiosis,” “fundamentally changing hegemonism itself, and moving toward a ‘new cosmopolitanism’ of peaceful development and win-win cooperation”; [27] “universal values” are “the product of bourgeois relations of production and ownership relations,” [28] follow the logic of capital and hegemony of zero-sum games, and seek to shape the value hegemony of capitalism.

共同价值与“普世价值”在价值公共性上存在本质区别。其一，在价值公共性的范围划定上，共同价值强调时空与主体条件的有限性，并不试图用某种特定的价值“涵盖”一切国家、地区、民族与主体；“普世价值”则强调价值公共性的无限性，并不为自身适用范围设定时空与主体边界。其二，在价值公共性的功能定向上，公共价值“表征的是具有公共性特征、能够被全世界人民共享的价值”,是反映全人类基本价值追求，具备内在共鸣与认同，作为行动遵循的价值规范；“普世价值”本质是西方文化对抗非西方文化的意识形态，并狂妄地宣称：“目前还没有任何一种自称为放之四海而皆准的意识形态能与自由民主相抗衡”,这是征服、扩张与奴役性质的价值规训；其三，在价值公共性的实践逻辑上，共同价值遵从“地球一家”“人类一体”的和平逻辑，强调“和衷共济”“和合共生”的价值包容，“从根本上改变霸权主义本身，进而走向和平发展、合作共赢的‘新世界主义’”;“普世价值”则是“资产阶级的生产关系和所有制关系的产物”,遵从零和博弈的资本逻辑、霸权逻辑，图谋塑造资本主义的价值霸权。

Second, the principle of common values relatively distinguishes between value concepts and the forms of value realization (paths), transcending the Western cognitive error of conflating the two. Value concepts are one thing; the practical forms of value (i.e., value models) are another; the two cannot be mentioned in the same breath. Generally speaking, different value concepts lead to different value models. However, it must also be recognized that the same value concept can manifest in different value models. For example, in Western countries, the forms of realization of capitalist democracy can be either a two-party system or a multi-party system, either a presidential system or a parliamentary system, either a constitutional monarchy or a democratic republic, either direct democracy or indirect democracy—all essentially embodying the value concept of capital being the master. In our country, the forms of realization of socialist democracy include the system of people’s congresses, the system of multiparty cooperation and political consultation under the leadership of the CPC, the system of regional ethnic autonomy, and the system of grassroots self-governance—all essentially embodying the value concept of the people being the masters. Conversely, the same value model may reflect different value concepts behind it. For instance, both China and the West have democratic elections; China embodies the concept of whole-process people’s democracy, with the people being the masters at its core; the West embodies the value of bourgeois democracy, with capital being the master at its core.

其次，共同价值原理，把价值观念与价值实现形式(路径)相对区分开来，超越了西方将二者混为一谈的认知误区。价值观念是一回事，价值观念的实践形态(即价值模式)是一回事，二者不可相提并论。一般来说，价值观念不一样，价值模式也不一样。但是，也必须看到，同样的价值观念，完全可以表现为不同的价值模式。比如，在西方国家，资本主义民主的实现形式，既可以是两党制也可以是多党制，既可以是总统制也可以是议会制，既可以是君主立宪制也可以是民主共和制，既可以是直接民主也可以是间接民主，本质上都体现了资本当家作主的价值观念。在我国，社会主义民主的实现形式，既包括人民代表大会制度、中国共产党领导的多党合作和政治协商制度，也包括民族区域自治制度和基层群众自治制度，本质上都体现了人民当家作主的价值观念。相反，同样的价值模式，背后可能体现出不同的价值观念。比如，同为民主选举，中国体现的是全过程人民民主理念，本质是人民当家作主；西方体现的是资产阶级民主价值，本质是资本当家作主。

We advocate the common values of all humanity, but we do not pursue identical forms of value realization or practical paths. China has always been an advocate of the common values of all humanity, “understanding different civilizations’ interpretations of value connotations with a broad mind, and respecting the exploration of value realization paths by the people of different countries,” [29] respecting the differentiated and individualized value realization paths of different countries. That is to say, we advocate peace, development, fairness, justice, democracy, and freedom, but we will not export China’s social system, development path, or democratic model, nor will we seek a uniform form of value realization. Our opposition to the Western so-called “universal values” is not an opposition to value concepts such as “freedom, democracy, and human rights,” but rather an opposition to the West’s disregard for the distinction between value concepts and forms of value realization, equating the specific forms of realization of “freedom, democracy, and human rights” with the values themselves, promoting them unconditionally and indiscriminately to the world beyond the West, and forcing the world to be governed by the Western path of value realization—this is wrong. Xi Jinping pointed out: “Will

我们倡导全人类共同价值，但不追求相同的价值实现形式和实践路径。中国始终是全人类共同价值的倡导者，“以宽广胸怀理解不同文明对价值内涵的认识，尊重不同国家人民对价值实现路径的探索”,尊重不同国家走差异化、个性化的价值实现路径。也就是说，我们倡导和平、发展、公平、正义、民主、自由，但不会输出中国的社会制度、发展道路、民主模式，不会谋求一致化的价值实现形式。我们反对西方所谓“普世价值”,并不是反对“自由、民主、人权”等价值理念，而是反对西方无视价值观念与价值实现形式的区别，将“自由、民主、人权”的具体实现形式等同于价值观本身，无条件地、无差别地推广于西方以外的世界，强求以西方的价值实现路径统治世界，这是错误的。习近平指出：“搞了西方的那套东西就更自由、更民主、更稳定了吗?一些发展中国家照搬西方政治制度和政党制度模式，结果如何呢?很多国家陷入政治动荡、社会动乱，人民流离失所。活生生的例子就在眼前”。我们绝不能重蹈这些国家的覆辙。

Finally, the principle of common values relatively separates the attribute of ideology from the attribute of humanity, thereby avoiding the previous limitation of a perspective that focused exclusively on the ideological attribute. Values themselves are ideology; there is no so-called value that is purely objective and neutral, detached from its ideological attribute. On the issue of values, so-called value neutrality does not exist. Values that adapt to different spatiotemporal scopes differ in their stance and subject presupposition, and their ideological attribute also varies in strength. Generally speaking, “universal values” highlight the standpoint of capital, have a clear subject presupposition, represent the fundamental interests of the bourgeoisie, and belong to bourgeois ideology; thus they possess a strong capitalist ideological attribute. The core socialist values highlight the people’s standpoint, likewise have a clear subject orientation, represent the fundamental interests of the broadest masses of the people, and therefore possess a distinct socialist ideological attribute.

最后，共同价值原理，把意识形态属性和人类属性相对区分开来，避免了过去专注意识形态属性的视域局限。价值观本身就是意识形态，不存在脱离意识形态属性、纯粹客观中立的所谓价值观。在价值观问题上，所谓价值中立是不存在的。适应不同时空范围的价值观，其立场站位和主体预设不尽一样，其意识形态属性也是有强弱之别的。通常说来，“普世价值”凸显的是资本立场，有着明确的主体预设，代表了资产阶级的根本利益，从属于资产阶级意识形态，因而具有强烈的资本主义意识形态属性；社会主义核心价值观凸显的是人民立场，同样有着明确的主体指向，代表了最广大人民的根本利益，因而具有鲜明的社会主义意识形态属性。

In contrast, the common values of all mankind at the present stage highlight the human standpoint, represent the common interests of all humanity, belong to an inter-subjective value consensus, do not belong to any fixed system of political ideology, have no specific political ideological purpose, and thus possess a weak ideological attribute. Therefore, our advocacy of the common values of all mankind by no means implies exporting ideology or values to the world. Xi Jinping, when meeting foreign guests attending the China International Friendship Conference and the commemoration of the 70th anniversary of the founding of the Chinese People’s Association for Friendship with Foreign Countries, pointed out: “Promote the common values of all mankind of peace, development, fairness, justice, democracy, and freedom, and gather the consensus of peoples of different ethnicities, different beliefs, different cultures, and different regions.” Xi Jinping also pointed out: “Promoting the building of a community with a shared future for mankind does not mean replacing one system with another, nor replacing one civilization with another; rather, it means that countries with different social systems, different ideologies, different histories and cultures, and different levels of development share interests, share rights, and share responsibilities in international affairs, forming the greatest common divisor for building a better world.” The value foundation behind building a community with a shared future for mankind is precisely the common values of all mankind, and the best practical platform for practicing the common values of all mankind is building a community with a shared future for mankind. The two share a common value orientation — opposing Cold War mentality and the dominance of ideology. It can be seen that “the common values of all mankind condense the value consensus of different human civilizations, reflect the greatest common divisor of value concepts universally recognized by people of all countries, and transcend differences in ideology, social system, and development level.” It is in this sense that the common values of all mankind transcend the chasm of social systems and ideologies, and their ideological attribute and social system attribute are naturally weaker and lighter.

与此不同的是，全人类共同价值在现阶段凸显的则是人类立场，代表了全人类的共同利益，属于主体间的价值共识，不从属于某一套固定的政治意识形态体系，没有特定的政治意识形态目的，因而具有弱意识形态属性。因此，我们倡导全人类共同价值，绝不意味着向全世界搞意识形态输出、价值观输出。习近平在会见出席中国国际友好大会暨中国人民对外友好协会成立70周年纪念活动外方嘉宾时指出：“弘扬和平、发展、公平、正义、民主、自由的全人类共同价值，凝聚不同民族、不同信仰、不同文化、不同地域人民的共识”。习近平还指出：“推动构建人类命运共同体，不是以一种制度代替另一种制度，不是以一种文明代替另一种文明，而是不同社会制度、不同意识形态、不同历史文化、不同发展水平的国家在国际事务中利益共生、权利共享、责任共担，形成共建美好世界的最大公约数。”构建人类命运共同体背后的价值基础就是全人类共同价值，而践行全人类共同价值最好的实践平台就是构建人类命运共同体，二者有一个共同的价值取向——反对冷战思维和意识形态挂帅。可见，“全人类共同价值凝聚了人类不同文明的价值共识，反映了世界各国人民普遍认同的价值理念的最大公约数，超越了意识形态、社会制度和发展水平差异”。正是在这个意义上说，全人类共同价值超越了社会制度和意识形态的鸿沟，其意识形态属性、社会制度属性自然要弱一些、淡一些。

The principle of common values is a system of value concepts guiding the development of world civilization today, a basic guideline for leading the spiritual growth of the world and the progress of human civilization, providing action norms for universal interaction in the world and for the interaction between countries with two systems, and laying the value foundation for promoting the building of a new type of international relations and a community with a shared future for mankind. The principle of common values is grounded in the spatiotemporal background of universal interaction in the world in the New Era, points to the value vision of “a garden of civilizations where all beauties are shared,” follows the value stance that “all values, in the final analysis, are values for people,” discards the value hegemony of the capitalist “single value,” forms value principles that fundamentally transcend “universal values,” and enriches and develops the Marxist theory of value with landmark major concepts, original ideological viewpoints, and principled theoretical achievements.

共同价值原理是指引当今世界文明发展的价值观念体系，是引领世界精神成长和人类文明进步的基本遵循，为世界普遍交往和两制国家互动提供了行动准则，为推动建设新型国际关系、构建人类命运共同体奠定了价值底座。共同价值原理立足新时代世界普遍交往的时空背景，指向“美美与共的文明百花园”的价值愿景，遵循“一切价值归根结底都是对人的价值”的价值立场，摒弃资本主义“单一价值”的价值霸权，形成根本超越“普世价值”的价值原则，以标识性重大概念、原创性思想观点、原理性理论成果丰富和发展了马克思主义价值学说。

Author’s brief biography: Chen Shuguang, Director of the Research Department and Professor of the School of Marxism, Party School of the Central Committee of the CPC (National Academy of Governance).

作者简介：陈曙光，中共中央党校(国家行政学院)科研部主任、马克思主义学院教授。