The Mode of Existence of Modern Humans and Its Transformation from the Perspective of the Critique of Political Economy

Advancing Chinese-path modernization necessarily requires promoting the process of human modernization, because “the essence of modernization is the modernization of humans.” The fundamental way to realize the modernization of humans lies in promoting the modernization of the mode of existence of humans. This demands deepening theoretical exploration of the mode of existence of modern humans and its transformation, with a focus on further research into the following issues: first, what is a modern human; second, in what fundamental mode do modern humans exist; third, how can the transformation of the mode of existence of modern humans be grasped in practice at a principled height. Regarding these issues, Western Marxists, drawing on Marx’s logic of “alienation” and combining it with the real experiences of humans in capitalist society, have conducted quite forward-looking research on the mode of existence of modern humans. However, their use of the logic of “alienation” to encompass the mode of existence of modern humans differs markedly from Marx’s grasp of the mode of existence of modern humans and its transformation through the logic that “the transcendence of self-alienation follows the same path as self-alienation itself.” The former focuses on criticizing the contemporary manifestations of the mode of existence of modern humans, but fails to deeply grasp Marx’s logic of “the transcendence of self-alienation,” thus ultimately remaining a purely theoretical critique. Marx not only profoundly criticized the mode of existence of modern humans, who take the production of exchange value as their internal measure, but also pointed out a future picture of the transformation of the mode of existence of modern humans that is both necessary and realistic. To truly answer the above three questions, we must base ourselves on Marx’s perspective of the critique of political economy, uphold the basic principles of historical materialism, and examine the mode of existence of modern humans—that is, the way modern humans unfold their real life process. In addition, we must focus on the mode of production of material life, the mode of communication in social life, and the mode of unfolding spiritual life, so as to further reveal, at the theoretical level, the practical foundation and contemporary circumstances of the survival and development of modern humans.

推进中国式现代化建设，必然要求推动人的现代化进程，因为“现代化的本质是人的现代化”。实现人的现代化的根本途径在于推动人的存在方式的现代化，这就要求在理论上深化对现代人的存在方式及其变革的探讨，重点要就以下问题进一步展开研究：一是何谓现代人，二是现代人以何种根本性的方式存在，三是如何在具有原则高度的实践上把握现代人存在方式的转变。对于以上问题，西方马克思主义者依据马克思的“异化”逻辑，结合资本主义社会中人的现实遭遇，对现代人的存在方式展开了颇具前瞻性的研究。但他们以“异化”逻辑来统摄现代人的存在方式，与马克思从“自我异化的扬弃同自我异化走的是同一条道路”的逻辑来把握现代人的存在方式及其变革有着显著区别。前者侧重对现代人存在方式的当代表现进行批判，而未能深入把握马克思“自我异化的扬弃”的逻辑，所以归根结底是一种理论意义上的纯粹批判。马克思不仅深刻批判了现代人以生产交换价值作为衡量自身内在尺度的存在方式，而且还为现代人的存在方式变革指出了具有必然性和现实性的未来图景。要切实地解答上述三个问题，必须立足于马克思的政治经济学批判视域，秉持唯物史观的基本原则，对现代人的存在方式即现代人展开其现实生活过程的方式进行考察。此外还须聚焦物质生活的生产方式、社会生活的交往方式和精神生活的展开方式等进行探讨，从而在学理上进一步揭示现代人生存和发展的实践根基和时代境遇。

I. Modern Humans and Their Internal Measure

一、现代人及其内在尺度

To explore the mode of existence of modern humans and its transformation from the perspective of the critique of political economy, we must first answer the basic question of what a modern human is. Since the early modern period, answers to this question have been numerous and divergent. The answers given by Smith, Hegel, and Marx are representative. Smith regarded self-interest as the measure of modern humans, thereby understanding humans and their world in terms of things, while Hegel advocated taking self-consciousness as the internal determination of modern humans, thereby grasping humans and their world in a spiritual manner. In contrast, Marx, through his study of political economy, profoundly criticized the modern humans and their measures as understood by Smith and Hegel, revealing that the production of exchange value is the internal measure of modern humans, which is in fact an alien measure external to humans and dominating them. Marx pointed out that in ancient conceptions, humans always appeared as the purpose of production, while “in the modern world, production appears as the purpose of humans, and wealth appears as the purpose of production.” [1]1 Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, *The German Ideology* (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1976), p. 32. Hence, he advocated grasping modern humans and the evolution of their internal measure through the logic that “the transcendence of self-alienation follows the same path as self-alienation itself.”

在政治经济学批判视域中探讨现代人的存在方式及其变革，首先要回答何谓现代人这一基本问题。自近代以降，对该问题的回答众说纷纭，莫衷一是。斯密、黑格尔和马克思对此做出的回答是具有代表性的。斯密把利己心看作衡量现代人的尺度，进而以物的方式来理解人及其世界，而黑格尔则主张把自我意识视为现代人的内在规定，从而以精神的方式来把握人及其世界。与此不同的是，马克思通过政治经济学的研究，深刻批判了斯密和黑格尔所理解的现代人及其尺度，揭示了交换价值的生产才是衡量现代人的内在尺度，其实则是一种外在于人，并使人受其统治的异己尺度。马克思指出，在古代的观念中，人总是表现为生产的目的，而“在现代世界，生产表现为人的目的，而财富则表现为生产的目的”。由此，他主张以“自我异化的扬弃同自我异化走的是同一条道路”的逻辑来把握现代人及其内在尺度的演变。

Smith believed that modern humans, existing in an isolated, atomized manner, can form a social organism through mutual needs and their satisfaction because each person, out of self-interest, expends their own labor, thereby satisfying both their own needs and those of others. “It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities but of their advantages.” [2]2 Karl Marx, *Grundrisse: Foundations of the Critique of Political Economy* (London: Penguin, 1973), p. 156. Thus, unlike the ancient conception that took the public good as the measure of humans, Smith took self-interest as the internal measure of modern humans. For Smith, who lived in the commercial society of his time, it was inevitable that this self-interest would lead to the conclusion that the modern world takes the production of wealth as its purpose. In his view, labor based on self-interest constitutes the foundation of wealth production, so the right to labor property is the most important foundation for the existence of modern humans. “The property which every man has in his own labor, as it is the original foundation of all other property, so it is the most sacred and inviolable.” [3]3 Karl Marx, *Grundrisse*, p. 162. The labor referred to here is general labor, not specific forms of labor such as commercial labor, agricultural labor, or industrial labor. For Smith, it is this general labor that constitutes the subjective essence of wealth. This theoretical discovery of his reveals the universal predicament of modern humans: while general labor is regarded as the subjective essence of wealth, real humans or labor subjects are reduced to objects of private property or wealth, completely degraded into elements of wealth production, thereby obscuring their subject status, “because humans themselves are no longer in an external tension with the external essence of private property, but humans themselves have become this tense essence of private property.” [4]4 Karl Marx, *Grundrisse*, p. 157. Smith’s economics implements the principle of understanding humans and their world in terms of things.

斯密认为以孤立的、原子化的方式存在的现代人，之所以能够通过互相之间的需要及其满足达成一个社会有机体，是因为每个人都出于利己心而付出自身的劳动，从而使自己和他人的需要都得到满足。“我们每天所需的食料和饮料，不是出自屠户、酿酒家或烙面师的恩惠，而是出于他们自利的打算。我们不说唤起他们利他心的话，而说唤起他们利己心的话。我们不说自己有需要，而说对他们有利。”由此可见，与古代的观念把公共的善作为人的尺度不同，斯密把利己心作为现代人的内在尺度。对于身处当时商业社会的斯密来说，由这种利己心推论出现代世界以财富生产为目的是必然的。在他看来，基于利己心而付出的劳动构成财富生产的基础，所以劳动所有权便是现代人赖以存在的最重要的根基。“劳动所有权是一切其他所有权的主要基础，所以，这种所有权是最神圣不可侵犯的。”这里所谓的劳动是指一般劳动，而不是商业劳动、农业劳动或工业劳动等特殊劳动形式。对于斯密而言，正是这种一般劳动构成了财富的主体本质。他的这一理论发现揭示了现代人存在的普遍困境，即在把一般劳动视为财富主体本质的同时，现实的人或劳动主体却降格为私有财产或财富的客体，彻底沦为财富生产的要素，从而遮蔽了其主体地位，“因为人本身已不再同私有财产的外在本质处于外部的紧张关系中，而是人本身成了私有财产的这种紧张的本质”。斯密的经济学贯彻的是以物的方式来理解人及其世界的思想原则。

Smith’s influence on Hegel was profound. Hegel grasped Smith’s understanding of modern humans and their world based on self-interest in a philosophical, abstract speculative manner—that is, through self-consciousness and its alienation. As Marx noted: “The self that is itself abstracted and fixed is the human as an abstract egoist, raised to his own pure abstraction, to the egoism of thought.” [5]5 Karl Marx, *Grundrisse*, p. 164. In Hegel’s view, the fundamental difference between ancient humans and modern humans lies in whether they possess self-consciousness: the former exist in a manner that has not yet acquired or has lost self-consciousness, while the latter regard self-consciousness as the foundation of modern human existence. In *The Phenomenology of Spirit*, he states: “Consciousness, in self-consciousness, that is, in the concept of spirit, first finds its turning point, at which stage it steps out of the colorful illusion of the sensory this-worldly realm and the empty night of the supersensible other-worldly realm into the spiritual daylight of the present world.” [6]6 Karl Marx, *Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844* (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1959), p. 93. On the path of consciousness toward absolute spirit, self-consciousness is endowed by Hegel with modern connotations. Furthermore, Hegel’s self-consciousness has the ideological foundation of modern political economy, because he seized upon the core concept of labor in civil society and placed it as a mediating link in speculative philosophy, thereby addressing the issue of the externalization or self-alienation of self-consciousness. Marx highly praised this, because “he grasps labor as the essence of humans, as the self-confirming essence of humans.” [7]7 Karl Marx, *Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844*, p. 102. However, the labor grasped by Hegel did not touch upon the real situation of labor, because the laborer, as the active element in the labor process, was abstracted into self-consciousness, leading to the real relationship between the laborer and private property—that is, the relationship of the laborer’s ownership of the product of labor, the real foundation of modern human existence—being obscured by speculative philosophy in a reconciliatory manner. In this regard, the modern humans and their world grasped by Hegel based on self-consciousness is actually an inverted world, which fundamentally conceals the real foundation of existence of real humans and their world. It can be said that this is merely a way of interpreting the world, but it cannot change the real world.

斯密对黑格尔的影响是深刻的，黑格尔以哲学的、抽象的思辨方式即以自我意识及其异化的方式，把握了斯密基于利己心而对现代人及其世界所做出的理解。正如马克思所言：“本身被抽象化和固定化的自我，是作为抽象的利己主义者的人，他被提升到自己的纯粹抽象、被提升到思维的利己主义”。在黑格尔看来，古代人与现代人的根本区别在于他是否具备自我意识，即前者是以尚未获得或以丧失自我意识的方式存在的，而后者则把自我意识看作现代人的存在之基。在《精神现象学》中，他指出：“意识在自我意识里，亦即在精神的概念里，才第一次找到它的转折点，到了这个阶段，它才从感性的此岸世界之五色缤纷的假象里并且从超越感官的彼岸世界之空洞的黑夜里走出来，进入到现在世界的精神的光天化日”。在意识通往绝对精神的途中，自我意识被黑格尔赋予了现代内涵。进言之，黑格尔的自我意识有着现代政治经济学的思想底色，因为他抓住了市民社会中的劳动这一核心概念，并将其置于思辨哲学的中介环节，以此解决自我意识的外化或自我异化问题。对此，马克思给予高度肯定，因为“他把劳动看做人的本质，看做人的自我确证的本质”。但是黑格尔所把握的劳动并没有触及现实的劳动处境，这是因为作为劳动过程中能动要素的劳动者被抽象为自我意识，从而导致劳动者与私有财产的现实关系，即劳动者对劳动产品的所有权关系这一现代人存在的现实根基，被思辨哲学以和解的方式遮蔽掉了。就此而言，黑格尔基于自我意识把握到的现代人及其世界，实际上是一个颠倒的世界，它从根本上掩盖了现实的人及其世界的存在根基。可以说，这只是解释世界的一种方式，但无法改变现实的世界。

From the perspective of the critique of political economy, Marx subjected the understanding of modern people held by Smith and Hegel to a profound critique, and revealed that exchange value is the alien standard under whose rule modern people live. Marx took a negative stance toward the ideological principle of grasping modern people on the basis of self-interest and self-consciousness, and argued that the internal standard of modern people should be grasped from the perspective of actual social relations. Specifically, a scientific grasp of modern people is inseparable from a genuine understanding of their material production practice. “As individuals express their life, so they are. Hence what individuals are depends on the material conditions of their production.” [1]1 Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, *The German Ideology* (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1976), p. 32. Clearly, the individuals here are at once individuals existing in a particular form and beings of a species existing in a universal form. In the critique of political economy, these modern people existing in a universal form are grasped through the formal determination of the production of exchange value. The goal of production for ancient people was to obtain use value, i.e., the attribute of an object that satisfies human needs, whereas the goal of production for modern people is to obtain exchange value and the power to command social labor. Marx points out: “The mutual and all-sided dependence of individuals who are indifferent to one another forms their social connection. This social connection is expressed in exchange value, for only through exchange value does each individual’s own activity or product become an activity or product for him.” [2]2 Karl Marx, *Grundrisse: Foundations of the Critique of Political Economy* (London: Penguin, 1973), p. 156. What is elaborated here is precisely the actual foundation on which modern people depend for their existence, namely, the production of exchange value as the immanent purpose of modern people’s unfolding of their own life activity. From the standpoint of exchange value as the actual carrier of modern social relations, Marx’s grasp of the essence of modern people penetrates into human history and practice.

在政治经济学批判视域中，马克思对斯密和黑格尔所理解的现代人进行了深刻批判，并揭示了交换价值乃是现代人受其统治的异己尺度。马克思对从利己心和自我意识出发来把握现代人的思想原则持否定态度，主张应从现实的社会关系来把握现代人的内在尺度。具体而言，对现代人的科学把握离不开对他们的物质生产实践的真切理解。“个人怎样表现自己的生命，他们自己就是怎样。因此，他们是什么样的，这同他们的生产是一致的——既和他们生产什么一致，又和他们怎样生产一致。因而，个人是什么样的，这取决于他们进行生产的物质条件。”显然，这里的个人既是以特殊形式存在的个体，同时又是具有普遍形式的类存在物。在政治经济学批判中，这种以普遍形式存在的现代人是从交换价值的生产这一形式规定来把握的。古代人生产的目的是获得使用价值即物品对人的满足属性，而现代人生产的目的则是获得交换价值和支配社会劳动的权力。马克思指出：“毫不相干的个人之间的互相的和全面的依赖，构成他们的社会联系。这种社会联系表现在交换价值上，因为对于每个个人来说，只有通过交换价值，他自己的活动或产品才成为他的活动或产品”。这里所阐述的正是现代人赖以存在的现实根基，即交换价值的生产作为现代人展开自身生命活动的内在目的。从交换价值作为现代社会关系的现实载体来说，马克思对现代人的本质把握深入到人类的历史和实践之中。

The production of exchange value as the internal standard for measuring modern people is determined by the specific mode of life and production of modern people. If we adhere to examining this from the perspective of proceeding from the material production process of actual life, we can accurately understand the profound connotation revealed by Marx. On the one hand, the precondition for the existence of modern people is the separation of the laborer from the means of production of material life, which means they cannot obtain the means of subsistence necessary for survival in the sense of self-sufficiency, but must adopt the mode of exchange, i.e., satisfying their own needs through the exchange of their own labor power for material products. Without the production of exchange value, modern people cannot exist, which is markedly different from pre-modern people. On the other hand, when modern people objectify their own physical and mental abilities in the products of labor and can then exchange them with the products of others, this means they must abstract their own labor, i.e., transform the individual labor of the laborer into social labor. Thus, social labor, which expresses itself through exchange value, becomes the practical foundation of modern people. Specifically, in exchange value, the labor capacity of modern people is transformed into the capacity to produce commodities. The greater this productive capacity, the stronger their social labor capacity; furthermore, in exchange value, the social relations of modern people are transformed into the exchange relations of their things. “In the modern world, human relations appear as the pure product of relations of production and exchange.” [3]3 Karl Marx, *Grundrisse*, p. 162. The broader the scope and the richer the content of these exchange relations, the more universal and comprehensive their social relations. In short, the talents, qualities, and interactions of modern people are all concentrated in the exchange value they produce.

交换价值的生产作为衡量现代人的内在尺度，是由现代人特定的生活和生产方式决定的。如果我们秉持从现实生活的物质生产过程出发来考察这一点，便能准确地理解马克思所揭示的深刻内涵。一方面，现代人的生存前提是劳动者与物质生活的生产资料相分离，这使得他们不能在自给自足的意义上获得赖以生存的生活资料，而必须采取交换的方式，即通过自身劳动力与物质产品的交换来满足自身的需要。脱离交换价值的生产，现代人则无法存在，这与前现代人有着显著区别。另一方面，当现代人把自身的体力和智力对象化在劳动产品中，进而能够与他人的产品交换时，就意味着他们必须将自身的劳动抽象化，即使劳动者的个别劳动转化为社会劳动。由此，以交换价值表现自身的社会劳动便成为现代人的实践根基。具体而言，在交换价值上，现代人的劳动能力转化为商品的生产能力。这种生产能力越大，也就意味着其社会劳动能力越强；此外，在交换价值上，现代人的社会关系转化为他们的物的交换关系。“在现代世界中，人的关系则表现为生产关系和交换关系的纯粹产物。”这种交换关系的范围越广泛、内容越丰富，也就意味着其社会关系越普遍、越全面。要言之，现代人的才能、素质和交往都集中体现在他们所生产的交换价值上了。

The internal standard for measuring modern people revealed by Marx in the critique of political economy pertains to capitalist society, and it indicates that this is the state of self-alienation of modern people. Marx points out: “The social character of activity, as well as the social form of the product and the share of the individual in production, here appear as something alien and objective to the individuals; … the universal exchange of activities and products, which has become a condition of life for each individual, their mutual interconnection, appears to them as something alien, independent, as a thing.” [4]4 Karl Marx, *Grundrisse*, p. 157. The condition of existence of modern people criticized here is the alienated image of people existing as laborers in capitalist society. From the perspective of the labor process, the self-alienation of modern people manifests as their constant existence outside social labor, because although they appear on the surface as the subjects of social production, they are forced into this division of labor in a coercive manner, and the products of labor do not belong to them. In this situation, modern people, unlike in the division of labor of an association, cannot produce directly for themselves and treat social production as their own common wealth, but rather define themselves through their alienated state. From the perspective of exchange relations, when modern people transform their own social relations into relations between the things they produce, they fall under the abstract domination of things. “Individuals are now ruled by abstractions, whereas earlier they depended on one another. However, the abstraction or idea is nothing but the theoretical expression of those material relations which rule over individuals.” [5]5 Karl Marx, *Grundrisse*, p. 164. This shows that although modern people are situated in actual social relations, because they depend on one another in a thing-like or inhuman way within them, and are subordinated in a way beyond their own control to a social system based on exchange value, they are in fact external to these social relations.

马克思在政治经济学批判中所揭示的衡量现代人的内在尺度是就资本主义社会而言的，而且它表明这是现代人的自我异化状态。马克思指出：“活动的社会性质，正如产品的社会形式和个人对生产的参与，在这里表现为对于个人是异己的东西，物的东西；……活动和产品的普遍交换已成为每一单个人的生存条件，这种普遍交换，他们的相互联系，表现为对他们本身来说是异己的、独立的东西，表现为一种物”。这里所批判的现代人的存在状况是资本主义社会中作为劳动者而存在的人的异化形象。从劳动过程来说，现代人的自我异化表现为其始终处于社会劳动之外，因为他们在表面上是社会生产的主体，但却是以被强制的方式加入这种劳动分工中的，而且劳动的产品并不属于他们自身。在此处境中，现代人不像在联合体的分工中那样，能够直接为自身而生产，并把社会生产当作自己的共同财富来对待，而是以其异化的状态规定自身。从交换关系来说，当现代人把自身的社会关系转化为他们所生产的物与物之间的关系时，他们就处于物的抽象统治之中了。“个人现在受抽象统治，而他们以前是互相依赖的。但是，抽象或观念，无非是那些统治个人的物质关系的理论表现。”由此表明，现代人虽然身处现实的社会关系中，但因为他们在其中以物的方式或以非人的方式相互依赖，以不受自身控制的方式从属于以交换价值为基础的社会体系，所以实际上是外在于这种社会关系的。

Faced with the alienated state of modern people, Marx did not resolutely reject alienation as Feuerbach did, but rather advocated grasping the situation of modern people and their future development along the logic that “the transcendence of self-alienation follows the same path as self-alienation.” [6]6 Karl Marx, *Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844* (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1959), p. 93. However, the self-alienation of modern people and its transcendence as he understood it is not the externalization and transcendence of self-consciousness in Hegel’s sense, but rather treats modern private property as the product of the self-alienation of modern people, and then transcends it by changing actual social relations, achieving the return of people to themselves. “Communism is the positive transcendence of private property, i.e., of human self-alienation, and therefore the real appropriation of the human essence through and for humans.” [7]7 Karl Marx, *Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844*, p. 102. From the perspective of the critique of political economy, this logic of self-alienation and its transcendence is mainly manifested in the following aspects: First, while capital maximizes profit, i.e., compresses socially necessary labor time to a minimum, it also creates the maximum amount of free time, providing the necessary conditions for the free development of modern people, which means that the measure of wealth will shift from labor time to free time. In other words, the production of exchange value as the internal standard for measuring modern people will also be transcended, and will be replaced by the qualities, talents, and comprehensive social relations required for people’s genuine free development. Second, in the process of accumulating material wealth, people gradually acquire the ability to make social wealth return to themselves in material production and social interaction, thereby advancing toward the stage of free individuality. On the one hand, people are no longer subordinate to things, but rather the common social productive capacity of humanity becomes social wealth subordinate to them; on the other hand, universal social material exchange, comprehensive relations, manifold needs, and a comprehensive system of capacities are formed.

面对现代人的异化状态，马克思并没有像费尔巴哈那样毅然决然地拒绝异化，而是主张沿着“自我异化的扬弃同自我异化走的是同一条道路”的逻辑来把握现代人的处境及其未来发展。不过，他所理解的现代人的自我异化及其扬弃不是黑格尔意义上的自我意识的外化及其扬弃，而是把现代私有财产看作现代人自我异化的产物，进而通过改变现实的社会关系来加以扬弃，实现人向自身的复归。“共产主义是对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”。在政治经济学批判视域中，这种自我异化及其扬弃的逻辑主要表现在以下方面：一是资本在实现利润最大化即把社会必要劳动时间压缩到最低限度的同时，也创造出了最大限度的自由时间，为现代人的自由发展提供了必要条件，这也就意味着财富的衡量尺度将从劳动时间转向自由时间。换句话说，交换价值的生产作为衡量现代人的内在尺度也将被扬弃，人的真正的自由发展所需的素质、才能和全面的社会关系将取而代之。二是在积累物质财富的过程中，人们在物质生产和社会交往方面逐步获得使社会财富复归于自身的能力，从而迈向自由个性的发展阶段，一方面，人不再是从属于物，而是人类共同的、社会的生产能力成为从属于他们的社会财富；另一方面，普遍的社会物质变换、全面的关系、多方面的需要以及全面的能力体系得以形成。

II. The Fundamental Mode of Existence of Modern People

二、现代人的根本存在方式

There are many interpretations and studies of the mode of existence of modern humans from perspectives such as law, morality, religion, family, civil society, and the state, and these studies are not without theoretical significance and practical value. However, if we proceed according to the nature of things—that is, the basis of human existence—then these studies only touch upon certain specific dimensions of the mode of existence of modern humans, while the fundamental mode of existence of modern humans awaits deeper investigation. In the critique of political economy, Marx grasps the connotation of modern humans on the basis of modern capitalist society, revealing that the production of exchange value is the internal measure of modern humans. Here, the fundamental mode of existence of modern humans we expound is also understood in the critical sense intended by Marx. Specifically, examining the fundamental mode of existence of modern humans from the perspective of the critique of political economy mainly points to the mode of production of modern material life, the mode of intercourse of social life, and the mode of unfolding of spiritual life, among which the mode of production of material life plays a dominant role over the other modes in the final analysis: “The mode of production of material life conditions the general process of social, political and intellectual life.”

对现代人的存在方式的把握，有很多从法、道德、宗教、家庭、市民社会、国家等角度进行的阐释和研究，这些研究不乏理论意义和现实价值。但是，如果按照事物的本性即人的存在依据来说，那么这些研究涉及的仅是现代人存在方式的某些具体维度，而对现代人的根本存在方式却有待深入探讨。在政治经济学批判中，马克思立足于现代资本主义社会来把握现代人的内涵，揭示了交换价值的生产是衡量现代人的内在尺度。于此，我们所阐述的现代人的根本存在方式也是在马克思所批判的意义上而言的。具体来说，从政治经济学批判视域来考察现代人的根本存在方式，主要指向的是现代物质生活的生产方式、社会生活的交往方式和精神生活的展开方式等，其中物质生活的生产方式在归根结底的意义上对其他方式起着支配作用，“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”。

1. The mode of production of modern material life. As noted above, unlike ancient people, who took use-value as the purpose of the production of material life, the production of material life for modern humans takes exchange-value as its purpose. In modern society, each producer can obtain an equivalent corresponding to the product they themselves produce, thereby satisfying their own increasingly diverse needs. This exchange-value, which appears to have such a powerful capacity to satisfy human material life, dominates the production of modern material life, causing it to manifest itself in an alienated form—namely, taking the pursuit of universal exchange-value, money, as the purpose of production. In this regard, while pursuing the richness of their own material life, modern humans also bring about an inversion in their own mode of production, that is, an inversion of the means of production and the purpose of production.

1.现代物质生活的生产方式。如上文所述，与古代人把使用价值作为物质生活生产的目的不同，现代人的物质生活的生产是以交换价值为目的的。在现代社会，每个生产者都能依靠自身生产的产品获得相应的等价物，进而满足自身愈发多样化的需求。这样一种看似对人类物质生活具有强大满足效力的交换价值，统治着现代人的物质生活的生产，使得它以一种异化的方式表现出来，即以追求普遍的交换价值、货币作为生产的目的。就此而言，现代人在追求自身物质生活丰富性的同时，也导致自身生产方式的颠倒，即生产手段和生产目的的颠倒。

When exchange-value is established as the purpose of commodity production, the mode of production of modern material life is immediately divided into productive labor and unproductive labor. This distinction in the mode of production was first proposed by the Physiocrats, who held that only labor capable of producing a net product was productive labor. On the basis of absorbing and criticizing the Physiocrats, Smith transformed this distinction by grounding it in labor in general, but his distinction contains a duality. On the one hand, Smith regarded productive labor as wage labor, that is, labor that can produce value for capital. In this regard, Marx believed that Smith had given a correct expression of productive labor, breaking free from the Physiocrats’ erroneous mode of expression, and that this was one of his great achievements. On the other hand, Smith remained constrained by the material determination of labor, confusing material labor and immaterial labor with productive labor and unproductive labor, thereby committing the error of a dual criterion of distinction. On this basis, starting from the formal determination of labor, Marx thoroughly criticized and transformed productive labor and unproductive labor, laying a formal foundation for the distinction between the two—namely, taking whether labor can produce surplus value for capital as the criterion for this distinction. It should be pointed out that this distinction is made in the sense of capitalist production and is an alienated form of the mode of production of modern material life. “Here, productive labor and unproductive labor are always distinguished from the standpoint of the money-owner, the capitalist, not from the standpoint of the worker.” In other words, although the unproductive labor engaged in by modern humans does not directly produce surplus value, it still has social significance, such as workers’ own household labor, artistic creation and scientific research not aimed at profit, and so on. These all constitute important dimensions of the mode of existence of modern humans and cannot be measured by exchange-value.

当交换价值被确定为商品生产的目的时，现代物质生活的生产方式便立刻被切分成生产劳动和非生产劳动。这种生产方式的区分最早由重农学派提出，他们认为只有能够生产纯产品的劳动才是生产劳动。斯密在吸收和批判重农学派的基础上，立足于一般劳动来改造这种区分，但是他的区分存在着二重性。一方面，斯密认为生产劳动是雇佣劳动，即能够为资本生产价值的劳动。对此，马克思认为他对生产劳动做了正确的表达，摆脱了重农学派对生产劳动的错误表达方式，是其巨大功绩之一。另一方面，斯密又拘泥于劳动的物质规定性，把物质劳动和非物质劳动与生产劳动和非生产劳动相混淆，从而犯了区分标准二重性的错误。在此基础上，马克思从劳动的形式规定性出发，彻底批判和改造了生产劳动和非生产劳动，为二者的区分奠定了形式基础，即以能否为资本生产剩余价值作为这种区分的标准。需要指出的是，这种区分是在资本主义生产意义上而言的，是一种现代物质生活的生产方式的异化形态。“这里，生产劳动和非生产劳动始终是从货币所有者、资本家的角度来区分的，不是从劳动者的角度来区分的”。言外之意，现代人所从事的非生产劳动虽然不直接生产剩余价值，但是仍具有社会意义，如劳动者自身的家务、不以营利为目的艺术创作和科学研究等劳动，这些都构成现代人存在方式的重要维度，而无法用交换价值来衡量。

As exchange-value unfolds its own activity in the form of capital, the mode of production of modern material life gradually evolves to the application of machinery. In the sense of capitalist production, once the instruments of labor are incorporated into the production of capital, they manifest themselves as a specific mode of existence of capital—namely, fixed capital—and after undergoing various forms themselves, they ultimately evolve into the form of machinery. More precisely, the final form of the instruments of labor is not merely machinery, but “the automatic system of machinery,” “the most complete and most appropriate form of the system of machinery, and it alone makes machinery into a system.” This automatic system of machinery includes numerous mechanical organs and intelligent organs and is the result of capital’s demand for a historical transformation of the means of labor. On the one hand, the relationship between the worker and the instruments of labor is inverted: formerly, the worker endowed them with a soul through their own skill and activity; now, the worker is subordinate to the machinery, serving as its conscious organ, and the machinery replaces the worker as the “subject” possessing skill and power. On the other hand, the system of machinery exists as fixed capital, and in accordance with the nature of capital, it also requires continuous improvement of itself. This necessitates the continuous accumulation and elevation of knowledge and skill, and the accumulation and elevation of the general productive forces of social intellect. This also means that with the realization of capital’s own desires, individuals will also achieve full development, and the full development of individual capacities and qualities will in turn react as the greatest productive force upon the productive forces of labor in the form of the system of machinery. In this regard, Marx held that “from the standpoint of the direct production process, the saving of labor time can be regarded as the production of fixed capital, and this fixed capital is man himself.” Marx’s analysis of the dialectical movement of the mode of production of modern material life provides a powerful explanation for judging the developmental trend of future labor productivity.

随着交换价值以资本形态表现自身活动的展开，现代物质生活的生产方式逐步演进到机器的应用上。在资本主义生产的意义上，劳动工具一旦加入到资本的生产中，它就表现为特殊的资本存在方式即固定资本，在其自身经历各种形态后，最终演进到机器形态。更确切地说，劳动工具的最后形态不仅仅是机器，而且是“自动的机器体系”，“是最完善、最适当的机器体系形式，只有它才使机器成为体系”。这种自动机器体系包括诸多机械器官和智能器官，是资本要求劳动资料进行历史性变革的结果。一方面，工人与劳动工具的关系发生了颠倒，以前是工人通过自身的技能和活动赋予它以灵魂，现在工人在机器面前是从属性的，是它的有意识的机体，机器代替工人成为具有技能和力量的“主体”；另一方面，机器体系作为固定资本而存在，按照资本的本性要求，它也需要不断改进自身。这就需要知识和技能的不断积累和提升，需要社会智力的一般生产力的积累和提升。而这也意味着随着资本自身欲望的实现，个人也将得到充分发展，进而个人能力和素质的充分发展也会作为最大的生产力反作用于以机器体系为形态的劳动生产力。对此，马克思认为“从直接生产过程的角度来看，节约劳动时间可以看做生产固定资本，这种固定资本就是人本身”。马克思对现代物质生活的生产方式辩证运动的分析为判断未来劳动生产力的发展趋势提供了有力说明。

2. The mode of intercourse of modern social life. From the perspective of the critique of political economy, the mode of intercourse of modern social life constitutes one of the basic modes of existence of modern humans. The mode of intercourse of social life refers to the forms of intercourse that people engage in around

2.现代社会生活的交往方式。从政治经济学批判视域来看，现代社会生活的交往方式构成现代人存在的基本方式之一。社会生活的交往方式是人们围绕物质生产和生活而发生的交往形式，包括交往的方法、中介、范围和深度等要素。它并不外在于人的存在，相反，它本身就是人的存在。对于现代人来说，其存在方式是随着历史向世界历史的转变而逐步形成的。由此，现代社会生活的交往方式在根本上是受世界市场的力量支配的，其中货币、信用等现代社会生活的交往中介是起支配性作用的决定性要素。

In modern social life, money is the basic intermediary for people’s economic interactions. Indeed, in pre-modern social life, money also played the role of a bond of interaction, but in modern social life money is no longer merely an intermediary and bond of interaction; rather, it becomes the goal pursued in people’s economic interactions and assumes the leading role in social life. Because money itself is a particular exchange value, yet due to its own physical and economic characteristics it becomes the universal exchange value. Accordingly, the accumulation of the quantity of money becomes the primary goal of all economic interactions. To put it further, although the logic of the self-valorization of modern money is rooted in and relies on the interactions of modern social life, enabling these interactions to break through all previous constraints of narrow localities and to form a universal social metabolism, comprehensive relations, and manifold needs, it also becomes an alien force dominating modern people, for the means of interaction is inverted into the end of interaction, the subject of interaction is inverted into the object of interaction, and the interacting parties, at the cost of losing their own individuality, seek by every means to obtain that money which is utterly devoid of individuality.

在现代社会生活中，货币是人们进行经济交往的基本中介。诚然，在前现代的社会生活中，货币也扮演着交往纽带的角色，但是现代社会生活中的货币不再仅仅是交往的中介和纽带，而是人们经济交往所追求的目的，并成为社会生活的主导者。因为货币本身是特殊的交换价值，但由于它自身所具有的物理特性和经济特性而成为普遍的交换价值。据此，追求货币量的积累成为一切经济交往的首要目的。进言之，现代货币的自我增殖逻辑虽然植根并依托于现代社会生活的交往，使得这种交往突破以往一切囿于狭隘地域的限制，形成了普遍的社会物质变换、全面的关系、多方面的需要，但是它也成为统治现代人的异己力量，因为交往的手段颠倒为交往的目的，交往的主体颠倒为交往的客体，交往者以丧失自身个性为代价想方设法获取那毫无个性可言的货币。

It is precisely the transformation of the economic functions of modern money in the spheres of production and circulation that compels every link of production and circulation operating within the system of the world market to devise ways to overcome all obstacles to the return of money to its owner. Marx points out in this regard: “Thus, for production based on capital, the essential condition for it—namely, the continuity of the different processes that constitute the entire process of capitalist production—becomes contingent. Capital itself eliminates this contingency through credit.” [8]8 Karl Marx, "Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844," in *Marx and Engels Collected Works*, vol. 3 (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1975), p. 294. In this sense, credit enables the immediacy of production to persist. At root, it is a certificate of capital’s command over future labor. This capital-character of credit necessarily manifests itself also in the sphere of circulation, namely, the lending system centered on the money-dealing business gradually gains control over the production process. Consequently, the modern credit economy system dominated by finance capital becomes the basic mode of intercourse in modern social life. The fictitious capital, joint-stock system, banking system, and debt economy formed on the basis of credit also exert a profound influence on the mode of intercourse in the social life of modern humans.

正是现代货币的经济职能在生产领域和流通领域的转变，使得整个以世界市场为运转体系的生产和流通各环节，想尽办法克服货币回流到货币所有者手中存在的一切障碍。马克思对此指出：“这样一来，对于以资本为基础的生产来说，它的本质条件，即构成资本主义生产整个过程的各个不同过程的连续性，是否会出现，就成为偶然的了。资本本身消除这一偶然性的办法就是信用”。在此意义上，信用使得生产的直接性得以存续。在根本上，它是资本支配未来劳动所有权的一种凭证。信用的这种资本特性也必然表现在流通领域，即以货币经营业为中心的借贷体系逐步获得对生产过程的掌控权。由此，以金融资本为主导的现代信用经济体系成为现代社会生活的基本交往方式。在信用基础上所形成的虚拟资本、股份制度、银行制度和债务经济，也对现代人的社会生活的交往方式产生深刻影响。

The mode of intercourse in modern social life, founded on money and credit, emerges with the transition from the stage of relations of personal dependence to the stage of relative independence of the individual based on dependence on things. This is also the result of the transformation of history into world history. Its negative significance lies in the fact that, as the activities of the individual expand into world-historical activities, the individual becomes increasingly subject to the abstract domination of economic forces centered on money and credit, dominated by this alien power, “subject to the domination of an ever-expanding, ultimately world-market power, which is, of course, an empirical fact in history up to the present.” [9]9 Marx, "Grundrisse der Kritik der politischen Ökonomie," in Marx/Engels Collected Works, vol. 30, p. 113. Its positive significance lies in the fact that only through world-historical intercourse can people acquire this comprehensive productive capacity on a global scale, and thereby acquire comprehensive social relations and a system of capacities. Clearly, this is humanity’s own re-mastery and re-domination of alien economic forces. Without this process from self-alienation to the supersession of self-alienation, it is difficult for modern humans to achieve liberation from the alienation of intercourse. In this regard, Marx presciently points out: “The degree to which each individual is liberated coincides with the degree to which history is completely transformed into world history.” [10]10 "促进物的全面丰富和人的全面发展" (promoting the comprehensive abundance of things and the comprehensive development of the individual) is a formulation from official Chinese political discourse, emphasizing balanced material and human progress.

建立在货币和信用基础上的现代社会生活的交往方式，随着人的依赖关系阶段向以对物的依赖为基础的人的相对独立阶段转变而产生。这也是历史向世界历史转变的结果。其消极意义在于，单个人随着自己的活动扩大为世界性的活动，越来越受以货币和信用为核心的经济力量的抽象统治，受这种异己力量的支配，“受到日益扩大的、归根结底表现为世界市场的力量的支配，这种情况在迄今为止的历史中当然也是经验事实”。其积极意义在于，只有通过世界性的交往活动，人们才能获得全球范围内的这种全面的生产能力，进而获得全面的社会关系和能力体系。显然，这是人类自身对异己的经济力量的重新掌控和支配。倘若没有这种从自我异化到自我异化的扬弃过程，现代人从交往异化中获得解放是难以实现的。对此，马克思颇具预见性地指出：“每一个单个人的解放的程度是与历史完全转变为世界历史的程度一致的。”

3. The Mode of Unfolding of Modern Spiritual Life. What is primarily discussed here are dimensions such as modern spiritual labor and modern spiritual concepts from the perspective of the critique of political economy. Spiritual labor is the activity in which producers of ideas and concepts, using the means of spiritual production, create corresponding spiritual products. It is not an abstract speculative activity of the spirit, but the spiritual production activity of humans situated in real social relations. To examine spiritual labor from the perspective of the critique of political economy, one cannot avoid the distinction between productive labor and unproductive labor. Accordingly, as far as spiritual labor that constitutes productive labor is concerned, its fundamental purpose is to create profit for capital. Whether it is artistic creation or the production of concepts, it is formally defined as a productive element of capital, regardless of its specific content. From stimulating the needs of spiritual life, to promoting the production of spiritual products, to the consumption of spiritual products, all are links set up by capital to create profit. In terms of specific content, this spiritual labor can be either spiritual products existing in material form or spiritual products existing in the form of ideas. These material determinations do not fundamentally affect the definition of this spiritual labor as an activity that produces exchange value. Of course, not all modern spiritual labor is productive labor. Modern spiritual labor that exists as unproductive labor, although lacking economic significance, still has its social benefits and artistic value. Spiritual labor as productive labor is actually a state of self-alienation of human spiritual activity, whose measure is exchange value or profit, while spiritual labor as unproductive labor is a non-alienated state, whose measure is human self-realization or the generation of free individuality.

3.现代精神生活的展开方式。在此主要探讨的是政治经济学批判视域中的现代精神劳动和现代精神观念等维度。精神劳动是思想、观念的生产者借助于精神生产资料创造出相应精神产品的活动。它不是抽象的精神的思辨活动，而是处于现实社会关系中的人的精神生产活动。在政治经济学批判视域中考察精神劳动，离不开对生产劳动和非生产劳动的区分。据此，就作为生产劳动的精神劳动而言，其根本目的在于为资本创造利润，无论是艺术的创作，还是观念的生产，在形式上都被规定为资本的生产要素，而无关具体的内容。从刺激精神生活的需要，到推动精神产品的生产，再到精神产品的消费，都是资本为创造利润而设置的环节。从具体内容来说，这种精神劳动既可以是以物质形式存在的精神产品，也可以是以观念形态存在的精神产品。这些质料规定在根本上不影响精神劳动作为生产交换价值的活动这一规定。当然，现代精神劳动并非全部是生产劳动，作为非生产劳动而存在的现代精神劳动虽不具有经济意义，但亦有其社会效益和艺术价值。作为生产劳动的精神劳动实际上是一种人类精神活动的自我异化状态，其衡量尺度是交换价值或利润，而作为非生产劳动的精神劳动是一种非异化的状态，其衡量尺度是人的自我实现或自由个性的生成。

The aforementioned duality of modern spiritual labor is essentially determined by the dual mode of existence of modern humans. On the one hand, the profit-oriented activities required for their survival and development cause spiritual labor to fall into a reified situation overall; on the other hand, the transcendence of spirit itself over real life determines the non-profit, non-productive nature of spiritual activity. Some have pointed out: “In the present era, relatively affluent material life has enabled people to escape material scarcity overall and made diversified sensory life possible, but the richness and quality of people’s spiritual life have not improved.” [11] Clearly, this critique of modern spiritual life targets precisely the paradox between its reification and its transcendence. Fundamentally, the reified situation of modern spiritual life is mainly based on the concept of self-interest established by classical economics since Adam Smith. In Smith, although the individual labor that served as the basis of the concept of self-interest had long been replaced by wage labor in the era of large-scale machine industry, it was nevertheless established and consolidated as a modern spiritual concept within the ideological system of capital-based society, becoming the ideological coordinate from which modern humans, taking the individual as the subject, generate an egoistic mode of thinking. Thus, commodity fetishism, monetarism, and the worship of capital become the dominant forces in the world of spiritual life. Furthermore, modern spiritual concepts concerning humans themselves, the relationship between humans and nature, and the relationship between humans and the world are, to a certain extent, constrained and influenced by these reified forces.

以上所述现代精神劳动的二重性，本质上是由现代人的二重化存在方式决定的。一方面是其生存和发展所需的营利性活动决定了精神劳动在总体上陷入物化的境遇，另一方面是精神本身对于现实生活的超越决定了精神活动的非营利性、非生产性。有观点指出：“在现时代，相对富裕的物质生活使得人们从总体上摆脱了物质匮乏，并使多样化的感性生活得以可能，但人们精神生活的丰富性及质量并没有得到提高”。显然，这种对现代精神生活的批判指向的即其物化与超越性之间的悖论。就其根本而言，现代精神生活的物化境遇主要奠基于自亚当·斯密以来的古典经济学所确立的利己观念。在斯密那里，虽然作为利己观念基础的个体劳动早已被机器大工业时代的雇佣劳动所取代，但是它作为一种现代精神观念却在以资本为基础的社会意识形态体系中被确定并巩固下来，成为现代人以个体为主体继而生发利己主义思维方式的思想坐标。由此，商品拜物教、货币主义、资本崇拜成为精神生活世界的主导力量。进言之，现代精神观念中关于人自身、人与自然的关系以及人与世界的关系等的认识，在一定程度上都受到这些物化力量的制约和影响。

Examining the mode of existence of modern humans from the mode of production of modern material life, the mode of intercourse of social life, and the mode of unfolding of spiritual life shows that real humans and their development are quite consistent with the internal contradictions of modern society’s material production, social intercourse, and spiritual life, as well as the process of resolving these contradictions. Of course, this also reveals the universal predicament encountered by every individual situated in modern society. The inversion of the relationship between ends and means—i.e., exchange value and use value—in the mode of production of modern material life causes the alienated forms of productive labor and unproductive labor, measured by profit, to dominate the entire modern material life. In the mode of intercourse of modern social life, the intermediaries of economic exchange, such as money and credit, occupy a dominant position in capital-based economic activities, thereby constituting an abstract domination over the intercourse of modern humans. This leads to modern

从现代物质生活的生产方式、社会生活的交往方式和精神生活的展开方式等来考察现代人的存在方式表明，现实的人及其发展与现代社会的物质生产、社会交往和精神生活的内在矛盾及其解决进程具有相当的一致性。当然，这也揭示了身处现代社会中的每个人所遭遇的普遍性困境。现代物质生活的生产方式中目的和手段即交换价值和使用价值关系的颠倒，使得以利润为衡量尺度的生产劳动和非生产劳动这种异化形态统治着整个现代物质生活；在现代社会生活的交往方式中，经济交换的中介如货币、信用等在以资本为基础的经济活动中占据着主导地位，进而构成了对现代人交往的抽象统治；由此导致现代精神生活被置于现代社会的二重性之上，作为生产劳动和非生产劳动的精神劳动使得现代精神生活的状况主要表现在其物化和超越性的悖论之中。这些普遍性的困境正是政治经济学批判所要揭示并加以批判的现代人的存在之殇。

III. The Transformation of the Mode of Existence of Modern Humans

三、现代人的存在方式变革

From the perspective of the critique of political economy, examining the transformation of the mode of existence of modern humans in accordance with the logic that "the supersession of self-alienation follows the same path as self-alienation itself,"[8]8 Karl Marx, "Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844," in *Marx and Engels Collected Works*, vol. 3 (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1975), p. 294. we can discover that the material and spiritual conditions necessary for modern humans to escape the predicament of universality are precisely created by the era that generates this predicament. Thus, the view that only sees the self-alienation of modern humans is passive, even negative. To grasp that modern humans, in the process of self-alienation, simultaneously generate the conditions and possibilities for the supersession of self-alienation is to be proactive and far-sighted. Examining the transformation of the mode of existence of modern humans from the perspective of the critique of political economy requires not only fully absorbing and drawing upon the intellectual resources of Marx and Engels concerning the transformation of modern humans, adhering to the principle of historical materialism to grasp the correct direction of this transformation, but also closely integrating the contemporary circumstances of modern humans' survival and development, so as to construct the practical principles of this transformation with the concept of truly realizing the free and comprehensive development of humans.

在政治经济学批判视域中，按照“自我异化的扬弃同自我异化走的是同一条道路”的逻辑来考察现代人的存在方式变革，我们可以发现现代人摆脱普遍性困境所需要的物质条件和精神条件，正是由生成这种困境的时代造就的。由此，那种只看到现代人的自我异化的观点是被动的，甚至是消极的。能够把握到现代人在自我异化的进程中同时也生成着自我异化扬弃的条件和可能性，则是主动的、具有远见的。在政治经济学批判视域中考察现代人的存在方式变革，不仅要充分吸收和借鉴马克思恩格斯关于现代人变革的思想资源，以唯物史观为原则把握这种变革的正确方向，还要密切结合现代人生存和发展的当代境遇，以真正实现人的自由全面发展的理念来建构这种变革的实践原则。

First, through the transformation of the mode of production in material life, social production is propelled toward common production, thereby elevating modern people, who occupy a subordinate position in material production, to the subject position of mastering their own production, thus achieving a fundamental transformation of the existential foundation of modern people. Marx believed that modern production in capitalist society is in fact social production based on the private ownership of the means of production. This social production is not a productive activity carried out according to the common needs and common purposes of the producers; hence, individuals within it occupy a subordinate position, existing as mere elements of material production, losing their subjective and active status, and thus existing in a passive, object-like manner. To change this situation, it is necessary to fundamentally transform the capitalist relations of production, shifting social production toward common production. In this common production, because the initial exchange of the means of production is determined by common needs and common purposes, the participants in production from the outset possess ownership of the means of labor and the products of labor, rather than having to first obtain the means of subsistence they need through the exchange of exchange values. In this regard, people engaged in common production will gain the initiative in material production, becoming active, dynamic elements in the production process, thereby altering the fundamental mode of existence based on the production of exchange value. On this point, Marx insightfully observed that if common production is taken as the premise, the less time society spends producing the means of subsistence necessary for people, the more time people will have for other material or spiritual production, thus more conducive to "the all-round development of society, social enjoyment, and social activity," while simultaneously promoting the realization of the free individuality of people. It can be said that this constitutes a transformation of the existential foundation of modern people.

其一，通过物质生活的生产方式变革，推动社会生产向共同生产转变，使在物质生产中处于从属地位的现代人擢升至掌握自身生产的主体地位，从而实现现代人的存在根基的根本转变。马克思认为，资本主义社会的现代生产实际是以生产资料的私有制为基础的社会生产，这种社会生产不是依据生产者的共同需要和共同目的而展开的生产活动，所以单个人在其中处于从属地位，作为物质生产的单纯要素而存在，丧失了主体的、能动的地位，从而以一种受动的、客体的方式存在着。要改变这种状况，就需要从根本上变革资本主义的生产关系，使社会生产向共同生产转变。在这种共同生产中，由于最初的生产资料的交换就是由共同需要和共同目的决定的，所以生产参与者一开始就拥有对劳动资料和劳动产品的所有权，而不是要先通过交换价值的交换才能获得自身所需的生活资料。就此而言，处于共同生产中的人将获得对物质生产的主动权，成为生产过程中积极的能动要素，进而使那种以交换价值的生产为基础的根本存在方式得以改变。对此，马克思洞见到，如果共同生产已成为前提，社会为生产人们所必需的生活资料的时间越少，那么人们从事其他的物质的或精神的生产的时间就越多，从而更有利于“社会发展、社会享用和社会活动的全面性”，同时促进人的自由个性的实现。可以说，这是对现代人的存在根基的变革。

It is necessary, through the transformation of the mode of production in modern material life, to establish an economic system based on the public ownership of the means of production, so that the means of production truly belong to the producers, and thereby the producers gradually transform from passive objects subordinate to production into active subjects who master production. In the production process, this transformation is mainly manifested in the shift of producers from an object position dependent on machine production to a subject position as machine operators and developers. This is a result of competition within the machine system and an inevitable product of the rising organic composition of capital. From the perspective of the production subject, what modern material production requires is no longer simply manual laborers as mere elements of labor, but laborers equipped with modern productive capabilities. This shifts the demand for production subjects from pursuing population quantity to pursuing talent quality. To a considerable extent, this will effectively change the mode of existence of modern people in terms of their abilities and qualities. In terms of production results, with the improvement of the efficiency of modern material production, the socially necessary labor time required to produce the means of subsistence has indeed been greatly compressed, freeing up more free time for people. However, because capital-based social production will do its utmost to appropriate this time, it is also necessary to ensure, through the construction of social institutions, that people can truly enjoy this free time, in order to gain the maximum space needed for their free and all-round development. In terms of the purpose of production, competition among modern modes of production centered on the creation of the machine system requires enormous amounts of social capital, which inevitably demands the participation of the entire societal resources as overall elements of production. Thus, production aimed at the accumulation of individual wealth will inevitably shift toward production aimed at the common prosperity of all members of society. Clearly, this is also an important manifestation of modern producers attaining a subject position.

要通过对现代物质生活的生产方式变革，建立以生产资料公有制为基础的经济制度，使生产资料真正归生产者所有，进而使生产者逐步从从属于生产的受动者转变为掌握生产的主动者。在生产过程中，这种转变主要表现为生产者从依附机器生产的客体地位逐渐转向作为机器主导者和研发者的主体地位。这是机器体系竞争的结果，也是资本有机构成不断提高的必然产物。从生产主体来说，现代物质生产的变革所需要的不再是单纯作为劳动要素的体力劳动者，而是具备现代生产能力的劳动者，这使得对生产主体的要求从追求人口数量向追求人才质量转变。这在相当大的程度上，将切实改变现代人在能力、素质等方面的存在形态。在生产结果方面，随着现代物质生产效率的提高，生产生活资料所需的社会必要劳动时间确实得到了极大的压缩，给人们腾出了更多的自由时间，但是由于以资本为基础的社会生产会尽其所能占有这些时间，所以还需通过社会制度的建设确保人们真正能够享有这些自由时间，以换取人们自由全面发展所需的最大限度的空间；就生产目的而言，以机器体系的创造为核心的现代生产方式之间的竞争需要巨量的社会资本，这就必然要求整个社会资源作为生产的总体要素参与其中。由此，那种以个人财富的积累为目的的生产将必然转向以社会全体成员的共同富裕为目的的生产。显然，这也是现代生产者取得主体地位的重要体现。

Second, through the transformation of the mode of interaction in modern social life, modern people are liberated from the abstract domination of the modern economy, establishing a new type of interaction system that transcends the mediation of money and credit, and promoting interaction among people toward the stage of free individuality, thereby effecting a fundamental change in the social mode of existence of modern people. Through his critique of political economy, Marx discovered that the entire modern system of interaction created by capital to maximize its own profits has not truly liberated modern people from real economic relations; on the contrary, it has plunged them into a deeper state of alienation. Among these, the modern system of social interaction mediated by money and credit, although granting people within it a relatively independent personality, comes at a great cost: that people themselves replace money and become the medium of interaction themselves. On this point, Marx pointed out that this is not human liberation, but a deeper alienation of humanity. However, he did not advocate a return to primitive, direct social relations, but rather argued that all members of society should grasp their social relations as their own common relations, making them subject to their own common control. In this way, modern people can transcend the abstract domination of the modern economy and practice a social mode of existence based on the principle of realizing free individuality. Indeed, "for this individuality to become possible, the development of capacities must reach a certain level and comprehensiveness, which is precisely premised on production based on exchange value, which, while producing the universality of the alienation of the individual from himself and from others, also produces the universality and comprehensiveness of individual relations and individual capacities."

其二，通过现代社会生活的交往方式变革，推动现代人从现代经济的抽象统治中解放出来，建立一种超越以货币和信用为中介的新型交往体系，实现人与人之间的交往朝着自由个性阶段迈进，从而促使现代人的社会存在方式得到根本改变。马克思通过政治经济学批判发现，资本为了实现自身的利润最大化而创造出的整个现代交往体系，并没有真正使现代人从现实的经济关系中解放出来，反而使他们陷入了更深度的异化状态。其中，以货币和信用为中介的现代社会交往体系，虽然使身处其中的人们获得了相对的独立人格，但是其代价是巨大的，那就是人自身取代货币而成为交往中介本身。对此，马克思指出这不是人的解放，而是人的更深层的异化。但他不是主张退回到原始的、直接的社会关系中，而是认为全体社会的成员要把他们的社会关系作为他们自己的共同关系来把握，使其服从于他们自己共同控制的关系，这样一来，现代人便能够超越现代经济的抽象统治，实践出一种以实现自由个性为原则的社会存在方式。诚然，“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”。

The current process of modernization in various countries shows that the mode of interaction in modern social life has undergone profound changes as history transforms into world history. Especially with the rise of virtual currencies, data capital, and platform capital in the world market, the level and scope of people's interaction have advanced to a higher stage. On the one hand, this makes previous modes of interaction increasingly unsustainable; on the other hand, it means that universal social material exchange becomes more efficient, comprehensive social relations accelerate in their formation, and multifaceted needs become more abundant. It can be said that this is fundamentally changing the social mode of existence of modern people. The future that Marx once predicted is becoming reality. This is mainly reflected in the following aspects: First, the more modern people exist in an independent manner, the higher the degree of their mutual dependence. As Marx said: "Private exchange produces world trade, private independence produces complete dependence on the so-called world market, and scattered exchange acts produce the banking system and the credit system." [9]9 Marx, "Grundrisse der Kritik der politischen Ökonomie," in Marx/Engels Collected Works, vol. 30, p. 113. Thus, for modern people to achieve the full development of free individuality, they must necessarily exist not as independent individuals, but as individuals who are members of the entire society. Second, the more modern people are subjected to the abstract domination of economic relations, the stronger their desire to grasp these relations as their own common relations, and the more conscious their actions become. Because in modern economic crises, no one can avoid being subject to them. This also indicates a transformation in the mode of existence of modern people from blindly being governed by economic laws to actively gaining control over economic relations. In short, although modern people in real relations inevitably exist in a contradictory manner, it is precisely with the development of these contradictions that the transformation of modern people's own social mode of existence can gain its actuality.

当前各国现代化的进程表明，现代人的社会生活的交往方式随着历史向世界历史的转变发生了深刻的变化，尤其是随着虚拟货币、数据资本、平台资本在世界市场上的兴起，人们的交往水平和范围迈向了更高阶段。一方面，这使得以往的交往方式愈发难以为继；另一方面也意味着普遍的社会物质变换变得更加高效，全面的社会关系加速形成，以及多方面的需要愈加丰富。可以说，这在根本上改变着现代人的社会存在方式。马克思曾经预言的未来正变为现实。这主要体现在以下方面：一是现代人越以独立的方式存在，他们相互之间的依赖程度便会越高。如马克思所说：“私人交换产生出世界贸易，私人的独立性产生出对所谓世界市场的完全的依赖性，分散的交换行为产生出银行制度和信用制度”。由此可见，现代人要获得自由个性的充分发展，就必然不是以独立个体的方式存在，而是以作为全体社会成员中的个体的方式存在。二是现代人越是受到经济关系的抽象统治，让这种关系作为他们自己的共同关系来把握的愿望就越是强烈，行动就越是自觉。因为在现代经济危机中，任何人都无法不受制于它。这也表明现代人从盲目地受经济规律的制约向主动获得对经济关系的掌控权的存在方式转变。要言之，虽然处于现实关系中的现代人不可避免地以矛盾的方式存在着，但正是随着这种矛盾的发展，现代人变革自身的社会存在方式才能获得其现实性。

Third, through the transformation of spiritual life, modern humans are impelled to shift from a spiritual labor primarily aimed at producing surplus value to a spiritual life centered on satisfying individual needs and all-round development, thereby truly altering the way modern humans produce and enjoy spiritual products, and creating a cultural-ethical progress conducive to the free and all-round development of humans. From the perspective of the critique of political economy, Marx, by analyzing the spiritual production and enjoyment of modern capitalist society, revealed the basic principles of its transformation of spiritual life. Regarding spiritual production, as capital increasingly takes control of all production, the spiritual labor that creates spiritual products will inevitably come under the domination of capital. In this sense, to fundamentally change the mode of unfolding of spiritual life, one must first transform the ownership relations of material means of production, and thereby control the spiritual means of production, because “the class which is the ruling material force of society, is at the same time its ruling intellectual force. The class which has the means of material production at its disposal, has control at the same time over the means of mental production, so that thereby, generally speaking, the ideas of those who lack the means of mental production are subject to it.” [10]10 "促进物的全面丰富和人的全面发展" (promoting the comprehensive abundance of things and the comprehensive development of the individual) is a formulation from official Chinese political discourse, emphasizing balanced material and human progress. Only in this way can modern humans be liberated from that spiritual production which suppresses individuality, turning instead to a mode of spiritual production that satisfies individual needs. Regarding spiritual enjoyment, in a spiritual life dominated by capital, the spiritual senses of modern humans are in fact in a state of alienation. To this, Marx advocates overcoming it by establishing an authentic relationship between the essential powers of humans and their objects, because “from the subjective side, it is only music that awakens in man the sense of music; for the unmusical ear, the most beautiful music is devoid of meaning, is no object, because my object can only be the confirmation of one of my essential powers.” [11] This means that transforming the mode of spiritual enjoyment of modern humans does not entail retreating to a primitive, uncivilized chaotic state, but rather, on the basis of fully developing the essential powers of humans, placing the subject and object of spiritual enjoyment in a genuine relationship.

其三，通过精神生活的变革，促使现代人从以生产剩余价值为主的精神劳动转向以满足个性需求、全面发展为主的精神生活，进而真正改变现代人生产和享受精神产品的方式，创造出有利于人的自由全面发展的精神文明。在政治经济学批判视域中，马克思通过剖析现代资本主义社会的精神生产和享受，揭示了其精神生活变革的基本原则。就精神生产来说，随着资本在越来越大的程度上掌握全部生产，创造精神产品的精神劳动也将不可避免地受资本的统治，从这个意义上说，要从根本上改变精神生活的展开方式，首先要变革物质生产资料的所有权关系，进而支配精神生产资料，因为“一个阶级是社会上占统治地位的物质力量，同时也是社会上占统治地位的精神力量。支配着物质生产资料的阶级，同时也支配着精神生产资料，因此，那些没有精神生产资料的人的思想，一般地是隶属于这个阶级的”。只有这样，才能把现代人从那种个性受到压制的精神生产中解放出来，转向满足个性需求的精神生产方式。就精神享受来说，在以资本为主导的精神生活中，现代人的精神感觉实际上处于一种异化的状态，对此，马克思主张通过在人的本质力量和其对象之间建立一种本真的关系来克服，因为“从主体方面来看：只有音乐才激起人的音乐感；对于没有音乐感的耳朵来说，最美的音乐也毫无意义，不是对象，因为我的对象只能是我的一种本质力量的确证”。这也就意味着变革现代人的精神享受方式不是要退回到一种原初的、未开化的混沌状态，而是在充分发挥人的本质力量的基础上，使精神享受的主体和对象处于一种真实的关系中。

Modern cultural-ethical progress is built upon the mode of unfolding of modern spiritual life. With the transformation of the mode of unfolding of spiritual life, the cultural-ethical progress of modern humans will also change accordingly. First, humans exist in the world in a dignified manner within spiritual life. It can be said that enabling humans to enjoy spiritual dignity has always been the value pursuit of modern cultural-ethical progress, but because the purpose and means of production are inverted in modern spiritual production, this value pursuit has not been realized in practice. This requires transforming the substantive content of spiritual products so that they fully manifest the practice of concepts such as freedom, equality, and justice in human activities, thereby truly stimulating human spiritual vitality and achieving the liberation of the human spiritual world. Second, based on the accumulation of modern material civilization, society as a whole will provide more favorable conditions for people to engage in higher-level spiritual activities. The fundamental purpose of these higher-level spiritual activities is to enable people to enjoy a more advanced civilization, achieve coordinated development of body and mind, and thereby promote humans to manifest themselves in a manner of advanced civilization. Third, the resolution of relations among various forms of cultural-ethical progress will be measured by whether they contribute to the cultivation of free individuality and whether they benefit the free and all-round development of humans, rather than by whether one particular form of cultural-ethical progress can overcome another in its particularity. Thus, the relations among humans’ forms of cultural-ethical progress will shift from external opposition to internal integration.

现代的精神文明是建立在现代精神生活的展开方式基础上的。随着精神生活展开方式的变革，现代人的精神文明也将随之改变。一是人在精神生活中以一种享有尊严的方式存于世间。可以说，让人享有精神上的尊严是现代精神文明一直以来的价值追求，但是因为现代精神生产中生产目的和手段的颠倒，这一价值追求并未兑现为现实。这就需要通过变革精神产品的实质内容，使之充分展现自由、平等、正义等理念在人类活动中的践行，以真正激发人的精神活力，获得人的精神世界解放。二是以现代物质文明的积累为基础，整个社会将为人们从事较高级的精神活动提供更多的有利条件。这些较高级的精神活动的根本目的是使人获得更高级文明的享受，在身心上得到协调发展，以此推动人以一种高级文明的方式展示自身。三是各种精神文明之间的关系的解决，将以是否有助于自由个性的养成和是否有益于人的自由全面发展为尺度，而不再以一种精神文明的特殊性能够战胜另一种特殊性为准绳。由此，人的精神文明之间的关系将从外在的对立转向内在的融合。

Conclusion

结语

Based on Marx’s perspective of the critique of political economy, following the logic that “the transcendence of self-alienation follows the same path as self-alienation” [12] to examine the mode of existence of modern humans and its transformation, it can be found: First, starting from the real process of material life and production, Marx profoundly grasped the generic characteristics of modern humans in capitalist society, thoroughly transcending the idealist views of Smith and Hegel, who respectively grasped the foundation of modern human existence from self-interest and self-consciousness. Thus, based on the logic of “the transcendence of self-alienation,” Marx grasped modern humans’ transcendence of the alienated state in which they find themselves, proposing that this transcendence be realized through two aspects: the objective logic of capital transcending itself and the subjective logic of modern humans actively mastering material life and production. Second, the production of exchange value, as the intrinsic measure of modern humans, defines their fundamental mode of existence, mainly including: the mode of production of modern material life inverts purpose and means, causing it to be dominated by the alienated forms of productive and unproductive labor; the mode of intercourse of modern social life is based on capital elements such as money and credit, thereby forming an abstract domination over modern humans; the condition of modern humans’ spiritual life is mainly characterized by its deep reification, which suppresses transcendence. Finally, to realize the transformation of the mode of existence of modern humans, it is necessary, on the basis of real material life and production practice, to establish new modes of production and intercourse, so that modern humans shift from a subordinate

立足马克思的政治经济学批判视域，遵循“自我异化的扬弃同自我异化走的是同一条道路”的逻辑来考察现代人的存在方式及其变革，可以发现：首先，马克思从物质生活和生产的现实过程出发，深刻把握了处于资本主义社会中的现代人的类特征，彻底超越了斯密、黑格尔分别从利己心和自我意识来把握现代人存在根基的唯心主义观点。由此，马克思基于“自我异化的扬弃”逻辑把握现代人对自身所处的这种异化状态的扬弃，提出从资本扬弃自身的客观逻辑和现代人能动地掌握物质生活和生产的主观逻辑两个方面来实现这种扬弃。其次，交换价值的生产作为现代人的内在尺度规定了其根本性的存在方式，主要包括：现代物质生活的生产方式颠倒了目的和手段，使得它自身受生产劳动和非生产劳动这种异化的生产形态统治；现代社会生活的交往方式以货币和信用等资本要素为基础，从而形成了对现代人的抽象统治；现代人的精神生活的状况主要表现为因其深度物化而抑制了超越性。最后，要实现现代人的存在方式的变革，就必须在现实的物质生活和生产实践的基础上，通过建立新型生产方式和交往方式，使现代人从对整个物质生产和社会交往的从属地位向主体地位转变，促进以实现人的个性和全面发展为目的的精神活动及精神文明不断丰富发展。

The above viewpoints not only help us logically grasp the practical principles for realizing the free and comprehensive development of the individual, but also carry significant ideological reference value for advancing the process of human modernization. First, to promote modern individuals in realizing their own subject position in the production of material life as a whole, it is necessary to establish a people-centered concept, "promoting the comprehensive abundance of things and the comprehensive development of the individual." [10]10 "促进物的全面丰富和人的全面发展" (promoting the comprehensive abundance of things and the comprehensive development of the individual) is a formulation from official Chinese political discourse, emphasizing balanced material and human progress. The people are not only the subject that creates material wealth and material civilization, but should also be the subject that enjoys them. This requires that, in advancing human modernization, we make full use of the fruits of modern material productive forces to benefit the people, providing a solid material foundation for the comprehensive development of the individual. Second, as history transforms into world history, modern individuals face universal issues concerning coexistence and development, such as how to properly resolve international communication disputes, the periodic outbreak of financial crises, and how to handle relations with other civilizations. Therefore, in advancing the process of human modernization, it is necessary to take "promoting the building of a community with a shared future for mankind and creating a new form of human civilization" as a principle, to provide practical solutions for modern individuals to realize the transformation of the mode of interaction in social life, and to promote the free and comprehensive development of the individual within a genuine community. Third, realizing human modernization requires both material abundance and spiritual enrichment. This demands that, in the production, distribution, and consumption of spiritual products, we genuinely promote the construction of spiritual life centered on the spiritual enrichment of the people, enabling the people to obtain the richness and comprehensiveness of spiritual life and to gain full autonomy in the spiritual world. In summary, realizing human modernization requires us to deeply grasp, in theory, the unfolding process of people's actual life, scientifically elucidate the mode of existence of modern individuals and its transformation, advance the practice of human modernization with principled heights, so as to transcend the mode of existence of modern individuals criticized by Marx, and propel the development of the individual from the realm of necessity to the realm of freedom.

上述观点不仅有助于我们合乎逻辑地把握实现人的自由全面发展的实践原则，而且对于推进人的现代化进程也具有重要的思想借鉴意义。一是推动现代人实现自身在整个物质生活的生产中的主体地位，须确立以人民为中心的理念，“促进物的全面丰富和人的全面发展”。人民不仅是物质财富及物质文明的创造主体，同时也应是享受主体。这就要求我们在推进人的现代化过程中，要充分利用现代物质生产力发展的成果造福于人民，为人的全面发展提供坚实的物质基础。二是随着历史向世界历史的转变，现代人面临着如何妥善解决国际交往纷争、金融危机的周期性爆发，以及如何处理与其他文明的关系等关涉共存和发展的普遍性问题。由此，在推进人的现代化进程中，须以“推动构建人类命运共同体，创造人类文明新形态”为原则，为现代人实现社会生活的交往方式变革提供切实的实践方案，推动个体在真正的共同体中实现自由全面的发展。三是实现人的现代化既要求物质富足，也要求精神富有，这就要求在精神产品的生产、分配和消费方面，真正推动以人民的精神富有为中心的精神生活建设，使人民获得精神生活的丰富性和全面性，在精神世界中获得充分的自主性。总而言之，实现人的现代化需要我们在理论上深刻把握人的现实生活的展开过程，科学阐明现代人的存在方式及其变革，推进具有原则高度的人的现代化实践，以超越马克思所批判的现代人的存在方式，推动人的发展从必然王国向自由王国迈进。