The Historical Evolution and Theoretical Examination of Marx and Engels’ Thought on Common Prosperity

The abolition of private property, the elimination of social distinctions, and the realization of common prosperity are important components of Marx and Engels’ thought and their lifelong pursuit. Although Marx and Engels did not systematically expound on common prosperity during their lifetimes, their ideas on common prosperity are scattered across texts from various periods, undergoing different stages of development, with their ideological foundations correspondingly shifting. By tracing the formative trajectory of Marx and Engels’ thought on common prosperity, we can observe that their research on common prosperity has always been people-centered [1]1 people-centered — A core concept in Xi Jinping Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era, emphasizing that development must be oriented towards and benefit the people., and has undergone a process from abstract humanity to concrete humanity, real humanity, and fully developed humanity, characterized by distinct openness, practicality, and affinity with the people. From a longitudinal developmental perspective, Marx and Engels’ thought on common prosperity has its own features at each stage, maturing continuously in the course of their establishment and elucidation of the basic viewpoints of historical materialism.

消灭私有制，消灭社会差别，实现共同富裕是马克思、恩格斯思想的重要组成部分和毕生追求。虽然马克思、恩格斯生前没有就共同富裕作过系统阐述，但关于共同富裕的思想散见于他们各个时期的文本当中，经历了不同发展阶段，其思想基础也随之有所变化。通过梳理马克思、恩格斯关于共同富裕的思想的形成进路，我们可以观察到：马克思、恩格斯对共同富裕的研究始终是以人民为中心的，并且经过了一个从抽象的人到具体的人、现实的人、全面发展的人的过程，具有鲜明的开放性、实践性、人民性；从纵向发展脉络上来看，马克思、恩格斯关于共同富裕的思想在每一个阶段都有其特色，是在他们创立和阐发历史唯物主义基本观点的过程中不断成熟起来的。

I. Ideological Origin: Common Prosperity Views Oriented by Humanism

一、思想发端：人本主义取向的共同富裕观点

Marx and Engels’ initial understanding of common prosperity was grounded in the basic stance of Enlightenment rationalism. Influenced by Enlightenment rationalism, Marx’s understanding of common prosperity during the *Rheinische Zeitung* period [2]2 *Rheinische Zeitung* period — Refers to the period from 1842 to 1843 when Marx worked as a writer and later editor for the liberal newspaper *Rheinische Zeitung* in Cologne. focused primarily on issues of freedom and equality at the rational level. In his attention to the real-life conditions of the lower classes, Marx encountered for the first time the practical problem of interests that rationalism could not resolve.

马克思、恩格斯对共同富裕的理解最初是建立在启蒙理性的基本立场之上的。受启蒙理性观的影响，《莱茵报》时期马克思对共同富裕的理解主要着眼于理性层面的自由和平等问题。在对底层人民现实生活的关注中，马克思首次遭遇了理性主义无法解决的现实利益难题，

This left him deeply dissatisfied with the vast gap between Hegel’s rational conception of the state and reality, and he urgently sought a new path of breakthrough. Under the influence of Feuerbach’s concept of “sensuous humanity,” Marx’s understanding of common prosperity during the Kreuznach period [3]3 Kreuznach period — Refers to the period from June to October 1843 when Marx lived in the town of Kreuznach after the suppression of the *Rheinische Zeitung*, where he studied history and wrote the *Kreuznach Notebooks*. began to shift from rationalism to humanism. Engels, based on his personal experience, in his analysis of the impoverished living conditions of workers along the Wupper Valley and their root causes, similarly initiated a humanist-oriented critique and reflection on the nature of class exploitation and the unequal distribution of material interests.

这使得他对黑格尔建构的理性国家观与现实的巨大鸿沟深感不满，急于寻找新的突破路径。在费尔巴哈“感性的人”的观点影响下，克罗茨纳赫时期马克思对共同富裕的理解开始从理性主义向人本主义转变。恩格斯基于亲身经历，在对伍珀河谷沿岸工人贫苦生活状况及其根源的分析中，同样对阶级剥削本质和物质利益分配不均等问题开始了其人本主义取向的批判与反思。

(I) Preliminary Reflections Driven by the Problem of Real Interests

（一）现实利益问题驱动下的初步思考

The young Marx was consistently concerned with the lives of the lower classes. During his work at the *Rheinische Zeitung*, Marx wrote numerous articles, including “Debates on the Law on Thefts of Wood,” “Comments on the Latest Prussian Censorship Instruction,” and “Debates on Freedom of the Press and Publication of the Proceedings of the Assembly of the Estates,” severely criticizing the estate system of the Prussian kingdom and emphasizing the important values of freedom and equality, gradually forming a concept tinged with radical liberalism. Particularly in “Debates on the Law on Thefts of Wood,” Marx openly took the stand of the masses, profoundly exposing the greedy nature of wood owners and the class essence of the ruling class in safeguarding the interests of exploiters, pointing out that they did not hesitate to “cut the innocent people from the living tree of morality and cast them like withered wood into the hell of crime, shame, and poverty” [4]4 This quotation is from Marx’s article “Debates on the Law on Thefts of Wood” (1842).. This inhuman behavior was a deprivation of the basic right to subsistence of the peasantry and a strangulation of the social rights of the poor. Although in essence, Marx’s understanding of common prosperity during the *Rheinische Zeitung* period still bore a strong imprint of Enlightenment rationalism, by taking the stand of the laboring masses, he had already recognized the contradiction that the state, which should have been constructed by the rational concept of the state, had in reality degenerated into an arena for private interests, and he put forward a more profound and intense demand for equality.

青年马克思一直十分关注底层人民的生活。在《莱茵报》工作期间，马克思撰写了包括《关于林木盗窃法的辩论》《评普鲁士最近的书报检查令》《关于出版自由和公布等级会议记录的辩论》等大量文章，严厉批判普鲁士王国的社会等级制度，强调了自由、平等的重要价值，逐渐形成了具有激进自由主义色彩的观念。特别是在《关于林木盗窃法的辩论》中，马克思公开站在人民群众的立场上，深刻地揭露了林木占有者的贪婪本性和统治阶级维护剥削者利益的阶级实质，指出他们不惜把无辜百姓“从活生生的道德之树上砍下来，把他们当作枯树抛入犯罪、耻辱和贫困的地狱”，这种没有人性的行为是对农民基本生存权的剥夺，是对贫苦人民社会权利的扼杀。虽然从本质上讲，《莱茵报》时期的马克思对共同富裕的理解仍带有强烈的启蒙理性色彩，但他站在劳苦大众的立场，已经认识到本该由理性国家观念构建的国家现实中却沦为私人利益角逐场域这样一种矛盾，提出了更为深刻和强烈的平等诉求。

(II) Approaching Economic Reality from a Humanist Stance

（二）人本主义立场下向经济现实的靠近

In March 1843, the *Rheinische Zeitung* was ordered to be shut down by the reactionary authorities. Marx “retired from the social stage to the study,” retreating to the small town of Kreuznach to devote himself to the study of history, focusing on clarifying the nature of the state and its relationship with social life. In the process of critically reflecting on Hegel’s rational statism, Marx wrote *A Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right*. Concurrently, Marx felt the need to acquire a large amount of actual historical material, and within a short span of two months, he wrote five thick notebooks, known as the *Kreuznach Notebooks*. In the *Kreuznach Notebooks*, while excerpting material on the First French Republic’s issue of paper money convertibility, Marx annotated: “This includes a major contradiction: on the one hand, private property is declared inviolable; on the other hand, private property is sacrificed.” At this point, Marx recognized that the ultimate goal of the bourgeois revolution was to abolish feudal ownership and establish another form of private property dominated by the bourgeoisie. In the state established after the bourgeois revolution, the social inequality caused by private property had not actually been eliminated; instead, it was reinforced by the laws of the capitalist state. He realized that to achieve true equality, private property must be abolished, a mission that the bourgeoisie could never accomplish. In *A Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right*, Marx further developed his understanding of the relationship between private property and the political state, pointing out that the bourgeoisie engaged in a “partial, merely political revolution,” which “proceeds from a particular class’s special position to achieve the universal emancipation of society,” a revolution that “does not touch the pillars of the edifice,” and is a “utopian dream,” fundamentally incapable of contributing to the realization of true human emancipation.

1843年3月，《莱茵报》被反动当局下令查封，马克思“从社会舞台退回书房”，来到小城克罗茨纳赫，开始专心研究历史，着力于弄清国家的本质及其与社会生活的关系问题。在对黑格尔的理性国家主义进行批判性反思的过程中，马克思撰写了《黑格尔法哲学批判》。在撰写的同时，马克思又产生了占有大量实际的历史资料的需要，于是在短短的两个月时间内，写下了厚厚的五本笔记，即《克罗茨纳赫笔记》。在《克罗茨纳赫笔记》中，马克思在摘录法国第一共和国关于纸币兑现问题时批注道：“其中包括重大矛盾，一方面宣布私有财产不受侵犯，另一方面又牺牲私有财产。”此时，马克思认识到，资产阶级革命的最终目的是废除封建所有制并建立由资产阶级主导的另一种私有制，在经过资产阶级革命所建立的国家中，私有制导致的社会不平等实际上并没有消除，反而被资本主义国家的法律所强化。他意识到，要实现真正的平等，就必须消灭私有制，而这一使命是资产阶级无论如何也不能完成的。在《黑格尔法哲学批判》中，马克思进一步形成了对私有财产和政治国家之间关系的理解，指出资产阶级所从事的是“局部的纯政治的革命”，“就是一定的阶级从自己的特殊地位出发，从事社会的普遍解放”，是一种“毫不触犯大厦支柱的革命”，是“乌托邦式的梦想”，根本不可能有助于实现人的真正的解放。

During this period, Marx initially germinated the viewpoints that economic structure determines political orientation, civil society determines the political state, and class antagonism originates from economic reality. He no longer viewed socio-historical phenomena in an external, speculative manner, but based on a humanist stance, systematically criticized Hegel’s rational conception of the state, sought from historical reality the necessity manifested in people’s life choices as constrained by material relations, used “historical reality” to explain “historical logic,” completed a methodological transformation, and laid the foundation for a shift towards a common prosperity view based on a materialist stance.

在这一时期，马克思初步萌发了经济结构决定政治取向、市民社会决定政治国家、阶级对立源于经济现实的观点，不再以一种外在的思辨的方式看待社会历史现象，而是基于人本主义立场，对黑格尔的理性国家观进行系统性批判，从历史现实中探求受物质关系所制约的人们在生活选择中表现出来的必然性，用“历史现实”说明“历史逻辑”，完成了方法论上的嬗变，为向基于唯物主义立场的共同富裕观转变奠定了基础。

(III) Deep Reflection on the Nature of Class Exploitation Triggered by Observation of Reality

（三）由现实观察引发的对阶级剥削本质的深度思考

The germination and formation of Engels’ thought on common prosperity were closely related to his upbringing. Engels was born into a wealthy merchant family in Barmen, in the industrially developed Rhine Province of Germany. From a young age, he witnessed scenes of capitalists oppressing the working people and knew how factory owners profited by squeezing workers. The impoverished lives of the workers greatly aroused Engels’ sympathy and compassion for the poor. During his studies in Bremen, influenced and nurtured by the Young Germany movement [5]5 Young Germany movement — A group of German writers active in the 1830s and 1840s who advocated for political liberalism, social reform, and freedom of expression., which championed liberalism and democracy, Engels anonymously published the article “Letters from the Wupper Valley” in the newspaper *Telegraph für Deutschland*. The article begins by depicting the flourishing industrial and commercial scenes of the two cities of Elberfeld and Barmen along the Wupper Valley, pointing out the stark contrast: “The factory workers of the Wupper Valley are generally in a terrible state of poverty; syphilis and lung diseases are spreading to an incredible extent; in Elberfeld alone, 1,200 out of 2,500 school-age children are out of school, growing up in the factories — this is merely to make it convenient for factory owners to employ child labor instead of paying double the wages for the adult workers they replace.” Engels attributed this huge and growing problem of wealth disparity to the factory owners using the religious doctrine of “predestination” as a spiritual opium, mercilessly draining the bodies and spirits of the workers, causing them to become increasingly pauperized. This revealed the plight of the lower classes struggling to make a living in capitalist society and the phenomenon of factory owners’ brutal exploitation of workers. At this time, like Marx, Engels recognized, through observing reality, the severe problem of unequal distribution of material interests in capitalist society and the hypocrisy of the capitalist state system.

恩格斯共同富裕思想的萌芽及形成与他的成长经历密切相关。恩格斯出生在资本主义工业发达的德国莱茵省巴门市的富裕商人家庭，自小便见到资本家压榨劳动人民的场景，知晓工厂主如何通过压榨工人获取利益。工人们穷困的生活极大地激发了恩格斯对穷人的同情怜悯。在不来梅求学期间，恩格斯受崇尚自由主义和民主的青年德意志派的影响和熏陶，在报刊《德意志电讯》上匿名发表了《伍珀河谷来信》一文。文章开篇就描绘了伍珀河谷沿岸埃尔伯费尔德和巴门两座城市工商业繁荣的景象，指出与之形成鲜明对比的是，“伍珀河谷的工厂工人，普遍处于可怕的贫困境地；梅毒和肺部疾病蔓延到难以置信的地步；光是埃尔伯费尔德一个地方，2500个学龄儿童中就有1200人失学，他们在工厂里长大，——这只是便于厂主雇用童工而不再拿双倍的钱来雇用被童工代替的成年工人”。恩格斯将这种巨大且日益加剧的贫富分化问题归因于工厂主把宗教的“先定”学说当做精神鸦片，无情地压榨工人的身体和精神，使得工人日益赤贫化，揭示了底层群众在资本主义社会中艰难维持生计的现状和工厂主对工人残酷剥削的现象。此时的恩格斯与马克思一样，在观察现实中意识到了资本主义社会严重的物质利益分配不均问题和资本主义国家制度的虚伪性。

In the initial expositions of Marx and Engels on the topic of common prosperity, they were at this stage more concerned with issues of human freedom and equality at the level of moral ethics, and had not yet deeply analyzed the root causes of the conflict of material interests between capitalists and the proletariat, nor the impoverished lives of the lower classes. However, the investigative research and theoretical accumulation they undertook laid a crucial foundation for the decisive transformation of their subsequent ideas and viewpoints.

在马克思、恩格斯关于共同富裕话题的最初论述中，此时他们更多的是在道德伦理层面关注人类的自由和平等问题，尚未深刻分析造成资本家和无产者物质利益冲突以及底层群众贫苦生活的根本原因，但他们所做的调查研究和理论积累为他们后续思想观点的决定性转变奠定了关键基础。

II. Preliminary Formation: The Thought on Common Prosperity Centered on Human Emancipation

二、初步形成：以人的解放为主旨的共同富裕思想

In this stage, Marx and Engels’ thought on common prosperity exhibited an entanglement with Feuerbachian humanism and its subsequent supersession. This was manifested both in the shift from “theoretical philosophy” to “practical philosophy,” emphasizing that everything must be re-examined and reconsidered within real social life, and in the elaboration of theory, which intensified the focus on human liberation and closely integrated it with the critique of capitalism. During this period, the series of articles in the *Deutsch-Französische Jahrbücher* and the *Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844* concentrated the results of their theoretical reflections, marking the initial formation of Marx and Engels’ thought on common prosperity.

马克思、恩格斯关于共同富裕的思想在这一阶段呈现出与费尔巴哈人本主义的纠缠直至对其扬弃，既表现在从“理论哲学”向“实践哲学”的转换，强调一切必须在社会现实生活中加以重新审视和考量，又表现在理论的阐发上，强化了对人的解放的关注并与资本主义批判紧密结合起来。在此期间，《德法年鉴》上的系列文章与《1844年经济学哲学手稿》集中体现了他们理论思考的成果，成为马克思、恩格斯关于共同富裕的思想初步形成的标志。

(I) Forming the Value Orientation of Combining Class Emancipation with Human Emancipation

（一）形成阶级解放和人类解放相结合的价值旨趣

The *Deutsch-Französische Jahrbücher*, co-founded by Marx and Arnold Ruge, was published in 1844. Due to differences in editorial policy and political views between the two men, as well as financial difficulties, only a combined issue of the first and second numbers was published before the journal ceased. During this period, Marx and Engels conducted in-depth investigations into the living conditions of the working class, fully recognized the situation in which the working class found itself, profoundly revealed the reality of the working class’s increasing impoverishment under the capitalist system, and defended the social rights of the working class. In “A Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right: Introduction,” Marx took human emancipation as the ultimate goal of his critical logic, arguing that the “head” of human emancipation “is philosophy, its heart is the proletariat,” and maintaining that only by truly uniting philosophy with the proletariat could human emancipation be genuinely realized. In “Outlines of a Critique of Political Economy,” Engels, employing the methodology of historical and social perspectives, discovered that “this political economy, or science of enrichment, born of the merchants’ mutual envy and greed, bears on its brow the most repulsive stamp of selfishness.” Through his critique of previous political economy theories, he recognized that the root cause of proletarian poverty was private property, concluding that “wherever we turn, private property leads us into contradictions.” In *The Condition of the Working Class in England*, he further linked proletarian poverty to the capitalist system, pointing out: “The cause of the miserable situation of the working class… is to be sought in the capitalist system itself.”

《德法年鉴》由马克思和卢格共同创办，于1844年出版。由于两人在办刊方针、政治观点上存在意见分歧，加上经济窘迫等原因，《德法年鉴》只出版了第一期和第二期的合刊就停刊了。这一时期马克思和恩格斯深入考察了工人阶级的生活状况，充分认识到工人阶级所处的境地，深刻揭示了资本主义制度下工人阶级日益贫困的现状，为工人阶级的社会权利进行辩护。在《〈黑格尔法哲学批判〉导言》中，马克思把人的解放作为其批判逻辑的最终旨归，认为人的解放的“头脑是哲学，它的心脏是无产阶级”，主张只有把哲学与无产阶级真正联合起来，才能真正实现人的解放。在《国民经济学批判大纲》中，恩格斯以历史观和社会观的方法论，发现“这种从商人的彼此妒忌和贪婪中产生的国民经济学或发财致富的科学，在额角上带有最令人厌恶的自私自利的烙印”，通过对以往国民经济学理论的批判，认识到无产阶级贫困产生的根源是私有制，得出“不管我们转向哪里，私有制总会把我们引到矛盾中去”的结论。他在《英国工人阶级状况》中进一步将无产阶级贫困与资本主义制度联系起来，指出：“工人阶级处境悲惨的原因……应当到资本主义制度本身中去寻找。”

(II) Outlining the Prospect of Liberation Based on the Critique of Private Property and Alienated Labor

（二）勾画私有制与异化劳动批判之上的解放图景

The *Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844* is an early manuscript in which Marx made his first attempt to critically examine the capitalist economic system and bourgeois political economy, while initially elaborating his own new economic, philosophical, and communist views. It deeply reflected on the social foundations necessary for achieving common prosperity, with the most representative feature being the introduction of a critical inquiry into alienation into the problem domain.

《1844年经济学哲学手稿》是马克思第一次试图对资本主义经济制度和资产阶级政治经济学进行批判性考察，并初步阐述自己的新的经济学、哲学观点和共产主义思想的一部早期文稿，深刻思考了实现共同富裕必须具备的社会基础，其中最具代表性的就是将对异化的批判性探讨引入问题域当中。

On the one hand, it analyzed the existential predicament brought about by alienation. Drawing on Feuerbach’s concept of the species-being of man, and based on “the economic fact that the worker and his product are alienated,” Marx raised the issue of alienated labor, pointing out that under conditions of alienated production, “the worker is reduced to a commodity, and indeed to the most miserable of commodities; the poverty of the worker is in inverse proportion to the magnitude and influence of his production; the necessary consequence of competition is the accumulation of capital in the hands of a few… and the whole of society must necessarily split into two classes, the property-owning class and the propertyless working class.” The alienation of labor leads to the alienation of man himself. Production has “reduced the species-life of man to a means of maintaining his physical existence,” while “society is the completed unity of man with nature, the true resurrection of nature, the realized naturalism of man and the realized humanism of nature.” It is evident that under capitalism, common prosperity is fundamentally unattainable.

一方面，剖析了异化带来的生存困境。马克思借鉴费尔巴哈关于人的类本质的观点，立足“国民经济事实即工人及其生产的异化”，提出了异化劳动问题，指出在异化生产条件下，“工人降低为商品，而且降低为最贱的商品；工人的贫困同他的生产的影响和规模成反比；竞争的必然结果是资本在少数人手中积累起来……而整个社会必然分化为两个阶级，即有产者阶级和没有财产的工人阶级”。劳动异化导致人本身的异化。生产已经“把人的类生活变成维持人的肉体生存的手段”，而“社会是人同自然界的完成了的本质的统一，是自然界的真正复活，是人的实现了的自然主义和自然界的实现了的人道主义”。可见，在资本主义社会，共同富裕基本无法实现。

On the other hand, it emphasized that the abolition of private property is the supersession of alienated labor. When the opposition between labor and capital reaches its extreme, “communism is the positive supersession of private property as human self-estrangement, and hence the true appropriation of the human essence through and for man; it is therefore the complete return of man to himself as a social, i.e., human, being—a return accomplished consciously and embracing the entire wealth of previous development.” Thus, Marx transcended Feuerbach by introducing social practice into epistemology and, for the first time, proposing and elaborating the idea that “man’s production is comprehensive.” This was a crucial link in the formation of his thought on common prosperity and the germ of a new worldview.

另一方面，强调私有制的灭亡是对异化劳动的扬弃。当劳动与资本的对立达到极限时，“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；因此，它是人向自身、向社会的即合乎人性的人的复归，这种复归是完全的复归，是自觉实现并在以往发展的全部财富的范围内实现的复归”。因此，马克思超越费尔巴哈，把社会实践引入认识论，并第一次提出和阐发了“人的生产是全面的”思想，这是其共同富裕思想形成的一个关键环节，是新世界观萌芽。

The writings of Marx and Engels from this period reflect their completed transition from idealism to materialism and from revolutionary democracy to communism, laying the ideological foundation for studying the issue of common prosperity. Marx’s critique of Hegel’s philosophy of right and the theory of civil society endowed his thought on common prosperity with a more profound and richer connotation.

马克思和恩格斯这一时期的著述反映了他们已完成从唯心主义向唯物主义、从革命民主主义向共产主义的转变，为研究共同富裕问题奠定了思想前提。马克思对黑格尔法哲学与市民社会理论的批判使得其共同富裕思想有了更为深刻和丰富的内涵。

III. Deepening Development: The Critical Elucidation of the Thought on Common Prosperity from the Perspective of Historical Materialism

三、深化发展：唯物史观视域下共同富裕思想的批判性阐发

As Marx and Engels began to focus their theoretical attention on issues such as people’s real needs, the division of labor, and social intercourse, they started to use historical materialism to thoroughly “settle accounts” with their former philosophical beliefs. It was precisely through this shift that Marx and Engels broke free from the constraints of traditional speculative philosophy and the liberal theoretical framework, embracing historical science and practical science. They moved beyond the horizon of humanism, opened up a new perspective of historical materialism, established the basic principles of historical materialism, and determined its fundamental theses and viewpoints, thereby providing a scientific theoretical tool for further analyzing the issue of common prosperity under the capitalist system. During this period, Marx and Engels’ works concerning common prosperity include: *The Holy Family*, *Theses on Feuerbach*, *The German Ideology*, and *The Communist Manifesto*. The publication of these works enabled Marx and Engels’ thought on common prosperity to achieve a turn toward historical materialism.

随着马克思、恩格斯开始把理论重点聚焦到人的现实需要、分工、社会交往等问题上来，他们开始用历史唯物主义彻底地“清算”自己从前的信仰。正是在这一转变之下，马克思、恩格斯摆脱了传统的思辨哲学和自由主义理论框架的束缚，走向了历史科学与实践科学的怀抱；走出了人本主义的视界，开辟了唯物史观的新视域，建构起了历史唯物主义的基本原则，确定了历史唯物主义的基本原理和基本观点，为进一步分析资本主义制度下的共同富裕问题提供了科学的理论分析工具。这一时期，马克思、恩格斯涉及共同富裕的著作包括：《神圣家族》《关于费尔巴哈的提纲》《德意志意识形态》和《共产党宣言》。这些著作的问世使马克思、恩格斯关于共同富裕的思想实现了向历史唯物主义的转向。

(I) Establishing the Basic Viewpoints on Common Prosperity on the Basis of Historical Materialism

（一）在唯物史观基础上确立了关于共同富裕的基本观点

*The Holy Family* is a work written jointly by Marx and Engels in 1844, critiquing the Young Hegelians’ detached, abstract subjective idealism and expounding historical materialism. In their transition from the theory of alienated labor to historical materialism, Marx and Engels gradually established the study of the issue of common prosperity on the foundation of historical materialism.

《神圣家族》是1844年马克思和恩格斯第一次合写的批判青年黑格尔派脱离实际的、抽象的主观唯心主义和论述历史唯物主义的著作。马克思、恩格斯由异化劳动理论向唯物史观的过渡，逐步把对共同富裕问题的研究建立在唯物史观的基础上。

On the one hand, they analyzed the forces to rely on for achieving common prosperity from the perspective that the masses are the creators of history. In response to the views of Bruno Bauer and others, who trumpeted that “ideas create everything,” that in historical activity “‘the only important thing’ is ‘an idea’,” and that “to create everything, one needs a consciousness more powerful than that of the worker… the worker has created nothing”—views that one-sidedly exaggerated self-consciousness—Marx and Engels pointed out: “Ideas can never accomplish anything. For ideas to be realized, people who use practical force are needed.” The people who use practical force are the masses; what acts in history are the acting masses and their empirical activity. Therefore, “historical activity is the activity of the masses,” “critical criticism has created nothing; the worker creates everything, and even with their spiritual creations, they would put all criticism to shame… the worker even creates man.” Engels pointed out: “No matter what changes occur in the upper strata of society that do not engage in production, without a producing class, society cannot survive.” Hence, the masses are not only the creators of society’s material wealth but also the creators of its spiritual wealth; they are the subjects of history and play the primary, decisive role in social development.

一方面，从人民群众是历史创造者的角度分析共同富裕实现的依靠力量。针对鲍威尔等人鼓吹“思想创造一切”，历史活动中“‘重要的’仅仅是‘一种思想’”，“为了创造一切，就需要某种比工人的意识更强有力的意识……工人什么东西也没有制造”等片面夸大自我意识的观点，马克思、恩格斯指出：“思想根本不能实现什么东西。思想要得到实现，就要有使用实践力量的人”。而使用实践力量的人即人民群众，在历史中活动的是行动着的群众及其经验活动。因此，“历史活动是群众的活动”，“批判的批判什么也没创造，工人才创造一切，甚至就以他们的精神创造来说，也会使得整个批判感到羞愧……工人甚至创造了人”。恩格斯指出：“无论不从事生产的社会上层发生什么变化，没有一个生产者阶级，社会就不能生存。”所以，人民群众不仅是社会物质财富的创造者，还是精神财富的创造者，是历史的主体，对社会发展起主要的决定作用。

On the other hand, deepening the understanding of human nature reveals the practical path to common prosperity. Marx and Engels no longer discussed common prosperity solely from the perspective of human needs, holding that “the object, as being for man, as the objective being of man, is at the same time the existence of man for other men, his relation to other men, the social relation of man to man.” [10]10 Karl Marx, “Comments on James Mill,” in *Marx and Engels Collected Works*, vol. 3 (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1975), p. 227. [Translator’s note: The English text of the quotation is from the standard MECW edition.] Man is the sum total of all social relations formed and developed in history. Similarly, the realization of common prosperity can only be achieved through continuously addressing the actual needs of real people and perfecting the relations between people, between people and society, and between people and nature.

另一方面，深化对人的本质认识从而揭示共同富裕的现实路径。马克思、恩格斯不再仅仅从人自身的需要来谈共同富裕，认为“对象作为为了人的存在，作为人的对象性存在，同时也就是人为了他人的定在，是他同他人的人的关系，是人同人的社会关系”，人是在历史上形成和发展的一切社会关系的总和。同样的，共同富裕的实现也要在不断解决现实的人的需要以及健全人与人、人与社会、人与自然的关系中才能够得以实现。

(II) Taking “Real People” as the Historical Subject of the Realization of Common Prosperity

（二）将“现实的人”作为共同富裕实现的历史主体

The starting point for the unfolding of Marx and Engels’ historical theory is the focus on the concept of “man,” that is, taking man as the starting point of history. In *Theses on Feuerbach* and *The German Ideology*, they used materialist, historical, and practical viewpoints to expound on the real life of man, taking real people as the creators of history, and common prosperity in particular requires the participation of real people.

马克思、恩格斯历史理论展开的前提是关注“人”的概念，即将人作为历史的出发点。他们在《关于费尔巴哈的提纲》和《德意志意识形态》中，用唯物的、历史的、实践的观点阐述人的现实生活，将现实的人作为历史的创造者，而共同富裕更是需要现实的人参与其中。

In the spring of 1845, while living in Brussels, Marx wrote *Theses on Feuerbach*. In this work, which Engels called “the first document in which is deposited the brilliant germ of the new world outlook,” [11]11 Friedrich Engels, “Ludwig Feuerbach and the End of Classical German Philosophy,” in *Marx and Engels Selected Works*, vol. 3 (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1970), p. 337. Marx introduced practice into epistemology and also into the conception of history, systematically expounding the scientific view of practice for the first time. This is the cornerstone of his dialectical materialism and historical materialism, completely eliminating the traces of Feuerbachian humanism in his previous works, marking Marx’s thorough break with old materialism and his ideological transformation into a new materialist. It also signifies Marx’s deepening reflection on the issue of common prosperity based on the materialist conception of history. First, in Marx’s view, “all social life is essentially practical,” while old materialists, including Feuerbach, all departed from practice when thinking about man and man’s social life, causing them to fall into idealist conceptions of history. Marx established man, man’s essence, and social life on the foundation of practice, believing that practice is the basic condition for the existence and development of human society, and that human material production activity is the basis of all social existence and an important content of activity. Therefore, Marx found practice as the pathway to solving the problem of common prosperity. Second, he proposed that the essence of man is the sum total of all social relations. In response to Feuerbach’s erroneous view of man as an abstract, isolated, natural individual, Marx pointed out: “The chief defect of all previous materialism — that of Feuerbach included — is that things, reality, sensuousness are conceived only in the form of the object, or of contemplation, but not as sensuous human activity, practice, not subjectively.” [12]12 Karl Marx, “Theses on Feuerbach,” in *Marx and Engels Selected Works*, vol. 1 (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1969), p. 13. This actually clarifies that old materialism regarded natural objects merely as objects of cognition, without discovering that they are also objects of human transformation; it viewed the unity of man and nature merely as man’s passive reaction to and passive dependence on nature. In reality, man is a social animal; “the essence of man is no abstraction inherent in each single individual. In its actuality it is the ensemble of the social relations.” [13]13 Ibid., p. 14.

1845年春，马克思旅居布鲁塞尔时写下了《关于费尔巴哈的提纲》。在这部被恩格斯称之为“包含着新世界观的天才萌芽的第一个文献”中，马克思把实践引入认识论，也把实践引入历史观，首次系统地论述了科学的实践观，这是其辩证唯物主义和历史唯物主义的奠基石，完全清除了以往著作中费尔巴哈人本主义的痕迹，标志着马克思与旧唯物主义彻底划清了界限，在思想上彻底转变为新唯物主义者，也标志着马克思基于唯物主义历史观在共同富裕问题上的思考不断深化。首先，在马克思看来，“全部社会生活在本质上是实践的”，而包括费尔巴哈在内的旧唯物主义者都是离开实践去思考人和人的社会生活，致使他们都陷入了唯心史观。马克思把人、人的本质和社会生活建立在实践的基础之上，认为实践是人类社会存在和发展的基本条件，人类的物质生产活动是整个社会存在的基础和活动的重要内容。因此，马克思找到了实践这一解决共同富裕问题的途径。其次，提出人的本质是一切社会关系的总和。针对费尔巴哈把人看做抽象的、孤立的、自然的个体的错误观点，马克思指出：“从前的一切唯物主义——包括费尔巴哈的唯物主义——的主要缺点是：对对象、现实、感性，只是从客体的或者直观的形式去理解，而不是把它们当做人的感性活动，当做实践去理解，不是从主体方面去理解”。这实际上点明了旧唯物主义把自然客体仅仅看做认识的对象，而没有发现自然客体更是人们改造的对象；把人与自然的统一，仅仅看做人对自然的消极反应、消极依赖，而实际上，人是社会动物，“人的本质不是单个人所固有的抽象物，在其现实性上，它是一切社会关系的总和”。

In 1845–1846, Marx and Engels co-authored *The German Ideology*, criticizing old philosophies such as humanism (Feuerbach) and idealism (Hegel), and for the first time relatively systematically elucidated the basic principles of historical materialism. This work is a landmark text that profoundly influenced the development of Marx and Engels’ thought on common prosperity. On the one hand, it proposed that the essence of history is the history of man. “The first premise of all human history is, of course, the existence of living human individuals.” [14]14 Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, *The German Ideology*, in *Marx and Engels Collected Works*, vol. 5 (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1976), p. 31. Marx and Engels clearly stated that man is an indispensable premise of any conception of history; the essence of history is the history of man, and without man there is no history. People engaged in practical activity are the starting point for their examination of history, because the first historical act of people is to produce the means to satisfy life’s needs, that is, to produce material life itself. On the other hand, the material basis for realizing common prosperity became the starting point for Marx and Engels’ examination of social history. *The German Ideology* states: “We must begin by stating the first premise of all human existence and, therefore, of all history, the premise, namely, that men must be in a position to live in order to be able to ‘make history.’ But life involves before everything else eating and drinking, a habitation, clothing and many other things. The first historical act is thus the production of the means to satisfy these needs, the production of material life itself.” [15]15 Ibid., p. 41. The “eating and drinking, a habitation, clothing and many other things” emphasized here are actually Marx and Engels’ popular expression of the needs of human survival and life; this material need is precisely the basic prerequisite for realizing common prosperity. Based on their in-depth analysis of the capitalist economy, they summarily pointed out certain basic features of future society: the abolition of the antithesis between town and country, between mental and manual labor; the conscious application of economic laws; the distribution of consumer goods according to need, etc. In a sense, this is also their conception of the basic conditions necessary for realizing common prosperity, greatly enriching the connotation of the communist doctrine they had just founded. To achieve this goal, Marx and Engels envisioned: “In communist society, where nobody has one exclusive sphere of activity but each can become accomplished in any branch he wishes, society regulates the general production.” [16]16 Ibid., p. 47. The publication of *The German Ideology* not only marked the basic establishment of Marx and Engels’ materialist conception of history but also signified that their thought on common prosperity had developed to a higher level.

1845—1846年，马克思、恩格斯合作撰写了《德意志意识形态》，对人本主义（费尔巴哈）和唯心主义（黑格尔）等旧哲学进行批判，首次较为系统地阐明了历史唯物主义的基本原理。该书是具有里程碑意义的著作，对马克思、恩格斯关于共同富裕的思想的发展产生了深刻影响。一方面，提出历史的本质是人的历史。“全部人类历史的第一个前提无疑是有生命的个人的存在。”马克思、恩格斯明确表示，人是任何历史观不可或缺的前提，历史的本质是人的历史，没有人也就无所谓历史。从事实践活动的人是他们考察历史的出发点，因为人们的第一个历史活动是要生产能够满足生活需要的资料，即生产物质生活本身。另一方面，实现共同富裕的物质基础成为马克思、恩格斯考察社会历史的出发点。《德意志意识形态》指出：“我们谈的是一些没有任何前提的德国人，因此我们首先应当确定一切人类生存的第一个前提，也就是一切历史的第一个前提，这个前提是：人们为了能够‘创造历史’，必须能够生活。但是为了生活，首先就需要吃喝住穿以及其他一些东西。因此第一个历史活动就是生产满足这些需要的资料，即生产物质生活本身。”这里强调的“吃喝住穿以及其他一些东西”其实也就是马克思、恩格斯对人的生存生活需要的通俗说法，这种物质需求正是实现共同富裕的基本前提。他们根据对资本主义经济的深度剖析，概括性地指出未来社会的某些基本特征：消灭城乡对立、体力劳动和脑力劳动的对立，自觉地运用经济规律，消费品按需分配等，从某种意义上说，这也是他们对实现共同富裕所应具备的基本条件的构想，大大丰富了刚刚由他们所创立的共产主义学说的内涵。为了实现这一目标，马克思、恩格斯设想：“在共产主义社会里，任何人都没有特殊的活动范围，而是都可以在任何部门内发展，社会调节着整个生产。”《德意志意识形态》的发表不仅标志着马克思、恩格斯唯物史观的基本确立，也标志着其共同富裕思想发展到了更高的层次。

(III) On the Basis of Critique, Proposing the Political Guarantee and Constructive Goal of Common Prosperity

（三）在批判基础上提出共同富裕的政权保障和建构目标

In February 1848, the *Manifesto of the Communist Party* (hereinafter referred to as the “*Manifesto*”) was published. Marx and Engels, using the new ideas and viewpoints they had developed in the fields of philosophy, political economy, and historical science, profoundly summarized the experiences and lessons of the proletarian movement, systematically studied human society, especially capitalist society, and comprehensively and meticulously expounded the basic principles of scientific socialism. They explained the inevitability of the realization of common prosperity, the subject of its realization, the path and strategy for its realization, and other issues, making their thought on common prosperity more profound, realistic, and systematic. First, it emphasized that establishing a proletarian state power is the most powerful guarantee for realizing common prosperity. The *Manifesto* uses profound materialist viewpoints to explain that capitalist society has fallen into a general crisis caused by “too much civilization”; “the bourgeois relations of production are too narrow to comprise the wealth created by them.” [17]17 Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, *Manifesto of the Communist Party*, in *Marx and Engels Selected Works*, vol. 1 (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1969), p. 113. Under the premise of private ownership, the prosperity of the proletariat cannot be guaranteed; “the executive of the modern state is but a committee for managing the common affairs of the whole bourgeoisie.” [18]18 Ibid., p. 110. To improve their material living conditions, the proletariat must “forcibly overthrow the bourgeoisie and establish its own rule.” [19]19 Ibid., p. 119. Therefore, only the most advanced and revolutionary proletariat, as the gravedigger of the bourgeoisie, can undertake this historical mission and fundamentally solve the problem of common prosperity. Second, it emphasized that the free and comprehensive development of the individual is the ultimate goal. The *Manifesto* points out: “In place of the old bourgeois society, with its classes and class antagonisms, we shall have an association, in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all.” [20]20 Ibid., p. 127. In communist society, material wealth is greatly abundant, the people fully enjoy democracy, and the realization of common prosperity has a material foundation and political guarantee. At the same time, common prosperity continuously develops to a higher level, ultimately making communist society a society of the free and comprehensive development of the individual.

1848年2月，《共产党宣言》（以下简称“《宣言》”）问世。马克思和恩格斯运用他们在哲学、政治经济学、历史科学等领域形成的新思想、新观点，对无产阶级运动的经验教训进行深刻总结，对人类社会尤其是资本主义社会进行系统研究，全面、细致地阐述了科学社会主义的基本原理，阐释了共同富裕实现的必然性、实现的主体、实现的道路和策略等问题，其关于共同富裕的思想更加趋向深刻性、现实性、系统性。首先，强调建立无产阶级政权是实现共同富裕的最有力保障。《宣言》运用深刻的唯物主义观点去说明，资本主义社会已经陷入一种“文明过度”导致的总体性危机，“资产阶级的关系已经太狭窄了，再容纳不了它本身所造成的财富了”。而在私有制的前提下，无产阶级的富裕是得不到保障的，“现代的国家政权不过是管理整个资产阶级的共同事务的委员会罢了”，无产阶级要改善物质生活条件，就要“用暴力推翻资产阶级而建立自己的统治”。因此，只有最先进、最革命的，作为资产阶级掘墓人的无产阶级才能承担起这一历史使命，从根本上解决共同富裕问题。其次，强调人的自由而全面的发展是最终目标。《宣言》指出：“代替那存在着阶级和阶级对立的资产阶级旧社会的，将是这样一个联合体，在那里，每个人的自由发展是一切人的自由发展的条件。”共产主义社会里，物质极大丰富，人民充分享有民主，共同富裕的实现有了物质基础和政治保障，同时，共同富裕不断向更高层次发展，使共产主义社会最终成为人自由而全面发展的社会。

In summary, during this period, Marx and Engels examined the issue of common prosperity using a new worldview. By focusing on the actual life of real people, they transcended Hegel’s categories of “absolute spirit” and “self-consciousness,” replaced Feuerbach’s study of “real people based on nature,” and fully elaborated that practical activity is the fundamental path to improving people’s lives, thereby proposing the realistic pathway to achieving common prosperity. In this process of theoretical exploration, they not only profoundly expounded the important task of obtaining the material foundation for achieving common prosperity through practice, but also proposed that the ultimate goal after the continuous development of common prosperity to a higher level is to realize the free and comprehensive development of humanity. This stage is a critical developmental stage in Marx and Engels’ thought on common prosperity.

总之，这一时期马克思、恩格斯用一种新的世界观去考察共同富裕问题，通过对现实的人的生活的关注，超越了黑格尔追求的“绝对精神”和“自我意识”范畴，取代了费尔巴哈“以自然为基础的现实的人”的研究，并且充分论述了实践活动是改善人民生活的根本途径，提出了实现共同富裕的现实途径。在这一理论探索过程当中，他们不仅深刻阐述了通过实践获得共同富裕实现的物质基础的重要任务，而且提出了共同富裕不断向高层次发展后的最终目标是要实现人的自由而全面发展。这一阶段是马克思、恩格斯关于共同富裕的思想的关键性发展阶段。

IV. Toward Maturity: The Deepening of the Thought on Common Prosperity in the Context of Capital Critique

四、走向成熟：资本批判语境下共同富裕思想的不断深化

After the publication of the *Manifesto*, with the arrival of the low tide of the European revolutions, Marx and Engels once again left their homeland, retreating from the “front stage of social revolution” back to the “study,” to resume the economic research that had been interrupted by the revolution, further exposing the process of the movement of the internal contradictions of capitalism, enabling the proletariat to clearly understand the laws that govern this movement and lead to the demise of the capitalist system. During this period, Marx successively wrote works such as the *Grundrisse der Kritik der politischen Ökonomie* (1857–1858), *Capital*, and the *Critique of the Gotha Programme*, studying common prosperity from the perspective of political economy. By exposing the fundamental contradictions of capitalism and the essence of capital, he profoundly revealed the hypocrisy of capitalism, thereby further elaborating his own thought on common prosperity.

《宣言》发表后，随着欧洲革命低潮期的到来，马克思和恩格斯再次离开了祖国，从“社会革命的前台”退回到“书房”，重新进行因革命而中断的经济研究工作，进一步揭露资本主义内在矛盾的运动过程，使无产阶级清楚地理解支配这一运动并导致资本主义制度灭亡的那些规律。在此期间，马克思相继写作了《政治经济学批判（1857—1858年手稿）》《资本论》和《哥达纲领批判》等著作，从政治经济学视域对共同富裕进行研究，通过对于资本主义基本矛盾和资本本质的揭露，深刻揭示了资本主义的虚伪性，从而进一步阐述了自己的共同富裕思想。

(I) Analyzing the Issue of Common Prosperity Using the Dialectical Method of Moving from the Abstract to the Concrete

（一）用从抽象到具体的辩证思维法分析共同富裕问题

On the one hand, the dialectical method of thinking was proposed. The dialectical analytical method of moving from the abstract to the concrete, i.e., the cognitive law of movement from abstract concepts to more concrete concepts, is an essential research method and method of presentation for understanding the essence of things. The “concrete” is the concrete of reason, referring to a rational, rich totality with many determinations and relations. In the introduction to the *Grundrisse* (1857–1858), Marx critically focused on the perceptual and one-sided nature of the analytical method of classical political economy, pointing out that by applying the dialectical method of moving from the abstract to the concrete, one can understand the essence of society: the specific determinations of thought such as society and people, people and relations of production, relations of production and the historical succession of social formations. One will then understand: “The more deeply we go back into history, the more does the individual, and hence also the producing individual, appear as dependent, as belonging to a greater whole”; “Man is in the most literal sense of the word a *zōon politikon*, not only a social animal, but an animal which can individuate itself only in the midst of society.” [21]21 Karl Marx, *Grundrisse der Kritik der politischen Ökonomie* (1857–1858), Introduction. The English translation is from the *Marx-Engels Collected Works*, vol. 28, p. 18. Guided by this method, Marx proposed that in a society of common prosperity, “the development of the productive forces of society will proceed so rapidly that, although production will aim at the wealth of all, the disposable time of all will increase.” [22]22 Karl Marx, *Grundrisse der Kritik der politischen Ökonomie* (1857–1858). The English translation is from the *Marx-Engels Collected Works*, vol. 29, p. 94. Therefore, only when productive forces are raised and developed, and social wealth continuously increases, can people be satisfied in both material and spiritual aspects, and can society progress as a whole.

一方面，提出辩证思维方法。从抽象到具体的辩证思维分析方法，即由抽象概念向更加具体的概念运动的认识规律，是认识事物本质必备的研究方法和叙述方法。“具体”是理性的具体，是指理性的、具有许多规定性和关系的丰富整体。在《1857—1858年经济学手稿》的导言中，马克思重点批判了古典政治经济学分析方法中的感性和片面性，指出运用从抽象到具体的辩证思维方法，就会认识社会的本质：社会与人、人与生产关系、生产关系与社会形态历史更替等思维中的具体规定性，就会明白：“我们越往前追溯历史，个人，从而也是进行生产的个人，就越表现为不独立，从属于一个较大的整体”，“人是最名副其实的政治动物，不仅是一种合群的动物，而且是只有在社会中才能独立的动物”。在这一方法指导下，马克思提出在共同富裕的社会中，“社会生产力的发展将如此迅速，以致尽管生产将以所有的人富裕为目的，所有的人的可以自由支配的时间还是会增加”。所以，只有生产力得到了提高和发展，社会财富持续增加，人们才能在物质和精神方面都得到满足，社会才会整体地向前进步。

On the other hand, the path of critique of political economy, especially the critique of capital, was found. In the 1859 preface to *A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy*, Marx, based on the method of “rising from the abstract to the concrete” he had established, proposed an important methodological proposition for the critique of political economy: “The anatomy of civil society is to be sought in political economy.” [23]23 Karl Marx, “Preface to *A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy*” (1859). The English translation is from the *Marx-Engels Collected Works*, vol. 29, p. 262. First, starting from the dissection of capitalist relations of production, i.e., from the examination of the relations between the means of production and relations of production, relations of production and relations of intercourse, state forms and forms of consciousness in relation to relations of production and intercourse, and from the dimension of political economy closely related to civil society, an “abstract-concrete” analysis and reflection on modern civilization and modern society is conducted. Second, the core of historical materialism lies in grasping the historical practice of historical subjects, especially from people’s practical activities of production and life, dialectically analyzing the development, change, and historical destiny of capitalism, to seek the realistic basis for revealing the general laws of social and historical development. All of the above laid the methodological foundation for the further maturation of their thought on common prosperity.

另一方面，找到了政治经济学批判特别是对资本批判的路径。在1859年的《〈政治经济学批判〉序言》中，马克思根据其所创立的“从抽象上升到具体的方法”提出了政治经济学批判的重要方法论命题：“对市民社会的解剖应该到政治经济学中去寻求”。第一，从解剖资本主义生产关系出发，也就是从生产资料和生产关系，生产关系和交往关系，国家形式和意识形式同生产关系和交往关系的关系等的考察出发，从与市民社会密切相关的政治经济学维度出发，对现代文明、现代社会进行“抽象—具体”分析和思考；第二，历史唯物主义的核心在于把握历史主体的历史实践，尤其是从人们的生产生活实践中，辩证地分析资本主义的发展变化及其历史命运，去寻找揭示社会历史发展一般规律性的现实依据。以上这些都为其共同富裕思想的进一步成熟奠定了方法论基础。

(II) Taking the Unity of Humanity and Socio-Economic Relations as the Starting Point for Examining the Issue of Common Prosperity

（二）把人与社会经济关系相统一作为审视共同富裕问题的出发点

*Capital* is a monumental work to which Marx devoted his life’s energy, the crystallization of Marx’s lifelong participation in revolutionary practice and the creation of revolutionary theory. *Capital* consists of three volumes. The first volume focuses on the study of the capitalist mode of production and its relations of production, taking the capitalist production process itself as the object of investigation. The second volume studies the circulation process as a supplement to the production process. The third volume mainly reveals and elucidates the various concrete forms of the total process of capitalist production and their laws of motion. As a monumental work of proletarian political economy, *Capital* contains rich thought on common prosperity. Based on a scientific and thorough historical materialism, through the exposure and analysis of the wage-labor system founded on capitalist private ownership, it provides a detailed and thorough dissection of socio-economic life and phenomena under the capitalist system—the processes of commodity production, exchange, distribution, and consumption, and the capitalist relations of production they manifest—further clarifying the historical, economic, and institutional roots of the problem of proletarian poverty. On this basis, *Capital* explores the pathways to achieving common prosperity in greater detail. The results of this exploration became the theoretical guide and action guide for the proletariat to escape its state of poverty and achieve class emancipation, marking an important sign of the maturation of Marx and Engels’ thought on common prosperity.

《资本论》是马克思倾其毕生精力所著的鸿篇巨制，是马克思一生参与革命实践和进行革命理论创造的思想结晶。《资本论》共三卷，第一卷着重研究资本主义生产方式及其生产关系，把资本主义生产过程本身作为研究对象进行考察；第二卷研究的是作为生产过程的补充即流通过程；第三卷则主要揭示和阐明了资本主义生产总过程的各种具体形式及其运行规律。作为无产阶级政治经济学的巨著，《资本论》蕴含着丰富的共同富裕思想。它立足于科学而彻底的唯物史观，通过对建立在资本主义私有制基础上的雇佣劳动制度的揭露和分析，对资本主义制度下的社会经济生活和现象——商品生产、交换、分配与消费过程以及所展现的资本主义生产关系进行详尽而透彻的剖析，进一步讲明了无产阶级贫困问题产生的历史根源、经济根源和制度根源。在此基础上，《资本论》对共同富裕的实现路径等问题进行了更为详尽的探索，探索成果成为无产阶级摆脱自身贫困状态、求得阶级解放的理论遵循和行动指南，是马克思、恩格斯关于共同富裕的思想走向成熟的重要标志。

First, the realization of common prosperity depends on the proletariat. Marx pointed out that in the process of its evolution, the capitalist mode of production, on the one hand, provided the material foundation for the birth of a new social formation, and on the other hand, forged the proletariat. In the “Afterword” to the second edition of Volume I of *Capital*, it is mentioned that the proletariat has strong organizational discipline, abundant revolutionary motivation, and a strong spirit of resistance, making it more receptive to advanced theory: “Its historical mission is the overthrow of the capitalist mode of production and the final abolition of classes.” [24]24 Karl Marx, *Capital*, Volume I, “Afterword to the Second Edition” (1873). The English translation is from the *Marx-Engels Collected Works*, vol. 35, p. 19.

首先，共同富裕的实现需要依赖无产阶级。马克思指出，资本主义生产方式在演进的过程中，一方面为新社会形态的诞生提供了物质基础，另一方面也锻造了无产阶级。《资本论》第一卷第二版的“跋”中提到，无产阶级组织纪律性强、革命动力足、反抗精神强，更易于接受先进理论，“这个阶级的历史使命是推翻资本主义生产方式和最后消灭阶级”。

Second, the sublation of the capitalist system is the fundamental path to achieving common prosperity. In Marx’s view: “Every definite historical form of the labor process further develops its material foundations and social forms. When this definite historical form reaches a certain stage of maturity, it is cast aside and gives way to a higher form.” [25]25 Karl Marx, *Capital*, Volume III, Chapter 51. The English translation is from the *Marx-Engels Collected Works*, vol. 37, p. 807. “The centralization of the means of production and the socialization of labor reach a point where they become incompatible with their capitalist integument. This integument is burst asunder. The knell of capitalist private property sounds. The expropriators are expropriated.” [26]26 Karl Marx, *Capital*, Volume I, Chapter 32. The English translation is from the *Marx-Engels Collected Works*, vol. 35, p. 750. The contradiction between the capitalist system of private ownership and socialized large-scale production is the true root of economic crises. The inherent and insurmountable contradictions of the capitalist mode of production cause destructive “strong earthquakes” in economic life. The aim of the proletariat “can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions.” [27]27 Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, *Manifesto of the Communist Party* (1848). The English translation is from the *Marx-Engels Collected Works*, vol. 6, p. 519. Therefore, the capitalist system is bound to be replaced by a higher social system, and this process is the necessary process of sublation for achieving common prosperity.

其次，扬弃资本主义制度是实现共同富裕的根本途径。在马克思看来：“劳动过程的每个一定的历史形式，都会进一步发展这个过程的物质基础和社会形式。这个一定的历史形式达到一定的成熟阶段就会被抛弃，并让位给较高级的形式。”“生产资料的集中和劳动的社会化，达到了同它们的资本主义外壳不能相容的地步。这个外壳就要炸毁了。资本主义私有制的丧钟就要响了。剥夺者就要被剥夺了。”资本主义私人占有制度与社会化大生产的矛盾是经济危机的真正根源，资本主义生产方式内在的不可克服的固有矛盾引起了经济生活的破坏性“强震”，无产阶级的目的“只有用暴力推翻全部现存的社会制度才能达到”，所以资本主义制度必定被更高级的社会制度所取代，而这一过程是实现共同富裕必经的扬弃过程。

(III) Proposing an Overall Conception and Feasible Plan for Advancing Common Prosperity

（三）提出推进共同富裕的整体构想和可行方案

In 1875, from the height of historical materialism, Marx linked common prosperity with productive forces, relations of production, and the mode of production for analysis and elaboration, writing the *Critique of the Gotha Programme*, which provided a feasible plan for achieving common prosperity.

1875年，马克思从历史唯物主义的高度将共同富裕与生产力、生产关系以及生产方式联系起来加以分析和阐述，写下了《哥达纲领批判》，为实现共同富裕提供了可行方案。

First, the prerequisite for common prosperity is the high development of productive forces. “Any distribution of the means of consumption is only a consequence of the distribution of the conditions of production themselves.” The material foundation of common prosperity is the wealth created by social production, i.e., the total social product, and social productive forces create social wealth. If social productive forces are impoverished and unable to create sufficient wealth, then only common poverty, not common prosperity, will result. The basis of common prosperity is the extremely great development of material conditions, “enabling every member of society not only to participate in the production of social wealth, but also to participate in its distribution and management, and, through the planned organization of the entire production, to ensure that social productive forces and their fruits continuously increase, sufficiently guaranteeing that all reasonable needs of each individual are met to an ever greater extent.” [28]28 Marx and Engels, *Collected Works*, Vol. 25, p. 20. The quotation is from Engels’ *Anti-Dühring*.

第一，共同富裕的前提是生产力的高度发展。“消费资料的任何一种分配，都不过是生产条件本身分配的结果。”共同富裕的物质基础是社会生产创造的财富即社会总产品，而社会生产力创造社会财富。如果社会生产力贫乏，无法创造足够的财富，那么只会产生共同贫困而不会有共同富裕。共同富裕的基础是物质条件的极大程度的发展，“使社会的每一成员不仅有可能参加社会财富的生产，而且有可能参加社会财富的分配和管理，并通过有计划地经营全部生产，使社会生产力及其成果不断增长，足以保证每个人的一切合理的需要在越来越大的程度上得到满足”。

Second, the realization of common prosperity is gradual. Marx pointed out that in the first phase of communist society, i.e., the socialist phase, because this phase “is just emerging from capitalist society, and is therefore in every respect, economically, morally, and intellectually, still stamped with the birthmarks of the old society from whose womb it emerges,” it can only first distribute the products of labor according to the principle of distribution according to work. As a result, given differences in workers’ labor capacities and variations in family circumstances, it will still lead to “one individual actually receiving more than another, thus becoming richer than another,” “but these defects are unavoidable in the first phase of communist society as it emerges from capitalist society after prolonged birth pangs.” And as an advance from this first phase, “in a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor, and thereby also the antithesis between mental and physical labor, has vanished; after labor has become not only a means of life but life’s primary need; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-around development of the individual, and all the springs of cooperative wealth flow more abundantly—only then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!” [29]29 Marx, *Critique of the Gotha Programme*, in *Marx-Engels Selected Works*, Vol. 3, pp. 305-306.

第二，共同富裕的实现具有渐进性。马克思指出，在共产主义社会的第一阶段即社会主义阶段，由于这一阶段“是刚刚从资本主义社会中产生出来的，因此它在各方面，在经济、道德和精神方面都还带着它脱胎出来的那个旧社会的痕迹”，只能首先按照按劳分配的原则来对劳动产品进行分配。这样一来，鉴于劳动者劳动能力的差异以及家庭状况的差别，还是会导致“某一个人事实上所得到的比另一个人多些，也就比另一个人富些”，“但是这些弊病，在经过长久阵痛刚刚从资本主义社会产生出来的共产主义社会第一阶段，是不可避免的”。而作为第一阶段的进阶，“在共产主义社会高级阶段，在迫使个人奴隶般地服从分工的情形已经消失，从而脑力劳动和体力劳动的对立也随之消失之后；在劳动已经不仅仅是谋生的手段，而且本身成了生活的第一需要之后；在随着个人的全面发展，他们的生产力也增长起来，而集体财富的一切源泉都充分涌流之后，——只有在那个时候，才能完全超出资产阶级权利的狭隘眼界，社会才能在自己的旗帜上写上：各尽所能”。

During this period, Marx and Engels completed the sublation of capitalist society and the planning of the future path of socialism through their critique of capital. Relying on a systematized theoretical system of political economy, they put forward a more complete overall conception and feasible plan for advancing common prosperity, and their thought on common prosperity moved toward maturity and completeness.

这一时期，马克思、恩格斯通过对资本的批判完成了对资本主义社会的扬弃和对社会主义未来道路的规划。依托系统化的政治经济学理论体系，他们提出了更为完善的推进共同富裕的整体构想和可行方案，其共同富裕思想走向了成熟和完备。

V. Conclusion

五、结语

Marx and Engels critically absorbed the beneficial elements of utopian socialism, for the first time establishing the thought on common prosperity on the foundation of materialist philosophy, and provided a realistic demonstration of it from the perspective of political economy. Guided by dialectical materialism and historical materialism, they achieved a historic transformation of socialist theory. They made scientific predictions about the characteristics of future society, regarding common prosperity as the fundamental characteristic and main goal of future society, pointing out the direction for the realization and development of common prosperity and providing a scientific theoretical basis.

马克思、恩格斯批判地汲取了空想社会主义的有益成分，第一次将共同富裕思想建立在唯物主义哲学的基础之上，并从政治经济学的角度对其进行了现实论证，以辩证唯物主义和历史唯物主义为指导，实现了社会主义学说的历史性变革。他们对未来社会的特征进行了科学预测，视共同富裕为未来社会的根本特征和主要目标，为共同富裕的实现和发展指明了前进方向，提供了科学理论依据。

Marx pointed out: “Any genuine philosophy is the spiritual quintessence of its time.” The historical evolution of Marx and Engels’ thought on common prosperity is the product of the interaction between theory and practice, and the result of the mutual interaction and influence between productive forces and relations of production, and between social existence and social consciousness. Theoretical self-consciousness is an important manifestation of a political party’s maturation. Marx and Engels’ thought on common prosperity provides us with an important theoretical source for deepening our understanding of common prosperity and is the starting point for the evolutionary development of the Chinese Communist Party’s thought on common prosperity. On the new journey, the cause of common prosperity under socialism with Chinese characteristics should take Marx and Engels’ thought on common prosperity as its theoretical foundation, and further enrich and develop this thought in practice, thereby continuously highlighting the superiority of the socialist system and providing a Chinese solution for the world.

马克思指出：“任何真正的哲学都是自己时代的精神上的精华。”马克思、恩格斯关于共同富裕的思想的历史演进是理论与实践互动的产物，是生产力与生产关系、社会存在与社会意识相互作用和相互影响的结果。理论自觉是政党走向成熟的重要表现，马克思、恩格斯关于共同富裕的思想为我们深化对共同富裕的认识提供了重要的理论源泉，是中国共产党共同富裕思想演进发展的起点。新征程上，中国特色社会主义共同富裕事业应当以马克思、恩格斯关于共同富裕的思想为理论基点，并在实践中进一步丰富和发展这一思想，从而不断凸显社会主义制度的优越性，为世界提供中国方案。

Source: *Contemporary World and Socialism*, Issue 5, 2024

文章来源：《当代世界与社会主义》2024年第5期

Online Editor: Jing Mu

网络编辑：静穆