“Interdependent Social Relations” and “Concrete Justice” — A Further Reflection on the Substance of Marx’s View of Justice

— A Further Reflection on the Substance of Marx’s View of Justice

——对马克思正义观实质的进一步反思

What is “justice” and how is a just society to be constructed? This is a problem that human society has striven to solve ever since its emergence. If in traditional societies marked by severe hierarchical stratification this problem was not yet urgent, then with the modern discovery of the individual and his rights, solving the problem of justice has become especially important. As one of the most profound thinkers to reflect on human society, how did Marx understand justice and its realization? Represented by the “Tucker-Wood Thesis,” some scholars argue that Marx opposed a “moralistic” critique of capitalism from the standpoint of a “view of justice,” and thereby deny that “justice” constitutes a dimension of normative value in Marx’s philosophy. The fundamental error of this view lies in its isolated and one-sided interpretation of isolated passages from Marx, without understanding the important position of the view of justice within the overall system of Marx’s philosophy from a holistic perspective. We argue that Marx’s critique of the values of freedom, equality, and justice as proclaimed by capitalist society in the sense of “right” [Recht] is directed at their abstractness and formality, not at these values themselves. On the contrary, Marx’s critique of “justice” in the sense of capitalist “right” aims precisely to endow “justice” with new content and to reconstruct a “view of justice.”

何谓“正义”以及如何去建构正义的社会?这是人类社会自产生以来就力图求解的难题。如果说在等级分化严重的传统社会，这一问题还不具有急迫性的话，那么，随着近代社会对个人及其权利的发现，求解正义的问题就显得尤为重要。马克思作为对人类社会反思最为深刻的思想家之一，他是如何理解正义及其实现这一问题的?以“塔克-伍德命题”为代表，一些学者认为马克思反对从“正义观”出发对资本主义持一种“道德主义”的批判，并进而否认“正义”构成马克思哲学中作为价值规范维度的地位。这种观点的根本错误在于孤立地片面地理解和诠释马克思的个别论述，而没有从马克思哲学整体的思想体系的角度理解正义观在马克思哲学中的重要地位。我们认为，马克思对资本主义社会所宣称的自由、平等和正义这些“法权”意义上的价值的批判，所指向的是其抽象性和形式性，而并不是要反对这些价值本身。恰恰相反，马克思对作为资本主义社会“法权”意义上的“正义”的批判，其目的恰恰是要赋予“正义”以新的内涵并重建“正义观”。

In this article, we attempt to discuss: taking the historical evolution of social relations as his point of entry, Marx reveals the injustice inherent in “justice” in the capitalist sense of “right,” and demonstrates that the realization of justice requires the construction of a new type of social relation, namely “interdependent” social relations. Only on this basis can abstract and formal “justice” be overcome and a real foundation laid for the realization of “concrete justice.” We argue that this is the fundamental dimension for grasping and understanding the substance and distinctive character of Marx’s view of justice.

在本文，我们试图讨论：马克思以对社会关系历史演变的深刻分析为切入点，揭示了资本主义“法权”意义上的“正义”所蕴含的不正义性，并论证了正义的实现需要一种新型社会关系的建构，即“互依性”社会关系，只有以此为基础，才能克服抽象和形式的“正义”,并为“具体正义”的实现奠定真实的基础。我们认为，这是把握和理解马克思正义观实质和思想特质的根本性维度。

I. The Distinction between “Dominant Social Relations” and “Interdependent Social Relations”: The Real Basis for Marx’s Understanding of the Problem of Justice

一、“支配性社会关系”和“互依性社会关系”的区分：马克思理解“正义”问题的现实依据

To understand Marx’s view of justice, an important prerequisite is to grasp, from a holistic perspective, the starting point and real basis of Marx’s understanding of the historical development of society. Among these, Marx’s distinction between “dominant social relations” and “interdependent social relations” is of foundational significance.

要理解马克思的正义观，一个重要前提是从整体角度把握马克思理解社会历史发展的出发点和现实依据。其中，马克思对“支配性社会关系”与“互依性社会关系”的区分，具有基础性的意义。

As is well known, “social relations” is a very important concept for Marx. Marx argues that productive practice is the fundamental mode of human existence; what human beings are like depends on the mode of production in which they engage, that is, “as individuals express their life, so they are. Hence what they are coincides with their production — both with what they produce and with how they produce.” [1]1 Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, *The German Ideology*, in *Marx-Engels Collected Works* (MECW), vol. 5, p. 31. And production presupposes mutual intercourse among individuals, that is, production takes place within definite social relations. What are social relations? “The meaning of social relations here refers to the common activity of many individuals, regardless of the conditions, manner, and purpose of this activity.” Or, they are “definite relations between individuals and each other.” [2]2 Ibid., pp. 43, 32. How do social relations arise? They are created by individuals engaged in concrete practice in the course of their activity, that is, “definite individuals who are productively active in a definite way enter into these definite social and political relations. … The social structure and the state are continually evolving out of the life-process of definite individuals.” [3]3 Karl Marx, *Capital*, Vol. 3, in *Marx and Engels Collected Works*, Vol. 25, p. 498. [Reference to Marx’s original text; the citation number is retained as in the source.]

众所周知，“社会关系”是马克思一个非常重要的概念。马克思认为，生产实践是人的基本方式，人是什么样的，取决于他们所从事的生产方式，即“个人怎样表现自己的生活，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。”1而生产又是以个人之间彼此的交往为前提的，即生产是处于一定的社会关系中。什么是社会关系呢?“社会关系的含义在这里是指许多个人的共同活动，至于这种活动在什么条件下、用什么方式和为了什么目的而进行，则是无关紧要的。”或者说是“个人和个人彼此之间的一定关系”。2社会关系是怎么来的呢?它是从事具体实践的人在活动中创生的，即“以一定的方式进行生产活动的一定的个人，发生一定的社会关系和政治关系。……社会结构和国家总是从一定的个人的生活过程中产生的。”

Because human practice is historical, Marx argues that social relations have different characteristics at different historical stages. “Relations of personal dependence (entirely spontaneous at the outset) are the first social forms, in which human productive capacity develops only to a slight extent and at isolated points. Personal independence founded on objective [sachlicher] dependence is the second great form, in which a system of general social metabolism, of universal relations, of all-round needs and universal capacities is formed. Free individuality, based on the universal development of individuals and on their subordination of their communal, social productivity as their social wealth, is the third stage.” [4]4 Karl Marx, *Grundrisse*, in MECW, vol. 28, p. 95. That is, Marx distinguishes three specific forms of social relations that humanity has experienced and will experience: (1) relations of personal dependence in traditional hierarchical societies; (2) relations of personal independence based on objective dependence in capitalist society; and (3) relations of free individuality in communist society.

由于人实践的历史性，马克思认为社会关系在不同的历史阶段具有不同的特征。“人的依赖关系(起初完全是自然发生的),是最初的社会形式，在这种形式下，人的生产能力只是在狭小的范围内和孤立的地点上发展着。以物的依赖性为基础的人的独立性，是第二大形式，在这种形式下，才形成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的体系。建立在个人全面发展和他们共同的、社会的生产能力成为从属于他们的社会财富这一基础上的自由个性，是第三个阶段。”2就是说，马克思把人类所经历的以及将来要经历的社会关系区分为三种具体的形式：(1)传统等级社会中的人身依附关系；(2)资本主义社会以物的依赖性为基础的人的独立性关系；(3)共产主义社会中自由个性的关系。

Because the capacity for productive practice was low, individuals in traditional society had to survive by depending on others or on their community; at this time, social relations, as definite relations between individuals, exhibited the characteristic of personal dependence. Marx says: “Although personal relations appear as personal relations, they are only personal relations of individuals within specific determinations, e.g., as feudal lord and vassal, landlord and serf, etc., or as caste members, or as members of an estate, etc.” [5]5 Ibid., p. 96. That is, in traditional society where market exchange was underdeveloped, relations between individuals, although a kind of “personal relation,” were determined by their respective positions and strata within the community. Because individuals occupied different positions and strata in the community, “some individuals are dominated by others, and all individuals in society are subordinate to the social totality and are defined by their position within it.” [6]6 Karl Marx, *Capital*, Vol. 1, in *Marx and Engels Collected Works*, Vol. 23, p. 97. [Reference to Marx’s original text; the citation number is retained as in the source.] In other words, in this society, because one part of the people, mediated by the community, controlled the means of subsistence of another part, relations between individuals and relations between individuals and the community both took on a dominant character.

由于生产实践能力低，传统社会中的个体都要通过依附于他人或其所在的共同体才能生存，此时，作为个人彼此之间一定关系的社会关系表现出人身依附的特征。马克思说：“虽然个人之间的关系表现为较为明显的人的关系，但是他们只是作为具有某种规定性的个人而互相发生关系，如作为封建主和臣仆、地主和农奴等等，或作为种姓成员等等，或属于某个等级等等。”2就是说，在市场交换不发达的传统社会，个体之间的关系虽然是一种“人的关系”,但规定这种关系的是他们各自在共同体中所处的地位和阶层。由于个体在共同体中所处的地位和阶层不同，“在其中，一些个人被另外一些个人所支配，并且，处于社会中的所有个人都从属于社会总体并且是由他们在社会总体中的地位所规定的。”3就是说，在这种社会中，由于一部分人以共同体为中介，控制了另一部分人的生存资料，就使得个人彼此之间的关系以及个人与共同体之间的关系都具有支配性的特征。

In the relation between master and slave, this dominance is very evident: because the master controls the slave’s means of subsistence, he can dominate the slave, but the slave cannot dominate the master. Although Hegel could use the “master-slave dialectic” to explain this relation — that master and slave mutually condition each other — the social relation between them is nonetheless one of dominance, not equality. Moreover, slaves or serfs in such social relations are not regarded as members of the community but as part of its inorganic natural conditions. That is: “In the relations of slavery and serfdom … one part of society is treated by another part as merely an inorganic and natural condition of its own reproduction.” [7]7 Karl Marx, *Grundrisse*, in MECW, vol. 28, p. 409. Only slaveholders or landlords are regarded as members of the community, and thus, by virtue of their position in the community, are entitled to share in the common property. Yet even as community members, before the community that transcends the individual, they are merely objects dominated by the community.

在主人和奴隶的关系中，这种支配性表现得非常明显：主人由于控制了奴隶的生存资料，因而可以支配奴隶，但奴隶却没有办法支配主人。虽然黑格尔可以用“主奴辩证法”来阐释这种关系，即主人和奴隶之间是相互制约的，但他们之间的社会关系毕竟是支配性的，而非平等性的。此外，处于这种社会关系中的奴隶或农奴并不被看作共同体的成员，而是被当作无机自然条件的一部分。就是说：“在奴隶制关系和农奴制关系中……社会的一部分被社会的另一部分当作只是自身再生产的无机自然条件来对待。”只有奴隶主或地主才被看作共同体的成员，从而借助其在共同体中的地位有资格分享公共的财产，不过即便作为共同体成员，在超越于个体之上的共同体面前，他们也只是受共同体支配的对象。

According to Marx’s understanding, in traditional social relations, not only is there personal dependence of one part of the people on another, but also personal dependence of every individual on the community. Therefore, dominance is the evident characteristic of this type of social relation.

按照马克思的理解，在传统社会关系中，不仅仅表现为一部分人对另一部分人的人身依附，也表现为每一个人对共同体的人身依附。因此，支配性是这种社会关系的明显特征。

A distinct feature of capitalist society is its developed system of exchange. “In money relations, in the developed system of exchange (and this surface appearance misleads democracy), the ties of personal dependence, distinctions of blood, education, etc. are in fact exploded, ripped up (at least, all personal ties appear as personal relations); and individuals seem independent (this independence is merely an illusion, more precisely, it may be called — in the sense of indifference to each other — mutual unconcern) and freely come into contact and exchange with each other in this freedom.” [8]8 Karl Marx, *Grundrisse der Kritik der politischen Ökonomie* (1857–1858), in *Marx-Engels-Werke* (MEW), vol. 42, p. 95. [Translator’s note: The English translation follows the standard English edition, *Grundrisse*, trans. Martin Nicolaus (Penguin, 1973), p. 163, with minor adjustments to match the Chinese quotation.] At this time, whether the content of exchange is the product of labor or labor capacity, the individuals as exchangers possess an independent personality and have attained a certain independence; however, this independence exists only by means of objective exchange value. And exchange value “here appears as something alien to individuals; it does not appear as their mutual relation, but as their subordination to such relations … In exchange value, the social relation of persons is transformed into a social relation of things; personal capacity into capacity of things.” [9]9 Ibid., MEW vol. 42, p. 96; *Grundrisse*, p. 164. That is to say, in the social relations of capitalism, the independence of persons depends on reified exchange value; only through the mechanism of exchange do individuals enjoy an independent personality.

资本主义社会的一个明显特征，是其发达的交换制度。“在货币关系中，在发达的交换制度中(而这种表面现象使民主主义受到迷惑),人的依赖纽带、血统差别、教养差别等等事实上都被打破了，被粉碎了(一切人身纽带至少都表现为人的关系);各个人看起来似乎独立地(这种独立一般只不过是错觉，确切些说，可叫作——在彼此关系冷漠的意义上——彼此漠不关心)自由地互相接触并在这种自由中互相交换”。2此时，不管交换的内容是劳动产品还是劳动能力，作为交换者的个人都具有独立的人格，取得了一定的独立性，然而这种独立性是借助于客观的交换价值才存在的。而交换价值“在这里表现为对于个人是异己的东西；不是表现为个人的相互关系，而是表现为他们从属于这样一些关系……在交换价值上，人的社会关系转化为物的社会关系；人的能力转化为物的能力。”2就是说，在资本主义社会关系中，人的独立性依赖于物化的交换价值，只有通过交换机制，个体才享有一种独立的人格。

In capitalist society, mediated by exchange value, subjects entering the sphere of exchange all possess a free and independent personality. At this point, formally, the relationship between the two parties to exchange is one of equality and freedom between general exchangers. But this equality and freedom are confined solely to the sphere of exchange. Once labor power, that special commodity which is the source of value, enters the sphere of production, there is the production of surplus value — that is, the capitalist appropriates part of the worker’s product without compensation. At that moment, the relations of freedom and equality that appeared in the sphere of exchange are immediately overturned, becoming relations of exploitation and oppression. In Marx’s view, the injustice of the capitalist system lies in the fact that, although its social relations formally assume the appearance of freedom and equality, at a deeper level they still exhibit a character of domination — that is, the capitalist uses the form of equivalent exchange to conceal the substance of exploitation; the worker remains dominated by the capitalist, and, more importantly, all individuals within these social relations are dominated by capital.

在资本主义社会，以交换价值为中介，使得进入交换领域的主体都具有自由、独立的人格。此时，在形式上，交换双方之间的关系是一般交换者之间的平等和自由的关系。但这种平等和自由，也仅仅局限于交换领域。一旦劳动力这种作为价值源泉的特殊商品进入生产领域，就会有剩余价值的生产，即资本家无偿地占有了劳动者的一部分劳动成果。那时，交换领域中表现的自由、平等的关系立刻被颠覆，变成了剥削和压迫的关系。在马克思看来，资本主义制度的非正义性，就在于其社会关系虽然在形式上表现为自由、平等的外观，但深层次中依然呈现支配性的特征，即资本家用等价交换的形式掩盖了剥削的实质，工人依然受资本家的支配，更为重要的是，在这种社会关系中的所有个体都受资本的支配。

It can be seen that, whether in traditional society or capitalist society, their social relations in essence possess a character of domination; they are “dominating” social relations. By “dominating” social relations is meant those in which the activity of a single person or a group of persons is related to the activity of another person or group, but the relation between them is not equivalent; rather, it is a relation in which one side dominates, controls, or exploits the other. Whether this is based on birth, rank, and one’s position in the community, or on the appropriation of surplus value in the sphere of production, in such social relations the conditions of existence necessary for a single person or a group are controlled and dominated by another person or group. Even if such social relations are “personal relations,” they are “instrumental” personal relations — that is, the individual does not obtain genuine recognition from the community or from other individuals.

可以看出，不管是传统社会，还是资本主义社会，从实质上而言，它们的社会关系都具有一种支配性的特征，是一种“支配性”社会关系。所谓“支配性”社会关系，是指在其中，单个人或一群人的活动虽然与另一个人或一群人的活动相关，但他们之间的关系却不是等价的，而是一方支配、控制或剥削另一方的关系。不管是通过出身、等级这些依据其在共同体的位置，还是依据生产领域中对剩余价值的占有形成的，在这种社会关系中，单个人或一群人所必须的生存条件被另一个人或一群人控制和支配。这种社会关系即便是“人的关系”,也是一种“工具性”的人的关系，即个体没有获得共同体和其他个体的真正承认。

Relatedly, “interdependent” social relations refer to those in which the activity of a single person or a group is intrinsically connected with the activity of another person or group, “in which each person recognizes the freedom of the other and acts to enhance the freedom of the other. … It is a mode of social cooperation that both realizes common projects and supports the distinct projects of each individual.” Such social relations are no longer instrumental; individuals in these relations no longer treat others or the community merely as a means to achieve their own ends, but freely realize themselves on the premise of recognizing others as ends.

与此相关，所谓“互依性”社会关系，则是指单个人或一群人的活动与另一个人或一群人的活动内在关联，“在其中，每一个人都承认另一个人的自由并且都是为了提高另一个人的自由而行动的。……它是一种既实现共同规划又支持每个人各有差异的规划的社会合作模式。”这种社会关系不再是工具性的，处于这种关系中的个人不再把他人或共同体仅充当实现自身目的的一个手段，而是在承认别人为目的的前提下自由地实现自身。

The society capable of establishing this new type of social relation is communism. In communist society, all people are members of the community. Unlike the personal dependence of the individual on the community in traditional society, the community here is not a totality standing above the individual: “This community does not rule over these individuals; apart from the concrete individuals who are in their mutual social relations, the community itself is nothing.” Marx holds that this new type of social relation is not only an ideal prospect but also a realizable mode of social organization. In “interdependent” social relations, the human condition differs from that of people in traditional society. In traditional society, although the relation between people is also an intrinsic one, it is not a relation between free individuals but a relation marked by hierarchical distinctions. It also differs from the condition of people in capitalist society, because in those social relations the relation between people is indirect — that is, they are connected with each other through exchange value. Here, the relation between individuals is direct and intrinsic; it is a genuinely human relation. The value of the individual is recognized in such social relations, and action is based on common interests. The reason communism is a higher stage of human society lies primarily in the fundamental transformation of the nature of social relations.

能确立这种新型社会关系的社会，就是共产主义。在共产主义社会，所有人都是共同体的成员，与传统社会那种个体对共同体的人身依附不同，此时的共同体并不是一个居于个体之上的总体，“这个共同体并不统治这些个人，除了处于他们彼此社会关系中的具体的个人之外，共同体本身什么都不是。”马克思认为，这种新型的社会关系，不仅是一种理想图景，更是一种可以实现的社会组织模式。在“互依性”社会关系中，人的生活状态不同于传统社会中的人。在传统社会中，人与人之间虽然也是一种内在的关系，但这种关系不是自由个体之间的关系，而是存在等级差别的关系。当然，也不同于资本主义社会中的人，因为在那种社会关系中，人与人之间的关系是间接的，即通过交换价值彼此互相联系。在这里，个体之间的关系则是直接的、内在的，是真正的人与人之间的关系，个体的价值在这种社会关系中获得承认，并基于共同的利益而行动。共产主义之所以是人类社会的更高阶段，主要表现在社会关系的性质有了根本性的变革。

Although traditional social relations and capitalist social relations differ in many respects, both are “dominating” social relations. In such social relations, whether the connection between people is direct or indirect, a character of domination is manifested. The “interdependent” social relations established by communism are a new type of social relation that eliminates formality, instrumentality, and domination. In these social relations, the relation between individuals and between individuals and the community is a direct relation of mutual recognition and interdependence.

传统社会关系和资本主义社会关系虽然存在诸多差异，但都是一种“支配性”社会关系，在这种社会关系中，人与人之间不管是直接的联系，还是间接的联系，都会表现出一种支配性的特征。共产主义确立的“互依性”社会关系则是消除了形式性、工具性和支配性的一种新型社会关系。在这种社会关系中，个体之间以及个体与共同体之间是一种直接的、相互承认和依存的关系。

According to the above analysis, the social relations in which people are situated exhibit different characteristics in different historical stages. By nature, they can be divided into two major types: “dominating” social relations and “interdependent” social relations. The former is the mode of manifestation of social relations in traditional society and capitalist society; the latter is a new type of social relation established in communist society. In different social relations, the state of human existence and the degree of self-realization differ fundamentally.

按照上面的分析，人所处其中的社会关系在不同的历史阶段具有不同的特征，按照性质可以划分为两大类，即“支配性”社会关系和“互依性”社会关系。前者是传统社会和资本主义社会社会关系的表现模式，后者则是共产主义社会确立的一种新型社会关系。在不同的社会关系中，人的生存状态和自我实现的程度具有根本的差异。

II. “Dominating Social Relations” and Marx’s Critique of Capitalist “Abstract Justice”

二、“支配性社会关系”与马克思对资本主义“抽象正义”的批判

The distinction between the two types of social relations outlined above provides a realistic foundation for Marx’s critique of capitalist “abstract justice.” It reveals a basic fact: people are always situated in definite social relations, and justice is a state of existence that people pursue. Therefore, justice is necessarily intrinsically connected with definite social relations. The nature of capitalist society as “dominating social relations” determines that the “justice” it proclaims is necessarily abstract.

上述两种性质的社会关系的区分，为马克思展开对资本主义“抽象正义”批判奠定了现实的基础。它揭示了这样一个基本的事实：人总是处于一定社会关系中，正义是人追求的一种生存状态，因此，正义必然是与一定的社会关系内在关联的，资本主义社会“支配性的社会关系”这一性质，决定了其宣称的“正义”必然具有抽象性。

As noted above, “dominating” social relations are concretely manifested as one side dominating, controlling, or exploiting the conditions of existence necessary for the other. The social relations of both traditional society and capitalist society possess a character of domination and can therefore be classified as “dominating” social relations. In the case of traditional hierarchical society, this domination is relatively obvious; it is a relation of personal dependence. Not only do some people depend on others, but all people depend on the community — that is, the community is a precondition for the individual to obtain the conditions of existence. In such a society, the individual as such does not possess independence; only the community possesses independence. Therefore, in these social relations, justice can only manifest itself as the abstract justice represented by the community. Unlike this “dominating relation” of traditional society, the social relations of capitalism are manifested as a universal relation of dependence mediated by things between “free individuals.” In these social relations, justice is manifested as the abstract justice represented by the “possessor of things.”

如前所述，“支配性”社会关系具体表现为，一方支配、控制或剥削另一方所必须的生存条件。传统社会和资本主义社会的社会关系都具有支配性的特征，因而都可以归属为“支配性”社会关系。就传统等级社会而言，这种支配性比较明显，是一种人身依附关系。不但一部分人依附于另一部分人，而且所有人都依附于共同体，即共同体是个体获得生存条件的一个前提。在这种社会中，人作为个体并不具有独立性，只有共同体才具有独立性。因此，在这种社会关系中，正义只能表现为共同体所代表的抽象的正义。与传统社会这种“支配性关系”不同，资本主义的社会关系体现为“自由个体”之间以物为纽带的普遍性的依赖关系，在这种社会关系中，正义表现为“物的占有者”所代表的抽象的正义。

Marx points out that, compared with traditional society, individuals in capitalist society have gained greater freedom and independence on the basis of exchange value as an intermediary, and the relations between individuals also manifest a greater “equality.” This is epitomized in the sphere of capitalist exchange. “The right of private property, as a legal expression of economic relations, contains the principle of abstract justice. It is clear that it implies the principle that equals should be treated equally.” [10]10 This is a paraphrase or summary of Marx’s argument by the authors; the specific source is not provided in the original text. It is on this basis that the spokesmen of the bourgeoisie consider capitalist social relations to embody a justice unseen in the past. To this, Marx states: “As pure ideas, equality and freedom are merely an idealized expression of the exchange of exchange values; as developed in legal, political, and social relations, equality and freedom are only this foundation raised to a higher power.” [11]11 Marx, *Grundrisse* (1857–1858).

马克思指出，相对于传统社会，资本主义社会中的个体，在以交换价值为中介的基础上获得了更大的自由和独立性，个体之间的关系也显现出更大的“平等”性。这一点在资本主义的交换领域得到了集中体现。“私有财产的权利作为经济关系的一种法律体现，它包含着抽象正义的原则。很明确的是，它隐含着平等者应该得到平等对待的原则。”3正是基于此，资产阶级的代言人认为资本主义社会关系体现了过去所未有的正义性，对此，马克思指出：“作为纯粹观念，平等和自由仅仅是交换价值的交换的一种理想化的表现；作为法律的、政治的、社会的关系上发展了的东西，平等和自由不过是另一次方上的这种基础而已。”

However, in terms of the overall operating mechanism of capitalism, the sphere of exchange does not occupy the foundational position; that position is occupied by the sphere of production. Therefore, the freedom, equality, and justice manifested in the sphere of exchange are not the overall characteristics of capitalist social relations. When we examine in depth the foundational sphere of production, the freedom, equality, and justice proclaimed by capitalist ideologues are exposed as illusory, and their nature of exploitation, alienation, and injustice is unveiled. As Marx says: “Behind this process, in the depths, completely different processes are taking place, in which this apparent equality and freedom among individuals disappear.” [12]12 Marx, *Grundrisse*. What Marx refers to as the “depths” and “behind the process” is precisely the production process or the sphere of production.

然而，就资本主义整个运行机制而言，交换领域并不占据基础地位，占据基础地位的是生产领域。因此，交换领域体现出来的自由、平等和正义，并不是资本主义社会关系的整体特征。深入考察占据基础地位的生产领域，资本主义意识形态家们所宣称的自由、平等和正义就暴露出其虚幻性，其剥削、异化和非正义的性质就将被解蔽。正像马克思所说：“在这一过程的背后，在深处，进行的完全是不同的另一些过程，在这些过程中个人之间这种表面上的平等和自由就消失了。”马克思指的“深处”“过程的背后”,正是生产过程或生产领域。

In Marx’s view, the reason why the freedom, equality, and justice manifested in the sphere of exchange disappear in the sphere of production is due to a special commodity in capitalist society—namely, the commodity of labor power. Labor power is a special commodity; it is the living source of value, meaning it can create value. Labor must enter the sphere of production to create value. Therefore, the exchange of labor and capital, which in the sphere of exchange appears as the principle of equivalent exchange, undergoes a startling transformation once it enters the sphere of production. What Marx calls the process opposed to exchange is production. Because labor can create more value than its own exchange value, the principle of equivalent exchange originally followed in the sphere of exchange is completely overturned. In the sphere of production, the value created by labor power that exceeds its own exchange value is appropriated by the capitalist without compensation, thereby yielding an extra return on the capital expended by the capitalist in the sphere of exchange and achieving its own valorization. That is to say, through the seemingly free, equal, and just mechanism of exchange, the capitalist conceals his domination and appropriation of the worker’s labor power and the fruits of labor realized in the sphere of production.

在马克思看来，交换领域中表现的自由、平等和正义之所以在生产领域消失了，是由于资本主义社会的一种特殊的商品，即劳动力商品所造成的。劳动力是一种特殊的商品，它是价值活的源泉，即它可以创造价值。劳动必须要进入生产领域才能创造价值，因此劳动和资本的交换，在交换领域表现出的等价交换原则，一旦进入生产领域就会发生惊奇的变化。马克思所说的同交换对立的过程就是生产，由于劳动能创造比自身交换价值更多的价值，从而使得原来在交换领域所遵循的等价交换的原则被彻底颠覆了。在生产领域，劳动力创造的多于自身交换价值的价值被资本家无偿占有了，从而使得资本家在交换领域花费的资本获得了额外的回报，实现了自身的增殖。就是说，资本家通过看似自由、平等和正义的交换机制，掩盖了其在生产领域实现的对工人劳动力和劳动成果的支配和占有。

Therefore, through an examination of the capitalist sphere of production, Marx reveals that capitalist social relations fundamentally embody nothing more than the principle of the “bourgeois.” The freedom, equality, and justice it represents are in essence narrow values that reflect the interests and standpoint of the bourgeoisie—values that exclude the majority of the “proletariat” and deprive most people of genuine freedom and equal rights: “Freedom as a human right is not based on the connection of man with man, but rather on the separation of man from man. This right is the right of this separation, the right of the narrow, self-regarding individual.” [13]13 Marx, “On the Jewish Question” (1843). “The human right of private property is the right to arbitrarily, unrelated to others, and unaffected by society, enjoy and dispose of one’s property; this right is the right of self-interest. This individual freedom and its due constitute the foundation of civil society. This freedom makes each person see others not as the realization of his own freedom, but as a limitation on his own freedom.” [13]13 Marx, “On the Jewish Question” (1843). Clearly, built on the basis of “the separation of man from man” and “the right of self-interest,” profound contradictions inevitably exist between different individuals and between individuals and the community.

因此，通过对资本主义生产领域的考察，马克思揭示了资本主义社会关系在根本上所体现的不过是“资产者”的原则，它所代表的自由、平等和正义实质是体现资产者利益和立场的狭隘的价值，是一种把大多数“无产者”排除在外、剥夺大多数人真实自由和平等权利的价值：“自由这一人权不是建立在人与人相结合的基础上，而是相反，建立在人与人相分隔的基础上。这一权利就是这种分隔的权利，是狭隘的、局限于自身的个人的权利。”4“私有财产这一人权是任意地、同他人无关地、不受社会影响地享用和处理自己的财产的权利；这一权利是自私自利的权利。这种个人自由和对这种自由的应有构成了市民社会的基础。这种自由使每个人不是把他人看作自己自由的实现，而是看作自己自由的限制。”4很显然，建立在“人与人相分隔”“自私自利的权力”基础上，不同个人之间、个人与共同体之间必然处于深刻的矛盾之中。

Based on the profound revelation of the “dominant social relations” in the capitalist sphere of production, looking back at the aforementioned “freedom,” “equality,” and “justice” in the capitalist sphere of exchange, their formal and illusory nature is fully demonstrated. Although individuals have gained a certain independence through exchange value as an intermediary, the capitalist exchange system has, for individuals living within these social relations, become alienated into an objective, coercive system. To survive, individuals are forced to enter this exchange system. Therefore, even the freedom, equality, and justice manifested in the sphere of exchange can only be formal, because individual independence is established through the external objective exchange value and is thus subject to it.

以对资本主义生产领域中“支配性社会关系”的深刻揭示为依据，再回头反观前述资本主义交换领域的“自由”“平等”和“正义”,其形式性和虚幻性也将得到充分的显示。虽然以交换价值为中介，个体取得了一定的独立性，但资本主义的交换制度对于生存于这种社会关系中的个体而言，已经异化成了客观的强制性的体制，个体要想生存，都必须被迫进入这种交换体制。因此，即便是表现在交换领域中的自由、平等和正义，也只能是形式上的，因为个人的独立性是通过外在客观的交换价值确立起来的，从而也受制于交换价值。

Marx’s above analysis shows that as long as people remain within “dominant” social relations, individuals cannot establish genuine independence, and the relations between individuals and between individuals and the community cannot escape being dominated and oppressed by abstract forces. In capitalist society, because social relations centered on the logic of capital still occupy a dominant position, so-called justice is fundamentally nothing more than the “justice” of capital’s power; the justice it proclaims is inevitably formal and abstract. To achieve genuine justice, it is necessary to overcome these social relations that oppose individuals and establish a new type of social relations. This new type of social relations is the “interdependent” social relations elaborated by Marx.

马克思的上述分析表明，只要人们所处其中的还是“支配性”社会关系，个体就没有办法确立真正的独立性，个人之间以及个人与共同体之间的关系就依然摆脱不了被抽象力量支配和压迫。在资本主义社会，由于以资本逻辑为核心的社会关系仍然占据主导地位，因此，所谓正义，在根本上不过是资本权力的“正义”,其所宣称的正义不可避免地具有形式性和抽象性。要实现真正的正义，有待于克服这种与人相对立的社会关系，确立一种新型的社会关系，这种新型的社会关系，即是马克思所阐发的“互依性”社会关系。

III. “Interdependent” Social Relations and “Concrete Justice”

三、“互依性”社会关系与“具体正义”

“Interdependent” social relations mean: the relationship between people is not only instrumental but also purposive; the community is not a transcendent objective existence above individuals, but these individuals themselves in social relations. It transcends both the domination of one part of people over another and the domination of an abstract community over individuals. Thus, it is a social relation of the essential unity of people. Marx’s view of justice is precisely based on the conscious understanding of this new type of social relations.

“互依性”社会关系意味着：人与人之间不仅是手段性关系，更是目的性关系，共同体不是超越于个体之上的客观存在，而是处于社会性关系中的这些人本身，它既超越了一部分人对另一部分人的支配，也不存在抽象共同体对个体的支配，因而是人与人本质性统一的社会关系。马克思的正义观正是建立在这种新型社会关系的自觉理解基础之上。

In Marx’s view, the establishment of these “interdependent” social relations presupposes the elimination of capitalist private property. Because “private property in the sense of the private ownership of the means of production is incompatible with justice, for it negates the equal right to the conditions of positive freedom. Similarly, for Marx, justice requires the overcoming of class domination, in which one class controls the conditions of production necessary for the productive activity of another class.” [14]14 This appears to be a paraphrase or synthesis by the authors; the specific source is not provided in the original text. What is meant here by “negates the equal right to the conditions of positive freedom” is that, under conditions of private ownership, the distribution of the conditions of survival necessary for each individual to realize themselves is unjust, which severely hinders the realization of individual positive freedom. Only by abolishing capitalist private ownership of property and making the means of production belong to the associated producers can individuals be produced as social beings. Because “with the supersession of the immediate character of living labor—as merely individual labor or merely internal general labor or merely external general labor—and with the establishment of individual activity as directly general activity or social activity, the material elements of production are also freed from this alienated form; in this way, these material elements are established as such property, as such an organic social body, in which individuals reproduce themselves as single individuals, but as social single individuals.” [15]15 Marx, *Grundrisse*.

在马克思看来，这种“互依性”社会关系的确立，是以消除资本主义的财产私有权为前提的。因为“在对生产资料的私人所有权意义上的私有财产与正义是不相容的，因为它否定了对积极自由的条件的平等使用权。同样，对马克思来说，正义要求克服阶级支配，在这种阶级支配中，一个阶级控制着另一个阶级的生产活动所需的生产条件。”这里说的“否定了对积极自由的条件的平等使用权”,指的是在私有制条件下，对每个人为实现自身所需的生存条件的分配是不公正的，这将严重阻碍个人积极自由的实现。只有消灭资本主义的财产私有权，使生产资料属于联合起来的劳动者，个人才能作为社会性的人被生产出来。因为“随着活劳动的直接性质被扬弃，即作为单纯单个劳动或者作为单纯内部的一般劳动或单纯外部的一般劳动的性质被扬弃，随着个人的活动被确立为直接的一般活动或社会活动，生产的物的要素也就摆脱这种异化形式；这样一来，这些物的要素就被确立为这样的财产，确立为这样的有机社会躯体，在其中个人作为单个的人，然而是作为社会的单个的人再生产出来。”

The formation of this “interdependent” social relation is the essential characteristic that distinguishes the future communist society from all other social forms. According to Marx’s understanding, the social relation formed by communism is the result of the sublation of the social relations of pre-capitalist traditional society and modern capitalist society. Although it develops historically from the preceding two stages, it differs fundamentally in nature. In pre-capitalist traditional society, individuals were determined and dominated by the community; one part of the people ruled and dominated another part in the name of the community, and individuals could obtain their “status” and “rank” only by attaching themselves to the community. In capitalist society, based on exchange value, individuals gained relatively more independence. However, as already discussed above, in capitalist society exchange value manifests itself in practice as an external objective system for the individual; more importantly, the relations of expropriation and control formed by the power of capital in the sphere of production expose the formal and abstract character of the apparent freedom and equality in the sphere of exchange. “It is only when the social process of life, i.e., the form of the material production process, becomes the product of freely associated people, under their conscious and planned control,”[6]6 Karl Marx, *Capital*, Vol. 1, in *Marx and Engels Collected Works*, Vol. 23, p. 97. [Reference to Marx’s original text; the citation number is retained as in the source.] that all relations of domination between people will truly be eliminated. In communist society, because the means of production and the production process are under the common control of the associated free individuals, on the one hand this gives individuals as social beings true independence; on the other hand, it enables people to achieve an intrinsic association based on free individuality. It is in this sense that we call the social relation represented by communist society an interdependent relation among free individuals.

这种“互依性”社会关系的生成，是未来的共产主义社会区别于一切社会形态的本质特征。按照马克思的理解，共产主义所形成的这种社会关系是对前资本主义的传统社会和现代资本主义社会关系扬弃的结果，虽然它是从前两个阶段历史发展而来，但在性质上有着本质的区别。在前资本主义的传统社会，个体受共同体的规定和支配，一部分人以共同体之名统治并支配着另一部分人，个人只有依附于共同体才能获得其“身份”和“等级”。在资本主义社会，以交换价值为基础，个人获得了相对更多的独立性，然而正如前文已经论述过的，在资本主义社会，对个人而言，交换价值实质上表现为外在客观的体制；更重要的是，在生产领域由资本权力所形成的剥夺和控制关系，使交换领域表面的自由和平等暴露出了其形式性和抽象性。“只有当社会生活过程即物质生产过程的形态，作为自由结合的人的产物，处于人的有意识有计划的控制之下的时候”6,才会真正消除一切人与人之间的支配关系。在共产主义社会，由于生产资料和生产过程属于联合起来的自由个体共同控制，一方面，它使个人作为社会性的人取得了真正的独立性；另一方面，它又使得人们之间以自由个性为基础实现了内在的联合，正是在此意义上，我们把共产主义社会所代表的社会关系称为自由个体之间的互依性关系。

The formation of the above interdependent social relation lays a solid foundation for overcoming abstract, formal justice and generating “concrete justice.” According to Marx’s understanding, the realization of justice means that everyone can obtain the necessary conditions for their survival and development. In a dominating social relation, the necessary conditions for the survival and development of one part of the people are controlled by another part, leading to the injustice of the whole society. Therefore, to realize justice requires that the necessary conditions for the survival and development of each person be controlled by themselves, and that they relate to each other as ends for one another—that is, the freedom of each individual is the precondition and condition for the freedom of all. At this point, “the means of production belong to the associated producers. Since they are all members of the community, each of them stands in the same relation to these conditions of production as the others. Moreover, each of them participates in the common control of social activities and production activities.”[3]3 Karl Marx, *Capital*, Vol. 3, in *Marx and Engels Collected Works*, Vol. 25, p. 498. [Reference to Marx’s original text; the citation number is retained as in the source.] In this social relation, the characteristics of exploitation, oppression, and domination are all eliminated, replaced by each person’s recognition and respect for the individual differences of others, and the realization of their own freedom while helping other individuals realize theirs. The achievement of this goal is precisely based on the realization of the new type of social relation characterized by interdependence. It shows that justice represents a new state of human existence: people are situated in an “interdependent” social relation, where the conditions of individual existence are no longer dominated by others but are in their own hands; the relationship between individuals and between the individual and the community is no longer instrumental but a purposive relation of mutual recognition. The conditions of production belong to the associated free individuals, and everyone can freely control and command the necessary conditions for their own survival and development, thereby serving the realization of the comprehensive freedom of the individual.

上述互依性社会关系的形成，为克服抽象的、形式的正义，生成“具体的正义”奠定了坚实的基础。按照马克思的理解，正义的实现即意味着每个人都可以获得其生存发展所需的必要条件，在支配性社会关系中，一部分人生存发展所需的必要条件由另一部分人所控制，从而导致整个社会的非正义性。因此，要实现正义，要求每个人的生存发展所需的必要条件都由他们自身所控制，他们彼此之间是一种互为目的的关系，即每一个人的自由是一切人自由的前提和条件。此时，“生产资料属于联合起来的生产者。由于他们都是共同体的成员，所以，和其他人一样，他们中的每一个人都处于和属于他或她的这些生产条件同样的关系之中。而且，他们中的每一个人都参与对社会活动和生产活动的共同控制。”3在这种社会关系中，剥削、压迫和支配的特征都消除了，取而代之的是每一个人对其他人的个体差异性的承认和尊重，并在帮助其他个体实现其自由的同时实现自身的自由。而这一目标的实现，正建立在互依性这一新型社会关系性质实现的基础之上。它表明，正义代表着这样一种人的崭新的生存状态，即人们身处“互依性”社会关系中，个体的生存条件不再受他者支配，而是掌握在自己手中，个体与个体、个体与共同体之间不再是工具性的关系，而是相互承认的目的性关系。生产条件属于联合起来的自由个体，每个人都可以自由地控制和支配自身生存发展所需的必要条件，从而为实现个体全面的自由而服务。

Through the above discussion, we can see that Marx’s view of justice manifests the following conscious pursuits. First, Marx does not understand justice from some abstract a priori principle, but regards justice as the product of the historical movement of human social relations; therefore, the justice pursued by humanity is always historical. Second, Marx does not understand justice from abstract atomistic individuals, but examines and understands the level and substance of the realization of the value of justice from the nature of the social relations formed by different individuals. Thus, Marx distinguishes himself from the abstract liberal position represented by Locke and others in modern times, opening up a socialist horizon on the question of justice that differs from capitalist ideology. Third, Marx does not stop at understanding justice in a formal sense, but, through a historical examination and reflection on the nature of social relations, takes the extent to which socio-historical development eliminates the suppression and control of others and generates social relations of human freedom and equality as the standard and content for measuring the level of development of justice, thereby freeing justice from external formality and endowing it with substantive content.

通过以上讨论，我们可以看出，马克思的正义观呈现出如下自觉的追求。第一，马克思不是从某种抽象的先验原则出发理解正义，而是把正义视为人类社会关系历史运动的产物，因此，人类所追求的正义总是具有历史性。第二，马克思不是从抽象的原子式的个人出发理解正义，而是从不同个人所结合而成的社会关系的性质出发，考察和理解正义价值的实现水平和实质。因此，马克思区别于近代以洛克等人为代表的抽象自由主义立场，开启了在正义观问题上区别于资本主义意识形态的社会主义视野。第三，马克思没有停留于形式的意义上理解正义，而是通过对社会关系性质的历史性考察和反思，把社会历史发展在何种程度上消除对他人的压制和控制、生成人的自由和平等的社会关系视为衡量正义发展水平的标准和内容，从而使正义摆脱了外在的形式性，而获得了实质性的内涵。

Thus, although Marx did not provide a positive and systematic definition of the concept of justice in his writings, he clearly expressed his understanding of justice through a historical analysis of social relations at different stages of human historical development, through a critique of the abstract justice established by exchange value in capitalist society, and through an elucidation of the new type of social relations in communist society. This view of justice is a historical and concrete view of justice, whose core content is the demand for a transformation from “dominating” social relations to “interdependent” social relations, which constitutes the substance of Marx’s view of justice. Only from this perspective can we break free from the various superficial and specious debates surrounding Marx’s view of justice and grasp its substance and core.

可见，虽然马克思在其著述中没有对正义概念进行正面系统的界定，但是他通过对人类历史不同发展阶段中社会关系的历史性分析，通过对资本主义社会以交换价值为中介所确立的抽象正义的批判，通过对共产主义社会新型社会关系的阐明，鲜明地表达了他对正义的理解。这种正义观是一种历史的、具体的正义观，其核心内容是要求从“支配性”社会关系转换为“互依性”社会关系，这构成了马克思正义观的实质。只有从这一视角出发，我们才能跳出围绕着马克思正义观的种种表层的、似是而非的争论，切中其实质和核心。

Online editor: Paul

网络编辑：保罗