“New Materialism” and the Philosophical Foundation of a Community with a Shared Future for Mankind

General Secretary Xi Jinping pointed out in his report to the 20th National Congress of the CPC that “building a community with a shared future for mankind is the path forward for the people of all countries.” The great vision of a community with a shared future for mankind is rooted in the philosophical foundation of “new materialism” and contains a distinct world-historical significance and implications for human civilization. Academic circles have produced rich theoretical results in the philosophical interpretation of a community with a shared future for mankind, involving Marx’s “theory of human emancipation,” “world history theory,” “association of free individuals,” and “genuine community,” among many other contents. The author believes that research on a community with a shared future for mankind can proceed from the important premise of Marx’s new materialism, carrying out a more originary interpretation and analysis at the level of philosophical foundation. Marx’s new materialism was nurtured in a new philosophical era that pursued the unity of “interpreting the world” and “changing the world,” and was established and developed through confrontation with modern philosophy, including Hegelian philosophy. By shifting its perspective from “civil society” to “human society or social humanity,” new materialism achieved a transcendence and sublation of previous philosophy. This shift in philosophical perspective was an “ontological” revolution launched by Marxist philosophy and is also the basic premise for the emergence of a community with a shared future for mankind in the New Era. Clarifying the process of establishing Marx’s new materialism and the new positions and new viewpoints it contains, revealing the theoretical connection between a community with a shared future for mankind and Marx’s new materialism, and further excavating the philosophical foundation of a community with a shared future for mankind will help lay a theoretical foundation for in-depth exploration of the rich connotations and construction path of a community with a shared future for mankind.

习近平总书记在党的二十大报告中指出，“构建人类命运共同体是世界各国人民前途所在”。人类命运共同体的伟大构想植根于“新唯物主义”的哲学基础，蕴含了鲜明的世界历史意义和人类文明意蕴。学界在对人类命运共同体的哲学阐释上形成了丰富的理论成果，关涉马克思的“人类解放思想”、“世界历史理论”、“自由人联合体”以及“真正的共同体”等诸多内容。笔者认为，对人类命运共同体的研究可以从马克思新唯物主义这一重要的前提性立场出发，从哲学根基层面展开更为始源性的解读与分析。马克思的新唯物主义孕育于追求“解释世界”与“改变世界”相统一的哲学新时代，它在与包括黑格尔哲学在内的近代哲学的交锋中得以建立和发展。新唯物主义通过从“市民社会”到“人类社会或社会的人类”的视域转换，实现了对以往哲学的超越与扬弃。这一哲学视域转换是马克思主义哲学发动的一场“本体论”革命，也是人类命运共同体在新时代出场的基本前提。明晰马克思新唯物主义的创立过程与其内蕴的新立场、新观点，揭示人类命运共同体与马克思新唯物主义的理论关联，并进一步挖掘人类命运共同体的哲学根基，有助于为深入探究人类命运共同体的丰富内涵和构建路径奠定理论基础。

I. The Difference in Perspective between “Civil Society” and “Human Society”

一、“市民社会”与“人类社会”的视域差异

In *Theses on Feuerbach*, Marx contrasts “civil society” with “human society,” pointing out that “the standpoint of the old materialism is civil society; the standpoint of the new materialism is human society or social humanity.” This statement reflects Marx’s judgment on the difference in philosophical perspectives. On the basis of criticizing Feuerbach’s intuitive materialism, Marx further elaborated on important issues concerning new materialism, including the theory of the sensible world, the conception of history, the conception of nature, the idea of world history, and scientific communism, and in the process of answering these questions and exploring the residual problems of old philosophy, he achieved a shift in philosophical perspective. A shift in philosophical perspective can often trigger the occurrence of philosophical change; Marx gradually constructed the theoretical system of new materialism in the process of analyzing the theoretical problems of old philosophy. The difference in perspective between civil society and human society constitutes the fundamental divide between new materialism and old philosophy. The difference in perspective between civil society and human society, as manifested in “old philosophy” and “new materialism,” can be summarized in the following three aspects: the difference between abstract man and real man in terms of logical starting point, the difference between empirical intuition and dialectical development in terms of mode of thinking, and the difference between false community and genuine community in terms of ultimate destination.

在《关于费尔巴哈的提纲》中，马克思将“市民社会”和“人类社会”进行对比，指出“旧唯物主义的立脚点是市民社会，新唯物主义的立脚点则是人类社会或社会的人类”，这一论述体现了马克思对不同哲学视域差异的判定。马克思在批判费尔巴哈直观唯物主义思想的基础上，进一步阐释了新唯物主义关涉的重要问题，包括感性世界理论、历史观、自然观、世界历史思想以及科学共产主义等，并在解答这些问题的过程中以及对旧哲学遗留问题的探究中实现了哲学视域的转换。哲学视域的转换往往能够引起哲学变革的发生，马克思在剖析旧哲学理论问题的过程中逐步建构起新唯物主义的理论体系。市民社会与人类社会的视域差异构成新唯物主义与旧哲学的根本分野。“旧哲学”与“新唯物主义”呈现出的市民社会与人类社会的视域差异，可概括为以下三个方面:逻辑起点上抽象的人和现实的人的差异、思维方式上经验直观和辩证发展的差异以及现实归宿上虚假的共同体和真正的共同体的差异。

(1) Logical Starting Point: Abstract Man and Real Man

（一）逻辑起点：抽象的人与现实的人

Reflection on “man” is an eternal proposition that philosophers can never avoid; the question of man has been the starting point and foundation for many modern philosophers in constructing their philosophical systems. Philosophers have engaged in deep discussion around the question of what the real existence of man actually is. Religious philosophers regard man as the work of God, dogmatically understanding God’s spirit as an existence absolutely independent of man and his practical experience, emphasizing God’s absolute ruling power over man. Hegel understands man as a rational being, believing that man is contained within the absolute spirit that develops itself and negates itself. Some German philosophers after Hegel claimed to have “transcended” Hegelian philosophy; they either seized upon Hegel’s “substance,” proclaiming the consistency of man’s existence with the substantial existence of the natural material world, or seized upon Hegel’s “self-consciousness,” attempting to uncover the true foundation and carrier of man’s “self-consciousness” from an epistemological perspective, but ultimately they all remained confined to Hegel’s purely intellectual sphere in their interpretation of man. After this, some philosophers gradually abandoned Hegel’s speculative, logical, and abstract mode of understanding and began to emphasize the empirical characteristics of man, such as Nietzsche and Freud, who wrote about and emphasized non-rational factors like desire with great force. This mode of research seems to pull the understanding of man back from the purely speculative sky to reality, but in the end, because of its “one-sided profundity,” it cannot truly grasp the essence of man’s existence. Even today, some Western scholars’ understanding of man still cannot escape the two frameworks of “speculative man” and “intuitive man”; they ultimately still regard man as “abstract man,” which is in fact a product confined to the self-movement of speculative logic, detached from the real social background. On the basis of his study of civil society, Marx achieved a philosophical transformation in the history of human thought. Marx’s philosophical transformation makes his thinking on man fundamentally different from that of other philosophers.

对“人”的思考是哲学家始终无法回避的永恒命题，人的问题是近代以来许多哲学家构建其哲学体系的起点和基石。围绕人的真实存在究竟是什么的问题，哲学家展开了深度讨论。宗教哲学家认为人是上帝的作品，将上帝的精神教条地理解为绝对独立于人及其实践经验的存在，突出上帝对人的绝对统治力量。黑格尔将人理解为理性的存在，认为人被包含在自己发展自己、自己否定自己的绝对精神之中。黑格尔之后的部分德国哲学家宣称自己“超越”了黑格尔哲学，他们或是抓住黑格尔的“实体”，宣扬人的存在与自然物质世界的实体性存在具有一致性，或是抓住黑格尔的“自我意识”，试图从认识论角度揭开人的“自我意识”存在的真实根基和载体，但最终都仍然局限在黑格尔纯粹的思想领域中展开对人的解读。在此之后，一些哲学家逐渐抛弃黑格尔思辨的、逻辑的、抽象的理解方式，开始强调人的经验性特征，如尼采、弗洛伊德浓墨重彩地对欲望等非理性因素进行书写与强调。这种研究方式看似将对人的理解从纯粹思辨的天空拉回现实，但终究因其“片面的深刻”而无法真正认识人的存在本质。直到今天，西方一些学者对人的理解依然跳脱不出“思辨的人”和“直观的人”两种框架，他们终究还是把人看作“抽象的人”，这种“抽象的人”实则是脱离了现实社会背景而困囿于思辨逻辑自在运动的产物。马克思在对市民社会研究的基础上，实现了人类思想史上的哲学变革。马克思的哲学变革使得其关于人的思考与其他哲学家具有本质区别。

Marx’s new materialist philosophy takes real man as its logical starting point. Marx believes that real man possesses the dual characteristics of naturalness and sociality. In analyzing the fundamental difference between man and animal, he points out: “As individuals express their life, so they are. What they are, therefore, coincides with their production, both with what they produce and with how they produce. Hence what individuals are depends on the material conditions of their production.” “Individuals” are not the people imagined in their own minds, but real people in reality, people engaged in practical activities and material production, people with agency. The productive forces, relations of production, and forms of social intercourse passed down through human generations constitute the real basis for philosophical reflection on the essence of man. “This foundation, however, is not in the least disturbed by the opposition of the philosophers who regard themselves as ‘self-consciousness’ and ‘the unique one’ to its influence on the development of men.” Marx overcame the conceptualized and abstracted understanding of man by modern philosophers who stood on the ground of civil society, asserting that man is a concrete, living person closely connected with the practical life of reality; man living in real social relations is a being of practice. Man constructs the entire world through critical and revolutionary production and intercourse practices, and in the process of entering into the totality of existence outside himself through practical activity, establishes an ontological relationship with the world.

马克思的新唯物主义哲学以现实的人为逻辑起点。马克思认为，现实的人具备自然性与社会性双重特质，他在分析人与动物的根本区别时指出，“他们是什么样的，这同他们的生产是一致的—既和他们生产什么一致，又和他们怎样生产一致。因而，个人是什么样的，这取决于他们进行生产的物质条件”。“个人”不是自身头脑中联想的人，而是现实中的人，是从事实践活动、进行物质生产的具有能动性的人。人类代际传递下来的生产力、生产关系以及社会交往形式等，是对人的本质问题展开哲学思考的现实基础，“这种基础尽管遭到以‘自我意识’和‘唯一者’的身份出现的哲学家们的反抗，但它对人们的发展所起的作用和影响却丝毫也不因此而受到干扰”。马克思克服了立足市民社会的近现代哲学家对人的概念化和抽象化理解，主张人是与现实生活实践紧密相连的具体的、活生生的人，生活在现实社会关系中的人是实践的存在物，人凭借批判和革命的生产与交往实践建构整个世界，并在借助实践活动进入人之外的总体性存在过程中，建立了与世界的存在论关系。

The “individual” in the context of new materialism establishes a philosophical cognition of the foundation of the existence of “real man” through the sublation of the concept of “individual” in the context of individualism. The young Marx was deeply influenced by metaphysical humanist thought and did not break away from the theoretical context of individualism for a certain period. However, with the development and maturation of his new materialist thought, Marx gradually realized the inherent limitations of a theory of human nature oriented toward value postulation. After clarifying the theoretical limits of individualism, Marx fiercely criticized the abstract view of human nature for causing the split between real man and society, emphasizing that the specific mode of existence of man should be understood and grasped on the basis of real history, such as the development of productive forces and the change of social formations, achieving a high degree of correspondence between the meaning of human life and the historical development of social existence. From the perspective of new materialism, Marx sharply criticized the idealist tendency of individualism to seek individual existence from the conceptualized structure of history, pointing out that the individual in the context of individualism is separated from society, an abstract, undifferentiated, atomistic individual, and emphasizing that the individual is a real existence based on the mode of production, a special existence that needs to generate and manifest its own historicity in real productive activities.

新唯物主义语境中的“个人”在对个人主义语境中“个人”概念的扬弃中确立起对“现实的人”存在根基的哲学认知。青年马克思曾深受形而上学人本主义思想的影响，在一定时期内并没有脱离个人主义的理论语境，然而伴随其新唯物主义思想的发展与成熟，马克思逐渐意识到以价值悬设为取向的人性论具有内在局限性。在明确个人主义的理论限度后，马克思激烈地抨击抽象人性观造成现实的人与社会的分裂，强调应当在生产力的发展、社会形态的变更等现实历史的基础上理解与把握人的具体存在样态，实现了人的生命意义与社会存在的历史发展的高度契合。从新唯物主义的视野出发，马克思犀利批判个人主义从历史的概念化结构寻觅个人存在的唯心主义倾向，指出个人主义语境中的个人与社会相分离，是抽象的、无差别的、原子式的个人，强调个人是以生产方式为基础的现实存在，是需要在现实的生产活动中生成与展现自身历史性的特殊存在。

(2) Mode of Thinking: “Empirical Intuition” and “Materialist Dialectics”

（二）思维方式：“经验直观”与“唯物辩证”

The entire tradition of Western philosophy, taking “abstract man” as its logical starting point, is in general a philosophy of “thinking,” remaining largely at the level of “interpreting the world.” All philosophies that interpret the world have failed to transcend the horizon of civil society; in the final analysis, they merely discuss existing society through the mode of thinking of empirical intuition. Marx transformed philosophy from the “owl of Minerva that takes flight at dusk” into the “rooster that crows at dawn,” historically inaugurating an entirely new mode of philosophical inquiry. Heidegger once pointed out: “Throughout the entire history of philosophy, Plato’s thought, in ever-changing forms, has always played a decisive role. Metaphysics is Platonism. Nietzsche characterized his own philosophy as inverted Platonism. With this inversion of metaphysics, already completed by Karl Marx, philosophy has reached its most extreme possibility. Philosophy has entered its terminal phase.” [1]1 This is a reference to Martin Heidegger’s essay “The End of Philosophy and the Task of Thinking” (1964), where he argues that Marx’s inversion of metaphysics brings philosophy to its terminal possibility. By transforming the spirit of civil society, which is full of division and conflict, new materialism achieves a genuine transcendence of the mode of thinking of empirical intuition within the horizon of human society, moving toward a materialist-dialectical horizon of human practical existence and its historical development. This shift in theoretical horizon creates a vast difference between Marx and most modern and contemporary political philosophers in their modes of thinking. He abandoned the research mode of thinking that makes empirical intuitions about the modes of existence of humans and society, established a materialist-dialectical mode of thinking that corresponds to the nature of historical development, and realized a fundamental revolution in philosophical thought.

以“抽象的人”为逻辑起点的整个西方传统哲学，总体来看是一种“思”的哲学，更多是停留于“解释世界”的水平。各种解释世界的哲学均未能超越市民社会的视域，归根到底不过是以经验直观的思维方式探讨现存社会。马克思将哲学从“黄昏起飞的猫头鹰”转变为“黎明破晓的雄鸡”，历史性地开启了哲学探究的全新思维方式。海德格尔曾指出：“纵观整个哲学史，柏拉图的思想以有所变化的形态始终起着决定性作用。形而上学就是柏拉图主义。尼采把他自己的哲学标识为颠倒了的柏拉图主义。随着这一已经由卡尔·马克思完成了的对形而上学的颠倒，哲学达到了最极端的可能性。哲学进入其终结阶段了”。新唯物主义通过对充满分裂和冲突的市民社会精神进行改造，在人类社会的视域中实现了对经验直观思维方式的真正超越，走向了人的现实生存实践及其历史发展的唯物辩证视域。理论视域的转变使得马克思与大多数近现代政治哲学家在思维方式上存在巨大差异，他摒弃了对人与社会存在方式作出经验直观的研究思维方式，确立了与历史发展本性相适应的唯物辩证的思维方式，实现了哲学思维的根本变革。

First, there is a difference in whether one views problems through the oppositional lens of “subject-object dichotomy.” As a sphere of private activity opposed to the political state, civil society is filled with opposition and conflict; this economic base reinforces the mode of thinking and theoretical logic of the subject-object dichotomy in the Western philosophical tradition. The divided character of civil society constitutes the real foundation of the internal division of old philosophy. Although previous philosophers attempted various methods to achieve an effective reconciliation of the contradictions between civil society and the political state, they were confined by taking civil society as their standpoint, and thus were always unable to accurately recognize the inherent defects of civil society, the paradoxical logic of private property, and the alienated essence it produces. Consequently, they could not break out of the mode of thinking of the dichotomy and make accurate analyses of relations such as those between human and human, human and nature, and subject and object. Descartes believed that there are two absolutely different kinds of substances in the world—mind and matter. He advocated using reason to perceive, intuit, and reflect on the external object opposite oneself, and put forward the famous proposition “I think, therefore I am.” Hegel attempted to resolve the problem of subject-object division through the proposition “substance is subject,” and constructed a dialectical view of bipolar contradiction to replace the dichotomy. But in reality, the dialectical view of bipolar contradiction only manifests as “contradiction dialectics” in logical form, and is still unable to encompass complex systemic forms to understand the true picture of the world. Therefore, Hegel’s theory still rests on the theoretical foundation of duality—subject and object, mind and matter, spirit and flesh, being and non-being—and fails to escape the trap of the dichotomy. When the division between subject and object, mind and matter, spirit and flesh, being and non-being could not be bridged, Hegel could only resort to the concepts of “absolute spirit” and “absolute idea” he fabricated to exercise the sacred authority of mediation and unification, thereby achieving the self-reconciliation of the world as a whole and the individual within the movement of absolute spirit. In fact, social life itself provides a dialectical mediation and a solid foundation for dissolving and overcoming the predicament of the dichotomy. Social life is in essence practical, and the unfolding of practical activity is a process of the negative unity of various contradictory factors: subjective and objective, thought and being, active and passive, necessity and freedom. In the process of practical activity, because humans can carry out and realize self-knowledge of their own existence, and can treat themselves as universal and free beings, all factors and links related to human self-knowledge lose their state of independent existence and are incorporated into relations of mutual interaction, mutual transformation, and internal fusion.

第一，是否以“主客二分”的对立眼光看待问题的差异。作为与政治国家相对的私人活动领域，市民社会充斥着对立和冲突，这一经济基础强化了西方哲学传统中主客二元对立的思维方式和理论逻辑。市民社会的分裂特质构成了旧哲学内在分裂的现实基础。以往的哲学家尽管尝试运用各种办法，试图实现市民社会与政治国家之间矛盾的有效和解，但囿于以市民社会为立脚点，始终难以准确认识到市民社会的内在缺陷以及私有财产的悖谬性逻辑及其造成的异化本质，进而无法跳出二元对立的思维方式，对人与人、人与自然、主观与客观等关系作出准确分析。笛卡尔认为，世界上存在两种绝对不同的实体——灵与物，他主张用理性去感知、直观、反思与自己相对的客体外在，并提出“我思故我在”的著名命题。黑格尔尝试通过“实体就是主体”的命题来解决主客分立的问题，并建构辩证的两极矛盾观以取代二元对立，但实际上辩证的两极矛盾观只是在逻辑形态上表现为“矛盾辩证”，尚且不能包容复杂的系统形态来认识世界的真实图景。因此，黑格尔的理论仍然建立在主客、心物、灵肉、无有等二元性的理论基础之上，未能逃出二元分立的臼巢。当主客、心物、灵肉、无有的分裂无法弥合时，黑格尔只能借助其所臆造的“绝对精神”、“绝对理念”的概念行使调和统一的神圣职权，以实现世界整体与个体之间在绝对精神运动内的自我和解。实际上，社会生活本身为消融和克服二元对立困境提供了辩证的中介与坚实的基础。社会生活在本质上是实践的，而实践活动的展开是一种主观与客观、思维与存在、能动与受动、必然性与自由性等各种矛盾因素的否定性统一过程。在实践活动过程中，由于人能够开展并实现对自身存在的自我认识，能够把自身当作普遍、自由的存在者来对待，因而所有与人的自我认识相关联的因素和环节都失去了其独立存在的状态，并被纳入相互作用、相互转化和内在融合的关系之中。

Second, there is a difference in whether one is aware of the immense potential of the proletariat. Due to the oppositional mode of thinking, old philosophy “at most can only achieve the intuition of the isolated individual and of civil society,” and cannot grasp from an overall perspective the real force for transforming society and changing the world; its revolutionary fervor is merely “rebelling on one’s knees.” [2]2 This is a reference to Marx’s critique of the Young Hegelians in *The German Ideology*, where he argues that their critique remains within the bounds of existing society and does not lead to practical revolutionary action. People in civil society are divided into isolated atoms in their actual development, and the reified viewpoint of old philosophy takes this atomized person as its starting point and measure. To correctly understand and grasp the problem of individual existence, one must take a historical height that transcends the existing world, draw practical strength from reality through a dialectical and developmental mode of thinking, gradually establish the theoretical horizon of practical reason and practical philosophy, and thereby pull the mode of human existence and practical activity back from the supersensible otherworldly shore to the this-worldly shore of real life. Based on the materialist-dialectical mode of thinking, Marx discovered the “non-civil-society class of civil society,” [3]3 This is a reference to Marx’s description of the proletariat in his early writings, particularly in *A Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right: Introduction*, where he calls it a class that is the dissolution of all classes. revealed the status of the proletariat as the subject of future social history, and pointed out that the proletariat is the historical subject and practical force for overthrowing capitalist society and realizing communism. Marx pointed out that civil society, with capitalism as its typical form, is a necessary stage in the historical process that inevitably exists and inevitably perishes, and that the proletariat is the principal force for overthrowing capitalist rule. The organic combination of materialism and dialectics makes the new philosophy a “materialism without blind spots,” a philosophy that achieves the unity of epistemology, logic, and dialectics, and a philosophy that unifies “knowing the world” and “changing the world,” truly realizing the return of philosophy to real life itself.

第二，是否意识到无产阶级巨大潜力的差异。由于对立的思维方式，旧哲学“至多也只能达到对单个人和市民社会的直观”，而无法从总体上把握变革社会、改造世界的现实力量，其革命热情只不过是“跪着造反”罢了。市民社会中的人在现实发展中被分割成孤立的原子，而旧哲学的物化观点把这种原子化的人视为出发点和尺度。对个体生存问题的正确认识和把握，需要立足超越现存世界的历史高度，以辩证和发展的思维方式在现实中汲取实践力量，逐步确立起实践理性、实践哲学的理论视野，进而将人的存在方式与实践活动从超感性的彼岸世界拉回现实生活的此岸世界。基于唯物辩证的思维方式，马克思发现了“非市民社会阶级的市民社会阶级”，揭示了无产阶级作为未来社会历史的主体地位，指出无产阶级是推翻资本主义社会、实现共产主义的历史主体和实践力量。马克思指出，以资本主义为典型形态的市民社会在历史进程中是必然存在又必然灭亡的必经环节，无产阶级是推翻资本主义统治的主体力量。唯物论和辩证法的有机结合使得新哲学成为“没有死角的唯物主义”，成为实现认识论、逻辑学和辩证法相统一的哲学，成为“认识世界”和“改变世界”相统一的哲学，真正意义上实现了哲学向现实生活本身的回归。

Third, whether it can reveal the differences in the “reified structure of consciousness.” People living in civil society, obscured by interests, adopt an objectifying mode of thinking to understand “things”—treating things as “present-at-hand beings.” This mode of thinking is consistent with the existential characteristics of things such as “closedness,” “isolation,” and “non-contradictoriness.” Therefore, Marx believed that modern and contemporary philosophers all engage in theoretical reflection behind the entire movement of facts, without breaking free from the “Owl” paradigm as Hegel described it. [4]4 The “Owl” refers to Hegel’s metaphor that the owl of Minerva spreads its wings only with the falling of dusk, meaning philosophy comes too late to teach the world how it should be and instead comprehends it after the fact. This mode of thinking generally remains at the level of confirming facts, that is, treating the actual reified social structure as a “given thing” or “datum” that has not yet originated or developed. People living within this social structure are reduced to beings of contemplative existence imprisoned by reified consciousness, unable to achieve a breakthrough of their own existence from the actual state of reification, and ultimately collapse into the reified structure of consciousness that defends the existing order as a whole. The mode of thinking of perceptual intuition leads philosophers to acknowledge and uphold objects that ought to be criticized and transformed. Hegel was dissatisfied with the spontaneity and alienated state of civil society, sharply criticizing its inadequacies and positivity, and sought through the ethical nature of the state to prevent civil society from disintegrating in the conflict of private interests. Yet his philosophy still bore the color of “crude empiricism.” For example, Hegel reduced the “ultimate ethical substance,” representing the highest good, to the state, and further reduced the state to the monarch. This logical concept of reducing “truth” to empirical existence is nothing but an abstract, arbitrary, and mystical movement of the “incarnation of God.” Feuerbach likewise did not understand the historical truth of revolutionary, practical-critical activity, and thus could only grasp individuals in civil society at the level of intuition. The “Owl” paradigm of thinking causes philosophy to lag behind the real world, reducing it to a footnote for all events occurring in the real world. New materialism, based on human society, opposes the “worship of facts,” striving to grasp the totality and changing trends of “facts,” thereby maintaining its vitality through active intervention in reality. The dialectical-developmental mode of thinking does not understand reality as a solidified and dead form, but as a movement process with internal contradictions. Once contradictions reach intense confrontation and form objective conditions for revolution, the task of the new philosophy is to drive people to realize the revolutionary transformation of the “existing” world in order to master and change their own destiny. The new philosophy can overcome the drawbacks of traditional philosophical methods of thinking, achieve a fundamental transformation of the philosophical theoretical paradigm, break free from the shackles of egoism, penetrate the various forms of reified concepts pervading “civil society,” profoundly expound the transitory and transitional nature of the capitalist mode of production, and fully develop the free individuality of people based on the life existence of real human beings.

第三，是否能够揭示“意识的物化结构”的差异。生活在市民社会中的人由于被利益遮蔽而采取对象化的思维方式来认识“物”——把物视为“现成存在者”。这种思维方式与物所具有的“封闭性”、“孤立性”和“无矛盾性”等存在特性相一致。因此，马克思认为，近现代哲学家都是在整个事实运动背后进行理论层面的反思，没有脱离黑格尔所言的“猫头鹰”范式。这种思维方式一般停留在对事实的确认上，即把现实物化的社会结构当作尚未起源和发展的“既定物”或“给与物”，人生活在这一社会结构中，沦为物化意识所禁锢的静观存在的存在者，无法实现自身存在对现实物化状态的突破，最终倒向为现有秩序辩护的整体意识的物化结构。感性直观的思维方式使得哲学家对本应加以批判和改造的对象作出承认和维护。黑格尔不满于市民社会的自发性和异化状态，对其不足性和实证性展开尖锐批判，力图通过国家的伦理性来避免市民社会在私人利益的冲突中土崩瓦解，但其哲学依然具有“粗陋的经验主义”色彩。比如，黑格尔把代表最高善的“最终的伦理实体”归结为国家，又将国家归结为君主，这种把“真理性”归结为经验存在的逻辑观念，不过是一种“上帝人化”的抽象、随意和神秘的运动。费尔巴哈同样不了解革命的、实践批判活动的历史真谛，因而只能在直观层面对市民社会的单个人予以把握。“猫头鹰”的思维范式使得哲学滞后于现实世界，沦为现实世界所发生的一切事件的注脚。立足人类社会的新唯物主义反对“对事实的崇拜”，力图把握“事实”的总和及变化趋势，从而在对现实的积极干预中保持自身活力。辩证发展的思维方式所理解的现实并不是凝固和僵死的形态，而是具有内在矛盾的运动过程，一旦矛盾处于激烈对抗并形成革命的客观条件时，新哲学的任务就是推动人们实现对“现存”世界的革命改造以掌握和改变自己的命运。新哲学能够克服传统哲学思维方法的弊端，实现哲学理论范式的根本转换，摆脱利己主义的束缚，洞察“市民社会”充斥的各种物化观念的形式，深刻阐述资本主义生产方式的暂时性和过渡性，立足现实的人的生命存在充分发展人的自由个性。

(III) Real Destination: “False Community” and “True Community”

（三）现实归宿：“虚假的共同体”与“真正的共同体”

The difference in perspective between civil society and human society leads philosophy to exhibit distinctly different practical orientations when exploring the construction of community forms. Old philosophy, which takes civil society as its standpoint, takes the “false community” as its ultimate destination, while new materialism rejects all formal false unions, taking the construction and development of the “true community” as its value goal and theoretical pursuit. The “false community” that the bourgeois state advocates constructing outwardly promotes the value concepts of “freedom, equality, and fraternity,” but ultimately, under the conditions of bourgeois private ownership, all labor and division of labor are alienated into alien forces that limit “free individuality.” The “false community” becomes a fetter and shackle restricting the realization of universal social interests. Marx’s exposition on constructing a “true community” is a profound insight into social reality, built upon the critique of the “false community,” striving to explore a plan for a social community that conforms to the laws of historical development and the requirements of human social progress.

市民社会与人类社会的视域差异使得哲学在探寻共同体形式建构时呈现出迥然不同的现实走向，以市民社会为立脚点的旧哲学以“虚假的共同体”为最终归宿，而新唯物主义则拒斥一切形式上的虚假联合，以“真正的共同体”的建构和发展为价值目标与理论诉求。资产阶级国家主张建构的“虚假的共同体”在表面上宣扬“自由、平等、博爱”的价值理念，但最终在资产阶级私有制条件下的一切劳动和分工都异化为限制“自由个性”的异己性力量，“虚假的共同体”成为制约社会普遍利益实现的束缚和枷锁。马克思关于建构“真正的共同体”的阐释是对社会现实的深刻洞察，建立在对“虚假的共同体”批判之上，力图探寻一条符合历史发展规律和人类社会进步要求的社会共同体方案。

First, the “true community” achieves the condensation of human value consensus on the basis of scientifically explaining “how history is possible,” while the “false community” attempts to propagate value concepts that transcend history and the state. Civil society is a market exchange system and its guarantee mechanism that connects people through the need for contractual relations. It both affirms the pursuit of particular interests by independent individuals and requires social harmony where multiple interests and multiple values coexist. Within “civil society,” there exist tense relations between people and between people and society, which constitute the real basis for the survival of the “false community,” forcing the “false community” to create a false form of freedom to mitigate various contradictions and conflicts. Marx once pointed out: “This right to freedom is not based on the association of man with man, but on the separation of man from man. It is the right to this separation, the right of the restricted individual, withdrawn into himself.” [5]5 Karl Marx, “On the Jewish Question,” in Marx and Engels Collected Works, vol. 1 (Beijing: People’s Publishing House, 2009), p. 41. However, any new class in human history that attempts to replace the old ruling class, including the bourgeoisie, will “give its ideas the form of universality, and represent them as the only rational, universally valid ones.” [6]6 Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, “The German Ideology,” in Marx and Engels Collected Works, vol. 1 (Beijing: People’s Publishing House, 2009), p. 552. The bourgeois state, through the form of the “false community,” treats the specific values, economic systems, and political systems of Western society as universal requirements that can transcend the historical characteristics of all nation-states, essentially constructing a highly deceptive form of community. Under the conditions of the existence of private ownership of the means of production, the form of the “false community” is merely a product of the exploiting class’s efforts to maintain its privileges, essentially a false picture constructed by Western developed capitalist countries to promote the global expansion of capital. In the “false community,” the exploited class is only passively brought into the “center-periphery” value order created by the exploiting class, unable to achieve genuine equality and freedom. Therefore, the “false community” cannot be implemented on a global scale and is bound to go bankrupt.

第一，“真正的共同体”是在科学解释“历史何以可能”的基础上实现对人类价值共识的凝聚，而“虚假的共同体”则企图宣扬超历史、超国家的价值理念。市民社会是由契约关系的需要而将人们联系起来的市场交往体系及其保障机制，它既肯定独立的个人对特殊利益的追求，也要求多元利益和多元价值共存的社会和谐。“市民社会”中存在人与人、人与社会之间的紧张关系，这构成“虚假的共同体”赖以生存的现实基础，使得“虚假的共同体”必须营造出一种虚假的自由形式以缓和各种矛盾与冲突。马克思曾指出：“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”。但是，人类历史上任何一个试图取代旧统治阶级的新阶级，包括资产阶级都会“赋予自己的思想以普遍性的形式，把它们描绘成唯一合乎理性的、有普遍意义的思想”。资产阶级国家借助“虚假的共同体”形式，将西方社会中特定的价值观、经济制度和政治制度视为可以超越一切民族国家历史特性的普遍要求，实质是建构极具欺骗性的共同体形式。在生产资料私有制存在的条件下，“虚假的共同体”形式仅仅是剥削阶级为维护其特权的产物，本质上是西方发达资本主义国家为其推行的资本全球扩张而构设的虚假图景。在“虚假的共同体”中，被剥削阶级只是被动进入剥削阶级创造的“中心—边缘”的价值秩序中，不可能实现真正的平等和自由，因此“虚假的共同体”无法在世界范围内得以推行而必然走向破产。

Second, the “true community” contains open and developmental ideological elements, while the “false community” is situated in a closed and isolated context, cut off from the connection with truth. In civil society, individuals are always subject to reified social relations and can only act within a limited scope. The “false community” conceived by the bourgeoisie based on civil society is confined to private interests, deducing the “ought” logic of an ideal society from some so-called “universal” moral principles. In this logic, free will and necessary laws, truth and value, are separated from each other. On the objective level, the “false community” violates the objective laws of historical development, is fundamentally unable to grasp the essence of human interests, and cannot reach a thorough degree, thus can only exhibit the characteristics of falsity and unscientific nature. In the “false community,” the relationship between people is typically characterized by the control and domination of one part over another. The privileged class, relying on the powerful discursive power brought by the economic position of capitalism, continuously expands its hegemonic rule. On the subjective level, in the “false community,” the bourgeoisie, as the exploiter, often arbitrarily issues empty promises, proposing a series of hypocritical values that are “all talk and no action.” The value concepts of the “false community” arrogantly claim to represent the value consensus of all humanity, treating subjectively set value norms as a “universal” creed, which has strong social harmfulness. The false community is utterly unable to achieve harmonious and orderly public life; on the contrary, it reduces the rich diversity of human historical development. The “true community” is committed to transcending the logic of “ought,” focusing on actual material production and the social relations arising from it, etc., possessing distinct openness, developmental character, and historicity. Within the perspective of new materialism, it is continuously developed and perfected through the value consensus formed in the process of human development. As Lenin pointed out, “The general laws of world historical development not only do not exclude but, on the contrary, presuppose the manifestation of particularity in the forms or order of development of individual stages.” [7]7 V. I. Lenin, “On the Question of the Nationalities or ‘Autonomization’,” in Lenin Collected Works, vol. 43 (Beijing: People’s Publishing House, 1987), p. 370.

第二，“真正的共同体”内蕴开放、发展的思想要素，而“虚假的共同体”则处于封闭、孤立的语境，切断了与真理的联系。在市民社会中，个人始终受制于物化的社会关系，只能在有限的范围内活动，资产阶级基于市民社会构想的“虚假的共同体”囿于私有利益，从某种所谓的“普遍”道义原则出发推论理想社会的“应当”逻辑。在这一逻辑中，自由意志与必然规律、真理与价值之间彼此分立。就客观层面而言，“虚假的共同体”违背了历史发展的客观规律，根本无法掌握人类利益的本质，更无法达到彻底的程度，因而只能呈现出虚假性、非科学性的特质。在“虚假的共同体”中，人与人的关系典型地表征为一部分人对另一部分人的控制和支配，特权阶级凭借资本主义的经济地位带来的强大话语权而不断拓展自身霸权统治。就主观层面而言，在“虚假的共同体”中，作为剥削者的资产阶级往往肆意开具空头支票，提出系列“口惠而实不至”的虚伪价值观。“虚假的共同体”的价值理念自恃代表了全体人类的价值共识，将主观设置的价值规范作为一种“普世”信条，具有强烈的社会危害性。虚假的共同体根本无法实现和谐有序的公共生活，反而削减了人类历史发展的丰富多样性。“真正的共同体”则致力于超越“应当”的逻辑，着眼于现实的物质生产以及由此产生的社会关系等，具有鲜明的开放性、发展性和历史性，其在新唯物主义视域中借助人类发展进程中所形成的价值共识不断得以发展和完善。正如列宁指出，“世界历史发展的一般规律，不仅丝毫不排斥个别发展阶段在发展的形式或顺序上表现出特殊性，反而是以此为前提的”。

Third, the “true community” aims to promote world peace and development, while the “false community” is a means for the bourgeoisie to pursue hegemonism. The bourgeoisie often uses abstract value concepts to vaunt the “false community,” ignoring the real laws and internal needs of socio-historical development, with the ultimate goal of maintaining the foundation of private ownership and promoting hegemonism. Taking the value of freedom as an example, the *Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen* stipulates that “liberty” is “the right to do anything that does not harm others.” In response, Marx sharply criticized this understanding of freedom as being “like the boundary between two fields determined by boundary markers,” merely “the freedom of man as an isolated monad withdrawn into himself.” [8]8 Marx, “On the Jewish Question,” *Marx and Engels Collected Works*, vol. 1, p. 439. [Translator’s note: The English translation follows the standard MECW edition.] “This freedom makes each man see in other men not the realization of his own freedom, but the barrier to it.” [9]9 Ibid., p. 440. Capitalist private ownership fundamentally determines that the “false community” constructed by the bourgeoisie inherently contains an aggressive motive. In Marx’s view, “the right of private property is the right to enjoy and dispose of one’s possessions arbitrarily, without regard for others, independently of society; it is the right of self-interest. This individual freedom and its application form the basis of civil society.” [10]10 Ibid., p. 441. Freedom, equality, and democracy are indeed values universally pursued by all of humanity and have specific meanings. However, within the “false community,” value concepts such as freedom, equality, and democracy are often imbued with the color of capitalist private ownership, ultimately becoming exclusive privileges of the bourgeoisie, while their true essence remains obscured and unable to manifest genuinely. The “false community” inevitably manifests as a state of “zero-sum game,” necessarily causing some to benefit while others suffer, and the suffering subjects are often greater in number and more severely harmed than the benefiting subjects. Unlike the aggressive nature inherent in the “false community,” the “true community” emphasizes the condensation of value consensus on the basis of recognizing differences among nations, can fully reflect ideological concepts universally recognized by countries worldwide, promote exchange and cooperation among nations, conform to the tide of historical development, jointly address global crises, share the fruits of world development, and ultimately achieve global win-win cooperation.

第三，“真正的共同体”旨在促进世界的和平与发展，而“虚假的共同体”则是资产阶级推行霸权主义的手段。资产阶级往往以抽象的价值概念标榜“虚假的共同体”，漠视社会历史发展的真实规律与内在需要，其最终目的在于维护私有制基础以及推行霸权主义。以自由价值为例，《人权宣言》规定“自由”是“做任何不损害他人的事情的权利”。对此，马克思犀利地指责这种对自由的理解“正像两块田地之间的界限是由界桩确定的一样”，不过是“人作为孤立的、自我封闭的单子的自由”。“这种自由使每个人不是把他人看做自己自由的实现，而是看做自己自由的限制。”资本主义私有制在根本上决定了资产阶级建构出的“虚假的共同体”内在包含一种侵略性动机。在马克思看来，“私有财产这一人权是任意地(àsongré)、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用构成了市民社会的基础”。自由、平等和民主本身的确是全人类共同追求的价值，具有特定的意义指向。然而，在“虚假的共同体”中，自由、平等以及民主等价值理念往往被赋予资本主义私有制的色彩，最终成为资产阶级的专属特权，其本真内涵长期处于被遮蔽的状态而无法得到真正显现。“虚假的共同体”必然表现为一种“零和博弈”的状态，必然会造成一部分人得利而另一部分人受损，而受损主体与得利主体相比往往数量更多、损害更重。不同于“虚假的共同体”蕴藏的侵略本质，“真正的共同体”强调在承认各国差异的基础上凝聚价值共识，能够充分反映世界各国普遍认同的思想理念，促进世界各国交流与合作，顺应历史发展的大潮，共同应对世界性危机，共享世界发展成果，最终达到世界性的合作共赢。

Marx affirmed previous philosophers’ historicist understanding of civil society, but also profoundly revealed the irresolvable theoretical dilemmas within the philosophical paradigm that takes civil society as its standpoint. Marx emphasized that new materialism proceeds from human society or social humanity, shifting from the examination of ethical relations to the consideration of material life relations, establishing Hegel’s dialectic of negativity, whose active subject is spirit, on the basis of the life existence and activity modes of real human beings, and further deepening the concreteness and historicity of the theory of social formations within the relationship between humans and society. From the perspective of human society, human liberation, taking real human beings as its logical starting point, is neither empty words and slogans nor an abstraction of the commonality of each individual, but rather a dynamic historical process of practically transforming the objective world and humanity itself.

马克思肯定以往哲学家对市民社会的历史主义认识，但也深刻揭示出以市民社会为立脚点的哲学范式存在无法消解的理论困境。马克思强调新唯物主义从人类社会或社会的人类出发，从对伦理关系的考察转向对物质生活关系的思考，将黑格尔以精神为活动主体的否定性辩证法建立于现实的人的生命存在和活动方式的基础之上，在人与社会的存在关系中进一步深化了社会形态理论的具体性和历史性。在人类社会的视域下，以现实的人为逻辑起点的人类解放不是空洞的词句和口号，也不是对每个人的共同性的抽象，而是实际地改造客观世界和人自身的动态历史过程。

II. The Connection between “Civil Society” and the Globalization of the Capitalist Economy

二、“市民社会”与资本主义经济全球化的关联

“Civil society” takes individual needs and individual interests as its basic principles; its existence depends on the possession of private interests and property rights as well as the exchange of interests among individuals, and it often realizes interactions between people through internal activity forms such as labor, division of labor, exchange, and contract. The universal connection within civil society is external and formal; fundamentally, it consists of the differences and conflicts between individual interests. These differences and conflicts, through the rational activity of intersubjectivity, allow the form of existence of the subject’s consciousness to manifest, promising those in civil society a rationally free social life. This not only prevents civil society from realizing its Enlightenment ideals but, on the contrary, suppresses the potential for individual liberation within an increasingly divided and fractured social structure, leading to the loss of subject consciousness and the risks and crises of a depersonalized society. The divisiveness of civil society and the consequent global expansion of the capitalist economy have, to a certain extent, alleviated internal social contradictions within capitalist countries and dispersed the conflicts and pressures between individuals and society within capitalist modernity. However, they have also extended these contradictions from within nation-states to the entire world, resulting in an extremely unbalanced “center-periphery” binary oppositional structure in the global configuration.

“市民社会”以个体需要和个体利益为基本原则，其存在依附于私人利益和财产权利的占有以及个体之间的利益往来，往往借助劳动、分工、交换和契约等内部活动形式来实现人与人之间的交互。市民社会中的普遍联结是外在的、形式的，就其根本而言，是个体利益之间的差异与冲突。这种差异和冲突通过主体间性的理性活动使主体意识的存在形态得以呈现，其向市民社会中的人承诺一种理性自由的社会生活，这不仅导致市民社会未能实现其启蒙理想，反而在日益分化与断裂的社会结构中压制个体解放潜能，造成主体意识的失落和非人格化社会的风险与危机。市民社会的分裂性以及由此衍生的资本主义经济全球性扩张，在一定程度上缓解了资本主义国家内部的社会矛盾，分散了资本主义现代社会中个体与社会之间的冲突和压力，但却把这种矛盾从民族国家内部扩展至整个世界，致使世界格局出现“中心—外围”极度不均衡的二元对立结构。

(I) The Conflict of Interests in “Civil Society” and the Emergence of Hierarchical Structures

（一）“市民社会”的利益冲突与等级结构的产生

With the rise and development of civil society, individuals were liberated from traditional communities, and long-suppressed private interests gained immense relief. The “human being” in civil society “is in no way a species-being; on the contrary, species-life itself, i.e., society, appears as an external framework for individuals, as a limitation of their original independence. The only bond that connects them is natural necessity, need and private interest, and the protection of their property and their egoistic persons.” [11]11 Ibid., p. 439. The bourgeois revolution enabled private interests to break free from the constraints of public interests, win an independent status, and gain support from new moral concepts. They devoted themselves to legitimizing the expansion of the behavioral ideology of individual supremacy and the pursuit of private interests within society, thereby acquiring legitimate status and priority. Public interest in society was regarded by many thinkers as a simple aggregate of private interests; the relationship between the people and the government was even seen as that between principal and trustee. The government, in the realm of private interests and individual activities, merely played the role of spokesperson for public morality and law in the public sphere. Moreover, most people believed that only public interest based on private interest possessed authenticity and legitimacy—that is, it conformed to the autonomous, free spiritual space necessary for obtaining individual interests. Civil society is a private sphere that exists independently, free from the intervention of the “false community”; the pursuit and realization of private interests are its highest goal and primary characteristic.

伴随市民社会的兴起和发展，个人从传统共同体中解放出来，长期受到贬抑的私人利益获得极大解脱。市民社会中的“人绝对不是类存在物，相反，类生活本身，即社会，显现为诸个体的外部框架，显现为他们原有的独立性的限制。把他们连接起来的唯一纽带是自然的必然性，是需要和私人利益，是对他们的财产和他们的利己的人身的保护”。资产阶级革命使得私人利益摆脱公共利益的束缚而赢得独立地位且获得新型道德观念的支持，他们致力于证实个人至上和谋取私人利益的行为理念在社会的合法性扩展，由此取得了正当身份和优先地位。社会的公共利益被许多思想家认为是私人利益的简单集合，人民和政府的关系甚至被视为委托人和受托人的关系，政府在私人利益和个体活动领域只是扮演公共领域公德与法律的代言角色，并且人们大多认为只有建立在私人利益基础之上的公共利益才具备真实性与合法性，即符合获取个人利益所必需的自主、自由的精神空间。市民社会是不受“虚假的共同体”干预而独立存在的私人领域，追逐并实现私人利益是市民社会的最高目标和第一特征。

The particular interests of individuals are inevitably fraught with conflict and struggle, easily leading to the rupture of social relations and the alienation of ethical spirit. The phenomenon of alienated conflict between individuals triggered by private interests became the “mediation” through which modern philosophers contemplated the relationship between social formations and the essence of human existence. In Hegel’s view, the interest relations between people tore apart the familial bonds of mutual love; each person takes their own development as the goal, while transforming all other beings within the structure of social relations and their rights to existence into a tool, means, or object for realizing their own private interests, even expecting to sacrifice the rights of others to guarantee or fulfill their own interests. The essence of civil society presupposes the affirmation of the individual’s pursuit of particular interests, and this presupposition contradicts social equality. “Particularity is in itself without restraint or measure, and the forms this lack of measure takes are themselves without measure. Through representation and reflection, man expands his passions—these passions are not a closed circle.” [12]12 G.W.F. Hegel, *Elements of the Philosophy of Right*, §185, Addition. When each person considers their own interests superior to those of others and treats others as objects in their dealings, they themselves will inevitably be treated as objects by others in turn. The internal structure of civil society will then experience a profound polarization in the spheres of interest and interaction. Consequently, humans are cast into a vast nothingness, losing their true human attributes and degenerating into the existence of objects. In their interactions with others, individuals do not feel recognized and confirmed as human beings, but rather utilized and negated as objects. Subjects ruled by the “spirit of egoism” often meticulously calculate their own particular interests; although they gather spatially, they develop deep psychological estrangement. The final result is the state predicted by Machiavelli—“man is a wolf to man”—and emphasized by Hobbes—the “war of all against all.” [13]13 Niccolò Machiavelli, *The Prince*, and Thomas Hobbes, *Leviathan*, Part I, Chapter 13.

个体的特殊利益之间不可避免地充满冲突性和斗争性，容易导致社会关系的断裂与伦理精神的异化。由私人利益触发的个体之间异化冲突现象成为近代哲学家思考社会形态与人的存在本质关系的“中介”。在黑格尔看来，人与人之间的利益关系扯断了家庭式的互爱关系，每个人都以自身发展为目的，而把其他一切社会关系结构中的存在者及其生存权利转化为实现自身私人利益的一种工具、手段或物，甚至期望牺牲他人的权利来保障或成全自己的利益。市民社会的本质以肯定个人对特殊利益的追求为前提，这一前提与社会平等之间存在矛盾，“特殊性本身是没有节制的，没有尺度的，而这种无节制所采取的诸形式本身也是没有尺度的。人通过表象和反思而扩张他的情欲—这些情欲并不是一个封闭的圈子”。当每个人都认为自身利益高于他人利益、把他人当作物来对待和交往时，每个人自身也必然被他人视为物来对待和交往，市民社会内部结构就会出现利益和交往领域的极大分化。由此，人被抛入巨大的虚无之中，丧失人的真正属性而沦落为物的存在，人在与他人的相处过程中感受到的不是自己作为人被承认、被证实，而是作为物被利用、被否定。“利己精神”统治下的主体往往精心算计自身的特殊利益，他们虽然在空间上聚集，但在心理上却产生深深的隔膜，最后造成的结果便是马基雅维利所预估的“人人相待犹如豺狼”和霍布斯所强调的“一切人反对一切人的战争”的状态。

Hegel turned his analytical perspective toward the defects in the internal structure of civil society, thereby exposing the inevitability of individuals’ contradictory existence. He dialectically recognized that the modern industrial and commercial activities inherent in civil society—such as labor, division of labor, exchange, and the conclusion of contracts—could transcend individual disputes and realize the “universal will” of individual freedom. However, he believed that the “universal will” within civil society was ultimately limited, still pointing ultimately toward the safeguarding of particular individual interests. Hegel firmly regarded labor as the fundamental element of civil society’s existence, holding that labor is the medium through which people connect with one another and engage in social interaction, and that labor impels individuals to pursue private interests through social intercourse. Social members unconsciously or unwittingly perform a kind of universal labor in the course of labor; the abstraction of labor gives rise to division of labor, exchange, and contracts, which transforms subjective egoism into the satisfaction of the objective needs of all other persons. Even so, the opposition and conflict of individual interests within civil society remain unavoidable; interruptions of exchange and breaches of contract can occur at any time. “In the contract, since the parties who have reached agreement still retain their particular wills, the contract therefore has not yet left the stage of caprice and is liable to fall into wrong.”[14]14 G. W. F. Hegel, *Elements of the Philosophy of Right*, trans. H. B. Nisbet (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991), §81, p. 108. The union of interests in civil society is extremely unstable; people who participate in intercourse are united only because of their mutual need for interests. The universal intercourse formed in labor pertains to the relations of interests in society as a whole, but the universality into which particularity enters is merely superficial, contingent, temporary, and fragile. Once the interest relationship ends, the union dissolves. In this sense, Althusser pointed out: “Civil society is a living contradiction, because in civil society universality is not an idea but merely the sum total of many particular interests, and because in civil society what each person pursues is nothing but all sorts of selfish goals, therefore universality there is not a being-for-itself.”[15]15 Louis Althusser, *Politics and History: Montesquieu, Rousseau, Hegel and Marx*, trans. Ben Brewster (London: Verso, 2007), p. 109. The universality of intercourse and interest relations does not arise from people’s free consciousness and autonomous choice.

黑格尔将分析视角转向市民社会内部结构的弊端，由此揭露个人矛盾性存在的必然性。他辩证地看到市民社会内含的劳动、分工、交换以及订立契约等现代工商业活动可以超越个人纷争，实现个体自由的“普遍意志”，但他认为市民社会中的“普遍意志”终究是有限的，其最终仍然指向个人特殊利益的维护。黑格尔坚定地把劳动视为市民社会存在的根本性要素，认为劳动是人们彼此联系和社会交往的中介，劳动促使个体在追逐私人利益中展开社会交往。社会成员在劳动中不自觉地或无意识地完成一种普遍的劳动，劳动的抽象化产生了分工、交换以及契约，这使得主观的利己主义思想转化为对其他一切人的客观需要的满足。即便如此，市民社会中个人利益的对立、冲突依旧在所难免，交换的中断、契约的毁坏也会随时发生。“在契约中由于达成一致意志者们尚保持他们的特殊意志，契约因此也就仍未脱离任性的阶段，而难免陷于不法。”市民社会中的利益联合极不稳定，参与交往的人们只是因为利益上的相互需要而结合在一起，在劳动中形成的普遍交往是就整个社会中的利益关系而言的，而个别性所进入的普遍性只是表面的、偶然的、暂时的和脆弱的，利益关系一旦结束，联合也就归于解体。在这个意义上，阿尔都塞指出:“市民社会是个活生生的矛盾体，因为在市民社会中，普遍性不是一种理念，而只是众多特殊利益的总和，而且，因为在市民社会中每个人所追求的无非是各种各样的自私目标，因此，普遍性在那儿不是一种自为”，交往和利益关系的普遍性并非来自于人的自由意识和自主选择。

Marx discerned the theoretical predicament in Hegel’s attempt to reconcile the contradiction between the individual and civil society through the mediation of the state. He realized that Hegel, unlike modern Western political philosophers who vigorously championed principles such as individual priority and the right to labor property, instead offered a powerful critique of the doctrine of the omnipotence of the free market and social contract theory, and sought to guide social interests from fragmentation toward integration through the external force of state reason, thereby deploying the modern state’s role in reconciling the contradiction between the individual and civil society to achieve public welfare and the common good. However, Marx criticized Hegel for failing to recognize that state power institutions actually possess a nature of self-expansion and self-aggrandizement, and that state institutions are even merely machines serving to safeguard private interests. He pointed out: “Hegel here sets up an unresolved antinomy. On the one hand, external necessity; on the other hand, internal purpose. The unity of the universal final end of the state and the particular interests of individuals is said to consist in the fact that the duties individuals owe to the state and the rights the state confers on them are identical.”[16]16 Karl Marx, “Critique of Hegel’s Doctrine of the State,” in *Early Writings*, trans. Rodney Livingstone and Gregor Benton (London: Penguin, 1992), p. 163. The state cannot provide the ultimate guarantee for human freedom. Hegel explained the relationship between the individual and civil society in a speculative manner, providing theoretical support for the possibility that civil society might once again become a despotic force oppressing people, thereby causing human self-consciousness and free activity to degenerate into abstract, one-sided external manifestations. Consequently, what remains active in civil society after the completion of political emancipation is still the isolated and closed-off atomistic individual, and the social relations formed are still those of mutual isolation and opposition.

马克思洞悉了黑格尔以国家为中介调和个体与市民社会之间矛盾的理论困境。他意识到，黑格尔并不像西方近代政治哲学家那样极力推崇个体优先、劳动所有权等原则，相反，黑格尔对自由市场万能论、社会契约论作出有力批判，并试图通过国家理性的外在强力引导社会利益由分裂走向整合，发挥现代国家在调和个体与市民社会之间矛盾的作用，以实现公共福利和公共利益。然而，马克思批判黑格尔没有认识到国家权力机构实际上具有自我扩张和自我谋利的本性，国家机构甚至不过是为保障私人利益而服务的机器。他指出：“黑格尔在这里提出了一个没有解决的二律背反。一方面是外在必然性;另一方面是内在目的。国家的普遍的最终目的和个人的特殊利益的统一，据说就在于个人对国家所尽的义务和国家赋予他的权利是同一的”。国家并不能为人的自由提供终极保障，黑格尔以思辨的方式来解释个体与市民社会之间的关系，为市民社会可能重新成为压抑人的专制力量提供了理论支撑，致使人的自我意识和自由活动倒向抽象、片面的外在表现，因而在完成政治解放的市民社会中活动的依旧是孤独而封闭的原子式个人，所形成的依旧是彼此隔绝与对立的社会关系。

Marx advanced Hegel’s conception of productive labor realizing individual emancipation, profoundly pointing out that the mysterious force behind social hierarchy differences is typically manifested as the all-dominating “logic of capital.” Seizing on elements such as freedom, equality, and property rights, Marx revealed the essential problems of civil society. Like Hegel, he acknowledged the dialectical role of civil society in highlighting individual subjectivity, stating that “the modern civil society is the realized principle of individualism; the existence of the individual is the ultimate end; activity, labor, content, etc., are merely means.”[17]17 Karl Marx, “On the Jewish Question,” in *Early Writings*, p. 220. Both of them revealed the historical inevitability of the existence of capitalist modernity and its positive role in promoting individual and social development, while simultaneously criticizing the proliferation of human selfishness under the capitalist market economy. In this, Hegel focused on the relationship between the different measures of “the right of the person” and “the right of others,” which are both mutually instrumental and mutually opposed, whereas Marx traced the root of the prominence of individual subjectivity back to the domination of the logic of capital, thereby elucidating at a deeper level the primordial calamity in which the logic of capital dissolves individual subjectivity. The bourgeois state, as a form of “false community,”[18]18 “False community” (*scheinbare Gemeinschaft*) is Marx’s term in *The German Ideology* for the state under bourgeois rule, which presents itself as representing the general interest while actually serving the particular interests of the ruling class. exercises “actual interference and constraint” over other members of the community; it is merely the control and domination of one part of the people by the special classes and interest groups that occupy the ruling position in real social life. Under the operation of the logic of capital, it continuously generates destructive social conflicts that penetrate every level of social life, ultimately leading to the intensification of contradictions in civil society and the loss of subjectivity of those who live within it.

马克思推进了黑格尔关于生产劳动实现个体解放的构想，深刻指出社会等级差异背后的神秘力量典型地表现为支配一切的“资本逻辑”。马克思抓住自由、平等与所有权等要素，揭示出市民社会的本质性问题。他与黑格尔一样，承认市民社会对凸显个人主体性的辩证作用，指出“现代的市民社会是实现了的个人主义原则；个人的存在是最终目的；活动、劳动、内容等等都只是手段”。他们都揭示出资本主义现代性存在的历史必然性及其促进个体与社会发展的积极作用，同时批判在资本主义市场经济环境下人的自私自利本性的泛滥，其中黑格尔重点关注“个人的法”与“他人的法”不同尺度之间既互为手段又彼此对立的关系，而马克思将个人主体性得以凸显的根源归结为资本逻辑的支配，从而在更深层次上阐明资本逻辑消解个人主体性的本源性祸端。资产阶级国家作为一种“虚假的共同体”形式，对共同体中其他社会成员“实际的干涉和约束”，不过是社会现实生活中占据统治地位的特殊阶级和利益集团对另一部分人的控制与支配，其在资本逻辑的运作下不断生成具有破坏性的社会冲突，并渗透到社会生活的各个层面，最终造成市民社会矛盾的激发和生活于其中的人的主体性的丧失。

(II) The Global Extension of the Capitalist Hierarchy of Difference

（二）资本主义等级差异结构的全球延展

The ethical conflicts caused by the differences and particularities of individual labor and wealth within civil society will inevitably spread to all countries of the world as capitalist modernity advances globally, being amplified in universal intercourse across multiple fields such as politics, economy, and culture, and directly or indirectly affecting the choice of modernization paths and the formation of social structures in other countries. The most obvious consequence of the global expansion of social hierarchy structures and internal contradictions is that it “creates fragmentation, instability, ephemerality, and uneven development within a highly integrated spatial economy of global capital flows.”[19]19 David Harvey, *The Condition of Postmodernity* (Oxford: Blackwell, 1990), p. 296. Capitalist globalization gives rise to a structural system of world market and international intercourse of the “center-periphery” type.

市民社会内部个人劳动与财富的差异性、特殊性所造成的伦理冲突，必将依随资本主义现代性的全球化推进而扩散至世界各国，在政治、经济和文化等多领域的普遍交往中得以放大，直接或间接影响到其他国家现代化道路的选择与社会结构的形成。社会等级结构和内在矛盾在全球扩展中最明显的后果，就是“造成了在一个高度一体化的全球资本流动的空间经济内部的分裂、不稳定、短暂而不平衡的发展”，资本主义全球化催生出“中心—边缘”式世界市场和国际交往的结构性体系。

With the global expansion of capital and markets, the operation of the “all-dominating logic of capital” in modern society becomes internally linked to the construction of “nation-state” communities. The logic of capital is characterized by endless expansion and self-aggrandizement; its theoretical foundation is no longer the naked social Darwinism of “free competition, survival of the fittest,” but rather the carefully designed and elaborately packaged “universal values” of metaphysical theory. In order to continuously open up new markets to obtain more raw materials and profits, capital inevitably demands that it step beyond the boundaries of nation-states, reduce the cost of expanding into external space to the lowest controllable point, and clear obstacles for capital expansion from the perspective of values and ideology. An important manifestation of capital’s expansion into the international sphere is the injection of “surplus capital” into backward countries. The inevitable result of this expansion is conflict and opposition between “advanced countries” and “backward countries,” as well as fierce competition among “capital-exporting countries” for world market share. By its very nature, the “all-dominating logic of capital” unavoidably leads to antagonism and fragmentation among communities centered on nation-states, including disagreements among advanced countries over resource possession, and the consciousness and actions of resistance by backward countries against the frenzied plunder and uncompensated appropriation by advanced countries. This logic of capital, containing internal tensions, becomes a deep-seated obstacle affecting the progress of human history.

随着资本与市场的全球性扩张，现代社会“支配一切的资本逻辑”的运行与“民族国家”共同体的建构形成内在勾连。资本逻辑具有永无止境地扩张和自我膨胀的特点，其理论基础不再是赤裸裸的“自由竞争、弱肉强食”的社会达尔文主义，而是经过精心的形而上学理论设计与精致包装的“普世价值”。为了不断开辟新的市场以获取更多的原料和利润，资本必然要求自身走出民族国家的界线，将外部空间扩张的成本减至可控范围内的最低点，并从价值观念和意识形态的角度为资本扩张扫清障碍。资本向国际范围内扩张的重要表现在于将“过剩资本”输入落后国家，这一扩张必然引发的结果便是“先进国家”与“落后国家”之间的冲突和对立，以及为争夺世界市场份额的“资本输出国”之间的激烈竞争。“支配一切的资本逻辑”按其本性而言不可避免地导致以民族国家为主体的共同体之间对抗与分裂的结果，包括先进国家之间在资源占有上产生的分歧，落后国家对先进国家疯狂掠夺和无偿占有行为的反抗意识与行动等，这种包含内部张力的资本逻辑成为影响人类历史前进的深层障碍。

Capitalism has drawn all nations into the historical process of human civilization, attempting to create a homogeneous historical situation on a global scale, forcing all nation-states or regions to abide by capitalist principles within the global capital chain. However, the time, opportunities, motives, and actual strength with which different nation-states or regions enter world history vary, inevitably producing a hierarchical order and civilizational differences between production centers and peripheries. This embodies the dialectic of “homogeneity-fracture” in global modernity. While capitalism drives the rapid development of productive forces and the immense enrichment of material wealth, it also inevitably creates the unequal predicament of oppression of peripheral countries by central countries at the level of relations of production. The mode of existence of society in the era of globalization increasingly takes on holistic and human characteristics, but the modern world order is not the evolution of equal rules and rational institutions as theoretically prescribed; rather, it directly depends on the contest of capital—that is, the nature of capital’s plunder and expansion provides material support for its absolute hegemony in the movement of world history. This hegemony intends to maintain the long-term stability of capitalism’s power advantage in world history, causing competition and struggle among regions and nation-states not to dissipate but to intensify. Western countries entered capitalist society first in the course of human development and occupy the core position in the global value chain. Those countries and regions forcibly incorporated into “world history,” especially backward countries, can only occupy marginal positions and the bottom of the global value chain, suffering severe exploitation and plunder, and even facing the great risk of disintegration or collapse. “Central countries” use the various capital means at their disposal to extract exorbitant profits from the world market, and their interest demands enjoy absolute priority, while “peripheral countries” have only instrumental value, their mission being obedience. The expansion of capital dominates the future and destiny of world history. The economic globalization of capitalism is certainly not aimed at the common interests of all humanity, but only serves a few developed economies. This inevitably creates a huge fracture between developed and underdeveloped, advanced and backward regions and countries. While creating new problems of inequality, this fracture simultaneously continuously solidifies previous unequal relations.

资本主义把一切民族都卷入人类文明的历史进程之中，试图在全球范围内创造出具有同一性的历史情境，迫使所有民族国家或地区在全球资本链中遵守资本主义原则，而不同民族国家或地区进入世界历史的时间、机遇、动机和自身实力等各有差异，势必造成生产中心与外围的等级秩序和文明差异，这就体现了全球现代性的“同质性—断裂性”辩证法。资本主义在推动生产力飞速发展、物质财富极大丰富的同时，也必然造成生产关系层面中心国家对边缘国家压迫的不平等困局。社会的存在样态在全球化时代的发展越来越具有整体性与人类性特质，但现代世界秩序并不是理论上所规定的平等规则与合理制度的演进，而是直接取决于资本的较量，即资本的掠夺与扩张本性为其在世界历史运动中的绝对强权提供物质支撑，这一强权意图维持世界历史的资本主义力量优势长期不变，导致各地区、各民族国家之间的争夺和博弈不仅没有烟消云散，反而更加激烈。西方国家在人类发展进程中率先进入资本主义社会，居于全球价值链的核心地位，那些被强行纳入“世界历史”的国家和地区，特别是落后国家只能处于边缘位置和全球价值链的底端而遭受严重的盘剥和掠夺，甚至面临解体或覆灭的巨大风险。“中心国家”利用自身所掌握的各种资本手段攫取世界市场的暴利，其利益诉求拥有绝对的优先地位，而“边缘国家”则只具有工具性价值，其使命是服从。资本的扩张支配着世界历史的前途命运，资本主义经济全球化必然不是以全人类共同的利益为目的，而只是为少数发达的经济体服务，这不可避免地会造成发达与不发达、先进与落后地区和国家之间的巨大断裂。这种断裂在制造新的不平等问题的同时，又在不断固化以往的不平等关系。

Marx divided the status of nation-states into “heart countries” and “limb countries,” pointing out that capitalist globalization extends the inequality in development structures within nation-states to the entire world, ultimately evolving into a deformed relationship of conquest and being conquered between countries. He explicitly stated in *Capital*: “A new international division of labor, one suited to the requirements of the chief centers of modern industry, springs up and converts one part of the globe into a chiefly agricultural field of production for supplying the other part which remains a chiefly industrial field.” [20]20 Karl Marx, *Capital*, Volume I, Chapter 15, Section 5. The translation follows the standard English edition. “The part which remains a chiefly industrial field” refers to the developed capitalist “center,” while “one part of the globe” converted into “a chiefly agricultural field of production” refers to the underdeveloped “periphery.” The relations of production of capital revealed by the differentiation in the field of production are starkly evident. The oppositional situation in which developed capitalist countries dominate industrial production while developing countries are forced to engage in agricultural production is essentially a relationship of exploitation of labor by capital. In the field of production, industrial production is often superior to agricultural production due to mastery of more advanced technology or management conditions, and is more conducive to the accumulation and valorization of capital. The capitalist mode of production, centered on industrial production, manipulates society, making capital the dominant force, that is, penetrating into the hierarchical antagonism within the national production field. The world intercourse promoted by the bourgeoisie aims to facilitate the expansion of capital and the accumulation of surplus value, resulting in unequal and unjust relations of intercourse on a global scale. This form of intercourse is not genuine human intercourse. Capitalism represents the last stage of humanity’s “prehistory,” characterized by the antagonism and tension of social relations: “The bourgeois relations of production are the last antagonistic form of the social process of production—antagonistic not in the sense of individual antagonism but of an antagonism that emanates from the individuals’ social conditions of existence—but the productive forces developing within bourgeois society create also the material conditions for a solution of this antagonism. The prehistory of human society accordingly closes with this social formation.” [21]21 Karl Marx, *A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy*, Preface. The translation follows the standard English edition. Marx explicitly defined the nature of communism as “sociality,” that is, the sublation of the private property rights on which egoistic individuals depend for their existence, prompting each person no longer to regard others as a limitation on their own freedom. The social order of communism is generated from human consciousness and practical self-awareness, enabling people to perceive the finitude of their existing state and thus opening up a space for self-realization and self-transcendence toward human history. Therefore, Marx emphasized that to enter genuine human history from the world history under the forceful expansion of capital, it is necessary to rely on “the workers of the world uniting” to overthrow the capitalist system of exploitation and achieve communism.

马克思将各民族国家的地位划分为“心脏国家”和“四肢国家”，指出资本主义全球化将民族国家内部在发展结构上的不平等性延展到整个世界，最终演变为国家与国家之间征服与被征服的畸形关系。他曾在《资本论》中明确指出：“一种与机器生产中心相适应的新的国际分工产生了，它使地球的一部分转变为主要从事农业的生产地区，以服务于另一部分主要从事工业的生产地区。”“主要从事工业的生产地区”指发达的资本主义“中心”，“主要从事农业的生产地区”指不发达的“外围”，生产领域的分化所体现的资本生产关系昭然若揭，发达资本主义国家统摄工业生产与发展中国家被迫展开农业生产的对立局势，本质上是资本对劳动力的剥削关系。在生产领域，工业生产往往由于掌握更先进的技术或管理条件而优于农业生产，更加有利于资本的积累和增殖。以工业生产为核心的资本主义生产方式操控着社会，使得资本成为占统治地位的力量，即渗入到国家内部生产领域的等级对抗之中。由资产阶级推动的世界交往，其目的在于促进资本的扩张和剩余价值的积累，结果导致了世界范围内的不平等、非正义的交往关系，这种交往形式并不是真正的人类交往。资本主义表征着以社会关系的对抗性、紧张性为特点的人类“史前时期”的最后一个阶段，“资产阶级的生产关系是社会生产过程的最后一个对抗形式，这里所说的对抗，不是指个人的对抗，而是指从个人的社会生活条件中生长出来的对抗；但是，在资产阶级社会的胎胞里发展的生产力，同时又创造着解决这种对抗的物质条件。因此，人类社会的史前时期就以这种社会形态而告终”。马克思将共产主义的性质明确规定为“社会性”，即扬弃利己之人赖以生存的私有财产权，促使每个人不再把他人看作自己实现自由的限制。共产主义的社会秩序生成于人的意识和实践自觉，能够使人觉察到现存状态的有限性，从而向人类历史敞开自我实现、自我超越的空间。因此，马克思强调从资本强力扩张下的世界历史进入真正的人类历史，必须依靠“全世界无产者联合起来”，推翻资本主义剥削制度而实现共产主义。

The unequal structure of capitalism exhibits a logical evolutionary path from atomized individuals to civil society and then to the modern world order and system of rights. Civil society, based on atomized individuals, fundamentally determines the structural order of the entire modern world and its state of imbalance. The drawbacks of the modern world order and power system dominated by the bourgeoisie manifest in developed capitalist countries ignoring the legitimate demands of other backward countries and blindly pursuing their own national interests. This value stance of “caring for oneself while slighting others” inevitably exacerbates global distributive injustice and inequality, forming a “deformed” “center-periphery” structure. To truly understand the deep predicament of civil society, it is necessary to transcend metaphysical thinking methods, base oneself on the intrinsic connection between historical development and people’s real practice and mode of existence, and promote the coordinated development of social history and all humanity.

资本主义的不平等结构展现出由原子化的个人到市民社会再到现代世界秩序与权利体系的逻辑演变进路。以原子化的个人为基础的市民社会从根本上决定整个现代世界的秩序结构及其失衡状态。由资产阶级主导的现代世界秩序与权力体系的弊端表现为，发达资本主义国家无视其他落后国家的合理要求而一味追逐本国利益，这种“顾我轻彼”的价值立场势必会加剧全球分配的不公正、不平等，形成“中心—外围”的“畸形”结构。切实理解市民社会的深层困境，必须超越形而上学的思维方法，立足历史发展与人的现实实践、生存方式之间的内在联系，推动社会历史与全人类的协同发展。

III. From “Human Society” to a Community with a Shared Future for Mankind

三、从“人类社会”到“人类命运共同体”

Marx explicitly set the foothold of new materialism as “human society or social humanity,” which transcends speculative consciousness and is connected to the real world. The establishment of this philosophical foothold signifies a complete rupture between new materialism and all previous traditional metaphysics. On this entirely new foothold of “human society or social humanity,” new materialism examines and discards the “species” philosophical thinking of old materialism, which bases its arguments on human perceptual existence and natural attributes. It combines the “criticism of weapons” with the “criticism by weapons,” [22]22 “Criticism of weapons” refers to theoretical critique; “criticism by weapons” refers to material, revolutionary practice. The phrase originates from Marx’s *Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right: Introduction*. directing the practical character of philosophy toward the primordial existential state of human freedom, constituting the theoretical foundation for human society to move toward a “genuine community,” and is a philosophy that truly “changes the world.” Marx did not talk about “changing the world” abstractly; what he sought to change was civil society and the social systems and social consciousness arising from it. A community with a shared future for mankind is rooted in new materialism and is the continuation and unfolding of Marx’s “changing the world” program in the New Era.

马克思明确将新唯物主义的立脚点设定为超越思辨意识并与现实世界相关联的“人类社会或社会的人类”，这一哲学立脚点的设定意味着新唯物主义与以往一切传统形而上学的彻底决裂。在“人类社会或社会的人类”这一全新的立脚点上，新唯物主义审视并摒弃了旧唯物主义以人的感性存在和自然属性为立论依据的“类”哲学思维，将“批判的武器”与“武器的批判”相结合，将哲学的实践特性指向人的自由的本源性生存状态，构成人类社会走向“真正的共同体”的理论根基，是真正“改变世界”的哲学。马克思并不是抽象地谈论“改变世界”，他所要改变的是市民社会以及在此基础上产生的社会制度和社会意识。人类命运共同体植根于新唯物主义，是马克思“改变世界”方案在新时代的延续与展开。

(1) The Harmony of Interests in “Human Society”

（一）“人类社会”的利益融洽性

Breaking through traditional national or regional boundaries, transcending differences in social systems, ideologies, and cultural traditions, and extensively expanding international exchanges, dialogue, and cooperation are becoming a global trend in human development. Due to differences among various subjects in terms of cultural foundations, perspectives, and values and interests, the common interactions of all humanity have formed a pattern of differentiated domains across multiple dimensions. This pattern of differentiated domains often develops into a rigid and complex system, easily generating conflictual relations centered on the contradictory movements of material interests and capital power. How can the antagonisms and conflicts of particular interests be overcome and sublated? How can the tension between individual free will and the integrative function of the community be maintained? Marx’s solution is the shift in perspective from civil society to human society. If the human being in civil society appears as an atomized individual who has not yet reached the height of human society, and whose interests are conflictual, then the interests in human society sublate the private character of civil society and manifest a shared, harmonious quality. From the perspective of human society, all human activities—the reproduction of the relationship between humans and nature, the reproduction of social relations, and the reproduction of the human spirit—cast off all previous forms of exclusivity, opposition, or colonialism, and recognize human beings as beings with difference, richness, and concreteness. The practical nature of the human being transforms into a real force in historical development, achieving the harmonious unity of the inner essence of human practice and social relations.

冲破传统的国家或地区界限，超越社会制度、意识形态和文化传统的差异，广泛拓展国际交往、对话与合作，正在成为人类发展的一种全球性趋势。由于不同主体在文化根基、观察视角和价值利益等方面的差异，全人类的共同交往形成了多维领域的差异格局，这种差异格局往往形成僵化的复杂性系统，容易围绕物质利益和资本权力的矛盾运动形成冲突关系。如何克服、扬弃特殊利益的对抗与冲突？如何保持个体自由意愿和共同体整合功能之间的张力？马克思的解决方案是市民社会向人类社会的视域转换。如果说市民社会中的人表现为尚未达到人类社会高度的原子式个体，其利益具有冲突性，那么人类社会中的利益则扬弃了市民社会的私人性质并呈现出共享、融洽的特质。在人类社会的视域下，人与自然关系的再生产、社会关系的再生产以及人类精神的再生产等一切人的活动抛弃了以往所有形式的排他性、对立性或殖民性，承认人是具有差异性、丰富性和具体性的存在。人的实践本性在历史发展中转变为现实力量，达到人类实践与社会关系内在本质的和谐统一。

The new materialism that takes human society as its standpoint requires that the connection between people be taken as the premise and foundation. In the practical activity of transforming objective objects, individuals, through the combination of production, form an inner, negative unity with others. This relationship transcends the closed, isolated, and separated relations between things. With the continuous development of productive forces, the scope of people’s activities gradually breaks through the limits of time and space and establishes relations of universal intercourse. Correspondingly, “the local individual is replaced by the world-historical, empirically universal individual.” [23]23 The Cynics and Stoics were ancient Greek philosophical schools that advocated living in accordance with nature and reason, often promoting cosmopolitanism—the idea of being a “citizen of the world” beyond local political boundaries. Marx once used Feuerbach’s concept of “species-being” to express the “universal essence” of the human being. Of course, this “species-being” in Marx is not an “abstract universality” that ignores difference, nor is it a mechanical commonality that merely connects many people in a purely natural way. Rather, it is a “concrete universality” or “rich unity” that takes individual independence as its premise and the full development of individuality as its condition, and contains individuality, difference, and diversity. Marx examined the essence of human existence at the level of practical activity, holding that species-being is that “the whole character of a species, its species-character, is contained in the character of its life activity; and free, conscious activity is precisely the species-character of human beings.” [24]24 Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712–1778), a Genevan philosopher, argued in *The Social Contract* (1762) that legitimate political authority rests on a “general will” of the people, which aims at the common good. Regarding the profound question of how to free people from the bonds of the privileged interest class in class society and lead them to freedom and liberation, Marx, in analyzing the relationship between individual forces and material forces, pointed out that “only in community [with others has each] individual the means of cultivating his gifts in all directions; hence personal freedom becomes possible only within the community.” [25]25 Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (1770–1831), a German idealist philosopher, criticized Rousseau’s concept of the general will in his *Phenomenology of Spirit* (1807) and *Philosophy of Right* (1820), arguing it could lead to abstract, destructive freedom. The human being is a species-being; no one can completely live independently of others, and no class can rely on material force to despise or eliminate human force. The practical activity of uniting with others is the necessary prerequisite for the free development and complete liberation of each individual.

以人类社会为立脚点的新唯物主义要求以人与人之间的联系为前提和基础。在改造客观对象的实践活动中，个人通过生产的联合而与他人结成内在的否定性统一关系，这种关系超越了物与物之间封闭、孤立和隔离的关系。随着生产力的不断发展，人们的活动范围也逐渐打破时空限制并建立普遍交往关系，相应地，“地域性的个人为世界历史性的、经验上普遍的个人所代替”。马克思曾使用费尔巴哈的“类本质”概念来表述人的“普遍本质”。当然，这种“类本质”在马克思那里不是忽视差别的“抽象的普遍性”，也并非把许多人纯粹自然地联系起来的机械的共同性，而是以个人独立性为前提并以其个性的充分发展为条件，包含着个性、差异性和多样性的“具体的普遍性”或“丰富的统一性”。马克思在实践活动层面考察人的存在本质，认为类本质是“一个种的整体特性、种的类特性就在于生命活动的性质，而自由的有意识的活动恰恰就是人的类特性”。关于如何使人摆脱阶级社会中特权利益阶级的束缚而走向自由解放的深远问题，马克思在分析个人力量与物质力量的关系时指出，“只有在共同体中，个人才能获得全面发展其才能的手段，也就是说，只有在共同体中才可能有个人自由”。人是一种类存在物，每个人都不可能全然脱离他人而独立生活，任何阶级都不能凭借物质力量来轻视或消灭人的力量，和他人联合的实践活动是每个人自由发展和彻底解放的必要前提。

Individual practice inevitably has certain historical limitations. The contradiction between the limits of individual practice and the needs of human development urgently calls for the emergence of the community. When individuals encounter external pressure or interference, they may produce irrational emotions such as excitement, anger, or fanaticism, leading to a decline in analytical ability, understanding ability, and communication ability, and even losing themselves in reality. The “fragility” and existential limitations of the individual impel people to need the social form of life of the community. The shared bodily sensations of human beings in the biological sense enable a certain empathy between people in terms of emotion, value, and ethics; this is a real manifestation of the natural attributes of human existence. However, the differences in individual ethical emotions produced in civil society and the derailment of their behavior can easily cause the already fragile collective action to dissolve. Especially in modern society, where individual self-consciousness is constantly strengthening, the community gradually differentiates and disperses due to different orientations of interests, making it difficult for individuals to form mutual recognition and a sense of belonging to the community in the process of interaction. The community seems to have “lost its capacity as a collective subject and can hardly evoke a sustained concerted action.” [26]26 This is a quotation from Marx and Engels in *The German Ideology* (1845–1846), where they analyze how material conditions shape international relations. Some radical deconstructionist scholars even believe that the community hinders individual freedom, and that a community lacking internal ties and opportunities for deep communication is a “pseudo-community.” These views advocate freeing people from the ethical authority of the community and promoting the reacquisition of independence and freedom.

个体实践必然具有一定的历史局限性，个体实践的限度与人的发展需要之间的矛盾迫切呼唤共同体出场。个人在遇到外部压力或干扰的情况下，可能产生兴奋、愤怒、狂热等非理性情绪，造成分析能力、理解能力和沟通能力的下降，甚至在现实中迷失自我。个人的“脆弱”与生存局限促使人们需要共同体的社会生活形式。人类在生物学意义上共有的身体感受导致人和人之间在情感、价值和伦理等方面可以达成某种共情，这是人类存在自然属性的现实表征。而个体伦理情感在市民社会中产生的差异及其行为的脱轨很容易让原本脆弱的集体行动解散，特别是在个体自我意识不断增强的现代社会，共同体内部由于利益取向不同而渐趋分化和涣散，使得个体之间在交往过程中难以形成相互认同以及对共同体的归属感，共同体似乎“失去了作为集体性主体的能力，而且几乎不能引起一个持久的一致行动”。一些激进的解构主义学者更是认为，共同体会妨碍个体的自由，缺乏内在联系纽带和深度交流契机的共同体是一种“伪共同体”。这些观点主张使人从共同体的伦理权威中解放出来，推动人重获独立和自由。

Marx believed that to truly overcome individual limitations, one cannot take individual rights as the standard, nor rely on the political state that externally integrates society in a limited way. Rather, one must transcend the pseudo-community based on private interests and move toward a “union of free individuals” based on common interests. In his view, bourgeois individuals in civil society excessively pursue private interests, thus forming “isolated” and “egoistic” forms of social development, generating a large amount of vicious competition; the increase in individual interests often uses the interests of others as a tool, resulting in the sacrifice of others’ interests and the stagnation of overall social development. The proletariat is the only class that has no direct connection with the means of production, yet it constitutes the main bearer of the practical development of social production; hence the proletariat is essentially a “selfless” class. But individual proletarians possess spontaneity. As Lenin stated in expounding the problem of “the spontaneity of the workers,” workers lack the ability to summarize and elevate scientific theory, and their spontaneous movement cannot produce socialism, only trade unionism. “The spontaneous working-class movement is trade-unionism, which means the ideological enslavement of the workers by the bourgeoisie.” [27]27 This quotation is from the Chinese scholar Sun Liping, “The Anxiety of Modernity and Its Way Out,” *Exploration and Free Views*, no. 1 (2014): 10. The liberation of the proletariat is not achieved through the individual’s direct possession of the means of production, but must be achieved through the “united individuals” repossessing the social means of production. Only on this basis can the proletariat become the representative of new relations of production, that is, the representative of the developmental trend of socialized relations of production.

马克思认为，要真正克服个体局限，不能以个人权利为本位，不能依靠从外部对社会进行有限整合的政治国家，而需要超越以私人利益为基础的伪共同体，走向一种以共同利益为基础的“自由人联合体”。在他看来，资产阶级个体在市民社会中过于追求私利，由此形成了“孤立的”和“利己主义”的社会发展形式，产生了大量的恶性竞争；个体利益的增加往往以他人利益为工具，结果造成他人利益的牺牲和社会整体发展的僵滞。无产阶级是唯一与生产资料没有直接联系的阶级，但又构成社会生产发展实践的主要承担者，因而无产阶级本质上是“大公无私”的阶级。但单个无产者具有自发性，如列宁在阐述“工人的自发性”问题时就认为，工人缺乏总结提升科学理论的能力，其自发的运动不能产生社会主义，只能产生工联主义。“自发的工人运动就是工联主义的、也就是纯粹工会的运动，而工联主义正是意味着工人受资产阶级的思想奴役。”无产阶级的解放不是通过个人直接占有生产资料的方式，而是必须通过“联合起来的个人”重新占有社会生产资料，在此基础上无产阶级才能成为新的生产关系的代表，即社会化占有的生产关系发展趋势的代表。

The real existential predicament of the human being is deeply connected to the clarification of the true essence of the human being. Revealing the essential basis of human existence can provide a fundamental explanatory path for analyzing and resolving the existential predicament of the human being. “But the essence of man is no abstraction inherent in each single individual. In its actuality it is the ensemble of the social relations.” [28]28 This quotation is from Karl Marx, *Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844*, referring to the depiction of workers in the ancient Greek sculptor’s work. This is not only a critique of the “abstract individual,” but also a critique of existing institutions and existing social relations. The “abstract individual” is a misjudgment of the essence of the human being, reflecting the alienation of production and intercourse relations in the capitalist era. The production and intercourse relations of the capitalist era increasingly manifest the extreme principle of individuality, with egoistic relations of intercourse appearing between people. This kind of mutually isolated and separated social relation is a distortion of the essence of the human being itself, covering up the social essence

人的现实存在困境与对人真实本质的澄清具有深层关联，揭示人存在的本质根据能够为分析并化解人的生存困境提供根本的解释路径。“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。”这不仅是对“抽象的人”的批判，更是对现有制度和现存社会关系的批判。“抽象的人”是对人本质的误判，反映了资本主义时代中的生产与交往关系的异化。资本主义时代的生产和交往关系愈发彰显出极致的个体性原则，人与人之间呈现出利己性的交往关系。这种彼此孤立隔绝的社会关系是对人自身本质的扭曲，掩盖了人类交往的社会本质。马克思在批判以物质利益和商品交换关系为纽带的资产阶级社会的基础上，指出只有在实现普遍交往关系的共同体中才能真正实现个体本质的回归，即真正的人类社会必将是建立在不同民族、国家之间平等交往的基础之上的。只有通过革命行动消灭以自发的社会分工和私有制为基础的资本主义社会，才能超越“虚假的共同体”，建立“真正的共同体”，实现劳动和所有权的统一。这种劳动和所有权的统一不是劳动者对物的简单占有，而是劳动者新生产能力和社会新所有制的统一，是个人自由与社会普遍精神的和解，更是合理的“真正的共同体”的建立。

Marx believed that the means of production should be public, belonging to all members of society, and that through the value guidance of communism, the spontaneous and blind tendencies of individual behavior could be overcome, thereby aligning individual values with the actual demands and ultimate direction of social development. If the “Other” in Western political philosophy is placed within the horizon of “human society,” the “Other” is no longer regarded as a force of threat, division, and subversion, but as an element of supplementation, perfection, and enrichment. The social relations formed by the proletariat, which truly represents the interests of the broadest masses of working people, are harmonious rather than conflictual, and mutually beneficial rather than mutually destructive. The overall movement of human history driven by the proletariat is mainly manifested as follows: the latent contradictions between humans and nature, and between humans and humans, gradually dissolve under the premise of the positive sublation of private property; the relations between humans and nature, and between humans and humans, regain unity in the state of “human society” or “social humanity.” Marx’s “the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all” is not an expression of an individualistic view of history, but a manifestation of a human-historical view. The freely developing individual represents the state of human existence in the future communist society, which is precisely the result of all real, productive humans jointly creating history.

马克思认为，生产资料应当是公共的，属于社会全体成员的，试图通过共产主义的价值引领以克服个人行为的自发性和盲目性弊病，从而使个人的价值观符合社会发展的现实要求和终极方向。如果把西方政治哲学中的“他者”置于“人类社会”的视域之下，“他者”便不再被视为威胁、分裂和颠覆的力量，而被视为补充、完善和丰富的因素。真正代表最广大劳动群众利益的无产阶级所形成的社会关系是和谐而不是冲突的，是共赢而不是互损的。由无产阶级推动的人类历史整体运动主要表现为:人与自然、人与人之间的潜在矛盾在私有财产积极扬弃的前提下逐渐瓦解，人与自然、人与人的关系在“人类社会”或者“社会的人类”的状态中重新获得统一。马克思的“每个人的自由发展是一切人的自由发展的条件”，并不是个人史观的表达，而是一种人类史观的彰显。自由发展的个人表征着未来共产主义社会的人的生存状态，其恰恰是现实的从事着生产的全部人类共同创造历史的结果。

(II) A Community with a Shared Future for Mankind That Accords with the Essence of Human Interaction

（二）契合人类交往本质的人类命运共同体

Faced with the “irrational” state of modern capitalist society, many Western thinkers have attempted to propose theoretical solutions to the problems of capitalist globalization. Western scholars have tried to presuppose institutional norms for global interaction from the concept of community. The idea of constructing “community” can be traced back to the ancient Greek Cynics and Stoics, who early on conceived of the “world citizen” transcending the interests of the city-state—that is, each individual citizen must possess a tolerant and fraternal consciousness of humanity as a whole and a sense of responsibility for the entire universe. [23]23 The Cynics and Stoics were ancient Greek philosophical schools that advocated living in accordance with nature and reason, often promoting cosmopolitanism—the idea of being a “citizen of the world” beyond local political boundaries. “Western theories of community understand the ‘common’ in concrete and definite terms: they are either based on blood relations and the various close relationships developed from them, or on space and history, or on inner thought and spirit.” This concept of community replaces various forms of class, racial, and religious prejudice with unified norms, but it neglects the heterogeneity and diversity within the community, and fails to consider the question of “how it is possible” for a community that accommodates differences to exist in a modern market society. When the interests of community members become separate or even opposed, or when “free-rider” market behaviors emerge, how can the internal order of the community be effectively maintained? These highly challenging questions prompted the emergence of the thought of a community with a shared future for mankind.

面对现代资本主义社会的“非理性”现状，西方诸多思想家都曾试图提出解决资本主义全球化问题的理论方案。西方学者尝试从共同体的理念出发预设世界性交往的制度规范。建构“共同体”的理念可追溯至古希腊的犬儒学派和斯多葛学派，他们早就提出超越城邦利益的“世界公民”的构想，即每个公民个体均需有宽容博爱的人类整体意识并对全宇宙负责的担当精神。“西方共同体理论对‘共同’的理解是具体而确凿的，它们或是基于血缘关系及从中发展出的各种亲近关系，或是基于空间与历史，或是基于内在的思想与精神。”这种共同体理念以统一的规范取代形形色色的阶级、种族和宗教的偏见，但却忽略了共同体内部的异质性和多样性，而且没有思考包容差异的共同体在现代市场社会“何以可能”的问题。当共同体成员的利益彼此分离甚至对立时，当出现“搭便车”的市场行为时，如何有效维护共同体的内部秩序？这些极富挑战性的问题促使人类命运共同体思想应运而生。

Faced with the background of global disorder caused by capitalist countries’ wanton pursuit of maximizing surplus value, the proposal of “a community with a shared future for mankind” brings new vitality to the reconstruction of a new order in the international landscape. Building a community with a shared future for mankind aims to closely link the future and destiny of all nations, regions, and countries in the world, strive to build a global harmonious family, share weal and woe, honor and disgrace, and turn the people of all countries’ aspiration for a better life into reality. The thought of a community with a shared future for mankind and its practical construction share a deep theoretical connection with new materialism; it inherits new materialism’s basic principles and stance for observing the world, as well as its mode of thinking for analyzing problems. The starting point of new materialism is not civil society represented by the bourgeoisie, but human society, which highlights the proletariat as the main practical force. A community with a shared future for mankind is a global governance plan that actively sublates the alienated relations between humans to achieve win-win cooperation, aiming to reconstruct a new form of human civilization from the height of human emancipation.

面对资本主义国家肆意追求剩余价值最大化而造成全球失序的背景，“人类命运共同体”的提出为国际格局新秩序的重建带来新活力。构建人类命运共同体，旨在将世界各民族国家和地区的前途命运紧紧联系在一起，努力构建全球性和谐大家庭，风雨同舟、荣辱与共，把世界各国人民对美好生活的向往变成现实。人类命运共同体思想及其现实构建与新唯物主义之间存在深层的理路关联，它继承了新唯物主义观察世界的基本原则和立场以及分析问题的思维方式。新唯物主义的出发点不是以资产阶级为代表的市民社会，而是凸显以无产阶级为主要实践力量的人类社会。人类命运共同体是积极扬弃人与人之间的异化关系而实现合作共赢的全球治理方案，意在立足人类解放的高度重建人类文明新形态。

“A community with a shared future for mankind” sublates the anarchic state of neoliberalism starting from the individual standpoint, seeks to resolve the deep philosophical problem of the value vacuum underlying different civilizational conflicts, and is a realistic form that meets the fundamental needs of all human development. Marx believed that the future human society will necessarily transcend the private sphere and develop into a “union of free individuals.” The “union of free individuals” shares commonalities with concepts such as the “real collective” and “united individuals,” all emphasizing the genuine realization of individual independence and autonomy, and the full realization of individual free personality, initiative, and creativity. This is fundamentally different from the naturally formed communities in traditional societies and the “false collectives” created by the bourgeoisie. The “community” form as a “union” is not the community formed by the “general will” as Rousseau conceived. To resolve the contradiction between the individual and the community, Rousseau once envisioned that “each of us puts his person and all his power in common under the supreme direction of the general will, and, in our corporate capacity, we receive each member as an indivisible part of the whole.” [24]24 Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712–1778), a Genevan philosopher, argued in *The Social Contract* (1762) that legitimate political authority rests on a “general will” of the people, which aims at the common good. Rousseau envisioned citizens forming a community under the guidance of the “general will,” but he did not clearly explain the relationship between the “general will” and freedom. In fact, many of the drawbacks of liberalism had already begun to manifest in that era. Hegel profoundly recognized that Rousseau’s “general will” implied absolute freedom and violence, calling it “absolute freedom and terror.” [25]25 Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (1770–1831), a German idealist philosopher, criticized Rousseau’s concept of the general will in his *Phenomenology of Spirit* (1807) and *Philosophy of Right* (1820), arguing it could lead to abstract, destructive freedom. The needs of practical development are the fundamental concern in the concept of building a community with a shared future for mankind. Each nation-state is not an abstract, self-sufficient “independent entity” dwelling outside the world, but participates in global interactions based on its own practical needs. “The relations among different nations depend on the extent to which each has developed its productive forces, the division of labor, and internal intercourse.” [26]26 This is a quotation from Marx and Engels in *The German Ideology* (1845–1846), where they analyze how material conditions shape international relations. Different countries and nations are both distinct from and equal to each other. “A community with a shared future for mankind” does not deny that contradictions and conflicts may exist between countries, but it attempts to resolve conflicts and contradictions by seeking certain common points of interest and convergence of goals. A community with a shared future for mankind is not altruism or idealism, but a realism that focuses on overall interests and developmental needs.

“人类命运共同体”扬弃了新自由主义从个体立场出发的无政府状态，力图化解不同文明冲突发生的深层次价值空场的哲学难题，是符合全人类发展根本需求的现实形态。马克思认为，人类未来社会必将超越私人领域发展为“自由人联合体”。“自由人联合体”与“真实的集体”以及“联合起来的个人”等概念具有共性，都强调个人独立自主性的真正实现，强调推动个体的自由个性、能动性和创造性得到充分实现，其与传统社会中天然形成的联合体以及资产阶级制造的“虚假的集体”迥然不同。作为“联合体”的“共同体”形态并非卢梭所说的因“公意”而结合的共同体。为了解决个体与共同体之间的矛盾，卢梭曾设想“我们每一个人都把我们自身和我们的全部力量置于公意的最高指导之下，而且把共同体中的每一个成员都接纳为全体不可分割的一部分”。卢梭设想公民在“公意”引领下形成共同体，但并未解释清楚“公意”与自由之间的关系，实际上，自由主义的很多弊端在那个时代已开始显现出来。黑格尔深刻地认识到卢梭的“公意”暗含绝对自由和狂暴，将之称为“绝对自由和恐怖”。现实发展需要是人类命运共同体构建理念中的根本关切，每个民族国家都不是抽象地蛰居于世界之外的、自给自足的“独立实体”，而是从自身现实的需要出发参与到世界的交往活动之中。“各民族之间的相互关系取决于每一个民族的生产力、分工和内部交往的发展程度”，不同国家和民族既彼此相异又相互平等。“人类命运共同体”不否认各国之间可能存在矛盾与冲突，但试图通过寻找某种利益共同点和目标契合点的方式解决冲突与矛盾。人类命运共同体不是利他主义和理想主义，而是关注整体利益和发展需要的现实主义。

First, the holistic consciousness and social relational consciousness emphasized by a community with a shared future for mankind can effectively address “global challenges.” In the era of deepening economic globalization and increasingly close overall interconnectedness, human development is more urgently in need of addressing more “global challenges” than ever before. Faced with new types of global problems, individual countries and regions often feel a certain “uncertainty”; relying solely on their own strength, it is difficult to effectively address and resolve these global issues. Only by pooling collective efforts can a reliable path to solving global challenges be found. How to solve the common problems facing the world? This requires extensive consultation, joint contribution, and shared benefits in broader, more comprehensive, and more genuine international interactions, building a community with a shared future for mankind, and forming a combined force that transcends the isolated developmental power of each country. The particular goals of each country are subordinate to the overarching goals of the community with a shared future for mankind, and the development trends of each country conform to and serve the world-historical process of the community with a shared future for mankind. Only by simultaneously considering their own interests, the interests of other countries, and the overall interests of the world can countries better coordinate their own development with the development of the community with a shared future for mankind, and realize the evolution of human society from a lower stage to a higher stage in jointly responding to challenges and threats.

第一，人类命运共同体强调的整体意识和社会关系意识能够有效应对“世界性难题”。在经济全球化深入发展、整体相关性日益密切的时代背景中，人类发展比以往任何时候都更加迫切需要应对更多的“世界性难题”。面对新型世界性问题，单个国家和地区时常感受到某种“不确定性”，单纯依靠自身力量难以有效应对和解决这些全球性问题，只有汇聚众力，才能找到化解世界性难题的可靠路径。如何解决全球面对的共同问题?这需要在更广泛、更全面和更真实的国际交往中共商、共建、共享，构建人类命运共同体，形成超越每个国家孤立发展力量的合力。每个国家的特殊性目标从属于人类命运共同体的总体性目标，每个国家的发展趋势顺应和服务于人类命运共同体的世界历史进程。各个国家只有同时兼顾本国利益、他国利益以及世界全局的利益，才能在人类命运共同体中更好将自身的发展与人类命运共同体的发展协调一致，在共同应对挑战和威胁中实现人类社会发展由低级阶段向高级阶段的演进。

Second, the search of a community with a shared future for mankind for the meaning of collective action can provide emotional sustenance for alleviating the anxiety of modernity. The world today is extremely unstable, and individuals situated within it often feel confused and anxious when facing change, yet “security is a vital quality of a happy life.” [27]27 This quotation is from the Chinese scholar Sun Liping, “The Anxiety of Modernity and Its Way Out,” *Exploration and Free Views*, no. 1 (2014): 10. Ethical security concerns the foundation of human existence. A community with a shared future for mankind transcends, at the level of ethical emotion, cold, purely interest-based relations; it is no longer a rigid aggregate bound together by icy clauses such as regulations, systems, and laws, but a self-consistent union based on shared consciousness and inner needs. This emotion is not the concrete manifestation of individual feelings, but is rather closely linked to cultural structures, social structures, and political structures. With a community with a shared future for mankind as the bond, interactions between people transcend utilitarian and exclusive individual purposes and acquire a certain aesthetic quality: “Brotherly love among them is no empty phrase, but a truth, and their figures, hardened by labor, radiate the sublime light of the human spirit.” [28]28 This quotation is from Karl Marx, *Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844*, referring to the depiction of workers in the ancient Greek sculptor’s work. The concept of building a community with a shared future for mankind resolutely opposes any private interest that contravenes the common interest, consistently combines the resolution of common problems facing humanity with the safeguarding of common interests, and strives to promote the further development of productive forces, thereby laying the indispensable material foundation for the overall development of humanity. In the risk society of globalization, a community with a shared future for mankind makes it easier for subjects to gain recognition from others and thereby enhances the sense of achievement among its internal members, thus promoting the construction of international relations characterized by shared weal and woe, win-win cooperation, and close friendship.

第二，人类命运共同体对集体行动意义的寻求能够为解决现代性焦虑提供情感寄托。当今世界极具不稳定性，置身其中的个体面对变化时，常感到迷茫和焦虑，但“安全感是幸福生活的至关重要的品质”。伦理安全关涉人的生存基础，人类命运共同体在伦理情感层面超越了冷冰冰的纯粹利益关系，不再是由规章、制度和法则等冰冷条款扭结而成的生硬集合，而是基于共同意识、内在需要的自洽结合。这种情感并非个体具象的情绪展现，而是更多地与文化结构、社会结构以及政治结构紧密相连。以人类命运共同体为纽带，人与人之间的交往超越了功利性和排他性的个体目的，具备一定的审美意味，“人与人之间的兄弟情谊在他们那里不是空话，而是真情，并且他们那由于劳动而变得坚实的形象向我们放射出人类崇高精神之光”。构建人类命运共同体理念坚决反对任何与共同利益相违背的私利主张，始终将解决人类面临的共同问题与维护共同利益结合起来考虑，努力促使生产力进一步发展，为人类实现整体发展奠定不可或缺的物质基础。在全球化风险社会中，人类命运共同体使主体更加容易获得他人的认可并由此增强内部成员的成就感，从而促进构建休戚与共、合作共赢和亲密友善的国际关系。

China actively promotes the building of a community with a shared future for mankind, commits itself to resolving the development problems commonly faced by all nation-states, and advocates that the world’s destiny be jointly controlled by all countries, international rules be jointly formulated by all countries, and development achievements be jointly shared by all countries, thereby pointing out a new direction for global governance and international cooperation. Building a community with a shared future for mankind is conducive to advancing in-depth exchanges and broad cooperation worldwide, and to promoting the realization of the beautiful vision of humanity sharing the fruits of civilization and achieving common prosperity. This fully demonstrates the great-power responsibility and global vision of China in the New Era. Building a community with a shared future for mankind has far-reaching world-historical significance. Its practical expansion requires us to strengthen research on the basic theory of a community with a shared future for mankind, to conduct philosophical inquiry into the antecedent question of the theoretical resources of a community with a shared future for mankind, thereby deepening our understanding of the original contributions of the concept of a community with a shared future for mankind, and further grasping the theoretical inheritance relationship between the concept of a community with a shared future for mankind and new materialism.

中国积极推动构建人类命运共同体，致力于解决各民族国家共同面临的发展问题，倡议世界命运由各国共同掌握、国际规则由各国共同制定以及发展成果由各国共同分享，为全球治理与国际合作指明了新的方向。构建人类命运共同体有益于推进世界范围内的深入交流与广泛合作，推动人类共享文明成果、共同富裕发展这一美好愿景的实现，充分彰显了新时代中国的大国担当与世界情怀。构建人类命运共同体具有深远的世界历史意义，其实践拓展要求我们加强对人类命运共同体基础理论的研究，对人类命运共同体的理论资源这一前提性问题进行哲学追问，以此深化对人类命运共同体理念原创性贡献的认识，进一步把握人类命运共同体理念与新唯物主义之间的理论继承关系。

(Author’s brief biography: Liu Tongfang, Professor, School of Marxism, Zhejiang University)

（作者简介：刘同舫，浙江大学马克思主义学院教授）

Online editor: Tongxin

网络编辑：同心