Marx’s Critique of Capital Civilization in *Capital* and Its World-Historical Significance

In *Capital*, Marx, through the conceptual and categorical system of political economy, comprehensively investigates the political preconditions and conditions that make capital civilization possible, such as the complete dissolution of traditional social relations and the establishment of universal commodity exchange relations, and the fact that laborers, having achieved political emancipation, are simultaneously dispossessed of everything and must sell their labor power in a free manner. Moreover, through a comprehensive dialogue with and critical transcendence of modern Western political philosophy, he reveals the real path and world-historical trend of humanity’s transition from the political emancipation of capital civilization to the human emancipation of comprehensive human development.

在《资本论》中，马克思透过政治经济学的概念与范畴体系，全面探查了资本文明得以可能的政治前提与条件，比如传统社会关系的全面解体与普遍的商品交换关系的建立，劳动者在完成政治解放的同时又一无所有到必须以自由的方式出卖劳动力，等等。并通过对近代以来西方政治哲学的全面对话与批判性超越，揭示了人类从资本文明的政治解放向人的全面发展的人的解放的现实道路及其世界历史趋势。

The critique of capital civilization in *Capital* is first and foremost a critique of totality: capital civilization is the result of a total design, not of individual free choice, and therefore the path of its critique and transcendence must also be total, not individual. Marx points out: “However much the individual may transcend his relations in his subjective view, he is socially always the product of these relations. My view is, more than any other, that the individual cannot be held responsible for these relations.” [1]1 Karl Marx, *Capital*, Vol. 1, Preface to the First Edition. The contemporary Korean-German philosopher Byung-Chul Han similarly points out that in the empire of capital civilization, “everyone is subject to the command of the capitalist economy.” As a total system, what it manifests is “rule by nobody, which presents the capitalist system as covering everyone.” [2]2 Byung-Chul Han, *What is Power?*, trans. (German original). Those living within this system appear to engage in free “self-exploitation.” This is because modern capital civilization “is cloaked in the guise of freedom, self-realization, and self-perfection. There is no exploiter who forces me to labor and makes me alienated. On the contrary, I willingly exploit myself, naively believing I am realizing myself.” [3]3 Byung-Chul Han, *The Burnout Society*.

《资本论》对资本文明的政治哲学批判首先体现为总体性的批判，即资本文明是一种总体设计而不是个体自由选择的结果，因此对其批判与超越之路也必须是总体而不是个体的。马克思指出：“不管个人在主观上怎样超脱各种关系，他在社会意义上总是这些关系的产物。同其他任何观点比起来，我的观点是更不能要个人对这些关系负责的。”当代韩裔德国哲学家韩炳哲同样指出，在资本文明的帝国中，“每个人都臣服于资本主义经济的号令”，作为一种总体的体系，其所表现出来的“无人统治，是把资本主义系统呈现出来，这个系统覆盖了所有人”。生活于这个系统内的人，表现为自由的“自我剥削”。这是因为现代资本文明“披上了自由、自我实现和自我完善的外衣。这里并没有强迫我劳动、使我发生异化的剥削者。相反，我心甘情愿地剥削着我自己，还天真地以为是在自我实现”。

In Han’s view, this total systemic violence “involves all members of a social system equally, making them victims indiscriminately, and therefore does not presuppose class antagonism or hierarchical relations of superiority and inferiority. This violence arises without relations of enmity or domination. Its subject is neither the person in power nor the ruling class, but the system itself. Hence, it lacks an acting subject used for oppression or exploitation.” [4]4 Byung-Chul Han, *Topology of Violence*. In Marx’s view, the physical and intellectual deterioration, premature death, torment of overwork, and anxiety and tension brought by capital civilization “do not depend on the good or ill will of the individual capitalist. Free competition makes the immanent laws of capitalist production act upon each individual capitalist as external coercive laws.” [5]5 Karl Marx, *Capital*, Vol. 1, Chapter 10. That is, through the universalization and absolutization of the system of exchange value, capital civilization makes the struggle for survival in living the absolute principle, no longer concerned with whether life is good or whether humanity is liberated, thereby casting “a rigid shell over life itself.” [6]6 Paraphrase of Marx’s imagery in *Capital*; cf. the “rigid shell” of reification.

在韩炳哲看来，这种总体的系统性暴力“涉及一个社会系统的所有成员，一视同仁地变其为受害者，因此不以阶级对立和上下等级关系为前提条件。这种暴力的产生无须敌对和统治关系。其主体既不是掌权的人，也不是统治阶级，而是系统本身。因此，它没有那种用于压迫或剥削的行为主体”。在马克思看来，资本文明所带来的体力和智力的衰退、夭折、过度劳动的折磨与焦虑紧张“并不取决于个别资本家的善意或恶意。自由竞争使资本主义生产的内在规律作为外在的强制规律对每个资本家起作用”。即资本文明通过交换价值体系的普遍化与绝对化，使得活下来的生存竞争成为绝对原则，不再关心生活是否美好或人类是否得到解放，从而给人类“生活本身蒙上一件僵硬的外套”。

Marx shows in *Capital* that through the complete and thorough exchange-value-ization of social relations, a modern capital civilization is formed with the individual, desire, and self-preservation as its essential core. Although it develops a legal personality that recognizes the rights of others, respects human rights, and formally fair buying and selling, along with the public-mindedness and the principle of “becoming a person and recognizing others as persons,” [7]7 G.W.F. Hegel, *Elements of the Philosophy of Right*, on the principle of recognition. in terms of the mode of human existence, it “reduces people to self-interested, independent individuals.” As bearers of these relations, people are “opposed to one another.” [8]8 Karl Marx, *Grundrisse*. For political thinkers of capital civilization such as Ferguson, “private interest protects commerce and prosperity better than the careful arrangements of the state”; “without competition among states, without war, civilized society itself would hardly find a goal or a form”; “a person who has never struggled with others knows nothing of half of human emotions.” [9]9 Adam Ferguson, *An Essay on the History of Civil Society*. Machiavelli is even more explicit, stating that people in capitalist society “are ungrateful… and pursue profit,” because “human nature is wicked, and at any time, when it is to their advantage, people will cut the bond of gratitude.” [10]10 Niccolò Machiavelli, *The Prince*, Chapter 17.

马克思在《资本论》中表明，通过社会关系全面又彻底的交换价值化，形成了以个体、欲望和自我持存为其本质核心的现代资本文明，其虽然发展出了以承认他人法权、尊重他人人权，形式上公平的买和卖的公德心和“成为人，并且承认他人为人”的法权人格。但在人的存在方式上把人“归结为利己的、独立的个体”，作为这种关系承担者的人是“彼此对立着的”，对于以弗格森等人为代表的资本文明的政治思想家来说，“私利较之国家的精心安排更能保护商业和繁荣”；“没有国家间的竞争，没有战争，文明社会本身就很难找到一个目标，或者说一种形式”；“一个没有和其他人斗争过的人，对于人类一半的情感都一无所知”。而马基雅维利则更为露骨地指出，资本主义社会的人“是忘恩负义……追逐利益的”，因为“人性是恶劣的，在任何时候，只要对自己有利，人们便把这条纽带（恩义）一刀两断了”。

Therefore, for Marx, the “freedom” of capital civilization as a human right “is not based on the connection of man with man, but rather on the separation of man from man.” [11]11 Karl Marx, “On the Jewish Question.” “The individual can exist only as a producer of exchange value, and this already implies the complete negation of his natural existence.” [12]12 Karl Marx, *Grundrisse*. For the individual of capital civilization, as Hobbes argues, “happiness is a continual progress of the desire from one object to another.” [13]13 Thomas Hobbes, *Leviathan*, Chapter 11. The result of the development of capital civilization is therefore not the self-realization, self-affirmation, self-determination, and manifestation of individuality described by bourgeois consciousness, but rather: “The extent of the power of money is the extent of my power. The properties of money are my—the money-holder’s—properties and essential powers. Therefore, what I am and what I can do is by no means determined by my individuality.” [14]14 Karl Marx, *Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844*, “The Power of Money.”

因此，对于马克思来说，资本文明的“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”。“个人只有作为交换价值的生产者才能存在，而这种情况就已经包含着对个人的自然存在的完全否定。”对于资本文明的个人来说，就如霍布斯所主张的那样，“幸福就是欲望从一个目标到另一个目标不断地发展”。资本文明发展的结果因此并不是资产阶级意识所描述的自我实现、自我肯定、自我决定和个性的彰显，而是“货币的力量多大，我的力量就多大。货币的特性就是我——货币持有者的特性和本质力量。因此，我是什么和我能够做什么，这绝不是由我的个性来决定的”。

Consequently, the cultural spirit of capitalist civilization, due to its essential boundaries of self-interest and reification, cannot develop a cultural and social spirit centered on benevolence, characterized by caring for others, responsibility, and family and national sentiment, thereby blocking the possibility of realizing humanity’s positive existence. Dallmayr, in *Twilight of Subjectivity*, profoundly points out that as a “punishment” for the mutually indifferent social relations formed by modern capital civilization, people are “permanently imprisoned within their own selves, condemned to view the world like knights in a castle.” [15]15 Fred Dallmayr, *Twilight of Subjectivity*. Listening and resonance are no longer the main axis of social relations for the narcissistic subject of capital civilization, who is “indulging in the self.” People can no longer enter each other’s inner worlds and experience the meaning of life found in high mountains and flowing water, [16]16 A classical Chinese allusion to the friendship between Yu Boya and Zhong Ziqi, symbolizing deep mutual understanding. perfect harmony, and mutual help in times of need. Thus, it becomes difficult to realize what Marx calls the human emancipation of “human society” and “social humanity”: “Man finally becomes the master of his own social combination, and thereby the master of nature, the master of himself—a free person.” [17]17 Friedrich Engels, *Socialism: Utopian and Scientific*, quoting Marx’s vision.

因此，资本主义文明的文化精神由于其利己心和物化的本质界限不能发展出以仁爱为核心的关心他人、责任担当、家国情怀的文化和社会精神，从而阻断了人的积极存在的实现的可能。多尔迈在《主体性的黄昏》中深刻地指出，作为对现代资本文明所形成的相互冷漠化的社会关系的“惩罚”，人们被“永久监禁在它的自我之中，被判定像城堡中的骑士那样去看世界”。倾听、共鸣不再是“沉溺在自我之中的”资本文明自恋主体的社会关系的主轴，人们开始不再能够相互进入到彼此的内心世界，体验到高山流水、水乳交融、相濡以沫的生命意义，也就难以实现马克思所说的“人的社会”和“社会的人类”的人类解放问题：“人终于成为自己的社会结合的主人，从而也就成为自然界的主人，成为自身的主人——自由的人。”

As for the freedom of self-realization advocated by the ideology of capital civilization, in Han’s view it is precisely a form of coercion: “It forces people to be only themselves, to define themselves, write themselves, and create themselves solely through themselves. The imperative of authenticity imposes coercive measures on the self, forcing it to constantly interrogate, eavesdrop on, spy on, and surround itself. In this way, it intensifies narcissistic self-reference.” [18]18 Byung-Chul Han, *The Burnout Society*. Because this narcissistic subject of self-reference cannot care for or be concerned with others in spirit and soul, it ultimately leads to the catastrophic consequence of comprehending the world only through its own shadow. Moreover, capital civilization’s emphasis on the thorough commodification and exchange-value-ization of the human person means that every individual takes producing oneself, marketing oneself, displaying oneself, and managing oneself—offering oneself as a commodity to others—as the main thread of life and existence. Capital civilization thus transforms the traditional exploitation by others into the self-exploitation of all classes. As Marx points out, even the capitalist, “as a capitalist, he is only personified capital. His soul is the soul of capital.” [19]19 Karl Marx, *Capital*, Vol. 1, Chapter 24.

对于资本文明的意识形态所倡导的自我实现的自由，在韩炳哲看来恰恰是一种强制，“它强迫人们只像自己，只通过自己来定义自己、书写自己、创造自己。真实性的律令对自己施以强制手段，迫使自己不断地拷问、窃听、窥探、包围自己。通过此种方式，加剧自恋式的自我关涉”。由于这种自我关涉的自恋的主体不能在精神和灵魂深处关心和牵挂他人，最终导致只能在自己的影子中领悟这个世界的灾难性后果。而且资本文明对人本身的彻底商品化和交换价值化的强调，导致了每个个体始终以生产自己、营销自己、展示自己、经营自己，把自己当作货物提供给别人为生活与生命的主线，资本文明从而将传统的他人剥削转变成了所有阶级的自我剥削。就像马克思所指出的那样，即使是资本家，“作为资本家，他只是人格化的资本。他的灵魂就是资本的灵魂”。

The modern capital civilization that promotes “evil,” “opposition,” “conflict,” and “competition,” creating isolated individuals, is not a so-called “natural result.” Rather, as Kant stated in *Idea for a Universal History with a Cosmopolitan Purpose*, the so-called “beginning from evil” of modern capital civilization is merely “a creation of man.” The relations of intercourse in modern capitalist society are likewise described by Ferdinand Tönnies in *Community and Society* as “an artificial aggregation of individuals.” This is what Max Weber called “specialists without spirit, sensualists without heart,” and what Charles Taylor characterized as thorough “secularity.” Adam Smith, in *The Theory of Moral Sentiments*, pointed out that for this society, “the individual’s physical condition, wealth, status, and reputation are regarded as the main objects on which his comfort and happiness in this life depend.” Capital civilization therefore inevitably finds it difficult, in spiritual terms, to escape the crisis and predicament of secularized and de-sacralized nihilism. The excessive emphasis on competition and opposition will further breed religious fundamentalist terrorism, populism, or a fatigued society, and even neo-fascist racism, conservatism, deglobalization, and the advent of an era of sustained conflict and confrontation among nation-states. This in turn will devour the possible space for improving individual material life brought about by universal commodity exchange.

弘扬“恶”“对立”“冲突”和“竞争”，造成孤寂个人的现代资本文明，并不是所谓的“自然的结果”，而是如康德在《历史理性批判文集》中所说的那样，现代资本文明所谓的“由恶而开始”不过是“人的创作”。现代资本主义社会的交往关系同样被斐迪南·滕尼斯在《共同体与社会》中描述为“人造的个体的聚集”。这种被马克斯·韦伯称之为“专家没有灵魂，纵欲者没有心肝”，被查尔斯·泰勒描述为彻底的“世俗性”。斯密则在《道德情操论》中指出，对于这个社会来说，“个人的身体状况、财富、地位和名誉，被认为是他此生舒适和幸福所依赖的主要对象”。资本文明因此必然在精神上难以摆脱世俗化和非神圣性的虚无主义的危机与困局，对竞争与对立的过度强调将进一步滋生宗教原教旨恐怖主义、民粹主义或倦怠社会，甚至是新法西斯主义的种族主义、保守主义、去全球化和民族国家间持续冲突和对抗时代的到来，进而反过来反噬由普遍的商品交换所带来的个体物质生活改善的可能空间。

Although as early as the beginning of the 19th century, Tocqueville had already recognized the serious problem of individualism, pointing out that “individualism is a calm and considered feeling which disposes each member of the community to sever himself from the mass of his fellows and to draw apart with his family and his friends; so that, after he has thus formed a little circle of his own, he willingly leaves society at large to itself… Individualism, at first, only saps the virtues of public life; but, in the long run, it attacks and destroys all others and is at length absorbed in downright selfishness.” However, it was only Marx who truly elucidated that the absolutization of individualism is the result, not the starting point, of the thoroughgoing and absolutized social relations of exchange established by capital civilization. Therefore, the way out also lies in dissolving the absolutization of capitalist social relations at the level of political totality.

虽然早在19世纪初，托克维尔就已经意识到个人主义的严重问题，并指出“个人主义是一种深思熟虑而平静的感受，它使得共同体的每个成员将自己与大多数同伴分开，与家人和朋友拉开距离。如此，一旦他建立起一个属于自己的小圈子，便欣然将整个社会抛在脑后……个人主义，起初只是削弱公共生活的善行，但从长远看，它攻击并毁灭所有的他人，直至陷入彻底的自私自利”。不过，只有马克思才真正阐明，个人主义的绝对化是资本文明所设定的社会交换关系的彻底化和绝对化的结果，而不是起点。因此，出路也在于在政治总体性上消解资本主义社会关系的绝对主义化。

The crisis of modern capital civilization lies not only in its thorough reification, but even more in the empowerment of this logic of reification. Within a single country, it manifests as the problem of poverty and the lumpenproletariat resulting from the polarization of rich and poor; on a world and global scale, it manifests as the problem of the center-periphery world-system. The capital civilization developed from the system of exchange value, through its collusion with technology, negates the significance of direct labor whose content is labor time. That is, while devaluing direct labor, it simultaneously firmly confines laborers to the level of relying on direct labor for their livelihood. This leads to the problem of poverty and the lumpenproletariat in civil society that Hegel found difficult to resolve in *Elements of the Philosophy of Right*. Through an analysis of the logic of capital’s valorization, Marx revealed the predicament that the ownership logic of free exchange under modern capital civilization cannot explain or answer: “The law by which a constantly increasing quantity of means of production, thanks to the advance in the productivity of social labour, may be set in motion by a progressively diminishing expenditure of human power, this law, in a capitalist situation, where the worker does not employ the means of production but the means of production employ the worker, undergoes a complete inversion and is expressed thus: the higher the productivity of labour, the greater is the pressure of the workers on the means of employment, the more precarious, therefore, becomes the condition for their existence, viz. the sale of their own labour-power for the increase of alien wealth, or in other words for the self-valorization of capital. The fact that the means of production and the productivity of labour increase more rapidly than the productive population expresses itself, therefore, in the opposite form, that the working population increases more rapidly than the valorization requirements of capital… The law by which a constantly increasing quantity of means of production may be set in motion by a progressively diminishing expenditure of human power, this law, in a capitalist situation, where the worker does not employ the means of production but the means of production employ the worker, undergoes a complete inversion and is expressed thus: the higher the productivity of labour, the greater is the pressure of the workers on the means of employment, the more precarious, therefore, becomes the condition for their existence, viz. the sale of their own labour-power for the increase of alien wealth, or in other words for the self-valorization of capital. The fact that the means of production and the productivity of labour increase more rapidly than the productive population expresses itself, therefore, in the opposite form, that the working population increases more rapidly than the valorization requirements of capital… It follows therefore that in proportion as capital accumulates, the situation of the worker, be his payment high or low, must grow worse… Accumulation of wealth at one pole is, therefore, at the same time accumulation of misery, agony of toil, slavery, ignorance, brutality, mental degradation, at the opposite pole, i.e. on the side of the class that produces its own product as capital.” [20]20 Karl Marx, *Capital*, Volume 1, Chapter 25, Section 4. The quotation is slightly adapted from the standard English translation to match the Chinese text’s phrasing and emphasis.

现代资本文明的危机并不仅仅在于其彻底地物化，更在于这一物化逻辑的权力化。其在一国之内表现为贫富两极化的贫困与贱民问题，在世界和全球范围内则表现为中心与边缘世界体系难题。从交换价值体系发展而来的资本文明，通过与技术合谋，在否定以劳动时间为内容直接劳动的意义，即在将直接劳动去价值化的同时，又将劳动者牢牢地限定于依靠直接劳动来谋生的水平上，这就导致了黑格尔在《法哲学原理》中所难以解决的市民社会的贫困与贱民难题。马克思则通过对资本增殖逻辑的分析，揭示了现代资本文明自由交换的所有权逻辑难以解释和回答的困局：“使相对过剩人口或产业后备军同积累的规模和能力始终保持平衡的规律把工人钉在资本上，比赫斐斯塔司的楔子把普罗米修斯钉在岩石上钉得还要牢。这一规律制约着同资本积累相适应的贫困积累。因此，在一极是财富的积累，同时在另一极，即在把自己的产品作为资本来生产的阶级方面，是贫困、劳动折磨、受奴役、无知、粗野和道德堕落的积累。”

Unlike Hegel, who attempted to resolve the predicament of surplus population and the de-laborization of production through colonization, Marx advocated for active state governance to guide the population living by direct labor toward a new type of labor force engaged in invention and artistic creation through education. Therefore, unlike the common understanding of Marx’s *Capital* as a critique of capitalist exploitation, Marx, beginning with his manuscripts and preparatory writings for *Capital* such as *On the Jewish Question* (1843) and the *Kreuznach Notebooks*, insisted that the critique of political economy must first be understood as a political critique. Consequently, the problem of emancipation must shift from a critique of religion to a critique of the state, and then the issue of transcending capital civilization must be grasped and understood as a transition from political emancipation to human emancipation: through active state governance, the unity of man’s positive essence and positive existence is to be completed, thereby advancing the transformation of production from an axis of labor time to an axis of free time, and overcoming, on the political-economic level, the contemporary problems of poverty and the lumpenproletariat, and of center and periphery, arising from the polarization of rich and poor.

和黑格尔试图通过殖民解决过剩人口及其生产去劳动化的困局不同，马克思主张通过积极的国家治理，将以直接劳动为生的人口通过教育方式引向以发明和艺术创作为职业的新型劳动力人口。因此，和通常将马克思的《资本论》理解为资本剥削批判不同，马克思自1843年《论犹太人问题》和《克罗茨纳赫笔记》等《资本论》的手稿和准备文稿开始，就主张将政治经济学的批判首先理解为政治批判，从而得到解放问题必须从宗教批判转向国家批判，进而将超越资本文明的问题理解和把握为从政治解放转向人类解放：通过积极的国家治理完成人的积极本质和积极存在相统一，并由此推进生产从劳动时间为主轴向以自由时间为主轴的转换，并在政治经济层面上克服当代贫富两极分化的贫困与贱民、中心与边缘的难题。

The new political economy, which takes invention as its profession, inherently requires the realization of man’s positive existence. “In the domain of political economy, free scientific inquiry meets not only the same enemies as in all other domains. The peculiar nature of the material it deals with summons into the battlefield the most violent, mean and malignant passions of the human breast, the Furies of private interest.” [21]21 Karl Marx, *Capital*, Volume 1, Preface to the First German Edition. For Marx, the new political economy demands the restoration of the rightful place of free scientific inquiry. Its core lies in transcending the ideology of individualism and egoism under capital civilization, and re-understanding the individual as a member of the community. This is unlike the critique of modern capital civilization represented by the United States made by Robert Bellah, for whom, in the ideology of modern capital civilization, “the meaning of individual life lies in being one’s own master, only regretting not being able to give oneself life. Most of this process… is negative, implying a rupture between the individual and family, community, and inherited ideas.”

以发明为职业的新政治经济学内在地要求人的积极存在的实现。“在政治经济学领域内，自由的科学研究遇到的敌人，不只是它在一切其他领域内遇到的敌人。政治经济学所研究的材料的特殊性质，把人们心中最激烈、最卑鄙、最恶劣的感情，把代表私人利益的复仇女神召唤到战场上来反对自由的科学研究。”对马克思来说，新政治经济学要求重新恢复自由的科学研究应有的地位，其核心在于超越资本文明个人主义和利己主义的意识形态，重新将个人理解为共同体的成员。而非如罗柏特·贝拉对美国为代表的现代资本文明所批判的那样，对于现代资本文明的意识形态来说：“个体生命的意义就在于做自己的主人，只恨不能给予自己生命。这个过程的大部分……是消极的，内含着个体与家庭、共同体和承袭观念之间的决裂。”

This new labor, which takes creation and development as its profession, is not merely as Habermas describes it: “Marx gives labor a production-aesthetic interpretation and views labor as a cyclical process of externalization, objectification, and reappropriation of essential powers.” Rather, it understands individual labor as socialized labor, as communal labor based on the tradition of existing human knowledge. As Marx said, “The standpoint of the old materialism is civil society; the standpoint of the new materialism is human society, or social humanity.” [22]22 Karl Marx, “Theses on Feuerbach,” Thesis 10. On the one hand, it lies beyond the realm of material production; on the other hand, it provides a new foundation for the further development of the realm of material production. Its fundamental point is to make the educated recognize that their “inherent powers” are social powers, and that it is the state that organizes these powers, thereby no longer separating social powers from the worker in the form of capital. Only at this point does the political critique of capital civilization and the construction of a new civilization become possible. And through the construction of community, individuals living within it can resolve the predicament of nihilism in spirit and culture.

这种以创造和发展为职业新劳动，并不只是哈贝马斯描述的那样：“马克思给予劳动的是一种生产美学的解释，并把劳动看作是外化、对象化和占有本质力量的循环过程。”而是将个体的劳动理解为社会化了的、人类已有知识传统基础上的共同体劳动，正如马克思所说，“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”。其一方面是物质生产领域的彼岸，另一方面又为物质生产领域进一步的发展提供了新的基础。其根本之处在于使得受教育者认识到自身“固有的力量”是社会力量，是国家把这种力量组织起来因而不再把社会力量以资本的方式同劳动者相分离，只有到这个时候，对资本文明的政治批判和新文明的建构才得以可能。并通过共同体的建设使得生活于其中的个体在精神和文化上化解虚无主义困局。

Hegel once pointed out that the position a nation occupies in the developmental stage of world history depends mainly on which stage of the world spirit that nation embodies. As the externalization of the world spirit, “world history is nothing but the development of the concept of freedom. But the objective development of this concept, the realization of freedom, is the true theme of world history.” [23]23 G.W.F. Hegel, *Lectures on the Philosophy of World History*, Introduction. World history has developed to the present day. Capital civilization has clearly already transcended the purely individualistic negative freedom and developed into a reflective and juridical freedom of “becoming a person and recognizing others as persons.” Contemporary and future human civilization is already calling for a new freedom based on the principles of community and the all-round development of the individual. This requires, through long-term state governance in the New Era, returning human relations to humanity itself, thereby fundamentally providing a solution to the fundamental problems of humanity. This is also the great significance of the excellent traditional Chinese culture, centered on family-country sentiment, responsibility, and commitment, for China and the world. Through the dialectical unity of material civilization and cultural-ethical progress, and through the historical-political practice of unifying man’s positive essence and positive existence, it completes the fundamental resolution of the fundamental problems of humanity entrusted by world history.

黑格尔曾经指出，一个民族在世界历史的发展阶段中究竟占据着什么样的位置，主要看该民族体现了何种阶段的世界精神。而作为世界精神外化的“世界历史无非是‘自由’意识的进展，这一种进展是我们必须在它的必然性中加以认识的”。世界历史发展到今天，资本文明显然已经超越了纯粹个体主义消极自由并进而发展到以“成为人，并且承认他人为人”的反思的和法权的自由，而当代及未来人类文明已然在呼唤以共同体和人的全面发展为原则的新的自由，其要求通过新时代长期的国家治理，把人的关系重新还给人，从而从根本上为解决人类根本问题提供方案。这同样是以家国情怀与责任、担当为核心的中华优秀传统文化之于中国和世界的重大意义之所在。其通过物质文明与精神文明辩证统一的方式，通过以人的积极本质和积极存在相统一的历史政治实践，完成世界历史所赋予的人类根本问题的根本解决。

Online Editor: Paul

网络编辑：保罗