Why Marx Was Not an Egalitarian

Was Marx an egalitarian in some sense? Did Marx attempt to become a political philosopher pursuing equality? If these questions are explained through egalitarianism as a political philosophy, they may fail to account for the necessity within Marxism of political oughts under given social conditions, such as “equality of resources,” “equality of capability,” and “equality of welfare,” and even less can they explain the paradoxes and contradictions that Della Volpe’s “civil (political) liberty” and “egalitarian (social) liberty” have generated in the intellectual world before and after Marx. Only by re-examining Marx’s texts and their intent through the “grand historical perspective” of historical materialism can we grasp the distinction between Marx’s thought and various forms of egalitarianism.

马克思是不是某种意义上的平等主义者？马克思是否试图成为某种追求平等的政治哲学家？这些问题如果以作为政治哲学的平等主义来解释，或许无法解释“资源平等”“能力平等”“福利平等”等既定社会条件下的政治应然在马克思主义中的必要性，更无法解释德拉-沃尔佩所说的“公民的（政治的）自由”［civil（political）liberty］与“平等的（社会的）自由”［egalitarian（social）liberty］在马克思前后的思想界所引发的悖论和矛盾。唯有以历史唯物主义的“大历史观”重新审视马克思的文本及其意图，才能把握马克思思想与各种平等主义的区别。

Marxism and Egalitarianism — Reasons for “Looking Very Similar”

马克思主义和平等主义——“看着很像”的原因

First, it is difficult to “transcend the mundane.” [1]1 The “three estates” refers to the clergy, nobility, and commoners in pre-revolutionary French society, a hierarchical order that bourgeois revolution formally abolished. Equality is a daily experience; the concept and value norms of equality are deeply rooted in a certain objective reality. Marxism’s critique of hierarchical and class societies, which naturally bear an unequal appearance, very easily leads people to associate the critical edge of Marxism with various concepts of equality, thereby equating Marxism with egalitarianism.

首先是因为难以“免俗”。平等是一种日常经验，平等的观念和价值规范深植于一定的客观实在性。而马克思主义对天然具有不平等外观的等级社会和阶级社会的批判，十分容易使得人们将马克思主义的批判锋芒与各种平等观念关联起来，从而将马克思主义与平等主义画上等号。

Second, it is due to being “embedded in the secular.” [2]2 Kai Nielsen (1926–2021) was a Canadian analytic philosopher who argued for a Marxist egalitarian conception of justice; Allen W. Wood (b. 1942) is an American philosopher known for his interpretation of Marx as rejecting moral principles like justice as ideological. Egalitarianism is a political ethic of modern times, which both sublates the ancient concept of equality that appealed to the otherworldly and sublates the equality principles of specific communities in traditional societies. The former sublates the logic in ancient societies where individuals grasped inequality as a natural inequality—for example, understanding inequality as punishment, fate, or taboo, and thus appealing to equality through universal salvation, equality of original sin, or equality of redemption. The latter sublates the concept of equality bound by hierarchy. The equality of freedom of conscience, property rights, and citizenship achieved through political emancipation is both a basic feature of the egalitarianism that pursues universality after the emergence of capitalist society and a basic premise shaping modern political ethics. As a revolutionary theory born from the depths of modern society, Marxism is undoubtedly unconsciously placed under this premise by people.

其次是由于身处“世俗”。平等主义是近代以来的政治伦理，既扬弃了诉诸彼岸的古代平等观念，也扬弃了传统社会特殊共同体的平等原则。前者所扬弃的是古代社会中个体对不平等现象把握为自然之不平等的逻辑，例如将不平等理解为惩罚、命运、禁忌，进而将平等诉诸普度众生的平等、原罪的平等或者救赎的平等。后者所扬弃的是被等级所束缚的平等观念。政治解放所实现的良心自由、所有权和公民权的平等，既是资本主义社会出现之后追求普遍性的平等主义的基本特征，也是塑造近代政治伦理的基本前提。而马克思主义作为近代社会行至深处产生的革命理论，无疑也被人们不自觉地归置于这个前提之下。

Third, it is due to the practice and interpretation of “quasi-egalitarianism.” [3]3 The “illusory community” is a term Marx uses in *The German Ideology* to describe the state under class rule, which presents itself as representing the general interest while actually serving the ruling class. First, the theoretical sources of Marxism have “overlap” with egalitarianism. Classical political economy, Anglo-French utopian socialism, and German classical philosophy—especially Anglo-French utopian socialism—themselves possess strong egalitarian characteristics. Revolutionary communism, utopian socialism, and Left Hegelianism not only shaped the moral egalitarianism pursued by Blanqui’s [4]4 Jacques Rancière (b. 1940) is a French philosopher whose work on equality and politics critiques the presuppositions of democratic and egalitarian discourse. combat elitism but also promoted the Young Hegelian Left thought of Feuerbach and Hess. [5]5 Marx’s remark “All I know is that I am not a ‘Marxist’” was reportedly made to his son-in-law Paul Lafargue, expressing his disdain for dogmatic interpretations of his work by some French Marxists in the 1880s. This inevitably leads many readers to classify their understanding of Marx—especially the young Marx—into the category of egalitarianism. Second, the guiding ideology of early workers’ movements was often some form of egalitarianism, and it was frequently labeled as Marxism. Before Marx and Engels organized and guided the workers’ movement with scientific socialism, spontaneous, especially sectarian, workers’ movements pursued some form of egalitarianism in an instinctive and intuitive manner, including both the Weitlingism [6]6 Wilhelm Weitling (1808–1871), a German utopian socialist whose egalitarian ideas were criticized by Marx and Engels as unscientific. criticized by Marx and Engels and various petty-bourgeois egalitarian propositions. Third, there is the egalitarian interpretation of Western Marxism. Out of criticism of economic determinism as an “iron law” and Soviet Marxism, the research of Western Marxists has not been without efforts to integrate Marxism with egalitarianism. The research of Western Marxists certainly has very positive significance. However, Marxism is after all not a kind of egalitarianism, and Marx is not some kind of egalitarian.

最后是由于“类平等主义”的实践和阐释。一是马克思主义的理论源头与平等主义有“交集”。古典政治经济学、英法空想社会主义和德国古典哲学，尤其是英法空想社会主义本身就具有极强的平等主义的特征，革命共产主义、乌托邦社会主义、左派黑格尔主义不仅形塑了布朗基的战斗精英主义所追求的道德平等主义，也促成了费尔巴哈、赫斯的青年黑格尔左派思想。这就使得许多读者对马克思——尤其是青年马克思的理解不可避免会归入平等主义的范畴。二是早期工人运动的指导思想通常是某种平等主义，且时常被指称为马克思主义。在马克思恩格斯以科学社会主义组织和指导工人运动之前，自发的尤其是具有宗派性质的工人运动都以本能和直观的形式追求着某种平等主义，其中既包括马克思恩格斯批判的魏特林主义，也包括各种小资产阶级的平等主张。三是西方马克思主义的平等主义阐释。出于对作为“铁律”的经济决定论以及苏联马克思主义的批判，西方马克思主义者的研究不乏将马克思主义与平等主义相融合的努力。西方马克思主义者的研究当然具有十分积极的意义。但是，马克思主义毕竟不是一种平等主义，马克思也不是某种平等主义者。

Inequality Is Very Bad — But It Is Only a Phenomenon

不平等很糟——但只是现象

It is undeniable that Marx’s writings contain many passages that explain and criticize inequality. Using these passages as a guide, people seem to easily draw the following conclusions: The discussions on human freedom and liberation from his *Doctoral Dissertation* to *On the Jewish Question* are partly driven by a desire to escape the real society of inequality; the analysis of labor as the path to realizing species-essence and its obstacles from the *Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844* to *Capital* is partly driven by a critique and disenchantment with the social mechanisms and ideology of inequality; the discussions on the process of human civilization’s development and its objective laws from *The German Ideology* to the *Ethnological Notebooks* are partly driven by dissatisfaction with various historical narratives that rationalize inequality. These conclusions and the texts on which they are based ultimately constitute arguments and evidence for Marx as an egalitarian from the “negative” side. For example, Cohen, in *Self-Ownership, Freedom, and Equality*, points out: “Since Karl Marx, Marxists who pretend not to care about justice have been deceiving themselves.” [7]7 G. A. Cohen (1941–2009), a leading analytical Marxist philosopher, made this argument in his 1995 book *Self-Ownership, Freedom, and Equality*.

不可否认，马克思的笔下有着很多对不平等加以解释和批判的词句。以这些词句为路径，人们似乎很容易得出以下结论：从《博士论文》直至《论犹太人问题》关于人的自由与解放的论述，部分地出于对摆脱不平等的现实社会的渴望；从《1844年经济学哲学手稿》直至《资本论》关于劳动作为类本质之实现路径及其阻碍的分析，部分地出于对不平等的社会机制及其意识形态的批判与祛魅；从《德意志意识形态》直至《人类学笔记》关于人类文明发展过程及其客观规律的论述，部分地出于对各种将不平等合理化的历史叙述的不满。这些结论及其所依据的文本最终构成了从“反面”论证马克思作为平等主义者的观点与论据，例如柯亨在《自我所有、自由和平等》一书中指出：“自卡尔·马克思以来，假装不关心正义的马克思主义者都是在自我欺骗。”

Indeed, inequality is a symptom of class society that Marx focused on, and it is an important entry point for Marx’s study of the natural historical process of class society. However, inequality is, after all, only an objective historical phenomenon—although it can trigger a certain “political emotion” that Marx once possessed—it is far removed from the historical science that constitutes what Marx “is.”

诚然，不平等是马克思所关注的阶级社会的症候，并且是马克思研究阶级社会的自然的历史过程的重要切入口，但是不平等毕竟只是客观的历史现象——虽然可以引发某种马克思曾经也拥有的“政治情绪”，但是却与马克思之其所“是”的历史科学相去甚远。

First, from the perspective of the measure of historical progress, inequality is not a unique marker of backward productive forces and relations of production. Equality or inequality is an ethical concept abstracted from specific experience. Under certain social conditions, individuals in different “positions” will make entirely different value judgments about equality or inequality. Standing on the ground of human emancipation, although Marx showed great sympathy for classes and groups suffering inequality, he never deviated from the methodological principle of the “grand historical perspective” in analyzing a given state of equality. This analysis is expressed in Engels’s *Anti-Dühring* as the “universal existence of a certain equality in living conditions” in early civilization, an “equality” that made humans “as poor as animals, and with productive capacity hardly stronger than animals.” [8]8 Reference to Friedrich Engels’s *Anti-Dühring* (1878), Part II, Chapter 10, where he discusses primitive equality. However, “philosophers” easily abstract an ought-claim of equality in an ahistorical manner, analyzing the social reality where inequality exists using the standard of equality rather than history. Marx’s critical attitude toward this kind of egalitarianism is clear. For example, in *The Poverty of Philosophy*, his critique of Proudhon: if one believes that economic relations were “invented for the sake of equality,” and further believes that “what affirms equality is the good side of each economic relation, and what negates equality and affirms inequality is the bad side,” then one will certainly be unable to understand why these economic relations ultimately turn into their opposite, equality, because this concept of equality or inequality is merely a conjectured teleology of history. [9]9 Reference to Karl Marx’s *The Poverty of Philosophy* (1847), a critique of Pierre-Joseph Proudhon’s *The Philosophy of Poverty*.

一是以历史进步的尺度观之，不平等并不是落后生产力和生产关系的独特表征。平等抑或不平等是基于特定经验抽象出来的伦理观念，在一定的社会状况下，处于不同“位置”的个体会对平等抑或不平等作出完全不同的价值判断。站在人类解放的立场上，马克思尽管会对遭受不平等的阶级和群体报以极大的同情，但是却始终没有偏离“大历史观”的方法论原则来分析某种平等状况。这种分析在恩格斯的《反杜林论》中表述为文明早期“普遍存在着生活状况的某种平等”，这种“平等”使得人类“像动物一样贫困，而且生产能力也未必比动物强”。但是“哲学家们”却很容易地以非历史的态度抽象出平等的应然诉求，以平等而不是历史的标准来分析存在着不平等现象的社会现实。而马克思对这种平等主义的批判态度是明确的，例如在《哲学的贫困》中对蒲鲁东的批判——如果认为经济关系是“为了平等的利益才被发明的”，进而认为“肯定平等的就是每个经济关系的好的方面，否定平等和肯定不平等的就是坏的方面”，那么一定无法理解这些经济关系为什么最终走向平等的反面，因为这种平等或者不平等的观念只是臆想的历史目的论。

Second, viewed through the value assumptions of capitalist relations of production, inequality can likewise be regarded as a social pathology both within and outside ideology. Equality is the basic juridical reason by which the bourgeoisie, with its political rule, brought an end to various “old systems.” This reason was initially expressed as the Hobbesian natural right of individuals to equally harm one another, then articulated by Grotius and Pufendorf as the natural right of individuals to equally participate in “universal consent,” and finally took shape, from Locke to Rousseau, as the social contract and its general will, whereby individuals both equally constitute and equally submit to it. These political philosophies based on equality run through the institutional design of the bourgeoisie and became the ideological appearance of bourgeois political emancipation, manifesting from ideology to concrete institutional implementation as the overcoming of inequality. But this was, after all, merely formal political emancipation and equality; the tangible “three estates” disappeared, and inequality was legitimated as the reality of an intangible class society. Marx stated bluntly in *Capital* that the bourgeoisie also speaks of equality, yet within this egalitarian claim, “the equal exploitation of labor-power is the first human right of capital.” However, inequality is, after all, not the object of critique that allows Marx to be what he is. For, from the perspective of theoretical fact, if Marx were an egalitarian, then the various phenomena of inequality on the opposite side are equally found in the writings of Enlightenment thinkers—this “mirror” of inequality reflects not only Marx but also Thomas Paine’s and John Stuart Mill’s pursuit of freedom of speech and the press, Voltaire’s and Montesquieu’s critique of hierarchy, and Rousseau’s relentless demonstration of the ethical dangers of inequality.

二是以资本主义生产关系的价值设定观之，不平等同样也能在意识形态内外被当作社会病症。平等是资产阶级以其政治统治终结各种“旧制度”的基本的法理理由。这种理由最初表述为霍布斯式的个体之间可以平等伤害的自然权利，而后又被格劳秀斯和普芬道夫表述为个体能够平等地参与“普遍同意”的自然权利，最终形成了由洛克直至卢梭的个体既要平等地构成又要平等地服从的社会契约及其公意。这些基于平等的政治哲学贯穿了资产阶级的制度设计，成为资产阶级政治解放的意识形态外观，从意识形态到具体制度实施无不表现为对不平等的克服。但是这毕竟只是形式上的政治解放和平等，有形的“三个等级”消失了，不平等被合法化为无形的阶级社会的现实。马克思曾在《资本论》中直言不讳，资产阶级也讲平等，但在这种平等主义的主张中“平等地剥削劳动力，是资本的首要的人权”。然而，不平等毕竟不是能够让马克思之其所是的批判对象。因为，从理论事实来看，如果说马克思是平等主义者，那么在其对立面的各种不平等现象同样见诸启蒙哲人的笔下——不平等这个“镜面”折射出的不仅是马克思，还有托马斯·佩恩、约翰·密尔对言论与出版自由的追求，伏尔泰、孟德斯鸠对等级制的批判，卢梭对不平等之伦理隐患不遗余力的论证。

Third, viewed through the lens of theoretical thoroughness, the moral description or philosophical definition of inequality is insufficient even to explain the world. Since modern egalitarianism has attempted to define inequality as a social evil through social means, and thereby to overcome this evil through social means (such as revolution and institutional design), the various causes of inequality have become objects of typical moral judgment. But moral judgment has its limits after all. Moral judgment can arise under any secular premise, yet such judgment mostly remains at the level of sensibility and appearance. Marx never attempted to use any morality as an argument to criticize social contradictions, including inequality, but instead pursued theoretical thoroughness—“being thorough means grasping the root of the matter.”

三是以理论的彻底性观之，不平等的道德描述或者哲学界定甚至不足以解释世界。自从近代平等主义试图以社会的方式来界定不平等的社会性的恶，从而以社会的方式（如革命和制度设计）来克服这种恶，造成不平等的各种原因就成为典型的道德判断的对象。但是，道德判断毕竟有其限度。在任何一个世俗的前提下都能够产生道德判断，但是这种判断大多停留在感性和现象。马克思从未试图以任何道德为论据来批判包括不平等在内的社会矛盾，而是追求理论的彻底性——“所谓彻底，就是抓住事物的根本”。

Equality is worth pursuing—but how is it possible?

平等值得追求——但何以可能

All modern social schemes that pursue a well-ordered society must recognize equality as a necessary condition for individuals to realize their potential, achieve their value, and create the common good. But how equality can be compatible with freedom and be realized in a real—rather than formal—way is an unavoidable theoretical dilemma. Faced with this dilemma, Marx, through historical materialism, pointed to a path entirely different from egalitarianism as a political philosophy or value norm. Although this path has different interpretations in contemporary academic debates—for example, Kai Nielsen believes Marx also valued equality and the egalitarian conception of justice related to it, while Wood argues that “Marx did not treat social equality as something good in itself”—we should still consider “how it is possible” from the historical height of five hundred years of capitalism and over one hundred years of socialist development, and thereby make the necessary distinction between Marx and egalitarianism.

近代以来所有追求良序的社会方案，都必须承认平等是个体发挥其潜能、实现其价值、创造公共善的必要条件。但是，平等何以能够与自由相契并且现实地——而非形式地——实现却是一个无法回避的理论困境。面对这个困境，马克思以历史唯物主义指出了完全不同于作为政治哲学或价值规范的平等主义的路径。尽管这条路径在当代学术论争中存在不同的阐释，例如凯·尼尔森认为马克思同样重视平等以及与此相关的平等主义正义观，而伍德却认为“马克思并没有把社会平等当作某种本身即善的东西”，但我们仍然应该站在资本主义产生五百年和社会主义发展一百余年的历史高度去思考“何以可能”，进而将马克思与平等主义作出应有的区分。

As early as *On the Jewish Question*, Marx reflected on the concept of equality as legal right, arguing that equality in the sense of a capitalist “human right” is nothing more than “everyone is equally regarded as that independent, self-contained monad.” Why must one become an “isolated monad” to obtain equality? Because this equality is merely a necessary means for the “illusory community” to eliminate the social contradictions generated by inequality. Although egalitarianism allows individuals to reflect on the fact of inequality’s existence, it cannot escape the historical conditions and assumptions of subjectivity that constitute the “illusory community”—namely, that the individual should be the possessor of themselves, and society should be the supplement and sublimation of such individuals. This leads the moral ought of an egalitarian society into an inevitable paradox: either submitting to the moral ought of the individual that causes inequality, or persuading the individual to accept inequality as the necessary price of freedom.

早在《论犹太人问题》中，马克思就对法权的平等观念作出了反思，认为一种资本主义“人权”意义上的平等无非就是“每个人都同样被看成那种独立自在的单子”。为什么获得平等就必须成为“孤立的单子”？因为这种平等只是“虚假的共同体”消弭不平等所产生的社会矛盾的必要手段。平等主义虽然能够让个体去反思不平等存在的事实，但是却无法摆脱构成“虚假的共同体”的历史条件和主体性假设，即个体应该是自身的占有者，而社会应该是这种个体的补充和升华。这就导致关于平等社会之道德应然陷入必然的悖论，或是屈从于导致不平等的个体之道德应然，或是说服个体接受不平等是自由的必要代价。

In the *Communist Manifesto*, Marx and Engels discussed abstract political liberation as the actuality of equality, with its egalitarian value norms expressed as abstract legal personality. Its positive significance lies in having “destroyed all feudal, patriarchal, and idyllic relations… ruthlessly torn asunder the motley feudal ties that bound man to his ‘natural superiors.’” But its negative significance lies in having rationalized new relations of inequality, especially class exploitation. Workers who are legally equal, free, and independent have in fact, as monads, been reduced to “slaves of the bourgeoisie, of the bourgeois state.”

在《共产党宣言》中，马克思和恩格斯论述了抽象的政治解放被视为平等的实然，其平等主义的价值规范被表述为抽象的法权人格。其中的积极意义在于“把一切封建的、宗法的和田园诗般的关系都破坏了……无情地斩断了把人们束缚于天然尊长的形形色色的封建羁绊”。但是其消极意义在于将新的不平等的关系，尤其是阶级剥削合理化了。在法理上平等、独立和自由的工人，实际上已经以单子的形式沦为“资产阶级的、资产阶级国家的奴隶”。

Although Marx’s writings are not lacking in words with egalitarian “sentiment,” such as “slave” and “despicable,” Marx did not stop there. In *Capital*, Marx says: “I do not paint the capitalist and the landlord in rosy colors. But the persons involved here are merely personifications of economic categories, bearers of definite class relations and interests. My standpoint is to conceive the development of the economic formation of society as a process of natural history.” In this “process of natural history,” equality depends on a more thorough reconstruction of the superstructure, i.e., revolution, and also on the development of theory, i.e., the extension of theoretical thoroughness. The reconstruction of the superstructure is necessary because the institutions of class society can all exploit the concept and even the institutions of equality to delay the demise of various mechanisms of inequality. As Marx pointed out in Volume 3 of *Capital*, even the medieval Catholic Church could “select the best people from among the people, regardless of class, origin, or property, to establish its hierarchy, using this as a main means to consolidate church rule and oppress the laity.” The only path that can truly realize the core of equality is the one Engels described: “the demand for the abolition of classes”—a demand that has clearly transcended the basic domain of egalitarianism as a political philosophy. The necessity of extending theoretical thoroughness lies in the current state of historical development: the vast majority of humanity is still in the stage of “prehistory,” and the working class has only obtained the formal equal right to freely buy and sell labor-power. If one merely relies on the everyday experience, relations of production, and labor contracts of class society, the result can only be to confine the individual to a “reasonable and lawful” ideology, namely, that the “labor contract” is supposedly voluntarily concluded by both parties.

尽管在马克思笔下不乏“奴隶”“可鄙”等具有平等主义“情绪”的字眼，但马克思并没有止步于此。在《资本论》中，马克思说：“我决不用玫瑰色描绘资本家和地主的面貌。不过这里涉及的人，只是经济范畴的人格化，是一定的阶级关系和利益的承担者。我的观点是把经济的社会形态的发展理解为一种自然史的过程。”在这个“自然史的过程”中，平等依赖于更为彻底的上层建筑的重构，亦即革命，同时还依赖于理论的发展，亦即理论彻底性之延展。上层建筑的重构之所以是必要的，是因为阶级社会的各种制度都可以善用平等的观念乃至制度来延缓各种不平等机制的消亡。如马克思在《资本论》第3卷中指出，甚至连中世纪天主教会都能够“不分阶层，不分出身，不分财产，在人民中间挑选最好的人物来建立其教阶制度，以此作为巩固教会统治和压迫俗人的一个主要手段”。真正能够实现平等之内核的路径只有一个，即恩格斯所说的“消灭阶级的要求”——而这个要求显然已经超越了作为政治哲学的平等主义的基本论域。理论彻底性之延展的必要性则在于当前历史发展的状况，人类之绝大多数仍然处于“史前史”阶段，工人阶级所获得的仍旧只是形式上的自由买卖劳动力的平等权利。如果只是基于阶级社会的日常经验、生产关系及其劳动契约，结果只能让个体局限于一种“合理合法”的意识形态，即“劳动契约”据说是由双方自愿缔结的。

The theoretical thoroughness of Marxism must always be on the march, because egalitarianism can never escape what Rancière calls the “embarrassment” of modern politics—what “equalities” and “inequalities” actually constitute the universal “equality” of modern times? This constitution is not static but is transformed, changed, and even obscured as various egalitarian theories evolve. If Marxism were also to be restated as egalitarianism, Marx would still frankly tell people: “All I know is that I am not a ‘Marxist.’”

马克思主义的理论彻底性必须永远在路上，因为平等主义始终无法摆脱朗西埃所说的现代政治的“尴尬”（embarrass）——近代以来的普遍的“平等”到底由哪些“平等”（égalité）和“不平等”（inégalité）构成？这种构成并不是静态的，而是会随着各种平等主义理论演变而被转换、变化乃至掩盖的。如果马克思主义也被转述为平等主义，那么马克思仍然会坦然地告诉人们：“我只知道我不是‘马克思主义者’。”

(The author is a researcher in the “Hundred Talents Program” at the School of Marxism, Zhejiang University.)

（作者系浙江大学马克思主义学院“百人计划”研究员）

Online editor: Huihui

网络编辑：慧慧