The Historical Dialectics of the State and Capitalism in *Capital* and Its Manuscripts

When studying *Capital*, the academic community often focuses on its economic theory, particularly its dissection of the capitalist economic system, while paying insufficient attention to the theory of the state contained within it. This has led scholars, when discussing Marx’s theory of the state, to focus more on works such as *Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right* and *The Civil War in France*, without adequately incorporating the profound insights of *Capital*. Living in the period of capitalism’s ascent, Marx deeply perceived the internal contradictions and crises of capitalist society and, in *Capital*, revealed its essence through scientific analysis. The state plays an important role in the functioning of the social economy, so it naturally became one of the focal points of this great work and its economic manuscripts. For example, in the “Introduction” and “Preface” to *A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy*, Marx put forward the writing plans of the “Five-Part Plan” and the “Six-Book Plan.” [1]1 The “Five-Part Plan” and “Six-Book Plan” refer to Marx’s early outlines for his critique of political economy, which envisioned separate treatments of capital, landed property, wage labor, the state, foreign trade, and the world market. In both the “Five-Part Plan” and the “Six-Book Plan,” the content concerning the “state” was planned as a separate part or book, reflecting its special emphasis and detailed planning. In *Capital* and its manuscripts, Marx reveals the origin, essence, functions, and developmental tendencies of the state from the profound connection between the state and the capitalist economy.

学术界在研究《资本论》时，往往关注其经济学理论，特别是关注对资本主义经济制度进行剖析，而对其中包含的国家学说研究没有足够地重视。这使得学术界在探讨马克思的国家学说时，多关注《黑格尔法哲学批判》《法兰西内战》等国家学说著作，而未能充分融入《资本论》的深刻见解。生活在资本主义上升时期的马克思深刻洞察到资本主义社会的内在矛盾与危机，并在《资本论》中通过科学的分析来揭示其本质。国家在社会经济运行中发挥着重要作用，所以国家也就自然成为这部巨著及其经济学手稿所关注的焦点之一。比如，在《政治经济学批判》的“导言”和“序言”中，马克思分别提出了“五篇计划”和“六册计划”的写作构想。而在“五篇计划”和“六册计划”中，关于“国家”的内容均被计划设立成单独的篇章或册籍，体现了对其特别关注和详细规划。在《资本论》及其手稿中，马克思从国家与资本主义经济之间的深刻联系中揭示国家的起源、本质、职能和发展趋势。

I. The Generalization of Bourgeois Society in the Form of the State: The Revelation of the Essence of the State in *Capital* and Its Manuscripts

一、资产阶级社会在国家形式上的概括：《资本论》及其手稿对国家本质的揭示

In the “Introduction” to *A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy*, Marx points out, “Bourgeois society is the most developed and the most manifold historical organization of production. Therefore, the categories that express its relations, and the understanding of its structure, at the same time allow us to penetrate the structure and production relations of all extinct social formations.” [2]2 Karl Marx, “Introduction” to *A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy* (1857). History is a continuous developmental process; each subsequent social form develops on the basis of the preceding one. Bourgeois society develops on the basis of the preceding social form, bearing certain features and remnants of past societies. By studying bourgeois society, one can better understand the laws of historical development and the internal connections between different social forms. Marx defines the theme of the “State” chapter as “the generalization of bourgeois society in the form of the state,” [3]3 This phrase appears in Marx’s outline for the planned “State” book within the “Six-Book Plan.” revealing the essence of the bourgeois state and its internal connection with bourgeois society from multiple dimensions, including economics, politics, class relations, and social transformation. In the “Chapter on Capital” of the *Economic Manuscripts of 1857–1858*, Marx states that among the contents that the “State” chapter should include, the first item is “the state and bourgeois society.” [4]4 From the *Economic Manuscripts of 1857–1858*, where Marx sketches the contents of the projected “State” chapter. This indicates that Marx does not discuss the state in isolation but understands the essence of the state from the perspective of the relationship between society and the state; he understands the bourgeois state from the standpoint of bourgeois society and, through this, penetrates the essence of the state in all past social forms. In other words, Marx places the question of the essence of the state within society for understanding. As he points out in the “Preface” to *A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy*, “Legal relations, like forms of the state, can neither be understood from themselves nor from the so-called general development of the human mind; on the contrary, they are rooted in the material conditions of life, the totality of which Hegel, following the example of the English and French of the eighteenth century, summarizes as ‘civil society.’” [5]5 Karl Marx, “Preface” to *A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy* (1859). The form of the state is not an isolated, abstract existence but is closely linked to specific social and historical conditions. Among the many social and historical conditions, what determines the form of the state lies not in the spiritual realm of society but is rooted in the material conditions of life in society. In Marx’s view, material conditions of life refer to the relations formed by people in social activities such as production, exchange, and consumption; these relations constitute the economic base of society and determine the superstructure, including the state. This means that we cannot understand the essence of the state merely from the surface forms or structures of law and the state form; hence, Marx proposes to seek the “key” to understanding civil society from political economy, thereby ultimately finding the “key” to understanding the essence of the state.

马克思在《〈政治经济学批判〉导言》中指出，“资产阶级社会是最发达的和最多样性的历史的生产组织。因此，那些表现它的各种关系的范畴以及对于它的结构的理解，同时也能使我们透视一切已经覆灭的社会形式的结构和生产关系”。历史是一个连续不断的发展过程，后一个社会形态总是在前一个社会形态的基础上发展起来。资产阶级社会是在前一个社会形态的基础上发展而来的，它带有过去社会的某些特征和残留。通过研究资产阶级社会，可以更好地理解历史的发展规律以及不同社会形态之间的内在联系。马克思将“国家”篇的主题定义为“资产阶级社会在国家形式上的概括”，从经济、政治、阶级关系、社会变革等多重维度揭示了资产阶级国家的本质及其与资产阶级社会的内在联系。在《1857—1858年经济学手稿》的“资本”章中，马克思认为“国家”篇应该包括的内容中，第一条就是“国家和资产阶级社会”。这表明，马克思不是就国家谈论国家，而是从社会与国家关系的角度理解国家的本质的，是从资产阶级社会出发理解资产阶级国家，并从中透视以往一切社会形态的国家本质。换句话说，马克思是把国家本质问题放到社会之中加以理解的。正如他在《〈政治经济学批判〉序言》中所指出的，“法的关系正像国家的形式一样，既不能从它们本身来理解，也不能从所谓人类精神的一般发展来理解，相反，它们根源于物质的生活关系，这种物质的生活关系的总和，黑格尔按照18世纪的英国人和法国人的先例，概括为‘市民社会’”。国家形式不是孤立的、抽象的存在，而是与特定的社会历史条件紧密相连的。在诸多社会历史条件中，对国家形式起决定作用的不在社会精神领域，而是根源于社会的物质生活关系。在马克思看来，物质生活关系是指人们在生产、交换、消费等社会活动中形成的关系，这些关系构成了社会的经济基础，决定了包括国家在内的上层建筑。这就意味着我们不能仅仅从法和国家形式的表面形式或结构去理解国家的本质，因而马克思提出要从政治经济学中去寻找理解市民社会的“钥匙”，这也就从终极意义上找到了理解国家本质的“钥匙”。

From the perspective of the origin of the state, the state is the product of the development of social contradictions and movements; it is “a power that arises from society but places itself above it and increasingly alienates itself from it.” [6]6 Friedrich Engels, *The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State* (1884), drawing on Marx’s notes. In the *Economic Manuscripts of 1857–1858*, Marx analyzes the Asiatic form of property, stating, “In this first form of landed property, the first prerequisite is the naturally arisen community. The family and the family expanded into a tribe, or the tribe formed through intermarriage between families, or the combination of tribes.” [7]7 Karl Marx, *Economic Manuscripts of 1857–1858*, section on “Forms Which Precede Capitalist Production.” Marx calls this tribal community a “natural community.” This indicates that in the early stages of human society, there was no state—this “illusory community” based on territorial relations—but rather naturally formed communities based on kinship, shared ways of life, and survival needs, i.e., various forms of clans and tribes. With the improvement of social productive forces and the complication of social relations, especially the emergence and irreconcilability of class contradictions, people needed a more powerful organizational form to maintain social order and balance the interests of all parties. This special organizational form—the state—originated from society but gradually formed a status above society and gradually produced a sense of alienation from society. Similarly, the formation of the bourgeois state is also a product of social progress and evolution; it is a phenomenon that inevitably appears when society develops to a certain stage. From Marx’s perspective, in places such as Spain, Portugal, the Netherlands, France, and England, the factors of primitive accumulation appeared sequentially over time. By the end of the 17th century, England systematically integrated these factors, constructing the colonial system, the national debt system, the modern tax system, and the protective tariff system, some of which (such as the colonial system) were based on brutal violence. [8]8 This refers to Marx’s analysis of primitive accumulation in *Capital*, Volume I, Part VIII, where he details the violent methods used to create the conditions for capitalism. These systems all relied on the organized social violence controlled by the state, thereby shortening and accelerating the transition from the feudal mode of production to the capitalist mode of production. From the course of the rise of capitalism, bourgeois society was formed with the rise and development of the capitalist mode of production. In this society, the bourgeoisie, by mastering the means of production and the relations of production, gradually gained a dominant position in society. To safeguard its own interests, the bourgeoisie needed to ensure its control and domination over society through specific state forms such as the political system, legal institutions, and administrative organs.

从国家起源的角度来看，国家是社会矛盾运动发展的产物，是“从社会中产生但又自居于社会之上并且日益同社会相异化的力量”。在《1857—1858年经济学手稿》中，马克思对亚细亚所有制形式展开分析，认为“在这种土地所有制的第一种形式中，第一个前提首先是自然形成的共同体。家庭和扩大成为部落的家庭，或通过家庭之间互相通婚[而组成的部落]，或部落的联合”。马克思把这种部落共同体称为“天然的共同体”。这表明，在人类社会的早期阶段，并不存在国家这一基于地域关系的“虚幻的共同体”，而是存在着基于亲属关系、共同的生活方式和生存需求而自然形成的共同体，即各种形式的社群和部落。随着社会生产力的提高，社会关系的复杂化，特别是阶级矛盾的出现和不可调和，人们需要一种更为强大的组织形态来维护社会秩序和平衡各方利益，这种特殊的组织形式——国家，源于社会但又逐渐形成了超越社会的地位，并逐渐与社会产生了疏离感。同样地，资产阶级国家的形成也是社会进步和演变的产物，它是社会发展到一定阶段后必然会出现的现象。从马克思的视角来看，在西班牙、葡萄牙、荷兰、法国、英国等地，原始积累因素随时间依次显现。17世纪末，英国系统整合这些因素，构建起殖民制度、国债制度、现代税收制度和保护关税制度，其中部分制度（如殖民制度）基于残酷暴力。这些制度均依赖国家掌控的有组织社会暴力，借此缩短并加快封建生产方式向资本主义生产方式的转变进程。从资本主义兴起的历程来看，资产阶级社会是伴随资本主义生产方式的兴起和发展而形成的。在这一社会中，资产阶级通过掌握生产资料和生产关系，逐渐获得了社会的主导地位。资产阶级为了维护自身的利益，需要通过政治体制、法律制度、行政机构等特定的国家形式来确保其对社会的控制和统治。

As the political superstructure of bourgeois society, the origin of the bourgeois state is closely related to the emergence of the economic base of bourgeois society and the formation of the bourgeoisie. In bourgeois society, the capitalist private ownership of the means of production is the core of the economic base; the bourgeoisie, through its possession of the means of production, plunders the surplus value created by the workers, thereby controlling the economic lifeline of society. This economic base determines that the bourgeois state must serve the interests of the bourgeoisie and maintain the capitalist economic order, and the foundation of bourgeois interests and the capitalist economic order is the domination of capital over labor. This can already be discerned at the emergence of the capitalist sprouts. As Marx put it, "Capital, in its embryonic stage, because it is just born, cannot rely solely on the force of economic relations; it still needs the help of state power to ensure its right to suck in a sufficient quantity of surplus labor." [9]9 Karl Marx, *Capital*, Vol. 1, in *Marx and Engels Collected Works* (Chinese edition), Vol. 44, p. 847. [Translator's note: This is a translation of the Chinese edition; the English equivalent is from *Capital*, Vol. 1, Penguin Classics, 1990, p. 793, slightly modified for consistency.] In the embryonic period of capitalism, the role of state power was crucial. The bourgeoisie, through state power, formulated and implemented policies to provide necessary support for the development of the capitalist economy, such as protecting private property rights, promoting commodity circulation, and expanding market scale. These measures helped ensure that the capitalist economy could absorb a sufficient quantity of surplus labor, thereby promoting its further development. This reveals, from the perspective of the origin of the bourgeois state, the relationship it embodies between the bourgeoisie and other classes: the bourgeoisie uses the state to maintain its ruling-class position, suppress the resistance of other classes, and realize class rule. This class relationship determines that the bourgeois state has not changed the nature of the state as an instrument of class rule; it remains oppressive. In *Capital*, Marx, based on an in-depth analysis of the bloody legislation against the expropriated since the 15th century and the laws for the reduction of wages, reveals the oppressive nature of the modern bourgeois state. In Marx's view, laws that should protect the rights and interests of the masses were manipulated by the landlords and large tenant farmers; for example, the "Bills for Inclosure of Commons" [10]10 "Bills for Inclosure of Commons" refers to the parliamentary acts in England from the 15th to the 19th centuries that enclosed common lands, privatizing them and dispossessing peasants. became tools for them to plunder the people's land and amass wealth. At the same time, the nascent bourgeoisie, in order to appropriate more social wealth, used state power to intervene in wages. For instance, laws such as the Statute of Labourers enacted in England in 1349 set only a maximum wage, not a minimum, which, given the weakness of workers in the labor market, made their lives difficult, even making it hard for them to maintain basic subsistence.

作为资产阶级社会的政治上层建筑，资产阶级国家的起源与资产阶级社会经济基础的产生和资产阶级的形成密切相关。在资产阶级社会中，生产资料的资本主义私人占有制是经济基础的核心，资产阶级通过对生产资料的占有掠夺工人创造的剩余价值，进而控制社会经济命脉。这种经济基础决定资产阶级国家必然服务于资产阶级的利益，维护资本主义经济秩序，而资产阶级利益和资本主义经济秩序的根基就是资本对劳动的统治。这在资本主义萌芽出现时便能看出端倪。恰如马克思所言,“资本在它的萌芽时期，由于刚刚出世，不能单纯依靠经济关系的力量，还要依靠国家政权的帮助才能确保自己吮吸足够数量的剩余劳动的权利”。在资本主义萌芽时期，国家政权的作用至关重要。资产阶级通过国家政权制定和执行政策，为资本主义经济发展提供必要的支持，如保护私有产权、促进商品流通、扩大市场规模等。这些措施有助于确保资本主义经济能够吸收足够数量的剩余劳动，从而促进其进一步发展。这便从资产阶级国家起源的角度揭示出其所体现的资产阶级与其他阶级之间的关系，即资产阶级通过国家来维护其统治阶级地位，镇压其他阶级的反抗，实现阶级统治。这种阶级关系决定了资产阶级国家没有改变国家的阶级统治工具的性质，仍然具有压迫性。在《资本论》中，马克思基于对15世纪以来惩治被剥夺者的血腥立法以及压低工资的法律的深入分析，揭示了现代资产阶级国家的压迫性。在马克思看来，本应保障大众权益的法律，被地主与大租地农场主操控，像“公有地圈围法”，成了他们掠夺人民土地、聚敛财富的工具。同时，新兴资产阶级为了占有更多的社会财富，利用国家权力干预工资。如英国在1349年制定的劳工法等法律只设工资上限、不设下限，鉴于工人在劳动力市场的弱势，这导致他们生活艰难，甚至难以维持基本生存。

Of course, when workers become accustomed to "voluntarily" selling their labor power under the compulsion of the capitalist mode of production, the bourgeois state, in order to maintain this "order" of domination, is also compelled to make the bourgeoisie reluctantly concede some ground and pass some laws beneficial to workers. For example, in England, the state, ruled by capitalists and landlords, enacted factory acts to "curb capital's boundless drive to suck in labor power" by compulsorily limiting the working day. [11]11 Karl Marx, *Capital*, Vol. 1, in *Marx and Engels Collected Works* (Chinese edition), Vol. 44, p. 307. [English equivalent: *Capital*, Vol. 1, Penguin, 1990, p. 348.] This legislation was intended to curb the "blind rapacity" of capitalists and landlords, who, in their pursuit of profit maximization, disregarded workers' rights and social responsibilities, in order to prevent the depletion of the state's labor resources due to the workers' miserable situation, which would threaten the overall ruling interests of the bourgeoisie. Thus, to better safeguard bourgeois interests, the bourgeois state sometimes also had to take into account the interests of the workers. As Marx said, "It is quite natural that the extension of the working day which capital, with the help of state power, sought to force upon adult workers from the middle of the 14th century to the end of the 17th, roughly coincides with the limits on labor time that the state, in certain places, imposed in the second half of the 19th century to restrict the transformation of children's blood into capital." [12]12 Karl Marx, *Capital*, Vol. 1, in *Marx and Engels Collected Works* (Chinese edition), Vol. 44, p. 307. [English equivalent: *Capital*, Vol. 1, Penguin, 1990, p. 348.] But this legislation limiting the working day was not a "gift" from the bourgeoisie; it was the result of a long struggle by the working class to win a normal working day, i.e., "they develop gradually from the existing relations as natural laws of the modern mode of production. Their formulation, their official recognition, and their proclamation by the state are the result of a long class struggle." [13]13 Karl Marx, *Capital*, Vol. 1, in *Marx and Engels Collected Works* (Chinese edition), Vol. 44, p. 312. [English equivalent: *Capital*, Vol. 1, Penguin, 1990, p. 354.] Even so, "the legislators had no intention of touching the freedom of capital to exploit adult labor power." [14]14 Karl Marx, *Capital*, Vol. 1, in *Marx and Engels Collected Works* (Chinese edition), Vol. 44, p. 316. [English equivalent: *Capital*, Vol. 1, Penguin, 1990, p. 358.] For instance, Parliament "did not appropriate a single penny for the compulsory enforcement of these acts," [15]15 Karl Marx, *Capital*, Vol. 1, in *Marx and Engels Collected Works* (Chinese edition), Vol. 44, p. 316. [English equivalent: *Capital*, Vol. 1, Penguin, 1990, p. 358.] but tacitly allowed the bourgeoisie to implement them through the shift system. This shows that whether it was legislation to extend the working day or to limit it, it was all based on the bourgeois state's consideration of safeguarding the fundamental interests of the bourgeoisie. Capitalists, by leveraging state power—such as enacting relevant laws and policies to restrict workers' rest time and stipulate working hours—made workers' working days longer. And when they realized the negative impact of long working hours on workers' physical and mental health and social stability, they began to use state legislative power to formulate relevant labor regulations to limit working hours. From this, it can be seen that the laws of the bourgeois state provide the bourgeoisie with legitimate means to protect their property, investments, and business management activities. By formulating and enforcing various laws, such as the Bills for Inclosure of Commons, the Statute of Labourers, and the Factory Acts, the bourgeoisie can ensure that their economic activities of pursuing surplus value are protected and reduce potential risks and uncertainties.

当然，当工人习惯于在资本主义生产方式逼迫下“自愿”地出卖自己劳动力的时候，资产阶级国家为了维持这种统治“秩序”，也会不得不让资产阶级忍痛作出一些让步，通过一些有益于工人的法律。比如，在英国，由资本家和地主统治的国家制定工厂法，通过强制限制工作日“来节制资本无限度地榨取劳动力的渴望”。这一立法意在节制资本家和地主为了追求利润最大化而无视工人权益和社会责任的“盲目的掠夺欲”，以防止因工人的悲惨处境而造成国家的劳动力资源枯竭，进而对资产阶级整体的统治利益构成威胁。于是，为了更好地维护资产阶级利益，资产阶级国家有时也需要兼顾工人的利益。正如马克思所说，“从14世纪中叶至17世纪末，资本借助国家政权的力量力图迫使成年工人接受的工作日的延长程度，同19世纪下半叶国家在某些地方为了限制儿童血液变成资本而对劳动时间规定的界限大体相一致，这是很自然的了”。但这种限制工作日的立法不是资产阶级的“恩赐”，而是工人阶级为争取正常工作日而进行的长期斗争的结果，即“它们是作为现代生产方式的自然规律从现存的关系中逐渐发展起来的。它们的制定、被正式承认以及由国家予以公布，是长期阶级斗争的结果”。即便如此，“立法者根本不想触犯资本榨取成年劳动力的自由”。比如，议会“没有批准一文钱用于强制地实施这些法令”，而是默许资产阶级以换班制度加以实施。这表明，无论是延长工作日的立法，还是限制工作日的立法，都是资产阶级国家基于维护资产阶级根本利益的考虑。资本家通过借助国家政权的力量，如制定相关法律和政策限制工人的休息时间、规定工作时间等，使工人的工作日时间更长。而当他们意识到长时间工作对工人身心健康和社会稳定的负面影响时，便开始通过国家立法权来制定相关的劳动法规来限制工作时间。由此看出，资产阶级国家的法律为资产阶级提供了合法的手段来保护其财产、投资和经营管理活动。通过制定和执行各种法律，如公有地圈围法、劳工法、工厂法等，资产阶级可以确保他们追求剩余价值的经济活动受到保护，并减少潜在的风险和不确定性。

II. Executing Public Affairs and Executing Specific Functions: An Analysis of State Functions in *Capital* and Its Manuscripts

二、执行公共事务和执行特有职能：《资本论》及其手稿对国家职能的剖析

The state "is in essence a machine for the suppression of the oppressed and exploited class." [16]16 V. I. Lenin, *The State and Revolution*, in *Lenin Collected Works* (Chinese edition), Vol. 31, p. 12. [English equivalent: *The State and Revolution*, in *Lenin's Collected Works*, Vol. 25, Progress Publishers, 1964, p. 392.] The essence of the state is manifested through its functions. As an instrument of the ruling class, the primary task of the state is to safeguard the interests of the ruling class and realize political rule. However, the state is not merely an organ of violence; it also has extensive social management functions, such as maintaining social order, protecting citizens' rights, and promoting economic development. Marx, in *Capital*, emphasized the dual nature of state functions, namely, the function of political rule and the function of social management. He pointed out that the state, on the one hand, executes "the common affairs arising from the nature of all societies," and on the other hand, executes "the specific functions arising from the opposition between the government and the mass of the people." [17]17 Karl Marx, *Capital*, Vol. 3, in *Marx and Engels Collected Works* (Chinese edition), Vol. 46, p. 431. [English equivalent: *Capital*, Vol. 3, Penguin, 1991, p. 927.] Among these, "the specific functions arising from the opposition between the government and the mass of the people" is an expression of the connotation of the state's political rule function; it expresses the state's use of coercive means to maintain social order and is a vivid manifestation of the state as an organ of violence for class rule. Meanwhile, "the common affairs arising from the nature of all societies" is an expression of the connotation of the state's social management function, reflecting its role in meeting people's social, general, universal, and common needs, aiming to create a favorable social environment and promote the holistic, synchronous, and coordinated development of society and the state. The political rule function of the bourgeois state is realized through its social management function. As Engels said, "the state, the official representative of capitalist society, was compelled to take over their management." [18]18 Friedrich Engels, *Anti-Dühring*, in *Marx and Engels Collected Works* (Chinese edition), Vol. 26, p. 317. [English equivalent: *Anti-Dühring*, in *Marx and Engels Collected Works*, Vol. 25, Progress Publishers, 1987, p. 270.]

国家“在本质上都是镇压被压迫被剥削阶级的机器”。国家本质是通过其职能表现出来的。国家作为统治阶级的工具，其首要任务是维护统治阶级的利益，实现政治统治。然而，国家并非仅仅是一个暴力机关，它还具有广泛的社会管理职能，如维护社会秩序、保障公民权利、促进经济发展等。马克思在《资本论》中强调了国家职能的双重属性，即政治统治职能和社会管理职能。他指出，国家一方面执行着“由一切社会的性质产生的各种公共事务”，另一方面又执行着“由政府同人民大众相对立而产生的各种特有的职能”。其中，“由政府同人民大众相对立而产生的各种特有的职能”是对国家政治统治职能内涵的表达，它表达了国家通过运用强制性手段维护社会秩序，是国家作为阶级统治的暴力机关的鲜明体现。而“由一切社会的性质产生的各种公共事务”则是对国家社会管理职能内涵的表达，体现了其满足人们社会性的、一般性的、普遍性的和共同性的需要，旨在营造良好的社会环境，推动社会与国家的整体性、同步性和协调性的发展。资产阶级国家的政治统治职能是通过社会管理职能来实现的。正如恩格斯所说，“资本主义社会的正式代表——国家不得不承担起对它们的管理”。

In *Capital*, a work centered on the critique of political economy, and its manuscripts, Marx focuses on the social management functions of the state from the perspective of its economic attributes. In his view, the state intervenes in and regulates the social economy by formulating and implementing economic policies, adjusting economic relations, and managing economic activities, thereby realizing the ruling interests of the bourgeoisie. For example, in the early stages of capitalist production, the minimum amount of funds required for some production sectors could not be provided by individuals alone, prompting the state to grant subsidies to private parties. Among these, “protective tariffs” and “direct export subsidies” were two forms of state subsidy. In that context, “a part of the industrialist’s original capital came directly from the state treasury.” [19]19 Karl Marx, *Capital*, Vol. 1, Chapter 31: “The Genesis of the Industrial Capitalist.” The phrase refers to the early period of capitalist development when the state directly subsidized nascent industries. In fact, as early as the *London Notebooks* of 1850–1853, Marx made detailed excerpts from the literature, focusing primarily on the economic functions of the state. He deeply studied how the state uses legislative means to regulate and adjust economic activities, and how the state employs the central banking system to implement economic regulation. Through an in-depth analysis of the nature of the state budget and its role in the social economy, Marx further traced and analyzed the historical evolution and internal structure of the fiscal system and the credit system, and conducted detailed research and discussion on the characteristics of public debt, its function in the national economy, and the mechanism of its circulation.

马克思在《资本论》这部以政治经济学批判为主题的著作及其手稿中，着重从经济属性的视角阐述了国家的社会管理职能。在他看来，国家通过制定和执行经济政策、调节经济关系、管理经济活动等方式，对社会经济进行干预和调控，以实现资产阶级的统治利益。比如，在资本主义生产初期，部分生产部门所需最低限额的资金难以由单个人提供，从而促使国家对私人予以补助。其中，“保护关税”和“直接通过出口补助金”是国家的两种补助形式。在那里“工业家的原始资本有一部分直接来自国库”。其实，早在1850年至1853年的《伦敦笔记》中，马克思就进行了详尽的文献摘录，这些资料主要聚焦于国家的经济职能。他深入研究了国家如何通过立法手段来规范和调整经济活动，以及国家如何利用中央银行体系来实施经济调控。通过深入剖析国家预算的本质及其在社会经济中的作用，马克思进一步追溯并分析了财政制度与信用制度的历史演变和内在结构，并对国债的特质、其在国家经济中的功能以及国债的流通机制进行了详尽的研究与探讨。

In *Capital*, Marx argues that the economic functions of the bourgeois state are primarily realized through “the colonial system, the system of public debt, the modern tax system, and the system of protective tariffs.” The colonial system was a key means adopted by capitalism in the early stages of accumulation to promote the formation and accumulation of capital. For instance, in 1648, the Netherlands, which first fully developed the colonial system, reached the peak of its commercial prosperity. Through colonial expansion, the bourgeois state acquired vast resources, markets, and labor, providing not only the material basis for the development of capitalism but also making “the colonial system, with its overseas trade and commercial wars, the hothouse of the system of public credit.” As capitalism developed, the state’s demand for funds increased continuously, and public debt became an important financing tool; thus, the system of public debt became a key path for the bourgeois state to raise funds. “Since public debt is based on state revenues, which must cover the annual interest payments, etc., the modern tax system became a necessary supplement to the system of public debt.” Through taxation, the state could obtain the necessary funds to support its operation and development. As a modern tax system, the system of protective tariffs, in addition to increasing fiscal revenue, allowed the bourgeois state to use this barrier to restrict the import of foreign goods and protect the development of domestic industries. As Marx put it: “The system of protective tariffs was an artificial means of manufacturing manufacturers, of expropriating independent workers, of capitalizing the means of production and subsistence of the nation, and of forcibly shortening the transition from the old mode of production to the modern one.” The system of protective tariffs was an economic means adopted by the bourgeois state to safeguard the interests of the bourgeoisie itself. In Marx’s view, there is a close historical and logical connection among these systems: the colonial system provided primitive accumulation for the development of capitalism, the system of public debt provided financial support for the state’s operation, the modern tax system ensured the state’s fiscal revenue, and the system of protective tariffs safeguarded the state’s economic interests to a certain extent. Therefore, Marx believed: “The colonial system, public debts, heavy taxes, protective tariffs, commercial wars, etc. – all these shoots of the period of manufacture proper grew mightily during the infancy of large-scale industry.” Of course, these systems also exposed the inherent contradictions and limitations of the capitalist economic system. For example, the colonial system intensified international inequality and exploitation, leading to the poverty and backwardness of many colonial countries; the issuance of public debt was often accompanied by high interest burdens, plunging state finances into long-term debt cycles, triggering debt crises, and thereby adversely affecting economic development; the tax system also suffered from issues of unfairness and irrationality, especially in capitalist society, where taxation often became a means for capitalists to exploit workers; and the system of protective tariffs easily led to distortions and conflicts in international trade, hindering the healthy development of the global economy.

在《资本论》中，马克思认为资产阶级国家的经济职能主要是通过“殖民制度、国债制度、现代税收制度和保护关税制度”来实现的。殖民制度是资本主义在积累初期所采取的一种关键手段，用以促进资本的形成和积累。比如，1648年，率先充分发展殖民制度的荷兰迎来商业繁荣巅峰。通过殖民扩张，资产阶级国家获取了大量的资源、市场和劳动力，为资本主义的发展不仅提供了物质基础，而且“殖民制度以及它的海外贸易和商业战争是公共信用制度的温室”。随着资本主义的发展，国家对资金的需求不断增加，国债成为一种重要的融资手段，国债制度便成为资产阶级国家筹集资金的关键路径。“国债是依靠国家收入来支付年利息等等开支，所以现代税收制度就成为国债制度的必要补充”。通过税收，国家可以获取必要的资金来支持其运转和发展。作为一种现代税收制度，保护关税制度除具有增加财政收入的作用外，资产阶级国家还可以通过此壁垒，限制外国商品的进口，保护本国产业的发展。恰如马克思所言：“保护关税制度是制造工厂主、剥夺独立劳动者、使国民的生产资料和生活资料资本化、强行缩短从旧生产方式向现代生产方式的过渡的一种人为手段。”保护关税制度是资产阶级国家为了维护资产阶级自身利益而采取的一种经济手段。在马克思看来，这些制度之间存在着紧密的历史逻辑联系，殖民制度为资本主义的发展提供了原始积累，国债制度为国家的运转提供了资金支持，现代税收制度确保了国家的财政收入，而保护关税制度则在一定程度上维护了本国的经济利益。因而，马克思认为：“殖民制度、国债、重税、保护关税制度、商业战争等等——所有这些真正工场手工业时期的嫩芽，在大工业的幼年时期都大大地成长起来了。”当然，这些制度也暴露了资本主义经济体系的内在矛盾和局限性，比如，殖民制度加剧了国际间的不平等和剥削，导致许多殖民地国家的贫穷和落后；国债的发行往往伴随着高额的利息负担，这使得国家财政陷入长期的债务循环中，引发债务危机，进而对经济发展造成不利影响；税收制度也存在不公平和不合理的问题，尤其是在资本主义社会中，税收往往成为资本家剥削工人的一种手段；保护关税制度则容易导致国际贸易的扭曲和冲突，阻碍了全球经济的健康发展。

Compared with the colonial system, the modern tax system, and the system of protective tariffs, *Capital* discusses the system of public debt relatively more extensively. The state borrows monetary funds from domestic and foreign currency holders by issuing bonds and other means. This state debt arises from credit activities where the state acts as the principal, and it is conducted by the state to obtain or provide credit. As Marx said: “Public debt, i.e., the alienation of the state – whether despotic, constitutional, or republican – always stamps the capitalist era with its own mark. The only part of the so-called national wealth that actually enters into the collective possession of modern peoples is their public debt.” Thus, public debt involves the issue of state credit. *Capital* emphasizes the importance of state credit. State credit plays an important role in the modern economic system, and this is also a major manifestation of the economic functions of the modern state. It is one of the means by which the state conducts macroeconomic regulation and economic management. By adjusting the scale and structure of public debt, the state can influence the money supply and interest rate levels in the market, thereby regulating economic operations. This plays an important role in promoting capital accumulation and expanded reproduction. From Marx’s perspective, public debt is one of the most powerful means of primitive accumulation. It possesses a magical power, enabling idle money to acquire the capacity for valorization and to be transformed into capital, without requiring the hardship and risk involved in investing in industry or usury. Moreover, public debt became an important driver for the development of joint-stock companies, triggering the trading of various securities and the rise of speculative activities in securities, thereby promoting the prevalence of exchange speculation and the prosperity of modern banking. Through the support of public debt, enterprises could obtain the necessary funds to expand production scale, improve production efficiency, and thereby drive the development of the entire economy.

相较于殖民制度、现代税收制度和保护关税制度，《资本论》对国债制度论述相对较多。国家通过发行债券等方式，从国内外货币持有者手中借入货币资金。这种国家负债是国家作为主体进行信用活动而形成的，是国家为取得或提供信用而进行的。正如马克思所说：“国债，即国家的让渡，不论是在专制国家，立宪国家，还是共和国家，总是给资本主义时代打下自己的烙印。在所谓国民财富中，真正为现代人民所共有的唯一部分，就是他们的国债。”这样，国债就涉及国家信用问题。《资本论》强调了国家信用的重要性。国家信用在现代经济体系中扮演着重要角色，这也是现代国家经济职能的主要体现。它是国家进行宏观调控和经济管理的手段之一。通过调整国债的规模和结构，国家可以影响市场的货币供应和利率水平，从而调节经济运行。这对于促进资本积累和扩大再生产具有重要作用。从马克思的视角来看，国债是原始积累极为有力的手段之一。它如同拥有神奇魔力，能让闲置货币产生增殖能力，转化为资本，还无需像投资工业或高利贷那样承担辛苦与风险。不仅如此，国债还成为股份公司发展的重要助力，引发各类有价证券交易的开展与证券投机活动的兴起，进而推动交易所投机行为的盛行以及现代银行统治走向繁荣。通过国债的支持，企业可以获得必要的资金，用于扩大生产规模、提高生产效率，进而推动整个经济的发展。

In addition to issuing public debt, state credit is also reflected in currency issuance. This is a credit activity in which the state issues paper money that is forcibly circulated within the country through its legal-tender issuance power, characterized by the securitization of state credit at the highest level. The state puts paper notes bearing specific currency names into the circulation process, and the special law of paper money circulation stems from its relationship as a representative of metallic money; the quantity of currency issued symbolically represents the actual quantity of gold (or silver) in circulation. Currency symbols require social recognition, and paper currency symbols achieve this recognition through forced circulation. This coercive action by the state is effective only within the domestic sphere of circulation, and only within this sphere can money fully perform its function as a means of circulation or as coin, allowing paper money to exist in a purely functional form detached from the metallic substance. Currency issuance not only reflects the scale and condition of state credit but also affects the stability and sustainability of state credit. The healthy development of state credit is conducive to enhancing public confidence in the economy, stabilizing market expectations, and thereby maintaining the smooth operation of the economy; conversely, if problems arise with state credit, it may trigger market panic and a crisis of confidence, endangering the healthy development of the economy and even shaking the social foundation of state stability.

除了发行国债，国家信用还体现在货币发行上。这是国家通过法定货币发行权发行国家强制流通的纸币的信用活动，具有最高等级的国家信用证券化特征。国家将印有特定货币名称的纸票投入流通过程，而纸币流通特殊规律源于其作为金属货币代表的关系，货币发行量象征性代表金（或银）实际流通量。货币符号需获得社会认可，纸质货币符号靠强制流通达成这种认可。国家这种强制行为仅在一国国内流通领域有效，且仅在此领域，货币才能充分履行流通手段或铸币职能，使纸币以脱离金属实体的纯粹职能形式存在。货币发行不仅反映国家信用的规模和状况，也影响国家信用的稳定性和可持续性。国家信用的健康发展有利于增强公众对经济的信心，稳定市场预期，从而保持经济的平稳运行；反之，如果国家信用出现问题，可能会引发市场恐慌和信任危机，危及经济健康发展甚至动摇国家稳定的社会基础。

III. Bourgeois Society Transcends the Boundaries of the State in Foreign Trade and the World Market: An Analysis of Inter-State Relations in *Capital* and Its Manuscripts

三、资产阶级社会在对外贸易和世界市场中越出国家的界限：《资本论》及其手稿对国家间关系的分析

In the “Introduction to a Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy,” when Marx was planning his work on economics, the “State” chapter he designed focused primarily on an in-depth analysis of state theory; this part included: “The bourgeois society in the form of the state. Considered in relation to itself. The ‘unproductive’ classes. Taxes. State debt. Public credit. Population. Colonies. Emigration.” [20]20 Marx, “Introduction to a Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy,” in *Marx-Engels Collected Works*, vol. 28 (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1986), p. 45. By the time of the “Preface to a Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy,” Marx planned to examine the bourgeois economic system in the order of “capital, landed property, wage-labour; the state, foreign trade, the world market.” [21]21 Marx, “Preface to a Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy,” in *Marx-Engels Collected Works*, vol. 29 (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1987), p. 262. From this perspective, whether in the “five-part plan” or the “six-book plan,” the “State” chapter always occupies a key position linking what comes before and after. This is because the state does not exist in isolation but is deeply embedded in the developmental process of world history. In particular, with the development of capitalism, production factors such as commodities, capital, and labour power began to flow globally, promoting the formation of the world market. This process, in strengthening the connections among countries, advanced the overall development of world history. The arrangement of the latter half of the “six-book plan” in the “Preface to a Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy”—namely “the state, foreign trade, the world market”—indicates that Marx planned, through the logical intermediary and bridge of the “State” chapter, to elevate the perspective of investigation from the capitalist economic relations of a single country to the overall capitalist economic relations on a world scale. By deeply analyzing the profound impact of the capitalist mode of production on the process of world history, and on the basis of a scientific analysis of the “state” question, he unfolds an investigation of capitalist production relations between countries, revealing the inner connection between the state and world history, and thereby displaying the condition of the internal contradictions of capitalist society at a higher level. Marx profoundly dissected the complex relationship between the state, foreign trade, and the world market, revealing the dynamic evolution and inner logic of these relations under the capitalist mode of production. For example, the expansion of the capitalist mode of production promoted the enlargement of foreign trade and the world market; the state, through foreign trade, engages in economic exchange with the world market, acquiring resources and markets to promote the development of its own economy. But this also intensifies competition and conflict among states, increasing the instability of the world economy, while the instability of the world economy in turn affects the economic stability and social order of the home country, thereby requiring the state to make corresponding policy adjustments.

在《〈政治经济学批判〉导言》中，马克思在规划他的经济学著作时，所设计的“国家”篇主要聚焦于对国家理论的深入剖析，这一部分内容包括：“资产阶级社会在国家形式上的概括。就它本身来考察。‘非生产’阶级。税。国债。公共信用。人口。殖民地。向国外移民。”而到了《〈政治经济学批判〉序言》，马克思则计划按“资本、土地所有制、雇佣劳动；国家、对外贸易，世界市场”这一顺序对资产阶级经济制度加以考察。由此看来，无论是“五篇计划”，还是“六册计划”，“国家”篇始终占据着衔接前后的关键位置。因为国家并不是孤立存在的，而是深深地嵌入世界历史的发展进程中。尤其是，随着资本主义的发展，商品、资本和劳动力等生产要素开始在全球范围内流动，推动了世界市场的形成。这一过程在加强各国之间的联系中促进了世界历史的整体发展。《〈政治经济学批判〉序言》中的“六册计划”的后半部分即“国家、对外贸易，世界市场”的安排，表明马克思计划经过“国家”篇这一逻辑中介和桥梁，将考察视角从一国资本主义经济关系，上升至世界范围内整体的资本主义经济关系。他通过深入分析资本主义生产方式对世界历史进程的深刻影响，在科学分析“国家”问题的基础上，展开对国与国之间资本主义生产关系的考察，揭示国家与世界历史之间的内在联系，进而展现资本主义社会内部矛盾在更高层次的状况。马克思深刻剖析了国家与对外贸易、世界市场之间的复杂关系，揭示了这些关系在资本主义生产方式下的动态演变和内在逻辑。比如，资本主义生产方式的扩张推动了对外贸易和世界市场的扩大，国家通过对外贸易与世界市场进行经济交流，获取资源和市场，推动本国经济的发展；但这也加剧了国家间的竞争和冲突，增加了世界经济的不稳定性，而世界经济的不稳定又会影响本国的经济稳定和社会秩序，进而要求国家进行相应的政策调整。

In the “six-book plan,” the chapter immediately following “the State” is “Foreign Trade.” In *Capital* and its manuscripts, Marx explored the connotation and essence of foreign trade from the perspective of the capitalist mode of production, and on this basis deeply analyzed the impact of foreign trade on the national economy and on relations between states. He argued that “the expansion of foreign trade, although in the infancy of the capitalist mode of production it is the basis of this mode of production, becomes, in the development of this mode of production, due to its inner necessity, due to its need for the constant expansion of the market, a product of this mode of production itself.” [22]22 Marx, *Capital*, vol. 3, in *Marx-Engels Collected Works*, vol. 37 (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1998), p. 237. The capitalist mode of production is based on commodity production and exchange, pursuing the maximization of profit and surplus value. Under this mode of production, the scope of commodity production and exchange continuously expands until it crosses national borders, forming foreign trade. The development of foreign trade in turn provides a broader market for capitalist production, promotes capital accumulation and technological progress, and further drives the expansion of the scale of capitalist production and the development of the mode of production. On this basis, Marx analyzed the role of foreign trade from the perspective of the state. He argued that foreign trade not only affects the internal economic structure and profit distribution of the state but also involves economic relations between states and international politics. Through foreign trade, the state can acquire more resources and markets, promoting the development of its own economy. Foreign trade is an important link in economic relations among capitalist states; it both embodies the inner requirements of the capitalist mode of production and reflects the complexity of economic relations between states. This complexity lies in the fact that foreign trade brings about issues such as economic competition and cooperation, adjustments in economic structure and industrial layout, changes in economic policy and institutions, and problems of economic security and interest protection. If handled improperly, it can lead to economic conflicts between states, affecting the stability and development of international relations.

在“六册计划”中，紧接着“国家”篇的是“对外贸易”篇。在《资本论》及其手稿中，马克思从资本主义生产方式的角度探讨了对外贸易的内涵与实质，以此为基础深入剖析了对外贸易对国家经济以及国家间关系的影响。他认为，“对外贸易的扩大，虽然在资本主义生产方式的幼年时期是这种生产方式的基础，但在资本主义生产方式的发展中，由于这种生产方式的内在必然性，由于这种生产方式要求不断扩大市场，它成为这种生产方式本身的产物”。资本主义生产方式以商品生产和交换为基础，追求利润和剩余价值的最大化。在这种生产方式下，商品生产和交换的范围不断扩大，直至跨越国界，形成对外贸易。而对外贸易的发展又为资本主义生产提供了更广阔的市场，促进了资本积累和技术进步，进一步推动了资本主义生产规模的扩大和生产方式的发展。在此基础上，马克思从国家的角度分析了对外贸易的作用。他认为，对外贸易不仅影响了国家内部的经济结构和利润分配，还涉及国家间的经济关系和国际政治。通过对外贸易，国家可以获取更多的资源和市场，促进本国经济的发展。对外贸易是资本主义国家间经济联系的重要纽带，它既体现了资本主义生产方式的内在要求，又反映了国家间经济关系的复杂性。这种复杂性在于，对外贸易带来了经济竞争与合作、经济结构与产业布局的调整、经济政策与制度的变革以及经济安全与利益保护等问题。如果处理不当，它可能导致国家间的经济冲突，影响国际关系的稳定和发展。

The development of foreign trade also indicates that, with the growth of productive forces and the expansion of commodity exchange, various states gradually broke through their original isolated state and began to form a unified world market. In this market, the economies of different states are interdependent and mutually influential, jointly promoting the development of the world economy. Hence, in the *Economic Manuscripts of 1857–1858*, Marx defined the world market as “bourgeois society going beyond the limits of the state.” [23]23 Marx, *Economic Manuscripts of 1857–1858*, in *Marx-Engels Collected Works*, vol. 28 (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1986), p. 195. In *Capital* and its manuscripts, Marx revealed the key role of the state in the formation and development of the world market, emphasizing the function of the state within the world market. The activities of the state in the world market both reflect its internal class structure and economic interests and affect its position and influence on a global scale. As representatives of political and economic power, states actively participate in competition and cooperation in the world market by formulating foreign trade policies, tariff policies, and other means, regulating their own economic exchanges with the world market, while also using the world market to promote the development and prosperity of their own economies. These policies not only affect the economic development of the state itself but also shape the structure and direction of the world market. And with the formation and development of the world market, the economies of various states begin to interpenetrate and merge with one another. This means that the economic development of each state is no longer influenced solely by its own domestic factors but also by the overall trends and changes in the world market. This compels each state to closely monitor the dynamics of the world market and promptly adjust its own economic policies and development strategies.

对外贸易的发展也表明，随着生产力的发展和商品交换的扩大，各个国家逐渐打破了原有的孤立状态，开始形成一个统一的世界市场。在这个市场中，各国经济相互依存、相互影响，共同推动着世界经济的发展。因而，马克思在《1857—1858年经济学手稿》中用“资产阶级社会越出国家的界限”来定义世界市场。在《资本论》及其手稿中，马克思揭示了国家在世界市场形成和发展中的关键角色，强调了国家在世界市场中的作用。国家在世界市场中的活动，既反映了其内部的阶级结构和经济利益，又影响了其在全球范围内的地位和影响力。国家作为政治和经济力量的代表，通过制定对外贸易政策、关税政策等手段，积极参与世界市场的竞争与合作，并调节着本国与世界市场的经济交往，同时也利用世界市场来推动本国经济的发展和繁荣。这些政策不仅影响国家自身的经济发展，而且塑造了世界市场的格局和走向，而随着世界市场的形成和发展，各国经济开始相互渗透、相互融合。这使得各国经济的发展不再仅仅受到本国因素的影响，还受到世界市场整体趋势和变化的影响。这就使得各国必须密切关注世界市场的动态，及时调整自己的经济政策和发展战略。

Under the capitalist world system, there exists a complex and subtle relationship between the nation-state and the world market. The impact of the world market on the development of nation-states is twofold. On the one hand, the development of capitalism causes the world market to expand continuously; the formation and development of the world market break the limitations of nation-states, enabling each nation-state to participate in global production and exchange, thereby promoting economic and cultural exchanges among nations and allowing nation-states to gain new development opportunities in this process. As Marx said: “The sudden expansion of the world market, the multiplication of circulating commodities, the competitive zeal of the European nations to possess themselves of the products of Asia and the treasures of America, the colonial system—all contributed materially towards destroying the feudal fetters on production.” [24]24 Karl Marx, *Capital*, Vol. 1, Chapter 24, Section 5. On the other hand, the world market also intensifies competition and conflict among nation-states, causing some weaker nation-states to face the risk of marginalization or even enslavement. As Marx said: “Those nations which still work on a basis of slave-labor or corvée-labor, etc., once they are drawn into the world market dominated by the capitalist mode of production, where the sale of their products for export is the primary interest, receive the civilized horrors of over-work on top of the barbaric horrors of slavery, serfdom, etc.” [25]25 Karl Marx, *Capital*, Vol. 1, Chapter 8, Section 7. The root cause lies in the fact that the opening up of the world market is filled with the colonial oppression of backward nations by the so-called civilized nations under the rule of capital. That is to say, the bourgeoisie not only enslaves the proletariat of its own country but also squeezes the proletariat of backward countries and nations. Specifically, “The colonial system greatly promoted trade and navigation. The ‘monopoly companies’ (Luther) were powerful levers for the concentration of capital. The colonies provided a market for the budding manufactures, and a vast increase in accumulation was ensured by the monopoly of this market. The treasures captured outside Europe by undisguised looting, enslavement and murder flowed back to the mother-country and were turned into capital there.” [26]26 Karl Marx, *Capital*, Vol. 1, Chapter 24, Section 6. In this way, two opposing camps are formed in the world: on one side, a tiny minority of so-called “civilized nations” that exploit the vast majority of the world’s inhabitants by virtue of their capital advantage; on the other side, a camp composed of colonies and dependent nations, the “uncivilized” and “semi-civilized” peoples who constitute the vast majority of the world’s population and are in a position of being oppressed and exploited. For a nation-state to consolidate its dominant position in the world market, it needs to adapt to the developmental demands of the world market while maintaining its own independence and sovereignty, thereby achieving its own modernization and progress.

资本主义世界体系下民族国家与世界市场之间存在复杂而微妙的关系。世界市场对于民族国家发展的影响是双重的。一方面，资本主义的发展使得世界市场不断扩张，世界市场的形成和发展打破了民族国家的局限，使得各个民族国家能够参与全球的生产和交换，从而促进了各民族之间的经济、文化交流，使民族国家在这个过程中获得了新的发展机遇。正如马克思所说：“世界市场的突然扩大，流通商品种类的倍增，欧洲各国竭力想占有亚洲产品和美洲宝藏的竞争热，殖民制度，——所有这一切对打破生产的封建束缚起了重大的作用。”但另一方面，世界市场也加剧了民族国家之间的竞争和冲突，使得一些弱小的民族国家面临被边缘化甚至被奴役的风险。正如马克思所说：“那些还在奴隶劳动或徭役劳动等较低级形式上从事生产的民族，一旦卷入资本主义生产方式所统治的世界市场，而这个市场又使它们的产品的外销成为首要利益，那就会在奴隶制、农奴制等等野蛮暴行之上，再加上过度劳动的文明暴行。”究其根本原因，在于世界市场的开拓充满着资本统治的所谓文明民族对落后民族的殖民压迫。也就是说，资产阶级不仅奴役本国的无产阶级，还压榨落后国家和民族的无产阶级。具体说来，“殖民制度大大地促进了贸易和航运的发展。‘垄断公司’（路德语）是资本积聚的强有力的手段。殖民地为迅速产生的工场手工业保证了销售市场以及由市场垄断所引起的成倍积累。在欧洲以外直接靠掠夺、奴役和杀人越货而夺得的财宝，源源流入宗主国，在这里转化为资本”。这样，世界上形成两个相互对立阵营：一方是极少数凭资本优势剥削世界绝大多数居民的所谓“文明民族”阵营；另一方则是由占世界人口绝大多数、处于被压迫剥削境地的殖民地和附属国的“未开化”“半开化”民族组成的阵营。民族国家要巩固其在世界市场中的主体地位，需要在保持自身独立和主权的同时，适应世界市场的发展需求，实现自身的现代化和进步。

IV. The Hidden Secret Behind the Form of the State: Insights into the Historical Limits of the State in *Capital* and Its Manuscripts

四、国家形式背后的隐藏秘密：《资本论》及其手稿对国家历史限度的洞察

The *Introduction to a Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy* uses the phrase “the bourgeois society summarized in the form of the state” to summarize the theme of the “State” chapter, indicating that Marx’s understanding of the state is based neither on the state itself nor on the so-called general development of the human spirit, but rather on its root—the material relations of life, i.e., “civil society.” At that time, this “civil society” was bourgeois society. Bourgeois society is a society in which the capitalist mode of production is dominant, with the bourgeoisie and the proletariat as the two cornerstones of the social structure. The bourgeoisie, by virtue of its ownership of capital, controls the means of production and thus occupies a dominant position in society; the proletariat, on the other hand, can only sell its labor power, is in a subordinate position, owns no means of production, and can only combine with the means of production through being hired by capital, remaining in a subordinate status. This antagonistic relationship of capital dominating labor determines that there must be an inherent logical connection between the state and capital, namely, that the bourgeois state broadly depends on the social interest groups under the rule of the capital relation. As Marx says in *Capital*: “It is always the direct relationship of the owners of the conditions of production to the direct producers—a relationship always naturally corresponding to a definite stage in the development of the methods of labor and thereby its social productivity—which reveals the innermost secret, the hidden basis of the entire social structure, and with it the political form of the relation of sovereignty and dependence, in short, the corresponding specific form of the state.” [27]27 Karl Marx, *Capital*, Vol. 3, Chapter 47, Section 2. Capital is the economic power that dominates everything in bourgeois society, and capital’s domination of labor in the economic sphere necessarily leads to its rule over labor in the political sphere, thereby achieving control over the entire state power. In the process of writing *Capital*, Marx deeply investigated and analyzed capitalist economic relations, forming a complete understanding and accurate grasp of the internal structure and essence of bourgeois society. This research reveals the internal connection and mutual construction between modern bourgeois society and capital. Based on analyzing the essential characteristics of bourgeois society, it further reveals the internal relationship between the modern bourgeois state system and the capitalist private property system, thereby finding the material root of the capital logic of the modern bourgeois state.

《〈政治经济学批判〉导言》中用“资产阶级社会在国家形式上的概括”来概括“国家”篇的主题，表明马克思对国家的理解，既非基于国家自身，也非源于所谓人类精神的一般发展，而是从其根源——物质的生活关系即“市民社会”出发。在彼时，这种“市民社会”就是资产阶级社会。资产阶级社会是资本主义生产方式占统治地位的社会，资产阶级和无产阶级是社会架构中的两大基石。资产阶级凭借资本的所有权，掌握着生产资料，因此在社会中占据主导地位；而无产阶级只能出卖自己的劳动力，处于被支配的地位，不占有任何生产资料，只能通过被资本雇佣的方式与生产资料结合，处于从属地位。这种资本支配劳动的对抗性关系决定了国家与资本之间必然存在内在的逻辑关联，即资产阶级国家广泛依存于资本关系统治下的社会利益集团。正如马克思在《资本论》中所说：“任何时候，我们总是要在生产条件的所有者同直接生产者的直接关系——这种关系的任何当时的形式必然总是同劳动方式和劳动社会生产力的一定的发展阶段相适应——当中，为整个社会结构，从而也为主权关系和依附关系的政治形式，总之，为任何当时的独特的国家形式，发现最隐蔽的秘密，发现隐藏着的基础。”资本是资产阶级社会支配一切的经济权力，而资本在经济领域对劳动的支配权必然导向在政治领域对劳动的统治权，进而达到对整个国家权力的掌控。在《资本论》的撰写过程中，马克思深入考察和剖析了资本主义经济关系，形成了对资产阶级社会的内部结构及其本质的完整认识与准确理解。这一研究揭示了现代资产阶级社会与资本之间的内在联系和相互构建关系，以分析资产阶级社会的本质特征为基础进一步揭示了现代资产阶级国家制度与资本主义私有制度之间的内在关联，进而找到了现代资产阶级国家资本逻辑的物质根源。

In *Capital* and its manuscripts, Marx states that the commodity is the cell form of the economic organism of bourgeois society, and the wealth of societies in which the capitalist mode of production prevails appears as an “immense accumulation of commodities.” Under commodity economy conditions, “all economic relations are merely different names for the same constantly recurring relations of simple exchange, i.e., commodity exchange, and the corresponding relations of ownership, freedom, and equality.” [28]28 Karl Marx, *Grundrisse*, Notebook II, “The Chapter on Money.” Bourgeois society constructs a basic framework of the “trinity” of ownership, freedom, and equality. Equality and freedom in the economic sphere promote opposition to privileged politics and the establishment of citizens’ political rights. The exclusivity of ownership, in turn, necessitates the formation of social relations of interaction based on modern contractual principles, which in politics evolve into the principles of rule of law and regular elections, thereby laying the social foundation of the modern bourgeois state. However, beneath this appearance of “equality” and “freedom” lies the strong domination of labor by capital. Behind the process of commodity circulation, the equality and freedom among individuals disappear. The law of value requires equivalent exchange, but under capitalist conditions, the transaction between the capitalist and the worker, based on their identities as owner of money and owner of labor power, appears to follow the rules of the commodity economy but is not actually so. Behind the seemingly fair exchange is hidden the exploitation of the worker’s labor, i.e., the wage paid by the capitalist to the worker is lower than the value created by the labor power, which reflects the contradiction and hypocrisy of the principle of equivalent exchange under the capitalist system. Marx believes that the root of this inequality lies in ownership.

在《资本论》及其手稿中，马克思谈到，商品是资产阶级社会经济机体的细胞，资本主义生产占统治地位的社会财富表现为一个“庞大的商品堆积”，在商品经济条件下，“一切经济关系都不过是简单交换即商品交换以及与之相适应的所有权、自由和平等这些规定的始终不变的关系的各种不同名称而已”。资产阶级社会构建了所有权、自由、平等“三位一体”的基本架构。经济领域的平等自由促使反对特权政治、确立公民政治权利。所有权的排他性又需形成基于现代契约原则的社会交往关系，而契约原则在政治中又演变为法治和定期选举原则，从而奠定了现代资产阶级国家的社会基础。然而，在这“平等”“自由”的表象下，实则是资本对劳动的强势支配。商品流通过程背后便是个人之间的平等自由消失。价值规律要求等价交换，但在资本主义条件下，资本家和工人基于货币所有者和劳动力所有者身份交易，看似遵循商品经济规则，实则不然。在看似公平的交换背后，隐藏着对工人劳动的剥削，即资本家付给工人的工资低于劳动力所创造的价值，这体现了资本主义制度下等价交换原则的矛盾与虚伪。马克思认为这种不平等问题的根源在于所有权。

Under the conditions of capitalist relations of production, “the right of property, for the capitalist, is the right to appropriate the unpaid labour of others or its product, and for the worker, the impossibility of appropriating his own product.” In this way, the capitalist “constantly uses a part of the already objectified labour he appropriates without equivalent to buy a greater quantity of living labour,” and “labour-power must constantly be incorporated into capital as a means of valorisation.” Hence, capital, relying on its command over labour, acquires both the legitimate right and the coercive power to appropriate the worker’s surplus labour without compensation, and through the state power it controls, it normalises and perpetuates this social order in which capital dominates labour. Here, the right of property reveals the relations of appropriation and exploitation in capitalist production, namely, the capitalist’s uncompensated appropriation of the worker’s surplus labour. This unequal domination of labour by capital undermines the formal equality of the state’s constitution and laws. Under the rule of capital, workers, dependent on the capitalist’s means of production for survival, devote themselves entirely to labour in order to obtain work, have no say in production-related issues, and thus lack democracy in the sphere of social production. This fundamentally obstructs the people’s genuine rule over the state, reducing democracy for the proletariat to a mere illusion confined to the realm of ideas. Moreover, workers, preoccupied with the struggle for survival, have no time to attend to or study political affairs, let alone invest energy in mastering complex political games such as electoral campaigns. In contrast, the bourgeoisie, by virtue of its ownership of the means of production, achieves economic dominance and, through the state, becomes the politically ruling class. Freed from arduous labour, they leverage the political information and resource advantages accumulated through wealth to dominate public opinion, and in political life they also enjoy far more voice and participation than workers. Furthermore, capitalists convert part of the surplus value created by the uncompensated appropriation of workers’ surplus labour into taxes paid to the state, which becomes the core pillar of government finance, thereby indirectly controlling and influencing state power. Thus, the domination of labour by capital extends not only into the economic sphere but also profoundly into the political sphere, serving as the social root of the bourgeoisie’s monopoly over state power. The “freedom” and “equality” proclaimed by the bourgeoisie are merely formal in actual state life; in essence, they uphold the social order in which capital rules labour. In this way, the bourgeois state, founded on bourgeois society, is like a giant python coiling around civil society, becoming a suffocating force of domination.

在资本主义生产关系条件下，“所有权对于资本家来说，表现为占有他人无酬劳动或它的产品的权利，而对于工人来说，则表现为不能占有自己的产品”。这样，资本家便“用他总是不付等价物而占有的他人的已经对象化的劳动的一部分，来不断再换取更大量的他人的活劳动”，而“劳动力必须不断地作为价值增殖的手段并入资本”。于是，资本便依靠对劳动的指挥权获得无偿占有工人剩余劳动的合法权和强制权，并通过其掌握的国家权力把这种资本支配劳动的社会秩序常态化和永久化。在这里，所有权揭示的是资本主义生产中的占有和剥削关系，即资本家无偿占有工人剩余劳动。这种资本对劳动的不平等支配，破坏了国家宪法和法律形式上的平等。在资本的统治下，工人因生存依赖资本家的生产资料，为获得劳动机会全身心投入劳动，对生产相关问题无发言权，使社会生产领域缺乏民主，进而从根本上阻碍了人民对国家的真正统治，使民主对无产阶级来说仅仅是局限于理念层面的幻想。而且，工人为生存奔波，无暇关注、研究政治事务，更无法投入精力去深入研究如竞选等复杂的政治游戏规则。与之相反，资产阶级凭借生产资料所有权取得经济统治地位，进而借助国家成为政治上的统治阶级。他们摆脱繁重劳动，利用财富积累的政治信息和资源优势主导社会舆论，在政治生活中也比工人拥有更多发言权和参与权。此外，资本家将无偿占有工人剩余劳动所创造的剩余价值，并将其中的一部分以税收的形式缴纳给国家，成为政府财政核心支柱，从而间接控制和影响国家权力。可见，资本对劳动的支配不仅在经济领域，还深刻影响政治领域，是资产阶级垄断国家政权的社会根源。资产阶级宣扬的“自由”“平等”，在实际国家生活中只是一种形式，本质上是维护资本统治劳动的社会秩序。这样，以资产阶级社会为基础的资产阶级国家，犹如一条巨大的蟒蛇缠绕着市民社会，成为使其窒息的统治力量。

One of the “troubling questions” that the young Marx encountered in his study of the state was the problem of the alienation of state and society arising from the contradiction between universal interest and particular interest, which was also one of the motives driving him to turn to the study of political economy. In *Capital*, Marx uncovered the secret of this problem by revealing the fundamental contradiction of capitalism. Under the capitalist mode of production, the development of productive forces pushes production toward socialisation, organising means of production and labour-power across regions to meet the overall needs of society. This requires the rational allocation of means of production on a societal scale to achieve efficient utilisation. However, capitalism is based on the private ownership of the means of production, with a minority of capitalists pursuing the maximisation of individual interests controlling the means of production. They hold absolute decision-making power in production, allocating factors of production solely according to their own interests while disregarding the overall interests of society. This opposition between universal interest and particular interest gives rise to numerous contradictions. In production, socialised large-scale production requires coordination and planning, but private ownership leads to disorder in social production, with capitalists blindly pursuing profit, causing overproduction and waste of resources. In distribution, the fruits of socialised production should be shared by all, but in reality they are monopolised by capitalists, with workers receiving only meagre remuneration. In class relations, socialised large-scale production gives rise to and strengthens the proletariat, whose contradiction with the bourgeoisie becomes the principal contradiction of capitalist society. Consequently, the contradiction between the socialisation of production and capitalist private ownership becomes an incurable chronic ailment of capitalist society, even though the bourgeois state attempts to alleviate it through economic intervention and other means. For example, *Capital* mentions the colonial system, the system of public debt, the modern tax system, and the system of protective tariffs. Yet the bourgeois state is ultimately a “total capitalist” controlled by private capital and cannot fundamentally infringe upon the particular interests of private capital. Hence, this contradiction remains inherent to the capitalist system itself, difficult to resolve fundamentally, and no panacea for this chronic ailment can be found. From the colonial system exacerbating international inequality and exploitation, to the system of public debt triggering debt crises, from the tax system intensifying capitalists’ exploitation of workers, to the system of protective tariffs causing distortions and conflicts in international trade—all of this serves as proof. In this way, Marx, from the movement of the fundamental contradiction of capitalism, found the economic root of the opposition between universal interest and particular interest in bourgeois society, thereby revealing the fundamental cause of the alienation between state and society.

青年时期的马克思研究国家问题时遇到的“苦恼的疑问”之一，便是由普遍利益与特殊利益矛盾而引发的国家与社会异化问题，这也是推动他转向政治经济学研究的动因之一。在《资本论》中，马克思通过揭示资本主义基本矛盾找到了其中的奥秘所在。在资本主义生产方式下，生产力发展推动生产走向社会化，使生产资料和劳动力跨区域组织，以满足社会整体需求，这要求生产资料在社会范围合理配置，实现高效利用。但资本主义以生产资料私人占有为基础，追逐个人利益最大化的少数资本家掌控生产资料。他们在生产中握有绝对决策权，只依自身利益配置生产要素而不顾社会整体利益。这种普遍利益与特殊利益的对立引发诸多矛盾。在生产上，社会化大生产需要协调规划，可私人占有制致使社会生产无序，资本家盲目逐利，造成生产过剩和资源浪费；在分配上，社会化生产成果应全民共享，但实际上却被资本家独占，劳动者仅获微薄报酬；在阶级关系上，社会化大生产催生壮大无产阶级，其与资产阶级的矛盾成为资本主义社会的主要矛盾。于是，生产的社会化与资本主义私人占有之间的矛盾便成了资本主义社会不可自愈的顽症，尽管资产阶级国家试图通过经济干预等手段来缓解这一矛盾。比如，《资本论》中提到的殖民制度、国债制度、现代税收制度和保护关税制度，但资产阶级国家终究是被私人资本控制的“总资本家”，不可能从根本上侵害私人资本的特殊利益，因而这一矛盾依然是资本主义制度本身所固有的，难以从根本上得到解决，也不可能找到治愈这一顽症的灵丹妙药。从殖民制度加剧国际间不平等和剥削到国债制度引发债务危机，从税收制度加剧资本家对工人的剥削到保护关税制度导致国际贸易的扭曲和冲突，都是对此的证明。这样，马克思便从资本主义基本矛盾的运动中找到了资产阶级社会中普遍利益与特殊利益之间对立的经济根源，从而揭示了国家与社会之间产生异化的根本原因。

V. Replacing the “Illusory Community” with the “Association of Free Individuals”: The Foresight of the Withering Away of the State in *Capital* and Its Manuscripts

五、以“自由人联合体”取代“虚幻的共同体”：《资本论》及其手稿对国家消亡的预见

In *Capital*, Marx, delving into the interior of “civil society,” further reveals from the perspective of political economy the capital logic of the development of bourgeois society and the state, namely, the domination of labour by capital as the social root of the historical limits of the bourgeois state. This contradiction not only affects the development and efficiency of the capitalist economy but also leads to social injustice and the intensification of class contradictions. Marx reveals the essence of the state by starting from civil society and explores the emergence and development of the state from changes in social material relations. Consequently, his prediction of the future trend of the state also proceeds from the social sphere, that is, by revealing the trend of social development to predict the trend of the state. In his youth, Marx envisioned using the “association of free individuals” to completely subvert the capital logic of bourgeois society and promote the withering away of the state. In *The Poverty of Philosophy*, he wrote: “The working class, in the course of its development, will substitute for the old civil society an association which will exclude classes and their antagonism, and there will be no more political power properly so-called, since political power is precisely the official expression of antagonism in civil society.” In Marx’s view, the state is an “illusory community,” while the “community,” as the original form of society, is independent relative to the individual. The “association” means that people, on the basis of eliminating fundamental conflicts of interest, truly organise society through their own association. In *The Communist Manifesto*, he and Engels explicitly defined this association as the “association of free individuals,” stating: “In place of the old bourgeois society, with its classes and class antagonisms, we shall have an association, in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all.” In *Capital*, Marx provides a more detailed exposition of the “association of free individuals,” proposing: “Let us now imagine, for a change, an association of free individuals, working with the means of production held in common, and expending their many different forms of labour-power in full self-awareness as one single social labour force.” In Marx’s view, the entire product of the association of free individuals belongs to society. Part of this product serves as means of production, continuing to be held in common by society, while another part serves as means of subsistence, distributed among the members of the association for their consumption, with the share of distribution determined by the labour time of each producer. This association of free individuals is precisely what Engels, in *The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State*, describes as: “a society which organises production anew on the basis of a free and equal association of the producers will put the whole state machine where it will then belong: in the museum of antiquities, next to the spinning wheel and the bronze axe.”

在《资本论》中，马克思深入“市民社会”内部从政治经济学的角度进一步揭示了资产阶级社会与国家发展的资本逻辑，即资本对劳动的统治这一资产阶级国家历史限度的社会根源。这种矛盾不仅影响了资本主义经济的发展和效率，也导致了社会不公和阶级矛盾的加剧。马克思从市民社会入手揭示国家的本质，从社会物质关系的变化中探讨国家的产生、发展，那么他对国家未来发展趋势的预判也是从社会领域着手的，即通过揭示社会发展趋势来预判国家的发展趋势。青年时期的马克思就曾设想以“自由人联合体”实现对资产阶级社会资本逻辑的彻底颠覆，并推动国家走向消亡。他在《哲学的贫困》中提出：“劳动阶级在发展进程中将创造一个消除阶级和阶级对抗的联合体来代替旧的市民社会；从此再不会有原来意义的政权了。因为政权正是市民社会内部阶级对抗的正式表现。”在马克思看来，国家是“虚幻共同体”，而“共同体”作为社会的原初形式相对于个体的人来说是独立的。“联合体”则意味着人们在消除了根本的利益冲突的基础上，通过自己的联合真正把社会组织起来了。在《共产党宣言》中，他和恩格斯把这一联合体明确为“自由人联合体”，指出：“代替那存在着阶级和阶级对立的资产阶级旧社会的，将是这样一个联合体，在那里，每个人的自由发展是一切人的自由发展的条件。”在《资本论》中，马克思对“自由人联合体”作了更为详尽的阐释，提出，“让我们换一个方面，设想有一个自由人联合体，他们用公共的生产资料进行劳动，并且自觉地把他们许多个人劳动力当做一个社会劳动力来使用”。依马克思之见，自由人联合体的全部产品都归属于社会。在这些产品中，有一部分会作为生产资料，继续由社会占有，另一部分则作为生活资料在联合体成员间分配，供他们消费，而分配的份额则按生产者的劳动时长来确定。这种自由人联合体正是恩格斯在《家庭、私有制和国家的起源》中所说的，“在生产者自由平等的联合体的基础上按新方式来组织生产的社会，将把全部国家机器放到它应该去的地方，即放到古物陈列馆去，同纺车和青铜斧陈列在一起”。

In such an association, the means of production are no longer privately owned but socially owned. This fundamental change in the form of ownership enables people to break free from dependence on private property, to jointly own and use the means of production, and to consciously regard their own labor power as part of social labor, thereby realizing the union of labor and the common progress of society—that is, “to re-establish individual property on the basis of the achievements of the capitalist era, i.e., on the basis of cooperation and the common possession of the land and of the means of production produced by labor itself.” [32]32 Karl Marx, *Capital*, Vol. 1, Chapter 32: “The Historical Tendency of Capitalist Accumulation.” Because “the capitalist’s alien property in this labor can only be abolished by transforming his property into the property of non-isolated single individuals, i.e., into the property of associated, social individuals.” [33]33 Karl Marx, *Economic Manuscript of 1861–63*, in *Marx and Engels Collected Works*, Vol. 34, p. 111. According to Marx’s conception of the re-established form of individual property, the bond linking people is labor; the social surplus of labor will no longer be directly distributed to individuals as means of production, but rather as means of subsistence. This distribution is no longer based on commodity exchange and the medium of money, but on the principle of equality before labor, determining each producer’s share of the means of subsistence according to their labor time. This ensures fairness and justice between each person’s contribution and their reward. This transformation fundamentally overturns the logic of capital dominating labor that results from the separation of the means of production from the direct producers in bourgeois society, providing workers with a fairer, more just, and more efficient production environment. It enables workers, through their direct integration with the means of production, to become managers of the production process, thereby establishing social norms of interaction based on labor and realizing the individual’s appropriation of the “totality of existing productive forces.” [34]34 Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, *The German Ideology*, in *Marx and Engels Collected Works*, Vol. 5, p. 86. This appropriation of the totality of existing productive forces by the individual, as embodied in individual property, can only be achieved through associated labor. This determines that the individual property Marx seeks to re-establish is not aimed at isolated individuals, but is a form of social property composed of associated individuals, founded on the common ownership of the means of production. And because the means of production are no longer privately owned, the phenomenon of using ownership of the means of production to enslave the labor of others is also avoided. Workers, due to their equal share in social wealth, will also attain equal social and political status and become masters of society.

在这样的联合体中，生产资料不再是私人所有，而是社会所有。这种所有制形式上的根本性变革使得人们能够摆脱对私有制的依赖，共同拥有和使用生产资料，并且自觉地将自己的劳动力视为社会劳动力的一部分，以实现劳动的联合和社会的共同进步，即“在资本主义时代的成就的基础上，也就是说，在协作和对土地及靠劳动本身生产的生产资料的共同占有的基础上，重新建立个人所有制”。因为“资本家对这种劳动的异己的所有制，只有通过他的所有制改造为非孤立的单个人的所有制，也就是改造为联合起来的、社会的个人的所有制，才可能被消灭”。依据马克思对重建的个人所有制形式的设想，人们之间的联系纽带是劳动，社会的劳动剩余将不会直接分配给个人作为生产资料，而是作为生活资料进行分配。这种分配不再基于商品交换和货币中介，而是基于劳动面前人人平等的原则，根据每个生产者的劳动时间来决定他们在生活资料中得到的份额。这就确保了每个人的贡献与所得之间的公平性和公正性。这种变革从根本上颠覆了资产阶级社会中生产资料与劳动者分离所导致的资本支配劳动的逻辑，为劳动者提供了更加公平、公正和高效的生产环境，使劳动者在与生产资料实现直接结合中成为生产过程的管理者，进而确立劳动本位的社会交往准则，实现个人对“现有生产力总和”的占有。这种个人所有制所体现的个人对现有生产力总和的占有，只有通过联合劳动才能实现。这就决定了马克思所要重建的个人所有制并非仅仅针对孤立个体，而是一种建立在生产资料公共占有基础之上，由联合起来的个人所组成的社会所有制。而由于生产资料不再由私人所有，因此也避免了依靠生产资料所有权来奴役他人劳动的现象。劳动者也将因其对社会财富的平等占有而取得平等的社会政治地位，成为社会的主人。

Once social ownership is established and associated labor is implemented, the purpose of labor shifts toward the common interests of society, and society gradually becomes a conscious and planned association. This transformation can effectively resolve the contradiction between private labor and social labor under the commodity economy, break the restrictions of private capital on socialized large-scale production, eliminate the economic root of the opposition between particular interests and the general interest in bourgeois society, and help build a harmonious, efficient, and fair socio-economic system. Just as Marx said: “The veil is not lifted from the countenance of the social life-process, i.e., the process of material production, until it becomes production by freely associated men, and stands under their conscious and planned control.” [35]35 Karl Marx, *Capital*, Vol. 1, Chapter 1, Section 4: “The Fetishism of Commodities and the Secret Thereof.” At that time, people will also recognize that their “inherent powers” actually originate from society, and will learn to organize these powers for the use of society. Such a social transformation allows everyone to realize their self-worth and all-round development in an environment of freedom and equality, bringing the liberation of humanity to its true completion. Because in the capitalist production system, the direct producers face strict authority and hierarchical management represented by the capitalist in the person of the conditions of labor. Capitalists confront each other as commodity owners, plunging production into anarchy, and social connections impose themselves like coercive natural laws. In contrast, socialized producers will rationally regulate their metabolic interaction with nature, carrying it out with the least expenditure and in a manner befitting human nature, freeing themselves from the rule of blind forces. At that point, “the measure of wealth [VII—4] is no longer labor time, but rather disposable time.” [36]36 Karl Marx, *Grundrisse*, Notebook VII, in *Marx and Engels Collected Works*, Vol. 29, p. 94. Within the framework of the association of free individuals, people will completely discard the logic of capital followed by modern bourgeois society and the state, achieving a great leap from political emancipation to the comprehensive emancipation of society. This means not only liberation from the rule of capital, but also marks society’s entry into a new stage centered on the free development of each individual. This freedom is not abstract, but is concretely embodied in people’s activities, especially in labor, as the saying goes: “Freedom is realized precisely in activity, and that activity is labor.” [37]37 Karl Marx, *Comments on James Mill*, in *Marx and Engels Collected Works*, Vol. 3, p. 228. The achievement of this goal implies the all-round development and self-realization of the individual in society, and also symbolizes the ultimate liberation of human society. At that time, society can resolve the contradiction between the general interest and particular interests on its own, and no longer needs the state as a false community under the banner of “common interest.” In the new social structure of free and equal association of producers, the mode of production will be reorganized; people no longer need to separate social power from themselves in the form of political power, but instead treat it as a powerful support for realizing individual free development. The state, along with all its machinery, will be placed in the museum of antiquities, alongside the spinning wheel and the bronze axe, as a witness to a bygone era—that is, society will take back state power. [38]38 Friedrich Engels, *The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State*, in *Marx and Engels Collected Works*, Vol. 26, p. 269.

社会所有制确立、联合劳动实施后，劳动目的转向社会共同利益，社会渐成自觉且有计划的联合体。这一变革能有效化解商品经济下私人劳动与社会劳动的矛盾，破除私有资本对社会化大生产的限制，消除资产阶级社会特殊利益与普遍利益对立的经济根源，助力构建和谐、高效、公平的社会经济体系。恰如马克思所言：“只有当社会生活过程即物质生产过程的形态，作为自由联合的人的产物，处于人的有意识有计划的控制之下的时候，它才会把自己的神秘的纱幕揭掉。”那时，人们也将认识到，他们“固有的力量”实际上来源于社会，并学会将这种力量组织起来，为社会所用。这样的社会变革，让每个人都能够在自由与平等的环境中实现自我价值和全面发展，使人的解放得到真正完成。因为在资本主义生产体系中，直接生产者面临由资本家代表劳动条件施加的严格权威与等级管理。资本家们作为商品占有者相互对立，致使生产陷入无政府状态，社会联系如强制自然规律。与之不同，社会化生产者将合理把控与自然的物质变换，以最小消耗、契合人类本性的方式进行，摆脱盲目力量统治，到那时“财富的尺度[VII—4]决不再是劳动时间，而是可以自由支配的时间”。在自由人联合体的框架下，人们会彻底摒弃现代资产阶级社会与国家遵循的资本逻辑，实现从政治解放到社会全面解放的重大跨越。这不仅意味着摆脱资本统治，更标志着社会迈入以每个人自由发展为核心的新阶段。这种自由并非抽象，而是切实体现在人们的活动，尤其是劳动之中，正所谓“自由见之于活动恰恰就是劳动”。此目标达成，意味着个人在社会中的全面发展与自我实现，也象征着人类社会的最终解放。那时社会能自行化解普遍利益与特殊利益的矛盾，不再需要国家这个打着“共同利益”旗号的虚幻共同体。在生产者自由、平等联合的新型社会架构里，生产方式会重新组织，人们无需将社会力量以政治力量形式与自身分离，而是把它当作实现个人自由发展的有力支撑。国家及其所有机器，会像纺车、青铜斧等历史文物一样，陈列在博物馆，成为过去时代的见证，即社会重新收回国家权力。

Online editor: Paul

网络编辑：保罗