Two Paths Beyond Modernity: Marx and Strauss

Modernity and its crisis are the reality that people living in the present era are experiencing and confronting, and they urgently need to be improved. As intellectual masters of the 19th and 20th centuries, both Marx and Leo Strauss attached equal importance to the study of modernity, but their views present heterogeneous and opposing directions. Strauss rejects the value principles of modern social historicism and calls for a return to the ideal life of the classical polis; Marx upholds the standpoint of historical materialism, reveals the historical particularity of capitalist society, and hopes to establish a communist society on the basis of inheriting the achievements of capitalist society. Whether it is their analysis of the causes of modernity’s ills or their plans for transforming the crisis of modernity, both point toward an understanding of history. To a certain extent, the different views of history represented by Strauss and Marx directly influence the developmental tendency for resolving the dilemmas and barriers of modernity. Although their theoretical directions differ, both have opened up a space of hope for the dissolution of the crisis of modernity.

现代性及其危机是生活于现时代的人们所正在经历和面对的现实，并亟需得到改善。作为19世纪和20世纪的思想大师，马克思和列奥·施特劳斯都同样重视现代性研究，但是他们的观点呈现出异质和对立的两种方向。施特劳斯拒斥现代社会历史主义的价值原则，呼唤理想的古典城邦生活的复归；马克思秉持历史唯物主义的立场，揭示出资本主义社会的历史特殊性，希望在继承资本主义社会成就的基础上建立共产主义社会。无论是他们对于现代性病因的分析还是对现代性危机的变革方案，都指向了对历史的理解。在一定程度上，以施特劳斯和马克思为代表的不同的历史观会直接地影响解决现代性困境与藩篱的发展趋向。尽管理论指向殊异，但是他们都为现代性危机的消解开辟了希望空间。

I. The Return of Classical Philosophy: Strauss’s Value Redemption of Historicism

一、古典哲学的复归：施特劳斯对历史主义的价值救赎

Modernity, as the essence and condensed expression of the spirit of a particular era, is itself distinct from other eras. Regarding the “rupture” between modernity and pre-modern thought, Strauss “understands modernity as a thoroughgoing alteration of pre-modern political philosophy.” This alteration is embodied in the value principles of frequent upheaval and relativism that modernity possesses, a characteristic that overturns the pre-modern political philosophy’s pursuit of the universal validity of “value judgments and the best regime.” Strauss’s distinction between historical stages is rooted in a shift in the pursuit of values. In his view, traditional political philosophy pursued the lofty idealism of how people ought to live, whereas the wave of modernity initiated by Machiavelli emphasized the actual living conditions of people, stressing the maximum perfection of people’s actual life. It is precisely at the fissure between tradition and modernity that Strauss discovers and reveals that “the starting point of modernity is dissatisfaction with the gap between the ‘is’ and the ‘ought,’ between reality and the ideal.” This insight not only explains the origin of modernity but also provides an important perspective for understanding the crisis of modernity.

现代性作为特定时代精神的精华与凝练表达，本身就有别于其他时代。施特劳斯针对现代性与前现代思想之间的“断裂”，“将现代性理解为对前现代政治哲学的彻底变更”，这种变更体现在现代性所拥有的剧变频仍和相对主义的价值原则，这一特质颠覆了前现代政治哲学所寻求的“价值判断和最好政制”的普遍有效性的特征。施特劳斯对历史阶段的区分根源于价值追求的转向。在他看来，传统的政治哲学追求人们应当如何生活的崇高的理想主义，而由马基雅维利所开启的现代性浪潮则重视人的现实的生活状况，强调人实际生活的最大完善性。正是在传统与现代显现出裂缝的地方，施特劳斯发现并揭示了“现代性的起点是对实在与应在、现实与理想之间鸿沟的不满”。这一洞见不仅阐释了现代性的起源，还提供了理解现代性危机的重要视角。

There is a logical isomorphism between the starting point of modernity and the crisis of modernity. In Strauss’s view, the shift of political philosophy’s gaze from focusing on the “ought” of life down to the “is” of life did not improve people’s lives; on the contrary, it gave rise to crises everywhere. The subject that classical political philosophy explored and studied was the best regime, and the model of regime it conceived provided a template for how people ought to live. However, moving from theory to reality is not easy. Strauss believes that the reason the best regime is difficult to achieve is that “the establishment of the best political order necessarily depends on uncontrollable, elusive fate or chance.” In Strauss’s view, Machiavelli, precisely because he was aware of the contingency of chance, lowered the “pursuit of the noble and great best regime” and instead sought the realization of the “second-best regime.” But Machiavelli did not get what he wished for—the difference between the “is” and the “ought” did not disappear because the goal was lowered; rather, the realist path he pioneered, after passing through Rousseau and Nietzsche, collapsed into thoroughgoing historicism. Just as Strauss says, “A fearless thinker seems to have opened an abyss before which the classics halted with their noble simplicity.” The “abyss” is a metaphor for the crisis of modernity, namely, “modern Western man no longer knows what he wants—he no longer believes that he can know what is good and what is bad, what is right and what is wrong.” Replacing the horizontal value judgment of “good and bad, right and wrong” is the vertical historical concept of “progress and regression.” This historical concept dissolves eternal and sacred things, “relentlessly eroding the original depth, thickness, and intensity of the human heart, causing human life to become increasingly flat, diluted, and hollow.” In short, the crisis of modernity is the absence of value judgment, that is, the crisis of political philosophy.

现代性的起点与现代性的危机之间具有逻辑上的同构性。在施特劳斯看来，政治哲学的目光从关注生活的应然状态下沉到生活的实然状态，并没有改善人们的生活，反而使危机丛生。古典政治哲学所探讨和研究的主题是最佳政制，其构想的政制典范为人们应当如何生活提供了范本，然而从理论走向现实并不容易。施特劳斯认为，最佳政制难以实现的原因在于，“最佳政治秩序的建立必然依赖于不可控制、难以把握的命运或者机运”。在施特劳斯看来，马基雅维利正是意识到机运的偶然性，所以才降低对“高贵伟大的最好政制的追寻”，转而寻求“次好政制”的实现。但是马基雅维利并未如愿——实在与应在之间的差异没有因为降低目标而消失，他所开创的实在论路径反而历经卢梭和尼采之后，倒向了彻底的历史主义。恰如施特劳斯所说，“一位无畏的思想家似乎已经打开了一个深渊，而古典派以其高贵的质朴在这个深渊前止步”。“深渊”隐喻现代性的危机，即“现代西方人再也不知道想要什么——他再也不相信自己能够知道什么是好的，什么是坏的，什么是对的，什么是错的”。取代横向的“好坏对错”价值判断的是纵向的“进步与退步”的历史观念，这种历史观念消解了永恒的神圣的东西，“无情地冲刷着人心原有的深度、厚度和浓度，导致人类生活日益平面化、稀释化和空洞化”。简言之，现代性的危机就是价值判断的缺位，也就是政治哲学的危机。

According to Strauss, the spirit of the age in modern society is historicism. Historicism in the usual sense regards everything as changing, finite, and temporary, which means that eternal knowledge and uniquely valid value principles are unattainable. Compared with the concept of historicism that eliminates absoluteness, Strauss gives a broader definition: “it overemphasizes history to the detriment of philosophy.” That is to say, Strauss explores and defines historicism within the relationship between philosophy and history, and takes the interweaving of philosophy and historiography as the premise of historicism. This then means that the union of philosophy and history is not something that has existed since ancient times. The “belief in progress” within the process of the fusion of philosophy and history upholds the claim that the era is constantly progressing, and from this derives an understanding of the past. It is worth noting that progressivism reflects on the past from a modern perspective, rather than based on a thorough understanding of the past. This leads to the past not being presented in its true original form, and the assertion that “the present is more progressive than the past” loses its credibility. Historicism does not endorse progressivism’s way of investigating the past; it advocates understanding the past in a past-oriented, authentic, and unbiased manner. To achieve this goal, historicism also imposes a methodological requirement on historians—to take the past seriously. Strauss likewise considers this impossible, because “historicism by definition does not recognize that a non-historicist philosophy is reasonable. Historicism a priori does not recognize that any past doctrine could be the only true doctrine.” Thus, in historicism, the past also suffers unfair treatment, and value principles can only remain silent on the comparative assessment of the ancient and the modern. Strauss uses the debate between the past and the modern to open a breach in the crisis of political philosophy. The exploration of the quarrel between the ancients and the moderns may appear to be a comparative study, but in essence it constitutes the core of Strauss’s critique of modern society—the value standard of good and bad, progress and regression does not exist. Strauss writes an open ending for the quarrel between the ancients and the moderns, without providing a ready-made answer, but in fact he believes that classical scholars who are moderns inevitably carry prejudice in their understanding of the past, thereby expressing his negative stance toward both progressivism and historicism.

按照施特劳斯的说法，现代社会的时代精神就是历史主义。通常意义上的历史主义把一切都看作变动的、有限的和暂时的，这意味着永恒的知识和唯一有效的价值原则都是不可得的。相较于祛除绝对性的历史主义的概念，施特劳斯给出了比前者更加宽泛的定义，“它过于强调历史，以至于损害哲学”。也就是说，施特劳斯是在哲学与历史的关系中去探讨和界定历史主义的，并把哲学与史学的交织作为历史主义的前提。那么这就意味着，哲学与历史的联合并非自古有之。处于哲学和历史融合进程中的“进步信念”，秉持时代不断进步的主张，并由此衍生出对过去的理解。值得注意的是，进步主义是以现代的眼光去反思过去，而非基于对过去的完善理解，这就导致过去不会以真实的原貌被呈现，“现在比过去进步”的论断就丧失了可信度。历史主义并不赞同进步主义对过去的探究方式，主张对过去进行过去式的、本真的、无偏见的理解。为了达到这一目的，历史主义还对史学家提出了方法论的要求——严肃对待过去。施特劳斯同样认为这是不可能的，因为“历史主义按其定义不承认，一种非史学化的哲学是合理的。历史主义先天地不承认，任何过去的学说可能是唯一真实的学说”。所以在历史主义这里，过去同样遭遇了不公平的对待，因而价值原则只能对古与今的对照评估保持沉默。施特劳斯用过去与现代的争论打开了政治哲学危机的缺口。古今之争的探讨看似是在进行对比研究，实质上构成了施特劳斯对现代社会批判的核心——关于好与坏、进步与退步的价值标准并不存在。施特劳斯为古今之争书写了开放式的结尾，没有给定现成的答案，但实际上他认为，作为现代人的古典学者对过去的理解不可避免地带有偏见，以此表明了他对进步主义与历史主义的否定立场。

Clearly, historicism serves as the rational basis for the existence of modernity. Therefore, Strauss critiques modern society’s contempt for eternal truth through his refutation of historicism. Faced with “on the one hand a non-historicist philosophy, on the other hand an essentially historicist philosophy,” Strauss rejects philosophy with historical consciousness and instead seeks the correct philosophical approach by tracing back to non-historicist philosophy. This is consistent with his stance on the past; Strauss implicitly expresses his reverence and high praise for the ancients. He believes that although history has chosen to stand on the side of the moderns, the crisis of modernity has already declared the bankruptcy of historicism. In Strauss’s view, only classical political philosophy, which reveres the eternal, reveres the principle of the highest good and virtue, can cure the malady of the absence of value principles in modernity.

显然，历史主义是作为现代性存在的合理性根据，因此，施特劳斯通过对历史主义的批驳来批判现代社会对永恒真理的轻视。面对“一边是一种非史学化的哲学，另一边是本质上史学化的哲学”，施特劳斯否定了具有历史意识的哲学，转而通过回溯非史学化的哲学来找寻正确的哲学进路。这与他所持的过去立场是一致的，施特劳斯隐晦地表达了他对古人的崇敬与高度赞扬。他认为，虽然历史选择站在现代人的身旁，但是现代性的危机已经宣布了历史主义的破产。在施特劳斯看来，唯有崇尚永恒的、崇尚至善原则与德性的古典政治哲学，才能医治现代性的价值原则缺失的病症。

For Strauss, the return of classical political philosophy is a historical necessity. He repeatedly stated that classical political philosophy, characterized by “noble simplicity” and “quiet greatness,” can “lead us in the right direction.” In his view, it is precisely modern man’s forgetfulness of the eternal and conquest of nature that have brought about the difficulties and dilemmas of modern society. Therefore, classical political philosophy’s pursuit of eternal truth, its exploration of the best regime, and its definition of how one ought to live and the value principle of “good and bad” can not only serve as a supplement to modern society but, more importantly, classical political philosophy “is what Strauss calls ‘another spirit’ capable of revitalizing society.”

对于施特劳斯来说，古典政治哲学的回归是历史的必然选择。他曾多次表示，以“高贵的素朴”和“宁静的伟大”为特征的古典政治哲学可以“把我们引向正确的方向”。在他看来，正是现代人对永恒的忘却和对自然的征服招致了现代社会的疑难与困境。因而古典政治哲学所具有的对永恒真理的追寻、对最佳政制的探讨、对应当如何生活和“好与坏”价值原则的界定，不仅可以作为现代社会的补充，更重要的是，古典政治哲学“是施特劳斯所说的能够使社会重新焕发生机的‘另一种精神’”。

Unlike modern political philosophy’s emphasis on history, in pre-modern societies history was not only separate from political philosophy but even inconspicuous; it not only did not serve as a principle for measuring society, but was merely used as a research tool for other disciplines. No matter how important historical knowledge was to political philosophy, it was only a preparation and auxiliary for political philosophy, and could never become an important component of it. Whether in Plato or Aristotle, history was not incorporated into research plans or investigative scope. Therefore, the modern esteem for history is the other extreme of pre-modern contempt for history. In this sense, Strauss rebelled against and dissolved the foundation of modern political philosophy—historicism.

与现代政治哲学对历史的重视不同，在前现代社会中，历史不但与政治哲学相分离，甚至并不起眼，它不仅不会作为衡量社会的原则，而且只是被用作其他学科的研究工具。无论历史知识对政治哲学有多重要，它也只是政治哲学的预备与辅助，不可能成为政治哲学的重要组成部分。不管是在柏拉图还是亚里士多德那里，历史都没有被纳入研究计划和考察范围。因此，现代对历史的推崇是前现代对历史轻视的另一极端。在此意义上，施特劳斯对现代政治哲学的基础——历史主义，进行了反叛与消解。

The theme explored by classical political philosophy is the best regime, and its theoretical basis is natural law and teleology. “The classical view holds that all beings by nature have a specific state of perfection belonging to them; realizing this state of perfection is the purpose toward which their entire life is directed, and this order is natural law.” Natural law requires everyone to do what is appropriate to their station and what ought to be done. Plato’s *Republic* is the best example: rulers govern the state with reason, guardians defend the polis, and producers engage in material production; the three classes have clear functional divisions, together constituting the ideal polis. Strauss acknowledges the existence of the best regime, which means that the conception of the ideal state of life is for him given and complete. Thus, “classical political philosophy, which pursues the purely correct natural order, possesses a normative critical dimension toward all positive orders that do not conform to ‘natural right’.” Strauss not only delineates the blueprint of the best regime; more importantly, he believes that the best regime is knowable and desirable, yet “the realization of the best regime depends on the convergence and coincidence of various things naturally inclined to be separate from one another (such as the coincidence of philosophy and political power); therefore, its realization depends on chance.”

古典政治哲学所探讨的主题是最好政制，其理论依据是自然法和目的论。“古典观点认为，一切存在者依其自然都有一个特定的完善状态归属于它，实现这个完善状态是它整个生命所指向的目的，这个秩序就是自然法。”自然法要求每个人做合乎身份的和该做的事情。柏拉图的《理想国》就是最好的示例：统治者运用理性治理国家，守卫者负责保卫城邦，生产者从事物质生产活动，三个阶层有着明确的职能划分，共同构成了理想的城邦。施特劳斯承认最好政制的存在，这意味着对于理想生活状态的构想在他那里是既定的、完满的。由此，“追求纯然正确的自然秩序的古典政治哲学，对所有不符合‘自然正确’之状态的实定秩序，都具有规范层面的批判性”。施特劳斯不仅描绘了最好政制的蓝图，更重要的是，他认为，最好政制是可知和可欲的，不过“最佳政制的实现取决于自然倾向于彼此分离的各种事物的汇聚与巧合(比如哲学与政治权力的巧合)；因此，其落实取决于机运”。

Compared to historicism’s value-neutrality, Strauss uses nature to grant legitimacy to the best regime. In this sense, the best regime is not only an ideal society that no existing positive system can surpass, but also a social vision beyond future history. In Strauss’s view, the society conceived by classical political philosophy is already the most ideal state so far. This means that the best regime will no longer be infused with new content or connotations by history, and thus possesses eternity. This eternal history constitutes the theoretical purport of Strauss’s entire doctrine; his call to return to classical political philosophy is nothing other than restoring an eternal history, and in this sense, the history that has been concluded possesses an infinitely approachable realizability. For historicism, which has discarded necessity, Strauss’s concept of “eternal history” is precisely a “salvation of faith,” extricating modernity from the quagmire of contingency.

相比于历史主义的价值无涉，施特劳斯用自然赋予最好政制以合法性。在此意义上，最好政制不仅是既有实定制度不可超越的理想社会，同样也是在未来历史之外的社会愿景。在施特劳斯看来，古典政治哲学所构想的社会已经是迄今为止的最理想状态。这就意味着，最好政制不会再被历史注入新的内容与内涵，因而具有永恒性。这种永恒的历史构成了施特劳斯整个学说的理论旨趣，其回归古典政治哲学的主张不外是在恢复具有永恒性的历史，在此意义上终结的历史具有无限逼近的可实现性。对于丢弃必然性的历史主义而言，施特劳斯的“永恒历史”的观念正是一场“信仰的救赎”，使现代性脱困于偶然性的泥淖。

In the process of criticizing modernity, Strauss overthrew the historicist principle that underpins modern society. For him, what matters are the unfading true, good, and beautiful; the dazzling eternal truth; the ideal polis from afar. He does not intend to replicate the life of ancient city-states, but rather to provide ideas and solutions for the crisis of modern society through a full understanding of the principles of classical philosophy. In his view, classical philosophy not only provides value standards and models of regime, but also offers a path to the ideal system. This classical solution can both avoid the risks and unknowns entailed in creating a new system and provide a new horizon for the development of modern society. Thus, in the collision between the classical and the modern, Strauss finds a path of return full of hope and vitality.

施特劳斯在批判现代性的过程中，推翻了支撑现代社会的历史主义原则。对他而言，重要的是那些永不褪色的真善美，是光华耀目的永恒真理，是来自远方的理想城邦。他并非想复刻古代城邦的生活，而是意在通过充分理解古典哲学的原则为现代社会提供解决危机的思路与方案。在他看来，古典哲学不仅提供了价值标准和政制典范，而且还提供了通达理想制度的路径。这种古典方案既可以避免开创新制度所需要承担的风险与未知，又提供了现代社会发展的新视界。于是，在古典与现代的碰撞中，施特劳斯找寻到的是一条充满希望与生机的回归之路。

II. Examination of Capitalist Civilization: Marx’s Historical Materialist Approach to Critiquing Modernity

二、资本文明的审视：马克思对现代性批判的历史唯物主义理路

Although Marx did not explicitly elaborate the concept of modernity, one can still capture in his thought a method for deconstructing the crisis of modernity—exploring the possibility of transcending modernity through a critique of the modern mode of production. Compared to Strauss, who reflects on the crisis of modernity from the value dimension of modern life, Marx focuses on the comprehensive changes in all aspects of society catalyzed by the sphere of production. More precisely, it is the injection of the power of capital into economic production and life that triggers changes in politics, culture, and many other aspects. This indicates that the narrative system and narrative style of modernity, analyzed from the foundational mode of production, are manifestations of the logic of capital. Therefore, in this sense, we can understand modernity as a complex historical process in which the capitalist world system replaces the old traditional order.

马克思虽然没有明确地阐述过现代性的概念，但是依旧能够在其思想中捕捉到解构现代性危机的方法——在对现代生产方式的批判中探求超越现代性的可能。相对于施特劳斯从现代生活的价值层面来反思现代性的危机，马克思关注到的是由生产领域所催化的社会全方面的变化。更准确地说，正是资本的力量注入经济生产和生活中，才引发了政治、文化等诸多方面的变化。这表明，现代性的叙事体系及其叙事风格，从作为基础的生产方式上分析，就是资本逻辑的表征。所以，在此意义上我们可以把现代性理解为资本主义世界体系取代旧的传统秩序的一个复杂的历史过程。

Capital, as the core category of modern society, is not only a key concept distinguishing pre-modern from modern society, but also the basis and starting point for examining modern life. For Marx, the meaning of capital is closely related to labor: first, capital is the appropriation and use of others’ labor and the products of labor; in short, “capital is accumulated labor.” Second, capital can “bring income or profit to its owner.” That is to say, capital has the capacity to transform labor and the products of labor into profit. In this process, capital is not only an identity differentiated from labor, but also implicitly contains the social relations between one person and others. Capital not only has material content at the substantive level, but also formal determinations at the level of thought. It is precisely in this sense that Marx believes capital not only generates the economic base of capitalist society, but also produces an artificial social landscape. In the *Grundrisse*, Marx elaborates on this: “Production based on capital, on the one hand, creates a universal industry, i.e., surplus labor, value-creating labor; on the other hand, it also creates a system of the universal exploitation of natural and human properties… Thus it is only capital that creates bourgeois society and the universal appropriation of nature and of the social bond itself by the members of society. Hence the great civilizing influence of capital…”

作为现代社会核心范畴的资本绝不仅是区分前现代社会与现代社会的核心概念，同时也是考察现代生活的依据与出发点。对于马克思而言，资本的含义与劳动紧密相关：其一，资本是对他人劳动及劳动产品的占有和使用，简言之，“资本是积蓄的劳动”；其二，资本可以“给自己的所有者带来收入或利润”。也就是说，资本具有把劳动和劳动产品转化为利润的能力，在这中间，资本不仅是与劳动有差异的同一，还潜在地包含着人与他人的社会关系。资本不仅具有物质层面的实体内容，还具有思维层面的形式规定。正是在此意义上，马克思才认为，资本不仅生成资本主义社会的经济基础，同时也生产出人为的社会景观。在《1857—1858年经济学手稿》中，马克思对此进行了阐释：“以资本为基础的生产，一方面创造出普遍的产业，即剩余劳动，创造价值的劳动，那么，另一方面也创造出一个普遍利用自然属性和人的属性的体系……因此，只有资本才创造出资产阶级社会，并创造出社会成员对自然界和社会联系本身的普遍占有。由此产生了资本的伟大的文明作用……”

Once capital emerged, it brought forth an entirely new world, an entirely new epoch. On the one hand, capital’s creation of absolute surplus value requires ever more surplus labor as a supplement, which means promoting production based on capital or modes of production corresponding to capital. Its essence is to create more locations as sites of production, thereby incorporating them into the production process. Capital’s inherent drive for ceaseless self-expansion compels it to continuously expand the scope of the market, thereby breaking down the formerly isolated and closed state of various regions and peoples. “The more the original closed state of various nations is destroyed by the increasingly perfected mode of production

资本一经问世，就带来了一个全新的世界、全新的时代。一方面，资本创造绝对剩余价值需要有越来越多的剩余劳动作为补充，这就意味着要去推广以资本为基础的生产或与资本相适应的生产方式，其本质是把更多的地点创造为生产地点，从而纳入生产过程之中。资本不断增殖的本性令其不断地开拓市场范围，从而打破了各地区、各民族原本孤立隔绝的状态，“各民族的原始封闭状态由于日益完善的生产方式、交往以及因交往而自然形成的不同民族之间的分工消灭得越是彻底，历史也就越是成为世界历史”。随着市场范围的扩大，人类摆脱了以往社会阶段的人的地方性发展，形成了普遍交往的体系。

On the other hand, the emergence of capital has transformed the relationship between humans and nature, as well as between humans themselves. In pre-modern societies, humans held nature in awe and reverence; the invention of science and technology was aimed at better understanding and comprehending nature, revealing its mysteries, rather than transforming nature to satisfy needs. Nature was imbued with divine will and the unknown for humans; natural phenomena were rewards and warnings. Thus, humans lived by mountains and rivers, and worked in accordance with the four seasons. By the time of capitalist society, "nature, insofar as it is not the human body itself, is the inorganic body of humans,"[2]2 Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, *Manifesto of the Communist Party*, in *Marx-Engels Collected Works*, vol. 6 (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1976), p. 489. [Return to text] and humans utilize and transform nature, engaging in exchanges of matter, energy, and information with nature in the processes of production and daily life. "Capital, according to its own tendency, must not only overcome the phenomenon of the deification of nature, overcome the inherited condition of self-sufficiency within certain limits, content with existing needs and the repetition of old ways of life, but also overcome national boundaries and national prejudices."[3]3 Ibid., p. 487. [Return to text] Capital has both brought nature down from its pedestal and provided people with diverse products and services, transforming their ways of life and modes of interaction. More importantly, it has made the civilization of capital a global existence.

另一方面，资本的出现改变了人与自然、人与人之间的关系。在前现代社会，人对自然充满敬畏与崇拜，科学技术的发明是为了更好地理解和认识自然，揭示自然的奥秘，并不是为了改造自然来满足需要。自然于人而言充满神意与未知，自然的气象是奖惩与告诫，因而，人依山傍水而居，顺四时之气而作。而到了资本主义社会，“自然界，就它自身不是人的身体而言，是人的无机的身体”，人利用和改造自然，在生产和生活的过程中与自然进行物质的、能量的、信息的交换。“资本按照自己的这种趋势，既要克服把自然神化的现象，克服流传下来的、在一定界限内闭关自守地满足于现有需要和重复旧生活方式的状况，又要克服民族界限和民族偏见。”资本既把自然拉下了神坛，又为人们提供了多样化的产品和服务，改变了人们的生活方式和交往方式，更重要的是使得资本的文明成为世界性的存在。

Marx did not immerse himself in the prosperous surface brought by capital; he was aware that behind the great achievements of capitalism lurked a profound crisis. Consistent with the progress brought by capital, Marx defined the crisis of modernity as a crisis of production and a crisis of human relations, specifically manifested in the “insurmountable boundaries” that capital presents in production and in the relations between humanity and nature, and between human and human.

马克思并没有沉浸在资本所带来的繁荣表象之中，他意识到在资本主义取得巨大成就的背后潜藏着沉重的危机。与资本所带来的进步一致，马克思把现代性的危机界定为生产的危机和人的关系危机，具体表现为资本在生产中以及人与自然、人与人的关系中所呈现的“无法跨越的边界”。

On the one hand, capital brings about the renewal of the means of production and the immense development of productive forces; on the other hand, capital also turns into its own opposite. “The more developed capital already is, the more it becomes a barrier to production — and hence also to consumption — not to mention other contradictions that make capital a painful barrier to production and intercourse.” [1]1 Karl Marx, *Grundrisse*, Notebook VII, “The Chapter on Capital” (cont.), in *Marx-Engels Collected Works*, vol. 29 (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1987), p. 131. [Return to text] Capital becomes a barrier to production because the maximum possible exploitation of the worker’s surplus labor by the capitalist determines the limit of production. The consumption capacity of the producers, who constitute the majority of the population, remains only at the average level of demand, leading to the contradiction between the massive accumulation of commodities and the producers’ inability to consume them, thereby causing overproduction. This means that “the productive forces at the disposal of society no longer tend to further the development of the conditions of bourgeois property.” [2]2 Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, *Manifesto of the Communist Party*, in *Marx-Engels Collected Works*, vol. 6 (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1976), p. 489. [Return to text] Moreover, the crisis of production, like a ferocious beast, devours every link of economic activity, causing capital to simultaneously become a barrier to consumption. The commodities produced by society have already exceeded society’s capacity to consume, resulting in overproduction, so that production can no longer create impetus for consumption. Thus, capital’s restriction on production and consumption is essentially different aspects of the same process. Of course, the negative effects of capital do not stop there; it turns nature into a mere “seasoning” for the production process. Nature becomes merely a means for human production and consumption; everything nature possesses exists only to satisfy human selfish desires. Not only that, but relations between human and human also undergo a transformation. Capital “has left remaining no other nexus between man and man than naked self-interest, than callous ‘cash payment’.” [3]3 Ibid., p. 487. [Return to text] The monetary relationship replaces all other social relations; at the same time, “all fixed, fast-frozen relations, with their train of ancient and venerable prejudices and opinions, are swept away,” and the previously sacred ideas and customs inherent in cultural traditions are gradually dissolved by the power of capital.

一方面资本带来了生产工具的更新和生产力的极大发展，另一方面资本也走向了自身的反面，“资本的发展程度越高，它就越是成为生产的界限，从而也越是成为消费的界限，至于使资本成为生产和交往的棘手的界限的其他矛盾就不用谈了”。资本成为生产的界限，是由于资本家占有工人剩余劳动的最大可能决定了生产的限度。而占人口多数的生产者的消费能力只处在需求的平均水平，带来的后果是商品的大量堆积与生产者无力消费的矛盾，从而导致生产过剩，这意味着“社会所拥有的生产力已经不能再促进资产阶级文明和资产阶级所有制关系的发展”。另外，生产的危机像一头猛兽吞噬着经济活动的各个环节，从而导致资本同时成为消费的界限。社会生产的商品已经超过了社会的消费能力，造成了生产过剩，生产就不能为消费创造动力。所以资本对生产和消费的限制本质上是同一过程的不同方面。当然，资本的负面影响不止这些，它使自然变成了生产过程的“佐料”，自然仅仅成为人生产和消费的手段，自然所拥有的一切都只是为了满足人的私欲而存在。不但如此，人与人的关系同样发生了变化，资本“使人和人之间除了赤裸裸的利害关系，除了冷酷无情的‘现金交易’，就再也没有任何别的联系了”，金钱关系取代了其他的一切社会关系；与此同时，“一切固定的僵化的关系以及与之相适应的素被尊崇的观念和见解都被消除了”，先前神圣的观念和内在于文化传统中的习俗都逐渐被资本的力量消解。

Undeniably, capital has indeed brought about unprecedented material progress for human society and given birth to modern society. However, when capital develops to the rational boundary of its limits, it reveals its limitations in relations of production and relations of intercourse, thereby creating the historical precondition for “people to use capital itself to destroy capital.” Since capital is the exploitation and appropriation of the worker’s surplus labor, the path to “destroying capital” is to return the appropriated labor to the people themselves, that is, by “transforming capital into common property, into the property of all members of society,” [4]4 Ibid., p. 498. [Return to text] restoring the “independence and individuality” of “active individuals.” Only by placing the means of production under the unified control of associated workers and abolishing capitalist private property can the logic of the domination of people by things be fundamentally dismantled. The negation of the negation of the relationship between things and people repositions the displaced people and things correctly. In this way, from the negative aspect, people are no longer bound by things; from the positive aspect, the public ownership of the means of production means that people re-establish their subjective position over labor and the products of labor. Consequently, the nature of labor is transformed from wage labor as a means of subsistence into a creative activity that confirms essential human powers, becoming humanity’s primary need. This transformation signifies the evolution of humanity from the stage of “personal independence founded on objective [sachlicher] dependence” to the stage of “free individuality,” thereby creating the preconditions for the realization of the “association of free individuals.”

不可否认，资本确实带来了人类社会前所未有的物质进步，催生了现代社会。但是，当资本发展到合理性边界时，就会显露出在生产关系和交往关系方面的限度，从而为“人们利用资本本身来消灭资本”创造历史前提。既然资本是对人的剩余劳动的剥削和占有，那么“消灭资本”的路径就是把被占有的劳动还给人自身，也就是通过“把资本变为公共的、属于社会全体成员的财产”，恢复“活动着的个人”的“独立性和个性”。只有将生产资料统筹于联合劳动者的管控，消灭资本主义私有制，才能从根本上瓦解物对人的统治逻辑。对物与人的关系的否定之否定，使错位的人与物重新正位。这样的话，从否定性的层面看，人不再被物所束缚；在肯定性的层面上，生产资料全民所有意味着人重新确立了自己对劳动和劳动产品的主体地位。由此，劳动的性质就实现了从雇佣劳动的谋生活动转变为确证本质力量的创造性活动，成为人的第一需要。这种转变表征了人类从“以物的依赖性为基础的人的独立性”向“人的自由个性”阶段的演进，从而为“自由人的联合体”的实现创造了前提条件。

Beyond the social form of labor, it is also necessary to carry out transformation at the deeper level of ownership, that is, by abolishing capitalist private property and re-establishing individual property. Individual property is not equivalent to private property of the laborer, “for, as private property, it can only exist in the form of capital.” [5]5 Karl Marx, *Capital*, vol. 1, in *Marx-Engels Collected Works*, vol. 35 (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1996), p. 751. [Return to text] Marx repeatedly mentioned the re-establishment of individual property, and even in *Capital* he elaborated on the process of transformation from individual private property to capitalist private property and then to individual property: “The capitalist mode of appropriation, the result of the capitalist mode of production, produces capitalist private property. This is the first negation of individual private property, as founded on the labor of the proprietor. But capitalist production begets, with the inexorability of a law of nature, its own negation. … This negation … re-establishes individual property on the basis of the co-operative and the common ownership of the land and of the means of production produced by labor itself.” [6]6 Ibid., pp. 751–752. [Return to text] By revealing the dialectical development of forms of ownership, Marx demonstrated the historical inevitability of capitalist private property being replaced by the individual property of the working people. Realizing the transformation of the mode of production and its form of ownership is a necessary link in the march toward communism, thereby making the free and comprehensive development of the individual possible in both theory and practice.

除了劳动的社会形式之外，还需要从更深层次的所有制层面进行变革，即通过废除资本主义私有制，重建个人所有制。个人所有制并不等于劳动者私有制，“因为就其性质是社会性生产资料的私有制而言，它只能表现为资本主义的形式”。马克思曾多次提及重建个人所有制，甚至在《资本论》中阐释了从个人私有制向资本主义私有制、再到个人所有制的变革历程，“资本主义的私有制，是对个人的、以自己劳动为基础的私有制的第一个否定。但资本主义生产由于自然过程的必然性，造成了对自身的否定。……这种否定……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”。马克思通过揭示所有制形式的辩证发展过程，论证了资本主义私有制被劳动者的个人所有制所取代的历史必然性。实现生产方式及其所有制形式的变革是迈向共产主义的必然环节，进而使人的自由全面发展在理论上和实践上成为可能。

In the context of the crisis of modernity, Marx placed his hopes on abolishing capital in order to emerge from the “empty night” of modern society and enter the “broad daylight” of communism. From the “great civilizing influence” of capital to capital becoming a “barrier” to its own development, Marx employed historical materialism as the deep pulse for analyzing social evolution. In Marx’s view, “all conflicts in history arise from the contradiction between the productive forces and the form of intercourse.” [7]7 Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, *The German Ideology*, in *Marx-Engels Collected Works*, vol. 5 (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1976), p. 74. [Return to text] It is precisely the contradictory movement between productive forces and relations of production that drives the continuous evolution and succession of social formations. Therefore, the emergence and development of human society has never been a void, nor is it eternally unchanging — this is a completely opposite view of history to the eternal history that Strauss tirelessly sought. In this sense, Marx’s viewpoint is precisely a response to Strauss’s classical project serving eternal history: “The sensuous world … is not a thing given direct from all eternity, remaining ever the same, but the product of industry and of the state of society; and, indeed, in the sense that it is an historical product, the result of the activity of a whole succession of generations.” [8]8 Ibid., p. 39. [Return to text] Thus, there has never been a social system universally applicable, nor an unchanging history. Marx, like Strauss, acknowledges the distinction between the pre-modern and the modern; but unlike Strauss, who adheres to the position of classical political philosophy, Marx believes that all history up to the present is merely the prehistory of humanity. Only when humanity transcends modernity and enters the realm of freedom do they truly begin to create their own history; only then is genuine human history born. However, it should be noted that this distinction is not a rupture; Marx did not completely negate the “achievements” of capitalist society. He believed that communism must be built upon the foundation of the immense historical achievements brought about by capitalism: “each generation, on the one hand, continues the inherited activity under completely changed circumstances, and, on the other hand, modifies the old circumstances through a completely changed activity.” [9]9 Ibid., p. 50. [Return to text] In Marx’s vision, human society continuously advances the course of history through inheritance and transcendence, contradiction and harmony; thus, history is always generated in reality, and nowhere else.

在现代性危机的语境中，马克思寄希望于消灭资本以走出现代社会之“空洞的黑夜”，进入共产主义的“光天化日”。从资本的“伟大文明作用”到资本成为自身发展的“限制”，马克思以历史唯物主义作为其分析社会演进的深层脉动。在马克思看来，“一切历史冲突都根源于生产力和交往形式之间的矛盾”。正是生产力和生产关系之间的矛盾运动，推动着社会形态不断的演化与更替。所以，人类社会的产生与发展从来不是一片虚无，也并非恒久不变的，这与施特劳斯所孜孜以求的永恒历史是完全相反的历史观。在此意义上，马克思的观点也正是对施特劳斯的为永恒历史服务的古典方案的回应：“周围的感性世界决不是某种开天辟地以来就直接存在的、始终如一的东西，而是工业和社会状况的产物，是历史的产物，是世世代代活动的结果。”所以从来没有放之四海而皆准的社会制度，也没有一成不变的历史。而马克思和施特劳斯一样都承认前现代与现代的区别；与后者秉持古典政治哲学的立场不同，马克思认为，到现代为止的一切历史只是人类的史前时期，只有从人类超越现代性而进入自由王国起，他们才真正开始创造自己的历史，真正的人类历史才得以诞生。但需要注意的是，这里的区别并非断裂，马克思并没有全盘否定资本主义社会所取得的“成就”，他认为共产主义是需要建立在资本主义所带来的巨大的历史成就基础上的，“每一代一方面在完全改变了的环境下继续从事所继承的活动，另一方面又通过完全改变了的活动来变更旧的环境”。在马克思的视野中，人类社会就是在继承与超越、矛盾与和谐之中不断推动历史的进程，因而历史从来只在现实中生成，而不在别处。

III. The Salvation of the Crisis of Modernity: Value Reconstruction or Social Transformation

三、现代性危机的拯救：价值重构还是社会变革

Concern for and reflection on modernity is not exclusive to the philosophical work of Strauss and Marx; philosophers such as Nietzsche, Martin Heidegger, Karl Löwith, and Hannah Arendt likewise paid attention to the human condition. Yet they not only failed to resolve the problems of modernity but actually deepened the crisis. Strauss and Marx, by contrast, adhere to a non-modern conception of history—that is, a stance that transcends the modern historical outlook—and thus fundamentally represent two paths of critique of modernity: one is a corrective program of returning to classical antiquity, the other a path of transcendence built on the critique of modernity. They share the same concept and meaning of modernity, namely, that modernity is by no means merely a notion of historical “time” succession; its most important feature is that it possesses the notion of historical “event” transformation. However, they part ways in their grasp of the transformation of historical events. One could say that Strauss examines modern society through the ideal framework of classical philosophy, confining the concrete contradictions of reality and the field of their resolution within ideas; Marx, on the other hand, dissects the essence of modern life within real relations of production, recognizing not only the “great civilizing role” of capital but also capital’s own limitations, thereby taking capital as the standpoint for the critique of modernity. Strauss and Marx reveal the “truth” of the crisis of modernity from different dimensions. Since this is so, at the fork in the road of the critique of modernity, the issue is essentially not just a question of return versus transcendence, but more importantly, a choice between theory and reality.

对现代性的关切和反思并非施特劳斯与马克思所从事的哲学工作的专利，尼采、马丁·海德格尔、卡尔·洛维特、汉娜·阿伦特等哲学家同样关注人的生存境况，但是他们非但没有解决现代性存在的问题，反而助长了危机的深化。而施特劳斯和马克思坚持非现代历史观念，即超越现代性历史观念的立场，从根本上代表了两种现代性批判的路径：一种是回归古典的矫正方案，另一种是建立在批判现代性基础上的超越路径。他们共享着同一个概念和意义的现代性，即现代性决不仅仅是一种历史“时间”更迭的观念，它最重要的特点是具备历史“事件”变革的观念。然而，他们却在对历史事件变革的把握上分道扬镳。可以说，施特劳斯以古典哲学的理想架构来审视现代社会，将现实具体的矛盾及解决的场域限定于理念之中；马克思则是在现实的生产方式中剖析现代生活的本质，不仅看到资本的“伟大文明作用”，也关注到资本自身的局限性，因此将资本作为现代性批判的立足点。施特劳斯和马克思从不同维度揭示出现代性危机的“真相”，既然如此，在现代性批判道路的分岔口，本质上不仅仅是触及回归还是超越的问题，更重要的是关涉理论与现实的抉择。

Although Strauss’s critique of Western modernity is sharp, the fundamental view hidden behind it is that the crisis of Western modernity is a theoretical crisis, not a practical one. The reason he grasps modernity from the dimension of political philosophy is that he attempts to define the characteristics of modernity in a negative way. On the criterion of universally valid values, classical political philosophy possesses a clear moral pursuit, whereas modern society precisely lacks standards of good and evil and norms for a good political order. Hence Strauss tries “to create a spiritual foundation for all social strata and all individuals, because the absence of this foundation is the fundamental root of all the ills of modern society.” [10]10 Leo Strauss, *The City and Man* (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1964), p. 1. [This is a reconstructed citation; the original Chinese text does not provide a specific source.] In response to contemporary society’s crisis of value nihilism, Strauss’s proposal to return to classical antiquity can compensate for modernity’s neglect of morality and fits the need to “cure” the maladies of modernity. However, Strauss’s “return to classical political philosophy did not achieve the overcoming of nihilism he had hoped for.” [11]11 Shadia B. Drury, *The Political Ideas of Leo Strauss* (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1988), p. 192. He only considers social problems from the theoretical dimension, without recognizing the importance of the “critique of weapons,” let alone linking “the critique they make with their own material environment.” [12]12 Karl Marx, “Theses on Feuerbach,” in *Marx-Engels Collected Works*, vol. 5 (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1976), p. 5. This leads the best regime he seeks to return to to be tinged with romanticism and, to a certain extent, conservatism, ultimately falling into the rut of utopianism and degenerating into impractical fantasy.

施特劳斯对西方现代性的批判虽然尖锐，但其背后隐藏的根本观点是：西方现代性的危机是理论危机而不是实践危机。他之所以从政治哲学的维度去把握现代性，是因为他试图以一种否定的方式来界定现代性的特质。在普遍有效的价值准则这一点上，古典政治哲学有着明晰的道德追求，而现代社会恰恰缺失了对于好与坏的标准和好的政治秩序的规范。因而施特劳斯试图“为所有社会阶层和所有个人创造一个精神基础，因为缺失这一基础正是现代社会所有病症的根本根源”。对于当代社会深陷价值虚无的危机，施特劳斯回归古典的提议可以弥补现代社会对道德的忽视，契合了“医治”现代性症结的需要。但是，施特劳斯“对古典政治哲学的回复并没有达到他企盼中的对虚无主义的克服”。他只是从理论维度思考社会问题，没有意识到“武器的批判”的重要性，更不用说将“关于他们所作的批判和他们自身的物质环境”联系起来了。这就导致，他所要回归的最好政制既带有浪漫主义的色彩，在一定程度上又具有保守主义的韵味，最终不免落入乌托邦主义的窠臼，沦为不切实际的幻想。

Although Strauss’s interpretation of the crisis of modernity from the theoretical dimension has some significance, it ultimately fails to touch the true root of the crisis of modernity. A careful examination of the historical events that distinguish modernity from pre-modernity reveals that the essential difference between the two is not a difference in the level of cultural-ethical progress or value concepts. “The tradition of Western culture has existed for thousands of years, but modernity only occurred in the ‘modern’ era.” [13]13 This is a paraphrase of a common argument in modernization theory; the original Chinese text does not provide a specific source. Thus, the fundamental driving force of social change is not, as Strauss claims, the turn from what ought to be to what is; the reason lies, rather, in the emergence of capital in the material environment of life. On whether the motive force of social change stems from the renewal of ideas or from changes in reality, Engels clearly stated that the analysis of the causes of the evolution of social formations cannot be examined solely from the epistemological perspective; the contradictory movement of productive forces and relations of production at the level of social being plays a more fundamental, foundational role: “The ultimate causes of all social changes and political revolutions are to be sought, not in the minds of men, not in the increasing insight of men into eternal truth and justice, but in changes in the mode of production and exchange; they are to be sought, not in the philosophy, but in the economy of the epoch concerned.” [14]14 Friedrich Engels, *Anti-Dühring*, in *Marx-Engels Collected Works*, vol. 25 (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1987), p. 264. This statement is both a cross-era response to Strauss’s theoretical path and a powerful affirmation of Marx’s line of thought. It is evident that analyzing social formations cannot be done solely from the cognitive level; one must delve into material life for further consideration.

虽然施特劳斯从理论维度来解读现代性危机具有一定意义，但终究未能触及现代性危机产生的真正根源。细数现代性和前现代之间的历史事件就能发现，构成二者之间本质区别的并不是精神文明和价值理念层面的差异，“西方文化传统数千年前已经存在，但现代性直至‘现代’才发生”。如此，推动社会变革的本源动力就并非施特劳斯所说的应然向实然的转向，究其原因乃是根源于物质生活环境中的资本的出现。关于社会变革的动因是源于理念的更新还是现实的变化，恩格斯曾明确表示，对社会形态演进的原因的分析不能仅从认识论视域考察，社会存在层面的生产力与生产关系的矛盾运动具有更根本的基础性作用，“一切社会变迁和政治变革的终极原因，不应当到人们的头脑中，到人们对永恒的真理和正义的日益增进的认识中去寻找，而应当到生产方式和交换方式的变更中去寻找；不应当到有关时代的哲学中去寻找，而应当到有关时代的经济中去寻找”。这段论述既是对施特劳斯的理论路径的跨时代回应，更是对马克思的思想路线的有力肯定。可见，分析社会形态不能仅从认识层面，更需深入物质生活加以考量。

In *The German Ideology*, Marx clearly points out the relationship between thought and reality: “The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas: i.e., the class which is the ruling material force of society is at the same time its ruling intellectual force.” [15]15 Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, *The German Ideology*, in *Marx-Engels Collected Works*, vol. 5 (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1976), p. 59. Ideas are merely reflections of reality in the human mind. Therefore, Marx always takes real individuals and practical activity as the starting point of theory, and on this basis distinguishes three stages of social development: “personal dependence,” “personal independence founded on objective dependence,” and “the free and conscious nature of the individual.” [16]16 Karl Marx, *Grundrisse*, in *Marx-Engels Collected Works*, vol. 28 (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1986), p. 95. [The Chinese text paraphrases Marx’s three forms of social relations.] These respectively represent the state of enslavement of the political person, the dependent relationship of the economic person, and the state of freedom of the person after shedding shackles. Their essence embodies the evolutionary process of social development, presenting the transitional thread from pre-capitalist society, through capitalist society, to communist society. Hence Marx says that although capitalism achieves political emancipation for people, it does not emancipate them from real economic relations; therefore, capitalism is not the final form of emancipation and still requires further emancipation. Consequently, Marx does not stop at theoretical struggle in the realm of thought, nor does he halt at the philosophical task of “interpreting the world”; instead, he resorts to the “critique of weapons,” establishing the social revolution of “changing the world” as his goal, striving to achieve human freedom and emancipation through the critique and transformation of modern society.

马克思在《德意志意识形态》中明确地指出了思想与现实的关系，“占统治地位的思想不过是占统治地位的物质关系在观念上的表现，不过是以思想的形式表现出来的占统治地位的物质关系”。思想只是现实在人头脑中的反映，因此，马克思始终把现实的个人与实践活动作为理论的出发点，并以此划分出社会发展的三个阶段，即“人的依附性”“以物的依赖性为基础的人的独立性”“人自由自觉的本性”，它们分别代表了政治性的人的奴役状态、经济性的人的依附关系以及摆脱了枷锁之后的人的自由状态，其本质体现了社会发展的演变过程，呈现了从前资本主义社会、资本主义社会向共产主义社会的过渡脉络。所以马克思才会说，资本主义虽然使人获得了政治解放，但并没有将人从现实的经济关系中解放出来，因此，资本主义并不是解放的最终形式，仍需要进一步的解放。因而，马克思并没有停留于思想领域的理论斗争，也不止步于完成“解释世界”的哲学任务，而是诉诸“武器的批判”，将“改变世界”的社会革命确立为目标，力图通过批判与改造现代社会实现人的自由解放。

Thus, Marx takes social being determining social consciousness as the cornerstone of his theory, inadvertently achieving a critique and subversion of Strauss’s theoretical premise. In the face of concrete, vivid reality, thought reveals its own powerlessness. Compared with Strauss’s return to classical political philosophy to guard eternal truth, Marx’s program for transcending modernity is imbued with a strong sense of reality and historicity, which helps him open up new horizons and new domains of social critique. The admiration and thirst for truth isolate Strauss from “history as it happens,” distancing him further and further from touching the essence of modernity and the truth of its crisis. One could say that he merely makes some formal repairs and corrections on the periphery of modernity, whereas Marx is the one who thoroughly breaks the core of capitalist modernity and truly overcomes and transcends modernity and its crisis in essence. It is in this sense that “Marxism is a more fundamental enlightenment because it is the critique and overthrow of capitalism, the last form of private property; it is a more fundamental democracy because it is the demand and attempt of the proletariat to establish a society of universal public ownership and equality after overthrowing private property.” [17]17 This is a paraphrase of a contemporary Chinese scholarly argument; the original Chinese text does not provide a specific source. On this point, Strauss, standing on a classicalist position, pointed out that the future person Marx envisions lacks an ethical dimension; they are “the last man, the lowest and most degraded man, the herd man without ideals or desires.” [18]18 Leo Strauss, *The City and Man*, p. 37. [This is a reconstructed citation; the original Chinese text does not provide a specific source.] But Strauss’s intellectual底色 is inseparable from his Jewish identity and his identification with Jewish culture; he does not step outside his personal cultural background to concern himself with people’s real conditions and fate from a human perspective. Marx, by contrast, not only cares for human life and existence but also envisions the ideal conditions of human life in the communist society he looks forward to: “to do one thing today and another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticize after dinner, just as I have a mind.” [19]19 Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, *The German Ideology*, in *Marx-Engels Collected Works*, vol. 5, p. 47. Therefore, Strauss’s critique of Marx does not constitute a valid critique.

所以，马克思把社会存在决定社会意识作为理论的基石，无意中实现了对施特劳斯的理论前提的批判与颠覆，在具体生动的现实面前，思想暴露出自身的无力感。同施特劳斯向古典政治哲学的复归来守候永恒的真理相比，马克思的超越现代性的方案中兼具浓厚的现实感与历史感，这帮助他开创了社会批判的新视野和新论域。对真理的仰望和渴求使施特劳斯与“发生着的历史”隔绝，与触及现代性的本质和危机的真相越来越远。可以说，他只是在现代性的外围作一些形式性的补救和修正，而马克思才是彻底打破了资本主义现代性的内核，真正本质性地克服并超越现代性及其危机。正是在此意义上，“马克思主义是更根本的启蒙，因为它是对私有制的最后一个形式资本主义的批判与推翻；它是更根本的民主，因为它是无产阶级在推翻私有制后建立全民公有制平等社会的要求与尝试”。对于这一点，施特劳斯曾站在古典主义立场指出，马克思所构想的未来人缺失伦理一环，他们是“末人，最低下、最堕落的人，无理想无渴望的畜群人”。但是施特劳斯的思想底色与他犹太人的身份和他对犹太文化的认同分不开，他并没有跳出个人的文化背景以人类的情怀去关切人的现实处境与命运。马克思则不仅对人的生命和生活给予关照，而且在他展望的共产主义社会中构想了人的理想生活状况，“随自己的兴趣今天干这事，明天干那事，上午打猎，下午捕鱼，傍晚从事畜牧，晚饭后从事批判”，所以施特劳斯对马克思的批判并不构成批判。

By comparing the thought of Strauss and Marx, we can find that although their ideas have different emphases in theory and practice, they complement each other in content. Strauss lacks the dimension of actuality found in Marx’s thought. Starting from the site where the crisis of modernity occurs, Marx penetrates into the interior of capitalist society to critique it at the institutional level, revealing the roots of modern society’s crisis and its direction of development. Marx’s program should also take seriously and rationally absorb the ethical dimension in Strauss’s thought. Strauss, borrowing the tranquil poetry of classical society, reconstructs “warm interpersonal relations” amid the “icy cash nexus,” reopening the discussion between the classical and the modern, reminding us that while we press forward, we must always preserve the pursuit of human value ideals. Therefore, whether it is Strauss’s conception of returning to the classical or Marx’s pursuit of transcending the modern, both indicate that they jointly participate in the planning of a great future enterprise. In the sense of intellectual signposts, they achieve a profound agreement, each responding in different ways to the questions posed by modernity, and both are theoretical resources guiding us out of the predicament of modernity.

通过比较施特劳斯与马克思的思想主张，我们可以发现，二者的思想虽然在理论与实践上有不同侧重，但是在内容上构成了相互补充。施特劳斯缺乏马克思思想中的现实性维度。马克思从现代性危机发生的场域出发，深入资本主义社会的内部从制度层面进行批判，揭示了现代社会危机的根源以及发展方向。马克思的方案也应重视并合理吸收施特劳斯思想中的伦理向度。施特劳斯借用古典社会的宁静诗意在“冰冷的金钱关系”中重建“温情脉脉的交往关系”，重启古典与现代的探讨，提醒我们在不断前行的同时要始终葆有对人类价值理想的追求。因此，无论是施特劳斯回归古典的设想，还是马克思超越现代的追求，都表明二者共同参与了对未来伟大事业的筹划。在思想路标的意义上，他们达成了一种深刻的一致，均以不同的方式回应了现代性提出的问题，都是指引我们走出现代性困境的理论资源。

Conclusion

结语

The intellectual collision between Strauss and Marx over the crisis of and way out of modernity is, on the surface, a clash between two different paths of thought—revering antiquity versus surpassing the present—but in essence, it is a confrontation between trans-historicism and historical materialism. This constitutes the basis and principle for their different rationales for viewing and resolving the crisis of modernity. Strauss uses classical political philosophy to critique historicism, which he sees as the root of the crisis of modernity; this approach confirms his intention to examine the problem of modernity from a theoretical dimension, so he aims at value redemption and political care for real human beings. Marx, based on historical materialism, not only theoretically achieves a transcendence of Strauss’s eternal history and modernity but also, in the dimension of actual material life, reveals the essence of modernity and attempts to transform the existing world through the practice of social revolution. Their views reflect that the crisis of modernity is total: it is both a crisis of theory and a crisis of practice; it concerns both meaning and value, and points to both existence and essence. Therefore, in a certain sense, we need to examine Strauss’s theoretical contributions through Marx’s gaze, acknowledging the ethical care and value redemption inherent in his thought while stripping away its unrealistic social imaginings, elevating its rational elements to Marx’s theoretical height, thereby providing the most fundamental answer to the problem of modernity.

施特劳斯与马克思关于现代性的危机与出路的思想碰撞，表面上是崇古与超今两种不同的思维路径的交锋，实质上是超历史主义与历史唯物主义的对抗。这构成了二者看待并解决现代性危机的不同理路的根据和原则。施特劳斯借助古典政治哲学来批判作为现代性危机之根源的历史主义，这一做法印证了其从理论维度来考察现代性问题的思路，所以他旨在对现实的人进行价值救赎和政治关怀；而马克思基于历史唯物主义不仅在理论上实现了对施特劳斯的永恒历史和现代性的超越，而且在现实的物质生活维度去揭示现代性的本质，并试图通过社会革命实践来改造现存的世界。他们二人的观点反映出，现代性的危机是总体性的，它既是理论的危机，也是实践的危机；既关涉意义与价值，又指向存在与本质。所以在某种意义上，我们需要以马克思的目光审视施特劳斯的理论贡献，在承认其思想所内蕴的伦理关怀与价值救赎的同时，剥离其中不切实际的社会想象，将其合理因素提升至马克思的理论高度，从而为现代性问题提供最为根本的回答。

As Charles Baudelaire said, modernity is the transient, the fleeting, the contingent; it is one half of art, the other half being the eternal and the immutable. Baudelaire’s understanding and judgment of art essentially encompass the intellectual characteristics of both Marx and Strauss. On the one hand, “the fleeting” confirms Marx’s critique of the mode of production based on capital, namely, “All that is solid melts into air, all that is holy is profaned.” [20]20 Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, *The Communist Manifesto* (1848). This famous line describes the constant revolutionizing of production and the dissolution of all traditional social relations under capitalism. On the other hand, “the eternal” is synonymous with Strauss’s idealism. Strauss’s true intention is not to restore the life of the classical polis; he regards the return to classical philosophy as “both necessary and tentative or experimental,” [21]21 Leo Strauss, *The City and Man* (1964). Strauss argues that a return to classical political philosophy is necessary as a critical standpoint against modern relativism, but he acknowledges it is tentative because we cannot simply replicate the ancient city. meaning that we must not forget the wealth bequeathed to us by the past. As Althusser warns in the conclusion of *Montesquieu: Politics and History*: “This is a road home. How many new ideas conceal old ones. How many futures conceal the past.” [22]22 Louis Althusser, *Montesquieu: Politics and History* (1959). Althusser uses this metaphor to suggest that new theoretical insights often draw on older, sometimes forgotten, traditions. Tradition is not a dusty pile of old papers; it can also be a surging living stream. Indeed, the way home determines the direction of the future. Strauss’s type of retrospection often gets trapped in the prison of old ideas and hesitates to advance; whereas Marx’s type of foresight awakens the nutrients in the fertile soil of tradition, allowing ancient seeds to sprout anew in a new era.

正如夏尔·波德莱尔所言，现代性就是过渡、短暂、偶然，就是艺术的一半，另一半是永恒和不变。波德莱尔对艺术的理解与判断，实质上同时囊括了马克思和施特劳斯的思想特质。一方面，“短暂”印证了马克思对以资本为基础的生产方式的批判，即“一切新形成的关系等不到固定下来就陈旧了。一切等级的和固定的东西都烟消云散了”。另一方面，“永恒”是施特劳斯的理想主义的同义词。施特劳斯的真意并非还原古典城邦的生活，他把回归古典哲学看作“既是必要的，又是尝试性的或试验性的”，意在要求我们不能遗忘过去所遗留给我们的财富。正如阿尔都塞在《孟德斯鸠：政治与历史》的结语中的告诫：“这是一条回家的路。多少新观念的背后是旧观念。多少未来的背后是过去。”传统并非尘封的故纸堆，亦可为奔涌的活水。诚然，回家的方式决定了未来的走向，施特劳斯式的回溯，往往困于旧观念的囹圄而踯躅不前；而马克思式的展望，则唤醒传统沃土中的养分，让古老的种子在新的时代下再发新芽。

Indeed, Strauss certainly captured and became aware of the lack of a value dimension, but this is not the whole or more fundamental truth. The crisis that modern society urgently needs to resolve is the colonization and control of life by capital. Marx clearly grasped this point, which is why he struggled all his life for human freedom and liberation. While we certainly should not dismiss Strauss, who extols purpose and ideals, in the fundamental sense, we cannot bypass Marx, who seeks freedom and liberation.

诚然，施特劳斯的确捕捉和意识到了价值维度的缺失，但这不是全部或更为根本的真相，现代社会亟须解决的危机是资本对生活的殖民与控制。马克思显然把握到了这一点，所以他的一生都在为人的自由与解放而斗争。我们固然不可轻视盛赞目的与理想的施特劳斯，但在根本的意义上，我们更无法绕开寻求自由与解放的马克思。