Inquiring into and Pursuing the Ethical Foundation of Chinese-Path Modernization

Inquiring into and pursuing the ethical foundation of Chinese-path modernization inherently contains two demands, namely, the argumentation of an ethical foundation and the laying of a moral foundation. The former addresses the most ethical matters of Chinese-path modernization, concerning fundamental, radical, and overarching issues of ultimate good and the good life as a whole; the latter resolves how to lay a moral foundation for Chinese-path modernization and how to supply a subjective virtue and an objective norm (institution).

追问和追寻中国式现代化的伦理基础,内在地蕴含着两种诉求,即伦理基础论证和道德基础奠基。前者回答的是中国式现代化最具伦理性的事项,是关于终极之善和整体性好生活的基础性、根本性和全局性问题;后者解决的是如何为中国式现代化进行道德基础奠基以及如何供给一个主体性的德性和客体性的规范(制度)。

I

一

The Paradigm of Thought Oriented toward the Question of the Ethical Foundation of Chinese-Path Modernization

朝向中国式现代化之伦理基础问题的致思范式

Inquiring belongs to the matter of theoretical reason, resolving the question of how ultimate good and means-good are possible and how they can be possible, marking out in advance the subjective and objective conditions that make this good possible. Pursuing belongs to the task of productive reason and practical reason, resolving the question of how an ultimate good is possible. Regarding reflection on the ethical foundation of Chinese-path modernization, it necessarily involves sensibility, understanding, and reason; in brief, it is a theory of perceptual intention, a theory of judgment of the understanding, and a theory of rational inference. Sensibility is the feeling and experience of the external world and the inner world; human consciousness, thought, happiness, pleasure, pain, anger… all originate from the individual’s receptivity, sensitivity, selectivity, and acceptance; human ontology, epistemology, and axiology are all rooted in human sensible existence. The self-originating quality arising from within the mind-heart is human intention; whether there is an actual object standing there or a possible object constructed in imagination, this intention exists, being spontaneous and self-activating. When this spontaneous and self-activating intention is associated with some object, it becomes intentionality; when intention and intentionality are determined and confirmed as rational by mutually communicating and interacting subjects in an intersubjective state, they together become human will. Under the domination of will, the willing subject will, in cognition, argue and confirm what is good and evil, what is valuable and valueless. When mutually interacting subjects, under the domination of their respective wills, reach a value consensus, a commensurable concept of true and false, good and evil, beautiful and ugly is co-produced; this is popular will and general will. This is the what-is of the individual and the species, it is human reason; this reason has the power to realize itself; the process of objectifying this inner drive and power, together with its result, is the process of being rational; its objective existence is human society; any social structure that humans can construct is a physical, social, and spiritual setting oriented toward popular will and general will; when people mark out in advance the what-is and reason inherent in the individual and the species, presenting it to the world for viewing, it becomes what-ought-to-be. What-is is reason itself; what-ought-to-be is the process of being rational. This is the theory of judgment of the understanding. When people apply the theory of perceptual intention to the moral judgment of Chinese-path modernization, whether they can maximize this modernization into a what-ought-to-be that realizes what-is, a discourse, concept, and logic capable of realizing the mutual belonging and mutual co-production of the signifier and the signified is constructed. The theory of judgment of the understanding is an important link in forming a correct and complete theoretical system of Chinese-path modernization; when this modernization theory is repeatedly tested by the movement of modernization, proven acceptable in the process of globalized production, exchange, consumption, and life, then the subsequent theoretical work is to construct a theory of rational inference, that is, to explore how, under existing subjective and objective conditions, the reality of being rational that Chinese-path modernization demands can be possible.

追问属于理论理性的事情,解决的是一种终极之善和手段之善何以可能和如何可能的问题,是将这种善得以可能的主客观条件先行标示出来。追寻则属于创制理性和实践理性的任务,解决的是一种终极之善怎样可能的问题。就朝向中国式现代化之伦理基础的沉思而言,必然涉及感性、知性和理性问题,简约地说,就是感知意象论、知性判断论和理性推理论。感性是对外部世界和内心世界的感受和经历;人的意识、思维、快乐、幸福、痛苦、愤怒……都源出于个体的感受性、敏感性、选择性和接受性,人的存在论、认识论和价值论都植根于人的感性存在。起于心意以内的由己性便是人的意向,无论是否有现实的对象立在那里,还是一种可能的对象在想象中被构造出来,这种意向都是存在的,是自在而自发的。当这种自在而自发的意向与某个对象关联起来,它就成为意向性了,当意向和意向性被相互交流、交往的主体在主体间性状态中确定和确证为合理性时,它们就共同成为人的意志。在意志的支配下,意志主体就会在认识上论证和确证什么是善的、恶的,什么是有值的、无价值的。当相互交往的主体在各自意志的支配下,达成价值共识时,一种可公度的真与假、善与恶、美与丑的观念就被共出了,这就是民意、公意。这是个体与类的所是,是人类理性,这种理性有其实现自身的力量,将这种内在的动力和力量对象化的过程及其结果,也就是合乎理性的过程,其对象性的存在就是人类社会,人类所能够构造出的任何一种社会结构都是朝向民意、公意的物理、社会和精神设置;当人们把内在于个体与类之中的所是、理性先行标示出来,呈现给世人看的时候,它就是应是。所是,是理性本身;应是,是合乎理性的过程。这便是知性判断论。当人们将感知意向论应用于中国式现代化的道德判断时,人们是否能够将这种现代化最大限度地变成实现所是的应是,一种能够实现所指与被指相互共属、相互共出的话语、概念和逻辑就被构造出来了。知性判断论是形成正确而完整的中国式现代化的理论体系的重要环节;当这种现代化理论被反复进行的现代化运动,在世界化、全球化的生产、交往、消费和生活过程被证明是可以接受的理论,那么接续的理论工作就是建构理性推理论,即探讨在现有的主客观条件下,中国式现代化所诉求的合乎理性的现实如何可能。

Thus, regarding Hegel’s famous philosophical proposition on reason and its realization, there is a dual understanding: “What is rational is actual; and what is actual is rational.” It can also be understood as: “What is rational is actual; what is actual is rational.” According to the latter interpretation, reason itself is “what-is”; according to the former understanding, being rational is “what-ought-to-be.”

于是,关于黑格尔的著名哲学命题即理性及其实现问题,便有了双重理解:“凡是合乎理性的东西都是现实的;凡是现实的东西都是合乎理性的。”也可以理解成:“凡是有理性的,都是现实的;凡是现实的,都是有理性的。”根据后一种阐释,理性自身就是“所是”;依照前一种理解,合乎理性就是“应是”。

The rational is destined to become actual, but it does not realize itself spontaneously; spontaneous reason must, through self-activating action, be transformed into something conceptual and ideational, then eliminate the subjectivity of the idea and concept, and finally become something actual. Eliminating the spontaneity of objectivity within self-activating subjectivity, then eliminating the self-activating subjectivity within actuality—this is the process of actual movement; it can be said that actuality is a movement process full of differences, contradictions, and even conflicts, negating the spontaneity of rationality, then negating the self-activating subjectivity, finally reaching the unity of opposites. This process is not always realized through a completely rational movement; on the contrary, it must open the way for actuality through opinion, emotion, error, and fallacy. This is the meta-philosophical mode of thinking on the ethical foundation of Chinese-path modernization; if such a prior critical process is lacking, then any simple justification, critique, or presupposition lacks a solid inner ground and sufficient external reason.

理性的东西注定要成为现实,但它不会自为地实现出来,自在的理性要借助自为的行为被改造成观念性的、概念性的东西,然后再消灭观念和概念的主观性,最后成为现实性的东西。消灭自在的客观性于自为的主观性之中,再消灭自为的主观性于现实性之中,这就是现实的运动过程,可以说,现实性是一个充满差别、矛盾甚至冲突的运动过程,否定自在的合理性,再否定自为的主观性,最后达到对立统一。这一过程并不总是通过完全合乎理性的运动实现;相反,要通过意见、情绪、错误、谬误来为现实性开辟道路。这就是中国式现代化之伦理基础的元哲学思考方式,如果缺少这样一个前提性的批判过程,那么任何一种简单的辩护、批判和预设都是缺乏坚实的内在根据和充足的外在理由的。

If the inner ground and external reason are fully unfolded and appropriately applied to the inquiry into and pursuit of the ethical foundation of Chinese-path modernization, then its ethical character is marked out in the form of ideas or concepts. Originating from the reason of the individual and the species, that rational itself which drives the full development of the individual and the comprehensive progress of society, as the starting point in the teleological sense, is the “ethical world”; as a spontaneous rational itself, it is the “what-is” of the individual and the species; further, this spontaneous “ethical world” is the full development of the individual and the comprehensive progress of society. However, this spontaneous “ethical world” can only become a link in becoming actual if it is presented in representation and grasped in consciousness by the individual and the species, and further, only if it becomes a self-activating idea and concept; but it cannot remain in this link, for if it does, as Hegel criticized Kant’s good will as a pure subjectivity, it is merely a simple “ought”; as long as one affirms the ought, confirms and acknowledges the ought, it is actual. In fact, this is only a belief, that is, a “holding-as-true” that has sufficient ground only subjectively but lacks sufficient ground objectively. The process of turning the spontaneous “ethical world” into a subjective ought is the process of turning it into a moral world; however, only when the moral world is further turned into the ethical world, when “what-is” becomes “what-ought-to-be,” and “what-ought-to-be” becomes “what-is-actual,” can the full development of the individual and the comprehensive progress of society be truly realized. Constructing the new path of Chinese-path modernization is realizing the “what-ought-to-be” of “what-is”; it is the element, link, and path for realizing ultimate good. What kind of “ethical world” is the rational itself, the “what-is” of the contemporary individual and species, that “what-ought-to-be” seeks to realize?

如若将内在根据和外在理由充分地展现出来,并适度地运用到对中国式现代化之伦理基础的追问与追寻之中,那么它的伦理性就以观念或概念的样式被标示出来。出于个体和类的理性,那个促使个体充分发展和社会全面进步的有理性自身,作为目的论意义上的始点就是“伦理世界”;作为一个自在的有理性自身,就是个体与类的“所是”,进言之,这个自在的“伦理世界”就是个体的充分发展和社会的全面进步。然而,这个自在的“伦理世界”只有被个体和类呈现在表象里、把握在意识中,进一步,只有成为自为性的观念和概念,才能获得成为现实性的环节,但不能停留在这个环节之中,若此便如黑格尔批评康德的善良意志这一纯粹的主观性时所指出的,即单纯的“应当”,只要认其应当,确认和承认应当,它就是现实。事实上,这只是一种信念,亦即只在主观上有其充分根据而在客观上缺少充分根据的那种“视其为真”。把自在的“伦理世界”变成主观应当的过程,就是变成道德世界的过程,然而,只有把道德世界进一步变成伦理世界的时候,“所是”变成“应是”,再把“应是”变成“现实的是”,才能真正实现人的充分发展和社会的全面进步。构建中国式现代化新道路就是实现“所是”的“应是”,是实现终极之善的要素、环节和道路。“应是”所要实现的有理性自身、当代个体与类的“所是”,究竟是一种怎样的“伦理世界”呢?

II

二

The Ethical World as the Teleological Starting Point: Ultimate Good

作为目的论始点的伦理世界:终极之善

As long as human beings exist, and as long as people desire to live a holistic good life, the ethical world as the teleological starting point will exist. The ethical world is a value world originating from what humans “are” and what they “ought to be”; individuals, their organic combinations, and even the species exist because of this ethical world. Every kind of society is a complex arrangement completed in the direction of this ethical world. Although people may yearn for the ethical world of the past or immerse themselves in an imagined future ethical world, thereby expressing dissatisfaction with the present ethical world, it is precisely this dissatisfaction that constitutes our actuality. The most important thing is not to turn toward “what is no longer,” but to face and deal with “what is currently being,” and to point toward a possible state of “what is not yet.” “Actuality is used to denote the existential characteristic of ‘our’ ‘own’ Dasein; more precisely, this term refers to: the current Dasein (the phenomenon of ‘being-present’; compare: lingering, staying, dwelling in being, being-there), if it is the ‘there’ in its existential characteristic of being-in-a-way. Dasein in the mode of being means: it is not and never primarily an object of intuition and intuitive determination, not an object merely to be known and possessed through knowledge, but rather how Dasein is there for itself in its ownmost being. This how of being opens up and determines the current possibility of the ‘there.’ Being (Sein) — as a transitive verb: to live actual life. If being depends on itself, i.e., being, then being itself cannot possibly be an object of possession.” People are always accustomed to possessing the “what is no longer” that has passed and imagining possessing the “what is not yet,” thus failing to rationally and scientifically treat the “actuality” we actually possess, i.e., “what is currently being.” So, what exactly is the ethical world we actually possess? What kind of value structure is the ethical world that Chinese-path modernization seeks to realize? This ethical world is the rational thing of our era, our “actuality,” the “what is” of the times; it seeks to realize itself through the movement of Chinese-path modernization, and this movement is the “what ought to be.” Both “what is” and “what ought to be” are deeply embedded in the voices of the people and the sounds of history.

只要有人类存在,只要人们意愿过一种整体性的好生活,作为目的论始点的伦理世界就会存在。伦理世界是源自人的“所是”与“应是”的价值世界,个体及个体的有机结合乃至类都是由于这个伦理世界而存在的;任何一种社会都是朝向这个伦理世界而完成的复杂设置。人们虽然怀旧于过往的伦理世界或沉浸于未来的想象的伦理世界而对当下的伦理世界表示不满,但正是这种不满才是我们的实际性。最为重要的不是朝向“不再是”,而是面对、应对“正在是”,并指明一个“尚未是”的可能状态。“实际性是用来表示‘我们的’‘本己’的此在的存在特征,更准确地说,这个用语系指:当下的这个此在(‘当下性的’的现象;试比较:逗留、停驻、寓于此的存在、此—在),如果它在其存在特征是存在方式中的‘此’的话。存在方式中的此在指:不是而且决不是最初作为直观和直观规定的对象,不是作为仅仅从中获得知识和占有知识的对象,而是此在为了它自己以其最本己的存在如何在此存在。这种存在的如何敞开并规定着‘此’之当下的可能性。存在(Sein)——为及物动词:去过实际生活。如果存在取决于它自身,即存在,那么存在本身根本就不可能是一个占有的对象”。人们总习惯于去占有已经逝去的“不再是”和想象拥有“尚未是”,从而不能理性地、科学地对待我们实际拥有的“实际性”,即“正在是”。那么,什么才是我们实际拥有的伦理世界呢?中国式现代化所要实现的那个伦理世界究竟是怎样一种价值结构呢?这个伦理世界就是我们这个时代的有理性的东西,是我们的“实际性”,是时代的“所是”;它要借着中国式现代化运动而实现其自身,这个运动就是“应是”。“所是”与“应是”都深深地蕴藏在民众的心声里、历史的声音中。

In the present era, the ethical world as the ultimate good can be expressed as follows: to find an economic organizational method capable of continuously creating wealth and distributing it fairly; to create an institutional arrangement that allows everyone to voluntarily and reasonably express their political will; to enable everyone to have the ability and conditions to live a holistic good life. In these three statements, economy and politics have only the significance of instrumental goods, while the holistic good life is the ultimate end.

在现时代,作为终极之善的伦理世界可以这样被表述:找到一种能够持续地创造财富并合理分配财富的经济组织方式;创制一种令每一个人自愿且合理表达其政治意志的制度安排;令每个人有能力也有条件过一种整体性的好生活。在这三个陈述中,经济和政治都仅仅具有手段之善的意义,而整体性的好生活才是终极目的。

(I) Humanity has always persistently sought an economic organizational method capable of continuously creating wealth and distributing it fairly

(一)人类始终孜孜以求于一种能够持续地创造财富并合理分配财富的经济组织方式

The primitive economy based on gathering and hunting, the natural economy based on animal husbandry and agriculture, the industrial economy based on the production of artificial products, and the knowledge economy, information economy, and digital economy based on the production and dissemination of information and knowledge — these are the most important economic organizational methods humanity has found so far. This is in terms of the mode of wealth production; in terms of the mode of product exchange, there are the self-sufficient natural economy, the exchange economy of daily consumer goods, the commodity economy of universal exchange of means of production and means of subsistence, and the market economy that allocates resources based on the market.

以采集和狩猎为基本类型的原始经济,以畜牧业和农业为主要类型的自然经济,以创造人工产品为主要类型的工业经济,以信息和知识的生产与传播为主要类型的知识经济、信息经济和数字经济,是人类至今能够找到的最为重要的经济组织方式。这是就财富的生产方式而言的,就产品的交换方式来说则有自给自足式的自然经济、日常消费品交换的交换经济、生产资料和生活资料普遍交换的商品经济以及以市场为导向进行资源配置的市场经济。

1. The Capitalist Form of Market Economy: Contradictions and Dilemmas

1.资本主义形态的市场经济:矛盾与困境

The market economy is considered the relatively efficient economic organizational method humanity has found to date. It originated in some coastal cities of Europe in the second half of the 15th century, starting with the modernization movement in the major Western countries in the second half of the 15th century. The market economy was the direct driving force behind the modernization movement. The Western form of the modernization movement was never a purely economic activity; the logic of capital's operation was the foundational force dominating the Western modernization movement. Through the capitalization of labor, the privatization of capital, and the institutionalization of private property, a complete capitalist system was constructed. At this point, the market economy became a means for the capitalist system to realize its essence.

市场经济被认为是迄今为止人类能够找到的相对有效率的经济组织方式,它发轫于15世纪下半叶欧洲一些沿海城市,起始于15世纪下半叶的美西方主要国家的现代化运动,市场经济是推动现代化运动的直接动力。西方形态的现代化运动从来就不是纯粹的经济行为,资本的运行逻辑是支配西方现代化运动的基础性力量,通过劳动资本化、资本私有化、私有制度化,一个完整的资本主义体系被建构起来;至此,市场经济成为资本主义体系实现其本质的一种手段。

Facts have proven that when the capitalist system, relying on the modern production logic and leveraging material civilization and the market economy, gradually climbed to the apex of the economic world, it transformed local spatial injustice into global spatial injustice. Capital, as the fulcrum of the modernization movement, opened the path for the globalization of capitalism, turning the capitalization of labor, the privatization of capital, and the institutionalization of private property into a global existence. The bourgeoisie abolished the old forms of private property, yet developed the new private property to its most complete form. “The distinguishing feature of Communism is not the abolition of property generally, but the abolition of bourgeois property. But modern bourgeois private property is the final and most complete expression of the system of producing and appropriating products, that is based on class antagonisms, on the exploitation of the many by the few.” [1]1 Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, *The Communist Manifesto* (1848). When capital is turned by the bourgeoisie into a social force, it can, by virtue of the magic of capital, implement its desire and act of possession and domination into every corner of the world. “Capital is a collective product, and only by the united action of many members, nay, in the last resort, only by the united action of all members of society, can it be set in motion. Capital is therefore not a personal, but a social power.” [2]2 Ibid. In the modern production logic, the power of capital, whether as a concept pursuing valorization, a desire for possession and domination, or as a substantive factor, is deeply rooted in production, distribution, exchange, and consumption. Capital is a typical paradoxical existence; while rapidly creating wealth, it simultaneously produces labor alienation, polarization, and sharp social contradictions. When capital and its operational logic are completely controlled by the bourgeoisie or vested interest groups standing at the apex of the economic world, the entire structure of society evolves in the direction of class contradictions and antagonisms. Market autonomy is effective in the sphere of exchange not interfered with by political power, but the promises of complete market omnipotence and market autonomy have proven unreliable.

事实证明,当资本主义体系借着现代生产逻辑、借助物质文明和市场经济逐渐爬升到经济世界的顶点时,它便把地方性的空间不正义变成了世界性的空间不公正。作为现代化运动支点的资本,为资本主义的世界化开辟了道路,它把劳动资本化、资本私有化、私有制度化变成了世界性的存在。资产阶级消灭了过往的私有制,却又把新的私有制发展到了最完备的形态。“共产主义的特征并不是要废除一般的所有制,而是要废除资产阶级的所有制。但是,现代的资产阶级私有制是建立在阶级对立上面、建立在一些人对另一些人的剥削上面的产品生产和占有的最后而又最完备的表现”。当资本被资产阶级变成一种社会力量的时候,它就可以凭借资本的魔力而把它的占有和支配欲望和行为贯彻到世界的任何一个角落。“资本是集体的产物,它只有通过社会许多成员的共同活动,而且归根到底只有通过全体社会成员的共同活动,才能运动起来。因此,资本不是一种个人的力量,而是一种社会的力量”。在现代生产逻辑中,资本的力量无论是作为一种追求增殖的观念、一种实现占有和支配的欲望,还是作为一种实体性的要素,都深深地植根于生产、分配、交换和消费之中;资本是一种典型的悖论性存在,在快速创造财富的同时又制造着劳动异化、两极分化和尖锐的社会矛盾。当资本及其运行逻辑为立于经济世界顶点的资产阶级或既得利益集团所完全控制时,社会的全部结构就会朝着阶级矛盾和对立方向演进。市场自治在不受政治权力干预的交换领域是有效的,但完全的市场万能和市场自治被证明是靠不住的承诺。

2. The Socialist Form of Market Economy: Advantages and Difficulties

2.社会主义形态的市场经济:优势与难题

The socialist market economy not only faces the same difficulties as the capitalist market economy but also takes surpassing the inherent contradictions of capitalism as its own distinctive advantage. The economic difficulties of the new path of Chinese-path modernization are fully manifested in how to correctly guide and fully utilize the social role of capital. Through profound theoretical reflection and arduous practical exploration, it was not until the end of the 1970s that socialism with Chinese characteristics truly began the great transformation of liberating and developing the productive forces. After debates and "experiments" over whether the market economy is a means or an end, it was finally determined: socialism has planning, and capitalism also has planning; capitalism has markets, and socialism also has markets. As a method of resource allocation, the market economy can serve capitalism, and it can equally serve socialism, even serving socialism better. The comprehensive economic system reform centered on cities set socialist construction on a path of rapidly creating and accumulating wealth. In the continuous process of advancing marketization, the phenomena of Adam Smith's "invisible hand" and "impartial spectator" have appeared, now visible, now hidden. In *The Theory of Moral Sentiments*, Adam Smith clearly states: "They are led by an invisible hand to make nearly the same distribution of the necessaries of life, which would have been made, had the earth been divided into equal portions among all its inhabitants, and thus without intending it, without knowing it, advance the interest of the society, and afford means to the multiplication of the species. When Providence divided the earth among a few lordly masters, it neither forgot nor abandoned those who seemed to have been left out in the partition... In what constitutes the real happiness of human life, they are in no respect inferior to those who would seem so much above them. In ease of body and peace of mind, all the different ranks of life are nearly upon a level, and the beggar, who suns himself by the side of the highway, possesses that security which kings are fighting for." [3]3 Adam Smith, *The Theory of Moral Sentiments* (1759), Part IV, Chapter I. The translation follows the Chinese text's rendering of Smith's passage. In *The Wealth of Nations*, under the subheading "Of Restraining the Importation of such Goods as can be produced at Home," Adam Smith again discusses the "invisible hand": "He generally, indeed, neither intends to promote the public interest, nor knows how much he is promoting it. By preferring the support of domestic to that of foreign industry, he intends only his own security; and by directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention. Nor is it always the worse for the society that it was no part of it. By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it."

社会主义市场经济既面临着资本主义市场经济同样的难题,又以超越资本主义内在矛盾为自身特有的优势。中国式现代化新道路的经济难题就充分地体现在如何正确引导、充分运用资本的社会作用上面。经过深刻地理论反思和艰苦地实践探索,20世纪70年代末,中国特色社会主义才真正开始了解放生产力和发展生产力的伟大变革。经过市场经济到底是手段还是目的的争论和“试验”,最终确定:社会主义有计划,资本主义也有计划,资本主义有市场,社会主义也有市场;市场经济作为一种资源配置方式,既可以为资本主义服务,同样可以为社会主义服务,甚至更好地为社会主义服务。以城市为中心开启的全面经济体制改革,使得社会主义建设走上快速创造财富和积累财富的道路。在不断推进市场化的过程中,也时隐时现地出现了亚当·斯密所描述的“看不见的手”和“公正的旁观者”景象。在《道德情操论》中,亚当·斯密清楚地说道:“一只看不见的手引导他们同穷人一样对生活必需品作出几乎同土地在平均分配给全体居民的情况下所能作出的一样的分配,从而不知不觉地增进了社会利益,并为不断增多的人口提供生活资料。当神把土地分给少数地主时,他既没有忘记也没有遗弃那些在这种分配中似乎被忽略了的人……在肉体的舒适和心灵的平静上,所有不同阶层的人几乎处于同一水平,一个在大路旁晒太阳的乞丐也享有国王们正在为之战斗的那种安全。”在《国富论》“论限制从国外输入能生产的货物”小标题之下,亚当·斯密再一次论述了“看不见的手”:“确实,他通常既不打算促进公共的利益,也不知道他自己在什么程度上促进那种利益。由于宁愿投资支持国内产业而不支持国外产业,他只是盘算自己的安全;由于他管理产业的方式目的在于使其生产物的价值能达到最大程度,他所盘算的也只是他自己的利益。在这场合,像在其他许多场合一样,他受着一只看不见的手的指导,去尽力达到一个并非他本意想要达到的目的。也并不因为事非出于本意,就对社会有害。他追求自己的利益,往往使他能比在真正出于本意的情况下更有效地促进社会的利益。”

It is undeniable that the "invisible hand" described by Adam Smith causes the self-interested behavior of individuals, organizations, and enterprises to produce unintended consequences for social welfare. Each actor has no altruistic motive, but the interdependence among individuals, between enterprises and individuals, between enterprises, and between enterprises and the government determines the social effect of self-interested motives. This is not a typical ethical issue, but merely a question of the ethical consequences of enterprises' self-interested behavior. Whether the enterprises causing these consequences bear social and moral responsibility is, however, a typical ethical issue. This involves the question of the universality of self-interest. If every individual and every enterprise is regarded as a subject of interests, then the egoistic motive of each enterprise is reasonable. If every individual and every enterprise were to abandon efforts to maximize their own interests and wait for relief from other interest subjects, then who would objectively increase social welfare through self-interested behavior? The key here is not the egoistic motive, but whether the behavior benefits both oneself and others, rather than harming others to benefit oneself. Under market economy conditions, the interdependence among different interest subjects compels people or different enterprises to follow the principle of mutual benefit. This is precisely the universal law given by Kant: act according to the maxim that you would wish to become a universal law. [4]4 Immanuel Kant, *Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals* (1785). The "universal law" formulation of the categorical imperative: "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law." According to Kant's argument, only actions performed out of duty have moral worth. If one follows the principle of mutual benefit out of self-interest and has no inclination toward the principle itself, then such behavior has only utilitarian value, because each interest subject acts according to egoistic intentions. Conversely, actions contrary to duty not only lack moral worth but have negative moral worth. However, such a situation would not be lasting or universal, because if mutual deception and fraud became universal law, then no one's self-interested ends could be achieved.

不可否认,亚当·斯密所说的“看不见的手”,使基于个人、组织、企业的自利行为造成意想不到的社会公益后果;每个行动者并无利他动机,但由于每个人之间、企业与个人之间、企业与企业之间、企业与政府之间的相互依存性决定了自利动机的社会效果。这并非一个典型的伦理问题,而只是企业自利行为的伦理后果问题,造成这一后果的企业是否担负社会和道德责任,倒是一个典型的伦理问题。这涉及自利性的普遍性问题。如果将每一个人、每一个企业视为利益主体,那么每个企业的利己动机都是合理的,如果每个人、每个企业都放弃促使自己利益最大化的努力,等待其他利益主体救济,那么谁又会通过利己行为而客观上造成社会利益增加呢?这里的关键不在于利己动机,而在于行为于人于己有利,而不是损人利己。在市场经济条件下,不同利益主体之间的相互依赖性,导致人们或不同企业之间必须遵循互利原则。这正是康德所给出的普遍法则:要按照你希望别人对待你的方式对待别人。依照康德的论证,只有出于责任的行为才有道德价值,如果是出于自利目的而不得不遵循互利原则,对于遵循互利原则本身并无爱好,那么这种行为只是具有功利价值,因为每个利益主体都是依照利己意图而行动的;相反,反乎责任的行为则不但不具有道德价值,反而具有负的道德价值,但此种情形则不会持久而普遍,因为,如果互相欺骗、欺诈成为普遍法则,则任何一个人的自利目的都无法实现。

However, Adam Smith's theory of the "invisible hand" does not fully consider the essential difference between private ownership and public ownership. If every entrepreneur is first and foremost a capitalist, and further, if the "invisible hand" operates under conditions of class antagonism and confrontation between capitalists and wage laborers, then even if it produces unintended social ethical consequences, its ethical foundation is immoral. It is the consequence of one part oppressing and exploiting another, even if it follows the principle of mutual benefit, because its premise is unjust. Marx made a correct critique of the theory of the "invisible hand" and its practical consequences, which appear equal but are in fact unequal: "The sphere of circulation or commodity exchange, within whose boundaries the sale and purchase of labor-power goes on, is in fact a very Eden of the innate rights of man. It is the exclusive realm of Freedom, Equality, Property and Bentham. Freedom, because both buyer and seller of a commodity, say of labor-power, are determined only by their own free will. They contract as free persons, who are equal before the law. Their contract is the final result in which their joint will finds a common legal expression. Equality, because each enters into relation with the other, as with a simple owner of commodities, and they exchange equivalent for equivalent. Property, because each disposes only of what is his own. And Bentham, because each looks only to himself. The only force that brings them together and puts them in relation with each other is the selfishness, the gain and the private interests of each. Each looks to himself only, and no one troubles himself about the rest, and just because they do so, do they all, in accordance with the pre-established harmony of things, or under the auspices of an all-shrewd providence, work together to their mutual advantage, for the common weal and in the interest of all." [5]5 Karl Marx, *Capital*, Volume I, Chapter 6: "The Sale and Purchase of Labor-Power." The translation follows the Chinese text's rendering of Marx's passage.

然而,亚当·斯密的“看不见的手”的理论没有充分考虑私有制与公有制的本质区别,如若每个企业家首先是资本家,进一步地说,“看不见的手”是在资本家与雇佣工人之间的阶级对立和对抗条件下运行,即便是产生了意想不到的社会伦理后果,那么它的伦理基础也是不道德的,是一部分压迫和剥削另一部分的后果,尽管遵循的是互惠互利原则,但它们的前提是不公正的。马克思对貌似平等而实则不平等的“看不见的手”的理论及其实践后果作了正确的批判:“劳动力的买和卖是在流通领域或商品交换领域的界限内进行的,这个领域确实是天赋人权的真正伊甸园。那里占统治地位的只是自由、平等所有权和边沁。自由!因为商品例如劳动力的买者和卖者,只取决于自己的自由意志。他们是作为自由的、在法律上平等的人缔结契约的。契约是他们的意志借以得到共同的法律表现的最后结果。平等!因为他们彼此只是作为商品占有者而发生关系,用等价物交换等价物。所有权!因为每一个人都只支配自己的东西。边沁!因为双方只顾自己。使他们连在一起并发生关系的唯一力量,是他们的利己心,是他们的特殊利益,是他们的私人利益。正因为人人只顾自己,谁也不管别人,所以大家都是在事物的前定和谐下,或者说,在全能的神的保佑下,完成着互惠互利、共同有益、全体有利的事业。”

Adam Smith uses his theory of the "spectator" to constrain and correct the egoistic motives of a utilitarian person. What makes people form a mutually beneficial interest whole, besides the effect of the "invisible hand," is a fundamental subjective force: sympathy and benevolence. "How selfish soever man may be supposed, there are evidently some principles in his nature, which interest him in the fortune of others, and render their happiness necessary to him, though he derives nothing from it except the pleasure of seeing it. Of this kind is pity or compassion..." [6]6 Adam Smith, *The Theory of Moral Sentiments* (1759), Part I, Section I, Chapter I. The translation follows the Chinese text's rendering of Smith's passage. Sympathy and compassion, as primitive emotions, arise between different people. They are the inner experience produced when a person not suffering pain imaginatively feels the sensations of a person who is suffering. Essentially, it is a process of empathy—transferring another's feelings into one's own imagination, then projecting this imagined experience back to the person in distress, thereby producing comfort and solace. Sympathy and compassion cause one to split into two, which is Adam Smith's famous theory of the "spectator." Although Smith applies this theory within the primitive emotion of sympathy, it also has profound significance for deeply understanding the validity of Kant's universal law. For a law to be universally followed, at the level of psychological mechanism and consciousness, it is based on the faculty of imagination. That is, when I act in accordance with a certain law, I will and at the same time believe that others will follow it as I do, and vice versa.

亚当·斯密用他的“旁观者”理论来约束和矫正一个功利者的利己动机。人和人之间之所以构成一个互惠互利的利益整体,除了“看不见的手”的作用以外,还有一个根本性的主体性力量,那就是同情心和慈善。“无论人们会认为某人怎样自私,这个人的天赋中总是明显地存在着这样一种本性,这些本性使他关心别人的命运,把别人的幸福看成是自己的事情,虽然他除了看到别人幸福而感到高兴以外,一无所得。这种本性就是怜悯或同情……”同情与怜悯,作为一种原始情感,发生于不同的人之间,是一个没有遭受痛苦的人在想象地感受到遭受痛苦人的感受时而产生的内心体验,本质上是一个移情的过程,即把他人的感受迁移到自己的想象中来,然后再把这种想象体验推到遭受不幸的人那里,继而产生安慰、抚慰。同情和怜悯使自己一分为二,这便是亚当·斯密有名的“旁观者”理论。亚当·斯密虽然是在同情心这种原始情感中来运用这种理论的,但对于深入理解康德普遍法则的有效性,同样有着深刻的借鉴意义。一个法则能被普遍地遵守,在心理机制和意识水平上,是建立在想象力基础上的,即当我遵循某个法则而行动时,我意愿同时我也相信他人也一如我那样遵守,反之亦然。

After more than forty years of economic system reform and the development of the market economy, the phenomena of Adam Smith’s “invisible hand” and “impartial spectator” have not universally appeared. Facts have proven that although the market economy internally regulates the four factors of modern production through the unity of opposites between value and price, it cannot reasonably arrange the fair distribution of means of production and means of subsistence, as well as authoritative resources and market elements such as power, status, identity, opportunity, and luck that accompany capital accumulation, throughout the entire social sphere. Economic forces cannot resolve the labor alienation, polarization, and social contradictions that may result from the logic of capital operation; they must rely on political forces, through multiple distribution methods that embody fairness and efficiency, to rationally allocate social resources and social wealth. This is the fundamental advantage of the socialist system. How to fully and rationally utilize political forces to advance Chinese-path modernization has become a fundamental issue.

经过四十多年的经济体制改革和市场经济的发展,亚当·斯密所描述的“看不见的手”和“公正的旁观者”景象并未普遍地出现。事实证明,市场经济尽管内在地通过价值与价格的对立统一关系调节着现代生产的四个要素,但却无法合理安排生产资料和生活资料以及随资本积累而来的权力、地位、身份、机会、运气等权威性资源和市场化要素在整个社会领域里的公平分配。经济的力量无法解决由资本运行逻辑所可能导致的劳动异化、两极分化和社会矛盾,它必须借助政治的力量,通过体现公平与效率的多种分配方式,合理分配社会资源和社会财富,这就是社会主义制度的根本优势。如何充分并合理运用政治力量推进中国式现代化成为一个根本性的问题。

(2) Political forces increasingly demonstrate their fundamental role in the process of constructing Chinese-path modernization

(二)政治力量在构建中国式现代化的过程中愈益显示出它的根本作用

The role of political forces is dual: it is both an end and a means. Constructing an institutional arrangement in which each person voluntarily and rationally expresses their political will is political force in the sense of means; cultivating each person’s conscious, voluntary, and rational political awareness to pay attention to and participate in major political events, and to fully express popular will and the general will, is political force in the sense of ends. Since humanity entered a state of class opposition and the consequent emergence of the state, “politics,” as a concept, institution, and action, has begun to play a fundamental role in people’s collective actions and public life. Under the social condition of class opposition, politics is a concept used to describe how the economically dominant class maintains its ruling position through the ideological superstructure and political superstructure; in this state, the concepts and values of freedom, democracy, equality, and justice have no reality. Under the socialist system, although the concept of politics still retains the meaning that political parties and governments provide maximum public services to citizens through public administration, it has already acquired entirely new connotations and functions in terms of nature and function.

政治力量的作用是双重的,既是目的又是手段。建构一种每个人自愿且合理表达政治意志的制度安排,就是手段论意义上的政治力量;培养每个人自觉、自愿、理性地关注和参与重大政治事件的政治意识,并充分表达民意和公意,就是目的论意义上的政治力量。人类进入阶级对立状态以及由此而产生国家以来,“政治”作为一种观念、制度和行动便开始在人们的集体行动和公共生活中起着根本性的作用。在阶级对立之社会状态下,政治是一个用以描述在经济上居支配地位的阶级通过思想上层建筑和政治上层建筑维护其统治地位的概念,在此种状态下,自由、民主、平等、公正这些观念和价值没有现实性,而在社会主义制度之下,政治概念虽然依旧保留着政党、政府通过公共管理为公民提供最大化公共服务这一含义,但从性质及功能上已经具有全新的内涵和作用。

Chinese-path modernization demands and cultivates modern political civilization. This political civilization differs both from the capitalist political civilization of the West, which is based on the modern movement of the early modern period, and from the feudal political civilization of traditional society, which is based on the differential mode of association [8]8 The “differential mode of association” (差序格局) is a concept coined by the Chinese sociologist Fei Xiaotong to describe the traditional Chinese social structure, in which relationships radiate outward from the self in concentric circles of decreasing intimacy, unlike the Western “organizational mode of association” based on group membership.; rather, it is a new type of civilization formed on the basis of the political system of socialism with Chinese characteristics, which both inherits and transcends Chinese and foreign, ancient and modern political cultures. First, it is a new type of conceptual system. This conceptual system is universal and fundamental. When it expresses value propositions concerning the good of ends, it is embodied in the continuous creation and rational distribution of wealth, in institutional arrangements that allow everyone to express their political will voluntarily and rationally, and in the ability to live a holistic good life. This new type of civilization includes an ecological civilization oriented toward the Way of Heaven and Humanity [9]9 “The Way of Heaven and Humanity” (天人之道) refers to the relationship between nature (Heaven) and human society, a central theme in classical Chinese philosophy., a social civilization oriented toward the Way of Human Relations [10]10 “The Way of Human Relations” (人伦之道) refers to the ethical principles governing the five cardinal human relationships in Confucian thought (ruler-subject, parent-child, husband-wife, elder-younger sibling, friend-friend)., and policy design and institutional arrangements oriented toward the overall enhancement of quality of life based on the pursuit of a good life, i.e., institutional civilization. With regard to the Way of Heaven and Humanity, it reconstructs contemporary views of nature, space-time, and ecology; with regard to the Way of Human Relations, it reconstructs views of wealth, efficiency, equality, rights, fairness, justice, and power; with regard to the holistic good life, it reconstructs views of morality, freedom, and happiness. These three aspects constitute the conceptual foundation for reconstructing the contemporary institutional system. In the process of the continuous creation and rational distribution of wealth, economic systems and ecological policies that embody fairness and efficiency must adhere to the principles of intra-generational ethics and intergenerational ethics; that is, the costs borne and the moral and legal responsibilities assumed for protecting the natural environment must be proportional to the gains of individuals and organizations. The goal to be achieved by the principle of ecological justice is the harmonious coexistence of humanity and nature and the sustainable development of human society. In the distribution of wealth, power, status, identity, opportunity, and even luck, the historical differences between ascribed status and achieved status must be fully considered. On the basis of adhering to the organic unity of fairness and efficiency, the continuous accumulation of power, wealth, and opportunity among advantaged groups must be prevented, as must the polarization that the operational logic of capital may cause. People must have sufficient initiative and creativity to participate in the creation and distribution of total social wealth, without resorting to equal distribution by narrowing or even eliminating differences. Common prosperity is both a social concept and a historical category. As a social concept, every person has the right and obligation to share in and enjoy social wealth. Tracing back from economic equality, social equality, and political equality to the equality of human dignity, every citizen protected by law has equal rights and obligations, including both the right and obligation to actively participate in social labor and the right and obligation to receive a share of social wealth and enjoy the superiority of the socialist system. On the path to achieving common prosperity, politics, as both concept and institution, faces two fundamental issues. The first is how to prevent the “interconnection and intercommunication” among power, capital, and knowledge. The intellectualization and capitalization of power, the capitalization and empowerment of knowledge, and the empowerment of capital are the root causes of corruption. When power, capital, and knowledge, as core forces in the modernization movement, lose their most basic constraints, they inevitably cause social resources and wealth to rapidly accumulate among a small minority, leaving those in a disadvantaged position unable to break through increasingly solidified social interest relations and voluntarily and rationally enter the “market” to participate in the creation and distribution of social wealth. The core force capable of confining power, capital, and knowledge within reasonable limits is politics itself. This is indeed a paradox: using power to limit power is like using someone who can exploit power for personal gain to limit themselves, which can hardly have moral and legal force. For this reason, a view of power and a view of politics must be reconstructed. This kind of view, which can better embody the values of justice, equality, and democracy, is the core content of the ethical foundation of Chinese-path modernization and an important hallmark of modern political civilization. Conversely, if outdated views of power and politics are still used to promote the construction of modern society, the result will inevitably be a mere appearance of modern civilization with backward cultural content. In the process of moving toward a holistic good life, politics plays an even more central role. A holistic good life often implies that, in the distribution of total social labor, people can rationally allocate social time and carefully arrange labor departments in the creation of material and spiritual wealth. The distorted consequences of the production, distribution, and consumption of social wealth caused by the operational logic of capital cannot be changed by the operation of capital itself. Facts have proven that the Western modernization movement, which began in the second half of the 15th century, was essentially a comprehensive process of transforming both humanity’s own nature and external nature. The refinement of material needs and the diversification of material products have made people so engrossed and tireless in satisfying their material needs that they forget to return [11]11 “Forget to return” (乐不思蜀) is a Chinese idiom from the Three Kingdoms period, literally meaning “so happy as to forget to return to Shu,” used to describe someone indulging in pleasure and losing sight of their original situation or duties.; the rapidly developing modern technology has further placed people in a world surrounded by objects. Although it cannot be precisely calculated, at least from sensory perception, it is evident that people’s will, time, and energy devoted to creating spiritual products are far weaker than those devoted to the production and consumption of material products. The modernization movement seems to be a one-sided, headlong process, which is closely related to the essence of the market economy. Only when similar products can be rapidly produced and rapidly consumed can profit maximization through production and exchange be achieved. In contrast, spiritual products can be consumed multiple times by many people. More importantly, material needs, mainly consisting of clothing, food, housing, and transportation, are essentially self-existing and self-acting, while spiritual needs, fundamentally consisting of belief, knowledge, emotion, and will, must be cultivated through acquired education and upbringing. The former manifests as human materiality or biological nature, while the latter manifests as human sociality and spirituality. When people are immersed in the satisfaction of material or biological needs, even indulging in luxury and waste without restraint, while their sociality and spirituality fail to evolve and improve correspondingly, we can by no means call this a highly civilized form. The unbalanced development between material production and material needs, on the one hand, and spiritual production and spiritual needs, on the other, caused by the operational logic of capital, is also a problem faced by Chinese-path modernization. The second issue is that politics is an institutional system. For politics to perform its truth-seeking and ultimate functions, it cannot remain merely in a conceptual state; concepts must be institutionalized. Only with the help of institutions can a good political concept function broadly and sustainably. Institutions are the standardized forms of concepts and actions. Political institutions complete normative settings through the ideological superstructure and the political superstructure; they concern matters of fundamental interest to everyone. They possess legitimacy, compulsion, authority, and irreversibility. As a “seemingly rational structure,” once political institutions are created, they become a fixed structure whose meaning no longer increases. Therefore, whether political institutions are rational and truly oriented toward the ultimate good directly determines the degree of rationality and legitimacy of the political ecology. The greatest achievement of the century-long history of Party building [12]12 “Party building” (党的建设) is a standard term in CPC discourse referring to the ongoing effort to strengthen the Party organizationally, ideologically, and in terms of discipline and style of work. lies in establishing a system of political institutions that embodies the values of common prosperity, democracy, equality, and justice. This is the most solid foundation for Chinese-path modernization.

中国式现代化要求并培育着现代政治文明。这种政治文明既不同于西方基于近代的现代化运动而来的资本主义政治文明,又不同于传统社会基于差序格局之上的封建主义政治文明,而是基于中国特色社会主义政治制度,既继承又超越中外古今政治文化而形成的新型文明形态。首先,它是一套新型的观念体系。这套观念体系是普遍的、根本性的。当其表达关于目的之善的价值命题时,就体现为财富的持续创造与合理分配、令每个人自愿且合理地表达其政治意志的制度安排、能够过一种整体性的好生活。这一新型文明形态包括,朝向天人之道的生态文明、朝向人伦之道的社会文明和朝向基于对好生活追求的整体素养提升的政策设计和制度安排,即制度文明。而就天人之道而言,重构当代的自然观、时空观和生态观;就人伦之道而言,重构财富观、效率观、平等观、权利观、公平观、正义观、权力观;就整体性的好生活而言,重构道德观、自由观和幸福观。以上三个方面是重构当代制度体系的观念基础。在财富的持续创造和合理分配过程中,作为体现公平与效率的经济制度和生态政策,必须坚持代内伦理和代际伦理原则,亦即为保护自然环境所付出的成本和所担负的道德与法律责任必须与个体与组织的所得成正比,生态正义原则所要实现的目标就是人与自然的和谐相处、人类社会的可持续发展。在财富、权力、地位、身份、机会乃至运气的分配上,必须充分考虑天赋地位和自致地位的历史差异性,在坚持公平与效率有机统一的基础上,阻止权力、财富和机会在优势人群那里的持续积累,防止资本的运行逻辑所可能造成的两极分化。既要人们有足够的积极性和创造性参与社会总财富的创造和分配,又不至于通过缩小甚至消灭差别而推行平均分配。共同富裕既是一个社会概念又是一个历史范畴,作为社会概念,每一个人都有分有和享有社会财富的权利和义务,从经济平等、社会平等和政治平等回溯到人格平等,每一个受法律保护的公民都有平等的权利和义务,既有积极参加社会劳动的权利和义务,又有分得社会财富、享受社会主义制度优越性的权利和义务。在实现共同富裕的道路上,作为观念和制度的政治,面临着两个根本性的问题:一是如何阻止权力、资本和知识之间的“互联互通”问题。权力知识化、资本化,知识权力化、资本化,资本权力化,是导致腐败的根本原因。当权力、资本和知识作为现代化运动中的核心力量而失去其最基本的限制时,就必然造成社会资源和财富在少数人群那里快速聚集,致使处在弱势状态下的人群无法突破日益固化的社会利益关系,自愿且合理地进入“市场”,参与社会财富的创造和分配。能将权力、资本和知识限制在合理范围内的核心力量便是政治,这着实是一个悖论,用权力来限制权力就如同能够利用权力谋得私利的人来限制自己一样,是很难有道德和法律效力的。为此,就必须重构一种权力观和政治观,而这种更能体现正义、平等、民主价值的观念才是中国式现代化之伦理基础的核心内容,也是现代政治文明的重要标志;相反,如若依旧运用已经落后的权力观和政治观推动现代社会建设,那必然是徒有现代文明的外表而实有落后文化的内容。在朝向整体性好生活过程中,政治更有它的核心作用。一种整体性好生活往往意味着,在社会总劳动的分配上,人们能够在物质财富和精神财富的创造上合理分配社会时间,精心布局劳动部门。由资本的运行逻辑所造成的社会财富生产、分配与消费的畸形后果,依靠资本自身的运行无法改变。事实证明,始自15世纪下半叶的西方现代化运动,本质上是一个全面改造自身自然和身外自然的过程,物质需要的细致化和物质产品的多样化,使得人们在物质需要的满足上乐不思蜀、乐此不疲;快速发展起来的现代技术,更是把人们置于一种被物包围的世界之中。虽然无法精确计算,但至少从感性知觉上可以得知,人们用于创造精神产品的意愿、时间和力量远远弱于用于物质产品生产和消费的力量。现代化运动似乎是一个单方突进式的运行过程,这与市场经济的本质密切关联。只有当同类产品能够被快速生产出来且被快速消费掉的时候,通过生产和交换而完成的收益最大化才能实现;相反,精神产品可以多人多次消费,更为重要的是,以衣食住行用为主要内容的物质需要在本质上是自在而自为的,而以信知情意为根本内容的精神需要则一定是通过后天的教育和教化养成的。前者表现为人的物质性或生物性,后者则表现为人的社会性和精神性。当人们沉浸于物质性或生物性需要的满足,甚至陷入奢侈浪费而不能自拔时,人们的社会性和精神性却得不到相应的进化和提升,我们无论如何不能说这是一种高度的文明形态。由资本的运行逻辑所导致的物质生产与物质需要和精神生产与精神需要的不平衡发展,也是中国式现代化面临的问题。二是政治是一个制度体系。要使政治发挥它的真理性和终极性功能,就不能仅仅停留在观念的状态中,必须将观念制度化,只有借助制度,一个好的政治观念才能广泛而持续地发挥作用。制度是观念和行动的规范化形式,政治制度是借助思想上层建筑和政治上层建筑而完成规范设置的,它是相关于每个人的根本利益的事项;它具有合法性、强制性、权威性和不可逆性。作为一种“看似有理性结构”,政治制度一经被创制出来,就变成了意义不再增加的固定结构,因此,政治制度是否合理,是否真正朝向终极之善而被共出,直接决定着政治生态的合理、合法性程度。百年党史实践的最大功绩就在于建立了一个体现共同富裕、民主、平等、正义价值的政治制度体系,这是中国式现代化最为坚实的基础。

(3) Enabling everyone to possess rich objective conditions and a solid subjective foundation, and to live a holistic good life, is the ultimate goal sought by Chinese-path modernization.

(三)促使每一个人拥有丰富的客体性条件和坚实的主体性根据,过一种整体性好生活是中国式现代化所欲求的终极目的

Regarding the original emergence and evolutionary logic of the good life, there are two possible paths: one is the path of objectification, and the other is the path of autonomy. The world provides only the material and environment for the good life of human beings, not ready-made means of subsistence. The so-called material consists of the elements available for human production to satisfy various needs; humans can only engage in productive labor under the conditions given by nature. These elements usually cannot directly become means of subsistence; they must be processed and transformed by humans—this is the process of objectification. Labor, as the basic form of human objectifying activity, is the fundamental marker of humanity’s essential powers and their realization; through labor, humans create an objective existence, and thereby create a humanized world. However, whether this humanized world, as an objective existence, becomes the objective condition for the good life depends both on humanity’s capacity to control its own objective existence and, even more, on whether people can create a political system that prevents objective existence from becoming alienated or estranged existence. The former is a universal problem—that is, under any form of social condition, objective existence may become alien existence; the latter is a particular problem—that is, in class-antagonistic societies, alien existence includes not only naturally occurring objective existence but also an artificial element, namely private property. The bourgeoisie eliminated earlier forms of alien existence but developed the alien existence created by bourgeois private property into its highest and most complete form. When natural and artificial, universal and particular forms of objectification and their alienation are combined into a fundamental social problem, what form of political system to construct becomes the fundamental task of humanity’s pursuit of the good life as a whole. When humans break free from dependence on other persons and become relatively independent beings, they nonetheless fall into dependence on things due to the operational logic of capital; yet within this universal dependence on things, factors are generated that enable escape from dependence and the attainment of freedom. Only when humans transcend both narrow, blood-based, and local ties and the dependence on things, and become the masters of the entire social relations that exist as objective existence, is the all-round development of the individual possible. “The fully developed individual, for whom their social relations are their own communal relations, also subject to their own communal control, is not a product of nature but of history. To make this individuality possible, the development of capacities must reach a certain level and comprehensiveness, and this presupposes production based on exchange value, which, while producing the universality of the individual’s alienation from themselves and from others, also produces the universality and comprehensiveness of individual relations and individual capacities.”[8]8 The “differential mode of association” (差序格局) is a concept coined by the Chinese sociologist Fei Xiaotong to describe the traditional Chinese social structure, in which relationships radiate outward from the self in concentric circles of decreasing intimacy, unlike the Western “organizational mode of association” based on group membership. This is human reason, historical reason; whoever clarifies this reason and makes it a reality accomplishes the great task of that era; whichever social system can provide the sufficient and necessary conditions for the free and all-round development of the individual is a real thing embodying human and historical reason. Chinese-path modernization is precisely a real movement toward this real thing.

就好生活的原始发生及其演进逻辑而言,可有两种道路:一种是对象化的道路,一种是自主性的途径。世界只为人的好生活提供了质料和环境,而没有提供既成的生活资料。所谓质料就是可供人类生产、用于满足其各种需要的元素,人类只能在自然给定的条件下进行生产劳动。这些元素通常不能直接成为生活资料,必须经过人的加工和改造,这便是对象化的过程。劳动作为人的对象化活动的基本形态,是人的本质力量及其实现的根本标志;通过劳动,人创造了一个对象性的存在,继而也就创造了一个属人的世界。然而,这个作为对象性存在的属人世界是否成为好生活的客体性条件,则既取决于人类对自身对象性存在的支配能力,更取决于人们能否创制出一种防止对象性存在成为异在性或异化性存在的政治制度。前者是普遍性问题,亦即在任何一种社会状态下,对象性存在都可能成为异己性存在;后者是特殊性问题,亦即在阶级对抗社会,异己性存在除了自然而然的对象性存在以外,还有人为要素,即私有制。资产阶级消灭了以前的异己性存在,但又把由资产阶级私有制制造的异己性存在发展为最高的、最完备的形式。当自然的和人为的、普遍的和特殊的对象性及其异在性被统合在一起,成为一个根本性的社会问题时,建构何种样式的政治制度就成为人类追求整体性好生活的根本任务。当人从人对人的依赖中摆脱出来,成为一个相对独立的存在时,却又因为资本的运行逻辑而陷入对物的依赖性之中,但在这种对物的普遍的依赖中又生成着摆脱依赖而获得自由的因素。只有既超越狭隘的、血缘的、地方性联系,又超越人对物的依赖关系,而成为整个作为对象性存在的社会关系的支配者的时候,人的全面发展才有可能。“全面发展的个人——他们的社会关系作为他们自己的共同的关系,也是服从于他们自己的共同的控制的——不是自然的产物,而是历史的产物。要使这种个性成为可能,能力的发展就要达到一定的程度和全面性,这正是以建立在交换价值基础上的生产为前提的,这种生产才在产生出个人同自己和同别人相异化的普遍性的同时,也产生出个人关系和个人能力的普遍性和全面性”[8]。这是人类的理性、历史的理性,谁将这个理性澄明出来并使之现实化,谁就完成了那个时代的伟大任务;有哪一种社会制度能够为个人自由而全面的发展提供充分必要条件,那么它就是一种体现人类和历史理性的现实事物。中国式现代化正是朝向这种现实事物的现实运动。

If Chinese-path modernization provides the external foundation, conditions, and environment for the free and all-round development of the individual, then how to live a good life as a whole depends on each person’s will, cultivation, and capacity. The good life is a holistic concept; with regard to a positive life, it is filled with responsibilities or obligations toward oneself and others. Enabling every person to obtain the conditions and environment for a good life is the responsibility of the collective and the state toward each individual, but this responsibility is reciprocal. When every person with the most basic capacity for thought and practice receives provision from others, they simultaneously generate the responsibility to provide for others. A person who reaps without sowing, who lies flat and involutes [13]13 “Lying flat” (躺平) and “involution” (内卷) are Chinese internet neologisms: the former refers to a withdrawal from competitive social pressures, the latter to futile, excessive competition within a system., who never fulfills their due obligations to others and to society, essentially has no sufficient grounds for possessing a good life, because reaping without sowing, lying flat and involuting, and selfishness cannot become a universal principle.

如果说中国式现代化为个人的自由全面发展提供着外在基础、条件和环境,那么,如何过一种整体性好生活,则要取决于每个人的意愿、素养和能力。好生活是一个整体性概念,就一个积极的人生而言,充满着朝向自身和他者的责任或义务。使每一个人拥有获得好生活的条件和环境,是集体和国家朝向每个人的责任,但这种责任是相互的,当每一个拥有最基本思考和实践能力的人获得来自他者的供给时,他同时也就产生了为他者供给的责任。一个不劳而获、躺平内卷的人,一个从不对他人和社会履行应尽义务的人,本质上是没有拥有好生活的充分根据的,因为不劳而获、躺平内卷、自私自利不可能成为一条普遍原则。

Once we have provisionally identified the ultimate good that Chinese-path modernization seeks and aims to realize, the most arduous work is to lay the ethical foundation for Chinese-path modernization in order to realize this ultimate good.

当我们把中国式现代化所欲追求和实现的终极之善,先行标示出来,最为艰苦的工作则是为实现这一终极之善而对中国式现代化进行伦理基础的奠基。

III

三

How to Lay the Moral Foundation for Chinese-Path Modernization

如何为中国式现代化进行道德基础奠基

The argumentation of the ethical foundation is the argumentation of the legitimacy foundation for any possible concept and action, that is, the search for a value foundation. To lay the moral foundation for Chinese-path modernization is to indicate whether the ultimate good toward which it points is desirable. Once this ultimate good is clearly identified, the subsequent work is to find the subjective basis and objective conditions for this modernization: the former is capacity and virtue, the latter is system and public opinion. This is the core content of laying the moral foundation.

伦理基础论证是为任何一个可能产生的观念和行动进行正当性基础论证,亦即寻找价值基础,为中国式现代化进行道德基础奠基,就是指明其所指向的终极之善是否为可欲求的,当这个终极之善被清晰地标示出来,接续的工作就是为这个现代化寻找主体性根据和客体性条件,前者是能力和德性,后者是制度与舆论。这就是道德基础奠基的核心内容。

(I) Why Chinese-Path Modernization Is a New Path

(一)中国式现代化何以是新道路

The new path of Chinese-path modernization is new in three respects. First, the basis of its original emergence is different. Unlike the modernization pioneered by the major Western countries, which developed first, from its original emergence, Western modernization began in a highly unequal manner, filled with military strikes, economic aggression, political control, and cultural colonization. When they pushed what they called Western civilization into the places they could control and dominate, they simultaneously pushed spatial injustice there. Capitalism, through the primitive accumulation of capital, is a history of exploitation and colonization written in blood and fire. “The historical movement which turns the producers into wage-workers appears, on the one hand, as their emancipation from serfdom and from the fetters of the guilds, and this side alone exists for our bourgeois historians. But, on the other hand, these new freedmen became sellers of themselves only after they had been robbed of all their own means of production, and of all the guarantees of existence afforded by the old feudal arrangements. And this history of their expropriation is written in the annals of mankind in letters of blood and fire.”[14]14 This is a quotation from Marx, *Capital*, Volume I, Part VIII, “The So-Called Primitive Accumulation.” Chinese-path modernization develops on the principle of equality and mutual benefit. Second, the development path is different. In terms of the development path, Chinese-path modernization proceeds under the premise of following the way of heaven and earth, the way of human relations, and the way of mind and nature. Third, the fundamental goal is different. Chinese-path modernization establishes the ultimate good as the fundamental goal of this modernization path: it must both uphold the principle of difference to stimulate everyone’s initiative and creativity, and uphold the principle of common prosperity, restricting power and capital within reasonable and legal limits, preventing polarization, and ensuring that everyone has the conditions and opportunities to share in the fruits of reform and opening up.

中国式现代化新道路,新在三点:一是原始发生基础不同。与由美西方主要国家主导的先行发展起来的现代化不同,从其原始发生看,美西方的现代化是以极不对等的方式开始的,其间充满着军事打击、经济侵略、政治控制和文化殖民。当它们把所谓的西方文明推进到它们所能控制和支配的地方,也就同时把空间不公正推进到那里;资本主义是通过资本的原始积累,而用血与火的文字写成的剥削史和殖民史。“使生产者转化为雇佣工人的历史运动,一方面表现为生产者从农奴地位和行会束缚下解放出来;对于我们的资产阶级历史学家来说,只有这一方面是存在的。但是,另一方面,被解放的人只有在他们被剥夺了一切生产资料和旧封建制度给予他们的一切生存保障之后,才能成为他们自身的出卖者。而对他们的这种剥夺的历史是用血和火的文字载入人类编年史的”。中国式现代化是在平等互利原则基础上发展起来。二是发展道路不同。在发展道路上,中国式现代化是在遵循天人之道、人伦之道和心性之道的前提下进行的。三是根本目标不同。中国式现代化将终极之善确立为这种现代化道路的根本目标,既要坚持差别原则以激发每个人的积极性和创造性,又坚持共同富裕原则,将权力和资本限制在合理、合法的范围内,防止两极分化,令每个人都有条件和机会分享或共享改革开放的成果。

It must be fully recognized that the new path of Chinese-path modernization does not mean breaking away from the path of the development of human civilization; it cannot sever its necessary connection with traditional Chinese civilization and human civilization. Rather, it must sublate all civilizational elements that are “no longer” and “currently” present, while also rationally and soberly recognizing that some old cultural elements that clearly do not meet the requirements of modern civilization still play a significant role in unconscious and subconscious forms. Only by continuously carrying out self-revolution can the recurrence of the historical cycle [15]15 “Historical cycle” refers to the cyclical pattern of dynastic rise and fall in Chinese history, a concept often discussed in CPC theory in relation to the need for self-revolution to avoid repeating such cycles. be truly prevented. Laying the moral foundation for Chinese-path modernization is a process of “returning to the roots and opening up the new” [16]16 “Returning to the roots and opening up the new” (返本开新) is a Chinese philosophical expression meaning to recover foundational principles while innovating for the present.; in terms of specific content, it manifests as conceptual revolution, institutional innovation, and practical exploration.

必须充分认识到,中国式现代化新道路并非要脱离人类文明发展的道路,它无法割断与中华传统文明和人类文明的必然联系,而是要扬弃一切“不再是”和“正在是”的文明元素,同时还要理性地、清醒地认识到,一些旧有的、明显不合现代文明要求的文化元素,以无意识和潜意识形式起着重要作用,只有不断实行自我革命,才能真正阻止历史周期率的发生。为中国式现代化进行道德基础奠基是一个“返本开新”的过程,就具体内容而言,表现为观念革命、制度创新和实践探索。

(II) Laying the Moral Foundation for Chinese-Path Modernization

(二)为中国式现代化进行道德基础奠基

1. Conceptual Revolution

1.观念革命

The concepts closely associated with Chinese-path modernization are scientific concepts and value concepts; the former are matters that possess logos, while the latter are matters that partake of logos. Once the ultimate good that Chinese-path modernization seeks to pursue is indicated in advance, what kind of scientific concepts and value concepts can support this modernization process? With regard to the Way of Heaven and humanity, it is necessary to reconstruct contemporary views of nature, space-time, and ecology; with regard to the Way of human relations, it is necessary to reconstruct views of wealth, efficiency, equality, rights, fairness, justice, and power; with regard to the overall good life, it is necessary to reconstruct views of morality, freedom, and happiness. The above three aspects are the basic content of reconstructing the conceptual foundation of Chinese-path modernization. These conceptual revolutions have, to varying degrees, become the conceptual foundation driving Chinese-path modernization, among which the reconstruction of political views, wealth views, and happiness views plays a more fundamental role; these three views happen to be symmetrical with the ultimate good.

与中国式现代化密切关联的观念有科学观念和价值观念,前者是拥有逻各斯的事情,后者是分有逻各斯的事项。当中国式现代化所欲追求的终极之善被先行标示出来之后,怎样的科学观念和价值观念才能支撑这个现代化过程呢?就天人之道而言,重构当代的自然观、时空观和生态观;就人伦之道而言,重构财富观、效率观、平等观、权利观、公平观、正义观、权力观;就整体性好生活而言,重构道德观、自由观和幸福观。以上三个方面是重构中国式现代化之观念基础的基本内容。这些观念的革命不同程度地成为推动中国式现代化的观念基础,其中,重构政治观、财富观和幸福观则更具有根本性的作用,此三种观念恰好与终极之善具有对称性。

(1) The reconstruction of political views plays a primary role. As humanity’s productive capacity increases, humanity’s transformative effect on nature, society, and itself correspondingly strengthens, and the risks and crises thereby caused grow with each passing day. On the path to resolving these various crises and difficulties, the role of politics becomes ever greater. For this reason, it is necessary to reconstruct a political concept compatible with contemporary human civilization. There are two ways of defining political concepts: technicism and essentialism. The technicist definition equates politics with political power, that is, politics is the art of acquiring political power; thus politics becomes power tactics and power scheming, which is a deeply entrenched political view. Under this concept, the ultimate purpose of acquiring political power is not included within the definition, which opens up a space of possibility for using political power to satisfy personal domination and obtain extra benefits; and, with regard to humanity’s innate desire for possession and domination, using political power to satisfy egoistic ends has a “human nature basis.” A fundamental sign of human development and social progress is the formation and development of political civilization, and the proof of this progress is the formation of a universal political concept, which is the essentialist concept of politics. A politics oriented toward the ultimate good can be defined as follows: politics is all aspects related to the fundamental interests of each person. By fundamental interests is meant the basis and conditions for a person to obtain a good life, namely the right to existence, the right to property, and the right to freedom; by all aspects is meant political concepts, political institutions, and political action. Politics does not directly create a value system oriented toward the ultimate good, but rather realizes the ultimate good through the rational division and proper exercise of political power; therefore, it can be said that politics is precisely the rational limitation and full utilization of political power, a value system higher than power. If Chinese-path modernization is to realize the overall good life for each person that it desires, it must construct a value system that transcends political power. As a virtue, those who possess and exercise political power and public office have sufficient self-restraint and temperance, limiting egoistic motives under the public will; this is a moral virtue and an intellectual virtue. But this self-restraint and temperance is insufficient to completely block egoistic motives; it is also necessary to construct an institutional system with sufficient incentive and punitive force, so that the cost of breaching contract exceeds the gain from breaching contract, and the binding force of the institution will then be guaranteed. On the path of advancing Chinese-path modernization, reconstructing political concepts and perfecting political institutions remains a long and arduous task.

(1)重构政治观具有首要作用。随着人类生产能力的提升,人对自然、社会和自身的改造作用随之增强,由此而造成的风险与危机与日俱增,在解决诸种危机与难题的道路上,政治的作用愈来愈大。为此,就必须重构一种与当代人类文明相匹配的政治观念。政治观念有两种定义方式,即技术主义和本质主义。技术主义的定义方式是将政治等同于政治权力,即政治是获得政治权力的技艺,于是政治就是权术、权谋,便是一种根深蒂固的政治观。在这种概念之下,获得政治权力的终极目的是什么并不在概念的界定之内,这就为将政治权力用于个人之支配的满足、额外利益的获得提供了可能性空间;而就人的自在的占有和支配欲望而言,将政治权力用于利己目的的满足有着“人性基础”。人的发展和社会进步的一个根本性标志就是政治文明的形成和发展,而证明这一进步的标志就是形成一种普遍的政治观念,这就是本质主义的政治概念。一种朝向终极之善的政治可以这样来定义:政治是相关于每个人之根本利益的所有方面。所谓根本利益,就是令一个人获得好生活的基础和条件,即生存权、财产权和自由权;所谓所有方面,就是政治观念、政治制度和政治行动。政治并不直接创造朝向终极之善的价值体系,而是通过合理分割和正当使用政治权力来实现终极之善,因此可以说,政治恰恰是对政治权力的合理限制和充分运用,是高于权力的价值体系。中国式现代化如要实现它所欲求的每个人的整体性好生活,就必须构建超越政治权力的价值体系。作为一种德性,拥有且行使政治权力和公共职权的人群拥有足够的自制和节制能力,将利己的动机限制在公共意志之下,这是一种道德德性和理智德性,但这种自制和节制不足以完全阻止利己动机,还需构建具有足够激励和惩罚效力的制度系统,使违约成本高于违约所得,制度的约束效力就会得到保证。在推进中国式现代化的道路上,重建政治观念、完善政治制度,依然任重而道远。

(2) The reconstruction of wealth views has universal social significance. People always think that possessing unlimited material wealth to satisfy needs such as food, clothing, housing, and transportation will bring happiness or even well-being; humanity also has a primitive impulse to devote the main or even all of its energy to the production of material means of subsistence, and the modernization driven by the operational logic of capital has developed humanity’s desire for the possession and domination of things to an unprecedented degree. This is precisely the basic aspect of modernization promoted and dominated by the major Western countries. The wealth that Chinese-path modernization seeks is a system oriented toward the overall good life of people; under the guidance of humanity’s belief in the free and comprehensive development of the individual, it must rationally lay out the production sphere and effectively distribute human labor. For this reason, it is necessary to reconstruct a wealth view with the nature of modern civilization.

(2)重建财富观具有普遍的社会意义。人们总以为,拥有了无限的满足衣食住行用等物质需要的财富,就会获得快乐乃至幸福;人类也总有一种原始冲动,将主要甚至全部精力用于物质生活资料的生产,由资本的运行逻辑所导致的现代化又把人们对物的占有和支配欲望发展到了前所未有的程度。这正是由美西方主要国家所推动和主导的现代化的基本面相。中国式现代化所欲求的财富是朝向人的整体性好生活的体系,它要在人的自由而全面发展这一人类的信念指导下,合理布局生产领域,有效分配人类劳动,为此必须重构一种具有现代文明性质的财富观。

First, material wealth. Without basic material wealth, neither individuals nor the species can live an overall good life. “The first premise of all human existence and, therefore, of all history, the premise, namely, that men must be in a position to live in order to be able to ‘make history.’ But life involves before everything else eating and drinking, a habitation, clothing and many other things. The first historical act is thus the production of the means to satisfy these needs, the production of material life itself. And indeed this is an historical act, a fundamental condition of all history, which today, as thousands of years ago, must daily and hourly be fulfilled merely in order to sustain human life.” [17]17 Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, *The German Ideology* (1845–1846). The quotation is from the first chapter, where Marx and Engels establish the primacy of material production as the foundation of history. The human activity of creating material means of subsistence, as sensuous activity, constitutes the foundation of the sensuous world. “This activity, this continuous sensuous labour and creation, this production, is the foundation of the whole sensuous world as it now exists.” [18]18 Ibid. This sentence continues Marx and Engels’ argument that sensuous, material labor is the basis of the entire existing sensuous world. Therefore, creating increasingly abundant material wealth remains a basic requirement of Chinese-path modernization.

一是物质财富。没有基本的物质财富,于个体和类而言,无法过一种整体性好生活。“我们首先应当确定一切人类生存的第一个前提,也就是一切历史的第一个前提,这个前提是:人们为了能够‘创造历史’,必须能够生活。但是为了生活,首先就需要吃喝住穿以及其他一些东西。因此,第一个历史活动就是生产满足这些需要的资料,即生产物质生活本身,而且,这是人们从几千年前直到今天单是为了维持生活就必须每日每时从事的历史活动,是一切历史的基本条件”。人类创造物质生活资料的活动,作为感性活动,构成了感性世界的基础。“这种活动、这种连续不断的感性劳动和创造、这种生产,正是整个现存的感性世界的基础”。因此,创造日益丰富的物质财富,仍然是中国式现代化基本要求。

Second, social wealth. The sensuous activity used to produce the means to satisfy material needs has never been a single or exclusive productive activity; the laborers engaged in material production have consciousness, emotions, and will, and humanity must also specially produce the values used to maintain social order and satisfy spiritual needs—this is social production and spiritual production. As productive capacity increases, the relations of production and the social relations determined by them also become increasingly complex. To ensure that everyone can produce, interact, and live under predictable conditions, people must produce social order, and the foundation for maintaining social order is precisely people’s consciousness, concepts, and thought; under the guidance of consciousness and concepts, humanity creates customs, habits, conventions, family rules, clan rules, village rules, and township covenants, which are the standardized forms of production, interaction, and life. As public order and good customs, they enable people’s production and life to have a self-governing character; people do not need to seek state intervention but can rely on “civil” forces to maintain daily interaction and life. This is the basic value logic of an orderly society. If this basic value logic is deconstructed or replaced, the entire social order will fall into crisis. The reproduction of public reason, public consciousness, and public order is the most important form of wealth, which can be called social wealth. Social wealth satisfies people’s social needs; needs such as mutual recognition, identification, praise, mutual assistance, and respect among people must all be satisfied in orderly social interaction. If Chinese-path modernization can construct a relatively complete system of social order in the public sphere between the family and the state, forming a complete system of civic ethics, then it will not only reconstruct a new type of wealth view but also gradually cultivate civic ethics and public reason, making them genuine social wealth. The use of sentiment, emotion, opinion, and common sense for social management has proven to be full of contingency and therefore a risky method; only by implementing public will through public reason in all areas and levels of social management can a universal and sustained social order be constructed and operated. Therefore, it can be said that while abundant material wealth is created, how to create substantial social wealth becomes the fundamental task of Chinese-path modernization.

二是社会财富。用于生产满足物质需要的感性活动从来就不是单一的或唯一的生产活动,进行物质生产的劳动者是有意识、情感和意志的,而且人类还要专门生产用以维护社会秩序和满足精神需要的价值物,这就是社会生产和精神生产。随着生产能力的提高,生产关系以及由此决定的社会关系也越来越复杂,为保证每个人能够在可预期的条件下进行生产、交往和生活,人们就必须生产社会秩序,而维系社会秩序的基础正是人们的意识、观念和思想;在意识和观念的支配下,人类创造出风俗、习惯、惯例、家规、族规、村规和乡约,它们是生产、交往和生活的规范化形式。作为公序良俗,使得人们的生产、生活具有了自治的性质,人们无须求得国家的干预,便可依照“民间”力量维系日常交往和生活,这是一个社会有序运转的基本价值逻辑。如果基本价值逻辑被解构、被替代,那么整个社会的秩序就会陷入危机。公共理性、公共意识和公共秩序的再生产,是最为重要的财富,可称之为社会财富。社会财富满足的是人们的社会性需要,人们之间的相互承认、认同、赞美、互助、尊重等需要都要在有序的社会交往中加以满足。中国式现代化如能在介于家庭和国家之间的公共领域中构造出一个相对完整的社会秩序系统,形成完整的公民伦理体系,则不但重构了一种新型的财富观,而且将公民伦理、公共理性逐渐培养起来,成为真正的社会财富。用于创造具有一定自治效力的社会规范体系,在日益复杂化和冲突化的境遇之下,也越来越由传统的“机械团结”转向充分且公开运用理性的“有机团结”。以情结、情绪、意见和常识进行社会管理被证明是充满偶然性,因而是充满风险的方式,只有依照公共理性将公共意志贯彻到社会管理的各个领域和各个层面,一个普遍而持续的社会秩序才能被构造出来、运行起来。因此可以说,当丰富多彩的物质财富被创造出来,如何创造出厚重的社会财富,就成为中国式现代化的根本任务。

Third, spiritual wealth. Creating increasingly abundant spiritual wealth has ultimate significance for a holistic good life. Any thoughts, actions, and their results related to creating, distributing, and enjoying value can be called culture, but not all culture points toward ultimate goodness, nor does it all originate from or conform to the Way of Heaven and humanity, the Way of human relations, and the Way of mind and nature. Civilization is the excellent part of culture. Chinese-path modernization cannot proceed at a low or crude level merely within the category of culture; it should be more conducive to stimulating people’s initiative and creativity to create spiritual wealth that satisfies people’s needs for belief, knowledge, emotion, and will, and, moreover, to create political civilization that serves as the conceptual and institutional foundation for national governance and social management. If we say that the spiritual products created to meet people’s spiritual needs, as well as the religion, law, morality, literature, and art created to maintain social order, are the objectified existence of the objectification of human essential forces, then people’s moral virtue and intellectual virtue are the subjective forms of human civilization; they are the source of human civilization. Without a full and rich spiritual world in people, it is impossible to create rich and diverse spiritual products. The reason Chinese-path modernization transcends both the one-sided development of Western modernization and its own original social structure and living conditions lies in its construction of a social conceptual system and social institutional system that coordinates material needs, social needs, and spiritual needs; it transcends the one-directional development state of modernization movements that are immersed in the satisfaction of material desires and unable to ascend to the pursuit of spiritual realms, and also transcends the social state that leads people’s spiritual pursuits into “spiritual illusions” dominated by the will to power.

三是精神财富。创造日益丰富的精神财富,对整体性好生活而言,具有终极意义。人们的任何一种与创造价值、分配价值和享用价值有关的思考与行动及其成果都可以称之为文化,但并非所有的文化都指向终极之善,都出于或合于天人之道、人伦之道和心性之道。文明是文化中的优秀部分,中国式现代化不能只在文化的范畴之内低水平或在粗糙的水平上进行,它应该更有利于激发人们的积极性和创造性,去创造用于满足人们信知情意需要的精神财富,更要创造出作为国家治理和社会管理之观念和制度基础的政治文明。如果说为满足人的精神需要而创造出的精神产品以及为维持社会秩序所创造出的宗教、法律、道德、文学、艺术,是人的本质力量对象化的对象性存在,那么人的道德德性和理智德性则是人类文明的主体形态,它们是人类文明的源泉,缺少了人的饱满而丰富的精神世界便不可能创造出丰富多彩的精神产品来。中国式现代化之所以超越了西方片面发展的现代化,又超越了自己原有的社会结构和生活状态,就在于它构造了一个物质需要、社会需要和精神需要协调发展的社会观念系统和社会制度体系;超越了沉浸物欲满足而无法升迁于精神境界的追求这一现代化运动的单向发展状态,也超越了将人们的精神追求引向权力意志支配下的“精神幻象”之中的社会状态。

(3) Constructing a modern view of happiness is a matter related to everyone. People can discuss happiness at the level of metaphilosophy, that is, happiness as ontology, epistemology, and axiology. Although happiness in the ontological sense is fundamental, happiness as epistemology often precedes the sense of happiness; indeed, how one views happiness and how one understands happiness often guide people’s sense of happiness. In an individual’s life cycle, whether due to traumatic or singular experiences caused by individual events, or traumatic experiences of a generation caused by historical events of the species, individuals may form distorted views of happiness, such as a pathological attachment to power, money, and reproduction, thereby forming a “complex” that accompanies them throughout their lives; these “complexes,” in the forms of the unconscious, subconscious, and conscious, and in irrational and rational ways, determine an individual’s thinking, judgment, choices, and emotions. In the modernization movement, when power, capital, knowledge, and reproduction are organically integrated, the desire to possess and dominate power, money, and reproduction will be stimulated as never before; if one believes that possessing power and capital means possessing everything and attaining happiness, then a mainstream but problematic view of happiness will emerge. Under the domination of such a view of happiness, a prevalent individualism, egoism, hedonism, and materialism will flourish, making it extremely difficult to live a moderate life as advocated by the ancient sages. The view of happiness in the Chinese-path modernization movement should be one of values that coordinate the development of material needs, social needs, and spiritual needs; it should be a view of happiness based on moral virtue and intellectual virtue, unifying contribution and desert, and aligning obligation and right.

(3)构建现代幸福观是与每一个人相关的事情。人们可以在元哲学的意义上探讨幸福,即作为存在论、认识论和价值论的幸福。虽然存在论意义上的幸福是根本性的,但作为认识论的幸福则常常先行于幸福感而发生,甚至如何看待幸福、如何认识幸福常常牵引着人们的幸福感。在个体的生命周期中,或因为个体性的事件而造成的创伤性或奇异性体验,或因为类的历史事件造成一代人的创伤性体验,都可能导致个体形成扭曲的幸福观,如对权力、金钱和生殖产生病理学意义上的执着,从而形成伴随其一生的“情结”;这些“情结”以无意识、潜意识和意识的形式,以非理性和理性的方式决定着个体的思维、判断、选择和情绪。在现代化运动中,当权力、资本、知识、生殖被有机地整合在一起的时候,一种朝向权力、金钱、生殖的占有和支配欲望就会被前所未有地激发起来;若是以为拥有了权力和资本便拥有了一切,获得了幸福,那么一种主流形态的但却是成问题的幸福观就会产生。在此种幸福观的支配下,一种普遍的个人主义、利己主义、享乐主义和物质主义价值观就盛行起来,为先哲所倡导的过一种有节制的生活就变得极为困难。中国式现代化运动中的幸福观,应该是物质需要、社会需要和精神需要协同发展的价值观,应该是以道德德性和理智德性为基础的付出与应得相统一、义务与权利相一致的幸福观。

2. Institutional Innovation

2.制度创新

From the perspective of new institutional economics, the Western modernization movement that began in the second half of the 15th century, although involving technological innovation, scientific progress, and intellectual leaps, was fundamentally an institutional revolution. Institutional innovation presupposes conceptual revolution. Whether scientific concepts or value concepts, they usually exist in the form of thought and consciousness before institutions emerge, and institutions are merely the standardized forms of concepts; in other words, institutions transform concepts or ideas into operational procedures, orders, articles, and propositions. Regarding the functions of institutions, the following complex situations can be identified:

在新制度经济学看来,起始于15世纪下半叶的西方现代化运动,虽然有技术的创新、科学的进步和思想的飞越,但最为根本的则是制度革命。制度创新是以观念革命为前提的,无论是科学观念还是价值观念,通常都在制度产生之前以思维和意识的形式存在着,而制度不过是观念的规范化形式;进言之,制度是把观念或概念改造成具有操作性的程序、秩序、条文和命题。就制度的功能而言,可以有如下复杂情况:

(1) Institutional designs oriented toward ultimate goodness and instrumental goodness follow different lines of thought and paths. If institutional designs oriented toward ultimate goodness are lacking or lost, then no matter how good the institutional designs oriented toward instrumental goodness are, they are meaningless; the concepts and behaviors of bureaucratism and formalism are concentrated manifestations of this situation. If institutional arrangements oriented toward ultimate goodness are already clearly considered, but the institutional designs for instrumental goodness do not point toward or are not conducive to realizing ultimate goodness, then such institutional designs are false.

(1)朝向终极之善和手段之善的制度设计具有不同的思维和道路。如若缺少了或丢失了朝向终极之善的制度设计,再好的朝向手段之善的制度设计也都是没有意义的,官僚主义和形式主义的观念和行为正是这种情形的集中表现。如若已经明确地顾及朝向终极之善的制度安排,但其手段之善的制度设计却并不指向或不有利于实现终极之善,那么这种制度设计则具有虚假性。

(2) The issue of unity between incentive institutions and coordinating institutions. So-called incentive institutional design refers to a situation where it establishes each person’s gain and desert as the primary motive for individual or organizational action. Any social change oriented toward ultimate goodness presupposes stimulating individual initiative and creativity. To confine this stimulation and excitation within legal and reasonable bounds, it is necessary to simultaneously construct a binding system of coordinating institutions to prevent universal egoistic behavior.

(2)激励性制度和协调性制度之间的统一性问题。所谓激励性制度设计是指这样一种情形,它将每一个人的所得、应得确立为个体或组织行动的首要动机。任何一种朝向终极之善的社会变革都是以激发个体的积极性和创造性为前提的,要将这种激励和激发限制在合法和合理的范围内,就必须同时构建出具有约束力的协调性制度系统,以防止普遍利己主义行为。

(3) Institutional designs for creating wealth and distributing wealth must correctly handle the relationship between efficiency-based fairness and humanity-based fairness. Common prosperity is both a teleological concept and a functional concept. As a teleological concept, common prosperity is a fundamental requirement of the socialist system; that every person has the conditions, opportunities, and willingness to live a holistic good life is the ultimate goal of Chinese-path modernization. However, common prosperity is essentially not absolute equal distribution. According to the distribution principle of more pay for more work and better pay for better work, people in marginal positions cannot obtain opportunities for complex and mental labor—not because they are lazy, but because they lack the conditions and opportunities for such labor. Therefore, according to the principle of fair distribution, they cannot obtain more wealth and resources. If the entire society has not yet formed a mechanism for self-regulating resource distribution, such as concepts and actions based on the virtues of compassion and charity, then power, capital, knowledge, status, identity, opportunity, and luck will accumulate continuously among those in strong positions, leading to serious polarization. From economic equality, through social equality and political equality, and finally ascending to personality equality—this inverted logic of equality is a problem that Chinese-path modernization inevitably faces and must reasonably resolve.

(3)用于创造财富和分配财富的制度设计必须正确处理好效率意义的公平与人道意义的公平之间的关系。共同富裕既是一个目的概念又是一个功能概念,作为目的概念,共同富裕是社会主义制度的根本要求,每一个人都有条件、机会和意愿过一种整体性的好生活,就是中国式现代化的终极目标,然而,共同富裕本质上不是绝对平均分配,根据多劳多得、优劳优酬这一分配原则,处于边缘地位的人群就无法获得从事复杂劳动和脑力劳动的机会,并非他们懒惰而是因为没有从事复杂劳动和脑力劳动的条件和机会,那么根据公平分配原则,他们就无法获得更多的财富和资源。如若整个社会尚未形成自行调节资源分配的机制,如基于同情和慈善之德性之上的观念和行动,那么,权力、资本、知识、地位、身份、机会和运气就会在处于强势地位的人群那里持续积累,以致成严重的两极分化。从经济平等经由社会平等和政治平等,最终提升到人格平等,这种倒叙的平等逻辑是中国式现代化所必然面临的、必须合理解决的问题。

(4) Constructing a self-restraining institution oriented toward the self constitutes the fundamental issue of institutional innovation. Possessing and exercising political power and public authority is undoubtedly a fundamental matter of Chinese-path modernization. The development and utilization of resources, and the creation and distribution of wealth, are all determined by the distribution and exercise of political power and public authority. We cannot guarantee that every person holding power has the original aspiration and founding mission oriented toward public value. [19]19 “Original aspiration and founding mission” (初心使命) is a key In the face of the temptation of power, the role of the virtues of self-control and moderation is limited. If all hope is placed on the promises of power holders and users, then, as facts have shown, this is often an unreliable promise. Therefore, it is necessary to construct an institutional arrangement that organically combines self-restraint with restraint by others (public opinion). An institutional design and arrangement that deviates from the values of justice, equality, fairness, democracy, and freedom may not only render the entire society inefficient but also cause the accumulation of power, capital, knowledge, status, identity, opportunity, and luck among a minority—this is the situation of growth without development.

(4)构造一个朝向自我的约束制度,构成了制度创新的根本性问题。拥有且行使政治权力和公共职权无疑是中国式现代化的根本事项,资源的开发和利用、财富的创造和分配无不决定政治权力和公共职权的分配与运用;我们无法保证任何一个拥有权力的人都有朝向公共价值的初心和使命,在权力的诱惑面前,自制和节制之德性的作用是有限度的,如果将整个希望都建立在权力拥有者和使用者承诺之上,那么,事实证明,这常常是一个靠不住的承诺。为此,就必须构建一个自我约束与他者约束(社会舆论)有机结合的制度安排。一个偏离正义、平等、公平、民主、自由价值的制度设计和安排,既有可能造成整个社会无效率,也可能造成权力、资本、知识、地位、身份、机会和运气在少数人那里积累的后果,这就是有增长而无发展那种情形。

It must be pointed out: Inquiring into and pursuing the ethical foundation of Chinese-path modernization actions must adhere to the principles of holism, complexity, and conflict; concepts and institutions are complex and conflicting, and value creation and cost, opportunity and risk coexist; all difficulties, predicaments, and problems must be correctly understood and reasonably resolved through repeated practical exploration.

必须指出的是:追问和追寻中国式现代化行动的伦理基础,必须坚持整体性、复杂性和冲突性原则;观念和制度是复杂的、冲突的,创价与代价、机遇与风险是并存的;所有的困难、困境、难题都要在反复进行的实践探索中得到正确认识和合理解决。

Source: *Theoretical Investigation*, Issue 3, 2023

文章来源：《理论探讨》2023年第3期

Online Editor: Jing Mu

网络编辑：静穆