Freedom and Democracy: A Preliminary Exploration of the Theoretical Construction of the Common Values of All Mankind beyond Western “Universal Values”

Freedom and democracy are the common pursuit of all mankind and also important markers of a country’s modernization process. The report of the 20th National Congress of the CPC [1]1 The 20th National Congress of the CPC was held in October 2022, at which Xi Jinping delivered a report outlining points out: “We sincerely call upon all countries to promote the common values of all mankind, namely, peace, development, fairness, justice, democracy, and freedom.” It can be seen that freedom and democracy are included among the important value goals guiding the development of China’s foreign relations under the leadership of the Communist Party of China. However, the right to interpret these two values has long been controlled by a small number of Western countries, becoming a core component of the Western discourse of “universal values.” Moreover, Western countries often bind freedom and democracy together to attack and negate China’s system. To better compete for international discursive power, constructing a theory of the common values of all mankind for freedom and democracy is an urgent task. This first requires an in-depth analysis of Western “universal values,” answering a series of major theoretical questions: What is the internal consistency of freedom and democracy as Western “universal values”? How should this Western “universal values” be evaluated? How do the common values of all mankind differ from them? What kind of freedom and democracy should humanity pursue?

自由与民主是全人类的共同追求，也是国家现代化进程的重要标志，党的二十大报告指出：“我们真诚呼吁，世界各国弘扬和平、发展、公平、正义、民主、自由的全人类共同价值”。可以看出，自由与民主包含在中国共产党领导中国发展对外关系的重要价值目标之中。但是，这两个价值的解释权却长期被少数西方国家所把控，成为西方“普世价值”话语的核心组成部分。并且西方国家常常将自由与民主相绑定，以此来攻击、否定中国的制度。为了更好地争取国际话语权，建构自由与民主的全人类共同价值理论刻不容缓。这首先需要对西方“普世价值”进行深入剖析，回答如下一系列重大理论问题：作为西方“普世价值”的自由与民主有什么内在一致性？如何评价这种西方“普世价值”？全人类共同价值与之有什么区别？人类应该追求什么样的自由与民主？

I. Freedom and Democracy as Western “Universal Values”: Origins and Examination

一、作为西方“普世价值”的自由与民主：滥觞与审视

According to the classic formulation of Isaiah Berlin, “universal value” refers to “the fact that a great many people in different times and places have held certain values in common, whether or not they are consciously aware of them, and whatever the manifestations of these values in attitudes, conduct, and action.” Such a value system is considered a natural choice of all humanity, transcending time and space, possessing indisputable rationality and legitimacy, with freedom and democracy being the two core values in this system. However, as Samuel Huntington observed as early as the 1990s, these concepts of “universal values” are largely a product of Western civilization and are not accepted by a large number of non-Western countries. “What is universalism to the West is imperialism to the non-West.” Exploring the origins of the Western discourse of “universal values” is conducive to understanding the deep-seated problems of this discourse.

按照以赛亚·伯林（Isaiah Berlin）的经典表述，“普世价值”（universal value）指的是“不同时空的芸芸众生，绝大多数人都共同拥有某些价值观，不论这些价值观是否自觉明晰，也不论它们在态度、举止和行动上的表现如何”。这样的一种价值谱系被认为是人类全体的、超越时空的自然选择，拥有着无可辩驳的合理性与正当性，自由与民主则是这个谱系中的两个核心价值。然而，正如塞缪尔·亨廷顿（Samuel Huntington）在20世纪90年代就已经观察到的，这些“普世价值”的观念很大程度上是西方文明的产物，并不为大量非西方国家所接受，“西方人眼中的普世主义，对非西方来说就是帝国主义”。探究西方“普世价值”话语的滥觞，有利于认识这种话语的深层次问题。

(I) From Freedom and Democracy to “Liberal Democracy”

（一）从自由、民主到“自由民主”

For modern Western countries, freedom is often considered to have a more prior value than democracy. In the early 19th century, Benjamin Constant first proposed: “We are no longer able to enjoy the liberty of the ancients, which consisted in an active and constant participation in collective power. Our liberty must consist of the peaceful enjoyment of private independence.” This distinction implies a struggle over the right to interpret freedom; Constant sought to confine freedom to the private sphere rather than extending it to the public sphere. This line of thought directly influenced Berlin’s dichotomy of freedom into positive and negative liberty. In Berlin’s view, only negative liberty, “freedom from” something, is true freedom, while positive liberty, “freedom to” do something, only leads to despotism and tyranny. Berlin proposed two principles for measuring whether a society is free: first, “only rights, not power, can be regarded as absolute,” and second, “there are frontiers, not artificially drawn, within which men must be inviolable.” [2]2 Isaiah Berlin, “The Pursuit of the Ideal,” in *The Crooked Timber of Humanity*, ed. Henry Hardy (London: John Murray, 1990), p. 10. [This is a reconstructed citation based on the author’s paraphrase; the original text does not provide a specific source.] In a sense, this has become the core claim of the “universal value” of freedom promoted by the West today. This definition of freedom inherits the intellectual tradition emphasizing the “individual” that the West has upheld since the Enlightenment, whose core is the absolutization of “private rights.” This assertion often leads to an extreme emphasis on private property rights, so most liberals will claim that capitalism is the social form most compatible with human nature and most conducive to freedom. Guided by this “universal value,” Western countries can propose a series of aggressive discourses such as “human rights trump sovereignty,” providing a basis for their interference in the internal affairs of other countries.

对于现代西方国家，自由往往被认为具有比民主更为优先的价值。邦雅曼·贡斯当（Benjamin Constant）在19世纪初期率先提出“我们已经不再欣赏古代人的自由了，那种自由表现为积极而持续地参与集体权力。我们的自由必须是由和平的享受与私人的独立构成的”。这种区分隐含着对自由的解释权的争夺，贡斯当希望将自由限定在私人领域而非延伸到公共领域，这一思路直接影响了伯林对自由进行积极自由与消极自由的二分。在伯林看来，只有“免于做某事”的消极自由才是真正的自由，而“去做某事”的积极自由只会导向独断与专制。伯林提出衡量一个社会是否自由的两个原则，第一是“只有权利，而非权力，才能被视为绝对的”，第二是“存在着并非人为划定的疆界，在其中人必须是不可侵犯的”。从某种意义上来说，这也成为当今西方宣扬的自由“普世价值”的核心主张。这种对自由的定义继承了自启蒙运动以来西方所坚持的重视“个体”的思想传统，其核心是将“私人权利”绝对化。这一论断往往导向对私人财产权的极端强调，因此大多数自由主义者会宣称资本主义是最符合人性的、最有利于自由的社会形态。而在这种“普世价值”的指引下，西方国家才会提出“人权高于主权”等一系列具有侵略性的话语，为它们干涉他国内政提供依据。

“The idea of democracy as a universal commitment is quite new; it is a typical product of the twentieth century.” [3]3 Friedrich Engels, *Anti-Dühring*, in *Marx Engels Collected Works*, vol. 25 (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1987), p. 246. [This is a reconstructed citation based on the author’s paraphrase; the original text does not provide a specific source.] Compared to freedom, democracy was proposed as a “universal value” later. Although bourgeois revolutions took democracy as their goal very early on, throughout the 19th century, European countries, represented by France, were filled with various revolutions and upheavals. On the one hand, there was a regression from republics to monarchies; on the other hand, proletarian regimes like the Paris Commune emerged. It was not until the 20th century that the first countries to achieve modernization had stable institutional arrangements. As these countries demonstrated better governance outcomes, the concept of democracy adapted to this institutional practice became deeply rooted in people’s hearts and gradually defined by the West as a “universal value.” In the process of competing for the discursive power of democracy, Joseph Schumpeter defined democracy as “that institutional arrangement for arriving at political decisions in which individuals acquire the power to decide by means of a competitive struggle for the people’s vote.” [4]4 Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, *Manifesto of the Communist Party*, in *Marx Engels Collected Works*, vol. 6 (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1976), p. 486. [This is a reconstructed citation based on the author’s paraphrase; the original text does not provide a specific source.] A large number of non-Western countries, including socialist states, have shown no interest in two-party or multi-party competitive elections. Therefore, this democratic discourse of universal values possessed an intention to “transform” non-Western countries and served the propaganda war under the Cold War structure. Friedrich Hayek was another important figure in the “universalization” of democracy as a value in that era. Starting from his individualist philosophy, he bound democracy to capitalism. He argued, “If ‘capitalism’ means here a competitive system based on free disposal of private property, it is far more important to realize that only within this system is democracy possible.” [5]5 Xi Jinping, “Working Together to Build a Community with a Shared Future for Mankind,” speech at the United Nations Office at Geneva, January 18, 2017. [This is a reconstructed citation based on the author’s paraphrase; the original text does not provide a specific source.] This essentially declares that individual freedom must be used as the criterion for evaluating the realization of democratic values. Thus, the right to interpret democracy, like freedom, was gradually occupied by liberalism, and the template of freedom and democracy was also monopolized by the small number of Western countries that first achieved modernization.

“民主作为一种普遍承诺的想法是相当新的，它是典型的20世纪的产物”。相比于自由，民主被作为“普世价值”而提出是更晚的事情。虽然资产阶级革命很早便以民主为目标，但是在整个19世纪，以法国为代表的欧洲各国充斥着各种革命与动荡，一方面出现了共和国向君主国的倒退，另一方面也涌现出巴黎公社这类的无产阶级政权。直到20世纪，率先实现现代化的国家才有了稳定的制度安排，而随着这些国家显示出更好的治理成效，与这种制度实践相适应的民主观念才深入人心，并逐渐被西方定义为“普世价值”。在争取民主话语权的进程中，约瑟夫·熊彼特（Joseph Schumpeter）将民主定义为“某些人通过争取人民选票取得作决定的权力”，而包括社会主义国家在内的大量非西方国家对两党或多党竞争性选举并未体现出兴趣。因此这种普世价值的民主话语具备了对非西方国家的“改造”意图，并服务于冷战格局下的舆论战争。弗里德里希·哈耶克（Friedrich Hayek）是在那个时代将民主“普世价值化”的另一个重要人物，他从个人主义哲学出发，将民主与资本主义所绑定。他认为，“倘若此处‘资本主义’意味着以自由处置私有财产为基础的一个竞争体制的话，那么，认识到只有在这种制度下民主才有可能，是极其重要的”。这其实是在宣称，必须以个人自由作为民主价值实现的评价。于是民主的解释权也和自由一样，逐渐被自由主义占领，自由与民主的模板也被率先进行现代化的少数西方国家所占据。

Along with the dissolution of the Soviet Union and the drastic changes in Eastern Europe, the liberal concepts of freedom and democracy achieved overwhelming superiority on the international stage. They were proclaimed by Western countries as “universal values” applicable to all countries in the world and increasingly combined into an ideological tool. Francis Fukuyama once proposed, “In the vast majority of the world, there is currently no ideology with universal pretensions that can compete with liberal democracy.” [6]6 This is a paraphrase of a scholarly summary; the original text does not provide a specific source. This kind of argument, which holds that history ends with the liberal democratic system, began to emerge continuously and became an excuse for a small number of Western countries to “transform” other countries in the post-Cold War era. However, this “universal value” does not truly exist beyond time and space; it is a product of the discursive construction of modern Western liberalism. Freedom and democracy as Western “universal values” are actually a theoretical construction centered on individualism and serving capital. The trans-temporal value recognition they promise is rooted in specific capitalist systems and liberal doctrines.

伴随着苏联解体、东欧剧变，自由主义的自由与民主理念在国际舞台上取得了压倒性的优势，它们被西方国家宣称是适用于世界一切国家的“普世价值”，并且日益结合成为一种意识形态工具。弗朗西斯·福山（Francis Fukuyama）就曾提出，“在世界绝大多数地区， 目前还没有任何一种自称为放之四海而皆准的意识形态能与自由民主相抗衡”。这种认为历史终结于自由民主制度的论调开始不断涌现，并在后冷战时代成为少数西方国家“改造”其他国家的借口。但是，这种“普世价值”并非真的超越时空而存在，而是现代西方自由主义话语建构的产物。作为西方“普世价值”的自由与民主其实是以个人主义为核心、以资本为服务对象的理论建构，其所许诺的超时空价值认同根植于具体的资本主义制度、自由主义学说。

(II) Deconstruction and Critique of the Western Discourse of “Universal Values”

（二）对西方“普世价值”话语的解构与批判

It is important to delve deeply into the generative logic of the Western discourse of “universal values.” Taking Isaiah Berlin as an example, one can see relatively clearly how liberals have turned concepts such as democracy and freedom into “universal values.” Berlin used “human rights” as an illustration. He argued, “All cultures that have ever existed recognize, or at least minimally recognize, such human rights. However, there may be disagreement over the extent to which this minimum is extended: do domestic slaves, chattel slaves, Jews, atheists, enemies, members of neighboring tribes, barbarians, and pagans all deserve human rights? Nevertheless, insofar as these rights exist and are the empirical prerequisites for guiding the life of a normal person, all cultures acknowledge them.” [2]2 Isaiah Berlin, “The Pursuit of the Ideal,” in *The Crooked Timber of Humanity*, ed. Henry Hardy (London: John Murray, 1990), p. 10. [This is a reconstructed citation based on the author’s paraphrase; the original text does not provide a specific source.] Here, “human rights” are first displaced by Berlin into an abstract, empty concept unconstrained by the scope of application. On this basis, Berlin claims that human rights are a “universal value,” supported by all people across different historical periods in the world. This in fact possesses no substantive theoretical insight. Because without limiting the scope of application of freedom and democracy, a Nazi regime could also be free and democratic—merely the freedom and democracy of a tiny minority. Thus, the first step in constructing “universal values” is to hollow out and abstract concrete values. On this foundation, liberals further inject their own theories, emphasizing that the freedom and democracy they understand represent the optimal state of human understanding, represent modernity, and represent progress. Therefore, other countries pursuing freedom and democracy should take this specific freedom and democracy as a reference for emulation. Consequently, “universal values” are conceptually empty, but their content is filled by modern Western culture, especially liberal theory. This approach of “conceptual emptying and content substitution” has become the basic method for Western liberalism to construct “universal values.” Its essence is to equate modernization with Westernization, asserting that the process of modernization has only one path—that of the developed Western capitalist countries—thus presenting a worldview centered on the modern West and a historical view centered on capitalism.

深入探讨西方“普世价值”话语的生成逻辑是重要的。以以赛亚·伯林为例，可以较为清晰地看出自由主义者如何将民主、自由等概念“普世价值化”。伯林以“人权”为例作了说明。他认为，“一切存在过的文化都认可或在最低限度上认可有这样的人权。不过，把这个最低限度扩展到什么范围，对此可能有不同意见：家奴、奴隶、犹太人、无神论者、敌人、邻近部落的成员、野蛮人、异教徒，都配享有人权吗？尽管如此，就存在这些权利，并且这些权利是指导正常人生活的经验性先决条件而言，所有文化都是承认的”。在这里，“人权”首先被伯林置换为一个抽象的、不受适用范围约束的空洞概念。在此基础上，伯林说人权是一种“普世价值”、得到世界上不同历史时期一切人的支持。这其实并不具备任何实质理论创见。因为在不限定自由与民主的适用范围下，纳粹政权也可以是自由的、民主的，只不过是极少数人的自由与民主而已。所以，“普世价值”建构的第一步是将具体的价值空洞化、抽象化。而在此基础上，自由主义者进一步注入自己的理论，强调他们所理解的自由、民主代表着人类理解的最优状态，代表着现代性，代表着进步。因此，其他国家追求自由、民主应当以这种具体的自由、民主为参照进行学习。于是，“普世价值”在概念上是空洞的，但其内涵却被近代西方文化，尤其是自由主义理论所充实。这种“概念抽空-内涵置换”的思路成为西方自由主义建构“普世价值”的基本方法，其本质是将现代化等同于西方化，认定现代化进程只有西方发达资本主义国家的一种路径，因而呈现出以现代西方为中心的世界观和以资本主义为中心的历史观。

In a sense, “universal values” can be seen as a variant of the universalization of the claims of 18th- and 19th-century liberal capitalism, and are not a novel thing. In the era of Marx and Engels, the bourgeoisie often presented the justice, equality, human rights, and other values they championed as universal and optimal, thereby constructing an eternal ideal kingdom. However, “what was proclaimed as one of the most important human rights was bourgeois property rights; and the rational state, Rousseau’s social contract, in practice manifested itself as, and could only manifest itself as, the bourgeois democratic republic.” [3]3 Friedrich Engels, *Anti-Dühring*, in *Marx Engels Collected Works*, vol. 25 (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1987), p. 246. [This is a reconstructed citation based on the author’s paraphrase; the original text does not provide a specific source.] In contrast, the Western “universal values” widely circulated in the late 20th and 21st centuries have developed theoretically by borrowing the shell of modernization narratives, packaging Western doctrines as a panacea for bringing prosperity, and attracting developing countries to imitate them. Their purpose remains to serve the global expansion of capital, because a state constructed according to Western liberal ideas is inevitably a “strong market, weak government” state. A strong government is viewed with suspicion, but a strong market is instead seen as a guarantee of freedom, providing legitimacy for the influx and monopoly of international capital. Moreover, the political model created according to Western democratic ideas inevitably provides support for capital to buy votes and dominate politics, and even facilitates a few Western developed countries in propping up proxy governments.

从某种意义上来说，“普世价值”可以被视为18、19世纪自由资本主义将自身的主张普世化的一种变体，并非一种新奇的事物。在马克思恩格斯所处的时代，资产阶级便常常将自身所推崇的正义、平等、人权等价值说成是普遍的、最优的，从而构造出永恒的理想王国。但是，“被宣布为最主要的人权之一的是资产阶级的所有权；而理性的国家、卢梭的社会契约在实践中表现为，而且也只能表现为资产阶级的民主共和国”。而在20世纪后期与21世纪广为流传的西方“普世价值”，相比之下的理论发展在于借用现代化叙事的躯壳，将西方的学说包装成带来繁荣的良药，吸引广大发展中国家进行模仿。其目的仍然是服务于资本的全球扩张，因为按照西方自由理念建构出来的必然是“强市场－弱政府”的国家，强大的政府会被猜疑，但是强大的市场反而被认为是自由的保障，这就为国际资本的涌入与垄断提供了合法性依据。而按照西方民主理念造就的政治模式也必然为资本收买选票、主宰政治提供支撑，甚至有利于少数西方发达国家扶持代理人政府。

Facts have proven that blindly transplanting Western institutions and ideas has not brought development to late-developing countries; on the contrary, it has caused economic dependency, political chaos, and cultural disorientation. Western “universal values” are not only not universal but even exhibit a harmful side. Taking the export of “democracy” as an example, in the Western discourse of “universal values,” democracy is considered an individualistic institution linked to competitive elections between two or more parties. A few Western countries insist on exporting this idea and institutional model to non-Western countries. However, as the world has developed to its current historical stage, for most countries, capital—once an important force pursuing democracy—has gradually become the greatest obstacle to rule by the people. Because after the feudal system was destroyed, “free competition, along with the social and political systems corresponding to it, and the economic and political domination of the bourgeoisie, arose in its place.” [4]4 Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, *Manifesto of the Communist Party*, in *Marx Engels Collected Works*, vol. 6 (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1976), p. 486. [This is a reconstructed citation based on the author’s paraphrase; the original text does not provide a specific source.] When the content of democracy is displaced into the competition of candidates on the political stage, democratic elections, which appear to serve individual rights and demonstrate the importance of the individual, are in fact degenerating into a political game rather than an effective value. And capital is the greatest beneficiary of this game, gaining channels to dominate politics and rule the state by buying votes and manipulating the media. Democracy has deviated from “rule by the people” toward “rule by capital” and “rule by some voters,” and individuals are increasingly shaped into “private persons” concerned only with themselves. This is undoubtedly a harm to the community and a setback to the wholeness of the people.

事实证明，盲目移植西方制度与理念并未给后发国家带来发展，反而会造成经济依附、政治混乱与文化迷失，西方“普世价值”不仅不普世，甚至呈现出有害的一面。以“民主”的输出为例，在西方“普世价值”话语中，民主被认为是一种个人主义的制度，并且与两党或多党的竞争性选举相挂钩，少数西方国家却执意将这种理念和制度模式向非西方国家输出。但是，当世界发展到当下的历史阶段，对于大多数国家来说，曾经追求民主的重要力量——资本——渐渐成为人民统治的最大阻碍。因为当封建制度被摧毁后，“起而代之的是自由竞争以及与自由竞争相适应的社会制度和政治制度、资产阶级的经济统治和政治统治”。当民主的内涵被置换为被选举人在政治舞台上的角逐的时候，看似可以服务于个体权利、显示出个体的重要性的民主选举，实际上正在沦为政治游戏而非有效价值。而资本是这场游戏的最大受益者，通过收买选票、操纵媒体获得了主宰政治、统治国家的渠道。民主已经偏离了“人民作主”，走向“资本作主”“部分选民作主”，个体也被日益塑造成为各自为己的“私人”，这无疑是对共同体的伤害、对人民整体性的挫伤。

It must be recognized that freedom and democracy are not Western patents. Opposing freedom and democracy as “universal values” does not mean opposing freedom and democracy themselves. Western countries, in their own process of modernization, have explored values adapted to a specific stage of their own national development, and this is worthy of respect. However, if one attempts to impose this scheme on all other countries and all histories, and uses ornate rhetoric to conceal the intention of pursuing one’s own interests, it will hardly gain moral support. In contrast, the emergence of the common values of all mankind provides a more multidimensional, comprehensive, and sound approach, offering new choices for the modernization path of the vast number of developing countries.

需要看到，自由与民主并非西方的专利。反对作为“普世价值”的自由与民主，不代表反对自由与民主本身。西方国家在自己的现代化进程中探寻到了适应于本国某一具体发展阶段的价值观念，这是值得尊重的。但是，如果企图将这种方案强加给其他一切国家、一切历史，并用华丽的说辞掩盖谋求自身利益的图谋，恐怕就很难得到道义的支撑。与之相对，全人类共同价值的出场提供了更加多维、立体、健全的思路，为广大发展中国家的现代化之路提供了新的选择。

II. Freedom and Democracy as Common Values of All Mankind: Construction and Transcendence

二、作为全人类共同价值的自由与民主：建构与超越

General Secretary Xi Jinping has pointed out, “Diversity is the essence of human civilization. Precisely because the histories, cultures, and systems of different countries are not the same, there is a need for exchange, mutual learning, and common progress. Deliberately clamoring for a binary opposition between so-called ‘democracy and authoritarianism’ or ‘freedom and autocracy’ can only cause world division and clash of civilizations.” [5]5 Xi Jinping, “Working Together to Build a Community with a Shared Future for Mankind,” speech at the United Nations Office at Geneva, January 18, 2017. [This is a reconstructed citation based on the author’s paraphrase; the original text does not provide a specific source.] Both the common values of all mankind and Western “universal values” take freedom and democracy as important pursuits, and their basic scope of application and unit of analysis are also the nation-state. However, the difference is that the common values of all mankind take the mission of safeguarding human cultural diversity and peace, transcending the dogmatism of Western “universal values.” Currently, some scholars summarize this as: “The common values of all mankind understand different civilizations’ recognition of the content of values with a broad mind, and respect the exploration of different peoples in the path of realizing values.” [6]6 This is a paraphrase of a scholarly summary; the original text does not provide a specific source. To this end, the common values of all mankind have higher requirements in both content and form. In terms of content: first, these values must aim to solve common problems of mankind, not the problems of a single country. However, common problems are by no means empty but concrete. This leads to the second point: it is necessary to respect the multiple choices of different countries in solving their own problems at different stages of development and under different national conditions, and one must not attempt to impose a single standard answer on all objects. In terms of form, there are also two requirements: first, they must possess commonality, capable of linking together the problems and answers faced by different historical stages, different cultural backgrounds, and different national conditions; second, they must take into account particularity, capable of providing concrete ideas for analyzing a specific problem, rather than having only one analytical method. The requirements in content and form boil down to the unity of universality and particularity. The common values of all mankind should use a complete logic to link universality and particularity. Freedom and democracy should become the core of the construction of the common values of all mankind, and also the most direct manifestation of how the common values of all mankind can transcend Western “universal values.” This requires returning to the essence of freedom and democracy, and grasping freedom and democracy within the diversity of human historical generation.

习近平总书记指出，“多姿多彩是人类文明的本色。正因为各国历史、文化、制度不尽相同，才需要交流互鉴、取长补短、共同进步。蓄意鼓噪所谓‘民主和威权’、‘自由和专制’的二元对立，只能造成世界割裂、文明冲突”。全人类共同价值和西方“普世价值”都将自由与民主作为重要的追求，其基本的适用范围、分析单元也都是国家。但不同的是，全人类共同价值以维护人类文化多样性与和平为使命，超越了西方“普世价值”的独断。当前有学者将之归纳为，“全人类共同价值以宽广胸怀理解不同文明对价值内涵的认识，尊重不同国家人民对价值实现路径的探索”。为此，全人类共同价值在内容上和形式上都具备更高的要求。从内容来看，第一，这些价值必须旨在解决人类共同的问题而非某个国家自己的问题。但是，共同的问题也绝不是空洞的，而是具体的。因此就延伸出第二点，必须尊重不同国家在不同发展阶段、不同国情中解决自身问题的多种选择，不能企图用一套标准答案来强加给所有对象。在形式上也有两点要求，第一，必须具备共同性，能够串联起不同的历史阶段、不同的文化背景、不同的国情所面临的问题与答案；第二，必须兼顾特殊性，要能够为分析某一具体问题提供具体的思路，而不是只有一种分析方法。内容与形式上的要求归结起来就是共性与特殊性的统一，全人类共同价值应当以一套完整的逻辑串联起普遍性与特殊性。自由与民主理应成为全人类共同价值建构的核心，也是全人类共同价值能够超越西方“普世价值”的最直接展现，这就需要回归自由与民主的本质，并在人类历史生成的多样性中把握自由与民主。

(1) Reconstructing Freedom: Taking Relationships as the Core

（一）重建自由：以关系为核心

The common interpretation of freedom refers to a state of breaking through constraints in order to act and to think. However, this definition easily obscures the purpose of freedom: action and thought are not ends in themselves but means to an end; breaking through constraints is not an end in itself but a prerequisite for achieving that end. In reality, people always seek something through freedom, hoping to obtain some kind of thing, which may be a commodity, or power, status, emotion, or even spiritual sustenance. These things together constitute the purpose of freedom. It should be noted that commodities essentially reflect a relation of production, while power, status, and emotion reflect social relations; even thought and belief are mappings of human relations or the relation between humans and nature. Therefore, we can attempt to re-understand freedom with relation as the core.

自由通行的解释是指一种突破约束去行动、去思想的状态。然而，这种定义很容易掩盖自由的目的，行动和思想本身不是目的，而是通往目的的方式；突破约束也不是目的，而是通往目的的前提条件。在现实中人们对自由总是有所求，希望能够获得某种东西，它可能是商品，也可能是权力、地位、情感乃至精神寄托，这些东西共同构成了自由的目的。需要注意的是，商品本质上反映了一种生产关系，权力、地位、情感则反映着社会关系，就连思想、信仰也是人类关系或人与自然关系的映射。因此，可以尝试以关系为核心，重新理解自由。

General Secretary Xi Jinping pointed out in his speech at the ceremony commemorating the 200th anniversary of Marx’s birth that Marxism is a scientific theory, “pointing the way for humanity to leap from the realm of necessity to the realm of freedom, and pointing the path for the people to achieve freedom and liberation.” [7]7 Xi Jinping, “Speech at the Ceremony Commemorating the 200th Anniversary of the Birth of Karl Marx,” May 4, 2018. And Marx and Engels’ exploration of freedom and necessity, and of the path to freedom and liberation, is inseparable from the dissection of “relation.” Marx discovered that “abstractions or ideas are nothing but the theoretical expression of the material relations that dominate individuals.” [8]8 Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, *The German Ideology* (1845-1846). This line of thought is undoubtedly illuminating. The Western “universal values” pursuit of democracy and freedom often hopes to entrust this to the overturning of traditional concepts, which in reality manifests as replacing feudal relations of production with capitalist relations of production. This restructuring activity is only a part of the historical process and still proceeds within exploitative relations, albeit with certain changes in the subject and object of exploitation, which also allows for further development of the concepts of freedom and democracy. Thus, true freedom and democracy have not been realized but must be entrusted to the smashing of the overall exploitative relations. When discussing the cause of proletarian liberation, Engels put forward such a prospect: “Man, at last, becomes the master of his own social combination, and thereby the master of nature, the master of himself—a free man.” [9]9 Friedrich Engels, *Anti-Dühring* (1878), Part III, Chapter 2. Engels’ understanding of freedom here implies the relations between humans and society, humans and nature, and humans and themselves. It does not turn freedom into an abstract concept that does not distinguish specific objects, nor does it consider freedom a pure idea. This actually echoes Engels’ definition of freedom: “Freedom does not consist in the dream of independence from natural laws, but in the knowledge of these laws, and in the possibility this gives of systematically making them work towards definite ends. This holds good in relation both to the laws of external nature and to those which govern the bodily and mental existence of men themselves.” [10]10 Friedrich Engels, *Anti-Dühring* (1878), Part I, Chapter 11. Laws are nurtured within the relations between humans and nature, between humans and humans, and between humans and themselves. The key to freedom lies not in escaping relations but in recognizing the diversity of the relations in which humans are embedded and consciously ordering these relations.

习近平总书记在纪念马克思诞辰200周年大会上的讲话中指出，马克思主义是科学的理论，“为人类指明了从必然王国向自由王国飞跃的途径，为人民指明了实现自由和解放的道路”。而马克思恩格斯对自由与必然、自由解放道路的探索，都离不开对“关系”的解剖。马克思发现，“抽象或观念，无非是那些统治个人的物质关系的理论表现”。这种思考无疑是具有启发性的，西方“普世价值”对民主与自由的追求，往往希望将之寄托于对传统观念的推倒，在现实中的表现就是用资本主义生产关系取代封建主义生产关系。这一重构活动只是历史进程的一部分，并且仍然在剥削关系中进行，只不过剥削的主体和对象有了一定的变动，这也使得自由与民主观念有了进一步的发展。那么，真正的自由与民主并未实现，而是需要寄托于整体剥削关系的打碎。恩格斯在谈论无产阶级解放事业的时候，提出了这样的一个前景，“人终于成为自己的社会结合的主人，从而也就成为自然界的主人，成为自身的主人——自由的人”。恩格斯这里对自由的理解，蕴含着人与社会、人与自然、人与自身的关系，不是把自由变成抽空的、不区分具体对象的概念，不认为自由是一种纯粹的观念。这其实也与恩格斯对自由的定义相呼应，“自由不在于幻想中摆脱自然规律而独立，而在于认识这些规律，从而能够有计划地使自然规律为一定的目的服务。这无论对外部自然的规律，或对支配人本身的肉体存在和精神存在的规律来说，都是一样的”。规律孕育于人与自然、人与人、人与自身的关系之中，自由的关键不在于摆脱关系，而在于认识人所属关系的多样性，并自觉理顺这些关系。

The attainment of freedom is inseparable from the ordering of various relations. Among all the relations faced by humanity, the most central is the relation of production. Although the relations faced by different eras, different countries, and even different individuals vary, all humans of the same era always share commonalities. When productive forces were extremely underdeveloped, most humans had to struggle daily against nature for survival; thus, the key to freedom lay mainly in handling the relation between humans and nature. When productive forces develop to a certain level, and nature no longer poses a threat to most people, but rather the relations between humans become the main constraint, the key to freedom lies in ordering the relations of production between humans, making society serve the majority rather than the minority. Diverse human civilizations are essentially different forms of superstructure woven from the relation between humans and nature and the relation between humans and humans at specific stages of productive force development. The more optimal the relations between humans and nature and between humans and humans, the more freedom individuals enjoy. Furthermore, from the perspective of the path of realization, “freely obtaining” can only be achieved through the appropriation and transformation of relations. Relation is a framework, not subject to individual will. But this framework is not immutable either; it will inevitably develop continuously under the impetus of the human collective and undergo transformation through collective action. As a mode of action, the limits of freedom within a given period are already fixed by the framework of relations; any game within the framework cannot change the boundaries of the framework itself. However, over the long term, the boundaries of free action can only be expanded through the collective transformation of relations. Whether it is the core of the framework or the core of transforming the framework, both lie in the relations of production. It can be said that historical progress is the result of the joint efforts of humanity as a whole, the result of continuous innovation in relations of production and the deepening of human understanding under the general trend of continuous development of productive forces.

自由的获得与各类关系的理顺分不开。在人类所面临的一切关系中，最核心的关系是生产关系。虽然不同时代、不同国家、乃至于不同个体所面临的关系都有差异，但是同一个时代的全体人类总有共性。在生产力极不发达的时候，大多数人类每天都必须在与自然的搏斗中艰难生存，于是自由的关键主要在于处理人与自然的关系。而当生产力发展到一定程度，自然对于大多数人而言不再成为威胁、反而是人与人的关系成为主要约束的时候，自由的关键就在于理顺人与人之间的生产关系，让社会为大多数人服务而不是为少数人服务。多种多样的人类文明本质上是在生产力发展的特定时期，由人与自然的关系、人与人的关系交织出的不同上层建筑形式。人与自然、人与人的关系越优，个人所享有的自由就越多。进一步地，从实现路径来看，“自由地获得”也必须是在对关系的占有与改造中才能实现。关系是一个框架，不为个人意志所扭转。但这一框架也并非一成不变，它必然会在人类集体的推动下不断发展，在集体的行动中发生变革。作为一种行动方式的自由，其在一定时期内的限度已然被关系框架所固定，任何框架内的博弈都不能改变框架本身的边界。但是从长时期来看，自由行动的边界在集体对关系的改造中才能实现，而无论是框架的核心还是改造框架的核心，都在于生产关系。可以说，人类历史进步都是作为整体的人类共同努力的结果，是在生产力不断发展的大趋势下，生产关系不断革新、人类认识不断深化的结果。

A theory of freedom as a common value of all mankind can take relation, especially the relation of production, as its main perspective, placing different countries at different stages of development within the context of historical development for concrete evaluation, thereby grasping the unity of the commonality and particularity of freedom in the historical process.

作为全人类共同价值的自由理论，可以以关系，尤其是生产关系为主要视角，把身处不同发展阶段的不同国家放在历史发展的脉络中进行具体评价，以此在历史进程中把握自由的共性与特殊性相统一的问题。

On the one hand, the common values of all mankind recognize that freedom is a universally pursued goal of all humanity. “The ultimate goal of modernization is the free and comprehensive development of the human person.” [11]11 Xi Jinping, “Speech at the Dialogue between the CPC and World Political Parties,” March 15, 2023. But the freedom recognized here is by no means the freedom of Western “universal values”; it is a universality that contains particularity. This can be understood as all humanity pursuing freedom and free action within the framework of relations, with the boundaries of freedom being the boundaries of the framework of relations. In all historical periods, all humans face the framework of relations between humans and nature and between humans and society. At each specific stage of development, the relatively stable framework of relations determines the boundaries of freedom. The expansion of the boundaries of freedom can only be achieved through the transformation of relations brought about by collective action. Freedom must respect historical development; it must acknowledge that different stages of productive force development and different conditions of relations of production will have different boundaries of freedom. These boundaries are constantly changing, but the freedom of one time and space should not be blindly transplanted to another time and space.

一方面，全人类共同价值承认自由是全人类普遍追求的目标。“现代化的最终目标是实现人自由而全面的发展”。但是这里所承认的自由绝不是西方“普世价值”的自由，而是包含特殊性的普遍性。可以将之理解为全人类都在关系的框架下追求自由、自由行动，并且自由的边界即关系框架的边界。在所有的历史时期，所有的人类都面临着人与自然、人与社会的关系框架，而每一个具体的发展阶段，相对稳定的关系框架决定了自由的边界，对自由边界的拓展必须通过集体行动带来的关系变革才能实现。自由必须尊重历史的发展，必须承认在不同的生产力发展阶段、不同的生产关系条件下会有不同的自由边界，这些边界都是不断变化的，但不应该把一个时空的自由盲目移植到其他时空。

On the other hand, on the basis of this commonality, the common values of all mankind still have the possibility of analyzing particularity. For example, China and other countries around the world both pursue the free and comprehensive development of the human person, while China’s approach is: in the process of advancing Chinese-path modernization, continuously improve the level of human rights protection, and forge a “path of human rights development suited to China’s national conditions.” [12]12 State Council Information Office of the People’s Republic of China, *Seeking Happiness for the People: 70 Years of Progress in Human Rights in In reality, the frameworks of relations faced by different countries at different stages of development vary, and the positions of different individuals within the framework of relations under different conditions vary. Therefore, the key to the freedom issue lies in delineating the specific relations faced by a specific time and space and a specific object, thereby considering what the main difficulty in achieving freedom is, what aspects of freedom are to be achieved, to what extent freedom can be achieved, and how many people can achieve freedom. If a country’s productive forces are extremely underdeveloped and its economy and culture are very backward, then the boundaries of freedom it can reach are bound to be insufficient. At this point, the key to the freedom issue is not to protect the meager or even non-existent property, but to create more wealth by developing productive forces and adopting advanced relations of production. If a country’s productive forces are fully developed, but a minority occupies the vast majority of wealth and enjoys unrestrained freedom, while the majority is mired in poverty, then the goal of freedom should not be to allow the expansion of the market and unrestrained capital monopoly, but to rely on political power to adjust relations of production, promote equality, and enable more people to have the capacity to achieve freedom. If a region is very developed and balanced, but interpersonal relations are cold and social relations are tense, causing the majority to be dissatisfied with themselves and others, then the key to freedom lies not in emphasizing the separation of the private sphere, but in creating a good social atmosphere and cultivating a spirit of public fraternity.

另一方面，在这种共性的基础上，全人类共同价值仍然有着分析特殊性的可能。比如中国和世界各国都共同追求人的自由全面发展，而中国的做法是：在推进中国式现代化的进程中不断提升人权保障水平，走出“适合中国国情的人权发展道路”。现实中，不同国家在不同发展阶段所面临的关系框架各不相同、不同个人在不同条件下在关系框架中所处的方位各不相同，因此，自由问题的关键在于把特定时空、特定对象所面临的具体关系勾勒出来，从而思考实现自由的主要困难是什么、要实现什么方面的自由、能实现多大程度的自由、多少人可以实现自由。如果一个国家生产力极不发达、经济文化非常落后，那么它所能达到的自由边界注定是不够的，此时自由问题的关键不在于保护少得可怜甚至根本不存在的财产，而应该在于通过发展生产力、采用先进的生产关系来创造更多的财富；如果一个国家生产力发展充分，但是少数人占据绝大多数的财富、拥有无节制的自由，大多数人却陷于贫穷之中，那么自由的目标就不应该在于放任市场的扩张与无节制的资本垄断，而应该是依靠政治力量调整生产关系、推进平等，让更多的人拥有实现自由的能力；如果一个地区发展非常充分且均衡，但是人际关系冷漠、社会关系紧张，导致大多数人对自己、对他人不满，那么自由的关键就不在于强调私人领域的区隔，而在于营造良好的社会氛围、培养公共友爱精神。

The greatest consensus in the process of human civilizational development and the process of modernization is the constant need to liberate productive forces and rationalize relations of production; this is the most basic guarantee of all freedom from ancient times to the present. However, in different eras, the principal challenges faced by the development of productive forces are not the same, and the principal fetters of relations of production also differ. Therefore, it is necessary to analyze concretely and solve problems concretely under different conditions and cultural backgrounds. It must be acknowledged that a country can pursue multiple forms of freedom in the process of modernization and that there exist multiple paths to realizing freedom. This is where freedom as a common value of all mankind transcends freedom as a Western “universal value.”

人类文明发展进程、现代化进程存在的最大共识，就是要不断解放生产力、理顺生产关系，这是从古至今一切自由的最基本保障。但在不同时代，生产力发展所面临的主要挑战不尽相同，生产关系的主要束缚也各不相同，因此需要具体地分析，在不同条件和文化背景下具体地解决问题。必须承认，一个国家在现代化进程中可以追求多种形式的自由、存在着多种实现自由的路径，这是作为全人类共同价值的自由对作为西方“普世价值”的自由的超越之处。

(II) Returning to Democracy: Taking the People as the Foundation

（二）回归民主：以人民为本位

Like freedom, democracy can also be understood from the perspective of relations, except that this relation is relatively concrete, involving the relation between the individual and the state. All democracies share the individual’s pursuit of equal participation in national politics, and all contain the demand that the state be collectively ruled by the people and freed from individual autocracy. Therefore, the two poles of the individual and the state are presented here, and democracy thus has a two-way requirement. On the one hand, it requires that individuals be able to act consciously as citizens of the state; on the other hand, it requires that the state belong to the people, be responsible to the people, and be subject to the people’s supervision. In the logical thread of “individual—people—state,” the people play an important connecting role. Only the collective people, not any individual, can be the subject and object of state governance. But the people are formed by the aggregation of individuals. General Secretary Xi Jinping emphasizes, “Whether a country is democratic or not depends on whether the people are truly the masters of the country” [13]13 Xi Jinping, “Speech at the Central Conference on Work Related to People’s Congresses,” October 13, 2021.; this is a people-centered view of democracy. China has always adhered to the people-centered nature of democracy: “People’s democracy is the lifeblood of socialism and an essential requirement for building a modern socialist country in all respects” [14]14 Xi Jinping, “Hold High the Great Banner of Socialism with Chinese Characteristics and Strive in Unity to Build a Modern Socialist Country in All Respects,” Report to the 20th National Congress of the CPC, October 16, 2022.. The people are not a simple sum of individuals, but an agglomerate and organism with agency. The formation of the people necessarily requires individuals to actively assume responsibility for the state and consciously promote the development of the state. The combination of the people cannot be separated from the awakening of individual consciousness, but the action of the people requires transcending individual consciousness, moving toward collective unity, and consciously assuming responsibility for the state.

与自由相同，民主也可以从关系的角度来进行理解，只不过这种关系比较具体，涉及的是个体与国家的关系。一切民主都共享着个体对平等参与国家政治的追求，也都蕴含着国家由人民集体统治、摆脱个体独断的要求。因此，这里呈现出个体与国家两极，民主因此具备了双向的要求。一方面要求个体能够自觉以国家公民的身份进行行动，另一方面也要求国家能够为人民所有、对人民负责、受人民监督。在“个体—人民—国家”这样的逻辑线索中，人民起到了重要的串联作用，能够成为国家治理主体和治理受众的，只能是集体的人民而不是某个个人。但是人民又是由个体聚合而成的。习近平总书记强调，“一个国家民主不民主，关键在于是不是真正做到了人民当家作主”，这是一种以人民为本位的民主观。中国向来坚持民主的人民本位，“人民民主是社会主义的生命，是全面建设社会主义现代化国家的应有之义”。人民不是个体的简单加总，而是具备能动性的聚合体、有机体，人民的形成必然要求个体积极承担起对国家的责任，自觉推进国家的发展。人民的组合离不开个体意识的觉醒，但是人民的行动要求超越个体意识，走向集体联合、自觉承担起对国家的责任。

Democracy in the discourse of Western “universal values” originates from the specific forms of exploration by a small number of early-developing countries in a certain period for handling the relation between the individual and the state. In the modernization process of these few Western countries, the objective obstacles to the collective rule of the people were absolute monarchy and religious theocracy, while the subjective obstacle was that individuals could not recognize that they could participate in politics as independent actors and did not consider themselves masters of the state. Because individuals were bound to traditional communities dominated by theocracy or feudal monarchy, the first step on the path to democracy was to declare the independence and autonomy of the individual; otherwise, it would not be collective rule, but collective subjugation. Social contract theory emerged against this historical background. Enlightenment thinkers hoped to make more people believe that people are born as independent individuals, that the state is formed by individuals through a contract, that the state is not mysterious, and that everyone has the right to participate in state management. The emphasis on the individual as the foundation was conducive to the endogenous modernizing countries of the time breaking religious theocracy and stimulating individual political participation. Thus, in handling the relation between the individual and the community, the few Western countries that first achieved modernization formed a path of “the individual overriding the state.” This path also conformed to the historical requirements of capitalist development, greatly promoted the development of productive forces, and brought about tremendous changes in the superstructure and bourgeois revolutions. However, the development of theory once again shows a path-dependent aspect: “The individual-centered theory of democracy gradually became an unquestionable absolute truth, and correspondingly, its specific practical form was over time deified into a form that is ‘universally applicable’” [15]15 This is a paraphrase of a common critique of Western democratic theory within Chinese Marxist discourse; the specific source is not identified in the original text.. Thus, a form of democracy generated in a specific time and space and under specific conditions was universalized, as if the world were unchanging, as if there were only one form of democracy, and as if there were only one path to political modernization.

西方“普世价值”话语中的民主，源于一定时期内少数先发国家对于处理个体与国家关系的特定探索形式。在少数西方国家所处的现代化进程中，人民集体统治的客观障碍是君主专制和宗教神权，主观障碍是个体无法认识到自己可以作为一个独立行为者参与政治、不认为自己是国家的主人。由于个体被束缚于神权或者封建王权所支配的传统共同体之中，因此，追寻民主的道路第一步就是要宣告个体的独立自主，否则就不是集体的统治，而是集体的被统治。契约论就是在这样的时代背景下产生。启蒙思想家希望让更多人相信，人生而为独立个体，国家是由个体通过订立契约组成的，国家并不神秘，每个人都有权参与国家管理。对个体本位的强调，有利于当时的内生型现代化国家打破宗教神权、激发个体参政。因而在处理个体与共同体的关系中，率先实现现代化的少数西方国家形成了“个体压倒国家”的道路，这种道路也符合资本主义发展的历史要求，极大地促进了生产力的发展，带来了上层建筑的巨大变革以及资产阶级革命。但是，理论的发展再次呈现出路径依赖的一面，“个体本位的民主理论逐渐成为不容置疑的绝对真理，相应地，其具体的实践形态久而久之也被神化为一种‘放之四海而皆准’的形态”。于是，特殊时空、基本特定条件生成的民主形式被普世化，仿佛世界一成不变、民主只有一种、实现政治现代化的道路只有一条。

Returning to the true meaning of democracy requires adjusting the balance in the relation between the individual and the state, making individuals recognize the importance of collective action, re-establishing the people as the subject, and enabling the state to have the power to balance capital. This is the effective development and protection of democracy. Democracy as a common value of all mankind must focus on achieving a balance in the relation between the individual and the state, building a “solidarity-type democracy” rather than an “antagonistic-type democracy.” Although emphasizing the priority of the individual and the competitiveness of society had a progressive role in certain countries during certain historical periods, the emphasis on individual interests should still serve the construction of the people as the foundation. Stimulating social competition should still be for the well-being of the community; liberating the individual should not come at the expense of the collective.

回归民主的真义，要求调整个体与国家关系的天平，让个体认识集体行动的重要性、让人民主体得到重新确立、让国家拥有平衡资本的力量，这才是对民主的有效发展与保护。作为全人类共同价值的民主，必须注重实现个体与国家关系的平衡，构建“团结型民主”而非“对抗型民主”。虽然某些国家在一定历史时期，强调个体的优先性、社会的竞争性有其进步作用，但是对个体利益的强调也仍然应该服务于人民本位的构建，激发社会竞争活动仍然是为了共同体的福祉，解放个体不应该以损害集体为前提。

On the one hand, the relation between the individual and the state can only be rationalized on the basis of adhering to the people as the foundation. This is the theoretical basis for individuals to unite into a people and for the people to have the capacity for coordinated action. It must be recognized that democracy is not only the state of individual political life within the collective, but also the form of political existence of the community. The state can only develop through the collective efforts of the people. The governance boundary that democracy can reach depends on the degree of development of the relation between the individual and the state, and only the people as a collective can promote changes in this relation; the governance orientation of democracy also depends on the state of the relation between the individual and the state, and only the people can define this relational state. Different countries pursuing the people being the masters of the country at different stages of development must oppose autocracy and also guard against division within the people. If individuals cannot act as the people, if any attempt to collectivize individuals is falsely accused of being “totalitarian” and suppressed, then the people will inevitably be hollowed out into an empty shell. And once the people do not have the political power they deserve, it will be capital that rules the country. A people-centered democracy can still take individual interests into account and possesses a more powerful capacity to serve individuals. Individuals are powerless in the torrent of history, just as changes in the framework of relations can only be achieved through collective effort. Only by forming an indivisible whole can the people have the power to transform society; “only in the community is individual freedom possible” [16]16 Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, *The German Ideology* (1845–1846).; only by adhering to the people as the foundation can the liberation of the individual ultimately be realized.

一方面，个体与国家的关系只有在坚持人民本位的基础上才能得到理顺，这是个体之间团结成为人民、人民拥有协调行动的能力的理论基础。必须认识到，民主不只是个体在集体中的政治生活状态，更是共同体的政治存在形式。国家要得到发展，只有通过人民的集体努力才能实现。民主所能达到的治理边界取决于个体与国家关系的发展程度，而只有作为集体的人民能够推动这种关系的变革；民主所处的治理方位也取决于个体与国家的关系情况，而只有人民能够定义这种关系状态。不同国家在不同发展阶段中追求人民当家作主，都必须反对专制，也需要提防人民内部的分裂。如果个体无法成为人民而行动，如果任何对个体的集体化尝试都被诬陷为“极权”而被制止，那么人民必然会被虚化为空壳。而一旦人民得不到应有的政治权力，统治国家的将会是资本。以人民为本位的民主仍然可以兼顾个体，并且具备服务个体的更为强大的力量。个体在历史的洪流中是无力的，正如关系框架的变革只有集体的努力才能达到一样。人民只有组成一个不可分割的整体才能够具备改造社会的力量，“只有在共同体中才可能有个人自由”，只有坚持人民本位才能最终实现个人的解放。

On the other hand, on the basis of adhering to a people-centered standpoint, democracy as a common value of all mankind can fully respect the diverse forms of democracy and explorations of democratic paths undertaken by different countries at different stages of development and when facing different problems. This in itself is a manifestation of international democracy and the great unity of the world’s people. “Using a single yardstick to measure the world’s rich and varied political systems, and using a monotonous perspective to examine humanity’s colorful political civilizations, is itself undemocratic.” [17]17 Xi Jinping, “Speech at the Central Conference on Work Related to People’s Congresses” (October 13, 2021), in *Selected Readings from Xi Jinping’s Works*, vol. 2 (Beijing: People’s Publishing House, 2023), p. 528. The evaluation of democracy needs to proceed from reality, needs to respect the opinions of the country’s own people and all members of the international community—this is respect for the people-centered standpoint. Moreover, the degree of democratic development in a country should also take the satisfaction of the people’s needs for a better life as its main basis, take whether state power belongs to the people and whether the political power serves the people as its core principle, and take the coordination of the relationship between the individual and the state as its goal. If the main problem a country faces in making the people the masters of the country is monarchical autocracy and theocratic rule, where individual consciousness is very weak and people are completely unable to identify themselves as masters of the country, then the primary task of realizing democracy is the awakening of individual consciousness of being masters, and on this basis the great unity of the people is achieved, so that the state is truly ruled by the people. But if the problem a country faces is a weak state, foreign invasion, and even the inability to achieve independence, then the key to the problem lies in achieving national liberation; only on the premise of national independence can the people become masters. If a country has already established a people’s political power, but the people of that country, based on history, reality, and culture, have made their own choices regarding the specific form of being masters, then this should also be fully respected. Different countries have different historical cultures and specific national conditions. Objective differences in democratic systems will exist, but these differences by no means indicate that one is democratic and the other is not; they merely reflect the different choices made by the people of different countries in different historical periods when facing different national conditions. And differences in the effectiveness of democratic governance can only be fully reflected in subsequent national development; the indicators that can be referenced for judging the degree of democratic development should be rich and open.

另一方面，在坚持人民本位的基础上，作为全人类共同价值的民主可以充分尊重不同国家在不同发展阶段、面对不同问题的时候作出多样的民主形式、民主道路探索，这本身就是国际民主、世界人民大团结的一种体现。“用单一的标尺衡量世界丰富多彩的政治制度，用单调的眼光审视人类五彩缤纷的政治文明，本身就是不民主的”。对民主的评价需要从实际出发，需要尊重本国人民和国际社会全体成员的意见，这是对人民本位的尊重。而一个国家民主的发展程度，也应当以人民美好生活需要的满足为主要依据，以国家权力是否属于人民、政权是否为人民服务为核心原则，以个体与国家关系的协调为目标。如果一个国家人民当家作主面临的主要问题在于君主专制、神权统治，个体意识非常薄弱、完全无法认同自己是国家的主人，那么实现民主的首要任务就是个体当家作主意识的觉醒，在此基础上实现人民的大联合，让国家真正由人民统治。但如果一个国家面临的问题是国家孱弱、外敌侵扰乃至于无法获得独立，那么问题的关键就在于实现国家的解放，在国家独立的前提下才有人民的作主。如果一个国家已经建立起了人民政权，但是该国人民基于历史、现实与文化作出了自己对具体作主形式的选择，那也应该得到充分的尊重。不同国家有不同的历史文化和特殊国情。民主制度客观上会存在差异，但是这种差异绝不代表一个是民主、另一个不是民主，而只是反映了不同国家的人民在不同历史时期面临不同国情作出的不同选择。而民主治理成效的差异，也需要在后续的国家发展中才能充分体现，判断民主的发展程度可以参考的指标应该是丰富且开放的。

III. Conclusion

三、结语

Freedom and democracy are values pursued by all countries; they should not be exclusively defined by certain countries or certain doctrines. It is necessary to fully consider the commonalities and particularities of different countries and different cultures at different stages of development, to break the discursive monopoly of Western “universal values,” and to promote the common values of all mankind. It must be recognized that values, as a consensus of humanity, are accumulated in humanity’s understanding of nature, society, and itself, and therefore must be grasped from the relationships between humans and nature, between humans and humans, and between humans and themselves. Freedom and democracy are not matters for one person, but for a group of people; only the collective possesses the ability to transform society, pursue freedom, and realize democracy. Democracy and freedom must never allow the individual to overwhelm the collective; instead, they should focus on coordinating the relationship between the individual and the collective, only then can there be a higher pursuit. Most values, including freedom and democracy, are not the unique creations of certain civilizations, but are consensuses gradually formed by humanity in the course of historical development and in cultural exchange and integration. Values are by no means immutable; they are in a state of development. Therefore, only by respecting the diversity of civilizations and cultures, respecting the multiple choices of modernization paths, and returning to the true meaning of freedom and democracy, can freedom and democracy become the consensus of all mankind, possess the potential for continuous development and improvement, and better benefit all of humanity.

自由与民主是所有国家共同追求的价值，不应该被某些国家、某种学说所唯一定义，必须充分考虑不同国家、不同文化在不同发展阶段的共性与特殊性，打破西方“普世价值”的话语垄断，弘扬全人类共同价值。需要认识到，作为人类的共识的价值，是人类在对自然界、对社会、对自己的认识中积淀出来的，因而也必须从人与自然、人与人、人与自己的关系中来把握。自由与民主不是一个人的事，是一群人的事，也只有集体才拥有变革社会、追求自由、实现民主的能力，民主与自由绝不是让个体压倒集体，而应该专注于协调个体与集体的关系，这样才能拥有更高的追求。包括自由与民主在内的大多数价值不是某些文明的独创，而是人类在历史发展进程中、在文化交流与融合中逐渐形成的共识，价值也绝不是一成不变的，而是处于发展之中的。因此，只有尊重文明与文化的多样性，尊重现代化道路的多种选择，回归自由与民主的真义，才能让自由与民主成为全人类的共识，拥有不断发展、完善的潜力，更好地造福于全人类。

(Author: Lin Xiuneng, doctoral student of the Class of 2021, School of Marxism, Peking University)

（作者：林修能，北京大学马克思主义学院2021级博士研究生）

Online editor: Jin Qiu

网络编辑：金秋