The issue of economic justice is a typical cross topic between economics and ethics. It is not only to discuss people's general moral behavior norms in economic life, because it is enough to analyze some economic cases or economic phenomena with general ethics. It is not only to discuss the general economic laws in social development, because it is only satisfied with examining people's communication and behavior preferences with general economic methods. In essence, no matter what school of economics, no matter what questions they ask, it is impossible to avoid such a problem in the end: any economic system arrangement contains the requirements of economic justice, and any economic research cannot be separated from the moral responsibility and care for the ultimate fate of people in an economic system and economic activities.
First of all, about the category of economic justice.
To understand the category of economic justice, we must first make clear the similarities and differences between goodness and justice.
Both Chinese and foreign traditional ethical thoughts emphasize the virtue of goodness. The so-called goodness focuses on evaluating moral behavior from the perspective of personal moral motivation, obligation or responsibility. It pursues a beautiful ideal, even a lofty moral realm. In any era, the goodness that people admire is not analyzed economically, regardless of cost. The so-called "goodness" is "charity". Judging whether an act is good or not is to see whether the actor voluntarily makes it pay more than the income. Once this "greater than" is great, it is "supreme goodness" and the best person is a saint. Obviously, any society needs this kind of goodness, and most members of society admire it, but only a few people can achieve perfection. It should be pointed out that goodness is a super-economic category here, and it cannot be used for institutional ethics or economic ethics analysis unless it is reinterpreted and defined.
Justice is different. Justice focuses on grasping the rationality and legitimacy of people's behavior choices from the perspectives of system, order, law, rights and the whole. Regardless of people's moral level, they must obey the requirements of justice. Justice expresses the rationalization of the interest relationship between people, the correspondence of people's rights and obligations, the symmetry of people's pay and gain, and the rigidity of people's legitimate demand and satisfaction for efficiency and fairness.
Justice is different from the category of "native" meaning in China's traditional ethics. Jus, the root of justice, comes from Latin and contains laws and rights. The substantive difference between righteousness and justice mainly lies in the following two points:
First, righteousness lies outside the law. It lies not only in the law in the modern rule of law system, but also in the "law" with "punishment" as its core in the traditional society of China. Righteousness, as an important supplement of "law", maintains a society ruled by man with the monarch as the center, which is indispensable in China's traditional ethical relations. Justice is the ethical spirit and value goal of law in a society ruled by law, the essence of law and the basis for law to become law. As a rule, it belongs to every individual in society, and as an idea beyond the rule, no individual is allowed to override it.
Second, righteousness is external and beneficial. Either completely separate from interest confrontation, or maintain the master-slave relationship. Justice is always internal. It can be said that justice comes from interest relations, especially property relations. Ancient Greek thinkers have long suggested that justice cannot exist alone, and there is no distinction between justice and injustice in the actions of people without common interests. This is extremely important in economic ethics. Because justice contains even benefits, the basic requirement of social justice is economic justice first. The level of general justice and economic justice lies in:
Universal justice is first set as the ideal existence of human beings, as the significance of judging human behavior and its results under a certain system, and as the scale to measure human value, dignity, rights and self-realization. This is the inherent spirit or ideal stipulation of the social system. Therefore, justice is "the first virtue of social system". (Note: Rawls: A Theory of Justice, Shanghai Translation Publishing House, 199 1 Edition, p. 3. )
Under the general meaning of justice, economic justice highlights the practical rational spirit or realistic provisions of justice. That is, people's economic behavior needs to choose ideal institutional goals and norms, and social and economic relations and their contradictions and conflicts need to be balanced and resolved.
Generally speaking, we can grasp economic justice from four angles: first, from the perspective of independent rights, economic justice refers to the economic man's enjoyment and independent exercise of his property rights, as well as the resulting economic freedom and a series of rights and obligations to fulfill the contract, as well as the corresponding institutional arrangements; Second, from the point of view of rational distribution, economic justice is finally realized in distributive justice, which includes both the reasonable gap in income distribution brought about by opportunity fairness, procedural justice and fair competition, and the humanitarian care that makes the welfare of the greatest number of people grow; Third, from the subjective point of view, the degree of realization of economic justice depends to a great extent on the satisfaction of people's psychological expectations and on people's sense of justice and identity sprouted in economic activities; Fourthly, from the perspective of human nature, the most fundamental point of economic justice is that people get freedom and liberation in certain economic relations, realize their own essence and seek all-round development. In short, economic justice is a significant element or economic spirit of an economic system.
Second, the general historical investigation of economic justice.
We can find the bud of modern economic justice concept in ancient Greek thinkers, such as Plato's justice concept of establishing a constant order of property rights and property relations; (Note: Selected Works of Western Ethics, Volume I, Commercial Press 1964, p. 146- 163. Aristotle's view of justice about following the moderation and moderation of property possession and exercising property rights; (Note: Aristotle: Politics, Commercial Press, 1965, p. 148. Epicurus' view of justice on mutual benefit and agreement in property exchange relations (Note: Selected Works of Western Ethics 1 Volume, pp. 96-97. ) and so on. These ancient views on justice initially put forward the basic forms and substantive contents of economic justice. The former is order, moderation, performance and commitment, while the latter is correct, harmonious, mutually beneficial and appropriate. Of course, in ancient Greece, all this lurked under the idea of perfection.
Modern capitalism has lifted the veil of kindness and gentleness of traditional ethics, and evil represented by primitive accumulation of capital and money fetishism has become a lever to promote history. It is impossible to control evil in an all-round way by personal virtue cultivation of persuading the good to be good. Therefore, the category of economic justice, as the first virtue of social system in institutional ethics, stands out and presents new characteristics of the times:
(1) The thought of modern economic justice and the ethical spirit of capitalism are harmonious and complementary.
(2) The thought of modern economic justice is compatible with the moral norms and value basis of market economy, and it is negotiable.
(3) The issue of economic justice has been deeply discussed from all angles in various fields of capitalist private ownership and its property right system, which has promoted the progress and perfection of this system.
(4) At this time, economics has achieved independent development, and the issue of economic justice has changed from the general research object of humanists, ethicists and philosophers to the research object of economists, becoming a basic and permeable organic part of economic theory, and economic ethics has also evolved into economic ethics.
(5) At the same time, there have been doubts and criticisms about the justice of private ownership, and the theory of economic justice aimed at realizing the public ownership economy has emerged, which has become the ideological source of Marx's scientific socialism theory and economic justice view.
The representative views of modern economic justice thought are:
1. Grotius: Justice must be based on human sociality and natural rights. The moral significance of rights is justice. Therefore, economic justice is a limited private property right that conforms to human nature and has certain constraints, and it is an asymmetric but reasonable relationship between public power and property rights. (Note: Selected Works of Western Ethics, Volume I, pp. 580-583. )
2. Hobbes, Locke, Hume and so on. Economic justice means maintaining and fulfilling contracts. Contract is a form of two-way recognition by economic subjects, which means that in all economic activities, each subject enjoys property ownership and recognizes and respects the rights of others and his own rights. Performing a contract is the starting point and source of justice. The authority of contract is higher than that of kingship or government. Economic justice depends on contracts and rights stipulated in contracts. The only criterion to judge whether a social situation is just is to keep the contract, perform the contract or breach the contract. In this sense, the requirement of economic justice is historical. For example, in the "golden age" when material wealth flows fully in the future, everyone can get what he needs without defining his rights and responsibilities. At that time, justice did not need to exist, because it was useless; In the past, in the "poverty state" where the necessities of life were extremely scarce, everyone was in danger, and justice gave way to people's self-protection instinct, which was difficult to achieve. Justice is only possible and necessary under certain wealth and insufficient social and economic conditions. At this time, people's selfish nature has produced an infinite desire to possess limited wealth, and justice is needed to restrain and regulate this selfish desire through the ruling power above the contract; At the same time, because people's desires are asymmetrical with their own ability to satisfy their desires and with limited wealth, they need to be balanced by "public utility", which is the realization of justice. In short, "the root of justice shows the source of property", the perfection of justice shows the integrity of property rights. Contract produces justice and property at the same time. Justice arises from people's need to acquire wealth and economic rights, and its direct expression is a stable economic relationship with contract as the basic form. (Note: Hobbes: Leviathan, Commercial Press, 1985 edition; Locke: The Theory of Government, Part II, Commercial Press, 1964; Hume: On Human Nature, Volume II, Commercial Press, 1980. )
3. Bentham and Mill: Economic justice is an individual right based on the principle of utility. Economic justice should belong to the rights of self and others, and should not focus on institutional things, contracts and forms, while ignoring its substantive content and people's tendency to demand economic justice. A system is a system that maximizes utility. Justice is only a means to promote utility rather than an independent standard, and the only standard is utility. If you choose between different systems, you should only choose the system that brings greater effectiveness, regardless of whether it is fair or not. This utilitarian system evaluation method is more practical than contract theory. It regards the realization and protection of individual rights as the first essence of justice, takes "utilitarian priority" as the first principle of justice, and reduces contract to one of the second principles of derivation, which is good. Justice comes directly from the utilitarian principle, and the principle of justice is subordinate to the utilitarian principle. On the occasion of conflict of secondary principles, justice depends on the first principle. For example, equality is a concept of justice, but there is no absolute and universal equality. In economic facts, whether equality is just depends on whether it conforms to the utilitarian principle, that is, justice, and vice versa. (Note: Mill: Functionalism, Commercial Press, 1957, p. 54. )
4. helvetius: Economic justice is an equal distribution based on reasonable egoism. Public interest (public happiness and public welfare), as a combination of personal interests, is the standard of justice, and its connotation is "everyone is happy". And the only way to achieve happiness and equality is the average distribution of property. So there is such an economic system, which first guarantees the basic equality of citizens' private property and brings equal happiness to everyone, and then guarantees private property rights, personal freedom and life. In this system, there are no unfortunate people. Property equality is not only a social interest, but also an inalienable sacred right of individuals. Justice, that is, reasonable egoism, is the mutual protection and harmonious consideration of the two interests. It is unfair to satisfy public interests at the expense of personal interests or to harm the happiness of others for the sake of personal happiness. (Note:18th century French philosophy, Commercial Press, 1963, pp. 545-550. )
5. Moore, Owen, etc. Economic justice is the complete abolition of private ownership. "Private property is the only cause of poverty and the only cause of countless crimes and disasters it has caused all over the world. It is so unfair in theory and equally unreasonable in practice. " (Note: Selected Works of Western Ethics, Volume 2, p. 559. Private ownership may take some limited measures that seem to be in line with justice, such as stipulating the legal maximum amount of private land and cash for everyone and prohibiting the trading of political power and property rights. Let people without property rights alleviate some pain, but they can't fundamentally alleviate the pain. The problem is that as long as private ownership exists, its economic activities must take money as the only criterion to measure everything, and it is impossible to find any traces of justice. Unless people think that the best things fall into the worst hands, this can also be called justice; Or what most of us deserve is divided up by a few people, which can also be called justice. Therefore, "only by completely abolishing private ownership can wealth be evenly and fairly distributed and human beings can have welfare." (Noe: Moore: Utopia, Commercial Press, 1996, p. 505. )
Through the above general historical investigation of economic justice thought, we can draw the following conclusions:
(1) The problem of economic justice has never existed. It came into being with private ownership and private rights, and gradually merged into economic and ethical theories with the development and perfection of capitalist private ownership. From the ancient Roman law and common law to the classic works of Marx and Engels, and then to the modern western property right theory, it is basically agreed that property right does not refer to the relationship between people and things in essence, but refers to the behavior right (in the form of contract) that is caused by the existence and use of things, or decided by a recognized third party (government and court). This right determines everyone's code of conduct, and everyone must abide by the agreed relationship with others, or bear the cost of not complying with this agreement. A certain economic system formed by it is the sum of all economic and social relations that determine people's corresponding rights and status when using scarce resources. (Noe: Kos Aqin, et al.: "Financial Power and Institutional Change-Translation Series of Property Right School and New Institutional School", Joint Publishing Company, p. 204, 199 1 version. ) here, economic justice and property rights issues are combined. When people talk about property rights and contracts, they have infiltrated the understanding of justice. Without property rights, justice becomes meaningless empty talk.
(2) The first focus around economic justice is whether private property rights are just. All the answers to this question are polarized. Either just defend private property rights or just criticize private property rights. The former is the mainstream view in history and has become an ethical weapon for the establishment of private ownership. The latter's proposition also ran through the whole modern times, but it basically stayed at the level of fantasy, which had no real impact on private ownership itself, but it also played two roles: it provided ideological nourishment for the birth of Marxism and the emergence of public-owned countries in modern history; At the same time, it also promotes the improvement and perfection of private ownership in theory and practice.
(3) The second focus of economic justice is whether equal wealth or equal distribution is just. This problem is subordinate to the last one in modern times, but its importance is actually no less than the last one. Without the problem of distributive justice, the problem of property right justice is meaningless. Moreover, the distribution problem is operable and testable. Therefore, western thinkers regard distribution as the main problem of economic justice theory on the premise of affirming that private ownership is natural and reasonable. Thinkers who advocate public ownership believe that without ownership, it is impossible to really solve the problem of distribution justice only by making a fuss about distribution.
Three, on the Marxist view of economic justice and its realistic theme
Marxist view of economic justice is produced on the basis of criticizing and absorbing the reasonable elements of various economic justice thoughts in the history of human thought, especially in the history of modern thought, and it is also formed in Marx's lifelong struggle for human freedom and liberation. The basic spirit of utopian socialist economic justice concept was absorbed by Marxism, and Marx and Engels turned these justice ideas from utopian to scientific through historical materialism and surplus value theory.
Marx began to pursue justice in the period of 184 1 Rheinische Zeitung. The first practical problem he came into contact with related to people's material interests was whether the exclusive property right of the so-called "stealing forest" was just, which was also the initial motivation for his study of economic issues. Decades later, Engels said in a letter to a friend: "I have heard Marx say more than once that it was his research on the law of forest theft and the situation of farmers in the Moze River area that pushed him from pure politics to studying economic relations and thus to socialism." (Note: The Complete Works of Marx and Engels, 1 Edition, Volume 39, p. 446. )
When the Rhine Provincial Assembly debated the forest theft law, the nobles and landlords mercilessly deprived farmers and poor people of their rights to graze, pick branches and hunt on public land handed down from ancient times. Marx angrily criticized the injustice of private possession of public property rights: "This practice of sacrificing people's rights for the rights of young trees is really the most ingenious and simple. If this article of the bill is passed, many people who did not intentionally commit crimes will be cut off from the living moral tree and thrown into the hell of crime, shame and poverty as dead trees. " This is essentially to turn the customary rights of the poor into the exclusive rights of the rich. "The essence of things requires exclusivity, because the interests of private ownership have produced such exclusivity." (Note: The Complete Works of Marx and Engels, version 1, volume 1, page 137, page 147- 148. )
Marx did not deny the progressiveness and inevitability of the explicit capitalist private property replacing the vague public property left by ancestors. However, he believes that this can not really realize the liberation of mankind. What hinders people's liberation is superstition about the sanctification of state power and the natural justice of enjoying private property rights. Commenting on the bourgeois constitution "Declaration of Human Rights and Civil Rights" promulgated by the French Revolution, he pointed out that this "is nothing more than the rights of civil society, that is, the rights of people who are divorced from humanity and egoism" and that "freedom, as the practical application of human rights, is the human rights of private property". Therefore, the bourgeois "freest legislation" on private property, "for those who have both rights and are protected by habits, it is handled properly, and for those who have no rights but are only protected by habits, it is not handled properly". (Note: The Complete Works of Marx and Engels, 1, vol. 1, pp. 437-438 and 144. ) There is no fairness here.
Marx entered the field of economic criticism and research with a strong desire and demand to realize real economic justice. He regards the pursuit of justice and the correct evaluation of social and economic justice as the task and mission of his economic research.
Marxist understanding of economic justice can be summarized as the following logic: justice mainly comes from economic facts, especially closely related to the institutional changes and development of property ownership; There are many forms of economic justice, but its essence is to realize the comprehensive liberation of human beings in the most basic economic practice of human society; The degree of human liberation and the level of productivity development are inseparable; Only the socialist system can finally realize the all-round liberation of people, so it is the most just and ideal social form and economic system. "Many people want justice, which is what they call justice, but they are not * * * producers. Our characteristic is not that we want universal justice-everyone can demand justice-but that we attack the existing social system and private ownership, we want property to be public, and we are * * * producers. " "True freedom and true equality can only be achieved under the capitalist system; And such a system is required by justice. " (Note: The Complete Works of Marx and Engels, Volume 42, version 1, page 43 1, volume 1, page 582. )
In reality, economic justice is the sum of justice contained in all economic relations. Mainly reflected in two aspects: one is the justice of ownership, and the other is the justice of income distribution.
With the development, change and perfection of the first property right in human history-private property right and its institutional form, the issue of economic justice of ownership gradually emerges and unfolds clearly. Justice and ownership are homologous, and * * * is born and * * * exists. Any kind of ownership in history, even the opposite ownership, contains a certain spirit of justice in line with historical conditions, as well as the belief and pursuit of taking itself as justice, otherwise, this kind of ownership will not be produced and operated. Accordingly, thinkers all expressed their understanding and views on justice in different theoretical forms, all focused on their own theories, all took justice as the rope, denied the existing ownership and described the future ownership form. Voltaire the elder once said that despite the differences in nationality, times and historical conditions, human beings' acceptance of the concept of justice has always been consistent and universal. Even if a big crime is committed, it is still done in the name of justice. (Note: Selected Works of Western Ethics, Volume 2, page 24. ) This shows that it is not a question whether a just theory defending a certain ownership is necessary or not. The real problem lies in what kind of ownership can fundamentally reflect the requirements of justice, what kind of ownership realization form and structure can truly meet the requirements of justice, and what kind of economic justice theory can truthfully express the spirit of justice and guide the establishment and perfection of ownership that conforms to justice.
Whether the ownership is just involves at least two levels: 1. Whether a certain ownership conforms to the requirements of human nature and essence, and whether it helps people to pursue freedom and ideals; 2. Whether the specific property right relationship reflects the fair and just relationship between people, and whether it helps people choose the way to reflect this relationship and maintain this right of choice. From the Marxist point of view, it can be said that the private ownership that has appeared one after another in human society can achieve economic justice historically, partially, relatively and temporarily, but only when private ownership is finally eliminated can economic justice be completely realized. Therefore, "* * * party member can sum up their theory in one sentence: eliminate private ownership." (Note: Selected Works of Marx and Engels, 2nd edition, vol./kloc-0, p. 286. )
The justice of private ownership in history lies in that it clearly defines private property rights through the arrangement of systems and rules, meets the self-interest requirements of human nature, regulates people's endless selfish desires to varying degrees, and increases the total social welfare in the way of "private evil is public benefit", which is conducive to social development and human progress. Marx acknowledged that the emergence, existence and development of any ownership are based on specific personal interests as the primary principle and internal logic. He doesn't agree that industrialists should regard society as the highest value and purpose, and sacrifice individuals for society. He pointed out: "People have no intention of establishing society at all. What they do is to make society develop. Because they always want to develop themselves into lonely people, they can only achieve their own development in society and through society." "The only connection between man and society is natural inevitability, necessity and private interests, as well as the protection of his property and egoistic individuals." "Industrialists will not use egoism to oppose self-sacrifice, nor will they use self-sacrifice to oppose egoism ... Their outstanding point is that only they have discovered that' * * * common interests' are caused by individuals who are' private' at any time in history. They know that this opposition is only superficial. Because this opposite side, the so-called' universal' side, is always produced by the other side, that is, the side of private interests, it is by no means an independent force opposed to private interests and has an independent history, so this opposition has been eliminated in practice. " However, the justice of private ownership is neither natural nor eternal. Fundamentally speaking, private ownership not only fails to make people realize their own essence, but also leads to the alienation and loss of human essence, which leads to the dehumanization of people. The only way to solve this problem is to eliminate private ownership. Through "private property is a positive sublation of human self-alienation", people "become complete people and have their own comprehensive essence." (Note: The Complete Works of Marx and Engels 1 Edition, Volume 3, Page 235, Page 1 Volume 439, Volume 3, Page 275, Volume 42, Page 123. )
The history of the proletarian movement for more than one hundred years after Marx shows that the elimination of private ownership and the establishment and consolidation of public ownership depend on the high development of productive forces. If we break away from the material basis of real productive forces and blindly engage in a single pure public ownership, the ideal of economic justice will become a fantasy or even go to the opposite side. As a system design expecting justice, it is not a word "public" that naturally brings justice. We must proceed from the realistic stage of economic and social development in a particular country and seek the best form of public ownership and the best ownership structure at each stage. As Marx predicted, the new ownership "should avoid treating' society' as an abstract thing against individuals again." We should "re-establish individual ownership on the basis of the achievements of the capitalist era, that is, on the basis of cooperation and joint possession of land and the means of production produced by labor itself." Not any form of public ownership can eliminate private ownership by shouting the slogan of justice. Private ownership "can only be eliminated by transforming into non-isolated individual ownership, that is, into unified social individual ownership". (Note: economic philosophy manuscript of 1844, People's Publishing House, p. 79,1985); Selected Works of Marx and Engels, 2nd Edition, Volume 2, page 269; The Complete Works of Marx and Engels (1), Volume 48, Page 2 1. ) This is the deepest and core issue of China's current ownership reform, that is, not only to improve efficiency, but also to consider whether and how to realize economic justice. If the latter point is ignored, the reform will lose its meaning and will not succeed.
The economic justice of income distribution is not only subordinate to ownership justice, but also relatively independent. Engels once pointed out: "What can best promote production is the distribution mode that enables all members of society to develop, maintain and display their abilities as comprehensively as possible." (Note: Selected Works of Marx and Engels, 2nd Edition, Volume 3, pages 544-545. There are two concepts of income distribution here: one is function or factor income distribution, that is, income distribution is stipulated from the perspective of income sources, involving the relationship between the inputs of various production factors and their shares. The justice of functional income distribution includes the justice of certain ownership and property rights. The second is scale or individual (family) income distribution, that is, income distribution is stipulated from the perspective of income quantification, which involves the relationship between the size of recipients and total income. The justice of scale income distribution actually reflects the change of ownership or the purpose of reform.