论马克思“现实的个人”概念对“第二个结合”的内在支撑机理

On the Inner Supporting Mechanism of Marx’s Concept of “Real Individual” for the “Second Combination”

摘要: 马克思“现实的个人”概念并非静态的理论范畴，而是伴随马克思哲学思想演进逐步深化的人学命题。这一人学框架与中华优秀传统文化关注现世人生、崇尚实践理性、重视人伦秩序、秉持尚变求通智慧的人学传统形成深层契合，构成马克思主义基本原理同中华优秀传统文化相结合(“第二个结合”)的核心人学前提。然而，两种思想传统毕竟生成于不同历史条件与文化语境，在个人与集体、权利与义务、斗争与和谐等核心议题上存在不可忽视的张力。这些张力并非“结合”的障碍，恰恰是其深化的内在动力。“第二个结合”不是在理论层面简单调和差异，而是在正视分歧的前提下，根据中国社会的实际发展阶段与人民需求，在具体实践场域中寻求动态平衡。当代中国政策实践展现了哲学理念转化为制度设计的复杂过程。将“第二个结合”简单视为理论完美印证，会遮蔽实践转化中的复杂性与内在张力。唯有在承认差异、审慎反思实践困境的基础上，才能真正推动马克思主义人学思想与中华优秀传统文化的人学智慧双向赋能、有机贯通，造就一个有机统一的新的文化生命体，为中国式现代化提供精神滋养与理论支撑。

Abstract: Marx’s concept of the “real individual” is not a static theoretical category, but a humanistic proposition that gradually deepens with the evolution of his philosophical thought. This humanistic framework is deeply integrated with the humanistic tradition of Chinese excellent traditional culture, which focuses on the present life, advocates practical rationality, values ethical order, and upholds the pursuit of wisdom through change. It constitutes the core humanistic premise of combining the basic principles of Marxism with Chinese excellent traditional culture (the “second combination”). However, the two ideological traditions emerged from different historical conditions and cultural contexts, and there are undeniable tensions on core issues such as individual and collective, rights and obligations, struggle and harmony. These tensions are not obstacles to “integration”, but rather the internal driving force behind their deepening. The “second combination” is not simply reconciling differences at the theoretical level, but seeking dynamic balance in specific practical fields based on the actual development stage of Chinese society and the needs of the people, while facing up to differences. From poverty alleviation to common prosperity, from the “Fengqiao Experience” to a community with a shared future for mankind, contemporary Chinese policy practice has demonstrated the complex process of transforming philosophical concepts into institutional design. Simply viewing the “second combination” as a perfect theoretical validation can obscure the complexity and inherent tension in practical transformation. Only on the basis of acknowledging the differences and carefully reflecting on the practical difficulties can we truly promote the two-way empowerment and organic connection of Marxist humanistic thought and humanistic wisdom of Chinese excellent traditional culture, create a new cultural life body with organic unity, and provide spiritual nourishment and theoretical support for Chinese path to modernization.