In a modern society with a market economy, social justice serves as the basic concept underlying that society’s fundamental institutional arrangements. It is also a fundamental social value. Thus, social justice is extremely important to the safe operation and healthy development of Chinese society. Scholars have realized the tremendous importance of social justice at a “macro level.” However, they have not paid sufficient attention to the problem of social justice at the micro level, that is, as seen from the perspective of each individual in a modern society. This is a deficiency in social justice research thus far.

Evidently, with the development of the process of modernization and the market economy, modern people’s demands for social justice will likewise inevitably grow, and its relative “weight” among their other needs will also increase.Footnote 1 By comparison with people in a traditional society, modern people are increasingly attached to social justice. This is a universal law that has been demonstrated in numerous countries and regions in the process of their modernization and their development of a market economy. People in developed countries are attached to the concept of social justice, including liberty and equality, as well as to a social and economic system based on social justice. People in China during the transition period of reform have also placed unprecedented emphasis on the idea of social justice.

Modern people are increasingly attached to social justice, because it is necessary for them to deal with the most important issues of survival and development, including equality, a sense of social belonging, the ability to live and develop freely, and resolving or mitigating various social contradictions and disputes.

1 The Acquisition of Equality and Social Belonging

The conditions of a modern society with a market economy entail that the characteristics of the period that people display and the social environment in which they live undergo great changes. The attainment of equality and social belonging has become a necessity for every member of society and a precondition for living in that society. This precondition must be established through social justice.

1.1 Equality and a Sense of Social Belonging Are Increasingly Universal Interest Demands

In a modern society with a market economy, equality has become the universal interest demand of every person.

The consciousness of equality at the “mass level” and at the level of “practice” arises as a result of historical evolution. “The mode of production in material life determines the general character of the social, political, and spiritual processes of life” (Marx and Engels 1995a). In a traditional society with a natural economy, most people do not enjoy equality in a real sense. Hierarchy is a common social structure that is accepted by people at the time. As a result, relationships between people can only be ones of dependency, rather than ones of equality. As Marx pointed out, in a feudal society, “personal dependence here characterizes the social relations of production just as much as it does the other spheres of life organized on the basis of that production” (Marx and Engels 1972a). Thus, the majority of people could not enjoy human dignity. “Despotism’s only thought is disdain for mankind, dehumanized man; and it is a thought superior to many others in that it is also a fact. In the eyes of the despot, men are always debased. They drown before his eyes and on his behalf in the mire of common life from which, like toads, they always rise up again… The principle on which monarchy in general is based is that of man as despised and despicable, of dehumanized man” (Marx and Engels 1956).

With the advancement of modern productivity and the market economy, and with the progress of modern civilization, societies begin to emphasize the principle of “taking people as the foundation” (以人为本 yi ren wei ben). Accordingly, when people left the animal world, they became self-conscious. As Marx said, “All emancipation is a reduction of the human world and relationships to man himself” (Marx and Engels 1956). In a modern society, everyone has the dignity of being part of the “human species,” and they have developed the corresponding consciousness of equality, autonomy, and independence. They are entitled to equal rights, especially with respect to basic rights. Accordingly, there is equality between individuals, not personal dependence. “The equality of all human beings is the equality of their dignity as persons… The truth of the proposition that all human beings are by nature equal is confined to the one respect in which that equality can be truly affirmed; namely, their all being equally human, their having the species-specific properties and especially the differentiating properties that belong to all members of the species” (Adler 1984). More importantly, everyone has an interest demand that requires the social safeguarding and promotion of their equal rights.

The transnational WVS (World Values Survey) found that “people’s values in almost all industrial societies tend to change from ‘traditional’ to ‘secular rationality.’ With the development of the knowledge society, people’s values tend to shift from ‘survival consciousness’ to ‘self-expression.’ More and more people think that ‘survival’ is a matter of course, and they don’t need to put it on the agenda any more … The value ‘self-expression’ is most concerned with environmental protection, gender equality, tolerance for non-normative behaviors such as homosexuality and foreign cultures, and a strong demand for participation in economic and political activities” (Zhang et al. 2012). China has witnessed a similar situation since reform and opening up. In a survey with 2942 respondents, the question was asked, “What do you think of equality between people?” “960 people chose the answer ‘equality is a goal we should pursue,’ accounting for 32.8% of the total. 1073 people chose ‘equality is only an ideal, which is difficult to achieve in reality,’ accounting for 36.6% of the total. People regard equality as a goal they pursue in life, which shows that equality and justice occupy a significant position in their minds” (Xuan 2011). In 2013, the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences carried out a comprehensive survey on the social situation in China. It revealed that the top five social values were equality, democracy, civilization, justice, and harmony (Wang and Yang 2014).

The sense of social belonging is another primary concern among modern people, and its acquisition is also closely connected to social justice.

This sense of social belonging is an extremely important issue that concerns the position, orientation, and mentality of individuals who are “atomized” in a modern society. Individuals living in such vast, complex, and changeable social environments urgently need a sense of social belonging. A modern society is a highly differentiated and heterogeneous one, in which the level of social differentiation increases day by day. “Highly efficient modernization and socialized mass production have greatly improved humanity’s ‘species capabilities.’ This means that tasks that were originally done by one social unit are now done separately by a number of social units, and social units in themselves have changed from being ‘general’ in nature to being ‘specialized.’ Consequently, the degree of social differentiation has greatly increased. This is embodied in the increased number of economic, social, political, and cultural units, and in the increased number of social classes and the groups related to them. The sharp increase of social differentiation has created an increasingly complicated situation regarding the constituent elements and structures of modern society” (Wu 2015).

At the same time, with the rapid development of science and technology, the market economy promotes the rapid flow of every kind of factor of production, which accelerates changes in modern society. Further, families no longer serve the function of production, and as a result they have also become smaller. The usual blood ties and support that were the most intimate and almost unconditional for family/clan members are greatly weakened. The increase in social mobility means that the strength of long-term neighbor relationships is no longer maintained. “People soon learn that the ethics of family love, which is placed first in interpersonal communication in a familial society, must give way to commodity trading in the market.” The conditions of a modern society with a market economy mean that people’s interpersonal dependencies are diminished and various constraints disappear. Along with that, their previous sense of dependence diminishes as well. Now they can only rely on themselves. In this sense, “after each citizen has established their own little society, they will not care about the wider society and will let it develop on its own” (Liu 2012).

Modern people living in such a vast, complex, changeable, and indifferent “strange world” often experience strong feelings of being insignificant, isolated, helpless, and adrift. This situation becomes especially obvious during a period of transition in China, which leads to social anxiety among large numbers of people. In a sense, people in a modern society become “atomized” and “isolated” while they simultaneously gain awareness of independence, freedoms, and equality. One survey shows that, in China at present, “for whatever reason, more than 90% of the respondents, both male and female, admit that they experience life pressure, while only 6% claim that they have no life pressure.” Moreover, during the period of transition, when a system of rules is lacking and there is no clear set of rules for them to follow, people are prone to mutual distrust. According to the 2006 National Comprehensive Social Survey, “the majority of respondents said that they did not trust strangers that much. 9.1% of respondents said that they did not trust strangers at all, and 64% did not trust strangers in general. Only 4.0% and 0.2% of respondents felt that strangers were ‘trustworthy’ and ‘very trustworthy’ respectively” (China Survey and Data Center, Renmin University of China 2009). The atmosphere of distrust has aggravated the loneliness and anxiety of modern people. In such a heterogeneous society, “atomized” people urgently need to find a sense of social belonging. In other words, the sense of social belonging has become a necessary condition for modern people to settle down into their lives and get on with their pursuits.

The unprecedented personal and social risks faced by modern people also means that they urgently need a sense of belonging because they must rely on the system of integrated social forces to cope with those risks. Compared with the past, the risks faced by modern people are unprecedented. The risks mainly involve two aspects. On the one hand, in the course of their lives and careers, people face various personal risks such as unemployment, illness, and old-age care. On the other hand, the exponential growth of society’s productive forces, the accumulation of huge amounts of social and economic energy, the increased rate of scientific and technological development, and the diversity of people’s ideas and interest demands in modern societies have brought unprecedented uncertainty to society, resulting in a variety of social risks. “In advanced modernity the social production of wealth is systematically accompanied by the social production of risks … In the course of the exponentially growing productive forces in the modernization process, hazards and potential threats have been unleashed to an extent previously unknown … Risk society in this sense is a world risk society” (Beck 1992). At China’s present stage of development, some people are even concerned about the lack of a safety net to guarantee their basic survival needs. One survey revealed that, in recent years, what most concerned Chinese people was the safety of their food, the security of their personal information, and the environment. On the issue of food, 55% of people felt it was “very unsafe,” “unsafe,” or “not that safe” (Wang 2017). When faced with these unprecedented risks, it is impossible for individuals to respond effectively on their own. Therefore, modern people have no choice but to rely on society, which forms a sense of social belonging. They hope to have a “safety net” that can provide them with social security, in order to cope effectively with the risks from both other individuals and from society.

1.2 The Protection of Equal Rights and the Universal Formation of the Sense of Social Belonging Cannot Be Separated from Social Justice

Whether the problem is one of protecting rights of equality or of developing a sense of social belonging, this can only be realized through social justice.

Social justice is conducive to not only the protection of modern people’s equal rights, but also the universal formation of their sense of social belonging. First, an essential aspect of social justice lies in emphasizing the shared fruits of social development. That is, “every member of society’s dignity should be guaranteed, and their basic living conditions should be maintained and improved” so that “their living standards and ability to develop can continuously improve along with the progress in social development” (Wu 2002). Therefore, social justice can directly safeguard and promote the human dignity, consciousness of equality, and equal rights of modern people. Second, another important aspect of social justice concerns establishing a comprehensive social security system and crisis management mechanisms. With those systems in place, a society can cope with various personal and social risks by drawing on all its strength and can provide its members with a safety net to guarantee their basic survival needs. As a result, social justice is beneficial for modern people in eliminating their feelings of “isolation” and “aimlessness” by relying on the social community. It can also help people develop a sense of social belonging, and even a sense of social community, social morality, and social responsibility.

2 The Realization of Living and Developing in Freedom

2.1 Living and Developing Freely Is the Universal Demand of People in a Modern Society

Compared to traditional society, people in a modern society with a market economy not only value equality and the sense of social belonging, but also attach great importance to living and developing in freedom. In other words, it is their universal demand to live and develop independently, freely and “willingly” according to their own wishes rather than those of others. “Where, not the person’s own character, but the traditions or customs of other people are the rule of conduct, there is wanting one of the principal ingredients of human happiness, and quite the chief ingredient of individual and social progress” (Mill 2001). Here, “freedom” involves at least three meanings. (1) It is formed of an individual’s independent choices. People make their own decisions and bear the corresponding consequences. (2) People achieve their goals through their own efforts rather than relying on ascribed statuses. (3) People value mutual respect and tolerance, and they do not impose their will on others.

Many surveys show that, since reform and opening up, living and developing freely has become a common demand of Chinese people, and even a common way of doing things. This kind of freedom is reflected in their sense of autonomy, tolerance, and the spirit of contract. According to a comprehensive 2006 survey on China’s social situation, when respondents were asked what factors contributed to a person’s success, the top choice was personal factors, followed by family factors, social factors, and ascribed status. Among the factors related to their own personal characteristics, 31.2% of respondents felt that “dedication or ambition” and “hard work” were decisive, and 46.9% felt that they were very important (China Survey and Data Center, Renmin University of China 2009). This shows that the Chinese people have developed a sense of autonomy and that they rely on their autonomous efforts.

Another survey reveals that 80.4% of people in China have no religious beliefs personally, but 40.8% of them think that “religious belief is pious and should be respected,” while 33.6% think that “belief in religion is an entirely personal matter and has nothing to do with others” (Zheng 2009). As we know, there are great differences between religious and non-religious people in terms of cultural orientation. Thus, most Chinese people display a high degree of social tolerance and inclusiveness toward religion. Among 2942 respondents, 75% felt that “no matter what, we should have integrity,” 70% thought that “a contract is more reliable than a favor,” while only 7% believed that “a favor is more reliable than a contract.” Another 23% said it was hard to tell which is more reliable (Shi 2009). This shows that, in adapting to the market economy, Chinese people have developed the “spirit of contract.”

In a modern society with a market economy, the universal pursuit of “living and developing freely” has become a historical necessity.

The competitiveness entailed by a market economy requires that people exhibit the characteristics of self-motivation in their behavior. The important cornerstone of modern society is the market economic system. “The general law of the market economy is that the market determines the allocation of resources, and the market economy is essentially the economy in which the market determines the allocation of resources” (Xi 2013). The basic feature of market economy is its fierce competition. This kind of competitiveness requires that each participant have the status of a “natural person” (a legal status to which certain rights are attached, e.g., the right to enter into contracts) who can decide on matters concerning himself or herself. Moreover, the market economy is an institutional arrangement that seeks to maximize economic benefits. “The best way for producers to meet price competition and maximize profits is to keep costs at a minimum by adopting the most efficient methods of production” (Samuelson and Nordhaus 2010). To this end, every participant in the market economy must rely on their own efforts and fully explore their own potential, in order to be able to gain a foothold in the fierce world of competition and in order to settle down in the society. Since the market economy system is one of the most basic institutional arrangements in a modern society, the self-motivated efforts of its participants have become an important behavior orientation among Chinese people. According to a survey, respondents were asked about “your favorite method of making a living.” The top three responses were knowledge and technical skill, hard work, and interpersonal skills. Among the 2942 respondents, 2429 (82.7%) chose “knowledge and technical skill,” 2126 people (72.4%) chose “hard work,” while 1523 people (51.9%) chose “interpersonal skills” (Shi 2009). More specifically, 86.9% of young people (ages 18–34) chose “knowledge and technical skill” while 84.1% of those over 55 chose “hard work” (Yi 2011).

Increasing social mobility provides modern people with more space and more choices with which to live and develop freely. In China’s traditional society, people’s freedom was restricted principally because there was limited space and opportunities for social mobility. Unlike traditional society, in a modern society with a market economy, with the growth of the productive forces, sustained and rapid economic growth means that the social division of labor deepens and there are more types of occupations, which in turn leads to a large number of job opportunities. The principle of maximizing efficiency that comes with the market economy means that the flow between various factors of production continues to accelerate. As a result, in a modern society, there are more opportunities for mobility and more space for social mobility, and people have more opportunities to choose from in such a society. “The dominant pattern of mobility in agrarian societies was downward. In industrial societies the volume of upward movement is so much greater that a balance is usually achieved, and, in most cases, the amount of upward movement exceeds the downward” (Lenski 1966). With the substantial expansion of social mobility, more and more people will be self-motivated and will work or start their own business as they wish. In general, the larger the space for social mobility in a society and the more opportunities for social mobility exist, the more freedom and hope people have, and the more dynamic society becomes. “If there are smoother channels and more diverse mechanisms of social mobility, the degree of social mobility is higher and its scale is larger, and more people achieve it. The resulting structure of social class will become more just, rational, open, and dynamic” (Lu 2004). Accordingly, free living and free development have become part of the daily lifestyle and basic needs of modern people.

The increase of leisure time thus becomes a necessary condition for modern people to freely enjoy their diversified lives and development. In a traditional society with a natural economy, due to the extreme backwardness of productive forces, the greatest number of its members did not have leisure time. With the development of the productive forces, social wealth has greatly increased and social redistribution has been strengthened, so that people’s basic livelihoods are no longer a problem. At the same time, as the tertiary industries develop rapidly, people are increasingly liberated from heavy housework. All of these factors enable modern people to spend less time on labor and housework, while their leisure time is greatly increased. We must not underestimate the significance of this increased leisure time for people’s free living and development. Leisure time refers to the time that modern people control on their own, which is a unique wealth owned by themselves. As Marx points out, “this kind of time is not absorbed by direct productive labor, but used for entertainment and rest, thus opening up a vast space for free activities and development” (Marx and Engels 1972b). In the Grundrisse, Marx even points out that in a highly developed society, “the measure of wealth is then not any longer, in any way, labor time, but rather disposable time” (Marx and Engels 1998). Since reform and opening-up, the amount of leisure time that Chinese people possess has greatly increased. Between 1978 and 1994, the average rest time for people in China was only 62 days. That had increased to 97 days in 1995, 114 days in 1996, and 147 days in 2008 (Wei 2014). Further, their average working hours have also decreased, while their leisure time has grown. With increased leisure time, it is more likely that modern people will make a variety of independent and differentiated choices according to their own interests and hobbies, with the result that they have diverse lifestyles and form a diverse state of self-existence and development. In short, with the advancement of modernization, the free living and development that is based on leisure time has become a universal and realistic demand for modern people.

2.2 People Cannot Live and Develop Freely Without Social Justice

Since living and developing in freedom has become one of modern people’s basic needs, how can these needs be guaranteed? Albert Einstein pointed out, “I believe that the most important mission of the state is to protect the individual and to make it possible for him to develop into a creative personality” (Isaacson 2007). They can only be effectively guaranteed if the state maintains and promotes social justice. First, an essential aspect of social justice lies in the principle of equality of opportunity, which aims at maintaining and promoting the behavioral orientation of people’s self-motivated efforts. No individual or group can establish obstacles to the mobility or interests of others that hinder those people’s free mobility and development. Because of this, “it was a demand that all man-made obstacles to the rise of some should be removed, that all privileges of individuals should be abolished, and that what the state contributed to the chance of improving one’s conditions should be the same for all” (Hayek 1987).

A second important aspect of social justice—the field of primary distribution—lies in the principle of distribution based on one’s contribution. This principle effectively safeguards people’s diverse and differentiated lives and development. In the process of the accumulation of social wealth and other resources, the quantity and quality of labor invested by each member of society are different, and the quantity and kinds of factors of production they invest can similarly not be the same. So, their specific contributions to society are different. The principle of distribution according to contribution not only recognizes and protects people’s behavior of freely choosing their life-path and development and the differential results of different efforts, but also prevents egalitarian ideas and behaviors that emphasize similarity of results rather than equality of starting points. Egalitarianism brings about serious harm. It is unfair because it can throw people with strong ability and who make great contributions into deprivation. It suppresses the vitality and creativity of social development, and it seriously hindered China’s normal development for a long period.

3 The Resolution of Social Contradictions

3.1 Everyone in a Modern Society Necessarily Faces a Variety of Social Contradictions

Social contradictions are widespread; they are ubiquitous and permanent. It is inevitable that members of society will be compelled to deal with them. People live and develop through social interaction. Just as development and a normal life constitute people’s basic needs, so does normal social interaction. Marx stipulated that, “man is by nature, if not, as Aristotle indicates, a political, at all events a social animal” (Marx and Engels 1972a). Furthermore, since everyone necessarily engages in social interaction, people in different situations will mix together all kinds of interests and demands in the course of their interactions, and as a result all kinds of social contradictions inevitably arise.

If social contradictions necessarily emerge under any conditions, the conditions of a modern society with a market economy mean that people face a large number and a wide variety of social contradictions with complex causes and structures, and, furthermore, these contradictions will also evolve quickly. A traditional society is based on a natural economy, and its level of productivity is thus limited. Most people in such a society have similar demands: they simply want to survive and live. A traditional society is a largely homogeneous one. As the economic foundation of this society, “each individual peasant family is almost self-sufficient, directly produces most of its consumer needs, and thus acquires its means of life more through an exchange with nature than in intercourse with society. A small holding, the peasant, and his family; beside it another small holding, another peasant, and another family. A few score of these constitute a village, and a few score villages constitute a department. Thus the great mass of the French nation is formed by the simple addition of homologous magnitudes, much as potatoes in a sack form a sack of potatoes” (Marx and Engels 1995b). Thus, certain basic elements and a relatively simple structure result in correspondingly simple interest demands on the part of members of society. This in turn means that relatively few social contradictions emerge, and the probability that social contradictions will emerge later remains low. Further, even though social conflicts occur in a traditional society, the scope and degree of transmission of those conflicts will be limited, due to the closed and isolated space in which that society functions.

Things are different in a modern society. In modern societies where productivity is more developed, people’s interest demands are not simply focused on basic survival; they have a higher level and more types of needs. A modern society is a heterogeneous one, in which there is a high level of social differentiation and an ever-increasing number of social elements. This entails the emergence of a variety of interest demands. Further, interdependence between people increases continually and the degree and rate of social mobility becomes higher than ever before, which means that people’s social interactions and interest demands likewise increase more than ever before. Moreover, with the rapid development of a modern society, the social environment changes greatly, and this inevitably leads to psychological discomfort among many people, such as social anxiety. This aggravates social contradictions. As a result, the points of formation and “points of ignition” of social contradictions increase in number, and subsequently the probability of aggravated social contradictions also increases (Wu 2015). A more serious consequence of increased interdependence between countries and regions is that social contradictions also acquire the property of transmissibility. As Karl Mannheim argues, “the interdependence of all its parts makes the modern order much more sensitive than a simpler form of economic organization… In a well-organized railway, for instance, the effects of an accident are more far-reaching than they were in the stagecoach system of transport…the interdependence of the modern social organism transmits the effects of every maladjustment with increased intensity” (Mannheim 1923).

As a result, people in a modern society with a market economy face an unprecedented number and variety of social contradictions. Among the most common of these are contradictions between the people and public power and contradictions between different social groups.

The contradictions between people and public power in a modern society are becoming more and more widespread and pervasive, due to several factors: public power is focused more on public service, people’s interests and demands in the “public domain” increase rapidly, people’s awareness of equality, rights protection, and public participation is promoted, and people’s cultural quality and capacity for rational judgment increases.

(1) People in a modern society are very concerned about “corruption,” that is, whether public servants who exercise public power will use that power to seek personal gain. Objectively, in the public sphere, public power is actually easily abused, which leads to all kinds of corruption. This is simply because “common experience shows us that every man invested with power is apt to abuse it, and to carry his authority as far as it will go” (de Montesquieu 1777). Once corruption is exposed in the exercise of public power in a modern society, resistance will almost certainly arise on the part of people from various classes, and very fierce struggles will develop.

(2) People in a modern society are very concerned about the sources of public funds and how they are used. They attach great importance to the legitimacy and validity of taxes, as well as the phenomenon of public power competing with the people for economic resources. They are also concerned about whether tax revenue is used for unemployment security, old-age security, public health, and other aspects of people’s livelihoods. Moreover, people pay attention to whether their “shared” achievements of social development can be continuously improved. Given this, once inappropriate phenomena appear, widespread public dissatisfaction is the result. Sometimes, in a specific period, due to limitations on the quantity of public funds, the only reasonable approach is to select a livelihood project for investment in which the principal beneficiaries belong to a specific group, but not all groups. Even this approach may lead to dissatisfaction and resistance from groups that have not yet “benefited” from the decision.

(3) People in a modern society pay more and more attention to public policies that are related to their own vital interests, to the coordination of interests between various groups, and to whether these things are fair or not. Almost everyone is concerned about public policies that have a wide influence, such as those related to the environment and ecology. When a public crisis emerges, in particular, people have a strong sense of judgment, and they are able to evaluate whether public power can respond to the crisis quickly, devise valid strategies, and achieve effective results. Sometimes, people attribute the degree of fairness in their social environment to the activities of public power. Objectively, the problem of whether the social environment is fair or not (i.e., whether there are impediments of vested interests, obvious phenomena of “elite regeneration,” and large-scale discrimination) is extremely complicated, because the situation depends on many historical and practical factors, and it will take a long time to solve the problem. However, people often do not think much about it, and they are likely to attribute the problems to the state of public power at that moment. This creates various kinds of social contradictions.

As people in a modern society form diverse interest demands and as their demands converge quickly, contradictions between different social groups are easily aggravated or intensified. These contradictions involve all aspects of society. The following two contradictions deserve special attention because of their exceptional influence.

(1) The contradiction between rich and poor. People in a modern society generally possess a basic sense of equality, and they attach great importance to the existence of a safety net that can guarantee their basic survival needs and dignity. There is a close relationship between the division between rich and poor and people’s levels of income and property. The division between rich and poor is also an intuitive and accessible indicator that can be used to compare one’s own living conditions with that of others. Therefore, the contradiction between the rich and the poor is a problem that attracts the attention of most members of society, and it will thus have a great impact on that society. Although the rich-poor divide is not the only indicator of whether a society is just or not, it is an important one. An egalitarian society is certainly not a just, stable, and sustainable one. However, if the gap between the rich and the poor is too great in a given society, and if the proportion of low-income and poor people is too high, this indicates the presence of serious social injustice in that society. If the majority of people are dissatisfied with the society, their sense of social identity is reduced, and this leads to the aggravation of social contradictions. From this perspective, “the relation between inequality and rebellion is indeed a close one, and it runs both ways. That a perceived sense of inequity is a common ingredient of rebellion in societies is clear enough…” (Sen and Foster 1997).

(2) The contradiction between labor and capital. With the rapid development of the process of modernization and urbanization, the proportion of the population engaged in primary industry becomes smaller, while the proportion engaged in secondary and tertiary industries is bound to become larger. So, the relationship between labor and capital increasingly involves the majority of employees and becomes one of the basic forms of social relationships. From the perspective of the division of labor in a modern society, it is necessary and legitimate for both “employers” and “employees” to exist because they are the two integral parts of the labor-capital relationship. However, their basic interests are completely different. For the “employer” or “capital,” profit maximization is the basic interest demand. Without profit, enterprises cannot develop or even survive. For the “employee” or “laborer,” their basic interest demand is the maximization of their income from labor, so that their basic living standard can be guaranteed. The conundrum arises from the fact that the basic interests of employers and employees cannot be satisfied at the same time. In such circumstances, the contradiction between labor and capital will inevitably emerge. Because of the extent to which the labor-capital relationship operates in a modern society, the contradiction between labor and capital has become one of the basic social contradictions. In other words, it has become an issue that almost everybody in a modern society has to face at some point in their lives. If this contradiction is not handled properly, many negative effects will arise. Some scholars have pointed out that, in the present stage, the contradictions between labor and capital and labor-capital conflict have had a great influence on Chinese society in at least three respects: (1) they have increased economic costs and caused losses on the part of enterprises; (2) they have become important factors affecting general levels of social harmony and stability; and (3) whether contradictions and collective actions are handled properly will be politically influential (Chang 2009).

From the above, it can be seen that in a modern society with a market economy, every person inevitably encounters a large number and variety of social contradictions which, further, will continually increase. If these contradictions are not effectively resolved or alleviated, it will be impossible for people to acquire a sense of equality and social belonging, and to live and develop freely. Their life hopes will be affected. As a result, it will also be impossible for things to run smoothly in the entire society.

3.2 Social Contradictions and Disputes Cannot Be Resolved Without Social Justice

Certainly, people in a modern society cannot resolve or alleviate social contradictions without social justice. This is because only social justice makes it possible to establish a system that will effectively resolve or alleviate social contradictions. Such a system enables people to act according to laws and regulations, thus reducing the probability and intensity of social contradictions, and aiding in the resolution or alleviation of those that already exist in reality.

This can be understood from at least two angles. On the one hand, having a basic foothold in social justice is key to resolving or alleviating social contradictions. In a modern society with a market economy, all people are equal, and because of the requirements of the social division of labor and social cooperation, every person is attached to society. Thus, social justice focuses on safeguarding the basic rights of every member of society; regardless of whether a person is rich or poor, a senior official or a regular citizen, a male or a female, their basic rights should be protected equally. This is also the starting point for resolving or alleviating social contradictions. If the measures that people enact to resolve or alleviate social contradictions are biased toward the benefit of a certain group’s, unfairness is the necessary result. Such measures will not only fail to resolve or alleviate social contradictions but will aggravate them further.

On the other hand, it is only on the basis of the concept of social justice that we can establish a system to resolve social contradictions effectively. Social justice emphasizes reciprocity and mutuality among groups. The benefits of cooperation to one group must be realized on the condition that other groups also benefit, and not at the expense of their reasonable interests. Accordingly, when establishing the institutional mechanism for resolving or alleviating social contradictions, we ought to ensure that there is equal negotiation and open dialogue, so as to fully embody the spirit of mutual benefit transfer and “win-win” cooperation. At the same time, it is necessary to prevent specific groups from monopolizing the right to speak in institutional arrangements, and to prevent specific groups from having a unilateral right to decide on questions of interests. Only in this way can we establish sound institutions to effectively resolve or alleviate the social contradictions that people currently face and establish mutual trust in preparation for the future emergence of further contradictions.

4 Enlightenment

On the basis of the above analysis, we can demonstrate the following points.

First, we need to understand the vital importance of social justice at both the macro and the micro levels.

People are often aware of the tremendous importance of social justice in a modern society at the macro level. This perspective is undoubtedly correct. However, our understanding cannot be limited to the macro level. Understanding social justice at the micro level, that is, from the perspective of each individual in a modern society, is also essential to understanding the concept. Only by doing this can we have a comprehensive understanding of the tremendous importance of social justice and can we attain a more “textured” and persuasive understanding of it. Clearly, at the micro level, social justice has become an integral part of every person’s daily life, an indispensable daily rule of behavior in all aspects, and a necessary aspect of every stage of people’s lives and future development. The more civilized and modern a society is, the more obvious this point is. It is precisely because social justice is of great significance at both the macro (the entire society) and the micro level (each individual) that we should pay close attention to it and regard it as the starting point and foothold of the process of modernization.

Second, social injustice is closely connected to social contradictions.

As discussed earlier, people in a modern society are most concerned about two things: the acquisition of equality and social belonging, and the realization of living and developing in freedom. Most people’s interest demands are formed around these two things. If it is impossible for these interests to be satisfied, all kinds of social injustices emerge as a result, which leads to a variety of social contradictions. Statistics reveal that China’s Gini coefficient remains high. It was 0.485 in 2005, 0.481 in 2010, 0.462 in 2015, and 0.465 in 2016 (accessed Sept 1, 2022). Further, the wealth gap in terms of family property is even greater. “The top 1% of households own 29.7% of the nation’s total wealth, the top 5% own 46.6%, and the top 10% own 57.7%” (Xie et al. 2017). Other data show that in 2014 “the savings rate of the top 5% of Chinese households was 70%, accounting for 50.6% of total savings” (accessed Sept 1, 2022). From the micro level, individuals in modern society do not feel good about social injustice. According to a 2016 survey, “When respondents were asked, ‘In general, do you think today’s society is fair?’, 5.5% of respondents felt that it was very unfair, 10.2% felt that it was unfair, 28.1% felt that it wasn’t that fair, 21.8% felt that it was relatively fair, 5.7% felt that it was fair, 1.4% felt that it was very fair, and 21.8% remained neutral.” So, more people thought it was unfair (43.8%) than thought it was fair (34%) (Wang 2017). Similarly, a 2013 survey shows that “when rural migrant workers in cities were asked, ‘Do you think today’s society is fair?’, 25.7% of respondents felt that it was very unfair, 38.3% felt that it was relatively unfair, 30% felt that it was relatively fair, 5.9% felt that it was very fair” (Wang and Yang 2013). Thus, only by maintaining and promoting social justice can we reduce the probability and intensity of social contradictions at the source of their emergence.

Third, the key to satisfying people’s basic interest demands lies in effectively promoting both universal justice and differential justice.

Undoubtedly, social justice is the greatest common divisor of modern people’s interests and demands, so the key to satisfying their basic interests lies in maintaining and promoting social justice. The problem is that people tend to fall into a one-sided understanding of social justice. Some regard social justice as an issue of sharing the fruits of social development, that is, as a universal justice based on the idea of equality. Others regard it as a matter of differential justice based on the idea of liberty. From the above we can see that the acquisition of equality and social belonging and the realization of living and developing in freedom are the basic interest demands of modern people. Accordingly, social justice in the modern sense includes both universal justice and differential justice. They complement each other and are both indispensable, only thereby constituting the basic elements of social justice. “The social function of universal justice is that it is conducive to social integration and so helps improve social security. It is also conducive to boosting domestic consumption and to effectively developing society-wide potential. The social function of differential justice is that it is conducive to stimulating social vitality and creativity and to forming and enriching a diverse society so that individuals can have hope for their future development” (Wu 2017). Thus, only by promoting both universal justice and differential justice at the same time can we satisfy people’s basic interests and demands.