Specialization and professionalization have both increased within modern society under conditions crafted by market society. Accordingly, there is a growing need for cooperation among various social groups. As this social cooperation improves, everyone’s individual potential can be more fully cultivated while also stimulating the potential of society overall, thereby promoting sustainable socioeconomic development. Social justice and social cooperation are closely related. The maintenance and promotion of social justice are necessary prerequisites for effective social cooperation. Higher degrees of social justice allow for the unnecessary abrasion caused by zero-sum or negative-sum competition to be reduced while also advancing effective and comprehensive social cooperation and improving the unit efficiency of both individual social groups and society overall.

1 The Strengthening Correlation Between Social Cooperation and Social Justice

1.1 Social Cooperation Grows More Intensive

Social cooperation has always existed in human society. As Marx said, “man, if not as Aristotle contends, a political, is at all events a social animal” (Marx 1975). By “social” Marx here meant the unique “social” attributes that make humans human. Namely, the need for social interaction that inevitably arises between people, including both social cooperation and social conflict.

Social cooperation is when different members of society or distinct social groups, each occupying a specific position within the social division of labor, achieve specific goals according to their occupational or professional position while also achieving other goals outside of their specific remit or a level of productivity otherwise unattainable under the sole power of one person or group—thereby bringing about development and ensuring the routine functioning of society, as well as corresponding returns. “Social relations imply the cooperation of many individuals” (Marx and Engels 1960).

Obviously, individual members of society and distinct social groups can only survive and develop through cooperation. Survival and development are the innate and fundamental pursuits of all members of society but cannot be achieved through the efforts of a single individual. The most fundamental productive activities of all members of society are inseparably linked to social cooperation. Marx said that members of society “produce only by working together in a specified manner and reciprocally exchanging their activities. In order to produce, they enter into definite connections and relations to one another, and only within these social connections and relations does their influence upon nature operate – i.e., does production take place” (Marx and Engels 1995). It is only by relying on social cooperation and the strength of society as a whole that individuals can effectively respond to the risks posed by nature and other groups of people—which a “lone individual” cannot address—such as natural disasters, public crises, external invasions, etc. “For man’s development beyond the level of the animals, for the achievement of the greatest advance nature can show, something more was needed: the power of defense lacking to the individual had to be made good by the united strength and co-operation of the herd” (Marx and Engels 1995). Furthermore, it is only through social cooperation that individuals can acquire an entirely new, higher-level “social” ability that is greater than the sum of its parts. “It is through social union founded upon the needs and potentialities of its members that each person can participate in the total sum of the realized natural assets of the others” (Rawls 1999). What’s important is that such a “social” ability is helpful for individuals’ own development while simultaneously promoting both the specific interests of particular social groups and the common interest.

Although social cooperation has existed in human society since ancient times, it tends to deepen in modern society and under the market economy.

The deepening of social cooperation is an inevitable historical trend. On the one hand, with the improvement of modern productive forces, the social division of labor becomes specialized, intricate, and complicated. Thus, each social group and every individual member of society also needs to become more specialized in some fashion, because it is only through specialization that their potential can be fully expressed and their production efficiency successfully improved. “In modern society, organizational functions have become increasingly specialized, which is mainly due to the highly differentiated social structure brought about by industrialization, technological revolution and specialized and precise division of labor” (Wu 2002a). Furthermore, social cooperation becomes more necessary as the intricacy of specialization and the complexity of the social division of labor intensify. Thus, as the modern productivity of a society develops, it becomes more complex and the degree of social cooperation inevitably increases.

On the other hand, within modern society and the market economy there is an unprecedented accumulation of social risk that increasingly conjoined individual members of society to the requirements of social cooperation more generally. In the early stage of large-scale industry, “The bourgeoisie, during its rule of scarce one hundred years, has created more massive and more colossal productive forces than have all preceding generations together” (Marx and Engels 1995). In modern society, aggregate economic output has accumulated at an astounding rate and continues to see unprecedented expansion in the twenty-first century. Meanwhile, the development of science and technology has been advancing by leaps and bounds. After World War II, new technological revolutions have become a daily affair. In particular, the social networking technology that has become ubiquitous since the 1990s has had a multiplier effect on the development of science and technology.

Aside from this, the interests of particular social groups have also diversified and grown more complex, making it more difficult to achieve mutual balance between these interests. As society becomes more open, the speed at which different cultures intersect increases and achieving harmony between cultures thereby becomes more difficult, posing greater problems for social integration. Moreover, since these uncertainties are often intertwined, social risk takes on a systematic character. Social risks therefore expand with an astonishing speed once they have broken past a certain critical boundary and grown uncontrollable, threatening every member of society, every social group, and even society as a whole. Ulrick Beck phrased it this way: social risks “contain a ‘boomerang effect’, which breaks up the pattern of class and national society. Ecological disaster and atomic fallout ignore the borders of nations” (Beck 1992). These unprecedented risks are harmful to every social group. Since no single group can cope with these risks alone, it becomes necessary for all to work together. And this kind of collective response to social risks can only be conducted through social cooperation.

Clearly, social cooperation is a necessity for the survival and development of every individual and each social group, especially within modern society. Rawls argued that “everyone’s well-being depends upon a scheme of cooperation without which no one could have a satisfactory life” (Rawls 1999). However, in terms of its specific effects, social cooperation can be divided into different categories: the fullest or most optimal social cooperation (“Pareto optimality”), effective or better social cooperation, and the most inefficient or worst social cooperation (“Nash equilibrium”). Objectively speaking, in a modern society with an economy market, the most optimal or the fullest social cooperation (“Pareto optimality”) is excessively idealistic and therefore too difficult to achieve in terms of our purposes of social cooperation. But the worst social cooperation (“Nash equilibrium”) must be avoided, as must the most inefficient. Therefore, effective or better social cooperation is the most realistic and feasible goal for social cooperation to strive towards.

1.2 Social Cooperation Is Bound by Social Justice

It should be noted that, in modern society under the market economy, realizing effective social cooperation requires certain binding conditions. These binding conditions are provided by social justice. In other words, there is a high positive correlation between effective social cooperation and social justice. As Rawls said, “The idea of cooperation includes the idea of fair terms of cooperation: these are terms each participant may reasonably accept, and sometimes should accept, provided that everyone else likewise accepts them. Fair terms of cooperation specify an idea of reciprocity, or mutuality: all who do their part as the recognized rules require are to benefit as specified by a public and agreed-upon standard” (Rawls 2001). Without social justice—or without enough social justice—it is difficult to guarantee social cooperation sustainably and effectively. Moreover, modern society is heterogeneous, with many complex constituent elements, a growing diversity of individual interests, and more frequent interactions between members of society. Thus, even while there are more varieties of mutual cooperation—each with proliferating aspects—such cooperation also grows more difficult. From this it follows that social cooperation is increasingly dependent on social justice. Lacking social justice, many individuals and social groups also lack fundamental norms and, therefore, the overall quality of social cooperation inevitably declines. “Social justice is an indispensable prerequisite for solving social problems… We are unlikely to conduct effective social cooperation if social justice cannot be maintained through punitive mechanisms” (Ye 2012).

In short, within a modern society under a market economy, the question of whether effective social cooperation can be carried out smoothly and sustainably depends on three aspects for all involved: what benefits are attained at the micro level, how benefits are balanced at the macro level, and how these benefits are guaranteed overall. These three key aspects increasingly depend on whether all parties adopt the fundamental idea of social justice as their criterion.

2 Social Justice Is Necessary for Effective Social Cooperation at the Micro Level

2.1 The Fundamental Significance of Effective Social Cooperation at the Micro Level

At the micro level, social cooperation indicates the direct interest relationships between individuals or groups. At this scale, these are mostly or even primarily direct economic revenues between different social or economic organizations within the community. The most typical of these is the social cooperation between “employees” and “employers” (business owners) that lies at the core of the labor-capital relationship. Social cooperation at the micro level clearly occurs, for the most part, within the sphere of initial distribution. The key problem here is the question of how to “divide” and “distribute” the benefits created through the mutual cooperation of all parties.

To better understand this micro scale, we need to posit three preconditions. First, the organizations (communities) on which social cooperation depends are able to make a profit. If they went bankrupt, there would be no question of benefits to “divide” and “distribute” between the involved parties. Second, the enterprise is the typical unit on which micro level social cooperation depends. Although there are various types of organizations or units, in an economic organization such as enterprises, the concrete conditions of all cooperating parties can be fully manifest. Third, there is no “external force” involved when the parties of an organization are engaged in the contest of interests—except in the case of certain internal institutional spokespeople, as in the case of labor unions. Otherwise, the contest between all cooperating parties within the organization will have no “direct” or “representative” significance.

Micro level social cooperation is of fundamental and extensive importance for the everyday operation and healthy development of society overall.

Micro level social cooperation is a significant issue directly related to the efficiency of the market economy. “Although the market economy cannot solve all problems, especially the basic purpose of modernization, it can surely solve the problem of economic efficiency to a great extent” (Wu 2017a). The economy is the foundation for the operation and development of society in general, and the market economy is the foundation for the operation and development of modern society specifically. The fundamental dynamism and creativity of modern society and its prospects for development all largely depend on how resources are allocated. And the allocation of resources depends on how the economy works. “Theory and practice have proved that the market allocation of resources is the most efficient form. A general law and essence of the market economy is that the market determines resource allocation” (Xi 2013). Given certain conditions of resource allocation, the question of whether it is possible to produce better and greater benefits mostly depends on the state of micro level social cooperation. Just imagine, if labor and management cooperate well within an enterprise, their zeal for production will be fully mobilized and their potential will be fully cultivated. As a result, the efficiency of the enterprise will be greatly improved and conflicts between labor and capital will decline to relatively low levels. In a similar fashion, if labor and management in most enterprises are cooperating well this is a sign that the state of micro scale social cooperation is sound and, therefore, that society is brimming with creativity and vigor for development at the most fundamental level.

Since it concerns the basic income of most members of society, the state of micro level social cooperation is a major issue with a wide-ranging impact. The reason we say that “employment is the root of people’s livelihood” is because individuals obtain the necessary income for themselves and their families through work. Most people engaged in secondary and tertiary industry are employees who must cooperate with one another at the micro level to obtain the basic income necessary for their own survival. The employees in these sectors compose an extremely large group. At the end of 2015, the total number of employed individuals in China was 774.51 million, of which 226.93 million were employed in secondary industry and 328.39 million in tertiary industry, accounting for 29.3% and 42.4% of the total, respectively (National Bureau of Statistics 2016). Obviously, the state of micro level social cooperation has a wide scope of influence: it not only affects the basic income of most workers and their families, but also impacts the platform and progress of their free development. Because income is extremely important for any member of society, when problems arise at the micro level of social cooperation they will inevitably trigger dissatisfaction among a proportionately large share of the population. Another element must also be taken into consideration here: some of the problems that arise at this micro scale of social cooperation originate in the unfair gains won by business owners (employers). Since this makes it easy for individuals to blame business owners whenever issues arise at this scale—and which therefore cause incomes and living standards to decline—employers are easily made into the direct “targets” of large social struggles.

When “dividing” and “distributing” the benefits that derive from this level of social cooperation, injustice inevitably leads to inefficiency. “When participating in social cooperation, there is a great possibility that an unjust cooperative relationship can be formed between the advantaged and the disadvantaged” (Li 2016). Employers with scarce resources (i.e., capital) will sometimes use their position to unilaterally tilt the distribution of benefits in their favor. They thereby reduce the income and welfare of workers, encroaching on the workers’ reasonable interests to enlarge their own benefits. This practice will inevitably mar the enthusiasm of the workers and aggravate the conflicts between all parties involved in social cooperation. Meanwhile, the corresponding forms of resistance mobilized by the workers, such as strikes, will lower the profits of the business owners. As a result, the interests of both employers and employees will be impaired. This kind of situation was quite common during the early stage of the industrial revolution. It is also important to note that, when modernization develops to a certain stage, the growing strength of trade unions—alongside numerous other causes—gives workers a disproportionate say in the division of benefits, causing the distribution to tilt in their favor and encroaching on the reasonable interests of employers. In the long run, both forms of injustice will harm the reasonable interests of all parties involved in social cooperation. This, in turn, will not only lead to inefficiency and weaken the further development of enterprises but will also periodically lead to conflicts and, in severe cases, interrupt social cooperation entirely.

2.2 Effective Micro Level Social Cooperation Is Inseparable from Social Justice

It is apparent that the key to effective micro level social cooperation lies in adopting the fundamental idea of social justice as its guiding criterion.

Specifically, when the involved parties first “divide” and “distribute” benefits, they should follow the socially just rule of distribution according to contribution, keeping to the principle of “each according to their ability, each in their proper place.” Namely: “With a sprinkling of appropriate assumptions, it can be demonstrated that a competitive market will pay workers and investors the value of their contributions to output” (Okun 1975).

In the process of producing wealth or output (benefits) through social cooperation, all involved parties make different yet indispensable contributions: Some put in a larger amount of labor, while others contribute a smaller amount. Some may not put in much labor, but the labor that they do contribute is very complex. Some contribute skill. Some invest their time and energy in administration. Others may not contribute any labor, skill, or administrative capacity, but they also make an important contribution nonetheless, since they provide the scarce capital that is essential for economic activity. All involved should “divide” and “distribute” the benefits of wealth or output derived from social cooperation according to their respective contribution. “To each agent a distinguishable share in production, and to each a corresponding reward—such is the natural law of distribution” (Clark 1899). Only in this way can the problem of how to fairly relate investments (contributions) and returns (gains) be settled, thereby establishing a just correspondence between the “gains” of each party involved in social cooperation and their concrete contribution.

Following the socially just principle of distribution according to contribution at this micro level not only ensures the net income of laborers (employees) but also the net profit of employers. In this way, social cooperation is kept in accord with the interests and needs of all parties and is thereby conducive to increasing their dynamism. Meanwhile, the practice is also mutually beneficial for all involved, helping enterprises increase their gross profit and improve efficiency in the future so that cooperation can continue in the long run.

When discussing socially just allocation, it is also essential to consider several related conditions: First, the fundamental rights of the laborers must be protected. Workers engage in social cooperation in order to obtain reasonable remuneration that can satisfy their subsistence needs, not out of “unconditional” duty. The protection of fundamental labor rights is therefore the necessary precondition of this “ordinary” labor. These fundamental rights include safe work conditions, working hours not being extended at will, the wage not falling below a certain standard level, and prompt payment of due income, just to name a few. If these rights are violated, the workers’ reasonable interests will be impaired and the mutual benefits of social cooperation will be tarnished, thereby making cooperation unsustainable.

Second, employers’ numerous “high risk and high return” endeavors must be recognized. While it is undeniable that some employers obtain substantial profits by unjust means and that this situation should be corrected, this does not imply that all high profits are infringements on the reasonable interests of others. It must be noted that some of the employers’ investments are venture capital, and that venture capital itself is a necessity within modern society and the market economy which could, in a sense, be classified as an “innovative” economic activity. In the long run, venture capital is beneficial to socioeconomic progress and provides a long-standing contribution to society overall. In actual economic life “the market does reward such risk-taking with higher-than-average remuneration” (Samuelson and Nordhaus 2010). We should not only recognize investment, but even encourage it. Based on this, society ought to “protect entrepreneurs’ innovation rights and interests according to law… Create a social atmosphere that respects and encourages entrepreneurs to start businesses…Innovate the interactive mechanism between government and enterprises, improve the positive incentive mechanism for entrepreneurs, improve the property rights protection system, and enhance entrepreneurs’ innovative vitality and entrepreneurial motivation” (People’s Daily 2017).

Third, workers should share in a portion their company’s profits. After the first two conditions have been met, the problem of how to distribute the profits of the enterprise must be addressed. Even though, from the legal point of view, the allocation of profits should be decided by the board of directors—and in general profits should first be distributed among shareholders after sufficient funds are reserved for the development of the enterprise—in a certain sense, a portion of profits are derived from the joint contribution of all parties involved in social cooperation. Therefore, the profits that can be allocated should not solely be returned to “employers” (investors). Some portion should be distributed to workers in line with their contribution. Although this is not a necessity (since it is decided by the board of directors), it is nonetheless something that ought to be practiced (in accord with the socially just principle of distribution according to contribution).

3 Social Justice Is Necessary for Effective Social Cooperation at the Macro Level

3.1 The Fundamental Significance of Effective Social Cooperation at the Macro Level

Macro level social cooperation mainly refers to cooperation between various spheres (including various industries), between various communities, and between generations. Here, emphasis is not only placed on the direct interests that connect people but also on their indirect interests—and the goal is not only to achieve a balance between their immediate interests in the short term but to reach an equilibrium of interests over the long term as well. At this scale, the focus is on allowing the mutual realization of necessary interests in order to achieve an appropriate and just balance of interests overall, thereby enabling each group within society to contribute what it can and occupy the position that it deserves. This also serves to realize an integrated social unity, ensure the safe operation of society, and guarantee its healthy development. If micro level social cooperation addresses the questions that arise in society’s initial distribution of benefits, then macro level social cooperation addresses questions of redistribution.

Macro level social cooperation is essential for the safe operation of society overall and for its healthy development. If serious problems of socioeconomic inequity arise within a social community, this will have an impact on the integration and unity of all social groups, leading to serious social conflicts that will severely hinder the safe operation and healthy development of society—in which case everyone loses, regardless of social group.

Another aspect that can’t be ignored is the fact that macro level social cooperation is concerned with the important question of whether people are able to form a sense of social belonging. In traditional society, where the individual household rooted in the natural economy was the basic unit of life and production, people were unable to wield independence as “individuals.” The personalities that formed were instead marked by interdependence. However, in the modern world, under conditions crafted by an open society and a market economy, individuals have developed a sense of independence and autonomy. Although this is a sort of historical progress, it also means that they must face an unusually lively modern society filled with demanding interests and different lifestyles, clamoring with constant change, manifold diversity, and increasing complexity. At the same time, this is a strange world lacking in human feeling, which easily makes people feel isolated and helpless. “Therefore, when searching for a suitable partner for a cooperative enterprise in an anonymous, mobile, changing society one will not look out for persons who are moral only in regard to a particular circle of people, but for persons who in general have a moral attitude; persons, that is, who take a moral point of view, in the sense of being impersonal and impartial towards the interests of others. Only in such a society, which is the exact counterpart to the social life in a traditional community, will there be a reasonable interest in a universalistic morality. Every kind of group-egoistic morality would be judged as too risky for the members of respective group themselves” (Baurmann 2002). Therefore, when viewed from the perspective of people’s psychological needs, social cooperation among members of society is essential. Through social cooperation they can find companions with the same needs and, by helping one another, form a sense of belonging and community.

3.2 Effective Macro Level Social Cooperation Is Inseparable from Social Justice

Undoubtedly, effective macro level social cooperation depends on the resonance between social justice and the rules that govern the balancing of society. “The rule of social adjustment makes some necessary adjustments to the social interest pattern after the initial distribution based on the overall interests of the society, so that members of society can continuously get the benefits brought by development, and then the quality of society can be improved” (Wu 2002b). It is only through socially just rules for balancing society that the interests of all social groups can be brought into equilibrium, thereby achieving effective and sustainable macro level social cooperation. In this regard, there are three key matters that must be correctly dealt with: the fundamental eradication of poverty, the formation of an olive-shaped social structure, and the important issue of intergenerational justice.

The eradication of poverty is fundamental for effective social cooperation. Within a social community, the issue of poverty lies at the nexus of the numerous interests that must be brought into balance. Thus, if not effectively resolved, it will hinder the effectiveness of all the different aspects of social cooperation at their root. Within the field of psychology, attribution theory demonstrates that there are significant differences in how the causes of behavior are explained by better-off individuals in contrast to those who are worse-off. Those from better-off backgrounds tend to make “internal” causal attributions, understanding their good lives to be the result of their own efforts. But rather than finding causes in their own behavior, those from worse-off backgrounds tend to make “external” causal attributions, understanding their bad situation to be the result of factors within the social environment that are beyond their control, such as injustice and corruption. Those who make external attributions easily grow resentful toward society and find it difficult to cultivate a proactive attitude that allows them to identify with society in general. It therefore follows that, if there are too many members of impoverished groups within a society, there will be a proportionately large number of people lacking in basic dignity and fundamental standards of life who have grown resentful and who therefore make it difficult to form any general basis for identification with society. Under such circumstances, it becomes difficult to build trust across social groups. Instead, social exclusion and barriers to entry proliferate and, in the long run, a distinct “culture of poverty” will take shape among impoverished groups, tearing society apart and causing severe social disorder. “For party strife is everywhere due to inequality… for generally the motive for factious strife is the desire for equality” (Aristotle 1959). Eventually, the regular functioning of social cooperation—not to mention efficient social cooperation—becomes impossible.

Poverty can be subdivided into absolute poverty and relative poverty. Although it is impossible to fundamentally eliminate relative poverty within modern society and the market economy, it is nonetheless possible to fundamentally eliminate absolute poverty. If a society establishes a basic social security system (including a system to ensure minimal living standards for the poorest members of society), a public health system and a compulsory education system—all using social justice as the criterion for balancing interests—then that society can fundamentally eliminate absolute poverty and effectively alleviate relative poverty. Moreover, as modernization advances, the total wealth of society will grow larger, and the financial strength of the country will grow stronger. Accordingly, society will also become more capable of eliminating absolute poverty, making its fundamental elimination less and less of a problem. At this point, effective social cooperation can be carried out smoothly and sustainably, taking the fact that most members of society have basic dignity and equal rights as its foundation.

To ensure effective social cooperation, it is also extremely important that the number of individuals within middle-income groups be increased, expanding the range of these groups. An olive-shaped social structure (small at both the top and bottom but large in the middle) is the shape most conducive to effective social cooperation. In such a social structure, wealth and interests are relatively balanced. Basic survival is not an issue for the vast majority of people. They have some family wealth, a certain level of education, a decent job, and are also able to rely on a stable and dependable social security system to hedge against various social risks. Because of this, they are more likely to identify with society, reducing conflicts. Under such circumstances, most people can easily perform their normal duties within the professional division of labor, ensuring that social cooperation functions effectively. By contrast, if middle-income groups compose only a small proportion of society, low-income individuals will compose a large proportion of the population even while they own a small proportion of social wealth. Similarly, the rich will own a large proportion of social wealth despite their small number (Wu 2017b). In such conditions, people will lack basic social security and ultimately lose hope in the future, making it less likely that they will be able to live and work in peace and contentment. Most individuals and social groups will have trouble identifying with society. “Some transgressions of money on rights…may be as important a source of cynicism, radicalism and alienation as the vast disparities in material living standards between rich and poor” (Okun 1975). In this context, it becomes difficult for effective social cooperation to take shape.

The main channels for expanding middle-income groups are as follows: First, personal property rights should be protected. China’s 2004 constitution included a clause stating that “citizens’ lawful private property is inviolable.” Xi Jinping has also stated that we must “strengthen the protection of property rights” and “enhance people’s sense of property security” (Xi 2016). Within modern society and the market economy, personal property is the foundation on which individuals—especially those in middle-income groups—can settle and pursue their interests. Only when personal property is truly protected can people expect to accumulate wealth. Second, the tax burden should be reduced for wage earners and small business owners. Both are important constituents of middle-income groups. Since they rely on wage income and business profits to accumulate wealth, heavy tax burdens have an adverse effect on their development. It is therefore necessary to reduce their tax burden, in accord with the principle of “keeping wealth with the people.” Third, property revenue channels should be expanded. For most middle-income people, accumulating wealth only through wages is too slow a process. Moreover, when general economic conditions are poor, wealth accumulation will begin to stagnate, and predictable growth becomes difficult to obtain. Because of this, the sources of property income available to middle-income people should be expanded—including direct and indirect investment in the stock market and property market, as well as investment via family finance. Only in this way can household wealth accumulation among middle-income people be effectively increased.

Another factor that cannot be ignored is intergenerational justice. The way that issues of intergenerational justice are resolved exerts a substantial influence on social cooperation. Viewed from the perspective of a community’s needs, social cooperation not only includes the “horizontal” or “immediate” cooperation between social groups aimed at resolving “pragmatic” issues of coexistence and development, but also the “vertical” or “protracted” cooperation between generations aimed at resolving ongoing “long-term” issues of coexistence and development. Every generation bears responsibility for this “protracted” cooperation. The significance of intergenerational justice lies first and foremost in recognizing the wealth created by previous generations and giving fair returns in accordance with this contribution. Thus, each member of the current generation makes “horizontal” contributions as well as “vertical” ones. After all, the existing social wealth is not solely the product of the current generation but includes a portion that was created by members of society who are now retired from the workforce. “This community may also be imagined to extend over time, and therefore in the history of a society the joint contributions of successive generations can be similarly conceived” (Rawls 1999). It is normal for elders to receive social support, even if they aren’t wholly relying on others. Second, intergenerational social justice helps to make up for the historic deficiencies that have arisen in both “horizontal” and “vertical” social justice. For various reasons, “immediate” justice in the current society is inevitably faced with many different types of problems, and promoting intergenerational justice is an important method for correcting such problems. In this sense, promoting intergenerational justice can rebalance some injustices that arose in the previous period and prevent certain injustices from arising in the future. Third, intergenerational justice has a certain practical demonstration effect. Since it relates to the trust between generations and is concerned with whether the contributions of previous generations are recognized and reasonably rewarded, it also has a certain impact on the trust between various groups within society as it currently exists and, thereby, influences social cooperation.

Reasonable returns on the contributions of previous generations are mainly realized through the distribution of welfare benefits. Generally speaking, the allocation of these resources to previous generations should not result in a welfare level that is lower than the average current welfare of all members of society. In addition, there are two specific contributions made by previous generations that deserve additional compensation. First, due to mistakes of social policy at the time, the previous generation never received certain benefits that it deserved. This mistake ought to be compensated for by policy today. Second, the preceding generation also made enormous contributions to socioeconomic construction for which they expended exhaustive amounts of physical strength and energy, causing many to suffer from different types of disease and other physical ailments. At the time, the country’s weak financial position meant that there was no way to compensate them for this contribution. With socioeconomic development, the financial strength of society has now grown, and this should be used as an opportunity to repay the previous generation for this monumental contribution.

4 Social Justice Is Necessary to Safeguard Effective Social Cooperation

4.1 Equitable Public Revenues and Investments Actively Advance Social Cooperation

To ensure effective social cooperation, two dimensions of the issue merit special attention. At the immediate and practical level, social cooperation should be safeguarded by giving public revenues and public investments wide-ranging financial latitude. Meanwhile, at the holistic and long-term level, social cooperation should be safeguarded by ensuring socially just institutional arrangements.

Equitable public revenues and investments can directly balance a number of important social interests and help achieve effective social cooperation. Society exists and develops in the form of the social community. At root, the reason that members of society seek to form a social community is because it can provide them the protection necessary for their survival and development. In other words, its significance lies in protecting the basic rights of all members of society and providing them with the necessary opportunities for development. At the same time, every member of society also has certain rights and obligations to the social community. All of this is, in a sense, achieved through fair and reasonable public revenues and investments. The funds necessary for equitable public revenue and investment are largely obtained through income taxes, inheritance taxes, and other forms of taxation levied on the “normal” incomes of individuals and socioeconomic organizations, especially business owners, high-income individuals, and economic entities. After deducting a certain amount for national defense and the day-to-day maintenance of public authority, the major portion of these tax revenues are converted into public investment, which will fund social undertakings that improve peoples’ quality of life while also advancing equity and balancing a number of important social interests. In this way, social unity and integration are achieved and effective social cooperation is realized. If pursued, the process must not only offer effective protection for the fundamental life and dignity of low-income people but also provide social security for high-income people as well—finally driving forward the construction of a social community and enhancing the common interests of all members of society.

Although public revenues and investments are necessary for social cooperation, there remains the issue of whether they are equitable. If this problem is not adequately addressed—and it can be caused by going too far or not doing enough—then it can impair social cooperation. Thus, there are two different issues to be solved. First, although the public revenue derived from taxation should be taken from the people, its proportion relative to income should not be excessive. At present, the tax burden of the Chinese people is too heavy. In 2016, total national budgetary revenue was 15.96 trillion yuan and the per capita real tax burden had exceeded 11,000 yuan (National Bureau of Statistics 2017). According to World Bank data, the average tax rate for Chinese workers is 45%, which is far higher than the average level of the OECD countries and is even slightly higher than the average rate in the 15 countries of the EU. Meanwhile, it is nearly double the rate in Australia and the United States (Ding 2012). Other data show that, at present, the “five types of social insurance plus one housing fund” guaranteed to Chinese workers draws 40%–50% out of their total wage (Ma 2014). This inequitable tax burden is not conducive to social justice. It will inevitably have a detrimental impact on people’s livelihoods and hinder social cooperation from taking shape.

Another problem is prioritizing public investment. Peoples’ welfare ought to be given precedence according to two principles. The first principle is that peoples’ livelihoods should take precedence in the prioritization of public investment overall. The reason is simple: “within modern society and the market economy, peoples’ livelihoods are a fundamental need for society and should take precedence in prioritizing public investment” (Wu 2017c). It must be admitted that, in recent years, the Chinese government has substantially increased its spending on peoples’ welfare, going a long way toward rectifying the backwards priority that used to prevail in public spending. However, for historical and practical reasons, public investment in China is still inequitable. This is evident in the fact that investment in peoples’ basic welfare is still inadequate, with China ranking low worldwide in terms of social spending, even while investment in the construction of opulent cities and luxury projects ranks high.

The second principle for prioritizing public investment is that, in the course of improving peoples’ livelihoods, fundamental welfare should be given priority. Social welfare involves a range of issues, including fundamental ones such as social relief and compulsory education, as well as relatively higher-order ones like public health and higher education. However, the public investment funds available for improving peoples’ livelihoods are limited. In terms of the marginal effect or “quality-price ratio,” using these limited funds to invest in fundamental welfare will have the maximum impact.

4.2 Equitable Institutions Safeguard Effective Social Cooperation

In the long run, effective social cooperation depends on the construction of correspondingly equitable institutions.

The establishment of equitable institutions is a safeguard necessary for effective social cooperation to take shape. It is a weakness of human nature that, while engaged in social cooperation, individuals are partial to their own interests and thereby give rise to a form of individual rationality similar to that seen in the “prisoner’s dilemma.” Under these circumstances, it may be possible for the interests of one party to be advanced in a short period of time—but only at the expense of the reasonable interests of others. As a result, it is often difficult for lasting and effective social cooperation to take shape. Establishing equitable institutions is obviously key to solving this problem. The reason is simple: Whether sustainable and effective social cooperation can take shape depends on whether there is continuous trust between the parties involved. Whether the stakeholders in social cooperation can form a lasting trust depends on whether they have sustainable and mutually reinforcing interests and are able to meet halfway. Furthermore, whether their interests are mutually reinforcing or not depends on whether they can collectively abide by equitable institutional arrangements. As Rawls said: “Social cooperation is guided by publicly recognized rules and procedures which those cooperating accept as appropriate to regulate their conduct…Fair terms of cooperation specify an idea of reciprocity, or mutuality: all who do their part as the recognized rules require are to benefit as specified by a public and agreed-upon standard” (Rawls 2001).

To ensure effective social cooperation, an equitable institutional arrangement should have the following characteristics: First, it requires unimpeded channels for the communication of interests. Within modern society and the market economy, there is an equality between individuals or social groups. When each party to social cooperation expresses its interests, they should find open channels of communication and their appeal should meet no obstruction. This not only prevents one party from monopolizing power in policymaking, ensures the equity of policies, and enhances the effectiveness of social cooperation overall, it also allows all involved to form trust through the equal and full expression of their respective interests, which is conducive to their cooperation in the long term.

Second, equitable institutional arrangements require an open and transparent mechanism for the disclosure of information. Obvious differences exist in the amount of relevant knowledge held by different parties due to differences in educational level and their ability to attain information. This has an adverse effect on the fairness of the contest between competing interests and thereby hinders social cooperation. Ensuring the transparency of information can prevent any one party from using its monopoly on information or its ability to obstruct the flow of important information to cheat or mislead the others, creating asymmetrical conditions that place the other parties in an unfavorable and unequal position within the contest of interests. From this it is apparent that the openness and transparency of information is a necessary condition for a fair contest and thus for social cooperation overall.

Third, equitable institutional arrangements require an equitable mechanism for negotiation. Although the interests of each party differ, in most cases they all hope to find a reasonable balance of interests and, on this basis, engage in mutual cooperation. This reasonable balance of interests can only be achieved through an equitable mechanism for negotiation. “When sincere and good persons differ, we are prone to think they must accept some procedure to decide their differences, some procedure they both agree to be reliable or fair” (Nozick 1974). Through equal and ample negotiation and consultation, all parties involved in social cooperation can make necessary compromises and ensure that their interests are met. For example, one stakeholder can use their reserved benefits to make some sort of concession, while another can make a corresponding, incremental concession, thus ensuring that interests are balanced within a particular period of time and thereby enabling social cooperation to proceed.

Fourth, equitable institutional arrangements require an effective mechanism for the correction of errors. From a long-term perspective, no matter what kind of institutional arrangements the stakeholders follow, there will always be varying levels of inappropriate discord. If this discord cannot be corrected in the proper fashion, it will endanger social cooperation in the long run. Thus, an error correction mechanism should be an essential part of any equitable institutional arrangement. As Aristotle argued, “Therefore, this kind of injustice being an inequality, the judge tries to equalize it; for in the case also in which one has received and the other has inflicted a wound, or one has slain and the other been slain, the suffering and the action have been unequally distributed” (Aristotle 1999).

The key to creating socially just institutional arrangements lies in embodying the basic spirit of social justice. Namely: safeguarding the basic rights of every member of society no matter which social group they come from. Whether poor or rich, officials or common people, members of the majority group or members of a minority group, when it comes to basic rights all should be equally protected. To this end, three destructive situations must be guarded against: The first is when the “majority group” exerts control over a “minority” group. Even members of minority groups have a right to equal and indiscriminate protection. When the “majority” controls the “minority,” this creates a situation in which egalitarianism or populism is likely to emerge, reducing the efficiency of social cooperation or even disrupting it outright. When considered over an even longer timespan, everyone in the majority group could become a member of the minority group under different conditions. Therefore, if the fundamental rights of minorities are not protected, this means that the fundamental rights of all members of the majority group may not be properly protected and long-term, extensive, and effective social cooperation becomes impossible. The second destructive situation that must be guarded against is a situation in which capital carries inordinate power. In the market economy, there is no doubt that capital is an extremely important and scarce resource that wields an immense influence. As the proprietors of this scarce resource, business owners have advantages over other groups. Sometimes, with the help of this advantage, they will bias the distribution of benefits in their favor and impair the reasonable interests of the other parties. Over time, this will damage effective social cooperation on a larger scale and can even cause social conflicts that affect the safe operation of society. The third situation is the expansion of public authority. The harmonization of interests between stakeholders in social cooperation cannot be accomplished without the safeguard of the “middle party,” and a key component of this “middle party” is public authority (including government, the judiciary, etc.). The public authority capable of going beyond each party’s individual interests “to mediate, harmonize and balance powers” should be controlled by a just and impartial group. However, under certain conditions, this public authority will nonetheless see some expansion, causing a certain degree of damage to the effectiveness of social cooperation. Therefore, society must “put power into the institutional cage” (People’s Daily 2013) and “adhere to the Constitution that all State power belongs to the people. No organization or individual shall have the privilege beyond the Constitution and laws. All violations of the Constitution and laws must be investigated” (Xi 2012).