Yao Wei and Yuan Lin: The Ecological Aesthetic Implication and Contemporary Value of Marx and Engels' Communist Thought
Ecological aesthetics is a brand-new form of aesthetic conception that emerged after the 1970s. It is the result of humanity’s reflection on history and reality under circumstances where the extreme expansion of capitalism led to acutely sharp contradictions between humanity and nature. Although Marx and Engels did not provide specialized treatises on this specific theory or issue, their works—such as the Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844, The German Ideology, the Manifesto of the Communist Party, the Dialectics of Nature, and Capital—contain a vast number of discourses on the relations between humanity and nature, humanity and society, and humanity and itself, as well as the laws of beauty. These works are imbued with rich and profound ecological aesthetic significance. Due to the limitations of their era or misreadings in theoretical research, the ecological aesthetic thoughts of Marx and Engels were once in a state of obscurity. Relevant research has shed considerable light on the ecological aesthetic thoughts and perspectives contained within Marx and Engels’s philosophy of nature and critique of political economy, while the excavation of the ecological aesthetic significance within their thought on communism has been somewhat insufficient. The communist thought of Marx and Engels, grounded in a critique of the anti-ecological essence of capitalism, correctly handles the relations between humanity and nature, society, and itself within the "laws of beauty," pursuing an ecological aesthetic purposiveness of the "two reconciliations" [1].
I. Ecological Aesthetics as a New Aesthetic Modality of Harmonious Systems
Ecological aesthetics is an emerging discipline that endows traditional aesthetics with an ecological dimension. It is a theoretical response to the ecological crisis of modernity. It not only transcends the traditional aesthetic and ecological conception of a subject-object dichotomy between humanity and nature but also breaks through the perspective of anthropocentrism. It does not observe nature from a human-centered standpoint but emphasizes the relationship of harmony and unity between the two. At the same time, it emphasizes the unity of humanity and nature while pointing out that humanity, society, and the self should also exist in an aesthetic state of a harmonious system.
(1) Ecological aesthetics is a new aesthetic modality
Upon entering industrial society, with the substantial increase in the level of productive forces and the continuous innovation of production technologies, humanity began the large-scale development, utilization, and transformation of nature. However, unbridled extraction and plunder resulted in a serious antagonism between humanity and nature, severe destruction of the ecological environment, and tense relations between humanity, society, and the self. Ecological aesthetics is the fruit of humanity’s reflection on its own behavior within this historical context. Differing from traditional aesthetic concepts, the introduction of ecological concepts allows aesthetics to exceed traditional theoretical boundaries. On the one hand, it expands the aesthetic object, incorporating natural beauty, social beauty, and the internal harmony of the human being—beyond merely artistic beauty—into the aesthetic domain, treating them as a systemic whole. That is to say, "expanding aesthetic research and evaluation to the entire world composed of nature, humanity, and human ideology is another major difference between ecological aesthetics and traditional aesthetics." On the other hand, it changes the aesthetic philosophy, transforming the human-as-subject aesthetic mode into a new aesthetic modality under an ecological relationship of harmony between humanity and nature. Ecological aesthetics no longer follows the measure of human interests but rather the measure of the ecological whole. In short, it is the ecological transformation of aesthetics, endowing it with ecological attributes; it is a brand-new ecological aesthetic concept. It breaks through traditional anthropocentric concepts and defines humanity, nature, and society as a unity. It is "a brand-new ecological ontological aesthetic view in which humanity, nature, and society reach a dynamic balance and harmony in an ecological aesthetic state."
(2) Ecological aesthetics is a beauty of harmonious systems
In terms of its theoretical characteristics, ecological aesthetics is a beauty of harmonious systems rather than a beauty of isolated individuals; this is manifested in two aspects. The first aspect is the beauty of harmony. As an activity that "uses various human senses to perceive the sensory forms and meanings of all things in the world and thereby stimulates emotion," aesthetics itself exists within the interactive relationship between humanity and the objectified world, rather than being interpreted as a verb-object structure [2]. Ecological aesthetics places higher relational requirements on aesthetic activity. It dissolves the subject-object dichotomy; it neither views "humanized nature" [3] with the arrogant gaze of anthropocentrism nor acknowledges the existence of an independent beauty of nature. Instead, it closely links humanity and nature within an ecosystem, experiencing the beauty of harmony from the relationship between humanity and objectification. The second aspect is the beauty of systems. Traditional aesthetics takes art as its primary object to study aesthetic feeling, focusing at most on the natural environment closely related to human life. However, ecological aesthetics emphasizes not only humanity and nature but also requires that humanity, society, and the self all exist in an aesthetic state of ecological balance. This is because although an ecological crisis appears to be a crisis of the natural environment, it is actually a crisis of human existence. Just as ecology focuses not only on the balance of the harmonious system between humanity and nature but also on the ecological balance between individuals and society and within the self, ecological aesthetics also emphasizes care for the human social environment and the internal ecological system of the self. It views the existence of the entire world as a composite existence system of "Humanity-Nature-Society." Within this system of composite existence, multiple aesthetic relationships are superimposed. Therefore, ecological aesthetics is "guided by a brand-new ecological worldview, takes the exploration of the aesthetic relationship between humanity and nature as its starting point, and involves multiple aesthetic relationships between humanity and society, humanity and the universe, and humanity and the self."
II. The Destruction of Ecological Aesthetic Relations by Alienated Labor in Capitalist Society
German classical philosophy contains the meaning of "alienation" [4], which refers to a subject splitting off its opposite after reaching a certain stage of development, evolving into an external, alien power. This reflects the antagonism between humanity and nature, and between human labor and the products of labor. On the basis of critiquing the theory of alienation in classical philosophy, Marx proposed his own view: "Alienated labor alienates the human being’s own body from him, just as it alienates nature outside him, and his spiritual essence, his human essence, from him." Alienated labor is a serious destruction of ecological aesthetic relations. Although it does not directly deny or evade beauty, it directly causes the de-ecologization of aesthetic relations.
(1) The alienation of the relationship between humanity and nature in capitalist society
As the inorganic body of humanity, nature is the sole source of the material means of production required for human survival and development, as well as the direct and indirect source of the means of subsistence required for social existence. In pre-capitalist societies, humanity adopted an attitude of worship and dependence toward nature. The capitalist mode of production completely changed this situation. The alienated labor it created severed the "organic relationship" of interdependence between humanity and nature. Capitalists treat nature as a selfless donor of material means of production and a cost-free recipient of production waste and garbage, regarding nature as a commodity for creating and realizing surplus value. This directly leads to the predatory exploitation and utilization of natural resources, violating the laws of development and causing severe destruction of natural resources and serious environmental pollution—such as air pollution, river pollution, exhaustion of soil fertility, sharp reduction of forests, and climate change—creating an antagonism between humanity and nature. Marx pointed out: "It is only under the system of capitalism that nature becomes purely an object for humanity, purely a thing of utility; it is no longer recognized as a power for itself." Nature is not a "power for itself" that lives in harmony with humanity; it has merely become a useful thing for humans. Humanity has no time to consider friendliness toward and protection of nature, nor the enjoyment of natural beauty in the harmonious coexistence of humanity and nature. As Engels stated in The Condition of the Working Class in England: "Because in the large towns where they live, with long working days, they often cannot see nature at all." The aesthetic relationship of harmony and unity between humanity and nature has essentially been severely alienated.
(2) The alienation of the relationship between humanity and society in capitalist society
The alienated relationship between humanity and nature is merely the manifest level of the destruction of ecological aesthetic relations by capitalist society; its deep essence is the alienation of the aesthetic relationship between humanity and society hidden behind it. Marx pointed out that the human essence is the ensemble of all social relations. Only within social relations with others can a person confirm and affirm themselves: "In your enjoyment or use of my product... I would have the direct enjoyment both of being conscious of having satisfied a human need by my work... and of having thus created an object corresponding to the need of another man's essential nature... and finally to be confirmed both in your thought and your love." In this way, the social relationship between a person and others is a double affirmation of both the self and the other; in this social sense, humans experience the feeling of ecological and harmonious beauty. However, capitalist society makes this possibility vanish. As the universal source of social relations, labor is alienated into a means for capitalists to blindly engage in commodity production and chase surplus value. The social relations between people and others are invertedly expressed as a "thing-like" relationship between commodities, and they increasingly submit to the enslavement and confinement of this power of "things." The prominence of things and the obscuring of people deviate from the social essence of humanity, leading to the comprehensive alienation of social relations between individuals. Social interactive activities are gradually distorted and destroyed by this system of private ownership, and the real connections of actual society are gradually severed by capital. Humans should have confirmed their essence within social relations, but they lose their essence in capitalist society, regressing into "obtuse and idiotic" beings, feeling a poverty of spirit and aesthetic sense. Originally harmonious and interdependent interpersonal relationships turn into naked "cash payment," creating a tense relationship of exploitation and being exploited, dominion and being dominated between the capitalist and the working class. The ecological aesthetic relationship between humanity and society is thus severely alienated and destroyed.
(3) The alienation of the relationship between humanity and itself in capitalist society
When the alienated labor of capitalist society brings about the deterioration of the relationships with the external natural and social environments, it inevitably leads to the deterioration of the ecological environment of the human being themselves. Alienated labor strips the "inorganic body" of nature from the human being and alienates the social ecological relationship between people into a deformed relationship. In this way, "the species-essence of man, both nature and the spiritual species-powers, is turned into an essence alien to him, into a means for his individual existence." As natural beings, humans need objects to confirm the essence and meaning of life. Humans produce products through labor, and the products then return to life, serving to maintain the movement of human life development. However, under private ownership and the alienation of labor, humans can only combine with the means of production to work and obtain the meager means of subsistence required to maintain existence by prostrating themselves at the feet of the means of production and making themselves slaves to the product—because most of the means of subsistence are used to realize the capitalist’s surplus value. This labor serves only as a means of making a living rather than a life's need, and the results of labor do not allow the human to realize their own self-confirmation. The more wealth the worker produces, the cheaper they become themselves. "Impoverishment is rooted in alienated labor, and alienated labor not only plunges people into a state of poverty and the danger of material deprivation but also distorts the essence of workers and destroys their spirit." Alienated labor makes humans stupid and one-sided rather than capable of all-round development; it uses humans as labor commodities and production tools, causing them to lose their status and dignity as human beings. Human existence thus becomes an animal-like existence, or even inferior to animals; a massive rupture appears in the internal ecological system of the human being, causing the species-essence of the human being to severely oppose and deviate from the human being themselves.
III. The Ecological Aesthetic Significance of Marx and Engels’s Communist Thought
Although Marx and Engels never proposed or used the category of "ecological aesthetics," they constructed an ideal form of society filled with ecological aesthetic significance based on their critique of the capitalist mode of production and social system. Unlike aesthetic concepts with idealist or metaphysical overtones, Marx and Engels's analysis of the relationship between humanity and the objectified world was always established on the basis of the scientific worldview of historical materialism and the noble pursuit of human liberation. Therefore, the communist thought of Marx and Engels transcends the narrow speculative scope of "dualisms" such as "anthropocentrism" and "physiocratism" (or "nature-centrism"), reaching a comprehensive and systemic scientific grasp of the relations between humanity and nature, society, and the human essence. The core of this theory lies in the abolition of the system of private property, the realization of communism through the practice of transforming society, and the ultimate achievement of the "two reconciliations."
(1) The abolition of private property is the primary prerequisite for reshaping ecological aesthetic relations
Communism, on the basis of critiquing the capitalist system, proposed its most fundamental viewpoint: the abolition of private property and the realization of public ownership. This is both the goal of achieving communism and the primary prerequisite for reshaping ecological aesthetics. Private property is the socio-economic root of alienated labor. Driven by private ownership, the capitalist mode of production manifests as a pursuit of endless profit and surplus value, considering only immediate interests while ignoring long-term impacts. On one hand, disordered competition among capitalists not only prevents the rational allocation of the means of production but also results in a serious waste of social resources. On the other hand, in order to lower costs and multiply profits by any means necessary, capitalists ruthlessly squeeze the proletarians, causing immense poverty in both the material and spiritual worlds of the proletariat and creating a severe antagonism between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. In the world of the capitalist, aesthetics is a highly subjective and egoistic behavior; natural resources, social relations, and human actions possess aesthetic value only when they satisfy capital’s drive for profit and expansion. Such a mode of production is naturally incapable of being constructed according to the "laws of beauty"; it severely destroys the vitality reflected in the harmonious ecological aesthetic relationship between man and nature, society, and the self. It is anti-ecological and, of course, unsustainable. Therefore, Marx pointed out: "The positive transcendence of private property as the appropriation of human life, is the positive transcendence of all alienation." Marx and Engels believed that if the future communist society is to reshape the ecological aesthetic relationship between man and nature, society, and the individual, the transcendence of alienation must never remain merely at the level of concepts and the mind. It must be a dual transcendence—including forms of consciousness such as religion—based on the actual transcendence of private property and the abolition of the system of private ownership as a form of real-world alienation.
(2) Achieving communism is the necessary guarantee for reshaping ecological aesthetic relations
In Marx's view, to see through the anti-ecological essence of capitalism, fundamentally resolve the problem of alienation, and reshape harmonious ecological aesthetic relations, one cannot—like Hegel and Feuerbach—"merely interpret the world in different ways," describing a so-called beautiful image of the world within an abstract system of thought, viewing the transcendence of alienation only as an improvement in the level of human cognition. Instead, one should use practice to thoroughly change things themselves, transforming the capitalist system through the method of "changing the world" to achieve communism. That is, "to abolish the idea of private property, the idea of communism is quite sufficient; but it takes actual communist action to abolish actual private property." Because communist society lacks the private ownership and exploitative relations of the bourgeoisie, and transforms the blindly expanding capitalist mode of production, people—in the process of interacting with nature, others, and themselves—no longer seek every means to conquer nature, deprive others, or alienate themselves. Instead, there is a free and comprehensive combination of man with nature, society, and the self. In The German Ideology, Marx and Engels once depicted such a scene: "In communist society, where nobody has one exclusive sphere of activity but each can become accomplished in any branch he wishes, society regulates the general production and thus makes it possible for me to do one thing today and another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticize after dinner." The contemporary ecological aesthetician Zeng Fanren once pointed out that ecological aesthetics "breaks through the formal beauty and harmony of traditional aesthetics and enters the level of man’s poetic dwelling and beautiful existence." This state of communist society described by Marx—where productive labor is conscious and autonomous, material wealth is immensely abundant, and resource allocation is scientifically rational—is precisely the ideal social formation capable of achieving ecological aesthetic harmony between man and the external and internal worlds, allowing man to reach the state of "poetic dwelling and beautiful existence." This cannot be achieved under the capitalist mode of production and social system; therefore, the realization of communism becomes the necessary institutional guarantee for reshaping ecological aesthetic concepts.
(3) Attaining the "Two Reconciliations" is the ultimate aim of reshaping ecological aesthetic relations
The scope of ecological aesthetics is not limited to the harmonious coexistence between man and nature; it requires the attainment of a systematically harmonious aesthetic state across multiple levels: man and nature, society, and man himself. Marx and Engels pointed out that man, nature, and society are organically unified. The disharmony in the aesthetic relationship between man and nature is, in essence, a disharmony in the relations between people and within the self, constrained by certain relations of production. Therefore, the regulation of the relationship between man and nature is necessarily inseparable from the regulation of the relationship between people (and the self). Achieving the harmonious unity of man and man (the self) and man and nature thus becomes the ultimate aim of reshaping ecological aesthetic relations. Engels first proposed the idea of the "two reconciliations" in his Outlines of a Critique of Political Economy, namely "the reconciliation of mankind with nature and with itself." This represents the ideal state of the relationship between man, nature, and society, and is the highest value goal achieved in the process of human social development. Later, in the Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844, Marx envisioned a state of systematic harmony between man, society, and nature: "This communism, as fully developed naturalism, equals humanism, and as fully developed humanism equals naturalism; it is the genuine resolution of the conflict between man and nature and between man and man." This inherently contains the value goal of the "two reconciliations." In the Manuscripts of 1857-1858 (the Grundrisse), Marx divided human society into three great stages, explicitly pointing out that the "third stage" is the communist society, a "social formation based on the free and well-rounded development of every individual." In a society where everyone develops freely and comprehensively, antagonism between people is eliminated, the reconciliation of social relations is achieved, and conditions are created for the resolution of the contradiction between man and nature. In the beautiful state of the "two reconciliations," humanity combines internal and external measures, integrates purposiveness with law-governess, and safeguards nature according to the "measure of beauty," thereby realizing a harmonious and unified ecological aesthetic relationship.
IV. The Contemporary Value of the Ecological Aesthetic Implications in Marx and Engels’s Communist Thought
In the era when Marx and Engels lived, ecological problems were not as severe or as central to public attention as they are today. However, the ecological aesthetic implications contained within their communist thought still shine with the brilliance of wisdom and truth. They hold great theoretical and practical value for us in handling current issues concerning the relationship between man and nature, society, and the self, as well as in the construction of ecological civilization. As the former Soviet philosopher Frolov said: "No matter how different the present ecological environment is from the situation in Marx's time, Marx's understanding of this problem, his method, and his viewpoint on solving the problems of interaction between society and nature remain very realistic and effective today."
(1) An ideological weapon for critiquing the anti-ecological essence of capitalism
After World War II, following a period of recovery and reconstruction, the economies and societies of major capitalist countries made certain progress. To alleviate contradictions, the bourgeoisie established and implemented universal, nation-wide social welfare systems. To a certain extent, these improved the living conditions of the working class and met their needs for safety and security, while also partially veiling the struggles and contradictions between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. Furthermore, the "drastic changes in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe" [5] in the 1990s caused the international communist movement to suffer an unprecedented and major setback. Capitalist countries took this opportunity to aggressively propagate the theories that Marxism is "obsolete" or "useless," attacking the socialist system and the ideals of communism. However, alienated labor under capitalist private ownership inevitably leads to the continuous intensification of ecological problems. Since the start of the new century, this issue has gained increasingly wide recognition and has increasingly exposed the major flaw of capitalism’s unsustainable development. The ecological aesthetic thought of Marx and Engels is a profound exposure and critique of the anti-ecological and unjust nature of the capitalist mode of production. The excavation and elucidation of this thought provide us with a new ideological weapon for critiquing the capitalist mode of production and social system. Because the expansion of itself through the exploitation of laborers and the objects of labor is the primary reason for capital’s existence, this profit-seeking nature gives capital an expansionist inertia for forced production. This not only breaches the physical limits of human beings but also exceeds the carrying capacity of nature, resulting in the severe destruction of the aesthetic relationship of harmonious coexistence between man and nature. This has become an irreconcilable and significant contradiction in capitalist society. In pursuit of surplus value, capitalist countries exploit nature and laborers at any cost and without restraint, denying the objectification of man’s essential powers and estranging the aesthetic relationship between man and nature—this will surely lead to their demise. Therefore, the proposal by Marx and Engels to transcend capitalist private ownership and construct an ecological aesthetic ideal of harmonious development between man and nature and between people has become an important ideological weapon for critiquing the capitalist social system.
(2) A theoretical basis for exploring the harmonious coexistence of man and nature
"Looking at the history of philosophical development before the birth of Marxism, no philosophy truly unified man and nature. It is Marxist theory that correctly handles the relationship between man and nature." In pre-capitalist societies, humans prostrated themselves before and worshipped nature; although there were struggles against and utilization of nature, the orientation was primarily one of submission, with nature in the dominant position. Since entering capitalist society, humanity began to use the technological innovations brought by several industrial revolutions to transform and conquer nature. However, by incorrectly using the concept of "anthropocentrism" to handle the relationship between man and nature, a serious ecological crisis was created. Marx and Engels constructed a materialist view of nature based on human practical activity, pointing out that man is a product of the long-term development of the material natural world and is a part of nature, requiring dependence on the natural world to survive. Nature is man's inorganic body; the living materials, tools of labor, and objects of labor required for man to maintain his physical body and spiritual activities all originate from nature. At the same time, however, in the practical activities of transforming and utilizing nature, human beings exercise their subjective initiative to transform "nature-in-itself" into "humanized nature." In this process, man does not grow more distant from nature but rather manifests a return to nature. Conversely, failure to do so results in the destruction of nature, as Engels warned: "Let us not, however, flatter ourselves overmuch on account of our human victories over nature. For each such victory nature takes its revenge on us." Here, "revenge" refers to the blind transformations humans perform in violation of the laws of natural ecological balance, leading to the extreme antagonism between man and nature. The contradiction between man and nature caused by irrational social systems must be resolved by communism; man and nature will achieve an essential unity. The ecological aesthetic thought of Marx and Engels suggests to us that the relationship between man and nature should not merely be one of transformation and utilization, but also one of cognition and aesthetics. Like the human body, the natural world continuously provides material nourishment and energy support for the development and continuation of human life. Humans should care for the natural world as they would their own bodies to solve current severe ecological problems and achieve harmonious coexistence between man and nature.
(3) An important guide for promoting the free and well-rounded development of individuals
The relationship between man and nature and the relationship between people are mutually penetrating and interacting. The liberation of nature and the liberation of humanity are closely related and inseparable parts of the same historical process. As the subject of social development, only when man himself develops harmoniously can he consciously handle the relationships between people and between man and nature, achieving an aesthetic form of harmonious coexistence among the three. Engels once described that in the communist era, "the struggle for individual existence disappears," "man, at last the master of his own form of social organization, becomes at the same time the lord over Nature, his own master—free," and "it is the ascent of man from the kingdom of necessity to the kingdom of freedom." The "true master" here is stated in contrast to the alienated man of capitalist society. Under the conditions of capitalist private ownership, "man's essence is alienated from him," whereas the "true master" in communist society is the free person who has transcended the phenomenon of alienation and allowed human nature to return, possessing their comprehensive essence. Their material and spiritual levels are greatly enhanced, and they have sufficient leisure time for reflection and practice, making the relationship between the external and internal worlds more harmonious, balanced, and vital according to the highest aesthetic ideals. This suggests to us that to truly recognize the relationship between man and nature and resolve ecological problems, we must correctly handle relations between people as well as the internal ecological harmony of man himself, pushing humanity toward a communist society—a "social formation based on the free and well-rounded development of every individual"—where new communist persons, developing freely and comprehensively, achieve the "two reconciliations."
(4) Scientific guidance for advancing the construction of a socialist ecological civilization
At a time when the Chinese nation faced the peril of national subjugation and racial extinction [6], Marxism guided China onto the path of socialism. Today, as an essential component of Marxist theory, the ecological aesthetic thought of Marx and Engels holds significant theoretical and practical guiding value for the construction of socialist ecological civilization with Chinese characteristics. It points the direction for the path of socialism with Chinese characteristics—that is, to persist in promoting the harmonious coexistence between humanity and nature, and between human beings, thereby providing an inexhaustible impetus for realizing the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation. Compared to the institutional defects of capitalism, which are insurmountable regarding ecological issues, the construction of socialist ecological civilization is a great pioneering undertaking by the Communist Party of China to solve the problem of the harmonious relationship between humanity and nature based on institutional choice. The report to the 20th National Congress of the CPC proposed the construction of Chinese-path modernization for the future, explicitly stating that Chinese-path modernization is the modernization of harmonious coexistence between humanity and nature. It proposed that "Respecting, adapting to, and protecting nature is an inherent requirement for building a modern socialist country in all respects. We must firmly establish and practice the concept that lucid waters and lush mountains are invaluable assets, and plan development from the height of harmonious coexistence between humanity and nature." This demonstrates that the construction of socialism with Chinese characteristics persists in following a path of high-quality development characterized by harmonious coexistence between humanity and nature; it is by no means the unsustainable development seen in capitalist countries, which comes at the cost of sacrificing nature and human freedom and liberation.
The guiding significance of Marx and Engels's ecological aesthetic thought for the construction of socialist ecological civilization lies in its persistent adherence to the pursuit of communist ideals and institutional strengths, taking the "two reconciliations" as the ultimate objective for resolving ecological problems. Marx and Engels believed that the harmonious ecological aesthetic relationships between human beings, and between humanity, nature, and society, are indivisible. Human society is an organic whole of "human-nature-society," and solving problems in any one area cannot be separated from solving problems in the others. Only by dismantling the institutional obstacles of capitalism and achieving communism can we comprehensively reshape a systematically balanced ecological aesthetic relationship. This cognitive method, which integrates and links social and natural development, provides an important reference for our clear understanding of the ecological crisis and its root causes. It provides scientific methodological guidance for the coordinated advancement of a green, low-carbon, and environmentally friendly socialist ecological civilization, and further strengthens our confidence in our system and our path.
The communist thought of Marx and Engels is a scientific theoretical system established on the basis of historical materialism and the theory of surplus value. The ecological aesthetic connotations contained therein reveal the alienation between humanity and nature, society, and the self under capitalist private ownership. This anti-ecological and unjust mode of production is destined to perish, to be replaced by a communist society under collective ownership. "Within the framework of communism, human civilization is a comprehensive and coordinated development; not only is the relationship between humanity and nature harmonious and coordinated, but the relationship between human beings (society) is also harmonious and coordinated." This reflects the objective necessity of human social development. We must better inherit and develop the ecological aesthetic thought of Marx and Engels and enhance our conscious confidence in the communist ideal. Only then can we critique the anti-ecological essence of capitalism and realize the two reconciliations between humanity and nature and between humanity and itself, thereby providing theoretical guidance and a practical manual for constructing the institutional system of socialist ecological civilization with Chinese characteristics.