社会契约论作为用于证成国家合法性的政治哲学理论，在17、18世纪经过霍布斯等启蒙思想家的加工，成为政治国家合法性的理论基石。然而社会契约论在其理论发展和现实作用上却显示出局限性。康德和马克思从自然状态、契约主体等方面针对这一学说展开了理论批判。从比较视角对康德和马克思的社会契约论批判进行研究，并在此过程中分析马克思在政治哲学领域所实现的哲学革命，具有重要的学术意义，具体到康德和马克思的社会契约论批判的内容上，可以看到他们均着眼于自然状态、契约主体等核心概念，批判社会契约论者将自然状态当作历史状况并用以论证国家合法性的理论逻辑，否定了社会契约论将人的本质归于利己主义并将其作为契约主体的理论设定。此外，在对社会契约论进行批判的基础上，康德和马克思也都在世界历史领域进行了理论构建，分别设想了世界共和国和自由人联合体这两种理想的共同体。但这种批判思路的相似却不能掩盖康德和马克思在哲学基础上的本质差异。康德运用其批判哲学将社会契约改造作为“理性理念”的源始契约，这体现在康德通过将自然状态改造为用于论证国家权威合法性的先验假设，并以实践理性约束下的“本体的人”代替利己主义的契约主体。在这种源始契约的理论基础上，康德使国家在先验理性法权的约束下恢复了自身的神圣性，并得以在世界范围内走向永久和平。相较于康德，马克思的社会契约论批判更为深刻和彻底。一方面，马克思通过对资本主义社会和人类古代社会的研究发现自然状态的真正秘密藏在市民社会之中，从而指出社会契约论者正是基于现代市民社会的特点才产生自然状态这一“缺乏想象力的虚构”。另一方面，马克思发现人的本质在于“一切社会关系的总和”，因此马克思没有对利己主义进行道德的说教，而是强调只有消灭私有制才能消灭现代社会利己主义精神。在此基础上马克思揭示了国家“虚幻共同体”的本质，强调只有在自由人联合体中才能实现人的真正自由。因此可以说，马克思对社会契约论在批判方法、批判视角、理论出路上实现了对康德的超越。
As a political philosophy theory used to justify the legitimacy of the state, social contract theory underwent modifications by Enlightenment thinkers such as Hobbes in the 17th and 18th centuries, becoming the theoretical cornerstone for the legitimacy of political states. However, social contract theory has shown limitations in its theoretical development and practical application. Kant and Marx launched theoretical criticisms against this doctrine from aspects such as the state of nature and contractual subjects. Conducting a comparative study on Kant‘s and Marx‘s criticisms of social contract theory from a comparative perspective is of great academic significance, specifically regarding their focus on core concepts such as the state of nature and contractual subjects. Critics of social contract theory reject its logical framework that treats the state of nature as historical conditions to argue for the legitimacy of states while denying that human nature can be reduced to selfishness or be considered as contractual subjects. Furthermore, based on their critiques of social contract theory, both Kant and Marx constructed theories in the field of world history, envisioning ideal communities like a world republic and an association of free individuals respectively. However, these similarities in critical approaches cannot conceal essential differences between Kant and Marx at a philosophical level. Kant employed his critical philosophy to transform social contracts into "rational ideas" through an original covenant which is reflected in his transformation of the state-of-nature into an a priori assumption used to argue for legitimate authority under rational constraints with "ontological individuals" replacing selfish contractual subjects. On this basis, Kant restored sacredness to states under constraints imposed by rational laws and enabled them to strive towards perpetual peace globally. Compared to Kant, Marx‘s critique of social contract theory is more profound and thorough. On the one hand, Marx discovered through his study of capitalist society and human ancient societies that the true secret of the state of nature lies within civil society. He pointed out that social contract theorists rely on the characteristics of modern civil society to create this " unimaginative fiction" about the state of nature. On the other hand, Marx found that human essence lies in the "sum of all social relations," Therefore, Marx did not preach morality, but emphasized that only by eliminating private ownership can we eliminate the spirit of egoism in modern society. Based on this, Marx revealed the essence of a "illusory community" called the state and emphasized that true freedom can only be achieved in a community of free men. Therefore, it can be said that Marx surpasses Kant in terms of critical methodology, perspective, and theoretical solutions when critiquing social contract theory.
