将这段话翻译为英文：市民社会-国家的关系长期以来是中国学术界的争论焦点受到早期马克思对黑格尔的批判学界一般将市民社会直接指认为资本主义社会并因此将其视为一个特殊性过强而伦理性匮乏的社会。不可否认黑格尔最初的理论意图是将现代自由主义的成果凝聚在其市民社会理论中并以国家理论对之进行纠偏从而克服自由主义的缺陷。然而黑格尔的市民社会概念并不能完全被等同于契约论的守夜人国家因为黑格尔为其内嵌了诸多伦理性的要

The relationship between "civil society" and the state has long been a focus of debate in the Chinese academic community. Influenced by early Marxist critiques of Hegel, the academic community generally identifies "civil society" directly with capitalist society and thus regards it as a society with overly strong special characteristics and a lack of ethics. Undeniably, Hegel's initial theoretical intent was to incorporate the achievements of modern liberalism into his theory of civil society, and to use the theory of the state to correct them, thus overcoming the shortcomings of liberalism. However, Hegel's concept of "civil society" cannot be equated with the "watchman state" of contract theory because Hegel embedded many ethical elements in it. In other words, the need for a systematic atomic starting point is just an illusion. People can find their own sociality in civil society and, through the educative system of normative institutions in civil society, their special characteristics are fully developed and protected, while also avoiding damage to the community and backlash against their own special characteristics. The "ethical" characteristics of civil society have long been overlooked in academic circles, yet this issue is extremely important for handling the relationship between the state and society. Based on his demystification of Hegel's concept of the state, Marx further dissected "civil society" and constructed his own materialist view of history and "future community" on this basis. Although Marx and Hegel have different connotations of the concept of "civil society," both regard it as a prerequisite and stage that must be transcended for the construction of a true community. Currently, the research on Hegel's theory of civil society in the domestic academic community is not sufficient, and most of it presupposes a Marxist perspective, which can lead to a double misunderstanding of Hegel and Marx.