The Atheist Character of Marx’s Philosophy as Seen from the Logic of Its Development

Adhering to thoroughgoing atheism is the intrinsic character of Marx’s philosophy, and transcending the religious view of history is an important prerequisite for the establishment of historical materialism. Marx’s philosophy systematically critiques the religious view of history mainly in early works such as *On the Jewish Question*, *A Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right: Introduction*, and *Review of Thomas Carlyle’s “Past and Present”*. In this process, Marx and Engels gradually came to recognize that exploring the roots of the emergence of religion is more important than merely engaging in external criticism of religion: “Religion is no longer the cause of secular limitations, but only their phenomenon. … Once they eliminate secular limitations, they can eliminate their religious limitations.” [1]1 Karl Marx, “On the Jewish Question,” *Marx and Engels Collected Works*, vol. 3, p. 151. “We demand that history be given back its content, but we regard history not as the revelation of ‘God,’ but as the revelation of man, and only as the revelation of man.” [2]2 Karl Marx, “Review of Thomas Carlyle’s ‘Past and Present’,” *Marx and Engels Collected Works*, vol. 4, p. 320. Thereafter, Marx’s philosophy gradually turned to an in-depth analysis of the social basis on which religion depends. Grounded in practice and from the perspective of historical genesis, it focuses on revealing the internal contradictions of capitalist society, thereby exploring the laws of development of human society and the path to genuine human liberation, so as to promote the spontaneous withering away of religion. By interpreting key texts from different periods of Marx’s philosophy, it can be seen that the scientific investigation of the laws of development of human society in order to achieve genuine human freedom and liberation is the most fundamental value appeal of Marx’s philosophy. This value appeal remains consistent throughout, but its ultimate realization underwent three stages: from the value call for the liberation of individual subjectivity, to the establishment of a paradigm of human socio-historical genesis based on practice, and finally to the formation of a path to real human liberation grounded in the unity of the individual and society. The process of the formation and development of Marx’s philosophy is precisely the process of unfolding its thoroughgoing atheist thought. Presenting this logical unfolding process is the prerequisite and key to clarifying and grasping the atheist character of Marx’s philosophy.

坚持彻底的无神论是马克思哲学的内在品格，超越宗教史观是历史唯物主义创立的重要前提。马克思哲学对宗教史观的系统批判，主要集中在《论犹太人问题》、《〈黑格尔法哲学批判〉导言》以及《评托马斯·卡莱尔的“过去和现在”》等早期著作中，在此过程中马克思恩格斯逐渐认识到，对宗教产生根源的探讨比对宗教进行单纯的外在批判更加重要，“宗教已经不是世俗局限性的原因，而只是它的现象。……他们一旦消除了世俗限制，就能消除他们的宗教局限性”。①“我们要求把历史的内容还给历史，但我们认为历史不是‘神’的启示，而是人的启示，并且只能是人的启示。”② 此后马克思哲学逐渐致力于对宗教赖以产生的社会基础进行深入剖析，马克思哲学立足实践基础，以历史生成的视野，着重揭示资本主义社会的内在矛盾，进而探讨人类社会的发展规律以及人的真正解放之路，以此促使宗教达到自行消亡。通过对马克思哲学不同时期重要文本的解读，可以发现，科学探求人类社会发展规律以实现人的真正自由和解放，这是马克思哲学最根本的价值诉求，这种价值诉求始终如一，但其最终实现却经历了从对个体主体性解放的价值呼唤，到基于实践基础的人的社会历史生成范式的确立，再到立足于个体与社会相统一的人的现实解放之路的最终形成这样三个阶段，马克思哲学的形成和发展过程，也就是其彻底无神论思想的展开过程，呈现此逻辑展开过程，是廓清并把握马克思哲学无神论特质的前提和关键。

I. The Value Call for the Liberation of Individual Subjectivity

一、对个体主体性解放的价值呼唤

Marx’s doctoral dissertation, *The Difference Between the Democritean and Epicurean Philosophies of Nature*, is the starting point of Marx’s philosophical construction and marks the theoretical self-conscious formation of the value appeal for the complete liberation and full freedom of humanity. In the preface, Marx takes Prometheus’s confession, “In a word, I hate all the gods,” as the motto of philosophy itself. He argues that Epicurus, by using the thesis of the swerve of atoms from the straight line, corrects Democritus’s mechanical determinism, breaks the bonds of fate, and elucidates individual free will, individuality, and independence from the perspective of nature. In particular, Epicurus holds that the atoms composing the human soul have a tendency to swerve from the straight line, so human actions can escape from predetermined necessity and gain freedom of will and action. He denounces the worship of and superstition about gods, scorns fate, emphasizes that human effort determines everything, and maintains that people should understand nature and life through philosophy and plan their lives with reason. In fact, by defending Epicurus’s atheism, Marx thoroughly criticizes religion in real life and the Hegelian system in theory, pointing out: “Because nature is badly arranged, therefore God exists.” “Because the irrational world exists, therefore God exists.” [3]3 Karl Marx, “The Difference Between the Democritean and Epicurean Philosophies of Nature,” *Marx and Engels Collected Works*, vol. 1, p. 104. The task of philosophy is to overcome the irrationality of objective existence and make the world and humanity itself rational. By highlighting the philosophy of self-consciousness and expressing atheist thought, Marx manifests his value appeal for subjective freedom and individual liberation. However, since at this time Marx had not yet directly engaged with social reality and lacked firsthand experience of actual social life, he regarded the freedom of self-consciousness as thorough and genuine freedom. His philosophical thought and even his analysis of reality remained largely at the level of the “ought” of value presupposition.

马克思的博士论文《德谟克里特的自然哲学与伊壁鸠鲁的自然哲学的差别》是马克思哲学建树的起点，是人类的彻底解放和全面自由这一价值诉求的理论自觉形成的标志。马克思在序言中就把普罗米修斯的自白“总而言之，我痛恨所有的神”作为哲学自身的格言，认为伊壁鸠鲁用原子脱离直线作偏斜运动的论点纠正了德谟克利特的机械决定论，打破了命运的束缚，从自然的角度来阐明了个人的意志自由、个性和独立性。特别是伊壁鸠鲁认为，组成人的灵魂的原子具有脱离直线作偏斜运动的倾向，因而人的行为有可能脱离命定的必然性，获得意志和行为的自由。他斥责对神的崇拜和迷信，蔑视命运，强调事在人为，人应当通过哲学认识自然和人生，用理性规划自己的生活。马克思实际上通过为伊壁鸠鲁的无神论辩护，以此来彻底批判现实生活中的宗教和理论上的黑格尔体系，指出：“因为自然安排得不好，所以神才存在。”“因为非理性的世界存在，所以神才存在。”③ 哲学的任务就是克服客观存在的非理性，使世界和人本身变得合乎理性。通过对自我意识哲学的彰显和无神论思想的表达，马克思彰显了自己对主体自由和个性解放的价值诉求。但由于此时的马克思未能直接接触到社会现实，缺少对社会现实生活的切身感受，认为自我意识的自由是彻底的真正的自由，其哲学思想乃至对现实的剖析力度更多地停留在价值预设的“应然”层面。

During his work at the *Rheinische Zeitung*, Marx came into contact with real issues of material interests and gradually realized that only by linking the critique of religion more closely with the critique of political conditions could he discuss the principles of communism and socialism more concretely. He specifically pointed out: “Religion itself is without content; its roots are not in heaven but on earth, and with the elimination of the distorted reality of which religion is the theory, religion will disappear of itself.” [4]4 Karl Marx, “Letter to Arnold Ruge,” September 1843, *Marx and Engels Collected Works*, vol. 3, p. 144. Therefore, the young Marx shifted from religious critique to a secularized political opposition movement, from the purely theoretical sphere to the directly practical political sphere, and from spiritual liberation to the real liberation of humanity. This shift is concentrated in the book *A Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right* and the two essays *On the Jewish Question* and *A Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right: Introduction*.

马克思在《莱茵报》工作期间接触到了现实的物质利益问题，逐渐意识到，只有更多地联系着对政治状况的批判来批判宗教，才能更加切实地讨论共产主义和社会主义的原理，他特别指出“宗教本身是没有内容的，它的根源不是在天上，而是在人间，随着以宗教为理论的被歪曲了的现实的消灭，宗教也将自行消失。”④ 因此青年马克思从宗教批判转变为世俗化的政治性反对运动，从纯理论领域转向直接的实际的政治领域，从精神解放转到人的现实解放，这种转变集中体现在《黑格尔法哲学批判》一书和《论犹太人问题》、《〈黑格尔法哲学批判〉导言》等两篇论文中。

Through his firsthand investigation of various social and economic issues during the *Rheinische Zeitung* period, Marx recognized in social practice that Hegel, starting from the absolute idea, mystically deduced the various elements of the state and speculatively elaborated the separation of civil society from the state, thereby inverting the relationship between civil society and the state. Marx believed that before a scientific analysis could be made of the basis of various societies (including bourgeois society)—the relations of production—it was impossible to conduct an independent scientific investigation of law, morality, politics, and other categories of the superstructure. He linked his critique of Hegel’s political views with his critique of speculative idealism, pointing out that legal relations, like the forms of the state, are rooted in material life relations, and that “the anatomy of civil society is to be sought in political economy.” [5]5 Karl Marx, “Preface to A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy,” *Marx and Engels Collected Works*, vol. 29, p. 262. This paved the way for Marx’s philosophy to subsequently delve into the concrete sphere of real society in order to explore the path to human liberation.

经过莱茵报时期对各种社会问题和经济问题的亲身考察，在社会实践中马克思认识到，黑格尔从绝对观念出发神秘地推导出各种国家要素，思辨地阐述国家同市民社会的分离，这颠倒了市民社会同国家的关系。马克思认为，在还没有对各种社会（其中包括资产阶级社会）的基础——生产关系——作出科学的分析以前，要对法、道德、政治和上层建筑的其他范畴进行独立的科学的考察是不可能的。他把批判黑格尔的政治观同批判思辨唯心主义联系起来，指出法的关系正像国家的形式一样，它们根源于物质的生活关系，“对市民社会的解剖应该到政治经济学中去寻找。”⑤ 这为此后马克思哲学深入到具体的现实社会领域来探求人的解放之路铺平了道路。

In *On the Jewish Question*, Marx points out that religion is no longer the cause of secular limitations but only their phenomenon; religion is not the cause of political oppression but its expression. Therefore, it is not necessary to eliminate the religious limitations of free citizens in order to eliminate their secular limitations; rather, “once they eliminate secular limitations, they can eliminate their religious limitations.” Hence, secular problems should not be reduced to theological problems; rather, theological problems should be reduced to secular problems. History should not be explained by superstition; superstition should be explained by history. Political oppression must be eliminated first before religious narrowness can be overcome. “Criticize the secular structure of the political state, and in doing so you also criticize its religious impotence.” [6]6 Karl Marx, “On the Jewish Question,” *Marx and Engels Collected Works*, vol. 3, p. 151. Marx no longer, like Bruno Bauer, confined the path of Jewish emancipation to the thorough elimination of religion, freeing Jews from their own religion, but instead called for forming social forces. However, he still held that “if a social organization eliminates the premise of doing business, and thereby eliminates the possibility of doing business, then this social organization would also make the existence of the Jew impossible. His religious consciousness would vanish like a faint mist in the real, life-giving air of society.” [7]7 Karl Marx, “On the Jewish Question,” *Marx and Engels Collected Works*, vol. 3, p. 172. Marx believed that the secular basis of Judaism is practical need and selfishness, the secular worship of the Jew is haggling, and their secular god is founded on money. Therefore, Marx held that emancipation from haggling and money is emancipation from actual, real Judaism, and thus achieves its modern self-emancipation. He concluded that the emancipation of the Jew, in its ultimate sense, is the emancipation of humanity from Judaism. At this point, Marx had still not proposed a scientific path for the social emancipation of humanity.

在《论犹太人问题》中，马克思指出宗教已经不是世俗局限性的原因，而只是它的现象，宗教不是政治压迫的原因，而是它的表现，所以，并非必须消除自由公民的宗教局限性才能消除他们的世俗限制，而是“他们一旦消除了世俗限制，就能消除他们的宗教局限性”。因此不能把世俗问题化为神学问题，而应把神学问题化为世俗问题，不能用迷信说明历史，而应用历史说明迷信。必须先消灭政治压迫，才能克服宗教狭隘性。“批判政治国家的世俗结构，这样也就批判了它在宗教上的软弱无能。”⑥ 马克思已经不像布·鲍威尔那样把犹太人的解放路径停留在彻底的消灭宗教，让犹太人从自己的宗教中解放出来，而是组成社会力量，但却认为“如果有一种社会组织消除了做生意的前提，从而消除做生意的可能性，那么这种社会组织也就会使犹太人不可能存在。他的宗教意识就会像淡淡的烟雾一样，在社会这一现实的、生命所需的空气中自行消失。”⑦ 马克思认为犹太教的世俗基础是实际需要和自私自利，犹太人的世俗礼拜是做生意，他们的世俗的神是建立在金钱基础之上的，因此马克思认为从做生意和金钱中解放出来，就是从实际的、实在的犹太教中解放出来，就实现了其现代的自我解放了，并得出结论说，犹太人的解放，就其终极意义来说就是人类从犹太精神中得到解放。此时马克思仍然没有提出人的社会解放的科学路径。

With the deepening of his understanding of society, Marx gradually became aware of the importance of philosophy’s connection to reality, further pointing out that the struggle against religion is indirectly the struggle against that world whose spiritual comfort is religion, but he placed greater emphasis on philosophy’s concern with secular and worldly matters. He stated: “After the disappearance of the otherworldly truth, the task of history is to establish the truth of this world. Once the sacred image of man’s self-alienation has been unmasked, the urgent task of philosophy, which serves history, becomes to expose self-alienation in its unholy forms. Thus, the critique of heaven turns into the critique of earth, the critique of religion into the critique of law, and the critique of theology into the critique of politics.”[8]8 Karl Marx, “A Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right: Introduction,” in *Marx Engels Collected Works*, vol. 3 (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1975), p. 176. Unlike his period at the *Rheinische Zeitung*, when he did not regard the proletariat as a new social class, Marx’s understanding of the proletariat had now undergone a qualitative leap. He saw the strength and prospects of the proletariat, finding the real force and driving power for human emancipation.

随着对社会认识的加深，马克思逐渐意识到哲学必须联系现实的重要性，进一步指出反宗教的斗争实际上间接地就是反对以宗教为精神抚慰的那个世界的斗争，但他更加强调哲学应关注世俗和尘世的事情。指出“真理的彼岸世界消逝以后，历史的任务就是确立此岸世界的真理。人的自我异化的神圣形象被揭穿以后，揭露具有非神圣形象的自我异化，就成了为历史服务的哲学的迫切任务。于是，对天国的批判变成对尘世的批判，对宗教的批判变成对法的批判，对神学的批判变成对政治的批判。”⑧与在《莱茵报》时期没有把无产阶级看作一个崭新的社会阶级不同，此时马克思对无产阶级的认识有了质的提升，看到了无产阶级的力量和前景，为人的解放找到了现实力量和动力。

At the same time, Engels also clearly pointed out the absurdity of a religious view of history that ignores real history, focusing his analysis on the roots of such a religious historical perspective. He stated: “Religion, by its very nature, strips man and nature of all their content and transfers it to the phantom of an otherworldly god, who then, in his mercy, gives back a little of it from his abundant store to man and nature.”[9]9 Friedrich Engels, “The Condition of England: Past and Present by Thomas Carlyle,” in *Marx Engels Collected Works*, vol. 3 (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1975), p. 449. Engels argued that so-called gods are in fact nothing but creations of man’s reflection of himself in the chaotic material of his own undeveloped consciousness; the delusion that man and natural things can become superhuman and supernatural is the source of all untruth and falsehood. In contrast to Christians, who declare the world, man, and human life to be lies and thereby subordinate the world and man to the grace of some god, he proposed that we demand the return of historical content to history. History is not the revelation of “God,” but the revelation of man, and can only be the revelation of man.

同时恩格斯也明确指出了无视现实历史的宗教历史观的荒谬性，着重分析了宗教史观产生的根源，指出“宗教按它的本质来说就是抽掉人和大自然的整个内容，把它转给彼岸之神的幻影，然后彼岸之神大发慈悲，又反过来使人和大自然从它的丰富宝库中得到一点东西。”⑨ 恩格斯认为所谓的神其实不过是通过人在自己的不发达意识这个混沌物质中对人的反映而创造出来的，人和大自然的事物妄想成为超人和超自然的，这是一切不真实和谎言的根源。与基督徒宣布世界、人和人的生活是谎言进而使世界和人依附于某个神的恩典相反，他提出我们要求把历史的内容还给历史，历史不是“神”的启示，而是人的启示，并且只能是人的启示。

In the *Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844*, Marx critiques the alienated social system through an analysis of alienated labor. He understands wage labor, capital, and ground rent as categories that determine the class structure of capitalist society. Through his analysis of wages, the profit of capital, and ground rent, he reveals the economic roots of the opposition between workers, capitalists, and landowners, pointing out that the relationship between capital and wage labor leads to alienated labor, which severely obscures the subjectivity of the worker.

在《1844年经济学哲学手稿》中，马克思通过异化劳动的分析对异化了的社会制度进行批判，他把雇佣劳动、资本和地租理解为决定资本主义社会阶级结构的范畴，通过对工资、资本的利润和地租的分析，揭示了工人与资本家、土地所有者之间对立的经济根源，指出由于资本和雇佣劳动的关系导致了异化劳动，使得工人的主体性被严重遮蔽。

The evolution of Marx’s early philosophical thought underwent a process: from pursuing individual personality and freedom through self-consciousness freedom; to, in the critique of Hegel’s philosophy of right, deriving the analysis of civil society from political economy; from political emancipation to human emancipation; and then to discovering the proletariat as the real force for emancipation, along with an in-depth analysis of alienated labor. Although Marx’s philosophy at this time had not yet fully escaped the influence of Hegel’s mode of thinking and Feuerbach’s humanism, and his philosophical method exhibited a coexistence of a real-historical approach and a humanist approach, the value demand for the liberation of individual subjectivity on the path of human emancipation laid the foundation and direction for its subsequent development.

马克思哲学早期思想的演变，经历了从自我意识自由来追求人的个性和自由，在批判黑格尔法哲学过程中得出从政治经济学中分析市民社会，从政治解放到人的解放，再到发现了无产阶级这一现实解放力量，并对异化劳动进行了深入分析的过程。尽管此时马克思哲学尚未能完全摆脱黑格尔思维方式以及费尔巴哈人本学的影响，其哲学方法呈现出现实历史思路与人本主义思路并存的特点，但马克思哲学关于人的解放之路上个体主体性解放的价值诉求，为其此后进一步的发展奠定了基础和方向。

II. The Practical Turn and the Establishment of a Historical-Generative Perspective

二、实践转向与历史生成视野的确立

Human emancipation is not merely a value demand, nor merely an intellectual movement; it is a historical and real social movement. It can only be accomplished on the basis of a scientific analysis of the basic structure of society and the fundamental laws of human historical development, relying on a real force capable of transforming the world. The point at which Marx’s exploration of the path of human emancipation became scientific—that is, the point at which historical materialism was truly founded—lies in Marx’s philosophy establishing an analytical paradigm for the social-historical generation of man based on practice. The systematic expression of this scientific method was mainly completed in *The German Ideology*.

人的解放不仅仅是一种价值诉求，不仅仅是一种思想运动，而是一种历史性的现实社会运动，它需要在科学分析社会的基本结构和人类历史发展的基本规律基础上，依靠改造世界的现实力量来得以完成。马克思对人的解放之路的探求成为科学的标志，也就是历史唯物主义真正奠基的标志，就在于马克思哲学确立了实践基础之上的人的社会历史生成的分析范式，这种科学方法的系统表达，主要是在《德意志意识形态》中完成的。

Marx and Engels pointed out that although the Young Hegelians criticized the conservatism of Hegel’s philosophy and the backwardness of the German feudal autocratic system, because they accepted the view persistently upheld by the Hegelian system—that “ideas, thoughts, concepts produce, determine, and dominate the real life of men, their material world, their real relations”[10]10 Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, *The German Ideology*, in *Marx Engels Collected Works*, vol. 5 (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1976), p. 28.—it meant that “none of them thought of inquiring into the connection between German philosophy and German reality.” This necessarily meant that their theoretical critique “never left the ground of philosophy.” Whether it was Strauss attempting to critique Christianity with rationalism, Cieszkowski advocating the guidance of the future with the laws of reason through a philosophy of action, Bauer seeking to eliminate alienation through a revolution in self-consciousness, or Stirner extolling the “Unique One,” the struggles of the Young Hegelians were “confined to the critique of religious conceptions,” and they proceeded solely from real religion and genuine theology, “criticizing everything by substituting religious conceptions for everything or by declaring everything to be theological.”[11]11 Ibid., p. 29. Therefore, although the Young Hegelian ideologists were full of so-called “world-shattering” phrases, because they only opposed these phrases with other phrases and fought only against phrases, they were the greatest conservatives. Since they only opposed the phrases of this world, they were by no means opposing the real, existing world. “Although this idea of transformation has been expressed a thousand times, it has no significance whatsoever for actual development.”[12]12 Ibid., p. 30. The Young Hegelians could only logically propose a moral demand to people: to replace their present consciousness with this human, critical, or egoistic consciousness, thereby eliminating the restrictions that bind them. This demand for a change in consciousness is a demand to interpret the existing world in a different way—that is, to acknowledge it through another interpretation. Marx and Engels believed that the only result this philosophical critique could achieve was some, and even then one-sided, explanations of Christianity from the history of religion. All their other assertions were merely further embellishments of their demand: to use such insignificant explanations to make discoveries of world-historical significance. Marx and Engels believed that this “philosophical critique,” which was far removed from social reality, could have no substantial effect on changing the world. “If they dissolve philosophy, theology, substance, and all the rest of this rubbish into ‘self-consciousness,’ if they liberate ‘man’ from the domination of these phrases—which man has never been subjected to—then ‘man’s’ ‘emancipation’ has not advanced a single step.”[13]13 Ibid., p. 29.

马克思和恩格斯指出，虽然青年黑格尔派对黑格尔哲学保守性和德国封建专制制度落后性展开了批判，但由于接受了黑格尔体系所一再坚持的观点，即“观念、思想、概念产生、规定和支配人们的现实生活、他们的物质世界、他们的现实关系”⑩，使得他们“没有一个想到要提出关于德国哲学和德国现实之间的联系问题”，这导致其理论批判必然始终“都没有离开过哲学的基地”，不论是施特劳斯试图用理性主义展开对基督教的批判，切什考夫斯基以行动哲学倡导用理性的规律指导未来，鲍威尔通过在自我意识中爆发革命达到消除异化的目的，还是施蒂纳对“唯一者”的颂扬，青年黑格尔派所进行的斗争都“局限于对宗教观念的批判”，并仅仅从现实的宗教和真正的神学出发，“通过以宗教观念代替一切或者宣布一切都是神学上的东西来批判一切”{11}。因此，青年黑格尔派的意识形态家们尽管满口讲的都是所谓“使世界震撼的”词句，因为他们只是用词句来反对这些词句，只是为反对词句而斗争，所以他们是最大的保守派，既然他们仅仅反对这个世界的词句，那么他们就绝不是反对现实的现存世界，“尽管这种变革的观念已经表述过千百次，但这一点对于实际发展没有任何意义”。{12} 青年黑格尔派也只能合乎逻辑地向人们提出一种道德要求，要用这一人的、批判的或利己的意识来代替他们现在的意识，从而消除束缚他们的限制。这种改变意识的要求，就是要求用另一种方式来解释现存的东西，也就是说，借助于另外的解释来承认它。马克思和恩格斯认为，这种哲学批判所能达到的惟一结果，是从宗教史上对基督教作一些说明，而且还是片面的说明。至于他们的全部其他论断，只不过是进一步修饰他们的一种要求：想用这样一些微不足道的说明作出具有世界历史意义的发现。马克思和恩格斯认为，这种远离社会现实的“哲学批判”，对改造世界是不能发生任何实质性影响的，“如果他们把哲学、神学、实体和其余一切废物都消融在‘自我意识’中，如果他们把‘人’从这些词句的统治下——而人从来没有隶属过这些词句——解放出来，那么‘人’的 ‘解放’也并没有前进一步。”{13}

Marx and Engels believed that, standing on the foundation of material practice and historically reflecting on the foundations and laws of human existence and development, one must first pay attention to the following basic fact: “Men must be in a position to live in order to be able to ‘make history.’ But life involves before everything else eating and drinking, housing, clothing, and various other things. The first historical act is thus the production of the means to satisfy these needs, the production of material life itself.”[14]14 Ibid., p. 41. Moreover, this historical activity of producing material life itself, which men have been obliged to engage in daily and hourly from thousands of years ago up to the present day simply in order to maintain life, is the fundamental condition of all history. This is both the first premise of all human existence and the first premise of all history. The first thing any historical conception must do is to observe the full significance and full scope of this fundamental fact and give it its due attention.

马克思和恩格斯认为，站在物质实践基础之上，历史地反思人类生存发展的基础和规律，就必须首先重视如下基本事实：“人们为了能够‘创造历史’，必须能够生活。但是为了生活，首先就需要饮食、居住、衣被以及其他一些东西。因此第一个历史活动就是生产满足这些需要的资料，即生产物质生活本身。” {14} 而且，这种人们从几千年前直到今天单是为了维持生活就必须每日每时从事的生产物质生活本身的这种历史活动，是一切历史的基本条件。这既是人类生存的第一个前提，也是一切历史的第一个前提。任何历史观的第一件事情就是必须注意上述基本事实的全部意义和全部范围，并给予应有的重视。

Next, Marx analyzed the driving forces and process of the evolution of ownership, pointing out that the evolution of ownership, as a historical process, is first of all caused by the division of labor. The division of labor causes mental and material activity, enjoyment and labor, production and consumption to fall to different individuals, which inevitably leads to certain contradictions among the productive forces, the state of society, and consciousness. This contradiction is based on the naturally formed division of labor within the family and on the splitting of society into separate, mutually opposed families. After clarifying the driving forces behind the emergence of ownership, Marx and Engels examined the evolutionary process of ownership from the perspective of historical development. They argued that the various stages of the division of labor are simultaneously the different forms of ownership, and that each stage of the division of labor also determines the mutual relations of individuals with respect to the material of labor, the instruments of labor, and the products of labor: the first form of ownership is tribal ownership; the second form is ancient communal and state ownership; the third form is feudal or estate ownership. By highlighting this line of historical genesis, Marx criticized the abstract ideal that treats communism merely as a value postulate (to which reality ought to conform). “Communism is for us not a state of affairs which is to be established, an ideal to which reality [will] have to adjust itself. We call communism the real movement which abolishes the present state of things. The conditions of this movement result from the premises now in existence.” {15} What Marx and Engels focused on was not merely the clarification of the content of the goal that ought to be, but rather, in the dissection of social laws, they moved toward a concrete, real-historical line of thought. They sought to demonstrate that “real liberation is only possible in the real world and by real means,” and to find the scientific path to human liberation by revealing the inherent contradictions of existing society and the ways to overcome them.

接着马克思分析了所有制的演变动力和过程，指出所有制的演变作为一个历史过程，首先是由分工导致的，分工使精神活动和物质活动、享受和劳动、生产和消费由不同的个人来分担，这必然导致生产力、社会状况和意识之间发生一定的矛盾，这一矛盾以家庭中自然形成的分工和以社会分裂为单个的、互相对立的家庭为基础。在明确所有制产生的动力之后，马克思和恩格斯从历史发展的视角考察了所有制的演变过程，认为分工的各种发展阶段，同时也就是所有制的各种不同形式，分工的每一个阶段还决定个人与劳动材料、劳动工具和劳动产品有关的相互关系：第一种所有制形式是部落所有制；第二种所有制形式是古代公社所有制和国家所有制；第三种所有制形式是封建的或等级的所有制。通过历史生成思路的彰显，马克思批判了那种将共产主义仅仅作为一种价值悬设（现实应该与之符合）的抽象理想。“共产主义对我们来说不是应当确立的状况，不是现实应当与之相适应的理想。我们所称为共产主义的是现实的运动，那种消灭现存状况的现实的运动。这个运动的条件是由现有的前提产生的。” {15} 马克思和恩格斯所关注的并非仅仅是应有目标的内容澄清，而是在对社会规律的解剖中走向了一种具体的现实历史思路，他们力图阐明“在现实的世界中并使用现实的手段才能实现真正的解放”，通过揭示现实社会存在的内在矛盾及其克服途径，来找到达及人类解放的科学路径。

III. The Rationalization of Real Social Relations and the Path to Human Liberation

三、现实社会关系合理化与人的解放之路

Marx and Engels established their philosophical thinking on a solid practical foundation. Through the analytical method of historical genesis, in the process of analyzing the production and reproduction of the material conditions of human existence, they explored the production and reproduction of capitalist relations of production that produce the material conditions of existence. They conducted a thorough, penetrating, and all-round analysis of the inherent contradictions of capitalism. Through the discovery of surplus value, they revealed the root of the poverty of the proletariat under capitalist conditions, pointing out that the rationalization of human social relations is the key to human liberation, and that only by overthrowing capitalist society can the organic unity of human beings and society be achieved, leading to the real liberation of humanity. However, the scientific grasp of essential, concrete, and historical social relations, and the subsequent gradual stripping away of the historical illusions veiling the surface of capitalist society, and finally the path to realizing their own value demands by appealing to the rationalization of social relations—this process was only gradually completed through the period of *The Poverty of Philosophy*, the *Grundrisse*, and up to *Capital*.

马克思恩格斯把哲学运思确立在坚实的实践基础之上，通过历史生成的分析方法，在剖析人类物质生存条件的生产和再生产的过程中，探求生产物质生存条件的资本主义生产关系的生产和再生产，对资本主义内在矛盾进行了淋漓尽致、深入见底的全方位剖析，通过剩余价值的发现，揭示了资本主义条件下无产阶级贫困的根源，指出人的社会关系的合理化是人的解放的关键，只有推翻资本主义社会才能实现人和社会的有机统一，达到人的现实解放。而对本质性的、具体的、历史的社会关系的科学把握，进而逐步剥离蒙蔽在资本主义社会表面的历史假象，最终通过诉诸社会关系的合理化达到自身价值诉求的实现路径，则经历了《哲学的贫困》、《1857—1858经济学手稿》直至《资本论》时期才逐渐完成。

In *The Poverty of Philosophy*, Marx pointed out that Proudhon did not understand the connotation of real social relations. He could only explain the logical relations between economic categories from the theoretical standpoint of abstract human selfhood. Faced with the inherent contradictions of economic categories in reality and the situation in which laborers in the actual mode of labor could not solve the problem of poverty, Proudhon could only choose to take the so-called good side and bad side, using the abstract development of the human self as a frame of reference, and then express the good side through the synthesis of categories. That is to say, “to wrest from God the secret of this thought, and then to apply it, and—*presto!*—all is done.” {16} The result is that, for Proudhon, the historical movement to transform the modern world was merely a problem of discovering the correct balance or synthesis of two bourgeois ideas. He replaced the great historical movement arising from the conflict between people’s acquired productive forces and their social relations no longer corresponding to those productive forces with a wondrous movement in his own head. In reality, Proudhon solved social problems not in social action, but in the dialectical rotational movement in his head. He merely devoted himself to finding a new formula, treating the constituent parts of social life as eternal categories, and thought that balancing these categories would solve the problem. For example, by discovering a true formula “to balance the social estates, nobility, king, parliament, etc., and the next morning neither king, nor parliament, nor nobility would exist.” {17} But Marx believed that “the real balance of this antagonism is the overthrow of all social relations—the basis of these feudal institutions and of these antagonisms of feudal institutions.”

在《哲学的贫困》中，马克思指出蒲鲁东不懂得现实社会关系的内涵，对经济范畴之间的逻辑关系只能从抽象的人类自我的理论立足点出发予以说明，而针对现实中经济范畴的内在矛盾，以及现实的劳动方式中劳动者无法解决贫困问题的状况，蒲鲁东只能选择以抽象的人类自我发展为参照系的所谓好的方面和坏的方面，然后通过范畴之间的综合表露出好的方面，也就是说，“从上帝那里夺取这个秘密的思想，然后加以运用，于是就万事大吉了。” {16} 其结果是，变革现代世界的历史运动，对蒲鲁东来说不过是要发现两种资产阶级思想的正确的平衡、综合的问题。他用自己头脑中奇妙的运动，代替了由于人们既得的生产力和他们的不再与此种生产力相适应的社会关系相互冲突而产生的伟大历史运动。实际上，蒲鲁东不是在社会行动中，而是在他的头脑中的辩证的旋转运动中解决各种社会问题。他仅仅致力于寻找一个新公式，把社会生活的构成部分当作永恒的范畴，以为把这些范畴平衡起来就把问题解决了，比如通过发现一个真正的公式“把各个社会等级、贵族、国王、议会等等平衡起来，而第二天早晨就无论国王、议会或贵族都消失了”。{17} 但马克思却认为，“这一对抗的真正平衡是推翻一切社会关系——这些封建体制和这些封建体制的对抗的基础。”

On the basis of criticizing economic metaphysics and discovering the class antagonism between capitalists and workers in the sphere of distribution and exchange, Marx’s philosophy delved deeper into the sphere of production to find the root of class antagonism. He argued that to solve the inequalities in the sphere of distribution and circulation, the inequalities in the sphere of production must be solved. In the introduction to the *Grundrisse*, Marx clearly stated, “The object before us, to begin with, *material production*. Individuals producing in society—hence socially determined individual production—is, of course, the point of departure.” {18} Marx, on the basis of exploring the interrelations among distribution, exchange, and production, revealed the scientific connotation of social relations, and thereby discovered the true reason for the exploitation of the proletariat. When discussing the capitalist production process, Marx emphasized that the significance of the production process lies more in the production and reproduction of relations of production: “The result of the production and valorization process is, above all, the reproduction and new production of the relation of capital and labor itself, of the relation of capitalist and worker. This social relation, the relation of production, is in fact the more important result of the process than its material result. That is to say, in this process the worker produces himself as labor capacity, and also produces capital confronting him; likewise, the capitalist produces himself as capital, and also produces living labor capacity confronting him.” {19} Clearly, Marx had already shifted his focus from the material products of labor to the reproduction of relations of production. In particular, on the basis of focusing on the concrete social relations of material production, when discussing production, Marx emphasized that “when we speak of production, we always speak of production at a definite stage of social development.” {20} Pointing out a definite stage of production makes the connotation of real social relations more explicit. Only then did Marx discuss “production in general,” which both encompasses the common features of production in different epochs and identifies the concrete production process that bears specific real relations of production. What the classical economists understood as “production in general,” however, lacked this perspective of the concrete real relations of production in the production process. Therefore, what they called relations of production remained merely fixed, natural, and innate relations of production. Their so-called material production process clearly did not include the production and reproduction of relations of production. They interpreted the material production process solely from the perspective of material form. Hence, Marx repeatedly pointed out that classical economics was merely “the science of getting rich.”

马克思哲学在对经济学形而上学进行了批判、并发现资本家和工人在分配和交换领域中的阶级对抗基础上，把产生阶级对抗的根源深入到生产领域来寻找，认为要解决分配、流通领域中的不平等现象，必须解决生产领域中的不平等现象，在《1857—1858经济学手稿》导言部分，马克思明确指出，“摆在面前的对象，首先是物质生产。在社会中进行生产的个人，——因而，这些个人的一定社会性质的生产，当然是出发点。” {18} 马克思是在探讨分配、交换和生产之间相互关系的基础上，揭示科学的社会关系内涵，进而发现无产者遭受剥削的真正原因的。马克思在谈到资本主义的生产过程时强调指出，生产过程的意义更多地表现在生产关系的生产和再生产上面，“生产过程和价值增殖过程的结果，首先是资本和劳动的关系本身的，资本家和工人的关系本身的再生产和新生产。这种社会关系，生产关系，实际上是这个过程的比其物质结果更为重要的结果。这就是说，在这个过程中工人把他本身作为劳动生产能力生产出来，也生产出同他相对立的资本，同样另一方面，资本家把他本身作为资本生产出来，也生产出同他相对立的活劳动能力。” {19} 显然，马克思已经从对劳动的物质成果的关注转向对生产关系再生产的关注。尤其是，在关注物质生产的具体的社会关系基础上，马克思在谈到生产时突出强调“说到生产，总是指在一定社会发展阶段上的生产。” {20} 指出一定的生产阶段就更加明确现实社会关系的内涵，之后马克思才谈到“生产一般”，这既涵盖了不同时代生产的共同点，又指认了承载特定现实生产关系的具体生产过程。而古典经济学家所理解的“生产一般”却缺少具体现实生产关系的生产过程这一视角，所以他们所说的生产关系而仅仅停留在固定的、天然的、自然的生产关系，他们所谓的物质生产过程显然并不包含生产关系的生产和再生产，他们仅仅从物质形式的线索来解读物质生产过程，因此马克思多次指出古典经济学仅仅是“关于发财致富的科学”。

Bourgeois economists examine the material production process only on the level of material form, pursuing only the accumulation of wealth. When they discuss economic categories such as capital and labor, they fail to see the real relations of production contained behind these categories. For example, in his understanding of capital, the bourgeois economist Smith regarded capital as “a certain quantity of accumulated and stored-up labor” {21}, as past, objectified labor. Since any process of productive labor is inseparable from a certain quantity of accumulated labor existing as means of labor, the relation of capital is seen by them as a general, eternal natural relation applicable to all societies. Marx, however, pointed out that accumulated labor can become capital only within definite relations of production, only under capitalist conditions. Therefore, “capital is not a thing, but a relation” {22}; behind capital lies the exploitative relation of the capitalist to the worker. The bourgeois economists “precisely discard the very thing that makes ‘instruments of production’ and ‘accumulated labor’ into capital” {23}, that is, they discard the real “relations of production” that turn accumulated labor into capital. Clearly, when Marx recognized that accumulated labor can become capital only within definite relations of production, the “relations of production” he understood were already relations of production bearing real social-historical content (for example, the relations of production between capitalist and worker). Therefore, Marx’s philosophy holds that the critique of capital must be grounded in the critique of the specific capitalist relations of production that turn money into capital, rather than in critiquing money as it appears on the surface of society. The search for the path of human emancipation must also penetrate into the reproduction of capitalist relations of production, because production is not merely a process of creating or transforming natural products governed by natural laws; the cause of inequality in the distribution of products between immediate labor and accumulated labor can only be sought in the inherent contradictions of capitalist relations of production.

资产阶级经济学家仅仅在物质形式层面探讨物质生产过程，仅仅追求财富的积累，他们谈到资本、劳动等经济范畴时看不到这些范畴背后所蕴涵的现实生产关系内涵，比如在对资本的理解上，资产阶级经济学家斯密就认为资本是“一定量的积蓄的和储存的劳动” {21}，是一种过去的、客体化了的劳动，而任何一个生产劳动过程都是离不开一定的作为劳动资料而存在的积累的劳动的，因此，资本的关系被他们看成适用于一切社会的、一般的、永恒的自然关系。马克思却指出，积累的劳动只有在一定的生产关系中才能成为资本，只有在资本主义条件下才能成为资本，因此，“资本不是物，而是一种关系” {22}，资本背后蕴藏的是资本家对工人的剥削关系。资产阶级经济学家“恰好抛开了正是使‘生产工具’、‘积累的劳动’成为资本的那个特殊”{23}，即抛开了使积累的劳动成为资本的那个现实的“生产关系”。显然，当马克思认识到积累的劳动只有在一定生产关系中才能成为资本的时候，他所理解的“生产关系”已经是承载现实社会历史内容的生产关系（比如资本家和工人之间的生产关系）。因此，马克思哲学认为，对资本的批判必须立足于对使货币成为资本的这种特殊的资本主义生产关系的批判，而不是去批判呈现在社会表面的货币，人的解放路径的探求也必须深入到资本主义生产关系再生产的探求之中，因为生产不仅仅是一种受自然规律支配的创造或改造自然产品的过程，因此直接的劳动与积累的劳动在产品分配中的不平等的原因只能在资本主义生产关系固有的矛盾性中寻找。

Marx’s philosophy proceeds from the most abstract concept of the commodity to the complete revelation of the mystery of the essence of money and capital, clearly pointing out that capital is not a thing but a social relation between people mediated by things. The exchange between labor and capital is not a general commodity exchange but an exchange between wage-labor and capital within the historically and economically unique capitalist relations of production, thereby resolving the contradiction between the law of value and the exchange between labor and capital that classical economists could not crack. Using the method of ascending from the abstract to the concrete, Marx completed a scientific analysis of the total process of capitalist production. Through an analysis of the reproduction of capitalist relations of production, he discovered surplus value as the secret of capitalist exploitation, pointing out that only by relying on the real force for transforming the world—the proletariat—overthrowing this unreasonable social system of capitalism, and establishing communist society, can true human emancipation be achieved on the basis of the unity of the individual and society.

马克思哲学从最抽象的商品概念，到完成对货币、资本本质之谜的揭示，明确指出资本不是一种物，而是一种以物为媒介的人和人之间的社会关系，劳资交换不是一般性的商品交换，而是历史上经济上独特的资本主义生产关系中的雇佣劳动与资本之间的交换，从而解决了古典经济学家无法破解的价值规律与劳资交换之间的矛盾问题。马克思采用抽象到具体的方法，完成了对资本主义生产总过程的科学分析，通过对资本主义生产关系再生产的剖析，发现了剩余价值这一资本主义剥削的秘密，指出只有依靠改造世界的现实力量——无产阶级，推翻资本主义这一不合理的社会制度，建立共产主义社会，才能达到个人与社会相统一基础之上的人的真正解放。

Examining the history of the formation of Marx’s philosophy, it is not difficult to see that, from abandoning the idea of equating the freedom of self-consciousness with human freedom and treating the supersession of alienated labor as the path of human emancipation, to analyzing the internal contradictions of capitalist society from the perspective of real practice and historical becoming, and then to emphasizing that the rationalization of social relations is the key to human emancipation—at no link in the logic of the development of his philosophy did Marx entrust human emancipation to any supernatural, mysterious force. The process of the formation and development of Marx’s philosophy is precisely the process of the thorough unfolding of his atheist thought. Only by deeply understanding the atheist character of Marx’s philosophy on the basis of this process can we perhaps better grasp the conclusion of one Western scholar: “Atheism is essentially linked to Marx’s Marxism.” {24}

通过对马克思哲学形成史的考察不难看到，马克思哲学从放弃把自我意识自由等同于人的自由以及把异化劳动的扬弃作为人的解放路径的思路，到立足现实实践和历史生成视野，剖析资本主义社会的内在矛盾，再到强调社会关系的合理化才是人的解放的关键，其哲学展开逻辑的任何一个环节，都没有把人的解放寄托于任何超自然的神秘力量，马克思哲学的形成和发展过程，就是其无神论思想的彻底展开过程，而基于这一过程深刻理解马克思哲学无神论特质，我们或许才能更好地理解一位西方学者的结论：“无神论是与马克思的马克思主义本质联系在一起的。” {24}

Elucidating the atheist character of Marx’s philosophy has important implications for current Chinese social construction. First, to achieve human freedom and emancipation, one cannot entrust it to any mysterious force. This is just as the Internationale sings: “There has never been any savior, nor do we rely on gods or emperors. To create human happiness, we rely entirely on ourselves!” Exerting our own subjectivity and initiative is the only way to realize our fine goals. Second, to achieve human freedom and emancipation, we must base ourselves on reality, base ourselves on practice, pay attention to grasping the laws of social development, achieve comprehensive and sustainable development, and earnestly solve the real problems of the people’s production and livelihood. Third, to truly achieve human freedom and emancipation, we need to earnestly resolve issues of justice and fairness in real society, achieve the rationalization of real social relations, and truly “take people as the foundation” in harmonious development. Only in this way can theism such as religion naturally lose the soil for its emergence and survival.

阐明马克思哲学的无神论特质，对当前中国社会建设具有重要的启示意义：首先，要实现人的自由与解放，就不能寄托于任何神秘的力量，这正如国际歌中所唱到的“从来就没有什么救世主，也不靠神仙皇帝。要创造人类的幸福，全靠我们自己!”发挥我们自身的主体性、能动性，才是实现美好目标的唯一途径；其次，要实现人的自由与解放，就必须立足现实，立足实践，注重把握社会发展规律，实现全面、可持续发展，切实解决人民群众的生产和生活等现实问题；再次，要真正实现人的自由与解放，就需要切实解决现实社会中的公正公平，达到现实社会关系的合理化，在和谐发展中真正做到“以人为本”。只有这样，那么宗教等有神论便自然失去了产生、生存的土壤。

References

参考文献

① *Complete Works of Marx and Engels*, Vol. 3, Beijing: People’s Publishing House, 2002, p. 169.

① 《马克思恩格斯全集》第3卷，北京：人民出版社，2002年，第169页。

② *Complete Works of Marx and Engels*, Vol. 3, Beijing: People’s Publishing House, 2002, p. 520.

②《马克思恩格斯全集》第3卷，北京：人民出版社，2002年，第520页。

③ *Complete Works of Marx and Engels*, Vol. 1, Beijing: People’s Publishing House, 1995, p. 101.

③《马克思恩格斯全集》第1卷，北京：人民出版社，1995年，第101页。

④ *Complete Works of Marx and Engels*, Vol. 27, Beijing: People’s Publishing House, 1972, p. 436.

④《马克思恩格斯全集》第27卷，北京：人民出版社，1972年，第436页。

⑤ *Selected Works of Marx and Engels*, Vol. 2, Beijing: People’s Publishing House, 1995, p. 32.

⑤《马克思恩格斯选集》第2卷，北京：人民出版社，1995年，第32页。

⑥ *Complete Works of Marx and Engels*, Vol. 3, Beijing: People’s Publishing House, 2002, p. 170.

⑥《马克思恩格斯全集》第3卷，北京：人民出版社，2002年，第170页。

⑦ *Complete Works of Marx and Engels*, Vol. 3, Beijing: People’s Publishing House, 2002, p. 192.

⑦《马克思恩格斯全集》第3卷，北京：人民出版社，2002年，第192页。

⑧ *Complete Works of Marx and Engels*, Vol. 3, Beijing: People’s Publishing House, 2002, p. 200.

⑧《马克思恩格斯全集》第3卷，北京：人民出版社，2002年，第200页。

⑨ *Complete Works of Marx and Engels*, Vol. 3, Beijing: People’s Publishing House, 2002, p. 517.

⑨《马克思恩格斯全集》第3卷，北京：人民出版社，2002年，第517页。

⑩ Hiromatsu Wataru, ed., *The German Ideology in the Context of Philology*, trans. Peng Xi, Nanjing: Nanjing University Press, 2005, pp. 3–5.

⑩ 广松涉编著．文献学语境中的《德意志意识形态》，彭曦，译．南京：南京大学出版社，2005年，第3－5页。

{11} Hiromatsu Wataru, ed., *The German Ideology in the Context of Philology*, trans. Peng Xi, Nanjing: Nanjing University Press, 2005, p. 12.

{11} 广松涉编著．文献学语境中的《德意志意识形态》，彭曦，译．南京：南京大学出版社，2005年，第12页。

{12} Hiromatsu Wataru, ed., *The German Ideology in the Context of Philology*, trans. Peng Xi, Nanjing: Nanjing University Press, 2005, p. 52.

{12} 广松涉编著．文献学语境中的《德意志意识形态》，彭曦，译．南京：南京大学出版社，2005年，第52页。

{13} Hiromatsu Wataru, ed., *The German Ideology in the Context of Philology*, trans. Peng Xi, Nanjing: Nanjing University Press, 2005, p. 160.

{13} 广松涉编著．文献学语境中的《德意志意识形态》，彭曦，译．南京：南京大学出版社，2005年，第160页。

{14} Hiromatsu Wataru, ed., *The German Ideology in the Context of Philology*, trans. Peng Xi, Nanjing: Nanjing University Press, 2005, p. 22.

{14} 广松涉编著．文献学语境中的《德意志意识形态》，彭曦，译．南京：南京大学出版社，2005年，第22页。

{15} Hiromatsu Wataru, ed., *The German Ideology in the Context of Philology*, trans. Peng Xi, Nanjing: Nanjing University Press, 2005, p. 37.

{15} 广松涉编著．文献学语境中的《德意志意识形态》，彭曦，译．南京：南京大学出版社，2005年，第37页。

{16} *Selected Works of Marx and Engels*, Vol. 4, Beijing: People’s Publishing House, 1995, p. 537.

{16}《马克思恩格斯选集》第4卷，北京：人民出版社，1995年，第537页。

{17} *Selected Works of Marx and Engels*, Vol. 4, Beijing: People’s Publishing House, 1995, p. 541.

{17}《马克思恩格斯选集》第4卷，北京：人民出版社，1995年，第541页。

{18} *Complete Works of Marx and Engels*, Vol. 46, Part 1, Beijing: People’s Publishing House, 1979, p. 18.

{18}《马克思恩格斯全集》第46卷（上），北京：人民出版社，1979年，第18页。

{19} *Complete Works of Marx and Engels*, Vol. 46, Part 1, Beijing: People’s Publishing House, 1979, p. 455.

{19}《马克思恩格斯全集》第46卷（上），北京：人民出版社，1979年，第455页。

{20} *Complete Works of Marx and Engels*, Vol. 46, Part 1, Beijing: People’s Publishing House, 1979, p. 22.

{20}《马克思恩格斯全集》第46卷（上），北京：人民出版社，1979年，第22页。

{21} *Complete Works of Marx and Engels*, Vol. 3, Beijing: People’s Publishing House, 2002, p. 239.

{21}《马克思恩格斯全集》第3卷，北京：人民出版社，2002年，第239页。

{22} See *Complete Works of Marx and Engels*, Vol. 46, Part 1, Beijing: People’s Publishing House, 1979, p. 212.

{22} 参见《马克思恩格斯全集》第46卷（上），北京：人民出版社，1979年，第212页。

{23} *Complete Works of Marx and Engels*, Vol. 46, Part 1, Beijing: People’s Publishing House, 1979, p. 22.

{23}《马克思恩格斯全集》第46卷（上），北京：人民出版社，1979年，第22页。

[21]21 This is a citation from a French sociologist’s work, used here as a scholarly reference in the original Chinese text. [French] Raymond Aron, *Main Currents in Sociological Thought*, trans. Ge Zhiqiang et al., Shanghai Translation Publishing House, 2005, p. 169.

{24}【法】雷蒙·阿隆：《社会学主要思潮》，葛智强等译，上海译文出版社，2005年，第169页。