The Religion of Capitalism and Historical Materialism

Abstract: This article, by examining the relevant ideas of three Western Marxist thinkers—Bloch, Lukács, and Benjamin—concretely analyzes the revival of Marxist critique of fetishism in the 20th century. It points out that this group of Central European intellectuals, represented by Bloch, transcended Weber’s concept of “disenchantment” through their reflection on the “Jewish Question,” achieving an insight into the religious character of capitalism. It was precisely on this premise that they later turned to Marx’s position of fetishism critique. After turning to the Marxist position, they respectively reconstructed Marx’s critique of fetishism from two dimensions: the critique of the religion of capitalism and the path to sublating that religion. Through this reconstruction, on the one hand, they more clearly revealed the secret of the religion of capitalism—namely, abstract domination; on the other hand, against the background of capitalist fetishism, they re-examined the relationship between historical materialism and religion.

提要:本文通过考察布洛赫、卢卡奇和本雅明等三位西方马克思主义思想家的相关思想，具体分析了马克思主义拜物教批判思想在20世纪的复兴。文章指出，以布洛赫为代表的这批中欧知识分子，通过对“犹太人问题”的反思而超越了韦伯关于“祛魅”的思想，达到了对资本主义的宗教性质的洞见。正是在此前提之下，他们后来才转向了马克思的拜物教批判的立场。他们在转向马克思主义的立场之后，又分别从资本主义宗教批判和扬弃该宗教的道路等两个维度对马克思的拜物教批判思想进行了重构。通过这一重构，他们一方面更加明确地呈现出了资本主义宗教的秘密，即，抽象的统治;另一方面也在资本主义拜物教的背景之下，重新考察了历史唯物主义与宗教之间的关系。

Keywords: religion of capitalism; fetishism; historical materialism

关键词:资本主义的宗教;拜物教;历史唯物主义

Introduction: The Revival of the Marxist Critique of Fetishism in the 20th Century

引言:关于马克思主义拜物教批判思想在20世纪的复兴

In the history of Western Marxism, there exists a very unique intellectual phenomenon: a group of European Jewish intellectuals, including Lukács and Ernst Bloch, were all directly influenced by Max Weber’s thought in their early years, yet ultimately they clearly turned to the Marxist position. As is well known, there is a great tension between the ideas of Weber and Marx. On the judgment of the religious character of capitalist society, their conclusions appear to be directly opposed: Weber takes “disenchantment” as the fundamental characteristic of modern society, treating it as the inevitable fate that modern people must bear; Marx, however, clearly points out that in capitalist society, people are, in the most fundamental sense, under the domination of capitalist fetishism. Faced with this opposition, how were Lukács and Bloch able to fuse the ideas of both together? On the fundamental judgment of capitalist society, why did they ultimately turn from Weber to Marx, re-accepting Marx’s critique of capitalist fetishism, thereby bringing about the revival of Marx’s critique of fetishism in the 20th century? In this process, what kind of reconstruction did they perform on Marx’s critique of fetishism? All these questions are of great significance for our in-depth understanding of the social critical theory of Western Marxism. From the perspective of intellectual history, they do not merely concern the unique intellectual journey of a particular thinker, but relate to the general intellectual turn of an entire group of European Jewish intellectuals at that time. This includes both Lukács and Bloch, who were both members of Weber’s Heidelberg Circle, as well as Benjamin, who was directly influenced by Bloch, and the early members of the Frankfurt School, Horkheimer and Adorno (the latter two were directly influenced by *History and Class Consciousness*). From the perspective of the content of the thought itself, it involves the fundamental judgment of the religious character of capitalism and a rethinking of the path to sublating religion.

在西方马克思主义的历史上存在着一个非常独特的思想现象:卢卡奇、E.布洛赫(ErnstBloch)等一批欧洲犹太知识分子早年都曾经受到M.韦伯(MaxWeber)思想的直接影响，但他们最终却明确地转向了马克思主义的立场。众所周知，韦伯和马克思两人的思想之间存在着巨大的张力。在对资本主义社会的宗教性质的判断上，他们二人的结论似乎正好相反:韦伯以“祛魅”(disenchantment)为现代社会的根本特征，把“祛魅”当作是现代人必须承受的必然命运;而马克思却明确指出，资本主义社会中人在最根本的意义上处于资本主义拜物教的统治之下。面对这样的对立，卢卡奇和布洛赫等人为何能够把二者的思想融合在一起?在对资本主义社会的根本判断上，他们为什么最终会从韦伯转向马克思，重新接受了马克思的资本主义拜物教批判思想，从而带来了马克思的拜物教批判思想在20世纪的复兴?在这一过程中，他们对马克思的拜物教批判思想又进行了怎样的重构?所有这些问题对于我们深入理解西方马克思主义的社会批判理论都具有重要的意义。从思想史的角度看，它们不是只涉及到某一位思想家独特的思想历程，而是关系到当时整整一批欧洲犹太知识分子普遍的思想转向。这其中既包括卢卡奇和布洛赫，他们两人当时都是韦伯海德堡沙龙的成员，也包括受到布洛赫直接影响的本雅明以及霍克海默和阿多诺等法兰克福学派的早期成员(后两者则直接受到了《历史与阶级意识》的影响)。从思想本身的内涵来看，它则涉及到对于资本主义的宗教性质的根本判断，以及对扬弃宗教的道路的重新思考。

To answer the above questions, this article will focus on the relevant ideas of three early representatives of Western Marxism—Bloch, Benjamin, and Lukács—concentrating on examining their judgment of the religious character of capitalist society and their reconstruction of Marx’s critique of fetishism. Among these three thinkers, Bloch was at the forefront in judging the religious character of capitalist society; his intellectual orientation represented the general intellectual orientation of an entire group of Central European Jewish intellectuals at that time. Under his direct influence, Benjamin and Lukács not only accepted this judgment but also each conducted unique analyses of the basic characteristics of the religion of capitalist society. For this reason, in the first part of this article, we will take Bloch as an example to concretely examine how, compelled by the “Jewish Question,” he arrived at the conclusion that capitalism itself had degenerated into a religion, through inheriting and transcending Weber’s relevant ideas. On this basis, we will further explore the analyses by Bloch and Benjamin of the specific character of the religion of capitalism.

为了回答上述这些问题，本文将集中论述布洛赫、本雅明和卢卡奇等三位西方马克思主义早期代表人物的相关思想，重点考察他们对资本主义社会的宗教性质的判断及对马克思的拜物教批判思想的重构。在这三位思想家中，在对资本主义社会的宗教性质的判断上，布洛赫走在最前列，他的思想取向代表了当时整整一批中欧犹太知识分子普遍的思想取向。在他的直接影响之下，本雅明和卢卡奇不仅分别都接受了这一判断，而且还各自对资本主义社会的宗教的基本特征进行了独到的分析。为此我们在本文的第一部分，将以布洛赫为例，具体地考察他是如何在“犹太人问题”的逼迫之下，通过对韦伯的相关思想的继承和超越而得出资本主义本身已经沦为一种宗教的论断的。在此基础之上，我们还将进一步探讨布洛赫和本雅明等对于资本主义宗教的特殊性质的分析。

For Bloch and this group of European Jewish intellectuals living in the early 20th century, it was precisely due to their profound insight into the religious character of capitalist society that they ultimately turned to Marx’s position of fetishism critique. After turning to the Marxist position, they respectively reconstructed Marx’s critique of fetishism from two aspects: the critique of the religion of capitalism and the sublation of the religion of capitalism. Both aspects of this reconstruction have direct significance for us today in analyzing and criticizing contemporary capitalist society: the former helps us to penetrate the secret of “abstract domination” in the modern capitalist world; the latter, against the background of secularization, once again presents us with the question of the relationship between historical materialism and religion. For this reason, in the second part of this article, we will take Lukács’s *History and Class Consciousness* as an example to concretely examine his further revelation of the secret of the religion of capitalism; in the conclusion of this article, we will briefly outline the reflections of the three thinkers—Bloch, Lukács, and Benjamin—on the fundamental path to sublating the religion of capitalism, and particularly highlight the differences in their understanding of the path of historical materialism.

对于布洛赫等这批生活在20世纪初的欧洲犹太知识分子们来说，正是由于其对资本主义社会的宗教性质的深刻洞见，他们最终才转向了马克思的拜物教批判的立场。在转向马克思主义的立场之后，他们又分别从资本主义宗教批判和资本主义宗教的扬弃等两个方面对马克思的拜物教批判思想进行了重构。这两方面的重构在今天对我们分析和批判当代资本主义世界都具有直接的意义:前者能够帮助我们洞穿现代资本主义世界中“抽象的统治”的秘密;后者则在世俗化的背景之下，再一次把历史唯物主义和宗教之间的关系问题提交给了我们。为此，我们在本文的第二部分将以卢卡奇的《历史与阶级意识》为例，具体考察他对资本主义宗教的秘密的进一步揭示;在本文的结论部分，我们将简要交代布洛赫、卢卡奇和本雅明等三位思想家对于扬弃资本主义宗教的根本道路的思考，并特别地呈现出他们在对历史唯物主义道路的理解上的差异。

1. Capitalism Has Degenerated into a Religion (Bloch)

1.资本主义已经沦为一种宗教(布洛赫)

We first take Bloch as an example to analyze his idea that capitalism itself has degenerated into a religion. Bloch was able to reach this conclusion, on the one hand, because of his unique reflection on the “Jewish Question,” and on the other hand, directly due to the influence of Weber’s thought, especially Weber’s unique exposition in *The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism* of the internal relationship between Protestant Christianity and the historical genesis of capitalism.

我们首先以布洛赫为例来分析其关于资本主义本身已经沦为一种宗教的思想。布洛赫之所以能够得此结论，一方面是因为他对“犹太人问题”的独特思考，另一方面则直接归功于韦伯思想的影响，尤其是韦伯在《新教伦理与资本主义的精神》一书中对基督新教与资本主义的历史生成之间的内在关系的独特阐发。

As Central European Jewish intellectuals in the early 20th century, the development of Bloch’s and others’ thought was closely related to the “Jewish Question.” After 1870, with the implementation of assimilation policies in the German-speaking world, a wealthy Jewish stratum quickly formed in the cities, to which the fathers of Lukács and Benjamin belonged. At the same time, in various public spheres such as the military, state administration, local government, and education, Jews were still excluded. Against this background, primarily composed of the ruined petty bourgeoisie, an “anti-Semitic” movement began to rise in society after 1870. Thus, the “Jewish Question” became a reality they had to confront. Compelled by the “Jewish Question,” this group of Jewish intellectuals, on the one hand, severed their internal connection with their fathers’ way of life, losing their identification with the bourgeois lifestyle and liberal stance; on the other hand, they were unable to directly identify with the position of defending culture held by the university philosophers (Simmel and Weber, etc.). This means that, on the one hand, they understood the “Jewish Question” as a problem of the entire bourgeois civilization, rather than a problem of the survival and interests of the special group of Jews. On this premise, they were deeply moved by the critique of capitalist civilization by Simmel and Weber; but on the other hand, they were unable to directly adopt the path of solving the problem proposed by Simmel and Weber. From the perspective of practical life, this was because the cultural sphere centered on the university adopted a clear attitude of exclusion towards Jews; as Jewish intellectuals, they were in fact unable to be accepted by the university or to obtain the status of “traditional intellectuals” in society. From the perspective of thought itself, this was because the position of Simmel and others of defending culture was actually a romantic anti-capitalist stance. Once this romantic anti-capitalist appeal was concretized into the right-wing nationalist position of Germany, this group of Jewish intellectuals lost their intellectual ground.

作为20世纪初的中欧犹太知识分子，布洛赫等人思想的发展与“犹太人问题”密切相关。1870年以后，伴随着同化政策在德语世界的施行，在城市里很快就形成了一个富有的犹太阶层，卢卡奇和本雅明的父辈们都属于这一阶层。与此同时，在军队、国家管理、地方行政和教育等各公共领域，犹太人依然还遭到排斥。在此背景之下，以破产的小资产阶级为主体，在1870年以后，社会上开始兴起了“反犹主义”的运动。于是，“犹太人问题”成为他们不得不面对的现实。在“犹太人问题”的逼迫下，这批犹太知识分子们一方面斩断了与其父辈的生活方式之间的内在关联，失去了对资产阶级生活方式和自由主义立场的认同;另一方面又无法与大学里的哲学家们(西美尔和韦伯等)的守护文化的立场直接同一。这也就是说，他们一方面把“犹太人问题”理解为整个资产阶级文明的问题，而不是犹太人这个特殊群体的生存和利益的问题。在这个前提之下，他们深深地被西美尔和韦伯等对资本主义文明的批判所打动;但另一方面，他们又无法直接采取西美尔和韦伯等人的解决问题的道路。从实际生活的角度看，这是因为以大学为核心的文化领域对犹太人采取了明确的排斥态度，作为犹太知识分子的他们实际上无法被大学接受，无法在社会中获得“传统的知识分子”的地位;从思想本身的角度看，这是因为西美尔等人守护文化的立场实际上是一种反资本主义的浪漫主义的立场。一旦当这种反资本主义的浪漫主义的诉求被落实为德国的右翼的民族主义的立场，他们这批犹太知识分子们就在思想上失去了领地。

So what exactly is the path to solving the problem? Through his unique reflection on the “Jewish question,” Bloch began to explicitly identify with the tradition of Jewish messianism and Christian eschatology. In *The Spirit of Utopia*, especially in the appendix to the 1918 edition, “The Jew, the Symbol,” we can clearly see this thread of thought. On the “Jewish question,” he opposed both the path of general assimilation, because that meant choosing the soulless, non-religious life of the bourgeoisie, and in his view, the essence of the Jewish question was the crisis of bourgeois civilization. At the same time, he also opposed the path of “Zionism” represented by Martin Buber, because that would mean reducing the unique tradition of Jewish civilization to a “nation-state” in Asia. This path completely lacked the significance of responding to the universal crisis of bourgeois civilization. Different from these two paths, the path Bloch ultimately chose was the conscious embrace of “Jewish identity.” Further, it meant insisting on our continuity with the people of the “Psalms” and the “Prophets,” and adhering to the tradition of Jewish messianism. Only in this way could we see through the nihilistic essence of bourgeois civilization, and only in history, by relying on our hope for the Messiah and our resolute struggle against sin and falsehood, could we open a new era. At the same time, he also emphasized that there is an intrinsic connection between Judaism and Christianity; Christ is the prophet of the Messiah. According to this tradition of Jewish messianism and Christian eschatology, he clearly asserted that the existing capitalist world is a world controlled by a false god, and our task is to prepare for the coming final battle.

那么究竟什么才是解决问题的道路?布洛赫通过对“犹太人问题”的独特思考，开始明确地认同犹太教弥赛亚主义和基督教末世论的传统。在《乌托邦的精神》中，尤其是该书1918年版的附录“犹太人，象征”中，我们可以清楚地看到这样的思想线索。在“犹太人问题”上，他既反对一般的同化的道路，因为那意味着选择资产阶级的无灵魂的、非宗教的生活，而在他看来，犹太人问题的实质就是资产阶级文明的危机。与此同时，他也同样反对以马丁·布伯为代表的“犹太复国主义”(Zionism)的道路，因为那将意味着把独特的犹太文明传统下降为亚洲的一个“民族－国家”。这条道路根本不具备回应普遍的资产阶级文明危机的意义。与这两条道路不同，布洛赫最终选择的道路是对“犹太人身份”的自觉。进一步说，就是要坚持我们与“赞美诗”和“先知”时代的人们之间的连续性，要坚守犹太教弥赛亚主义的传统。只有这样，我们才能洞穿资产阶级文明虚无的本质，才能在历史中凭借着我们对弥赛亚的盼望和对罪恶与虚假的坚决斗争而开启新的时代。与此同时，他也强调，犹太教与基督教之间存在着内在的关联，基督就是关于弥赛亚的先知。根据这一犹太教弥赛亚主义和基督教末世论传统，他明确地认定，现存的资本主义世界是一个被虚假的上帝所掌控的世界，我们的任务就是为即将来临的那场最后的决战做好准备。

On this premise, he reinterpreted Weber’s *The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism*. This book had an extremely important influence on Bloch and others; it very clearly incorporated religious factors into the examination of capitalist society, laying the ideological foundation for their further exploration of the relationship between capitalism and religion. In the book, Weber emphasized the important role of Calvinism in the formation of capitalism, while also revealing how the principle of formal rationality became the dominant principle in the capitalist world. In summary, the Protestant Reformation originated from the believers’ strong dissatisfaction with the highly formalistic system of Catholicism, but their efforts to oppose this formalized system ultimately brought forth another formal system, and one that was even more enslaving in nature. The reason for this was that once Protestants were freed from the various formalized rituals of Catholicism, they found themselves immediately plunged into deep anxiety. Because after stripping away those formalized rituals, they could no longer use these intermediaries to confirm God’s salvation for themselves. Based on the Protestant premise that humans are instruments for God to realize His will, such anxiety was then further sublimated into labor that manipulates and controls the world through calculation. In this way, the world was no longer directly connected to God; its connection to God was now mediated by human work.

在此前提之下，他对于韦伯的《新教伦理和资本主义的精神》进行了重新解读。该书对于布洛赫等人产生了极其重要的影响，它非常明确地把宗教的因素纳入到对资本主义社会的考察之中，为他们进一步探讨资本主义与宗教之间的关系奠定了思想基础。韦伯在书中强调指出了加尔文主义在资本主义形成过程中的重要作用，与此同时他也揭示了形式理性的原则是如何在资本主义世界成为主导性的原则的。概括地说，就是新教改革起源于信徒们对天主教的高度形式主义体系的强烈不满，但他们反对该形式化的体系的努力最终却带来了另一个形式的体系，而且它比前者更加具有奴役人的性质。之所以如此，是因为一旦当新教徒们被从各种天主教的形式化的仪式中解脱出来，他们就会发现自己又立即陷入了深深的焦虑(anxiety)。因为抽去那些形式化的仪式之后，他们也就无法再借助这些中介来确证上帝对自己的救赎。以新教关于人是上帝实现其意志的工具的理念为前提，如此的焦虑于是就被进一步地升华为人们通过计算而对世界进行操纵和控制的劳动。这样，世界就不再与上帝直接相连接，其与上帝之间的关联现在被人的工作所中介。

In other words, the Calvinist work ethic thus replaced the Catholic religious ritual. The true meaning of this process is “disenchantment,” because only when the world has been “disenchanted” can it become the object and product of human labor. Throughout this entire process, as religious fervor gradually faded, what remained was only formal rationality (or technical rationality). The former, on the one hand, turned the world into an object of our calculation and manipulation, and on the other hand, made humans “subjects” by enabling them to possess this objective world. Moreover, it in turn made humans themselves objects of calculation.

换言之，加尔文主义的工作伦理就这样取代了天主教的宗教仪式。这一过程的真正含义就是“祛魅”(disenchantment)，因为只有当世界已被“去魅”，它才能成为人的劳动的对象和产物。在这整个过程中，当宗教的热情逐渐退去之后，剩下的就只有形式理性(或技术理性)了。前者一方面把世界变为我们计算和操纵的对象，另一方面又通过使人占有该对象世界而成为“主体”。不仅如此，它反过来又使得人本身也成为被计算的对象。

For Bloch, the intrinsic affinity between Calvinism and capitalism revealed by Weber here precisely indicates that capitalism itself has degenerated into a bad religion: “Due to the responsibility of abstract work, production is carried out in a harsh and systematized form. Because Calvin attributed poverty solely to consumption, this led to the accumulation and generation of capital. For people, wealth itself was saddled with the obligation of saving; it was now treated as an abstract quantity, becoming an end in itself, demanding continuous growth. … As Weber pointed out, the developing capitalist economy had completely broken free from the constraints of primitive Christianity and had also completely departed from some Christian content contained in medieval economic ethics.” (Ernst Bloch, *Thomas Münzer als Theologe der Revolution*, Frankfurt: Suhrkamp Verlag, 1962, p. 119.) [4]4 Bloch, Ernst. *Thomas Münzer als Theologe der Revolution*. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp Verlag, 1962, p. 119. Here, Bloch first keenly grasped the fundamental opposition between Calvinism and primitive Christianity (and medieval Christianity). On this basis, he further revealed the fundamental opposition between capitalism (accompanied by Calvinism) and primitive Christianity. In capitalist society, it is now capital or wealth, treated purely as an abstract quantity, that has replaced the position of God in primitive Christianity. In this sense, we can very clearly say that capitalism itself has become a religion; in the capitalist religion, capital has become the new god.

对于布洛赫来说，韦伯在这里所揭示的加尔文主义和资本主义之间的内在亲和关系恰恰表明，资本主义本身已经沦为一种坏的宗教:“由于抽象的工作的责任，生产以一种严酷和体系化的形式被展开，因为加尔文把贫困仅仅归因于消费，这就导致了资本的积累和生成。对于人们来说，财富本身被附加上了储蓄的义务，它此时被当作抽象的量，成为目的本身，要求不断地增长。……正如韦伯所指出，发展着的资本主义经济已经完全摆脱了原始基督教对它的限制，也彻底脱离了中世纪的经济伦理所包含的一些基督教的内容。”（ErnstBloch，ThomasMunzeralsTheologederRevolution，Frankfurt:SuhrkampVerlag，1962，p.119.）在这里，布洛赫首先敏锐地把握住了加尔文教与原始的基督教(和中世纪的基督教)之间的根本对立。在此基础之上，他进一步揭示出资本主义(由加尔文教相伴生的)与原始基督教之间的根本对立。在资本主义社会中，现在是那纯粹被当作抽象的量的资本或财富取代了原始基督教中上帝的地位。在这个意义上，我们可以很明确地说，资本主义本身成为了一种宗教，在资本主义宗教里，资本成为了新的上帝。

Under his direct influence, in Weber’s academic salon in Heidelberg, Lukács gradually accepted his judgment, seeing the modern world not only as a “God-forsaken world” but also as an “anti-Christ world.” Benjamin, slightly later, was directly influenced by Bloch’s *Thomas Münzer als Theologe der Revolution* (1921), and in an unpublished short essay written at the end of 1921, he directly used the title “Capitalism as Religion” (Michael Löwy, “Capitalism as Religion: Walter Benjamin and Max Weber,” *Historical Materialism*, volume 17, issue 1, 2009, p. 61). [5]5 Löwy, Michael. “Capitalism as Religion: Walter Benjamin and Max Weber.” *Historical Materialism*, volume 17, issue 1, 2009, p. 61.

在他的直接影响之下，在海德堡韦伯的学术沙龙里，卢卡奇逐渐地接受了他的判断，不仅把现代世界看作是“上帝所遗弃的世界”，而且是“敌基督的世界”。本雅明在稍后则直接地受到了布洛赫的《作为革命的神学家的托马斯·闵采尔》(ThomasMunzerasTheologianoftheRevolution，1921)的影响，在一篇写于1921年底的未发表的短文中，直接以“作为宗教的资本主义”(“CapitalismasReligion”)（MichaelLowy，“CapitalismasReligion:WalterBenjaminandMaxWeber”，HistoricaMaterialism，volume17，issue1，2009，p.61.）为题。

2. Basic Characteristics of Capitalist Religion (Bloch and Benjamin)

2.资本主义宗教的基本特征(布洛赫和本雅明)

In order to further explain the fundamental opposition between capitalist religion and Christianity, they proceeded to conduct a concrete analysis of the religious character of capitalism. In summary, they mainly revealed the inherently self-contradictory nature of capitalist religion from three different dimensions. First, capitalist religion is a religion of idolatry, but its object of worship is both abstract and non-abstract. On the one hand, in capitalist society, what people actually worship is merely the visible product of human hands. To accurately describe the religious character of capitalism, Bloch specifically chose the two images of “Mammon” and “the golden calf” to define the object of worship in capitalist religion. In the new edition of *Thomas Münzer as Theologian of the Revolution*, when characterizing capitalist religion, he changed the original “church of Satan” to the “church of Mammon” (See Michael Löwy, “Capitalism as Religion: Walter Benjamin and Max Weber”, *Historical Materialism*, volume 17, issue 1, 2009, p. 61.). Through this change, the idolatrous nature of capitalist religion was revealed more clearly. Here, the object of worship is directly money, the product of human hands. In *The Spirit of Utopia*, to indicate the idolatrous nature of capitalist religion, he directly uses the phrase “the golden calf” (Ernst Bloch, *The Spirit of Utopia*, trans. Anthony Nassar, Stanford University Press, 2000, p. 2.).

为了进一步地说明资本主义的宗教与基督教之间的根本对立，他们又进一步地对资本主义的宗教性质进行了具体分析。概括地说，他们主要从三个不同的维度揭示出了资本主义宗教所特有的自相矛盾的性质。首先，资本主义宗教是一种偶像崇拜性质的宗教，但它的崇拜对象却既是抽象的，又是非抽象的。一方面，在资本主义社会中，人们崇拜的实际上只是可见的、人手的造物。布洛赫为了准确地描述资本主义的宗教性质，特别地选用了“玛门”(Mammon)和“金牛”(thegoldencalf)等两个意向来界定资本主义宗教的崇拜对象。在新版的《作为革命的神学家的托马斯·闵采尔》中，在对资本主义的宗教进行定性时，他把原先的“撒旦的教会”改成了“玛门的教会”（SeeMichaelLowy，“CapitalismasReligion:WalterBenjaminandMaxWeber”，HistoricaMaterialism，volume17，issue1，2009，p.61.）。经此改动，资本主义宗教的偶像崇拜的性质就被更加清楚地揭示了出来。在这里，被崇拜的对象直接地就是金钱，是人手的造物。在《乌托邦的精神》中，为了表明资本主义宗教的偶像崇拜性质，他则直接使用了“金牛”的说法（ErnstBloch，TheSpiritofUtopia，trans.AnthonyNassar，StandfordUniversityPress，2000，p.2.）。

On the other hand, Bloch also points out that the object of people’s worship is actually something abstract, entirely devoid of concrete content. In the passage quoted above, Bloch explicitly states that what people now worship is merely wealth treated as an abstract quantity. In *The Spirit of Utopia* he clearly states that what people worship is merely the skin of a golden calf with nothing underneath: “This is how bad things can and must happen to us; of course, I can dance and sing for my supper. But this is dancing around the golden calf, or rather only around the skin of a golden calf, with nothing underneath it: this still astonishes us. It means we have no concept of socialism. Instead, we have degenerated into the most pitiable vertebrates; all of us among us either worship our own bellies or worship the state; everything else has descended to the level of jokes and entertainment.” (Ernst Bloch, *The Spirit of Utopia*, trans. Anthony Nassar, Meridian, 2000, p. 2.) That is to say, whether we worship self-interest or the abstract state, they are fundamentally abstract and contentless.

另一方面，布洛赫也同时指出，人们所崇拜的对象其实又是某种抽象的、完全没有具体内容的东西。在上文所引的那段文字中，布洛赫明确指出人们现在所崇拜的只是被当作抽象的量的财富。在《乌托邦的精神》中他明确指出，人们所崇拜的只是一张底下空无内容的金牛的皮:“这是坏的事情如何可能、且不得不发生在我们身上，当然，我可以为我的晚餐而歌舞。但是，这是在围绕着金牛跳舞，或者说只围绕着一张金牛的皮在跳舞，它底下没有任何东西:这仍然令我们吃惊。它意味着我们没有关于社会主义的观念。相反，我们已经沦为了最可怜的脊椎动物;我们中间的所有人都要么崇拜自己的肚子，要么崇拜国家;所有其他的一切都下降到了玩笑和娱乐的水平。”（ErnstBloch，TheSpiritofUtopia，trans.AnthonyNassar，Meridian，2000，p.2.）这也就是说，无论我们崇拜的是自我利益还是抽象的国家，它们在根本上都是抽象而无内容的。

Second, capitalist religion is a practical religion, yet it simultaneously contains two opposing poles: on the one hand, it is purely practical, without any theology or doctrine; on the other hand, it simultaneously gives rise to various religious pursuits. Regarding this characteristic, Benjamin directly depicts it in his essay “Capitalism as Religion”: “…a purely cultic religion, perhaps the most extreme cultic religion that has ever existed. In this religion, anything not directly related to this cult is meaningless; it has no specific doctrine or theology. From this perspective, utilitarianism acquires a religious coloring.” (Walter Benjamin, *Selected Writings*, ed. Marcus Bullock and Michael Jennings, Cambridge and London, 1999, vol. 4, pp. 288–291.) Here, we can clearly see that capitalist religion is the opposite of abstract religion. For believers in abstract religion, being conscious of their relationship with God is a prerequisite for their faith in God. But for people in capitalist society, they merely practice the act of worship without any awareness that it is a worshipful or religious act. In this respect, capitalist religion is extremely similar to ancient paganism; it has no theology or doctrine. That is, there is no mediation between people and the “God” they worship; what exists is only people’s direct identification with the object of their worship. They recognize the latter as the sole meaning of their lives, and precisely for this reason, this act of worship must cover every place and every time. In fact, it has indeed already developed into a universal system, covering every place in the world.

其次，资本主义的宗教是实践的宗教(practicalreligion)，不过它又同时包含着对立的两极:一方面，它是纯粹实践的，没有任何神学和教义;另一方面它又同时滋生出各种各样的宗教追求。关于这一特点，本雅明在他的《作为宗教的资本主义》一文中有直接地刻画:“……一种纯粹的崇拜性的宗教，也许是迄今所存在的最为极端的崇拜性质的宗教。在这种宗教中，任何不与这种崇拜直接相关的东西都毫无意义;它没有具体的教义或神学。从这个角度看，在它这里，功利主义获得了一种宗教的色彩。”（WalterBenjamin，SelectiveWritings，ed.MarcusBullockandMichaelJennings，CambridgeandLondon，1999，vol.4，p.288－291.）在这里，我们可以清楚地看到，资本主义的宗教与抽象的宗教刚好相反。对于抽象宗教的信徒们来说，自觉到其与上帝之间的关系是他们信仰上帝的前提条件。但对于资本主义社会中的人们来说，人们只是在实践着崇拜的行为，却浑然不知这是一种崇拜性质或宗教性质的行为。在这一点上，资本主义的宗教与古代的异教极其相似，它没有任何神学或教义。也就是说，在人们与其所崇拜的“上帝”之间没有任何中介，所存在着的只有人们对于其所崇拜的对象的直接认同。他们认后者为其生命的唯一意义，也正因如此，这种崇拜的行为一定会覆盖到每一地方和每一时间。事实上，它目前的确已经发展成为了一个普遍的体系，已经覆盖到了世界上的每一个地方。

Seemingly paradoxically, associated with this practical character of capitalist religion, many efforts to escape this universal worship have simultaneously sprouted in capitalist society. In Benjamin’s view, the most important phenomenon in this regard is the proliferation of various sectarian faiths in the capitalist world. He keenly observed that in the modern capitalist world, there is not only the worship of money and commodities that has already covered the entire globe, but also various religions of various denominations existing simultaneously. In his essay “Experience and Poverty,” written in the 1930s, he specifically elaborated on this phenomenon. He emphasized that precisely because people in the capitalist world are not conscious of the religious character of their daily actions, when they attempt to flee from this “disenchanted” world and move towards its opposite pole—that is, to seek a home in various religions—they are in fact still under the control of capitalist religion. These seemingly opposite poles to the entire capitalist world are actually another pole internal to capitalist religion.

与此看似自相矛盾的是，与资本主义宗教的这种实践的性质相关联，在资本主义社会中同时也滋生出了许多企图逃离这种普遍崇拜的努力。在本雅明看来，这方面的最重要的现象就是资本主义世界中的各种具有宗派性质的信仰的激增。他敏锐地洞察到，在现代资本主义世界中不仅有已经覆盖了整个地球的对金钱和商品的崇拜，而且还同时存在着各种派别的各种宗教。在写于30年代的《经验与贫困》一文中，他专门对此现象进行了阐发。他强调指出，正因为资本主义世界中的人们根本没有自觉到自己的日常行为的宗教性质，当他们试图从这个被“祛魅”了的世界中逃离出去而走向与它正相反对的另一极时，即，到各种各样的宗教中去寻找家园的时候，他们实际上依然处于资本主义宗教的掌控之中。这些看似与整个资本主义世界正相反对的另一极，实际上是内在于资本主义宗教之内的另一极。

Third, capitalist religion is fundamentally a non-redemptive religion, yet it simultaneously manifests as infinite progress. Beginning with Bloch, they opposed capitalist religion to the religion of God, regarding the former as a false religion of God. As a false religion of God, it can only lead to the eternal enslavement of humanity, never bringing true redemption. In his essay “Capitalism as Religion,” Benjamin, through a concrete interpretation of the threefold meaning of the word “Schuld,” clearly points out that capitalist religion can only lead to the eternal increase of the guilt we bear, preventing us from ever attaining redemption. “Schuld” has a core meaning in Protestant ethics, but according to Benjamin’s interpretation, besides meaning duty, it also simultaneously means the guilt we bear and debt. Accordingly, capitalist religion actually plunges us into an infinitely worsening process from which we can never be redeemed. At the same time, they also clearly see that for people living in capitalist society, the meaning presented by capitalist religion is the myth of progress. It can be said that all their theoretical reflections on capitalist religion are fundamentally aimed at breaking this myth of progress.

再次，资本主义的宗教在根本上是一种非救赎性质的宗教，但它同时却又表现为无限的进步。从布洛赫开始，他们就把资本主义的宗教与上帝的宗教相对立，把前者当作是虚假的上帝的宗教。作为虚假的上帝的宗教，它只能导致对人永恒的奴役，永远无法带来真正的救赎。本雅明在《作为宗教的资本主义》一文中，通过对“Schuld”一词的三重含义的具体解读而明确指出，资本主义的宗教只能导致对我们所背负的罪责的永恒增加，使我们永不得救赎。“Schuld”在新教的伦理中具有核心的意义，但根据本雅明的阐释，它除了意味着责任(duty)之外，还同时意味着我们所背负的罪(guilt)与债(debt)。据此，资本主义宗教实际上使我们陷入了一个永不得救赎的无限恶化的过程。与此同时，他们也清晰地看到，对于生活于资本主义社会中的人们来说，资本主义的宗教所呈现出来的意义却是进步的神话。可以说，他们关于资本主义宗教的所有理论思考在根本上就是为了打破这个进步的神话。

II. Re-examining the Secret of Capitalist Fetishism (Lukács)

二、再论资本主义拜物教的秘密(卢卡奇)

Why does the religion of capitalism possess the above-mentioned self-contradictory determinations? What is the secret inherent within it? After turning to Marxism, Lukács found the clues for resolving these problems through his reconstruction of Marx’s critique of commodity fetishism.

资本主义的宗教为什么会具有上述这些自相矛盾的规定性?它内在的秘密究竟是什么?卢卡奇在转向马克思主义之后，通过对马克思的商品拜物教批判思想的重构，找到了解决这些问题的线索。

1. Why is the religion of capitalism both non-abstract and abstract?

1.资本主义的宗教为什么既是非抽象的，又是抽象的?

At the opening of his essay “Reification and the Consciousness of the Proletariat,” Lukács explicitly states that the core idea of this essay derives directly from Marx, especially Marx’s revelation of the “secret of the commodity form.” “The essence of the commodity-structure has often been pointed out. Its basis is that a relation between people takes on the character of a thing and thus acquires a ‘phantom objectivity,’ an autonomy that seems so strictly rational and all-embracing as to conceal every trace of its fundamental nature: the relation between people.” [7]7 Georg Lukács, *History and Class Consciousness*, trans. Rodney Livingstone (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1971), p. 83. [The Chinese edition cited is: Lukács, *History and Class Consciousness*, trans. Du Zhangzhi et al. (Beijing: Commercial Press, 1992), p. 144.] That is to say, in the commodity structure of capitalism, the relation between people becomes a thing. This thing not only appears to be independent and autonomous, but is also somewhat uncanny; it is as elusive as a phantom, and in turn determines human existence. In this concise summary, Lukács has in fact already touched upon the principal characteristic of capitalist commodity fetishism: namely, that it is both non-abstract (it is a fetishism, not an abstract religion) and abstract.

在《物化现象与无产阶级意识》一文的开篇处，卢卡奇就明确交代，此文的核心思想直接来源于马克思，尤其是马克思对于“商品结构之谜”的揭示。“商品结构的本质已被多次强调指出过。它的基础是，人与人之间的关系获得物的性质，从而获得一种‘幽灵般的对象性’，这种对象性以其严格的、仿佛十全十美和合理的自律性掩盖着它的基本本质，即人与人之间的关系的所有痕迹。”（卢卡奇:《历史与阶级意识》，杜章智等译，商务印书馆，1992年，第144页。）这也就是说，在资本主义的商品结构中，人与人之间的关系变成了物，这个物不仅似乎是独立的、自律的，而且又有几分诡异，它如幽灵般难以捉摸，反过来规定着人的存在。在这一精要的概述中，卢卡奇实际上已经涉及到了资本主义商品拜物教最主要的特征，即，它既是非抽象的(是一种拜物教，而不是抽象的宗教)又是抽象的。

So why is it non-abstract? Lukács believes this involves two aspects, the object and the subject. From the perspective of the object, it is because the object people worship at this time is a thing, a product of human hands; from the perspective of the subject, it is because people in capitalist society are completely unaware that their relationship with this world is one of religious worship. It is precisely because of these two aspects that it is a fetishism completely different from abstract religion. Regarding the object of worship in capitalist religion, Marx, from different angles in his works, has already pointed out that it is a “thing,” a product of human hands. As early as the concluding part of “On the Jewish Question,” in order to indicate the religious character of civil society, Marx points out that secular Judaism is the spirit of civil society. “Judaism” here does not refer to the monotheism of the Israelites based on the Old Testament, but to the fetishism of money. The most direct characteristic of the fetishism of money is that people worship a product of human hands—money. This idea is further developed into the idea of commodity fetishism in *Capital*. In Chapter 1, Section 4 of Volume 1 of *Capital*, Marx points out that in capitalist society, where the commodity is the cell form, once the product of human labor becomes a commodity, it immediately acquires a fetishistic character—becoming “a thing which is at once perceptible and imperceptible by the senses, or a social thing,” full of “metaphysical subtleties and theological niceties.” At this point, the actual situation is that the commodity, as a product of human hands, “appears as an independent being endowed with life, entering into relations both with one another and with the human race,” [8]8 Karl Marx, *Capital*, Volume I, Chapter 1, Section 4. and it becomes the object of people’s worship.

那么，它为何会是非抽象的?卢卡奇认为，这同时涉及到对象和主体两个方面。从对象的角度来说，是因为人们此时崇拜的对象是物，是人手的造物;从主体的角度来看，是因为资本主义社会中的人们根本不知道自己与这个世界之间是一种宗教崇拜的关系。正是由于这两个方面，它是一种与抽象宗教完全不同的拜物教。关于资本主义宗教的崇拜对象，马克思在其著作中已经分别从不同的角度指出，它是一种“物”、人手的造物。早在《论犹太人的问题》的结尾部分，为了表明市民社会的宗教特征，马克思指出世俗的犹太教是市民社会的精神。“犹太教”在这里不是指以《旧约》为本的以色列人的一神教，而是指金钱拜物教。而金钱拜物教最直接的特征就是，人们崇拜人手的造物——金钱。这一思想在《资本论》中被进一步地发展为商品拜物教的思想。在《资本论》第一卷第一篇第一章中，马克思指出，在以商品为细胞的资本主义社会中，人的劳动产品一旦成为商品，就立刻具有了拜物教的性质——变成一种“可感觉而又超感觉的物或社会的物”，充满着“形而上学的微妙和神学的怪诞”。这时的实际情况是，商品作为人手的造物“表现为赋有生命的、彼此发生关系并同人发生关系的独立存在的东西”（马克思:《资本论》第一卷第一章第四节。），它成为人们崇拜的对象。

On this basis, Lukács makes a further elaboration, emphasizing that our object of worship is actually that “automatic law-governed process of things” whose content is the commodity. That is to say, although this world is, in the final analysis, entirely created by humans, people, as commodities placed within this process, are also produced, are direct products, and are merely mechanical cogs in this process of things, utterly unable to comprehend that this “process of things” is created by humans. “The commodity is produced; the worker, as a commodity, as a direct product, is at most a mechanical cog in this machine.” [9]9 Lukács, *History and Class Consciousness*, p. 166. [Chinese ed., p. 268.] Consequently, this man-made “process of things” miraculously becomes the object of people’s worship. Regarding the subject of worship, Lukács emphasizes that people in capitalist society not only fall into worship of this “process of things,” but are also completely unaware that their relationship with this society is one of religious worship. In capitalist society, due to the process of rationalization, people adopt a purely contemplative attitude toward the world. In this contemplative relationship, people (the bourgeois), as pure bystanders of this world, mistakenly take themselves to be the subjects of this world. Although workers can hardly imagine themselves as great subjects, they are also unable to break through this myth of the knowing subject. In this way, the entire modern world is taken to be a thoroughly disenchanted world, and the relationship between humans and the world is taken to be a rational cognitive relationship.

卢卡奇在此基础上又做了进一步地发挥，他强调我们的崇拜对象实际上是那个以商品为内容的“物的自动的合规律的过程”。这也就是说，虽然这个世界在归根结底的意义上完全是由人所造，但人们作为置身于该过程之中的商品，也是被生产的，是直接的产品，它只是这一物的过程中的机械的动轮，根本无法领会此“物的过程”乃人所造。“商品是被生产的，工人作为商品，作为直接的产品，至多只能是这一机器中的机械的动轮而已。”（卢卡奇:《历史与阶级意识》，杜章智等译，商务印书馆，1992年，第268页。）因而，这个人造的“物的过程”就神奇地成为了人们的崇拜对象。关于崇拜的主体，卢卡奇强调指出，资本主义社会中人不仅陷入了对于这个“物的过程”的崇拜，而且还根本不知道自己与这个社会之间是一种宗教崇拜的关系。在资本主义社会中，由于合理化的过程，人们对世界采取了纯粹直观的态度。在这种直观关系中，人(资产者)作为这个世界的纯粹的旁观者，误把自己认作是这个世界的主体。工人们尽管很难把自己想象为伟大的主体，但也无法突破这一关于认识主体的神话。就这样，整个现代世界被认作是彻底的被祛魅了的世界，人与世界的关系被认作是理性的认识关系。

On this basis, Lukács further points out that this fetishism is also abstract, and its secret is precisely the so-called “rule of the abstract.” In *Capital*, Marx clearly states that although the commodity is a “thing,” the commodity-character of this thing is completely unrelated to the physical properties of the product of labor. Therefore, what makes a commodity a commodity is something that goes beyond the physical properties of that product. More specifically, it originates from the abstract universal relation between people. “The commodity-form, and the value-relation of the products of labor within which it appears, have absolutely no connection with the physical nature of the commodity and the material relations arising out of this. It is nothing but the definite social relation between men themselves which assumes here, for them, the fantastic form of a relation between things.” [10]10 Marx, *Capital*, Volume I, Chapter 1, Section 4. On this basis, Lukács, in his theory of reification, further emphasizes that “abstract labor” is the sole social category in capitalist society, determining all forms of objectivity and subjectivity within it. “The universality of the commodity form is therefore responsible both objectively and subjectively for the abstraction of human labor objectified in commodities.” [11]11 Lukács, *History and Class Consciousness*, p. 87. [Chinese ed., p. 148.] Objectively, it means that qualitatively different objects are reduced to the same commodity form; subjectively, it means that human labor has in fact become abstract labor. “Subjectively, this formal identity of abstract human labor is not only the common factor to which the various objects are reduced in commodity relations; it also becomes the real principle governing the actual production process of commodities.” Therefore, the reason the world of commodities possesses such a magical power over people, making them completely controlled by it, is the rule of abstract labor over people. The important contribution of Lukács’s theory of reification lies in its concrete revelation of the secret of the rule of abstract labor through its critique of “rationalization” and reified consciousness.

在此基础上，卢卡奇进一步指出，这种拜物教又是抽象的，它的秘密正是所谓的“抽象的统治”。马克思在《资本论》中曾明确指出，商品虽然是一种“物”，但是这种物的商品特性与劳动产品的物理性质是完全无关的，因此商品之为商品，是由于某种超出该产品的物理性质之外的东西。更进一步地说，它来源于人与人之间抽象的普遍的关系。“商品形式和它借以得到表现的劳动产品的价值关系，是同劳动产品的物理性质以及由此产生的物的关系完全无关的。这只是人们自己一定的社会关系，但在人们面前采取了物与物的关系的虚幻形式。”（马克思:《资本论》第一卷第一章第四节。）在此基础之上，卢卡奇在其物化理论中则更进一步强调，“抽象劳动”是资本主义社会中唯一的社会范畴，它规定着资本主义社会中的一切对象性形式和主体性形式。“商品形式的普遍性在主观方面和客观方面都制约着在商品中对象化的人类劳动的抽象。”（卢卡奇:《历史与阶级意识》，杜章智等译，商务印书馆，1992年，第148页。）在对象方面，它意味着质上不同的对象被归结为同一的商品形式;在主体方面，它则意味着人的劳动在实际上已经称为抽象的劳动。“在主观方面，抽象人类劳动的这种形式相同性不仅是商品关系中各种不同对象所归结为的共同因素，而且成为支配商品实际生产过程的现实原则。”因此，商品世界之所以对人具有那样的魔力，使人完全为其所掌控，是因为抽象劳动对人的统治。卢卡奇物化理论的重要贡献就在于，它通过对“合理化”和物化意识的批判，而具体揭示出了抽象劳动的统治的秘密。

In Lukács’s view, the gradual realization of abstract labor’s universal domination over humanity is precisely the “rationalization process” in Weber’s sense: “What is important for us is the principle that is at work here: the principle of regulation according to calculation, i.e., calculability” (Lukács, *History and Class Consciousness*, trans. Du Zhangzhi et al., Commercial Press, 1992, p. 149). The most hidden secret contained in this process is reified consciousness. That is to say, the development of the capitalist division of labor not only leads to the result that “man is subordinated to the machine,” but also causes people to adopt a contemplative attitude toward the rationalized capitalist production process before them. They recognize it as an automatic, law-governed system unaffected by human activity. In relation to this system, man is merely a partial element extracted and inserted into it. In this contemplative attitude, the most basic categories that determine our most direct attitude toward the world undergo a change: “The contemplative attitude also changes the basic categories of man’s immediate attitude to the world: it treats space and time as something common, reducing time to the level of space” (Lukács, *History and Class Consciousness*, trans. Du Zhangzhi et al., Commercial Press, 1992, p. 151). This is the “spatialization of time”; more specifically, it means that the organic connection between time and each individual worker is completely severed, turning time into “abstract, exactly measurable, physical space” (Lukács, *History and Class Consciousness*, trans. Du Zhangzhi et al., Commercial Press, 1992, p. 283). When applied to the workers themselves, this manifests as a double abstraction: on the one hand, a self-splitting occurs in the worker, where his labor power (manifested as mechanical/partial labor) is separated from his entire personality; on the other hand, the isolated labor is further reduced to pure quantity in the production process.

在卢卡奇看来，抽象劳动之逐渐实现对人的普遍统治的过程，也就是韦伯意义上的“合理化过程”:“对我们来说，最重要的是在这里起作用的原则:根据计算，即可计算性来加以调节的原则”（卢卡奇:《历史与阶级意识》，杜章智等译，商务印书馆，1992年，第149页。）。而蕴涵于该过程中的最隐蔽的秘密就是物化意识。这也就是说，资本主义劳动分工的发展不仅导致了“人隶属于机器”的结果，而且使人们对眼前的这个合理化了的资本主义生产过程采取了直观的态度。人们把它认作是一个不受人的活动影响的、自动的、有规律的系统。相对于该系统，人只是被抽取出来加诸其中的部分的要素而已。在此直观的态度中，那些规定着我们对待世界的最直接态度的最基本的范畴发生了改变:“直观态度也改变人对世界的直接态度的各种基本范畴:这种态度把空间和时间看成是共同的东西，把时间降到空间的水平上。”（卢卡奇:《历史与阶级意识》，杜章智等译，商务印书馆，1992年，第151页。）这就是“时间的空间化”，更具体地说，它意味着时间与每一个工人之间有机的联系被彻底切断，成为了“抽象的、可以准确测定的、变成了物理空间的时间。”（卢卡奇:《历史与阶级意识》，杜章智等译，商务印书馆，1992年，第283页。）落实到工人们的身上，这就表现为双重抽象:一方面在工人身上发生了自我分裂，他的劳动力(表现为机械的/局部的劳动)与他的整个人格分离开来;另一方面，被分割出来的劳动在生产过程中又被还原为纯粹的量。

Lukács’s analysis of reified consciousness shows that abstract labor’s domination over humanity is actually realized through the conscious awareness of each individual (we lower ourselves in consciousness to the status of a commodity possessing only quantitative determinations). We previously mentioned that in the case of the bourgeoisie, the situation seems just the opposite: in facing this rationalized process, they recognize themselves as the rational subjects of the world. On this point, Lukács sharply notes that they are only subjects in appearance; fundamentally, they are equally objects of this process: “From the standpoint of consciousness, the individual as knowing subject confronts the immense objective necessity of social events, of which he can only understand some trivial details, while in reality it is precisely the individual’s conscious action that occupies the objective side of the process, and the subject of the process (the class) cannot attain conscious awareness; the individual’s conscious action must forever transcend the (apparent) subject, i.e., the individual’s consciousness” (Lukács, *History and Class Consciousness*, trans. Du Zhangzhi et al., Commercial Press, 1992, p. 248). Lukács emphasizes here that individuals in capitalist society are actually merely objects of this “material process,” utterly incapable of grasping the true totality. For this reason, Lukács further points out that there is a direct, mutually echoing relationship between this fetishism and abstract religion (Calvinism). “The equally revolutionary Calvinist sect combined the ethics of proving one’s piety (inner-worldly asceticism) with the view that the objective forces driving the world’s movement and determining human fate are entirely transcendent (and the doctrine of predestination). This combination mythologized and refined the structure of the thing-in-itself of bourgeois reified consciousness” (Lukács, *History and Class Consciousness*, trans. Du Zhangzhi et al., Commercial Press, 1992, p. 283). That is to say, our spectatorship of the “automatic, law-governed process of things” in the capitalist world is essentially the same as our faith in the doctrine of predestination in Calvinist religion; the substance of both is “abstract domination.”

卢卡奇对物化意识的分析表明，抽象劳动对人的统治实际上是经由我们每一个个体的自觉意识(我们在意识中把自己降为仅仅具有量的规定性的商品)而得到实现的。我们在前文中也曾经提到，在资产阶级那里情况似乎刚好相反，他们在面对这个合理化的过程时，把自己认作是世界的理性的主体。对此卢卡奇敏锐地指出，他们只是表面上的主体，在根本上他们同样是该过程的客体:“从意识上讲，单个的个体作为认识的主体面对着社会事件的极其巨大的客观必然性，他所能理解的也只是它的一些细枝末节，而在现实中，恰恰是个体的自觉行动居于过程的客体方面，而过程的主体(阶级)却不能达到自觉的意识，个体的自觉行动必然永远超出(表面上的)主体，即个体的意识。”（卢卡奇:《历史与阶级意识》，杜章智等译，商务印书馆，1992年，第248页。）卢卡奇在这里强调指出，资本主义社会中的个人实际上只是这个“物的过程”的客体，根本无力把握那个真正的总体。正因如此，卢卡奇进一步指出，这种拜物教与抽象的宗教(加尔文教)之间存在着直接的相互呼应的关系。“同样是革命的加尔文教派把证实自己是虔诚的伦理学(内心世界的禁欲主义)和认为推动世界运动的、规定人的命运的内容的客观力量完全是超验的这一点(和先定学说)结合在一起，这种结合意味着把资产阶级物化意识的自在之物结构神话化了，并使之更加精炼了。”（卢卡奇:《历史与阶级意识》，杜章智等译，商务印书馆，1992年，第283页。）这也就是说，我们在资本主义世界中，对于那个“物的自动的合规律的过程”的旁观与我们在加尔文主义的宗教中对于先定学说的信仰其实是一回事情，二者的实质都是“抽象的统治”。

2. Why Is Capitalist Religion a Destructive Religion?

2.资本主义的宗教为什么是毁灭性的宗教?

By revealing the abstract nature of this “material” world constituted by commodities, Lukács further uncovers two important contradictions contained within it: the contradiction between form and content, and the contradiction between the partial and the totality. By further revealing the internal connection between these two contradictions, he clearly points out that commodity fetishism absolutely possesses no redemptive character.

通过揭示由商品所构成的这个“物”的世界的抽象性质，卢卡奇进一步揭示了蕴涵于其中的两对重要矛盾，即形式与内容之间的矛盾和局部与总体之间的矛盾;通过进一步揭示这两对矛盾之间的内在关联，他明确指出商品拜物教绝对不具有任何救赎的性质。

First, from the perspective of the relationship between form and content, because this commodity world is abstract, although it has the appearance of a “thing,” it is fundamentally incapable of truly containing actual content. Specifically, not only can the unique “thingly” attributes of the object of labor not be contained within the commodity form, but the unique “human” attributes of the laborer are also excluded from the commodity form. In the commodity form, what actually occurs is the rupture of the relationship between man and the object of labor, the rupture of the relationship between man and himself, and the rupture of the relationship between man and others. As a result of these threefold ruptures, the commodity form becomes a pure form devoid of content.

首先，从形式与内容之间关系的角度看，由于这个商品的世界是抽象的，因而它虽然具有“物”的外表，却根本无法真正包容实际的内容。具体来说，不仅是劳动对象的独特的“物”的属性无法被包容进商品的形式中，而且劳动者的独特的“人”的属性也被排除在商品的形式之外。在商品形式中，实际发生的是人与劳动对象之间关系的断裂、人与自身之间关系的断裂以及人与他人之间关系的断裂。作为这三重断裂的结果，商品的形式成为毫无内容的纯粹的形式。

Second, from the perspective of the relationship between the totality and the partial, because people completely exclude content in their grasp of the commodity form, they are fundamentally unable to attain the totality, for only through content can the true totality be reached. In this sense, the entire capitalist world is irrational; the rationality of that contentless form can only ever be achieved within some partial systems, while the relationship between these systems can only be one of pure contingency. Therefore, the process of capitalism’s existence must be a process of encountering one catastrophe after another, in which the connections between partial systems suddenly break off, and capitalism’s logic of continuous formalization cannot continue. What people’s worship of commodities brings is precisely their unending pursuit of the abstract power contained in the commodity form; thus commodity fetishism is precisely the powerful driving force that pushes capitalism from one catastrophe to the next. On this path of no return, the only fate commodity fetishism brings to people is destruction.

其次，从总体与局部之间关系的角度看，由于人们在对商品形式的把握中彻底排除了内容，人们也就根本无法达到总体，因为只有经由内容，才能达到真正的总体。在这个意义上，整个资本主义世界是非理性的，那种无内容的形式的合理性永远只能在一些局部的体系内被达到，至于这些体系之间则只能是一种纯粹的偶然的关系。因此，资本主义的存在过程必然是遭遇一次又一次灾难的过程，在这些灾难中各个局部系统之间的关联突然中断，资本主义的不断形式化的逻辑无法得以继续。而人们对于商品的崇拜所带来的恰恰是人们对于蕴含在商品形式中的抽象力量的不尽追求，因此商品拜物教正是推动资本主义从一次灾难走向另一次灾难的强大动力。在这条不归路上，商品拜物教带给人们的唯一命运是毁灭。

Conclusion: Revisiting the Relationship between Historical Materialism and Religion (Lukács, Bloch, and Benjamin)

结论:再论历史唯物主义与宗教的关系(卢卡奇、布洛赫和本雅明)

Surveying the capitalist fetishism critiques of Bloch, Lukács, and Benjamin, it can be said that they each reconstructed Marx’s critique of fetishism from two aspects: a concrete critique of the religious character of capitalism, and an active exploration of the path to a solution. In their concrete elaboration of the religious character of capitalism, on the one hand, with the help of Weber, they vividly revealed the essence of commodity fetishism, i.e., abstract domination; on the other hand, nourished by the Jewish tradition, they clearly saw the fatal defect of the principle of formal rationality, revealing its commonality with the principle of irrationality. Regarding the realistic path to a solution, they respectively chose two different paths in response to the religious character of capitalism: non-religious historical materialism (Lukács) and the alliance of historical materialism with religion (Bloch, Benjamin). For contemporary readers, the significance of these two paths lies in this: in this seemingly thoroughly secularized modern world, it once again reminds us that how to achieve the positive sublation of religion remains a task before us.

综观布洛赫、卢卡奇和本雅明的资本主义拜物教批判思想，可以说他们分别从两个方面对马克思的拜物教批判思想进行了重构:对资本主义宗教性质的具体批判和对解决问题的道路的积极探索。在对资本主义的宗教性质的具体阐发上，他们一方面在韦伯的帮助之下，鲜明地揭示出了商品拜物教的实质，即抽象的统治;另一方面又在犹太传统的滋养之下，清楚地看到了形式理性原则的致命缺陷，揭示出它与非理性原则之间的共通关系。关于解决问题的现实道路，他们针对资本主义的宗教性质则分别选择了两条不同的道路:非宗教的历史唯物主义(卢卡奇)和历史唯物主义与宗教的联盟(布洛赫，本雅明)。对于当代的读者来说，这两条道路的重要意义就在于，在这个看似已经彻底世俗化了的现代世界中，它再次提醒我们，如何实现对宗教的积极的扬弃依然是摆在我们面前的任务。

Faced with the commodity fetishism under capitalist conditions, the path chosen by Lukács was to continue the path from Hegel onward of using philosophy to sublate religion. Since religion here has already been concretized as the “rule of the abstract” that occurs within the sphere of production, philosophy is correspondingly concretized as the class consciousness of the proletariat. The reason such a philosophy can take on the task of sublating commodity fetishism is that it is simultaneously a practice that transforms the entire social structure. Standing on the standpoint of the proletariat, he not only thoroughly eliminated the religious coloring in his own early thought; in *History and Class Consciousness* he also specifically criticizes Bloch, opposing the alliance of Marxism and religion, and emphasizing that we must take the path of thorough historical materialism. “When Ernst Bloch believes that in this combination of religion and socio-economic revolution a path can be found to deepen ‘purely economic’ historical materialism, he overlooks the fact that this deepening precisely fails to take account of the true profundity of historical materialism.” (Georg Lukács, *History and Class Consciousness*, trans. Rodney Livingstone, The MIT Press, 1971, p. 193.) That is to say, historical materialism (or proletarian consciousness) is by no means so-called economic materialism, but is rather a philosophy that has already attained the height of sublating religion. Such a philosophy requires no assistance whatsoever from any traditional religion; on its own it can achieve the double sublation of both traditional religion and capitalist fetishism.

面对资本主义条件下的商品拜物教，卢卡奇选择的道路是继续自黑格尔以来用哲学来扬弃宗教的道路。由于宗教在这里已经被落实为在生产领域内所发生的“抽象的统治”，哲学也相应地被落实为无产阶级的阶级意识。如此的哲学之所以能够担当起扬弃商品拜物教的任务，是因为它同时就是对整个社会结构进行变革的实践。站在无产阶级的立场之上，他不仅彻底清除掉了自己早年思想中的宗教色彩，他在《历史与阶级意识》中还特别地对布洛赫进行批评，反对马克思主义与宗教的联盟，强调我们必须走彻底的历史唯物主义的道路。“当恩斯特·布洛赫认为在宗教与社会经济革命的这种结合中可以找到一条深化‘纯经济的’历史唯物主义的道路时，他就是忽视了这种深化恰恰没有顾及到历史唯物主义的真正深刻之处。”（GeorgLukacs，HistoryandClassConsciousness，trans.RodneyLivingstone，TheMITPress，1971.p.193.）这也就是说，历史唯物主义(或无产阶级意识)绝不是所谓的经济唯物主义，而是已经达到了扬弃宗教的高度的哲学。这样的哲学完全不需要来自传统宗教的任何帮助，独自就可以实现对传统宗教和资本主义拜物教的双重扬弃。

Unlike Lukács, Bloch and Benjamin insist on the path of an alliance between Marxism and religion. Here we take only Benjamin as an example; in his late work *Theses on the Philosophy of History*, he explicitly puts forward the idea of an alliance between “historical materialism” and theology. In the first thesis, Benjamin proposes that famous metaphor: theology is compared to the dwarf hidden under the chessboard, “historical materialism” is compared to the puppet, and the dwarf holds the strings that manipulate the puppet; seated opposite the puppet is its powerful opponent, but under the dwarf’s manipulation the puppet will win the match against that opponent (Walter Benjamin, *Illuminations*, trans. Harry Zohn, Schocken Books, 2007, p. 253). [12]12 Benjamin’s first thesis describes a chess-playing automaton (the puppet) that wins every game because a hunchbacked dwarf (theology) hidden inside controls its moves. Benjamin uses this allegory to argue that historical materialism must secretly enlist theology to defeat its opponents. Something imposed from the outside through the power of colonialism and imperialism will not of itself emerge and develop in a society that lacks such a cultural background.

与卢卡奇不同，布洛赫和本雅明则坚持马克思主义与宗教联盟的道路。在这里我们仅以本雅明为例，他在其晚年的《关于历史哲学的论纲》中，明确地提出了“历史唯物主义”与神学联盟的思想。在第一条论纲中，本雅明提出了那个著名的比喻:神学被比作隐藏在棋盘底下的侏儒，“历史唯物主义”被比作木偶，侏儒的手中拿着操纵木偶的绳子;坐在木偶对面的是它的强大对手，但木偶在侏儒的操纵之下，将赢得与该对手之间的这场比赛（WalterBenjamin，Illuminations，trans.HarryZohn，SchockenBooks，2007，p.253.）。种通过殖民主义和帝国主义的力量而从外面强加的东西，自己是不会在有这种文化背景的社会里发生和发展的。

Finally, in this context I also think at the same time of the relationship between Mao Zedong and Marxism. In the initial process of the genesis of capitalism, Western Europe, capitalism, and Christianity were quickly intertwined, and from this emerged some new forms of Christianity to satisfy the needs of capital. If we hold that Marxism is a critique of capital, and at the same time recognize that in many important respects Marx’s thought was made possible only because of Christianity, then we will arrive at some very interesting ideas: starting from the premise that the forms of Chinese society (feudal, socialist, and capitalist) did not develop in relation to Christianity, we will see that Mao Zedong’s thought was also not generated in a Christian context. We could even say that Mao Zedong’s thought is the first “non-Christian Marxism.”

最后，在这个语境中我还同时想到了毛泽东和马克思主义之间的关系。在资本主义生成的最初过程中，西欧、资本主义和基督教这三者很快地被缠绕在了一起，并由此而产生了一些基督教的新的形式来满足资本的需要。如果我们认为马克思主义是对资本的批判，并同时认识到，在很多重要的方面马克思的思想又是因基督教才成为可能的，那么我们就会得到一些非常有趣的想法:从中国社会的(封建主义的、社会主义的和资本主义的)形式都不是在与基督教的关系中发展起来的这个前提出发，我们就会看到，毛泽东的思想也不是在基督教的语境中生成的。我们甚至可以说，毛泽东的思想是第一个“非基督教的马克思主义”。

Online editor: Jia Fei

网络编辑：嘉扉