A Critical Analysis of Messianic Marxism

“Messianic Marxism” is a theory or viewpoint used to describe the combination of Marxism with messianic thought. In this conception, history is seen as developing toward some ultimate goal of redemption or salvation, analogous to the coming of a messiah in religion. In this context, Messianic Marxism refers to a Marxism that understands socialist revolution and the construction of communist society in a religious or mystical manner.

“弥赛亚式马克思主义”（Messianic Marxism）是一种用来描述马克思主义与弥赛亚主义思想相结合的理论或观点，在这种思想中，历史被视为朝着某种救赎或拯救的终极目标发展，类似于宗教中弥赛亚的来临。在这个背景下，弥赛亚式马克思主义指的是一种将社会主义革命和共产主义社会建设视为一种宗教或神秘的方式来理解的马克思主义。

The emergence of Messianic Marxism stems from the need to dissolve the dilemmas of postmodernity. Especially in the mid-to-late twentieth century, the rise of postmodernism reflected the immense cultural transformation brought about by changes in the political, economic, and social structures of capitalism, as well as a crisis in contemporary culture and values. To dissolve this crisis, some Western philosophers attempted to combine Marxism with messianism to find a proposal for redemption. They declared that Marxism possesses an inherent heterogeneity, advocated “deconstructing” Marxism’s grand narrative, proclaimed Marxism to be “a certain emancipatory and messianic declaration,” and interpreted the legacy of Marxism as “apocalyptic redemption.” For example, Walter Benjamin of the Frankfurt School, the neoliberal Arnold J. Toynbee, the deconstructionist Jacques Derrida, and the post-Marxist theorist Fredric Jameson are all representatives of Messianic Marxism. Some have even turned the possible perspective of redemption toward China. However, China is not an apocalyptic messiah. The reason China has taken a different path in dissolving the paradoxes of modernity is not because it has turned Marxist theory into a religion, but because it has consistently adhered to the characteristics of the Marxist materialist conception of history. Therefore, interpreting Messianic Marxism through the lens of historical materialism to discover its problems and essence is of great significance for understanding Chinese-path modernization from another perspective.

弥赛亚式马克思主义的出现，源自于消解后现代性困境的需要。尤其在二十世纪中后期，后现代主义的出现反映了资本主义政治、经济和社会结构变化在文化上的巨大变革以及当代文化和价值观念的危机。为了消解这种危机，一些西方哲学家试图将马克思主义与弥赛亚主义相结合从中寻找救赎提案，他们宣称马克思主义具有内在的异质性，主张“解构”马克思主义的宏大叙事，宣扬马克思主义是“某种解放的和弥赛亚式的声明”，并将马克思主义的遗产演绎为“末日救赎”。例如法兰克福学派的沃尔特·本雅明、新自由主义者阿诺德·汤因比、解构主义学家雅克·德里达、后马克思主义理论家雷德里克·詹姆逊等，都是弥赛亚式马克思主义的代表者。有人甚至将救赎的可能视角转向了中国。不过中国不是末日的弥赛亚，中国之所以在消解现代性悖论中走出不同的道路，不是因为将马克思主义理论宗教化，而是因为始终坚持马克思主义的唯物史观特性。因此，用唯物史观解读弥赛亚式马克思主义，发现其问题与本质，对从另一个视角理解中国式现代化有着十分重要的意义。

I. The Response of Messianic Marxism to Human Predicaments and Its Ideological Characteristics

一、弥赛亚式马克思主义对人类困境的回应与思想特点

In the highly mechanized society constructed by modern capitalism, the spiritual and philosophical depth of society has gradually weakened, giving rise to a civilization that is cold and lacking in humanistic concern. To change the current environment, Messianic Marxism attempts to solve the difficult problems facing human society from a completely different dimension. This theory focuses on the future society, presenting a romantic and anti-capitalist character. It holds that the development of history will, at some future moment, bring about the realization or reconstruction of the Kingdom of God. Messianic Marxism possesses the dual characteristics of conservatism and revolution, playing an important role in European social thought in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

在现代资本主义建构的高度机械化社会中，社会的精神性和哲学深度逐渐减弱，形成的文明冷漠且缺乏人文关怀。为了改变当今环境，弥赛亚式马克思主义试图用一种完全不同的维度解决人类社会面临的难题。这一理论关注未来社会，呈现出浪漫主义和反资本主义的色彩。它认为，历史的发展会在某个未来时刻带来上帝之国的实现或重建。弥赛亚式马克思主义有保守性和革命性的双重特点，在19世纪末和20世纪初的欧洲社会思想中发挥了重要作用。

(I) Seeking Theological Support in the History of the Development of Marx’s Thought

（一）在马克思思想发展史中寻求神学支撑

In terms of the worldview of redemption and the method of redemption, messianism compares Marx’s thought with religious eschatology, seeking common ground between the two in order to provide a possibility for the secularization of religion.

在救赎世界观与救赎方式上，弥赛亚主义将马克思的思想与宗教末世论进行对比，找出二者共同点，以期提供一种宗教世俗化的可能。

First, in terms of worldview, Marx, like religion, constructs a universal world of redemption. Through an analysis of *The German Ideology*, Löwith compares Hegel’s spiritual kingdom with Marx’s secular kingdom, arguing that Marx followed in Hegel’s footsteps in striving to establish a “logic of history.” Löwith believes that Marx’s messianism transcends reality, sometimes even neglecting the “materialism” he emphasized in order to maintain an eschatological viewpoint. He attributes the meaning and direction of social development to history, not as “a pagan ‘pre-Christ’ and a Christian ‘post-Christ,’ but less radically divided into a ‘prehistory’ and a future history.” [1]1 Karl Löwith, *Meaning in History: The Theological Implications of the Philosophy of History* (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1949), p. 44. (Reference to the cited work.) Löwith argues that, thematically, the “community” in the *Communist Manifesto* bears a clear messianic imprint, and in terms of practical method, it is a universal, pious religious redemption, an attitude with a clear apocalyptic judgment. He compares capitalism to ancient fate and the future community to the messiah (the Kingdom of God without God); he compares the antagonism between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat to the inevitable path from the old world to the new. The proletariat, as the “chosen people,” will be endowed with a privileged mission of redemption, resurrecting the religious dialectic and ushering in a new epoch. “The entire historical process described (in the *Communist Manifesto*) reflects the universal schema of Judeo-Christian historical interpretation, namely, that history is a providentially ordained history of redemption moving toward a meaningful ultimate goal.” [2]2 Karl Löwith, *Meaning in History*, p. 45. (Reference to the cited work.)

首先，在世界观上，马克思与宗教一样营造一种普世的救赎世界。通过对《德意志意识形态》的分析，洛维特对比黑格尔的精神王国与马克思的世俗王国，认为马克思追随黑格尔的脚步努力建立一种“历史逻辑”，马克思的弥赛亚主义超越了现实，有时为了维系末世论的观点甚至忽视了他所强调的‘唯物主义’。他将社会发展的意义和方向归因于历史，不是“一个异教的‘前’基督和一个基督教的‘后’基督，而是不那么彻底地分割为一个‘史前时期’和一个未来的历史”[1]。洛维特认为从主题上来说，《共产党宣言》中的“共同体”具有明显的弥赛亚印记，从实践方式上是一种普世的、虔诚的宗教救赎，这种态度带有明显的末日判断色彩。他将资本主义比作古代的命运，未来共同体比作弥赛亚（没有上帝的上帝之国）；将资产阶级与无产阶级的对抗比作是从旧世界到新世界的必然道路，无产阶级将作为“特选子民”，被赋予特权与救赎的使命，复活宗教辩证法，迎来新纪元，“（《共产党宣言》）所描述的全部历史程序，反映了犹太教-基督教解释历史的普遍图式，即历史是朝着一个有意义的终极目标的、由天意规定的救赎历史”[2]。

Secondly, in terms of the method of realization, messianism, like Marxism, possesses revolutionary and political vitality. Messianists believe that Marx was influenced by a “revelation of revolution,” aiming to overthrow capitalism and create a new society of “utopian desire” to replace God’s redemption. Löwith views Marx’s critique of economic exploitation in *Capital* as a transcendental critique. “‘Exploitation’ remains a moral judgment; if measured by some standard of justice, it is an absolute injustice.” [3]3 Karl Löwith, *Max Weber and Karl Marx* (London: Routledge, 1993), p. 44. (Reference to the cited work.) “In Marx’s world-historical narrative, it is unequivocally the fundamental evil of ‘prehistory,’ or, in biblical terms, the original sin of this age. It is not merely an ‘economic fact.’” [4]4 Karl Löwith, *Max Weber and Karl Marx*, p. 45. (Reference to the cited work.) The belief in the final utopian consciousness and the firm conviction in the rationality of this goal are key factors motivating people toward revolution. Once this utopian consciousness gains mass support, it becomes a powerful force with a real basis in human history. In Marx’s theory of future society, the awakening of class consciousness plays a crucial role. If utopianism is organically linked with revolutionary consciousness, it can greatly stimulate human creativity and initiative, transforming current exploitation and oppression into the hope of revolution. For this school of thought, revolution provides a new ideological perspective for the connection between utopian thought and Marxism.

其次，在实现方式上弥赛亚主义与马克思主义一样具有革命和政治活力。弥赛亚主义者认为，马克思受到了“革命启示”的影响，旨在推翻资本主义，创造一个“乌托邦式欲望”的新社会来取代上帝的救赎。洛维特认为马克思在《资本论》中对经济剥削的看法是一种超验性批判，“‘剥削’也依然是一个道德判断，如果用某种正义理念来衡量，那么，它是一种绝对的不义”[3]，“在马克思的世界历史叙述中，它不折不扣是‘史前时期’的根本恶，或者用‘圣经’的话说，是这个时代的原罪。不仅仅是一个‘经济事实’”[4]。对最终乌托邦意识以及对该目标合理性的坚定信念，是激励人们走向革命的关键因素。一旦这种乌托邦式意识得到了群众的支持，它就会变成人类历史上具有现实基础的强大力量。在马克思的未来社会理论中，阶级意识的觉醒有着至关重要的作用。如果将乌托邦主义与革命意识有机地联系起来，就会极大地激发人类的创造力与积极性，将当前的剥削与压迫转变成革命的希望。在该流派看来，革命为乌托邦思想与马克思主义之间的关联提供了新的思想视角。

(II) The Internal Logic is the Unity of “Messiah” and “Historical Materialism”

（二）内在逻辑是“弥赛亚”与“历史唯物主义”的统一

Using a metaphysical framework, messianists point to the genetic relationship between the modern Enlightenment view of history and Christian historical theology. Marx was influenced by both the Enlightenment and Christianity in his early period; therefore, his view of history implicitly contains the Judeo-Christian belief in eschatological redemption.

弥赛亚主义者借助形而上学的思想框架，指出近代启蒙历史观与基督教的历史神学之间的起源关系。马克思早期受到启蒙运动与基督教的双重影响，因此他的历史观隐含着犹太一基督教的末世救赎信念。

At the ontological level, humans are the subjects of redemption. The split between reason and reality experienced by modern people can be reconciled through the dialectical character of historical materialism, providing the possibility for achieving redemption. In the preface “Epistemo-Critical Prologue” to *The Origin of German Tragic Drama*, Benjamin proposed the “monad” form of the idea. Individual “monads” can play an active role through deep thinking, reflecting on their own existence and experience, and participating in social and historical processes. Each individual has the potential to participate in social change and progress, thereby realizing the possibility of redemption. He encourages individuals to participate in the historical process of redemption through deep thinking, awareness of social phenomena, and active social action. Benjamin regards the core concept of historical materialism as a combination of theological materialism and monadology, determining the actuality and historicity of ideas through empirical phenomena. By studying contingent historical events, he highlights the overall principle of history, providing a theoretical basis for the redemption of human subjectivity.

从本体论层面，人是救赎主体，现代人所产生的理性与现实的分裂可以通过历史唯物主义的辩证特性凝合，为实现救赎提供了可能性。《德意志悲苦剧的起源》代序《认识论批判》中，本雅明提出了理念的“单子”形态，个体“单子”可以通过深入思考、反思自己的存在和体验，以及参与社会和历史的过程，发挥积极的作用。每个个体都有潜力参与社会的变革和进步，从而实现救赎的可能性。他鼓励个体通过深入思考、对社会现象的觉察以及积极的社会行动，参与到历史的救赎过程中。本雅明将历史唯物主义的核心理念视为神学唯物主义与单子论的结合，通过经验现象确定理念的现实性和历史性。通过研究偶然历史事件，来凸显历史整体原则，为人类主体性的救赎提供理论基础。

At the epistemological level, Marx’s conception of salvation history carries an unmistakable “utopian” religious teleological coloring. In *The Meaning of History*, Dilthey argues that this teleological understanding of history, focused on a first and final moment, originated in Judeo-Christian doctrine and gradually became one of its essential features. Derrida holds that Marx’s thought contains an idealizing and redemptive pursuit of a future society—an idealized historical goal that treats the future society as a kind of ultimate, good state. This view, to some extent, reflects a dialectical understanding of historical development within Marxism and an idealized belief in the socialist future. “If there is a spirit of Marxism that I will never renounce, it is not merely a critical idea or a posture of suspicion… it is even more so a certain emancipatory and messianic declaration, a certain promise.” [5]5 Jacques Derrida, *Specters of Marx: The State of the Debt, the Work of Mourning and the New International*, trans. Peggy Kamuf (New York: Routledge, 1994), 89. [Translation modified.] This implies that people can transcend themselves, free from any religious dogma or metaphysical belief, and liberate themselves from any messianism.

在认识论层面，马克思的救赎史观带有明显的“乌托邦”性质的宗教目的论色彩。《历史的意义》中，狄尔泰认为这种对历史的最初和最后一刻的目的论理解始于犹太—基督教教义，并逐渐成为它的重要特征。德里达认为，马克思的思想存在一种对未来社会的理想化和救赎化的追求，这是一个理想化的历史目标，将未来社会视为一种终极的、善的状态。这一观点在某种程度上反映了马克思主义中对于历史发展的辩证法和社会主义未来的理想化信仰。“如果说有一种马克思主义的精神是我永远不打算放弃的话，那它绝不仅仅是一种批判观念或怀疑的姿态……它甚至更主要的是某种解放的和弥赛亚式的声明，是某种允诺。”[5]这意味着人们可以超越自身，不受任何宗教教条或形而上学信仰的限制，从任何弥赛亚主义中解放出来。

At the level of internal logic, “the messianic” and “historical materialism” are unified. Messianic Marxism holds that revolution can subvert the continuity of history, and this subversion can provide the proletariat with real power, making them God’s chosen people and achieving the goal of social transformation. In short, it emphasizes revolution as a means by which the proletariat realizes its own transcendence and change within history. Benjamin argues that history condenses into an important state at certain special moments. In these moments, we can more deeply understand the fate of the current era and hear the cries for help from forgotten history. He emphasizes the historical importance of specific moments, which can help us better understand the present and inspire us to use practical action to change the course of history. People can collect a large number of fragments of historical memory, bring the pain of past history into the present, radicalize the state of present society, and thereby hope to reshape the future through revolutionary action. This is not merely using intellectual analysis to achieve practical liberation, but rather, through individual recollection and awakening, carrying out direct political revolution, breaking the routine of history, and creating new possibilities.

在内在逻辑层面，“弥赛亚”与“历史唯物主义”是统一的。弥赛亚式马克思主义认为，革命可以颠覆历史的连续性，这种颠覆可以为无产阶级提供现实的力量，使他们成为上帝的特选子民，实现社会变革的目标。简而言之，它强调了革命作为一种手段，使无产阶级在历史中实现自身的超越和改变。本雅明认为历史在某些特殊时刻凝结成了一个重要的状态。在这些时刻，我们可以更深刻地理解当前时代的命运，并听到来自被遗忘的历史的呼救声。他强调特定时刻的历史重要性，这些时刻能够帮助我们更好地理解当下，并启发我们用实际行动改变历史的走向。人们可以通过收集大量的历史记忆碎片，将过去历史的痛苦带入当下，使当下社会的状态变得激进，从而有望通过革命行动重新塑造未来。这不仅仅是利用思想分析来实现现实解放，而是通过个体的回忆和觉醒，来进行直接的政治革命，打破历史常规，创造新的可能。

In summary, Messianic Marxism mainly has the following three characteristics: First, in terms of logic and theoretical genealogy, by sorting through the history of Marx’s intellectual development, it merges two qualitatively different systems of thought, seeking points of articulation between their theories. Second, from the perspective of redemption, it explores the operability of eschatology amidst the real dilemmas and disasters facing humanity today, emphasizing the destruction and revival of society. Third, it carries a radicalist coloring; the future they speak of is the climax of a long historical process, the ultimate product of a period of intense revolutionary struggle, and saving humanity is only possible through thorough revolution.

综上所述，弥赛亚式马克思主义主要有以下三个特点：第一，从逻辑与理论溯源方面，通过对马克思思想发展史的梳理，将两个不同质的思想进行融合寻求二者理论的接榫处；第二，从救赎视角在当今人类现实困境和灾难中探求末世论的可操作性，强调社会的毁灭与复兴；第三，带有一种激进主义色彩，他们所谈论的未来是在一个漫长的历史进程中的高潮，是一个激烈的革命斗争时期的最终产物，拯救人类只有通过彻底的革命才能成为可能。

II. Analysis of the Defects of Messianic Marxism

二、弥赛亚式马克思主义缺陷的析理

(I) Marx’s Critique of Eschatology in His Early Writings

（一）早期文献中马克思对末世论的批判

The discussion and debate on eschatology in Germany was mainly concentrated in the 1820s and 1830s, which was precisely the period when Marx was studying at the Friedrich Wilhelm University in Berlin. At that time, the representative of the Young Hegelians, Bruno Bauer, taught Marx courses on theology and law, including lectures on the biblical Book of Isaiah. This can be proven by Marx’s graduation certificate from the University of Berlin:

对于末世论的探讨与辩论，德国主要集中在19世纪二三十年代，也就是马克思在柏林弗里德里希威廉大学学习期间。当时青年黑格尔派代表人鲍威尔教授马克思神学与法律的课程，其中包括讲授圣经《以赛亚书》。通过马克思的柏林大学毕业证书可以证明：

Summer Semester 1839

1839年度夏季学期

1. The Book of Isaiah, taught by Mr. Licentiate in Theology Bauer, attended [6]6 See the translation of Marx’s university certificate in Karl Marx, *Marx-Engels Collected Works*, vol. 1 (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1975), 703..

1.《以赛亚书》，鲍威尔神学学士先生讲授，听课[6]。

Isaiah is one of the three major writing prophets of Christianity (the other two being Jeremiah and Ezekiel) and is often interpreted in Christian exegesis as the one who prophesied the birth of Christ. Marx’s study of Isaiah during his university years can serve as evidence that he was exposed to biblical eschatological language and thought, and Messianic Marxists use this to argue that Marx was likely influenced by this eschatological language and thought before he discovered historical materialism. “This truth is based on the religion of the Christian West. From Isaiah to Marx, from Augustine to Hegel, from Joachim to Schelling, the historical consciousness of the Christian West is defined by the theme of eschatology.” [7]7 Karl Löwith, *Meaning in History: The Theological Implications of the Philosophy of History* (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1949), 19.

以赛亚是基督教三位写作先知之一（另外两位是耶利米和以西结），在基督教释义中常被解读为预言基督诞生之人。马克思大学时期对以赛亚的研究可以作为他接触过圣经末世论的证据，弥赛亚式马克思主义者以此证明马克思在发现历史唯物主义之前很可能已受到这种末世论语言和思想的影响。“这种真理是建立在基督教西方的宗教基础上的。从以赛亚到马克思、从奥古斯丁到黑格尔、从约阿希姆到谢林，基督教西方的历史意识是由末世论的主题规定的。”[7]

However, Löwith and others ignore the historical context of Marx’s study of Isaiah, namely that the 1830s and 1840s were the peak period of the development of biblical criticism. Biblical criticism is a branch of Christian biblical studies that uses modern knowledge such as history, philology, textual criticism, and archaeological excavation to examine the historical background of the Bible. It developed rapidly after the 18th century and became one of the main disciplines for studying the Bible. As a leading scholar of biblical criticism at the time, Bauer both criticized and transformed the prophets and eschatology appearing in the Bible. Therefore, his approach to Isaiah was not one of acceptance, but of reflection. In his work *Critique of the Gospel History of the Synoptics*, by examining the literal and grammatical meaning of the text and verifying the chronological order and interrelationships of the Gospels, he denied the historical authenticity and divinity of Christianity. At this time, Bauer was promoting opposition to individuals in reality submitting to a universal eschatological force.

然而，洛维特等人忽略了马克思学习以赛亚的历史背景，即十九世纪三四十年代，正是圣经批判学发展的高峰。圣经批判学，是基督教圣经学分支之一，指运用历史学、古语学、典籍考证、考古发掘等现代知识来考证圣经的历史背景。18世纪后得到迅速发展，成为研究《圣经》的主要学科之一。作为当时圣经批判学的领先学者，鲍威尔对圣经当中出现的先知以及末世论都进行了批判与改造。因此他对待以赛亚的方法并不是接受，而是反思。他在著作《复类福音作者的福音史批判》中，通过从文本字面与语法意义、考证福音书的时间顺序和相互关系，否认了基督教的历史真实性与神性。此时鲍威尔宣扬的是反对在现实中的个体将屈从于一种普遍的末世力量的誓词。

During his university years, Marx was influenced by Bauer, and therefore his attitude towards “eschatology” was by no means as sympathetic as Messianic Marxists claim. For example, in 1841, when Marx was preparing *The Declaration of the Last Days*, he communicated with Bauer. In this work, Marx aimed to explore the revolutionary essence of Hegel’s philosophy and thereby promote atheistic thought. He criticized a series of eschatological concepts, including the messianic. Marx believed that social change is driven by internal social contradictions and class struggle, not led by a mysterious messianic force. He criticized the fictional nature of religious eschatological concepts and their negative impact on social reform, because they encourage people to wait for the intervention of an external force rather than actively participating in social change. Therefore, Marx not only did not accept messianic eschatology, but rather criticized it.

大学时期马克思受到鲍威尔的影响，因此他对“末世论”的态度绝非弥赛亚式马克思主义者口中那样亲和。例如1841年马克思筹备《末日的宣告》时曾与鲍威尔进行交流。在这部作品中马克思旨在探寻黑格尔哲学的革命本质从而宣扬无神论思想。他批判了包括弥赛亚在内的一系列末世观念。马克思认为，社会变革是由社会内部的矛盾和阶级斗争推动的，而不是由神秘的弥赛亚力量引领的。他批判了宗教末世观念的虚构性和它对社会改革的消极影响，因为它鼓励人们等待外部力量的介入，而不是积极参与社会变革。因此，马克思对弥赛亚性质的末世论不仅不会去接受，相反更多的是批判。

By exploring Marx’s early thought and theoretical roots, it can be proven that he did not adhere to the framework of messianic eschatology when developing historical materialism. Apart from learning about biblical criticism’s interpretation of the Hebrew prophets while studying under Bauer, there is no evidence to support his endorsement of this theological stance. Therefore, the theory that Marx was influenced by eschatology in his early years is not valid. However, some might argue that even though Marx’s thought does not explicitly adopt an eschatological view of history, these ideas may have permeated his thinking in some way. We can respond to this challenge from the following aspects.

通过探索马克思早期思想和理论根源，可以证明他在发展历史唯物主义时没有坚持弥赛亚末世论的框架，马克思跟随鲍威尔学习时，除了了解圣经批判学对希伯来先知的解读之外，没有任何可以证明其支持这种神学论调的依据。因此马克思早期受到末世论影响的这一理论并不成立。然而，有人会认为尽管马克思的思想中没有明确采用末世论的历史观，但这些观点可能已经在他的思想中以某种方式渗透。我们可以从以下几个方面来回应这个质疑。

From the framework of Marx’s thought, although he came into contact with religious theology in his early years, he did not follow theological concepts. On the contrary, he was committed to establishing a system of thought inconsistent with theological assumptions. Marx, in particular, explicitly criticized these religious views using the method of historical materialism, emphasizing the concrete analysis of society, economy, and history. Moreover, Marx consciously removed religious imprints in the process of writing. To strip away religious coloring and make his thought more independent, in *The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte*, Marx severely criticized the so-called socialism with an eschatological tone: “whether it be sentimental weeping over the plight of mankind, or preaching the millennial kingdom of Christ and universal brotherhood, or rambling in a humanitarian tone about spirit, education, and freedom, or fabricating empty fantasies about a system of class harmony and happiness” [8]8 Karl Marx, *The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte* (1852). The quotation is from Marx’s critique of “true socialism” and other petty-bourgeois currents that he saw as substituting moralizing sentiment for class analysis. — all of it is mere empty talk, unable to touch the core of capitalism. During the writing of *The German Ideology*, Marx consciously opposed this utopian apocalyptic atmosphere of early communism. Marx called this communist method irrelevant to reality, a “non-historical abstraction” [9]9 Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, *The German Ideology* (1845–1846). The phrase “non-historical abstraction” refers to Marx and Engels’s critique of the Young Hegelians and utopian socialists for treating ideas as independent of material historical conditions.; he also criticized Hess for having a strong messianic complex, stating that “Hess is a devout Christian… because he talks about ‘resurrection,’ then our great holy teacher makes it possible for us, based on the remarks on page 110, to see his most blatant Jewish mannerisms” [10]10 Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, *The Holy Family* (1845). Moses Hess (1812–1875) was an early German socialist and a colleague of Marx and Engels; Marx here criticizes what he saw as a religious, specifically Jewish-messianic, residue in Hess’s thought..

从马克思的思想框架来看，虽然他在早期接触了宗教神学，但他并没有沿袭神学的观念。相反，他致力于建立一个与神学假设不一致的思想体系。马克思尤其运用历史唯物主义的方法明确批判了这些宗教观点，强调社会、经济和历史的实际分析。而且，马克思在写作过程中也有意识地剔除宗教印记。为了剥离宗教色彩，使自己的思想更加独立，在《路易波拿巴的雾月十八日》中，马克思对带有末世论调的“所谓的社会主义”进行了严厉的批评，“不管它是在为人类的痛苦感伤地哭泣，不管它是在宣扬基督的千年王国和博爱，也不管它是在用人道主义态度漫谈精神、教育和自由，或是在空泛地臆造一切阶级的协调和幸福的制度”[8]，都只是一句空话，不能触及到资本主义的核心。在《德意志意识形态》写作期间，马克思有意识地反对这种早期共产主义的末日乌托邦气息。马克思称这种共产主义方法与现实无关，是一种“非历史主义的抽象”[9]，他还批判赫斯有浓厚的弥赛亚情结，称“赫斯是一个虔诚的基督徒……因为他谈论‘复活’，那么我们这位伟大的圣师就使我们有可能仍然根据第110页上的言论看出他的最露骨的犹太作风”[10]。

In short, in the process of Marx’s early intellectual development, there is no clear evidence that Marx ever supported messianic eschatological theory. The proposition that Marx “has profound characteristics of Christian theology not only in its origin but also in its structure” [11]11 The quotation is from a Western scholar (likely Löwith or a similar figure) arguing that Marxism is structurally a secularized form of Christian eschatology; the author is contesting this claim. cannot be proven.

总之，在马克思早期思想发展过程中，并没有明确证据说明马克思支持过弥赛亚的末世理论。马克思“不仅在其起源上，而且在其结构上，都具有深刻的基督教神学的特征”[11]这个命题无法得到证明。

(II) The “Non-Historical” Argument Contradicts Historical Reality

（二）“非历史性”的论证与历史性的现实相矛盾

In the context where Western intellectual circles regard Marxist concepts as fixed, Messianic Marxists deliberately select parts of Marx’s numerous theoretical works that align with their own theoretical framework. However, this argumentation process has obvious flaws:

在西方思想界将马克思主义的观念视为固化的情况下，弥赛亚式马克思主义者有意挑选了马克思众多理论著作中与其理论构架相契合的部分。然而这种论证过程存在明显的缺陷：

First, they treat Marx’s classic texts in a “fractured” manner, ignoring the overall historical development trajectory and ideological characteristics of Marx’s thought from the perspective of developmental history. They take the analysis of social historical modes of production involved in Marx’s mature critique of political economy as the material basis for the secularization of the messiah, yet neglect the growth process of the young Marx and the background of his religious critique.

第一，“断裂式”处理马克思的经典文献，忽视了发展史视阈下马克思思想的整体历史发展脉络与思想特点。他们将马克思成熟时期政治经济学批判中涉及到社会历史生产方式的分析当做弥赛亚世俗化的物质基础，却忽略了青年马克思的成长历程与宗教批判的背景。

Second, they mistake Marx’s historical materialism for another form of philosophical speculation. Messianic Marxism erroneously interprets Marx’s process of resolving the contradictions of capitalist society as a theologically abstract speculative logic. But Marx argued that history is shaped by economic and social forces, and that consciousness and ideas arise from social existence. This includes actual human existence, production practices, labor, division of labor, and the construction of property relations. It is on this basis that research on social consciousness extends, including discussions on culture, politics, and morality. Therefore, Marx’s historical materialism is not an abstract theological theory but a unique system of thought formed through concrete argumentation and profound insight into social reality.

第二，将马克思的唯物史观当做哲学思辨的另一种表现形式。弥赛亚式马克思主义错误地将马克思解决资本主义社会矛盾的过程解释为一种神学意义上的抽象的思辨逻辑。但马克思主张历史是由经济和社会力量塑造的，意识和思想是从社会存在中产生的。其中包括现实的人类存在、生产实践、劳动、分工以及所有制的构建。正是在此基础上，延伸出关于社会意识的研究，包括文化、政治和道德等方面的探讨。因此马克思的唯物史观并非抽象的神学理论，而是通过具体的论证和对社会现实的深刻洞察形成的独特的思想体系。

Third, they distort the characteristics of Marx’s historical materialism. Marx analyzed the mode of production and relations of production of capitalist society in a concrete historical manner, seeking a realistic path for the proletariat to fulfill its historical mission of human emancipation. This analysis itself demonstrates the scientific and revolutionary nature of historical materialism. Messianic Marxism equates Marx with a rationalized philosopher of history, emphasizing the role of religion in the development of his historical materialist thought, thereby weakening the dialectical developmental characteristics of Marx’s historical materialism.

第三，曲解了马克思唯物史观的特点。马克思以具体的历史的方式对资本主义社会的生产方式与生产关系进行分析，为无产阶级实现人类解放的历史使命探求现实道路，这一分析本身彰显了唯物史观的科学性与革命性。弥赛亚式马克思主义将马克思等同于理性化的历史哲学家，强调宗教在他历史唯物主义思想发展中的作用，弱化了马克思唯物史观辩证发展的特性。

In summary, Messianic Marxism attempts to impose a secularized apocalypse onto the logical framework of Marxist theory, which undermines the integrity and scientific nature of Marxism. They regard Marxism as a metaphysical logocentrism, thereby sliding Marxism into historical nihilism. By taking “the Last Judgment” and “the Prophet” as key terms of Marx’s communism, they filter out the class character, critical spirit, and emancipatory spirit of Marxism, thus leading communism towards utopianism.

总的来说，弥赛亚式的马克思主义试图用世俗化的世界末日套用到马克思主义理论的逻辑框架当中，这破坏了马克思主义的整体性和科学性；他们认为马克思主义是形而上学的逻各斯中心主义，从而使马克思主义滑向了历史虚无主义；将“末日审判”与“先知”作为马克思共产主义的关键词，过滤掉了马克思主义的阶级性、批判性和解放精神，从而把共产主义引向了乌托邦主义。

III. Reinterpreting Messianic Marxism from the Perspective of Historical Materialism

三、从唯物史观视阈重解弥赛亚式马克思主义

Messianic Marxism links Marxism with religion or mysticism, leading to misunderstandings of social change and political theory. Analyzing this school from the perspective of historical materialism can help people understand Messianic Marxism more clearly, avoid misunderstandings or misrepresentations of Marxist theory, ensure the accurate interpretation and dissemination of the core principles of Marxism, and uphold the scientific and practical nature of Marxist theory.

弥赛亚式马克思主义将马克思主义与宗教或神秘主义联系在一起，导致人们对社会变革和政治理论产生误解。运用唯物史观视角对该流派进行剖析，可以帮助人们更清晰地了解弥赛亚式马克思主义，避免对马克思主义理论的误解或误传，确保马克思主义的核心原则得到准确诠释与传播，维护马克思主义理论的科学性与实践性。

First, the essence of Messianic Marxism is a variant of “religious teleology.” Löwith and others attempt to find a secularized basis for religious theology within Marxism. They treat exploitation as “a moral judgment,” considering it an “absolute injustice,” without recognizing that the essence of exploitation is the forcible deprivation of surplus value from social members or groups lacking property or having little property. Exploitation is a reflection of the contradictions of secular society — “Capital comes into the world dripping from head to foot, from every pore, with blood and dirt” [12]12 Karl Marx, *Capital*, Volume I (1867), Chapter 31 (“Genesis of the Industrial Capitalist”). The famous passage describes the violent, bloody origins of capital accumulation.. Therefore, only by abolishing private property and abolishing classes can this exploitation and oppression disappear. Messianic Marxists do not regard human history as a history of class struggle; instead, they believe history originates from a universal, undifferentiated existence — the “Kingdom of God” — ultimately elevating messianism to the driving force of history, transforming the messiah into a universal organization of saints, and taking pantheism and eschatology as the ultimate truth and logical endpoint of historical development, and thus as the only path for human redemption, falling into the trap of metaphysics.

首先，弥赛亚式马克思主义本质是“宗教目的论”的变种。洛维特等人试图在马克思主义当中寻找宗教神学的世俗化的基础，他将剥削作为“一个道德判断”，认为它就是一种“绝对的不义”，而没有关注到剥削的本质是强制性地剥夺那些没有或者缺少财产的社会成员或社会群体的剩余价值，剥削是世俗社会矛盾的映射——“资本来到世间，从头到脚，每个毛孔都滴着血和肮脏的东西”[12]。因此，只有消灭私有制，消灭阶级，这种剥削与压迫才会消亡。弥赛亚式马克思主义者们并不认为人类历史是阶级斗争的历史，而认为历史发源于一个没有差别性的普世存在——“上帝之国”，以至于最终把弥赛亚主义推崇为历史的源动力，将弥赛亚幻化为圣徒的普世组织，把泛神论与末世论作为历史发展的终极真实和逻辑终点，进而当作人类救赎的唯一途径，落入了形而上学的窠臼。

Second, Messianic Marxism lacks revolutionary character and practicality. They detach human history from conflicts of real economic interests and religionize it, relying entirely on revolutionaries seizing the opportune moment to interrupt the course of history and begin a new epoch. Benjamin emphasized that revolution is not the locomotive but the emergency brake of history — that is, cutting short its unlimited modernizing process to make room for a new world. He emphasized the role of human subjective initiative in history but neglected the possibilities and limits of the economic sphere. Because “‘Idea’ invariably disgraced itself as soon as it parted company with ‘interest’” [13]13 Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, *The Holy Family* (1845). The aphorism underscores Marx’s materialist insistence that ideas divorced from material interests are impotent.. However, humanity is not dominated entirely by spirit; the essence of man is the totality of social relations. The spiritual manifestations of humanity are an extension of material production, which plays a decisive role in social development. Furthermore, the practice of social revolution is the criterion for testing the correctness of human thought. To establish an absolute subject transcending history, time, and language by detaching from the material base means that “redemption” would be completely severed from real society and become empty talk. The redemptive paradigm advocated by Benjamin, aimed at a “synthesis of millenarianism and Judeo-Christian, fin-de-siècle irrationalist philosophy and Marxism” [14]14 The quotation describes Walter Benjamin’s project of synthesizing Jewish messianism, fin-de-siècle irrationalism, and Marxism. Benjamin (1892–1940) was a German-Jewish Marxist philosopher and cultural critic associated with the Frankfurt School., fundamentally lacks a point of support in reality.

其次，弥赛亚式马克思主义缺乏革命性与实践性。他们脱离现实经济利益的冲突将人类历史宗教化，全靠革命者如何把握恰当的时机，打断历史的进程，开始一个新纪元。本雅明强调革命不是火车头而是急刹车，即截断它无限制的现代性进程，为新世界腾出空间。他强调人类主观能动性在历史中的作用，却忽视经济层面的可能性与限度。因为“‘思想’一旦离开‘利益’，就一定会使自己出丑”[13]。然而，人类并不是由精神主导一切，人的本质是一切社会关系的总和，人类在精神层面的表现是在社会发展中具有决定作用的物质生产的延伸。另外，社会革命实践是检验人类思想正确与否的标准，脱离物质基础建立一个超越历史、时间和语言的绝对主体，“救赎”也就与现实社会彻底割裂变成一句空话。本雅明所倡导的旨在通过“千年主义和犹太教-基督教、世纪末的非理性主义哲学和马克思主义的综合”[14]的救赎范式从根本上缺乏现实支撑点。

Third, Messianic Marxism is divorced from the people-nature and reality. To solve practical problems, one must first correctly understand these problems. But to truly understand practical problems, it is also necessary to closely link thought with actual conditions. Marx believed that thought's reconstruction of the existing order only provides a theoretical projection; the key to solving problems lies in transforming speculative questions into real ones. Social anomie, loss of faith, energy crises, terrorist attacks, and the new risks of ethnic conflict brought by refugee tides are all external real problems, and the people have no choice but to wage struggle through practical action. Therefore, only a thorough transformation of the relations of production is the sole realistic dimension for eliminating the predicament of modernity. Messianic Marxists, fearing the collapse of the old international order, vigorously advocate seeking "conditions for the coexistence and flourishing of multiple utopian aspirations" to solve some superficial problems. However, divorced from the actual material base, empty talk of "transcending the world" and "saving the world" still leaves key issues in national development fundamentally unresolved.

再次，弥赛亚式马克思主义脱离了人民性与现实性。为了解决实际问题，首先需要正确理解这些问题。但要真正理解实际问题，还需要将思想与实际情况紧密联系起来。马克思认为思想对现实秩序的重建只是提供了理论规设，解决问题的关键在于把思辨的问题变成现实问题。社会失范、信仰缺失，能源危机、恐怖袭击和难民潮带来的族群冲突的新风险，都是外在现实问题，人民不得已要以实际行动进行斗争。因此，只有彻底变更生产关系，才是消弭现代化困境的唯一现实向度。弥赛亚式马克思主义者唯恐国际旧秩序崩塌，因此极力倡导寻求“多种乌托邦愿望共存与繁荣的条件”，解决一些浮于表面的问题。但是，脱离实际物质基础，空谈“出世”和“救世”观念，仍然导致国家发展中的关键问题无法得到根本性解决。

Finally, Messianic Marxism still cannot escape the perspective of advanced Western civilization. We cannot deny that the fusion of Messianism and Marxism represents an attempt to resolve the predicament of modernity for humanity. Through Messianic Marxism, we have an opportunity to interpret society from the commodity phantasm and the mythologization of the social world. This orientation grants us a unique perspective, allowing us to delve deeply into the history and way out of capitalist economic development, so as to expose the phenomena of falsity and impatience existing in society. Yet this attempt still cannot shake off the shackles of theology and metaphysics. We can see that although Messianic Marxism strives to avoid a Western-centric tendency in its grasp of eschatological vision and the "New Era," how to break through the Eastern predicament has never been incorporated into its key research perspective, because the entire pre-capitalist civilization and Eastern civilization are merely copies, serving as reference points for Western civilization to draw on experience and learn lessons. It turns a blind eye to the real economic problems faced by Eastern countries, worries about the destruction of social ethics and the ecological environment by technological progress, denies these countries' efforts to promote technological progress, and excludes them all from the contributors to modern civilization. Although it has begun to reflect on modern social problems, it still finds it difficult to break free from the mindset of "Western-centrism." Messianic Marxism's ambiguous critique of capitalism is, at best, a desperate struggle on the path of returning to the Christian theological "homeland."

最后，弥赛亚式马克思主义仍旧无法摆脱西方先进文明的视角。我们不能否认弥赛亚与马克思主义的融合为人类解决现代性困境提出了一种尝试，通过弥赛亚式马克思主义，我们有机会从商品幻象与社会世界的神话化中解读社会。这一取向赋予了我们一种独特的视角，允许我们深入探讨资本主义经济发展的历史和出路，以揭示社会中存在的虚假和急躁现象。但这一尝试依旧摆脱不了神学与形而上学的桎梏。我们可以看到弥赛亚式马克思主义在末世论视野和“新纪元”的把握上虽努力回避西方中心倾向，但如何突破东方困境却从未纳入他们的重点研究视阈，因为整个前资本主义文明和东方文明都只是副本，是作为西方文明借鉴经验与吸取教训的参照物。他们对东方国家面临的现实经济问题视而不见，担忧科技进步对社会伦理、生态环境的破坏，否定这些国家为推动科技进步所做的努力，把他们都排除在现代文明的贡献者之外。尽管他们已开始对现代社会问题进行反思，但仍很难摆脱“西方中心论”的思维。弥赛亚式马克思主义对资本主义暧昧地批判充其量不过是回归基督宗教神学“返乡”途中的绝望挣扎。

(Author bio: Jia Jinyue, doctoral candidate at the School of Marxism, Peking University)

（作者简介：贾巾月，北京大学马克思主义学院博士研究生）

Online editor: Tongxin

网络编辑：同心