Marx’s View of Machinery from the Perspective of the History of Philosophy

Marx’s view of machinery is the inevitable product and scientific summary of 19th-century technological development. Tracing its intellectual origins reveals that Marx’s view of machinery is closely connected with the relevant discussions of Aristotle, Descartes, and Hegel in the history of philosophy. In Aristotle, tools and machines are not yet clearly distinguished; by means of the metaphor of the clock, Descartes compares the body to an “automaton”; in Hegel, tools and machines are distinguished, and a certain degree of moral critique is directed at them. In the mid-19th century, as the steam engine became dominant in social life, Marx discussed in detail the social-historical conditions of the use of tools and machines in the labor process, and further distinguished between tools and machines within the theoretical framework of the “tool machine” and the “system of machinery.”

马克思的机器观是19世纪技术发展的必然产物和科学总结。追溯其思想源头可以发现，马克思的机器观与亚里士多德、笛卡尔、黑格尔在哲学史中的相关论述有着密切联系。在亚里士多德这里，工具和机器尚未得到明确区分；借助钟表的隐喻，笛卡尔将身体比作“自动机”；在黑格尔这里，工具和机器得到了区分，并对其进行了一定程度的道德批判。19世纪中叶，随着蒸汽机在社会生活中成为主流，马克思在劳动过程中详细探讨了工具和机器使用的社会历史条件，并在“工具机”和“机器体系”的理论框架中进一步区分了工具和机器。

Views of Machinery in the History of Philosophy

哲学史中的机器观

In the philosophical context of ancient Greece, tools and machines were not strictly distinguished, but there were slight semantic differences. Etymologically, the German word “Werkzeug” (tool) is more specific than the English word “tools.” “Werk” originates from the ancient Greek “ἔργον,” meaning labor or work. “Zeug” in ancient Germanic refers to a plowing implement. In Aristotle’s philosophical works, tools—machines are analyzed mainly in three different contexts: First, the hand is a means of labor and a realization of technique. In the *Organon*, the hand is considered a natural and effective tool, capable of replacing other tools and driven by the soul. Second, in ancient Greek mythology and drama, “machines” are often regarded as auxiliary tools; for example, Hephaestus in the *Odyssey* catches Ares with iron chains, and the dragon chariot at the end of *Medea* symbolizes escape from predicament. In the *Poetics*, Aristotle criticizes this practice of external intervention, emphasizing that the plot should arise from internal development. Finally, in the *Mechanics*, he deeply analyzes the internal mechanics of mechanical devices, arguing that the motion of many lever mechanisms, including the balance scale, can be traced back to the concept of the “circle.” Aristotle’s engineering thought laid the foundation for later scientific development.

在古希腊的哲学语境中，工具和机器并未得到严格的区分，但在语义上存在些许差别。从词源学来看，德语的“工具”（Werkzeug）比英语的“工具”（Tools）更为具体。“Werk”源自古希腊语的“█ργον”，意为劳动或工作。而“Zeug”在古日耳曼语中指犁地工具。在亚里士多德的哲学著作中，工具——机器主要是在三种不同的语境中得到分析：首先，手是劳动手段和技术实现。在《工具论》中认为手是自然的有效工具，可以替代其他工具，并受灵魂驱动。其次，在古希腊神话和戏剧中，“机器”常被视作辅助工具，比如《奥德赛》中的赫菲斯托斯用铁链捉住阿瑞斯，《美狄亚》末尾的龙车象征逃脱困境。在《诗学》中，亚里士多德批评这种外部干预的做法，强调情节应来自内部发展。最后，在《机械学》中，他深入分析机械装置的内部力学，认为包括天平在内的诸多杠杆机械装置之运动都可追溯到“圆”的概念。亚里士多德的工程学思想为后来的科学发展奠定了基础。

In the Middle Ages, machines such as striking clocks and pipe organs were mostly used in religious rituals. With the development of astronomy and mathematics, the mechanical clock came to be seen as a representative of precision and rhythm. Nicholas of Cusa used the clock to explain the relationship between God and all things, arguing that the clock manifests the nature of God. In Ficino’s philosophy, the clock is not only a physical device but also symbolizes “psychological components.” He analogizes clock parts such as the pendulum, mainspring, and escapement to the soul and the body: the escapement displays the qualities of moderation and temperance, approximating “divine wisdom” and moral standards, much as the soul regulates the body’s ability to achieve balance. In short, both Nicholas of Cusa and Ficino regarded the clock machine as a perpetually moving, self-sufficient system of the immaterial soul.

在中世纪，诸如报时钟和管风琴的机器多用于宗教仪式。随着天文学和数学的发展，机械时钟被视为精确和节律之代表。库萨的尼古拉用时钟解释上帝和万物的关系，他认为时钟展示了上帝的本性。在费奇诺的哲学中，时钟不仅是物理设备，还象征着“心理学的组件”。他把时钟部件如钟摆、发条和擒纵装置，与灵魂和身体进行类比：擒纵装置展示了适度与节制的特质，近似于“神性的智慧”及道德标准，也如灵魂调控身体达到平衡的能力。总之，库萨的尼古拉和费奇诺都把时钟机器看作永动、自足的非物质灵魂系统。

Unlike Nicholas of Cusa and Ficino, the modern European analogy of the human body to a clock was proposed by the educator Comenius in 1657, who held that the human body is like a clock, composed of many gears and bells. He compared the human will to the gears of a clock, emotions to the weights, and reason to the escapement. With the rise of Cartesian philosophy, clock technology also achieved breakthroughs in miniaturization and automation. Descartes believed that the soul and the body are two completely different substances. The soul is immaterial, while the body is mechanical. He compared the body to an automaton operating like a clock. La Mettrie believed that the nerve fibers of the brain coordinate the whole body, while Christian Wolff held that the world is like a machine, and understanding the machine means understanding the world. These ideas revealed the deep relationships between machines and the world, and between humans and machines, thereby further ontologizing the concept of the machine.

与库萨的尼古拉和费奇诺不同，近代欧洲将时钟用于人体之类比由教育家夸美纽斯在1657年提出，认为人的身体像时钟，由许多齿轮和铃铛构成。他把人的意志比作钟表的齿轮，情感比作砝码，理性比作擒纵装置。随着笛卡尔哲学的兴起，钟表技术也在小型化和自动化上有了突破。笛卡尔认为灵魂和身体是两种完全不同的实体。灵魂是非物质的，而身体是机械的。他把身体比作像时钟一样运作的自动机。拉·梅特里认为大脑神经纤维协调全身，而克里斯蒂安·沃尔夫则认为世界如同一台机器，了解机器即了解世界。这些思想揭示了机器与世界、人与机器之间的深层关系，从而进一步将机器概念本体论化。

Based on the philosophical tradition of the “theory of the four elements,” Hegel conducted a deep analysis of the relationships among physical elements such as air, fire, water, and earth, emphasizing that the differences among these elements lie mainly in the differing states of aggregation of matter. In addition, Hegel explored the complex interactions between steam and air, water, and other substances, as well as the mechanism by which these interactions are transformed into heat or energy. Taking as his starting point the historical fact of Watt’s improvement of the steam engine, Hegel first examined the internal operating mechanism of the steam engine from the perspective of natural philosophy.

基于“四元素说”的哲学传统，黑格尔对空气、火、水和土地等物理元素的关系进行了深入分析，强调这些元素的区别主要在于物质聚集状态的差异。此外，黑格尔探讨了蒸汽与空气、水和其他物质之间复杂的相互作用，以及这些相互作用如何转化为热或能量的机制问题。基于瓦特改良蒸汽机这一历史事实，黑格尔首先从自然哲学的角度出发考察蒸汽机的内在运作机制。

Second, in Hegel’s early *Jena System Drafts*, “tool” and “machine” are examined as “middle terms.” Hegel emphasizes that, in addition to intellectual mediation—namely, language, tools, and property—consciousness requires a physical level of “mediation” to distinguish between “I think” and “I am.” Thus, language and memory, tools and labor, and property and the family form three pairs of “double middle terms,” used to objectify the relationship between the self and the world. It is also in this work that Hegel expresses distinctly different attitudes toward tools and machines. On the one hand, Hegel emphasizes the activity of the tool and labor itself: the tool is not merely an object created by the laborer; it also helps overcome the resistance of nature, connecting the laborer with the object of labor. On the other hand, Hegel argues that the machine is a further development of the tool, and although it transforms nature, it also brings disastrous consequences. The development of machinery makes human labor increasingly abstract and monotonous; the human being becomes a link in the production line. The development of machinery leads to the devaluation of labor; humans become increasingly dependent on machines, and their inner sense of security and existence gradually fades away.

其次，在黑格尔早期的《耶拿体系草稿》中，“工具”和“机器”作为“中项”被纳入考察。黑格尔强调，除了思维上的中介，即语言、工具、财产之外，意识需要物理层面的“中介”来区分“我思”和“我在”。于是，语言和记忆、工具和劳动以及财产和家庭组成了三对“双中项”之关系，用于将自我与世界之关系客体化。也正是在这本著作中，黑格尔对工具和机器表明了截然不同的态度。一方面，黑格尔强调工具和劳动本身的能动性，工具不仅仅是劳动者创造的对象，它还帮助克服自然的阻力，连接劳动者与劳动对象。另一方面，黑格尔却认为机器是工具的进一步发展，尽管它改造了自然，但也带来了灾难性后果。机器的发展让人类劳动变得越发抽象和单一，人变成了生产线上的一个环节。机器的发展则会导致劳动贬值，人类越来越依赖机器，内心安全感和存在感也将逐渐消退。

Finally, unlike the *Jena System Drafts*, Hegel in the *Elements of the Philosophy of Right* affirms the positive role of machinery in enhancing productive forces. Through a systematic exposition of the concept of labor, the division of labor, and machine production, Hegel discusses the process of achieving human universality through diverse means, and states: “The abstraction of production makes labor increasingly mechanical, and ultimately the human being can step aside and let the machine take his place.” [1]1 Karl Marx, *Capital*, Volume 1, Chapter 15, Section 1. Hegel argues that, in the interaction between labor and the satisfaction of needs, with the aid of machinery, human egoism can be transformed into altruistic behavior, thereby continuously raising the level of human education and skill on the basis of creating universal and enduring wealth.

最后，与《耶拿体系草稿》不同，黑格尔在《法哲学原理》中肯定了机器在提升生产力方面的积极作用。通过对劳动概念、社会分工和机器生产进行系统化的阐释，黑格尔讨论了多样化的手段来实现人之普遍性的过程，并指出：“生产的抽象化使劳动越来越机械化，最终人可以走开，由机器代替其职位。” 黑格尔认为，在劳动与满足需求的互动中，借助机器的辅助，人类的利己主义可以转化为利他行为，从而在创造普遍而持久财富的基础上不断提升人类的教育和技能水平。

Marx’s View of Machinery

马克思的机器观

For Marx, both tools and machines are first and foremost means of producing surplus value. It is therefore not difficult to understand why Marx, in *Capital*, places the discussion of instruments of labor and machinery in the chapters on “The Production of Absolute Surplus-Value” and “The Production of Relative Surplus-Value.” In *Capital*, Volume 1, Part 3, Chapter 5, Marx primarily demonstrates the ideas of instruments of labor and machinery in the labor process, while in Part 4, Chapter 13, he provides a detailed exposition of the concepts of the tool machine and the system of machinery.

对于马克思来说，工具和机器都首先是生产剩余价值的手段。这就不难理解，马克思为何在《资本论》中将劳动工具和机器的讨论归入“绝对剩余价值生产”和“相对剩余价值生产”的篇章中去。马克思在《资本论》第3篇第5章中主要论证劳动过程中的工具和机器思想，而在第4篇第13章则详细论证了工具机和机器体系的概念。

First, the labor process embodies human labor capacity. Marx, from an anthropological perspective, divides this into four types: the capacity for foresight, purposiveness, reflectiveness, and universal learning ability. The capacity for foresight enables humans to foresee the results of actions; purposiveness emphasizes the importance of planning and conception; reflectiveness ensures consistency in execution. These three capacities ultimately converge into the universal learning ability of human beings.

首先，劳动过程体现了人的劳动能力。马克思从人类学角度将其划分为四种：预测能力、合目的性、反思性和普遍学习能力。预测能力使人类能预见行动结果；合目的性强调计划和构思的重要性；反思性确保执行的一致性。这三种能力最终汇聚为人类普遍的学习能力。

Second, the labor process is embodied through the instruments of labor. Marx states: “An instrument of labor is a thing, or a complex of things, which the worker interposes between himself and the object of labor and which serves as the conductor of his activity onto that object.” [2]2 Karl Marx, *Capital*, Volume 1, Chapter 15, Section 1. Thus, an instrument of labor is a thing, but not all things are instruments of labor; only that thing which can transmit human activity onto the object of labor can be called an instrument of labor. Marx’s examination of the instruments of labor then enters the dimension of social history. He speaks of “man as a tool-making animal,” giving the example that the hand can pick fruit, and is thus an extension of the human limb.

其次，劳动过程通过劳动资料来体现。马克思说道：“劳动资料是劳动者置于自己和劳动对象之间，用来把自己的活动传导到劳动对象上去的物或物的综合体。”由此可见，劳动资料是一种物，但并非所有物都是劳动资料；只有那种能够将人的活动传递到劳动对象上的物，才可称之为劳动资料。马克思对劳动资料的考察随后进入了社会历史的维度，他谈到“人类是制造工具的动物”，举例道：手可以采集果实，便是人肢体的一种延长。

The series of iron implements and mechanical tools crafted by human hands are a further concretization of the means of labor. Marx further revealed the “archaeological” thought of examining the historical development of the social economy through the means of labor. Unlike Aristotle’s speculative analysis of tools from the perspective of labor means and technology, Marx primarily viewed tools and machines from the perspective of relations of production: the social function of machines used by different classes is certainly different. Therefore, the core meaning of Marx’s discourse on machines is a detailed examination of the social and historical conditions for the use of tools and machines. The development of capitalism has gone through simple cooperation, manufacture, and large-scale machine industry. Unlike the first two forms of production, large-scale machine industry not only quantitatively increases the production of relative surplus value, but also qualitatively and completely transforms the technical basis for producing relative surplus value.

而通过人手打造的一系列铁器、机械工具，则是劳动资料的进一步具体化。马克思进一步揭示了通过劳动资料考察社会经济历史发展的“考古学”思想。不同于亚里士多德从劳动手段和技术层面对工具的思辨分析，马克思主要从生产关系角度看待工具和机器：不同阶级使用机器的社会功能肯定不同。因此，马克思的机器话语核心要义是详细考察使用工具和机器的社会历史条件。资本主义发展经历了简单协作、工场手工业和机器大工业。与前两种生产形式不同，机器大工业不仅在量上增加了相对剩余价值的生产，而且在质上也彻底改变了生产相对剩余价值的技术基础。

In Marx’s view, tools and machines cannot be directly distinguished by the complexity of their parts, nor can they be simply distinguished by the source of power, taking human power as the motive force of tools and natural forces as the motive force of machines. Marx divided machines into three types: “All developed machinery consists of three essential parts: the motor mechanism, the transmitting mechanism, and the tool or working machine. The tool machine was the starting-point of the industrial revolution of the 18th century.” [1]1 Karl Marx, *Capital*, Volume 1, Chapter 15, Section 1. If we compare Marx’s classification of machines with the contemporary authoritative textbook *General Machine Science* (1862) by Moritz Rühlmann, we can find that around 1860, clocks and timepieces, weighing machines, and machines powered by human, water, and animal power had already been excluded from developed machinery. According to the sequence of power transmission, the composition of machines was divided into three categories: first, the prime mover (the machine providing power); second, the intermediate mechanism (the transmission device); third, the driven machine (the load or working machine). In these classifications, Rühlmann provided further explanations. For example, in the first category, the steam engine was marked as “natural force.” The second category included devices for power transmission, such as levers and pulleys. The third category included manufacturing and transport machinery, i.e., tools that change mechanical displacement.

在马克思看来，对工具和机器不能在零件复杂度上进行直接区分，也不能根据动力的来源简单地把人力作为工具的推动力、将自然力视作机器的动力。马克思将机器分为三种类型：“所有发达机械由三个主要部分组成：驱动机器、传动机构和工具机（机床）。工具机是18世纪工业革命的起点。”如果将马克思对机器的分类与同时代莫里茨·吕尔曼1862年《通用机器学》这本权威教科书进行对照，可以发现，在1860年前后，时钟和计时、称重以及人力、水力和畜力机器已经被排除在发达机械之外。根据动力传导的先后顺序，机器的构成被分为三类：第一类，前机械（提供动力的机器）；第二类，中间机械（传动装置）；第三类，后机械（负载或工作机械）。在这些分类中，吕尔曼作出了进一步的解释说明。例如，在第一类中，蒸汽机被标记为“自然力”。第二类包括动力传输的装置，如杠杆和皮带轮等。第三类包括制造和运输机械，即改变机械位移的工具。

The reason the steam engine played such an important role after 1860 lies first and foremost in its combination with the tool machine. The tool machine is an automated device operated by machinery, capable of completing tasks originally performed manually by workers. The tool is no longer a hand-held tool, and the machine is no longer manually operated. However, the steam engine not only provides power but can also combine with the intermediate mechanism and the driven machine to provide a fully automated mechanical solution for the entire process. What machine production produces is no longer just commodities, but tool machines. Unlike the cooperation of identical types of machines, multiple steam engines and tool machines construct an organic connection between different types of machines, which Marx called the system of machinery: “In the first place, the whole article is produced by a single work-machine… Only where the object of labour goes through a connected series of graduated processes, carried on by a chain of mutually complementary machines of different kinds, does the real system of machinery take the place of the individual independent machine.” [2]2 Karl Marx, *Capital*, Volume 1, Chapter 15, Section 1. Marx called this organized system of machinery driven by a central automatic prime mover the most developed form of machine production.

蒸汽机自1860年后之所以扮演重要角色，首先在于其与工具机的结合。工具机即由机器操控的自动化设备，可完成工人原本手工完成的任务。工具不再是手持工具，机器也不再是手动操作的。不过，蒸汽机不仅仅提供动力，还能与中间机械、后机械结合，提供全流程自动化机械解决方案。机器生产的不再仅是商品，而是工具机。不同于同类型机器协作，多台蒸汽机和工具机构建了不同类型机器间的有机联系，马克思称之为机器体系：“在前一场合，整个制品是由同一台工作机完成的……只有在劳动对象顺次通过一系列互相联结的不同的阶段过程，而这些过程是由一系列各不相同而又互为补充的工具机来完成的地方，真正的机器体系才替代了各个独立的机器。”马克思将这种由中央自动机推动的有组织机器体系称之为机器生产的最发达形态。

In Marx’s exposition on the system of machinery, the content concerning the concept of labor, the social division of labor, and machine production in Hegel’s *Elements of the Philosophy of Right* needs to be re-examined in a new context. First, the labor process in manufacture no longer adapts to the worker’s operating habits; instead, the machine determines how each partial link of the production process is decomposed. Second, the division of labor in manufacture brought about direct requirements for cooperation; whereas in the system of machinery, the steam engine and the working mechanism form an organized system, and the continuity of machine production plays a key role. Finally, manufacture requires human power to propel each link, whereas the system of machinery is itself an automated system that does not require human propulsion. Marx pointed out two conditions for making machines: first, having a high-power and controllable prime mover; second, the tool machine possessing the processing capability for multiple geometric forms. Here, Marx surpassed Aristotle’s mechanical engineering thought based on the “circle,” laying the foundation for Franz Reuleaux’s modular work on the “geometric constraint” of machine parts in the second half of the 19th century.

在马克思关于机器体系的论述中，黑格尔《法哲学原理》中关于劳动概念、社会分工和机器生产的内容在新的语境下需要重新审视。首先，工场手工业的劳动过程不再适应工人的操作习惯，而是由机器决定生产过程的每一个局部环节如何分解。其次，工场手工业中的劳动分工带来了直接的协作要求；而在机器体系中，蒸汽机和工作机构组成了一个有组织的体系，机器生产的连续性起到了关键作用。最后，工场手工业需要人工推动各个环节，而机器体系本身就是一个自动化系统，不需要人为推动。马克思指出了制作机器的两个条件：一是具有大功率且受控制的发动机；二是工具机具备多种几何形态的加工能力。在此，马克思超越了亚里士多德以“圆形”为基础的机械工程学思想，为19世纪下半叶勒洛实施机器部件“几何约束”模块化工作奠定了基础。

In summary, on the basis of referencing the theories of machines of Aristotle and Hegel, Marx ultimately achieved a transcendence of them. As the steam engine gradually permeated the social process, and as Marx extensively read the works of factory science and machine science experts in Britain, such as Moseley, Babbage, and Ure, he wrote a series of excerpts, including the *Technological and Machine Notebooks*. Ultimately, Marx systematically presented these ideas in *Capital*, and in the second half of the 19th century, they continued to influence and promote the further development of German philosophy of technology.

综上所述，马克思在参考亚里士多德和黑格尔的机器论基础上，最终实现了对其的超越。随着蒸汽机逐渐渗透社会进程，以及马克思在英国广泛阅读莫斯利、拜比吉和尤尔等工厂学和机器学专家的著作，他撰写了《机器与技术笔记》等系列摘记。最终，马克思在《资本论》中系统地展示了这些思想，并在19世纪下半叶，持续影响和推动了德国技术哲学的进一步发展。

Online Editor: Paul

网络编辑：保罗