Why Does Ideology “Have No History”?

Adhering to the paradigm of substance philosophy and the “two worlds” mode of thinking, German idealism insisted on the independence of “ideas, thoughts, and concepts”[1]1 The reference [1] is to *The German Ideology* (1845-1846) by Marx and Engels, where they first systematically elaborated the materialist conception of history.(P511), resorting to conceptual dialectics to reveal the truth of the world and history, interpreting human history as a process dominated by spirit or consciousness, turning the entire material world into a world of thought, and all of human history into a pure history of thought.[1]1 The reference [1] is to *The German Ideology* (1845-1846) by Marx and Engels, where they first systematically elaborated the materialist conception of history.(P510) The human labor process was also regarded by it as a link in spirit’s self-realization, and humans were treated merely as external tools and bystanders through which human history realizes its own ends. The creation of historical materialism, however, provided people with a completely new theoretical perspective for grasping the laws of historical development, enabling people to recognize that only through material production can the essence of the world and history be grasped, and only by resorting to the transformation of the mode of production can the riddle of “history-freedom” be solved. Henceforth, human history fundamentally ceased to be regarded as a process dominated by ideas and consciousness.

秉承实体理念与“两个世界”思维范式，德国观念论坚持“观念、思想、概念”[1](P511)的独立性，诉诸概念辩证法揭示世界与历史的真相，将人类历史解读为由精神或意识主宰的过程，把整个物质世界变成了思想世界，把全部人类历史变成了纯粹的思想的历史，[1](P510)人类劳动过程也被其看成精神实现自身的一个环节，人被其仅仅当作人类历史实现自身目的的外在工具与旁观者。而历史唯物主义的创立，则为人们把握历史发展规律提供了全新理论图景，使人们认识到只有透过物质生产才能把握世界和历史的本质，只有诉诸生产方式的变迁才能破解“历史—自由”之谜，由此人类历史才从根本上不再被认为是由观念和思想主宰的过程。

The question of the theoretical essence of historical materialism has always attracted close attention from academia. In his later years, Engels made a precise summary of the theoretical essence and important characteristics of historical materialism, pointing out that as a positive achievement transcending German idealism, its theoretical essence is embodied in the fact that it “found the key to the understanding of all history in the development of labor”[2]2 The reference [2] is to Engels' *Ludwig Feuerbach and the End of Classical German Philosophy* (1886).(P313), and that it is the intellectual crystallization of Marx and Engels’ application of the materialist principle to the historical field, thereby achieving the true unity of the revolutionary and realistic nature of dialectics. However, merely grasping the above important characteristics is still insufficient to present the theoretical essence of historical materialism at a deeper and more comprehensive level, because grasping the argumentation process of a theory is the key to grasping its essence. Moreover, Marx and Engels’ argumentation process for historical materialism was simultaneously accompanied by their process of criticizing and transcending German idealism. This requires us, on the one hand, to deeply examine how Marx and Engels positively expounded and argued for the basic principles of historical materialism; on the other hand, we must also examine how they effectively refuted the fatal logical defects of German idealism on key issues and links. In this regard, *The German Ideology*, in its critique of German idealism, clearly states: “Morality, religion, metaphysics, and other ideologies, and the forms of consciousness corresponding to them, no longer retain the appearance of independence. They have no history, no development”[1]1 The reference [1] is to *The German Ideology* (1845-1846) by Marx and Engels, where they first systematically elaborated the materialist conception of history.(P525). Here, “ideology” refers to systems of ideas. This indicates that the most crucial issue for Marx and Engels in transcending German idealism was how to systematically and forcefully explain why “ideology has no history.” Only by doing so could their refutation and transcendence of German idealism possess greater theoretical persuasiveness. *The German Ideology* and *Ludwig Feuerbach and the End of Classical German Philosophy* (hereinafter referred to as the *Feuerbach Thesis*), which elucidate the basic principles of historical materialism, also primarily respond to this major theoretical issue, thereby fully explaining why human history is a history of production and labor, and establishing and developing historical materialism. In recent years, academic research positively elucidating the process of Marx and Engels’ argumentation for historical materialism has matured, while discussions surrounding Marx and Engels’ revelation of why ideology “has no history” have been relatively weak, requiring us to conduct in-depth research on this matter.

关于历史唯物主义的理论实质问题，始终备受学界关注。恩格斯晚年曾专门对历史唯物主义的理论实质及其重要特征作了精准概括，指出作为超越德国观念论的积极成果，历史唯物主义的理论实质体现在它“在劳动发展史中找到了理解全部社会史的锁钥”，[2](P313)是马克思、恩格斯把唯物主义原则贯彻到历史领域，进而实现辩证法的革命性与现实性真正统一的思想结晶。但是，仅仅把握上述重要特征，还无法在更深层次和更全面意义上呈现历史唯物主义的理论实质，因为把握一种理论的论证过程才是把握其实质的关键，而马克思、恩格斯对历史唯物主义的论证过程，同时伴随着他们对德国观念论的批判和超越过程。这就要求我们一方面，要深入考察马克思、恩格斯如何从正面阐述、论证历史唯物主义基本原理；另一方面，也要考察他们在关键问题和环节上如何有效反驳德国观念论所存在的致命逻辑缺陷。就此而言，《德意志意识形态》在批判德国观念论时明确指出：“道德、宗教、形而上学和其他意识形态，以及与它们相适应的意识形式便不再保留独立性的外观了。它们没有历史，没有发展”，[1](P525)这里的意识形态即观念体系。表明马克思、恩格斯超越德国观念论的最为关键的问题，就是如何系统、有力地阐释清楚“意识形态何以‘没有历史’”，唯此，他们对德国观念论的反驳与超越才更具有理论说服力。作为阐明历史唯物主义基本原理的《德意志意识形态》《路德维希·费尔巴哈和德国古典哲学的终结》（以下简称《费尔巴哈论》），也主要通过对此重大理论课题的回应，进而完整阐明人类历史何以是生产—劳动史，并创立与发展历史唯物主义的。近些年来，学界从正面阐明马克思、恩格斯对历史唯物主义论证过程的研究已然成熟，而围绕马克思、恩格斯揭示意识形态何以“没有历史”的探讨则稍显薄弱，需要我们对此加以深入研究。

I. Turning Human History into the History of Thought: The Fundamental Characteristics and Theoretical Limitations of German Idealism

一、把人类历史变成思想史：德国观念论的根本特征及其理论局限

As is well known, in ancient times, people “were completely ignorant of the structure of their own bodies and were influenced by the images seen in dreams”[2]2 The reference [2] is to Engels' *Ludwig Feuerbach and the End of Classical German Philosophy* (1886).(P277), forming the concept of the “immortality of the soul,” from which various primitive religions gradually evolved. Before the birth of philosophy, people lived in an imaginary world constructed by primitive myths or primitive religions. During this period, reason could not achieve independence; people had not yet made rational distinctions between themselves and other things, thus lacking self-identity. The conscious questioning of the smallest elements constituting the world, i.e., the “arche,” signified that people sought a constant, unchanging, absolute substance to clarify their own identity and origin, in order to find peace of mind in the ever-changing empirical world. This marked the birth of philosophy and also indicated that people began to grasp the world rationally by resorting to “universality” and “the absolute,” thereby bidding farewell to primitive myths and primitive religions. Hegel summarized this as follows: “The history of philosophy is the history of the discovery of thoughts about the Absolute, and the Absolute is its object.”[3]3 The reference [8] is to *The Holy Family* (1845) by Marx and Engels.(P10) The understanding of the “Absolute” as substance exhibited different characteristics in different eras. From the material elements proposed by the natural philosophers, to Pythagoras’s “number” and Parmenides’s “Being,” and Democritus’s “atom,” and then to Plato’s gradual development of the “Theory of Ideas” on this basis, the substance thinking and essentialist tradition of traditional Western philosophy, characterized by the “two worlds,” were established.

众所周知，在远古时代，人们“完全不知道自己身体的构造，并且受梦中景象的影响”，[2](P277)形成了“灵魂不朽”的观念，在此基础上逐步演绎成了各种原始宗教。在哲学诞生之前，人们就生活在由原始神话或原始宗教所构筑的想象世界中，这一时期理性无法实现独立，人们对自身与他物还没有加以理性地区分，因而缺少自我身份认同。而对作为构成世界最小元素也即“始基”问题的自觉追问，意味着人们通过追寻一种恒定的、不变的、绝对的实体，来明确自身的身份与来历，以便在瞬息万变的经验世界中安下心来，这在标志着哲学诞生的同时也表明人们开始以理性的方式，诉诸“普遍性”与“绝对”来把握世界，进而告别原始神话和原始宗教。黑格尔对此这样概括：“哲学的历史是发现关于绝对的思想的历史，而绝对就是哲学研究的对象。”[3](P10)对作为实体的“绝对”的理解，在不同时代呈现出不同的特点。从自然哲学家提出的物质形态的诸元素，到毕达哥拉斯的“数”和巴门尼德的“存在者”，以及德谟克利特的“原子”，再到柏拉图在此基础上逐步发展出“理念论”，奠定了传统西方哲学以“两个世界”为特征的实体思维和本质主义传统。

In the Greco-Roman period, philosophers resorted to questioning the ontological connotation of Ideas to grasp “universality” and “the absolute,” leading to the absence of historical consciousness and developmental consciousness among people. “The ancients never had a clear history of civilization, philosophy, religion, literature, art, or rights; in fact, many kinds of history that we possess, they had none at all. … Nor did they have a sense of development”[4]4 The “Theory of Ideas” (or Theory of Forms) is Plato’s doctrine that non-material abstract Forms (or Ideas), not the material world of change known to us through sensation, possess the highest and most fundamental kind of reality.(P152). At this time, the theory of world cycles and historical cycles constituted the main form through which people understood social and historical development.

在古希腊罗马时期，哲学家们诉诸追问理念的存在论内涵来把握“普遍性”与“绝对”，导致人们尚没有形成历史意识和发展意识，“古人从来没有过明白的文明史、哲学史、宗教史、文学史、艺术史或权利史：事实上，我们所有的许多种历史，他们一种也没有。……他们也没有发展感”，[4](P152)此时世界轮回说和历史循环论构成人们理解社会历史发展的主要形式。

Doubts about the rational capacity of ancient Greek philosophy led people to turn to Christian faith to seek the absolute, and Christianity thus became the main way for people in the Middle Ages to grasp the world. Christianity held that human history manifested as the creation of the world from “nothing” by God, a spiritual entity, and that humans unfolded their earthly life through their own acts of will. However, since empirical things were all flawed and could not bear the mission of saving humanity, only through the arrival of the end of the world, the resurrection of all humanity, and God’s judgment could believers enter eternal life, thereby establishing a one-dimensional, complete historical picture. Thus, the starting point and endpoint of Christianity were God as a spiritual entity, leading the theological view of history, when interpreting human history, to regard spirit as the dominant force over the real material world, all historical events, and objective historical laws. Humans could only become passive believers before God. In other words, although people in the Middle Ages formed a historical consciousness based on religious faith, they explained history and its laws from the perspective of divine will, believing that real material life and the development of human history were fundamentally processes created and dominated by spirit.

对古希腊哲学理性能力的怀疑，使人们开始转移到基督教信仰来寻求绝对，基督教遂成为中世纪人们把握世界的主要方式。基督教认为人类历史表现为作为精神实体的上帝从“无”中创造世界，人类凭自己的意志事件而展开尘世生活，但由于经验事物都是有缺陷的，承载不了拯救人类的使命，故而只有经由世界末日的来临、全人类的复活与上帝审判才能使信神者进入永生，由此确立了一维的、完整的历史图景。可见，基督教的起点和落脚点都是作为精神实体的上帝，导致神学史观在解读人类历史时，把精神看作现实物质世界、所有历史事件和客观历史规律的主宰力量，人在上帝面前也只能成为被动的信仰者。换言之，中世纪的人们尽管基于宗教信仰形成了历史意识，却从神意出发解释历史及其规律，认为现实物质生活、人类历史发展根本上是由精神所创造并主宰的过程。

It was not until modern times that Western philosophers began to engage in conscious philosophical reflection on the laws of social and historical development at the level of reason. In the critique and reflection on the ancient Greek theory of historical cycles and the medieval Christian theological view of history, the modern Italian philosopher Giambattista Vico, in his *New Science* published in 1725, for the first time at the philosophical level explored the process of human historical development based on the theory of a common human nature, attempting to seek the laws of social and historical development outside of divine will. The modern French philosopher Voltaire, in his *Philosophy of History* published in 1765, first proposed the concept of “philosophy of history,” pointing out that only by interpreting human history from a philosophical height could its essence be grasped, and that merely remaining at the level of accumulating historical facts made it difficult to understand human history and its laws as a whole. In the subsequent development of philosophy, modern Western philosophy continued to deepen its exploration of the laws of human social development by resorting to reason, yet it still interpreted human history as a process dominated by thoughts, ideas, or spirit.

直至近代，西方哲学家才开始在理性层面对社会历史发展规律进行自觉的哲学反思。在对古希腊历史循环论和中世纪基督教神学史观的反思批判中，意大利近代哲学家维柯在1725年出版的《新科学》中，首次在哲学层面基于共同人性论探讨人类历史发展的过程，试图在神意之外寻求社会历史发展规律；法国近代哲学家伏尔泰在1765年出版的《历史哲学》中，首次提出“历史哲学”这一概念，指出只有从哲学高度解读人类历史才能把握其实质，而仅仅停留在对历史事实的堆积层面，就很难从整体上理解人类历史及其规律。在此后的哲学发展中，近代西方哲学诉诸理性继续深化对人类社会发展规律的探讨，却依然把人类历史解读为由思想、观念或精神所主宰的过程。

Based on his “Copernican revolution,” Kant appealed to an examination of the faculty of a priori reason to reveal the laws of human historical development, reducing the development of human social history “simply to a process of the self-realization of rational principles.”[5]5 Immanuel Kant, “Idea for a Universal History with a Cosmopolitan Aim” (1784). The page references are to a Chinese edition.(P14) For Kant, human social history is a process of development that is both purposive and lawful; the kingdom of ends and the kingdom of necessity are ultimately unified in universal reason, embodied concretely as the process of self-realization of a priori rational principles such as justice and truth, freedom and equality, and natural rights.[5]5 Immanuel Kant, “Idea for a Universal History with a Cosmopolitan Aim” (1784). The page references are to a Chinese edition.(P14) Kant further pointed out that only an “international government of a league of nations”[5]5 Immanuel Kant, “Idea for a Universal History with a Cosmopolitan Aim” (1784). The page references are to a Chinese edition.(P18) constructed according to a priori rational principles could achieve perpetual peace, i.e., freedom. Thus, Kant understood human history as a process determined by a priori rational principles, revealing the distinct idealist character of his philosophy of history.

康德基于“哥白尼式的革命”，诉诸对先验理性能力的考察来揭示人类历史发展规律，将人类社会历史的发展“单纯归结为理性原则自我实现的过程”。[5](P14)在康德这里，人类社会历史是一个合目的而又合规律的发展过程，目的的王国与必然的王国最后被统一于普遍理性，具体体现为正义和真理、自由和平等以及天赋人权等先验理性原则自我实现的历程。[5](P14)康德进一步指出，只有按照先验理性原则建构的“各民族联盟的国际政府”[5](P18)才能实现永久和平也即自由。可见，康德将人类历史理解为由先验理性原则所决定的过程，呈现出其历史哲学鲜明的观念论特征。

Hegel, synthesizing the culmination of traditional Western philosophy, held that philosophy, as the doctrine of the highest truth, begins with the concept,[3]3 The reference [8] is to *The Holy Family* (1845) by Marx and Engels.(P50) and must start from the study of “the Idea existing as abstract thought,”[3]3 The reference [8] is to *The Holy Family* (1845) by Marx and Engels.(P55) treating the concept as an active, living substance, and then investigating “pure thought” to attain truth. For this reason, Hegel criticized empirical science for being able to grasp only objects within a limited scope, and for being unable to grasp the “general necessity” of thought,[3]3 The reference [8] is to *The Holy Family* (1845) by Marx and Engels.(P41) and therefore unable to grasp “freedom, spirit, and God.”[3]3 The reference [8] is to *The Holy Family* (1845) by Marx and Engels.(P40) Hegel also pointed out that Kant’s critical philosophy did not recognize that “philosophical knowledge can only be carried out within philosophy,”[3]3 The reference [8] is to *The Holy Family* (1845) by Marx and Engels.(P42) so he sought to transcend Kant’s agnosticism through conceptual dialectics, thereby grasping “universality” and “the absolute.” On this basis, Hegel deduced the process of human history as intellectual history through the movement of the concept, interpreting human history as the process of absolute spirit returning to itself. He particularly emphasized that “‘Reason’ is the sovereign of the world; world history therefore presents us with a rational process,”[6]6 G.W.F. Hegel, *Lectures on the Philosophy of World History* (1837). The page references are to a Chinese edition.(P8) embodied as “‘world history’ is nothing but the development of the concept of freedom,”[6]6 G.W.F. Hegel, *Lectures on the Philosophy of World History* (1837). The page references are to a Chinese edition.(P450) as the developmental stage the concept must undergo to attain completeness and actuality, and as the manifestation of the “objective spirit” stage of absolute spirit returning to itself. From this, he argued that world history manifests as a dialectical developmental process in which the world spirit realizes its own ends through the development of national spirits, proceeding from the “Oriental realm” through the “Greek realm” and “Roman realm” to the “Germanic realm,” ultimately achieving “the reconciliation and resolution of all contradictions.”[7]7 G.W.F. Hegel, *Philosophy of Right* (1821). The page references are to a Chinese edition.(P359) In *The German Ideology*, Marx and Engels clearly pointed out that Hegel “‘examined only the conceptual movement of concepts’; in history he described a ‘true theodicy,’”[1]1 The reference [1] is to *The German Ideology* (1845-1846) by Marx and Engels, where they first systematically elaborated the materialist conception of history.(P553) and that human history “in Hegel’s view is the history of spirits.”[8]8 Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, *The German Ideology* (1845-46). The page references are to a Chinese edition of the *Marx-Engels Collected Works*.(P182) In *Ludwig Feuerbach and the End of Classical German Philosophy*, Engels further summarized the essence of Hegel’s conceptual dialectics, stating that it is manifested in Hegel’s starting from the priority of the concept, where “the absolute concept not only has existed from eternity (who knows where?), but is also the actual living soul of the whole existing world,”[2]2 The reference [2] is to Engels' *Ludwig Feuerbach and the End of Classical German Philosophy* (1886).(P297) and through revealing the process of the concept’s self-development, its transformation into nature, and its return to itself, Hegel sought the basis for grasping the world and the laws of human historical development.

黑格尔则集传统西方哲学之大成，认为作为研究最高真理的学说，哲学以概念[3](P50)为开端，必须从对“以抽象思维要素存在的理念”[3](P55)的研究开始，把概念作为能动的、有生命的实体，进而探讨“纯粹思想”以获得真理。为此黑格尔批评了经验科学只能把握有限范围的对象，不能把握思想的“一般的必然性”，[3](P41)因而无法把握“自由、精神和上帝”。[3](P40)黑格尔同时指出康德的批判哲学没有认识到“哲学认识只有在哲学之内进行”，[3](P42)因此他试图基于概念辩证法超越康德的不可知论，以此把握“普遍性”和“绝对”。在此基础上，黑格尔通过概念的运动演绎出作为思想史的人类历史过程，把人类历史解读为绝对精神回归自身的过程，特别强调“‘理性’是世界的主宰，世界历史因此是一种合理的过程”，[6](P8)体现为“‘世界历史’不过是‘自由的概念’的发展”，[6](P450)是概念为了获得完满性和现实性必须经历的发展环节，是绝对精神回到自身的“客观精神”阶段的表现。由此指出世界历史体现为世界精神通过民族精神的发展实现自身目的的辩证发展过程，表现为由“东方王国”经由“希腊王国”“罗马王国”到“日耳曼王国”的过程，最终实现了“一切矛盾的调和和解决”。[7](P359)马克思、恩格斯在《德意志意识形态》中明确指出黑格尔“‘所考察的仅仅是概念的前进运动’，他在历史方面描述了‘真正的神正论’”，[1](P553)人类历史“在黑格尔看来是诸精神的历史”。[8](P182)恩格斯在《费尔巴哈论》中进一步概括了黑格尔概念辩证法的实质，指出它表现在黑格尔从概念在先出发，“绝对概念不仅是从来就存在的（不知在哪里？），而且是整个现存世界的真正的活的灵魂”，[2](P297)并通过揭示概念的自我发展并转化为自然并回到自身的过程，来寻求把握世界的依据与人类历史发展规律的基础。

The series of theoretical contradictions and practical challenges faced by Hegel’s philosophy led to the inevitable dissolution of his school. The Young Hegelians pointed out that Christianity and Hegel’s philosophy, which served as its rational justification, involved a constraint of universality on free individuality, and they sought to liberate people from the ideological domination of Hegel’s philosophy and Christianity. However, the backwardness of the development of German civil society meant that their thinking still could not transcend idealism, manifested in their inability to fundamentally investigate the real sources of the premises of idealist philosophy of history. They still based their religious critique on the independence of ideas, thoughts, and concepts, believing that real difficulties stemmed from backward thinking, and therefore held that transcending Christianity and Hegel’s philosophy through the philosophy of self-consciousness could grasp the laws of human social historical development and realize the free development of each individual. To this end, Bruno Bauer believed that the irrational reality originated from the incompleteness of self-consciousness in theology and Hegel’s systematic philosophy. Therefore, starting from self-consciousness, he treated self-consciousness as a substance to criticize objective spirit, attempting to highlight the negative dimension of self-consciousness, interpreting human history as a process in which self-consciousness, through alienation and its self-negation, truly realizes itself. Objective reality was thus seen by him merely as a medium with which self-consciousness struggles and through which it realizes its own development; that is, he “advocated continuously criticizing and transforming the status quo through contradiction, opposition, and struggle with existing relations, and thereby developing human ‘self-consciousness’”;[9]9 Reference to Bruno Bauer’s work; the page reference is to a Chinese edition.(P167) Feuerbach believed that the irrational reality originated from the alienation of human essence in the form of theological worship. Therefore, based on the priority of sensibility and species-thinking, he sought to return to the essence of humanity, i.e., the species-community constituted by feeling and love in a physiological sense, interpreting human history as a process of religious change in which the “religion of love” replaces Christianity; Max Stirner believed that the irrational reality originated from the state, moral worship, and religious superstition. He then subverted traditional metaphysics in the most extreme way, attempting to return to the “pure I” or the “Unique One” to realize human freedom, understanding human history as the process of realizing the “self-consistent egoist.” The Young Hegelians attempted to highlight the philosophy of self-consciousness to interpret the laws of human historical development, but their inherent dualistic mode of thinking kept them at the stage of “repeating German bourgeois ideas in philosophical form,”[1]1 The reference [1] is to *The German Ideology* (1845-1846) by Marx and Engels, where they first systematically elaborated the materialist conception of history.(P510) that is, they could only resort to pure ideological critique and purely ideological transformation to promote real change, in fact still insisting on “the rule of thoughts or fantasies in history.”[1]1 The reference [1] is to *The German Ideology* (1845-1846) by Marx and Engels, where they first systematically elaborated the materialist conception of history.(P554)

黑格尔哲学所面临的一系列理论矛盾及其现实挑战导致其学派的必然解体。青年黑格尔派指出基督教及作为其理性化论证的黑格尔哲学存在着普遍性对自由个性的束缚，试图把人们从黑格尔哲学和基督教的思想统治中解放出来，但德国市民社会发展的滞后导致其思维仍然不可能超越观念论，表现在它不能从根本上探讨观念论历史哲学的前提的现实来源，仍然基于观念、思想、概念的独立性来展开宗教批判，认为现实困境来源于思想的落后，因而认为以自我意识哲学超越基督教和黑格尔哲学就可以把握人类社会历史发展规律，并实现每个人的自由发展。为此，布·鲍威尔认为不合理的现实源自神学、黑格尔体系哲学中的自我意识的未完成，因此他从自我意识出发，把自我意识作为本体来批判客观精神，试图彰显自我意识的否定性维度，把人类历史解读为自我意识经过异化及其自我否定，进而真正实现自身的过程，客观现实由此也仅仅被其看成是自我意识与之斗争并实现自身发展的中介，也即“主张通过与现有诸关系的矛盾、对立、斗争来不断批判、变革现状，并以此发展人的‘自我意识’”；[9](P167)费尔巴哈认为不合理的现实源自神学崇拜这一人的本质的异化，因此基于感性在先和类思维试图重新回归人的本质，即生理学意义上的由情和爱构成的类的群体，把人类历史解读为由“爱的宗教”取代基督教的宗教变迁过程；麦·施蒂纳认为不合理的现实源自国家、道德崇拜与宗教迷信，进而以最为极端的方式颠覆传统形而上学，试图回归“纯我”“唯一者”来实现人的自由，把人类历史理解为实现“自我一致的利己主义者的”过程。青年黑格尔派试图彰显自我意识哲学解读人类历史发展规律，但其固有的二元论思维方式使其停留在“以哲学的形式来重复德国市民的观念”，[1](P510)也即只能诉诸纯粹的思想批判与单纯的思想变革的方式推动现实的变革，实际上依然坚持“思想或幻想在历史上的统治”。[1](P554)

In the process of theoretical and practical exploration, Marx and Engels recognized that although the specific approaches to grasping the laws of human social historical development differed, the common feature of German idealism was its prominent reduction of human history to intellectual history, holding that “ideas, thoughts, and concepts produce, determine, and dominate people’s real life, their material world, their real relations,”[1]1 The reference [1] is to *The German Ideology* (1845-1846) by Marx and Engels, where they first systematically elaborated the materialist conception of history.(P511) which was in fact “substituting a connection fabricated in the philosopher’s head for the real connection that must be demonstrated in events, and regarding the whole of history and its individual parts as the gradual realization of ideas.”[2]2 The reference [2] is to Engels' *Ludwig Feuerbach and the End of Classical German Philosophy* (1886).(P301) Its theoretical limitation lay in “proceeding from ideas to explain practice… positing the religious person as the primordial man who is the starting point of all history,”[1]1 The reference [1] is to *The German Ideology* (1845-1846) by Marx and Engels, where they first systematically elaborated the materialist conception of history.(P544-546) while German idealism, whose essence was the dialectics of concept and spirit, was clearly confined to the level of interpreting the world. Theoretically, it was of no help in truly solving the riddle of history; practically, it was even less realistic, unable to achieve the unity of revolutionary character and actuality, unable to manifest its real active force to overcome real social difficulties. Therefore, it fell into a theoretical error in the exploration of the laws of human social historical development. For this reason, Marx and Engels summarized: “Almost the whole ideology either distorts human history or completely abstracts from it. Ideology itself is only one aspect of this history.”[1]1 The reference [1] is to *The German Ideology* (1845-1846) by Marx and Engels, where they first systematically elaborated the materialist conception of history.(P519) Distorting human history means understanding human history as a process dominated by ideas and consciousness; abstracting from human history means focusing only on the process of conceptual deduction without paying attention to the objective process of human history.

马克思、恩格斯在理论和实践探索过程中，认识到尽管把握人类社会历史发展规律的具体思路有别，但德国观念论的共同特征突出表现为把人类历史变成思想史，认为“观念、思想、概念产生、规定和支配人们的现实生活、他们的物质世界、他们的现实关系”，[1](P511)实际上是“以哲学家头脑中臆造的联系来代替应当在事变中去证实的现实的联系，把全部历史及其各个部分都看做观念的逐渐实现”。[2](P301)其理论局限就在于“从观念出发来解释实践……把宗教的人假设为全部历史起点的原人”，[1](P544-546)而以概念—精神辩证法为实质的德国观念论显然只能局限在解释世界层面，在理论上无助于真正解答历史之谜；在实践上更不具有现实性，无法实现革命性与现实性的统一，无法彰显出其现实能动力量进而克服现实社会困境，因此均陷入了人类社会历史发展规律探讨上的理论误区。为此马克思、恩格斯概括道：“几乎整个意识形态不是曲解人类史，就是完全撇开人类史。意识形态本身只不过是这一历史的一个方面。”[1](P519)曲解人类史就是指把人类历史理解为由观念、意识主宰的过程；撇开人类史就是指仅仅关注概念演绎的过程而不关注人类历史客观进程。

In the view of Marx and Engels, the emergence of German idealism had a real objective basis; it was the result of "Germany's backwardness relative to England, France, and the United States in the transition from the Middle Ages to modern times"[9]9 Reference to Bruno Bauer’s work; the page reference is to a Chinese edition.(P172), a manifestation of the underdevelopment of German civil society and the backwardness of its social development. With the development of productive forces and the emergence of contradictions in modern society, only by standing at the commanding height of the development of the philosophy of history, carrying out a genuine philosophical revolution, systematically analyzing the objective material production process of humanity, and elucidating that human history is a history of production and labor, could one truly transcend the paradigm of German idealist thought. Effectively responding to the key question of "why ideology 'has no history'" is undoubtedly an important link in this process.

在马克思、恩格斯看来，德国观念论的出场有现实客观依据，是“德国从中世纪到近代落后于英国、法国和美国的状态”[9](P172)的结果，是德国市民社会不发达、社会发展落后的表现。而随着生产力的发展以及近代社会矛盾的凸显，只有立足于历史哲学发展的制高点，实现一场真正哲学革命，通过系统分析人类客观物质生产过程，阐明人类历史是生产—劳动史，才能真正超越德国观念论思维范式。而有效回应“意识形态何以‘没有历史’”这一关键课题，无疑是其重要环节。

II. Elucidating the Determined Nature of Ideology Based on the Mechanism of Production: A Key Link in Transcending German Idealism

二、基于生产运行机制阐明意识形态的被决定性：超越德国观念论的关键环节

Elucidating the operational mechanism of material production at the philosophical level, further clarifying the determined nature of consciousness and spiritual production based on the perspective of comprehensive production, and thereby revealing the deep roots of ideology's own "lack of history," is a key link for Marx and Engels in transcending German idealism and demonstrating that human history is a history of production and labor. To this end, Marx and Engels first needed to establish the scientific premise for examining human history.

在哲学层面阐明物质生产运行机制，基于全面生产视域进一步阐明意识、精神生产的被决定性，进而揭示意识形态自身“没有历史”的深层根源，是马克思、恩格斯超越德国观念论、论证人类历史是生产—劳动史的关键环节，为此马克思、恩格斯首先需要确立考察人类历史的科学前提。

Marx and Engels pointed out that German idealism treats ideas, concepts, and thoughts as self-causing entities, interpreting the world and human history from the perspective of spiritual production, which is the result of exaggerating the logical priority. When grasping the essence of human history, German idealism presupposes an ought-to-be goal as its logical starting point, manifested in the fact that "the philosophers see in the individuals who are no longer subject to the division of labor the ideal they call 'Man'; they regard the entire development process we have described as the development process of 'Man,' thus imposing 'Man' on every individual existing in every historical stage up to now, and describing 'Man' as the driving force of history. In this way, the entire historical process is seen as the process of 'Man's' self-alienation, essentially because they always impose the generalized individuals of a later stage on the individuals of earlier stages, and impose later consciousness on earlier individuals. By means of this upside-down approach, which from the outset disregards real conditions, they can turn the whole of history into a process of the development of consciousness."[1]1 The reference [1] is to *The German Ideology* (1845-1846) by Marx and Engels, where they first systematically elaborated the materialist conception of history.(P582) If German idealism examines human history starting from pure concepts, then historical materialism, in a non-speculative manner, that is, "by purely empirical methods,"[1]1 The reference [1] is to *The German Ideology* (1845-1846) by Marx and Engels, where they first systematically elaborated the materialist conception of history.(P519) confirms the real premises for examining human history. Marx and Engels pointed out that, in fact, as long as one proceeds from an empirical perspective, one should see that grasping the world and human history should first be based on the real starting point of the unfolding of human history, that is, the first historical act that distinguishes humans from animals. This is manifested not in "their having thoughts," but precisely in "their beginning to produce their means of subsistence."[1]1 The reference [1] is to *The German Ideology* (1845-1846) by Marx and Engels, where they first systematically elaborated the materialist conception of history.(P519) Therefore, one should not proceed from the thinking of logical priority, but should discard the entities embodying the mysticism and speculative color of German idealism, such as absolute spirit, substance, self-consciousness, the Unique One, and species-being, and establish the scientific premise of the production of material means of subsistence, which embodies the true unity of thinking and being. That is, one must proceed from people's material production and reproduction, and the material living conditions people thereby create, to examine human history. By proceeding from experience, rather than, like German idealism, "abstracting from experience in imagination"[1]1 The reference [1] is to *The German Ideology* (1845-1846) by Marx and Engels, where they first systematically elaborated the materialist conception of history.(P519), and then transcending experience to enter into the discussion of comprehensive production, thereby grasping the laws of human historical development, and achieving the organic combination of theory and practice, and the organic unity of the revolutionary and realistic nature of dialectics, historical materialism thus achieved the transcendence of German idealism and opened up a completely new theoretical horizon for grasping human history.

马克思、恩格斯指出，德国观念论把观念、思想、概念作为自因性的实体，基于精神生产视域解读世界与人类历史，是过分夸大逻辑在先的结果。在把握人类历史的实质时，德国观念论预设一个应然目标作为逻辑起点，表现在“哲学家们在不再屈从于分工的个人身上看到了他们名之为‘人’的那种理想，他们把我们所阐述的整个发展过程看做是‘人’的发展过程，从而把‘人’强加于迄今每一历史阶段中所存在的个人，并把‘人’描述成历史的动力。这样，整个历史过程就被看成是‘人’的自我异化过程，实质上这是因为，他们总是把后来阶段的一般化的个人强加于先前阶段的个人，并且把后来的意识强加于先前的个人。借助于这种从一开始就撇开现实条件的本末倒置的做法，他们就可以把整个历史变成意识的发展过程了。”[1](P582)如果说，德国观念论是从纯粹的概念出发考察人类历史，那么历史唯物主义则以非思辨的方式，也即“用纯粹经验的方法来确认”[1](P519)考察人类历史的现实前提。马克思、恩格斯指出，实际上只要基于经验视域就应该看到，把握世界与人类历史首先应该基于人类历史展开的现实起点，也即人与动物区别开来的第一个历史行动，这表现在它“不在于他们有思想”，而恰恰体现在“他们开始生产自己的生活资料”。[1](P519)因此，不应该从逻辑在先思维出发，而应该摒弃绝对精神、实体、自我意识、唯一者、类等体现德国观念论的神秘和思辨色彩的实体，确立物质生活资料的生产这一体现思维与存在真正统一的科学前提，也即必须从人们的物质生产和再生产以及人们由此创造的物质生活条件出发去考察人类历史。基于经验而不是像德国观念论这样“在臆想中撇开”[1](P519)经验，然后超越经验进入对全面生产的探讨，以此把握人类历史发展规律，实现理论与实践的有机结合、辩证法的革命性与现实性有机统一，由此历史唯物主义才实现了对德国观念论的超越，开启了把握人类历史的全新理论视域。

As early as the period of the *Paris Manuscripts*, Marx criticized classical economics for interpreting human history based on the growth of wealth, and had already recognized that "our products are mirrors reflecting our essence,"[10]10 The First Council of Nicaea, convened in 325 AD by the Roman Emperor Constantine I, was a landmark ecumenical council that established the Nicene Creed and sought to unify Christian doctrine, effectively aligning the Church with the imperial state apparatus.(P184) and therefore only through human material production activities could one gain insight into the complex and diverse world. He pointed out that "religion, family, state, law, morality, science, art, etc., are only particular modes of production and fall under its general law. ... Just as society itself produces man as man, so it is produced by man."[10]10 The First Council of Nicaea, convened in 325 AD by the Roman Emperor Constantine I, was a landmark ecumenical council that established the Nicene Creed and sought to unify Christian doctrine, effectively aligning the Church with the imperial state apparatus.(P82-83) However, because at this time Marx only based himself on the perspective that humans, compared to animals, possess greater "universality,"[10]10 The First Council of Nicaea, convened in 325 AD by the Roman Emperor Constantine I, was a landmark ecumenical council that established the Nicene Creed and sought to unify Christian doctrine, effectively aligning the Church with the imperial state apparatus.(P56) and thus humans' transformation of nature better manifests freedom, he established the essence of labor as "man's free, conscious activity"[10]10 The First Council of Nicaea, convened in 325 AD by the Roman Emperor Constantine I, was a landmark ecumenical council that established the Nicene Creed and sought to unify Christian doctrine, effectively aligning the Church with the imperial state apparatus.(P57) using species-thinking. He still failed to break free from the humanist paradigm of thought, had not yet grasped the world and human history from the perspective of the objective human production process and its operational mechanism, and could not completely transcend the tradition of German idealism. In *The Holy Family*, Marx and Engels clearly pointed out that the development of social history is a process of material production, and only by starting from the production of material means of subsistence can human history be explained, because "History does nothing; it 'possesses no immense wealth,' it 'wages no battles.' It is man, real, living man who does all that, who possesses and fights; 'history' is not, as it were, a person apart, using man as a means to achieve its own aims; history is nothing but the activity of man pursuing his aims."[1]1 The reference [1] is to *The German Ideology* (1845-1846) by Marx and Engels, where they first systematically elaborated the materialist conception of history.(P295) But at this time, Marx and Engels still had not based themselves on the perspective of comprehensive production to reveal the secret of history through the operational mechanism of material production, nor could they completely transcend German idealism.

早在《巴黎手稿》时期马克思就批判了古典经济学基于财富增长解读人类历史的观点，已经认识到“我们的产品都是反映我们本质的镜子”，[10](P184)因而只有透过人类物质生产活动才能洞悉纷繁复杂的世界，指出“宗教、家庭、国家、法、道德、科学、艺术等等，都不过是生产的一些特殊的方式，并且受生产的普遍规律的支配。……正像社会本身生产作为人的人一样，社会也是由人生产的。”[10](P82-83)但由于此时马克思仅仅立足人与动物相比更具“普遍性”，[10](P56)因而人对自然的改造更能彰显自由这一视角，以类思维确立了人的“自由的有意识的活动”[10](P57)这一劳动本质，仍然未能摆脱人本主义思维范式，尚没有从人类客观生产过程及其运行机制的视角来把握世界与人类历史，未能彻底超越德国观念论传统。在《神圣家族》中，马克思、恩格斯明确指出社会历史发展是物质生产的过程，只有从物质生活资料的生产出发才能说明人类历史，因为“并不是‘历史’把人当做手段来达到自己——仿佛历史是一个独具魅力的人——的目的。历史不过是追求着自己目的的人的活动而已”。[1](P295)但此时马克思、恩格斯依然没有基于全面生产视域，通过物质生产运行机制来揭示历史的秘密，也无法彻底超越德国观念论。

The most detailed exposition of the principles of historical materialism in *The German Ideology* is manifested in Marx and Engels, based on the empirical method, establishing the production of material means of subsistence as the real premise for the unfolding of human history, and taking it as the logical premise for exploring the laws of human historical development. Then, from this, they further ascend to the philosophical level, elaborating in detail the five dimensions contained within material production and its operational mechanism, thereby thoroughly clarifying the objective real source of the premises of German idealist thought, systematically revealing why ideology itself "has no history," and how human history is a history of production and labor.

《德意志意识形态》对历史唯物主义原理最细致入微的论述，表现在马克思、恩格斯基于经验的方法确立了物质生活资料的生产这一人类历史得以展开的现实前提，并将其作为探讨人类历史发展规律的逻辑前提。然后由此进一步上升到哲学层面，详细阐明了物质生产所蕴含着的五种维度及其生产运行机制，进而彻底阐明了德国观念论思维前提的客观现实来源，系统揭示了意识形态自身何以“没有历史”，以及人类历史何以是生产—劳动史。

Marx and Engels believed that the production of people’s material means of subsistence indirectly produces people’s material life itself. Starting from the significance of the production of material means of subsistence as the premise and foundation for the unfolding of human history, it can be seen that material production contains the following dimensions: First, the production of material means of subsistence that satisfies “eating and drinking, housing and clothing, and other things”[1]1 The reference [1] is to *The German Ideology* (1845-1846) by Marx and Engels, where they first systematically elaborated the materialist conception of history.(P531) is the basic condition for the unfolding and continuation of human history, and this has been the case since the dawn of humanity. Second, “the production of new needs”[1]1 The reference [1] is to *The German Ideology* (1845-1846) by Marx and Engels, where they first systematically elaborated the materialist conception of history.(P532) is an inherent demand and basic characteristic of material production; continuously satisfying needs while giving rise to new needs, thereby constantly enhancing the level of material means of subsistence production, is the fundamental premise for the development and continuation of human history. Third, human reproduction and succession is also a premise for the unfolding and continuation of human history. Once human history unfolds, human reproduction itself is not merely a natural physiological phenomenon; the reproductive phenomenon of giving birth to the life of others also contains the initial relations of production of human history, becoming a social-historical phenomenon and always constrained by the conditions of social production. Fourth, the production of social relations. Production itself “is premised on intercourse between individuals,”[1]1 The reference [1] is to *The German Ideology* (1845-1846) by Marx and Engels, where they first systematically elaborated the materialist conception of history.(P520) and the production of social relations is the premise for the maintenance of production. In historical periods when the level of human productive forces was low and production was constrained by regional limitations, the family based on blood relations was “the only social relation.”[1]1 The reference [1] is to *The German Ideology* (1845-1846) by Marx and Engels, where they first systematically elaborated the materialist conception of history.(P532) With the development of productive forces, relations of production continuously broke free from the scope of the family, giving rise to broader objective social relations. For example, modern society produced social relations dominated by large-scale industry, universal competition, and the world market. Fifth, the production of consciousness and spirit. The difference between humans and animals lies in humans’ ability to consciously produce material means of subsistence. Consciousness and spirit are both products of material production and important markers of humanity’s transcendence over animals. But fundamentally, consciousness itself lacks independence. On the one hand, language, as the carrier of consciousness and spirit, manifests as “vibrations of the air, sounds”[1]1 The reference [1] is to *The German Ideology* (1845-1846) by Marx and Engels, where they first systematically elaborated the materialist conception of history.(P533) that possess material attributes. On the other hand, language originates from the needs of actual social intercourse; “language is as old as consciousness, language is practical, real consciousness that exists for other men as well, and therefore it really exists for me for the first time as well, and, like consciousness, language only arises from the need, the necessity of intercourse with other men.”[1]1 The reference [1] is to *The German Ideology* (1845-1846) by Marx and Engels, where they first systematically elaborated the materialist conception of history.(P533) It is a product of social production and reflects the condition of the production of social relations. The development of human history is embodied in the interactive process of the above five dimensions constituting material production, that is, the process in which the operational mechanism of material production inherent in total production plays its role.

马克思、恩格斯认为，人们的物质生活资料生产间接地生产着人们的物质生活本身。从物质生活资料的生产对人类历史展开的前提和基础意义出发，可以看到物质生产蕴含着如下维度：其一，生产满足“吃喝住穿以及其他一些东西”[1](P531)的物质生活资料的生产，是人类历史得以展开、延续的基本条件，自人类诞生至今，莫不如此。其二，“新的需要的产生”[1](P532)是物质生产的内在诉求和基本特征，不断满足需要又引起新的需要，进而不断增强物质生活资料生产的水平，是人类历史发展延续的根本前提。其三，人类的繁衍生息也是人类历史展开与延续的前提，人类历史展开之后，人的繁衍本身就不仅仅是一种自然生理现象，生育他人生命的生殖现象也蕴含着人类历史起初的生产关系，变成了一种社会历史现象，并始终受到社会生产状况的制约。其四，社会关系的生产。生产本身“是以个人彼此之间的交往为前提的”，[1](P520)社会关系生产是生产得以维系的前提。在人类生产力水平低下、生产受地域性制约的历史时期，由血缘关系造成的家庭“是唯一的社会关系”，[1](P532)随着生产力的发展，生产关系不断摆脱家庭的范围，产生了更加广泛的客观的社会关系，比如近代社会就产生了由大工业、普遍竞争和世界市场所主导的社会关系。其五，意识和精神生产。人与动物的不同在于人能自觉进行物质生活资料的生产，意识、精神既是物质生产的产物，也是人类超越动物的重要标志。但从根本上而言意识本身不具有独立性，一方面，作为意识、精神的载体的语言，表现为具有物质属性的“振动着的空气层、声音”；[1](P533)另一方面，语言源自现实社会交往的需要，“语言也和意识一样，只是由于需要，由于和他人交往的迫切需要才产生的”，[1](P533)是社会生产的产物，反映着社会关系生产的状况。人类历史发展就体现在构成物质生产的上述五种维度的互动过程，也即全面生产所蕴含的物质生产运行机制发挥作用的过程。

From the above, it can be seen that the ideas, consciousness, and their development, which served as the premise for German idealism’s examination of human history, are constrained by the condition of relations of production. This is because the condition of relations of production reflects the level of development of productive forces and also determines the content of spiritual production. The determined nature of consciousness and spiritual production is prominently manifested in the fact that the content of consciousness continuously develops with the development of productive forces and with the development of the division of labor, which is a marker of the level of productive forces. In historical periods when the level of productive forces was low, humanity’s ability to transform nature was very limited; humans could not resist the threat posed by powerful nature to themselves; material production could not escape regional limitations, leading to the dominance of natural blood relations. The narrow relations between humans and between humans and nature constituted the content of consciousness, and human consciousness was still manifested as “purely animal consciousness (natural religion).”[1]1 The reference [1] is to *The German Ideology* (1845-1846) by Marx and Engels, where they first systematically elaborated the materialist conception of history.(P534) However, at this time, people “began to realize that people always live in society,”[1]1 The reference [1] is to *The German Ideology* (1845-1846) by Marx and Engels, where they first systematically elaborated the materialist conception of history.(P534) causing this consciousness to continuously become consciousness that transcends animal instinct. With the continuous improvement of the level of material production, “due to the increase of productivity, the growth of needs, and the increase of population, which is the basis of both,”[1]1 The reference [1] is to *The German Ideology* (1845-1846) by Marx and Engels, where they first systematically elaborated the materialist conception of history.(P534) consciousness gained further development and elevation. The division of labor continuously developed accordingly. Even the “separation of material and mental labor,” which marks the true division of labor, was also a result of the development of production. At this point, consciousness did indeed formally acquire the ability to free itself from the world, to imagine freely, and to self-“construct ‘pure’ theory, theology, philosophy, morality, etc.”[1]1 The reference [1] is to *The German Ideology* (1845-1846) by Marx and Engels, where they first systematically elaborated the materialist conception of history.(P534) But in reality, consciousness was always constrained by the condition of actual social contradictions, because “if this theory, theology, philosophy, morality, etc. comes into contradiction with the existing relations, this can only occur because the existing social relations have come into contradiction with the existing productive forces.”[1]1 The reference [1] is to *The German Ideology* (1845-1846) by Marx and Engels, where they first systematically elaborated the materialist conception of history.(P534-535) In short, spiritual production is constrained by the condition of material production.

由上可见，作为德国观念论考察人类历史的前提的观念、意识及其发展，是受生产关系状况所制约的，因为生产关系状况反映了生产力发展水平，又决定着精神生产的内容。意识、精神生产的被决定性，突出体现在意识的内容随着生产力的发展，随着作为生产力水平标志的分工的发展而不断发展。在生产力水平低下的历史时期，人们改造自然界的程度很低，人类无法抵御强大的自然对自身的威胁，物质生产无法摆脱地域性，导致自然血缘关系占统治地位，人与人之间、人与自然之间的狭隘关系构成意识的内容，人的意识还体现为“纯粹动物式的意识(自然宗教)”，[1](P534)但是，此时人们“开始意识到人总是生活在社会中的”，[1](P534)使得这种意识不断成为超越动物本能的意识。随着物质生产水平的不断提高，“由于生产效率的提高，需要的增长以及作为二者基础的人口的增多”，[1](P534)意识才获得了进一步的发展和提高。分工随之不断发展，就连作为真正分工标志的“物质劳动和精神劳动分离”，也是生产发展的结果，此时意识从形式上确实具有了摆脱世界而去自由想象并自我“构造‘纯粹的’理论、神学、哲学、道德等等”。[1](P534)但实际上意识始终受现实社会矛盾状况的制约，因为“如果这种理论、神学、哲学、道德等等同现存的关系发生矛盾，那么，这仅仅是因为现存的社会关系同现存的生产力发生了矛盾”。[1](P534-535)总而言之，精神生产是被物质生产状况所制约的。

Therefore, one absolutely cannot, like German idealism, regard human history as a history of thought and interpret human history through spiritual production. Instead, one should, based on the perspective of total production, “study and investigate”[1]1 The reference [1] is to *The German Ideology* (1845-1846) by Marx and Engels, where they first systematically elaborated the materialist conception of history.(P533) human history “in connection with industry and exchange,”[1]1 The reference [1] is to *The German Ideology* (1845-1846) by Marx and Engels, where they first systematically elaborated the materialist conception of history.(P533) a connection “determined by needs and the mode of production.”[1]1 The reference [1] is to *The German Ideology* (1845-1846) by Marx and Engels, where they first systematically elaborated the materialist conception of history.(P533) Therefore, human history is a history of production and labor; human history is embodied in the process of change in the mode of material production, that is, the process in which the mode of production continuously takes on new forms.

因此，就绝不能像德国观念论这样把人类历史视为思想史，通过精神生产解读人类历史，而是应当基于全面生产视域“同工业和交换的历史联系起来研究和探讨”[1](P533)人类的历史，这种联系“由需要和生产方式决定”，[1](P533)因此，人类历史是生产—劳动史，人类历史就体现为物质资料生产方式的变迁过程，也即生产方式不断采取新的形式的过程。

It is precisely based on the above theoretical perspective of total production that Marx and Engels, in criticizing German idealism, clearly pointed out: “The production of ideas, of conceptions, of consciousness, is at first directly interwoven with the material activity and the material intercourse of men, the language of real life. Conceiving, thinking, the mental intercourse of men, appear at this stage as the direct efflux of their material behavior. The same applies to mental production as expressed in the language of the politics, laws, morality, religion, metaphysics, etc. of a people.”[1]1 The reference [1] is to *The German Ideology* (1845-1846) by Marx and Engels, where they first systematically elaborated the materialist conception of history.(P524) The determined nature of consciousness and spiritual production indicates that they fundamentally embody a reflection of the process of actual material production and life, albeit reflecting the real-life process in the form of ideas. People’s ideas about their relations with nature, society, and themselves are all “the conscious expression—real or illusory—of their real activity and relations, of their intercourse, of their social and political organization.”[1]1 The reference [1] is to *The German Ideology* (1845-1846) by Marx and Engels, where they first systematically elaborated the materialist conception of history.(P524) “Even the nebulous images in the brains of men are necessary sublimates of their material life-process, which can be empirically established and which is bound to material premises.”[1]1 The reference [1] is to *The German Ideology* (1845-1846) by Marx and Engels, where they first systematically elaborated the materialist conception of history.(P525) Phantasms like German ideology, which reflect the historical life-process of people in an inverted and illusory form, are also caused by “their limited material mode of activity and the limited social relations arising from it,”[1]1 The reference [1] is to *The German Ideology* (1845-1846) by Marx and Engels, where they first systematically elaborated the materialist conception of history.(P524) that is, the result of the fact that Germany’s actual social production had not escaped regional limitations, social intercourse was underdeveloped, and industry and commerce were underdeveloped. It is in this sense that Marx and Engels pointed out that ideology “has no history.”

正是基于上述全面生产理论视域，马克思、恩格斯在批判德国观念论时明确指出：“思想、观念、意识的生产最初是直接与人们的物质活动，与人们的物质交往，与现实生活的语言交织在一起的。人们的想象、思维、精神交往在这里还是人们物质行动的直接产物。表现在某一民族的政治、法律、道德、宗教、形而上学等的语言中的精神生产也是这样。”[1](P524)意识、精神生产的被决定性表明其根本上体现为现实物质生产生活过程的反映，不过是以观念的形式反映现实生活过程，人们与自然、社会和自身之间的关系的观念都是“他们的现实关系和活动、他们的生产、他们的交往、他们的社会组织和政治组织有意识的表现”，[1](P524)“甚至人们头脑中的模糊幻象也是他们的可以通过经验来确认的、与物质前提相联系的物质生活过程的必然升华物”。[1](P525)像德意志意识形态这样以颠倒的、虚幻的形式反映了人们生活的历史过程的幻象，也是因为“他们狭隘的物质活动方式以及由此而来的他们狭隘的社会关系造成的”，[1](P524)也即德国现实社会生产没有摆脱地域局限性、社会交往不发达、工业商业不发达的结果。正是在此意义上，马克思、恩格斯指出意识形态“没有历史”。

In the “Introduction to a Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy,” when revealing the production of capitalist relations of production, Marx once again affirmed the premise and foundational status of human material production activity, pointing out that “in all forms of society there is one specific kind of production which predominates over the rest, whose relations thus assign rank and influence to the others. It is a general illumination which bathes all the other colours and modifies their particularity. It is a special ether which determines the specific gravity of every being which has materialized within it.”[11](P48) Marx once again emphasized that only by interpreting human history from the perspective of material production can the riddle of history be solved.

马克思在《〈政治经济学批判〉导言》中揭示资本主义生产关系的生产时，再次肯定了人类物质生产活动的前提和基础地位，指出“在一切社会形式中都有一种一定的生产决定其他一切生产的地位和影响，因而它的关系也决定其他一切关系的地位和影响。这是一种普照的光，它掩盖了一切其他色彩，改变着它们的特点。这是一种特殊的以太，它决定着它里面显露出来的一切存在的比重”。[11](P48)马克思再次强调了只有从物质生产视角解读人类历史，才能解答历史之谜。

III. Historically Revealing that Ideology is Constrained by the Condition of Social Relations: An Important Link in Transcending German Idealism

三、历史地揭示意识形态受社会关系状况的制约：超越德国观念论的重要环节

Based on the perspective of comprehensive production, revealing the determined nature of consciousness and spiritual production within the operational mechanisms of material production undoubtedly provides a scientific methodology for clarifying why ideology "has no history." Marx and Engels pointed out that as soon as one enters the actual process of production, German idealism lacks the support of empirical materials. It is for this reason that German idealism believes true history exists in a place free from interference by empirical materials, where concepts can be freely constructed—that is, in "prehistory." [1]1 The reference [1] is to *The German Ideology* (1845-1846) by Marx and Engels, where they first systematically elaborated the materialist conception of history.(P532) Clearly, in order to achieve the free creation of spirit, German idealism could only resort to "prehistoric history" to explain history, thereby falling into self-contradiction. Focusing on the objective historical process of humanity, revealing on the basis of historical facts how consciousness or spiritual production is determined by actual economic relations, and thereby pointing out the contradiction between theory and reality inherent in German idealism, constitutes an important theoretical link through which Marx and Engels further demonstrated why ideology itself "has no history" and transcended German idealism.

基于全面生产视域，在物质生产运行机制中揭示意识、精神生产的被决定性，无疑为阐明意识形态何以“没有历史”提供了科学方法论。马克思、恩格斯指出，只要进入现实生产过程，德国观念论便缺乏实证材料的支撑，由此德国观念论才认为真正的历史存在于不受经验材料干涉的、可以进行概念自由构造的地方，也即“史前时期”。[1](P532)显然，为了精神的自由创造，德国观念论只能诉诸“史前历史”来解释历史，陷入了自相矛盾之中。着眼于人类客观历史进程，基于历史事实揭示意识或精神生产何以由现实经济关系所决定，进而指出德国观念论所存在的理论与现实之间的矛盾，是马克思、恩格斯进一步论证意识形态自身何以“没有历史”，并超越德国观念论的重要理论环节。

In conjunction with the objective process of human history, Marx and Engels pointed out that consciousness or spiritual production is fundamentally constrained by actual economic relations, manifested in the fact that "the ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas." [1]1 The reference [1] is to *The German Ideology* (1845-1846) by Marx and Engels, where they first systematically elaborated the materialist conception of history.(P550) This is because the ruling ideas are "nothing more than the ideal expression of the dominant material relationships." [1]1 The reference [1] is to *The German Ideology* (1845-1846) by Marx and Engels, where they first systematically elaborated the materialist conception of history.(P550-551) Furthermore, because division of labor still exists within the ruling class, the division of labor at the material level is necessarily reflected through the division of labor in the spiritual realm: "the individuals who rule as producers of ideas, regulating the production and distribution of the ideas of their age." [1]1 The reference [1] is to *The German Ideology* (1845-1846) by Marx and Engels, where they first systematically elaborated the materialist conception of history.(P551) However, the very purpose of spiritual production and distribution lies precisely in enabling the ruling class to better maintain the material relations of the entire class. The "doctrine of the separation of powers," as a result of spiritual production, originates from the reality of different classes contending for ruling power. This is because in certain periods of some countries, the ruling class does not consist of a single class but manifests as interest groups with conflicting interests and disputes, giving rise to the economic reality of "shared rule." This, in turn, determines that "the ruling ideas there will be about the division of powers." [1]1 The reference [1] is to *The German Ideology* (1845-1846) by Marx and Engels, where they first systematically elaborated the materialist conception of history.(P551)

结合人类历史客观进程，马克思、恩格斯指出意识或精神生产从根本上受现实经济关系的制约，表现在“ 统治阶级的思想在每一时代都是占统治地位的思想”，[1](P550)因为占统治地位的思想“不过是以思想的形式表现出来的占统治地位的物质关系”。[1](P550-551)进一步讲，由于统治阶级内部依然存在分工，物质层面的分工必然通过精神分工体现出来，“作为思想的生产者进行统治 ，他们调节着自己时代的思想的生产和分配 ”，[1](P551)但精神生产与分配的目的，恰恰在于统治阶级能够更好地维护整个阶级的物质关系状况。作为精神生产结果的“分权的学说”就源自各个阶级争夺统治权的现实，因为有的国家的某些时期统治阶级不是由单一阶级组成，而是表现为相互之间存在利益冲突和利益纷争的利益群体，出现了“统治是分享的”的经济现实，由此决定了“那里占统治地位的思想就会是关于分权的学说”。[1](P551)

At the same time, Marx and Engels also pointed out that "violence, war, pillage, robbery, etc." cannot be regarded as the driving force of history. This is because, fundamentally, the form of intercourse is constrained by the level of development of the productive forces. War, as a usual form of intercourse, does not itself change property relations; rather, it is after the development of the productive forces that people change property relations through war. Economic factors are the decisive element in the preservation of a given form of property. [1]1 The reference [1] is to *The German Ideology* (1845-1846) by Marx and Engels, where they first systematically elaborated the materialist conception of history.(P577) Conquest is also not decisive in history. In Europe, it was not the barbarian conquest of the Roman Empire that promoted its transition from the ancient world to feudalism. The system a conquered country ultimately adopts, and the form of community it takes, depends in the final analysis on the level of development of the productive forces in the conquered country. [1]1 The reference [1] is to *The German Ideology* (1845-1846) by Marx and Engels, where they first systematically elaborated the materialist conception of history.(P578)

同时，马克思、恩格斯还指出“暴力、战争、掠夺、抢劫等等”不能被看作历史的动力，因为从根本上而言，交往形式受生产力水平的制约，作为通常的交往形式的战争本身不改变所有制，反而是生产力发展之后人们通过战争改变所有制，经济因素是某种所有制得以保存的决定性因素。[1](P577)占领在历史上也不具有决定意义，在欧洲并不是蛮人占领罗马帝国才促进其从古代世界过渡到封建制度，一个国家到底采用何种制度、采取何种共同体形式，归根到底取决于被占领国家的生产力发展水平。[1](P578)

In connection with the state of social development in Germany at the time, Marx and Engels pointed out that Kant's principle of reason actually expressed the material motives of the bourgeoisie. The weakness of the bourgeoisie led Kant to transform it into "purely conceptual determinations of thought and moral postulates." [8]8 Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, *The German Ideology* (1845-46). The page references are to a Chinese edition of the *Marx-Engels Collected Works*.(P213) Engels pointed out that Feuerbach's ethics also reflected the economic reality of the bourgeoisie. This is because Feuerbach took the equal right of every person to pursue happiness as the foundation of morality. He believed that as long as the premise is equality, any person who correctly evaluates the consequences and realizes their desire for happiness acts morally; conversely, one who fails to correctly evaluate the consequences and does not realize their desire for happiness acts immorally. Each person relies on others to satisfy their own desire for happiness. Engels pointed out that Feuerbach's concept of love is realized precisely here, and it is fundamentally a reflection of the economic reality of the capitalist system. [2]2 The reference [2] is to Engels' *Ludwig Feuerbach and the End of Classical German Philosophy* (1886).(P294) In reality, the desire for happiness is overwhelmingly realized through material means. In practice, capitalist production is only concerned with "providing the great majority of people with equal rights with only the most necessary things to barely sustain life," [2]2 The reference [2] is to Engels' *Ludwig Feuerbach and the End of Classical German Philosophy* (1886).(P293) and thus is utterly incapable of achieving genuine equality.

结合当时德国社会发展现状，马克思、恩格斯指出康德的理性原则表达的实际上是资产阶级的物质动机，资产阶级的软弱性使得康德把它变成“纯粹思想上的概念规定和道德假设”。[8](P213)恩格斯指出费尔巴哈的伦理学也反映了资产阶级经济现实。因为费尔巴哈把每一个人追求幸福的平等权利作为道德的基础，认为只要前提是平等的，任何一个人只要正确评价了结果，实现了追求幸福的欲望，其行为就是道德的；相反，没有正确评估结果，没有实现追求幸福的欲望，其行为就是不道德的，每个人都靠他人来满足自己追求幸福的欲望，恩格斯指出，费尔巴哈所说的爱就在这里得以实现，根本上是资本主义制度这一经济现实的反映。[2](P294)实际上，追求幸福的欲望绝大部分却要靠物质的手段来实现，现实中资本主义生产仅仅关心“使绝大多数权利平等的人仅有最必需的东西来勉强维持生活” ，[2](P293)因而根本无法实现真正的平等。

Engels further pointed out that Feuerbach's view of human history as a history of religious change does not conform to historical facts. This is because not every period of human history is accompanied by religious change. For instance, "the ancient spontaneous tribal religions and national religions were not propagandistic," [2]2 The reference [2] is to Engels' *Ludwig Feuerbach and the End of Classical German Philosophy* (1886).(P289) and in their historical development, there was no religious change (only national religions). When the independence of a tribe or nation was destroyed, its tribal or national religion was replaced. The Germanic peoples, encountering the collapsing Roman Empire, rapidly adopted Christianity and made it replace their national religion. This was a need dictated by their economic, political, and spiritual conditions, and behind it, it was ultimately determined by economic causes. [2]2 The reference [2] is to Engels' *Ludwig Feuerbach and the End of Classical German Philosophy* (1886).(P289) "Major historical turning points are accompanied by religious changes only insofar as the three world religions that have existed up to now—Buddhism, Christianity, and Islam—are concerned." [2]2 The reference [2] is to Engels' *Ludwig Feuerbach and the End of Classical German Philosophy* (1886).(P289) Christianity indeed exerted a significant influence on the development of European history, imbuing various historical movements in the subsequent period with a religious character. However, this was not, as Feuerbach thought, based on "the human heart and the religious need of man," [2]2 The reference [2] is to Engels' *Ludwig Feuerbach and the End of Classical German Philosophy* (1886).(P289) but rather the inevitable result of the medieval history requiring a hierarchical system and thus calling for the ideology of religion and theology. In the early period, the bourgeoisie was not strong enough and could only express its freedom through religious reform; its various movements were necessarily imbued with a religious character. By the 18th century, after the bourgeoisie had grown strong, it needed to express an ideology commensurate with its own class position—that is, to break free from personal hierarchies and pursue individual freedom, etc.—and thus had to oppose the ideology of theology. To achieve this, the bourgeoisie had to resort to changes in property relations, rather than attempting to replace Christianity with a new religion. [2]2 The reference [2] is to Engels' *Ludwig Feuerbach and the End of Classical German Philosophy* (1886).(P289)

恩格斯进一步指出，费尔巴哈所说的人类历史是宗教变迁的历史的观点也不符合历史事实。因为人类各个时期并不是都伴随着宗教变迁,比如，“古老的自发产生的部落宗教和民族宗教是不传布的”，[2](P289)其历史发展中就没有宗教变迁（只有民族宗教），当部落或民族的独立遭到破坏，其部落或民族宗教便被取代，日耳曼民族遭遇到正在崩溃的罗马帝国，迅速信仰基督教并使之取代民族宗教，这是其经济、政治、精神状态的需要，其背后还是由经济原因所决定的。[2](P289)“重大的历史转折点有宗教变迁相伴随，只是就迄今存在的三种世界宗教——佛教、基督教和伊斯兰教而言。”[2](P289)基督教的确在欧洲历史发展中产生了重要影响，使其后一段时期各种历史运动均带有宗教色彩，但这不是费尔巴哈所想的那样基于“人的心灵和人的宗教需要”，[2](P289)而是中世纪历史需要等级制度因而呼唤宗教和神学这一意识形态的必然结果。资产阶级初期力量不够强大，只能以宗教改革方式表达自由，其各种运动必然带有宗教色彩，到18世纪资产阶级强大之后，就要表达与自身阶级地位相适应的意识形态，也即摆脱人身等级、追求自由个性等，就要反对神学这一意识形态，为此资产阶级就必须诉诸所有制变革，而不是试图以新宗教取代基督教。[2](P289)

Engels also concretely revealed that changes in the content of different forms of consciousness depend fundamentally on changes in the mode of production. He pointed out that, with regard to the development of philosophy, it was precisely the development of the productive forces, altered through science and industry, that led to agnosticism being refuted in practice, and Neo-Kantianism and Hume's theory secretly accepting materialism. The respective developments of idealism and materialism, as well as the development from idealism to materialism, are all reflections of the development of real social productive forces. This is manifested in the fact that "what drove the philosophers forward from Descartes to Hegel and from Hobbes to Feuerbach, over a long period, was by no means, as they imagined, the power of pure thought alone. On the contrary, what really drove them forward was the powerful and ever more rapidly advancing progress of natural science and industry." [2]2 The reference [2] is to Engels' *Ludwig Feuerbach and the End of Classical German Philosophy* (1886).(P280) Materialism has gone through a series of developmental stages, from naive materialism, mechanical materialism, and Feuerbach's materialism in natural science to vulgar materialism. With each epoch-making discovery in the field of natural science, "materialism necessarily changes its form." [2]2 The reference [2] is to Engels' *Ludwig Feuerbach and the End of Classical German Philosophy* (1886).(P281) It must necessarily penetrate the field of history and open up a new path of development—historical materialism. This, too, is an inevitable requirement of the development of social productive forces.

恩格斯还具体揭示了意识不同形式的内容变化在根本上取决于生产方式的变迁。他指出，就哲学发展而言，正是通过科学和工业而改变的生产力发展状况，不可知论才在实践中被驳倒，新康德主义、休谟理论才在暗中接受唯物主义。唯心主义、唯物主义各自的发展，以及从唯心主义到唯物主义的发展，都是现实社会生产力发展的反映，表现在“从笛卡儿到黑格尔和从霍布斯到费尔巴哈这一长时期内，推动哲学家前进的，决不像他们所想象的那样，只是纯粹思想的力量。恰恰相反，真正推动他们前进的，主要是自然科学和工业的强大而日益迅猛的进步”。[2](P280)唯物主义经历了从朴素唯物主义、机械唯物主义、费尔巴哈自然观上的唯物主义到庸俗唯物主义的一系列发展阶段，随着自然科学领域中每一个划时代的发现，“唯物主义也必然要改变自己的形式” ，[2](P281)必然要深入历史领域，开辟出历史唯物主义这一新的发展道路，这也是社会生产力发展的必然要求。

Engels points out that changes in the method of philosophical thinking depend on the development of the state of natural science. When natural scientific research enters the stage of “systematically studying the changes that these things themselves undergo in nature,” [2]2 The reference [2] is to Engels' *Ludwig Feuerbach and the End of Classical German Philosophy* (1886).(P299) the old metaphysics automatically withdraws from the historical stage. In the 18th century, natural science manifested itself as “a science that collects materials,” “a science of things as they are,” while in the 19th century it manifested itself as “a science that organizes materials,” “a science of processes, of the origin and development of these things and of the connections that bind these natural processes together into a great whole.” [2]2 The reference [2] is to Engels' *Ludwig Feuerbach and the End of Classical German Philosophy* (1886).(P299-300) It was precisely the immense progress of natural science that propelled dialectical thinking to replace the natural philosophy of metaphysics. Engels further points out that philosophy is fundamentally an expression of economic relations. The social development of the Renaissance period echoed the demands of the burgher class, and in philosophy this manifested as criticism of church theology and the emergence of Enlightenment thought, emphasizing liberation from the hierarchical system and the pursuit of worldly happiness, individual freedom, and emancipation. The social development since modern times reflects the process by which the petty burgher class developed into the big bourgeoisie, and philosophy needed to systematically argue for individual rights, manifesting as the philosophical evolution from Adam Smith and Rousseau to Hegel and the Young Hegelians. [2]2 The reference [2] is to Engels' *Ludwig Feuerbach and the End of Classical German Philosophy* (1886).(P308-309)

恩格斯指出，哲学思维方法的变化取决于自然科学状况的发展，当自然科学研究进入“系统地研究这些事物在自然界本身中所发生的变化的时候”，[2](P299)旧形而上学就自动退出了历史舞台。自然科学在18世纪表现为“搜集材料的科学”“关于既成事物的科学”，在19世纪表现为“整理材料的科学”“关于过程、关于这些事物的发生和发展以及关于联系——把这些自然过程结合为一个大的整体——的科学”，[2](P299-300)正是自然科学的巨大进步推动了辩证思维取代形而上学的自然哲学。恩格斯进一步指出哲学根本上是经济关系的表现，文艺复兴时期社会发展呼应了市民阶级的要求，哲学上就表现为对教会神学的批判与启蒙思想的产生，强调从等级制度中解放出来，追求世俗幸福、个性自由与解放，近代以来的社会发展反映了中小市民阶级发展为大资产阶级的过程，哲学需要系统论证个人权利，就表现为从亚当·斯密、卢梭到黑格尔、青年黑格尔派的哲学演进。[2](P308-309)

Regarding the nature of the state and its development, Marx and Engels point out that it is precisely out of the need to handle “this contradiction between particular and common interests” that the state adopts “an independent form detached from the real individual and collective interests” [1]1 The reference [1] is to *The German Ideology* (1845-1846) by Marx and Engels, where they first systematically elaborated the materialist conception of history.(P536) under the guise of common interest. Engels also points out that modern history proves all political struggles are class struggles, and all struggles for liberation necessarily assume political forms such as the state and political systems, but in the final analysis they all revolve around economic emancipation. [2]2 The reference [2] is to Engels' *Ludwig Feuerbach and the End of Classical German Philosophy* (1886).(P306) This is concretely manifested in the fact that “in modern history, the will of the state is, on the whole, determined by the changing needs of civil society, by the supremacy of a particular class, and, in the last resort, by the development of the productive forces and relations of exchange.” [2]2 The reference [2] is to Engels' *Ludwig Feuerbach and the End of Classical German Philosophy* (1886).(P306)

就国家性质及其发展而言，马克思、恩格斯指出，正是源于处理“特殊利益和共同利益之间的这种矛盾”的需要，国家才采取了“与实际的单个利益和全体利益相脱离的独立形式”[1](P536)这一共同利益的面目。恩格斯还指出，现代历史证明一切政治斗争都是阶级斗争，而一切争取解放的阶级斗争必然具有国家、政治制度等政治形式，但它归根到底都是围绕着经济解放进行的。[2](P306)具体表现为“在现代历史中，国家的意志总的说来是由市民社会的不断变化的需要，是由某个阶级的优势地位，归根到底，是由生产力和交换关系的发展决定的”。[2](P306)

Regarding the nature of law and its development, Engels points out that both public law and private law are fundamentally reflections of the economic relations between people. “Private law essentially only confirms the existing, under certain circumstances normal, economic relations between individuals.” [2]2 The reference [2] is to Engels' *Ludwig Feuerbach and the End of Classical German Philosophy* (1886).(P307) Marx and Engels emphasize that the emergence of private law is a result of the development of private property. “Private law developed simultaneously with private property from the dissolution of the natural community,” [1]1 The reference [1] is to *The German Ideology* (1845-1846) by Marx and Engels, where they first systematically elaborated the materialist conception of history.(P584) and only after the bourgeoisie grew in strength did private law truly develop in various countries, because reality required the formulation of private law based on Roman law characterized by codified statutes. Therefore, “law also has no history of its own, any more than religion.” [1]1 The reference [1] is to *The German Ideology* (1845-1846) by Marx and Engels, where they first systematically elaborated the materialist conception of history.(P585) In other words, changes in the actual mode of production are the true driver of law. On the surface, the state, as the object of public law, is an organ created by society to protect its common interests. When state power emerges, it stands independent of society, increasingly manifesting as the need to realize the rule of a particular class. The struggle of the oppressed class against the ruling class is first and foremost a struggle against the rule of this class. In reality, however, the essence of political struggle is economic struggle. [2]2 The reference [2] is to Engels' *Ludwig Feuerbach and the End of Classical German Philosophy* (1886).(P308) The state must establish its power rule in the form of law, but behind this still lies “the connection with economic facts.” [2]2 The reference [2] is to Engels' *Ludwig Feuerbach and the End of Classical German Philosophy* (1886).(P308) The nature of the state and the nature of law are determined by the state of property relations, undergoing a historical process, and are not the result of the self-movement of will or spirit.

就法律的性质及其发展而言，恩格斯指出无论公法还是私法，根本上都是人与人之间经济关系的反映。“私法本质上只是确认单个人之间的现存的、在一定情况下是正常的经济关系。”[2](P307)马克思、恩格斯强调，私法的产生是私有制发展的结果，“私法是与私有制同时从自然形成的共同体的解体过程中发展起来的”，[1](P584)资产阶级力量壮大之后，私法才在各国真正发展起来，因为现实需要以具有成文法特征的罗马法典为基础制定私法，因此“法也和宗教一样是没有自己的历史的”。[1](P585)换言之，现实生产方式变迁才是法律的真正的推动者。表面上看，作为公法的对象的国家是社会为了保护自己的共同利益而创立的一个机关，国家政权产生时独立于社会之外，越来越表现为实现某个阶级统治的需要，被压迫阶级反对统治阶级的斗争首先是反对这一阶级统治的斗争，而实际上，政治斗争的实质是经济斗争。[2](P308)国家要以法律形式确立自己的权力统治，但是其背后仍然反映了“同经济事实的联系”。[2](P308)国家的性质、法的性质是由所有制关系状况所决定的，经历了一个历史过程，并非意志精神自我运动的结果。

Regarding the nature of religion and its development, Engels points out that religion is also a reflection of society’s “material economic base.” [2]2 The reference [2] is to Engels' *Ludwig Feuerbach and the End of Classical German Philosophy* (1886).(P308) It originally arose from the most primitive times, from “people’s erroneous, most primitive conceptions of their own nature and the external nature around them.” [2]2 The reference [2] is to Engels' *Ludwig Feuerbach and the End of Classical German Philosophy* (1886).(P309) The emergence of a new world religion adapted to the needs of the Roman Empire, namely Christianity, was an inevitable result of the actual material conditions of life. [2]2 The reference [2] is to Engels' *Ludwig Feuerbach and the End of Classical German Philosophy* (1886).(P309) After the Council of Nicaea, [10]10 The First Council of Nicaea, convened in 325 AD by the Roman Emperor Constantine I, was a landmark ecumenical council that established the Nicene Creed and sought to unify Christian doctrine, effectively aligning the Church with the imperial state apparatus. Christianity, which became the state religion of the Roman Empire, had already changed from its original form; this was also a result of its adaptation to the needs of the Roman Empire. In the Middle Ages, Christianity became a religion adapted to the feudal system, possessing a corresponding feudal hierarchy, [2]2 The reference [2] is to Engels' *Ludwig Feuerbach and the End of Classical German Philosophy* (1886).(P310) which was also a result of actual social development. The Reformation and the religious struggles that followed originated from the continuous growth and strengthening of the bourgeoisie, and hence the continuous realization of their actual economic and material demands. As the bourgeoisie grew stronger, Protestantism inevitably gave way to Enlightenment thought, because the Reformation could no longer satisfy the material demands of the bourgeoisie. They needed to “carry out their revolution in a non-religious, purely political form,” [2]2 The reference [2] is to Engels' *Ludwig Feuerbach and the End of Classical German Philosophy* (1886).(P311) which was even more an inevitable result of adapting to the actual economic development of capitalism.

就宗教的性质及其发展而言，恩格斯指出宗教也是社会“物质经济基础”[2](P308)的反映。它最初产生自最原始的时代“人们关于他们自身的自然和周围的外部自然的错误的、最原始的观念”。[2](P309)而适应罗马帝国需要的一种新的世界宗教即基督教的产生，就是现实物质生活条件的必然结果。[2](P309)尼西亚宗教会议后成为罗马帝国国家的基督教，已经与其最初的形态发生了变化，也是其适应罗马帝国需要的结果，在中世纪，基督教成为一种同封建制度相适应的、具有相应的封建等级制的宗教，[2](P310)也是现实社会发展的结果。宗教改革以及此后的宗教斗争，源自资产阶级不断发展壮大因而其现实经济物质诉求不断实现。随着资产阶级的壮大，新教必然让位于启蒙思想，因为宗教改革已经不能满足资产阶级的物质要求，以“非宗教的、纯粹政治的形式进行自己的革命”，[2](P311)这更是适应资本主义现实经济发展的必然结果。

Marx and Engels further point out that “the real intellectual wealth of the individual depends entirely on the wealth of his real connections.” [1]1 The reference [1] is to *The German Ideology* (1845-1846) by Marx and Engels, where they first systematically elaborated the materialist conception of history.(P541) Enlightenment thought is a product of the development of economic relations in modern society. In the estate society that preceded capitalist society, an individual’s personality was linked to their fixed estate status, appearing to lack contingency, as if there were no difference between personality and the natural division of labor. [1]1 The reference [1] is to *The German Ideology* (1845-1846) by Marx and Engels, where they first systematically elaborated the materialist conception of history.(P571) This period did not emphasize free individuality. It was only in capitalist society that changes in the conditions of an individual’s personal life became possible. People broke free from the bonds of estates and began to pursue free individuality. A difference emerged between the individual with personality and the individual of the class. It was through the struggle between individuals that the contingency for realizing freedom, the contingency of an individual’s conditions of life, developed. [1]1 The reference [1] is to *The German Ideology* (1845-1846) by Marx and Engels, where they first systematically elaborated the materialist conception of history.(P571) Although the bourgeois revolution institutionally established the concepts of freedom and equality, seemingly offering more individual freedom than previous societies, in reality people in capitalist society are bound by commodities, money, and capital, “more subject to the power of things,” [1]1 The reference [1] is to *The German Ideology* (1845-1846) by Marx and Engels, where they first systematically elaborated the materialist conception of history.(P572) and thus become even less free. In particular, capitalist society harbors an actual opposition of interests between individuals and between the individual and society, and there exists intense class struggle. This means that the revolution of private ownership of the means of production did not touch private property itself. “All revolutions up to the present have never altered the nature of activity,” [1]1 The reference [1] is to *The German Ideology* (1845-1846) by Marx and Engels, where they first systematically elaborated the materialist conception of history.(P542-543) amounting to nothing more than one form of private property replacing another, differing only in the mode of exploitation by the ruling class. Fundamentally, they remain different ruling classes redistributing the fruits of labor of the ruled class.

马克思、恩格斯进一步指出，“个人在精神上的现实丰富性完全取决于他的现实关系的丰富性”。[1](P541)启蒙思想是近代社会经济关系发展的产物，在资本主义社会之前的等级社会中，人的个性与其固化的等级身份联系在一起，似乎不存在偶然性，似乎个性与自然分工状况不存在差别，[1](P571)这一时期不强调自由个性。只是到了资本主义社会，个人生活的生存条件的变化出现了可能，人们摆脱了等级束缚，开始追求自由个性，有个性的个人与阶级的个人之间出现了差别，诉诸个人相互之间的斗争才发展了实现自由的偶然性，个人生活条件的偶然性。[1](P571)资产阶级革命尽管从制度上确立了自由与平等的理念，看似比之前的社会有了个性自由，但实际上资本主义社会中人们受到商品、货币、资本的束缚，“更加屈从于物的力量”，[1](P572)因而变得更不自由。特别是，资本主义社会存在个人与个人、个人与社会之间的实际利益对立，存在着激烈的阶级斗争，意味着生产资料私有制革命没有触动私有制本身，“迄今为止的一切革命始终没有触动活动的性质”，[1](P542-543)不外乎是一种私有制取代另一种私有制，只是统治阶级的剥削方式不同而已，根本上仍然是不同的统治阶级重新分配被统治阶级的劳动成果。

Therefore, on the path to the realization of human freedom, Marx and Engels emphasize that “definite individuals who are productively active in a definite way enter into definite social and political relations,” [1]1 The reference [1] is to *The German Ideology* (1845-1846) by Marx and Engels, where they first systematically elaborated the materialist conception of history.(P523-524) and the condition of social and political relations is a direct expression of the condition of freedom. Moreover, “only within the community has each individual the means of cultivating his gifts in all directions,” [1]1 The reference [1] is to *The German Ideology* (1845-1846) by Marx and Engels, where they first systematically elaborated the materialist conception of history.(P571) that is, only within the community is individual freedom possible, and this community must be a genuine community that has abolished class antagonisms. Marx and Engels derive the necessity of communism from the development of the objective contradictions of a society based on private property, pointing out that when the productive forces have developed to the stage of capitalist society, capitalist productive forces have already become “not productive forces but forces of destruction (machine and money),” [1]1 The reference [1] is to *The German Ideology* (1845-1846) by Marx and Engels, where they first systematically elaborated the materialist conception of history.(P542) and that overproduction and the poverty of the masses in capitalist society are mutually causal, reflecting the absurd contradiction into which large-scale industry has fallen, which necessarily requires the removal of the fetters on the productive forces by changing the mode of production. [2]2 The reference [2] is to Engels' *Ludwig Feuerbach and the End of Classical German Philosophy* (1886).(P305-306) Therefore, only by resorting to a communist revolution that thoroughly abolishes capitalist private property can the free development of human beings be truly realized. As for the subject of revolution, Marx and Engels point out that large-scale industry also produces the proletariat, which constitutes the majority of society, can only bear all the burdens of society while being unable to enjoy the fruits of social development, is excluded from society, and is therefore compelled into the most intense antagonism with all other classes. It “has already become the expression of the dissolution of all classes, nationalities, etc., within present-day society,” [1]1 The reference [1] is to *The German Ideology* (1845-1846) by Marx and Engels, where they first systematically elaborated the materialist conception of history.(P543) and thus bears the historical mission of the transformation of history into world history. It is evident that it is not through a revolution of ideas, but by resorting to real means to change the unjust relations of ownership, and thereby to realize human freedom, that Marx and Engels reveal the deep-rooted source of ideology’s “having no history,” and this constitutes another important sign of their transcendence of German idealism.

因此，在人的自由实现路径上，马克思、恩格斯强调“以一定的方式进行生产活动的一定的个人，发生一定的社会关系和政治关系”，[1](P523-524)社会关系和政治关系状况则是自由状况的直接表现，而“只有在共同体中，个人才能获得全面发展其才能的手段”，[1](P571)即只有在共同体中才可能有个人的自由，这一共同体一定是消除了阶级对立的真正的共同体。马克思、恩格斯从建立在私有制基础上的社会的客观矛盾的发展中得出共产主义必然性的结论，指出生产力发展到资本主义社会阶段，资本主义生产力已经“不是生产的力量，而是破坏的力量（机器和货币）”，[1](P542)资本主义社会生产过剩和大众的贫困，两者互为因果，体现出大工业所陷入的荒谬的矛盾，必然要求通过改变生产方式来使生产力摆脱桎梏，[2](P305-306)因此，只有诉诸彻底消灭资本主义私有制的共产主义革命，才能真正实现人的自由发展。就革命主体而言，马克思、恩格斯指出大工业还产生了占社会大多数的、只能承担社会一切重负而无法享受社会发展成果、被排斥于社会之外，因而不得不同其他一切阶级发生最激烈的对立的无产阶级，它“已经成为现今社会的一切阶级、民族等等的解体的表现”，[1](P543)因而承载着历史向世界历史转变的历史使命。可见，不是通过观念革命，而是诉诸现实的手段改变不合理的所有制，进而实现人的自由，这是马克思、恩格斯揭示意识形态“没有历史”的深层根源，进而超越德国观念论的又一重要标志。

From the above, it can be seen that what Marx and Engels mean by ideology “having no history” is primarily that ideology does not possess an independent history of its own. As a system of thought, its content, concepts, categories, and modes of thinking are all reflections of the condition of specific social relations of production. Because German ideology was unable to resolve real contradictions in reality, it could only explain the roots of real unfreedom through imaginary conceptual means, attempting to resolve real contradictions through conceptual change and by resorting to certain fantasies, and is therefore a distorted, inverted reflection of reality. By revealing the deep-rooted source of ideology’s “having no history,” Marx and Engels point out the fundamental distinction between historical materialism and German idealism: the former holds that human history is a history of production and labor, while the latter turns human history into a history of thought. The former clearly states that only through material production can the essence of the world and history be grasped; all phenomena of human society, such as religion, the family, the state, law, morality, science, art, and freedom, must be interpreted within the process of material production practice, and only by resorting to changes in the mode of production can the riddle of history and freedom be solved. The latter, in contrast, resorts to consciousness and spiritual production to grasp the world and human history. It is precisely through the creation of historical materialism that human history is fundamentally no longer regarded as a process dominated by ideas and spirit. This enlightens us: only by transcending idealist thinking and basing ourselves on the perspective of historical materialism can we gain insight into the truth of human history; only by analyzing the objective historical process with the wisdom of historical materialism can we find the scientific path to realizing the free and comprehensive development of every individual.

由上可见，马克思、恩格斯所谓的意识形态“没有历史”，主要是指意识形态并没有属于自己的独立的历史。作为思想体系，其内容、概念、范畴以及思维方式，都是特定社会生产关系状况的反映。由于德意志意识形态在现实中无法解决现实矛盾，只能以臆想中的观念的方式阐释现实不自由的根源，通过观念变革的方式、以某种幻想来试图化解现实矛盾，因而是对现实的虚幻、颠倒的反映。而通过揭示意识形态“没有历史”的深层根源，马克思、恩格斯指出历史唯物主义与德国观念论有着根本区别，前者认为人类历史是生产—劳动史，后者把人类历史变成思想史。前者明确指出只有透过物质生产才能把握世界和历史的本质，举凡宗教、家庭、国家、法、道德、科学、艺术、自由等人类社会的一切现象，都必须被放在物质生产实践过程中加以解读，只有诉诸生产方式的变迁才能解答历史—自由之谜，后者则诉诸意识和精神生产把握世界与人类历史。正是历史唯物主义的创立，人类历史从此在根本上不再被认为是由观念和思想主宰的过程，这启示我们：只有超越观念论思维，基于历史唯物主义视域才能洞悉人类历史真相，只有以历史唯物主义智慧分析客观历史进程，才能找到实现每一个人的自由全面发展的科学路径。

References

参考文献

[1]1 The reference [1] is to *The German Ideology* (1845-1846) by Marx and Engels, where they first systematically elaborated the materialist conception of history. Collected Works of Marx and Engels, Vol. 1 [M]. Beijing: People’s Publishing House, 2009.

[1] 马克思恩格斯文集，第1卷[M].北京：人民出版社，2009.

[2]2 The reference [2] is to Engels' *Ludwig Feuerbach and the End of Classical German Philosophy* (1886). Collected Works of Marx and Engels, Vol. 4 [M]. Beijing: People’s Publishing House, 2009.

[2] 马克思恩格斯文集，第4卷[M].北京：人民出版社，2009.

[3]3 The reference [8] is to *The Holy Family* (1845) by Marx and Engels. [Germany] G.W.F. Hegel. Encyclopedia of the Philosophical Sciences, Part One: Logic [M]. Translated by Liang Zhixue. Beijing: People’s Publishing House, 2002.

[3] [德]黑格尔. 哲学全书·第一部分·逻辑学[M].梁志学译.北京：人民出版社，2002.

[4]4 The “Theory of Ideas” (or Theory of Forms) is Plato’s doctrine that non-material abstract Forms (or Ideas), not the material world of change known to us through sensation, possess the highest and most fundamental kind of reality. [Italy] Benedetto Croce. Theory and History of Historiography [M]. Translated by Fu Rengan. Beijing: The Commercial Press, 2017.

[4] [意]贝奈戴托·克罗齐. 历史学的理论和实际[M].傅任敢译. 北京：商务印书馆，2017.

[5]5 Immanuel Kant, “Idea for a Universal History with a Cosmopolitan Aim” (1784). The page references are to a Chinese edition. [Germany] Immanuel Kant. On History [M]. Translated by He Zhaowu. Beijing: The Commercial Press, 1990.

[5] [德]康德.历史理性批判文集[M].何兆武译. 北京：商务印书馆，1990.

[6]6 G.W.F. Hegel, *Lectures on the Philosophy of World History* (1837). The page references are to a Chinese edition. [Germany] G.W.F. Hegel. Lectures on the Philosophy of History [M]. Translated by Wang Zaoshi. Shanghai: Shanghai Bookstore Publishing House, 2001.

[6] [德]黑格尔. 历史哲学[M].王造时译. 上海：上海书店出版社，2001.

[7]7 G.W.F. Hegel, *Philosophy of Right* (1821). The page references are to a Chinese edition. [Germany] G.W.F. Hegel. Elements of the Philosophy of Right [M]. Translated by Fan Yang et al. Beijing: The Commercial Press, 1961.

[7] [德]黑格尔. 法哲学原理[M]. 范扬等译.北京：商务印书馆，1961.

[8]8 Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, *The German Ideology* (1845-46). The page references are to a Chinese edition of the *Marx-Engels Collected Works*. Complete Works of Marx and Engels, Vol. 3 [M]. Beijing: People’s Publishing House, 1960.

[8] 马克思恩格斯全集，第3卷[M]. 北京：人民出版社，1960.

[9]9 Reference to Bruno Bauer’s work; the page reference is to a Chinese edition. [Japan] Hiromatsu Wataru, ed. and annot. The German Ideology in the Context of Philology [M]. Translated by Peng Xi, reviewed by Zhang Yibing. Nanjing: Nanjing University Press, 2005.

[9] [日]广松涉编注. 文献学语境中的《德意志意识形态》[M].彭曦译，张一兵审订.南京：南京大学出版

[10]10 The First Council of Nicaea, convened in 325 AD by the Roman Emperor Constantine I, was a landmark ecumenical council that established the Nicene Creed and sought to unify Christian doctrine, effectively aligning the Church with the imperial state apparatus. Karl Marx. Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844 [M]. Beijing: People’s Publishing House, 2000.

社，2005.

[11] Complete Works of Marx and Engels, Vol. 30 [M]. Beijing: People’s Publishing House, 1995.

[10] 马克思. 1844年经济学哲学手稿[M]. 北京：人民出版社，2000.

[12] Source: Research on Marxist Theoretical Disciplines

[11] 马克思恩格斯全集，第30卷[M]. 北京：人民出版社，1995.

[13] Online Editor: Huihui

文章来源：《马克思主义理论学科研究》

Online editor: Huihui

网络编辑：慧慧