Marx’s Examination of the Essence of the State in the Interactive Horizon of History and Political Economy and Its Implications

What is the state? Or, what is the essence of the state? This is an important question that attracts attention in many disciplines of philosophy and social sciences, especially in the study of political philosophy. Broadly speaking, there are two research paths for exploring this question: scholars inclined toward political science often conduct descriptive empirical research based on the origin, development, and current situation of the state, while those who favor political philosophy tend to engage in logical deduction and rational analysis from a normative standpoint. In Marx, the path of examining the essence of the state differs from both of these research methods.

何为国家？或者说，国家的本质是什么？这是哲学社会科学诸多学科尤其是政治哲学研究中引人关注的重要问题。对这一问题的探寻，大致说来有两条研究路径：倾向于政治科学的学者往往立足于国家的起源、发展、现状等进行描述性的实证研究，而偏爱政治哲学的学者侧重于从规范性立场出发进行逻辑推演和理性分析。在马克思那里，对国家本质的考察路径与这两种研究方式都不同。

In summary, Marx examined the essence of the state from the interactive perspective of history and political economy. On the one hand, he delved deeply into history, investigating the developmental process and evolutionary laws of the state through historical reality. On the other hand, he broke through the boundaries of the political sphere and submerged himself into political economy, excavating and summarizing the connotation and essence of the state from the perspective of political economy. It was precisely in this multi-dimensional interactive perspective that Marx scientifically summarized the essence of the state. Most importantly, Marx also used this unique research path to distinguish himself from political science confined to the political sphere and political philosophy keen on seeking political norms, thereby forming a distinctive research paradigm and theoretical characteristics. When we study Marx today, we should not only study the conclusions he drew, but also, and even more so, study Marx’s academic path, for in this aspect the true spirit of Marx’s philosophy can be more genuinely embodied.

概而言之，马克思是从历史与政治经济学的交互视野来考察国家本质的，一方面深入历史，通过历史的真实来考察国家的发展历程和演变规律，另一方面突破了政治领域的界限而沉潜入政治经济学，从政治经济学的角度挖掘、概括国家的内涵和本质。正是在这种多维交互视野中，马克思科学概括了国家的本质。尤为重要的是，马克思还以这种独特的研究路径，与囿于政治领域的政治科学和热衷于寻求政治规范的政治哲学区分开来，形成了独到的研究范式与理论特质。我们今天研究马克思，不仅要研究他提出的结论，而且更应当研究马克思的学术路径，在这方面能够更加真切地体现马克思哲学的真精神。

I. Starting from Kreuznach: Entering Historical Reality

一、从克罗茨纳赫出发：进入历史真实

On Marx’s intellectual journey of exploring the essence of the state, the *Kreuznach Notebooks* (hereinafter referred to as the *Notebooks*) is an extremely important text and also a significant marker of Marx’s shift in research path. Why is this so? It is because the *Notebooks* shows that Marx began to critically examine the Hegelian idealist philosophy and the concept of the “rational state” [1]1 Engels, “Introduction to Karl Marx’s *Wage Labour and Capital*” (1891), in *Marx/Engels Collected Works*, vol. 27, p. 201. The passage is a paraphrase; the original reads: “It must be abolished, it can be abolished.” he had held during his *Rheinische Zeitung* period, thereby initiating a new research path of seeking the essence and developmental laws of the state within the real historical process of human society, in order to transcend the traditional political philosophical approach of constructing an ideal state through rational argumentation and logical deduction.

在马克思探寻国家本质的思想之途中，《克罗茨纳赫笔记》（以下简称《笔记》）是一份极为重要的文本，也是马克思实现研究路径转换的一个重要标志。为什么这么说？是因为《笔记》表明马克思开始批判性地审查自己在《莱茵报》时期所抱持的黑格尔唯心主义哲学和“理性国家”观 ，从而启动了在人类社会真实的历史进程中寻求国家本质和发展规律的新的研究路径，以此来超越通过理性论证和逻辑推演来建构理想国家的传统政治哲学进路。

Within the complex spectrum of political philosophy research, the question of the state often occupies a central position. During his *Rheinische Zeitung* period, Marx vehemently attacked the despotic rule of the Prussian government and called for the construction of a rational state based on Hegelian philosophy. Whether it was his refutation of the Prussian press censorship order and the law on the theft of wood, or his investigation into the conditions of the poor peasants in the Moselle region, all were imbued with such a question: the current state system was irrational, and a rational state with the mission of safeguarding people’s freedom should be constructed. However, this appeal for a rational concept of the state quickly succumbed before the harsh political reality and objective material interests, and the inherent theoretical fissures in Hegel’s philosophy gradually revealed themselves. On March 17, 1843, Marx wrote a statement in Cologne announcing his withdrawal from the editorial board of the *Rheinische Zeitung*. The direct practical reason for this was the reactionary oppression of the Prussian government, while the deeper theoretical reason was Marx’s theoretical perplexity regarding Hegel’s philosophy, especially Hegel’s concept of the state, leading him to retreat from the social stage back to the study. To resolve his intellectual perplexity, in the summer and autumn of that same year, in Kreuznach, Marx simultaneously undertook a critique of Hegel’s philosophy of right and delved deeply into a number of works on political science and history, writing the *Notebooks* and *Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right*. The *Notebooks* consists of 5 volumes and 35 notebooks, containing excerpts and interpretations of 24 works on history and political science. The content includes excerpts on the history of England, Germany, Sweden, Poland, the Venetian Republic, and the United States, especially the history of France and the French Revolution. The time span is extraordinarily broad, covering over two thousand years of history from 600 BCE to the 1830s. The themes and content covered in the *Notebooks* are extremely extensive, and academia has produced a series of research results in these areas. This article focuses only on Marx’s excerpts and comments on the question of the state in the *Notebooks*, demonstrating how Marx grasped and analyzed concrete historical materials to study the essence of the state.

在纷繁复杂的政治哲学研究谱系中，国家问题往往处于核心位置。在《莱茵报》时期，马克思激烈地抨击普鲁士政府的专制统治，吁求建构一种基于黑格尔哲学的理性国家。无论是对普鲁士书报检查令、林木盗窃法的驳斥，还是对摩泽尔地区贫苦农民状况的调查，背后都充盈着这样一个问题：当前国家制度是不合乎理性的，应当建构一种以维护人民自由为己任的理性国家。然而，这种关于理性国家观的诉求在冷酷的政治现实和客观的物质利益面前很快就败下阵来，黑格尔哲学内在的理论罅隙逐渐显露出来。1843 年 3 月 17 日，马克思于科隆撰写了退出《莱茵报》编辑部的声明。其之所以如此，直接的现实原因是普鲁士政府的反动压迫，而深层的理论缘由是由于马克思在理论上对黑格尔哲学尤其是黑格尔国家观的困惑，因而从社会舞台退回到书房。为了解决思想上的困惑，马克思于同年夏秋之季，在克罗茨纳赫一边展开黑格尔法哲学批判，一边深入钻研了一批政治学、历史学著作，写下了《笔记》和《黑格尔法哲学批判》。《笔记》凡 5 册，35 个笔记本，是对 24 部历史学和政治学文献进行的摘录和解读，内容包括对英国、德国、瑞典、波兰、威尼斯共和国、美国的历史尤其是对法国史和法国大革命史的摘要，时间范围异常广阔，内容涵盖公元前600年到19世纪30年代两千多年的历史。《笔记》涉及的主题和内容极为广博，学界在这些方面已经取得了一系列研究成果。本文仅集中于马克思在《笔记》中关于国家问题的部分摘录和评论，表明马克思如何掌握和分析具体的历史材料以研究国家的本质。

First, Marx began, from the perspective of historical evolution, to pay attention to the changes in the political systems and economic systems, especially the systems of property ownership, of European countries. Regarding Schmidt’s *History of France*, Marx made extensive excerpts such as: “As early as the sixth century, the nobility bore relatively higher ransom payments and special obligations to the king,” “The basis of the nobility was the benefice system, or the fief system, which increasingly dissolved and restricted the old district system or tribal system,” “The fief system was the form of political life,” and “The possessors of fiefs, lords and vassals, were the ruling stratum.” This shows that Marx noticed that the benefice system or fief system of feudal society developed from the tribal system and constituted the foundation of the aristocratic system, which also means he initially and dimly perceived the role of the economic system behind the political system. Marx also made extensive excerpts from Lingard’s *History of England*. These excerpts roughly indicate the evolution of the ruling order in England. During the reign of William I, “England presented the unique spectacle of a native population combined with foreign rulers, a foreign hierarchy, and a foreign aristocracy,” “the system of knight-service was implemented,” “the king became the first landowner in the kingdom,” while “the native population gradually sank to the lowest class of the people.” Regarding Richard I (1189–1199), Marx also excerpted: “His laurels were stained with blood, and his victories were bought with the impoverishment of the people.” Marx also made detailed excerpts from the centuries-long history from John Lackland (1100–1216) to Elizabeth (1558–) concerning the Magna Carta, the emergence and development of the English Parliament, and other content. These historical materials helped Marx understand how the English Parliament emerged from the complex struggles among the monarchy, feudal lords, and the bourgeoisie.

第一，马克思开始从历史沿革的角度，留意欧洲各国政治制度和经济制度尤其是所有制的变迁。对施米特的《法国史》，马克思作了“早在六世纪，贵族就承担比较高的赎金和对国王应尽的特殊义务”，“构成贵族的基础的，是采邑制度，或者说封地制度，它日益瓦解并限制旧的区制度或部落制度”，“封地制度是政治生活的形式”，“封地的占有者，封君和封臣，是统治阶层”等大量摘录。这表明马克思注意到封建社会的采邑制度或封地制度是由部落制度发展来的，而且构成了贵族制度的基础，这也意味着他初步而朦胧地看到了政治制度背后经济制度的作用。马克思还对林加尔特的《英国史》作了大量摘录，这些摘录大致表明了英国统治秩序的演变。在威廉一世时期，“英国是土著居民同外邦统治者、外来的等级制度和外来的贵族［相结合］的独特的奇观”，“实行骑士封地制度”，“国王成了王国里的第一个土地所有者”，而“土著居民逐渐沦为人民中最低下的阶级”。关于理查一世（1189—1199），马克思还作了“他的桂冠沾满了鲜血，他的胜利是用人民的贫困化换来的”的摘录。马克思还从无地约翰（1100—1216）到伊丽莎白（1558—）数百年的历史中，详细摘录了有关自由宪章、英国议会的产生和发展等内容，这些历史材料有助于马克思弄清英国议会是怎样在王权、封建主和资产阶级复杂的斗争中产生的。

Second, through these excerpts, especially those concerning the history of the French Revolution at the end of the 18th century, Marx noticed the relationship between political rule and property. For example, Marx transcribed an article titled “The Sovereignty of the People” from the *Gazette de France* of February 15, 1831. This article argued that although the French Constitution of 1791 abolished all hereditary titles and noble status and declared that all people enjoyed basic civil rights, it still imposed property qualifications on voters, thereby depriving the majority of the population, the poor, of the right to vote. These poor people were nominally the sovereigns, but in reality, “their privilege was to use the humble beds in the hospital wards,” and “their actual power, whether in a constitutional monarchy or an absolute monarchy, was limited to paying taxes, standing guard, sending their children to defend the country, and sometimes going themselves.” The article also directly exposed the relationship between rights and property: “Their rights were based on numbers and were confirmed by addition: one centime would create this right, and one centime could make it disappear; a person’s value was exactly equal to the taxes he paid: that was the voter.” “This so-called popular sovereignty is nothing but a deception that the propertied classes of the monarchy allowed the non-propertied classes to believe in order to seize the monarch’s power… The poor suffer everywhere, but they do not rule.” Marx also cited other discussions from the *Gazette de France* of May 1, 1831, which similarly demonstrated the power of money behind political rule. “Who created the Chamber of Deputies? The voters who paid 300 francs in direct taxes. Who created these voters who paid 300 francs? The law passed in February 1817. Who made this law? Another Chamber. One can go around in circles here as one pleases, but one never encounters the people.”

第二，马克思通过这些摘录，尤其是关于 18 世纪末法国革命史的摘录，注意到了政治统治与财产的关系。例如，马克思转摘了 1831 年 2 月 15 日《法兰西报》上一篇题为《人民的主权》的文章。这篇文章认为，法国通过的 1791 年宪法，尽管取消了一切世袭头衔和贵族身份，宣称所有人都享有基本的公民权，但仍然对投票人的财产资格作了限制，这就使占人口大多数的穷人丧失了投票权。这些穷人名义上是握有主权者，然而实际上，“他们的特权就是在病房中使用简陋的床铺”，“他们的实际权力无论在立宪君主国中还是在专制君主国中都只限于缴纳赋税，站岗，把自己的孩子送去保卫国家，有时还亲自出马”。文章还直接揭露了权利与财产的关系，“他们的权利是以数字为基础的，并且是用加法来证实的：一个生丁将创造这种权利，一个生丁又可以使这种权利消失；人的价值同他所交纳的赋税完全相等：这就是选民”，“这种所谓的人民主权，无非是君主国的有产阶级为了夺取君主的权利而让各非有产阶级相信的骗局……穷人到处都在受苦，而不是在进行统治”。马克思还摘引了 1831 年 5 月 1 日《法兰西报》另外一些论述，同样表明了政治统治背后金钱的力量。“谁创立了议院呢？是有一百埃巨的选民们。是谁创造了这些有一百埃巨的选民呢？是 1817 年 2 月通过的法律。是谁制定了这个法律呢？是另一个议院。可以随便在这里绕圈子，但遇不到人民”。

Third, precisely because he focused on the influence of property on politics, Marx also noted that historically, the broad masses of laborers particularly emphasized the pursuit of equality in the economic sphere. During his time at the *Rheinische Zeitung*, Marx had already turned his attention to the material interests of the impoverished masses, and his study of history further confirmed and strengthened this view. Through Wachsmuth’s *History of France in the Revolutionary Era*, Marx excerpted numerous statements from the period of the French Revolution. For example: “Chaumette and Momoro were more in favor than all others of a law for complete equality of property (the agrarian law)… Chaumette said: ‘Everyone has a stomach, therefore a society should be established that corresponds to nature, [based] on the principles of sensory needs and instinct.’” “Vergniaud said: ‘For social man, liberty is merely the liberty of rights. It is the liberty of property, just as it is the liberty of stature, of strength, of spirit, of activity, of craft, and of labor.’” “Several Parisian districts… supported the anarchist proposals of the Commune… the only true equality, equality of property.”

第三，正是由于关注到财产对政治的影响，马克思还注意到历史上广大劳动者特别注重在经济领域中寻求平等。马克思在《莱茵报》时期已经关注到贫苦民众的物质利益问题，对历史的研究进一步印证和加强了马克思的看法。马克思通过瓦克斯穆特的《革命时代法国史》，摘录了法国大革命时期人们的大量论述。例如，“肖梅特和蒙莫罗比所有的人都更加赞成财产完全平等的法案（土地法）……肖梅特说：‘每个人都有一个肚子，因此应该建立同自然相适应的、以感官需要和本能的原则［为基础］的社会’。”“维尼奥说：‘自由对于社会的人来说，只不过是权利的自由。它是财产自由，同样也是身材自由，是力量、精神、活动、手艺和劳动的自由’。”“有几个巴黎市区……赞成公社的无政府主义者的主张……唯一的真正的平等，财产平等”。

In Ranke’s *History of Germany during the Reformation*, Marx also excerpted much material emphasizing equality of property. For example, during the German Peasants’ War, “people were very willing to preach that… henceforth there should be no inequality, whether in wealth or in status.” These historical materials suggested to Marx that criticism of monarchy in the political sphere could only solve superficial problems, while behind political issues lay the problem of material interests in the economic sphere. To correctly confront and resolve the problem of material interests, it was necessary to study civil society through political economy.

马克思在兰克的著作《宗教改革时期德国史》中还摘录了很多强调财产平等的材料，例如在德国农民战争时期，“人们很乐意地布道说……今后无论在财富方面，还是在地位方面，也不应该有任何的不平等”。这些历史材料提示马克思，在政治领域中对君主制的批判，只能解决表面问题，而埋藏在政治问题背后的是经济领域中的物质利益问题。要正确地面对和解决物质利益问题，只有通过政治经济学到市民社会中去进行研究。

It was precisely through this extensive study of history that Marx began to transcend Hegel’s philosophical framework, which regarded the state as the externalization of the absolute Idea, and began to think, in the depths of history and political economy, about the evolution and essence of state systems such as monarchy and representative government, about the relationship between political and economic systems, the limitations of political equality, and the substantive demand for equality of property, among a series of major issues. In the sole passage of commentary left in the *Notebooks*, Marx pointed out sharply: “Hegel makes the elements of the state’s Idea into the subject, and the old forms of the state’s existence into the predicate… But in historical reality, the opposite is the case: the state’s Idea is always the predicate of the [old] forms of the state’s existence.” [2]2 V. I. Lenin, “Against Boycott” (1907), in *Lenin Collected Works*, vol. 13, p. 36. Here, Marx specifically used the term “historical reality” to define the intellectual significance of his work on world history during this period; by borrowing the dimension of historical truth, he transcended Hegel’s idealist mystification, which relied entirely on the maneuvering of the absolute Idea.

正是通过这种对历史的广泛研究，马克思开始超出黑格尔将国家视作绝对观念之外化的哲学藩篱，开始在历史和政治经济学的深处思考王权制、代议制等国家制度的演化与本质，思考政治制度与经济制度的关系、政治平等的局限以及财产平等的实质要求等一系列重大问题。在《笔记》留下的唯一一段评论文字中，马克思鲜明指出，“黑格尔把国家观念的因素变成主语，而把国家存在的旧形式变成谓语”，“可是，在历史真实中，情况恰恰相反：国家观念总是国家存在的［旧］形式的谓语”。马克思在这里，专门用“历史真实”一词对他这一时期从事世界史研究的收获作了思想定位，他借用历史的真实性维度超越了黑格尔完全依仗绝对观念腾挪转换的唯心式迷思。

The various forms of the state’s existence are the determining relation, while the state’s Idea is something produced by and determined by the former. Hegel’s doctrine of the state is nothing but “the political theology of the age,” “the metaphysical reflection of reactionary forces.” [3]3 “Two hundred years of time have passed, and its brilliance shines ever brighter; its majestic spirit remains to this day” (二百星霜光愈盛，风神凛凛到如今) is a classical Chinese poetic couplet composed by the author, alluding to the enduring relevance of Marx’s thought two centuries after his birth. This judgment also runs through the *Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right* and, through a concrete analysis of Hegel’s logical structure of family—civil society—state, is further elevated to the famous conclusions that “the family and civil society are both preconditions of the state” and that “the political state cannot exist without the natural basis of the family and the human basis of civil society.” [4]4 “The more one looks up to it, the higher it seems; the more one delves into it, the harder it becomes” (仰之弥高、钻之弥坚) is a classical Chinese phrase from the *Analects of Confucius* (子罕第九), originally describing the virtue of Confucius; here it is applied to Marx’s thought.

国家存在的各种形式是决定性的关系，而国家观念是由前者产生的、被决定的东西。黑格尔的国家学说不过是“时代的政治神学”，“反动势力的形而上学的反映”。这一判断同样贯穿于《黑格尔法哲学批判》，并通过具体解析黑格尔关于家庭—市民社会—国家的逻辑架构，进一步提升为“家庭和市民社会都是国家的前提”，“政治国家没有家庭的自然基础和市民社会的人为基础就不可能存在”的著名结论。

II. Determining the Essence of the State in a Multi-Dimensional Interwoven Perspective

二、在多维交互视野中确定国家的本质

Before Marx formally engaged in the study of political economy, his understanding of the essence of the state was still conducted within the framework of philosophical and religious critique, and had not yet touched upon the historical and economic connotations hidden behind these concepts. For example, in the *Introduction to a Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right*, Marx states: “Man is not an abstract being squatting outside the world. Man is the world of man, the state, society. This state, this society, produces religion, an inverted world-consciousness, because they are an inverted world.” [5]5 Marx, *Introduction to a Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right*, in *Marx and Engels Collected Works*, vol. 3, p. 175. Here, from the perspective of theological critique, he clearly confirms that the “state” is “the world of man,” exposing that categories such as the state are the foundational basis of religious consciousness, while religious consciousness is a distorted, twisted reflection of that basis. However, it does not explore the essence of the state from an economic perspective. To use the language of Marx and Engels in *The German Ideology*, it had “not yet left the ground of philosophy.” [6]6 Marx and Engels, *The German Ideology*, in *Marx and Engels Collected Works*, vol. 5 (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1976), p. 28.

马克思在正式从事政治经济学研究之前，对国家本质的认识仍然是在哲学和宗教批判的意义上进行的，还未曾触及这些概念背后隐藏的历史和经济内涵。例如，在《〈黑格尔法哲学批判〉导言》中，马克思指出：“人不是抽象的蛰居于世界之外的存在物。人就是人的世界，就是国家，社会。这个国家、这个社会产生了宗教，一种颠倒的世界意识，因为它们就是颠倒的世界。”这里显然从神学批判的角度确认了“国家”是“人的世界”，揭露了国家等范畴是宗教意识的本源基础，而宗教意识是对基础的曲折、歪曲的反映，但并未从经济学意义上去探究国家的本质。如果用马克思、恩格斯在《德意志意识形态》中的语言来表达，那就是还“没有离开过哲学的基地”。

Yet, Marx’s brilliance lay in the fact that, unlike Stirner and others, he did not wallow in the ground of philosophy but instead quickly threw himself into the study of political economy, leaving far behind the empty phrases of the Young Hegelians that had shaken the world. The *Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844* is an important work in which Marx began his study of political economy. In this work, Marx achieved a major theoretical leap: he linked labor with historical development, arguing that the whole of so-called world history is nothing but the process of man’s creation through human labor, thereby fully affirming the role of productive labor in human history. Moreover, in this work, Marx explicitly linked the concept of the state with production, breaking through the previous limitation of understanding the state solely from philosophical and political perspectives, and extending the understanding of the concept of the state into the field of political economy. In terms of Marx’s understanding of the essence of the state, this also represents an essential deepening of knowledge. Marx points out: “The movement of private property—production and consumption—is the sensuous manifestation of the movement of all production hitherto, i.e., the realization or reality of man. Religion, family, state, law, morality, science, art, etc., are only particular modes of production and fall under its general law.” [7]7 Marx, *Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844*, in *Marx and Engels Collected Works*, vol. 3, p. 297. This means that Marx already regarded economic movements such as production and consumption as important components of the realization or reality of man, and further regarded factors such as the state and law as particular modes of production, subject to the general laws governing production. This indicates that Marx had preliminarily abstracted human economic activity from other various social activities, and viewed superstructural factors such as religion, family, state, law, morality, science, and art as particular modes of production, determined and constrained by the general laws of production. This idea is already quite close to the principle of the dialectical relationship between the economic base and the superstructure.

然而，马克思的过人之处就在于并未像施蒂纳等人那样沉湎于哲学的基地，而是很快投身政治经济学研究，将青年黑格尔派那些震撼世界的空洞词句远远地抛到了身后。《1844 年经济学哲学手稿》是马克思开始政治经济学研究的重要著作，马克思在这一著作中实现了一个重大的理论跨越，即将劳动与历史发展联系起来，认为整个所谓世界历史不过是人通过人的劳动而诞生的过程，从而充分肯定了生产劳动在人类历史中的作用。不仅如此，马克思在这一著作中还明确地将国家概念与生产联系起来，突破了以往单纯从哲学和政治学角度认识国家的局限，将对国家概念的认识延伸到了政治经济学领域。就马克思对国家本质的认识而言，这也是一个本质性的认识深化。马克思指出：“私有财产的运动——生产和消费——是迄今为止全部生产的运动的感性展现，就是说，是人的实现或人的现实。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。”这就是说，马克思已经将经济层面上的生产、消费等运动，看作构成人的实现或人的现实的重要内容，并进一步将国家、法等因素也视为生产的特殊方式，认为它们也要受到关于生产的普遍规律的支配。这意味着马克思已经初步将人类的经济活动从其他各种社会活动中抽离了出来，并将宗教、家庭、国家、法、道德、科学、艺术等上层建筑因素都看作特殊的生产行为，而且受到生产的一般规律的决定和制约。这一思想已经相当接近经济基础与上层建筑辩证关系的原理了。

In *The Holy Family*, Marx broke through the writing framework originally agreed upon with Engels, greatly expanding the content of the manuscript. Of particular importance is that in *The Holy Family*, Marx profoundly raised the question of the source of history, arguing that the “source of history” lies not “in the misty clouds of heaven” but in “the coarse material production of the earth,” and that only by “recognizing (for example) the mode of production of industry and of life itself in a given historical period” can one “truly know this historical period.” [8]8 Marx and Engels, *The Holy Family*, in *Marx and Engels Collected Works*, vol. 4 (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1975), p. 36. This conclusion means that historical materialism was on the eve of its birth, and Marx’s understanding of the essence of the state, along with the growth of historical materialism in its infancy, increasingly approached a scientific answer.

在《神圣家族》中，马克思突破了原来与恩格斯商定的写作框架，大大扩充了书稿的内容。其中特别重要的是，马克思在《神圣家族》中深刻地提出了历史的发源地问题，认为“历史的发源地”只是在“尘世的粗糙的物质生产中”，而不是在“天上的云雾中”，只有“去认识（比如说）某一历史时期的工业和生活本身的直接的生产方式”，才能“真正地认识这个历史时期”。这一结论，意味着唯物史观已处于诞生的前夜，马克思对国家本质的认识也随着襁褓期的唯物史观的成长而愈益接近科学的答案。

When discussing Napoleon’s ruling policies at the time, Marx put forward the important concept of “the essence of the modern state.” Marx points out: “Napoleon, of course, already had an understanding of the essence of the modern state; he already understood that the modern state is based on the smooth development of bourgeois society, the free movement of private interests, etc.” [9]9 Marx and Engels, *The Holy Family*, in *Marx and Engels Collected Works*, vol. 4, p. 122. The “modern state” here clearly refers to the bourgeois state. This statement expresses Marx’s understanding of the bourgeois state through Napoleon’s words. This judgment shows that Marx had fully grasped the essence of the bourgeois state, namely, that this state is established on the basis of the stability and smooth development of bourgeois society and the ability of the bourgeoisie to realize and safeguard its class interests; it is merely the political form of rule of bourgeois society. This also broke through the view of the relationship between state and society from the period of the *Notebooks* and the *Critique*, reaching the height of historical materialism in viewing the state question through class analysis, material interests, and social structure.

马克思在谈到拿破仑当时的统治政策时，提出了“现代国家的本质”的重要概念。马克思指出：“拿破仑当然已经有了对现代国家的本质的认识；他已经懂得，现代国家是以资产阶级社会的顺利发展、私人利益的自由运动等等作为基础的。”这里的“现代国家”显然指的是资产阶级国家，这一论述是借拿破仑之口来表达马克思对资产阶级国家的认识。这一论断表明，马克思已经充分看到了资产阶级国家的本质，即这一国家是建立在资产阶级社会的稳定和顺利发展，资产阶级能够实现、维护本阶级利益的基础之上的，它不过是资产阶级社会的政治统治形式。这也突破了《笔记》和《批判》时期对国家与社会关系的看法，而达到了用阶级分析、物质利益、社会结构来看国家问题的唯物史观高度。

*The German Ideology* (hereinafter referred to as *The Ideology*) is an important work that marks the formal establishment of Marxist historical materialism, and it is also a key text in which Marx and Engels, for the first time, employed historical materialism to scientifically reveal the essence of the state. In *The Ideology*, Marx and Engels skillfully provided the answer to this question through the intersecting perspectives of history and political economy, doing so with great persuasiveness. That is to say, philosophy, history, political economy, and other disciplines are already seamlessly integrated in *The Ideology*; they no longer appear as single, juxtaposed disciplines but are interwoven and fused together, jointly constituting the research perspective of Marx and Engels. *The Ideology* is like a magnificent, freehand landscape painting; it begins at the very source of human history: “The first premise of all human history is, of course, the existence of living human individuals.” And what makes humans human? The answer is not consciousness, religion, or other factors, but production. “As soon as people begin to produce their means of subsistence, a step determined by their physical organization, they themselves begin to distinguish themselves from animals. In producing their means of subsistence, people indirectly produce their own material life itself.”

《德意志意识形态》（以下简称《形态》）是标志着马克思主义唯物史观正式确立的重要著作，也是马克思和恩格斯首次运用唯物史观科学揭示国家本质的重要文献。在《形态》中，马克思和恩格斯娴熟地通过历史与政治经济学的交互视野，极富感染力地提供了问题的答案。也就是说，哲学、历史学、政治经济学等学科在《形态》中已经水乳交融地结合在一起，它们不再是以单一的、学科并置的形式出现，而是相互融合嵌套，共同构成了马克思和恩格斯的研究视野。《形态》如同一幅气势磅礴的大写意山水画卷，起笔就从人类历史的源头写起，“全部人类历史的第一个前提无疑是有生命的个人的存在”，而人之何以为人呢？答案不是意识、宗教等因素，而是生产。“一当人开始生产自己的生活资料，即迈出由他们的肉体组织所决定的这一步的时候，人本身就开始把自己和动物区别开来。人们生产自己的生活资料，同时间接地生产着自己的物质生活本身。”

It is precisely because of this production, from which humanity can never be separated for a moment, that society and the state gradually emerged. Marx and Engels pointed out: “Definite individuals who are productively active in a definite way enter into these definite social and political relations. … The social structure and the state constantly arise from the life-process of definite individuals.” This formulation is already very close to Marx’s classic exposition of the economic base and superstructure in the “Preface to *A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy*.” It is evident that by this period, Marx and Engels had already cast aside any mystical or speculative fantasies and, using “empirical observation,” fully grasped the essence of the state: that the state is a product of history, and that the social structure and political structure of any historical period are founded upon the relations of production and modes of intercourse of that society. Whatever the mode of production and mode of intercourse, a corresponding form of state will emerge.

正是由于这种人类须臾不可离开的生产，才渐次催生了社会和国家。马克思、恩格斯指出：“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。……社会结构和国家总是从一定的个人的生活过程中产生的。”这一表述，与马克思在《〈政治经济学批判〉序言》中关于经济基础与上层建筑的经典表述已经非常近似了。可见，马克思、恩格斯在这一时期已经摆脱了任何神秘的、思辨的幻想，而运用“经验的观察”完全把握了国家的本质，即国家是历史的产物，任何一个历史时期的社会结构和政治结构，都是建立在该社会的生产关系、交往方式基础之上的，有什么样的生产方式、交往方式，就会产生与之相适应的国家形式。

Marx and Engels also delved deeper into history, further summarizing the essence of the state and the bourgeois state from the perspective of the evolution of property forms. Human production, from the very beginning, was not carried out in isolation like Robinson Crusoe, but took the form of collective, cooperative labor. With the development of productive forces, the division of labor gradually emerged, and the different stages of the division of labor also correspond to different forms of ownership of the means of production. Based on their research at the time, Marx and Engels divided the forms of ownership in human history into tribal ownership, ancient communal ownership and state ownership, feudal or estate ownership, bourgeois ownership, and communist ownership. They pointed out that the earliest form of ownership, whether in the classical ancient world or the Middle Ages, was tribal ownership. With the development of productive forces, the relations of production and forms of political rule correspondingly changed: “Tribal ownership went through several different stages—feudal landed property, the movable property of trade guilds, capital in manufacture—before it developed into modern capital, brought about by large-scale industry and universal competition, i.e., into pure private property, which has cast off all semblance of community and has eliminated any influence of the state on the development of property. The modern state corresponds to this modern private property.” The discussion here further develops the exposition of the essence of the state from the *Notebooks* to *The Holy Family*. It shows that the political state is a product of economic movement. The so-called modern state, i.e., the capitalist state, is a form of rule corresponding to and generated by capitalist private property, with the fundamental purpose of maintaining the operation of capitalist private property. On the basis of this research, Marx and Engels pointed out: “The state is, in fact, nothing but the form of organization which the bourgeois necessarily adopt both for internal and external purposes, for the mutual guarantee of their property and interests.” “The state is the form in which the individuals of a ruling class assert their common interests.” These judgments are extremely clear, explicit summaries of the essence of the state from the theoretical height of historical materialism.

马克思、恩格斯还更深地进入历史，从所有制衍进的角度进一步概括了国家与资产阶级国家的本质。人类的生产，从一开始就不是像鲁滨逊那样单独进行的，而是采取集体劳动的协作形式。随着生产力的发展，逐渐产生了分工，而分工的不同阶段也是生产资料所有制的不同形式。马克思、恩格斯根据当时的研究，将人类历史上的所有制形式划分为部落所有制、古代公社所有制和国家所有制、封建的或等级的所有制、资产阶级所有制，以及共产主义所有制。他们指出，所有制的最初形式，无论是在古典古代世界或中世纪，都是部落所有制，随着生产力的发展，生产关系和政治统治形式也在相应地发生变化，“部落所有制经过了几个不同的阶段——封建地产，同业公会的动产，工场手工业资本——才发展为由大工业和普遍竞争所引起的现代资本，即变为抛弃了共同体的一切外观并消除了国家对所有制发展的任何影响的纯粹私有制。现代国家是与这种现代私有制相适应的”。这里的论述进一步发展了从《笔记》到《神圣家族》中有关国家本质问题的论述，它表明，政治国家是经济运动的产物，所谓现代国家即资本主义国家，是与资本主义私有制相适应、由其所产生和决定的统治形式，根本目的在于维护资本主义私有制的运行。在这些研究基础上，马克思、恩格斯指出，“实际上国家不外是资产者为了在国内外相互保障各自的财产和利益所必然要采取的一种组织形式”，“国家是统治阶级的各个人借以实现其共同利益的形式”，这些论断，都是极其明晰地、从唯物史观的理论高度对国家的本质进行的明确概括。

In the *Communist Manifesto*, which marks the formal birth of Marxism, Marx and Engels, with the theoretical thoroughness of scientific socialism, directly stated: “The executive of the modern state is but a committee for managing the common affairs of the whole bourgeoisie.” Corresponding to this theoretical judgment, the aim and mission of the proletariat is “to blow up the whole superstructure of official society” and “to overthrow the rule of the bourgeoisie and for the proletariat to seize state power.” It can be seen that Marx’s exploration and establishment of the essence of the state was not only a scientific conclusion drawn from the multi-dimensional intersecting perspectives of philosophy, history, political economy, and scientific socialism, but also constituted the real content of the proletariat’s revolutionary practice through a thorough understanding of the overall structure of modern bourgeois society. It is precisely because of this understanding that Engels, in his speech at Marx’s graveside, praised Marx with these words: “His real mission in life was to contribute, in one way or another, to the overthrow of capitalist society and of the state institutions which it had brought into being, to contribute to the liberation of the modern proletariat.”

在标志着马克思主义正式诞生的《共产党宣言》中，马克思、恩格斯进一步以科学社会主义的理论彻底性，直截了当地指出，“现代的国家政权不过是管理整个资产阶级的共同事务的委员会罢了”。与这一理论判断相适应，无产阶级的目的和使命，则是“炸毁构成官方社会的整个上层”，“推翻资产阶级的统治，由无产阶级夺取政权”。可以看出，马克思对国家本质的探索和确立，不仅是在哲学、历史、政治经济学、科学社会主义等多维交叉视野中得出的科学结论，而且以对现代资产阶级社会整体架构的透彻认识而构成了无产阶级进行革命实践的真实内容。正是由于这一认识，恩格斯在马克思的墓前讲话中以这样的话语盛赞马克思，“他毕生的真正使命，就是以这种或那种方式参加推翻资本主义社会及其所建立的国家设施的事业，参加现代无产阶级的解放事业”。

III. The Tempering and Further Reflection of Theory in Practice

三、理论在实践中的锤炼与进一步思考

A distinctive feature of Marx’s philosophy is that theory comes from practice, is applied in practice, and is further enriched and developed through the testing and tempering of practice. Marx’s scientific judgment on the essence of the state was a scientific conclusion reached by creating and applying historical materialism. Moreover, it was tempered in practice during the 1848 European Revolutions and the Paris Commune Uprising. On this basis, it was further deepened, forming the important idea of replacing the bourgeois state apparatus with a new, truly democratic state power of the proletariat.

马克思哲学的一个鲜明特点，就是理论来自实践，运用于实践，并在实践的检验和锤炼中获得进一步丰富和发展。马克思对国家本质的科学论断，是创制和运用唯物史观得出的科学结论，而且在 1848 年欧洲革命和巴黎公社起义中得到了实践的淬炼，更在此基础上不断深化，形成了用无产阶级新的真正民主的国家政权来代替资产阶级国家政权的重要思想。

In *The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte*, an important work summarizing the experience of the 1848 European Revolutions, Marx used historical materialism to analyze the essence of the bourgeois state even more thoroughly, elucidated the Marxist theory of the state, and put forward the idea that the proletarian revolution must smash the old state machinery. Marx still pointed out from the level of the essence of the state: “The bourgeois republic here signifies the unlimited despotism of one class over the others.” Previous bourgeois revolutions had not shaken the military-bureaucratic machine formed in the era of absolute monarchy; instead, they took it as their main spoils of war. “All revolutions perfected this machine instead of smashing it.” Proceeding from this, the revolutionary movement of the proletariat must “concentrate all its forces of destruction” to smash the old state machinery. This understanding continued and expanded the relevant judgments of the *Communist Manifesto*. In a letter to Ludwig Kugelmann on April 12, 1871, Marx more clearly reiterated this idea: “If you look up the last chapter of my *Eighteenth Brumaire*, you will find that I declare that the next attempt of the French Revolution should be no longer, as before, to transfer the bureaucratic-military machine from one hand to another, but to smash it, and this is the precondition for every real people’s revolution on the Continent.”

在总结 1848 年欧洲革命经验的重要著作《路易 · 波拿巴的雾月十八日》中，马克思运用唯物史观更加透彻地分析了资产阶级国家的本质，阐明了马克思主义国家学说，提出了无产阶级革命必须摧毁旧的国家机器的思想。马克思依然从国家的本质层面指出：“资产阶级共和国在这里是表示一个阶级对其他阶级实行无限制的专制统治。”历次资产阶级革命都没有动摇在专制君主时代形成的军事官僚机器，反而把它当作主要的战利品。“一切变革都是使这个机器更加完备，而不是把它摧毁。”由此出发，无产阶级的革命运动必须“集中自己的一切破坏力量”来摧毁旧的国家机器。这一认识延续和扩展了《共产党宣言》的有关论断。在 1871 年4月12日给路·库格曼的信中，马克思更明确地重申了这一思想：“如果你查阅一下我的《路易·波拿巴的雾月十八日》的最后一章，你就会看到，我认为法国革命的下一次尝试不应该再像以前那样把官僚军事机器从一些人的手里转到另一些人的手里，而应该把它打碎，这正是大陆上任何一次真正的人民革命的先决条件。”

So, after the proletariat smashes the old state machinery of the bourgeoisie, what kind of political structure or form of management should it establish? After long revolutionary practice and theoretical exploration, Marx gave the answer in *The Civil War in France*. In this work, Marx points out on the one hand that “the working class cannot simply lay hold of the ready-made state machinery and wield it for its own purposes”; at the same time, he further points out that the Paris Commune, established by the French working class, is a form of political power that embodies the interests and demands of the proletariat and promotes the development of the working class itself, i.e., the dictatorship of the proletariat. Marx was filled with contempt for the Second French Empire under Louis Bonaparte’s rule, calling it: “The Empire was the only form of government possible at a time when the bourgeoisie had already lost, and the working class had not yet acquired, the faculty of ruling the nation.” “The Empire is the most prostitute and the ultimate form of the state power which nascent bourgeois society had commenced to elaborate as a means of its own emancipation from feudalism, and which fully developed bourgeois society had finally transformed into a means for the enslavement of labor by capital.” This reveals the bourgeois nature of the Second Empire; it was a relatively low-level form adopted by the bourgeoisie in the early period of its rule, and in the final analysis it was a political instrument for the bourgeoisie to exploit, enslave, and rule the working class. As Engels said, “In reality, the state is nothing but a machine for the oppression of one class by another, and indeed in the democratic republic no less than in the monarchy. At best, the state is an evil inherited by the proletariat after its victorious struggle for class rule.” [14]14 Engels, “Introduction to Marx’s *The Civil War in France*” (1891).

那么，无产阶级打碎资产阶级旧的国家机器之后，应当建立一种怎样的政治架构或管理形式呢？马克思经过长期的革命实践和理论探索之后，在《法兰西内战》中给出了答案。马克思在这本著作中一方面指出，“工人阶级不能简单地掌握现成的国家机器，并运用它来达到自己的目的”；同时进一步指出，法国工人阶级所建立的巴黎公社就是体现无产阶级利益和诉求，促进工人阶级自身发展的政权形式即无产阶级专政。马克思对路易 · 波拿巴统治下的法兰西第二帝国充满了鄙夷，将之称为：“帝国是在资产阶级已经丧失统治国家的能力而工人阶级又尚未获得这种能力时唯一可能的统治形式。”“帝国制度是国家政权的最低贱的形式，同时也是最后的形式。它是新兴资产阶级社会当作自己争取摆脱封建制度的解放手段而开始缔造的；而成熟了的资产阶级社会最后却把它变成了资本奴役劳动的工具。” 这就揭示了第二帝国的资产阶级性质，它是资产阶级在其统治早期采取的一种较为低级的形式，归根结底是资产阶级剥削、奴役、统治工人阶级的政治工具。正如恩格斯所说，“实际上，国家无非是一个阶级镇压另一个阶级的机器，而且在这一点上民主共和国并不亚于君主国。国家再好也不过是在争取阶级统治的斗争中获胜的无产阶级所继承下来的一个祸害”。

In direct opposition to this instrument of bourgeois rule is the proletarian political power established by the working class. Marx pointed out that the direct opposite of the Empire was the Paris Commune. The Paris proletariat, when proclaiming the February Revolution, had raised the slogan of a “social republic,” but this only indicated that the proletariat at that time had a vague intention, i.e., the demand to establish a republic that would replace not only the monarchical form of class rule but also class rule itself. With the development of practical struggle, “the Commune was the positive form of that republic.” The reason for saying this is that “the Commune would restore to the social body all the forces hitherto absorbed by the state parasite feeding upon society and hampering its free movement.” The meaning expressed here is consistent with the viewpoint Marx obtained during his critique of Hegel’s philosophy of right, namely, that the foundation and source of the state is society, and the state is a political product determined by society. However, once the state emerges, it in turn restricts and hinders social development, becoming a “parasite” on the social organism. Whether it is a feudal state or a bourgeois state, the essence is the same. Only the state power established by the proletariat completely cuts off this “parasite,” restoring the social organism to its original appearance. This fundamentally resolves the problems of the state, its essence, and its way out that have long plagued human development.

与这种资产阶级统治工具直接对立的则是工人阶级建立的无产阶级政权。马克思指出，帝国的直接对立物就是巴黎公社，巴黎无产阶级在宣布二月革命时曾经提出过“社会共和国”的口号，但这仅仅表明当时的无产阶级产生了一种模糊的意向，即要求建立一个不但取代阶级统治的君主制形式，而且取代阶级统治本身的共和国。而随着斗争实践的发展，“公社正是这个共和国的毫不含糊的形式”。之所以这样说，是因为“公社体制会把靠社会供养而又阻碍社会自由发展的国家这个寄生赘瘤迄今所夺去的一切力量，归还给社会机体”。这里所表达的意思和马克思在黑格尔法哲学批判时期获得的观点是一致的，即国家的基础和来源是社会，国家是由社会所决定的政治产物，但国家一旦产生却反过来会制约和阻碍社会发展，成为社会机体的“寄生赘瘤”，无论封建制国家还是资产阶级国家，其本质都是如此。只有无产阶级建立的国家政权才彻底割弃了这个“寄生赘瘤”，使社会机体恢复了本来面貌，这就从根本上解决了长期困扰人类发展的国家及其本质、出路等问题。

Engels stated in more lucid language: “What was the characteristic feature of the state up to now? Society had, by means of a simple division of labor, created special organs to safeguard its common interests. But after a time these organs — foremost among them the state power — began to pursue their own special interests and from servants of society became masters of society.” Engels specifically noted that this situation occurs not only in hereditary monarchies but also in democratic republics. He took the United States as an example: “It is precisely in America that we see most clearly how the state power, which was originally designed to be merely an instrument of society, becomes independent of society. There is no dynasty, no nobility, no standing army except for a few soldiers to watch the Indians, no bureaucracy with fixed posts or pensions. And yet we find there two great gangs of political speculators, who alternately take possession of the state power and use it for the most corrupt ends — and the nation is powerless against these two great cartels of politicians, who are ostensibly its servants, but in reality exploit and plunder it.” These political ills and disorders cannot be changed within the scope of bourgeois rule; they can only be overcome through the new form of political power established by the proletariat.

恩格斯以更加晓畅的语言指出：“以往国家的特征是什么呢？社会为了维护共同的利益，最初通过简单的分工建立了一些特殊的机关。但是，随着时间的推移，这些机关——为首的是国家政权——为了追求自己的特殊利益，从社会的公仆变成了社会的主人。”恩格斯还专门指出，这种情况不但出现在世袭君主国，而且在民主共和国内同样如此。他以美国举例说明：“正是在美国，同在任何其他国家中相比，‘政治家们’都构成国民中一个更为特殊的更加富有权势的部分。在这个国家里，轮流执政的两大政党中的每一个政党，又是由这样一些人操纵的，这些人把政治变成一种生意，拿联邦国会和各州议会的议席来投机牟利，或是以替本党鼓动为主，在本党胜利后取得职位作为报酬。”恩格斯把这种制度的弊病称为“已难忍受的桎梏”和“腐败的泥沼”，美国不但摆脱不了这种桎梏，反而在其中越陷越深。“正是在美国，我们可以最清楚地看到，本来只应为社会充当工具的国家政权怎样脱离社会而独立化。那里没有王朝，没有贵族，除了监视印第安人的少数士兵之外没有常备军，不存在拥有固定职位或享有年金的官僚。然而我们在那里却看到两大帮政治投机家，他们轮流执掌政权，以最肮脏的手段来达到最肮脏的目的，而国民却无力对付这两大政客集团，这些人表面上是替国民服务，实际上却是对国民进行统治和掠夺。”这些政治弊端和乱象，在资产阶级统治范围内是改变不了的，只有通过无产阶级建立的政权新形式才能加以克服。

The history of human social development shows that the state and government organs, which emerge from society and should serve it, ultimately come to dominate society. “This phenomenon has been unavoidable in all states up to now.” Only with the Paris Commune did humanity begin to find a reliable method to prevent this phenomenon. A series of management measures proposed by the Paris Commune, in a practical sense, inscribed on the banner of proletarian political power the important ideas Marx had earlier raised in *Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right*, such as “true democracy” and “the self-determination of the people.” Engels commented on this, saying that it was essentially “the replacement of the old state power with a new, truly democratic one.” This is also a profound conclusion reached by Marxist state theory and Marx’s political philosophy, surpassing other theoretical schools on the question of the essence of the state.

人类社会发展史表明，由社会中产生出来、本应服务于社会的国家和政府机关，最后却凌驾于社会之上，“这种现象在至今所有的国家中都是不可避免的”。只有到了巴黎公社，人类才开始找到防止这一现象的可靠办法。巴黎公社提出的一系列管理举措，在实践意义上将马克思早年在《黑格尔法哲学批判》中提出的“真正的民主制”“人民的自我规定”等重要思想，现实地刻写在无产阶级政权的旗帜上。恩格斯对此评价说，这实质上就是“打碎旧的国家政权而以新的真正民主的国家政权来代替”，这也是马克思主义国家理论和马克思政治哲学超越其他理论派别，在国家本质问题上得出的深刻结论。

IV. From an Interactive Research Perspective to a Broad-Spectrum Marxian Political Philosophy

四、从交互研究视域到广谱的马克思政治哲学

Marx obtained scientific conclusions on the essence of the state through the interactive research perspective of history and political economy. This process of inquiry shows that for Marx’s political philosophy, what is important is not only the conclusions but also the way in which the conclusions are reached, i.e., the research path and method. We can see that in Marx’s research, he was not constrained by the rigid boundaries of academic disciplines but freely moved between different fields of study according to the direction of the problem, especially integrating the research perspectives of different disciplines to form a comprehensive academic horizon. This point has important intellectual implications for our re-examination of some basic theoretical issues in the study of Marx’s political philosophy.

马克思通过历史与政治经济学的交互研究视域得到了对国家本质问题的科学结论，这一探研过程表明，对于马克思政治哲学而言重要的不仅仅是结论，而且是得出结论的方式，即研究路径与方法。我们看到，在马克思的研究中，他并没有受制于学科划分的僵硬界限，而是随着问题的指向自由游走于不同的研究领域，特别是将不同学科的研究视角统合起来，形成一种综合性的学术视域。这一点对我们重新审视马克思政治哲学研究中的一些基本理论问题，有重要的思想启迪。

In recent years, research on Marx’s political philosophy has flourished vigorously. The academic community has produced a series of achievements in this field, advancing the progress of research. These studies have greatly enriched the content of Marxian philosophical research, making important theoretical explorations of many issues that had previously received little attention or were even constrained in research, in light of the requirements of the new era, and have overall greatly advanced the study of Marxian philosophy. At the same time, however, a series of extremely important basic theoretical issues — such as what Marx’s political philosophy is, what its connotation and extension are, and what its theoretical conclusions and characteristics are — have not yet formed a research consensus. Taking “what is Marx’s political philosophy” as an example, we are generally accustomed to adopting the standard of Western political philosophy, i.e., “referring to political theories and methods that use long-standing deductive reasoning and logical verification, discuss the nature and purpose of politics from a purely theoretical perspective, and have a strong moral and value color, collectively as political philosophy,” and then excavating content in this regard from Marx’s thought according to this requirement. Starting from this, special attention is paid to excavating Marx’s discussion of political values, especially issues such as justice, equality, and freedom. However, issues such as the state, class, and revolution, which Marx studied with great effort and which go beyond the scope of value theory, are often not regarded as content of the study of Marx’s political philosophy.

近年来，关于马克思政治哲学的研究蓬勃兴起，学界在这一研究领域推出了一系列成果，推进了研究的进展。这些研究大大充实了马克思哲学研究的内容，对以往研究中未曾得到关注，甚至受到研究制约的很多问题，结合新的时代要求作出了重要的理论探讨，从总体上极大地推进了马克思哲学研究。但同时，关于何为马克思政治哲学，其内涵与外延在哪里，其思想结论和理论特质是什么等一系列极为重要的基本理论问题，尚未形成研究的共识。以何为马克思政治哲学为例，对这一问题我们一般习惯于采用西方政治哲学的标准，即“把长期沿用的演绎推理、逻辑验证，从纯理论角度讨论政治本质和目的、具有浓厚道德与价值色彩的政治学理论和方法统称为政治哲学”，继而按照这一要求从马克思思想中挖掘这方面的内容。由此出发，就特别注重挖掘马克思对政治价值尤其是对正义、平等、自由等问题的研讨，而马克思花费很大精力重点研究的国家、阶级、革命等超出价值论范围的问题，往往不被视为马克思政治哲学研究的内容。

Furthermore, in their own research, scholars extensively employ methods such as deductive reasoning and logical verification to demonstrate their own propositions concerning Marx’s political philosophy, while paying little attention to Marx’s own research approaches and methods, such as his emphasis on historical facts and his focus on political economy. These research conditions are all related to our understanding of the fundamental theoretical question of what Marx’s political philosophy actually is. With the development of the New Era and the deepening of research, we should engage in further reflection on the foundational and deep-seated theoretical issues existing in the study of Marx’s political philosophy. The most crucial question is: should we continue to use the standards, definitions, and methods of Western political philosophy to view Marx’s political philosophy? Does Marx’s political philosophy possess its own unique theoretical characteristics, and therefore also its own exclusive definitions, content, and research pathways? In other words, is there a qualitative difference between Marx and the numerous thinkers in the history of thought whom academia generally recognizes as political philosophers—such as Plato, Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, and even Marcuse, Strauss, Rawls, and Hayek?

另外，研究者在自身研究中，大量运用演绎推理、逻辑验证等方法来论证研究者本人提出的关于马克思政治哲学的主张，而很少关注马克思诸如注重历史事实、聚焦政治经济学等研究进路和方法。这些研究状况都与我们对何为马克思政治哲学这一基础理论问题的理解有关。随着新时代的发展和研究的深入，我们应当对马克思政治哲学研究中存在的基础性、深层的理论问题作出进一步思考。最为紧要的就是，我们是否还要用西方政治哲学的标准、定义、方法来看待马克思政治哲学？马克思政治哲学是否有自身独到的理论特质，因而也有自身专属的定义、内容与研究路径？换言之，马克思与思想史上众多的、学界一般都认同其政治哲学家身份的思想家——例如柏拉图、霍布斯、洛克、卢梭乃至马尔库塞、施特劳斯、罗尔斯、哈耶克等，有没有质性的区别？

Reflection is for the sake of better progress. Rethinking what Marx’s political philosophy is involves further exploring the fundamental source issues of Marx’s thought, and it is also a requirement of the times for constructing an independent knowledge system of China. In the author’s view, the answer is clear. The birth of Marxism was a revolutionary transformation in the history of human thought; Marx’s philosophy is different from all other philosophical schools. Based on this, Marx’s political philosophy is evidently qualitatively different from Western political philosophy, possessing its own unique research domain, central concerns, and research pathways.

反思是为了更好地前进。重思何为马克思政治哲学，是在进一步探寻马克思思想的大本大源问题，也是建构中国自主知识体系的时代要求。在笔者看来，答案是显明的。马克思主义的诞生是人类思想史上的革命性变革，马克思哲学不同于其他任何哲学流派。以此而论，马克思政治哲学显然与西方政治哲学有质性的不同，而拥有自身独特的研究领域、中心关切和研究路径。

From the perspective of the operational domain and theoretical characteristics of Marx’s political philosophy, Marx conducted the deepest and most essential exploration of human political life. Through his exceptionally broad and profound lifelong research, he revealed the secret of exploitation under the capitalist system and the essence of the rule of the bourgeois modern state, shattered the illusions of so-called bourgeois political values such as freedom, equality, and justice propagated by capitalist society, and provided the working class and laboring people with a program of action to transcend capitalist democracy and realize the communist system. From this perspective, Marx is undoubtedly the greatest and most thorough political philosopher in the history of human thought; his philosophical contemplation of political phenomena and political issues is unsurpassed. The reason Marx’s political philosophy differs from Western political philosophy is that Marx does not advocate research from a normative and “ought-to-be” perspective. On the contrary, Marx prominently emphasizes the scientific nature of research, demanding that his research conclusions on the laws of development of human society and history be verified with the precision of natural science. This point makes Marx’s political philosophy fundamentally different from political philosophy as generally understood.

从马克思政治哲学的运思领域和理论特质来看，马克思对人类的政治生活进行了最深层和最本质的探讨，他通过一生异常广博而精深的研究，揭示了资本主义制度剥削的秘密和资产阶级现代国家进行统治的本质，打破了资本主义社会宣扬的所谓自由、平等、正义等资产阶级政治价值的幻影，为工人和劳动人民提供了超越资本主义民主、实现共产主义制度的行动纲领。从这个角度来看，马克思无疑是人类思想史上最伟大、最彻底的政治哲学家，他对政治现象和政治问题的哲学思考，无人能出其右。而马克思政治哲学之所以不同于西方政治哲学，是因为马克思并不主张从规范性和“应然”的角度进行研究。相反，马克思突出强调研究的科学性，要求用自然科学的精确性来验证他关于人类社会历史发展规律的研究结论。这一点，使得马克思政治哲学与一般意义上讲的政治哲学迥然不同。

When we place Marx alongside Plato and the aforementioned series of political philosophers, we can clearly see the significant differences between them. Other political philosophers all strive to provide humanity with models of their respective ideal societies, repeatedly proving the beauty of such ideal societies, but they do not base this on history and reality, nor can they propose concrete pathways to reach the ideal society. Marx is different. He not only proposed the lofty goal of communist society but also proved that the realization of communism is not based on some ideal or principle, but on historical laws independent of human will. Furthermore, he pointed out the realistic path to realize communism. In other words, what Marx most emphasized was providing theoretical support for the development of world socialism on the basis of scientifically explaining the conditions of material production. Here, normativity obtained purely from rational deduction is not accepted, and the practice of proposing an “ought-to-be” claim that disregards actual conditions and historical laws is opposed. In other words, Marx does not advocate an “ought-to-be” that is divorced from reality (“what-is”) and historical laws (“what-must-be”). If there is an “ought-to-be” that Marx could agree with, it can only be an “ought-to-be” built upon the “what-is” as the scientific foundation and the “what-must-be” as the historical law. This is what we often call the unity of conformity to laws and conformity to purposes. In Marx’s philosophy, if one separates from the “what-is,” ignores the “what-must-be,” and merely talks about the so-called “ought-to-be,” it is nothing but worthless utopianism. Precisely because of this, we should no longer define Marx’s political philosophy using the general framework and standards of Western political philosophy. Instead, we should base ourselves on Marx’s philosophical revolution and establish Chinese scholars’ own standards and requirements for Marx’s political philosophy.

当我们将马克思与柏拉图等上述一系列政治哲学家并置时，能够很清楚地看到其间的重大区别。其他政治哲学家都在努力为人类提供各自心目中理想社会的范型，反复证明这种理想社会的美好，但都未将其建立在历史和现实的基础上，也提不出通达理想社会的具体途径。马克思则不同，他不仅提出了共产主义社会的远大目标，而且证明共产主义的实现不是基于某种理想、原则，而是建立在不以意志为转移的历史规律基础之上的，更进一步指明了实现共产主义的现实道路。换言之，马克思最为注重的是在科学说明物质生产状况的基础上为世界社会主义发展提供理论支撑，这里不接受单纯从理性推演而获得的规范性，反对那种不顾实际情况和历史规律提出一种“应然”主张的做法。换言之，马克思并不主张那种脱离现实（“实然”）与历史规律（“必然”）的“应然”。如果说，有一种能为马克思所同意的“应然”，那只能是建立在作为科学基础的“实然”、作为历史规律的“必然”之上的“应然”。这也就是我们常说的合规律性与合目的性的统一。在马克思哲学中，如果脱离了“实然”、忽视了“必然”，而单纯谈论所谓“应然”，那就只是毫无价值的空想。正由于此，我们不宜再用西方政治哲学的一般框架和标准来界定马克思政治哲学，而应立足马克思的哲学变革，建立中国学者自己的马克思政治哲学的标准和要求。

In the author’s view, Marx’s political philosophy is not merely the study of political values and other such issues; it is the philosophical contemplation of all political phenomena and political problems. So-called philosophical contemplation means reaching conclusions at the level of the essence and root of the problem, rather than at the level of phenomena. The research pathway of Marx’s political philosophy is not to derive certain normative political-moral principles through rational deduction or logical speculation, but to reach scientific conclusions within the interactive research perspective of multiple disciplines such as philosophy, history, and political economy, and on this basis to establish the values people should pursue, and to realize this pursuit through practice. This is a broad-spectrum political philosophy. It more broadly encompasses the problems studied by Marx’s political philosophy, more extensively captures the multi-dimensional and interactive research perspective of Marx’s political philosophy, and more expansively extends the academic life of Marx’s political philosophy.

在笔者看来，马克思政治哲学不只是对政治价值等问题的研究，而且是对一切政治现象和政治问题的哲学思考，所谓哲学思考，就是在问题的本质、根本层面而非现象层面得出的结论。马克思政治哲学的研究路径不是通过理性推演或逻辑思辨，得出某些具有规范性意义的政治—道德原则，而是在哲学、历史、政治经济学等多学科的交互研究视域中得出科学结论，并在此基础上确立人们应当追寻的价值，并通过实践来实现这种追寻。这是一种广谱的政治哲学，它更加广备地涵摄了马克思政治哲学研究的问题，更加广泛地提取到马克思政治哲学多维交互的研究视野，更加广阔地延展了马克思政治哲学的学术生命。

Starting from this broad-spectrum Marx’s political philosophy, current research has room for further expansion in at least the following two aspects. First, further expand the research themes of Marx’s political philosophy. That is to say, in addition to discussing Marx’s reflections on political value issues such as justice, equality, and freedom, we should also, starting from Marx’s actual thought and revolutionary practice, incorporate Marx’s reflections on numerous political phenomena such as the state, law, revolution, class, as well as enslavement, oppression, and liberation, as important content for the study of Marx’s political philosophy. Second, further enrich the research pathways of Marx’s political philosophy. As mentioned above, people generally regard political philosophy as normative research conducted from perspectives such as reason and logical deduction. However, in the vast body of texts left by Marx, it is often difficult to find normative expositions written by Marx himself. This deprives the research that views Marx’s political philosophy as a normative theory of a stable textual foundation.

从这种广谱的马克思政治哲学出发，现今的研究至少在以下两方面存在着进一步拓展的空间。第一，进一步扩展马克思政治哲学的研究主题。也就是说，除了研讨马克思对正义、平等、自由等政治价值问题的思考，还应从马克思的思想实际与革命实践出发，将马克思对国家、法、革命、阶级以及奴役、压迫、解放等众多政治现象的思考也作为马克思政治哲学研究的重要内容。第二，进一步丰富马克思政治哲学的研究路径。如上所述，人们一般将政治哲学视为从理性和逻辑推演等角度进行的规范性研究，然而，在马克思留下的浩瀚文本中，人们往往很难找到马克思写下的规范性论述，这就使那种将马克思政治哲学看作规范性理论的研究失去了稳固的文本基础。

The basic approach to resolving this issue lies in reconstructing normativity in the sense of Marx’s political philosophy. That is to say, in Marx’s thought, so-called normativity is not normativity in the general sense, proceeding from some rational rule or moral principle, but rather an “ought” established on the basis of scientific conclusions derived through systematic research—that is, the “ought” of “necessity.” In the introduction Engels wrote in his later years for the publication of Marx’s *Wage Labour and Capital*, he wrote that under the capitalist system, on the one hand there is an incalculable mass of wealth and an excess of products that purchasers cannot afford to pay for, while on the other hand the vast majority of the population in society has lost its purchasing power; this society is at once suffocated by its own wealth and plunges the overwhelming majority of its members into extreme poverty. Engels pointed out sharply on this basis: “This state of society is becoming ever more absurd, ever more unnecessary. It must be eliminated, and it can be eliminated.” [1]1 Engels, “Introduction to Karl Marx’s *Wage Labour and Capital*” (1891), in *Marx/Engels Collected Works*, vol. 27, p. 201. The passage is a paraphrase; the original reads: “It must be abolished, it can be abolished.” The “must be eliminated” mentioned here contains a normative demand, while “can be eliminated” is a scientific conclusion; therefore, Engels’ demand is precisely an “ought” established on the basis of “necessity,” not an “ought” based on some ideal principle. Our research approach to Marx’s political philosophy should also be understood in this way. Marx did not simply study the essence of the state in the political sphere by relying on rational thought and logical deduction; rather, it was only in the multi-dimensional interactive perspective of history and political economy that he arrived at scientific conclusions. The conclusions obtained through this research approach are both scientific, i.e., “necessary,” and contain normative, i.e., “ought,” demands, thereby manifesting the theoretical characteristics of Marx’s political philosophy. Lenin has a very brilliant exposition that can serve as a footnote to this theoretical characteristic of Marx’s political philosophy: “The difference between Marxism and all other socialist theories lies in the fact that it excellently combines the following two aspects: a completely scientific and sober attitude in analyzing the objective situation and the objective course of evolution, and a very resolute recognition of the revolutionary energy, revolutionary creativity, and revolutionary initiative of the masses (and, of course, of individuals, groups, organizations, and parties that are good at groping for and establishing connections with certain classes).” [2]2 V. I. Lenin, “Against Boycott” (1907), in *Lenin Collected Works*, vol. 13, p. 36. The revolutionary energy, revolutionary creativity, and revolutionary initiative that Lenin speaks of precisely embody the active pursuit of the “ought” by historical subjects after they have recognized the scientific “necessity.” Therefore, we should clearly distinguish between this “grand logic” of Marx that runs through the actual, the ought, and the necessary, and the “small logic” of general political philosophy based on reason and moral principles.

解决这一问题的基本思路在于，重建马克思政治哲学意义上的规范性。即是说，在马克思思想中，所谓规范性不是一般意义上从某种理性规则或道德原则出发的规范性，而是建立在通过系统研究得出的科学结论基础上的应然，即“必然”之“应然”。恩格斯晚年在为出版马克思《雇佣劳动与资本》而撰写的导言中写道，在资本主义制度下，一方面是难以计数的巨量财富和购买者无力支付的产品过剩，另一方面是社会上绝大多数人口丧失了购买能力，这个社会既被自己的富有所窒息，又使绝大多数成员陷于极大贫困。恩格斯就此尖锐指出：“社会的这种状况日益显得荒谬，日益显得没有存在的必要。这种状况应当被消除，而且能够被消除。”这里所提到的“应当被消除”包含着规范性要求，而“能够被消除”则是科学性的结论，因而，恩格斯的这一要求恰是建立在“必然”基础之上的“应然”，而不是基于某一理想原则的“应当”。我们对马克思政治哲学的研究路径，也应作如是观。马克思并非单纯在政治领域中依靠理性思维和逻辑推演去研究国家的本质，而是在历史和政治经济学的多维交互视域中才获得了科学的结论。通过这种研究路径所得出的结论，既是科学的、“必然”的，也蕴含着规范的、“应然”的要求，从而彰显了马克思政治哲学的理论特质。列宁有一段非常精彩的论述，可以作为马克思政治哲学这种理论特质的脚注——“马克思主义和其他一切社会主义理论的不同之处在于，它出色地把以下两方面结合起来：既以完全科学的冷静态度去分析客观形势和演进的客观进程，又非常坚决地承认群众（当然，还有善于摸索到并建立起同某些阶级的联系的个人、团体、组织、政党）的革命毅力、革命创造性、革命首创精神的意义。”列宁所说的革命毅力、革命创造性、革命首创精神等，恰恰体现了历史主体在认识到科学的“必然”之后对“应然”的积极追求。因之，对马克思这种贯通实然—应然—必然的“大逻辑”，与一般政治哲学建基于理性、道德原则的“小逻辑”，我们应当进行明晰的辨识。

Two hundred years of time have passed, and its brilliance shines ever brighter; its majestic spirit remains to this day. [3]3 “Two hundred years of time have passed, and its brilliance shines ever brighter; its majestic spirit remains to this day” (二百星霜光愈盛，风神凛凛到如今) is a classical Chinese poetic couplet composed by the author, alluding to the enduring relevance of Marx’s thought two centuries after his birth. As the “thinker of the millennium,” Marx’s thought is the more one looks up to it, the higher it seems; the more one delves into it, the harder it becomes. [4]4 “The more one looks up to it, the higher it seems; the more one delves into it, the harder it becomes” (仰之弥高、钻之弥坚) is a classical Chinese phrase from the *Analects of Confucius* (子罕第九), originally describing the virtue of Confucius; here it is applied to Marx’s thought. The study of Marx’s political philosophy is even more an open, unfinished field of research. For the present author, Marx’s political philosophy, which further extends and expands the research field and research path, as a broad-spectrum political philosophy, may better correspond to Marx’s actual thought and practical course. It is hoped that this research approach will receive further attention from colleagues in the academic community, so as to further advance and deepen the study of Marx’s political philosophy.

二百星霜光愈盛，风神凛凛到如今。作为“千年思想家”，马克思的思想仰之弥高、钻之弥坚，马克思政治哲学研究更是一个敞开的、未尽的研究领域。于笔者而言，进一步延展、扩充了研究领域与研究路径的马克思政治哲学，作为一种广谱的政治哲学，或将更加符合马克思的思想实际与实践历程。期望这一研究思路得到学界同仁的进一步关注，以便进一步推进和深化马克思政治哲学研究。

(Author: Wang Guang, Professor at the School of History, University of Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, Deputy Director of the Editorial Department of *Historical Research* and Director of the Center for Historical and Cultural Communication, Historical Research Magazine, Chinese Academy of History; Senior Editor)

（作者：王广，中国社会科学院大学历史学院教授，中国历史研究院历史研究杂志社副社长、历史文化传播中心主任，编审）

Online Editor: You Heng

网络编辑：有恒