The Theoretical Value of the Small Bundle Manuscript of the “Feuerbach” Chapter of *The German Ideology*

The “Feuerbach” chapter of *The German Ideology* in Volume I/5 of the Marx-Engels-Gesamtausgabe (hereinafter referred to as MEGA²) contains the main manuscript with consecutive page numbers marked by Marx (i.e., Parts II–IV of the separate edition of *The German Ideology*), the preface and revised drafts written and revised multiple times by Marx and Engels after the completion of the main manuscript, as well as the fragment discovered by Bana. The Japanese scholar Hiromatsu Wataru refers to the former as the “large bundle manuscript” and the latter as the “small bundle manuscript.” The small bundle manuscript specifically includes three chapter openings of the “Feuerbach” chapter and two fragments. Although this part is placed at the very beginning of the “Feuerbach” chapter, it was actually written later than the other parts of the “Feuerbach” chapter. According to the textual research on the specific time of writing by the editors of Volume I/5 of MEGA² of *The German Ideology*, the three chapter openings were written roughly from early June to mid-July 1846, and the two fragments were written roughly from May 30 to mid-July 1846. Although the small bundle manuscript presents a state of constant revision and even incompleteness, this does not mean that the small bundle manuscript is unimportant. Marx proposed in the *Grundrisse der Kritik der politischen Ökonomie* that “the anatomy of man is a key to the anatomy of the ape.” [1]1 MEGA² (Marx-Engels-Gesamtausgabe) is the historical-critical edition of the complete works of Marx and Engels. Volume I/5, published in 2017, contains the manuscripts of *The German Ideology*. The fact that the small bundle manuscript was written later than the other content of the “Feuerbach” chapter also means that Marx and Engels’ thought in this part is relatively more mature and possesses important theoretical value.

新历史考证版《马克思恩格斯全集》（以下简称MEGA2）第I/5卷《德意志意识形态》的“费尔巴哈”章包含着马克思标上了连续页码的主手稿（即单行本《德意志意识形态》的第II-IV部分）和在主手稿完成后马克思恩格斯多次写作、修改的全书序言和修订稿，以及巴纳所发现的残页。日本学者广松涉将前者称为大束手稿，将后者称为小束手稿。小束手稿具体包括“费尔巴哈”章的三个章开篇，以及两个残篇。虽然这部分被排在“费尔巴哈”章的最前面，但实际上却比“费尔巴哈”章其他部分写作时间要晚。根据MEGA2第I/5卷《德意志意识形态》编者对写作具体时间的考证，三个章开篇的写作时间大概在1846年的6月初到7月中旬，两个残篇的写作时间大概是1846年5月30日到7月中旬。小束手稿虽然呈现出不断修改甚至没有完成的样态，但这并不意味着小束手稿不重要。马克思在《1857-1858年经济学手稿》中提出“人体解剖对于猴体解剖是一把钥匙”，小束手稿晚于“费尔巴哈”章其他内容的写作，这也意味着马克思恩格斯的思想在这部分相对更加成熟，具有重要的理论价值。

The Small Bundle Manuscript Manifests the Subjective Dimension of Historical Materialism

小束手稿彰显了唯物史观的主体性向度

For a long time, academia has mainly grasped the historical materialism in the “Feuerbach” chapter of *The German Ideology* from the dialectical relationship between productive forces and forms of intercourse, and between civil society and the superstructure. This understanding manifests the objective dimension of historical materialism. However, in the small bundle manuscript of the “Feuerbach” chapter, Marx and Engels, by proposing the concept of “real individuals,” emphasize the subjective dimension possessed by historical materialism. “These are real individuals, their activity and the material conditions of their life.” [2]2 The “three chapter openings” refer to three different draft beginnings for the “Feuerbach” chapter found in the manuscripts, each with a different title and focus, reflecting the evolving plan of the work. This concept does not appear in the large bundle manuscript of the “Feuerbach” chapter of *The German Ideology*, leading academia to understand this concept for a long time merely from the transformation of the view of human nature achieved by Marx and Engels, without sorting out the internal relationship between “real individuals” and the objective laws of historical development, thus neglecting the value of “real individuals” for historical materialism.

长期以来，学界主要从生产力与交往形式、市民社会与上层建筑之间的辩证关系来把握《德意志意识形态》“费尔巴哈”章中的唯物史观。这种理解彰显了唯物史观的客体向度。但在“费尔巴哈”章的小束手稿中，马克思恩格斯则通过提出“现实的个人”概念强调了唯物史观所具有的主体向度。“这是一些现实的个人，是他们的活动和他们的物质生活条件。”这个概念在《德意志意识形态》“费尔巴哈”章的大束手稿中并没有出现，导致学界长期对这个概念仅仅从马克思恩格斯所实现的人学观变革来理解，而没有梳理“现实的个人”与历史发展客观规律之间的内在关系，忽略了“现实的个人”所具有的唯物史观价值。

Feuerbach was the first to propose that philosophy should be based on “real man,” but Marx and Engels judged that the man emphasized by Feuerbach was still an abstract man, the fundamental reason being that he had not truly solved the key question of how individuals acquire reality. In response, Marx and Engels, in the small bundle manuscript, analyzed this from two aspects. The first is the distinction between humans and animals. “Men can be distinguished from animals by consciousness, by religion or anything else one likes. They themselves begin to distinguish themselves from animals as soon as they begin to *produce* their means of subsistence, a step which is conditioned by their physical organization. By producing their means of subsistence men are indirectly producing their actual material life.” [3]3 This quotation is from the “Feuerbach” chapter of *The German Ideology* (MECW, Vol. 5, p. 31). Feuerbach explicitly stated that the fundamental distinction between humans and animals lies in consciousness. But this distinction still remains within abstract universality, presupposing a transcendental human nature. Marx and Engels, on the other hand, explain that they distinguish humans from animals based on material productive practice. Although both humans and animals have life and need to maintain their existence, humans are not driven by instinct but obtain the satisfaction of their means of subsistence and the maintenance of life through the mediation of active material practical activity. Second, the distinction between one person and another. “What individuals are depends on the material conditions of their production.” [4]4 This quotation is from the “Feuerbach” chapter of *The German Ideology* (MECW, Vol. 5, p. 32). Regarding the reality of individuals, one cannot merely distinguish them from animals; as social beings, they also need to be examined from the perspective of actual social relations. What is called “the material conditions of production” is essentially the state of the means of production, which technically manifests as the level of development of the means of production measured by tools, and in terms of power relations manifests as the ownership of the means of production and the distribution relations of products determined thereby. Through the key intermediary of the means of production, the position of individuals in the relations of production is determined, thereby also giving individuals their essential social determinations, and the essential differences between one person and another are revealed. More importantly, Marx analyzed that the material conditions of production themselves are the result of the production of the previous generation, and individuals only produce under the condition of inheriting them. Therefore, “real individuals” constitute the subject of the productive forces; productive forces are merely the objectified product of the capabilities of real individuals; relations of production are the social form of the elements of the productive forces; and on this basis, the political and ideological superstructure further arises. Without “real individuals” and the material productive practical activities they carry out, there would be no productive forces and relations of production, let alone the question of the determining and determined relationship between them.

费尔巴哈率先提出哲学要立足于“现实的人”，但马克思恩格斯却判定费尔巴哈强调的人依然是抽象的人，其根本原因在于他没有真正解决个人何以具有现实性这个关键问题。对此，马克思恩格斯在小束手稿中从两个方面进行了分析。其一是人与动物的区别。“可以根据意识、宗教或随便别的什么来区别人和动物。一当人开始生产自己的生活资料的时候，这一步是由他们的肉体组织所决定的，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。”费尔巴哈明确提出人和动物的根本区别在于意识。但这种区分依然停留于抽象的普遍性之中，预设了先验的人性。马克思恩格斯则交代了他们要根据物质生产实践来区分人和动物。虽然人和动物都具有生命，需要维持生命的存在，但人并非是受着本能的驱使，而是以能动的物质实践活动为中介获得生活资料的满足和生命的维持。其二，人与人的区别。“个人是什么样的，这取决于他们进行生产的物质条件。”对于个人的现实性，不能仅仅与动物进行区分，作为社会存在物，还需要从现实的社会关系来考察。所谓“生产的物质条件”实质就是生产资料状况，技术上表现为以工具为标尺的生产资料发展水平，权力关系上则表现为生产资料的归属所有，及其所决定的产品分配关系。通过生产资料这个关键中介，个人在生产关系中的地位被确定，由此也使个人获得本质的社会规定性，人与人的本质差异被揭示。更为重要的是，马克思分析了生产的物质条件本身是前一代人生产的结果，个人只是在继承的条件下进行生产。因此“现实的个人”构成了生产力的主体，生产力仅仅是现实个人能力的对象化产物，生产关系则是生产力诸要素的社会形式，并在此基础上进一步产生出政治和观念的上层建筑。离开了“现实的个人”以及他们所开展的物质生产实践活动，就不存在生产力和生产关系，更遑论它们之间的决定与被决定的关系问题。

In his later years, Engels, in *Ludwig Feuerbach and the End of Classical German Philosophy*, expressed historical materialism as “the science of real people and their historical development,” [5]5 This phrase is from Engels’s 1886 work *Ludwig Feuerbach and the End of Classical German Philosophy* (MECW, Vol. 26, p. 519). arguing that the key to understanding historical development is to be found in labor. This is undoubtedly an accurate expression of the relationship between the subject and historical development in the small bundle manuscript. Without “real individuals” and the material productive practical activities they engage in, there would be no history. Therefore, to fully grasp the historical materialism in *The German Ideology*, it is necessary to combine the subjective dimension of the small bundle manuscript with the objective dimension of the large bundle manuscript, so that historical materialism possesses not only scientificity but also value, being the unity of scientificity and value, which precisely reflects the fundamental characteristics of Marxist theory.

恩格斯晚年在《路德维希·费尔巴哈和德国古典哲学的终结》中将唯物史观表述为“现实的人及其历史发展的科学”，认为要在劳动中找到理解历史发展的锁匙。这无疑是对小束手稿中主体与历史发展关系的准确表述，离开了“现实的个人”及它所从事的物质生产实践活动就不存在历史。因此要完整把握《德意志意识形态》中的唯物史观，就需要将小束手稿的主体向度和大束手稿的客体向度结合，使唯物史观不仅具有科学性，而且具有价值性，是科学性与价值性的统一，这恰好体现了马克思主义理论的基本特性。

The Small Bundle Manuscript Preliminarily Embodies the Spirit of Reality of Historical Materialism

小束手稿初步体现了唯物史观的现实性精神

*The German Ideology* preliminarily and systematically articulated historical materialism, and its important textual basis is the pages marked by Marx as 11–16, i.e., pages 23–28 of the 2018 selected edition of *The German Ideology*. In this part, Marx and Engels reveal the fourfold primordial relations of human society, articulate the fundamental determining role of material production, and on this basis expound the dialectical relationship between productive forces and relations of production, and between the economic base and the superstructure. The historical materialism expressed by Marx and Engels at this time is still only an abstract basic principle. Although it embodies a fundamental difference from idealism, Marx also pointed out that while abstraction has positive value for compiling history, “these abstractions in themselves, divorced from real history, have no value whatsoever.” [6]6 This quotation is from the “Feuerbach” chapter of *The German Ideology* (MECW, Vol. 5, p. 37). Historical materialism still needs to penetrate into the actual life process and activity of individuals in each epoch, further realizing the ascent from the abstract to the concrete, and embodying the spirit of reality that historical materialism possesses.

《德意志意识形态》初步系统表述了唯物史观，其重要的文本依据是马克思所标示的第11-16页，即《德意志意识形态》节选本（2018年版）的第23-28页。在这一部分，马克思恩格斯揭示了人类社会的四重原初关系，表述了物质生产的基础性决定作用，在此基础上阐述了生产力与生产关系、经济基础与上层建筑的辩证关系。马克思恩格斯此时所表述的唯物史观还只是一种抽象的基本原理，虽然体现了与唯心史观的根本性差异，但马克思同时也指出，抽象对于编撰历史虽然具有积极价值，但“这些抽象本身离开了现实的历史就没有任何价值”，唯物史观还需要深入到每个时代的个人的实际生活过程和活动之中，进一步实现从抽象上升到具体，体现唯物史观所具有的现实性精神。

The Small Bundle manuscript not only contains more mature expressions of the abstract principles of historical materialism but also initially realizes the actualization of historical materialism. This is reflected not only in the fact that in “Fragment 1” of the Small Bundle manuscript, Marx and Engels, with more precise language, examine the evolution of forms of ownership prior to the emergence of capitalist private property and the class relations corresponding to each form of ownership, using empirical material to confirm the determining role of productive forces over relations of production; it is also reflected in “Fragment 2” of the Small Bundle manuscript, where they use the term “definite” to emphasize the specific, actual character of historical materialism: “Definite individuals who are productively active in a definite way enter into definite social and political relations.” “The social structure and the state are continually evolving out of the life-process of definite individuals.” “These individuals are active in producing, engaged in material production, and are thus active under definite material limits, presuppositions and conditions independent of their will.” The five instances of “definite” mean that historical materialism is not an abstract dogma but must be grounded in empirical reality and grasp the logic inherent in things themselves. Therefore, what Marx and Engels emphasize, in contrast to German philosophy, is that they must proceed from actually active people and their real life-process, not from imagined abstractions. As a scientific research method, historical materialism must penetrate into things themselves, and on the basis of precisely grasping the particularity of things, reveal the developmental logic inherent in things themselves. From this, it is not difficult to understand why Marx opposed the Russian populist Mikhailovsky’s universalization of his views on the origin of capitalism, and why Marx repeatedly revised and very cautiously replied to the letter from the Russian revolutionary Vera Zasulich. This is because the objective laws of historical development revealed by historical materialism are an essential abstraction of historical events and phenomena. Although they cannot be separated from the occurrence of historical events and phenomena, they cannot be directly equated with them. To be grounded in specific historical events, one must, guided by the methodology of historical materialism that social being determines social consciousness, examine the particularity of different historical events themselves, and comparatively study the universality contained behind the particularity of different historical events, in order to truly grasp the objective laws of history.

小束手稿不仅存在着对唯物史观抽象原理更加成熟的表述，而且初步实现了唯物史观的现实化。这不仅体现在马克思恩格斯在小束手稿的“残篇1”以更加精准的语言考察了资本主义私有制产生之前所有制形式的演变，以及每一种所有制形式所对应的阶级关系，以经验材料证实了生产力对生产关系的决定作用，而且在小束手稿的“残篇2”中用“一定的”术语强调了唯物史观的特定现实性精神：“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。”“这些个人是从事活动的，进行物质生产的，因而是在一定的物质的、不受他们任意支配的界限、前提和条件下活动着的。”五个“一定的”意味着唯物史观不是抽象的教条，而是要立足经验现实，把握事物自身存在的逻辑，因此马克思恩格斯所强调的与德国哲学不同，他们要从实际活动的人以及他们的现实生活过程出发，而不是从想象的抽象出发。唯物史观作为科学的研究方法必须深入事物自身，在精准把握事物特殊性的基础上揭示事物本身所具有的发展逻辑。由此就不难理解为何马克思反对俄国民粹派米海洛夫斯基将他有关资本主义起源的观点普世化，以及马克思一再修改，非常慎重地回复俄国革命者查苏利奇的来信。因为唯物史观所揭示的历史发展客观规律是对历史事件和现象的本质抽象，虽然它离不开历史事件和现象的发生，但并不能直接地与历史事件和现象等同。立足于特定的历史事件，就需要以唯物史观所强调的社会存在决定社会意识的方法论为指导，考察不同历史事件本身的特殊性，比较研究不同历史事件的特殊性背后所蕴含的普遍性，才能真正把握到历史的客观规律性。

The Small Bundle manuscript provides a basis for resolving the philological debates over *The German Ideology*.

小束手稿为解决《德意志意识形态》的文献学争论提供根据

Because the “Feuerbach” chapter of *The German Ideology* was not completed by Marx and Engels, the surviving manuscripts are not only fragmentary and incomplete but also contain a large number of revisions. This has made the identification and editing of the *The German Ideology* manuscripts extremely difficult. After more than a century of continuous effort, MEGA² Volume I/5 was finally officially published in November 2017. [1]1 MEGA² (Marx-Engels-Gesamtausgabe) is the historical-critical edition of the complete works of Marx and Engels. Volume I/5, published in 2017, contains the manuscripts of *The German Ideology*. However, even though the MEGA² editors, building on existing editorial achievements, re-identified the handwriting and carefully considered the dates of writing, the domestic and international scholarly community has not thereby ended the philological debates over *The German Ideology*. In addition to the long-standing debate over the ordering of the Small Bundle manuscript, the MEGA² editors have also raised questions about which of the three post-Hegelian philosophers criticized by Marx and Engels in *The German Ideology* was actually the core target of the critique, and what exactly the writing motive of *The German Ideology* was. As the part written last, the Small Bundle manuscript not only contains a general summary of the Young Hegelians in terms of content but also contains a positive exposition of historical materialism different from that in the Large Bundle manuscript. Therefore, it has unique theoretical value for resolving these debates and clarifying theoretical doubts in the scholarly community.

《德意志意识形态》“费尔巴哈”章由于马克思恩格斯并没有完成，流传下来的手稿不仅残破不全，而且存在大量的修改，这就使对《德意志意识形态》手稿的辨识和编辑困难重重，历经百余年赓续努力，MEGA2第I/5卷在2017年11月才得以正式出版。但即便MEGA2编者在继承已有编辑成果的基础上，重新辨识了文字，认真推敲了写作时间，国内外学界并没有因此而终结有关《德意志意识形态》的文献学争论。除了长期存在的有关小束手稿的编排顺序的争论外，MEGA2编者又提出了有关马克思恩格斯在《德意志意识形态》中所批判的三位后黑格尔哲学家中，究竟谁才是批判的核心人物，以及究竟《德意志意识形态》的写作动机是什么的问题。小束手稿作为最后写成的部分，在内容上不仅存在着对青年黑格尔派的总体概括，而且对唯物史观也存在着不同于大束手稿的正面阐述，因此对于解决这些争论，澄清学界的理论疑惑具有独特的理论价值。

Regarding the question of which of the three—Bruno Bauer, Feuerbach, and Max Stirner—constituted the core object of Marx and Engels’ critique at the time, judging from the writing situation of Marx and Engels in the Small Bundle manuscript, their own thought underwent a process of continuous clarification. According to MEGA², the “Feuerbach” chapter of *The German Ideology* has three chapter openings, namely: I. Feuerbach A. General Ideology, Especially German; I. Feuerbach 1. General Ideology, Especially German Philosophy; I. Feuerbach Introduction (“As the German ideologists declare…”). [2]2 The “three chapter openings” refer to three different draft beginnings for the “Feuerbach” chapter found in the manuscripts, each with a different title and focus, reflecting the evolving plan of the work. In the second chapter opening, Marx and Engels propose the concept of “real individuals,” which is clearly in relation to Stirner. It was Stirner who emphasized the concept of the individual, criticized Feuerbach’s “species” as “the divine man,” and in *The Ego and Its Own* mentioned Marx’s attempt in *On the Jewish Question* to realize man’s true “species-being.” This prompted Marx to no longer simply use the general concept of man, but to move from the general man to the individual. In the second chapter opening, Marx clearly recognized the problems with Feuerbach’s philosophy of the species and the value of Stirner’s concept of the individual. This is why, in the third chapter opening, he deleted the sentence: “These our observations are directed precisely against Feuerbach, because he alone has at least made some progress, and only his works can be seriously studied.” According to the MEGA² editors’ research, the third chapter opening is a fair copy of the second chapter opening, and therefore was written after the second chapter opening. This indicates that at this point, Marx and Engels had dissolved Feuerbach’s position as the core target of their theoretical critique.

鲍威尔、费尔巴哈和施蒂纳三人究竟是谁构成了马克思恩格斯当时批判的核心对象这一问题，从马克思恩格斯在小束手稿中的写作情况看，马克思恩格斯自身的思想存在着不断清晰化的过程。根据MEGA2《德意志意识形态》“费尔巴哈”章存在着三个章开篇，即I.费尔巴哈.A.一般意识形态，特别是德意志的;I.费尔巴哈.1.一般意识形态，特别是德国哲学；I.费尔巴哈.导言（“正如德意志意识形态家们所宣告的……”）。在第二个章开篇中，马克思恩格斯提出了“现实的个人”概念，显然是相对于施蒂纳而言的。正是施蒂纳强调个人概念，将费尔巴哈的“类”批判为“神人”，并在《唯一者及其所有物》中提及马克思在《论犹太人问题》中试图实现人的真正的“类存在”。这促使马克思不再简单地使用一般性的人概念，而是从一般的人进入到个人。马克思在第二个章开篇中清晰地意识到费尔巴哈类哲学所存在的问题，以及施蒂纳个人概念所具有的价值，所以才会在第三个章开篇删掉了“我们这些意见正是针对费尔巴哈的，因为只有他才至少向前迈进了一步，只有他的著作才可以认真地加以研究”。根据MEGA2编者的考证，第三个章开篇是对第二个章开篇的誊清，因此写于第二个章开篇之后，这表明马克思恩格斯此时消解掉了费尔巴哈作为他们理论批判的核心地位。

In summary, the Small Bundle manuscript of the “Feuerbach” chapter of *The German Ideology* not only summarizes the conclusions of the research in *The German Ideology* but also deepens the connotation of historical materialism in the “Feuerbach” chapter.

综上所述，《德意志意识形态》“费尔巴哈”章的小束手稿不仅总结了《德意志意识形态》研究的结论，而且深化了“费尔巴哈”章中的唯物史观内涵。

Online editor: Paul

网络编辑：保罗