Engels’s Influence on Marx’s Turn to the Study of Political Economy – A Textual Examination Based on *Outlines of a Critique of Political Economy*

The *Outlines of a Critique of Political Economy* (hereinafter referred to as the *Outlines*) is not only Engels’s first work in the study of political economy but also the opening piece of the Marxist critique of political economy. As an early work by Engels, it has its own theoretical shortcomings; nevertheless, the positions, methods, paths, and viewpoints it adopts in critiquing political economy can, for its time, be regarded as a great work of criticism of capitalist economics from the standpoint of the proletariat. Compared with Marx, Engels was both a forerunner in the critique of political economy and a guide who led Marx toward the study of political economy. In this work, Engels’s level of research and analysis of capitalist economics is clearly higher than that of the contemporaneous Marx. At that time, Marx was still in the midst of his turn toward political economy. When he came into contact with this work, he was deeply inspired and made many excerpts from it. In Marx’s first work in the study of political economy, the *Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844* (hereinafter referred to as the *Manuscripts*), Marx explicitly states that he has “made use of” this work and praises the *Outlines* as a “rich and original work.”[1]1 Engels, *Outlines of a Critique of Political Economy* (1844). The “purely empirical, merely objectivist method of research” refers to the approach of classical political economy that treated economic phenomena as given facts without questioning the historical basis of private property. In different later periods, Marx repeatedly gave high praise to the *Outlines* and frequently cited some of its viewpoints in his writings. It goes without saying that the *Outlines* was an important supporting material for Marx’s turn to the study of political economy and exerted a significant influence on that turn in multiple respects.

《国民经济学批判大纲》（下文简称《大纲》）不仅是恩格斯政治经济学研究的首部著作，而且是马克思主义政治经济学批判的开篇之作。作为恩格斯早期的著作，它有其自身的理论缺陷，但是文章中对国民经济学批判的立场、路径、方法和观点等，在当时可以称得上是站在无产阶级立场上对资本主义经济学批判的伟大著作。与马克思相比，恩格斯既是政治经济学批判的先行者，也是马克思转向政治经济学研究的引导者。在这部著作中，恩格斯对资本主义经济学的研究和分析水平显然要高于同期的马克思。当时的马克思还正处于政治经济学转向中，当他接触到这部著作时，深受启发，对这篇文章作了许多摘录。在马克思政治经济学研究的首部著作《1844年经济学哲学手稿》（以下简称《手稿》）中，马克思明确声称“利用”了这部著作，并且称赞《大纲》是“内容丰富而有独创性的著作”[1]。在之后的不同时期，马克思又多次给予《大纲》高度赞誉，以及多次在文章中引用《大纲》中的一些观点。不言而喻，《大纲》是马克思转向政治经济学研究的一个重要支撑资料，在多个方面对马克思转向政治经济学研究产生过重要影响。

1. Directional Influence: Guiding Marx toward the Path of Political-Economic Analysis of Real Problems

1 导向影响：引导马克思转向对现实问题的政治经济学剖析路径

The path taken by the *Outlines* in using political economy to analyze real social problems exerted a certain directional influence on Marx’s turn toward political economy. In the trajectory of Marx’s and Engels’s turn toward the critique of political economy, Engels, because he was situated in England, not only was thoroughly familiar with the knowledge of English economics but also had mastered the method of using economics to analyze social problems. Coupled with Engels’s acute sensitivity to real social problems, this made it easier for Engels to break free from the abstract speculative philosophical critique of Germany and instead turn toward the critique of reality. When, during the period of the *Deutsch-Französische Jahrbücher*, Marx decided to use the principles of political economy to analyze civil society, Engels had already attempted this critical path before Marx. It can be said that, in undertaking a political-economic analysis of social problems, Engels and Marx coincided in their thinking, and Engels, having taken a step ahead of Marx, played a certain guiding role in Marx’s turn toward the study of political economy.

《大纲》运用政治经济学剖析现实社会问题的路径对马克思政治经济学转向产生了一定的导向影响。在马克思和恩格斯转向政治经济学批判的进路中，恩格斯由于身处英国，不仅悉知英国经济学的知识，还掌握了用经济学去剖析社会问题的方法，加之恩格斯对现实社会问题的高度敏锐感，使恩格斯更容易摆脱德国抽象思辨的哲学批判，转而走向对现实进行批判。当马克思在《德法年鉴》时期决定用政治经济学原理去剖析市民社会时，恩格斯已经先于马克思尝试了这一批判路径。可以说，对社会问题进行政治经济学剖析，恩格斯与马克思不谋而合，并且还领先马克思一步，对马克思转向政治经济学研究具有一定的引导作用。

Engels attempted to use political economy to analyze social problems before Marx did and demonstrated a higher level than the contemporaneous Marx. As early as his period of living in Bremen, Engels paid particular attention to real social problems. In Bremen, the miserable conditions of the workers’ lives shocked Engels; he not only expressed sympathy and compassion for the workers but also tried to analyze the deeper causes behind social phenomena. During this period, Engels began to critique social reality, although this critique had not yet touched the root of real social problems. Subsequently, Engels came to Berlin, where Berlin University was at that time the “center of the ideological movement” in Germany, with struggles that were complex and intense. Under these circumstances, Engels began to shift toward a materialist standpoint. The philosophical position of materialism laid the necessary theoretical foundation for Engels’s subsequent study of political economy. Beyond philosophy, it can be seen from Engels’s *Diary of an Auditor* that in Berlin Engels further came into contact with English economic thought, which laid some groundwork for his later study of political economy in England. In Manchester, Engels gradually established the path of analyzing social problems from the level of political economy. Manchester was a region with a relatively developed capitalist economy, where the contradictions of capitalist society were more acute. The problems of industrialization that Engels had noted earlier in Germany now manifested themselves in England in a more pronounced form, further stimulating Engels’s enthusiasm for studying the condition of English society. During this period, Engels closely followed and thoroughly investigated England’s social relations, political relations, and economic relations, paying particular attention to the current situation of English industrial workers and the crises facing England. From the inherent contradictions of England as an industrial country and the position of the working class within the social structure, he analyzed the inevitability of social revolution and recognized the revolutionary character of the working class. From England’s social relations, he analyzed the influence of material interest relations on social relations and recognized that “only interest can develop into a principle.” At the same time, theoretically, England was the homeland of political economy, offering unique advantages for the study of political economy. Therefore, Engels not only began the study of economics a step ahead of Marx but also mastered the critical path of using economics to analyze social problems. The *Outlines* is precisely the research result of Engels’s use of economics to analyze social problems. In the *Outlines*, Engels, employing the dialectics of contradiction and opposition, from a materialist socio-historical dimension and standing on the standpoint of the working class, analyzes and studies capitalism. He not only undertakes an economic analysis and critique of private property but also, by analyzing the basic categories of political economy, reveals the various contradictions, oppositions, and inverted states of the system of political economy, clearly pointing out that the way to eliminate this state is to abolish private property. In this regard, the British scholar Terrell Carver points out that the *Outlines* “presented Marx with an introduction to the most precise social theory of the time, political economy.”

恩格斯先于马克思去尝试运用政治经济学剖析社会问题，并且表现出了比同期马克思更高的水平。恩格斯早在不莱梅生活时期，就特别关注社会现实问题。在不莱梅，工人的生活惨状让恩格斯触目惊心，他不仅表现出了对工人的同情怜悯，而且试着分析社会现象背后的深层原因。这一时期，恩格斯开始对社会现实进行批判，尽管这种批判还并未触及现实社会问题的根源。之后，恩格斯来到柏林，此时柏林大学是德国“思想运动的中心”，斗争复杂而激烈。在此情况下，恩格斯开始向唯物主义立场转变。唯物主义的哲学立场为恩格斯接下来的政治经济学研究奠定了必要的理论基础。除了哲学，通过恩格斯的《一个旁听生的日记》可知，恩格斯在柏林进一步接触了英国经济学思想，这为他后来在英国开展政治经济学研究做了一定的铺垫。在曼彻斯特，恩格斯逐渐确立了从政治经济学层面剖析社会问题的路径。曼彻斯特是资本主义经济比较发达的地区，资本主义社会的矛盾更趋尖锐，恩格斯早期在德国注意到的工业化问题，此时在英国以更加显著的形式展现出来，进一步激发了恩格斯对英国社会状况研究的热情。在这一时期，恩格斯密切关注并且深入考察了英国的社会关系、政治关系和经济关系，尤其是特别关注英国产业工人的现状以及英国所面临的危机。他从英国作为工业国固有的矛盾以及工人阶级在社会结构中所处的地位分析出社会革命的必然，认识到工人阶级具有革命性；他从英国的社会关系中分析出物质利益关系对社会关系的影响，认识到“只有利益能够发展成为原则”；同时在理论上，英国是政治经济学的故乡，具有研究政治经济学独特的优势。因此，恩格斯不仅比马克思先行一步开始了经济学研究，而且还掌握了运用经济学剖析社会问题的批判路径。《大纲》正是恩格斯运用经济学分析社会问题的研究成果。在《大纲》中，恩格斯运用矛盾对立的辩证法，以唯物的社会历史向度，站在工人阶级立场，对资本主义展开分析和研究，不仅对私有制进行经济学分析和批判，而且通过分析国民经济学的基本范畴，揭示了国民经济体系的各种矛盾、对立、颠倒状态，明确指出消除这种状态的途径就是消灭私有制。对此，英国学者特雷尔·卡弗指出，《大纲》“呈现在马克思面前的是当时最精准的社会理论即政治经济学的入门导论”。

The Marx of the same period also recognized, from theoretical perplexity and the predicament of practical critique, that he needed to turn to the study of political economy. During his time at the *Rheinische Zeitung*, Marx encountered for the first time the difficulty of having to express opinions on material interests, involving debates on economic questions such as the theft of wood, the analysis of landed property, free trade, and protective tariffs – this was the initial impetus that prompted Marx to turn to the study of political economy. Next came the question of French socialist and communist currents of thought. On this, Marx candidly admitted with a rigorous academic attitude, “my previous studies did not permit me to venture any judgment on the content of the French trends themselves.” [1]1 Engels, *Outlines of a Critique of Political Economy* (1844). The “purely empirical, merely objectivist method of research” refers to the approach of classical political economy that treated economic phenomena as given facts without questioning the historical basis of private property. Apart from these, there was also the most important reason: Marx’s growing doubts about Hegelian idealist philosophy. To resolve these perplexities, Marx first undertook a critique of Hegel’s philosophy of right, the central issue of which was the relationship between civil society and the state. The conclusion Marx drew from his research was that the various relations of the state are determined by civil society, that civil society is the totality of material relations of life, and that “the anatomy of civil society is to be sought in political economy.” [2]2 Ronald L. Meek (1917–1978), British Marxist economist and historian of economic thought, known for his work on the labour theory of value and the development of classical political economy. In the realm of practical critique, Marx was likewise trapped in difficulties. Traditional German philosophy was mostly immersed in the critique of philosophy, religion, and politics; the characteristic of this critique was either a critique of what ought to be based on value presuppositions, or a speculative and abstract philosophical critique, or a humanist moral critique. At that time, research in the field of political economy in Germany was relatively weak. When confronted with questions of capitalist economics, researchers could only engage in an external critique of capitalist economics, which meant that the critique of traditional German philosophy, lacking a dimension of objective practical critique in the face of capitalist economics, appeared extremely abstract and hollow. Marx had already expressed his aversion to Germany’s abstract and hollow philosophical critique, political critique, and religious critique. During his time at the *Rheinische Zeitung*, in order to run the newspaper well, Marx demanded: “Less vague generalities, less high-flown rhetoric, less self-admiration; more definite opinions, more attention to concrete facts, more practical knowledge.” [3]3 John Millar (1735–1801), Scottish philosopher and historian, a key figure in the Scottish Enlightenment who developed a historical approach to social theory. James Mill (1773–1836), British historian, economist, and father of John Stuart Mill, a follower of Ricardo. John Francis Bray (1809–1897), English socialist and follower of Robert Owen. Karl Rodbertus (1805–1875), German economist and socialist. During the period of the *Deutsch-Französische Jahrbücher*, Marx began to direct his critique toward the “mundane world.” He opposed the philosophers’ dogmatic prediction of the world, criticized philosophers for always seeking the basis for changing reality “in their own writing desks,” [4]4 Engels, *Outlines of a Critique of Political Economy*. and advocated discovering the “new world” through the critique of the “old world” in reality. He pointed out that the task of this journal was “to conduct a ruthless critique of everything existing,” [5]5 Marx, *The Poverty of Philosophy* (1847). to take practical struggle as the starting point, and to link critique with practical struggle. Marx used one sentence to explain the journal’s tendency: “to provide a contemporary self-clarification (critical philosophy) of the struggles and wishes of the age.” [6]6 Ibid. For classical German philosophy to become a “weapon of thought” for changing reality, it had to be combined with the analysis and critique of the actual society of capitalism. It can thus be seen that during this period, Marx had already intellectually broken free from the shackles of German abstract speculative critique, turned toward the practical critique of the “mundane world” and the “old world,” and aimed to discover the “new world” through the critique of the actual “old world.” However, during this period, Marx had not yet enabled philosophy to confront reality, nor had he derived from reality itself the concrete path for changing reality. Precisely at this moment, in his critique of Hegel’s philosophy of right, Marx arrived at an important philosophical insight: the institutions of the “mundane world” and the “old world” originate from “material relations of life,” i.e., civil society. Marx recognized that to critique civil society, one could only start from political economy, and only then find the basis for changing reality from within reality itself. Thus, Marx not only completed the transformation from the logic of abstract speculative philosophical critique to the logic of practical economic and social critique, but also found a concrete path: the use of political economy to analyze actual social problems.

同期的马克思也从理论的困惑和现实批判的困境中认识到自己需要转向政治经济学研究。马克思在《莱茵报》时期，第一次遇到要对物质利益发表意见的难事，涉及关于林木盗窃、地产分析、自由贸易和保护关税等经济问题的辩论，这是促使马克思转向政治经济学研究的最初动因。其次是关于法国社会主义和共产主义思潮的问题，对此马克思以严谨的学术态度坦率地承认，“我以往的研究还不容许我对法兰西思潮的内容本身妄加评判”。除此以外，还有最重要的一个原因，就是马克思不断积累的对黑格尔唯心主义哲学的怀疑问题。为了解决这些困惑，马克思首先展开对黑格尔法哲学的批判，批判的中心问题是市民社会和国家的关系问题。马克思研究得出的结论是，国家各种关系由市民社会决定，市民社会就是物质的生活关系的总和，“而对市民社会的解剖应该到政治经济学中去寻求”。在现实的批判领域，马克思同样陷入了困境。传统德国哲学大都是沉浸在哲学、宗教和政治的批判中，这种批判的特点要么是价值预设的应然式批判，要么是思辨抽象的哲学批判，或者是人本主义的道德批判。当时德国政治经济学领域的研究比较薄弱，当面对资本主义经济学问题时，研究者只能是对资本主义经济学的外在批判，这就使传统德国哲学的批判在资本主义经济学面前缺少了现实的客观批判向度，显得极其抽象和空洞。马克思也早已表现出对德国抽象空洞的哲学批判、政治批判以及宗教批判。在《莱茵报》时期，马克思为办好《莱茵报》要求：“少发些不着边际的空论，少唱些高调，少来些自我欣赏，多说些明确的意见，多注意一些具体的事实，多提供一些实际的知识。”在《德法年鉴》时期，马克思开始向“尘世”进行批判。他反对哲学家教条主义的预测世界，批评哲学家总是“在自己的书桌里”寻找改变现实的依据，主张要通过批判现实中的“旧世界”去发现“新世界”，指出这个杂志的任务就是“要对现存的一切进行无情的批判”，要把实际斗争作为出发点，把批判和实际斗争联系起来。马克思用一句话说明这个杂志的倾向：“对当代的斗争和愿望作出当代的自我阐明（批判的哲学）。”德国古典哲学要变成改变现实的“思想武器”，必须使其与对资本主义现实社会的分析和批判相结合。由此可见，这一时期的马克思在思想上已经挣脱了德国抽象思辨批判的束缚，转向了对“尘世”“旧世界”的现实批判，并且要在现实“旧世界”的批判中去发现“新世界”。但是，这一时期马克思还并未能使哲学面向现实，还没有从现实本身找出改变现实的具体路径。恰在此时，马克思在对黑格尔法哲学批判中得出一个重要的哲学认识：“尘世”“旧世界”的制度源于“物质的生活关系”即市民社会。马克思认识到，要对市民社会进行批判，只有从政治经济学入手，才能从现实中找到改变现实的依据。由此，马克思不仅完成了从抽象思辨的哲学批判逻辑向现实经济社会批判逻辑的转变，并且找到了一条具体路径，即运用政治经济学来分析现实社会问题。

It can thus be seen that the *Outlines* not only aligned with Marx’s academic research turn, but also aligned with Marx’s critical path of using political economy to analyze social problems. When Marx turned toward practical critique and needed to dissect civil society starting from political economy, Engels had already attempted this critical path before Marx. As the fruit of Engels’s prior attempt, the *Outlines* undoubtedly exerted a certain guiding influence on Marx, but this influence was not decisive. David McLellan holds that “at a crucial moment, Engels turned Marx’s attention to the work of his life – the study of economics.” [7]7 Ibid. This understanding clearly exaggerates the orienting influence of the *Outlines* on Marx’s turn to the study of economics. As can be seen from the analysis above, Marx already had the awareness of studying political economy during the period of the *Deutsch-Französische Jahrbücher*; David McLellan’s view clearly does not conform to the facts. The *Outlines* only guided Marx toward the study of political economy to a certain extent.

由此可见，《大纲》不仅契合了马克思的学术研究转向，同时契合了马克思运用政治经济学分析社会问题的批判路径。当马克思转向现实批判，并且要从政治经济学入手剖析市民社会时，恩格斯已经先于马克思尝试了这一批判路径。《大纲》作为恩格斯先行尝试的成果，无疑会对马克思产生一定的指引作用，但影响并非决定性的。戴维·麦克莱伦认为：“在关键的时刻，恩格斯使马克思的注意力转向了他毕生的工作——经济学研究。”这种认识显然夸大了《大纲》对马克思转向经济学研究的导向性影响。从上述分析可以看出，马克思在《德法年鉴》时期已经有了政治经济学研究的意识，戴维·麦克莱伦的观点显然不符合事实，《大纲》只是在一定程度上引导马克思转向政治经济学研究。

2 Influence on Method: Providing a Reference for Scientific Method in Marx’s Turn to the Study of Political Economy

2 方法影响：为马克思转向政治经济学研究提供科学方法借鉴

On the question of the research method of the *Outlines*, Cornu pointed out: “Engels, not directly from a purely moral standpoint, but from a historical standpoint, sought to show how communism necessarily arises from the dialectical opposition within this system.” [8]8 Ibid. L. Ilyichev believed that Engels was “the first person to skillfully apply the dialectical method to analyze the economic relations of bourgeois society,” [9]9 L. Ilyichev, *Friedrich Engels: A Biography* (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1972), p. 42. and called Engels’s materialist interpretation of economic laws “a major scientific discovery.” [10]10 Ibid., p. 44. Although the *Outlines* still contains many abstract methods of critique based on humanist principles, this in no way obscures the new method of critique of political economy contained within it. Standing on the side of the proletariat, Engels’s method of applying materialist dialectics to analyze capitalist economics far surpassed that of his contemporary national economists, as well as Proudhon, Hess, and others. For the Marx of the same period, this was undoubtedly an encouragement, inevitably attracting Marx’s particular attention, and providing a reference for Marx’s subsequent study of political economy.

关于《大纲》的研究方法问题，科尔纽指出：“恩格斯不是直接站在纯道德的观点上，而是站在历史的观点上，力图指出共产主义如何必然从这一制度的辩证的对立中产生出来。”[7]列·伊利切夫认为，恩格斯是“第一个而且巧妙地应用辩证方法来剖析资产阶级社会的经济关系”[8]42的人，称恩格斯对经济规律的唯物主义阐释是“一个重大的科学发现”[8]44。《大纲》中虽然还有许多抽象的人道原则批判方法，但是丝毫掩盖不住其中蕴含的崭新的政治经济学批判方法。恩格斯站在无产阶级立场，对资本主义经济学进行唯物辩证的分析方法远远超越了同时代的国民经济学家以及蒲鲁东、赫斯等人，这一点对同期的马克思而言无疑是个鼓舞，必然会引起马克思的特别关注，并且为马克思以后的政治经济学研究提供了借鉴。

Engels states clearly in the *Outlines* that “it is necessary to make the theory of private property abandon its purely empirical, merely objectivist method of research.” [1]1 Engels, *Outlines of a Critique of Political Economy* (1844). The “purely empirical, merely objectivist method of research” refers to the approach of classical political economy that treated economic phenomena as given facts without questioning the historical basis of private property. This shows Engels’s negative attitude toward the purely empirical, purely objectivist method of research of classical political economy (which Engels calls the new economics). There is much controversy in the scholarly world regarding the philosophical method of classical political economy; some reduce it to a materialist method, others to a British empiricist method. For example, the British economist Ronald L. Meek holds that “the labour theory of value as formulated by Adam Smith in the eighteenth century was closely bound up with an immature conception of the materialist conception of history.” [2]2 Ronald L. Meek (1917–1978), British Marxist economist and historian of economic thought, known for his work on the labour theory of value and the development of classical political economy. Some scholars also argue that the philosophical method of classical political economy is neither natural materialism nor historical materialism, but a new type of materialist philosophical method – social materialism. Regardless of which view one takes, what we can be certain of is that the philosophical method of classical political economy clearly lacks a historical dimension. As for the study of political economy after Adam Smith, it is even less possible to speak of a historical or materialist philosophical method. The reason may be, as Meek points out, that in post-Smithian economics, “the classical historical theory and the classical economic theory parted company almost immediately, the former being developed by John Millar, who was not very familiar with economic theoretical issues; the latter by Ricardo, who, despite the encouragement of James Mill, never had much enthusiasm for sociological questions. In the works of the post-Ricardian radicals, notably Bray, Proudhon, and Rodbertus, there are vague signs of a convergence, but it was only Marx who, at a much higher level, decisively reintegrated the two.” [3]3 John Millar (1735–1801), Scottish philosopher and historian, a key figure in the Scottish Enlightenment who developed a historical approach to social theory. James Mill (1773–1836), British historian, economist, and father of John Stuart Mill, a follower of Ricardo. John Francis Bray (1809–1897), English socialist and follower of Robert Owen. Karl Rodbertus (1805–1875), German economist and socialist. It is also as Engels criticizes the modern economists: “The closer the economists come to our own time, the further they depart from honesty.” [4]4 Engels, *Outlines of a Critique of Political Economy*. This is because the experience of the classical economists consisted only of fragments, whereas what the modern economists experience is already a relatively complete system, in which the contradictions have become very clearly exposed, yet they still do not reflect on the question of the legitimacy of private property. In this sense, Engels is criticizing the modern economists for no longer even employing the rather unscientific purely empirical method of their founders. As for the economic research method of Proudhon, the representative of the petty-bourgeois economists, it is even further removed from a historical, materialist, and dialectical categorical method of analysis; it is essentially an idealist philosophical methodology. Marx points out: “Economists like Adam Smith and Ricardo are the historians of this epoch; their mission is merely to show how wealth is acquired under bourgeois relations of production, merely to express these relations as categories and laws, and to prove that these laws and categories are more conducive to the production of wealth than the laws and categories of feudal society.” [5]5 Marx, *The Poverty of Philosophy* (1847). Bourgeois economists treat capital, profit, value, and other bourgeois relations as fixed, immutable categories, but they do not explain the historical movement that produces these categories. Unlike the bourgeois economists, Proudhon cloaks the categories of economics in the garb of “reason.” He regards these categories as ideas and thoughts that are self-generating, independent of reality, and traces their origin to the movement of pure reason, which in the end is nothing but Proudhon’s own personal reason. Marx criticizes Proudhon: “The material of the economists is the active, living life of man; the material of M. Proudhon is the dogmas of the economists.” [6]6 Ibid. As for the dialectic Proudhon employs in political economy, Marx points out: “M. Proudhon borrows from Hegel’s dialectic only the terminology. M. Proudhon’s own dialectical movement is merely the mechanical division into good and bad sides.” [7]7 Ibid. In Proudhon’s work, the dialectical understanding of economic categories consists only of distinguishing good from bad; there is no dialectical movement. As for how to resolve the defects of the categories themselves, Proudhon simply reduces it to preserving the good side and eliminating the bad side. It must be said that Proudhon’s method of political economy is not only a regression from classical economics but also “reduces Hegel’s dialectic to a most pitiful level.” [8]8 Ibid. Unlike Proudhon’s critique of economics, which appeals to reason, Hess appeals to humanism. In *On the Essence of Money*, Hess criticizes the hypocrisy of national economic theory, pointing out that national economics is a science concerned only with people’s moneybags, not with people’s enrichment. National economic theory regards money as real wealth, as the essential power of man, without seeing the value of the human being behind money, and holds that the true wealth of society is man’s essence and capacity. Hess does not understand the root of the problem, nor does he understand the path to its solution; he reduces the root of the problem to egoism, to the immaturity of man’s essential powers, and reduces the path to its solution to the completion of man’s essential powers. Thus it can be seen that Hess’s critique of capitalist economics does not proceed from the facts of the national economy, but from the theory of the alienation of man’s essence; it is a purely humanist critique of national economics, without any study of the facts of the national economy. At this point, judging from Marx’s *Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844*, which had already drawn on the experience of the *Outlines*, Marx had still not surpassed Engels in his method of critiquing capitalist economics.

恩格斯在《大纲》中明确指出，“有必要使私有制的理论抛弃纯粹经验主义的、仅仅是客观主义的研究方法”。表明了恩格斯对古典经济学（恩格斯称为新经济学）纯经验主义、纯客观主义研究方法的否定态度。关于古典经济学研究的哲学方法，学界存在许多争议，有的将之归结为唯物主义的方法，有的归结为英国经验主义的方法。比如英国经济学家米克认为：“十八世纪亚当·斯密所表述的劳动价值学说是同不成熟的唯物史观密切结合着的。”还有学者认为，古典经济学的哲学方法既不同于自然唯物主义，也不同于历史唯物主义，而是一种新型的唯物主义哲学方法——社会唯物主义。无论何种观点，我们能够确定的是古典经济学研究的哲学方法显然缺少了历史的向度。至于亚当·斯密以后的国民经济学研究，就更谈不上历史的、唯物的哲学方法了，原因也许正如米克所指出的，在亚当·斯密以后的经济学中，“古典历史理论同古典经济理论差不多紧接着就分道扬镳了，前者的发展是约翰·米拉尔，他对经济理论问题并不十分熟悉；后者的发展是李嘉图，尽管有詹姆士·穆勒的鼓舞，他对社会学问题从不曾有多大的热情。李嘉图以后的激进派，著名的有布雷、蒲鲁东和洛贝尔图，在他们的著作里虽然有合流的模糊迹象，但只有马克思在更高得多的水平上将两者予以决定性的重新结合”。也如恩格斯批判近代经济学家：“经济学家离我们的时代越近，离诚实就越远。”因为古典经济学家的经验只是一些片段，而近代经济学家经验到的已经是一个较为完整的体系，矛盾已经十分清楚地显露出来，却依然不去反思私有制的合理性问题。从这个意义上讲，恩格斯是在批判近代经济学家甚至连他们的开创者不太科学的纯粹经验主义的方法都不再采用了，而小资产阶级经济学家代表蒲鲁东的经济学研究方法则与历史的、唯物的、辩证的范畴性分析方法更是相距甚远，其本质上是唯心主义的哲学方法论。马克思指出：“亚当·斯密和李嘉图这样的经济学家是这一时代的历史学家，他们的使命只是表明在资产阶级生产关系下如何获得财富，只是将这些关系表述为范畴、规律并证明这些规律、范畴比封建社会的规律和范畴更有利于财富的生产。”资产阶级经济学家把资本、利润、价值等各种资产阶级关系说成是固定不变的范畴，但并没有说明产生这些范畴的历史运动。与资产阶级经济学家不同，蒲鲁东给经济学的范畴披上了“理性”的外衣，他把这些范畴看作了不依赖于现实而自生的观念和思想，对于这些范畴的来历则诉诸于纯粹理性的运动，这个纯粹的理性最终也只不过是蒲鲁东的个人的理性而已。马克思批判蒲鲁东：“经济学家的材料是人的生动活泼的生活；蒲鲁东先生的材料则是经济学家的教条。”对于蒲鲁东在政治经济学中所运用的辩证法，马克思指出：“蒲鲁东先生从黑格尔的辩证法那里只借用了用语。而蒲鲁东先生自己的辩证运动只不过是机械地划分出好、坏两面而已。”在蒲鲁东那里，对经济学范畴的辩证认识只有好坏之分，没有辩证运动。至于如何解决范畴自身缺陷问题，蒲鲁东将之简单归结为保存好的一面，消除坏的一面。不得不说，蒲鲁东的政治经济学方法不仅是古典经济学的倒退，而且还把黑格尔的辩证法“降低到极可怜的程度”。与蒲鲁东诉诸理性的经济学批判不同，赫斯则诉诸于人本主义。赫斯在《论货币的本质》中批判国民经济学理论的虚伪，指出国民经济学是只关注人的钱袋子不关注人的发财致富的科学。国民经济学理论把货币看作是现实的财富，看作是人的本质力量，没有看到货币背后的人的价值，认为社会真正的财富是人的本质和能力。赫斯不了解问题的根源，也不了解解决问题的途径，把问题的根源归结为利己主义，归结为人的本质力量的不成熟，把解决问题的途径归结为人的本质力量的完成。由此可见，赫斯对资本主义经济学的批判不是从国民经济事实出发，而是从人的本质异化理论出发，只是纯粹地从人本主义角度批判国民经济学，没有对国民经济事实的研究。此时，从马克思已经借鉴了《大纲》经验的《手稿》中来看，马克思在对资本主义经济学批判的方法上依然没有超越恩格斯。

The intellectual logic governing Marx in the *Manuscripts* is a contradictory entity. On the one hand, Feuerbach’s materialism is certainly present; on the other hand, what occupies an absolutely dominant position in Marx’s intellectual logic is the critical logic of the alienation and restoration of man’s essence. Therefore, in the *Manuscripts*, the humanist logic of alienation fundamentally governs Marx’s intellectual logic. Although Engels’s *Outlines* has not yet shed the philosophical logic of humanism, often taking a moral stance to criticize national economics, and also has significant theoretical defects, nevertheless, in terms of critical method, Engels does not base himself on a presupposition of philosophical ontology, nor does his result lead to humanism. Instead, he bases himself on some of the fundamental categories of national economics, revealing from within them the state of social contradiction and opposition under the conditions of private property, with the solution being the abolition of private property. In other words, the *Outlines* is no longer a purely “moral critique”; it has risen to a “scientific critique” grounded in the laws of social development. It is an initial exploration of the dialectical critical method of historical materialism from the standpoint of the proletariat. This is clearly a new and scientific method of economic analysis. Thus it can be seen that the materialist dialectical method of analysis in the *Outlines* was, at that time, unmatched by anyone.

《手稿》中支配马克思的思想逻辑是一个矛盾体。一方面，费尔巴哈的唯物主义一定是在场的；另一方面，在马克思思想逻辑中占据绝对主导地位的是人的本质异化与复归的批判逻辑。因此，在《手稿》中，人本主义异化逻辑从根本上支配着马克思的思想逻辑。而恩格斯的《大纲》虽然并未摆脱人本学的哲学逻辑，经常站在道德立场批判国民经济学，理论上也有很大的缺陷，但是，在批判方法上，恩格斯并不是立足于哲学本体论的预设，结果也不是导向人本主义，而是立足于国民经济学的一些基本范畴，从中揭示出私有制条件下社会的矛盾对立状态，解决的办法就是要消灭私有制。换言之，《大纲》已经不是纯粹的“道德批判”，而是上升到了立足社会发展规律的“科学批判”，是站在无产阶级立场对历史唯物主义辩证批判方法的初探，这显然是一套新的而且是科学的经济学分析方法。由此可见，《大纲》中唯物辩证的分析方法在当时是无人能及的。

Of course, the *Outlines* does not construct a distinct philosophical foundation of historical materialism, but it already contains a dialectical method of analysis that possesses both a historical dimension and a materialist dimension. This method is the dominant logic of Engels’s critique of capitalist economics. First, through the basic categories of political economy, Engels discerns the relations of private property behind them, clearly pointing out that private property is the result of the expansion of commerce, from which political economy then emerged, and at the same time indicating that political economy should be called the science of private economics. In Engels’s view, “social relations exist only for the sake of private property.”[9]9 L. Ilyichev, *Friedrich Engels: A Biography* (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1972), p. 42.446 Through his analysis of the basic categories of political economy, Engels arrives at the understanding that private property must be abolished, which directly influenced Marx’s creation of the *Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844* and is expressed more clearly and maturely in Marx’s *The Poverty of Philosophy*. Second, Engels’s critique of the premises of political economy in the *Outlines* is directly applied by Marx in the *Manuscripts*. For example, Marx points out in the *Manuscripts*: “We proceed from the premises of political economy.”[1]1 Engels, *Outlines of a Critique of Political Economy* (1844). The “purely empirical, merely objectivist method of research” refers to the approach of classical political economy that treated economic phenomena as given facts without questioning the historical basis of private property.266 “Political economy starts from the fact of private property. It does not explain it to us. It grasps the material process of private property, as it occurs in reality, in general and abstract formulas, and then takes these formulas as laws. It does not comprehend these laws, i.e., it does not demonstrate how they arise from the nature of private property.”[1]1 Engels, *Outlines of a Critique of Political Economy* (1844). The “purely empirical, merely objectivist method of research” refers to the approach of classical political economy that treated economic phenomena as given facts without questioning the historical basis of private property.266 Clearly, Marx’s thought in the *Manuscripts* of analyzing and criticizing political economy starting from its premise – private property – is to a great extent directly indebted to the *Outlines*. Finally, Engels’s conclusion, derived from the categorical analysis of economic phenomena, that private property must be abolished, exerted an important influence on Marx’s political economy research. Although Marx’s *Manuscripts* is fundamentally dominated by a humanist logic, his analysis of political economy also formally proceeds from the basic categories of political economy. For instance, Marx’s discussion of “wages,” “the profit of capital,” and “rent” is carried out through an analysis of these three important categories of political economy, and in his analysis of the categories, he also attempts to reveal the contradictions within the categories themselves from the laws of economics.

当然，《大纲》中并未建构出鲜明的历史唯物主义哲学基础，但是它已经蕴含了具有历史向度同时又具有唯物向度的辩证的分析方法，这个方法是恩格斯对资本主义经济学批判的主导逻辑。首先，恩格斯透过国民经济学基本范畴，洞察到背后的私有制关系，明确指出，私有制是商业扩展的结果，随之就产生了国民经济学，同时指出，应该把国民经济学称作私经济学。在恩格斯看来，“社会关系只是为了私有制而存在”[9]446。恩格斯通过对国民经济学基本范畴的分析，得出消灭私有制的认识，这对马克思创作《手稿》产生了直接影响，并在马克思的《哲学的贫困》中表现得更为鲜明和成熟。其次，《大纲》中恩格斯对国民经济学的前提性批判思想，直接被马克思运用在了《手稿》中。比如马克思在《手稿》中指出：“我们是从国民经济学的各个前提出发的。”[1]266“国民经济学从私有财产的事实出发。它没有给我们说明这个事实。它把私有财产在现实中所经历的物质过程，放进一般的、抽象的公式，然后把这些公式当作规律。它不理解这些规律，就是说，它没有指明这些规律是怎样从私有财产的本质中产生出来的。”[1]266显然，马克思在《手稿》中从国民经济学的前提——私有制出发来分析批判国民经济学的思想很大程度上直接受益于《大纲》。最后，恩格斯从对经济现象的范畴分析中得出消灭私有制的认识，对马克思政治经济学研究产生了重要的影响。虽然马克思的《手稿》从根本上是人本主义逻辑主导，但他对国民经济学的分析在形式上也是从国民经济学的基本范畴展开的。比如马克思论述“工资”“资本的利润”和“地租”就是从国民经济学的3个重要范畴分析的，并且在对范畴的分析中，亦是试图从经济学规律中揭示范畴自身的矛盾。

In summary, standing on the standpoint of the working class, Engels, using a historical, materialist, and dialectical dimension, conducted a categorical analysis of economic phenomena at the economic level, preliminarily exploring an analytical method leading to the scientific study of political economy. This provided a reference for Marx’s subsequent political economy research.

总之，恩格斯站在工人阶级立场，以用历史的、唯物的、辩证的向度，在经济学层面对经济现象进行范畴性分析，初步探索了通向政治经济学科学研究的分析方法，这为马克思以后的政治经济学研究提供了借鉴。

3 Influence on Theses: Providing Thematic Support and Supplementation for Marx’s Turn to Political Economy Research

3 论点影响：对马克思转向政治经济学研究提供论点支援和补充

Through his analysis and study of political economy in the *Outlines*, Engels put forward many important theses at the economic level. These theses resonated with Marx; some were directly applied by Marx in the *Manuscripts*, and later exerted a theoretical effect on his creation of *Capital*. As Terrell Carver states: “In Marx’s writings there is a clear tendency to move towards the views expressed by Engels.” A brief review reveals that the *Manuscripts* and the *Outlines* are consistent in at least the following aspects.

恩格斯在《大纲》中通过对国民经济学的分析和研究，从经济学层面提出了许多重要的论点。这些论点在马克思那里产生了共鸣，有些直接被马克思运用在《手稿》中，对后来其创作《资本论》发挥了理论效应。如特雷尔·卡弗所言：“在马克思的著作中都有一种明显地朝着恩格斯表达的观点靠近的趋势。”稍作梳理就发现，《手稿》和《大纲》至少在以下几个方面的观点是一致的。

First, Engels argues that private property is the premise of political economy, and political economy does not question the legitimacy of private property; Marx points out: “Political economy starts from the fact of private property. It does not explain it to us.”[1]1 Engels, *Outlines of a Critique of Political Economy* (1844). The “purely empirical, merely objectivist method of research” refers to the approach of classical political economy that treated economic phenomena as given facts without questioning the historical basis of private property.266

第一，恩格斯认为，私有制是国民经济学的前提，而国民经济学没有过问私有制的合理性问题；马克思指出：“国民经济学从私有财产的事实出发。它没有给我们说明这个事实。”[1]266

Second, Engels argues that political economy is false, hypocritical, inconsistent, and immoral, standing in opposition to free human nature in all spheres, turning humanity into a pack of ferocious beasts devouring each other; Marx similarly argues that “political economy, with the principle of labor, seems to acknowledge man, but in fact it is only the complete negation of man.”[1]1 Engels, *Outlines of a Critique of Political Economy* (1844). The “purely empirical, merely objectivist method of research” refers to the approach of classical political economy that treated economic phenomena as given facts without questioning the historical basis of private property.290

第二，恩格斯认为，国民经济学是虚假、伪善、前后不一贯和不道德的，在一切领域中与自由的人性处于对立的状态，使人类变成一群相互吞噬的凶猛野兽；马克思同样认为，“以劳动为原则的国民经济学表面上承认人，毋宁说，不过是彻底实现对人的否定而已”[1]290。

Third, Engels argues that labor “is the free activity of man”; Marx points out that labor is the essence of man, “free, conscious activity.”

第三，恩格斯认为，劳动“是人的自由活动”；马克思指出，劳动是人类的本质，是“自由的有意识的活动”。

Fourth, Engels argues that, according to the theory of political economy, “labor receives only the barest necessities, only a meager means of subsistence, while the greater part of the product goes to capital and landed property.”[9]9 L. Ilyichev, *Friedrich Engels: A Biography* (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1972), p. 42.470 Marx argues: “According to Smith, the usual wage is the lowest wage compatible with the ‘ordinary’ i.e., bestial, existence of man.”[1]1 Engels, *Outlines of a Critique of Political Economy* (1844). The “purely empirical, merely objectivist method of research” refers to the approach of classical political economy that treated economic phenomena as given facts without questioning the historical basis of private property.223

第四，恩格斯认为，按照国民经济学的理论，“劳动得到的仅仅是最必需的东西，仅仅是一点点生活资料，而大部分产品则为资本和土地占有所得”[9]470。马克思认为：“按照斯密的意见，通常的工资就是同‘普通人’即牲畜般的存在状态相适应的最低工资。”[1]223

Fifth, Engels argues that under capitalist relations, with the intensification of competition, the concentration of property occurs, until the world is split into “millionaires and paupers”; Marx argues that competition inevitably leads to the concentration of capital in the hands of a few, and the whole of society inevitably divides into the class of property owners and the working class.

第五，恩格斯认为，资本主义关系下随着竞争的加剧就会产生财产的集中，直至世界分裂为“百万富翁和穷光蛋”；马克思认为竞争必然引起资本集中在少数人手中，整个社会必然分化为有产者阶级和工人阶级。

Sixth, Engels argues that the abolition of private property is the reconciliation of humanity with nature and with itself; Marx argues that communism is the transcendence of private property, the genuine resolution of the contradiction between man and nature and between man and man.

第六，恩格斯认为消灭私有制是人类与自然以及人类本身的和解；马克思认为共产主义是对私有财产的扬弃，是人与自然、人和人之间矛盾的真正解决。

Comparing the above views of Engels and Marx, it is evident that Marx directly applied many of the theses from Engels’s *Outlines* in the *Manuscripts*. This allows us to truly feel the influence that some of the theses expressed in Engels’s *Outlines* exerted on Marx’s turn to economic research, and this influence was not limited to the *Manuscripts*; it was still applied and developed in Marx’s later *Capital*.

对比恩格斯和马克思的以上观点，显而易见，马克思在《手稿》中直接运用了恩格斯在《大纲》中的许多论点，这使我们切实感受到恩格斯《大纲》中所表明的一些论点对马克思转向经济学研究所产生的影响，而且这个影响并不止于《手稿》，在后来马克思的《资本论》中依然被运用和展开。

4 Influence on Conclusions: Clarifying the Communist Conclusion of Proletarian Political Economy Research

4 结论影响：明晰了无产阶级政治经济学研究的共产主义归结

The communist conclusion is the purposive premise of the *Outlines*’ important influence on Marx’s turn to political economy. Compared with the *Outlines*’ path of political economy, its dialectical method, and its “original” content, what truly attracted Marx was the dual conclusion of communism in terms of value and truth. In his critique of Hegel’s philosophy of right, Marx had already autonomously arrived at the path choice of using political economy to analyze the social and political system; in terms of dialectics, Marx was also a master deeply versed in Hegelian dialectics; in terms of content and theses, Marx necessarily drew references within the scope of his own theoretical needs. If the *Outlines* had not been directed towards communism, then the status and influence of its path of political economy, its dialectical method, and its “original” content on Marx’s turn to political economy might have been greatly diminished. It is precisely because the *Outlines* shares the common communist purpose with Marx’s turn to political economy that it could attract and encourage Marx to turn to political economy, helping Marx further clarify the communist conclusion of proletarian political economy research.

共产主义归结是《大纲》对马克思政治经济学转向产生重要影响的宗旨性前提。相对《大纲》的政治经济学路径、辩证的方法以及“具有独创性”的内容，真正吸引马克思的地方正是共产主义的价值和真理的双重归结。马克思在对黑格尔法哲学的批判中已经自主地得出了要运用政治经济学分析社会政治制度的路径选择，在辩证法方面马克思亦是深谙黑格尔辩证法的高手，在内容观点方面马克思必然是在自己理论需求范围内的参鉴。如果《大纲》不是指向共产主义，那么它的政治经济学路径、辩证的方法以及“具有独创性”的内容之于马克思政治经济学转向的地位以及影响也许就会大打折扣。正是由于《大纲》与马克思政治经济学转向具有共同的共产主义旨归，才能吸引且鼓舞马克思向政治经济学转向，帮助马克思进一步明晰无产阶级政治经济学研究的共产主义归结。

This stems, on the one hand, from the inherent theoretical purport of the *Outlines*, i.e., its conclusion at the level of truth; on the other hand, it stems from the logical direction of Marx’s turn to political economy, i.e., its conclusion at the level of value. That is to say, communism is the logical direction of Marx’s turn to political economy; in other words, Marx’s study of political economy was an attempt to analyze communism through political economy.

这一方面源于《大纲》内在的理论旨趣即真理层面的归结；另一方面源于马克思政治经济学转向的思想逻辑指向即价值层面的归结。也就是说，共产主义是马克思政治经济学转向的逻辑指向，换言之，马克思研究政治经济学就是要尝试对共产主义进行政治经济学剖析。

Ever since Engels arrived in Manchester, his attention turned toward communism. In fact, before going to England, Engels had already come into contact with the “condition of England” and, through Hess, had also encountered the concept of communism. Communist thought in England, as Engels himself stated, was derived from “practice,” that is, from England’s “poverty, moral decay, and destitution.”[12]12 This is a reference to Engels’ *Outlines of a Critique of Political Economy* (1844), where he describes the social conditions observed in England. The empirical basis of English communism originated in the economic and social problems brought about by the Industrial Revolution; exploring paths to solve economic and social problems from the perspective of economics was a theoretical feature of English communism. In this regard, Owen’s utopian socialism pioneered the path of a political-economic demonstration of social problems. In England, Engels not only studied many works of national economics on his own and came to understand Owen’s socialist ideas, but also studied the economics of many English socialists. In his *Letters from London*, Engels mentioned the “convincing economic essays” of the English socialists. In his *Outlines*, he clearly states: “For, as the English socialists have long since proved in practice and in theory, those who oppose private property can solve economic problems more correctly from an economic standpoint.” This refers mainly to John Watts’ *The Facts and Fictions of Political Economists*, William Thompson’s *An Inquiry into the Principles of the Distribution of Wealth Most Conducive to Human Happiness*, and John Francis Bray’s *Labour’s Wrongs and Labour’s Remedy*.

恩格斯自从来到曼彻斯特，他的注意力就转向了共产主义。事实上，恩格斯在去英国之前就已经接触了“英国状况”，并且通过赫斯也接触到了共产主义概念。英国的共产主义思想正如恩格斯所言是通过“实践”得出的，即由英国“贫穷、道德败坏和赤贫现象”[12]得出。英国共产主义的现实考据来源于工业革命带来的经济社会问题，从经济学视角探寻解决经济社会问题的路径是英国共产主义的理论特征。在这一方面，欧文的空想社会主义率先开辟了对社会问题政治经济学论证的路径。恩格斯在英国不仅自学了许多国民经济学资料，了解了欧文的社会主义思想，而且还学习了许多英国社会主义者的经济学。恩格斯在《伦敦来信》中就提到英国社会主义者的“有说服力的经济论文”。他《大纲》中明确指出：“因为正如英国社会主义者早就在实践中和理论上证明的那样，反对私有制的人能够从经济的观点比较正确地解决经济问题。”这主要指的是约·瓦茨的《政治经济学家的事实和臆想》、威·汤普森的《最能促进人类幸福的财富分配原理研究》以及约·弗·布雷的《对待劳动的不公正现象及其解决办法》。

In short, whether it was Hess’s philosophical communist thought, the works of English national economics, the economic essays of the English socialists, or the investigation of the “condition of England,” all of these provided great convenience for the young Engels to shift from the economic level into the context of communism. Against this background, after arriving in Manchester, Engels quickly entered the communist context and directly targeted the core concept of capitalist economics: private property. Engels believed that economic problems were the root of social problems, and that the political propositions of communism were the manifestation of corresponding economic principles in the political sphere. The critique of private property carried out at the economic level in the *Outlines*, along with the core proposition of abolishing private property and aiming for communism, constitutes a political-economic demonstration of communism and forms the inherent theoretical purport of the *Outlines*.

总之，无论是赫斯的哲学共产主义思想、英国国民经济学著作、英国社会主义者的经济学论文，或者是对“英国状况”的考察，都为青年恩格斯从经济学层面转入共产主义语境提供了很大的便捷。在此背景下，恩格斯到曼彻斯特后很快就进入了共产主义语境，并且直击私有制这一资本主义经济学的核心概念。恩格斯认为，经济问题是社会问题的根源所在，而共产主义的政治主张则是相应的经济原则在政治领域的体现。《大纲》在经济学层面展开的对私有制的批判，以及消灭私有制旨归共产主义的核心主张，是对共产主义的政治经济学论证，构成了《大纲》内在的理论旨趣。

The problems of “material interests,” trade tariffs, and the “French trend of thought” were the “vexing questions” that Marx sought to resolve in his *Manuscripts* [the *Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844*], an important result of his use of political economy to dissect civil society. In his critique of Hegel’s philosophy of right, Marx discovered that “legal relations” were to be sought in “material relations of life,” i.e., civil society, and that the dissection of civil society was to be sought in political economy. Therefore, dissecting civil society in political economy was directly aimed at criticizing social problems such as “the earthly realm,” “law,” “politics,” and “institutions.” From this perspective, the *Manuscripts* represent a deepening of the logic of the critique of political institutions established by Marx in his *Introduction to a Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right*. In the *Introduction*, Marx opened fire on Germany’s “earthly realm,” “law,” “politics,” and “institutions,” hoping to achieve in Germany “a practice reaching to the height of principles,” that is, to raise Germany to the “official level of modern nations” and also to achieve the “revolution of human height” that modern states would realize in the future. He proposed overthrowing “all relations” in which man is enslaved, achieving a “thorough revolution,” and the possibility of a thorough revolution in Germany lay in the proletariat, for only the proletariat could “proclaim the dissolution of the hitherto existing world order,” negate private property, and realize “human emancipation.” This exposition shows that Marx’s critique of Germany’s political institutions in the *Introduction* ultimately aimed at realizing “human emancipation.” Thus, the surface-level significance of Marx’s study of political economy was to dissect civil society, but its deeper purpose was a political-economic demonstration of the communist proposition of “human emancipation.” Therefore, the *Manuscripts* are a continuation of the communist purport of “human emancipation” in the *Introduction*, and communism is the fundamental purport of Marx’s turn to political economy. The only difference is that in the *Manuscripts*, Marx further expressed the communism of “human emancipation” as the communism of the restoration of man’s essence. What truly attracted Marx in the *Outlines* was precisely its achievement of the communist purport through the path of political economy.

“物质利益”问题、贸易关税问题以及“法兰西思潮”问题是马克思《手稿》中所要解决的“苦恼的疑问”，是他运用政治经济学剖析市民社会的一个重要成果。在对黑格尔法哲学的批判中，马克思发现“法的关系”要到“物质的生活关系”即市民社会中去寻找，而对市民社会的剖析要到政治经济学中去寻找。因此，在政治经济学中剖析市民社会直接是为了对“尘世”“法”“政治”“制度”等社会问题的批判。在这个角度上，《手稿》是马克思在《〈黑格尔法哲学批判〉导言》中所确立的对政治制度批判逻辑的深入。而在《〈黑格尔法哲学批判〉导言》中，马克思向德国的“尘世”“法”“政治”“制度”开火，期望在德国“实现有原则高度的实践”，即能把德国提到“现代各国的正式水准”，也能够把德国实现现代国家将来要实现的“人的高度的革命”，提出要推翻使人被奴役的“一切关系”，达到“彻底的革命”，而德国彻底革命的可能就在于无产阶级，只有无产阶级才能“宣告迄今为止的世界制度的解体”，否定私有制实现“人的解放”。这种论述说明马克思在《〈黑格尔法哲学批判〉导言》中对德国政治制度的批判最终是指向实现“人的解放”。可见，马克思政治经学研究表层意义是为了剖析市民社会，但更深层的是为了对“人的解放”的共产主义主张的政治经济学论证。因此说，《手稿》是《〈黑格尔法哲学批判〉导言》中“人的解放”的共产主义旨归的继续，共产主义是马克思转向政治经济学的根本旨归，只不过马克思在《手稿》中把“人的解放”的共产主义进一步表述为了人的本质复归的共产主义。《大纲》真正吸引马克思的方面就在于其通过政治经济学路径达到的共产主义旨归。

In summary, the *Outlines* is a classic work in which Marxism, from the economic level and using dialectical materialist thought, proposes the abolition of private property, and it exerted an important academic influence on Marx’s turn to the study of political economy. Of course, the *Outlines* exerted only a certain external influence on Marx’s turn to political economy, not an internal determining factor. Objectively and comprehensively grasping the influence of the *Outlines* on Marx’s turn to political economy is the key to accurately understanding the early intellectual relationship between Marx and Engels in political economy.

综上可知，《大纲》是马克思主义从经济学层面运用唯物辩证思想提出消灭私有制的一部经典著作，对马克思转向政治经济学研究产生了重要的学术影响。当然，《大纲》对马克思转向政治经济学研究而言，只是一定的外在的影响，并不是内在的决定性的因素。客观全面把握《大纲》对马克思政治经济学转向的影响，是我们准确理解马克思和恩格斯早期政治经济学思想关联的关键所在。

Online editor: Paul

网络编辑：保罗