Rethinking the Question of the Form of Presentation of the "New World Outlook"

I. The "New World Outlook" as the Original Form of Presentation of Marxist Philosophy

一、作为马克思主义哲学原初呈现形式的“新世界观”

As the founder of Marxist philosophy, Marx did not use the term "Marxist philosophy." Yet this does not affect the world-outlook revolution realized by this great philosophy. In this sense, the original form of presentation of Marxist philosophy is precisely the "new world outlook," that is, the proletarian world outlook.

作为马克思主义哲学的创始者，马克思没有使用过“马克思主义哲学”这个词，然而这并不影响这一伟大哲学所实现的世界观革命。在这个意义上，作为马克思主义哲学的原初呈现形式，就是“新世界观”，即无产阶级世界观。

Marx initially attacked the image of the "sorcerer" in classical German philosophy, confronted the fate of the workers, and proposed that "true philosophy"—the new form of philosophy—is "the spirit of building railways with the hands of the workers" (Complete Works of Marx and Engels, Vol. 1, p. 120). Marx's use of "new world outlook" began in his letter to Arnold Ruge (30 November 1842), where he placed the "new world outlook" in the aspect of "paying more attention to concrete facts and providing more practical knowledge," distinguishing it from the empty, abstract philosophical speculation of the Young Hegelians of the time (see Collected Works of Marx and Engels, Vol. 10, p. 3). In his letter to Arnold Ruge (September 1843), he elucidated the "new world outlook" in the form of a "new trend of thought" as "discovering the new world through the critique of the old world" and clearly stated the need "to carry out a ruthless critique of everything existing" (ibid., p. 7). In the "Introduction to A Contribution to the Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right," he distinguished the "critique of weapons" from the "weapon of critique" and elucidated the inner connection between the "proletariat" and this "weapon of critique": the liberation of the proletariat takes "philosophy" as its "head" in the form of the "weapon of critique," while at the same time "philosophy" takes the "proletariat" as its "heart," i.e., "philosophy finds its material weapons in the proletariat, just as the proletariat finds its spiritual weapons in philosophy" (Collected Works of Marx and Engels, Vol. 1, p. 17). In his article "Critical Marginal Notes on 'The King of Prussia and Social Reform. By a Prussian'," he pointed out that the unique and significant meaning of the Silesian weavers' uprising lay in its "consciousness of the essence of the proletariat" (Complete Works of Marx and Engels, Vol. 1, p. 483). In the Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844, he prepared the academic material reserves for constructing the "new world outlook," revealing the universality of the "species-being" of "man," especially the "human measure" that distinguishes it from the "animal's measure of the species," viewing industry or the achievements of European industry as a "book" that unlocks the mystery of "human essence," using the concept of "alienated labor" to expose the inhuman conditions of the worker's labor process in capitalist society, revealing the "riddle of history" that encompasses "the contradiction between man and nature and between man and man." In the "Excerpts from James Mill's Elements of Political Economy," he proposed that "human essence" is "man's true social connection... man creates and produces his social connection, social essence in the process of actively realizing his essence" (Complete Works of Marx and Engels, Vol. 42, p. 24).

马克思起初抨击德国古典哲学之“巫师”形象，直面工人的命运，提出“真正的哲学”即哲学的新形态是“用工人的双手建筑起铁路的精神”（《马克思恩格斯全集》第1卷，第120页）。马克思使用“新的世界观”开始于《致阿尔诺德·卢格》（1842年11月30日），他将“新世界观”置于“多注意一些具体的事实，多提供一些实际的知识”方面而不同于当时青年黑格尔派那类空洞抽象的哲学思辨。（参见《马克思恩格斯文集》第10卷，第3页）他在《致阿尔诺德·卢格》（1843年9月）中以“新思潮”形式把“新世界观”阐明为“通过批判旧世界发现新世界”并明确指出“要对现存的一切进行无情的批判”。（同上，第7页）他在《〈黑格尔法哲学批判〉导言》中把“批判的武器”同“武器的批判”相区分，阐明“无产阶级”同这种“批判的武器”之间的内在联系：无产阶级的解放以作为“批判的武器”的“哲学”为“头脑”，同时，“哲学”以“无产阶级”为“心脏”，即“哲学把无产阶级当作自己的物质武器，同样，无产阶级也把哲学当做自己的精神武器”（《马克思恩格斯文集》第1卷，第17页）。他在《评“普鲁士人”的“普鲁士国王和社会改革”一文》中指明西里西亚纺织工人起义独特的重大意义在于“意识到无产阶级的本质”（《马克思恩格斯全集》第1卷，第483页）。他在《1844年经济学哲学手稿》中为构建“新世界观”做学术资料储备，揭示“人”的“类本质”特别是那区别于动物“种的尺度”的“人的尺度”之普遍性，把工业或欧洲工业成就视为一本敲开“人的本质”之谜的“书”，以“异化劳动”概念揭露资本主义社会工人劳动过程的非人状况，揭示那涵盖着“人和自然界之间、人与人之间的矛盾”的“历史之谜”，在《詹姆斯·穆勒〈政治经济学原理〉一书摘要》中提出“人的本质”是“人的真正的社会联系……人在积极实现自己本质的过程中创造、生产人的社会联系、社会本质”（《马克思恩格斯全集》第42卷，第24页）。

In the "Theses on Feuerbach," Marx critically highlighted the problem of human subjectivity in the era of industrial civilization in the form of "new materialism": proving the "truth" and "actuality" of thought from the practical activity of man as subject—bringing about a revolutionary "change" in the world of the "object" or "object" [Gegenstand], emphasizing the attribute of "social relations" of "human essence" and its class character in the sphere of "civil society," transcending the limitations of those "philosophers" who merely "interpret the world," and dedicating himself to "changing the world," thereby decisively "laying the foundation for the creation of a new world outlook" (Collected Works of Marx and Engels, Vol. 1, p. 805). In The German Ideology, he systematically elucidated, in the form of a "materialist world outlook," a fundamental viewpoint of the "new world outlook" for understanding "social phenomena" or "historical phenomena": namely, "this activity, this continuous sensuous labor and creation, this production, is the foundation of the whole sensuous world as it now exists" (ibid., p. 529), "this civil society is the true source and theatre of all history" (ibid., p. 540), tracing the essence of man back to his productive activity, i.e., "what individuals are depends on the material conditions of their production—both on what they produce and on how they produce" (ibid., p. 520). In his critique of the "poverty of philosophy" in Proudhon's economic doctrines, he elucidated a core idea of the "new world outlook": "all changes in the productive forces of men necessarily bring about changes in their relations of production" (ibid., p. 613), "predicting" the progressive nature of human social history, i.e., the inevitable tendency for "the traditional forms in which the productive forces were developed" (Collected Works of Marx and Engels, Vol. 1, p. 614) to be replaced by new relations of production.

马克思在《关于费尔巴哈的提纲》中以“新唯物主义”形式批判性地凸显工业文明时代人的主体性问题：从作为主体的人的实践活动去证明“思维的真理性”及其“现实性”——使“客体”或“对象”世界发生革命性“改变”，强调“人的本质”之“社会关系”属性及其在“市民社会”领域的阶级性，超越那些仅仅“解释世界”的“哲学家们”的局限，致力于“改变世界”，从而决定性地“为创立新世界观奠定了基础”（《马克思恩格斯文集》第1卷，第805页）。他在《德意志意识形态》中以“唯物主义世界观”形式系统阐明“新世界观”关于理解“社会现象”或“历史现象”的一个根本视点即“这种活动、这种连续不断的感性劳动和创造、这种生产，正是整个现存的感性世界的基础”（同上，第529页），“这个市民社会是全部历史的真正发源地和舞台”（同上，第540页），把人的本质归源于人的生产活动即“个人……是什么样的，这同他们的生产是一致的——既和他们生产什么一致，又和他们怎样生产一致”（同上，第520页）。他在批判蒲鲁东经济学说中的“哲学的贫困”现象时阐明“新世界观”的一个核心思想即“人们生产力的一切变化必然引起他们的生产关系的变化”（同上，第613页），“预言”了人类社会历史的进步性即“生产力在其中产生的那些传统形式”（《马克思恩格斯文集》第1卷，第614页）被新的生产关系所替代的必然趋势。

In the Manifesto of the Communist Party, Marx and Engels critically expounded, in the form of the "specter of communism," the "general principles" of the "new world outlook" concerning modern class society and the whole of human society: namely, the history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles; capitalist society and its "bourgeoisie" are the necessary product of the development of the basic contradictions of society; this society is characterized by "constant revolutionizing of production, uninterrupted disturbance of all social conditions, everlasting uncertainty and agitation" (Collected Works of Marx and Engels, Vol. 2, p. 34); it inevitably tends towards "the fall of the bourgeoisie and the victory of the proletariat" (ibid., p. 43); but the proletariat can only liberate itself through revolutionary struggle, "increase the total productive forces as rapidly as possible" (ibid., p. 52), ultimately abolish bourgeois private property, and establish an "association, in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all" (ibid., p. 53). In the "Introduction to A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy," he explicitly proposed the "dialectic of the concepts of productive forces (means of production) and relations of production" (Collected Works of Marx and Engels, Vol. 8, p. 34), i.e., the proposition of the dialectics of social history. Subsequently, in the "Preface to A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy," he systematically constructed, in the form of "the guiding principle of my studies" (Collected Works of Marx and Engels, Vol. 2, p. 591), the basic principles of the historical dialectic of the "new world outlook" concerning social and historical phenomena: the social being of men determines their consciousness; social relations of production must correspond to the state and developmental requirements of the productive forces, and the superstructure must correspond to the economic base; the movement of these basic social contradictions drives the development of human social formations from lower to higher stages, ultimately leading from the old mode of production based on class antagonism to a new mode of production without class antagonism.

马克思恩格斯在《共产党宣言》中以“共产主义幽灵”形式批判地阐述“新世界观”关于现代阶级社会以及整个人类社会的“一般原理”，即文明社会以来的历史都是阶级斗争的历史，资本主义社会及其“资产者”是社会基本矛盾发展的必然产物，这个社会表现为“生产的不断变革，一切社会状况不停的动荡，永远的不安定和变动”（《马克思恩格斯文集》第2卷，第34页），必然趋向于“资产阶级的灭亡和无产阶级的胜利”（同上，第43页），但无产阶级必须经过革命斗争才能解放自己，“尽可能快地增加生产力的总量”（同上，第52页）、最终消灭资产阶级私有制、建立“每个人的自由发展是一切人的自由发展的条件”（同上，第53页）这一“联合体”。他在《〈政治经济学批判〉导言》中明确提出“生产力(生产资料)的概念和生产关系的概念的辩证法”（《马克思恩格斯文集》第8卷，第34页）即社会历史辩证法命题，进而在《〈政治经济学批判〉序言》中以“指导我的研究工作的总的结果”（《马克思恩格斯文集》第2卷，第591页）形式系统构建“新世界观”关于社会历史现象的历史辩证法基本原理：人们的社会存在决定人们的意识，社会生产关系必定适应生产力、上层建筑必定适应经济基础的状况及其发展要求，这些社会基本矛盾运动推动人类社会形态由低级向高级发展并最终从以阶级对立为基础的旧生产方式进入一种无阶级对立的新生产方式。

In *Capital* and its manuscripts, Marx concretely integrated the “new world outlook” into the critique of political economy. The capitalist, “as a fanatical devotee of valorisation, he ruthlessly forces humanity to produce for the sake of production, thereby to develop social productive forces and to create the material conditions of production; and only such conditions can create the real foundation for a higher form of society, whose fundamental principle is the full and free development of every individual” (Marx/Engels Collected Works, Vol. 5, p. 683). The fundamental contradiction of capitalism, as “the development of the contradictions of a given historical form of production is the only historical path for its dissolution and the formation of a new one” (ibid., p. 562). Here, it both critically affirms the historical contribution of the capitalist mode of production in unprecedentedly advancing the development of humanity’s social productive forces, and exposes the exploited and oppressed fate of the working class, “predicting” that the sharp contradiction between capitalist private property and the developmental requirements of large-scale socialised production will inevitably drive capitalist society to be replaced by communist society, i.e., “the development of production makes the continued existence of different social classes an anachronism. … Man, at last, becomes master of his own social organisation, and thereby becomes master of nature, master of himself — a free man” (Marx/Engels Collected Works, Vol. 3, p. 566). *Capital* and its manuscripts, through the scientific form of the critique of political economy, fulfilled the “new world outlook’s” original promise to “discover the new world through the critique of the old world,” foreseeing the new world of communism. In the “Afterword to the Second German Edition” of *Capital*, he elucidated, through the “rational form of the dialectic,” the “new world outlook’s” critical understanding of “capitalist society” — within the affirmative understanding of existing things is contained the negative understanding of existing things, which is subsumed under “critique” and “revolution.” In this way, *Capital* and its manuscripts achieved the “joint appearance” of the two intellectual peaks of the “new world outlook” — the materialist conception of history and the theory of surplus value. Later, he highlighted the fundamental distinction between the “new world outlook” and the “prejudices of the bourgeoisie, petty bourgeoisie, etc.,” clearly “revealing” the true “identity” of the “new world outlook,” namely, the “proletarian world outlook.” (See Marx/Engels Collected Works, Vol. 3, p. 484) Hence, Engels pointed out in “Ludwig Feuerbach and the End of Classical German Philosophy” that this “new tendency was from the outset mainly directed towards the working class” (Marx/Engels Collected Works, Vol. 4, p. 313).

马克思在《资本论》及其手稿中将“新世界观”具体融入政治经济学批判当中。资本家“作为价值增殖的狂热追求者，他肆无忌惮地迫使人类去为生产而生产，从而去发展社会生产力，去创造生产的物质条件；而只有这样的条件，才能为一个更高级的、以每一个个人的全面而自由的发展为基本原则的社会形式建立现实基础”（《马克思恩格斯文集》第5卷，第683页），资本主义基本矛盾作为“一种历史生产形式的矛盾的发展，是这种形式瓦解和新形式形成的唯一的历史道路”（同上，第562页）。这里既批判地肯定资本主义生产方式空前地推进人类社会生产力发展的历史贡献，又揭露工人阶级的被剥削被压迫命运，“预言”资本主义私有制同社会化大生产发展要求之间的尖锐矛盾必然驱使资本主义社会被共产主义社会替代，即“生产的发展使不同社会阶级的继续存在成为时代的错乱。……人终于成为自己的社会结合的主人，从而也就成为自然界的主人，成为自身的主人——自由的人”（《马克思恩格斯文集》第3卷，第566页）。《资本论》及其手稿以政治经济学批判的科学形式兑现“新世界观”当初立下的“通过批判旧世界发现新世界”承诺，预见共产主义新世界。他在《资本论》“第二版跋”中以“辩证法的合理形态”阐明“新世界观”对“资本主义社会”的批判性理解——在对现存事物肯定性理解中都包含着对现存事物否定性理解并归之为“批判”与“革命”。这样，《资本论》及其手稿实现了“新世界观”两座思想高峰——唯物史观与剩余价值学说“联袂出场”。后来，他突出“新世界观”同“资产阶级、小资产阶级等等的偏见”之间的根本区别，旗帜鲜明“亮”出“新世界观”真实“身份”即“无产阶级世界观”。（参见《马克思恩格斯文集》第3卷，第484页）所以恩格斯在“费尔巴哈论”中指出这个“新派别，一开始就主要是面向工人阶级的”（《马克思恩格斯文集》第4卷，第313页）。

It can be said that, from the perspective of the transformation of the world outlook, Marxist philosophy is a whole encompassing multiple determinations, existing at least on three levels: the first level, marked by the “Theses on Feuerbach,” establishes the philosophical point of departure of the “new world outlook” — the new conception of practice and its theory of the “essence of man”; the second level, marked by the “Preface to A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy,” formulates the socio-historical dialectical point of departure of the “new world outlook”; the third level, marked by *Capital* and its manuscripts, constructs the point of departure of the “new world outlook” in the critique of political economy concerning the creation of surplus value by the surplus labour of the wage-earning working class, directly displaying the true “identity” of the “new world outlook” as the proletarian world outlook in the form of the “Bible of the working class.” Among these, the first and second levels constitute the philosophical foundation of the third level; the third level is the philosophical orientation of the first two levels within the field of the critique of political economy, i.e., what Lenin called “only Marx’s economic theory has elucidated the true position of the proletariat in the entire capitalist system” (Lenin Collected Works, On Marxism, p. 71). Therefore, the “new world outlook,” as the original form of presentation of Marxist philosophy, did not “circle around” within the field of speculative philosophy but increasingly exceeded the traditional paradigm of philosophy or “philosophers,” directing philosophy’s “power of abstraction” (Marx/Engels Collected Works, Vol. 5, p. 8) towards the field of political economy. Its content is not limited to the pure philosophical categories of the theory of the essence of the world, epistemology, and the conception of history, but also includes the core circle of the “new world outlook” — the critique of political economy and its intellectual achievements.

可以说，从世界观变革看，马克思主义哲学是一个涵盖多个规定性的整体，至少存在三个层面：第一个层面以《关于费尔巴哈的提纲》为标志，奠定“新世界观”之哲学观基点——新的实践观及其“人的本质”论；第二个层面以《〈政治经济学批判〉序言》为标志，制定“新世界观”之社会历史辩证法基点；第三个层面以《资本论》及其手稿为标志，构建“新世界观”关于雇佣工人阶级的剩余劳动创造剩余价值这一政治经济学批判基点，以“工人阶级的圣经”形式直接显示“新世界观”真实“身份”即无产阶级世界观。其中，第一个层面、第二个层面构成第三个层面的哲学基础，第三个层面是前两个层面在政治经济学批判领域的哲学指向即列宁所说的“只有马克思的经济理论，才阐明了无产阶级在整个资本主义制度中的真正地位”（《列宁专题文集·论马克思主义》，第71页）。所以，“新世界观”作为马克思主义哲学原初呈现形式并没有在思辨哲学领域“兜圈”而是日益超出哲学或“哲学家们”的传统范式，将哲学“抽象力”（《马克思恩格斯文集》第5卷，第8页）投向政治经济学领域，其内涵不限于纯哲学范畴的世界本质论、认识论、历史观，还包括“新世界观”核心圈——政治经济学批判及其思想成果。

II. Forms of Explication of the “New World Outlook”

二、“新世界观”阐释形式

Engels, Lenin, and other Marxists, as well as Western Marxists, have carried out systematic research and dissemination work on the “new world outlook” as the original form of presentation of Marxist philosophy, manifesting in multiple forms of explication.

恩格斯、列宁等马克思主义者以及西方马克思主义者对作为马克思主义哲学原初呈现形式的“新世界观”作了系统性的研究和传播工作，表现为多种阐释形式。

Engels explicated Marx’s “new world outlook” in the form of the materialist conception of history and materialist dialectics. He identified the critique of political economy within the “new world outlook” as the “principle” for the entire field of social-historical science, arguing that it would provoke a subversive response in the capitalist world, naming it the “materialist conception of history” (Marx/Engels Collected Works, Vol. 2, p. 597). Engels used the term “materialist conception of history” in *The Housing Question*; in *Socialism: Utopian and Scientific*, he elucidated that the “new fact” whose “discovery” this materialist conception of history represented was that “the class struggle between proletariat and bourgeoisie … had risen to a prominent place in the history of the most advanced countries of Europe” (Marx/Engels Collected Works, Vol. 3, p. 544); in *The Juridical Socialism*, he further elaborated on it: “Marx, with his materialist conception of history, helped the working class … From this arose a world outlook suited to the living conditions and struggle conditions of the proletariat; to the propertylessness of the worker corresponds only the absence of illusions in his head. And this proletarian world outlook is currently spreading across the globe.” (Marx/Engels Complete Works, Vol. 28, p. 611) This indicates that Marx’s “materialist conception of history” asserts that people’s economic living conditions or mode of production determine their social status, political status, and spiritual-cultural state, and that the capitalist mode of production itself is destined to “spread” a “proletarian world outlook” fundamentally different from the bourgeois world outlook. Hence, the “materialist conception of history” is not a purely “neutral” world outlook and methodology, but a “world outlook suited to the living conditions and struggle conditions of the proletariat.” Precisely because the “materialist conception of history” or “historical materialism” contains the “identity” of the proletarian world outlook, Engels, in the “Preface” to the second edition of *Anti-Dühring*, referred to Marx’s “new world outlook” as the “communist world outlook,” affirming that it “has met with attention and support in all countries where there are proletarians and fearless scientific theorists” (Marx/Engels Collected Works, Vol. 9, p. 11), possessing universal significance worldwide. In the preface to the 1888 single-volume edition of *Ludwig Feuerbach and the End of Classical German Philosophy*, he clearly positioned it, from the perspective of a philosophical revolution, as the “new world outlook.”

恩格斯以唯物主义历史观、唯物主义辩证法形式阐释马克思“新世界观”。他把“新世界观”之政治经济学批判确定为整个社会历史科学领域的“原理”，认为它在资本主义世界会引起颠覆性反响，名曰“唯物主义历史观”（《马克思恩格斯文集》第2卷，第597页）。恩格斯在《论住宅问题》中使用“唯物史观”，在《社会主义从空想到科学的发展》中阐明这种唯物主义历史观被“发现”的“新的事实”是“无产阶级和资产阶级之间的阶级斗争……在欧洲最先进的国家的历史中升到了重要地位”（《马克思恩格斯文集》第3卷，第544页），在《法学家的社会主义》中对它作了进一步阐发：“马克思用他的唯物史观帮助了工人阶级……由此便产生了适合于无产阶级的生活状况和斗争状况的世界观；和工人毫无财产相适应的只能是他们头脑中毫无幻想。而这个无产阶级的世界观目前正在全球传播。”（《马克思恩格斯全集》第28卷，第611页）这表明，马克思的“唯物主义历史观”主张人们的经济生活条件或生产方式决定人们的社会地位、政治地位和精神文化状态，资本主义生产方式本身就注定“传播”着一种截然不同于资产阶级世界观的“无产阶级的世界观”。因而“唯物主义历史观”不是一种纯粹“中立的”世界观方法论而是一种“适合于无产阶级的生活状况和斗争状况的世界观”。正是因为“唯物主义历史观”或“唯物史观”蕴含无产阶级世界观的“身份”，恩格斯在《反杜林论》二版“序言”中把马克思“新世界观”称为“共产主义世界观”，肯定它“在一切有无产者和无畏的科学理论家的国家里，都受到了重视和拥护”（《马克思恩格斯文集》第9卷，第11页）而具有世界性的普遍意义。他在《路德维希·费尔巴哈和德国古典哲学的终结》1888年单行本序言中从哲学革命角度明确把它定位为“新世界观”。

At the same time, Engels interpreted the “new world outlook” as “materialist dialectics.” In *Socialism: Utopian and Scientific* he affirmed that “modern materialism is essentially dialectic” as the “new world outlook” (*Collected Works of Marx and Engels*, Vol. 3, p. 543), and in *Ludwig Feuerbach and the End of Classical German Philosophy* he highlighted the background against which this dialectics arose, namely the nineteenth-century “natural science [as] essentially a science of ordering materials” and its “three great discoveries” (see *Collected Works of Marx and Engels*, Vol. 4, pp. 299-300). He interpreted the core essentials of the materialist dialectics of the “new world outlook,” namely “the ideal is nothing else than the material world reflected by the human mind, and translated into forms of thought” and “in its rational form it is a scandal and an abomination to bourgeoisdom and its doctrinaire professors, because it includes in its comprehension an affirmative recognition of the existing state of things, at the same time also, the recognition of the negation of that state” (*Collected Works of Marx and Engels*, Vol. 5, p. 22), respectively as “we again took our concepts of the mind as reflections of real things... In this way the dialectic of concepts itself became merely the conscious reflex of the dialectical movement of the real world” (*Collected Works of Marx and Engels*, Vol. 4, p. 298) and “it reveals the transitory character of everything and in everything; nothing can endure before it except the uninterrupted process of becoming and of passing away, of endless ascendancy from the lower to the higher. ... It has also, in fact, a conservative side: it recognizes that definite stages of knowledge and society are justified for their time and circumstances; but only within limits. The conservatism of this mode of observation is relative; its revolutionary character is absolute” (ibid., p. 270). This both emphasized the logical dependence of this “materialist dialectics” (ibid., p. 298) on the principle of materialism, tracing the “critical” and “revolutionary” essence of Marx’s dialectics further back to human practical activity itself, so that “the changes in nature brought about by man” (*Collected Works of Marx and Engels*, Vol. 9, p. 483) are the “most essential and immediate basis” (ibid.) of human thought and its crystallizations; and acknowledged Marx’s side of the dialectics that includes “an affirmative recognition of the existing state of things,” interpreting it as the “conservative side,” thereby accurately rendering the core essentials of Marx’s dialectics and their “boundary.” In letters such as the one to Werner Sombart (March 11, 1895), Engels, from the angle of materialist dialectics, not only affirmed that the “new world outlook” embodies the truthfulness of humanity’s cognition of the world, but also stressed that it should not be reduced to a “formula.”

同时，恩格斯把“新世界观”阐释为“唯物主义辩证法”。他在《社会主义从空想到科学的发展》中肯定作为“新世界观”的“现代唯物主义在本质上都是辩证的”（《马克思恩格斯文集》第3卷，第543页），在《路德维希·费尔巴哈和德国古典哲学的终结》中突出这一辩证法产生的背景即19世纪的“自然科学本质上是整理材料的科学”及其“三大发现”（参见《马克思恩格斯文集》第4卷，第299-300页），把“新世界观”之唯物辩证法核心要义即“观念的东西不外是移入人的头脑并在人的头脑中改造过的物质的东西而已”和“辩证法在对现存事物的肯定的理解中同时包含对现存事物的否定的理解”（《马克思恩格斯文集》第5卷，第22页）分别阐释为“我们重新唯物地把我们头脑中的概念看做现实事物的反映……这样，概念的辩证法本身就变成只是现实世界的辩证运动的自觉的反映”（《马克思恩格斯文集》第4卷，第298页）和“它指出所有一切事物的暂时性；在它面前，除了生成和灭亡的不断过程、无止境地由低级上升到高级的不断过程，什么都不存在。……它也有保守的方面：它承认认识和社会的一定阶段对它那个时代和那种环境来说都有存在的理由，但也不过如此而已。这种观察方法的保守性是相对的，它的革命性质是绝对的”（同上，第270页）。这既强调了这种“唯物主义辩证法”（同上，第298页）在逻辑上对唯物主义原则的依存关系，把马克思关于辩证法之“批判”和“革命”本质进一步归源于人的实践活动本身，“人所引起的自然界的变化”（《马克思恩格斯文集》第9卷，第483页）才是人的思维及其结晶“最本质和最切近的基础”（同上）；又承认马克思关于辩证法“对现存事物的肯定的理解”一面并释之为“保守的方面”，准确诠释了马克思的辩证法核心要义及其“边界”。恩格斯在《致韦尔纳·桑巴特》（1895年3月11日）等书信中从唯物主义辩证法角度不仅肯定“新世界观”体现着人类认识世界的真理性，而且强调不要把它“公式”化。

The basic paradigms by which Engels interpreted the “new world outlook” were “materialist dialectics” and “materialist conception of history,” although on individual occasions he used “historical materialism” (he proposed this term in the letter to Conrad Schmidt [August 5, 1890]), and he never used “dialectical materialism.” It is worth noting that Engels’s “materialist conception of history” was meant to emphasize the historical conditionality of human emancipation, especially the process of the proletariat’s pursuit of emancipation while it was still in a weak position; Engels’s “materialist dialectics” was meant to highlight the mutability and progressiveness of the historical phenomena of human society, namely the logic that “modern socialism is certain to triumph” (*Collected Works of Marx and Engels*, Vol. 9, p. 165). The two each have their own emphasis and interpenetrate each other.

恩格斯当年阐释“新世界观”的基本范式是“唯物主义辩证法”和“唯物主义历史观”，尽管他在个别场合使用过“历史唯物主义”（在《致康拉德·施米特》［1890年8月5日］中提出这一术语），并且他也从未使用过“辩证唯物主义”。值得注意的是，恩格斯的“唯物主义历史观”意在强调人类解放特别是尚处于弱势地位的无产阶级追求解放过程的历史条件性；恩格斯的“唯物主义辩证法”意在突出人类社会历史现象的变易性和前进性即“现代社会主义必获胜利”（《马克思恩格斯文集》第9卷，第165页）的逻辑，二者各有侧重、相互贯通。

Lenin, by “thoroughly carrying materialism through into the sphere of the social sciences” (*Lenin Special Collection: On Dialectical Materialism and Historical Materialism*, p. 117), expanded and systematized Engels’s “materialist dialectics” and “materialist conception of history” into the forms of “dialectical materialism” and “historical materialism,” holding that “special attention is paid to repairing the upper storey of materialist philosophy... special emphasis is placed on dialectical materialism, not on dialectical materialism, and special insistence is placed on historical materialism, not on historical materialism” (ibid., pp. 115-116). He further clarified the rich meaning of this “new world outlook” and its “identity” as a proletarian world outlook, proposing that “the new world outlook, namely thoroughgoing materialism that also embraces the sphere of social life, dialectics as the most comprehensive and profound doctrine of development, and the theory of the world-historical revolutionary mission of the proletariat as the creator of class struggle and the new communist society” (*Lenin Special Collection: On Marxism*, p. 5), and that “only the Marxist world outlook correctly reflects the interests, views, and culture of the revolutionary proletariat” (*Lenin Special Collection: On Socialism*, p. 167). Lenin held that in *Capital* Marx achieved the systematic elaboration of the “new world outlook,” namely applying “materialist logic, dialectics, and epistemology” as “one and the same thing” within the system of this “new world outlook” (see *Lenin Special Collection: On Dialectical Materialism and Historical Materialism*, p. 145). Stalin explicitly juxtaposed “dialectical materialism” and “historical materialism” as “dialectical and historical materialism” and called it “the theoretical foundation of communism” and “the theoretical foundation of the Marxist party” (*Short Course on the History of the CPSU (B)*, p. 135). He explicitly affirmed the “identity” of the “new world outlook” as a proletarian world outlook, holding that “Marx analyzed capitalism in order to explain the source of the exploitation of the working class, namely surplus value, and to give the working class, deprived of the means of production, a spiritual weapon for overthrowing capitalism” (*Selected Works of Stalin*, Vol. 2, p. 551).

列宁通过把唯物主义“彻底地贯彻在社会科学的领域中”（《列宁专题文集·论辩证唯物主义和历史唯物主义》，第117页）而把恩格斯的“唯物主义辩证法”和“唯物主义历史观”拓展、系统化为“辩证唯物主义”和“历史唯物主义”形式，认为“特别注意的是修盖好唯物主义哲学的上层……特别强调的是辩证唯物主义，而不是辩证唯物主义，特别坚持的是历史唯物主义，而不是历史唯物主义”（同上，第115-116页）。他还进一步明确这一“新世界观”的丰富含义及其无产阶级世界观“身份”，提出“新的世界观，即把社会生活领域也包括在内的彻底的唯物主义、作为最全面最深刻的发展学说的辩证法以及关于阶级斗争和共产主义新社会创造者无产阶级肩负的世界历史性的革命使命的理论”（《列宁专题文集·论马克思主义》，第5页），“只有马克思主义的世界观才正确地反映了革命无产阶级的利益、观点和文化”（《列宁专题文集·论社会主义》，第167页）。列宁认为，马克思在《资本论》中实现了对“新世界观”的系统阐述即将“唯物主义的逻辑、辩证法和认识论”作为“同一个东西都应用于”这一“新世界观”体系之中。（参见《列宁专题文集·论辩证唯物主义和历史唯物主义》，第145页）斯大林明确把“辩证唯物主义”和“历史唯物主义”并置为“辩证唯物主义和历史唯物主义”并称之为“共产主义底理论基础”“马克思主义政党底理论基础”（《苏联共产党（布）历史简明教程》，第135页）。他明确肯定“新世界观”之无产阶级世界观“身份”，认为“马克思分析资本主义,是为了说明工人阶级受剥削的泉源,即剩余价值,并且给予被剥夺了生产资料的工人阶级以推翻资本主义的精神武器”（《斯大林选集》下卷，第551页）。

At the same time, Western Marxism engaged in the critique of capitalism interpreted the “new world outlook” in the form of “philosophy of praxis” and “the functional change of historical materialism,” namely practical materialism. Gramsci proposed that “in philosophy — the unifying center is praxis, that is, the relation between human will (superstructure) and the economic base” (Gramsci, p. 84), and that “this term will designate the identity of opposites in the concrete historical act, that is, human activity (history-spirit) concretely linked to some organized (historicized) ‘matter’ and to humanly transformed nature, which is inseparable from it. This is the philosophy of action (praxis, development)” (ibid., p. 58). Here the “philosophy of praxis” is used to interpret the directly actual character of human practical activity in the “new world outlook,” attempting to break through the “abstract matter” concept of the old materialist context. Lukács, from the side of “historical materialism,” interpreted “Marx’s world outlook” (Lukács, p. 22), holding that “the most important task of historical materialism is... to expose the essence of the capitalist social system. ... The primary function of historical materialism... is action” (Lukács, p. 313), and that “to acknowledge historical materialism is, for the bourgeoisie, virtually suicide. ... For the proletariat, if... historical materialism is regarded merely as an instrument of cognition, this too is suicide” (ibid.). Both reflected, from the dimension of practical subjectivity, on the lessons of proletarian revolution under developed European conditions, interpreting the “new world outlook” as a practical materialist philosophy. This intellectual position must be viewed critically, comprehensively, and dialectically.

与之同时，从事资本主义批判的西方马克思主义以“实践哲学”“历史唯物主义的功能变化”即实践的唯物主义形式阐释“新世界观”。葛兰西提出“在哲学中——统一的中心是实践，也就是人的意志（上层建筑）与经济基础之间的关系”（葛兰西，第84页），“这一术语将标明在具体的历史行为中的对立面的同一性，也就是与某一种被组织起来的（历史化了的）‘物质’，与人所改造的自然不可分地联系着的具有具体性的人的活动（历史-精神）。这是行动（实践，发展）的哲学”（同上，第58页）。这里以“实践哲学”阐释“新世界观”关于人类实践活动之直接现实性特征，试图突破旧唯物主义语境中的“抽象物质”概念。卢卡奇从“历史唯物主义”侧面阐释“马克思的世界观”（卢卡奇，第22页），认为“历史唯物主义最重要的任务是……揭露资本主义社会制度的本质。……历史唯物主义的首要功能……是行动”（卢卡奇，第313页），“承认历史唯物主义，对资产阶级来说简直就意味着是自杀。……对无产阶级来说，如果……把历史唯物主义仅仅看作是一种认识工具，这也同样是自杀”（同上）。他们都从实践主体性维度反思欧洲发达条件下无产阶级革命的教训，把“新世界观”阐释为一种实践的唯物主义哲学。对于这一思想主张，需要批判性地全面辩证看待。

Chinese Marxists have continuously advanced the philosophical process of adapting the “new worldview” to the Chinese context and the needs of the times. In *On Practice*, Mao Zedong used the concept of “dialectical materialism” to reveal two salient features of the “new worldview,” namely, “its class character, openly declaring that dialectical materialism serves the proletariat; … its practical character, emphasizing the dependence of theory on practice” (*Selected Works of Mao Zedong*, Vol. 1, p. 284). In *On Contradiction*, he used the concept of “materialist dialectics” to elucidate the universality and particularity of contradiction in all things, analyzed the complex situations of the particularity of contradiction, and established the doctrine of the principal contradiction. In *On the Correct Handling of Contradictions Among the People*, he expanded the understanding of the basic contradictions of socialist society into the form of “contradictions among the people” under the rubric of “contradictions in socialist society.” Deng Xiaoping interpreted the “new worldview” in the form of “the ideological line of dialectical materialism and historical materialism” (*Selected Works of Deng Xiaoping*, Vol. 2, p. 278), reaffirmed the proposition of the “proletarian worldview” (ibid., p. 143) in the theme report of the Third Plenary Session of the 11th Central Committee of the CPC, supported the discussion on the criterion of truth, and put forward the “three favorable” criteria in his “Southern Talks.” In doing so, he held high the “criterion of practice,” the “criterion of productive forces,” and the “theory of the essence of socialism” in our country, thereby upholding and developing the Marxist “new worldview.”

中国马克思主义者不断推动“新世界观”中国化时代化的哲学进程。毛泽东在《实践论》中以“辩证唯物论”概念揭示“新世界观”两个显著特点，即“阶级性，公然申明辩证唯物论是为无产阶级服务的；……实践性，强调理论对于实践的依赖关系”（《毛泽东选集》第1卷，第284页）。他在《矛盾论》中以“唯物辩证法”概念阐明宇宙万物的矛盾普遍性和特殊性，分析矛盾特殊性的复杂情形并创立主要矛盾学说。他在《关于正确处理人民内部矛盾的问题》中以“社会主义社会的矛盾”形式拓展了社会主义社会基本矛盾的“人民内部矛盾”认识。邓小平以“辩证唯物主义和历史唯物主义的思想路线”（《邓小平文选》第2卷，第278页）形式阐释“新世界观”，在党的十一届三中全会主题报告中重申“无产阶级世界观”（同上，第143页）命题，支持真理标准问题讨论，在“南方谈话”中提出“三个有利于”标准等，在我国高擎“实践标准”“生产力标准”“社会主义本质论”，坚持和发展了马克思主义“新世界观”。

III. The Important Contributions of the Interpretive Forms of the “New Worldview”

三、“新世界观”阐释形式的重要贡献

Engels’s interpretive forms of the “new worldview”—“the materialist conception of history” and “materialist dialectics”—not only do not belong to the category of “pre-Marxist philosophy,” but rather highlight the revolutionary transformation that the “new worldview” achieved in philosophy, namely, that in the field of philosophical outlook the “new worldview” shifted from the problem domain of the essence of nature or the self-existing world, which had been resolved by “former” materialism, to the problem domain of the “essence” of “human society” or the “social thing,” and to the problem domain of the “essence” of “real human beings.” In the field of social history, it “criticized” the historical achievements and historical limits of the capitalist mode of production, discovered that the “essence” of the modern capital world lies in “the domination of unpaid labor” (*Collected Works of Marx and Engels*, Vol. 5, p. 611), and concluded that the “associated mode of production” must inevitably replace the capitalist mode of production. Among these, Engels’s “materialist conception of history” signifies the intellectual achievement of the revolutionary transformation realized by the “new worldview” in the field of social economy. Engels highly evaluated Marx’s great achievement in the field of economics—the doctrine of surplus value—praising it for having “for the first time given a scientific explanation” of the question of “the relation of capital and labor,” which is “the axis around which the whole modern social system turns,” “just as an observer standing on a mountain peak surveys the mountain scenery below” (see *Collected Works of Marx and Engels*, Vol. 3, p. 79). It was on the basis of this doctrine that the modern proletariat advanced in great strides into the stage of a “class-for-itself” possessing the lofty ideal and goal of its own class. His “materialist dialectics” not only emphasized the materialist epistemological principle of the “new worldview” by revealing the logical dependence of Marx’s dialectics on the materialist principle, but also embodied the methodological essence of the “new worldview” in examining social-historical phenomena, especially the phenomenon of capital. On the one hand, this reflected the achievement of the methodological transformation it realized in philosophy—both profoundly absorbing the essence of Hegel’s dialectics and overcoming its “extremely mild political conclusions” or “the habits of the German philistine” (*Collected Works of Marx and Engels*, Vol. 4, p. 272); on the other hand, it made dialectics the proletariat’s “best tool and sharpest weapon” (ibid., p. 298). By elucidating the basic laws of dialectics, including the law of the “transformation of opposed poles into each other,” the law of “quantitative change altering the quality of things,” and the law of the “negation of the negation,” Engels manifested the belief function of the “new worldview,” namely, that “the world is not a collection of ready-made things, but a collection of processes, in which things that seem stable … are all in constant change of coming into being and passing away, and in this change, despite all apparent contingency and despite all temporary reversals, forward development will ultimately be realized” (ibid.), thereby encouraging the temporarily disadvantaged proletariat to dare to change reality and change its own destiny.

恩格斯对“新世界观”的阐释形式——“唯物主义历史观”和“唯物主义辩证法”非但不属于“前马克思主义哲学”范畴，反而突出了“新世界观”在哲学上所实现的革命性变革，即“新世界观”在哲学观领域实现了由“从前的”唯物主义所解决了的自然界或自在世界本质问题域转向“人类社会”或“社会的物”之“本质”问题域、“现实的人”之“本质”问题域，在社会历史领域“批判”了资本主义生产方式的历史成就与历史局限，发现现代资本世界的“本质”在于“对无酬劳动的支配权”（《马克思恩格斯文集》第5卷，第611页），断定“联合的生产方式”必然取代资本主义生产方式。其中，恩格斯的“唯物主义历史观”意指“新世界观”在社会经济领域所实现的革命性变革的思想成果。恩格斯高度评价马克思在经济学领域所取得的巨大成就——剩余价值学说，称赞它使作为“全部现代社会体系所围绕旋转的轴心”的“资本和劳动的关系”问题“第一次得到了科学的说明……就像一个观察者站在高山之巅俯视下面的山景一样”。（参见《马克思恩格斯文集》第3卷，第79页）现代无产阶级正是在这一学说的基础上大步进入一个拥有本阶级远大理想目标的“自为阶级”阶段。他的“唯物主义辩证法”不仅通过揭示马克思的辩证法在逻辑上对唯物主义原则的依存性而强调“新世界观”之唯物主义认识论原则，而且体现了“新世界观”考察社会历史现象特别是资本现象的方法论精华。这一方面反映了它所实现的哲学方法论变革成就——既深刻汲取黑格尔辩证法精髓又克服其“极其温和的政治结论”或“德国庸人的习气”（《马克思恩格斯文集》第4卷，第272页），另一方面使之成为无产阶级“最好的工具和最锐利的武器”（同上，第298页）。恩格斯通过阐明辩证法基本规律包括“对立的两极都向自己的对立面转化”规律、“量变改变事物的质”规律、“否定的否定”规律，彰显了“新世界观”的信念功能，即“世界不是既成事物的集合体，而是过程的集合体，其中各个似乎稳定的事物……都处在生成和灭亡的不断变化中，在这种变化中，尽管有种种表面的偶然性，尽管有种种暂时的倒退，前进的发展终究会实现”（同上），鼓舞暂时处于弱势的无产阶级勇于改变现实、改变自己命运。

Lenin’s form of “dialectical materialism and historical materialism” constitutes a scientific continuation of Engels’s systematic interpretive work on the “new worldview,” and “opened the path for the system of dialectical materialism and historical materialism established in the Soviet Union in the 1920s and 1930s” (Huang Nansen, p. 14). This interpretive form represented a scientific system of thought of the “new worldview” in a socialist world under conditions of underdeveloped capitalism, and played an important role in disseminating the “new worldview.” The practical materialist form of the Western Marxists, by contrast, highlighted the philosophical contribution of the “new worldview,” especially its viewpoint of practice, in overcoming the defects of old materialism, including mechanical materialism and humanist materialism. As one scholar has pointed out, “the scientific viewpoint of practice played a key role in the founding of Marxist philosophy and of Marxism itself” (Xiao Qian, p. 41). The “practical materialism” in *The German Ideology* in fact points to a materialist philosophy set against the background of the conscious initiative of human beings peculiar to the industrial civilization in which Marx and Engels lived. It was precisely with the development of the capitalist mode of production that, for the first time in human history, the “book of the essential powers of the human being” was truly “opened,” laying the social-historical conditions for the birth of “new materialism” or “modern materialism,” namely, dialectical materialism and historical materialism.

列宁的“辩证唯物主义和历史唯物主义”形式属于对恩格斯关于“新世界观”系统化阐释工作的一种科学接续，“为苏联20世纪二三十年代建立的辩证唯物主义和历史唯物主义体系开辟了道路”（黄枬森，第14页）。这一阐释形式代表了“新世界观”在资本主义欠发达条件下的社会主义世界的一种科学思想体系，对传播“新世界观”起到了重要作用。西方马克思主义者的实践的唯物主义形式则突出了“新世界观”尤其是它的实践观点在克服旧唯物主义包括机械唯物主义、人本学唯物主义缺陷中所作出的哲学贡献，正如有学者指出，“科学的实践观点对马克思主义哲学以及马克思主义的创立起了关键性的作用”（肖前，第41页）。《德意志意识形态》中的“实践的唯物主义”实际上指向了一种以当年马克思恩格斯所处的工业文明所特有的人的自觉能动性为大背景的唯物主义哲学，正是随着资本主义生产方式的发展在人类历史上第一次真正“打开人的本质力量的书”，奠定了“新唯物主义”或“现代唯物主义”即辩证唯物主义和历史唯物主义得以诞生的社会历史条件。

The philosophical course of adapting Marxism to the Chinese context and the needs of the times, by contrast, has distinctly and forcefully upheld and richly developed Marxist philosophy, namely, dialectical materialism and historical materialism. Among these, Mao Zedong’s “materialist dialectics” and “dialectical materialism” upheld the principles of dialectical materialism, deepened the principles of the particularity and universality of contradiction in things, and enriched the principle of the decisive role of practice in the process of cognition; his doctrine of “contradictions in socialist society” upheld the principles of historical materialism, and in the new China under underdeveloped conditions attempted the exploration of the laws of a new society by humanity, thereby Sinicizing the “new worldview.” Deng Xiaoping further Sinicized “dialectical materialism and historical materialism” in the form of the “Party’s ideological line,” and through this form endowed “dialectical materialism and historical materialism” with its guiding position in our country’s ideological sphere. He also posed new questions such as “Marxism is a good thing, but if Marxism cannot bring about the improvement of the people’s lives, who will still believe in Marxism?” (*Chronicle of Deng Xiaoping (1975–1997)*, Vol. 1, p. 688), using this kind of new discourse to make the “new worldview” into a spiritual weapon for the Chinese people to “become prosperous” in keeping with the times, and endowing the “new worldview” with a new mission and new connotations under the conditions of peaceful socialist construction.

马克思主义中国化时代化的哲学历程则鲜明而有力地坚持和丰富发展了马克思主义哲学即辩证唯物主义和历史唯物主义。其中，毛泽东的“唯物辩证法”和“辩证唯物论”坚持了辩证唯物主义原理，深化了关于事物矛盾的特殊性和普遍性原理，丰富了关于实践在认识过程中的决定作用原理；他的“社会主义社会的矛盾”学说坚持了历史唯物主义原理，在欠发达条件下的新中国尝试了人类对新社会规律的探索，从而使“新世界观”中国化。邓小平以“党的思想路线”形式进一步将“辩证唯物主义和历史唯物主义”中国化，通过这个形式赋予“辩证唯物主义和历史唯物主义”在我国意识形态领域中的指导地位。他还以追问“马克思主义是好东西，但如果马克思主义不能带来人民生活的改善，谁还相信马克思主义？”（《邓小平年谱（1975—1997）》上，第688页）这类新话语使“新世界观”时代化为中国人民“富起来”的精神武器，在社会主义和平建设环境下赋予“新世界观”以新使命新内涵。

The important contribution of these interpretive forms of the “new world outlook” is accompanied, at the level of theoretical thinking, by a philosophical question, namely the tension between practical subjectivity and the objective reality of matter. On the one hand, practical subjectivity expresses the “human measure” that distinguishes the practical subject from animals or species in general, that is, the subject’s autonomy and initiative over the object; the objective reality of matter constitutes the precondition for the exercise of practical subjectivity, is the first principle of Marxist philosophy on the basis of which humanity firmly believes in objective truth and in science, and delimits the direction of projection and the critical threshold of practical subjectivity. Hence, within a specific scope, the two exhibit a situation of “opposition.” On the other hand, practical subjectivity has, in logic, its objective material premise, and the objective reality of matter always constrains it; otherwise, it would become the “active side” of the subject “abstractly” developed. Conversely, relative to the subject—the human being—the objective reality of matter has no meaning once separated from practical subjectivity, because “wherever a relation exists, it exists for me” (Collected Works of Marx and Engels, Vol. 1, p. 533), and that “nature which is separated from man is nothing for man” (ibid., p. 220). If practical subjectivity did not exist, then human social civilization and its flourishing would inevitably lose all active force. Therefore, over a long historical span, the dimension of practical subjectivity and the dimension of the objective reality of matter are “interwoven” and “unified,” not in “antinomy.” The statements that humanity “through practice creates an objective world, transforms inorganic nature,” that “human production is comprehensive… humanity reproduces the whole of nature” (ibid., p. 162), that “humanity lives by nature… human physical and spiritual life is connected with nature… humanity is a part of nature” (ibid., p. 161), and that “at every step we must remember: we do not dominate nature as a conqueror dominates a foreign people, nor as one standing outside nature” (Collected Works of Marx and Engels, Vol. 9, p. 560)—these discussions of the mutual relation between humanity and nature show that Marxist philosophy, as “new materialism” and “modern materialism,” not only upholds the principle of materialism but also transcends old philosophy, including both historical idealist and materialist philosophy. It no longer regards the dimension of the objective reality of matter as a “tightening band” on the release of practical subjectivity, that is, a “materialism” that is “hostile to humanity” (see Collected Works of Marx and Engels, Vol. 2, p. 164), nor does it narrow the dimension of practical subjectivity into a “practicalism” that departs from the objective reality of matter.

“新世界观”这些阐释形式的重要贡献在理论思维上伴随着一个哲学问题，即实践主体性与物质客观实在性之间的张力关系。一方面，实践主体性表征实践主体区别于一般动物或物种而特有的“人的尺度”，即主体对客体的自主性、能动性；物质客观实在性构成实践主体性发挥的前提性条件，是人类之所以坚信客观真理、坚信科学之马克思主义哲学第一原理，规约实践主体性之投射方向与临界点，因而二者在特定范围内存在着“对立”情形。另一方面，实践主体性在逻辑上有其客观的物质前提，物质客观实在性始终制约着它，否则，它变成了被“抽象地”发展了的主体“能动方面”；反之，相对于主体——人而言，物质客观实在性离开了实践主体性便没有意义，因为“凡是有某种关系存在的地方，这种关系都是为我而存在的”（《马克思恩格斯文集》第1卷，第533页），那种“与人分隔开来的自然界，对人来说也是无”（同上，第220页）。如果不存在实践主体性，那么人类社会文明及其繁荣必然失去任何主动力量。因此，实践主体性向度与物质客观实在性向度之间在长历史跨度上是“交织”和“统一”的而非“二律背反”。所谓人类“通过实践创造对象世界，改造无机界”，“人的生产是全面的……人再生产整个自然界”（同上，第162页），“人靠自然界生活……人的肉体生活和精神生活同自然界相联系……人是自然界的一部分”（同上，第161页），“我们每走一步都要记住：我们决不像征服者统治异族人那样支配自然界，决不像站在自然界之外的人似的去支配自然界”（《马克思恩格斯文集》第9卷，第560页），这些关于人与自然界之间相互关系的论述表明：马克思主义哲学作为“新唯物主义”“现代唯物主义”不仅坚持唯物主义原则，而且超越了旧哲学包括历史上的唯心主义哲学、唯物主义哲学，既不再把物质客观实在性向度视作实践主体性释放的“紧箍”即一种“敌视人”的“唯物主义”（参见《马克思恩格斯全集》第2卷，第164页），也不再把实践主体性向度窄化成背离物质客观实在性的“唯实践主义”。

IV. Principles to Be Uphold in the Contemporary Adherence to and Development of Marxist Philosophy

四、当代坚持和发展马克思主义哲学应坚持的原则

“New philosophical creation depends on the inheritance and interpretation of existing philosophy” (Guo Zhan, Liu Zhihong, pp. 6-7). There is an internal logical connection between the evolution of the interpretive forms of the “new world outlook” and the innovative development of Marxist philosophy in the 21st century; this process itself contains the principles that Marxist philosophy should uphold in the contemporary era.

“新的哲学创造依赖于已有哲学的继承和阐释”。（郭湛、刘志洪，第6-7页）“新世界观”阐释形式的演进过程同马克思主义哲学在21世纪的创新发展之间存在着内在逻辑关联，这个过程本身蕴含着马克思主义哲学在当代应坚持的原则。

First, the “identity” of the proletarian world outlook must not be lost. The “mission” of the founders of the “new world outlook” was “to make the modern proletariat conscious of its own position and needs, conscious of the conditions of its own emancipation” (Collected Works of Marx and Engels, Vol. 3, p. 602), and “to teach the working class self-knowledge and self-consciousness, to replace fantasy with science” (Lenin Special Collection: On Marxism, p. 53). Marx, through the theory of surplus value, gave the “new world outlook” a scientific demonstration at the level of the critique of political economy: the time the proletariat works beyond necessary labor “appears as surplus labor time of surplus value, and at the same time is materialized as surplus product, and this surplus product is the material basis for the existence of all classes except the laboring class, and is the material basis for the existence of the entire social superstructure” (Collected Works of Marx and Engels, Vol. 32, p. 215), and “this surplus labor is, on the one hand, the basis of society’s free time, and on the other hand, the material basis of the entire social development and of all culture” (ibid., pp. 220-221). It is precisely this “surplus labor” in the “sphere of production” that creates the foundation of modern society’s material civilization and cultural-ethical progress; this is also the historical ground on which the proletariat is certain to attain “free and comprehensive development.”

首先，不能缺失无产阶级世界观“身份”。“新世界观”创始人的“使命”就是“使现代无产阶级意识到自身的地位和需要，意识到自身解放的条件”（《马克思恩格斯文集》第3卷，第602页），“教会了工人阶级自我认识和自我意识，用科学代替了幻想”（《列宁专题文集·论马克思主义》，第53页）。马克思以剩余价值学说对“新世界观”给予了政治经济学批判层面的科学论证：无产阶级超出必要劳动而劳动的时间“表现为剩余价值的剩余劳动时间，同时物化为剩余产品，并且这种剩余产品是除劳动阶级外的一切阶级存在的物质基础，是社会整个上层建筑存在的物质基础”（《马克思恩格斯全集》第32卷，第215页），“这种剩余劳动一方面是社会的自由时间的基础，从而另一方面是整个社会发展和全部文化的物质基础”（同上，第220-221页）。正是这种在“生产领域”的“剩余劳动”才创造了现代社会物质文明、精神文明的基础，这也是无产阶级必定获得“自由而全面发展”的历史根据。

The subject of the proletarian world outlook is the “modern wage-working class” (see Collected Works of Marx and Engels, Vol. 2, p. 31), and “the emancipation of the worker also contains universal human emancipation” (Collected Works of Marx and Engels, Vol. 1, p. 167). Hence, the proletarian world outlook is not a world outlook limited to the “proletarian” alone but belongs to a communist world outlook, represented by the proletariat, directed toward the emancipation of all humanity. General Secretary Xi Jinping points out, “Our country is a socialist state under the people’s democratic dictatorship, led by the working class and based on the alliance of workers and peasants; all power in the state belongs to the people” (Xi Jinping: The Governance of China, Vol. 3, p. 142). To practice the original aspiration and founding mission, one must uphold the people-centered principle, which fully manifests the “identity” of the proletarian world outlook. Upholding the “identity” of the proletarian world outlook remains the fundamental premise for the contemporary adherence to and development of Marxist philosophy. Otherwise, Marxist philosophy may unconsciously slide into a process of “speculation” or “assemblage” of pure philosophical knowledge, and that kind of “philosophy” indifferent to the suffering of the proletariat would be placed “in the misty realm of philosophical fantasy” (Collected Works of Marx and Engels, Vol. 2, p. 58), dissolving the class character and revolutionary character of Marxist philosophy.

无产阶级世界观的主体是“现代雇佣工人阶级”（参见《马克思恩格斯文集》第2卷，第31页），“工人的解放还包含普遍的人的解放”（《马克思恩格斯文集》第1卷，第167页），因而无产阶级世界观并非一种仅限于“无产者”的世界观而属于以无产阶级为代表的指向整个人类解放的共产主义世界观。习近平总书记指出，“我国是工人阶级领导的、以工农联盟为基础的人民民主专政的社会主义国家，国家一切属于人民”（《习近平谈治国理政》第三卷，第142页），践行初心使命，必须坚持人民至上，充分彰显了无产阶级世界观“身份”。持守无产阶级世界观“身份”仍然是当代坚持和发展马克思主义哲学的根本前提。否则，马克思主义哲学或将不自觉地滑入纯哲学知识的“思辨”过程或“拼盘”过程，那种无关无产阶级痛痒的“哲学”将被置于“云雾弥漫的哲学幻想的太空”（《马克思恩格斯文集》第2卷，第58页）而消解马克思主义哲学的阶级性和革命性。

Second, the dual dimensions of philosophical critique and the critique of political economy must not be lost. In the process of creating the proletarian world outlook, although the founders of the “new world outlook” underwent a period of “prolonged deliberation” in the metaphysical sphere of philosophical critique, producing philosophical-critical works such as The Difference Between the Democritean and Epicurean Philosophy of Nature, Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right, The Holy Family, Theses on Feuerbach, and The German Ideology, they also directed this philosophical “power of abstraction” simultaneously toward the economic and political spheres, producing works of the critique of political economy such as the Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844, The Poverty of Philosophy, Capital, and Critique of the Gotha Programme, and political works such as the Manifesto of the Communist Party, The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte, and The Civil War in France. They did not, “like Hegel, merely fabricate yet another philosophical mixture redolent of painstaking effort or seminar atmosphere” (Stromberg, p. 303). Hence Lenin explicitly affirmed that the “new world outlook” founded by Marx was “formed by the union of Marx’s philosophy and political economy” (Complete Works of Lenin, Vol. 25, p. 39). Through the metaphysical “training” of philosophical critique, Marx acquired the philosophical “power of abstraction,” and, standing on the critique of political economy, founded the theory of surplus value and a series of new categories of political economy, thereby both “stimulating” and “tempering” the philosophical “power of abstraction” and “verifying” it. Through the critique of political economy, Marx penetrated into the real mode of human existence as constituted by economic relations, discovered the motive force of the change and development of human society, namely the mode of production of the material means of life in modern society and the significance of its revolutionary transformation, and, in historical materialism, discovered the necessarily leading class of modern society, the working class, and the civilizational future of human society, namely the realization of human emancipation in the “association of free individuals.”

其次，不能缺失哲学批判与政治经济学批判之双重维度。“新世界观”创始人在创建无产阶级世界观过程中尽管存在一个哲学批判之形上领域的“长考”期，创作《德谟克利特的自然哲学和伊壁鸠鲁的自然哲学的差别》《黑格尔法哲学批判》《神圣家族》《关于费尔巴哈的提纲》《德意志意识形态》等哲学批判著作，也将这种哲学“抽象力”同时投向经济领域、政治领域，创作《1844年经济学哲学手稿》《哲学的贫困》《资本论》《哥达纲领批判》等政治经济学批判著作，创作《共产党宣言》《路易·波拿巴的雾月十八日》《法兰西内战》等政治学著作，没有“像黑格尔那样仅仅制造另外一个苦心孤诣的或透露着研讨班气息的哲学混合物”（斯特龙伯格，第303页），所以列宁明确肯定马克思所创立的“新世界观”是由“马克思的哲学和政治经济学结成”（《列宁全集》第25卷，第39页）的。马克思通过哲学批判之形上“训练”功夫获得了哲学“抽象力”并立足政治经济学批判创立了剩余价值学说及其一系列崭新的政治经济学范畴，从而既“激发”和“淬炼”了哲学“抽象力”，又“验证”了哲学“抽象力”。马克思通过政治经济学批判深入到以经济关系为内涵的人的现实存在方式，发现了人类社会变化发展的动力源即现代社会物质生活资料的生产方式及其革命性变革意义，在唯物史观中发现了现代社会必然的领导阶级即工人阶级和人类社会的文明未来即在“自由人联合体”中实现人的解放。

General Secretary Xi Jinping’s important discourses on common prosperity and on the question of capital vividly embody this “dual dimension.” On the question of common prosperity, he regards it from the economic angle as an “economic problem,” pointing out that “to achieve common prosperity, we must consider both need and possibility in a coordinated way, and advance step by step in accordance with the laws of economic and social development” (*Excerpts from Xi Jinping’s Discourses on Chinese-Path Modernization*, p. 90); and from the angle of philosophical critique he regards it as a “major political problem,” emphasizing that “the common prosperity we speak of is common prosperity for all the people, prosperity in both the material life and the cultural-ethical life of the people; it is not prosperity for a few, nor is it uniform egalitarianism” (*Xi Jinping: The Governance of China*, Vol. IV, p. 142). On the question of capital, he acknowledges from the economic angle that capital is “an instrument for the market to allocate resources” (ibid., pp. 217-218) and that it “pursues profit” (ibid., p. 211), and from the angle of philosophical critique he regards it as a “major political problem,” emphasizing, in response to the “barbaric” phenomenon of capital, the need to “bring the positive role of capital into play” (ibid.), to “educate and guide the subjects of capital to practice core socialist values” (ibid., p. 220), and to uphold and develop the socialist market economy with Chinese characteristics. If Marxist philosophy in the contemporary era lacks this “dual dimension,” and especially the dimension of the critique of political economy, then such research in Marxist philosophy will find it difficult to effectively embody the people-centered value orientation and to truly reflect the advanced connotation of the “new world outlook.”

习近平总书记关于共同富裕的重要论述、关于资本问题的重要论述，生动体现了这一“双重维度”。他在共同富裕问题上既从经济学角度把它看作“经济问题”，指出“实现共同富裕，要统筹考虑需要和可能，按照经济社会发展规律循序渐进”（《习近平关于中国式现代化论述摘编》，第90页）；又从哲学批判角度把它看作“重大政治问题”，强调“我们说的共同富裕是全体人民共同富裕，是人民群众物质生活和精神生活都富裕，不是少数人的富裕，也不是整齐划一的平均主义”（《习近平谈治国理政》第四卷，第142页）。他在资本问题上既从经济学角度承认资本是“市场配置资源的工具”（同上，第217-218页），“追逐利润”（同上，第211页），又从哲学批判角度把它看作“重大政治问题”，针对资本“野蛮”现象强调“发挥资本的积极作用”（同上），“教育引导资本主体践行社会主义核心价值观”（同上，第220页），坚持和发展中国特色社会主义市场经济。如果马克思主义哲学在当代缺失这种“双重维度”特别是政治经济学批判维度，那么这样的马克思主义哲学研究将难以有效体现“以人民为中心”的价值取向、难以真正反映“新世界观”先进性内涵。

Finally, it must not lack the quality that fuses the character of the times with universal necessity. In such works as *The Poverty of Philosophy*, the *Manifesto of the Communist Party*, the “Preface to *A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy*,” and *Capital*, the founders of the “new world outlook” profoundly dissected the “pain” of “modern society”—capitalist society—and of the “real individual”—the modern wage laborer, namely the proletariat; scientifically revealed the essential content of humanity’s future new society; and answered the “question of the people” and the “question of the times” concerning the path from capitalist society to the “new society” that realizes human emancipation. This embodies the realistic quality of philosophy as that which is “most hostile to abstraction, and leads us back to the concrete” (Hegel, 1959, p. 29) and as “its own time comprehended in thought” (Hegel, 1961, p. 12). At the same time, from the scientific analysis of phenomena of human history or of society, they distilled the principles of historical materialism as a “Darwinian discovery,” and in particular the scientific “foresight” that human society, through the movement of the basic contradictions of society, necessarily develops step by step from the lower to the higher, and ultimately to communist society, making philosophy truly a “Gallic rooster” that foretells the future and displaying the quality of genuine Marxist philosophy as “universally applicable.” In the process of creating the “new world outlook,” Marx did not remain among “musty old papers”; rather, in the form of the critique of political economy, in solving the problems of “modern society,” he scientifically established a series of new categories such as “mode of production,” “relations of production,” “the twofold character of the labor embodied in commodities,” and “value of labor-power,” constructing a system of “genuine philosophy” that reaches the real and faces the future, and realizing the distinctive trait of fusing the content of the times with the logic of universal necessity. (See Han Qingxiang.)

最后，不能缺失融时代性与普遍必然性于一身的品质。“新世界观”创始人在《哲学的贫困》《共产党宣言》《〈政治经济学批判〉序言》《资本论》等著作中，既深刻剖析了“现代社会”——资本主义社会、“现实的个人”——现代雇佣工人即无产阶级的“痛”，科学揭示了人类未来新社会的本质性内容，回答了从资本主义社会走向实现人类解放的“新社会”这一“人民之问”“时代之问”，体现了哲学是“最敌视抽象的，它引导我们回复到具体”（黑格尔，1959年，第29页），“被把握在思想中的它的时代”（黑格尔，1961年，第12页）这一现实性品质；又从对人类历史现象或社会现象的科学分析中提炼出“达尔文式发现”的唯物史观原理特别是关于人类社会通过社会基本矛盾运动而必然逐步由低级发展到高级直至共产主义社会这一科学“预见”，使哲学真正成为预示未来的“高卢雄鸡”，显示真正的马克思主义哲学所具有的“放之四海而皆准”的品质。马克思在“新世界观”创建过程没有停留在“故纸堆”，而是在以政治经济学批判形式破解“现代社会”问题中科学建立“生产方式”“生产关系”“生产商品的劳动二重性”“劳动力价值”等一系列新范畴，建构一个通达现实、面向未来的“真正的哲学”系统，实现了融时代性内容与普遍必然性逻辑于一身的鲜明特质。（参见韩庆祥）

General Secretary Xi Jinping’s important discourses on Chinese-path modernization and on building a community with a shared future for mankind profoundly embody this quality. On the one hand, Marxist philosophy in the contemporary era must carry forward the “practical” character of the “new world outlook,” namely “new materialism,” add new content of the times, “deeply grasp and hit upon social reality” (Wu Xiaoming, p. 15), and in particular the question of the principal contradiction in contemporary Chinese society, so as to inject philosophical force into solving the problems of unbalanced and inadequate development in China’s economy and society; at the same time, it must seize upon such questions of humanity as the question of common global development, the question of harmonious coexistence between humanity and nature, and the question of the free and comprehensive development of the human person, and participate in the cause of emancipation of the proletariat and of humanity in the distinctive way of philosophy. On the other hand, it must carry forward the philosophical “power of abstraction” in the “new world outlook,” namely the critique of political economy, be adept at extracting logical laws of universal necessity from the “cases” of solving the problems of the times, creatively make philosophical contributions that lead the way toward human freedom and well-being, answer the “question of the world” with the “principle” that reflects the distinctive spirit of the times today, and manifest the quality of universal necessity and the function of “foresight” of the “new world outlook” in theoretical thinking. This is the inner source of strength by which Marxist philosophy in the contemporary era can continue to influence the future and benefit the world.

习近平总书记关于中国式现代化的重要论述、关于构建人类命运共同体的重要论述等，深刻体现了这种品质。马克思主义哲学在当代一方面要弘扬“新世界观”即“新唯物主义”所具有的“实践性”品格，增添时代性新内容，“深入地把握和切中社会现实”（吴晓明，第15页），特别是当代中国社会主要矛盾问题，为解决中国经济社会发展中的不平衡不充分问题注入哲学力量，同时抓住当今全球共同发展问题、人与自然和谐共生问题、人的自由而全面发展问题等人类性问题，以哲学特有方式参与无产阶级和人类的解放事业；另一方面要发扬“新世界观”即“政治经济学批判”里的哲学“抽象力”，善于从破解时代性问题的“案例”中提炼具有普遍必然性的逻辑规律，创造性地作出对实现人类自由与幸福有引领性的哲学贡献，用反映当今特有的时代精神之“理”回答“世界之问”，彰显“新世界观”在理论思维上的普遍必然性品质和“预见”功能。这是马克思主义哲学在当代得以持续影响未来、造福世界的内在性力量所在。

(About the author: Zhang Dingxin, professor and doctoral supervisor at Jiangxi University of Finance and Economics, head of the doctoral supervisory group and the master’s supervisory group in the basic principles of Marxism, chief expert of the Jiangxi University of Finance and Economics innovation team on “Classic Marxist Works and Their Contemporary Value,” standing director of the Chinese Society for Dialectical Materialism, evaluation expert for doctoral dissertations of the Ministry of Education, and communication evaluation expert for projects of the National Social Science Fund. He has led and completed two projects of the National Social Science Fund and has received the second prize for outstanding achievements in social sciences of Jiangxi Province three times.)

（作者简介：张定鑫，江西财经大学教授、博士生导师，马克思主义基本原理专业博导组组长、硕导组组长，江西财经大学“马克思主义经典著作及其当代价值研究”创新团队首席专家，中国辩证唯物主义研究会常务理事，教育部博士学位论文评审专家，国家社科基金项目通讯评审专家。主持完成国家社科基金课题两项，获江西省社会科学优秀成果二等奖三次）

Online editor: Tong Xin

网络编辑：同心