An Exploration of the “Schulz Factor” in the Philosophical Transformation of the Young Marx—Based on an Examination of the *Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844*

The so-called “Schulz factor” refers primarily to Marx’s citations and illustrations drawn from Wilhelm Schulz’s book *Die Bewegung der Produktion* [The Movement of Production]. Textually, it is concentrated mainly in the *Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844* and *Capital*. Particularly in the “First Manuscript” of the *Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844*, there are extensive passages of the “Schulz factor,” which is quite rare in Marx’s writings. Research on the “Schulz factor” can be traced back to the second half of the twentieth century. The French philosopher Auguste Cornu, in his book *Karl Marx und Friedrich Engels: Leben und Werk* [The Life and Work of Marx and Engels] (Vol. II), briefly introduced Schulz’s thought and explicitly pointed out the part of Schulz’s thought that Marx affirmed, namely, that “the development of production and the division of labor on the basis of the expansion of needs determine both the successive replacement of various social forms and state forms, and the division of classes and class struggle.” The Soviet scholar N. I. Lapin, in his book *The Young Marx*, explained the reason for Marx’s citation of Schulz’s *Die Bewegung der Produktion*, namely, that it originated from an interest in the mode of operation of large capitalist enterprises. Japanese and German scholars have also conducted considerable research on this, for example, Uemura Kunihiko of Hitotsubashi University, Japan, who published “From Schulz to Marx: Modern Self-Knowledge” in 1981, and Michael Schälich of the University of Hannover, Germany, who published “Schulz and Marx: On Marx’s Reception of Schulz’s *Die Bewegung der Produktion* and Its Influence on the Formation of Historical Materialism and the Critique of Political Economy” in 1994, highlighting the influence of Schulz’s thought on Marx’s historical materialism. Thereafter, this research experienced a period of interruption. It was not until recent years that research on the relationship between Marx and Schulz gradually regained attention in Chinese academic circles. The core issue under discussion is Schulz’s position and degree of influence in the development of Marx’s thought, especially during the formation of historical materialism. The basic views are as follows: First, Schulz’s *Die Bewegung der Produktion* constituted an important reference point in the development of the young Marx’s thought; Schulz’s idea of “material production” had a significant impact on the formation of the young Marx’s category of production and, on that basis, the formation of historical materialism. Second, it is necessary to examine the relationship between Schulz and Marx from an overall perspective and within specific contexts; the idealism to which Schulz ultimately led is heterogeneous to Marx’s philosophical thought. Third, through an analysis of the intellectual relationship between Schulz and Marx, it is possible to clarify the ways in which historical materialism transcends social materialism, thereby further confirming the theoretical characteristics of historical materialism. The above research provides new possibilities for studying the genesis of the young Marx’s thought, making the study of Marx’s early philosophy more refined. However, with regard to the details of the textual content, there is still room for exploration. According to Marx’s statement in the *Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844*: “The critique of political economy, as well as the whole positive critique, owes its true foundation to the discoveries of Feuerbach.” Feuerbach’s philosophy constituted the philosophical foundation of Marx’s critique of political economy. This seems to indicate a direction, namely, that Marx, on the basis of Feuerbach’s philosophy, processed the “Schulz factor,” thereby serving his own intellectual transformation. From the perspective of the young Marx’s intellectual transformation, the Feuerbachian philosophical foundation precisely constitutes the prerequisite and important link for understanding the formation and development of Marx’s historical materialism. Therefore, it is necessary to return to the original texts, conducting a detailed contextual examination and analysis (both Marx’s context and Schulz’s context) of the “Schulz factor” in Marx’s *Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844*, thereby clarifying Marx’s philosophical stance and internal logic when confronting the “Schulz factor.” That is, on the basis of what problematic field did Marx actually turn his attention to “material production”? What is the role and what are the limits of the “Schulz factor” in the philosophical transformation of the young Marx? These are the core prerequisite questions for understanding the intellectual relationship between Marx and Schulz.

所谓“舒尔茨因素”，主要是指马克思对舒尔茨《生产运动》一书内容的援引和例证。就文本而言，主要集中于《1844年经济学哲学手稿》和《资本论》之中。特别是在《1844年经济学哲学手稿》的“笔记本Ⅰ”部分，存有大段“舒尔茨因素”，这在马克思著作中实属罕见。关于“舒尔茨因素”的研究，可以追溯至20世纪下半叶。法国哲学家奥古斯特·科尔纽曾在其《马克思恩格斯传》（Ⅱ）一书中对舒尔茨的思想进行简要介绍，并明确指出马克思对舒尔茨思想的肯定部分，即“生产的发展和在需要扩大的基础上的分工既决定着各种社会形态和国家形态的依次更替，也决定着阶级的划分和阶级的斗争”。苏联学者尼·拉宾在《马克思的青年时代》一书中就马克思援引舒尔茨《生产运动》的缘由予以交代，即源自对大资本主义企业运作方式的兴趣。日本学者和德国学者对此也颇有研究，例如日本一桥大学植村邦彦于1981年发表的《从舒尔茨到马克思：近代的自我认识》和德国汉诺威大学米夏埃尔·沙利希于1994年发表的《舒尔茨与马克思：论马克思对舒尔茨〈生产运动〉的接受及其对历史唯物主义的形成和政治经济学批判的影响》，突出舒尔茨思想对马克思历史唯物主义思想的影响力。此后，该研究出现了中断时期。直到近些年，关于马克思与舒尔茨之间关系的研究才又逐渐得到国内学界的关注，讨论的核心问题在于舒尔茨在马克思思想发展过程中，特别是在历史唯物主义思想形成过程之中的地位和影响程度。基本观点为：其一，舒尔茨的《生产运动》构成了青年马克思思想发展的重要参照坐标，舒尔茨的“物质生产”思想对青年马克思生产范畴的形成以及以此为基础的历史唯物主义的形成产生重要影响。其二，需要基于整体视域和具体语境考察舒尔茨和马克思的关系，舒尔茨最终导向的唯心主义与马克思哲学思想具有异质性。其三，通过舒尔茨与马克思的思想关系辨析，能够明晰历史唯物主义对社会唯物主义的超越之处，进一步确证历史唯物主义的理论特质。以上研究为青年马克思思想生成史提供了新的研究可能性，使得马克思早期哲学的研究更为精细化。然而，就文本内容细节而言，依旧存在一定探究空间。按照马克思在《1844年经济学哲学手稿》中的说法：“对国民经济学的批判，以及整个实证的批判，全靠费尔巴哈的发现给它打下真正的基础。”费尔巴哈哲学构成了马克思国民经济学批判的哲学基础。这似乎指明这样一个方向，即马克思是在费尔巴哈哲学基础上展开对“舒尔茨因素”的处理，进而服务于自身思想变革。立足青年马克思思想变革过程，费尔巴哈哲学基础恰恰又构成了理解马克思唯物史观形成和发展的前提条件和重要环节。因此，有必要重回原典，针对马克思《1844年经济学哲学手稿》中的“舒尔茨因素”进行详细语境（马克思语境和舒尔茨语境）的考察与分析，进而明确马克思面对“舒尔茨因素”的哲学立场和内在逻辑，即马克思究竟基于何种问题域而关注到“物质生产”？“舒尔茨因素”在青年马克思哲学思想变革中的作用及其界限究竟在哪里？这是理解马克思与舒尔茨思想关联的前提性核心问题。

I. The Problem of Worker Poverty in the Perspective of the Critique of Political Economy

一、国民经济学批判视域中的工人贫困问题

In the section “Wages” of the “First Manuscript,” Marx first examines the issue of wages from the perspective of political economy, exposing the inhuman pursuit of political economy; he emphasizes that one should go beyond the level of political economy and use the very words of the political economists to carry out an immanent critique of the content of political economy. It is precisely in the course of this critique that Marx begins to cite extensively from Schulz’s *Die Bewegung der Produktion*.

在“笔记本Ⅰ”《工资》一文中，马克思首先基于国民经济学角度对工资问题进行考察，揭露国民经济学不人道主义的追求；强调理应超出国民经济学的水平，用国民经济学家的原话对国民经济学内容展开内在性批判。也正是在这一批判过程中，马克思才开始大篇幅援引舒尔茨《生产运动》一书的内容。

Marx conducts an in-depth examination of the wage issue from three main aspects: first, the fatal impact on the worker of the separation of capital, landed property, and labor; second, the chain reaction caused by price fluctuations; third, the position of the worker under different social conditions. In Marx’s view, “in the declining state of society—the growing misery of the worker; in the advancing state—misery of a complicated kind; in the fully developed state—static misery.” [1]1 Marx, *Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844*, “Wages.” The causes of worker poverty also differ under different social conditions: in a declining state of society, the oppression and poverty suffered by the worker stem mainly from the social environment and adverse circumstances; whereas in a flourishing state of society, where wealth is constantly growing and accumulating, the worker’s poverty arises from the misfortune inherent in the nature of labor itself, that is, the labor of the working class itself produces poverty. This poverty is specifically manifested in the fact that the labor products and the wealth produced by the worker through his own labor constitute “poverty arising from the very essence of modern labor.” [2]2 Ibid. Thus, in Marx’s view, none of the previous social conditions were on the side of the worker; the worker was always in a weak and impoverished position. Even in the richest state of society that Smith strove to achieve, the accumulation of wealth in society as a whole could not guarantee the material well-being of every individual; there was a clear separation between the two. At the same time, the worker could obtain only what was necessary to maintain his labor, and nothing more. Based on this understanding, Marx exposes the ineffectiveness of Smith’s political economy, because the misfortune of society becomes the very goal of political economy. At this point, Marx raises two questions: “(1) What is the significance, in the development of mankind, of this reduction of the greater part of mankind to abstract labor? (2) What mistakes are committed by those who, desiring a piecemeal reform, either want to raise wages and thereby improve the condition of the working class (like Proudhon), or regard the equality of wages as the goal of social revolution?” [3]3 Ibid. The “Schulz factor” emerges precisely around these two questions, and its main content is concentrated in the chapter “Material Production” of *Die Bewegung der Produktion*. In terms of natural paragraphs, it can be divided into seven paragraphs, of which the first two and the last five correspond to different themes.

马克思主要从三个方面对工资问题进行深入考察：一是资本、地租和劳动的分离对工人造成的致命影响；二是价格变动所带来的连锁反应；三是不同社会状态下工人的地位。在马克思看来，“在社会的衰落状态中，工人的贫困日益加剧；在增长的状态中，贫困具有错综复杂的形式；在达到完满的状态中，贫困持续不变”。而不同社会状态中造成工人贫困的原因亦不一样：在社会衰落状态中，工人受到的压迫与贫困主要源自社会环境与恶劣形势；而在社会兴盛、财富不断增长和积累的状态中，工人的贫困来自劳动自身属性所带来的不幸，即工人阶级自身的劳动产生了贫困本身，这种贫困具体表现为劳动者通过自身劳动所生产的劳动产品以及生产的财富，即“贫困从现代劳动本身的本质中产生出来”。可见，在马克思看来，以往无论哪一种社会状态对工人而言，皆没有站在工人的立场上，工人始终处于弱势与贫困的境地。即便是在斯密致力追求的最富裕社会状态下，整体社会的财富积累亦无法保证每个个体的生活富足，两者之间呈现出明显的分离态势。同时，工人只能得到维持劳动所必需的东西，除此之外，别无其他。正是基于此种理解，马克思揭露出斯密国民经济学的无效性，因为社会的不幸反而成为国民经济学的目的。于此，马克思提出两个问题：“（1）把人类的最大部分归结为抽象劳动，这在人类发展中具有什么意义？（2）主张细小改革的人不是希望提高工资并以此来改善工人阶级的状况，就是（像蒲鲁东那样）把工资的平等看作社会革命的目标，他们究竟犯了什么错误？”“舒尔茨因素”也正是围绕这两个问题得以出场，主要内容则集中于《生产运动》“物质生产”一章。从自然段来看，可分为七段，其中前两段和后五段分别对应着不同的主题。

With regard to the first and second paragraphs, the theme they serve is that “labor appears in political economy only in the form of an activity of earning a living.” In the first quoted passage, Schulz uses the wage levels and their changes corresponding to two types of labor to illustrate this. The first type of work requires special talent or training; such work belongs to a minority, and the corresponding wage level is generally relatively high. The second type of work is unskilled, mechanically monotonous work that anyone can easily enter; in the current labor market, there are many practitioners of this type of work, and intensified competition causes wage levels to decline continuously. Moreover, over time, the wage increase multiple for the former far exceeds that for the latter; for the latter, the wage level may even remain unchanged. But in political economy, they ignore the different types of labor and the real conditions of their corresponding wages, using the so-called “average wage” to prove social progress, thereby concealing the poverty of the majority of ordinary workers. Schulz further points out that the worker’s wage is only one of the main factors in estimating the worker’s income, while an important factor in measuring the worker’s income lies in the guaranteed continuity with which the worker obtains income. But in reality, under the anarchic state of free competition, the worker’s income cannot achieve continuous guarantee. Moreover, with the use of machinery, the usual working hours, both past and present, undergo changes and increases; this change does not increase the worker’s income either, but instead further intensifies the rich’s exploitation of the workers’ rights, and this exploitation will spread everywhere. In the second quoted passage, Schulz focuses on explaining that even if the increase in average income is a real situation, a gap between rich and poor will still exist, and this opposition will become even sharper. For although the growth of total output can drive an increase in demand, thereby possibly reducing absolute poverty, the phenomenon of relative poverty may thereby intensify. For a country with developing productive forces, the worker’s wage is not in a synchronous state with the increase in total output; on the contrary, it is in an inverse relationship.

就第一段和第二段而言，它们所服务的主题是“劳动在国民经济学中仅仅以谋生活动的形式出现”。在第一段引用中，舒尔茨以两种类型的劳动所对应的工资水平及其变化来予以说明。第一类工作是要求具备特殊才能或加以训练的工作，这类工作是属于少数人的，所对应的工资水平总体比较高；第二类工作是没有技术含量、任何人都很容易进入的机械单调工作，当前劳动市场中，此类工作从业者众多，竞争加剧从而致使工资水平持续下滑。并且，随着时间的推移，前者的工资提升倍数远远高过后者，对于后者而言，工资水平甚至是没有变化。但是在国民经济学这里，他们忽略劳动的不同类型以及对应工资的真实状况，以所谓的“平均工资”来证明社会的进步从而掩盖了大多数普通劳动者的贫困状况。舒尔茨进一步指出，工人工资仅仅是估计工人收入的主要因素之一，而衡量工人收入的重要因素在于工人获得收入的有保障的持续性。但实际上，在自由竞争的无政府状态下，工人收入无法实现持续性的保障。并且，随着机器的使用，以往和现在的通常劳动时间发生增加变化，这一变化也没有增加工人的收入，反而进一步加剧富人对工人权利的剥削，并且这种剥削将会扩散到各个地方。在第二段引用中，舒尔茨重在说明，即便平均收入增长属于真实情况，依旧会存在贫富差距，并且这种对立会更加尖锐。因为生产总量的增长虽能带动需求提升，进而可能减少绝对贫困，但相对贫困现象却可能因此加剧。对于一个生产力发展的国家而言，工人工资并没有和生产总量的增加处于同步状态，反而成反比关系。

Returning to the original context of *Die Bewegung der Produktion* [4]4 *Die Bewegung der Produktion* (The Movement of Production) is a work by Wilhelm Schulz (1797–1860), a German economist and journalist, published in 1843. It influenced the young Marx’s economic studies., the main point Schulz makes here is: the progress of material production and the free competition that accompanies it bring about a state of social anarchy, which does not bring substantial improvement for the working class but instead intensifies social contradictions. First, with regard to the “average wage.” Schulz believes that the “average wage” obtained by political economy through statistics only proves prosperity as a whole while neglecting partial atrophy. What this can shape is merely a marker of the worker, namely, “the worker’s posture of confrontation and hostility toward other classes of society.” In Schulz’s view, the working class has every right to resist the state of exploitation in which it finds itself, to put forward more demands of its own, and to strive for more of its own rights. Second, with regard to the different types of workers’ labor. Schulz believes that this economically oppressive occupational position produces a “despotic and arbitrary price hierarchy” and a related “hierarchy of occupational prestige”; for the numerically predominant working class, this leads to economic and moral degradation, thereby producing a historical justice and injustice. Schulz calls the rich’s exploitation of the working class “royal entertainment.”

回到《生产运动》原文语境，舒尔茨这里所谈的主要意思是：物质生产的进步以及与之相随的自由竞争，所带来的是社会的无政府主义状态，这并没有为工人阶级带来实质性的改善，反而加剧了社会矛盾。第一，就“平均工资”而言。舒尔茨认为国民经济学借助统计学所得到的“平均工资”，只是在整体上证明繁荣而忽视局部的萎缩。这样所能塑造的只能是工人这样的一个标志，即“工人同社会其他阶级的对抗和敌对的姿态”。在舒尔茨看来，工人阶级完全有权利对自己所处的剥削状态进行反抗，提出自身更多的要求，争取自身更多的权利。第二，就不同类型的工人劳动而言。舒尔茨认为这种经济压迫的职业岗位会产生“专制而恣意的价格等级制度”以及与之相关的“职业声誉等级制度”，这对于数量居多的工人阶级而言，就会导致经济和道德上的压低，从而产生一种历史的正义和非正义。舒尔茨将富人对工人阶级的这种剥削称为“皇家娱乐”。

From the third paragraph to the seventh paragraph, the theme served by the quotations in these five paragraphs is that “political economy regards the worker only as a working animal, as a beast with only the most necessary bodily needs.” Among them, the third paragraph aims to explain that the free development of the spirit and bodily servitude are mutually intolerable; the free development of the spirit relies on ample time for spiritual creation and enjoyment, and the struggle for this kind of time relies on the efforts and progress of labor organization; under the current production conditions, although the improvement of machine technology and the progress of production organization have significantly enhanced production efficiency, the worker’s time for spiritual enjoyment has not increased accordingly but has instead decreased due to the extension of working hours. The fourth paragraph: continuous monotonous activity is harmful to both the human spirit and body; the division of labor has drawbacks; the fundamental difference between people using machines to labor and people themselves being treated as machines to labor is often overlooked. The fifth paragraph: in the future, the blind natural forces generated by machines will ultimately be controlled by people. The sixth paragraph: the realization of the reorganization of labor organization provides convenience and conditions for women’s scope of employment, enabling them to achieve an independent economic status; although mechanical improvement helps people escape monotonous and tedious work, it also provides capitalists with the opportunity to obtain the maximum amount of labor (including even child labor) at the lowest cost; they use this to replace mechanical means, thereby hindering the rapid development of mechanical technology. And Marx also cites the enslavement of child labor here in “The Black Slave and the Free Slave” [5]5 “The Black Slave and the Free Slave” is an article by Marx, published in the *Rheinische Zeitung* in 1842, criticizing the exploitation of labor under capitalism by comparing chattel slavery with wage slavery.; the existence of this state does not mean the end of poverty, but rather means that “we are still far from reaching the limit of poverty.” The seventh paragraph focuses on discussing that the worker’s labor can at most satisfy survival needs.

从第三段到第七段，这五段的引用所服务的主题是“国民经济学把工人只当作劳动的动物，当作仅仅有最必要的肉体需要的牲畜”。其中，第三段旨在说明，精神的自由发展和肉体的奴役是相互不能容忍的；精神的自由发展依托于充沛的精神创造和享受的时间，而争夺这一类时间则依托于劳动组织的努力与进步；在当前的生产状况下，尽管机器技术的改进和生产组织的进步显著提升了生产效率，但工人的精神享受时间并未随之增加，反而因劳动时间的延长而减少。第四段，连续的单调的活动对人的精神和肉体都有害；分工具有弊端；人们利用机器进行劳动与人们自身被当作机器进行劳动之间的根本差别，往往被忽视。第五段，未来的情况下，机器产生的盲目自然力终将被人所控制。第六段，劳动组织改组的实现，为女性的就业范围提供便利与条件，经济上才能获得独立的地位；机械的改进虽然有助于人们摆脱单调乏味的工作，但同时也为资本家提供了以最低成本获取最多劳动力（甚至包括童工）的机会，他们以此替代机械手段，反而阻碍了机械技术的迅速发展。而这里关于对童工的奴役在《黑奴和自由奴》一文中马克思亦有引用，这种状态的存在并不意味着贫困的终止，反而意味着“我们还远未到达贫困的极限”。第七段则集中在谈工人的劳动最多可以满足生存需要。

Analyzing the content of the above five paragraphs, Schulz elaborates the following views in *Die Bewegung der Produktion*: First, concerning “spiritual labor and growing spiritual needs.” In Schulz’s view, the greatest impact of material production lies in its effect on “the entire relationship between bodily activity, sensory enjoyment, and spiritual labor as well as growing spiritual needs”; whether for the individual or the totality, the personal level or the national level, when sensory life reaches a certain degree, spiritual activity also needs to manifest itself at a higher level. Moreover, with the development of productive forces, free time will also be generated, and all social strata, including the lowest class, will put forward a universal demand to strive for this free time, and demand a power to carry through this demand. Second, concerning “the impact of changed labor management on the physical health and spiritual education of the individual worker.” Schulz believes that in the changing perspective of large-scale industry, one cannot ignore the transition between different management methods and specific characteristics. There is a distinction between people laboring with the help of machines and people laboring as machines. When people labor with the help of machines, although this increases their mental pressure to a certain extent, it can also effectively reduce the burden of physical labor on the spirit and body, thereby improving the worker’s physical and mental health, and making their labor activity more flexible, free, and comprehensive. Third, concerning “the impact of changed labor management on different ages and sexes.” Schulz here mainly examines the situation of women and children. In his view, “the more arduous labor that requires physical exertion in industrial development depends on external natural forces, the more children of different ages participate in industrial production in greater proportions.” Similarly, the reasons for women’s participation in industrial labor are the same as those for children. Fourth, concerning “the establishment and expansion of savings banks.” The savings bank, as a form of labor organization that has essentially undergone transformation, is not a remedy for workers mired in the quagmire of poverty, but rather a reflection of the poverty situation. To accumulate assets and become a capitalist, saving is a necessary condition; however, for ordinary workers, merely meeting basic survival needs is already extremely difficult.

针对以上五段内容的分析，舒尔茨在《生产运动》一书中详细阐述了以下观点：其一，关于“精神劳动以及增长的精神需要”。在舒尔茨看来，物质生产的最大影响就是存在于“身体活动、感官享受同精神劳动以及增长的精神需要之间整个关系之上”，无论是个体还是总体，个人层面还是国家层面，当感性生活达到一定程度，精神活动也需要在更高的程度上展现出来。并且，随着生产力的发展，也会催生自由时间，社会各阶层，包括最底层阶级，都会对这一自由时间提出普遍的争取要求，并要求一种权力来将这一要求贯彻。其二，关于“改变的劳动管理对个体工人的肉体健康和精神教养的影响”。舒尔茨认为，在变化的大工业视野中，不能忽视不同管理方式和特有东西之间的过渡。人借助机器来劳动和人作为机器来劳动是有着区别的。当人们借助机器进行劳动时，虽然这在一定程度上增加了他们的精神压力，但它也能有效减轻肉体劳动对精神和身体的负担，从而改善工人的身心健康，并使他们的劳动活动变得更加灵活、自由和全面。其三，关于“改变的劳动管理对不同年龄和性别的影响”。舒尔茨这里主要考察妇女情况和儿童情况。在他看来，“作为在工业发展中要求耗费体力的艰苦劳动越是依赖于外在的自然力，不同年龄段的儿童也就越以更大的比例参加到了工业生产之中”。同样，妇女参与到工业劳动之中的原因和儿童是一样的。其四，关于“储蓄银行的建立和扩张”。储蓄银行，作为一种本质上已发生变革的劳动组织形式，对于深陷贫困泥潭的工人而言，非但不是解救之道，反而是贫困现状的一种反映。要积累资产成为资本家，储蓄是必要条件，然而，对于普通工人来说，仅是满足基本生存需求就已十分艰难。

Through a comparative analysis of Marx’s excerpts and the original context of Schulz’s text, it can be found that the object of Schulz’s critique here is precisely national economics [6]6 National economics (国民经济学): The German term *Nationalökonomie*, referring to classical political economy as it was understood in the German-speaking world in the 19th century, encompassing thinkers from Adam Smith to the German historical school.. In his view, the defect of these national economists lies in the fact that they study only the world of things, without studying the essence of production within human nature itself, and do not take the human being as the starting point and purpose of investigation. For Schulz, however, the subject he has in view is always the human being itself, particularly the worker himself. On the one hand, he bases himself on actual economic activity, exposing the exploitative conditions suffered by workers in the production process and the real problem of poverty; on the other hand, he comprehensively observes the development of productive forces and changes in labor organization and labor management, examining the changes that occur in different types of the working class at the physical-material level and at the level of spiritual activity. Based on this perspective, we can then respond to the two questions Marx raised at the beginning of his citation: First, the significance of abstract labor in human development. In labor, the worker does not exist as an independent human being, but as a machine, as an animal. This abstract labor that does not belong to the worker himself (in fact, it is already alienated labor) can only enslave people. Therefore, its significance in human development can only be to oppress people, to exploit people, to strip away the essential attributes of being human, and to degrade people to the role of a tool, the role of livestock. Second, the impact of wage changes on the condition of the working class. Synthesizing the issues and supporting materials, Marx, by means of Schulz’s exposition, intends to emphasize that the condition of the working class is closely related to the material production process. If one ignores the factors of price fluctuations in commodities and the means of subsistence, simply relying on raising workers’ wages cannot change the workers’ condition. When the growth rate of wages is lower than the rate of price increases, the workers’ lives will only get worse. At the same time, the factor of continuity in workers’ wages also needs to be considered; this is an important standard for measuring workers’ income, and without continuity there is no guarantee of livelihood. Moreover, equality of wages cannot fundamentally solve the problem of poverty. Since in the labor process, each person’s natural, spiritual, and social activities exhibit certain differences, this causes equality of wages to be, to a certain extent, also a manifestation of inequality. At the same time, the core issue of social transformation should be human equality and freedom; inequality of wages is merely a superficial economic reflection, and the most fundamental problem lies in the alienation of the human being in labor. And behind all this is the system of private property. This is also the focal point of Marx’s critique of Proudhon’s political economy, because although Proudhon saw the foundation of private property behind the problem of poverty, he attempted to oppose private property through the socialization and equalization of forms of possession. This incomplete approach led Marx to call Proudhon a “reformist in details.” And Marx’s critique of Proudhon’s political economy was presented more fully in *The Holy Family* and *The Poverty of Philosophy*.

通过马克思的摘录和舒尔茨原文语境的一一对比分析可以发现，舒尔茨这里所批判的对象正是国民经济学。在他看来，这些国民经济学家的缺点在于，他们只研究物的世界，而不研究人性本身内部的生产本质，不把人看作研究的出发点和目的。而对于舒尔茨而言，他所着眼的主体一直都是人本身，特别是工人本身，一方面立足现实经济活动，揭露工人生产过程中所遭受的剥削状况以及真实的贫困问题；另一方面则综合观察生产力发展和劳动组织、劳动管理变化，对不同类型的工人阶级在身体物质层面和精神活动层面所发生的变化。基于此种角度再来回应马克思在引用之初所提出的两个问题：第一，抽象劳动在人类发展中的意义。工人在劳动中，不是作为一个独立的人而存在，而是作为机器、动物存在，这种不属于工人自身的抽象劳动（实际上已经是异化劳动）只会奴役人，因此，它在人类发展中的意义只能是压迫人、剥削人，剥夺人之为人的本质属性，将人贬低为工具的存在、牲畜的角色。第二，工资变化对工人阶级状况的影响。综合问题和材料支撑，马克思借助舒尔茨的论述意在强调，工人阶级状况与物质生产过程有着紧密的关系。若忽视物价和生活资料价格变动的因素，单纯依靠提高工人的工资并不能改变工人的状况，当工资的增长速度低于物价的上涨水平时，工人的生活只会越来越坏。同时，工人工资的持续性因素也需要考虑，这是衡量工人收入的重要标准，没有持续性就没有生活的保障。而工资的平等也不能从根本上解决贫困问题，由于在劳动过程中，每个人的自然的、精神的、社会的活动都存在一定的差别，这就导致工资的平等在一定程度上也是不公平的体现，同时，社会变革的核心问题应当是人的平等与自由，工资的不平等只是一个表面的经济反映，最根本的问题在于人在劳动中的异化问题。而这一切的背后皆是私有制所造成的。而这也是马克思对蒲鲁东政治经济学的批判焦点所在，因为蒲鲁东虽然看到了贫困问题背后的私有制根基，但他试图以占有形式的社会化平等来反对私有制，这种不彻底的方式致使马克思称蒲鲁东为“细节上的改良主义者”。而马克思对蒲鲁东政治经济学的这种批判在《神圣家族》和《哲学的贫困》那里得以更进一步地呈现。

In summary, in this section on the “problem of worker poverty,” the issues that Marx and Schulz focus on are consistent, and there is a very high degree of correspondence in terms of national economics, the objects of critique of social trends of thought, the main thrust, and the content. However, Marx did not merely stop at the superficial exposure of economic reality; he had already begun to penetrate deeply into the foundation of private property behind the capitalist system. His understanding of economic reality far surpassed that of Schulz.

总之，在这一部分的“工人贫困问题”中，马克思与舒尔茨关注的问题具有一致性，并且在国民经济学、社会思潮的批判对象、主旨和内容方面皆具有极高的契合性。但马克思并非仅仅停留于表面的经济现实揭露，而是已经开始深入到资本主义制度背后的私有制基础，他对经济现实的理解远远超越了舒尔茨。

II. The Competition and Development of Workers in the Process of Productive Labor

二、生产劳动过程中的工人竞争和发展问题

In the chapter “Profit of Capital,” when studying the problem of “accumulation of capital and competition among capitalists,” Marx cites three passages from Schulz, the core theme of which concerns the competition and development between large and small capitalists. According to Adam Smith’s view, competition is, on the one hand, the only effective means of resisting capitalists; on the other hand, competition also has a certain positive impact on raising workers’ wages and lowering commodity prices. However, Marx points out that the formation of competition is inseparable from the increase and dispersion of capital, the formation of capital is inseparable from accumulation, and the accumulation of capital also depends on the expansion of competition among capitals. But under the rule of the capitalist system, which takes private property as its core, accumulated capital can only be controlled by a minority of capitalists. Competition is also the core means by which capital opens up external pathways. With the intensification of the competitive process and the lengthening of the time of competitive accumulation, the capital formed on this basis will inevitably produce large capital and small capital, and large capital, by virtue of its larger quantity, also accumulates faster than small capital. From this, Marx continues to investigate the process of accumulation of large and small capital. In his analysis of excerpts from Smith, Marx points out that the growth of capital leads to a reduction in capital profit due to competition. As competition deepens, it will only increase the difficulty of hiring workers and exacerbate the shortage of workers, forcing capitalists to adopt the method of raising wages to attract workers, but this also means a reduction in profits. In such an intensified competitive market environment, the ultimate fate of small capitalists is to fall into debt and even bankruptcy, while large capitalists, relying on the large amount of capital they have already accumulated (in terms of obtaining fixed capital and the channels of capital accumulation, they far surpass small capitalists, such as original capital conditions, credit factors, etc., which are all more concentrated and simplified for large capitalists. In Marx’s view, this is “the large capitalist adopting for himself a certain method of organizing the instruments of labor”) can effectively bear losses, further intensify competition, and seize the capital accumulation of small capitalists. This is the process of large capital swallowing up small capital. After large capital has completely annexed small capital, a series of malignant problems such as commodity quality issues will appear in the market, and monopoly and market hegemony are born from this. At the same time, Marx believes that the proportion between fixed capital and circulating capital is an important factor in the competition between large and small capital.

在“资本的利润”一章，马克思在研究“资本的积累和资本家之间的竞争”问题时援引了三段舒尔茨的说法，涉及的核心主题是大、小资本家之间的竞争和发展问题。依据亚当·斯密的观点，竞争，一方面是唯一能够有效抵制资本家的手段；另一方面，竞争对于提高工人工资、降低商品价格等方面也具有一定的积极影响。然而，马克思却指出，竞争的形成离不开资本的增加和分散，资本的形成离不开积累，而资本的积累也有赖于资本间竞争的扩大。但是，在以私有制为核心的资本主义制度的统治下，积累的资本只能由少数资本家掌控。竞争又是资本向外开辟道路的核心手段。随着竞争进程的加剧和竞争时间积累的加长，在这样基础上所形成的资本，必然会产生大资本和小资本，并且大资本按照量的大小也比小资本积累得快。由此，马克思继续对大小资本积累的过程进行考察。在对斯密的材料摘录分析中，马克思指出，资本的增长，资本利润因竞争而减少。随着竞争的深入，只会增加招工的难度而加剧工人的短缺，迫使资本家采取工资提升的方式招揽工人，但这也就意味着利润的降低。在这样的竞争加剧的市场环境下，小资本家最终的命运都是陷于负债乃至破产，而大资本家则凭借已积累的大量资本（他们在固定资本的获得、资本的积累途径方面都远超过小资本家，如原有资本情况、信用因素等，都比小资本家积聚和简化。在马克思看来，这是“大资本家为自己采用某种对劳动工具的组织方法”)有效承担亏损，并进一步加大竞争，赚取小资本家的资本积累。这就是大资本吞并小资本的过程。等到大资本完全兼并小资本后，市场就会出现商品质量问题等一系列恶性问题，垄断及市场霸权行为就是由此而生。同时，马克思认为，固定资本和流动资本之间的比例是大小资本之间竞争的一个重要因素。

According to N. Lapin, “Marx was extremely interested in this victor over the big capitalists and decided to ascertain more quickly the characteristics of the big capitalist enterprise as an economic and social institution.” [7]7 N. Lapin (Николай Лапин, 1932–2020) was a Soviet philosopher and Marx scholar; the quotation is from his study of Marx’s intellectual development. On this basis, Marx began to study the relevant content in Schulz’s *The Movement of Production*. The first excerpted passage mainly concerns two aspects. The first aspect pertains to the development of the industrial sphere. Schulz pointed to three factors in industrial development: the purpose of production, the legislative maintenance of large landed property, and the legislative permission for the division of landed property. In the industrial sphere, because of the identical purpose of production, a broad combination of mass material wealth with intelligence and skill takes place; legislation maintaining large landed property causes the surplus population to flock to industry and commerce, and a large number of proletarians become the main force in the industrial sphere; and the permitted division of landed property promotes competition between large and small landed properties, thereby driving workers who no longer till the soil and possess no property to flock to industry. It is in this cyclical process that the industrial sphere continuously develops. The second aspect concerns the exploitation suffered by workers. Taking the cotton industry as an example, Schulz illustrates that machines operated by human hands, while raising productivity, also turn people into machines. “He therefore submits to thousands of perceptions, and therefore, even when he must devote all his strength to a single mechanical skill, he remains an imperfect machine.” Throughout the entire production process, the worker becomes the main bearer of the adverse consequences of economic development, consequences that the worker is nonetheless unable to determine. In fact, from the perspective of material production, Schulz had already implicitly exposed the plight of the proletariat. The second excerpted passage mainly concerns the effects brought about by the combination of productive forces within the labor organization. With the close integration of production sectors and the broad combination of scientific-technological knowledge and talent, it becomes possible for the capitalist to accumulate capital from multiple directions, thereby extending savings into various fields, which helps break down the opposition of interests between different spheres. However, behind this combination lies a deepening of the opposition between the propertied class and the propertyless class. Schulz’s investigation is based on his periodization of the industrial sphere. Socialized large-scale combination is precisely at the fourth stage of the industrial sphere, characterized by division of labor and comprehensive combination. But Marx did not continue along Schulz’s subsequent line of inquiry into the principle of just distribution of material wealth; instead, he returned to the issue of poverty and capital accumulation: “When capital and landed property are in the same hand, and when capital, because of its large size, is able to combine various production sectors, the accumulation of capital grows increasingly, while competition among capitals diminishes.” Marx points out that the capitalist’s profit is extracted from poverty, from the depraved habits of the degraded proletarians; there is a homogeneous connection between large capital and large landed property.

按照尼·拉宾的说法，“马克思对大资本家的这个胜利者极感兴趣，并且决定更快地查明作为经济机构和社会机构的大资本主义企业的特点”。基于此，马克思开始研究舒尔茨《生产运动》中的相关内容。第一处所摘录的内容主要涉及两个方面：第一个方面是关于工业领域的发展。舒尔茨指出了工业发展的三个因素，即生产的目的、大地产的立法维护和地产分割的立法容许。在工业领域，因为生产的相同目的，使大批物质财富与智力和技能广泛结合；立法对大地产的维护，使过剩的人口拥向工商业，大批无产者成为工业领域的主力军；而地产的被允许分割，推动大小地产之间的竞争，进而促使不再为土地耕作又没有财产的工人又拥向工业。工业领域就是在这种循环的过程中不断发展。第二个方面则是关于工人所受的剥削。舒尔茨以棉纺业为例，说明借助人手的机器在提升生产率的同时，也使人变成了机器。“他因此服从于成千的知觉，并因此，甚至当其必须将全部的力量投入到唯一的一种机械的熟练的技巧上时，他也还是一个不完美的机器。”在整个生产过程中，工人成为承受经济发展恶果的主要承担者，而这种恶果却又是工人所无法决定的。事实上，舒尔茨这里从物质生产的角度已经潜在地对无产阶级的遭遇进行揭露。第二处所摘录的内容主要涉及劳动组织中生产力的联合所带来的效应。随着生产部门的密切结合、科技知识和才能的广泛结合，资本家就有可能从多方面积累自己的资本，从而把积蓄延伸到各个领域，有利于打破不同领域之间的利益对立。但是，这种联合的背后加深了有产者阶级和无产者阶级之间的对立。舒尔茨的这种考察基于他对工业领域的阶段划分。社会化大联合正是处于工业领域的第四个阶段，分工细化，全方位联合。但马克思并没有延续舒尔茨接下来对物质财富的正义分配原则研究的思路，而是又回到贫困和资本积累的问题上：“当资本和地产掌握在同一个人手中，并且资本由于数额庞大而能够把各种生产部门联合起来的时候，资本的积累日益增长，而资本间的竞争日益减少。”马克思指出，资本家的利润都是从贫困中、堕落的无产者的恶习中抽取的；大资本与大地产之间具有同质的联系。

Through an analysis of these two excerpts by Marx concerning Schulz’s content, it is found that the core themes involved are the problem of worker alienation and the problem of combination. Schulz had already recognized the drawbacks of capitalism and, drawing on a large amount of empirical data, used the history of production to explain the causes of these drawbacks. Combining Schulz’s division of social forms in “Wages” with his investigation of the problem of poverty in different social forms, it can be seen that Marx affirmed the issues raised by Schulz concerning productive forces and the new social system—namely, that the development and combination of production, the expansion of the division of labor, and the accumulation of capital not only determine the division of social forms but also determine the problem of class struggle, especially the struggle between the propertyless and the propertied. For Schulz, the way to solve these problems lay in trusting the state and adopting social reformist methods to resolve social problems and class antagonisms. In the final part of the chapter “Material Production,” he states: “But in the future life of peoples, the blind forces of nature, acting through machines, will become our slaves and servants. Only under this condition will a common idea of civic freedom and equality—which is by no means any vulgar egalitarian notion—enter more and more into consciousness. Yet it must also enter into life, because that premise itself, according to the immutable rules of the movement of production, will be realized more and more.” In the context of Schulz’s text, the idea of freedom and equality he discusses here mainly emphasizes the enjoyment of an equal free spirit on the spiritual level. His proposition is that through the development of production and the progress of labor organization, people will gradually be freed from tedious physical labor and enjoy a life of spiritual creation and spiritual enjoyment. Schulz’s solution is essentially an abstract ideological emancipation; material production ultimately serves spiritual freedom. Judging solely from the context of Marx’s citation at the time, Marx did not comment on Schulz’s stance and viewpoint; he focused more on the problem domain—the class problem, the poverty problem, and the alienation problem brought about by the development of production.

通过对马克思这两处关于舒尔茨内容的摘录的分析发现，其所涉及的核心主题是工人的异化问题以及联合问题。舒尔茨已经意识到资本主义的弊端所在，并借助大量的实证数据，用生产的历史来说明产生这些弊端的原因。结合《工资》中舒尔茨对社会形态的划分以及对不同社会形态中贫困问题的考察，可以看到，马克思肯定了舒尔茨所提出的关于生产力和社会新制度的问题，即生产的发展和联合、分工的扩大、资本的积累不仅决定着社会形态的划分，同时也决定着阶级之间的斗争问题，特别是无产者和有产者之间的斗争。对于舒尔茨而言，解决这些问题的途径在于相信国家，采用社会改良的方式解决社会问题和阶级对立。他在“物质生产”一章的最后指出：“但是在各国人民未来的生活里，通过机器起作用的盲目的自然力，将成为我们的奴隶和奴仆。只有在这种条件下，一种共同的市民的自由和平等的理念——它绝不是任何一种庸俗的平均主义思想——才会越来越多地进入意识之中。然而它也必将进入生活之中，因为那种前提自身，按照生产运动的不可改变的规则会越来越多的实现。”结合舒尔茨的文本语境，他在这里所谈的自由和平等的理念，主要侧重于精神层面的平等的自由精神的享受，他的主张是通过生产的发展，劳动组织的进步，人们将逐渐从烦琐的肉体劳动中解脱，享受精神创造和精神享受的生活。舒尔茨的解决方案本质上就是一种抽象的思想解放，物质生产最终都是服务于精神自由的。仅就马克思当下所引用的语境来看，马克思并未就舒尔茨的这一立场和观点予以评述，他更多关注的是问题域，是生产的发展所带来的阶级问题、贫困问题和异化问题。

In fact, this was not the first time Marx had addressed the problem of large and small capital, large and small landed property, especially the issue of the division of landed property involved. In the article “Justification of the Correspondent from the Mosel,” published in the *Rheinische Zeitung*, Marx conducted an in-depth discussion of the living conditions of the inhabitants along the Moselle River and elaborated in detail on the problem of “the division of landed property.” [8]8 The *Rheinische Zeitung* was a liberal newspaper in Cologne for which Marx wrote from 1842 to 1843; the article “Justification of the Correspondent from the Mosel” (1843) defended a reporter who had criticized the Prussian government’s handling of rural poverty. In analyzing the three proposals put forward by the authorities, Marx pointed out that measures such as tax reduction, the retraining of growers, or restrictions on the division of landed property, although they could temporarily alleviate the poverty of the growers, could not fundamentally solve the poverty problem, because these measures failed to touch the institutional roots of poverty under capitalist private property. In other words, when Marx examined these problems, the core issue that concerned him was precisely the problem of poverty. Similarly, in the section “Ground Rent” of “Notebook I” of the *Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844*, Marx also focused on discussing the problem of “the division of landed property.” But unlike the earlier discussion, Marx here explicitly raises the problem of the root of “private property.” “The division of landed property does not abolish the foundation of monopoly—private property. It only touches the form of existence of monopoly, not its essence. As a result, the division of landed property becomes the victim of the law of private property. For the division of landed property corresponds to the competitive movement in the industrial sphere.” This means that although the problem of the division of landed property is caused by the competitive movement of production, the fundamental point for solving this problem lies in private property; although “the supersession of monopoly” is used as a solution, in essence it already emphasizes that only by abolishing private property can the monopoly problem and the poverty problem it brings be truly resolved; as for the specific measures or the state to be achieved, Marx considers it to be “combination.” “Combination also restores the intimate relation between man and the land in a rational way, no longer mediated by serfdom, lordship, and the absurd mysticism of ownership, because the land ceases to be an object of profit and, through free labor and free enjoyment, once again becomes man’s true personal property.” “Free labor” and “free enjoyment”—these are both the solution and the ideal pursuit.

其实，这也不是马克思第一次关注大小资本、大小地产的问题，特别是其背后所涉及的地产分割问题。在《莱茵报》发表的《摩泽尔记者的辩护》一文中，马克思深入探讨了摩泽尔河沿岸地区居民的生活状况，并对“地产析分”问题进行了详尽的阐述。马克思在分析当局官员提出的三项建议时指出，减免税收、种植者转业或限制地产析分等措施，虽然能阶段性缓解种植者的贫困状况，但无法根本解决贫困问题，因为这些措施未能触及资本主义私有制下贫困的制度性根源。换言之，马克思在考察这些问题的时候，其所关心的核心问题正是贫困问题。同样，在《1844年经济学哲学手稿》“笔记本Ⅰ”的《地租》部分，马克思也重点讨论了“地产分割”问题。但不同于前面的讨论，马克思这里明确提出“私有制”根源问题。“地产的分割并不消灭垄断的基础——私有制。它只触及垄断的存在形式，而不触及垄断的本质。结果，地产的分割成了私有制规律的牺牲品。因为地产的分割是适应工业领域的竞争运动的。”这也就意味着，地产分割这一问题尽管是生产竞争运动所致，但解决这一问题的根本要点则是在私有制；虽然是用“扬弃垄断”来作为解决方案，但本质上已经是在强调只有消灭私有制，才能真正解决垄断问题以及其所带来的贫困问题；至于具体的措施或者应当达到的状态，马克思认为是“联合”。“联合也通过合理的方式，而不再采用以农奴制度、领主统治和有关所有权的荒谬的神秘主义为中介的方式来恢复人与土地的温情的关系，因为土地不再是牟利的对象，而是通过自由的劳动和自由的享受，重新成为人的真正的个人财产。”“自由的劳动”“自由的享受”，这既是解决方案又是理想追求。

Marx’s understanding here already differs from Schulz’s. First, the “association” Marx speaks of here is not the same as the “association” of Schulz mentioned above. Second, although the material production and spiritual production that Schulz discusses both point to labor, they are more concentrated on production labor in the positivist sense, while “freedom” corresponds more to the ultimate state or goal of spiritual production. Combining Marx’s content in the section “Private Property and Communism” of “Notebook III,” the labor and enjoyment Marx discusses first sublate [9]9 “Sublate” (German *aufheben*) is a Hegelian-Marxist term meaning to cancel, preserve, and lift up simultaneously. labor and enjoyment in the sense of “alienation.” Their emphasis lies in affirming human creativity within production labor, stressing the interaction between humans and objects in objectifying activity, where everyone can freely engage in productive labor, and the means of production, the production process, and the products of production can all belong to the producers themselves, who possess autonomous power of disposition. Such labor and enjoyment point precisely to “communism.” Here, “communism” is posited as the opposite of alienated labor and private property, as a critical reference point: alienated labor alienates nature and humans themselves from humans, while “communism is the positive supersession of private property as human self-alienation” [10]10 Karl Marx, *Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844*, in *Marx-Engels Collected Works*, vol. 3 (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1975), p. 296.. Because of its thoroughness and ideality, this “communism” is often also called “true communism.” In Marx’s view, “true communism” is not a simple return to a previous brutish naturalism, but rather “the complete restoration of man to himself as a *social* — i.e., human — being, a restoration which has become conscious and which takes place within the entire wealth of previous periods of development. This communism, as fully developed naturalism, equals humanism, and as fully developed humanism, equals naturalism. It is the *genuine* resolution of the conflict between man and nature and between man and man — the true resolution of the strife between existence and essence, between objectification and self-confirmation, between freedom and necessity, between the individual and the species” [11]11 Ibid., p. 296.. So-called “fully developed naturalism” means that humans can freely transform nature according to their own consciousness, and nature, precisely in this practical activity of humans, manifests its works and reality, thereby enabling humans to intuit themselves through the world they have created. So-called “fully developed humanism” means that human objectifying activity is no longer inverted into a mere means for sustaining human existence, but is the true manifestation of their own life activity. This autonomous activity, this free activity, not only confirms human existence itself but also confirms the externalization of human essential powers; humans completely eliminate the dehumanized state of alienation and become truly human. In short, “true communism” signifies the restoration of the relationship between humans and nature, and between humans themselves, to their most authentic level of meaning; it represents the genuine unity of humans and nature, and of humans with each other. It is a historical choice made on the basis of all previous human history and cultural achievements, representing the laws of development of human society and the true interests of humanity. It is precisely on this basis that Marx criticizes the various earlier French socialist and communist doctrines, such as crude communism and democratic or political communism. In Marx’s view, although these theories possess a certain progressiveness, they are detached from truly comprehensive, actual human history and only oppose private property from one-sided historical moments. Fundamentally, they have not truly understood the essence of private property; their understanding of communism remains bound and influenced by private property. Therefore, these doctrines can only be called “incomplete communism.” Schulz also criticizes the crude socialists and communists, exposing that their main shortcoming lies in seeing only the material aspects of production and consumption, without considering spiritual activity and its social conditions, and neglecting the political and social significance of the individual. Although such an understanding has a progressive aspect, his fundamental aim still points to his “spiritual production,” relying on the freedom of spirit as the ultimate solution to problems. Compared with Marx’s affirmation of human essence and emphasis on the development of human capacities in communism, as well as the subjective practical program and the thoroughness of abolishing private property that Marx advocates, Schulz’s understanding in fact moves toward the opposite of what Marx criticizes.

马克思的这种理解已经不同于舒尔茨。首先，马克思这里所讲的“联合”不同于上文所言的舒尔茨“联合”。其次，舒尔茨所讲的物质生产和精神生产虽然也都指向劳动，但更多的是集中于实证意义上的生产劳动，而“自由”则更多的是对应精神生产的终极状态或目标。结合马克思在“笔记本Ⅲ”的《私有财产和共产主义》部分内容，马克思所谈的劳动和享受，首先所扬弃的就是“异化”意义上的劳动与享受，其重点在于强调人在生产劳动之中的创造力，强调在对象化活动之中人与对象的相互作用，人人可以自由地从事生产活动，生产资料、生产过程和生产成果皆可归生产者自己所有，具备自主的支配权。而这样的劳动和享受所指向的正是“共产主义”。在这里，“共产主义”是作为异化劳动、私有财产的对立面、批判的参照物来设定的，异化劳动使自然界、使人本身同人相异化，而“共产主义是私有财产即人的自我异化的积极的扬弃”。因其彻底性和理想性，这种“共产主义”通常又被称为“真正的共产主义”。在马克思看来，“真正的共产主义”并不是对以往野蛮的自然主义的简单复归，而是“作为完成了的自然主义=人道主义，而作为完成了的人道主义=自然主义，它是人和自然界之间、人和人之间的矛盾的真正解决，是存在和本质、对象化和自我确证、自由和必然、个体和类之间的斗争的真正解决”。所谓“完成了的自然主义”，就是指人能够按照自己的意识自由地改造自然界，而自然界也正是在人的这种实践活动中表现出它的作品和现实，从而使人可以通过自己所创造的世界直观自身。而“完成了的人道主义”，则是指人的对象化活动不再颠倒为维持人的生存的手段，而是自己生命活动的真实展现，这种自主活动、自由活动不仅是对人的存在本身的确证，同时也是对人的本质力量外化的确证，人彻底消灭了非人化的异化状态而成为真正的人。总之，“真正的共产主义”意味着人与自然、人与人的关系恢复到最本真的意义层面，代表的是人与自然、人与人之间的真正统一，它是基于人类以往全部的历史基础、文明成果而做出的历史选择，代表人类社会发展规律以及人类的真正利益。而马克思正是在此基础上批判了法国以往形形色色的社会主义学说和共产主义学说，如粗陋的共产主义、民主或政治的共产主义。在马克思看来，这些理论尽管具有一定的进步性，但是脱离于真正全面的人类现实历史，只是从片面的历史环节去反对私有财产。从根本上看，他们并没有真正理解私有财产的本质，对于共产主义的理解依旧受私有财产的束缚和影响，因此这些学说只能称为“尚未完成的共产主义”。舒尔茨同样也批判了粗陋的社会主义者和共产主义者，揭露出他们的主要缺点就在于其只看到了生产和消费的物质方面，而没有考虑精神活动及其社会条件，并且忽略了个人的政治意义和社会意义。这样的理解尽管具有进步性，但他的根本目的又指向他的“精神生产”，靠精神的自由来作为解决问题的最终方案，相较于马克思对共产主义的这种对人的本质的肯定和人的能力发挥的重视，以及所主张的主体性实践方案和废除私有制的彻底性而言，舒尔茨的理解实则又走向了马克思所批判的对面。

III. The Role and Limits of the “Schulz Factor” in the Philosophical Transformation of the Young Marx

三、“舒尔茨因素”在青年马克思哲学思想变革中的作用与界限

To sum up, the “Schulz Factor” in the *Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844* focuses mainly on two core issues: the problem of workers’ poverty and the problem of competition in labor. Its theme is to analyze the fact of workers’ exploitation under different social formations and production conditions, with the aim of thereby exposing the problem of human essence and the problem of alienation, ultimately pointing toward human liberation and communism.

综合而言，《1844年经济学哲学手稿》中的“舒尔茨因素”主要聚焦于两个核心问题：工人的贫困问题和劳动竞争问题。其主题则是剖析不同社会形态、生产状况下工人被剥削的事实，目的在于借以揭露人的本质问题和异化问题，指向的则是人的解放和共产主义。

Here, Marx first adheres to a positivist-materialist stance. First, unlike abstract speculative philosophers who analyze the condition of workers solely from the level of thought, Marx proceeds from the real basis of economic life, delving into the origins, factors, and forms of workers’ poverty through the historical development of production and its concrete processes. Second, the citations Marx selects all involve specific historical data and precise numerical figures, and he further develops his arguments and analyses on the basis of these explicit numbers — for example, the number of cotton workers, the numbers of men, women, and children. Marx consistently proceeds from real life to explore the issues of worker exploitation and poverty. Next, Marx follows a humanist stance, concerning himself with the attention to and analysis of the problem of workers’ poverty. Nor is this the first time Marx has focused on the poverty problem; during his *Rheinische Zeitung* period, he already defended the interests of the poor from their standpoint. According to the 1859 Preface to *A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy*, during his time at the *Rheinische Zeitung* he “first came up against the difficulty of having to express an opinion on so-called material interests.” [12]12 Marx, “Preface to *A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy*” (1859), in *Marx-Engels Collected Works*, vol. 29, p. 262. The fundamental problem that made it difficult to express an opinion was precisely the problem of poverty. Marx acknowledged the factual existence of poverty but could not accept it as a matter of course. The difficulty lay in Marx’s inability to find a theory he could use to support his views. At this time, Marx was not yet aware of the difference between himself and Hegelian philosophy. Through his reflection on the poverty problem, he discovered that the conclusions derived from Hegelian philosophy were unacceptable, because according to the logical deduction of Hegel’s philosophy of right, the problem of poverty was a rational existence. Yet this completely contradicted the philosophical concept of freedom and equality that Marx had upheld since his *Doctoral Dissertation*. In Marx’s view, true freedom is “freedom in determinate being” (Dasein); only real, equal free individuals form the foundation of the state. What he sought to dismantle was precisely the rationality of the existence of such unequal problems as poverty. But here, the conclusion of the argument ran counter to its original intention, and at this point Marx had no other in-depth theory to support his philosophical concept; he fell into a theoretical dilemma, which constituted the internal demand for Marx’s turn to Feuerbach’s philosophy. In Feuerbach’s philosophy, he guided the development of materialism with humanism. He held that a human being should be a person with a body and a thinking mind, and that what people engage in should be sensuous natural activity. The mechanization of the human being that Marx vehemently criticized in “Notebook I” was precisely an expression of the problem of human reality: people do not exist as machines, nor can they perform abstract labor like machines; people ought to have their own real, sensuous life. Second, in Feuerbach’s view, the human being is a product of nature and a part of it. Therefore, the grasp of the real empirical world should proceed from the perspective of the human being and nature, and should not be constructed from the level of thought or logic. However, it should be noted that Feuerbach neglected the social nature of the human being and the active, practical role of the human being in relation to nature. Third, Feuerbach held that the foundation of all human action is the pursuit of happiness. Happiness is a good thing; what he advocated was a religious idea of love. In his view, morality based on human nature and mutual love among people should become a norm. Setting aside for the moment the feasibility of Feuerbach’s overcoming the evils of the real world through the form of love, the problem of poverty was clearly something to be overcome in his system: people should live in natural life, not be deeply enslaved by industry; relations among people should be a state of happiness, and life should be the pursuit of the good, not the desire for profit.

在这里，马克思首先秉承着实证唯物的立场。第一，马克思并没有像抽象的思辨哲学家那样仅从思维的层面展开对工人状况的分析，而是基于现实的经济生活基础，从历史发展的脉络和生产的具体过程去深入剖析工人贫困的渊源、因素和形态。第二，马克思所选择的援引内容都是涉及具体的历史资料和精确的数字数据，并且基于这种明确的数字进一步展开观点的论述和分析，如棉纺工人的数量、男女人数、儿童人数等。马克思始终是基于现实生活出发去探讨工人的受剥削问题、贫困问题。其次，马克思遵循的是人道主义的立场，涉及的是他对工人贫困问题的关注和分析。这也不是马克思第一次关注贫困问题，在《莱茵报》时期，马克思就立足贫民的立场为贫民的利益进行过辩护。按照1859年《政治经济学批判》序言中的说法，他在《莱茵报》期间，“第一次遇到要对所谓物质利益发表意见的难事”。而造成难以发表意见的根本问题就是贫困问题。马克思承认贫困问题的事实存在，但又无法接受贫困是理所当然的。困难就在于马克思难以找到可以利用的理论去支持自己的观点。这个时候的马克思并未意识到自己与黑格尔哲学之间的差别，而通过对贫困问题的思考，马克思发现按照黑格尔哲学推出的结论是不能接受的，因为按照黑格尔的法哲学逻辑推演，贫困问题是合乎理性的存在。然而这与马克思自《博士论文》以来所秉承的自由平等的哲学理念完全相悖。在马克思看来，真正的自由是“定在之中的自由”，只有现实、平等的自由个体才是国家的基础。他要破除的也正是例如贫困等这样不平等问题存在的合理性。但在这里，论证的结论恰恰与初衷相违背，而此时马克思还没有其他深入的理论能够支撑自己的哲学理念，他陷入理论的两难之状，这也就构成了马克思转向费尔巴哈哲学的内在要求。在费尔巴哈哲学那里，他以人本主义引导唯物主义的发展，他认为人应当是一个有身体和有思想头脑的人，人所从事的应当是感性的自然活动。马克思在“笔记本I”中所痛批的人的机器化问题就是在彰显人的现实性问题，人不是作为机器的存在，人也不能像机器一样进行抽象的劳动，人应当有自己的现实的感性的生活。其次，在费尔巴哈看来，人是自然界的产物和它的一部分。因此，对现实经验世界的把握应当从人和自然的角度去考虑，而不应该从思维、逻辑的层面进行建构。然而，应当看到费尔巴哈对人的社会本性和人对自然界的积极实践作用的忽视。再次，费尔巴哈认为人的一切行为的基础就是追求幸福。幸福是一个善的东西，他所倡导的是爱的宗教思想，在他看来，以人性为基础、以人们互爱为基础的道德应当成为一条准则。暂且不论费尔巴哈这种以爱的形式克服现实世界罪恶的可行性，贫困问题显然在他这里是需要被克服的对象，人应该是在自然生活之中，而不是深受工业的奴役；人与人之间应当是幸福的状态，生活应当是对善的追求，而不是对利益的欲望。

Feuerbach’s foundational emphasis on the human being and nature, and his attention to human freedom, on the one hand laid a solid foundation for Marx’s materialist stance, and on the other hand was also of great significance for Marx’s romantic ideal. In this regard, the positivist-materialist attitude and humanist stance provided by Feuerbach’s philosophy offered a certain theoretical basis for Marx’s analysis of Schulz’s *The Movement of Production*, [13]13 Wilhelm Schulz, *Die Bewegung der Production: Eine geschichtlich-statistische Abhandlung zur Grundlegung einer neuen Wissenschaft des Staats und der Gesellschaft* (Zurich: Winterthur, 1843). enabling him to interpret the concrete movement of production. The focus of his attention was not only the real living conditions of people; the essence behind this was a new social picture combining idealism and romantic sentiment. Therefore, the problem of poverty and the problem of human alienation played a key role in the formation of Marx’s philosophical ideal and historical materialism. But this does not mean that Marx completely adhered to the principles of Feuerbach’s philosophy, because Marx, starting from the perspective of “material production,” and especially through Schulz’s empirical corroboration, made up for the previous abstract elaboration of philosophical principles, and then began to understand and grasp the essence of the human being from the process of human practical activity. This broke out of Feuerbach’s naturalism and transcended the limitations of intuitive materialism. Yet Marx did not completely follow Schulz’s theoretical path either. Although Schulz also adhered to a materialist attitude in his interpretation of the real condition of workers, this materialist attitude of Schulz’s was a materialism at the level of social reform. He did not grasp the root problem of private property from the level of the laws of the entire development of human history, nor did he recognize that the existing social state could not solve real problems. Hence Schulz believed that spiritual-intercourse activity could resolve social contradictions and placed his hopes in state regulations. In other words, Schulz spoke of “material production” mainly for the sake of “spiritual production”; the path of social change he adopted was an abstract path of ideological transformation. Marx, however, did not move toward the “spiritual production” advocated by Schulz’s social materialism; rather, on the basis of Feuerbach’s philosophical stance, he turned toward the real sensuous life of people, advocating the abolition of private property in people’s real practical activities and at the level of social reality, so as to realize the freedom and all-round development of people’s material production and spiritual activity. This set him apart from Schulz. Moreover, in light of the *Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right*, the “state determinism” and “spiritual reconciliation” advocated by Schulz are in fact consistent with the logic of Hegel’s philosophy of right, to the extent that some scholars emphasize that “Schulz’s views are quite colored by Hegel’s *Philosophy of History*.” [14]14 The author’s citation of a scholarly opinion; the original source is not identified in the text. In short, for Marx, between the political state and civil society, it is not the political state that determines civil society, but civil society that determines the political state. Thus it can be seen that Marx, on the basis of Feuerbach’s philosophical stance, subjected the “Schulz factor” to a profound philosophical critique, and by means of the concept of “material production” proposed by Schulz, provided new possibilities and directions for criticizing and transcending Feuerbach’s philosophy.

费尔巴哈这种对人和自然的基础性强调和对人的自由的重视，一方面为马克思的唯物主义立场打下了坚实的基础，另一方面对于马克思的浪漫主义理想亦具有重要的意义。就此而言，费尔巴哈哲学所提供的实证的唯物态度和人道主义的立场为马克思分析舒尔茨《生产运动》提供了一定的理论基础，并以此来对具体的生产运动进行解读，其所关注的重点不仅是现实的人的生活状态，背后的本质则是一个兼具理想主义和浪漫情怀的新的社会图景。因此，贫困问题和人的异化问题在马克思的哲学理想和历史唯物主义的形成过程中具有关键的作用。但这并非意味着马克思完全秉承费尔巴哈哲学的原则，因为马克思从“物质生产”的角度，特别是经舒尔茨的实证佐证而弥补了以往抽象的哲学原则阐述，进而从人的实践活动过程开始理解和把握人的本质问题，这就跳出了费尔巴哈的自然主义，突破了直观唯物主义的局限。但马克思又不是完全遵循着舒尔茨的理论套路。尽管舒尔茨在对工人现实状况的解读中也是遵循着唯物主义的态度，但是舒尔茨这种唯物主义的态度是基于社会改良层面的唯物，他并没有从整个人类历史发展的规律层面把握到私有制的根源性问题，同时也没有认识到以现存在的社会状态无法解决现实的问题，所以舒尔茨才认为精神交往活动就能解决社会矛盾，并且寄托于国家的规定。换言之，舒尔茨讲“物质生产”主要是为了“精神生产”，他所采取的社会变革之路是一种抽象的思想变革之道。而马克思并没有走向舒尔茨社会唯物主义所主张的“精神生产”，而是在费尔巴哈哲学立场上导向了人的现实的感性生活，主张在人的现实实践活动中、在社会现实层面废除私有制，实现人的物质生产和精神活动的自由和全面，这就与舒尔茨拉开了距离。并且，结合《黑格尔法哲学批判》来看，舒尔茨所主张的这种“国家决定论”和“精神调和”实则又与黑格尔法哲学逻辑具有一致性，以至于有学者强调“舒尔茨的观点颇有黑格尔《历史哲学》的色彩”。简而言之，在马克思这里，在政治国家和市民社会之间，不是政治国家决定市民社会，而是市民社会决定政治国家。由此可见，马克思基于费尔巴哈哲学立场对“舒尔茨因素”进行了深刻的哲学批判，并借助舒尔茨提出的“物质生产”概念，为批判和超越费尔巴哈哲学提供了新的可能性和方向。

In summary, the role that the “Schulz factor” could play in the process of young Marx’s philosophical transformation, viewed from the direct level, was that it provided Marx with an empirical perspective for examining or corroborating economic reality and critiquing political economy, compensating for the previous limitation of relying solely on philosophical theoretical argumentation. By drawing on Schulz’s empirical investigation, Marx was essentially seeking to explore the root cause of private property behind the capitalist system. However, what he adhered to was neither the hypocritical concealment of political economy, nor the incompleteness of Proudhonism, nor even Schulz’s “spiritual production.” For Marx, the abolition of private property had to return to social reality and could only be achieved through thoroughgoing revolution. Viewed from the indirect level, Marx’s handling of the “Schulz factor” implied a trend toward the turn to historical materialism. Although Marx was influenced by Feuerbach’s philosophical principles, he approached the issues of workers’ poverty and social change from the perspective of “material production.” This mode of thinking pointed the way toward critiquing and transcending Feuerbach’s philosophy and laying the foundation for historical materialism. At the same time, however, the limited nature of this role must also be recognized. The issues of workers’ poverty and exploitation, and the question of real freedom and liberation, were problems Marx had been contemplating before he encountered Schulz’s *The Movement of Production*; they did not arise from Schulz’s guidance or inspiration. This once again confirms that the formation of Marx’s thought did not come from arbitrarily piecing together or synthesizing various ready-made views or figures, but rather advanced continuously around his own theoretical stance and practical goals. In this process, especially during the formation of his early thought, the figures or works that appeared mainly served to further consolidate the principles or viewpoints he already upheld. (Author’s affiliation: Zhengzhou University)

综上而言，“舒尔茨因素”在青年马克思哲学思想变革过程之中所能起到的作用，从直接性层面看，它为马克思提供了审视或佐证经济现实、批判国民经济学的实证视角，弥补了以往仅仅从哲学层面予以理论论证的有限性问题。马克思借助于舒尔茨的实证考察，实质上是为了探究资本主义制度背后的私有制根源，但他所坚持的既不是国民经济学般的虚伪掩盖，也非蒲鲁东主义般的不彻底性，更不是舒尔茨般的“精神生产”。在马克思这里，废除私有制则必须回到社会现实之中，必须经受彻底性的革命才得以形成。从间接性层面看，马克思对“舒尔茨因素”的处理，暗含了转向唯物史观的趋势。马克思虽然受费尔巴哈哲学原则影响，但他却是从“物质生产”角度思考工人贫困和社会变革问题，这一思考方式为批判超越费尔巴哈哲学、奠定历史唯物主义指明了方向。但同时也应当看到这种作用的有限性。工人贫困和受剥削问题、现实自由解放问题是马克思接触舒尔茨《生产运动》之前就一直在思考的问题，而不是经由舒尔茨的引导或启发所形成。这也再次印证，马克思思想的形成并不是从各种现成或人物的观点中随意拼凑、综合而来的，而是围绕其理论立场和实践目标不断前行的。在此过程中，特别是在其早期思想形成中，所出现的人物因素或著作对马克思所起到主要是进一步巩固他所坚持的原则或观点的作用。（作者单位：郑州大学）

Online editor: Paul

网络编辑：保罗