The Logic of Marx’s Critique of “German-style Modern Problems”

In February 1844, the young Marx published “A Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right: Introduction” (hereinafter referred to as the “Introduction”) in the *Deutsch-Französische Jahrbücher*. In this text, Marx did not simply treat Germany’s “late-developing country” status as a developmental lag that had to be caught up with through imitation. Instead, by comparing the modernization of France and England, he profoundly elucidated “German-style modern problems.” The essence of this problem was that Germany’s particularity determined that it could not retrace the old path of political modernization taken by France and England, but had to blaze a new trail that transcended political emancipation and thereby achieved human emancipation. This particularity contained universality and became a completely new type of modernization. Marx’s logic of critiquing German particularity unfolded on three levels, and to this day it holds important implications for our understanding of the modernization process of late-developing countries.

1844年2月，青年马克思在《德法年鉴》上发表了《〈黑格尔法哲学批判〉导言》（以下简称《导言》）。在该文中，马克思并未简单地将德国的“后发国家”状态视为一种必须通过模仿来实现追赶的发展滞后性，而是通过比较法国、英国的现代化，深刻阐释了“德国式的现代问题”。这个问题的本质是德国特殊性决定了德国不能重走法国、英国政治现代化老路，而是必须走出一条超越政治解放，进而实现人的解放的新路。这种特殊性蕴藏着普遍性，成为一种全新类型的现代化。马克思批判德国特殊性的理路，分别从三个层面予以展开，至今对于我们理解后发国家的现代化进程具有重要启示意义。

The “Anachronism” of the German System

德国制度的“时代错乱”

In the “Introduction,” Marx did not rush to directly attack the German system. Instead, he first made a detour to critique the copy [1]1 “Copy” (副本) and “original” (原本) are terms Marx uses in the “Introduction.” The “copy” refers to the German philosophy of state and law (the theoretical reflection of the system), while the “original” refers to the actual German political and social system itself. — Germany’s state philosophy and philosophy of right — and first criticized the “advanced” theoretical forms that grew out of the soil of Germany’s backward system. This was a critique at a level higher than Germany’s historical level. However, the deepening of the critique of the copy is a critique of the reality that the original [2]2 See note [1]. targets, that is, the backward German system that the copy conceals. Therefore, the essence of the critique of the copy is to expose the real institutional problems behind it. It can be seen that in “late-developing countries,” criticizing “advanced” theory not only has the function of exposing reality, but can also become the precursor of social change; the thoroughness of theory can both stimulate revolutionary practice to transcend reality and become a driving force for modernization, thereby possessing universal significance.

马克思在《导言》中没有急于直接抨击德国制度，而是先迂回到德国国家哲学、法哲学的副本批判，先对生长在德国落后制度土壤中的“先进的”理论形态进行批判，这是一种高于德国历史水平的批判。但是副本批判的深化是对原本批判所针对的现实批判，也就是其所掩盖的落后的德国制度。因此，副本批判的本质是揭露其背后的现实制度问题。可见，在“后发国家”，批判“先进”理论不仅具有揭露现实的功能，还能够成为社会变革的先导；而理论的彻底性既能够激发革命实践超越现实，也能够成为一种推动现代化的动力，从而具有普遍意义。

Marx believed that “the modern German system is an anachronism,” and this anachronism formed a structural contradiction in historical time.

马克思认为，“现代德国制度是时代错乱”，这一时代错乱形成了历史时间的结构性矛盾。

In the historical moment of 1843, Germany attempted to negate the feudal system and transition to the capitalist stage marked by the French Revolution of 1789, yet it faced a temporal dislocation in the evolution of the system. By 1843, the internal contradictions of the English and French capitalist systems had become clearly apparent, causing that system to encounter a crisis even before it had fully unfolded in Germany: imitating the old path of English and French modernization had already lost its appeal and feasibility. If Germany tried to leap over the capitalist system and directly enter communism, it had missed the historical opportunity of 1789–1843, thereby facing the problems of insufficient capitalist development and the absence of the proletariat.

德国在1843年的历史时刻试图否定封建制度，过渡至以1789年法国大革命为标志的资本主义阶段，却面临制度演进中的时间错位。在1843年，英法资本主义制度的内在矛盾已清晰显露，致使该制度在德国尚未完全展开即遭遇危机：模仿英法现代化老路已然失去吸引力与可行性。若德国尝试越过资本主义制度直接进入共产主义，但又错过了1789—1843年的历史机遇，从而面临着资本主义发展不充分、无产阶级缺位的问题。

The chaotic state of the German system meant that in 1843 it faced three superimposed tasks — national unification, political emancipation, and human emancipation — all of which had to be resolved within the same temporal and spatial framework. English and French political modernization accomplished these tasks gradually through history, achieving formal, political emancipation. But Germany, which had lost the opportunity for “gradual modernization,” had to solve these tasks simultaneously. Therefore, the particularity of the German system became a prototype of universality, demonstrating how, through theoretical critique and revolutionary practice, one could “accomplish the whole task at one stroke” [3]3 “毕其功于一役” (bi qi gong yu yi yi) is a Chinese idiom meaning to accomplish the entire task in a single effort. and move toward a completely new type of modernization.

德国制度的错乱状态，导致其1843年面临着三重叠加任务，即国家统一、政治解放、人的解放，并需在同一时空下予以解决。英法政治现代化是通过历史渐次完成任务，实现了形式上的、政治领域的解放，而丧失“渐次现代化”机会的德国却必须同时解决这些任务。因此，德国制度的特殊性成为一种普遍性的原型，展示了如何通过理论批判和革命实践“毕其功于一役”，走向全新类型的现代化。

The Political and Economic Roots of Germany

德国的政治经济根源

Marx’s shift from critiquing the copy to critiquing the original was precisely to reveal the political and economic roots underlying the “anachronism” of the German system. Marx deeply perceived the limitations of the factions in German intellectual circles that analyzed the actual system. Among these were the Historical School of Law, represented by Savigny, as well as the practical political faction and the theoretical political faction. Marx affirmed some of their contributions, but pointed out their fundamental defects.

马克思从副本批判转向原本批判，正是为了揭示德国制度“时代错乱”底层的政治经济根源。马克思深刻洞见到当时德国思想界分析现实制度派别的局限。其中以萨维尼为代表的历史法学派，还有实践政治派与理论政治派。马克思既肯定了他们的一些贡献，更指出了根本缺陷。

Marx pointed out that the system of rights defended by the Historical School of Law was essentially the legal expression of the system of private property; the practical political faction and the theoretical political faction defended private ownership and evaded the “question of revolution.” In short, the common essence of these factions lay in defending the eternity and legitimacy of private property and private ownership. The critique of the system necessarily led to the dissection of civil society, “and the anatomy of civil society is to be sought in political economy.” [4]4 This is a direct quotation from Marx’s “Preface” to *A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy* (1859). Marx’s critique of German schools of thought contains a universal critical method, namely, Marx’s statement: “The legal relations as well as the forms of the state are to be grasped neither from themselves nor from the so-called general development of the human mind, but rather have their roots in the material conditions of life.” [5]5 This is a direct quotation from Marx’s “Preface” to *A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy* (1859). This research method, later called historical materialism, also has universal applicability to the study of modernization.

马克思指出，历史法学派维护的权利体系本质是私有财产制的法权表达；实践政治派与理论政治派维护私有制，且回避“革命问题”。总之，这些派别的共同本质在于维护私有制及其私有权的永恒性与合法性。制度批判必然导向对市民社会的解剖，“而对市民社会的解剖应该到政治经济学中去寻求”。马克思对德国思想流派的批判蕴藏着一个普遍的批判方法，即马克思说：“法的关系正像国家的形式一样，既不能从它们本身来理解，也不能从所谓人类精神的一般发展来理解，相反，它们根源于物质的生活关系。”这种后来被称作唯物史观的研究方法，对于研究现代化也具有普遍适用性。

In the mid-19th century, Germany was still an ununified Christian state, politically ruled by a coalition of feudal monarchs, Junker aristocrats, and high-ranking clergy, with strong feudal forces. Although the German Reformation brought a degree of spiritual emancipation, it failed to touch the political and economic roots and thus had limited impact. Germany only began its first industrial revolution in the 1830s, completing it overall by the end of the 19th century, leaping to become the first industrial power in Europe and the second in the world. This process of “time-space compressed modernization” [6]6 “时空压缩的现代化” (time-space compressed modernization) is a term used in Chinese modernization studies to describe the compressed and accelerated nature of late-development industrialization. saw, on the one hand, a rapid economic catch-up, but on the other hand, it caused immense pain in the transition from traditional to modern society: a large number of proletarians were concentrated in cities in a short period, enduring extreme poverty and alienated labor, yet the political system failed to reform simultaneously to alleviate social contradictions, making social contradictions exceptionally acute and concentrated. Political emancipation within the “time-space compressed modernization” process was utterly incapable of solving the problem of the proletariat’s alienated labor, so the human emancipation of the proletariat became an inevitable choice. The heart of human emancipation is the proletariat; its brain is proletarian philosophy. From Germany’s particularity, Marx discovered the universal historical mission of the proletariat: to fundamentally solve the problems of modernization through human emancipation.

19世纪中期的德国还是一个尚未统一的基督教国家，政治上由封建君主、容克贵族与高级僧侣联合统治，封建势力强大。尽管德国宗教改革在精神层面带来了一定解放，但是未能触及政治经济根源而影响有限。德国在19世纪30年代才开始第一次工业革命，在19世纪末总体完成，一跃成为欧洲第一、世界第二工业强国。这种“时空压缩的现代化”进程，一方面经济呈现出迅猛赶超态势，另一方面也造成传统向现代社会转型的巨大阵痛：大量无产阶级在短时间内集聚于城市，承受着极端贫困和异化劳动，但是政治制度未能同步改革以缓解社会矛盾，使得社会矛盾异常尖锐和集中。政治解放在“时空压缩的现代化”进程中根本无法解决无产阶级异化劳动问题，因此无产阶级的人的解放成了必然选择。人的解放的心脏是无产阶级，头脑是无产阶级哲学。马克思从德国的特殊性中，发现无产阶级的普遍历史使命在于通过人的解放来从根本上解决现代化的问题。

The Class Situation in Germany

德国的阶级状况

The class composition and its relations in Germany were a concentrated expression of its political and economic roots. They not only determined the particularity of the German problem, but also logically and necessarily deduced a solution with universal historical significance.

德国的阶级构成及其关系是其政治经济根源的集中表现，不仅决定了德国问题的特殊性，更从逻辑上必然地推演出一个具有普遍历史意义的解决方案。

As a vested interest group, the feudal forces controlled Germany’s political and economic lifelines. They fundamentally opposed any revolution that touched private ownership and property rights, opposed a political emancipation led by the bourgeoisie and joined by the proletariat, and even more so opposed the human emancipation led by the proletariat. However, to cope with the external shock of the Napoleonic Wars and internal pressures, the “enlightened faction” representing feudal interests had to initiate “top-down” reforms at the beginning of the 19th century, implementing the limited modernization of the Prussian Reforms [7]7 The “Prussian Reforms” (Preußische Reformen) were a series of constitutional, administrative, social, and military reforms initiated in Prussia between 1807 and 1815, largely in response to defeat by Napoleon., whose fundamental purpose was still to maintain feudal rule. These Junker landlords turned around and became the big bourgeoisie. They invested in factories, but abandoned the constraints of “bourgeois morality,” openly advocating the use of all violent means, and more brutally oppressed the working class. Marx and Engels vividly revealed their conservatism and reactionary nature in the *Communist Manifesto*. This “new wine in old bottles” [8]8 “旧瓶装新酒” (jiu ping zhuang xin jiu) is a Chinese idiom meaning “new wine in old bottles,” referring to the use of old forms to contain new content. model of modernization was later adopted by some countries, resulting in a distorted, highly oppressive model of modernization.

作为既得利益群体的封建势力掌握着德国政治经济命脉，从根本上反对触及私有制及其所有权的革命，反对资产阶级主导并与无产阶级联合的政治解放，更反对无产阶级领导的人的解放。但是为了应付拿破仑战争带来的外部冲击和内部压力，19世纪初，封建利益代表的“开明派”不得不开启“自上而下”的改革，推行德意志“大改革”的有限现代化，其根本目的仍是维系封建统治。这些容克地主阶级转身一变成了大资产阶级。他们投资办厂，但是抛弃“资产阶级道德”约束，公然主张可以使用一切暴力手段，更加残酷地压迫工人阶级。马克思恩格斯在《共产党宣言》中形象地揭示了他们的保守性与反动性。这种“旧瓶装新酒”的现代化模式，此后也被一些国家采用，其结果是催生出一个扭曲的、高度压迫的现代化模式。

Engels once said: “In England the bourgeoisie had been in process of formation since the 17th century, in France since the 18th; in Germany, however, a so-called bourgeoisie emerged only from the beginning of the 19th century.” [9]9 This is a direct quotation from Engels’s “On the History of the Communist League” (1885). The birth of the German bourgeoisie came far later than in England and France, and its development of a national industry was heavily dependent on feudal state policies such as protective tariffs. But in reality, this “cunning” policy used the guise of patriotism to protect its own special interests. Economically dependent on the feudal forces, it lacked the fearless spirit of revolution politically, and was more inclined to compromise with the Junker landlords, seeking top-down reform rather than revolution. The intellectuals representing bourgeois interests were immersed in abstract theoretical activities, divorced from the real needs of the people, and even less dared to assume the historical task of political emancipation. In short, the bourgeoisie was weak and compromising, incapable of leading modernization.

恩格斯曾说：“在英国从17世纪起，在法国从18世纪起，富有的、强大的资产阶级就在形成，而在德国则只是从19世纪初才有所谓的资产阶级。”德国的资产阶级的诞生远远晚于英法，其发展民族工业反而严重依赖封建政权保护关税等政策。但是实际上，这种“狡猾”政策是假借爱国主义之名来维护自身特殊利益。他们在经济上依附于封建势力，在政治上缺乏革命的大无畏精神，更倾向于向容克地主妥协，寻求自上而下的改革而非革命。代表资产阶级利益的知识分子则沉浸于抽象的理论活动，脱离人民现实需要，更不敢承担政治解放的历史任务。总之，资产阶级具有软弱性和妥协性，无力领导现代化。

The German proletariat is the true representative of civil society, a class of positively universal significance. They epitomize the dual suffering of the “defects of civilization” and the “defects of barbarism.” The universal obstacles they face are the foundation and root of particular obstacles. This universal obstacle is the class oppression of the Junker landlord class and the bourgeoisie on the basis of private property. It is this common oppression that forges the proletariat’s revolutionary spirit of “firmness, acuteness, courage, and ruthlessness,” and makes philosophy its spiritual weapon. To solve the real problem of class oppression, the proletariat must transform philosophical critique into social revolution and turn theoretical weapons into material force. Only by guiding practical struggle through scientific theory can the proletariat ultimately negate private property and achieve the true emancipation of humanity. This contains a universality, and simultaneously accomplishes multiple superimposed tasks while making a direct transition to communism—a modernization of a completely new type.

德国的无产阶级是市民社会的真正代表，是积极普遍意义的阶级。他们集中体现了“文明缺陷”与“野蛮缺陷”的双重苦难。他们面临的普遍障碍是特殊障碍的基础与根源。这种普遍障碍是私有制上容克地主阶级与资产阶级的阶级压迫。正是这种共同压迫，塑造了无产阶级“坚毅、尖锐、胆识、无情”的革命精神，并将哲学当作自己的精神武器。无产阶级解决现实的阶级压迫问题，必须将哲学批判转化为社会革命，将理论武器转化为物质力量。无产阶级只有通过科学理论指导实践斗争，才能最终否定私有制，实现人的真正解放，这蕴藏着一种普遍性，同时完成多重叠加任务并直接向共产主义过渡的现代化，这是一种全新类型的现代化方式。

In summary, in the *Introduction* [10]10 Refers to Marx’s “Introduction to a Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right,” written in 1843–1844., Marx starts from an analysis of the particularity of Germany’s “dislocation in time,” delves into its political-economic roots, and, through an analysis of class forces, ultimately points to a universal path for fundamentally solving the problems of modernization through proletarian revolution. This is not only a diagnosis of the German problem of the 19th century, but also provides inspiration for those late-developing countries facing a similar dilemma of “time-space compressed modernization” [11]11 A concept used in Chinese modernization studies to describe the compressed and accelerated process of development that late-developing countries undergo, facing multiple historical tasks simultaneously..

综上所述，马克思在《导言》中从剖析德国“时代错乱”的特殊性出发，深入其政治经济根源，借助对阶级力量的分析，最终指明了一条通过无产阶级革命根本解决现代化问题的普遍道路。这不仅是对19世纪德国问题的诊断，更为那些面临类似“时空压缩现代化”困境的后发国家提供了启示。

(This article is a phased result of the National Social Science Fund Major Project “Research on the History and Experience of the Chinese Communist Party’s Leadership of Chinese-Path Modernization” [23&ZD031].)

（本文系国家社科基金重大项目“中国共产党领导中国式现代化的历程和经验研究”（23&ZD031）阶段性成果）

(The author is an associate professor at the School of Marxism, Sun Yat-sen University.)

（作者系中山大学马克思主义学院副教授）