The Philosophical Foundation of Marx’s Revolution in the Conception of the Modern State and Its Contemporary Value — A Study Centered on *The German Ideology*

Constructing a systematic doctrine of the modern state is a thread that runs throughout Marx’s intellectual development. In the course of his theoretical research and practical exploration aimed at critiquing the capitalist modern state, establishing a new type of state under the dictatorship of the proletariat, and thereby better realizing the emancipation of humanity with the proletariat as the subject, Marx successively completed important works including *Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right*, *The German Ideology* (co-authored with Engels, hereafter referred to as *The Ideology*), *The Communist Manifesto* (co-authored with Engels), *The Civil War in France*, and *Critique of the Gotha Programme*. Among these, the significance of *The Ideology* in the history of the formation of Marx’s doctrine of the modern state lies mainly in the fact that historical materialism laid the philosophical foundation for Marx’s revolution in the research paradigm of the modern state and for the construction of an entirely new doctrine of the modern state; it was in *The Ideology* that Marx’s doctrine of the modern state, grounded in historical materialism as its scientific worldview and methodology, received its first relatively complete and systematic exposition. Today, as the development of the modern state confronts new problems and new challenges, examining the conception of the modern state in *The Ideology* and its philosophical foundation in the unity of logic and history, of theory and practice, holds important theoretical and practical significance for our dialectical analysis of the new problems of the modern state and for better upholding and developing socialism with Chinese characteristics.

建构体系化的现代国家学说是贯穿马克思思想进程的一条重要线索。在批判资本主义现代国家，建立无产阶级专政新型国家，从而更好地实现以无产阶级为主体的人的解放的理论研究和实践探索中，马克思相继完成《黑格尔法哲学批判》、《德意志意识形态》（与恩格斯合著，以下简称《形态》）、《共产党宣言》（与恩格斯合著）、《法兰西内战》、《哥达纲领批判》等重要论著。其中，《形态》在马克思现代国家学说形成史上的意义主要在于，唯物史观奠定了马克思实现现代国家问题研究范式革命、建构全新现代国家学说的哲学基础，以唯物史观为科学世界观和方法论的马克思现代国家学说第一次得到比较完整的体系化阐述。如今，现代国家发展面临新问题、新挑战，在逻辑与历史、理论与实践的结合中审视《形态》中的现代国家观及其哲学基础，对于我们辩证分析现代国家新问题、更好地坚持和发展中国特色社会主义具有重要的理论和现实意义。

I. Historical Materialism Lays the Philosophical Foundation for Marx’s Revolution in the Conception of the Modern State

一、唯物史观奠定马克思现代国家观革命的哲学基础

The question of the state is both a question of political science and a question of philosophy; nearly every theory of the state is built upon a specific worldview and methodology. In the course of Marx’s intellectual development, the philosophical revolution and the study of the question of the state interacted with and influenced each other. “The formation of historical materialism necessarily required a scientific answer to the fundamental questions of the state; the question of the state is a major issue that historical materialism could not bypass, circumvent, or avoid in its formation,” and the construction of a proletarian doctrine of the state also had first to establish a scientific worldview and methodology.

国家问题既是一个政治学问题，也是一个哲学问题，几乎每一种国家理论都建立在特定的世界观和方法论之上。在马克思的思想发展进程中，哲学革命同国家问题研究相互作用、相互影响。“历史唯物主义的形成必须要科学回答国家的基本问题，国家问题是历史唯物主义形成不能跨越、绕开和回避的重大问题”，无产阶级的国家学说建构也必须首先确立科学的世界观和方法论。

Historical materialism, as one of Marx’s “two great discoveries,”[n] is the philosophical foundation for the construction of the theoretical system of Marxism. Nevertheless, there has always been disagreement in academic circles as to whether historical materialism constitutes Marx’s “worldview.” Engels was the first to systematize the Marxist theoretical system, and he successively used expressions such as “materialist conception of history,” “historical materialism,” “historical materialism,” “modern materialism,” “materialist dialectics,” and “communist worldview” to expound Marx’s “worldview.” In these expositions, Engels regarded historical materialism both as “the science of real human beings and their historical development,” that is, a “conception of history,” and, from the perspective of the philosophical revolution, as a “worldview.” In 1886, in *Ludwig Feuerbach and the End of Classical German Philosophy*, Engels pointed out that the relationship between thought and being is “the great fundamental question of all philosophy, especially of modern philosophy,” emphasizing that materialism and idealism are used in the sense of answering this fundamental question. But he also proposed that the question of the relationship between thought and being has another aspect. “What is the relationship of our thoughts about the world around us to that world itself? Can our thinking cognize the real world? Can we correctly reflect reality in our representations and concepts of the real world? In philosophical language, this question is called the question of the identity of thought and being.” The question of the identity of thought and being is essentially the question of the relationship between human beings and the world, that is, the question of worldview. In Engels’s view, Feuerbach’s intellectual development was a process in which an incomplete orthodox Hegelian moved toward materialism, but he “could not overcome the usual philosophical prejudice, namely, the prejudice not against the thing itself but against the name ‘materialism,’” and “confused this general worldview, based on a specific understanding of the relationship between matter and spirit, with the special form this worldview took at a particular historical stage, namely the 18th century.” Later, in the preface to the 1888 separate edition of this work, Engels further wrote, “Marx says in the preface to *A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy* (Berlin, 1859) that in 1845 we two, in Brussels, set about ‘jointly setting forth our views’ — the materialist conception of history, mainly elaborated by Marx.” “More than forty years have passed since then.” “In the meantime, Marx’s worldview has found adherents far beyond the borders of Germany and Europe, in all the civilized languages of the world.” “Before sending this manuscript to press, I looked through the old manuscript of 1845–46 again. The chapter on Feuerbach was unfinished. The part that was written sets forth the materialist conception of history… In an old notebook of Marx’s I found eleven theses on Feuerbach… It is very valuable as the first document containing the germ of a new worldview.” From these statements, it can be seen that Engels, primarily on the basis of the fundamental philosophical question of the relationship between thought and being, between spirit and matter, discussed worldview from the perspective of the philosophical revolution. The “new worldview” in the *Theses on Feuerbach* is “Marx’s worldview,” that is, the materialist conception of history — historical materialism — first systematically expounded in 1845 when Marx and Engels, in *The Ideology*, set about settling accounts with their former philosophical beliefs.

唯物史观作为马克思的“两大发现”之一，是马克思主义理论体系建构的哲学基础。然而，关于唯物史观是否构成马克思的“世界观”，学术界一直存在着不同的理解。恩格斯是推进马克思主义理论体系化的第一人，也先后使用“唯物主义历史观”“唯物史观”“历史唯物主义”“现代唯物主义”“唯物主义辩证法”“共产主义世界观”等话语来阐述马克思的“世界观”。在这些阐述中，恩格斯既认为唯物史观是“现实的人及其历史发展的科学”，即“历史观”，又从哲学革命角度将其定位为“世界观”。1886年，恩格斯在《路德维希·费尔巴哈和德国古典哲学的终结》中指出，思维与存在的关系问题是“全部哲学，特别是近代哲学的重大的基本问题”，强调唯物主义和唯心主义是在回答这一基本问题的意义上使用的，但他也提出思维与存在的关系问题还有另一个方面。“我们关于我们周围世界的思想对这个世界本身的关系是怎样的？我们的思维能不能认识现实世界？我们能不能在我们关于现实世界的表象和概念中正确地反映现实？用哲学的语言来说，这个问题叫做思维和存在的同一性问题”。思维和存在的同一性问题实质上就是人与世界的关系问题，即世界观问题。在恩格斯看来，费尔巴哈思想的发展进程是一个不完全正统的黑格尔主义者走向唯物主义的发展进程，但是他“不能克服通常的哲学偏见，即不反对事物本身而反对唯物主义这个名称的偏见”，“把唯物主义这种建立在对物质和精神关系的特定理解上的一般世界观同这一世界观在特定的历史阶段即18世纪所表现的特殊形式混为一谈了”。后来，恩格斯在该著作1888年单行本的序言中进一步写道，“马克思在《政治经济学批判》（1859年柏林版）的序言中说，1845年我们两人在布鲁塞尔着手‘共同阐明我们的见解’——主要由马克思制定的唯物主义历史观”，“从那时起已经过了40多年”，“这期间，马克思的世界观远在德国和欧洲境界以外，在世界的一切文明语言中都找到了拥护者”，“在这篇稿子送去付印以前，我又把1845—1846年的旧稿找出来看了一遍。其中关于费尔巴哈的一章没有写完。已写好的部分是阐述唯物主义历史观的……我在马克思的一本旧笔记中找到了十一条关于费尔巴哈的提纲……它作为包含着新世界观的天才萌芽的第一个文献，是非常宝贵的”。从这些话语中可以看到，恩格斯主要基于思维与存在、精神与物质的关系这一哲学基本问题，从哲学革命角度探讨世界观。《关于费尔巴哈的提纲》中的“新世界观”就是“马克思的世界观”，也就是1845年马克思恩格斯在《形态》中着手清算他们从前的哲学信仰时第一次系统阐述的唯物主义历史观，即唯物史观。

It can be said that in *The Ideology*, Marx and Engels, precisely by targeting the “worldview” of all old philosophy, re-answered the fundamental questions of philosophy, clarified the relationship between human beings and “the whole natural, historical, and spiritual world,” and thereby accomplished a philosophical revolution. Historical materialism is the landmark achievement of the philosophical revolution carried out by Marx and Engels, “realized in the form of a critique of post-Hegelian philosophy.” It is not an extension of the traditional “conception of history”; its true significance lies in reconstructing, from the perspective of the philosophical revolution, the ontology, epistemology, and axiology of philosophy, thereby constituting a “new worldview.” In *The Ideology*, historical materialism is both a “new conception of history” and a “new worldview” and “new methodology”; it is the philosophical precondition for Marx’s revolution in the conception of the modern state.

可以说，马克思恩格斯在《形态》中正是针对全部旧哲学的“世界观”，重新回答哲学基本问题，阐明人与“整个自然的、历史的和精神的世界”的关系问题，实现了哲学革命。唯物史观是马克思恩格斯所实现的哲学革命的标志性成果，“是以批判黑格尔以后的哲学的形式来实现的”，并非传统意义上的“历史观”的延伸，它的真正意义是从哲学革命角度重构哲学的本体论、认识论、价值论，构成了一种“新世界观”。在《形态》中，唯物史观既是“新历史观”，也是“新世界观”“新方法论”，是马克思现代国家观革命的哲学前提。

First, from the ontological level, historical materialism, based on the standpoint of practice, re-answers the fundamental questions of philosophy, expels idealism from the field of history, and lays the foundation for the study of the modern state. Philosophers are divided into the two camps of idealism and materialism according to their answers to the fundamental questions of philosophy, yet before Marx and Engels the field of history was entirely dominated by idealism. In the *Theses on Feuerbach*, Marx criticizes the main defect of all old materialism: that it comprehends objects, reality, and sensuousness only from the standpoint of the object or of intuition, “not as sensuous human activity, as practice; not from the subjective side.” Marx proposes that “all social life is essentially practical,” thereby drawing a clear line of demarcation from all old materialism. In *The German Ideology*, Marx and Engels emphasize that the existence of living, concrete individuals is the first premise of all human history, and that in order to survive human beings must be able to live; from this arises the need for food, drink, shelter, and clothing. “The production of the means to satisfy these needs, the production of material life itself,” therefore becomes “the first premise of all human existence” and “the first premise of all history.” In their view, human beings both directly obtain the means of subsistence and the means of production from nature and actively transform nature; the alteration of the environment and human practice exhibit a relative consistency. However, the old conception of history, including intuitive materialism, excludes human transformation of nature from the study of history, so that it not only fails truly to grasp history but also sets the history of nature in opposition to the history of humanity. Consequently, Marx and Engels incorporate the human transformation of nature into the field of vision of materialist inquiry and take the material productive activity of actual individuals as the foundation for examining all history. At the same time, the production of life is also manifested in the reproduction of new life through procreation. Yet the reproduction of life cannot be realized by an isolated individual; from this arises relations between the sexes that transcend the individual, and on this basis families, tribes, and clans are formed. Through the analysis of relations between the sexes and family relations, Marx and Engels examine the different stages of the division of labor and the evolution of forms of property, pointing out that “definite individuals who are engaged in a definite mode of production enter into definite social and political relations… social structure and the state always arise from the life-process of definite individuals,” thereby revealing the historical foundation of the origin of the state. Furthermore, beyond the relations between human beings and nature and between human beings and society, human activity inevitably also produces a relation between human beings and the spiritual world. Marx and Engels examine the origin of consciousness in the historical activity of human beings, pointing out that human consciousness “was not ‘pure’ consciousness from the very beginning” but was from the start entangled with matter. It was only with the increase in productive forces, which brought about the division between material and mental labor, that consciousness acquired an independent appearance. It is precisely on the basis of examining human historical activity in the three dimensions of the relation between human beings and nature, between human beings and society, and between human beings and the spiritual world that Marx and Engels, in *The German Ideology*, for the first time set forth historical materialism in a relatively systematic way, stating that this conception of history consists in “starting from the material production of immediate life, in setting forth the real process of production, in taking the form of intercourse connected with this mode of production and created by it — i.e., civil society in its various stages — as the foundation of all history, in describing civil society as the activity of the state, and at the same time in explaining from civil society all the various theoretical products and forms of consciousness — religion, philosophy, morality, etc. — and tracing their process of origination.” Here, they introduce the standpoint of practice into the field of vision of materialist inquiry, thoroughly expel idealism from the field of history, achieve the unification of natural history, social history, and the history of spirit on the basis of practice, and give a new answer to the fundamental questions of philosophy. Only by starting from actual individuals and linking productive forces with relations of production (or forms of intercourse) can one accurately explain social structure and the state. And only by scientifically grasping the basic viewpoint that social being determines social consciousness can one dispel the mist that envelops ideology.

第一，从本体论层面看，唯物史观基于实践观点重新回答哲学基本问题，将唯心主义从历史领域清除出去，奠定了现代国家问题研究的根基。哲学家们依照对哲学基本问题的回答而分为唯心主义和唯物主义两大阵营，然而历史领域在马克思恩格斯以前都是被唯心主义笼罩着。在《关于费尔巴哈的提纲》中，马克思批判了一切旧唯物主义的主要缺点：只是从客体的或直观的形式去理解对象、现实、感性，“而不是把它们当做感性的人的活动，当做实践去理解，不是从主体方面去理解”。马克思提出“全部社会生活在本质上是实践的”，同一切旧唯物主义划清了界限。在《形态》中，马克思恩格斯强调有生命的个人的存在是全部人类历史的第一个前提，而人为了生存就必须能够生活，由此产生了衣食住行的需要，“生产满足这些需要的资料，即生产物质生活本身”，也就成为“一切人类生存的第一个前提”“一切历史的第一个前提”。在他们看来，人既直接地从自然界获取生活资料、生产资料，也在能动地改造自然，环境的改变同人的实践表现出相对一致性，但是包括直观唯物主义在内的旧历史观把人对自然的改造从历史研究中排除出去，不仅不能真正地把握历史，还会造成自然的历史与人的历史相对立。因此，他们把人对自然的改造也纳入唯物主义的研究视域，将现实的人的物质生产活动看作考察全部历史的基础。同时，生命生产还表现在通过生育繁衍新生命，然而生命繁衍是无法通过独立个体实现的，由此产生了超出个体的两性关系，并在此基础上缔造出家庭、部落和部族。通过对两性关系和家庭关系的分析，马克思恩格斯考察了分工的不同阶段、所有制形式的演变历史，指出“以一定的方式进行生产活动的一定的个人，发生一定的社会关系和政治关系……社会结构和国家总是从一定的个人的生活过程中产生的”，揭示了国家起源的历史基础。此外，在人与自然、人与社会的关系之外，人的活动还不可避免地产生人与精神世界的关系。马克思恩格斯在人的历史活动中考察意识的起源过程，指出人的意识“并非一开始就是‘纯粹的’意识”，而是从一开始就受到物质的纠缠。随着生产力的提高，意识带来物质劳动和精神劳动的分工，才导致意识有了独立的表象。正是在人与自然、人与社会、人与精神的关系三个维度考察人类历史活动的基础上，马克思恩格斯在《形态》中第一次比较系统地阐述了唯物史观，指出这种历史观就在于“从直接生活的物质生产出发阐述现实的生产过程，把同这种生产方式相联系的、它所产生的交往形式即各个不同阶段上的市民社会理解为整个历史的基础，从市民社会作为国家的活动描述市民社会，同时从市民社会出发阐明意识的所有各种不同的理论产物和形式，如宗教、哲学、道德等等，而且追溯它们产生的过程”。在这里，他们将实践观点引入唯物主义研究视域，彻底将唯心主义从历史领域清除出去，实现了自然史、社会史、精神史在实践基础上的统一，对哲学基本问题作出新回答。只有从现实的个人出发，将生产力与生产关系（或交往关系）联系起来，才能准确地说明社会结构和国家。也只有科学地把握社会存在决定社会意识的基本观点，才能拨开笼罩在意识形态上的迷雾。

Second, from the epistemological level, historical materialism reveals the law of the contradictory movement of productive forces and relations of production, “develops from the relation between civil society and the state the explanatory framework of economic base and superstructure,” and clarifies the historical principle for the study of the modern state. In *The German Ideology*, Marx and Engels distinguish between two opposed methods of inquiry: “descending from heaven to earth” and “ascending from earth to heaven.” The substance of this opposition is also a fundamental opposition between two epistemologies and methodologies. Modern Western political thinkers’ study of the modern state has, on the whole, followed these two methods of inquiry. The former is an idealist, abstractly speculative metaphysical method, used mainly by thinkers such as Locke and Hegel, who often take theoretical presuppositions like the “state of nature,” the “social contract,” or the “absolute spirit” as the starting point of inquiry. For example, Hegel regards the absolute spirit as the origin and driving force of the world, considers the state as “the actuality of the ethical Idea” and “the march of God in the world,” and emphasizes that “the state is the divine idea as it exists on earth. The basis of the state is the power of reason realizing itself as will. In considering the Idea of the state, we must not have in mind any particular state or particular institution; we must rather contemplate the Idea, this actual God.” The latter method, on the other hand, is used mainly by old materialists such as Stirner and Feuerbach. However, they “often regard the state as something that has always existed, as something eternal,” and fail to see the actual basis of the origin and development of the state, thereby falling back into idealism in substance. For instance, although Feuerbach attempts to reverse the relation of subject and predicate that idealist speculative philosophy had turned upside down, his reversal is very incomplete. “When Feuerbach is a materialist, history lies outside his field of vision; when he deals with history, he is not a materialist. In his case, materialism and history are completely separated from each other.” Borrowing Feuerbach’s principle of the reversal of subject and predicate, Marx, in his *Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right*, reveals the mystery of the speculative idealism of Hegel’s philosophy of right. Starting from “actual relations” and “empirical actuality,” he arrives at the important thesis that “civil society determines the state,” reversing the relation of family, civil society, and the state that Hegel had turned upside down, and placing this relation above actual society, emphasizing that “family and civil society are the presuppositions of the state; they are the truly active elements,” constituting the “actual subject.” During the *Deutsch-Französische Jahrbücher* period, Marx further clarifies the inner elements, constituent spheres, and basic principles of civil society, emphasizing that civil society and the individuals within civil society are the natural foundation for the existence and development of the modern state, thereby achieving the rational elevation and philosophical sublimation of the proposition that “civil society determines the state.” In *The German Ideology*, through the description of the line of development of human society, Marx and Engels reveal the general tendency of the development of human society. On this basis, Marx and Engels emphasize that “the form of intercourse which is conditioned by the productive forces at all previous stages of history and which in turn conditions them is civil society… this civil society is the true source and stage of all history,” and that “the name ‘civil society’ always denotes the social organization that develops directly out of production and intercourse, an organization which at all times forms the basis of the state and of any other ideal superstructure.” This viewpoint is in substance the scientific expression of “productive forces determine relations of production, economic base determines superstructure”; it clarifies the historical principle for the study of the modern state and is the theoretical foundation for understanding the logic of the development of the modern state. Marx and Engels regard the state as a historical product of the development of productive forces and modes of production, profoundly demonstrating that the state is neither eternal nor immutable, and that the problems of the modern state must be studied within specific economic relations.

第二，从认识论层面看，唯物史观揭示了生产力和生产关系矛盾运动规律，“从市民社会与国家的关系发展出经济基础与上层建筑的解释框架”，阐明了现代国家问题研究的历史原则。在《形态》中，马克思恩格斯区分了“从天国降到人间”和“从人间上升到天国”这两种相对立的研究方法，这种对立的实质也是两种认识论、方法论的根本对立。近代西方政治思想家对现代国家问题的研究，总体遵循了这两种研究方法。前一种是唯心的、抽象思辨的形而上学方法，主要由洛克、黑格尔等人使用，往往将“自然状态”“社会契约”“绝对精神”等理论预设作为研究出发点。比如，黑格尔把绝对精神看作世界的本原和动力，认为国家作为“伦理理念的现实”，是“地上行走的精神”，强调“神自身在地上的行进，这就是国家。国家的根据就是作为意志而实现自己的理性的力量。在谈到国家的理念时，不应注意到特殊国家或特殊制度，而应该考察理念，这种现实的神本身”。后一种方法则主要由施蒂纳、费尔巴哈等旧唯物主义者使用，但是他们“往往把国家看作自古就有的东西，是永恒存在的”，看不到国家起源和发展的现实基础，实质上又陷入了唯心主义。比如，费尔巴哈虽然试图将被唯心主义的思辨哲学颠倒的主语和谓语的关系颠倒过来，但是很不彻底。“当费尔巴哈是一个唯物主义者的时候，历史在他的视野之外；当他去探讨历史的时候，他不是一个唯物主义者。在他那里，唯物主义和历史是彼此完全脱离的。”马克思借用费尔巴哈的主谓颠倒原理，在《黑格尔法哲学批判》中揭示黑格尔法哲学的思辨唯心主义之谜，从“现实的关系”“经验的现实性”出发，得出“市民社会决定国家”的重要论断，将被黑格尔颠倒的家庭、市民社会同国家的关系颠倒过来，并将这一关系置于现实社会之上，强调“家庭和市民社会都是国家的前提，它们才是真正活动着的”，构成“现实的主体”。在《德法年鉴》时期，马克思进一步阐明了市民社会的内在要素、构成领域、基本原则，强调市民社会和市民社会中的人是现代国家存在和发展的自然基础，实现“市民社会决定国家”命题的理性提升和哲学升华。在《形态》中，马克思恩格斯通过对人类社会发展线索的描述，揭示了人类社会发展的一般趋势。在此基础上，马克思恩格斯强调，“受到迄今为止一切历史阶段的生产力制约同时又反过来制约生产力的交往形式，就是市民社会……这个市民社会是全部历史的真正发源地和舞台”，“市民社会这一名称始终标志着直接从生产和交往中发展起来的社会组织，这种社会组织在一切时代都构成国家的基础以及任何其他的观念的上层建筑的基础”。这一观点实质上就是“生产力决定生产关系、经济基础决定上层建筑”的科学表达，明确了现代国家问题研究的历史原则，是理解现代国家发展逻辑的理论基础。马克思恩格斯将国家看成生产力和生产方式发展的历史产物，深刻表明了国家既不是从来就有的，也不是永恒不变的，现代国家问题必须放到特定的经济关系之中去研究。

Third, from the perspective of axiology, historical materialism criticizes Feuerbach’s abstract theory of human nature, elucidates the social nature and class nature of human beings in the context of actual material productive practice, and clarifies the fundamental value standpoint for research on the modern state. Research on the modern state is closely linked to the question of the essence of human beings. For example, the Young Hegelians mainly conducted their critique of religion and research on the modern state by dissolving the shackles of religion on human beings and realizing the subjective freedom of human beings. Marxism is also a theory that reflects on modernity and pursues the subjective freedom of human beings. During his *Rheinische Zeitung* period, Marx attempted to use Hegel’s advocated free press, rational state, and rational law to realize the interests of the impoverished masses. However, in his analysis of the actual state system and legal system in Germany, he captured the so-called material interests’ dominant role over the press, the state, and law, and put forward the value standpoint that the press and other public opinion should serve the interests of the impoverished masses. Later, in his *Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right*, Marx made the important judgment that “civil society determines the state,” clarified the essential difference between the so-called “political emancipation” proclaimed by the bourgeoisie and the emancipation of human beings, and emphasized the mission of the proletariat to realize the emancipation of human beings on the basis of abolishing the capitalist modern state and its foundation of existence, namely, abolishing the division of labor and abolishing private property. In this way, he formally established the fundamental theme of his political critique and theoretical research — realizing the emancipation of human beings with the proletariat as the subject. In this process, when critically analyzing Hegel’s philosophy of right, Marx had accepted Feuerbach’s view that the human being is a species-being. In his *Introduction to a Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right*, Marx pointed out, “The human being is not an abstract being crouching outside the world. The human being is the human world, is the state, is society.” However, through the political-economic analysis of civil society, Marx realized that Feuerbach’s view of the human being as a species-being still remained at the level of abstract speculation and did not truly reveal the essence of the human being. In his *Theses on Feuerbach*, Marx pointed out, “Feuerbach wants to study sensuous objects that are indeed different from thought-objects, but he does not understand human activity itself as objective [gegenständliche] activity,” and further criticized Feuerbach for reducing the essence of religion to the essence of the human being, emphasizing that “the essence of the human being is not an abstraction inherent in the single individual; in its actual reality it is the totality of all social relations.” In Marx’s view, Feuerbach did not criticize this actual reality; on the contrary, he separated the historical process, “fixed religious feeling as something independent,” and understood the essence of the human being as “an inner, mute, universality that naturally connects many individuals,” without seeing that the so-called “religious feeling” is itself a product of society, and that “the abstract individuals he analyzes belong to a definite social form.” In other words, the human being as an “actual, historical human being” is a human being placed under concrete historical conditions; the human being’s needs, capacities, modes of activity, consciousness, etc., are all stamped with the imprint of specific social relations, and the essence of the human being has a social nature. This scientific determination of the essence of the human being laid the value foundation for analyzing the class nature and historical nature of the state, revealing the historical limitations of the capitalist modern state for realizing the emancipation of human beings, and further clarifying the mission and tasks of the proletariat.

第三，从价值论层面看，唯物史观批判了费尔巴哈的抽象人性论，在现实的物质生产实践中阐明人的社会性和阶级性，明确了现代国家问题研究的根本价值立场。现代国家问题研究同人的本质问题紧密关联，比如青年黑格尔派主要是基于消解宗教对人的束缚、实现人的主体性自由来进行宗教批判和现代国家问题研究的。马克思主义也是一种反思现代性、追寻人的主体性自由的理论。马克思在《莱茵报》时期试图借用黑格尔倡导的自由报刊、理性国家、理性法来实现贫困群众的利益，然而却在德国现实国家制度和法律制度的分析中捕捉到所谓物质利益对新闻出版、国家和法的支配作用，提出新闻出版等公共舆论要服务于贫困群众利益的价值立场。后来，马克思在《黑格尔法哲学批判》中作出“市民社会决定国家”的重要论断，阐明资产阶级宣扬的所谓“政治解放”同人的解放的本质区别，强调了无产阶级在消灭资本主义现代国家及其存在基础即消灭分工、消灭私有制的基础上实现人的解放的使命，由此正式明确了他从事政治批判和理论研究的根本主题——实现以无产阶级为主体的人的解放。在这一过程中，马克思对黑格尔法哲学进行批判分析时曾接受了费尔巴哈关于人是类存在物的观点。他在《〈黑格尔法哲学批判〉导言》中指出，“人不是抽象的蛰居于世界之外的存在物。人就是人的世界，就是国家，社会”。然而，通过对市民社会的政治经济学分析，马克思意识到费尔巴哈关于人是类存在物的观点仍然停留在抽象思辨状态，没有真正地揭示出人的本质。在《关于费尔巴哈的提纲》中，马克思指出，“费尔巴哈想要研究跟思想客体确实不同的感性客体，但是他没有把人的活动本身理解为对象性的[gegenständliche]活动”，进而批判费尔巴哈将宗教的本质归结为人的本质的观点，强调“人的本质不是单个人所固有的抽象物，在其现实性上，它是一切社会关系的总和”。在马克思看来，费尔巴哈没有批判这种现实的本质，反而撇开历史的进程，“把宗教感情固定为独立的东西”，把人的本质理解为“一种内在的、无声的、把许多个人自然地联系起来的普遍性”，没有看到所谓“宗教感情”本身就是社会的产物，“他所分析的抽象的个人，是属于一定的社会形式的”。换言之，人作为“现实的历史的人”，是处在具体的历史条件下的人，人的需要、能力、活动方式、意识等都被打上了特定社会关系的烙印，人的本质具有社会性。对人的本质的科学规定，为分析国家的阶级性和历史性，揭示资本主义现代国家对于实现人的解放的历史局限性，以及进一步阐明无产阶级的使命任务奠定了价值基础。

II. *The German Ideology*’s First Systematic Elaboration of Marx’s View of the Modern State

二、《德意志意识形态》对马克思现代国家观的第一次系统阐述

Before writing *The German Ideology*, Marx drafted in November 1844 the *Plan for a Work on the Modern State*, which took the relationship between civil society and the modern state as its core proposition and outlined the framework for constructing a systematic theory of the modern state from the aspects of the historical origin, basic types, power structure, and future development of the modern state. However, this draft plan was not transformed into a systematic work on the “theory of the modern state,” and these key points still awaited systematic elaboration. In *The German Ideology*, Marx and Engels, at the intersection of the philosophical revolution and research on the modern state, formed historical materialism, scientifically answered the questions of where the modern state comes from, how the modern state exists, and where the modern state is heading, and analyzed the origin, essence, functions, and future development of the modern state. Using historical materialism as a scientific worldview and methodology, Marx for the first time provided a relatively complete systematic elaboration of the view of the modern state.

在撰写《形态》前，马克思于1844年11月形成《关于现代国家的著作的计划草稿》，以市民社会同现代国家的关系为核心命题，从现代国家的历史起源、基本类型、权力结构及未来发展等方面明确了体系化现代国家学说建构的框架思路，但是该计划草稿并没有转化为一部体系化“现代国家论”著作，这些要点也有待系统化阐释。在《形态》中，马克思恩格斯在哲学革命和现代国家问题研究的思想交汇中形成了唯物史观，科学回答了现代国家从何而来、现代国家怎样存在、现代国家走向何方等问题，对现代国家的起源、本质、职能及未来发展等问题作出分析。马克思以唯物史观为科学的世界观和方法论，第一次对现代国家观作出比较完整的系统阐述。

First, although the modern state emerged in the form of the capitalist modern state, it is not the product of so-called absolute spirit or the human spirit, nor has it always existed; rather, it is the product of the development of productive forces in modern society, a state form corresponding to modern capital, this “pure private property.” In *The German Ideology*, Marx and Engels criticized the theory of the state as idea and the errors of old materialism on the question of the origin of the state, emphasizing that the origin and development of the state are determined by the development of the division of labor and private property. With the development of modern society, manufacture emerged and gradually evolved into large-scale capitalist industry, and the capital of manufacture gradually transformed into modern capital, that is, “pure private property which has cast off all semblance of a community and has eliminated all influence of the state on the development of property.” Under these conditions, the medieval state, based on the natural foundation of feudal landed property, became a fetter for modern capital in its pursuit of profit. The economically dominant bourgeoisie, through political revolution, overthrew the economic relations, political relations, and other social relations of feudal society, realizing the transformation from the feudal state to the capitalist modern state. In short, the capitalist modern state is the historical product of the development of the division of labor and private property in modern society, a state form corresponding to modern capital, this “pure private property” and “modern private property.” Precisely because private property had cast off its earlier communal form, “the state acquired an independent existence alongside and outside civil society,” and the modern state originated and developed within civil society. In this regard, Marx and Engels pointed out in *The Holy Family*, “Just as the natural foundation of the ancient state was slavery, so the natural foundation of the modern state is civil society and the human beings in civil society,” and “the modern state recognized this natural foundation of itself through universal human rights. It did not create this foundation. Just as the modern state is the product of civil society, which, through its own development, broke free from the old political fetters, so now it recognizes its birthplace and its foundation through the declaration of human rights.” Later, in the *Communist Manifesto*, Marx and Engels comprehensively examined the history of capitalist development, pointing out that the bourgeoisie, as “the product of a long course of development, of a series of revolutions in the modes of production and of exchange,” experienced a long process of development, each stage of which “was accompanied by a corresponding political development,” profoundly elucidating the historical process of the development of the modern state within capitalism. In particular, in *Capital*, Marx further examined the five stages of development of the modern state, confirming in his political-economic research his basic views on the question of the origin of the modern state.

第一，现代国家虽然是以资本主义现代国家形态问世的，但它不是所谓整体理念或者人类精神的产物，也不是从来就有的，而是生产力发展到现代社会的产物，是同现代资本这种“纯粹私有制”相适应的国家形态。马克思恩格斯在《形态》中批判了国家理念论和旧唯物主义在国家起源问题上的错误，强调国家起源和发展是由分工和私有制发展所决定的。随着现代社会的发展，工场手工业得以产生，并逐步演进为资本主义大工业，工场手工业资本也逐步转变为现代资本，即“抛弃了共同体的一切外观并消除了国家对所有制发展的任何影响的纯粹私有制”。在此条件下，以封建土地所有制为自然基础的中世纪国家成为现代资本实现逐利性目标的桎梏，在经济上占据优势地位的资产阶级通过政治革命推翻封建社会的经济关系、政治关系以及其他社会关系，实现了封建主义国家向资本主义现代国家的转型。简言之，资本主义现代国家是分工和私有制发展到现代社会的历史产物，是与现代资本这种“纯粹私有制”“现代私有制”相适应的国家形态。正因为私有制摆脱了先前的共同体形式，“国家获得了和市民社会并列并且在市民社会之外的独立存在”，现代国家在市民社会中得以起源和发展。对此，马克思恩格斯在《神圣家族》中指出，“正如古代国家的自然基础是奴隶制一样，现代国家的自然基础是市民社会以及市民社会中的人”，“现代国家通过普遍人权承认了自己的这种自然基础本身。它并没有创立这个基础。正如现代国家是由于自身的发展而挣脱旧的政治桎梏的市民社会的产物，而今它又通过人权宣言承认自己的出生地和自己的基础”。后来，马克思恩格斯在《共产党宣言》中全面考察资本主义发展史，指出资产阶级作为“生产方式和交换方式的一系列变革的产物”，经历了一个长期发展过程，每一个发展阶段“都伴随着相应的政治上的发展”，深刻阐明了现代国家在资本主义中的历史发展过程。特别是在《资本论》中，马克思进一步考察了现代国家发展的五个阶段，在政治经济学研究中确证了他关于现代国家起源问题的基本观点。

Second, the capitalist modern state possesses both a class character and a social character, simultaneously performing the dual functions of political rule and social administration. In *The German Ideology*, Marx and Engels, building on the theory of the dual character of labor, emphasize that the state “is the form in which the individuals of the ruling class realize their common interests and in which the whole civil society of the epoch is concentrated,” thus for the first time systematically revealing the dual character of all class states, including the modern state. On the one hand, the modern state is based on the effective performance of social public functions. In the bourgeois revolution, the bourgeoisie, under the banner of representing the common interests of all members of society, gathered together those deeply oppressed by feudal exploitation by proclaiming so-called “human rights” such as private property rights, freedom, equality, and democracy, thereby winning the bourgeois revolution. Through universal human rights and constitutions, they proclaimed the birth of the modern state, and the defense of so-called “human rights” and the realization of “universal interests” became the basis of legitimacy for the continued existence of the modern state regime. On the other hand, class character is the essential attribute of the state. Although the capitalist modern state may adopt relatively independent forms of political organization, such as constitutional representative government or democratic representative government, it is “nothing more than the form of organization that the bourgeoisie are compelled to adopt, both for internal and external purposes, for the mutual guarantee of their property and interests.” The “human rights” proclaimed by the bourgeoisie are in fact merely the expression of their particular interests. Relying on the advantages of state power, the bourgeoisie, internally, ensures its dominant position in economic, political, and other spheres through state institutions, legal systems, and ideology; externally, it consolidates and develops the common interests of the bourgeoisie by waging wars, engaging in colonization, and imposing protective tariffs. Marx and Engels consistently adhered to the theory of the dual character of the state in their critical analysis of capitalist society. For instance, in *Capital*, Marx pointed out that the capitalist state, like the ancient state, performs two functions: “it includes both the execution of the common affairs arising from the nature of all societies and the specific functions arising from the opposition of the government to the mass of the people.” At the same time, although Marx and Engels criticized the capitalist modern state from the perspective of class character, they always emphasized the unique value of the state’s social functions for the development of human society. In the *Critique of the Gotha Programme*, Marx discussed the historical transformation of the state system in communist society, that is, what changes would occur in the state system under communism. In other words, what social functions similar to the current state functions would be retained. From the Marxist perspective, class character is the essential attribute of the state, and the withering away of the state refers first and foremost to the withering away of the political attributes and political functions of the state as an instrument of class rule. However, social functions similar to the “current state functions,” that is, the state functions of the capitalist modern state, will still be retained in communist society, albeit performed by a new form of community that replaces the political state.

第二，资本主义现代国家兼具阶级性和社会性，同时履行政治统治和社会管理的双重职能。在《形态》中，马克思恩格斯基于劳动二重性理论，强调国家“是统治阶级的各个人借以实现其共同利益的形式，是该时代的整个市民社会获得集中表现的形式”，第一次比较系统地揭示了包括现代国家在内的一切阶级国家的二重性。一方面，现代国家以有效履行社会公共职能为存在基础。在资产阶级革命中，资产阶级打着代表全体社会成员共同利益的旗帜，通过宣扬私有财产权、自由、平等、民主等所谓“人权”，将深受封建剥削压迫的人们集聚起来，赢得了资产阶级革命的胜利，并通过普遍人权和宪法宣告现代国家的诞生，维护所谓“人权”、实现“普遍利益”也便成为现代国家政权存续的合法性基础。另一方面，阶级性是国家的本质属性。尽管资本主义现代国家会采取立宪的代议制、民主的代议制等相对独立的政权组织形式，但它“不外是资产者为了在国内外相互保障各自的财产和利益所必然要采取的一种组织形式”，资产阶级宣扬的“人权”实质上只是其特殊利益的体现。资产阶级依托国家政权优势，对内通过国家制度、法律制度和意识形态等方式确保自身在经济、政治等方面的主导地位，对外通过发动战争、殖民、保护关税等方式巩固和发展资产阶级的共同利益。马克思恩格斯在资本主义社会的批判性分析中始终坚持国家二重性理论。比如，马克思在《资本论》中指出，资本主义国家同古代国家一样履行着两种职能，“既包括由一切社会的性质产生的各种公共事务的执行，又包括由政府同人民大众相对立而产生的各种特有的职能”。同时，马克思恩格斯虽然从阶级性视角批判资本主义现代国家，但是始终强调国家的社会职能对于人类社会发展的独特价值。在《哥达纲领批判》中，马克思探讨了共产主义社会中国家制度的历史性变革，即在共产主义社会中国家制度会发生怎样的变化。换句话说，那时有哪些同现在的国家职能相类似的社会职能保留下来。在马克思主义看来，阶级性是国家的本质属性，国家的消亡首先是指作为阶级统治工具的政治属性和政治职能的消亡，但是同“现在的国家职能”即资本主义现代国家的国家职能相类似的社会职能，在共产主义社会仍将保留下来，只不过这种职能由一种替代政治国家的全新共同体来履行。

Third, although the capitalist modern state promotes human emancipation, it does not alter the state’s attribute as a “form of illusory community”; it will ultimately be replaced, on the basis of the development of productive forces, by a “true community” that realizes the free individuality of human beings. In *The German Ideology*, Marx and Engels’ assertion that the state is an “illusory community” not only profoundly expresses the dual character of the state but also links the development of the state to the development of human beings, indicating the value and limits of the state in promoting human development. In their view, individuals initially, as free and self-conscious beings, autonomously exert their individual powers and realize their “individuality” in actual material productive activity. With the development of the division of labor and private property, individuals become “members of a class,” the power of things becomes the master of individual power, and relations between people gradually become relations of personal dependence mediated by the power of things. Only by abolishing the division of labor and abolishing private property, so that individuals regain control over the power of things, can the alienation of individual power into the power of things be completely eliminated, thereby realizing the free individuality of human beings. Although the bourgeois revolution abolished personal dependence based on feudal privilege, the proletariat became even more unfree, “because they are more subject to the power of things.” Under capitalist relations of production, “the individual proletarian, property of the bourgeois class as a whole, can sell his labor only when someone needs it, and his livelihood is therefore insecure. Only for the proletarian class as a whole is this livelihood secure.” The conditions of existence, labor, and even the entire social conditions of existence of the proletariat become something contingent; the power of things attains absolute dominance. In response, Marx and Engels emphasized that, to realize true free individuality, the proletariat must completely abolish all the social conditions they face, and in the communist movement, thoroughly overthrow all property relations, political relations, and social relations of bourgeois society, re-establishing the rule of individuals over contingency. At that time, the naturally formed, forced division of labor will be replaced by a voluntary division of labor; the revolutionary proletarians “have control over their own conditions of existence and over the conditions of existence of all members of society,” and “have brought the conditions of their free development and movement under their control.” Each person, as a free individual rather than a member of a particular class, will freely associate with others. At the same time, “with the appropriation of all productive forces by the united individuals, private property comes to an end.” The modern state loses its basis for existence, and the state, as an “illusory form of community” that suppresses the free individuality of human beings, is replaced by a “true community” that realizes the free individuality of human beings, namely, communist society. Later, in the *Communist Manifesto*, Marx and Engels further revealed the general law of human social development, positing the “inevitability” of communism replacing capitalism, and emphasizing that “in place of the old bourgeois society, with its classes and class antagonisms, we shall have an association in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all,” thereby elucidating the inevitability of the withering away of the state.

第三，资本主义现代国家虽然促进了人的解放，但是它并没有改变国家作为“虚幻的共同体形式”的属性，终将在生产力发展基础上被实现了人的自由个性的“真正的共同体”所替代。马克思恩格斯在《形态》中关于国家是“虚幻的共同体”的论断，既深刻表达了国家的二重性，又将国家发展同人的发展相关联，指明国家对于促进人的发展的价值和限度。在他们看来，个人起初作为自由自觉的人，在现实的物质生产活动中自主地发挥着个人力量、实现“个性”。随着分工和私有制的发展，个人成为“阶级的成员”，物的力量成为个人力量的主宰，人与人之间的关系也逐步变成依托于物的力量的人身依附关系。只有消灭分工、消灭私有制，个人重新驾驭物的力量，才能彻底消灭个人力量转化为物的力量这一异化现象，进而实现人的自由个性。虽然资产阶级革命废除了基于封建特权的人身依附关系，但是无产阶级却更加不自由，“因为他们更加屈从于物的力量”。在资本主义生产关系中，“单个的无产者可以说是整个资产者阶级的财产，他的劳动只有在有人需要的时候才能卖掉，因而他的生活是没有保障的。只有对整个无产者阶级来说，这种生活才是有保障的”。无产者的生存条件、劳动，甚至整个社会的全部生存条件都变成一种偶然性的东西，物的力量获得了绝对统治地位。对此，马克思恩格斯强调，无产者为了实现真正的自由个性，就应当彻底消灭他们面临的全部社会条件，在共产主义运动中彻底推翻资产阶级社会的一切财产关系、政治关系和社会关系，重新确立起个人对偶然性的统治。到那时，自然形成的、强制的分工将被出于自愿的分工所替代，革命的无产者“控制了自己的生存条件和社会全体成员的生存条件”，“把个人的自由发展和运动的条件置于他们的控制之下”，每个人作为自由的人而非特定阶级的成员自由地联合起来。同时，“随着联合起来的个人对全部生产力的占有，私有制也就终结了”，现代国家丧失了存在的基础，作为压抑人的自由个性的“虚幻的共同体形式”即国家就被真正实现人的自由个性的“真正的共同体”即共产主义社会替代。后来，马克思恩格斯在《共产党宣言》中进一步揭示人类社会发展的一般规律，提出共产主义取代资本主义的“不可避免”，强调“代替那存在着阶级和阶级对立的资产阶级旧社会的，将是这样一个联合体，在那里，每个人的自由发展是一切人的自由发展的条件”，阐明了国家消亡的必然性。

Fourth, in order to achieve its own liberation and ultimately the liberation of all humanity, the proletariat must, in the course of revolution, “first seize political power” and establish a new type of state power of the proletariat. In the period of the *Deutsch-Französische Jahrbücher* [n14], Marx revealed the essential distinction between the so-called “political emancipation” proclaimed by the bourgeoisie and the genuine emancipation of the human person, pointing out that reliance on the capitalist modern state was insufficient to truly realize human liberation, and he initially explored the historical mission of the proletariat in abolishing private property and achieving human liberation through social revolution. In *The German Ideology*, Marx and Engels, when discussing the mission and tasks incumbent upon the proletariat, pointed out that “the conditions under which definite productive forces can be employed are the conditions of the rule of a definite class of society, whose social power, deriving from its property situation, each time finds its practical-ideal expression in the corresponding form of the state; hence every struggle for revolution is directed against the class that has ruled up to that point.” “Every class that strives for rule — even if, like the proletariat, its rule requires the abolition of the whole old social form and of all rule — must first conquer political power, in order to represent its own interest as the general interest, which in the initial period it is compelled to do.” In their view, the complete abolition of the state and the complete abolition of private property cannot be achieved overnight; the proletariat, in order to achieve its own liberation and ultimately the liberation of all humanity, must in the course of revolution overthrow the bourgeois state power and firmly grasp state power in its own hands. The reason the proletariat must first seize political power is also this: “Since individuals pursue only their own particular interest, which, for them, does not coincide with their common interest, they regard this common interest as ‘alien’ and ‘independent’ of them, i.e., as a still particular, unique ‘general’ interest, or they themselves must act under this condition of non-coincidence, as in a democracy. On the other hand, the actual struggle of these particular interests, which always really oppose the common interest and the illusory common interest, makes necessary the actual intervention and restraint through the state, this illusory ‘general’ interest.” After seizing state power, the proletariat and its party will no longer redistribute labor in a different way within a specific scope or among specific groups of people, but will instead take as its goal the “abolition of labor, and the abolition of any class rule and of these classes themselves,” pushing political revolution toward social revolution and ensuring that the construction of the new type of state power truly serves the cause of human liberation. Later, in works such as the *Manifesto of the Communist Party*, Marx and Engels further explored the mission and tasks of the proletariat, analyzed the historical inevitability of communism replacing capitalism, and put forward the proposition of the dictatorship of the proletariat as a new type of state, emphasizing that the dictatorship of the proletariat is the political form through which the proletariat achieves its own liberation and ultimately the liberation of all humanity. In particular, in the *Critique of the Gotha Programme* [n15], Marx systematically analyzed the social form after the proletariat seizes state power and the three stages of the evolution of the modern state: first, the period of the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat, the transitional period from capitalist society to the first stage of communist society, in which “the state of this period can only be the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat”; second, the first stage or initial stage of communist society, in which the state is in the process of withering away; although it still retains the form of the state, it has already lost the political attribute of the state, and “can be called a non-political state”; third, the advanced stage of communist society, in which the state has completely withered away and the free and all-round development of the human person is truly realized. For these three stages of “state” and “state system,” Marx discussed them all in the *Critique of the Gotha Programme*, elucidating the basic features of the non-capitalist form of the state.

第四，无产阶级为了实现自身解放并最终解放全人类，必须在革命中“首先夺取政权”，建立无产阶级的新型国家政权。马克思在《德法年鉴》时期揭示资产阶级宣扬的所谓“政治解放”同人的解放的本质区别，指出依靠资本主义现代国家并不足以真正地实现人的解放，初步探讨了无产阶级在社会革命中废除私有制、实现人的解放的历史使命。在《形态》中，马克思恩格斯探讨无产阶级肩负的使命任务时指出，“那些使一定的生产力能够得到利用的条件，是社会的一定阶级实行统治的条件，这个阶级的由其财产状况产生的社会权力，每一次都在相应的国家形式中获得实践的观念的表现，因此一切革命斗争都是针对在此以前实行统治的阶级的”。“每一个力图取得统治的阶级，即使它的统治要求消灭整个旧的社会形式和一切统治，就像无产阶级那样，都必须首先夺取政权，以便把自己的利益又说成是普遍的利益，而这是它在初期不得不如此做的。”在他们看来，彻底消灭国家、消灭私有制不是一蹴而就的，无产阶级为了实现自身解放并最终解放全人类，就必须在革命中推翻资产阶级政权，将国家政权牢牢掌握在自己手中。无产阶级之所以必须首先夺取政权，还因为：“各个人所追求的仅仅是自己的特殊的、对他们来说是同他们的共同利益不相符合的利益，所以他们认为，这种共同利益是‘异己的’和‘不依赖’于他们的，即仍旧是一种特殊的独特的‘普遍’利益，或者说，他们本身必须在这种不一致的状况下活动，就像在民主制中一样。另一方面，这些始终真正地同共同利益和虚幻的共同利益相对抗的特殊利益所进行的实际斗争，使得通过国家这种虚幻的‘普遍’利益来进行实际的干涉和约束成为必要。”在夺取国家政权之后，无产阶级及其政党将不再是在特定范围内、特定人群中按照另外的方式重新分配劳动，而是将“消灭劳动，并消灭任何阶级的统治以及这些阶级本身”作为目的，推动政治革命向社会革命发展，确保新型国家政权建设真正地服务于人的解放事业。后来，马克思恩格斯在《共产党宣言》等论著中进一步探讨无产阶级的使命任务，分析共产主义替代资本主义的历史必然性，提出无产阶级专政的新型国家命题，强调无产阶级专政是无产阶级实现自身解放并最终解放全人类的政治形式。特别是在《哥达纲领批判》中，马克思系统分析了无产阶级夺取国家政权后的社会形态及现代国家演进的三个阶段：一是无产阶级的革命专政时期，是从资本主义社会到共产主义社会第一阶段的过渡时期，“这个时期的国家只能是无产阶级的革命专政”；二是共产主义社会第一阶段或初级阶段，这个时期的国家正在走向消亡，它虽然还保留着国家的形式，但是已经失去国家的政治属性，“可以叫做非政治国家”；三是共产主义社会高级阶段，国家在这一时期已经完全消亡，人的自由全面发展得以真正地实现。对于这三个阶段的“国家”“国家制度”，马克思在《哥达纲领批判》中都进行了探讨，阐明了非资本主义国家形式的基本特征。

III. The Contemporary Value of the View of the Modern State in *The German Ideology* and Its Philosophical Foundation

三、《德意志意识形态》中的现代国家观及其哲学奠基的当代价值

One hundred and eighty years have passed since Marx and Engels wrote *The German Ideology*, and human society has undergone earth-shaking changes. Many new situations, new problems, and new challenges have continuously emerged. In particular, the construction practice of socialist countries, with China as the main representative, has further expanded the connotation and extension of the modern state. Does this mean that Marx’s theory of the modern state is already obsolete? Historically viewed, the present era is one in which the two systems of capitalism and socialism coexist and compete. “From the grand perspective of 500 years of world socialism, we are still in the historical era indicated by Marxism.” The basic views of Marx and Engels on the question of the modern state, as expressed in *The German Ideology* and other works, still possess powerful vitality and explanatory power.

从马克思恩格斯撰写《形态》至今已经180年，人类社会发生了翻天覆地的变化，诸多新情况、新问题、新挑战不断涌现，特别是以中国为主要代表的社会主义国家的建设实践进一步拓展了现代国家的内涵和外延。那么，这是否意味着马克思现代国家学说已经过时？历史地看，当今时代资本主义和社会主义两种制度相并存、相竞争。“从世界社会主义500年的大视野来看，我们依然处在马克思主义所指明的历史时代”，马克思恩格斯在《形态》等论著中关于现代国家问题的基本观点仍然具有强大的生命力和解释力。

First, Marx’s theory of the modern state is a scientific, popular, practical, developing, and open theory, a powerful intellectual weapon for dialectically analyzing new problems of the modern state and better upholding and developing socialism with Chinese characteristics. Since its birth, Marx’s theory of the modern state has attracted great attention and also been highly controversial; some bourgeois theoreticians have even distorted and slandered his views with erroneous arguments such as “contemporary obsolescence.” [n16] Overall, criticizing the capitalist modern state, constructing a new type of state under the dictatorship of the proletariat, and better realizing the complete emancipation of people with the proletariat as the subject are the fundamental themes of Marx’s theory of the modern state. A scientific understanding of Marx’s theory of the modern state requires closely adhering to this fundamental theme and deeply grasping the theoretical characteristics contained within it. In *The German Ideology*, Marx grounded the study of modern state problems in actual material production activities and the economic and class relations formed therein, insisting on the integration of theory and practice, completely overturning the previous tradition of abstract speculation, and achieving a revolution in the research paradigm and a revolution in terminology for the study of modern state problems. In the historical materialist analysis of modern state problems, he put forward the proposition that the proletariat must “first seize political power.” On this basis, in works such as the *Communist Manifesto* (co-authored with Engels) and *The Class Struggles in France, 1848 to 1850*, Marx further proposed and explored categories such as the dictatorship of the proletariat. In works such as *The Civil War in France* and the *Critique of the Gotha Programme*, he clarified the historical orientation, construction principles, organizational forms, and significance for realizing human emancipation of the new type of state under the dictatorship of the proletariat. This both revealed the objective law that the capitalist modern state would ultimately be replaced by the “association of free individuals,” i.e., communist society, and scientifically answered the practical question of what form of community the proletariat and its party should rely on to terminate and transcend the capitalist modern state and better realize human emancipation, pointing the way to solving the problem of the modern state and truly achieving the free and all-round development of the individual. In short, the construction process of Marx’s theory of the modern state takes historical materialism as its scientific worldview and methodology, and the emancipation of people with the proletariat as the subject as its theoretical and practical theme. It embodies theoretical characteristics of the unity of critique and construction, the unity of theory and practice, and the unity of the diachronic and the synchronic. Facing the crisis of social institutions and the crisis of the meaning system since modern times, Chinese Communists have continuously promoted the integration of the basic principles of Marxism with China’s specific realities, forging a path of modern state construction suited to China’s national conditions, achieving national independence and people’s liberation. Especially since the founding of New China, Chinese Communists have creatively applied and developed Marx’s theory of the state, “establishing in the ancient Eastern great power a new type of state system that guarantees the people’s role as masters of the country, making the system of socialism with Chinese characteristics a system with marked superiority and strong vitality.” This has provided a strong institutional guarantee for China’s two miracles of rapid economic development and long-term social stability, and provided solid institutional support for building a moderately prosperous society in all respects. Although the world today faces many new situations, new problems, and new challenges, and the complexity of the developmental forms of the modern state is unprecedented, this has not weakened the explanatory power of Marx’s theory of the modern state. For example, regarding prominent problems in contemporary capitalist societies such as the gap between rich and poor, political polarization, the paradox of democracy, and governance deficits, Marx and Engels, in their critique of the capitalist modern state and its institutional forms, had already revealed the roots of these problems and conceived of solutions for them. The view of the modern state expounded by Marx and Engels in *The German Ideology* and other works can provide a theoretical basis, value principles, and methodological guidance for us to continue to perfect and develop the system of socialism with Chinese characteristics, and can also contribute intellectual wisdom to Western societies for dissolving the systemic crisis of capitalism.

第一，马克思现代国家学说是科学的、人民的、实践的、发展的、开放的理论，是辩证分析现代国家新问题、更好地坚持和发展中国特色社会主义的有力思想武器。马克思的现代国家学说自诞生以来就受到高度关注，同时也备受争议，一些资产阶级理论家甚至以“当代过时论”等错误论调歪曲、抹黑其观点。整体说来，批判资本主义现代国家、建构无产阶级专政的新型国家，更好地实现以无产阶级为主体的人的彻底解放，是马克思现代国家学说的根本主题。科学认识马克思现代国家学说需要紧扣这一根本主题，深刻把握其中蕴含的理论特质。在《形态》中，马克思将现代国家问题研究奠基于现实的物质生产活动以及从中形成的经济关系、阶级关系，坚持理论与实践相结合，彻底推翻先前的抽象思辨传统，实现现代国家问题研究范式的革命、术语的革命，并在现代国家问题的历史唯物主义分析中提出了无产阶级“首先夺取政权”的命题。在此基础上，马克思在《共产党宣言》（与恩格斯合著）、《1848年至1850年的法兰西阶级斗争》等论著中进一步提出并探讨无产阶级专政等范畴，在《法兰西内战》《哥达纲领批判》等论著中阐明了无产阶级专政新型国家的历史方位、建构原则、组织形态及其对于实现人的解放的重要意义，既揭示资本主义现代国家终将被“自由人联合体”即共产主义社会替代的客观规律，又科学回答了无产阶级及其政党依靠什么样的共同体形式终结和超越资本主义现代国家、更好实现人的解放的实践课题，为解决现代国家问题、真正地实现人的自由全面发展指明了方向。质言之，马克思现代国家学说的建构过程，是以唯物史观为科学的世界观和方法论，以实现无产阶级为主体的人的解放为理论主题和实践主题，蕴含着批判性与建构性相统一、理论性与实践性相统一、历时性与共时性相统一的理论特征。面对近代以来的社会建制危机和意义系统危机，中国共产党人不断推进马克思主义基本原理同中国具体实际相结合，走出了一条符合中国国情的现代国家建构道路，实现了民族独立、人民解放。特别是新中国成立以来，中国共产党人创造性地运用和发展马克思主义国家学说，“在古老的东方大国建立起保证亿万人民当家作主的新型国家制度，使中国特色社会主义制度成为具有显著优越性和强大生命力的制度”，为我国创造出经济快速发展、社会长期稳定两大奇迹提供了坚强制度保障，为全面建成小康社会提供了有力制度支撑。虽然当今世界面临诸多新情况、新问题、新挑战，现代国家发展形态的复杂程度前所未有，但是这并没有削弱马克思现代国家学说的解释力。比如，对于当代资本主义社会出现的贫富分化、政治极化、民主悖论、治理赤字等突出问题，马克思恩格斯在批判资本主义现代国家及其制度形式时便已经揭示出问题的根源，并对其解决方案进行了构想。马克思恩格斯在《形态》等论著中阐释的现代国家观，既能够为我们继续完善和发展中国特色社会主义制度提供理论基础、价值原则和方法导向，也能够为西方社会消解资本主义系统性危机贡献思想智慧。

Second, the form of the modern state is diverse, and the study of modern state problems must adhere to a historical viewpoint, a developmental perspective, and a dialectical attitude. As Lenin pointed out in *On the State*, “The problem of the state is one of the most complex and difficult to clarify, and it could be said to be the problem most confused by bourgeois scholars, writers, and philosophers.” In recent years, there have been some erroneous arguments at home and abroad that distort and slander China’s path and China’s system. The main reason is the failure to accurately grasp the historicity and diversity of modern state forms, and the failure to recognize the critical and transcendent nature of socialism over capitalism. Historically, the modern state did indeed first appear in the form of the capitalist modern state, and Marx and Engels mainly analyzed the problems of the modern state in this historical context. For instance, in the *Communist Manifesto*, they pointed out that “the modern state authority is merely a committee for managing the common affairs of the entire bourgeoisie.” However, in the process of criticizing the capitalist modern state, they put forward the proposition of a new type of state under the dictatorship of the proletariat, i.e., “the proletariat organized as the ruling class,” emphasizing that the modern state “varies with the country,” endowing the category of the modern state with an entirely new theoretical context and connotation and denotation. In contrast to modern Western political thinkers, who often only discussed the forms of government organization and state structure of the state, having theories of the form of government but no theory of the form of the state, Marx and Engels, based on historical materialism and dialectical materialism, scientifically revealed the economic base and class nature of the modern state, clarifying its historicity, class character, and diversity. For Marx and Engels, according to the economic base and class relations, the modern state can be divided into two basic types: the capitalist modern state and the new socialist type of state under the dictatorship of the proletariat. Among them, the new socialist type of state under the dictatorship of the proletariat, as a transcendent form of the capitalist modern state, is a new type of modern state form in the period when capitalism has been transcended but the state has not yet completely withered away. It takes the overthrow of bourgeois state power by the proletariat and its party, and the complete smashing of the traditional state machine as an instrument of class rule, as its political precondition. It implements a socialist public ownership system as its main economic base, replaces the logic of capital with the logic of the people, and is the political form for the proletariat to realize its own emancipation and ultimately the emancipation of the individual, possessing institutional advantages that the capitalist modern state cannot match. Engels emphasized, “Where history begins, the train of thought must also begin, and its further development is merely the reflection of the historical process in an abstract, theoretically consistent form; this reflection is corrected, but corrected according to the laws of the actual historical process itself.” The British scholar Christopher Pierson argues, “States in reality always belong to a particular historical stage and exist somewhere in the world… Only by placing them in their historical context can we correctly understand modern states.” Today, the two systems of capitalism and socialism coexist and compete in the world. The system of socialism with Chinese characteristics still belongs to the modern state system, but it is no longer a modern state system in the traditional sense, i.e., the capitalist modern state system. Nor is it a simple application of the “template” envisioned by classical Marxist writers in works such as the *Communist Manifesto*, the *Critique of the Gotha Programme*, and *The State and Revolution*. Rather, it is a great achievement of Chinese Communists in creatively applying and developing Marx’s theory of the state. It both adheres to the basic principles of Marx’s theory of the state and integrates them with China’s specific realities and with China’s fine traditional culture, “connecting the interface of the soul’s pulse and the root’s pulse.” It is the Chinese form and contemporary form of the new socialist type of state system under the dictatorship of the proletariat. In this regard, we must see both its critical and transcendent nature over China’s traditional political system and the capitalist state system as a socialist state system, and its inheritance of and innovation over previous models of the socialist system as a system of socialism with Chinese characteristics.

第二，现代国家形态具有多样性，关于现代国家问题的研究要坚持历史的观点、发展的视角、辩证的态度。正如列宁在《论国家》中指出的，“国家问题是一个最复杂最难弄清的问题，也可说是一个被资产阶级的学者、作家和哲学家弄得最混乱的问题”。近些年来，国内外存在一些歪曲和抹黑中国道路和中国制度的错误论调，主要原因是没有准确把握现代国家形态的历史性和多样性，没有认清社会主义对资本主义的批判性和超越性。从历史上看，现代国家的确是以资本主义现代国家形态问世的，马克思恩格斯也主要是在这一历史语境下分析现代国家问题的。比如，他们在《共产党宣言》中指出，“现代的国家政权不过是管理整个资产阶级的共同事务的委员会罢了”。但是，他们在批判资本主义现代国家的过程中提出无产阶级专政的新型国家命题，即“组织成为统治阶级的无产阶级”，强调现代国家“随国境而异”，赋予现代国家范畴全新的理论语境和内涵外延。与近代西方政治思想家往往只探讨国家的政权组织形式和国家结构形式、有政体学说而无国体学说相区别，马克思恩格斯基于唯物史观和唯物辩证法，科学揭示了现代国家的经济基础和阶级属性，阐明了现代国家的历史性、阶级性和多样性。在马克思恩格斯这里，根据经济基础和阶级关系，可以将现代国家分为资本主义现代国家和无产阶级专政的社会主义新型国家两种基本类型。其中，无产阶级专政的社会主义新型国家作为资本主义现代国家的超越形式，是超越了资本主义现代国家但国家又没有完全消亡时期的新型现代国家形态，以无产阶级及其政党推翻资产阶级政权、彻底打碎作为阶级统治工具的传统国家机器为政治前提，实行社会主义公有制为主体的经济基础，以人民逻辑取代资本逻辑，是无产阶级实现自身解放并最终实现人的解放的政治形式，有着资本主义现代国家无法比拟的制度优势。恩格斯强调，“历史从哪里开始，思想进程也应当从哪里开始，而思想进程的进一步发展不过是历史过程在抽象的、理论上前后一贯的形式上的反映；这种反映是经过修正的，然而是按照现实的历史过程本身的规律修正的”。英国学者克里斯多夫·皮尔逊认为，“现实中的国家总是归属于某一历史阶段，而且存在于世界的某个地方……只有放在历史的环境中，我们才能正确理解现代国家”。当今世界资本主义和社会主义两种制度相并存、相竞争，中国特色社会主义制度仍然属于现代国家制度，但是它不再是传统意义上的现代国家制度，即资本主义现代国家制度，也不是简单地套用马克思主义经典作家在《共产党宣言》《哥达纲领批判》《国家与革命》等论著中设想的“模板”，而是中国共产党人创造性地运用和发展马克思主义国家学说的伟大成果，既坚持了马克思主义国家学说的基本原理，又将其同中国具体实际相结合、同中华优秀传统文化相结合，“打通魂脉与根脉的接口”，是无产阶级专政的社会主义新型国家制度的中国形态、当代形态。对此，我们既要看到它作为社会主义国家制度对我国传统政治制度、资本主义国家制度的批判性和超越性，也要看到它作为中国特色社会主义制度对先前社会主义制度模式的继承性和创新性。

Third, the socialist system develops dynamically; in the ongoing process of modernizing the national governance system and governance capacity, major practical problems concerning social fairness and justice must be resolved, so that the advantages of the system can be better transformed into governance effectiveness. Marx and Engels emphasized that the general principles set forth in the *Communist Manifesto* must “everywhere and at all times be applied in accordance with the historical conditions then obtaining,”[n] and therefore their basic views on criticizing the capitalist modern state and establishing a new type of state under the dictatorship of the proletariat are not immutable dogmas, but must always be applied creatively as social-historical conditions evolve and in light of the different historical and cultural traditions of each country. At the same time, historical materialism stresses that the economic base determines the superstructure; the construction of a new type of socialist state under the dictatorship of the proletariat is a long historical process, and the perfection of institutions is also a dynamic historical process that will inevitably be enriched and developed as practice innovates and understanding deepens. The institutional advantages of socialism with Chinese characteristics also need to be further transformed into national governance effectiveness in the great social revolution. Facing the overall goal of further deepening reform comprehensively, it is necessary to take as one’s standpoint the historical position and the epochal tasks of socialism with Chinese characteristics in the New Era, and to continue to apply and develop Marxist state theory creatively. In the great practice of advancing the cause of building a strong country and national rejuvenation through Chinese-path modernization, one must actively construct and develop the Chinese form and the contemporary form of the new type of socialist state under the dictatorship of the proletariat. In this regard, taking as one’s guide the scientific worldview, methodology, and values with which Marx carried out a paradigm revolution in the study of the modern state and constructed a systematized modern state theory, the following three tasks must be properly carried out. First, accurately grasp the basic view of Marx and Engels that the new type of socialist state under the dictatorship of the proletariat will end and transcend the capitalist modern state and better realize the liberation of human beings with the proletariat as the subject; always maintain firm the Four Confidences;[n] actively respond to, resist, and criticize the various erroneous arguments at home and abroad that distort and slander the socialist system; hold fast to the “root” and “soul” of the socialist system with Chinese characteristics; grasp the fundamental political precondition and institutional basis for further comprehensively deepening reform; and “insist on the overall leadership of the Party, insist on Marxism, insist on the path of socialism with Chinese characteristics, insist on the people’s democratic dictatorship, and never allow these fundamental things to be shaken.”[n] Second, combine a problem-oriented approach with a goal-oriented approach; scientifically understand and analyze, with a historical, dialectical, and developmental attitude, the shortcomings and weaknesses in China’s current institutional arrangements and institutional practices; in further comprehensively deepening reform, consolidate the fundamental institutions, perfect the basic institutions, and innovate the important institutions; use institutional and mechanistic innovation to promote better adaptation between the relations of production and the productive forces, between the superstructure and the economic base, and between national governance and social development. Third, adhere to the fundamental theme and value position of Marx’s modern state theory; insist on a people-centered approach; take the promotion of social fairness and justice and the enhancement of the people’s welfare as the starting point and the ultimate goal of modernizing the national governance system and governance capacity; properly handle the relationship between efficiency and fairness; and use institutional innovation and institutional and mechanistic innovation to better safeguard the people’s rights and interests.

第三，社会主义制度是动态发展的，要在继续推进国家治理体系和治理能力现代化的过程中解决好关于社会公平正义的重大现实问题，使制度优势更好地转化为治理效能。马克思恩格斯强调，《共产党宣言》中所阐述的一般原理“随时随地都要以当时的历史条件为转移”，因此他们批判资本主义现代国家、建立无产阶级专政的新型国家的基本观点也不是一成不变的教条，而是始终需要随着社会历史条件的发展变化和各国不同的历史文化传统进行创造性运用。同时，唯物史观强调经济基础决定上层建筑，无产阶级专政的社会主义新型国家建设是一个漫长的历史过程，制度的完善也是一个动态发展的历史过程，必将随着实践创新、认识深化而不断丰富发展，中国特色社会主义的制度优势也需要在伟大社会革命中进一步转化为国家治理效能。面对进一步全面深化改革的总目标，要立足新时代新征程中国特色社会主义的历史方位和时代课题，继续创造性地运用和发展马克思主义国家学说，在以中国式现代化全面推进强国建设、民族复兴伟业的伟大实践中，积极构建和发展无产阶级专政的社会主义新型国家的中国形态、当代形态。对此，要以马克思实现现代国家问题研究范式革命、建构体系化现代国家学说的科学世界观、方法论和价值观为指引，切实做好以下三方面工作。其一，准确把握马克思恩格斯关于依靠无产阶级专政的社会主义新型国家终结和超越资本主义现代国家、更好实现以无产阶级为主体的人的解放的基本观点，始终坚定“四个自信”，积极回应、抵制、批判国内外各种歪曲、抹黑社会主义制度的错误论调，坚守中国特色社会主义制度的“根”和“魂”，把握进一步全面深化改革的根本政治前提和制度基础，“坚持党的全面领导、坚持马克思主义、坚持中国特色社会主义道路、坚持人民民主专政等根本的东西绝对不能动摇”。其二，坚持问题导向和目标导向相结合，以历史的、辩证的、发展的态度科学认识和分析当前中国制度安排、制度实践中的短板和弱项，在进一步全面深化改革中筑牢根本制度、完善基本制度、创新重要制度，以体制机制创新推动生产关系和生产力、上层建筑和经济基础、国家治理和社会发展更好相适应。其三，坚守马克思现代国家学说的根本主题和价值立场，坚持以人民为中心，以促进社会公平正义、增进人民福祉为国家治理体系和治理能力现代化的出发点和落脚点，妥善处理效率与公平的关系，以制度创新、体制机制创新更好地保障人民权益。