Two Paths to Unraveling the Mystery of Abstract Domination

Transcending the abstract domination of capital is the epochal theme of modern philosophy. On the basis of criticizing Hegel’s alienation of absolute spirit and its logic of reconciliation, Marx carried out a revolutionary exploration of the path of the emergence and extinction of abstract domination, producing major theoretical and practical effects. However, after World War II, capitalist countries experienced a Hegelian revival whose momentum has not yet waned, manifested concretely in the following: first, with the establishment of the welfare state and democratic constitutional government, capitalist countries seem to have moved toward Hegel’s ethical state; the state no longer appears as an instrument of class rule but as a guarantor of democracy and freedom, and the revolutionary discourse of class exploitation in Marx’s theory seems to have lost its efficacy. Theoretically, this is expressed in the decline of the revolutionary discourse of the critique of abstract domination, which since Lukács had been grounded in constructing a revolutionary subject. Second, with the transition from industrial capital to financial capital, the logic of capital presents itself as the movement of the absolute spirit in which the concept creates the world. Theoretically, this is expressed in the rise of the “new dialectics” school, which uses Hegel’s logic to analyze the abstract domination of capital; Marx’s historical-dialectical method is stamped with the Hegelian brand, losing its originality and actuality. Third, with the arrival of the consumer society, the abstract domination of capitalist society no longer appears as external institutional oppression but is internalized in every aspect of daily life through pervasive means such as culture and consumption. Theoretically, this is expressed in the late-capitalist cultural critique represented by Jameson, which twists Marx’s theoretical stance of critiquing abstract domination through economic structure into a critique of culture and ideology. From the above, it can be seen that weakening or even abandoning the revolutionary and actuality-oriented stance of Marx’s critical theory is a common theoretical ailment in current Western academic research on the problem of abstract domination. The root crux lies in failing to properly consider the role of Hegel in Marx’s critical methodology of abstract domination, thereby blurring the boundary between Marx’s and Hegel’s methods. Therefore, fully excavating the rich connotations of Marx’s methodology, restoring the authentic thought of Marx’s critique of abstract domination, de-Hegelianizing Marx’s method, and thereby highlighting the originality and epochal character of Marx’s thought is undoubtedly the most urgent epochal task of contemporary Marxist philosophical research. Excavating and elucidating the analytical method of the formative history and modern history of capital that Marx generated in his polemic with Hegel over the problem of abstract domination constitutes the key link in tackling this epochal task.

超越资本的抽象统治是现代哲学的时代主题，在批判黑格尔绝对精神异化与和解逻辑的基础上，马克思对抽象统治的生成和消亡路径进行了革命性的探索，并产生了重大的理论和实践效应。然而二战后资本主义国家却经历了一场黑格尔复兴，其势头至今未衰，具体表现为：其一，随着福利国家和民主宪政的确立，资本主义国家仿佛迈向了黑格尔伦理国家，国家似乎不再是阶级统治的工具而是民主和自由的保障，马克思理论中阶级剥削的革命话语似乎失效，这在理论上表现为自卢卡奇以来以建构革命主体为立足点的抽象统治批判理论革命话语的式微；其二，随着产业资本向金融资本的过渡，资本逻辑呈现为概念创造世界的绝对精神运动过程，这在理论上表现为借助黑格尔的逻辑学分析资本抽象统治的“新辩证法”学派的兴起，马克思的历史性辩证方法被打上了黑格尔烙印丧失了独创性和现实性；其三，随着消费社会的到来，资本主义社会的抽象统治不再表现为外在的体制压迫，而是以文化和消费等无孔不入的方式内化在日常生活的方方面面，这在理论上表现为以詹姆逊为代表的晚期资本主义文化批判理论将马克思对抽象统治所采取的经济结构批判的理论立场扭转为文化和意识形态批判。由上可见，弱化甚至是抛弃马克思批判理论的革命性和现实性立场是当前西方学界在研究抽象统治问题时的理论通病，未合理考量黑格尔在马克思抽象统治批判方法论中的作用，进而模糊马克思与黑格尔方法论的界限是根本症结所在。因此，充分挖掘马克思方法论的丰富内涵，还原马克思抽象统治批判理论的本真思想，实现马克思方法论的去黑格尔化，进而彰显马克思思想的独创性和时代性，无疑是当代马克思哲学研究最紧要的时代课题。发掘和阐释马克思同黑格尔就抽象统治问题论战时所生发的资本的形成史和现代史的分析方法构成攻克这一时代课题的关键环节。

I. The Basic Logic of Hegel’s Analysis of Abstract Domination and Its Reconciliation

一、黑格尔分析抽象统治和解逻辑的基本理路

The replacement of personal dependence relations by monetary exchange as the form of domination over individuals is the fundamental characteristic of modern society. Hegel was the first to summarize this philosophically as abstract domination. Based on the full development of his thought, it can be seen that Hegel’s analysis of the problem of abstract domination underwent two continuous processes: from the analysis of phenomena to the analysis of essence.

货币交换取代人身依附关系对个人的统治是现代社会的根本特征，黑格尔首次从哲学视角将其概括为抽象统治。立足于思想发展全过程可以看出，黑格尔对抽象统治问题的分析经历了从现象分析到本质分析的两个连续性过程。

In the period of the “Jena manuscripts,” while analyzing the ancient-modern transformation of labor, Hegel discovered the problem of the abstraction of labor in the monetary exchange relations of modern civil society. In traditional society since ancient Greece, mediated by skill, the individual’s labor for subsistence was directly the expression of his universal life. However, in modern society, the meaning of labor was completely overturned: universal labor lost its function of expressing life and was directly reduced to labor for subsistence. The reason lies in money replacing skill as the mediator of the transformation of individual labor into universal labor. On the one hand, the monetary exchange relation imposes on modern society a form of domination through the reification of value abstraction. From the perspective of the mode of production of modern society, social production aimed at value presupposes a developed social division of labor, and the individual labor of the producer becomes part of the social division of labor. From the perspective of the mode of exchange of modern society, in monetary exchange the social relations between people are inverted into value relations between things. On the other hand, the monetary exchange relation imposes on modern individuals a form of domination through alienation, concretely expressed in the modern machine system of division of labor, which dismembers the individual into parts of production, and in monetary exchange, which severs the natural connection between the individual and the community in traditional society. This phenomenon of alienation makes modern civil society present itself as abstract domination.

在“耶拿手稿”时期，黑格尔在分析劳动的古今演变时，发现了现代市民社会的货币交换关系对劳动的抽象问题。在自古希腊以来的传统社会中，以技能为中介，个体的谋生劳动直接就是其普遍性的生命表现。然而到了现代社会，劳动的意义发生了彻底的翻转，普遍劳动丧失了其生命表现的功能，直接沦为谋生劳动，究其原因在于货币取代技能成为个体劳动向普遍劳动转化的中介。一方面，货币交换关系对现代社会采取价值抽象物化的统治形式。从现代社会的生产方式来看，以价值为目的的社会生产以发达的社会分工为前提，生产者个体劳动成为社会分工体系的一部分，从现代社会的交换方式来看，在货币交换中人与人的社会关系颠倒为物和物之间的价值关系。另一方面，货币交换关系对现代个体采取异化的统治形式，具体表现为现代机器分工体系把个体肢解为生产的零部件，货币交换切断了传统社会中个体与共同体的天然联系，这种异化现象使现代市民社会呈现为抽象的统治。

After analyzing the phenomenal forms of abstract domination at the social and individual levels, the task of the *Philosophy of Right* is to reveal the historical roots behind the phenomenal manifestations. Based on an idealist methodology of the identity of concept and reality, Hegel abandoned the materialist standpoint starting from monetary exchange and the division of labor and turned to analyzing the concrete path of the emergence, development, and extinction of abstract domination from the perspective of the alienation of absolute spirit. From the perspective of the formative history of abstract domination, Hegel, taking the historical changes of absolute spirit as his thread, discussed the history of human society, tracing the root of abstract domination in modern society to the impact of the principle of subjectivity on ethical universality and the consequent split between universality and particularity, and between community and individual, thereby tracing abstract domination in modern society back to the dissolution of the ethical community of ancient Greece. From the perspective of the developmental history of abstract domination, Hegel, standing on the ground of the modern world, fully affirmed the progressive historical significance brought by the abstract domination of civil society: although the modern machine system of division of labor reduces the individual to a tool, it greatly increases productivity; while the monetary exchange system severs the blood ties between the individual and the community, it also shapes the modern ethics of freedom and equality. From the perspective of the extinction history of abstract domination, Hegel pointed out that although civil society as a system of needs destroys ethical universality and makes abstract domination a reality, it itself contains ethical moments represented by the police and the corporations [n1], and thus can be incorporated into the ethical system to overcome the abstract domination brought by the alienation of ethical substance, thereby achieving the reconciliation of universality and particularity, and of community and individual.

在分析了抽象统治在社会层面和个体层面的现象表现形式之后，《法哲学原理》的任务是揭示现象表现背后的历史根源。基于观念和现实同一的唯心主义方法论，黑格尔放弃了从货币交换和劳动分工出发的唯物主义立场，转向从绝对精神异化视角出发分析抽象统治产生、发展和消亡的具体路径。从抽象统治的产生史来看，黑格尔以绝对精神的历史变迁为线索论述了人类社会的历史，把现代社会抽象统治的根源归结为主体性原则对伦理普遍性的冲击，以及由此带来的普遍性与特殊性、共同体与个体的分裂，进而将现代社会的抽象统治溯源至古希腊伦理共同体的解体；从抽象统治的发展史来看，黑格尔站在现代世界的立场上充分肯定了市民社会抽象统治所带来的历史进步意义，现代机器分工体系虽然使个体沦为工具但极大地提高了生产率，货币交换体系在割断个体与共同体血缘联系的同时，又塑造了自由和平等的现代伦理；从抽象统治消亡史来看，黑格尔指出，虽然作为需要体系的市民社会破坏了伦理普遍性并使抽象统治成为现实，但其自身包含以警察和同业公会为代表的伦理环节，因而可以被纳入伦理体系当中克服由伦理实体的异化所带来的抽象统治，进而实现普遍性和特殊性、共同体和个体的和解。

II. Marx’s Methodological Critique of Hegel’s Logic of Reconciliation

二、马克思对黑格尔和解逻辑的方法论批判

Hegel’s idealist methodology equates the conceptual object with the real object, leveling the specific social contradictions behind the concept, and achieves the reconciliation of social contradictions through the logical unfolding process of categories from the abstract to the concrete. The idealism of the methodology prevents Hegel from thoroughly resolving the problem of abstract domination in modern society. In view of this, before analyzing abstract domination, Marx, taking the critique of Hegel’s identity of concept and reality as his entry point, transforms the idealist character of his methodology, thereby drawing a clear line of demarcation from the idealist application of Hegel’s method from the abstract to the concrete.

黑格尔的唯心主义方法论把观念对象等同于现实对象，敉平了观念背后特定的社会矛盾，通过范畴从抽象到具体的逻辑展开过程实现社会矛盾的和解。方法论的唯心主义致使黑格尔无法彻底解决现代社会的抽象统治问题。有鉴于此，马克思在分析抽象统治之前，就以批判黑格尔观念和现实的同一性为切入点，改造其方法论的唯心主义性质，进而与黑格尔从抽象到具体方法论的唯心主义应用彻底划清界限。

In Hegel’s idealist methodology, categories possess an independence detached from specific social structures; the logical process of the evolution of categories is the process of the development of actual history. In Marx’s view, the existence of categories must presuppose a specific social structure. According to the relationship between categories and specific social structures, Marx divides categories into “specific historical existences” and “pre-antediluvian existences” [n2]. The former means that the existence of a category must presuppose a specific socio-historical structure; the latter means that the category exists prior in time to a specific social structure—for example, capital and money, which existed before the emergence of capitalist society. In Marx’s view, the historical priority of categories as pre-antediluvian existences is obtained by retrospection from the standpoint of their specific historical existence. But in Hegel’s methodology, categories are treated as moments in the dialectical development of absolute spirit; the pre-antediluvian existence of categories is independent of specific socio-historical structures, and the concrete of thought as a category is opportunistically taken as the concrete of reality with independence. The process of historical development is thus seen as a smooth logical transition from the abstract to the concrete of thought categories detached from reality.

在黑格尔唯心主义方法论中范畴具有脱离特定社会结构的独立性，范畴的逻辑演变过程就是现实历史的发展过程。而在马克思看来，范畴的存在必须以特定的社会结构为前提，依据范畴与特定社会结构的关系，马克思把范畴划分为特定历史性存在和“洪水期前存在”，前者是指范畴的存在必须以特定的社会历史结构为前提，后者是指范畴在时间上先于特定社会结构的存在，例如在资本主义社会产生之前就存在的资本、货币。在马克思看来，范畴洪水期前的历史先在性是立足于范畴特定历史性存在从后思索得来的。但在黑格尔方法论中，范畴被视为绝对理念辩证发展的环节，范畴洪水期前存在脱离特定社会历史结构而独立，作为范畴的思维具体被趁机当成具有独立性的现实具体，历史的发展过程由此就被看作是脱离现实的思维范畴在逻辑上从抽象到具体的平滑过渡。

The critique of categories is the foundation for surpassing Hegel’s idealist methodology, and the historical-dialectical method of modern history and formative history constructed through demonstrating the relationship between categories and actual history directly announces the bankruptcy of Hegel’s idealist methodology. Marx’s critique of Hegel’s methodology does not negate the general movement form of the dialectic from the abstract to the concrete; rather, by distinguishing the different natures of formative history and modern history, he defines the method from the abstract to the concrete as the analytical method of formative history.

对范畴的批判是超越黑格尔唯心主义方法论的基础，而通过论证范畴与现实历史的关系所建构的现代史和形成史的历史性辩证方法，则直接宣告了黑格尔唯心主义方法论的破产。马克思对黑格尔方法论的批判并不是否定从抽象到具体的辩证法一般运动形式，而是通过对形成史和现代史不同性质的区分，把从抽象到具体的方法界定为形成史的分析方法。

The history of genesis comprises the various conditions and premises that precede the flood period of the categories. Although Marx employed a large number of historical examples to describe the history of the genesis of capital, the method of the history of genesis is not an empirical historical investigation; rather, it is a logical reconstruction based on a specific concrete reality, proceeding from retrospective reflection. Therefore, when one engages in retrospective reflection from the standpoint of capitalist society, the historical order of the categories is not a chronological order, still less a Proudhonian conceptual order, but rather the structural order of the categories within capitalist society. The modern history is an analysis of the specific historical existence of the categories. Since Marx’s object of study is capitalist society, modern history refers to the actual system of the mode of production dominated by capital, a system characterised by “subordinating all elements of society to itself, or creating out of society the organs it still lacks”.

形成史是范畴洪水期前的种种条件和前提。尽管马克思用了大量历史事例对资本的形成史进行描述，但是形成史的方法并不是实证意义上的历史学考察，而是立足于特定的现实具体从后思索下的逻辑重构，因此立足于资本主义社会从后思索时，范畴的历史次序不是时间次序更不是蒲鲁东式的观念次序，而是范畴在资本主义社会中的结构次序。现代史是对范畴的特定历史性存在的分析。由于马克思的研究对象是资本主义社会，所以现代史是指受资本统治的生产方式的实际体系，这个体系的特征是“使社会的一切要素从属于自己，或者把自己还缺乏的器官从社会中创造出来”。

In Marx’s historical-dialectical method, the following relationship exists between modern history and the history of genesis: First, the analysis of modern history is the premise for the analysis of the history of genesis. If one lacks an analysis of the modern history of capital, one will, like the classical political economists, ignore the essential difference between ancient merchant capital and modern capital, regard the modern forms of capital as existing in all social formations, and thereby treat capitalist society as an eternal existence. Second, the analysis of the history of genesis is the intermediary through which the analysis of modern history is actualised. For the synchronic structure of capital revealed by the analysis of modern history to function in reality, it must be mediated by the specific historical events revealed by the analysis of the history of genesis that led to the emergence of capital; these specific historical events break the independence of the synchronic structure. Third, the historical-dialectical method of the interaction between modern history and the history of genesis reveals the possibility of sublating capitalist society. From the standpoint of the history of genesis, looking forward from the past, history presents the transformation of social formations. From the standpoint of modern history, looking backward from the present, history presents the synchronic structure of the transformation of social formations, that is, the regular tendency toward the emergence of a new society. This historical dialectic, which is grounded in the present, looks back to the past, and looks forward to the future, reveals that capitalist society nurtures the premises for sublating itself and giving rise to a new society.

在马克思的历史性辩证方法中，现代史和形成史之间存在着如下的关系：第一，现代史分析是形成史分析的前提。如果缺失对资本现代史分析，就会像古典政治经济学家一样无视古代商人资本和现代资本的本质差别，认为现代资本诸形式存在于一切社会形态中，从而把资本主义社会视为永恒的存在。第二，形成史分析是现代史分析现实化的中介。现代史分析所揭示的资本共时性结构要在现实中发挥作用，必须以形成史分析所揭示的导致资本产生的特殊历史事件为中介，特殊历史事件打破了共时性结构的独立性。第三，现代史和形成史相互作用的历史性辩证方法揭示了扬弃资本主义社会的可能性。立足于形成史从前往后看的立场，历史呈现的是社会形态的变迁。而立足于现代史从后往前看的立场，历史呈现的是社会形态变迁的共时性结构，即新社会产生的规律性趋势。这种立足现在、回望过去、展望未来的历史性辩证法揭示了资本主义社会孕育着扬弃自身并产生新社会的前提。

III. The Historical Logic of Marx’s Analysis of Abstract Domination

三、马克思分析抽象统治的历史逻辑

Having completed his critique of Hegel’s logic of reconciliation and the idealist methodology behind it, Marx constructed a historical-dialectical method in which the history of formation and modern history interact, and applied this method to his analysis of abstract domination.

在完成对黑格尔和解逻辑及其背后唯心主义方法论的批判之后，马克思建构了形成史和现代史相互作用的历史性辩证方法，并将其运用到对抽象统治的分析之中。

In the analysis of modern history, the operational logic of abstract domination is a tripartite structure of real abstraction, personal abstraction and conceptual abstraction. Real abstraction refers to the peculiar mechanism of inverted social representation characteristic of capitalist society. Personal abstraction means that individuals are reduced to mere links in capital’s self-reproduction within this inverted mechanism of social representation: the capitalist becomes personified capital, while the worker, in both bodily constitution and consciousness, is turned into an organ of capital’s self-valorisation. Conceptual abstraction means that ideas become detached from specific relations of production and stand independently as a dominant social force. In capitalist society, economic-ideological notions such as freedom, equality and property rights function as eternal value ideals that underpin the psychological structure of society and the individual, thereby rendering the exploitation and oppression of capital more concealed.

在现代史分析中，抽象统治的运行逻辑是现实抽象、人格抽象和观念抽象的三位一体结构。现实抽象指的是资本主义社会特有的颠倒的社会表现机制。人格抽象是指个体在颠倒的社会表现机制中沦为资本再生产自身的环节，资本家表现为人格化的资本，工人则在身体构造和观念上都沦为资本自我增殖的器官。观念抽象是指观念脱离特定的生产关系而独立并成为统治性的社会力量，在资本主义社会，自由、平等和所有权等经济意识形态观念作为永恒的价值理想支撑着社会和个体心理结构，这使得资本的剥削和压迫变得更为隐蔽。

Because the essence of abstract domination in capitalist society is inverted representation, Marx’s analysis of the formation history of abstract domination does not take the form of theoretical reproduction but rather of narrative reconstruction. From the perspective of formation history, the most fundamental inversion in the history of capitalist development is the treatment of labour-power as a commodity, and this inversion itself presupposes the following historical conditions: first, the separation of the labourer from the means of production. Labourers deprived of the means of subsistence become wage-workers; the means of production are concentrated in the hands of a few and transformed into capital; modern individuals are divided into capitalists and wage-workers. From this historical condition of the separation of labourer and means of production, personal abstraction emerges. Second, the exchange of free labour with money. In the exchange between wage-worker and capitalist, the wage form — equal pay for equal labour — conceals the exploitation of the worker in the production process. Here conceptual abstraction, taking the form of freedom and equality, emerges. The free labour exchanged with capital is not concrete labour but abstract labour; the purpose of labour is not use-value but exchange-value; labour-power functions not as the worker’s expression of life but as a means of subsistence. From this historical condition of the exchange of free labour with money, the real abstraction of the inverted mechanism of social representation emerges. Thus the historical process by which labour-power becomes a commodity contains the entire secret of abstract domination.

由于资本主义社会抽象统治的本质是颠倒表现，所以马克思对抽象统治的形成史分析就不是采取理论再现的方式而是进行叙事性重构。在形成史视域下，资本主义发展史上发生的最根本的颠倒就是把劳动力当作商品，而这一颠倒又以以下历史条件为前提：其一，劳动者与生产资料相分离。失去生活资料的劳动者转变为雇佣工人，生产资料集中在少数人手中并转化为资本，现代个体被划分为资本家和雇佣工人，在劳动者与生产资料相分离这一历史条件中产生出人格抽象。其二，自由劳动与货币相交换。在雇佣工人和资本家的交换过程中，等量劳动获得等量报酬的工资形式掩盖着生产过程对工人的剥削，这里产生出以自由和平等为表现形式的观念抽象；与资本相交换的自由劳动不是具体劳动而是抽象劳动，劳动的目的不是使用价值而是交换价值，劳动力不是作为工人的生命表现而是作为谋生手段，自由劳动与货币相交换这一历史条件产生出颠倒的社会表现机制的现实抽象。由此劳动力成为商品的历史过程蕴藏着抽象统治的全部秘密。

In Marx’s historical logic, abstract domination appears, on the one hand, as a theoretical-structural existence — the tripartite unity of real abstraction, personal abstraction and conceptual abstraction — from the perspective of modern-history analysis, and, on the other hand, as a special-event existence — labour-power becoming a commodity — from the perspective of formation-history analysis. The synchronic structure revealed by modern-history analysis is merely the theoretical necessity of abstract domination. For abstract domination to become reality, it must be mediated by the special historical event — labour-power becoming a commodity — revealed by formation-history analysis. And it is precisely this event-character that provides the revolutionary opportunity for breaking the synchronic structure of abstract domination in practice. Following this logic, in Volume I of *Capital*, after completing his theoretical-structural analysis of the capitalist production process, Marx rests his argument on the revolution of re-establishing individual property; in Volume III of *Capital*, after completing his structural analysis of the total process of capitalist production, he explores the basis of class division from the perspective of property relations, seeking to identify the revolutionary subject and the revolutionary opportunity.

在马克思的历史逻辑中，抽象统治一方面呈现为现代史分析视野下现实抽象、人格抽象和观念抽象三位一体的理论结构性存在，另一方面呈现为形成史分析视野下劳动力成为商品的特殊事件性存在。现代史分析所揭示的共时性结构只是抽象统治在理论上的必然性，抽象统治要成为现实则必须以形成史分析所揭示的劳动力成为商品这一特殊历史事件为中介，而事件性的存在则为在实践中打破抽象统治的共时性结构提供了革命契机。依此逻辑，在《资本论》第一卷中，当马克思完成了对资本生产过程的理论结构分析之后，就将落脚点放在重建个人所有制的革命，在《资本论》第三卷中，当马克思完成了对资本主义生产总过程的结构性分析之后，就从所有制视角探讨阶级划分的依据，试图找寻革命主体和革命契机。

In the history of thought, Hegel was the first to reveal the abstract domination of monetary exchange relations over modern society. Yet his idealist methodology, which posits the identity of concept and reality, led him to abandon the materialist starting-point of money and labour. The real history of abstract domination was internalised as the self-alienation and reconciliation of absolute spirit, which completely dissolved the possibility of theory reaching reality. Marx seized on the fundamental crux of Hegel’s methodological idealism. Taking as his theoretical lever the transformation of the category — the foundation of the methodological system — he revealed the category’s specific historical existence and its existence prior to the flood period [3]3 “Prior to the flood period” (洪水期前) is a term Marx uses in the *Grundrisse* to refer to the pre-bourgeois historical conditions that precede the full development of the capitalist mode of production, analogous to the state of categories before they are subsumed under the dominant structure of capital., which differs from Hegel’s and remains open to generation with real history. On this basis, he constructed the historical-dialectical method of formation history and modern history — a method possessing theoretical originality and practical relevance. The former reveals the operational logic of abstract domination; the latter points to the revolutionary path for breaking the “transcendental structure” of abstract domination. In this way, Marx comprehensively surpassed the theoretical approach of Hegel’s logic of reconciliation and opened up a path of practical philosophy for the realisation of human free development.

在思想发展史上黑格尔首次揭示出货币交换关系对现代社会的抽象统治，然而概念和现实同一的唯心主义方法论使其放弃了从货币和劳动出发的唯物主义立场，抽象统治的现实历史被内化为绝对精神的自我异化与和解，这彻底消解了理论通向现实的可能性。马克思抓住了黑格尔方法论唯心主义的根本症结，以改造作为方法论体系基点的范畴为理论抓手，揭示出区别于黑格尔的、与现实历史保持开放性生成的范畴特定历史性存在和洪水期前存在，并以此出发建构了具有理论独创性和现实性的形成史和现代史的历史性辨证方法，前者揭示出抽象统治的运行逻辑，后者则指明了打破抽象统治“先验结构”的革命道路，由此，马克思全面超越了黑格尔和解逻辑的理论进路，为实现人的自由发展开辟了一条实践哲学之路。

Source: *Teaching and Research*, Issue 11, 2024

文章来源：《教学与研究》2024年第11期

Online Editor: Jing Mu

网络编辑：静穆