On the Holistic Nature of Marxism

The discussion on the holistic nature of Marxism has initially reached the following consensus: it concerns the complete and accurate grasp of Marxism, and it concerns the upholding and development of the fundamental principles of Marxism, making it very necessary. However, the most critical issue in this discussion—namely, how to conceptualize the holistic nature of Marxism—remains a matter of diverse opinions without a definitive conclusion. Lenin summarized the three component parts of Marxism, and our researchers all seem to want to ground this holistic nature in their own scholarly foundations. Objectively speaking, grounding the holistic nature of Marxism in philosophy, political economy, or scientific socialism each has its own rationale. For instance, attributing it to philosophy is because Marxist philosophy is the worldview basis for all its theories; attributing it to political economy is because revealing the mysteries of capitalism and the grounds for transcending capitalism can only rely on political economy; attributing it to scientific socialism is because the theme of Marxism is human liberation with the liberation of the working class as its political form, and it is often expressed as scientific socialism or communism. However, from the current trajectory of the discussion, attributing it to any one disciplinary fulcrum also has insurmountable weaknesses: can philosophy, as the most abstract form of ideology farthest from the socioeconomic base, holistically express the theoretical characteristics of Marxism? If political economy loses the guidance of a scientific worldview, it becomes vulgar economics and inevitably tilts toward empirical economics, thereby losing its soul; if scientific socialism does not highlight Marx’s “two great discoveries” of historical materialism and the theory of surplus value, can it still be “scientific”? As Engels pointed out, previous socialist doctrines were incompatible with materialism, whereas scientific socialism is the product of historical materialism and the theory of surplus value.[1]1 The “two great discoveries” refers to Marx’s two major theoretical breakthroughs: the materialist conception of history (historical materialism) and the theory of surplus value, which Engels argued transformed socialism from a utopian into a scientific doctrine.(P739-740) From this perspective, the discussion on the holistic nature of Marxism has not yet truly reached the height of integrating the “three component parts” into one. Where does the way out lie?

关于马克思主义整体性的讨论，已经初步形成了以下共识：它关系到对于马克思主义的完整准确把握，关系到对于马克思主义基本原理的坚持和发展，很有必要。但这一讨论最为关键的问题，即马克思主义的整体性如何概括，则仍然见仁见智，莫衷一是。列宁概括了马克思主义的三个组成部分，我们的研究者们似乎都想把整体性置于自己的学问基础上。客观地看，把马克思主义整体性奠基哲学、政治经济学或科学社会主义都有一定的道理。比如，归结为哲学是因为马克思主义哲学是其全部理论的世界观依据；归结为政治经济学是因为揭示资本主义的奥秘和超越资本主义的根据只能依靠政治经济学；归结为科学社会主义是因为马克思主义的主题是以工人阶级解放为政治形式的人类解放，且常常被表述为科学社会主义或共产主义。但是，从现在的讨论思路看，归结到无论哪一个学科支点上也都有难以克服的软肋：哲学作为远离社会经济基础的最为抽象的意识形态形式，能够整体性表现马克思主义的理论特质吗？政治经济学如果失去科学世界观的引领就会成为庸俗经济学，而且必然向实证的经济学倾斜，从而丢失了灵魂；科学社会主义如果不突出马克思唯物史观和剩余价值学说“两大发现”，还能成为“科学”吗？正如恩格斯指出的，以往的社会主义学说与唯物主义并不相容，而科学社会主义则是唯物史观和剩余价值学说的产物。[1](P739-740)由此看来，马克思主义整体性问题的讨论现在还未能真正达到把“三个组成部分”融为一体的高度。出路何在？

I. The Philosophical Worldview Is the Key to Deciphering the Holistic Nature of Marxism

一、哲学世界观是解密马克思主义整体性的钥匙

I think we should perhaps change the approach of the discussion. The original premise of the discussion was that Marxism has “three component parts,” and thus the holistic nature is the unity of these three parts. This is based on the fact that both Engels in *Anti-Dühring* and Lenin in *The Three Sources and Three Component Parts of Marxism* summarized Marxist doctrine into three parts—philosophy, political economy, and scientific socialism—so the focus has been on the unity of these three parts. However, Engels’s and Lenin’s summaries of the three component parts were, to a large extent, for the convenience of popularizing Marxism, and were not their interpretive model for the holistic nature of Marxism. In fact, they both emphasized that Marxism is a complete system of thought and that a holistic understanding of Marxism is necessary. Grasping the holistic nature of Marxism from the perspective of a philosophical worldview is a thread of thought we can readily discover in the writings of the classical authors.

我想我们似乎应当改变一下讨论的思路。原来讨论的前提是马克思主义有“三个组成部分”，因而整体性就是这三个组成部分的统一。根据是恩格斯在《反杜林论》、列宁在《马克思主义的三个来源和三个组成部分》中都把马克思主义学说概括成哲学、政治经济学和科学社会主义三个部分，因而关注点就在这三个部分的统一上。但是，恩格斯、列宁对三个组成部分的概括在很大程度上是为了便于马克思主义的通俗化宣传，并不是他们对于马克思主义的整体性解读模式。实际上，他们都强调马克思主义是一个完备的思想体系，必须对于马克思主义有一个整体性的理解。从哲学世界观上把握马克思主义的整体性，是我们不难从经典作家著述中发现的思想脉络。

Shortly after the publication of the first volume of *Capital*, Marx formulated a plan to write a work on “dialectics.” In a letter to Joseph Dietzgen, he wrote: “Once I am free of my economic burdens, I will write *Dialectics*. The true laws of dialectics are already present in Hegel, albeit in a mystical form. This form must be stripped away.”[2]2 “A single block of steel” (一整块钢) is a metaphor Lenin used to describe Marxism as an indivisible, integrated whole, where no part can be removed without distorting the entire system.(P288) Although this plan was never realized, as Lenin pointed out: “Although Marx left no ‘Logic’ (with a capital letter), he left the logic of *Capital*, and this should be fully utilized to solve this problem.”[3]3 “Building the Party through ideology and strengthening the Party through theory” (思想建党、理论强党) is a principle of the CPC emphasizing that ideological and theoretical work, grounded in a correct worldview, is the foundation for the Party’s political and organizational strength.(P290) In Lenin’s view, *Capital* is by no means an economic work in the ordinary sense, but rather dialectical materialism in the form of economics, and is essentially a new worldview.

马克思在《资本论》第一卷出版后不久，就制订了写作“辩证法”的计划。他在致约瑟夫·狄茨根的信中写道：“一旦我卸下经济负担，我就要写《辩证法》。辩证法的真正规律在黑格尔那里已经有了，当然是具有神秘的形式。必须去除这种形式”。[2](P288)这个计划虽然未能实现，但正如列宁指出的：“虽说马克思没有遗留下‘逻辑’（大写字母的），但他遗留下《资本论》的逻辑，应当充分地利用这种逻辑来解决这一问题。”[3](P290)在列宁看来，《资本论》决不是一般意义上的经济学著作，而是经济学形式的唯物辩证法，本质上是新世界观。

Lenin most explicitly reduced Marxism to a new worldview. When discussing the *Manifesto of the Communist Party*, the work that marks the advent of Marxism, he stated: “This work describes with genius-like clarity and vividness a new worldview, namely, thoroughgoing materialism, which also encompasses the sphere of social life; dialectics, as the most comprehensive and profound doctrine of development; and the theory of the world-historical revolutionary mission of the proletariat, the creator of class struggle and communist society.”[4]4 “Climbing a tree to catch a fish” (缘木求鱼) is a Chinese idiom from Mencius, meaning to pursue a goal by the wrong method, making success impossible.(P416) Lenin’s well-known judgments that Marxism is “a single block of steel” and that it is “complete and rigorous” are, in fact, generalizations he made from the perspective of a philosophical worldview. “Marx’s doctrine is omnipotent because it is correct. It is complete and rigorous, and it provides people with a complete worldview irreconcilable with any superstition, any reactionary force, or any apology for bourgeois oppression.”[4]4 “Climbing a tree to catch a fish” (缘木求鱼) is a Chinese idiom from Mencius, meaning to pursue a goal by the wrong method, making success impossible.(P309) “In this Marxist philosophy, cast from a single block of steel, one must not remove any basic premise, any essential part, for that would mean departing from objective truth and falling into the embrace of bourgeois reactionary fallacies.”[4]4 “Climbing a tree to catch a fish” (缘木求鱼) is a Chinese idiom from Mencius, meaning to pursue a goal by the wrong method, making success impossible.(P221-222) There is no doubt that Lenin believed the scientific, holistic, and complete nature of Marxism all originate from its philosophical worldview.

列宁最为明确地把马克思主义归结为一种新世界观。他在谈论《共产党宣言》这部标志着马克思主义问世的著作时指出：“这部著作以天才的透彻而鲜明的语言描述了新的世界观，即把社会生活领域也包括在内的彻底的唯物主义、作为最全面最深刻的发展学说的辩证法、以及关于阶级斗争和共产主义新社会创造者无产阶级肩负的世界历史性的革命使命的理论。”[4](P416)我们所熟知的列宁关于马克思主义是“一整块钢”“它完备而严密”的判断，实际上都是他从哲学世界观角度作出的概括。“马克思学说具有无限力量，就是因为它正确。它完备而严密，它给人们提供了决不同任何迷信、任何反动势力、任何为资产阶级压迫所作的辩护相妥协的完整的世界观。”[4](P309)“在这个由一整块钢铸成的马克思主义哲学中，决不可去掉任何一个基本前提、任何一个重要部分，不然就会离开客观真理，就会落入资产阶级反动谬论的怀抱。”[4](P221-222)毫无疑义，列宁认为马克思主义的科学性、整体性、完备性，皆源自其哲学世界观。

Mao Zedong fully inherited Lenin’s holistic analysis of Marxism. He repeatedly emphasized: “Marxism has several branches of learning: Marxist philosophy, Marxist economics, and Marxist socialism—the theory of class struggle. But the foundation is Marxist philosophy. If this is not thoroughly understood, we will have no common language, no common method, and will argue endlessly without clarity. With the thought of dialectical materialism, many things are saved, and many mistakes are avoided.”[5]5 This is a reference to Engels’s 1888 preface to the English edition of the *Communist Manifesto*. The citation format (P257) refers to a specific edition, likely the *Selected Works of Marx and Engels* (Chinese edition).(P396) Mao Zedong always attached great importance to the foundational role of the philosophical worldview within the Marxist ideological system, treating it as the soul of the Party’s political building, ideological building, and work style building. The principle of building the Party through ideology and strengthening the Party through theory, which our Party has always upheld, has as its premise the priority of the worldview.

毛泽东完全继承了列宁对于马克思主义的整体性分析，他反复强调：“马克思主义有几门学问：马克思主义的哲学，马克思主义的经济学，马克思主义的社会主义——阶级斗争学说，但基础的东西是马克思主义哲学。这个东西没有学通，我们就没有共同的语言，没有共同的方法，扯了许多皮，还扯不清楚。有了辩证唯物论的思想，就省得许多事，也少犯许多错误。”[5](P396)毛泽东始终高度重视哲学世界观在马克思主义思想体系中的基础作用，将其作为党的政治建设、思想建设和作风建设的灵魂。我们党始终坚持的思想建党、理论强党的建党原则，其前提就是世界观优先。

It must be pointed out that the philosophical world outlook we refer to here when citing the classical writers’ assertion that Marxism is in essence a new type of philosophical world outlook, and when emphasizing that the integrity of Marxism should be explored from this angle, differs from the common understanding of philosophy held by many people today. Marxist philosophy cannot be conflated with traditional or other types of philosophy. The Marxist philosophical world outlook is not a general phenomenon of the human spirit, still less a variety of esoteric metaphysics or a display of individual freedom; rather, it is a scientific elucidation of the initiative and creativity of human historical activity, and the scientific basis for the ideological line that unifies theory and practice. Deng Xiaoping once made a highly thought-provoking judgment. He pointed out: “The reason Lenin was a truly great Marxist is that he did not find the revolutionary path from books, but from reality, logic, philosophical thought, and the communist ideal, and successfully carried out the October Socialist Revolution in a backward country.” [6]6 Hou Huiqin, “The Holistic Nature of Marxism and Its Theoretical Core,” *Studies on Marxism*, no. 3, 2022, p. 173.(P292) Note that Deng Xiaoping, here, differs greatly from our “common sense” about philosophy and the communist ideal. He places the communist ideal and Marxist philosophical thought in the same sequence as “reality,” distinguishing them from “books” that have not yet become reality. This shows that, in his view, the scientific world outlook, the logic embodying the laws of history, and scientific ideals and beliefs are not utopian fantasies suspended above reality, nor are they mere ideas and concepts; rather, they are the organic components of a constantly changing and developing reality, and part of the “revolutionary reality.” Therefore, he believed that there is no gap between the philosophical world outlook and the Party’s ideological line and program of action, and consequently no strict boundary between Marxist philosophy and scientific socialism. “Marx and Engels established the ideological line of dialectical materialism and historical materialism. Comrade Mao Zedong summarized it in the Chinese language as ‘seeking truth from facts’ in four characters.” [7](P278) “To build socialism, we must always follow Marxist dialectical materialism and historical materialism, that is, what Comrade Mao Zedong summarized as seeking truth from facts, or proceeding from reality in everything.” [6]6 Hou Huiqin, “The Holistic Nature of Marxism and Its Theoretical Core,” *Studies on Marxism*, no. 3, 2022, p. 173.(P118) Here, with unmistakable clarity, Deng Xiaoping broke through the barriers between world outlook and ideological line, between action guide, between philosophy and revolutionary practice, providing a new approach for a complete and accurate grasp of Marxism.

需要指出的是，我们这里引证的经典作家关于马克思主义本质上是新型哲学世界观的论断，强调应该从这一角度探讨马克思主义的整体性时所讲的哲学世界观，与时下许多人对哲学的相关认知并不相同。不能把马克思主义哲学混同于传统的、其他类型的哲学。马克思主义哲学世界观不是一般的人类精神现象，更不是五花八门的玄学或自由个性的展现，而是人类历史活动的主动性和创造性的科学阐发，是理论和实际相统一的思想路线的科学依据。邓小平曾作出一个很值得玩味的论断，他指出：“列宁之所以是一个真正的伟大的马克思主义者，就在于他不是从书本里，而是从实际、逻辑、哲学思想、共产主义理想上找到革命道路，在一个落后的国家干成了十月社会主义革命。”[6](P292)请注意，邓小平在这里，与我们关于哲学和共产主义理想的“常识”很不相同，他把共产主义理想以及马克思主义哲学思想放在与“实际”同一序列，而与还没有成为现实的“书本”相区别。这表明，在他看来，科学世界观，体现历史规律的逻辑和科学的理想信念，不是高悬于实际之上的空想，也不是单纯的思想观念，而是不断变动发展现实的有机构成，是“革命实际”的组成部分。因此，他认为哲学世界观与党的思想路线和行动纲领之间不存在鸿沟，因而也不存在马克思主义哲学和科学社会主义的严格界限。“马克思、恩格斯创立了辩证唯物主义和历史唯物主义的思想路线，毛泽东同志用中国语言概括为‘实事求是’四个大字。”[7](P278)“搞社会主义一定要遵循马克思主义的辩证唯物主义和历史唯物主义，也就是毛泽东同志概括的实事求是，或者说一切从实际出发。” [6](P118)邓小平在这里以明白无误的叙述，打通了世界观和思想路线、行动指南，哲学和革命实践的隔阂，为完整准确把握马克思主义提供了新的思路。

It can be seen that returning to the classical Marxist writers’ understanding of the philosophical world outlook is the prerequisite for solving the problem of the integrity of Marxism. It should be noted that in recent years, due to the misleading influence of Western philosophical trends, the tendency to de-world-outlookize Marxist philosophy has been very serious. Modern Western philosophy starts from a mistaken philosophical judgment, namely, that the “epistemological philosophy” represented by Kant overturned the “metaphysics” of traditional philosophy, declaring that a holistic grasp of the world is “an illusion of humanity’s natural instinct.” Subsequently, it promoted the so-called “post-metaphysical turn,” shifting philosophy towards a subjectivist idealist “individualist philosophy.” Pluralism, relativism, decentering, phenomenalism, and fragmentation became the mainstream of Western philosophy. In this way, not only did mainstream Western philosophy reject the world outlook, but “Western Marxism,” deeply influenced by this turn, also abandoned the monistic world outlook through the “practical philosophy turn.” Contrary to the original intention of Marx’s philosophical revolution, the “practical philosophy” that inherited the “turn” of contemporary Western philosophy increasingly distanced itself from the mission of providing a world outlook and methodology for the working class and its party, contenting itself with lingering in campuses, studies, and the solace of individual souls. To solve the problem of the integrity of Marxism from such a philosophical standpoint is like climbing a tree to catch a fish [4]4 “Climbing a tree to catch a fish” (缘木求鱼) is a Chinese idiom from Mencius, meaning to pursue a goal by the wrong method, making success impossible.. Therefore, to decipher the integrity of Marxism with the Marxist philosophical world outlook as its core, we must first restore the nature of Marxist philosophy as a new world outlook.

可见，回归马克思主义经典作家关于哲学世界观的认知，是解决马克思主义整体性问题的前提。应当看到，一些年来由于受西方哲学思潮的误导，把马克思主义哲学去世界观化的倾向十分严重。现代西方哲学从一个错误的哲学判断出发，即断言康德为代表的近代“认识论哲学”，颠覆了传统哲学的“形而上学”，宣告整体性把握世界是“人类自然本能的幻想”。此后推动所谓的“后形而上转向”，使哲学转向主观唯心主义的“个人主义哲学”，多元、相对、去中心、现象化、碎片化，成为西方哲学的主流。这样，不仅西方主流哲学拒斥了世界观，而且深受这一转向影响的“西方马克思主义”也经由“实践哲学转向”抛弃了一元论世界观。与马克思哲学变革的初衷相悖，秉承当代西方哲学“转向”的“实践哲学”，日益远离了工人阶级及其政党世界观方法论的使命，自满自足于校园、书斋和个人心灵的抚慰上徘徊。以这样的哲学站位，要解决马克思主义的整体性问题，无异于缘木求鱼。因此，要以马克思主义哲学世界观为核心解密马克思主义的整体性，首先要恢复马克思主义哲学的新世界观本性。

II. The Integrity of Marxism Originates from the Material Unity of the World

二、马克思主义的整体性源自世界的物质统一性

Marxism has always emphasized that the era is the mother of thought, and practice is the source of theory. The fundamental reason why Marxism can be grasped as a whole lies, in the final analysis, in its reliance on the material unity of the world, and on the “world history” that reveals the inevitable trend of the unity of human history. The most fundamental reason why Marxism needs to be grasped in its integrity is that only a holistic world outlook can understand and grasp the holistic world and human history; this is the origin of the truth and scientific nature of Marxism.

马克思主义始终强调，时代是思想之母，实践是理论之源。之所以能够整体性地把握马克思主义，归根到底在于它依托了世界的物质统一性，依托了“世界历史”这一显示人类历史统一性的必然趋势；之所以需要从整体性上把握马克思主义，最为根本的就因为只有整体性的世界观才能认识、把握整体性的世界和人类历史，这是马克思主义真理性、科学性的本源。

To grasp the world holistically, three major difficulties must be resolved: first, the unity of the world of nature, human society, and spiritual phenomena; second, the unity of history across past, present, and future; third, the unity of existence in terms of phenomenon, essence, and noumenon. Before Marx’s great philosophical revolution, idealism dominated this field. Although philosophy had been making progress, by the early 19th century it was still at a loss in the face of these three major difficulties. As Engels pointed out, “The 18th century did not resolve the great antithesis, the antithesis between substance and subject, nature and spirit, necessity and freedom, an antithesis that history has had from the very beginning and whose development runs through the whole of history.” [8]8 *Marx and Engels Collected Works*, vol. 1, People’s Publishing House, 2009, p. 516.(P88) Although Hegel’s philosophy, the culmination of classical German philosophy, made a breakthrough, reaching the highest point possible from the standpoint of idealist philosophy, it ultimately did not truly solve these three major difficulties. History shows that there is no way to solve these three major difficulties other than the dialectical materialist world outlook. This also fundamentally proves that any effort to explore the integrity of Marxism by departing from the scientific world outlook is doomed to fail.

对于世界的整体性把握，必须解决三大难题：一是自然界、人类社会和精神现象的世界统一性；二是过去、现在和未来的历史统一性；三是现象、本质和本体的存在统一性。在马克思的伟大哲学变革之前，唯心论在这一领域占据了统治地位。虽然哲学也在不断进步，但直到19世纪初，在三大难题面前还是一筹莫展。正如恩格斯指出的，“18世纪没有解决巨大的对立，即实体和主体、自然和精神、必然性和自由的对立，这种对立是历史从一开始就具有的，而且这种对立的发展贯穿于整个历史之中”。[8](P88)虽然德国古典哲学集大成的黑格尔哲学有所突破，达到了唯心主义哲学立场可能的最高点，但毕竟没有真正破解这三大难题。历史表明，解决这三大难题，除了辩证唯物主义世界观，别无它途。这也从根本上证明，离开科学世界观去探讨马克思主义整体性的努力，注定要失败。

1. The Question of the Unity of the World of Nature, Human Society, and Spiritual Phenomena

1. 关于自然界、人类社会和精神现象的世界统一性问题

There is no doubt that nature, human society, and spiritual phenomena are things belonging to different spheres. The spontaneity and self-existence of nature, the autonomy and self-activity of human society, and the self-consciousness of spiritual phenomena are all obvious heterogeneities at the boundary. Therefore, the unity of the world is not simply a matter of homogenizing the three spheres; rather, it requires a deep revelation of their common origin beneath their heterogeneous distribution, that is, the possibility of a single source and their mutual transformation and organic unity.

毫无疑问，自然界、人类社会和精神现象是不同领域的事物。自然界的自发自在，人类社会的自主自为，精神现象的自我自觉，都是显而易见的界域上的异质性。因此，世界的统一性并非简单地把三大领域同质化，而是要深入揭示三者在异质性分布下的同源性，即同一本源及其相互转化、有机统一的可能性。

Idealist philosophers always explain the unity of the world by taking spirit as the source. But because they fundamentally invert the real existence of the world, no matter how refined their explanations, they are inevitably full of loopholes and ultimately collapse. Hegel can be said to be an absolute master of explaining the unity of the world from the source of spirit. Through idealist dialectical logic, he “for the first time expressed the general laws of the development of nature, society, and thought in their universally applicable form; this was, after all, a deed of world-historical significance.” [9](P316) Hegel’s brilliance lies in grasping the essence of things’ “self-movement.” He constructed a grand unified conceptual dialectical system encompassing nature, human society, and spiritual phenomena through the self-movement of the “Absolute Spirit,” a conceptual subject that speculatively transforms actual humanity. The speculative mode of narration wraps rich content of the movement and change of the real world. Although it is upside down, head over heels, yet “when falsehood is taken for truth, truth becomes falsehood,” and its influence is self-evident. “Hegel often makes real statements that grasp the thing itself within the speculative narrative. This real exposition within the speculative exposition will tempt the reader to take the speculative exposition as real and the real exposition as speculative.” “This method, in speculative terms, is to understand substance as subject, as an inner process, as absolute personality. This mode of understanding is the basic characteristic of Hegel’s method.” [9](P280) It can be said that Hegel’s logic of the unity of the world could not be fundamentally broken on the ground of thought alone. Although the Young Hegelians also seized upon some of its flaws, they were still, on the whole, treading within the framework of Hegel’s logic. Only Feuerbach, because he “straightforwardly placed materialism back on the throne” [9](P218), took at least one step forward. Although he did not complete the transcendence, he also indicated that only materialism was the true way out for solving this problem.

唯心主义哲学家总是以精神为本源说明世界的统一性，但由于其根本颠倒了世界的真实存在，故而无论多么精致，也必然漏洞百出并最终破产。黑格尔可以说是以精神本源阐释世界统一性的绝对高手。他通过唯心论的辩证逻辑，“第一次把自然界、社会和思维的发展的一个一般规律在其普遍适用的形式上表述出来，这毕竟是一项具有世界历史意义的勋业”。[9](P316)黑格尔的高明之处在于把握住了事物“自己运动”这一本质，他以“绝对精神”这一把现实人类思辨化的概念主体的自我运动，构建了一个包括自然界、人类社会和精神现象的大一统概念辩证法体系。思辨的叙述方式包裹着丰富的现实世界运动变化的内容，尽管是本末倒置、头足倒立，然而“假作真时真亦假”，其影响力不言而喻。“黑格尔常常在思辨的叙述中作出把握住事物本身的、现实的叙述。这种在思辨的阐述之中所作的现实的阐述会诱使读者把思辨的阐述看成是现实的，而把现实的阐述看成是思辨的。”“这种办法，用思辨的话来说，就是把实体了解为主体，了解为内在的过程，了解为绝对的人格。这种了解方式就是黑格尔方法的基本特征。”[9](P280)可以说，黑格尔的世界统一性逻辑，仅在思想的基地上是无法根本打破的，青年黑格尔派虽然也不同地抓住了它的一些破绽，但总体上还在黑格尔的逻辑框架上踏步。只有费尔巴哈由于“直截了当地使唯物主义重新登上王座”[9](P218)而至少向前走了一步，虽然未能完成超越，但也预示了只有唯物主义才是解决这一问题的真正出路。

Ultimately, objective logic determines subjective logic; if this is inverted, it is impossible to achieve genuine logical rigor. The idealist worldview position determines that Hegel’s philosophy cannot be a truly rigorous logic. Idealist conceptual dialectics finds it easy to reduce phenomena to some conceptual essence, because this capacity for abstract thought is not difficult to grasp. However, it is a stretch to explain that the rich diversity of real things are the “immanent moments” of the self-development of the concept. It is correct to say that pears, apples, almonds, and grapes all belong to “fruit,” because they all share the common attributes of fruit. But it is difficult to explain that the above fruits are all moments “posited” by the self-development of “fruit.” How are the successive moments linked? How does one moment “necessarily” transform into another? If a new variety of fruit appears, how should it be ordered? Even the most imaginative philosopher cannot justify this. If this is the case for simple natural phenomena, how much more so for the incomparably complex world system. Nature, history, and human activity always “overflow” Hegel’s logical system; it is inevitable that his idealist dialectical system is torn apart by constantly changing reality.

说到底，客观逻辑决定了主观逻辑，如果颠倒了，就不可能真正做到逻辑严密。唯心论的世界观立场，决定了黑格尔哲学不可能是真正严密的逻辑学。唯心主义概念辩证法把现象归结为某种概念本质是容易的，因为这种思维的抽象能力不难理解。但是，要解决丰富多样的现实事物是概念自我发展的“内在环节”就勉为其难了。说梨、苹果、扁桃、葡萄都属于“水果”没错，因为它们都有水果的共同属性。但要说明上述水果都是“水果”的自我发展“设定的”环节就困难了。环节的先后如何衔接？怎样从一个环节“必然”转化为另一个环节？如果再出现新的水果品种又该如何排序？再有想象力的哲学家也不可能自圆其说。简单的自然现象尚且如此，更别说无比复杂的世界体系了。自然、历史、人的活动总是要“溢出”黑格尔的逻辑体系，其唯心主义辩证法体系被不断变化的实际撕裂在所难免。

Traditional materialism also cannot solve the problem of the material unity of the world: first, it cannot solve the problem of the materialist foundation of human social history, so the historical realm has always been dominated by idealism; second, it cannot use materialist reflection theory to elucidate the achievements of human thought and knowledge, especially the problems of universal categories and absolute truth, and thus it is often exploited by skepticism and eclecticism; third, it cannot solve the relationship between materialism and human spiritual initiative, especially the materialist basis for lofty ideals, beliefs, and the spirit of dedication, and thus it is often stigmatized by materialism, hedonism, and the like. Ultimately, because traditional materialism does not understand dialectics, the material concept that serves as the foundation of its philosophical edifice possesses intuitiveness, passivity, and stasis. A single atomized, substantive material concept cannot solve the problem of the material unity of the world.

传统唯物主义也解决不了世界的物质统一性问题：第一，它解决不了人类社会历史的唯物论基础问题，因此历史领域始终是唯心主义的一统天下；第二，它解决不了用唯物论反映论阐明人类思想认识成果，尤其是普遍范畴和绝对真理问题，因而往往被怀疑论、折衷主义钻空子；第三，它解决不了唯物论和人的精神能动性关系，尤其是崇高的理想信念和献身精神的唯物论根据问题，因而往往被物欲主义、享乐主义等污名化。说到底，传统唯物论由于不懂得辩证法，因而在作为其哲学大厦基础的物质概念上，具有直观性、消极性和静止性，单一的原子化实体物质概念，无法解决世界的物质统一性问题。

The new materialism formed by the organic integration of materialism and dialectics, namely dialectical materialism, successfully solves the above difficulties: first, it takes the law of the unity of opposites, i.e., contradiction, as the objective source of the “self-movement” of things, not only solving the problem of the initiative of matter, thereby laying the material foundation and internal basis for the unity of the three major spheres, but also solving the unity of qualitatively different things in the world, avoiding external fragmentation through the internal mode of contradiction; second, it expands the mode of existence of matter from a single, static substantive form to the “relational” form of universal connection, movement, and change, solving the mode of material existence in the social-historical realm, i.e., the contradictory movement of productive forces and relations of production, economic base and superstructure, thereby founding thoroughgoing materialism; third, it treats nature, human society, and spiritual phenomena as different forms of material motion, establishing that subjective dialectics (the dialectics of categories) is the reflection of objective dialectics, solving the problems of the diversity of forms of material motion and the possibility of their mutual transformation, as well as the objective source of spiritual initiative, thereby linking “historical nature” and “natural history,” founding a complete and comprehensive dialectics. The dialectical materialist worldview shows us for the first time a complete world of universal connection, interdependence, mutual transformation, and continuous development.

以唯物论和辩证法有机结合而形成的新唯物主义，即辩证唯物主义成功地解决了上述难题：第一，把对立统一规律即矛盾作为事物“自己运动”的客观源泉，不但解决了物质的能动性难题，从而奠定了三大领域统一性的物质基础和内在根据，而且解决了世界不同质事物的统一性，以内在的矛盾方式避免了外在的碎片化；第二，把物质的存在形态从单一的、静止的实体形式扩大到普遍联系、运动变化的“关系”形态，解决了社会历史领域的物质存在方式，即生产力与生产关系、经济基础与上层建筑的矛盾运动，创立了彻底的唯物主义；第三，把自然界、人类社会和精神现象作为物质运动的不同形式，确立了主观辩证法（范畴辩证法）是客观辩证法的反映，解决了物质运动存在形式的多样性及其相互转化的可能性问题，以及精神能动性的客观来源问题，使“历史的自然”和“自然的历史”相贯通，创立了完备全面的辩证法。辩证唯物主义世界观第一次向我们展示了一个普遍联系、相互依存和相互转化、不断发展的完整的世界。

2. On the Question of the Historical Unity of Past, Present, and Future

2. 关于过去、现在和未来的历史统一性问题

The historical unity of past, present, and future does not seem to be a problem. Cieszkowski of the Young Hegelians once argued that the “past” was once “present” and “future,” the “present” was once “future” and is becoming “past,” and the “future” is becoming “present” and will inevitably become “past.” However, the problem is by no means so simple. In reality, past, present, and future differ greatly in the actual historical process. The “past” that has become history is generally “singular,” but for the “present,” the “future” is undoubtedly “plural.” How to choose the “future” determines the success or failure of the “present.” The future, as a multiplicity of possibilities, if not supported by the objective necessity of history, will be unknowable or unreliable “historical prophecy,” and its historical connection with the present and the past will lack holism. It is precisely for this reason that Hegel’s philosophy takes the “end” of history as its starting point, merely reflecting on the logic of history while avoiding the “plural” problem of facing the future. And some so-called “practical philosophies” oriented toward the future, ambitiously seeking to create history, have without exception fallen into the mire of “subjective voluntarism.”

过去、现在和未来的历史统一性似乎不是问题。青年黑格尔派的契希考夫斯基就曾论证，“过去”也曾经是“现在”和“未来”，“现在”也曾经是“未来”并正在成为“过去”，而“未来”正在成为“现在”并必然成为“过去”。但是，问题绝非如此简单。实际上，过去、现在和未来在现实的历史过程中差异极大。成为历史的“过去”一般是“单数”，但对于“现在”而言，“未来”无疑是“复数”。如何选择“未来”，则决定了“现在”的得失成败。作为多种可能性的未来，如果没有历史客观必然性的支撑，则将是不可知的，或不可靠的“历史预言”，其与现在和过去的历史联系也就不具有整体性。正因为如此，黑格尔哲学才以历史的“终点”为起点，只是反思历史的逻辑而回避面向未来的“复数”难题。而一些所谓面向未来的“实践哲学”，雄心勃勃地要开创历史，却无一例外地掉进了“主观意志论”的泥淖。

Marxist philosophy provides the basic methodology for solving the problem of the objective necessity of the historical future: first, “discovering the new world through the critique of the old world.” This means, through scientific analysis and critique, accurately identifying the incurable diseases of the old world, serving both as the objective basis for the inevitable demise of the old world and as the action guide for the construction direction of the new world. “Polarization” and “the reification of man” are the two major ills of capitalist society that Marx exposed, and “common prosperity” and “the all-round development of man” thus become the construction direction of socialist society. Second, the basis of objective analysis is “grasping the totality of facts,” opposing one-sided “playing with examples.” Lenin believed that grasping the “totality of facts” means grasping the “thing-in-itself,” and therefore it is not a pile of all phenomena (which is actually impossible), but can only be the basic relations that reveal the essence of life and determine the direction of history. Marx summarized the basic relations of capitalist society as “foundational relations” (commodity relations), “abnormal relations” (reified relations), and “transformative relations” (wage labor and capital), thereby establishing the objective trajectory of capitalist society. Third, establishing the dominant force for destroying the old world and building the new world, i.e., large-scale socialized production and the modern proletariat that represents it. Marx’s thesis on the world-historical mission of the working class is not, as repeatedly denigrated by Western ideology, a kind of messianism similar to the religious “doctrine of the elect,” but a historical necessity determined by its objective position in the capitalist economic system. The modern proletariat is both the product and representative of large-scale socialized production and a passive force arbitrarily manipulated by the spontaneous economic laws of capitalism. The consciousness required by the further development of socialized productive forces inevitably manifests as the autonomy of the working class within the system of socialized production. In this way, the liberation demands of the working class are fundamentally consistent with the liberation of socialized productive forces, and hence with the liberation of humanity. As Engels pointed out in the preface to the 1888 English edition of the *Communist Manifesto*: “the exploited and oppressed class (the proletariat) cannot emancipate itself from the exploiting and ruling class (the bourgeoisie) without at the same time, once and for all, emancipating society at large from all exploitation, oppression, class distinctions and class struggles.” [5]5 This is a reference to Engels’s 1888 preface to the English edition of the *Communist Manifesto*. The citation format (P257) refers to a specific edition, likely the *Selected Works of Marx and Engels* (Chinese edition).(P257) This is an objective necessity independent of human will.

马克思主义哲学为解决历史未来的客观必然性问题提供了基本方法论：第一，“从批判旧世界中发现新世界”。就是要通过科学的分析批判，找准旧世界的不治之症，既作为旧世界必然灭亡的客观依据，也作为新世界建设方向的行动指南。“两极分化”和“人的物化”就是马克思揭露的资本主义社会的两大痼疾，而“共同富裕”和“人的全面发展”也就成为社会主义社会建设方向。第二，客观分析的基础是“把握事实的总和”，反对片面的“玩弄实例”。列宁认为把握“事实总和”即把握“自在之物”本身，因而它不是全部现象的堆积（实际上也不可能有这样的堆积），而只能是揭示生活本质、决定历史方向的基本关系。马克思把资本主义社会的基本关系概括为“基础性关系”（商品关系）、“反常性关系”（物化关系）和“变革性关系”（雇佣劳动与资本），从而奠定了资本主义社会的客观走向。第三，确立破坏旧世界、建设新世界的主导性力量，即社会化大生产及其代表现代无产阶级。马克思关于工人阶级世界历史使命的论断，并非如西方意识形态反复贬损的那样，是一种类似宗教“选民说”的救世主义，而是由它在资本主义经济体系中的客观地位所决定的历史必然性。现代无产阶级既是社会化大生产的产物和代表，又是被资本主义自发经济规律肆意摆布的被动力量。社会化生产力进一步发展所要求的自觉性，必然表现为工人阶级在社会化生产体系中的自主性。这样，工人阶级的解放要求与社会化生产力的解放、因而与人类的解放就具有根本的一致性。正如恩格斯在《共产党宣言》1888年英文版序言中指出的：“被剥削被压迫的阶级（无产阶级），如果不同时使整个社会一劳永逸地摆脱一切剥削、压迫以及阶级差别和阶级斗争，就不能使自己从进行剥削和统治的那个阶级（资产阶级）的奴役下解放出来。”[10](P257)这是不以人的意志为转移的客观必然性。

3. On the Question of the Existential Unity of Phenomenon, Essence, and Noumenon

3. 关于现象、本质和本体的存在统一性问题

To discard materialism and negate the opposition between materialist and idealist philosophy is essentially to negate the “thing-in-itself” and to negate materialist ontology. The “thing-in-itself” is the cornerstone of the material unity of the world, and idealism always seeks to eliminate it. The entire basis for their negation of the “thing-in-itself” lies in the assertion that the “thing-in-itself” is unknowable and indemonstrable, and that talking about “existence” outside of humanity is purely a “metaphysical” problem. Lenin quoted the materialist philosopher Diderot: “Those philosophers who recognize only the existence of themselves and the alternating sensations within themselves, and do not recognize anything else, are called idealists.” Idealism, “although this system is absurd to the extreme, it is the most difficult to refute; it is truly a disgrace to human wisdom, a disgrace to philosophy.” [4]4 “Climbing a tree to catch a fish” (缘木求鱼) is a Chinese idiom from Mencius, meaning to pursue a goal by the wrong method, making success impossible.(P30)

去唯物论，否定唯物论唯心论哲学的对立，本质上就是否定“自在之物”，否定唯物论的本体论。“自在之物”是世界物质统一性的基石，唯心主义都必欲除之而后快。它们否定“自在之物”的全部根据，就在于断言“自在之物”是无法认知和论证的，而谈论人类之外的“存在”纯粹是“形而上”问题。列宁曾引用唯物主义哲学家狄德罗的话：“那些只承认自身的存在和自身中交替出现的感觉的存在，而不承认其他任何东西的哲学家，叫作唯心主义者。”唯心主义“这种体系虽然荒谬之至，可是最难驳倒，说起来真是人类智慧的耻辱、哲学的耻辱。”[4](P30)

Only by demonstrating the existence of the “thing-in-itself” and establishing the priority of external nature can we scientifically resolve issues such as the initiative and freedom of human historical activity, thereby overturning the fundamental inversion of idealist philosophy on the question of ontology. The new materialism formed through the organic integration of materialism and dialectics thoroughly transforms the idealist conception of practice based on voluntarism, giving rise to a materialist scientific conception of practice. This fully substantiates the following three major propositions: First, the dual nature of practice, namely the unity of passivity and initiative. The passivity of practice tangibly proves that external nature is not the “self-positing” of the subject but an objective existence, and that violating the laws of nature inevitably incurs punishment; the initiative of practice not only demonstrates that the initiative of human historical activity must be based on material constraints, but also indicates that the foundation of the initiative of historical activity is material productive activity, which determines that human freedom in historical activity is a process of continuous transformation from necessity to freedom. Second, the infinity of history, namely that human history has only stages, no endpoint. The materialist conception of practice proves that practice is essentially a process of the “transformation of the thing-in-itself into the thing-for-us.” Practice is endless, indicating that human history is not a closed circle but an infinite spiral of continuously opening up the future, while also eloquently proving the objective existence of the external world, which cannot be artificially posited. Third, the knowability of the world, namely that fundamentally, all the “unsolved mysteries” we face are merely unknown worlds, not unknowable worlds. The world has not set insurmountable boundaries for human intellect. The knowability of the world proves that there is no pluralistic world in the ontological sense; the myriad differences and rich diversity exist only in the “phenomenal world.” These are all different forms of manifestation of material existence, not a “fragmented” existence of the world.

论证“自在之物”的存在，确立外部自然界的优先地位，才能科学地解决人类历史活动的能动性、自由等问题，打破唯心主义哲学在本体论问题上的根本颠倒。以唯物论和辩证法有机结合形成的新唯物主义，彻底改造了以意志论为基础的唯心主义实践观，形成了唯物主义的科学实践观，充分论证了以下三大命题：第一，实践的两重性，即受动性和能动性的统一。实践的受动性切切实实地证明了外部自然界并非主体的“自我设定”，而是客观存在，违背自然规律必然会受到惩罚；实践的能动性不仅证明人的历史活动的能动性要以物质制约性为基础，而且表明历史活动能动性的基础是物质生产活动，它决定了人在历史活动中的自由是一个不断地从必然向自由转化的过程。第二，历史的无限性，即人类的历史只有阶段，没有终点。唯物主义实践观证明，实践本质上是“自在之物转化为为我之物”的过程。实践永无止境，表明了人类历史不是一个封闭的圆圈，而是不断开创未来的无限螺旋，同时也雄辩地证明了外部世界的客观存在，不能人为地加以设定。第三，世界的可知性，即从根本上说，我们面对的所有“不解之谜”都只是未知世界，而不是不可知世界。世界并没有给人类的理智设下了不可跨越的界限。世界的可知性证明了不存在本体论意义上的多元世界，千差万别、丰富多样的只是“现象界”。它们都是物质存在的不同表现形式，而不是世界的“碎片化”存在。

III. The Dialectical Materialist Worldview and the Ideological System of Marxism

三、辩证唯物主义世界观与马克思主义的思想体系

A scientific worldview is the only possible way to grasp the world holistically; therefore, only by proceeding from a scientific worldview can the problem of the holistic nature of Marxism be resolved. This means that Marxism is a complete scientific ideological system, essentially a new worldview. Its disciplinary classifications, knowledge boundaries, and specialized terminology are relative, while it is fundamentally consistent in terms of theoretical theme, mode of thinking, basic theories, and core concepts.

科学世界观是对世界作整体性把握的唯一可能，因此，只有从科学世界观出发才能解决马克思主义的整体性问题。这意味着马克思主义是一个完备的科学思想体系，本质上是一个崭新的世界观。它的学科分类、知识界限和专用术语是相对的，而在理论主题、思维方式、基本理论和核心概念上则根本一致。

1. The General Essence of the Holistic Nature of Marxism: Essential Characteristics as a Complete Scientific Ideological System

1. 马克思主义整体性的一般要义：作为完备的科学思想体系的本质特征

Proceeding from a scientific worldview determines that grasping Marxism holistically first requires grasping the trends of the times and the laws of history. There are thousands of paths, but they all lead to a direction, and direction is the sole essence of the path. This is the relationship between path and law. In the development of human history, different civilizations have different evolutionary paths, but the evolution of human civilization has a general direction, which is the liberation of humanity pointed out by Marxism, manifested as “the free and comprehensive development of every individual.” The reason capitalism is no longer the direction of progress in today’s world is that it deprives the majority of their survival and development through the monopoly of wealth by a minority; it deprives the majority of their free development through the capricious freedom of a minority. Precisely because of this, Western countries today indeed dare not truly face the future, always striving to “maintain the status quo,” and thus as a whole they inevitably go against the tide of history.

从科学世界观出发决定了，整体性把握马克思主义首先要把握时代潮流、历史规律。路有千万条，通达成方向，而方向就是路的唯一。这就是道路和规律的关系。人类历史的发展，不同文明有不同的进化路径，但人类文明的进化却有一个大方向，这就是马克思主义指出的人类解放，表现为“每一个人的自由全面发展”。资本主义之所以已经不是今天世界的进步方向，就因为它以少数人的财富垄断，剥夺了大多数人的生存发展；以少数人的任性自由，剥夺了大多数人的自由发展。正因为如此，西方国家今天的确不敢真正面向未来，总是力图“维持现状”，因而整体上必然逆历史潮流而动。

“Marxism, another word for communism.”[6]6 Hou Huiqin, “The Holistic Nature of Marxism and Its Theoretical Core,” *Studies on Marxism*, no. 3, 2022, p. 173.(P173) Therefore, revealing and continuously deepening the understanding of the historical law that communism will inevitably replace capitalism, and laying a scientific foundation for the ideal and belief in communism, constitutes the holistic theoretical pursuit of Marxism. Philosophy, political economy, and scientific socialism are merely different theoretical and academic perspectives from which to study this: philosophy focuses on the general laws of human historical development, political economy focuses on the laws of capitalist economic operation, and scientific socialism focuses on the laws of development of the workers’ movement and socialism. These different perspectives on the study of laws continuously reveal and enrich the scientific basis of communism as the general trend of human history and civilizational progress. Therefore, political economy is essentially not a positive economics, but a study of the economic logic of capitalism; scientific socialism is essentially not an empirical sociology, but a study of the social logic of the progress of modern civilization. Studying historical laws—this is what Marx called holism: “We know only a single science, the science of history.”[8]8 *Marx and Engels Collected Works*, vol. 1, People’s Publishing House, 2009, p. 516.(P516) If one fundamentally deviates from this theoretical direction, does not focus on the study of objective laws, does not study or even denies the historical law that communism will inevitably replace capitalism, then it cannot be called Marxism.

“马克思主义，另一个词叫共产主义”。[6](P173)因此，揭示和不断深化共产主义必然取代资本主义历史规律的认识，为共产主义理想信念奠定科学基础，就是马克思主义的整体理论追求。哲学、政治经济学、科学社会主义不过是从不同的理论和学术视野对此加以研究：哲学着眼于人类历史发展的一般规律，政治经济学着眼于资本主义经济运行规律，科学社会主义着眼于工人运动和社会主义的发展规律。这些不同的规律研究视角，不断揭示和丰富了共产主义作为人类历史和文明进步大趋势的科学根据。因此，政治经济学本质上不属于实证经济学，而是关于资本主义的经济逻辑学；科学社会主义本质上不属于经验社会学，而是现代文明进步的社会逻辑学。研究历史规律，这就是马克思所说的整体性：“我们仅仅知道一门唯一的科学，即历史科学。”[8](P516)如果根本偏离这一理论方向，不着眼于客观规律的研究，不研究甚至不承认共产主义必然取代资本主义的历史规律，那就不叫做马克思主义了。

Proceeding from the worldview also determines that grasping Marxism holistically requires treating the conceptual categories of this theoretical system as reflections of real movement; they inevitably change as reality changes. Therefore, static and isolated research methods on Marxism must be abolished. Marxism truly follows proceeding from reality in everything, but the real reality is not an unchanging “present existence,” but a constantly changing and developing “process.” Grasping reality from the perspective of process places higher demands on thought categories. Undoubtedly, as a scientific ideological system and knowledge system, the system of categories must possess relative stability and self-consistency, but this does not mean that conceptual categories can only form a self-contained system. Fundamentally, the Marxist system of conceptual categories is dialectical logic, a logic of contradictory concepts—this is the key to understanding how this ideological system can track historical laws. So-called contradictory concepts are those that possess duality, can transform and develop: its basic categories all have an empirical basis while simultaneously transcending general empirical generalizations; they are all concrete applications of the scientific worldview. Below, we will conduct a concrete analysis using the interrelated yet differently focused set of concepts: the modern proletariat, the people, and the real individual.

从世界观出发还决定了，整体性把握马克思主义，必须把这一理论体系的概念范畴看作现实运动的反映，它们必然随着现实的变化而变化，因此，必须废止静止的、孤立的马克思主义的研究方法。马克思主义真正遵循一切从实际出发，但真正的实际，不是一成不变的“现存”，而是不断变化发展的“过程”。从过程上把握实际，对思想范畴提出了更高的要求。毫无疑问，作为科学的思想体系和知识体系，范畴体系必须具有相对的稳定性和自洽性，但这不能说概念范畴只能自成体系。从根本上说，马克思主义概念范畴体系是辩证逻辑，是矛盾的概念，这是理解这一思想体系能够跟踪历史规律性的关键。所谓矛盾的概念，就是具有两重性，能够转化、发展：它的基本范畴，都既具有经验的基础，同时又超越了一般的经验概括，都是科学世界观的具体运用。下面，我们将以现代无产阶级、人民、现实个人这一组相互联系、又各有侧重的概念做点具体分析。

The modern proletariat is a core concept of Marxism, and its definition is also a model of applying the scientific worldview. Engels believed that the modern industrial revolution, as a hallmark of modern large-scale socialized production, “had as its most important product the English proletariat.”[11]11 *Marx and Engels Collected Works*, vol. 2, People’s Publishing House, 2009, p. 296.(P296) Lenin held that: “The main point in Marx’s doctrine is that it elucidates the world-historical role of the proletariat as the creator of socialist society.”[12]12 *Lenin Collected Works*, vol. 2, People’s Publishing House, 2012, p. 61.(P61) There is no doubt that the modern proletariat is inseparable from the social group of industrial workers—this is its empirical basis. However, the modern proletariat is not an occupational group, nor a description of the living conditions of a certain social stratum; it is a scientific concept that reveals the inevitable disintegration of capitalist society. Marx repeatedly argued that this is not a subjective conjecture but an objective judgment, because “the proletariat announces the dissolution of the hitherto existing world order, it merely reveals the secret of its own existence, for it is the actual dissolution of that world order.”[8]8 *Marx and Engels Collected Works*, vol. 1, People’s Publishing House, 2009, p. 516.(P17) This shows that the objective historical mission of the proletariat is not the same as the subjective state of the existing relevant social groups. For the proletariat to achieve conscious assumption of its historical mission, it requires a process of being armed with Marxism, and it requires a political party organization capable of centrally embodying the class will. As for individual proletarians, whether they can become advanced elements of their class depends entirely on their own subjective efforts; being born a worker does not help much. Thus, listing various backward cases among the actual group of workers in an attempt to prove that Marx “deified the proletariat” is extremely ignorant; using the so-called “paradox” that “once the proletariat holds state power, it is no longer proletarian” to deny the leading role of the proletariat is extremely shallow. “Proletariat” is essentially not a positive category—this is something Western sociology is unwilling and unable to understand.

现代无产阶级是马克思主义的核心概念，对其界定也是运用科学世界观的典范。恩格斯认为，作为现代社会化大生产标志的近代产业革命，“最重要的产物是英国无产阶级”。[11](P296)列宁认为：“马克思学说中的主要的一点，就是阐明了无产阶级作为社会主义社会创造者的世界历史作用。”[12](P61)毫无疑问，现代无产阶级与产业工人这一社会群体不可分割，这是它的经验基础。但是，现代无产阶级并不是一个职业群体，也不是某个社会阶层生活状况的描述，而是一个揭示了资本主义社会必然解体的科学概念。马克思反复论证，这不是主观臆断，而是客观判断，因为“无产阶级宣告迄今为止的世界制度的解体，只不过是揭示自己本身的存在的秘密，因为它就是这个世界制度的实际解体”。[8](P17)这说明，无产阶级的客观历史使命和现存的相关社会群体的主观状态不是一回事。无产阶级要达到对于自己历史使命的自觉担当，需要一个用马克思主义武装的过程，需要一个能够集中体现阶级意志的政党组织。至于无产者个人，能否成为本阶级的先进分子，全凭自己的主观努力，工人出身并不能帮上多少忙。可见，列举现实工人群体中的各种落后案例，试图证明马克思“神化了无产阶级”是极端无知；用“无产阶级掌握了国家权力就不再无产”的所谓“悖论”，否定无产阶级的领导作用是极其浅薄。“无产阶级”本质上不是一个实证的范畴，这是西方社会学所不愿也不能理解的。

The “people” that Marxism speaks of are the historical subjects identified by historical materialism, namely “real human beings.” In a general sense, they are the broad social forces led by advanced classes that propel history forward; in a specific sense, they are the forces of human liberation led by the proletariat, that is, the “human society or socialized humanity” on which the new materialism bases itself. Thus, although the people and the advanced class cannot be equated, they are also inseparable; this is the basis for the unity of Party spirit and people-centeredness. If we once had a tendency to overemphasize class character while neglecting people-centeredness, then today the main deviation is a people-centeredness that discards class character. Those who like to discuss people-centeredness or being people-centered while bypassing the class character of the Chinese working class should consider this question: the Chinese nation has a rich tradition of patriotism, and patriotic people of lofty ideals have never been absent, yet why did China gradually sink to the point of being at others’ mercy after the Opium War, [13]13 The Opium War (1840–1842) was a military conflict between Qing China and Britain, triggered by disputes over trade and the opium trade, which resulted in China’s defeat and the imposition of unequal treaties, marking the beginning of a century of foreign domination. with patriots only able to lament, “I have the will to kill the enemy, but lack the power to turn the tide”? [14]14 A line from the poem “Song of Righteousness” by Tan Sitong (1865–1898), a reformer executed after the failed Hundred Days’ Reform in 1898, expressing his frustration at being unable to save China from foreign aggression. Why were the patriotic figures of past history always isolated and alone, while the revolutionary cause led by the Communist Party of China produced heroes in abundance, spreading like a prairie fire? We often say that “only socialism can save China,” the essence of which is the guidance of Marxism and the leadership of the working class. Never forget that upholding the leadership of the Communist Party of China means upholding the leadership of the Chinese working class; the exceptional quality of the Communist Party of China lies first and foremost in its embodiment of the class will of the Chinese working class.

马克思主义讲的人民，就是唯物史观认定的历史主体，即“现实的人类”。就一般意义而言，是先进阶级引领的推动历史前进的广大社会力量；从特殊意义上说，则是无产阶级领导的人类解放力量，即新唯物主义借以立脚的“人类社会或社会化的人类”。可见，人民和先进阶级虽不能等同，但也不可分割，这是党性和人民性统一的基础。如果说，我们曾经有过偏重阶级性忽视人民性的倾向，那么今天的主要偏向是去阶级性的人民性。喜欢绕开中国工人阶级的阶级性谈论人民性或以人民为中心的人应该想一个问题，中华民族富有爱国主义传统，爱国的志士仁人从来没有断绝过，但是为什么鸦片战争以后会逐步沦落到任人宰割的地步，而爱国志士只能发出“有心杀贼，无力回天”的悲叹？为什么以往历史的爱国志士都是形单影孤，而中国共产党领导的革命事业却是英雄辈出、呈燎原之势？我们常说“只有社会主义能够救中国”，其实质就是马克思主义指导、工人阶级领导。千万不要忘记，坚持中国共产党的领导就是坚持中国工人阶级的领导，中国共产党的过人之处首先在于体现了中国工人阶级的阶级意志。

Marxism does not neglect the individual, but scientifically defines them as “real individuals.” Unlike Western individualism, Marx does not regard the individual as an independent entity, emphasizing that they always carry out historical activities through concrete social relations in the form of subjects such as classes, nations (tribes, clans, families), and associations (economic, political, religious, social). Hence, the essence of the human being “in its actuality is the ensemble of social relations.” However, unlike Hegelianism, Marx does not believe that all of an individual’s value is determined by social relations; on the contrary, each person has their own unique, intrinsic, and irreplaceable value. Therefore, the problem lies in how to unify the social essence of the human being with their unique individuality. Marxism holds that individualism is undesirable precisely because the unique value of the individual cannot be truly realized apart from their social nature. According to current popular formulations, the unique “ultimate questions” of the individual include death, loneliness, freedom, and meaninglessness. Facts have proven that if one attempts to resolve these questions solely within the scope of the individual, one can only oscillate between the two poles of romanticism, nihilism, and hedonism, materialism, with no genuine “ultimate answer.” Only by throwing oneself into the real cause of human liberation can the individual transcend loneliness and death, attain the immortal value of life, and achieve free and comprehensive development. Therefore, Marx asserts that communism “is the riddle of history solved, and it knows itself to be that solution.” [8]8 *Marx and Engels Collected Works*, vol. 1, People’s Publishing House, 2009, p. 516. (P185-186) Serving the people wholeheartedly is not only a lofty spiritual realm but also a genuine realm of freedom, a perfect response to the “ultimate questions.”

马克思主义不忽视个人，但将其科学界定为“现实的个人”。和西方个人主义不同，马克思不把个人视为独立的本体，强调其总是通过具体的社会关系而以阶级、民族（部落、部族、家族）、社团（经济、政治、宗教、社会）等主体形式进行历史活动，因而人的本质“在其现实性上，它是一切社会关系的总和”。但是，和黑格尔主义也不同，马克思并不认为个人的全部价值都是由社会关系决定的，相反，每个人都有自身独特的、内在的、不可替代的价值。因此，问题在于人的社会本质和独特个性如何统一。马克思主义认为个人主义之所以不可取，就因为个人的独特价值离开了社会本性是不能真正实现的。按现在的流行说法，个人独有的“终极问题”，包括死亡、孤独、自由、无意义等。事实证明，这些问题如果试图限于个人范围内解决，就只能在浪漫主义、虚无主义和享乐主义、物欲主义的两极徘徊，并没有真正的“终极解答”。个人只有投身现实的人类解放事业，才能超越孤独和死亡，获得生命的不朽价值，获得自由全面的发展。因此，马克思断言，共产主义“是历史之谜的解答，而且知道自己就是这种解答。”[8](P185-186)全心全意为人民服务，不仅是崇高的精神境界，也是真实的自由境界，是对“终极问题”的圆满回应。

Starting from a worldview also determines that grasping Marxism holistically must correctly resolve the issue of the objective premises of each branch of knowledge, without any dogmatic value presuppositions. The reason modern Western philosophy and social science are on the whole unacceptable is that they take subjective assumptions about human nature as the self-evident premise of academic discourse in each discipline, requiring no demonstration. This premise is untenable because it treats the animality of human beings, which serves capitalism, as an unchanging scientific principle, while placing all beautiful conceptions of human nature as moral ideals on the other shore of reality. This is also the best annotation for the so-called human nature it advocates as “half angel, half beast.” Marxism fundamentally demonstrates the fallacy of this theory of human nature. Human nature is neither originally good nor originally evil, nor is it a mixture of bestiality and divinity, but a process of continuously moving away from animality and advancing toward a state of freedom and comprehensiveness. The reason is that through productive activities, while transforming the external natural world to satisfy their own survival, human beings must also transform themselves (including human nature) to adapt to the harmonious coexistence of humans and nature. Facts prove that without the worldview of dialectical materialism, there can be no scientific theory of human nature.

从世界观出发也决定了，整体性把握马克思主义必须正确解决每一门学问的客观前提问题，不能有任何独断论的价值预设。西方现代哲学社会科学之所以在整体上不可取，就因为它把主观的人性假设作为各学科学术话语无需论证的当然前提。这一前提之所以站不住，在于它把为资本主义所用的人的动物性，视为不变的科学原则，而把对人性的一切美好设想，都作为道德理想放到了现实的彼岸。这也是对它鼓吹的所谓人性“一半是天使，一半是野兽”的最好注解。马克思主义从根本上论证了这种人性论的谬误。人性既不是本善或本恶，也不是兽性和神性的混杂，而是一个不断脱离动物性、向自由全面状态前进的过程。原因就在于人类通过生产活动在改造外部自然界以满足自身生存的同时，也必须改造人自身（包括人性）以适应人和自然界的和谐共生。事实证明，没有辩证唯物主义世界观，就没有科学的人性论。

It must be pointed out that during its ascendant period, the bourgeoisie’s understanding of the human being was fundamentally positive and oriented toward the good. The mainstream was to revere human nature as divinity, to distinguish between empirical human nature of the time and true human nature, and to emphasize the “return” of human nature as a pursuit, expressing confidence in the future. But today, the main tendency is to reduce human nature to animality, to revere the “law of the jungle,” and to regard the human nature of capitalist society as the unchanging, true human nature. Under the “scientific” pretext of the dichotomy between facts and values, animalized human nature is relegated to the realm of instrumental rationality of “facts,” allowing the maximization of self-interest and its derivative social discriminations to run rampant without scruple. This not only shows the abandonment of the pursuit of a beautiful human nature and a pessimistic, despairing outlook on the human prospect, but also opens the floodgates to ethnic conflict, racial discrimination, hierarchical divides, privilege, and bullying, demonstrating the degeneration of theory and human nature. Therefore, the dogmatic premise of human nature in Western philosophy and social science, as a whole, manifests an arbitrary defense of the existing capitalist system, is incompatible with the progress of human civilization, and is unreliable.

必须指出，资产阶级在其上升时期，对于人的理解基调是积极的，向善的。把人性尊崇为神性，区分时下经验的人性和真正的人性是主流，强调人性的“复归”是追求，表达了对未来的信心。但是今天，把人性还原为动物性，尊崇“丛林法则”，把资本主义社会的人性视为亘古不变的真实人性是主要倾向。打着事实与价值二分的“科学”幌子，把动物化人性划入“事实”这一工具理性领域，就可以无所顾忌地让自利最大化及其衍生的种种社会歧视大行其道了。不仅表明其放弃了对美好人性的追求，对于人的前景悲观失望，而且打开了族群冲突、种族歧视、等级鸿沟、特权霸凌的栅栏，表现了理论和人性的堕落。所以，西方哲学社会科学的独断论人性前提，整体上表现出对于现存资本主义制度的专断辩护，与人类文明进步格格不入而不足为据。

Marxism holds that the premise of scientific research is the objectivity of the object; dogmatic value presuppositions depart from the objective object and violate the nature of science. Marx therefore criticized the idealist conception of history for having “no premises”; the “human being” it takes as its starting point is not a real human being existing in history, but a subjectively imagined one. Historical materialism, in contrast, “starts from real premises and never departs from them for a moment. Its premises are human beings, not in some imaginary state of isolation and fixity, but in their actual, empirically perceptible process of development under definite conditions.” [10] (P73) Only from the totality of social relations based on relations of production, and from the contradictory movement of social history, can the human being as the objective object of cognition be established. Therefore, the problem has never been, as mainstream Western views claim, that they value human beings and individuals while Marxism neglects human beings, especially individuals. The problem is what kind of human being can serve as the objective object of scientific cognition; otherwise, taking the human being as the starting point is an empty phrase. It is precisely because Western academia has abandoned the monistic worldview of dialectical materialism that it has lost the possibility of taking the human being as a whole as the object of scientific cognition, and can only cognize partial human beings. However, Western liberals such as Karl Popper do not acknowledge this as their own limitation; instead, using the fallacy of opposing “grand narratives,” they treat fragmentation as the true existence of human beings and the world, confining scientific cognition to “partial engineering” and “small narratives.” To implement the principle of grasping Marxism holistically, it is necessary to break through the limitation of the positivistic study of human beings.

马克思主义认为科学研究的前提是对象的客观性，独断论的价值预设脱离了客观对象，违背了科学本性。马克思因此批评唯心主义历史观“没有前提”，它作为出发点的“人”不是历史中真实存在的人，而是主观想象的人。而唯物史观则相反，“它从现实的前提出发，它一刻也不离开这种前提。它的前提是人，但不是处在某种虚幻的离群索居和固定不变状态中的人，而是处在现实的、可以通过经验观察到的、在一定条件下进行的发展过程中的人”。[10](P73)只有从以生产关系为基础的社会关系总和中，从社会历史的矛盾运动中，才能确立作为认识的客观对象的人。所以，问题从来不是如西方主流观点所说的，它们重视人和个人，而马克思主义忽视人，尤其是个人。问题在于怎样的人才能作为科学认识的客观对象，否则，以人为出发点就是一句空话。西方学界正是由于摒弃了辩证唯物主义一元论世界观，因而丧失了把人整体地作为科学认识对象的可能性，而只能认识局部的人。但是，卡尔·波普尔等西方自由主义不承认这是其自身的局限性，反而以反对“宏大叙事”的谬论，把碎片化视为人和世界的真实存在，把科学认识限定在“局部工程”“细小叙事”上。贯彻整体性把握马克思主义的原则，就必须突破对于人的研究实证化的局限。

2. The Core Essence of the Holistic Nature of Marxism: The Theme of Human Liberation with the Liberation of the Working Class as Its Political Form

2. 马克思主义整体性的核心要义：以工人阶级解放为政治形式的人类解放主题

The core of the holistic nature of Marxism lies in its having a consistent theme, forming a theoretical tradition that is continuous and coherent. This theme is to resolve the problem of social antagonism, which has always existed since the advent of class society, where one part of humanity oppresses and exploits another, so as to achieve the genuine liberation of humanity.

马克思主义整体性的核心，在于它具有一以贯之的主题，形成了一脉相承的理论传统。这个主题就是要解决人类进入阶级社会以来，始终存在的一部分人压迫、剥削另一部分人的社会对抗问题，使人类得以真正的解放。

The theme of human liberation was raised by the bourgeois revolution. The bourgeoisie arose with the development of large-scale industry; it created an unprecedented and unimaginably huge social productive force, demonstrating humanity’s powerful creativity. “It was the first to show what human activity can achieve. It accomplished wonders far surpassing Egyptian pyramids, Roman aqueducts, and Gothic cathedrals; it conducted expeditions that put in the shade all former exoduses of nations and crusades.” [10] (P275) This powerful productive force, created and controlled by humanity, laid the material foundation for human liberation.

人的解放这一主题是资产阶级革命提出来的。资产阶级随着大工业的发展而兴起，它创造了令人难以想象的前所未有的巨大社会生产力，展示了人类的强大创造力。“它第一个证明了，人的活动能够取得什么样的成就。它创造了完全不同于埃及金字塔、罗马水道和哥特式教堂的奇迹；它完成了完全不同于民族大迁徙和十字军征讨的远征。” [10](P275)这种为人类创造和支配的强大生产力，为人类解放奠定了物质基础。

Moreover, the bourgeoisie, as the first world-historical existence in human history, truly inaugurated the world-historical process of humanity. “The need of a constantly expanding market for its products chases the bourgeoisie over the entire surface of the globe. It must nestle everywhere, settle everywhere, establish connections everywhere. The bourgeoisie has, through its exploitation of the world market, given a cosmopolitan character to production and consumption in every country. … In place of the old local and national seclusion and self-sufficiency, we have intercourse in every direction, universal inter-dependence of nations. And as in material, so also in intellectual production. The intellectual creations of individual nations become common property. National one-sidedness and narrow-mindedness become more and more impossible, and from the numerous national and local literatures, there arises a world literature.”[13]13 The Opium War (1840–1842) was a military conflict between Qing China and Britain, triggered by disputes over trade and the opium trade, which resulted in China’s defeat and the imposition of unequal treaties, marking the beginning of a century of foreign domination.(P34-35) The inauguration of world history placed all of humanity for the first time within a single social community, establishing the subjective significance of human emancipation.

不仅如此，资产阶级作为人类历史上第一个世界历史性的存在，真正开创了人类的世界历史进程。“过去那种地方的和民族的自给自足和闭关自守状态，被各民族的各方面的互相往来和各方面的互相依赖所代替了。物质的生产是如此，精神的生产也是如此。各民族的精神产品成了公共的财产。民族的片面性和局限性日益成为不可能，于是由许多种民族的和地方的文学形成了一种世界的文学。”[13](P34-35)世界历史的开创，使得全人类第一次处于一个社会共同体，确立了人类解放的主体意义。

Correspondingly, humanity’s understanding of emancipation also reached a new height: all emancipatory activities are, in the final analysis, the emancipation of humanity itself. If emancipation is the modern “riddle of the Sphinx,” then German classical philosophy, which embodies the highest classical thought of the bourgeoisie, gave this answer: “The question has always been: what is God? German philosophy answered this question: God is man. Man only needs to understand himself, to make himself the measure of all life-relations, to judge these relations according to his own essence, to arrange the world in a truly human way, according to the needs of his own nature, and then he will have guessed the riddle of the modern age.”[14]14 A line from the poem “Song of Righteousness” by Tan Sitong (1865–1898), a reformer executed after the failed Hundred Days’ Reform in 1898, expressing his frustration at being unable to save China from foreign aggression.(P651) The deciphering of the riddle of emancipation laid the ideological foundation for human emancipation. Raising high the banner of human emancipation and striving to establish a “rational millennium kingdom” gave birth to the vigorous bourgeois revolution.

与此相应，人类对于解放的认识，也达到了一个新高度，即所有的解放活动，归根到底是人自身的解放。如果说解放是现代的“斯芬克斯之谜”的话，那么体现资产阶级古典思想高度的德国古典哲学则作出了这样的回答：“历来总是提出这样的问题：神是什么？德国哲学这样回答问题：神就是人。人只须要了解自己本身，使自己成为衡量一切生活关系的尺度，按照自己的本质去估价这些关系，真正依照人的方式，根据自己本性的需要，来安排世界，这样的话，他就会猜中现代的谜了。”[14](P651)对解放之谜的破解，为人类解放奠定了思想基础。高举人的解放的旗帜，为建立“理性的千年王国”奋斗，成就了生机勃勃的资产阶级革命。

However, the development of history continuously shattered the beautiful dreams of the bourgeoisie. New class antagonisms arrived relentlessly within bourgeois society, reaching an unprecedented breadth and intensity. Facts proved that the bourgeoisie had not solved the riddle of human emancipation. The fundamental reason, in essence, is that socialized large-scale production dominated by capital embodies not the power of humanity, but the power of reified capital. Therefore, the soul of capitalist society is not human awakening and free individuality, but human reification and commodity fetishism. Consequently, the fundamental problem of capitalism is to return productive forces, this “essential power of humanity,” to humanity.

但是，历史的发展不断打破了资产阶级的美梦。新的阶级对抗在资产阶级社会中无情而至，而且达到了空前广泛而尖锐的程度。事实证明，资产阶级并没有破解人类解放之谜。究其原因，从根本上说，就是有资本支配的社会化大生产，体现的不是人类的力量，而是物化的资本的力量。因此，资本主义社会的魂不是人的觉醒和自由个性，而是人的物化和商品拜物教。所以，资本主义的基本问题就是把生产力这种“人的本质力量”归还给人。

Marxism does not reveal the human nature of socialized productive forces from a moral perspective, but rather demonstrates the developmental direction of socialized large-scale production through a scientific analysis of the contradictory and inverted nature of capital. The contradictory nature of capital lies in the irreconcilable conflict between its endless drive for innovation and expansion and the limits to development it itself sets. On the one hand, “The bourgeoisie cannot exist without constantly revolutionizing the instruments of production, and thereby the relations of production, and with them the whole relations of society.”[10](P275) On the other hand, the survival strategy of capital in pursuing surplus value inevitably leads to the impoverishment of the working class, along with corresponding market shrinkage and the destruction of human talent, rendering unlimited innovative development an illusion. Marx therefore asserted: “The universality towards which capital irresistibly strives encounters barriers in capital’s own nature, which at a certain stage of its development will make it recognized as being itself the greatest barrier to this tendency, and hence will drive towards the transcendence of capital through capital itself.”[15]15 This passage is from Marx’s *Grundrisse* (1857-1858), specifically the section on the contradictions of capital’s drive for universality.(P390-391) The inverted nature of capital lies in the inversion of commodity value and use value, and the inversion of living labor and dead labor in commodity production. Value becomes the purpose of socialized commodity production, and reified dead labor becomes the dominant force of socialized large-scale production. This double inversion determines that capitalist society is essentially a reified, inverted society. Although it is a world-historical existence, it composes world history in a barbaric way that tears society and the world apart, making any actual possibility of human emancipation impossible.

马克思主义不是从道德意义上揭示社会化生产力的属人本性，而是通过对资本的矛盾性和颠倒性的科学分析，论证了社会化大生产的发展方向。资本的矛盾本性就在于，它永无止境的创新和发展势头，与其自身设置的发展极限不可调和。一方面，“资产阶级除非对生产工具，从而对生产关系，从而对全部社会关系不断地进行革命，否则就不能生存下去。”[10](P275)而另一方面，资本追逐超额利润的生存之道必然导致的工人阶级贫困化，以及相应的市场萎缩和人才摧残，使得无限的创新发展成为泡影。马克思因此断言：“资本不可遏止地追求的普遍性，在资本本身的性质上遇到了限制，这些限制在资本发展到一定阶段时，会使人们认识到资本本身就是这种趋势的最大限制，因而驱使人们利用资本本身来消灭资本。”[15](P390-391)资本的颠倒性就在于商品价值和使用价值的颠倒，以及商品生产活劳动和死劳动的颠倒。价值成为社会化商品生产的目的，物化的死劳动成为社会化大生产的支配力量，这双重颠倒决定了资本主义社会本质上是个物化的颠倒社会。它虽然是一种世界历史的存在，但却是以撕裂社会、撕裂世界的野蛮方式谱写世界历史的，不存在人类解放的实际可能。

The reconstruction of the theme of human emancipation by Marxism is based on the necessity of breaking the two bottlenecks of socialized large-scale production dominated by capital, namely “polarization” and human reification. The key is the discovery that human emancipation must “be expressed through the political form of the emancipation of the workers,” “because the emancipation of the workers contains universal human emancipation.”[8]8 *Marx and Engels Collected Works*, vol. 1, People’s Publishing House, 2009, p. 516.(P167) From the perspective of human emancipation, Marx demonstrated the three major characteristics of the working class, making it the undisputed leading force: First, the modern proletariat is another world-historical force forged by capitalist society and capital, opposed to capital, meaning its developmental direction is entirely consistent with the globalization of productive forces and the integration of the world. Humanity’s entry into world history signifies the end of the history of isolated, closed development among nations. Only by standing at the height of the development of all humanity can the riddle of human emancipation be solved; only as a world-historical force can one bear the great task of human emancipation. Although capitalism is also objectively a world-historical existence, its standpoint of development remains the private interests of a single nation or itself, and thus it will ultimately be discarded by world history. “The proletariat exists only on a world-historical level, just as communism, its cause, can only be realized as a ‘world-historical’ existence.”[10](P87) The modern proletariat is the true representative of socialized large-scale production, the real basis of “socialized humanity,” and therefore the political form of human emancipation.

马克思主义关于人类解放主题的重构，立足于必须打破资本主导的社会化大生产的两个瓶颈，即“两极分化”和人的物化；关键是发现人类解放必须“通过工人解放这种政治形式来表现”，“因为工人的解放还包含普遍的人的解放”。[8](P167)从人类解放角度看，马克思论证了工人阶级的三大特征，是当之无愧的领导力量：其一，现代无产阶级是资本主义社会和资本锻造出的与资本相对立的又一个世界历史力量，意味着它与生产力的全球化以及世界一体化的发展方向完全一致。人类进入世界历史，表明各民族隔阂、封闭式发展的历史终结。只有站在全人类发展的高度，才能破解人类解放之谜；只有作为世界历史性的力量，才能担当人类解放的大任。资本主义虽然从客观上也是世界历史性存在，但其发展的立脚点还是一国、一己私利，因而终究要被世界历史所抛弃。而“无产阶级只有在世界历史意义上才能存在，就像共产主义——它的事业——只有作为‘世界历史性的’存在才有可能实现一样”。[10](P87)现代无产阶级是社会化大生产的真正代表，是“社会化的人类”的现实基础，因而是人类解放的政治形式。

Second, the emancipation of the modern proletariat is highly consistent with human emancipation: it can only truly emancipate itself by emancipating humanity; conversely, it can only truly emancipate humanity by starting from itself. The abolition of classes and private property is the fundamental demand of the proletariat and the realistic path for human emancipation. However, this demand is both an objective necessity and a profound self-consciousness. In terms of objective necessity, the proletariat’s struggle for emancipation can be said to be the “final struggle”: “This struggle has now reached a stage where the exploited and oppressed class (the proletariat) can no longer emancipate itself from the class which exploits and oppresses it (the bourgeoisie) without at the same time forever freeing the whole of society from exploitation, oppression, and class struggle.”[13]13 The Opium War (1840–1842) was a military conflict between Qing China and Britain, triggered by disputes over trade and the opium trade, which resulted in China’s defeat and the imposition of unequal treaties, marking the beginning of a century of foreign domination.(P9) In terms of self-consciousness, the proletariat’s demand is to elevate the principle that capitalist society imposes upon itself—the deprivation of the individual’s direct possession of the means of production, to be replaced by “common possession of the means of production by the associated individuals”: “The proletariat demands the negation of private property, only to elevate to the principle of society what society has already elevated to the principle of the proletariat, what, without the assistance of the proletariat, has already been embodied in it as the negative result of society.”[8]8 *Marx and Engels Collected Works*, vol. 1, People’s Publishing House, 2009, p. 516.(P17) That is to say, public ownership is not the subjective imagination of the working class, but the ideological consciousness of transcending capitalist private property.

其二，现代无产阶级的解放和人类解放高度一致：它只有解放人类，才能真正解放自己；反之，它只有从自身出发，才能真正解放人类。消灭阶级、消灭私有制，是无产阶级的根本要求，也是人类解放的现实出路。但是，这一要求既是客观必然性，又是深刻的自我意识。就客观必然性而言，无产阶级的解放斗争可以说是“最后的斗争”：“这个斗争现在已经达到这样一个阶段，即被剥削被压迫的阶级（无产阶级），如果不同时使整个社会永远摆脱剥削、压迫和阶级斗争，就不再能使自己从剥削它压迫它的那个阶级（资产阶级）下解放出来。” [13](P9)就自我意识而言，无产阶级的要求是把资本主义社会加在自己身上的原则——剥夺个人对于生产资料的直接占有，实现由“联合起来的个人共同占有”生产资料：“无产阶级要求否定私有财产，只不过是把社会已经提升为无产阶级的原则的东西，把未经无产阶级的协助就已作为社会的否定结果而体现在它身上的东西提升为社会的原则。”[8](P17)就是说，公有制并不是工人阶级的主观想象，而是对于超越资本主义私有制的思想自觉。

Third, the modern proletariat can become the leading force for realizing human emancipation. It is necessary to respond to the Western public opinion claim that the proletariat, trapped in “alienated labor,” cannot form self-consciousness. Simply put, Marxism, on the one hand, demonstrates that the proletariat is the negative aspect of alienated labor, and its resistance to alienated labor is thorough; on the other hand, Marxism, which provides the most thorough analysis of modern capitalism, is primarily directed at the working class: “It gave humanity, and especially the working class, a great instrument of knowledge.”[12]12 *Lenin Collected Works*, vol. 2, People’s Publishing House, 2012, p. 61.(P68) Lenin believed that the simplest summary of the contribution of Marx and Engels is that “they taught the working class self-knowledge and self-consciousness, replacing fantasy with science.”[12]12 *Lenin Collected Works*, vol. 2, People’s Publishing House, 2012, p. 61.(P53)

其三，现代无产阶级能够成为实现人类解放的领导力量。必须回应西方舆论所谓处在“异化劳动”的无产者，不可能形成自我意识。简单地说，马克思主义一方面论证了无产阶级是异化劳动的否定方面，它对于异化劳动的反抗是彻底的；另一方面，对现代资本主义作了最透彻分析的马克思主义主要是面向工人阶级的，“它把伟大的认识工具给了人类，特别是给了工人阶级”。[12](P68)列宁认为，最简单概括马克思、恩格斯的功绩，就是“他们教会了工人阶级自我认识和自我意识，用科学代替了幻想”。[12](P53)

The theme of human emancipation, with the emancipation of the working class as its political form, not only makes the Marxist ideological system a coherent and unified whole, but also ensures the continuity between the founders of Marxism and their successors. This is not only the key to understanding that the basic principles of Marxism have not become outdated and remain applicable today, but also the fundamental thread for grasping contemporary Chinese Marxism and Marxism in the 21st century.

以工人阶级解放为政治形式的人类解放主题，不仅使马克思主义思想体系成为一以贯之的统一整体，而且使马克思主义创始人和他们的继承者们一脉相承。这不仅是理解马克思主义基本原理没有过时、在今天仍然适用的关键，更是把握当代中国马克思主义、21世纪马克思主义的基本脉络。

References:

参考文献：

[1]1 The “two great discoveries” refers to Marx’s two major theoretical breakthroughs: the materialist conception of history (historical materialism) and the theory of surplus value, which Engels argued transformed socialism from a utopian into a scientific doctrine. Selected Works of Marx and Engels, Vol. 3 [M]. Beijing: People’s Publishing House, 1995.

[1] 马克思恩格斯选集，第3卷[M].北京：人民出版社，1995.

[2]2 “A single block of steel” (一整块钢) is a metaphor Lenin used to describe Marxism as an indivisible, integrated whole, where no part can be removed without distorting the entire system. Collected Works of Marx and Engels, Vol. 10 [M]. Beijing: People’s Publishing House, 2009.

[2] 马克思恩格斯文集，第10卷[M].北京：人民出版社，2009.

[3]3 “Building the Party through ideology and strengthening the Party through theory” (思想建党、理论强党) is a principle of the CPC emphasizing that ideological and theoretical work, grounded in a correct worldview, is the foundation for the Party’s political and organizational strength. Complete Works of Lenin, Vol. 55 [M]. Beijing: People’s Publishing House, 2017.

[3] 列宁全集，第55卷[M].北京：人民出版社，2017.

[4]4 “Climbing a tree to catch a fish” (缘木求鱼) is a Chinese idiom from Mencius, meaning to pursue a goal by the wrong method, making success impossible. Selected Works of Lenin, Vol. 2 [M]. Beijing: People’s Publishing House, 1995.

[4] 列宁选集，第2卷[M].北京：人民出版社，1995.

[5]5 This is a reference to Engels’s 1888 preface to the English edition of the *Communist Manifesto*. The citation format (P257) refers to a specific edition, likely the *Selected Works of Marx and Engels* (Chinese edition). Collected Works of Mao Zedong, Vol. 6 [M]. Beijing: People’s Publishing House, 1999.

[5] 毛泽东文集，第6卷[M].北京：人民出版社，1999.

[6]6 Hou Huiqin, “The Holistic Nature of Marxism and Its Theoretical Core,” *Studies on Marxism*, no. 3, 2022, p. 173. Selected Works of Deng Xiaoping, Vol. 3 [M]. Beijing: People’s Publishing House, 1993.

[6] 邓小平文选，第3卷[M].北京：人民出版社，1993.

[7] Selected Works of Deng Xiaoping, Vol. 2 [M]. Beijing: People’s Publishing House, 1994.

[7] 邓小平文选，第2卷[M].北京：人民出版社，1994.

[8]8 *Marx and Engels Collected Works*, vol. 1, People’s Publishing House, 2009, p. 516. Collected Works of Marx and Engels, Vol. 1 [M]. Beijing: People’s Publishing House, 2009.

[8] 马克思恩格斯文集，第1卷[M].北京：人民出版社，2009.

[9] Selected Works of Marx and Engels, Vol. 4 [M]. Beijing: People’s Publishing House, 1995.

[9] 马克思恩格斯选集，第4卷[M].北京：人民出版社，1995.

[10] Selected Works of Marx and Engels, Vol. 1 [M]. Beijing: People’s Publishing House, 1995.

[10] 马克思恩格斯选集，第1卷[M].北京：人民出版社，1995.

[11]11 *Marx and Engels Collected Works*, vol. 2, People’s Publishing House, 2009, p. 296. Complete Works of Marx and Engels, Vol. 2 [M]. Beijing: People’s Publishing House, 1957.

[11] 马克思恩格斯全集，第2卷[M].北京：人民出版社，1957.

[12]12 *Lenin Collected Works*, vol. 2, People’s Publishing House, 2012, p. 61. Lenin’s Special Anthology: On Marxism [M]. Beijing: People’s Publishing House, 2009.

[12] 列宁专题文集?论马克思主义[M].北京：人民出版社，2009.

[13]13 The Opium War (1840–1842) was a military conflict between Qing China and Britain, triggered by disputes over trade and the opium trade, which resulted in China’s defeat and the imposition of unequal treaties, marking the beginning of a century of foreign domination. Collected Works of Marx and Engels, Vol. 2 [M]. Beijing: People’s Publishing House, 2009.

[13] 马克思恩格斯文集，第2卷[M].北京：人民出版社，2009.

[14]14 A line from the poem “Song of Righteousness” by Tan Sitong (1865–1898), a reformer executed after the failed Hundred Days’ Reform in 1898, expressing his frustration at being unable to save China from foreign aggression. Complete Works of Marx and Engels, Vol. 1 [M]. Beijing: People’s Publishing House, 1957.

[14] 马克思恩格斯全集，第1卷[M].北京：人民出版社，1957.

[15]15 This passage is from Marx’s *Grundrisse* (1857-1858), specifically the section on the contradictions of capital’s drive for universality. Complete Works of Marx and Engels, Vol. 30 [M]. Beijing: People’s Publishing House, 1995.

[15] 马克思恩格斯全集，第30卷[M].北京：人民出版社，1995.

(The author is Director of the Research Center for National Cultural Security and Ideological Construction of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, and President of the Chinese Society for Historical Materialism.)

（作者系中国社科院国家文化安全与意识形态建设研究中心主任、中国历史唯物主义学会会长）