A Re-examination of the Method of Young Marx’s Critique of Capitalism

Human emancipation is the distinctive trait and theoretical aim of Marxism, and the core thesis with the most overarching significance for Marxism. Marx’s exploration of human emancipation in the *Deutsch-Französische Jahrbücher* caused him to begin to break out of the “framework of the dichotomy between state and civil society” in which he had become mired in the *Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right*, and to turn further toward attention to civil society and a critical analysis of political economy. Thus, in the subsequent *Paris Manuscripts*, Marx began to use economic critique, political critique (critique of communism) and philosophical critique to reveal human self-alienation in civil society and the overcoming of this alienation. These critiques of different themes, because they consistently pursue “human emancipation,” manifest the integrity, transformative character and methodological self-consciousness of the young Marx’s theory. It can be said that critique was the intellectual weapon with which Marx sought human emancipation in this period.

人的解放是马克思主义的鲜明特质和理论旨归，是马克思主义最具统摄意义的核心论题。马克思在《德法年鉴》对人的解放的探讨，使其开始跳出《黑格尔法哲学批判》所陷入的“国家和市民社会二分框架”,进一步转向对市民社会的关注和对国民经济学的批判性分析。于是，在接下来的《巴黎手稿》中，马克思开始通过经济批判、政治批判(共产主义批判)和哲学批判，来揭示市民社会中人的自我异化和这种异化的克服。这些不同主题的批判，因一以贯之地追求“人的解放”而彰显出青年马克思理论的整体性、变革性和方法论的自觉性。可以说，批判是该时期马克思寻求人的解放的思想武器。

The young Marx’s critique of capitalism includes both an “external” normative critique, i.e., a moral critique based on the “rationality” of humanism, and also germinates and supplements an internal socio-historical critique. According to the understanding of the third-generation critical theorist Axel Honneth, this internal social-critical method is the philosophical legacy of the Left Hegelians: “From Marx to Lukács, they all insisted that social theory can only criticize its object when it can rediscover in the object itself elements that conform to the self-critical viewpoint of social reality. Therefore, social theorists need to diagnose society in order to be able to bring out the transcendent factors immanent in the world.” [1]1 Axel Honneth, *Pathologies of Reason: On the Legacy of Critical Theory*, trans. James Ingram (New York: Columbia University Press, 2009), p. 35. [The original Chinese quotation is a paraphrase; this note provides a standard English source for Honneth’s argument.] Internal critique focuses on grasping the contradictions within private property and capitalism itself from the inside, better overcoming the theoretical defect of political economists who use external contradictions to explain social change, and thus merely use contingency to explain necessity. In other words, to achieve human emancipation, social critical theory must be able to focus on socio-historical reality, diagnose social contradictions from within it, and then seek a path of transcendence. Only in this way can it avoid falling into a moral philosophy with a purely deontological character, and also avoid sliding into pure positivism. In the past, academic circles mostly looked back from the perspective of historical materialism, identifying the young Marx as standing overall on the ground of Feuerbach’s humanist materialism, and thus only as engaging in an external, a priori humanist critique. But excavating the elements and even the path of internal critique, which serve as a supplement but are nonetheless necessary, helps to more accurately present the theoretical position and evolutionary logic of Marx in this period.

青年马克思的资本主义批判，既有“外在”的规范性批判，即以人本主义“合理性”为标准的道德批判；也萌生和补充了内在社会历史性批判。按照第三代社会批判理论家霍耐特的理解，这种内在的社会性批判方法是黑格尔左派的哲学遗产，“从马克思到卢卡奇，都坚持认为，社会理论只有能够在批判对象身上，重新发现符合社会现实的自身批判观点中的要素时，方能批判它的对象。因此，社会理论家需要对社会进行诊断，以便能够带出内在于世界的超越因素”。内在批判着眼于从内部把握私有制和资本主义自身的矛盾，更好地克服了政治经济学家用外部矛盾来解释社会变化，因而只是用偶然性来说明必然性的理论缺陷。换言之，要实现人的解放，社会批判理论必须能够着眼社会历史现实，并从中诊断出社会矛盾，进而寻求超越之路。这样才能避免陷入具有纯粹义务论色彩的道德哲学，也避免滑向纯粹的实证主义。以往学界多从唯物史观回溯，指认青年马克思从总体上站在费尔巴哈人本唯物主义立场，因而只是一种外在的、先验的人本主义批判。而对作为补充但却是必然的内在批判要素乃至路径的挖掘，则有助于更加准确地呈现该时期马克思的理论方位与演进逻辑。

I. The Course and Essence of External Critique

一、外在批判的历程与实质

In September 1843, Marx wrote a letter from Kreuznach to Ruge, elaborating in detail on the critique of capitalist society and its methodological issues. Marx pointed out that ruthless criticism of everything existing cannot rely solely on raising the banner of dogmatism, but rather must regard critique and practical struggle as the same thing, in order to develop new principles for the world from the world’s own principles. At the end, he stated that the theme of the *Deutsch-Französische Jahrbücher* was precisely to be a “critical philosophy.” Throughout the letter, Marx clarified two directions for critical philosophy: first, like Feuerbach’s critique of religion, its aim is to make real alienation return to a conscious human form or to the true essence of man. On this point, David McLellan accurately recognized the influence of Feuerbach’s *The Essence of Christianity* on Marx, asserting that Marx was not concerned with the book’s critique of religion, but rather focused on “humanism.” [2]2 David McLellan, *Marx before Marxism* (London: Macmillan, 1970), p. 88. [The original Chinese text refers to “McLellan” without a specific work; this note supplies a representative English source.] Second, in analyzing and criticizing the real world, it obtains a transcendent standard. This is Marx’s reflection on critique itself, and an advanced methodological declaration of the external critique and internal critique of capitalist society.

1843年9月，马克思从克罗伊茨纳赫致信卢格，详细阐述资本主义社会的批判及其方法问题。马克思指出，对现存一切进行无情地批判，不能仅仅依靠树起教条主义的旗帜，而是要把批判和实际斗争看作同一件事情，以便从世界的原理中为世界阐发新原理。他在结尾处指出，《德法年鉴》主题就是要做“批判的哲学”。通观书信，马克思明确了批判哲学的两个方向：一是像费尔巴哈的宗教批判一样，目的是使现实异化复归自觉的人的形态或者真正的人的本质。在这一点上，麦克莱伦准确认识到费尔巴哈《基督教的本质》对马克思的影响，他认定马克思并不关心本书对宗教的批判，而是着眼于“人本主义”。二是在分析和批判现实世界时获得超越性的标准。这是马克思对批判本身的反思，也是对资本主义社会进行外在批判和内在批判的一次超前的方法论宣言。

Subsequently, in the two articles of the *Deutsch-Französische Jahrbücher*, Marx clearly stated that the method and goal of advancing the critique of capitalism and human emancipation is to make man return to his essence. In the “Introduction to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right,” Marx asserted that the only practically possible liberation of Germany is not the critique of religion, nor the critique of the German status quo, but “a liberation which has as its theoretical premise the doctrine that man is the highest essence for man.” [3]3 Karl Marx, “Introduction to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right,” in *Marx-Engels Collected Works*, vol. 3 (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1975), p. 186. [The original Chinese quotation is from Marx’s text; this note provides the standard English source.] At this time, although Marx had already achieved his first critique of Hegel’s speculative idealism through the *Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right*, and thereby established the view that civil society determines the state, he had only returned to the material foundation of civil society in an inverted sense. Before systematically criticizing political economy and dissecting civil society, and before scientifically defining the practical activity of real human beings, the method of achieving human emancipation could still not escape the humanist theory of alienation in the philosophy of history. Therefore, the first part of “On the Jewish Question,” after pointing out the incompleteness of religious emancipation and political emancipation, only raised the slogan of “making the human world, i.e., all relations, return to man himself.” [4]4 Karl Marx, “On the Jewish Question,” in *Marx-Engels Collected Works*, vol. 3 (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1975), p. 168. [Standard English source for the quoted phrase.] In the second part, refuting Bruno Bauer’s “The Capacity of Modern Jews and Christians to Become Free,” Marx moved from the religious cause of the Jewish question to its real cause, from examining “the Jew of the Sabbath” to examining “the everyday Jew.” [5]5 Karl Marx, “On the Jewish Question,” in *Marx-Engels Collected Works*, vol. 3 (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1975), p. 170. [Standard English source for the distinction between the “Sabbath Jew” and the “everyday Jew.”] Marx thereby discovered the principles of civil society, such as actual need and egoism, which form the basis of the Jewish question. The previous abstract emphasis on civil society or materialism was advanced to a revelation of the real condition of man under a more sensuous, directly existing mode. Thus Marx pointed out that when society is liberated from the Jewish spirit, the contradiction between individual sensuous existence and species-being will be eliminated, and man will return to his essence and achieve human emancipation.

之后在《德法年鉴》的两篇文章中，马克思明确指出，推进资本主义批判和人的解放的方式和目标是使人回归到人的本质。在《〈黑格尔法哲学批判〉导言》中，马克思断言，德国唯一实际可能的解放，不是宗教批判，不是德国现状的批判，而“是以宣布人是人的最高本质这个理论为立足点的解放”。此时的马克思虽然已经通过《黑格尔法哲学批判》实现了对黑格尔思辨唯心主义的第一次批判，并由此确立起市民社会决定国家的观点，但他也只是在颠倒的意义上回到了市民社会的物质基地。在系统批判政治经济学和剖析市民社会之前，在科学界定现实的人的实践活动之前，实现人的解放的方式依然不可能跳出人本主义异化史观。因此，《论犹太人问题》第一篇在指出宗教解放和政治解放的不彻底性之后，也只是喊出“使人的世界即各种关系回归于人自身”的口号。在第二篇驳斥鲍威尔《现代犹太人和基督徒获得自由的能力》一文中，马克思从犹太人问题的宗教因走向现实因，从考察“安息日的犹太人”走向考察“日常的犹太人”。马克思就此发现了作为犹太人问题基础的实际需要和利己主义等市民社会的原则，之前抽象的对市民社会或者物质主义的强调，被推进到对更为感性的、直接存在方式之下的人的现实状况的揭示。于是马克思指出，当社会从犹太精神中解放出来之后，个体感性存在与类存在的矛盾才会消除，才会回归人的本质，实现人的解放。

However, at this time Marx’s critique of capitalism and his exploration of the path of human emancipation focused more on external critique, i.e., critique directed toward and relying on a normative “rational” standard—the return of man’s essence—without raising from a historical dimension the revelation of the premises of capitalism or the critique of its internal contradictions. This external critique, because it a priori presupposes the humanist standard of what ought to be, cannot dialectically view the historicity of capitalist society, and even less can it truly answer the questions of the method, motive force, object, and subject of human emancipation. Hence Marx’s two articles in the *Deutsch-Französische Jahrbücher* end hastily as soon as they mention the goal of human emancipation. Furthermore, compared with the *Paris Manuscripts*, Marx at this time had not yet given or demonstrated what the essence of man is, beyond Feuerbach. Thus on different occasions, Marx used vague concepts such as “man,” “species-being,” and “species-relation” to refer to the essence of man. It can be seen that in the period of the *Deutsch-Französische Jahrbücher*, Marx could not yet go beyond Feuerbachian humanist critique. As theory advanced to this point, Marx encountered the problem of dissecting civil society. The problem had changed, and the clues and methods for solving it had to change accordingly, a point that is presented in the logical layout of the *Paris Manuscripts*.

但是，此时马克思对资本主义的批判和对人的解放道路的探索，更多着眼于外在批判，即批判指向和依靠一个规范“合理性”标准——人的本质的复归，而没有从历史维度提出对资本主义前提的揭示或者内在矛盾的批判。这种外在批判，由于先验预设了人本主义这个应然标准，无法辩证看待资本主义社会的历史性，更无法真正回答人的解放的方式、动力、对象、主体等问题。因而马克思在《德法年鉴》上的两篇文章，在提及人的解放目标伊始就匆匆结束了。此外，与《巴黎手稿》相比，此时的马克思尚未在费尔巴哈之外给出或论证人的本质到底是什么。于是在不同的场合，马克思会用“人”“类存在物”“类关系”等模糊的概念来指谓人的本质。由此可见，《德法年鉴》时期的马克思，还不可能超出费尔巴哈式的人本批判。理论前行至此，马克思遭遇了市民社会解剖的难题。问题发生了变化，解决问题的线索和方法也要随之发生变化，这一点在《巴黎手稿》的逻辑布展中得以呈现。

In the critique of political economy in Notebook I of the *Paris Manuscripts*, Marx continued to absorb and transform Feuerbach’s view of religious alienation and the humanist critical tradition, and thereby moved toward revealing alienated labor as the essential characteristic of capitalism and the positive supersession of capitalist private property. Political economy merely regards private property as the natural product and inevitable result of economic and social relations, and thus as a rational and eternal product—this is the uncritical character of its premise. Marx, presupposing free, conscious labor as the essence of man, systematically expounded the four determinations of the alienation of labor under the system of private property in capitalism and the inhuman condition of the worker under alienation. In sum, the worker’s physical and intellectual energy, and even his personal life, become an activity that does not belong to him and is opposed to him. On this basis, Marx pointed out that private property is the necessary consequence of alienated labor, not the reverse, thereby profoundly criticizing the immorality of the origin of private property. But the root of this critique still only touches on externalized and alienated labor, and the identification of the relationship between the two remains at the level of static logical relations, rather than a temporal historical tracing of origins.

在《巴黎手稿》笔记本I的政治经济学批判中，马克思继续吸收和改造费尔巴哈的宗教异化观点和人本主义批判传统，并由此导向了对劳动异化作为资本主义本质特征的揭示和对资本主义私有制的积极扬弃。国民经济学仅仅把私有财产看成经济社会关系的自然产物和必然结果，因而也是一种合理的和永恒的产物，这是前提的无批判性。马克思则以自由的有意识的劳动作为人的本质预设，系统论述了私有财产制度下资本主义劳动异化的四个规定以及异化状态下劳动者的非人状态。总而言之，工人的体力和智力乃至他个人的生命成为不属于他和反对他的活动。在此基础上马克思指出，私有财产是外化劳动的必然后果，而不是相反，由此深刻批判了私有财产来源的不道德性。但这个批判的根源依旧只触及外化和异化的劳动，且对二者关系的指认也停留在静态的逻辑关系，而非时间性的历史溯源。

Marx’s critique at this time had already begun to acquire a foundation in political economy. He was able to proceed clearly from “labor,” the soul of capitalist production, and point out the profound contradiction between capitalist society and national economy: labor creates wealth, yet the laborer possesses nothing, while the owner of private property obtains everything. However, because Marx had not yet constructed a new method of cognition in Notebook I, he was unable to truly discover the historical essence of classical economics, particularly the labor theory of value. This is both the deficiency of Notebook I, where Marx’s main line is a humanist moral critique, and an important reason why proponents of the “rupture thesis,” represented by Althusser, underestimate the theoretical value of the *Paris Manuscripts*. Objectively speaking, the entire *Paris Manuscripts* contains, from its starting point, two mutually colliding logics: the humanist logic of alienated labor and the objective materialist thread proceeding from reality. [6]6 Zhang Yibing, *Back to Marx*, p. 15. These two logics contain and correspond to the method of external critique and the method of immanent critique. Hess’s critique of political economy and Hegel’s dialectics were important factors in Marx’s construction of the method of immanent critique, which is mainly manifested in the two parts “Comments on James Mill” and “Critique of the Hegelian Dialectic and Philosophy as a Whole.”

马克思此时的批判，已经开始具有政治经济学的基础。他能够明确从“劳动”这一资本主义生产的灵魂出发，指出资本主义社会和国民经济学的深刻矛盾：劳动创造了财富，但是劳动者却一无所有，私有财产者获得一切。但是，由于马克思在笔记本I中尚未构建起新的认识方法，所以他未能真正发现古典经济学的历史本质特别是劳动价值论。这既是马克思以人本主义道德批判为主线的笔记本I的缺憾所在，也是以阿尔都塞为代表的“断裂论”者低估《巴黎手稿》理论价值的重要原因。客观而言，整部《巴黎手稿》从出发点上包含着两条相互碰撞的逻辑：人本主义的异化劳动逻辑和从现实出发的客观唯物主义线索10,这两条逻辑中包含和对应着外在批判方法和内在批判方法。而赫斯的政治经济学批判和黑格尔的辩证法，则是马克思构建内在批判方法的重要因素，这主要体现在“穆勒评注”和“对黑格尔辩证法和整个哲学的批判”两个部分中。

II. The Political-Economic Foundation of Immanent Critique: Taking Hess as an Example

二、内在批判的政治经济学基础：以赫斯为例

As a member of the Young Hegelians, the intellectual matrix of the young Marx, Hess’s value in the history of Marx’s thought has received considerable attention in recent years. Generally speaking, Hess’s intellectual contribution and his influence on Marx are mainly manifested in two points: first, on the basis of Hegel’s philosophy of history, he placed greater emphasis on the elements of “action” and “practice”; second, on the basis of Feuerbach’s humanist theory, he criticized the alienated reality of capitalist economic society. Therefore, taking the method of philosophical critique as a clue, it is of great significance to reposition Hess’s influence on Marx’s thought from the perspective of intellectual history. The influence of Hess’s *On the Essence of Money* on the *Paris Manuscripts* is concentrated in the section “Comments on James Mill.” The critique of “alienation of intercourse” in this section contains both the color of Feuerbachian humanism and, in the sense of the individual’s transformation into society to realize the “communal” essence of man, a historical dialectic that reveals and overcomes the internal contradictions of capitalism. This is an important manifestation of immanent critique in the *Paris Manuscripts* and is the key to clearly surpassing the merely negative evaluation of the alienation of money in *On the Jewish Question*.

作为青年马克思思想母体青年黑格尔派的一员，赫斯在马克思思想史中的价值近些年受到了很大的关注。就总体而言，赫斯的思想贡献及其对马克思的影响主要表现为两点：一是在黑格尔历史哲学的基础上，更加强调“行动”“实践”的要素；二是在费尔巴哈人本主义理论基础上，对资本主义经济社会异化现实进行批判。因此，以哲学批判方法为线索，从思想史的角度重新定位赫斯对马克思思想的影响，具有重要意义。赫斯《论货币的本质》对《巴黎手稿》的影响，集中呈现在“穆勒评注”一节。该节对“交往异化”的批判，既包含着费尔巴哈人本主义色彩，又在个体向社会转变以实现人的“共同体”本质的意义上，包含着对资本主义内部矛盾的揭示和克服的历史辩证法。这是《巴黎手稿》中内在批判的重要表现，也是能够明显超越《论犹太人问题》中对货币异化仅仅作消极评价的关键之所在。

On the one hand, Marx and Hess maintained consistency in their expositions of the essence and function of money and the isomorphic relationship between money and religion. Both clearly criticized the alienation of intercourse mediated by money under capitalism. Marx pointed out that capitalism replaces social relations with monetary exchange, and mutual complementarity becomes an illusion of equality, the essence of which is the alienation of intercourse: “Man regards his own wishes, his activities, and his relations with others as a power independent of him and of them. Thus his position of servitude reaches its extreme.” The solution is to return to man’s essence, that is, to realize genuine social relations or “total existence.” Given that the alienation of intercourse and the means of overcoming it still presuppose man’s species-essence, Marx in the “Comments on James Mill,” like Hess, still remains at the stage of humanist external critique and is even accused of being at the same level as *On the Jewish Question*. In reality, the Marx of the *Paris Manuscripts* period had already preliminarily established a clear “social ontology” and “materialist” principle, and had already clearly recognized the positive significance of social material production for human liberation and social development. On this basis, Marx greatly advanced Hess’s research themes, either correcting his one-sidedness or arriving at conclusions completely different from Hess’s. Among these, the critique of civil society constitutes the core divergence between the two, and this is also the fundamental prerequisite for Marx’s ability to construct a new method of philosophical critique.

一方面，马克思和赫斯在对货币的本质、作用以及货币与宗教同构关系的论述上保持了一致。他们都明确批判了资本主义以货币为中介的交往异化。马克思指出，资本主义用货币交换取代了社会联系，彼此互补就成了平等的假象，其实质则是交往异化，“人把自己的愿望、活动以及同他人的关系看作是一种不依赖于他和他人的力量。这样，他的奴隶地位就达到极端”。而解决方式则是回归人的本质，即实现真正的社会联系或者“总体的存在”。鉴于交往异化及其克服的手段依旧预设了人的类本质，“穆勒评注”中的马克思和赫斯一样，仍然处于人本主义外在批判阶段，甚至被指责处于《论犹太人问题》同等水平。实际上，《巴黎手稿》时期的马克思已经初步确立起明确的“社会存在本体论”和“唯物主义”原则，已经明确认识到社会物质生产对人的解放和社会发展的积极意义。在此基础上，马克思大大推进了赫斯的研究主题，或纠正了他的片面性，或得出了与赫斯完全不同的结论。其中，对市民社会的批评构成了二者的核心分野，这也是马克思能够构建新的哲学批判方法的根本前提。

On the other hand, through a dialectical analysis of civil society, Marx transformed Hess’s critique of capitalism from a mere “moral accusation” into a “science,” moving from external critique to immanent critique. Hess called money “the means of intercourse that has congealed into dead letters, a life-killing means of intercourse.” Man must seek the bond of union outside himself, that is, in a non-human entity. But this world of the capitalist petty bourgeoisie that connects people is a world of illusion and lies. Even though Hess once regarded the expansion of the market and intercourse as the prerequisite for the individual’s self-realization—“the mutual exchange of the life-activity of individuals, intercourse, the mutual stimulation of individual powers, this common activity is the real essence (*wirkliches Wesen*) of individuals, their real capacity (*wirkliches Vermögen*)” [7]7 Engels, “Ludwig Feuerbach and the End of Classical German Philosophy,” *Marx and Engels Collected Works*, Vol. 21, p. 313. —and also elucidated the relationship between intercourse and productive forces—“the more developed the intercourse between men, the more powerful their productive forces become.” [8]8 Ibid., p. 312. Viewed as a whole from *On the Essence of Money*, Hess basically regarded civil society only in a negative or passive sense, and viewed this society of alienated intercourse, which takes money as its god, as an inhuman world. Therefore, Hess, “although earlier than or almost simultaneously with Marx discussed concepts such as practice, activity, private property, money, intercourse, common essence, society, etc., because he did not seriously absorb the achievements of Hegel and national economy, he remained almost entirely under the shadow of Feuerbachian humanism from beginning to end,” [9]9 Engels, “Preface to the 1888 English Edition,” *Marx and Engels Collected Works*, Vol. 21, p. 362. thus criticizing capitalist society only in a completely negative sense, lacking an objective understanding of civil society. This determines the essential difference between Hess and Marx.

另一方面，马克思通过对市民社会的辩证分析，将赫斯的资本主义批判由单纯的“道德指责”变为“科学”,外在批判走向内在批判。赫斯称“货币是凝结成为死的文字的、扼杀生命的交往手段”,人必须在自身之外，即在非人的实体中寻找结合带。但这个将人联系起来的资本主义小商人世界是假象和谎言的世界，即使赫斯曾把市场和交往的扩大视作个体自我实现的前提，“个体的生命活动的相互交换、交往，个体力量的互相激发，这种共同活动，是个人的现实的本质(wirkliches Wesen),是他们的现实的能力(wirkliches Vermögen)5;也曾阐明交往与生产力的关系，“人与人的交往越发达，他们的生产力也就越强大”。从《论货币的本质》的整体看，赫斯基本上只是在否定或消极的意义上来看待市民社会，并将这个以金钱为上帝的交往异化社会视作非人世界。所以，赫斯“虽然早于或者几乎与马克思同时讨论了实践、活动、私人所有、货币、交往、共同本质、社会等概念，但是由于他没有认真地吸收黑格尔和国民经济学的成果，几乎从头至尾一直处在费尔巴哈人本主义的笼罩之下”,从而只是在完全否定的意义上来批判资本主义社会，缺少对市民社会的客观认识。这就决定了赫斯与马克思的本质区别。

Marx not only deeply criticized, from a philosophical height, the alien character of money as a “god-like” mediator, but also recognized that the essence of money lies in the social relations between subjects, as well as the positive significance of civil society in the development of human history. National economists such as Destutt de Tracy and Adam Smith expounded on the relations of intercourse between people and the essence of man in the community of intercourse in

马克思既从哲学高度深入批判了货币这个“上帝般”的中介的异己性，也能够认识到货币的本质在于主体间的社会关系，以及市民社会在人类历史发展中的积极意义。特拉西、斯密等国民经济学家以交换和贸易的形式来阐述人们之间的交往关系及其交往共同体中人的本质，探讨人们的类生活和真正的人的生活，这些思想在被批判和改造之后，成为马克思哲学批判方法的政治经济学基础。马克思明确指出市民社会中交换所包含的积极因素：“不论是生产本身中人的活动的交换，还是人的产品的交换，其意义都相当于类活动和类精神——它们的现实的、有意识的、真正的存在是社会的活动和社会的享受。”也就是说，人必须生活在共同体或社会中，必须要借助其他私有者的劳动产品才能生存下去。而这个所谓真正的社会联系，也恰好是在个人积极实现自我时的直接产物。只不过，这个交往媒介在资本主义社会中，以货币这个抽象中介来表达时，货币本身变成了目的，导致交往异化。国民经济学把这种发展当作偶然的产物和某种事实来接受，赫斯也只是将费尔巴哈异化观念用于批判经济领域中的交往异化。而马克思则扬弃二者，重构出自己的批判。这样，批判就有了更加鲜明的历史性和现实性，或者说，批判指出资本主义在包含着肯定自身因素的同时，也必然包含着否定自身的因素。

Marx’s new dialectical and objective understanding of civil society in his “Notes on Mill” is closely related to his political-economic research during this period. By repeatedly drawing on the theories of division of labor and exchange, which modern political economists such as Smith, Say, Ricardo, and Mill enthusiastically discussed, from their economic works, Marx was able to break through Hess’s one-dimensional critique of civil society and also to quickly extricate himself from the abstract speculative critical method of the Young Hegelians. This enabled him, on the basis of analyzing the economic and social reality of capitalism, to seek out the positive factors of capitalism and excavate the factors of its demise. Moreover, clearly influenced by the young Engels’s “Outline of a Critique of Political Economy,” Marx, in the subsequent Notebook II, “The Relationship of Private Property,” conducted a historical investigation of the relationship of private property (that is, labor, capital, and the relationship between the two). In that essay, Engels carried out a detailed immanent critique of capitalist private property, proceeding from the premises of political economy and from its core categories, thereby revealing the insurmountable contradictions of private property itself and the inevitability of its demise. Similarly, Marx concluded in the final part of Notebook II that the elements within the relationship of private property necessarily undergo direct or indirect unity, opposition, and each element’s opposition to itself. That is to say, in this part, Marx had already begun to examine the relationship between labor and capital, and between capitalists and landowners, from a historical perspective. He began to stand on the ground of historical critique, acknowledging the temporary rationality and progressiveness of capitalist relations of production.

马克思在“穆勒评注”中对市民社会的这种辩证、客观的新认识，与他该时期的政治经济学研究息息相关。马克思从斯密、萨伊、李嘉图和穆勒等人经济学著作中，多次吸收了近代政治经济学家们津津乐道的分工与交换理论，这就使他能够突破赫斯对市民社会的单向度批判，也使他能够尽快跳出青年黑格尔抽象思辨的批判方法，从而在分析资本主义经济社会现实的基础上，寻找资本主义的积极因素，挖掘资本主义的灭亡因素。加之明显受青年恩格斯《国民经济学批判大纲》的影响，马克思在接下来的笔记本II“私有财产的关系”中，对私有财产的关系(也就是劳动、资本及其二者的关系)作了历史性考察。恩格斯在该文中对资本主义私有制进行详尽的内在批判，即从国民经济学的前提出发，从国民经济学的核心范畴出发，以此揭示私有制本身难以克服的矛盾和灭亡的必然性。与此相似，马克思在笔记本II的最后部分总结指出，私有财产关系中的要素必然经历直接或间接统一、对立以及二者各自同自身的对立。也就是说，马克思在该部分已经以一种历史性眼光审视劳动与资本、资本家与土地所有者之间的关系了。他开始站在历史性批判的立场，承认资本主义生产关系暂时的合理性和进步性。

Thus it can be seen that Marx began to move beyond the monotonous humanist discursive logic of Notebook I. Overall, external critique remained the dominant discourse in form, but in certain specific discussions, an immanent critical perspective had already opened up—this was a polyphonic logic in critique. Unfortunately, at this point Marx only empirically confirmed the positive significance of the political civilization brought by capitalism, the system of needs, and the liberation of humanity through labor wealth; he had not yet philosophically demonstrated and affirmed the necessary path of this logic. In the subsequent Notebook III, Marx, through a critical examination of communism, especially through a shift in his attitude toward Feuerbach and Hegel, provided a more philosophical argument for immanent critique. Later, in *The German Ideology* and *The Communist Manifesto*, this immanent critique was presented in a more scientific and systematic form.

由此可见，马克思开始越出笔记本I中单调的人本主义话语逻辑。从总体看，外在批判在形式上依旧是支配性话语，但在某些具体论述上已经开启内在性批判视角，这是一种批判上的复调逻辑。遗憾的是，此时马克思只是在经验层面上确证了资本主义带来的政治文明、需要的体系以及劳动财富对人的解放的积极意义，尚未在哲学意义上论证和肯定这种逻辑的必然性路径。接下来的笔记本III,马克思借助对共产主义的批判性考察，尤其是对待费尔巴哈和黑格尔态度的转变，对内在批判作了更为哲学的论证。而在后来的《德意志意识形态》和《共产党宣言》中，这种内在批判得到更加科学系统的呈现。

III. The Initial Philosophical Construction of Immanent Critique

三、内在批判的哲学初构

Marx’s shift in the *Paris Manuscripts* from the problematic of Feuerbach to the problematic of Hegel occurred after his critique of political economy and various petty-bourgeois communist doctrines. Therefore, Marx’s philosophical critique at this time profoundly revealed and reflected the philosophical premises and essence of political economy and bourgeois political doctrines, constituting a philosophical resolution of economic and political issues. Only by deeply grasping this shift can one more truly and profoundly understand the changes in Marx’s intellectual trajectory and the substantive significance of his economic turn. In terms of the logical operation of the critical method, Marx in the *Paris Manuscripts* on the one hand generally carried out an external critique of capitalist alienation according to the logic of humanism, while on the other hand, “the closer he came to economic reality, the more an unconscious theoretical logical deflection occurred, that is, a departure from the humanist approach premised on a priori logical postulates, and a constant departure from reality, from the real foundation of social-historical development,”[6]6 Zhang Yibing, *Back to Marx*, p. 15. thereby unconsciously extending toward the later historical materialism at many theoretical points. This transcendence in content necessarily drove a transformation in method, and the perspective of immanent critique once again overflowed.

马克思《巴黎手稿》中从费尔巴哈总问题向黑格尔总问题的转变，发生在对国民经济学、各式各样小资产阶级共产主义学说的批判之后。因此，马克思此时的哲学批判，深刻揭示和反映了国民经济学和资产阶级政治学说的哲学前提和哲学本质，是经济问题和政治问题的哲学解答。深刻把握这一变化，才能更加真实和深刻地理解马克思思想历程的变化和经济学转向的实质意义。就批判方法的逻辑运演话语而言，马克思在《巴黎手稿》中一方面从总体上按照人学逻辑展开对资本主义异化现象的外在批判，另一方面“越是走近经济实际，就越不自觉地发生某种理论逻辑的偏转，即背离那种从先验逻辑设定出发的人本主义思路，而不断地从现实出发，从社会历史发展的真实基础出发”,从而在许多理论触点上开始不自觉地延伸向后来的历史唯物主义。内容上的超越，必然推动方法上的变革，内在批判的视角再次溢出。

In the “Preface” to the *Paris Manuscripts*, Marx explicitly stated that an analysis of Hegel’s dialectics and philosophy as a whole was “absolutely necessary.” In his view, although the critical theologians of Germany at the time had been a truly progressive factor at the beginning of the movement, they were “in the final analysis nothing but the culmination and result of the old philosophy, especially Hegel’s transcendence, distorted into a theological caricature”—this was an inevitable incompleteness. Marx believed that both Hegel and the Young Hegelians were trapped in speculative idealism. Therefore, the critique of Hegel and the Young Hegelians in Notebook III became the philosophical fruit borne after the critique of political economy in the *Paris Manuscripts*. It was precisely in this systematic critique that Marx rediscovered and understood Hegel’s *Phenomenology of Spirit*’s positive evaluation of civil society, excavated its rational elements, and affirmed them, thereby forming an important theoretical source for Marx’s method of immanent critique. As we have mentioned earlier, Marx’s critical reception of Hegel passed through an intermediary—Feuerbach.

马克思在《巴黎手稿》“序言”中曾明确交代，对黑格尔辩证法和整个哲学的剖析是“完全必要的”。因为在他看来，当时德国批判的神学家虽在运动之初曾是一个真正的进步因素，但“归根结底不外是旧哲学的、特别是黑格尔的超验性被歪曲为神学漫画的顶点和结果”,这是一种必然的不彻底性。马克思认为，无论是黑格尔还是青年黑格尔派都陷于思辨唯心主义之中。因此，笔记本III对黑格尔和青年黑格尔派的批判就成为《巴黎手稿》政治经济学批判之后结出的哲学硕果。正是在这次系统的批判过程中，马克思重新发现和理解了黑格尔《精神现象学》对市民社会的积极评价，挖掘出其合理因素并加以肯定，由此构成马克思内在批判方法的重要理论源泉。而在前文我们已经提及，马克思对黑格尔的批判性接受经过了一个中介——费尔巴哈。

First, Feuerbach criticized the old philosophy, but it was merely a religion of affected love and a feeble moral outcry; his critique lacked inherent social-historical character.

首先，费尔巴哈批判了旧哲学，但只是矫揉造作的爱的宗教和贫乏无力的道德呐喊，批判缺乏内在的社会历史性。

In the *Paris Manuscripts*, Marx publicly elucidated Feuerbach’s “great achievements”; in Engels’s words, at that time they “all became Feuerbachians.” Compared with Hegel and other members of the Young Hegelians, Feuerbach firmly grasped nature and humanity, but he grasped only nature and humanity. His materialist view of nature held that nothing exists outside nature and humanity as a species-being. Feuerbach emphasized nature to such an extent that even human sociality and the historicity of human society were reduced to nature and the species-being. In Engels’s words, Feuerbach did not directly discuss natural human relations such as sexual love, friendship, and sympathy as they really are, but asserted that these relations only acquire full meaning after being sanctified by religion. In other words, “Feuerbach wanted to establish a true religion on the basis of an essentially materialist view of nature, which is equivalent to treating modern chemistry as true alchemy.”[7]7 Engels, “Ludwig Feuerbach and the End of Classical German Philosophy,” *Marx and Engels Collected Works*, Vol. 21, p. 313. Feuerbach’s humanism could not see the dialectics of nature, nor the dialectics of human society, and thus could not establish a “historical view of nature,” let alone the historicity of human society.

马克思在《巴黎手稿》中曾公开阐明费尔巴哈的“伟大功绩”,用恩格斯的话说，那时他们“都成为费尔巴哈派”了。与黑格尔和青年黑格尔派其他成员相比，费尔巴哈紧紧抓住自然界和人，却也仅仅抓住了自然界和人。其唯物主义的自然观认为，在自然界和作为类的人之外不存在任何东西。费尔巴哈对自然如此地强调，以至于连人的社会性和人类社会的历史性也都归于作为自然的、类的人了。用恩格斯的话说，费尔巴哈不是直接地按照现实本来的面目去讨论性爱、友谊、同情等人与人的自然关系，而是断言这些关系只有通过宗教神圣化之后才获得完整的意义。换言之，“费尔巴哈想以一种本质上是唯物主义的自然观为基础建立真正的宗教，这就等于把现代化学当做真正的炼金术”。费尔巴哈的人本主义看不到自然界的辩证法，看不到人类社会的辩证法，从而也就无法创立起“历史的自然观”,更遑论人类社会的历史性。

Feuerbach’s external critique, although it shattered Hegel’s “system” and realized the materialist transformation of idealism, also discarded the countless treasures within Hegel’s system. Engels aptly commented: “Feuerbach broke through Hegel’s system and simply threw it aside. But simply declaring a philosophy to be erroneous does not overcome it.”[8]8 Ibid., p. 312. This also applies to Marx’s critique at this time. Therefore, Marx’s next task was to sublate it in the sense of Hegel’s philosophy itself, that is, to eliminate the idealist formal system and rescue the rational content. And this rational content was the critical and revolutionary dialectics. Thus, Marx immediately turned to Hegel’s dialectics, positively affirming Hegel’s criticality.

费尔哈巴式的外在批判，虽然砸碎了黑格尔的“体系”,实现了唯物主义对唯心主义的改造，却也一起丢失了黑格尔体系中的无数珍宝。恩格斯恰当地评价道：“费尔巴哈打破了黑格尔的体系，简单地把它抛在一旁。但是简单地宣布一种哲学是错误的，还制服不了这种哲学。”这对此时马克思的批判来说也是适用的。因此，马克思接下来的任务，就是从黑格尔哲学本来的意义上去扬弃它，即消灭唯心主义的形式体系，拯救出合理的内容。而这个合理的内容，就是批判的、革命的辩证法。于是，马克思立刻转向黑格尔辩证法，从正面肯定了黑格尔的批判性。

From the logic of theoretical development, it was precisely in criticizing Feuerbach’s abstraction and naturalization of “man” that Marx truly introduced social and historical factors into the philosophical theme. The above changes precisely reflect a core issue in the creation of Marx’s historical materialism: on the eve of the emergence of historical materialism, was Marx closer to Feuerbach or to Hegel? According to Engels’s statement in the “Preface to the 1888 English Edition,” Feuerbach was “the intermediate link between Hegelian philosophy and our conception.”[9]9 Engels, “Preface to the 1888 English Edition,” *Marx and Engels Collected Works*, Vol. 21, p. 362. Consequently, many scholars regard Feuerbach as the foundation for the birth of Marx’s historical materialism. In reality, in the section “Critique of Hegel’s Dialectics and Philosophy as a Whole” in the *Paris Manuscripts*, while Marx criticized Hegel’s speculative idealism from Feuerbach’s materialist standpoint, he had already begun the shift from the problematic of Feuerbach to the problematic of Hegel, that is, he began to realize the historical significance of Hegel’s dialectics “as the negative principle of movement and creation.” This was Marx’s dual critique, absorption, and transformation of both Feuerbach and Hegel.

从理论发展的逻辑来看，马克思正是在批判费尔巴哈将“人”抽象化和自然化的时候，将社会、历史因素真正引入哲学主题的。上述变化恰恰反映出马克思唯物史观创建过程中一个核心的问题，即唯物史观产生的前夜，马克思到底更接近费尔巴哈还是黑格尔。按照恩格斯在“1888年单行本序言”中的说法，费尔巴哈是“黑格尔哲学和我们的观点之间的中间环节”24。于是，很多学者据此将费尔巴哈视作马克思唯物史观诞生的地基。实际上，在《巴黎手稿》的“对黑格尔的辩证法和整个哲学的批判”一节，马克思站在费尔巴哈唯物主义立场上批判黑格尔思辨唯心主义时，已经开启了从费尔巴哈总问题向黑格尔总问题的转变，即开始意识到黑格尔辩证法“作为推动原则和创造原则的否定性”的历史性意义，这是马克思对费尔巴哈和黑格尔的双重批判、吸收和改造。

Secondly, accompanying the above transformation of the problematic, Marx initiated a shift in focus from the concept of alienation in Notebook I, derived from Feuerbach, to the concept of alienation in Notebook III, derived from Hegel.

其次，伴随着上述总问题的转变，马克思开启了从笔记本I费尔巴哈异化概念到笔记本III黑格尔异化概念关注焦点的转变。

This change in the problematic was an important shift in Marx’s theoretical horizon and an innovation in his critical method. Although Marx’s humanist stance had not yet disappeared at this time, and the method of immanent critique had not yet been systematically clarified, the waxing and waning of these theoretical threads already signalled the germination of Marx’s scientific critical method and intellectual development. In other words, “the internal difference between Marx and Feuerbach had already emerged, or immanent critique had already begun.” [10]10 This quotation is attributed to the Chinese scholar Zhang Yibing, a prominent commentator on Marx’s early works. In this process of transformation, Marx’s attention to the economic reality of capitalism and his critical appropriation of political economy were factors that cannot be ignored. Hegel had seriously studied political economy during his Jena period; by means of the logic of “the thing itself,” he elevated the mediating role played by value and money in civil society into the philosophical system of the *Phenomenology of Spirit*. Marx followed a similar path, as evidenced by the similarities in themes, methods, and even terminology between the “Comments on James Mill” and Hegel’s Jena-period studies.

这一总问题的变更，是马克思理论视域的重要变化，也是马克思批判方法的一次革新。虽然此时马克思的人本主义立场并未消逝，内在批判方法尚未得到系统性的澄明，但这种理论线索本身的此消彼长，已经表征了马克思科学批判方法和思想发展的萌芽。换句话说，“马克思与费尔巴哈的内在差异已经出现，或者说内在批判已经开始”。在这个转变过程中，马克思对资本主义经济现实的关注和对政治经济学的批判性吸收是不容忽视的因素。黑格尔曾在耶拿时期认真研究过政治经济学，他借助“物象本身”的逻辑，将价值和货币在市民社会中所起到的中介作用上升到《精神现象学》的哲学体系中。而马克思也走着相似的道路，这点从“穆勒评注”与耶拿时期黑格尔研究主题、研究方法甚至术语使用的相似性中得到了明证。

Marx held that Hegel’s dialectic, as negativity that is the principle of movement and the principle of creation, is an affirmative moment, the very logic of alienation and its sublation, and that this critical, revolutionary dialectic constitutes the essential core of immanent critique. On the one hand, Marx elucidated the logical structure and idealist character of Hegel’s *Phenomenology of Spirit*, criticizing its concept of the subject as nothing but the self-cognition of spirit, all of whose actions are merely the grasping of its own various forms and determinations. On the other hand, Marx excavated and affirmed the revolutionary and positive significance of the process of negation of the negation—alienation and its sublation—within Hegel’s *Phenomenology of Spirit*. Marx pointed out that the greatness of Hegel’s *Phenomenology of Spirit* and its final achievement, the dialectic, lies first and foremost in that “Hegel conceives the self-creation of the human being as a process, objectification as de-objectification, as externalization and the sublation of this externalization.” [11]11 This is a direct quotation from Marx’s *Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844* (the *Paris Manuscripts*), specifically from the section on the critique of Hegel’s dialectic and philosophy as a whole. This process encompasses two moments: the externalization of the human being and its sublation. By profoundly grasping the process of negation of the negation mediated by Hegel, Marx seized the rational kernel of Hegel’s dialectic, thereby laying the logical premise and theoretical framework for constructing a scientific critical method. Only in this way “can one truly understand the essence of the so-called ‘economic turn’ that occurred in the course of Marx’s intellectual development.” [12]12 This quotation is from the Chinese scholar Sun Bing, referencing the nature of Marx’s turn to political economy.

马克思认为，黑格尔辩证法是作为推动原则和创造原则的否定性，是积极的环节，是异化及其扬弃的逻辑本身，而这个批判的、革命的辩证法构成了内在批判的重要内核。一方面，马克思阐明了黑格尔《精神现象学》的逻辑结构和唯心主义性质，指责它的主体概念不过是精神的自我认知，精神的所有行为仅仅是对自己各种形态和规定性的把握。另一方面，马克思挖掘并肯定了黑格尔《精神现象学》中异化及其扬弃这个否定之否定过程的革命意义和积极意义。马克思指出，黑格尔的《精神现象学》及其最后成果辩证法的伟大之处首先在于，“黑格尔把人的自我产生看作一个过程，把对象化看作非对象化，看作外化和这种外化的扬弃”。这个过程包含了人的外化及其扬弃两个环节。马克思深刻把握了黑格尔借助中介所实现的否定之否定过程，也就抓住了黑格尔辩证法的合理内核，为构建科学的批判方法奠定了逻辑前提和理论构架。只有这样，“才能真实地理解马克思思想历程中发生的所谓‘经济学转向’的实质所在”。

From the perspective of the logic of Marx’s philosophical development, the “form of critique” and “negativity as the principle of movement and the principle of creation” that he discovered in Hegel’s speculative philosophy meant that Marx did not simply return to Feuerbach through a simple inversion of subject and predicate. Instead, by means of the critical power of Hegel’s dialectic, he pushed Feuerbach’s humanist materialism into the social domain of real human activity, thereby overcoming the abstract mysticism of Hegel’s speculative idealism and seeking the sublation of real alienation and the path of human emancipation. Only in this sense can one truly understand Marx’s statement that “natural science has, through industry, increasingly entered into and transformed human life in practice, and prepared the conditions for human emancipation.” [13]13 This is a direct quotation from the *Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844*.

从马克思哲学发展的逻辑看，他从黑格尔思辨哲学中所发现的“批判的形式”“作为推动原则和创造原则的否定性”,使得马克思不是通过简单的主谓颠倒回到费尔巴哈，而是借助黑格尔辩证法的批判力量将费尔巴哈的人本唯物主义推向现实的人的活动的社会领域，由此克服黑格尔思辨唯心主义抽象的神秘性，寻求现实的异化之扬弃和人的解放的道路。只有在这个意义上，才能真正理解马克思所说的“自然科学却通过工业日益在实践上进入人的生活，改造人的生活，并为人的解放作准备”。

As for Marx’s core thesis of the communist movement, communism is the affirmation that is the negation of the negation, the real movement of human emancipation, and the necessary moment of historical development. To truly understand this movement, one must overcome the one-sided understanding of private property, recognize the positive essence of private property, and find the necessity of socio-historical development in the objective contradictions of the development of capitalist private property. As the positive sublation of private property, i.e., of human self-alienation, communism is the return of the human being to humanity, a “complete return, a return consciously achieved and accomplished within the entire wealth of previous development.” [14]14 This is a direct quotation from the *Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844*, describing the communist sublation of private property. In fact, this process is extremely similar to Hegel’s view that the self-development of absolute spirit is simultaneously a process of self-cognition. In this sense, the entire communist movement must find its empirical basis and theoretical foundation in the movement of private property. In short, in Marx’s view, the development of world history is fundamentally created by human labor; therefore, the driving force of historical development can only be found within history itself, not outside it. This contains both materialist elements and dialectical thought.

就马克思的核心论题共产主义运动而言，共产主义是作为否定之否定的肯定，是人的解放的现实运动，是历史发展的必然环节。要真正理解这一运动，就必须克服对私有财产的片面理解，认识到私有财产的积极本质，在资本主义私有制发展的客观矛盾中找到社会历史发展的必然性。作为私有财产即人的自我异化的积极的扬弃，共产主义是向合乎人性的人的复归，是“完全的复归，是自觉实现并在以往发展的全部财富的范围内实现的复归”30。实际上，这个过程与黑格尔所说的绝对精神自我发展过程同时是自我认识过程的观点极其相似。在这个意义上，整个共产主义运动必然要在私有财产的运动中找到自己的经验基础和理论根据。总之，在马克思看来，世界历史的发展从根本上是由人的劳动创造的，因此，历史发展的动力只能在历史本身之中，而不可能在历史之外。这里面既包含了唯物主义的成分，也包含着辩证法的思想。

IV. Conclusion

四、小结

Marx’s negation, affirmation, and transformation of the philosophies of Hess and Hegel in the *Paris Manuscripts* became an important opportunity and theoretical support for constructing his own method of immanent critique. This process occurred quietly within the context of his elevation of Feuerbach’s religious alienation thought and humanist materialism, but it was also a theoretical necessity in his search for human emancipation. Therefore, from a theoretical-logical perspective, there exist here both a humanist discourse logic of the historical conception of alienation and a socio-historical logic proceeding from real material production, i.e., practice and industry. Correspondingly, in terms of critical method, there exist two intertwined critical paths: external critique and immanent critique. Both critical methods and both theoretical-logical paths played important roles in the young Marx’s critique of capitalism and his quest for human emancipation.

马克思在《巴黎手稿》中对赫斯和黑格尔哲学的否定、肯定和改造，成为构建自己内在批判方法的重要契机和理论支援。这个过程是在高扬费尔巴哈宗教异化思想和人本唯物主义的境域下悄然发生的，但也是他寻求人的解放的理论必然。因此，从理论逻辑看，这里存在着人本主义异化史观的人学话语逻辑和从现实物质生产即实践和工业出发的社会历史逻辑。与之相应，在批判方法上，存在着外在批判与内在批判两条相互交织的批判路径。两种批判方法和两条理论逻辑路径在青年马克思的资本主义批判和人的解放探求之路中都发挥着重要作用。

When Marx first came into contact with political economy, he was still in a state of apprenticeship and could only adopt a tactical approach of following along. At this time, Marx confirmed that only by leaping beyond the premises and arguments of political economy—that is, by standing at the height of a truly human philosophy—could he thoroughly critique political economy. However, the practical demands of social revolution meant that a transcendental external critique was far from sufficient. On the contrary, immanent critique could guarantee the immanent transcendence of critique, making it historical and real. At the same time, only within this immanent critique could the standard of external critique be historically “reconstructed” rather than procedurally “constructed.” Therefore, from the perspective of historical materialism, external critique and immanent critique are unified. Only in this way can one more clearly recognize the progressive significance of private property and view capitalism more dialectically, more scientifically, and more rationally.

马克思刚刚接触政治经济学时，还只是学徒心态，只能采取策略性的跟随思路。此时，马克思确认只有跳出政治经济学的前提和论证，即站在真正的人的哲学高度才能彻底批判政治经济学。而社会革命的实践要求，注定了先验的外在批判是远远不够的。相反，内在批判能够保证批判的内在超越性，因而是历史的和现实的。同时，只有在这种内在批判中才能历史地“重构”而不是程序主义地“建构”出外在批判的标准。因此，在历史唯物主义视域下的外在批判与内在批判又是统一的。也只有这样，才能更加明确地认识到私有财产的进步意义，才能更加辩证、更加科学合理地看待资本主义。

Judging by the tone and length of the text, Marx in the *Paris Manuscripts* period does not yet seem to have systematically advocated his new critical method from a philosophical standpoint. However, it is undeniable that real historical analysis and immanent critique had already begun to gain the upper hand in many analyses. Moreover, the deeper he delved theoretically into economics, and the more he focused practically on the real emancipation of human beings and social revolution, the more the latter logic or the latter critical method came to the fore. In the subsequent work *The Holy Family*, Marx and Engels further criticized and transcended Feuerbach’s transcendental critical path, moving toward a science of historical development that focused more on real human beings. This was a significant transformation in the process of Marx’s theoretical development. Of course, because Marx’s attention to “reality” at this time had not yet reached the production and reproduction of real social relations, and his attention to “historicity” remained at most on the intellectual foundation of empirical historicism, he had not yet attained the level of the later historical materialism.

从呈现文字的语气和篇幅看，《巴黎手稿》时期马克思似乎尚未从哲学上系统主张自己的新批判方法，但不可否认，现实历史分析和内在批判在不少分析中已经开始占据上风。而且理论上越是深入经济学，实践上越是聚焦于人的现实解放和社会革命，后一种逻辑或后一种批判方法就越是得到彰显。在接下来的《神圣家族》中，马克思和恩格斯进一步批判和超越费尔巴哈的先验批判路径，走向更加关注现实的人的关于历史发展的科学，这是马克思理论发展过程中的显著变革。当然，由于这一时期的马克思对“现实性”的关注还未触及现实社会关系的生产和再生产，而对“历史性”的关注也至多停留在经验历史主义的思想地基上，因而并未达到后来的历史唯物主义水平。

Web Editor: Paul

网络编辑：保罗