An Analysis of the Early Critical Turn in Marx’s Critical Research

— Based on an Understanding of Marx’s Thought during the *Deutsch-Französische Jahrbücher* Period

——基于《德法年鉴》时期马克思思想的理解

0 Introduction

0 引 言

Critical research is an indispensable mode of inquiry throughout Marx’s entire life’s work, and “critique” itself is a key keyword in many of Marx’s classic works. The developmental process of Marx’s intellectual history is undoubtedly a historical process of critical research unfolded through diverse critiques. Marx’s works from the *Deutsch-Französische Jahrbücher* period, *A Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right: Introduction* and *On the Jewish Question*, represent the primary and significant link in the early transformation of Marx’s thought. Marx began to criticize, from a materialist standpoint, the idealist views of the Young Hegelians on issues such as religion and political emancipation. During this period, Marx turned to Feuerbach’s position, which meant that this mode of Marx’s critical research underwent a turn. Compared with the period before *A Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right: Introduction* and *On the Jewish Question*, the critical dimension in Marx’s critical research was correspondingly elevated, and he achieved a critical transcendence.

批判性研究是马克思整个生平研究中必不可少的研究方式，并且“批判”本身就是马克思诸多经典著作的重要关键词，马克思思想史的发展进程无疑是经过多样批判而展开的批判性研究历史发展进程。《德法年鉴》时期马克思的著作《黑格尔法哲学批判》导言和《论犹太人问题》代表了马克思早期思想转变过程中的首要重大环节，马克思开始基于唯物主义观点对青年黑格尔派在宗教与政治解放等其他问题上的唯心主义观点予以批判。这段时期马克思转向了费尔巴哈的立场，这就意味着马克思批判性这一研究方式发生转向，较《黑格尔法哲学批判》导言和《论犹太人问题》之前而言，马克思在批判性研究当中其批判维度也有相应的提升，而且实现了批判超越。

1 The Theoretical Premise of Marx’s Critical Research

1 马克思批判性研究的理论前提

Among the preconditions for Marx’s critical research, whether the critique of religion serves as the starting point of Marx’s critical research is a controversial topic. Although there are some research results in academia concerning Marx’s critique of religion, and to a certain extent it is considered that the critique of religion constitutes the starting point of Marx’s critical research, this view remains open to debate.

在马克思进行批判性研究的前提条件中，宗教批判是否作为马克思批判性研究的开端，是一个具有争议的话题。尽管学界有关于马克思对宗教的批判的一部分研究成果，并且在一定程度上认为是宗教批判构成了马克思批判性研究的开端，但这一观点仍值得商榷。

First, this view overlooks the operational problem of criticality itself. Criticality is the internal thought process or mode within the research process, not simply the critique generated by being reduced to critical theory. Critical research should focus on the unfolding of the research process, not merely the existence of critical conclusions. Marx used criticality to analyze issues related to religion and so forth. Although he formed conclusions about the critique of religion, criticality, as an internal thought process, was already inherent in Marx himself before he criticized religious issues. The critique of religion can hardly become the theoretical premise of Marx’s critical research, because it is a manifestation of Marx’s application of criticality to the real problem of religion, not the internal driving force of Marx’s critical research.

首先，该观点忽视了批判性本身的运作问题，批判性是研究过程内在的思考过程或方式，并不是简单归为批判理论而生成的批判。批判性研究应当注重的是研究过程的开展，并非单指批判结论的存在。马克思是将批判性用来分析宗教等相关问题，虽然形成了关于宗教批判的结论，但是批判性作为内在的思考过程，在马克思对宗教问题批判之前，马克思自身就已经具备了批判性这个内在的行为。宗教批判难以成为马克思批判性研究的理论前提，因其是马克思批判性运用到宗教现实问题的表现，并不是作为马克思批判性研究的内在驱动。

Second, “For Germany, the critique of religion is essentially completed, and the critique of religion is the premise of all other critiques.” [1]1 Karl Marx, *A Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right: Introduction*. The critique of religion that Marx refers to here as essentially completed is a premise judgment based on the theoretical results of existing critiques of religion, not the theoretical premise of his own critical research. This state of the critique of religion in Germany being essentially completed was not accomplished by Marx himself, because before Marx, the critique of religion was a collective exploratory activity, including Strauss, Bauer, Feuerbach, and others. Therefore, the inception of the critique of religion was not Marx’s either, and the critique of religion can hardly become the so-called starting point of Marx’s critique; rather, Marx achieved a critical turn on this issue.

其次，“就德国来说，对宗教的批判基本上己经结束，而对宗教的批判是其他一切批判的前提”。马克思这里所指的对宗教的批判基本上已经结束，其批判的前提是基于已有宗教批判理论结果的前提判断，而并非自身批判性研究的理论前提。对德国宗教的批判这种基本结束状态，并非马克思本人完成，因在马克思之前对宗教的批判是群体性的探索活动，这场活动包括施特劳斯、鲍威尔及费尔巴哈等，故对宗教批判的伊始也并非马克思，对宗教的批判很难成为马克思所谓的批判性开端，而是马克思在此问题上实现了批判转向。

Third, what Marx affirmed was the contribution of the critique of religion, not the act of critique itself that followed those previous critiques of religion. The previous critiques of religion in Germany only served as a premise manifestation of criticizing religion, confined to an intuitive reflection on religion. If one merely stops at the critique of religion, it is far from achieving critical transcendence. To continue criticizing in this way would, of course, no longer possess the nature of critique. This is because Marx recognized that the critique of religion is a stage-bound existence, that is, the relationship between the opening link of the critique of religion and the completion of its task. It is precisely for this reason that the critique of religion is not the starting point of Marx’s criticality, but a manifestation of his critical turn. And the previous stage of the critique of religion is criticizing religion itself, but not the completion of the critique of religion. The reason Marx first affirmed the critique of religion is that a critical turn was about to occur, turning to the next stage of the critique of religion, thereby achieving critical transcendence.

再次，马克思肯定的是对宗教的批判的贡献，并不是遵循原来那些对宗教的批判的批判行为本身。德国之前那些对宗教的批判仅作为批判宗教的前提表现，只是拘束于对宗教的直观反映，如果仅停留于对宗教的批判远远无法实现批判超越，那么再如此进行批判，当然就不具备批判的本性了。因为马克思认识到了对宗教的批判是阶段性的存在，那就是宗教批判的开篇环节与任务完成的关系，也正因为此在宗教批判的问题上不是马克思批判性的开端，而是其批判转向的一种表现。而对宗教的批判的前阶段就是批判宗教本身，但并不是宗教批判的完成。马克思之所以先会肯定宗教批判，是因为即将要进行批判转向，转向于对宗教的批判的下一个阶段，进而达成批判超越。

Finally, Marx’s critical turn is not equivalent to the appearance of the critique of religion by other German philosophers, but rather reveals its inner relations; it is not to follow or repeat, but to transcend. Religion, as a reflection of the illusory existence of God, requires critique to seek the real basis that produces such an illusory reflection, rather than stopping at the critical interpretation of such a “reflection substitute” as religion. This superficial critique may temporarily bring people to think about the real problems of human beings themselves, but after a short period, it cannot be used as a correct theory to solve problems. Therefore, it cannot achieve critical transcendence and is ultimately nothing more than a time-limited empty talk. Marx’s critical turn on the issue of religion responds to the roots of the real world that produce the illusory reflection of religion, and its critical depth far exceeds the relevant critical interpretations of religion itself, including those of Feuerbach.

最后，马克思批判转向不是等同于德国其他哲学家对宗教批判的表象，而是揭示其内在关系；不是去遵循或者重复，而是超越。宗教作为虚幻的上帝存在的反映，批判要找寻的是产生这样虚幻反映的现实基础，而不是停留于宗教这样“反映替代物”的批判解读，这种表象批判可能会给人带来临时性的关于人本身现实问题的思考，但是短期过后，并不能当做正确的理论来解决问题，因此无法完成批判超越，终究不过是略带时效性的空谈。马克思对宗教问题的批判转向回应的是对产生宗教虚幻反映的现实世界根源，其批判程度远远超越费尔巴哈在内的宗教本身的相关性批判解读。

2 The Practical Basis of the Turn in Marx’s Critical Research

2 马克思批判性研究转向的实践基础

The *Deutsch-Französische Jahrbücher* period was when Marx, after leaving the *Rheinische Zeitung*, [2]2 The *Rheinische Zeitung* (Rhenish Gazette) was a liberal newspaper edited by Marx in Cologne from 1842 to 1843, where he first engaged directly with practical social and political issues. began to decide to make a practical turn in his work together with Ruge. [3]3 Arnold Ruge (1802–1880) was a German philosopher and political writer, a Young Hegelian who co-edited the *Deutsch-Französische Jahrbücher* with Marx. Then, regarding the practical issues of society at that time, Marx was influenced by the social practices he had learned about during the *Rheinische Zeitung* period. Moreover, Marx’s earlier practical activities in school, including knowledge-based research participation and analytical behavior, already contained criticality. These would all be excavated and further developed here, thereby realizing a critical turn and achieving an early critical transcendence.

《德法年鉴》时期是马克思在离开《莱茵报》后，开始决定与卢格一起进行实践工作上的转向，那么在针对当时社会实践问题上，马克思就受到《莱茵报》时期所了解到的社会实践的影响，而且同时马克思在此之前的学校学习实践行为，包括知识型研究参与及分析行为，其中就已经蕴含着批判性，这些都会在此被挖掘而进一步发挥，进而实现批判转向，达到早期的批判超越。

First, Marx’s critical research during the *Deutsch-Französische Jahrbücher* period was an “awakening” and application of his strong critical research, and an early presentation of the realization of the critical turn. Marx’s childhood living environment, the sentiments expressed in his essays written at the Trier Gymnasium, [4]4 The Trier Gymnasium was the secondary school Marx attended in his hometown of Trier, where his early essays reflected humanistic and Enlightenment ideals. his various study and life practices at the University of Bonn and the University of Berlin, and his earliest theoretical explorations of Kant’s and Hegel’s views all influenced Marx’s critical research to a certain extent. Marx’s doctoral dissertation, *The Difference Between the Democritean and Epicurean Philosophy of Nature*, is the earliest academic achievement in which Marx possessed philosophical speculative ability and relatively fully exerted his own critical research. This work, from its very choice of topic, presents Marx’s strong critical thinking, namely, responding to a profound question in the history of Western philosophy: that Epicurus was not a plagiarist of Democritus in atomistic natural philosophy. From this, Marx’s critical research began to touch upon the exploration of such internal theoretical characteristics as contingency and necessity, and he subsequently continued to improve his own critical research ability. Although Marx’s doctoral dissertation was still based on self-consciousness, it belongs to critical research in terms of topic selection, argumentation, and cognitive construction. Therefore, Marx’s critical research had accumulated. Hence, when Marx later began to criticize Hegel, the two works he publicly published during the *Deutsch-Französische Jahrbücher* period were undoubtedly an “awakening” of his original critical research, thereby realizing an early critical turn on the basis of this possessed critical research ability.

第一，《德法年鉴》时期马克思的批判性研究，是对其强烈的批判性研究的“唤醒”及运用，并实现批判转向的早期呈现。马克思小时候的生活环境，在特里尔中学所写的文章表现出的情怀，在波恩大学、柏林大学种种学习生活实践，以及最早对康德、黑格尔观点的学理性探索，在一定程度上都影响了马克思的批判性研究。马克思的博士论文《德谟克利特自然哲学和伊壁鸠鲁自然哲学的差别》,是马克思最初赋有哲学思辨能力及较为充分发挥自身批判性研究的学术成果。该著作从选题上就呈现出了马克思强烈的批判性思维，即回应西方哲学史上研究的一个深刻问题：伊壁鸠鲁与德谟克利特在原子论自然哲学方面并不是抄袭关系，由此马克思的批判性研究开始触及到诸如偶然性与必然性等这样内在理论特性的探索，之后也在不断提高自身的批判性研究能力。尽管马克思的博士论文还是基于自我意识，但是在选题方向、观点论述、构建认知等方面是属于批判性研究的，所以马克思批判性研究是有积淀的。故之后马克思要开始批判黑格尔的时候，在《德法年鉴》时期公开发表的两篇著作，无疑是对原有批判性研究的“唤醒”,进而在此具备的批判性研究能力基础上实现早期的批判转向。

Second, theoretical exploration is not simply a matter of cognitive engagement at the theoretical level; concentrated intellectual exchange activities are also very important learning practices. In Marx’s student years, one such learning practice deeply influenced him: joining the Doctors’ Club during his time at the University of Berlin. The Doctors’ Club was at that time filled with a critical atmosphere, which had an important enlightening effect on Marx’s later critical research. Moreover, the relationship between Marx and the Doctors’ Club followed a “four-stage” pattern, which itself represents a certain manifestation of Marx’s critical turn. In his early practical exploratory activities, the general trajectory of Marx’s relationship with the Young Hegelians was: identification – participation – rupture – transcendence. In the course of this relationship’s development, as his critical cognition and critical activities changed, Marx’s critical research process exhibited a clear critical turn to a certain extent. During the *Deutsch-Französische Jahrbücher* period, Marx’s relationship with the Young Hegelians was precisely in the middle stage between rupture and transcendence. Because he needed to achieve a rupture with the Young Hegelians, Marx necessarily underwent a critical turn here, rather than continuing the Young Hegelians’ drift toward extreme self-consciousness. Because he needed to achieve transcendence of the Young Hegelians and of Hegel, Marx underwent a critical turn, so as to truly attain a critical cognitive act distinct from his previous cognition.

第二，理论探索并不是简单地周旋于理论层面的认知，聚集性的知识型交流活动也是非常重要的学习实践活动。在马克思的求学生涯中，也有一次这样的学习实践经历深深影响着他，那就是柏林大学期间参加博士俱乐部。博士俱乐部在当时充满着批判性气氛，这对马克思后来的批判性研究有着重要的启迪作用，而且马克思与博士俱乐部之间存有“四阶段”的关系，这本身就是马克思批判转向在某种程度上的展现。马克思在早期实践性探索活动中，与青年黑格尔派大致发展关系为：认同——参与——决裂——超越，在此关系发展过程中，随着批判认知和批判活动发生变化，马克思批判性研究过程在一定程度上就会呈现明显的批判转向。《德法年鉴》时期马克思与青年黑格尔派的关系正是处于决裂与超越的中段，由于要实现与青年黑格尔派的决裂，马克思这里必然会发生批判转向，而不是延续青年黑格尔派走向极端的自我意识；由于要实现对青年黑格尔派以及黑格尔的超越，马克思发生批判转向，以真正达到区别于之前认知的批判性认知行为。

Third, in the face of social practical problems, Marx began to examine his own thought. Before the *Deutsch-Französische Jahrbücher*, regarding questions of material interests, Marx had engaged in a contemplative state of reflection. As he mentioned in the “Preface” to *A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy*: “In order to resolve the doubts that troubled me, the first work I wrote was a critical analysis of Hegel’s philosophy of right; the introduction to this work was published in 1844 in the *Deutsch-Französische Jahrbücher* published in Paris.” The reason Marx could undergo such a critical turn was that a contrast emerged between his original theoretical cognition and the social practical conditions he encountered. This contrast was that the Hegelian philosophy he had mastered could not truly confront fundamental social problems, giving rise to his troubled doubts. In response, Marx had to truly explore fundamental social problems and could no longer remain confined within the cognitive framework of Hegelian philosophy. Thereafter, he not only began to rupture with the Young Hegelians led by Bruno Bauer but also formally began to critique Hegel, achieving an early critical turn of historical significance.

第三，面对社会实践问题，马克思开始审视自己的思想。《德法年鉴》之前，在针对关于物质利益问题上，马克思产生过反省性状态的沉思，正如他在《〈政治经济学批判〉序言》中提到：“为了解决使我苦恼的疑问，我写的第一部著作是对黑格尔法哲学的批判性的分析，这部著作的导言曾发表在1844年巴黎出版的《德法年鉴》上。”马克思之所以能够产生这样的批判转向，是因为其原有理论认知与所接触的社会实践状况出现反差，这种反差就是自身掌握的黑格尔哲学无法真正面对社会性根本问题，造成了其苦恼的疑问。对此马克思要真正去探索关于社会性的根本问题，不能再束缚于黑格尔哲学认知范围内了，此后不仅与以鲍威尔为首的青年黑格尔派开始决裂，也正式开始对黑格尔进行批判，实现了早期具有历史性意义的批判转向。

3 The Standpoint and Form of the Early Critical Turn

3 早期批判转向的立场与形态

Although Marx’s entire history of thought development during the *Deutsch-Französische Jahrbücher* period was not yet mature, the standpoint relations behind the critical turn of this period were indeed an early important factor in Marx’s critical research process. Marx’s initial standpoint was that of Hegelian philosophy, prominently manifested as the standpoint of self-consciousness. When Marx first acknowledged the standpoint of self-consciousness, he did not raise many direct questions or elaborations. It was only when he truly came into contact with social problems such as material interests that Marx’s criticality began to show a tendency toward a critical turn. On this point, a relatively widely accepted view in academic circles is that Marx’s standpoint during the *Deutsch-Französische Jahrbücher* period was Feuerbachian philosophy. “Marx’s critique of Hegel’s philosophy of right was primarily enlightened by Feuerbach’s philosophical methodology.” Feuerbach’s critical standpoint of religious anthropological humanism, which uncovered the secular basis of religion, did indeed influence Marx. “The disappearance of the transcendent world of truth makes the task of history to establish the truth of this world. Once the sacred image of human self-alienation has been unmasked, the urgent task of philosophy, serving history, becomes to unmask self-alienation in its unholy forms. Thus, the critique of heaven turns into the critique of earth, the critique of religion into the critique of law, and the critique of theology into the critique of politics.” Here, “the sacred image of human self-alienation has been unmasked” refers to the critique of religious object-activity completed by Feuerbach. It was precisely on the basis of this standpoint that Marx conducted a more profound critique. German religious critique, as a precursor to political and social critique, had to enter into political and social critique, that is, to investigate the state and civil society.

尽管马克思整个思想发展史在《德法年鉴》时期并不成熟，但是此时期批判转向背后的立场关系，确实是马克思批判性研究进程中的早期重要因素。马克思最初的立场就是黑格尔哲学的立场，突出表现为自我意识立场，马克思当初在承认自我意识立场的时候，并没有太多直接性的疑问与发挥，直到真正触碰到了物质利益等社会问题时，马克思的批判性开始呈现批判转向的趋势。对此学界比较公认的一种观点是：《德法年鉴》时期马克思的立场是费尔巴哈哲学。“马克思批判黑格尔法哲学主要是受到费尔巴哈哲学方法论的启蒙。”费尔巴哈宗教人本学批判立场，发掘宗教世俗基础的批判，的确影响了马克思。“真理的彼岸世界消逝以后，历史的任务就是确立此岸世界的真理。人的自我异化的神圣形象被揭穿以后，揭露具有非神圣形象的自我异化，就成了为历史服务的哲学的迫切任务。于是，对天国的批判变成对尘世的批判，对宗教的批判变成对法的批判，对神学的批判变成对政治的批判。”这里“人的自我异化的神圣形象被揭穿”是费尔巴哈完成的宗教对象性活动的批判，马克思正是基于这样的立场之上，进行了更为深入的批判，德国的宗教批判作为政治社会批判的先导，必须进入到政治社会批判，即探究国家与市民社会。

Feuerbach’s anthropological materialism was more an elaboration on the relationship between humans and nature, not a social-political inquiry. Marx’s transformation from the critique of heaven, religion, and theology to the critique of earth, law, and politics reveals the fundamental difference between the critique Marx sought to accomplish and the German religious critique represented by Feuerbach. For Marx’s critique to be realized, it was also necessary to determine where the true critique lay. “It is not connected with the original, but with the copy, that is, with the German state philosophy and philosophy of right. The reason for this is precisely that this inquiry is connected with Germany.” Marx recognized that social realities such as earth, law, and politics were more important objects of critique, but he did not directly discuss critiquing these important objects. Instead, he turned to something more profound—a preliminary analysis of the original and the copy in relation to German society. The so-called original corresponds to German social reality; the so-called copy corresponds to German philosophy derived from German social reality, that is, the philosophical theoretical forms that express German social reality.

费尔巴哈人本学唯物主义更多的是对人与自然关系领域的发挥，并不是社会性政治探讨。而马克思由对天国、宗教、神学的批判转变为对尘世、法、政治的批判，透析着马克思要完成的批判与费尔巴哈为代表的德国宗教批判的根本区别。马克思这样的批判要得以实现，还要确定真正批判之所在。“首先不是联系原本，而是联系副本即联系德国的国家哲学和法哲学来进行的。其所以如此，正是因为这一探讨是联系德国进行的。”马克思认识到了尘世、法、政治等社会现实是更为重要的批判对象，但是没有直接性论述批判这些重要的对象，而是转向到了更为深刻的东西——关于原本与副本对德国社会的前提性分析。所谓原本对应的是德国社会现实，所谓副本对应的是由德国社会现实衍生的德国哲学，即表现德国社会现实的哲学理论形态。

The specific path of Marx’s critique during the *Deutsch-Französische Jahrbücher* period was, after determining Germany’s historicity (Feuerbach was relatively lacking in social-historical research), to start with the German philosophical “copy.” This was because Germany was not only an epoch of history but also an epoch of philosophy. Criticizing only German social-historical reality would, for Marx, have been a critique lower than critique itself. Therefore, the task was not to critique German reality but to critique German philosophy, that is, to critique Hegel’s philosophy of right. “German state philosophy and philosophy of right received their most systematic, richest, and final expression in Hegel’s works. The critique of this philosophy is both a critical analysis of the modern state and the reality connected with it, and a decisive negation of the entire form of German political and legal consciousness hitherto, whose most important, most universal, and scientifically elevated expression is precisely speculative philosophy of right itself.” Marx recognized the influence of Hegel’s philosophy of right in German reality, determined its social status, and clarified that Germany’s political reality lay in German philosophy itself. The critique of philosophy was the root critique that enabled the analysis and negation of other social phenomena.

马克思在《德法年鉴》时期批判的具体路径是在确定德国历史性之后(费尔巴哈相对比较缺乏社会历史研究),先从德国哲学这个“副本”来做，因为德国既是作为历史的时代，更是作为哲学的时代。只针对德国社会历史现实进行批判，这个批判行为对于马克思来说还是低于批判本身的，因此不是要对德国现实进行批判，而是要去批判德国的哲学，即对黑格尔法哲学的批判。“德国的国家哲学和法哲学在黑格尔的著作中得到了最系统、最丰富和最终的表述，对这种哲学的批判既是对现代国家以及同它相联系的现实所作的批判性分析，又是对迄今为止的德国政治意识和法意识的整个形式的坚决否定，而这种意识的最主要、最普遍、上升为科学的表现正是思辨的法哲学本身。”马克思认识到黑格尔法哲学在德国现实中的影响力，确定了黑格尔法哲学的社会地位，明确德国的政治现实在于德国哲学本身，对哲学的批判是对社会其他等分析、否定的根源性批判。

The critical turn in Marx’s research during the *Deutsch-Französische Jahrbücher* period broke through the limitations of the existing form. Marx was not constrained by the limitations of the era’s development. Although his early critical turn was relatively focused on the German situation, he essentially grasped the European conditions of the time, making certain comparisons between the real conditions and theoretical states of Germany, England, and France. This was embedded in the discussion of political emancipation and human emancipation in “On the Jewish Question.” Moreover, in the “Introduction” to *A Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right*, Marx discussed issues such as human emancipation and the necessity of the proletariat as the revolutionary leading class, demonstrating his precise grasp of the developmental direction of the entire era. Marx did not confine himself to the existing framework of theoretical cognition; he began to critique Hegelian philosophy, which was a great challenge to his own original theoretical cognition. Even when he later adopted the standpoint of Feuerbachian philosophy, he did so only with reservations. More importantly, he critically elaborated on the basis of this standpoint. In this way, Marx treated theoretical cognition as a process of critical research, continuously questioning and exploring problems, so as to reach new realms and depths of critical research.

《德法年鉴》时期马克思批判性研究转向突破了当时的形态局限，马克思没有被当时时代发展的局限所束缚，其早期批判转向虽然相对而言是针对德国状况，但是基本把握了欧洲的时代状况，把德国、英国、法国的现实情况与理论状况做了一定比较，蕴含于《论犹太人问题》关于政治解放与人的解放问题当中，而且马克思在《黑格尔法哲学批判》导言中，对人类解放及无产阶级作为革命领导阶级的必要性等问题进行了论述，显示出马克思对整个时代发展去向的精准把握。马克思没有限定于当时理论认知的构建框架，开始批判黑格尔哲学，这是其对自身原有理论认知的极大挑战，之后他即便站在费尔巴哈哲学的立场，也只是有所保留地认同，更重要的是在此立场基础上的批判发挥，这样马克思就把理论认知作为一个批判性研究的过程，不断去追问并探索问题，以达到新的批判研究境界与深度。

Thus, from the political activities of the *Rheinische Zeitung* period immediately after obtaining his doctorate to the theoretical explorations of the early *Deutsch-Französische Jahrbücher* period, Marx’s intellectual development revealed, on the one hand, a dependence of theory on practice, and of philosophy, the political state and law on civil society, thereby achieving a transition from idealism to materialism; on the other hand, through defending the material interests of the peasantry, then defending the interests of the propertyless proletariat, and then explaining that the proletariat bears the great historical mission of human emancipation, he achieved a transition from revolutionary democracy to communist thought. These multiple changes and transformations fully embody the early critical turn in the process of Marx’s critical research.

这样，从最初取得博士学位后的《莱茵报》时期的政治活动，到早期《德法年鉴》时期的理论探索，马克思思想发展过程中一方面发现了理论对实践，哲学、政治国家和法律对市民社会存有的依赖关系等，实现了从唯心主义到唯物主义的转变；另一方面从通过为农民物质利益辩护，到为一无所有的无产阶级的利益辩护，再到阐释无产阶级承担着人类解放的伟大历史使命，实现了从革命民主主义到共产主义思想的转变。这样多重的改变与转化，充分体现出了马克思批判性研究进程中早期的批判转向。

4 Conclusion

4 结 语

In the current process of Marxist theoretical research, while promoting the emergence and development of numerous theoretical forms and results, it is necessary to learn from and draw on the research practice of the early critical turn in Marx’s critical research, and to apply it to the process of Marxist critical research. “Communists must make it a habit to read Marxist classics and comprehend Marxist principles, and to use the classics to cultivate moral integrity, temper thought, elevate their realm, and guide practice.” [8]8 Xi Jinping, speech at the ceremony commemorating the 200th anniversary of Marx’s birth, 4 May 2018.

当前马克思主义理论研究进程中，在推动众多理论形态结果产生发展的同时，需要借鉴学习马克思批判性研究中早期批判转向这一研究行为，将其运用于马克思主义批判性研究过程当中。“共产党人要把读马克思主义经典、悟马克思主义原理当作一种生活习惯、当作一种精神追求，用经典涵养正气、淬炼思想、升华境界、指导实践。”

First, we must excavate and analyze the criticality [9]9 “Criticality” (批判性) here refers to the inherent quality or character of critique, as distinct from “critical theory” as a specific school of thought. present in the classic works of Marxism. Criticality is reflected in a series of critical research processes, including Marx’s theoretical critique and practical critique, and requires the subjective initiative of Marxist theoretical researchers to explore it. Marx’s critical thinking is not explicitly presented but is a thinking characteristic implicit in the development process of Marxist theory. Critical theory is not entirely equivalent to criticality itself; the form of presentation is not always the nature itself. Although the academic community has indeed produced a variety of critical theoretical results, the research results reflecting criticality itself are still relatively few. This requires continuing and persistently studying the classic works of Marxism, especially in the face of new changes, where many academic disciplines pursue so-called “hot” issues, but the foundation of the Marxist theoretical discipline cannot be abandoned. We must “rely on classic texts to study Marxism, and develop Marxism from the theoretical and practical dimensions.” [10]10 Unattributed quotation in the original; likely a paraphrase of a standard formulation in Chinese Marxist scholarship.

第一，要挖掘及透析马克思主义经典著作中的批判性之所在。批判性反映在马克思理论批判与实践批判等一系列批判性研究过程当中，需要发挥马克思主义理论研究者的主观性去探索。马克思批判性思维不是显性呈现，而是隐性于马克思主义理论发展进程中的思维特性。批判理论并不完全等同于批判性本身，呈现形态并不全是性质本身，尽管学界确实有了多样的批判理论成果，但是反映出的批判性本身研究成果还是较少。这就需要继续及持之以恒地进行马克思主义经典著作的研究，特别是面对一些新变化，众多学科专业都去追寻所谓“热点”问题，但马克思主义理论学科之基不能放弃。要“以经典文本为依托研究马克思主义，从理论维度与实践维度发展马克思主义”。

Second, “when drinking water, one must think of its source; when drinking water, one must also gaze into the abyss.” [11]11 A classical Chinese idiom, often used to urge gratitude for origins and caution about future consequences; the second half (“亦要饮水望渊”) is a less common variant, here emphasizing foresight. “Marx’s critical thinking not only requires following the logical laws of historical development, but also requires understanding the development of things under current existing conditions and in specific processes.” [12]12 Unattributed quotation in the original. The reason Marx was able to carry out an effective critical turn was that he stood upon the ideas and viewpoints of Kant, Hegel, Feuerbach, and others. After having such reflection and analysis of “source” knowledge, Marx began to gaze upon the long river of the origins of research. In this long river, he carried out critical analysis and did creative research work. “It was precisely through his profound reflection on the epochal issues he faced that Marx gradually settled accounts with his own philosophical beliefs, thereby achieving a transformation in his philosophical mode of thinking.” [13]13 Unattributed quotation in the original. Critical research enlightens us to first learn to accept theory, making “source” theory our own knowledge reserve. While responding to epochal issues, on the basis of our own knowledge reserves, we should look out over the long river of the development of the times, examine our own existing knowledge and cognition, and achieve a critical turn in order to truly reach construction.

第二，“饮水思源，亦要饮水望渊。”“马克思批判性思维不仅要求应遵循历史发展的逻辑规律，而且要求在当前现有情况下以及具体进程中理解事物的发展。”马克思之所以能够进行有效的批判转向，在于他能站在康德、黑格尔、费尔巴哈等的思想观点之上，有了这样对“源头性”知识的思考分析之后，马克思开始暸望研究的渊源长河，在此长河之中，他进行着批判性分析，做着创造性的研究工作。“马克思正是在对他所面临的时代课题的深邃思考中，逐渐实现对自己哲学信仰的清算，从而实现了哲学思维方式的转变。批判性研究启示我们先要学会接受理论，使“源头性”理论成为自身的知识储备，在回应时代课题的同时，在自身知识储备基础上，放眼时代发展长河，审视自己已有的知识认知，实现批判转向以真正达到建构。

Third, “a single leaf before the eye blocks the view of Mount Tai” [14]14 A Chinese idiom meaning to be misled by a small, partial view and miss the larger picture. is a common problem in academic research, and it has naturally attracted the attention of researchers. However, why this “leaf” becomes an “obstruction” is sometimes overlooked in academic research. Conducting critical research requires not only knowing that “a single leaf before the eye blocks the view of Mount Tai,” but also, in the process of cognitive behavior, being able to conduct in-depth reflection and discussion on the reasons why the “leaf” becomes an “obstruction.” Just as Marx initially identified with Hegel’s philosophy and the Young Hegelians, but as real needs emerged and the ins and outs of the problem were continuously clarified, a critical turn occurred, achieving a critical transcendence. In the process of theoretical research, recognizing the power of critical research, discarding the original “leaf,” and analyzing where the leaf becomes an obstruction is precisely the process of conducting critical research. “In the early theories of Marx and Engels, we can see the continuous transformation of their world outlook. This was not only because the theories they encountered could not explain real social problems, but also because of the critical perspective they possessed when thinking about problems.” [15]15 Unattributed quotation in the original. Critical thinking continuously examines the “leaf” before one’s eyes, clarifies the essence of the “leaf,” avoids the possibility of it becoming an “obstruction,” makes a timely turn, and promotes the efficient integration of theory and reality.

第三，“一叶障目不见泰山”是进行学术研究常有的一个问题，当然也引起了研究者们的注意，但是为何这一“叶”成为了“障”,这似乎在学术研究中有时被忽视了。进行批判性研究不仅要知道“一叶障目不见泰山”,而且要在认知行为过程中能对“叶”成为“障”的原因进行深入反思探讨。犹如马克思最初认同黑格尔哲学和青年黑格尔派一样，但是随着真正的现实需要，问题的来龙去脉不断被理清，进而发生批判转向，实现批判性超越。在理论研究过程中，要认识到批判性研究的力量，摈弃原有的“叶”,分析“叶”成为障碍之所在，就是在进行批判性研究进程。“在马克思、恩格斯早期的理论中，我们可以看到他们世界观的不断转变，这不仅因为他们所接触的理论不能解释社会现实问题，更在于他们思考问题时所具有的批判性视角”。批判性不断思考眼前的“叶”,弄清“叶”的实质，避免成为“障”的可能性，及时发生转向，推动理论与现实的高效结合。

Online editor: Paul

网络编辑：保罗