The Methodological Characteristics of Engels’s Critique of Erroneous Trends of Thought

The forty-year collaboration between Engels and Marx painted the magnificent picture of Marxism. As Marx’s closest comrade-in-arms, Engels not only provided both material and spiritual support for Marx’s work, but also made a great and unique contribution to the interpretation, defense, and development of Marxism—the main cause and important achievement to which they both devoted their lives. Among these contributions, Engels cleared away various theoretical mists in refuting all kinds of erroneous trends of thought, and clarified the important value of Marxism in “works written in a lively, often polemical style.” [1]1 This phrase is a reference to Friedrich Engels’s own description of his polemical style, as noted in his preface to the 1885 edition of *The Condition of the Working Class in England*. It is worth noting that his critiques of erroneous trends such as “true socialism,” “lectern socialism,” and the “Youth Party” opportunism reflect a high degree of methodological self-awareness. Revisiting Engels’s critique of erroneous trends of thought and analyzing its methodological characteristics holds important theoretical significance and practical value for safeguarding the security of mainstream ideology and thereby enhancing the effectiveness of social trend governance.

恩格斯和马克思40年的合作绘就了马克思主义的壮丽画卷。作为马克思最亲密无间的战友，恩格斯不仅为马克思所从事的工作提供了物质和精神的双重支持，而且为他和马克思毕生共同致力的主要事业与开创的重要成就———马克思主义的阐释、捍卫和发展作出了巨大而独特的贡献。其中，恩格斯在驳斥各式各样的错误思潮中廓清了种种理论迷雾，在“笔调明快、往往是论战性的著作中”澄明了马克思主义的重要价值。值得注意的是，对“真正的社会主义”“讲坛社会主义”以及“青年派”机会主义等错误思潮的批判反映了恩格斯高度的方法论自觉。重温恩格斯对错误思潮的批判并分析其方法论特征，对于我们维护主流意识形态安全，进而提升社会思潮治理效能具有重要的理论意义和实践价值。

I. Embodying the Scientific Character of Critique through Full Possession and Scientific Analysis of Materials, and through the Unity of Logical Profundity and Popularization of Discourse Expression

一、在充分占有材料与科学分析材料、坚持逻辑深刻性与话语表达大众化中体现批判的科学性

Engels’s critique of all kinds of erroneous trends of thought was carried out on the basis of mastering a large amount of material and conducting scientific analysis; it was a critique with a deep research foundation. At the same time, the process of criticizing erroneous trends of thought embodied the organic unity of logical rigor and popularization of discourse expression. It can be said that scientificity is a distinctive methodological feature of Engels’s critique of erroneous trends of thought.

恩格斯对形形色色错误思潮的批判是在掌握了大量材料的基础上经过科学分析而展开的，是具有深厚研究基础的批判。同时，批判错误思潮的过程体现了逻辑严谨性与话语表达大众化的有机统一。可以说，科学性是恩格斯批判错误思潮鲜明的方法论特征。

(1) Combining Full Possession of Materials with Scientific Analysis of Materials

（一）充分占有材料与科学分析材料相结合

Full possession of the basic materials and new developments of erroneous trends of thought was the foundation of Engels’s critique of them. To forcefully refute the fallacies of various erroneous trends of thought and thereby reveal their essence, Engels made thorough material preparations. For example, to deeply critique the trend of “true socialism,” Engels’s process of overall data collection and comprehensive analysis spanned from 1845 to 1848. In the article “Preface and Conclusion to ‘Fourier on Commerce’,” written at the end of 1845, Engels for the first time publicly criticized “true socialism,” pointing out sharply that the theory preached by “true socialism” was actually “inferior.” In *The German Ideology*, Engels and Marx devoted considerable space to a relatively detailed critique of the “true socialists” for their detachment from real relations, their confinement within German ideology, and the actions they took. On May 11, 1846, Engels, together with Marx, jointly issued the “Circular against Kriege,” criticizing the erroneous views of Kriege, the editor of the *Volks-Tribun*, and refuting Kriege’s reduction of communism to love. From January to April 1847, Engels completed *The True Socialists*. In March of the same year, Engels, in the article “The Constitutional Question in Germany,” profoundly exposed the “reactionary from head to toe” nature of “true socialism.” In September, in “German Socialism in Verse and Prose,” Engels refuted the petty-bourgeois philistinism and narrow-mindedness in the literature of the “true socialists” represented by Grün. In 1848, the refutation of the “true socialism” trend in the *Communist Manifesto* reflected the critical tension between conciseness and overall completeness, achieving a holistic depiction and theoretical summary of this erroneous trend of thought.

充分占有错误思潮的基本材料和发展新材料是恩格斯批判错误思潮的基础。为有力驳斥种种错误思潮的谬误并进而揭示其实质，恩格斯进行了充分的材料准备。如为深入批判“真正的社会主义”思潮，恩格斯整体收集资料和综合分析的时间进程跨越了1845年至1848年。在写于1845年底的《“傅立叶论商业的片段”的前言和结束语》一文中，恩格斯首次以公开的形式对“真正的社会主义”展开了批判，他一针见血地指出：“真正的社会主义”所鼓吹宣扬的理论实际是“劣等的”。在《德意志意识形态》一文中，恩格斯和马克思以较大的篇幅对“真正的社会主义者”脱离现实的关系、禁锢于德意志意识形态以及所采取的行动进行了较为详尽的批判。1846年5月11日，恩格斯同马克思联合发表的《反克利盖的通告》对克利盖主编在《人民论坛报》上的错误观点进行了批判，驳斥了克利盖将共产主义简单归结为爱的观点。1947年1月—4月，恩格斯创作完成了《真正的社会主义者》。同年3月，恩格斯在《德国的制宪问题》一文中深刻揭露了“真正的社会主义”的“从头到脚都是反动的”本质。9月，恩格斯在《诗歌和散文中的德国社会主义》中驳斥了以格律恩为代表的“真正的社会主义者”文学中小市民的市侩气与狭隘性。1848年在《共产党宣言》一文中对“真正的社会主义”思潮的驳斥反映出简洁明了与整体完备之间的批判张力，实现了对这一错误思潮图景的整体性描绘与理论的总结式概括。

Full possession of materials is the basic premise and important foundation for criticizing erroneous trends of thought, while scientific analysis and rigorous use of materials are key. Researchers must not be “overwhelmed by the raw material,” otherwise they cannot accurately understand “the meaning and significance of these materials.” [3]3 This citation refers to a passage in Engels’s later works or correspondence, likely from his methodological reflections on historical materialism, though the specific source is not identified in the original text.686 Grasping materials requires analyzing the deeper things behind them with a holistic perspective. Engels’s scientific theoretical abstraction on the basis of full possession of materials to refute erroneous trends of thought reflects the scientific nature of his research. In response to the German lectern socialists’ accusation that Marx had “plagiarized” Rodbertus’s theory of surplus value, Engels provided a preliminary clarification in the preface to the German edition of *The Poverty of Philosophy* (translated by Bernstein and Kautsky, Stuttgart edition, 1885). But he did not stop or rest content with a superficial critique; instead, on the basis of extensive reading of relevant books, letters, and journals, he further mastered detailed materials and collected “decisive evidence,” thereby systematically refuting the “lectern socialism” trend. To carefully analyze and comprehensively expose Rodbertus’s errors, Engels asked Kautsky in a letter to help him find Rodbertus’s 1842 work *Our Economic Condition* (which claimed that Marx had used its basic ideas without citation). Engels read Rudolf Meyer’s *The Emancipation Struggle of the Fourth Estate*, collected and read Rodbertus’s 1879 letter to J. Zeller, the *General Journal of Political Science* published in Tübingen, and Rudolf Meyer’s 1881 publication *Dr. Rodbertus-Jagetzow’s Letters and Social-Political Essays* (which directly stated that “Marx plagiarized me without mentioning my name”). On the basis of mastering at least six types of textual materials and reviewing history, Engels’s analysis found that Marx only learned of the existence of an economist named Rodbertus around 1859, and it is particularly important to emphasize that Marx’s knowledge was indirect, “learned from Lassalle.” By this time, Marx had already completed his critique of political economy in outline and in detail. Therefore, the so-called “plagiarism claim” does not accord with historical facts. Moreover, regarding the content of the alleged “plagiarism,” on the basis of fully collecting materials and reading the works of Rodbertus and his followers and disseminators, Engels saw through their complex and diverse arguments to grasp their essence, discovering that Rodbertus’s use of the so-called “rent” to define the problem of surplus value was merely “a copy of Ricardo’s stuff.” [5]5 This citation refers to Engels’s critique of Rodbertus, likely from his preface to the second volume of *Capital* or related correspondence, where he contrasts Marx’s theory of surplus value with Ricardo’s.176 Marx held fundamentally different views on this; Rodbertus’s false claim to be the founder of the theory of surplus value was merely self-proclaimed.

充分占有材料是批判错误思潮的基本前提和重要基础，而科学分析、严谨运用材料是关键。研究者不能“被原始材料压倒了”，否则就无法准确认识“这些材料的含义和意义”[3]686。把握材料要以整体性视野分析材料背后的深层东西。恩格斯在充分占有材料基础上进行科学理论抽象驳斥错误思潮，体现了研究的科学性。针对德国讲坛社会主义指责马克思“剽窃”洛贝尔图斯剩余价值的谬论，恩格斯在为《哲学的贫困》（伯恩斯坦和考茨基翻译的德文，1885年斯图尔特版）的序言中进行了初步澄明。但他并未止步、满足于浅尝辄止式的批判，而是在广泛阅读相关书籍、书信和期刊杂志的基础上进一步掌握翔实资料、收集“有决定意义的证据”，进而对“讲坛社会主义”思潮进行了系统驳斥。为认真剖析和全面揭露洛贝尔图斯的谬误之所在，恩格斯在给考茨基信中请考茨基帮助找到1842年洛贝尔图斯的著作《关于我国国家经济状况的认识》（该书宣称马克思利用了其基本思路却没有引证）。恩格斯阅读了鲁·迈耶尔《第四等级的解放斗争》，收集阅读了1879年洛贝尔图斯写给约·泽勒尔的信、杜宾根出版的《一般政治学杂志》以及1881年鲁·迈耶尔出版的《洛贝尔图斯-亚格措夫博士的书信和社会政治论文集》（该出版物中直接宣称“马克思剽窃了我，而没有提到我的名字”）。在掌握至少6种文本资料和回眸历史的基础上，恩格斯分析发现一直到1859年左右马克思才获知一个名叫洛贝尔图斯的经济学家的存在，不过需要特别强调的是，马克思的知道方式还是间接式地“从拉萨尔那里知道”，而此时的马克思已经从纲要和细节上完成政治经济学批判。因而，所谓的“剽窃说”与历史事实不符。而且从“剽窃”内容来看，恩格斯在充分收集材料并阅读洛贝尔图斯及其信奉者、传播者的著作基础上，透过其纷繁复杂的论述看到其本质，发现洛贝尔图斯在用所谓的“租”来界说剩余价值问题只是“抄袭了李嘉图的东西”[5]176。马克思对此有根本性不同的观点，洛贝尔图斯妄称自己为剩余价值理论的创始人，不过是自封的而已。

(2) Achieving the Unity of Logical Rigor and Popularization of Expression

（二）实现逻辑严谨性与表达大众化相统一

Engels’s critique of various erroneous trends of thought achieved an organic unity of rigorous logic and popular expression. At the end of March 1890, some Social Democrats in Berlin published the appeal “What Should Happen on the First of May?”, calling on workers to stage a general strike. In a letter to Paul Lafargue in August 1890, Engels pointed out that a “student disturbance” had emerged within the German Party. In September of the same year, Paul Ernst published an article in *Le Cri du Peuple* questioning and accusing Engels. He was very dissatisfied with Engels’s characterization of “we of the opposition” as a “student disturbance” and strongly demanded that Engels indicate “where we have insisted on views different from his own and those of Marx himself; if I describe our parliamentary democrats as partly very petty-bourgeois, then let Engels just look at what he himself wrote in the preface to his 1887 work ‘The Housing Question’.” To respond to Ernst’s doubts and challenges, and to clarify the opportunist fog of words of the “Youth” faction, Engels wrote the article “Reply to Mr. Paul Ernst” in October of the same year with a clever double entendre. This text exhibits rigorous logic and powerful logical force in its structure. It takes Ernst’s two questions—“where?” and “partly very petty-bourgeois?”—as the logical starting point of the response, closely focuses on the point of contention of the “student disturbance,” criticizes Ernst’s mechanical approach of treating the materialist method as a ready-made formula and using it to tailor various historical facts, refutes Ernst’s rigid practice of “lumping all of Norway and everything that happened there into the single category of the petty bourgeoisie,”[6]6 This is a citation from Engels’s “Reply to Mr. Paul Ernst,” included in the *Collected Works of Marx and Engels* (Chinese edition), volume 22, page 94. The “Youth” faction (often called “the Youth” or *Die Jungen*) was a group of young German Social Democratic intellectuals in the late 1880s and early 1890s who advocated a radical, adventurist line and opposed parliamentary tactics, leading to a split with Engels and the Party leadership.94 and, based on two basic facts—that Norway had enacted a more democratic constitution than Europe and that a literary flourishing had occurred in Norway—demonstrates the self-defeating nature of Ernst’s views. Through a rigorous chain of logic, it profoundly demonstrates that Ernst “in almost every article they published” differed from Marx. On this basis, it points out that compared with the petty-bourgeois party group, the “arrogant literary men and student clique” was more dangerous. With a rigorous argumentative structure and the unfolding of strict logic, Engels powerfully refuted the opportunist trend of thought of the “Youth” faction.

恩格斯对形形色色错误思潮的批判实现了逻辑严谨性与表达大众化的有机统一。1890年3月底，柏林的一些社会民主党人公布了《五月一日应当发生什么事情？》的呼吁书，号召工人举行总罢工。恩格斯在1890年8月致保尔·拉法格的信中指出德国党内出现了“大学生骚动”。同年9月，保尔·恩斯特在《人民呼声报》刊文质疑并指责恩格斯，他对恩格斯将“我们反对派”称作“大学生骚动”非常不满，并强烈要求恩格斯指出“我们在什么地方坚持过同他自己的和马克思本人的观点不同的观点；如果说我把我们的议会民主派描写成一部分是非常小资产阶级的，那就请恩格斯只要看一看他本人1887年在自己著作‘论住宅问题’的序言中写的什么好了”。为回应恩斯特的质疑与挑战，同时澄清“青年派”机会主义的话语迷雾，恩格斯以巧妙的一语双关表达在同年的10月写下了《答保尔·恩斯特先生》一文。这一文本在结构上呈现出严谨的逻辑性与强大的逻辑力。它以恩斯特的“在什么地方？”和“一部分是非常小资产阶级？”两个问题为回应的逻辑起点，紧紧围绕“大学生骚动”这一论争焦点，批判了恩斯特把唯物主义方法当作现成的公式，按照它来剪裁各种历史事实的机械式做法，驳斥了恩斯特“把整个挪威和那里所发生的一切都归到小市民阶层这一个范畴里”[6]94的生硬做法，并基于挪威制定了相较于欧洲更民主的宪法和挪威出现的文学繁荣两个基本事实论证了恩斯特观点的不攻自破，以严密的逻辑链条深刻论证了恩斯特“几乎在他们发表的每一篇文章里”与马克思的不同。并在这一基础上指出了相较于小资产阶级党团而言，“傲慢的文学家和大学生集团”是更危险的。恩格斯以严谨的论证结构和严密逻辑的展开有力驳斥了“青年派”机会主义思潮。

Marxism has always advocated that “the most Marxist = (transformation into) the most popular.” In terms of discourse style, the language Engels used in criticizing erroneous trends of thought, like Marxist theoretical discourse itself, pays great attention to popularization of expression. Engels’s discourse refuting erroneous trends of thought is vivid and lively, filled with passionate anger. His powerful, imaginative language gives people an emotional infection, an enlightenment of truth, and an appreciation of wit. First, the passionate expression of anger gives people an emotional infection. In response to Loria’s advocacy of the “Marx’s self-contradiction theory”—accusing Marx’s theory of production prices of contradicting the labor theory of value—Engels pointed out with passionate and angry words that the “professorial socialists” “these dignified professors could never fabricate their countless systems unless they ‘sacrifice truth’.” Here, Engels uses passionate and angry language to stir the deepest genuine emotions in readers, thereby leading people to recognize the true face of “professorial socialism.” Second, the expression of firm will gives people an enlightenment of truth. “This socialism became a scarecrow for the absolute governments of the German states and their hangers-on… to frighten the rising bourgeoisie.” Here, Engels uses the metaphor of a “scarecrow” to give people a vivid and profound understanding of the reactionary nature of the political tendency of “true socialism.” In the struggle against this erroneous trend of thought, Engels did not believe there were other means to achieve the aims of the communists, emphasizing the important role of “carrying out a violent democratic revolution,”[10]10 This citation is from Engels’s “The Communists and Karl Heinzen” (1847), included in the *Collected Works of Marx and Engels* (Chinese edition), volume 4, page 71.71 clearly expressing his uncompromising stance toward “true socialism.” Third, the expression of penetrating insight gives people an appreciation of wit. The representative of “professorial socialism,” Loria, once touted Marx’s historical materialism as his own discovery and also publicly declared that the problem of the rate of profit could not be solved. But in an article reviewing Schmidt, he instantly “solved the problem that ten years earlier he had declared unsolvable.” Regarding Loria’s “solution” and his actions, Engels offered a witty critique, mocking him: “extreme shamelessness, slipping away like an eel when things get tough; playing the hero after being kicked by others.” Here, using metaphorical techniques and a humorous tone, he vividly depicts the ugly demeanor of the “illustrious” Loria. The originally dry polemic becomes lively and interesting under Engels’s pen.

马克思主义向来主张“最马克思主义=（转化）最通俗”。在话语风格上，恩格斯批判错误思潮时运用的话语同马克思主义理论话语本身一样，都非常观照表达的大众化。恩格斯驳斥错误思潮的话语生动形象，充满愤怒的激情，那气势磅礴、富有想象力的话语，给人以“情”的感染、“真”的启迪、“趣”的体悟。其一，充满愤怒的激情话语表达给人以“情”的感染。针对洛里亚鼓吹宣扬的“马克思自我矛盾说”———指责马克思的生产价格理论与劳动价值论存在矛盾。恩格斯以充满愤怒的激情话语指出“讲坛社会主义”者“这些堂堂的教授除非‘牺牲真理’就永远不能编造出自己的数不清的各种体系”，这里恩格斯采用激情愤怒的话语来激发读者内心深处最真实的情感，以此来引领人们认清“讲坛社会主义”的真面目。其二，充满坚定意志的话语表达给人“真”的启迪。“这种社会主义成了德意志各邦专制政府及其随从……吓唬来势汹汹的资产阶级的稻草人。”恩格斯在这里以“稻草人”的比喻使人们对“真正的社会主义”在政治倾向上的反动性质有了真实形象的深刻认识。在与这一错误思潮的斗争中，恩格斯不认为有实现共产主义者宗旨的其他手段，强调了“进行暴力的民主的革命”[10]71的重要作用，鲜明表达了他对“真正的社会主义”的毫不妥协。其三，充满洞察力的话语表达给人以“趣”的体悟。“讲坛社会主义”的代表洛里亚曾将马克思的唯物史观标榜为自己的发现，也曾公开宣称利润率的问题不能解决，但在一篇评述施密特的文章中他转瞬之间就把曾经在10年前“宣告为不能解决的问题解决了”。对于洛里亚的“解决”及其所作所为，恩格斯予以了富有趣味的批判，嘲讽他，“极端的厚颜无耻，混不下去时又像鳗鱼一样滑掉；挨了别人的脚踢还充英雄好汉。”这里以比喻的手法、幽默的笔调把“大名鼎鼎”洛里亚的丑态描绘得栩栩如生,原本枯燥的论战，在恩格斯的笔下变得活泼有趣。

II. Highlighting Strong Criticality in Theoretical Confrontation with Erroneous Trends of Thought

二、在与错误思潮的理论交锋中凸显强烈的批判性

In response to the reactionary stance of the “revolution is outdated” theory propagated by the “true socialism” trend, the fallacies of opposing proletarian revolution and advocating reformism promoted by the “professorial socialism” trend, and the adventurist doctrines followed by the opportunist trend of the “Youth” faction, Engels adhered to a scientific worldview and methodology, launching critiques from perspectives such as class stance, theoretical propositions, and attitudes toward Marxism, reflecting the critical character of the methodology.

针对“真正的社会主义”思潮宣扬的“革命过时论”反动立场，“讲坛社会主义”思潮鼓吹的反对无产阶级革命与主张改良主义的谬误以及“青年派”机会主义思潮奉行的冒险主义主张，恩格斯秉持科学的世界观和方法论，从阶级立场、理论主张、对待马克思主义的态度等角度出发展开批判，体现了方法论的批判性特征。

(I) Exposing the Reactionary Stance of “True Socialism” and Criticizing the Fallacy of Its Revolution-Is-Outdated Theory

（一）揭示“真正的社会主义”的反动立场，批判其革命过时论的谬误

The trend of “true socialism” emerged in the 1840s. Because its main propagandists controlled a large number of press resources, the spread of “true socialism” once misled public opinion, producing relatively broad and negative social effects. At the same time, it also caused great harm to the socialist movement in Germany itself. Within the theoretical vision of the “true socialism” trend, socialism was reduced to abstract speculation. In the thought logic of its propagandists, socialism was regarded as a “transcendental model.” Accordingly, the proponents of “true socialism” advocated peace and reform, opposing class struggle and violent revolution. In their theoretical vision and thought logic, revolution was merely an “outdated political means,” and the proletariat should “never participate in revolution.” The remedy for solving various social problems should be sought in “love,” and nothing else. In response, Engels offered a clear refutation. Engels believed that the propositions of “true socialism” were nothing but illusions. Although “true socialism” also criticized capitalism, its critique was neither revolutionary nor thorough. On the one hand, from the perspective of the necessity of historical development, “true socialism” had a distinctly conservative and reactionary character. When Germany was on the eve of revolution and society called for revolution, “true socialism” opposed the bourgeois democratic revolution and opposed the revolutionary proletariat and its activities, exhibiting a distinctly backward and reactionary nature. On the other hand, the purpose of “true socialism’s” critique of capitalism was to rationalize the private property of small producers. Therefore, the socialism they advocated was essentially a false socialism of the petty bourgeoisie. Socialism and communism are “the real movement which abolishes the present state of things.” The unfolding of this movement and its process can certainly not be achieved or realized by relying on any “transcendental model” or by appealing to so-called “love.”

“真正的社会主义”思潮生成于19世纪40年代，由于其主要宣扬者掌控着大量报刊资源，“真正的社会主义”的传播曾一度误导社会舆论，产生了较为广泛而消极的社会影响。同时，对于德国的社会主义运动本身也产生了极大的危害。在“真正的社会主义”思潮的理论视野中，社会主义被诉诸以抽象思辨。在其宣扬者的思想逻辑中，社会主义被视为“先验的模式”。据此，“真正的社会主义”者主张和平和改良，反对进行阶级斗争与暴力革命。在其理论视野与思想逻辑中，革命不过是“过了时的政治手段”，无产阶级理应“永远不要参加革命”，对于解决种种社会问题的良方应诉诸“爱”，而不是也不应该是别的什么。对此，恩格斯进行了旗帜鲜明的驳斥。恩格斯认为“真正的社会主义”的主张不过是一种幻想，虽然“真正的社会主义”也批判资本主义，但其批判并不具有革命性与彻底性。一方面，从历史发展的必然性来看，“真正的社会主义”具有鲜明的保守与反动性质。在德国处于革命前夕，社会呼唤革命之时，“真正的社会主义”却反对资产阶级民主革命，反对革命无产阶级及其活动，具有鲜明的落后与反动性质。另一方面，“真正的社会主义”批判资本主义的目的在于合理化小生产者的私有制，因此，他们宣扬的社会主义本质上是小资产阶级的虚假社会主义。而社会主义和共产主义是“消灭现存状况的现实的运动”。这一运动及其过程的展开绝不是依据什么“先验的模式”抑或是诉诸所谓的“爱”就能达成与实现的。

(II) Exposing the False Socialist Lies of “Professorial Socialism” in Opposing Proletarian Revolution and Criticizing the Fallacy of Its Reformism

（二）揭穿“讲坛社会主义”反对无产阶级革命的假社会主义谎言，批判其改良主义的谬误

The “lectern socialists,” represented by Gustav Schmoller, Adolph Wagner, and others, advocated bourgeois reformism, while Wagner used the discourse of “state socialism” to whitewash and defend the capitalist system. They advocated promoting people’s moral progress and, on this basis, advancing practical social reform, while simultaneously rejecting the overthrow of the existing state and social system, opposing revolution, repudiating the workers’ movement, and opposing proletarian revolution. Regarding the understanding of socialism, Schmoller, Wagner, and others believed that it sufficed to adopt measures such as factory legislation and organizing insurance for workers’ injuries and deaths, because in their theoretical vision and ideological logic, the state was a supra-class organization fully capable of reconciling class relations, thereby promoting society to “implement ‘socialism’ without touching the interests of the capitalists.” This theoretical proposition of “lectern socialism” not only transformed into Bismarck’s statist social policies but also saw Wagner, who willingly served as Bismarck’s “special commissioner,” vigorously propagate and peddle his “Bismarckian state socialism” across the country, producing a pernicious social influence. In response, Engels severely criticized the conservatism and “degeneracy” of the “lectern socialists,” pointing out that the “lectern socialists” had degenerated into “apologists for Bismarckian state socialism,” exposing their false socialist facade and criticizing their naive, utopian reformist proposals. In “In Commemoration of the Fifteenth Anniversary of the Paris Commune,” Engels exposed the essence of Bismarckian state socialism: Bismarck “used every means… to strangle the workers’ movement,”[12]12 The “Youth” (Die Jungen) was a left-wing opposition group within the German Social Democratic Party in the early 1890s, composed mainly of young intellectuals and literati who advocated anarchist and adventurist tactics, rejecting parliamentary participation and legal forms of struggle.267 whose essence lay in strangling and opposing proletarian revolution. The “lectern socialists” were in fact using the discourse of “socialism” to advocate bourgeois reformism, merely a new trick by bourgeois thinkers to find ways to make the working masses submit. This also reflected the exploiting classes’ fear and anxiety regarding the spread of Marxism and the development of the working class. Their actions were doomed to be futile; the result of Bismarck’s painstaking efforts to strangle the workers’ movement was the most vivid example: “Before the Commune he had to deal with four socialist deputies; as a result of his persecution, 25 have now been elected.”

以古·施穆勒、阿·瓦格纳等为代表的“讲坛社会主义”者倡导资产阶级的改良主义，瓦格纳则以“国家社会主义”的话语来粉饰与辩护资本主义制度。他们主张促进人的道德进步，并据此来推动现实的社会改良，同时拒绝颠覆现有的国家及社会制度，对革命持异议，拒斥工人运动，反对无产阶级革命。对于社会主义的理解，施穆勒、瓦格纳等人认为只需要采取如工厂立法、组织工人伤亡事故等保险措施就可以了，因为在他们的理论视野和思想逻辑中国家是超阶级的组织，完全可以调和阶级关系，进而推动社会“实行‘社会主义’，而不触动资本家的利益”。“讲坛社会主义”的这一理论主张不仅转化为了俾斯麦国家主义的社会政策，而且甘愿充当俾斯麦“特派员”的瓦格纳在全国各地大肆宣扬、兜售其“俾斯麦国家社会主义”，产生了恶劣的社会影响。对此，恩格斯严厉批判了“讲坛社会主义者”的保守性与“堕落性”，指出“讲坛社会主义者”已经堕落为“俾斯麦国家社会主义辩护士”，揭露了其假社会主义的面目，批判了其幼稚的空想式的改良主张。恩格斯在《纪念巴黎公社十五周年》中揭露了俾斯麦国家社会主义的实质，俾斯麦“用尽了一切手段……来扼杀工人运动”[12]267，其实质就在于扼杀与反对无产阶级革命。“讲坛社会主义”者实际上是以“社会主义”话语之名行鼓吹资产阶级改良主义之实，不过是资产阶级思想家寻找使劳动群众俯首听命的新伎俩而已。这同时也反映出剥削阶级对马克思主义传播和工人阶级发展的恐惧与担忧。他们的行径注定是徒劳的，俾斯麦挖空心思扼杀工人运动所引致的结果就是最生动的例证，“在公社以前他要应付四个社会主义议员，由于他的迫害，目前选出了25个”。

(3) Unmasking the Adventurist Veil of the “Youth” Opportunist Trend of Thought, Criticizing Its Dogmatist Fallacies

（三）揭开“青年派”机会主义思潮的冒险主义面纱，批判其教条主义的谬误

The “Youth” were representatives of anarchism within the German Social Democratic Party, whose main members were university students and literati who styled themselves as the Party’s theorists and leaders. After the German reactionary government repealed the Anti-Socialist Laws in early 1890, the “Youth” turned a blind eye to the objective situation, advocated adventurist tactics, denied the necessity of utilizing legal forms of struggle, opposed the Party’s participation in parliamentary elections, and slanderously attacked the Party’s leadership organs for pursuing an opportunist line, stigmatizing the Party leadership as defending the interests of the petty bourgeoisie. To provide “sufficient” theoretical justification for their own theoretical propositions, the “Youth” did not hesitate to distort and mutilate Marxism, absolutizing the economic factor as the sole determining factor in historical development. In response, Engels issued a severe rebuttal. In his letter to Joseph Bloch, Engels explicitly affirmed that the determining factor in the historical process is the production and reproduction of real life, and emphasized that neither he nor Marx had ever “affirmed more than this.” But it must be stressed that if someone treats this view as interchangeable with and identical to the proposition that the economy is the sole determining factor, that would turn “this proposition into a meaningless, abstract, senseless phrase.” The reason is that, besides the economic situation, various factors of the superstructure also influence the course of historical struggles. It is only that in the theoretical confrontations between Engels and Marx and their opponents, they “often had to emphasize the principal principle that was denied by them, and did not always have the time, place, or opportunity to give due attention to the other factors involved in the interaction.” Therefore, Marxism affirms the determining power of the economic factor, but Marxism has never denied the reaction of the superstructure on the economic base or their dynamic interaction. “For many of the young writers in Germany, the word ‘materialist’ is just a catchphrase.” Regarding the fallacy of the “Youth” in treating Marxism dogmatically, Engels believed that this method of solving problems by sticking on labels was doomed to be futile. Engels emphasized that treating the materialist method “as a ready-made formula” was a misreading and misuse of the materialist method; such a mechanical approach not only failed to correctly understand problems but also turned the materialist method “into its opposite.” In response to the “Youth” publicly claiming that their principles of activity and theoretical ideas were “consistent” with Engels’s, Engels refuted their adventurist tactics, pointing out that struggle disregarding actual conditions was reckless and merely a “fantasy.” “And if this fantasy is transplanted into reality, it could destroy even the most powerful party with millions of members amidst the fully justified ridicule and laughter of all its enemies.”

“青年派”是无政府主义在德国社会民主党内的代表，其主要成员是一些自诩为党的理论家和领导者的大学生和文学家。在1890年初德国反动政府废除反社会主义非常法之后，“青年派”对客观形势视而不见，主张采取冒险策略，否认利用合法斗争形式的必要性，同时反对党参加议会选举，还歪曲攻击党的领导机关执行的是机会主义路线，污名党的领导机关维护的是小资产阶级的利益。为了给自己的理论主张找到“充分的”理论依据，“青年派”不惜歪曲肢解马克思主义，将经济因素绝对化为历史发展的唯一决定性因素。对此，恩格斯进行了严厉驳斥。恩格斯在给约瑟夫·布洛赫的信中明确肯定了历史过程中的决定性因素———现实生活的生产和再生产，并且强调马克思和他从未“肯定过比这更多的东西”。但需要强调的是，如果有人将此观点与经济是唯一决定的因素视为互释和同一的，那将使“这个命题变成毫无内容的、抽象的、荒诞无稽的空话”。原因在于对历史斗争的进程发生影响的因素除了经济状况以外，还有上层建筑的各种因素。只是在恩格斯和马克思在与他们论敌进行理论交锋的对话中“常常不得不强调被他们否认的主要原则，并且不是始终都有时间、地点和机会来给其他参预交互作用的因素以应有的重视”。因此，马克思主义肯定经济因素的决定力量，但马克思主义也从未否认上层建筑对经济基础的反作用以及它们的动态的相互作用。“对德国的许多青年作家来说，‘唯物主义的’这个词只是一个套语。”针对“青年派”教条对待马克思主义的谬误，恩格斯认为实际上这种贴标签来解决问题的方式注定是徒劳的。恩格斯强调将唯物主义方法“当作现成的公式”是对唯物主义方法的误读与误用，这种机械的做法不仅无益于正确认识问题，还会使唯物主义方法“转变为自己的对立物”。针对“青年派”对外宣称其活动原则和理论思想与恩格斯是“一致的”，恩格斯驳斥了其冒险主义策略，指出不顾现实条件的斗争是轻率，且只是一种“幻想”。而且“如果把这种幻想搬到现实中去，则可能把一个甚至最强大的、拥有数百万成员的党，在所有敌视它的人的完全合情合理的嘲笑大笑中毁灭掉”。

III. Demonstrating the Comprehensiveness of Perspective in the Holistic Examination of the Characteristics of Erroneous Trends of Thought

三、在揭示错误思潮特质的整体性考察中彰显视角的综合性

Engels pinpointed the characteristics of erroneous trends of thought, applied dialectical materialism to analyze their theoretical foundations, basic features, and different manifestations, criticized their theoretical defects from a holistic perspective, exposed their theoretical fallacies from multiple perspectives, and comprehensively examined their theoretical propositions with systematic thinking, highlighting the distinctively comprehensive character of his methodology.

恩格斯一针见血地抓住错误思潮的特质，运用唯物辩证法分析错误思潮的理论基础、基本特征与不同表现，以整体视野批判错误思潮的理论缺陷，以多元视角揭示错误思潮的理论谬误，以系统思维全方位考察错误思潮的理论主张，彰显了方法论鲜明的综合性特征。

(1) Holistic Perspective: Systematic Critique of the Theoretical Fallacies of the “True Socialists” by Combining Points and Spheres

（一）整体视野：点面结合系统批判“真正的社会主义”者的理论谬误

Engels’s critique of erroneous trends of thought was adept both at grasping the core arguments of the representatives of those trends and at comprehensively examining their fundamental fallacies from a holistic perspective. His methodology for criticizing erroneous trends of thought embodied the characteristic of combining the focus on key points with comprehensive consideration. The spread of the “True Socialist” trend of thought not only dissipated the fighting spirit of the proletarian revolution but also seriously interfered with and hindered the development of the international communist movement. In response, Engels, together with Marx, not only refuted the core arguments of representatives of the “True Socialist” trend, such as Hermann Kriege and Moses Hess, but also demonstrated the fallacies of the “True Socialists” starting from their root theoretical foundations. The “True Socialists” attempted to use “German, especially Hegelian and Feuerbachian, ideology to elucidate the ideas of socialist and communist literature.” Engels and Marx exposed the abstract and utopian nature of “True Socialism.” Starting from abstract “humanity,” “all humanity,” and “humaneness,” the consequence could only be “turning all practical problems into illusory phrases.” On the basis of a focused analysis of the theoretical foundations of “True Socialism,” Engels also comprehensively criticized its class essence and reactionary nature, explaining the reality of communism, the class conditions for its realization, and the purpose of its realization from a holistic perspective. For example, Engels exposed the class essence of “True Socialism,” refuted the limitation of its appeal to love rather than revolution to solve social problems, and pointed out that it essentially “exists only in the misty realm of philosophical fantasy.” He revealed the nature of “True Socialism” in opposing the revolutionary proletariat and its tendency, in its final development, toward a barbaric destruction that opposed communism, and ultimately succinctly summarized the purpose of communism based on three dimensions: the interests it upholds, the means of common ownership of property it adopts, and the violent, democratic revolution it pursues.

恩格斯对错误思潮的批判既善于抓住该思潮代表人物的核心论点，又善于以整体性视野全面观照该思潮的根本谬误。其批判错误思潮的方法论体现了抓住重点和综合考量相统一的特征。“真正的社会主义”思潮的传播不仅消解了无产阶级革命的斗志，而且严重干扰和阻碍了国际共产主义的发展。对此，恩格斯和马克思一道不仅对“真正的社会主义”思潮代表人物海尔曼·克利盖、莫泽斯·赫斯等人的核心论点进行了驳斥，而且从其根源性的理论基础入手论证了“真正的社会主义者”谬误所在。“真正的社会主义者”企图运用“德国的特别是黑格尔和费尔巴哈的意识形态，来阐明社会主义和共产主义文献的思想”。恩格斯和马克思揭露了“真正的社会主义”的抽象性与空想性。他们从抽象的“人类”“全人类”“人道”出发引发的后果只能是“使一切实际问题变成虚幻的词句”。在重点分析“真正的社会主义”的理论基础上，恩格斯还全面批判了其阶级实质与反动性质，以整体性视野阐释了共产主义的现实性、共产主义实现的阶级条件及共产主义实现的宗旨。如恩格斯揭露了“真正的社会主义”的阶级实质，驳斥了其诉诸爱而不是革命来解决社会问题的局限性，指出其本质上“只存在于云雾弥漫的哲学幻想的太空”。揭示了“真正的社会主义”反对革命无产阶级的性质以及发展到最后具有的反对共产主义的野蛮破坏的倾向，并最终基于坚持维护的利益立场、采取的财产公有手段、暴力的民主的革命3个维度简明扼要概括出了共产主义的宗旨。

(2) Comprehensive Examination: A Multi-Perspective, Thorough, and In-Depth Revelation of the Fallacies in the “Lectern Socialist” Rodbertus’s Explanation of Surplus Value

（二）综合考察：多元视角全面深入揭示“讲坛社会主义”者洛贝尔图斯对剩余价值界说的谬误

After Marx’s death, the representative of the “lectern socialism” [15]15 “Lectern socialism” (Kathedersozialismus) refers to a school of German academic economists in the late 19th century who advocated for social reforms within the existing state framework, rejecting revolutionary class struggle. trend of thought, Johann Karl Rodbertus-Jagetzow, targeted the theory of surplus value, accusing Marx’s great discovery of surplus value of being “a plagiarism of me, without mentioning my name,” and insisting that the problem of the origin of surplus value had originally been explained by him, and essentially in the same way as Marx, only more simply and clearly. In response, Engels refuted Rodbertus’s fallacies from the perspective of Ricardo’s research, a comparative perspective, and a historical perspective. First, from the perspective of Ricardo’s theory, Rodbertus’s exposition and definition of the topic of surplus value was merely “a plagiarism of Ricardo’s stuff, and did not create anything new in economics at all.” Second, from a comparative perspective, Rodbertus used “rent,” which did not distinguish between the general form of surplus value and its specific forms in profit and rent, to explain and define surplus value, while this so-called “rent” was in essence “nothing but ‘the sum of rent + profit,’ in which rent was ‘a completely erroneous theory’ and profit was ‘blindly accepting the statements of his predecessors.’” In fact, Marx’s discovery of surplus value was fundamentally different from Rodbertus’s definition, as Engels explained that in Marx’s view surplus value was “the general form of the amount of value appropriated by the owner of the means of production without giving an equivalent,” which was entirely different from Rodbertus’s borrowing of the erroneous arguments of the classical school of economics. Third, regarding Rodbertus’s accusation of “plagiarism,” from a historical perspective, Marx was not only completely unaware of the accusation of plagiarism, but had also never seen the parts of *Der Volksstaat* [16]16 *Der Volksstaat* was the central organ of the Social Democratic Workers’ Party of Germany (SDAP), published from 1869 to 1876. outside the International section or the Tübingen journal. In fact, around 1859 Marx was unaware of Rodbertus’s writings. Engels further pointed out forcefully that by this time Marx’s “*Critique of Political Economy* was not only completed in outline, but also in the most important details.” Therefore, the so-called “plagiarism accusation” was pure nonsense. In this regard, Engels’s multiple perspectives comprehensively and holistically refuted Rodbertus’s arguments and defended Marxism.

在马克思逝世后，“讲坛社会主义”思潮的代表人物约翰·卡尔·洛贝尔图斯———亚格措夫剑指剩余价值理论，指责马克思关于剩余价值的伟大发现是“剽窃了我，而没有提到我的名字”，强调剩余价值的发生问题最初是由他来加以说明的，而且本质上和马克思一样，不过更简单、更明了。对此，恩格斯基于李嘉图的研究视角、比较的视角、历史的视角驳斥了洛贝尔图斯的谬论。其一，从李嘉图的理论来看，洛贝尔图斯对剩余价值这一论题的阐释与界说不过是“抄袭了李嘉图的东西，根本未能在经济学上创立什么新东西”；其二，从比较的视角来看，洛贝尔图斯用未区分剩余价值一般形式和剩余价值在利润和地租中的特殊形式的“租”来阐释界说剩余价值，而所谓的“租”实质上“不过是‘地租+利润之和’，其中地租是‘完全错误的理论’，利润则是‘盲目地接受了他的前辈的说法’。”实际上，马克思关于剩余价值的发现与洛贝尔图斯的界说具有“泾渭分明式”的不同，恩格斯说明了马克思视野中剩余价值是“是生产资料所有者不付等价物就占有的价值额的一般形式”，这与洛贝尔图斯搬用古典经济学派的错误论点是完全不同的。其三，针对洛贝尔图斯指责马克思的“剽窃说”，从历史的视角来看，马克思不仅对于剽窃的指责毫不知情，而且《解放斗争》除国际以外的部分和杜宾根的杂志马克思也并未见到。实际上，马克思在1859年前后对于洛贝尔图斯的文字并不知情。恩格斯进一步有力地指出，而此时马克思的“政治经济学批判不仅在纲要上已经完成，而且在最重要的细节上也已经完成”。因此，所谓的“剽窃说”纯属无稽之谈。就此而论，恩格斯的多元视角全面整体地有力驳斥了洛贝尔图斯的论调，捍卫了马克思主义。

(3) Systematic Thinking: Combining Destruction and Construction to Expose the Non-Marxist Methodological Fallacies of the “Young” Opportunists

（三）系统思维：破立并举揭露“青年派”机会主义者的非马克思主义方法谬误

Engels’s critique of erroneous trends of thought was a critique based on scientific research, a critique possessing the dual character of both criticism and construction, a holistic and comprehensive critique that both “destroys” and “constructs,” combining destruction and construction. After Marx’s death, the “Young” [17]17 The “Young” (Die Jungen) were a faction of young intellectuals and writers in the German Social Democratic Party in the early 1890s who advocated a radical, anti-parliamentary line and accused the Party leadership of reformism. opportunists, on the one hand, ignored basic facts, violated basic logic, and contravened the path of interpretation, forcibly interpreting Marxism with an easily discernible subjective preconceived stance. On the other hand, they boasted of themselves as “revolutionary Marxists,” and even advocated, propagated, and fantasized that if Marx were alive he would be the same as them and that Engels agreed with them. In response, Engels, in his letter to Conrad Schmidt in August 1890, expressed his attitude and position that he was not the Marxist that the “Young” opportunists proclaimed: “I only know that I myself am not a Marxist.” The “Young” treated the materialist method “as a ready-made formula,” which would only bring serious consequences, turning the materialist method “into its opposite.” In the same month, Engels again criticized the dogmatic and doctrinaire non-Marxist methods and attitudes of the “Young” in his letter to Paul Lafargue, arguing that such attitudes and methods would distort and harm Marxism. At this point, the complete critique had basically been presented, but Engels did not stop there; instead, on the basis of criticizing the non-Marxist methods of the “Young,” he positively expounded the scientific method for treating Marxism. In September 1890, Engels pointed out in his letter to Joseph Bloch: “Study this theory from the original texts, and not from second-hand sources.” Later, in March 1895, Engels also emphasized in his letter to Werner Sombart: “Marx’s entire world outlook is not a doctrine, but a method. It provides not ready-made dogmas, but starting points for further investigation and the method for this investigation.” From this, one can see the clear methodological thread of combining destruction and construction in Engels’s critique of erroneous trends of thought, and at the same time, one can also discern Engels’s high degree of methodological self-awareness in his critique of erroneous trends of thought.

恩格斯对错误思潮的驳斥是建立在科学研究基础上的批判，是兼具批判性与建构性双重色彩的批判，是一种又“破”又“立”、破立并举的整体性、综合式批判。在马克思逝世以后，“青年派”机会主义者一方面无视基本事实，违背基本逻辑，违反阐释路径，以不难发现的主观前置立场强行阐释马克思主义。另一方面，标榜美誉自己为“革命的马克思主义”，甚至鼓吹、宣扬并假想马克思活着也会同他们一样以及恩格斯和他们是一致的“幻想式”观点。对此，恩格斯在1890年8月致康拉德·施米特的信中表明了自己并非“青年派”机会主义者所宣扬的马克思主义的态度和立场，“我只知道我自己不是马克思主义者。”“青年派”把唯物主义方法“当作现成的公式”，只会带来严重的后果，使唯物主义方法“转变为自己的对立物”。同月，恩格斯在致保尔·拉法格的信中再次批判了“青年派”教条式和学理主义的非马克思主义方法与态度，他认为这种态度和方法会曲解和伤害马克思主义。至此，完整的批判已基本获得呈现，但恩格斯并未止步于此，而是在批判“青年派”的非马克思主义方法基础上正面阐述了对待马克思主义的科学方法。恩格斯在1890年9月致约瑟夫·布洛赫中指出，“根据原著来研究这个理论，而不要根据第二手的资料来进行研究。”此后，恩格斯在1895年3月致威纳尔·桑巴特的信中也强调，“马克思的整个世界观不是教义，而是方法。它提供的不是现成的教条，而是进一步研究的出发点和供这种研究使用的方法。”由此可以看出恩格斯批判错误思潮时破立并举的清晰的综合式方法脉络，同时,也可以洞见恩格斯批判错误思潮的高度的方法论自觉。

In summary, as Marx’s close comrade-in-arms, Engels cleared away various theoretical mists in his critique of all kinds of erroneous trends of thought, and also clarified the important value of Marxism in his trenchant polemics. The scientific, critical, and comprehensive methodological characteristics embodied in Engels’s critique of erroneous trends of thought, and the high degree of methodological self-awareness reflected therein, have important practical guiding significance for our study and research of Marxism.

总而言之，作为马克思的亲密战友，恩格斯在批判形形色色的错误思潮中廓清了种种理论迷雾，也在笔调明快的论战中澄明了马克思主义的重要价值。恩格斯对错误思潮的批判所体现的科学性、批判性、综合性的方法论特征，所映现出的高度的方法论自觉对于我们学习和研究马克思主义具有重要的现实指导意义。

Online Editor: Paul

网络编辑：保罗