The Differential Analysis Method of Western “Marxology” and Its Contemporary Reflections

After the grand commemoration of the bicentenary of the births of Marx and Engels, on the one hand, we gladly observe that research on the lives, thought, and texts of Marx and Engels has entered a new historical stage; on the other hand, we also find that the research method employed by Western “Marxology” in the 20th century—the differential analysis method—still “lingers like an unquiet ghost.” Norman Levine, in his new work, persistently peddles the opposition and difference between Marx and Engels. Terrell Carver, focusing on *The German Ideology*, persistently asks: “Do Marx and Engels, in general and in this text in particular, speak with only one voice? Hence, is there no significant intellectual or ideological difference between the two?” Gareth Stedman Jones, in his recently written biography of Marx, directly asks: “After 1867, to what extent was ‘Marxism’ the collaborative product of Karl and Engels?” But the problem lies in the fact that some Western “Marxology” scholars have deliberately overstepped the boundaries of this method’s use, putting forward a series of eye-catching viewpoints that have a subtle negative effect on contemporary Chinese Marxist research, requiring our high vigilance. Based on this, this article seeks, in the New Era when the center of gravity of world Marxist research is historically shifting eastward, and grounded in the latest theoretical achievements of Chinese Marxist research, to sort out the historical logic of Western “Marxology’s” application and development of the differential analysis method, to reflect on the premises, historical limits, role limits, and human limits of applying the differential analysis method, to assist the academic community in historically understanding and grasping this method of intellectual history research, and thereby to offer a theoretical response to the question of the relationship between Marx and Engels.

在隆重纪念马克思和恩格斯诞辰二百周年后，一方面，我们欣然看到，关于马克思恩格斯生平、思想与文本的研究已经迈向新的历史阶段；另一方面，我们同样发现，西方“马克思学”20世纪所运用的研究方法——差异分析方法依然“阴魂不散”。诺曼·莱文在其新作中依然坚持不懈地兜售马克思恩格斯的对立与差异。特瑞尔·卡弗围绕着《德意志意识形态》持之以恒地追问：“马克思恩格斯一般而言，尤其是在本文中，是否只发出一个声音?因此，在两人之间不存在明显的思想或意识形态差异?”加雷斯·琼斯则在新近为马克思写作的传记中直接发问：“在1867年后，‘马克思主义’在多大程度上是卡尔和恩格斯的合作成果?”但问题在于，部分西方“马克思学”学者刻意逾越了这一方法的使用界限，抛出了一系列夺人眼球的观点，对当代中国马克思主义研究具有隐晦的消极作用，需要我们高度警惕。基于此，本文力图在世界马克思主义研究重心历史性地向东方偏移的新时代，立足中国马克思主义研究最新理论成果，梳理西方“马克思学”运用与发展差异分析方法的历史逻辑，反思运用差异分析方法的前提、历史限度、角色限度和人性限度，助推学界历史地认识与把握这一思想史研究方法，进而对马克思恩格斯关系论问题做出理论回应。

I. A “Twists and Turns” History: The Differential Analysis Method of Western “Marxology”

一、历经“一波三折”:西方“马克思学”的差异分析方法

Within Western “Marxology,” the “consistency thesis,” “opposition thesis,” “difference thesis,” and “division-of-labor thesis” regarding the intellectual relationship between Marx and Engels have always been fiercely debated. Centered on a century-long controversy over the question of the Marx-Engels relationship, Western “Marxology” gradually developed the differential analysis method after the 1930s, which then became a quite popular research method from the 1960s to the 1980s. With this point clarified, we see that the application of the differential analysis method by Western “Marxology” can be roughly divided into three stages.

在西方“马克思学”中，关于马克思恩格斯思想关系的“一致论”“对立论”“差异论”和“分工论”始终聚讼纷纭。围绕马克思恩格斯关系论问题的百年论争,西方“马克思学”自20世纪30年代以后逐步发展出了差异分析方法，进而在20世纪60年代至80年代成为一种相当流行的研究方法。在明确了这一点的基础上，我们看到，西方“马克思学”对差异分析方法的应用大致可划分为三个阶段。

The first stage, after the 1930s, is represented by Sidney Hook’s partial differential analysis. Hook primarily started from dialectics to highlight the theoretical differences between Marx and Engels. Following the path opened by Lukács, Hook also hoped to truly achieve the sublation of capitalist reified reality in the process of revolutionary practical activity by elevating the subjective role of the individual. Consequently, the dialectics Hook adhered to was essentially a social-historical dialectics, because Marx’s dialectics, inherited from Hegel, does not focus on concrete things in the real world but is a “logic of totality,” a “principle of activity,” and a “revolutionary algebra”—this is precisely where Marx surpassed Hegel in dialectics. However, Hook then pointed out that, compared to Marx’s social-historical dialectics, Engels in fact turned the dialectics of nature into a new “mythology.” In *Reason, Social Myths, and Democracy*, Hook’s critique directly targeted Engels’s dialectics of nature, arguing that “the dialectical method can claim meaning and correctness only when it is understood as synonymous with the scientific method; and since, in its traditional formulation, dialectics is plagued by many misleading and erroneous concepts, it would be more conducive to clear thinking to discard the term dialectics altogether; retaining it would brew a mystical philosophy of nature.”

第一阶段为20世纪30年代之后，以悉尼·胡克为代表的局部的差异分析。胡克主要是从辩证法入手，凸显马克思恩格斯的理论差异。沿着卢卡奇所开辟的道路，胡克同样寄希望于通过高扬个人的主体作用，在革命实践活动的过程中真正实现对资本主义物化现实的扬弃。也因此，胡克所坚持的辩证法实质上就是一种社会历史辩证法，因为承袭自黑格尔的马克思辩证法不是聚焦于现实世界的具体事物，而是一种“总体性的逻辑”“活动的原则”和“革命的代数学”,这也正是马克思在辩证法方面超越黑格尔的所在。但是胡克接着指出，相较于马克思的社会历史辩证法，恩格斯却在事实上让自然辩证法变成了一种新的“神话”。在《理性、社会神话与民主》中，胡克批判的矛头直指恩格斯的自然辩证法，认为“辩证的方法，只有在其被理解为是科学方法的同义语时，才能声称有意义和正确性；而既然在其传统的公式中，辩证法为许多使人误解的和错误的概念所困扰着，那么，如果抛弃辩证法这个用语，它就会更有助于清晰的思维；而保留这个用语，则会酿成一种神秘的自然哲学”。

The second stage, after the 1960s, is represented by Maximilien Rubel and Norman Levine’s systematic differential analysis. Starting from a stance opposing Soviet Marxism, Rubel proposed: “If we want to explore the relationship between Marx and Engels, we will achieve nothing without breaking free from the founding myth and without recognizing that the rationally indefinable concept of Marxism is a pathological starting point.” Catalyzed by the ideological confrontation of the Cold War, the article “The Marx Legend, or, Engels, Founder of Marxism” directly heated up the discussion of the Marx-Engels relationship question and simultaneously pushed differential analysis from the partial to the systematic. Norman Levine is famous for his extreme “opposition thesis” stance. In 1973, Levine published *The Anthropology of the Thought of Marx and Engels*, identifying theoretical divergences between Marx and Engels from an anthropological dimension. Subsequently, in *Marxism and Engelsism: Two Different Conceptions of History*, he identified the opposition between Marx and Engels from the dimension of historical development. In 1975, Levine, in *The Tragic Deception: Marx contra Engels*, argued for the “opposition” between Marx and Engels from multiple dimensions including the view of nature, the view of history, and dialectics.

第二阶段是20世纪60年代之后，以马克西米里安·吕贝尔和诺曼·莱文为代表的系统的差异分析。从反对苏联马克思主义的立场出发，吕贝尔提出：“如果要探明马克思和恩格斯的关系，不摆脱奠基神话，不承认在理性上不能定义的马克思主义观念是病态的出发点，我们将一无所获。”在冷战的意识形态对抗背景催化下，“‘马克思传奇’,或恩格斯，马克思主义的创立者”一文直接导致对马克思恩格斯关系论问题的讨论迅速升温，同时也将差异分析从局部推向系统。诺曼·莱文以极端的“对立论”立场闻名于世。1973年，莱文出版了《马克思和恩格斯思想中的人类学》,从人类学维度指认马克思恩格斯的理论分歧。之后，在《马克思主义和恩格斯主义：两种不同的历史观》中从历史发展维度指认马克思恩格斯的对立。1975年，莱文更是在《可悲的骗局：马克思反对恩格斯》一书中，从自然观、历史观、辩证法等多个维度论证马克思恩格斯的“对立”。

The third stage, after the 1980s, is represented by Terrell Carver’s hermeneutical differential analysis. In the early 1980s, the “hermeneutical turn” became a new trend in Western “Marxology” research, and the most representative scholar of this period is undoubtedly Carver. Based on first-hand documentary sources, Carver used the differential analysis method to dissect the intellectual differences between Marx and Engels. In *Marx and Engels: The Intellectual Relationship*, Carver judges: “The relationship between Marx and Engels underwent two changes, one during Marx’s lifetime, of which we have read historical records, and the other during Engels’s surviving years.” But Carver also acknowledges that Engels also attracted Marx with his analytical talent, thus becoming a cooperative partner. Carver attempts to transform the differential analysis method in a hermeneutical way, emphasizing that the question of the Marx-Engels relationship is essentially a hermeneutical problem. However, the problem with this interpretive approach is that excessive subjective coloring dissolves the ideological dimension behind the question of the Marx-Engels relationship, “downgrading” it from a question with strong political implications to a purely academic question, thereby obscuring an important dimension for a complete understanding of the question of the Marx-Engels relationship.

第三阶段是20世纪80年代之后，以特瑞尔·卡弗为代表的解释学的差异分析。20世纪80年代初，“解释学转向”成为西方“马克思学”研究中的新潮流，这一时期最有代表性的学者当属卡弗。卡弗立足第一手的文献资料，利用差异分析方法剖析马克思恩格斯之间的思想差异。在《马克思与恩格斯：学术思想关系》中，卡弗判断：“马克思和恩格斯的关系发生了两次变化，一次是在马克思的生命岁月中，此前我们已读到有关历史记录，另一次是在恩格斯幸存的岁月中。”但是卡弗同样承认，恩格斯也以其分析天赋吸引了马克思，从而成为合作伙伴。卡弗力图以解释学的方式改造差异分析方法，强调马克思恩格斯关系论问题其实是一个解释学问题。但是这一解读方式的问题在于，过多的主观色彩消解了马克思恩格斯关系论问题背后的意识形态维度，使其从一个具有极强政治意味的问题“降格”为一个纯学术问题，反而遮蔽了完整把握马克思恩格斯关系论问题的一个重要维度。

It can be seen that, compared to Marx, Engels continued to fight for the international communist movement for twelve more years, and during these twelve years, capitalism presented new changes, new situations, and new problems. Engels kept pace with the times and put forward new views, new thoughts, and new judgments on the essence and development of capitalism. Therefore, in the process of studying the question of the Marx-Engels relationship, the proposal of the differential analysis method is undoubtedly a necessary and reasonable part of academic research. For academic research, the adoption of the differential analysis method by Western “Marxology” is a manifestation of deepening research. But we must realize that the differential analysis method is a “neutral” method of intellectual history research; however, the subjects using the differential analysis method do not live in an ideological vacuum. Western “Marxology” scholars deliberately break through the theoretical boundaries of this method, putting forward viewpoints that “would not stop short of startling the world,” thus requiring us to carefully distinguish and critique them.

可以看到，相较于马克思，恩格斯为国际共产主义运动继续战斗了十二年，而在这十二年中，资本主义出现了新变化新情况新问题，恩格斯与时俱进地对资本主义的本质和发展提出了新看法新思考新判断。因此，在研究马克思恩格斯关系论问题的过程中，差异分析方法的提出毫无疑问是学术研究的应然，有着必要性与合理性。对于学术研究而言，西方“马克思学”采用差异分析方法是研究走向深入的表现。但我们必须意识到，差异分析方法是“中性”的思想史研究方法，但是使用差异分析方法的主体却并非生活于意识形态的真空，西方“马克思学”学者刻意突破该方法的理论界限，抛出“语不惊人死不休”的观点，因此需要我们细加甄别、批判。

II. Opposing “Presumption of Guilt”: The Premise Limits of the Differential Analysis Method

二、反对“有罪推定”:差异分析方法的前提限度

Western “Marxology” scholars, under the banner of “restoring the true content of Marx’s thought and redefining Marxism,” take a magnifying glass to pick out differences from the “indisputable” texts of Marx and Engels, and “proudly” use this as evidence to proclaim the opposition or difference between Marx and Engels. After all, at first glance, these scholars do seem to be “letting the facts speak.” But the problem lies precisely in this “letting the facts speak.” If we merely and simply identify differences in the texts or other types of materials of Marx and Engels, then there is no doubt that Marx and Engels indeed have a great many differences; from this we could infer that it seems difficult to uphold the position of the “consistency thesis” regarding Marx and Engels. But why did the early workers’ leaders and the masses firmly believe in the “consistency thesis”? Could they not see these “obvious” differences between Marx and Engels? A very important reason why Western “Marxology” scholars are “adept at discovering differences” is their “presumption of guilt” against Engels.

西方“马克思学”学者打着“恢复马克思思想的真实内容，重新界定马克思主义”的旗号，拿着放大镜从马克思恩格斯“确凿无疑”的文本中拣选不同之处，并“颇为自豪”地以此为证据来宣扬马克思恩格斯的对立或差异，毕竟直观看来，这些学者似乎确实是在“用事实说话”。但是问题恰恰就出在“用事实说话”上。如果我们仅仅只是简单地找出马克思恩格斯的文本抑或其他类型的材料中的不同之处的话，那么毫无疑问，马克思恩格斯确乎有着大量的不同，由此推论，我们似乎很难坚持马克思恩格斯“一致论”的立场。但是为什么早期的工人领袖和群众对“一致论”深信不疑?他们难道就看不到马克思恩格斯这些“显而易见”的差异吗?西方“马克思学”学者之所以“善于发现差异”,很重要的一点就是对恩格斯的“有罪推定”。

First, as two subjects, Marx and Engels inevitably had differences.

第一，马克思恩格斯作为两个主体，必然是存在着差异的。

A simple comparison shows: first, in terms of family background, Marx came from a family with a tradition of political liberalism, while Engels’s family was filled with religious piety. Second, in terms of educational background, Marx received a systematic elite education, while Engels relied on his spirit of eager learning. Third, in terms of early experience, Marx always thought and acted within the German academic circle, while Engels lived a highly socialized life. These factors shaped the differences in their focal points and intellectual characteristics: Marx’s theoretical gaze was fixed on the social-historical view, manifested in a textual style that is speculative, profound, and logically rigorous; Engels had a greater interest in the social-historical view, the view of nature, and epistemology, manifested in a textual style that is perceptive and fluent. More importantly, this difference instead sparked the transformation of their early thought. We see that Engels’s life experiences and observations from 1842 to 1844 illustrate how his understanding was inspired by reality—that is, the real situation Engels witnessed firsthand in the Manchester factories. Therefore, the starting point of Engels’s research was not theory, but the reality of capitalist society. It was precisely these real conditions that provided the basis for Engels’s later collaboration with Marx in completing the full anatomy of capitalist society. Edmund Wilson pointed out: “Perhaps Engels’s greatest help to Marx during this period was to place Marx in the real factory, thereby correcting Marx’s ignorance of the proletariat.” From this perspective, Marx and Engels, as two intellectual subjects, inevitably had differences due to objective factors, but these differences not only did not become stumbling blocks to their intellectual cooperation, but instead became catalysts for intellectual progress. It can be said that it was precisely these objectively existing factors of difference that, within the spatiotemporal field of the 19th century, shaped the Marx and Engels who launched a “philosophical revolution.”

简单比较就能看出，其一，从家庭出身看，马克思出身于一个具有政治自由主义传统的家庭，而恩格斯的家庭里充斥的满是宗教虔敬精神。其二，从教育背景看，马克思接受了系统的精英教育，恩格斯靠的则是积极向学的精神。其三，从早期经历看，马克思始终是在德国学术圈里进行思考、活动的，而恩格斯则是高度社会化的生活。这些因素造就了两人关注焦点和思想特点的不同，马克思的理论目光聚焦于社会历史观，表现在文本风格上就是思辨深邃、逻辑缜密；恩格斯对社会历史观、自然观和认识论都有较大兴趣，表现在文本风格上就是感知力强、表达流畅。更重要的是，这种差异反而碰撞出了马克思恩格斯早期思想转变的火花。我们看到，恩格斯1842年至1844年间的生活经历和观察说明了他的认识是如何被现实所启发的，也即恩格斯在曼彻斯特工厂亲眼目睹的现实情况。因此，恩格斯投身研究的起点不是理论，而是资本主义社会的现实。正是这些现实情况为恩格斯后来与马克思合作完成对资本主义社会的完整解剖提供了依据。埃德蒙·威尔逊指出：“或许这一时期恩格斯对于马克思最大的帮助就是将马克思置于现实的工厂中，从而纠正了马克思对于无产阶级无知的一面。”由是观之，马克思恩格斯两个思想主体由于客观因素的影响，难免有差异之处，但是这些差异不仅没有成为阻挠两人思想合作的绊脚石，反倒成为思想进步的催化剂。可以说，正是由于这些客观存在的差异性因素，才在19世纪的时空场域中塑造出了掀起“哲学革命”的马克思恩格斯。

Second, from the perspective of the “opposition thesis,” Western “Marxology” magnifies these differences into essential differences.

第二，从“对立论”的视野出发，西方“马克思学”将这种差异放大为本质差异。

Around 1956, Soviet Marxism faced theoretical challenges from both internal and external directions. In terms of the external environment, Western academic circles realized the academic value and, more importantly, the political role of Western “Marxology.” Research that had once been “deserted” suddenly became the focus of widespread academic attention, and a cacophony of voices arose. George Lichtheim pointed out that “Engels’s attempt to synthesize speculative philosophy and empirical science had a fatal flaw: if nature is understood materialistically, it is not applicable to the dialectical method; if dialectics is applied to the understanding of nature, then materialism is not applicable. Because Marx perceived this, he wisely set nature aside.” In Shlomo Avineri’s view, “much of what we know as ‘Marxist materialism’ was written not by Marx but by Engels.” Maximilien Rubel insisted: “Marxism is not the original product of Marx’s mode of thought, but was conceived by Engels.” Therefore, Rubel attempted to reinterpret Marx’s thought, believing he was advancing toward the “authentic Marx,” unaware that he was actually moving further and further away from Marx’s true meaning. Norman Levine proposed: “Marx and Engels possessed two distinct personalities and spirits, which gave rise to two different social theories. Maintaining the hyphen in Marx-Engels… only distorts the theories of both, confusing and obstructing the study of the binary opposition system of Marxism and Engelsism.”

1956年前后，苏联马克思主义遭到了内外两个方面的理论挑战。表现在外部环境上，就是西方学界意识到西方“马克思学”的学术价值及其更为重要的政治作用，原本“门前冷落车马稀”的研究摇身一变成为万众瞩目的学术焦点，一时间众声喧哗。乔治·李希特海姆指出，恩格斯将“思辨哲学和实证科学综合起来的企图有一个致命的缺陷：如果用唯物主义去理解自然，自然就不适用于辩证的方法；如果在认识自然界时运用了辩证法，那么唯物主义就不适用了。因为察觉到了这一点，马克思明智地将自然放到了一边。”在希洛姆·阿维纳瑞看来，“我们所熟知的‘马克思主义唯物主义’,其中有许多东西不是马克思而是恩格斯写出的”。吕贝尔坚称：“马克思主义并非马克思思想方式的原初产物，而是由恩格斯构想出来的。”因此，吕贝尔试图重新诠释马克思的思想，认为自己正在向着“本真马克思”前进，殊不知其正与马克思的真谛渐行渐远。诺曼·莱文提出：“马克思恩格斯具有两种截然不同的人格、精神，并由此产生了两种不同的社会理论。维持马克思—恩格斯的连字符……只不过是歪曲了两人的理论，混淆和阻碍了对马克思主义和恩格斯主义二元对立体系的研究。”

Third, we should conduct comparative analysis on the basis of a scientific understanding of the relationship between Marx and Engels.

第三，我们应该基于科学理解马克思恩格斯关系的基础上展开比较分析。

Western “Marxology” conducts its analysis on the premise of a “presumption of guilt” against Engels, thereby serving its dual political and academic purposes. We can see that when applying the difference-analysis method, Western “Marxology” consciously or unconsciously neglects the relationship between the premise and the methodology, and it is precisely in these two aspects that risks and loopholes lie hidden. Starting from the position of the “opposition thesis,” when one looks around, the relationship between Marx and Engels is filled with differences. The difference-analysis method undoubtedly has a certain objective rationality. In the process of scientific research, if difference analysis is neglected at the starting point, the research results obtained will lose their scientific character. But the difference-analysis method also has its own limitations, namely, it is very easily influenced by the subjective factors of the user, leading to isolated and one-sided interpretations of problems, thereby producing exaggerated conclusions. Some Western “Marxology” scholars have gone wrong precisely in this respect. We see that using the difference-analysis method to study the relationship between Marx and Engels is actually a process of applying hermeneutics. This process is a complex interaction among the interpreter, the interpreting subject (the author), the interpreted object (the text), and the interpreting audience (the reader). The subjective coloring of the interpreter can easily play an important role. Influenced by political and academic factors, Marxist research, which originally had practical characteristics, can easily degenerate into a philology that focuses only on linguistic differences in texts and a textualism that splits hairs. Therefore, correctly positioning the relationship between Marx and Engels is the methodological prerequisite for using the difference-analysis method. The purpose of our research should be to scientifically understand the relationship between Marx and Engels, not to pursue a simple opposition between the two.

西方“马克思学”是以恩格斯的“有罪推定”为前提进行分析的，进而服务于其政治和学术的双重目的。我们可以看到，西方“马克思学”在运用差异分析方法时，有意无意间忽视了前提与方法论的关系问题，而恰恰又正是在这两个方面潜藏着风险与漏洞。从“对立论”的立场出发，放眼望去，马克思恩格斯之间满眼差异。差异分析方法无疑在客观上具有一定的合理性。在进行科学研究的过程中，如果起点处就忽略了差异分析，那么得出的研究结果就会失去科学性。但差异分析方法也有着自身的局限性，那就是非常容易受使用者主观因素的影响，对问题进行孤立化、片面化的解读，从而得出夸大化的结论。部分西方“马克思学”学者就是在这个方面出了问题。我们看到，运用差异分析方法研究马克思恩格斯的关系，实际上就是运用解释学进行研究的过程，这一过程是解读者、解读的主体(作者)、解读的客体(文本)和解读的受众(读者)的复杂交互过程。解读者的主观色彩极易扮演重要角色，受政治和学术因素的影响，原本具有实践特点的马克思主义研究很容易就会走向只注重文本的语言差异的考据学和咬文嚼字的文本学。因此，正确定位马克思恩格斯的关系是使用差异分析方法的方法论前提。我们展开研究的目的应该是科学理解马克思恩格斯的关系，而不是追求将两人简单对立起来。

III. Grasping the “Pulse of the Times”: The Historical Limits of the Difference-Analysis Method

三、把握“时代脉搏”:差异分析方法的历史限度

Marx and Engels repeatedly publicly emphasized the basic spirit of Marxism, namely, that Marxism is a response to the developmental process of social-historical practice. In other words, Marxism is a product of the specific conditions and circumstances of social-historical development. In the process of their research, Western “Marxology” scholars have extracted this historical dimension, severing the connection between the intellectual development of Marx and Engels and the historical process, thereby shaping various images of “humanism,” “existentialism,” and “structuralism,” yet precisely ignoring the “Marxist” image of Marx and Engels. This “ahistorical” interpretation not only fails to contribute to the scientific advancement of intellectual history, but instead leaves behind a series of academic controversies, confusing the vision of later researchers.

马克思恩格斯多次公开强调马克思主义的基本精神，即马克思主义是对社会历史实践发展过程的回应，也就是说，马克思主义是社会历史发展的特定条件和境况的产物。西方“马克思学”在研究的过程中抽离出了这一历史维度，割裂了马克思恩格斯的思想发展与历史过程的联系，进而塑造出“人道主义”“存在主义”“结构主义”的诸多形象，却偏偏无视了马克思恩格斯的“马克思主义”形象。这种“非历史”的解读不仅无益于思想史研究的科学推进，反而留下了一桩桩学术公案，迷乱了后世研究者的视野。

First, the thought of Marx and Engels changed and developed in different historical periods.

第一，马克思恩格斯的思想在不同的历史时期是发展变化的。

The intellectual development of Marx and Engels can be roughly demarcated into three periods. The first period runs from before the defeat of the 1849 revolution until their exile in Britain. During this time, Marx and Engels primarily conducted critical reflection based on the state of capitalist development and the socialist movement on the European continent. Grounded in the new worldview of historical materialism, they criticized the various forms of “true socialism” on the European continent, and then delved into political practice, “winning some adherents among the intellectuals, especially in western Germany, and establishing extensive ties with the organized proletariat.”[11]11 This is a citation from a text by Marx and Engels, likely referring to their assessment of the impact of the *Neue Rheinische Zeitung* or similar political activities around 1848-1849. The second period runs from Marx and Engels’ exile in Britain until Marx’s death in 1883. Britain at that time was the most typical capitalist country, the most suitable place to study capitalist society; the entire 1850s and 1860s were a crucial period for Marx and Engels to deepen Marxism. Although the two could hardly meet, they corresponded frequently, constantly exchanging views on theory and revolution. It was precisely in the collision of their ideas that the first volume of *Capital*, the “Bible” of the proletariat, was published. The twelve years after Marx’s death, which Engels walked alone, constitute the third period. With the continuous economic and political development of capitalist society, the European proletarian movement revived once again; this “New Era” formed the socio-historical foundation for Engels’ theoretical reflections in his later years.

马克思恩格斯的思想发展大致可界划为三个时期。1849年革命失败，流亡英国之前为第一个时期。这段时间里，马克思恩格斯主要是基于欧洲大陆的资本主义发展状况和社会主义运动情况进行批判思考。立足历史唯物主义这一新世界观，马克思恩格斯批判了欧洲大陆上各色各样的“真正的社会主义”,进而深入到政治实践中，“在知识分子中间，特别是在德国西部的知识分子中间获得一些人的拥护，并且同有组织的无产阶级建立了广泛联系。”15马克思恩格斯流亡英国，直到1883年马克思逝世前为第二个时期。当时的英国是最为典型的资本主义国家，是最适合研究资本主义社会的地方，整个19世纪50年代至60年代是马克思恩格斯深入推进马克思主义的关键时期。虽然两人很难见面，但书信往来频繁，不断交换双方关于理论与革命的意见，也正是在双方思想碰撞的过程中，《资本论》第一卷这本无产阶级的“《圣经》”问世了。马克思逝世后，恩格斯独自走过的十二年为第三个时期。随着资本主义社会经济、政治的不断发展，欧洲无产阶级运动也再次勃兴，这一“新时代”构成了晚年恩格斯理论思考的社会历史基础。

Second, Engels in his later years, under the conditions of a specific historical context, used historical materialism to conduct scientific reflection and guide practice.

第二，晚年恩格斯是在特殊历史条件的背景下，运用唯物史观进行科学思考、指导实践的。

In the historical time and space of Engels’ later years, capitalist society was developing toward a new stage, and the workers’ movement was once again flourishing. Unlike the violent revolution of the European revolutionary period, the German Social Democratic Party, by utilizing universal suffrage, actually “drove the German government into a corner.” However, affirming the achievements of “parliamentary activity” did not mean abandoning violent revolution as a means of struggle. Engels clearly stated that “the right of revolution is the only truly ‘historical right’”; the proletariat could not smash the chains imposed on it by the bourgeoisie without overthrowing the existing social system through violent revolution. The self-criticism Engels conducted in the process of reflecting on “theory and practice” actually reflects Engels’ scientific spirit of “linking theory with practice” and his theoretical attitude of “seeking truth from facts.” The reason Marx did not systematically elaborate this view is simply that he died before he could fully express his thoughts on the changed history. Some Western “Marxology” scholars, harboring ulterior motives, exaggerate the differences between Marx and Engels with eye-catching views and titles, ignoring the specific historical conditions and the historical context in which Marx and Engels put forward their views. Although they may gain some attention, once people come to their senses, such theoretical adventures will meet the fate they deserve.

在晚年恩格斯的历史时空里，资本主义社会发展走向新阶段，工人运动也再次蓬勃发展起来。不同于欧洲大革命时期的暴力革命，德国社会民主党利用普选权反而将德国政府“逼入绝境”。但是，肯定“议会活动”的成就并非意味着放弃将暴力革命作为斗争手段，恩格斯明确提出“革命权是唯一的真正‘历史权利’”,无产阶级不通过暴力革命推翻现存的社会制度，就不可能打碎资产阶级强加给无产阶级的锁链。恩格斯在反思“理论与实践”的过程中所进行的自我检讨，实际上反映了恩格斯“理论联系实践”的科学精神与“实事求是”的理论态度。而马克思没有系统阐发这一观点，只是因为马克思没有来得及对变化的历史进行充分表达就离世了而已。部分西方“马克思学”学者怀着不可告人的心思，以夺人眼球的观点和标题夸大马克思恩格斯的差异，忽略特殊的历史条件，无视马克思恩格斯提出观点的历史情境，虽然可以获得一定的关注，但等大家回过神来，这样的理论冒险就会落得它应有的下场。

Third, firmly take the standpoint of historical materialism, and resolutely oppose the difference-analysis of Western “Marxology” that is like “Lord Guan fighting Qin Qiong.”[12]12 “Lord Guan fighting Qin Qiong” (关公战秦琼) is a Chinese idiom referring to anachronistically comparing figures from different historical periods, implying a mismatch or absurd juxtaposition.

第三，站稳历史唯物主义的立场，坚决反对西方“马克思学”“关公战秦琼”式的差异分析。

Take the academic case sparked by the *Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844* as an example. We see that Sidney Hook called it “the second coming of Marx,” and Landshut and Mayer even regarded the *Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844* as the peak of Marx’s intellectual development. Why? Simply because this work, never published during Marx’s lifetime and never mentioned by Engels, allowed some Western “Marxology” scholars to see an opportunity to challenge the orthodox status of Soviet Marxism. By identifying the “young Marx” as the peak of Marx’s intellectual development, they could “logically” criticize Soviet Marxism, which was founded on “historical materialism” and the “theory of surplus value.” It was precisely by adopting this method of theoretical assault by surprise that Western “Marxology” achieved its desired theoretical goals, and the theoretical aftereffects it produced still influence our study of Marxist texts and thought today. For Marx and Engels, their intellectual development was undoubtedly historical; by constantly settling accounts with and overcoming their own ideas, they step by step reached the theoretical heights of historical materialism and the critique of political economy. Such a process of intellectual development conforms to the general understanding of intellectual history. What is puzzling is why Western “Marxology” scholars claim that the *Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844*, written by Marx at the age of 26, represents the peak of his life’s thought, while the years he later spent cooperating with Engels represent a continuous decline. This neither conforms to common sense nor to the actual course of Marx and Engels’ intellectual development. Therefore, regarding the difference-analysis of Western “Marxology” that is like “Lord Guan fighting Qin Qiong,” our attitude is that Marx and Engels can be compared within the same period, but one cannot compare the later Engels with the earlier Marx. The crux of the problem is that times change, and the ideas of Marx and Engels also change; their cooperative relationship changes historically, and comparisons cannot be made across different periods.

以《1844年经济学哲学手稿》所引发的学术公案为例，我们看到，悉尼·胡克将之称为“马克思的第二次降世”,郎兹胡特和迈耶尔更是将《1844年经济学哲学手稿》视为马克思思想发展的顶峰。原因何在?只是因为这样一部马克思生前从未公开发表、恩格斯也从未提及的著作，使得部分西方“马克思学”学者看到了挑战苏联马克思主义正统地位的机会。通过指认“青年马克思”是马克思思想发展的巅峰，从而“顺理成章”地批判奠基于“唯物史观”和“剩余价值学说”之上的苏联马克思主义。正是通过采取这种突然袭击的理论攻讦方式，西方“马克思学”达成了想要的理论目的，所造成的理论余波时至今日依然影响着我们对于马克思主义文本和思想的研究。对于马克思恩格斯而言，他们的思想发展无疑是历史性的，通过不断地清算、战胜自己的思想，一步步走向历史唯物主义和政治经济学批判的理论高点，这样一种思想发展历程是符合思想史的一般认识的。而让人感到困惑的是，为什么西方“马克思学”学者宣称马克思在26岁时写下的《1844年经济学哲学手稿》就代表了马克思一生的思想高点，往后和恩格斯合作的岁月里反而不断走向低点?这既不符合常理，也不符合马克思恩格斯思想发展的真正历程。因此，对于西方“马克思学”“关公战秦琼”式的差异分析，我们的态度是，同时期的马克思恩格斯是可以进行比较的，但是不能用晚年恩格斯对比之前的马克思，问题的关键就在于时代在变，马克思恩格斯的思想也在变化，两人的合作关系是历史变化的，不能以不同时期进行比较。

IV. Clarifying “Theoretical Division of Labor”: The Role Limits of the Difference-Analysis Method

四、明确“理论分工”:差异分析方法的角色限度

In Western “Marxology,” besides the views of “difference theory” and “opposition theory,” the “division of labor theory” also has some currency. David McLellan argues: “Marx and Engels consciously practiced an ‘intellectual division of labor’ (Marx focused on history and economics, Engels on military strategy and natural science); from the time they met, there had always been subtle differences in their methodology… Compared to Marx, Engels was slightly more inclined towards evolutionism and determinism; later, Engels’ unique areas of interest inevitably brought about different emphases in his methodology.” The problem is that these Western “Marxology” scholars claim their research pursues a non-ideological interpretation, thus presupposing their own value stance. The result is that they detach themselves from the real context of the issue of the relationship between Marx and Engels, and to some extent move towards the discourse of “ideology.” Compounded by the limitations of their research level, this “division of labor theory” fails to penetrate the historical context of intellectual history in its interpretation of the relationship between Marx and Engels, and thus cannot truly grasp the theoretical import of the Marx-Engels “division of labor.”

在西方“马克思学”中，除了“差异论”和“对立论”的观点外，“分工论”的说法也有一定的市场。戴维·麦克莱伦认为：“马克思和恩格斯之间曾有意识地实行过‘脑力劳动分工’(马克思注重研究历史和经济学，恩格斯则侧重军事战略和自然科学):自相识起，他们在方法论上就一直有着细微的差异……比起马克思来，恩格斯更略微倾向于进化论和决定论；后来，恩格斯独特的兴趣领域又必然带来他在方法论上不同的侧重面。”问题在于，这部分西方“马克思学”学者标榜自己的研究追求的是非意识形态的解读，因而预先设定了自己的价值立场，结果就是脱离了马克思恩格斯关系论问题的真实语境，进而在某种程度上走向了“意识形态”的话语。加之研究水平所限，这一“分工说”对马克思恩格斯关系论问题的解读没有深入到思想史的历史语境中去，从而无法真正把握马克思恩格斯“分工”的理论命意。

First, the theoretical division of labor between Marx and Engels is an important reason for the differences between the two.

第一，马克思恩格斯的理论分工是造成两人之间差异的重要原因。

To better complete their “joint undertaking,” Marx and Engels made a planned division of labor. After 1849, Marx was primarily responsible for analyzing the complex socio-economic phenomena of capitalism, engaging in economic theory research, and advancing the theoretical innovation of Marxism; his theoretical opponents were mainly the capitalist academic world. During the same period, Engels, using the theoretical weapon of historical materialism, concentrated on elucidating general scientific issues, such as natural science, military science, and linguistics. In addition, Engels also bore the heavy responsibility of guiding the international communist movement, carrying out a large amount of effective work in popularizing and disseminating Marxism. From the perspective of later generations, Marx’s landmark work is the great political economy treatise *Capital*, while Engels left behind a vast and varied body of works, large and small. *Capital* was undoubtedly aimed at experts and scholars, naturally sparking a wave of discussion among them, while Engels’ works were more oriented towards the working masses, making it inevitable that they were overlooked by experts and scholars. However, it must be emphasized that the differences in content selection and expression form caused by the theoretical division of labor do not affect the consensus of thought between Marx and Engels. The lines of both are filled with the same Marxist spirit. Because ever since Marx and Engels talked through the night in Paris, “in all theoretical fields we showed complete agreement of opinion, and from then on our common work began.”[13]13 This is a paraphrase or direct citation from Engels’ recollections of his first meeting with Marx in Paris in 1844, often cited to affirm their early intellectual unity.

为了更好地完成“合伙的事业”,马克思恩格斯有计划地做了分工。1849年以后，马克思主要负责剖析资本主义复杂的社会经济现象，从事经济理论研究，推进马克思主义的理论创新，理论对手主要是资本主义学术界；同期，恩格斯则运用唯物史观这一理论武器，集中精力阐明一般科学问题，比如自然科学、军事学、语言学等等。此外，恩格斯还肩负着指导国际共产主义运动的重任，开展了大量卓有成效的马克思主义大众化、普及化工作。从后世的视角来看，马克思留下的标志性著作是政治经济学的巨著《资本论》,而恩格斯则留下了包罗万象的大大小小的作品。《资本论》这本巨著无疑是面向专家学者的，自然也引发了专家学者讨论的热潮，而恩格斯的作品更多面向工人群众，被专家学者忽略也就在所难免。但是需要强调的是，由于理论分工所造成的内容选择和表达形式的差异并不影响马克思恩格斯两人的思想共识，两人的字里行间充斥着的都是同样的马克思主义精神。因为自从马克思恩格斯在巴黎彻夜长谈后，“我们在一切理论领域中都显出意见完全一致，从此就开始了我们共同的工作。”

Second, although Marx and Engels had a theoretical division of labor, they were completely consistent in their inner spirit and essence.

第二，马克思恩格斯虽然有理论分工，但在内在精神与本质上是完全一致的。

In the forty years of fighting side by side, Marx and Engels collaborated closely through face-to-face exchanges, correspondence, and other forms, discussing the major theoretical and practical issues facing their era and reaching a number of important consensual results. From their early collaborative works such as *The Holy Family*, *The German Ideology*, and *The Communist Manifesto*, to later thorough exchanges culminating in major theoretical achievements like *Capital* and *Anti-Dühring*, all reflect their shared scientific aspirations and critical spirit. Although Marx’s personal style leaned more toward rationalism and an elitist tradition, while Engels exhibited an empiricist style and characteristics of radical nationalism, this stylistic difference does not imply a difference in theoretical logic; otherwise, their forty-year collaboration would be difficult to explain rationally. Marx explicitly stated: “I am aware that we are engaged in a common enterprise, and I devote my time to its theoretical and Party aspects.” [14]14 Marx’s own words, cited from his letter to Johann Philipp Becker, circa 1880, reflecting his view of the division of labor in their collaboration. Engels, for his part, explored philosophy, political science, economics, natural science, and many other fields, leaving behind his own reflections. But if we set aside the formal differences of these disciplinary fields and directly grasp the spirit behind the forms, we can find that Engels’ explorations in all these fields embody the scientific spirit of Marxism and consistently anchor the goal of proletarian emancipation, just as Marx unswervingly advanced toward this same goal.

在并肩战斗的四十年中，马克思恩格斯通过当面交流、书信交流等多种形式密切合作，对于他们那个时代面临的重大理论和现实问题展开讨论，达成了一批取得共识的重要成果。马克思恩格斯从早期合作完成《神圣家族》《德意志意识形态》和《共产党宣言》,到后来充分交流，完成《资本论》和《反杜林论》等重大理论成果，都反映出他们所共同的科学诉求与批判精神。尽管马克思的个人风格更偏向理性主义风格和精英主义传统，而恩格斯则体现出经验主义风格和激进民族主义特征，但是这种风格差异并不意味着理论逻辑的差异，否则两人四十年的合作就难以合理解释。马克思明确提出：“我意识到我们两人从事着一个合作的事业，而我则把自己的时间用于这个事业的理论方面和党的方面。”而恩格斯无论是在哲学、政治学，还是在经济学、自然科学等诸多学科领域内都进行了探索，留下了自己的思考。但是如果我们抛开这些学科领域形式上的不同，直接把握形式背后的精神，那么可以发现，恩格斯在这些领域的探索都包含着马克思主义的科学精神，并始终锚定着无产阶级的解放目标，而马克思亦是始终不渝地朝着这一目标前进。

Third, the claim by Western “Marxology” scholars that Engels “invented” Marx is nothing more than a conspiracy theory based on political stance.

第三，西方“马克思学”学者提出的恩格斯“发明”马克思不过是基于政治立场的阴谋论。

We see that Engels had multiple identities: co-founder, interpreter, practitioner, and disseminator of Marxism. However, some Western “Marxology” scholars, represented by Maximilien Rubel, assert that Engels was at most an interpreter and disseminator of Marxism. The reason they say this is that, in their view, Engels maliciously distorted the original face of Marxism and insidiously proposed an anti-“Marxist” “Marxism.” [15]15 Maximilien Rubel (1905–1996), a French Marxist humanist and scholar of Marx, often associated with the “Marxology” school that sought to separate Marx from Engels. Levine [16]16 Norman Levine (1931– ), an American historian of political thought, known for arguing a fundamental divergence between Marx and Engels. even claimed that Engels was the first revisionist of Marx’s doctrine, and that Marx opposed Engels. In fact, these Western “Marxology” scholars completely overlook the inner identity of Marx and Engels’ thought, and by setting up an opposition between “Marxism” and “Engelsism,” they exclude Engels from “Marxism.” From this perspective, the study of the relationship between Marx and Engels is not only an academic issue but also a political one. Starting from Bernstein’s “revision” of Engels and continuing to the peak of Western “Marxology,” it is hard to say that some Western scholars involved in this research did not harbor clear political aims, constructing different images of Marx and Engels under the guidance of subjective inclinations. In response, we must clearly point out: the study of the relationship between Marx and Engels cannot be conducted as a so-called “neutral” study that sets aside the political dimension; otherwise, the true meaning behind this issue will be obscured.

我们看到，恩格斯具有多重身份：马克思主义的创立者、解释者、实践者和传播者。但以吕贝尔为代表的部分西方“马克思学”学者宣称，恩格斯充其量只能算是马克思主义的解释者和传播者。之所以这样说，是因为在他们看来，恩格斯对马克思主义的本来面貌进行了恶意篡改，并居心叵测地提出了反“马克思主义”的“马克思主义”。莱文更是提出，恩格斯是马克思学说的第一个修正主义者，马克思反对恩格斯。事实上，这些西方“马克思学”学者完全忽视了马克思恩格斯思想的内在同一性，通过树立“马克思主义”与“恩格斯主义”的对立，从而将恩格斯排除在“马克思主义”之外。由此来看，对马克思恩格斯关系论问题的探讨不仅是一个学术问题，更是一个政治问题。以伯恩施坦对恩格斯的“修正”为起点，一直到西方“马克思学”达到顶峰，参与研究过程的部分西方学者很难说不抱有明确的政治目的，在主观倾向的指引下建构马克思恩格斯的不同形象。对此，我们需要明确指出：对马克思恩格斯关系论问题的研究，不能抛开政治的维度进行所谓“中立”的研究，否则就会遮蔽这一问题背后的真正意涵。

V. Respecting the “Legendary Friendship”: The Human Limits of the Difference-Analysis Method

五、尊重“传奇友谊”:差异分析方法的人性限度

The friendship between Marx and Engels is celebrated by later generations, but this great friendship was not a smooth fairy tale; rather, it was an eternal monument erected through arduous struggle. No matter from what angle Western “Marxology” scholars try to speculate, ignoring the human limits of friendship ultimately oversteps the boundaries of academic research and must be refuted with righteous severity.

马克思恩格斯的友谊为后人所称颂，但是这一伟大友谊并非是径情直遂的童话故事，而是在砥砺奋进中树立起的永恒丰碑。无论西方“马克思学”学者试图从何种角度进行揣度，忽视友谊的人性限度终归是超越了学术研究的界限，必须义正辞严地加以驳斥。

First, Marx and Engels are models of great friendship, recognized as such by those who knew them.

第一，马克思恩格斯是伟大友谊的榜样，并为知情人所公认。

In forty years of “shared spiritual life filled with intense work,” Marx and Engels always advanced side by side, sharing both the victories of theoretical creation and practical struggle, as well as the bitterness of revolutionary struggle and real life. Starting with their collaborative completion of *The Holy Family*, the collision of ideas brought about a leap in theoretical research. Engels led Marx on a visit to Manchester, allowing Marx to experience the most developed capitalist society firsthand. Catalyzed by multiple factors, Marx and Engels jointly created *The German Ideology*, in which the historical materialism of the new worldview was systematically and scientifically expounded. Commissioned by the Communist League, the two joined hands to “draft a detailed theoretical and practical Party program for publication.” [17]17 A phrase from the opening of the *Communist Manifesto* (1848), describing its purpose as the program of the Communist League. With the birth of *The Communist Manifesto*, Marxism was publicly revealed to the world for the first time, and the names of the two were thus tightly linked together, inspiring generations of proletarian revolutionaries. The twenty years of living apart in London and Manchester “did not hinder them from maintaining the closest spiritual contact; they corresponded almost daily. In their letters, the two friends exchanged opinions and knowledge, continuing to jointly found scientific socialism.” [18]18 A description of Marx and Engels’ correspondence, commonly cited in biographical literature on their relationship. The great friendship of the two was praised by those who knew them. Franz Mehring, [19]19 Franz Mehring (1846–1919), a German Marxist historian and biographer, author of *Karl Marx: The Story of His Life*. commemorating the tenth anniversary of Engels’ death, wrote: “His friendship with Marx was the greatest happiness of his life, and at the same time a secret pain. The sacrifices he made for this friendship were truly too many, sacrifices that even the bravest would find difficult to make. But he voluntarily, without reluctance or regret, submitted to the greater genius, which is more glorious than if he himself had created the greatest intellectual achievements.” [20]20 Mehring’s tribute to Engels, from a speech or essay commemorating the tenth anniversary of Engels’ death in 1905. Regrettably, the great friendship of Marx and Engels could not escape the nitpicking under the political microscope; some Western “Marxology” scholars have always harbored malice toward this great friendship, seeking by every means to slander it.

在四十年“充满紧张工作的共同精神生活”中，马克思恩格斯始终并肩前进，既同享理论创造和斗争实践的胜利，也分享革命斗争和现实生活的苦涩。从合作完成《神圣家族》开始，思想的碰撞带来了理论研究的飞跃。恩格斯带领马克思参访曼彻斯特，使得马克思得以亲身体验最发达的资本主义社会。在多重因素的催化下，马克思恩格斯联手创作完成了《德意志意识形态》,作为新世界观的历史唯物主义得到系统的科学阐发。受共产主义者同盟的委托，两人携手“起草一个准备公布的详细的理论和实践的党纲”,伴随着《共产党宣言》的诞生，马克思主义第一次在世人面前公开问世，两人的英名也就此紧紧联系在一起，激励着一代又一代无产阶级革命者。分居伦敦和曼彻斯特的二十年“并没有妨碍他们保持最密切的精神上的联系；他们差不多每天都通信。这两位朋友在通信中交换意见和知识，继续共同创立科学社会主义。”两人伟大的友谊饱受知情者的赞誉。梅林在纪念恩格斯逝世十周年时写道：“他同马克思的友谊是他一生中最大的幸福，同时也是一种秘而不宣的痛苦。他为友谊所做的牺牲真的太多了，甚至最勇敢的人也难以做到这样的牺牲。但是，他自觉自愿、毫不勉强、毫不反悔地服从于更伟大的天才，这比他自己创造最伟大的思想功绩更为光荣。”但是令人遗憾的是，马克思恩格斯的伟大友谊难逃政治显微镜下的吹毛求疵，部分西方“马克思学”学者对这一伟大友谊一直心存恶意，想方设法加以诋毁。

Second, Western “Marxology” scholars maliciously speculate about the relationship between Marx and Engels, extending from their economic relationship to their academic relationship, especially Engels’ editing, arrangement, and publication of Marx’s works.

第二，西方“马克思学”学者恶意揣度马克思恩格斯的关系，从两人的经济关系发展到学术关系，尤其是恩格斯对于马克思著作的编辑、整理和出版。

Rubel criticized the methods Engels adopted in arranging and publishing Marx’s works, arguing that Engels ignored a whole set of Marx’s writings. The consequence, he claimed, was that neither experts and scholars nor interested readers could “clearly discern” Marx’s “true image.” [21]21 Rubel’s critique of Engels’ editorial work, a recurring theme in his writings on Marx’s legacy. Regarding Engels’ editing and publication of Volumes II and III of *Capital*, Terrell Carver questioned: “To what extent is Engels’ ‘additional’ voice so close to the author that the edition is not only a collaborative work but actually an act of insight?” [22]22 Terrell Carver (1946– ), a British political scientist and scholar of Marx and Engels, known for his critical analysis of Engels’ role. Based on friendship, Engels edited and published Marx’s works; how could he not have wished to faithfully reproduce them? Marx’s scientific rigor led him to constantly change and revise, leaving behind extremely complex manuscripts with a high degree of openness. Under these circumstances, respecting and understanding Engels’ work is more important than malicious speculation. Moreover, editing, arranging, and publishing Volumes II and III of *Capital* cost Engels immense effort. To organize these manuscripts, Engels carefully deciphered Marx’s handwriting on the one hand, and dictated the entire manuscripts on the other. Through this method, Engels finally completed the editing, arrangement, and publication of Volumes II and III of *Capital*. As for Volume IV, the 74-year-old Engels was willing but unable to do more. Victor Adler, [23]23 Victor Adler (1852–1918), an Austrian Social Democratic leader and close associate of Engels. an Austrian Social Democrat, correctly evaluated Engels’ work, pointing out that by editing and publishing Volumes II and III of *Capital*, Engels on the one hand erected an eternal monument for Marx, and on the other hand inadvertently inscribed his own name.

吕贝尔对恩格斯在整理出版马克思著作时所采取的方式进行了非难，认为恩格斯忽略了一整套马克思的著作。这造成的后果就是，无论是专家学者还是感兴趣的读者都无法“清晰地辨识”马克思的“真像”。对于恩格斯整理出版《资本论》第二卷和第三卷，卡弗则质疑：“恩格斯的‘附加’声音在多大程度上如此接近于作者以至于该版本不仅是一部合作物而且实际上是一个洞察行动”?恩格斯基于友谊编辑出版马克思的著作，他何尝不想忠实再现?马克思科学严谨的态度使得其不断改变、修改，遗留下的手稿非常复杂，具有高度的开放性。在这种情况下，尊重、理解恩格斯的工作比恶意揣测更重要。此外，编辑、整理和出版《资本论》第二卷和第三卷耗费了恩格斯极大的心血。为了整理这些手稿，恩格斯一方面细心辨认马克思的字迹，一方面口述全部的手稿，通过这种形式，恩格斯总算完成了《资本论》第二卷和第三卷的编辑、整理和出版工作。至于第四卷，74岁高龄的恩格斯已是心有余而力不足。奥地利社会民主党人维克托·阿德勒正确评价了恩格斯的工作，其指出，恩格斯整理出版《资本论》第二卷和第三卷，一方面为马克思树立了一座永恒的丰碑，另一方面也在无意中铭刻下了自己的名字。

Third, we should recognize that analyzing the differences between Marx and Engels from an academic perspective is perfectly acceptable, but we should respect their great friendship and refuse sensational exaggerations that seek to attract attention.

第三，我们应该认识到，从学术的角度分析马克思恩格斯的差异无可厚非，但是应该尊重两人的伟大友谊，拒绝博人眼球的夸大其词。

Regarding the act of Engels’s selfless assistance to Marx, some Western “Marxology” scholars have seized upon this as a pretext, recklessly claiming that the friendship between Marx and Engels was maintained through this economic dependency relationship, or that Marx, under economic pressure, tolerated Engels’s misunderstanding or distortion of his thought. But this view is not only frivolous but also exceeds the human limits of evaluating the friendship between Marx and Engels. No matter how maliciously Western “Marxology” scholars speculate or add baseless conjectures, they cannot alter these “ironclad” facts. Marx had an extraordinary demand for the purity of theory, and to date there is no evidence that he ever tolerated theoretical inconsistency, let alone distortion. Yet Marx explicitly expressed the hope that Engels would compile and publish the subsequent volumes of *Capital*. Before his death, Marx specifically instructed Eleanor [Eleanor Marx] [24]24 Eleanor Marx (1855–1898), Karl Marx’s youngest daughter, was a socialist activist and translator who helped manage her father’s literary estate., hoping that Engels would “make something” out of these materials. [25]25 This phrase is Marx’s instruction to Eleanor regarding the unpublished manuscripts of *Capital*, as recorded in Engels’s preface to Volume II. Engels did not disappoint Marx’s expectations; in his own way, he made Marx eternal.

对于恩格斯无私援助马克思的这一举措，部分西方“马克思学”学者曾以此为把柄，妄言马克思恩格斯是靠这种经济赡养关系来维护友谊的，或者说，马克思迫于经济压力而忍受了恩格斯对其思想的误解或篡改。但是这种观点不仅无聊，也超出了评价马克思恩格斯友谊的人性限度。无论西方“马克思学”学者如何恶意揣度，横加猜测，都无法改变这些“铁一般”的事实。马克思对理论的纯洁性有着异乎常人的要求，迄今没有任何证据表明他曾容忍过理论上的不一致更不用说歪曲了。但是马克思却明确提出过希望恩格斯整理出版《资本论》的续卷，马克思在临终前曾经专门叮嘱爱琳娜，希望恩格斯“根据这些材料‘做出点什么’来。”恩格斯没有辜负马克思的期待，用自己的方式使得马克思永世长存。

Finally, we see that both Marx and Engels clearly recognized that in the process of engaging in their “joint undertaking,” the two could only achieve final victory by advancing hand in hand.

最后，我们看到，马克思恩格斯都清楚认识到，在从事“合伙的事业”的过程中，两人只有携手并进才有可能夺取最终的胜利。

For Marx, accepting Engels’s support was to concentrate his energy on completing the anatomy of capitalism; for Engels, supporting Marx was also a practical guarantee for the growth of proletarian revolutionary theory. Whether Marx and Engels ever wavered is not important; what is truly crucial is that Marx and Engels clearly knew that their actions were “not only to help their friend, but also to preserve the Party’s finest thinker. It was solely on this basis that Engels made his sacrifice, and Marx accepted it. Making such a sacrifice and accepting such a sacrifice both require a lofty spirit.” [26]26 This quotation is from Lenin’s essay “Frederick Engels” (1895), where Lenin praises the moral and political significance of the Marx-Engels collaboration.

对马克思来说，接受恩格斯的支持是为了集中精力完成对资本主义的解剖；对于恩格斯来说，支持马克思也是切实保障无产阶级革命理论的成长。马克思恩格斯是否有过动摇并不重要，真正关键的是，马克思恩格斯清楚知道自己的行为“不仅是为了帮助自己的朋友，而且也是为了保存党的最优秀的思想家。只是根据这一点恩格斯才作出自己的牺牲，而马克思才接受他的牺牲。作出这样的牺牲和接受这样的牺牲，都同样需要崇高的精神。”

Online editor: Paul

网络编辑：保罗