The German Ideology in the Development of Marx’s Thought

*The German Ideology* (hereinafter referred to as *The Ideology*) is now regarded as one of the important birthplaces of historical materialism. However, the manuscript of *The Ideology* was first compiled and published only in the 1920s and 1930s, which determined that for a long time it was not the dominant expression of historical materialism. According to the publication order of Marx’s works, the first “public announcement” of historical materialism was *The Poverty of Philosophy*, published in 1847; while in the history of the reception and development of Marxism, the recognized classical expression of historical materialism is the 1859 “Preface to *A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy*” (hereinafter referred to as the “Preface”). These two public expressions of historical materialism also mark two major nodes in the development of Marx’s thought: *The Poverty of Philosophy* marks the formation of the “principle of historicity,” i.e., “each principle has had the century in which it appeared”; the “Preface” marks the preliminary completion of the work of the “critique of political economy,” i.e., the completion of the *Grundrisse* (hereinafter referred to as the *Grundrisse*) and *A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy. Part One*. From this perspective, *The Ideology*, written before both of these, is historical materialism before the “principle of historicity” and the “critique of political economy”; it is the embryonic form of historical materialism. This embryonic form, although it already contains the basic connotations of historical materialism and a wealth of brilliant intellectual sparks, also contains numerous contradictions and tensions, as well as many immature and incomplete aspects. Therefore, only by placing *The Ideology* within the entire process of the development of Marx’s thought can we rationally assess the status and value of this manuscript.

《德意志意识形态》（以下简称《形态》），如今已经被视为唯物史观的重要诞生地之一。然而，《形态》手稿最早是20世纪二三十年代才被编纂出版，这决定了它在很长一段时间内并不是唯物史观的主导性表述。按照马克思著作的出版顺序，唯物史观的第一次“公开问世”是1847年出版的《哲学的贫困》；而在马克思主义的接受史和发展史上，唯物史观公认的经典表述则是1859年的《〈政治经济学批判〉序言》（以下简称《序言》）。唯物史观的这两次公开表述，也标志着马克思思想发展的两个重大节点：《哲学的贫困》标志着“历史性原则”的形成，即“每个原理都有其出现的世纪”；《序言》则标志着“政治经济学批判”工作的初步完成，即《1857—1858年经济学手稿》（以下简称《大纲》）和《政治经济学批判。第一分册》的完成。由此看来，写作于这两者之前的《形态》，是“历史性原则”与“政治经济学批判”之前的唯物史观，是唯物史观的雏形状态。这一雏形状态，尽管已经包含着唯物史观的基本内涵和大量精彩的思想火花，但也同样包含着大量矛盾和张力、诸多不成熟和不彻底之处。因此，只有将《形态》置于马克思思想发展的全过程之中，才能理性地估定这一手稿的地位和价值。

The Preliminary Establishment of the Basic Connotations of Historical Materialism

唯物史观基本内涵的初步确立

In the course of the development of Marx’s thought, *The Ideology* belongs to the intellectual lineage initiated by the *Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844* (hereinafter referred to as the *Manuscripts*). Its purpose is to criticize the idealist philosophy of Hegel and his epigones, to establish the principle of materialism, and to criticize the ready-made, conservative political stance of German philosophy, thereby establishing an active, revolutionary political stance. First, the *Manuscripts* refuted Hegel’s absolute idealism with the “principle of objectivity.” In Hegel’s view, the process of spirit’s development means that self-consciousness posits objectivity, and then through the reflection of self-consciousness, it sublates objectivity, thereby achieving a unity without difference between self-consciousness and the object. The political effect of this view is often to reach an intellectual reconciliation with the existing order: it “does not touch its object in reality,” therefore it “only finds an abstract, logical, speculative expression for the movement of history.” In contrast, Marx argued that the real world possesses an irreducible “objectivity” that cannot be completely sublated in self-consciousness. In this way, the historical process becomes the process of human beings actively transforming external objects; this process always contains the revolutionary character of actually changing the external world. Subsequently, in the “Theses on Feuerbach” (hereinafter referred to as the “Theses”), Marx further defined the famous concept of “practice” as “objective activity,” thereby indicating the intellectual continuity between the “Theses” and the *Manuscripts*. At the same time, the “Theses” also asserts that “all mysteries which lead theory to mysticism find their rational solution in human practice and in the comprehension of this practice,” thus opening the intellectual path leading to *The Ideology*.

在马克思思想的发展历程中，《形态》隶属于《1844年经济学哲学手稿》（以下简称《手稿》）所开启的思想脉络，其意旨在于批判黑格尔及其后学的唯心主义哲学，确立唯物主义的思想原则，以及批判德国哲学现成性的、保守的政治立场，确立能动性的、革命的政治立场。首先，《手稿》以“对象性原则”驳斥了黑格尔的绝对唯心主义。在黑格尔看来，精神的发展过程，就意味着自我意识设定对象性，再通过自我意识的反思来扬弃对象性，从而实现自我意识与对象之间无差别的统一。这种观点的政治效应，往往是同现成秩序达成思想上的和解：它“在现实中没有触动自己的对象”，因此它“只是为历史的运动找到抽象的、逻辑的、思辨的表达”。与之相对，马克思主张现实世界有着不可化约的“对象性”，不可能在自我意识中被完全地扬弃。这样，历史进程就成为人能动地改造外在对象的过程，这一过程总是包含着现实地变革外部世界的革命性。此后，在《关于费尔巴哈的提纲》（以下简称《提纲》）中，马克思进一步将著名的“实践”概念界定为“对象性的活动”，由此表明了《提纲》与《手稿》之间的思想连续性。同时，《提纲》又主张“凡是把理论引向神秘主义的神秘东西，都能在人的实践中以及对这种实践的理解中得到合理的解决”，从而开辟了通向《形态》的思想道路。

In *The Ideology*, Marx’s philosophical and political critique of German idealism acquired a broader socio-historical perspective. In Marx’s view, German philosophy “descends from heaven to earth,” passing off various abstract categories (such as self-consciousness, species-being, the Unique One, man, etc.) as the subjects of history, thereby “looking for a category in every age.” This idealist conception of history is closely related to a politically conservative stance, a commonality shared by German idealism and Feuerbach’s old materialism. The reason idealists explain history as the history of ideas is that they belong to the group of thinkers within the ruling class, whose task is to interpret the ideas of the ruling class as the principles of the age and, accordingly, to link the histories of various epochs into a “self-determination of the concept.” Similarly, Feuerbach’s view of social history is intuitive and ready-made; he fails to see that “the sensuous world around him is not a thing given direct from all eternity, remaining ever the same, but the product of industry and of the state of society; and, indeed, in the sense that it is an historical product.” In contrast to these two idealist conceptions of history, historical materialism advocates “ascending from earth to heaven,” using “purely empirical methods” to depict “real individuals” and their life process, and then on this basis “to depict the development of the ideological reflexes and echoes of this life-process.” It is evident that, in Marx’s view at this time, the critique of the idealist conception of history by historical materialism meant reducing the “history of abstract categories” to “concrete empirical history.” Similarly, historical materialism was also linked to a revolutionary political stance. In *The Ideology*, starting from the development of the division of labor, productive forces, and relations of intercourse, Marx exposed the power of the reified forces of economic relations over human beings, sketched the prospect of liberation through the revolution of the world’s proletarians who “can no longer bear” their condition, and issued the resounding call to “revolutionize the existing world.”

在《形态》中，马克思对德国唯心主义的哲学批判和政治批判，都获得了更为广阔的社会历史性视野。在马克思看来，德国哲学“从天国降到人间”，将各种抽象范畴（如自我意识、类、唯一者、人等）冒充为历史的主体，从而“在每个时代中寻找某种范畴”。这种唯心史观，同政治上的保守主义立场密切相关，这一点是德国唯心主义和费尔巴哈的旧唯物主义的共性。唯心主义者之所以将历史解释成思想的历史，是因为他们属于统治阶级中的思想家群体，其任务是将统治阶级的思想阐释为时代的原则，并照此将各个时代的历史串联为“概念的自我规定”。同样地，费尔巴哈关于社会历史的观点是直观的、现成性的，他看不到“他周围的感性世界决不是某种开天辟地以来就直接存在的、始终如一的东西，而是工业和社会状况的产物，是历史的产物”。与这两种唯心史观相对，唯物史观则主张“从人间升到天国”，以“纯粹经验的方法”描摹“现实的个人”及其生活过程，再据此“描绘出这一生活过程在意识形态上的反射和反响的发展”。可见，在这时的马克思看来，唯物史观对唯心史观的批判，就意味着将“抽象范畴的历史”还原到“具体经验的历史”之中。同样地，唯物史观也关联着一种革命性的政治立场。在《形态》中，马克思从分工、生产力和交往关系的发展入手，揭露了经济关系的物化力量对人的支配，勾勒了全世界无产者“不堪忍受”而奋起革命的解放前景，提出了“使现存世界革命化”的响亮号召。

Historical Materialism Yet to Be Perfected

尚待完善的唯物史观

However, the fact that historical materialism took its initial embryonic form in *The Ideology* does not mean that the development of historical materialism was complete. Here we must ask: Did Marx successfully complete the task he set for himself? Did he fully carry through the insight into the historicity of abstract categories, thereby establishing, as he wished, a thoroughly empirical “science of history”?

然而，唯物史观在《形态》中初具雏形，并不等于唯物史观的发展完成。在这里需要追问的是：马克思是否妥善完成了他为自己设定的任务？他是否充分贯彻了关于抽象范畴之历史性的洞察，从而如愿建立了一种彻底经验性的“历史科学”？

We know that the attempt in *The Ideology* to establish a “science of history” starts from the “first historical act,” i.e., “material production.” On this basis, Marx constructed a historical narrative proceeding from material production to the production of needs, and then to the production of human beings and the production of relations. However, the general concept of “production,” as an “abstract category,” is no different from general concepts like “self-consciousness” or “man.” It is likewise the product of a specific historical period and social formation, namely, the product of capitalist large-scale industrial society. Therefore, explaining history as the unfolding history of general “material production” could equally allow the same abstract category to dominate all of history, thereby obscuring the historical specificity from which this category arose. As some scholars have noted, this could potentially extend an understanding of the “division of labor” that is only valid in the capitalist era to pre-capitalist eras. In this regard, Marx made an explicit reflection in the *Grundrisse*: “The provisions which hold good for production in general must be separated out precisely so that the essential difference is not forgotten because of the unity.” Similarly, the use of the category of “capital” in *The Ideology* also exhibits a certain ahistoricity. For example, *The Ideology* once stated: “The main form of property in the feudal epoch was, on the one hand, landed property with serf labor chained to it, and, on the other, the labor of the individual with small capital commanding the labor of journeymen.” Here, “capital” does not refer to the specific economic relations of capitalist society, but merely to abstract “accumulated labor.” In this regard, Marx likewise reflected in the *Grundrisse*: “This is said precisely because the specific character which makes ‘instrument of production’ and ‘accumulated labor’ into capital is omitted.”

我们知道，《形态》建立“历史科学”的尝试，是从“第一个历史活动”即“物质生产”出发的。基于此，马克思建构了一种从物质生产到需要生产，再到人的生产和关系生产的历史叙事。但是，一般的“生产”概念，就其作为一个“抽象范畴”而言，同一般的“自我意识”“人”等概念并没有差别。它同样是特定历史时期和社会形态的产物，即资本主义大工业社会的产物。因此，将历史解释为一般的“物质生产”的展开史，同样有可能让同一个抽象范畴统领全部历史，从而遮蔽这个范畴由以产生的历史特殊性。如有学者所说，这有可能将一种原本只在资本主义时代才有效的关于“分工”的理解推广到前资本主义时代。对此，马克思在《大纲》中作出了明确的反思：“对生产一般适用的种种规定所以要抽出来，也正是为了不致因为有了统一……而忘记本质的差别。”同样地，《形态》对“资本”范畴的运用也表现出了一定的非历史性。例如，《形态》曾经提到：“封建时代的所有制的主要形式，一方面是土地所有制和束缚于土地所有制的农奴劳动，另一方面是拥有少量资本并支配着帮工劳动的自身劳动。”在这里，“资本”所指的并不是资本主义社会的特定经济关系，而仅仅是抽象的“积累起来的劳动”。对此，马克思同样在《大纲》中作出了反思：“这样说是因为恰好抛开了正是使‘生产工具’、‘积累的劳动’成为资本的那个特殊。”

It can be seen that although *The Ideology* already contained the basic connotations of historical materialism, as the embryonic form of historical materialism, it did not fully carry through the principle of historicity inherent in this conception of history. The categories used by historical materialism to explain history (such as the general categories of “production,” “capital,” etc.) are themselves historical; *The Ideology* had not yet fully established an epistemology and methodology commensurate with this fact. In this respect, *The Ideology* did not completely shake off the influence of the Hegelian philosophy it criticized, namely, the impulse to deduce the whole of history from abstract categories.

可见，尽管《形态》已经包含了唯物史观的基本内涵，但它作为唯物史观的雏形状态，并没有将这一史观所蕴含的历史性原则贯彻到底。唯物史观用来阐释历史的范畴（如一般的“生产”“资本”等范畴），本身也是历史性的；对于这一点，《形态》尚未充分建立起一种与之相匹配的认识论和方法论。就此而言，《形态》并没有完全摆脱其所批判的黑格尔哲学的影响，即那种从抽象范畴中推演出整个历史的冲动。

The Perfection of the Critique of Political Economy and the Materialist Conception of History

政治经济学批判与唯物史观的完善

This remnant of Hegelianism was gradually eliminated in Marx’s subsequent works. In *The Poverty of Philosophy*, by criticizing Proudhon’s vulgar Hegelianism, Marx advanced the principle that “every principle has its own century in which it appeared,” thereby initially establishing the conditions for a historical reflection on the materialist conception of history itself. In the *Grundrisse*, Marx achieved a further break with the idealist components of Hegel’s philosophy. As noted earlier, according to the viewpoint of *The German Ideology*, historical explanation should begin with a concrete empirical description of “real individuals.” However, the “Introduction” to the *Grundrisse* argues that such “chaotic conceptions” as “empirical concrete” cannot serve as the starting point of thought. This is because, once we attempt to define this “concrete,” we are still compelled to use abstract concepts. In this sense, human thought is inevitably a process “from the abstract to the concrete”; it is in fact impossible to completely discard abstract categories and proceed directly from the empirical concrete. If one fails to see this, thought easily overlooks the nature of the abstract categories it employs (such as “production,” “capital,” etc.) as “abstract categories,” thereby falling into an idealist conception of history without realizing it.

这种黑格尔主义残余，是在马克思的后续著作中逐渐得到排除的。在《哲学的贫困》中，马克思借批判蒲鲁东的庸俗黑格尔主义，提出了“每个原理都有其出现的世纪”这一原则，从而初步具备了对唯物史观本身进行历史性反思的条件。在《大纲》中，马克思又同黑格尔哲学的唯心主义成分实现了进一步的决裂。如前所述，按照《形态》的观点，历史阐释应当始于对“现实的个人”的具体的经验描摹。但是《大纲》的“导言”却主张，诸如“经验的具体”这样的“混沌的表象”，恰恰不能充当思想的起点。这是因为，一旦我们想要规定这个“具体”，就仍然不得不使用抽象概念。在这个意义上，人类思想不可避免地是一个“从抽象到具体”的过程；想要完全抛弃抽象范畴，直接从经验具体出发，实际上是不可能的。如果看不到这一点，思想就容易忽略自身所使用的抽象范畴（如“生产”“资本”等）作为“抽象范畴”的性质，从而陷入历史观上的唯心主义而不自知。

Thus, historical materialism and Hegelian idealism both appear as a process “from the abstract to the concrete.” The distinction between the two does not lie in the former starting from the concrete and the latter from the abstract, but rather in the fact that idealism regards the self-propagation of abstract categories as capable of generating the concrete totality, whereas materialism holds that any abstract category is the product of a given, historical concrete totality. As Marx said, “Hegel fell into the illusion of conceiving the real as the result of self-synthesizing, self-deepening, and self-moving thought.” In contrast, from the materialist perspective, “the subject, society… always remains as a presupposition before the representation.” It is precisely on the basis of this principle that Marx was able, in the *Grundrisse*, to offer a self-critique of the abstract categories used in *The German Ideology*. It can be said that it was only at this point that the principle of historicity germinated in *The German Ideology* attained the depth of self-reflection, and that historical materialism itself received a historical understanding. The achievement of this understanding clearly depended on Marx’s work of critiquing political economy, i.e., the concrete analysis of the specific social formation of capitalist society. In this sense, Marx did not first complete the materialist conception of history and then apply it to the critique of political economy; rather, he gradually established and perfected the materialist conception of history in the process of unfolding the critique of political economy.

这样，历史唯物主义与黑格尔式的唯心主义，就同样呈现为“从抽象到具体”的过程。这二者之间的区别，并不在于前者始于具体而后者始于抽象，而是在于：唯心主义认为，抽象范畴的自行推演能够生成具体的总体；而唯物主义则认为，任何抽象范畴都是一个给定的、历史性的具体总体的产物。如马克思所说，“黑格尔陷入幻觉，把实在理解为自我综合、自我深化和自我运动的思维的结果”。与之相对，在唯物主义者看来，“主体，即社会……始终作为前提浮现在表象面前”。正是基于这一原则，马克思才能在《大纲》中对《形态》所使用的抽象范畴做出自我批判。可以说，直到此处，《形态》中萌发的历史性原则才达到了自我反思的深度，历史唯物主义自身才得到了历史性的理解。这种理解的达成，显然有赖于马克思的政治经济学批判工作，即对于资本主义社会这一特殊社会形态的具体剖析。在这种意义上，马克思并不是首先完成了唯物史观，尔后将其运用于政治经济学批判，而是在政治经济学批判的展开过程中逐步建立和完善了唯物史观。

In summary, although *The German Ideology* initially expounded the basic content of the materialist conception of history, it was only a rudimentary form of that conception prior to the two intellectual nodes of the “principle of historicity” and the “critique of political economy.” The Marx of the *The German Ideology* period both sought to “break away” from Hegel and remained under Hegel’s influence. This remnant of Hegelianism is not the unique value of *The German Ideology*, but rather its immaturity. By after 1859, the intellectual content of *The German Ideology* had been largely sublated within the critique of political economy and the “Preface” [to *A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy*] based upon it. Perhaps it was for this reason that Marx ultimately abandoned the effort to publish the full manuscript of *The German Ideology* and advocated leaving it “to the gnawing criticism of the mice.” Of course, as a late-published, unfinished manuscript, *The German Ideology* possesses a philological value that published works do not. However, for the development of theory itself, the more important task is: to properly and cautiously assess the intellectual level of *The German Ideology*, to measure its position in the development of Marx’s thought by seeking truth from facts, and thereby to do justice to Marx’s lifelong intellectual achievements.

综上，《形态》尽管初步阐发了唯物史观的基本内涵，但它只是“历史性原则”和“政治经济学批判”两大思想节点之前的唯物史观雏形。《形态》时期的马克思，既想要“叛离”黑格尔，又仍然处在黑格尔的影响之下。这种黑格尔主义的残余，不是《形态》的独特价值，而是《形态》的不成熟之处。而到了1859年之后，《形态》的思想内涵在很大程度上就已经被扬弃于政治经济学批判以及建基于此的《序言》中了。或许正因如此，马克思才最终放弃了出版《形态》全稿的努力，并主张把它“交给老鼠的牙齿去批判”。当然，《形态》作为较晚面世的、未成书的手稿，有着公开出版著作所没有的文献学价值。但是，对于理论本身的发展来说，更加重要的任务却是：妥善而谨慎地估定《形态》的思想水平，实事求是地衡量它在马克思思想发展中的位置，从而公正地对待马克思毕生的思想成就。

Online Editor: Paul

网络编辑：保罗