The Triple Critique of Modernity in the *Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844*

Modernity is the intrinsic definition and fundamental character of what makes the modern era modern; its concrete unfolding is the marriage of the logic of capital and modern metaphysics. The principle of capital penetrates the economic, political, cultural, social, ecological, and even the mental structures of modern society, fundamentally laying the foundational institutions for the continuous operation of modern society. Through a critical analysis of Hegel’s philosophy of right, Marx fundamentally discerned that “the relation of industry, of the world of wealth in general, to the political world is one of the main problems of modern times,” thereby establishing the basic direction of his critique of modernity. When Marx shifted from a critique of the political state to a critique of civil society and began to study political economy, he undertook in the *Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844* (hereinafter referred to as the *Manuscripts*) a triple critique of modernity: economic-philosophical, socio-political, and philosophical-subjective.

现代性是现代何以成为现代的内在界定与根本特质，它的具体展开就是资本逻辑与现代形而上学的联姻。资本原则渗透于现代社会的经济、政治、文化、社会、生态以及人们的思维结构等方面，从本质上奠定了现代社会持续运转的基础建制。通过对黑格尔法哲学的批判性分析，马克思从根本上洞悉了“工业以至于整个财富领域对政治领域的关系，是现代主要问题之一”，从而确立了他批判现代性的基本方向。当马克思经由政治国家批判转入市民社会批判而开始研究政治经济学后，他在《1844年经济学哲学手稿》（以下简称《手稿》）中对现代性进行了经济哲学、社会政治与主体性哲学的三重批判。

The Economic-Philosophical Critique of Modernity

对现代性的经济哲学批判

In the *Manuscripts*, Marx, based on the economic phenomena of modern society, engages in a dialectical “de-construction” of classical economics, which was born within the logic of capital and serves as its apologist. Marx points out that capital is the “private property over the labor of others” that dominates modern society (i.e., capitalist society). As the foundation and driving force of modern society, capital runs through all kinds of modern phenomena. On the one hand, classical economics, which takes the principle of capital as its guiding maxim, holds that the capitalist “stands above the worker” in wage labor and acknowledges the natural legitimacy of the capitalist’s appropriation of the products of labor produced by the wage worker. This signifies the emergence of “capital justice,” whose main tenet is the recognition of the legitimacy of the separation of the labor subject and the object of labor. On the other hand, classical economics advocates that people have the right to freely seek and equally distribute wealth, and it extols fair exchange. However, under the shadow of “capital justice,” the wage worker finds himself in a fourfold condition of alienated existence under the rule of “abstract labor.” Therefore, classical economics faces a dilemma of binary opposition between the theoretical and the practical: while theoretically acknowledging the subjectivity of labor, it “achieves a complete negation of man” in practice.

在《手稿》中，马克思基于现代社会中的经济现象，对诞生于资本逻辑之中并为资本逻辑作辩护的古典经济学展开辩证“解—构”。马克思指出，资本是现代社会（即资本主义社会）中支配“他人劳动的私有权”。而作为现代社会的基础和动力，资本贯穿于各种现代性现象当中。一方面，将资本原则奉为圭臬的古典经济学认为资本家在雇佣劳动中“高踞于工人之上”，并承认资本家占有雇佣工人所生产的劳动产品具有天然合法性。这意味着以承认劳动主体和劳动对象互相分离具有正当性为主旨的“资本正义”的出场。另一方面，古典经济学鼓吹人们拥有自由寻求、平等分配财富的权利，并且推崇公平交易。但是，在“资本正义”笼罩下的雇佣工人却处于“抽象劳动”统治下的四重异化存在境况当中。因此，古典经济学在理论层面与现实层面存在着二元对立的难题：将资本视为原则的古典经济学虽然在理论上承认劳动的主体性，但在实践层面则是“彻底实现对人的否定”。

In Marx’s view, classical economics only discusses economic issues based on existing economic phenomena, merely stopping at embracing “capital justice,” without undertaking a profound critique from a socio-political perspective of the premise of “capital justice” (i.e., capitalist private property). In essence, things such as the state, law, and morality, as “particular forms of production,” are governed by the “general laws of production.” Therefore, “capital justice” is merely a narrow concept reflecting the interests of the bourgeoisie, bred within the mode of production of modern society. At the same time, the essence of the logic of capital is accumulation and the pursuit of profit. Classical economics, which regards capitalist private property as a natural entity, can only be driven by “greed and the war among the greedy—competition”; it can only obtain metaphysical laws; it can only serve to defend “capital justice”; and thus it can never reveal the abstract subject that dominates modern society—capital.

在马克思看来，古典经济学仅从既有的经济现象谈论经济问题，仅仅止步于拥抱“资本正义”，并没有从社会政治的角度对“资本正义”的前提（即资本主义私有制）展开深入批判。而本质上，作为“生产的一些特殊方式”（如国家、法、道德等），受到“生产的普遍规律的支配”。因此，“资本正义”仅仅是孕育于现代社会生产方式之上的反映资产阶级利益的狭隘观念。同时，资本逻辑的本质在于增殖与逐利，将资本主义私有制视为天然存在物的古典经济学能够驱动的唯一要素只能是“贪欲以及贪欲者之间的战争即竞争”，能得到的只能是形而上学的规律，能做到的只能是为“资本正义”进行辩护，因而永远无法揭示支配现代社会的抽象主体——资本。

The Socio-Political Critique of Modernity

对现代性的社会政治批判

If the economic-philosophical critique of modernity is a relatively primary, first-level critique, then the socio-political critique, which sublates the economic-philosophical critique within itself, is a further, second-level critique of modernity. In the *Manuscripts*, Marx delves into the modern political field, launching a socio-political critique of false “communist” currents (i.e., “crude communism” and communism of a “political nature”), thereby pointing out a realistic path for rescuing modern workers from their alienated existence and for realizing a true labor justice distinct from “capital justice.”

如果说对现代性的经济哲学批判是比较初级的、第一层次的批判，那么作为扬弃了经济哲学批判于自身之内的社会政治批判就是对现代性的更进一步的、第二层次的批判。在《手稿》中，马克思深入现代政治场域，对虚假“共产主义”思潮（即“粗陋的共产主义”和具有“政治性质”的“共产主义”）展开了社会政治批判，从而为拯救现代劳动者于异化生存境况当中和实现区别于“资本正义”的真正的劳动正义指明了现实进路。

On the one hand, the proponents of “crude communism” advocate possession, regarding it as the fundamental principle of “life and existence.” Thus, although they also take a negative stance toward private property, they merely seek to eliminate the gap between rich and poor through the equalization of private property. Consequently, private property remains the universal relation of the social community, and the logic of capital still runs through socio-historical reality. In Marx’s view, the “egalitarianism” advocated by this kind of communism, which stems from “greed,” lags behind “the level of private property” in both material and spiritual dimensions. As Marx later stated in the *Critique of the Gotha Programme*: for every worker, “right can never be higher than the economic structure of society and its cultural development conditioned thereby.” This means that crude “egalitarianism” is not entirely a just expression of the vital interests of labor subjects who differ in work ability, economic conditions, living circumstances, and so on. On the contrary, this “egalitarianism” is more a reflection of unequal legal relations. Therefore, we can see that “crude communism” is far from able to fundamentally solve the problem of workers’ alienation. On the other hand, the proponents of communism with a “political nature” are more progressive than the “crude communists”; they advocate the complete abolition of private property, but this is merely an awareness of the negative essence of the logic of capital. The great achievements of the logic of capital are, for them, nothing. In other words, they have not yet understood that without the wealth of “the production of material life itself” to provide a guarantee for human existence and progress, it will inevitably be extremely difficult to eradicate the problem of the devastation of human beings by the state of alienation.

一方面，“粗陋的共产主义”者崇尚占有，并将之视为“生活和存在”的根本准则。因而，虽然他们也对私有财产持否定的态度，但是仅仅通过私有财产平均化来达到消灭贫富差距的目的，进而私有制仍然是社会共同体的普遍关系，资本逻辑依旧贯穿于社会历史现实当中。在马克思看来，这种共产主义所主张的源于“贪欲”的“平均主义”在物质、精神双重向度均落后于“私有财产的水平”。正如马克思在后来的《哥达纲领批判》中所说：对于每一个劳动者来说，“权利就不应当是平等的，而应当是不平等的”。这意味着，粗陋的“平均主义”思想对于每一个在工作能力、经济状况、生活条件等方面都不尽相同的劳动主体来说，并不完全是关于他们的切身利益诉求的正义表达。相反，这种“平均主义”思想更多是对不平等的法权关系的反映。因此，我们可以看出“粗陋的共产主义”远远无法从根源上解决劳动者的异化问题。另一方面，具有“政治属性”的“共产主义”者相对于“粗陋的共产主义”者来说是进步的，他们主张彻底消灭私有财产，但这仅仅是对资本逻辑的消极本质的通晓。资本逻辑的伟大功绩对于他们来讲只是无。质言之，他们尚未理解如果没有“生产物质生活本身”的财富为人的生存和进步提供保障，要想彻底根除异化状态对人的摧残这一难题必定举步维艰。

Therefore, in his critique of the false “communist” currents, Marx elaborates his own communist thought: “Communism is the positive transcendence of private property, as human self-estrangement.” This means that true communism consists in: first, consciously realizing labor justice within the “entire range of the wealth of previous development,” fully appropriating the human essence of “free, conscious activity”; second, pursuing the free objectification of the active subject in productive practice and the just reciprocity between people in communicative activities; third, truly dissolving the estrangement and division within the subject itself, between subjects, between the subject and the social community, and between the subject and nature. Unlike Hegel’s prescription for solving the problems of modernity—the expression in the political sphere of the integrative power of absolute reason (i.e., the integrative power of the state)—Marx’s solution to the problems of modernity appeals to a true social community, namely, the “association of free individuals.” This is a “human society” that transcends “civil society.” In this process of becoming, atomized, egoistic individuals transform into socialized active subjects, and they collectively appropriate the social values created by the true social community.

因此，在对虚假的“共产主义”思潮的批判中，马克思阐发了他的共产主义思想：“共产主义是对私有财产即人的自我异化的积极的扬弃”。这意味着，真正的共产主义在于：第一，“在以往发展的全部财富的范围内”自觉实现劳动正义，充分占有“自由的有意识”的人类本质；第二，追求生产实践的活动主体的自由对象化与交往活动中人与人的公正互惠；第三，真正地消解主体本身、主体间、主体与社会共同体、主体与自然之间的隔阂与分裂。与黑格尔为现代性问题的解决所开出的绝对理性的一体化力量在政治领域的表达（即国家的一体化力量）的药方不同，马克思对现代性问题的解答则诉诸真正的社会共同体，即“自由人联合体”。这是一种超越“市民社会”的“人类社会”，在这个生成性过程中，原子化的利己个人蜕变为社会化的活动主体，并且共同占有真正的社会共同体所创造的社会价值。

The Philosophical-Subjective Critique of Modernity

对现代性的主体性哲学批判

In the *Manuscripts*, after completing the economic-philosophical and socio-political critiques of modernity, Marx undertakes a third-level, subversive reconstruction at the level of the underlying logic of Hegel’s philosophy of subjectivity, which serves as the metaphysical foundation of the phenomena of modernity.

在《手稿》中，马克思在完成对现代性的经济哲学批判与社会政治批判之后，对作为现代性现象之形而上学基础的黑格尔主体性哲学展开了底层逻辑意义上的、第三层级的颠覆性重构。

As Habermas notes, Hegel was “the first philosopher to develop a clear concept of modernity” and to treat it “as a philosophical problem.” Hegel fully affirmed subjectivity, pointing out that human subjectivity was striving to break the chains of the old system of ideas, and he regarded it as the ruling principle of the modern era. To resolve the friction of interests between subjects, to dissolve the conflict between atomized individuals and the social community, and to ease the contradiction between civil society and the political state, Hegel appealed to the political community that represents universal interests, is absolutely self-sufficient, exists as “the actuality of the ethical Idea,” and achieves the organic unity of atomized individuals—namely, the “state.” The “state” manifests the conquest of the “separations of modernity” by absolute spirit “as a power of integration.”

正如哈贝马斯所言，黑格尔是“第一个意识到现代性问题”，并将之“作为哲学问题”的哲学家。黑格尔充分肯定主体性，指出人的主体性正在努力打破旧观念体系的枷锁，并将之视为现代的统治原则。为了解决主体间的利益摩擦、化解原子个体与社会共同体间的冲突以及缓和市民社会与政治国家间的矛盾，黑格尔诉诸代表普遍利益的、绝对自在自为的、作为“伦理理念的现实”的、实现原子个体有机统一的政治共同体，即“国家”。“国家”展现出绝对精神“作为一种一体化的力量”对“现代的分离现象”的征服。

In response to Hegel’s philosophy of subjectivity, Marx critiques the speculative dialectic of “alienation-sublation” that runs through it. In the *Phenomenology of Spirit*, Hegel presents his negative dialectic “as the moving and creating principle,” namely the self-unfolding of substance-subject. Marx argues that “this seemingly formal question of Hegel’s dialectic is in fact an essential one” and analyzes it accordingly. First, in the process of critiquing the abstract subjectivity elaborated by Hegel, Marx rescues the real human being engaged in sensuous objectifying activity. The “absolute subject” that Hegel acknowledges is a closed, immanent subject of consciousness, capable only of “abstract labor,” i.e., “a pure, ceaseless rotation within itself.” On the one hand, Marx affirms the processual nature of the subject’s activity and objectifying activity as expounded by Hegel. On the other hand, he holds that Hegel’s recognition of the abstract subject results in the absence of sensuous objectifying activity from social-historical reality. Therefore, only by grasping the human being as a real subject, i.e., a real human being engaged in sensuous objectifying activity, can abstract subjectivity be manifested as real activity. Second, in the process of inheriting the principled historicity of Hegel’s negative dialectic and critiquing abstract subjectivity, Marx creates materialist dialectics. In Marx’s view, Hegel’s negative dialectic is an “abstract, logical, speculative expression” of social-historical development. All the history of externalization and its sublation and elimination that Hegel identifies is merely “the history of the production of abstract thought, of logical, speculative thought.” Marx inherits the historical sense of Hegel’s idealist dialectic and sublates its abstract subjectivity, pulling dialectics down from heaven to earth. As Engels later stated: the materialist dialectics created by critiquing Hegel’s dialectic “was, in our opinion, a result whose significance is no less than that of the basic materialist outlook.” Third, it clarifies that negative dialectics is the philosophical essence of labor. In the process of critiquing abstract subjectivity, Marx points out: “Hegel conceives the self-genesis of the human being as a process, objectification as de-objectification, as externalization and the sublation of this externalization.” Thus Hegel grasps the philosophical essence of labor. However, although Hegel realizes that labor is “the essence of the human being’s self-confirmation,” the labor he acknowledges is merely the logical manifestation of real life activity, i.e., “abstract mental labor,” and he uncritically affirms the pure activity of the “absolute subject” and its products. Hence he still drifts within the uncritical research field of classical political economists and does not grasp the real alienated condition of labor and its conquest. Therefore, what Hegel can achieve is merely a revolution in the head, touching not at all on the phenomena of modernity in social-historical reality, and he cannot truly realize labor justice in modern society through transformative change.

针对黑格尔的主体性哲学，马克思对贯穿于其中的思辨的“异化—扬弃”辩证法展开了批判。黑格尔在《精神现象学》中展现了他的“作为推动原则和创造原则”的否定辩证法，即实体—主体的自我展开。马克思认为“黑格尔的辩证法这一表面上看来是形式的问题，而实际上是本质的问题”，并对之展开分析。其一，马克思在批判黑格尔所阐发的抽象主体性的过程中，拯救出了进行感性对象化活动的现实的人。黑格尔所承认的“绝对主体”是作为意识的封闭的内在性主体，能够进行的创造活动仅仅是“抽象劳动”，即“自身内部的纯粹的、不停息的旋转”。一方面，马克思对黑格尔所阐述的主体能动性与对象性活动的过程性作了肯定。另一方面，他认为黑格尔对抽象主体的承认致使感性对象化活动缺席于社会历史现实当中。因而，只有将人把握为现实主体，即进行感性对象化活动的现实的人，才能使抽象主体性展现为现实能动性。其二，马克思在继承黑格尔否定辩证法的具有原则高度的历史性与批判抽象主体性的过程中创造了唯物辩证法。在马克思看来，黑格尔的否定辩证法是对社会历史发展的“抽象的、逻辑的、思辨的表达”。黑格尔所指认的一切外化历史及其扬弃与消除，仅仅是“逻辑的思辨的思维的生产史”。马克思承继了黑格尔唯心辩证法的历史感并扬弃了其抽象主体性，将辩证法从天国拉回人间。就像恩格斯后来所说：由批判黑格尔辩证法而创立的唯物辩证法，“这个方法的制定在我们看来是一个其意义不亚于唯物主义基本观点的成果”。其三，阐明了否定辩证法是劳动的哲学本质。在批判抽象主体性的过程中，马克思指出：“黑格尔把人的自我产生看作一个过程，把对象化看作非对象化，看作外化和这种外化的扬弃。”因而黑格尔把握到了劳动的哲学本质。然而，黑格尔虽然体悟到劳动是“人的自我确证的本质”，但是他所承认的劳动仅仅是现实的生命活动的逻辑呈现，即“抽象的精神的劳动”，并且无批判地肯定“绝对主体”的纯粹活动及其产物，所以他依然鼓荡于古典政治经济学家非批判的研究场域中，并没有把握劳动的现实异化状况及其征服。因此，黑格尔所能实现的只是颅内革命，丝毫不触及社会历史现实的现代性现象，并不能通过变革性改造真正实现现代社会中的劳动正义。

In sum, in the *Manuscripts*, Marx’s critique of economic philosophy, social politics, and the philosophy of subjectivity, unfolded within the field of modern society, constitutes the triple dimension of the critique of modernity. These three dimensions present a logical progression from the surface to the depths. They interweave with each other as they move toward the depths of social-historical reality, presenting a holistic dialectical picture, and promote the establishment of Marx’s critique of ideology and historical materialism. As General Secretary Xi Jinping points out, “We are still in the historical era indicated by Marxism.” As a philosophy born in the era when capitalism transitioned from free competition to monopoly and achieved its transcendence, “Marx’s philosophy is both the essence of that era and the essence of all human spirit.” The mode of thinking and scientific method Marx employs in his critique of modernity have constructive practical significance for us today in “observing the era, interpreting the era,” grasping the pulse of the era, and promoting the generation and development of a new form of human civilization that has sublated capitalist modernity.

总之，在《手稿》中，马克思于现代社会场域展开的经济哲学、社会政治与主体性哲学批判构成了现代性批判的三重向度。这三重向度呈现为由表层到深层的逻辑递进。它们相互勾连着走向社会历史现实的深处，呈现为一幅总体性的辩证图景，并且推动了马克思的意识形态批判和历史唯物主义的创立。正如习近平总书记指出的，“我们依然处于马克思主义所指明的历史时代”，作为诞生于资本主义从自由竞争步入垄断时代并实现了对其进行超越的马克思哲学，“既是那个时代的精华又是整个人类精神的精华”。马克思针对现代性展开批判所采用的思维方式与科学方法，对于我们当下“观察时代、解读时代”，把握时代脉络，推动扬弃了资本主义现代性的人类文明新形态的生成与发展具有建设性的现实意义。

Online editor: Paul

网络编辑：保罗