The Establishment of Marx’s Historical Materialism from the Perspective of Discourse Transformation

General Secretary Xi Jinping has repeatedly stressed the need to strengthen the study of historical materialism and has suggested that “everyone read some works of Marxist philosophy, master the scientific worldview and methodology, and constantly enhance the principled, systematic, predictive and creative nature of their work.” [1]1 Xi Jinping, “Speech at the Celebration of the 95th Anniversary of the Founding of the Communist Party of China” (1 July 2016). As is well known, the establishment of Marx’s historical materialism was a great revolution in the history of human thought. People highly affirm that it revealed the universal laws of human historical development and achieved a fundamental transformation of the conception of history, but few have explored its establishment from the perspective of discourse. From the evolution of discourse, Marx’s philosophical discourse underwent three forms of historical transmutation: early Hegelian speculative discourse, humanist discourse tinged with Feuerbachian color, and new materialist discourse. It was precisely in the transformation of these three discourse modes that Marx achieved an overall shift from discursive logic to narrative mode, from conceptual terminology to problematic domain, realized the transformation of his own discourse, and established historical materialism. Discourse is a reflection of thought; the process of transformation in Marx’s philosophical discourse is in fact also the process of the formation of historical materialism. Viewing the establishment of historical materialism from the perspective of discourse transformation can provide a more comprehensive grasp of Marx’s own intellectual development and can also offer inspiration for the construction of a discourse system for contemporary Chinese philosophy and social sciences guided by Marxism.

习近平总书记多次强调加强对历史唯物主义的学习，并建议“大家读一些马克思主义哲学著作，掌握科学世界观和方法论，不断增强工作的原则性、系统性、预见性和创造性”。众所周知，马克思唯物史观的创立，是人类思想史上的一次伟大革命。人们高度肯定它揭示了人类历史发展的普遍规律，实现了历史观的根本变革，但鲜有人从话语视角探讨它的创立。从话语的演进看，马克思的哲学话语共经历三种形式的历史嬗变：早期黑格尔式的思辨话语、带有费尔巴哈色彩的人本主义话语和新唯物主义话语。正是在三种话语方式的转换中，马克思实现了从话语逻辑到叙事方式、从概念术语到问题论域的整体性变迁，实现了自身话语的变革，创立了唯物史观。话语是思想的映射，马克思哲学话语的变革过程其实也是唯物史观的形成过程。从话语变革视角看唯物史观的创立，可以更加全面地把握马克思自身的思想发展，也可以给以马克思主义为指导的当代中国哲学社会科学话语体系的构建提供启示。

I. The “Real Factor” in Speculative Discourse and the Incubation of Historical Materialism

一、 思辨话语的“现实因子”与唯物史观的酝酿

Marx’s establishment of historical materialism was by no means accidental. As early as his doctoral dissertation and his period at the *Rheinische Zeitung*, [2]2 The *Rheinische Zeitung* (Rhenish Gazette) was a liberal newspaper in Cologne for which Marx wrote and later served as editor from 1842 to 1843. he had already begun to incubate his historical materialism, even though at that time he did not yet know what historical materialism was. As is well known, the early Marx was deeply influenced by Hegelian rationalism; his discursive stance was idealist, and his discursive logic was speculative. However, a “real factor” had already emerged in his speculative discourse, and sparks of historical materialism had already flickered in his thought.

马克思创立唯物史观绝非偶然，早在其《博士论文》和莱茵报时期，就已经开始酝酿其唯物史观，尽管当时他还不知何谓唯物史观。众所周知，早期的马克思深受黑格尔理性主义的影响，其话语立场是唯心主义的，话语逻辑是思辨的。但是，在其思辨的话语中已经出现了“现实因子”，其思想中也已闪烁出唯物史观的火花。

Undoubtedly, when writing his doctoral dissertation, Marx was deeply influenced by Hegel’s speculative philosophy, because both the expression of language and the use of terminology were deeply stamped with the imprint of Hegel’s speculative philosophy. In the doctoral dissertation, Marx focused on examining Epicurus’s natural philosophy, using an investigation of the motion of atoms and a comparative analysis with Democritus’s atomic theory to demonstrate the free character of self-consciousness. From the perspective of discursive logical deduction, Marx started from the concept of the atom, that is, from the “formal determination” of the atom, and through the logical deduction of concepts, finally returned to the concept itself, thereby demonstrating the free character of self-consciousness. That is, through the atom’s motion from straight line to swerve, after undergoing negation of the negation, it returns to itself; self-consciousness, after shedding external constraints, also attains independence and freedom. We know that this swerve motion does not exist at all in the physical sense; therefore, it can only be understood by transcending the epistemological perspective of physics and from a purely speculative angle. In terms of the use of terminology, concepts such as “determinate being,” “reason,” “sensibility,” “freedom,” “subject,” “object,” “necessity,” “contingency,” “being,” “objectification,” “presence,” “absence” are frequent visitors in the doctoral dissertation. To understand these concepts, one often has to seek solutions from Hegel. In essence, at this time Marx was deeply influenced by Hegelian speculative discourse, seeking to verify self-consciousness in the study; his reasoning still remained at the level of “what ought to be,” and his analysis of reality remained more at the level of value presupposition, merely expressing a longing for freedom. This is also the reason why academia has long failed to give due attention to the status of Marx’s doctoral dissertation in the establishment of historical materialism; most scholars consider it an immature work, a purely idealist philosophical work, a “million miles” away from the establishment of historical materialism.

无疑，马克思在写《博士论文》时深受黑格尔思辨哲学的影响，因为不管是语言的表达和术语的使用，都深深烙上了黑格尔思辨哲学的印记。在《博士论文》中，马克思集中考察了伊壁鸠鲁的自然哲学，利用对原子运动的考察，以及与德谟克利特的原子论的比较分析，来论证自我意识的自由特性。从话语的逻辑推演看，马克思从原子的概念，即从原子的“形式规定”出发，通过概念的逻辑推演，最终回到概念本身，以此论证自我意识的自由特性。即通过原子的直线运动到偏斜运动，在经历了否定之否定之后，又回到自身，自我意识也是在摆脱了外在的束缚后，获得独立和自由。我们知道，这种偏斜运动在物理学意义上根本是不存在的，因此只能超越物理学的认识角度，从纯思辨的角度来理解。从术语的使用看，“定在”“理性”“感性”“自由”“主体”“客体”“必然性”“偶然性”“存在”“对象化”“有”“无”等概念术语是《博士论文》中的“常客”。要理解这些概念，很多时候要到黑格尔那里求解。质言之，此时马克思深受黑格尔思辨话语的影响，在书斋中求证自我意识，其推理仍停留在“应然”层面，对现实的剖析更多的停留在价值预设的层面，仅仅表达了对自由的一种向往。这也是长期以来学界对马克思的《博士论文》在唯物史观创立中的地位没有给予应有关注的原因所在，大多学者认为这是一部不成熟的著作，一部纯唯心主义哲学著作，与唯物史观的创立距离“十万八千里”。

In fact, this is not the case. In the doctoral dissertation, Marx had already planted the seeds for the establishment of historical materialism. On the question of the relationship between philosophy and reality, Marx opposed Epicurus’s discussion of human absolute freedom divorced from the objective world. He believed that Epicurus’s so-called “freedom divorced from the real world” exaggerated the role of the individual, preached the separation of humans from reality, and placed humans outside social history, making it a personal fantasy of idealist philosophers. Marx pointed out: “If abstract, individual self-consciousness is posited as an absolute principle, then, since it is not individuality that dominates in the nature of things themselves, all true and real science is of course abolished. … On the contrary, if self-consciousness, which manifests itself only in the form of abstract universality, is elevated to an absolute principle, then this opens the door wide to superstitious and unfree mysticism.” [3]3 Karl Marx, “Difference Between the Democritean and Epicurean Philosophy of Nature,” in *Marx-Engels Collected Works*, vol. 1 (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1975), p. 71. It can be seen that this was a concrete reckoning by Marx with the self-consciousness philosophy of the Young Hegelians; [4]4 The Young Hegelians were a group of German intellectuals in the 1830s and 1840s who interpreted Hegel’s philosophy in a radical, critical direction, emphasizing self-consciousness and critique of religion and the state. he had serious differences with the Young Hegelians, because he had already realized that “there is a disjunction between thought and being.”

其实不然，在《博士论文》中，马克思已经埋下了唯物史观创立的种子。在哲学与现实的关系问题上，马克思反对伊壁鸠鲁离开客观世界来讨论人的绝对自由。他认为伊壁鸠鲁所谓的“脱离现实世界的自由”，夸大了个人的作用，宣扬人与现实的脱离，把人置于社会历史之外，是唯心主义哲学家的一种个人幻想。马克思指出：“如果抽象的、个别的自我意识被设定为绝对的原则，那么，由于在事物本身的本性中占统治地位的不是个别性，一切真正的和现实的科学当然就被取消了。……相反，如果把那只在抽象的普遍性的形式下表现其自身的自我意识提升为绝对的原则，那么这就会为迷信的和不自由的神秘主义大开方便之门。”可以看出，这是马克思对青年黑格尔派自我意识哲学的一次具体清算，他与青年黑格尔派存在着严重的分歧，因为他已经意识到了“思想和存在之间是脱节的”。

Although what Marx said at this time—that “the philosophizing of the world is at the same time the worlding of philosophy” [5]5 Karl Marx, “Notebooks on Epicurean Philosophy,” in *Marx-Engels Collected Works*, vol. 1, p. 491.—was still very speculative and still stood on an idealist position, we can also find that Marx acknowledged the existence of a reality outside consciousness; he had always been concerned with the “real world.” For Marx, philosophy and the “real world” were inseparable for even a moment. As Marx said: “Philosophy no longer merely gazes at the external world for the sake of knowledge; it steps onto the stage as a character, so to speak, becomes entangled in the intrigues of the world, emerges from the transparent Elysian fields [6]6 Elysian fields (Amensesian kingdom) refers to the Greek mythological paradise of the blessed dead; here used metaphorically for the realm of pure thought. and throws itself into the earthly embrace of the Sirens. … After philosophy has grasped the whole world, it rises up against the phenomenal world.” [7]7 Karl Marx, “Notebooks on Epicurean Philosophy,” in *Marx-Engels Collected Works*, vol. 1, p. 491. That is to say, at this time Marx did not absolutize self-consciousness like the Young Hegelians, nor did he preach “freedom divorced from the real world” like Epicurus; instead, he placed “reality” into his own philosophical discourse. The “worlding of philosophy” had already manifested the combative style of his discourse. The insertion of the “real factor” in the doctoral dissertation also foreshadowed the direction of the transformation of Marx’s philosophical discourse and laid the groundwork for the future establishment of historical materialism.

尽管马克思此时所说的“世界的哲学化同时也就是哲学的世界化”还很思辨，还是站在唯心主义立场之上，但我们也可以发现，马克思是承认意识之外还有现实的存在，他是一直关注着“现实世界”的。在马克思这里，哲学与“现实世界”须臾不可分。正如马克思所说：“哲学已经不再是为了认识而注视着外部世界；它作为一个登上了舞台的人物，可以说与世界的阴谋发生了瓜葛，从透明的阿门塞斯王国走出来，投入那尘世的茜丝林的怀抱……哲学把握了整个世界以后就起来反对现象世界。”也就是说，此时马克思并没有像青年黑格尔派那样将自我意识绝对化，也没有像伊壁鸠鲁那样宣扬“脱离现实世界的自由”，而是将“现实”置入自己的哲学话语当中，“哲学的世界化”已经显现出其话语的战斗风貌。《博士论文》中“现实因子”的置入，也预示了马克思哲学话语变革的方向，为日后唯物史观的创立埋下了伏笔。

This “real factor” became even more prominent during the *Rheinische Zeitung* period. On the question of the relationship between philosophy and reality, Marx continued to advance in the direction of the doctoral dissertation, proposing that “philosophy has become the philosophy of the world, and the world has become the world of philosophy.” [8]8 Karl Marx, “The Leading Article in No. 179 of the *Kölnische Zeitung*,” in *Marx-Engels Collected Works*, vol. 1, p. 195. In his commentary on issue No. 179 of the *Kölnische Zeitung*, [9]9 The *Kölnische Zeitung* (Cologne Gazette) was a major German newspaper; Marx’s article responded to a conservative attack on philosophy. Marx pointed out that “any true philosophy is the spiritual quintessence of its time.” [10]10 Karl Marx, “The Leading Article in No. 179 of the *Kölnische Zeitung*,” in *Marx-Engels Collected Works*, vol. 1, p. 195. Although at this time this was still an idealist proposition, its origin still lay in Hegel’s idea that “every philosophy is the philosophy of its age,” the “thought of its age,” the “thinking and cognition of the spirit of its age,” Marx had already begun to attach importance to reality. He once criticized those German philosophers who were divorced from reality as “loving solitude, seclusion, and indulging in indifferent self-contemplation; … it is not popular; … it is treated as a magician who mutters incantations with great solemnity, because no one understands what he is muttering.” [11]11 Karl Marx, “The Leading Article in No. 179 of the *Kölnische Zeitung*,” in *Marx-Engels Collected Works*, vol. 1, p. 195. It can be seen that Marx had already recognized that Bauer and others [12]12 Bruno Bauer (1809–1882) was a leading Young Hegelian and former mentor of Marx, later criticized by Marx for his abstract critique of religion and politics. separated philosophy from reality and talked emptily about social reality; he did not want to be like them, saying things that others could not understand. “Philosophy not only internally, through its content, but also externally, through its manifestation, comes into contact and interacts with the real world of its own time.” [13]13 Karl Marx, “The Leading Article in No. 179 of the *Kölnische Zeitung*,” in *Marx-Engels Collected Works*, vol. 1, p. 195. Here, Marx had already made a general statement on the mission of philosophical discourse: philosophy must proceed from reality, interact with the real world, become a practical philosophy, and truly play the role of transforming the world. This is in fact also the task of historical materialism.

这种“现实因子”在《莱茵报》时期更加凸显。在哲学与现实的关系问题上，马克思继续沿着《博士论文》的方向前进，提出“哲学已成为世界的哲学，而世界也成为哲学的世界”。在《<科伦日报>第179号的评论》中，马克思指出，“任何真正的哲学都是自己时代的精神上的精华”，尽管此时，这还是一个唯心主义的命题，它的提出还是源于黑格尔的“每一哲学都是它的时代的哲学”，是“时代的思想”、“时代的精神的思维和认识”。但是，马克思已经开始重视现实，他曾批判德国那些脱离现实的哲学家是“喜欢幽静孤寂、闭关自守并醉心于淡漠的自我直观；……它不是通俗易懂的；……它被当做一个魔术师，若有其事地念着咒语，因为谁也不懂得他在念些什么”。可见，马克思已经认识到鲍威尔等人将哲学与现实脱离，空泛地谈论社会现实，他不想像他们那样，说一些别人都听不懂的话。“哲学不仅在内部通过自己的内容，而且在外部通过自己的表现，同自己时代的现实世界接触并相互作用。”在这里，马克思已经对哲学话语的使命做出了概括性的表述，哲学要从现实出发，同现实世界互动，成为实践的哲学，真正发挥改造世界的功能，这其实也是唯物史观的任务。

During the *Rheinische Zeitung* period, Marx had already put forward the term “objective relations,” a word with the character of historical materialism. Although at this time he could not yet propose the concept of “material relations” or the category of “relations of production,” Marx had already seen the “objective relations” behind human activity, emphasizing that the state system is an objective relation independent of individual will. In “Justification of the Correspondent from the Mosel,” Marx said: “In the study of state affairs, one is too easily misled into overlooking the objective nature of relations and explaining everything by the will of the persons concerned. There exist, however, relations which determine the actions both of private persons and of individual authorities, and which are as independent of them as the method of breathing.” Here, Marx had already recognized that historical development is not determined by Hegel’s absolute spirit, and he began to distinguish “objective relations” from “human will.” Although at this time “objective relations” still referred to relations determined by the idea, as the externalization of absolute spirit, Marx had already perceived “the objective nature of various relations,” and here “objective relations” already bore the shadow of “social being.” Cornu once said that Marx at that time “could not yet solve economic and social problems from an economic and social perspective, so he could only discuss these issues from a legal and ethical angle.” However, Marx had already discovered the crux of the problem, indicating that he had reached the “crest of the wave” of discourse transformation, which advanced another step toward the creation of historical materialism. Although his attention to social reality was still theoretical, limited to “café-style debates,” and his discourse remained within political critique, unable to penetrate into the economic relations of society, the *Rheinische Zeitung* provided Marx with a field of activity for observing, studying, and criticizing real society, making possible the discourse transformation and the creation of historical materialism.

在《莱茵报》时期，马克思已经提出“客观关系”这一带有唯物史观性质的词语。虽然此时还无法提出“物质关系”的概念或“生产关系”的范畴，但马克思已经看到人的活动背后的“客观关系”，强调国家制度是不依个人意志为转移的客观关系。在《摩塞尔记者的辩护》中，马克思这样说道：“人们在研究国家状况时很容易走入歧途，即忽视各种关系的客观本性，而用当事人的意志来解释一切。但是存在着这样一些关系，这些关系既决定私人的行动，也决定个别行政当局的行动，而且就像呼吸的方式一样不以他们为转移。”在这里，马克思已经认识到历史的发展并非由黑格尔的绝对精神决定，并开始把“客观关系”与“人的意志”作了区分。虽然，此时的“客观关系”还是指由理念决定的现实关系，是绝对精神的外化，但是马克思已经察觉到“各种关系的客观本性”，这里“客观关系”已经有了“社会存在”的影子。科尔纽曾说，马克思当时，“还不能从经济的和社会的观点来解决经济问题和社会问题，因此他只能从法学的和伦理的角度来论述这些问题”。但是，马克思已经发现了问题的症结之所在，说明他已经走到了话语变革的“风口浪尖”，这离唯物史观的创立又前进了一步。虽然对社会现实的关注还是理论上的，还只限于“咖啡馆式的争论”，其话语还依然停留在政治批判之中，还无法深入到社会的经济关系之中，但《莱茵报》为马克思提供了一个观察、研究和批判现实社会的活动论域，为话语变革和唯物史观的创立提供了可能。

In summary, although during the period of the *Doctoral Dissertation* and the *Rheinische Zeitung*, Marx’s philosophical discourse was still very speculative, his expression of discourse still abstract, and his discursive stance still idealist, Marx’s investigation of the relationship between philosophy and reality, coupled with the “puzzles” and “difficulties” of the real world, accelerated his doubt about the Hegelian concept of the “state” in which he had believed, and he increasingly became aware of the harm of speculative philosophy divorced from the real world. The transformation of Marx’s philosophical discourse had already sounded the assembly call, and the creation of historical materialism was imminent.

综上所述，尽管《博士论文》和《莱茵报》时期，马克思的哲学话语还很思辨，话语的表达还很抽象，话语的立场还是唯心主义的，但马克思对哲学与现实关系的考察，加之现实世界的“困惑”“难题”，加速了马克思对所信仰的黑格尔“国家”概念的怀疑，也越来越意识到脱离现实世界的思辨哲学的危害，马克思哲学话语的变革已经吹响集结号，唯物史观的创立也指日可待。

II. The “Historical Materialist Factors” of Humanist Discourse and the Germination of Historical Materialism

二、 人本主义话语的“历史唯物主义因素”与唯物史观的萌芽

In the process of creating Marx’s historical materialism, Feuerbach is unavoidable, and in the transformation of Marx’s philosophical discourse, humanist discourse is also inescapable. After the *Rheinische Zeitung*, Marx returned to his study, beginning to reflect on and critique the Hegelian view of the state and his philosophy of law that he had originally believed in. At this moment, Feuerbach’s materialism was like a bolt of lightning shooting into Marx’s heart. From then on, Marx’s worldview underwent a fundamental turn, and his idealist philosophical discourse began to open the door to historical materialism.

在马克思唯物史观的创立过程中，费尔巴哈是躲不开的，而在马克思哲学话语的变革中，人本主义话语也是绕不过的。《莱茵报》之后，马克思重新回到书斋，开始反思和批判自己原来信奉的黑格尔的国家观以及他的法哲学思想。此刻，费尔巴哈唯物主义就犹如一道闪电射进了马克思的心田。从此，马克思的世界观发生了根本性转向，其唯心主义哲学话语也开启通向历史唯物主义的大门。

In *Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right*, after receiving the “signal” of Feuerbach’s humanist materialism, Marx inverted Hegel’s head-over-heels speculative philosophy, applying the materialist principle to the political sphere. In this process of inversion, Marx still insisted that the essence of things is the spirit, idea, concept, and logic of the things themselves; at this time, his discourse was still abstract and speculative. However, Marx did not roam in the kingdom of speculative discourse but instead embarked on the journey of historical materialism. As Plekhanov said: “Marx began his exposition of his materialist conception of history with a critique of Hegel’s philosophy of right.” This can be glimpsed from the concept of “civil society.”

在《黑格尔法哲学批判》中，马克思在接收到费尔巴哈人本学唯物主义的“信号”后，对黑格尔头足倒置的思辨哲学颠倒了过来，把唯物主义原则运用于政治领域。而在这一颠倒过程中，马克思仍然坚持事物的本质就是事物自身的精神、理念、概念和逻辑，此时的话语还是抽象的、思辨的。但是，马克思并没有在思辨的话语王国遨游，而是开启了唯物史观之旅。正如普列汉诺夫所说：“马克思阐明他的唯物主义历史观是从批判黑格尔的法权哲学开始的。”从“市民社会”这一概念就可以略知一二。

Here, for the first time, Marx explicitly pointed out the important role of civil society in social history, placing the study of civil society on the agenda. Although at this time, like Hegel, Marx still examined civil society from the perspective of its own spirit, his discourse had already undergone a fundamental turn. At this point, unlike during the *Rheinische Zeitung* period, he did not seek the basis for explaining and transforming society in the state but instead tried to find it in civil society. Of course, Marx had not yet begun his political economy research; “he had not yet directly linked civil society with material production, had not yet regarded property relations as the expression of material production relations, had not yet traced social material life relations further from property relations, nor had he clarified the connection and difference between existing production relations and their legal expression, ‘property relations.’” Marx had not yet used the concept of civil society in the sense of material life relations, but rather regarded civil society as the “spiritual existence of will,” taking the essence of civil society as spiritual. However, Marx had already grasped the basic principle that civil society determines the state, fundamentally uncovering the secret of speculative philosophy and opening the path to historical materialism.

在这里，马克思第一次明确指出市民社会在社会历史中的重要作用，把对市民社会的研究提到议事日程。尽管此时，马克思和黑格尔一样，对市民社会的考察依然是从其本身的精神来理解，但是其话语已经发生了根本性的转向。此时，他并没有像《莱茵报》时期那样，在国家中寻找说明和改造社会的根据，而是试图从市民社会来寻找根据。当然，这时的马克思还没有开始他的政治经济学研究，“还没有把市民社会同物质生产直接联系起来考察，没有把财产关系看作物质生产关系的表现，没有从财产关系中进一步追溯出社会物质生活关系，也没有弄清现存生产关系与其法律用语‘财产关系’的联系和区别”，马克思还没有在物质生活关系这个意义上使用市民社会这一概念，而是认为市民社会是“意志的现实的精神存在”，把市民社会的本质看成是精神性的。但是，马克思已经抓住市民社会决定国家的基本原则，从根本上揭开了思辨哲学的秘密，开启了通向历史唯物主义之路。

Furthermore, in *Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right*, Marx wrote: “The propertyless and the estate of direct labor, i.e., concrete labor, form not so much an estate of civil society as the ground on which the circles of civil society move and have their being.” This is actually the prototype of Marx’s concept of the “proletariat.” It can be seen that although Marx’s philosophical discourse at this time could not yet possess the prototype of historical materialism, one can vaguely perceive his ideas of historical materialism, and his discourse already carried “historical materialist factors.”

此外，在《黑格尔法哲学批判》中，马克思有这样一段话：“丧失财产的人们和直接劳动即具体劳动的等级，与其说是市民社会的一个等级，还不如说是市民社会各集团赖以安身和活动的基础。”这其实是马克思“无产阶级”概念的雏形。可以看出，虽然此时马克思的哲学话语还不可能具备历史唯物主义的雏形，但隐约可以看到其唯物史观的想法，其话语中已经带有了“历史唯物主义因素”。

If *Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right* only allows one to vaguely perceive ideas of historical materialism, then the *Deutsch-Französische Jahrbücher* period marks the formal path toward historical materialism. As Marx and Engels later said: “This path [the path of historical materialism—author’s note] was already indicated in the *Deutsch-Französische Jahrbücher*, namely, in the ‘Introduction to a Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right’ and ‘On the Jewish Question.’” In the *Deutsch-Französische Jahrbücher* period, Marx’s philosophical discourse was a kind of “hybrid” of humanist discourse and speculative discourse, a speculative discourse tinged with humanist color. As Althusser commented on the “Introduction to a Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right” (hereinafter referred to as the “Introduction”): “It uses expressions colored by Feuerbach or still Hegelian.” For example, regarding the essence of man, Marx proposed that “the root of man is man himself,” “man is the highest essence of man,” etc., which are merely “variants” of Feuerbach’s propositions. Another example: on the issue of “alienation,” Marx believed that “alienation” does not refer to the alienation of human reason or self-consciousness, but to the alienation of “man himself.” It can be seen that Marx’s philosophical discourse bears a clear humanist color. At the same time, the haze of speculative discourse still existed. Taking the “proletariat” as an example, in the “Introduction,” Marx proposed the concept of the “proletariat” for the first time, but at this time this concept was still put forward as a speculative philosophical concept. The concept of the proletariat was not derived from a generalization of a new class in Germany, but rather the new class happened to conform to the concept of the “proletariat.”

如果说《黑格尔法哲学批判》只能隐约看到唯物史观的想法，那么《德法年鉴》时期，则是正式走向了历史唯物主义的道路。正如马克思恩格斯后来所说：“这一道路（历史唯物主义道路——引者注）已在‘德法年鉴’中，即在‘黑格尔法哲学批判导言’和‘论犹太人问题’这两篇文章中指出了。”在《德法年鉴》时期，马克思的哲学话语是人本主义话语与思辨话语的一种“杂糅”，是一种带有人本主义色彩的思辨话语。正如阿尔都塞对《<黑格尔法哲学批判>导言》（以下简称《导言》）的评价所说：“使用了带有费尔巴哈色彩的或依旧是黑格尔的表述。”比如，关于人的本质，马克思提出，“人的根本就是人本身”、“人是人的最高本质”等，这些不过是费尔巴哈命题的“变种”。再比如，在“异化”问题上，马克思认为“异化”不是指人的理性或自我意识的异化，而是指“人本身”的异化。可见，马克思哲学话语带有明显的人本主义色彩。但同时思辨话语的阴霾依然存在，以“无产阶级”为例，在《导言》中，马克思首次提出“无产阶级”的概念，但此时的这一概念还是作为一个思辨的哲学概念提出来的。无产阶级概念的提出不是对德国新阶级的概括所得，而是新阶级正好符合“无产阶级”概念。

Although Marx’s discourse at this time was still deeply influenced by Hegel’s speculative philosophy and bore a clear humanist coloration; although “the ultimate causes of all social changes and political revolutions” were still to be “sought in the philosophy of the epoch,” rather than “in the economics of the epoch,”[19]19 This is a paraphrase of Engels’s formulation in his 1880 work *Socialism: Utopian and Scientific*, where he argues that the ultimate causes of social change are to be sought not in philosophy but in the economics of the epoch. Marx had already made a breakthrough in his “subconscious.” Relying on Feuerbach’s humanism, he inserted “society” into his philosophical discourse and defined Germany’s liberation as “the achievement of a revolution which will raise Germany not only to the official level of modern nations but to the height of humanity which will be the proximate future of those nations.”[20]20 Karl Marx, “Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Law: Introduction,” written in 1843–1844, published in the *Deutsch-Französische Jahrbücher*. At this time, Marx had already begun his research into political economy. He analyzed and criticized Germany’s backward condition from the aspect that “the relation of industry, of the world of wealth generally, to the political world is a major problem of modern times.”[21]21 Ibid. Although these discussions were not dominant and were still abstract, Marx had already embarked on his path of philosophical discourse transformation; “making philosophy into will, making philosophy leave the spiritual world to transform the political world” originated here. Marx had already found the material pathway, link, and force for the union of philosophy and reality, issuing revolutionary cries such as “the weapon of criticism cannot, of course, replace criticism by weapons, material force must be overthrown by material force”[22]22 Ibid. and “philosophy finds its material weapons in the proletariat, just as the proletariat finds its spiritual weapons in philosophy.”[23]23 Ibid. All this indicates the increasing “historical materialist factors” in Marx’s discourse.

尽管马克思此时的话语仍深受黑格尔思辨哲学的影响，并带有明显的人本主义色彩；尽管“一切社会变迁和政治变革的终极原因”还是“到有关时代的哲学中去寻找”，而不是“到有关时代的经济中去寻找”，但“潜意识”中马克思已经有所突破，他以费尔巴哈的人本主义为依托，将“社会”置入到其哲学话语之中，将德国的解放界定为“实现一个不但能把德国提高到现代各国的正式水准，而且提高到这些国家最近的将来要达到的人的高度的革命”。此时的马克思已经开启了他的政治经济学研究，他从“工业以至于整个财富领域对政治的关系，是现代主要问题”这个方面，分析和批判德国落后的现状。虽然这些论述不占主导，也还很抽象，但是马克思已经走上了他的哲学话语变革之路，“使哲学成为意志，使哲学走出精神世界去改造政治世界”就肇端于此。马克思已经找到了哲学与现实结合的物质途径、纽带和力量，发出了“批判的武器当然不能代替武器的批判，物质力量只能用物质力量来摧毁”、“哲学把无产阶级当做自己的物质武器，同样，无产阶级也把哲学当作自己的精神武器”等革命的呐喊声。这些无不表明马克思话语中不断增多的“历史唯物主义因素”。

With the deepening of his economic studies, especially the introduction of economic terminology, Marx took a crucial step toward the establishment of historical materialism. Although during the Paris Manuscripts period, the entry point of Marx’s philosophical discourse remained at the philosophical level, the starting point of the discourse was “human essence,” and the perspective of the discourse entry was political critique, not economic theory itself, Marx’s critique of the “copy” had already turned to a critique of the “original,” and he had already perceived the limitations of the discourse. Of course, we should not overestimate this period. Specifically, the dominant philosophical discourse of Marx in this period remained humanist philosophical discourse, and its discursive expression bore a clear Feuerbachian humanist coloration. He replaced the objective antagonisms in economic reality with “human alienation,” took “human essence” as the starting point of his discourse, and his discourse was governed by the discursive logic of the “theory of alienation history.” For example, in his discussion of communism, Marx proceeded from an idealized, abstract human being, elaborating it with terms such as “human alienation,” “the supersession of alienation,” “the true appropriation of human essence,” and “the return of man.” He said, “Communism is the positive supersession of private property as human self-estrangement, and hence the true appropriation of the human essence through and for man.”[24]24 Karl Marx, *Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844* (the “Paris Manuscripts”), written in 1844, first published in full in 1932. He further pointed out that communism is “the genuine resolution of the conflict between man and nature and between man and man—the true resolution of the strife between existence and essence, between objectification and self-confirmation, between freedom and necessity, between the individual and the species.”[25]25 Ibid. Here, “communism” is not a necessary tendency of real history but a logical requirement of the theory of alienation; here, Marx deeply criticizes and negates the alienation of labor, demanding the supersession of alienation and the return to man’s true nature; here, “alienation,” a result of private property, is discussed as a cause, while the internal causes of the capitalist mode of production are submerged. Clearly, Marx’s expression of “communism” bore a strong humanist coloration; communism was still an empty category.

而随着对经济学的研究，特别是经济学术语的引入，马克思向唯物史观的创立迈出了关键一步。尽管巴黎手稿时期，马克思哲学话语的摄入点仍是哲学层面的，话语的出发点是“人的本质”，话语摄入的视角是政治批判，还不是经济学理论本身，但马克思对“副本”的批判已经转向了对“原本”的批判，已经觉察出话语的局限性。当然，我们过高地评价这一时期。具体来看，这一时期马克思哲学的主导性的话语仍然是人本主义哲学话语，其话语表述带有明显的费尔巴哈人本主义色彩。他用“人的异化”代替了经济现实中的客观对立，以“人的本质”作为其话语的出发点，其话语是受 “异化史观”的话语逻辑所支配。比如，对共产主义论述，马克思从理想化、抽象的人出发，用“人的异化”、“异化的扬弃”、“人的本质的真正占有”、“人的复归”等术语来阐发的。他说，“共产主义是对私有财产即人的自我异化的积极扬弃，因而是通过人并且为了人而对人的本质的真正占有”。并指出，共产主义是“人和自然界之间、人和人之间的矛盾的真正解决，是存在和本质、对象化和自我确证、自由和必然、个体和类之间的斗争的真正解决”。在这里，“共产主义”不是现实历史的必然趋势，而是异化理论的逻辑要求；在这里，马克思深入批判和否定劳动的异化，要求扬弃异化而复归人的真实性质；在这里，“异化”这一私有制的结果被当做原因来论述，而资本主义生产方式的内部原因被淹没。很显然，马克思对“共产主义”的表述带有浓厚的人本主义色彩，共产主义还是一个空洞的范畴。

Furthermore, regarding economic categories such as “competition,” “capital,” “money,” and “production,” Marx did not proceed from “economic facts” to explain them but rather from alienated labor, deducing them through the “alienation of human essence.” As Marx himself said, “Just as we have derived the concept of private property from the concept of alienated, externalized labor by analysis, we can also explain all the categories of political economy with the help of these two factors.”[26]26 Ibid. At this time, “productive forces,” the core concept of historical materialism, had already appeared, although only as a concept of political economy, without philosophical implications. Marx had not yet recognized the harmfulness of Feuerbach’s materialism, and his discursive expression still retained a strong humanist coloration; the entire argument remained abstract and speculative. However, behind this old discursive expression, the “embryo” of a new materialist discourse was already gestating, so we should not underestimate this period either. In fact, Marx had already perceived the limitations of his philosophical critique: “It is very inappropriate to mix together the critique directed solely against speculative philosophy with the critique of the various materials themselves, and this aphoristic mode of narration creates the appearance of an arbitrary system.”[27]27 Karl Marx, “Preface” to *Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844*. Evidently, Marx had imperceptibly incorporated social reality into his own philosophical discourse.

此外，在对经济范畴，诸如“竞争”、“资本”、“货币”、“生产”等，马克思也不是从“经济事实”出发来说明，而是从异化劳动出发，通过“人的本质的异化”推演得出的。就像马克思自己所说，“正如我们通过分析从异化的、外化的劳动的概念得出私有财产的概念一样，我们也可以借助这两个因素来阐明国民经济学的一切范畴”。此时，“生产力”这一唯物史观的核心概念已经登场，尽管仅仅作为国民经济学的一个概念出场，还不具有哲学意蕴。马克思还没有认识到费尔巴哈唯物主义的危害性，在话语表达上还留有浓厚的人本主义色彩，整个的论证还是抽象思辨的。但是，在这一旧的话语表达背后，其实已经孕育了新唯物主义的话语“胚胎”，因此我们也不能过低评价这一时期。事实上，马克思已经觉察到其哲学批判的局限性：“把仅仅针对思辨的批判同针对不同材料本身的批判混在一起，十分不妥，而这种格言式的叙述又会造成任意制造体系的外观。”可见，在潜移默化中马克思已将社会的现实纳入自己的哲学话语当中。

With the deepening of theoretical research and practice, Marx thoroughly settled accounts with his own past philosophical beliefs, and “historical materialist concepts” increasingly appeared in his discourse. In *The Holy Family*, Marx exposed the secret of speculative philosophical discourse, namely, “that all problems, to be answered, must be transformed from the form of normal human understanding into the form of speculative reason, and real problems must be transformed into speculative problems.”[28]28 Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, *The Holy Family*, written in 1844, published in 1845. However, at this time, Marx was still deeply influenced by Feuerbach’s philosophy, and his discourse still bore a clear humanist coloration. Nevertheless, a large number of historical materialist factors had already accumulated within the humanist discourse. On the question of human essence, Marx no longer discussed human essence abstractly and vaguely but explained it from the perspective of social needs—this was where Marx surpassed Feuerbach. Marx no longer understood man as a needless, self-sufficient, isolated atom but believed that every person, by natural necessity and the characteristics of human essence, has his own material needs. Marx analyzed the wage-labor nature of capitalism from the perspective of social relations, where people satisfy each other’s needs through labor and the exchange of labor, thereby establishing relations between people. Marx had already seen the connections between people behind material means of subsistence; although he had not yet made a concrete, historical analysis of concepts such as “labor” and “society,” he was not far from formulating “relations of production,” the core concept of historical materialism. As McLellan said, “Several of its themes appear for the first time as ‘historical materialist concepts.’”[29]29 David McLellan, *Marx before Marxism* (1969), a standard Western biography of the young Marx.

随着理论研究和实践的深入，马克思彻底清算了自己过去的哲学信仰，在其话语中越来越多地出现“历史唯物主义概念”。在《神圣家族》中，马克思揭露了思辨哲学的话语秘密，即“一切问题，要能够给以回答，就必须把它们从正常的人类理智的形式变为思辨理性的形式，并把现实的问题变为思辨问题”。但是，此时马克思还深受费尔巴哈哲学的影响，其话语还带有明显的人本主义色彩。不过，在人本主义话语中已经集聚了大量的历史唯物主义因素。在人的本质问题上，马克思已经不再抽象空泛谈论人的本质，而是从社会需要来说明人的本质，这是马克思超越费尔巴哈的地方。马克思不再将人理解为没有需要的、自满自足的、孤立的原子，而是认为每一个人就其自然必然性和人的本质特性而言，都有自己的物质需要。马克思从社会关系的角度去分析资本主义的雇佣性质，人与人之间通过劳动和交换劳动满足他人的需要，从而建立其人与人之间的关系。马克思已经看到了物质生活资料背后的人与人之间的联系，虽然还未对“劳动”“社会”等概念做出具体、历史的分析，但是这离马克思制定出“生产关系”这一历史唯物主义的核心概念已经不远了。正如麦克莱伦所说，“它的其中几个主题成为首次出现的‘历史唯物主义概念’”。

In *The Holy Family*, Marx for the first time proposed the concept of “mode of production.” Although very general, it already served as the basis for understanding history; Marxism began to use materialist discourse to speak of social and historical phenomena. He gradually abandoned the use of the theory of alienation to explain historical development and began to shift to exploring the driving force of historical development from the perspective of social practice; he also attempted to explain the mission of the proletariat from its historical position, which was already very close to the idea that “social being determines social consciousness.” As Engels said, “This work of going beyond Feuerbach and further developing Feuerbach’s standpoint was begun by Marx in 1845 in *The Holy Family*.”[30]30 Friedrich Engels, *Ludwig Feuerbach and the End of Classical German Philosophy* (1886), where Engels credits Marx with beginning the critique of Feuerbach in *The Holy Family*. Evidently, Marx’s humanist discourse already contained a large number of historical materialist factors.

在《神圣家族》中，马克思第一次提出“生产方式”的概念，尽管很笼统，但是已经作为理解历史的基础，马克思主义开始用唯物主义话语言说社会历史现象。他逐渐放弃了用异化理论来说明历史的发展，而开始转到从社会实践的观点来探索历史的发展动力；并试图从历史地位来说明无产阶级的使命，其实已经很接近“社会存在决定社会意识”这一思想了。正如恩格斯所说：“这个超出费尔巴哈而进一步发展费尔巴哈观点的工作，是由马克思于1845年在《神圣家族》中开始的。”可见，马克思的人本主义话语中已经蕴含了大量历史唯物主义因素。

In summary, although Marx’s humanist discourse already sparkled with many sparks of historical materialism and brilliant expositions, and although his discourse still bore the speculative traces of German classical philosophy and humanist coloration, with language somewhat abstract and obscure, the study of political economy had already made Marx and Feuerbach drift further and further apart. A moment for settling accounts with humanist discourse was about to arrive, and historical materialism was on the verge of emerging.

总之，在马克思的人本主义话语中已经虽然闪烁着许多历史唯物主义的火花和天才的论述，尽管其话语仍然带有德国古典哲学的思辨痕迹和人本主义色彩，语言上也略显抽象和晦涩，但政治经济学的研究已经让马克思与费尔巴哈之间已经越走越远了，一个清算人本主义话语的时刻就要到来了，唯物史观也将呼之欲出。

III. The Formation of the New Materialist Discourse System and the Establishment of Historical Materialism

三、 新唯物主义话语体系的形成与唯物史观的创立

After leaving Feuerbach and settling accounts with the influence of speculative discourse and humanist discourse, Marx completed the establishment of his new materialist discourse. The completion of the *Theses on Feuerbach* (hereinafter referred to as the *Theses*) and *The German Ideology* (hereinafter referred to as the *German Ideology*) marked the great leap of Marx’s philosophical discourse from gestation to formation, and at the same time marked the establishment of Marx’s historical materialism.

在离开费尔巴哈，清算了思辨话语以及人本主义话语的影响之后，马克思完成了其新唯物主义话语的创立。《关于费尔巴哈提纲》（以下简称《提纲》）和《德意志意识形态形态》（以下简称《形态》）的写作完成，就标志着马克思哲学话语从孕育到形成的伟大飞跃，同时也标志着马克思唯物史观的创立。

After *The Holy Family*, Marx continued his study of political economy, and his thought underwent further development. It was precisely through his deep understanding of material production and the driving forces of historical development that Marx recognized the defects of Feuerbach’s old materialism. He therefore intended to “break” with Feuerbach’s philosophy and drafted a plan for criticizing Feuerbach, namely the *Theses*. In the *Theses*, the first document containing the genius germ of the new world outlook, the dawn of its discursive transformation also arrived. For “his new world outlook was closely linked to his understanding of social practice; it was precisely the increasingly prominent decisive role of social practice in the progression of his thought that led Marx to abandon the concept of alienation, accept the concept of practice, lay the foundation for the world outlook of historical materialism, and form the theory of proletarian revolution.” [31]31 See Sun Motian, “The Establishment of Marx’s Historical Materialism and the Transformation of Philosophical Discourse,” *Journal of Peking University (Philosophy and Social Sciences Edition)*, 2008, no. 2. In terms of the use of terminology, Marx stripped away the linguistic shell of Feuerbachian terms such as “species,” “alienation,” “species-essence,” and “alienation,” breaking out of the discursive framework of humanist logic. At the same time, the concept of “practice” was placed in an important position. In the *Theses*, a work of fewer than 1,500 characters, Marx mentions the concept of practice fourteen times. The concept of practice is the core concept of Marx’s philosophical discourse system. Although the “practice” in the *Theses* was not yet the “practice” concept in its mature sense, nor did it yet refer to actual material productive practice. Here, practice was still merely a concept of “perceptual activity” containing human subjectivity and initiative. True maturity came only in the *German Ideology*, where it referred to specific practice carried out by real individuals under specific historical conditions, i.e., “real practice” and “social-historical practice.” At this point, “practice” was still relatively abstract, but this did not hinder the transformation of Marx’s philosophical discourse, because the standpoint of Marx’s discourse had already undergone a thorough change. The new materialist discourse proceeds from human practice, human subjectivity, and human activity, not from the object, not from things, and even less from ideas or concepts. Marx no longer, like Hegel, turned human practical activity into human spiritual practice, equating the this-worldliness of practice with the other-worldliness of the concept; nor did he, like Feuerbach, discard objective reality along with conceptual categories. Marx believed that the this-worldliness and reality of thought are a matter of practice. Marx’s philosophical discourse proceeds from “this world,” from practice, to critically transform reality. This was a transformation in the direction of Marx’s philosophical thinking and a thorough transformation in the logical starting point of his discourse.

在《神圣家族》之后，马克思继续研究政治经济学，其思想也有了进一步的发展。正是对物质生产和历史发展动力的深入认识中，马克思认识到费尔巴哈旧唯物主义的缺陷，于是打算与费尔巴哈哲学“决裂”，并草拟了对费尔巴哈的批判计划，即《提纲》。在《提纲》这一包含着新世界观的天才萌芽的第一个文献中，也迎来了其话语变革的曙光。因为“他的新世界观同他对社会实践的理解紧密相连，正是社会实践在他思想进展中决定性作用的日益突出，使马克思放弃了异化概念，接受了实践概念，奠定了历史唯物主义世界观的基础，形成了无产阶级革命的理论。”从术语的使用上，马克思剥去了“类”、“异化”、“类本质”、“异化”等费尔巴哈的语言外壳，跳出了人本主义逻辑的话语框架。同时，“实践”概念被放在了重要位置。在《提纲》不足1500字的著述中，马克思共14次提到实践概念。实践概念是马克思哲学话语体系的核心概念，尽管《提纲》中的“实践”还不是成熟意义上的“实践”概念，还不是指现实的物质生产实践。在这里，实践还仅仅是一个包含着人的主体性、能动性的“感性活动”概念。而真正的成熟是在《形态》中，是指在特定历史条件下，由现实的个人所进行的特殊实践，即“现实的实践”“社会历史的实践”。此时的“实践”相对来说还很抽象，但是这并不妨碍马克思哲学话语的转换，因为马克思的话语立足点已经发生了彻底的改变。新唯物主义话语是从人的实践、人的主体性、人的活动出发，而不是从客体、从物出发，更不是从观念、概念出发。马克思再也没有向黑格尔那样，将人的实践活动变为人的精神实践，将实践的此岸性等同于概念的彼岸性；也没有像费尔巴哈那样，将客观现实与概念范畴一并抛弃。马克思认为，思维的此岸性和现实性是一个实践的问题。马克思的哲学话语从“此岸”出发，从实践出发，对现实进行批判改造。这是马克思哲学致思方向的一次变革，也是其话语逻辑起点的一次彻底变革。

In the *Theses*, Marx had already replaced Feuerbach’s “species” with human social relations to determine the essence of man, but here Marx did not go on to inquire into the root of social relations. Therefore, the *Theses* was merely a rehearsal for the new materialist discourse. As Althusser put it: “Because the new philosophical position proclaimed by the *Theses on Feuerbach* was only a declaration; it was not fully expounded.” [32]32 Louis Althusser, *For Marx*, trans. Gu Liang, Beijing: The Commercial Press, 2010, p. 34. The concept of “practice” had not yet been unfolded in the *Theses*, but a new discursive system had already begun to appear, and the new materialist discourse had already emerged, although it was not yet very mature.

在《提纲》中，马克思已经用人的社会关系取代了费尔巴哈的“类”来确定人的本质，但在这里马克思并没有继续追问社会关系的根源是什么。所以说，《提纲》还只是新唯物主义话语的一次预演。正如阿尔都塞所言：“由于《关于费尔巴哈的提纲》所宣告的新的哲学立场仅仅是一项宣言；它并没有被和盘托出。”“实践”概念在《提纲》中还没有展开，但一种崭新的话语体系已经初现，新唯物主义话语已经出场，尽管还不是很成熟。

If the *Theses* was the “germ” of the new materialist discourse, then the *German Ideology* was its “formation.” Whether in terms of the logical starting point of the discourse, the use of terminology, or the mode of narration and the discursive domain, a holistic transformation occurred. In terms of the logical starting point of the discourse, it shifted from initially taking concepts as the starting point to taking real productive life practice as the starting point, pursuing integration with reality. In terms of the use of terminology, it shifted from “self-consciousness,” “reason,” “freedom,” and “the essence of man” to life concepts such as “productive forces,” “relations of intercourse,” “mode of production,” “material production,” and “productive practice.” In terms of the mode of narration, it shifted from proceeding from the abstract to the abstract to proceeding from the concrete to the abstract, bringing philosophy down from language to life. In terms of the discursive domain, it shifted from a single philosophical perspective to the integration of multiple perspectives, including political, economic, social, and philosophical ones.

如果说《提纲》是新唯物主义话语的“萌芽”，那么《形态》就是新唯物主义话语的“成形”。不管是话语的逻辑起点、术语的使用，还是叙事方式、话语论域都发生了整体性变迁。从话语的逻辑起点看，从最初的以概念为起点转变为以现实生产生活实践为起点，追求与现实的融合；从术语的使用看，从“自我意识”“理性”“自由”“人的本质”转变为“生产力”“交往关系”“生产方式”“物质生产”“生产实践”等生活概念；从叙事方式看，从抽象到抽象转变为从具体到抽象，将哲学从语言降到了生活；从话语论域看，从哲学单一视阈转变为政治、经济、社会、哲学等多种视阈的融合。

Specifically, in the *German Ideology*, Marx proceeded from human productive practice, thoroughly stripping away the linguistic shell of “the essence of man,” “self-consciousness,” “species-essence,” “subject,” “object,” and “species-essence,” and systematically expounded his new world outlook using categories such as “productive forces,” “forms of intercourse,” “material production,” and “mode of production.” Marx’s philosophical discourse is merely a discursive mapping of Marx’s new world outlook. In the *German Ideology*, there is this classic formulation: “This conception of history thus relies on expounding the real process of production, starting from the material production of life itself, and comprehending the form of intercourse connected with and created by this mode of production, i.e., civil society in its various stages, as the foundation of all history; and then depicting civil society in its activity as the state, and also explaining all the various theoretical products and forms of consciousness, religion, philosophy, morality, etc., etc., from this starting point, and tracing their process of emergence. … This conception of history, unlike the idealist conception of history, does not seek a category in every period, but instead constantly stands on the real ground of history; it does not explain practice from the idea, but explains the formation of ideas from material practice.” [33]33 *Marx and Engels Collected Works*, vol. 1, Beijing: People’s Publishing House, 2009, pp. 544-545. From this formulation, it can be seen that Marx took practice as the foundation of his entire conception of history and took real life as the starting point of his philosophical discourse.

具体地说，在《形态》中，马克思从人的生产实践出发，彻底剥去了“人的本质”“自我意识”“类本质”“主体”“客体”“类本质”等语言外壳，用“生产力”“交往形式”“物质生产”“生产方式”等范畴系统阐述了自己的新世界观。马克思哲学话语不过是马克思新世界观在话语上的一种映射。在《形态》中，有这样一段经典表述：“这种历史观就在于：从直接生活的物质生产出发来阐述现实的生产过程，并把与该生产方式相联系的、它所产生的交往形式，即各个不同阶段上的市民社会，理解为整个历史的基础；然后必须在国家生活的范围为内描述市民社会的活动，同时从市民社会出发来阐明意识的所有各种不同的理论产物和形式，如宗教、哲学、道德等等，而且追溯它们产生的过程。……这种历史观和唯心主义历史观不同，它不是在每个时代中寻找某种范畴，而是始终站在现实历史的基础上，不是从观念出发来解释实践，而是从物质实践出发来解释各种观念形态。”从这段表述可以看出，马克思把实践作为自己整个历史观的基础，把现实生活作为自己哲学话语的出发点。

It was under the impetus of this new world outlook that Marx abandoned concepts such as “self-consciousness,” “alienation,” “the essence of man,” and “species,” and began to use concepts such as “productive forces,” “mode of production,” and “material production.” We find that in this formulation, Marx uses “forms of intercourse” and does not use “relations of production,” the concept specific to historical materialism. This is also a manifestation of Marx’s philosophical discourse being formed but not yet mature. In fact, Marx’s “forms of intercourse” here refers precisely to “relations of production.” For Marx had already seen that “all conflicts of history have their origin in the contradiction between the productive forces and the form of intercourse,” [34]34 *Marx and Engels Collected Works*, vol. 1, Beijing: People’s Publishing House, 2009, p. 567. and had already seen that when the form of intercourse develops to a certain degree, it becomes a fetter: “the old form of intercourse, which has become a fetter, is replaced by a new form of intercourse adapted to the more developed productive forces.” [35]35 *Marx and Engels Collected Works*, vol. 1, Beijing: People’s Publishing House, 2009, p. 567. Thus, although Marx had not yet precisely used “relations of production” at this time, but instead employed academic terms similar to relations of production—forms of intercourse (forms of intercourse, relations of intercourse, relations of ownership, forms of ownership, etc.)—he expounded the contradiction between the forms of intercourse and the productive forces. This is precisely the basic content of historical materialism.

正是在这种新的世界观的驱使下，马克思放弃诸如“自我意识”、“异化”、“人的本质”、“类”等概念，并开始使用“生产力”、“生产方式”、“物质生产”等概念。我们发现，在这一表述中，马克思使用的是“交往形式”，并没有使用“生产关系”这一唯物史观所特有的概念，这也是马克思哲学话语成形而不成熟的表现。其实，马克思这里的“交往形式”指的就是“生产关系”。因为马克思已经看到，“一切历史的冲突都根源于生产力和交往形式之间的矛盾”，已经看到，交往形式发展到一定程度会成为桎梏，“已成为桎梏的旧的交往形式被适应于比较发达的生产力的……新的交往形式所代替”可见，此时马克思虽然未精确使用“生产关系”，而是运用了类似于生产关系的学术用语——交往方式（交往形式、交往关系、所有制关系、所有制形式等），阐述了交往形式同生产力之间的矛盾，这其实就是唯物史观的基本内容。

In *The German Ideology*, Marx also used this conception of history to explain revolution, consciousness, and their social forms, demonstrating the role of the proletarian revolution and the communist movement. Marx held that “all conflicts in history arise from the contradiction between the productive forces and the form of intercourse.” [36]36 *The German Ideology* (1845–1846), co-authored by Marx and Engels, is a foundational text in which they first systematically elaborated the materialist conception of history. With the development of the productive forces, after material and mental labor are separated, “from this moment onwards consciousness can really flatter itself that it is something other than consciousness of existing practice, that it *really* represents something without representing something real; from now on consciousness is in a position to emancipate itself from the world and to proceed to the formation of ‘pure’ theory, theology, philosophy, ethics, etc.” That is to say, consciousness is a reflection of people’s life process, arising from their material activities and material intercourse; consciousness itself has no independent history but changes with the changes in people’s material conditions of life. When discussing the communist movement, Marx linked it to large-scale industry, holding that the communist revolution is the product of the conflict between capitalist productive forces and relations of intercourse, as well as the conflict between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. As Marx correctly understood social relations and the essence of man, those formerly “customary philosophical terms” were gradually replaced by scientific concepts. Marx no longer used “true humanism” to express his communism, but instead used “productive forces,” “relations of intercourse,” and “practical materialism,” pointing out that communism is the real movement that abolishes the present state of affairs. In short, within the context of “history,” Marx confronted the real world of life; his philosophical discourse had achieved a qualitative leap, basically forming a relatively complete new materialist discourse system, and the basic ideas of historical materialism had also taken shape.

在《形态》中，马克思还用这种历史观来说明革命、意识及其社会形态，论证了无产阶级革命的作用和共产主义运动。马克思认为，“一切历史冲突都根源于生产力和交往形式之间的矛盾”。随着生产力的发展，当物质劳动和精神劳动分离之后，“从这时候起意识才能真实地这样想象：它是同对现存实践的意识不同的某种其他的东西；它不想象某种真实的东西而能够真实地想象某种东西。从这时候去，意识才能摆脱世界而去构造‘纯粹的’理论、神学、哲学、道德等等。”也就是说，意识是对人们生活过程的反映，产生于人们的物质活动和物质交往，意识本身没有独立的历史，随着人们的物质生活条件的变化而变化。在论述共产主义运动时，马克思将其与大工业联系在一起，认为共产主义革命是资本主义生产力与交往关系之间的冲突，以及无产阶级和资产阶级之间冲突的产物。随着马克思对社会关系和人的本质的正确认识，那些原来“惯用的哲学术语”逐渐被科学概念所取代，马克思没有再用“真正的人道主义”来表达自己的共产主义，而是用“生产力”、“交往关系”，用“实践的唯物主义”来表达，并指出共产主义是消灭现存状况的现实的运动。质言之，马克思在“历史”的语境中，直面现实生活世界，其哲学话语已经实现了质的飞跃，基本上形成了一套比较完整的新唯物主义话语体系，唯物史观的基本思想也已形成。

In summary, *Theses on Feuerbach* was a rehearsal for the new materialist discourse system, with historical materialism taking its initial shape, while *The German Ideology* was the hallmark of the formation of the new materialist discourse and also the hallmark of the establishment of historical materialism. Of course, some expressions in *The German Ideology* were not yet precise enough, and the use of some terms was not yet accurate, but this does not detract from its status as a landmark work. In the slightly later *The Poverty of Philosophy*, Marx scientifically elaborated the category of relations of production both in intension and extension, and in the *Preface to A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy* he gave a precise expression of historical materialism. These were all continuations and advances within the framework of the new materialist discourse already constructed in *The German Ideology*, representing the further development and perfection of historical materialism.

总之，《提纲》是新唯物主义话语体系的一次预演，唯物史观初见雏形，《形态》则是新唯物主义话语形成的标志，也是唯物史观创立的标志。当然，《形态》中有些表述还不够准确，有些术语的使用还不够精确，但这不足以影响其标志性著作的地位。在稍后的《哲学贫困》中，马克思从内涵还是外延上科学地阐述了生产关系范畴，在《<政治经济学批判>序言》又对唯物史观进行了精准的表达，这些都是在《形态》已经构建的新唯物主义话语框架内的继续前行，是唯物史观的进一步发展和完善。

Online editor: Paul

网络编辑：保罗