State Governance: The Philosophical Insights and Enlightenments of Marx and Engels

Marx’s analysis of the poverty of peasants in the Moselle River region of Germany, although only a single case, revealed with keen insight the deep and intrinsic relationship between governance and the state, forming a universal understanding: to solve the problems existing in state governance, it is necessary to solve the problem of bureaucracy, to solve the substantive problems of the state system and political system, and only then can a genuine reform of governance methods be carried out. Of course, for the Germany of which Marx spoke at that time, it was first necessary to carry out a proletarian revolution and thoroughly transform the “state and social structure” before the substantive problems of reforming the state system, political system, and governance methods could truly be resolved. For present-day socialist countries, however, it is necessary to deepen the reform of the political system and governance methods under the condition of upholding and perfecting the fundamental socialist system.

马克思针对德国摩泽尔河沿岸地区农民贫困状况所作的分析，虽然只是一个个案，但他以敏锐的洞察力揭示了治理与国家深层的、内在的关系，形成了普遍性的认识：要解决国家治理存在的问题，就必须解决官僚主义问题，解决国家制度和政治体制存在的实质问题，才能对治理方式进行真正的改革。当然，对于当年马克思所说的德国，必须先进行无产阶级革命，彻底改造“国家和社会结构”，才能真正解决国家制度、政治体制和治理方式改革的实质问题。而对于现今的社会主义国家，则必须在坚持和完善社会主义根本制度的条件下，深化政治体制和治理方式的改革。

Marx and Engels paid close attention to the issue of state governance. Starting from the state theory of political philosophy, they made many profound and penetrating expositions, forming a Marxist ideological system of state governance, containing rich and far-reaching principles and propositions. Among them, Marx and Engels’ focused analysis of state governance in Germany, Britain, and France holds significant enlightening significance for contemporary China’s advancement of the modernization of the state governance system and governance capacity.

马克思恩格斯十分关注国家治理问题，他们从政治哲学的国家学说出发，作出许多深邃、透彻的论述，形成了马克思主义国家治理思想体系，蕴含着丰富、隽远的原理和命题。其中，马克思恩格斯针对德国、英国、法国的国家治理作出的重点剖析，对于当代中国推进国家治理体系和治理能力现代化，具有重大的启示意义。

“Governance exists for the state, not the state for governance”

“治理是为国家而存在，而不是国家为治理而存在”

Germany was Marx’s homeland, and Marx’s analysis of state governance began with Germany. In October 1842, Marx became editor of the *Rheinische Zeitung*, and the newspaper’s revolutionary democratic tendency became increasingly evident. At that time, the newspaper published two articles reporting on the poverty of peasants in the Moselle River region and condemning the authorities’ indifferent attitude toward the peasants’ suffering, which displeased the Governor of the Rhine Province. He accused the articles of distorting facts and slandering the government, demanding a reply, which was in effect a threat to the revolutionary progressive forces. When the original author, partly due to cowardice and partly due to inability to deeply and comprehensively argue the article’s viewpoints, Marx stepped forward and wrote a long article, “The Defense of the Moselle Correspondent.” Marx pointed out bluntly that it was absurd to deny that the poverty of the peasants in the Moselle River region was unrelated to state governance; it was precisely because “there exists a phenomenon of setting the administrative authorities in opposition to those under their governance” (Collected Works of Marx and Engels, Vol. 1, People’s Publishing House, 1956 edition, p. 225) that poverty occurred. And the administrative authorities and officials always “believe that they govern very well… and will only seek the causes of poverty outside the scope of their governance” (ibid., p. 226), shifting the blame onto the governed people. Marx further clarified: “Governance exists for the state, not the state for governance” (ibid., p. 229). That is to say, it is the state that determines governance, not governance that determines the state.

德国是马克思的祖国，马克思分析国家治理问题，首先从德国开始。1842年10月，马克思出任《莱茵报》编辑，报纸的革命民主主义倾向愈益明显。当时，报纸刊登了记者报道摩泽尔河沿岸地区农民的贫困状况，并谴责当局对农民的疾苦采取冷漠态度的两篇文章，引起莱茵省总督的不满，他指责文章歪曲事实、诽谤政府，要求作出答复，这实际上是对革命进步力量发出威胁。在原作者一方面因为怯弱，另一方面因为无力深刻、全面论证文章观点的情况下，马克思挺身而出，写下一篇长文《摩泽尔记者的辩护》。马克思一针见血地指出，企图否认摩泽尔河沿岸地区农民贫困与国家治理无关是荒谬的，正因为“存在着把行政当局和它的治理对象对立起来的现象”（《马克思恩格斯全集》第1卷，人民出版社1956年版，第225页），才导致了贫困的发生。而行政当局和官员总是“相信他自己治理得很好……只会在他治理的范围之外去寻找贫困的原因”（同上，第226页），把责任推给被治理的民众。马克思更进一步阐明：“治理是为国家而存在，而不是国家为治理而存在”（同上，第229页）。也就是说，是国家决定治理，而不是治理决定国家。

Starting from the surface phenomena of governance, Marx delved into the fundamental issues of the state, intending to show that any kind of governance must rely on certain state institutions and officials as its carriers for implementation. In the governance of the Moselle River region of Germany, government officials suffered from serious bureaucracy; they colluded with each other, were in cahoots, avoided solving problems when they arose, and always shifted responsibility. The Land Survey Office believed its cadastral records were certainly accurate, while the Ministry of Finance asserted that the disaster was definitely not caused by their taxes. Marx exposed these various pretexts that concealed government bureaucracy, telling people that the cause of the poverty of the peasants in the Moselle River region lay entirely with the state institutions and officials. However, the reactionary Prussian government would never admit this; it would only shift the blame onto the people, falsely claiming that the poverty was caused by the people themselves, and that “all changes must be made by the governed themselves” (ibid., p. 227).

马克思从治理的表象入手，深入到国家的根本问题，意在说明任何一种治理，都要依托于一定的国家机构和官员，以其作为载体才能实施。在德国摩泽尔河沿岸地区的治理中，政府官员存在着严重的官僚主义，他们上下勾结，沆瀣一气，遇事不想解决，总是推卸责任，地政局认为自己的地籍簿记载肯定准确无误，财政部则断言灾难绝对不是由于他们的税收引起的。马克思揭穿了这些掩盖政府官僚制的种种遁词，告诉人们摩泽尔河沿岸地区农民的贫困状况，其原因完全出自于国家机构和官员身上。但是，反动的普鲁士政府绝不会就此承认，它只会把责任推给人民，胡说贫困是由人民自己造成的，“一切改变都必须由受治理者自己来做”（同上，第227页）。

Marx’s analysis of the poverty of peasants in the Moselle River region of Germany, although only a single case, revealed with keen insight the deep and intrinsic relationship between governance and the state, forming a universal understanding: to solve the problems existing in state governance, it is necessary to solve the problem of bureaucracy, to solve the substantive problems of the state system and political system, and only then can a genuine reform of governance methods be carried out. Of course, for the Germany of which Marx spoke at that time, it was first necessary to carry out a proletarian revolution and thoroughly transform the “state and social structure” (ibid., Vol. 3, People’s Publishing House, 2002 edition, p. 385) before the substantive problems of reforming the state system, political system, and governance methods could truly be resolved. For present-day socialist countries, however, it is necessary to deepen the reform of the political system and governance methods under the condition of upholding and perfecting the fundamental socialist system.

马克思针对德国摩泽尔河沿岸地区农民贫困状况所作的分析，虽然只是一个个案，但他以敏锐的洞察力揭示了治理与国家深层的、内在的关系，形成了普遍性的认识：要解决国家治理存在的问题，就必须解决官僚主义问题，解决国家制度和政治体制存在的实质问题，才能对治理方式进行真正的改革。当然，对于当年马克思所说的德国，必须先进行无产阶级革命，彻底改造“国家和社会结构”（同上第3卷，人民出版社2002年版，第385页），才能真正解决国家制度、政治体制和治理方式改革的实质问题。而对于现今的社会主义国家，则必须在坚持和完善社会主义根本制度的条件下，深化政治体制和治理方式的改革。

“Relying on universal suffrage to govern the state is like the sailors of a sea vessel that has lost its course while rounding Cape Horn”

“依靠普选权来治理国家就像绕道合恩角时迷失了航路的海船水手”

19th-century Britain was a focal point for Marx and Engels’ research on state governance. At that time, Britain had completed the Industrial Revolution, achieved industrialization, and economically risen to become the most developed country in the world; after the “Glorious Revolution” of 1688, Britain established a constitutional monarchy (parliamentary system), an electoral system, and a civil service system, politically becoming the world’s first country to implement a democratic system. Marx and Engels both sincerely praised the strength of the British economy and the progress and civilization of its constitutional system. Engels said in “The Condition of England: The English Constitution”: “No country in the world can rival Britain in power and wealth,” and “in Britain, the fear of despotism and the struggle against royal power no longer exist” (ibid., Vol. 3, p. 558). Britain’s success made it an object of emulation for countries around the world, and consequently gave rise to an epidemic of worship for British democracy and universal suffrage. Regarding this, Engels said bluntly: “They fell ill under the influence of the British superstitious belief that parliamentary politics is flawless. Relying on universal suffrage to govern the state is like the sailors of a sea vessel that has lost its course while rounding Cape Horn: they do not study the wind, the weather, or use a sextant, but instead choose the path by voting and declare that the majority’s decision cannot be wrong” (ibid., Vol. 10, People’s Publishing House, 1998 edition, p. 316). If state governance could be accomplished merely by universal suffrage, it would be like a ship crossing Cape Horn, the dividing line between the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans, where the sea is turbulent and navigation extremely dangerous; at such a time, if the crew abandoned navigational knowledge and various instruments and instead listened to debates and let the majority decide, they would surely face catastrophic disaster.

19世纪的英国，是马克思恩格斯进行国家治理研究的一个重点。当时的英国已完成了工业革命，实现了工业化，在经济上跃升为世界上最发达的国家；自1688年“光荣革命”后，英国建立了君主立宪制（议会制）、选举制度和公务员制度，在政治上也成为世界上第一个实行民主制的国家。马克思恩格斯都由衷地赞扬英国经济力量的强大和宪政制度的文明进步。恩格斯在《英国状况 英国宪法》中说：“世界上没有一个国家能在威力和财富上同英国匹敌”，“在英国，对专制主义的恐惧和对王权的斗争不复存在”（同上第3卷，第558页）。英国的成功，使它成为世界各国追捧的对象，也因此产生了对英国民主制和普选权顶礼膜拜的流行病。对此，恩格斯毫不客气地说：“他们得病是受了议会政治毫无缺点这种英国人的迷信观点的影响。依靠普选权来治理国家就像绕道合恩角时迷失了航路的海船水手一样：他们不研究风向、气候和使用六分仪，却用投票来选择道路，并宣布多数人的决定是不会错的”（同上第10卷，人民出版社1998年版，第316页）。如果国家治理仅仅用普选权就行了，这就像航船穿越太平洋与大西洋的分界线——合恩角，那里的洋面波涛汹涌，航行极为危险，此时船员不使用航海知识和多种仪器，却听任议论、由大多数人说了算，就一定会面临灭顶之灾。

Engels’ satire of Britain’s reliance on universal suffrage for governance was not intended to negate or oppose universal suffrage, but precisely because Britain’s implementation of democracy and universal suffrage was not thorough. At that time, property qualifications for voting in Britain had not yet been abolished; only the bourgeoisie and a small number of wealthy peasants had the right to vote and stand for election, while the vast majority of workers did not obtain voting rights. Under the British constitutional monarchy, the democracy touted by the House of Commons was also very false; the seats for electing members of the House of Commons were openly sold to the highest bidder. Therefore, Engels said: “Britain is not a formal democracy,” “theory and practice are in extreme contradiction,” and “all the so-called natural rights of the British are empty names” (ibid., Vol. 3, People’s Publishing House, 2002 edition, p. 583). Engels emphasized that if “the scope of the electorate is not greatly expanded, Britain can no longer be governed” (ibid., Vol. 49, People’s Publishing House, 2016 edition, p. 382).

恩格斯讽刺英国依靠普选权治理国家，并不是为了否定和反对普选权，恰恰是因为英国实行民主制和普选权并不彻底。当时，英国关于选举的财产资格限定还没有取消，有选举权和被选举权的只是那些资产阶级和少量的富裕农民，大多数的工人群众没有获得选举权利。在英国君主立宪制度下，由下院标榜的民主政治也十分的虚假，下院议员的选举席位完全是公开兜售拍卖，谁出的价钱高，就卖给谁。因此恩格斯说：“英国不是正式的民主制”“理论和实践处于极端的矛盾中”“英国人的一切所谓天生的权利都是空洞的名称”（同上第3卷，人民出版社2002年版，第583页）。恩格斯强调指出，如果“不大大扩大选民的范围就再不能治理英国了”（同上第49卷，人民出版社2016年版，第382页）。

This important exposition by Engels tells people that state governance must, as Marx pointed out, “rely on the power entrusted by the people to govern the state” (ibid., Vol. 12, People’s Publishing House, 1962 edition, p. 701). State governance must implement a genuine and thorough socialist democratic system. Only by implementing a socialist democratic system can the proletariat and all the people enjoy definite and tangible democratic rights, become the masters of the state, and attain genuine freedom and happiness.

恩格斯这一重要论述告诉人们，国家治理必须如马克思指出的：“要靠人民赋予的权力来治理国家”（同上第12卷，人民出版社1962年版，第701页）。国家治理必须实行真正的、彻底的社会主义民主制。只有实行社会主义民主制，无产阶级和全体人民才能享有确定的、切实的民主权利，才能成为当家作主的国家主人，才能为他们带来真正的自由和幸福。

“Wresting political power from the classes that have lost the capacity to govern France”

“夺去已经丧失了治理法国能力的阶级的政权”

In the 19th century, France was another focal point for Marx and Engels’ study of state governance. In *The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte*, published in 1852, Marx wrote that the executive power of the Second French Empire possessed “an immense bureaucracy and military organization, a complex and ingenious state machinery, an army of half a million officials and an army of half a million men” (Marx and Engels, *Selected Works*, Vol. 1, People’s Publishing House, 2012, p. 760). France’s immense bureaucracy and military organization formed a terrible parasitic body that enmeshed the whole of society like a dense net. The expansion of state institutions and the redundancy of officials caused state governance to incur high costs. The state governance of the Second French Empire was not only costly but also mismanaged and chaotic. Marx pointed out that Bonaparte expected industry and commerce “to flourish under a strong government like hothouse flowers” (Marx and Engels, *Complete Works*, Vol. 11, People’s Publishing House, 1995, p. 237). However, the class forces and social base on which he relied were bent on making a huge fortune; consequently, after the government granted countless railway concessions, those who had prior knowledge of the secret engaged in speculative profiteering on the stock exchange with these concessions. Bonaparte’s state governance employed means such as police terror, speculation and profiteering, and shameless adventurism, playing with clumsy tactics of blackmail, bribery, incitement, superficial flattery, and double-dealing. Bonaparte’s Second Empire had degenerated into “a hotbed of all that is vile” and “the most depraved” (ibid., Vol. 17, People’s Publishing House, 1963, p. 662) state power.

19世纪的法国，是马克思恩格斯进行国家治理研究的又一个重点。在1852年出版的《路易·波拿巴的雾月十八日》中，马克思写道，法兰西第二帝国的“行政权有庞大的官僚机构和军事机构，有复杂而巧妙的国家机器，有50万人的官吏大军和50万人的军队”（《马克思恩格斯选集》第1卷，人民出版社2012年版，第760页）。法国庞大的官僚机构和军事机构，形成了一个俨如密网缠住社会全身的可怕的寄生体。国家机构膨胀和官员冗杂，造成国家治理付出高昂成本。法兰西第二帝国的国家治理不但成本昂贵，而且治理无方、一片混乱。马克思指出，波拿巴指望工业和商业“应该在强有力的政府治理下像温室中的花卉一样繁荣”（《马克思恩格斯全集》第11卷，人民出版社1995年版，第237页），但是，他所依靠的阶级力量和社会基础却要大发横财，于是在政府让出无数的铁路承租权后，就有事先知悉秘密的人在交易所进行承租权上的投机牟利活动。波拿巴的国家治理，使用的是警察恐怖、投机倒把和无耻的冒险等手段，玩弄拙劣的讹诈、收买、煽惑、表面讨好和两面派的手法。波拿巴的第二帝国，已经堕落成为“一切龌龊事物的温床”“最淫贱”（同上第17卷，人民出版社1963年版，第662页）的国家政权。

Marx and Engels believed that to govern a state effectively, one must possess the capacity. Engels pointed out that weak, narrow-minded, and shortsighted classes such as the petty bourgeoisie and the peasantry “cannot govern a large state” (ibid., Vol. 4, People’s Publishing House, 1958, p. 62). The bourgeoisie in history, although it had greatly improved the instruments of production, promoted the development of communications, opened up the world market, and created productive forces more massive and greater than all past generations combined, and had destroyed all feudal, patriarchal relations and established capitalist relations of production, once acted as a progressive, leading class, held state power, and carried out state governance. However, modern capitalist relations have become too narrow to accommodate the development of higher civilization and relations of ownership; the bourgeoisie has lost the capacity to govern the state. France was such a country, and therefore, when the Paris Commune revolution broke out in 1871, Marx supported the proletariat in “wresting political power from these classes (the classes that have lost the capacity to govern France)” (ibid., Vol. 17, People’s Publishing House, 1963, p. 605). Marx and Engels highly praised the establishment of the Paris Commune, calling it “the government of the working class” (Marx and Engels, *Selected Works*, Vol. 3, People’s Publishing House, 2012, p. 102) and “the first time in its history that the working class had held political power in a capital city, a great city” (ibid., Vol. 4, p. 266).

马克思恩格斯认为，要有效地治理国家，必须具备能力。恩格斯指出，像软弱无力、心胸狭隘、目光短浅的小资产阶级和农民，都“不能治理一个大的国家”（同上第4卷，人民出版社1958年版，第62页）。历史上的资产阶级，虽然由于大力改进了生产工具，促进了交通发展，开拓了世界市场，创造出的生产力比过去一切世代还要多、还要大，而且摧毁了一切封建的、宗法的关系，建立了资本主义生产关系，曾经充当了进步的、领导的阶级，掌握了国家政权，进行了国家治理。但是，现代资本主义关系已经太狭窄了，不能容纳更高的文明和所有制关系的发展了，资产阶级已经丧失了治理国家的能力。法国就是这样的国家，因此当1871年巴黎公社革命爆发后，马克思支持无产阶级“夺去这些阶级（已经丧失了治理法国能力的阶级）的政权”（同上第17卷，人民出版社1963年版，第605页）。马克思恩格斯对巴黎公社的成立给予高度评价，称它是“工人阶级的政府”（《马克思恩格斯选集》第3卷，人民出版社2012年版，第102页），是“工人阶级自从有自己的历史以来第一次在一个作为首都的大城市中掌握了政权”（同上第4卷，第266页）。

The praise Marx and Engels gave to the Paris Commune tells us that after the proletariat has won state power, it must possess the capacity to be adept at governing the state. As the *Communist Manifesto* points out, after the proletariat becomes the ruling class of the state and wins democracy, it must increase the total sum of productive forces as rapidly as possible to meet the interests and demands of the people. Only by continuously enhancing its capacity for state governance can the proletariat achieve the goal of human emancipation.

马克思恩格斯对巴黎公社的称赞告诉我们，无产阶级在取得国家政权之后，必须具备善于治理国家的能力。正如《共产党宣言》指出的，无产阶级成为国家的统治阶级、争得民主后，要尽可能快地增加生产力的总量，满足人民的利益要求。无产阶级只有不断地增强自己的国家治理能力，才能达到实现人类解放的目的。

Online editor: Paul

网络编辑：保罗