An Interpretation of the Young Marx’s Paris Textual Cluster

Since the 20th century, the young Marx has been a persistent focus of debate in academic circles both at home and abroad, with one of the main arenas of theoretical confrontation being the *Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844* (hereafter the *1844 Manuscripts*). As the collation and study of the texts have advanced, the *Paris Notebooks*, written in the same period, have come into our field of vision. Together, these two bodies of work constitute the young Marx’s Paris textual cluster.

自20世纪以来，青年马克思一直是国内外学术界争论未休的焦点，理论交锋的主要场域之一就是《1844年经济学哲学手稿》（以下简称《1844年手稿》）。随着文本整理与研究的推进，与其同时期写作的《巴黎笔记》呈现在我们的视野之中，两者共同构成了青年马克思的巴黎文本群。

Why has this textual cluster provoked such intense controversy? From the perspective of intellectual history, the young Marx’s thought at this time was in a state of violent flux. Multiple intellectual sources—Hegelian philosophy, Feuerbachian humanism, political economy, Enlightenment historiography, and others—were contending within Marx’s mind, each fighting for itself. To clarify, comprehend, and even transcend these important ideas in a short time was undoubtedly difficult for a young man of only 26. Hence, at this stage, Marx’s mind exhibited the phenomenon of “two logics” coexisting. From the perspective of the texts, the Paris textual cluster was only discovered after Marx’s death; even Engels was unaware of its existence. Consequently, there are many differing views on the compositional relationship between the *Paris Notebooks* and the *1844 Manuscripts*. Different interpretations represent different research paradigms and emphases among scholars, and they also lead to divergent understandings of the trajectory of the young Marx’s thought. From a historical perspective, the interpretation of the texts concerns not only the texts themselves; the positioning of the young Marx’s Paris textual cluster also involves different ideological struggles. The legitimacy of Marx’s thought and of historical materialism is thrown into sharp relief in these debates.

为什么这一文本群会引起如此大的争议？从思想史来看，青年马克思此时的思想处于一种激烈变化的状态，黑格尔哲学、费尔巴哈人本主义、政治经济学、启蒙主义历史等诸多思想来源在马克思的头脑中各自为战，想要在短时间厘清、理解，甚至扬弃这些重要思想，对于一个仅仅26岁的青年人来说无疑是困难的，所以此时的马克思头脑中存在“两条逻辑”并存的现象。从文本来看，巴黎文本群在马克思去世后才被发现，甚至连恩格斯也不知道这一文本的存在，所以关于《巴黎笔记》与《1844年手稿》的写作关系众说纷纭，不同的解读代表了研究者不同的研究范式和重心，也导致对青年马克思思想走向的不同理解。从历史来看，文本的解读不仅在于其本身，对于青年马克思巴黎文本群的定位也涉及不同的意识形态之争，马克思思想以及历史唯物主义的合法性问题在这一争论中得以凸显。

There is no doubt that theoretical confrontation will promote the elucidation and construction of ideas. Many international scholars still regard this text as a touchstone, mining from it an inexhaustible source of ideas and constructing an endless stream of original theories. If we do not properly explain the question of “whence it came,” it is difficult to resolve the question of “whither it goes.” This is precisely the significance of our present textual-scholarly interpretation of this text. I believe that the labor alienation schema is the core of our current interpretation of this text. It concerns both the division of the sources of the young Marx’s thought and contains within it the thread of Marx’s later economic reflections, constituting a key nodal point in the transformation of Marx’s thought.

毫无疑问，理论的交锋将会促进思想的阐发与建构，很多国际学者至今仍将这一文本视为圭臬，从其中挖掘出了无限性的思想来源，建构了层出不穷的原创性思想。不解释好“何所来”的问题，就很难解决“何所往”的问题，这正是我们当下对这一文本进行文本学解读的意义所在。我认为，劳动异化构式是我们现在解读这一文本的核心，它既关涉青年马克思思想来源的划分，也内蕴着马克思晚年经济学思考的脉络，构成了马克思思想转变的关键节点。

In my view, the young Marx had a complete research plan in the *Paris Notebooks*: first, the study of economics from Say to Smith and then to List—this was a continuation of the study of private property begun in the *Kreuznach Notebooks*; second, the *Excerpts from James Mill’s “Elements of Political Economy”* (hereafter the *Mill Excerpts*), in which the concept of “life-serving labor” [1]1 “Life-serving labor” (谋生劳动) is Marx’s term in the *Mill Excerpts* for labor undertaken merely as a means of subsistence, in contrast to labor as a free, creative activity. centrally reflects Marx’s thinking on economics; third, the *Excerpts from Hegel’s “Phenomenology of Spirit.”* Although this excerpt occupies only a few manuscript pages, it contains, in the form of a word-for-word transcription, the main methodological source for Marx at this time. Judging from Marx’s lifelong habit of making excerpts, he almost never engaged in excerpting and original composition simultaneously; rather, he would first concentrate on studying and excerpting, and only then engage in original thinking. Therefore, the more plausible sequence of composition is that the *Paris Notebooks* were written first, followed by the *1844 Manuscripts*, rather than the two being written concurrently. When Marx was writing the *1844 Manuscripts*, the completed *Paris Notebooks* were very likely at hand. This explains why the order in which the two works refer to certain economists’ writings is similar. In this way, the compositional order of the *1844 Manuscripts* itself becomes clear. In the national economy [2]2 “National economy” (国民经济学) is the term Marx uses in the *1844 Manuscripts* to refer to classical political economy, particularly as developed by Adam Smith and his followers. represented by Smith, there are three core components: (1) wages; (2) profit; (3) rent. When we combine these three with the subject, we obtain three personified results: (1) the worker (the laborer); (2) the capitalist; (3) the landlord. This is also the direct source of the three-column format of Marx’s *1844 Manuscripts* Notebook I. But why did the writing of these three columns change? Because the worker and wages, as costs of capital, were effaced, transformed into completely de-subjectified, reified objects. Subsequently, rent was also actually transformed into capital; the development from immovable to movable property was in fact rent under the relations of capital. In short, the changes in Marx’s composition were not a tree without roots, but changed in accordance with the changes in his study of classical economics and the objects of his critique. The ultimate point of arrival was capital, i.e., private property—and, moreover, private property in modern bourgeois society.

在我看来，青年马克思在《巴黎笔记》中有着一套完整的研究计划：一是从萨伊到斯密，再到李斯特的经济学研究，这是《克罗伊茨纳赫笔记》之后对私有财产的继续研究；二是《詹姆斯·穆勒〈政治经济学原理〉一书摘要》（以下简称《穆勒笔记》），其中的“谋生劳动”概念集中反映了马克思对经济学的思考；三是《黑格尔〈精神现象学〉摘录》。虽然这一摘录仅有几页手稿的篇幅，却以逐字逐句的摘抄形式内蕴着马克思此时的方法论主要来源。从马克思一生的笔记摘录习惯来看，他几乎不会一心二用地同时进行笔记摘录和著作撰写，而是在集中进行学习摘录后再进行原创性思考，所以更接近现实的写作顺序应当是写作完《巴黎笔记》之后再进行《1844年手稿》的创作，而非两者同时写作。马克思在写作《1844年手稿》的时候，已经完成的《巴黎笔记》很可能就在他的手边。这就解释了为什么两者在提到部分经济学家著作的时候顺序是相似的。这样一来，《1844年手稿》本身的写作顺序就呼之欲出了。在以斯密为代表的国民经济学中，有三个核心的部分：（1）工资；（2）利润；（3）地租。当我们将这三者与主体相结合，就可以得出三种人格化结果：（1）工人（劳动者）；（2）资本家；（3）地主。这也是马克思《1844年手稿》笔记本Ⅰ分栏的直接来源。但是，为什么这三栏的写作会发生变化呢？因为工人和工资作为资本的成本被抹杀掉了，变成了完全非主体化的物性对象。随后，地租实际上也转化为了资本，从不动产到动产的发展实际上是资本关系下的地租。总之，马克思创作的变化并不是无根之木，而是随着古典经济学研究和批判对象的变化而变化的，其最终的落脚点就是资本即私有财产，且是现代资产阶级社会中的私有财产。

Having provided a basic clarification of the compositional relationship of the texts, let us now concretely analyze the content of the young Marx’s labor alienation schema. In fact, the concept Marx uses in the text is “alienated labor,” but why do I name it the “labor alienation schema”? If the theory of alienated labor refers only in a narrow sense to the fourfold alienated labor of the *1844 Manuscripts* Notebook I, then the labor alienation schema, in a broad sense, provides a perspective on Marx’s methodology based on alienation. It exists not only in Notebook I of the *1844 Manuscripts*, nor is it limited to the young Marx’s Paris period; it even extends to the scientific critique of alienation in Marx’s later economic studies. In the essay “On the Jewish Question,” Marx argues that money is created by human beings for exchange, yet in reality becomes the God of the secular world, giving preliminary expression to a view of economic alienation. However, since Marx had not yet undertaken systematic economic studies at this point and was more heavily influenced by Hess, he had not yet combined the theory of alienation with labor. Therefore, I believe that the theory of alienation at this stage does not yet constitute a labor alienation schema. In the *Mill Excerpts* of the *Paris Notebooks*, the proposal of the theory of alienation in intercourse [3]3 “Alienation in intercourse” (交往异化) refers to Marx’s early concept, developed under the influence of Moses Hess, in which human social relations (intercourse) become dominated by alienated forms such as money and exchange. represents the emergence of “labor alienation schema I.” Its theoretical foundation is “need” (Bedürfnis), that is, the civil society based on need and exchange among individuals as constructed by the classical economist Smith. In simple terms, “labor alienation schema I” is Marx’s use of the concept of labor to transform the view of economic alienation. However, this theory lacked a solid methodological foundation. Hence, this theory of alienation had neither the category of subjective labor nor the dialectical moment of the supersession of alienation. At this point, Marx was in a transitional period between heteronomous thought and original thought. With the deepening of his economic studies in the *Paris Notebooks*, Marx sought to find the methodological foundation for his own original theory, to transcend classical economics with a complete theoretical system. The result was “labor alienation theory II,” constructed in Notebook I of the *1844 Manuscripts*. On the one hand, influenced by Hegelian philosophy, through the objectification of labor in nature, the reified degradation of self-consciousness in turn dominates consciousness itself. Labor, as the mediating link in this process, also becomes the key to Marx’s supersession and restoration. On the other hand, Marx resonated with Smith, affirming Smith’s claim that labor is the subjective essence of private property, calling Smith “the Luther of political economy.” However, the foundation of Smith’s concept of labor remained the visible labor of the worker in handicrafts, which led Marx at this time to negate “inhuman” mechanized large-scale production from a humanist standpoint.

在对文本写作关系进行了基本梳理后，让我们来具体分析一下青年马克思劳动异化构式的内涵。其实，马克思在文本中使用的概念是“异化劳动”，但为什么我将其命名为“劳动异化构式”呢？如果说异化劳动理论仅仅在狭义上指代《1844年手稿》笔记本I的四重异化劳动，那么劳动异化构式则在广义上透视了马克思以异化为基础的方法论，它不仅仅存在于《1844年手稿》笔记本I，也不局限于青年马克思的巴黎时期，甚至还一直延续到马克思晚期经济学研究的科学异化批判。在《论犹太人问题》一文中，马克思认为货币是由人创造出来进行交换的，却在现实中成为了世俗世界的上帝，初步表达了一种经济异化的观点。但是由于此时马克思尚未进行系统的经济学研究，而是更多受到赫斯的影响，并没有将异化理论与劳动相结合，所以我认为此时的异化理论并不构成一种劳动异化构式。而在《巴黎笔记》的《穆勒笔记》中，交往异化理论的提出代表着“劳动异化构式I”的出场，其理论基础是“需要”（Bedürfnis），也就是古典经济学家斯密所构建的人与人以需要和交换为基础的市民社会。简单来说，“劳动异化构式I”是马克思用劳动概念来改造经济异化的观点，但这一理论并没有坚实的方法论支撑，所以这种异化理论既没有主体劳动的范畴，也没有扬弃异化的辩证环节，此时的马克思处在他性思想和原创性思想的过渡期。而随着《巴黎笔记》中对经济学研究的深入，马克思试图去寻找自身原创性理论的方法论根基，以一套完整的理论体系超越古典经济学，其成果就是《1844年手稿》笔记本Ⅰ所构建的“劳动异化理论II”。一方面，马克思受到黑格尔哲学的影响，通过劳动在自然界中的对象化，自我意识的物性沉沦反过来主宰了意识本身。劳动作为这一连接的中介，也成为马克思扬弃复归的关键所在。另一方面，马克思与斯密产生共鸣，他肯定了斯密关于劳动是私有财产的主体本质的说法，将斯密称为“经济学中的路德”。不过，斯密的劳动概念基础仍是手工业中看得见的工人劳动，这导致此时的马克思从人本主义的角度否定了“非人的”机器化大生产。

Going a step further, the emergence of the young Marx’s conceptual framework of the alienation of labor was in fact the first systematic expression of the young Marx’s epistemology, which I identify as critical epistemology. The methodological core of this epistemology is Hegel’s phenomenology, while its object of cognition is social materialism. In reality, beginning from the Paris period, the social materialism in classical economics had already implicitly influenced Marx, a process that was unconscious. However, we can clearly see that Marx at this time had gradually moved from Feuerbach’s intuitive object-oriented materialism into a non-intuitive epistemology; the conceptual framework of the alienation of labor was precisely a relational perspective that transcended sensuous intuition. In the *Paris Notebooks*, Marx’s critical epistemology is mainly manifested in his penetrating from visible commodities to invisible capital and labor, from visible real estate to invisible movable property, and in his attempt to criticize, sublate and restore this alienated subject-object relationship. This critical epistemology shares similarities with the epistemologies of Hiromatsu Wataru and Martin Heidegger, namely, transcending intuitive object-oriented cognition so as to recognize the relations and activities behind objects; it precisely opposes the “object.” In other words, Marx at this time was using Hegel’s phenomenological method to criticize and transcend economic reality. Therefore, under the combined effect of the commercial society constituted by Smith’s “system of needs” and the dialectical moments of Hegel’s *Phenomenology of Spirit*, critical epistemology emerged. However, the endpoint of the alienation-and-restoration in this epistemology was Feuerbach’s value-postulated species-being; in essence, it still belonged to a latent idealist conception of history. Beginning with the *Theses on Feuerbach*, Marx abandoned this critical epistemology dominated by the logic of humanism, and formed a historical epistemology based on relational consciousness within a scientific conception of history. It was not until the *Economic Manuscripts of 1857–1858* and the *Economic Manuscripts of 1861–1863* that Marx once again formed a new critical epistemology, whose new foundation was the scientific conceptual framework of the alienation of labor III and historical phenomenology, thereby completing the two transformations of Marx’s epistemology.

更进一步来看，青年马克思劳动异化构式的出场实则是青年马克思认识论的第一次系统表达，我将其判定为批判认识论。这种认识论的方法论内核是黑格尔的现象学，其认识对象则是社会唯物主义。实际上，从巴黎时期开始，古典经济学中的社会唯物主义就潜在地影响了马克思，这一过程是不自觉的。但是我们可以明显看到，马克思此时已经从费尔巴哈直观的对象性的唯物主义，慢慢地进入到一种非直观的认识论，劳动异化构式正是超越感性直观的关系性透视。在《巴黎笔记》中，马克思的批判认识论主要体现在从可见的商品中透视到不可见的资本和劳动，从可见的不动产中透视到不可见的动产，并试图对这种异化的主客体关系进行批判、扬弃和复归。这种批判认识论与广松涉和海德格尔的认识论是有相似之处的，即超越直观的对象性认识，从而认识到对象背后的关系和活动，它恰恰要反对“对象”。换言之，此时的马克思是以黑格尔现象学的方式来批判和超越经济学现实的。因此，在斯密的“需要关系”构成的商业社会和黑格尔《精神现象学》辩证环节的共同作用下，批判认识论得以出场。不过，这一认识论的异化复归终点是费尔巴哈价值悬设的类存在，其本质上仍是隐性唯心史观的。而从《关于费尔巴哈的提纲》开始，马克思就抛弃了这种以人本主义为主导逻辑的批判认识论，在科学的历史观上形成了以关系意识论为基础的历史认识论。直到《1857—1858年经济学手稿》和《1861—1863年经济学手稿》，马克思再次形成了全新的批判认识论，这一认识论的新基础是科学的劳动异化构式III和历史现象学，由此完成了马克思认识论的两次转变。

Online editor: Paul

网络编辑：保罗