The Essence of Law: An Examination from the Perspective of the Relationship between Law and the State and Society

The German philosopher Hegel was the inheritor and promoter of the bourgeois philosophical revolution in Germany initiated by Kant. Hegel established a complete system of objective idealism, pushing German classical idealist thought to its peak. In 1821, he published *Elements of the Philosophy of Right*, systematically expounding his idealist philosophy of right. *Elements of the Philosophy of Right* contains three major parts: abstract right, morality, and ethical life. The part on ethical life includes the three moments of the family, civil society, and the state. Hegel critically inherited Kant's thought that freedom constitutes the determinacy of right, interpreting the intrinsic characteristics of right from the perspective of human free will. He attempted to explore the relationship between right, morality, and ethical life using dialectical thinking, seeking a path toward free will. He posited a supreme spiritual entity, the “absolute spirit (or absolute idea),” which constitutes the core of his philosophy. He believed that the absolute spirit is primary and eternal, an objectively and independently existing cosmic spirit.

德国哲学家黑格尔是康德所肇始的德国新兴资产阶级哲学革命的继承者和推进者。黑格尔建立起了完整的客观唯心主义理论体系，将德国古典唯心主义思想推向了顶峰。1821年，他出版《法哲学原理》，系统阐述了他的唯心主义法哲学理论。《法哲学原理》包含三大部分：抽象法、道德、伦理。其中伦理部分又包括家庭、市民社会和国家三个环节。黑格尔批判地继承了康德关于自由构成法的规定性的思想，从人的意志自由出发对法的内在特性进行了阐释，他试图用辩证的思维探悉法、道德与伦理之间的关系，寻求迈向意志自由的途径。他假定了一个至高无上的精神实体“绝对精神(或绝对理念)”，这构成了他的哲学的核心。他认为，绝对精神是第一性的和永恒的，是客观独立存在的某种宇宙精神。

At that time, the revolutionary character of the German bourgeoisie was far weaker than that of England, France, and other countries. The weak German bourgeoisie, facing powerful feudal forces both domestically and internationally, exhibited a clear duality: on the one hand, the German bourgeoisie harbored revolutionary demands against feudalism; on the other hand, they dared not break completely with feudal forces, giving the German bourgeois revolution a strong reformist character. Bourgeois thinkers represented by Hegel clearly reflected this duality. Hegel opposed using revolutionary means to change reality, fantasizing about using reason and morality to reform society. In this book, Hegel's legal thought is mainly reflected in his analysis of the meaning of right, attempting to reconstruct bourgeois legal theory on the theoretical foundation of the free will of right, thereby serving the rule of the German bourgeoisie.

当时，德国资产阶级的革命性远弱于英、法等国，实力弱小的德国资产阶级面对国内外强大的封建势力，表现出明显的两面性：一方面，德国资产阶级怀有反封建的革命要求；另一方面，他们又不敢与封建势力决裂，从而使德国资产阶级革命带有强烈的改良色彩。以黑格尔为代表的资产阶级思想家明显反映出这种两面性。黑格尔反对用革命的手段去变革现实，幻想用理性、道德去改良社会。在该书中，黑格尔的法律思想主要体现在对法的含义的解析，力图以法的自由意志为理论基础重新建构资产阶级法学理论，从而为德国资产阶级统治服务。

The critique of Hegel was Marx's theoretical reflection arising from his perplexity about reality and was the starting point of his critique of bourgeois legal thought. Marx called *Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right* his “first work,” written to resolve his own doubts. The reason Marx specifically analyzed and criticized Hegel's philosophy of right is also closely linked to the formation of Marx's early thought. Marx's revelation of the essence of law was a gradual deepening process, not achieved in one step. *Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right* was Marx's first exploration in revealing the essence of law, embodying his profound capacity for philosophical speculation. The legal thought displayed in this work is the foundation and starting point for his later, more profound explanations of the essence of law. In this work, Marx corrected Hegel's erroneous understanding of the relationship between the state and society, demonstrating the dependence of law on the state and society, thereby revealing the objective character of law. Furthermore, by criticizing Hegel's objective idealist view of the state based on the “absolute spirit,” he powerfully revealed the class character of the state, thereby profoundly revealing the class character of law. He also criticized Hegel for failing to rationally deduce the executive and legislative organs from the modern state, deeply analyzing the internal relationships among state organs and the internal connections between law, the state, and society, thereby revealing the character of law as materially conditioned. This laid the foundation for Marx's intellectual development and theoretical creation, profoundly influencing many of his subsequent works, and marks Marx's turn toward historical materialism and dialectical materialism.

对黑格尔的批判是马克思出于对现实的困惑而展开的理论思索，是其对资产阶级法律思想批判的起点。马克思称《黑格尔法哲学批判》是为解决自身困惑而写的“第一部著作”。马克思之所以专门对黑格尔的法哲学进行分析和批判，也与马克思早期思想的形成紧密联系。马克思对法的本质进行的揭示是一个逐步深化的过程，并非一步到位，《黑格尔法哲学批判》就是马克思对法的本质进行揭示的首次探索，体现了马克思深厚的哲学思辨能力，这部著作中展示出的法学思想是其之后对法的本质进行更加深刻阐释的基础和起点。在这部著作中，马克思把黑格尔对国家与社会之间关系的错误认识进行了纠正，论证了法对国家与社会的依赖关系，从而揭示了法的客观性特征；又通过批判黑格尔基于“绝对精神”之上的客观唯心主义的国家观，有力揭示了国家的阶级属性，从而深刻地揭示了法的阶级性特征；并批判黑格尔未能从现代国家合理推导出行政机关与立法机关，深刻分析了国家机关之间的内在关系，以及法与国家及社会之间的内在联系，从而揭示了法的物质制约性特征。这为马克思的思想发展和理论创建奠定了基础，深刻影响了他的许多后续作品，标志着马克思转向历史唯物主义和辩证唯物主义。

As a work from the period of Marx's intellectual transition, *Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right* occupies an important position among Marx's early works and is a landmark work in the history of Marxist development that cannot be ignored. The term “philosophy of right” in German means the philosophy of right, a philosophical theory about the essence of the state, the state system, and the structure of state power; it is not simply the philosophy of law. However, it cannot be said that the philosophy of right is unrelated to law. On the contrary, both *Elements of the Philosophy of Right* and *Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right* have a strong legal character. During his time at the University of Berlin, Marx's major was law. Although he ultimately received his doctorate in philosophy from the University of Jena, Marx had a profound legal cultivation, and it was natural for him to approach the study of social issues from a legal perspective. Some scholars have explicitly stated that although Marx shifted from the discipline of law to philosophy, and then to political economy, the questions that consistently preoccupied Marx were precisely those he had already focused on during his early legal research. Of course, Marx's shift in research fields did not mean abandoning his original field, but rather expanding it. When studying *Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right*, many researchers often overlook Marx's attention to legal issues, resulting in an insufficient understanding of Marx's views on law in this work. This is a great pity. This article attempts to interpret the theory of the essence of law contained in this work from a legal perspective, while also integrating theories from philosophy and political science, in order to achieve a more comprehensive and deeper understanding of the profound connotations and significance of the theory of the essence of law in this work.

《黑格尔法哲学批判》作为马克思思想转变时期的一部著作，在马克思早期著作中占据重要地位，是马克思主义发展史上不可忽视的里程碑式著作。“法哲学”在德语中的含义是权利哲学，是关于国家的本质、国家制度、国家权力结构的哲学理论，并非就是法的哲学，但是，又不能说法哲学与法律无关，相反，《法哲学原理》与《黑格尔法哲学批判》这两部著作都带有很深的法学色彩。马克思在柏林大学期间主修专业是法律，尽管其最后拿到的是耶拿大学的哲学博士学位，但是，马克思有深厚的法律修养，其对社会问题的研究从法学角度展开是很自然的。有学者就明确提出，马克思虽然从法学专业转向哲学，进而转向政治经济学，但一以贯之萦绕马克思的问题，还是其早期在法学研究过程中就关注到了的问题。当然，马克思研究领域的转向并非放弃原有研究领域，而是其研究领域的拓展。在研究《黑格尔法哲学批判》这部著作时，很多研究者往往忽略了马克思对法律问题的关注，使得这部著作中马克思对于法的认识没有充分为人们所理解，这是一个很大的遗憾。本文力图从法学角度，同时结合哲学与政治学的理论，对其中所包含的法的本质理论进行诠释，以便更全面、更深入理解这部著作中法的本质理论的深刻内涵和重要意义。

I. Marx Corrected Hegel's Erroneous Understanding of the Relationship between the State and Society, Revealing the Objective Character of Law

一、马克思纠正了黑格尔对国家与社会之间关系的错误认识，揭示了法的客观性特征

In *Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right*, Marx explored the relationship between law, the state, and society. Marx believed that the state is a tool used by the ruling class to rule over society, and it needs to regulate and manage social issues through law. Therefore, law is closely linked to the state; law is one of the important forms of expression of state power. However, Hegel's philosophy of right ignored the true essence of the real world, overemphasizing the role of ideas and consciousness. Marx criticized Hegel's concept of the state, arguing that it was too abstract and idealistic, unable to solve actual social problems, and moreover, it inverted the relationship between the state and society.

在《黑格尔法哲学批判》中，马克思对法与国家及社会之间的关系进行了探讨。马克思认为，国家是统治阶级对社会进行统治的工具，其需要通过法律来规范和管理社会问题。因此，法与国家有着紧密的联系，法是国家权力的重要表现形式之一。但是，黑格尔法哲学忽略了现实世界的真实本质，过分强调观念和意识的作用。马克思批判了黑格尔的国家理念，认为它过于抽象和理想化，并不能解决实际社会问题，同时，还颠倒了国家与社会的关系。

Marx profoundly revealed the error in Hegel's theory that the state determines civil society. He very clearly pointed out that it is not the state that determines civil society, but civil society that determines the state. This already exhibits very distinct materialist thought characteristics. Starting from an idealist standpoint, Hegel regarded the state as an absolute idea, from which other social existences, such as civil society and state institutions, arise. Hegel believed that “the state is the actuality of the ethical Idea.” [1]1 Karl Marx, *A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy*, Preface (1859). This effectively obliterates the fact that the modern state cruelly exploits its own people internally and oppresses and aggresses against other countries externally. He also believed that “the state is absolutely rational in and for itself,” [2]2 Friedrich Engels, *Ludwig Feuerbach and the End of Classical German Philosophy* (1886). regarding the state as the subjective embodiment of the absolute spirit. He further stated: “Since the state is objective spirit, the individual himself only has objectivity, truth, and ethical life by being a member of the state.” [3]3 Karl Marx, *Introduction to a Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right* (1843-1844). This means that individuals must establish a close connection with the state. If an individual does not establish a close connection with the state and does not accept the rule of the bourgeois state, they will lose their freedom and various rights and obligations as a citizen, and it would be difficult for them to exist. These views of Hegel have an extremely strong idealist character. In essence, they regard the will of the monarch as absolute will and demand that the people unconditionally serve the ruling class. They were entirely intended to defend and serve the ruling class in Germany at that time.

马克思深刻地揭示了黑格尔关于国家决定市民社会理论的错误，他十分明确地指出，并不是国家决定市民社会，而是市民社会决定国家，这已经表现出十分鲜明的唯物主义思想特征。黑格尔从唯心主义立场出发，把国家视为一种绝对理念，由此产生市民社会、国家机构等其他社会存在。黑格尔认为，“国家是伦理理念的现实”。这实际上抹杀了现代国家对内残酷剥削本国人民、对外侵略压迫其他国家的事实。他还认为，“国家是绝对自在自为的理性东西”，把国家视为绝对精神的主观体现。他进一步说：“由于国家是客观精神，所以个人本身只有成为国家成员才具有客观性、真理性和伦理性。”这就是说，个人必须与国家建立起紧密联系，个人如果不与国家产生密切联系，不接受资产阶级国家的统治，就会丧失自由以及作为公民的各种权利义务，就难以存在了。黑格尔的这些观点具有极为浓厚的唯心主义色彩，实际上就是把君主的意志视为绝对意志，并要求人民无条件地服务统治阶级，其完全是为当时德国统治阶级辩护和服务的。

Marx criticized Hegel’s view that the actual relationship of the family and civil society to the state is transformed into “the imaginary activity of the Idea.” He pointed out: “The family and civil society are the preconditions of the state; they are the truly active elements; but in speculative philosophy this is inverted.” “The family and civil society make themselves into the state. They are the driving force. Yet in Hegel’s view, the opposite is true: they are produced by the actual Idea. It is not their own life process that unites them into the state, but the life process of the Idea, which separates them from itself.” He emphasized: “The political state cannot exist without the natural basis of the family and the artificial basis of civil society. They are necessary conditions for the state.” Thus, Hegel’s transition from the family and civil society to the state is entirely illusory. In Hegel’s view, “this constitution of the state is here described as the activity of the Idea, as the ‘distribution’ carried out by the Idea with its own material.” Marx argued: “The fact is that the state arises from the mass of human beings existing as members of families and as members of civil society. Speculative philosophy expresses this fact as the activity of the Idea, not as the idea of the mass, but as a subjective activity of the Idea distinct from the fact itself.” Many scholars believe that the critique of Hegel’s philosophy of right was the starting point for Marx’s establishment of the theory of historical materialism. Marx began to use the theoretical weapon of historical materialism to criticize Hegel’s idealist view that the state is an activity of the Idea, revealing that the state is not an activity of the Idea but a very definite objective existence.

马克思批判了黑格尔把家庭和市民社会对国家的现实关系变成“观念的内在想像活动”的观点。他指出：“家庭和市民社会都是国家的前提，它们才是真正活动着的；而思辨的思维中这一切却是颠倒的。”“家庭和市民社会使自身成为国家。它们是动力。可是，在黑格尔看来又相反，它们是由现实的观念产生的。把它们结合成国家的不是它们自己的生存过程，而是观念的生存过程，是观念使它们从它自身中分离出来。”他强调：“政治国家没有家庭的自然基础和市民社会的人为基础就不可能存在。它们对国家来说是必要条件。”可见，黑格尔从家庭和市民社会转向国家的过渡是完全虚幻的。在黑格尔看来，“国家的这种构成在这里被说成是观念活动，即观念以它自己的材料所进行的‘分配’”。马克思认为：“事实却是这样：国家是从作为家庭的成员和市民社会的成员而存在的这种群体中产生的。思辨的思维把这一事实说成是观念活动，没有把它说成是群体的观念，而说成是同事实本身有区别的主观的观念活动”。许多学者认为，对黑格尔法哲学的批判是马克思建立历史唯物主义理论的起点。马克思开始运用历史唯物主义的理论武器对黑格尔关于国家是一种观念性活动的唯心主义思想进行了批判，揭示了国家并非观念活动，而是一种十分明确的客观存在。

Marx affirmed an important contribution of Hegel’s philosophy of right: Hegel recognized the fundamental problem of the modern state—the separation and opposition between the modern state and civil society. However, Hegel believed that the state is deduced from the abstract absolute Idea, rather than transformed from concrete political reality. Hegel’s philosophy of right, due to its methodology, possesses an inherent conservatism, “uncritically accepting some empirical existence as the actual truth of the Idea,” which ultimately amounts to accepting existing things through a circuitous path and granting them a “philosophical certificate.” This inherent conservatism and “uncritical nature” destroyed the legitimacy of Hegel’s philosophy of right, thus containing a principled defect. Marx believed that Hegel’s view of the state seemed plausible but was actually absurd. Marx clearly pointed out: “The transition of the family and civil society to the political state consists in the fact that the spirit of these two spheres, which is itself the spirit of the state, now also relates to itself as this spirit of the state, and as the inner essence of the family and civil society, is actual.” Thus, it can be said that in the modern state, the separation between the state and civil society is difficult to bridge.

马克思肯定了黑格尔法哲学的一个重要贡献，即黑格尔认识到了现代国家的根本问题——现代国家与市民社会之间的分离和对立。但黑格尔认为，国家是从抽象的绝对理念中演绎出来的，而不是从具体政治现实转变而来的。黑格尔法哲学由其方法论导致固有的保守性，“把某种经验的存在非批判地当作观念的现实真理性”，到头来不过是以曲折的路径将现存事物接受下来，授予其“哲学的证书”。这种固有的保守性和“非批判性”摧毁了黑格尔法哲学的正当性，因而存在原则上的缺陷。马克思认为，黑格尔关于国家的观点貌似有道理,但实际上是荒谬的。马克思明确指出：“家庭和市民社会到政治国家的过渡在于：本身就是国家精神的这两个领域的精神，现在也是作为这种国家精神来对待自身的，而且作为家庭和市民社会的内在东西本身，是现实的。”因而可以说，在现代国家中，国家与市民社会的分离是难以弥合的。

Marx believed that Hegel, by reducing concrete determinations to abstract logical categories, made it difficult to form correct understandings and judgments of the political life of the state. He pointed out: Hegel “does not develop his thought from the object, but develops the object according to a thought that is already formed and already formed in the abstract logical sphere.” The speculative idealism of Hegel’s philosophy of right lies in “establishing a relationship between the political system and the abstract Idea, listing the political system as a moment in the developmental history of the (Idea).” The consequence of this mysticism is: “The real center of attention is not the philosophy of right, but logic. The work of philosophy is not to embody thought in political determinations, but to dissolve existing political determinations into abstract thought. The philosophical element is not the logic of the thing itself, but the thing of logic itself. It is not logic that is used to demonstrate the state, but the state that is used to demonstrate logic.” Hegel could not correctly explain the organic connection between law and the state; he merely repeated logical concepts, creating a mysterious and profound impression, and could not clearly explain the logic or “specific essence” of actual things. “An explanation that does not point out specific differences is not an explanation.” This gave rise to the problem that so-called true understanding was merely illusion or appearance. However, it should be clear that Marx discovered the fundamental defect in Hegel’s concept of the state in the process of thought, but he did not completely negate Hegel’s contribution; he saw the rational elements of Hegel’s dialectics. Marx sublated Hegel’s dialectical thought and absorbed the essential parts of Hegel’s dialectical thought.

马克思认为，黑格尔通过把具体规定归结为抽象逻辑范畴，导致难以对国家政治生活形成正确的认识和判断。他指出：黑格尔“不是从对象中发展自己的思想，而是按照自身已经形成了的并且是在抽象的逻辑领域中已经形成了的思想来发展自己的对象”。黑格尔法哲学的思辨唯心主义就在于“使政治制度同抽象观念建立关系，把政治制度列为它的（观念的）发展史上的一个环节”。这种神秘主义的后果就是：“真正注意的中心不是法哲学，而是逻辑学。哲学的工作不是使思维体现在政治规定中，而是使现存的政治规定消散于抽象的思想。哲学的因素不是事物本身的逻辑，而是逻辑本身的事物。不是用逻辑来论证国家，而是用国家来论证逻辑。”黑格尔不能正确解释法和国家之间的有机联系，只是一再重复逻辑学概念，制造神秘深奥的印象，不能解释清楚现实事物本身的逻辑或“特殊本质”，“没有指出特殊差别的解释就不成其为解释”，由此形成了所谓真正认识不过是幻觉或假象的问题。不过，应当明确的是，马克思发现了黑格尔关于国家理念在思维过程中的根本缺陷，但是并没有完全否定黑格尔的贡献，他看到了黑格尔辩证法的合理成分。马克思扬弃了黑格尔的辩证法思想，吸收了黑格尔辩证法思想中的精华部分。

Marx believed that Hegel, starting from the abstract Idea rather than from objective facts to understand the relationship between the state and civil society, led to a subject-predicate inversion, making the true subject an abstract “essential” predicate. Hegel said: “Necessity in the Idea is the internal development of the Idea itself; as subjective substantiality, this necessity is political sentiment; as objective substantiality, it is the organism of the state, i.e., the truly political state and the state system.” Marx pointed out: “Here the subject is ‘necessity in the Idea,’ ‘the Idea itself internally,’ and the predicates are political conviction and political system.” In this way, Hegel reduced political reality to a mere representation or predicate of logical categories, while the real subject was explained into the abstract logic that dominates the subject. Marx criticized Hegel’s philosophy of right for inverting the real subject and political life into a mysterious product of the Idea. He believed that Hegel attempted to deduce the modern constitutional monarchy from abstract logical concepts, thereby mystifying political reality. Marx pointed out that Hegel’s deduction of the state and political concepts was a tautology; the real political system arises from specific historical conditions, not as the realization of logical abstraction. Marx revealed how Hegel used the abstract category of “essentiality” as the subject, making it act on society. This inversion presented the family and other true subjects as products of the Idea, rather than as autonomous, independent human beings.

马克思认为，黑格尔从抽象的理念出发，而不是从客观事实出发理解国家与市民社会的关系，这导致主谓倒置，使真正的主体成为抽象的“本质性”的谓语。黑格尔说：“理想性中的必然性就是理念内部自身的发展；作为主观的实体性，这种必然性是政治情绪；作为客观的实体性则不同，它是国家的机体，即真正的政治国家和国家制度。”马克思指出：“在这里主体是‘理想性中的必然性’，‘观念自身内部’，而谓语则是政治信念和政治制度”。这样，黑格尔将政治现实简化为逻辑范畴的单纯表象或谓语，真实主体却被解释到了支配主体的抽象逻辑中。马克思批评黑格尔的法哲学将现实的主体和政治生活颠倒为理念的神秘产物，他认为，黑格尔试图从抽象的理念逻辑推导出现代君主立宪制，因而使政治现实神秘化。马克思指出，黑格尔关于国家与政治观念的演绎是同义反复，真正的政治制度是从特定的历史条件中产生的，而不是作为逻辑抽象的实现。马克思揭示了黑格尔如何以“本质性”这个抽象范畴作为主语，使之作用于社会，这种倒置把家庭等真正的主体呈现为理念的产物，而不是自主的、独立的人。

Marx believed that Hegel defined the monarch’s decision as a groundless self-determination, i.e., pure arbitrariness, which contradicted the rational basis he intended to provide for the state. At the same time, Marx believed that Hegel’s view of sovereignty as the exclusive attribute of the monarch, excluding the people, contradicted Hegel’s initial definition of sovereignty as the unity of the universal will and the individual will. By excluding popular sovereignty, Hegel could not at all presume that the state could become the Idea of the realization of human free will. Marx believed that Hegel’s real interest was logic, not grasping political reality. The philosophy of right was merely a generalized application of logic; concrete determinations were treated as inessential. He turned them into logical abstractions rather than developing them from their concrete essence. Marx criticized Hegel: “The real center of attention is not the philosophy of right, but logic. The work of philosophy is not to embody thought in political determinations, but to dissolve existing political determinations into abstract thought. The philosophical element is not the logic of the thing itself, but the thing of logic itself. It is not logic that is used to demonstrate the state, but the state that is used to demonstrate logic.” Marx very severely criticized Hegel for illusorily using logical categories to justify the modern state, taking abstract “substantiality” rather than human self-consciousness as the starting point. Marx criticized Hegel’s philosophy of right for inverting subject and predicate, understanding actual political reality as logical abstraction, excluding the self-determining subject, and subordinating the philosophy of right to logic.

马克思认为，黑格尔将君主的决策定义为无根据的自我决定，即纯粹的任意性，这与他要为国家提供的理性基础相矛盾。同时，马克思认为，关于黑格尔将主权看作君主的专属性，排除人民的观点，这与黑格尔最初将主权定义为普遍意志和个体意志的统一相矛盾。通过排除人民主权，黑格尔根本就不能推定国家能够成为人的自由意志实现的理念。马克思认为，黑格尔真正的兴趣是逻辑，而不是把握政治现实。法哲学只是逻辑的概括化应用，具体规定被当作非本质的。他将它们变为逻辑抽象，而不是从其具体本质中发展出来。马克思批判黑格尔“真正的注意中心不是法哲学，而是逻辑学。哲学的工作不是使思维体现在政治规定中，而是使现存的政治规定消散于抽象的思想。哲学的因素不是事物本身的逻辑，而是逻辑本身的事物。不是用逻辑来论证国家，而是用国家来论证逻辑”。马克思非常严厉地批判黑格尔虚幻地用逻辑范畴证成现代国家，其以抽象“实体性”而不是人的自我意识为出发点。马克思批评黑格尔法哲学将主谓颠倒，其将实际的政治现实理解为逻辑抽象，排除自我决定的主体，并使法哲学服从于逻辑。

One of the most brilliant achievements of *Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right* is that Marx proposed that civil society determines the state and law. Later, when reviewing this result, Marx said: “My inquiry led to the conclusion that legal relations as well as forms of state are to be grasped neither from themselves nor from the so-called general development of the human mind, but, on the contrary, have their roots in the material conditions of life, the totality of which Hegel, following the example of the English and French of the eighteenth century, combines under the name ‘civil society’; but the anatomy of civil society is to be sought in political economy.” [1]1 Karl Marx, *A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy*, Preface (1859). Here, Marx very clearly and explicitly reveals the objectivity of law, pointing out that law is not entirely a conceptual product governed by ideas, but a social existence with objective reality generated on the basis of society and the state. It is precisely on this foundation that Marx deeply investigated the workers’ movement, earnestly studied the fundamental contradictions of capitalism, and his worldview underwent a major turning point, realizing the transformation from idealism to materialism and from revolutionary democracy to communism.

《黑格尔法哲学批判》这部著作最光辉的成就之一就是，马克思提出了市民社会决定国家和法。后来，马克思在回顾这一成果时说：“我的研究得出这样一个结果：法的关系正像国家的形式一样，既不能从它们本身来理解，也不能从所谓人类精神的一般发展来理解，相反，它们根源于物质的生活关系，这种物质的生活关系的总和，黑格尔按照18世纪的英国人和法国人的先例，概括为‘市民社会’，而对市民社会的解剖应该到政治经济学中去寻求。”在这里，马克思非常清晰且十分明确地揭示了法的客观性，指出了法并非完全是由理念支配的观念性产物，而是基于社会与国家产生的具有客观实在性的社会存在。正是在此基础上，马克思深入考察工人运动，认真研究了资本主义的基本矛盾，他的世界观发生了重大转折，实现了从唯心主义向唯物主义、从革命民主主义向共产主义的转变。

II. Marx Criticized Hegel’s View of the State Based on “Absolute Spirit” and Revealed the Class Character of Law

二、马克思批判了黑格尔基于“绝对精神”之上的国家观，揭示了法的阶级性特征

In the book *Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right*, Marx had already begun to apply the method of class analysis to analyze political and social issues, which is especially evident in his analysis of the bourgeois system of private property and the class nature of the capitalist state. Marx pointed out that Hegel’s philosophy of right reflected the interests of the ruling class at that time, rather than the interests of ordinary people. He also pointed out that the essence of the state is to maintain the existence and stability of the system of private property, and that law is one of the tools the state uses to achieve this purpose; it protects the legality and stability of the system of private property by regulating property rights and contractual relations.

在《黑格尔法哲学批判》一书中，马克思已经开始运用阶级分析方法分析政治问题与社会问题，这尤其体现在他对资产阶级私有财产制度和资本主义国家阶级性的分析之中。马克思指出，黑格尔法哲学反映了当时统治阶级的利益，而不是普通人的利益。他还指出，国家的实质就是维护私有财产制度的存在和稳定，法律是国家实现这一目的的工具之一，它通过规范财产权和契约关系，保护私有财产制度的合法性和稳定性。

Marx profoundly criticized Hegel’s philosophical defense of the modern state and revealed the class nature of the Prussian state system. Marx emphasized that law has a class character, reflecting the interests and will of the ruling class. Marx believed that Germany lagged behind other European countries because it had not undergone political revolutions like France and England. Therefore, Germany remained under the influence of the feudal order, achieving only philosophical critique without actual liberation. Hegel’s philosophy of right was the conceptual expression in German philosophy of the capitalist development of countries like England and France, and also the conceptual abstract continuation of German history, which was still in the feudal era, in ideas. Engels also clearly pointed out: “When Hegel in his *Philosophy of Right* declared constitutional monarchy to be the final and most perfect form of government, German philosophy, the most complex and at the same time the most accurate thermometer of the development of German thought, thereby declared its support for the bourgeoisie. In other words, Hegel announced that the moment for the German bourgeoisie to seize power was approaching.” [2]2 Friedrich Engels, *Ludwig Feuerbach and the End of Classical German Philosophy* (1886).

马克思深刻批判了黑格尔对现代国家的哲学辩护，指出了普鲁士国家制度的阶级性。马克思强调，法律具有阶级性质，它反映了统治阶级的利益和意志。马克思认为，德国落后于其他欧洲国家，因为它没有像法国和英国那样经历过政治革命。因此，德国仍处于封建秩序的影响之下，只实现了哲学批判，而没有实现实际的解放。黑格尔法哲学是英法等国资本主义发展在德国哲学上的观念表达，也是仍处于封建制时代的德国历史在观念上的抽象继续。恩格斯也明确指出：“当黑格尔在他的《法哲学》一书中宣称立宪君主制是最终的、最完善的政体时，德国哲学这个表明德国思想发展的最复杂同时也是最准确的温度计，就表示支持资产阶级。换句话说，黑格尔宣布了德国资产阶级取得政权的时刻即将到来。”

In terms of political stance, Hegel displayed a strong conservative tendency, mainly manifested in his advocacy and defense of the Prussian state system of constitutional monarchy centered on the monarch and aristocracy. Regarding real politics, Hegel explicitly proposed “the union of the people and the aristocratic class.” However, the “people” here did not refer to workers and peasants, but to the bourgeoisie. Marx believed that the partial political liberation of the bourgeoisie could not solve Germany’s problems, nor could it solve the problems of capitalist society. To solve these problems, it was necessary to achieve complete human emancipation. He particularly emphasized that Germany must undergo a thorough revolution to achieve human emancipation. This revolution would be led by the proletariat and take philosophy as its spiritual weapon. In the *Introduction to a Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right*, written shortly afterward, Marx pointed out: “Revolution needs a passive element, a material basis. Theory is realized in a people only insofar as it is the realization of their needs.” “It is not enough that thought should strive to realize itself; reality must itself strive toward thought.” [3]3 Karl Marx, *Introduction to a Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right* (1843-1844). Marx pointed out that for the state to achieve the purpose of representing the interests of the people, it must undergo a real and thorough revolution; only through a proletarian revolution can the state be transformed into a political system with the people as the main body.

黑格尔在政治立场方面体现出强烈的保守主义倾向，其主要表现在，他主张并维护以君主、贵族为主体实现君主立宪制的普鲁士国家制度。黑格尔对于现实政治的立场，明确提出了“人民与贵族阶级的联合”。但是，他这里的“人民”并不是指工人和农民，而是指资产阶级。马克思认为，资产阶级的局部政治解放并不能解决德国的问题，也不能解决资本主义社会的问题，要解决这些问题，必须实现彻底的人的解放。他特别强调，德国必须进行彻底的革命，以实现人的解放。这场革命将由无产阶级领导，并以哲学为精神武器。在稍后写成的《〈黑格尔法哲学批判〉导言》中，马克思指出：“革命需要被动因素，需要物质基础。理论在一个国家实现的程度，总是取决于理论满足这个国家的需要的程度。”“光是思想力求成为现实是不够的，现实本身应当力求趋向思想。”马克思指出，国家要想实现代表人民利益的目的，就要经历现实彻底的革命，只有通过无产阶级革命才能使得国家变成以人民为主体的政治制度。

Marx pointed out that Hegel ignored the reality of class struggle, explaining political phenomena from the “essence of the concept” rather than from people’s social attributes and social activities. In the *Introduction to a Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right*, Marx pointed out that just as the religious Reformation of the 15th century originated in the minds of monks, the current political reform in Germany should originate in the minds of philosophers. The main task of philosophy is to criticize and expose, in order to awaken the political revolution in Germany, but “the weapon of criticism cannot, of course, replace criticism of the weapon; material force must be overthrown by material force.” [4]4 Ibid. To achieve complete emancipation in Germany, it was necessary to carry out revolutionary struggle. Marx recognized the important role of the German proletariat; he believed that for Germany to achieve complete emancipation, it needed to rely on the proletariat, because “the result of this dissolution of society is the proletariat, a particular class.” “The emancipation of the Germans is the emancipation of the human being. The head of this emancipation is philosophy, its heart is the proletariat.” [5]5 Ibid. Marx placed his hopes on the combination of German philosophy and the proletariat, believing that this would lead to a thorough revolution, liberating not only Germany but all of humanity. This proletarian revolution, guided by philosophy, would open the dawn of a new life for Germany and humanity. Marx profoundly criticized the speculative idealism in Hegel’s philosophy of right, clearly revealed the historical mission of the proletariat, and thus achieved a major shift in his personal political stance.

马克思指出，黑格尔忽视阶级斗争的现实性，其从“概念的本质”而不是从人的社会属性及其社会活动来解释政治现象。在《〈黑格尔法哲学批判〉导言》中，马克思指出，正如15世纪的宗教改革是在僧侣头脑中发端的一样，当前德意志的政治改革应该是在哲学家的头脑中发端的。哲学的主要任务是批判和揭露，以便唤醒德意志的政治革命，但“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”。要想在德国获得彻底解放，就必须开展革命斗争。马克思认识到了德国无产阶级的重要作用，他认为，德国要获得彻底的解放，就需要依靠无产阶级，这是因为“社会解体的这个结果，就是无产阶级这个特殊等级”。“德国人的解放就是人的解放。这个解放的头脑是哲学，它的心脏是无产阶级”。马克思把希望寄托在德国哲学和无产阶级的结合这一点上，他相信，这会引领一次彻底的革命，不仅解放德国，更将解放全人类。这场由哲学指导的无产阶级革命，将打开德国和人类新生的黎明。马克思对黑格尔法哲学中的思辨唯心主义进行了深刻批判，明确地揭示了无产阶级的历史使命，从而实现了个人政治立场的重大转变。

At this time, Marx had not yet achieved the transition to communism, and his thought still had some revolutionary democratic coloring; however, his contempt for and criticism of the Prussian autocratic state system were very clearly expressed in his writing. In March 1843, in a letter to Ruge, Marx wrote: “The liberal cloak has fallen away, and the most detestable despotism stands revealed in all its nakedness before the eyes of the world.” [6]6 Karl Marx, Letter to Arnold Ruge, March 1843. In another letter to Ruge in May 1843, Marx very clearly expressed his strong dissatisfaction with the Prussian autocratic system: “We must expose the old world completely and actively build a new one.” [7]7 Karl Marx, Letter to Arnold Ruge, May 1843. To theoretically criticize the autocratic system effectively, Marx directed his attack at Hegel’s philosophy of right, which vigorously defended the autocratic system. From October to December 1843, Marx completed the *Introduction to a Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right*. In this work, he very clearly explained the reason for criticizing Hegel’s philosophy of right: namely, that Hegel’s state philosophy and philosophy of right were the peak of German philosophy, and their essence lay in defending Germany’s reactionary rule. Marx said: “The German philosophy of the state and of right is the most systematic, richest, and final expression of this in Hegel’s works; the critique of this philosophy is both a critical analysis of the modern state and of the reality connected with it, and a decisive negation of the entire previous form of German political and legal consciousness, whose most important, most universal, and most elevated expression, raised to the level of science, is precisely the speculative philosophy of right itself.” [8]8 Karl Marx, *Introduction to a Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right* (1843-1844). Later, in the *Communist Manifesto*, Marx and Engels revealed the class character of law in extremely concise and powerful language, raising the above understanding to a new height. They pointed out: “Your very ideas are but the outgrowth of the conditions of your bourgeois production and bourgeois property, just as your jurisprudence is but the will of your class made into a law for all, a will whose essential character and direction are determined by the economic conditions of existence of your class.” [9]9 Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, *Manifesto of the Communist Party* (1848). Here, Marx and Engels not only clearly revealed the class character of law, but also very explicitly revealed its material dependence.

此时，马克思还没有实现向共产主义的转变，其思想还有一定的革命民主主义色彩，但是，其对普鲁士专制国家制度的蔑视与批判十分清晰地跃于笔端。1843年3月，马克思在给卢格的信中写道：“自由主义的华丽外衣掉下来了，可恶至极的专制制度已赤裸裸地呈现在全世界面前。”1843年5月，马克思在给卢格的另一封信中，又非常明确地表明了自己对于普鲁士专制制度的强烈不满：“我们必须彻底揭露旧世界，并积极建立新世界。”为了在理论上对专制制度进行有力批判，马克思将矛头指向了为专制制度极力辩护的黑格尔法哲学。1843年10—12月，马克思完成《〈黑格尔法哲学批判〉导言》。在这部著作中，他非常明确地解释批判黑格尔法哲学的原因，那就是，黑格尔的国家哲学与法哲学是德国哲学的高峰，而其本质正在于维护德国的反动统治。马克思说：“德国的国家哲学和法哲学在黑格尔的著作中得到了最系统、最丰富和最终的表述；对这种哲学的批判既是对现代国家和对同它相联系的现实所作的批判性分析，又是对迄今为止的德国政治意识和法意识的整个形式的坚决否定，而这种意识的最主要、最普遍、上升为科学的表现正是思辨的法哲学本身。”后来，在《共产党宣言》中，马克思恩格斯用极为简短有力的语言对法的阶级性进行了揭示，把上述认识提高到了一个崭新高度。他们指出：“你们的观念本身是资产阶级的生产关系和所有制关系的产物，正像你们的法不过是被奉为法律的你们这个阶级的意志一样，而这种意志的内容是由你们这个阶级的物质生活条件决定的。”在这里，马克思恩格斯已经不仅清晰地揭示了法的阶级性特征，而且也十分明确地揭示了法的物质依赖性特征。

In criticizing Hegel’s philosophy of right, Marx emphasized the class character of law. He pointed out that law is not a pure moral principle transcending class interests, but rather reflects the will and interests of the ruling class. Therefore, law is often formulated and implemented by the state to safeguard the interests of the ruling class. Marx stressed the class nature of law and the essence of the state in protecting private property, recognizing the class rule nature of the Prussian autocratic system. *The Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right* provides important ideological inspiration for understanding the class character of law. Later, Marxist jurists, building on the research of Marx and Engels, delved deeply into the essence and function of law and developed Marxist legal theory.

马克思在批判黑格尔的法哲学时，强调了法的阶级性质。他指出，法不是超越阶级利益的纯粹道德原则，而是反映了统治阶级的意志和利益。因此，法往往是国家为维护统治阶级的利益而制定和实施的。马克思强调了法律的阶级性和国家维护私有财产的本质，认识到了普鲁士专制制度的阶级统治本质。《黑格尔法哲学批判》为理解法的阶级性提供了重要的思想启示，后来马克思主义法学家在马克思和恩格斯研究的基础上，深入研究法的本质和功能，发展了马克思主义法学理论。

III. Marx Analyzed the Intrinsic Connection between Law and the State and Society, Revealing the Characteristic of Law’s Material Conditionality

三、马克思分析了法与国家及社会之间的内在联系，揭示了法的物质制约性特征

For Hegel’s philosophy of right, the state is the actual embodiment of universal norms. Only by establishing the various constituent elements of a complete state system can a complete state form be built. Hegel emphasized: “Spirit is actual only when it has known itself; as the spirit of a nation, the state constitutes the laws that run through all domestic relations, and also constitutes the customs and consciousness of the domestic people. Therefore, the state system of each nation always depends on the nature and formation of that nation’s self-consciousness; the nation’s self-consciousness contains the nation’s subjective freedom, and thus also contains the actuality of the state system.” [10]10 G.W.F. Hegel, *Elements of the Philosophy of Right*, §274, Addition. The translation follows the standard English edition. Starting from the conservative standpoint of supporting a constitutional monarchy, Hegel drew on Montesquieu’s theory of the separation and balance of powers among the legislative, executive, and judicial branches. He argued that the state system includes constituent elements such as the legislative power, the executive power, and the crown power, and discussed the crown power, executive power, and legislative power separately.

对于黑格尔法哲学而言，国家是普遍规范的现实体现，只有通过建立完备的国家制度中的各种构成要素，才能建立起完整的国家形态。黑格尔强调：“精神只有认识了自身以后才是现实的，作为一个民族精神的国家构成贯穿于国内一切关系的法律，同时也构成国内民众的风尚和意识，因此，每一个民族的国家制度总是取决于该民族的自我意识的性质和形成；民族的自我意识包含着民族的主观自由，因而也包含着国家制度的现实性。”黑格尔从拥护君主立宪制度的保守立场出发，借鉴了孟德斯鸠关于立法权、行政权和司法权等三权分立制衡理论，认为国家制度包含立法权、行政权和王权等构成要素，并对王权、行政权和立法权等分别进行了论述。

Marx conducted an extremely profound analysis of Hegel’s theory of the crown power. Hegel believed that the personal representative of the state is the monarch, and the crown power is the personification of state sovereignty. Internally, sovereignty is supreme, and its symbol is the monarch. Externally, the state must ensure the independence of sovereignty. Marx said that, in Hegel’s view, the actual will, i.e., the individual will, is the crown power. Marx pointed out: “Insofar as the ‘final decision’ or the ‘absolute self-determination’ is separated from the ‘universality’ of content and the particularity of deliberation, it is the actual will, i.e., caprice. Or: ‘Caprice is the crown power,’ or, ‘the crown power is caprice.’” [11]11 Karl Marx, *Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right*, in *Marx-Engels Collected Works*, vol. 3, p. 22. Marx criticized Hegel for trying “to make the monarch into a true God-man, into the true incarnation of the Idea.” [12]12 Ibid., p. 24. At the same time, Marx also criticized Hegel for regarding the monarch as sovereignty detached from the people. He said: “If the monarch is the ‘actual state sovereignty,’ then the ‘monarch’ should also be regarded externally as an ‘independent state,’ even without the people. But if the monarch, insofar as he represents the unity of the people, is the sovereign, then he himself is only the representative and symbol of popular sovereignty.” [13]13 Ibid., p. 27. Thus, it can be seen that Hegel regarded the crown power as supreme and absolute domination, which to a large extent served the rule of the German bourgeoisie at that time.

马克思对黑格尔的王权思想进行了极为深刻的分析。黑格尔认为，国家的人格代表就是君主，王权是国家主权的人格化。对内而言，主权至上，其象征就是君主。对外而言，国家必须确保主权的独立性。马克思说，在黑格尔看来，现实的意志即个人的意志就是王权。马克思指出：“就‘最后决断’或‘绝对的自我规定’这一环节脱离了内容的‘普遍性’和协商的特殊性而言，它是现实的意志，即任意。或者说：‘任意是王权’，或者，‘王权是任意’。”马克思批判黑格尔力图“把君主说成是真正的神人，说成是观念的真正化身”。同时，马克思也批判黑格尔把君主视为脱离人民的主权，他说：“如果君王是‘现实的国家主权’，那么‘君王’对外也应当被认为是一个‘独立的国家’，甚至不要人民也行。但是，如果君王，就其代表人民统一性来说，是主宰，那么他本人只是人民主权的代表、象征。”可见，黑格尔把王权视为至高无上的、绝对的主宰，很大程度上是为当时的德国资产阶级统治服务的。

Regarding the executive power, Hegel analyzed it as a particularity link within the state apparatus. In Hegel’s view, the executive power is the power to execute and implement the monarch’s decisions, and its main scope lies in “carrying out and maintaining what has already been decided, i.e., the existing laws, institutions, and public facilities, etc.” [14]14 Hegel, *Philosophy of Right*, §287. The executive power lies in handling universal affairs, making the particular universal. However, private law that only handles particular affairs can by no means become the executive power; it is merely the power of private law, not the power of public law. Marx believed that Hegel failed to deduce the executive power rationally from the essence of the modern state, but merely adopted empirical confirmation, granting the bureaucracy a logical external rationality. Regarding the true political essence of bureaucracy, Hegel did not fully elaborate it philosophically. Marx believed that Hegel described the bureaucracy as a “other side” towering above and transcending civil society, rather than as a “universal class” representing society itself. Therefore, the bureaucratic system could not bridge the conflict and separation between state institutions and civil society. Marx argued: “Hegel calls the executive power the objective aspect of the monarch’s inherent sovereignty, which is just as correct as the way the Catholic Church was once described as the actual existence of the ruling power, content, and spirit of the Holy Trinity. In bureaucracy, the identity of state interests and particular private purposes is determined in such a way that state interests become a particular private purpose opposed to other private purposes.” [15]15 Marx, *Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right*, p. 46. Marx pointed out that Hegel did not reveal the intrinsic connection between the family, civil society, and the state bureaucracy; in Hegel, the identity between civil society and the state is purely superficial.

关于行政权，黑格尔将其视为在国家机构中的特殊性环节进行了分析。在黑格尔看来，行政权是执行和实施君主决定的权力，其主要范围在于“贯彻和维护已经决定了的东西，即现行的法律、制度和公共设施等等”。行政权在于处理普遍事务，使特殊成为普遍，但是，仅仅处理特殊事务的私法注定不能成为行政权，其只是私法的权力，而不是公法的权力。马克思认为，黑格尔未能从现代国家的本质合理推导行政权力，只是采取了经验性的认证，给予了官僚制度逻辑上的外在合理性。关于官僚制的真正政治本质，黑格尔并未在哲学上充分阐述。马克思认为，黑格尔描述官僚制作为高高在上、超越市民社会的“另一方”，而不是作为代表社会本身的“普遍阶级”。因此，官僚制度并不能弥合国家机构与市民社会之间的冲突与分离。马克思认为：“黑格尔把行政权称为君主固有主权的客观方面，这就像过去把天主教教会说成神圣三位一体的统治权力、内容和精神的实际定在一样正确。在官僚政治中，国家利益和特殊私人目的的同一是这样确定的：国家利益成为一种同其他私人目的相对立的特殊的私人目的。”马克思指出，黑格尔并没有揭示家庭、市民社会与国家官僚制之间的内在联系；在黑格尔那里，市民社会与国家之间的同一性纯粹是表面上的。

Regarding the legislative power, Hegel believed that it is the power to prescribe and establish universal things, a link of universality, and it is of great significance for establishing the state system. Marx carefully studied Hegel’s theory of the legislative power, affirmed its positive elements, and criticized its problems and contradictions. Marx believed that Hegel encountered a new antinomy when discussing the legislative power. He said: “He places the function of the legislative power, i.e., its function as determined by the state system, in contradiction with its mission as determined by the state system. The opposition between the state system and the legislative power still exists. According to Hegel’s interpretation, there is a contradiction between the actual action of the legislative power and its lawful action, or, between what the legislative power should be and what it actually is, between what it itself wants to do and what it actually does.” [16]16 Ibid., p. 58. Marx believed that Hegel regarded the legislature as an abstract element of the state, and that the parliamentary estate did not represent the interests of civil society; their actions had no intrinsic connection with universal interests themselves. Hegel erroneously based the parliamentary estate on the medieval model, an era in which there was a certain consistency and unity between civil society and the state. Marx analyzed this phenomenon, arguing that this unity no longer exists in the modern state; civil society and political society have already separated. Marx pointed out: “Civil society’s participation in the political state through deputies is precisely the expression of their separation, and it is precisely the expression of their purely dualistic unity.” [17]17 Ibid., p. 64. The parliamentary estate constitutes a “illusory existence,” as if representing civil society, but it cannot represent civil society. In Hegel’s view, the parliamentary estate mystifies the people’s self-consciousness into “empirical universality” and particular opinions. Hegel denies the people’s actual self-determination in legislation through this formalism. Marx believed that Hegel used the parliamentary estate to mystify the actual separation of the state and civil society, rather than achieving their rational unity. Marx argued that the state should establish a political system that conforms to the people’s interests, so as to resolve the contradictions and conflicts between the legislature and the state system.

关于立法权，黑格尔认为，其是规定和确立普遍事物的权力，是普遍性的环节，它对于确立国家制度具有重要意义。马克思对黑格尔的立法权理论进行了认真研究，肯定了其中积极的成分，批判了其存在的问题与矛盾。马克思认为，黑格尔在讨论立法权时出现了新的二律背反。他说：“他把立法权的作用即它的按照国家制度确定的作用置于同它的按照国家制度确定的使命相矛盾的境地。国家制度同立法权之间的对立依然存在。按照黑格尔的释义，立法权的实际行动同合法行动是有矛盾的，或者说，在立法权应该是什么同它实际上是什么之间，在它本身想做什么同它实际上在做什么之间也是存在着矛盾的。”马克思认为，黑格尔将立法机关视为国家的抽象要素，议会阶级并不代表市民社会的利益，他们的行为与普遍利益本身并无内在联系。黑格尔错误地以中世纪模式为依据建立议会阶级，而在那个时代，市民社会和国家之间是存在一定的一致性和统一性的。马克思对这一现象进行了分析，他认为，这种统一性在现代国家里已经不存在了，市民社会和政治社会已然分离。马克思指出：“市民社会通过议员参与政治国家，这正是它们分离的表现，而且正是它们的纯粹二元性统一的表现。”议会阶级构成了一个“虚幻的存在”，仿佛代表市民社会，但其并不能代表市民社会。在黑格尔看来，议会阶级将人民的自我意识神秘化为“经验的普遍”和特殊的意见。黑格尔否认人民通过这种形式主义对立法的实际自我决定。马克思认为，黑格尔用议会阶级神秘化了国家与市民社会的实际分离，而不是实现它们的理性统一。马克思认为，国家应当建立符合人民利益的政治制度，这样才能解决立法机构与国家制度之间的矛盾与冲突。

Marx analyzed Hegel’s exposition of the relationships among the various elements of the state system and the relationships between these elements and the state system, and criticized Hegel’s erroneous views. Marx argued: “Hegel precisely did not conceive this organic unity. The different powers have different principles. Moreover, these powers are stable actualities. Therefore, instead of elucidating these powers as links of organic unity, Hegel sets aside the actual conflicts among these powers and flees into an imagined ‘organic unity,’ which is nothing but a set of empty and mysterious tricks.” [18]18 Ibid., p. 71. He further pointed out: “The first unresolved conflict is the conflict between the entire state system and the legislative power; the second unresolved conflict is the conflict between the legislative power and the executive power, i.e., the conflict between law and execution.” [19]19 Ibid., p. 72. In this way, the constituent elements of the state apparatus are deprived of the most important task of establishing the fundamental system of the state, and thus their status and authority are greatly restricted.

马克思对黑格尔关于国家制度各要素之间的关系及各要素与国家制度之间的关系所进行的阐述进行了分析，并对黑格尔的错误观点进行了批判。马克思认为：“黑格尔正好没有构思出这种有机的统一。不同的权力有不同的原则。此外，这些权力还是稳固的现实性。因此，黑格尔不去阐明这些权力是有机统一的各个环节，反而抛开这些权力之间的现实冲突，遁入想像的‘有机的统一’，这不过是一套空洞神秘的遁术。”他进一步指出：“第一个没有解决的冲突是整个国家制度和立法权之间的冲突；第二个没有解决的冲突是立法权和行政权之间的冲突，即法律和执行之间的冲突。”这样，国家机构的各构成要素就被剥夺了建立国家根本制度的最重要的任务，因而其地位和权限受到很大的限制。

Marx believed that Hegel did not rationally explain the relationship between civil society and the legislative body from the concept of free will’s self-determination, nor did he distinguish between civil society and the aristocratic estate on a rational basis. The inevitable result of this was the separation of the state from civil society, rather than the bridging of that separation. Marx held that Hegel placed reason, the national spirit, and so forth above the state system, but in fact failed to recognize the interrelationship among them. Marx particularly emphasized that the state system “has its own determinations and principles that develop in step with consciousness and with actual human beings. This is possible only when ‘man’ becomes the principle of the state system.” [20]20 Marx, *Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right*. Marx argued that Hegel mistakenly sought to prevent civil society from “coagulating” into organized opinions and wills opposed to the state, treating the relationship between the state and civil society as entirely antagonistic. In a certain sense, by mediating conflicts between the executive branch and the people, the estate of the legislature [21]21 In Hegel’s *Philosophy of Right*, the “estate of the legislature” (or “legislative estate”) refers to the mediating body between the crown and civil society, composed of the landed aristocracy and the business class, which Hegel saw as reconciling particular interests with the universal interest of the state. served to dissolve the people and maintain the separation between the state and civil society. Marx believed that Hegel did not rationally and immanently construct the organization of the legislative body from the logic of free will’s self-determination through law; formal legislative power merely concealed this problem. Marx revealed that in the bourgeois state, the legislative body cannot reflect the will of civil society, and there is an irreconcilable separation between civil society and state institutions.

马克思认为，黑格尔没有从自由意志自我决定的理念出发合理解释市民社会和立法机关之间的关系，也未能以理性为基础区分市民社会和贵族阶级，其造成的结果必然是国家与市民社会的分离，而不是弥合国家与市民社会的分离。马克思认为，黑格尔把理性、民族精神等置于国家制度之上，实际上并没有认清其相互之间的关系。马克思特别强调说，国家制度“本身具有与意识同步发展、与现实的人同步发展的规定和原则。而这只有在‘人’成为国家制度的原则时才有可能”。马克思认为，黑格尔错误地想阻止市民社会“凝结”为与国家对立的组织性意见和意志，把国家与市民社会之间的关系看作完全对立的。一定意义上说，通过调解行政部门和人民之间的冲突，议会阶级起到了瓦解人民、维持国家与市民社会隔离的作用。马克思认为，黑格尔没有合理地、内在地从自由意志通过法律自我决定的逻辑出发构建关于立法机关的组织，形式上的立法权只是掩盖了这个问题。马克思揭示了在资产阶级国家中立法机关并不能反映市民社会的意志，市民社会与国家机构存在难以弥合的分离。

Marx held that law is relative, not an immutable norm, but something that constantly evolves and adjusts as historical and social conditions change. In Marx’s view, law is the superstructure of the economic base of society, influenced by economic and social structures. This means that the emergence and change of law are determined by the economic and social base, rather than being independent of social reality. Shortly thereafter, Marx and Engels, in *The German Ideology*, very clearly revealed the connotation of law. They pointed out that within definite relations of material production, “the individuals who rule must, apart from organizing their power in the form of the state, give their will, determined by these definite relations, a universal expression in the form of the state will, i.e., in the form of law.” “The expression of this will, which is determined by their common interests, is law.” In short, law is the expression of the interests of the ruling class, possessing a very clear class character. However, there is a close connection between the class character of law and its material conditioning. This connection means that although law embodies the will of the ruling class and safeguards its interests, it is also constrained by objective material conditions of life and possesses objectivity; therefore, it is not a tool that the ruling class can wield arbitrarily.

马克思认为，法律是相对的，并非一成不变的规范，而是随着历史和社会条件的变化而不断演变和调整。在马克思看来，法是社会经济基础的上层建筑，它受到经济和社会结构的影响。这意味着法律的产生和变化是由经济和社会基础决定的，而不是独立于社会现实的。此后不久，马克思恩格斯在《德意志意识形态》中十分明晰地揭示了法律的内涵。马克思恩格斯指出，在一定的物质生产关系中“占统治地位的个人除了必须以国家的形式组织自己的力量外，他们还必须给予他们自己的由这些特定关系所决定的意志以国家意志即法律的一般表现形式”，“由他们的共同利益所决定的这种意志的表现，就是法律”。简单地说，法律就是统治阶级利益的表现，具有十分明显的阶级性，但是，法的阶级性与物质制约性之间存在密切联系。这种联系意味着，法虽然体现统治阶级的意志，维护统治阶级的利益，但是，法也受到客观物质生活条件的制约，具有客观性，因而不是统治阶级可以恣意而为的工具。

IV. Marx Elaborates That the State Is the Substantiation of Classes and Civil Society, Revealing That Law Is the Product of Classes and Society

四、马克思阐述了国家是阶级与市民社会的实体化，揭示了法是阶级与社会的产物

In Hegel’s philosophy of right, free will is a main thread. Hegel held: “The basis of right is, in general, the spiritual; its precise location and point of departure is the will. The will is free, so freedom constitutes the substance and determination of right.” He believed: “Any existence that is the existence of free will is right. Thus, in general, right is freedom as the Idea.” In Hegel’s view, “right” is “the existence of free will”; that is, “right” is the spiritual actualization or external manifestation, the external embodiment of ideas with regularity in the social and natural spheres.

在黑格尔法哲学体系中，自由意志是一条主线。黑格尔认为：“法的基地一般说来是精神的东西，它的确定的地位和出发点是意志。意志是自由的，所以自由就构成法的实体和规定性。”他认为：“任何定在，只要是自由意志的定在，就叫做法。所以一般说来，法就是作为理念的自由。”在黑格尔看来，“法”是“自由意志的定在”，就是说，“法”就是精神的现实体现或外在表现形态，是社会领域和自然领域带有规律性的观念的外在体现。

Marx exposed that Hegel’s speculative idealism inverted reality: what was originally the point of departure—facts—was mystified into a product of the Idea, and facts independent of thought were reduced to the Idea. More explicitly, Hegel absolutized the state, regarding it as something in and for itself. Hegel said: “As a state, the nation, whose substantial rationality and immediate actuality is spirit, is therefore the absolute power on earth.” Marx held that Hegel “does not develop his thought from the object, but develops the object according to a thought that is already formed and already fixed in the abstract logical sphere.” That is to say, in Hegel’s view, the separation of the state from civil society was simply accepted, not overcome. Marx and Engels, in *The German Ideology*, gave a very clear explanation of civil society: “The term ‘civil society’ emerged in the eighteenth century, when property relations had already freed themselves from the ancient and medieval communities. Civil society proper only develops with the bourgeoisie; but the name ‘civil society’ always denotes the social organization that develops directly out of production and intercourse, and which in all ages forms the basis of the state and of any other idealistic superstructure.” That is, civil society takes shape in modern society and is a recent form of social organization. Marx believed that Hegel’s definition of the aristocratic estate based on the unity of the state and civil society in the Middle Ages did not conform to historical facts. He pointed out that in modern society, the two spheres of the state and civil society are separated; the emergence of the aristocratic estate manifests the split between the state and civil society, not a genuine unity between them. Marx held that the aristocratic estate expressed the separation of the state from society, having lost its political significance and become a social fragment pursuing private interests. He argued that only genuine democracy could eliminate the separation between the political state and civil society, between the political sphere and the social sphere, and between the state and the citizen.

马克思揭露了黑格尔思辨唯心主义颠倒了现实，本来是出发点的事实被神秘化为理念的产物，不依存于思维的事实被归结为理念。更明确地说，黑格尔绝对化了国家，把国家看成自在自为的东西。黑格尔说：“作为国家的民族，其实体性的合理性和直接的现实性就是精神，因而是地上的绝对权力。”马克思认为，黑格尔“不是从对象中发展自己的思想，而是按照自身已经形成了的并且是在抽象的逻辑领域中已经形成了的思想来发展自己的对象”。也就是说，在黑格尔看来，国家与市民社会的分离被简单地接受了，而没有被克服。马克思恩格斯在《德意志意识形态》中对市民社会进行了很清楚的解释：“‘市民社会’这一用语是在18世纪产生的，当时财产关系已经摆脱了古典古代的和中世纪的共同体。真正的市民社会只是随同资产阶级发展起来的；但是市民社会这一名称始终标志着直接从生产和交往中发展起来的社会组织，这种社会组织在一切时代都构成国家的基础以及任何其他的观念的上层建筑的基础。”也就是说，市民社会在现代社会中形成，是社会组织中的一种新近形态。马克思认为，黑格尔以中世纪的国家和市民社会统一为基础界定贵族阶级，是不符合历史事实的。他指出，在现代社会中，国家和市民社会这两个领域是分离的，贵族阶级出现所表现出来的是国家和市民社会的分裂，而不是两者之间真正的统一。马克思认为，贵族阶级表达国家与社会的分离，它们已经失去政治意义，成为追求私利的社会碎片。他认为，只有真正的民主制才能消除政治国家同市民社会、政治领域同社会领域、国家和市民之间的分离。

Marx effectively corrected the inverted relationship between the state and the people that Hegel had established. He believed that under democracy, the state system is the external manifestation of the people’s will; it is the people who create the state, not the state that creates the people. He stated explicitly: “Hegel proceeds from the state and makes man into the subjectified state. Democracy proceeds from man and makes the state into objectified man. Just as it is not religion that creates man but man who creates religion, so it is not the state system that creates the people but the people who create the state system. In a certain sense, democracy relates to all other forms of state as Christianity relates to all other religions.” “Only democracy is the true unity of the universal and the particular.” Here Marx not only criticized Hegel’s erroneous understanding of the relationship between the state and the people but also revealed that only under democracy can human freedom and the unity of the relationship between the state and the people be realized.

马克思把黑格尔颠倒了的国家与人民之间的关系进行了很好的纠正。他认为，在民主制下，国家制度是人民意志的外在体现形态，是人民创造了国家，而不是国家创造了人民。他明确指出：“黑格尔从国家出发，把人变成主体化的国家。民主制从人出发，把国家变成客体化的人。正如同不是宗教创造人，而是人创造宗教一样，不是国家制度创造人民，而是人民创造国家制度。在某种意义上，民主制对其他一切国家形式的关系，同基督教对其他一切宗教的关系是一样的。”“只有民主制才是普遍和特殊的真正统一。”马克思在这里不仅批判了黑格尔对国家与人民之间关系的错误认识，而且揭示了只有在民主制下才能实现人的自由，以及国家与人民之间关系的统一。

Hegel’s proclaimed concept of the free state in and for itself was merely speculative; civil society and the family were merely ornaments of the state wearing the cap of freedom. In Germany, it was private property that ruled the state, and it was precisely this that led to the separation of civil society from the state. Marx pointed out: “Primogeniture is the highest form of private property, the independent private property.” “Primogeniture is only a particular existence of the universal relationship between private property and the political state. Primogeniture is the political significance of private property, i.e., private property in its political significance, i.e., its universal significance. Thus the state system here becomes the state system of private property.” It can be seen that primogeniture determines the attribution of power, but the state cannot determine its attribution. That is to say, the state serves the system of private property; the class character of the state is already initially exposed here. Marx’s views—that primogeniture is the highest form of the development of the system of private property, and that the modern political system is essentially the maintenance of the system of private property—are undoubtedly strongly correlated with his later proposal of the historical materialist theory that the economic base determines the superstructure.

黑格尔声称的自在自为的自由国家理念，仅仅是在思辨的角度上讲的，而市民社会和家庭，就是戴上了自由的帽子的国家的装饰物。在德国完全是私有财产对国家进行统治，正是这一点导致了市民社会与国家的分离。马克思指出：“长子继承权，是私有财产的最高级形式，是独立自主的私有财产。”“长子继承权只是私有财产和政治国家之间的普遍关系的特殊存在。长子继承权是私有财产的政治意义，是就政治意义即普遍意义来讲的私有财产。这样一来，国家制度在这里就成了私有财产的国家制度。”可见，长子继承权规定着权力性质的归属问题，国家却不能规定它的归属。也就是说，国家是服务于私有财产制的，国家的阶级属性在这里已经初步暴露出来。马克思关于长子继承权是私有财产制度发展的最高形式，现代政治制度本质上是对私有财产制度的维护等观点，对其后来提出经济基础决定上层建筑的历史唯物主义理论，毫无疑问是有很强的关联性的。

Marx pointed out that “civil society is the precondition of the state,” and the state is generated by civil society. The state is not the “actuality of the moral idea”; on the contrary, “the political system, at its highest stage, is the system of private property.” [22]22 This is a paraphrase of Marx’s argument in his 1843 *Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right*, where he argues that private property, not the state, is the foundation of the political system. That is to say, the system of private property ownership is the real material foundation on which the state and law are established and exist. Later, when criticizing Hegel’s idealist view of the state, Engels also clearly stated: “From the traditional point of view (which was also respected by Hegel), the state is the determining factor, and civil society is the factor determined by the state. The surface phenomenon is consistent with this view.” “All demands of civil society (no matter which class was ruling at the time) must also, through the will of the state, obtain universal validity in the form of law.” “In modern history, the will of the state is, on the whole, determined by the changing needs of civil society, by the dominant position of a certain class, and, in the final analysis, by the development of productive forces and relations of exchange.” Therefore, Hegel’s claim that the state determines civil society is completely wrong; the fact is exactly the opposite: civil society determines the state.

马克思指出，“市民社会是国家的前提”，而国家是由市民社会产生出来的。国家不是“道德观念的现实性”，相反，“政治制度就其最高阶段来说，是私有财产的制度”。这就是说，私人财产占有制是国家和法赖以建立并存在的现实物质基础。后来，恩格斯在批判黑格尔的唯心主义国家观时也明确指出：“从传统的观点看来（这种观点也是黑格尔所尊崇的），国家是决定的因素，市民社会是被国家决定的因素。表面现象是同这种看法相符合的。”“市民社会的一切要求（不管当时是哪一个阶级统治着），也一定要通过国家的意志，才能以法律形式取得普遍效力。”“在现代历史中，国家的意志总的说来是由市民社会的不断变化的需要，是由某个阶级的优势地位，归根到底，是由生产力和交换关系的发展决定的。”因此，黑格尔所说的国家决定市民社会，是完全错误的，事实正好相反，是市民社会决定国家。

Hegel vigorously defended constitutional monarchy, saying: “The development of the state into constitutional monarchy is the achievement of the modern world, in which the substantial idea has acquired infinite form.” Marx’s critique of Hegel’s constitutional monarchy and estate-based constitution is also a critique of modern constitutions; in short, it is a constitutional revolution. In criticizing Hegel’s views on constitutional monarchy, Marx and Engels proposed the establishment of a “new state system,” one that could “truly express the will of the people” and realize popular sovereignty. Marx pointed out: “In a state where each determination exists independently, the state is established primarily and only through particular individuals.” “Popular sovereignty does not arise from the monarch; on the contrary, the monarch arises from popular sovereignty.” Through his reflection on the relationship between the state system and the people, Marx laid the ideological foundation for the transition from revolutionary democracy to communism.

黑格尔为君主立宪制极力辩护，他说：“国家成长为立宪君主制乃是现代的成就，在现代世界，实体性的理念获得了无限的形式。”马克思对黑格尔君主制宪法和等级制宪法的批判也是对现代宪法的批判，简言之就是一场宪法革命。马克思恩格斯在批判黑格尔关于君主立宪的观点时提出要建立一种“新的国家制度”，这种国家制度要能“真正表现人民的意志”，实现人民主权。马克思指出：“在每个规定都独立存在的国家中，国家主要也惟有通过特殊的个体才能确立。”“人民主权不是凭借君王产生的，君王倒是凭借人民主权产生的。”马克思通过对国家制度与人民之间关系的思考，为从革命民主主义向共产主义转变奠定了思想基础。

On this basis, Marx further elaborated on democracy as a political form of realizing popular sovereignty, in opposition to monarchy. He pointed out: “It is not the state system that creates the people, but the people who create the state system.” Marx believed that monarchical sovereignty refers to sovereignty realized in the person of the monarch, while popular sovereignty can only be sovereignty realized in the person of the people; these are two completely opposite concepts. So-called representation and symbolization of popular sovereignty ultimately amounts to trampling on popular sovereignty. Therefore, Marx explicitly opposed monarchy and advocated democracy to realize popular sovereignty. He said: “Democracy is the truth of monarchy, but monarchy is not the truth of democracy.” “Monarchy cannot be understood from itself, but democracy can be understood from itself.” The true realization of the principle of popular sovereignty can only be achieved under the premise of completely abolishing private property and establishing a “new state system.” Clearly, this “new state system” is the dictatorship of the proletariat. Marx emphasized the decisive role of the masses in social life, saying: “The actual bearer of the state system—the people—must become the principle of the state system.” Thus, in Marx’s view, law is the product of class and society, not the product of the state as an “absolute idea.” At the same time, in a democratic state, law originates from the will of the people, thereby achieving the unity of the legislative body and the state system.

在此基础上，马克思又把民主制作为与君主制相对立的实行人民主权的政治形式进行了阐述。他指出：“不是国家制度创造人民，而是人民创造国家制度。”马克思认为，君主主权指的是在君主身上实现的主权，人民主权则只能是在人民身上实现的主权，这是两个完全对立的概念。所谓代表和象征人民主权，最终只能是对人民主权的践踏。因此，马克思明确反对君主制，主张民主制，实现人民主权。他说：“民主制是君主制的真理，君主制却不是民主制的真理。”“君主制不能从自身中得到理解，而民主制则可以从自身中得到理解。”人民主权原则的真正实现，又必须在彻底废除私有制，建立“新的国家制度”的前提下才能达到。很显然，这种“新的国家制度”就是无产阶级专政。马克思强调人民群众在社会生活中起决定作用，他说：“必须使国家制度的实际承担者——人民成为国家制度的原则。”这样，在马克思看来，法是阶级与社会的产物，而不是作为“绝对观念”的国家的产物。同时，在民主国家中，法来源于人民的意志，从而实现了立法机构与国家制度的统一。

Marx fiercely criticized Hegel’s objective idealist philosophy of law, especially his erroneous views on the state, the state system, and civil society, and through this, profoundly revealed the real factual relationship between the state and civil society. Thus, while breaking down Hegel’s objective idealism, Marx began to establish the theory of dialectical materialism. From this, Marx provided a reasonable explanation of the essence of law from the perspective of dialectical materialism, thereby deepening the understanding of the essence of law.

马克思猛烈批判了黑格尔的客观唯心主义法哲学，特别是对黑格尔关于国家、国家制度与市民社会的错误认识进行了尖锐批判，并由此深刻揭示了国家与市民社会之间真实存在的事实关系，从而在破除黑格尔客观唯心主义的同时，开始建立辩证唯物主义理论，由此，马克思对法的本质从辩证唯物主义的角度作出了合理解释，从而深化了对法的本质的认识。

V. Conclusion

五、结 语

Marx conducted an in-depth critique of Hegel’s philosophy of law and profoundly revealed the essence of law. This work [23]23 The work referred to is Marx’s *Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right* (1843). holds significant milestone importance in Marx’s intellectual transformation, particularly as it marked the beginning of Marx’s critique of bourgeois legal thought. In his subsequent theoretical explorations, Marx used this as a foundation and starting point to continuously deepen his understanding of the essence of law and related issues. Marx profoundly analyzed the class character and idealist nature of Hegel’s philosophy of law, restoring the relationship between the state and society that Hegel had inverted, thereby very clearly revealing the essence of law. In this process, Marx began his ideological transition from revolutionary democracy to communism. In this work, Marx fully revealed the characteristics of law, such as objectivity, class character, and material conditionality. These explorations laid an important ideological foundation for the formation and development of Marxist theory.

马克思对黑格尔法哲学思想进行了深入的批判，对法的本质进行了深刻的揭示。这部著作在马克思的思想转变过程中具有重要里程碑意义，特别是马克思由此拉开了批判资产阶级法律思想的序幕，在此后的理论探索中，马克思以此为基础和起点，对法的本质及相关问题的认识不断深化。马克思深刻剖析了黑格尔法哲学的阶级属性和唯心主义本质，把黑格尔颠倒了的国家与社会之间的关系还原过来，从而非常明晰地揭示了法的本质。在此过程中，马克思在思想上开始从革命民主主义向共产主义转变。马克思在这部著作中对法的客观性、阶级性和物质制约性等特征进行了充分揭示，这些探索为马克思主义理论的形成与发展奠定了重要的思想基础。

Online editor: Paul

网络编辑：保罗