Marx’s *Manchester Notebooks* and His Study of Socialist Doctrines

The *Manchester Notebooks* are the first fruit of Marx’s systematic study of socialist doctrines. With the publication of the latter part of the *Manchester Notebooks* in 2015 in Volume IV/5 of the Marx-Engels-Gesamtausgabe (hereinafter referred to as MEGA²), an international wave of research on Marx’s *Manchester Notebooks* has arisen. Scholars such as Matthias Bohlender of the University of Osnabrück, Lucia Pradella of King’s College London, and David Leopold of the University of Oxford have engaged in fruitful discussions around the documentary situation, writing background, excerpted content, and theoretical threads of these notebooks. The question they share in common is the theoretical sources and progress of Marx’s first study of socialist doctrines, which is not only directly linked to the scientific socialism founded by Marx and Engels, but also closely related, along two logics—the logic of utopia and the logic of reality—to the formation of historical materialism.

曼彻斯特笔记》是马克思第一次对社会主义学说进行系统性研究的成果。随着《曼彻斯特笔记》后半部分于2015年在《马克思恩格斯全集》历史考证版（以下简称“MEGA2”）第四部分第五卷出版，国际学术界掀起了一波对马克思《曼彻斯特笔记》研究的热潮。德国奥斯纳布吕克大学的马提亚·伯伦德、英国伦敦国王大学的露西娅·普拉德拉、英国牛津大学的大卫·利奥波德等学者纷纷围绕这一笔记的文献情况、写作背景、摘录内容和理论脉络展开了富有成效的讨论。他们共同关心的问题是马克思对社会主义学说首次研究的理论来源与进展，这不仅与马克思、恩格斯创立的科学社会主义学说有着直接的关联，而且在两条逻辑——空想逻辑和现实逻辑上与历史唯物主义的生成紧密相关。

I. A Deep Understanding of the Miserable Condition of the Proletariat

一、深入了解无产阶级的悲惨现状

As Bohlender analyses the reason Marx and Engels came to Manchester: “If England was the centre of global capitalism at the time, then Manchester could be called the heart of global capitalism.” On the eve of the founding of historical materialism, Marx and Engels came to Manchester to conduct research, where they not only saw in reality the latest developments and changes in capitalism, but also gained a deep understanding of the extreme poverty and miserable condition of the proletariat caused by capitalism. Marx also excerpted in the *Manchester Notebooks* a description of Manchester from Richard Parkinson’s *On the Present Condition of the Labouring Poor*: “In no city in the world is the distance between rich and poor so great, or the barrier between them so difficult to cross.” Therefore, gaining a deep understanding of the miserable condition of the proletariat in both theory and practice was the primary issue for Marx and Engels at this time. The study of this issue by English socialist doctrines also gave Marx a completely new understanding of the proletarian question, laying a realistic foundation for the further elaboration of communist doctrine.

正如伯伦德对马克思、恩格斯来到曼彻斯特原因的分析：“如果说英国是当时全球资本主义的中心，那么曼彻斯特则称得上是全球资本主义的心脏。”在历史唯物主义创立的前夜，马克思、恩格斯来到曼彻斯特开展研究，不仅在现实中看到了资本主义的最新发展与变化，而且深入了解了资本主义导致的无产阶级的极端贫困与悲惨现状。马克思也在《曼彻斯特笔记》中摘录了理查德·帕金森《论劳动贫困阶层的现状》一书对曼彻斯特的形容：“世界上没有哪个城市的贫富之间的距离如此之大，或者它们之间的壁垒很难跨越。”所以，在理论和实践上深入了解无产阶级的悲惨现状是马克思、恩格斯此时首要的问题，英国社会主义学说对这一问题的研究也使马克思对无产阶级问题有了全新的认识，为共产主义学说的进一步阐发奠定了现实基础。

Marx saw with his own eyes the extremely miserable condition of the proletariat in the mechanised factory system of capitalism. He excerpted extensively in the *Manchester Notebooks* the descriptions of the condition of the proletariat by English socialist scholars, gaining not only a relatively comprehensive understanding of the poverty of the proletariat in capitalist society, but also recognising that the more developed the capitalist society, the more miserable the condition of the proletariat. What is shocking is Marx’s citation of the descriptions of child labour and female labour by Frederick Morton Eden, a pioneer in the study of poverty in England and a novelist: “Very young children are employed in cotton mills, many of them collected from the workhouses of London and Westminster, unknown, unprotected, forgotten by the law. These children are usually made to labour for long hours in close rooms, often throughout the whole night, the air they breathe is saturated with the oil used on the machinery and other noxious substances, the factory pays little attention to the cleanliness of the workers, and there are frequent alternations of heat and cold, these are the causes of their universal sickness, and epidemics of influenza frequently break out in these factories.” This had a tremendous impact on Marx. These children, at an age when they should be receiving an education, not only overworked and commonly fell ill, but also could learn no labour skills, so that when they grew up they could only continue to engage in endless labour, while the growth of female child labourers in this extreme environment was even more tragic. Marx recognised that in the eyes of the factory owners, these workers were not “human beings”; they were “for the capitalist a commodity, a raw material for manufacture,” so the capitalist did not treat the workers as “human beings,” but instead used them without limit, “making the most of things,” for the sake of greater profit. This was no longer the “alienation” of philosophical theory; it was the proletariat being genuinely turned into “things” in reality. This was a real reification, and it was also an important reason for the miserable condition of the workers, who lived worse than animals. This may have reminded Marx of the slavery that had once been abolished by the bourgeoisie, so he repeatedly interwove excerpts from the works of Eden and John Wade, repeatedly interrupting his excerpts from Eden to turn to Wade’s description of the history of slavery. Marx saw that in the early period of the rise of the bourgeoisie, “if a person refused to work and was idle for three days, he would be branded on the chest with the letter V with a red-hot iron and sentenced to slavery for two years. The master would feed his slave on bread and water, and such offal as he thought fit, and drive his slave to labour by whipping or chains; if the slave did not labour for more than 14 days, he would be sentenced to lifelong servitude; if the slave chose to run away, he would be executed as a felon. In many parishes in the south of England at the present day, the poor still live in this manner, they are called roundsmen.” Marx not only saw that the poor in the south of England still existed in the form of slaves, but also recognised the similarities between the proletariat and slaves. Although slavery had been formally abolished, it had been perpetuated in a hidden way. Neither the proletariat nor the slaves had escaped the miserable condition of forced labour and extreme poverty; indeed, the life of the proletariat was even worse than that of slaves. “The only advantage of slavery over free labour is that it gives the master a motive for feeding his slave, just as he feeds his cattle; once the labourer becomes independent, this constraint is loosened.” In other words, both the slave and the proletarian sell their labour, but in the eyes of the slave-owner, the slave is a living being capable of labour whose ownership belongs to the slave-owner, so they must feed him; while in the eyes of the capitalist, the worker is only a commodity or a machine, so they simply do not care whether the worker lives or dies. The condition of the proletariat had reached an extreme degree of misery from which there was no further retreat, which impelled Marx to stand on the side of the proletariat and completely overthrow the new form of slavery created by the bourgeoisie.

马克思亲眼看到了资本主义机器化大工厂中无产阶级的极度悲惨状况。他在《曼彻斯特笔记》中大量摘录了英国社会主义学者对无产阶级现状的描述，不仅对资本主义社会中无产阶级的贫困状况有了较为全面的了解，而且认识到在愈发达的资本主义社会中无产阶级的状况就愈发悲惨。令人触目惊心的是马克思引用的英国贫困问题研究的先驱、小说家弗里德里克·莫尔顿·伊登关于童工和女工的描述：“非常年幼的儿童受雇于棉纺厂，他们中的许多人从伦敦和威斯敏斯特的救济院被收集起来，他们不为人知、不受保护，被法律所遗忘。这些孩子通常在封闭的房间里长时间劳动，经常是整夜都在劳动，他们呼吸的空气被机器上使用的油和其他有害物质所浸透，工厂很少考虑到工人的清洁问题，而且频繁地冷热交换，这些是导致他们普遍生病的原因，这些工厂里会频繁爆发流行性感冒。”这对马克思造成了巨大的冲击，这些儿童在该接受教育的年龄不仅过度劳动和普遍感染疾病，而且无法学会任何劳动技能，致使他们成年后也只能继续从事无休止的劳动，而女性童工在这一极端环境下的成长则更为悲惨。马克思认识到，在工厂主的眼中，这些工人并不是“人”，他们“对资本家来说是一种商品，一种制造材料”，所以资本家并不是以对待“人”的方式来对待工人，而是为了更大的利益而无限制地“物尽其用”。这不再是哲学理论上的“异化”，而是无产阶级在现实中确确实实被变成了“物”，这是一种现实的物化，也是导致工人境况悲惨的重要原因，工人活得甚至不如动物。这可能使马克思回想到曾经被资产阶级消灭的奴隶制，所以他多次穿插摘录了伊登和约翰·韦德的著作，多次中断对伊登的摘录转而去研究韦德关于奴隶制历史的描述。马克思看到，在资产阶级兴起的初期，“如果一个人拒绝劳动，并且游手好闲三天，他将被用烧红的烙铁在胸前烙上字母V，并将被判为奴隶，为期两年。主人将用面包和水，以及认为合适的腐肉来喂养他的奴隶，并通过鞭打或锁链来驱使他的奴隶劳动；如果奴隶不劳动14天以上，将被判处终身奴役；如果奴隶选择逃跑，将作为重罪被处死。在现在英格兰南部的许多教区，穷人仍然是以这种方式生活的，他们被称为roundsmen。”马克思不仅看到在英格兰南部穷人仍然以奴隶的形式存在，而且认识到无产阶级与奴隶存在的相似之处。尽管奴隶制在表面上被废除了，但是却以一种隐秘的方式被延续了下来，无论是无产阶级还是奴隶都没有摆脱强制劳动和极度贫困的悲惨状况，甚至无产阶级的生活还不如奴隶。“奴隶制与自由劳动相比，唯一的优点就在于它使主人有了养活奴隶的动机，就像养活牛一样；一旦劳动者获得独立，这种约束就会松动。”换言之，奴隶和无产阶级都是出卖自己的劳动，但是在奴隶主看来，奴隶是所有权归奴隶主所有的可以劳动的生命，所以必须养活他们；而在资本家眼中，工人只是商品或机器，所以他们根本不会关心工人的死活。无产阶级的境况已经到了退无可退的极度悲惨程度，这促使马克思要站在无产阶级立场彻底推翻资产阶级制造的新型奴隶制。

Marx focused his attention on the enormous gap between rich and poor in bourgeois society, particularly on the description of this phenomenon by the British socialist representative William Thompson. Marx excerpted: “Materials, buildings, machinery, wages cannot increase their own value; their added value comes only from labour. Under normal circumstances, the worker is deprived of at least half of his labour by the capitalist… then perhaps 9/10 of the achievable production of mankind will never be realized, and 99/100 of the achievable happiness of mankind will be sacrificed.” In Thompson’s view, only labour can create “added value”; it is labour that creates the portion of value exceeding the value of natural materials. This, in a certain sense, is a kind of crude surplus value. But at this time Marx was more concerned with the condition of the proletariat—that is, the worker’s labour (the wages the labour should receive) is deprived by half by the capitalist and becomes a seemingly reasonable law, which leads to the sacrifice of the happiness of 99% of humanity. In fact, it is not only the current fruits of the worker’s labour that are plundered; even the accumulated fruits of past labour are ruthlessly taken away by the capitalist: “What has been bequeathed exclusively for the benefit of the present generation as a whole is taken away, and all the benefits arising from it are monopolized entirely by those special individuals and classes.” In the *Brussels Notebooks*, Marx had recognized that all production activities presuppose material conditions of production accumulated in the past. But in the *Manchester Notebooks*, Marx further saw that these accumulated material conditions of production have become accumulated capital, usurped by the bourgeoisie. Hence, Marx commented indignantly in the notebooks: “Abandon that absurd argument that the over-rich support the poor! They give nothing to the poor; they only exchange with the poor, just as the poor exchange among themselves!” Marx recognized that it is impossible to place hope in the rich rescuing the poor; in reality, the rich will never voluntarily assume the responsibility of supporting the poor. The rich will only use money to purchase (forcibly appropriate and exploit) the cheap labour of the poor. This appears to conform to market rules, but in the end it only leads to an ever-widening gap between rich and poor. Therefore, it is absolutely impossible to pin the realization of socialism on the bourgeoisie. This impelled Marx to seek a future path of liberation from the proletariat itself.

马克思重点关注了资产阶级社会中的巨大贫富差距，特别是英国社会主义代表人物威廉·汤普森对这一现象的描述。马克思摘录道：“材料、建筑物、机器、工资都不能增加其自身价值，其附加价值仅来自劳动。在一般情况下，工人至少被资本家剥夺了一半的劳动……那么也许 9/10 的人类可实现的生产将永远无法实现，99/100 的人类可实现的幸福将被牺牲。”在汤普森看来，只有劳动才能创造“附加价值”，是劳动创造了比自然物质价值多出来的那部分价值，这其实在某种程度上是一种朴素的剩余价值，但是此时的马克思更关注的是无产阶级的状况，也就是工人的劳动（劳动应收获的工资）被资本家剥夺了一半，并成为了一种看似合理的规律，这导致99%的人类的幸福被牺牲。其实，不仅是工人当前的劳动成果被掠夺了，就连过去积累的劳动成果也被资本家无情地夺走：“遗留下来专为现在这一代全体利益的，都是被剥夺了，并且由以产生的一切利益，完全是被那些特殊人物和阶级所独享了。”在《布鲁塞尔笔记》中，马克思曾认识到所有的生产活动都是以过去积累的物质生产条件为前提的，但是在《曼彻斯特笔记》中，马克思进一步看到过去积累的物质生产条件变成了积累的资本被资产阶级霸占了。所以，马克思在笔记中气愤地评论道：“抛弃那些过分富有的人赡养穷人的荒谬论调吧！他们什么也不给穷人，他们只是和穷人交换，就像穷人互相交换一样！”马克思认识到，将希望寄托于富人救助穷人是不可能实现的，在现实中富人绝不会主动承担扶养穷人的责任，富人只会用金钱去购买（强制占有与剥削）廉价的穷人的劳动，这看似符合市场规则，但是最终只会导向贫富差距不断扩大，因此绝不可能将社会主义的实现寄托在资产阶级的身上，这促使马克思从无产阶级自身来寻求未来解放的出路。

So how does the unequal exchange between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat occur? Marx excerpted the work of John Francis Bray, writing: “The workers have always given a whole year’s labour to the capitalist in exchange for the value of only half a year’s labour. This is the unfair system of exchange we have always practised, and from it arises the inequality of wealth and power that exists among us. The inevitable result of this unequal exchange—buying at one price and selling at another—is that the capitalist remains the capitalist, the worker remains the worker; one is the ruling class, the other the slave class. Every transaction between the producer and the capitalist is an obvious fraud, a complete farce.” In the past, political economists discussed exchange more from the perspective of trade. But because the worker and labour are merely commodities or materials in the eyes of the capitalist, Bray believed that the relationship between capitalist and worker is also a kind of exchange, and an unequal one at that. Because the two sides are inherently unequal in status and wealth, the capitalist exchanges half the price for the worker’s entire labour—this is naked plunder. This may have inspired Marx’s discussion of wages in *Wage Labour and Capital*, namely, that each worker does not enter into this transaction for profit but is forced to participate in this absurd fraudulent exchange in order to survive. However, it was not until the *London Notebooks* that Marx began to understand that behind this plunder lies a complex mechanism of inversion, a mechanism that packages this exchange as an equal relationship. Only by tearing away this illusory veil could the most thorough critique of this plunder be launched, and from this the theory of surplus value was born.

那么，资产阶级与无产阶级之间的不平等交换是如何发生的？马克思摘录约翰·弗朗西斯·布雷的作品写道：“工人们一直都是拿一整年的劳动去向资本家换取仅仅半年劳动的价值，这就是我们一直所实行的不公平的交换制度，并且从中产生了现存于我们之间的财富与权力的不平等。这种交换不平等的必然结果是——买进是一个价格，卖出是另一个价格——资本家继续是资本家，工人继续是工人，一个是统治阶级，一个是奴隶阶级。在生产者和资本家之间的一切交易，都是一场显而易见的诈骗，一场彻底的闹剧。”过去的政治经济学家更多是从贸易的角度去谈论交换，但是由于工人和劳动在资本家眼中只是商品或者材料，所以布雷认为资本家与工人也是一种交换，而且是一种不平等的交换。由于双方本身在地位和财富上的不平等，资本家用一半的价钱就交换了工人的全部劳动，这是一种赤裸裸的掠夺。这可能对马克思在《雇佣劳动与资本》中探讨工资问题有所启发，即每个工人不是为了利益去参加这场交易，而是为了生存不得不参加这场荒唐的诈骗交换。但是到了《伦敦笔记》时，马克思才开始明白这种掠夺背后包含了复杂的颠倒机制，这一机制使这种交换被包装成了一种平等的关系。只有揭开这个虚幻的面纱，才能对这种掠夺展开最彻底的批判，剩余价值理论由此诞生。

Therefore, in this unequal exchange, the worker inevitably falls into a miserable situation. Marx continued to excerpt and comment: “What the producer receives when he exchanges with the capitalist is not the capitalist’s labour or the fruits of labour, but labour! Through the medium of money, the labouring class not only has to labour to maintain its own existence, but also bears the labour of other classes. Whatever the producing class receives makes no difference: the labouring class expends its own labour and maintains itself, and at the same time expends labour for the capitalist and maintains him!” Marx soberly recognized that although it appears that the worker sells his labour for wages, what he actually obtains through exchange is an invisible exploitative relationship: the worker does not labour for himself but for the capitalist’s wealth; the harder the workers compete to labour, the better the life they provide for the capitalist. This leads to a vicious cycle: the harder the workers work, the more miserable they become; conversely, the richer the capitalist becomes. This gave Marx a profound warning: the future communist society cannot be achieved by workers working twice as hard. This vicious cycle will only push the proletariat into a corner from which there is no retreat; the overthrow of the bourgeoisie is a real necessity.

因此，在这种不平等的交换中，工人必然陷入悲惨的境况之中，马克思继续摘录和评论道：“生产者在他与资本家交换时所得到的，并不是资本家的劳动或劳动成果，而是劳动！通过货币的媒介，劳动阶级不但为了要保持他们自己的生存不得不去劳动，而且他们还要担负别的阶级的劳动。生产阶级那里无论得到什么，都是没有什么区别的：劳动阶级支出了他们自己的劳动并且维持了他们自己，同时还替资本家支出了劳动而且还要维持他们！”马克思清醒地认识到，看似是工人出卖自己的劳动换取报酬，但他们通过交换真正得到的却是看不见的剥削关系：工人不是为自己劳动，而是为资本家的财富劳动，工人竞相努力地劳动其实是让资本家过上了更好的日子。这就导致了一个恶性循环：工人越努力越悲惨，相反，资本家越富裕。这让马克思深刻地警醒，未来的共产主义社会不是靠工人加倍地工作干出来的，这一恶性循环只会使无产阶级退无可退，资产阶级被推翻是现实的必然要求。

II. An Investigation of the Real Conditions, Modes of Realization, and Future Conceptions of the Socialist Movement

二、对社会主义运动现实条件、实现方式与未来设想的考察

Britain was not only the high ground of advanced capitalism at the time but also a gathering place for the brewing of the socialist movement. It was precisely the rapid development of capitalism that brought increasingly miserable conditions to the local proletariat, constituting the real factors that gave rise to the socialist movement. Therefore, Marx, having arrived in Manchester, necessarily had to proceed from the current state of the proletariat to study how to realize socialism in Britain, thereby helping him critically clarify the real conditions, modes of realization, and future conceptions of the socialist movement, laying the theoretical foundation for the doctrine of scientific socialism. Bray, a representative of British socialist doctrine and the Chartist movement, [3]3 The Chartist movement was a working-class political movement in Britain from the 1830s to the 1850s that sought political reforms, including universal male suffrage, as outlined in the People’s Charter. John Francis Bray was a socialist writer associated with the movement. attracted Marx’s attention with his conception of future socialism, which combined socialism and political economy.

英国不仅是当时发达资本主义的高地，也是酝酿社会主义运动的汇聚之地，正是资本主义的快速发展为当地无产阶级带来了愈发悲惨的境遇，构成了社会主义运动酝酿的现实因素。所以，来到曼彻斯特的马克思必然要从无产阶级的现状出发，去研究在英国如何实现社会主义的问题，从而帮助他批判性地厘清社会主义运动的现实条件、实现方式和未来设想，为科学社会主义学说奠定理论基础。英国社会主义学说和宪章派代表人物布雷从社会主义和政治经济学结合的角度对未来社会主义的设想引起了马克思的关注。

(A) An Investigation of the Various Real Conditions of the Socialist Movement

（一）对社会主义运动诸现实条件的考察

Marx investigated the many real conditions of the socialist movement, including the revolutionary subject of the socialist movement, the world-historical character of that subject, the necessary social conditions for the socialist movement, and other content. He objectively studied the important debates and outstanding contributions of British socialist doctrine, providing a critical foundation of reference for the creation of scientific socialism.

马克思考察了社会主义运动的诸多现实条件，包括社会主义运动的革命主体、主体的世界性、社会主义运动的必要社会条件等内容，客观研究了英国社会主义学说的重要争论与突出贡献，为科学社会主义的创立提供了批判性的借鉴基础。

First, determining the subject of the socialist movement. In the British socialist currents of the time, the question of the subject of the socialist movement was always a focus of debate. For example, the reformist faction of the time held that every society has poor and discontented people, that such misfortune is an inevitable existence in every society, but that if they sought to change it through revolution, it would only bring about even more unfortunate consequences. Faced with this alarmism utterly lacking in evidence, Bray pointed out: “No class in society can influence political or social change more closely than the producing classes (produktiven klassen); nor is any class more in need of seeking truth and looking to the future.” Here Marx recognized that the workers, i.e., the proletariat engaged in productive activity, are the subject of change; they transform nature and create value yet are exploited and enslaved, living an extremely miserable and impoverished life; only the producing class concerns itself with social revolution and cares about the future; only they can change the world. This gave Marx great inspiration regarding communist revolution. Unlike the preliminary establishment of the proletarian standpoint in “A Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right. Introduction,” Marx here further determined the revolutionary subject. On this basis, Marx further recognized, in the works of Parkinson, the division into two classes: “Now there are two classes engaged in a fierce intellectual struggle, each possessing convincing reasons. These two classes are the givers (capitalists) and the receivers (poor workers).” This may be the theoretical impetus for the class division in Marx’s theory of scientific socialism, which is why Marx and Engels pointed out in the *Manifesto of the Communist Party*: “Society as a whole is more and more splitting up into two great hostile camps, into two great classes directly facing each other: Bourgeoisie and Proletariat.” Second, expanding the scope of the revolutionary subject to the whole world. In 1847, after the League of the Just was renamed the Communist League, Marx and Engels formulated a new slogan for the League, changing “All men are brothers” to “Workers of the world, unite!” In the past, our research has focused more on the class character of this slogan, i.e., the shift from undifferentiated unity to class-based unity; the bourgeoisie are not brothers of the proletariat but the object to be overthrown. However, we often overlook a premise: the world. Why did Marx and Engels emphasize the unity of the proletariat of the whole world, rather than the most developed country, England, making revolution first? Because Marx and Engels had already recognized that one of the important characteristics of the proletariat is its world-historical character. Marx excerpted Bray’s words in the *Manchester Notebooks*: “Are not the laboring classes of every country like oxen and horses, without heart and without soul, simply resigned to working until death?” That is to say, the miserable fate of the proletariat exists not only in a particular country but in all capitalist societies throughout the world. Later, in the *Gulich Notebooks*, Marx further saw that it is the world-historical character of capitalist society itself that shapes the world-historical character of the proletariat, thereby bringing the possibility of proletarian revolution; the proletariat will inevitably become the “gravedigger” of the bourgeoisie. On this basis, Marx and Engels clearly stated in the *Manifesto of the Communist Party*: “The bourgeoisie has through its exploitation of the world-market given a cosmopolitan character to production and consumption in every country.” It is also on this basis that Marx, in his late reply to Vera Zasulich, indicated that Russia’s communism is inseparable from the world-historical communist movement. It can be seen that the world-historical character of the proletariat became an important thread in Marx’s communist doctrine, and its theoretical starting point is likely the *Manchester Notebooks*.

第一，确定社会主义运动的主体。在当时的英国社会主义思潮中，社会主义运动的主体问题始终是争论的焦点。例如，当时的改良派认为每个社会都有贫苦和对社会不满的人，这种不幸是每个社会的必然存在，但是如果他们想要通过革命来改变，就只会带来更加不幸的后果。面对这一毫无论据的危言耸听，布雷指出：“社会上没有任何一个阶级能比生产阶级（produktiven klassen）更密切地影响政治或社会变革；也没有任何一个阶级更需要寻求真理和展望未来。”马克思在这里认识到，工人即参与生产活动的无产阶级是变革的主体，他们改造自然、创造价值却被剥削和奴役，却过着极为悲惨和贫困的生活，只有生产阶级才关注社会革命，并关心未来，只有他们才能改变世界。这在共产主义革命方面给予了马克思极大的启发，与《〈黑格尔法哲学批判〉导言》中的无产阶级立场的初步确立不同，马克思在这里进一步确定了革命主体。在此基础上，马克思还在帕金森的著作中进一步认识到两个阶级的划分：“如今存在着两种阶级在思想上激烈交锋，每一个都拥有令人信服的理由。这两个阶级就是给予者（资本家）和接受者（贫穷的工人）。”这有可能是马克思科学社会主义理论中阶级划分的理论动因，所以马克思和恩格斯才会在《共产党宣言》中指出：“社会日益分裂为两大敌对的阵营，即分裂为两大相互直接对立的阶级：资产阶级和无产阶级。”第二，将革命主体的范围扩大至全世界。1847年，正义者同盟改名为共产主义者同盟后，马克思、恩格斯为同盟制定了新的口号，即将“四海之内皆兄弟”改为“全世界无产者联合起来”。过去我们的研究更多地关注了这一口号的阶级性，即从无差别的联合向阶级性联合的转变，资产阶级不是无产阶级的兄弟，而是要推翻的对象。但是我们往往忽略了一个前提：全世界。为什么马克思、恩格斯要强调全世界无产阶级的联合，而不是最发达的英国先革命？因为马克思、恩格斯已经认识到，无产阶级的重要特性之一就是世界性。马克思在《曼彻斯特笔记》中摘录了布雷的话：“每一个国家的劳动阶级不是都像牛马一样，非但没有心脏，而且没有灵魂，只是听天由命一直工作到死为止么！”也就是说，无产阶级的悲惨命运不仅仅存在于某个国家，而是存在于全世界所有的资本主义社会之中。而之后在《居利希笔记》中，马克思进一步看到了是资本主义社会本身的世界性塑造了无产阶级的世界性，从而带来了无产阶级革命的可能性，无产阶级必将成为资产阶级的“掘墓人”。在此基础上，马克思、恩格斯才会在《共产党宣言》中明确提出：“资产阶级既然榨取全世界的市场，这就使一切国家的生产和消费都成为世界性的了。”也是基于此，马克思会在晚年给查苏利奇的回信中表示，俄国的共产主义离不开世界性的共产主义运动。可见，无产阶级的世界性成为马克思共产主义学说中的重要线索，其理论起点很有可能就是《曼彻斯特笔记》。

Third, examining the necessary social conditions for the socialist movement. From the perspective of the subject, Marx excerpted Bray’s words: “Only after people have suffered great oppression can they think of great reforms.” Bray believed that when a person encounters extreme poverty and misery, they are forced to change, and the producing class is precisely this subject with no way out. From the perspective of objective conditions, Bray believed that machinery is the foundation of the socialist movement: “The present system of society is engendered by machinery, and it will also be destroyed by machinery.” Here Marx realized that the system of society has its foundation, and the present social system is based on machine-based large-scale industry, which already indicates that machine-based large-scale industry is the mode of production of capitalist society. This greatly promoted Marx’s discourse on production, enabling Marx to see that it is a definite mode of material production that determines the operation of society and the superstructure, and that the mode of material production determines the forms of intercourse in civil society. Therefore, Bray summarized the real conditions for overthrowing the bourgeois system: “Changes in capital, or the accumulation of capital for the purpose of effecting such changes—these are the two absolutely indispensable conditions for the success of any plan that has been studied.” This consideration of real conditions was brought to Bray by his political economy research, and it also prompted Marx to think, starting from objective social reality, about the conditions for the future realization of communism. The result of Marx’s critical appropriation of this view may be the famous thesis of the “two inevitables” [4]4 The “two inevitables” (两个决不会) is a formulation from Marx’s 1859 preface to *A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy*, stating that a social order does not perish until all productive forces it can contain are developed, and new relations of production do not appear until their material conditions have matured in the old society. It is often paired with the “two inevitables” (两个必然) regarding the inevitable fall of capitalism and victory of communism from the *Manifesto of the Communist Party*. put forward in the preface to *A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy*: “No social order is ever destroyed before all the productive forces for which it is sufficient have been developed, and new superior relations of production never replace older ones before the material conditions for their existence have matured within the framework of the old society.”

第三，考察社会主义运动必要的社会条件。从主体方面来看，马克思摘录了布雷的话：“只有人们受了极大的迫害之后，才能想到极大的改革。”布雷认为当一个人遭遇极度的贫困和悲惨后，就会被迫发生改变，而生产阶级就是这一无路可退的主体。从客体条件来看，布雷认为机器是社会主义运动的基础，“现在社会的体制是机器所孕育的，同时它也会被机器摧毁”。马克思在这里意识到，社会的体制是有其基础的，而现在的社会体制建立在机器化大生产的基础之上，这已经说明了机器化大生产是资本主义社会的生产方式，给予了马克思生产话语极大的促进，使马克思看到是一定的物质生产决定了社会的运行与上层建筑，物质生产的方式决定了市民社会的交往形式。所以，布雷总结了推翻资产阶级制度的现实条件：“资本的变化或为实现这种变化而进行的资本积累——这是已经研究过的任何计划取得成功的两个绝对不可缺少的条件。”这一现实条件的考量是布雷的政治经济学研究带给他的，这也促使马克思从客观的社会现实出发去思考未来共产主义实现的条件。马克思对这一观点批判性借鉴的结果可能就是《政治经济学批判。第一分册》序言中提出的“两个决不会”的著名论断：“无论哪一个社会形态，在它所能容纳的全部生产力发挥出来以前，是决不会灭亡的；而新的更高的生产关系，在它的物质存在条件在旧社会的胎胞里成熟以前，是决不会出现的。”

(II) An Examination of the Mode of Realization of the Socialist Movement

（二）对社会主义运动实现方式的考察

Marx systematically studied the mode of realization of the socialist movement proposed by Bray. He both actively learned from and borrowed Bray’s specific views and critically sublated Bray’s utopian character. Although Marx did not fully agree with Bray’s conception of the mode of the socialist movement, Bray nevertheless gave Marx important inspiration for observing capitalist society and how to organize the proletarian revolution, providing a theoretical foundation different from political economy for the creation of the new worldview.

马克思系统研究了布雷提出的社会主义运动实现方式，他既积极学习借鉴了布雷的具体观点，又批判性地扬弃了布雷的空想性质。尽管马克思并没有完全同意布雷关于社会主义运动方式的设想，但布雷却给予了马克思观察资本主义社会以及如何组织无产阶级革命的重要启发，为新世界观的创立提供了与政治经济学不一样的理论基础。

Bray wrote at the very beginning of his work: “All history tolls the same knell for human hope and happiness.” In the opening of the first chapter, he defined human history, holding that the entire history of mankind is a history of human misfortune. Coincidentally, Marx and Engels made a similar definition at the beginning of the first chapter of the *Manifesto of the Communist Party*: “The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles.” Bray believed that although human history has undergone continuous change and revolution, it has not changed the fate of human misfortune. While Marx also acknowledged that human history is one of continuous revolution and movement, he described it more precisely as class struggle. Compared to Bray’s pessimistic view, Marx’s description of historical reality is more objective; this is a concrete manifestation of the victory of the logic of reality over the logic of humanism in Marx’s mind.

布雷在其著作中开宗明义地写道：“全部历史都在为人类的希望和幸福敲响相同的丧钟。”他在第一章开篇就对人类历史进行了定义，认为整个人类的历史都是人类不幸的历史。无独有偶，马克思、恩格斯在《共产党宣言》第一章开篇同样做了一个定义：“至今所有一切社会的历史都是阶级斗争的历史。”布雷认为尽管人类的历史不断发生变革和革命，但是并没有改变人类不幸的命运。而马克思虽然也承认人类历史是不断革命和运动的，却更精准地将其描述为阶级斗争。相比于布雷的悲观看法，马克思对历史现实的描述更为客观，这是马克思头脑中现实逻辑战胜人本主义逻辑的具体体现。

After narrating human history as a whole, Bray continued to analyze the general laws of society and put forward an important metaphor: “Society is an artificial state of existence, the application of human reason to a superstructure, the foundation of which is laid only by nature.” This metaphor of “foundation–superstructure” undoubtedly had an important influence on Marx. Bray believed that the difference between society and nature lies in the fact that society is an artificial form of existence, its foundation is laid by nature, but the superstructure is the application of human reason. Therefore, human behavior in society must conform to the guidance of reason in order to gradually move toward the social form of socialism. Marx certainly did not accept this rational presupposition of social form; Marx had already recognized the falsity of this rational conception of the state when he criticized Hegel in 1843–1844. However, he borrowed this innovative metaphor and détourned it into the historical materialist discourse on the relationship between the state (superstructure) and the social organization (foundation) constituted by production and intercourse in *The German Ideology*.

在叙述了人类历史整体后，布雷继续对社会的一般规律进行分析，提出了一个重要的比喻：“社会是一种人为的存在状态，是人类理性对上层建筑的应用，而上层建筑的基础只是由自然界奠定的。”这一“基础—上层建筑”的比喻无疑对马克思产生了重要影响，布雷认为，社会与自然的区别在于，社会是一种人为性的存在形态，其基础是自然奠定的，但上层建筑是人类理性的应用。所以社会中人的行为必须符合理性的引导，才能逐步走向社会主义的社会形态。马克思当然没有接受这一理性预设的社会形态，马克思在1843—1844年批判黑格尔的时候就已经认识到这一理性国家观的虚假性，但是他却借用了这一创新性的比喻，将其异轨为《德意志意识形态》中关于国家（上层建筑）和由生产与交往构成的社会组织（基础）之间关系的历史唯物主义话语。

So, what does behavior guided by reason look like? Bray held: “The whole movement requires only cooperation in its simplest form, just as it now exists in every trade and workshop.” The mode of socialist movement Bray envisioned was consistent with Robert Owen’s conception of cooperative factories, as if a harmonious socialist society could be realized simply through equal cooperation within the factory. But its utopian character lies in “not introducing new principles and modes of action, but only applying existing principles and modes to a new object.” This inevitably leads to the incompleteness of the socialist movement; indeed, the movement is doomed from the start to remain unfinished. Where Marx surpassed them was in using a scientific discourse of production to penetrate the foundation of social development, and in thoroughly overthrowing bourgeois society through the transformation of the mode of production. This is precisely where the real logic of historical materialism transcends utopian socialism.

那么，符合理性引导的行为是什么样的？布雷认为：“整个运动只需要最简单形式的合作，就像现在存在于每个行业和工场中的合作一样。”布雷设想的这一社会主义运动方式与罗伯特·欧文设想的合作制工厂一致，似乎只需要按照工厂的平等合作就可以实现一个和谐的社会主义社会，但其空想性在于“不是引进新的原则和行动方式，而只是把现有的原则和方式应用于一个新的对象”。这必然会导致社会主义运动的不彻底，甚至这一运动从开始时就注定无法完成。马克思超越他们之处就在于以科学的生产话语来透视社会发展的基础，以生产方式的变革来彻底推翻资产阶级社会，这也正是历史唯物主义的现实逻辑超越空想社会主义之处。

Therefore, Bray’s socialist program was gradualist: “Society cannot be expected to perfect itself all at once… When people regard all their fellow beings as members of one great family, sharing common interests and advancing toward a common goal, society will gradually and imperceptibly enter the required state and establish the institutions and customs essential to the highest level of civilization.” From today’s perspective, this appears as a very naive fantasy, even approaching the ideological propaganda of capitalist states. Yet in 19th-century Europe it won substantial support from the working class. Marx may have recognized here that socialist/communist doctrines must be easily understood and accepted by the working class; a straightforward method of exposition—describing suffering plus envisioning the future—more readily wins working-class support. This implies that the obscure discourse of philosophy must be eliminated, a recognition that would lead to the collective absence of philosophical discourse in works such as *The German Ideology* and *Capital*. However, this gradualist socialist vision is fundamentally different from Marx’s position of thoroughly overthrowing capitalist society. Placing hope in society itself is a kind of utopianism: not only will capitalist society not perish of its own accord, but this also negates the subjective initiative of the working class. Moreover, Bray opposed violent armed revolution, arguing that political revolution would lead to social turmoil, and therefore advocated passively waiting for society to change on its own. Marx certainly could not agree with this view, which impelled him to establish a scientific socialist doctrine that would draw a clear line of demarcation from utopian socialist currents.

所以，布雷的社会主义方案是渐进式的，“不能指望社会能一下子就完善起来……当人们把所有的同胞都看做一个大家庭的成员，拥有共同的利益并向共同的目标迈进时，社会就会在不知不觉中逐渐进入所需的状态，并建立起对最高文明水平至关重要的制度和习俗”。这在现在看来是十分幼稚的幻想，甚至接近于资本主义国家的意识形态宣传，但在19世纪的欧洲却收获了大量工人阶级的支持。马克思可能在这里认识到的是，社会主义/共产主义学说必须能让工人阶级容易理解和接受，描述苦难加上展望未来这种简单明了的论述方法更容易获得工人阶级的支持，这就意味着哲学的晦涩话语必须删除，这一认识将导致《德意志意识形态》和《资本论》等著作中哲学话语的集体缺场。然而，这种渐进式的社会主义设想与马克思彻底推翻资本主义社会的主张有着本质性的不同。将希望寄托于社会本身就是一种空想，不仅资本主义社会不会自己走向灭亡，而且还抹杀了工人阶级的主观能动性。甚至，布雷还反对暴力的武装革命，他认为政治的革命会导致社会动乱，所以主张被动等待社会自身变化。马克思当然不会同意这一观点，这促使马克思必须建立一种科学的社会主义学说，与空想的社会主义思潮划清界限。

(3) An Examination of the Ideal Future Socialist State

（三）对未来社会主义理想状态的考察

Regarding the conception of the future socialist state, utopian socialist thinkers held different views and ideals. Bray’s conception was rather distinctive: he combined the theory of political economy and proposed a future socialist state with the characteristics of a joint-stock company, which greatly attracted Marx’s attention.

关于未来社会主义状态的设想，空想社会主义学家们有着不同的观点与理想。而布雷的设想是较为特殊的，他结合了政治经济学的理论，提出了具有股份制公司特点的未来社会主义状态，这极大地引起了马克思的关注。

Bray envisioned: “This will be an extension of the association of a few individuals for some purpose, into a union of the people of a nation; just as a joint-stock company is more powerful than an individual, so a nation composed of such companies will be superior to any isolated combination.” Bray regarded the joint-stock company system as a beautiful blueprint for future society. He believed this association was an association of the people, and a social form in which the old are cared for, the young are educated, and men and women are equal. Little did he know that this joint-stock company system and its extended stock forms have now become the most powerful tools for big capitalists in capitalist society to exploit the labor and money of others. It can be said that at this time Marx was not very familiar with joint-stock companies; he merely made extensive excerpts of Bray’s bold conception and left no commentary of his own.

布雷设想道：“这将是少数个人为实现某种目标而进行的联合的延伸，变成一个国家人民的联盟；正如一个股份公司比个人更强大一样，一个由这种公司组成的国家将比任何孤立的组合更优越。”布雷将股票公司制度视做未来社会的美好蓝图，他认为这种联合是人民的联合，而且是老有所养、幼有所教、男女平等的社会形式。殊不知，这种股份制公司以及其延伸的股票形式现在恰恰成了资本主义社会中大资本家盘剥他人劳动与金钱的最有力工具。可以说，此时的马克思对股份制公司是不太熟悉的，他只是大量摘录了布雷的这一大胆创想，并没有留下自己的评论。

However, perhaps inspired by Bray, Marx paid close attention to this special financial form after the *Manchester Notebooks*. He excerpted joint-stock forms of companies in the *Gülich Notebooks* and the *London Notebooks*, and in the *New-York Daily Tribune* of July 11, 1856, he analyzed the possible role of joint-stock companies in abolishing capitalism: “It cannot be denied that the application of the joint-stock form in industry marks a new era in the economic life of modern nations. On the one hand, it reveals a previously unimagined combined productive capacity and gives industrial enterprises a scale beyond the capacity of individual capitalists; on the other hand, it should not be forgotten that what is united in the joint-stock company is not individuals, but capital. Through this practice, private owners become shareholders, that is, speculators. The accumulation of capital is accelerated, and the inevitable result is that the bankruptcy of the petty bourgeoisie is also accelerated.” Marx’s attitude toward joint-stock companies was dialectical: he saw both the enormous productive forces they generated and predicted the possibility that joint-stock companies would accelerate capitalism’s crisis and demise. Moreover, this associative form of the joint-stock company might also enable the transition of private property into “the property of associated producers.” On this point, Bray’s view may have influenced Marx.

不过，也许是受到布雷的启发，马克思在《曼彻斯特笔记》之后一直十分关注这一特殊的金融形式，分别在《居利希笔记》和《伦敦笔记》中摘录了股份制形式的公司，并在1856年7月11日的《纽约每日论坛报》上分析了股份制公司对于消灭资本主义所可能发挥的作用：“不能否认，在工业上运用股份公司的形式，标志着现代各国经济生活中的新时代。一方面，它显示出过去料想不到的联合的生产能力，并且使工业企业具有单个资本家力所不能及的规模；另一方面，不应当忘记，在股份公司中联合起来的不是单个人，而是资本。由于这一套做法，私有者变成了股东，即变成了投机家。资本的积聚加速了，其必然结果就是，小资产阶级的破产也加速了。”马克思对待股份制公司的态度是辩证的，他既看到了其带来的巨大生产力，也预测了股份制公司加速资本主义走向危机与灭亡的可能性，并且股份制公司的这种联合形式也可能使私有制过渡为“联合起来的生产者的财产”。在这一点上，布雷的观点可能对马克思有所影响。

However, Bray did not describe how this beautiful state would be realized, nor did he clarify on what basis of productive forces this associative production was founded, nor how it would escape the exploitation of capital. The scientific socialist doctrine does not focus on describing what future life should be like, “not a state to be established”; rather, it focuses on how to change the world and thoroughly overthrow the rule of the bourgeoisie—it is “the real movement which abolishes the present state of things.” This constitutes the most essential difference between Marx’s real logic and the utopian logic of British socialism.

然而，布雷并没有描述这一美好的状态如何实现，没有阐明这种联合性的生产是建立在什么样的生产力基础之上，又是如何摆脱资本之剥削的。而科学社会主义学说重点论述的不是未来的生活应该是什么样，“不是应当确立的状况”；而是如何改变世界和彻底推翻资产阶级的统治，是“消灭现存状况的现实的运动”。这构成了马克思的现实逻辑与英国社会主义的空想逻辑最本质上的不同。

3. Seeking the Possibility of the Subject of Liberation in the Relationship between Man and Environment

三、在人与环境的关系中寻找解放的主体可能性

After systematically studying the works of popular socialist theorists of the time such as Thomas Rowe Edmonds, William Thompson, and John Francis Bray, Marx turned to making extensive excerpts of the works and articles of the representative figure of utopian socialism—Robert Owen—including *A New View of Society*, *Lectures on the Marriages of the Priesthood of the Old Immoral World*, *Six Lectures Delivered in Manchester*, and *The Book of the New Moral World* (four volumes). Here, Marx focused on Owen’s theses concerning the relationship between man and nature. This not only laid the theoretical foundation for the formation of the epistemology of historical materialism, but also, through his critique of Owen, gradually established the possibility of the subject for the realization of communism.

在系统研究了托马斯·罗·艾德蒙斯、汤普森、布雷等当时流行的社会主义理论家的著作后，马克思转而去大量摘录了空想社会主义的代表人物——罗伯特·欧文的一系列著作和文章，包括《论人类性格的形成》《关于教士阶层婚姻的演讲》《在曼彻斯特的六次演讲》和《新道德世界书》（四卷本）。在这里，马克思集中关注了欧文关于人与自然关系的论断，不仅为唯物史观认识论的形成奠定了理论基础，而且也在对欧文的批判中逐步确立了共产主义实现的主体可能性。

Owen’s argument begins with the formation of the human spiritual world. Owen acutely points out: “The character of every man is formed by himself,” and people are responsible for their own character and actions. However, Owen believes that the character of all people is “formed for him,” and Marx underlines this term. In other words, human character and behavior have two sources: vertically, the generational transmission from elders to descendants; horizontally, the influence of the external environment, which has nothing to do with the person himself. It is worth noting that the external environment Owen refers to is not merely objective things, but “affairs”—it is activities and relations related to people that dominate them. This may have had an important influence on Marx’s insight into the “thing” of historical materialism. Within the horizon of historical materialism, Marx and Engels both affirmed the sensuous existence of things and saw through the invisible existence of things—that is, the process by which things become things and activities produce things. This dual-perspective scientific method of cognition explains the complex relations between humans and nature and between humans and humans. However, Owen’s emphasis on the environment cancels out subjectivity. He believes that “the will of man can never control his own views,” and Bray inherits this view from Owen, holding that “the simple nature of man is originally like a blank sheet of paper, capable of receiving every different impression; environment and the influence of life cultivate the person.” This materialist view is of course correct, but it is not profound. One of its greatest differences from historical materialism is the absence of the subject, and Marx would never agree with this view. Because the proletariat as a subject is the starting point and end point of all Marx’s theories, if it is believed that people cannot actively transform and overthrow the existing system and revolution, then the realization of socialism would have to rely passively on the changes of society itself. Therefore, in 1888, Engels added a supplementary note to Marx’s “Theses on Feuerbach”: “The materialist doctrine that men are products of circumstances and upbringing, and that, therefore, changed men are products of changed circumstances and changed upbringing, forgets that it is men who change circumstances and that the educator must himself be educated. Hence, this doctrine is bound to divide society into two parts, one of which is superior to society (for example, in Robert Owen).” It can be clearly seen that Marx’s statement is directed at the external determinism of Owen and Bray. Where Marx’s new worldview surpasses Owen and Bray is in establishing a subject-object bidirectional interactive relationship starting from practice. In his view, “the coincidence of the changing of circumstances and of human activity or self-change can be conceived and rationally understood only as revolutionary practice.”

欧文的论证是从人的精神世界之形成开始的，欧文敏锐地指出：“每一个人的性格是由他自己形成的”，人们对自己的性格和行为负责。但是欧文认为所有人的性格都是“为他性（formed for him）”的，马克思用下划线标注了这一词。换言之，人的性格和行为有两个来源：从纵向来看是长辈到晚辈的代代传承，从横向来看是外界环境的影响，与人自身是没有关系的。值得注意的是，欧文认为的外界环境并不仅仅指的客体之物（thing），而是“事情（affairs）”，是与人有关的活动和关系支配着人，这可能对马克思透视历史唯物主义之“物”有着重要影响。在历史唯物主义的视域中，马克思、恩格斯既肯定了物的感性存在，又透视了物看不见的存在，即物何以成为物、活动何以生产物的过程，此双重透视的科学认识方法阐释了人与自然、人与人的复杂关系。然而，欧文对环境的强调取消了主体性，他认为“人的意志决不能控制自己的看法”，而布雷也继承了欧文的这一观点，认为“人类的单纯品性本是像一张白纸一样，可以接受每一种不同的印象，环境和生活的影响培养了人”。这一唯物主义的观点当然是正确的，但却是不深刻的，其与历史唯物主义的最大差别之一就是主体的缺场，马克思绝不会同意这一观点。因为无产阶级这一主体是马克思一切理论的出发点和落脚点，如果认为人没有办法主动改造和推翻现有的制度和革命，那么社会主义的实现也就要被动地依靠社会本身的变迁。所以，恩格斯在1888年为马克思《关于费尔巴哈的提纲》中的“有一种唯物主义学说，认为人是环境和教育的产物，因而认为改变了的人是另一种环境和改变了的教育的产物，——这种学说忘记了：环境正是由人来改变的，而教育者本人一定是受教育的”这段话补充说明道：“例如在罗伯特·欧文那里就是如此。”可以明显看出，马克思的这句话就是指向欧文与布雷的外部决定论，马克思的新世界观超越欧文和布雷之处就在于创立了从实践出发的主客体双向互动关系，在他看来，“环境的改变和人的活动的一致，只能被看作是并合理地理解为革命的实践”。

On this basis, Owen further proposes that human nature is determined by the external environment. Marx excerpts Owen’s *The Book of the New Moral World*: “Man is a compound being, whose character is formed by his constitution and organization at birth, and by the influence of external circumstances (Umstände) on that organization, which influence continues from his birth to his death.” Marx actively absorbed Owen’s view on the formation of human nature. Owen believes that “man” is a compound being, the sum total of all external environmental influences on a person. Since each person’s experience is never exactly the same, each person’s character is also different. Marx, however, gave a more precise definition of human nature from the dimension of social relations: “the ensemble of the social relations.” Where Marx surpasses Owen is that he believes the environment is itself the result of human transformation, so human subjective initiative can not only transform nature and society but also change oneself. The complex bidirectional construction of “human—environment—human” is an important breakthrough in the discourse of historical materialism concerning the relations between humans and nature and between humans and society. Owen states: “Every individual is placed in certain external circumstances, which act upon his particular organization at an early period of his life.” It is worth noting that when Marx transcribes Owen into German, he uses the word “Umstände” (circumstances), whose basic meaning in German is situation, state of affairs. Marx and Engels also use this concept in *The German Ideology*: “Each generation, on the one hand, continues the inherited activity under completely changed circumstances, and, on the other hand, modifies the old circumstances through a completely changed activity.” Here, Marx and Engels describe the situation accumulated by past productive forces; people must produce and change within historical circumstances. This concept is historical, whereas Owen regards Umstände as the surrounding environment in which each person lives from birth. However, when Marx and Engels explain the relationship between consciousness and environment in *The German Ideology*, they use a different concept of environment: “My relation to my environment is my consciousness”—here “environment” is “Umwelt.” Although both concepts can be translated as “environment” in Chinese, “Umwelt” is more complex: it not only has the meaning of natural environment but also the meaning of the environment of social relations between people, implying a bidirectional relationship between humans and nature and between humans and their surrounding environment. Therefore, Marx uses the directional preposition “zur” (to) to express the relationship of human consciousness to the environment, rather than Owen’s concept of external determination expressed as “the environment acts upon (auf) him.” This greatly surpasses Owen’s external determinism in terms of nature, society, and subjectivity.

在此基础上，欧文进一步提出人的本质是由外部环境决定的。马克思摘录欧文的《新道德世界书》道：“人是一个聚合的本质，他的性格是由他生下来的体质和组织，以及外在环境（Umstnde）对其组织的影响而形成的，这种影响会从他出生一直持续到死。”马克思积极吸收了欧文关于人本质形成的观点，欧文认为“人”是一个聚合的本质，是所有外在环境对人的影响的总和，由于每个人的经历不会完全相同，所以每个人的性格也不同。而马克思则从社会关系的维度对人的本质进行了更加精确的定义：“它是一切社会关系的总和。”马克思超越欧文之处在于，他认为环境其实也是人改造的结果，所以人的主观能动性不仅能够改造自然和社会，也能改变自己，“人—环境—人”的复杂双向建构是历史唯物主义话语中人与自然、人与社会关系的重要突破。欧文提出：“每个人都是在某些外部环境中生存的，这些环境在他一生的早期对特定组织起作用。”值得注意的是，马克思在用德语转译欧文时候用的是“环境”（Umstnde）一词，这个概念在德语中的基本含义是情况、事态。而马克思、恩格斯在《德意志意识形态》中也使用了这一概念：“每一代一方面在完全改变了的环境下继续从事所继承的活动，另一方面又通过完全改变了的活动来改变旧的环境（Umstnde）。”在这里，马克思、恩格斯形容的是过去生产力积累下来的情况，人们必须在历史性的情况中生产和改变，这一概念是具有历史性的，而欧文将Umstnde视为每个人自出生以来生活的周围环境。但是马克思、恩格斯在《德意志意识形态》中阐释意识与环境的关系中却使用了另外一个环境概念：“我对我的环境的关系是我的意识”中的“环境”是“Umwelt”。虽然这两个概念在中文语境中都可以翻译为“环境”，但是Umwelt更加复杂，其不仅有自然环境的含义，也有人与人社会关系环境的含义，背后包含了人与自然、人与人周遭环境的双向关系，所以马克思用“对”（zur）这一含有方向的介词来表示人的意识与环境的关系，而不是用欧文所用的“环境行为对（auf）他”的外部决定性概念，这在自然、社会、主体性方面都大大超越了欧文的外部决定论。

IV. Reality and Utopia: Marx’s Two Logics of Critiquing British Utopian Socialism

四、现实与空想：马克思批判英国空想社会主义的两条逻辑

Overall, similar to the young Marx’s thought, the main ideas of British utopian socialism also contain two logics. Before the birth and germination of historical materialism, the philosophical logic of humanism and the realistic logic of economics had been struggling within Marx’s mind, presenting different dominant logics in different texts. As Marx’s study of political economy deepened, especially with the gradual germination of the discourse of production in the *Brussels Notebooks*, the realistic logic began to gain the upper hand. Among the main views of the British utopian socialists, the logic starting from reality and the logic starting from utopia were also contending. They both saw the miserable condition of the real proletariat and the social laws described by economics, and they were full of longing for a future good society, yet they lacked a practical and effective plan to transform the miserable society into a good life. Marx, now dominated by the realistic logic, paid more attention to the realistic logic of British socialism. He not only critically confronted the utopian logic of British socialism but also, within this utopian logic, speculatively sublated his own humanistic logic, further confirming his own realistic logic. Therefore, in this sense, Marx’s “change the world” proposed in the “Theses on Feuerbach” is not merely a declaration; it represents a practical and effective plan based on the real social and historical laws, heralding the birth of a new worldview.

总的来看，与青年马克思思想相似的是，英国空想社会主义的主要思想也存在着两条逻辑。在历史唯物主义诞生和萌芽前，人本主义的哲学逻辑与经济学的现实逻辑一直在马克思头脑中斗争，并在不同文本中呈现出不同的主导逻辑，而随着马克思政治经济学研究的愈发深入，特别是在《布鲁塞尔笔记》中生产话语的逐渐萌芽，现实逻辑开始占据上风。而在英国空想社会主义者的主要观点中，从现实出发的逻辑和从空想出发的逻辑同样在进行着角逐，他们既看到了现实无产阶级的悲惨状况和经济学描述的社会规律，又对未来美好的社会充满憧憬，却没有一个切实有效的方案将悲惨的社会转变为美好的生活。而由现实逻辑主导的马克思此时更加关注英国社会主义的现实逻辑，不仅批判性面对了英国社会主义的空想逻辑，而且在这一空想逻辑中镜像性地扬弃了自我的人本主义逻辑，进一步确证了自身的现实逻辑。所以在这个意义上，马克思在《关于费尔巴哈的提纲》中提出的“改变世界”不仅仅是一个宣言，而且代表着基于现实的社会历史规律而提出的切实有效的方案，昭示着新世界观的诞生。

First, Marx critically transcended two logics in Owen. In Owen’s mind there existed two logics—a materialist one (external determinism) and a utopian one (moral fantasy about a future society)—with the utopian logic being the dominant one. From the perspective of actual logic, the future society Owen envisioned was not a complete castle in the air; he paid close attention to the laws of operation of real society. Marx excerpted Owen’s discussion of the scientific elements constituting man and society: first, the law of human nature, “proving that man is a social being”; second, the practical law of the production process, understanding “the principles and practice of the best mode of producing wealth”; third, the practical law of the distribution process, understanding “the principles and practice of the best mode of distributing that wealth beneficially to all”; fourth, through understanding the laws of man and society, constructing a new educational environment, “forming a new combination of circumstances that will render the child, when mature, the most rational being”; fifth, constructing a new mode of social combination, “combining these different parts of social science in due proportions into one system, so as to obtain and secure for all the greatest permanent benefit and enjoyment in the best manner.” It can be seen that Owen not only proposed understanding the laws of human nature but also already described man as a “social being.” Although this differs from the “social being” [gesellschaftliches Dasein] used by Marx and Engels—in that it discusses the relationship between man and society only from the perspective of external determinism—this view nonetheless must have had a certain heuristic effect on the formation of the basic principles of historical materialism. At the same time, Owen placed great emphasis on the laws of the mode of production and distribution, taking the mode of production as the core link in the production process. This may also have prompted Marx to pay further attention to this category in his study of political economy, and subsequently, in *The German Ideology*, to view the general historical development of society historically from the perspective of the mode of production. However, from the perspective of utopian logic, the focus of Owen’s socialism was on how beautiful the future world would be: “Scientific arrangements will be established, wealth will then always flow for human needs and desires, and all efforts at individual accumulation, any kind of inequality, will be resolutely abolished.” Marx’s focus, by contrast, was on how to overthrow the existing bourgeois system. Owen was “interpreting the (future) world,” while Marx was “changing the world.” This is the greatest theoretical heterogeneity between the two and also the crucial foothold of Marx’s actual logic.

第一，马克思对欧文的两条逻辑进行了批判性超越。在欧文头脑中存在两条逻辑，唯物的（外部决定论）和空想的（未来社会道德幻想），空想的逻辑是其主导逻辑。从现实逻辑来看，欧文设想的未来社会并不是完全的空中楼阁，他十分关注现实社会的运行规律。马克思摘录了欧文关于人与社会构成的科学要素的论述：其一，人性的规律，“证明人是社会存在”；其二，生产过程中的实践规律，了解“最佳生产方式的原理和实践”；其三，分配过程中的实践规律，“了解将这种生产有益地分配给所有人的最佳方法的原理和实践”；其四，通过对人与社会规律的了解，建构新的教育环境，“形成一种新的情境组合，使孩子成熟时成为最理性的人”；其五，建构一个新的社会组合方式，“以适当的比例将社会科学的这些不同部分结合到一个系统中，以最好的方式为所有人获得并确保最大的永久利益和享受”。可以看出，欧文不仅提出要了解人性的规律，而且已经将人形容为一种“社会存在”。虽然这与马克思、恩格斯使用的“社会定在”有所区别，即只是从外部决定论来谈论人与社会的关系，但是这一观点必然也对历史唯物主义基本原理的形成具有一定的启发作用。同时，欧文对生产方式和分配的规律十分重视，将生产方式作为生产过程的核心环节，可能也促使马克思进一步在政治经济学研究中关注这一范畴，进而在《德意志意识形态》中从生产方式的角度来历史性地看待社会的一般性历史发展。然而，从空想逻辑的角度来看，欧文社会主义的关注点是未来世界是多么美好的：“科学的安排将会建立起来，财富在那时将始终对于人类的需要和愿望来说都是涌流的，所有对个体积累的努力，任何一种不平等的情况都将被坚决取缔。”而马克思的关注重点则是如何推翻现有的资产阶级制度。欧文是在“解释（未来）世界”，而马克思是在“改变世界”，这是两者最大的理论异质性，也是马克思现实逻辑的重要落脚点。

Second, Marx ruthlessly exposed the utopian logic of the Chartist faction represented by Thompson. Starting from the labor theory of value, Thompson argued that the distribution of wealth was unequal and that society should distribute wealth on the basis of wisdom and morality. But in reality, the relationship between the distribution of wealth and wisdom and morality had become inverted: “It is precisely because of the difference in treatment that one side becomes awakened, the other ignorant; one side becomes moral, the other vicious. Who is to judge whether a person is intelligent and good? At least it is his claim about the inequality of distribution.” It should be noted that although Thompson and others discussed things that actually happened, their dominant logic was a value postulate of “ought,” projecting an impossibility onto reality. Thompson only analyzed the theoretical reasons why the distribution of wealth “ought” to be inverted, but did not explain the real possibility of “how” to invert it. This was consistent with Marx’s earlier humanist logic. However, through a careful study of Thompson’s future scheme, Marx could clearly detect the unreal nature of these utopian schemes. By negating utopian socialism, he achieved a mirror-like negation of the remnants of his own humanist logic. Marx pointed out sharply that all of Thompson’s conceptions were based on an imagined “equal security and voluntary exchange.” Thompson held: “The price of a thing should be the labor expended on it, or exactly equal to, not more than, its value.” This view is plausible but not realistic. If reality could, as Thompson imagined, be based on equal exchange of labor, then the distribution of wealth among people would indeed be more harmonious. But unfortunately, Thompson was not a creator, and there is no creator in the world. The laws of real society will not change according to anyone’s subjective will; this “ought” can only degenerate into utopia. On this point, we must also acknowledge the fundamental heterogeneity between the language of political economy and the language of utopian socialism pointed out by Berend [Matthias Bohlender?], and the reality of capitalist society kept Marx at a critical distance from utopian socialism. Therefore, on the basis of the dominance of actual logic and the complete sublation of utopian logic, Marx wrote in *The German Ideology*: “Communism is for us not a state of affairs which is to be established, an ideal to which reality [will] have to adjust itself. We call communism the real movement which abolishes the present state of things.” Consequently, Marx specifically excerpted Parkinson’s evaluation of the Chartists: “Chartism and socialism are essentially a discontent arising from real or imagined injustice, whether directed against individuals or against society as a whole.” Marx had already seen the utopian character of the Chartists and other socialist doctrines, which also prompted him to expound a scientific communist doctrine starting from reality.

第二，马克思对以汤普森为代表的宪章派空想逻辑进行了无情揭露。汤普森从劳动价值论出发，认为财富分配是不均衡的，社会应该从智慧与道德出发来分配财富，但是现实过程中财富的分配与智慧、道德的关系却出现了一种颠倒：“正是由于待遇的不同，一方变得觉醒，另一方变得无知，一方变得道德，另一方变得罪恶。应由谁来分辨一个人是聪明善良的呢？至少是他对分配不均的宣称。”需要注意的是，尽管汤普森等人谈论的内容都是现实发生的事情，但是他们的主导逻辑是“应该”的价值悬设，在现实中期许了一种不可能性。汤普森只分析了财富的分配为什么“应该”颠倒过来的理论原因，却没有阐释“如何”颠倒过来的现实可能性，这与之前马克思的人本主义逻辑是一致的。不过，马克思通过对汤普森未来方案的仔细研究，能够很明显地发现这些空想方案的非现实性，通过否定空想社会主义，来达到镜像性否定自己的人本主义逻辑残余。马克思一针见血地指出，汤普森的一切设想都是基于想象中的“平等安全与自愿交换”。汤普森认为：“一件东西的价格应该是它所耗费的劳动，或者说是完全等同于，而不是多于它的价值。”这一观点合情但不合理，如果现实能像汤普森想象的这样基于劳动平等交换，那么人与人之间的财富分配确实会更加和谐，但遗憾的是，汤普森并不是造物主，世界上也不存在造物主。现实社会的规律也不会按照任何人的主观意志而改变，这一“应该”只能沦为空想。在这一点上，我们也必须承认伯伦德指出的政治经济学的语言与空想社会主义语言之间存在着根本的异质性，资本主义社会的现状使马克思对空想社会主义始终保持着批判性的距离。所以在现实逻辑的主导和对空想逻辑的彻底扬弃基础上，马克思才会在《德意志意识形态》中写道：“共产主义对我们来说不是应当确立的状况，不是现实应当与之相适应的理想。我们所称为共产主义的是现实的运动，那种消灭现存状况的现实的运动。”因此，马克思特别摘录了帕金森对宪章派的评价：“宪章主义和社会主义本质上是一种产生自现实的或者幻想的不公的不满，或者是对个体，或者是对社会整体。”马克思已经看到了宪章派和其他社会主义学说的空想性，这也促使他从现实出发阐释一种科学的共产主义学说。

Third, Marx critically drew on Bray’s “two voices.” The German scholar Matthias Bohlender, borrowing Maurice Blanchot’s method of textual analysis of “two voices,” argued that Bray and the young Marx are typical cases of the interweaving of two voices: the language of politics (socialist doctrine) and the language of political economy.

第三，马克思批判性地借鉴了布雷的“两种声音”。德国学者马提亚·伯伦德借用莫里斯·布朗肖的“两种声音”的文本分析方法，认为布雷和青年马克思是典型的两种声音的交织，即政治的语言（社会主义学说）和政治经济学的语言。

From the perspective of socialist doctrine, Bray put forward three assumptions: (1) all people are the same, whether in essence, origin, or existence; (2) material goods in their natural state have no value for man and must be made useful to man only through the medium of labor; (3) because human nature and needs are the same, human rights must be equal, and therefore all means of production and land should be publicly owned.

从社会主义学说的角度来看，布雷提出了三点假设：（1）一切人都是一样的，无论是在本质方面、来源方面，还是在生存方面；（2）物质资料在自然状态之下，对人是没有价值的，并且必须通过劳动的媒介，才能为人所用；（3）由于本性和需要相同，所以人的权利必须是平等的，因此一切生产资料和土地都应该是公有的。

It can be clearly seen that Bray’s argument, based on the equality of human nature and basic needs, posits the ought-ness of public ownership of property and rights. This is consistent with the line of argument of Marx’s humanist logic in the *Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844*.

可以明显看出，布雷的这个论述是基于人的本性和基本需要之平等性，来设想财产和权利公有的应然性，与《1844年经济学哲学手稿》中马克思的人本主义逻辑论述思路是一致的。

From the perspective of political economy (which is more important), Marx focuses on recounting Bray’s views on the study of political economy. First, Bray believes that political economy is a doctrine that studies “the foundation of the existing system,” and that facts have proven that political economists “have already found some basic principles” regarding the fundamental principles of modern society, but that these fundamental principles ultimately point to the miserable future of the working people. This is Bray’s affirmation of the principles of political economy, and it also enables Marx to see that if one wishes to gain a deep understanding of the modern social system, one must learn the basic viewpoints of political economy; political economists have indeed made important contributions in this regard. This is also the reason Marx engaged with political economy throughout his life. Second, Bray believes that the judgments of political economists are accurate under certain circumstances, but are not necessarily applicable to all situations; they “are correct in some principles, in some cases, but these same principles are not correct in all cases.” This, to a certain extent, articulates a view close to historical materialism: that definite social being determines social consciousness, that there are no eternal economic laws, and that all doctrines and consciousness arise and are applicable within definite social contexts. This view inspired Marx. And more importantly, Bray proposes “to fight them [the political economists] on their own ground and with their own weapons.” Criticizing and refuting political economy on the same basis is undoubtedly very difficult, yet it greatly resonated with both Bray and Marx, because this is precisely what Marx persistently did throughout his life; we cannot but admire Marx’s extraordinary efforts. As Berendt says, Bray and Marx shared the same starting point on this issue, but they went in different directions. Bray moved toward utopian socialism, while Marx, on the path of historical materialism, continuously scaled the peaks of truth in search of the possibility of human emancipation.

从政治经济学的角度来看（这更重要），马克思着重转述了布雷关于政治经济学研究的看法。首先，布雷认为，政治经济学是研究“现存制度的基础”的学说，而且事实证明他们在关于现代社会基本原理方面“已经找到了一些基本原理了”，但是这一基本原理最终指向的是劳动人民的悲惨未来。这是布雷对政治经济学原理的肯定，也使马克思看到若想对现代社会制度有深入的了解，就必须学习政治经济学的基本观点，政治经济学家们在这方面的确作出了重要的贡献。这也是马克思一生都在与政治经济学打交道的原因。其次，布雷认为政治经济学家的判断在一定的情况下是准确的，但是并不一定适用于一切情境，他们“在某一些原则，在某一些情况下，是对的，但是这一些同样的原则，并不是在一切情况之下也是对的”。这恰恰在一定程度上道出了与历史唯物主义相近的观点：一定的社会存在决定社会意识，不存在永恒的经济学规律，一切学说和意识都是在一定的社会情境中产生并适用的。这一观点给马克思以启发。并且更重要的是，布雷提出要“在他们（政治经济学家）自己的阵地上并且用他们自己的武器与之作战”。在相同的基础上批判和反驳政治经济学，这无疑十分困难，却极大地引发了布雷与马克思的共鸣，因为这恰恰是马克思一生始终在坚持做的事情，我们不得不钦佩马克思卓绝的努力。正如伯伦德所言，布雷与马克思在这一点上的出发点是一致的，但是两者却走向了不同的方向。布雷走向了空想社会主义，而马克思则在历史唯物主义的道路上为寻找人类解放的可能性不断攀登真理的高峰。

Online editor: Paul

网络编辑：保罗