*The Holy Family* and the Formation of Historical Materialism

The main target of criticism in *The Holy Family* is the Berlin “Free Men” [1]1 The “Free Men” (Die Freien) were a group of Young Hegelians in Berlin, centred on the Bauer brothers, known for their radical critique of religion and politics, often expressed in a literary and ironic style. represented by the Bauer brothers; the title “The Holy Family” itself adapts a religious story to satirise the caricature-like completion of Hegel’s dialectic by the philosophy of self-consciousness. However, in this process, Marx and Engels also expressed considerable respect for Feuerbach, naming their own theory “real humanism.” To uphold and advance dialectical materialism and historical materialism, and to profoundly grasp their inner unity in the formation of historical materialism, we need to further answer three core questions: what is real humanism, how to understand the relationship between humanist materialism and historical materialism, and how to comprehend the critique of “the mystical side of the Hegelian dialectic.”

《神圣家族》中主要批判的是以鲍威尔兄弟为代表的柏林“自由人”，“神圣家族”这个标题也是化用宗教故事来讽刺自我意识哲学对黑格尔辩证法的漫画式完成。只不过，在此过程中，马克思和恩格斯还在很大程度上表达了对费尔巴哈的尊重，将自己的理论命名为“现实人道主义”。坚持并推进辩证唯物主义和历史唯物主义，在唯物史观的形成过程中深刻把握二者的内在统一，需要我们进一步回答什么是现实人道主义、如何把握人本唯物主义和历史唯物主义的关系、如何理解“对黑格尔辩证法的神秘方面”的批判三个核心问题。

How to View “Real Humanism”

怎样看待“现实人道主义”

“Real humanism has no more dangerous enemy in Germany than spiritualism or speculative idealism.” [2]2 Marx and Engels, *The Holy Family*, Chapter 1. The opening of *The Holy Family* makes clear the stance of Marx and Engels themselves and the object of their critique. Thus, in understanding and positioning *The Holy Family*, the most fundamental issue is how to understand “real humanism.” From Stirner’s critique of Feuerbach during this period, it can be seen that within the Young Hegelian circle at the time, Marx and Engels were mainly regarded as members of the Feuerbachian school. In Ruge’s words, the group of authors of the *Deutsch-Französische Jahrbücher*, including Marx, Engels, and himself, together constituted a “humanist school.” [3]3 Arnold Ruge (1802–1880) was a German philosopher and political writer, a Young Hegelian and co-editor of the *Deutsch-Französische Jahrbücher* with Marx. In other words, around the time of the publication of *The Holy Family*, the Young Hegelians and German intellectual circles were more concerned with the “humanism” aspect of “real humanism.” Engels pointed out in *Ludwig Feuerbach and the End of Classical German Philosophy* that the science of real people and their historical development, “this work of going beyond Feuerbach and further developing Feuerbach’s standpoint was begun by Marx in 1845 in *The Holy Family*.” [4]4 Engels, *Ludwig Feuerbach and the End of Classical German Philosophy* (1886). When reviewing the formation of historical materialism, both Marx and Engels emphasised the “real” aspect of “real humanism.”

“现实人道主义在德国没有比唯灵论或者说思辨唯心主义更危险的敌人了。”《神圣家族》的开篇就指明了马克思恩格斯自身的立场与批判的对象。这样，在理解和定位《神圣家族》的问题上，最为根本的问题就是如何理解“现实人道主义”。从这一时期施蒂纳对费尔巴哈的批判可以发现，在当时的青年黑格尔派内部，马克思和恩格斯主要被看作费尔巴哈派的成员。用卢格的话说，包括马克思、恩格斯和他自己在内的《德法年鉴》的作者群共同构成了一个“人道主义学派”。换言之，在《神圣家族》发表前后，当时的青年黑格尔派和德国知识界，更为关注的是“现实人道主义”中的“人道主义”一面。恩格斯在《路德维希·费尔巴哈和德国古典哲学的终结》中指出，关于现实的人及其历史发展的科学，“这个超出费尔巴哈而进一步发展费尔巴哈观点的工作，是由马克思于1845年在《神圣家族》中开始的”。马克思恩格斯在回顾唯物史观的形成过程时，都强调了“现实人道主义”中的“现实”一面。

What is the “real” in “real humanism”? In terms of *The Holy Family* itself, it is most concentratedly embodied in Marx and Engels’ analysis of the relationship between interests and ideas, between the masses and spirit, and in the important judgment that the source of history lies in material production. Understanding how “real humanism” goes beyond and further develops Feuerbach can be more clearly elucidated by combining it with the *Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844*. In the *1844 Manuscripts*, Marx generally employed Feuerbach’s humanist critical method and, integrating his study of political economy, put forward the theory of “alienated labour,” expounding its four determinations. [5]5 The four determinations of alienated labour in the *1844 Manuscripts* are: the worker’s alienation from the product of labour, from the act of labour itself, from the species-being, and from other human beings. Through in-depth analysis of the relations of private property and the examination of the concept of communism, Marx increasingly clearly recognised that alienated labour is an abstraction occurring in reality, and that behind objectified labour lie real social relations. In this process, marked by the assertion that “within the determination of alienation” is contained “the positive moments of the Hegelian dialectic,” [6]6 Marx, *Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844*, “Critique of Hegel’s Dialectic and General Philosophy.” Marx had already begun to realise that the view of the species-being of man contained a non-historical abstraction. In the second half of 1844, while writing *The Holy Family*, Marx still identified his and Engels’ position as “real humanism,” but here he had already begun to pay more attention to the process of real people and their historical development.

什么是“现实人道主义”中的“现实”呢？就《神圣家族》本身来说，最集中体现在马克思和恩格斯对于利益和思想、群众和精神关系的辨析，以及历史的发源地在于物质生产的重要判断之中。理解“现实人道主义”对费尔巴哈的超出和进一步发展，结合《1844年经济学哲学手稿》可以得到更为清晰的阐明。在《1844年经济学哲学手稿》中，马克思在总体上运用了费尔巴哈的人本主义批判方法，并结合政治经济学研究提出了“异化劳动”理论，论述了异化劳动的四重规定。在对私有财产关系的深入分析以及共产主义概念的辨析中，马克思越发清晰地认识到异化劳动是一种现实中发生的抽象，以及对象化劳动背后现实的社会关系维度。在此过程中，以“在异化这个规定之内”包含“黑格尔辩证法的积极的环节”这一论断的作出为标志，马克思已经开始意识到人的类本质观点中存在着非历史的抽象。在1844年下半年创作《神圣家族》的过程中，马克思还将自己和恩格斯的立场标识为“现实人道主义”，但是这里已经开始更多关注现实的人及其历史发展的过程了。

Focusing on the Theoretical Innovation of “Materialism”

聚焦“唯物主义”的理论创新

An important theoretical contribution of *The Holy Family* is its exposition of the origins of “materialism” and its connections with humanism, socialism, and communism. To be precise, although Marx and Engels mentioned the term “materialism” in various places in their early writings, the works that centrally discuss the problem of materialism are mainly *The Holy Family* and the *Theses on Feuerbach*. These two texts mark a completely new stage in Marx’s understanding of materialism, a stage that itself contains two moments: the sublation of Feuerbach and old materialism and the elaboration of new materialism, or, in other words, reflecting on humanist materialism and moving towards historical materialism.

《神圣家族》一个重要的理论贡献就是论述了“唯物主义”的来源，及其同人道主义、社会主义和共产主义之间的联系。实事求是地说，在马克思和恩格斯的早期文献中虽然在不同地方都提到过“唯物主义”这个术语，但是集中论述唯物主义问题的主要是《神圣家族》和《关于费尔巴哈的提纲》。这两篇文献标志着马克思对唯物主义理解的一个全新阶段，这一阶段又包含两个环节：扬弃费尔巴哈和旧唯物主义、阐发新唯物主义，或者说反思人本唯物主义、走向历史唯物主义。

Before the *Deutsch-Französische Jahrbücher*, Marx mainly used “materialism” or “materialist” in a pejorative sense, or in a sense that only valued utility and neglected reason. For example, in his political articles from the *Rheinische Zeitung* period, Marx mentioned “crude materialism”; in the manuscript of the *Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right*, he criticised both “spiritualism” and “materialism” together, in the sense of their opposition. In contrast, Engels gave a positive evaluation of British empiricism and French materialism. After Marx went to Paris in 1843, he began to pay attention to and reflect on the materialism prevalent in French intellectual circles, and attempted to link it with the Feuerbachian humanism formed in the German critique of religion. In this sense, Engels’ assessment is pertinent: “The practical need for the struggle against existing religion drove the most resolute of the Young Hegelians back to English and French materialism.” [7]7 Engels, *Ludwig Feuerbach and the End of Classical German Philosophy*. During this period, “humanism” constituted an important motive prompting Marx and Engels to focus on “English and French materialism.” And this “real humanism” itself was closely related to the critique of bourgeois private property and the exploration of socialism and communism. Therefore, in *The Holy Family*, the elaboration of “materialism” is itself linked both to Marx and Engels’ critique of speculative idealism and to their understanding of communism. It is thus not difficult to understand that the core concern in the *Theses on Feuerbach* when elaborating new materialism is the problem of the development of real people. As Marx said, “The standpoint of the old materialism is civil society; the standpoint of the new materialism is human society, or social humanity.” [8]8 Marx, *Theses on Feuerbach*, Thesis 10.

在《德法年鉴》之前，马克思主要是在贬义或者说只重功利、忽视理性的意义上使用“唯物主义”或“唯物论”的。比如，在《莱茵报》时期的政论文章中马克思提到了“粗陋的唯物主义”，在《黑格尔法哲学批判》手稿中又是在“唯灵论”和“唯物论”相对立的意义上对二者共同进行了批判。反倒是恩格斯对英国经验论和法国唯物主义给出了肯定性的评价。马克思在1843年前往巴黎后，开始关注并思考法国思想界流行的唯物主义，并尝试将其与德国宗教批判中形成的费尔巴哈的人道主义联系起来。在这个意义上，恩格斯的评述是中肯的：“对现存宗教进行斗争的实践需要，把大批最坚决的青年黑格尔分子推回到英国和法国的唯物主义。”这一时期，“人道主义”构成了促使马克思和恩格斯关注“英国和法国的唯物主义”的重要动因。而这种“现实人道主义”本身又同资产阶级私有财产批判、社会主义和共产主义的探索密切相关。因此，在《神圣家族》中，对“唯物主义”的阐发本身既同马克思和恩格斯对思辨唯心主义的批判相联系，也同他们对共产主义的理解相关联。这就不难理解：《关于费尔巴哈的提纲》阐发新唯物主义时的核心关切是现实的人的发展问题。正如马克思所说，“旧唯物主义的立脚点是市民社会，新唯物主义的立脚点则是人类社会或社会的人类”。

The Critique of the Mystical Side of the Hegelian Dialectic

对黑格尔辩证法的神秘方面的批判

Marx mentioned in the Afterword to the second edition of Volume I of *Capital*: “When the Hegelian dialectic was still in fashion, I already criticised its mystical side.” [9]9 Marx, *Capital*, Volume I, Afterword to the Second Edition. From Marx’s early published works available at the time, this critique is mainly concentrated in *The Holy Family*, particularly in the section “The Secret of Speculative Construction.” [10]10 This section is Chapter 4 of *The Holy Family*, where Marx critiques speculative philosophy by analysing the example of “fruit” as a universal idea. In simple terms, “the reification of the idea, the subjectification of substance” constitutes Marx’s critique here of the secret of the Hegelian construction. This grasp of the basic characteristic of the Hegelian method is not only precise but also highly effective in criticising the philosophy of self-consciousness, which is a caricature-like completion of the Hegelian dialectic. However, combining Marx’s exposition of “real humanism” and his subsequent elaboration of “new materialism,” we can see that Marx’s critique of the mystical side of the Hegelian dialectic itself underwent an arduous process of exploration, contains rich substantive content, and constitutes an important theoretical starting point for formulating historical materialism, criticising the bourgeois mode of production, and achieving the transformation of socialism from utopia to science.

马克思在《资本论》第一卷第二版跋中曾提到，“当黑格尔辩证法还很流行的时候，我就批判过黑格尔辩证法的神秘方面”。从当时已经公开发表的马克思早期著作来看，这一批判主要集中在《神圣家族》，特别是“思辨结构的秘密”这一部分。简单来说，“观念实体化、实体主体化”构成了马克思在这里对黑格尔结构秘密的批判。这一对黑格尔方法基本特征的把握不仅精准，而且在批判作为黑格尔辩证法漫画式完成的自我意识哲学时十分有力。只不过，结合马克思对“现实人道主义”的论述以及之后对“新唯物主义”的阐发，我们可以看到：马克思对黑格尔辩证法的神秘方面的批判本身经历了一个艰辛的探索过程，蕴含着丰富的实在内容，构成了制定唯物史观、批判资产阶级生产方式、实现社会主义从空想到科学的转变的重要理论出发点。

Although Marx, at the age of 19, once accepted the Hegelian philosophy of “seeking reason in reality,” in the manuscript *Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right* he had already clearly set out to criticize the mysticism in Hegel’s conception of the state. In Marx’s view, Hegel’s theory of the state was nothing more than a “mysticism of private property.” Consequently, in *The Holy Family* he hoped to use a “sober philosophy” to oppose “drunken speculation.” Only, this philosophy, besides emphasizing a departure from sensuous, actual existence, also paid particular attention to revealing the actual basis behind this speculation, or rather the mechanism of “abstract power enslaving man” that emerges in the actual socio-historical movement. Therefore, when Marx criticized Hegel’s dialectic and his entire philosophy in the *Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844*, he not only stressed that Feuerbach had truly overcome the old philosophy in the sense of discarding Strauss and Bruno Bauer, but also, in the sense of dissecting “civil society” or analyzing material relations of life, acknowledged the positive significance of Hegel’s dialectic. This linked together, in a speculative manner, the various moments of actual movement. Hence, a genuine critique of Hegel’s dialectic had to move toward the science of actual human beings and their historical development, thoroughly clarifying the secret, within the bourgeois mode of production, of “turning men into hats” and “turning hats into ideas.” In this sense, although for a long period after *The Holy Family* Marx referred to Hegel and his dialectic in a negative sense, the “search for the rational form of the dialectic” was precisely embedded in these empirical investigations that distanced themselves from Hegel yet ceaselessly dissected the dialectical moments of actual material production. In *Capital*, Marx certainly opposed the mystical aspect of Hegel’s speculative structure, but he exposed the secret of the capitalist mode of production in a historical, materialist, and dialectical manner.

虽然马克思在19岁时曾经接受“到现实中去寻求理性”的黑格尔哲学，但在《黑格尔法哲学批判》手稿中，他已经明确要批判黑格尔国家观中的神秘主义。在马克思看来，黑格尔的国家学说不过是一种“私有财产的神秘主义”。因此，他在《神圣家族》中希望用“清醒的哲学”来对抗“醉醺醺的思辨”。只不过，这种哲学除了强调从感性的现实存在物出发外，还特别注意揭示这种思辨背后的现实基础，或者说现实社会历史运动中出现的“抽象力量奴役人”的机制。因此，马克思在《1844年经济学哲学手稿》批判黑格尔的辩证法和整个哲学时，不仅在摒弃施特劳斯和布鲁诺·鲍威尔的意义上强调费尔巴哈真正克服了旧哲学，而且在“市民社会”解剖或物质的生活关系分析的意义上，认可黑格尔辩证法的积极意义。这就以思辨的方式将现实运动的各个环节连缀起来了。因此，真正对黑格尔辩证法的批判，就必须走向现实的人及其历史发展的科学，彻底阐明资产阶级生产方式中存在的“把人变成帽子”“把帽子变成观念”的秘密。在这个意义上，虽然《神圣家族》之后很长一段时间内，马克思都是在否定的意义上提到黑格尔和他的辩证法的，但是对于“辩证法的合理形态的探索”恰恰内蕴于这些远离黑格尔但又不断剖析现实物质生产运动辩证环节的实证探索之中。在《资本论》中，马克思当然反对黑格尔思辨结构的神秘方面，但以历史的、唯物的、辩证的方式揭露了资本主义生产方式的秘密。

In summary, *The Holy Family* constitutes a key link in the formation of historical materialism, and “real humanism” constitutes a key link in “moving toward the science of actual human beings and their historical development.” Although Marx and Engels were more or less influenced by Feuerbach in the second half of 1844, the crucial step of “going beyond Feuerbach and further developing Feuerbach’s standpoint” had already been taken. This consisted in constructing a dialectical, historical, and practical materialism through the critique of political economy and the exploration of socialist and communist practice. Today, rereading *The Holy Family* means more deeply appreciating that Marx and Engels insisted on starting from reality, grasping the structure of society and the trend of history, upholding dialogue and exchange between different viewpoints, daring to discover science and reveal truth in theoretical struggle and self-criticism, adhering to methodological self-awareness, and continuously advancing theoretical innovation on the basis of new great practice.

综上所述，《神圣家族》构成了唯物史观形成的关键一环，“现实人道主义”构成了“走向现实的人及其历史发展的科学”的关键一环。虽然马克思和恩格斯在1844年下半年或多或少受到费尔巴哈的影响，但是“超出费尔巴哈而进一步发展费尔巴哈观点”的关键一步已经迈出了。这就是在政治经济学批判和社会主义共产主义实践的探索中，建构辩证的、历史的、实践的唯物主义。今天，重读《神圣家族》，就是要更加深切体会马克思和恩格斯坚持从现实出发，把握社会的结构和历史的趋势，坚持不同观点的对话交流，勇于在理论斗争和自我批评中发现科学、揭示真理，坚持方法论自觉，在新的伟大实践基础上不断推进理论创新。

(The author is a researcher at the Center for Cognition and Society, Nanjing University)

（作者系南京大学认知与社会研究中心研究员）