Engels’s Critique of “True Socialism” and Its Implications

The trend of thought known as “True Socialism” emerged in Germany in the 1840s, attempting to transplant Anglo-French utopian socialist doctrines onto German idealist philosophy. This trend not only “spread like an epidemic” at the time, but also, by virtue of its “abstract humanitarian discourse” cloaked in German philosophical garb, seriously misled the workers’ movement. This anti-proletarian stance, divorced from any real foundation, became a major target of Marx and Engels’s critique. In the “Preface” and “Conclusion” to his 1844 work *Excerpts from Fourier on Commerce* (hereafter *Excerpts*), Engels systematically criticized this trend for the first time, characterizing it as an “inferior” theoretical variant. Based on a textual examination of *Excerpts*, and drawing on the critiques of “True Socialism” in works such as *The German Ideology* and the *Communist Manifesto*, this article reveals the substantive content and theoretical significance of Engels’s critique in *Excerpts*, and elucidates its profound implications for ideological construction in the New Era.

“真正的社会主义”思潮出现于19世纪40年代的德国，它试图将英法空想社会主义学说移植到德国唯心主义哲学之上。“真正的社会主义”思潮不仅在当时“像瘟疫一样流行起来”，更因其披着德国哲学外衣的“抽象人道主义话语”而对工人运动产生了严重误导。这种脱离现实根基的反无产阶级立场，成为马克思恩格斯的重要批判对象。恩格斯在1845年出版的《傅立叶论商业的片段》(以下简称《片段》)一书的“前言”和“结束语”中，首次对这一思潮进行了系统批判，将其定性为“劣等的”理论变种。本文基于对《片段》的文本考察，结合马克思恩格斯在《德意志意识形态》《共产党宣言》等著作中对“真正的社会主义”思潮的批判，揭示恩格斯在《片段》中批判的实质内涵与理论意义，并阐释其对新时代意识形态建设的深刻启示。

I. The Historical Genesis of the “True Socialism” Trend

一、“真正的社会主义”思潮的历史生成

At a time when England and France had already completed the Industrial Revolution and the proletariat had entered the historical stage as an independent political force, the German bourgeoisie was not yet mature. The German petty bourgeoisie attempted to reinterpret Anglo-French utopian socialist doctrines through “German philosophy,” replacing class struggle with ethical utopianism. On this point, Marx described the Germany of the period when the “True Socialism” trend was taking shape in his “Introduction to a Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right”: “In France and England what is about to come to an end is just now beginning in Germany. There, the obsolete, rotten system, which is being fiercely opposed in theory but endured like chains, is here welcomed as the first rosy dawn of a beautiful future.”

当英法两国已完成工业革命、无产阶级作为独立政治力量登上历史舞台时，德国资产阶级尚未成熟。德国小资产阶级试图通过“德国哲学”重新解释英法空想社会主义学说，以伦理乌托邦替代阶级斗争。对此，马克思在《〈黑格尔法哲学批判〉导言》中描述了“真正的社会主义”思潮形成时期的德国：“在法国和英国行将完结的事物，在德国现在才刚刚开始。这些国家在理论上激烈反对的、然而却又像戴着锁链一样不得不忍受的陈旧腐朽的制度，在德国却被当做美好未来的初升朝霞而受到欢迎。”

1. The Dissolution of Hegelian Philosophy and the Differentiation of the Young Hegelians

1.黑格尔哲学的解体与青年黑格尔派的分化

The rise of the “True Socialism” trend is linked to the differentiation of the Young Hegelians. Examining this connection within the overall context of the development of German ideology in the 1840s makes it clearer. After Hegel’s death, the Hegelian school split into the Old Hegelians and the Young Hegelians. The Old Hegelians devoted themselves to elaborating Hegel’s philosophical theory, but were quite conservative on political and religious issues. They regarded the Prussian state as the embodiment of world reason and Christian power, opposing the progressive demands of the radical bourgeoisie for freedom of belief, freedom of thought, and the separation of church and state. The Young Hegelians, on the other hand, represented the interests of the radical bourgeoisie, adopting a radical stance in the fields of philosophy and religion, and advocating criticism of the feudal hierarchy, the aristocratic autocratic state, and Christianity. The Young Hegelians’ critique of religion was not for abstract philosophical purposes, but aimed at solving real political problems. However, there were also differences and struggles within the Young Hegelian camp.

“真正的社会主义”思潮的兴起与青年黑格尔派的分化存在着关联，将这一关联置于19世纪40年代德意志意识形态发展的整体脉络中加以考察，将更为清晰。黑格尔去世后，黑格尔学派分化为老年黑格尔派与青年黑格尔派。老年黑格尔派致力于深入阐释黑格尔的哲学理论，然而在政治议题和宗教议题上，却相当保守。老年黑格尔派将普鲁士国家视为世界理性和基督教权力的体现，反对资产阶级激进派关于信仰自由、思想自由和政教分离等进步要求。青年黑格尔派则代表了激进资产阶级的利益，在哲学和宗教领域表现出激进的立场，主张对封建等级制度、贵族的专制国家以及基督教等进行批判。青年黑格尔派对宗教的批判，并非出于抽象的哲学目的，而是旨在解决现实政治问题。但青年黑格尔派内部也存在着分歧与斗争。

“Substance is subject” is a core proposition of Hegel’s philosophical system. Strauss emphasized “substance”; in *The Life of Jesus*, he deconstructed the sacredness of the Gospels using the method of historical criticism, arguing that the Gospel stories were the embodiment of the faith of the early Christian community, an unconscious product of the group spirit. Bauer, on the other hand, stressed that “self-consciousness” was the sole substance and creator of the world, arguing that religion was a deliberate fiction of the subject. The debate between them was essentially a disagreement over whether “substance” or “self-consciousness” was the fundamental driving force of history—that is, each clung to one of these two dimensions of Hegel’s philosophy.

“实体即主体”是黑格尔哲学体系的核心命题。施特劳斯侧重“实体”，在《耶稣传》中，施特劳斯以历史批判方法解构福音书的神圣性，认为福音故事是早期基督教徒群体信仰的体现，是群体精神的无意识产物。鲍威尔则强调“自我意识”是世界的唯一实体和创造者，认为宗教是主体的有意虚构。二者的争论本质上是对“实体”与“自我意识”何者为历史根本动力的分歧，即对黑格尔哲学中这两个维度的各执一端。

This debate intensified with the intervention of Feuerbach. In *The Essence of Christianity*, Feuerbach criticized both sides for failing to escape the idealist framework and proposed “anthropological materialism.” He reduced theology to human alienation, emphasizing that the essence of “divinity” is objectified human nature that has been abstracted. However, “man makes his own essence an object, and then makes himself an object of this objectified, transformed into a subject, personal essence.” This further reveals the process of alienation in which man, after enshrining the “god” he himself created as a substance, is instead dominated by it. Feuerbach argued that “religion separates man’s essence from man,” ultimately making man a slave dependent on religion. The proposal of “anthropological materialism” shook the common ground of the Young Hegelians, caused further differentiation among them, and provided the intellectual premise for the emergence of the “True Socialism” trend.

这一争论因费尔巴哈的介入而激化。费尔巴哈在《基督教的本质》中批判上述双方均未脱离唯心主义框架，并提出“人本学唯物主义”。他将神学归结为人的异化，强调“神性”的本质是被抽离的对象化的人性。但是，“人使他自己的本质对象化，然后，又使自己成为这个对象化了的、转化成为主体、人格的本质的对象”。这就进一步揭示了人将自己创造的“神”奉为实体后，反而被其支配的异化过程。费尔巴哈提出，“宗教使人的本质跟人割离开来”，使人最终成为依附于宗教的奴隶。“人本学唯物主义”的提出动摇了青年黑格尔派的共识基础，造成了青年黑格尔派的进一步分化，并为“真正的社会主义”思潮的出现提供了思想前提。

The differentiation of the Young Hegelians and the rise of the “True Socialism” trend roughly constitute two aspects of the same intellectual-historical process: on the one hand, the Young Hegelians provided the philosophical foundation for the “True Socialism” trend. Although Feuerbach’s theory of alienation did not deeply touch upon the socio-economic structure, it profoundly exposed the phenomenon of religious alienation. However, the “True Socialists” reduced it to a transhistorical, abstract ethical proposition, completely evading the core issue of transforming the relations of production centered on the ownership of the means of production in real society.

青年黑格尔派的分化与“真正的社会主义”思潮的兴起，大致构成同一思想史进程的两方面：一方面，青年黑格尔派为“真正的社会主义”思潮提供了哲学基础。费尔巴哈的异化理论虽未能深入触及社会经济结构，却也深刻揭露了宗教异化的现象。但“真正的社会主义”者将其简化为超历史的、抽象的伦理命题，完全回避了现实社会中围绕生产资料所有制的生产关系变革这一核心问题。

After the *Rheinische Zeitung* and the *Deutsche Jahrbücher* were banned, and Bauer’s teaching post was revoked, Bauer’s criticism became extreme. In 1843, after founding the *Allgemeine Literatur-Zeitung*, Bauer entered a phase of “pure criticism,” extending his critique from religion to all existing institutions, including the state and political parties, with a particular focus on criticizing the masses. He considered the masses “lazy, superficial, and self-satisfied,” the “greatest enemy of progress,” and therefore “the true enemy of spirit is to be sought in the masses.” Through his critique of the masses, Bauer believed that the superficiality and narrow-mindedness of the masses prevented great undertakings from succeeding, and that the limited nature of the masses’ “self-consciousness” hindered the realization of freedom and liberation. To break through this limitation, it was necessary to elevate the masses’ “self-consciousness” to “universal self-consciousness.” The writings of the “True Socialist” Grün also adopted a stance of social criticism, but his critique emphasized achieving “communism” through “love” rather than the conciliatory tone of violently overthrowing the old system, revealing a political position opposed to class struggle and advocating class reconciliation.

在《莱茵报》《德国年鉴》遭到查封，鲍威尔教职被撤销后，鲍威尔的批判走向极端化。1843年，鲍威尔创办《文学总汇报》后进入“纯粹批判”阶段，从宗教批判延伸至对国家、政党等一切现存制度的批判，尤其侧重于对群众的批判，认为群众“懒惰、肤浅、自满自足”，是“进步最大的敌人”，因而“精神的真正敌人应该到群众中去寻找”。通过对群众的批判，鲍威尔认为群众的肤浅和狭隘导致伟大活动难以成功，群众“自我意识”的有限性阻碍了自由解放的实现，要想突破这种有限性，需要将群众的“自我意识”提升为“普遍的自我意识”。“真正的社会主义”者格律恩的著述也站在一种批判社会的立场上，但其批判强调通过“爱”实现“共产主义”，而非暴力推翻旧制度的调和论调，显示出一种反对阶级斗争、鼓吹阶级调和的政治立场。

On the other hand, the “True Socialism” trend also became a manifestation of the political vulgarization of the Young Hegelians. In its early period, the Young Hegelian movement had a certain progressive significance, taking as its important goal the critique of the German feudal autocratic system and its spiritual pillars. However, the “True Socialism” trend fundamentally opposed any form of revolutionary action, ultimately degenerating in practice into a theoretical tool for the Prussian regime to suppress the workers’ movement. During the Silesian weavers’ uprising, they publicly denounced the proletarian struggle as “disrupting order” and advocated “reconciliation among all classes,” objectively cooperating with the rulers’ repressive strategy. Thus, the differentiation of the Young Hegelians exposed the fatal flaw of their detachment from the real movement, and the “True Socialism” trend systematized this flaw. In the view of Marx and Engels, the “True Socialism” trend was essentially a vulgar variant of Young Hegelian speculative philosophy in the field of socialism. They separated the Anglo-French utopian socialist doctrines, which were full of a spirit of real criticism, “from the real movement,” just as the Young Hegelians separated history from material production. Both replaced real transformation with the struggle of ideas.

另一方面，“真正的社会主义”思潮也成为青年黑格尔派政治庸俗化的表现。青年黑格尔派早期以批判德国封建专制制度及其精神支柱为重要目标，具有一定的进步意义。然而，“真正的社会主义”思潮从根本上反对任何形式的革命行动，最终在实践中沦为普鲁士政权打压工人运动的理论工具。他们在西里西亚织工起义中公开指责无产阶级斗争“破坏秩序”，鼓吹“各阶级和解”，客观上配合了统治者的镇压策略。可见，青年黑格尔派的分化暴露了其脱离现实运动的致命缺陷，而“真正的社会主义”思潮将这种缺陷系统化了。在马克思恩格斯看来，“真正的社会主义”思潮实质上是青年黑格尔派思辨哲学在社会主义领域内的一种庸俗变体，他们将充满现实批判精神的英法空想社会主义学说“同现实运动割裂开来”，如同青年黑格尔派将历史同物质生产分开，两者均以观念的斗争取代了现实的变革。

2. The Reception and Alienation of Anglo-French Utopian Socialist Doctrines in Germany

2.英法空想社会主义学说在德国的接受与异化

In Britain and France, socialist ideas were the product of deepening contradictions between capital and labor. In the first half of the 19th century, large-scale machine production in Britain massively replaced handicraft workshops, profoundly reshaping the social structure. By the mid-19th century, British industrial output accounted for 40% of the total; in industrial centers such as Manchester, the proletariat already constituted over 70% of the British population. Yet periodic economic crises exposed the fundamental contradiction between socialized production and private ownership of the means of production. The Poor Law Amendment Act passed by the British Parliament in 1834 intensified the existential plight of the proletariat. In France, after the July Revolution of 1830, a situation of joint rule by the financial bourgeoisie and the industrial bourgeoisie took shape, and class antagonism grew ever sharper. The Lyon workers’ uprisings of 1831 and 1834 marked the emergence of the proletariat as an independent political force on the historical stage. The ever-deepening class contradictions and social antagonisms resulting from the continuous development of capitalism in Britain and France provided the real soil for the emergence of utopian socialism, impelling utopian socialist thinkers to dissect the inherent defects of the capitalist system.

在英国和法国，社会主义思想是劳资矛盾加深的产物。19世纪上半叶的英国，机器大生产大规模取代工场手工业，深刻重塑了社会结构。19世纪中期，英国工业产值占比达40%，在曼彻斯特等工业中心，无产阶级已占英国总人口数的70%以上。然而，周期性经济危机暴露了生产社会化与生产资料私有制的根本矛盾，1834年英国议会通过的《济贫法修正案》加剧了无产阶级的生存困境。法国在1830年七月革命后形成金融资产阶级与工业资产阶级联合统治的局面，阶级对立越发尖锐。1831年和1834年爆发的法国里昂工人起义标志着无产阶级作为独立政治力量登上历史舞台。英法两国资本主义不断发展所导致的、日益深化的阶级矛盾与社会对抗，为空想社会主义的产生提供了现实土壤，促使空想社会主义思想家深刻剖析资本主义制度的固有弊端。

Germany in the same period presented a strikingly different social picture. The German bourgeoisie was relatively weak and, economically and politically, highly dependent on the forces of feudal rule; before the 1848 revolution, it had not yet formed a unified political force. The proletariat was not yet mature; its main body consisted of handicraft journeymen who were loosely organized and had a vague class consciousness, while the majority of the population was the petty bourgeoisie. Thus, German society at that time did not exhibit the sharp opposition between capital and labor seen in Britain and France; instead, there existed a vast “intermediate stratum.” Because of their special social position, the petty bourgeoisie both feared the risk of bankruptcy brought by ruthless capitalist competition and were filled with panic at the prospect that a proletarian revolution might impact their “small property.” Consequently, the German petty bourgeoisie was politically conservative, and socialist ideas were ultimately abstracted into a confrontation with despotism in the name of “humanity.”

同时期的德国，则呈现出迥异的社会图景。德国资产阶级力量相对薄弱，且在经济和政治上高度依附于封建统治势力，在1848年革命前尚未形成统一的政治力量。无产阶级尚未成熟，其中的主体仍是组织松散、阶级意识模糊的手工业帮工，占人口数量大多数的是小资产阶级。可见，当时德国社会并未呈现类似英法那般尖锐对立的劳资矛盾，反而存在一个庞大的“中间人群”。小资产阶级因其特殊的社会地位，既畏惧资本主义无情竞争带来的破产风险，又对无产阶级革命可能冲击其“小产业”的前景充满恐慌，因而德国的小资产阶级在政治上趋向保守，社会主义思想最终被抽象为以“人性”对抗专制。

The critique of the Young Hegelians always remained within the sphere of religion and philosophy, never truly touching the material foundation of civil society, thereby providing a ready-made philosophical tool for the “True Socialism” trend to strip away the real basis of British and French utopian socialist doctrines. When we combine Germany’s socioeconomic background and class composition, which differed from those of Britain and France, it becomes easier to understand the peculiar “philosophical filtration” that British and French utopian socialist doctrines encountered upon entering Germany. Marx and Engels once criticized: “These ‘socialists’—or, as they call themselves, the ‘true socialists’—regard the foreign communist literature not as the expression and product of a real movement, but as purely theoretical writings which, like the German philosophical systems they imagine, arise entirely from ‘pure thought.’” The “True Socialism” trend systematically alienated British and French utopian socialist doctrines in terms of methodology, political stance, and class basis, carrying out a thorough “de-realization” transformation of those doctrines through German speculative philosophy. At the methodological level, German speculative philosophy was accustomed to solving problems within the realm of pure thought. When this habitual mode of thinking was applied to understanding the British and French utopian socialist critique of concrete capitalist reality, the “True Socialists” displayed an obvious idealist regression, converting critiques directed at specific relations of production and class interests into speculative questions about “human essence” and its “alienation.” Grün’s interpretation of Fourier is a typical example. Fourier, in his *On Commerce*, profoundly criticized the exploitation and deception of commercial capital; Grün deliberately avoided criticizing private ownership of the means of production, turning instead to an ethical indictment of the merchant’s “moral depravity,” and forcibly grafted this onto Feuerbach’s theory of alienation.

青年黑格尔派的批判始终停留在宗教和哲学领域，从未真正触及市民社会的物质基础，从而为“真正的社会主义”思潮剥离英法空想社会主义学说的现实基础提供了现成的哲学工具。结合德国不同于英国和法国的社会经济背景和阶级构成，更容易理解当英法空想社会主义学说传入德国时遭遇的独特的“哲学过滤”。马克思恩格斯曾批判道：“这些‘社会主义者’，或者像他们自称的所谓‘真正的社会主义者’，认为外国的共产主义文献并不是现实运动的表现和产物，而是纯理论的著作，这些著作像他们想象中的德国哲学体系一样，完全是从‘纯粹的思想’中产生的。”“真正的社会主义”思潮从方法论、政治立场以及阶级基础等方面对英法空想社会主义学说进行了系统性异化，通过德国思辨哲学对英法空想社会主义学说进行了彻底的“去现实化”改造。在方法论层面，德国思辨哲学习惯于在纯粹思想领域解决问题，当这种思维惯性被用于理解英法空想社会主义学说对资本主义具体现实的批判时，“真正的社会主义”者表现出明显的唯心主义倒退，将针对具体生产关系和阶级利益的批判，转换为关于“人的本质”及其“异化”的思辨问题。格律恩对傅立叶的解读即为典型。傅立叶在《论商业》中深刻批判了商业资本的剥削与欺骗，格律恩则刻意回避对生产资料私有制的批判，转向对商人“道德堕落”的伦理控诉，并将之与费尔巴哈的异化理论强行嫁接。

This grafting precisely catered to the ideological needs of the German petty bourgeoisie. The demand for social transformation in British and French utopian socialist doctrines frightened them, while the “transformation” that remained merely at the level of thought in German philosophy was more in line with their demands. The “True Socialists” wrapped the practical demands of socialism in grandiose but hollow philosophical phrases; the revolutionary character of British and French utopian socialist doctrines was completely removed, and the goal of the “True Socialism” trend was no longer to change the world but was transformed into a kind of ethical preaching. Marx and Engels specifically criticized this, stating: “As long as social contradictions have not taken on a sharper form in Germany through the clear division of classes and the rapid seizure of political power by the bourgeoisie, the German poet has absolutely no way out within Germany itself.” [5]5 This is a paraphrase by the author of a passage from Marx and Engels’s *The German Ideology* (1845–1846), where they discuss the situation of German writers under the prevailing social conditions.

这种嫁接恰恰迎合了德国小资产阶级的意识形态需求。英法空想社会主义学说中要求变革社会的主张令其恐惧，而德国哲学仅仅停留在思想层面的“变革”更契合其诉求。“真正的社会主义”者将社会主义的实践诉求包裹在宏大却空洞的哲学词句中，英法空想社会主义学说的革命性被彻底去除，“真正的社会主义”思潮的目标不再是改造世界，而是被改造为一种伦理说教。马克思恩格斯对此专门进行了批判，提出“在社会矛盾还没有因为阶级的明确分化和资产阶级迅速夺取政权而在德国采取较尖锐的形式以前，德国诗人在德国本部是根本没有出路的”。

II. Theoretical Characteristics of the “True Socialism” Trend

二、“真正的社会主义”思潮的理论特征

The introduction and reception of new ideas and viewpoints often require a certain “path dependence.” The “True Socialists” borrowed “German philosophy,” a form more easily accepted by Germans, to represent British and French utopian socialist doctrines. In his *Fragment*, Engels systematically criticized this trend for the first time, revealing its theoretical characteristic of being divorced from the socioeconomic base and from social practice.

新的思想、观点的传入与接受常常需要某种“路径依赖”。“真正的社会主义”者借用了“德国哲学”这一更易于为德国人接受的方式表征了英法空想社会主义学说。恩格斯在《片段》中首次系统批判该思潮，揭示了其脱离社会经济基础和社会实践的理论特征。

First, it took abstract human nature theory as its philosophical foundation, displaying a pronounced ethical tendency. The “True Socialism” trend abstracted its critique of capitalism from social reality, attempting to improve society through moral preaching. When interpreting Fourier’s thought, Grün, aside from repeating moral views already discussed by many writers before Fourier, “paid no attention at all to Fourier’s critique of modern agriculture and industry.” Grün’s critique of Fourier was “the focal point of the entire exposition”; “the distinction Fourier insisted upon between capital, talent, and labor” provided Grün with room for criticism. However, Grün’s critique remained merely at the level of empty morality, launching endless attacks around abstract principles without touching on the actual antagonistic relationship between labor and capital under the capitalist system that Fourier had discussed. In criticizing Fourier’s psychology, Grün asserted: “Human essence is everything in everything.” Thus, Grün took an abstract, universal “humanity,” posited as the essence and purpose of the world, as the highest truth and the starting point of social critique. Grün distorted and replaced the elements of concrete analysis of capitalist social contradictions in Fourier’s thought with “human essence,” twisting the critique of reality into a discussion of abstract human nature theory, thereby plunging the discussion of socialism into empty conceptual speculation.

一是以抽象人性论为哲学基础，表现出鲜明的伦理化倾向。“真正的社会主义”思潮将对资本主义的批评抽离社会现实，试图通过道德说教改良社会。格律恩在解读傅立叶的思想时，除了重复在傅立叶之前就已有的诸多著作家探讨过的关于道德的观点外，“毫不注意傅立叶对现代农业和实业的批评”。格律恩对傅立叶的批判是“全部论述中的重点”，“傅立叶所坚持的关于资本、天才和劳动之间的区分”为格律恩提供了批判空间。但是，格律恩的批判仅仅停留在空洞的道德层面，围绕抽象的原则进行无休止的讨伐，而未涉及傅立叶所讨论的资本主义制度之下劳动和资本的实际对立关系。格律恩在批判傅立叶的心理学时提出：“人的本质就是一切中的一切。”从而，格律恩将一种抽象的、普遍的、作为世界本质和目的的“人性”，视为最高真理和社会批判的基点。格律恩用“人的本质”歪曲和取代了傅立叶思想中对资本主义社会矛盾具体分析的成分，把对现实的批判曲解为关于抽象的人性论的讨论，从而使关于社会主义的讨论陷入空洞的概念思辨。

Second, it replaced class struggle with a “supra-class” ethical utopia as the core plan for social transformation. On the basis of abstract human nature theory, the “True Socialism” trend advocated class conciliation, completely denied the necessity of violent proletarian revolution, and attempted to construct a conciliatory society based on “universal love” through moral suasion.

二是以“超阶级”伦理乌托邦代替阶级斗争作为核心社会改造方案。在抽象人性论的基础上，“真正的社会主义”思潮主张阶级调和，彻底否定无产阶级暴力革命的必然性，试图通过道德感化构建一个基于“普遍之爱”的调和性社会。

Kriege’s viewpoint is a typical embodiment of this logic. Kriege, in the *Volks-Tribun*, advocated “uniting all people through love”; he preached a “religion of love,” claiming it could “turn the long-awaited community of the blessed inhabitants of heaven into reality” and “unite mankind through love, teaching mankind to work together and to enjoy the fruits of labor together.” The essence of this rhetoric was to give a religious interpretation to real problems such as poverty and oppression, reducing the arduous task of overthrowing the capitalist system to a process of moral suasion. Its result was to blur the opposition between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat under the capitalist system—when “love” can dissolve all social contradictions, exploitative relations are treated as moral defects. In this way, Kriege distorted the communist movement into a process of moral suasion, thereby denying the necessity of proletarian revolution.

克利盖的观点正是这一逻辑的典型体现。克利盖在《人民论坛报》宣扬“用爱把所有人团结起来”，他鼓吹“爱的宗教”，认为其可以“使人们期待已久的有福的天国居民的共同体变成现实”，“用爱把人类联合起来，教会人类共同劳动和共同享用劳动果实”。这种论调的实质，是通过将贫困、压迫等现实问题进行宗教化阐释，把推翻资本主义制度的艰巨任务简化为道德感化的过程。其结果是将模糊资本主义制度之下资产阶级和无产阶级的对立——当“爱”可以消解一切社会矛盾时，剥削关系就会被视为道德缺陷。由此，克利盖将共产主义运动歪曲为道德感化的过程，进而否定无产阶级革命的必要性。

Beck’s literary creation further exposed the “True Socialism” trend’s misunderstanding of class struggle. In his *Song of the Poor*, Beck portrayed a Polish man begging from the banker Rothschild: when Rothschild tossed him a silver coin, the Pole “trembles with joy and blesses you and your children.” Engels pointed out sharply that in Beck’s depiction, the attack on Rothschild degenerated into “a popular anecdote in a small town.” Beck’s critique of the bourgeoisie stopped at complaining that they were not philanthropists; this was because he harbored unrealistic illusions about the bourgeoisie and could not understand the essential connection between the financial capital represented by Rothschild and capitalist relations of production. Instead, he pinned the hope of resisting capitalist exploitation on the moral awakening of the bourgeoisie itself. More critically, Beck eulogized all sorts of petty figures but did not eulogize “the stubborn, awe-inspiring, and revolutionary proletarian.” This deliberate obscuring of the revolutionary subject of the proletariat was precisely the literary projection of the class-compromise stance of the “True Socialism” trend. Beck replaced the rebellious worker with a grateful beggar, and substituted moral appeals for revolutionary demands. It is evident that the “True Socialism” trend advocated class compromise, thereby altering the logic of the succession of social formations, and in so doing, it also degraded socialism from a practical institutional revolution into a purely spiritual renovation movement.

倍克的文学创作进一步暴露了“真正的社会主义”思潮对阶级斗争的误解。倍克在《穷人之歌》中塑造了一个向银行家路特希尔德乞讨的波兰人形象：当路特希尔德施舍一枚银币，波兰人竟“快乐得发抖，并且为你和你的子孙祝福”。恩格斯犀利地指出，在倍克的描写中，对路特希尔德的攻击变成了“小城市里流行的趣闻”。倍克对资产阶级的批判止步于抱怨他们不是博爱家，之所以如此，是由于他对资产阶级抱有不切实际的幻想，无法理解路特希尔德所代表的金融资本和资本主义生产关系的本质联系，反而将对资本剥削的反抗，寄托于资产阶级自身的道德觉醒。更为关键的是，倍克歌颂了各种各样的小人物，却没有歌颂“倔强的、叱咤风云的和革命的无产者”。这种对无产阶级革命主体的刻意遮蔽，正是“真正的社会主义”思潮的阶级调和立场的文学投射。倍克用感恩的乞丐替代反抗的工人，用道德诉求置换了革命诉求。可见，“真正的社会主义”思潮主张阶级调和，从而改变了社会形态更替的逻辑，如此，也使社会主义从实践性的制度革命退化为纯粹的精神革新运动。

Third, through a systematic misreading and vulgarization of utopian socialists such as Fourier, it provided a “theoretical basis” for a supra-class program. Fourier’s utopian socialist doctrine was born against the bloody backdrop of primitive accumulation in French capitalism. Based on his understanding of class exploitation and commercial fraud in capitalist society, he designed the “phalanstère,” hoping to achieve social reorganization through the phalanstère and liberate the oppressed workers. In *The New World of Love*, Fourier defined in detail the inner essence of twelve human passions, including smell, touch, friendship, and ambition, and treated the phalanstère as the site where this inner essence was realized externally. However, Grün regarded Fourier’s practical scheme as a mathematical game and labeled it “egoism.” He ignored the most valuable element in Fourier’s thought—its critique of reality—and instead interpreted the “phalanstère” as a harmonious community that eliminated class antagonism, thereby denying the necessity of violent revolution and abstracting it into a transhistorical ethical model, stripping away the revolutionary goal of abolishing private property. This process of stripping away historical reality allowed the “True Socialists” to deliberately blunt the critical edge of the utopian socialists’ attack on capitalist exploitation, and instead abstract their practical social scheme into a transhistorical ethical model, dissolving the theoretical core of class struggle. On this point, Marx and Engels sharply exposed in the *Communist Manifesto* that the “True Socialists” “wrote their philosophical nonsense beneath the French original.”

三是通过对傅立叶等空想社会主义者的系统性误读及庸俗化，为超阶级方案提供“理论依据”。傅立叶的空想社会主义学说诞生于法国资本主义原始积累的血腥背景之下，基于对资本主义社会的阶级剥削和商业欺诈的认识，设计出“法郎吉”，寄希望于通过法郎吉实现社会重组，解放受压迫的劳动者。傅立叶在《经济的新世界》中详细定义了包括嗅觉、触觉、友爱、雄心等在内的人的十二种欲望的内部本质，并将法郎吉作为内部本质在外部实现的场所。然而，格律恩认为傅立叶的实践方案是数学游戏，并给其贴上“利己主义”标签。他无视傅立叶思想中最具价值的现实批判，而是将“法郎吉”解释为一种消除阶级对立的和谐共同体，以此否定暴力革命的必要性，并将其抽象为超历史的伦理模型，剥离了消除私有制的革命目标。这一剥离历史实际的过程，使“真正的社会主义”者得以刻意收敛空想社会主义者对资本主义剥削的批判锋芒，转而将其社会实践方案抽象为超历史的伦理模型，消解了阶级斗争的理论内核。对此，马克思恩格斯在《共产党宣言》中尖锐揭露，“真正的社会主义”者“在法国的原著下面写上自己的哲学胡说”。

Fourth, it essentially reflected the conservatism and reactionary nature of the German petty-bourgeois ideology. The three characteristics of the “True Socialism” trend described above were all rooted in the special socio-economic structure of Germany in the 1840s—backward industrialization meant that small producers constituted the majority of the population. In the *Communist Manifesto*, Marx and Engels hit the nail on the head by pointing out that “True” socialism represented the interests of the German petty bourgeoisie, and that “to preserve the petty bourgeoisie is to preserve the existing system in Germany.”

四是本质上反映德国小资产阶级意识形态的保守性与反动性。“真正的社会主义”思潮的上述三个特征，共同根植于19世纪40年代德国特殊的社会经济结构——工业化落后导致小生产者占人口多数。马克思恩格斯在《共产党宣言》中一针见血地指出，“真正的”社会主义代表德国小市民利益，“保存这个小资产阶级，就是保存德国的现存制度”。

The reactionary nature of the “True Socialism” trend in political practice was fully exposed. At the theoretical level, when France had already established bourgeois rule, Germany was still under the rule of the Prussian monarchy, and the bourgeoisie had not yet come to power. Compared with feudal rule, the bourgeoisie was a revolutionary force against feudalism. However, the “True Socialism” trend mechanically transplanted the French utopian socialists’ critique of the bourgeoisie to Germany, attacking the progressive demands of the bourgeoisie, and in fact obstructed the bourgeoisie’s anti-feudal struggle. At the practical level, during the Silesian Weavers’ Uprising of 1844, the “True Socialists” called for “maintaining order” and opposed the workers’ violent resistance—a stance that stood in fundamental opposition to the revolutionary program of scientific socialism. Engels emphasized that the liberation of the proletariat must adhere to a “violent, democratic revolution,” while the “True Socialism” trend attempted to dissolve class struggle through ethical preaching, in essence becoming a stumbling block to the succession of social formations. Marx and Engels called it “the sweet supplement to the brutal whips and bullets with which the government suppresses the German workers’ uprising.”

“真正的社会主义”思潮在政治实践方面的反动性暴露无遗。在理论层面，当法国已经确立了资产阶级统治时，德国仍处在普鲁士王朝的统治之下，资产阶级尚未掌权，相较于封建统治，资产阶级是反封建的革命力量。但是，“真正的社会主义”思潮却将法国空想社会主义者对资产阶级的批判照搬到德国，攻击资产阶级的进步诉求，事实上阻碍了资产阶级的反封建斗争。在实践层面，“真正的社会主义”者在1844年西里西亚织工起义中呼吁“维护秩序”，反对工人暴力抗争——这种立场与科学社会主义的革命纲领形成根本对立。恩格斯强调无产阶级解放必须坚持“暴力的民主的革命”，而“真正的社会主义”思潮却试图以伦理说教消解阶级斗争，实质是阻碍社会形态更替的绊脚石，被马克思恩格斯称为“政府用来镇压德国工人起义的毒辣的皮鞭和枪弹的甜蜜的补充”。

The theoretical bankruptcy of the “True Socialism” trend confirmed the truth of historical materialism. The “True Socialism” trend used an abstract theory of human nature to suspend the internal structure of social relations, obscuring its inherent class essence; its strong ethical tendency dissolved the historical dynamic foundation constituted by the contradictory movement of productive forces and relations of production; its vulgarized reconstruction of utopian socialism completely stripped away the practical mechanisms necessary for institutional critique. In the final analysis, the petty-bourgeois ideological stance exposed by “True Socialism” ultimately turned it into an apologist for private property. The rise and fall of the “True Socialism” trend also demonstrated that the vitality and truth of scientific socialism lie in this: only by insisting on abolishing private property through class struggle and conducting social critique on the basis of an analysis of relations of production can one penetrate ideological illusions and realize the real movement that abolishes the existing state of affairs.

“真正的社会主义”思潮的理论破产印证了历史唯物主义的真理性。“真正的社会主义”思潮以抽象的人性论架空社会关系的内在结构，遮蔽了其固有的阶级本质；其浓厚的伦理化倾向，消解了生产力与生产关系矛盾运动所构成的历史动力基础；对空想社会主义的庸俗化重构，完全剥离了制度批判所必需的实践机制。归根结底，“真正的社会主义”暴露出的小资产阶级意识形态立场，使其最终沦为私有制的辩护者。“真正的社会主义”思潮的兴衰也昭示了科学社会主义的生命力与真理性在于，只有坚持以阶级斗争消灭私有制、立足生产关系分析展开社会批判，才能穿透意识形态幻象，实现消灭现存状况的现实运动。

III. Engels’s Methodological Critique of “True Socialism”

三、恩格斯对“真正的社会主义”的方法论批判

Critique hinges on method. Engels adhered to historical materialism, profoundly revealing the nihilistic foundation of the “True Socialism” trend divorced from reality; he used the method of class analysis to expose its illusory “supra-class” stance; and he employed the method of moving from the abstract to the concrete to sharply criticize its “nihilistic abstraction” divorced from practice. In the *Fragment*, Engels’s critique of the “True Socialism” trend formed a methodological system grounded in historical materialism, centered on class analysis, and using scientific abstraction as a tool, profoundly exposing the “nihilistic” essence of “True Socialism.”

批判的关键在于方法。恩格斯坚持历史唯物主义，深刻揭示“真正的社会主义”思潮脱离现实的虚无根基；以阶级分析方法揭露其虚无的“超阶级”立场；以从抽象到具体的方法，对其脱离实践的“虚无抽象”进行了尖锐批判。在《片段》中，恩格斯对“真正的社会主义”思潮的批判形成了以历史唯物主义为根基、以阶级分析为核心、以科学抽象为工具的方法论体系，深刻揭露了“真正的社会主义”的“虚无性”本质。

1. Using Historical Materialism to Reveal the Nihilistic Foundation of “True Socialism” Divorced from Reality

1.以历史唯物主义揭示“真正的社会主义”脱离现实的虚无根基

Historical materialism is the fundamental weapon of theoretical critique. The core principle of historical materialism lies in explaining the formation of core concepts from the perspective of material practice. Engels deeply observed the material productive activities of society, and starting from the basic contradictions and class conflicts of modern capitalist society, he formed the basic framework of historical materialism for critiquing various pseudo-socialist trends. Analyzed from the standpoint of scientific socialism, the primary problem of the “True Socialism” trend was that it completely deviated from the basic methodology of historical materialism, which explains society from the perspective of material productive practice, and fell into the nihilistic quagmire of “constructing reality with ideas.”

历史唯物主义是理论批判的根本武器。历史唯物主义的核心原则在于从物质实践出发阐释核心概念的形成。恩格斯深入观察社会物质生产活动，从现代资本主义社会的基本矛盾和阶级冲突出发，形成了对各色伪社会主义思潮进行批判的历史唯物主义基本框架。站在科学社会主义的立场上分析，“真正的社会主义”思潮的首要问题就在于，它彻底背离了历史唯物主义从物质生产实践出发阐释社会的基本方法论，陷入“用观念构造现实”的虚无主义泥潭。

In the “Fragment,” Engels particularly emphasizes the methodological opposition between Fourier’s and the “True Socialists’” understanding and analysis of social phenomena, highlighting the nihilistic character of the “True Socialism” trend. The “True Socialists’” understanding and grasp of society are not based on historical materialism; they do not seek the driving force of social change from the contradiction between productive forces and relations of production, but instead construct illusory solutions through “abstract human nature.” To reconcile their own contradictions, the “True Socialists” completed a substitution of the connotations of key concepts: they abstracted and universalized the sharply antagonistic class contradictions in social reality into the abstract problem of “alienation of human nature.” It is precisely through this conceptual shift that the fundamental conflicts of exploitation and relations of production under the capitalist system are downplayed, and the real path for solving social problems is correspondingly transformed—class struggle and revolutionary practice aimed at transforming relations of production can be replaced by “supra-class fraternity.” Thus, the “True Socialists” pinned their hopes on reconciling class contradictions through ethical preaching and achieving class reconciliation through moral suasion, thereby evading the fundamental transformation of the ownership of the means of production. Consequently, the core of this ideology lies in constructing a utopian picture of “universal harmony” to conceal the inherent fragility of its own class position and the irreconcilable social contradictions. In response, Engels’s critique exposes the ideological essence of the “True Socialism” trend as divorced from historical materialism, namely, the petty bourgeoisie’s use of “universal human nature” to cover up its class fragility.

恩格斯在《片段》中特别强调傅立叶与“真正的社会主义”者认识及分析社会现象的方法论对立，凸显出“真正的社会主义”思潮的虚无性特征。“真正的社会主义”对社会的认识与把握不以历史唯物主义为基础，不是从生产力与生产关系的矛盾中寻找社会变革的动力，而是通过“抽象人性”构造虚幻的解决方案。为了调和自身矛盾，“真正的社会主义”者完成了关键概念的内涵置换，他们将社会现实中尖锐对立的阶级矛盾，抽象化、普遍化为抽象的“人性异化”问题。正是通过这种概念转换，资本主义制度下的剥削关系和生产关系的根本冲突得以淡化，其解决社会问题的现实途径也随之转化，即指向生产关系变革的阶级斗争和革命实践可以被“超阶级博爱”所取代。可见，“真正的社会主义”者寄希望于通过伦理说教调和阶级矛盾，通过道德感化达成阶级和解，从而回避了生产资料所有制的根本变革。因而，这种意识形态的核心，就在于通过构建一种“普遍和谐”的乌托邦图景，掩盖其自身阶级地位的内在脆弱性及无法调和的社会矛盾。对此，恩格斯的批判揭露了“真正的社会主义”思潮脱离历史唯物主义的意识形态本质，即小资产阶级以“普遍人性”掩盖其阶级脆弱性。

Compared with the sublation of the utopian socialist doctrines of England and France, Engels reveals that the “True Socialism” trend’s superficial borrowing of German philosophy is essentially a betrayal of historical materialism. Fourier’s satire is a reflection of the actual conditions of existing society, and his “cosmic vision of genius” is built upon a profound observation of the operational modes of capitalist commerce. In his *On Commerce*, Fourier denounces merchants, saying “every promissory note they issue contains the germ of counterfeit currency,” exposing that the credit system is the same crime as manufacturing counterfeit money. Yet Grün believes that “money, wage labor, etc., are the alienation of human essence,” and that German socialism is merely the realization of “German philosophy.” Thus, speculative games of this kind, which abstract from social reality, completely obliterate Fourier’s profound insight into capitalist relations of production, and the essence of this speculative game is to reduce historical critique to a timeless moral sermon. In response, Engels succinctly summarizes the essential difference between the two sides: “Fourier arrived at his conception of the future only after correctly understanding the past and the present,” while the “True Socialists” “first arbitrarily arrange past history and then arbitrarily point out where the future should go.” Thus, this speculative method causes the edge and progressive significance of socialism to disappear entirely, even degenerating into a theoretical ornament for maintaining feudal autocratic rule, and it fully confirms the historical significance of Marx’s assertion that “the weapon of criticism cannot, of course, replace criticism of the weapon.” In the “Fragment,” Engels concludes that those principles that in Germany claim to be the true, pure “fundamentals of communism and socialism” are essentially “not a single thought that has grown out of German soil.” We can even argue that it is precisely this abstraction, divorced from the soil of reality, that ultimately dissolves the revolutionary core of socialism, becoming a clear negative mirror for the scientificity of historical materialism.

相较于对英法空想社会主义学说的扬弃，恩格斯揭示了“真正的社会主义”思潮对德国哲学的肤浅借用本质上是对唯物史观的背叛。傅立叶的讽刺是对现存社会的实际状况的反映，其“天才的宇宙观”则建立在对资本主义商业运作方式的深刻观察之上。傅立叶在《论商业》中痛斥商人“签发的每张期票都包含有赝币的萌芽”，揭露信用制度同制造伪币是同样的罪行，而格律恩却认为“货币、雇佣劳动等等是人的本质的异化”，德国社会主义仅仅是“德国哲学”的实现。可见，诸如此类抽离社会现实的思辨游戏，完全抹杀了傅立叶对资本主义生产关系的深刻洞察，而这一思辨游戏的实质则是，将历史性批判降维至超时空的道德说教。对此，恩格斯精辟地概括了双方的本质区别：“傅立叶是在正确地认识了过去和现在之后才有了对未来的构思”，而“真正的社会主义”者“却是首先随意地整理一下过去的历史，然后又随意地指点未来应该走向何方”。可见，这种思辨方法导致社会主义的锋芒与进步意义消失殆尽，甚至沦为维护封建专制统治的理论装饰，也充分印证了马克思“批判的武器当然不能代替武器的批判”这一论断的历史意义。恩格斯在《片段》中总结道，那些在德国自诩为真正的、纯粹的“共产主义和社会主义的基本原则”，本质上“还没有一种思想是从德国的土地上成长起来的”。我们甚至可以认为，正是脱离现实土壤的抽象性，最终消解了社会主义的革命性内核，成为唯物史观科学性的清晰的反面镜鉴。

It is evident that the “True Socialists’” “self-deception” is a harmful imagination, and its ideological function is clearly reactionary. In particular, by dissolving the revolutionary consciousness of the proletariat and paralyzing the masses’ will to struggle, the “True Socialism” trend objectively maintains feudal autocratic rule and capitalist oppression. Using the critical weapon of historical materialism, Engels not only conducts an in-depth analysis of this social trend but also raises the demand for the ideological struggle of scientific socialism—any theory that abandons the proletarian standpoint and preaches unprincipled “reconciliation,” no matter what splendid cloak it wears, is essentially a betrayal of the principles of historical materialism.

显而易见，“真正的社会主义”者的“自我欺骗”是有害的想象，其意识形态功能具有明显的反动性。特别是，“真正的社会主义”通过消解无产阶级革命意识，麻痹群众斗争意志，从而在客观上维护了封建专制统治与资本主义压迫。恩格斯借助历史唯物主义这一批判武器，不仅对这一社会思潮进行了深入分析，同时也提出科学社会主义意识形态的斗争要求——任何脱离无产阶级立场、鼓吹无原则“调和”的理论，无论披上何种华丽的外衣，本质上都是对历史唯物主义原则的背叛。

2. Exposing the “True Socialism” Trend’s Illusory “Supra-Class” Standpoint through the Method of Class Analysis

2.以阶级分析方法揭露“真正的社会主义”虚无的“超阶级”立场

Marxism is the doctrine of the liberation of the proletariat. Marx and Engels introduced the method of class analysis, standing on the proletarian standpoint to reveal the inequality inherent in the capitalist system, recognizing that “the ultimate cause and great driving force of all important historical events is the economic development of society.” Thus, historical materialism provides a scientific basis and action guide for the liberation of the proletariat, and the method of class analysis is the core methodology that runs through it.

马克思主义是关于无产阶级解放的学说，马克思恩格斯引入阶级分析方法，站在无产阶级立场揭示了资本主义制度本身的不平等，认识到“一切重要历史事件的终极原因和伟大动力是社会的经济发展”。如此可见，历史唯物主义为无产阶级解放提供了科学基础和行动指南，而阶级分析方法则是其贯穿始终的核心方法论。

The vacillation of the intermediate class is the basis for the formation of the “supra-class” standpoint. In Germany in the 1840s, the petty bourgeoisie, as an “intermediate group”—fearing both the bankruptcy caused by capitalist competition and the impact of proletarian revolution on their “small property”—had an awkward class position and contradictory class psychology that determined the class-reconciliation attribute of its ideology. Consequently, in theoretical construction, the “True Socialism” trend abandoned the profound analysis of objectively existing class struggle by the utopian socialists of England and France, attempting to “digest” the utopian socialist ideas of England and France within the framework of German speculative philosophy. In particular, under the guise of “universal human nature,” “harmony of love,” etc., they claimed to transcend class antagonism, but in reality, this was an ideological projection of the interests of the German petty bourgeoisie. In the “Fragment,” Engels uses the method of class analysis to directly target its core fallacy, fundamentally questioning the logic of its theoretical construction, and exposing the methodological defect of the “True Socialism” trend—replacing concrete historical analysis with abstract speculation and replacing real class contradictions with universal concepts. This forms an essential opposition to the scientific methodology of historical materialism, which is grounded in economic reality and dissects class struggle, thereby tearing open the “supra-class” disguise of the “True Socialists,” revealing their essential standpoint of serving conservative class interests, and clearly pointing out that this standpoint, because it dares not face class contradictions, will ultimately degenerate into a “sweet supplement” for maintaining the old system.

中间阶级的摇摆是“超阶级”立场形成的基础。19世纪40年代的德国，小资产阶级作为“中间人群”——既畏惧资本主义竞争导致的破产，又恐惧无产阶级革命对其“小产业”的冲击。正是这种尴尬的阶级地位与矛盾的阶级心理，决定了其意识形态必然具有阶级调和属性。因而，在理论建构上，“真正的社会主义”思潮抛弃了英法空想社会主义者对客观存在的阶级斗争的深刻分析，试图用德国思辨哲学的框架“消化”英法空想社会主义思想。尤其是，他们以“普遍人性”“爱之和谐”等为幌子，标榜超越阶级对立，实则是德国小资产阶级利益的意识形态投射。恩格斯在《片段》中运用阶级分析方法直指其核心谬误，从根本上质疑其理论建构逻辑，揭露了“真正的社会主义”思潮以抽象思辨取代具体历史分析、以普遍概念取代现实阶级矛盾的方法论缺陷——这与唯物史观立足经济现实、剖析阶级斗争的科学方法论形成本质对立，进而撕开了“真正的社会主义”者的“超阶级”伪装，暴露其服务于保守阶级利益的本质立场，并明确指出，这一立场因其不敢直面阶级矛盾而最终将沦为维护旧制度的“甜蜜补充”。

More critically, in the “Fragment,” Engels further reveals the “reactionary” character of the class standpoint of the “True Socialism” trend. In Germany in 1844, the bourgeois-democratic revolution had not yet been completed, and workers were subjected to double exploitation by factory owners and feudal lords. The Silesian weavers directed the spearhead of their struggle directly at private property, launching a violent revolt against the capitalists. In response, Marx and Engels gave high praise, believing that the proletariat had already announced the battle order, that “the proletariat at once, clearly, sharply, ruthlessly, and imperiously proclaimed that it opposes the society of private property.” Marx praised this uprising for “having, right at its beginning, what the French and English workers’ uprisings had only at their end, namely, consciousness of the essence of the proletariat,” and its outstanding progressive significance lay in the awakening of working-class consciousness and the formation of an organized will to fight. However, in the face of the rising workers’ movement, the “True Socialists” vigorously advocated peaceful reform, calling on workers to “maintain order” and opposing any violent action. This not only deviated from the revolutionary standpoint and fighting spirit of the proletariat but also directly exposed the weakness of the class standpoint of the “True Socialists.”

更具批判性的是，恩格斯在《片段》中进一步揭示了“真正的社会主义”思潮阶级立场的“反动性”。1844年的德国，资产阶级民主革命尚未完成，工人受到工厂主和封建主的双重剥削。西里西亚纺织工人把斗争矛头直指私有制，发动了对资本家的暴力反抗。对此，马克思恩格斯给予高度评价，认为无产阶级已经宣布战斗号令，“无产阶级一下子就决不含糊地、尖锐地、毫不留情地、威风凛凛地宣布，它反对私有制社会”。马克思称赞这场起义“恰恰在开始时就具有了法国和英国的工人起义在结束时才具有的东西，那就是对无产阶级本质的意识”，其突出的进步意义在于工人阶级意识的觉醒和组织化战斗意志的形成。然而，面对工人运动高涨的局面，“真正的社会主义”者却极力鼓吹和平改良，呼吁工人“维护秩序”，反对任何暴力行动。这不仅背离了无产阶级的革命立场和斗争精神，也直接暴露出“真正的社会主义”者阶级立场上的软弱性。

Similarly, the conservative stance of the “true socialist” writers also stands in stark contrast to that of the French utopian socialists. Although French utopian socialist doctrine had its limitations, it subjected the foundations of the capitalist economic system to a profound critique. In sharp contrast, the German “true socialist” writers stripped away Fourier’s incisive exposure of concrete capitalist mechanisms such as “commerce” and “competition” and their evils, replacing them with the question of “human nature” wrapped in abstract philosophical language. Hence, Engels denounced the “true socialist” trend for never having raised any accusation against the German society of its time; this is precisely where the gap between the “true socialist” writers and Fourier lies. Although Fourier did not put forward a scientific revolutionary path, he could still “arrive at the conclusion that society must be transformed”; the “true socialist” writers lacked even that courage, and they “had not yet touched upon the various aspects of existing society.” [13]13 The quotation is from Engels, “The ‘True Socialists’” (1847), in which he contrasts Fourier’s willingness to draw revolutionary conclusions with the German “true socialists’” failure to criticize any aspect of existing German society.

同样，“真正的社会主义”者的保守立场与英法空想社会主义者也形成鲜明对比。法国空想社会主义学说虽然有其局限性，但对资本主义经济制度的基础进行了深刻批判。与之形成鲜明对比的是德国的“真正的社会主义”者将傅立叶等人对“商业”“竞争”等资本主义具体运作机制及其罪恶的深刻揭露剥离出来，代之以抽象哲学语言包裹的“人性”问题。由此，恩格斯斥责“真正的社会主义”思潮没能对当时的德国社会提出过任何责难，这也是“真正的社会主义”者与傅立叶的差距所在。傅立叶虽未提出科学的革命路径，但仍能“得出必须改造社会的结论”，“真正的社会主义”者却连这种勇气都没有，他们“还完全没有谈论过的现存社会的各个方面”。

In sum, Engels’s critique of the “true socialist” writers from a class perspective thoroughly exposed the hypocrisy of the “true socialist” trend and its supporters: they did not lack a class standpoint, but dared not acknowledge their conservative petty-bourgeois standpoint; nor were they above class, but used the disguise of “universal values” to conceal their fear of class struggle.

总而言之，恩格斯从阶级角度对“真正的社会主义”者进行的批判，彻底揭露了“真正的社会主义”思潮及其支持者的虚伪性：他们不是没有阶级立场，而是不敢承认其保守的小资产阶级立场；他们也不是超越阶级的，而是用“普遍价值”的伪装掩盖其对阶级斗争的恐惧。

3. Criticizing the “True Socialist” Departure from Practice as “Nihilistic Abstraction” by Means of the Method of Moving from the Abstract to the Concrete

3.以从抽象到具体的方法批判“真正的社会主义”脱离实践的“虚无抽象”

In the process by which Marx and Engels jointly founded historical materialism and scientific socialism, the method of scientific abstraction was gradually systematized and concretized, becoming an important tool for analyzing the essence of society and for distinguishing and criticizing erroneous social trends. The method of scientific abstraction that Engels employed was always grounded in material practice and aimed at revealing objective laws; it emphasized that abstraction must originate from concrete historical facts and ultimately return to the test of practice—that is, the dialectical process of rising from perceptual concreteness to conceptual concreteness and revealing essential laws. Hence it is a scientific method of abstraction. In contrast, the “nihilistic abstraction” of “true socialism” lies in its complete detachment from actual social relations of production and concrete historical conditions, its denial of the fundamental principle that consciousness originates from practice, and its use of transhistorical, trans-class abstract categories such as “human essence” and “universal love” to hollow out the realistic foundation and revolutionary core of socialism, thereby losing the power to explain and transform the real world and ultimately degenerating into an ideological illusion. In the critique of “true socialism,” the methodology of scientific abstraction became the key tool for piercing the nihilistic nature of the “true socialist” trend.

在马克思恩格斯共同创立历史唯物主义和科学社会主义的过程中，科学抽象方法逐渐系统化、具体化，成为剖析社会本质、辨析及批判错误社会思潮的重要工具。恩格斯运用的科学抽象方法，始终以物质实践为根基、以揭示客观规律为目的，强调抽象必须源于具体历史事实，最终又回归实践检验，即从感性具体上升至思维具体、揭示本质规律的辩证过程，因而是科学的抽象方法。与之相较，“真正的社会主义”的“虚无抽象”在于其完全脱离现实的社会经济关系和具体历史条件，否定了意识来源于实践的根本原则，用“人的本质”“普遍的爱”等超历史、超阶级的抽象范畴架空社会主义的现实基础和革命内核，丧失对现实世界的解释力和改造力，最终沦为意识形态幻象。在对“真正的社会主义”的批判中，科学抽象的方法论成为戳破“真正的社会主义”思潮虚无性的关键工具。

Thus, the “true socialist” trend’s nihilistic abstraction of French and English utopian socialist doctrine is in essence a “false abstraction.” They stripped the concrete, historical critique of French and English utopian socialist doctrine into a transhistorical, dogmatic ethical sermon. In the *Fragment*, [14]14 The *Fragment* refers to Engels’s unfinished manuscript “A Fragment on ‘True Socialism’” (1847), a key text in his polemic against the “true socialist” trend. Engels, by comparing the method of abstraction of Fourier with that of the “true socialist” trend, elucidated the fundamental difference between “scientific abstraction” and “nihilistic abstraction,” and revealed how “true socialism” degenerated into a speculative game by emptying historical content.

可见，“真正的社会主义”思潮对英法空想社会主义学说的虚无抽象，本质上是一种“错误的抽象”。他们将英法空想社会主义学说具体的、历史的批判抽离为超历史的、教条的伦理说教。恩格斯在《片段》中通过对比傅立叶与“真正的社会主义”思潮的抽象方法，阐明了“科学抽象”与“虚无抽象”的根本区别，并揭示“真正的社会主义”如何通过抽空历史内容沦为思辨游戏。

In Engels’s view, Fourier’s theory was mixed with utopian elements and did not touch upon private property as the root of exploitation. Yet Fourier’s works still contained a profound observation of capitalist commercial practice and a penetrating critique of its inherent fraudulent nature. Fourier’s critique of capitalism was rooted in the real contradictions of capitalism, revealing that in the age of civilization, poverty arises from surplus itself. This critique, grounded in reality, constituted the most vital part of Fourier’s thought and was praised by Engels as a “very sharp, very witty, and very humorous critique”; its greatest value lay precisely in mercilessly “exposing the contradiction between their theories and their practice” at the level of reality. In Engels’s view, it was precisely because Fourier’s “abstraction was based on reality” that “the fantasies about the universe, built on a genius’s world outlook, were pardonable.”

在恩格斯看来，傅立叶的理论掺杂着空想成分，且未触及私有制这一剥削根源。但在傅立叶的作品中，仍然具有对资本主义商业实践的深刻观察，以及对其内在欺诈本质的鞭辟入里的批判。傅立叶对资本主义的批判根植于资本主义的现实矛盾，揭示了在文明时代，贫困是由过剩本身产生的。这一立足于现实的批判，构成了傅立叶思想中最具活力的部分，被恩格斯称赞为“非常尖锐、非常机智和非常幽默的批判”，其最重要的价值恰恰在于在现实层面毫不留情地“揭穿他们的理论和实践的矛盾”。在恩格斯看来，正是由于傅立叶“基于现实的抽象”，从而“建立在天才的宇宙观之上的关于宇宙的幻想是可以谅解的”。

The nihilistic abstraction of the “true socialist” writers, detached from history, appears pale and childish. For when the German “true socialist” writers appropriated Fourier’s thought, they deliberately stripped away the realistic foundation on which his critique relied, namely, “the real basis and main task of any study of social questions, which they carelessly discarded.” In particular, in order to reconcile the petty bourgeoisie’s own contradictions, the “true socialist” writers, in the process of replacing the connotations of key concepts, further abstracted the contradictions of real social class opposition and conflict into the hollow question of “alienation of human nature.” This conceptual abstraction and transformation caused the fundamental conflicts between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, and between the capitalist mode of production and relations of production, to be imperceptibly diluted and even continuously dissolved. In this way, proletarian revolutionary struggle was no longer the key realistic path for solving social problems, but was replaced by the extremely abstract, so-called “trans-class” fraternity of this “true socialism.” There is no doubt that this abstract historical act, which hoped to reconcile class contradictions through moral preaching and persuasion, could not only fail to reconcile class contradictions, but would, by evading the fundamental transformation of social ownership of the means of production, lead to the ultimate failure of the proletarian revolutionary struggle. Deeper analysis shows that this nihilistic abstraction constitutes the core of petty-bourgeois ideology, vainly attempting to build a fantasy “castle” of social harmony on a false utopian picture. In this way, the petty bourgeoisie’s inherent compromise and fragility were hidden within this illusory “castle.” However, the “human nature” and “love” that the “true socialist” writers strove to preach are not universal values transcending historical conditions, but rather the universalization and eternalization of specific bourgeois morality, thereby dissolving the proletariat’s class consciousness and revolutionary demands on the spiritual level, and weakening the proletariat’s motivation to change its own destiny with the illusion of reform. This demand fully exposed the petty producers’ evasion of facing class exploitation.

“真正的社会主义”者脱离历史的虚无抽象则显得苍白幼稚。因为，德国“真正的社会主义”者在挪用傅立叶的思想时，刻意剥离了其批判所依托的现实根基，即“对社会问题作任何研究的真正基础与主要任务，他们却毫不介意地抛弃了”。特别是，为了调和小资产阶级的自身矛盾，“真正的社会主义”者在将关键概念进行内涵置换中，把现实社会阶级对立与冲突的矛盾进一步抽象化为“人性异化”的空洞问题。概念的抽象转换，致使资产阶级与无产阶级、资本主义的生产方式与生产关系的根本冲突在无形中淡化，甚至不断消解。这样，无产阶级革命斗争也不再是解决社会问题的关键现实路径，而是被这种“真正的社会主义”以极其抽象的所谓“超阶级”博爱取而代之。毫无疑问，这一希望以道德说教与感化调和阶级矛盾的抽象化历史行为，不仅不能调和阶级矛盾，还会因其回避社会生产资料所有制的根本变革而导致无产阶级革命斗争的最终失败。深入分析可知，这一虚无的抽象构成小资产阶级的意识形态核心，妄图在虚假的乌托邦图景上建筑社会和谐的幻想“城堡”。如此，便将小资产阶级内在的妥协性与脆弱性潜藏在了这座虚幻“城堡”之中。但是，“真正的社会主义”者竭力宣扬的“人性”与“爱”的本质，并非超越历史条件的普遍价值，而是将资产阶级社会的特定道德观加以普遍化、永恒化，从而在精神层面消解无产阶级的阶级意识与革命诉求，用改良的幻想削弱无产阶级改变自身命运的动力。而这种诉求，则将小生产者逃避面对阶级剥削的现实暴露无遗。

It is precisely for this reason that the *Fragment* particularly emphasizes the value of the essay “On Commerce.” [15]15 “On Commerce” is a section of Fourier’s *The Theory of the Four Movements* (1808), in which he satirizes the fraud and waste of capitalist commerce. Engels believed that even if Fourier had illusions, his critique of capitalism originated from a sharp insight into social phenomena, from a precise grasp of the essential characteristics of social relations, and also from exposing the inherent contradictions of capitalism.

正因如此，《片段》尤为强调《论商业》一文的价值。恩格斯认为，即便傅立叶存在幻想，但他对资本主义的批判源于对社会现象的犀利洞察，源于对社会关系本质特征的精准把握，也在于揭露资本主义的内在矛盾。

IV. Contemporary Implications and Theoretical Vitality of the Critique

四、批判的当代启示与理论生命力

General Secretary Xi Jinping has profoundly pointed out: “Marxism is the fundamental guiding ideology for the founding of our Party and our country”; “to deviate from or abandon Marxism, our Party would lose its soul and lose its way.” [16]16 The quotation is from Xi Jinping’s speech at the celebration of the 95th anniversary of the founding of the Communist Party of China (1 July 2016). Engels’s critique of the “true socialist” trend in the *Fragment* contains the essence of Marxist scientific theory. Therefore, revisiting Engels’s critique not only helps us identify the roots of erroneous trends such as historical nihilism, neoliberalism, and “universal values,” but also provides important methodological weapons and practical implications for upholding and developing socialism with Chinese characteristics in the New Era and for building a solid line of defense for ideological security. This requires us not only to master the basic principles of Marxism, but also to deeply understand its critical spirit and philosophy of struggle, and to continuously activate its vitality in the context of the New Era.

习近平总书记深刻指出：“马克思主义是我们立党立国的根本指导思想”，“背离或放弃马克思主义，我们党就会失去灵魂、迷失方向”。恩格斯在《片段》中对“真正的社会主义”思潮的批判，蕴含马克思主义科学理论精髓。为此，重温恩格斯这一批判，不仅有助于我们辨识历史虚无主义、新自由主义、“普世价值”等错误思潮的根源，更能为新时代坚持和发展中国特色社会主义、筑牢意识形态安全防线提供重要的方法论武器与实践启示。这要求我们不仅要掌握马克思主义基本原理，更要深刻理解其批判精神与斗争哲学，在新时代的语境下，持续激活其生命力。

1. Adhere to the Methodology of Historical Materialism and Oppose Abstract Speculation Detached from Practice

1.坚持历史唯物主义方法论，反对脱离实际的抽象思辨

Engels’s most fundamental critique of the “true socialist” trend lies in exposing its detachment from concrete historical conditions and the socioeconomic base, and its construction of socialism on abstract theories of human nature and speculative philosophy. The “true socialist” writers replaced the scientific analysis of concrete relations of production with abstract ethical categories, ultimately only arbitrarily arranging the past and arbitrarily pointing to the future, thereby completely losing the practical power to transform the world.

恩格斯对“真正的社会主义”思潮最根本的批判，在于揭露其脱离具体历史条件与社会经济基础，将社会主义建立在抽象的人性论和思辨哲学之上。“真正的社会主义”者以抽象的伦理范畴替代了对具体生产关系的科学分析，最终只能是随意整理过去，又随意指点未来，从而完全丧失了改造世界的实践力量。

This abstract speculation, detached from any real foundation, has not disappeared from the ideological sphere of contemporary China; its manifestations are

这种脱离现实根基的抽象思辨，在当代中国意识形态领域并未绝迹，其表现形态更具隐蔽性与迷惑性。一方面，“历史虚无主义”思潮试图通过解构宏大叙事、否认历史规律，将中国革命、建设和改革的伟大实践碎片化、偶然化、庸俗化。它无视中国选择社会主义道路、坚持改革开放的历史必然性与深厚社会根基，用主观臆断和片面史料取代基于生产力与生产关系矛盾运动的科学历史观，本质上是站在历史唯物主义的对立面。另一方面，某些“纯学术”或“价值中立”的理论包装，将社会矛盾、发展困境简单归咎于抽象的文化传统、国民性或“人性弱点”，回避对具体制度安排、利益格局、权力运行机制的深入剖析。为此，习近平总书记强调，“要旗帜鲜明反对历史虚无主义”，“要坚持用唯物史观来认识历史”。

The great practice of socialism with Chinese characteristics in the New Era is the most vivid embodiment of the methodology of historical materialism. For example, China’s comprehensive victory in the battle against poverty was not derived from abstract moral preaching or humanistic persuasion, but was built upon an objective identification of the economic and social development conditions of impoverished areas, a precise grasp of the root causes of poverty, and the scientific formulation of systematic solutions to “who to support, who to support them, and how to support them.” The proposal and implementation of the new development concept is not only a profound response to the greatest reality of the transformation of the principal contradiction in Chinese society in the New Era, but also a dialectical materialist answer to core issues such as the driving forces, modes, and pathways of development.

新时代中国特色社会主义的伟大实践，正是历史唯物主义方法论最生动的体现。例如，我国脱贫攻坚战取得了全面胜利，不是源于抽象的道德说教或人性感化，而是建立在对贫困地区经济社会发展条件的客观识别，对致贫根源的精准把握，以及对“扶持谁、谁来扶、怎么扶”等系统性解决方案的科学制定之上。新发展理念的提出与践行，不仅是对新时代我国社会主要矛盾转化这一最大现实的深刻回应，也是对发展动力、发展方式、发展路径等核心问题的唯物辩证解答。

Undoubtedly, to identify and critique various erroneous “socialist” trends of thought, one must first examine whether they are grounded in China’s national conditions and rooted in social practice, whether they dare to confront real problems, and whether they are committed to resolving practical contradictions. Any “theoretical innovation” or “value postulate” that is divorced from China’s specific national conditions and the genuine needs of the people, no matter how ornate its rhetoric, is merely a theoretical variant of the “true socialism” trend of thought and will ultimately be falsified by practice.

毫无疑问，识别和批判各种错误“社会主义”思潮，必须首先审视其是否立足中国国情、扎根社会实践，是否敢于直面真问题，是否致力于解决现实矛盾。任何脱离中国具体国情和人民真实需求的“理论创新”或“价值悬设”，无论其辞藻如何华丽，都不过是“真正的社会主义”思潮的理论变种，终将被实践所证伪。

2. Adhere to a Scientific Attitude Toward Theoretical Resources, Oppose Vulgarized Interpretations and Erroneous Grafting

2.坚持以科学态度对待理论资源，反对庸俗化解读与错误嫁接

Engels profoundly criticized the vulgarized interpretation and erroneous grafting of Fourier’s thought by the proponents of “true socialism.” The essence of this interpretation is clearly to strip Fourier’s thought of its historical specificity and revolutionary critical edge, transforming it into a decorative “theory of reconciliation” suited to the tastes of the petty bourgeoisie and negating class struggle.

恩格斯深刻批判了“真正的社会主义”者对傅立叶思想的庸俗化解读与错误嫁接。这种解读的实质，显然是通过剥离傅立叶思想的历史具体性和革命批判锋芒，将其改造为适合小资产阶级胃口的、否定阶级斗争的“调和论”装饰。

In contemporary China, in the process of theoretical innovation and discourse construction, we similarly face the issue of how to scientifically approach the classical works of Marxism, the excellent traditional Chinese culture, and foreign philosophical and social science resources. The risks of vulgarized interpretation and erroneous grafting still exist. For example, dogmatic or utilitarian interpretations of classical works, decontextualizing and sanctifying individual theses or distorting their original meanings; falling into the two extremes of restorationism and historical nihilism when dealing with traditional culture; blindly worshipping Western theories, mechanically applying their conceptual models to tailor Chinese practice, while ignoring their historical backgrounds and ideological premises, leading to a Procrustean approach. To this end, General Secretary Xi Jinping

当今中国，在理论创新和话语构建过程中，同样面临着如何科学对待马克思主义经典著作、中华优秀传统文化以及国外哲学社会科学资源的问题。庸俗化解读与错误嫁接的风险仍旧存在。例如，教条化或功利化解读经典著作，脱离语境神圣化个别论断或曲解原意；对待传统文化陷入复古主义与历史虚无主义两极；对西方理论盲目崇拜，机械套用其概念模型剪裁中国实践，忽视其历史背景与意识形态前提，导致削足适履。为此，习近平总书记提出明确要求“要处理好继承和创造性发展的关系，重点做好创造性转化和创新性发展”，“对国外的理论、概念、话语、方法，要有分析、有鉴别，适用的就拿来用，不适用的就不要生搬硬套”。

Xi Jinping Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era consistently adheres to integrating the basic tenets of Marxism with China’s specific realities and with the best of traditional Chinese culture, serving as a brilliant model of theoretical innovation with a scientific attitude. It must be pointed out that the people-centered development thought both draws on the traditional wisdom that “the people are the foundation of the state” and places it on the cornerstone of historical materialism’s view that the people are the creators of history, endowing it with entirely new scientific connotations and practical requirements. The concept of building a community with a shared future for mankind both contains the traditional Chinese ideal of “great harmony under heaven” and is supported by historical materialism’s scientific grasp of the developmental trends of world history, transcending the theoretical framework of Western-centric international relations.

习近平新时代中国特色社会主义思想始终坚持把马克思主义基本原理同中国具体实际相结合、同中华优秀传统文化相结合，是以科学态度进行理论创新的光辉典范。需要指出的是，坚持以人民为中心的发展思想，既汲取了“民惟邦本”的传统智慧，又将其置于唯物史观关于人民群众是历史创造者的基石之上，赋予其以全新的科学内涵与实践要求。构建人类命运共同体理念，既蕴含“天下大同”的中华传统理想，又以历史唯物主义对世界历史发展趋势的科学把握为支撑，超越了西方中心主义的国际关系理论框架。

From this it can be seen that to flourish and develop philosophy and social sciences with Chinese characteristics, we must adhere to the principle of unifying critical inheritance and creative development, and guard against any form of vulgar interpretation and erroneous grafting. In dealing with all theoretical resources, we must uphold a scientific spirit, deeply understand the soil from which they emerged, the problems they addressed, their internal logic, and possible limitations, and engage in autonomous knowledge creation and discourse construction based on China’s actual conditions, solving China’s problems, and answering the questions of the times, avoiding becoming a simple footnote to any foreign theory or traditional dogma.

由此可知，繁荣发展中国特色哲学社会科学，必须坚持批判性继承与创造性发展相统一的原则，警惕任何形式的庸俗化解读和错误嫁接。对待一切理论资源，都须秉持科学精神，深入理解其产生的土壤、针对的问题、内在的逻辑与可能的局限，在立足中国实际、解决中国问题、回答时代之问中进行自主性的知识创造和话语建构，避免成为任何外来理论或传统教条的简单注脚。

3. Adhere to a Distinct Party Spirit Principle and People’s Stand, Oppose Ideological Deception

3.坚持鲜明的党性原则与人民立场，反对意识形态欺骗

Engels believed that the essence of the “True Socialism” trend was the projection of the dual nature of the German petty bourgeoisie—both anti-feudal and fearful of capital—into the ideological sphere, with the aim of concealing its own class interests and fragility through “self-deception.” Any theory that attempts to erase the class nature of ideology or advocates unprincipled “reconciliation” is in essence a betrayal of the fundamental interests of the proletariat.

恩格斯认为，“真正的社会主义”思潮的本质是德国小资产阶级的两面性——既反封建又惧资本在思想领域的投射，目的是掩盖其自身阶级利益和脆弱性的“自我欺骗”。任何试图抹杀意识形态的阶级性、鼓吹无原则“调和”的理论，本质上都是对无产阶级根本利益的背叛。

The core of the current ideological struggle in our country remains the struggle over what banner to hold and what path to take; it is a fundamental issue concerning the future and destiny of the Party and the state, and the fundamental interests of the people. Various erroneous trends of thought, no matter how cleverly packaged, often conceal specific value orientations and political demands behind them, namely, attempting to dissolve the guiding role of Marxism in the ideological domain, deny the Party’s leadership, and shake the socialist system. Petty-bourgeois illusions also manifest in new forms under the conditions of the market economy, either as “welfare populism” detached from national conditions and development stages, making unrealistic promises of high welfare; or as refined egoism, caring only about personal interests, lacking a sense of family, country, and social responsibility; or as blind admiration for Western systems and self-deprecation of one’s own path. The spiritual core of some so-called “public intellectuals” is precisely the vacillation and compromise of the petty bourgeoisie, along with blind worship of “universal values,” which in essence reflects a lack of confidence in the path, theory, system, and culture of socialism with Chinese characteristics. What is more, hostile forces at home and abroad use channels such as the internet to carefully fabricate and spread historical nihilism and cultural nihilism, with the aim of conducting ideological infiltration, confusing people’s thinking, and shaking the Party’s governing foundation. In response, General Secretary Xi Jinping profoundly pointed out: “Ideological work is an extremely important task for the Party,” and we must firmly grasp the leadership, management, and discourse power over ideological work. Adhering to a distinct Party spirit principle means, at its core, upholding the Party’s overall leadership over ideological work, ensuring that the leadership, management, and discourse power over ideological work are firmly in the hands of those loyal to Marxism, the Party, and the people. Adhering to the people’s stand means upholding a people-centered work orientation, combining serving the masses with educating and guiding them, and meeting their needs while improving their cultivation, and clearly opposing all thoughts and actions that harm the people’s interests or deviate from their will. Xi Jinping Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era consistently upholds the high degree of unity between Party spirit and the people’s nature, emphasizing that “the leadership of the Communist Party of China is the most essential feature of socialism with Chinese characteristics,” taking Party leadership as the highest political principle; at the same time, it takes “people-centeredness” as its fundamental stand, making the people’s aspiration for a better life the goal of struggle. Since the 18th National Congress of the CPC, from the heavy-handed anti-corruption campaigns of “caging the tigers,” “swatting flies,” and “hunting foxes” [17]17 “Caging the tigers” (打虎) refers to targeting high-ranking corrupt officials; “swatting flies” (拍蝇) refers to targeting low-level corrupt officials; “hunting foxes” (猎狐) refers to pursuing corrupt fugitives who have fled abroad. These are colloquial terms for the CPC’s anti-corruption campaigns., to poverty alleviation where “not a single person is left behind,” from continuously improving people’s livelihoods to promoting common prosperity, all demonstrate the Party’s firm determination and concrete actions to safeguard the fundamental interests of the broadest masses of the people.

当前我国意识形态领域斗争的核心仍然是关于举什么旗、走什么路的斗争，是关乎党和国家前途命运、关乎人民根本利益的根本性问题。各种错误思潮，无论其包装如何精巧，其背后往往都隐含着特定的价值导向和政治诉求，即试图消解马克思主义在意识形态领域的指导地位、否定党的领导、动摇社会主义制度。小资产阶级幻想在市场经济环境下亦有新的表现，或表现为脱离国情和发展阶段的“福利民粹主义”，提出不切实际的高福利承诺；或表现为精致利己主义，只关心个人利益，缺乏家国情怀和社会责任感；或表现为对西方制度的盲目推崇和对自身道路的妄自菲薄。一些所谓的“公知”言论，其精神内核正是小资产阶级的动摇性、妥协性，以及对“普世价值”的盲目膜拜，本质上是对中国特色社会主义道路、理论、制度、文化的不自信。更有甚者，国内外敌对势力利用互联网等渠道，精心炮制和传播历史虚无主义、文化虚无主义言论，其目的就是进行意识形态渗透，搞乱人们的思想，动摇党的执政根基。对此，习近平总书记深刻指出：“意识形态工作是党的一项极端重要的工作”，必须牢牢掌握意识形态工作的领导权、管理权、话语权。坚持鲜明的党性原则，核心就是坚持党对意识形态工作的全面领导，确保意识形态工作的领导权、管理权、话语权牢牢掌握在忠于马克思主义、忠于党和人民的人手中。坚持人民立场，就是要坚持以人民为中心的工作导向，把服务群众同教育引导群众结合起来，把满足需求同提高素养结合起来，旗帜鲜明地反对一切损害人民利益、背离人民意愿的思想和行为。习近平新时代中国特色社会主义思想始终坚持党性和人民性的高度统一，强调“中国共产党领导是中国特色社会主义最本质的特征”，将党的领导作为最高政治原则；同时，将“以人民为中心”作为根本立场，把人民对美好生活的向往作为奋斗目标。党的十八大以来，从重拳反腐“打虎”“拍蝇”“猎狐”，到脱贫攻坚“一个都不能少”，从持续改善民生，到推进共同富裕，无不彰显着党维护最广大人民根本利益的坚定决心和行动力量。

There is no doubt that to fortify the ideological security line in the New Era, we must always maintain political acuity and discernment. In particular, we must thoroughly expose and criticize all ideological deceptions that attempt to conceal their class essence and political intentions. We must resolutely discard petty-bourgeois illusions that detach from the people, deviate from Party spirit, and indulge in personal or small-group interests, integrating individual struggle into the common cause of the Party and the people. We must continuously strengthen our confidence in the path, confidence in the theory, confidence in the system, and confidence in the culture of socialism with Chinese characteristics, and in the complex and acute ideological struggle always stand firm and seize the initiative.

毋庸置疑，筑牢新时代意识形态安全防线，必须时刻保持政治敏锐性和鉴别力。特别是，彻底揭露和批判一切试图掩盖其阶级本质和政治意图的意识形态欺骗。要坚决摒弃脱离人民、背离党性、沉溺于个人或小团体利益的小资产阶级幻想，将个人奋斗融入党和人民的共同事业，不断增强对中国特色社会主义的道路自信、理论自信、制度自信、文化自信，在复杂尖锐的意识形态斗争中始终站稳脚跟、赢得主动。