Modern Intellectual History (2021), 18, 349–378

现代思想史(2021) ，18,349-378
doi:10.1017/S1479244319000374
Doi: 10.1017/S1479244319000374

ARTICLE
Aticlle

The Early Life of Marx’s “Mode of Production”

马克思“生产方式”的早期生活
Sarah Johnson*
莎拉 ·约翰逊 *

Society of Fellows, University of Chicago

芝加哥大学研究员协会
*Corresponding author. E-mail: sej@uchicago.edu
* 通讯作者，电子邮件: sej@uchicago.edu

This article reexamines Marx’s early conception of history by returning to his 1845–6
manuscripts, long known as The German Ideology. On conventional interpretations of these
manuscripts, Marx sought to explain the entire historical process through a theory of the
systematic development of productive forces. This article reveals that concern to be an artifact
of subsequent editorial practices and argues that a different concern animated the manuscripts
for Marx himself—namely to grasp the nature of individual epochs, particularly the present
one, which he doubted that a generalized theory of history could help him to do. In “Saint
Max,” perhaps the most neglected of these early manuscripts, Marx developed the concept of
a “mode of production” into a historical lens, one that could aid the work of social critique by
bringing into focus how the present is made and might be made anew.
本文通过回顾马克思 1845-1846 年的手稿，重新审视了马克思早期的历史观，这些手
稿长期以来被称为《德意志意识形态》。在对这些手稿的传统解释上，马克思试图通
过生产力系统发展的理论来解释整个历史过程。本文揭示了这种关注是后来编辑实践
的产物，并指出，另一种不同的关注激发了马克思自己的手稿——即把握个别时代的
性质，特别是当前时代的性质，他怀疑一种普遍化的历史理论能否帮助他做到这一点。
在这些早期手稿中最被忽视的《圣马克思》一书中，马克思将“生产方式”的概念发展
成了一个历史的透镜，这个透镜可以帮助社会批判的工作，使人们关注现在是如何形
成的，也可能是重新形成的。

For nearly a century, scholars have turned to The German Ideology to find the “first
and most comprehensive statement” of Karl Marx’s theory of history.1 But the story
that has followed this book through its many editions and translations is as famous
as its claims: that Marx and Friedrich Engels began writing it in the autumn of 1845,
that their publication agreement fell through, and that owing to this, they “abandoned
the manuscript to the gnawing criticism of the mice” the following summer.2 In
some editions, readers also learn that Marx and Engels had by that time finished
most of their book but not “I. Feuerbach”—the opening chapter and site of its prized
discussions of history. Sometimes they learn that Soviet editors eventually made
sense of the substantial but bewildering draft of “I. Feuerbach,” and that they
published, in 1932, the first complete version of The German Ideology in the Marx-
Engels-Gesamtausgabe (MEGA) I/5. Yet the end of the story is always the same:
with the posthumous publication of this book, students
近一个世纪以来，学者们一直求助于《德意志意识形态》(German Ideology) ，
希望找到卡尔 ·马克思(Karl Marx)历史理论的“第一个、也是最全面的陈述”。
但是，这本书在许多版本和译本中的故事，与它所宣称的一样著名: 马克思和
弗里德里希 ·恩格斯(friedrich Engels)在 1845 年秋天开始撰写这本书，他们的
出版协议失败了，由于这个原因，他们在接下来的夏天“把手稿扔给了老鼠的
啃咬批评”。在一些版本中，读者还了解到，马克思和恩格斯当时已经完成了
他们的大部分著作，但没有完成《我 ·费尔巴赫》(i. Feuerbach)——这本书珍
贵的历史讨论的开篇章节和网站。有时他们会了解到，苏联编辑最终理解了
《我. 费尔巴哈》的大量但令人困惑的草稿，并于 1932 年出版了《马克思-恩
格斯-格萨姆陶斯加布(MEGA) i/5》中第一个完整版的《德意志意识形态》。
然而故事的结局总是一样的: 随着这本书的出版，学生们

1
See R. Pascal, “Introduction,” in Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, The German Ideology, Parts I and
III, ed. R. Pascal (New York, 1939), ix–xviii, at ix.
参见马克思和弗里德里希 ·恩格斯的《德意志意识形态》 ，第一部分和第三部分。帕斯卡(纽约，1939) ，ix-xviii，at ix。
2
The quotation comes from Marx’s retrospective account of two unnamed volumes that he and Engels wrote
in Brussels. See Karl Marx, A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy (1859), in Karl Marx, Frederick
Engels: Collected Works (MECW), 50 vols. (Moscow, London, and New York, 1975–2004), 29: 261–417, at
264. The claims that are presented in this paragraph can be found, in full or in part, alongside numerous editions
of The German Ideology, e.g. V. Adoratskij, “Einleitung,” in Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels: Historisch-kritische
Gesamtausgabe (MEGA), Section I, vol. 5 (Berlin, 1932), ix–xix, at ix–xi; Pascal, “Introduction,” xiv–xv and
xvii; Institut für Marxismus-Leninismus beim ZK der KPdSU, “Vorwort,” in Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels,
Werke, vol. 3 (Berlin, 1958), v–xii, at vi–vii, xi; Lev Churbanov, “Preface,” in MECW, 5: xiii–xxvi, at xv, xvii,
and xxv; Robert Tucker, ed., The Marx–Engels Reader (New York, 1978), 146. See also Peter Osborne, How to
Read Marx (London, 2005), 35–6.
这段引文来自马克思对他和恩格斯在布鲁塞尔写的两卷无名书的回顾性叙述。参见卡尔 ·马克思的《政治经济学批判序言》(1859 年) ，弗里德里

希 ·恩格斯著，《卡尔 ·马克思文集》 ，50 卷。(Moscow，London，and New York，1975-2004) ，29:261-417，at 264.本段中所提出的观

点可以在《德意志意识形态》的许多版本中找到，无论是全文还是部分。弗里德里希 ·恩格斯《卡尔 ·马克思: 历史的批判性总体评价》 ，第一节，第一

卷。 5( 柏林， 1932) ， ix-xix ， at ix-xi; Pascal ，“介绍 ” ， xiv-xv 和 xvii; 马克思和弗里德里希 ·恩格斯的马克思列宁主义研究所， ZK der

KPdSU， “ Vorwort”,。3(柏林，1958) ，v-xii，at vi-vii，xi; Lev Churbanov，“序言”，in MECW，5: xiii-xxvi，at xv，xvii，and

xxv; Robert Tucker，ed。马克思恩格斯读本(纽约，1978) ，146。另见彼得 ·奥斯本，《如何读马克思》(伦敦，2005) ，35-6。

© Cambridge University Press 2019

剑桥大学出版社 2019
350 Sarah Johnson
莎拉 ·约翰逊街 350 号

of Marx secured “one of his major achievements” and indeed “the first
recognisably ‘Marxist’ work.”3
马克思获得了“他的主要成就之一”，实际上也是“第一部公认的‘马克思主
义’著作”
Even in its leanest form this story is now untenable. Across the latter half of the
twentieth century, a series of remarkable findings refuted its basic details and
revealed just how little scholars and editors have understood about Marx’s manu-
scripts from 1845–6.4 The gravity of this misunderstanding is evident in the
MEGA2 I/5, where the manuscripts were published once again, in 2017, but in an
unusual way.5 There, it is no longer possible to read “I. Feuerbach” or The German
Ideology; they simply never existed, or at least not as works by Marx and Engels. 6
Instead, both were made and remade in the twentieth century as edi-tors tried to
restore the project that Marx and Engels pursued together in Brussels. We now know
that, in doing so, those editors fashioned a book from articles that were written for a
luckless journal venture.7 Neither Marx nor Engels ever wrote a unifying title on
these manuscripts, whether “The German Ideology” or otherwise, not even when
Engels cataloged them for his own literary estate.8 And although they meant to write
a critique of Ludwig Feuerbach in the summer of 1846, they produced just a few
paragraphs for it. What is known as the lengthy draft of “I. Feuerbach” is not a
manuscript of any kind, but merely a stack of fragments, most of which were left
over from their critiques of Bruno Bauer and Max Stirner. 9 That we have read these
fragments as a “chapter,” as if they were governed by a clear and common purpose,
is due to interventions that readers cannot always see. Editors shuffled the stack,
they moved paragraphs and sentences, and they packaged this material into aptly
named sections.
即使是最简单的形式，这个故事现在也站不住脚。整个二十世纪后半叶，
一系列引人注目的发现驳斥了它的基本细节，揭示了学者和编辑对马克思
1845 年至 1866 年的手稿了解有多么少。4 这种误解的严重性在 MEGA2 i/5 中
表现得很明显，手稿在 2017 年再次出版，但方式不同寻常。5 在那里，再也
不可能阅读《费尔巴哈一书》或《德意志意识形态》 ; 它们根本就不存在，或
者至少不是马克思和恩格斯的作品。6 相反，二十世纪，当编辑们试图恢复马
克思和恩格斯在布鲁塞尔共同追求的项目时，两者都被重新制作和改造。我们
现在知道，在这样做的过程中，那些编辑从为一家倒霉的期刊公司撰写的文章
中改编了一本书。马克思和恩格斯从来没有为这些手稿写过统一的标题，不管
是《德意志意识形态》还是其他的，甚至在恩格斯为他自己的文学遗产编目的
时候也没有。众所周知，《我. 费尔巴哈》的冗长草稿不是任何形式的手稿，
而仅仅是一堆碎片，其中大部分是他们对布鲁诺. 鲍尔和马克斯. 斯特纳的批评
所遗留下来的。我们把这些碎片当作“章节”来读，就好像它们是由一个明确而
共同的目的所支配的，这是由于读者并不总能看到的干预。编辑们把这些材料
打乱，他们移动段落和句子，他们把这些材料包装成命名恰当的章节。
And so in the MEGA2 I/5, where we do not find The German Ideology and its
most famous part, we confront Marx’s 1845–6 manuscripts as he and Engels left
them. Alongside completed critiques of Bauer, Stirner, and German socialism are
因此在 MEGA2 i/5 中，我们找不到德意志意识形态及其最著名的部分，我
们面对马克思和恩格斯留下的 1845-1846 年的手稿。除了对鲍尔、斯蒂纳和德
国社会主义的完整批评之外，还有
 3
See, respectively, David McLellan, ed., Karl Marx: Selected Writings (Oxford, 1977), 159; and C. J.
Arthur, “Editor’s Introduction,” in Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, The German Ideology, Part One, ed.
C. J. Arthur (New York, 1970), 4–34, at 4.
分别参见《大卫 ·麦克莱伦编辑卡尔 ·马克思著作选》(牛津，1977) ，159; c ·j ·阿瑟，《编辑介绍》 ，卡尔 ·马克思和弗里德里
希 ·恩格斯，《德意志意识形态》 ，第一部分，编辑。阿瑟(纽约，1970) ，4-34,4。
4
See Terrell Carver and Daniel Blank, A Political History of the Editions of Marx and Engels’s
“German Ideology Manuscripts” (New York, 2014), 61–97.
参见特雷尔 ·卡弗和丹尼尔 ·布兰克，《马克思恩格斯的“德国意识形态手稿”版本的政治史》(纽约，2014 年) ，61-97 页。
5
Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels Gesamtausgabe (MEGA2), Section I, vol. 5 (Berlin, 2017). Early
versions of some items in this volume were published in Inge Taubert and Hans Pelger, eds., Marx-
Engels-Jahrbuch 2003 (Berlin, 2004), 6–137. For an English translation and alternative presentation of
some of the contents of the Jahrbuch see Terrell Carver and Daniel Blank, eds., Marx and Engels’s
German Ideology Manuscripts: Presentation and Analysis of the “Feuerbach chapter” (New York, 2014),
34–381. For a very critical assess-ment of how the manuscripts were ultimately presented in the MEGA2
I/5, see Terrell Carver, “Whose Hand Is the Last Hand? The New MEGA Edition of ‘The German
Ideology’,” New Political Science 41/1 (2019), 140–48.
卡尔 ·马克思，弗里德里希 ·恩格斯，《共济会》(MEGA2) ，第一节，第 5 卷(柏林，2017 年)。本卷中一些项目的早期版本发表在

Inge Taubert 和 Hans Pelger 编辑，Marx-Engels-Jahrbuch 2003(柏林，2004) ，6-137。本书部分内容的英文翻译和其他介绍见

特雷尔 ·卡弗和丹尼尔 ·布兰克编辑，马克思和恩格斯的《德意志意识形态手稿: 费尔巴哈章节的介绍和分析》(纽约，2014) ，34-381。

对于这些手稿最终是如何在 MEGA2 i/5 中呈现的，有一个非常关键的评估，请参见特雷尔 ·卡弗的《谁是最后一只手？《德意志意识形态》

(The New MEGA Edition of‘ The German Ideology’) ，《新政治学》(New Political Science)41/1(2019) ，140-48。
6Inge Taubert and Hans Pelger, “Einführung,” in Marx-Engels-Jahrbuch 2003, 5*–28*, at 7*–8*;
Terrell Carver, “The German Ideology Never Took Place,” History of Political Thought 31/1 (2010), 107–
27; Carver and Blank, Political History, 1–2; Ulrich Pagel, Gerald Hubmann, and Christine Weckwerth,
MEGA2, I/5: Apparat (Berlin, 2017), 725–6, 832.
6 inge Taubert and Hans Pelger，“ eininführung”，in Marx-Engels-Jahrbuch 2003,5 *-28 * ，at 7 *-8 * ; Terrell
Carver，“ The German Ideology Never happened”，History of Political Thought 31/1(2010) ，107-27; Carver and Blank，
Political History， 1-2; Ulrich Pagel， Gerald Hubmann， and Christine Weckwerth ， MEGA2 ， i/5: Apparat (Berlin，
2017) ，725-6,832。
7Galina Golowina, “Das Projekt der Vierteljahrsschrift von 1845/1846: Zu den unsprünglichen
Publikationsplänen der Manuskripte der ‘Deutschen Ideologie’,” in Marx-Engels-Jahrbuch, vol. 3 (Berlin,
1980), 260–74.
7 galina Golowina ， “1845-1846 年间的四年计划 : 《德意志意识形态》手稿的出版计划 ” ， Marx-Engels-Jahrbuch ， vol.

3(Berlin，1980) ，260-74。
8Carver, “The German Ideology,” 112; Pagel, Hubmann, and Weckwerth, Apparat, 784. On the origin
of the title The German Ideology see Carver, “The German Ideology,” 110–15.
8 carver，“ The German Ideology”，112; Pagel，Hubmann，and Weckwerth，Apparat，784。关于标题的起源，《德意
志意识形态》见卡弗，《德意志意识形态》 ，110-15。

9Carver and Blank, Political History, 79–81; Pagel, Hubmann, and Weckwerth, Apparat, 833.
Carver and Blank，政治史，79-81; Pagel，Hubmann，和 Weckwerth，Apparat，833。
 Modern Intellectual
History
现代思想史 351

the fragments that once constituted “I. Feuerbach,” disaggregated for the first time.
We therefore confront a significant problem as well, because when “I. Feuerbach”
comes apart so does its theory of history. While the bare fragments still register
Marx’s thought, they struggle to support the range of conclusions that have been
drawn from the “chapter,” where editors gave these fragments intentions and con-
nections that are not their own. This problem, however, presents an opportunity in
turn, and that is to read the 1845–6 manuscripts anew. When these manuscripts were
read as The German Ideology few scholars looked beyond “I. Feuerbach,” which was
supposed to contain the book’s essence even in its “incomplete” state. In many
editions, the other critiques were abridged or excluded altogether. The loss of “I.
Feuerbach” is thus an occasion to study the manuscripts that Marx actu-ally wrote
with Engels in 1845–6. But it is also much more than this. It is a chance to stop
treating those manuscripts as parts of a book whose aims they serve, and whose aims
lend them meaning and coherence, and to read them instead as related but discrete
contributions to a journal—as articles where Marx pursued distinct problems and
generated distinct possibilities for his thought.10 In addition, it is a chance to study
the extant fragments in the light of those efforts. And by reading the manuscripts in
these ways, we get to ask, as if for the first time, what they reveal about Marx’s
conception of history. I aim to recover some of those insights here.
曾经构成“ i. Feuerbach”的碎片，第一次分解。因此，我们也面临着一个重要
的问题，因为当“我。费尔巴哈”分裂时，它的历史理论也会分裂。虽然这些简
单的片段仍然记录着马克思的思想，但是他们努力支持从“章节”中得出的一系
列结论，编辑们给出了这些片段的意图和联系，而这些意图和联系不是他们自
己的。然而，这个问题反过来又提供了一个机会，那就是重新阅读 1845-1846
年的手稿。当这些手稿被解读为《德意志意识形态》时，很少有学者把目光投
向《费尔巴哈一书》以外的地方，即使在“不完整”的状态下，《费尔巴哈一书》
也应该包含着这本书的精髓。在许多版本中，其他的评论被删节或者完全排除。
因此，《费尔巴哈一书》的丢失是研究马克思实际上与恩格斯在 1845-1846 年
间合作撰写的手稿的一个契机。但它也远不止于此。这是一个机会，可以停止
把这些手稿当作一本书的一部分来看待，因为这本书的目的是服务于这些目的，
而这些目的使这些手稿具有意义和连贯性，而是把它们当作一本杂志的相关但
独立的稿件来阅读ーー在这些稿件中，马克思探讨了不同的问题，并为他的思
想创造了不同的可能性。通过以这种方式阅读手稿，我们可以问，好像是第一
次，他们揭示了什么关于马克思的历史观。我的目标是在这里恢复其中的一些
见解。
Based on conventional arrangements of the leftover fragments, readers have long
concluded that, in 1845–6, Marx sought to explain “the entire historical process,”
and that he accomplished this task in “I. Feuerbach” by showing that history unfolds
through the systematic development of productive forces. 11 However, the
disaggregated fragments and completed manuscripts reveal a very different
concern—namely that Marx sought to grasp the nature of individual epochs, and that
he doubted that a generalized theory of history could help him with that work.
Marx’s preoccupation with epochs had its roots in his articles for the Deutsch-
Französische Jahrbücher (1844) and the approach to critique that he mod-eled in
them. He argued there that a critic could contribute to the project of social
transformation only by attending to present conditions and illuminating the dis-
tinctive desires and possibilities for the future that they contain. At the time, he
pursued knowledge of the present through the political form that prevailed in it. But
Marx began to access the present differently between 1844 and 1846 as he
scrutinized the methods of German philosophical criticism and confronted a fun-
damental question for his own approach to critique: how can we come to know any
period of history, including and especially our own? As he worked out the ways in
which philosophers had failed to grasp epochs, Marx developed the concept of a
“mode of production” into a historical lens, one that brings the specific nature of an
epoch into view by focusing on how it is made and might be made anew. In
根据对剩余部分的传统安排，读者们早已得出结论: 1845-1846 年，马克思
试图解释“整个历史过程”，他在《费尔巴哈一书》中完成了这一任务，表明历
史是通过生产力的系统发展展开的。然而，分解的部分和完整的手稿揭示了一
个非常不同的关切——即马克思试图抓住个别时代的本质，他怀疑一个广义的
历史理论能否帮助他完成这项工作。马克思对时代的关注源于他为《德法年鉴》
(1844)撰写的文章，以及他在这些文章中模仿的批评方法。他在那里指出，批
评家只有注意到当前的状况并阐明其中所包含的对未来的独特愿望和可能性，
才能对社会变革项目作出贡献。当时，他通过盛行于当下的政治形式来追求对
当下的认识。但是，马克思在 1844 年和 1846 年之间开始以不同的方式接近现
在，因为他仔细研究了德国哲学批评的方法，并且为他自己的批评方法提出了
一个有趣的基本问题: 我们如何才能了解任何历史时期，包括特别是我们自己
的历史时期？当马克思发现哲学家们未能把握时代的方式时，他把”生产方式”
的概念发展成一个历史透镜，通过关注一个时代是如何形成和可能被重新形成
的，使人们能够看到一个时代的特定性质。他说

10Here I am drawing upon D. F. McKenzie’s suggestion that “forms effect meaning” and Roger
Chartier’s engagements with this idea, particularly his claim that new publication forms can change what
readers expect from texts, along with how they read, interpret, and use them. See D. F. McKenzie,
Bibliography and the Sociology of Texts (London, 1986), 4; Roger Chartier, The Order of Books, trans.
Lydia G. Cochrane (Stanford, 1994), 1–23; Chartier, On the Edge of the Cliff: History, Language, and
Practices, trans. Lydia G. Cochrane (Baltimore, 1997), 81–9.
在这里，我引用了 D.f. 麦肯齐的“ 形式效应意义”的建议，以及罗杰 ·查蒂尔对这一观点的参与，特别是他的主张，即新的出版形式可以
改变读者对文本的期望，以及他们阅读、解释和使用文本的方式。麦肯齐，书目和文本社会学(伦敦，1986) ，4; 罗杰 ·查蒂尔，《图书的
秩序》 ，翻译。科克伦(斯坦福大学，1994) ，1-23; 查蒂尔，悬崖边缘: 历史，语言和实践，翻译。科克伦(巴尔的摩，1997) ，81-9。

11The quotation is from Churbanov, “Preface,” xviii.

引用自丘尔巴诺夫的《序言》18。
352 Sarah Johnson
莎拉 ·约翰逊街 352 号

doing so, moreover, he used the concept in ways that foreshadow its later use in
his mature critique of political economy. After illustrating how editors obscured
Marx’s concern with historical specificity in the 1845–6 manuscripts, I trace the
early development of his “mode of production” to show how it started to take on
its char-acteristic role there. This story begins in 1844, when the term appeared
in Marx’s Paris notebooks, and it culminates in his critique of Max Stirner.
此外，他使用这个概念的方式，预示着它后来在他成熟的政治经济学批判
中的使用。在阐述编辑们如何在 1845-1846 年的手稿中模糊了马克思对历
史特殊性的关注之后，我追溯了他的“生产方式”的早期发展，以说明它是
如何开始在那里发挥其特有的作用的。这个故事开始于 1844 年，当这个
术语出现在马克思的巴黎笔记本中时，它在他对马克思 ·斯蒂纳的批判中
达到顶峰。
Marx devoted more time to “Saint Max” than to any other critique in 1845–6 and
it is the longest one by far: it occupies 318 pages of the MEGA2 I/5 while the next-
longest manuscript spans just forty-two. It is also little read and widely scorned.
Biographers have written more about its inordinate length, tedium, and bad jokes
than they have about its claims, which are examined just as rarely in the broader
scholarship on Marx.12 But as Sven-Eric Liedman and the editors of the MEGA2
have recently stressed, Marx worked out ideas in “Saint Max” that he would return to
throughout his life.13 Among these, Liedman writes, is a crucial piece of what came
to be known as “the materialist conception of history,” the claim that ideas are rooted
in social and material conditions and must be studied in relation to them. 14 Indeed,
Marx makes this and other points in “Saint Max” that are familiar from “I.
Feuerbach”—for instance, that in all epochs there is a dir-ect relationship between
property forms and productive forces.15 And yet we should not be tempted to read
“Saint Max” through the theory of history that “I. Feuerbach” taught us, whether out
of habit or hope that it might regain its foot-ing there. For as this article will show,
“Saint Max” contains historical preoccupations that exceed that theory, along with
arguments that challenge it.
在 1845-1846 年间，马克思在《圣马克思》上花费的时间比其他任何批评都
要多，而且它是迄今为止最长的: 它占据了 MEGA2 i/5 的 318 页，而第二长的
手稿只有 42 页。它也很少被人阅读，而且遭到广泛的鄙视。传记作家们写的
关于它冗长、乏味和糟糕的笑话的文章，比他们写的关于它的主张的文章还要
多，而这在更广泛的关于马克思的学术研究中是很少被考察的。但是正如
Sven-Eric Liedman 和 mega2 的编辑们最近强调的那样，马克思在《圣麦克斯》
中提出了一些想法，这些想法将会贯穿他的一生。其中，李德曼写道，这是后
来被称为“唯物史观”的一个关键部分，“唯物史观”认为思想根植于社会和物质
条件，必须根据这些条件进行研究。14 事实上，马克思在《圣马克思》中提
出了这一点和其他一些从《费尔巴哈一书》中熟悉的观点，例如，在所有的时
代，财产形式和生产力之间都存在着直接的关系。然而，我们不应该试图通过
《费尔巴哈一世》教给我们的历史理论来阅读《圣马克斯》 ，不管是出于习
惯还是希望它能在那里重新站稳脚跟。因为正如本文将要展示的那样，《圣马
克斯》包含了超越这一理论的历史关注点，以及挑战这一理论的论据。
 12
E.g. Franz Mehring, Karl Marx: The Story of His Life (1918), trans. Edward Fitzgerald (Ann Arbor,
1973), 110; Isaiah Berlin, Karl Marx: His Life and Environment (London, 1939), 125–6; David McLellan,
Karl Marx: His Life and Thought (New York, 1973), 148–50; Jonathan Sperber, Karl Marx: A
Nineteenth-Century Life (New York, 2013), 166–7; and Gareth Stedman Jones, Karl Marx: Greatness
and Illusion (Cambridge, 2016), 189–90. Sperber and Stedman Jones acknowledge Stirner’s influence on
Marx but they do not consider the place of “Saint Max” within Marx’s intellectual development. Sidney
Hook does not either, despite his lengthy discussion of the manuscript in From Hegel to Marx: Studies in
the Intellectual Development of Karl Marx (New York, 1936), 163, 173–85. In contrast, Sven-Eric
Liedman takes up this question in A World to Win: The Life and Works of Karl Marx (2015), trans.
Jeffrey N. Skinner (London, 2018), 182–91. Other efforts to consider the significance of “Saint Max”
include H. Arvon, “Une polémique inconnue: Marx et Stirner,” Les temps modernes 7/71 (1951), 509–36;
N. Lobkowicz, “Karl Marx and Max Stirner,” in Frederick J. Adelmann, ed., Demythologizing Marxism
(Dordrecht, 1969), 64–95; Paul Thomas, “Karl Marx and Max Stirner,” Political Theory 3/2 (1975), 159–
79; Inge Taubert, “Wie entstand die Deutsche Ideologie von Karl Marx und Friedrich Engels? Neue
Einsichten, Probleme und Streitpunkte,” in Studienzentrum Karl-Marx-Haus, ed., Studien zu Marx’
erstem Paris-Aufenthalt und zur Entstehung der Deutsche Ideologie (Trier, 1990), 9–87, at 51–87; Gary
K. Browning, “The German Ideology: The Theory of History and the History of Theory,” History of
Political Thought 14/3 (1993), 455–73.
12E.弗朗茨 ·梅林，卡尔 ·马克思: 他的一生的故事(1918) ，翻译。爱德华 ·菲茨杰拉德(安娜堡，1973) ，110; 以赛亚 ·柏林，卡
尔 ·马克思: 他的生活和环境(伦敦，1939) ，125-6; 大卫 ·麦克莱伦，卡尔 ·马克思: 他的生活和思想(纽约，1973) ，148-50; 乔纳

森 ·斯珀伯，卡尔 ·马克思: 19 世纪的生活(纽约，2013) ，166-7; 加雷思 ·斯特德曼 ·琼斯，卡尔 ·马克思: 伟大与幻想(剑桥，2016) ，

189-90。斯珀伯和斯蒂德曼 ·琼斯承认斯特纳对马克思的影响，但他们没有考虑“圣马克思”在马克思思想发展中的地位。西德尼 ·胡克也

没有，尽管他对《从黑格尔到马克思: 卡尔 ·马克思的智力发展研究》(纽约，1936) ，163,173-85 的手稿进行了冗长的讨论。相比之下，

Sven-Eric Liedman 在《 a World to Win: The Life and Works of Karl Marx 》(2015)中提出了这个问题。斯金纳 (伦敦，

2018) ， 182-91 。 考 虑 “ 圣 马克 思 ” 的意 义的其 他努 力包 括 h 。 Arvon ， “ 一个 无名 的论战 : 马 克 思 和斯 特纳 ” ， 《摩 登时 代 ( 杂

志)7/71(1951) ，509-36》 ; n。 Lobkowicz，“卡尔 ·马克思和马克思 ·斯特纳”，弗雷德里克 j。阿德尔曼编辑。保罗 ·托马斯，《卡

尔 ·马克思和马克思 ·斯特纳》 ，《政治理论》3/2(1975) ，159-79; 英格 ·陶伯特，“卡尔 ·马克思和弗里德里希 ·恩格斯的德意志意识
形态是如何产生的？《马克思的第一次巴黎之旅》(Trier，1990) ，9-87,51-87; Gary k. Browning，《德意志意识形态: 历史理论与理
论史》 ，《政治思想史》14/3(1993) ，455-73。

13Liedman, World to Win, 191; Pagel, Hubmann, and Weckwerth, Apparat, 728, 754–5.
13 liedman，World to Win，191; Pagel，Hubmann，and Weckwerth，Apparat，728,754-5.
14Liedman, World to Win, 184.
14 liedman，World to Win，184 利德曼，世界冠军，184。
15E.g. Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, “III. Sankt Max,” in MEGA2, I/5: 165–511, at 410; Karl Marx
and Frederick Engels, The German Ideology, in MECW, 5: 19–539, at 355. Subsequent references to
Marx’s 1845–6 manuscripts will cite the relevant document in the MEGA2 I/5 and provide a parenthetical
citation to MECW 5, the source of all translations unless otherwise noted.
15E.卡尔 ·马克思和弗里德里希 ·恩格斯，“ III。马克思和弗里德里希 ·恩格斯，《德意志意识形态》 ，MECW，5:19-539,355。
随后对马克思 1845-1866 年手稿的引用将引用 MEGA2 i/5 中的相关文件，并对所有译文的来源 MECW 5 提供附加引用，除非另有说
明。
 Modern Intellectual
History
现代思想史 353

A theory from fragments

从碎片中得出的理论
By the time The German Ideology was published in 1932, a version of “I.
Feuerbach” had been circulating for several years due to the efforts of David
Ryazanov, who directed the Marx–Engels Institute in Moscow from July 1922
until he was arrested, in February 1931, for his alleged participation in a
Menshevik plot.16 Ryazanov knew right away that editing “I. Feuerbach” would
be difficult. He explained that it comprised two separate and incoherent
manuscripts, both of which were made from large sheets of paper that had been
folded in half so that each would yield four pages for writing.17 There were four
sheets in what Ryazanov called the “small manuscript,” but he reported that their
contents did not form a continuous train of thought. The title “I. Feuerbach” was
on the front of two of them: he described one as a brief, fair-copy introduction to
the work as a whole, which reproduced text that had been revised and crossed
out elsewhere, while the other contained four paragraphs of what seemed to be
the first section. Across the other two sheets in the “small manuscript,” the first
of which was marked with “3)” on its front side, Marx and Engels call the stages
of the division of labor “just so many different forms of property” and they
describe the “tribal,” “ancient” and “feudal” varieties.
到 1932 年《德意志意识形态》出版时，由于大卫 ·梁赞诺夫的努力，
《我 ·费尔巴哈》的一个版本已经流传了几年。梁赞诺夫自 1922 年 7 月起
在莫斯科领导马克思-恩格斯研究所，直到 1931 年 2 月因涉嫌参与孟什维
克阴谋而被捕。他解释说，这份手稿由两份不连贯的独立手稿组成，两份
手稿都是用一张大纸折成两半，这样每份手稿可以写四页。17. Ryazanov
称之为“小手稿”的东西有四张，但他报告说，它们的内容并没有形成一个
连续的思路。标题“ i. Feuerbach”在其中两个标题的前面: 他描述其中一个
标题是对整个工作的简短、公正的介绍，其中转载了在其他地方被修订和
删除的案文，而另一个标题则载有似乎是第一节的四个段落。在“小手稿”
的另外两页(第一页正面写着“3”)中，马克思和恩格斯把劳动分工的各个阶
段称为“多种不同的财产形式”，他们描述了“部落”、“古代”和“封建”的各
种形式。
Ryazanov further identified a “main manuscript” that was significantly longer but
riddled with crossed-out text, corrections, and additions. Its pagination was also vexing.
While Engels had numbered each of the sheets in this “manuscript” on its front side,
Marx had either crossed out or written over those numbers in the course of numbering
the sheets’ individual pages. According to Marx’s num-bers, Ryazanov had pages 8–28,
30–35, and 40–72, and by this measure just twelve others were missing. But Engels’s
numbers pointed to a wildly different conclusion, for the pages that Marx numbered were
made from three discontinuous series of sheets: 6–11, 20–21, and 84–92. Ryazanov also
had a sheet with “5.” written on the front, although its content was not continuous with
that of sheet 6, and he claimed to have the first sheet as well. He decided that this was
the unnumbered sheet with the crossed-out introduction to “I. Feuerbach” and that the
“main manu-script” began with the five remaining paragraphs. In these gaps, then,
seventy-three sheets and nearly three hundred pages were gone.
 梁赞诺夫进一步确定了一个“主要的手稿”，是显着更长，但打孔的文字，更正
和补充。它的分页也令人烦恼。恩格斯在这份“手稿”的正面给每一页都编了号，
而马克思在给每一页编号的过程中，要么划掉了这些号码，要么把这些号码写掉
了。根据马克思的数字，梁扎诺夫有 8-28 页，30-35 页和 40-72 页，按照这个标准，
只有 12 页不见了。但恩格斯的数字指出了一个截然不同的结论，因为马克思编号
的页数是由三个不连续的序列组成的: 6-11、20-21 和 84-92。梁扎诺夫也有一张带
有“5”的纸写在正面，尽管它的内容与第六张纸的内容并不连续，他声称自己也有
第一张纸。他决定，这是一张没有编号的纸，上面划掉了“ i. Feuerbach”的导言，
而“主要手稿”则从剩下的五段开始。在这些空白处，73 张纸和将近 300 页纸消失
了。

But Ryazanov was undaunted. He dealt with the missing pages by assuming that their
contents had simply been removed from “I. Feuerbach” for use in “Saint Bruno” and
“Saint Max,” two of the other critiques from 1845–6, where he had
但是梁扎诺夫并不气馁。他处理这些缺失的书页时，假定它们的内容只是从“ i.
Feuerbach”中删除，以便在“ Saint Bruno”和“ Saint Max”中使用，这是 1845-1846 年
的另外两篇批评文章

16Ryazanov published “I. Feuerbach” in Russian first, in 1924, and in German in 1926: Karl Marx and
Friedrich Engels, “I. Feuerbach: Gegensatz von materialisticher und idealistischer Anschauung,” in D.
Rjazanov, ed., Marx-Engels Archiv: Zeitschrift des Marx-Engels-Instituts in Moskau, vol. 1 (Frankfurt
am Main, 1926), 233–306. My understanding of Ryazanov’s work on “I. Feuerbach” is indebted to Carver
and Blank, Political History, 17–27. On Ryazanov’s arrest see also Jonathan Beecher and Valerii N.
Fomichev, “French Socialism in Lenin’s and Stalin’s Moscow: David Riazanov and the French Archive of
the Marx–Engels Institute,” Journal of Modern History 78/1 (2006), 119–43, at 140–41.
16. 梁扎诺夫于 1924 年和 1926 年分别以俄文和德文发表了《我 ·费尔巴哈》 : 卡尔 ·马克思和弗里德里希 ·恩格斯的《我 ·费尔巴
哈: 物质主义和理想主义的对立面》 ，d. Rjazanov 编辑，Marx-Engels 档案: Zeitschrift des Marx-Engels-instituts in Moskau，

vol. 1(Frankfurt am Main，1926) ，233-306。我对梁扎诺夫的《费尔巴哈一书》的理解要归功于卡弗和布兰克，《政治史》 ，17-

27。关于梁赞诺夫的被捕，参见乔纳森 ·比彻(Jonathan Beecher)和瓦莱里 ·n ·福米契夫(Valerii n. Fomichev)的著作《列宁时代的

法国社会主义与斯大林时代的莫斯科: 大卫 ·里亚赞诺夫和马克思恩格斯研究所的法国档案》(David Riazanov and the French Archive

of the Marx-Engels Institute) ，《现代史杂志》78/1(2006) ，119-43，at 140-41。

17The details in this paragraph and the next are from D. Rjazanov, “Einführung des Herausgebers,” in
Marx-Engels Archiv, 205–21, at 217–21. I clarify and supplement Ryazanov’s account with physical
descrip-tions of the sheets and pages. For these see Karl Marx/Friedrich Engels Papers, A 11,
International Institute of Social History, Amsterdam, at http://hdl.handle.net/10622/ARCH00860.
17 这段和下一段的细节摘自 d. Rjazanov 的著作《发动机的引进》 ，马克思-恩格斯档案，205-21,217-21。我澄清和补充梁扎诺夫

的叙述与物理描述的表和页。关于这些见卡尔 · 马 克 思 / 弗 里 德 里 希 · 恩 格 斯 论 文 ， 11 ， 国 际 社 会 历 史 研 究 所 ， 阿 姆 斯 特 丹 ，

http://hdl.handle. net/10622/arch00860。
354 Sarah Johnson
Sarah Johnson 街 354 号

found passages that were crossed out of the “main manuscript.”18 And while this
was a reasonable assumption at the time, it has also proven to be a faulty one.19
We now know that sheets 6–11 originated in a draft critique of Bruno Bauer that
dates from October 1845, and that large sections of text are crossed out because
they were ultimately used in “Saint Bruno.” The other two sets of sheets were
taken out of different parts of “Saint Max,” which Marx and Engels began in
November 1845. Sheets 20 and 21 contain completed text from a section called
“The Hierarchy,” some of which was copied back into “Saint Max” and crossed
out of the excised sheets, while sheets 84–92 contain a series of fragmentary
digressions and notes that Marx and Engels wrote after beginning a section
called “Treatise No. 2: Private Property, State, and Right.” By the following
summer, Marx had numbered the pages of these three sets of remnant sheets 1–
72, in the order in which they had been written. Though we can only speculate
about what they planned to do with all of this material—perhaps some passages
would have been used in a critique of Feuerbach and other writings, perhaps
some would have been discarded—it is clear that they had no intention of
publishing this stack of pages as they left it.20
找到了从“主要手稿”中划掉的段落虽然这在当时是一个合理的假设，但也
被证明是一个错误的假设。我们现在知道，第 6-11 页起源于 1845 年 10 月
对布鲁诺 ·鲍尔的评论草稿，而且大段的文字被划掉了，因为它们最终被
用在了《圣布鲁诺》中另外两套纸张是从《圣马克思》的不同部分取出的，
马克思和恩格斯于 1845 年 11 月开始写这本书。第 20 页和第 21 页包含了
一个叫做“等级制度”的章节的完整文本，其中一些被复制回“圣马克思”，
并从被删节的表格中划去，而第 84 页至第 92 页包含了一系列零碎的题外
话和注释，这些都是马克思和恩格斯在开始一个叫做“第 2 号论文: 私有财
产、国家和权利”的章节后写的到了第二年夏天，马克思已经按照书写的
顺序，把这三套残页的页数编了 1-72。虽然我们只能猜测他们打算如何处
理这些材料——也许有些段落会被用来批评费尔巴哈和其他作品，也许有
些段落会被丢弃——但很明显，他们没有打算在离开时出版这一摞页面
What is also certain is that, in April 1846, Marx and Engels sent “Saint Max” to
Westphalia for publication in a new quarterly journal that they would edit, and for
which they had already commissioned additional articles. 21 Publishing this journal
in Brussels was not an option. Marx was expelled from France in January 1845 for
his involvement with Vorwärts!, a radical German newspaper that was based in
Paris, and he had pledged to “publish nothing about current politics” in Belgium as a
condition of residing there. 22 Yet publishing the journal within the German
Confederation would not be easy. By law, a publication could avoid pre-censorship
if it exceeded twenty printed sheets, or 320 pages, which meant that a lengthy quar-
terly could allow its contributors to publish shorter works without official scru-
tiny.23 But in the spring of 1845, the first volume of Hermann Püttmann’s
Rheinische Jahrbücher was met with severe reactions from state authorities, includ-
ing the demand that its second volume be pre-censored and significant political and
financial threats against Carl Julius Leske, one of the few publishers who remained
willing to print radical work.24 Although Leske had already agreed to publish
Marx’s planned critique of political economy, he was not in a position to take
 同样可以肯定的是，1846 年 4 月，马克思和恩格斯把《圣马克思》送到威
斯特伐利亚，准备在一本新的季刊上出版，他们将编辑这本季刊，并且已经为
此委托了更多的文章。1845 年 1 月，马克思被驱逐出法国，原因是他参与了
沃尔沃特的活动！作为居住在比利时的条件，他承诺“不发表任何有关比利时
当前政治的文章”。然而，在德意志邦联内部发表这份杂志并不容易。根据法
律，一份出版物如果超过 20 页或 320 页，就可以避免事先审查，这意味着一
个漫长的季度可以允许其投稿人在没有官方审查的情况下出版较短的作品。23
但是在 1845 年春天，赫尔曼 ·普特曼的《莱茵河年鉴》第一卷遭到了国家当
局的强烈反应，包括要求其第二卷进行事先审查，以及对卡尔 ·朱利叶斯 ·莱
斯克(Carl Julius Leske)的重大政治和财政威胁，莱斯克是少数几个仍然愿意出
版激进作品的出版商之一。24 尽管莱斯克已经同意出版马克思计划出版的对
政治经济学的评论，但他不能接受

18See Rjazanov, “Einführung,” 219–20.

参见 Rjazanov，“ Einführung,”219-20。

19
The following account is drawn from Pagel, Hubmann, and Weckwerth, Apparat, 737–56, 794, 832–
54; Carver and Blank, Political History, 73, 144–8; Carver, “The German Ideology,” 115–20.
19 下面的叙述摘自 Pagel ， Hubmann ， and Weckwerth ， Apparat ， 737-56,794,832-54; Carver and Blank ， Political
History，73,144-8; Carver，“ The German Ideology”，115-20。
20Scholars have offered competing hypotheses about why Marx and Engels removed the two sets of
sheets from “Saint Max,” but there is no conclusive evidence that explains the decision. Compare Carver
and Blank, Political History, 145; and Terrell Carver, “‘Roughing It’: The ‘German Ideology’ ‘Main
Manuscript’,” History of Political Thought 36/4 (2015), 700–25, at 707; with Pagel, Hubmann, and
Weckwerth, Apparat, 839–41.
关于为什么马克思和恩格斯从《圣马克思》中移除了这两套纸张，学者们提出了相互矛盾的假说，但是没有确凿的证据来解释这个决定。

Carver and Blank ， Political History ， 145; and Terrell Carver ， “‘ rough It’: The‘ German Ideology’‘ Main

Manuscript’,”History of Political Thought 36/4(2015) ， 700-25 ， at 707; with Pagel ， Hubmann ， and Weckwerth ，

Apparat，839-41。
21
Golowina, “Das Projekt der Vierteljahrsschrift,” 267; Pagel, Hubmann, and Weckwerth, Apparat, 759–62.
Golowina，“四年计划”，267; Pagel，Hubmann，和 Weckwerth，Apparat，759-62。
22
Marx to Heinrich Heine, 24 March 1845, in MECW, 38: 30–31, at 31.
马克思致海因里希 ·海涅，1845 年 3 月 24 日，MECW，38:30-31,31。

23Golowina, “Das Projekt der Vierteljahrsschrift,” 260–61; Wolfgang Beutin, Klaus Ehlert, Wolfgang
Emmerich, Helmut Hoffacker, Bernd Lutz, Volker Meid, Ralf Schnell, Peter Stein, and Inge Stephan, A
History of German Literature, 4th edn, trans. Clare Krojzl (London, 1993), 265–6; Pagel, Hubmann, and
Weckwerth, Apparat, 735.
23 golowina，“四年计划”，260-61; Wolfgang Beutin，Klaus Ehlert，Wolfgang Emmerich，Helmut Hoffacker，Bernd

Lutz，Volker Meid，Ralf Schnell，Peter Stein，and Inge Stephan，a History of German Literature，4 edn，trans。Clare

Krojzl (London，1993) ，265-6; Pagel，Hubmann，and Weckwerth，Apparat，735.

24Pagel, Hubmann, and Weckwerth, Apparat, 735–7.
24 pagel，Hubmann，and Weckwerth，Apparat，735-7.
 Modern Intellectual
History
现代思想史 355

on another journal in the autumn of 1845.25 That November, Moses Hess

reported that two Westphalian entrepreneurs, Julius Meyer and Rudolph Rempel,
would publish it instead.26
在 1845 年秋天的另一本杂志上。25 那年 11 月，摩西 ·赫斯报道说，两位
威斯特伐利亚州的企业家，朱利叶斯 ·迈耶和鲁道夫 ·伦佩尔，将出版这
本书
Marx and Engels completed additional writings for the quarterly by the end
of May 1846, including “Saint Bruno” and “The Leipzig Council,” which
introduced their work on the pair of “saints,” and two critiques of German
socialism. It was only then, around early June, that they began a critique of
Feuerbach. But it was also around that time that their plans for the journal fell
apart. Meyer and Rempel insisted that they had made no promises to Hess, and
in late July Marx and Engels had their manuscripts sent to Roland Daniels in
Cologne for safekeep-ing.27 At that point they had produced just three arrested
openings under the title “I. Feuerbach.” What are called fragments “3)” and “5.”
in the MEGA2 were prob-ably written around that time as well.28 Marx and
Engels do not appear to have worked on the critique of Feuerbach after Engels
left Brussels in August 1846, although they did try, until September 1847, to
find someone who was willing to publish their manuscripts.29
到 1846 年 5 月底，马克思和恩格斯完成了季刊的补充文章，包括《圣
布鲁诺》和《莱比锡委员会》 ，介绍了他们关于“圣徒”二人的工作，以及
对德国社会主义的两次批判。直到六月初，他们才开始批判费尔巴哈。但
也就是在那个时候，他们的杂志计划破裂了。迈耶和伦佩尔坚持说，他们
没有向赫斯作出任何承诺，7 月下旬，马克思和恩格斯把他们的手稿送到
科隆的罗兰丹尼尔斯保管所谓的片段“3)”和“5”马克思和恩格斯在 1846 年 8
月恩格斯离开布鲁塞尔之后，似乎没有对费尔巴哈的批评进行过研究，尽
管他们直到 1847 年 9 月才找到愿意出版他们手稿的人
Ryazanov knew none of this as he worked with the fragments, and so he treated
the pages before him as if they had all been written to serve the same argument. In
the 1920s, he presented this material in a fairly straightforward way. He started with
the three sheets bearing the title “I. Feuerbach,” followed by fragment “5.” and the
rest of the “main manuscript” as Marx had paginated it. All that remained was frag-
ment “3)”, which Ryazanov placed last under the heading “[Division of Labor and
Forms of Property]” because he thought that these sheets offered an “unfinished
exposition” of the conclusion reached in the “main manuscript.”30 For a title, he
chose “I. Feuerbach. Opposition of the Materialist and Idealist Outlook [sic],” which
Engels had written on the back of the “main manuscript” after Marx’s death.31 But
the work bearing this name looked very different when it reappeared in the MEGA
I/5. Pavel Weller prepared it under Ryazanov’s supervision and all changes had
likely been made before the latter’s arrest, although it is Ryazanov’s replacement at
the institute, Vladimir Adoratsky, who is credited as the volume’s editor.32 As
Adoratsky explained in his introduction, one of the aims of the MEGA I/5 was to
work out “the dialectical coherence” of the various topics that “I. Feuerbach”
covers.33 To this end, the three brief openings were left as Ryazanov had previously
ordered them but the remaining pages, as well as their paragraphs and sentences,
were freely arranged.
梁扎诺夫在处理这些碎片时对此一无所知，因此他对待面前的这些页面，
就好像它们都是为同一个论点而写的一样。在 20 世纪 20 年代，他以一种相当
直接的方式呈现了这些材料。他从标题为“ i. Feuerbach”的三页纸开始，后面
跟着片段“5”以及其余的“主要手稿”，因为马克思已分页。所有剩下的只是“3”
的碎片，梁扎诺夫把它放在最后的“[劳动分工和财产形式]”的标题下，因为他
认为这些表格提供了“未完成的阐述”在“主要手稿”中达成的结论 30 作为标题，
他选择了“ i. Feuerbach”。马克思去世后，恩格斯在“主要手稿”的背面写下了
“唯物主义和唯心主义观点的对立”。但是，当这个名字出现在 MEGA i/5 上时，
它看起来非常不同。Pavel Weller 在 Ryazanov 的监督下准备了这本书，所有的
改动很可能在 Ryazanov 被捕之前就已经完成了，尽管这是 Ryazanov 在研究所
的继任者 Vladimir Adoratsky，他被认为是这本书的编辑。正如 Adoratsky 在他
的介绍中所解释的，MEGA I.5 的目的之一是找出“辩证的连贯性”，即“ i.
Feuerbach”所涵盖的各个主题。为了达到这个目的，按照 Ryazanov 之前的命
令留下了三个简短的开头，但是剩下的几页以及它们的段落和句子是自由安排
的。

25Ibid.
25Ibid.
26Ibid., 740, 745–6.
26Ibid，740,745-6.
27Ibid., 740–44, 802, 847–8; Carver and Blank, Political History, 91.
同上，740-44,802,847-8;。

28Pagel, Hubmann, and Weckwerth, Apparat, 976, 985.

28 pagel，Hubmann，and Weckwerth，Apparat，976,985.
29Ibid., 848.
29Ibid，848.
30Marx and Engels, “I. Feuerbach,” 303 n.
30 马克思恩格斯，《费尔巴哈》 ，303 n。
31Pagel, Hubmann, and Weckwerth, Apparat, 848.
31 pagel Hubmann 和 Weckwerth 848 号设备。
32See Ernst Czóbel, “Stand und Perspektiven der Herausgabe der MEGA (März/April 1931),” in Carl-
Erich Vollgraf, Richard Sperl, and Rolf Hecker, eds., David Borisovič Rjazanov und die erste MEGA
(Berlin, 1997), 132–43, at 136–7; Adoratskij, “Einleitung,” xix.
欧内斯特 ·克索贝尔，“ MEGA (1931 年 3 月/4 月)发行的现状和前景”，卡尔-埃里希 ·沃尔格拉夫，理查德 ·斯珀尔，罗尔夫 ·赫
克尔编辑，大卫 ·鲍里索维 ·拉贾扎诺夫和第一个 MEGA (柏林，1997) ，132-43,136-7; 爱多拉茨基，“ Einleitung”，16。
33
V. Adoratskij, “2. Die Richtlinien für die Redigierung der Manuskripte,” in MEGA, I/5: 561–4, at 561.
33V Adoratskij，“2. 修改手稿的原则,”在 MEGA，i/5:561-4，at 561。

See also Carver and Blank, Political History, 33–6.

参见 Carver and Blank，Political History，33-6。
356 Sarah Johnson
莎拉 ·约翰逊街 356 号

It was in this context that a crucial decision was made regarding fragment “3)”—
the brief history of the division of labor and property forms that Ryazanov initially
placed at the end of the “main manuscript.” In the MEGA, this fragment was instead
seamlessly attached to the three brief openings to “I. Feuerbach,” which when read
together distinguish Marx and Engels’s approach to criticism from that of the Young
Hegelians. Because these philosophers assume that “the real chains of men” are ideas
and concepts, Marx and Engels argue that their criticism aims merely “to interpret
the existing world in a different way,” not to fight against it, and that this, in turn,
reveals those critics’ failure “to inquire into the connection of German philosophy
with German reality, the connection of their criticism with their own material
surroundings.”34 In contrast, the “premises from which [Marx and Engels] begin” are
the premises “of all human history.”35 The first is “the exist-ence of living human
individuals,” who distinguish themselves from animals by producing their means of
subsistence. We learn that the way in which they do this, their “mode of production,”
does not merely reproduce their physical exist-ence, for it is also a “definite mode of
life.” It shapes who they are and it shapes the relations between them. 36
正是在这样的背景下，作出了一个关于“3)”片段的重要决定——梁扎诺夫最
初将劳动分工和财产形式的简史放在“主要手稿”的末尾在《多边形》一书中，
这个片段反而与《我. 费尔巴哈》的三个简短开头无缝地连在了一起，这三个
开头把马克思和恩格斯的批评方法与青年黑格尔学派的批评方法区分开来。因
为这些哲学家认为“真正的人链”是思想和概念，马克思和恩格斯认为，他们的
批评目的仅仅是“以不同的方式解释现存的世界”，而不是与之对抗，这反过来
揭示了这些批评家未能“探究德国哲学与德国现实的联系，他们的批评与他们
自己的物质环境的联系”34 相反，“[马克思和恩格斯]开始的前提”是“所有人类
历史”的前提 35 第一个是“活着的人类个体的存在”，他们通过生产自己的生存
手段来区别于动物。我们知道，他们这样做的方式，他们的“生产方式”，不仅
仅是复制他们的物质存在，因为它也是一种“明确的生活方式”它塑造了他们是
谁，也塑造了他们之间的关系
Although the discussion of premises ends with this claim, the interpolation of
fragment “3)” immediately after it gives the appearance that Marx and Engels
intended this fragment to illustrate what it entails for the critic to “begin” here, from
living individuals and their mode of production. The fragment opens with an
argument that Marx and Engels acknowledge is widely accepted—that “the relations
of different nations among themselves depend upon the extent to which each has
developed its productive forces, the division of labour, & internal inter-course.”
They stress, however, that the “whole internal structure” of a nation depends upon
this too. The development of its productive forces is reflected in the state of its
division of labor, which is reflected in turn in the prevailing form of property
because “the existing stage in the division of labour determines also the relations of
individuals to one another with reference to the material, instru-ment, & product of
labour.”37 Marx and Engels soon describe three of these prop-erty forms—“tribal,”
“ancient communal and state,” and “feudal or estate”—along with the corresponding
development of the division of labor, and later in “I. Feuerbach” they appear to pick
up where this account leaves off when they depict, amidst the fragmentary writings
on the sheets from “Saint Max,” three periods of private property and production
since the Middle Ages.38 In the MEGA, then, Marx and Engels’s “premises” were
put in the service of fashioning what Adoratsky called
尽管关于前提的讨论以这个主张结束，但是片断“3”的插入立即表明，马克
思和恩格斯打算用这个片断来说明批评家从活着的个人和他们的生产方式在这
里“开始”的必要性。马克思和恩格斯承认，“不同国家之间的关系取决于它们
各自发展生产力、劳动分工和内部交往的程度。”然而，他们强调，一个国家
的“整个内部结构”也取决于此。生产力的发展反映在劳动分工的状况上，而劳
动分工又反映在普遍存在的财产形式上，因为”劳动分工的现有阶段也决定了
个人与其他人之间的关系，涉及到劳动的物质、工具和产品”马克思和恩格斯
很快描述了其中三种财产形式——“部落”、“古代公社和国家”以及“封建或地
产”——随着劳动分工的相应发展，后来在《我. 费尔巴哈》一书中，他们似乎
从这些描述中断的地方继续下去，在《圣马克思》的页面上，他们描述了自中
世纪以来私有财产和生产的三个时期

34
Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, Die Deutsche Ideologie, in MEGA, I/5: 1–528, at 9–10. See also Karl
卡尔 ·马克思和弗里德里希 ·恩格斯，《德意志意识形态》 ，MEGA，i/5:1-528,9-10。参见卡尔

Marx and Friedrich Engels, “I. Feuerbach. [1. Kapitelanfang],” in MEGA2, I/5: 4–7, at 7 (MECW, 5: 30).
马克思和弗里德里希 ·恩格斯，《费尔巴哈一世》 ，载于 MEGA2，i/5:4-7，at 7(MECW，5:30)。
35
Marx and Engels, Deutsche Ideologie, 10. See also Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, “I. Feuerbach. [2.
马克思和恩格斯，《德意志意识形态》 ，10. 参见卡尔 ·马克思和弗里德里希 ·恩格斯的《我 ·费尔巴哈》。
2
Kapitelanfang],” in MEGA , I/5: 8–11, at 8 (MECW, 5: 31).
在 MEGA2，i/5:8-11，at 8(MECW，5:31)。
36
Marx and Engels, Deutsche Ideologie, 10–11; Marx and Engels, “[2. Kapitelanfang],” 8–11 (MECW, 5:
马克思和恩格斯，《德意志意识形态》 ，10-11; 马克思和恩格斯，“[2. Kapitelanfang ]”，8-11(MECW，5:

31–2).
31-2).
37Marx and Engels, Deutsche Ideologie, 11; Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, “3) [Fragment],” in
MEGA2, I/5: 129–34, at 129 (MECW, 5: 32, punctuation modified).
马克思和恩格斯，《德意志意识形态》 ，11 页; 卡尔 ·马克思和弗里德里希 ·恩格斯，《3》[片段] ，《 MEGA2》 ，i/5:129-34，
at 129(MECW，5:32，标点符号修改)。
38See Marx and Engels, Deutsche Ideologie, 39–51; Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, “[Ms-S. 40–[73].

Frühe Fassung von III. Sankt Max. Abhandlung 2 sowie Fragmente und Notizen],” in MEGA2, I/5: 69–
123, at 71–89 (MECW, 5: 64–74).
参见马克思和恩格斯，《德意志意识形态》 ，39-51; 卡尔 ·马克思和弗里德里希 ·恩格斯，《。40-[73].第三部分的早期结束。Sankt
Max 圣诞老人。在 MEGA2，i/5:69-123，at 71-89(MECW，5:64-74)。
 Modern Intellectual
History
现代思想史 357

the “first systematic exposition of their historico-philosophical conception of the

economic development of mankind.”39 Their lesson to critics thus seemed to be
this: that grasping the “existing world” and “their own material surroundings”
requires that they approach their present through a sweeping history of
production that entails and explains it.
第一次系统地阐述了他们关于人类经济发展的历史哲学观 39 因此，他们
给批评家的教训似乎是: 要掌握”现存世界”和”他们自己的物质环境”，他们
就必须通过包含和解释生产的全面历史来对待他们的现在。

“I. Feuerbach,” history, and the “mode of production”

费尔巴哈，历史，以及“生产方式”
Subsequent editors continued to put fragment “3)” in the same place, including
after 1962, when newly discovered manuscript pages first signaled that there
was something amiss about existing versions of “I. Feuerbach.”40 Even in the
Collected Works (1976), where the arrested discussion of premises and fragment
“3)” appear consecutively but as distinct sections, the only clue that the flow
between them is artificial is given in a footnote two pages earlier.41 As a result,
read-ers followed an argument across the sections and placed a great deal of
weight on the historical sequence that begins in fragment “3)” and seems to
continue on the excised sheets from “Saint Max.” This way of reading the
fragments contributed to two tendencies in the scholarship on Marx.
后来的编辑们继续把片段“3)”放在同一个地方，包括 1962 年以后，当新发
现的手稿页首次表明现有版本的“ i. Feuerbach”有些问题即使在《文选》
(1976)中，关于前提和片段“3”的停顿讨论连续出现，但作为不同的部分，
它们之间的流动是人为的唯一线索在两页之前的脚注中给出。结果，读者
在各个章节中遵循了一个论点，对从片段“3”开始的历史顺序给予了很大
的重视，似乎在《圣马克斯》被删节的页面上继续这种阅读片段的方式促
成了马克思学术的两种倾向。
First, it became easy to conclude with both Adoratsky and Lev Churbanov, who
finalized The German Ideology for the Collected Works, that in 1845–6 Marx was
chiefly concerned to explain “the whole historical process.”42 Although Marx and
Engels tend to discuss the various historical property forms discretely, without
explaining the transformations between them, Churbanov makes use of other frag-
ments to interpret these passages, like one in which Marx and Engels write that “all
collisions in history have their origin … in the contradiction between the product-ive
forces and the form of intercourse.”43 This was an important “discovery,” Churbanov
writes, as it revealed that “in the course of the entire historical develop-ment a link
of continuity is established between successive stages.” On this view, Marx and
Engels disclosed “the laws of social development” in “I. Feuerbach” and, in doing so,
“provided the key to the scientific understanding of the entire his-torical process.”44
The force of this interpretation is well captured in the writings of Robert Brenner
and Ellen Meiksins Wood, both of whom reject such teleological and deterministic
readings of Marx’s mature theory of history but nonetheless con-cede that this is
where it began in 1845–6. They explain that Marx’s early theory of history was
tethered to an older conception of economic periods, one familiar from the writings
of Adam Smith, in which the “mode of subsistence” evolves through “the natural
progress of one universal economic logic.”45 In other words, it was a
首先，我们很容易从阿多拉茨基和列夫 ·丘尔巴诺夫的著作《德意志意识
形态》中得出结论: 在 1845-1846 年间，马克思主要致力于解释“整个历史过
程”42. 尽管马克思和恩格斯倾向于单独地讨论各种历史属性形式，而不解释它
们之间的转换，但丘尔巴诺夫利用其他碎片来解释这些段落，例如马克思和恩
格斯在其中写道: “历史上的一切冲突都有其根源... ... 在生产力和交往形式的矛
盾之中。”这是一个重要的“发现”，丘尔巴诺夫写道，因为它揭示了“在整个历
史发展的过程中，连续性是在连续的阶段之间建立起来的。”根据这一观点，
马克思、恩格斯在《费尔巴哈一书》中揭示了“社会发展的规律”，“为科学理
解费尔巴哈的整个历史过程提供了钥匙”这种解释的力量在罗伯特 ·布伦纳和
艾伦 ·麦克森斯 ·伍德的著作中得到了很好的体现，他们都拒绝对马克思成熟
的历史理论进行这种目的论和决定论的解读，但仍然承认这就是它在 1845-
1846 年开始的地方。他们解释说，马克思的早期历史理论与一个更古老的经
济时期概念相联系，这个概念与亚当•斯密(Adam Smith)的著作相似，后者认
为，“生存方式”是通过“一种普遍经济逻辑的自然进程”演变而来的 45 换句话
说，它是一个
39Adoratskij, “Einleitung,” x.
39Adoratskij，“ Einleitung,”x。
40On this discovery see Carver and Blank, Political History, 63–7. Editions in which fragment “3)” is
sutured to the discussion of premises include Marx and Engels, Werke, vol. 3, 21; Tucker, Marx–Engels
Reader, 150; McLellan, Selected Writings, 161.
40 关于这个发现，见 Carver and Blank ， Political History， 63-7 。其中片段“3)” 与前提的讨论相结合的版本包括 Marx 和

Engels，Werke，第 3 卷，21; Tucker，Marx-Engels Reader，150; McLellan，Selected Writings，161。

41See Marx and Engels, German Ideology, 30 n. C, 32.
参见马克思恩格斯《德意志意识形态》 ，公元前 30 年，32 年。

42See Churbanov, “Preface,” xix.

42 见丘尔巴诺夫，“序言,”十九。
43Quoted in ibid., xviii. See also Marx and Engels, “[Ms-S. 40–[73]],” 90.
参见马克思和恩格斯，“[ Ms-S. 40-[73]”，90。

44Churbanov, “Preface,” xviii.

44 churbanov，“序言”，xviii。
45See Robert Brenner, “Bourgeois Revolution and Transition to Capitalism,” in A. L. Beier, David
Cannadine, and James M. Rosenheim, eds., The First Modern Society: Essays in English History in
Honour of Lawrence Stone (Cambridge, 1989), 271–304, at 275–6, 280–81; Ellen Meiksins Wood,
参见罗伯特 ·布伦纳的《资产阶级革命与向资本主义的过渡》 ，艾伦 ·麦克森斯 ·伍德，《第一个现代社会: 纪念劳伦斯 ·斯通的英国
历史散文集》(剑桥，1989) ，271-304,275-6,280-81;
358 Sarah Johnson
358 莎拉 ·约翰逊

theory of “the self-developing division of labour” as it responded to the needs of

“rationally self-interested producers.”46 By planting the seeds of commercial
society in the “depths” of history and human nature, Marx, they argue, could
simply show that capitalism was liberated from the confines of feudalism, where
it had been all along, and avoid having to explain its unique origin and logic.47
“自我发展的劳动分工”理论，因为它回应了“理性自利的生产者”的需要他
们认为，通过在历史和人性的“深处”播下商业社会的种子，马克思可以简
单地表明，资本主义已经从封建主义的束缚中解放出来，而且不必解释其
独特的起源和逻辑
The prominence of fragment “3)” also inspired a common approach to studying
Marx’s concept of a “mode of production.” We have seen that this concept appears in
one of the draft openings to “I. Feuerbach,” and it is in numerous other fragments too,
such as where Marx and Engels explain that their conception of history “relies on
expounding the real process of production—starting from the material production of
life itself—and comprehending the form of intercourse connected with and created
by this mode of production.”48 But where the concept does not appear is in fragment
“3),” which is to say, in the historical sequence that editors placed at the heart of the
“chapter.” This absence has encouraged scholars to focus on how Marx used and
developed the “mode of production” in his subsequent writings, where they find it
assuming what they take to be its characteristic role: either a means of clarifying the
stages through which historical development unfolds, or a means of rejecting that
model and thinking anew about historical difference.
碎片“3)”的突出也激发了一种研究马克思“生产方式”概念的普遍方法我们已
经看到，这个概念出现在《费尔巴哈一书》的一个开头，也出现在许多其他片
段中，例如马克思和恩格斯解释说，他们的历史概念“依赖于阐述生产的真实
过程——从生活本身的物质生产开始——以及理解与这种生产方式相联系并由
此产生的交往形式。”但是这个概念没有出现在片段“3”中，也就是说，在编辑
们放在“章节”中心的历史顺序中这种缺失促使学者们关注马克思在其后续著作
中是如何使用和发展”生产方式”的，他们发现这种生产方式假定了他们所认为
的它的特征作用: 要么是澄清历史发展所经历的阶段的一种手段，要么是拒绝
这种模式并重新思考历史差异的一种手段。
According to Churbanov, for example, as Marx expounded “the various aspects
of the concept ‘mode of production’” in his later works, he found a superior tool for
grasping “the successive replacement of social formations, the general outline of
which was given in The German Ideology.”49 In contrast, Wood argues that “some-
time between the German Ideology and Capital [1867], with a crucial milestone in
the Grundrisse [1857–8], a radical change took place” in Marx’s thought.50 Rather
than understanding different societies as different “stages in the development of one
social form,” he began to use the concept of a “mode of production” in its “dis-
tinctive Marxist sense”—namely to grasp the historical specificity of social forms
and the unique “laws of motion” that they contain.51 Despite the concept’s import-
ance, then, it has been common for scholars to take its presence in the 1845–6
manuscripts for granted and to overlook both the work that it performs there and
why it entered Marx’s thought in the first place. Instead, they quietly affirm Eric
Hobsbawm’s claim that the “evolution” of Marx’s views about historical per-iods and
historical change is best studied by starting with The German Ideology and its claim
that the “various stages in the social division of labour correspond to various forms
of property.”52
例如，丘尔巴诺夫认为，当马克思在其后期著作中阐述“‘生产方式’概念的
各个方面”时，他发现了一个更好的工具，可以把握“社会形态的连续替代，其
大致轮廓在《德意志意识形态》中给出”相比之下，伍德认为，“在《德意志意
识形态》和《资本论》[1867]之间的某段时间里，马克思的思想发生了根本性
的变化，这是《格伦德里斯》[1857-8]的一个重要里程碑。”。50. 他没有把不
同的社会理解为一种社会形式发展的不同”阶段”，而是开始在其”独特的马克
思主义意义上”使用”生产方式”的概念，即把握社会形式的历史特性及其所包
含的独特的”运动规律”。51. 尽管这个概念很重要，但学者们却常常把它出现
在 1845-1846 年的手稿中视为理所当然，忽视它在那里所做的工作，以及它为
什么首先进入马克思的思想。相反，他们悄悄地肯定了埃里克 ·霍布斯鲍姆的
主张，即马克思关于历史时期和历史变迁的观点的“演变”，最好从德意志意识
形态开始研究，并从它的主张 “社会分工的各个阶段对应着各种形式的财
产。”52

Democracy against Capitalism: Renewing Historical Materialism (Cambridge, 1995), 4, 110, 120, 147–
50, quotation at 150. Here and below, all emphasis is in the original.
民主对抗资本主义: 更新历史唯物主义(剑桥，1995) ，4,110,120,147-50,150 引用。这里和下面，所
有的重点都在原文中。
46Brenner, “Bourgeois Revolution,” 272; Wood, Democracy against Capitalism, 147. The quoted term
is Wood’s.
布伦纳，《资产阶级革命》 ，272 页; 伍德，《民主对抗资本主义》 ，147 页。

47Brenner, “Bourgeois Revolution,” 279–80; Wood, Democracy against Capitalism, 147–9.

47 布伦纳，《资产阶级革命》 ，279-80; 伍德，《民主反对资本主义》 ，147-9。
48Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, “[Ms-S. 1–29. Frühe Fassung einer Bauer-Kritik],” in MEGA2, I/5:
48 卡尔 ·马克思和弗里德里希 ·恩格斯，“[ Ms-S. 1-29. Frühe Fassung an bauer-criticism ]”，MEGA2，i/5:
16–59, at 45 (MECW, 5: 53).
16-59，at 45(MECW，5:53).
49Churbanov, “Preface,” xxi.
49 丘巴诺夫，“序言,”21。
50Wood, Democracy against Capitalism, 149.
50 伍德，《民主对抗资本主义》 ，149 页。
51Ibid., 5, 150–51; Brenner, “Bourgeois Revolution,” 272–3.
同上，5,150-51; 布伦纳，“资产阶级革命”，272-3。

52E. J. Hobsbawm, “Introduction,” in Karl Marx, Pre-capitalist Economic Formations, trans. Jack
Cohen (New York, 1965), 9–65, at 27. For a more recent example see Stedman Jones, Karl Marx, 200.
52E.霍布斯鲍姆，《引言》 ，卡尔 ·马克思，《前资本主义经济形态》 ，译。杰克 ·科恩(纽约，1965) ，9-65,27 岁。最近的一个例
子见 Stedman Jones，Karl Marx，200。
 Modern Intellectual
History
现代思想史 359

But in the MEGA2 I/5, where fragment “3)” and the fragments from “Saint
Max” once again become mere fragments, connected to nothing and bearing no
substan-tive titles, it is no longer evident that they should be prioritized over
other parts of the 1845–6 manuscripts when investigating Marx’s early ideas
about history. Indeed, it is worth remembering that it was only by chance that
we came to read “I. Feuerbach” as we did. We do not have to accept Ryazanov’s
first version of “I. Feuerbach” as a faithful representation of Marx and Engels’s
purpose in order to appreciate that Marx’s historical preoccupations took shape
there differently than they did in later versions, a fact that can help to shake
certainties about the 1845–6 manuscripts.
但是在 MEGA2 i/5 中，“3”和“ Saint Max”的片段再次变成了单纯的片段，
没有任何联系，也没有实质性的标题，在研究马克思早期的历史思想时，
它们不再明显地优先于 1845-1846 年手稿的其他部分。事实上，值得记住
的是，我们读《费尔巴哈一书》是偶然的。我们不必接受梁赞诺夫的第一
版《费尔巴哈一书》作为马克思和恩格斯宗旨的忠实代表，才能认识到马
克思在那里形成的历史先见与他们在后来的版本中形成的不同，这一事实
有助于动摇 1845-1846 年手稿的确定性。
In Ryazanov’s initial presentation of the fragments, the three draft openings
were followed by fragment “5.”, where Marx and Engels distinguish their
method from that of “German philosophy.” Instead of descending “from heaven
to earth,” they write that they begin “from real, active men, and on the basis of
their real life-process [demonstrate] the development of the ideological reflexes
and echoes of this life-process,” for “men are the producers of their conceptions,
ideas, etc. … as they are conditioned by a definite development of their
productive forces and of the intercourse corresponding to these.”53 This
fragment, however, also high-lights a challenge that comes with Marx and
Engels’s method. They explain in the closing paragraph that when a critic
undertakes “real, positive science,” or when “reality is described,” then
在梁赞诺夫最初介绍的片段，三个草案开头后面是片段“5”其中，马克
思和恩格斯将他们的方法与“德国哲学”区分开来他们没有“从天而降”，而
是写道，他们“从真实的、活跃的人开始，并在他们真实的生活过程的基
础上，[证明]这一生活过程的意识形态反射和回声的发展”，因为“人是他
们的概念、思想等的生产者... ... 因为他们受制于他们的生产力和相应的交
往的明确发展。”然而，这个片段也突出了马克思和恩格斯方法带来的挑
战。他们在最后一段解释说，当一个批评家进行“真实的，实证的科学”，
或当“现实被描述”，然后

a self-sufficient philosophy loses its medium of existence. At best its place can
only be taken by a summing-up of the most general results [allgemeinsten
Resultate], abstractions which are derived from the observation of the histor-
ical development of men. These abstractions in themselves, divorced from real
history, have no value whatsoever. They can only serve to facilitate the
arrange-ment of historical material, to indicate the sequence of its separate
strata. But they by no means afford a recipe or schema, as does philosophy, for
 neatly trimming the epochs of history. On the contrary, the difficulty begins
only when one sets about the examination and arrangement of the material—
whether of a past epoch or of the present—and its actual presentation. The
removal of these difficulties is governed by premises which certainly cannot be
stated here, but which only the study of the actual life-process and the activ-ity
of the individuals of each epoch will make evident.54
自给自足的哲学就失去了存在的媒介。在最好的情况下，它的位置只能由
一个总结最一般的结果[ allgemeinsten Resultate ] ，抽象派生自对人类历史
发展的观察。这些抽象本身，脱离了真实的历史，没有任何价值。它们只
能促进历史材料的排列，表明其独立层次的顺序。但是，它们绝不像哲学
那样，能够提供一个配方或图式来整理历史的各个时代。相反，只有当一
个人着手检查和安排材料——无论是过去的时代还是现在的——以及它的
实际呈现时，困难才开始。消除这些困难的前提当然不能在这里说明，但
只有研究每个时代个人的实际生活过程和活动才能证明这一点

In the final line of the fragment, they return from the problem of grasping epochs to their
starting point: they write that they use abstractions “in contradistinction to ideology” and
that they will illustrate a few with historical examples.
在片段的最后一行，他们从把握时代的问题回到了他们的出发点: 他们写道，他们
使用抽象概念“与意识形态相对立”，他们将用历史例子来说明一些抽象概念。
Marx is certainly interested in “historical development” in fragment “5.” His method
of critique presumes that productive forces change over time and that indi-viduals,
relations, and ideas change with them. But he is not concerned to chart this development,
nor does he seek a single law that would clarify the process and its various “stages.”
Instead, he confronts the limits of the “general results” that our
马克思当然对片段“5”中的“历史发展”感兴趣他的批判方法假定生产力随着时间
的推移而改变，个人、关系和思想也随之改变。但是他并不关心这个发展，也不
寻求一个单一的法律来阐明这个过程和它的各个“阶段”相反，他面对的是“一般结
果”的局限性
53Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, “5. [Fragment],” in MEGA2, I/5: 135–9, at 135–6 (MECW, 5: 36).
53 卡尔 ·马克思和弗里德里希 ·恩格斯，“5. [片段] ,”在 MEGA2，i/5:135-9，在 135-6(MECW，5:36)。
54Ibid., 136–9 (MECW, 5: 37, translation modified).
54 同上，136-9(MECW，5:37，翻译修改)。
360 Sarah Johnson
莎拉 ·约翰逊街 360 号

investigations of historical development will yield. Whatever purpose these “abstractions”

may serve, Marx insists that they cannot delimit and define historical periods, or in other
words, they cannot capture historical specificity and difference. And when he confronts
the difficulty of understanding epochs, Marx is wrestling with a fundamental problem of
historical knowledge. How can any epoch be under-stood as a time that is distinct from
others without the crutch of a philosophical “recipe or schema,” and if abstractions
gleaned from the “historical development of men” are of no use either? What kinds of
resources might aid that work instead? This is not the concern that readers typically
found in “I. Feuerbach.” But the prob-lem of how we might attend adequately to
individual epochs—and, crucially, to the present one—pervades the critique of Stirner,
where Marx began to use the “mode of production” as a conceptual resource for
distinguishing and grasping disparate times. What did he accomplish by using this
concept as he did and by focusing so intently on how epochs can be known? To answer
these questions, we must follow the “mode of production” into “Saint Max.”
对历史发展的调查将产生。无论这些“抽象”的目的是什么，马克思坚持认为，他
们不能界定和定义历史时期，换句话说，他们不能捕捉历史的特殊性和差异性。
当马克思面对理解时代的困难时，他正在与一个关于历史知识的基本问题作斗争。
如果从“人的历史发展”中收集到的抽象概念也毫无用处，那么如何能够把任何一
个时代理解为一个不同于其他时代的时代？什么样的资源可以帮助这种工作呢？
这不是读者通常在《费尔巴哈一书》中所关心的问题但是，我们如何才能充分关
注个别时代——并且至关重要的是，关注当前时代——的问题贯穿于 Stirner 的批
评之中，在这里，马克思开始把“生产方式”作为区分和把握不同时代的概念资源。
他这样使用这个概念，并且如此专注地关注时代是如何被认识的，他到底取得了
什么样的成就？为了回答这些问题，我们必须遵循“生产方式”进入“圣麦克斯”

“A new mode of production”

“一种新的生产方式”
The term “mode of production” could be found in a wide range of texts in the mid-
1840s, but it showed up infrequently, usually just once or twice in a given work. Its
German, French, and English variants were all used to express the way in which
something comes into being. It often indicated a natural process of gen-eration: the
formation of the cumulus cloud, the flowering of the Laelia autumnalis, the
development of a heart murmur or insanity.55 One doctor regretted that experi-
ments on blood could not illuminate “the mode of production [Productionsweise] of
nature itself.”56 Elsewhere the term referred to the work of human ingenuity, like the
way in which syllables are formed in Homeric prosody or how sound is made by a
physharmonica.57 In his Lectures on Aesthetics, Hegel distinguished the artistic
mode of production (Weise der Production) from mechanical and scientific produc-
tion, and he described how it differs in its classical and romantic forms. 58 Marx may
well have read these lines in 1842, when he was preparing a treatise for Bruno
Bauer’s pamphlet Hegel’s Doctrine of Religion and Art.59
在 19 世纪 40 年代中期，“生产方式”这个术语可以在各种各样的文本中找到，
但是它很少出现，通常在一本特定的作品中只出现一两次。它的德语、法语和
英语变体都被用来表达某种东西形成的方式。它往往预示着一个自然的生成过
程: 积云的形成，秋天的花蕾的开放，心脏杂音或精神错乱的发展。55 一位医
生感到遗憾的是，血液实验不能阐明“自然本身的生产方式”57. 在他的美学(美
学)讲座中，黑格尔将艺术生产方式(Weise der Production)与机械生产和科学生
产区分开来，并描述了艺术生产方式在古典和浪漫形式上的不同。58.1842 年，
当马克思为布鲁诺 ·鲍尔(Bruno Bauer)的小册子《黑格尔的宗教学说和艺术》
(Hegel’s Doctrine of Religion and art)准备论文时，他很可能读过这些诗句
Our earliest record of Marx using the term “mode of production” comes from a very
different context. It appears on a few occasions in his notebooks from 1844, which he
filled in Paris while he was studying political economy for the first time. By then,
political economists had used this term just as sporadically as had
我们对马克思使用“生产方式”这一术语的最早记录来自一个非常不同的背景。
1844 年，他在巴黎第一次学习政治经济学的时候，在他的笔记本上有过几次这样
的记载。到那时，政治经济学家也像他们一样偶尔使用这个术语

55
Luke Howard, The Climate of London, 2nd edn, vol. 1 (London, 1833), lxv; Joseph Paxton, Paxton’s
Magazine of Botany, vol. 6 (London, 1839), 122; F. A. Aran, “Recherches sur les signes et le diagnostic
de l’insuffisance des valvules de l’aorte,” Archives générales de médicine 3/15 (1842), 265–90, at 277;
Thomas Arnold, Observations on the Nature, Kinds, Causes, and Prevention of Insanity, 2nd edn, vol. 2
(London, 1806), 71.
55 卢克 ·霍华德，《伦敦的气候》 ，第二期，第一卷。约瑟夫 ·帕克斯顿，《帕克斯顿植物学杂志》 ，第 1 卷(伦敦，1833 年) ，第

15 卷;。第 6 卷(伦敦，1839 年) ，122 页; f. a. Aran，“研究主动脉瓣膜功能不全的征兆和诊断”，《医学概论档案》3/15(1842) ，

265-90 页，277 页; 托马斯 ·阿诺德，《自然观察》 ，《精神错乱的种类、原因和预防》 ，第 2 版，第 2 卷。2(London，1806) ，71.

56Georg Karl Ludwig Sigwart, “Bemerkungen über einige Gegenstände der thierischen Chemie,”
Deutsches Archiv für die Physiologie 1/2 (1815), 202–20, at 205.
56 乔治 ·卡尔 ·路德维希 ·西格瓦特，“关于帝国化学的一些反对意见”，《德国生理学档案》1/2(1815) ，202-20,205。
57Henry Owgan, Miscellanea Homerica (Dublin, 1840), 242, 233–4; M. F. J. Fétis, “Revue succincte
de la musique,” Revue musicale 5 (1829), 1–14, at 8.
亨利 ·欧根，《家乡杂集》(都柏林，1840) ，242,233-4; m ·f ·j ·费蒂斯，《音乐简洁杂志》 ，《音乐杂志》5(1829) ，1-14,8。
58Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, Werke, vol. 10/1 (Berlin, 1835), 52–3, and vol. 10/2 (Berlin, 1837),
格奥尔格 ·威廉 ·弗里德里希 ·黑格尔，《工作》 ，第 10/1 卷(柏林，1835 年) ，第 52-3 卷，第 10/2 卷(柏林，1837 年) ,

193–4.
193-4.
59Marx never finished this work and no draft survives. See Margaret A. Rose, Marx’s Lost Aesthetic:
Karl Marx and the Visual Arts (Cambridge, 1984), 55–69.
马克思从来没有完成过这项工作，也没有留下任何草稿。参见玛格丽特 ·a ·罗斯，《马克思失落的美学: 卡尔 ·马克思与视觉艺术》(剑
桥，1984) ，55-69。
 Modern Intellectual
History
现代思想史 361

botanists. It is not in Adam Smith’s Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the
Wealth of Nations (1776) or David Ricardo’s On the Principles of Political
Economy and Taxation (1817). James Mill does not use it in his Elements of
Political Economy (1821), nor does Engels in “Umrisse zu einer Kritik der
Nationalökonomie” (“Outlines of a Critique of Political Economy,” 1844). These
were among the first texts that Marx studied.60 He also read volume 1 of
Fryderyk Skarbek’s Théorie des richesses sociales (1829), and the term is not
there either, although Skarbek does use it once in volume 2. In the course of dis-
cussing consumption habits, he writes that if there is a strong demand for
shoddy products in a given country, then its industry “will by no means
endeavor to improve the mode of production [mode de production].”61 And
when other political economists used this term they did so in the same way: it
indicated the manner in which goods are made, which could refer to a nation’s
industry and its branches, for example, or to the practices that are used to make a
particular commodity. Marx would have seen an example of this in Wilhelm
Schulz’s Die Bewegung der Production (1843) near passages that he
excerpted.62 He also would have seen it in the third edition of Jean-Baptiste
Say’s Traité d’économie politique (1817), where his studies likely began and
where the term appears in a single section head-ing, “Effect of regulations that
fix the mode of production [mode de production].”63 Marx copied a brief
passage from this section, which describes how different branches of industry—
agriculture and manufacture—are shaped by governmental regulation.64
植物学家。它不在亚当 ·斯密的《国富论》(1776)或大卫 ·李嘉图的《政治
经济学和税收原理》(1817)中。詹姆斯 ·密尔(James Mill)在《政治经济学
要素》(Elements of Political Economy，1821)中没有使用这个概念，恩格斯
在《国家经济学批判的大纲》(Umrisse zu an Kritik der Nationalökonomie，
1844)中也没有使用这个概念。这些都是马克思研究的第一批文本。他也读
了 Fryderyk Skarbek 的《社会财富理论》(1829)的第一卷，这个术语也不在
那里，尽管 Skarbek 在第二卷中使用过一次。在讨论消费习惯的过程中，
他写道，如果一个国家对假冒伪劣产品有强烈的需求，那么该国工业“决
不会努力改善生产方式”61 当其他政治经济学家使用这个术语时，他们也
是这样做的: 它表示商品的制造方式，例如可以指一个国家的工业及其分
支机构，或者指用于制造某种特定商品的做法。马克思在威廉 ·舒尔茨
(Wilhelm Schulz)的《生产运动》(Die Bewegung der Production，1843)中，
在摘录的段落附近可以看到这方面的一个例子。他还可以在让 -巴蒂斯
特 · 赛 伊 (jean-baptiste say) 的 《 政 治 经 济 学 通 则 》 (Traité d’economie
politique，1817)第三版中看到这个例子。他的研究很可能是从这里开始的，
这个术语出现在一个单独的章节中，标题是“修正生产方式[生产方式]的法
规的效果”马克思从这一节抄录了一个简短的段落，描述了工业的不同分
支——农业和制造业——是如何被政府规章所塑造的
Marx eventually used the term exactly as the political economists did. In a note-
book from the end of 1844, he refers to “all of the modes of production
[Produktionsweisen]” of a country as he sketches a critique of Say’s ideas about
overproduction.65 But there is no other record of this happening that year. The term
expresses a different concept in a notebook that dates from August, where it helped
Marx to understand human nature as it is and could be. And in the final months of
1844 he transformed the concept once again as he wrote his part of The Holy Family,
his first collaboration with Engels. There, the “mode of production” became a tool
for grasping a given historical epoch, which Marx had previously claimed is the
primary task of social critique. These are the initial steps in the life of Marx’s “mode
of production” and I shall analyze them shortly.
马克思最终使用了这个术语，正如政治经济学家所做的那样。在 1844 年底
的一本笔记本中，他提到了一个国家的“所有生产模式[生产瑞森]”，并对萨伊
关于生产过剩的观点进行了批评。这个术语在一本可追溯到 8 月的笔记本中表
达了一个不同的概念，它帮助马克思理解了人性的现状和可能性。在 1844 年
的最后几个月，他再次改变了这个概念，他写了他的部分《神圣家庭》 ，这
是他与恩格斯的第一次合作。在那里，“生产方式”成为把握某一特定历史时代
的工具，而马克思以前声称这是社会批判的首要任务。这些是马克思“生产方
式”生命中的最初步骤，我将很快对它们进行分析。

60
Marx’s Paris notebooks are in MEGA2, Section IV, vol. 2 (Berlin, 1981), 283–579, and MEGA2,
Section IV, vol. 3 (Berlin, 1998), 35–110. For a useful summary see Marcello Musto, “Marx in Paris:
Manuscripts and Notebooks of 1844,” Science & Society 73/3 (2009), 386–402, at 398–401.
马克思的巴黎笔记本在 MEGA2，第四节，第 2 卷(柏林，1981 年) ，283-579，和 MEGA2，第四节，第 3 卷(柏林，1998 年) ，

35-110。要获得有用的摘要，请参阅 Marcello Musto 的《马克思在巴黎: 1844 年的手稿和笔记》 ，《科学与社会》73/3(2009) ，

386-402,398-401。
61Frédéric Skarbek, Théorie des richesses sociales, vol. 2, (Paris, 1829), 252.
弗雷德里克 ·斯卡贝克，《社会财富理论》 ，第 2 卷，(巴黎，1829 年) ，252 页。
62See Wilhelm Schulz, Die Bewegung der Production (Zurich, 1843), 64; Karl Marx, “Economic and
Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844,” in MECW, 3: 229–346, at 241–2, 254 (hereafter “1844 Manuscripts”).
见威廉 ·舒尔茨，《生产运动》(苏黎世，1843) ，64; 卡尔 ·马克思，《1844 年哲学和经济学手稿》 ，MECW，3:229-346,241-

2,254(以下为《1844 年手稿》)。
63Jean-Baptiste Say, Traitéd’économie politique, 3rd edn, vol. 1 (Paris, 1817), 222.
让-巴蒂斯特说，经济政治条约，第 3 版，第 1 卷(巴黎，1817) ，222 页。

64
Karl Marx, “Jean-Baptiste Say: Traitéd’économie politique. T. 1 und 2,” in MEGA2, IV/2: 301–27, at
64 卡尔 ·马克思，“让-巴蒂斯特 ·赛伊说: 《政治经济学条约》第一和第二版”，在 MEGA2，IV/2:301-27，at

307. Marx’s notebooks from 1845 also contain examples of the term being used in this way, e.g. Karl
Marx, “Exzerpte aus Henri Storch: Cours d’économie politique. T. 1, II, III,” in MEGA2, IV/3: 233–71, at
239; Marx, “Exzerpte aus James William Gilbart: The History and Principles of Banking,” in MEGA2,
Section IV, vol. 4 (Berlin, 1988), 146–67, at 151; Marx, “Exzerpte aus William Thompson: An Inquiry
into the Principles of the Distribution of Wealth,” in MEGA2, IV/4: 237–46, at 245.
马克思 1845 年的笔记本也包含了这样使用这个术语的例子，例如卡尔 ·马克思的《从亨利 ·斯托
奇摘录: 政治经济学课程》。马克思，《詹姆斯 ·威廉 ·吉尔巴特摘录: 银行业的历史和原则》 ，
《金融时报》 ，《金融时报》 ，《金融时报》 ，《金融时报》 ，《金融时报》 ，《威廉 ·汤普
逊摘录: 财富分配原则探究》 ，《金融时报》 ，《金融时报》 ，《金融时报》 ，《金融时报》 ，
《金融时报》 ，《金融时报》 ，《金融时报》 ，《金融时报》 ，《金融时报》 ，《金融时报》 ，
《金融时报》 ，《金融时报》 ，《金融时报》 ，《金融时报》 ，《金融时报》 ，《金融时报》 ，
《金融时报》 ，《金融时报》。
65Karl Marx, “Exzerpte aus Werken von Pierre de Boisguillebert und John Law sowie aus einer
‘Römischen Geschichte’,” in MEGA2, IV/3: 35–83, at 55.
65 卡尔 ·马克思，《皮埃尔 ·德 ·博伊斯 ·吉列伯特和约翰 ·劳的作品摘要以及‘罗马历史’》 ，出自 MEGA2，IV/3:35-83,55 岁。
362 Sarah Johnson
362 莎拉 ·约翰逊

Turning first to the journal project that brought him to Paris will illuminate the
resources and concerns that were involved in the concept’s development.
首先谈谈把他带到巴黎的期刊项目，将阐明这个概念发展过程中涉及的资
源和关注点。

***
***
Marx was on the editorial board of the Rheinische Zeitung in Cologne from October
1842 until March 1843, when he resigned “owing to the present conditions of cen-
sorship.”66 The Prussian government had banned his newspaper in January of that
year and decreed that its operations cease on 1 April.67 The suppression of the
Rheinische Zeitung left Marx eager to unite “truly thinking and independent minds”
in France and Germany, and to this end he conceived a new journal with Arnold
Ruge and decided to publish it in Paris.68 His chief hope, he told Ruge, was to
contribute to the project of social transformation, but he acknowl-edged that this
would be difficult because no one knows exactly “what the future ought to be.”69
One way of dealing with this uncertainty would have been to follow philosophers in
the pursuit of absolute knowledge, and with the principles obtained, to evaluate the
existing world and craft a dogmatic vision of the future. Marx swiftly rejected this
approach—“constructing the future and settling every-thing for all times are not our
affair”—and he proposed instead that they “find the new world through criticism of
the old one.” In other words, they would under-take a “ruthless criticism of all that
exists.” By attending to the world that they inhabited, they would discover not only
principles with which to evaluate the pre-sent but also aspirations and possibilities
for the future. Their journal, Marx wrote, would clarify for “the age [Zeit] … its
struggles and desires” and thereby “show the world what it is really fighting for.”70
从 1842 年 10 月到 1843 年 3 月，马克思一直在科隆《莱茵报》的编辑部工作，
“由于目前的审查制度”，他辞职了普鲁士政府于当年 1 月禁止了他的报纸，并
下令于 4 月 1 日停止运营。67《莱茵报》的禁令使马克思渴望在法国和德国联
合“真正有思想和独立的头脑”，为此，他与阿诺德 ·鲁格一起构思了一份新的
杂志，并决定在巴黎出版。68 他告诉鲁格，他的主要希望是为社会变革项目
做出贡献，但他承认这将是困难的，因为没有人确切知道“未来应该是什么样
子”69 处理这种不确定性的一种方法是，跟随哲学家追求绝对知识和所获得的
原则，评估现有的世界，并对未来形成教条式的看法。马克思迅速地拒绝了这
种方法——“建设未来和解决一切问题不是我们的事情”——而是提出他们“通
过批判旧世界来发现新世界”换句话说，他们将接受“对所有存在的事物的无情
批评”通过关注他们所居住的世界，他们不仅会发现评价现在的原则，而且还
会发现对未来的期望和可能性。马克思写道，他们的日记将阐明 “时代
(Zeit) ... ... 它的斗争和欲望”，从而“向世界展示它真正为之奋斗的东西”70
But where does this work begin? What must critics analyze in order to grasp
the conditions, and with them the principles and desires, of their “age”? Marx’s
answer was “the political state,” which can reveal human needs and social truths
because it registers “the practical struggles of mankind.”71 The critic, Marx
insisted, must identify the principles that have already been fought for in the
political sphere and raise them to their “universal form,” which means making
them the standard for human life as such. To illustrate his point, he observed that
the champions of representative government had defended the principle that
human beings should govern themselves, rather than be dominated by property,
and his contributions to the Deutsch-Französische Jahrbücher sought to show
that conditions in the mod-ern state did not meet this standard.72
但是这项工作从哪里开始呢？批评家必须分析什么才能掌握他们“时代”
的条件，以及他们的原则和愿望？马克思的答案是“政治国家”，它可以揭
示人类的需要和社会真理，因为它记录了“人类的实际斗争”71 马克思坚持
认为，批评家必须确定在政治领域已经争取到的原则，并将它们提升到
“普遍形式”，这意味着使它们成为人类生活的标准。为了说明他的观点，
他指出，代议制政府的拥护者捍卫了人类应该自我管理而不是被财产所支
配的原则，他对《德法年鉴》的贡献试图表明，现代国家的条件不符合这
一标准

66
Karl Marx, “Announcement,” in MECW, 1: 376.
卡尔 ·马克思，“公告”，MECW，1:376。
67
See G. Mevissen, “Minutes of the General Meeting of Shareholders of the Rheinische Zeitung, February 12,
1843,” in MECW, 1: 712–24.
见 G.Mevissen，“莱茵报股东大会会议记录，1843 年 2 月 12 日”，MECW，1:712-24。
68
Karl Marx, “Letters from the Deutsch-Französische Jahrbücher,” in MECW, 3: 133–45, at 142. See also
68 卡尔 ·马克思，《德法年鉴》 ，MECW，3:133-45,142

Marx to Arnold Ruge, 25 Jan. 1843, in MECW, 1: 396–8; Marx to Arnold Ruge, 13 March 1843, in MECW,
Marx to Arnold Ruge，1843.1.25，MECW，1:396-8; Marx to Arnold Ruge，1843.3.13，MECW,
1: 398–400, at 398–9; Marx to Ludwig Feuerbach, 3 Oct. 1843, in MECW, 3: 349–51.
马克思致路德维希 ·安德列斯 ·费尔巴哈，1843 年 10 月 3 日，MECW，3:349-51。
69Marx, “Letters,” 142. This is also the source of the discussion that follows.
69 马克思，《信件》 ，142。这也是接下来讨论的来源。
70
Marx, “Letters,” 144–5 (translation modified); M. an R., Kreuznach, im September 1843, in MEGA2,
70 马克思，“信件”，144-5(翻译修改) ; M.an r。 ，Kreuznach，1843 年 9 月，在 MEGA2,

Section I, vol. 2 (Berlin, 1982), 486–9, at 489.

第一节，第二卷(柏林，1982) ，486-9,489 页。
71Marx, “Letters,” 143–4.
马克思，“信件”，143-4。

72
Ibid., 144. On Marx’s interest in the modern state see Warren Breckman, Marx, The Young Hegelians, and
the Origins of Radical Social Theory: Dethroning the Self (Cambridge, 1999), chap. 7; David Leopold,
同上。144.关于马克思对现代国家的兴趣，参见沃伦 ·布莱克曼，马克思，《年轻的黑格尔人》 ，以及《激进社会理论的起源: 推翻自我》(剑桥，

1999 年) ，第一章。大卫 ·利奥波德,

 Modern Intellectual
History
现代思想史 363

In one of his articles, Marx explained that the American and French Revolutions
had replaced the rule of kings and privileges with popular sovereignty, but that this
“political emancipation” did not solve the problem of domination. This was because
the modern state necessarily splits the human being in two: it creates equal citizens
who act together in the political state only by opposing this sphere to civil society,
where individuals remain marked and moved by the particularities of their material
existence.73 Marx argued that this double life is not yet a human life. Not only is
species-life—or those conscious, social activities that distinguish the human being—
separated from the everyday lives that people lead, but where the task of the citizen
is merely to secure the individual’s natural rights to liberty, security, and property,
domination persists and the rule of property is perfected, only now in the sphere of
civil society.74 According to Marx, the modern state must be overcome in order to
attain “human emancipation” and realize the principles that brought that state into
being.
马克思在他的一篇文章中解释说，美国和法国革命已经用人民主权取代了
国王和特权的统治，但这种“政治解放”并没有解决统治的问题。这是因为现代
国家必然将人分为两部分: 它创造平等的公民，只有通过反对这一领域的公民
社会，才能在政治国家中共同行动，在公民社会中，个人仍然被其物质存在的
特殊性所标记和感动。不仅物种——生命——或那些区分人类的有意识的社会
活动——脱离了人们的日常生活，而且在公民的任务仅仅是确保个人的自由、
安全和财产的自然权利的情况下，统治仍然存在，财产的规则得到完善，只是
现在才在市民社会的范围内。
In another article, Marx explored the role that Germans could play in this work.
Although the German political present was “anachronistic” for being the “open
completion of the ancien régime,” he argued that it nonetheless contained elements
of a “thoroughgoing revolution,” one that could overcome the German “Middle Ages”
and the “modern state” at once.75 This was because Germans had kept up with the
modern world in two crucial respects: their political philosophy was the philosophy
of the modern state, and they had shared in the “suffering” that the regime of private
property brought with it. A critique of the German present would scrutinize its
historical and its philosophical aspects alike—the ancien régime and the modern
state. And while Marx knew that this critique alone would not transform existing
conditions, he thought that a partnership between philosophy and the growing
proletariat could. Through this alliance, the critique
在另一篇文章中，马克思探讨了德国人在这项工作中可以发挥的作用。虽
然德国的政治现状是“公开完成旧政权”的“时代错误”，但他认为，它仍然包含
了“彻底革命”的元素，一场可以同时战胜德国“中世纪”和“现代国家”的革命。
这是因为德国人在两个关键方面跟上了现代世界的步伐: 他们的政治哲学是现
代国家的哲学，他们分享了私有财产制度带来的“痛苦”。对德国现状的一个批
判将仔细审视它的历史和哲学方面一样——旧政权和现代国家。虽然马克思知
道这种批判本身不会改变现有的条件，但他认为哲学和日益壮大的无产阶级之
间的合作可以。通过这种联盟，批判
of the German present becomes a practical demand for “the negation of private
property.”76
对德国现状的批判变成了对“否定私有财产”的实际要求
The Deutsch-Französische Jahrbücher thus offered Marx an occasion to work out
his own views about the nature and tasks of social critique despite the failure of the
journal, which appeared just once, in February 1844. But editing this journal also
proved to be important for allowing him to read Moses Hess’s “On the Essence of
Money” (“Über das Geldwesen”) around the time that he began to study political
economy. This essay was not published until the spring of 1845, in Püttmann’s con-
demned Rheinische Jahrbücher, but Hess had originally given it to Marx for the
Deutsch-Französische Jahrbücher.77 What is significant about this essay is Hess’s
description of the human being, whose essence, he argued, consists in the exchange
of “productive life-activity,” or collaborations that activate and fully realize the
因此，尽管《德法年鉴》在 1844 年 2 月仅出版了一次，但它的失败为马克
思提供了一个机会，让他能够对社会批判的性质和任务提出自己的看法。但是，
在他开始研究政治经济学时，编辑这本杂志也被证明是重要的，因为它使他能
够阅读摩西 ·赫斯的《论金钱的本质》(“ über das Geldwesen”)。这篇文章直到
1845 年春天才在 Püttmann 谴责的莱茵年鉴上发表，但是 Hess 最初是为了德法
年鉴而把它交给马克思的。77 这篇文章的意义在于 Hess 对人的描述，他认为
人的本质在于“生产性生活活动”的交换，或者说是激活和充分实现生产性生活
活动的合作

The Young Karl Marx: German Philosophy, Modern Politics, and Human Flourishing (Cambridge, 2007),
chaps. 2, 3.
年轻的卡尔 ·马克思: 德国哲学、现代政治和人类繁荣(剑桥，2007) ，第 2,3 章。
73Karl Marx, “On the Jewish Question,” in MECW, 3: 146–74, at 153–4.
卡尔 ·马克思，《论犹太人问题》 ，载于 MECW，3:146-74,153-4。
74
Ibid., 162–4, 167.
同上，162-4,167。

75Karl Marx, “Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Law: Introduction,” in MECW, 3:
75 卡尔 ·马克思，《对黑格尔法哲学批判的贡献: 导论》 ，MECW，3:
175–87, at 178–9, 187.
175-87，at 178-9,187.
76Ibid., 187.
76 同上，187。
77
See Sven-Erik Rose, Jewish Philosophical Politics in Germany, 1789–1848 (Waltham, 2014), 191–2, and
参见斯文-埃里克 ·罗斯，《德国犹太哲学政治》 ，1789-1848(沃尔瑟姆，2014) ，191-2，和

329 n. 154.
329 n. 154.
364 Sarah Johnson
364 莎拉 ·约翰逊

creative powers of each individual. On this account, the human being “at every
moment produces itself anew” because its essence is a product of society and
his-tory.78 Marx would soon combine Hess’s idea of “productive life-activity”
with the political economists’ “mode of production” to explain the dynamic
nature of the human being. In doing so, moreover, he would reimagine what a
“mode of produc-tion” can effect.
每个人的创造力。78 马克思很快将赫斯的“生产性生活活动”思想与政治经
济学家的“生产方式”结合起来，以解释人的动态性。此外，在这样做的过
程中，他将重新想象“生产方式”能够产生什么样的影响。

***
***
In 1859, Marx wrote that he first took up “economic questions” in his articles for the
Rheinische Zeitung, but that it was only after the newspaper’s demise, when he
reexamined Hegel’s philosophy of right, that he came to see that the legal relations
and political forms that interested him were rooted in “the material conditions of life,”
and that political economy offered the key to understanding these condi-tions.79 He
began to study works of political economy around the end of 1843 or the beginning
of 1844 and, as he read, he filled at least nine notebooks with lengthy excerpts.
While most of those notebooks contain only occasional com-ments from Marx, in
three of them he responded to the excerpts by working out detailed accounts of his
own views. These are known as his “Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts of
1844,” and their contents are often read as the con-clusions that Marx had reached at
the end of his initial course of study. As Jürgen Rojahn writes, however, the
notebooks date from different times during the spring and summer of 1844 and what
they contain is far from “a systematic exposition of a world-view.” These so-called
“manuscripts” instead “show Marx’s thought in motion—that is, the emergence and
development of new ideas, a process driven by his reading and by the discussions he
participated in.”80
1859 年，马克思写道，他第一次在为《莱茵报》撰写的文章中提出“经济问
题”，但直到《莱茵报》倒闭后，当他重新审视黑格尔的权利哲学时，他才发
现，令他感兴趣的法律关系和政治形式植根于“物质生活条件”，而政治经济学
为理解这些条件提供了关键。虽然大多数笔记本只是偶尔包含马克思的评论，
但在其中的三本中，他通过详细记录自己的观点来回应摘录。这些被称为马克
思的“1844 年哲学和经济学手稿”，其内容通常被解读为马克思在最初学习过
程结束时得出的结论。然而，正如 Jürgen Rojahn 所写的那样，这些笔记本可
以追溯到 1844 年春夏两季的不同时期，它们所包含的内容远非“对世界观的系
统性阐述”这些所谓的“手稿”反而“显示了马克思思想的运动——即新思想的产
生和发展，一个由他的阅读和他参与的讨论所驱动的过程。”80
Marx’s novel use of the term “mode of production” was part of this “motion.” It
appears in passages that explore the meaning of communism in the third manu-script
of 1844, which dates from August. That account, however, builds upon claims that
he began to work out in the first two manuscripts as he pushed Engels’s ana-lysis of
private property in a new direction. Engels had contributed an article to the Deutsch-
Französische Jahrbücher called “Outlines of a Critique of Political Economy,” where
he argued that the defenders of free trade had overcome mercan-tilism without
questioning its chief premise, “the validity of private property.”81 As he examined
the categories that stem from private property, Engels also tracked its practical
consequences and concluded that it is the root of “the immorality of man-kind’s
condition hitherto.”82 Marx thought highly of this essay and it was surely a useful
guide as he embarked upon his own study of political economy. 83 He even
马克思对“生产方式”这一术语的新颖使用就是这种“运动”的一部分它出现在
1844 年第三份手稿中探讨共产主义意义的段落中，这份手稿可追溯到 8 月份。
然而，这种说法是建立在他开始在前两本手稿中写作的主张之上的，因为他把
恩格斯对私有财产的分析推向了一个新的方向。恩格斯曾为《德法年鉴》撰写
过一篇名为《政治经济学批判纲要》的文章，他认为自由贸易的捍卫者在没有
质疑其主要前提“私有财产的有效性”的情况下，已经克服了重商主义恩格斯在
研究起源于私有财产的种类时，也追踪了其实际后果，并得出结论认为，这是
“迄今为止人类处境的不道德”的根源马克思对这篇文章评价很高，当他开始自
己的政治经济学研究时，这肯定是一个有用的指南

78
Moses Hess, “Ueber das Geldwesen,” Rheinische Jahrbücher zur gesellschaftlichen Reform 1 (1845), 1– 34,
at 2–9, 28 (the quotation is at 28).
78 moses Hess，“ Ueber das Geldwesen”，莱茵年出版的社会改革书籍 1(1845) ，1-34,2-9,28(引文为 28)。

79
Marx, Critique of Political Economy, 262. See also Engels to Richard Fischer, 15 April 1895, in MECW,
79 马克思，《政治经济学批判》 ，262。参见恩格斯致理查德 ·费舍尔，1895 年 4 月 15 日，MECW,

50: 496–8, at 497.

50:496-8,497.
80Jürgen Rojahn, “The Emergence of a Theory: The Importance of Marx’s Notebooks Exemplified by
Those from 1844,” Rethinking Marxism 14/4 (2002), 29–46, at 33–4.
80 jürgen Rojahn，“理论的出现: 以 1844 年的马克思笔记为例的重要性”，《重新思考马克思主义》14/4(2002) ，29-46,33-4。
81
Frederick Engels, “Outlines of a Critique of Political Economy,” in MECW, 3: 418–43, at 419.
81 弗雷德里克 ·恩格斯，《政治经济学批判大纲》 ，MECW，3:418-43,419。
82Ibid., 432.
同上，432 页。

83See Marx, Critique of Political Economy, 264; Karl Marx, “Summary of Frederick Engels’ Article
‘Outlines of a Critique of Political Economy’,” in MECW, 3: 375–6. On this essay’s timeliness see Terrell
83 见马克思，《政治经济学批判》 ，264; 卡尔 ·马克思，《弗里德里希 ·恩格斯文章摘要: 政治经济学批判纲要》 ，载于 MECW，
3:375-6。关于这篇文章的及时性，参见特雷尔
 Modern Intellectual
History
现代思想史 365

followed Engels in examining what political economists miss when they take
private property for granted. In the first manuscript of 1844, Marx illustrates the
analytical and practical consequences of private property by starting from “a
present-day eco-nomic fact”—that workers become poorer as they create more
commodities and thus more wealth.84 But Marx also looks beyond the
relationship between workers and their products to consider what he calls “the
essential relationship of labour,” or “the relationship of the worker to
production.”85 This investigation leads to a conclusion that Engels did not reach.
For it reveals not just the consequences of pri-vate property, but also that private
property is itself a consequence of a particular kind of activity.
当政治经济学家把私有财产视为理所当然时，他们会错过什么。在 1844
年的第一份手稿中，马克思从“当今的经济事实”出发，阐述了私有财产的
分析和实际后果，即工人创造更多的商品，从而创造更多的财富，从而变
得更穷。但是，马克思也超越了工人与其产品之间的关系，考虑他所谓的
“劳动的基本关系”，或“工人与生产的关系”85 这项调查得出了恩格斯没有
得出的结论。因为它不仅揭示了私有财产的后果，而且揭示了私有财产本
身就是一种特殊活动的后果。
Marx calls this activity “estranged labour” in the first manuscript and he
explains it in contrast to a different kind of activity, one that is uniquely human.
Here, he combines Hess’s concept of “productive life-activity” with Feuerbach’s
idea that the human species is distinguished by its consciousness.86 While
beavers and bees make dwellings because they are compelled to do so by
physical need, humans do not produce out of necessity alone. They can produce
in freedom too. This means that they can design and fabricate a “world of
objects” that exists beyond themselves and their basic needs, a world that can be
enjoyed by others and that is governed by the laws of beauty. Marx argues that it
is by fashioning such a world that human beings cultivate their mental and
physical capacities, which become embodied in the objects they yield. In turn,
these objects allow humans to confront and contemplate the increasing wealth of
their abilities.87 The object of free, human production is therefore the human
species itself, or “truly human and social property.”88
马克思在第一份手稿中称这种活动为“异化劳动”，他将其与另一种独特
的人类活动作了对比解释。在这里，他把赫斯的“生产性生活活动”概念与
费尔巴哈的观点结合起来，费尔巴哈认为人类物种是以其意识而区别开来
的。86 虽然海狸和蜜蜂建造住所是因为它们被迫这样做是出于物质需要，
但人类的生产并不完全是出于需要。他们也可以在自由中生产。这意味着
他们可以设计和制造一个超越他们自身和他们基本需求的”物体世界”，一
个他人可以享受并受美的法则支配的世界。马克思认为，正是通过塑造这
样一个世界，人类培养了他们的心理和身体能力，这些能力体现在他们所
创造的物品中。反过来，这些对象使人类能够面对和思考他们能力日益增
长的财富。因此，人类自由生产的对象就是人类本身，或者说“真正的人
类和社会财产”88
In contrast, the human being is lost through estranged labor because that activity
is neither spontaneous nor willful, but doubly forced. Not only are workers set in
motion by the will of someone else, who gives them their tasks and materials, but
they also take on this yoke because they are compelled to do so by physical need, or
because the wage that purchases their labor is what keeps them alive. Marx stresses
that where “life activity, productive life itself” is something external to individuals
and a mere means to their existence, so too is the object of their activity. 89 The
object of estranged labor is thus private property, which dominates its makers and
confronts them with their debasement. As Marx continues to work out the nature of
this property in the second manuscript, little of which survives, he refines his
account and clarifies that it involves “the production of human activity as
相比之下，人类因为劳动的疏远而迷失，因为这种活动既不是自发的，也
不是故意的，而是双重的强迫。工人们不仅是按照别人的意愿行动的，别人给
他们工作和材料，他们还承担这个枷锁，因为他们被迫这样做是出于物质需要，
或者因为购买他们劳动力的工资是他们生存的动力。马克思强调，如果”生活
活动，生产性生活本身”是个人以外的东西，仅仅是个人存在的手段，那么他
们活动的对象也是个人存在的对象。当马克思在第二份手稿中继续研究这一属
性的性质时，其中几乎没有留存下来，他对其进行了改进，并澄清说，它涉及
“人类活动的生产作为

Carver, “Marx—and Engels’s ‘Outlines of a Critique of Political Economy’,” History of Political Thought
4/2 (1983), 357–65, at 357.
马克思ー恩格斯的《政治经济学批判纲要》 ，《政治思想史》4/2(1983) ，357-65 页，357 页。
84Marx, “1844 Manuscripts,” 270–72 (translation modified); Karl Marx, “Ökonomisch-philosophische

Manuskripte (Erste Wiedergabe),” in MEGA2, I/2: 187–322, at 235. See also Marx, “1844 Manuscripts,”
235–46.
84 马克思，《1844 年手稿》270-72(翻译修改) ; 卡尔 ·马克思，《经济学哲学手稿》 ，MEGA2，i/2:187-322,235。另见马克思，

“1844 手稿”，235-46。
85Marx, “1844 Manuscripts,” 274.
85 马克思，《1844 年手稿》 ，274。
86
Ludwig Feuerbach, The Essence of Christianity (1841), trans. George Eliot (Buffalo, 1989), 1–2. Gareth
Stedman Jones also notes Hess’s influence in the “1844 Manuscripts,” but not the connection between Marx’s
“mode of production” and Hess’s “productive life-activity.” See Stedman Jones, Karl Marx, 172.
路德维希费尔巴哈，基督教的本质(1841 年) ，翻译。乔治 ·艾略特(布法罗，1989) ，1-2。琼斯还注意到赫斯在《1844 年手稿》中的影响，但没

有提到马克思的“生产方式”与赫斯的“生产性生活活动”之间的联系参见 Stedman Jones，Karl Marx，172。

87Marx, “1844 Manuscripts,” 275–7.
马克思，《1844 年手稿》 ，275-7。

88Ibid., 281.
88Ibid，281.
89
Ibid., 276.
同上，276。
366 Sarah Johnson
莎拉 ·约翰逊街 366 号

labour, that is, as an activity quite alien to itself, to man and to nature, and
therefore to consciousness and the expression of life,” along with “the production
of the object of human activity as capital—in which all the natural and social
determinacy of the object is extinguished.”90
劳动，也就是说，作为一种与自身、人类和自然，以及意识和生命的表达
相当陌生的活动,”以及“作为资本的人类活动的对象的生产——在这种生产
中，对象的所有自然和社会决定性都被消灭了。”90
When Marx defines communism in the third manuscript, he does so with this
activity and this object in mind—he calls it “the positive transcendence of private
property as human self-estrangement, and therefore as the real appropriation of the
human essence by and for man; communism therefore as the complete return
[Rückkehr] of man to himself as a social (i.e., human) being—a return accom-
plished consciously and embracing the entire wealth of previous development.”91
But this “return” would not entail reaching an original, yet lost, condition. While
Marx identifies needs, faculties, and capacities that are “human,” he also insists that
this essence was never given to us. Like Hess, he argues that we instead produce
ourselves as we produce our world. Our nature is a hardy yet malleable artifact of
our productive activity, and just as that activity can make us human, it can also
estrange us from that essence. Marx had worked out a version of this claim in the
first manuscript’s account of estranged labor, and he develops that claim in the third
manuscript by taking a wider view of the problem and describing it in new terms. He
now writes that this estrangement occurs as our nature is made through “religion,
family, state, law, morality, science, art, etc.,” but stresses that these “are only
particular modes of production” and that they “fall under its general law.”92 The key
to overcoming all estrangement is thus attending to industry, the site of “economic
estrangement,” which involves not just the “inner life” of human beings but also their
“real life.”
当马克思在第三份手稿中定义共产主义时，他是以这种活动和这个目标来
定义共产主义的——他称之为“私有财产作为人类自我疏远的积极超越，因而
作为人类对人类本质的真正占有; 因此，共产主义作为人类作为社会(即人类)
对自己的完全回归——一种有意识地完成的回归，并且拥抱了先前发展的全部
财富。”91 但是这种“回归”并不意味着达到一种原始的，但是已经丢失的状态。
尽管马克思确定了“人类”的需求、能力和能力，但他也坚持认为，这种本质从
未被赋予我们。和 Hess 一样，他认为我们创造自己就像我们创造世界一样。
我们的本性是我们生产活动的坚韧而可塑的人工制品，正如这种活动可以使我
们成为人类一样，它也可以使我们远离这种本质。马克思在第一份手稿中对劳
动关系疏远的描述中提出了这种说法的一个版本，他在第三份手稿中提出了这
种说法，从更广泛的角度来看待这个问题，并用新的术语来描述它。他现在写
道，这种疏远是因为我们的本性是通过“宗教、家庭、国家、法律、道德、科
学、艺术等等”造成的，但他强调，这些“只是特定的生产方式”，它们“属于一
般规律”因此，克服一切隔阂的关键在于关注工业，即“经济隔阂”所在地，它
不仅涉及人的“内在生活”，而且还涉及人的“现实生活”
Marx later illustrates this point by using the term “mode of production” again,
this time to show that private property and workers are made through the same
process. “The crudest modes (instruments) of human labour are coming back,”
he writes, “the treadmill of the Roman slaves, for instance, is the mode of
produc-tion, the mode of existence, of many English workers.”93 One effect of
this simpli-fication of instruments and labor is to turn the child, “the human
being still in the making,” into a worker, and “the weak human being into a
machine.” Even animal requirements like light, fresh air, and cleanliness cease to
be needs for these work-ers, who seek only the barest physical subsistence. “This
life, too,” they come to believe, “is human life and existence.”94 Hence Marx’s
claim in 1846 that a “mode of production” does more than just reproduce the
physical existence of human beings. For it is also “a definite form of expressing
their life,” he will write, “a definite mode of life on their part. As individuals
express their life, so they are.”95
马克思后来再次使用“生产方式”一词来说明这一点，这一次表明私有财
产和工人是通过同样的过程产生的。“人类劳动最原始的模式(工具)正在回
归,”他写道，“例如，罗马奴隶的跑步机，就是许多英国工人的生产模式和
生存模式。”93 这种简化工具和劳动的结果之一就是把孩子，“还在成长中
的人”变成工人，把“虚弱的人变成机器”即使是像光线、新鲜空气和清洁这
样的动物需求，也不再是这些工人的需求，他们只追求最基本的物质生存。
他们开始相信，“这种生活也是人类的生活和存在。”因此，马克思在 1846
年声称，“生产方式”不仅仅复制了人类的物质存在。因为它也是“一种表达
他们生活的明确形式”，他将写道，“对他们来说，这是一种明确的生活方
式。当个人表达他们的生活时，他们就是这样。”95
But industry is also important in the 1844 manuscripts because of the objects
that it yields. Marx observes that the production of private property has made
humans so preoccupied with possessing things that this has become the only
但是工业在 1844 年的手稿中也很重要，因为它所产生的物品。马克思
观察到，私有财产的生产使人类如此专注于占有物品，以至于私有财产成
为唯一的私有财产
90Ibid., 285 (translation modified); Marx, “Ökonomisch-philosophische Manuskripte,” 249–50.
马克思，《经济学哲学手稿》 ，249-50。

91
Marx, “1844 Manuscripts,” 296.
马克思《1844 年手稿》296 页。

92Ibid., 297.
同上，297。

93Ibid., 308 (translation modified); Marx, “Ökonomisch-philosophische Manuskripte,” 280.

马克思，《经济学哲学手稿》 ，280。

94Marx, “1844 Manuscripts,” 308.

94 马克思，“1844 手稿”，308。
95Marx and Engels, “[2. Kapitelanfang],” 11 (MECW, 5: 31).
95 马克思和恩格斯，“[2. Kapitelanfang ] ,”11(MECW，5:31)。
 Modern Intellectual
History
现代思想史 367

way in which they experience the world. “In the place of all physical and mental
senses,” he writes, “there has therefore come the sheer estrangement of all these
senses, the sense of having.”96 And yet, while private property is “the material
per-ceptible expression of estranged human life,” these objects, along with
industry more broadly, are also the “exoteric revelation of man’s essential
powers” and show that natural science has “prepared human emancipation,
although its imme-diate effect had to be the furthering of the dehumanisation of
man.”97 Marx con-cludes that “a new mode of production and a new object of
production” would therefore yield “a new manifestation of the forces of human
nature and a new enrichment of human nature.”98 It would produce a new kind
of human being, “the rich man profoundly endowed with all the senses.”99
他们体验世界的方式。“在所有身体和精神感官的位置,”他写道，“因此出
现了所有这些感官的完全疏远，拥有的感觉。”然而，尽管私有财产是“人
类生活疏远的可感知的物质表达”，但这些物品，以及更广泛的工业，也
是“人类基本力量的开放性揭示”，并表明自然科学“为人类的解放做好了准
备，尽管它的直接影响必须是人类的非人性化进一步推进。”97 马克思的
结论是，“新的生产方式和新的生产对象”将因此产生“人性力量的新表现和
人性的新丰富”98 它将产生一种新的人类，“富人深刻地赋予了所有的感
官。”99
***
***
In the third manuscript of 1844, Marx never used his concept of a “mode of pro-
duction” to make claims about history or its epochs, but it took on a temporal qual-
ity there nonetheless as it clarified his ideas about human nature as it is and what it
might become. He pushed the concept further in this direction a few months later as
he developed another set of ideas from the same notebook. These had to do with
German criticism and its “uncritical attitude to the method of criticising,” which
Marx argued remained too close to Hegelian philosophy and its view that “only
mind is the true essence of man.”100 In both the third manuscript and a letter to
Feuerbach from the same month, Marx focuses on the method of Bruno Bauer and
the other contributors to the Allgemeine Literatur-Zeitung, the journal that Bauer
edited. Because “these Berliners” follow Hegel in regarding “consciousness or self-
consciousness … as the only human quality,” they regard “distinct forms of
estrangement” as “various forms of consciousness or self-consciousness” too.101 As
Marx explains, this means that they “acknowledge only one real need, the need of
theoretical criticism,” as this is how consciousness is transformed. And in contrast to
Marx, who insisted that the task of attaining human emancipa-tion requires not just a
critique of present conditions but also a “practical element,” the proletariat, Bauer
and his associates take criticism to be “the only active element in history.”102 Marx
informed Feuerbach of his plan to write “a small booklet attacking this aberration of
criticism” and soon after decided to do so with Engels, whom he befriended in late
August 1844. They completed a sizable work at the end of the year and published it
in February 1845 as The Holy Family or Critique of Critical Criticism. Engels called
it a declaration of war.103
在 1844 年的第三份手稿中，马克思从未使用他的“生产方式”概念来对历史或
其时代作出断言，但当它澄清了他关于人性的本质及其可能成为什么的观点时，
它仍然具有一种时间性质。几个月后，当他从同一本笔记本上发展出另一套思
想时，他把这个概念进一步推向了这个方向。这与德国的批评及其“对批评方
法不加批判的态度”有关，马克思认为这种态度与黑格尔哲学及其“只有心灵才
是人的真正本质”的观点过于接近 100 在第三份手稿和同月写给费尔巴哈的一
封信中，马克思都把焦点放在布鲁诺 ·鲍尔和其他撰稿人的方法上，他们为鲍
尔编辑的《 Allgemeine Literatur-Zeitung 》杂志撰稿。因为“这些柏林人”跟随
黑格尔，认为“意识或私我意识... ... 是人类唯一的品质”，他们也认为“不同形
式的疏远”是“各种形式的意识或私我意识”。正如马克思解释的那样，这意味
着他们“只承认一种真正的需要，即理论批评的需要”，因为这是意识转变的方
式。马克思坚持认为，实现人类解放的任务不仅需要对现状进行批判，而且还
需要“实践因素”，与此相反，鲍尔及其同僚认为批判是“历史上唯一活跃的因
素”102 马克思告诉费尔巴哈，他计划写一本“小册子来攻击这种偏差的批评”，
不久之后，马克思决定和恩格斯一起写这本小册子，他在 1844 年 8 月底和恩
格斯成为了朋友。他们在年底完成了一部相当大的作品，并于 1845 年 2 月以
《神圣的家庭》或《批判性批评的批判》的名字出版。恩格斯称之为宣战

96Marx, “1844 Manuscripts,” 300.

96 马克思，《1844 年手稿》 ，300。
97Ibid., 297, 303.
同上，297,303。

98Ibid., 306.
98 同上，306。
99Ibid., 302, 297–8. See also Karl Marx, “Comments on James Mill, Élémens d’économie politique,” in
MECW, 3: 211–28, at 227–8.
99Ibid.302,297-8.也可参见卡尔 ·马克思的《关于詹姆斯 ·密尔的评论，政治经济要素》 ，载于 MECW，3:211-28,227-8。
100Marx, “1844 Manuscripts,” 327, 332.
100 马克思，“1844 手稿”，327,332。
101Marx to Ludwig Feuerbach, 11 Aug. 1844, in MECW, 3: 354–7, at 356; Marx, “1844 Manuscripts,”
101 马克思致路德维希 ·安德列斯 ·费尔巴哈，1844 年 8 月 11 日，MECW，3:354-7,356;
332.
332.
102Marx to Feuerbach, 11 Aug. 1844, 356; Marx, “1844 Manuscripts,” 327–8.
102 马克思致费尔巴哈，1844 年 8 月 11 日，356; 马克思，“1844 年手稿,”327-8。
103Frederick Engels, Letter in The New Moral World 46, 10 May 1845, in MECW, 4: 237–42, at 240.
103 弗雷德里克 ·恩格斯，《新道德世界里的信》 ，1845 年 5 月 10 日，MECW，4:237-42,240。
368 Sarah Johnson
Sarah Johnson 街 368 号

The centerpiece of Marx’s contribution is a series of critiques of Bauer,

including his replies to letters that the Allgemeine Literatur-Zeitung had
received. In one let-ter, a correspondent who praises Bauer also laments that the
Young Hegelians had tried to acquire “knowledge of the world and of man …
only by acuity of thought,” and that they had overlooked the importance of both
natural-scientific and indus-trial knowledge, as well as the senses, in its
pursuit.104 Bauer reproaches the corres-pondent for proving to be “an opponent
of Criticism itself” and he insists that “nature is not the only reality because we
eat and drink it in its individual products.” In addition, Marx observes, Bauer
counters “the embarrassingly importunate demand to study ‘nature’ and ‘industry’
with the following indisputably witty rhet-orical exclamation: ‘Or’ (!) ‘do you
think that the knowledge of historical reality is already complete? Or’ (!) ‘do you
know of any single period in history which is already actually known?’”
马克思贡献的核心是对鲍尔的一系列批评，包括他对《全日本文学报》
收到的信件的回复。在一封信中，一位赞扬鲍尔的记者还哀叹说，年轻的
黑格尔学派试图获得“世界和人类的知识... ... 只是凭借敏锐的思维”，他们
在追求知识的过程中忽视了自然科学和工业试验知识以及感官的重要性。
鲍尔指责通讯记者证明自己是“批评本身的对手”，他坚持认为“自然不是唯
一的现实，因为我们在它的个别产品中吃喝它。”此外，马克思观察到，
鲍尔用以下不容置疑的机智的语言感叹来反驳“研究‘自然’和‘工业’的令人
尴尬的迫切需求: ‘或者’(!)你认为历史现实的知识已经完整了吗？或者“(你
知道历史上有哪一个时期是已经被人们所知道的吗？”
Marx mocks Bauer’s disdain for nature by invoking his own claims about
natural science and industry from the third manuscript of 1844. He initially
ridicules the limits of Bauer’s knowledge: “Critical Criticism knows this much
about the individ-ual products of nature that ‘we eat and drink them.’ All respect
for the natural sci-ence of Critical Criticism!”105 He then turns with Bauer to the
topic of historical knowledge and replies with questions of his own. Marx asks,
马克思用鲍尔自己从 1844 年第三份手稿中提出的关于自然科学和工业
的主张来嘲弄鲍尔对自然的蔑视。他最初嘲笑鲍尔知识的局限性: “批判性
批评家对自然界的个体产物了如指掌，‘我们吃它们，喝它们’。所有对批
评性批评的自然科学的尊重!”然后他和鲍尔转向历史知识的话题，回答了
他自己的问题。马克思问道:

Or does Critical Criticism believe that it has reached even the beginning of
a knowledge of historical reality so long as it excludes from the historical
move-ment the theoretical and practical relation of man to nature, i.e.,
natural sci-ence and industry? Or does it think that it actually knows any
period without knowing, for example, the industry of that period, the
immediate mode of production of life itself?
还是批判性批评认为，只要把人与自然，即自然科学和工业的理论和
实践关系排除在历史运动之外，它就已经达到了历史现实知识的开端？
或者它认为它实际上知道任何一个时期，而不知道，例如，那个时期
的工业，生命本身的直接生产方式？
He concludes, “Just as it separates thinking from the senses, the soul from the
body and itself from the world, it separates history from natural science and
industry and sees the origin of history not in vulgar material production on the
earth but in vaporous clouds in the heavens.”106 In these lines, the “mode of
production” main-tains the connection to human life that Marx had established
in the third manu-script of 1844. But he now floats the idea that, in fashioning
human beings, a given mode of production begets history as well. Understood in
this way, the concept is primed for the kind of critique that Marx outlined in his
letter to Ruge, for it becomes the key to grasping historical difference and
specificity, and thus the present time itself.
他总结道: “正如它把思想与感官、灵魂与肉体、自身与世界分离开来一样，
它把历史与自然科学和工业分离开来，看到历史的起源不是来自地球上庸
俗的物质生产，而是来自天空中的云雾。”在这些方面，“生产方式”保持了
马克思在 1844 年第三份手稿中确立的与人类生活的联系。但是他现在提
出的观点是，在塑造人类的过程中，既定的生产方式也产生了历史。这样
理解，这个概念就成了马克思在给 Ruge 的信中概述的那种批判的基础，
因为它成了把握历史差异和特殊性，从而把握当代本身的关键。

Stirner and his ages

Stirner and his ages 斯特纳和他的年龄
Shortly after The Holy Family was published, Engels told Marx that it was “splen-didly
written and enough to make you split your sides. The Bauers won’t be able to
《神圣的家庭》出版后不久，恩格斯告诉马克思，这本书“写得很精彩，足以让你
分裂。”。鲍尔一家是不可能做到的

104Quotations from this letter and Bauer’s response are from “Correspondenz aus der Provinz,”
Allgemeine Literatur-Zeitung 6 (1844), 20–38, at 23–8, translated in Karl Marx and Frederick Engels,
The Holy Family or Critique of Critical Criticism, in MECW, 4: 5–211, at 149–50.
这封信和鲍尔的回信摘自《省通讯》 ，《全日本文学报》6(1844) ，20-38,23-8，翻译于《卡尔 ·马克思和弗里德里希 ·恩格斯》 ，
《神圣家庭或批评批评》 ，149-50，MECW，4:5-211。

105Marx and Engels, The Holy Family, 150.

马克思和恩格斯，《神圣的家庭》 ,。

106Ibid.
106 同上。
 Modern Intellectual
History
现代思想史 369

say a word.”107 It seems that Marx was also satisfied with their work and that he
was ready to leave the “Critical Critics” behind. In February 1845, he signed a
contract with Leske to publish a two-volume critique of politics and political
economy and he devoted himself to this project over the ensuing months. That
summer he trav-eled to England with Engels, who was writing his own book on
English society and socialism, and they spent most of July and August reading
in Manchester. By October, they had decided to collaborate on a critique of
protective tariffs and free trade.108 But by then Bruno Bauer had also replied to
The Holy Family, which called them away from their new projects and back to a
critique of German philosophy.109 Marx would tell Leske in August 1846 that
he had not touched his promised volumes in months: “For it seemed to me very
important to precede my positive development with a polemical piece against
German philoso-phy and German socialism up till the present. This is necessary
in order to prepare the public for the viewpoint adopted in my Economy, which
is diametrically opposed to German scholarship past and present.”110 This
period of work began in November 1845 with an anonymous response to
Bauer’s article.111 And although it revealed that Marx and Engels were as
unimpressed with Bauer’s reply as they were confident in The Holy Family’s
arguments, they quickly drafted another response before putting it aside to
devote their attention to Max Stirner, the pseudonym of Johann Caspar Schmidt.
说句话。”马克思似乎也对他们的工作感到满意，并准备抛弃“批评家”。
1845 年 2 月，他与莱斯克签订了一份合同，出版了一本两卷本的政治和政
治经济学批评书。在随后的几个月里，他全身心地投入到这个项目中。那
年夏天，他和恩格斯一起去英国旅行，恩格斯当时正在写一本关于英国社
会和社会主义的书，他们七月和八月的大部分时间都在曼彻斯特读书。但
那时布鲁诺 ·鲍尔也回复了《神圣家庭》(The Holy Family) ，后者呼吁他
们放弃他们的新项目，回到对德国哲学的批判上来。1846 年 8 月，马克思
告诉莱斯克，他已经好几个月没有碰他许诺的书了: “因为对我来说，在我
的积极发展之前，写一篇反对德国哲学和德国社会主义的有争议的文章，
直到现在，似乎是非常重要的。为了让公众准备好接受我的《经济学》中
采纳的观点，这是必要的，因为这种观点与德国过去和现在的学术观点截
然相反。”这一阶段的工作始于 1845 年 11 月，当时有人匿名回应了鲍尔的
第 111 号文章，尽管这表明马克思和恩格斯对鲍尔的回答不以为然，正如
他们对神圣家庭的论点有信心一样，但他们迅速起草了另一份回复，然后
把它放在一边，把注意力放在了马克斯 ·斯蒂纳(化名约翰 ·卡斯帕 ·施密
特)身上。
In the early 1840s, Stirner taught in Berlin at a private school for girls and spent
his evenings in lively conversation with “The Free,” an informal group of radical
thinkers that began to revolve around Bruno Bauer in 1842. 112 Although Stirner had
already published numerous articles, none had fully prepared his associates for The
Ego and Its Own (Der Einzige und sein Eigenthum) when it began to cir-culate in
the final months of 1844.113 This book was largely a response to Feuerbach’s
critique of religion, which claimed that humans made God by project-ing their
essence as an external being and worshiping it as something divine. Feuerbach
argued that this is how humans were first able to contemplate their own nature—as
an object outside themselves—and that over time, as religion pro-gressed, some of
this nature was recovered from the deity. “What by an earlier reli-gion was regarded
as objective,” he wrote, “is now recognised as subjective; that is, what was formerly
contemplated and worshiped as God is now perceived to be something human …
every advance in religion is therefore a deeper
19 世纪 40 年代初，斯特纳在柏林一所私立女子学校教书，晚上与“自由
者”(The Free)进行生动的交谈。“自由者”是一个非正式的激进思想家团体，
1842 年开始围绕布鲁诺 ·鲍尔展开讨论。112 尽管斯特纳已经发表了大量文章，
但在 1844 年最后几个月开始流传时，他的同事们还没有为《自我与自我》
(The Ego and Its Own，Der Einzige und sein Eigenthum)做好充分的准备。113 这
本书在很大程度上是对费尔巴哈对宗教批判的回应，费尔巴哈认为，人类通过
将自己的本质投射为外在的存在，并将其崇拜为神圣的东西，从而创造了上帝。
费尔巴哈认为，这就是人类如何首次能够思考自己的本性ーー作为一个外在的
客体ーー随着时间的推移，随着宗教的进步，这种本性的一部分从神性中恢复
了过来。“早期的宗教认为是客观的,”他写道，“现在被认为是主观的; 也就是
说，以前被认为是上帝的东西现在被认为是人类的东西... 因此，宗教的每一个
进步都是更深层次的

107Engels to Marx, 17 March 1845, in MECW, 38: 26–30, at 28. Engels was referring to Bruno Bauer
and his brother Edgar, whose work was also criticized in The Holy Family. A third Bauer brother, Egbert,
pub-lished the Allgemeine Literatur-Zeitung.
恩格斯致马克思，1845 年 3 月 17 日，MECW，38:26-30,28。恩格斯指的是布鲁诺 ·鲍尔和他的兄弟埃德加，他们的作品也在《神
圣的家庭》中受到批评。鲍尔的第三个兄弟埃格伯特出版了《全日本文学报》。

108
Jürgen Herres, Marx und Engels: Porträt einer intellektuellen Freundschaft (Ditzingen, 2018), 65–7;
108 jürgen Herres，Marx and Engels: 描绘一个知识分子的友谊(Ditzingen，2018) ，65-7;

Engels to Julius Campe, 14 Oct. 1845, in MECW, 38: 34.

恩格斯致朱利叶斯 ·坎普，1845 年 10 月 14 日，MECW，38:34。
109
Bauer included his reply in “Charakteristik Ludwig Feuerbachs,” Wigands Vierteljahrschrift 3 (1845),
109 鲍尔在《路德维希 ·费尔巴哈的性格》(1845 年)第三卷中作了回答,

86–146.
86-146.
110Marx to Carl Friedrich Julius Leske, 1 Aug. 1846, in MECW, 38: 48–52, at 50.
110 马克思致卡尔 ·弗里德里希 ·朱利叶斯 ·莱斯克，1846 年 8 月 1 日，MECW，38:48-52,50。
111See Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, “A Reply to Bruno Bauer’s Anti-critique,” in MECW, 5: 15–18.
参见卡尔 ·马克思和弗里德里希 ·恩格斯的《对布鲁诺 ·鲍尔反批评的回应》 ，载于 MECW，5:15-18。

112
David Leopold, “A Solitary Life,” in Saul Newman, ed., Max Stirner (New York, 2011), 21–41, at 24–5.
112 大卫 ·利奥波德，《孤独的生活》 ，索尔 ·纽曼编辑，马克斯 ·斯特纳(纽约，2011) ，21-41,24-5。
113Lawrence S. Stepelevich, “The Revival of Max Stirner,” Journal of the History of Ideas 35/2 (1974),
113 劳伦斯 ·s ·斯特佩列维奇(lawrence s. Stepelevich) ，《思想史杂志》(Journal of The History of Ideas 35/2,1974) ，《马克
斯 ·斯特纳的复兴》(The Revival of Max Stirner) ,

323–8, at 323. Although Stirner’s book was officially published in 1845, “specimen sheets” were made avail-
尽管斯特纳的书在 1845 年正式出版，但是“样本表”还是有用的
able around November 1844. See Engels to Marx, 19 Nov. 1844, in MECW: 38, 9–14, at 11–13.
大约在 1844 年 11 月出版。1844 年 11 月 19 日，《恩格斯对马克思》 ，MECW: 38,9-14,11-13。
370 Sarah Johnson
莎拉 ·约翰逊街 370 号

self-knowledge.”114 This long process culminates with the aid of a new kind of
phil-osophy, which reveals that “the antithesis of divine and human is altogether
illu-sory” and that “man has his highest being, his God, in himself; not in himself
as an individual, but in his essential nature, his species.”115
自我认识。”114 这个漫长的过程在一种新的哲学的帮助下达到了顶点，这
种哲学揭示了“神与人的对立完全是虚幻的”，“人在自己身上有他的最高存
在，他的上帝，不是在他自己身上，而是在他的本质，他的种族。”115
“Can we put up with this,” Stirner asks, “that ‘our essence’ is brought into
opposition to us, that we are split into an essential and an un-essential self?”116
According to Stirner, Feuerbach had elevated the ideal of “man” to the position
occupied by “God,” which allowed it to dominate the individual ego and efface its
unique properties. “The human religion,” in other words, “is only the last meta-
morphosis of the Christian religion.”117 Stirner’s book describes this domination by
past and present ideals and advertises the future that is won by refusing them. He
insists that this act sparks an “insurrection” rather than a revolution—“revolution
aimed at new arrangements; insurrection leads us no longer to let ourselves be
arranged”—and that the future that follows knows nothing of communism, which
would only be another translatio imperii, one that makes the ideal of “human society”
rule in place of “man.”118 Stirner’s insurrection breaks this chain with an act of
defiance. Individuals rise above the established order by refus-ing to do anything for
the sake of “God” or “man.” Thereafter, these “egoists” act only for their own sakes
and look only to themselves for fulfillment.119
“我们能忍受这个吗?”斯特纳问道，“‘我们的本质’与我们相对立，我们分裂
成一个本质的自我和一个非本质的自我?”根据斯特纳的说法，费尔巴哈将“人”
的理想提升到了“上帝”所占据的位置，这使得“上帝”能够支配个人的自我，抹
去其独特的职务。换句话说，“人类宗教只是基督教的最后一个变形。”斯特纳
的书描述了这种由过去和现在的理想所支配的统治，并宣传了通过拒绝他们而
赢得的未来。他坚持认为，这种行为引发的是“起义”，而不是革命——“旨在实
现新安排的革命; 起义导致我们不再让自己被安排”——以及随之而来的未来对
共产主义一无所知，这只不过是另一种帝国翻译，将“人类社会”统治的理想取
代了“人”斯特纳的起义以一种挑衅的行为打破了这条链条。个人通过拒绝为“上
帝”或“人类”做任何事而超越既定秩序此后，这些“利己主义者”只是为了他们自
己的利益而行动，只是为了满足他们自己
Stirner’s criticism extended to anyone who believed in a human essence, includ-
ing Marx, whose “ruthless criticism of all that exists” had taken Feuerbach’s critique
to its conclusion. Although Marx had celebrated Feuerbach’s discovery that “man is
the highest being for man,” he also insisted that this knowledge alone could not
overcome self-estrangement.120 Religion, Marx explained, is both a source of
estrangement and its symptom; it is only because “the human essence has no true
reality” that people seek its “fantastic realisation” in God, and so the critique of
religion must become a critique of the world that requires it. 121 Marx’s articles in
the Deutsch-Französische Jahrbücher had therefore aimed “to unmask self-
estrangement in its unholy forms,” particularly by showing that the modern state
prevents individuals from realizing their essence in their daily lives. 122 Again, he
argued that this occurs because the modern state splits the human life in two, the
public citizen and the private individual, and because it treats social activity as a
means to private satisfaction, such as by safeguarding the natural right to prop-erty
that it avows. Marx therefore stressed that self-estrangement will be overcome “only
when the real, individual man re-absorbs in himself the abstract citizen, and as an
individual human being has become a species-being in his everyday life.”123 Stirner
saw in this aspiration an affinity with the liberalism that Marx critiqued,
斯特纳的批评延伸到任何相信人的本质的人，包括马克思，他的“对一切存
在的无情的批评”使费尔巴哈的批评得出了结论。尽管马克思对费尔巴哈“人是
人的最高存在”的发现表示赞赏，但他也坚持认为，仅凭这一认识是无法克服
自我隔阂的。马克思解释说，宗教既是疏远的根源，也是它的症状; 只是因为
“人的本质没有真正的现实”，人们才在上帝那里寻求它的“幻想的实现”，因此
对宗教的批判必须成为对需要宗教的世界的批判。因此，马克思在《德法年鉴》
上发表的文章旨在”揭露自我隔离的邪恶形式”，特别是通过表明现代国家阻止
个人在日常生活中实现其本质。122 他再次指出，这是因为现代国家将人的生
命一分为二，即公民和个人，并且因为它将社会活动视为私人满足的一种手段，
例如通过保护它所承认的财产的自然权利。因此，马克思强调，“只有当真正
的、个体的人在自己身上重新吸收抽象的公民，并且作为个体的人在日常生活
中成为一个物种存在时”，自我疏远才能被克服斯特纳在这种渴望中看到了与
马克思所批判的自由主义的亲和力,

114Feuerbach, Essence of Christianity, 13.

费尔巴哈，基督教的精髓，13。

115Ibid., viii–x, 13, 281.

115 同上，viii-x，13,281。
116Max Stirner, The Ego and Its Own (1845), ed. David Leopold (Cambridge, 1995), 33–4.
116 max Stirner，The Ego and Its Own (1845) ，ed. David Leopold (Cambridge，1995) ，33-4.
117Ibid., 156–8.
同上，156-8。

118Ibid., 279–80, 222–3.

同上，279-80,222-3。

119Ibid., 282.
119 同上，282。
120Marx, “Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Law: Introduction,” 182.
马克思，《黑格尔法哲学批判: 导论》 ，182。

121Ibid., 175–6.
121 同上，175-6。
122Ibid., 176.
同上，176。

123Marx, “On the Jewish Question,” 168.

123 马克思，《论犹太问题》 ，168。
 Modern Intellectual
History
现代思想史 371

for in both, the singular ego is effaced by a conception of a universal human essence:
“To identify me now entirely with man the demand has been invented, and stated,
that I must become a ‘real species-being [wirkliches Gattungswesen]’.”124 Marx
began a review of Stirner’s book soon after he read it, but he missed his deadline and
abandoned the essay in early 1845.125 In his second attempt at a cri-tique, which he
wrote with Engels, Stirner appears as the eponymous “Saint Max” and joins “Saint
Bruno” as a member of “the Leipzig Council,” a body that is con-cerned with “the
most sacred interests of the spirit” instead of with “earthly things” like “potato blight,
banking affairs and railways.”126 And with this renewed critique of German
philosophy, Marx returned to the questions that he had put to Bauer in The Holy
Family. These were questions about the nature of history and how we can know its
periods that he had himself answered cursorily with reference to the “mode of
production.” Marx revisited them in part because Bauer had done so first. In his
reply to The Holy Family, Bauer had insisted that criticism and critics “have guided
and made history, that even their opponents and all the movements and agitations of
the present time are their creation.”127 In “Saint Bruno,” Marx and
因为在这两种情况下，单一的自我都被一种普遍的人类本质的概念所抹杀: “现
在要把我完全与人类区分开来，需求已经被发明出来，并且声明，我必须成为
一个‘真正的物种存在’。”马克思在读完斯蒂纳的书后不久就开始对其进行评
论，但他错过了最后期限，于 1845 年初放弃了这篇文章。125. 在他与恩格斯
合写的第二次批评尝试中，斯蒂纳以“圣马克斯”的身份出现，并加入“圣布鲁
诺”成为“莱比锡委员会”的成员，该委员会关注的是“精神上最神圣的利益”，
而不是“土豆枯萎病、银行事务和铁路”等“尘世之事”随着对德国哲学的重新批
判，马克思又回到了他在《神圣家庭》中向鲍尔提出的问题上。这些问题涉及
到历史的本质，以及我们如何知道历史的各个时期，而他自己只是粗略地回答
了“生产方式”这个问题马克思之所以重新审视这些问题，部分原因在于鲍尔是
第一个这样做的。鲍尔在对《神圣家庭》的回复中坚持认为，批评和批评“引
导并创造了历史，即使是他们的反对者以及当前的所有运动和骚动也是他们自
己创造的。”在《圣布鲁诺》中，马克思和
Engels ridicule the logic of this claim and stress that Bauer had failed to grasp the
“conflicts of the present.”128 But the problem of how the critic can come to know a
恩格斯嘲弄了这种说法的逻辑，并强调鲍尔没有抓住“当前的冲突”但是，批评
家如何才能了解一个
particular epoch, especially the present one, became a larger preoccupation for Marx in
the 1845–6 manuscripts and was no longer confined to his dispute with Bauer. Indeed, it
animates the critique of Stirner, whose argument in The Ego and Its Own relies upon an
elaborate set of claims about the nature of the present.
在 1845-1846 年的手稿中，特定时代，尤其是现在，成为马克思更大的关注点，不
再局限于他与鲍尔的争论。事实上，它激发了 Stirner 的批判，他在《自我及其自
身》中的论点依赖于对当下本质的一系列精心设计的主张。
In the first part of his book, Stirner describes the ego’s domination across ancient
and modern times and then anticipates a new epoch in Part Two, one in which the
individual ego can finally flourish. However, these three times corres-pond to others.
They are the childhood, youth, and adulthood of the human being, a lifespan that
Stirner further defines by realistic, idealistic, and egoistic approaches to self-
understanding.129 He also explains that world history is shaped by the “Caucasian
race,” which has already experienced ages of “Negroidity” and “Mongoloidity.”
While the former age “represents antiquity, the time of depend-ence on things,”
Stirner understands the “Mongolian age” as “the time of depend-ence on thoughts,
the Christian time,” when an interest in discovering what lies behind the visible
world has taken several guises.130 The period dawned with the Catholic Middle
Ages but was subsequently transformed by Luther and again by liberals, who put
their faith in “real concepts and eternal laws instead of ‘crude dog-mas’ and
precepts.”131 According to Stirner, just as the “Caucasian race” had to cast
在他的书的第一部分，斯蒂纳描述了自我的支配跨越古代和现代的时代，
然后预测一个新的时代在第二部分，其中一个个人的自我可以最终繁荣。然而，
这三个时间点与其他时间点相对应。他还解释说，世界历史是由“高加索人种”
塑造的，“高加索人种”已经经历了“黑人愚蠢”和“蒙古人愚蠢”的时代虽然前一
个时代“代表了古代，依赖事物的时代,”斯特纳理解“蒙古时代”是“依赖思想的
时代，基督教的时代,”当一个兴趣发现什么背后的可见世界已经采取了几种伪
装。130 这个时期开始于天主教的中世纪，但随后被路德和自由主义者改变，
他们把他们的信仰放在“真实的概念和永恒的法律，而不是’粗鲁的狗马斯’和
戒律。”根据斯特纳的说法，正如“高加索人种”不得不做的那样

124Stirner, The Ego, 158 (translation modified).

124 stirner，The Ego，158(翻译修改)。
125
Engels to Marx, 19 Nov. 1844, 11; Marx to Heinrich Börnstein, end of Dec. 1844–beginning of Jan.
恩格斯给马克思，1844 年 11 月 19 日，11 日; 马克思给海因里希 ·伯恩斯坦，1844 年 12 月底，1844 年 1 月初。

1845, in MECW, 38: 14.

1845 年，MECW，38:14。
126
Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, “Das Leipziger Konzil,” in MEGA2, I/5: 140–43, at 140 (MECW, 5:
126 卡尔 ·马克思和弗里德里希 ·恩格斯的《莱比锡人》 ，MEGA2，i/5:140-43，at 140(MECW，5:

94).
94).
127Bauer, “Charakteristik Ludwig Feuerbachs,” 139, translated in MECW, 5: 109.
鲍尔，“性格特征”，路德维希费尔巴哈，139，翻译在 MECW，5:109。

128
Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, “II. Sankt Bruno,” in MEGA2, I/5: 144–64, at 147–8, 157–8 (MECW,
卡尔 ·马克思和弗里德里希 ·恩格斯，“ II。在 MEGA2，i/5:144-64，at 147-8,157-8(MECW,

5: 98–9, 109–10).
98-9,109-10).
129Stirner, The Ego, 13–18.
129 stirner，The Ego，13-18.
130Ibid., 62–4.
130Ibid 62-4.
131Ibid., 76–8, 88.
131 同上，76-8,88。
372 Sarah Johnson
Sarah Johnson 街 372 号

off its “innate Negroidity,” so too must it overcome this “Mongolian” or “modern”
age by renouncing both “God” and “man,” the leading concept of liberalism.132
它也必须通过放弃“上帝”和“人”这两个自由主义的主导概念来克服这个“蒙古”
或“现代”时代
“Saint Max” examines how Stirner “elaborates on this scheme.”133 Focusing on
Stirner’s treatment of ages is how Marx and Engels show that his criticism is impo-
tent and it invites Marx to revisit his own views about how the present age can be
grasped. In both cases, he and Engels repeat claims that he had previously made in
the Deutsch-Französische Jahrbücher. Feuerbach, they write, had shown that reli-
gious ideas are illusions but left others to determine their earthly source. The trou-
ble is that Stirner ignores this work and instead “believes that in his struggle against
‘predicates’, against concepts, he is no longer attacking an illusion, but the real
forces that rule the world.”134 As Marx and Engels stress throughout “Saint Max,”
when the present is grasped through a prevailing idea, all that should be required for
overcoming it is getting that idea “out of [one’s] head.” But when this is the critic’s
goal, “everything remains as before.”135 They counter this approach to the present
and its transformation with the one that Marx had mod-eled in the pages of the
Deutsch-Französische Jahrbücher. There, they argue, he had offered “a critical view
of the world” by attending to its “actual material premises.” They also acknowledge
that his use of traditional philosophical terms in those essays, including “human
essence” and “species,” had given Stirner an excuse to overlook the novelty of what
he was doing in them.136 As we have seen, Marx dis-tilled his aims and method in
his letters to Ruge, which were among the journal’s contents: he sought to illuminate
a future that is prepared by present conditions, along with the practical struggles that
must be undertaken in order to realize it. In “Saint Max” Marx reiterates that this task
requires the critic “to leap out of [philosophy] and devote oneself like an ordinary
man to the study of actuality.”137
“圣马克斯”调查如何斯特纳“阐述这一计划。”关注斯蒂纳对时代的处理，是
马克思和恩格斯如何表明他的批评是无关紧要的，这促使马克思重新审视自己
关于如何把握当代时代的观点。在这两种情况下，他和恩格斯都重复了他之前
在《德法年鉴》中提出的观点。他们写道，费尔巴哈已经证明了宗教思想是幻
想，但留给其他人去确定它们的世俗来源。问题在于，斯蒂纳忽略了这项工作，
而是“相信在他与‘谓词’、与概念的斗争中，他不再攻击幻觉，而是攻击统治世
界的真正力量。”134 正如马克思和恩格斯在《圣马克思》一书中所强调的那
样，当人们通过一个普遍存在的观念来把握现在时，克服这个观念所需要的就
是把这个观念“从头脑中”赶出去但是，当这是批评家的目标时，“一切都和以前
一样。”他们用马克思在《德法年鉴》中模仿的方法来反驳这种对现在及其转
变的方法。他们认为，马克思通过关注“实际的物质前提”，提供了“对世界的批
判性观点”他们还承认，他在这些文章中使用了传统哲学术语，包括“人的本质”
和“物种”，这给了斯蒂纳一个借口来忽视他在这些文章中所做的事情的新颖性。
正如我们已经看到的，马克思在给 Ruge 的信中提炼了他的目标和方法，这些
都是杂志的内容: 他试图阐明一个由当前条件准备的未来，以及为了实现它必
须进行的实际斗争。马克思在《圣马克思》中重申，这一任务要求批评家“跳
出[哲学] ，像一个普通人一样致力于研究现实”137

The “mode of production” and social critique

“生产方式”与社会批判
When the critic makes this leap, however, where should “the study of actuality” begin?
As we saw above, Marx’s answer to this question in the Deutsch-Französische
Jahrbücher was “the political state”: he looked for the principles that were victorious
when a system based on rights overcame a system based on privileges, and he held these
up as standards with which to evaluate and reimagine existing social life. But he models
a different approach in “Saint Max,” which is particularly evident where he challenges
Stirner’s account of the very political struggle that he had examined in the Jahrbücher.
As Marx and Engels observe, Stirner
然而，当批评家迈出这一步时，“现实性研究”应该从何处开始呢？正如我们上面
所看到的，马克思在《德法年鉴》中对这个问题的回答是“政治国家”: 当一个以权
利为基础的制度战胜了一个以特权为基础的制度时，他寻找胜利的原则，并把这
些原则作为评价和重新设想现有社会生活的标准。但他在《圣麦克斯》中采用了
一种不同的方法，这一点在他挑战斯蒂纳在《年鉴》中对政治斗争的描述时表现
得尤为明显。正如马克思和恩格斯所观察到的，斯特纳

transforms the struggle over privilege and equal right into a struggle over the mere
“concepts” privileged and equal. In this way he saves himself the trouble of having
to know anything about the medieval mode of production, the pol-itical expression
of which was privilege, and the modern mode of production, of which right as such,
equal right, is the expression, or about the relation of
将争夺特权和平等权利的斗争转化为争夺特权和平等的“概念”的斗争。这样，
他就省去了对中世纪生产方式的任何了解，中世纪生产方式的政治表达方式
是特权，而现代生产方式的政治表达方式，其权利本身，即平等权利，就是
特权的表达方式，或者说特权与特权之间的关系
132Ibid., 62–3, 139, 155–7.
同上，62-3,139,155-7。

133Marx and Engels, “Sankt Max,” 187 (MECW, 5: 136).

133 马克思恩格斯，“ Sankt Max”，187(MECW，5:136)。
134Ibid., 292 (MECW, 5: 237, translation modified).
134 同上，292(MECW，5:237，翻译修改)。
135Ibid., 491 (MECW, 5: 433).
135Ibid. ，491(MECW，5:433).
136Ibid., 291(MECW, 5: 236).
136 同上，291(MECW，5:236)。
137Ibid.
137Ibid.
 Modern Intellectual
History
现代思想史 373

these two modes of production to the legal relations which correspond to

them.138
这两种生产方式对相应的法律关系的影响

Instead of understanding the medieval and modern periods through their prevailing
political forms, Marx insists here on what he had proposed in The Holy Family— that
they can only be grasped by attending to how each one is made.
马克思没有通过中世纪和现代时期盛行的政治形式来理解它们，而是在这里坚持
他在《神圣家庭》中提出的观点，即只有关注每一个时期是如何形成的，才能理
解它们。
But in a crucial respect Marx’s approach to critique had not changed. He did not stop
arguing that the critic’s primary task is to grasp the nature of the present, nor did he
suddenly reduce this work to finding a universal law or logic that could explain the
essence of all historical periods. This, of course, is what readings of “I. Feuerbach” have
long suggested about his ambition in 1845–6. In “Saint Max,” Marx rejects this approach
as he scrutinizes how certain treatments of epochs can stifle the work of critique.
Reflections like these are rare in his oeuvre and it is telling that they appear where he
begins to use the “mode of production” as a historical concept. Indeed, they suggest what
Marx initially sought to achieve with it: to illuminate historical specificity and thereby
understand distinct epochs.
但在一个至关重要的方面，马克思的批判方法并没有改变。他没有停止争论，
批评家的首要任务是把握当下的本质，他也没有突然把这项工作简化为寻找一个
普遍规律或逻辑，可以解释所有历史时期的本质。当然，这就是《费尔巴哈一书》
在 1845-1846 年长期以来对费尔巴哈野心的解读。在《圣马克思》一书中，马克思
拒绝了这种方法，因为他仔细审视了某些时代的处理方法是如何扼杀批判工作的。
这样的反思在他的全部作品中是罕见的，而且很能说明问题的是，这些反思出现
在他开始将“生产方式”作为一个历史概念的地方。事实上，它们暗示了马克思最
初试图用它来达到的目的: 阐明历史的特殊性，从而理解不同的时代。
Marx and Engels observe, for example, that while German philosophers often
distinguish an ancient epoch of realism from a modern or Christian epoch of ideal-
ism, many French and English writers—economists, historians, and scientists—
make the opposite case. For these writers, the modern age is the site of materialism,
empiricism, and “the realist ami du commerce” (“friend of commerce”), the bour-
geois. Marx and Engels have no interest in adjudicating this debate, for “all these
abstract counterposings and historical constructions are of very little use.”139 So is a
schema that makes the present the truth or task of history, which causes “earlier
times [to] acquire a bizarre and hitherto unprecedented appearance.”140 To be sure,
these concerns could be extended to Hegel’s model, where Stirner found the
abstractions that ground his schema and learned that “the later epoch is the ‘truth’ of
the preceding one.”141 But as Marx and Engels describe Stirner’s “clumsy” efforts to
copy Hegel, they clarify why they are especially troubled by the idea of using an
inherited “historical construction” to grasp the nature of distinct peri-ods.142 They
write that when Hegel set out to create, “for the first time, a system embracing the
whole of history and the present-day world in all its scope,” he could only do so with
“comprehensive, positive knowledge,” and thus by attending, on at least some
occasions, to empirical history.143 Stirner, however, “is satisfied with exploiting
[and transforming] an already existing pattern,” which he illustrates in turn “by
means of isolated examples.” This approach frees him from having to understand
epochs through his own historical investigations and it leads to “comic” results,
especially when he jumps “from the past into the immediate present.”144 He only
compounds his error when he traces the reign of an idea—“clericalism”—as it takes
on “different names, different disguises,” in medieval and modern times,
例如，马克思和恩格斯注意到，尽管德国哲学家常常将古代的现实主义时
代与现代或基督教的理想主义时代区分开来，但许多法国和英国作家——经济
学家、历史学家和科学家——却提出了相反的观点。对于这些作家来说，现代
是唯物主义、经验主义和“现实主义的商业之友”(“商业之友”)的所在地。马克
思和恩格斯对于裁决这场争论没有兴趣，因为“所有这些抽象的对立和历史的
建构都没有什么用处。”139 So 是一种使现在成为历史真相或任务的图式，它
导致“早期时代获得了迄今为止前所未有的怪异外观。”可以肯定的是，这些担
忧可以扩展到黑格尔的模型，在这个模型中，Stirner 找到了支撑他的模式的抽
象概念，并且学到了“后一个时代是前一个时代的‘真理’。”但是，当马克思和
恩格斯描述斯蒂纳复制黑格尔的“笨拙”努力时，他们澄清了为什么他们特别困
扰于使用继承的“历史结构”来掌握不同时期的性质的想法。他们写道，当黑格
尔开始创造“第一次，一个包容整个历史和当今世界的所有范围的系统”时，他
只能用“全面的、积极的知识”来做到这一点，因此，至少在某些场合，他参与
了经验主义历史。143 Stirner，然而，“满足于开发[和转换]一个已经存在的模
式,”他反过来说明“通过孤立的例子”这种方法使他不必通过自己的历史调查来
了解各个时代，从而导致“滑稽”的结果，特别是当他“从过去跳跃到眼前”的时
候 144 他只有在追溯中世纪和现代“神职主义”思想的统治时才会加重自己的错
误，因为它具有“不同的名称，不同的伪装”,
138Ibid., 381 (MECW, 5: 327).
138 同上，381(MECW，5:327)。
139Ibid., 194–5 (MECW, 5: 144).
同上，194-5(MECW，5:144)。

140Ibid., 197 (MECW, 5: 146).

140Ibid。 ，197(MECW，5:146)。
141Ibid., 227–30 (MECW, 5: 173–6).
141 同上，227-30(MECW，5:173-6)。
142Ibid., 223 (MECW, 5: 170).
142Ibid. ，223(MECW，5:170).
143Ibid., 229 (MECW, 5: 176)
143 同上，229(MECW，5:176)
144Ibid.
144Ibid.
374 Sarah Johnson
Sarah Johnson 街 374 号

because “with this sort of conception of history, ‘all cats become grey’, since all his-
torical differences are ‘abolished’ and ‘resolved’ in the ‘notion of clericalism’.”145
因为“有了这样的历史观，‘所有的猫都变成了灰色’，因为他所有的历史分歧
都在‘神职主义’的概念中被‘废除’和‘解决’了。”145
For Marx, “the study of actuality” would surely need to avoid these mistakes.
If the present were approached through an abstract schema, or through a law that
governs all periods and makes each one essentially the same, then it would not
be known at all. As he insists in fragment “5.”, “the most general results, abstrac-
tions which are derived from the observation of the historical development of
men,” do not adequately illuminate epochs.146 The “study of actuality” thus
requires the critic to do more than just attend to empirical history and material
conditions. Critics must also find a way to see and understand difference.
对于马克思来说，“现实性研究”必然要避免这些错误。如果现在是通过
一个抽象的模式，或者通过一个规范所有时期并使每个时期基本相同的法
则来处理的，那么它就根本不会被知道。正如他在片段 5 中所坚持的那样
146. 因此，“对现实的研究”要求批评家所做的不仅仅是关注经验历史和物
质条件。批评家也必须找到一种方法来看待和理解差异。
However, this does not mean that “general results” were unimportant to Marx;
“Saint Max” abounds in them. And this is one of the most striking aspects of that
text: it shows Marx, for the first time, insisting that epochs be approached through
their distinct modes of production, or to use the language of fragment “5.”, through
“the study of the actual life-process and the activity of the individuals of each epoch,”
while also capturing his efforts to work out what it means to engage in pro-duction
at all—its nature, effects, and stakes—along with what it would entail to develop a
method of critique that is centered on this activity. These efforts can be seen where
he and Engels battle Stirner’s claims about topics like the individual and private
property with the conclusions they had reached through their recent studies in
political economy. At their most general, they are conclusions like these: that
“always and in all circumstances,” individuals are brought together by human needs;
that they enter these relations “not as pure egos, but as individuals at a definite stage
of development of their productive forces and requirements”; that they “inherit the
productive forces and forms of intercourse accumulated by their predecessors,”
which condition both their physical existence and their rela-tions with each other.147
Marx and Engels also point out that, “at all times,” prop-erty “is bound up with
definite conditions, first of all economic, which depend on the degree of
development of the productive forces and intercourse—conditions which inevitably
acquire a legal and political expression.”148
然而，这并不意味着“一般结果”对马克思来说不重要; “圣马克思”在这些结
果中比比皆是。这是文本中最引人注目的一个方面: 它第一次向我们展示了马
克思，坚持通过他们各自不同的生产方式来进入各个时代，或者使用片段“5”
的语言通过“研究每个时代个体的实际生活过程和活动”，同时也捕捉到他努力
弄清从事生产究竟意味着什么——它的性质、影响和利害关系——以及发展一
种以这种活动为中心的批评方法所需要的东西。这些努力可以看出，他和恩格
斯通过他们最近在政治经济学研究中得出的结论，与斯蒂纳关于个人和私有财
产等主题的主张进行了斗争。最普遍的结论是这样的: “在任何时候，在任何情
况下”，个人都是因为人类的需要而聚集在一起的; 他们进入这些关系时“不是
作为纯粹的自我，而是作为个人，在其生产力和生产要求发展的一个确定阶
段”; 他们“继承了其前人积累的生产力和交往形式”，这些生产力和交往形式决
定了他们的物质存在和彼此之间的关系 148
One place in “Saint Max” where the “mode of production” functions in its new
role alongside such “general results” is in a section called “Treatise No. 2: Private
Property, State, and Right,” where Marx and Engels critique Stirner for trying to
comprehend private property as an idea instead of examining it “in its empirical
existence, in its connection with the productive forces of individuals.”149 As we saw
above, many of the sheets that editors used to make “I. Feuerbach” originated here:
they contain a series of fragments on subjects such as the division of labor, private
property, the proletariat, and communism that Marx and Engels wrote as they
digressed from their initial work on the section. At one point in the finished
“Treatise,” Marx and Engels challenge Stirner’s claim that private property is “a fic-
tion, a thought,” because it is guaranteed by law rather than by possession. 150 They
在《圣马克思》中，“生产方式”与这些“一般结果”一起发挥新作用的一个地
方是在一个叫做“论文 2: 私有财产、国家和权利”的章节中，马克思和恩格斯
批评斯特纳试图把私有财产理解为一种观念，而不是“在它的经验存在中，在
它与个人生产力的联系中”对它进行审查正如我们上面所看到的，许多编辑们
用来制作《我. 费尔巴哈》的纸张都来自这里: 它们包含了一系列关于主题的
片段，如劳动分工、私有财产、无产阶级和共产主义，这些都是马克思和恩格
斯在离开他们最初在这一部分的工作时写的。在完成的“论文”中，马克思和恩
格斯一度质疑斯蒂纳的主张，即私有财产是“一种虚构，一种思想”，因为它是
由法律而不是占有所保障的
145Ibid., 231 (MECW, 5: 177–8).
145 同上，231(MECW，5:177-8)。
146Marx and Engels, “5. [Fragment],” 136 (MECW, 5: 37).
马克思和恩格斯，“5. [片段] ,”136(MECW，5:37)。

147Marx and Engels, “Sankt Max,” 495–6 (MECW, 5: 437–8).

147 马克思和恩格斯，“ Sankt Max,”495-6(MECW，5:437-8)。
148Ibid., 413 (MECW, 5: 356, translation modified).
148Ibid. ，413(MECW，5:356，翻译修改)。
149Ibid., 410 (MECW, 5: 355).
149Ibid. ，410(MECW，5:355).
150Stirner, The Ego, 223.
150Stirner，The Ego，223.
 Modern Intellectual
History
现代思想史 375

observe that when he makes the “political recognition of private property in law …
the basis of private property,” it follows that its attendant problems stem merely
from “the faith of individuals in the conception of right, which they ought to get out
of their heads.”151 This is also the case with the concept of “respect,” which,
according to Stirner, further secures bourgeois property by keeping individuals from
seizing whatever they wish to possess.152 As Marx and Engels put it, on this model,
commercial property “excludes itself” from landed property out of “respect,” just as
industrial property does with commercial property. And so Stirner “has only … to
get respect out of his head in order to abolish at one stroke the division of labour and
the form of property that arises from it.”153 But the idea that people exclude
themselves from others’ property is an illusion, Marx and Engels insist, and “in
today’s mode of production and intercourse each person deli-vers a blow at this
illusion and directs his efforts precisely to excluding all others from the property that
at present belongs to them.”154
注意到，当他把“法律对私有财产的政治承认... ... 作为私有财产的基础”时，其
附带的问题仅仅源于“个人对权利概念的信仰，他们应该从他们的头脑中摆脱
出来。”“尊重”的概念也是如此，根据 Stirner 的说法，“尊重”通过阻止个人攫
取任何他们希望拥有的东西，进一步确保了资产阶级的财产。正如马克思和恩
格斯所说的，在这个模型中，商业财产出于“尊重”而“排除”了自己与地产之间
的关系，就像工业财产与商业财产之间的关系一样。因此，斯蒂纳“只需要...
把尊重从他的头脑中清除出去，就可以一举废除劳动分工以及由此产生的财产
形式。”但是，马克思和恩格斯坚持认为，人们将自己排除在他人财产之外的
想法是一种错觉，而且“在今天的生产和交往模式中，每个人都对这种错觉进
行打击，并且精确地将自己的努力指向将所有其他人排除在目前属于他们的财
产之外。”154
Here, then, the general claim that in “I. Feuerbach” seems to be the basis of
Marx’s understanding of epochs—that the division of labor yields a corresponding
property form—is invoked for the sake of challenging Stirner’s arguments about
private property. And where Marx does refer to the present time in this passage, he
uses a different concept—the “mode of production”—which, as he would soon
clarify, is “a definite form of activity … a definite mode of life.”155 This activity
surely involves a division of labor, but it is not identical to or exhausted by it. As
Marx’s starting point for the “study of actuality,” the “mode of production” offers a
much wider lens for perceiving “how [individuals] produce” the material world, their
relations, and themselves.156
在这里，“费尔巴哈一书”中的一般主张似乎是马克思理解各个时代的基础
——即劳动分工产生相应的财产形式——是为了挑战斯蒂纳关于私有财产的论
点而援引的。当马克思在这段话中提到现在的时候，他使用了一个不同的概念
——“生产方式”，他很快就会澄清，这是“一种确定的活动形式... ... 一种确定
的生活方式。”155 这种活动当然涉及到劳动分工，但它并不等同于劳动分工，
也不会被劳动分工耗尽。作为马克思“研究现实”的出发点，“生产方式”为理解
“[个人]如何生产”物质世界、他们之间的关系和他们自己提供了一个更广阔的
视角
 That Marx had settled on viewing the present through this concept, even if he had
yet to fully work out how to study “today’s mode of production,” is confirmed in one
of the critiques of German socialism that he and Engels wrote after complet-ing
“Saint Max.” They explain there, “different stages of production involve different
relations of production to consumption, different contradictions of the two; it does
not occur to [Karl Grün] that to understand these contradictions one must examine
the particular mode of production, together with the whole set of social conditions
based upon it.”157 To be sure, this reference to “stages of production” could be taken
to mean more than that Marx and Engels assume that production changes over time.
It might be seen as a sign that they believe that one’s own present should be
approached through the unfolding of all previous stages, whose pattern and logic
will yield adequate knowledge of the existing world. But this interpretation is
quickly stifled by Marx and Engels’s claim that the critic should begin to analyze
existing contradictions by studying “the particular mode of production” that makes
马克思决定通过这个概念来看待现在，即使他还没有完全弄清楚如何研究
“今天的生产方式”，这在他和恩格斯完成《圣马克思》后对德国社会主义的一
次批判中得到了证实他们解释说，“不同的生产阶段涉及不同的生产与消费关
系，两者的不同矛盾; [卡尔 ·格伦]没有想到，要理解这些矛盾，就必须考察
特定的生产方式，以及基于这种生产方式的整套社会条件。”可以肯定的是，
这里提到的“生产阶段”可以被理解为比马克思和恩格斯假定的生产随着时间的
推移而变化更有意义。这可能被视为一种迹象，表明他们认为，应该通过展开
所有先前的阶段来处理自己的现在，这些阶段的模式和逻辑将产生对现有世界
的充分了解。但这种解释很快就被马克思和恩格斯的主张所扼杀，马克思和恩
格斯主张批评家应该通过研究“特定的生产方式”来分析现存的矛盾

151Marx and Engels, “Sankt Max,” 418–19 (MECW, 5: 361–2).

马克思和恩格斯，“ Sankt Max”，418-19(MECW，5:361-2)。

152Stirner, The Ego, 88, 220, 229.

Stirner，The Ego，88,220,229.
153Marx and Engels, “Sankt Max,” 425 (MECW, 5: 367, translation modified).
153 marx and Engels，“ Sankt Max,”425(MECW，5:367，translation modified)153 马克思恩格斯，“ Sankt
Max,”425(MECW，5:367，翻译修改)。
154Ibid. (translation modified).
154Ibid。(翻译修改)。
155Marx and Engels, “[2. Kapitelanfang],” 11 (MECW, 5: 31).
155 马克思恩格斯，“[2. Kapitelanfang ] ,”11(MECW，5:31)。
156Ibid. (MECW, 5: 32).
(MECW，5:32).
157Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, “IV. Karl Grün: Die soziale Bewegung in Frankreich u. Belgien
(Darmstadt 1845) oder: die Geschichtsschreibung des wahren Sozialismus,” in MEGA2, I/5: 545–89,
at
157 卡尔 ·马克思和弗里德里希 ·恩格斯。卡尔 ·格林: 法国、比利时的社会运动(达姆施塔特，1845 年)或者: 真正社会主义的历史写
作，“在 MEGA2，i/5:545-89，at

574 (MECW, 5: 516).

574(MECW，5:516).
376 Sarah Johnson
376 莎拉 ·约翰逊

the present age what it is. And we soon learn that this knowledge is important
indeed, for “only by actually changing the mode of production and the entire
social system based upon it can these contradictions be solved.”158
现在是什么时代。我们很快就了解到，这些知识确实很重要，因为“只有
切实改变生产方式和以此为基础的整个社会制度，这些矛盾才能得到解
决。”158

Conclusion
结论
Near the end of his life, Marx stressed that his “analytic method … does not
proceed from man but from a given economic period of society.”159 He had
refined this method in his notebooks two decades earlier. In one of them, which
contains a manuscript entitled “A.) Einleitung” (“Introduction”) from August
1857, Marx wrote that he was uninterested in tracing the historical unfolding of
social produc-tion and the corresponding succession of economic categories, for
doing so could not help him to grasp his “real subject-matter.” What he wanted
to understand was “one particular historical epoch,” the very “epoch of
production” that he inhab-ited.160 And in order to do this, he said, it would be
necessary to begin by analyzing the “economic power” that made society in the
“modern-bourgeois” epoch what it was—“the general light tingeing all other
colours and modifying them in their specific quality.” His point of departure,
then, would be capital and the kind of production that it engenders.161
在他生命的最后阶段，马克思强调他的“分析方法... ... 不是从人出发，而
是从社会的一个特定的经济时期出发。”他在 20 年前的笔记本中改进了这
种方法。在其中一本 1857 年 8 月出版的手稿《 a. 》中，马克思写道，他
对追溯社会生产的历史发展和经济范畴的相应演变不感兴趣，因为这样做
不能帮助他把握“真正的主题”他想要理解的是“一个特定的历史时期”，他
所处的“生产时代”。他说，为了做到这一点，有必要从分析“经济力量”开
始，这种“经济力量”使“现代资产阶级”时代的社会成为现在这个样子——
“普遍的光线染色所有其他的颜色，并改变它们的特殊性质。”那么，他的
出发点将是资本和由资本产生的那种生产
Soon after he wrote these lines, Marx was spurred by an economic crisis to work “like
mad all night, every night, summarizing [his] economic studies” so that he might “at least
get the outlines [Grundrisse] clear before the deluge.”162 By the fol-lowing spring, he
had filled seven more notebooks.163 He explained in one of those that it is “with the
correct grasp of the present,” and by recognizing that relations of production are products
of history, not nature, that it is possible to discover not only “a past lying behind” the
bourgeois economy but also “points which indicate the transcendence of the present form
of production relations, the movement com-ing into being, thus foreshadowing the
future.” For if “the pre-bourgeois phases appear as merely historical, i.e. transcended
premises, so … the present conditions of production appear as conditions which
transcend themselves and thus posit themselves as historical premises for a new state of
society.”164 What the past offers, then, is not a key to existing conditions or their
transformation, but an image of the possibility of further transformations. Marx thought
that the nature of the present and its possible futures could only be found by studying the
given mode of produc-tion itself. Hence his bald declaration in the preface to Capital
(1867): “What I have
写完这几行后不久，马克思就受到经济危机的刺激，“每晚都像疯了一样整夜地
工作，总结他的经济学研究”，以便他“至少在洪水来临之前把大纲弄清楚”到第二
年春天，他又写满了七本笔记本。他在其中一本笔记本中解释说，“正确把握现
在”，并且承认生产关系是历史的产物，而不是自然的产物，因此不仅可以发现资
产阶级经济背后的“过去”，而且可以发现“表明现在生产关系形式的超越、即将形
成的运动的要点，从而预示未来”因为如果“前资产阶级阶段看起来仅仅是历史的，
即超越了前提，那么... ... 现在的生产条件看起来就是超越自身的条件，从而把自
己定位为一个新的社会状态的历史前提。”164 因此，过去提供的不是现有条件或
其转变的关键，而是进一步转变的可能性的图像。马克思认为，现在的本质及其
可能的未来只能通过研究给定的生产方式本身来发现。因此，他在《资本论》
(1867)的序言中直言不讳地宣称: “我所拥有的

158Ibid.
158Ibid.
159
Karl Marx, “Marginal Notes on Adolph Wagner’s Lehrbuch der politischen Oekonomie,” in MECW,
159 卡尔 ·马克思，《阿道夫 ·瓦格纳政治经济学教科书边注》 ，MECW,

24: 531–59, at 547.

24:531-59，在 547。
160Karl Marx, “Introduction,” in MECW, 28: 17–48, at 23, 44.
160 卡尔 ·马克思，《引言》 ，MECW，28:17-48,23,44。
161Ibid., 43–4.
同上，43-4。

162Marx to Engels, 8 Dec. 1857, in MECW, 40: 214–17, at 217 (translation modified); Karl Marx to

Friedrich Engels, 8. Dec. 1857, in MEGA2, Section III, vol. 8 (Berlin, 1990), 208–210, at 210. See also
Marx to Ferdinand Lassalle, 21 Dec. 1857, in MECW, 40: 225–7, at 226. Marx began this work in
October 1857.
马克思致恩格斯，1857 年 12 月 8 日，MECW，40:214-17,217(翻译修改) ; 卡尔 ·马克思致弗里德里希 ·恩格斯，8。1857 年 12
月，在 MEGA2，第三节，卷 8(柏林，1990) ，208-210，在 210。参见马克思致斐迪南 ·拉萨尔，1857 年 12 月 21 日，MECW，
40:225-7,226。马克思在 1857 年 10 月开始了这项工作。
163On the relationship between Marx’s 1857 “Introduction” and these notebooks see Samuel A.
Chambers, Bearing Society in Mind (London, 2014), 88–9.
关于马克思 1857 年的《引言》和这些笔记本之间的关系，见塞缪尔 ·钱伯斯《铭记社会》(伦敦，2014) ，88-9。
164Karl Marx, “Outlines of the Critique of Political Economy,” in MECW, 28: 49–537, at 389.
164 卡尔 ·马克思，《政治经济学批判大纲》 ，MECW，28:49-537,389 页。
 Modern Intellectual
History
现代思想史 377

to examine in this work is the capitalist mode of production, and the relations of
production and forms of intercourse that correspond to it.”165
这本书要考察的是资本主义生产方式(马克思主义理论) ，以及与之相对应
的生产关系和交往形式 165
In 1846, Marx still had much to discover about how to study the present
mode of production. His understanding of this work certainly developed
between the 1840s and 1850s, just as it would continue to evolve as he prepared
Capital. However, this article has shown that when the “mode of production”
became a historical lens in “Saint Max,” it began to occupy the role that it would
assume, in a more refined way, in those later works. As I have argued here,
conventional presentations and interpretations of the 1845–6 manuscripts have
long obscured this concept’s early development.
1846 年，马克思对于如何研究当前的生产方式仍有许多有待发现的问题。
他对这项工作的理解在 19 世纪 40 年代到 50 年代之间肯定有所发展，正如
他在准备《资本论》的过程中继续发展一样。然而，这篇文章已经表明，
当“生产方式”成为“圣马克思”的历史镜头，它开始占据的角色，它将承担，
在一个更精致的方式，在那些后来的作品。正如我在这里所说的，对
1845-1846 年手稿的传统表述和解释长期以来掩盖了这个概念的早期发展。
But we might consider in closing that those interpretations, and perhaps even the
making of “I. Feuerbach,” were themselves shaped by assessments of Marx’s preface
in A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy (1859), the first of six
volumes that he planned to write from the notebooks he filled in 1857–8.166 There,
in a brief bio-graphical sketch, he presents the “general result” (allgemeine Resultat)
of his studies in Paris and Brussels, beginning with the claim that people find
themselves in “relations of production” that they do not choose and that instead
correspond to “a given stage in the development of their material forces of
production.” Marx rapidly extrapolates from here: these relations constitute a given
society’s “economic structure” and, in turn, give rise to “a legal and political
superstructure,” but also become “fetters” on the continued development of the
productive forces. “Then begins an era of social revolution,” but not before the
material conditions for “superior relations of produc-tion … have matured within the
framework of the old society.” “In broad outline,” he adds, “the Asiatic, ancient,
feudal and modern bourgeois modes of production may be designated as progressive
epochs in the economic development of society.”167 Lenin surely had these lines in
mind in 1913 when he praised Marx’s “great achievement in scientific thinking”:
overcoming “the chaos and arbitrariness that had previously reigned in views on
history and politics” with a “strikingly integral and harmonious scientific theory” that
was centered on the systematic growth of productive forces. 168 In the Collected
Works, Churbanov offers “I. Feuerbach” as the origin of this “achievement.”169
但我们最后可以考虑一下，这些解释，甚至《我. 费尔巴哈》的创作，本身
就是由马克思在《政治经济学批判序言》(1859)中对前言的评价形成的。《政
治经济学批判》(1859)是他计划根据他在 1857 年至 1816 年填写的笔记本撰写
的六卷中的第一卷。在一个简短的传记素描中，他介绍了他在巴黎和布鲁塞尔
的研究的“一般结果”(allgemeine Resultat) ，首先声称人们发现自己处于“生产
关系”中，他们不是自己选择的，而是相当于“物质生产力发展的一个特定阶段”
马克思从这里迅速推断: 这些关系构成了一定社会的“经济结构”，反过来又产
生了“法律和政治上层结构”，但也成为生产力持续发展的“桎梏”。“然后就开
始了一个社会革命的时代”，但不是在“旧社会框架内的高级生产关系”的物质
条件成熟之前“总的来说,”他补充说，“亚洲的、古代的、封建的和现代的资产
阶级生产方式可以被指定为社会经济发展的进步时代。”列宁在 1913 年赞扬马
克思“在科学思想方面取得的伟大成就”时，肯定有这样的想法: 用以生产力系
统增长为中心的“引人注目的完整和和谐的科学理论”克服了“以前在历史和政
治观中占主导地位的混乱和专断”169
Many scholars find the “schematic assertions” of Marx’s preface embarrassing
and reject the “technological determinism” that results when a theory of history is
built from them.170 There are reasons, they argue, for placing little weight on these
claims. Wood stresses that Marx rarely used such “short-hand aphorisms” elsewhere
in his mature writings, while Arthur Prinz suggests that their unusual fea-tures, like
their depiction of revolution as a fairly quiet and distant affair, resulted
许多学者发现马克思序言中的“图式主张”令人尴尬，他们反对由此产生的
“技术决定论”。他们认为，对这些主张不予重视是有原因的。伍德强调，马克
思在其成熟的著作中很少使用这样的“短语格言”，而阿瑟 ·普林兹则认为，这
些格言的不同寻常之处，比如将革命描述为一件相当安静和遥远的事情，导致
了这种格言的产生

165
Karl Marx, Capital: A Critique of Political Economy, vol. 1, trans. Ben Fowkes (New York, 1990), 90.
165 卡尔 ·马克思，《资本论: 政治经济学批判》 ，第一卷，本 ·福克斯译(纽约，1990) ，90。
166See Marx to Ferdinand Lassalle, 11 March 1858, in MECW, 40: 286–7, at 287.
见马克思给斐迪南 ·拉萨尔，1858 年 3 月 11 日，MECW，40:286-7,287。

167
Marx, Critique of Political Economy, 262–3 (translation modified); Karl Marx, Zur Kritik der poli-
tischen Ökonomie. Erstes Heft, in MEGA2, Section II, vol. 2 (Berlin, 1980), 95–245, at 100–1.
167 马克思，《政治经济学批判》 ，262-3(翻译修改) ; 卡尔 ·马克思，《政治经济学批判》。Erstes Heft，in MEGA2，Section
II，vol. 2(Berlin，1980) ，95-245，at 100-1.
168V. I. Lenin, “The Three Sources and Three Component Parts of Marxism,” in Lenin, Collected
Works, vol. 19 (Moscow, 1973), 23–8, at 25.
168V.一、列宁，《列宁著作集》 ，第 19 卷(莫斯科，1973 年) ，第 23-8 页，第 25 页，“马克思主义的三个来源和三个组成部分”。
169Churbanov, “Preface,” xvii–xviii.
169 丘尔巴诺夫，《序言》 ，第十七至十八页。
170Andrew Levine and Erik Olin Wright, “Rationality and Class Struggle,” New Left Review 1/123
(1980), 47–68, at 47–50. The classic presentation of this theory of history is G. A. Cohen, Karl Marx’s
Theory of History: A Defence (Princeton, 1978).
安德鲁 ·莱文和埃里克 ·奥林 ·赖特，《理性与阶级斗争》 ，新左派评论 1/123(1980) ，47-68,47-50。这种历史理论的经典表述是

g ·a ·科恩，卡尔 ·马克思的《历史理论: 辩护》(普林斯顿，1978)。

378 Sarah Johnson
378 莎拉 ·约翰逊

from Marx’s need to convince the censor that the Critique posed no threat.171
But my reading of Marx’s 1845–6 manuscripts illuminates resources within his
own thought for assessing these lines from 1859. The “general results” that he
presents there are indeed largely those that he had derived by 1846 “from the
observation of the historical development of men,” even if he puts some of them
differently. And just as Marx registers in fragment “5.” that these results cannot
help him to grasp distinct epochs, he also points to their limited use in the 1857
“Introduction.” As he explains there,
但是我阅读马克思 1845-6 年的手稿，发现了他自己评价 1859 年以来这些
行的思想资源。他提出的“一般结果”的确在很大程度上是他从 1846 年“对
人类历史发展的观察”中得出的，尽管他对其中一些结果有不同的看法。
正如马克思在片段“5”中所记录的那样这些结果并不能帮助他把握不同的
时代，他还指出了它们在 1857 年的“引言”中的有限使用正如他解释的那样,

all epochs of production … have certain features in common, certain

common determinations. Production in general is an abstraction, but a
reasonable abstraction in so far as it actually emphasises and defines the
common aspects and thus spares us the need of repetition. Yet this general
aspect, or the com-mon element which is brought to light by comparison, is
itself multiply divided and diverges into different determinations. Some
features are found in all epochs, others are common to a few epochs. The
most modern epoch and the most ancient will have [certain] determinations
in common. Without them production is inconceivable.
所有的生产时代... 都有某些共同的特征，某些共同的决定。一般来说，
生产是一种抽象，但是一种合理的抽象，因为它实际上强调和定义了
共同的方面，从而避免了我们重复的需要。然而，这个普遍的方面，
或者通过比较揭示出来的共同元素，本身就是多重的分裂和分歧，形
成不同的决定。有些特征在所有时代都可以找到，有些特征在几个时
代都可以找到。最现代的时代和最古老的时代将有[某些]共同的决定。
没有它们，生产是不可想象的。

From this Marx concludes that “the determinations which apply to production in
general must … be set apart in order not to allow the unity which stems from the
very fact that the subject, mankind, and the object, nature, are the same—to
obscure the essential difference.”172 It was thus the differences across epochs—
and in par-ticular, the specificity of his own present—that Marx sought to grasp.
根据这一点，马克思得出结论: “适用于一般生产的决定必须... ... 加以区分，
以避免因为主体、人类和客体、自然是相同的这一事实而产生的统一性—
—模糊了本质的区别。”因此，马克思试图抓住的正是跨时代的差异——
特别是他自己当下的特殊性。
Marx’s understanding of the “common element” of production is not insignifi-cant,
and we have seen that the 1845–6 manuscripts record conclusions that he would later
clarify and refine as he developed his method. But this understanding was not the goal of
his endeavor; to suggest that his broad claims from the 1840s or 1850s capture his
conception of history would be to miss his point. For in both moments, Marx challenged
conceptions of history that would settle for “general results” and sell abstractions,
readymade patterns, and transhistorical laws at the cost of a critic’s understanding of
epochs. The “mode of production” became a his-torical concept in “Saint Max” to aid the
difficult work that those approaches evade —examining how the present is made and
might be made anew.
马克思对生产的“共同要素”的理解并非微不足道，我们已经看到，1845-1846 年
的手稿记录了他后来在发展他的方法时澄清和提炼的结论。但是，这种理解并不
是他努力的目标; 如果认为他在 19 世纪 40 年代或 50 年代的广泛主张捕捉到了他
对历史的概念，那就错过了他的观点。因为在这两个时刻，马克思挑战的历史概
念，将满足于“一般的结果”，兜售抽象，现成的模式，和跨历史的法律，代价是
批评家对时代的理解。“生产方式”成为他在《圣马克思》中的一个主题概念，以
帮助那些方法回避的困难工作ーー审视现在是如何形成和可能重新形成的。

Acknowledgements. For helpful conversations and comments on earlier drafts of this essay, I thank
Samuel Chambers, Robert Gooding-Williams, Daragh Grant, Ellen Kennedy, Diana Kim, Patchen
Markell, Claire McKinney, Lucas Pinheiro, Jennifer Pitts, Nichole Marie Shippen, Brian Smith, Matthias
Staisch, Kaushik Sunder Rajan, Yves Winter, Samuel Garrett Zeitlin, and participants in the Amherst
Program in Critical Theory Workshop and the Intellectual History and Political Theory Workshops at the
University of Chicago. I am particularly grateful to Tracie Matysik, Terrell Carver, and two anonymous
readers for their generous advice.
鸣谢。感谢塞缪尔•钱伯斯、罗伯特•古丁-威廉姆斯、达拉格•格兰特、埃伦•肯尼迪、戴安娜•金、
帕钦•马克尔、克莱尔•麦金尼、卢卡斯•平希罗、珍妮弗•皮茨、尼科尔•玛丽•希彭、布莱恩•史密斯、
马蒂亚斯•斯泰希、考希克•桑德尔•拉詹、伊夫•温特、塞缪尔•加勒特•泽特林，以及芝加哥大学阿
默斯特批判理论研讨会项目和知识历史与政治理论研讨会的参与者。我特别感谢 Tracie Matysik，
Terrell Carver 和两位匿名读者慷慨的建议。

171Wood, Democracy against Capitalism, 129; Arthur M. Prinz, “Background and Ulterior Motive of
Marx’s ‘Preface’ of 1859,” Journal of the History of Ideas 30/3 (1969), 437–50, at 446–50.
171 伍德，《民主反对资本主义》 ，129; 阿瑟 ·m ·普林斯，《马克思 1859 年“序言”的背景和不可告人的动机》 ，《思想史杂志》 ，
30/3(1969) ，437-50,446-50 页。
172Marx, “Introduction,” 23.
马克思，“引言”，23。

Cite this article: Johnson S (2021). The Early Life of Marx’s “Mode of Production”. Modern Intellectual
History 18, 349–378. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1479244319000374
引用这篇文章: Johnson s (2021)。马克思“生产方式”的早期生活。现代思想史 18,349-378。
https://doi.org/10.1017/S1479244319000374
 Reproduced with permission of copyright owner.
经版权所有人许可转载。

Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

未经许可禁止进一步复制。