《<黑格尔法哲学批判>导言》中英文对照

 《黑格尔法哲学》英文版封面

       更正声明：上一期的内容是《<黑格尔法哲学批判>导言》，而非《黑格尔法哲学批判》。这是两个不同的文献。《黑格尔法哲学批判》马克思写于1843年3月中—9月底，作为马克思在其早期发展过程中的一部重要文献，是其第一部批判黑格尔法哲学的著作，作者用唯物主义观点对黑格尔《法哲学原理》中阐述了国家问题的部分作了全面分析，特别是对黑格尔在国家和市民社会关系问题上的唯心主义观点进行了深刻批判，指出：不是国家决定市民社会，而是市民社会决定国家。《<黑格尔法哲学批判>导言》写于1843年10月中—12月，1844年2月在《德法年鉴》公开发表，原文是德文。《导言》是马克思为当时还未完成的《黑格尔法哲学批判》的出版而撰写的。在《导言》中，马克思首次阐明了无产阶级的历史使命，指出无产阶级是唯一能够消灭任何奴役、实现人的解放的阶级，并论述了无产阶级和哲学的关系，指出“哲学把无产阶级当做自己的物质武器，同样，无产阶级也把哲学当做自己的精神武器”。

It is wrong, not in its demand but in stopping at the demand, which itneither seriously implements nor can implement. It believes that it implementsthat negation by turning its back to philosophy and its head away from it andmuttering a few trite and angry phrases about it. Owing to the limitation ofits outlook, it does not include philosophy in the circle of German realityor it even fancies it is beneath German practice and thetheories that serve it. You demand that real life embryos be made thestarting-point, but you forget that the real life embryo of the German nationhas grown so far only inside its cranium. In a word – Youcannot abolish [aufheben] philosophy without making it areality.

该派认为目前的斗争只是哲学同德国世界的批判性斗争，它没有想到迄今为止的哲学本身就属于这个世界，而且是这个世界的补充，虽然只是观念的补充。该派对敌手采取批判的态度，对自己本身却采取非批判的态度，因为它从哲学的前提出发，要么停留于哲学提供的结论，要么就把从别处得来的要求和结论冒充为哲学的直接要求和结论，尽管这些要求和结论——假定是正确的——相反地只有借助于对迄今为止的哲学的否定、对作为哲学的哲学的否定，才能得到。关于这一派，我们留待以后作更详细的叙述。该派的根本缺陷可以归结如下：它以为，不消灭哲学，就能够使哲学成为现实。

The same mistake, but with thefactors reversed, was made by the theoretical partyoriginating from philosophy.

起源于哲学的理论政治派犯了同样的错误，只不过错误的因素是相反的。 

In the present struggle it saw onlythe critical struggle of philosophy against the German world; it did notgive a thought to the fact that philosophy up to the present itselfbelongs to this world and is its completion, although an ideal one. Criticaltowards its counterpart, it was uncritical towards itself when, proceeding fromthe premises of philosophy, it either stopped at the resultsgiven by philosophy or passed off demands and results from somewhere else asimmediate demands and results of philosophy – although these, provided they arejustified, can be obtained only by the negation of philosophy up to thepresent, of philosophy as such. We reserve ourselves the right to a moredetailed description of this section: It thought it could makephilosophy a reality without abolishing [aufzuheben] it.

The criticism of the Germanphilosophy of state and right, which attained its most consistent, richest,and last formulation through Hegel, is both a critical analysis ofthe modern state and of the reality connected with it, and the resolutenegation of the whole manner of the German consciousness in politicsand right as practiced hereto, the mostdistinguished, most universal expression of which, raised to the level of science,is the speculative philosophy of right itself. If thespeculative philosophy of right, that abstract extravagant thinking onthe modern state, the reality of which remains a thing of the beyond, if onlybeyond the Rhine, was possible only in Germany, inversely the Germanthought-image of the modern state which makes abstraction of real man waspossible only because and insofar as the modern state itself makes abstractionof real man, or satisfies the whole of man only in imagination. Inpolitics, the Germans thought what other nations did.Germany was their theoretical conscience. The abstraction andpresumption of its thought was always in step with the one-sidedness andlowliness of its reality. If, therefore, the status quo ofGerman statehood expresses the completion ofthe ancien régime, the completion of the thorn in the flesh of themodern state, the status quo of German state science expressesthe incompletion of the modern state, the defectiveness of itsflesh itself.

德国的国家哲学和法哲学在黑格尔的著作中得到了最系统、最丰富和最终的表述；7对这种哲学的批判既是对现代国家和对同它相联系的现实所作的批判性分析，又是对迄今为止的德国政治意识和法意识的整个形式的坚决否定，而这种意识的最主要、最普遍、上升为科学的表现正是思辨的法哲学本身。如果思辨的法哲学，这种关于现代国家——它的现实仍然是彼岸世界，虽然这个彼岸世界也只在莱茵河彼岸——的抽象而不切实际的思维，只是在德国才有可能产生，那么反过来说，德国人那种置现实的人于不顾的关于现代国家的思想形象之所以可能产生，也只是因为现代国家本身置现实的人于不顾，或者只凭虚构的方式满足整个的人。德国人在政治上思考其他国家做过的事情。德国是这些国家理论上的良心。它的思维的抽象和自大总是同它的现实的片面和低下保持同步。因此，如果德国国家制度的现状表现了旧制度的完成，即表现了现代国家机体中这个肉中刺的完成，那么德国的国家学说的现状就表现了现代国家的未宗成，表现了现代国家的机体本身的缺陷。 

Already as the resolute opponent of theprevious form of German political consciousness the criticismof speculative philosophy of right strays, not into itself, but intoproblems whichthere is only one means of solving – practice.

对思辨的法哲学的批判既然是对德国迄今为止政治意识形式的坚决反抗，它就不会面对自己本身，而会面向只有用一个办法即实践才能解决的那些课题。 

It is asked: can Germany attain a practice àla hauteur des principles – i.e., a revolution whichwill raise it not only to the official level of modernnations, but to the height of humanity which will be the nearfuture of those nations?

试问：德国能不能实现有原则高度的[ àla hauteur desprincipes］实践，即实现一个不但能把德国提高到现代各国的正式水准，而且提高到这些国家最近的将来要达到的人的高度的革命呢？ 

The weapon of criticism cannot, of course,replace criticism of the weapon, material force must be overthrown by materialforce; but theory also becomes a material force as soon as it has gripped themasses. Theory is capable of gripping the masses as soon as itdemonstrates ad hominem, and it demonstrates ad hominem assoon as it becomes radical. To be radical is to grasp the root of the matter.But, for man, the root is man himself. The evident proof of the radicalism ofGerman theory, and hence of its practical energy, is that is proceeds from aresolute positive abolition of religion. The criticism ofreligion ends with the teaching that man is the highest essence for man –hence, with thecategoric imperative to overthrow all relations inwhich man is a debased, enslaved, abandoned, despicable essence, relationswhich cannot be better described than by the cry of a Frenchman when it wasplanned to introduce a tax on dogs: Poor dogs! They want to treat you as humanbeings!

批判的武器当然不能代替武器的批判，物质力量只能用物质力量来摧毁；但是理论一经掌握群众，也会变成物质力量。理论只要说服人［ad hominem］，就能掌握群众；而理论只要彻底，就能说服人［ad hominem］。所谓彻底，就是抓住事物的根本。但是，人的根本就是人本身。德国理论的彻底性从而其实践能力的明证就是：德国理论是从坚决积极废除宗教出发的。对宗教的批判最后归结为人是人的最高本质这样一个学说，从而也归结为这样的绝对命令；必须推翻那些使人成为被侮辱、被奴役、被遗弃和被蔑视的东西的一切关系，一个法国人对草拟中的养犬税发出的呼声，再恰当不过地刻画了这种关系，他说：“可怜的狗啊！人家要把你们当人看哪！

Even historically, theoreticalemancipation has specific practical significance for Germany. ForGermany’s revolutionary past is theoretical, it is the Reformation.As the revolution then began in the brain of the monk, so now itbegins in the brain of the philosopher.

即使从历史的观点来看，理论的解放对德国也有特别实际的意义。德国的革命的过去就是理论性的，这就是宗教改革。正像当时的革命是从们侣的头脑开始一样，现在的革命则从哲学家的头脑开始。 

Luther, we grant, overcame bondage out of devotion byreplacing it by bondage out of conviction. He shattered faith inauthority because he restored the authority of faith. He turned priests intolaymen because he turned laymen into priests. He freed man from outerreligiosity because he made religiosity the inner man. He freed the body fromchains because he enchained the heart.

的确，路德战胜了虔信造成的奴役制，是因为他用信念造成的奴役制代替了它。他破除了对权威的信仰，是因为他恢复了信仰的权威，他把僧侣变成了世俗人，是因为他把世俗人变成了僧侣。他把人从外在的宗教笃诚解放出来，是因为他把宗教笃诚变成了人的内在世界。他把肉体从锁链中解放出来，是因为他给人的心灵套上了锁链。 

But, if Protestantism was not the truesolution of the problem, it was at least the true setting of it. It was nolonger a case of the layman’s struggle against the priest outsidehimself but of his struggle against his own priest insidehimself, his priestly nature. And if the Protestant transformation of theGerman layman into priests emancipated the lay popes, the princes,with the whole of their priestly clique, the privileged and philistines, thephilosophical transformation of priestly Germans into men will emancipate thepeople.But, secularization will not stop at the confiscationof church estates set in motion mainly by hypocritical Prussia anymore than emancipation stops at princes. The Peasant War, the most radical factof German history, came to grief because of theology. Today, when theologyitself has come to grief, the most unfree fact of German history, our statusquo, will be shattered against philosophy. On the eve of the Reformation,official Germany was the most unconditional slave of Rome. On the eve of itsrevolution, it is the unconditional slave of less than Rome, of Prussia andAustria, of country junkers and philistines.

　但是，新教即使没有正确解决问题，毕竟正确地提出了问题。现在问题已经不再是世俗人同世俗人以外的僧侣进行斗争，而是同他自己内心的僧侣进行斗争，同他自己的僧侣本性进行斗争。如果说新教把德国世俗人转变为僧侣，就是解放了世俗教皇，王公及其一伙即特权者和庸人，那么哲学把受僧侣精神影响的德国人转变为人，这就是解放人民。但是，正像解放不应停留于王公的解放，财产的收归俗用9也不应停留于剥夺教会财产，而这种剥夺是由伪善的普鲁士最先实行的。当时，农民战争，这个德国历史上最彻底的事实，因碰到神学而失败了。今天，神学本身遭到失败，德国历史上不自由的最尖锐的事实——我们的现状——因碰到哲学也会破灭。宗教改革之前，官方德国是罗马最忠顺的奴仆。革命之前，德国则是小于罗马的普鲁士和奥地利、土容克和庸人的忠顺奴仆。

Meanwhile, a major difficulty seems tostand in the way of a radical German revolution.

可是，彻底的德国革命看来面临着一个重大的困难。

For revolutions require a passive element,a material basis. Theory is fulfilled in a people only insofar as it is thefulfilment of the needs of that people. But will the monstrous discrepancybetween the demands of German thought and the answers of German reality find a correspondingdiscrepancy between civil society and the state, and between civil society anditself? Will the theoretical needs be immediate practical needs? It is notenough for thought to strive for realization, reality must itself strivetowards thought.

就是说，革命需要被动因素，需要物质基础。理论在一个国家实现的程度，总是决定于理论满足这个国家的需要的程度。但是，德国思想的要求和德国现实对这些要求的回答之间有惊人的不一致，与此相应，市民社会和国家之间以及和市民社会本身之间是否会有同样的不一致呢？理论需要是否会直接成为实践需要呢？光是思想力求成为现实是不够的，现实本身应当力求趋向思想。 

But Germany did not rise to theintermediary stage of political emancipation at the same time as the modernnations. It has not yet reached in practice the stages which it has surpassedin theory. How can it do a somersault, not only over its ownlimitations, but at the same time over the limitations of the modern nations,over limitations which it must in reality feel and strive for as foremancipation from its real limitations? Only a revolution of radical needs canbe a radical revolution and it seems that precisely the preconditions andground for such needs are lacking.

　但是，德国不是和现代各国在同一个时候登上政治解放的中间阶梯的。甚至它在理论上已经超越的阶梯，它在实践上却还没有达到。它怎么能够一个筋斗［salto mortale］就不仅越过自己本身的障碍，而且同时越过现代各国面临的障碍呢？后一种障碍，它实际上应该把这看作是摆脱自己实际障碍的一种解放，而且应该把这作为目的来争取。彻底的革命只能是彻底需要的革命，而这些彻底需要所应有的前提和基础，看来恰好都不具备。 

If Germany has accompanied the developmentof the modern nations only with the abstract activity of thought without takingan effective share in the real struggle of that development, it has, on theother hand, shared the sufferings of that development, withoutsharing in its enjoyment, or its partial satisfaction. To the abstract activityon the one hand corresponds the abstract suffering on the other. That is whyGermany will one day find itself on the level of European decadence before everhaving been on the level of European emancipation. It will be comparable toa fetish worshipper pining away with the diseases ofChristianity.

　但是，如果说德国只是用抽象的思维活动伴随现代各国的发展，而没有积极参加这种发展的实际斗争，那么从另一方面看，它分担了这一发展的痛苦，而没有分享这一发展的欢乐和局部的满足。一方面的抽象痛苦同另一方面的抽象活动相适应。因此，有朝一日，德国会在还没有处于欧洲解放的水平以前就处于欧洲瓦解的水平。德国可以比作染上基督教病症而日渐衰弱的偶像崇拜者。 

If we now consider the Germangovernments, we find that because of the circumstances of the time, becauseof Germany’s condition, because of the standpoint of German education, and,finally, under the impulse of its own fortunate instinct, they are driven tocombine the civilized shortcomings of the modern state world, theadvantages of which we do not enjoy, with the barbaric deficiencies ofthe ancien régime, which we enjoy in full; hence, Germany must share moreand more, if not in the reasonableness, at least in the unreasonableness ofthose state formations which are beyond the bounds of its status quo.Is there in the world, for example, a country which shares so naively in allthe illusions of constitutional statehood without sharing in its realities asso-called constitutional Germany? And was it not perforce the notion of aGerman government to combine the tortures of censorship with the tortures ofthe French September laws [1835anti-press laws] whichprovide for freedom of the press? As you could find the gods of all nations inthe Roman Pantheon, so you will find in the Germans’ Holy Roman Empire all thesins of all state forms. That this eclecticism will reach a so farunprecedented height is guaranteed in particular by the political-aestheticgourmanderie of a German king [Frederick William IV] who intended to play all the rolesof monarchy, whether feudal or democratic, if not in the person of the people,at least in his own person, and if not for the people, atleast for himself. Germany, as the deficiency of thepolitical present constituted a world of its own, will not be able to throwdown the specific German limitations without throwing down the generallimitation of the political present.

如果我们先看一下德国各邦政府，那么我们就会看到，由于现代各种关系，由于德国的形势，由于德国教育的立足点，最后，由于自己本身的良好本能，这些政府不得不把现代政治领域——它的长处我们不具备——的文明缺陷同旧制度的野蛮缺陷——这些缺陷我们却充分享受——结合在一起。因此，德国就得越来越多地分担那些超出它的现状之上的国家制度的某些方面，即使不是合理的方面，至少也是不合理的方面。例如，世界上有没有一个国家，像所谓立宪德国这样，天真地分享了立宪国家制度的一切幻想，而未分享它的现实呢？而德国政府忽发奇想，要把书报检查制度的折磨和以新闻出版自由为前提的法国九月法令10的折磨结合在一起，岂不是在所难免！正像在罗马的万神庙可以看到一切民族的神一样，在德意志神圣罗马帝国11可以看到一切国家形式的罪恶。这个折衷主义将达到迄今没有料到的高度，这一点特别是得到一位德国国王①的政治的、审美的饕餮的保证，这个国王想扮演王权的一切角色——封建的和官僚的，专制的和立宪的，独裁的和民主的；他想，这样做如果不是以人民的名义，便以他本人的名义，如果不是为了人民，便是为他自己本身。德国这个形成一种特殊领域的当代政治的缺陷，如果不摧毁当代政治的普遍障碍，就不可能摧毁德国特有的障碍。 

It is not the radical revolution,not the general human emancipation which is a utopian dreamfor Germany, but rather the partial, the merely politicalrevolution, the revolution which leaves the pillars of the house standing. Onwhat is a partial, a merely political revolution based? On part of civilsociety emancipating itself and attaininggeneral domination;on a definite class, proceeding from its particular situation;undertaking the general emancipation of society. This class emancipates thewhole of society, but only provided the whole of society is in the samesituation as this class – e.g., possesses money and education or can acquirethem at will.

对德国来说，彻底的革命、全人类的解放，不是乌托邦式的梦想，确切他说，部分的纯政治的革命，毫不触犯大厦支柱的革命，才是乌托邦式的梦想。部分的纯政治的革命的基础是什么呢？就是市民社会的一部分解放自己，取得普遍统治，就是一定的阶级从自己的特殊地位出发，从事社会的普遍解放。只有在这样的前提下，即整个社会都处于这个阶级的地位，也就是说，例如既有钱又有文化知识，或者可以随意获得它们，这个阶级才能解放整个社会。 

No class of civil society can play thisrole without arousing a moment of enthusiasm in itself and in the masses, amoment in which it fraternizes and merges with society in general, becomesconfused with it and is perceived and acknowledged as its generalrepresentative, a moment in which its claims and rights are truly theclaims and rights of society itself, a moment in which it is truly the socialhead and the social heart. Only in the name of the general rights of societycan a particular class vindicate for itself general domination. For thestorming of this emancipatory position, and hence for the politicalexploitation of all sections of society in the interests of its own section,revolutionary energy and spiritual self-feeling alone are not sufficient. Forthe revolution of a nation, and the emancipation of aparticular class of civil society to coincide, for one estate to beacknowledged as the estate of the whole society, all the defects of societymust conversely be concentrated in another class, a particular estate must bethe estate of the general stumbling-block, the incorporation of the generallimitation, a particular social sphere must be recognized as the notoriouscrime of the whole of society, so that liberation from that sphere appears asgeneral self-liberation. For one estate to be par excellence theestate of liberation, another estate must conversely be the obvious estate ofoppression. The negative general significance of the French nobility and theFrench clergy determined the positive general significance of the nearestneighboring and opposed class of the bourgeoisie.

在市民社会，任何一个阶级要能够扮演这个角色，就必须在自身和群众中激起瞬间的狂热。在这瞬间，这个阶级与整个社会亲如兄弟，汇合起来，与整个社会混为一体并且被看作和被认为是社会的总代表；在这瞬间，这个阶级的要求和权利真正成了社会本身的权利和要求，它真正是社会的头脑和社会的心脏。只有为了社会的普遍权利，特殊阶级才能要求普遍统治。要夺取这种解放者的地位，从而在政治上利用一切社会领域来为自己的领域服务，光凭革命精力和精神上的自信是不够的。要使人民革命同市民社会特殊阶级的解放完全一致，要使一个等级被承认为整个社会的等级，社会的一切缺陷就必定相反地集中于另一个阶级，一定的等级就必定成为引起普遍不满的等级，成为普遍障碍的体现；一种特殊的社会领域就必定被看作是整个社会中昭彰的罪恶，因此，从这个领域解放出来就表现为普遍的自我解放。要使一个等级真正［par ex-cellence］成为解放者等级，另一个等级就必定相反地成为公开的奴役者等级。法国贵族和法国僧侣的消极普遍意义决定了同他们最接近却又截然对立的阶级即资产阶级的积极普遍意义。 

But no particular class in Germany has theconstituency, the penetration, the courage, or the ruthlessness that could markit out as the negative representative of society. No more has any estate thebreadth of soul that identifies itself, even for a moment, with the soul of thenation, the geniality that inspires material might to political violence, orthat revolutionary daring which flings at the adversary the defiantwords: I am nothing but I must be everything. The main stem ofGerman morals and honesty, of the classes as well as of individuals, is ratherthat modest egoism which asserts its limitedness and allows itto be asserted against itself. The relation of the various sections of Germansociety is therefore not dramatic but epic. Each of them begins to be aware ofitself and begins to camp beside the others with all its particular claims notas soon as it is oppressed, but as soon as the circumstances of the time,without the section’s own participation, creates a social substratum on whichit can in turn exert pressure. Even the moral self-feeling of theGerman middle class rests only on the consciousness that it is thecommon representative of the philistine mediocrity of all the other classes. Itis therefore not only the German kings who accede to the throne mal àpropos, it is every section of civil society which goes through a defeatbefore it celebrates victory and develops its own limitations before itovercomes the limitations facing it, asserts its narrow-hearted essence beforeit has been able to assert its magnanimous essence; thus the very opportunityof a great role has passed away before it is to hand, and every class, once itbegins the struggle against the class opposed to it, is involved in thestruggle against the class below it. Hence, the higher nobility is strugglingagainst the monarchy, the bureaucrat against the nobility, and the bourgeoisagainst them all, while the proletariat is already beginning to find itselfstruggling against the bourgeoisie. The middle class hardly dares to grasp thethought of emancipation from its own standpoint when the development of thesocial conditions and the progress of political theory already declare thatstandpoint antiquated or at least problematic.

但是，在德国，任何一个特殊阶级所缺乏的不仅是能标明自己是社会消极代表的那种坚毅、尖锐、胆识、无情。同样，任何一个等级也还缺乏和人民魂魄相同的，哪怕是瞬间相同的那种开阔胸怀，缺乏鼓舞物质力量去实行政治暴力的天赋，缺乏革命的大无畏精神，对敌人振振有辞地宣称：我没有任何地位，但我必须成为一切12。德国的道德和忠诚——不仅是个别人的而且也是各个阶级的道德和忠诚——的基础，反而是有节制的利己主义；这种利己主义表现出自己的狭隘性，并用这种狭隘性来束缚自己。因此，德国社会各个领域之间的关系就不是戏剧性的，而是史诗般的。每个领域不是在受到压力的时候，而是当现代各种关系在没有得到它的支持的情况下确立了一种社会基础，而且它又能够对这种基础施加压力的时候，它才开始意识到自己，才开始带着自己的特殊要求同其他各种社会领域靠拢在一起。就连德国中间阶级道德上的自信也只以自己是其他一切阶级的平庸习性的总代表这种意识为依据。因此，不仅德国国王们登基不逢其时[mal àpropos]，而且市民社会每个领域也是未等庆祝胜利，就遭到了失败，未等克服面前的障碍，就有了自己的障碍，未等表现出自己的宽宏大度的本质，就表现了自己心胸狭隘的本质，以致连扮演一个重要角色的机遇，也是未等它到手往往就失之交臂，以致一个阶级刚刚开始同高于自己的阶级进行斗争，就卷入了同低于自己的阶级的斗争。因此，当诸侯同君王斗争，官僚同贵族斗争，资产者同所有这些人斗争的时候，无产者已经开始了反对资产者的斗争。中间阶级还不敢按自己的观点来表达解放的思想，而社会形势的发展以及政治理论的进步已经说明这种观点本身陈旧过时了，或者至少是成问题了。