青年马克思对现代性政治的批判与超越——以《黑格尔法哲学批判》中“长子继承制”批判为例

Young Marx’s Criticism and Transcendence of Political Modernity:Take the Criticism of“Primogeniture”in Criticism on Hegel's Legal Philosophy as an Example

把青年马克思对黑格尔“长子继承制”的批判置于现代性政治语境下进行探讨,可以看到黑格尔与马克思都致力于和解现代性政治分裂本质所带来的诸种社会后果。但二人给出的现代性政治和解方案存在重大差异:黑格尔以代表普遍性的伦理实体“国家”(“长子继承制”是其内在构成部分),去调节和规范重在实现个体利益的市民社会。但马克思认为,黑格尔的“国家”并不具有其原本企求的社会性和普遍性,其“长子继承制”实际上不过是私有财产的最高级形式,即独立自主的私有财产。它潜在地隐含着有产者与无产者的对立,以及前者支配后者的关系。因此,就本质而言,黑格尔的现代性政治和解方案并不成功。青年马克思坚信,现代性政治的真正和解方案,只能诉诸意味着政治国家消亡的“真正的民主制”,并在《1844年经济学哲学手稿》中进一步将其表述为对私有财产积极扬弃的共产主义运动。

By discussing young Marx’s criticism of Hegel’s“primogeniture”in the context of political modernity,we can see that both Hegel and Marx are committed to reconciling all kinds of social effects brought by the divisive nature of political modernity.However,there are significant differences in their modernity political reconciliation schemes:Hegel uses the universal ethical entity“state”(“primogeniture”is its inherent component)to regulate and regulate the civil society,which focuses on the realization of individual interests.However,Marx believes that Hegel’s“state”does not have the sociality and universality he originally sought,and his“primogeniture”is actually the highest form of private property,that is,independent private property.It implicitly implies the opposition between property class and proletariat,and the relationship between the former dominating the latter.Therefore,in essence,Hegel’s modernity political reconciliation scheme is not successful.Young Marx firmly believed that the real reconciliation scheme of modernity politics can only resort to“real democracy”that means the demise of political state,and further expressed it as a communist movement of actively sublates private property in the Manuscript of Economics and Philosophy in 1844.