AbstractThe Holy Family is an essential work of young Marx. The rise of contemporary Western “Spinozist Marxism” has rediscovered the key position of The Holy Family in understanding young Marx’s philosophical thoughts. However, their purpose is only to splice Marx’s thoughts and deconstruct Hegelian Marxism from the perspective of Spinoza’s philosophy rather than returning to Marx’s true thought.Marx’s understanding of Spinoza’s philosophy in The Holy Family has a triple ascending logic: “comparative reappearance”, “contrastive evaluation” and “suspensive neglect”. Firstly, by comparing Bauer’s and Hegel’s related statements about Spinoza’s philosophy, Marx “comparatively reappeared” the objective connection between Spinoza’s philosophy and Hegel’s philosophy in the process of returning to and reactivating Spinoza’s philosophy, thereby criticizing Bauer’s speculative theology’s dual misunderstanding of Spinoza’s philosophy and Hegel’s philosophy. Secondly, Hegel’s philosophy is the theoretical foundation of Bauer’s speculative theology. By denying Spinoza, directing his critical goal towards Hegel’s speculative metaphysics, and reflecting on the enlightenment path of rationalism, Marx explored the hidden materialistic content under Hegel’s speculative form. Guided by the “contrastive evaluation” of Spinoza’s philosophy, Marx launched a metaphysical critique of Hegel’s philosophy. Finally, in the process of expounding the history of materialism, Marx made a “suspensive neglect” of Spinoza’s philosophy, creating a historical context of materialism that was diametrically opposed to the history of Hegel’s philosophy. Hegel’s exposition of the history of philosophy is the logical and historical development of his speculative metaphysical system. However, Hegel focuses on the conceptual history of Spinoza’s philosophy in which the concept of entity undergoes internal movement and eventually develops into absolute spirit, rather than the historical development of realistic materialism. Through his “suspensive neglect” of Spinoza’s philosophy, Marx “inverted” the history of Hegel’s philosophy, and based on humanitarianism as the evaluation criterion divided the dual origins of French materialism, demonstrating the inevitable theoretical relationship between materialism and socialism & communism.Marx’s “comparative reappearance”, “contrastive evaluation”, and “suspensive neglect” of Spinoza’s philosophy in The Holy Family indicate that Marx has consciously distanced himself from the understanding of materialism under the system of German idealism and re-anchored the foundation of materialism in the tradition of British and French materialism, thereby allowing him to construct the inevitable connection between materialism and socialism & communism under the control of humanistic logic. The suspension of Spinoza’s philosophy constitutes a theoretical opportunity for Marx to communicate the connection between the system of German ideologies and modern philosophy. In the process of this theoretical leap, Marx found the origin of humanistic materialism in the tradition of British and French materialism, and connected it with political and economic issues, thereby integrating the dimensions of human liberation in reality with the practical foundation of human liberation.
Li Junxin,Liu Tongfang. Marx’s View of Spinoza’s Philosophy and Its Internal Tension: An Investigation Centered on The Holy Family[J]. JOURNAL OF ZHEJIANG UNIVERSITY, 2023, 53(11): 17-27.
1 Rosen Z.， Bruno Bauer and Karl Marx： The Influence of Bruno Bauer on Marx’s Thought， The Hague： Martinus Nijhoff， 1977. 2 荷］本尼迪克特·斯宾诺莎： 《神、人及其幸福简论》，洪汉鼎、孙祖培译，南京：译林出版社，2012年。 3 德］马克思、恩格斯： 《神圣家族》，见中共中央编译局编译： 《马克思恩格斯文集》第1卷，北京：人民出版社，2009年。 4 德］黑格尔： 《哲学史讲演录》第4卷，贺麟、王太庆译，北京：商务印书馆，1978年。 5 德］黑格尔： 《精神现象学》上卷，贺麟、王玖兴译，北京：商务印书馆，1979年。 6 荷］斯宾诺莎： 《政治论》，冯炳昆译，北京：商务印书馆，1999年。 7 邹诗鹏： 《马克思哲学中的斯宾诺莎因素》，《哲学研究》2017年第1期，第19-25页。 8 法］路易·阿尔都塞、艾蒂安·巴里巴尔： 《读〈资本论〉》，李其庆、冯文光译，北京：中央编译出版社，2001年。 9 Krzeski J.， “How to imagine a non-capitalist measure？ going beyond the value production with Spinoza’s concept of expression，” Critique， Vol. 49， No. 3-4 （2021）， pp. 325-342. 10 Bianchi B.， “Marx’s reading of Spinoza： on the alleged influence of Spinoza on Marx，” Historical Materialism： Research in Critical Marxist Theory， Vol. 26， No. 4 （2018）， pp. 35-58. 11 张一兵： 《探寻青年马克思早期哲学构境的复杂线索》，《南京大学学报（哲学·人文科学·社会科学）》2020年第3期，第5-10页。 12 Bloch O.， “Marx， renouvier et l’histoire du matérialisme，” La Pensée， No. 191 （1977）， pp. 3-42. 13 德］马克思： 《黑格尔法哲学批判》，见中共中央编译局编译： 《马克思恩格斯全集》第3卷，北京：人民出版社，2002年。 14 Jay M.， Marxism and Totality： The Adventures of a Concept from Lukács to Habermas， Berkeley： University of California Press， 1984. 15 杨耕： 《重新理解唯物主义的历史形态及其革命性变革》，《中国社会科学》2016年第11期，第49-69页。 16 邹诗鹏： 《从启蒙到唯物史观》，上海：上海人民出版社，2016年。 17 刘同舫： 《马克思人类解放思想史》，北京：人民出版社，2019年。 18 德］路德维希·费尔巴哈： 《未来哲学原理》，见《费尔巴哈哲学著作选集》上卷，荣震华、李金山等译，北京：商务印书馆，1984年。 19 德］路德维希·费尔巴哈： 《关于哲学改造的临时纲要》，见《费尔巴哈哲学著作选集》上卷，荣震华、李金山等译，北京：商务印书馆，1984年。 20 冯波： 《斯宾诺莎背景下的马克思与赫斯之争——以“伦理”概念为核心》，《马克思主义与现实》2018年第5期，第74-81页。 21 张一兵： 《回到马克思：经济学语境中的哲学话语》（第4版），南京：江苏人民出版社，2019年。
2023, Vol. 53 
