陕西理工大学学报（社会科学版）

《关于费尔巴哈的提纲》第六条提出“人的本质并不是单个人所固有的抽象物，在其现实性上，它是一切社会关系的总和”,这一命题并不是马克思肯定性的价值判断。在上述命题中，马克思既批判了作为人的本质领域的政治国家或费尔巴哈人本学中的爱的共同体，又批判了市民社会的社会关系，即资产阶级社会的社会生产关系的总和或《1844年经济学哲学手稿》中阐述的“私有财产的关系”的总和，这种社会关系远非未来社会即共产主义社会的社会关系。青年马克思在1843—1844年间通过对政治国家的批判，以及将作为人的再生产领域的市民社会理解为“私有财产的关系”,并将后者定立为自身政治经济学批判的对象。由政治国家批判向市民社会批判的转向，同时也是青年马克思建构“基础——上层建筑”论的过程，而这正是唯物史观的理论根基。唯物史观的首次系统阐述，并不等同于唯物史观的形成史。阿尔都塞的“认识论断裂说”以科学之名，彻底否定青年马克思在1843—1844年间理论建构的做法，有失偏颇。

The proposition in Thesis 6 of Theses on Feuerbach, that “the essence of man is not an abstract entity inherent in the individual; in its reality, it is the sum total of all social relations”, does not constitute an affirmative value judgment by Marx. In this proposition, Marx critiques both the political state as the realm of human essence, or a community of love in Feuerbach's anthropology, and the social relations of civil society. These social relations of civil society refers to the sum total of social relations of production in bourgeois society, or the aggregate of “relations of private property” as expounded in The Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844. These social relations are far removed from those of the future communist society. Through his critique of the political state between 1843-1844, the young Marx understood civil society, as the sphere of human reproduction, as “the relations of private property”, establishing the latter as the object of his critique of political economy. This shift from critiquing the political state to critiquing civil society coincided with the young Marx's development of the “base-superstructure” theory-the theoretical foundation of historical materialism. The first systematic exposition of the historical materialism is not identical to its historical formation. Althusser's “epistemological break” theory, in the name of science, completely negates the theoretical construction undertaken by the young Marx between 1843 and 1844, which is a misguided approach.