Created on

2025

Updated on

2026

The Ghost in the Machine: The Global Ascent of Communism

Adaptation and Survival: How a Western Theory Became a Chinese Weapon

**Translation available**

Preface: Co-written with ChatGPT.

Notes：

Trier（特里尔）德国最古老的城市之一，也是卡尔·马克思的出生地，位于今天德国西部，靠近卢森堡边境。
普鲁士王国（Kingdom of Prussia）18–19世纪欧洲最强大的德意志国家之一，以军国主义和官僚制度著称。马克思少年时期生活在其统治之下。
德意志地区（German States / German Lands）19世纪德国尚未统一，由几十个讲德语的独立公国组成。直到1871年才由普鲁士统一为德意志帝国。
路德教（Lutheranism）基督教新教主要教派，源于马丁·路德的宗教改革，强调“因信称义”。马克思的父亲从犹太教改信路德教，以融入普鲁士社会。
波恩大学（University of Bonn）德国著名大学，马克思17岁时入学，主修法律，但对哲学、文学更感兴趣，并参与学生社团、喝酒与决斗等活动。
决斗（Dueling）19世纪欧洲大学生中常见的荣誉之战，通常使用剑或手枪。马克思在学生时期曾参加决斗，是其叛逆性的体现之一。
柏林大学（Humboldt University of Berlin）德国思想重镇，马克思在那里深入研究哲学，并初次接触黑格尔哲学。
德国古典哲学（German Classical Philosophy / German Idealism）18世纪末至19世纪初的哲学潮流，代表人物包括康德、费希特、黑格尔，强调理性、自由和历史发展逻辑。对马克思的思想体系影响深远。
启蒙运动（Enlightenment）17–18世纪欧洲的思想解放运动，强调理性、科学、自由和平等，反对教会权威和专制君主，提倡知识普及和人的自主性。其核心信念是：人类可以通过理性改善自身与社会。
体液学说（Humoral Theory）源于古希腊医学家希波克拉底和盖伦，认为人体由四种体液构成：血液、黄胆汁、黑胆汁、黏液。健康就是四液平衡，疾病是体液失调造成的。它是中世纪医学主流，主张通过放血、催吐等方式“调整体液”，直到哈维提出血液循环系统后才被逐步取代。
《政府论》（Two Treatises of Government）由John Locke于1690年发表，是启蒙时期最重要的政治哲学著作之一。第一篇反驳“君权神授”；第二篇提出：自然权利：生命、自由、财产社会契约：政府权力来自人民的授权；人民有权推翻暴政。它是自由主义政治的奠基文献，对美国独立战争、法国大革命影响深远。
《纯粹理性批判》（Critique of Pure Reason）是康德（Immanuel Kant）于1781年出版的哲学巨著，开启德国古典哲学新时代。核心问题是：我们如何可能获得知识？康德主张，知识不是被动接受经验，而是经验和理性结构的结合。这部书建立了他的“先验哲学”体系，是现代哲学的转折点。
先验哲学（Transcendental Philosophy）康德提出的一种哲学方法。“先验”（transcendental）不是神秘的，而是指认知的先天结构条件。康德认为：我们认知世界的能力，预设了一些先天形式（如时间、空间）和范畴（如因果性、数量）。这些结构不来自经验，而是我们使经验成为可能的方式。这就是他所谓的“哥白尼式转向”。
自然哲学（Philosophy of Nature）这是谢林（Schelling）发展的思想，主张自然不是被动的客体，而是有精神性、创造力的存在。他试图打破“主观 vs 客观”、“精神 vs 物质”的对立，提出自然与意识在更高层次上是一体的。自然哲学是浪漫主义与科学精神之间的桥梁，对后来的生态哲学也有影响。
扬弃（Aufhebung）是黑格尔辩证法的核心概念，德语 Aufhebung 同时包含三个意思：否定（取消）、保留（维持）、提升（超越）。它描述事物发展的方式：一个阶段遇到矛盾 → 被否定 → 但其合理部分被保留 → 在更高层次上被超越。简单说，“否定之否定”并不是消灭，而是向上转化。
绝对知识（Absolute Knowledge）出自黑格尔《精神现象学》的最后阶段。不是指“知道所有事情”，而是意识到：世界不是外在之物，而是“我”在实践与历史中展开出来的结构。即：认识不再是“观察世界”，而是“创造世界”；真理不是某种外在标准，而是意识与现实互动中不断生成的总和。

1）Karl Marx

1848年，《共产党宣言》发布：马克思和恩格斯写下“全世界无产者，联合起来！”的宣言书。虽然当时影响有限，但为后来的革命埋下理论根基。Karl Marx出生于1818年5月5日，德意志地区的特里尔（Trier），属于当时的普鲁士王国。父亲是一个犹太裔改信路德教的律师，母亲来自荷兰犹太家庭。他是中产阶级出身，家境宽裕但非富豪。他从小接受启蒙思想的熏陶，也熟悉宗教、哲学与古典文学。德意志地区当时没有统一，而是有德意志邦联中的39个主权国家组成，有王国、公国、选侯国、自由市等多种形式。其中有普鲁士王国，德意志地区最强大的军事与工业强国，由霍亨索伦王朝统治，主导日后德国统一；奥地利帝国，多民族帝国的核心由哈布斯堡家族统治，既是德意志邦联成员，也是其内部最大势力。巴伐利亚王国，南德的保守天主教王国，以其文化传统与强烈的地方认同感著称，首府慕尼黑。萨克森王国，位于东部的文化重镇，工艺精湛，首府德累斯顿有“易北河上的佛罗伦萨”之称。汉诺威王国，西北部的中等强国，原与英国共主，1840年代开始独立统治，后被普鲁士吞并。符腾堡王国，地处西南，农业与工业并存，政治上常在普奥之间寻求平衡，首府为斯图加特。而王国、公国、选侯国、自由市之间的区别为：王国由国王统治，地位最高，领土广、军力强；公国由公爵掌权，规模较小，常附属于更大势力；选侯国则是拥有选举神圣罗马皇帝权力的特殊贵族领地，地位高于一般公国；而自由市则是直接隶属于皇帝、拥有高度自治权的独立城市，如汉堡和不来梅。这样的结构导致德意志长期处于分裂而复杂的权力格局中。如此看来，可能和新中国刚成立时，中国的自治州、直辖市、特区等的意思差不多。事实证明，一直到最近，各地也还有很多争端。

犹太教是世界上最早的神教，也就是信仰一位或多位神明的宗教，如犹太教、基督教、伊斯兰教，强调神的至高性与创造性。犹太教和基督教不同，认《旧约》，他们觉得上帝是耶和华，他们的祖先和神有约定，可以在耶路撒冷等他们的区域生活，他们是神的孩子、住在神给的地。犹太人的孩子都是犹太教的范围内，这跟其他教怼上了，因为非犹太人也想和神有约定。犹太教和基督教最大的区别是：犹太教不是“以信仰换救赎”的宗教，相比基督教强调“信”，犹太教更强调实践律法（mitzvot），与神保持盟约（covenant）。“救赎”在犹太教中并不是核心概念，重心在于群体与神之间的契约关系、遵守律法、行为正义。“信仰是救赎的关键”不适用于犹太教，这是典型的新教逻辑（尤其是路德教），对犹太教来说，行动大于信念。犹太教既是宗教，也是族群文化认同。Karl Marx的父亲Heinrich Marx原是犹太人，出身于一个Rabbi（犹太教的宗教教师、律法学者、精神领袖；神职人员有点公务员那意思）世家，但在卡尔出生前不久改信了路德教。这一改变并非出于宗教信仰的转变，而是迫于当时普鲁士社会对犹太人的歧视政策。在19世纪初的普鲁士王国，犹太人被禁止担任许多公共职位，尤其无法合法从事律师、法官等法律职业。作为一位受过良好教育的律师，Heinrich Marx若不放弃犹太身份，就会失去执业资格。他本人并不虔信宗教，思想上更接近启蒙时代的理性主义，对宗教抱有批判和工具化的态度。有点人在曹营心在汉那意思。Karl Marx 17岁进入波恩大学，最初学习法律，但更爱写诗、喝酒、决斗（真的，他有决斗记录）。后转学至柏林大学，接触到了德国古典哲学。

2）启蒙运动

启蒙运动与德国古典哲学的关系，可以理解为“母体”与“成熟形态”的关系：启蒙运动提供了思想的基础与问题意识，而德国古典哲学是对这些问题的深化、回应与超越。启蒙运动大约始于17世纪后半叶，当时大多数欧洲国家仍处于君主专制统治之下。法国的路易十四把自己比作太阳，因为太阳是宇宙的中心，掌控昼夜与季节，而他自认为是国家的中心，法国的一切围绕他运转。他说过：“国家就是我”（L’État, c’est moi），强调国王至上的君权神授观念。他通过集权、打压贵族、控制地方议会和强化官僚体系，把法国变成欧洲最典型的君主专制国家。他主持制定法律、决定战争、任命大臣，国会几乎没有实权。路易十四更是修建凡尔赛宫，不仅是一座奢华宫殿，更是一个政治工具，把贵族从地方吸引到宫中，使他们陷入繁复礼仪，削弱其实权。同时，他用艺术、戏剧、建筑、芭蕾等塑造自己的形象，把“太阳王”的神圣性通过视觉与仪式灌输给人民。他的时代是法国古典文化的黄金时期。与此同时，天主教会与各国的新教国家教会依然掌握着教育、道德与真理的解释权，构成强大的宗教霸权。任何与正统教义相悖的思想都会受到打压，例如支持“日心说”的伽利略便因此遭受审判。在这样的体制下，知识被限制在神学体系之内，世界被解释为“神意的展现”，而非自然规律的运行。理性被视为信仰的附庸，个体的思考力被压制，质疑被视为危险。然而，正是这种思想的禁锢与权力的垄断，促使一些知识分子开始反思与反抗。他们转向理性、观察与经验这些新的真理源泉，试图摆脱宗教与王权的双重控制。这股探索的冲动，正是启蒙运动即将爆发的前夜信号。

哥白尼的《天体运行论》（De revolutionibus orbium coelestium），于1543年出版，是科学革命的开山之作之一，也是哥白尼封山之作，快挂了才出版。Nicolaus Copernicus是波兰天文学家、教士、数学家。他终身未婚，身居教会职位，私下热衷天文研究。在中世纪，欧洲普遍接受“地心说”，这一观念不仅来自古希腊传统，更与《圣经》中“地球为中心”的世界观相呼应，因此被天主教会奉为真理。虽然哥白呢写都写了，也快挂了，但由于他是教士，在书中更是用“假说”的措辞小心翼翼地表达理论，没有直接挑战教会权威。书由一位更年轻的天文学家安德烈亚斯·奥西安德（Osiander）写了一个谨慎的序言，称这只是一种“计算工具”。因为这些愿意，哥白尼的理论在当时未引起剧烈反响、直到17世纪，随着伽利略进一步证明日心说并公开挑战教会，该理论才被正式列为“异端”。Galileo Galilei 用望远镜观测到了月球表面的不平、木星的卫星等现象，这些都直接挑战了教会支持的“地心说”和圣经中的宇宙观。他支持哥白尼的“日心说”，认为太阳才是宇宙的中心。这让他受到宗教审判，被迫公开认错。而Johannes Kepler提出了行星运动三大定律，证明行星不是围绕太阳做完美圆周运动，而是椭圆。这进一步打破了天体运动的“神圣完美”假设，强调规律可由数学描述。William Harvey 是17世纪英国医学家，他通过系统的动物解剖和活体实验，首次完整描述了血液循环系统，指出心脏如同泵一样推动血液循环全身。这一发现直接动摇了自古罗马盖伦以来盛行的“体液学说”，即认为人体健康依赖四种体液的平衡。哈维的工作标志着经验解剖学与实验医学的兴起。而Robert Boyle 是英国化学家，被誉为“近代化学之父”。他抛弃炼金术中关于物质的神秘主义，通过严谨实验研究气体性质，并提出著名的波义耳定律（气体体积与压力成反比）。他强调科学应以实验可重复、结果可验证为基础，推动了科学方法的标准化，对物理和化学的发展意义深远。最后就是大家都知道的，Isaac Newton、科学革命的巅峰人物。他在1687年出版《自然哲学的数学原理》，系统阐述了万有引力定律与三大运动定律，用数学方式解释天体与物体的运动。这标志着宇宙首次被视为一个可预测、可计算的“机械系统”，彻底摆脱了神秘主义与神学对自然解释的垄断，奠定了经典物理学的基础。这几个哥直接把科学革命推向高潮。

有了科学的基础，哲学也开始快速发展。1690年，John Locke《政府论》出版。John Locke 是英国哲学家，他提出自然权利（生命、自由、财产）、社会契约和人民有权推翻暴政等观念。这些思想直接挑战了“君权神授”和封建专制，成为后世自由主义、民主制度的思想基础。他的政治理论被称为启蒙政治哲学的奠基石，对美国独立战争与法国大革命影响巨大。1751–1772之间，狄德罗主编《百科全书》（Encyclopédie）是18世纪法国启蒙运动最具象征意义的出版物之一，由哲学家丹尼·狄德罗（Denis Diderot）和数学家达朗贝尔（Jean le Rond d’Alembert）共同主编，出版时间为1751至1772年，共计28卷。在表面上，《百科全书》试图汇集人类所有领域的知识：包括数学、天文学、医学、机械工艺、文学、哲学、音乐、美术、政治制度等。它是当时最雄心勃勃的出版工程之一，邀请了包括伏尔泰、卢梭、孟德斯鸠、霍尔巴赫等启蒙巨匠撰写条目。它民主化了“知识”，并且通过知识的传播挑战既有秩序，对天主教会的神权统治提出质疑。在当时，知识是由教会、贵族和王权掌控的工具。普通大众几乎无缘接触真实世界的知识体系。而《百科全书》则象征着“知识属于所有人”的理念开始流行。它把复杂的学术、工艺、自然知识以平易近人的形式呈现，使阅读者不再依赖神职人员或传统“智者”，而是通过阅读自己获得认知能力。这种去中心化的知识结构，是启蒙运动核心信念“人类应通过自己的理性获得自由”的体现。由于内容中强烈的反教权、反封建色彩，《百科全书》一度遭到法国政府与天主教会的查禁：1752年，教会指控其“传播异端思想”，暂时停止发行；多次被审查、修改，主编狄德罗也面临监禁威胁；最后几卷通过秘密印刷才得以完成出版。正因如此，它的出版本身就成为对封建体制的一次实践性挑战。《百科全书》不仅在法国广泛传播，还影响了整个欧洲的知识界和政治思想界，成为日后革命思潮的温床。

1784年，德国哲学家伊曼努尔·康德（Immanuel Kant）发表短文《什么是启蒙？》，这被广泛视为启蒙运动的哲学总结之作。在文中，康德提出了一个极具穿透力的定义：“启蒙即人类脱离其自身招致的不成熟状态。”他所谓的“不成熟”，并不是智力不足，而是人们在有能力思考时却依赖他人替自己思考：无论是牧师、君主，还是权威机构。康德指出，这种状态不是被迫的，而是由于人们缺乏勇气与意志。他呼吁人们要“敢于用自己的理性！“（Sapere aude!），人应当成为自己思想的主人，而非盲从传统、教条与权力。他在文章中讨论了自由与秩序之间的张力，指出理性虽应被自由使用，但这种自由应以渐进、理性的方式展开。他担心，未经反思的“激进启蒙”可能导致混乱甚至暴力。

3）德国古典哲学

Kant是德国古典哲学的奠基人，他试图调和经验主义与理性主义，提出了“先验哲学”体系。他在《纯粹理性批判》中指出，我们对世界的认知并非完全来自经验，而是基于人类内在的认识结构（如时间、空间、范畴等）。这种观点被称为“哥白尼式转向”——不是我们适应世界，而是世界以我们认识结构的方式呈现。同时，康德在伦理学中强调“实践理性”，主张人是自由、自律的道德主体，应以“人是目的”作为行动准则。他也试图在宗教中保留理性信仰的空间。康德既是启蒙精神的总结者，也是现代哲学的出发点。Johann Gottlieb Fichte (1762–1814）则被视为Kant哲学的继承者，但他将康德的“先验主体”推向极端。他主张一切知识、现实和道德的起点是“自我”（Ich）：“自我设定自我，并在此过程中设定非我。” 这个“自我”不仅是认识的基础，也是创造世界和行动的动力来源。他强调主体的能动性、自由意志与历史使命感，具有明显的革命与民族主义色彩。费希特发展出“主观唯心主义”的哲学图式，为之后谢林和黑格尔建立全面体系奠定基础。

Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph Schelling （1775–1854）是从Fichte出发但最终脱离“自我中心论”的关键人物。他认为，世界不能只从主体出发来理解，自然本身具有精神性与创造力。他提出“自然哲学”，主张自然与精神、客体与主体在更高层面上是同一的。这种“同一哲学”视世界为一个有机整体，而非分裂的二元对立。他强调直觉、艺术和生命力，走向一种带有浪漫主义色彩的哲学风格。谢林的思想影响了黑格尔，也对后来的存在主义和现代自然观产生深远影响。Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel（1770–1831）是德国古典哲学的集大成者。他构建了一个宏大的“绝对唯心主义”体系，试图用辩证法解释世界的演化过程。他认为，现实不是静止的实体，而是通过矛盾、冲突与扬弃（Aufhebung）不断展开的过程。这一过程既适用于历史，也适用于思想、艺术、宗教与国家。他的辩证法常以“三段式”呈现：正题—反题—合题（Thesis–Antithesis–Synthesis），但更深层是“自我意识的展开”。

《精神现象学》（Phänomenologie des Geistes, 1807）是黑格尔最重要、也最复杂的著作之一。《精神现象学》的核心结构可理解为意识发展的七个阶段，每一阶段都是对上一阶段的超越与扬弃，构成一条从经验到绝对精神的螺旋上升之路。第一阶段是感性确定性（Sense-certainty），代表最直接、最原始的经验层面。然而这种经验充满主观性和模糊性，无法真正提供稳定的知识。接下来进入知觉（Perception）阶段，意识开始试图把握对象的恒常性，但仍然被困在主体与客体的对立结构中。第三阶段是悟性（Understanding），理性开始运用抽象概念（如“因果性”）去解释世界，但也因此陷入僵化与形式主义。到了自我意识（Self-consciousness）阶段，意识不再只是观察世界，而是意识到自身的主观性，开始与世界发生互动。这一部分最著名的是“主奴辩证法”，描写两个意识争夺承认，主奴关系的产生及其反转。第五阶段是理性（Reason），意识相信世界是可以被理性所理解的，但也逐渐意识到理性本身的限度和矛盾。随后是精神（Spirit）阶段，意识超越个人理性，进入历史与社会结构之中，表现为家庭、社会、国家等制度性存在，个体意识在这些结构中展开并获得更高形式的自我认知。最后一个阶段是宗教与绝对知识（Religion & Absolute Knowledge），这个阶段有点复杂、我仔细了解了一下，才只能理解大概。

“绝对知识”并不是无所不知，不是一个人脑中装满世界所有事实和数据。是意识认识到自身就是世界展开的根源。这意味着：我不是一个在旁观看世界、分析对象的“旁观者”；我之为我，是在世界中经历冲突、实践、否定、创造的过程本身；真理不是已经存在、等待被发现的东西，而是意识在与世界互动中不断“生产”出来的结构。也就是观测者和被观测者是在产生互动，共同产生“我”和“世界”和“你”的概念的，这其实和量子力学吻合。我们通常把知识理解为：“我在这里，世界在那里；我观察它、理解它。在“绝对知识”的层次，意识终于明白：世界不是一个外在的对象，而是我自己展开的产物。我的理性不是用来“看世界”的眼睛，而是世界形成的动力；一切看似“外在”的现实，其实都包含着意识活动的痕迹：劳动、语言、制度、历史……都是精神的体现；现实世界，就是精神对自己的实现过程。

举一个通俗的比喻：你可以把“绝对知识”理解为一个人终于意识到自己并不是在看一场电影，而是自己就是那部电影的导演、演员、剧本、观众、摄影机本身。这个人不是“学会了很多关于电影的知识”，而是“认识到自己就是这部电影如何被创造出来的整个过程”。主客体的对立被克服，传统哲学认为：主体（我） vs 客体（世界）、思想 vs 存在、理性 vs 现实。而黑格尔说，这种对立是意识未成熟时的错觉。这很激进，因为它意味着：真理不是外在于人的上帝、自然、永恒法则；真理就是人类意识通过劳动、历史、文化、哲学逐步建构出的“自我理解的总和”；人类通过认识自身的历史与实践，就是在认识“神”本身。在这样的体系的影响下，Karl Marx写下了《共产党宣言》。

4）Manchester, 1845

Friedrich Engels 1820年11月28日出生于德意志巴门（今德国乌帕塔尔），富裕的基督教新教资本家家庭，家族拥有纺织厂。也就是资本家了。他从小接受严格的基督教教育，但在少年时期就对宗教产生怀疑。家庭希望他继承生意，所以他未完成大学学业，被送到父亲的纺织工厂当学徒。在英国曼彻斯特工厂实习期间，他亲眼目睹了工人的极端贫困与不公待遇。这段经历成为他写出名作《英国工人阶级状况》（1845）的基础、这跟毛先生1926年写的《湖南农民运动考察报告》好像差不多一个意思，但人家比他早了快一百年。恩格斯尽管家族是资本家，恩格斯在现实中站在工人一边。他认为资本主义不只是剥削，更是一种“道德上的恶”。在《英国工人阶级状况》（The Condition of the Working Class in England，1845）中，他明确表达了对资本主义制度的深刻道德批判。他不仅从经济层面揭示了资本主义对工人阶级的剥削，更强调这是一种“系统性的道德腐败”、让人性堕落、让社会关系变得冷酷、把人变成物的体制。我其实基本赞同他的描述，但我们的结论似乎不同。

“在机器引入之前，原材料的纺纱和编织是在工人的家中进行的。妻子和女儿纺了父亲编织或他们出售的纱线，如果他不是自己编织的。这些织布工家庭住在城镇附近的农村，他们的工资可以相当好地生活，因为国内市场几乎是唯一的市场，后来随着外国市场的征服和贸易的扩张，竞争的粉碎力还没有压在工资上。此外，对国内市场的需求不断增加，跟上人口增长的缓慢步伐，雇用了所有工人；由于工人的家园分散在农村，工人之间也不可能进行激烈的竞争。….

因此，工人们过着一种相当舒适的生活，以所有的虔诚和正直过着正义与和平的生活；他们的物质地位远远比他们的继任者好得多。他们不需要过度劳累；他们做得没有超过他们选择做的，但却赚到了他们需要的东西。他们有闲暇时间在花园或田野里做健康的工作，这些工作本身就是他们的娱乐活动，除了参加邻居的娱乐和游戏外，他们还可以参加所有这些游戏——保龄球、板球、足球等，都有助于他们的身体健康和活力。在大多数情况下，他们是强壮、身材魁梧的人，他们的体格与农民邻居几乎没有区别。他们的孩子在清新的乡村空气中长大，如果他们能帮助父母工作，那只是偶尔的；虽然他们工作八或十二个小时是毫无疑问的。”

确实，这些工人之前过着较为稳定、舒适的生活，不算是无产阶级。但八到十二小时的工作时长绝不算短，但在这个过程中，工人是有主导性的。工业革命之后，工人之间竞争开始激烈。无产阶级会去工厂做工，导致这些有产阶级工人无法以同样的价格出售织布。这又何尝不是一种无产阶级对中产工人的颠覆，他们虽然工作状态比有产工人更差，但至少有工作。而之前，无产阶级恐怕没有生产工具和经验，什么产出都无法获得。现在有了机器，任何人都可以去做工，积累资本。

他写道：“每个大城市都有一个或多个贫民窟，工人阶级挤在一起。的确，贫穷往往居住在靠近富人宫殿的隐蔽小巷里；但是，一般来说，它被分配了一个单独的领土，在那里，如果离开更幸福的阶级的视线，它可能会尽可能地挣扎。这些贫民窟在英格兰所有大城市中都排得相当平等，最差的房子在城镇最差的街区；通常是一两排长排的一两栋小屋，也许有地窖被用作住宅，几乎总是不定期建造。这些由三四个房间和一个厨房组成的房子，在整个英格兰，伦敦的部分地区除外，是工人阶级的一般住所。街道通常未铺砌、粗糙、肮脏，充满了蔬菜和动物垃圾，没有下水道或排水沟，而是提供肮脏、停滞的水池。”

这样的状况别说1845年了，现在也还在继续。不管社会进步与否，社会所有的劣势永远都是落在底层、无权无势、没有资本、生产资料和经验、弱势的、穷的人身上。关心那些社会里被藏匿、阴暗的角落才会尤其重要。他说明了这种工会和罢工，在经济运行规律面前，收效甚微。“这些工会的历史是工人的一连串失败，被一些孤立的胜利打断。所有这些努力自然不能改变经济规律，即工资是由劳动力市场供求关系决定的。因此，工会对影响这种关系的所有强大力量仍然无能为力。在商业危机中，联盟本身必须降低工资或完全解散；在劳动力需求大幅增加的时候，它无法固定高于资本家之间竞争自发达到的工资率。但在处理微小的、单一的影响时，它们很强大。如果雇主没有集中的集体反对，为了自己的利益，他将逐渐将工资降低到越来越低的水平；事实上，他必须与制造商同行展开的竞争之战将迫使他这样做，工资很快就会达到最低水平。”

5）十月革命

“共产主义”的第一次实践，是1917年俄国的十月革命，布尔什维克上台。俄国在1917年之前，仍由罗曼诺夫王朝统治，是欧洲最后一个保有君主专制的主要国家。1905年俄国革命失败后，虽然设立了杜马（议会），但权力极小，依然无法遏制体制腐败和社会不公。广大农民缺地、工人待遇恶劣、民族压迫严重，社会矛盾积累已久。1914年俄国卷入第一次世界大战，战线漫长、军备落后，士兵大量伤亡，军心涣散。战争使原本脆弱的经济彻底崩溃，城市中物资短缺、物价飞涨，农民负担沉重，工人罢工潮不断。更重要的是，人民不再信任政府和沙皇，将战争视为牺牲底层为上层利益服务的工具。1917年2月，爆发了彼得格勒起义，沙皇被迫退位，罗曼诺夫王朝终结。资产阶级建立“临时政府”，试图建立议会民主制度。然而这个新政府延续旧体制的对德作战政策，拒绝立即解决土地问题，也不愿承认苏维埃（工兵代表会议）的权威，迅速失去民众支持。

在民众对临时政府失望之际，布尔什维克党提出“和平、土地和面包”的口号，迅速获得工人、士兵和农民的支持。列宁在“四月提纲”中明确主张推翻资产阶级政权，将“全部政权归于苏维埃”，并主张从资本主义直接过渡到社会主义。布尔什维克以高度组织性、明确目标和强烈宣传攻势，成为唯一有能力掌握政权的力量。最终在1917年11月（俄历10月），布尔什维克领导彼得格勒武装起义，推翻临时政府，夺取国家政权，建立苏维埃政权。虽然革命当天几乎没有流血冲突，但它象征着一个新时代的开端：阶级斗争进入国家权力的核心，社会主义从理论成为实践，苏联的建立就此奠定基础。布尔什维克（Bolsheviks）是俄国社会民主工党中主张武装革命、迅速夺取政权并建立无产阶级专政的一派，后来发展成为苏联共产党，是20世纪世界历史上影响最深远的政治力量之一。“布尔什维克”在俄语中意为“多数派”，最初只是一个会议上的多数。在1903年俄国社会民主工党的第二次代表大会上，列宁领导的一派在一项表决中占了上风，被称为“布尔什维克”；相对的，另一派由马尔托夫主导，被称为“孟什维克”（意为“少数派”）。虽然这只是一次偶然的投票结果，但“布尔什维克”后来逐渐变成了一个政治标签，代表一整套激进、集中、革命优先的政治路线。

布尔什维克在列宁的思想指导下，主张：革命不能依靠缓慢的议会民主改革，必须通过暴力革命推翻资本主义和封建制度；要建立一个高度集中的先锋党，由少数训练有素、忠诚坚定的无产阶级革命家领导；一旦夺权，就要实行无产阶级专政，镇压资产阶级和反革命势力，推动社会主义改造。孟什维克主张广泛群众参与、先进行资本主义民主革命，再慢慢发展到社会主义；布尔什维克则认为俄国可以“跳过”资本主义阶段，立即建立无产阶级政权。

6）列宁 / 斯大林

列宁，全名Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov，1870年出生于俄国一个知识分子家庭，1924年去世。他以“列宁”这个化名闻名于世，“Lenin”据说源自西伯利亚的勒拿河（Lena River），象征流亡与斗争。他不是坐等“历史发展”的那类理论家，而是极端行动派。他相信，革命要靠小部分铁一般的先锋队来推动、这就是他对“无产阶级专政”的核心理解。马克思原本设想的社会主义革命应该发生在“高度资本主义”的国家，但俄国是个农业国家。列宁修改了路线图（？），他主张“弱链条爆发”：最落后的国家，最容易爆发革命。他还创造了“民主集中制”（搞半天就你发明的）、“一党专政”、“暴力革命先于议会道路”等核心策略，直接奠定了苏联和后来中国共产党等政党的组织模式。1917年起，他领导新生苏维埃政权，在内战、干旱、经济崩溃中艰难维持。他曾短暂推行“战时共产主义”，后又转向较温和的“新经济政策（NEP）”，允许小规模私营经济，以恢复生产。列宁去世时，年仅53岁，苏联还未正式成立（1922年宣布）。列宁的死引发了权力争夺，最终由斯大林掌权，走向极权化的极端版本。斯大林，全名 Joseph Vissarionovich Stalin，1878年生于格鲁吉亚，1953年在莫斯科去世。他不是“斯大林”本名，而是化名，意思是“钢铁之人”：冷酷、坚决、强硬、不动摇。我觉得挺逗的，领导人还可以用艺名呢？这些人咋一个个这么搞笑。列宁死后，苏联领导层曾一度陷入权力争斗。斯大林不是最有理论的人，但他在党内架构中牢牢控制组织、人事与安全系统，最终夺得最高权力。到了1930年代，他已将自己塑造成列宁的唯一合法继承人，而把托洛茨基和其他对手全部驱逐或杀害。

他推行极权统治，一党专政的国家变成了“一人崇拜”的国家。他通过肃反（大清洗）杀掉了数十万甚至上百万的“潜在敌人”、包括革命老战士、军官、知识分子、普通公民。他把恐惧制度化，让人不仅害怕国家，更害怕身边的人。他推行“五年计划”、农业集体化，以超高速推进工业化，让苏联从一个落后农业国变成了超级军事工业强国。数百万农民死于饥荒（最严重是乌克兰大饥荒），反抗者被流放至西伯利亚劳改营（古拉格）。但他确实完成了“现代化”，让苏联能在二战中正面抗衡纳粹德国。纳粹入侵后，斯大林调动全国资源，进行惨烈的卫国战争。苏联以巨大代价赢得战争胜利，确立了其在战后国际秩序中的超级大国地位。他成为雅尔塔会议“三巨头”之一，与罗斯福、丘吉尔共同决定了战后世界格局。列宁、斯大林建立了一个“可以输出的革命模板”：一个党、一种意识形态、一种敌人、一个“未来世界”的承诺。这个党不是西方式的多党竞争，而是“唯一合法代表”：既是国家管理者、又是意识形态传播者、还是社会组织者的超级党。它垄断了真理的解释权与群众的行动路径。列宁提出“先锋队理论”，强调只有由精英组成的党，才能真正代表工人阶级的利益。原始的马克思主义强调的是历史进程与结构性矛盾，但在苏联，它被重构为一种救赎叙事：我们知道未来的方向，我们有通向乌托邦的路线图，只要你服从党、牺牲现在，就能迎来“全人类的解放”。没有敌人，就没有正当性。苏联模式中的敌人被系统制造：内部是资产阶级、托派、右倾投降主义者，外部是帝国主义、殖民者、反动政府。只有通过不断制造“阶级斗争”，政权才能合法化镇压、控制、动员与恐吓。这种“敌人制造术”后来成为所有效仿国的标配。现实是苦难的，但“未来”是光明的。这种承诺不是今天兑现的，而是留给下一代、留给“胜利的那一天”。它成为忍耐、牺牲、服从的正当理由，也是所有失败都能合理化的借口：失败只是“通向胜利的必要阶段”。

1929年，美国股市崩盘，引发了全球范围的经济大萧条（Great Depression）。美国的失业率在1933年达到了25%，无数人破产、流浪、饥饿；德国同样深陷通货膨胀与失业之中，这为纳粹党崛起创造了条件；英法等传统列强，也都面临工人罢工、经济停滞与政治不稳定。对普通人来说，所谓的“自由制度”并没有带来饭吃，反而带来了不安、失业、动荡。于是，“换一种制度是不是更好？”这一疑问开始在全球范围内浮现。就在西方陷入混乱时，苏联却在以一种强硬、计划性的方式推进工业化和国家建设：五年计划（First Five-Year Plan, 1928–1932）以国家为主导，集中资源发展重工业、铁路、电力、军工；大规模建设冶炼厂、机械厂、铁路、电站，用国家动员代替市场调节；虽然农业集体化造成了灾难性后果（尤其在乌克兰），但工业产值迅速增长，苏联的钢铁、煤炭、机械产量在短短几年内逼近乃至超越西方国家。这当然是一种“效率的幻象”：工业产出的增长建立在极端剥削与牺牲之上、数百万人死于饥荒、被送入劳改营（古拉格）、遭政治清洗；计划经济压制了创新、自由与个体权利，形成了高度僵化的体制；但这些内在的问题，在30年代的西方观察者那里，大多是“看不见的”或被刻意忽略的。他们看到的，是一个“有秩序”的国家，有计划、有目标、有干劲、有成效。正是在这种历史交叉点，苏联模式被塑造成一种替代方案，它看起来比资本主义更有“控制力”、比民主更有效率、比殖民体系更“解放”人民。这也是为什么在1930年代之后，全球许多国家开始向苏联模式靠拢：中国、越南、古巴、朝鲜、东欧国家的共产党，几乎都以此为蓝本。

Notes:

Trier: One of Germany's oldest cities and the birthplace of Karl Marx; located in western Germany near the Luxembourg border.
Kingdom of Prussia: One of the most powerful German states in Europe during the 18th–19th centuries, known for militarism and bureaucracy. Marx lived under its rule during his youth.
German States / German Lands: In the 19th century, Germany was not yet unified; it consisted of dozens of independent German-speaking principalities. It was not until 1871 that Prussia unified them into the German Empire.
Lutheranism: A major denomination of Protestant Christianity originating from Martin Luther’s Reformation, emphasizing "Justification by Faith." Marx’s father converted from Judaism to Lutheranism to integrate into Prussian society.
University of Bonn: A famous German university where Marx enrolled at age 17 to major in law, though he was more interested in philosophy and literature and participated in student clubs, drinking, and dueling.
Dueling: A common battle of honor among 19th-century European university students, usually involving swords or pistols. Marx participated in a duel during his student years, a reflection of his rebellious nature.
Humboldt University of Berlin: A center of German thought where Marx studied philosophy deeply and first encountered Hegelianism.
German Classical Philosophy / German Idealism: A philosophical movement from the late 18th to early 19th century, represented by Kant, Fichte, and Hegel, emphasizing reason, freedom, and the logic of historical development. It profoundly influenced Marx’s ideological system.
Enlightenment: A 17th–18th century European intellectual movement emphasizing reason, science, freedom, and equality; it opposed church authority and absolute monarchs, advocating for the spread of knowledge and human autonomy. Its core belief: humanity can improve itself and society through reason.
Humoral Theory: Originating from the ancient Greek physicians Hippocrates and Galen, it held that the human body is composed of four humors: blood, yellow bile, black bile, and phlegm. Health was the balance of these four, and disease was caused by imbalance. It was the mainstream of medieval medicine, advocating "adjusting humors" through bloodletting and emetics until it was gradually replaced after Harvey proposed the circulatory system.
Two Treatises of Government: Published by John Locke in 1690, it is one of the most important works of political philosophy of the Enlightenment. The first part refutes the "Divine Right of Kings"; the second proposes: Natural Rights (Life, Liberty, Property); Social Contract (government power comes from the consent of the people); and the people’s right to overthrow tyranny. It is the founding document of liberal politics and deeply influenced the American Revolution and the French Revolution.
Critique of Pure Reason: A philosophical masterpiece published by Immanuel Kant in 1781, opening a new era of German Classical Philosophy. The core question: How is it possible for us to obtain knowledge? Kant argued that knowledge is not a passive reception of experience, but a combination of experience and the structures of reason. This book established his "Transcendental Philosophy" and is a turning point in modern philosophy.
Transcendental Philosophy: A philosophical method proposed by Kant. "Transcendental" is not mysterious; it refers to the a priori structural conditions of cognition. Kant believed our ability to know the world presupposes certain innate forms (like time and space) and categories (like causality and quantity). These structures do not come from experience; they are the ways we make experience possible. This is his so-called "Copernican Revolution."
Philosophy of Nature: A thought developed by Schelling, arguing that nature is not a passive object but a spiritual, creative existence. He tried to break the opposition between "subjective vs. objective" and "spirit vs. matter," proposing that nature and consciousness are one at a higher level. It served as a bridge between Romanticism and the scientific spirit and influenced later ecological philosophy.
Aufhebung (Sublation): The core concept of Hegel’s dialectics. The German word Aufhebung simultaneously carries three meanings: to negate (cancel), to preserve (maintain), and to uplift (transcend). It describes how things develop: a stage encounters a contradiction $\rightarrow$ is negated $\rightarrow$ but its rational parts are preserved $\rightarrow$ and it is transcended at a higher level. Simply put, "negation of negation" is not annihilation, but upward transformation.
Absolute Knowledge: From the final stage of Hegel’s Phenomenology of Spirit. It does not mean "knowing everything," but realizing that the world is not an external thing, but a structure unfolded by "the I" through practice and history. That is: knowing is no longer "observing the world," but "creating the world"; truth is not an external standard, but the sum of the constant generation in the interaction between consciousness and reality.

1) Karl Marx

In 1848, the Communist Manifesto was released: Marx and Engels wrote the manifesto "Workers of the world, unite!" Although its influence was limited at the time, it laid the theoretical foundation for later revolutions. Karl Marx was born on May 5, 1818, in Trier in the German region, belonging to the Kingdom of Prussia at the time. His father was a lawyer of Jewish descent who converted to Lutheranism, and his mother was from a Dutch Jewish family. He came from a middle-class background, well-off but not wealthy. He was steeped in Enlightenment thought from childhood and was familiar with religion, philosophy, and classical literature.

The German region was not unified then but consisted of 39 sovereign states within the German Confederation, including kingdoms, duchies, electorates, and free cities. Among them: the Kingdom of Prussia, the strongest military and industrial power in the German region, ruled by the Hohenzollern dynasty, which led the later unification of Germany; the Austrian Empire, the core of a multi-ethnic empire ruled by the Habsburg family, both a member of the German Confederation and its largest internal power. The Kingdom of Bavaria, a conservative Catholic kingdom in southern Germany known for its cultural traditions and strong local identity, with Munich as its capital. The Kingdom of Saxony, a cultural center in the east known for exquisite craftsmanship; its capital, Dresden, was called "Florence on the Elbe." The Kingdom of Hanover, a medium-sized power in the northwest, originally in a personal union with Britain, began independent rule in the 1840s and was later annexed by Prussia. The Kingdom of Württemberg, located in the southwest, where agriculture and industry coexisted, often seeking a balance between Prussia and Austria, with Stuttgart as its capital.

The difference between kingdoms, duchies, electorates, and free cities was: Kingdoms were ruled by kings and had the highest status, large territories, and strong militaries; Duchies were ruled by dukes, were smaller in scale, and often subordinate to larger powers; Electorates were territories of special nobles who held the power to elect the Holy Roman Emperor, ranking higher than general duchies; and Free Cities were independent cities directly subordinate to the Emperor with high autonomy, such as Hamburg and Bremen. This structure led to a long-term fragmented and complex power landscape in Germany. Looking at it this way, it might be similar to the meaning of "autonomous prefectures, municipalities, and special zones" in China when New China was first founded. As it turns out, there have been many disputes across different regions until very recently.

Judaism is one of the world's earliest monotheistic religions—religions that believe in one or more gods, such as Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, emphasizing the supremacy and creativity of God. Judaism is different from Christianity; they recognize the Old Testament. They believe God is Yahweh, and their ancestors made a covenant with God to live in areas like Jerusalem; they are God's children living on land given by God. Children of Jews are within the scope of Judaism, which clashed with other religions because non-Jews also wanted a covenant with God.

The biggest difference between Judaism and Christianity is: Judaism is not a religion of "faith in exchange for salvation." Compared to Christianity's emphasis on "belief," Judaism emphasizes practicing the law (mitzvot) and maintaining the covenant. "Salvation" is not a core concept in Judaism; the focus is on the communal relationship with God, observing the law, and righteous behavior. "Faith is the key to salvation" does not apply to Judaism; that is typical Protestant logic (especially Lutheran), whereas for Judaism, action is greater than belief. Judaism is both a religion and an ethnic-cultural identity.

Karl Marx’s father, Heinrich Marx, was originally Jewish and came from a family of Rabbis (religious teachers, legal scholars, and spiritual leaders; the clergy had a bit of a "civil servant" feel to them), but he converted to Lutheranism shortly before Karl was born. This change was not due to a shift in religious faith but was forced by the discriminatory policies against Jews in Prussian society at the time. In the early 19th-century Kingdom of Prussia, Jews were banned from holding many public offices and especially could not legally practice as lawyers or judges. As a well-educated lawyer, Heinrich Marx would have lost his license to practice if he did not renounce his Jewish identity. He himself was not a devout believer; his thoughts were closer to the rationalism of the Enlightenment, holding a critical and instrumental attitude toward religion. It was a bit like "his body was in Cao's camp, but his heart was with Han" (serving one side while being loyal to another). Karl Marx entered the University of Bonn at 17, initially studying law, but he preferred writing poetry, drinking, and dueling (honestly, he has a record of dueling). He later transferred to the University of Berlin, where he encountered German Classical Philosophy.

2) The Enlightenment

The relationship between the Enlightenment and German Classical Philosophy can be understood as the relationship between a "matrix" and a "mature form": the Enlightenment provided the intellectual foundation and problem-consciousness, while German Classical Philosophy was the deepening, response, and transcendence of these problems.

The Enlightenment began roughly in the latter half of the 17th century, when most European countries were still under absolute monarchy. Louis XIV of France compared himself to the sun because the sun is the center of the universe, controlling day, night, and seasons, and he considered himself the center of the state, with everything in France revolving around him. He said: "I am the state" (L’État, c’est moi), emphasizing the concept of the Divine Right of Kings. By centralizing power, suppressing the nobility, controlling local assemblies, and strengthening the bureaucracy, he turned France into Europe’s most typical absolute monarchy. He presided over the making of laws, decided on wars, and appointed ministers; the parliament had almost no real power. Louis XIV even built the Palace of Versailles, which was not just a luxurious palace but a political tool to draw nobles from their local lands to the court, entangling them in complex etiquette and weakening their actual power. At the same time, he used art, theater, architecture, and ballet to shape his image, instilling the sanctity of the "Sun King" into the people through visuals and rituals. His era was the golden age of French classical culture.

Simultaneously, the Catholic Church and the Protestant state churches remained in control of education, morality, and the interpretation of truth, constituting a powerful religious hegemony. any thought contrary to orthodox doctrine was suppressed; for example, Galileo, who supported "heliocentrism," was tried for this reason. Under such a system, knowledge was restricted within the theological system, and the world was explained as a "manifestation of divine will" rather than the operation of natural laws. Reason was seen as a handmaiden to faith, individual thinking was suppressed, and questioning was seen as dangerous. However, it was precisely this confinement of thought and monopoly of power that prompted some intellectuals to begin reflecting and resisting. They turned to reason, observation, and experience—these new sources of truth—trying to escape the dual control of religion and royal power. This impulse for exploration was the signal on the eve of the Enlightenment’s eruption.

Copernicus’s De revolutionibus orbium coelestium (On the Revolutions of the Heavenly Spheres), published in 1543, was one of the founding works of the Scientific Revolution. It was Copernicus’s final work, published only as he was dying. Nicolaus Copernicus was a Polish astronomer, cleric, and mathematician. He never married, held a position in the church, and was privately passionate about astronomical research. In the Middle Ages, Europe generally accepted "geocentrism," a concept not only from ancient Greek tradition but one that resonated with the "Earth-centered" worldview in the Bible, and was thus upheld as truth by the Catholic Church. Although Copernicus had finished the writing and was dying, because he was a cleric, he used the term "hypothesis" in the book to cautiously express his theory without directly challenging church authority. The book featured a cautious preface written by a younger astronomer, Andreas Osiander, calling it merely a "calculating tool." Because of this, Copernicus’s theory did not cause a violent reaction at the time; it wasn't until the 17th century, when Galileo further proved heliocentrism and publicly challenged the church, that the theory was officially listed as "heresy."

Galileo Galilei used a telescope to observe phenomena like the uneven surface of the moon and the moons of Jupiter, which directly challenged the church-supported "geocentrism" and the cosmic view in the Bible. He supported Copernicus's "heliocentrism," believing the sun was the center of the universe. This led to his religious trial and forced him to publicly admit error. Johannes Kepler proposed the three laws of planetary motion, proving that planets do not move in perfect circles around the sun but in ellipses. This further broke the "divine perfection" assumption of celestial motion, emphasizing that laws can be described by mathematics. William Harvey was a 17th-century English physician who, through systematic animal dissection and vivisection, was the first to completely describe the circulatory system, pointing out that the heart acts like a pump pushing blood throughout the body. This discovery directly shook the "Humoral Theory" that had prevailed since the Roman Galen. Harvey’s work marked the rise of empirical anatomy and experimental medicine. Robert Boyle was a British chemist hailed as the "father of modern chemistry." He abandoned the mysticism surrounding matter in alchemy, studied the properties of gases through rigorous experiments, and proposed the famous Boyle’s Law (gas volume is inversely proportional to pressure). He emphasized that science should be based on repeatable experiments and verifiable results, pushing for the standardization of scientific methods. Finally, there is the person everyone knows, Isaac Newton, the pinnacle figure of the Scientific Revolution. In 1687, he published Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica, systematically expounding the law of universal gravitation and the three laws of motion, explaining the movement of celestial bodies and objects through mathematics. This marked the first time the universe was seen as a predictable, calculable "mechanical system," completely breaking free from the monopoly of mysticism and theology over the explanation of nature, laying the foundation for classical physics. These few "brothers" directly pushed the Scientific Revolution to its climax.

With a scientific foundation, philosophy also began to develop rapidly. In 1690, John Locke’s Two Treatises of Government was published. John Locke was a British philosopher who proposed concepts such as natural rights (life, liberty, property), the social contract, and the people's right to overthrow tyranny. These ideas directly challenged "Divine Right of Kings" and feudal autocracy, becoming the ideological foundation for later liberalism and democratic systems. His political theory is called the cornerstone of Enlightenment political philosophy and had a huge impact on the American and French Revolutions.

Between 1751 and 1772, the Encyclopédie edited by Diderot was one of the most symbolic publications of the 18th-century French Enlightenment. Co-edited by the philosopher Denis Diderot and the mathematician Jean le Rond d’Alembert, it consisted of 28 volumes. On the surface, the Encyclopédie attempted to collect human knowledge in all fields: mathematics, astronomy, medicine, mechanical crafts, literature, philosophy, music, fine arts, political systems, etc. It was one of the most ambitious publishing projects of the time, inviting Enlightenment giants like Voltaire, Rousseau, Montesquieu, and Holbach to write entries. It democratized "knowledge" and challenged the existing order through the spread of information, questioning the theocratic rule of the Catholic Church. At that time, knowledge was a tool controlled by the church, the nobility, and the crown. The general public had almost no access to the knowledge systems of the real world. The Encyclopédie symbolized the popularization of the idea that "knowledge belongs to everyone." It presented complex academic, technical, and natural knowledge in an accessible form, so readers no longer relied on the clergy or traditional "wise men" but gained cognitive ability through their own reading. This decentralized knowledge structure was the manifestation of the Enlightenment's core belief that "humanity should gain freedom through its own reason." Due to the strong anti-clerical and anti-feudal tone of its content, the Encyclopédie was once banned by the French government and the Catholic Church: in 1752, the church accused it of "spreading heretical ideas" and temporarily stopped its distribution; it was censored and modified multiple times, and the editor Diderot faced threats of imprisonment; the last few volumes were only completed and published through secret printing. Because of this, its publication itself became a practical challenge to the feudal system. The Encyclopédie was not only widely circulated in France but also influenced the intellectual and political circles of all of Europe, becoming a breeding ground for later revolutionary trends.

In 1784, the German philosopher Immanuel Kant published the short essay What is Enlightenment?, which is widely regarded as the philosophical summary of the movement. In the essay, Kant proposed a penetrating definition: "Enlightenment is man's emergence from his self-incurred immaturity." What he called "immaturity" was not a lack of intelligence, but the reliance on others to think for oneself when one is capable of thinking: whether it be a priest, a monarch, or an authoritative institution. Kant pointed out that this state was not forced, but due to a lack of courage and will. He called on people to "Dare to use your own reason!" (Sapere aude!). One should be the master of one's own thoughts rather than blindly following tradition, dogma, and power. In the article, he discussed the tension between freedom and order, pointing out that while reason should be used freely, this freedom should unfold in a gradual, rational way. He worried that unreflective "radical enlightenment" could lead to chaos or even violence.

3) German Classical Philosophy

Kant was the founder of German Classical Philosophy; he tried to reconcile empiricism and rationalism and proposed the "Transcendental Philosophy" system. In the Critique of Pure Reason, he pointed out that our cognition of the world does not come entirely from experience but is based on the inherent cognitive structure of humans (such as time, space, categories, etc.). This view is called the "Copernican Revolution"—it is not that we adapt to the world, but that the world presents itself in the way of our cognitive structure. Simultaneously, Kant emphasized "Practical Reason" in ethics, arguing that humans are free, autonomous moral subjects and should use "humanity as an end" as a guiding principle for action. He also tried to reserve space for rational faith in religion. Kant was both the summarizer of the Enlightenment spirit and the starting point of modern philosophy.

Johann Gottlieb Fichte (1762–1814) is regarded as the successor of Kant's philosophy, but he pushed Kant's "transcendental subject" to the extreme. He argued that the starting point of all knowledge, reality, and morality is "the I" (Ich): "The I posits itself, and in this process, posits the non-I." This "I" is not only the basis of cognition but also the source of power for creating the world and taking action. He emphasized the agency of the subject, free will, and a sense of historical mission, with clear revolutionary and nationalistic colors. Fichte developed the philosophical schema of "Subjective Idealism," laying the foundation for Schelling and Hegel to build comprehensive systems.

Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph Schelling (1775–1854) was the key figure who started from Fichte but eventually broke away from "ego-centrism." He believed the world could not be understood from the subject alone; nature itself has spirituality and creativity. He proposed the "Philosophy of Nature," arguing that nature and spirit, object and subject, are identical at a higher level. This "Identity Philosophy" sees the world as an organic whole rather than a fragmented dualistic opposition. He emphasized intuition, art, and vitality, moving toward a philosophical style with Romanticist colors. Schelling's thoughts influenced Hegel and had a deep impact on later existentialism and modern views of nature.

Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (1770–1831) was the great synthesizer of German Classical Philosophy. He constructed a grand system of "Absolute Idealism," attempting to explain the evolutionary process of the world using dialectics. He believed reality is not a static entity but a process of constant unfolding through contradiction, conflict, and Aufhebung (sublation). This process applied to history as well as to thought, art, religion, and the state. His dialectic is often presented in a "triadic" form: Thesis–Antithesis–Synthesis, but more deeply, it is the "unfolding of self-consciousness."

The Phenomenology of Spirit (Phänomenologie des Geistes, 1807) is one of Hegel's most important and complex works. Its core structure can be understood as seven stages of consciousness development, each a transcendence and sublation of the previous, constituting a spiral upward path from experience to Absolute Spirit.

The first stage is Sense-certainty, representing the most direct, primitive level of experience. However, this experience is full of subjectivity and ambiguity and cannot truly provide stable knowledge.
Next is the Perception stage, where consciousness tries to grasp the constancy of objects but is still trapped in the opposition between subject and object.
The third stage is Understanding, where reason begins to use abstract concepts (like "causality") to explain the world, but thus falls into rigidity and formalism.
In the Self-consciousness stage, consciousness no longer just observes the world but realizes its own subjectivity and begins to interact with the world. The most famous part here is the "Master-Slave Dialectic," describing two consciousnesses fighting for recognition, the emergence of the master-slave relationship, and its reversal.
The fifth stage is Reason, where consciousness believes the world can be understood by reason but also gradually realizes the limits and contradictions of reason itself.
Subsequently, the Spirit stage: consciousness transcends individual reason and enters into historical and social structures, manifesting as institutional existences like family, society, and the state; individual consciousness unfolds within these structures and obtains a higher form of self-recognition.
The final stage is Religion & Absolute Knowledge. This stage is a bit complex; I looked into it deeply and could only understand the gist.

"Absolute Knowledge" is not about being omniscient; it's not a human brain filled with all the facts and data of the world. It is consciousness realizing itself as the root of the world's unfolding. This means: I am not a "bystander" watching the world and analyzing objects from the side; who I am is the process itself of undergoing conflict, practice, negation, and creation within the world. Truth is not something that already exists waiting to be discovered, but a structure constantly "produced" by consciousness in interaction with the world. That is to say, the observer and the observed are interacting, jointly producing the concepts of "I," "the world," and "you," which actually tallies with quantum mechanics. We usually understand knowledge as: "I am here, the world is there; I observe it, I understand it." At the level of "Absolute Knowledge," consciousness finally understands: the world is not an external object, but a product of my own unfolding. My reason is not an eye used to "look at the world," but the driving force for the world's formation; all seemingly "external" realities actually contain traces of conscious activity: labor, language, institutions, history... all are manifestations of the spirit. The real world is the process of the spirit realizing itself.

To use a common analogy: you can understand "Absolute Knowledge" as a person finally realizing they are not watching a movie, but that they are the director, the actor, the script, the audience, and the camera itself. This person hasn't "learned a lot of knowledge about movies," but has "recognized themselves as the entire process of how this movie was created." The opposition between subject and object is overcome. Traditional philosophy holds: Subject (I) vs. Object (world), Thought vs. Existence, Reason vs. Reality. Hegel says this opposition is an illusion of immature consciousness. This is very radical because it means: Truth is not a God, Nature, or eternal law external to man; Truth is the "sum total of self-understanding" gradually constructed by human consciousness through labor, history, culture, and philosophy; humans, by recognizing their own history and practice, are recognizing "God" Himself. Under the influence of such a system, Karl Marx wrote the Communist Manifesto.

4) Manchester, 1845

Friedrich Engels was born on November 28, 1820, in Barmen (now Wuppertal), Germany, to a wealthy Protestant capitalist family that owned textile mills. So, he was a capitalist. He received a strict Christian education from childhood but developed doubts about religion in his youth. His family hoped he would inherit the business, so he did not finish his university studies and was sent as an apprentice to his father's textile factory. During his internship at the factory in Manchester, England, he witnessed firsthand the extreme poverty and unjust treatment of workers. This experience became the basis for his famous work The Condition of the Working Class in England (1845). This seems to be the same idea as the Report on an Investigation of the Peasant Movement in Hunan written by Mr. Mao in 1926, but Engels was nearly a hundred years earlier.

Despite his family being capitalists, Engels stood on the side of the workers in reality. He believed capitalism was not just exploitation, but a "moral evil." In The Condition of the Working Class in England (1845), he clearly expressed a deep moral critique of the capitalist system. He did not only reveal the exploitation of the working class from an economic level but emphasized that this was a "systemic moral corruption" that caused human nature to fall, made social relations cold, and turned people into objects. I actually basically agree with his description, but our conclusions seem to be different.

"Before the introduction of machinery, the spinning and weaving of raw materials was carried out in the workers’ homes. Wives and daughters spun the yarn that the father wove or that they sold, if he did not weave it himself. These weaver families lived in the countryside near the towns, and they could live quite well on their wages because the home market was almost the only one, and later with the conquest of foreign markets and the expansion of trade, the crushing force of competition had not yet pressed upon wages. Moreover, the demand for the home market was constantly increasing, keeping pace with the slow rate of population growth, employing all workers; since the workers’ homes were scattered in the countryside, fierce competition between workers was also impossible....
Thus the workers lived a quite comfortable life, leading a life of righteousness and peace with all godliness and integrity; their material position was far better than that of their successors. They did not need to overwork; they did no more than they chose to do, but earned what they needed. They had leisure time to do healthy work in the garden or field, work which was itself a recreation for them, and they could take part in all these games—bowling, cricket, football, etc., along with their neighbors' recreations—all of which contributed to their physical health and vigor. In most cases, they were strong, well-built people, whose physique was hardly distinguishable from that of their peasant neighbors. Their children grew up in the fresh country air, and if they could help their parents work, it was only occasional; it was out of the question that they worked eight or twelve hours."

Indeed, these workers previously lived a relatively stable, comfortable life; they were not considered proletarians. But a working day of eight to twelve hours was certainly not short; however, in this process, the worker had agency. After the Industrial Revolution, competition between workers became fierce. Proletarians would go to factories to work, causing these property-owning workers to be unable to sell their weaving at the same price. Isn't this also a kind of subversion of middle-class workers by the proletariat? Although their working conditions were worse than the property-owning workers, they at least had jobs. Previously, the proletariat likely lacked the tools and experience of production and could not obtain any output. Now with machines, anyone could go to work and accumulate capital.

He wrote:

"Every great city has one or more slums, where the working-class is crowded together. True, poverty often dwells in hidden alleys close to the palaces of the rich; but, in general, a separate territory has been assigned to it, where, removed from the sight of the happier classes, it may struggle along as it can. These slums are pretty equally arranged in all the great towns of England, the worst houses in the worst quarters of the towns; usually one or two long rows of one or two-storied cottages, perhaps with cellars used as dwellings, and almost always irregularly built. These houses of three or four rooms and a kitchen form, throughout England, some parts of London excepted, the general dwellings of the working-class. The streets are usually unpaved, rough, dirty, filled with vegetable and animal refuse, without sewers or gutters, but supplied with foul, stagnant pools."

Such conditions, let alone in 1845, continue even now. Regardless of whether society progresses or not, all social disadvantages always fall on the people at the bottom—those without power, without capital, without means of production and experience, the weak, the poor. Caring for those hidden, dark corners of society is particularly important. He explained that these unions and strikes were ineffective in the face of economic laws.

"The history of these Unions is a long series of defeats of the working-men, interrupted by a few isolated victories. All these efforts naturally cannot alter the economic law according to which wages are determined by the relation between supply and demand in the labor market. Hence the Unions remain powerless against all great forces which influence this relation. In a commercial crisis the Union itself must reduce wages or dissolve wholly; and in a time of great increase in the demand for labor, it cannot fix the rate of wages higher than the competition between the capitalists would have reached of itself. But in dealing with minor, single influences, they are powerful. If the employer had no concentrated, collective opposition to expect, he would in his own interest gradually reduce wages to a lower and lower level; the battle of competition which he has to wage against his fellow-manufacturers would, indeed, force him to do so, and wages would soon reach the minimum."

5) The October Revolution

The first practice of "Communism" was the 1917 October Revolution in Russia, where the Bolsheviks came to power. Before 1917, Russia was still ruled by the Romanov dynasty and was the last major European country to maintain an absolute monarchy. After the failure of the 1905 Russian Revolution, although the Duma (parliament) was established, its power was tiny, and it remained unable to curb systemic corruption and social injustice. The vast majority of peasants lacked land, workers faced terrible conditions, and ethnic oppression was severe; social contradictions had long accumulated. In 1914, Russia became embroiled in World War I; with a long frontline and backward armaments, soldiers suffered heavy casualties, and military morale was dissipated. The war caused the already fragile economy to collapse completely; there were shortages of goods in cities, prices skyrocketed, the burden on peasants was heavy, and a wave of worker strikes continued. More importantly, the people no longer trusted the government and the Tsar, seeing the war as a tool that sacrificed the lower class for the interests of the upper class. In February 1917, the Petrograd Uprising broke out, the Tsar was forced to abdicate, and the Romanov dynasty ended. The bourgeoisie established a "Provisional Government," trying to set up a parliamentary democracy. However, this new government continued the old system's policy of war against Germany, refused to immediately solve the land problem, and would not recognize the authority of the Soviets (councils of workers' and soldiers' deputies), quickly losing public support.

As the public became disillusioned with the Provisional Government, the Bolshevik Party proposed the slogan "Peace, Land, and Bread," quickly gaining the support of workers, soldiers, and peasants. Lenin, in his "April Theses," clearly advocated for overthrowing the bourgeois regime, giving "all power to the Soviets," and advocated for a direct transition from capitalism to socialism. With high organization, clear goals, and a strong propaganda offensive, the Bolsheviks became the only force capable of seizing power. Finally, in November 1917 (October in the Russian calendar), the Bolsheviks led the armed uprising in Petrograd, overthrew the Provisional Government, seized state power, and established Soviet power. Although there was almost no bloodshed on the day of the revolution, it symbolized the beginning of a new era: class struggle entered the core of state power, socialism moved from theory to practice, and the foundation for the establishment of the Soviet Union was laid.

The Bolsheviks were a faction within the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party that advocated for armed revolution, the rapid seizure of power, and the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat; they later developed into the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, one of the most profound political forces in 20th-century world history. "Bolshevik" means "majority" in Russian, though it was originally just a majority in one meeting. At the Second Congress of the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party in 1903, the faction led by Lenin gained the upper hand in a vote and was called "Bolsheviks"; conversely, the other faction led by Martov was called "Mensheviks" (meaning "minority"). Although this was just an accidental voting result, "Bolshevik" gradually became a political label representing a whole radical, centralized, and revolution-first political line.

Under Lenin's ideological guidance, the Bolsheviks advocated: revolution cannot rely on slow parliamentary democratic reform; it must overthrow capitalism and feudalism through violent revolution; a highly centralized vanguard party led by a few well-trained, loyal, and steadfast proletarian revolutionaries must be established; once power is seized, the dictatorship of the proletariat must be implemented to suppress the bourgeoisie and counter-revolutionary forces and push for socialist transformation. The Mensheviks advocated for broad mass participation, first conducting a capitalist democratic revolution, then slowly developing into socialism; the Bolsheviks believed Russia could "skip" the capitalist stage and immediately establish a proletarian regime.

6) Lenin / Stalin

Lenin, full name Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov, was born in 1870 to a Russian intellectual family and died in 1924. He became famous under the pseudonym "Lenin," which is said to be derived from the Lena River in Siberia, symbolizing exile and struggle. He was not the type of theorist who sat waiting for "historical development"; he was an extreme man of action. He believed that revolution must be driven by a small, iron-like vanguard—this was his core understanding of the "dictatorship of the proletariat." Marx had originally envisioned that the socialist revolution should happen in "highly capitalist" countries, but Russia was an agricultural country. Lenin revised the roadmap(?). He advocated for a "weakest link explosion": the most backward countries are the easiest for revolution to break out. He also created core strategies like "democratic centralism" (after all this time, it turns out you invented it), "one-party dictatorship," and "violent revolution before the parliamentary road," which directly laid the organizational model for the Soviet Union and later parties like the Chinese Communist Party. From 1917, he led the young Soviet regime, maintaining it with difficulty through civil war, drought, and economic collapse. He briefly implemented "War Communism" and later turned to the more moderate "New Economic Policy (NEP)," allowing small-scale private economies to restore production. When Lenin died at only 53, the Soviet Union had not yet been formally established (announced in 1922). Lenin's death triggered a power struggle, eventually won by Stalin, leading toward an extreme version of totalitarianism.

Stalin, full name Joseph Vissarionovich Stalin, was born in 1878 in Georgia and died in 1953 in Moscow. "Stalin" was not his real name but a pseudonym meaning "Man of Steel": cold, determined, tough, and unwavering. I think it's quite funny; leaders can have stage names? These people are each so hilarious. After Lenin's death, the Soviet leadership once fell into power struggles. Stalin was not the person with the most theory, but he firmly controlled the organization, personnel, and security systems within the party structure, ultimately seizing supreme power. By the 1930s, he had shaped himself as the only legitimate successor to Lenin, while Trotsky and all other rivals were expelled or killed.

He implemented totalitarian rule, and the one-party state became a "one-man cult" state. Through the Great Purge, he killed hundreds of thousands or even millions of "potential enemies," including old revolutionary fighters, officers, intellectuals, and ordinary citizens. He institutionalized fear, making people not only afraid of the state but also of the people around them. He pushed "Five-Year Plans" and agricultural collectivization, advancing industrialization at ultra-high speed, turning the Soviet Union from a backward agricultural country into a super military-industrial power. Millions of peasants died of famine (the most severe being the Holodomor in Ukraine), and resistors were exiled to Siberian labor camps (Gulags). But he did indeed complete "modernization," enabling the Soviet Union to face Nazi Germany head-on in WWII. After the Nazi invasion, Stalin mobilized the nation's resources for the tragic Great Patriotic War. The Soviet Union won the war at a huge cost, establishing its superpower status in the post-war international order. He became one of the "Big Three" at the Yalta Conference, deciding the post-war world order alongside Roosevelt and Churchill.

Lenin and Stalin established an "exportable revolution template": one party, one ideology, one enemy, and the promise of a "future world." This party was not a Western-style multi-party competition, but the "only legitimate representative": a super-party that was the state manager, the ideological transmitter, and the social organizer. It monopolized the interpretation of truth and the path of mass action. Lenin proposed the "Vanguard Theory," emphasizing that only a party composed of elites could truly represent the interests of the working class. Original Marxism emphasized the historical process and structural contradictions, but in the Soviet Union, it was reconstructed as a salvation narrative: we know the direction of the future, we have the roadmap to Utopia, as long as you obey the party and sacrifice the present, you can welcome the "liberation of all mankind." Without an enemy, there is no legitimacy. Enemies in the Soviet model were systematically manufactured: internally, they were the bourgeoisie, Trotskyites, and right-wing capitulationists; externally, they were imperialists, colonizers, and reactionary governments. Only by constantly manufacturing "class struggle" could the regime legitimize suppression, control, mobilization, and intimidation. This "enemy-making technique" later became standard for all countries that followed the model. Reality is suffering, but the "future" is bright. This promise is not to be fulfilled today but is left for the next generation, for "the day of victory." It becomes a legitimate reason for endurance, sacrifice, and obedience, and an excuse by which all failures can be rationalized: failure is just a "necessary stage on the path to victory."

In 1929, the US stock market crashed, triggering the global Great Depression. The unemployment rate in the US reached 25% in 1933, with countless people bankrupt, wandering, and hungry; Germany was similarly deep in inflation and unemployment, creating the conditions for the rise of the Nazi Party; traditional powers like Britain and France also faced worker strikes, economic stagnation, and political instability. For ordinary people, the so-called "liberal system" did not bring food; instead, it brought insecurity, unemployment, and turmoil. Thus, the question "Would another system be better?" began to surface worldwide.

Just as the West fell into chaos, the Soviet Union was advancing industrialization and national construction in a tough, planned way: the First Five-Year Plan (1928–1932) was state-led, concentrating resources to develop heavy industry, railways, electricity, and the military-industrial complex; large-scale construction of smelters, machine shops, railways, and power stations replaced market regulation with state mobilization. Although agricultural collectivization caused catastrophic consequences (especially in Ukraine), industrial output grew rapidly, and Soviet steel, coal, and machinery output approached and even surpassed Western countries in just a few years. This was, of course, an "illusion of efficiency": the growth of industrial output was built on extreme exploitation and sacrifice; millions died of famine, were sent to labor camps (Gulags), and suffered political purges; the planned economy suppressed innovation, freedom, and individual rights, forming a highly rigid system.

But these inherent problems were mostly "invisible" or deliberately ignored by Western observers in the 1930s. What they saw was an "orderly" country with plans, goals, drive, and results. It was at this historical intersection that the Soviet model was shaped as an alternative; it seemed more "in control" than capitalism, more efficient than democracy, and "liberated" the people more than the colonial system. This is why after the 1930s, many countries globally began to lean toward the Soviet model: the Communist parties of China, Vietnam, Cuba, North Korea, and Eastern European countries almost all took this as their blueprint.