时代与思想是冲击与回应的关系，因此理解思想不能单纯考察它们的概念逻辑，而必须回归思想史，即回归思想者、思想者之时代与思想者之思想分别作为个别性、特殊性与普遍性的辩证统一关系中。这种分析模式提供了对黑格尔与马克思关系的历史性解答。也就是说，18、19世纪之交的时代性事件刺激了黑格尔，黑格尔关于现实的人、共同防御与国家权力现实统一理论和君主宪政思想不是君主复辟潮流和军国主义的表现，而是对法国大革命、德意志民族分裂与宪政窘境的理论反应。同样，马克思关于国家批判、消灭私有制的理想与阶级革命思想，更是对19世纪中叶资产阶级政治革命困境、工人阶级状况与1848年革命事件的理论反应。马克思批判黑格尔国家法、市民社会理论与现实的人的思想是抽象的，不在于它们自始就是错误的，是所谓的头足倒置或神秘主义的，这些只构成批判的理论外观，而在于时代的变化使它们变得不再适应变化了的时代，且成为时代的遮蔽，即意识形态。基于此，黑格尔思想表现为从革命到国家的现实历史逻辑，马克思思想呈现为从国家到革命的现实历史逻辑，而黑格尔与马克思关系的历史性或历史性的关系就是18、19世纪之交与19世纪中叶的时代关系，马克思批判黑格尔的划时代性就是对黑格尔那个时代，即资产阶级时代的否定和无产阶级革命时代的开启。

基于这样的思考，在方法论上，本著作强调思想史的回归（导言）。黑格尔与马克思关系是思想史记述的经典片段，但由于非思想性与非历史性成分的介入，对这段思想史的论述具有模式化的特征，即形式的简单化和内容的意识形态化。这不但不能理解黑格尔与马克思的关系，而且产生了片面、狭隘的学术误解与曲解。理解黑格尔与马克思关系必须回归思想史，回归思想者、时代与思想分别作为个别性、特殊性与普遍性的辩证统一的关系中。也就是说，人们需要在18、19世纪之交与19世纪中叶的具体历史情境中理解黑格尔与马克思及其思想关系，把时代与思想者的思想理解为冲击与回应的关系。

在如此思想史的理路下，黑格尔思想的现实历史逻辑表现为从革命到国家的理论诉求（第1章）。18世纪80年代，工业生产力的飞速发展。与之相伴，法国大革命深刻触动了欧洲社会。黑格尔从革命到国家的思想正是对这一系列事件的理论反应。黑格尔对法国大革命开启的现代政治文明的反思，使他接受了普遍性自由的原则，但他拒绝自由的单纯普遍性及其在法国大革命中人与人相对抗的灾难后果，因此强调人格、市民与公民相统一的现实性；他渴望德意志民族获得法兰西所展现的现代民族国家的威力，但反对将国家当作制造物或契约联合体，因此他既拒绝神圣罗马帝国的分崩离析，拒绝民族国家是一个神圣的基督教会或伦理大家庭，又在神圣罗马帝国的崩溃中向往德意志民族通过自身的演化，达到主体与客体、单一体与普遍物相统一。黑格尔将此作为伦理理念的实现。这种实现就是客观精神的外化和神圣性在人世的彰显，是共同防御与国家权力的现实统一，是作为国家的德意志民族的“定在”；同时，这个定在是自由的。自由的实现既要符合德意志民族的传统，如开明君主传统，又要符合时代的自由精神，即法国大革命传播的现代价值，因而黑格尔将立法权（代表自由的普遍性）、行政权（代表自由的特殊性）与君权（代表自由的个别性）有机地统一为君主立宪制。在此，黑格尔表达出一个思想者在时代潮流中的民族主义情结。

与黑格尔相反，马克思表现出从国家到革命的现实历史逻辑（第2章）。与黑格尔思想发轫的18、19世纪之交相比，19世纪30年代以后（1831年黑格尔逝世）绝对不再是一个对工业革命和法国大革命持普遍乐观态度的时期。维也纳会议后的15年和平时期，英国工业经验在欧洲大陆获得广泛传播，时代在此分界。在1830年以前，工业革命还没有将整个欧洲卷入资本主义世界。那时，人们还未明确预见到工业革命即将带来的影响，至少在英国以外的地区是如此。此时，马克思的论题是不可想象的。黑格尔思想才是对那个时代的反应。他具有强烈的从资产阶级革命到现代化民族国家的理论诉求，表达了对即将到来的时代的美好愿景。可是，到了19世纪30年代，资本主义兴起所造成的社会问题逐渐显现。在一个完全打破封建主义束缚的世界，欧洲文学作品开始反思赤裸裸的金钱关系，关注处于工业社会雏形中的无产阶级（黑格尔时代的无产者不是马克思意义上的无产阶级，而农业经济处于瓦解阶段的城市贫民）。1841年，巴尔扎克决定以《人间喜剧》这一书名有计划地写作反讽贵族衰亡和资产者发迹的金钱罪恶。同时，一批官方或非官方的关于工业社会的社会调查、统计资料等作品开始涌现，恩格斯的《英国工人阶级状况》（1845年）只是其中的一部。正是基于如此时代状况，马克思不是像黑格尔那样渴望资本主义国家，而是批判资本主义国家，这源自政治革命在19世纪中叶所表现出来的局限性；他把消灭私有制作为现实理想而不像黑格尔那样以私有财产的所有权作为宪政法权的起点，这源于通过社会生产关系对工业革命的产儿，即工人阶级的普遍贫困状况的体察；他探索无产阶级的而非资产阶级的革命道路，表达着在资本主义社会中而不是在封建主义社会中解放“人”的现实愿望。这是一个不同于黑格尔从革命到国家的现实历史逻辑，而是从国家到革命的另一种现实历史的逻辑展现。

在思想史回归中达到对思想史的自觉，这将让人们把握到黑格尔与马克思关系的历史性（第3章）。每种哲学思想都与造就它的历史或“历史逻辑”在现实中的“贯通”是分不开的。理解黑格尔与马克思的关系同样也要在思想与时代的关系中进行把握，即自觉于思想史，把思想史理解为思想者（个别性）、思想者之时代（特殊性）与思想者之思想（普遍性）的辩证统一关系，同时，把思想看作对时代“冲击”的理论“回应”。

在这种自觉中，首先，黑格尔与马克思面对着不同的思想时代。黑格尔面对的是18、19世纪之交的革命时代和1814年君主复辟与反复辟的时代，即资本主义上升时期；马克思面对的是19世纪中叶欧洲大陆的工业资本主义时代，即资本主义快速发展时期。这些历史的具体性提供了理解两者关系的不可忽视的特殊性维度，既区分了思想者之时代差别，又构成了时代之思想间的承继关系。

其次，在思想史中，时代是不断冲击思想的历史时空。不同思想间的差别正在于历史时空有别。在差别中，黑格尔与马克思间异乎寻常的思想命运得之于时代：时代为思想提供了力量，思想为时代开辟了道路。如果道路能够为时代所接受，那么首先是由于历史内在必然性注定需要这样一种思想来把握时代。就黑格尔而言，只要一个民族深处于类似德意志那样的危亡之境，这个民族就需要它的思想者以自身的全部思想能量谋求一个实体性的民族国家。同样，就马克思而言，“社会的物质生产力发展到一定阶段，便同它们一直在其中活动的现存生产关系或财产关系发生矛盾。于是这些关系便由生产力的发展形式变成生产力的桎梏。那时社会革命时代就到来了”。处在革命时代之思想者会认为，即便国家是实体性的，那也不过是历史中的，而不是现在的，因为现在那个国家的实体性要使广大的（在黑格尔的时代还谈不上“广大”）工人阶级屈从于资本逻辑和资产阶级一个阶级的欲望。

最后，思想者之时代的相续性与时代之思想的差别为黑格尔与马克思的关系提供了历史性解答。不是逻辑泛神论，而是历史现实性，才是马克思批判黑格尔的第一前提和动因；不是黑格尔主宾颠倒没能说明世界的困境，而是19世纪中叶资产阶级政治革命的现实困境、工人阶级贫困状况以及19世纪40年代的社会问题和1848年无产阶级革命的现实需要（这些都还不是黑格尔时代，即18、19世纪之交欧洲的历史现实），才是马克思批判黑格尔的现实目的与最终结果。同样，马克思对黑格尔的批判也不仅仅是因为后者为了替现状辩护而把哲学限制在研究过去和现在（黑格尔反对的仅仅是独断论和空想，并没有剥夺哲学家探讨未来的权力），更重要的原因应该是，黑格尔思想表达了资产阶级在18、19世纪之交的现实要求，然而在19世纪中叶，变化了的时代已经产生了与原来占统治地位的思想相分裂的历史性力量，它使黑格尔思想失去了原有的理论张力，此时再用这种思想把握世界无疑就等于用哲学的名义来施舍残羹冷炙。这种历史性力量提供了理解黑格尔与马克思关系的出发点。它将说明黑格尔与马克思的关系不仅仅是实践哲学与哲学实践或思辨哲学与哲学思辨的斗争，而是现实同它的变化了的自身的斗争，是现实同它的现实的困境的斗争。如果自由主义维护经济自由和私人利益就是把资本主义物质关系从封建特权关系中以张扬权利平等的革命形式解放出来，那么批判和革命地改造资本主义国家及其背后的物质关系就是在变化了的具体性和现实性中解放人，并达到人的解放。前者是黑格尔思想的从革命到国家的现实历史逻辑，后者是马克思思想的从国家到革命的现实历史逻辑，而18、19世纪之交与19世纪中叶的时代关系就是黑格尔与马克思关系的历史性或历史性的关系，马克思对黑格尔的批判就是对黑格尔时代，即资产阶级革命与资本主义时代的否定和无产阶级革命时代的开启。

现在，应该是向纪念哲学表达告别的时候了（结语）。这种哲学总是以某种预设或主观愿望为前提，并将之带入学术思考。理解思想的前提并非这些，而是历史的具体性和现实性。后者要求人们回归思想史，自觉于思想者（个别性）、时代（特殊性）与思想（普遍性）的辩证统一关系。在这里，不同时代间的矛盾将通过不同思想间的矛盾得到表达，不同思想间的矛盾将通过不同时代间的矛盾得到解决。也就是说，思想之谜是时代之谜的呈现（知其然），时代之谜是思想之谜的解答（知其所以然）。黑格尔与马克思间的思想纷争是不同时代间的历史性纷争，后者对前者的超越是历史性的超越。

关键词：黑格尔 马克思 国家 革命 历史性

Abstract

The relationship between the age and thought is the same with the relationship between the impact and response.Therefore, understanding thoughts can not simply study their logic of concept, but must return to the history of ideas, which is the dialectical and united relationship of the thinkers （Individuality）, the times（Specificity）of thinkers and the thoughts （Universality）of thinkers.This analysis model provides a historical answer to the relationship of Hegel and Marx.That is to say, Hegel was impacted by the events of times in the turn of 18/19 century.Hegel's theory about the reality of the people, the common defense, state power and constitutional monarchy is not restoration of the monarchy trend or the performance of militarism, but is the reaction of the French Revolution, the German national division and constitutional dilemma.Similarly, Marx's ideas about the national criticism, the ideal of the abolition private ownershig and class revolutionary thought are the response of theory, which discuss of bourgeois political revolution predicament, the status of working class and events of 1848 revolution in the middle of the 19th century.Marx thought Hegel's theory is abstract, such as civil society, state and the reality of the people, It's neither because they are wrong from the beginning nor because that they are the so-called head foot inverted or mysticism, which only constitute the appearance of critical theory.But it is because of the changing times that make them become no longer adapt to the changing times, and become the era's cover, namely ideology.So the conclusions can be made as follow:（1）The expression of Hegel's thought is the logic of reality-histroy from revolution to state.（2）Marx's ideas present the logic of reality-histroy from the state to revolution.（3）The historic relationship of Hegel and Marx is exactly the relationship of the turn of 18/19 century and the middle of 19th century.（4）Marx's criticism of Hegel is the negation of Hegel's era, namely bourgeois epoch and the beginning of the proletariat revolution era.

Introduction: the Return of Thought History.

The relationship between Hegel and Marx is the classic segment of thought history.But most people's study is out of ideology and history, so they only understand the relationship between Hegel and Marx by the simplified form and the ideological content.This not only could not understand the relationship between Hegel and Marx, but also created the academic misunderstanding and one-sided misinterpretation.If we want to understand this relationship, we must return to intellectual history, by which the relationship of thinkers （individuality）, times（particularity）and thoughts（universality）becomes dialectical unity.That is, people need to understand the relationship between Hegel,Marx and the ideology between them in the specific historical context of the turn of 18/19 century and the mid-19th century.And the relationship between era, thinkers and their thoughts should be understood as the relationship between impact and response.

Chapter 1: From the Revolution to the State-the Logic of the Reality-History of Hegel's thought.

In 1880s, the rapid development of industrial productivity, accompanying with the French Revolution, motivated the European community profoundly.Hegel's thought from the Revolution to the State's theory was the response to this series of events.The reflections on the modern political civilization, which started by the French Histroy.He not only accepted the principle of the universal freedom, but refused to make the principle simplified, which led to the consequences that people opposed each other in the French Revolution.And therefore, he stressed the unity of personality, community and civic.He longed to the German nation as a modern nationstate, but refused the common wealth's nation as a contract.So on the one hand, he refused to disintegrate the Holy Roman Empire, and refused to accept the nationstate as a sacred Christian or ethical family.On the other hand, he looked forward to having a real German nation state.It is the externalization of the objective spirit and the manifestation of divinity in the world.It also means the real unity between the common defense and the state power.It is the state of the German nation as existence.Meanwhile, the state must be free, and the achievement of freedom not only complies with the tradition of the German nation, but also with the freedom of the spirit of the times, so he regards the legislative power（the universality of freedom）, the executive power（free of particularity）and monarchical power（the individual freedom）as an organic unity.This unity is a constitutional monarchy.Based on this, Hegel, as a thinker in the times,expressed the nationalistic obsession of“From Revolution to State（the country）”.

Chapter 2: From the State to the Revolution-the Logic of the Reality-History of Marx's Thought.

Compared with the turn of 18/19 century, the left of 19 century（Hegel died in1831）is definitely no longer a period in which people were optimistic about the industrial revolution and the French Revolution.This is the boundary of an era, especially since the Vienna Conference, the British industrial experience widespread in Continental Europe.Before 1830, people did not have a clear sense of the industrial revolution, at least in the area outside of UK.When the whole of Europe has not been involved in the capitalist world of the industrial revolution, it is difficult to imagine the topic of Marxism.So in Hegel's thought, it presented a better vision belonged to that era and the theory demanded from the bourgeois revolution to the modern nationstate.It was not until 1930s that European literary works started to be concerned with social problems of the capitalist era, such as financial relationships and the survival of the proletariat（the proletarian of Hegel's era is the urban poor）.In 1841, Balzac decided to write a story“the Human Comedy”to satirize decline of nobility and evil fortune in the financial assets.At the same time, a serious of official or unofficial social surveys, statistics and other works about industrial society began to emerge, including“British Working Class Status” （1845 /Engels）.Based on this, Marx, contrary to Hegel, criticized the capitalist countries and its origin which is the limitations of political revolution.He took the elimination of private ownership as a political ideal, rather than the ownership of private property rights as the starting point of constitutional law.This is because he realized the general poverty of the working class.He explored the path of the proletariat（Non - bourgeois）revolution, and expressed the reality desire of the liberation of the people in a capitalist society （be not in feudal society）.So it is different from the Hegel's logic of reality history from the revolution to the state.It is the another show of the logic of reality history from state to revolution.

Chapter 3: Consciousness of History of Thought—The Historic Relationship of Hegel and Marx.

Creating a philosophy is inseparable from its history.Understanding the relationship between Hegel and Marx should also grasp the relationship between thought and times.That is consciously in the history of ideas.On the one hand, history of ideas should be understood as dialectical relationship of the thinker （individuality）, the era of thinkers（special）, and the minds of thinkers （general）.On the other hand, thought should be seen as a theoretical response to the impact of the times.

In this consciousness, first of all, Hegel and Marx have to face the every era.Hegel belongs to the capitalist rising ear.Marx belongs to the capitalist period of rapid development.The specific nature of history is the key to understand the relationship between the two special dimensions which can not be ignored.It not only distinguishes differences in age of thought, but also constitutes the inheritance relationship between thoughts of the times.

Secondly, in the history of ideas, the age is historical time and space which impacts thoughts frequently.Historical time and space is the every between every ideas.In this difference, Hegel and Marx own their uncanny thoughts to the era: the era supports thoughts with strength and thoughts provide the era a path.If the path is accepted by the era, it is because that the necessity of history is destined to need the thought to grasp the times.So we can draw a conclusion that when German nation was in a time of peril, Hegel certainly wished to build a nationstate as an entity.Meanwhile, Marx is bound to criticize capitalist countries in the era of proletarian revolution.Finally, History provides the answer to the relationship of Hegel and Marx.Because the era of thought is consecutive, and the thoughts in different eras are different.

History has changed.It made Hegel's thought lost its reality, so Marx criticized Hegel.This historic method provides the starting point to understand the relationship between Hegel and Marx.Hegel's ideas show the logic of reality history from the revolution to the state, but Marx's logic is from the state to the revolution.The revolutionary nature of Marx's thoughts about criticizing Hegel's ideas is to negate the capitalist age and to open the new era of proletarian revolution.

Conclusion: Farewell Memorial Philosophy.

If we want to read thinkers' thoughts, we have to grasp the specific and reality of history.So it is necessary to farewell memorial philosophy which is only the expression of subjective wills.We can call it a return to history of thought.That is, the mystery of thinking is the presentation of the mystery of the times（know these）, and the mystery of the times is the answer to the mystery of thought（know why）.The dispute of Hegel and Marx's thought is the historic dispute between different times.The relationship of Marx and Hegel is a historic transcendence.

Key words: Hegel, Marx, State, Revolution, Historic