For All Who Distort Marx: Hegel, Feuerbach...

Just as Confucius once regarded Laozi as his teacher, yet Confucius was absolutely not Laozi, much less a successor to Laozi's thought. Similarly, Marx considered himself a student of Hegel, but this does not mean Marx was a successor to Hegel's thought. Historically, the young Marx grew up in debates with the Young Hegelians, and at the time the most powerful attack on Hegel came from Feuerbach. Without Feuerbach, whether Marx could have so smoothly become Marx is still an open question!

The key stage in Marx finally becoming Marx was using Feuerbach to thoroughly settle accounts with Hegel. The most famous work from this period is what is now called the "Manuscripts" -- the "Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844" -- which is filled with Feuerbachian terminology. Many people even regard this brilliant manuscript as the real Marx, and the absurd claim that Marx regressed after 1844 has circulated.

If Marx had died in 1844, he would not be the Marx we know today. After completing the settling of accounts with Hegel, in the first spring after 1844, Marx began settling accounts with Feuerbach, writing the "Theses on Feuerbach," where Marx started to speak in his own true voice. Later, in "The German Ideology," historical materialism was established, and Marx finally became himself.

Marx's theory has a fundamentally different foundation from Hegel and Feuerbach. Failing to distinguish this point, and attempting to use Hegel or Feuerbach to repackage Marx, is a common method of distorting Marx. Hegel used a priori dialectical logic to construct natural history and human history, while Feuerbach, though he recognized the reality of natural history, used a priori concepts to disguise things in the domain of human history as well. The first person to apply realistic logic throughout the entire domain of history was Marx. Historical materialism is Marx's most important theoretical insight.

Let me conclude with Marx's own words from "Theses on Feuerbach": "Feuerbach resolves the religious essence into the human essence. But the human essence is no abstraction inherent in each single individual. In its reality it is the ensemble of the social relations." This is the first explicit formulation establishing the foundation of Marx's realistic logic, and the first time in world history that the realistic logical determination of the human category was established: in its reality, the human being is the ensemble of all social relations.

Divorced from the foundation of realistic logic, Marx would not be Marx. Still in "Theses on Feuerbach," Marx concluded with "Philosophers have hitherto only interpreted the world in various ways; the point is to change it" -- declaring a break with all pre-Marxian philosophers, including Hegel and Feuerbach. After Marx, no a priori logic can serve as the foundation of theory; real relationships become the only possible premise of all theory!

Anti-Marx people can't even understand the most basic Chinese grammar, and they still have the nerve to oppose Marx?

The low level of anti-Marx people is plain for all to see, yet they still dare to repeatedly demonstrate their low quality in public. This can only be described as fully reflecting their background of having received special training. Today exactly such a thing happened. Under my post "[Dushulang], Yixuan, Banong Guocui and Other Anti-Marx Folks' Ah Q Spirit!", there were several replies:

[Dushulang], Yixuan, Banong Guocui and Other Anti-Marx Folks' Ah Q Spirit! (Tangfen: 2006-09-03 12:11:58)2326B (1/1065/16)
Take a break -- you can't even do a title right. What does "Marx folks' Ah Q spirit" mean? (Serving the People!: 2006-09-03 14:16:01)184B (0/32/6)
Haha, brilliant! (Dushulang: 2006-09-03 14:25:38)0B (0/26/2)
It's not others distorting you. You yourself weren't clear, can't blame others! Haha. (Dushulang: 2006-09-03 14:39:00)0B (0/24/0)

Anyone with kindergarten-level Chinese proficiency who didn't receive their Chinese training in America can see the issue here: these anti-Marx folks think "[Dushulang], Yixuan, Banong Guocui and Other Anti-Marx Folks' Ah Q Spirit" can be parsed as "[Dushulang], Yixuan, Banong Guocui and Other Anti-" "Marx folks' Ah Q spirit" -- that is, "Marx folks' Ah Q spirit" after "anti-" is treated as a grammatically valid phrase in Chinese. But this self-satisfied parsing precisely reveals that these anti-Marx people's Chinese level doesn't even reach kindergarten, or that their Chinese training was fundamentally American-style!

Anyone with kindergarten-level Chinese proficiency who didn't receive their Chinese training in America knows that in the non-subject position of "Marx folks' Ah Q spirit," at the grammatical position corresponding to "Marx folks," one can say "Marxist" (makesi zhuyi zhe), one can say "anti-Marx people" (fan makesi zhe), but one absolutely cannot say "Marx folks" (makesi zhe) -- this does not conform to Chinese grammar, because the character "zhe" does not have this usage. Of course, American-trained Chinese may have such a usage, but anyone who uses "zhe" after a personal name in a non-subject position and treats it as normal grammar is definitely not using Chinese grammar as a Chinese person would. A person with basic education who can produce "makesi zhe" in a non-subject position and treat it as normal grammar -- there are only two possibilities: they're not Chinese, or they're Chinese who have forgotten their roots!

Originally, occasional grammatical errors in forum posts are forgivable. But in the replies quoted above, these people not once, not one person, but repeatedly emphasized that they insist it's acceptable to say "makesi zhe" in a non-subject position. This can only prove they fundamentally don't understand, and are moreover self-satisfied in their ignorance! From this small incident, we can easily know the quality of these anti-Marx people. These people are basically composed of "non-Chinese people, or Chinese who have forgotten their roots!" These people can't even speak Chinese smoothly or use it well, and are moreover self-satisfied about not speaking it well and not using Chinese grammar well. What kind of people are these exactly? Everyone is welcome to comment!