意识到对物质利益发表意见的难题, 是担任 ≪莱茵报≫主编时期的马克思经历的重大理论事件。本文借助 “关于林木盗窃法的辩论”、“摩泽尔记者的辩护”这两篇法律类政论材料, 运用动态和主体性分析的视角和方法, 力求理解青年马克思的“物质利益”概念和遭遇的物质利益难题。 本文通过分析认为, 青年马克思所认识的物质利益(私人利益)是由利益主导者(社会上层)的利己主义观念的局限性所引发的, 无节制地动态扩张的历史过程, 社会的贫富差距不过是这一动态历史过程的现实反映。利己主义观念的局限性是物质利益无节制扩张的观念动因, 而某些受到 “非理性的立法”保护的社会上层利益的无节制扩张, 才是贫困和对抗的制度动因。基于对这两大原因的洞察, 马克思借助黑格尔的法哲学试图依靠 “理性”、 “法”、 “国家权威”等观念和理性的法律制度来抑制住私人利益无节制扩张的贪欲, 反对物质利益的分配极度不公的制度, 从而解决社会物质利益难题。但随着 ≪莱茵报≫被查禁, 马克思很快就发现了黑格尔法哲学脱离实际和抽象空想的局限, 从而深切体会到必须对物质利益进行系统化的研究。这使他下决心从法哲学的批判转向了政治经济学批判。

When Marx was an editor-in-chief of Rheinische Zeitung, he realized the problem of material interests. This is an important theoretical event that Marx experienced. With the assistance of “the debate on the law of forest theft” and “the defense of the Mosel journalist”, this article, by adopting the perspective and method of dynamic and subject analysis, tries to understand the concept of “material interests problem” proposed by young Marx and the “material interests problem” he encountered. Through analysis, this article points out that the material interests (private interests) as recognized by young Marx were triggered by the limitation of the egoism of the interest-oriented people (the upper class of the society). This is a historical process of unrestrained and dynamic expansion. The gap between the rich and the poor was merely a realistic reflection of this dynamic historical process. The limitation of egoism is the reason of the unrestrained expansion of material interests at the conceptual level, whereas the unrestrained expansion of the interests of the upper class protected by “irrational legislation” is the reason of poverty and confrontation at the institutional level. Based on the insight into these two reasons, with the help of Hegel’s philosophy of law, Marx tries to restrain the excessive expansion of private interests by relying on concepts such as “rationality”, “law” and “state authority”, to protest against the extremely unfair system for the distribution of material interests and to solve the material interests problem of the society. However, with the ban of Rheinische Zeitung, Marx soon discovered the limitation of Hegel’s philosophy of law, that is, it deviated from reality and was abstract fantasy. He realized that it was necessary to study material interests systematically. This made him determined to turn from the critique of legal philosophy to the critique of political economics.