创办《德法年鉴》是马克思发展理论新质、走向共产主义的关键时期，他希望将德国哲学与法国革命的实践联系起来，以期实现“人的解放”。这个思想在他研究过程中是逐步生成的：马克思明确反对黑格尔将国家绝对化的做法，认为德国的法哲学以及当前宣布的政治解放（法国）都造成了一种社会上的分隔，掩盖了人的本质。同时，在基本权利方面宣布政治解放的国家并没有压制宗教，反而产生了完美的“基督教国家”，它建立在基督教人性论之上并通过世俗化实现了宗教精神，在市民社会中表现为人与人之间关系的异化。所以，“人的解放”必须结束所有的二元对立，扬弃造成原子化与利己主义的私有财产，把被动生成的无产阶级的一般存在提升为普遍的理想。马克思积极扩展了哲学的理论外延，宣称哲学的扬弃不可能在没有实现哲学的情况下发生，无产者首次被视为要朝着哲学所预示的方向改变社会的普遍存在，哲学与无产阶级的联合应包含整体解放的实践要求，并以深刻的社会变革为目标。然而，对于这些变革是什么，马克思已经观察到现代工业对整个财富领域的作用，他在后续的政治经济学研究中给出了更明确的回答。鉴于此，本文的内容分五章展开：

第一章探讨马克思在《德法年鉴》时期面临的理论问题，包括他自己对德国现状的诊断，以及同时期理论家（主要是青年黑格尔派）对批判旧秩序和哲学解放的理论诉求。首先是强调民族文化理性的历史法学派，马克思认为它是旧历史、德国封建制度的最后挣扎；其次是通过理性与自由意志确定世俗秩序的国家哲学和法哲学，马克思将其视为建立在“不自由的人”基础上的现代国家的理论化表达；最后是在德国弥漫的基督教病症，马克思认为它是使社会生活异化的根本原因。普鲁士国家合理的目的与它不合理的现实之间也派生了两种批判倾向，一方是以鲍威尔和卢格为代表的共和主义策略，他们强调以宪法形式组织的国家能够代表民众（人民）的普遍愿望，确保人类自由的权利与资格；另一方就是以费尔巴哈为代表的哲学人类学，他在反思国家不合理的基础上总结出与人类属性相对的异化。马克思更倾向于费尔巴哈的观点，运用扬弃异化、类存在物、关系的回归等概念应对私法形成以来造成的主体性分裂，从而在本质层面为“人的解放”奠定基础。

第二章分析马克思将犹太人问题转换为世俗问题以及宗教批判的理论意义。马克思在提出“反宗教的批判”时展现了三个层次的论述：基督教/基督徒与犹太教/犹太人的理论发展阶段、神圣与世俗问题的转化、扬弃宗教以及人的世界的生成。第一个层次立足于德国哲学传统中的神学讨论，厘清犹太人问题的理论基础，“神学家”鲍威尔想运用“科学意识”区分宗教的演变等级，使犹太人过渡到更高形式的伦理生活从而获得解放；马克思指出，把基督教和犹太教视为不同发展阶段本身就是绝对精神的再次显现，并没有超出理性的逻辑。第二个层次涉及到马克思对犹太人问题树立的世俗准则，当解放问题脱离神学语境时，世俗犹太人的宗教已经转变为金钱，犹太精神的异己本质是其解放面临的最大问题。第三个层次是颠倒宗教与人的关系，前者只是属于人意识层面的特殊的颠倒、私人的奇想和任意行为的抽象，扬弃宗教最终会使人的目光回复到人的世界，让其在现实本质中实现自由。

第三章在政治解放的积极意义与政治解放的限度中分析马克思对权利范式的批判。首先可以看出马克思延续了现代政治共同体中国家和社会并不重叠的理论，因此在制度层面上也存在着各自权利分配的矛盾：国家赋予的公民权，受到公民身份标准的限制，即使是作为基本权利，也不能与国家先前宣布的人权完全相同。人权与公民权的区分框架可以追溯到自然权利理论中的主权学说，卢梭试图用公意调和二者之间的分裂，不仅塑造了在他那个时代的新概念，也为《人权宣言》提供了基础。马克思对卢梭的结论作出进一步论述，并运用了黑格尔式政治社会与市民社会的区分逻辑，突出市民社会的私人特征：政治解放对公共领域和公民身份的优先考虑，使得法国大革命以来承诺的人权只能部分地获得解放，即作为政治权利的公民权；而承诺赋予自由的人权却以分裂的形态没有超出利己的人，市民社会中单子对立的难题则无法诉诸于权利范式赋予的平等。马克思回应着他早期摘录笔记中政治历史问题的记述，区分了政治解放的进步前提与局限性，为超越公民权的虚假平等和人权的虚假自由提供理论步骤。

第四章剖析逐渐成为现代国家背后真正组织原则的私有财产概念。马克思虽然没有回答私有财产是什么的问题，但已经指出将旧世界与新世界分开的主要特征与美国革命中废除继承权法有关，即财产资格限制是承认私有财产的最后一个政治形式，只有通过分析个人对财产的所有关系才能解释现代私有财产。因此，马克思立足于市民社会领域，将个人意志与财产联系起来，从中产生的任何联合都不过是单个人的集合，在那里“个人的利益”本身成为他们市民生活的最终目的，这也直接导致了市民社会的对抗状态。同时，马克思的关键术语发生了变化，除引用宣言原文中的“财产权”外，在论述财产问题时使用的都是“私有财产”，在他看来，财产已经不能从权利的角度进行分析，而要揭示它的私人性。与此同时，“揭露具有非神圣形象的自我异化”命题已经出现，这成为贯通马克思早期拜物教批判到商品抽象统治的逻辑进路，私有财产也成为推动“人的解放”的物质因素。

第五章考察在德国流行的共产主义理论和无产阶级概念的起源。从1843年通信可以看出马克思对空想社会主义与共产主义保持审慎态度，他并不赞成教条式的宣传，但在当时共产主义理论与无产阶级概念已经成为德国激进理论的主要讨论内容。赫斯将哲学共产主义学说构建为费尔巴哈人道主义的一种拓展，马克思则延续了他在奥格斯堡《总汇报》中指出的问题：德国如何为共产主义提供“土壤”？那就是作为被动因素、物质基础的无产阶级。马克思早期就对德国的贫民（财产法律产生）充满同情，贫困的境况已经转化为和私有财产的相对形式，作为特殊性的私有财产与普遍性的无产境况，马克思通过引入无产阶级的概念来描述社会过渡的动力。在缺乏法国资产阶级的前提下，德国无产阶级成为担任解放使命的社会总代表。最终，无产阶级在哲学的引领下成为颠覆抽象的社会关系并实践马克思提出的“人的解放”的历史性力量。

The founding of the German-French Yearbook was a crucial period for Marx to develop a new quality of theory and move towards communism. He hoped to link German philosophy with the practice of the French revolution in order to realize the "human emancipation". This idea developed gradually in his mind: Marx explicitly rejected Hegel's absolutization of the state, arguing that the German philosophy of law and the current proclamation of political emancipation (France) had created a social division that obscured the essence of man. At the same time, the state that declared political emancipation in terms of fundamental rights did not suppress religion, but produced the perfect "Christian state", which was founded on the Christian theory of human nature and realized the religious spirit through secularization, and expressed itself in civil society as the alienation of human relations. The "human emancipation" must therefore put an end to all dualities, sublate private property, which leads to atomization and egoism, and elevate the general existence of the passively generated proletariat into a universal ideal. Marx actively extended the theoretical extension of philosophy, declaring that philosophical sujugation could not take place without the realization of philosophy, that the proletarians were for the first time seen as changing the prevailing existence of society in the direction predicted by philosophy, and that the union of philosophy and the proletariat should encompass the practical requirements of overall emancipation and aim at profound social change. As to what these changes were, however, Marx had already observed the role of modern industry in the whole field of wealth, and he gave a more definitive answer in his subsequent work on political economy. In view of this, the content of this paper is divided into five chapters:

Chapter 1 explores the theoretical problems Marx faced during the period of writing the Almanac, including his own diagnosis of the current situation in Germany and the theoretical appeals of contemporary theorists (mainly young Hegelians) to criticize the old order and philosophical liberation. The first is the historical law school, which emphasizes the healthy rationality of national culture. Marx thinks it is the last struggle of the old history and the German feudal system. The second is the philosophy of the state and the philosophy of law, which determine the secular order through reason and free will, which Marx regards as the theoretical expression of the modern state based on the "unfree man". Finally, there was the pervade of Christian sickness in Germany, which Marx regarded as the root cause of the alienation of social life. The rational purpose of the Prussian state and its irrational reality also derived from two tendencies: on the one hand, the republican strategy represented by Powell and Lugar, who emphasized that the constitutionally organized state could represent the universal aspirations of the people and ensure the rights and qualifications of human freedom; On the other side is anthropology represented by Feuerbach, who summed up the alienation relative to human attributes on the basis of reflecting on the irrationality of the state. Marx was more inclined to Feuerbach's view, and used the concepts of alienation, class beings, and the return of relations to deal with the subjectivity split caused by the formation of private law, so as to lay the foundation for the liberation of human beings at the essential level.

Chapter 2 analyzes the significance of Marx's transformation of the Jewish question into a secular question and religious criticism. When Marx put forward the "anti-religious criticism", he showed three levels of discourse: the theoretical development stage of Christianity/Christians and Judaism/Jews, the transformation of sacred and secular issues, the sublation of religion and the generation of the human world. The first level is based on the theological discussion in the German philosophical tradition to clarify the theoretical basis of the Jewish problem. "Theologian" Powell wants to use "scientific consciousness" to distinguish the evolution level of religion, so that Jews can transition to a higher form of ethical life and thus be liberated. Marx pointed out that to regard Christianity and Judaism as different stages of development is itself a reappearance of the absolute spirit, and is not beyond rational logic. The second level involves Marx's secular norms on the Jewish question. When emancipation was taken out of theological context, Marx found that the religion of secular Jews had been transformed into money, and that the alien nature of Jewish spirituality was the biggest problem facing emancipation. The third level is the reversal of the relationship between religion and man. The former is only a special reversal belonging to the level of man's consciousness, the abstraction of private whim and arbitrary behavior, and the sublation of religion will eventually return man's eyes to the world of man, allowing him to realize freedom in the essence of reality.

Chapter 3 analyzes Marx's criticism of the right paradigm in the positive significance and limits of political liberation. Firstly, it can be seen that Marx continued the theory that the state and society do not overlap in the modern political community, so there is also a contradiction in the distribution of their rights at the institutional level: the citizenship granted by the state is limited by the standard of citizenship, and even as a basic right, it cannot be exactly the same as the human rights previously declared by the state. The framework of the distinction between human rights and citizenship can be traced back to the doctrine of sovereignty in the theory of natural rights, and Rousseau's attempt to reconcile the split with the general will not only shaped the new concept of his time, but also provided the basis for the Declaration of the Rights of Man. Marx further elaborated Rousseau's conclusion and used the Hegelian logic of distinguishing between political society and civil society to highlight the private characteristics of civil society: political emancipation gave priority to the public sphere and citizenship, so that the human rights promised since the French Revolution could only be partially liberated, that is, citizenship as political right; While the human rights that promise freedom do not transcend egoistic people in the form of division, the monadic problems of civil society cannot appeal to the equality conferred by the paradigm of rights. Marx responded to his account of the problems of political history in his early excerpted notes by distinguishing between the progressive preconditions and limitations of political emancipation, offering theoretical steps for the false equality of citizenship and the false freedom of human rights.

Chapter 4 examines the concept of private property, which has gradually become the real organizing principle behind the modern state. Although Marx did not answer the question of what private property is, he has pointed out that the main feature that separates the Old World from the New is related to the abolition of inheritance laws in the American Revolution, namely that the qualification of property is the last political form of recognition of private property, and that modern private property can only be explained by analyzing all the relationships of individuals to property. Therefore, based on the field of civil society, Marx links the individual will to property, and any union arising from it is nothing more than a collection of individuals, where the "interests of individuals" themselves become the ultimate end of their civic life, and this also leads directly to the antagonistic state of civil society. At the same time, Marx's key terms have changed, in addition to quoting the original "property" in the declaration, when discussing property issues, he uses "private property", in his view, property can no longer be analyzed from the perspective of rights, but to reveal its private nature. At the same time, the proposition of "exposing self-alienation with non-divine image" has emerged, which has become a logical approach through Marx's early criticism of fetishism and the abstract rule of commodities, and private property has also become a material factor to promote human liberation.

Chapter 5 examines the origins of the communist theory and the concept of proletariat that are prevalent in Germany. It can be seen from the correspondence of 1843 that Marx maintained a cautious attitude towards utopian socialism and communism, and he did not agree with dogmatic propaganda. However, at that time, communist theory and the concept of proletariat had become the representatives of radical German theories. Hess constructed the theory of philosophical communism as an extension of Feuerbach's humanism. Marx continued the question he had raised in the Augsburg Allgemeine Zeitung: How could Germany provide the "soil" for communism? It is the proletariat as the passive factor, the material base. Early on, Marx was full of sympathy for the poor in Germany (the birth of property laws), and the situation of poverty has been transformed into the relative form of private property, as the special private property and the universal proletarian situation, Marx describes the power of social transition by introducing the concept of proletariat, in the absence of the French bourgeoisie. The German proletariat is the general representative of society on the mission of liberation. In the end, the proletariat, under the guidance of philosophy, became a historic force to subvert abstract social relations and practice the "human emancipation" proposed by Marx.