Three Interpretations of the Marxist Concept of Productive Forces by Contemporary Western Scholars

“Productive forces” is a foundational concept in Marxism, and in-depth study of this concept holds not only important theoretical significance but also important practical significance. From the current state of development in China, accelerating the development of new quality productive forces has become an important development strategy: “New quality productive forces have already taken shape in practice and demonstrated a strong driving and supporting force for high-quality development, requiring us to summarize and generalize them theoretically in order to guide new development practices.” [1]1 Xi Jinping, “Accelerating the Development of New Quality Productive Forces,” *Qiushi* Journal, 2024, no. 6. Although Marx made many statements about the nature of productive forces in different contexts for specific issues, he never gave a definitive, conclusive definition of productive forces: “No concept has the apparent simplicity of the concept of productive forces, or more precisely the level (or degree of development) of productive forces, while in reality containing so many difficulties.” [2]2 G. A. Cohen, *Karl Marx’s Theory of History: A Defence* (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1978), p. 41. Consequently, contemporary Western scholars have offered multiple interpretations of the Marxist concept of productive forces (hereinafter referred to as the concept of productive forces), among which the three most influential are the technological-determinist interpretation, the nature-protectionist interpretation, and the wealth-creationist interpretation. An in-depth analysis of these three main interpretive approaches is of great significance for our deeper understanding of the concept of productive forces and the scientific connotation of new quality productive forces.

“生产力”是马克思主义的基础性概念，对这一概念的深入研究不仅有着重要的理论意义，而且有着重要的现实意义。从当今中国的发展现状来看，加快发展新质生产力已经成为一个重要的发展战略，“新质生产力已经在实践中形成并展示出对高质量发展的强劲推动力、支撑力，需要我们从理论上进行总结、概括，用以指导新的发展实践”。尽管马克思在不同情况下针对具体问题作过诸多有关生产力性质的叙述，但并没有给生产力下过一个盖棺论定式的确切定义，“没有一个概念像生产力或者更确切地说生产力水平（或发展程度）这一概念那样具有表面的简单性，而在实际上却包含着许多难题”。因此，当代西方学者对马克思主义生产力概念（后文简称生产力概念）进行了多种解读，其中影响最大的是科技决定论、自然保护论、财富创造论三种方式。深入剖析这三种主要解读方式，对我们深入理解生产力概念和新质生产力的科学内涵有着重要意义。

I. The Technological-Determinist Interpretation by Contemporary Western Scholars

一、当代西方学者的科技决定论解读

Contemporary Western scholars have offered a technological-determinist interpretation of the concept of productive forces, the core viewpoint of which is: emphasizing the important role of science and technology in productive forces, even regarding science and technology as the sole decisive element within productive forces.

当代西方学者对生产力概念进行了科技决定论解读，其核心观点是：强调科学技术在生产力中的重要作用，甚至将科学技术视为生产力中唯一的决定性要素。

In the view of William H. Shaw, the interaction between productive forces and relations of production is the theoretical basis for understanding Marxism, with productive forces playing a decisive role over relations of production: “What corresponds to the primacy of material production is nothing other than that productive forces can be the determinant of relations of production.” [3]3 William H. Shaw, *Marx’s Theory of History* (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1978), p. 57. After affirming the important role of productive forces, Shaw, by examining the development of productive forces, argues that the development of science and technology is the fundamental factor driving the development of productive forces, and holds that the history of the development of productive forces is essentially the history of the development and transformation of science and technology. Marvin Harris’s view is similar: “The concept of productive forces seems quite clear, referring to the interaction between technology and the environment from an etic behavioral perspective.” [4]4 Marvin Harris, *Cultural Materialism: The Struggle for a Science of Culture* (New York: Random House, 1979), p. 56. He believes that the concept of “productive forces” actually expresses the relationship of interaction between science and technology and the natural environment; the more powerful science and technology are, the more powerful people’s ability to use science and technology to transform the natural environment, and thus productive forces achieve faster development. James O’Connor similarly holds: “Marxist scholars generally define the technical relations, including industrial technology, machinery and tools, and workers’ skills, as ‘productive forces’.” [5]5 James O’Connor, *Natural Causes: Essays in Ecological Marxism* (New York: Guilford Press, 1998), p. 24. And in Slavoj Žižek’s view, the development of productive forces “is usually reduced to technological progress.” [6]6 Slavoj Žižek, *The Sublime Object of Ideology* (London: Verso, 1989), p. 52. Clearly, in the eyes of O’Connor and Žižek, the connotation of Marx’s concept of productive forces is very clear: science and technology are the core content of productive forces, because the development of productive forces fundamentally depends on the development of science and technology. Jürgen Habermas’s view is even more typical. He believes that productive forces consist of the labor power of producers, the technological knowledge of production, and the organizational knowledge that coordinates the division of labor among workers. However, Habermas argues that as science and technology play an increasingly large role in modern society, compared to labor power and organizational knowledge, technology has become the decisive element in productive forces: “Science, technology, and their application have formed a system. … Thus, technology and science have become the primary productive force. Consequently, the conditions for applying Marx’s labor theory of value no longer exist.” [7]7 Jürgen Habermas, *Toward a Rational Society: Student Protest, Science, and Politics* (Boston: Beacon Press, 1970), p. 104. He believes that for modern capitalist countries, state interventionism plays a pivotal role in scientific and technological progress; capitalist countries “improve labor productivity, and thereby increase the use-value of capital” by “creating and improving the conditions for utilizing surplus capital,” [8]8 Ibid., p. 106. so “the state itself, which manages technological progress,” is “the primary productive force.” [9]9 Ibid., p. 105. From this, Habermas concludes that the existence of the capitalist state and its ownership system is legitimate, because the criterion for judging whether a state or system is justified is science and technology and their application.

在威廉姆·肖看来，生产力与生产关系的相互作用是理解马克思主义的理论基点，其中生产力对生产关系起着决定性作用，“与物质生产第一性地位相适应的，不是什么别的，正是生产力才可以是生产关系的决定因素”。在肯定生产力的重要作用之后，肖通过考察生产力的发展，认为科学技术的发展是推动生产力发展的根本因素，并认为生产力的发展史本质上就是科学技术的发展变革史。马文·哈里斯的观点与此相似，“生产力的概念看上去相当明确，指的是客位行为上的技术与环境的相互作用”。他认为，“生产力”这一概念实际上表达的是科学技术与自然环境之间相互作用的关系，科学技术越强大，人们利用科学技术改造自然环境的力量也越强大，生产力由此也就获得了更快发展。奥康纳同样认为：“马克思主义学者一般都把包括工业技术、机械和工具以及工人的技能在内的技术关系定义为‘生产力’。”而在齐泽克那里，生产力的发展“通常被简化为技术的进步”。显然，在奥康纳和齐泽克看来，马克思说的生产力概念内涵非常清晰，即科学技术是生产力的核心内容，因为生产力的发展从根本上依赖于科学技术的发展。哈贝马斯的观点更具有典型性，他认为，生产力由生产者的劳动力、生产技术的知识和协调劳动者的分工合作的组织知识构成。不过，哈贝马斯认为，随着科学技术在现代社会中发挥的作用越来越大，相对于劳动力、组织知识而言，科技已经成为生产力中的决定性要素，“科学、技术及其运用结成了一个体系。……于是，技术和科学便成了第一位的生产力。这样，运用马克思的劳动价值学说的条件也就不存在了”。他认为，对现代资本主义国家来说，国家干预主义对科技进步发挥着举足轻重的作用，资本主义国家通过“创造和改善利用剩余资本的条件”来“提高劳动生产率，进而增加资本的使用价值”，所以，“国家掌管着的科技进步本身”是“第一位的生产力”。由此哈贝马斯认为，资本主义国家及其所有制的存在是合理的，因为判断国家或制度是否正当的标准是科学技术及其应用。

The interpretation of the concept of productive forces through technological determinism exhibits two relatively obvious characteristics. First, technological determinism simplifies the three elements of productive forces as Marx described them into two elements, and ultimately into one element. In Marx’s view, the basic elements in the labor process are purposeful activity or labor itself, the object of labor, and the means of labor — that is, the laborer, the means of labor (or instruments of labor), and the object of labor. These three elements form an indivisible dialectical unity, among which the most active subjective element is the laborer. However, due to different understandings of the concept of productive forces, Western scholars have gradually simplified the three elements into two (the laborer and the means of labor represented by science and technology). This tendency is not groundless; it also appears among some Marxists. For instance, Stalin held that the constituent elements of productive forces are “the instruments of production used to produce material goods, and people who possess certain production experience and labor skills to use these instruments and realize the production of material goods”; Bukharin, meanwhile, regarded the category of productive forces as a “technical category,” and therefore “when examining society, its conditions of development, forms, content, etc., one should start from the analysis of productive forces or from the technical basis of society.” This view is clearly similar to technological determinism. When Western scholars emphasize the fundamental position of science and technology in the development of productive forces, as Habermas says, the laborer is no longer important; the only decisive factor is science and technology (the means of labor). Thus, Western scholars simplify the three elements of productive forces into one element (science and technology determines everything), which to a large extent weakens the significance of the laborer and labor practice. Second, technological determinism, to a certain extent, defends the existing capitalist system. The fundamental reason Marx proposed the concept of productive forces was that he identified the fundamental driving force of social development, thereby exposing the secret of capital exploitation and demonstrating the objective tendency of capitalism’s inevitable demise. The reason capitalism is bound to perish lies in the chronic contradiction between private ownership and socialized large-scale production. However, in technological determinism, the fundamental reason for the progress of productive forces lies in science and technology, not in capitalist private ownership itself. More critically, technological determinism exaggerates the role of science and technology while belittling the role of the laborer and their labor. This effectively denies that labor is the source of value creation, and even negates Marx’s theory of surplus value, thereby objectively defending the existing capitalist system. As Habermas states: “When the progress of science and technology has become an independent source of surplus value… the source of surplus value that Marx himself arrived at in his investigation, namely the labor power of the direct producers, becomes increasingly unimportant.” It can be said that technological determinism weakens the role of the laborer (and their labor practice) as the subjective element, reduces productive forces to a kind of technical force, and thereby strips productive forces from the level of historical materialism, turning it into a purely scientific concept devoid of any ideological coloring. “This new form of legitimacy has clearly lost the old form of ideology.” Starting from this, Western scholars believe that when capitalist countries master this technical force, the rationality of the state is beyond doubt, and the capitalist system breaks free from the constraints of relations of production that Marx described. However, from the perspective of Marxism itself, Marx believed that science and technology under the capitalist system are not a purely technical category, because “natural science has, through industry, increasingly entered into human life in practice, transformed human life, and prepared for human liberation, even though it had to directly bring about the full development of dehumanization.” From this point, while the interpretation of the concept of productive forces by Western scholars from the standpoint of technological determinism has its rationality and helps us fully appreciate the important role of science and technology in promoting the development of productive forces, treating “productive forces” merely as a scientific category undoubtedly deviates to a certain extent from the basic principles of historical materialism.

以科技决定论解读生产力概念体现出两个比较明显的特点。第一，科技决定论将马克思说的生产力三要素简化为二要素，最终简化为一要素。在马克思看来，劳动过程中的基本要素是有目的的活动或劳动本身、劳动对象和劳动资料，即劳动者、劳动资料（或劳动手段）、劳动对象，这三要素是不可分割的辩证统一的整体，其中最活跃的主体性要素是劳动者。然而，由于对生产力概念的不同理解，西方学者将三要素逐渐简化为二要素（劳动者和以科学技术为代表的劳动手段）。这种倾向并非空穴来风，在一些马克思主义者中也有这种倾向，如斯大林就认为，生产力的构成因素是“用来生产物质资料的生产工具，以及有一定的生产经验和劳动技能来使用生产工具、实现物质资料生产的人”；布哈林则认为生产力范畴就是“技术范畴”，因此，“在考察社会、社会的发展条件、形态、内容等等时，应当从分析生产力或从社会的技术基础着手”，这种看法显然与科技决定论是相似的。当西方学者强调科学技术在生产力发展中的根本地位时，正如哈贝马斯所说，劳动者也不再重要，唯一的决定性因素是科学技术（劳动手段），这样西方学者就将生产力三要素简化为一要素（科学技术决定一切），这从很大程度上弱化了劳动者及劳动实践的重要意义。第二，科技决定论在一定程度上对现存资本主义制度进行了辩护。马克思之所以提出生产力概念，一个根本的原因在于他找到了推动社会发展的根本动力，进而揭露了资本剥削的秘密，从而论证了资本主义必然灭亡的客观趋势。资本主义之所以必然灭亡，原因在于私有制与社会化大生产之间的矛盾痼疾，但在科技决定论这里，生产力是否进步的根本原因在于科学技术，而不在于资本主义私有制本身。更关键的是，科技决定论夸大了科学技术的作用，贬低了劳动者及其劳动的作用，这实际上就否定了劳动是价值创造的源泉，甚至否定了马克思的剩余价值理论，因而从客观上维护了现存资本主义制度。正如哈贝马斯所说：“当科学技术的进步变成了一种独立的剩余价值来源时，……马克思本人在考察中所得出的剩余价值来源，即直接的生产者的劳动力，就愈来愈不重要了。”可以说，科技决定论弱化了作为主体性要素的劳动者（及其劳动实践）的作用，将生产力简化为一种技术力量，从而将生产力从唯物史观的层面剥离出来，变成一个纯粹的没有任何意识形态色彩的科学概念，“这种新的合法性形式，显然已经丧失了意识形态的旧形态”。由此出发，西方学者认为，当资本主义国家掌握这种技术力量时，国家的合理性就毋庸置疑了，而资本主义制度也就突破了马克思所说的生产关系的束缚。不过就马克思主义本身来说，马克思认为，资本主义制度下的科学技术并非一个纯粹技术范畴，因为“自然科学却通过工业日益在实践上进入人的生活，改造人的生活，并为人的解放作准备，尽管它不得不直接地使非人化充分发展”。从这一点上来说，西方学者从科技决定论出发对生产力概念的解读固然有其合理性，有助于我们充分重视科学技术对促进生产力发展的重要作用，但将“生产力”仅仅视为一种科学范畴，无疑在一定程度上偏离了唯物史观的基本原理。

II. The Ecological Protectionist Interpretation by Contemporary Western Scholars

二、当代西方学者的自然保护论解读

Contemporary Western scholars have also interpreted the concept of productive forces from an ecological protectionist perspective. Its core view is that the concept of productive forces centers on controlling nature and does not include necessary content on ecological protection; this idea is an important theoretical root of the ecological crisis that has emerged in modern times.

当代西方学者也对生产力概念进行了自然保护论解读。其核心观点是：认为生产力概念的核心是控制自然，没有包含必要的生态保护内容，这一思想是导致近代以来生态危机爆发的重要理论根源。

In the 19th century when Marx lived, ecological environmental protection had not yet formed a general consensus. It was not until after the mid-20th century, with the frequent outbreak of ecological crises, that people began to reflect on the mode of social development, giving rise to numerous ecological theories. In the view of some Western scholars, Marxist theory of productive forces is a typical anthropocentrism and an important theoretical source of damage to the natural environment, because under the guidance of this theory, the more productive forces develop, the more severe the damage humans inflict on the natural environment. For example, in Adorno’s view, Marx’s statement about developing productive forces is closely linked to the intention to control nature; every step forward in productive forces deepens the violent plunder of nature. “This domination can temporarily retreat, but without it, the concept of productive forces is unthinkable, let alone the liberation of productive forces.” In O’Connor’s view, “Marx’s perspective indeed does not contain the idea of an ecological society that regards nature not only as productive forces but also as an ultimate purpose.” He believes that the concept of productive forces focuses only on human society itself while completely ignoring the intrinsic value of the natural environment or ecosystems. “Nature has not been regarded as a productive force of wealth as exchange value.” Due to the neglect of nature, “Marx in Capital and other works undoubtedly failed to systematically interrogate capitalist productive forces.” Out of opposition to anthropocentrism, non-anthropocentrism is very popular in the contemporary West. In the view of scholars advocating non-anthropocentrism, because Marx believed that nature has no intrinsic value, the development of productive forces means controlling, conquering, and plundering nature. Therefore, the development of productive forces inevitably leads to the destruction of the natural environment, and the ecological crisis arises precisely from the “unplanned social and cultural consequences” of “placing natural processes under our control.” In William Leiss’s view, Marx believed that with the development of industry and technology, machines would liberate humans from labor. “This aspect of Marx’s theory, in itself, can be seen as a deepening and development of Saint-Simon’s views.” But in essence, Leiss believes that the core of the concept of productive forces remains the control of nature; as long as this concept persists, the ecological crisis cannot be fundamentally resolved. In Schmidt’s view, Marx’s error lies in not treating nature as an element of productive forces, but rather as an object of conquest in humanity’s struggle against it. Nevertheless, “in terms of their own productive forces used against nature, humans have still not become masters.” Therefore, given the significant influence of Marx’s theory of productive forces, contemporary Western scholars believe that it is precisely because the concept of productive forces lacks necessary content on nature protection that it has largely reinforced anthropocentrism, thereby bearing an inescapable responsibility for the destruction of the natural environment and the emergence of the ecological crisis.

在马克思生活的19世纪，对生态环境的保护尚未形成普遍共识；直到20世纪中叶以后，随着生态危机的频繁爆发，人们才开始反思社会的发展方式，由此诸多生态理论应运而生。在一些西方学者看来，马克思主义生产力理论是典型的人类中心主义，是造成自然环境破坏的重要理论根源，因为在这种理论的指导下，生产力越向前发展，人类对自然环境造成的破坏就越严重。比如在阿多诺看来，马克思所说的发展生产力与控制自然的意图紧密相连，生产力每前进一步，对自然的暴力掠夺就加深一步，“这种统治可以暂时地退却，但没有它，生产力的概念就是不可思议的，更不用说生产力的解放了”。在奥康纳看来，“马克思的观点中的确不包含把自然界不仅指认为生产力，而且指认为终极目的的所谓生态社会的思想”，他认为，生产力概念关注的只是人类社会本身而完全忽视了自然环境或生态系统的内在价值，“自然界并没有被当成作为交换价值的财富的生产力来看待”，由于忽视自然，“马克思在《资本论》和其他著作中无疑没能对资本主义生产力作出系统性的质询”。出于对人类中心主义的反对，非人类中心主义在当代西方甚为流行。在主张非人类中心主义的学者看来，由于马克思认为自然界没有内在价值，生产力的发展意味着控制、征服和掠夺自然，因此，生产力发展就必然导致自然环境的破坏，生态危机的产生正是源于这种“把自然过程置于我们的控制之下”的“无计划的、社会和文化的后果”。在威廉·莱斯看来，马克思相信随着工业和技术的发展，机器将把人从劳动中解放出来，“马克思理论的这个方面，就其本身来说可以视为圣西门观点的深化和发展”。但就本质而言，莱斯认为，生产力概念的根本仍旧是控制自然，只要这种观念依旧存在，那么生态危机就不可能得到根本解决。在施密特看来，马克思的错误在于没有把自然看作生产力的要素，而是把自然看作人与之斗争的征服对象，尽管如此，“在用来对付自然的他们自己的生产力方面，人依旧没有成为主人”。因此，鉴于马克思生产力理论的重要影响，当代西方学者认为，正是因为生产力概念中缺乏必要的自然保护的内容，才在很大程度上强化了人类中心主义，由此对自然环境的破坏、生态危机的产生负有难以推卸的责任。

Interpreting the concept of productive forces from the perspective of nature conservation exhibits two relatively conspicuous characteristics. First, it understands the core of the concept of productive forces as the control of nature and sets the development of productive forces in stark opposition to nature conservation. Western scholars, led by Leiss, emphasize the independent intrinsic value of nature and completely oppose the development of productive forces to nature conservation. While this can indeed prompt people to recognize the importance of nature conservation, how can social development and human freedom be realized once human subjectivity is set aside? On the one hand, these Western scholars believe that the concept of productive forces lacks the content of nature conservation, arguing that the core of developing productive forces is to control nature, thereby blaming Marx’s theory of productive forces for the outbreak of the ecological crisis. On the other hand, they can find no reasonable way to both protect the natural environment and achieve social development and individual freedom, and thus are forced to retreat to non-anthropocentrism. The core claim of non-anthropocentrism is to abolish the status of humans as the sole subject, asserting that nature (including animals, plants, and even mountains and rivers) possesses intrinsic value that ought to be respected and protected. Therefore, the development of productive forces must be restricted to achieve a passive coexistence between humans and nature. This is in fact a proposal to turn back the wheel of history. Active coexistence means vigorously developing productive forces and achieving coexistence between humans and nature through the progress of labor instruments and the transformation of workers’ lifestyles. This kind of active coexistence is related to Marx’s idea of “humanized nature.” Second, Western scholars lack a sufficiently deep understanding of Marx’s idea of “humanized nature.” Marx’s idea of “humanized nature” profoundly reveals the close relationship between humans and the natural environment, embodying the intrinsic connection between the development of productive forces and environmental protection. Marx placed great importance on the role of nature, arguing that “nature provides labor with the means of subsistence in the sense that labor cannot exist without objects upon which it can be exercised, and also, in a narrower sense, provides the means of subsistence for the physical maintenance of the worker himself.” [11]11 Karl Marx, *Capital*, Volume 1, Chapter 7, Section 1. However, Marx believed that the so-called “independent” nature, divorced from the labor practice of real individuals, does not exist. That is to say, the nature that Western scholars speak of as existing independently and possessing intrinsic value simply does not exist in reality. In *The German Ideology*, Marx criticized Feuerbach for ignoring the active role of humans in relation to nature. In Marx’s view, because of the existence of real individuals as the subjective factor of productive forces and their labor practice, nature separated from humans becomes a theoretical illusion. The development of productive forces is the manifestation of the essential power of humans: “Industry is the actual historical relationship of nature, and hence of natural science, to man. If industry is conceived as the exoteric revelation of man’s essential powers, the human essence of nature or the natural essence of man can also be understood.” [12]12 Karl Marx, *Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844*, “Critique of Hegel’s Dialectic and General Philosophy.” Marx further explained that “labor is the only thing by which man can increase the value of natural products; labor is man’s active property.” [13]13 Karl Marx, *Critique of the Gotha Programme*. Clearly, neither Adorno nor Leiss, among others, have valued or understood Marx’s concept of “humanized nature.” They only regard nature as an objective thing independent of human society with intrinsic value, rather than an existence closely related to and inseparable from human society. Therefore, they attribute the destruction of the natural environment not to the misuse of science and technology or the alienation of human lifestyles, but to the supposed bias in Marx’s theory of productive forces. Obviously, these Western scholars have not deeply recognized the subjective position of workers within productive forces, nor have they recognized that “humanized nature” originates from the practice of workers, and that labor practice connects human society and nature into a unified whole. From this perspective, while the interpretation of the concept of productive forces from the standpoint of nature conservation by Western scholars has its rationality and helps us fully recognize the importance of protecting the natural environment, the approach of merely interpreting its core as the control of nature and opposing the development of productive forces to nature conservation is not rigorous.

从自然保护论出发来解读生产力概念体现出两个比较明显的特点。第一，将生产力概念的核心理解为控制自然，并将生产力发展与自然保护截然对立起来。以莱斯为首的西方学者强调自然独立的内在价值，将生产力发展与自然保护完全对立起来，这固然可以促使人们认识到自然保护的重要性，但是离开了人的主体性，如何实现社会的发展和人的自由？一方面，这些西方学者认为生产力概念缺乏自然保护的内容，认为发展生产力的核心是控制自然，从而将生态危机的爆发归罪于马克思的生产力理论；另一方面，他们又找不到一个合理的方式既能够保护自然环境，又能够实现社会发展和个人自由，因此，不得不退回到非人类中心主义那里。非人类中心主义的核心主张是取消人作为唯一主体的地位，认为自然界（包括动植物乃至山川河流）具有应当受到尊重和保护的内在价值，因此，必须限制生产力发展以实现人与自然在消极意义上的共存。这实际上是一种开历史倒车的主张。积极意义上的共存是大力发展生产力，通过劳动工具的进步和劳动者生活方式的转变来实现人与自然的共存。这种积极意义上的共存与马克思说的“人化自然”思想相关。第二，西方学者对马克思“人化自然”的思想缺乏足够深入的理解。马克思的“人化自然”思想深刻揭示了人类与自然环境的密切关系，体现了生产力发展与环境保护之间的内在关系。马克思非常重视自然界的作用，认为“自然界一方面在这样的意义上给劳动提供生活资料，即没有劳动加工的对象，劳动就不能存在，另一方面，也在更狭隘的意义上提供生活资料，即维持工人本身的肉体生存的手段”。不过马克思却认为，那种脱离现实个人的劳动实践的所谓“独立的”自然界是不存在的，也就是说，西方学者所说的独立存在、具有内在价值的自然界在现实中根本不存在。在《德意志意识形态》中马克思就批判了费尔巴哈，认为他忽略了人对自然的能动作用。在马克思看来，由于作为生产力主体性因素的现实个人及其劳动实践的存在，使得那种与人相分离的自然界成为一种理论上的幻象。生产力的发展是人本质力量的展现，“工业的历史和工业的已经生成的对象性的存在，是一本打开了的关于人的本质力量的书”，马克思进一步解释说，“如果把工业看成人的本质力量的公开的展示，那么自然界的人的本质，或者人的自然的本质，也就可以理解了”。也就是说，自然之所以被称为“人化自然”的根本原因，在于劳动者是生产力中能动的核心要素，“劳动是人用来增加自然产品的价值的唯一的东西，劳动是人的能动的财产”。显然，无论是阿多诺还是莱斯等人，都没有重视或者理解马克思“人化自然”这一概念。他们仅仅认为自然是独立于人类社会的具有内在价值的客观物，而不是与人类社会息息相关、不可分割的存在，因此，他们才会认为导致自然环境破坏的原因并不是科学技术的滥用或人类生活方式的异化，而将这一切归结于马克思生产力理论的偏颇。显然，西方学者没有深刻认识到劳动者在生产力中所处的主体地位，没有认识到“人化自然”源于劳动者的实践，劳动实践将人类社会和自然界联结为一个统一整体。从这一点来说，西方学者从自然保护论角度对生产力概念的解读方式固然有其合理性，有助于我们充分认识到保护自然环境的重要性，但仅仅将其核心解释为控制自然并将生产力发展与自然保护对立起来的作法，是不严谨的。

III. The Wealth-Creation Interpretation by Contemporary Western Scholars

三、当代西方学者的财富创造论解读

Contemporary Western scholars have also interpreted the concept of productive forces from the perspective of wealth creation. Its core viewpoint is: emphasizing the necessary connection between productive forces and wealth creation, and regarding the concept of productive forces as an economic category.

当代西方学者同时对生产力概念也进行了财富创造论解读。其核心观点是：强调生产力与财富创造的必然关联，并将生产力概念视为一个经济范畴。

The view of treating the concept of productive forces as an economic category has a long history. For example, after Marx’s death, bourgeois scholars such as Paul Barth argued that historical materialism was economic determinism, holding that the essence of the development of productive forces was economic development. Lafargue even pointed out in *The Economic Determinism of Karl Marx*: “Economic determinism is the new tool that Marx gave to socialists, with the help of which order can be brought into the chaotic state of historical events.” [14]14 Paul Lafargue, *The Economic Determinism of Karl Marx* (French original: *Le Déterminisme économique de Karl Marx*), a work defending historical materialism against accusations of economic determinism. In the contemporary era, some Western scholars still adhere to this view, among which Baudrillard’s perspective is quite representative. In Baudrillard’s view, “all the fundamental concepts of Marxist analysis must be questioned.” [15]15 Jean Baudrillard, *The Mirror of Production* (1973), a critique of Marxism from a post-structuralist perspective. Therefore, after reinterpreting the core Marxist concept of “productive forces,” he argued that Marxism is merely an economic theory. Economics and politics have distinctly different boundaries, so the development of productive forces is essentially economic development and has nothing to do with the liberation of humans through class struggle as Marx described. Baudrillard thus believed that the biggest problem with Marxism was “confusing the liberation of productive forces with the liberation of humans” and “placing all revolutionary hopes on the Promethean myth of productive forces.” [16]16 Ibid. Baudrillard equated the development of productive forces with the creation of material wealth: “Production means the expanded reproduction of productive forces; the truth of production is productivity, a function of quantitative growth.” [17]17 Ibid. In short, “GNP is the imaginary mirror of productive forces.” [18]18 Ibid. Since “the needs and satisfactions of consumers are all productive forces,” in a consumption-dominated society, “labor is increasingly less a productive force; it is increasingly a product.” [19]19 Ibid. From this, Baudrillard concluded that although “Marx made a radical critique of political economy, he still remained within the form of political economy.” [20]20 Ibid. Schumpeter held a similar view. He first questioned Marxist philosophy from an ontological perspective: “Marx’s philosophy is no more materialist than Hegel’s, and his theory of history is no more materialist than any attempt to explain the historical process by means available to empirical science.” [21]21 Joseph Schumpeter, *Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy* (1942), Chapter 1, “The Marxian Doctrine.” On the basis of questioning the truth of Marxist philosophy, he argued that the historical materialism based on the fundamental category of productive forces was actually an economic interpretation of history: “The economic interpretation of history is often called the materialist conception of history. Marx himself called it that.” [22]22 Ibid. Regarding the question “what are productive forces,” he advocated understanding it only from an economic perspective, because productive forces are merely related to wealth creation or economic growth. Although the view of treating “productive forces” as an economic category and equating the development of productive forces with wealth creation has a long history, it remains quite popular even today.

将生产力概念视为一个经济范畴的看法由来已久，如马克思去世后，保尔·巴尔特等资产阶级学者就认为，历史唯物主义就是经济决定论，认为生产力发展的本质就是经济发展。拉法格甚至在《卡尔·马克思的经济决定论》中指出：“经济决定论，这是马克思交给社会主义者的新的工具，为的是要靠它的帮助把秩序带进历史事件的混沌状态中去。”到了当代，一些西方学者仍旧秉承这一观点，其中鲍德里亚的观点颇具代表性。在鲍德里亚看来，“马克思主义分析中的所有基础性概念都必须加以质疑”，因此，他在对马克思主义的核心概念“生产力”进行了重新解读之后，认为马克思主义只是一种经济学理论。经济学与政治学有着截然不同的界限，所以，生产力发展本质上就是经济发展，与马克思所说的通过阶级斗争获得人的解放没有关系。鲍德里亚因此认为，马克思主义最大的问题在于“将生产力的解放混同于人的解放”，并且把“全部革命的希望都奠基在生产力的普罗米修斯神话上”。鲍德里亚将生产力发展等同于物质财富的创造，“生产就意味着生产力的扩大再生产，生产的真理是生产率，这是一种数量增长的功能”，简言之，“国民生产总值是生产力的想像之镜”。由于“消费者的需求和满足都是生产力”，所以在消费主导的社会中，“劳动越来越不是一种生产力，它越来越是一种产品”。由此鲍德里亚总结说，虽然“马克思对政治经济学进行了激进的批判，但仍然处于政治经济学的形式之中”。熊彼特也持相似观点。他首先从哲学本体论上对马克思主义哲学予以质疑：“马克思的哲学并不比黑格尔的哲学更为唯物主义，他的历史理论也不比用经验科学所占有的手段来说明历史过程的任何尝试更为唯物主义”。在质疑马克思主义哲学真理性的基础上，他认为，以生产力为基础性范畴的唯物史观实际上就是经济史观，“经济史观常常被称为唯物史观。马克思自己也这样称呼它”。对于“什么是生产力”这种问题，他主张只需要从经济学的角度去理解就行了，因为生产力仅仅与财富创造或经济增长有关。尽管将“生产力”视为一个经济范畴，将生产力发展等同于财富创造的观点由来已久，但时至当代，这种观点仍旧颇为流行。

The interpretation of the concept of productive forces from the perspective of wealth creation exhibits two relatively distinct characteristics. First, the essence of this mode of interpretation is in the same line as classical political economy. In this sense, viewing “productive forces” merely as an economic category is “old wine in new bottles,” because the views of these contemporary Western scholars are fundamentally no different from the ideas of classical political economists such as Petty, Quesnay, Smith, and Ricardo. As for the genesis of the concept of productive forces, it was not Marx’s original creation; William Petty was an early scholar to discuss concepts such as “production,” “value,” and “labor.” In his *Treatise of Taxes and Contributions*, he stated: “All things ought to be valued by two natural Denominations, which is Land and Labour; that is, we ought to say, a Ship or a Garment is worth such a measure of Land, with such another measure of Labour.” [23]23 William Petty, *A Treatise of Taxes and Contributions* (1662), in *The Economic Writings of Sir William Petty*, ed. Charles Henry Hull (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1899), vol. 1, p. 44. Quesnay appears to have been the first to use the concept of “productive forces,” saying: “Far from laying waste the fields, as do large armies, a large population and great wealth enable productive forces to be well developed.” [24]24 François Quesnay, *Tableau Économique* (1758-1759), in *The Economics of Physiocracy*, ed. Ronald L. Meek (London: George Allen & Unwin, 1962), p. 150. Quesnay placed particular emphasis on the study of the spheres of production and circulation and formulated the famous *Tableau Économique* of reproduction. Marx once gave it a positive evaluation, considering it the most brilliant idea ever put forward by political economy up to that time. [25]25 Karl Marx, *Theories of Surplus Value*, Part 1 (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1969), p. 344. Adam Smith attached great importance to the significance of labor and its division in the concept of productive forces: “The greatest improvement in the productive powers of labour, and the greater part of the skill, dexterity, and judgment with which it is anywhere directed, or applied, seem to have been the effects of the division of labour.” [26]26 Adam Smith, *An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations* (1776), ed. Edwin Cannan (New York: Modern Library, 1937), p. 3. Ricardo conducted a relatively detailed study of the capitalist mode of production, interpreting productive forces as “the original and indestructible powers of the soil” [27]27 David Ricardo, *On the Principles of Political Economy and Taxation* (1817), ed. Piero Sraffa (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1951), p. 67. and holding that labor and land constituted the main sources of wealth. These ideas later became the origin of economic determinism. Therefore, the interpretation of the concept of productive forces as wealth creation by contemporary Western scholars has its intellectual roots; indeed, Schumpeter summarized it thus: classical political economists “saw nothing but ‘wealth’ and nothing else.” [28]28 Joseph A. Schumpeter, *History of Economic Analysis* (New York: Oxford University Press, 1954), p. 41. In this sense, wealth creation theory is the traditional approach of Western scholars to explaining the category of the concept of productive forces, but although the tradition is old, it still has inheritors today. Second, wealth creation theory has conducted in-depth research on the relationship between productive forces and economic development or wealth creation, but to a certain extent it has neglected the great significance of the “Copernican revolution” in Marx’s political economy. Objectively speaking, the development of productive forces cannot be separated from the creation of wealth; therefore, focusing on the study of labor and its division in creating wealth has positive significance. However, if “productive forces” are regarded merely as an economic category, the institutional factors behind wealth creation are seriously overlooked. After deeply analyzing the contradictory movement between productive forces and relations of production, Marx put forward the theory of surplus value, revealing the “(alienated) relations between people” concealed beneath the relations between things (commodities), and exposing the exploitative nature of the capitalist system, thereby “setting political economy upright” (the Copernican revolution). Thus, Marx believed that the succession of societies and historical development lie in the contradictory movement between forms of intercourse (relations of production) and productive forces: “The old forms of intercourse, which have become fetters, are replaced by new ones, corresponding to the more developed productive forces and, hence, to the advanced mode of the self-activity of individuals—a form of intercourse which, in its turn, becomes a fetter and is then replaced by another.” [29]29 Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, *The German Ideology* (1845-1846), in *Marx-Engels Collected Works*, vol. 5 (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1976), p. 82. Therefore, while the development of productive forces certainly creates wealth, its ultimate goal must be to give rise to a social system most suitable for its development. The wealth-creation interpretation of productive forces by Western scholars clearly fails to recognize this.

从财富创造论出发解读生产力概念体现出两个比较明显的特点。第一，这种解读方式的本质与古典政治经学思想一脉相承。从这个意义上来说，将“生产力”仅仅视为经济范畴的观点是“新瓶装旧酒”，因为这些当代西方学者的观点与配第、魁奈、斯密、李嘉图等古典政治经济学家的思想并无本质上的不同。就生产力概念的产生而言，这一概念并不是马克思首创，威廉·配第是较早论述“生产”“价值”“劳动”这些概念的学者。他在《赋税论》中说：“所有物品都是由两种自然单位——即土地和劳动——来评定价值，换句话说，我们应该说一艘船或一件上衣值若干面积的土地和若干数量的劳动。”魁奈则似乎是第一个使用“生产力”这一概念的人，他说：“和庞大的军队会把田地荒芜相反，大人口和大财富，则可以使生产力得到很好的发挥。”魁奈特别重视对生产和流通领域的研究，并制定了著名的再生产经济表。马克思曾经对此给予了积极评价，认为它是政治经济学至今所提出的一切思想中最有天才的思想。亚当·斯密非常重视劳动及其分工在生产力概念中的重要意义，“劳动生产力上最大的增进，以及运用劳动时所表现的更大的熟练、技巧和判断力，似乎都是分工的结果”。李嘉图对资本主义生产方式进行了较为细致的研究，将生产力解释为“土地原有和先天的能力”，并认为劳动和土地构成了财富的主要源泉。这些思想后来成为经济决定论的嚆矢。因此，当代西方学者将生产力概念进行财富创造论解读有其思想渊源，甚至熊彼特这样总结说，古典政治经济学家“眼中所看到的只有‘财富’而没有别的东西”。从这个意义上来说，财富创造论是西方学者解释生产力概念范畴的传统进路，不过传统虽旧，当代仍有继承。第二，财富创造论对生产力与经济发展或财富创造的关系进行了深入研究，但在一定程度上忽视了马克思政治经济学领域“哥白尼式革命”的重大意义。客观而言，生产力的发展离不开财富的创造，因此，侧重于对创造财富的劳动及其分工的研究是有积极意义的，但是，若将“生产力”仅视为一个经济范畴，财富创造背后的制度因素就被严重忽略了。马克思在深入分析了生产力与生产关系的矛盾运动后提出了剩余价值学说，将被掩盖在物与物（商品）关系下的“人与人的（异化）关系”揭示了出来，揭露了资本主义制度的剥削本质，从而使政治经济学“正立过来”（哥白尼式革命）。所以马克思认为，社会的更迭和历史的发展在于交往形式（生产关系）与生产力的矛盾运动，“已成为桎梏的旧交往形式被适应于比较发达的生产力，因而也被适应于进步的个人自主活动方式的新交往形式所代替；新的交往形式又会成为桎梏，然后又为另一种交往形式所代替”。因此，生产力发展固然创造着财富，但其发展的最终目标必然是催生一种最适合其发展的社会制度。西方学者对生产力的财富创造论解读显然没有认识到这一点。

IV. An Evaluation of Three Interpretations of the Marxist Concept of Productive Forces by Contemporary Western Scholars

四、当代西方学者对马克思主义生产力概念三种解读的评析

What exactly is the relationship between science and technology and productive forces? Emphasizing the importance of science and technology for productive forces is unobjectionable, after all, science and technology can greatly promote the development of productive forces. However, absolutizing the power of science and technology and regarding it as the decisive or sole factor determining the development of productive forces is biased. Marx did not deny the important driving role of science and technology for productive forces, but Marx never believed that science and technology are the decisive force in social development. In Marx’s view, “This development of the productive forces is ultimately always traced back to the social character of the labour that is put into operation, to the division of labour within society, and to the development of intellectual labour, especially the natural sciences.” [30]30 Karl Marx, *Capital*, vol. 3 (1894), in *Marx-Engels Collected Works*, vol. 37 (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1998), p. 807. That is to say, the development of productive forces is closely related to three factors: the social character of labor, the division of labor within society, and the development of the natural sciences. While the development of the natural sciences is certainly an important revolutionary force, it cannot be separated from relations of production; the application of scientific and technological achievements is inevitably constrained by different classes and their related systems: “The proper task of any mechanism is always to change the initial movement generated by the motive power into another form, corresponding to the particular purpose of the labour and to the transmission of the power to the working machine.” [31]31 Karl Marx, *Capital*, vol. 1 (1867), in *Marx-Engels Collected Works*, vol. 35 (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1996), p. 380. Therefore, the role of science and technology in promoting society still occurs within the framework of the contradictory movement between productive forces and relations of production. The reason science and technology can play an important role is also manifested through labor practice. There is no isolated technological force that transcends everything and determines everything, detached from relations of production. The core of promoting the development of productive forces still lies in the labor practice of real individuals and their generation and development within relations. Technological determinism reminds us that when understanding the concept of productive forces, we must always grasp the core element of the laborer (the labor practice of real individuals); the laborer is the subjective and active factor in productive forces and the decisive force driving the development of productive forces and society. Moreover, when Habermas and others regard science and technology as the primary productive force, thereby believing that capitalist countries mastering technological innovation or a “small number of scientists and inventors” can promote social progress, this in fact turns “productive forces” into a purely scientific category. This technological determinism, detached from laborers and their practice, cancels the subject status of laborers, inappropriately deconstructs Marxist historical materialism, and objectively provides a defense for the rationality of the existence of the capitalist system. However, no matter how science and technology develop, the problem of human alienation in capitalist society always persists; indeed, with the application of modern technology, the exploitation and oppression of laborers by capitalists have become more severe and concealed. Such a system, which still contains human alienation and still contains exploitation and oppression, is clearly not a rational system. The system Marx spoke of, which realizes human liberation and the free and comprehensive development of each individual, is the most rational system.

科学技术与生产力的关系究竟如何？强调科学技术对生产力的重要意义无可厚非，毕竟科学技术能够极大促进生产力发展，但将科学技术的力量绝对化，将其视为决定生产力发展的决定性或唯一要素就失之偏颇了。马克思并没有否定科学技术对生产力的重要推动作用，但马克思从来不认为科学技术是社会发展的决定性力量。在马克思看来，“生产力的这种发展，最终总是归结为发挥作用的劳动的社会性质，归结为社会内部的分工，归结为脑力劳动特别是自然科学的发展”。也就是说，生产力的发展与劳动的社会性质、社会内部的分工、自然科学的发展这三个因素息息相关，自然科学的发展固然是重要的革命性力量，但并不能与生产关系相脱离，科技成果的应用也必然会受到不同阶级及其相关制度的制约，“任何一种机构的本来的任务，始终只是改变由动力产生的初始运动，把它变成与一定的劳动目的和把动力传给工作机相符合的另一种形式”，因此，科学技术对社会的推动作用仍旧发生在生产力与生产关系的矛盾运动框架之中。科学技术之所以能够发挥重要作用，也是通过劳动实践体现出来的。不存在超越一切、决定一切的脱离生产关系的孤立的科技力量，促进生产力发展的核心仍旧在于现实个人的劳动实践及其在关系中的生成发展。科技决定论提醒我们，在理解生产力概念时，要始终把握劳动者（现实个人的劳动实践）这一核心要素，劳动者才是生产力中具有主观能动性的主体性因素，才是推动生产力及社会发展的决定性力量。而且，当哈贝马斯等人认为科学技术是第一位的生产力，从而认为掌握科技革新的资本主义国家或“少数科学家、发明家”才能推动社会进步时，这实际上已经将“生产力”变成了一个纯粹的科学范畴。这种脱离劳动者及其实践的科技决定论取消了劳动者的主体地位，对马克思主义唯物史观进行了不恰当的解构，客观上为资本主义制度的存在合理性进行了辩护。但是，无论科学技术如何发展，资本主义社会中人的异化问题始终存在，甚至随着现代科技的应用，资本家对劳动者的剥削和压迫变得更加严重和隐蔽。这样一种仍旧存在人的异化、仍旧存在剥削和压迫的制度显然不是合理的制度，马克思所说的实现人的解放、实现每个人自由全面发展的制度才是最合理的。

What exactly is the relationship between nature protection and productive forces? The starting point of studying this relationship from the perspective of protecting natural ecology is well-intentioned. However, opposing the development of productive forces to nature protection and thereby criticizing Marxist thought on productive forces is a misinterpretation of Marx’s ideas on the relationship between man and nature. Marx viewed the relationship between man (the actual individual with labor practice as his connotation) and nature from the perspective of dialectical materialism, and held that natural forces can only be transformed into actual productive forces through the subject (the laborer). “Labour is, first of all, a process between man and nature, a process by which man, through his own actions, mediates, regulates and controls the metabolism between himself and nature. … Through this movement he acts upon external nature and changes it, and thus simultaneously changes his own nature.” [32]32 Karl Marx, Capital, Vol. 1, Chapter 7, Section 1. It is precisely on the basis of this dialectical developmental relationship between man and nature that Marx did not advocate exhausting nature for short-term gains, but rather the rational use of natural forces: “The necessity of socially controlling natural forces, thereby economizing on them, and of appropriating or subduing them on a large scale by human effort—this necessity plays the most decisive role in the history of industry.” [33]33 Karl Marx, Capital, Vol. 1, Chapter 14, Section 4. In Marx’s view, the liberation of man to be achieved through the development of productive forces cannot be separated from the correct handling of the relationship between man and nature; freedom can only be expressed as man’s ability “to regulate their metabolism with nature rationally, bringing it under their common control, instead of letting it rule them as a blind force; to carry out this metabolism with the least expenditure of energy, under conditions most worthy of and most suitable for their human nature.” [34]34 Karl Marx, Capital, Vol. 3, Chapter 48. Admittedly, in the 19th century in which Marx lived, ecological harmony in the modern sense had not yet emerged, but Marx brilliantly provided a reasonable interpretation of the relationship between man and nature, which deserves to be drawn upon by contemporary society. Western scholars represented by William Leiss, who attack the concept of productive forces from the perspective of ecological protection, regard the control of nature as the core of productive forces and believe that Marx paid no attention at all to the intrinsic value of nature—this is clearly a misreading. Moreover, although the original intention of nature protection theory is to achieve the protection of the natural environment by negating the current development model of controlling and plundering nature adopted by human society, this kind of passive harmony that negates the subjective initiative of man (the laborer) clearly lacks a practical foundation, because an independent, self-existing nature unaffected by human influence simply does not exist. There is no so-called objective nature; there is only “humanized nature.” Human freedom or liberation is certainly inseparable from ecological harmony, but the foundation or subject for constructing this harmony can only lie in man himself; only in this way can human society achieve sustainable development “under conditions most worthy of and most suitable for their human nature.”

自然保护与生产力的关系究竟如何？从保护自然生态的角度出发研究两者的关系，这一出发点虽然是好的。但是，将发展生产力与自然保护对立起来并由此批判马克思主义的生产力思想，却是对马克思人与自然关系思想的误读。马克思从唯物辩证法的角度来看待人（以劳动实践为内涵的现实个人）与自然的关系，并认为自然力只有通过主体（劳动者）才能转化为现实的生产力。“劳动首先是人和自然之间的过程，是人以自身的活动来中介、调整和控制人和自然之间的物质变换的过程。……当他通过这种运动作用于他身外的自然并改变自然时，也就同时改变他自身的自然”。正是基于人与自然的这种辩证发展关系，马克思并不主张对自然涸泽而渔，而是主张对自然力的合理利用，“社会地控制自然力，从而节约地利用自然力，用人力兴建大规模的工程占有或驯服自然力，——这种必要性在产业史上起着最有决定性的作用”。在马克思看来，生产力发展所要实现的人的解放离不开人与自然关系的正确处理，自由只能表现为人类“将合理地调节他们和自然之间的物质变换，把它置于他们的共同控制之下，而不让它作为一种盲目的力量来统治自己；靠消耗最小的力量，在最无愧于和最适合于他们的人类本性的条件下来进行这种物质变换”。诚然，在马克思生活的19世纪，现代意义上的生态和谐思想尚未产生，但是，马克思却天才地对人与自然的关系作出了合理诠释，这是值得当今社会加以借鉴的。以莱斯为代表的西方学者从保护生态的角度出发对生产力概念理论进行抨击，将控制自然视为生产力的核心，认为马克思根本没有关注到自然的内在价值，这显然是一种误读。而且，虽然自然保护论的初衷是通过否定人类社会目前采用的控制自然、掠夺自然的发展模式，以实现自然环境的保护，但这种否定人（劳动者）的主观能动性的消极和谐显然缺乏实践基础，因为那种不受人类影响的独立自存的自然界根本不存在。没有所谓客观自然，只有“人化自然”。人的自由或解放当然离不开生态和谐，但构建这种和谐的基础或主体只能在人自身，只有这样人类社会才能实现“最无愧于和最适合于他们的人类本性的条件下”的可持续发展。

What exactly is the relationship between wealth creation and productive forces? In essence, productive forces are closely related to wealth creation, but equating the development of productive forces solely with wealth creation commits the error of vulgar economics that Marx criticized. Engels once pointed out: “According to the materialist conception of history, the ultimately determining factor in history is the production and reproduction of real life. … If someone twists this into saying that the economic factor is the only determining one, he transforms that proposition into a meaningless, abstract, absurd piece of nonsense.” [35]35 Friedrich Engels, Letter to Joseph Bloch, 21–22 September 1890. The inevitable trend of the development of productive forces is to establish relations of production that can fully liberate productive forces and the social system built upon them: “In place of the old bourgeois society, with its classes and class antagonisms, we shall have an association, in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all.” [36]36 Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, The Communist Manifesto, Chapter 2. Clearly, in a community (communist society) with optimal relations of production and forms of ownership, productive forces can achieve their greatest development, and the liberation of man can be fully realized. Therefore, from the perspective of the concept of productive forces itself, Baudrillard and others weaken productive forces from the fundamental driving force of history and the determinant of social forms of ownership into a mode of wealth creation unrelated to ownership—this is clearly a vulgarized distortion. In essence, wealth creation is an important component of the concept of productive forces, but equating productive forces solely with wealth creation obscures the more essential human problem within productive forces, namely the problem of alienated labor concealed beneath the relations of commodity production and exchange, which is also an incurable malady of the capitalist system. Contemporary Western scholars only study the surface phenomena of economic activity, equate productive forces with wealth creation (often concretized as corporate profits or the growth of social GDP), and simplify the contradictory movement between productive forces and relations of production into wealth creation in the economic sphere—this remains a bourgeois vulgar economic theory (once advocated by Smith, Ricardo, and others). Just as Marx and Engels criticized vulgar economics and economic determinism, a correct concept of productive forces is needed; any interpretation that departs from the perspective of historical materialism and strips away the liberatory intent of productive forces for man will deviate from the original meaning of Marxism.

财富创造与生产力的关系究竟如何？究其本质，生产力与财富创造是紧密相关的，但是，将生产力发展仅仅等同于财富创造，就犯了马克思批判的庸俗经济学错误。恩格斯曾指出：“根据唯物史观，历史过程中的决定性因素归根到底是现实生活的生产和再生产。……如果有人在这里加以歪曲，说经济因素是唯一决定性的因素，那么他就是把这个命题变成毫无内容的、抽象的、荒诞无稽的空话。”生产力发展的必然趋势是建立一个能够完全解放生产力的生产关系及建立其上的社会制度，“代替那存在着阶级和阶级对立的资产阶级旧社会的，将是这样一个联合体，在那里，每个人的自由发展是一切人的自由发展的条件”。显然，在一个有着最优生产关系及所有制形式下的共同体（共产主义社会）中，生产力才能得到最大发展，人的解放才能得到完全实现。所以，从生产力概念本身来说，鲍德里亚等人将生产力从推动历史前进、决定社会所有制形式的根本动力，弱化为一种与所有制无关的财富创造方式，显然是一种庸俗化曲解。究其本质，财富创造是生产力概念包含的重要内容，但是，将生产力仅仅等同于财富创造，就掩盖了生产力中更为本质的人的问题，即掩盖在商品生产交换关系下的异化劳动问题，这也是资本主义制度无法克服的痼疾。当代西方学者只研究经济活动的表象，将生产力等同于财富创造（往往将其具象为企业利润或社会GDP的增长），将生产力与生产关系的矛盾运动简化为经济领域的财富创造，这仍旧是一种（斯密、李嘉图等人曾经主张的）资产阶级庸俗经济学理论。正如马克思恩格斯对庸俗经济学和经济决定论的批判一样，需要正确的生产力概念，脱离唯物史观的视阈、剥离生产力人的解放意趣的诠释都会偏离马克思主义的本意。

After distinguishing the three interpretations of Western scholars, and combining this with the historical genesis of the concept of productive forces, we believe that understanding the scientific connotation of the concept of productive forces requires grasping four points: First, productive forces are a generative resultant force based on the labor practice of real individuals, a dialectical unity of actuality, productivity, and relationality; the labor practice of real individuals is the basis for understanding this concept and also the basis for correctly understanding the relationship between humans and nature. Second, the three elements of productive forces are the laborer, the means of labor, and the object of labor; these three are dialectically unified in the labor practice of real individuals (the laborers). Third, from the perspective of the relationship between things and humans, the human factor in productive forces is primary (the laborer is the most active and fundamental factor in productive forces, and also the only subjective factor), while the material factor is secondary; the material factor can become actual productive forces only through the human factor. Fourth, the concept of productive forces is not a purely scientific or economic category, because the theory of productive forces proposed by Marx is the foundation on which scientific socialism is established. Since scientific socialism has the clear value orientation of human emancipation, correctly understanding the concept of productive forces must also integrate this value orientation. Taking the labor practice of real individuals as the basis, whether it is the sublation and transcendence of classical political economy, the analysis of the material and human factors in productive forces, or the critique of the capitalist system and its ownership through the contradictory movement of productive forces and relations of production, what Marx ultimately hoped to achieve was human emancipation. If this is abandoned, the interpretation of the concept of productive forces will fall into the error of "seeing things but not people" committed by technological determinism, nature protectionism, and wealth creationism. For technological determinism, Western scholars believe that the power of science and technology is not held by the laborers, but by the capitalist state or "a few scientists or inventors," and they believe that "the direct producer's labor power becomes increasingly unimportant," thus obscuring human emancipation in the haze of technological supremacy (seemingly detached from capitalist ownership). While scientists or inventors can indeed play a role that cannot be ignored, the power of science and technology must be actualized through labor practice, otherwise it cannot have a significant impact on society. Among the modern working class, whose cultural level is increasingly elevated, the application and development of science and technology are even more inseparable from the practice of laborers. Nature protectionism criticizes Marx's theory of productive forces with a seemingly impartial attitude, arguing that labor practice based on the idea of controlling nature has destroyed the natural environment, thereby turning nature into an independent self-existing thing with intrinsic value, and making humans a passive, negative factor in the face of nature. When the most active and fundamental element of productive forces (the laborer) is negated, the hope of humans gaining freedom or liberation in the face of nature also becomes a fantasy. As Marx said, under conditions of increasingly developed human productive forces, there is no so-called objective nature, only "humanized nature." There is no essential contradiction between the protection of nature and human emancipation; the realization of both can only depend on humans themselves. Wealth creationism, on the other hand, completely turns the concept of productive forces into an economic category related only to the creation of material wealth and completely unrelated to forms of ownership. Wealth creationism uses the relations between commodities to conceal the relations between people, thereby submerging human alienation in the bubbles of the market economy. Certainly, the development of productive forces is closely related to wealth creation, but its orientation is the free and comprehensive realization of humans, not their alienation. Only in a socialist (communist) society that has eliminated capitalist private ownership can "the individual obtain the means for the full development of his faculties, that is to say, only in the community is personal freedom possible."

在辨析了西方学者的三种解读方式之后，再结合生产力概念的历史生成，我们认为，理解生产力概念的科学内涵需要把握四点：其一，生产力是基于现实个人的劳动实践的生成性的合力，是现实性、生产性、关系性的辩证统一，现实个人的劳动实践是理解该概念的基点，也是正确理解人与自然关系的基点；其二，生产力的三要素是劳动者、劳动资料、劳动对象，三者辩证统一于现实个人（劳动者）的劳动实践；其三，从物与人的关系来看，生产力中人的因素是第一位的（劳动者是生产力中最活跃最根本的因素，也是唯一的主体性因素），物的因素是第二位的，物的因素必须通过人的因素才能成为现实的生产力；其四，生产力概念不是一个纯粹的科学范畴或经济范畴，因为马克思提出的生产力理论是科学社会主义得以建立的根基，由于科学社会主义具有明显的人的解放的价值旨归，因此，正确理解生产力概念也必须结合这一价值旨归。以现实个人的劳动实践为基点，无论是对古典政治经济学思想的扬弃和超越，还是对生产力中物的因素和人的因素的剖析，或是通过生产力与生产关系的矛盾运动对资本主义制度及其所有制进行的批判，最终马克思期望实现的都是人的解放。如果离开了这一点，对生产力概念的解读就会陷入科技决定论、自然保护论、财富创造论所犯的“见物不见人”的错误之中。对科技决定论而言，西方学者认为掌握科技力量的不是劳动者，而是资本主义国家或“少数科学家或发明家”，并认为“直接的生产者的劳动力，就愈来愈不重要了”，这就使人的解放被遮蔽在（貌似与资本主义所有制相脱离的）科技至上的雾霾中。科学家或发明家固然能够产生不可忽视的作用，但科技力量必须通过劳动实践才能现实化，否则就无法对社会起到重大影响。在文化水平日益提升的现代劳动者阶级中，科技的应用和发展更是离不开劳动者的实践。自然保护论以一种看似公允的态度批评马克思的生产力理论，认为以控制自然为理念的劳动实践破坏了自然环境，自然界由此变成了一种具有内在价值的独立自存物，人在自然面前成为被动的、消极的因素。当生产力中最活跃最根本的要素（劳动者）被否定之后，人类在自然面前获得自由或解放的希望也随之成了梦幻泡影。正如马克思所说，在人类生产力日益发达的情况下，根本不存在所谓客观自然，只存在“人化自然”。自然的保护和人的解放之间并没有本质上的矛盾，两者的实现都只能取决于人自身。财富创造论则把生产力概念完全变成了只与物质财富创造相关，而与所有制形式毫无关联的经济范畴。财富创造论用商品之间物的关系掩盖了人的关系，由此人的异化被淹没在市场经济的泡沫之中。固然，生产力发展与财富创造息息相关，但其指向却是人的自由全面实现而不是人的异化，只有在消除资本主义私有制的社会主义（共产主义）社会，“个人才能获得全面发展其才能的手段，也就是说，只有在共同体中才可能有个人自由”。

V. Conclusion

五、结论

Contemporary Western scholars have interpreted the concept of productive forces in three ways: technological determinism, nature protectionism, and wealth creationism. These three interpretations have a certain degree of rationality, but they also contain many biases. Technological determinism emphasizes the power of science and technology, but regards science and technology as the only decisive factor in productive forces, neglecting the important role of the subjective factor of the laborer, and to a certain extent, it tends to defend the existing capitalist system. Nature protectionism, in the name of ecological environmental protection, criticizes Marx's theory of productive forces, but is actually trapped in a misinterpretation of Marx's view of the relationship between humans and nature. Wealth creationism understands "productive forces" merely as an economic category for creating material wealth, still following the old path of classical political economy that sees things but not people.

当代西方学者对生产力概念进行了科技决定论、自然保护论、财富创造论三种方式的解读，这三种解读方式有一定合理性，但也存在诸多偏颇之处。科技决定论重视了科学技术的力量，但却将科学技术视为生产力中唯一的决定性要素，忽视了劳动者这一主体性要素的重要作用，在一定程度上流于对现存资本主义制度的辩护；自然保护论以生态环保之名责谴马克思的生产力理论，实际上囿于对马克思人与自然关系的误读；财富创造论将“生产力”仅仅理解为一个创造物质财富的经济范畴，仍然沿袭的是古典政治经济学见物不见人的旧路。

The Marxist concept of productive forces contains rich scientific connotations and a clear value orientation, which helps us deeply understand the concept of "new quality productive forces" currently proposed in our country.

马克思主义生产力概念包含着丰富的科学内涵和鲜明价值旨归，有助于我们深刻理解当前我国提出的“新质生产力”概念。

First, the Marxist concept of productive forces can provide value-based definition and guidance for new quality productive forces. Since the scientific connotation of the concept of productive forces includes not only the meaning of wealth creation but also the orientation of human emancipation, we must oppose the erroneous practice of understanding productive forces merely as a scientific or economic category and distorting historical materialism as economic determinism. While drawing on the logic of capital (capital supremacy), we must emphasize the logic of the people (people supremacy), achieve a balance between fairness and efficiency, and while accelerating the development of productive forces, always remain people-centered and uphold the supremacy of the people. This is also, from a value perspective, the advanced nature of why productive forces are "new quality."

首先，马克思主义生产力概念能够为新质生产力提供价值观上的界定和指引。由于生产力概念的科学内涵不仅有着财富创造的意义，更有着人的解放旨归，因此，我们要反对将生产力仅仅理解为科学范畴或经济范畴、将唯物史观曲解为经济决定论的错误做法。在借鉴资本逻辑（资本至上）的同时注重人的逻辑（人民至上），在公平与效率之间取得平衡，在加快生产力发展的同时始终以人民为中心，坚持人民至上。这也是从价值观上来说，生产力之所以是“新质”的先进性所在。

Second, the Marxist concept of productive forces can provide theoretical support for the ecological connotation of new quality productive forces. In Marx's view, fully unleashing the active factor in productive forces (humans) is the basis for achieving harmony between humans and nature. Non-anthropocentrism, the theory of civilizational original sin, and historical pessimism are all unrealistic, and the idea of returning to the so-called "unity of heaven and man" of ancient Chinese agricultural society is even more a mirage. Achieving the free and comprehensive development of each individual includes not only the elimination of labor alienation but also liberation from nature, although this does not mean treating nature as an object of conquest and plunder. Therefore, the construction of an ecological civilization is an inherent requirement of the development of productive forces. This is also as Xi Jinping said: "Green development is the foundation of high-quality development, and new quality productive forces themselves are green productive forces." [37]37 Xi Jinping, "

其次，马克思主义生产力概念能够为新质生产力的生态内涵提供理论支撑。在马克思看来，充分发挥生产力中的能动因素（人）是实现人与自然和谐的基点。非人类中心主义、文明原罪论、历史悲观主义都不现实，回到古代中国所谓“天人合一”农耕社会的主张更是镜花水月。实现每个人的自由全面发展不仅包括劳动异化的消除，也包括从自然界中获得解放，不过这并不意味着将自然视为征服和掠夺的对象，因此，生态文明建设是生产力发展的应有之义。这也正如习近平所说：“绿色发展是高质量发展的底色，新质生产力本身就是绿色生产力。”

Finally, the Marxist concept of productive forces can provide theoretical support for the superiority of the relations of production under our country's socialist system, which is also the foundation for the development of new quality productive forces. Xi Jinping said: "Relations of production must be compatible with the requirements of the development of productive forces. To develop new quality productive forces, we must further comprehensively deepen reform and form new types of relations of production that are compatible with them." [38] The superiority of the relations of production under our country's socialist system can provide institutional guarantees for the development of new quality productive forces. A typical tendency of Western scholars is to use a misread or distorted Marxist category of productive forces to defend the capitalist system, even believing that the capitalist system is the most reasonable and optimal system. In fact, no matter how much the GDP of capitalist countries grows or how much science and technology develop, what is obscured under the so-called "justice of capital" is still the essence of exploitation, and the oppressed situation of the working people cannot be fundamentally resolved. When the role of the capitalist form of ownership in promoting productive forces reaches a bottleneck, it inevitably faces the fate of being broken through or changed. The great achievements of socialist construction with Chinese characteristics have already proven that our socialist system is superior and can vigorously promote the development of productive forces. On the new journey of developing new quality productive forces and achieving high-quality development, this advantage can still play an important role. (Notes and references omitted)

最后，马克思主义生产力概念能够为我国社会主义制度下生产关系的优越性提供理论支撑，这也是新质生产力的发展基础。习近平说：“生产关系必须与生产力发展要求相适应。发展新质生产力，必须进一步全面深化改革，形成与之相适应的新型生产关系。”我国社会主义制度下生产关系的优越性能够为新质生产力发展提供制度保障。西方学者的一个典型倾向是用误读或曲解后的马克思生产力范畴为资本主义制度辩护，甚至认为资本主义制度是最合理、最优化的制度。事实上，无论资本主义国家的GDP如何增长、科学技术如何发展，遮蔽在所谓“资本正义”下的仍旧是剥削本质，劳动人民被压迫的处境不可能得到根本解决。当资本主义所有制形式对生产力的促进作用达到瓶颈之后，就必然面临被突破或改变的宿命。中国特色社会主义建设取得的伟大成就已经证明了我们的社会主义制度是优越的，能够大力促进生产力发展。在发展新质生产力、实现高质量发展的新征途中，这一优势仍然能够发挥重要作用。（注释、参考文献略）

(Author bios: Yu Weidong, Professor, School of Philosophy, Hubei University; Wang Nan, Doctoral Candidate, School of Philosophy, Hubei University)

（作者简介：余卫东，湖北大学哲学学院教授；王楠，湖北大学哲学学院博士研究生）

Online Editor: Zhang Jian

网络编辑：张剑