On the Transmission Mechanism of Productive Forces–Lifestyle and Its Implications

The British *Reports of the Inspectors of Factories* once pointed out: “No mechanical invention has ever caused such a great change in the mode of production, and ultimately in the workers’ lifestyle, as the ‘Jenny’ spinning machine and the throstle.” In response, Marx noted, “Here the actual connection is correctly expressed. The ‘mechanical invention’ causes a ‘change in the mode of production,’ and this in turn causes a change in the relations of production, and hence a change in social relations, and ‘ultimately’ a change in the ‘workers’ lifestyle.’”

英国《工厂视察员报告》曾经指出：“任何一种机械发明都没有像‘珍妮’纺纱机和翼锭精纺机那样，在生产方式上，并且归根到底，在工人的生活方式上，引起如此大的改变。”对此，马克思指出，“这里，正确地表达了实际的联系。‘机械发明’，它引起‘生产方式上的改变’，并且由此引起生产关系上的改变，因而引起社会关系上的改变，‘并且归根到底’引起的‘工人的生活方式上’改变。”

Here we see that changes in productive forces cause changes in the mode of production, which in turn cause changes in the relations of production, then changes in social relations, and finally changes in lifestyle, forming a transmission mechanism of productive forces—mode of production—relations of production—social relations—lifestyle, abbreviated for convenience as the productive forces–lifestyle transmission mechanism.

在这里，我们看到生产力的变化引起生产方式的变化，再由生产方式的变化引起生产关系的变化，进而由生产关系的变化引起社会关系的变化，最后引起生活方式的变化，形成了生产力—生产方式—生产关系—社会关系—生活方式的传导机制，简记为生产力—生活方式的传导机制。

I. The Debate on Productive Forces Determinism

一、生产力决定论的争论

From the above transmission mechanism it can be concluded that productive forces determine the mode of production, the mode of production determines the relations of production, the relations of production determine social relations, and ultimately determine lifestyle. This conclusion can be regarded as productive forces determinism. However, “determination” here merely indicates that one change leads to another, with the former being the leading factor in the change; it does not imply that the connection between the two changes is one-to-one, and especially does not mean that one kind of productive force can only determine or correspond to one kind of relation of production. Otherwise, it would invite challenges to productive forces determinism. After all, in both history and reality we can see the same productive forces corresponding to different modes of production, and the same mode of production corresponding to different relations of production. For example, Marx pointed out, “As far as the mode of production itself is concerned, early manufacture, for instance, differed hardly at all from the guild handicraft system except for the larger number of workers simultaneously employed by the same capital.” That is, the same mode of production corresponded simultaneously to capitalist relations of production and to the relations of production of the feudal guild system.

从上面的传导机制可以得出：生产力决定生产方式，生产方式决定生产关系，生产关系决定社会关系，并最终决定生活方式。这个结论可以看成是生产力决定论，但是，这里的“决定”只是表明一个变化会引起另一个变化，前者是变化的主导者，并不意味着这两个变化之间的联系就是一一对应的，特别是不意味着一种生产力只能决定或对应一种生产关系。否则，就会引起对生产力决定论的质疑。毕竟，在历史和现实中我们都可以看到同样的生产力对应着不同的生产方式，同样的生产方式也对应着不同的生产关系。例如，马克思指出，“就生产方式本身来说，例如初期的工场手工业，除了同一资本同时雇用的工人人数较多而外，和行会手工业几乎没有什么区别。”也就是说，同一种生产方式同时对应了资本主义生产关系和封建行会的生产关系。

On the other hand, just as the action of a force encounters a reaction, the transmission mechanism of productive forces determinism does not exclude reverse effects. In the reverse direction, lifestyle reacts upon social relations, social relations react upon the relations of production, the relations of production react upon the mode of production, and the mode of production reacts upon the productive forces. It is precisely because the reaction of capitalist relations of production upon the aforementioned mode of production differs from the reaction of feudal guild relations of production that early manufacture further developed into a truly capitalist mode of production. In fact, when discussing the production of relative surplus value, Marx pointed out that capital “must revolutionize the technical and social conditions of the labor process, and hence the mode of production itself, in order to raise labor productivity, and by raising labor productivity to lower the value of labor-power, thereby shortening the part of the working day necessary for reproducing that value.” Here, the relations of production—capital—drive changes in the mode of production, which in turn raise productive forces; this is precisely such a process of reverse transmission. Furthermore, as labor productivity rises, the value of labor-power is lowered, relative surplus value increases, and the subordination of labor to capital shifts from formal subordination to real subordination, thereby strengthening the determination of the relations of production and social relations by productive forces.

另一方面，正如力的作用会遇到反作用一样，生产力决定论的传导机制并不排斥反向的作用，在反向的作用中，生活方式会反作用于社会关系，社会关系会反作用于生产关系，生产关系会反作用于生产方式，生产方式会反作用于生产力。正是因为资本主义生产关系对于上述生产方式的反作用，不同于封建行会生产关系的反作用，初期的工场手工业才进一步发展成真正的资本主义生产方式。事实上，马克思在谈到相对剩余价值的生产时就曾指出，资本“必须变革劳动过程的技术条件和社会条件，从而变革生产方式本身，以提高劳动生产力，通过提高劳动生产力来降低劳动力的价值，从而缩短再生产劳动力价值所必要的工作日部分。”在这里，资本这一生产关系推动生产方式的变革引起生产力的提高，就是这样的反作用传导过程。进一步地，随着劳动生产力的提高，降低了劳动力的价值，增加了相对剩余价值，劳动对资本的从属关系从形式上从属转为实际上的从属，从而强化了生产力对生产关系和社会关系的决定。

It is precisely because of the existence of such reverse effects—especially negative reverse effects—that productive forces and relations of production come into conflict in the course of their mutual promotion. For example, because the relations of production in Britain at the time kept the wages of agricultural workers extremely low, this prevented the British from adopting the stone-crushing machine invented by Americans, since manual stone-crushing was cheaper than using the machine, thereby constraining the development of British productive forces in this area. This further shows that the correspondence between the determined side and the determining side in the above productive forces determinism is constantly adjusted in the struggle between determination and reaction, making it difficult for this correspondence to be one-to-one.

也正是因为这种反作用尤其是负面的反作用的存在，生产力才会在与生产关系在相互促进的过程中发生矛盾冲突。例如，由于当时英国的生产关系造成英国农业工人的工资极低，妨碍了英国人采用美国人发明的碎石机，毕竟人工碎石的成本比用碎石机便宜，从而制约了英国生产力在这方面的发展。这进一步表明上述生产力决定论中被决定的一方与决定的一方之间的对应关系是在决定与反作用的角力中不断调整的，从而使得这种对应关系难以做到一一对应。

However, it is also incorrect to think that because this connection is not one-to-one, productive forces cannot determine the mode of production and the relations of production. The consequence of such thinking is that we once believed, under conditions of low productive forces, that we could “run into communism,”[1]1 A reference to the utopian attempt during the Great Leap Forward (1958–1961) to achieve a communist mode of distribution prematurely, despite China’s low level of productive forces at the time. and the lesson was profound. The development of productive forces involves a process of expansion from individual production units to social production. Once the development of productive forces extends to social production, the mode of production—especially the relations of production—that corresponds to them becomes almost unique. At that point, only this unique set of relations of production, nurtured within the womb of the old society, can accommodate the greatest or the greatest amount of productive forces; other relations of production, unable to accommodate the developed productive forces, come into contradiction with them, thereby triggering social transformations that eliminate these no-longer-adapted relations of production and strengthen the uniquely adapted ones. This is exactly what happened when manufacture, once it developed from its early stage, completely broke away from the guild handicraft system. This is precisely what Marx meant by the “two never’s,”[2]2 A reference to Marx’s statement in the Preface to *A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy*: “No social formation is ever destroyed before all the productive forces for which it is sufficient have been developed, and new superior relations of production never replace older ones before the material conditions for their existence have matured within the framework of the old society.” This is often summarized as the “two never’s” (两个决不会). that is, what Marx said: “At a certain stage of development, the material productive forces of society come into conflict with the existing relations of production or—this merely expresses the same thing in legal terms—with the property relations within the framework of which they have operated hitherto. From forms of development of the productive forces these relations turn into their fetters. Then begins an era of social revolution.”

但是，如果因为这种联系不是一一对应的，就以为生产力不能决定生产方式和生产关系，这也是不对的。其后果是，我们曾经以为在低生产力水平的情况下，可以跑步进入共产主义，结果教训深刻。生产力的发展存在从单个生产单位到社会生产的扩展过程，一旦生产力的发展扩展到社会生产的时候，与之相适应的生产方式特别是生产关系就几乎是唯一的，这时候只有这个唯一的在旧社会的胎胞里培育出来的生产关系能够容纳最多的或更多的生产力，其他的生产关系因为无法容纳发展起来的生产力而与之产生矛盾，进而引发消除这些不再适应的生产关系并使唯一适应的生产关系不断壮大的社会变革。正如工场手工业从初期发展起来之后，就完全脱离了行会手工业那一套一样。这就是马克思在“两个决不会”中所要表达的意思，也就是马克思所说的，“社会的物质生产力发展到一定阶段，便同它们一直在其中运动的现存生产关系或财产关系（这只是生产关系的法律用语）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。那时社会革命的时代就到来了。”

In fact, past debates on productive forces determinism have precisely overlooked the dialectical character of this determination by productive forces in its development.

事实上，以往人们对生产力决定论的争论，正是忽视了生产力的这种决定具有辩证发展的特点。

For example, Tang Changli believes that the theory of the determination by productive forces is a monistic determinism: human beings create productive forces, and everything else is determined by productive forces, so human beings can no longer have any other creations. He further argues, “History has not developed according to Marx’s设想. Socialism first emerged in Russia, the most backward capitalist country in terms of productive forces, and then emerged in China, where productive forces were even more backward. In neither country was the revolution caused by capitalist relations of production hindering the development of productive forces, still less did productive forces determine the emergence of socialist relations of production. This poses a challenge to monistic determinism.” [4]4 Tang Changli, “On the Theory of Determination by Productive Forces and the Theory of Determination by the Mode of Production” (论生产力决定论和生产方式决定论), *Academic Journal of Zhongzhou* (中州学刊), 1985, no. 3. Here, Tang Changli fabricates an absolute determination by productive forces, imposes it on Marx, and then cites events that are not absolute to criticize Marx, thereby overturning Marx’s idea of determination by productive forces. However, whether it was the October Revolution in Russia, which abolished the landowners’ ownership of land, or China’s New Democratic Revolution, which “overthrew the local tyrants and divided up the land,” [n] both were essentially bourgeois democratic revolutions. Although they were not revolutions caused by capitalist relations of production hindering the development of productive forces, they were still revolutions caused by feudal relations of production hindering the development of productive forces, and they still conform to the theory of determination by productive forces. The only difference is that the leadership of these two bourgeois democratic revolutions in both countries shifted from the bourgeoisie to the proletariat. The October Revolution in Russia was the completion of the bourgeois February Revolution, and China’s New Democratic Revolution was the completion of the bourgeois old democratic revolution. The socialist revolutions in both countries were carried out after the proletariat replaced the bourgeoisie in leading the masses to complete the bourgeois democratic revolution. In Russia, this meant the suspension of the New Economic Policy; in China, it meant the implementation of socialist transformation. And the occurrence of these two events was precisely because capitalist relations of production were hindering the development of productive forces. For Russia, the implementation of the New Economic Policy restored the productive forces devastated by war, providing a productive forces foundation on which socialist relations of production could be established, and the New Economic Policy thus completed its historical mission and was suspended. For New China, the confiscation of bureaucratic capital and the receipt of Soviet economic assistance gave New China a solid material foundation for the development of productive forces. To enable this material foundation to function normally, only a public ownership economy of the whole people could achieve this; the capitalist relations of production inherited from old China became an obstacle. Therefore, New China established socialist relations of production through socialist transformation. Thus, for both Russia and China, the emergence and generation of socialism did not violate the theory of determination by productive forces; on the contrary, it demonstrated that productive forces played a decisive role in relations of production.

例如，唐昌黎认为，生产力决定论是一元决定论，人创造了生产力，其它全由生产力决定，人就不能再有其它的创造了。他进一步认为，“历史并没有按照马克思的设想发展。社会主义首先在资本主义国家中生产力最落后的俄国出现，接着又在生产力更为落后的中国产生。两国都不是由于资本主义生产关系阻碍生产力发展而引起了革命，更不是生产力决定出社会主义生产关系，这就对一元决定论提出了挑战。”[4]在这里，唐昌黎虚构了一个生产力绝对决定论，并把它强加给马克思，然后再列举并不绝对的事件来指责马克思，进而推翻马克思提出的生产力决定论思想。但是，无论是废除地主的土地所有权的俄国十月革命还是“打土豪分田地”的中国的新民主主义革命，其本质都是资产阶级民主主义革命，虽然不是由于资本主义生产关系阻碍生产力发展而引起的革命，但仍然是封建的生产关系阻碍生产力发展而引起的革命，仍然符合生产力决定论。只是两个国家的这两场资产阶级民主主义革命的领导权都从资产阶级手里转到了无产阶级手里。俄国十月革命是资产阶级二月革命的完成，中国的新民主主义革命是资产阶级旧民主主义革命的完成。两国的社会主义革命都是在无产阶级取代资产阶级领导人民群众完成了资产阶级民主主义革命之后进行的，在俄国是中止了新经济政策，在中国是实行了社会主义改造。而这两个事件的发生正是因为资本主义生产关系阻碍生产力发展而引起的。对于俄国来说，俄国通过实行新经济政策恢复了被战争破坏了的生产力，使社会主义生产关系有了能够建立起来的生产力基础，新经济政策也就完成了历史使命而被中止了。对于新中国来说，没收官僚资本和得到苏联经济援助，使得新中国在生产力发展方面具有了坚实的物质基础，而要使这个物质基础正常地发挥作用，只有全民所有的公有制经济才能做到，旧中国遗留下来的资本主义生产关系就成了阻碍，于是新中国通过社会主义改造，建立起了社会主义生产关系。由此可见，对于俄中两国来说，社会主义的出现和产生，并没有违背生产力决定论，反而表明生产力对生产关系起了决定性作用。

Lenin once pointed out, “The idea of determinism, which establishes the necessity of human actions and rejects the absurd fable of free will, in no way destroys man’s reason, his conscience, or the evaluation of his actions. On the contrary, only from the standpoint of determinism can a strictly correct evaluation be made, without attributing everything to free will.” The theory of determination by productive forces likewise does not exclude the exertion of human subjective initiative, but it sets boundaries for the exertion of human subjective initiative, preventing everything in the development of human society from being idealistically attributed to human subjective will. Otherwise, slash-and-burn cultivation in primitive society could also give rise to capitalist relations of production. It is precisely within the limits of this historical materialist determination by productive forces that Marx pointed out, “The hand-mill gives you society with the feudal lord; the steam-mill gives you society with the industrial capitalist.”

列宁曾经指出，“决定论思想确认人的行为的必然性，摒弃所谓意志自由的荒唐的神话，但丝毫不消灭人的理性、人的良心以及对人的行动的评价。恰巧相反，只有根据决定论的观点，才能作出严格正确的评价，而不致把什么都推到自由意志上去。”生产力决定论同样不排斥人的主观能动性的发挥，但它给人的主观能动性的发挥划定界限，不致把人类社会发展的一切都唯心主义地推到人的主观意志上去。否则，原始社会的刀耕火种也能形成资本主义的生产关系了。马克思正是在生产力决定论这个历史唯物主义的限定下才指出，“手推磨产生的是封建主的社会，蒸汽磨产生的是工业资本家的社会。”

Some people believe that “the theory of determination by productive forces emphasizes that each specific level of productive forces requires a specific matching set of relations of production.” However, on the one hand, Marx did not say that the mill in a socialist society could not be a steam-mill. In fact, he merely indicated that a steam-mill could not produce a society with feudal lords; that is, high-end productive forces cannot produce low-end relations of production. On the other hand, capitalist relations of production had already emerged during the era of the hand-mill: “Capital initially subordinates labor to itself under the technical conditions it finds historically existing.” Therefore, low-end productive forces can be grafted onto high-end relations of production, and under the reaction of high-end relations of production, they can develop into high-end productive forces or be replaced by high-end productive forces. If this were not the case, some countries would not be able to promote the development of productive forces and achieve modernization by reforming their economic systems and mechanisms—that is, by transforming relations of production.

有人认为，“‘生产力决定论’强调每一特定的生产力都要求特定的生产关系与之相匹配”。但是，一方面，马克思并没有说，社会主义社会的磨就不能是蒸汽磨。事实上，他只是表明蒸汽磨产生的不可能是封建主的社会，也就是说，高端的生产力不可能产生低端的生产关系。另一方面，资本主义生产关系还在手推磨时期就已经出现，“资本起初是在历史上既有的技术条件下使劳动服从自己的。”因此，低端的生产力可以嫁接高端的生产关系，并在高端的生产关系的反作用下发展成为高端的生产力或被高端的生产力所取代。如果不是这样，一些国家也就不可能通过改革经济体制和机制也就是变革生产关系来促进生产力的发展以实现现代化了。

In fact, the Russians had already asked Marx whether it was possible to establish socialist relations of production on the basis of the productive forces of capitalism—that is, the question of whether productive forces and relations of production must correspond one-to-one. Marx’s answer to this question was affirmative. He pointed out: “In Russia, thanks to the combination of unique circumstances, the rural commune, which still exists nationwide, can gradually shed its primitive characteristics and develop directly as an element of collective production on a national scale. Precisely because it coexists with capitalist production, it can appropriate all its positive achievements without undergoing the terrible shocks of capitalist production.”

事实上，俄国人早就向马克思提出，能否以资本主义的生产力为基础建立社会主义生产关系的问题，也就是生产力与生产关系是否可以不一一对应的问题。而马克思对这个问题的回答是肯定的，他指出：“在俄国，由于各种独特情况的结合，至今还在全国范围内存在着的农村公社能够逐渐摆脱其原始特征，并直接作为集体生产的因素在全国范围内发展起来。正因为它和资本主义生产是同时存在的东西，所以它能够不经受资本主义生产的可怕的波折而占有它的一切积极的成果。”

Here, although productive forces and relations of production do not correspond one-to-one, this still does not undermine the conclusion that productive forces (ultimately) determine relations of production. This is because without the productive forces developed by capitalist production, Russia could not have realized socialist relations of production. After the October Revolution in Russia, Lenin adopted the New Economic Policy to introduce and appropriate the same productive forces as those of capitalist countries, precisely to safeguard the Soviet regime and to form and consolidate socialist relations of production. In practice, he realized Marx’s设想. The dissolution of the Soviet Union and the historical regression of socialist relations of production also occurred because the development of productive forces in the Soviet Union had relatively lagged behind, causing Soviet people to begin to envy the lifestyle of Western capitalist countries, even though most of what they envied was an idealized castle in the air. The dissolution of the Soviet Union further confirmed the theory of determination by productive forces, although we cannot conclude from this that productive forces equal to or even more backward than those of the Soviet Union can never sustain socialist relations of production. The reason remains that the theory of determination by productive forces is only ultimate determination; it does not require a one-to-one correspondence between productive forces and relations of production. Just as capitalist relations of production can correspond to productive forces ranging from the steam-mill to the electric mill and CNC grinding machines—a span of over 300 years of development (from the English bourgeois revolution to the present)—so too can socialist relations of production correspond to productive forces at vastly different levels of development. Therefore, this also means that an increase in productive forces does not necessarily give rise to higher relations of production; otherwise, the contradiction and conflict where relations of production do not adapt to the development of productive forces would not occur. Clearly, to advance the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation through Chinese-path modernization, both the improvement of productive forces and the elevation of relations of production need to be grasped with both hands and both must be firm. But in any case, the theory of determination by productive forces is something we must uphold; otherwise, high-quality development would become water without a source.

在这里，尽管生产力与生产关系不是一一对应的，但这仍然不妨碍生产力（最终）决定生产关系的结论。这是因为没有资本主义生产发展起来的生产力，俄国就实现不了社会主义生产关系。俄国十月革命后，列宁采用新经济政策来引进和占有与资本主义国家相同的生产力，就是为了维护苏维埃政权，为了形成和巩固社会主义生产关系。他在实践中实现了马克思的设想。而苏联解体和社会主义生产关系发生历史倒退，也是因为苏联的生产力发展相对落后了，导致苏联人开始羡慕西方资本主义国家的生活方式，尽管他们所羡慕的大多数是被美化出来的空中楼阁。苏联解体进一步证实了生产力决定论，尽管我们不能由此得出结论说，与苏联相同甚至比苏联落后的生产力决不能维系社会主义生产关系。其原因仍然是，生产力决定论只是最终决定，并不要求生产力与生产关系是一一对应的。正如资本主义生产关系可以对应从蒸汽磨到电气磨、数控磨床等等发展相差达300多年（从英国资产阶级革命到今天）的生产力，那么社会主义生产关系同样可以对应发展程度相差很大的生产力。因此，这也意味着不是生产力提高了就一定会形成更高的生产关系，否则生产关系不适应生产力的发展的矛盾冲突也就不会发生了。显然，要以中国式现代化全面推进中华民族伟大复兴，生产力的提高和生产关系的提升需要两手抓两手都要硬。但无论如何，生产力决定论都是我们必须坚持的，否则高质量发展就成了无源之水了。

Besides the theory of determination by productive forces, there are other determinisms, such as economic determinism, the theory of historical resultant forces, and pluralistic determinism. These determinisms, on the surface, do not directly negate the theory of determination by productive forces, but their proposal actually tends to replace the theory of determination by productive forces, thereby indirectly negating and distorting it. However, whether directly or indirectly, these determinisms cannot overturn the theory of determination by productive forces.

除了生产力决定论，还有其他一些决定论，如经济决定论、历史合力论、多元决定论等等。这些决定论，看上去并没有直接否定生产力决定论，但是它们的提出，却在实际上存在取代生产力决定论，从而间接否定和扭曲生产力决定论的问题。但是，这些决定论无论是直接地还是间接地都推翻不了生产力决定论。

“Economic determinism” treats economic factors as the sole determining factor in explaining social history, relying on logical reasoning and deduction while neglecting the cognition of the relationship between history and reality; it is a distortion of historical materialism.[9]9 The original text’s note [14] refers to a source citation (Wu Yifeng’s work) that is not provided in the input; it is retained as a placeholder. Compared with economic determinism, the productive-forces determinism we mentioned earlier plays a determining role only within the transmission mechanism of productive forces–mode of production–relations of production–social relations–lifestyle, rather than also playing a determining role in all phenomena in history, especially those arising from contingency, and therefore does not mechanically determine changes in social history as economic determinism does.

“经济决定论”把经济因素作为说明社会历史的唯一决定性因素，依附于逻辑推理和演绎而忽视对历史与现实关系的认知，是对历史唯物主义的曲解。[9]与经济决定论相比，我们在前面提到的生产力决定论，只是在生产力—生产方式—生产关系—社会关系—生活方式的传导机制中起决定作用，而不是对于历史上的一切现象，尤其是因为偶然性而出现的现象也起决定作用，从而不会像经济决定论那样机械地决定社会历史的变化。

Engels’s theory of the resultant of historical forces, which was imposed on him by later generations, is regarded as a negation of economic determinism.[10]10 “Grasping revolution and promoting production” (抓革命、促生产) was a political slogan widely used during the Cultural Revolution (1966–1976), reflecting Mao Zedong’ It originates from Engels’s view: “History is made in such a way that the final result always arises from conflicts between many individual wills, of which each in its turn is made what it is by a host of particular conditions of life. Thus there are innumerable intersecting forces, an infinite series of parallelograms of forces which give rise to one resultant – the historical event. This may again itself be viewed as the product of a power which, taken as a whole, works unconsciously and without volition.” However, if we read through the context in the original work, we will note that Engels regarded the above view as secondary when discussing the question “we make our own history,” while what is primary is that “we make it under very definite presuppositions and conditions. Among these the economic ones are ultimately decisive.”[11]11 The “alternative path” (蹊径) refers to the Cultural Revolution (1966–1976), during which Mao Zedong sought to prevent capitalist restoration by emphasizing class struggle and transforming social relations outside the immediate sphere of production, rather than focusing primarily on developing productive forces or adjusting relations of production within the economic base.592 Therefore, the theory of the resultant of historical forces cannot negate the determining role of the economy, and this determining role of the economy is not equal to economic determinism; rather, it should be understood as determinism in the sense mentioned earlier by Lenin. At the same time, the result of the resultant of historical forces does not manifest as the product of many scattered individual wills, but as the product of “a power which, taken as a whole, works unconsciously and without volition.” This power is in fact the productive forces, and thus the theory of the resultant of historical forces cannot replace the productive-forces determinism we have mentioned.

被后人强加给的恩格斯的历史合力论被视为对经济决定论的一个否定[10]，它源自恩格斯的这样一个观点：“历史是这样创造的：最终的结果总是从许多单个的意志的相互冲突中产生出来的，而其中每一个意志，又是由于许多特殊的生活条件，才成为它所成为的那样。这样就有无数互相交错的力量，有无数个力的平行四边形，由此就产生出一个合力，即历史结果，而这个结果又可以看做一个作为整体的、不自觉地和不自主地起着作用的力量的产物。”但是，如果我们通读原著中的上下文，我们会注意到，恩格斯认为上述观点在论述“我们自己创造着我们的历史”这个问题时是处于第二位的，而处于第一位的是，“我们是在十分确定的前提和条件下创造的。其中经济的前提和条件归根到底是决定性的。” [11]592因此，历史合力论不能否定经济的决定作用，而这个经济的决定作用不等于经济决定论，而应当像前面提到的列宁那样理解决定论。同时，历史合力的结果不表现为分散的许多单个的意志的产物，而是表现为“一个作为整体的、不自觉地和不自主地起着作用的力量”的产物，这个力量其实就是生产力，因而历史合力论也取代不了我们提到的生产力决定论。

Althusser believed that social development is not monistically determined but overdetermined, and he proposed overdetermination.[12]12 The “20th National Congress of the CPC” refers to the 20th National Congress of the Communist Party of China, held in October 2022, which set out the Party’s goals for the next five years and beyond. From the perspective of the transmission mechanism of productive forces–mode of production–relations of production–social relations–lifestyle, the factors determining social relations include productive forces, mode of production, and relations of production, and social relations are also subject to the counteraction of lifestyle. If we consider the development of social relations, it is also not monistically determined but overdetermined, yet the most fundamental determination remains that of the productive forces. Althusser, who claimed to defend Marx, either mistakenly juxtaposed determinations at different levels onto the same level, or simply did not understand Marx’s historical materialism, nor why Marx devoted his lifelong energy to *Capital*.

阿尔都塞认为，社会发展不是一元决定的，而是多元决定的，提出了多元决定论。[12]从生产力—生产方式—生产关系—社会关系—生活方式的传导机制来看，决定社会关系的因素，有生产力、生产方式、生产关系，而且社会关系还会受到生活方式的反作用，如果从社会关系发展来看，它也不是一元决定的，而是多元决定的，但是最根本的决定还是生产力决定。声称保卫马克思的阿尔都塞如果不是错误地把不同层级的决定并列到同一层级，就是根本不懂马克思的唯物史观，不懂马克思为什么要把终身精力耗费在《资本论》上。

II. The Transmission Mediator of Productive Forces Determining Relations of Production

二、生产力决定生产关系的传导中介

Stalin proposed that “the mode of production includes both the social productive forces and the relations of production of people, and embodies the unity of the two in the process of material production.” This is a misunderstanding of Marx’s exposition on the mode of production. Apart from the passage we mentioned earlier, Marx also wrote: “In acquiring new productive forces, people change their mode of production; and in changing their mode of production, the way of earning their living, they change all their social relations.”[6]6 The original text’s note [10] refers to a source citation that is not provided in the input; it is retained as a placeholder.602 Therefore, the mode of production is not the unity of productive forces and relations of production, but the transmission mediator between productive forces and relations of production.

斯大林提出，“生产方式既包括社会生产力，也包括人们的生产关系，而体现着两者在物质资料生产过程中的统一。”这是他对马克思的生产方式论述的误解。除了我们前面提到的那一处之外，马克思还曾写道：“随着新生产力的获得，人们改变自己的生产方式，随着生产方式即谋生的方式的改变，人们也就会改变自己的一切社会关系。”[6]602因此，生产方式不是生产力和生产关系的统一，而是生产力和生产关系的传导中介。

However, Stalin’s reason for putting forward his view is also understandable. This is because Marx also frequently uses the term “capitalist mode of production,” in which the word “capital” already contains the meaning of relations of production. But the difference between mode of production and capitalist mode of production is like the difference between commodity and commodity-capital. Since we cannot, because of the existence of commodity-capital, assert that commodities under any social formation necessarily contain surplus value and imply capitalist relations of production, we likewise should not, because of the existence of the capitalist mode of production, assert that the mode of production includes relations of production. Instead, we should understand the capitalist mode of production as a mode of production that has been modified or counteracted by relations of production. This precisely conforms to our earlier conclusion that productive forces, mode of production, and relations of production do not have a one-to-one correspondence. The same mode of production can correspond to either capitalist relations of production or socialist relations of production, just as socialist and capitalist countries can adopt the same production technology and production lines, and just as a commodity can be commodity-capital or not. Therefore, to clearly indicate the mode of production corresponding to capitalist relations of production or situated within capitalist relations of production, Marx added the modifier “capitalist” before “mode of production.”

不过，斯大林之所以提出他的那个观点也是情有可原的。这是因为马克思也到处都提到“资本主义生产方式”一词，这个词语中的“资本”二字就含有生产关系的意思。但是，生产方式与资本主义生产方式的差别就好像商品与商品资本的差别一样，既然我们不能因为商品资本的存在就认为无论哪种社会形态下的商品中都必然包含剩余价值，都隐含资本主义生产关系，我们同样不应该因为资本主义生产方式的存在就认为生产方式中包括生产关系，而应当把资本主义生产方式理解为被生产关系修饰了或反作用了的生产方式。这恰恰符合我们前面所提到的生产力、生产方式与生产关系不是一一对应的关系的结论。同一种生产方式可以对应资本主义生产关系也可以对应社会主义生产关系，正如社会主义国家和资本主义国家可以采取同样的生产技术和生产线，这也就像商品可以是商品资本也可以不是商品资本。因此为了明确表明对应资本主义生产关系或处于资本主义生产关系中的生产方式，马克思才在生产方式前面加上“资本主义”这个修饰语。

On the other hand, because the mode of production itself can also form productive forces, this easily leads people, like Stalin, to misunderstand. For example, Marx points out: “When numerous laborers work together side by side, whether in one and the same process, or in different but connected processes, they are said to cooperate, or to work in cooperation.” Thus, cooperation is a typical mode of production. But Marx also points out: “Compared with an equal sum of separate individual working days, the combined working day produces a greater quantity of use-values, and hence diminishes the labor-time necessary for the production of a given useful effect.”[2]2 A reference to Marx’s statement in the Preface to *A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy*: “No social formation is ever destroyed before all the productive forces for which it is sufficient have been developed, and new superior relations of production never replace older ones before the material conditions for their existence have matured within the framework of the old society.” This is often summarized as the “two never’s” (两个决不会).382 “The question is not merely that, by cooperation, the individual productive power is heightened; but that a productive power is created, which is itself necessarily a collective power.” Here we see that cooperation is both a mode of production and productive forces, although we usually regard it as a mode of production.

另一方面，由于生产方式本身也会形成生产力，这也让人容易像斯大林一样产生误解。例如，马克思指出，“许多人在同一生产过程中，或在不同的但互相联系的生产过程中，有计划地一起协同劳动，这种劳动形式叫做协作。”可见，协作是一种典型的生产方式。但马克思又指出，“和同样数量的单干的个人工作日的总和比较起来，结合工作日可以生产更多的使用价值，因而可以减少生产一定效用所必要的劳动时间。”[2]382“这里的问题不仅是通过协作提高了个人生产力，而且是创造了一种生产力，这种生产力本身必然是集体力。”在这里，我们看到，协作既是生产方式，也是生产力，尽管我们通常把它看成生产方式。

However, Marx also points out: “The way in which machines are used is totally distinct from the machines themselves.” This indicates that the mode of production that utilizes productive forces and the productive forces themselves are totally distinct, and therefore productive forces cannot be directly subsumed under the mode of production. It also indicates that productive forces and mode of production do not have a one-to-one correspondence. Consequently, Stalin’s above exposition cannot hold, and Wu Yifeng’s proposition that “productive forces determine the mode of production, and the mode of production determines the relations of production”[14] is more in line with Marx’s original intention. However, even though the mode of production serves as the transmission mediator, the thesis that productive forces determine relations of production remains valid. This is both because all such determinations are only in the sense of ultimate determination, and because Marx once pointed out: “M. Proudhon does not understand that people also produce the social relations in which they produce cloth and linen, in accordance with their productive forces.” Thus, both social relations and the relations of production within them are determined by the productive forces.

不过，马克思还指出，“利用机器的方式和机器本身完全是两回事。”这表明利用生产力的生产方式和生产力本身完全是两回事，从而不能直接把生产力归入生产方式，同时也表明生产力与生产方式不是一一对应的。因此，斯大林的上述论述是不能成立的，而吴易风提出的“生产力决定生产方式，生产方式决定生产关系”[14]更符合马克思的本意。但是，尽管要通过生产方式这个传导中介，生产力决定生产关系的论断还是成立的，这既是因为所有这些决定都只是从最终决定的意义上来说的，也是因为马克思曾经指出，“蒲鲁东先生不了解，人们还按照自己的生产力而生产出他们在其中生产呢子和麻布的社会关系。”可见，社会关系和其中的生产关系都是由生产力决定的。

On one hand, Guo Guanqing holds that slavery and serfdom are modes of production in the sense of “the social form of production”; on the other hand, he also holds that cooperation, manufacture (and machine-based large-scale industry) are all modes of production [15]. In fact, the former are merely embodiments of relations of production, while the latter are modes of production proper. Take machine industry as a mode of production: it can be carried out under the control of capitalists, or under the control of a workers’ association. These different forms of control also signify different modes of production. In Volume 3 of *Capital*, when discussing workers’ own cooperative factories, Marx points out: “The opposition between capital and labour is superseded within them, although at first only in the form that the workers as an association are their own capitalist, i.e., they use the means of production to valorise their own labour. These factories show how, at a certain stage of development of the material productive forces and of the corresponding social forms of production, a new mode of production naturally develops and takes shape from one mode of production. Without the factory system that arises from the capitalist mode of production, cooperative factories could not develop; equally, without the credit system that arises from the capitalist mode of production, cooperative factories could not develop.” [16] 499 Here we can see that relations of production are very closely linked with the mode of production. The same productive forces, under different capital–labour relations, take shape as different modes of production. This does not mean that productive forces do not play a determining role, because here the development of the mode of production from one form to another and the development of relations of production from one form to another are premised on the material productive forces and the corresponding social forms of production reaching “a certain stage of development.” This change in the mode of production means that, at a certain height of development of the productive forces, the relations of production that were originally adapted to the development of the productive forces no longer suit them; hence, from within the old mode of production a new mode of production with new relations of production develops, thereby opening a breach in the old form and laying the foundation for a more profound and thoroughgoing change in the mode of production and relations of production, so as to promote a greater development of the productive forces.

郭冠清一方面认为，奴隶制、农奴制就是“生产的社会形式”的生产方式，另一方面又认为，协作、工场手工业（还有机器大工业）都是生产方式[15]。其实，前者只是生产关系的体现，后者才是生产方式。就机器工业这种生产方式而言，它可以在资本家的控制下进行，也可以在工人联合体的控制下进行，这种不同的控制形式也意味着不同的生产方式。马克思在《资本论》第3卷中谈到工人自己的合作工厂时指出，“资本和劳动之间的对立在这种工厂内已经被扬弃，虽然起初只是在下述形式上被扬弃，即工人作为联合体是他们自己的资本家，也就是说，他们利用生产资料来使他们自己的劳动增殖。这种工厂表明，在物质生产力和与之相适应的社会生产形式的一定的发展阶段上，一种新的生产方式怎样会自然而然地从一种生产方式中发展并形成起来。没有从资本主义生产方式中产生的工厂制度，合作工厂就不可能发展起来；同样，没有从资本主义生产方式中产生的信用制度，合作工厂也不可能发展起来。”[16]499在这里，我们可以看到生产关系与生产方式有着十分密切的联系。同样的生产力在不同的劳资关系下形成为不同的生产方式。但它并不意味着生产力不起决定作用，因为在这里，生产方式从一种形式发展到另一种形式和生产关系从一种形式发展到另一种形式，是以物质生产力和与之相适应的社会生产形式达到“一定的发展阶段”为前提的。生产方式的这种变化，意味着在生产力发展的一定高度上，原来适应于生产力发展的生产关系不再适应生产力的发展，于是从原有的生产方式中发展出具有新的生产关系的新的生产方式，从而在旧形式内对旧形式打开了一个缺口，为生产方式和生产关系发生更加深刻和彻底的变化以推动生产力的更大发展打下了基础。

III. The Connection and Distinction between Relations of Production and Social Relations

三、生产关系与社会关系的联系和区别

The connection between relations of production and social relations is very close. Marx once wrote in the economic manuscripts of 1863–1865: “Social relations, and hence the social position of the agents of production in relation to each other, i.e., the relations of production themselves, are produced and are the constantly renewed result of the production process.” It is probably for this reason that when people speak of the determinism of productive forces, they often speak only of relations of production and seldom or never of social relations.

生产关系与社会关系的联系十分密切，马克思曾经在1863-1865年经济学手稿写道：“社会关系，从而生产当事人彼此的社会地位，即生产关系本身，被生产出来，是生产过程的不断更新的结果。”大概正因为如此，人们在谈到生产力决定论时往往只谈生产关系而不谈或少谈社会关系。

However, as early as in the *Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844*, Marx had already noted the phenomenon mentioned by Schulz in *The Movement of Production*: “As a result of changes in the organisation of labour, women have a wider scope for employment … women have become relatively independent economically … men and women have come closer to each other in their social relations.” [6]6 The original text’s note [10] refers to a source citation that is not provided in the input; it is retained as a placeholder. 126 Engels later pointed out: “The legal inequality of the sexes inherited from past social relations is not the cause but the result of the economic oppression of women.” [17] 87 Here the social relations between men and women, especially gender relations, although influenced by changes in the organisation of labour and closely related to women’s relations of production in employment, cannot yet be subsumed under relations of production. In the economic manuscripts of 1857–1858, Marx also distinguished between the two, pointing out that social relations are based on relations of production [1]1 A reference to the utopian attempt during the Great Leap Forward (1958–1961) to achieve a communist mode of distribution prematurely, despite China’s low level of productive forces at the time. 43. Later, in *Capital*, when discussing the commodity form of the product of labour, he wrote: “The relations between the producers, in which the social determinations of their labour are realised, take on the form of a social relation between the products of labour.” [2]2 A reference to Marx’s statement in the Preface to *A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy*: “No social formation is ever destroyed before all the productive forces for which it is sufficient have been developed, and new superior relations of production never replace older ones before the material conditions for their existence have matured within the framework of the old society.” This is often summarized as the “two never’s” (两个决不会). 89 That is, social relations are extended from persons themselves to their creations. Although the social relations attached to these creations merely conceal the relations of production between persons, this makes the distinction between relations of production and social relations even more evident.

不过，马克思早在《1844年经济学哲学手稿》中就已经注意到舒尔茨在《生产运动》中提到的现象：“由于劳动组织的改变，女性有了较大的就业范围……妇女在经济上有了比较独立的地位……男性和女性在社会关系方面互相接近了。”[6]126恩格斯后来也指出，“我们从过去的社会关系中继承下来的两性的法律上的不平等，并不是妇女在经济上受压迫的原因，而是它的结果。”[17]87这里男性和女性的社会关系尤其是两性关系，虽然受劳动组织改变的影响，与女性在就业时的生产关系有极大的关联，但还不能将其归入生产关系。在1857-1858年经济学手稿中，马克思也区分了这两者，指出社会关系是以生产关系为基础的[1]43。后来他在《资本论》中谈到劳动产品采取商品形式时写道：“生产者的劳动的那些社会规定借以实现的生产者的关系，取得了劳动产品的社会关系的形式。”[2]89也就是把社会关系从人本身扩展到了人的创造物上，尽管这个创造物上的社会关系只是掩盖了人与人之间的生产关系，但这也使得生产关系与社会关系的区别就更加明显了。

Thus it can be seen that relations of production cannot be equated with social relations. Social relations encompass relations of production, and the core of social relations is precisely relations of production.

由此可见，不能把生产关系与社会关系等同起来。社会关系包含生产关系，而且社会关系的核心就是生产关系。

Some people, drawing on Mao Zedong’s view that social relations “should include relations of production and superstructure, including relations in the economic, political, ideological, and cultural spheres,” have proposed “another path for Mao Zedong to develop the productive forces: not the transformation of relations of production, but the transformation of social relations through the fusion of the economic base and the superstructure is the fundamental path for promoting the development of the productive forces.” [18] This formulation reveals the source of the slogan and practice of “grasping revolution and promoting production” [10]10 “Grasping revolution and promoting production” (抓革命、促生产) was a political slogan widely used during the Cultural Revolution (1966–1976), reflecting Mao Zedong’ during the Mao era. Judging from the effects of historical practice, however, this path was not easy to follow.

有人根据毛泽东关于社会关系“应该包括生产关系和上层建筑，包括经济、政治、思想、文化各方面的关系”等观点，提出了“毛泽东发展生产力的另一条蹊径：不是生产关系变革，而是经济基础和上层建筑融汇结合的社会关系变革，才是推动生产力发展的根本之路。”[18]这个说法揭示了毛泽东时期“抓革命、促生产”这个口号和做法的来源。但从历史实践的效果来看，这条蹊径并不好走。

In fact, the transformation of social relations is more suited to revolutionary periods or periods of sharp change in productive forces and modes of production. For example, when discussing primitive accumulation in *Capital*, Marx points out: “In the history of primitive accumulation, all transformations that served as levers for the rising capitalist class were epoch-making events; but the primary factor was: the sudden and forcible separation of great masses of people from their means of subsistence, and their being hurled onto the labour market as unprotected proletarians. The expropriation of the agricultural producer, of the peasant, from the soil, is the basis of the whole process.” [2]2 A reference to Marx’s statement in the Preface to *A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy*: “No social formation is ever destroyed before all the productive forces for which it is sufficient have been developed, and new superior relations of production never replace older ones before the material conditions for their existence have matured within the framework of the old society.” This is often summarized as the “two never’s” (两个决不会). 823 And the various “idyllic” methods of primitive accumulation “secured the soil for capitalist agriculture, incorporated the land with capital, and created for the urban industries the necessary supply of a proletariat unprotected by law.” [2]2 A reference to Marx’s statement in the Preface to *A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy*: “No social formation is ever destroyed before all the productive forces for which it is sufficient have been developed, and new superior relations of production never replace older ones before the material conditions for their existence have matured within the framework of the old society.” This is often summarized as the “two never’s” (两个决不会). 842 These epoch-making events were mainly manifested as transformations of social relations, with extra-economic, direct violence playing the principal role, so as to create conditions for the transformation of relations of production. The workers, unprotected by law and free in the sense of being stripped of all property, were compelled to enter into capitalist relations of production with the property owners, making the latter capitalists and themselves wage-labourers.

事实上，社会关系的变革更适合革命时期或生产力和生产方式发生急剧变化的时期。例如，马克思在《资本论》中谈到原始积累时指出，“在原始积累的历史中，对正在形成的资本家阶级起过推动作用的一切变革，都是历史上划时代的事情；但是首要的因素是：大量的人突然被强制地同自己的生存资料分离，被当作不受法律保护的无产者抛向劳动市场。对农业生产者即农民的土地的剥夺，形成全部过程的基础。”[2]823而原始积累的各种“田园诗”式的方法“为资本主义农业夺得了地盘，使土地与资本合并，为城市工业造成了不受法律保护的无产阶级的必要供给。”[2]842这些划时代的事情主要表现为社会关系的变革，超经济的直接的暴力发挥主要作用，以便为生产关系的变革创造了条件。不受法律保护又自由得一无所有的劳动者，不得不与有产者建立起资本主义生产关系，使后者成为资本家，使自己成为雇佣工人。

After primitive accumulation, however, unlike the period when capitalist production first emerged historically, in the progress of capitalist production the transformation or extension of relations of production plays the principal role. “The organisation of the developed capitalist production process breaks all resistance; the constant production of a relative surplus population keeps the law of supply and demand of labour, and hence wages, within limits corresponding to the valorisation needs of capital; the silent compulsion of economic relations secures the domination of the capitalist over the worker. Extra-economic, direct violence is still used, but only exceptionally. In the ordinary run of things, the worker can be left to the ‘natural laws of production,’ i.e., to his dependence on capital, a dependence that arises from the conditions of production themselves, is guaranteed by them, and is perpetuated by them.” [2]2 A reference to Marx’s statement in the Preface to *A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy*: “No social formation is ever destroyed before all the productive forces for which it is sufficient have been developed, and new superior relations of production never replace older ones before the material conditions for their existence have matured within the framework of the old society.” This is often summarized as the “two never’s” (两个决不会). 846

而在原始积累过后，与资本主义生产在历史上刚刚产生的时期不同，在资本主义生产的进展中，生产关系的变革或扩展起着主要作用。“发达的资本主义生产过程的组织粉碎一切反抗；相对过剩人口的不断产生把劳动的供求规律，从而把工资限制在与资本增殖需要相适应的轨道以内；经济关系的无声的强制保证资本家对工人的统治。超经济的直接的暴力固然还在使用，但只是例外地使用。在通常的情况下，可以让工人由‘生产的自然规律’去支配，即由他对资本的从属性去支配，这种从属性由生产条件本身产生，得到这些条件的保证并由它们永久维持下去。”[2]846

In fact, although the transformation of social relations has played an extremely enormous role in promoting the development of the productive forces, if it does not give rise to corresponding relations of production, it will, like the destructive effect of usury, merely dissolve the old mode of production without creating a new one, and thus cannot promote the development of the productive forces. On the contrary, after the capitalist mode of production develops, the capitalist, unlike the landlord who borrows money for luxury consumption or the peasant who borrows to cope with misfortunes, borrows money to extract profit. As a result, the interest on interest-bearing capital generally no longer exceeds the average rate of profit, no longer appropriates all surplus value or even necessary labour; usury thus ceases to be the principal form of interest-bearing capital, and the social relations between lender and borrower also change.

事实上，尽管社会关系的变革在推动生产力的发展上发挥了极其巨大的作用，但是，如果没有形成相应的生产关系，它就只会像高利贷的破坏作用一样，只是瓦解旧的生产方式而不会造成新的生产方式，从而无法推动生产力的发展。相反地，资本主义生产方式发展起来之后，资本家既不像地主那样借钱用于奢侈消费，也不像农民那样借钱应对不幸事件，而是借钱用于榨取利润，使得生息资本的利息一般不再超过平均利润率，不再占有全部剩余价值甚至必要劳动，高利贷也就不再成为生息资本的主要形式，借贷双方的社会关系也发生了变化。

It has already been mentioned above that relations of production are themselves produced. Marx later further pointed out, “The capitalist process of production, therefore, considered as a connected whole, or as a process of reproduction, produces not only commodities, not only surplus-value, but it also produces and reproduces the capital-relation itself; on the one hand the capitalist, on the other the wage-labourer.”[2]2 A reference to Marx’s statement in the Preface to *A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy*: “No social formation is ever destroyed before all the productive forces for which it is sufficient have been developed, and new superior relations of production never replace older ones before the material conditions for their existence have matured within the framework of the old society.” This is often summarized as the “two never’s” (两个决不会).666-667 Therefore, in the period of socialist construction after the transformation of social relations or the major transformation of social relations has been completed — that is, after the revolution has succeeded — what we need to focus on is precisely how, in the socialist process of production, we not only produce products but also produce and reproduce socialist relations of production. Only in this way can we establish, maintain, and expand socialist social relations, thereby creating conditions for entering communist society. In fact, the neglect of the production and reproduction of socialist relations of production was the main reason for the disintegration of the socialist Soviet Union and the regression of the entire country back to capitalism. The main reason why the alternative path [11]11 The “alternative path” (蹊径) refers to the Cultural Revolution (1966–1976), during which Mao Zedong sought to prevent capitalist restoration by emphasizing class struggle and transforming social relations outside the immediate sphere of production, rather than focusing primarily on developing productive forces or adjusting relations of production within the economic base. taken during the Mao Zedong period was ultimately unsuccessful probably also lay in the excessive focus at that time on social relations outside the relations of production, while neglecting the relations of production themselves, resulting in insufficient impetus for the development of productive forces.

前面已经提到生产关系是被生产出来的，马克思后来进一步指出，“资本主义生产过程，在联系中加以考察，或作为再生产过程加以考察时，不仅生产商品，不仅生产剩余价值，而且还生产和再生产资本关系本身：一方面是资本家，另一方面是雇佣工人。”[2]666-667因此，在社会关系的变革或社会关系的主要变革已经完成也就是革命成功之后的社会主义建设时期，我们需要关注的恰恰是如何在社会主义生产过程中，不仅生产出产品，而且生产和再生产出社会主义生产关系。只有这样，才能建立、维持和扩大社会主义社会关系，进而为进入共产主义社会创造条件。事实上，对社会主义生产关系的生产和再生产的忽视正是社会主义的苏联解体、整个国家倒退回资本主义的主要原因。毛泽东时期的那一条蹊径最终没有走通的主要原因恐怕也在于当时过于关注生产关系之外的社会关系，而忽视了生产关系本身，导致推动生产力发展不足。

When discussing the working day in *Capital*, Marx once wrote: “The change in the mode of material production and the corresponding change in the producers’ social relations first gave rise to an unboundedly reckless prolongation of the working day, and later called forth the social supervision which legally limits, regulates, and makes uniform the working day and its pauses.” Here we can see the process of action and reaction among the mode of production, the relations of production (i.e., the producers’ social relations in the quotation), and social relations (the reckless prolongation, the superstructure mentioned by Mao — law, etc.).

马克思在《资本论》中谈到工作日时曾经写道：“物质生产方式的改变和生产者的社会关系的相应的改变，先是造成了无限度的压榨，后来反而引起了社会的监督，由法律来限制、规定和划一工作日及休息时间。”在这里，我们可以看到生产方式、生产关系（即引文中的生产者的社会关系）和社会关系（压榨、毛泽东提到的上层建筑——法律等）的作用与反作用的过程。

Since in the transmission mechanism or transmission chain it is the relations of production that determine social relations, in a socialist state under the people’s democratic dictatorship led by the working class and based on the alliance of workers and peasants, its basic economic system must take public ownership as the mainstay. This is because only socialist relations of production established in publicly owned enterprises can sustain socialist social relations. If the working class is merely led and subordinated within the enterprise, then it will also find it difficult or impossible to maintain and hold a leading position in society, and consequently it will be difficult to maintain the socialist social relations of the people’s democratic dictatorship.

由于在传导机制或传导链条中是生产关系决定社会关系，因此在工人阶级领导的、以工农联盟为基础的人民民主专政的社会主义国家里，其基本经济制度必须以公有制为主体。这是因为，只有建立在公有制企业里的社会主义生产关系，才能支撑社会主义的社会关系。如果工人阶级在企业内部只是被领导的和被支配的一方，那么他们在社会上也不可能或很难维持和拥有领导地位，从而也难以维持人民民主专政的社会主义社会关系。

IV. Paying Attention to the People’s Lifestyle

四、关注人民群众的生活方式

We pointed out earlier that both capitalist relations of production and socialist relations of production can correspond to productive forces at very different levels of development. When both correspond to the same level of productive forces, which relations of production do we favor? This depends, on the one hand, on which relations of production, through their reaction, can better promote the development of productive forces, and on the other hand, on which relations of production can better improve the lifestyle of the working people through social relations. As long as the purpose of our production is to meet the people’s needs for a better life, then we must not only focus on the development of productive forces but also pay attention to the lifestyle of the people, as well as the relations of production and social relations that determine that lifestyle.

我们在前面指出，资本主义生产关系和社会主义生产关系都能对应发展程度相差很大的生产力，那么在两者都同样对应的生产力水平面前，我们倾向于哪一个生产关系呢？这一方面取决于哪种生产关系的反作用能够更好地促进生产力的发展，另一方面取决于哪种生产关系能够通过社会关系更好地改进劳动者的生活方式。只要我们的生产目的是满足人民对美好生活的需要，那么我们就不仅要关注生产力的发展，更要关注人民群众的生活方式，以及决定生活方式的生产关系和社会关系。

The purpose of developing productive forces under capitalism is to enable a tiny minority to make money, even at the cost of making the people live a precarious existence. The purpose of developing productive forces and transforming relations of production under socialism is to achieve common prosperity and meet the needs of the broad masses of the people for a better life. The reason for such a great difference between the two lies in the fact that socialist countries have formed social relations in which the people are the masters of the country. Therefore, it is insufficient for contemporary Chinese Marxists, who aim to comprehensively advance the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation through Chinese-path modernization, to merely emphasize that relations of production must adapt to the requirements of the development of productive forces. While continuing to focus on the determination of relations of production by productive forces and the need for relations of production to adapt to the development of productive forces, the academic community must also pay attention to the ultimate recipient of the transmission mechanism of the determinism of productive forces, that is, to lifestyle, especially the lifestyle of the people. After all, whether the Communist Party of China is capable, whether socialism with Chinese characteristics is good, and whether Marxism adapted to the Chinese context and the needs of the times works — the historical subject of judgment for these questions is the people. Only by improving the people’s lifestyle and realizing the people’s aspiration for a better life can we truly demonstrate that the Communist Party of China is capable, that socialism with Chinese characteristics is good, and that Marxism adapted to the Chinese context and the needs of the times works. And this is precisely the historical merit of our achievements in fighting poverty, building a moderately prosperous society in all respects, and lifting all the people out of absolute poverty.

资本主义发展生产力的目的是为了使极少数人赚钱，为此不惜让人民群众过着朝不保夕的生活。社会主义发展生产力和变革生产关系，是为了实现共同富裕，满足广大人民群众美好生活的需要。这两者之所以会有这么大的区别就在于，社会主义国家形成了人民当家作主的社会关系。因此，只强调生产关系要适应生产力的发展要求，对于要以中国式现代化全面推进中华民族伟大复兴的当代中国的马克思主义者来说是不够的。学界必须要在继续关注生产力决定生产关系，生产关系要适应生产力发展的同时，关注生产力决定论的传导机制的最后承接者，也就是关注生活方式特别是人民群众的生活方式。毕竟中国共产党能不能，中国特色社会主义好不好，中国化时代化的马克思主义行不行，其历史判断主体是人民群众。只有改善了人民群众的生活方式，实现了人民群众对美好生活的向往，才能真正彰显中国共产党能、中国特色社会主义好、中国化时代化的马克思主义行。而这也正是我们脱贫攻坚全面建成小康社会，使全体人民群众摆脱绝对贫困的生活状态的历史功绩所在。

In the capitalist economy, “since the worker spends the greater part of his life in the process of production, the conditions of the process of production are for the most part the conditions of his active life process, his conditions of life.”[16]101 Here, it is precisely the capitalist social relations that cause the lengthening of the working day to result in the worker spending the greater part of his life in production time, and make the worker’s lifestyle primarily an appendage of the mode of production.

在资本主义经济中，“因为工人一生的大部分时间是在生产过程中度过的，所以，生产过程的条件大部分也就是工人的能动生活过程的条件，是工人的生活条件”[16]101。在这里，延长工作日导致工人一生的大部分时间都是处于生产的时间，并造成工人的生活方式主要是生产方式附属物的，正是资本主义社会关系。

When the American Civil War and the ensuing cotton famine threw British cotton textile workers out of work, the unemployed workers appealed for social assistance to emigrate to British colonies or the United States. But capitalist social relations “regard the factory worker as the movable appurtenance of the factory. The workers are prevented from emigrating. They are locked up in the ‘moral workhouse’ of the cotton districts,” and “the municipal authorities keep the workers half alive, or exploit them without paying the standard wage.”[2]2 A reference to Marx’s statement in the Preface to *A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy*: “No social formation is ever destroyed before all the productive forces for which it is sufficient have been developed, and new superior relations of production never replace older ones before the material conditions for their existence have matured within the framework of the old society.” This is often summarized as the “two never’s” (两个决不会).665

当美国的南北战争以及随之而来的棉荒，使英国棉纺织业工人失业时，失业工人呼吁社会资助他们迁往英国的殖民地或美国，但是资本主义社会关系“认为工厂工人是工厂的活动的附属物。工人被制止移居国外。他们被关进棉纺织工业区的‘有道德的贫民习艺所’”，“市政当局把工人维持在半死不活的状态中，或不付给标准工资而对他们进行剥削。”[2]665。

It is precisely capitalist social relations that allow capitalists, in order to increase the profit rate, to arbitrarily crowd workers into a narrow, unhealthy workplace, where a single fire can cause heavy casualties as workers fail to escape in time. Under such social relations, “the bright dwelling, which Prometheus in Aeschylus designated as one of the great gifts by which he turned savages into human beings, ceases to exist for the worker. Light, air, etc. — the simplest animal cleanliness — ceases to be a need for man. Dirt — this stagnation and putrefaction of man, the sewage of civilization (in the literal sense) — becomes the element of life for the worker.” Foreign scholars studying the issue of “spatial justice” have also taken a problem-oriented approach and paid attention to lifestyle. The environmental sanitation in first-tier cities of some developed countries is even inferior to that of third-tier cities in China.

正是资本主义社会关系使资本家可以为了提高利润率任意地把工人挤在一个狭窄的有害健康的工作场所，一场火灾就能造成大量工人逃离不及时而死伤严重。在这种社会关系下，“明亮的居室，这个曾被埃斯库罗斯笔下的普罗米修斯称为使野蛮人变成人的伟大天赐之一，现在对工人来说已不再存在了。光、空气等等，甚至动物的最简单的爱清洁习性，都不再是人的需要了。肮脏，人的这种堕落、腐化，文明的阴沟（就这个词的本义而言），成了工人的生活要素。”国外学者研究“空间正义”问题，也是以问题为导向，关注到了生活方式。一些发达国家一线城市的环境卫生甚至不如中国的三线城市。

In the past, in pre-capitalist societies, relief activities existed only in years of famine, whereas in capitalist society a large segment of the population has been “enjoying” relief and receiving free food for a long time. Some people consider this a manifestation of the “development” and “superiority” of capitalism. In fact, it merely shows that centuries of development in developed capitalist countries still cannot free people from a state of famine. The reason is that capitalist social relations can sustain themselves only by keeping some people in a half-dead state. This is a typical manifestation of social relations determining lifestyle.

过去，资本主义之前的社会里，只是灾荒之年才存在救济活动，而在资本主义社会却有很大一部分人群一直在“享受”救济，领取免费食品。一些人认为，这体现了资本主义的“发达性”“优越性”，其实，这只不过表明发达资本主义国家几百年的发达仍然不能使人摆脱饥荒状态。其原因就在于，资本主义社会关系只有在使一些人维持在半死不活的状态中的情况下才能把自身维持下去。这是社会关系决定生活方式的典型体现。

More importantly, “in so far as machinery dispenses with muscular power, it becomes a means for employing workers of slight muscular strength, or whose bodily development is incomplete, but whose limbs are all the more supple. The first word of the capitalist application of machinery is therefore the labor of women and children! Thus, this powerful means for replacing labor and workers is immediately transformed into a means for increasing the number of wage-laborers by placing all members of the worker’s family, without distinction of age and sex, under the direct domination of capital. Forced labor for the capitalist usurps not only the place of children’s play but also free labor in the domestic sphere, within the family, which was customary under the old system of production.”[2]2 A reference to Marx’s statement in the Preface to *A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy*: “No social formation is ever destroyed before all the productive forces for which it is sufficient have been developed, and new superior relations of production never replace older ones before the material conditions for their existence have matured within the framework of the old society.” This is often summarized as the “two never’s” (两个决不会).453-454 Thus, capitalist social relations cause workers to completely lose normal family life. The decline in the birth rate and the weakening of people’s physical and intellectual strength naturally become the inevitable results of this phenomenon.

更重要的是，“就机器使肌肉力成为多余的东西来说，机器成了一种使用没有肌肉力或身体发育不成熟而四肢比较灵活的工人的手段。因此，资本主义使用机器的第一个口号是妇女劳动和儿童劳动！这样一来，这种代替劳动和工人的有力手段，就立即转化为这样一种手段，它使工人家庭全体成员不分男女老少都受资本的直接统治，从而使雇佣工人人数增加。为资本家进行的强制劳动，不仅夺去了儿童游戏的时间，而且夺去了家庭本身惯常需要的、在家庭范围内从事的自由劳动的时间。”[2]453-454于是，资本主义社会关系导致工人完全失去了正常的家庭生活。人口出生率的下降和人的体力与智力的弱化也就自然成为这一现象的必然结果。

However, with the development of productive forces, further developing productive forces and achieving high-quality development increasingly require workers of higher quality. In particular, “collective management of production cannot be carried out by people of the present type, each of whom belongs to only one branch of production, is chained to it, is exploited by it, and develops only one aspect of his abilities at the expense of all others, and knows only one branch or only part of one branch of the entire production. Even modern industry is increasingly unable to employ such people.”[6]6 The original text’s note [10] refers to a source citation that is not provided in the input; it is retained as a placeholder.668 Clearly, only socialist social relations and a higher form of lifestyle can thoroughly change this situation. In fact, only a prosperous lifestyle can promote the all-round development of the individual; therefore, achieving common prosperity can not only improve workers’ lifestyles but also comprehensively raise the quality of workers, thereby further liberating and developing productive forces. The counter-effect of lifestyle on productive forces lies precisely here. For this reason, the report of the 20th National Congress of the CPC demands that by 2035, “more notable substantive progress will be made in the well-rounded development of the individual and common prosperity for all.”

但是，随着生产力的发展，要进一步发展生产力和实现高质量发展就越来越要求有更高素质的劳动者。特别是“共同经营生产不能由现在这种人来进行，因为他们每一个人都只隶属于某一个生产部门，受它束缚，听它剥削，在这里，每一个人都只能发展自己才能的一方面而偏废了其他各方面，只熟悉整个生产的某一个部门或者某一个部门的一部分。就是现在的工业也越来越不能使用这样的人了。”[6]668显然，要彻底改变这种状况只有社会主义的社会关系和更高级生活方式才能做到。实际上，只有富裕的生活方式才能促进人的全面发展，因此实现共同富裕，不仅能够改进劳动者的生活方式，而且能够全面提升劳动者的素质，从而更进一步地解放和发展生产力。生活方式对生产力的反作用也正在于此。正因为如此，党的二十大报告要求，到2035年，“人的全面发展、全体人民共同富裕取得更为明显的实质性进展”。

To this end, we must uphold the social relations in which the people are masters of the country and improve workers’ lifestyles. First, we must improve their working conditions, especially by arranging adequate rest periods and rest places or rest facilities during work breaks. In fact, if a city has good conditions only in its living environment but the working environment inside factory workshops is harsh, it should not be rated as a livable city. Second, we must comprehensively advance law-based governance, strictly implement the labor law, shorten the working day, and ensure that workers have sufficient time for family life, so that both they and their family members can develop physically and mentally in a healthy way. Common prosperity by no means means only that everyone has money; it also requires that everyone has time to spend money to enjoy a good life.

为此，我们要坚持人民当家作主的社会关系，改善工人的生活方式，首先就要改善他们的工作条件，尤其是要安排好工人们在工作间隙的休息时间和休息场所或休息条件。事实上，如果一个城市仅仅在居住环境方面有较好的条件，但工厂车间里的工作环境恶劣，也是不宜被评为宜居城市的。其次，我们要全面依法治国，严格落实劳动法，缩短工作日，让劳动者有充足的家庭生活时间，使其本人和家庭成员的身心都能够得到健康发展。共同富裕决不仅仅是大家都有钱，它还要求大家都有时间花钱来享受美好生活。

Of course, to achieve common prosperity and improve lifestyles, we must adhere to a people-centered approach, “safeguard the fundamental interests of the people, improve the well-being of the people, and constantly realize that development is for the people, development relies on the people, and the fruits of development are shared by the people, so that the achievements of modernization benefit all the people more and more fairly.”

当然，要实现共同富裕，改进生活方式，就必须做到坚持以人民为中心，“维护人民根本利益，增进民生福祉，不断实现发展为了人民、发展依靠人民、发展成果由人民共享，让现代化建设成果更多更公平惠及全体人民”。

Concluding Remarks

结束语

Lenin once pointed out, “Everyone wants to improve their living conditions; everyone wants to live a good life. This is only natural, and this is precisely socialism.” Deng Xiaoping also pointed out, “Poverty is not socialism.”[21]64 This indicates that socialism should be manifested in lifestyle. However, the academic community has long been primarily concerned with the determination of relations of production by productive forces, focusing mainly on the first three links in the transmission mechanism Marx mentioned—productive forces, mode of production, relations of production—while paying little attention to the latter two links, social relations and lifestyle. This constitutes an imbalance in theoretical research.

列宁曾经指出，“每个人都希望改善自己的生活状况，大家都想过好日子，这是理所当然的，这正是社会主义。”邓小平也指出，“贫穷不是社会主义”[21]64。这表明，社会主义应当表现在生活方式上。但是，学术界一直以来主要在乎的是生产力决定生产关系，主要关注马克思所提到的生产力—生产方式—生产关系—社会关系—生活方式的传导机制中，关注前面三个环节，对于后面两个环节的关注很少，存在理论研究不平衡现象。

In fact, changing the lifestyle of poverty was the original aspiration and driving force of reform and opening up. The hallmark of socialism with Chinese characteristics entering the New Era is also what General Secretary Xi Jinping pointed out: “The people’s aspiration for a better life is our goal of struggle.”

而事实上，不仅改变贫穷的生活方式是改革开放的初心和动力。中国特色社会主义进入新时代的标志也是习近平总书记所指出的，“人民对美好生活的向往就是我们的奋斗目标”。

In reality, the transmission mechanism of productive forces–mode of production–relations of production–social relations–lifestyle is the very foundation of historical materialism. Only by fully grasping this transmission mechanism can we deeply understand historical materialism, and also deeply understand reform and opening up, deeply understand socialism with Chinese characteristics, and deeply understand Xi Jinping Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era.

实际上，生产力—生产方式—生产关系—社会关系—生活方式的传导机制是唯物史观的根本所在。只有全面把握这个传导机制，我们才能深刻理解唯物史观，也才能深刻理解改革开放，深刻理解中国特色社会主义，深刻理解习近平新时代中国特色社会主义思想。

As productive forces change, the mode of production that utilizes productive forces inevitably changes; and as the mode of production changes, the organizational form among the parties involved in production and around production, and thus the relations of production, also change; and then the social relations centered on relations of production change correspondingly. These changes profoundly affect people’s lifestyles and determine whether we can shake off poverty and achieve common prosperity.

随着生产力的变化，运用生产力的生产方式就必然会发生变化，而随着生产方式的变化，从事生产和围绕生产的当事人之间的组织形态从而生产关系也要发生变化，进而以生产关系为核心的社会关系也要相应地发生变化。这些变化深刻地影响着人们的生活方式，决定了我们能否摆脱贫穷，能否实现共同富裕。

Today, as we face the historical task of resolving the contradiction between the people’s ever-growing needs for a better life and unbalanced and inadequate development, we must in fact grasp both ends of the transmission mechanism of productive forces–mode of production–relations of production–social relations–lifestyle, and realize the people’s good lifestyle by solving the problem of unbalanced and inadequate development of productive forces. However, there are still three intermediate links between productive forces and lifestyle. For this reason, we must do a good job of adjusting the mode of production, relations of production, and social relations, so as to comprehensively realize Chinese-path modernization and fulfill the original aspiration and mission of reform and opening up. This requires that in theoretical research we treat all links of the productive forces–lifestyle transmission mechanism more evenly.

今天，我们面对解决人民日益增长的美好生活需要和不平衡不充分的发展之间的矛盾的历史任务，实际上就是要抓好生产力—生产方式—生产关系—社会关系—生活方式的传导机制的两头，通过解决生产力发展不平衡不充分的问题来实现人民群众的美好生活方式。不过，从生产力到生活方式之间还有三个中间环节，为此，我们必须抓好生产方式、生产关系和社会关系的调整，以全面实现中国式现代化，达成改革开放的初心和使命。这就要求我们在理论研究上，更加平衡地对待生产力—生活方式传导机制的各个环节。

Online editor: Paul

网络编辑：保罗