The Dialectical Relationship between Economic Base and Superstructure in *Anti-Dühring*

Certain fundamental principles, as major components of a theoretical system, play an important role in understanding and grasping the external world. Among the fundamental principles of Marxist philosophy, the dialectical relationship between productive forces and relations of production, and the dialectical relationship between economic base and superstructure, are repeatedly invoked and applied when people examine the basic features and developmental direction of society, providing a reliable internal basis for this. However, in the process of using these fundamental principles to analyze social development, erroneous tendencies such as subjectivization, one-sidedness, dogmatization, and formalization exist to a certain extent. The reasons for this lie mainly in a superficial understanding of the principles, a failure to fully comprehend the era that produced the principles, and an inability to integrate the specific realities relevant to the principles, among other things. Thus, returning to the classic work that reveals the principle of the dialectical relationship between economic base and superstructure, and comprehensively sorting out the positive, principled conclusions Engels drew in *Anti-Dühring* through his critique of Dühring’s political theory of violence—including its so-called theory of violence as purpose, theory of violence as origin, and theory of violence as harm—helps people to know both the what and the why, and better engage in activities of understanding and transforming the world.

一定的基本原理作为理论体系的主要组成部分，对于认识和把握外部世界有着重要作用。在马克思主义哲学基本原理中，生产力与生产关系的辩证关系、经济基础与上层建筑的辩证关系，是人们在考察社会基本面貌及发展方向时反复提及并运用的，能够为此提供可靠的内在依据。然而，在运用这些基本原理解析社会发展的过程中，一定程度上存在主观化、片面化、教条化、形式化等错误倾向。究其原因，主要在于对原理的不求甚解、没有完全理解产生原理的时代以及未能结合同原理相关的具体实际等。由此，回到揭示出经济基础与上层建筑辩证关系原理的经典著作，全面梳理恩格斯在《反杜林论》中通过批判杜林的政治暴力论，包括其所谓的暴力目的说、暴力本原说、暴力危害说，所得出的正面的原理性结论，有助于人们做到知其然知其所以然，更好地从事认识和改造世界的活动。

The Fallacies of Dühring’s Political Theory of Violence

杜林政治暴力论的谬误

The political theory of violence is the theoretical cornerstone and logical starting point of Dühring’s so-called “social economics.” In his *Course of Political Economy and Social Economics* (1873), based on the subordination of social history to principles, i.e., natural laws, he discussed the determining role of political violence over economic life. In Dühring’s view, all social life, including political and economic life, is subject to the most general natural laws. Compared to the primary position of political life in human social life, economic life is secondary and exists only as a cross-section of political life. Therefore, only by abolishing the intervention of the political state, especially the intervention of property based on violence and combined with slavery and wage dependency, can the natural laws of the economy be found in the strictest sense. Looking at Dühring’s views above, it is not difficult to find that, aside from emphasizing the priority of natural laws, there is nothing of substance. In fact, in capitalist society, the political violence of the ruling class does not interfere with the operation of the existing economic system; instead, it constantly maintains it as a tool. As Engels said: “Force only protects exploitation, but does not cause it; the relation of capital and wage-labor is the basis of his exploitation, and this relation is brought about by purely economic means, and not by force.” [1]1 Engels, *Anti-Dühring*, Part II, Chapter IV, “The Theory of Force” (conclusion).

政治暴力论是杜林所标榜的“社会经济学”的理论基石与逻辑起点。他在《国民经济学和社会经济学教程》（1873）中基于原则即自然规律对社会历史的统摄，论述了政治暴力对经济生活的决定作用。在杜林看来，包括政治生活和经济生活在内的全部社会生活，都要受到最一般的自然规律的支配。相较于政治生活在人的社会生活中的首要地位，经济生活是次要的，并且只作为政治生活的一个断面而存在。因此，只有取消政治国家的干预，尤其是基于暴力的、同奴隶制和雇佣依附关系结合在一起的所有制的干涉，才能在最严格意义上找到经济的自然规律。综观杜林的上述观点，不难发现除却强调自然规律的先在性，再没有任何实质的东西。事实上，在资本主义社会中，统治阶级的政治暴力非但不干扰既有经济制度的运行，反而作为工具在时刻维护着它。正如恩格斯所说：“暴力仅仅保护剥削，但是并不造成剥削；资本和雇佣劳动的关系才是他受剥削的基础，这种关系是通过纯经济的途径而决不是通过暴力的途径产生的。”

Political violence is a very unique concept in Dühring’s theoretical system. Not only are all economic phenomena attributed to it, but all forms of property in history are reduced to “property based on violence,” i.e., the enslavement of man by man. Engels believed that this theory of violence as purpose is typical idealism; various facts of enslavement and oppression can prove that economic interests are the purpose, and political violence is merely the means to achieve that purpose. Similarly, directly equating “property based on violence” with the enslavement of man by man also reverses the true relationship between economic interests and political violence. From slavery in ancient Rome to modern slavery in the United States, it is only on the premise of possessing the necessary means of production and means of subsistence for slave labor that slave owners can use slaves. Although these above-average properties can also be obtained through violent plunder, they must first be produced by labor. Moreover, political violence is by no means the “origin” or “original sin” Dühring claims. The reason political violence depends on economic power is that the realization of violence must resort to certain instruments, which must necessarily be produced by economic power. Nor is political violence entirely harmful to social history; historical facts of its role in promoting historical development and social progress abound. “The ruled and exploited have always been far more numerous than the rulers and exploiters, and this simple fact alone suffices to demonstrate the absurdity of the entire theory of violence.” [2]2 Engels, *Anti-Dühring*, Part II, Chapter III, “The Theory of Force” (continuation).

政治暴力在杜林的理论体系中是一个极为独特的观念，不仅全部经济现象都被归因于此，而且历史上的一切所有制皆被归结为“基于暴力的所有制”，即人对人的奴役。恩格斯认为，这种暴力目的说是典型的唯心主义，各种奴役与压迫的事实均可证明，经济利益方为目的，政治暴力只是达到目的之手段。同样，将“基于暴力的所有制”直接等同于人对人的奴役，也颠倒了经济利益和政治暴力的真正关系。从古罗马的奴隶制到美国的现代奴隶制，皆是在掌握奴隶劳动的必要生产资料与生活资料的前提下，奴隶主才能使用奴隶。尽管这些超出平均水平的财产亦可依靠暴力掠夺而得，但它们始终要先由劳动生产出来。不止于此，政治暴力更非杜林所说的“本原”和“原罪”。政治暴力之所以取决于经济力量，是因为暴力的实现须诉诸一定的工具，后者必然依靠经济力量生产出来。政治暴力也不完全是对社会历史的危害，其对于历史发展与社会进步的推动作用的史实比比皆是。“被统治者和被剥削者在任何时代都比统治者和剥削者多得多，所以真正的力量总是在前者的手里，仅仅这一简单的事实就足以说明整个暴力论的荒谬性。”

The Determining Role of Economic Interests and Economic Power

经济利益与经济力量的决定性

As Engels said: “The ‘system’ of Herr Dühring which is being criticized covers a very wide theoretical field, and this compels me to follow him everywhere and to counter his views with my own. Thus negative criticism becomes positive criticism.” [3]3 Engels, *Anti-Dühring*, Preface to the Second Edition. Through the critique of Dühring’s political theory of violence, Engels further elucidated the determining role of economic interests over violent means, the dominating role of economic power over instruments of violence, and the reactive effect of political violence on economic development, profoundly revealing the interaction and mutual influence between economic base and superstructure. Engels analyzed that the emergence of private property can be traced back to the period of primitive communes. The development of social production promoted the expansion of the division of labor and the appearance of surplus products, causing collective labor to gradually transition to individual labor, which in turn led to the end of the system of equal distribution of property. At the same time, the expansion of the division of labor caused exchange to develop from between different communes to within the same commune, exacerbating property inequality among commune members and ultimately leading to the emergence of private property. Simple commodity production, after dissolving the system of communal land ownership, underwent a long historical process and transformed into capitalist production. Under the effect of the law of value, competition among commodity producers emerged, ultimately leading to the emergence of the wage-labor system.

诚如恩格斯所言：“所批判的杜林先生的‘体系’涉及非常广泛的理论领域，这使我不能不跟着他到处跑，并以自己的见解去反驳他的见解。因此消极的批判成了积极的批判。”通过对杜林政治暴力论的批判，恩格斯进一步阐释了经济利益对暴力手段的决定作用、经济力量对暴力工具的支配作用以及政治暴力对经济发展的反作用，深刻揭示出经济基础与上层建筑的相互作用、相互影响。恩格斯分析说，私有财产的产生可以追溯到原始公社时期，社会生产的发展推动分工的扩大和剩余产品的出现，致使集体劳动逐步过渡到个人劳动，继而使财产平均分配制走向终结；同时，分工的扩大又使得交换从不同公社之间发展到同一公社内部，加剧了公社各成员的财产不平等，最终导致私有制的产生。简单的商品生产在瓦解了土地公有制后，经历了漫长的历史过程而转变为资本主义生产。在价值规律的作用下，出现了商品生产者之间的竞争，并最终导致雇佣劳动制度的产生。

In essence, the process of the formation and development of capitalism itself is the history of the bourgeoisie, fully demonstrating that economic interests fundamentally determine violent means, not the other way around. Engels pointed out that the success of the bourgeois revolution ultimately depends on economic factors. The bourgeoisie, in its struggle against the feudal aristocracy, mainly used the ever-growing economic power resulting from industrial development and commercial expansion as its weapon, while violent means were frequently used by the feudal aristocracy. Even when resorting to violent means in social revolutions, the purpose is not to adapt economic development to political conditions, but to discard all old political things and create a political and legal environment suited to economic conditions, allowing it to fully develop. As the development of productive forces continuously breaks through the political “shell” of capitalist rule, the bourgeoisie increasingly becomes fixed-income earners detached from productive activities, gradually becoming superfluous to and even an obstacle for society, and creating a new class, the proletariat, by purely economic means. When the total productive forces owned by the bourgeoisie exceed its capacity to manage them, to the point where the entire capitalist society undergoes transformation or even perishes, any violent means are of no avail in saving it. Furthermore, to further illustrate that the economic base determines the superstructure, Engels specifically traced the history of the evolution of European land and naval weaponry, thereby confirming that “economic conditions provide the means of equipping and maintaining the instruments of force.” [4]4 Engels, *Anti-Dühring*, Part II, Chapter III, “The Theory of Force” (continuation).

究其实质，资本主义的形成与发展过程本身即为资产阶级的历史，充分昭示出经济利益从根本上决定着暴力手段，而不是相反。恩格斯指出，资产阶级革命的成功归根结底取决于经济因素，资产者在同封建贵族的斗争中，主要以因工业发展和商业扩张而不断增长的经济权力作为武器，暴力手段则是封建贵族经常使用的。即使在社会革命中诉诸暴力手段，其目的也不在于让经济发展适应政治状况，而在于摒弃一切旧的政治事物，创造同经济状况相适应的政治的和法的环境，使之充分发展起来。随着生产力的发展持续突破资本主义统治的政治“外壳”，资产阶级就日益成为脱离生产活动的固定收入者，不断成为社会的多余乃至障碍，并以纯粹的经济方式造就出新的阶级即无产阶级。当资产阶级占有的生产力总和超过其驾驭它们的能力，以致整个资本主义社会发生变革甚至灭亡时，任何暴力手段对于挽救它均无济于事。不仅如此，为了进一步说明经济基础决定上层建筑，恩格斯还专门梳理了欧洲陆海军武器演化史，以此证实“经济状况给暴力提供配备和保持暴力工具的手段”。

The Relative Independence of Politics

政治的相对独立性

While emphasizing that the economic base determines the superstructure, Engels also affirmed the relative independence of the superstructure and its reactive effect and influence on the economic base. To this end, he systematically elucidated the historical role of political violence, starting from the main path of formation of the ruling class, i.e., relations of domination and servitude. On the one hand, political rule is established on the basis of the execution of certain social functions, and can only be maintained in this way. Historically, although there was general equality of social status among members of primitive communes, individual members had already begun to undertake some work of maintaining public interests, such as settling disputes, preventing overstepping of authority, supervising the exercise of power, and conducting ceremonies. These positions, endowed with certain plenary powers, constituted the germ of state power. Subsequently, the gradual increase in productive forces, the growth of population, and the emergence of new divisions of labor led to the formation of various interest groups and their representative bodies within different communes. These bodies became increasingly indispensable due to the hereditary nature of positions and the increase in conflicts of interest between different groups, becoming a special or even antagonistic entity for each commune, thereby gaining greater independence. Thus, the “public servants” who performed certain social functions became the ruling class, and these functions correspondingly transformed into political rule. In other words, once violence as political rule is formed on the basis of certain economic and social functions, it acquires relative independence.

在强调经济基础决定上层建筑的同时，恩格斯也肯定了上层建筑的相对独立性及其对经济基础的反作用与影响。为此，他从统治阶级即统治关系及奴役关系的主要形成路径入手，系统阐明了政治暴力所具有的历史作用。一方面，政治统治建立于一定的社会职能的执行之上，并且唯有如此方可维持下去。从历史上看，虽然原始公社内部成员之间具有社会地位的普遍平等，但个别成员已经开始承担一些维护公共利益的工作，诸如解决争端、防止越权、监督用权、举行仪式等，这些被赋予某种全权的职位构成了国家权力的萌芽。此后，生产力的逐步提高、人口数量的增加以及新的分工的出现，使得不同的公社中形成了各种利益群体及其代表机构。这些机构由于职位的世袭和不同群体间利益冲突的增多而愈发不可或缺，其对于每个公社均为特别的甚至对立的事物，从而更加具有独立性。于是，执行一定社会职能的“公仆”成为统治阶级，这些职能亦相应地转变为政治统治。换言之，作为政治统治的暴力在一定经济的、社会的职能基础上形成后，就具有了相对的独立性。

On the other hand, the formation of the ruling class also depends on the emergence of slaves. Engels continues to write that, under the historical conditions of ancient society, progress to a society built on class antagonisms could only be accomplished through slavery. As the productive forces developed to the point where the products they created far exceeded the quantity needed to maintain the labor force, and at the same time there was the capacity to use this labor force, the primitive commune and its various interest groups could not provide surplus disposable labor. Prisoners of war, who had previously been killed, were put to labor, and from this the slave system and the ruling class arose. The initial economic progress of slavery was achieved under conditions of extremely low labor productivity, using slave labor to develop and enhance social production. Its formation fully demonstrates that political violence is forced to serve economic development. By the same token, many of the antagonisms between the ruling class and the oppressed class can be explained by the relative underdevelopment of labor productivity. As “the tool by which the social movement clears a path for itself and smashes the rigid, moribund political forms,”[5]5 Friedrich Engels, *Anti-Dühring*, Part II: Political Economy, Chapter 2: “Theory of Violence.” every victory of violent revolution in history has been for the liberation of the productive forces and has brought immense spiritual encouragement to the revolutionary class. The same is true of overthrowing bourgeois rule through violent revolution and establishing the dictatorship of the proletariat; it is necessarily capable of abolishing the old relations of production and opening the way for the development of new productive forces.

另一方面，统治阶级的形成也有赖于奴隶的出现。恩格斯继续写道，在古代社会的历史前提下进步到构筑于阶级对立之上的社会，只能诉诸奴隶制来完成。随着生产力发展到其创造的产品远超维持劳动力所需的数量，同时也具有了使用这些劳动力的程度，原始公社及其各种利益群体无法提供多余的可支配的劳动力，过去被杀掉的战俘等被投入劳动中，奴隶制度和统治阶级就由此产生。奴隶制最初的经济进步是在劳动生产力极其低下的情况下，借助奴隶劳动来发展与提高社会生产。它的形成充分表明，政治暴力是被迫为经济发展服务的。同理可知，统治阶级和被压迫阶级之间的诸多对立，都可以从劳动生产力的相对不发展中得到说明。作为“社会运动借以为自己开辟道路并摧毁僵化的垂死的政治形式的工具”，历史上的每次暴力革命的胜利皆是为了解放生产力，并且给革命阶级带来巨大的精神鼓舞。通过暴力革命来推翻资产阶级统治并建立无产阶级专政亦是如此，其必然能够消灭旧的生产关系而为新的生产力的发展开辟道路。

(The author is Deputy Director of the Research Center for Cultural Studies and a Researcher at the Institute of Philosophy, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences)

（作者系中国社会科学院文化研究中心副主任、哲学研究所研究员）

Online Editor: Tongxin

网络编辑：同心