A Shaded Horizon: The Moral Dimension of Historical Materialism

The moral dimension is a fundamental dimension that runs through the entire process of the creation and development of historical materialism. However, for various reasons over a long period, the moral dimension of historical materialism has been largely shaded or even dissolved. Returning to the authentic context of the texts of historical materialism and grasping the theoretical dimensions of historical materialism completely and accurately helps to answer the question of whether there is coherence between Marxism and morality.

道德维度是唯物史观创立与发展过程中贯穿始终的基本维度。但是，长期以来，由于诸种原因，唯物史观的道德维度在很大程度上被遮蔽甚至消解了。回到唯物史观文本的真实语境，完整准确地把握唯物史观的理论维度，有助于回答马克思主义与道德之间是否具有融贯性的问题。

The tendency to deny the moral dimension of historical materialism can be traced back to the end of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th century. At that time, various opponents of Marxism distorted historical materialism into a historical fatalism that “emphasizes things over people” or an economic materialism that “sees things but not people,” accusing it of neglecting attention to the historical subject, i.e., human beings, and denying that it contains moral concern. The German bourgeois sociologist Barth pointed out that historical materialism only recognizes the determining role of economic factors and the inevitability of the historical process, “turning all history into economic history,” with humans reduced to tools of the economic process. The “orthodox” theorists of the Second International, represented by Kautsky, treated historical materialism as a rigorous science, emphasizing its scientific aspect, but also neglecting or even denying the moral dimension it contains. Kautsky asserted that historical materialism is only related to economic necessity and pointed out that historical materialism is the “general result” of Marx’s “historical research and economic research.” It can be seen that both bourgeois scholars and early Marxist scholars opposed historical materialism to morality, regarding morality as a missing link in historical materialism.

否认唯物史观的道德维度之倾向，可以追溯至19世纪末20世纪初。当时，马克思主义的各种论敌将唯物史观歪曲为“重物轻人”的历史宿命论或“见物不见人”的经济唯物主义，指摘其忽视了对历史主体即人的关注，并否认其中内蕴道德关怀。德国资产阶级社会学家巴尔特指出，历史唯物主义只承认经济因素的决定作用和历史过程的必然性，“把全部历史变成经济史”，人被归结为经济过程的工具。以考茨基为代表的第二国际“正统派”理论家们，将历史唯物主义当作一门严格的科学，着重强调其科学性的一面，也忽视甚至否认其所蕴含的道德维度。考茨基断言，唯物史观只与经济必然性相关，并指出唯物史观是马克思“历史研究和经济研究的‘总的结果’”。可见，无论是资产阶级学者还是早期的马克思主义学者，他们都把唯物史观与道德对立起来，视道德为唯物史观中缺失的一个环节。

Subsequently, the stance in Western academia of shading or denying the moral dimension of historical materialism further manifested as opposing historical materialism to humanism. In the early 1930s, Marx’s *Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844* was published in full for the first time, becoming an important textual basis for Western scholars to deny that historical materialism contains humanist thought. Kamenka pointed out, “Marx’s mature works clearly avoid reflection on moral and philosophical issues, while in his early works and some manuscripts, we can find answers to what Marx’s ethical views are and their place in Marx’s mature thought.” In his view, Marx’s early humanist thought was the essence of Marx’s thought, while the mature historical materialism of the middle and later periods not only avoided reflection on morality but also regarded morality as a form of ideology. Therefore, historical materialism and humanism are diametrically opposed, and its creation led to a “radical rupture” in the developmental process of Marx’s moral thought.

此后，西方学界遮蔽或否认唯物史观之道德维度的立场，进一步表现为将唯物史观与人道主义对立起来。20世纪30年代初，马克思《1844年经济学哲学手稿》首次全文发表，成为西方学者否认唯物史观蕴含人道主义思想的重要文本依据。卡曼卡指出，“马克思的成熟作品明显地回避对道德和哲学问题的思考，而在他的早期作品和一些手稿中，我们才可以找到答案，以解答什么是马克思的伦理观点及其在马克思的成熟思想中的位置”。在他看来，马克思早期的人道主义思想才是马克思思想的实质，而中后期成熟的唯物史观不仅回避了对道德的思考，而且将道德视为意识形态的表现形式，因而唯物史观与人道主义截然对立，其创立导致了马克思道德思想发展进程的一个“激进的断裂”。

The “opposition theory” of historical materialism and humanism, citing Marx’s critical attitude toward humanism when he created historical materialism, holds that historical materialism leaves no room for human historical subjectivity and is a total negation of humanism. This is clearly a misinterpretation of historical materialism. In fact, historical materialism and humanism are not diametrically opposed. What is opposed to historical materialism is idealist conception of history, while what is opposed to humanism is anti-humanism. Humanism has a dual connotation: humanism as a conception of history and humanism as a principle of moral value. Historical materialism absorbs the positive factors of humanist thought as a principle of moral value into its own theory of history, discarding humanism in terms of conception of history and inheriting it in terms of value, thereby endowing it with a scientific theoretical foundation and making it the most scientific humanism in human history to date. Chen Xianda [1]1 Chen Xianda (1930– ) is a prominent Chinese Marxist philosopher and professor at Renmin University of China, known for his work on historical materialism and Marxist philosophy. clearly pointed out, “To describe Marx’s later rigorous analysis as abandoning his early moral ideals and losing his passion for humanity is, of course, a slander.”

唯物史观与人道主义的“对立论”以马克思创立唯物史观时对人道主义持批判态度为由，认为唯物史观没有给人的历史主体性留有一席之地，是对人道主义的全盘否定。这显然是对唯物史观的一种误读。事实上，唯物史观与人道主义并非截然对立。与唯物史观对立的是唯心史观，而与人道主义对立的则是反人道主义。人道主义具有双重内涵，即作为历史观的人道主义和作为道德价值原则的人道主义。唯物史观将人道主义思想中作为道德价值原则的积极因素吸纳到自己的历史理论中，对人道主义作出了历史观上的摈弃和价值观上的秉承，从而赋予其科学的理论基础，使其成为人类历史上迄今为止最科学的人道主义。陈先达明确指出，“把马克思后来的严格分析，说成是抛弃了早期的道德理想，丧失了对人的热情，这当然是一种污蔑”。

For a long time, influenced by the Soviet interpretive model, domestic academia has also tended to interpret historical materialism as a “true” theory that scientifically reveals the laws of development of human society, neglecting the profound moral implications contained in the critical theory and practical view of historical materialism. It is undeniable that emphasizing the scientific nature of historical materialism has its reasonable side. Because, unlike theories that observe history through an ethical lens, historical materialism scientifically reveals the objective laws of human historical development, achieving a great transformation in the conception of history, and is undoubtedly the most scientific philosophy of history to date. Lenin once called historical materialism “the greatest achievement of scientific thought.” However, emphasizing only the scientific dimension of historical materialism while neglecting or even denying its moral dimension is essentially also a misinterpretation of it. This one-dimensional interpretive model shades the moral brilliance of historical materialism, preventing us from deeply comprehending its deeper connotations and inherent characteristics.

一直以来，国内学界由于受到苏联解读模式的影响，也倾向于将唯物史观解读为科学地揭示人类社会发展规律的“真”学说，忽视了唯物史观的批判理论和实践观中所蕴含的深厚道德意蕴。不可否认，对唯物史观的科学性的强调有其合理的一面。因为与那些以伦理眼光观察历史的理论不同，唯物史观科学地揭示了人类历史发展的客观规律，实现了历史观的巨大变革，无疑是迄今为止最科学的历史哲学。列宁曾把唯物史观称为“科学思想中的最大成果”。然而，只强调唯物史观的科学维度而忽视甚至否认其道德维度，实质上也是对它的一种误读。这种单一化的解读模式遮蔽了唯物史观的道德光辉，使我们无法深刻领悟其深层内涵和内在特质。

Indeed, the texts of historical materialism are not pure moral treatises. However, the key issue is not whether it contains a complete “ethical-moral system,” but whether it has a “moral dimension.” “Ethical-moral system” and “moral dimension” are different concepts. The moral dimension refers to the level of moral value and moral stance. The fact that historical materialism lacks a complete ethical-moral system does not mean it also lacks a moral dimension. In fact, historical materialism is essentially an ideological system constructed with the dual dimensions of science and morality as its inherent characteristics, and is not, as some scholars claim, a “pure scientism” that is morally neutral or value-free. Historical materialism also attaches great importance to moral value orientations beyond science, which endows it with a theoretical character of high unity between science and morality, history and humanity, and realistic concern and moral appeal. Specifically, its moral dimension is mainly presented in three aspects. First, the implication of scientific moral critique. Historical materialism’s moral critique of capitalism is based on scientific historical evaluation and economic critique, highlighting the historical perspective and dialectical nature of its moral critique within historical evaluation, deeply exposing the anti-human economic roots and institutional causes of capitalism within economic critique, and for the first time endowing moral critique with a scientific theoretical form. Second, a strong quality of moral practice. Historical materialism disdains abstract speculative moral critique; instead, it pursues the satisfaction of people’s real needs in production practice, explores the moral basis for people’s ideal state of existence in survival practice, and seeks the realization of the communist moral ideal in revolutionary practice, manifesting a strong quality of moral practice. Third, profound moral concern. Marx created historical materialism not out of pure theoretical interest, but for the liberation of the proletariat and all humanity, as well as the free and comprehensive development of each individual. Human liberation and free and comprehensive development contain profound ethical implications; it is both a profound value concern and a profound moral concern.

的确，唯物史观文本不是纯粹的道德专著。但是，问题的关键不在于其是否包含完整的“伦理道德体系”，而在于其是否具有“道德维度”。“伦理道德体系”与“道德维度”是不同的概念。道德维度是就道德价值、道德立场层面而言的。唯物史观没有完整的伦理道德体系，并不意味着其中也缺乏道德维度。事实上，唯物史观本质上是以科学与道德双重维度为内在特质构建起来的思想体系，而并非像某些学者所言的那样是道德中立或价值无涉的“纯科学主义”。唯物史观对科学以外的道德价值取向也同样给予高度重视，这使它获得了科学与道德、历史与人道、现实关怀与道德诉求高度统一的理论品格。具体来说，其道德维度主要呈现为三个层面。其一，科学的道德批判意蕴。唯物史观对资本主义的道德批判建立于科学的历史评价和经济批判的基础上，在历史评价中彰显其道德批判的历史视角和辩证性，在经济批判中深刻揭露资本主义反人道的经济根源和制度原因，第一次赋予道德批判以科学的理论形态。其二，强烈的道德实践品质。唯物史观不屑于抽象思辨的道德批判，而是在生产实践中追求人的现实需要的满足，在生存实践中探寻人的理想生存状态之道德根据，在革命实践中谋求共产主义道德理想的实现，彰显出强烈的道德实践品质。其三，深切的道德关怀。马克思创立唯物史观不是单纯出于理论兴趣，而是为了无产阶级和全人类的解放以及每个人的自由全面发展。人的解放和自由全面发展内含深刻的伦理意蕴，它既是一种深切的价值关怀，亦是一种深切的道德关怀。

A systematic study of the classic texts of historical materialism and an in-depth examination of Marx’s moral reasoning reveal that historical materialism not only does not exclude morality but has always represented the direction of human moral progress. In fact, Marx used the scientific theory of historical materialism to reveal the origin, essence, and laws of development of morality, thereby achieving a revolutionary transformation in the field of morality. “In the development of ethics, there have been two major transformations: one was the liberation of moral concepts from theology… the other major transformation was the emergence of the Marxist view of morality. Due to the application of materialist dialectics in the field of history, the scientific essence of morality was revealed. This transformed the theoretical foundation of ethics from the abstract ‘theory of human nature’ of idealist metaphysics to scientific historical materialism.” The moral viewpoint is an important component of historical materialism. “Marx’s historical materialism is an artistic whole, and his ethical thought is an important part of this artistic whole. To understand the characteristics of Marx’s ethical thought and its transformative significance in the history of ethical thought, it is necessary to reflect and contemplate within the horizon of historical materialism.”

系统研读唯物史观经典文本，深入考察马克思的道德运思理路，不难发现唯物史观不仅没有排斥道德，而且始终代表人类道德进步的方向。事实上，马克思正是运用唯物史观这一科学理论揭示了道德的起源、本质和发展规律，从而实现了道德领域的革命性变革。“在伦理学的发展过程中，曾经有两次大的变革，一次是道德观念从神学中解放出来……另一次大的变革就是马克思主义道德观的出现，由于唯物主义辩证法在历史领域的运用，道德的科学实质才被揭示出来。这就是使伦理学的理论基础，由唯心主义形而上学的抽象‘人性论’变为科学的历史唯物论”。道德观点是唯物史观的重要组成部分，“马克思的历史唯物主义是一个艺术整体，其伦理思想则是这个艺术整体的重要内容。要理解马克思伦理思想的特质及其在伦理思想史上所产生的变革意义，就必须在历史唯物主义的视域中进行反思和观照”。

With the deepening of theoretical research, Marx’s moral studies underwent a transformation in perspective, namely, from the early elaboration of humanitarianism to historical materialism. Marx believed that within the domain of social history, the exploration of the laws of social development is closely linked to human morality. Historical materialism scientifically reveals the laws of social development, providing a scientific worldview and methodology for investigating the origin and development of human morality, and offering a scientific theoretical foundation for explaining human moral activity. Historical materialism has never abandoned moral research. It merely broke free from the rut of discussing morality solely by appealing to abstract moral principles, establishing moral research on the basis of a scientific view of history, thereby giving both moral research and the realization of genuine humanitarianism a concrete foundation.

随着理论研究的深入，马克思的道德研究经历了一个视角的转化，即从早期的人道主义阐发转向唯物史观。马克思认为，在社会历史领域内，对社会发展规律的探求与人类道德息息相关。唯物史观科学揭示了社会发展规律，为探讨人类道德的起源和发展提供了科学的世界观和方法论，为解释人类的道德活动提供了科学的理论基础。唯物史观从未抛弃道德研究。只不过，它摆脱了仅诉诸抽象道德原则来谈论道德的窠臼，将道德研究建立于科学的历史观基础之上，使道德研究以及真正的人道主义的实现都获得了现实的根基。

In summary, the moral dimension is a fundamental dimension that runs through historical materialism from beginning to end. To assert that historical materialism has no moral dimension is a misreading and distortion of it. In fact, the scientific revelation of the laws of historical development and the moral concern for humanity are two sides of the same coin in historical materialism. The more scientific historical materialism becomes, the more it can be transformed into a tremendous moral force that inspires the oppressed to rise up in struggle for their own liberation and development.

综上，道德维度是唯物史观中贯穿始终的基本维度。断言唯物史观没有道德维度，是对它的一种误读与曲解。事实上，对历史发展规律的科学揭示与对人类的道德关怀是唯物史观的一体两面。唯物史观越是科学，就越能转化为激励被压迫者为争取自身解放和发展而奋起抗争的巨大道义力量。

Online editor: Paul

网络编辑：保罗