The Logic Behind Raising the Question of the Fundamental Theories of the History of Marxist Development

The fundamental theories of Marxism and the fundamental theories of the history of Marxist development are both concepts with which we are relatively unfamiliar. This is not because they do not exist, but because we once neglected their existence. In recent years, both Marxism as a whole and its traditional secondary disciplines have raised the question of fundamental theories and achieved preliminary research results. Currently, more scholars in China have begun to pay attention to this issue. The author has raised the question of the fundamental theories of the history of Marxist development and has published relevant research results since 2012. This article intends to offer a few insights into the logic, i.e., the rationality, behind raising the question of the fundamental theories of the history of Marxist development.

马克思主义基础理论和马克思主义发展史基础理论,都是我们比较生疏的概念。这不是由于它们不存在,而是因为我们一度忽略了它们的存在。近些年来,总体的马克思主义和它的传统二级学科都提出了基础理论问题并取得了初步研究成果。目前国内开始有较多学者关注这个问题。笔者提出马克思主义发展史的基础理论问题,从2012年起发表有关研究成果。本文拟就马克思主义发展史基础理论问题提出的逻辑亦即合理性,谈几点认识。

I. The Enlightenment from Raising the Question of Fundamental Theories in Marxism and Its Traditional Secondary Disciplines

一、马克思主义及其传统二级学科基础理论问题提出的启示

Regarding the structure of Marxist theory, we were previously more familiar with its concepts, categories, basic viewpoints, and basic principles, while fundamental theories were not within our field of vision. This situation changed with the launch in 2004 of the major bidding project of the National Social Science Fund, “Research on the Fundamental Theories of Marxism,” and the research on this topic by the team led by Professor Sun Zhengyu as the chief expert. The book *Research on the Fundamental Theories of Marxism*, which is the final result of this project, was published by Beijing Normal University Press in 2011 and had a certain impact. The publication of the “Contemporary Research Series on the Fundamental Theories of Marxism,” a project of the “National Key Book Publishing Plan during the 12th Five-Year Plan” [1]1 The 12th Five-Year Plan refers to China’s national economic and social development plan for 2011–2015. chaired by Professor Yang Geng, promoted the in-depth development of this research. This series studies the fundamental theories of Marxism from different dimensions and levels. What are the fundamental theories of Marxism? In the published research literature on this issue, direct answers to this question are rarely seen. The preface to *Research on the Fundamental Theories of Marxism* only discusses “carrying out fundamental theoretical research on Marxism” from the aspects of the Marxist worldview, dialectics, scientific outlook, view of nature, view of history, view of society, view of development, critique of capitalism, and scientific socialism, based on the idea that Marxism is “a single block of steel.” [2]2 “A single block of steel” is a phrase Lenin used to describe the integrated and inseparable nature of Marxist theory. The general preface to the “Contemporary Research Series on the Fundamental Theories of Marxism” only states that “fundamental theoretical research is fundamental and directional” and that “fundamental theoretical research fundamentally constrains the understanding of the themes, content, characteristics, and functions of Marxist theory.” Here, the fundamental theories of Marxism are only indirectly and partially explained from the perspective of their content, scope, and significance.

就马克思主义理论的结构来说,我们以往比较熟悉的是它的概念、范畴、基本观点和基本原理等,基础理论不在视野之内。这一状况改变于2004年国家社会科学基金重大招标项目“马克思主义基础理论研究”的推出和以孙正聿教授为首席专家的团队对这一课题的研究。作为该课题最终成果的《马克思主义基础理论研究》一书于2011年由北京师范大学出版社出版,产生了一定影响。杨耕教授主持的“‘十二五'国家重点图书规划项目”的“当代马克思主义基础理论研究丛书”的出版,推动了这一研究的深入开展。该丛书从不同维度、不同层次对马克思主义基础理论展开研究。什么是马克思主义基础理论?在已经发表的关于该问题的研究文献中,很少见到对这个问题的直接回答。《马克思主义基础理论研究》一书的序言只谈到依据马克思主义是“一整块钢铁”的思路,从马克思主义的世界观、辩证法、科学观、自然观、历史观、社会观、发展观、资本主义批判、科学社会主义方面“开展马克思主义的基础理论研究”。“当代马克思主义基础理论研究丛书”总序也只是谈到“基础理论研究具有根本性和方向性”,“基础理论研究从根本上制约着对马克思主义理论主题、理论内容、理论特征和理论职能的理解”。在这里,关于马克思主义基础理论只是从它的内容、范围和意义角度间接地和部分地作了解释。

Within the Marxist theoretical system, fundamental theories are the elementary and fundamental part of this system. They are the fundamental views of the proletariat, realized in the practice of changing the world, concerning the world, the essence and laws of human society, and the major practical issues of changing the world. They are the theoretical part that determines the nature, characteristics, function, and developmental state of this system. Fundamental theories are a system of basic viewpoints and basic principles. Both they and basic viewpoints and basic principles are viewpoints and theories that reflect the essence and laws of things, and thus both are fundamental. However, generally speaking, fundamental theories are fundamental, and therefore their degree of universality and hierarchy is somewhat higher than that of basic viewpoints and basic principles. There is no strict distinction between fundamental theories and basic theories. Some basic principles simultaneously possess the character of fundamental theories, such as the basic principle that social being determines social consciousness, and the basic principle that the economic base determines the superstructure. Understanding the hierarchical nature of the fundamental theories of Marxism can be linked to the structure of the Marxist theoretical system. Since this structure is often the basis for the division of Marxist theoretical disciplines, the structure of the fundamental theories of Marxism can also be understood from the existing disciplinary divisions of Marxist theory. Regarding the disciplinary structure of Marxist theory, first there is the division of its traditional secondary disciplines—Marxist philosophy, Marxist political economy, and scientific socialism. Lenin called them the “three component parts” of Marx’s doctrine. [3]3 Lenin’s “three component parts” refers to his characterization of Marxism as comprising Marxist philosophy, Marxist political economy, and scientific socialism. With the development of Marxism in a wider range of disciplinary fields, new disciplines emerged, such as Marxist historiography, Marxist literary and art theory, Marxist jurisprudence, Marxist sociology, Marxist ethnology, and Marxist military science. In addition, there is the division of new secondary disciplines after the establishment of the first-level discipline of Marxist theory. On December 23, 2005, the Academic Degrees Committee of the State Council and the Ministry of Education issued the “Notice on Adjusting and Adding the First-Level Discipline of Marxist Theory and Its Subordinate Secondary Disciplines,” deciding to establish the first-level discipline of Marxist theory and designating Basic Principles of Marxism, History of Marxist Development, Study of the Sinicization of Marxism, Study of Marxism Abroad, and Ideological and Political Education as its secondary disciplines. In 2008, Basic Issues in Modern and Contemporary Chinese History was added to the secondary disciplines. Both paradigms of disciplinary division of Marxist theory mentioned above have their rationality and are appropriate perspectives for understanding the structure and content of the fundamental theories of Marxism.

在马克思主义理论体系中,基础理论是这一体系中基元性和根本性的部分,是无产阶级在改变世界的实践中实现的关于世界、关于人类社会的本质与规律、关于改变世界的重大实践问题的根本看法,是决定着这个体系的性质、特征、作用和发展状况的理论部分。基础理论是一个基本观点和基本原理的系统,它和基本观点、基本原理都是反映事物本质和规律的观点、理论,因而都具有根本性。但一般说来,基础理论具有根本性,因而其普遍性和层次性的程度比基本观点、基本原理高一些。基础理论与基本理论不是严格区分的,有的基本原理同时具有基础理论的性质,如社会存在决定社会意识的基本原理,经济基础决定上层建筑的基本原理。对于马克思主义基础理论的层次性的认识,可以与马克思主义理论体系的结构联系起来,由于这个结构往往是马克思主义理论学科划分的基础,所以,又可以从马克思主义理论现有学科划分中得到关于马克思主义基础理论的结构的认识。关于马克思主义理论的学科结构,首先是它的传统二级学科的划分——马克思主义哲学、马克思主义政治经济学和科学社会主义。列宁称之为马克思学说的“三个组成部分”。随着马克思主义在更广泛的学科领域得到发展,有了马克思主义史学、马克思主义文艺学、马克思主义法学、马克思主义社会学、马克思主义民族学、马克思主义军事学等新的学科。此外,还有马克思主义理论一级学科建立后新的二级学科的划分。2005年12月23日,国务院学位委员会和教育部发布《关于调整增设马克思主义理论一级学科及所属二级学科的通知》,决定建立马克思主义理论一级学科,并把马克思主义基本原理、马克思主义发展史、马克思主义中国化研究、国外马克思主义研究和思想政治教育等划为它的二级学科,2008年在二级学科中又增加了中国近现代史基本问题。马克思主义理论的以上两种范式的学科划分都有其合理性,是我们认识马克思主义基础理论的结构和内容的适当视角。

The question of fundamental theories has already been raised within Marxism as a whole and its traditional secondary disciplines. However, overall, the question of fundamental theories for the seven secondary disciplines under the first-level discipline of Marxist theory has not been raised clearly enough. Influenced by Marxism as a whole and the traditional Marxist disciplines, the time is ripe for raising the question of fundamental theories in the new secondary disciplines.

基础理论问题已经在总体的马克思主义和它的传统二级学科中提出。但从整体来看,马克思主义理论一级学科所属七个二级学科的基础理论问题提得还不够明确,受总体的马克思主义和马克思主义传统学科的影响,新的二级学科的基础理论问题提出的时机已经成熟。

II. Understanding Fundamental Theories through the Combination of the Particularity and Universality of Contradictions

二、在矛盾的特殊性与普遍性的结合中认识基础理论

The concept of the fundamental theories of the history of Marxist development involves three aspects of theoretical relations: the relation between theory and the history of theory, the relation between Marxism and non-Marxism, and the relation between fundamental theories and general theories. The topic we are discussing belongs to the history of theory, not to theory itself; it belongs to the history of Marxist theory, not to the history of theory in general systems of thought; it belongs to the fundamental theories of the history of Marxist development, not to the general theories of the history of Marxist development. We understand the fundamental theories of the history of Marxist development within these three aspects of relations through the method of combining the particularity and universality of contradictions.

马克思主义发展史基础理论概念涉及三个方面的理论关系,即理论与理论史的关系、马克思主义与非马克思主义的关系、基础理论与一般理论的关系。我们所谈主题属于理论史,而不属于理论本身;属于马克思主义理论史,而不属于一般思想体系的理论史;属于马克思主义发展史的基础理论,而不属于马克思主义发展史的一般理论。我们通过矛盾的特殊性与普遍性相结合的方法在这三个方面的关系中理解马克思主义发展史的基础理论。

First, it is necessary to distinguish the discipline of the history of Marxist development from other Marxist disciplines according to the dialectics of the particularity of contradiction. Mao Zedong, in *On Contradiction*, expounded the division of general scientific disciplines through the “particularity of contradiction.” He pointed out: “The differentiation of scientific research is based on the particularity of contradiction inherent in the objects of scientific research. Therefore, the study of a particular contradiction peculiar to a certain field of phenomena constitutes the object of a particular science.” “Without studying the particularity of contradiction, it is impossible to determine the particular essence of a thing that distinguishes it from other things, impossible to discover the particular cause or particular basis of the movement and development of a thing, and impossible to distinguish things or to differentiate the fields of scientific research.” Mao Zedong also illustrated the “particularity of contradiction” of different disciplines through examples, such as positive and negative numbers in mathematics, action and reaction in mechanics, negative and positive electricity in physics, dissociation and combination in chemistry, productive forces and relations of production and the mutual struggle of classes in social science, attack and defense in military science, and idealism and materialism, metaphysics and dialectics in philosophy. The analytical method of the “particularity of contradiction” is equally applicable to the division of Marxist theoretical disciplines. The question lies only in the understanding of the “particularity of contradiction” of this discipline. What is the “particularity of contradiction” of the history of Marxist development? Before answering this question, we must first resolve a puzzling issue: for a given discipline, can the “particularity of contradiction” that expresses it be only one pair of contradictions, or can there be multiple pairs? In the examples Mao Zedong listed above, the “particularity of contradiction” of mathematics, mechanics, physics, chemistry, and military science is each expressed by one pair of contradictions, while social science and philosophy each have two pairs. In fact, the “particularity of contradiction” of social science involves not only two pairs of contradictions; it can have three or more pairs. Because between productive forces and relations of production and the mutual struggle of classes, there can at least be the contradiction between the economic base and the superstructure. Social science is a comprehensive science; when broken down, it can include multiple disciplines such as economics, law, political science, sociology, journalism, and management, each of which also has its own “particularity of contradiction.” Therefore, the contradictions expressing the essence of the discipline of social science will by no means be limited to only two or three pairs. In short, in understanding the “particularity of contradiction” of things and objects, one should not be constrained by the notion of one discipline, one pair of contradictions. How many pairs of contradictions express the “particularity of contradiction” of a discipline must be analyzed concretely.

首先需要根据矛盾的特殊性的辩证法把马克思主义发展史学科与马克思主义的其他学科区别开来。毛泽东在《矛盾论》中通过“特殊的矛盾性”阐述了一般科学学科的划分问题。他指出:“科学研究的区分,就是根据科学对象所具有的特殊的矛盾性。因此,对于某一现象的领域所特有的某一种矛盾的研究,就构成某一门科学的对象。”“如果不研究矛盾的特殊性,就无从确定一事物不同于他事物的特殊的本质,就无从发现事物运动发展的特殊的原因,或特殊的根据,也就无从辨别事物,无从区分科学研究的领域。”毛泽东还通过举例对不同学科的“特殊的矛盾性”进行了说明,如数学中的正数和负数,机械学中的作用和反作用,物理学中的阴电和阳电,化学中的化分和化合,社会科学中的生产力和生产关系、阶级和阶级的互相斗争,军事学中的攻击和防御,哲学中的唯心论和唯物论、形而上学和辩证法。“矛盾的特殊性”的分析方法同样适应于马克思主义理论学科的划分。问题只在于对这个学科的“特殊的矛盾性”的认识。什么是马克思主义发展史的“特殊的矛盾性”呢?在回答这个问题之前,先要解决这样一个令人疑惑的问题,即对于某一学科来说,表现其“特殊的矛盾性”只能是一对矛盾,还是可以有多对矛盾?在上述毛泽东列举的例子中,表现数学、机械学、物理学、化学和军事学的“特殊的矛盾性”的都是一对矛盾,而社会科学和哲学则是两对矛盾。其实,社会科学的“特殊的矛盾性”不只涉及两对矛盾,它可以有三对或三对以上的矛盾。因为在生产力和生产关系、阶级和阶级的互相斗争之间,至少可以有经济基础和上层建筑的矛盾。社会科学是一门综合性科学,把它分解开来,可以有经济学、法学、政治学、社会学、新闻学、管理学等多种学科,这些学科也有自己的“特殊的矛盾性”,因而,表现社会科学学科本质的矛盾无论如何不会只有两对或三对。总之,在关于事物、对象的“特殊的矛盾性”的认识上,不应拘泥于一门学科、一对矛盾的认识。究竟一门学科表现其“特殊的矛盾性”的有多少对矛盾,要进行具体分析。

Regarding the “particularity of contradiction” of the history of Marxist development, if one insists on the assumption that it is expressed by only one pair of contradictions, what would that pair be? Could it be the contradiction between history and theory? The answer is “impossible.” Any historical discipline or any theoretical discipline involves a relationship between history and theory; it cannot express, or fully express, the “particularity of contradiction” of this special intellectual history and theoretical history discipline, the history of Marxist development. Could it be the contradiction between theory and practice? This pair of contradictions is indeed a contradiction in the development of Marxism, and it possesses the character of a fundamental contradiction; it is the fundamental cause explaining the formation and development of Marxism. However, because all ideological systems that are practical and ideological have a relationship between theory and practice, it is actually difficult to say that this pair of contradictions is exclusive to Marxism and its history of development. As Karl Korsch, the former theoretician of the German Communist Party and known as a forerunner of “Western Marxism,” said: “Connection with the actual social movement is not a distinctive mark of Marxist theory. Bourgeois social theory, in all stages of its development, serves a practical tendency.” [4]4 Karl Korsch, *Marxism and Philosophy* (1923). In fact, there are other contradictions that are of fundamental significance for the development of Marxism, such as the contradictions between particularity and universality, and between upholding and developing. If the relationship between theory and practice mainly explains the driving force and direction of Marxist development, then the relationship between particularity and universality mainly explains the path of Marxist development, especially the path of adapting Marxism to the times and to national conditions, and this is particularly important for the development of Marxism. It can be said that from the time of Marxism’s formation, there has been a contradiction concerning upholding and developing Marxism; the entire history of Marxist development is the history of the relationship between upholding and developing Marxism. This pair of contradictions also involves the evaluation of the achievements of Marxist development and the relationship between Marxism and the various tendencies and currents of thought that emerge in its development.

对于马克思主义发展史的“特殊的矛盾性”,如果坚持其表现只有一对矛盾的设想,那么,这对矛盾是什么呢?可能是史与论的矛盾吗?答案是“不可能”。任何历史性的学科或者任何理论学科都有一个史论关系问题,它不能表现或完全表现马克思主义发展史这个特殊的思想史、理论史学科的“特殊的矛盾性”。可能是理论与实践的矛盾吗?这对矛盾的确是马克思主义发展的矛盾,并且具有基本矛盾的性质,是解释马克思主义形成与发展问题的根本原因,但是因为一切具有实践性和意识形态性的思想体系都有一个理论与实践的关系问题,因而实际上很难说这对矛盾是马克思主义及其发展史的专有矛盾。正如原德国共产党理论家、有“西方马克思主义”先驱者之称的卡尔·柯尔施(Karl Korsch)所说:“同实际的社会运动相联系并不是马克思主义理论特有的标志。资产阶级的社会理论在它的一切发展阶段上都服务于一种实际倾向。”其实,还有一些其他矛盾对于马克思主义的发展具有根本性意义,如特殊性与普遍性、坚持与发展的矛盾。如果说,理论与实践的关系主要是说明马克思主义发展的动力和方向,那么特殊性与普遍性的关系则主要说明马克思主义发展的道路,特别是马克思主义时代化和民族化的发展道路问题,而这一点对马克思主义的发展来说尤其重要。可以说,自马克思主义形成时起,就有一个关于马克思主义坚持与发展的矛盾,整个马克思主义发展史就是马克思主义坚持与发展的关系的历史。这对矛盾还涉及对马克思主义发展成果的评价和马克思主义与其发展中出现的各种倾向、各种思潮之间的关系问题。

Therefore, the contradictions expressing the “particularity of contradiction” of the history of Marxist development should be regarded as a system. This system includes at least the four pairs of contradictions we have mentioned here: First, the contradiction between history and theory. This is a surface-level contradiction of the history of Marxist development, involving the relationship between the history of Marxist development and Marxist theory. “History” here does not refer to objective history, but to intellectual and theoretical history. Because the relationship between objective history and theory, in a general sense, is the relationship between social being and social consciousness; it is a fundamental issue for all philosophy and all theory, not just an issue for intellectual history and theoretical history, and certainly not just an issue for the history of Marxist development. This pair of contradictions, in its concreteness, also involves the contradiction between text and thought; text belongs to the category of intellectual history and theoretical history. Second, the contradiction between theory and practice. It can be said that this is the fundamental contradiction in the system of contradictions concerning the development of Marxism; it fundamentally explains the basis for the emergence and development of Marxist theory, and its movement constitutes the basic law of Marxist development. Third, the contradiction between the universal and the particular. This involves the actual path of Marxist development, i.e., the relationship between nationalization and internationalization, and involves the evaluation of the latest achievements of Marxist development, i.e., the degree of their universality and the direction of their development. Fourth, the contradiction between upholding and developing. This concerns the question of how to correctly treat Marxism. So-called upholding means inheriting Marxism that has already been developed; it is necessary to inherit and uphold the basic principles of Marxism, and at the same time to develop Marxism in light of new realities. The historical lesson is that revisionism and dogmatism are the two extremes, two erroneous tendencies on this issue. Only by properly handling this pair of contradictions can these two erroneous tendencies and their negative impact on the development of Marxism be avoided.

因此,表现马克思主义发展史的“特殊的矛盾性”的矛盾应该被看做一个系统。这个系统至少包括我们在这里提到的四对矛盾:第一,史与论的矛盾。这是马克思主义发展史的表层性矛盾,涉及马克思主义发展史与马克思主义理论的关系。“史”在这里不是指客观历史,而是指思想的、理论的历史。因为客观历史与理论的关系,在一般意义上是社会存在与社会意识的关系,它是一切哲学、一切理论的根本问题,而不只是思想史、理论史的问题,更不只是马克思主义发展史的问题。这对矛盾在具体性上还涉及文本与思想的矛盾,文本属于思想史、理论史范畴。第二,理论与实践的矛盾。可以说,这是有关马克思主义发展的矛盾系统中的基本矛盾,从根本上解释了马克思主义理论产生与发展的根据,其运动构成马克思主义发展的基本规律。第三,普遍与特殊的矛盾。这涉及马克思主义发展的现实道路即民族化和世界化的关系问题,涉及对马克思主义发展的最新成果的评价,即其普遍性的程度和发展方向问题。第四,坚持与发展的矛盾。这是如何正确对待马克思主义的问题。所谓坚持,就是对已经发展了的马克思主义的继承,要继承和坚持马克思主义的基本原理,又要根据新的实际发展马克思主义。历史的教训是,修正主义和教条主义是这个问题上的两个极端,两种错误倾向。只有处理好这对矛盾,才能避免这两种错误倾向及其对马克思主义发展产生的消极影响。

It should be noted that using the category of “particular contradiction” here to explain the system of contradictions in the history of Marxist development does not absolutely exclude the category of the universality of contradiction. Formally, this explains the system from one property of contradiction, but in reality it is explained within the two properties of contradiction, that is, within the unity of particularity and universality. No single pair of contradictions is exclusive to the history of Marxist development, precisely because this contradiction possesses the significance of universality. In terms of the method of argumentation, we can equally use the category or method of “universality of contradiction.” For example, the distinction between fundamental theory and general theory in the history of Marxist development can be explained through the dialectics of the universality of contradiction. A theory is called fundamental theory, as we discussed earlier, because this theory is the elementary and essential part of a given theoretical system. This elementary and essential nature determines both the particular essence of this theoretical system compared with other theoretical systems and the foundational and overarching status of a given theory within this theoretical system relative to other theories, that is, its significance of universality relative to other theories. In explaining the issue of fundamental theory, the category of “particular contradiction” focuses on the comparison between theory and the history of theory, and between Marxism and non-Marxism, while the category of “universality of contradiction” focuses on the comparison between fundamental theory and general theory within the history of Marxist development. This concerns the issue of the method of explanation. In fact, a truly thorough explanation of fundamental theory in each theoretical form is always realized in the combination and unity of “particular contradiction” and “universality of contradiction,” although this combination and unity may not be manifest.

应该说明的是,在这里利用“特殊的矛盾性”范畴说明马克思主义发展史的矛盾体系,并不绝对排斥矛盾的普遍性范畴。从形式上看,这是从矛盾的一种性质来说明这个体系,而实际上是在矛盾的两种性质中,即在特殊性与普遍性的统一中说明的。单一的某对矛盾不为马克思主义发展史所专有,原因就在于这个矛盾具有的普遍性意义。从论证问题的方式来说,我们同样可以使用“普遍的矛盾性”范畴或方法。如关于马克思主义发展史的基础理论与一般理论的区分,就可以通过矛盾的普遍性的辩证法来说明。一种理论之所以被称为基础理论,就像我们在前面讲到的,是因为这个理论是一定理论体系中的基元性和根本性部分,这种基元性、根本性既决定该理论体系与其他理论体系相比较而言的特殊的本质,又决定该理论体系内一定理论对于其他理论的基础性和统摄性的地位,即相对于其他理论而言的普遍性意义。在基础理论问题的说明中,“特殊的矛盾性”范畴着重于理论与理论史、马克思主义与非马克思主义关系的比较,而“普遍的矛盾性”范畴则着重于马克思主义发展史内部基础理论与一般理论的关系的比较,这指的是说明问题的方式问题。其实,对每一种理论形式中的基础理论的真正的彻底的说明实际上都是在“特殊的矛盾性”与“普遍的矛盾性”的结合与统一中实现的,只是这种结合与统一可能不是显现的。

III. Understanding Fundamental Theory from the Perspective of the Significance of Studying the History of Marxist Development

三、从马克思主义发展史研究意义的角度认识基础理论

The significance of the history of Marxist development for the study of Marxism is one of the bases for raising the issue of fundamental theory in the history of Marxist development, starting from the issue of fundamental Marxist theory. This is manifested in two aspects: theory and method.

马克思主义发展史对于马克思主义研究的意义,是从马克思主义基础理论问题出发提出马克思主义发展史基础理论问题的根据之一,表现在理论和方法两个方面。

(I) Significance in the Aspect of Theory

(一)理论方面的意义

The significance in the aspect of theory is revealed in the comparison of the theoretical forms of two disciplines: the history of Marxist development and the fundamental principles of Marxism. The exposition of the process of the formation and development of Marxism is the basic form of the history of Marxist development. The concepts, viewpoints, and theories that constitute the main content of this process are formed under specific conditions and are in a state of development, that is, they are historical and fluid. In particular, the history of Marxist development does not rigidly adhere to a direct interpretation of the connotations of these theoretical forms, but rather focuses on revealing the contradictions, problems, experiences, and laws in their movement and development, thereby discovering and determining the direction and path for the continued development of Marxism, and predicting the prospects of Marxist development. The theoretical significance of the history of Marxist development is especially manifested in its response to two fundamental questions: how to understand Marxism and how to treat Marxism. How to understand Marxism refers to answering the question of what Marxism is; how to treat Marxism refers to the attitude toward Marxism, that is, the manner of treating Marxism.

理论方面的意义在马克思主义发展史与马克思主义基本原理两个学科的理论形式的比较中得以显现。对马克思主义形成与发展过程的阐述是马克思主义发展史的基本形式,构成这个过程的主体内容的概念、观点和理论是在一定条件下形成并处于发展状态的,即历史的、流动的。特别是马克思主义发展史,不拘泥于对这些理论形式的内涵的直接阐释,而是着眼于揭示其运动、发展过程中的矛盾、问题、经验与规律,从中发现、确定马克思主义继续发展的方向和道路,预测马克思主义发展的前景。马克思主义发展史的理论意义特别表现为对怎样认识马克思主义和怎样对待马克思主义两个基本问题的回答。怎样认识马克思主义是指对什么是马克思主义问题的回答;怎样对待马克思主义则是指对待马克思主义的态度,亦即对待马克思主义的方式。

First, concerning how to understand Marxism.

第一,关于怎样认识马克思主义。

The fundamental principles of Marxism and the history of Marxist development are two different theoretical disciplines of Marxism, and also two different ways of studying Marxism. The difference between them can be understood as follows: the fundamental principles of Marxism focus on proposing and interpreting theories. Although they also use some historical examples, they mainly rely on established concepts, categories, and viewpoints to carry out theoretical reasoning, argumentation, and interpretation according to certain logical rules. The history of Marxist development, on the other hand, does not focus on directly proposing theories, but rather on historically explaining theories, explaining how certain viewpoints and theories of Marxism developed from germination to formation and from formation to development. This explanation is not satisfied with an objective description of the process, but strives to reveal the inevitability, rationality, and profound connotations of the emergence of certain concepts, viewpoints, and theories through an analysis of the objective conditions of their formation. In addition, it demonstrates the fact of development through struggle in the relationship with other viewpoints and theories, especially in conflict with various erroneous tendencies and currents of thought, thereby revealing the “laws of Marxist development.” For example, regarding the question of “what is Marxism,” the history of Marxist development does not provide a direct answer, but indirectly answers this question through an examination of the regular phenomenon of repeated “inquiries into ‘what is Marxism’” in the history of Marxist development. The earliest inquiry into “what is Marxism” in the history of Marxist development was raised by Marxists against Bernstein’s revisionism. The answer to this question particularly emphasized the practical and revolutionary significance of Marxist theory, emphasizing the status of materialist dialectics in philosophy and the theory of class struggle and social revolution in socialist theory within the Marxist system. After theoretically defeating Bernstein’s revisionism, in response to the tendency of some people to dogmatize Marxism, the famous theorist of the “Communist International” and founder of “Western Marxism,” Lukács, raised the question of “what is orthodox Marxism” and answered that “orthodoxy in matters of Marxism refers solely to method.” This answer reflected both Lukács’s understanding of Marxism and his view on how to correctly treat Marxism. In the ideological debate between the Chinese and Soviet Communist Parties in the 1960s, on the theoretical issues under dispute (such as the path and strategy for achieving socialism, the dictatorship of the proletariat, democracy, and relations with capitalism), each side believed that it adhered to Marxism and that the other side adhered to dogmatism or revisionism. The views expressed by each side on the issues under dispute ultimately boiled down to a question of understanding Marxism. After the “Cultural Revolution,” Deng Xiaoping, in response to the ideological tendency of “two whatevers” prevalent within the Party and the country at the time, explicitly put forward the judgment that “‘two whatevers’ is not Marxism.” By emphasizing that Mao Zedong Thought is a scientific system and by emphasizing the ideological line of seeking truth from facts and proceeding from reality in everything, he actually expressed his understanding of the question of what Marxism is. In the history of Marxist development, there have also been debates on questions such as whether Marxism is philosophy, whether Marxism can be understood as historical materialism, and whether Marxism can be reduced to a theory of man. Scientific research into the history of Marxist development insists on answering the question of “what is Marxism” within historical contexts. Compared with the method of interpreting the fundamental principles of Marxism, its characteristics and significance are evident.

马克思主义基本原理和马克思主义发展史是两个不同的马克思主义理论学科,又是两种不同的马克思主义研究方式。可以这样理解它们之间的差异:马克思主义基本原理着眼于提出理论和阐释理论,虽然也使用一些历史的事例,但主要还是利用既定的概念、范畴和观点,按照一定的逻辑规则进行理论的推理、论证和阐释。马克思主义发展史则不着眼于直接提出理论,而是历史地说明理论,说明马克思主义的一定观点、理论如何从萌芽到形成和从形成到发展的过程。这个说明不满足于对过程的客观描述,而是力求通过对一定概念、观点、理论形成的客观条件的分析揭示其产生的必然性、合理性及其深刻内涵。此外,在与其他观点、理论的关系中特别是同各种错误倾向、思潮的冲突中展示其在斗争中发展的事实,揭示“马克思主义发展的规律”。如关于“什么是马克思主义”问题,马克思主义发展史并不进行直接回答,而是通过马克思主义发展史上多次发生的关于“‘什么是马克思主义'的提问”这个规律性现象的考察而间接地回答这个问题。马克思主义发展史上最早产生的“什么是马克思主义”的提问是马克思主义者针对伯恩施坦的修正主义而发出的提问,对这个问题的回答特别强调了马克思主义理论的实践性、革命性意义,在哲学上强调了唯物辩证法、在社会主义理论方面强调了它的阶级斗争和社会革命理论在马克思主义体系中的地位。在理论上战胜了伯恩施坦的修正主义后,针对一些人把马克思主义教条化的倾向,“共产国际”著名理论家、“西方马克思主义”的创始者卢卡奇提出了“什么是正统的马克思主义”的问题并作了“马克思主义问题中的正统仅仅是指方法”的回答。这个回答既反映了卢卡奇对马克思主义的理解,又表达了它对如何正确对待马克思主义的看法。20世纪60年代发生的中苏两党关于意识形态问题的论战,在所争论的理论问题(如走向社会主义的道路和策略、无产阶级专政、民主、与资本主义的关系等)上,各自都认为自己坚持的是马克思主义,对方坚持的是教条主义或修正主义。在所争论的问题上各自所表达的看法归结起来还是一个对马克思主义的理解问题。“文化大革命”结束后,邓小平针对一个时期党内国内流行的“两个凡是”的思想倾向而明确提出的“‘两个凡是'不是马克思主义”的论断,通过对毛泽东思想是一个科学体系的强调,对实事求是、一切从实际出发的思想路线的强调,实际表达了他对什么是马克思主义这一问题的认识。在马克思主义发展史上,还曾经发生马克思主义是不是哲学、能不能把马克思主义理解为唯物史观、能不能把马克思主义归结为人的学说等问题的争论。科学的马克思主义发展史研究坚持在历史情境中对“什么是马克思主义”问题的回答,相对于对马克思主义基本原理的阐释方式,其特点和意义是明显的。

Second, concerning how to treat Marxism.

第二,关于怎样对待马克思主义。

Regarding this question, the history of Marxist development does not present a ready-made set of answers or abstract conclusions before people. The answer to this question is often combined with the answer to the question of “what is Marxism,” and the conclusion often lies within the answer to the question of what Marxism is. For example, the conclusion that “Marxism is a method” contains both an understanding of what Marxism is and the implication of how to treat Marxism, namely, that Marxism should be treated as a method and not as a dogma. In the evaluation of certain tendencies in the development of Marxism, and in the commentary on the experience and lessons of certain ways of treating Marxism, insights on how to correctly treat Marxism are also often included. This does not mean that research on the history of Marxist development has no clear view on this question; it only means that the forms of expression of this view can be diverse, and it only indicates that the form of the answer to this question in the history of Marxist development differs from the form of the answer in the fundamental principles of Marxism.

对这一问题,马克思主义发展史并没有一套现成的答案和抽象结论摆在人们面前,对该问题的回答往往同对“什么是马克思主义”问题的回答结合在一起,结论往往存在于对什么是马克思主义问题的回答中。如关于“马克思主义是方法”的结论,就既包含对什么是马克思主义的认识,也包含把马克思主义当做方法而不应当做教条这样一个怎样对待马克思主义问题的意蕴。在关于马克思主义发展中的某种倾向的评析中、在对某种对待马克思主义的方式的经验与教训的评论中,也往往包含关于怎样正确对待马克思主义的见解。这并不表明马克思主义发展史研究对这个问题没有明确的观点,只是说关于这种观点的表达形式可以是多样的,只是表明马克思主义发展史关于这个问题的回答形式不同于马克思主义基本原理的回答形式。

(II) Significance in the Aspect of Method

(二)方法方面的意义

The significance in terms of method lies in the fact that the history of Marxist development, through its distinctive way of explaining and answering questions, provides methodological inspiration and concrete research methods for the study of Marxism. What is meant by the significance of the history of Marxist development for the study of Marxist theory is not primarily the direct transfer of theories and viewpoints discovered and confirmed by research in the history of Marxist development to the study of Marxist theory, but rather the methodological inspiration the former provides for the latter.

方法方面的意义在于马克思主义发展史以它阐释与回答问题的特有方式,为马克思主义研究提供了方法论的启示,提供了具体的研究方法。所谓马克思主义发展史对于马克思主义理论研究的意义,其实主要不在于马克思主义发展史研究所发现和确证的理论、观点向马克思主义理论研究的直接输送,而在于前者对于后者的方法论的启示。

The research method that the history of Marxist development displays through its overall characteristics is primarily the historical method. Simply put, the historical method is a principle and method for examining an object within historical connections and changing development. Lenin clearly explained the significance of this method for the study of Marxism and its place in the Marxist theoretical system in the following brief exposition. He said: “The whole spirit of Marxism, its entire system, requires that every proposition be considered (α) historically, (β) in connection with other propositions, and (γ) in connection with concrete historical experience.” [6]6 V. I. Lenin, “Once Again on the Trade Unions, the Current Situation and the Mistakes of Trotsky and Bukharin,” *Collected Works*, Vol. 32, p. 94. Here, Lenin is speaking of the understanding of “propositions,” i.e., the understanding of spiritual phenomena. In fact, the understanding of all phenomena that enter people’s field of vision and become objects of their cognition should adhere to the historical method. The famous contemporary British Marxist historian Eric Hobsbawm, in his understanding of Marx’s idea in *The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte* about “how people make history,” also expressed his understanding of the principle and method of history. He said: “Thinkers do not invent their ideas abstractly; we can only understand them from the historical and political environment of their time. This is a basic view of ours regarding Marxism. Even though Marx always emphasized that people make their own history, or—if you will—think out their own ideas, he also emphasized that they can only make their history under the conditions they directly encounter and inherit.” The historical method is the basic method of research into the history of Marxist development, and a good work on the history of Marxist development should be a model for the scientific application of this method. Whether in a holistic reading of such a model, or in its examination and understanding of any concept, viewpoint, or theory at any stage of development, one can gain a strong historical insight. This is because the history of Marxist development is, after all, Marxist theory existing in historical form.

马克思主义发展史以其整体特征展示的研究方法主要是历史的方法。简单地说,历史的方法是在历史的联系和变化发展中考察对象的一种原则和方法。关于这种方法对于马克思主义研究的意义和它在马克思主义理论体系中的地位,列宁在如下一段简短阐述中清楚地作了说明。他说道:“马克思主义的全部精神,它的整个体系,要求人们对每一个原理都要(α)历史地,(β)都要同其他原理联系起来,(γ)都要同具体的历史经验联系起来加以考察。”在这里,列宁讲的是对“原理”的认识,即对精神现象的认识,其实对进入人们的视野成为人们的认识对象的一切现象的认识,都应该坚持历史的方法。英国当代著名马克思主义历史学家埃里克·霍布斯鲍姆(Eric Hobsbawm)在对马克思在《路易·波拿巴的雾月十八日》中讲到的“人们怎样创造历史”的思想的理解中,也表达了他对历史的原则和方法的认识。他说:“思想家们不是抽象地发明他们的思想,我们只能从其时代的历史和政治环境来理解他们,这是我们对马克思主义的一个基本看法。即使马克思总是强调人民创造他们自己的历史,或者——如果你愿意的话——思考出他们自己的思想,他也强调他们只有在他们直接所处和继承的条件下才能创造自己的历史。”历史的方法是马克思主义发展史研究的基本方法,一部好的马克思主义发展史著作应该是这一方法得以科学运用的范本。人们无论在对这一范本的整体的阅读中,还是在其对任一发展阶段的任一概念、观点、理论的考察与理解中,都能获得一种强烈的历史感悟。因为,马克思主义发展史本来就是以历史的形式存在的马克思主义理论。

The thoroughgoing historical method displays the historical viewpoint in scientific research, and the essence of this viewpoint is dialectical and historical materialism. The first fundamental methodological principle for providing a truthful explanation of the conditions and basis for the formation and development of every concept, viewpoint, and theory is the principle of seeking truth from facts, i.e., the principle of materialism. Materialism is a worldview and also a methodology. In the sense of the history of Marxist development, the materialist principle of historical explanation of the formation and development of concepts, viewpoints, and theories is identical to the historicist principle; both require that the formation and development of a given concept, viewpoint, or theory be understood within given objective conditions. The difference is that historicism emphasizes the historical character of such investigation, i.e., the significance of the “here and now” for the formation and development of a given theory or thought; materialism emphasizes the decisive significance of objective material conditions for the formation and development of theory and thought, and the consistency of the formation and development of theory and thought with objective conditions and human practice. Karl Korsch, in *Marxism and Philosophy*, proposed “applying Marx’s dialectical materialist principle to the entire history of Marxism.” In a later article, “The Present State of the Problem of ‘Marxism and Philosophy’—An Anti-Critique,” he further argued for this materialist principle and method from the perspective of the conception of Marxism, stating that “materialism in the strictest sense” is “a conception of Marxism put forward in *Marxism and Philosophy*, which holds that Marxism is completely non-dogmatic and anti-dogmatic, historical and critical.” He even believed that this materialist viewpoint “includes the application of the materialist conception of history to the materialist conception of history itself.” This “includes” here is not structural in meaning, i.e., that the “materialist viewpoint” as a method structurally includes “applying the materialist conception of history to the materialist conception of history,” but rather essential in meaning, i.e., that this materialism simultaneously has the methodological significance of “applying the materialist conception of history to the materialist conception of history.”

彻底的历史的方法展示的是科学研究中的历史的观点,而这种观点的实质则是辩证的和历史的唯物主义。坚持对每一概念、观点、理论形成与发展的条件和根据的真实说明的方法论的第一个基本原则是实事求是原则,亦即唯物主义的原则。唯物主义是世界观,也是方法论。在马克思主义发展史的意义上,关于概念、观点、理论形成与发展的历史说明的唯物主义原则与历史主义原则具有同一性,它们都要求把一定的概念、观点、理论的形成与发展放到一定的客观条件中去认识。不同的是,历史主义着重强调这种考察的历史性原则,即“此时此地”对一定的理论、思想形成与发展的意义;唯物主义则着重强调客观物质条件对理论、思想形成与发展的决定性意义,强调理论、思想的形成和发展与客观条件和人的实践的一致。卡尔·柯尔施在《马克思主义和哲学》中提出“把马克思的辩证唯物主义原则运用于马克思主义的整个历史”,在后来写的《关于“马克思主义和哲学”问题的现状——一个反批评》一文中,他又从马克思主义观的角度对这种唯物主义原则和方法作了论证,指出“最严格意义上的唯物主义”是“《马克思主义和哲学》提出的一种马克思主义观,认为马克思主义是完全非教条的和反教条的、历史的和批判的”。他甚至认为这种唯物主义的观点“包括把唯物史观应用于唯物史观本身”。这里的“包括”不是结构意义的,即认为“唯物主义观点”作为方法在结构上包括“把唯物史观应用于唯物史观”,而是本质意义的,即认为这种唯物主义同时具有“把唯物史观应用于唯物史观”的方法论意义。

The history of Marxist development has two major methodological principles: first, the unity of logic and history; second, the unity of theory and practice. The essence of the principle of the unity of logic and history lies in emphasizing the historical method within logical analysis. It maintains that the logic, i.e., the history of Marxist development as the research subject and as written, must faithfully reflect the actual process of the formation and development of Marxism. In concrete terms, it maintains that all the intellectual materials, all the concepts, viewpoints, and theories of the history of Marxist development must be consistent with the cognitive process of the practical subjects of Marxism regarding the objective world, especially human social life and practical life. This principle is the epistemological principle of Marxism and also the constructive principle of the Marxist theoretical system.

马克思主义发展史有两大方法论原则,一是逻辑与历史的统一,二是理论与实践的统一。逻辑与历史的统一的原则的实质在于强调逻辑分析中的历史的方法。它主张,逻辑的也就是作为研究主题和被书写的马克思主义发展史必须真实地反映马克思主义形成与发展的实际过程。在具体性上,就是主张马克思主义发展史的全部思想材料,全部概念、观点、理论要与马克思主义实践主体关于客观世界特别是人类社会生活和实践生活的认识进程相一致。这个原则是马克思主义的认识论原则,也是马克思主义理论体系的建构原则。

Marxist theory is a scientific and open system. As historical conditions change, some contents of this system gradually lose their actuality, while at the same time, theoretical contents that reflect new characteristics of the times and new realities are continuously added. For example, in the process of adapting Marxism to the Chinese context, according to changes in the theme of the times, the theoretical system of socialism with Chinese characteristics, in its theory of the driving forces of socialist social development, while acknowledging the role of class struggle under certain conditions, has highlighted the driving significance of reform and opening up and the scientific and technological revolution; based on the experiences and lessons of world development, especially China’s socialist construction, it has changed the traditional understanding of the nature and significance of the market, regarding planning and the market only as means of economic development, holding that capitalism can have planning and socialism can have a market, and that planning and the market are not linked to specific social systems, thereby incorporating the theory of the socialist market economy into the theoretical system of socialism with Chinese characteristics; based on the experiences and lessons of modern social development, especially the experiences and lessons of China’s socialist construction since reform and opening up and the transformation achieved in the outlook on development, the theoretical system of socialism with Chinese characteristics and the system of basic Marxist principles have added the contents of the Scientific Outlook on Development and the New Development Philosophy; based on the characteristics and trends of relations among various countries, nations, and regions under conditions of globalization, the concept of building a community with a shared future for mankind has become a new content of Marxist theory. In short, the principle of the unity of logic and history has been actively implemented in the experience of adapting Marxism to the Chinese context and the formation and development of the theoretical system of socialism with Chinese characteristics.

马克思主义理论是一个科学和开放的体系。随着历史条件的变化,该体系的某些内容在逐渐失去现实性的同时,不断增加反映新的时代特征和新的实际的理论内容。如在马克思主义中国化进程中,根据时代主题的变化,中国特色社会主义理论体系在社会主义社会发展动力的理论方面,在承认一定条件下的阶级斗争的作用的同时,突出了改革开放和科学技术革命的动力意义;根据世界发展特别是我国社会主义建设的经验和教训,改变了对市场的性质和意义的传统认识,把计划和市场只看做经济发展的手段,认为资本主义可以有计划,社会主义可以有市场,计划和市场并不与特定的社会制度相联系,从而把社会主义市场经济理论纳入中国特色社会主义理论体系;根据现代社会发展的经验教训,特别是改革开放以来我国社会主义建设的经验教训和在发展观上实现的变革,中国特色社会主义理论体系和马克思主义基本原理体系增加了科学发展观和新发展理念的内容;根据全球化条件下各个国家、民族和地区关系发展的特点与趋势,构建人类命运共同体理念成为马克思主义理论的新内容。总之,逻辑与历史的统一原则在马克思主义中国化、中国特色社会主义理论体系形成与发展的经验中得到积极贯彻。

Changes and innovations in the Marxist theoretical system constitute an important content and a key theoretical manifestation of the history of Marxist development. They are based on the development of Marxist theory, which in turn presupposes the enrichment of the connotations of original Marxist concepts and viewpoints and the emergence of new concepts and viewpoints. The concept of productive forces is an excellent example of the fact of the enrichment and development of the connotations of basic Marxist concepts and fundamental principles under new historical conditions. Regarding the concept of productive forces, the traditional understanding is that productive forces are composed of three substantive elements: the means of labor, primarily tools of production; the objects of labor introduced into the production process; and laborers possessing a certain level of production experience and labor skills. With the formation and development of modern large-scale production, especially the widespread application of new scientific and technological achievements in production, the organization and management of production, along with science and technology, have increasingly demonstrated their significance for production development. Consequently, the idea of a system of productive forces emerged. This idea breaks with the previous tradition of limiting the composition of productive forces solely to substantive factors, incorporating non-substantive and non-actual factors such as the organization, management, and science and technology of production into the category of productive forces. According to the perspective of the system of productive forces, the structure of modern productive forces is a combination of three types: substantive productive forces, structural productive forces, and potential productive forces. Substantive productive forces refer to the three substantive elements of productive forces as previously understood; structural productive forces refer to the organization and management of the production process; potential productive forces (also termed penetrative productive forces) mainly refer to elements that are not yet actual productive forces but are considered capable of being transformed into actual productive forces, chief among them being natural science, as well as technological inventions not yet introduced into the actual production process. There are other forms of dividing the structure of productive forces, such as viewing the system of productive forces as an organic combination of industrial structure, technological structure, labor force structure, economic regional structure, enterprise scale structure, and product structure. In short, based on the characteristics of modern production and the actual process and laws of the development of productive forces, and adhering to the principle of the unity of logic and history, the understanding and explanation of productive forces as a system is reasonable. Research on the history of Marxist development provides a “historical explanation” of this change in the concept, thereby establishing it within the system of fundamental Marxist principles.

马克思主义理论体系的变化与创新是马克思主义发展史的重要内容和重要理论表现。它以马克思主义理论的发展为基础,马克思主义理论的发展又以马克思主义原有概念、观点内涵的丰富和新概念、新观点的产生为前提。对于在新的历史条件下,马克思主义基本概念、基本原理的内涵的丰富与发展的事实,生产力概念是一个极好的例子。关于生产力概念,传统的认识是,生产力由以生产工具为主的劳动资料、引入生产过程的劳动对象、具有一定生产经验和劳动技能的劳动者三个实体性要素构成。随着现代化大生产的形成与发展,特别是新的科学技术成果在生产中的广泛应用,生产的组织与管理以及科学技术越来越显示出其对于生产发展的重要意义,于是,关于生产力系统的思想产生了。这个思想打破以往把生产力的构成仅局限于实体性因素的传统,而把生产的组织、管理和科学技术等非实体性和非现实性因素纳入生产力范畴。按照生产力系统观点,现代生产力的结构是实体性生产力、结构性生产力和可能性生产力三者的结合。实体性生产力就是以往所认为的生产力的三个实体性要素;结构性生产力指生产过程的组织和管理;可能性生产力(又称渗透性生产力)主要指还不是现实生产力但认为它是可以转化为现实生产力的要素,其中首先是自然科学,另外还有尚未进入现实生产过程的技术发明。生产力结构还有其他形式的划分,如认为生产力系统是产业结构、技术结构、劳动力结构、经济区域结构、企业规模结构以及产品结构的有机结合。总之,根据现代生产特点和生产力发展的现实过程与规律,根据逻辑与历史的统一的原则,关于生产力是一个系统的认识与阐释是合理的。马克思主义发展史研究对这个概念的变化作了“历史的说明”,从而使之在马克思主义基本原理体系中被确立起来。

It is necessary and reasonable to regard the unity of theory and practice as the basic methodological principle of the history of Marxist development. Although it is not excluded that some non-Marxist theoretical systems also possess the characteristic of practicality, in terms of the demands and features of practicality, no theoretical system has ever been as distinct as Marxism, and no theoretical system has ever implemented practicality as thoroughly as Marxism. When Marx and Engels founded their philosophy, they prominently emphasized the essential difference between their philosophy and old philosophy, a difference particularly manifested in practicality. In several letters to Arnold Ruge between March and September 1843 concerning preparations for publishing the *Deutsch-Französische Jahrbücher*, Marx clearly expressed his ideological proposition of “discovering the new world through the critique of the old world.” There are two ways to critique the old world: theoretical critique and practical critique, i.e., actual action. It cannot be considered that Marx here only emphasized theoretical critique, emphasizing “discovering the new world,” without possessing the idea of practical critique. Through investigation, we find that Marx already possessed an idea of “total practice,” that is, the idea of “establishing a new world.” According to this idea, the theoretical critique of the old world is not separated from practical critique but is included in or subordinate to it. In his letter to Ruge in September, Marx clearly expressed the view of combining theoretical critique with “political critique,” and took “political critique,” i.e., “actual struggle,” as the “starting point of critique.” In the *Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right: Introduction*, completed shortly thereafter (mid-October to December 1843), Marx’s viewpoint on practice was expressed even more clearly. Marx pointed out: “The weapon of criticism cannot, of course, replace criticism of the weapon, material force must be overthrown by material force; but theory also becomes a material force once it has gripped the masses.” The connotations of “criticism of the weapon,” “gripped the masses,” and “material force” here are all practical or pertain to practicality. Marx even mentions “practical capacity,” regarding it as the “proof” of the thoroughness of theory.

把理论与实践的统一看做马克思主义发展史的基本的方法论原则是必要和合理的。虽然不排除有的非马克思主义理论体系也具有实践性的特征,但就其实践性的要求和特征来说,从来没有一种理论体系像马克思主义那样鲜明,也从来没有一种理论体系将实践性贯彻得像马克思主义那样彻底。马克思和恩格斯在创立自己的哲学的时候,突出地强调了他们的哲学与旧哲学的本质区别,而这个区别特别表现在实践性上。1843年3至9月,马克思在就出版《德法年鉴》的筹备事宜与阿尔诺德·卢格的几次通信中,明确地表达了他的“通过批判旧世界发现新世界”的思想主张。批判旧世界有两种方式,一是理论的批判,二是实践的批判,即实际的行动。不能认为马克思在这里仅仅强调理论的批判,强调“发现新世界”,而不具有实践的批判的思想。通过考察我们发现,马克思已经具有一种“总体实践”的思想,即“建立一个新世界”的思想。根据这种思想,对旧世界的理论的批判没有与实践的批判分开,而是包含在或从属于实践的批判。在9月与卢格的通信中,马克思明确表达了理论的批判与“政治的批判”结合起来的观点,并把“政治的批判”亦即“实际斗争”作为“批判的出发点”。在稍后(1843年10月中至12月)完成的《〈黑格尔法哲学批判〉导言》中,马克思的实践观点表达得更为明确。马克思指出:“批判的武器当然不能代替武器的批判,物质力量只能用物质力量来摧毁;但是理论一经掌握群众,也会变成物质力量。”这里的“武器的批判”“掌握群众”“物质力量”的内涵都是实践或实践性的。马克思甚至提到“实践能力”,把它视为理论的彻底性的“明证”。

It can be said that the history of Marxist development, as well as the history of socialist revolution, construction, and reform, is the history of the combination of Marxist theory with the practice of the proletariat. The theoretical history of Marxism expresses this process of combination in theoretical form, while the practical history of Marxism expresses this process of combination in practical form. The key to whether a work on the history of Marxist development is well or poorly written lies in whether it firmly grasps the dominant thread of the relationship between theory and practice that runs through the entire process of the history of Marxist development. This is the fundamental theoretical quality of Marxism, the basic experience of several generations in researching and writing the history of Marxist development, and also the requirement of science for the history of Marxist development. The history of Marxist development, through its own experience, annotates the connotation, process, and function of this basic methodological principle. Applying it to the understanding of any concept, viewpoint, or theory within the Marxist theoretical system is equivalent to firmly holding in one’s own hands the key to unlocking the mystery of any theoretical problem of Marxism.

可以说,马克思主义发展史以及社会主义革命、建设、改革的历史,就是马克思主义理论与无产阶级实践结合的历史。马克思主义的理论的历史用理论的形式表现了这个结合过程,马克思主义的实践的历史则用实践的形式表现了这个结合过程。一部马克思主义发展史著作书写得好与不好的关键,就在于它是否紧紧地抓住了贯穿在马克思主义发展史过程中的理论与实践的关系这个主导线索,这是马克思主义的根本性的理论品质,是几代人关于马克思主义发展史研究与书写的基本经验,也是科学对于马克思主义发展史的要求。马克思主义发展史用它自己的经验对这一基本的方法论原则的内涵、过程、功能作了注解,把它用于对马克思主义理论体系的任何概念、观点和理论的理解就等于把打开马克思主义的任何一个理论问题之谜的钥匙紧紧地抓在自己的手里。

This connection between the history of Marxist development and its research, on the one hand, and the study of Marxist theory, on the other, is likewise a connection between their respective foundational theories. Both the foundational theories of Marxism and the foundational theories of the history of Marxist development contain methodological content. When the question of the significance of the history of Marxist development and its research for the study of Marxist theory, especially its methodological significance, is raised, it is natural and possible for the theoretical horizon to thereby shift or expand to their foundational theoretical level.

马克思主义发展史及其研究与马克思主义理论研究的这种联系,同样是二者的基础理论之间的联系。无论是马克思主义基础理论还是马克思主义发展史基础理论都包含方法论的内容,在关于马克思主义发展史及其研究对于马克思主义理论研究的意义问题特别是方法论意义问题提出时,理论视域由此转到或者扩大到它们的基础理论层面是自然的、可能的。

(Author’s bio: Liang Shufa, Professor and Doctoral Supervisor, School of Marxism Studies, Renmin University of China)

（作者简介：梁树发，中国人民大学马克思主义学院教授、博士生导师）

Online Editor: Tongxin

网络编辑：同心