Grasping the Historical Materialist View from the Dual Character of Labor

How to understand labor and its position in the historical materialist view is a major theoretical issue in Marxist research. The Western Marxist Habermas one-sidedly reduces Marx’s concept of labor to a Weberian “purposive-rational instrumental action,” thereby arguing that “Marx’s concept of social labor is applicable to distinguishing the lifestyle of primates from that of primitive humans, but not to the reproduction of the specifically human form of life,” and thus proposes a reconstruction of historical materialism. [1]1 Jürgen Habermas (b. 1929), a German philosopher and sociologist associated with the Frankfurt School of critical theory, known for his theory of communicative action and critique of historical materialism. Postone, on the other hand, particularizes Marx’s concept of labor into a form of labor unique to capitalist society, thereby arguing that “Marx’s theory should not be understood as a universally applicable theory, but as a critical theory specifically directed at capitalist society,” thus creating a rupture between Marx’s early and later theories and negating historical materialism as a view of history. [2]2 Moishe Postone (1942–2018), a Canadian historian and philosopher, known for his reinterpretation of Marx’s *Capital* as a critical theory of capitalism rather than a general theory of history. It can be seen that a correct understanding of labor and its position in the historical materialist view is a major theoretical issue concerning the future and fate of historical materialism, and requires further elucidation.

如何理解劳动及其在唯物史观中的地位，是马克思主义研究的重大理论问题。西方马克思主义者哈贝马斯把马克思的劳动概念片面化为韦伯式的“目的性的工具活动”，由此认为“马克思的社会劳动概念适用于区分灵长目的生活方式和原始人的生活方式，但不适合于人类特有的生活方式的再生产”，因而提出重建历史唯物主义。而普殊同则把马克思的劳动概念特殊化为资本主义社会所特有的劳动形态，由此认为“马克思理论不应被理解为一种普遍适用的理论，而是一种特别针对资本主义社会的批判理论”，从而制造马克思前后理论的断裂，否定作为历史观的历史唯物主义。由此可见，对劳动的正确理解及其在唯物史观中的地位是事关唯物史观前途与命运的重大理论问题，需要进一步阐明。

Marx’s concept of labor is essentially a philosophical concept and cannot be grasped purely from the meaning of social sciences such as economics or anthropology. Through his critique of philosophy, especially Hegelian philosophy, Marx discovered the value of the concept of labor for realizing his philosophical revolution. He pointed out that in *The Phenomenology of Spirit*, Hegel “grasps the essence of labor and comprehends objective man—true, because real man—as the result of his own labor,” thereby elevating the essential determination of human practice as an “objective activity.” [3]3 G.W.F. Hegel (1770–1831), German idealist philosopher; *The Phenomenology of Spirit* (1807) is a key work in which he develops the concept of labor as a process of self-formation. Through the critique of political economy, Marx sublated the idealist character of labor as a philosophical concept, starting from the real concept of material productive activity, breaking through Hegel’s philosophy, which understood practice merely as “the labor of spirit,” and Feuerbach’s understanding of it merely as “the dirty form of the Jew,” instead grasping practice as “sensuous human activity.” [4]4 Ludwig Feuerbach (1804–1872), German materialist philosopher whose critique of religion and abstract humanism influenced Marx’s early thought. Consequently, the subject is no longer an abstract, active spiritual subject, but the human being engaged in material productive activity, while the object is neither something to be intuited nor nature-in-itself, but nature as the object of labor, a humanized nature continuously and deeply drawn into the human world. However, this is only one aspect of Marx’s concept of labor. If understood only in this way, it is inevitable that Habermas and others will criticize labor as “purposive-rational instrumental action,” failing to grasp communicative action. In fact, the view that confines the concept of labor to the objective activity between humans and nature is based only on the labor of the isolated individual criticized by Marx, not on real social productive labor. Real social productive labor is a totality of social labor. It is precisely within this total social productive labor that, in its vertical structure, it manifests as the objectification of labor, concerning the subject-object relationship between humans and nature, and in its horizontal dimension, it concerns the social relations constituted through interaction between humans. Therefore, the concept of practice, elevated from “total” social productive labor, constitutes the theoretical foundation of Marx’s historical materialism and even his entire philosophy. It encompasses both the subject-object relationship and the real social relations between subjects. The former constitutes a critique of Hegel’s dialectic of concepts, and the latter constitutes a critique of Feuerbach’s abstract humanist materialism based on the isolated individual. As Marx himself declared, “The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways; the point is to change it.” [5]5 This is the final thesis of Marx’s “Theses on Feuerbach” (1845), emphasizing the practical, transformative character of philosophy. Marx did not abstractly construct his own philosophical system but immediately turned to study the real form of practice, namely material productive activity or labor. It is precisely starting from labor as a philosophical concept that Marx, in *The German Ideology*, directly states: “The production of life, both of one’s own in labor and of fresh life in procreation, now appears as a twofold relation: on the one hand as a natural, on the other as a social relation.” [6]6 *The German Ideology* (1845–46), co-authored by Marx and Engels, is a foundational text of historical materialism. It is also from the dual character of labor—natural and social—that Marx proposes and elucidates the most basic concepts and principles of historical materialism, thereby revealing the fundamental laws of human society and, guided by this, achieving the goal of “changing the world.”

马克思的劳动概念本质上是一个哲学概念，不能从单纯的经济学、人类学等社会科学意义上来把握。马克思通过对哲学尤其是黑格尔哲学的批判发现了劳动概念对实现其哲学革命的价值，他指出黑格尔在《精神现象学》中“抓住了劳动的本质，把对象性的人、现实的因而是真正的人理解为人自己的劳动的结果”，由此提升出人类实践作为一种“对象性的活动”的本质规定。通过政治经济学批判，马克思扬弃了作为哲学概念的劳动的唯心主义性质，从物质生产活动这一现实概念出发，突破了黑格尔哲学把实践仅仅理解为“精神的劳作”和费尔巴哈仅仅理解为“卑污的犹太人的表现形式”，而把实践理解为“感性的人的活动”。于是，主体不再是抽象、能动的精神主体，而是从事物质生产活动的人，而客体也不是被直观之物或自在自然，而是作为劳动对象的自然界、不断被深深卷入人的世界的人化自然。然而，这只是马克思劳动概念的一个方面。如果仅如此理解，难免被哈贝马斯等人指摘为劳动是“目的性的工具活动”，没有把握住交往活动。其实，那种把劳动概念囿于人与自然之间的对象性活动的观点，仅立足于马克思所批判的孤立个人的劳动，而不是现实的社会生产劳动。现实的社会生产劳动是一种总体性的社会劳动。正是在总体性的社会生产劳动中，在纵向结构上表现为劳动的对象化，关涉人与自然的主客关系，在横向上关涉人与人交往构成的社会关系。因此，从“总体的”社会生产劳动中提升出来的实践概念构成了马克思唯物史观乃至整个哲学的理论基石，它既包含主客体的对象性关系，又包含主体间现实的社会关系，前者构成了对黑格尔概念辩证法的批判，后者构成了对费尔巴哈基于孤立的个人的抽象的人本学唯物主义的批判。正如马克思自己所宣称的，“哲学家们只是用不同的方式解释世界，而问题在于改变世界”，马克思并没有去抽象地构建自己的哲学体系，而是立即转身去研究实践的现实形态即物质生产活动或劳动。正是从作为哲学概念的劳动出发，马克思在《德意志意识形态》中直截了当地指出，“生命的生产，无论是通过劳动而生产自己的生命，还是通过生育而生产他人的生命，就立即表现为双重关系：一方面是自然关系，另一方面是社会关系”。也正是从劳动的自然与社会的双重属性出发，马克思提出并阐明了唯物史观最基本的概念和原理，从而揭示人类社会的基本规律，并以此为指导达到“改变世界”的目的。

Starting from the dual character of labor, Marx elaborates the two most basic concepts of historical materialism: productive forces and relations of production. In *The German Ideology*, Marx, precisely from the natural character of labor, unifies the critique of German philosophy, especially the Young Hegelians, with the critique of political economy, and proposes his concept of productive forces. Marx clearly states: “As soon as things are seen in their actual situation and their interconnections, any deep philosophical problem... can be reduced quite simply to some empirical fact. The question of the relation of man to nature... is an example, a question which gave rise to all the ‘unfathomably lofty works’ on ‘substance’ and ‘self-consciousness.’ But this question disappears of itself when it is understood that the celebrated ‘unity of man with nature’ has always existed in industry and varies in each epoch with the industrial development, just as the ‘struggle’ of man with nature does, until his productive forces are developed on the corresponding basis.” [7]7 Ibid., a passage critiquing the philosophical problem of the relation between humans and nature by grounding it in material production. Marx, through the relationship between humans and nature contained in material productive activity or “industry,” breaks through “deep philosophical problems,” and then, on the basis of philosophical critique, elucidates the essential connotation of the concept of productive forces. This is the dialectical relationship of “struggle” and “unity” between humans and nature. This “struggle” manifests as dynamic productive forces, while “unity” manifests as static productive forces. But in any case, productive forces are always the objectification of human essential powers; thus, the concept of productive forces, equated with the creation of wealth in political economy, is, through Marx’s philosophical critique, discovered to be human labor. Marx also, precisely from the social character of labor, reveals that the most fundamental of real social relations are the relations of production. Marx criticizes Feuerbach for, although acknowledging that humans are also “sensuous objects,” not regarding them as “sensuous activity”; in other words, not regarding them as humans engaged in real material productive activity or labor. Therefore, in Feuerbach’s view, apart from religious love and everyday friendship, there is no other relationship between humans. Marx, precisely from the “entire living sensuous activity of individuals,” i.e., labor, reveals from its social aspect the real social relations between humans. These are the social relations formed between humans in the labor process or the process of material production, namely, the relations of production. This point can also be corroborated by Marx’s later text elaborating the term “relation,” where he points out: “Wherever a relation exists, it exists for me; the animal does not ‘relate’ itself to anything, it does not relate itself at all; for the animal, its relation to others does not exist as a relation.” [8]8 Ibid., a passage distinguishing human social relations from animal behavior, based on the concept of labor. Marx’s analysis of this relation is clearly based on the concept of labor, because he has already clearly stated earlier that labor constitutes the criterion distinguishing humans from animals. The reason animals do not relate themselves to anything is that their activity is not labor; it is precisely the social relations formed in the labor process that constitute the relation that truly distinguishes the human world from the animal world.

马克思从劳动的双重属性出发阐发了生产力与生产关系这两个唯物史观最基本的概念。在《德意志意识形态》中，马克思正是从劳动的自然性出发将对德国哲学尤其是青年黑格尔派的批判与政治经济学批判统一起来，提出了自己的生产力概念。马克思明确指出，“只要这样按照事物的真实面目及其产生情况来理解事物，任何深奥的哲学问题……都可以十分简单地归结为某种经验的事实。人对自然的关系这一重要问题……就是一个例子，这是一个产生了关于‘实体’和‘自我意识’的一切‘神秘莫测的崇高功业’的问题。然而，如果懂得在工业中向来就有那个很著名的‘人和自然的统一’，而且这种统一在每一个时代都随着工业或慢或快的发展而不断改变，就像人与自然的‘斗争’促进其生产力在相应基础上的发展一样，那么上述问题也就自行消失了”。马克思正是通过物质生产活动或“工业”中所包含的人与自然之间的关系破除了“深奥的哲学问题”，然后在哲学批判的基础上阐明了生产力概念的本质内涵，这就是人与自然之间“斗争”与“统一”的辩证关系，这种“斗争”表现为动态的生产力，而“统一”则表现为静态的生产力。但不管怎样，生产力始终都是人的本质力量的对象化，因而在国民经济学中与财富创造相等同的生产力概念经过马克思的哲学批判，发现乃是人的劳动。马克思也正是从劳动的社会性出发揭示了现实的社会关系中最根本的乃是生产关系。马克思批判费尔巴哈虽然承认人也是“感性对象”，但他没有把人看作“感性活动”，换言之，没有把人看作从事现实的物质生产活动或劳动的人。因此，在费尔巴哈那里，人与人之间除了宗教上的爱和日常生活中的友情外，就没有别的什么关系了。而马克思正是从“个人的全部活生生的感性活动”即劳动出发，从其社会性方面揭示了人与人之间现实的社会关系。这就是在劳动过程或物质生产过程中结成的人与人之间的社会关系，即生产关系。这一点还可以从后面马克思阐述“关系”一词的文本中得到佐证，他指出，“凡是有某种关系存在的地方，这种关系都是为我而存在的，动物不对什么东西发生‘关系’，而且根本没有关系；对于动物来说，它对他物的关系不是作为关系存在的”。马克思对这种关系的分析显然是建立在劳动概念基础之上的，因为他在前面已经明确指出，劳动构成了区分人与动物的标准，动物之所以不对什么东西发生关系，其根源在于其活动并不是劳动，正是在劳动过程中结成的社会关系才构成人真正不同于动物世界的关系。

Only by proceeding from the dual character of labor can one profoundly understand the dialectical relationship between productive forces and relations of production. According to the basic principles of historical materialism, the dialectical relationship between productive forces and relations of production manifests as productive forces being the ultimate decisive force determining social development, with productive forces determining relations of production, and relations of production reacting back upon productive forces. In the past, we often abstractly understood this principle as if there existed two mutually independent things in the process of human social development, namely productive forces and relations of production, which then interacted with each other. In fact, this is the two aspects inherent in the material production activities of human society: the relationship between humans and nature, and the social relations among humans. It is precisely through material production activities that human society generates the relationship of "struggle" and "unity" between "humans and nature." It is in this dialectical movement process that the contradictions and laws operating within the internal structure of social productive forces are shaped, namely "the contradiction between the present living labor of people and the 'dead labor' that has already solidified into the structure of social productive forces, with the two both adapting to and advancing each other." However, "living labor" drives "dead labor" through the realization of certain social relations. Thus, "dead labor" constitutes the material carrier of social relations, whereby social relations are transformed into reified social relations, transformed into a real force dominating productive forces, and thereby transformed into social relations of production in the true sense. Therefore, productive forces determining relations of production is essentially realized through objectified labor, that is, through reifying social relations or creating material carriers for social relations; conversely, social relations based on "dead labor" (i.e., reified social relations) influence the structure of social productive forces, thereby achieving a reaction upon productive forces. From this it can be seen that the dialectical relationship between productive forces and relations of production can only be profoundly elucidated through material production activities or labor.

只有从劳动的双重属性出发才能深刻地理解生产力与生产关系之间的辩证关系。根据历史唯物主义的基本原理，生产力与生产关系之间的辩证关系表现为生产力是决定社会发展的最终决定力量，生产力决定生产关系，生产关系反作用于生产力。以往我们常常将这一原理抽象理解为，似乎在人类社会发展过程中存在相互独立的两个东西，即生产力和生产关系，然后两者相互作用。其实这是人类社会进行物质生产活动所内含的两方面，即人与自然的关系和人与人之间的社会关系。人类社会正是通过物质生产活动产生了“人与自然”之间的“斗争”与“统一”的关系，正是在这一辩证运动过程中塑造社会生产力内部运行的矛盾与规律，即“当下人的活劳动与已经凝固化为社会生产力结构的‘死劳动’的矛盾，二者既相互适应又相互推进”。但“活劳动”驱动“死劳动”是通过一定的社会关系实现的，于是，“死劳动”则构成了社会关系的物质载体，由此社会关系转化成物化的社会关系，转化成为支配生产力的现实力量，从而转化为真正意义上的社会生产关系。因此，生产力决定生产关系实质上是通过物化劳动来实现的，即通过物化社会关系或者说为社会关系创造物质载体来实现的；反过来，以“死劳动”为基础的社会关系（即物化的社会关系）影响社会生产力结构，从而实现对生产力的反作用。由此可见，生产力与生产关系之间的辩证关系只有通过物质生产活动或劳动才能加以深刻地阐明。

The reason why the basic laws of human society revealed by historical materialism can be called objective laws different from natural laws is likewise explicable through social material production, i.e., labor. Marx pointed out, "The product of our own hands confronts us as an alien power, independent of us, thwarting our expectations and frustrating our calculations—this has been one of the main factors in historical development up to the present." [9]9 Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, *The German Ideology* (1845-1846). The quotation is from the section critiquing Feuerbach, where Marx and Engels describe the alienation of social forces produced by individuals' cooperation. The key question is why "the product of our own hands," that is, the product of subjective forces, can become an objective material force beyond our control and constraining us. Although the behavior of human society possesses subjectivity and is governed by human subjective consciousness and subjective forces, not all social consciousness and will are transformed into social behavior and forces. This consciousness and will must be objectified and reified through practice (mainly through labor). Once this transformation occurs, it forms an objective material force that does not depend on individual subjective consciousness and will. This objective material force possesses its own objective logic and laws of operation that do not depend on individual consciousness and will, and the dialectical relationship between productive forces and relations of production revealed above is an embodiment of this logic and laws. It is precisely by starting from the dual character of the concept of labor that one can better reveal the dialectical relationship between the subjective and the objective, between freedom and necessity, in human society.

唯物史观所揭示的人类社会的基本规律之所以能够称为不同于自然规律的客观规律，同样因为通过社会物质生产即劳动能够得到说明。马克思指出，“我们本身的产物聚合为一种统治我们、不受我们控制、使我们的愿望不能实现并使我们的打算落空的物质力量，这是迄今为止历史发展中的主要因素之一”。问题的关键是为什么“我们本是的产物”即主体力量的产物，能够成为一种不受我们控制、制约我们的客观物质力量呢？尽管人类社会的行为具有主观性，受人的主观意识和主体力量的支配，但并不是所有社会意识和意志都转化为社会行为和力量。这种意识和意志必须通过实践（主要是通过劳动）而被对象化和物化，一旦进行这种转化之后，它就会形成不以个体主观意识和意志为转移的客观物质力量，这种客观物质力量具有自身的、不以个人意识和意志为转移的、客观的运行逻辑和规律，而上面揭示的生产力与生产关系间的辩证关系就是这种逻辑和规律的体现。正是从劳动概念的双重属性出发，才能更好地揭示人类社会主观与客观、自由与必然之间的辩证关系。

In the first volume of *Capital*, Marx explicitly pointed out that the dual character of the labor contained in commodities "is the pivot on which a clear comprehension of political economy turns." [10]10 Karl Marx, *Capital*, Volume I, Chapter 1, Section 2: "The Twofold Character of the Labour Embodied in Commodities." Marx uses this phrase to emphasize that the distinction between concrete useful labor and abstract human labor is the key to his critique of classical political economy. This statement indicates the core position of the dual character of labor in political economy, but for a long time it has also been misunderstood or one-sidedly understood as meaning that the dual character of labor has important status and value only in political economy, while its status and value in Marxist philosophy and historical materialism have been intentionally or unintentionally neglected. Based on the above exposition, it can be clearly affirmed that the dual character of labor is not only the pivot for Marx to unfold his critique of political economy and to understand his political economy, but also the pivot for understanding historical materialism. If the dual character of labor is regarded merely as the pivot for understanding political economy, as a special existence of capitalist society, then it would, like Moishe Postone, negate historical materialism as a historical outlook with universal significance, and thus it could not serve as the guiding ideology for socialist practice. [11]11 Moishe Postone (1942-2018) was a Canadian Marxist theorist who argued in his 1993 book *Time, Labor, and Social Domination* that Marx's critique of capitalism is not a transhistorical theory of class struggle but a specific analysis of the abstract domination of capital, thereby challenging the universal applicability of historical materialism as a general theory of history. From this it can be seen that the dual character of labor is an important dimension for understanding and grasping Marx's historical materialism.

马克思在《资本论》第一卷中明确指出，商品中所包含的劳动的双重属性“是理解政治经济学的枢纽”。这句话指明了劳动的双重属性在政治经济学中的核心地位，但长期以来也被误解为或片面化地理解为劳动的双重属性仅仅在政治经济学中具有重要地位和价值，而它在马克思主义哲学和唯物史观中的地位和价值被有意无意地忽视了。根据上面的阐释可以明确指认，劳动的双重属性不仅是马克思展开政治经济学批判和理解其政治经济学的枢纽，也是理解唯物史观的枢纽。如果劳动的双重属性仅仅被视为理解政治经济学的枢纽，被视为资本主义社会的特殊存在物，那么就会像普殊同一样否定历史唯物主义是具有普遍意义的历史观，因而不能作为社会主义社会实践的指导思想。由此可见，劳动的双重属性是理解和把握马克思唯物史观的重要维度。

Online editor: Paul

网络编辑：保罗