The Basic Characteristics of Historical Materialism at the Time of Its Formation

Ōmura Izumi, Professor Emeritus at Tohoku University, Japan, and member of the Editorial Committee of MES (International Marx-Engels Foundation), primarily engaged in research on Marx and Engels, editing their works, as well as political economy and the history of political economy.

大村泉 日本东北大学荣誉退休教授，MES（国际马克思恩格斯基金会）编辑委员会成员，主要从事马克思恩格斯研究与编辑以及政治经济学、政治经济学史等方向的研究。

Are the basic characteristics of historical materialism at the time of its formation Engels’s “law of development of human history,” or Marx’s own “guiding thread” for his research?

唯物史观形成伊始的基本特征是恩格斯所说的“人类历史的发展规律”，还是马克思所说的其自身研究的“引导线”？

As is well known, historical materialism is the shared conception of history of Marx and Engels, but Marx himself may never have used the term “historical materialism” in his lifetime. This term first appeared in a book review Engels wrote for the 1859 publication of *A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy*; it was a term coined by Engels, to which Marx himself had no objection. Engels’s understanding and summary of the content of *A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy* likewise met with no objection from Marx. However, I believe there is a difference between them in how they viewed the theoretical characteristics of historical materialism.

众所周知，唯物史观是马克思和恩格斯共同的历史观，但“唯物史观”这一名称，马克思在一生中也许从未使用过。这一名称最早出现在恩格斯为1859年出版的《政治经济学批判》所写的书评中，它是恩格斯创造的词汇，马克思本人对此并无异议，恩格斯对于《政治经济学批判》内容的理解和概括，马克思同样也没有异议。然而，我认为他们在如何看待唯物史观的理论特征这方面还是有所区别的。

At Marx’s funeral in 1883, Engels for the first time placed historical materialism on a par with Darwin’s theory of evolution, pointing out that historical materialism is the “law of development of human history.” According to Marx’s own account, after unremitting inquiry he finally grasped and formed historical materialism in the mid-1840s. From then on, historical materialism became the “guiding thread” for his own research.

1883年在马克思的葬礼上，恩格斯首次将唯物史观与达尔文的进化论相提并论，指出唯物史观是“人类历史的发展规律”。根据马克思的说法，他经过不懈求索，终于在19世纪40年代中期领悟，形成了唯物史观。从此，唯物史观便成为了他自己研究的“引导线”。

When did Marx grope his way toward the formation of historical materialism? The usual view is that it was during the writing of *The German Ideology*. Previously, the greatest emphasis was placed on Chapter I, “Feuerbach.” The latest historical-critical edition of the *Marx-Engels Gesamtausgabe* (MEGA²) proposes that greater attention should be paid to the critique of Stirner in the draft of Chapter III. This is because the overall structure of *The German Ideology* was finally determined to consist of three chapters precisely in the course of writing the critique of Stirner, and before that there was no separate draft of “Feuerbach.” I consider this view to be mistaken.

马克思是什么时候摸索形成唯物史观的？通常的说法是撰写《德意志意识形态》的时候。以前，最受重视的是其中的第1章《费尔巴哈》。最新的《马克思恩格斯全集》历史考证版则提出，需要重视的是第3章草稿中对施蒂纳的批判。这是因为，《德意志意识形态》全书的结构最终被确定为由3章构成的时候，正是在撰写对施蒂纳的批判的过程中，而在此之前并不存在单独的《费尔巴哈》草稿。我认为，这种观点是错误的。

The core of historical materialism comprises three points: first, the theory of economic base and superstructure — the totality of relations of production is the real foundation of society, upon which arises a political and spiritual superstructure. The second and third cores of historical materialism are, respectively, the theory of class struggle and the theory of social revolution. Apart from the primitive state, all history is “the history of class struggles”; what fundamentally determines class antagonism is the contradiction between the development of the productive forces of each epoch and the relations of production — this is the theory of class and class struggle. The class struggle between labor and capital in capitalist society does not end with political revolution but concludes with a social revolution that terminates exploitative relations, continuing until the disappearance of the state — this is the “theory of social revolution.” The second and third cores of historical materialism can be said to define the historical mission of the proletariat. All of this is recorded on pages 22–24 of Chapter I of *The German Ideology* (the page numbers Marx assigned to the manuscript of Chapter I). These passages predate the critique of Stirner. Hence it can be said that the formation of historical materialism preceded the critique of Stirner.

唯物史观的核心包含三点：第一是经济基础—上层建筑理论，生产关系的总和是社会的现实基础，在此之上，是政治的以及精神性的上层建筑。唯物史观的第二和第三核心分别是阶级斗争和社会革命理论，除了原始状态，所有的历史都是“阶级斗争的历史”，从根本上规定阶级对立的是各个时代生产力的发展与生产关系之间的矛盾，这就是阶级—阶级斗争理论。资本主义社会中劳资之间的阶级斗争，并非终于政治革命，而是以终止剥削关系的社会革命直至国家消失而终结，这就是“社会革命理论”。唯物史观的第二、第三核心可以说定义了工人阶级的历史使命。《德意志意识形态》第1章第22—24页（马克思为第1章手稿编写的页码）都有记述。这些内容都早于对施蒂纳的批判。由此可以说，唯物史观的形成先于对施蒂纳的批判。

Next, let us examine the middle part of Chapter I — pages 30–35 — which is an excerpt taken from the critique of Stirner and discusses the class character of ideology. This part opens with the words: “The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas.” This is because “the ruling ideas are nothing more than the ideal expression of the dominant material relationships.” The analysis of the dominant position of ideas is explained not by the superiority of the mutual relations of ideas themselves, but by the dominant material position of those who lead them. And this becomes the starting point for elaborating the economic-base-and-superstructure theory of historical materialism.

接下来，让我们看看第1章的中间部分，这是从对施蒂纳的批判中摘取的部分——第30—35页，讨论了意识形态的阶级特性。这部分是以如下文字开头的：“统治阶级的思想在每一时代都是占统治地位的思想”。这是因为“占统治地位的思想不过是占统治地位的物质关系在观念上的表现”。对思想的支配性地位的分析，并不是出于思想本身的相互关系的优劣，而是从思想的主导者在物质方面的支配性地位来加以阐释的。而这也成为阐述唯物史观的经济基础—上层建筑理论的出发点。

The following part argues: “The existence of revolutionary ideas in a particular age presupposes the existence of a revolutionary class.” (In the manuscript) there is a symbol “P” here, indicating a cross-reference. Although no page number is given, it is generally believed to refer to pages 22–24. This is the text that can indicate the formation of historical materialism. Thus, the existence of communist ideas presupposes the existence of a revolutionary class, the bourgeoisie. I believe that the interconnection of the arguments in the first half of Chapter I shows that the theory of ideology in the middle part of Chapter I is not a new point that emerged out of nowhere; rather, as the text indicates, it is an extension and supplement to the discussion in the first half of Chapter I, which was guided by historical materialism.

接下来的部分是这样论述的，“一定时代的革命思想的存在，是以革命阶级的存在为前提的”。（在手稿上）此处标注有一个用来提示参照内容的符号“P”。虽然没有标明页码，但人们普遍认为，是第22—24页。这是能够表明唯物史观形成的文本。所以说，共产主义思想的存在是以革命性的阶级、资产阶级的存在为前提的。我认为，第1章前半部分的论述之间的相互关联表明，第1章中间部分的意识形态论并不是凭空冒出来的新论点，而是正如文本所示，是以唯物史观为指导的第1章前半部分的讨论内容的扩展和补充。

In the terminology Marx used at that time, “form of intercourse” was equivalent to “the totality of relations of production.” The thesis that “all conflicts in history have their origin in the contradiction between productive forces and the form of intercourse, the relations of production” appears here for the first time. It can be said that the concrete investigation of economic history, conducted under the guidance of the initial analytical framework of historical materialism, in turn brought about improvements to that very framework itself. I believe that this is precisely why, when the overall structure of *The German Ideology* was finally determined to consist of three chapters, Marx moved this part, associated with the critique of Feuerbach, into Chapter I, which expounds historical materialism.

在马克思当时所使用的术语中，“交往形式”就等于“生产关系的总和”。这一论点，即“历史上的所有冲突的根源都是生产力和交往形式、生产关系之间的矛盾”。这一提法在这里是首次出现，可以说，以唯物史观最初的分析框架作为指针开展的对经济史的具体考察，反过来也给该指针本身带来了改进。我认为，正因如此，马克思才会在《德意志意识形态》全书的结构最终被确定为由3章构成的时候，将与对费尔巴哈的批判相关联的这部分内容移到了论述唯物史观的第1章。

The above can be briefly summarized as follows: Engels introduced historical materialism and the theory of surplus value as Marx’s “two great discoveries.” Because the phrase “two great discoveries” also appears in *Anti-Dühring* (1878), it can be inferred that Marx had no objection to it. However, the view that (Marx himself) regarded historical materialism as the “law of development of human history” on a par with Darwin’s theory of evolution is open to doubt, and it is also inappropriate to understand historical materialism at the time of its formation on the basis of this view. Why is this so? On pages 22–24 of Chapter I of *The German Ideology*, the theoretical framework of historical materialism appears for the first time in textual form; this part organizes his (Marx’s) (fragmentary) conception of history.

现将以上所述内容简单总结如下：恩格斯把唯物史观和剩余价值理论作为马克思的“两大发现”加以介绍。因为“两大发现”一词，在《反杜林论》（1878）中也有记述，因而可以推断马克思对此没有异议。但是，（马克思本人）将唯物史观视为和达尔文的进化论并列的“人类历史的发展规律”这一观点是值得存疑的，基于这一观点来理解形成伊始的唯物史观也不甚妥当。为何这么说呢？在《德意志意识形态》第1章第22—24页中，唯物史观的理论框架首次以文本形式出现，这部分内容整理了他（马克思）的（片段性的）历史观。

These conceptions of history are unfolded after the critique of Feuerbach, which begins on page 8 of Chapter I of *The German Ideology*. From page 30 onward, using this theoretical framework as a guide, the text examines the class character of ideology and also undertakes concrete historical investigations of issues such as the division of labor and large-scale industry, with the aim of expanding and perfecting the content of the first half of Chapter I, as well as perfecting and supplementing the theoretical framework itself. At this time, the theory of surplus value, which Engels called one of the “two great discoveries,” had not yet been formed, nor had the systematic structure of *Capital* yet entered (Marx’s) field of vision.

这些历史观是在《德意志意识形态》第1章第8页开始的对费尔巴哈的批判之后展开的。第30页之后的内容以此理论框架为指南，考察了意识形态的阶级特征，还对劳动分工、大规模工业等问题展开了具体的历史性考察，以期对第1章前半部分的内容进行扩充和完善，并对理论框架本身进行完善和补充。而这个时候，恩格斯所说的“两大发现”中的剩余价值理论尚未形成，《资本论》的体系结构也还未进入（马克思的）视野范围内。

It is quite forced to say that historical materialism, born in 1845, was already the “law of evolution in human history” at the time of its birth. I believe that the basic characteristic of historical materialism at the time of its formation was, after all, that it served as Marx’s “guiding thread” in his research on socio-economic history — that is, a hypothesis put forward for the purpose of analysis. As for the subsequent development and changes in the characteristics of historical materialism, I think there is still much to be explored; for example, the question of whether Engels’s understanding of it as the “law of development of human history” is reasonable deserves in-depth discussion.

1845年诞生的唯物史观在其诞生之时，就已经成为 “人类历史上的进化规律”，这种说法是十分勉强的。我认为，唯物史观形成伊始的基本特性，说到底应该是马克思在进行社会经济史研究时的“引导线”，即为展开分析而提出的假说。关于唯物史观的特征后续的发展和变化，我认为，还应该大加探讨，例如，恩格斯的“人类历史的发展规律”这一理解是否合理等问题都值得深入讨论。

Online editor: Paul

网络编辑：保罗