A Study of the Successive Changes in Early Chinese Marxists’ Theories on the Evolution of Social Formations

As an important category of historical materialism, social formation manifests itself as a concrete historical unity of the economic base and superstructure that correspond to a given stage of development of the productive forces. Before Marxism was introduced into China, Chinese scholars generally held an idealist conception of history regarding the essence and driving forces of social history. After Marxism was introduced into China, a group of early Marxists, drawing on their understanding of historical materialism, successively conducted distinctive studies on the evolution of social formations, constituting an important component of the research achievements on the theory of social formation evolution in Chinese academia.

社会形态作为唯物史观的重要范畴，表现为与生产力在一定发展阶段上相适应的经济基础和上层建筑的具体的历史的统一体。在马克思主义传入我国前，我国学者在社会历史的本质、动力等方面基本上持唯心史观。马克思主义传入我国后，一批早期马克思主义者根据自己了解的唯物史观，先后对社会形态的演变作了富有个性的研究，构成了我国学术界关于社会形态演变理论研究成果的重要组成部分。

I. The Historical Background and Intellectual Origins of Early Chinese Marxists’ Exploration of the Theory of Social Formation Evolution

一、我国早期马克思主义者探索社会形态演变理论的时代背景和思想渊源

The exploration of the theory of social formation evolution by early Chinese Marxists had its historical background and intellectual origins. The historical background was mainly manifested in the debates over “the ancient and the modern, China and the West” and over “problems and isms” in the realm of ideology and culture, which arose from reflections on China’s path amid the development of social reforms and revolutionary movements aimed at saving the nation and its people. The intellectual origins mainly involved the dissemination of Marxist philosophy, especially research findings on historical materialism, in China, as well as the influence of traditional Chinese philosophical culture.

我国早期马克思主义者对社会形态演变理论的探索有其时代背景和思想渊源。时代背景主要表现为伴随以救国救民为旨归的社会改革与革命运动的发展，对我国出路的思索导致在思想文化领域出现了“古今中西”之争和“问题与主义”之争。思想渊源则主要涉及马克思主义哲学，特别是唯物史观研究成果在我国的传播，以及中国传统哲学文化的影响。

(I) Historical Background

(一)时代背景

First, the deepening of the debate over “the ancient and the modern, China and the West.” This debate ran through the entire course of China’s modern philosophical revolution. Resolving this issue required “understanding the laws by which human history and Chinese history evolved from the past to the present and would develop into the future.” [1]1 This quotation is from Feng Qi’s *Collected Works of Feng Qi* (Volume 1), p. 3. In modern China, with its complex and interwoven social currents, various schools of thought attempted to answer this question from their own theoretical standpoints, among which the theory of evolution had the most extensive and profound influence. As the dominant explanatory paradigm for the laws of social development before historical materialism became the mainstream discourse, the theory of evolution revolutionized people’s conceptions of natural and social development and met the needs of social change. Both the bourgeois reformists and the revolutionaries actively promoted and applied this theory, but neither could transcend the framework of idealist conceptions of history. Moreover, from the perspective of the theory itself, although natural evolution and the evolution of human society share certain commonalities, the theory of evolution, as a doctrine elucidating the laws of biological development, had obvious shortcomings when applied to explaining the development of human social history. Because the theory of evolution could neither correctly explain historical change nor provide a reasonable answer to the debate over “the ancient and the modern, China and the West,” it could no longer correctly respond, philosophically or politically, to the question of “where is China going?” It was against this background that historical materialism gradually became the dominant discourse for explaining the process and laws of human historical development.

一是“古今中西”之争的深化。“古今中西”之争贯穿于我国近代哲学革命的整个历程。这一问题的解决要求“必须认识人类历史和中国历史如何从过去演变到现在、又如何向将来发展这样的规律性”。在社会思潮错综复杂的近代中国，各种思想流派都曾试图以自身的理论立场对该问题予以解答，其中尤以进化论的影响最为广泛和深远。作为唯物史观成为主流话语方式之前的关于社会发展规律的主要解释范式，进化论革新了人们关于自然和社会发展的观念，适应了社会变革的需要。无论是资产阶级改良派还是革命派，都对该理论进行过积极的宣传和应用，不过他们都没能超出唯心史观的范畴。此外，从理论本身来看，虽然自然的进化与人类社会的进化具有一定的共通性，但进化论作为对生物学发展规律进行阐发的学说，在说明人类社会历史的发展时存在着明显缺陷。由于进化论既不能正确解释历史的演变，又不能对“古今中西”之争给出合理的回答，因而已不能在哲学上和政治上对“中国向何处去”的问题作出正确回应。正是在这一背景下，唯物史观逐渐成为解释人类历史发展过程及规律的主要话语方式。

Second, the advancement of the debate over “problems and isms.” This debate also influenced the choice of China’s path of social development. The pragmatists, represented by Hu Shi, advocated studying more concrete problems and talking less about isms. They emphasized that empty talk about isms was dangerous and detrimental to solving real social problems, and they advocated starting from the study of specific social issues. Although this faction’s representatives recognized the harm of empty talk about isms, their consequent denial of the positive significance of discussing and promoting isms can be seen as a mistaken proposition of “stopping eating for fear of choking,” [2]2 “Stopping eating for fear of choking” (因噎废食) is a Chinese idiom meaning to refrain from doing something necessary for fear of a minor risk. a separation of theory from reality. Furthermore, this faction denied that social problems could be fundamentally solved, advocating instead for continuous reform to achieve social transformation, which reflected bourgeois reformism. In contrast, Marxists represented by Li Dazhao, from a dialectical perspective, pointed out that studying problems and advocating isms mutually reinforced each other. As a theoretical tool, isms could, when adapted to specific times and circumstances to guide practical movements, promote collective action among the majority, thereby advancing the resolution of real problems and social transformation. Marxists also emphasized the need to carry out economic revolution through class struggle to seek a fundamental solution to social problems. In essence, the debate over “problems and isms” was a political controversy over whether China should take the bourgeois reformist path or the proletarian revolutionary path. Through this debate, Marxism was, to a certain extent, demarcated from other various socialist schools, clearing obstacles for the spread in China of historical materialism—the philosophical foundation of the theory of social formation evolution—and helping Marxist theory on the evolution of social formations gain broader acceptance among the masses.

二是“问题与主义”之争的推进。“问题与主义”之争也影响着对中国社会发展道路的选择。以胡适为代表的实用主义者倡导多研究些问题，少谈些主义。他们强调空谈主义是危险的，不利于现实社会问题的解决，主张从研究具体的社会问题入手。该派别的代表人物虽然看到了空谈主义的危害，但因此否认谈论和宣传主义的积极意义，可以说是一种因噎废食的错误主张，是对理论和现实的割裂。此外，该流派还否认社会问题能够从根本上得到解决，主张通过不断改良以实现社会的改造，是资产阶级改良主义的体现。与此相反，以李大钊为代表的马克思主义者则从辩证的角度出发指出研究问题和高谈主义是交相为用的。主义作为一种学理工具，能够在因时、因事而制以指导实际运动的过程中促进多数人的共同行动，进而推进现实问题的解决和社会的改造。马克思主义者还强调要通过阶级斗争实行经济革命来寻求社会问题的根本解决。实际上，“问题与主义”之争是关于中国究竟走资产阶级改良道路还是无产阶级革命道路的政治论争。通过这场争论，在一定程度上使马克思主义同其他形形色色的社会主义流派划清了界限，为社会形态演变理论的哲学基础——唯物史观在中国的传播扫除了障碍，有助于马克思主义的社会形态演变理论更好地为大众所接受。

(II) Intellectual Origins

(二)思想渊源

The research and mastery of the theory of social formation evolution by early Chinese Marxists was not only deeply influenced by the ideas of classical Marxist writers but also inspired by Marxist scholars from France, Soviet Russia, Japan, and other countries, while also reflecting a critical inheritance of traditional Chinese culture.

我国早期马克思主义者对社会形态演变理论的研究和掌握，不仅受到了马克思主义经典作家思想的深刻影响，还受到了法国、苏俄、日本等国家马克思主义学者的启发，同时也体现了对我国传统文化的批判性继承。

First, classical Marxist works provided the fundamental basis for early Chinese Marxists to grasp the theory of social formation evolution. Cai Hesen’s research on the stages of human social development, for example, drew on Engels’s *The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State* and other original works. His views on the driving forces of social formation evolution were consistent with Engels’s emphasis that “according to the materialist conception, the determining factor in history is, in the final analysis, the production and reproduction of immediate life.” [3]3 This quotation is from Engels’s preface to the first edition of *The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State* (1884). Fan Shoukang elucidated Marxist historical materialism by annotating Marx’s “Preface to *A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy*” in sections. In that text, Marx briefly described the evolution of social formations: “In broad outline, the Asiatic, ancient, feudal and modern bourgeois modes of production may be designated as epochs marking progress in the economic formation of society.” [4]4 This quotation is from Marx’s “Preface to *A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy*” (1859). The Marxist theorist Li Da, during his studies in Japan, also diligently read Marxist original works such as *The Communist Manifesto*, *Capital* (Volume 1), and *The State and Revolution*. The emphasis in these works on the foundational role of economic production in changes in social structure and the importance of class struggle in social development, as well as Lenin’s detailed examination of Marx’s and Engels’s theory of the state, undoubtedly had a profound impact on Li Da’s study of the evolution of social formations. Moreover, the translation and dissemination of classical Marxist works in China also aided early Marxists in studying the theory of social formation evolution. For instance, Chen Wangdao’s translation of *The Communist Manifesto* was praised and recommended by Mao Zedong, leading Mao to recognize class struggle as the driving force of social development.

首先，马克思主义经典著作为我国早期马克思主义者们掌握社会形态演变理论提供了根本依据。蔡和森关于人类社会发展阶段的研究，就是以恩格斯的《家庭、私有制和国家的起源》等原著为参考的。如他关于社会形态演变动力的观点与恩格斯强调的“根据唯物主义观点，历史中的决定性因素，归根结底是直接生活的生产和再生产”的认识是一致的。范寿康曾以分段注释马克思《〈政治经济学批判〉序言》的形式对马克思主义的唯物史观进行了阐明。马克思在文中对社会形态的演进作过简要说明：“大体说来，亚细亚的、古希腊罗马的、封建的和现代资产阶级的生产方式可以看做是经济的社会形态演进的几个时代。”马克思主义理论家李达在留日期间，也刻苦研读了《共产党宣言》《资本论(第1卷)》《国家与革命》等马克思主义原著，其中对经济生产在社会结构变动中的基础性作用和阶级斗争在社会发展中的重要性的强调，以及列宁对马克思和恩格斯的国家学说的详细考察无疑都对李达研究社会形态的演变产生了深刻影响。此外，马克思主义经典著作在我国的译介和传播也为早期马克思主义者研究社会形态演变理论提供了帮助。如陈望道翻译的《共产党宣言》就曾得到毛泽东的肯定和推荐，使毛泽东认识到了阶级斗争是社会发展的原动力。

Second, the introduction of Japanese Marxism and Soviet Russian Marxism also had a significant impact on early Chinese Marxists’ study of the theory of social formation evolution. When Zhang Bojian studied at the Communist University of the Toilers of the East in Moscow, he took the course “History of the Development of Social Formations,” so his theoretical views on the evolution of social formations bore a distinct Soviet Russian imprint. For example, his understanding that the slave system appeared after feudal society drew on views from Bogdanov’s *Outline of Economic Science*. [5]5 Alexander Bogdanov (1873–1928) was a Russian Marxist philosopher, economist, and physician. Fan Shoukang and Li Da, during their studies in Japan, were influenced by the Japanese Marxist school. Fan Shoukang acknowledged that the compilation of his *General History of Chinese Philosophy* was influenced by Japanese scholars such as Takeuchi Yoshio and Kawakami Hajime. Li Da also stated: “Kawakami Hajime was my teacher; my economics was learned from him.” [6]6 This quotation is from Li Da’s *Autobiography*. Additionally, during his stay in Japan, he translated Takabatake Motoyuki’s *General Survey of Social Problems* and, based on the Japanese and German editions, translated the Dutchman Gorter’s *Historical Materialism Explained*. [7]7 Herman Gorter (1864–1927) was a Dutch Marxist poet and theorist.

其次，日本马克思主义和苏俄马克思主义的传入也对我国早期马克思主义者研究社会形态演变理论产生了重要影响。张伯简在莫斯科东方大学留学时，就学习了“社会形态发展史”这一课程，因而他关于社会形态演变的理论观点带有明显的苏俄色彩。如他关于奴隶制度出现于封建社会之后的认识就借鉴了波格达诺夫《经济科学大纲》中的观点。范寿康和李达在赴日本留学的过程中则受到了日本马克思主义学派的影响。范寿康曾坦言《中国哲学史通论》的编撰受到了武内义雄和河上肇等日本学者的影响。李达也曾表明：“河上肇是我的老师，我的经济学是从那里学来的。”此外，他在留日时还翻译了高畠素之著的《社会问题总览》,并根据日文本和德文本对荷兰郭泰著的《唯物史观解说》进行了翻译。

Finally, the early Chinese Marxists’ exploration of the laws governing the evolution of social forms was also inseparable from the influence of Chinese philosophy. The study of the causes and driving forces of the evolution of social forms involves a dialectical understanding of the relationship between social being and social consciousness. As a manifestation of the relationship between thinking and being in the historical field, when modern Chinese scholars studied this, they could not avoid being influenced by philosophical debates in traditional philosophy related to the issues of thinking and being, including the debate on the Way and concrete things (道器之辨) and the debate on mind and matter (心物之辨). On the one hand, the debate on the Way and concrete things during the Song and Ming dynasties already involved issues of historical outlook. Wang Fuzhi believed that history is in a state of development and change, and that history should be explained from history itself, rather than explaining social order and chaos through changes in the Mandate of Heaven or natural phenomena. In modern times, facing the practical question of “where is China going,” the debate on the Way and concrete things gradually evolved into a debate on “the ancient and the modern, China and the West.” On the other hand, historical materialism, as the philosophical foundation of the theory of the evolution of social forms, shares common ground with the debate on mind and matter in traditional Chinese philosophy. The debate on mind and matter, as one of the centers of Chinese philosophical debate since the Tang and Song dynasties, gradually became combined with the issue of the relationship between social being and social consciousness in modern times. Ancient Chinese philosophers were already able to adopt a materialist standpoint, viewing the process of cognition as the unity of knowledge and action, and Wang Fuzhi’s “investigating things to extend knowledge” (格物致知) is an important manifestation. However, the epistemology of ancient Chinese philosophers was not empirical and scientific, but rather possessed a naive character. Since modern times, discussions and reflections on the relationship between knowledge and action have also gradually become linked to the epochal question of “where is China going.”

最后，我国早期马克思主义者关于社会形态演变规律的探索还离不开中国哲学的影响。社会形态演进的原因和动力研究，涉及对社会存在和社会意识之间关系的辩证理解。作为思维和存在的关系问题在历史领域中的表现，我国近代学者对此进行研究时，难免会受到传统哲学中与思维和存在问题相关的哲学论争的影响，包括道器之辨、心物之辨等。一方面，宋明时期的道器之辨就涉及了历史观的问题。王夫之认为历史是发展变化的，应从历史本身来解释历史，而不是从天命或自然现象的变异去解释社会的治乱。到了近代，面对“中国向何处去”的现实问题，道器之辨逐渐演变为“古今中西”之争。另一方面，唯物史观作为社会形态演变理论的哲学基础，同我国传统哲学中的心物之辨有着共通之处。心物之辨作为唐宋以来我国哲学论争的中心之一，到近代后逐渐和社会存在与社会意识的关系问题结合在一起了。我国古代的哲学家就已经能够从唯物主义的立场出发，将认识过程视为知和行的统一，王夫之的“格物致知”就是重要体现。不过我国古代哲学家的认识论不是实证的和科学的、带有朴素性。近代以来，对知行关系的讨论与反思也逐渐与“中国向何处去”的时代之问联系起来。

II. The Logical Unfolding of Early Chinese Marxists’ Theories on the Evolution of Social Forms

二、我国早期马克思主义者关于社会形态演变理论的逻辑展开

The early Chinese Marxists’ exploration of the theory of the evolution of social forms had its own process of logical unfolding. Overall, their exploration of the evolution of social forms went through five main stages: foundation, advancement, innovation, deepening, and refinement.

我国早期马克思主义者对社会形态演变理论的探讨有其逻辑展开过程。总体而言，他们对社会形态演变的探讨经历了奠基、推进、创新、深化和完善五个主要阶段。

(I) Cai Hesen’s Foundation for the Study of the Theory of the Evolution of Social Forms

(一)蔡和森对社会形态演变理论研究的奠基

Cai Hesen’s *Social Evolution History* (《社会进化史》), published in May 1924, was China’s earliest work on the history of social development written under the guidance of historical materialism. In terms of form, *Social Evolution History* primarily followed the classification method in Morgan’s *Ancient Society* to periodize the developmental forms of human society. Specifically, following Morgan’s classification, Cai Hesen divided human society into three different forms: the savage era, the barbarian era, and the civilized era. In terms of the criteria for classification, Cai Hesen relied on Marxist historical materialism. Influenced by Engels’ *The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State*, Cai Hesen noted the key role of the mode of production in the process of the evolution of social forms, pointing out that “each era’s change has new characteristics of that era, and these new characteristics are directly caused by changes in the method of production.” The change in social forms is a process in which humanity moves from natural production to social production.

蔡和森于1924年5月出版的《社会进化史》是我国最早以唯物史观为指导而撰写的社会发展史著作。从形式上看，《社会进化史》主要是依据摩尔根《古代社会》中的划分方法对人类社会的发展形态进行分期的。具体表现在，蔡和森依照摩尔根的划分法，将人类社会划分为野蛮时代、半开化时代、文明时代三种不同的形态。就划分的标准而言，蔡和森依据的是马克思主义的唯物史观。受恩格斯《家庭、私有制和国家的起源》一书的影响，蔡和森注意到了生产方式在社会形态演变过程中的关键作用，指出“每个时代的变化，有每个时代的新特征，而这些新特征即直接为生产方法的变迁所引起”,社会形态的变化是人们从自然的生产走向社会的生产的过程。

*Social Evolution History* made a relatively reasonable classification and discussion of social forms based on the evolution of the mode of production, but it still had shortcomings. First, it focused more on investigating the origins of the family, property, and the state, but revealed less about the specific evolutionary process of social forms. In his work, Cai Hesen devoted a great deal of space to describing the clan society under primitive communism, but discussed feudal and bourgeois social forms less, and did not touch upon the already-emerged Soviet socialist society at all. Second, it expressed more evolutionary viewpoints, but discussed less the role of revolution in the process of social development. In this book, Cai Hesen emphasized how the family, property, and the state achieved changes in different forms along with economic evolution, but did not fully explore the revolutionary leaps that exist in the evolutionary process. Third, although Cai Hesen studied social forms under the guidance of historical materialism, his use of Morgan’s tripartite classification to divide complex social forms appeared insufficiently specific and clear. Although he discussed the matriarchal system, patriarchal system, slavery system, feudal system, and capitalist system experienced in social evolution from the perspective of changes in social systems, and mentioned the communist social form, he did not analyze the evolution of the family, property, and the state based on the five social forms, but instead discussed them around Morgan’s tripartite classification. Although Cai Hesen’s understanding of the stages of development of human social forms was still hazy, his attempt to classify social forms laid the foundation for Chinese Marxists to systematically study the process and laws of the evolution of social forms.

《社会进化史》基于生产方式的演进对社会形态作了较为合理的划分和论述，但仍存在不足之处。其一，对家庭、财产、国家等方面起源的考察较多，对社会形态的具体演进过程揭示较少。蔡和森在其著作中用大量笔墨描述了原始共产制下的氏族社会形态，而对封建的和资产阶级的社会形态论述较少，对已经问世的苏维埃社会主义社会更没有着墨。其二，对进化观点的表述较多，而关于革命在社会发展过程中的作用论述较少。蔡和森在该书中强调了家族、财产和国家是如何随着经济的进化实现不同形态变更的，但没有充分探讨进化过程中存在的革命性跃迁。其三，蔡和森虽然是在唯物史观指导下对社会形态进行研究的，但他以摩尔根的三分法来划分复杂的社会形态则显得不够具体与明确。虽然他在该书中从社会制度变迁的角度出发，探讨了社会演进中所历经的母权制、父权制、奴隶制、封建制和资本主义制度，并提及了共产主义的社会形态，但并没有以五种社会形态为依据分析家族、财产和国家的进化，而是围绕摩尔根的三分法来进行论述的。尽管蔡和森对人类社会形态发展阶段的认识还是朦胧的，但他对社会形态进行划分的尝试，奠定了我国马克思主义者对社会形态演变过程和规律开展系统研究的基础。

(II) Zhang Bojian’s Advancement of the Investigation of the Theory of the Evolution of Social Forms

(二)张伯简对社会形态演变理论考察的推进

Zhang Bojian was one of the pioneers of communism among China’s ethnic minority intellectuals. In 1925, he published *A Brief History of Social Evolution* (《社会进化简史》) in Shanghai and Guangzhou, a book that studied the changes in social forms under the theoretical guidance of historical materialism. This book was written on the basis of his article “From Primitive Communist Society to Scientific Communist Society” (《从原始共产社会到科学的共产社会》) published in November 1924, and went through several reprints. Regarding the criteria for classifying human society, Zhang Bojian pointed out that research on social forms should begin from the economy. He emphasized: “Generally, when one society changes to another, it must be because its economic base has changed, that is, driven by the impetus of progress in productive technology.” On this basis, Zhang Bojian divided the development of human society into eight forms: primitive communist society, patriarchal clan commune, feudal society, slavery system and agricultural system, urban handicraft system, commercial capital society-manufacturing system, industrial capital society, and communist society. For each type of social form, Zhang Bojian, while analyzing the conditions and characteristics of economic development, also explained the corresponding conditions of class, politics, culture, etc., built upon that foundation.

张伯简是我国少数民族知识分子共产主义的先驱之一。1925年，他在上海、广州两地出版了以唯物史观为理论指导研究社会形态变迁的《社会进化简史》一书。该书是以他在1924年11月发表的《从原始共产社会到科学的共产社会》一文的基础上撰著的，并多次再版。关于人类社会的划分标准，张伯简指出，应该从经济开始对社会形态进行研究。他强调：“大凡由这个社会变到那个社会，必定是他的经济基础变更，即生产技术进步的动力使之推进。”在此基础上，张伯简将人类社会的发展划分为八种形态，即：原始共产社会、族长的血族公社、封建社会、奴隶制度与农业制度、城市手工业制度、商业资本社会-手工工厂制度、工业资本社会、共产社会。关于每类社会形态，张伯简还在对经济发展状况和特征进行分析的前提下，对建立在其基础上的阶级、政治、文化等方面的情形进行了说明。

Compared to Cai Hesen’s tripartite classification, Zhang Bojian’s classification of social forms was more specific. His octopartite classification advanced the theory of the evolution of social forms mainly in three aspects. First, the classification of social forms was more reasonable. He explained each social form in considerable detail, enabling readers to accurately grasp the types and evolutionary sequence of social forms and to form a systematic understanding of the characteristics of the economic base and superstructure of various social forms. Second, the understanding and discussion of social forms were more comprehensive. Although Cai Hesen’s *Social Evolution History* involved different social forms, it only briefly envisioned the communist social form without systematic discussion, whereas Zhang Bojian’s *A Brief History of Social Evolution* made up for this deficiency. Third, the exposition of the process and laws of the evolution of social forms was more concise and accessible. Compared to the obscure language in Cai Hesen’s *Social Evolution History*, Zhang Bojian’s expression of the theory of the evolution of social forms was easier to understand, with a clearer logical structure and a more complete system.

相较于蔡和森的三分法，张伯简对社会形态的划分更为具体。他的八分法对社会形态演变理论的推进主要体现为三点。其一，关于社会形态的划分更合理。他对每种社会形态均以相当的篇幅进行了详细阐释，使读者能够准确把握社会形态的类型及演进顺序，并形成对各种社会形态的经济基础和上层建筑特征的系统了解。其二，对社会形态的认识与讨论更为全面。蔡和森的《社会进化史》中虽然涉及了不同的社会形态，但对共产主义的社会形态只作了简单展望，并未进行系统论述，而张伯简的《社会进化简史》则弥补了这一不足。其三，对社会形态演变过程和规律的阐述更为简明通俗。相较于蔡和森《社会进化史》中语言的晦涩，张伯简关于社会形态演变理论的表述更加通俗易懂、逻辑结构清晰、体系更为完整。

Unlike the views of ordinary scholars, Zhang Bojian’s understanding of the theory of the evolution of social forms was quite distinctive, and therefore prone to controversy. First, he separated the patriarchal clan commune from primitive communist society. The general view is that although productive forces progressed during the patriarchal clan commune period, the nature of production remained collectivist, and thus it should be classified under primitive communist society. Second, Zhang Bojian regarded the slavery system and the serfdom system as two different tendencies in the development of feudal society, a view that also contradicts the general understanding that human society first passes through slave society before entering feudal society. Unlike the approach of placing the serfdom system within feudal society for analysis, Zhang Bojian separated the serfdom system from the feudal social form. Finally, regarding the capitalist social form, Zhang Bojian also subdivided it into two forms, commercial capitalist society and industrial capitalist society, for discussion.

不同于一般学者的观点，张伯简关于社会形态演变理论的认识颇具特色，因而也容易引起争议。首先，他将族长的血族公社从原始共产社会中分离出来。一般观点认为，族长的血族公社时期生产力虽获得进步，但生产的性质仍然是集体主义的，因而应归于原始共产社会的范畴。其次，张伯简将奴隶制度和农奴制度视为封建社会发展的两种不同倾向，这一看法也与人类社会先经过奴隶社会再进入封建社会的一般认识相悖。不同于将农奴制度置于封建社会中进行分析，张伯简将农奴制度从封建社会形态中剥离了出来。最后，关于资本主义的社会形态，张伯简也是将其细分为商业资本主义社会和工业资本主义社会两种形态进行了探讨。

(III) Fan Shoukang’s Innovation in the Exploration of the Theory of the Evolution of Social Forms

(三)范寿康对社会形态演变理论探讨的创新

As a scholar who took Marxism as the principle and standpoint of academic research, Fan Shoukang, in his 1937 work *A General Treatise on the History of Chinese Philosophy* (中国哲学史通论), made a distinctive division of the development of social formations based on the theoretical foundation of historical materialism. He emphasized that “the essential stages in the transition of social formations” are one of the fundamental issues in the view of history, pointing out that “society changes with economic changes,” and argued that only by regarding the development of society as a process of struggle between productive forces and relations of production can one achieve a thorough understanding of social development.

作为以马克思主义为学术研究原则和立场的学者，范寿康在1937年出版的《中国哲学史通论》一书中以唯物史观为理论依据，对社会形态的发展作出了独特划分。他强调“社会形态的推移的至要阶段”是历史观的基本问题之一，指明“社会是随着经济的变动而变动的”,认为要把社会的发展看作生产诸力和生产诸关系之间的斗争历程，才能求得对社会发展的彻底理解。

Regarding the general stages of social development, Fan Shoukang divided them into five institutional forms: primitive communal system, slave system, feudal system, wage-labor system, and capitalist system. On the basis of elaborating the evolutionary process of general social formations, Fan Shoukang also explained the periodization of Chinese social history. He divided the evolution of Chinese social history into the primitive communal system era before the Yin dynasty, the slave system era from the Yin to the Zhou dynasty, the feudal system era from the Zhou to the Qin dynasty, the simple commodity economy system era from the beginning of the Qin to the late Qing Opium War period, and the capitalist system era from the Opium War to the present.

关于一般的社会发展阶段，范寿康将其划分为五种制度形态，分别是：原始共产制、奴隶制、封建制、赁银劳动制和资本主义制。在对一般社会形态演进过程进行阐述的基础上，范寿康还对我国社会历史的分期问题作了阐释。他将我国社会历史的演进划分为殷代以前的原始共产制时代、殷代至周代的奴隶制时代、周代至秦代的封建制时代、自秦初至晚清鸦片战争时期的单纯商品经济制时代、自鸦片战争至现在的资本主义制时代。

Fan Shoukang’s research on the evolution of social formations has notable characteristics. First, it reflects the innovation of interdisciplinary research. As “the first general history of Chinese philosophy written under the guidance of Marxist historical materialism,” *A General Treatise on the History of Chinese Philosophy* applied the theory of the evolution of social formations to the study of the history of philosophical development, explaining changes in thought and culture through changes in economic relations, thereby expanding new approaches to the study of Chinese philosophy. Second, it recognized the particularities in the evolution of social formations. Fan Shoukang not only noted that “the political structure changes entirely with changes in the economic base” but also revealed that “when social revolutions occur, backward countries in the world are sometimes earlier than advanced countries.” This shows that his understanding of the evolution of social formations was not abstract and rigid but concrete and dialectical. Finally, it emphasized the importance of social revolution. Although Fan Shoukang did not explicitly incorporate socialist society into the framework of the evolution of social formations for detailed examination, he stressed that only through socialism could the various ills of capitalist society be eliminated, clearly stating that “the fifth great upheaval may already be brewing.” However, Fan Shoukang’s research on the theory of the evolution of social formations also had shortcomings. First, he failed to recognize that the wage-labor system does not constitute an independent social formation. Second, he did not pay attention to or summarize the socialist social formation that had been established in the Soviet Union for many years. Third, because the main object of *A General Treatise on the History of Chinese Philosophy* was the evolution of ancient Chinese philosophical thought, his discussion of the laws and processes of the evolution of social formations was not sufficiently detailed or in-depth.

范寿康对社会形态演变的研究有着显著特点。首先，体现了跨学科研究的创新性。作为“中国哲学史上第一部在马克思主义唯物史观指导下写作的中国哲学通史”,《中国哲学史通论》将社会形态演变理论应用到了哲学发展史的研究中，从经济诸关系的转变说明思想文化的变迁，拓展了研究中国哲学的新思路。其次，认识到了社会形态演变中的特殊性。范寿康既注意到了“政治的结构是完全随着经济基础的变动而变动的”,同时也揭示了“社会革命之发生，世界落后国家有时反较先进国家为早”。可见，他关于社会形态演进的认识不是抽象的和僵化的，而是具体的和辩证的。最后，强调了社会革命的重要性。范寿康虽然未能明确将社会主义社会纳入社会形态演进的构造中加以详细考察，但强调面对资本主义社会的各种流弊，只有通过社会主义才能消除，明确指出“第五次大变动也许已在酝酿之中”。然而，范寿康关于社会形态演变理论的研究也存在不足。其一，他未能认识到赁银劳动制并不能构成独立的社会形态。其二，他对在苏联已建立多年的社会主义社会形态没有给予关注和概括。其三，由于《中国哲学史通论》研究的主要对象是我国古代哲学思想的演进，因而对社会形态演变规律和过程的探讨不够细致和深入。

(4) Li Da’s Deepening of the Exploration of the Theory of the Evolution of Social Formations

(四)李达对社会形态演变理论探索的深化

As an outstanding Marxist theorist, propagandist, and educator, Li Da’s exploration of the theory of the evolution of social formations permeated his research in economics, philosophy, and other fields. In 1935, while teaching at Beiping University, Li Da wrote and printed *An Outline of Sociology* (社会学大纲) as a textbook. In the section “The Economic Structure of Society,” the book divided the historical forms of the economic structure of society into five sequentially developing major stages: pre-class society, slave society, feudal society, modern society, and transitional society. Li Da clearly stated: “The above five historical forms of economic structure are the progressive stages of society from lower to higher levels. The development from lower to higher forms creates the unity of the historical process.” In 1937, the Shanghai Bi Geng Tang Bookstore published a revised edition of *An Outline of Sociology*, which corrected and supplemented the relevant content. Although the revised edition replaced “pre-class society” with the more precise term “primitive society,” this did not essentially differ from the understanding of the stages of social development. Furthermore, Li Da’s “modern society” referred to the capitalist social formation. Regarding “transitional society,” through his description of the transitional economy, he pointed out that “the transitional economy is neither capitalism nor complete socialism,” but rather a unity of three socioeconomic forms—capitalism, small commodity production, and socialism—and was “an era of the development, construction, and generation of socialism,” briefly explaining the basic characteristics of this social formation. It is worth noting that the “socialism” Li Da mentioned was actually synonymous with communism, an expression for the advanced stage of socialist development.

作为杰出的马克思主义理论家、宣传家和教育家，李达对社会形态演变理论的探讨，渗透于经济学、哲学研究等方面。1935年，李达在北平大学任教时，撰写、刊印了《社会学大纲》作为教材。该书在“社会的经济构造”部分将社会经济构造发展的历史形态划分为了五个顺次发展的大阶段，即：先阶级社会、奴隶制社会、封建社会、现代社会、过渡期社会。李达明确指出：“以上五种经济构造的历史形态，是由低级向高级的社会之前进的阶级。由低级形态到高级形态的发展，造出历史过程的统一。”1937年上海笔耕堂书店又出版了《社会学大纲》的修订本，对相关内容进行了修正和补充。虽然修订本中以“原始社会”这一更为精准的术语代替了“先阶级社会”,但实际上与关于社会发展阶段的认识并无本质的不同。此外，李达所说的现代社会指的是资本主义的社会形态，关于过渡期社会，他通过对过渡期经济的描述，指出“过渡期经济，既不是资本主义，也不是完全的社会主义”,而是三种社会经济形态——资本主义、小商品生产和社会主义的统一体，是“社会主义的发展、建设和生成的时代”,简要说明了这一社会形态的基本特征。值得注意的是，李达所提及的社会主义实际上是共产主义的同义语，是对社会主义发展的高级阶段的表述。

The scientific nature of Li Da’s research on the theory of the evolution of social formations is reflected in the following: First, his attention to particularities in the evolution of social formations. This is manifested in his discussion of feudalism, where Li Da specifically explained the variant feudal form of the Asiatic social formation. In analyzing the capitalist economic system, he conducted an in-depth discussion of the stage of imperialism. Additionally, he emphasized that the development of relations of production in different social formations has different characteristics. At the time, when scholars discussed the transition from old to new social formations, they often only stated that new relations of production had already emerged within the womb of the old society. Li Da not only recognized this general law but also noted the particularity of socialist relations of production. He pointed out that in capitalist society, socialist relations of production had not emerged or matured; what capitalism created was only the material prerequisites for socialism. The development of socialist relations of production could only advance under the impetus of the proletariat’s “consciously implemented economic policies.” Second, he clarified and criticized erroneous views. For example, when elaborating on feudalism, Li Da refuted the view then prevalent in academia that the feudal system and the serf system were not the same economic structure. When explaining the fundamental laws of the transitional economy, he exposed the roots of the erroneous views of Bukharin and others.

李达对社会形态演变理论研究的科学性体现在：其一，对社会形态演变中特殊性的关注。这一点表现为在论述封建社会时，李达专门对变相的封建制的亚细亚的社会形态进行了说明。在分析资本主义的经济体系时，对帝国主义的阶段作了深入讨论。此外，他还强调不同社会形态中生产关系的发展具有不同的特点。当时的学者们在论述新旧社会形态的转变时，往往只说明了新的生产关系在旧社会的母体中就已经产生了。李达则不仅认识到了这个一般规律，而且注意到了社会主义生产关系的特殊性。他指出，在资本主义社会中，社会主义的生产关系并未产生和成熟，资本主义创造出的只是社会主义的物质前提。社会主义生产关系的发展，只有在无产阶级“有意识地实现的经济政策的推动之下才能向前发展”。其二，对错误见解进行了澄清与批判。如李达在阐述封建社会时，就对当时学术界存在的封建制与农奴制不是同一经济构造的观点进行了批驳。在阐述过渡期经济的根本法则时，又对布哈林等人的错误见解的根源进行了揭露。

(5) Mao Zedong’s Perfection of the Research on the Theory of the Evolution of Social Formations

(五)毛泽东对社会形态演变理论研究的完善

As a Marxist dedicated to transforming Chinese society, Mao Zedong, guided by historical materialism, made a scientific division of social formations, enriching and perfecting the theory of the evolution of social formations.

作为致力于改造中国社会的马克思主义者，毛泽东以唯物史观为指导，对社会形态作出了科学划分，丰富和完善了社会形态演变理论。

Mao Zedong’s attention to the question of the development of social forms can be traced back to the Great Revolution period. In 1926, when discussing class struggle, Mao explained the transformation of social forms from the perspective of human evolutionary history. He pointed out: “Humanity has evolved from primitive society into the patriarchal society, the feudal society, and on to the state of today; in every case this has been the evolution of class struggle between the ruling class and the ruled class.” Although Mao only briefly touched on several social forms and did not focus on a specific study of the stages of development of social forms, he had already accurately grasped that the direct driving force for advancing the transformation of social forms lies in class struggle. Mao’s research on the evolution of social forms was primarily presented theoretically in *The Chinese Revolution and the Chinese Communist Party* and *On New Democracy*. In *The Chinese Revolution and the Chinese Communist Party*, Mao, on the basis of elucidating the general laws of the transformation of social forms, analyzed the development and evolution of China’s social forms. He pointed out: The Chinese nation, like other nations of the world, first passed through the classless primitive commune; after class life emerged, it successively passed through slave society and feudal society. However, since the Opium War, China had gradually been reduced to a semi-colonial and semi-feudal society, and after the September 18th Incident, “China has been turned into a colonial, semi-colonial and semi-feudal society.” Given that the Chinese revolution was “a special, new-type democratic revolution,” the future prospect for the development of China’s social forms would be the forms of socialism and communism. In *On New Democracy*, Mao inherited the spiritual essence of the Marxist theory of social forms and enriched and developed it. The inheritance is manifested in his insistence on explaining China’s social nature from the standpoint of historical materialism, clearly pointing out the decisive significance of the economic base, while specific political and cultural forms are merely concentrated expressions of the economic form. The development is manifested in his comprehensive and detailed explanation of the special social form of colony, semi-colony, and semi-feudalism in which China found itself at the time, and his in-depth analysis of the economic, political, and cultural forms of colonial, semi-colonial, and semi-feudal society, reflecting a dialectical grasp of universality and particularity.

毛泽东对社会形态发展问题的关注能够追溯到大革命时期。1926年，毛泽东在谈论阶级斗争时，就从人类进化史的角度对社会形态变迁进行了说明。他指出：“人类由原始社会进化为家长社会、封建社会以至于今日之国家，无不是统治阶级与被统治阶级之阶级斗争的演进。”尽管毛泽东只简单涉及了几种社会形态，并未专注于社会形态发展阶段的具体研究，但已精准把握了推进社会形态变更的直接动力在于阶级斗争。毛泽东对社会形态演变的研究，主要是以《中国革命和中国共产党》《新民主主义论》为理论呈现的。在《中国革命和中国共产党》中，毛泽东在阐明社会形态变迁一般规律的基础上对中国社会形态发展演进进行了分析。他指出：中华民族和世界上的其他民族一样，首先经过了无阶级的原始公社，阶级生活产生后，依次经过了奴隶社会、封建社会。而自鸦片战争后，我国则一步步沦为半殖民地半封建社会，九一八事变后，“中国又变成了一个殖民地、半殖民地和半封建的社会”。鉴于中国革命是“特殊的新式的民主主义的革命”,我国社会形态发展的前途将是社会主义和共产主义的形态。在《新民主主义论》中，毛泽东继承了马克思主义社会形态理论的精神实质，并进行了丰富和发展。继承性表现在坚持以唯物史观对我国的社会性质进行说明，明确指出了经济基础的决定性意义，而一定的政治和文化形态只是经济形态的集中表现。发展性体现为对当时我国所处的殖民地、半殖民地和半封建的特殊社会形态进行了全面细致的说明，深入分析了殖民地、半殖民地和半封建社会的经济、政治和文化形态，体现了对普遍性和特殊性的辩证把握。

Mao Zedong’s exploration of the theory of the evolution of social forms has many outstanding characteristics. First, he was able to firmly stand on the ground of historical materialism and analyze actual social forms with a scientific perspective. He emphasized: “To understand the nature of existing Chinese society, it is necessary to make a scientific and concrete analysis of China’s past and present conditions.” It was precisely on the basis of studying the past and present forms of development of Chinese society that Mao reached a comprehensive conclusion, revealing the unique social form of colony, semi-colony, and semi-feudalism in which China found itself. Second, his emphasis on class struggle. Unlike other Marxist scholars who focused on elucidating the economic roots leading to the transformation of social forms, Mao highlighted class struggle as the driving force of social development, expanding the scope of research on social forms. While emphasizing class struggle, he also stressed the necessity of upholding proletarian leadership and mobilizing the masses. This reflects the Marxist view that human beings can fully exert their subjective initiative while following objective laws, and it is an emphasis on conscious forces. Third, he made correct predictions and judgments about the trend of development of social forms. Proceeding from the Marxist world outlook and employing the method of the unity of logic and history, Mao pointed out that capitalist society and socialist society have appeared in human history, and that in the future humanity will inevitably advance to a perfect communist society.

毛泽东关于社会形态演变理论的探讨具有许多突出的特点。首先，能够坚定地站在唯物史观的立场上，以科学的眼光去分析现实的社会形态。他强调：“要认识中国现存社会的性质是什么，就必须对中国社会的过去状况与现在状况加以科学的具体的分析。”正是在对我国社会过去和现在的发展形态加以研究的基础上，毛泽东才得出了综合的结论，揭示了我国所处的殖民地、半殖民地和半封建的独特的社会形态。其次，对阶级斗争的强调。不同于其他马克思主义学者侧重于对导致社会形态变迁的经济根源进行阐发，毛泽东则对阶级斗争这一社会发展的动力进行了重点揭示，拓展了社会形态研究的思路。在强调阶级斗争时，他还对坚持无产阶级领导和发动人民群众的必要性进行了重点说明。这体现了人能够在遵循规律的基础上充分发挥主观能动性的马克思主义观点，是对自觉性力量的强调。再次，对社会形态发展趋势作出正确的预测和判断。毛泽东从马克思主义的宇宙观出发，运用逻辑和历史相统一的方法，指出人类历史上出现了资本主义社会和社会主义社会，将来必定会进步到一个完满的共产主义社会。

III. Characteristics of the Early Chinese Marxists’ Exploration of the Theory of the Evolution of Social Forms

三、我国早期马克思主义者对社会形态演变理论探索的特点

The relevant research of China’s early Marxists powerfully advanced the adaptation, development, and perfection of the Marxist theory of the evolution of social forms in China. Taking historical materialism as their theoretical basis, their exploration of the theory of the evolution of social forms exhibited multiple characteristics.

我国早期马克思主义者的相关研究，有力推进了马克思主义社会形态演变理论在我国的适应、发展和完善。他们以唯物史观为理论依据，对社会形态演变理论的探索呈现了多种特点。

(1) Criticizing the Theory of Historical Evolution with Historical Materialism

(一)以唯物史观批判历史进化论

Against the historical background of the continuous development of the “ancient-modern, Chinese-Western” debate, modern Western science was successively introduced to China. Among these, the theory of evolution had a particularly great influence, becoming an important ideological theory for studying the development of human history and exploring the process of the transformation of social forms. Because the thought of evolution catered to the practical needs of the Chinese people for national salvation and survival, many of China’s early Marxists were once influenced by the idea of social evolution. However, although the theory of evolution was once used as a philosophical basis for the belief that humanity would ultimately realize a great commonwealth, that is, enter communist society, and to a certain extent cleared ideological obstacles for the spread of historical materialism, the theory of evolution also had shortcomings. Therefore, with the deepening understanding of Marxism and the confirmation of the truth of historical materialism by the success of the October Revolution in Russia, historical materialism demonstrated its great superiority in its contention with other Chinese schools of thought and gradually became a powerful ideological weapon and a new discursive paradigm for studying the laws of the evolution of social forms.

在“古今中西”之争不断发展的历史背景下，西方近代科学得以陆续介绍到我国。其中，进化论思想影响尤大，成为研究人类历史发展、探讨社会形态变迁过程的重要思想理论。由于进化论的思想迎合了中国人民救亡图存的现实需要，我国许多早期马克思主义者都曾受到社会进化思想的影响。然而，进化论虽然曾经被当作人类终将实现大同社会即进入共产主义社会的哲学依据，在一定程度上为唯物史观的传播扫清了思想障碍，但进化论也存在着弊端。因此，随着对马克思主义理解的不断深入，以及唯物史观的真理性被俄国十月革命成功证实，唯物史观在与中国其他思想流派的争鸣中显示出极大的优越性，并逐渐成为研究社会形态演变规律的有力思想武器和崭新话语范式。

The early Chinese Marxists’ sublation of the theory of evolution was mainly manifested in three points. First, a change in academic terminology. Some scholars, from the perspective of Marxist philosophy, periodized the interpretive paradigms of the theory of evolution, pointing out that from the May Fourth Movement to the late 1920s was a period of parallel interpretive paradigms of historical materialism and the theory of evolution. During this period, “people tried hard to unify the two interpretive paradigms, but conflicts constantly emerged.” Cai Hesen’s *History of Social Evolution* and Zhang Bojian’s *A Brief History of Social Evolution* were works from this period; in their discussions of the evolution of social forms, terms with the coloring of the theory of evolution, such as “evolution” and “development,” still appeared. In contrast, Li Da’s *Outline of Sociology* had already completely become an interpretive paradigm of dialectical materialism and historical materialism. Second, attention to and emphasis on class struggle. Although the theory of evolution also emphasized competition, the competition it referred to was based on the nature of the individual and biology, and was not explained from the level of class oppression and class struggle. Marx and Engels, however, taking the theory of evolution as their natural scientific foundation, introduced the theory of class struggle into historical materialism. It was precisely under the guidance of historical materialism that China’s early Marxists recognized the important driving role of class struggle in the development of social forms and discussed the movement of the basic contradictions of society that lead to class antagonism. Third, a correct elucidation of the relationship between evolution and revolution. Some scholars believed that the relationship between evolution and revolution was conflicting and irreconcilable, and that since historical materialism advocated revolution, it negated evolution; this understanding was undoubtedly a misreading of historical materialism. Marxists represented by Cai Hesen pointed out that historical materialism is a synthesis of the theory of evolution and the theory of revolution, and the two are unified in the process of social and historical development, representing a dialectical understanding of the relationship and status of economic revolution and political revolution.

我国早期马克思主义者对进化论的扬弃主要表现为三点：首先，学术用语的改变。部分学者从马克思主义哲学视角出发，对进化论的解释范式作了分期，指出从五四运动到20世纪20年代后期，是唯物史观和进化论的解释范式的并行期。这一时期“人们竭力把两种解释范式统一起来，但冲突不断出现”。蔡和森的《社会进化史》和张伯简的《社会进化简史》正是这一时期的著作，二者关于社会形态演变的论述中，仍存在着“进化”“演化”等带有进化论色彩的词句。而李达的《社会学大纲》已完全成为辩证唯物主义和历史唯物主义的解释范式。其次，对阶级斗争的关注和重视。进化论虽然也强调竞争，但其所指的竞争是从个体和生物学的性质出发的，并没有从阶级压迫和阶级斗争的层面予以说明。而马克思和恩格斯则以进化论为自然科学基础，将阶级斗争的学说引入了唯物史观。我国早期马克思主义者正是在唯物史观的指导下，才认识到了阶级斗争在社会形态发展中的重要推动作用，并对导致阶级对立的社会基本矛盾运动进行了论述。再次，对进化和革命关系的正确阐发。一些学者认为，进化与革命之间的关系是冲突的、不可调和的，认为唯物史观既宣扬革命，则否定了进化，这一认识无疑是对唯物史观的误读。以蔡和森为代表的马克思主义者则指出，唯物史观是对进化说和革命说的统合，二者统一于社会历史发展的进程中，是对经济革命和政治革命二者关系和地位的辩证理解。

(2) From Focusing on Theory to Emphasizing the Integration of Theory with China’s Reality

(二)由关注理论到强调理论与中国现实的结合

When exploring the process of social formation evolution, early Chinese Marxists also achieved a shift from emphasizing theoretical exposition to focusing on China’s reality. First, early Chinese Marxists moved from expounding the general laws of social formation evolution to a practical concern with specific social formations. Before historical materialism became the primary explanatory framework for theories of social formation evolution, Chinese scholars, though starting from the practical question of “where is China going,” offered relatively thin analyses and expositions of China’s social formations. They tended to seek universal truths of social formation change, paying less attention to the particularities of China’s social formation development. For example, Cai Hesen, primarily based on his study of prehistoric societies, argued that “the evolution of each era or each stage possesses a universality common to all peoples of the world; there is only a difference in the speed of evolution over time, and there is never a fundamentally divergent special path due to differences in the location of each people.” [20]20 Cai Hesen (1895–1931) was an early leader of the Chinese Communist Party and a prominent Marxist theorist. The quotation is from his work *A History of Social Evolution* (《社会进化史》). Zhang Bojian’s *A Brief History of Social Evolution* [21]21 Zhang Bojian (1893–1926) was an early Chinese Communist Party member and a labor movement activist. His *A Brief History of Social Evolution* (《社会进化简史》) was an influential early Marxist text in China. also mainly offered a general revelation of the conditions under which each social formation arises and the economic, political, and cultural characteristics of each. It was not until the late 1920s and early 1930s, after the debates on the nature of Chinese society and Chinese social history, that the focus of research on social formation development truly shifted to Chinese society. For instance, Fan Shoukang and Li Da [22]22 Fan Shoukang (1896–1983) was a Chinese Marxist philosopher and historian. Li Da (1890–1966) was a founding member of the Chinese Communist Party and a key Marxist philosopher and translator. classified and explained China’s specific stages of social development. Mao Zedong, even more so, while grasping the general laws of social formation evolution, focused his analysis and research on the changes in China’s social formations.

我国早期马克思主义者在探讨社会形态演进过程时，还实现了由重视理论阐发到关注我国现实的转变。首先，我国早期马克思主义者经过了由社会形态演变一般规律的阐发到对特殊社会形态的现实关注。在唯物史观成为社会形态演变理论的主要解释方式之前，我国学者们虽然是以思考和回应“中国向何处去”这一现实问题为出发点的，但对我国社会形态的分析和阐发则显得较为单薄。他们倾向于寻求社会形态变迁的普遍真理，而对我国社会形态发展的特殊性关注较少。如蔡和森主要基于对史前社会的研究，以说明“每一时代或每一等级的进化，具有普遍世界一切民族之通性；只在时间上有演进迟早之距离，决不因各民族所在地之不同而发生根本异趣之特殊途径”。张伯简的《社会进化简史》也主要对各社会形态发生的条件以及各社会形态的经济、政治和文化等方面的特征作出一般性的揭示。直到20世纪20年代末30年代初，关于中国社会性质及社会史的论战发生后，社会形态发展研究的关注重点才真正转移到我国社会上来。如范寿康和李达就对我国特定的社会发展形态进行了划分与说明。毛泽东更是在掌握社会形态演进一般规律的前提下，着重对中国社会形态的变迁予以分析和研究。

Second, early Chinese Marxists’ understanding of the evolution of China’s social formations also underwent a change in focus, moving from envisioning a future society to looking back at ancient society, and finally to a concern with the present, actual society. Li Dazhao, Chen Duxiu, and Cai Hesen, among others, attempted, on the basis of revealing the general laws and basic processes of human social development, to deduce the ideal form of a future society. With the rise of the debates on Chinese social history, researchers’ attention shifted to China’s ancient society. Researchers believed that to understand China’s present, one must understand China’s past. It was precisely by looking back at China’s ancient society under the guidance of historical materialism that early Chinese Marxists proved the truth of historical materialism. As the practical needs of the Chinese revolution developed, early Chinese Marxists turned their focus again to the understanding and study of China’s actual social formation, with Mao Zedong being the most representative figure. Although Mao Zedong did not produce a specialized treatise on the laws and processes of social formation evolution, he profoundly expounded on China’s specific semi-colonial and semi-feudal social formation. In his 1939 article “The Chinese Revolution and the Chinese Communist Party,” he briefly explained that the development of the Chinese nation had passed through stages from primitive commune to slave society, feudal society, and then to the modern semi-colonial and semi-feudal society, after which he provided a detailed explanation of the formation process and characteristics of China’s specific semi-colonial and semi-feudal social formation. On the basis of exposing the extreme unevenness of economic, political, and cultural development, and the brutality of exploitation and oppression within this specific social formation, Mao Zedong pointed the way for the development of Chinese society.

其次，我国早期马克思主义者对我国社会形态演变的认识还发生了关注重点的变化，经历了由对未来社会的构想到对古代社会的回望，最后转到对当下现实社会的关注。李大钊、陈独秀和蔡和森等人，试图在揭示人类社会发展的一般规律和基本过程的基础上，推论出未来社会的理想形态。随着中国社会史论战问题兴起，研究者的目光转移到我国的古代社会上。研究者们认为要认识中国的今天，就要了解中国的昨天。我国早期马克思主义者正是在以唯物史观为指导回望我国古代社会中，证明了唯物史观的真理性。随着中国革命现实发展的需要，早期马克思主义者将关注的重点又转向了我国现实社会形态的认识与研究上，其中最具代表性的人物是毛泽东。毛泽东虽然未能对社会形态演变的规律及过程进行专门著述，但对我国特殊的半殖民地半封建的社会形态进行了深刻阐发。他在1939年撰写的《中国革命和中国共产党》一文中，就简要说明了中华民族的发展经历了从原始公社到奴隶社会、封建社会、再到现代的半殖民地半封建社会的阶段，之后对中国所处的半殖民地半封建的特殊社会形态的生成过程及特点作了详细解说。毛泽东在揭露这一特殊社会形态的经济、政治和文化发展的极端不平衡性、剥削和压迫的残酷性的基础上，为中国社会的发展指明了方向。

(3) From the Diversity of Contending Views to the Uniformity of Theoretical Understanding

(三)由观点争鸣的多样化到理论认识的一致性

On the one hand, the theoretical research of early Chinese Marxists on the evolution of social formations pushed the theory of social formation evolution from a state of multiple schools of interpretation coexisting to a single school with historical materialism as the primary explanatory method. On the other hand, through mutual comparison and inspiration among theories, early Chinese Marxists’ classification of social formations moved from a diversity of views to an affirmation of the theory of five stages of social development.

我国早期马克思主义者关于社会形态演变的理论研究，一方面，推动了社会形态演变理论由多种解释范式并存的多家说走向了以唯物史观为主要解释方法的一家说。另一方面，我国早期马克思主义者对社会形态的划分，在理论的相互比较和启发中，实现了由观点的多样化到对社会发展五形态理论的认肯。

Since the Chinese people began to open their eyes to the world, ideas about social evolution and development had already sprouted. As a representative figure of this opening of the eyes, Wei Yuan held a view of history as change and transformation. [23]23 Wei Yuan (1794–1857) was a Chinese scholar and official of the Qing dynasty, known for his advocacy of learning from Western technology and his work *Illustrated Treatise on the Maritime Kingdoms*. It was not until Kang Youwei integrated the Gongyang “Three Ages” theory, [24]24 The Gongyang “Three Ages” theory is a classical Chinese interpretation of the *Spring and Autumn Annals* (《春秋》), attributed to the Gongyang Commentary, which divided history into three progressive ages: the Age of Disorder, the Age of Rising Peace, and the Age of Great Peace. the concepts of “Great Harmony” (大同) and “Small Tranquility” (小康) from the *Book of Rites* chapter “The Conveyance of Rites” (《礼运》), [25]25 The *Book of Rites* (《礼记》) is one of the Five Classics of Confucianism. The chapter “The Conveyance of Rites” (《礼运》) describes the ideal societies of “Great Harmony” (大同) and “Small Tranquility” (小康). and modern evolutionary theory that the view of history as change further developed into a theory of historical evolution. Kang Youwei believed that human history progresses sequentially through the Age of Disorder, the Age of Rising Peace, and the Age of Great Peace. [26]26 Kang Youwei (1858–1927) was a Chinese scholar and reformist leader of the late Qing dynasty. He reinterpreted the Gongyang “Three Ages” theory to support his vision of progressive historical evolution toward a utopian “Great Harmony.” Tan Sitong, building on the “Three Ages” theory, proposed a “Two Three Ages Theory,” [27]27 Tan Sitong (1865–1898) was a Chinese reformist thinker and martyr of the Hundred Days’ Reform. His “Two Three Ages Theory” was a more complex, cyclical version of the Gongyang theory. arguing that human society undergoes a tortuous evolutionary process from the Age of Great Peace in primeval times to the Age of Rising Peace to the Age of Disorder, and then from the Age of Disorder back to the Age of Rising Peace and finally to the Age of Great Peace, a process of going from “contrary” to returning to “compliant.” Different from the reformists’ views, Sun Yat-sen adhered to a revolutionary evolutionary theory, holding that human society evolves according to the law from theocracy to monarchy to democracy. Chen Duxiu, once influenced by positivism, pointed out that Auguste Comte’s theory of three stages (human society divided into the theological stage, the metaphysical stage, and the scientific stage) was a law of social science. From the above, it can be seen that academic discussions on the evolution of social formations exhibited the characteristic of multiple theories coexisting without consensus. It was not until after the May Fourth Movement that historical materialism gradually assumed a dominant position in the study of the development of human social formations.

自中国人睁眼看世界起，关于社会演变与发展的思想就已萌发。作为我国睁眼看世界的代表人物，魏源对历史的发展就持有一种变易史观。直到康有为将公羊“三世”说、《礼记·礼运》中的“大同”“小康”思想和近代进化论思想相统化后，变易史观进一步发展为历史进化论。康有为认为人类历史是沿着据乱世、升平世、太平世顺次进化的过程。谭嗣同在“三世”说的基础上，又提出了“两三世说”,即人类社会是由太古时代的太平世到升平世到据乱世，又由据乱世发展为升平世最终达到太平世的由“逆”而又返“顺”的曲折演化过程。区别于改良派的观点，孙中山坚持的革命的进化论，认为人类社会是循着从神权到君权再到民权的规律进化的。陈独秀曾经受实证主义的影响，指出孔德的三时代说(人类社会分为宗教迷信时代、玄学时代、科学时代)是社会科学上一种定律。由上述可见，学术界关于社会形态演变的讨论呈现出多学说并存、莫衷一是的特征。直至五四运动后，唯物史观才逐渐在人类社会形态发展的研究中占据主导地位。

The theoretical research of early Chinese Marxists on the evolution of social formations also provides an intellectual thread for grasping the process by which academic research on the theory of social formation evolution moved from burgeoning to maturity. The maturity of China’s theory of social formation evolution should be marked by the establishment of the orthodox status of the theory of five stages of social development. However, the establishment of the orthodox status of the five-stage theory in China’s theoretical circles underwent a tortuous process of exploration. Although early Chinese Marxists’ ideological research on the theory of social formation evolution more or less reflected the ideas of the Marxist five-stage theory of social formations, their understanding of the five-stage theory was not self-conscious, and they did not form a unanimous affirmation of it. It was not until 1938, when Stalin presided over the compilation of the *History of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (Bolsheviks): Short Course*, that the evolution of human social history acquired a general schema. Stalin pointed out: “There are five basic types of relations of production in history: primitive communal, slave-holding, feudal, capitalist, and socialist.” [28]28 This quotation is from Chapter 4, Section 2 of the *History of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (Bolsheviks): Short Course* (1938), which was compiled under Stalin’s direction and served as the official textbook of Marxist-Leninist theory in the Soviet Union and the international communist movement. After its publication, this book had a major impact in China, and soon four different Chinese translations appeared. Mao Zedong gave it the highest praise, stating: “The *History of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (Bolsheviks): Short Course* is the highest synthesis and summary of the world communist movement over the past hundred years, a model of the integration of theory and practice, and the only complete model of its kind in the world.” [29]29 This quotation is from Mao Zedong’s speech “Reform Our Study” (1941), in which he praised the *Short Course* as a model of Marxist theory. From then on, the five-stage theory of social development became the mainstream ideological theory in China’s academic research on the evolution of social formations.

我国早期马克思主义者关于社会形态演变的理论研究，还为掌握学术界在社会形态演变理论研究方面由勃兴到成熟的过程提供了思想线索。我国社会形态演变理论的成熟，应以社会发展五形态说的正统地位的确立为标志。然而，五形态说在中国理论界正统地位的确立经历了曲折的探索过程。我国早期马克思主义者在社会形态演变理论的思想研究中，虽然或多或少反映着马克思主义五种社会形态说的思想，但他们对五形态说的认识是不自觉的，并未形成对五形态说的一致认肯。直到1938年，斯大林主持编写了《联共(布)党史简明教程》一书后，人类社会历史发展的演进才具有了一般的图式。斯大林指出：“历史上生产关系有五大类型：原始公社制的、奴隶占有制的、封建制的、资本主义的、社会主义的。”该书出版后在我国产生了重大影响，不久就出现了四种不同的中文译本。毛泽东对此书更是作出极高评价，指出：“《苏联共产党(布)历史简要读本》是一百年来全世界共产主义运动的最高的综合和总结，是理论和实际结合的典型，在全世界还只有这一个完全的典型。”自此，社会发展的五形态说成为我国学术界关于社会形态演变研究的主流思想理论。

Conclusion

结语

The theoretical research of early Chinese Marxists on the evolution of social formations, guided by historical materialism, investigated the fundamental causes of changes in social formations, revealed the origins of class antagonism from the contradictory movement of economic production and life, and scientifically elucidated the laws of social history’s evolution from the past to the present and then to the future. Through their research, the Marxist theory of the evolution of social formations was widely disseminated and developed in China, producing positive theoretical value and practical impact. From an ideological perspective, guiding the study of social formation development with historical materialism is conducive to promoting a transformation in people’s view of history, shifting from an idealist heroic view of history to a materialist mass view of history. From a political perspective, the dissemination and acceptance of the theory of social formation evolution under the guidance of historical materialism is conducive to further consolidating the leadership position of the Chinese Communist Party and gathering greater mass strength to strive together for the realization of socialist goals. In short, when early Chinese Marxists used historical materialism to study the development and evolution of social formations, they achieved a transformation from spontaneity to consciousness, from the individual to the collective, and from theory to practice, pointing the correct direction for the Chinese nation to achieve national salvation and survival, and verified the scientificity and correctness of the Marxist theory of the evolution of social formations in revolutionary practice.

我国早期马克思主义者对社会形态演变的理论研究，是以唯物史观为指导，通过对社会形态变迁的根本原因进行考察，从经济生产和生活的矛盾运动中揭示出阶级对抗的本源，科学地阐明社会历史由过去发展到现在、再到将来演变的规律性。通过他们的研究，马克思主义的社会形态演变理论在我国得到了广泛传播和发展，产生了积极的理论价值和现实影响。从意识形态的角度来说，以唯物史观指导社会形态发展研究，有利于推动人们历史观的变革，实现由唯心主义的英雄史观到唯物主义的群众史观的转变。从政治层面来看，唯物史观指导下的社会形态演变理论的传播和接受，有利于进一步巩固中国共产党的领导地位，积聚更为强大的群众力量为实现社会主义目标而共同奋斗。总之，我国早期马克思主义者在以唯物史观研究社会形态的发展与演变时，实现了从自发到自觉、由个体到群体、从理论到实践的转变，为中华民族实现救亡图存指明了正确的方向，并在革命实践中验证了马克思主义的社会形态演变理论的科学性和正确性。

(Author bios: Wang Xiangqing, Professor and Doctoral Supervisor at the School of Marxism, Xiangtan University; Liang Yanli, Doctoral Candidate at the School of Marxism, Xiangtan University)

（作者简介：王向清，湘潭大学马克思主义学院教授，博士生导师；梁艳丽，湘潭大学马克思主义学院博士研究生）

Online editor: Tongxin

网络编辑：同心