Madyar and the Republican-Era Chinese Marxist Historiographical Circle

How to explain the particularity of China’s developmental path is a major mission of Chinese Marxist historiography. The theory of the Asiatic mode of production provides a discursive option for exploring this question. A century of debate over the Asiatic mode of production has left rich theoretical resources and practical experience, promoting the development and refinement of the Marxist theory of Eastern society and offering many insights for answering the question of the particularity of China’s developmental path. At present, the academic world has achieved considerable results in clearing and summarizing the scholarly legacy of research on the Asiatic mode of production, but for a long time the paradigm of political history research has continued to influence researchers’ judgments on related issues, resulting in many cognitive misunderstandings and deviations.

如何解释中国发展道路的特殊性问题是中国马克思主义史学的一项重要使命。亚细亚生产方式理论为这一问题的探讨提供了一种话语选择。百年来的亚细亚生产方式问题论争留下了丰厚的理论资源与实践经验，推动着马克思主义东方社会理论的发展与完善，为解答中国发展道路特殊性问题提供不少思路。目前，学界关于亚细亚生产方式问题研究学术遗产的清理和总结已取得不少成绩，但长期以来，政治史研究范式仍影响着研究者对于相关问题的评判，以致产生不少认识误区和偏差。

Ludwig Madyar (1891–1937), also transliterated as Ma Jiya’er, Ma Zhaya’er, Ma Zha’er, Ma Jia, Ma Jia’er, etc. Born in Hungary in 1891, after graduating from middle school he began studying law while also working as a journalist. In 1919, under the influence of the Russian October Revolution, a revolution occurred in Hungary; Madyar actively participated in the struggle to establish the Hungarian Soviet regime, and after the revolution failed he was arrested and imprisoned. In 1922, he went to the Soviet Union as part of a prisoner exchange between the Soviet Russian government and the Hungarian government. That same year, he joined the All-Union Communist Party (Bolsheviks) organization and was assigned to work at TASS. In 1926, Madyar was transferred to the Soviet People’s Commissariat for Foreign Affairs and began working for the Soviet consulate in China, serving successively at the Soviet consulates in Hankou and Shanghai. In 1927, due to the severance of diplomatic relations between China and the Soviet Union, he returned to Moscow. Thereafter, Madyar frequently participated in the Comintern’s work on China policy. In 1928, he participated in the preparatory work for the Sixth National Congress of the CPC. In 1929, he served as deputy director of the Eastern Secretariat of the Executive Committee of the Comintern, maintaining close ties with the CPC delegation to the Comintern. Madyar also taught at the Red Professors’ Institute, the Communist University of the Toilers of the East, and the Lenin School. Later, becoming embroiled in Soviet political struggles, he was arrested and imprisoned, dying in prison in 1937.

马札亚尔（Ludwig Madyar，1891—1937年），又译马季亚尔、马扎亚尔、马札尔、马嘉、马加尔等。1891年，他出生于匈牙利，中学毕业后开始学习法律，同时兼任新闻记者。1919年，匈牙利在俄国十月革命的影响下发生革命，马札亚尔积极参加了建立匈牙利苏维埃政权的斗争，革命失败后被捕入狱。1922年，他因苏俄政府和匈牙利政府之间交换俘虏而前往苏联。同年，加入联共（布）党组织并被安排在塔斯社工作。1926年，马札亚尔被调到苏联外交人民委员部并开始为苏联驻华领事馆工作，先后任职于汉口和上海的苏联领事馆。1927年，因中苏断绝外交关系回到莫斯科。此后，马札亚尔经常参与共产国际对中国政策的工作。1928年，他参与了中共六大的筹备工作。1929年，他任共产国际执行委员会东方书记处副主任，与中共驻共产国际代表团保持密切联系。马札亚尔还曾在红色教授学院、东方共产主义劳动大学和列宁学校任教。后来，因卷入苏联的政治争斗，他被捕入狱并于1937年在狱中去世。

Madyar is the most representative figure among scholars who uphold the theory of the Asiatic mode of production. He linked the concept of “Asiatic” with Chinese social history, triggering an international great debate on the Asiatic mode of production. This debate quickly spread to China and stirred reflection among China’s leftist academic circles on the particularity of the Chinese path, constituting an important page in the history of Chinese Marxism. But today Madyar has become a “marginal figure” and “voiceless one” in the history of Chinese Marxist scholarship, and clearing his scholarly legacy is out of the question. At present, although the academic world has paid some attention to Madyar’s theories, it still lacks specialized and systematic investigation. Therefore, this article, on the basis of clarifying certain facts, will comprehensively sort out Madyar’s scholarly legacy, in the hope of contributing to thinking on the question of China’s developmental path.

马札亚尔是持亚细亚生产方式理论的学者中最具代表性的人物，他将“亚细亚的”概念与中国社会历史关联起来，引发了亚细亚生产方式问题的国际大论战。这场论战迅速传导到中国并激起中国左派学术界关于中国道路特殊性问题的省思，是中国马克思主义发展史上的重要一页。但如今马札亚尔已沦为中国马克思主义学术史上的“边缘人”和“失语者”，对其学术遗产的清理更是无从谈起。目前，学界对马札亚尔学说虽有所重视，但仍缺乏专门而系统的考察。因此，本文将在厘清部分事实的基础上全面梳理马札亚尔的学术遗产，以求对于中国发展道路问题的思考有所助益。

I. Diverse Responses to Madyar’s Theories in Republican-Era Academia

一、民国学界对马札亚尔学说的多元反响

In the international academic world of the first half of the 20th century, Madyar, as a standard-bearer of the theory of the Asiatic mode of production, enjoyed considerable renown, and Republican-era Chinese academia actively introduced his theories. However, overall, the attitude of Republican-era Chinese scholars toward Madyar’s theories was rather complex.

在20世纪上半期的国际学术界，作为亚细亚生产方式理论旗帜人物的马札亚尔具有相当大的知名度，民国时期中国学界亦积极引介其学说。不过，整体来看，民国时期中国学者对待马札亚尔学说的态度较为复杂。

Madyar paid close attention to the Chinese countryside and the Chinese revolution. During his time in China, he collected a large amount of material on the Chinese countryside and in 1928 published the book *A Study of the Chinese Rural Economy*. This book analyzed Chinese rural society from the perspectives of land relations, class differentiation, markets, and the influence of imperialism, arguing that under the influence of natural conditions such as irrigation, the loess layer, and settlement areas, Chinese society exhibited “Asiatic” features such as state ownership of land, rural communes, and bureaucratic politics. The book outlined the basic contours of the history of Chinese social development: after the collapse of the clan society, China did not pass through stages of slave society and feudal society but instead entered a prolonged society based on the Asiatic mode of production. Clearly, Madyar determined that China’s social development had followed a “Chinese path” distinct from that of Europe. The publication of this book attracted widespread attention from Soviet, Japanese, and Chinese academic circles, subsequently triggering the great debate on the Asiatic mode of production. It should be noted that after the publication of *A Study of the Chinese Rural Economy*, Madyar continued to elaborate and refine his theory of the Asiatic mode of production on various occasions, and these related discussions together constituted Madyar’s theoretical system. Consequently, the texts through which Chinese scholars received Madyar’s theories were diverse, not limited to *A Study of the Chinese Rural Economy*.

马札亚尔十分关注中国农村和中国革命问题，在华期间收集大量关于中国农村的资料并于1928年出版了《中国农村经济研究》一书。该书从土地关系、阶级分化、市场及帝国主义影响等层面分析中国农村社会，认为受水利灌溉、黄土层、垦殖区等自然条件的影响，中国社会呈现土地国有、农村公社、官僚政治等“亚细亚的”特征。该书勾勒了中国社会发展史的基本脉络，即：氏族社会崩溃后并未经历奴隶社会和封建社会阶段，而是进入漫长的亚细亚生产方式社会。显然，马札亚尔认定中国社会发展经历了一条迥异于欧洲的“中国道路”。该书的出版引起苏联、日本和中国学界的广泛注意，继而引发亚细亚生产方式问题大论战。需要指出的是，《中国农村经济研究》出版后，马札亚尔在多种场合继续阐发和完善其亚细亚生产方式理论，相关论述共同构成马札亚尔的学说体系。故此，中国学者接收马札亚尔学说的文本也是多样化的，并不局限于《中国农村经济研究》。

The earliest domestic introduction of Madyar’s theories was in the journal *New Life* (*Xin Shengming*). In August 1929, this journal translated an article by Madyar via the Japanese journal *Social Thought* (*Shakai Shisō*), titling it “China’s Agricultural Economy.” This article elucidated the characteristics of China’s agricultural economy from three aspects—natural conditions, the forms and characteristics of land ownership, and class differentiation—and can be regarded as a summary of the content of *A Study of the Chinese Rural Economy*. However, because the theoretical circles at that time were focused on the debate over the nature of Chinese society, this article did not generate much response. In 1930, *A Study of the Chinese Rural Economy* was translated and published by Ximen Zonghua under the title *The Characteristics of the Chinese Rural Economy*. In his “Translator’s Preface,” he considered the book: “Sharp-eyed, thorough in theory, truly a rare masterpiece in Europe. However, due to the barriers of language and differences in nationality, the Chinese materials were not fully utilized. Yet even a work like this is not easily found in China.” Ximen Zonghua’s translation work was directly related to Chen Hansheng. The latter had established the Chinese Rural Economy Research Association and planned to conduct large-scale surveys and research on the Chinese countryside, entrusting Ximen Zonghua with translating the book as a study and reference material. However, Ximen Zonghua translated only the first seven chapters of the book, omitting the part concerning China’s rural relations of production. In 1932, Wang Yinsheng (pen name Ye Min), a member of the rural survey team, began translating the remaining chapters, considering the book “the most valuable reference work for studying the Chinese peasant problem today.” He successively translated four chapters in the journal *New Creation* (*Xin Chuangzao*): “The Form and Nature of Private Land Ownership in China,” “Usury Capital, Commercial Capital, and the Peasant Economy in China,” “The Forms and Nature of Tenancy and Wage Labor in China,” and “The Nature and Development of Private Land Property in China.” However, the translations by Zonghua and Wang Yinsheng did not receive much attention from the academic world.

国内最早介绍马札亚尔学说的是《新生命》月刊。1929年8月，该刊通过日本《社会思想》杂志转译马札亚尔的一篇文章，取名《中国的农业经济》。该文从自然条件、土地所有的形态与特质、阶级分化等三方面阐明了中国农业经济的特征，可谓《中国农村经济研究》一书的内容提要。但是，该文因当时理论界正专注于中国社会性质问题的争论而未有太多反响。1930年，《中国农村经济研究》由西门宗华以《中国农村经济之特性》为名翻译出版。他在“译者序言”中认为该书：“目光锐敏，理论透彻，确是欧洲罕有的巨著。不过中国方面的材料，因受文字的阻隔，国籍的不同，没有能够充分的利用。然而即是照这样的著作在国内还不容易找得。”西门宗华的翻译工作与陈翰笙有直接关系。后者组建中国农村经济研究会，计划对中国农村开展大规模调查研究，委托西宗华翻译该书作为学习和参考资料。不过，西门宗华仅翻译该书前七章，其中关于中国农村生产关系的部分并未译出。1932年，农村调查团成员王寅生（笔名叶民）着手翻译其他章节，认为该书“为现今研究中国农民问题的最有价值的参考书”。他陆续在《新创造》杂志上译出“中国土地私有制底形式和性质”“中国底高利贷资本商业资本与农民经济”“中国底租佃和雇佣劳动底形式和性质”及“中国土地私有财产底性质与发展”等四章。不过，宗华和王寅生的译本并没有得到学界的太多关注。

The translation generally adopted by the academic world was *A Study of the Chinese Rural Economy*, translated by Chen Daiqing and Peng Guiqiu in 1930. This translation was published by Shenzhou Guoguang Press, with support from Wang Lixi, who was deeply influenced by left-wing thought. At the time, Wang Lixi was in charge of Shenzhou Guoguang Press; he vigorously advocated for and organized the Chinese Social History Debate, and the journal *Reading Magazine* (*Dushu Zazhi*) he edited became the main battleground of that debate. Madyar, who had already gained a reputation in international academic circles, naturally became a target for translation by Shenzhou Guoguang Press. The translators gave the book a high evaluation, stating that although it “has many shortcomings or errors, its achievements cannot be erased”; “the basic viewpoints and richness of materials of the entire book are truly unparalleled in China’s publishing world”; “we are not only eager to introduce this book to our countrymen, but also hope that because of its publication, it will further raise the interest of our countrymen in studying the Chinese rural economy, using it as a blueprint to conduct further research, in the hope of reaping an even better harvest in the future.” This translation became the most popular version at the time and was reprinted many times. Most of the academic world came to know Madyar’s theories through this translation, and it became one of the most frequently cited texts in the Chinese Social History Debate.

被学界普遍采纳的是1930年由陈代青、彭桂秋翻译的《中国农村经济研究》。该译本由神州国光社发行，得到深受左翼思潮影响的王礼锡的支持。当时，王礼锡主持神州国光社的工作，他力倡并组织开展中国社会史论战，其编印的《读书杂志》成为中国社会史论战的主阵地。已在国际学界博得大名的马札亚尔自然也成为神州国光社的译介对象。译者给予该书较高的评价，认为该书“虽有不少的缺点或错误，然绝不能抹煞他的成功”；“全书的基本观点以及材料的丰富，诚为中国出版界绝无仅有之著述”；“我们不仅激急于将本书介绍于国人，更希望因为这本书的出版，而更能提高国人对于中国农村经济研究的兴趣，以此作蓝本，更进一步的去研究，以冀将来获得更好的收成”。这一译本成为当时最为流行的版本且被多次重印。学界大多通过该译本了解马札亚尔学说，它也成为中国社会史论战中征引率较高的文献之一。

It is noteworthy that Magyar’s theory was questioned and criticized by the mainstream theoretical circles of the Soviet Union. In response, *Research on China’s Rural Economy* was revised in 1931, with the introductory section “The Asiatic Mode of Production and Imperialism” removed and the remaining chapters also substantially amended. Regarding this, Magyar stated: “In the ‘Introduction’ to the first edition, the author raised the question of Marx’s theory of the Asiatic mode of production, believing that in understanding the course of Chinese history, Marx’s view of the Asiatic mode of production was very necessary and fruitful. In the course of the debate on this question, an opportunity arose to correct many errors the author made in his initial attempt to interpret the views of Marx and Engels on this question, and to affirmatively clarify his own views. The debate on this question convinced the author that analyzing the historical development of China’s land relations required research that was deeper and more thorough than what the author had conducted in the first edition.” However, the revised edition was never translated into Chinese. In 1933, the New Life Bookstore published Magyar’s *Outline of the Chinese Economy*, translated by Xu Gongda. Although this book took the national economy as a whole as its object of study, in the sections concerning the Chinese countryside it continued to expound his theory of the Asiatic mode of production; thus, this book was also an important text through which Chinese scholars understood Magyar’s theory. In this book, Magyar abandoned his earlier assertion that, before the intrusion of imperialism, Chinese society was characterized by a contradiction between the state and the peasantry, frankly admitting that “the contradiction between landlords and peasants is the basic and decisive class contradiction in the Chinese countryside.” Clearly, regarding the social system of China before the intrusion of imperialism, Magyar changed his previously unequivocal theory of the Asiatic mode of production, recognizing that feudal forces still occupied a dominant position in the Chinese countryside.

值得注意的是，马札亚尔学说遭受苏联主流理论界的质疑和指责。作为回应，《中国农村经济研究》于1931年进行调整，取消导言“亚洲生产方法与帝国主义”部分，其余各章也多有修正。对此，马氏声称：“在第一版‘绪言’中，作者曾提出马克思亚细亚生产方法说的问题，以为在理解中国历史过程中，马克思的亚细亚生产方法观，是很必要而富饶的。在对此问题的争论过程中，遂得一机会去改正作者在初步谋解释马昂两氏对此问题的观点时所犯的许多错误，并肯定的阐明自己的观点。对此问题的争论使作者信服，要分析中国土地关系的历史的发展，还需要进行比作者在第一版中所作的更深刻更彻底的研究。”不过，修订版并没有中译本。1933年，新生命书局出版由徐公达翻译马札亚尔的《中国经济大纲》一书。该书虽以整体国民经济为研究对象，但在关于中国农村的部分继续阐发其亚细亚生产方式论，因而本书也是中国学者了解马札亚尔学说的重要文本。马氏在该书中放弃此前关于帝国主义侵入以前中国社会表现为国家与农民之间矛盾对立的论断，坦承“地主与农民之间的矛盾是中国乡村中之基本的而且决绝的阶级的矛盾”。显然，对帝国主义侵入以前的中国社会制度，马札亚尔改变此前旗帜鲜明的亚细亚生产方式论，认识到封建势力在中国农村依旧处于主导地位。

Magyar explained his revision of his views: “In this book, we will no longer speak of the question of the Asiatic mode of production, because this question is linked to the way the question is posed, and when applied to China, it has provoked no little debate among Marxists… We acknowledge our error in *Research on China’s Rural Economy*, where we did not sufficiently attend to the process of feudalization in various periods and various regions of Chinese history.” However, while acknowledging Chinese feudal society, Magyar still adhered to the theory of the Asiatic mode of production, believing that “the question of the Asiatic mode of production, the way the question of Eastern society is posed, is entirely correct; Marx’s theory of Eastern society applied to China’s past history is completely well-founded.” It can be seen that Magyar believed there was nothing improper in linking the theory of the Asiatic mode of production with Chinese history; what needed to be perfected and revised was the question of how to effectively combine the two.

马札亚尔对其观点的修正做出解释：“在这本书中，我们以后不说到亚西亚生产方法问题者，是因为这个问题与问题的设问有连系，并且应用到中国时，在马克思主义者之间曾引起不少的争论……我们承认我们在《中国农村经济研究》中之错误，在那里我们未曾充分地注意到中国历史中之各时期及各区域中之封建化的过程。”不过，马札亚尔在承认中国封建社会的同时仍坚持亚细亚生产方式理论，认为“关于亚西亚生产方法问题，关于东方社会问题的设问完全是正确的，马克思关于东方社会的学说应用于中国过去历史完全有根据的。”可见，马札亚尔认为将亚细亚生产方式理论与中国历史关联起来并无不妥，需要完善和修正的是如何将两者有效结合的问题。

Furthermore, Magyar’s theory also spread in China through the works of other scholars. In 1933, the Dawn Bookstore published *Ancient Chinese Society* by Kokin, a scholar of the Asiatic mode of production school. In the preface, Magyar gave a concrete explanation of the various characteristics of Asiatic society, namely: the absence of private property in land; the necessity of artificial irrigation and the corresponding necessity of large-scale public works organizations; the village commune; and the despotic state as the form of government. He also criticized Safarov for “not explaining how the Asiatic mode of production disintegrated in many Eastern countries, and how the feudal mode of production developed.” Clearly, Magyar had not abandoned the theory of the Asiatic mode of production, but was applying it more cautiously to the analysis of specific Chinese historical problems.

此外，马札亚尔学说还伴随着其他学者的论著在中国传播。1933年，黎明书局出版亚细亚生产方式派学者柯金的《中国古代社会》一书，马札亚尔在序言中对亚细亚社会的诸般特征做出具体说明，即：土地私有财产之不存在；人工灌溉之必要及与此相适应的及大范围的公共事业的组织之必要；农村公社；专制政体为国家的形式。他还批评沙发诺夫“没有说明在许多东方国家内亚细亚生产方法是怎样解体的，而封建的生产方法是怎样发展起来的”。显然，马札亚尔并未放弃亚细亚生产方式理论，而是更加谨慎地将之运用于对中国具体历史问题的解析当中。

The publishing circles of the Republic of China actively promoted and disseminated Magyar’s theory, with reviews and advertisements for *Research on China’s Rural Economy* frequently appearing in newspapers. The Shenzhou Guoguang Press vigorously promoted this book; it ran consecutive advertisements in *Reading Magazine* and the *Shun Pao* praising the book as “a powerful attempt at an objective study of the famous Chinese land problem, and its rich content is truly astonishing,” and that “no matter from what standpoint one studies China’s agricultural economy, this is an excellent book.” Publications such as *Book Review* also published several reviews, arguing that the book “is a work with extremely rich material, a work of great value! None of the many works already published can compare with it! We have a need to read this book.” The translation and publication of *Research on China’s Rural Economy* echoed the then-raging Social History Debate in China, contributing to deeper research on related issues. The enthusiasm of the publishing circles may well have stemmed from their recognition of the book’s academic value and market value.

民国出版界积极宣传推广马札亚尔学说，关于《中国农村经济研究》的书评和广告屡见报端。神州国光社就极力推介这本书，该社在《读书杂志》和《申报》连续刊登广告盛赞该书“是著名的中国土地问题的物观的研究的一个有力的尝试，而其中内容的丰富，实在是惊人”，“无论站在任何观点来研究中国农业经济，这是一部很好的书”。《书报评论》等刊物也刊载多篇书评，认为该书“是一部具有非常丰富的材料之书，是一部极有价值之著作！已出版的许多著作，没有一本比得上它！我们有读此书之必要”。《中国农村经济研究》的翻译出版与当时如火如荼的中国社会史论战相呼应，有助于相关问题的深入研究。出版界的热情或许便出于对该书学术价值和市场价值的认可。

However, the academic world generally held a critical attitude toward Magyar, but this does not mean that the responses of Chinese scholars were entirely uniform. Broadly speaking, the academic world’s acceptance of the theory of the Asiatic mode of production was often influenced by multiple factors, including politics, scholarship, and national sentiment. Among these, political factors established principles and delineated camps for the academic world’s acceptance of Magyar’s theory. Because it shared certain commonalities with Trotskyist theory, domestic Trotskyists and their close associates mostly showed recognition and support for Magyar’s theory. For instance, active disseminators of Magyar’s theory such as Chen Daiqing, Peng Guiqiu, and Xu Gongda were all closely connected with the Trotskyists. However, Magyar’s theory clearly conflicted with Stalinist theory, so scholars such as Lü Zhenyu, Jian Bozan, Hou Wailu, and Hua Gang adopted a critical attitude toward it.

然而，学界对马札亚尔普遍持批判态度，但这并不意味着中国学者的反响是完全一致的。大体而言，学界对亚细亚生产方式理论的接受往往受政治、学术和民族情感等多重因素的影响。其中，政治因素为学界接受马札亚尔学说确立了原则和划定了营垒。由于与托洛茨基派理论有一定的共通性，国内托派及其亲近者大多表现出对马札亚尔学说的认可和支持。如，马札亚尔学说的积极传播者陈代青、彭桂秋、徐公达等都与托派有莫大关联。但是，马札亚尔学说与斯大林派的理论有明显的冲突，因而吕振羽、翦伯赞、侯外庐、华岗等学者对其持批判态度。

Nevertheless, the steps of scholars holding the same political stance were not entirely uniform. The Trotskyist scholar Du Weizhi recognized Magyar’s theory of the Asiatic mode of production but did not believe it was applicable to China. Li Ji actively applied the theory of the Asiatic mode of production to the study of ancient Chinese history and revised Magyar’s theory. Wang Yichang, on the other hand, launched a fierce critique of Magyar, denying the existence of a society with the Asiatic mode of production. Furthermore, Ren Shu and Yan Lingfeng also leveled many criticisms against Magyar. Scholars who held a critical attitude did not entirely negate Magyar’s theory either; while criticizing his theory of multiple historical paths, they also showed a side of recognition and acceptance. For example, Lü Zhenyu considered *Research on China’s Rural Economy* to be a relatively systematic and valuable general history of Chinese society. Ji Chaoding also believed that *Research on China’s Rural Economy* was “a very inspiring scientific study,” and in his view, the preface that Magyar wrote for Kokin’s *Ancient Chinese Society*, which had been much criticized by the academic world, was also a “valuable preface.”

不过，同一政治立场的学者之间的步调也并非完全一致。托派学者杜畏之认可马札亚尔的亚细亚生产方式论，但并不认为适用于中国。李季积极将亚细亚生产方式理论运用于中国古史研究并对马氏学说进行修正。王宜昌则对马札亚尔提出激烈批判，否定亚细亚生产方式社会的存在。此外，任曙、严灵峰对马氏也多有指责。持批判态度的学者也并非完全否定马札亚尔学说，他们在批判马氏历史多线论的前提下又表现出认可与接受的一面。如，吕振羽认为《中国农村经济研究》是一部较有系统和价值的中国社会通史。冀朝鼎也认为《中国农村经济研究》一书“是一很有启发性的科学研究”，且在他看来，饱受学界指责的马氏为柯金《中国古代社会》所作的序言，也是一篇“有价值的序言”。

Furthermore, the factor of national sentiment may also have influenced the degree of recognition Chinese scholars accorded to Magyar’s theory. The theory of the Asiatic mode of production portrayed an image of China as backward and ignorant, making it difficult to gain the support of Chinese scholars. However, Magyar’s reflections on the question of the particularity of Chinese society also won him a certain amount of recognition. Therefore, the academic world of the Republic of China was not lacking in relatively objective evaluations of Magyar’s theory. For example, the Marxist economist Peng Dixian believed that although Magyar’s “views are not entirely correct, as a foreigner who does not know Chinese, to have been able to collect such an extremely rich body of data and, from the standpoint of the new economics, to have deeply investigated our country’s social economy, this point is very admirable.” Another commentator argued: “This book has its shortcomings, but even so, it remains the first famous work on the study of China’s rural economy. I have not seen a second work on China’s rural economy with fewer shortcomings than this one, and I have not seen a second work on China’s rural economy with more merits than this one.”

此外，民族情感因素可能也影响着中国学者对马札亚尔学说的认可度。亚细亚生产方式理论刻画了中国落后、愚昧的形象，使其难以获得中国学者的支持。不过，马氏关于中国社会特殊性问题的思考又为其博取不少认同。因此，民国学界不乏对马札亚尔学说相对客观的评价。如，马克思主义经济学家彭迪先认为马氏的“见解虽有不正确之处，但以不识汉文的外国人而能搜集非常之多的丰富的资料，站在新兴经济学的立场，深究我国的社会经济，这点是非常令人钦佩的”。还有论者认为：“本书是有缺点的，但就是如此，它依然是关于研究中国农村经济的第一本名著。我没有见过第二本比这个缺点少的关于中国农村经济的著作，我更没有见过第二本比这个优点多的关于中国农村经济的著作。”

In summary, the academic world of the Republic of China mostly refused to acknowledge the validity of the concept of the Asiatic mode of production, but it did not entirely negate Magyar’s exploration of the question of the particularity of the Chinese path. Therefore, beneath the surface of criticism, the academic world concealed a side of acceptance and recognition of Magyar’s theory. Scholars from different academic backgrounds were able to offer relatively objective assessments, presenting an overall three-dimensional and multifaceted image of Magyar. This is strikingly different from the later academic world’s one-dimensional and stereotyped evaluation of Magyar’s theory.

综而言之，民国学界大多拒绝承认亚细亚生产方式概念的有效性，但并未完全否定马札亚尔关于中国道路特殊性问题的探索。故此，学界在批判的表象下隐藏着对马札亚尔学说接受和认可的一面。不同学术背景的学者能够进行相对客观的评述，整体上呈现一个立体多面的马札亚尔形象。这与后世学界对马札亚尔学说的单一化、脸谱化的评价迥然不同。

II. The Evolution of the Image: From International Authority to Trotskyist Scholar

二、从国际权威到托派学者的形象演变

Magyar is a highly controversial figure in the history of international Marxist scholarship. Overall, Magyar’s academic image in China has increasingly become stereotyped and labeled, and this perception has also led to many biases.

马札亚尔是国际马克思主义学术史上极具争议的人物。整体来看，马札亚尔在国内的学术形象日趋标签化和脸谱化，这一认知也导致不少偏见的发生。

*Research on the Chinese Rural Economy* was published at the height of the debate on the nature of Chinese society, when the Stalinist and Trotskyist factions within Soviet theoretical circles were locked in fierce confrontation over the path of the Chinese revolution. On the basis of empirical materials, Mad’yar shifted the focus of the controversy from the urban economy to rural social issues, which to a large extent provided the theoretical community with an alternative approach to understanding the nature of Chinese society. Consequently, Mad’yar had numerous supporters in the Comintern and among international leftist academic circles. Although the editorial preface of the Soviet Institute of Chinese Studies pointed out errors in the book, it still called it “the first powerful attempt at a Marxist analysis of modern Chinese land relations” and “a valuable Marxist work on the Chinese question.” The Eastern Secretariat of the Executive Committee of the Comintern also frequently absorbed Mad’yar’s views in its research on China. For example, Mad’yar participated in the preparatory work for the Sixth National Congress of the CPC, and “his rich knowledge of China’s land question greatly facilitated the drafting of the proposed land program, which was later adopted by the Sixth Congress.” [1]1 The Sixth National Congress of the CPC was held in Moscow in 1928. It adopted a land program that rejected the “Asiatic mode of production” in favor of a “semi-feudal” characterization of Chinese society. In addition, the “Resolution on the Draft Party Program on the Land Question” adopted at the enlarged meeting of the Provisional Political Bureau of the CPC Central Committee in 1927 was also deeply influenced by Mad’yar’s doctrine. This shows that Mad’yar had considerable discursive power within the Comintern’s research on China. Mad’yar’s image as an “international academic authority” was also familiar to Chinese scholars. For instance, the Marxist economist Wang Yanan regarded Mad’yar as “the world authority on the study of Eastern questions, especially the Chinese question.” Another scholar frankly stated: “A detailed introduction of Mad’yar seems superfluous; everyone knows he is the top figure among Soviet agricultural economists, a famous Oriental economist, and an authority who studies the Chinese economy using scientific methods.” It is evident that Mad’yar once enjoyed an excellent academic reputation, quite different from the negative assessments of later academic circles.

《中国农村经济研究》出版于中国社会性质论战的白热化之际，当时苏联理论界中的斯大林派与托洛茨基派在中国革命道路问题上形成激烈交锋。马札亚尔在实证材料的基础上将争论焦点由都市经济引向农村社会问题，这在很大程度上为理论界认识中国社会性质问题提供了另一种方案。因此，马氏在共产国际及国际左派学术界拥有众多支持者。苏联中国问题研究院在该书“编辑者序言”中虽指陈其中错误，但仍称其“可算是现代中国土地关系之马克思主义的分析之第一个有力的尝试”，“是一部有价值的对于中国问题之马克思主义的著述”。共产国际执行委员会东方书记处关于中国问题的研究也频繁吸收马札亚尔的观点。如，马氏参加了中共六大的筹备工作，他“在中国土地问题方面的丰富知识大大有利于制定拟议中的、后来被六大通过的土地纲领”。另外，1927年中共中央临时政治局扩大会议通过的《关于土地问题党纲草案的决议》，也深受马札亚尔学说的影响。这显示马札亚尔在共产国际关于中国问题研究方面具有相当大的话语权。马札亚尔的“国际学术权威”形象也曾为中国学者所熟识。如，马克思主义经济学家王亚南就认为马札亚尔是“今日研究东方问题特别是中国问题之世界的权威”。还有学者坦言：“关于马札亚尔再来详细的介绍似乎是多余的，谁都晓得这是苏联农业经济学者的第一流人物、有名的东洋经济学家，并且是用科学的方法研究中国经济的权威者。”可见，马札亚尔也曾拥有极好的学术声誉，与后世学界的负面评价有很大不同。

However, shifts in the international theoretical climate directly affected Chinese scholars’ judgments of Mad’yar. Mad’yar’s theory of the Asiatic mode of production not only refuted the Trotskyist “theory of capitalist predominance” but also negated the Stalinist “theory of feudal remnant predominance.” This objectively eliminated the revolutionary task of anti-feudalism and steered historical methodology toward pluralism. Consequently, the Stalinist faction deliberately sought to eliminate the theoretical influence of Mad’yar’s school. In 1928, the “Resolution on the Land Question” of the Sixth National Congress of the CPC abandoned the “Asiatic mode of production” and instead adopted the formulation of a “semi-feudal system.” Mad’yar also attempted to adjust and reassess the feudal system in modern China, but the historical pluralism he upheld ultimately failed to gain official Soviet recognition.

不过，国际理论风向的变动直接影响着中国学者对马札亚尔的评判。马氏的亚细亚生产方式理论不仅反驳了托洛茨基派的“资本主义优势说”，也否定了斯大林派的“封建残余优势说”。这在客观上也就取消了反封建的革命任务，并将历史方法论导向多元论。故此，斯大林派便有意清除马札亚尔学派的理论影响。1928年，中共六大《土地问题议决案》放弃了“亚洲式生产方法”，转而采纳“半封建制度”的论述。马札亚尔也试图做出调整并重估近代中国的封建制，但他秉持的历史多元论终究难获苏联官方认可。

The year 1931 was a crucial turning point in Mad’yar’s academic fate. That year, at a symposium on the Asiatic mode of production held in Leningrad, the official representative Godes delivered a lengthy report arguing that the Asiatic mode of production was essentially an Eastern form of feudalism, not a special social formation. He also linked Mad’yar to the Trotskyist faction, pointing out the harmfulness of his theory to practical political work, asserting that Mad’yar’s doctrine “was used to oppose the Comintern’s view of the nature of colonial revolutions” and to a large extent “became a theoretical hotbed for Trotskyism.” [2]2 Godes was a Soviet Marxist historian who served as an official representative at the 1931 Leningrad symposium. His report marked a turning point in the Soviet condemnation of the Asiatic mode of production theory. This symposium clearly went beyond the scope of academic debate and was a political-ideological purge. Another participant, York, stated bluntly: “What is important is to politically expose ‘this theory,’ not to determine the ‘pure fact’ of whether the ‘Asiatic mode of production’ exists.” According to the recollections of Varga, another representative of the Asiatic mode of production school: “The opponents of the Asiatic mode of production declared that anyone who did not recognize the social system of China in the 1920s as universal feudalism was a political enemy (including myself).”

1931年是马札亚尔学术命运转变的重要节点。是年，在列宁格勒举办的亚细亚生产方式问题讨论会上，作为官方代表的哥德斯作了长篇报告，认为亚细亚生产方式实质就是东方的封建制而非特殊社会形式。他还将马札亚尔与托洛茨基派联系起来，指出其对现实政治实践的危害性，认为马氏学说“被利用来反对共产国际对殖民地革命性质的看法”，在很大程度上“成为托洛茨基主义的理论温床”。这次会议显然超出学术争论的范畴，是一次政治意识形态的清算。另一位与会者约尔克毫不讳言地指出：“重要的是要在政治上揭露‘这一理论’，而不是确定‘亚细亚生产方式’是否存在这一‘纯事实’。”据亚细亚生产方式派另一位代表人物瓦尔加回忆：“亚细亚生产方式的反对者宣称，谁不承认二十年代中国的社会制度为普遍封建主义，谁就是政治敌人（其中包括我）。”

Admittedly, Mad’yar’s doctrine showed certain commonalities with Trotskyist theory, and many Trotskyist theorists were relatively close to it and used it as a theoretical weapon. However, there were still considerable differences between the two in their interpretations of Chinese history, especially on issues such as whether China had experienced a feudal stage and the nature of commercial capitalism. Although Godes’s report did not completely equate Mad’yar with the Trotskyists, its clear political stance largely set the tone for the theoretical community’s critique of Mad’yar’s doctrine. It can be said that this symposium “formally designated the theory of the Asiatic mode of production as a non-Marxist academic viewpoint, and its proponents were regarded as spokespersons for the Trotskyists.” As a result, Mad’yar’s doctrine was further suppressed, and discussions on the Asiatic mode of production in Soviet theoretical circles quickly declined.

诚然，马札亚尔学说与托洛茨基派理论表现出一定的共通性，不少托派理论家也较为亲近并引其为理论武器。但是，两者对于中国历史的解释仍有较大区别，尤其在是否承认中国存在封建社会阶段和商业资本主义的性质等问题方面。哥德斯报告虽然并未将马氏与托派完全等同，但其鲜明的政治立场在很大程度上为理论界批判马札亚尔学说确定了基调。可以说，这次会议将亚细亚生产方式理论“正式定为一种非马克思主义的学术观点，其论者亦被看作是托派的代言人”。由此，马札亚尔学说被进一步压制，苏联理论界关于亚细亚生产方式问题的讨论也迅速走向低潮。

However, in the academic circles of the Republic of China, the discussion of the Asiatic mode of production “seemed to have more academic character than that of Soviet scholars,” maintaining a certain degree of freedom and openness. Take Lü Zhenyu, who actively participated in the debate on the Asiatic mode of production, as an example. Under the influence of Godes’s report, he also deliberately emphasized the political harmfulness of Mad’yar’s doctrine. He accused Mad’yar of weakening class contradictions and “cancelling the existence of historical changes in Asiatic countries,” which “in the realm of theory is not only an error but also contains great danger.” But on the whole, Lü Zhenyu did not use much harsh political language and was still able to point out Mad’yar’s errors in dialectics through theoretical analysis.

不过，民国学界对亚细亚生产方式问题的讨论“学术性似乎也比苏联学者更多一些”，仍保持一定的自由度和开放性。以积极参与亚细亚生产方式问题论战的吕振羽为例，在哥德斯报告的影响下，他也有意强调马札亚尔学说的政治危害性。他指责马札亚尔弱化阶级矛盾，“取消亚细亚国家的历史变动事实的存在”，这“在理论的范畴里面，不只是一种错误，而且包含着极大的危险性”。但整体来看，吕振羽并未过多使用措辞激烈的政治语言，尚能通过学理分析指出马札亚尔在辩证法方面的错误。

In 1934, in his book *A Study of Prehistoric Chinese Society*, Lü Zhenyu even added a passage exonerating Mad’yar: “However, Mad’yar can after all be excused on the grounds that he was not very familiar with Eastern conditions; his error can still be forgiven to some extent. But when errors are spread and exaggerated by so-called Chinese historians, the result forms a fallacious logic that cancels the political importance of the peasantry. This cannot be tolerated.” Clearly, Lü Zhenyu was cautious in his critique of Mad’yar’s doctrine, distinguishing it from Trotskyism; his main target of criticism was the Trotskyist theorists who only selectively utilized Mad’yar’s doctrine.

1934年，吕振羽在《史前期中国社会研究》一书中还特意增添为马札亚尔开脱的文字：“不过马扎尔究竟还可说对东方的情形不甚熟习，他的这种错误，我们还可作万一的原谅。不过以讹传讹，一般中国的所谓历史家，更从而夸张起来，结果便形成了取消农民之政治上的重要性之一个错误的逻辑。这便无法宽容。”显然，吕振羽对马札亚尔学说的批判持谨慎态度，将其与托派区别看待，他批判的主要是对马札亚尔学说仅取片面利用态度的托派理论家。

If the critique of Mad’yar’s doctrine in Chinese academic circles in the 1930s still retained some theoretical consideration, then by the 1940s this critique had become more a matter of ideological struggle. During this period, Chinese Marxist historiography gradually became institutionalized, standardized, and organized. After the fierce debates and differentiation of the previous stage, the centripetal force of Chinese Marxist historiography increased, and its theoretical boundaries became clearer. In this context, Chinese scholars’ positioning of Mad’yar gradually escalated from “dissenter” to heretical “counter-revolutionary.” In 1937, Mad’yar died in prison. The following year, Stalin’s *History of the All-Union Communist Party (Bolsheviks): Short Course* was published, and under its influence, the understanding of historical materialism in Chinese theoretical circles quickly moved from chaos to unity. Correspondingly, in 1939, Mao Zedong and others wrote *The Chinese Revolution and the Chinese Communist Party*, which further clarified the evolutionary sequence of the Chinese nation through primitive society, slave society, feudal society, and semi-colonial and semi-feudal society. This became the “supreme directive” long followed by Chinese Marxist historiography. [3]3 *The Chinese Revolution and the Chinese Communist Party* (1939) was a textbook co-authored by Mao Zedong and other Party leaders. It codified the official Marxist periodization of Chinese history, which became authoritative for decades. Mad’yar’s doctrine, which had been quite active before the formation of this “paradigm” of historical materialism, was completely excluded from the lineage of Chinese Marxist scholarship and became politically reactionary. This shows that “certain cultural policies and authoritative judgments exerted a strong guiding effect on Marxist historiography, providing both driving force and constituting discipline and constraint.”

如果说20世纪30年代中国学界对马札亚尔学说的批判尚存几分学理考量，那么到了20世纪40年代，这种批判更多属于意识形态的斗争。此一时期，中国马克思主义史学逐渐实现制度化、规范化和组织化。在经历前一阶段的激烈争辩与淘汰分化之后，中国马克思主义史学的向心力增强，理论边界更加明确。在此语境下，中国学者对马札亚尔的定位也逐渐从“异见者”升格为离经叛道的“反革命”。1937年，马札亚尔在狱中去世。次年，斯大林的《联共（布）党史简明教程》出版，在其影响下，中国理论界对于唯物史观的理解从混乱状态迅速走向统一。与之相应，1939年毛泽东等人撰写的《中国革命和中国共产党》更加明确了中华民族依次经过原始社会、奴隶社会、封建社会和半殖民地半封建社会的演进历程。这成为中国马克思主义历史学长期遵循的“最高指示”。在这种唯物史观“典范”形成之前颇为活跃的马札亚尔学说，则被完全排除在中国马克思主义学术谱系之外，成为政治上的反动派。这说明，“一定的文化政策、权威论断对马克思主义史学产生了强烈的导向作用，既提供了驱动力，也构成了规训和约束。”

Influenced by this, Chinese Marxist historians in the 1940s adopted more vehement rhetoric in criticizing Mad’yar. In July 1940, Yang Song, then First Deputy Director of the Propaganda Department of the CPC Central Committee, pointed out in his article “On the Question of the Sinification of Marxism-Leninism” that realizing the adaptation of Marxism to the Chinese context required settling accounts with the remnants of the Trotskyist faction represented by Mad’yar and others. In his view, “In the debates on Chinese social history and the nature of the Chinese rural economy, although the Trotskyist viewpoint was basically routed, many Trotskyist books, such as the counterrevolutionary Mad’yar’s *Chinese Rural Economy*… have not yet been subjected to systematic criticism.” Hence, he called for “fundamentally routing the remnants of the counterrevolutionary Trotskyists and delivering a thorough assault on the Trotskyists’ counterrevolutionary theories in this area.” Similarly, Ye Huosheng, in the CPC Central Committee organ *Liberation*, published “Some Opinions on Learning Chinese History,” stating that Mad’yar’s theory “is now publicly acknowledged as erroneous” and “has been discovered to be counterrevolutionary.”

受此影响，20世纪40年代的中国马克思主义史家采用更为激烈的措辞批判马札亚尔。1940年7月，时任中共中央宣传部第一副部长的杨松，在《关于马列主义中国化的问题》一文中指出，实现马克思主义中国化需要清算以马札亚尔等人为代表的托派残余势力。在他看来，“中国社会史和中国农村经济性质的争论中，虽然说基本上把托洛茨基主义的观点击溃了，但是托派许多书籍，如反革命马扎尔所著《中国农村经济》……还没有给有系统的批评。”由是，他号召“去根本击溃反革命的托洛茨基主义的残余，并给托派关于这方面反革命理论的彻底袭击”。无独有偶，叶蠖生也在中共中央机关刊物《解放》上发表《对于学习中国历史的几点意见》，指出马札亚尔学说“在今天已被公认为错误的了”且“被发现是反革命”。

Under the influence of several important CPC publications calling for a purge of the Trotskyist remnants represented by Mad’yar in the theoretical and academic spheres, Chinese Marxist historians’ attitudes toward Mad’yar’s theory gradually became more severe. Lü Zhenyu intensified his tone of condemnation, accusing Mad’yar of “‘being blinded by Trotsky’ and being used by Trotskyists and other swindlers… to cancel the anti-imperialist and anti-feudal tasks of the Chinese revolution.” He also weakened the theoretical analysis in the expanded edition of his *A Study of Prehistoric Chinese Society*, titled *A History of Primitive Chinese Society*, emphasizing Mad’yar’s political harmfulness. For example, he revised his original criticism of Mad’yar’s “conclusions that betray the facts” to “conclusions that betray historical facts and revolutionary practice.” Similarly, Jian Bozan accused Mad’yar of being “a negator of the theory of national revolution in colonies and semi-colonies.” Additionally, it should be noted that during the wave of criticism against Akizawa Shuji in the 1940s, the critique of Mad’yar’s theory intensified. Hua Gang pointed out: “Isn’t the ‘historical theory’ now adopted by lackeys like Akizawa Shuji and Sano Kesami precisely the same ‘historical theory’ once used by Mad’yar and Safarov?” Clearly, Mad’yar had been completely reduced to a counterrevolutionary pseudo-Marxist. After 1949, the Chinese Marxist historiographical circle’s perception of Mad’yar became even more homogenized and stereotyped. The differences between him and the Trotskyists were downplayed, while their connections were magnified, to the point where they were considered to have a “blood relationship.” Although some scholars pointed out that “there is no basis for claiming that the theory of the Asiatic mode of production is a Trotskyist theory,” the entrenched impression of their collusion was difficult to eliminate in the short term.

在中共若干重要刊物号召在理论和学术领域清算以马札亚尔为代表的托派残余的影响下，中国马克思主义史家对马札亚尔学说的态度也渐趋严厉。吕振羽加重谴责语调，指责马札亚尔“‘被托洛茨基所蒙蔽’，且为托派和其他骗子们所利用……来取消中国革命之反帝反封建的任务”。他还在《史前期中国社会研究》一书的增订版《中国原始社会史》中弱化学理分析，强调马札亚尔的政治危害性。如，他将最初批评马氏“背叛事实的结论”修改为“背叛史实和革命实践的结论”。同样，翦伯赞也指责马札亚尔是“殖民地半殖民地民族革命论的否定论者”。另外，需要指出的是，在20世纪40年代批判秋泽修二风潮中，又加大了对马札亚尔学说的批判力度。华岗就指出：“现在秋泽修二和佐野袈裟美这班走狗所采用的‘历史理论’，不正是过去马札亚尔和沙发洛夫等所用过的‘历史理论’吗？”显然，马札亚尔已经完全沦为反革命的伪马克思主义者。1949年后，中国马克思主义史学界对于马札亚尔的认知更趋同质化和脸谱化。他与托派的差异性被淡化，关联性则被放大，以致于被认为彼此存在“血统关系”。尽管也有学者指出：“把亚细亚生产方式的理论说成是托派的理论是没有根据的”，但两者同气连枝的固有印象短时期内难以消除。

This revolutionary narrative, based on political stances, has its rationality, “determining the pattern and keynote of research on the history of Chinese Marxist historiography for a long time thereafter,” but it also has defects that are not easily overcome. This has caused Mad’yar’s theory to be long regarded as an appendage of Trotskyist theory, losing its independence and creativity, and thus becoming a “voiceless one” in academic history. Therefore, the relationship between Mad’yar’s theory and Chinese Marxist historiography still deserves renewed discussion and in-depth reflection.

这种建立在政治立场上的革命叙事有其合理性，“确定了此后很长一段时间内中国马克思主义史学史研究的格局和基调”，但也存在不易克服的缺陷。这就使得马札亚尔学说长期以来被视为托派理论的附属品，丧失了独立性和创造性，从而沦为学术史上的“失语者”。因此，马札亚尔学说与中国马克思主义史学的关系问题仍值得重新讨论和深入思考。

III. The Chinese Marxist Historiographical Circle’s Sublation of Mad’yar’s Theory

三、马克思主义史学界对马札亚尔学说的扬弃

The long-standing tradition of revolutionary historical narrative has obscured the academic dimension of Mad’yar’s theory, restricting the academic community’s ability to sort out his intellectual legacy. Although Mad’yar’s theory had shortcomings and defects, its exploration of the particularity of China’s development path inspired Chinese Marxist historiography. Chinese scholars, on the basis of criticizing Mad’yar’s theory, deepened their understanding of historical materialism, promoting the adjustment and deepening of Chinese Marxist historiographical research. Therefore, it is very necessary to re-examine Mad’yar’s theory from the perspective of academic history and objectively assess its merits and demerits.

长期以来的革命史叙事传统掩盖了马札亚尔学说的学术性面相，制约了学界对其学术遗产的清理。尽管马札亚尔学说存在不足与缺陷，但它关于中国发展道路特殊性问题的探索启发着中国马克思主义史学。中国学者在批判马札亚尔学说的基础上深化理解唯物史观，推动着中国马克思主义史学研究的调整与深化。因此，从学术史的视角重新审视马札亚尔学说，客观看待其功过得失是十分必要的。

It must be admitted that Mad’yar’s theory was not a complete and systematic theoretical system, and its shortcomings are obvious. Chen Xiaojiang, a key figure in the Social History Debate, pointed out that scholars of the Asiatic mode of production school represented by Mad’yar “were mostly busy collecting materials and debating, so they paid little attention to systematic organization… instances of disorder and repetition were numerous.” Another view held that “At that time, Mad’yar’s thought was not yet mature, and his ideological system had not yet been established.” It can be said that there was a considerable gap and rupture between Mad

不得不承认，马札亚尔学说并非一个完整系统的理论体系，其不足之处是显而易见的。社会史论战的干将陈啸江就指出，以马札亚尔为代表的亚细亚生产方式派学者“多忙于搜集材料及论辩，故对于系统整理上，甚少注意……其中零乱和重复之处，当不一而足”。另有观点认为：“当时，马札尔的思想还不够成熟，思想体系还没有建立起来。”可以说，马札亚尔对于中国社会的粗放式论述与中国历史实际之间存在不小的隔膜和断裂。如，马氏认定土地国有是中国社会历史的特征，但不少中国学者却认为周秦之际便普遍存在土地私有的事实。至于水利灌溉则在中国南北方农业生产中的作用有所不同，并不足以塑造中国的社会制度。马氏所描述的其他诸般特征也与中国历史实际存在一定隔阂。因此，有学者就批评马氏“竟囫囵吞枣，谓中国亦缺乏土地私有制，不辨皂白，硬将中国社会加上亚细亚生产方法的头衔，这简直是梦游式的幻想”。类似批评在民国学界并不鲜见，这也和域外学者对于中国古史缺乏充分的理解和体悟有很大关系。

The most fatal flaw in Mad’yar’s theory is the self-contradiction between the framework he constructed and the content he presented. Wang Lixi, who had actively introduced *A Study of China’s Rural Economy*, could not help but mock Mad’yar for “using one shield to block his own spear.” This flaw was also pointed out by Varga, another theorist of the Asiatic mode of production school, who argued that the book “theoretically emphasizes the significance of the Asiatic mode of production, but almost entirely lacks corresponding concrete data; the contradiction between these two aspects is the book’s weakness.” Broadly speaking, the data on land ownership and relations of production collected by Mad’yar in *A Study of China’s Rural Economy* did not effectively support his theory of the Asiatic mode of production, nor did it adequately explain the “state–peasant” contradiction indicated by that theory; instead, it pointed more toward the “landlord–peasant” contradiction. In other words, the content Mad’yar presented did not empirically verify the theory of the Asiatic mode of production he had constructed in the introduction, but rather confirmed the deep-rootedness of China’s feudal system. Consequently, the theory and content of *A Study of China’s Rural Economy* were, to a certain extent, misaligned and disjointed.

马札亚尔学说最致命的缺陷当属所构理论与所述内容的自相矛盾。曾积极引介《中国农村经济研究》的王礼锡，也不禁讥讽马氏“自已以一个盾挡住自己的矛”。这一缺陷也被另一位亚细亚生产方式派理论家瓦尔加指了出来，他认为该书“在理论上特别强调亚细亚生产方式的意义，但几乎完全没有相应的具体资料，这二者之间的矛盾是此书的弱点”。大致来说，马札亚尔在《中国农村经济研究》一书中所收集的土地所有权和生产关系的资料并未有效支持其亚细亚生产方式理论，没有充分说明该理论所指示的“国家—农民”的矛盾，反而更多指向“地主—农民”之间的矛盾。换言之，马氏所述内容并未实证其在导言中所构建的亚细亚生产方式理论，反而印证了中国封建制的根深蒂固。因此，《中国农村经济研究》一书的理论与内容在一定程度上是错位的、断裂的。

Mad’yar seems to have been aware of his own shortcomings. In the introduction to *A Study of China’s Rural Economy*, he attributed the book’s defects to two causes: the difficulty of collecting materials and the difficulty of grasping “the historical nature of theory.” The former refers to the lack of systematic and reliable materials on rural China; the latter concerns how to understand the problem of historical theory. However, in Mad’yar’s view, “to raise a question and to indicate it is the most correct approach; even if what is raised and indicated is a mistaken position, the solution of the question is still better than remaining silent.” With regard to materials, although Mad’yar collected a large amount of data during his stay in China, when writing *A Study of China’s Rural Economy* he still relied on materials from other researchers, such as the studies of M. Volin and E. Yolk. Most of these research findings revealed feudal relations in rural China and were insufficient to support Mad’yar’s theory of the Asiatic mode of production. In fact, Mad’yar’s inadequacy in materials was often questioned by the academic community. One scholar criticized: “The famous expert on China’s rural economy, Mad’yar, drew erroneous conclusions precisely because the materials he relied on were incorrect.” Although the critic did not explicitly state that the book’s material problems led to the disconnection between theory and content, it is enough to show that the defects in materials affected the direction of Mad’yar’s argumentation.

马札亚尔似乎也意识到自身的缺陷，他在《中国农村经济研究》的导言中将该书的缺陷归结于两方面原因，即材料搜集的困难和“理论的历史性质”难以把握。前者指中国农村缺乏系统而确实的材料，后者是如何理解历史理论的问题。不过，在马氏看来，“提出问题并加以指明，是最为正确的，即使所提出和指明者是一个错误的立场，然问题之得解答，亦较缄默不言为愈。”就材料方面来看，尽管马札亚尔在华期间搜集大量资料，但在撰写《中国农村经济研究》时仍依赖其他研究者的材料，如佛林（M. Volin）和约克（E. Yolk）等学者的研究资料。这些研究成果大多揭示中国农村的封建关系，并不足以支撑马氏的亚细亚生产方式理论。其实，马氏在材料方面的不足也时常遭受学界的质疑。有学者就批评道：“著名的研究中国农村经济专家马札亚尔，就因为根据的材料不正确，而得出错误的结论来。”批评者虽未直言该书的材料问题导致理论与内容的脱节，但也足以说明材料的缺陷影响了马札亚尔学说的论证方向。

However, Mad’yar’s stubborn understanding of theoretical questions of history was the root of the contradictions. Mad’yar held that natural environmental factors played a decisive role in shaping the Chinese social model. He deduced China’s political system model from irrigation, thereby shaping a unique Asiatic society. This research method of Mad’yar’s was heavily criticized by the academic community. Wang Yichang believed that Mad’yar’s research method put the cart before the horse, criticizing him for taking geographical factors as the center while relegating human labor and technology to the end. Lü Zhenyu accused Mad’yar of “turning dialectics on its head,” arguing: “A faithful and responsible historian should never use the things of the superstructure to explain the economic nature of the base; moreover, those superstructural edifices cannot be studied as problems existing in isolation.” Liu Xingtang also accused Mad’yar of holding dialectics in contempt.

不过，马札亚尔对于历史理论问题的偏执理解是产生矛盾的根源。马氏认为自然环境因素对塑造中国社会模式有决定性作用。他通过水利灌溉推演中国的政制模式，从而塑造一个独特的亚细亚社会。马氏的这一研究方法饱受学界诟病。王宜昌认为马氏的研究方法本末倒置，批评他将地理因素作为中心，而把人类劳动和技术置于末位。吕振羽指责马札亚尔将辩证法“首尾倒置”，认为：“一个忠实而负责的历史家，总不应该单拿上层的政治形态的东西去说明下层的经济性质；而且关于那些上层的建筑物，并不能当作一个独自存在的问题去研究的。”刘兴唐也指责马札亚尔蔑视辩证法。

At that time, there was no unified opinion on how to determine the social nature of a given historical period; the academic community was still undecided on whether to determine social nature by the superstructure or the economic base. Mad’yar held that the key to distinguishing the Asiatic mode of production from other social forms lay in the question of land ownership. Mad’yar did not deny the existence of private land ownership in Chinese history, but believed that “the concept of private property had never been able to develop, with the result that there was a lack of strong impetus to establish a legal-political system to guarantee the rights of private property.” [6]6 L. Mad’yar, *Ekonomika sel’skogo khozyaistva v Kitae* [The Economics of Agriculture in China] (Moscow-Leningrad: State Publishing House, 1928), p. 23. Thus, Mad’yar regarded China as a society of the Asiatic mode of production lacking private land ownership.

当时，如何判定某一历史时期的社会性质并未形成统一的意见，究竟以社会上层建筑还是经济基础来确定社会性质，学界仍莫衷一是。马札亚尔认为，区分亚细亚生产方式与其他社会形式的关键在于土地所有权问题。马氏并不否认中国历史上存在土地私有的现象，但认为“私有财产的观念却一直未能得到发展，结果是缺乏很强的动力去建立法律—政治制度来保证私人财产的权利”。由是，马氏便将中国视为缺乏土地私有制的亚细亚生产方式社会。

More critically, Mad’yar’s understanding of the superstructure often took the typical European social and political system model as the standard, while China, which differed from it, was regarded as a special social model. Due to a lack of investigation into exploitative relations, Mad’yar found it difficult to understand the essence of the economic base, thereby exaggerating the particularity of the superstructure. Although he attempted to explain the absence of private land ownership through an analysis of the land rights relationship between landlords and peasants, he everywhere exposed the class contradictions and exploitative relations between landlords and peasants, which contradicted the theory of the Asiatic mode of production he sought to construct. On the basis of criticizing Mad’yar’s theory, Chinese scholars gradually broke through the limitations of the European social model, starting from indigenous historical experience, and attempted to judge the question of China’s social nature in the dialectical unity of economic base and superstructure, productive forces and relations of production. Of course, Chinese scholars also had many problems in the process of balancing these relationships, but at least in the process of criticizing Mad’yar, they began to consciously make adjustments and changes.

更为关键的是，马札亚尔对于上层建筑的认识往往以欧洲典型社会政制模式为标准，与之相异的中国则被视为一种特殊的社会模式。由于缺乏对剥削关系的考察，马札亚尔难以了解经济基础的本质，从而夸大上层建筑的特殊性。尽管他试图通过对地主与农民地权关系的分析来说明土地私有制的缺失，但又处处揭露地主与农民的阶级矛盾和剥削关系，这与他所要构建的亚细亚生产方式理论是相互矛盾的。中国学者在批判马札亚尔学说的基础上，从本土历史经验出发逐渐突破欧洲社会模式的限制，试图在经济基础与上层建筑、生产力与生产关系的辩证统一中判断中国社会性质问题。当然，中国学者在平衡上述关系的过程中也存在不少问题，但至少在批判马氏的过程中，开始有意识地做出调整和改变。

In fact, the academic world of the Republic of China did not completely negate Mad’yar’s theory; many scholars drew lessons and inspiration from it. Mad’yar’s analyses of Chinese rural land ownership, agricultural zoning, class relations, and other issues were partially recognized and accepted by the academic community. He Ganzhi believed: “Mad’yar’s analysis of the Chinese countryside has many unique insights.” [7]7 He Ganzhi, *Zhongguo shehui xingzhi wenti lunzhan* [The Debate on the Question of Chinese Social Nature] (Shanghai: Shenghuo Shudian, 1937), p. 77. His analysis of issues related to Chinese rural communes was inspired by Mad’yar’s theory. The Marxist economist Chen Hansheng also followed Mad’yar’s research line to a certain extent. Some scholars believed that although Mad’yar’s analysis of Chinese rural land ownership “failed to successfully argue that Chinese social nature was the Asiatic mode of production, the analysis of legal rights was thereby introduced into the study of Chinese social nature.” [8]8 Wang Yiyun, “Zhongguo shehui xingzhi wenti yanjiu shi” [A History of Research on the Question of Chinese Social Nature], *Shihuo* [Food and Goods] 1, no. 5 (1935): 189. Viewed in this way, Chen Hansheng’s entry into the study of Chinese rural issues through an analysis of land ownership should have a great deal to do with the inspiration of Mad’yar’s theory. Qian Junrui, a member of Chen Hansheng’s rural survey team, also indirectly pointed this out. It can be said that Mad’yar played an important role in the development of Marxist agricultural economics in the Republic of China period.

实际上，民国学界也并未完全否定马札亚尔学说，不少学者从中得到借鉴和启发。马札亚尔关于中国农村土地所有权、农业分区、阶级关系等问题的解析被学界部分认可和接受。何干之认为：“马扎尔对中国农村的分析，有许多独到的见解。”他关于中国农村公社相关问题的解析受到马札亚尔学说的启发。马克思主义经济学家陈翰笙在一定程度上也沿袭了马氏的研究路线。有学者就认为马札亚尔对于中国农村土地所有权的分析，虽然“没能成功地将中国社会性质论证为亚细亚生产方式，但法权分析却因此引入中国社会性质的研究”。如此来看，陈翰笙从分析土地所有权切入中国农村问题研究，应与马札亚尔学说的启发有莫大关系。作为陈翰笙农村调查团成员的钱俊瑞，也曾从侧面指明这一点。可以说，马札亚尔对于民国时期中国马克思主义农业经济学的发展发挥着重要作用。

Mad’yar’s theory also had an inspirational and constructive effect on the development of Marxist historiography during the Republic of China period. Many Chinese Marxist historians gained inspiration in the process of criticizing Mad’yar’s theory. Lü Zhenyu believed: “Before 1931, not a few historians who were progressive and striving for truth were, to varying degrees, influenced by some of Mad’yar’s errors in their study of Chinese history.” [9]9 Lü Zhenyu, *Shiqian qi Zhongguo shehui yanjiu* [A Study of Prehistoric Chinese Society] (Beiping: Renwen Shudian, 1934), preface, p. 1. However, Mad’yar’s theory, once quite prestigious, rapidly lost its academic status due to changes in the direction of Soviet theoretical circles, and Chinese scholars also intentionally or unintentionally kept their distance from it. Nevertheless, the theory of the Asiatic mode of production, represented by Mad’yar’s theory, still implicitly influenced the Chinese Marxist historiographical circle. For example, Chen Xiaojiang pointed out: “Some people, under the cover of various so-called claims, secretly appropriate his arguments.” [10]10 Chen Xiaojiang, “Zhongguo shehui shi shang de ‘Yaxiya shengchan fangshi’ wenti” [The Question of the ‘Asiatic Mode of Production’ in Chinese Social History], *Shihuo* [Food and Goods] 1, no. 5 (1935): 195. Other scholars noted that many of those who proposed theories of transitional society were no different from the theory of Asiatic society in their fundamental arguments. Admittedly, not all advocates of the particularity of Chinese society were directly influenced by Mad’yar’s theory, but those who practiced this path mostly showed sympathy for Mad’yar. For instance, Tao Xisheng also used irrigation to explain the differences between Eastern and Western social development models, to the extent that he was regarded as “a complete copy of Mad’yar’s theory.” [11]11 Wang Yiyun, “Zhongguo shehui xingzhi wenti yanjiu shi” [A History of Research on the Question of Chinese Social Nature], *Shihuo* [Food and Goods] 1, no. 5 (1935): 189. Li Ji, Du Weizhi, and other Trotskyist scholars also revised and developed along the lines of Mad’yar’s theory. It must be said that the academic world of the Republic of China could hardly completely bypass the issues of state land ownership, rural communes, and strong state political systems indicated by Mad’yar’s theory in its explanations of the special path of Chinese social development; these issues clearly played a specific guiding role for Chinese Marxist historiography during the Republic of China period.

马札亚尔学说对于民国时期马克思主义史学的发展同样具有启发性和建设性。不少中国马克思主义史学家在批判马札亚尔学说的过程中获得启发。吕振羽就认为：“一切前进的为真理而努力的历史学家对中国史的研究，在一九三一年前，不少人也都多多少少受到马扎亚尔的一些错误影响。”不过，曾经颇具声誉的马札亚尔学说因苏联理论界风向的变动而迅速失去学术地位，中国学者也有意无意地与其保持距离。但是，以马札亚尔学说为代表的亚细亚生产方式理论仍隐而不彰地影响着中国马克思主义史学界。如，陈啸江就指出：“有的人却在所谓各种各色的主张掩护之下窃取其论点。”另有学者注意到许多提出关于过渡社会的论者，在其根本性的论据上与亚细亚社会理论并无不同。诚然，并非所有中国社会特殊论的倡导者都受马札亚尔学说的直接影响，但践行此路径者多表现出对马札亚尔的同情。如，陶希圣也曾以水利灌溉来解析东西方社会发展模式的不同，以致于被视为“完全是马扎亚尔的理论的复写”。李季、杜畏之等托派学者也沿着马札亚尔学说的路向进行修正和发展。不得不说，民国学界关于中国社会发展特殊路径的阐释难以完全绕开马札亚尔学说所指示的土地国有、农村公社、强大的国家政制等问题，这些议题显然对于民国时期的中国马克思主义史学发挥着特定的导向作用。

However, the most important contribution of Mad’yar’s theory lay in provoking reflection and rebalancing in theoretical circles regarding the relationship between the uniqueness of Chinese social history and the general process of world history. Modern Chinese intellectuals explored the direction of Chinese social progress from Western evolutionary views of history, and historical materialism, as an important aspect of this, was introduced into China. Although this innovated the historical views of Chinese scholars, it also gradually fell into the error of taking Western social theory as the sole guide and neglecting indigenous particularity and agency. Mad’yar’s theory was a balance to this trend. Although it carried a strong “Western-centric” color and was not a good prescription for solving the above problems, it was a powerful dose to promote reflection and rebalancing in the academic world. Jian Bozan was aware of this problem; he frankly stated: “The Mad’yar school, in its excessive exaggeration of the particularity of Eastern society, went so far as to oppose Eastern history to world history; in this respect, it was mistaken. But because of this, they pursued the particularity of Eastern society, and this is their contribution to the study of Eastern history.” [12]12 Jian Bozan, “Lun Yaxiya shengchan fangshi” [On the Asiatic Mode of Production], *Zhongguo shehui* [Chinese Society] 1, no. 4 (1935): 12. It can be said that the debates in the Chinese Marxist historiographical circle around Mad’yar’s theory at least achieved one consensus, namely, recognizing the differences in social development between East and West and the uniqueness of Chinese social history.

但是，马札亚尔学说最为重要的贡献，在于引起理论界关于中国社会史的独特性与世界历史一般进程之间关系的省思与再平衡。近代中国知识分子从西方进化史观中探索中国社会的前进方向，唯物史观作为其中重要方面被引入国内。这虽然革新了中国学者的历史观，但同时也逐渐陷入唯西方社会理论马首是瞻，轻视本土特殊性和能动性的误区。马札亚尔学说是对这一趋势的平衡。尽管它带有浓厚的“西方中心论”色彩，并非解决上述问题的良方，却是推动学界反思与再平衡的一剂猛药。翦伯赞就意识到这一问题，他坦言：“马扎亚尔学派在其过分的夸张东方社会的特殊性，以致把东方史与世界史对立起来，在这一点上，是错误的；但他们却因此而追求东方社会的特殊性，这对于东方史的研究上，是他们的贡献。”可以说，中国马克思主义史学界围绕马札亚尔学说的争论至少获得一项共识，即认识到东西方社会发展的差异性以及中国社会历史的独特性。

It should be pointed out that Soviet theoretical circles also realized that the earlier criticism of Mad’yar’s theory had gone too far and attempted to further elaborate the theory of the Asiatic mode of production. The “variant theory” of Kovalev and others replaced the earlier theoretical view that simply denied China’s particularity, regarding China’s particularity as a “variant” of some social form. This view quickly gained support and following in Chinese academic circles. However, “using the ‘variant’ theory of the Asiatic mode of production to explain Chinese history actually hindered their further deepening of the understanding of Chinese history, making it difficult for them to grasp the essence of Chinese history and to escape the ‘quagmire of formulism.’” [13]13 Tian Changwu, “Yaxiya shengchan fangshi yu Zhongguo shehui xingzhi” [The Asiatic Mode of Production and the Nature of Chinese Society], *Zhongguo shehui kexue* [Social Sciences in China], no. 3 (1981): 57. The “variant” theory of the Asiatic mode of production, although it faced up to China’s particularity, did not fully reflect the agency of indigenous social history.

需要指出的是，苏联理论界也意识到此前对于马札亚尔学说的批判出现矫枉过正的错误，并尝试对亚细亚生产方式理论做出进一步阐释。科瓦列夫等人的“变种论”取代此前简单否认中国特殊性的理论观点，将中国的特殊性视为某种社会形式的“变种”。这一观点迅速得到中国学界的支持和追随。不过，“用亚细亚生产方式‘变种’论模式来解释中国历史，实际上却又妨碍了他们对中国历史认识的进一步深化，使他们难以把握中国历史的本质，难以走出‘公式主义的泥沼’”。亚细亚生产方式“变种”论，虽然正视中国的特殊性，但并未充分体现本土社会历史的能动性。

On the basis of the “variant” thesis, Chinese Marxist scholars further emphasized the particularity of Chinese social history and attempted to refine it theoretically. Scholars such as Lü Zhenyu and Jian Bozan, “in order to overcome the biases in the application of historical materialism, advocated guiding materialism with dialectics,” gradually deepening their understanding of the relationship between the universal and the particular. Lü Zhenyu and Hou Wailu went beyond the “variant” thesis, explaining the theory of the Asiatic mode of production in terms of “different stages” or “different paths” of Eastern and Western slave societies. This clearly no longer subordinated the particularity of Chinese society to a transcendent European social form, but instead attempted to advance the development of Marxist theory on Eastern societies through Chinese historical experience. In sum, Mad’yar’s theory prompted Chinese scholars to rebalance the relationship between the universal and the particular, thereby driving the adjustment and deepening of Chinese Marxist historical research.

中国马克思主义学者在“变种”论的基础上，进一步强调中国社会历史的特殊性并尝试进行理论提炼。吕振羽、翦伯赞等学者“为克服唯物史观应用中的偏失，主张以辩证法引领唯物论”，逐渐加深了对于一般性与特殊性问题的理解。吕振羽、侯外庐超越“变种”论，以东西方奴隶社会之“不同阶段”或“不同路径”来解释亚细亚生产方式理论，这显然已经不再将中国社会特殊性简单附庸于欧洲先验的社会形式，而是尝试以中国历史经验来推进马克思主义东方社会理论的发展。要之，马札亚尔学说促使中国学者对于一般性与特殊性关系作出再平衡的努力，进而推动着中国马克思主义史学研究的调整与深化。

It can be said that “the shift from demonstrating the universality of Marx’s theory of social formations to exploring the particular path of Chinese historical development through historical materialism marked the formal formation of Chinese Marxist historiography.” Mad’yar’s theory, which played an important role in this shift, should not become a “submerged voice” in academic history. In fact, Mad’yar’s theory has already regained recognition. Soviet scholarship has long attempted a reassessment of Mad’yar’s theory, holding that *A Study of the Chinese Rural Economy* “cites facts and arguments so rich and of such high value that no book in several years has surpassed it.” [14]14 Mad’yar, *A Study of the Chinese Rural Economy* (1928), a key work in the Soviet debates on the Asiatic mode of production and Chinese social history. The American scholar Ramon Myers also considered the book “a neglected work; if translated into English, it would certainly be listed among the classics on the Chinese countryside.” [15]15 Ramon Myers (1929–2015), American economic historian of China, known for studies of the Chinese rural economy. The international academic community’s reevaluation of Mad’yar’s theory warrants reflection by domestic scholarship, and a thorough examination of his academic legacy is necessary.

可以说，“从论证马克思社会形态理论的普适性，转向以唯物史观探究中国历史的特殊发展道路，标志着中国马克思主义史学的正式形成”。在这一转向中发挥重要作用的马札亚尔学说不应成为学术史上“沉没的声音”。其实，马札亚尔学说已重获认可。苏联学界早已尝试对马札亚尔学说进行重新评估，认为《中国农村经济研究》“引用的事实和论据如此之丰富，价值如此之高，以至若干年来还没有一本书能超过它”。美国学者马若孟也认为该书“是一部被忽略的著作，如果把它译成英文，肯定会被列入中国农村的经典著作中”。国际学界对于马札亚尔学说的重新估定值得国内学界反思，有必要对其学术遗产进行深度清理。

Conclusion

结语

Perhaps the theory of the Asiatic mode of production is a “false problem” lacking foundation, but a century of debate has left a rich academic legacy. Guided by the problem of the Asiatic mode of production, scholarly reflections on historical-theoretical issues and the excavation of China’s particularity have produced many highly illuminating academic results. However, the tradition of political-historical narrative still profoundly influences the academic community’s judgment on related issues, constraining the inheritance and development of the academic legacy of the theory of the Asiatic mode of production. Only by abandoning binary oppositional thinking, recognizing the historicity and relativity of the distinction between orthodoxy and heterodoxy, and avoiding the simple and mechanical correspondence of the Asiatic mode of production with the Chinese path, can we more comprehensively understand the development of Chinese Marxist historiography and identify the problems within it. Therefore, sorting out and summarizing the century-long academic legacy of research on the Asiatic mode of production is, to a great extent, a necessary measure for adapting Marxism to the Chinese context and the needs of the times.

或许亚细亚生产方式理论是缺乏根据的“假问题”，但百年来的争论留下丰厚的学术遗产。以亚细亚生产方式问题为导向，学界关于历史理论问题的思考和对中国特殊性的挖掘产生不少颇具启发性的学术成果。但是，政治史叙事传统仍深刻地影响着学界对于相关问题的评判，制约了对亚细亚生产方式理论学术遗产的继承与发扬。只有放弃二元对立思维，认识正统与异端之别的历史性和相对性，避免简单机械地将亚细亚生产方式与中国道路相互对应，才能更为全面地认识中国马克思主义史学的发展历程，发现其中存在的问题。因此，清理和总结百年来亚细亚生产方式问题研究的学术遗产，在很大程度上是马克思主义中国化时代化的必要举措。

(Author’s bio: Li Ziqiang, Lecturer, School of Marxism, Zhengzhou University)

（作者简介：李自强，郑州大学马克思主义学院讲师）

Online editor: Tongxin

网络编辑：同心