Marx’s Measure of Thought

Measure refers to the extension of physical or spatial existence and the boundaries of the realm of consciousness or thought, possessing a dual determination of the micro and the macro. As a great thinker who profoundly influenced the course of human history, Marx’s intellectual activity in observing, analyzing, and solving problems exhibits both micro characteristics—such as a focus on the concrete, an emphasis on the particular, and attention to the specific—and macro characteristics, such as a broad vision, lofty realm, and grand bearing. Examining the development of Marx’s thought as a whole from the macro-determinative sense of measure reveals that, in the process of dividing the stages of human social development, defining the general nature and specific forms of human productive activity, and establishing the overall value standard for evaluating social progress, his thought contains a conceptual logic of a grand historical outlook, systematic thinking, and holistic value standards. Exploring and elucidating Marx’s measure of thought helps advance the in-depth study of Chinese Marxist philosophy.

尺度指向物理或存在空间的延展以及意识或思维领域的边界，具有微观和宏观的双重规定性。作为深刻影响人类历史进程的伟大思想家，马克思观察、分析和解决问题的思维活动既展现出关注具体、强调个别和重视特殊等微观特质，又呈现出视野宏阔、境界高远和气度恢宏等宏观特质。从尺度的宏观规定性意义上整体审视马克思的思想发展进程，可以发现他在划分人类社会发展阶段、界定人类生产活动的一般性质与具体形式以及确立评价社会进步整体价值标准的过程中，蕴含着宏大历史观、系统性思维和整体价值标准的构思理路。探究并阐明马克思的思想尺度，有助于推进中国马克思主义哲学的深度研究。

The Grand Historical Outlook in Dividing the Stages of Human Social Development

划分人类社会发展阶段的宏大历史观

Marx delineated a grand historical outlook on human social development, dividing economic social formations and social formations of the subject from the dual perspectives of mode of production and subject relations, while also distinguishing and clarifying the prehistory of social development from the period of truly human history, thereby revealing the basic laws of the evolution of social formations and the development of world history. Compared with Hegel, who viewed the development of human society as the self-realization process of the “absolute spirit” and divided the different stages of human society according to the degree of development of self-consciousness, Marx’s understanding of human society and its developmental process possesses a broader historical vision. Marx not only regarded the generation of history as the free and conscious activity of “real individuals,” but also, based on the degree of development of productive forces and subject relations—that is, the degree of human development and state of existence—divided the different stages of human social development, thereby achieving the division of the “prehistory” of human society and “truly human history.”

马克思描绘了人类社会发展的宏大历史观，既从生产方式和主体关系的双重视角划分经济的社会形态和主体的社会形态，又对社会发展的史前时期与真正的人类史时期作出区分和厘清，揭示了社会形态演变与世界历史演进的基本规律。相较于黑格尔将人类社会发展视为“绝对精神”的自我实现过程，并以自我意识的发展程度来划分人类社会的不同阶段，马克思关于人类社会及其发展进程的认识具有更宏大的历史视野。马克思不仅将历史的生成视为“现实的人”的自由自觉活动，而且基于生产力的发展程度和主体关系即人的发展程度和存在状态来划分人类社会发展的不同阶段，实现对人类社会的“史前史”和“真正的人类史”的划分。

From the objective measure of the mode of production, Marx’s historical outlook manifests as a grand vision that, based on the state and level of development of productive forces and the different forms of relations of production, determines the historical stages of human society and demarcates the “prehistory” of human society from “truly human history.” In Marx’s view, the “automatic system” based on large-scale industry drives the rapid development of productive forces and leads human society from tradition to modernity. In modern society, the volume of productive forces created by the bourgeoisie’s rule over the past century far exceeds the sum of productive forces of “all previous generations,” and the development of productive forces provides the material basis for the transition from national history to world history and from the “prehistory” of human society to “truly human history.” The elucidation of the leading role played by productive forces in the formation of world history and the development of human society reflects Marx’s objective measure of dividing the different stages of human social development according to the degree of development of productive forces.

从生产方式的客观性尺度看，马克思的历史观表现为基于生产力发展状态、水平以及生产关系的不同表现形式来厘定人类社会的历史阶段，界分人类社会的“史前史”和“真正的人类史”的宏大视野。在马克思看来，以大工业为基础的“自动体系”推动生产力飞速发展，并引领人类社会从传统走向现代。在现代社会中，资产阶级近百年的统治所创造的生产力体量远远超过“以往一切世代”的生产力总和，生产力的发展为民族历史向世界历史跨越、人类社会“史前史”向“真正的人类史”转变提供了物质基础。对生产力在世界历史的形成以及人类社会发展的过程中发挥主导作用的阐明，体现出马克思以生产力的发展程度划分人类社会发展不同阶段的客观性尺度。

The expression of the “prehistoric period” of human society fully embodies Marx’s grand historical outlook, which, based on the mode of production, demarcates the different stages of development of human social history. By revealing the real conflict between social productive forces and relations of production, Marx proposed four major historical stages of social formations based on different levels of development of productive forces and different forms of relations of production. Marx believed that the different forms of property and diverse social formations that have already emerged in the process of human social development invariably contain some antagonistic relations of production, and the disappearance of this antagonistic relation of production will become the fundamental sign of humanity’s farewell to the “prehistoric period.” In the historical process of gradually extricating itself from the contradictory movement of productive forces and relations of production, human society is gestating a completely new form of property and economic social formation, thereby entering a new stage of social history—the “period of truly human society,” which is the beginning of truly human history. Marx’s exposition of the “prehistoric period” of human society and the implicit prospect of the future course of human history reflect his comprehensive understanding of Eastern and Western social history and even the entirety of human history, as well as his broader research interests. This fully characterizes Marx’s grand vision of examining history beyond “Eurocentrism.” In the *Ethnological Notebooks* and the *Historical Notebooks*, Marx shifted the blueprint and focus of his historical research from Western countries to Eastern ethnic societies, and his research horizon encompassed the entirety of human history up to that point. This shift helped Marx, based on the real revolutionary conditions faced by Eastern societies, integrate the thousands of years of economic and social system history, political civilization, and state history of both Eastern and Western countries, and from the broad perspective of a universal history of the world, conduct a general exploration of the universal laws of the development of human social history. Marx’s theoretical exploration of history in his later years completed a timely re-examination and sublimation of the realm of historical materialism and the general laws of the development of human social history and the theory of social formations it revealed, promoting the enrichment and development of the grand ideological system of human emancipation.

对人类社会“史前时期”的表述，充分体现了马克思基于生产方式界分人类社会历史不同发展阶段的宏大历史观。通过揭示社会生产力与生产关系的现实冲突，马克思以生产力发展的不同水平和生产关系的不同形式提出社会形态的四大历史阶段。马克思认为，人类社会发展进程中已经出现的不同财产形式和多样性社会形态，无一例外地内蕴某种对抗性的生产关系，而这种对抗性生产关系的消失将成为人类告别“史前时期”的根本标志。人类社会还在逐步摆脱生产力与生产关系矛盾运动的历史进程中，孕育出一种全新的财产形式和经济的社会形态，从而步入崭新的社会历史阶段——“真正的人类社会时期”，这是真正人类史的开端。马克思对人类社会“史前时期”的阐述以及内蕴的对未来人类历史进程的展望，体现出其对东西方社会历史乃至人类整体历史的全面了解和更为广泛的研究旨趣。这充分表征了马克思超越“欧洲中心主义”来审视历史的宏大视野。在《人类学笔记》《历史学笔记》中，马克思将其历史研究的蓝本和焦点从西方国家转向东方民族社会，研究视域囊括了迄今为止的全部人类历史，这种转变助推马克思立足东方社会所面临的革命现实状况，将东西方国家的数千年经济和社会制度史、政治文明和国家史加以整合，从世界通史的广阔视野，对人类社会历史发展的普遍规律进行一次总体性探索。马克思晚年展开的历史理论探索，完成了对历史唯物主义及其所揭示的人类社会历史发展的一般规律以及社会形态理论的一次时代性重检和境界升华，推动了人类解放这一宏大思想体系的丰富与发展。

From the intrinsic measure of subject relations, Marx’s historical outlook manifests as, based on the degree of development and state of existence of human free individuality, revealing the “dependence on things” relations of the existing capitalist society, and then proposing a theory of social formations characterized by the degree of development and state of existence of human free individuality. In the existing capitalist society, human freedom is often only seemingly set as more universal and sufficient, but the free and comprehensive development of the individual can only be realized in a “true community.” The “false community” generated within the social relations of bourgeois society is an alien existence that controls human life mediated by the ruling power of things. The independence, freedom, and individuality of the person are subject to the phenomenon of things, manifesting as the “dependence on things” of the development of human subjectivity. “In bourgeois society, capital has independence and individuality, while the active individual has neither independence nor individuality.” Historical progress will inevitably lead humanity to exist in the form of a “true community,” in which individuals will participate as persons conforming to their nature, and the conditions of human existence and survival in previous societies—that is, “the conditions of the free development and movement of individuals”—will be transformed from a state dominated by contingency to a state controlled by the self.

从主体关系的内在性尺度看，马克思的历史观表现为基于人的自由个性的发展程度和存在状态，揭示现存资本主义社会的“物的依赖性”关系，进而提出以人的自由个性发展程度和存在状态为表征的社会形态论。在现存的资本主义社会中，人的自由往往只是在表象上被设定得更加普遍和充分，但人的自由全面发展只有在“真正的共同体”中才能得以实现。在资产阶级社会关系中生成的“虚假的共同体”是以物的统治力量为中介而形成的控制人的生活的异己存在。人的独立性、自由和个性受制于物的现象，表现为人的主体性发展的“物的依赖性”。“在资产阶级社会里，资本具有独立性和个性，而活动着的个人却没有独立性和个性。”历史的进步必将使人类以“真正的共同体”形式存在，个人在这一共同体中将以合乎本性的人的身份参与进来，并使以往社会中人的生存条件和存在条件，即“个人的自由发展和运动的条件”，从由偶然性支配的处境转变为由自我掌控的状态。

Marx expressed the evolutionary process of the conditions of human existence as three different stages: “personal dependence,” “dependence on things,” and “free individuality.” This is Marx’s explanation of the process of social-historical change, again taking the intrinsic measure of subject relations—that is, the change in the state of human development or the degree of freedom at different historical stages—as the main object of study. The process of succession of human social history, manifested in the development and change of subject relations, is a process in which the subject rises from unfreedom to free individuality, characterizing the historical reconstruction of human subjectivity. In the stage of “relations of personal dependence,” the individual exhibits “richness under extremely simple social relations,” characterizing the subjectivity of the “feudal era”; in the stage of “relations of dependence on things,” the relation of things becomes the intermediary of all social relations, and the person and the production of products in bourgeois society present a “comprehensive dependence” relation dependent on the production and consumption of others; while in the stage of development of human “free individuality,” the individual will achieve a historical transformation from being subject to the “limitation of things” to shedding the limitations of various external relations, promoting the advancement of human society from the capitalist era to the “association of free individuals.” Corresponding to the changes in the entirety of human social history, the evolutionary process of human subject relations from the first stage to the third stage is a process of the subject’s reconstruction, in which the individual gradually breaks free from the state of merely satisfying the conditions of social life that sustain his own survival, and moves toward creating a truly human social life.

马克思将人的生存条件的演化过程表述为“人的依赖性”“物的依赖性”和“自由个性”三个不同阶段。这是马克思再次以主体关系的内在性尺度即人的发展状态或自由程度在不同历史阶段上的变化为主要研究对象，对社会历史变迁过程所展开的说明。人类社会历史的演替过程表现在主体关系的发展变迁上，是主体从不自由向自由个性提升的过程，表征着人的主体性的历史性重建。在“人的依赖性关系”阶段，个人表现出“极简社会关系条件下的丰富性”，其表征着“封建时代”的主体性；在“物的依赖性关系”阶段，物的关系成为一切社会关系存在的中介，资产阶级社会中的人自身以及产品的生产呈现出依赖于其他人生产与消费的“全面的依赖”关系；而在人的“自由个性”发展阶段，个人将实现从受“物的限制”向摆脱种种外部关系限制的历史性转变，推动人类社会从资本主义时代向“自由人联合体”进阶。与整个人类社会历史的变迁相对应，人的主体关系从第一阶段向第三阶段的演进历程，是个人逐步摆脱仅仅满足维持自身生存的社会生活条件的状态，走向开创真正的人类社会生活的主体性重建过程。

Starting from the dual yardsticks of mode of production and relations between subjects, Marx’s rational demarcation of the stages of development of human society and his overall grasp of the whole of human history fully demonstrate the broad vision and scientific method with which he observes and studies history. If the exploration of the development of social history from the perspective of historical outlook shows Marx’s “grand narrative” of describing human social history from the outside, then the analysis of the nature and form of human productive activity from the perspective of systematic thinking shows Marx’s micro-analysis of the features of human social historical activity from the inside, thereby constituting a logical shift “from the outside to the inside.”

马克思从生产方式和主体关系的双重尺度出发，对人类社会发展阶段的合理界分与对全部人类历史的整体把握，充分展现出其洞察和研究历史的宏大视野与科学方法。如果说以历史观对社会历史发展的探究展现了马克思从外部描述人类社会历史的“宏大叙事”，那么以系统性思维对人类生产活动的性质与形式进行分析则展现了马克思从内部探究人类社会历史活动样貌的微观分析，由此构成了“从外到内”的逻辑转换。

Systematic Thinking That Defines the Nature and Form of Human Productive Activity

界定人类生产活动性质与形式的系统思维

Bourgeois national economists examined human beings merely as workers with physical needs for existence, resulting in a one-sided understanding of the nature and form of human productive activity. Marx, by contrast, regarded human beings as “real individuals” possessing species-essence and species-life. He defined the general nature of productive activity through human life-activity and defined the multiple forms of productive activity and their internal relations through the diverse manifestations of human essential forces, thereby forming a scientific understanding of human productive activity. This method of thinking and inquiry, combining the universal and the particular, is a typical manifestation of Marx’s systematic thinking.

资产阶级国民经济学家将人作为仅仅具有肉体存在需要的工人加以考察，造成了对人类生产活动的性质与形式的片面理解。马克思则将人视为具有类本质和类生活的“现实的人”，他以人的生命活动来界定生产活动的一般性质，并以人的本质力量的多样性表现来界定生产活动的多种形式及其内在关系，从而形成关于人类生产活动的科学认识。这种普遍与特殊相结合的思考方法和探究方式是马克思系统思维的典型展现。

Through his analysis of the alienated state of workers and their productive activity, Marx recognized that under capitalist private ownership and its division of labor, human productive activity is essentially a restrictive form of productive activity. This nature of productive activity not only sets the product of labor up as an “alien thing” opposed to the producer but also gradually degrades the human spirit and body into mere machines for the accumulation of capital, becoming “abstract activity and a stomach.” In Marx’s view, the root of the alienation of labor lies in the social division of labor under conditions of private ownership. While the division of labor promotes the development of productive forces, it simultaneously forces the majority of people to become wage laborers who sell their own labor power to make a living. This means that human productive activity, as alienated labor, essentially forces people to become instrumental existences within the capitalist production system and “slaves of capital.” Productive activity serves only the economic need for capital accumulation and cannot reflect human essential forces or their development.

马克思通过对工人及其生产活动异化状态的分析，认识到资本主义私有制及其分工条件下的人的生产活动本质上是一种限制性的生产活动。这种性质的生产活动不仅使劳动产品作为“异己的东西”同生产者对立起来，而且将人的精神和肉体逐步降格为纯粹追求资本积累的机器，成为“抽象的活动和胃”。在马克思看来，劳动产生异化的根源在于私有制条件下的社会分工，分工在推动生产力发展的同时，迫使多数人沦为出卖自身劳动力以谋生的雇佣工人。这意味着人的生产活动作为异化了的劳动，实质上使人被迫沦为资本主义生产体系的工具性存在和“资本的奴隶”，生产活动仅仅服务于资本积累的经济需要，而无法反映出人的本质力量及其发展。

Human productive activity is a humanly appropriate transformation of nature. On this basis, Marx defined the essence of human productive activity as human “life-activity,” pointing out that human productive activity manifests human essential forces in diverse forms. As a “living species,” human life-activity possesses “species-characteristics.” Productive activity, as human life-activity, is essentially a form of “species-life.” Human species-life has both physical and spiritual attributes, and the unfolding of physical life and spiritual life constitutes two different types of productive activity for human beings in the “practical sphere” and the “theoretical sphere.” From the perspective of the practical sphere, human productive activity manifests as a process of continuously processing “natural products” to form human products. From the perspective of the theoretical sphere, the various material objects existing in the inorganic world, as the “inorganic world of the human spiritual world,” constitute not only “objects of natural science” but also, as “objects of art,” “a part of human consciousness.” Human beings can turn their own life-activity into an object of their own “will” and “consciousness,” making their life-activity “conscious life-activity.” Human active productive activity fundamentally differs from animal production, which is instinctive and one-sided. The activity of human productive activity is reflected both in its transcendence of the immediate needs of maintaining physical existence and in the fact that human consciousness can observe and reflect upon productive activity. Human productive activity, as “species-life,” exhibits a “comprehensive” nature. “Human species-activity” manifests “the reality of human essential forces,” creating human material products, spiritual products, and relations between humans and themselves, between humans and other humans, between humans and society, and between humans and nature—producing all relational products. Material production, spiritual production, and the production of social relations together constitute the diverse forms of production that manifest human essential forces.

人的生产活动是对自然界的一种合乎人性的改造，马克思据此将人的生产活动的本质界定为人的“生命活动”，指出人的生产活动是以多样性的形式表现着人的本质性力量。人作为“有生命的类”，其生命活动具有“类特性”，生产活动作为人的生命活动实质上是一种“类生活”。人的类生活具有肉体的和精神的两种属性，而肉体生活和精神生活的开展则构成人在“实践领域”和“理论领域”中的两种不同生产活动。从实践领域来看，人的生产活动表现为不断对“自然产品”进行加工以形成人的产品的过程；从理论领域来看，存在于无机界中的种种物质对象作为“人的精神世界的无机界”，不仅作为“自然科学的对象”，而且作为“艺术的对象”构成“人的意识的一部分”。人能够将自己的生命活动变为自身“意志”和“意识”的对象，使人的生命活动成为“有意识的生命活动”。人的能动的生产活动从根本上不同于具有本能性和片面性的动物生产，人的生产活动的能动性既体现在对维持肉体存在的直观需要的超脱，又体现在人的意识可以观察与反思生产活动。人的生产活动作为“类生活”表现出“全面”的性质，“人的类活动”彰显出“人的本质力量的现实性”，创造出人的物质产品、精神产品以及人与自身、人与人、人与社会以及人与自然界等关系，生产一切关系性产品。物质生产、精神生产和社会关系生产一同构成展现人的本质力量的多样性生产形式。

By revealing the fact that human beings create history through conscious productive activity, Marx understood all human activity as the process and result of production, revealing the comprehensive nature of production at the level of historical materialism rather than at the purely economic level. Human production does not take the immediate physical needs of the individual as the sole motive or purpose of production. Instead, it engages in conscious production beyond physical needs, creating material products that sustain human life, as well as a rich variety of spiritual products and social relations of production. Human conscious productive activity “is precisely the foundation of the entire existing sensuous world.” Marx believed that humanity is entirely capable of and should transcend production by isolated individuals or production confined to a locality, acquiring through ever-expanding worldwide intercourse the “capacity for comprehensive production” that utilizes global factors of production and resources. The acquisition of the “capacity for comprehensive production” means that human individuals can, by breaking free from the constraints of nationality and locality, establish global relations of production and realize diverse concrete forms of production, including global material production, spiritual production, and the production of social relations.

通过揭示人借助有意识的生产活动来创造历史的事实，马克思把人类的全部活动都理解为生产的过程和结果，在历史唯物主义的层面而非单纯的经济学层面揭示出生产的全面性质。人的生产不以肉体的直接需要为生产的唯一动力或目的，而是在肉体需要之外进行自觉地生产，创造出维持人的生命存在的物质产品以及丰富多样的精神产品和社会生产关系，人的有意识的生产活动“正是整个现存的感性世界的基础”。马克思认为，人类完全有可能并且也应该超越单个人的生产或地域性的生产，通过不断扩大的世界性交往活动来获得利用全球生产要素和资源的“全面生产的能力”。“全面生产的能力”的获得意味着人类个体能够通过摆脱民族性、地域性的束缚而建立全球性的生产关系，以及实现全球性的物质生产、精神生产以及社会关系生产等多样化的具体生产形式。

There exist internal logical connections and structural relations among the diverse forms of production. Material productive activity has an originary significance relative to other forms of productive activity. The mode of production of material life conditions the entire process of human life, including social, political, and economic life. Material production and reproduction are essentially productive activities of decisive significance, providing the indispensable material foundation for human existence and development, as well as for spiritual production and reproduction. The production and reproduction of human beings themselves, because they directly provide the subjective force of production, become the fundamental guarantee for other productive activities and historical development. The production of relations of production constitutes a necessary condition for all production and has a foundational significance equal to that of material production. Starting from the interrelations among human essence and the various forms of activity that maintain human existence and development, the hierarchy of diverse human production can be divided into the “basic level,” the “highest level,” and the “intermediate level”: the production of material goods and the production of human beings—what Marx called the “production of material life” or what Engels in his later years called the “two kinds of production”—constitute the “basic level” of comprehensive production; spiritual production constitutes the “highest level” of comprehensive production; and the production of social relations constitutes the “intermediate level” of comprehensive production. This hierarchical structure is an extension of Marx’s classic thesis that “the human essence is, in its actuality, the ensemble of social relations” and is also a positive attempt to understand the structural relations among different forms of productive activity.

多样性的生产形式之间存在内在的逻辑关联和结构关系。物质生产活动之于其他形式的生产活动具有始源性意义。物质生活的生产方式制约着包括社会、政治和经济生活在内的整个人类生活的过程，物质生产与再生产本质上是具有决定性意义的生产活动，它为人的存在及发展、精神生产与再生产提供必不可少的物质基础。人的生产与再生产由于直接提供人这一作为生产的主体性力量，而成为其他生产活动和历史发展的根本保证。生产关系的生产是构成一切生产的必要条件，它具有与物质性生产同等的基础性意义。从人的本质及其维持自身存在和发展的各种活动形式之间的相互关系出发，人类多样性的生产层级可以划分为“基础层面”“最高层面”和“中介层面”：物质资料的生产和人的生产，也就是马克思所说的“物质生活的生产”或恩格斯晚年所说的“两种生产”，是全面生产的“基础层面”；精神生产是全面生产的“最高层面”；社会关系的生产是全面生产的“中介层面”。这一层级结构是对马克思关于“人的本质在其现实性上是一切社会关系的总和”的经典论断的延伸，也是理解不同形式的生产活动之间结构关系的积极尝试。

Regarding the structural relations among the diverse forms of production, Marx elaborated more specific theoretical insights. First, for “real individuals” as material beings, the primary condition for the continuation of their life is the acquisition of material means of subsistence. Material production has foundational significance among all productive activities. The production of social relations and material production are mutually necessary: social relations necessarily contain relations of material production, and material production can only exist within definite social relations. Second, the ensemble of social relations constitutes the actual manifestation of the human essence. All forms of human activity cannot exist apart from social relations. Social relations and their production thus constitute the condition for the emergence and presence of all productive activity. The various forms of labor that manifest human essential forces—namely, material production and spiritual production—will all be stamped with the human imprint within definite social relations, exhibiting the characteristics of the specific social stage in which they exist. Third, the production of human beings and spiritual production can be understood as the production of the material life-form of human beings and the production of the conscious life-form of human beings. These two kinds of production depend, on the one hand, on material production, obtaining from it the elements for the generation and development of the material life-form of human beings. On the other hand, they are influenced by the conscious life-form of human beings formed within definite social relations and stages of development. This conscious life-form is concretely manifested in the ever-changing ideological content of the social superstructure.

针对多样性生产形式之间的结构关系，马克思阐发了更加具体的理论认识。其一，作为物质性存在的“现实的人”，其生命存续的首要条件是获取物质生活资料。物质的生产在所有生产活动中具有基础性意义。社会关系的生产和物质生产之间是互为需要的关系，社会关系中必然存在物质生产的关系，物质生产也必然在一定的社会关系中才能得以存在。其二，社会关系的总和构成人的本质的现实表现，人的一切形式的活动都不可能脱离社会关系而存在，社会关系及其生产由此构成一切生产活动出场和在场的条件，而作为人的本质性力量之展现的各种劳动形式即物质生产和精神生产，都将在一定的社会关系中被赋予人的烙印，表现出其所具有的特定社会阶段的特点。其三，人的生产与精神的生产可以被理解为人的物质生命形式的生产和人的意识生命形式的生产，这两种生产一方面依赖于物质生产，通过物质生产获得人的物质生命形式生成和发展的要素，另一方面又受到在一定的社会关系和发展阶段中所形成人的意识生命形式的影响，这种意识生命形式具体表现为社会上层建筑中不断变化的意识形态内容。

Marx’s comprehensive revelation and elucidation of productive activity, his division of the diverse forms of productive activity of “real individuals” and his determination of their internal logical relations, embody a systematic thinking and scientific method by which Marx examines humans as “real individuals” and, starting from the essence of humans and its mode of expression, grasps macroscopically the internal dynamic of human social productive activity and socio-historical development. If dividing the historical stages of human society and clarifying the nature and forms of human social productive activity constitute a scientific factual description of human social history that Marx offers to explain the objective movement and internal activity of history, then establishing an overall standard for evaluating social progress from a totalizing perspective constitutes a scientific value judgment that Marx consciously makes regarding a specific socio-historical stage.

马克思对生产活动的全面性揭示和阐明，对“现实的人”的多样性生产活动形式的划分及其内在逻辑关系的厘定，体现出马克思将人作为“现实的人”加以考察，从人的本质及其表现方式出发，宏观把握人类社会生产活动与社会历史发展的内在动力的系统思维和科学方法。如果说划分人类社会历史阶段和厘清人类社会生产活动的性质与形式，是马克思说明历史的客观运动与内在活动所作出的关于人类社会历史的一种科学的事实描述，那么以总体性视野确立的评价社会进步的整体标准，则是马克思自觉对特定社会历史阶段的一种科学的价值评判。

Establishing an Overall Value Standard for Evaluating Social Progress

确立评价社会进步的整体价值标准

In the study of the development of human society, there have always been differing views on how to establish and what kind of standard to establish for evaluating social progress. Distinct from conceptions that establish a standard for evaluating social progress based on a single yardstick such as the level of development of productive forces or “the priority of the human,” Marx upholds a totalizing evaluative attitude. He opposes an either-or oppositional tendency on the question of the standard of progress, and emphasizes that by revealing the essential relationship between the development of human subjectivity and social progress, one can construct a value yardstick for evaluating social progress based on the relations between humans and themselves, between humans and other humans, between humans and society, and between humans and nature. Marx both acknowledges the foundational significance of the degree of development of productive forces and the economy for measuring social progress, and emphasizes the elevating significance of standards such as the degree of development of spiritual culture, the degree of harmony in social relations, and the degree of beauty of the ecological environment in social progress. The overall value standard constitutes Marx’s basic stance in evaluating social progress.

在对人类社会发展的研究中，关于如何确立以及确立何种社会进步评价标准的问题始终存在不同见解。区别于以生产力发展水平、“人的优先性”等单一尺度来确立社会进步评价标准的观念，马克思秉持一种总体性的评价态度，反对在进步标准问题上非此即彼的对立意向，强调通过揭示人的主体性发展与社会进步之间的本质性关系，建构出基于人与自身、人与人、人与社会以及人与自然的关系确立社会进步评价标准的价值尺度。马克思既承认生产力和经济发展程度对于衡量社会进步的基础性意义，也强调精神文化的发达程度、社会关系的和谐程度、生态环境的优美程度等标准在社会进步中的提升性意义。整体性的价值标准构成马克思评价社会进步的基本立场。

Marx affirms the notable role of economic development or the development of productive forces in driving social progress, and takes it as an objective standard for evaluating social progress, but he resolutely opposes treating the development of productive forces as the sole factor driving social progress. This is common in capitalist societies that pursue only economic efficiency: the degree of increase in social material wealth completely replaces the degree of manifestation of humans’ essential powers, becoming the sole standard for evaluating social progress. Evaluating social progress one-sidedly based on economic growth can only encourage “materialism,” causing the withering and collapse of the human spiritual dimension; the development of the purely economic sphere cannot be equated with a historical fact that has the significance of overall social progress. Evaluating social progress means presenting in an overall manner all the meanings contained in progress. Marx provides a totalizing perspective and testing dimension on this question, emphasizing that whether it promotes the all-round development of the human person should be taken as the overall value standard for measuring social progress.

马克思肯定经济发展或生产力发展在推动社会进步中的显著作用，并将其作为评价社会进步的客观标准，但坚决反对将生产力发展视为推动社会进步的唯一因素。这在只追求经济效益的资本主义社会屡见不鲜：社会物质财富的增益程度完全替代人的本质性力量的展现程度，成为评价社会进步的唯一标准。片面地依据经济增长来评价社会进步只能助长“唯物质主义”，造成人的精神层面的萎靡和坍塌，纯粹经济领域的发展并不能等同于具有整体性社会进步意义的历史事实。评价社会进步就是要整体性地呈现进步所包含的全部意义，马克思对这一问题提供了一种总体性的审视视野和检验维度，强调以是否促进了人的全面发展作为衡量社会进步的整体价值标准。

Marx’s reflection on the question of social progress and its standard of evaluation presents a step-by-step theoretical logic: from understanding “progress” to understanding “social progress” to establishing a standard for evaluating social progress. To judge whether a given society has progressed in a given period, one should, through empirical observation and rational grasp, conduct a comprehensive examination of the specific developmental conditions of various social spheres that are external to humans yet possess a human character. In terms of the unified essence of the dual dimensions of progress—the progress of the subject and the development of the object—social progress in essence points to the development of humans and the manifestation of humans’ essential powers. This means that the judgment of whether progress has occurred depends on whether a society at a certain stage of development truly represents the direction of human development and fully manifests humans’ subjective powers.

马克思对社会进步及其评价标准问题的思考，呈现出从理解“进步”到理解“社会进步”再到确立社会进步评价标准这一循序渐进的理论逻辑。评价某一社会在一定时期是否进步，应当通过经验观察和理性把握，将外在于人但又具有属人性质的社会各领域的具体发展状况进行综合考察。就社会进步所包含的主体进步和客体发展双重维度的统一本质而言，社会进步实质上指向人的发展以及人的本质性力量的展现，这意味着对进步与否的判定取决于处于某一发展阶段的社会是否真正代表人的发展方向，是否全面展现人的主体性力量。

Marx’s value stance, based on the developmental condition of human subjectivity and its objective indicators to measure whether society has progressed, reflects a totalizing perspective. From this perspective, Marx’s judgment of a given society always relies on the factual basis and value standard on which the evaluation result is founded. By analyzing the capitalist as personified capital and its historical significance, Marx distinguishes two different dimensions for evaluating social formations: the factual dimension and the value dimension of social evaluation. Marx holds that capitalist society should not be directly approached with an absolutely negative or ahistorical attitude; rather, one should see the driving role it plays in the development of social productive forces behind its pursuit of surplus value. Capitalist society historically and unconsciously accumulates the necessary material conditions and real foundation for constructing “a social form in which the free and all-round development of each individual is the basic principle.” [1]1 This quotation is from Karl Marx, *Capital*, Volume 1, where he describes the “higher phase of communist society” as a social form based on the all-round development of individuals. But at the same time, “the free and all-round development of each individual” means that if one evaluates a society entirely by the degree of abundance of things, this will lead to a one-sided understanding of social progress. In evaluating whether a society has progressive significance, Marx, from a totalizing perspective, integrates “the improvement of the living state of the social subject,” “the increase in the degree of harmony in relations between humans,” and “the increase in the degree of harmony in the relation between humans and nature,” grasping the essence of social progress in the interactive relationship between the social subject and the social object.

马克思立足人的主体性发展状况及其客观性指标来衡量社会进步与否的价值立场，反映出一种整体性视野。基于这一视野，马克思对某一社会的评判始终依据评价结果赖以成立的事实依据与价值标准。通过分析资本家作为人格化的资本及其存在的历史性意义，马克思区分出两种评价社会形态的不同维度，即社会评价的事实维度和价值维度。马克思认为对资本主义社会不应该直接采取绝对否定的或是非历史的态度，而应当看到其追求剩余价值的背后对社会生产力发展起到的推动作用，资本主义社会历史性地、无意识地为建构“以每一个个人的全面而自由的发展为基本原则的社会形式”累积必要的物质条件和现实基础。但同时，“每一个个人的全面而自由的发展”意味着，如果完全以物的丰富性程度为指标评价某一社会，将导致对社会进步的片面认识。在评价社会是否具有进步意义时，马克思以总体性的视野将“社会主体生存状态的进化”“人与人关系和谐程度的提高”以及“人与自然关系和谐程度的提高”融于一体，在社会主体与社会客体的互动关系中把握社会进步的实质。

In Marx’s view, the degree of abundance of things is a foundational but not exclusive standard of evaluation. Improvements in indicators such as spiritual culture, social relations, and the ecological environment, which are conditioned by material production, also reflect the developmental demands of humans. From the perspective of the degree of abundance of things, Marx both sees the immense increase in productive forces and the enormous creation of material wealth in capitalist society, and is aware of the internal contradiction between capitalist relations of production and the development of social productive forces. From the perspective of the degree of harmony in relations between humans, Marx both acknowledges that capitalist society has formed a relation of formal equality by abolishing relations of enslavement and being enslaved between humans, and clearly recognizes the historical limits and alienated essence of this non-factual equality, emphasizing that the relation between humans can achieve genuine harmony only in the process of actively mastering the logic of capital and gradually overcoming reification. From the perspective of the degree of harmony in the relation between humans and nature, Marx both recognizes that capitalist society has greatly changed the passive state of humans in relation to nature, and explores the enormous cost and unsustainability of this progress. The genuine harmonious relation between humans and nature is an objectifying relation mediated by human society, that is, nature becomes “the bond of connection between humans” and “the foundation of existence conforming to human nature,” [2]2 This phrasing echoes Marx’s discussion in the *Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844* on the relation between humans and nature as mediated by society, where nature becomes the “inorganic body” of humanity. and humans become free, conscious organic beings and the expression of consciousness. Starting from the essential connection between humans and society, Marx evaluates whether society has progressed in terms of the relation of the abundance of things, the relation of the abundance of culture and spirit, the harmonious relation of society, and the harmonious relation between humans and nature. This manifests Marx’s overall value standard and scientific method for judging social progress and its content.

在马克思看来，物的丰富程度是具有基础性但并非唯一性的评价标准，受物质性生产制约的精神文化、社会关系和生态环境等指标的改善，同样反映人的发展诉求。从物的丰富程度来看，马克思既看到资本主义社会对生产力的极大提高和物质财富的巨大创造，又意识到资本主义生产关系和社会生产力发展之间的内在矛盾。从人与人之间关系的和谐程度来看，马克思既承认资本主义社会通过消灭人与人之间奴役与被奴役关系而形成了形式平等关系，又清晰认识到这种非事实平等关系的历史限度和异化本质，强调人与人的关系只有在积极驾驭资本逻辑和逐渐克服物化的过程中才能得到真正的和谐性呈现。从人与自然关系的和谐程度来看，马克思既认识到资本主义社会极大地改变了人对自然的受动状态，又探明这种进步的巨大代价与不可持续性。人与自然真正的和谐关系是以人类社会为中介的对象性关系，即自然成为“人与人联系的纽带”和“合乎人性的存在的基础”，人成为自由的自觉的有机存在和意识表现。马克思从人与社会的本质性关联出发，以物的丰富性关系、文化精神的丰富性关系、社会的和谐关系以及人与自然的和谐关系来评价社会进步与否，表现出马克思评判社会进步及其内涵的整体价值标准和科学方法。

Systematically revealing the objective laws and value judgment system concerning human history, humans themselves, and the development of humans and society—centering on the existence and development of human society, the internal dynamic of socio-historical development, and the scientific standard for evaluating social progress—not only fully demonstrates the breadth and profundity of Marx’s yardstick of thought and is of great significance for enhancing the overall study of Marx’s thought, but can also inspire researchers of Marxist theory to advance multi-dimensional research on Marx’s yardstick of thought and the overall nature of Marx’s thought, thereby forming a conscious awareness and academic mission to strengthen the overall study of Marx’s thought.

围绕人类社会的存在与发展、社会历史发展的内在动力以及评价社会进步的科学标准，系统揭示关于人类历史、人类自身以及人与社会发展的客观规律和价值评判体系，不仅对充分彰显了马克思思想尺度的广博性、深刻性和提升马克思思想研究的整体性具有重大意义，而且能够启发马克思主义理论研究者推进对马克思的思想尺度和马克思思想的整体性多维度研究，从而形成强化马克思思想整体性研究的自觉意识和学术使命感。

Online Editor: Paul

网络编辑：保罗