The Dual Logic of Marx’s Theory of Social Progress

Broadly speaking, Marx’s theory of social progress was formed on the basis of modern Western Enlightenment philosophy of history. The basic characteristic of this philosophical paradigm is to take “reason” as the yardstick and to understand historical development as a movement of transcendental consciousness. For example, Kant, proceeding from objective transcendentalism, understood history as a movement of morality guided by the “hidden plan of nature”; Hegel, proceeding from subjective transcendentalism, understood history as the process by which the “absolute spirit” continuously realizes itself. This is not a simple construction at the level of consciousness, but rather the deployment of “reason” as a method of thought across the entire human historical world.

大体而言，马克思的社会进步理论是在近代西方启蒙历史哲学的基础上形成的。这一哲学范式的基本特征是以理性”作为尺度，将历史发展理解为一种先验意识的运动过程。如康德从客观先验出发，将历史理解为由“大自然的隐蔽计划”引导的道德运动史；又如黑格尔从主观先验出发，将历史理解为绝对精神”不断实现其自身的过程。这并非意识层面的简单建构，而是将“理性”作为一种思想方法，在人类的历史世界中全面铺开。

Understanding History through “Material Relations of Life”

以“物质的生活关系”理解历史

As an important component of historical materialism, Marx’s theory of social progress shares some basic theoretical premises with the Enlightenment philosophy of history. This is manifested in the following: First, regarding the acceptance of the concept of “progress,” Marx shares a common historical context with the Enlightenment philosophers. Second, humans can promote social progress through self-perfection. Third, in terms of value pursuit, both Marx and the Enlightenment philosophers defend human subjectivity by exalting humanitarianism. However, unlike the Enlightenment philosophy of history, for Marx the core yardstick for measuring history is no longer “reason” as a belief of consciousness, but “practice” as the mode of human existence. So how should we understand this shift in Marx? This first requires an examination of his definition of “practice.” In Marx’s view, humans are not “abstract persons” in terms of reason or consciousness, but “real persons” existing in the empirical field. This is because, compared with reason or consciousness, the more fundamental content of humans is actually material needs, which determine that humans must first solve the problem of survival through the production of material goods, i.e., human activity first unfolds in the production activity of material means of subsistence, which is what Marx calls practice. In this dimension, the development of history is not some mysterious process detached from humans; it is fundamentally the accumulation and unfolding over time of the sum total of the practical activities of “real persons.” It is precisely based on this definition of “practice” that Marx began to actively bid farewell to the “consciousness” tradition of the Enlightenment philosophers and seek a new understanding of history.

作为唯物史观的重要组成部分，马克思的社会进步理论与启蒙历史哲学分享了一些基本的理论前提。这表现在：其一，就对“进步”观念的接受而言，马克思与启蒙哲学家分享着共同的历史语境。其二，人可以通过完善自我推动社会的进步。其三，在价值追求上，马克思与启蒙哲学家都通过高扬人道主义来为人的主体性辩护。然而，与启蒙历史哲学不同，在马克思这里，衡量历史的核心尺度不再是作为意识信念的“理性”，而是作为人的存在方式的“实践”。那么，应该如何理解马克思的这一转变？这首先需要从他对“实践”的界定进行考察。在马克思看来，人并非某种理性或意识上的“抽象的人”，而是存在于经验现场的“现实的人”。这是因为，相比于理性或意识，人更为根本的内容其实是物质层面的需求，它决定了人首先需要通过生产物质来解决生存问题，即人的活动首先在物质资料的生产活动中展开，此活动即马克思所说的实践。在这一维度下，历史的发展并不是某种脱离人的神秘过程，它在根本上就是“现实的人”的实践活动的总和在时间上的积累和展开。正是基于对“实践”的这种界定，马克思开始主动告别启蒙哲学家的“意识”传统，寻求对历史新的理解。

In Marx’s view, the Enlightenment philosophers sought the basis for history only at the level of consciousness. No matter how sophisticated an “edifice of thought” they constructed, it was ultimately difficult to achieve an effective explanation of itself in the empirical world. The Enlightenment philosophy of history, while exhibiting a high degree of speculation, also kept history in a constant binary “tension,” with historical reality on one side (the empirical level) and historical reason on the other (the transcendental level). This gave rise to an internal contradiction: for them, history was no longer an empirical subject but an object of thought used to demonstrate “reason”—whether it was Kant’s “nature” or Hegel’s “absolute spirit,” history in both cases presented itself as consciousness passing judgment on existence. History became a footnote to reason, while history itself as an object of study became unimportant. This was a fundamental inversion. What Marx sought to do was to extricate himself from this “rational myth” and return the yardstick of history to history itself.

在马克思看来，启蒙哲学家仅仅从意识层面为历史寻找依据，无论构建出如何精密的“思想大厦”，最终都难以在经验世界中达成对自身的有效说明。启蒙历史哲学固然表现出很高的思辨性，但也让历史始终处在一种二元化的“拉扯”当中，一方是经验层面的历史现实，另一方则是先验层面的历史理性。这就产生了一种内在矛盾，即历史对他们而言不再是一种经验主体，而是被用来论证“理性”的思想客体——无论是康德意义上的“大自然”，还是黑格尔意义上的“绝对精神”，历史在其中都呈现为意识对存在的审定。历史成了理性的注脚，而作为研究对象的历史本身却变得不再重要。这是一种根基性的倒，马克思所要做的就是从这种“理性迷思”中脱身出来，让历史的尺度重新回到其自身。

In fact, what Marx sought was an absolutely objective understanding of the “universal validity” of history, i.e., a science of history. In his view, the movement of history does not come from the domination of some transcendental consciousness, but is closely related to the “experience” of the present time and space. The “experience” referred to here is the fundamental condition for the existence, occurrence, and development of history. To go further, history arises from the relationship between its own elements and the conditions of its existence. Although the conditions of existence may change, there is always something constant within this change. So what is this constant thing? In Marx’s view, it is the “material relations of life.” Specifically, people form relations of production through the production of material means of subsistence, and the sum total of these relations of production further constitutes a specific economic structure, which is the fundamental condition for the existence of history. In the process of historical development, although the economic structure undergoes change, there is a constancy behind it: it always manifests as the contradictory movement between productive forces and relations of production. In Marx’s view, it is precisely this contradictory movement that “guarantees for historiography that universal element and constancy which can make it a science.” [1]1 Marx, *Capital*, Vol. 1, Preface to the First German Edition. Driven by this contradictory movement, social progress is realized; it is the “power source” for the development of human society.

实际上，马克思所要寻求的是一种对历史绝对客观的“普遍有效性”理解，即一种关于历史的科学。在他看来，历史的运动并非来自某种先验意识的宰制，而是与当下时空的“经验”息息相关。这里所谓的“经验”，即历史存在、发生和发展的根本条件。更进一步讲，历史来自其自身的要素与其存在条件之间的关系，存在条件虽然会发生变化，但在这种变化中始终存在一种恒定性的东西。那么，这种恒定性的东西是什么呢？在马克思看来，它就是“物质的生活关系”。具体来说，人们因生产物质生活资料而形成生产关系，这些生产关系的总和又进一步构成了具体的经济结构，此即为历史存在的根本条件。在历史发展过程中，经济结构虽然会发生变动，但其背后却存在着一种恒定性，那就是它始终呈现为生产力与生产关系的矛盾运动。在马克思看来，正是这一矛盾运动“向历史学保证了它可以成为科学的那种普遍性要素和恒定性”。正是在这一矛盾运动的推动下，社会进步得以实现，它是人类社会发展的“动力源”。

Social Progress as “Natural History”

作为“自然史”的社会进步

Understanding history through “material relations of life” is both Marx’s correction of the Enlightenment philosophy of history and the fundamental logic of his theory of social progress. However, Marx’s logical reasoning does not stop there. If the material production practice manifested as the contradictory movement between productive forces and relations of production provides a “power source” for social progress, then this power source also needs to further explain itself within the dimension of history. In *Capital*, Marx proposes “to view the development of the economic formation of society as a process of natural history.” [2]2 Ibid. It is precisely this formulation that provides an overall clue for our understanding of social progress, constituting another logic of Marx’s theory of social progress.

以“物质的生活关系”理解历史，既是马克思对启蒙历史哲学的拨正，也是其社会进步理论的根本逻辑。然而，马克思的逻辑运思并不止于此，如果说呈现为生产力与生产关系矛盾运动的物质生产实践为社会进步提供了一种“动力源”，那么这一动力还需要在历史的维度下对自身作出更进一步的说明。在《资本论》中，马克思提出“把经济的社会形态的发展理解为一种自然史的过程”，正是这一表述为我们理解社会进步提供了一条整体的线索，它构成了马克思社会进步理论的另一重逻辑。

Simply put, the “process of natural history” reveals a basic fact about human society: the shared materiality of human society and the natural world. In Marx’s view, although humans possess rational thinking abilities that transcend those of animals and plants, essentially, “man is a natural, corporeal, sensuous, objective being, and, like animals and plants, is a suffering, conditioned, and limited being.” [3]3 Marx, *Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844*. In this regard, the progress of human society is not independent of nature, but is the result of the evolution of nature—it is the “natural history” of humans. This view can easily be seen as a naturalist argument (although there is indeed a certain naturalist context within it), but in fact, it pulls the proposition of social progress back onto its own objective foundation. For Marx, if human society, like the natural world, conforms to natural characteristics such as sensuousness, materiality, and objectivity, then when these characteristics manifest in material production activity, their “naturalness” will be further reflected: whether it is the generation, development, or transformation of material relations of life, they always follow the law of the contradictory movement between productive forces and relations of production, independent of human will. Therefore, understanding social progress as “natural history” can be said to be a basic and objective judgment Marx makes about human society.

简单来看，“自然史的过程”揭示出的其实是人类社会的一个基本现实，即人类社会和自然界共有的物质性。在马克思看来，人虽然具有超越于动植物的理性思考能力，但从本质上来看，“人作为自然的、肉体的、感性的、对象性的存在物，同动植物一样，是受动的、受制约的和受限制的存在物”。就此而言，人类社会的进步并不独立于自然界，而是自然界进化的结果——它是关于人的“自然史”。这种观点很容易被视为一种自然主义论调（尽管其中确实有某种自然主义的语境），但实际上，它将社会进步这一命题重新拉回到其自身的客观性地基。对马克思而言，如果说人类社会和自然界一样，符合感性、物质性、对象性等自然特征，那么当这些特征呈现于物质生产活动时，其“自然性”还将得到进一步的体现：无论物质生活关系的生成、发展还是转换，都始终遵循生产力与生产关系的矛盾运动规律，并不以人的意志为转移。因此，将社会进步理解为“自然史”，可以说是马克思对人类社会作出的一个基本而客观的判定。

However, what Marx truly wanted to emphasize is not only the materiality of human society, but also its unique “human character.” In his view, compared with animals, the most important characteristic of humans is that they possess the subjective initiative that animals lack. Although human society is an extension of the natural world, based on the foundation of nature, humans have further developed this foundation (including humans themselves) through practical activity. In this regard, although history can be understood as the “natural history” of humans, its ultimate presentation is a “humanized nature” that transcends the former; this is the true “real part” of history. Once “humanized nature” is formed, whether it is the natural world or human society, their roles undergo a new transformation. That is, although the development of human society is a “natural history,” in the process of development it transforms this “natural history,” in a certain sense, into the history of humans themselves, while the natural world, under this transformation, moves towards a certain degree of nothingness. This nature that needs to be sublated, this nature as “nothing,” Marx calls the “inorganic body” of humans, while society, as the “organic body” of humans, further presents its unique hallmark: the unity of regularity and purposiveness.

然而，马克思真正想要强调的并不仅仅是人类社会的物质性，还包括其独有的“属人性”。在他看来，相比于动物，人最重要的特点就是拥有前者没有的主观能动性，人类社会虽然是自然界的延伸，但立足于自然的地基，人类在实践活动中还进一步发展了这一地基（也包括人自身）。就此而言，历史虽然可以理解为人的“自然史”，但其最终的呈现却是一种超越于前者的“人化自然”，这才是历史真正的“现实部分”。而“人化自然”一旦形成，无论是自然界还是人类社会，其角色都发生了新的转换，即虽然人类社会的发展是一种“自然史”，但它在发展过程中却将此“自然史”在一定意义上转换为人自身的历史，而自然界则在这一转换下走向某种程度的虚无。这个需要扬弃的、作为“无”的自然界，马克思称之为人的“无机身体”，而社会则作为人的“有机身体”，进一步呈现出其独有的标识，那就是规律性和目的性的合一。

In fact, social progress as “natural history” reveals precisely the “subjective” dimension of social progress. In Marx’s view, although the laws of social progress are certainly independent of human will, human subjective initiative still plays a significant role in this process. Through the exertion of subjective initiative, humans can not only better grasp the laws of social progress but also, through practice, continuously satisfy the various conditions or resources required by these laws, thereby accelerating social progress and achieving a leap of the “Caudine Forks” type.[4]4 The “Caudine Forks” (Forche Caudine) refers to a pass in ancient Samnium where the Romans suffered a humiliating defeat in 321 BCE. Marx used the term metaphorically to describe a society’s leap over a stage of development, such as bypassing capitalism, under favorable conditions. However, this is not a negation of “natural history.” For Marx, social progress is a tortuous process that must pass through various complex factors, but in this process “man has not created matter itself.”[5]5 This is a paraphrase of Marx’s argument in *The German Ideology* that while humans transform nature through labor, they do not create the material substance of nature itself. Therefore, if certain “transcendent” fragments appear in history, this precisely indicates the “transcendence” of material productive activity itself, and it is precisely because this basic premise of historical materialism exists that “nature” displays its unalterable priority.

事实上，作为“自然史”的社会进步为我们揭示出的正是社会进步的“主体性”维度。在马克思看来，社会进步的规律固然不以人的意志为转移，但人的主观能动性在这个过程中仍具有重大作用。通过主观能动性的发挥，人不但可以更好地把握社会进步的规律，而且可以通过实践不断满足规律所需要的各种条件或资源，进而推动社会加速进步，实现一种“卡夫丁峡谷”式的跨越。然而，这并不是对“自然史”的否定，在马克思这里，社会进步是一个需要经历各种复杂因素的曲折过程，但在这个过程中“人并没有创造物质本身”。因此，如果历史出现了某些“超越性”的片段，这恰恰说明的是物质生产活动本身的“超越性”，而正是存在这种历史唯物主义的基本前提，“自然”才显示其不可变更的优先性。

From the above, it can be seen that Marx’s theory of social progress contains a dual logic. Taking “material relations of life” as the root, it re-establishes the constancy of history itself, thereby clarifying the “power source” of social progress—this is the logical foundation of his theory of social progress. Social progress as “natural history,” on the other hand, not only fully explains this logic through a dichotomous method but also further clarifies its “subjectivity”—this is another dimension of the logic of his theory of social progress. Moreover, these two are not separate from each other; they are unified in human material productive activity and together manifest the core theme of human social progress—“practice.” In this regard, Marx’s theory of social progress is a system of thought with rigorous logic.

由上可见，马克思的社会进步理论包含一种双重逻辑。以“物质的生活关系”为根源，重新确立历史自身的恒定性，从而明确了社会进步的“动力源”，这是其社会进步理论的逻辑根本。而作为“自然史”的社会进步则以一种二分法的方式不但充分说明了这一逻辑，而且还进一步明晰了它的“主体性”，这是其社会进步理论逻辑的另一重维度。而且，此二者并不是彼此分裂的，它们统一于人的物质生产活动，并共同彰显了人类社会进步的核心主题——“实践”。就此而言，马克思的社会进步理论是一个具有严密逻辑的思想体系。

Of course, the profound significance of this system of thought also lies in the fact that it not only breaks away from the previous “idealist” paradigm of historical research, achieving a transformation from philosophy of history to science of history, but also attains the best elucidation of the laws of human social progress. That is, history presents itself as the contradictory movement between productive forces and relations of production, while social progress, as the “deduction” of this movement, unfolds and extends in empirical time and space.

当然，这一思想体系的深刻意义还在于，它不但摆脱了以往“唯心化”的历史研究范式，实现了从历史哲学到历史科学的转变，而且达成了对人类社会进步规律的最佳阐发。那就是，历史呈现为生产力与生产关系之间的矛盾运动，而社会进步则作为这一运动的“演绎”，在经验的时空中展开和延伸。

Online editor: Paul

网络编辑：保罗