Re-understanding the Marxist View of Progress

The concept of progress has been a focal point of discussion since its emergence in modern times, yet faith in progress and modern world civilization has faced severe tests since the 1960s. Some Western scholars categorize Marx as a “progressivist” and attempt to distort the Marxist view of progress through the metaphysical mode of thinking of “progressivism.” Therefore, it is particularly important to re-understand the Marxist view of progress from the correct perspective.

进步观念自近代诞生以来就一直是人们谈论的焦点，但这种对进步与近代世界文明的信仰，自20世纪60年代以来经历了严峻考验。一些西方学者把马克思归结为“进步主义”者，并企图以“进步主义”这种形而上学的思维方式曲解马克思主义进步观。因此，从正确的角度重新认识马克思主义进步观尤为重要。

Some Western scholars, represented by Fukuyama, regard the Marxist view of progress as an eschatological view of progress akin to the “end of history” thesis. Eschatology originates from Christian doctrine, originally referring to “last things”; through socio-historical evolution, it later acquired a new meaning: the development of human history is a purposeful, directional process of evolution, and when human society reaches its anticipated goal, history will come to an end. In Fukuyama’s view, Marx, like Hegel, believed that human history has an inherent ultimate goal, and achieving that goal marks the end of history: “Both Hegel and Marx believed that the evolution of human society was not open-ended, but would end when mankind had achieved a form of society that satisfied its deepest and most fundamental longings. Both thinkers thus posited an ‘end of history’: for Hegel this was the liberal state, while for Marx it was a communist society.” [1]1 Francis Fukuyama, *The End of History and the Last Man* (New York: Free Press, 1992), p. xii. Some other Western scholars equate the Marxist view of progress with a linear view of progress. According to the linear view of progress, history as a whole is in a constant process of progress: the present is more advanced than the past, the future more advanced than the present, and history extends infinitely along a straight line toward some future goal. For example, although Sean Sayers argues that in Marx’s theory of progress, socialism is not a utopia but a realistic social state achievable through the development of human society, he also points out that Marx’s view of progress is a linear one. In his view, Marx’s theory of progress depicts historical development as a successive continuum of stages; history consists of distinct developmental stages, each arising with its own historical rationality. However, any given stage is unstable, and these temporary social stages are ultimately superseded by higher, more developed social forms. On this basis, he considers Marx’s theory of progress a homogeneous linear theory of development.

以福山为代表的一些西方学者认为，马克思主义进步观是“历史终结论”之类的末世论进步观。末世论源自基督教教义，原本是指“末后之事”，经过社会历史的演化，后被赋予新的含义：人类历史的发展是一个有目的、有方向的演变过程，当人类社会达到预期的目标后，历史就会终结。在福山看来，马克思和黑格尔一样，都认为人类历史存在一个内在的终极目标，实现该目标便达到了历史的终点，“黑格尔和马克思都曾相信，人类社会的发展是有终点的，会在人类实现一种能够满足它最深切、最根本的愿望的社会形态后不再继续发展。这两位思想家因此断言，会有历史的终结阶段。黑格尔将终结定位于一种自由的国家形态，而马克思则把它确定为共产主义社会”。还有一些西方学者把马克思主义进步观等同于线性进步观。按照线性进步观，历史作为一个整体处于不断进步的过程中，现在比过去进步，未来比现在进步，历史沿着直线无限延伸到未来的某个目标。例如，肖恩·塞耶斯认为，虽然在马克思进步理论中，社会主义并不是一种空想，而是可以通过人类社会的发展实现的一种现实社会状态。但是他也指出，马克思的进步观是一种线性进步观。在他看来，马克思的进步理论把历史的发展描绘成各个发展阶段的相继连续过程，历史由各个有区别的发展阶段组成，这些阶段的产生都有其时代合理性。然而，任何一个阶段都是不稳定的，这些暂时的社会阶段最后都会被更高级的、更发达的社会形态所取代。鉴于此，他认为马克思的进步理论是一种同性质的线性发展理论。

So, is Marx truly a “progressivist” as Western scholars claim? Is the Marxist view of progress really a “progressivist view”?

那么，马克思是否真的是如西方学者所说的“进步主义”者？马克思主义进步观是否真的是一种“进步主义观”？

First, there is a fundamental distinction between the Marxist view of progress and the end-of-history thesis. The end-of-history thesis, originating in Christian theology and running through modern philosophical anthropology and historical science, inevitably resonates within the Marxist view of progress. Whether it is Marx’s description of the “association of free individuals” in the *Communist Manifesto* or his vision of the “true realm of freedom” in *Capital*, both strongly imply the goal-oriented nature and inherent ultimacy of human historical development.

首先，马克思主义进步观与历史终结论二者之间存在根本区别。历史终结论从基督教神学开始，一直贯穿到现代哲学人类学和历史科学，不可避免地在马克思主义进步观中引发了回响。无论是马克思在《共产党宣言》中对“自由人联合体”的描述，还是在《资本论》中对真正的自由王国”的憧憬，都强烈暗示着人类历史发展的目标性和内在终极性。

However, interpreting the Marxist view of progress as the end-of-history thesis, and claiming that it inherently contains a “teleology of history,” is a misreading of Marx’s theory of progress. The so-called “teleology of history” refers to the idea that historical development is merely a process aimed at realizing some predetermined goal, and that socio-historical development is guided by this goal. In Marx’s view, human history is created by the activities of real people; historical development has no preset purpose. History exists in human activity, and it is human activity that drives history forward. Therefore, the “purpose” Marx speaks of is not the purpose of history itself, but the purpose of human activity. Marx believed that history is constituted by people and propelled by their activities. Consequently, as long as people exist, there is no such reality as the end of history. Moreover, the realization of communism is not, as some Western scholars believe, the end of history; on the contrary, the realization of communism is the beginning of a new history. Only in communist society do “people for the first time become the conscious and true masters of nature… Only from this point on will people fully consciously create their own history.” [2]2 Friedrich Engels, *Anti-Dühring*, in *Marx & Engels Collected Works*, vol. 25 (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1987), p. 270. On this basis, Fredric Jameson argues that Marx’s view of progress is “not the end of history, but the end of prehistory. That is to say, it is the point at which human forces can control their own destiny, a period in which history is a form of collective practice no longer subject to non-human fatalisms such as nature, scarcity, or the market and money.” [3]3 Fredric Jameson, “Marxism and Historicism,” *New Literary History* 11, no. 1 (1979): 41-73.

但把马克思主义进步观理解为历史终结论，认为马克思主义进步观内在地包含着“历史目的论”，这是对马克思主义进步理论的误读。所谓“历史目的论”是指历史的发展只是为了实现某种限定目标的过程，而社会历史发展正是由这种目标引导的。在马克思看来，人类历史是由现实的人的活动所创造，历史的发展并没有什么设定好的目的，历史存在于人的活动中，正是人的活动推动了历史向前迈进。因此，马克思所说的目的并非历史本身的目的，而是人的活动。马克思认为，历史是由人构成的，是由人的活动所推动的。因而，只要还有人存在，就不存在历史终结这样的现实。而且共产主义的实现并非像有些西方学者认为的那样是历史的结束；相反，共产主义的实现是新的历史的开端，只有在共产主义社会，“人们第一次成为自然界的自觉的和真正的主人……只有从这时起，人们才完全自觉地自己创造自己的历史”。詹姆逊据此提出，马克思的进步观“不是历史的终结，而是前历史的终结。也就是说，在达到的那个时期中人类力量可以控制自身的命运，在那个时期，历史是集体实践的一种形式，它不再屈从于自然、匮乏或市场、金钱这些非人的宿命论的东西”。

Second, the Marxist view of progress is not a linear view of progress. Human history can advance along a straight line or along a curved trajectory. The Marxist view of progress, however, holds that human history advances in a spiral. On the one hand, the linear view of progress denies the differences that exist in the historical progress of different countries and nations, asserting that the paths of development for different countries and nations are identical, differing only in speed. In his later years, through in-depth study of “Eastern society,” Marx rejected this linear view of progress and creatively proposed the diversity of the process of human historical development. He indignantly pointed out: “He [Mikhailovsky] must transform my historical sketch of the genesis of capitalism in Western Europe into a historico-philosophical theory of the general path of development prescribed by fate to all peoples, whatever the historical circumstances in which they find themselves, in order to ultimately attain the economic formation which ensures, together with the greatest development of the productive powers of social labor, the most complete development of man. But I must ask him to excuse me. He does me too much honor and at the same time too much discredit.” [4]4 Karl Marx, “Letter to the Editorial Board of *Otechestvennye Zapiski*,” in *Marx & Engels Collected Works*, vol. 24 (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1989), p. 200.

其次，马克思主义进步观并非一种线性进步观。人类历史既可以沿直线前进，也可以沿曲线的轨道前进。而马克思主义进步观则认为人类历史以螺旋式前进。一方面，线性进步观否认不同国家、民族历史前进进程中存在的差别，认为不同国家和民族的发展道路是一样的，仅仅存在发展快慢的差异。马克思晚年通过对“东方社会”的深入钻研，否定了这种线性进步观，并且创造性地提出人类历史发展过程的多样性。他不无愤慨地指出，“他（米海洛夫斯基）一定要把我关于西欧资本主义起源的历史概述彻底变成一般发展道路的历史哲学理论，一切民族，不管他们所处的历史环境如何，都注定要走这条道路，以便最后都达到在保证社会劳动生产力极高度发展的同时又保证每个生产者个人最全面的发展的这样一种经济形态……他这样做，会给我过多的荣誉，同时也会给我过多的侮辱”。

On the other hand, the linear view of progress holds that history develops along a straight line toward some future goal, which necessarily grounds it in a transhistorical subject. Superficially, the linear view of progress formulates the developmental goals of future society from a realistic perspective. But fundamentally, this goal is not realistic or historical; it exists outside human history. Thus, the formulation of this goal presupposes the neglect of human subjectivity. In other words, people serve merely as tools or means of historical development, while the true subject of history is spirit or “self-consciousness.” Marx strongly opposed treating spirit or “self-consciousness” as the subject of historical development and sharply criticized this approach: “The premise of Hegel’s view of history is abstract or absolute spirit, which develops in the following manner: human beings are merely the conscious or unconscious bearers of this spirit.” [5]5 Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, *The Holy Family*, in *Marx & Engels Collected Works*, vol. 4 (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1975), p. 85. At the same time, he profoundly pointed out: “History does nothing; it ‘possesses no immense wealth,’ it ‘wages no battles.’ It is rather man, real, living man who does all that, who possesses and fights; ‘history’ is not, as it were, a person apart, using man as a means to achieve its own aims; history is nothing but the activity of man pursuing his aims.” [6]6 Ibid., p. 93. Marx believed that history is nothing but the successive succession of generations. Each generation utilizes the materials, capital, and productive forces bequeathed by previous generations; for this reason, each generation, on the one hand, continues the inherited activity under completely changed circumstances, and on the other, modifies the old circumstances through completely changed activity. [7]7 Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, *The German Ideology*, in *Marx & Engels Collected Works*, vol. 5 (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1976), p. 50. Thus, historical development is driven by real people; people are the “actors” of history. It is through human practical productive activity that history advances in the contradictory movement between productive forces and relations of production. On the basis of human practical activity, the Marxist view of progress dialectically unifies the diversity of human historical development with universal laws, thereby correctly depicting the process of human historical progress. This is fundamentally different from the linear view of progress.

另一方面，线性进步观认为历史沿着直线发展直到未来的某个目标，这使得线性进步观必然立足于一个超历史的主体。从表面上看，线性进步观从现实的角度出发来制定未来社会的发展目标。但从根本上来说，这一目标并不是现实的、历史的，而是存在于人类历史之外。所以说，这一目标的制定是以忽视人的主体性为前提的。换言之，人只是充当历史发展的工具或手段，历史的真正主体则是精神或“自我意识”。马克思强烈反对把精神或者“自我意识”当成历史发展的主体，并对这种做法进行了强烈批判，“黑格尔历史观的前提是抽象的或绝对的精神，这种精神正在以下面这种方式发展着：人类仅仅是这种精神的有意识或无意识的承担者”。同时，他深刻地指出“历史什么事情也没有做，它‘并不拥有任何无穷尽的丰富性’，它并‘没有在任何战斗中作战’！创造这一切、拥有这一切并为这一切而斗争的，不是‘历史’，而正是人，现实的、活生生的人。‘历史’并不是把人当作达到自己目的的工具来利用的某种特殊的人格。历史不过是追求着自己目的的人的活动而已”。马克思认为历史不外是各个世代的依次交替。每一代都利用以前各代遗留下来的材料、资金和生产力；由于这个缘故，每一代一方面在完全改变了的环境下继续从事所继承的活动，另一方面又通过完全改变了的活动来变更旧的环境。由此可见，历史的发展是由现实的人推动，人才是历史发展的“剧中人”。正是通过人的生产实践活动，历史才在生产力与生产关系的矛盾运动中不断前进。马克思主义进步观在人类实践活动的基础上，辩证统一了人类历史发展的多样性与普遍规律，从而正确地描绘出人类历史进步的过程，这与线性进步观有着本质区别。

In summary, equating the Marxist view of progress with progressivist views such as the "end of history thesis" or the "linear view of progress" violates the original intention of the Marxist view of progress, which constructs its view of progress from the dimension of the real human being. Therefore, it does not conform to the essence of the Marxist view of progress in the anthropological dimension. To correctly understand the Marxist view of progress, we must start from the dimension of the "human being" and comprehensively recognize the irreplaceable position of the real human being in historical progress.

综上，将马克思主义进步观等同于“历史终结论”“线性进步观”等进步主义观，违背了马克思主义进步观从现实的人这个向度来构建进步观的初衷，因而不符合马克思主义人学向度进步观的本质。要正确认识马克思主义进步观，必须从“人”这个向度着手，全面认识现实的人在历史进步中的不可替代的地位。

Online editor: Paul

网络编辑：保罗