摘要
立足于《资本论》及其手稿,本文认为马克思社会形态理论所具有的方法论意蕴在于:不同生产方式或社会形态既可以是“并存的”,也可以是“继起的”;既具有“延续性”,也具有“断裂性”。不仅要把不同社会形态的内在本质同其存在形式和表现形式区别开来,而且要把社会形态演化的一般规律同其实现方式和作用方式区别开来。在中国古代历史分期问题的讨论中,一些质疑和批评马克思社会形态理论的学者,或者是把生产方式混同为具体的工具存在形式,或者是把经济关系混同为其文字表达和文化表现形式,或者是把经济关系混同为具体的政治和国家形式,用社会形态在不同国家和地区的不同实现方式排斥和否定其内在本质和演化规律的统一性,这些观点都是错误的。
Based on Das Kapital and its manuscripts,this paper argues that the methodology implication of Marx's social formation theory lies in the fact that different modes of production or social formation can be either“coexistent”or“sequential”,and be of both“continuity”and“discontinuity”.Not only is it necessary to distinguish the intrinsic nature of each social formation from its forms of existence and expression,but also to distinguish the general law of social evolution from its approaches of realization and function.In the debate on the periodization of ancient Chinese history,some scholars who question and criticize Marx's theory of social formation have either confused the modes of production with specific forms of production tools,or confused economic relations with their literal and cultural expressions,or confused economic relations with specific forms of politics and state,and have excluded and denied the unity of the inner nature and evolution laws of social formation for seeing only the different ways of their realization in different countries and regions.All these views are wrong.
出处
《马克思主义研究》
CSSCI
北大核心
2020年第8期78-90,156,共14页
Studies on Marxism
基金
国家社科基金重点项目“《资本论》语境中马克思的历史决定论及其当代价值研究”(15AKS001)的阶段性成果。
