From a historical point of view, people's understanding of Marx's historical materialism mainly has three mechanical arguments, namely, economic determinism, practical determinism and oriental social development exceptionalism.
Historical materialism; Economy; Practice; Oriental society
From a historical perspective, there are three main mechanistic views on people's understanding of Marxist historical materialism, namely, economic determinism, practical determinism and the exception theory of eastern social development.
Keywords historical materials; Economy; Practice; Oriental society
For a long time, people's understanding of Marx's historical materialism has been controversial about mechanical understanding. It is necessary to study history in order to understand Marx's historical materialism mechanically.
1 economic determinism
The historical view of economic determinism can also be called the historical view of economy. This view holds that Marx's historical materialism regards economic factors as the only determinant of the inherent laws of history, and only understands historical materialism from the perspective of pure economic factors, which is the earliest typical view of mechanically understanding Marxist historical materialism.
According to Marx's historical materialism, economic factors are the decisive reasons of history. After all? In a sense, they did not deny the role of politics, law and religion in the historical process and events. Marx's historical materialism is based on economic factors, but also attaches importance to other factors to examine historical events and historical processes, rather than the decisive model of the only factor understood by economic determinists.
Economic determinism is about historical materialism? After all? At the same time, the mechanical understanding of economic factors itself is flawed, that is, the simple and one-sided understanding of economic factors. For example, equate economic factors with economic interests, and even understand historical materialism as a historical view of economic interests. It is believed that what determines the historical process is people's pursuit of maximizing economic interests, and the economic interests here are static. In fact, the economic factor in Marx's historical materialism is a dynamic system with rich contents, which is not recognized by mechanical economic determinists. The economic factors of historical materialism include not only economic interests, but also economic relations and economic conditions. Marx and Engels investigated the economic factors in an interactive way, which is also not recognized by economic determinism. In the eyes of economic determinists, economic factors are economic interests, and such interests cannot be changed. It is deeply buried in people's hearts in historical actions and determines people's behavior. Many western economic determinists believe that Marx's historical materialism is a kind of historical fatalism, and its fundamental basis is that it provides mechanical and unchangeable material benefits for economic factors. So, put this simple linear theory? Applicable to any historical period? , just? This is easier than solving the simplest linear equation. ? Therefore, economic determinism can't see the complex levels of economic factors, nor can it see the dynamic picture of various factors and the interaction and universal connection between all levels.
Marx and Engels deeply analyzed the causes of economic determinism. First, the main ideas of Marx and Engels' historical materialism are mostly carried out in arguments with the enemy. In view of the characteristics of the enemy, many places only clarify them in principle. Engels said: Young people sometimes attach too much importance to the economy, which is part of the responsibility of Marx and me. When we refute our opponents, we often have to emphasize the main principles they deny, and we don't always have the time, place and opportunity to pay due attention to other factors involved in the interaction. ? Second, although the factors in the ideological fields such as politics, religion and culture come from economic conditions, they are relatively independent once they are produced. The influence of these factors and their interaction on historical development is often ignored by economic determinists. Third, economic determinists believe that the role of economic factors in determining history is automatic and is a pure change of economic factors. They fail to see that the changes and functions of economic factors often depend on certain forms of development and their interactions such as politics, law, philosophy, religion, literature and art.
2 Practical determinism
Practical determinism is the second outstanding manifestation of mechanical understanding of historical materialism. Some people advocate replacing dialectical materialism and historical materialism with practical materialism, and even advocate replacing historical (dialectical) materialism with practical humanism. Its essence is practical determinism.
Marx's historical materialism was originally a scientific historical view based on criticizing and inheriting Hegel's dialectics and Feuerbach's materialism, which is the basic common sense in the history of Marxist philosophy. As we all know, Hegel's dialectics is the dialectics of ideas, and his view of history is the product of the dialectics of ideas. Feuerbach's materialism is abstract materialism, and his view of history is also idealistic. Marx and Engels scientifically analyzed their philosophical basis and historical view, learned useful elements from them, and then carried out scientific transformation before creating the only scientific materialistic and dialectical historical view. After paying attention to the position of practice in Marxist theory, practical determinism did not put practice in the whole history of Marxist development, but made a mechanical understanding of practice in Marxist philosophy, which led to a metaphysical and mechanical understanding of historical materialism. So some people advocate redefining Marxism and abandoning it? Dialectical materialism and historical materialism? A summary, not? Practical materialism? .
Marx and Engels never called them materialism? Material ontology? And never let it go? Does it matter? They only scientifically pointed out for the first time in the history of philosophy that human practice must be based on the material basis of objective reality independent of human will. It's called Marxist materialist philosophy? Material ontology? Or as shown in the above point of view, do? Material ontology? According to this understanding, is it a violation of Marx and Engels? Dialectics? Thought is the cornerstone of Marxist philosophy? Does it matter? This concept is the result of mechanical metaphysical understanding. After emphasizing the material basis of practice, Marx paid more attention to human practice and its significance. We read about people in Feuerbach's Outline. Realistic and emotional activities? 、? Revolutionary and practical critical activities? 、? Revolutionary practice? 、? Actual, human emotional activities? In a word, we can see Marx's profound understanding and attention to practice. But this does not mean belittling or even denying? Materialism? Premises and foundations. What about human practice? Moving? Again? Sensibility? Can't leave after all? Does it matter? Foundation. With the rapid development of modern science and technology, the practical initiative of human beings is undoubtedly greatly enhanced, but is it the so-called tradition to look at the global environmental problems and aviation accidents brought about by it? Material ontology? It's hard to deny, what's more, Marx and Engels never advocated this? Material ontology? . In a word, to understand Marx's view of practice, we can't exaggerate it at will, or even break away from the material basis. It is even more impossible to combine Marxist dialectical (historical) materialism with practice. Only on the basis of Marxist materialist philosophy can we understand practice scientifically and dialectically. Judging from the dialectics carried out by the whole system of Marxism, it does not exist at all? Does it matter? Or? Practice? The ontology of machinery, both of which have achieved organic unity in dialectical (historical) materialism.
3 in the theory of eastern social development, mechanism
With the reform and development of socialism in the world, Marx's theory of social and historical development, especially the theory of the development process of eastern society, has become a major issue of academic concern. There is also a mechanical understanding of this theoretical and practical problem, which I think is the third outstanding performance of the mechanical understanding of Marx's historical materialism.
3. 1 Understanding possibility as inevitability has split the dialectical relationship between them. According to the historical materialism that the productive forces determine the relations of production and the economic base determines the superstructure, Marx and Engels once imagined that the socialist revolution would occur simultaneously in the developed capitalist countries in western Europe, but as a result of historical practice, most socialist revolutions first won in the eastern countries with relatively backward economy and culture. On this basis, some people deny Marx's historical materialism and think that the conclusion that productive forces (economic base) determine production relations (superstructure) is invalid. In fact, Marx and Engels only predicted the socialist revolution in western European countries according to their own historical materialism. Obviously, this only predicted the possibility of historical development and did not emphasize the inevitability of revolution. Similarly, Marx and Engels only held a predictive attitude towards the development path of eastern society. In his correspondence and writings in his later years, Marx talked many times about the possibility of realizing socialist revolution in an underdeveloped capitalist country like Russia. Although the later historical process proved that Marx's prediction was scientific, today we can only realistically think that Marx's investigation in that year can only be a possible investigation, and we can't exaggerate it and think it is inevitable.
3.2 Separate universality from particularity. Some people think that it is only the particularity of Marx's historical development theory that the eastern countries with relatively backward productive forces have realized the socialist revolution and finally won. So this view holds that the eastern countries have achieved a leap? Cafudin Canyon? Taking the socialist road is a kind of. Unique social development path? , thus denying that Marx has a universal social and historical theory. Marx has always opposed to applying his theory everywhere as a dead dogma. We can't think that Marx himself opposes the general theory of historical development. As we all know, Marx expressed the general theory of social and historical development for the first time in German Ideology. What Marx resolutely opposed was dogmatic application regardless of historical conditions and historical environment? Historical philosophy theory? Clinic. Is it only the eastern countries with backward productive forces that embark on the socialist road? Unique road? Has nothing to do with the global environment composed of social productive forces in western developed countries? Exceptions? In fact, it separates the dialectical relationship between universality and particularity, and fails to understand that the universality of historical development is manifested through the particularity of historical development. It is to oppose and separate the particularity of the development of eastern society from the general law of the development of world history, and deny the internal connection and unity. Some people even think that this particularity of the development of eastern society is Marx's later years? Confused? . In fact, Marx has never been like this? Confused? Yes. In the preface of the second edition of the Russian Manifesto, Marx and Engels investigated the future of the Russian commune: if the Russian revolution will become the signal of the proletarian revolution in the west and the two sides complement each other, then the current Russian land ownership can become the starting point of the development of capitalism. ? It can be seen that Marx and Engels put the Russian revolution in the whole world revolutionary system. Although Russia has its own characteristics and reality, which Marx emphasized, Marx never said that the future development path of Russia and other eastern countries is unpredictable, incomprehensible and mysterious. He believes that the social development path of eastern countries can be understood from the chain determined by the productivity of the whole world.
3.3 Confuse the main and secondary aspects of contradictions.
Studying Marx's theory of oriental social development is bound to face the historical fact that western colonists conquered and ruled the East. Someone has come to such a strange conclusion:? Without the colonial conquest of the modern west, all the outstanding natural talents of mankind, especially those of all ethnic groups in the East, would never sleep and develop? ,? Colonization promoted the process of world modernization? , openly sing hymns for colonial rule. It is true that Marx once admitted that with the invasion of capitalism, higher productivity was introduced to eastern societies such as India, and ancient and backward social organizations such as India gradually disintegrated. In this sense, this is? The only social revolution in Asia? . But Marx also spent a lot of time discussing the evils and disasters of western colonial rule in the East. For example, for India, he said: The devastating impact of British industry is obvious and surprising, and the Indian people will not receive the fruits of new social factors sown among them by the British bourgeoisie. ? Marx also summed up the history of colonial management in western Europe: it showed a wonderful picture of treachery, bribery, killing and despicable behavior? ,? Everywhere I went, it became deserted and deserted. . Therefore, Marx opposed European colonial rule as a whole, which is the main aspect of the contradiction. At most, he only pointed out the objective role of capitalist mode of production in the social structure of eastern countries such as India, which is the secondary aspect of contradiction. If we exaggerate the minor aspects of contradictions, we will inevitably draw a wrong conclusion that praises colonial rule and does not conform to the facts. We can also see once again how Marx proved his historical materialism with a serious scientific attitude and strictly from historical facts. During the period of 19 and 5070s, Marx spent a lot of energy observing the East, and wrote a series of papers, such as the trade between Russia and China, Britain's barbaric actions in China and the future results of British rule in India. He objectively and fairly evaluated the influence of European colonial rule on the development of eastern society with conclusive historical facts and materials, which made later generations understand the truth of historical materialism and proved Marx's later years again. Confused? This argument has lost its foundation.
refer to
[1] Marx and Engels: Selected Works of Marx and Engels, Volume 2, People's Publishing House, 1972.
[2] Marx and Engels: Selected Works of Marx and Engels, Volume 4, People's Publishing House, 1972.
?
[3] Marx and Engels: The Complete Works of Marx and Engels, Volume 19, People's Publishing House, 1972.