|
| 文章编号：1672-3104(2025)02-0075-12 |
| |
|
马克思恩格斯文明学说何以可能——基于索引分析和思想史源流的考察 |
| |
安维复 |
| |
|
（上海交通大学马克思主义学院，上海，200240） |
| |
| 摘 要： 唯物史观不仅包含生产方式理论和剩余价值理论，可能还包含文明学说。这是因为马克思和恩格斯的著述中有大量关于文明的命题及文本，显露了一种超越资本文明的文明新形态。他们的文明学说有清晰的思考脉络和形成过程、相对独立的范畴和独特的思想解释力。采用词频和索引分析等文献研究方法，在马克思和恩格斯的多语种著述中梳理他们的文明观，发现他们沿袭了傅立叶、泰勒、拉伯克和摩尔根的探索，用文明与野蛮的辩证法来探究蒙昧—野蛮—阶级性文明—整体性文明的社会进步规律，论证了“资本即文明”“文明暴行”“文明作为提高社会质量的实践”“文明具有整体性”等重大命题。这表明，唯物史观可能是其生产方式理论、剩余价值理论与文明理论的统一。这种理解可以更好地协调社会发展的“三阶段说”(文明论)和“五阶段说”(制度论)的差异，破解社会主义和共产主义在理论上脱节的难题，有助于解决马克思主义中修正主义与激进革命派之间的对立问题，有助于解释苏联解体的历史教训。经济发达或制度优越并不等于文明进步。文明在进步，野蛮也在同步演进，即打着现代化、全球化、数智化等文明旗号的野蛮(资本或霸权)在全世界制造“科技霸权”，退回到技术封建制甚至技术奴隶制。对当代资本主义“文明”野蛮化的批判任重道远，当代中国共产党人提出的人类文明新形态具有不可替代的思想价值。在此背景下，马克思恩格斯的文明学说值得被重新审视。 |
| |
| 关键词： 文明；野蛮；文明观；文明的整体性 |
| |
|
| |
How can Marx and Engels’ view of civilization be possible? Based on index analysis and investigation into the origin of thought history |
| |
AN Weifu |
| |
（School of Marxism, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai 200240, China） |
| |
| Abstract: The classical historical materialism not only includes production mode theory, surplus value theory, but may also include civilization view. This is because Marx and Engels’ writings contain numerous propositions and texts about civilization, revealing a new form of civilization that transcends capitalist civilization. Their civilization view have a clear thinking path and formation process, relatively independent categories and unique ideological explanatory power. By adopting such literature-research methodology as word frequency and index analysis, and after combing through Marx and Engels’ civilization view scattered in their multilingual writings, this study finds that they have followed the exploration of C. Fourier, E.B. Tylor, J. Lubbock and H. Morgan, and employed the dialectics of civilization and barbarism to explore the 3 stages in the social development regularity, including savagery, barbarism, and civilization (from the civilization with class limitations to the civilization without class limitations), hence demonstrating such essential issues as “capital being civilization” “civilized outrage“ “civilization as the practice to improve social quality” “civilization having its entirety.” This shows that historical materialism may be the unity of its production mode theory and civilization theory. Such understandings may better coordinate the differences between the “three-stage theory” (civilization theory) and “five-stage theory” (system theory), crack the nut of theoretic disjunction between socialism and communism, help overcome the binary opposition conflicts in Marxism between revisionism and radical revolutionary, and help explain the historical lesson about Russian disintegration. Neither developed economy nor superior political system means advanced civilization. Civilization is advancing, so is barbarism alongside. That is to say, barbarism in the name of modernization, universalization, digitalization and the like, is now making “brain in the bowl” “digital refugee” and even “digital scorched earth,” retreating back to technological feudalism and even technological slavery. It has a long way to go to launch critique at civilization barbarism of contemporary capitalism, and the new form of human civilization proposed by contemporary Chinese communists have irreplaceable ideological value. In this context, Marx and Engels’ civilization view is worthy of further survey. |
| |
Key words: civilization; barbarism; civilization view; integrity of civilization |
| |
|
|
