再谈马克思《1844年手稿》历史观的性质——对学界一种流行见解的质疑

Re-discussion on the Nature of Historical Conception in Marx's 1844 Manuscripts——Questioning on a Popular View in Academic Circles

马克思《1844年经济学哲学手稿》的历史观,长期以来遭受学界流行见解的质疑、批评,被视为一种"非马克思主义的"历史观,甚至被明确定性为所谓"唯心史观"。在《手稿》的批评者看来,《手稿》的历史观不仅未能达到"唯物史观"的思想高度,甚至明显地处在唯物史观的"对立面",马克思正是在克服和摆脱了《手稿》的"唯心史观"倾向后,才真正创立了"唯物史观",实现了"哲学革命"。这种看法不符合马克思思想史的本来面目,是不可取、不公允的。本文以《手稿》中若干代表性表述的辨析、阐释为基础,辅以必要的学理分析,论证了《手稿》历史观与唯物史观在"精神实质""精神气质"上的一致性,为《手稿》历史观做了学术上的辩护。

The historical conception in Marx 's Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844 has long been questioned and criticized in the academic circle. It is regarded as a ' non- Marxist' historical conception and is even unequivocally characterized as the so- called the ' idealist conception of history'. In the sight of those critics,1844 manuscripts not only can not reach the ideological level of ' materialist conception of history',but is obviously on its ' opposite side'; it was just after Marx overcame and cast off the tendency of ' idealist conception of history' in his Manuscripts that he finally founded the ' materialist conception of history' and thus realized the ' philosophical revolution'.However,such a point of view is not in conformity with true colors of Marx's thoughts,neither desirable nor fair. Based on analyses and explanations of several typical statements in the Manuscripts supplemented by necessary theoretical analyses,the paper expounds and proves the consistency in both ' spiritual nature ' and ' spiritual temperament ' between historical conception in the Manuscripts and materialist conception of history,arguing for the historical conception in the Manuscripts.