一元论唯物史观还是“因素论”?——重读普列汉诺夫

Monistic Historical Materialism or “Factor Theory”? ——Rereading Plekhanov

普列汉诺夫对"因素论"的批判和对一元论历史观的阐述,对理解唯物史观有重要贡献。因素论和唯物史观的区别,并不在于前者"同等程度地"看待各种因素而后者强调"经济因素"的首要作用,而在于方法论上的根本分歧。一元论唯物史观是从"社会人"的活动出发,把社会历史理解为统一的立体结构,从而将人的理性引向社会深处,去具体而切实地研究历史运动内部的客观规律。"因素论"则是分解的、孤立的,将社会看作是由各个部分相加而成的平面组合,这便导致在各个因素的相互作用之间纠缠不清。因素的分析在历史理论中是必要的,但在历史哲学中是不中用的,而一元论唯物史观的深远透视力存在于历史的长时段之中。

Plekhanov's criticism of 'factor theory'and his exposition of a monistic view of history made an important contribution to historical materialism. The difference between historical materialism and 'factor theory'does not lie with whether the 'economic factor'is the all-important factor or on par with 'noneconomic factors,'but rather with their opposing methodologies. Monistic historical materialism starts from the actions of 'the social human,'understanding social history as a unitary and solid structure and then leading human reason to the depths of social evolution for the purpose of concretely researching its objective laws. 'Factor theory,'on the other hand,is disconnected and isolated,observing a society as a planar combination of various parts.Factor analysis is necessary in historiography,but useless in historical philosophy. The far-reaching vision of monistic historical materialism exists in the historical long-term.