望月清司的“两种史论说”批判

A Critique of Mochizuki's"Hypothesis of the Two Historical Theories"

在《德意志意识形态》研究史上,望月清司的“两种史论说”开启了根据“分担问题”探讨马克思和恩格斯的历史理论差异的风潮。日本学者从思想内容和文献学两个角度对望月清司进行批判,但都没有触及“两种史论说”的要害。正面回应望月清司的观点,需要从“分担问题”入手,说明“费尔巴哈”章中第一份手稿的正文与旁注都体现了“人=社会”的人学观,而分工要素蕴含于其中。若这一结论正确,那么望月清司区分“所有形态史论”和“分工展开史论”的根据就不复存在,这两种历史理论是相统一的。

In the history of the study of the German Ideology,the"Hypothesis of the Two Historical Theories"of Mochizuki started the trend of exploring the differences between the historical theories of Marx and Engels on the basis of analyzing the"problem of proportionality in writing"of the German Ideology.Japanese scholars have criticised him from both an ideological and a philological perspective,but have failed to get to the heart of the"Hypothesis of the Two Historical Theories".To respond positively to Mochizuki's argument,it is necessary to start with the"problem of proportionality in writing"of the German Ideology,to show that both the text and the marginal notes of the first manuscript in the Feuerbach chapter embody the anthropological view of"human=society",in which the element of division of labour is embedded.If this conclusion is correct,then the basis for the distinction between the"history of ownership"and the"history of the division of labour"no longer exists,and the two theories of history are compatible.