In recent years the theory of historical materialism contention surrounding

In recent years the theory of historical materialism contention surrounding In recent years the theory of historical materialism contention surrounding 2001 ‘historical research’ No. 4 Mr. Jiang Dachun published entitled ‘Contemporary Chinese Historiography in the intellectual development of the Marxist conception of history’ of the long paper, put forward beyond the materialist conception of history, re-issue of understanding the Marxist conception of history that the history of materialism the basic principles of the concept of serious theoretical defects, must be exceeded. Around this led to a theory of historical materialism contention. From the general point of view, scholars have put forward mainly on Jiang Wen’s ‘theory of defects in’ how to define, how to understand ‘social being and social consciousness,’’the social productive forces and production relations,’’the historical development of the law’ and so on and so awareness of the basic principles of historical materialism issues, presented their views. One, how to assess the correctness of the basic theory of historical materialism Defects in the understanding of historical materialism in 1 theory, scholars have mainly focused on the controversy is’ tradition? Historical Materialism (referring to the current exposition of the basic textbook) in the end there was any defect, if so, who is responsible for this issue. Jiang Dachun that the ‘traditional’ theory of historical materialism and the basic principles of the core, there are many theories but is a serious defect, such as ‘social being and social consciousness,’’the productive forces and production relations,’’the law of historical development of society’ are the basic theories and concepts have serious defects; now be self-criticism and its ‘put a full stop’ of; it should be exceeded, must go beyond and can be exceeded. To this end, he presented results of his re-understanding of the Marxist view of history - in practice materialist dialectical view of history-based systems [1]. Ying Wu and Jiang Dachun proposed Pangzhuo feels the defects are not part of the theory of historical materialism of Marx’s materialist conception of history founded, but from the former Soviet Union is full of dogmatic textbooks; we can not negate the basic principles of Marxism and historical materialism is correct. After work on the Marne in-depth interpretation of them re-understand the meaning of the basic 2 principles of historical materialism, historical materialism that do not agree with the criticism of Jiang Dachun advocated in the new historical conditions, to continue to carry forward the historical materialism of science and rationality [ 2]. Wang Rui-sheng, Ma Jie Sha also believe that ‘the traditional historical materialism’ Jiang Wen said, the existence of the ‘flaws’, they also believe that these defects belong to the Soviet Union and the ‘left’ line version of historical materialism, historical materialism is not itself defects. Of reform and opening up 20 years of historical materialism of basic research has to make these defects exist, and Jiang Wen’s criticism of historical materialism still remain at the starting point for more than 20 years ago, a serious departure from the text of Marx’s ‘tradition of historical materialism’, and treat it as a real historical materialism to criticize, this is pulling the old accounts of history. In fact, ‘the traditional historical materialism’ lack of practice, people and values, in Marx’s writings can be found. JIANG Wen put forward a ‘materialist dialectic practice-based systems view of history’, it is dialectical materialism, in practice, based on systems theory thinking three features of the Marxist historical materialism are available. Therefore, JIANG Wen-with ‘the 3 development of the Marxist view of history’ to negate, beyond the ‘historical materialism’ is self-contradictory [3] (pp.3 ~ 6). The same with the Jiangda Chun, Guo Xiaolin that the ‘traditional’ materialist conception of history belongs to the founders of Marxism, and not part of Stalin or the Soviet scholars do not agree to ‘traditional’ materialist conception of history comes down to the Soviet Union imported goods that it has underestimated the people’s theory of learning at home and abroad cultivation. However, unlike other scholars, he thinks that the current core principle of historical materialism with a number of secondary principles is still a valid method of historical understanding of contemporary life itself can still be well within the theoretical framework of historical materialism’s explanation [4] (p.13). Chen Xian-da that the materialist conception of history since its inception, in theory and practice show an irresistible persuasiveness. In the complex of the new century, the face of economic globalization and the new pattern of multi-polar world, only by adhering to the laws of social development of historical materialism in order to deeply understand the direction of development of human society and capitalism, the 4 socialist future and destiny. Therefore, in the contemporary historical materialism is not beyond the [5]. Second, how to understand the social being and social consciousness Scholars have differences on this issue mainly for the right social existence, social consciousness, as defined by differences in content as well as the relationship between the two different interpretations. Jiang Dachun that the ‘traditional’ social existence of historical materialism would be attributed to social and material living conditions (mainly production and socio-economic system), on grounds of social consciousness attributed to a variety of works and demonstrated the political, legal, philosophical , religious theories, viewpoints, and the corresponding political and social institutions, as well as scientific, literary, artistic works, etc.. Therefore, it is called social being determines social consciousness, social consciousness on social being counter-productive, in fact, leaving people and their practical activities, the abstract speculative to talk relationship between the two is simply non-existent. He believes that social existence should include a ‘material and economic existence of environmental 5 factors’, ‘political circumstances exist’, ‘spiritual and cultural environmental factors are’ three levels of social consciousness is that the people in understanding and transforming the world reflected in a variety of practical activities and growth of the consciousness and thinking activity. In the social existence and social consciousness were so defined, for the relationship between the two, he may decide that the social existence of social awareness, social consciousness can determine the existence, when the conditions are ripe, when, after a new sense of control under the social practices can create a new social existence [1] (pp.9 ~ 11). Jiangda Chun Zhang, this view has been reached in recognition of his social existence and social consciousness that the two concepts of interdependence so that the two concepts are the lack of its own connotation and extension of clarity, a result, the two concepts inevitably lead to the ambiguity of meaning that they the ambiguity of the relationship between social being and social consciousness of action and reaction between the decision there is no way distinguishable [7] (p.6). For Jiang Dachun of social existence, social consciousness, 6 the definition of meaning, Chen Xian-da that social existence is not a human existence, but the person’s social existence, is the process of people’s real life. Social consciousness is not the individual’s subjective consciousness, but social awareness is a reflection of people’s real-life and echo. Of course, there is also a kind of social consciousness, but we should see that there is not a distinction between historical materialism and the philosophy of language, but in everyday contexts. It simply is not that sense of nothingness, not non-existent. Social consciousness exists in the minds of men, there was to language and writing as a carrier of cultural content into. This kind of material existence as the carrier did not change its nature as a social consciousness. The relationship between the two, he believed that social existence determines social consciousness, social awareness can only be aware of the existence, opposed to the social being determines social consciousness as for the ‘death’ of the object decision ‘live’ in people’s thinking [5 ] (pp.40 ~ 41). Matej Lufthansa basic question of philosophy that the ‘presence’ refers to ‘material existence’. The social being is the process of the material life of society, namely, ‘social and material existence’. JIANG Wen-social existence as 7 all-encompassing social phenomena (including ideas) in the scope of the discussion will be lost, the relationship between social being and social consciousness premise. For the social being and social consciousness of the relationship between, Matej Sha do not agree with Jiang Wen’s ‘mutual decision’ point of view. Through the ‘decision’ philosophical connotation of the concept of the definition, pointing out that ‘decision’ refers to primary, and secondary Primitive things right, the derivative of the things the role played by the statute, but simply fails to account for the two who Jiangda Chun based of the original, Who is derived, which has shaken the ‘social being determines social consciousness’ is the fundamental basis of historical materialism [6] (pp.11 ~ 12). Wang Rui of Health equally opposed to social existence and social consciousness of mutual decision, he thinks Jiang Dachun fact of social ontology of ‘social being determines social consciousness’ and the epistemological ‘human consciousness not only reflects the objective world, but also to create the objective world’ to be confused a. In the social field, innovative things (existence) Although the concept of innovation actors in the premise, but the root of this concept is 8 still from the practice and reality. Therefore reflect the objective world of human consciousness can also create the objective world, truth, and can not prove that the general social consciousness, to determine social existence [3] (pp.7 ~ 8). Wu Ying, Jiang Dachun Pangzhuo constant that will be of historical materialism ‘social being determines social consciousness’ principle is equivalent to’ living conditions determine social psychology ‘cultural’ elite ‘placed to move beyond’ social being ‘, and be able to’ go beyond ‘land’ create the world ‘status, this is not a Marxist point of view of historical materialism, but Marx’s’ Theses on Feuerbach’ first and third of the old materialism criticized a basic point of view. Marxist historical materialism in the ‘social existence’ refers to ‘people’s real-life process’; so-called social being determines social consciousness, that is, ‘life determines consciousness’, ‘practice, determines one’s consciousness’. The concept of awareness is essential for life, the practice has great reaction, that is, the former on the latter may in turn create the role of promoting or procuring the withdrawal. However, this reaction is based on the decisive role of the latter on the former premise: the 9 people’s consciousness or, if the concept of a more comprehensive and profound reflection of life or practice, it will inevitably turn to the life or play a catalytic role in practice; if one-sided and shallow to reflect , it will inevitably play the role of promotion back [2] (pp.4 ~ 6). Reposted elsewhere in the paper for free download Third, how to understand the productive forces and production relations Jiang Dachun that the productivity of the past is a different confusion of the meaning of the concept, whether it is the second element that the three elements of that, or it is now understood as a system, it has become a speculative through a person will be thinking of a collection of various factors of an abstract concept, it is for the actual historical process does not make any difference. Jiang Dachun that the productive forces determine the relations of production to this rule in human history, the process simply does not exist, can not find any one historical fact to support it, is purely a speculative way of thinking movement. The development of the productive forces must provide the possibility of emergence of new relations of production, in some areas but not the emergence 10 of new relations of production. The other areas which the new relations of production, but it is not automatically determine the results of the productive forces, but the strength of factors of production other than the society at that time that the gradual formation of dominant forces of economic practices created. As the face of social domination and the specific conditions are different, although in practice the same type of material production and the conditions offered, based on their economic, political practice and the creation of social forms out there is a large difference between [1] (pp.8 ~ 9). Jiang Dachun on the law of the productive forces and production relations, this exposition will include three levels: First, the concept of productive criticism, and second, that the new productive forces and relations of production must pass beyond the power to generate the intermediary and the third is that to some extent in terms of productivity Based on the relations of production generated are diverse. It is for these three scholars have put forward their own views. For the understanding of the productive forces, Matej Sha believes that the productive forces of human transformation, the ability to use and protect the natural, human ability to understand and use the laws of nature the more intense the 11 higher the level of productivity. Productivity is not a purely natural forces, it is to communicate the relationship between human beings and nature, is the indicator of the level of human practice [6] (p.12). Wu Ying, Pang Zhuo Heng stressed that Jiang Dachun the productivity of the critical concepts, in fact the Soviet Union or from the dogmatic materialism, that is, productivity from the worker and the means of production (including production tools) coupled with two elements, or a total of three kinds of work object elements of composition, although certainly occupies a leading position in which the workers, but in practice has often demonstrated in the instruments of production as a measure of ‘the nature and level of productive forces’ basic signs; that productivity within the meaning of historical materialism is not a ‘three-factor’ or ‘two elements’ of the compounds, but individuals or groups of workers in the production process using a combination of factors of production of manufacturing capacity, production tools and therefore can not be used to measure the degree or level of their development, but should be used as the Marx efficiency, labor productivity, output, total products like the ‘yardstick’ to measure the level of 12 productivity; with this kind of ‘yardstick’ to measure, ‘productivity’ will no longer be ‘confusion of the meaning of the concept of different’, and the productive forces determines the production relationship is no longer the law ‘can not find any one historical fact to support’ the nonsense of. For example, when the productive capacity of workers developed to provide a considerable surplus, enough to support a direct productive labor from the social and public functions specifically to fulfill the class, but not enough to break through the limitations of natural economy, they inevitably produce the kind of Marxism that to ‘people’s dependency’ as a common feature of the relations of production, including the ‘patriarchal relations, the ancient community, the feudal system and the guild system’, and so the relations of production; once development of productive capacity to have more surplus, enough to break through the natural economic constraints, but also to widespread use of commodity exchange, will inevitably produce a ‘material based on the dependence of the person’s independence’ is characterized by the relations of production, including the capitalist relations of production and all commodity production and exchange-based production relations [2] (pp.6 13 ~ 10). Wang Rui Jiang Wen-sheng believes that the productivity of factors of production as an economic process to break open, and then each argument as a ‘matter’ of labor data and as a ‘labor’ workers can not determine the relations of production, it is not in the discussion of human activity law of history. In fact, in view of historical materialism, productivity is not simply what is ‘material’ factors, but the person’s practice to the acquired force, the product of past activities and the practical ability of the results of [3] (p.8). Jiang Dachun thought about the new relations of production must pass outside of the productive forces ‘social dominating power’ of economic practices as an intermediary force to generate the view has been reached, and Chou Hsiang-Sen Zhang recognition. That human material production practice (including the inherent productivity) for people to engage in other activities and provides for certain changes in the history of the possibilities and limits, but productivity can not be giving people the will and motivation of the next activity can not be divorced from a variety of intermediaries and external conditions play a role [7] (p.10). That if the main body without the person as a social history of 14 social practice, no matter how high level of productive forces and production relations and economic form of society are not automatically, necessarily any fundamental changes; and through people’s various types of social practical activities, especially on social and political revolution in the way of practical activities, the production relations and economic form of society may not only the level of development of social productive forces, a fundamental change, and even large-span of the fundamental changes in leaps and bounds [8] (p .87). Chen Xian-da, Wang Rui Jiang Dachun Health may not agree that the new relations of production must pass the economic forces of social domination practices to produce, but they also stressed that the new relations of production necessary to produce an intermediary force - interests. That the contradiction between productive forces and production relations, the science of law is revealed by the nature of the necessary link between the two. No one involved in this linkage is not the productive forces and production relations of self-movement, but certain groups of people (class or group) carried out their own interests under certain conditions, the choice of [5] (pp.39 ~ 40). The interaction between the two 15 is through the interests of this sector to achieve. It is the interests of the productive forces have been with God to help him adapt to the relations of production [3] (p.8). For the productive forces and production relations role of the intermediary, whether it is the practical activities of social domination and the creation of God or a health benefits the help of the relationship between them and the productivity of what are to be defined. Ying Wu, Pangzhuo constant at the end of primitive society, the emergence of new discussion of the relations of production can be viewed as an answer: the development of productivity is not only produced a surplus, but also resulted in increasingly complex social and public functions; in the remaining few who both left circumstances will inevitably produce a small number of people, from the direct production labor and specializes in the performance of public functions of the special class; they are both social and public functions to fulfill the ‘public servant’, while gradually taking advantage of his privilege to become ‘master’ -- exploiters and oppressors. That is precisely the development of productivity caused by changes in the social division of labor, and social changes in public functions, causing changes in class relations and interests, thus 16 generating new relations of production [2] (pp.10 ~ 11). As Jiang Dachun considers certain based on the development of productive forces, due to social domination and the specific conditions faced by different, their economic, political practice and the creation of social forms out, there are big differences in the relations of production must be produced are diverse. Zhang reached this point in the discourse has also been recognized. Zhang reach that person’s material production practice (including the inherent productivity) for people to engage in other activities and provides for certain changes in the history of the possibilities and restrictive, but only people can be a realistic choice and limited that possibility into reality sex; all the laws are just people’s practice under certain conditions, the possibility and tendency. In the productive forces within the limited space, people’s choice is not always necessary and the only [7] (p.9). Other scholars, though not agree with Jiang Dachun forces determine the relations of production rules for the negative, but the relations of production of specific forms of diversity, this view is still recognized. Wang Rui of Health revealed that the productivity of Marx’s relations of production is not the law of the specific laws of a 17 particular historical event, but the fundamental laws of historical development of mankind. From the trend point of view, it can not be denied. This social history of the law has only decided that the general trend of historical development, and can not decide on the specific form of historical development, so it is only a ‘statistical decision theory’ [3] (p.7). Matej Lufthansa confusion that Jiang Dachun activity patterns of human activities and the subjective and objective differences between the activities of the selectivity and the absolute opposite of the objectivity of the law. Although due to people’s choice, historical results are not stereotyped, but the people’s choice is not arbitrary, it is an objective under the conditions given by choice. History is in a space with multiple possibilities expanded, this historic space was objective and necessity are limited. In this historical space, the possibility of what could eventually become a kind of reality, it depends on the selectivity of the people. In this sense, the history of the law of statistical laws, rather than the strict laws of cause and effect [6] (p.11). Wang is also, says that the productive forces determine the necessity of the relations of production is different from the 18 ‘accuracy of the natural sciences’, the subject is a human society, while the person is conscious, human activities are the subject of history, sense of control activities. It is mainly reflected in the general trend of historical development. The historical path of development varied, incidental heaven and earth is very vast, specific historical events there is no such necessity [9] (p.21). Wu Ying, Pang Zhuo Heng believes that the actual course of history from the point of view, the main forces determine the relations of production is to determine the general characteristics of the relations of production, rather than directly determines the relations of production as well as the concrete form of the superstructure or specific characteristics. This is different specific forms can not be said to be directly determined by the level of production, but such as Marx and Engels pointed out the same: ‘It reached the sum of productive forces determines the social situation’; ‘social structure and the state is always a certain individual generated in the process of life ‘; that is, social structure and the state, and so the concrete form is the’ sum of productive forces’ under the broad framework of the decision, ‘from a certain personal life generated in the process’, can be more specific 19 said that, in largely by specific groups of people in life practice, the formation of a historical process of production and lifestyle, and social integration in a decision [2] (p.19). 4, how to understand the law of social and historical development Jiang Dachun that productivity determines the production relations, the economic base determines the superstructure, difficult to set up a universal law. He believes that the whole of human history is only one common fundamental law: that as people understand and transform the natural ability to improve people’s material and production practice activities in the continuous fast slowly driving the material productive forces. People practice the laws of material production the results of work does not automatically bound to decide some kind of corresponding social form. People’s social form is provided in the material reality of production practices on the basis of social domination by the forces of economic, political practices created. As the face of social domination and the specific conditions are different, although in practice the same type of material production to provide the basis of their economic, political practice and the creation of social forms out there are also great differences. This is a regularity, and 20 creative activities for people to choose the unity of the actual development of a very complex process [1] (p.18). Ying Wu, Pangzhuo feels the dogmatic interpretation of historical materialism the law of the economic base determines the superstructure, as it explained the law of productive forces determine the relations of production, like, there are serious flaws, mainly the relations of production is that it simply boils down to the means of production ownership relations, but also a direct relationship between the ownership of the means of production is equivalent to the economic base; then summed up as primitive means of production and ownership relations, ownership, slavery, feudalism, capitalism and socialism - communism, such a ‘five basic relations of production’, then the social and historical development of the law comes down to ‘five kinds of modes of production in turn change the law’. Such a dogmatic ‘law of historical development’ is indeed more and more unconvincing. Today’s world half a century since the historical process and historical research led us to the new law of historical development of human understanding [2] (p.13). Ying Wu, Pangzhuo constant and further verified on the law of historical development of Marxism-related Definition of 21 that Marxist historical materialism reveals the laws of historical development is actually referring to the practice of human material production activities and the practice of capacity development is bound to promote economic relations between the corresponding (including the relations of production) as well as social, political and spiritual forms of relationships and exchanges of development from lower to higher laws of causal necessity, as its development process which has to undergo a specific form or stage, Marx is only an object for different study done some ‘ general ‘description of induction, can not give a description of the process of induction as the universal law of human history. For example, Marx himself clearly pointed out the kind of western Europe does not apply to slavery and serfdom in the East for example, the general form of slavery; this is just the point of view from Europe’s. He also pointed out that he was in the ‘Das Kapital’ in the outlined capitalism ‘of this movement of’ historical inevitability ‘is expressly limited to Western European countries’, such as the late 19th century, countries like Russia, it is possible to skip the capitalist’s’ Card Fu Ding Canyon ‘and move towards socialism. Marx had never seen the so-called ‘five kinds of modes of production in turn 22 change’ as a universal law. In contrast, they believe Marx ‘1857-1858 Manuscript on Economics’ proposed ‘three forms’ or’ the three stages of ‘the closest to a more complete expression of the universal law of historical development of mankind [2] (pp .14 ~ 19). Reposted elsewhere in the paper for free download References: [1] Jiang Dachun. Contemporary Chinese Historiography in the intellectual development of the Marxist conception of history [J]. Historical research, 2001, (4). [2] Ying Wu, Pangzhuo constant. Carry forward the historical materialism of science and rationality - Discussion with Mr. Jiang Dachun [J]. Historical research, 2002, (1). [3] Wang Rui of Health. Historical Materialism: Development, or beyond? [J]. Philosophical studies, 2002, (1). [4] Guo Xiaolin. On Historical Materialism and its historical destiny [J]. Historiography, 2003, (1). [5] Chen Xian-da. On the materialist conception of history and contemporary nature of the value of [J]. Universities theoretical front, 2002, (5). [6] Ma Jie Sha. ‘Beyond’ or ‘Reply’ - and the 23 "Modern Chinese History in the intellectual development of the Marxist conception of history" a text open to discussion [J]. Journal of Social Sciences Series, 2002, (4). [7] Zhang reached. Comments Jiangda Chun and Wu Ying, Pangzhuo constant contention surrounding the theory of historical materialism [J]. Journal of Historical Science, 2003, (three). [8] Chou Hsiang-Sen. The objective world, the world’s confrontation with the text - the new form of Marxist theory, history review of reviews [J]. Journal of Historical Science, 2004, (3). [9] Wang also Yang. With regard to the theory of historical materialism prevalent a few questions - Comment on "Historical Research" recently published two articles [J]. Social science front, 2002, (6). Reposted elsewhere in the paper for free download 24