History and the Generation of Humanity—A Philosophical Interpretation of Marx's Historical View

Author: Guo Yanjun
Publisher:
Publish Date: 2005-03-01
Features:
> Preface Whenever human history enters a new era, humans are inevitably drawn to look back and reflect on the arduous journey they have traveled. The purpose is not to enumerate the countless events, but to summarize experience, transcend history, critique themselves, and guide the development of humanity in the present and future. This is the unique charm of philosophy and history, a manifestation of humanity's metaphysical thinking nature and complex emotions. Therefore, Hegel said, "Minerva's owl takes flight at dusk"; yet on the other hand, this reflection is not merely to understand the past of humanity; its true purpose lies in the present and future of humanity, that is, through critical reflection on the past of humanity, to guide the development of humanity in the present and future. Thus, Marx also called this philosophical reflection the "Gaulish rooster." At this moment when humanity leaps into a new millennium, philosophical reflection on history once again attracts attention. Marx believed that the so-called world history is nothing more than the process by which humanity is born through human labor, the process by which nature is generated for humanity. This paper attempts to re-examine the connotation, dynamics, process, and the relationship between humanity and history through a philosophical interpretation of the generation of history and humanity, thereby providing a new understanding and explanation of Marx's historical theory. While questions such as what history is, the driving force of historical development, the process of historical development, and the relationship between humanity and history have been studied to varying degrees—whether through speculative historical philosophy, analytical and critical historical philosophy, or postmodern narrative historical philosophy—there has been no consensus. However, Marx's historical theory offers a brand-new perspective for understanding these issues, namely, understanding the history of humanity from the essence of humanity and its mode of existence. Therefore, it is necessary to first conduct a philosophical interpretation of Marx's historical theory to reveal the profound meaning of Marx's philosophical thought and lay the foundation for solving these issues. The need for this new interpretation stems from the following reasons:
First, since the early 1980s, China has engaged in a major discussion on the topic of "practice as the sole criterion for testing truth." Since then, the theoretical circles in China have explored issues such as alienation, humanism, subjectivity, and philosophical practice, leading to numerous interpretations of Marx's philosophical theory and the formation of a framework for understanding practical materialism (or philosophical practice). "However, few works have systematically and continuously elaborated on the special topic of historical theory." Our naming of Marx's philosophy has changed from "dialectical materialism and historical materialism" to "practical materialism." As a result, our understanding of Marx's thought has fallen into a contradiction: on the one hand, we uphold the practical essence of human subjectivity, yet on the other hand, we subsume the history of humanity under the laws of the movement of basic social contradictions, making the law a supernatural law and history a lawless history—this is a distortion of Marx's historical theory. Therefore, whether from the perspective of the theory itself or from the perspective of reality, it is necessary to re-examine Marx and interpret his historical theory from a philosophical perspective.
Second, against the backdrop of a profound cultural crisis in Western society, the increasing globalization of social development has posed severe challenges to the development of developing countries. What development path should these developing countries choose? Research on this issue, both domestically and internationally, is closely related to the study of Marx's late humanological notes and his theory of Eastern society. However, in the process of studying Marx's late philosophical thought, there have been shortcomings. The main point is that Marx's late thought has not been understood within the framework of his philosophical system, but rather certain viewpoints or ideas have been isolated from their overall context and analyzed and evaluated according to contemporary needs, leading to various interpretations and the emergence of different "late Marxes." Thus, following the debate between young Marx and old Marx, a major debate over late Marx has arisen. The resolution of this issue also depends on the understanding of history and the understanding of the historical process of humanity within Marx's historical theory.
Third, the study of philosophy and related issues has become an important field of research in the current philosophical theoretical circles both in China and around the world. This has not only opened up new areas for understanding Marx's philosophical texts but also raised new questions for the study of Marx's philosophy, particularly his historical theory, as Marx believed that history is the history of humanity, the process by which humanity is realistically generated through its own activities. Although we have always understood Marx's philosophy within the context of the development of Western philosophy, due to the limitations of our perspective, our focus has been more on its materialist nature, dialectical thought, and its critical analysis of capitalist society, etc. However, the classical German philosophy, the classical political economy of Great Britain, and the utopian socialism of Great Britain and France are merely the direct sources of Marx's philosophical theory. Limiting oneself to these cannot reveal the full essence of Marx's philosophy. In fact, from the development of Western philosophy since the modern era, the core of its ideological theory lies in the interpretation of the essence of humanity and its mode of existence. Especially in the field of historical philosophy, the development of historical philosophy from Vico to French Enlightenment thinkers and to the classical German philosophers of history reveals a sequence of thought that emphasizes the consistency between history and the generation of humanity. It was on the basis of critically inheriting this tradition of Western historical philosophy since the modern era that Marx constructed his own historical philosophy theory. Therefore, with the rise of philosophy, the increasing depth of research on Western philosophical thought since the modern era has provided a new perspective for reinterpreting Marx's texts, enabling us to conduct a philosophical interpretation of Marx's historical theory. At the same time, the deepening development of philosophical research also requires Marxism to respond. However, research that truly interprets Marx's historical theory from the essence of humanity and its mode of existence and provides a comprehensive grasp of his historical philosophy theory in different periods has not yet emerged, which is one of the important reasons for writing this book.
Fourth, this is a need for the study of Marx's historical theory itself. When elaborating on Marx's historical theory, people are accustomed to a diachronic approach, that is, by analyzing the development of Marx's thought, to elaborate on the thoughts of Marx in different historical periods and their interrelationships, providing a history of the development of Marx's thought. This is closely related to the fact that Marx lacked a systematic and comprehensive work to elaborate on his theoretical system. However, this approach inevitably focuses more on his mature period. In fact, the early period of Marx's philosophical thought already contained the seeds of all his ideas, while the middle and late periods were both the inevitable result of the internal logical development of his early thought and a further enrichment and development of it. Therefore, it is not necessary to be constrained by time but to pursue the internal logic of Marx's thought development and grasp his thought as a whole. In the current process of studying Marx's thought, the debate over young Marx, old Marx, and late Marx in theoretical circles stems from the failure to regard Marx's thought as a complete theoretical system. Instead, there is an obsession with the theories of Marx in different periods and the different discourses he used to explain his theories. The key to solving this problem lies in revealing the internal logic of Marx's thought development, and the core of this internal logic is Marx's interpretation of the essence of humanity and its mode of existence. In fact, Marx's philosophical thought is not, as traditionally understood, that Marx first inherited the thought of 18th-century French materialist philosophers, saved Hegel's dialectics through criticism of German classical philosophy, and thus established dialectical materialism, while historical materialism was an application and development of dialectical materialism in the field of social history. This traditional understanding model has not truly revealed the essence of Marx's philosophy. The core of Marx's philosophical thought is his historical philosophy theory. Through the analysis of the essence of humanity and its mode of existence, Marx critically inherited the tradition of Western historical philosophy since the modern era and constructed his unique historical philosophy theory. It was within this historical philosophy system that Marx unified his thoughts in different periods. It was also through this system that Marx not only ended the tradition of speculative historical philosophy but also pioneered the tradition of analytical and critical historical philosophy. However, in the current study of Marx's philosophical thought, this historical philosophy system has not received the attention it deserves.
First, in domestic research, the study of Marx's philosophical thought is mainly concentrated on two aspects: On the one hand, starting from the early thought of Marx, through an understanding of the practical essence of humanity and the mode of existence as elaborated by Marx, attempts are made to construct a new philosophical system of Marx. Regardless of its name, such as practical materialism, practical philosophy, philosophy of the species, or survival philosophy, its theoretical foundation is Marx's metaphysical contemplation of humanity in his early thought. On the other hand, starting from Marx's late humanological notes and his thoughts on the development of Eastern society, attempts are made to reinterpret the traditional understanding of historical materialism to resolve the contradiction between old Marx and late Marx. The focus of this approach lies in the choice of development paths for contemporary Chinese society and the developing countries. Both of these approaches fail to regard Marx's historical theory as a whole. The former overemphasizes the thought of young Marx, while the latter focuses on the contemporary historical significance of late Marx.
Second, in terms of foreign research, there are also significant differences in the study of Marx's thought. Humanist Marxism primarily starts from the thought of young Marx, criticizes the understanding of Marx's philosophy as dialectical materialism and historical materialism, and attempts to construct a humanist philosophical system of Marx based on his early thought, thereby turning to the critique of contemporary capitalism. Typical representatives include the social critique theory of the Frankfurt School, such as Horkheimer and Adorno. On the other hand, scientific Marxism focuses on Marx's critique of capitalist society in his later years, believing that there is a break in thought between young Marx and old Marx, and that Marx constructed a scientific theoretical system for critiquing capitalism by abandoning his immature early thought. This school is represented by Althusser, whose famous proposition is "Marx's epistemological break." At the same time, some schools in modern Western philosophy also hope to supplement their systems with Marx's philosophy, leading to various different understandings of Marx's philosophy. However, among these understandings, few regard Marx's philosophy as a whole and merely excerpt different parts according to their needs. As a result, there has been no comprehensive grasp of Marx's philosophical system. However, there is a common point in domestic and foreign research, which is that they all place great emphasis on Marx's discussion of the essence of humanity and its mode of existence, using this as a starting point to reconstruct Marx's philosophical system. This tendency, combined with the deepening study of philosophy, not only provides a new perspective for studying Marx's historical theory but also provides a theoretical basis for critically analyzing the traditional understanding of Marx's philosophy. The fundamental flaw of the traditional understanding of Marx's philosophy lies in its denial of the existence and value of human beings. In essence, the traditional understanding of Marx's philosophy is based on a natural ontology, which is rooted in the materialism of 18th-century France, and through Ernst Haeckel, Plekhanov, and Lenin, has formed the theoretical foundation for explaining Marx's philosophy. This is partly due to the late Engels' need to critique the idealism of Dühring and his new interpretation of 18th-century materialist thought, and partly due to the fact that many of Marx's early philosophical works were not published. This traditional understanding reduces everything in the real world to natural matter through an infinite reduction, forming the "material unity of the world." When this way of thinking is applied to the field of social history, it forms what Lenin said, "to divide the economic sphere from the various fields of social life, to divide the production relations from all social relations, to regard them as the basic and original relations that determine the rest," and to elevate them to the level of productive forces, thereby providing an objective standard for studying social development. However, this makes Marx's vivid elaboration on productive forces and production relations in the critique of capitalism into a rigid dogma, and the development of human history into a "natural historical process," thus dehumanizing human history. This not only distorts the original intention of Marx's historical philosophy but also obscures the profound meaning of Marx's critical analysis of capitalist society.
The core of Marx's philosophical thought is his social historical theory. Marx, as the inheritor and critic of modern Western philosophy, also started his research from the analysis of the essence of humanity and its mode of existence. However, Marx was different from his predecessors; he did not stop at the abstract understanding of the essence of humanity but linked the essence of humanity to the activities of real people through a critical analysis of German classical philosophy and British classical political economy. His understanding of history was not just for history but through a critical inheritance of speculative historical philosophy, he regarded history as the history of human activity, thereby establishing a completely new historical philosophy system.
First, in the Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844, Marx, through a critical analysis of the alienation of labor under capitalism, provides a comprehensive elaboration on the essence of humanity and its mode of existence. Marx pointed out that the essence of humanity is not an abstract entity but is continuously created through the practice of human beings in their relationships with each other. It is through human practice that the unity between humanity and nature is realized. Because human activity is a two-way process, on the one hand, through object-oriented activity, human beings give their essence to the external natural world, making nature possess human attributes and becoming part of the human world; on the other hand, because in the process of naturalization, human beings externalize their essence to nature, this is also a process of naturalization of human beings. Therefore, the history of nature and the history of humanity are unified and are unified in the real process of human practice. This is the foundation of Marx's historical philosophy theory. In subsequent works such as the Theses on Feuerbach and the German Ideology, Marx elaborated on the essence and internal mechanism of historical development from a metaphysical height and preliminarily divided the development of human history, all based on Marx's understanding of the essence of humanity and its mode of existence.
Second, Marx did not stop at this abstract understanding of human history but always combined it with concrete analysis. In Marx's view, "the general specification determined by thought as common to all production stages exists, but what is called the general conditions of all production are merely abstract elements, and these elements cannot understand any real historical stage of production." Therefore, it is necessary to analyze it concretely according to the characteristics of each era. Because history, as an expression of human activity, is the result of human activity, the confirmation and demonstration of the strength of human essence, can only be truly understood and grasped by specifically analyzing the concrete situation of human society in each era. Therefore, in Marx's historical theory, there always exists a dual logic: on the one hand, Marx, from the metaphysical level, elaborates on the three-stage theory of the development of human beings themselves through the relationship between labor, communication, and division of labor; on the other hand, Marx applies his metaphysical analysis of human history to the critique of capitalism, thereby revealing the historical development of capitalism in Western Europe, that is, the historical materialism as traditionally understood. However, because the main historical materials Marx encountered in that period were those of Western Europe, this specific analysis has limitations and is only applicable to the history of Western Europe. After Marx encountered historical materials of non-Western societies in his later years, this realistic critique turned to an anthropological critique, as seen in Marx's late humanological notes and his theory of Eastern society. However, it should be pointed out that in the process of turning to the critique of political economy and anthropology, Marx did not abandon his metaphysical analysis of the development of human society but always guided it. Therefore, we believe that there is no logical break between young Marx, old Marx, and late Marx, but rather a closely connected unified whole. It is within this unified theoretical system that Marx shows how humanity creates history through its creative activities and is realistically generated in history, thereby transcending the tradition of speculative historical philosophy and pioneering the tradition of analytical and critical historical philosophy.
However, in the elaboration of this book, on the one hand, to distinguish from the habitual diachronic research method, and on the other hand, to highlight the revolutionary transformation Marx achieved in the development of Western historical philosophy, this book uses the internal logic of Marx's historical philosophy as an implicit thread to govern the entire text. In the narrative, it elaborates on the development of Western historical philosophy from different themes such as the essence of history, the driving force of history, and the process of history, to reveal Marx's inheritance and development of Western historical philosophy. At the end of the book, a chapter is devoted to summarizing Marx's historical philosophy.
This book argues that the greatest contribution of Marx to historical philosophy lies in his linking the real activities of human beings with history, indicating that the development of human history is a dual process of generation. On the one hand, it is the process of history generating humanity; on the other hand, it is the process of humanity generating history. These two aspects are unified and are unified in the real, creative practice of human beings. Moreover, it is in this process of generation that the regularity and purposefulness of human activity are unified, and the development of human history can be shown as a process of humanity continuously self-transcending. Humanity and history are unified, and the process of historical development is the process of humanity being realistically generated through its own activities. The formation and development of Western historical philosophy gradually reveal this unity between humanity and history.
This book proposes that in Marx's historical theory, there always exists a dual logic: on the one hand, the three-stage theory of the development of human beings themselves; on the other hand, his specific analysis of human history, that is, the theory of the five successive forms of Western Europe and the theory of Eastern society. These two levels are unified, but they differ in context. It is within this unified historical theory that Marx shows the generative nature of humanity and history.