论文部分内容阅读
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 critique of “Theory of Factors ” and his elaboration of monistic conception of history have made an important contribution to the understanding of historical materialism. The difference between the theory of matter and that of historical materialism does not lie in the primary role of the former in treating “the same” the various factors while the latter emphasizes “economic factors,” but in the fundamental differences in methodology. Monistic historical materialism is based on the activities of “social man ” and comprehends the social history as a unified three-dimensional structure, thus leading human reason to the depths of society and studying the objective law within the historical movement in a concrete and practical manner. “Factorism” is decomposed, isolated, and society as a flat combination of parts, which leads to tangle between the interaction of various factors. The analysis of factors is necessary in the historical theory, but it is not useful in the history of philosophy, while the profound perspective of monistic historical materialism exists in the long period of history.