阿克顿对历史唯物主义的批评.docx

阿克顿对历史唯物主义的批评.docx

《阿克顿对历史唯物主义的批评.docx》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《阿克顿对历史唯物主义的批评.docx（56页珍藏版）》请在冰点文库上搜索。

阿克顿对历史唯物主义的批评

TheOnlineLibraryofLiberty-B.H.Acton

http:

//oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?

option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=877&Itemid=28

HistoricalMaterialism

1.

Anti-metaphysical,PositivisticAspectofHistoricalMaterialism

WehavenowexaminedthemostfundamentalnotionsoftheMarxistphilosophy,andhaveseenwhatismeantbytheassertionthatMarxismisbothamaterialisticandadialecticalviewoftheworld.Wehaveseen,inparticular,thatMarxistsdenytheefficacyofspeculativethinkingandasserttheall-sufficiencyofscientificthinkinginwhichtheoryandpracticeareconjoined.Nowconsideredinitsmostgeneralaspect,theMarxistversionofHistoricalMaterialismistheviewthatascientificunderstandingmaybe—indeedhasbeen—obtainedofthedevelopmentofhumansociety.Itisthusoneoftheseveralattemptsatconstructinga“scienceofhistory”thatweremadeinthemiddleyearsofthenineteenthcenturyandarousedthosecontroversiesthatareassociatedwiththenamesofBuckle,Froude,Spencer,andDroysen.ThatMarxrecognizedsomekinshipbetweenhisviewofhistoryandthe“scientific”viewexpoundedbyBuckleinhisHistoryofCivilizationinEngland（1857）maybeseenfromtheletter—bestknownforthediscussionofDarwincontainedinit—hewrotetoEngelson18June1862.ReferringtotheannouncementofthedeathofBuckle,hesays:

“PoorBuckle,whoma‘friend’slandersintoday’sTimesbymeansofatestimoniumpietatis.”ThefriendwasMr.J.S.StuartGlennie,whohadbeenwithBucklewhen,afewweeksbefore,hehaddiedintheMiddleEast（theletteriswrittenfromBeyrout）,andthetestimoniumpietatis,Isuppose,isMr.Glennie’shopethatBucklewas“nowenjoyingthatimmortalitywithoutthehopeofwhich,asheoncesaidtomewithtearsinhiseyes,‘lifewouldbeinsupportable,’andinthemoreimmediatepresence,andwithdeeperknowledgeofthatGodinwhomhefirmlybelieved.”Mr.Glennie,however,goesontosummarizeBuckle’s“scienceofhistory”inthefollowingterms:

“

（1）Politicaleconomy—thescienceofwealth—isthedeductivesciencethroughwhichtheinvestigationofnaturalisconnectedwiththatofsocialphenomena,andthusthewayispreparedforoneuniversalscience.

（2）Thelawsofsocietyaredifferentfromthoseoftheindividual;andthemethodofaverages,withwhichhastobecomparedthemathematicaltheoryofprobability,isthatbywhichtheformeraretobeinvestigated.（3）Insocialphenomenatheintellectual,inindividualthemoral,lawsarechieflyoralonetobeconsidered:

allmoralsocialchangesarethusprecededbyintellectualchanges.”1AlthoughthisisverydifferentfromtheMarxistview,suchpointsofkinshipastheimportanceattributedtoeconomicsandthesecondarycharacterattributedtomoralsarestrikingenough.Buckle,too,likeMarx,associatedhis“scienceofhistory”withanattackonspeculativephilosophy,whichhecalls“metaphysics.”“Innootherdepartment,”hehadwritten,“hastherebeensomuchmovement,andsolittleprogress,”2buthisconclusionwasthatastherearenomeansofsettlingthedispute,therewouldalwaysbesupportersofthetwoparties,“sensationalists”and“idealists.”

Letus,then,makeourtransitionfromthefundamentalnotionsoftheMarxistsystemtothetheoryofHistoricalMaterialismbyconsideringthepositivist,anti-metaphysicalfoundationsofthelatter.Marxistsclaimtogiveascientificaccount,notonlyofthedevelopmentofhumansociety,butalsoofthehumanpropensitytoengageintheologicalandmetaphysicalspeculation.Thatis,thosewhoacceptthetheoryofHistoricalMaterialismbothdenythetheoreticalefficacyofmetaphysicalspeculationandalsoclaimtoshowhowitisthatmencometomisdirecttheirthinkingbyvacuouslyspeculatinginsteadofobservingandexperimenting.Perhapsitshouldbepointedoutatthisstagethattogivea“scientific”accountofhowmencometoadoptreligiousideasandtoworkouttheologiesandmetaphysicaltheoriesisnotthesamethingastorefutethereligious,theological,andmetaphysicaltheoriesinquestion.Forthesetheoriesmightbetrueeventhoughmencametoadoptthemforsomesuchreasonasthatbeliefinthemrenderedtheirlivesmorebearable.Ifsuch“scientific”accountsofreligiousandmetaphysicaltheorizingarealsotoberefutationsofit,thenitmustalsobeshownthatmetaphysicalspeculationisincapableofrevealingtruthsabouttheworld,thatthemethodsoftheempiricalsciencesaretheonlymethodsbywhichtheworldcanbeunderstood,andthatthesemethodscanbesuccessfullyappliedtohumanandsocialaffairs.ThusthefundamentalMarxistthesisisidenticalwiththatofpositivism,viz.,thatnothingcanbeknownbutwhatsenseperceptionandthemethodsofsciencereveal.Ifthiswererejected,thenitwouldbepossibletoholdboththattheMarxistaccountofthehumanoriginofreligionandtheologywascorrect,andthatcertainreligious,theological,ormetaphysicalpropositionsweretrue.ThattheMarxistsunquestionablyregardtheiraccountofthesocialoriginofreligion,theology,andmetaphysicsasshowingtheillusorycharacterofreligious,theological,andmetaphysical“truths,”isanaddedindicationthattheyacceptthepositivistviewaboutmetaphysicalspeculation.Psychologistswhogivesomewhatsimilaraccountsofreligiousbeliefsometimesguardthemselvesagainstcriticismbysayingthattheyarespeakingonlyaspsychologists,notastheologiansormetaphysicians.Butonthepositivistview,tospeakasatheologianormetaphysician（i.e.,asaspeculativephilosopher）istospeakidly,pointlessly,misleadingly.ThetheoryofHistoricalMaterialismisheldtounmaskthedeception,butitcanonlyclaimtodosoonthebasisofthepositivisttheoryofscience.

ItwillberememberedthatIillustratedMarx’spositivismbyreferencetohisjibethatmetaphysicalorspeculativethinkers—hehadHegelparticularlyinmind—supposethattheparticularthingsoftheworldaremanifestationsoftheIdea,asifthevariousspeciesoffruitsuchasapplesandpearsandstrawberriesweremanifestationsofFruitItself.3Inthetechnicallanguageofthephilosophyofhisday,Marxaccusedthemetaphysiciansofmistakingthepredicateforthesubject,thegeneralcharacteristic（“fruitness”）fortherealthing（theparticularapple）.NowMarxaccusedHegelofmakingthissamemistakeinhistheoryofpolitics.In§263ofhisPhilosophyofRight（1821）Hegelhadwritten:

“TheactualIdeaismind,which,sunderingitselfintothetwoidealspheresofitsconcept,familyandcivilsociety,entersuponitsfinitephase,butitdoessoonlyinordertoriseaboveitsidealityandbecomeexplicitasinfiniteactualmind.ItisthereforetotheseidealspheresthattheactualIdeaassignsthematerialofthisitsfiniteactuality,viz.humanbeingsasamass,insuchawaythatthefunctionassignedtoanygivenindividualisvisiblymediatedbycircumstances,hiscapriceandhispersonalchoiceofhisstationinlife.”4Thisisextraordinarilyobscure,andweneednotenteruponadetailedinterpretation.ButfromthecontextitappearsthatHegelisasserting（amongotherthings）thatitistheAbsoluteIdeaasmanifestedintheStatewhichprovidestherationalexplanationofthefamilyandtheeconomicorganizationofsociety—ifwemaythusroughlydesignatewhatHegelcalled“civilsociety”—andthatwithoutthesemanifestationstheAbsoluteIdeawouldnotbeinfiniteandreal.

Incommentingonthispassage,Marxwrites:

“Inthispassagehislogical,pantheisticmysticismshowsitselfveryclearly....TherealrelationofthefamilyandcivilsocietytotheStateisconceivedastheirinnerimaginaryactivity.Thefamilyandcivilsocietyarepreconditions（Voraussetzungen）oftheState;theyarethegenuinelyactivebeings,butinspeculationitistheotherwayround...[infact]thefamilyandcivilsocietyformthemselvesintotheState.Theyaretheactiveelement（SiesinddasTreibende）.ButaccordingtoHegeltheyaremadebytheactualIdea;itisnottheirownlifethatunitesthemintotheState,butitisthelifeoftheIdeawhichhasmadethemfromitself（diesievonsichdezernierthat）...thefactisthattheStateemergesfromthemasses（ausderMenge—fromtheindividuals?

）astheyexistasmembersofthefamilyandofcivilsociety,butspeculationannouncesthisfactasadeedoftheIdea,notastheIdeaofthemasses,butasthedeedofasubjectiveideadifferentfromthefact....Thefactthatservesasapointofdeparture[forHegel]isnotconceivedassuchbutratherasamysticalconsequence.”5Again,incommentingon§270ofthePhilosophyofRightMarxdescribesHegel’smethodasfollows:

“Therealinterestisnotthephilosophyofrightbutlogic.Theworkof[Hegel’s]philosophyisnottoembodythoughtinpoliticaldeterminationsbuttodissipateexistingpoliticaldeterminationsintoabstractconceptions.Thephilosophicalmomentisnotthelogicoftherealfactbutamerematteroflogic（...nichtdieLogikderSache,sonderndieSachederLogik）.LogicdoesnotservetoprovetheState,butonthecontrarytheStateservestoprovelogic.”6ThenextyearMarxwastowriteintheParisManuscripts:

“Senseexperience（dieSinnlichkeit）（seeFeuerbach）shouldbethebasisofallscience.Scienceisnotrealscienceunlessitsetsoutfromsenseexperienceinitsdoubleform,senseawarenessandsensedneed（dessinnlichenBedürfnisses）—unlessthereforeitsetsoutfromnature....Thenaturalscienceswillfinallysubordinatetothemselvesthescienceofman,justasthescienceofmanwillfinallysubordinatethenaturalsciencestoitself;thescienceswillthusbecomeone.”7

Wehavehere