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)》请在冰豆网上搜索。
![阿克顿对历史唯物主义的批评.docx](https://file1.bdocx.com/fileroot1/2023-4/28/649c812d-e90a-4238-9d2a-be5a7fa73e28/649c812d-e90a-4238-9d2a-be5a7fa73e281.gif)
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