• search hit 149 of 295
Back to Result List

On Fromm's Reinterpretation of Marx's Historical Materialism [论弗洛姆对马克思历史唯物主义的重释], Master thesis, Marxist Philosophy, Shandong University, Jinan, Shandong, China 2018.

  • 19世纪中叶,新的世界观与历史观——马克思的唯物史观得以形成。一般认为《关于费尔巴哈的提纲》是唯物史观初步表述的萌芽,而马克思和恩格斯的《德意志意识形态》则一般被学界公认为是唯物史观第一次完整表述。但遗憾的是《提纲》与《形态》在当时由于各种原因未能公开出版,唯物史观是通过《哲学的贫困》和《共产党宣言》公诸于世。所以正是在这种意义上我们把《哲学的贫困》与《共产党宣言》看作是唯物史观的完成与总结,而《<政治经济学批判>序言》则被视为马克思唯物史观的经典表述。起初马克思和恩格斯将这一科学的>历史观<称为>唯物主义历史理论<或>唯物主义历史观<,后来恩格斯正式称它为>历史唯物主义<。①由于马克思对历史唯物主义的表述大多是描述式的、非系统性的,恩格斯晚年依然在对历史唯物主义作系统的整理、总结与阐释。这样,就给学术史上有关于马克思的历史唯物主义的研究留下很多有待探索的问题。很多学者从不同的角度出发阐释马克思的历史唯物主义,从而造成了马克思历史唯物主义的各种各样的争论与阐释。本论文力图依托历史语境和文本语境,勾勒出历史唯物主义经典建构的线索及其留下的问题,进而通过分析后世学者对历史唯物主义的重建工作,溯本清源,辨析正误,考究得失。通过分析哈贝马斯、莱尔因、广松涉、实践唯物主义等国内外学者对历史唯物主义的重建,一方面他们对马克思历史唯物主义做了有意义的拓展,尤其注重强调人的能动性在社会历史发展中的作用。但另一方面在很大程度上他们是另起炉灶,偏离了马克思的历史唯物主义,并且始终没有论述清楚经济基础与上层建筑,社会存在与社会意识之间的内在转换机制。而往往被学术史所忽视的一位弗洛伊德式的马克思主义者——弗洛姆对历史唯物主义的重释则具有一种深化理解历史唯物主义的启迪价值。弗洛姆除了对马克思历史唯物主义的误解作以辩护与澄清外,还将马克思历史唯物主义与弗洛伊德的精神分析结合起来,提出社会性格和社会无意识理论作为经济基础与上层建筑、社会存在与社会意识之间的连接纽带,阐明了两者之间内在的转换机制,即经济基础如何决定上层建筑,社会存在如何决定社会意识,打通了个人微观心理领域与社会宏观的经济领域,这在某种程度上更加深化了马克思的历史唯物主义。同时,我们也应一分为二地看到弗洛姆重释理论的很多不足,比如将马克思历史唯物主义的很多思想作了人本主义式的解读,这就引起了很多学者的反对。本文将对此一一展开论述,探究弗洛姆对历史唯物主义重释的价值与得失。
  • In the middle of the 19th century, Marx and Engels created a brand-new worldview-historical materialism. Theses on Feuerbach are called by Engels initial germination of historical materialism. Marx and Engel’s The German Ideology is generally acknowledged by the academic community as the first complete representation of historical materialism. However, for various reasons, >Theses of Feuerbach< and >The German Ideology< were not publicly published at the time. Historical materialism was publicized through >The Poverty of Philosophy< and >The Communist Manifesto<. Therefore, in a sense, >The Poverty of Philosophy< and >The Communist Manifesto< can be regarded as the completion and summarization of historical materialism, and the >Preface to A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy< is generally acknowledged as classical expression to the historical materialism. At the beginning, Marx and Engels referred to this scientific >view of history< as >historical materialist historical theory< or >materialistic concept of history<. Engels officially called it >historical materialism<. Because Marx’s representation of historical materialism was mostly descriptive and non-systematic, Engels still systematically summarized, arranged, and interpreted historical materialism in his later years. In this way, the study of Marx’s historical materialism in academic history leaves much to be explored. Many scholars elucidate Marx’s historical materialism from different perspectives, and derive various explanations and arguments about historical materialism. This thesis tries hard to draw the clues and problems left behind by the classical construction of historical materialism by relying on historical context and textual context, and then analyzes the reconstruction of historical materialism by later scholars, traces the source, discerns the right and wrong, and studies gains and losses. By analyzing the reconstruction of historical materialism by domestic and foreign scholars such as Habermas, Lylein, Hirose, and practical materialism, on the one hand, they made a meaningful expansion of Marx’s historical materialism, with special emphasis on emphasizing human activity in the development of social history. But on the other hand, to a large extent, they have set off on their own, deviating from Marx’s historical materialism, and have never discussed clearly the internal transformation mechanism between the economic base and the superstructure, social existence and social consciousness. Erich Fromm, a Freudian Marxist, was often overlooked by academic history. His reinterpretation of historical materialism has a deepening understanding of historical materialism. In addition to defending and clarifying Marx’s historical materialism misunderstandings, Fromm combined Marx’s historical materialism with Freud’s psychoanalysis, and put forward the theory of social character and social unconsciousness as the connection ties between economic foundation and superstructure, social existence and social awareness. The theory clarifies the internal conversion mechanism between economic foundation and superstructure, social existence and social consciousness, that is, how the economic foundation determines the superstructure, how social existence determines social consciousness, and opens up the microscopic mentality of individuals and the macroeconomic field of society. To some extent, it deepened Marx’s historical materialism. At the same time, we should also see there are many deficiencies in Fromm’s theory. For example, many thoughts of Marx’s historical materialism have been interpreted in a humanistic way, which has caused many scholars to oppose it. This article will elaborate on this one by one, and explore the values and gains and losses of Fromm’s reinterpretation of historical materialism. [Author’s translation]

Export metadata

Additional Services

Share in Twitter Search Google Scholar
Metadaten
Author:Shanshan Wang
Document Type:Dissertations
Language:Chinese
Year of first Publication:2018
Release Date:2019/03/04
Format:no download and copy possible
IdNo:Wang_Shanshan_2018
Writings about Erich Fromm (Secondary Literature):Dissertations / Dissertationen
Erich Fromm's Library and Erich Fromm Archive:Dissertations / Dissertationen
Licence (German):
Einverstanden ✔
Diese Webseite verwendet technisch erforderliche Session-Cookies. Durch die weitere Nutzung der Webseite stimmen Sie diesem zu. Unsere Datenschutzerklärung finden Sie hier.