|
|
|
| Question and Response: Does The German Ideology Have Unity? |
| Ding Zhongzheng, Liu Tongfang |
| School of Marxism, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou 310058, China |
|
|
|
|
Abstract The German Ideology is a landmark text in the historical development of Marxism. However, because of its complexity in writing strategy and sequence, and the arrangement and preservation of the manuscript, this text has left future researchers with questions about its unity.Since the 1980s, Marxist scholars represented by the editors of MEGA2 have questioned The German Ideology from the perspective of structural integrity. Their claims are called “Quarterly Theory”. In their view, the idea that The German Ideology is regarded as a complete “work” is questionable. The German Ideology is considered as only a loose “Quarterly” arranged by Marx and Engels, which is not an integrated publication. The “Quarterly Theory” advocates that the compilation of The German Ideology manuscript should follow the principle of chronology rather than the logic principle that prevailed in the past. The promotion of the chronology principle deconstructed the integrity of the textual structure of The German Ideology, and the more radical scholars of “Quarterly Theory” even completely denied the existence of The German Ideology and its “Feuerbach Chapter”. MEGA2 I/5’s treatment of the text structure of The German Ideology was regarded as a compromise: radical views were not adopted but the view of The German Ideology as a “quarterly” was retained.Other scholars questioned the logical integrity of The German Ideology. Japanese Marxism researchers paid attention to the difference between Marx and Engels in the writing of The German Ideology, and proposed a theory of “opposition between Marx and Engels” as based on “Engels Domination” and “Marx Domination”. They believed that The German Ideology is the result of a struggle between two authors with different theoretical claims. Althusser put forward a “Fracture Theory” by defining an “epistemological fracture”. He believed that there are “two Marxs” of “young” and “mature”. The German Ideology is considered as the intermediate stage from “young Marx” to “mature Marx”. Althusser’s view embodies two completely heterogeneous “general theoretical problems” in that the text is inherently “fractured” in logic. Chinese scholars have put forward similar views as Althusser, and believe that The German Ideology is a mixture of “two types of historical materialism” or “two logics of historical materialism”, both of which have inherent logical tension.All kinds of questions about the integrity of The German Ideology have different justifications and different degrees of response are needed to these questions. The German Ideology does have a certain degree of looseness in the text structure. Part of the textual research work of the “Quarterly Theory” is worthy of recognition, but the more radical views of Taubert, Carver and others are highly subjective and not sufficiently convincing. In the two doubts about the logical integrity of The German Ideology, the theory of “opposition between Marx and Engels” contradicts itself in argument, while the “Fracture Theory” exaggerates the theoretical and logical tensions of The German Ideology, and it is also too difficult to win the trust of others. The “Quarterly Theory”, the theory of “opposition between Marx and Engels” and “Fracture Theory” questioned the integrity of The German Ideology only in a single dimension of structure or logic, and neither saw the unity of text structure and logic, nor did it see the priority of the logic relative to the text structure. “Dispersed in form but consistent in logic” is an outstanding expression of The German Ideology in terms of completeness. The German Ideology takes the logic of “division of labor-alienation” as the main line, which has logical unity. Further studies of The German Ideology should be based on solid textual researches and specific investigations into the logical composition of The German Ideology manuscript toward an understanding of the theoretical wisdom in the structural construction of The German Ideology.
|
|
Received: 29 March 2021
|
|
|
|
1 德］英格·陶伯特编： 《MEGA：陶伯特版〈德意志意识形态·费尔巴哈〉》，李乾坤、毛亚斌、鲁婷婷等编译，南京：南京大学出版社，2014年。
2 韩］郑文吉： 《〈德意志意识形态〉与MEGA文献研究》，赵莉、尹海燕、彭曦译，南京：南京大学出版社，2010年。
3 德］英格·陶伯特： 《〈德意志意识形态〉各篇手稿的流传过程及其首次以原文发表的情况》，见林进平编： 《〈德意志意识形态〉研究》，北京：中央编译出版社，2013年，第3-52页。
4 中共中央编译局编译： 《马克思恩格斯文集》第四卷，北京：人民出版社，2009年。
5 Carver T.， “The German Ideology never took place，” History of Political Thought， Vol. 31， No. 1 （2010）， pp. 107-127.
6 Carver T.， “Whose hand is the last hand? the new MEGA edition of ‘The German Ideology’，” New Political Science， Vol. 41， No. 1 （2019）， pp. 140-148.
7 赵玉兰： 《MEGA2版〈德意志意识形态〉述评》，《国外理论动态》2019年第12期，第1-11页。
8 日］广松涉编注： 《文献学语境中的〈德意志意识形态〉》，彭曦译，南京：南京大学出版社，2005年。
9 日］望月清司： 《马克思历史理论的研究》，韩立新译，北京：北京师范大学出版社，2009年。
10 日］今村仁司： 《阿尔都塞：认识论的断裂》，朱建科译，石家庄：河北教育出版社，2001年。
11 法］路易·阿尔都塞： 《保卫马克思》，顾良译，北京：商务印书馆，2010年。
12 张一兵： 《回到马克思：经济学语境中的哲学话语》（第三版），南京：江苏人民出版社，2013年。
13 仰海峰： 《〈资本论〉的哲学》，北京：北京师范大学出版社，2017年。
14 中共中央编译局编译： 《马克思恩格斯文集》第一卷，北京：人民出版社，2009年。 |
|
|
|
2021, Vol. 51 
