| The formation and development of Chinese Marxist historical theory cannot be separated from the learning and absorption of foreign scholars.Only by placing Chinese Marxist historiography in an international perspective can we accurately grasp the direction and progress of its development.At present,the research on the correlation between Marxist historiography and foreign academic studies is still a weak link,so it is necessary to carry out specialized and concentrated research on this issue.The controversy about history of society in 1920s and 1930s is an important event in the history of Chinese Marxist historiography,and also a great collision and integration of international ideas.As the most controversial issue in the controversy about history of society,the Asiatic mode of production has been developed and promoted in the academic interaction between China and foreign countries.Therefore,it is convenient to study the relationship between Chinese Marxist historiography and foreign scholarship by taking it as a case.To clarify the theoretical theories of the founders and early interpreters of the concept of the Asian mode of production is a necessary premise for understanding the controversy about history of society.Marx gradually materialized and conceptualized the theory of Eastern society on the traditional concept of the Eastern world in the European intellectual circle.However,Marx’s concept of The Asiatic mode of production is not fully discussed,which foreshadows the debate on the Asiatic mode of production in the theoretical circle.The later published Manuscript of Marx focuses on "Forms which Precede Capitalist Production",but it has not received sufficient attention from the academic community.The second international theorist Plekhanov,Lenin took the lead in elucidating the Asian mode of production.Although Lenin did not reject the concept of Asiatic mode of production,he avoided using it in the explanation of social form theory.Plekhanov interpreted the Asiatic mode of production as a new social form,thus leading to the multi-line theory of history.After his theory was introduced into China,it attracted many followers,and his geographical environment determinism and multi-historical view were both praised and criticized in domestic academic circles.As Plekhanov’s successor,Varga had a great influence in the Chinese academic circles in the 1920s.He inherited Plekhanov’s multi-line view of history and regarded modern China as an Asian society of production mode.His theory has inspired the study of Chinese social history and played an important role in the debate of Chinese social history.It can be said that the preliminary interpretation of the Asian mode of production laid the foundation for the debate on Chinese social history in the 1930s.The legitimacy of the Eastern society is the core of the debate on the Asiatic mode of production.Madyar,the master of Asiatic school,first combined Asiatic mode of production with Chinese history,which aroused the debate on Asiatic mode of production among scholars at home and abroad.Chinese scholars criticized Madyar’s theory at the same time,but also implicitly inherited and transformed,and gradually moved toward a compromise plan on the issue of Asiatic mode of production.Wittfogel analyzes the political system model of eastern countries and puts forward his absolutism theory,which raised questions about whether the economic base or the superstructure determines the nature of society.Due to the change of political identity,the academic circles of the later world often criticized his theories from a political perspective,while ignoring his influence on the academic circles of the Republic of China.Akizawa Shuji paid more attention to the state of "stagnation" and "cycle" in the process of Chinese social development,to a great extent,which has caused the academic circle to rethink the concept of linear development.Because of his advocacy for Japanese militarism,he was boycotted by Chinese scholars.However,the relevance of his theory to domestic academic circles should be valued.In short,the excavation of the oriental particularity by Asiatic scholars is not only a challenge to the legitimacy of Marxism,but also makes Marxist scholars’understanding of historical theory more flexible.Adherence to the legitimacy of Marxism is the fundamental position of orthodox Marxist historians.Orthodox Marxist historians try to integrate the Asiatic mode of production into the general principles of human historical development.Duborovsky was the first to carry the anti-Asiatic banner.Duborovsky associated the Asiatic mode of production with feudal system,which was warmly responded by Hu Qiuyuan in China,and set off a debate with Li Ji and others.However,Duborovsky’s social theory of serfdom has been criticized by the academic circles,which also puts his theory in an awkward position in the domestic academic circles.Goedes,who represented the official position of the Soviet Union,explained the Asian mode of production with a "hypothetical theory",clarified the universal principle of Marxism,and conducted a more thorough reckoning of the scholars of the Asian school.Goedes’theory has been clearly supported by Li Da,Lv Zhenyu and others in China.The"World History of Historical Materialism" written by Pokalov and others used the general principles of Marxist historical theory for the compilation of general history,which was quite popular in the academic circles at home and abroad at that time.However,while defending the universality principle of Marxist historical theory,the scholars of this school neglected the uniqueness of the development of eastern society,which also caused dissatisfaction and reflection of Chinese scholars.The problem of Asiatic mode of production begins to develop towards reconciliation from the struggle and reflection between particularity theory and universality theory.Scholars who advocate "variation theory" fully explore the particularity of eastern society under the principle of adherence to the legality of history,trying to find a balance and reconciliation between the generality and the particularity of Marxist historical theory.The Scholars represented by Kovalev interpreted the Asian mode of production as a variant of slavery in the East,thus gaining wider recognition in academic.Kovalev’s theory on the distinction between eastern and western slavery inspired Chinese scholars to further research.Both Lv Zhenyu and Hou Wailu developed the Asian mode of production on this basis.Lv zhenyu accepted Kovalev’s basic research path,and explained the two different communities in ancient China’s countryside,complementing the shortcomings of Kovalev’s theory.On this basis,Lv Zhenyu directed his research to a new direction,and put forward the slave theory of the initial stage and the developed stage.Hou Wailu’s research also began with the distinction between eastern and western slavery.Hou Wailu made full use of the discussion on the Asian mode of production in this material,revised Kovalev’s variant theory from the aspects of the evolution of land ownership form and family slavery,and put forward the theory of two paths for the development of the East and the West.Hou Wailu made full use of the discussion on the Asian mode of production in the material "Various Forms Before Capitalist Production".Hou Wailu revised Kovalev’s variant theory from the aspects of the evolution of land ownership and "family slaves",and put forward the theory of two paths of development in the East and the West.Different from the previous studies linking the Asian mode of production with other modes of production,V.Reikhardt and Hayakawa Jiro took a different approach and regarded the Asian mode of production as a transitional form between clan society and slave society.Hayakawa Jiro defined this transitional form with the "Gongna System".He Ganzhi highly praised their theories and explained them in combination with the specific historical content of China.But critics accused the pair of violating the basic tenets of Marxist theory of history.Although their theories have not been generally recognized by Chinese academic circles,their discussions on the continuity and transition of historical development are of great benefit to Chinese Marxist historiography.The theoretical travel of the Asian mode of production theory has caused a protracted debate in Chinese Marxist academic circles.Looking back at this debate in the period of the Republic of China,there are many inspirations for Chinese Marxist historiography.Generally speaking,influenced by political,academic and emotional factors,the response of Asian mode of production theory in China shows a diversified trend.The spread of the Asian mode of production theory in China shows three characteristics:from excessive extraterritorial dependence to deliberate sinicization,from confrontation of political ideology to rational academic analysis,and from demonstrating the legitimacy of oriental history to emphasizing the particularity of Chinese social history.The debate on Asian mode of production also highlights the inherent pluralism and complexity of Marxist theory.Only by adhering to this openness and inclusiveness can we better promote the development of Chinese Marxist historiography.The debate on the mode of production in Asia also left a rich academic legacy,which not only drove the academic circles to think about the development characteristics of Chinese social history,but also promoted the development of Marxist oriental social theory to a certain extent.In a word,the theoretical travel of Asian mode of production theory not only promotes the formation,development and maturity of Chinese Marxist historiography,but also is very beneficial to the exploration of China’s special development path. |
