Understanding history
理解历史
Ideas by themselves cannot change society. This was one of Marx’s first conclusions. Like a number of thinkers before him, he insisted that to understand society you had to see human beings as part of the material world.
意识本身不能改变社会。这是马克思的首要结论之一。如同在他之前的许多思想家一样，他强调，要理解历史，你必须把人类看作物质世界的一部分。
Human behaviour was determined by material forces, just like the behaviour of any other natural object. The study of humanity was part of the scientific study of the natural world. Thinkers with such views were called materialists.
人类的行为是由物质力量决定的，正如自然界的其它物体一样。对人类的研究，是对自然界的科学研究的一部份。持这种观点的思想家被称为唯物主义者。
Marx regarded materialism as a great step forward over the various religious and idealist notions of history. It meant that you could argue scientifically about changing social conditions, you no longer depended on praying to God or on ‘spiritual change’ in people.
马克思把唯物主义看成对历史上不同的宗教和理想主义观念的一个巨大进步。这意味着你能够科学地论证出改造社会的条件，你不再依赖于神或“人们精神的改变”。 （原译者漏译）
The replacement of idealism by materialism was the replacement of mysticism by science. But not all materialist explanations of human behaviour are correct. Just as there have been mistaken scientific theories in biology, chemistry or physics, so there have been mistaken attempts to develop scientific theories of society. Here are a few examples:
唯物主义取代唯心主义，就是科学取代迷信。但并非有关人类行为的所有的唯物主义解释都正确。正如在生物学、化学或物理学当中有过错误的科学理论，在有关社会的科学理论的发展中同样有过错误的尝试。兹举几例：
One very widespread, non-Marxist, materialist view holds that human beings are animals, who behave ‘naturally’ in certain ways. Just as it is in the nature of wolves to kill or in the nature of sheep to be placid, so it is in the nature of men to be aggressive, domineering, competitive and greedy (and, it is implied, of women to be meek, submissive, deferential and passive).
一个流行甚广的、非马克思主义的唯物主义观点宣称，人是以特定方式“自然地”行动的动物。正像狼的本性要厮杀，羊的本性是挨宰，男人的本性则是侵略、专权、竞争和贪婪（同样，它暗示，女人的本性是驯服、柔顺、恭敬和被动）。
One formulation of this view is to be found in the best selling book The Naked Ape. The conclusions that are drawn from such arguments are almost invariably reactionary. If men are naturally aggressive, it is said, then there is no point in trying to improve society. Things will always turn out the same. Revolutions will ‘always fail’.
我们可以从一本名叫《裸猿》的畅销书里找到对此观点的一种表述。从这类意见中得出的结论几乎总是反动的。它说，假如人类天性好斗，那么努力改进社会是没有用的。事情总会归于老样子。革命“永远是失败的”。
But ‘human nature’ does in fact vary from society to society. For instance, competitiveness, which is taken for granted in our society, hardly existed in many previous societies. When scientists first tried to give Sioux Indians IQ tests, they found that the Indians could not understand why they should not help each other do the answers. The society they lived in stressed cooperation, not competition.
但其实，“人性”随社会而异。例如，在我们的社会里，竞争被视作理所当然，但在许多以前的社会里却几乎不存在竞争。当科学家们早先想给北美苏族印第安人做智力（IQ）测试时，他们发现印第安人无法理解为什么他们在答题时不能彼此帮助。他们所生存的社会强调协作，而不是竞争。
The same with aggressiveness. When Eskimos first met Europeans, they could not make any sense whatsoever of the notion of ‘war’. The idea of one group of people trying to wipe out another group of people seemed crazy to them.
再拿竞争来说。当爱斯基摩人第一次遇上欧洲人，他们对任何“战争”的概念都一无所知。某个人群设法消灭另一个人群，这对他们来说似乎是疯狂的念头。
In our society it is regarded as ‘natural’ that parents should love and protect their children. Yet in the Ancient Greek city of Sparta it was regarded as ‘natural’ to leave infants out in the mountains to see if they could survive the cold.
在我们的社会里，父母热爱和保护孩子被看作“合乎自然的”。然而在古希腊的斯巴达城邦，把婴儿丢在山里，看他们能否在寒冷中生存下来，才被看作“合乎自然”。
‘Unchanging human nature’ theories provide no explanation for the great events of history. The pyramids of Egypt, the splendours of Ancient Greece, the empires of Rome or the Incas, the modern industrial city, are put on the same level as the illiterate peasants who lived in the mud hovels of the Dark Ages. All that matters is the ‘naked ape’ – not the magnificent civilisations the ape has built. It is irrelevant that some forms of society succeed in feeding the ‘apes’, while others leave millions to starve to death.
“不变的人性”论无法解释重大的历史事件。埃及的金字塔，古希腊的辉煌，罗马或印加帝国，现代工业城市，被拿来跟欧洲中世纪住在泥屋里的农民等量齐观。全部问题在于“裸猿”——而不是创造了辉煌文明的猿。某些社会形态成功地供养了“猿”，另一些社会形态则饿死千百万。
Many people accept a different materialist theory, which stresses the way it is possible to change human behaviour. Just as animals can be trained to behave differently in a circus to a jungle, so, say the supporters of this view, human behaviour can similarly be changed. If only the right people got control of society, it is said, then ‘human nature’ could be transformed.
很多人接受一种不同的唯物主义理论。这种理论强调通过某种方法有可能改变人类行为。正如马戏团里的动物能够被训练得跟在丛林里的表现相当不同，因此，支持该观念的人说：人类行为可以同样被改变。它声称，只要合适的人主宰社会，“人性”就能被转变。
This view is certainly a great step forward from the ‘naked ape’. But as an explanation of how society as a whole can be changed it fails. If everyone is completely conditioned in present-day society, how can anyone ever rise above society and see how to change the conditioning mechanisms? Is there some God-ordained minority that is magically immune to the pressures that dominate everyone else? If we are all animals in the circus, who can be the lion tamer?
这个观点比起“裸猿”自然是进了一大步。但它无法解释社会作为整体如何能被改变。假如每个人都完全受当前社会的条件限制，那么任何人怎样可以高升到社会之上并看出如何改变条件限制的机制？是否存在天降大任的少数人可以魔术般地免除那支配着其他每个人的压力？假如我们都是马戏团里的动物，那么谁会是驯狮者？
Those who hold this theory either end up saying society cannot change (like the naked apers) or they believe change is produced by something outside society – by God, or a ‘great man’, or the power of individual ideas. Their ‘materialism’ lets a new version of idealism in through the back door.
抱此理论的人同样以宣称社会无法改变——就像裸猿论者——而告终，要么他们相信变革由社会之外的事物来造成，比如由上帝，或某个“伟人”，或个别人思想的力量。他们的“唯物主义”把一个新版的唯心主义从后门放了进来。
As Marx pointed out, this doctrine necessarily ends up by dividing society into two parts, one of which is superior to society. This ‘materialist’ view is often reactionary. One of the best known adherents of the view today is a right wing American psychologist called Skinner. He wants to condition people to behave in certain ways. But since he himself is a product of American capitalist society, his ‘conditioning’ merely means trying to make people conform to that society.
正如马克思指出的，这个教条必然地通过把社会分成两部分、其中一部分超乎社会之上而告终。这种“唯物主义”观点往往是反动的。拥护这一观点的最出名的当代信徒就是名叫Skinner的美国右翼心理学家。他想要以特定方式来制约人类行为。但由于他自己是美国资本主义社会的产物，他的“制约”仅仅意味着设法使人类适应那个社会。
Another materialist view blames all the misery in the world on ‘population pressure’. (This is usually called Malthusian after Malthus, the English economist of the late 18th century who first developed it.) But it cannot explain why the United States, for instance, burns corn while people in India starve. Nor can it explain why 150 years ago there was not enough food produced in the US to feed 10 million people, while today enough is produced to feed 200 million.
还有一种唯物主义观点把世间所有的苦难归咎于“人口压力”。（18世界后期英国经济学家马尔萨斯最早发展了这一理论之后，持此观点的人通常被称为马尔萨斯主义者）。但它无法解释为什么譬如美国焚烧谷物，同时在印度人们却陷入饥饿，也不能解释为什么150年以前美国生产不出足够的粮食来供养一千万人，今天却可以供养两亿人口。
It forgets that every extra mouth to feed is also an extra person capable of working and creating wealth.
这个理论却忘记了，每多一张需要喂饱的嘴，同时也会多一个能够工作和创造价值的人。（原译者漏译）
Marx called all these mistaken explanations forms of ‘mechanical’ or ‘crude’ materialism. They all forget that as well as being part of the material world, human beings are also acting, living creatures whose actions change it.
马克思把所有这些错误的解释方式称为“机械的”或“粗糙的”唯物主义。他们都忘记了，人类既是物质世界的一部份，同时也是行动的，并以其行动改变世界的活生生的人。
The materialist interpretation of history历史唯物主义的解释
Men can be distinguished from animals by consciousness, by religion or anything else you like. They themselves begin to distinguish themselves from animals as soon as they begin to produce their means of subsistence – their food, shelter and clothing.
“可以根据意识、宗教或随便别的什么来区别人和动物。一当人们自己开始生产他们所必需的生活资料——他们的衣、食、庇护所——的时候，他们就开始把自己和动物区别开来。”
With these words, Karl Marx first stressed what was distinct about his explanation of how society developed. Human beings are animals descended from ape-like creatures. Like other animals, their first concern is feeding themselves and protecting themselves from the climate.
通过以上论述，马克思强调了他对社会如何发展的迥然不同的解释。人类是起源于类人猿的动物。就像其它动物，他们首先关心的就是养活自己，保护自己免遭气候伤害。
The way other animals do this depends on their inherited biological make up. A wolf stays alive by chasing and killing its prey, in ways determined by its biologically inherited instincts. It keeps warm on cold nights because of its fur. It brings up its cubs according to inherited patterns of behaviour.
其它动物靠遗传的生物结构做到这点。狼通过追击和杀死猎物维生，这种方式是它的生物本能决定了的。在寒冷的夜间，它以毛皮来保温。它按照遗传的行为模式来养育幼兽。
But human life is not fixed in this way. The humans who roamed the Earth 100,000 years ago or 30,000 years ago lived quite different lives from ourselves. They lived in caves and holes in the ground. They did not have any containers to keep food or water in, they depended for their food on collecting berries or throwing stones at wild animals. They could not write, or count beyond the fingers on their hands. They had no real knowledge of what went on beyond their immediate neighbourhood or what their forefathers had done.
但人的生命并不这样固定。10万年前或3万年前漫游于大地上的人类，跟我们生活得相当不同。他们住在地上的洞穴里。他们没有任何容器可以拿来贮存食物或水。他们获取食物，靠的是收集浆果或用石头掷击野兽。他们不会写，超出手指范围就不会计算。除了近邻之外，他们不清楚别的地方发生什么，也不知道他们的祖先做了什么。
Yet physically their make up 100,000 years ago was similar to that of modern man and 30,000 years ago it was identical. If you washed and shaved a caveman, put him in a suit and walked him down the high street, no one would think him out of place.
然而就身体构造来说，10万年前的他们跟现代人以及3万年前的人是一样的。要是你给一个野人洗个澡，刮个脸，穿上一套衣服，让他在大街上走，没有人会认为有何异样。
As the archaeologist C. Gordon Childe has noted:
就像考古学家C. Gordon记述的：
The earliest skeletons of our own species belong to the closing phases of the last Ice Age … Since the time when skeletons of Homo sapiens first appear in the geological record … man’s bodily evolution has come virtually to a standstill, although his cultural progress was just beginning.
我们人类最初的骨骼属于冰川纪晚期……从那时起智人的骨骼第一次出现在地质学的记录中……人的身体的演进实质上已经中止，虽然他的文化发展刚刚开始。
The same point is made by another archaeologist, Leakey:
另一位人类学家李基（Leakey）也持同样观点：
The physical differences between men of the Aurignacian and Magdalenian cultures (25,000 years ago) on the one hand, and present day men on the other is negligible, while the cultural difference is immeasurable.
奥里尼雅克期（Aurignacian，法国旧石器时代前期）和马格德林期②（Magdalenian，欧洲旧石器时代的最后期）的人的身体，与当代人身体的差异，可以忽略不计，尽管文化上的差异无法估量。
By ‘culture’ the archaeologist means the things which men and women learn and teach one another (how to make clothes from furs or wool, how to make pots out of clay, how to make fire, how to build homes, and so forth) as opposed to those things that animals know instinctively.
考古学家所称的“文化”，指的是男女学习和传授给他人的（如何用动物的毛或羊毛制作衣服，如何用粘土制作罐子，如何生火，如何造屋，如此等等）、相对于动物靠本能了解的那些事情。
The lives of the earliest humans were already vastly different from those of other animals. For they were able to use the physical features peculiar to humans – large brains, forelimbs capable of manipulating objects – to begin to shape their surroundings to suit their needs. This meant humans could adapt themselves to a wide range of different conditions, without any change in their physical make up. Humans no longer simply reacted to conditions around them. They could act upon those conditions, beginning to change them to their own advantage.
这些早期的人类的生活，已经大大有别于动物。因为他们能够运用人类独有的身体特征——发达的大脑，能够控制物体的前肢——开始塑造环境以适合他们的需要。这意味着人类能使自己适应于大范围的不同环境，虽然身体构造没有任何改变。人类不再简单地对周围的环境起反应。他们能够按那些环境采取行动，开始按自己的利益改变它们。
At first they used sticks and stones to attack wild beasts, they lit torches from naturally occurring fires to provide themselves with heat and light, they covered themselves with vegetation and animal skins. Over many tens of thousands of years they learnt to make fire themselves, to shape stones using other stones, eventually to grow food from seeds they themselves had planted, to store it in pots made out of clay, and to domesticate certain animals.
最初，他们用棍棒和石头攻击野兽，利用自然界发生的火灾来点燃火把，为自己提供光与热，身上覆盖植物和动物的毛皮。过了好几万年，他们学会自己生火，利用别的石块来打造石块，最后自己播种来栽培粮食，把它贮存在用粘土造出的罐子里，以及驯养某些动物。
Comparatively recently – a mere 5,000 years ago, out of half a million years of human history – they learnt the secret of turning ores into metals that could be shaped into reliable tools and effective weapons.
到了相当晚近时期——在五十万年之久的人类历史中仅约五千年前——他们获知了把矿物变成金属的奥秘，这使他们得以铸造可靠的工具和有效的武器。
Each of these advances had an enormous impact, not merely in making it easier for humans to feed and clothe themselves, but also in transforming the very organisation of human life itself. From the beginning human life was social. Only the joint efforts of several humans could enable them to kill the beasts, to gather the food and keep the fires going. They had to cooperate.
上述的每一个进步都造成巨大的影响，不仅使人类能够更容易地供给自己的衣食，而且改变了人类生活自身的组织。从一开始，人类的生活就是社会性的。只有几个人联合的努力才能使他们杀死野兽，采集食物，保持火种不灭。他们不能不彼此协作。
This continual close cooperation also caused them to communicate, by uttering sounds and developing languages. At first the social groups were simple. There was not enough naturally growing produce anywhere to support groups of humans more than perhaps a couple of dozen strong. All effort had to be put into the basic tasks of getting the food, so everyone did the same job and lived the same sort of life.
这种持续不断的密切协作也促使他们通过发声和发展语言进行沟通。起先，社会群体是简单的。哪里都没有足够的自然长成的产物来供应大概超过数十人的人群。所有的努力都投入到获取食物的基本任务当中，因此每个人做着相同的工作，按同样的生活方式来生活。
With no means of storing any quantities of food, there could be no private property or class divisions, nor was there any booty to produce a motive for war.
假如没有工具可以保存一定数量的食物，就不会有私有财产或阶级分化，也不会有任何战利品可以引发战争的动机。
There were, until a few years ago, still hundreds of societies in many different parts of the globe where this was still the pattern – among some of the Indians of North and South America, some of the peoples of Equatorial Africa and the Pacific Ocean, the Aborigines of Australia.
直到不很久以前，地球上不同部分的数百个社会仍保持着这样的模式——在南北美洲的一些印第安人中间，近赤道的非洲和环太平洋的一些人民，澳洲土著。
Not that these people were less clever than ourselves or had a more ‘primitive mentality’. The Australian Aborigines, for instance, had to learn to recognise literally thousands of plants and the habits of scores of different animals in order to survive. The anthropologist Professor Firth has described how:
不是说这些人不如我们聪明，或有更多的“原始心态”。例如，为了生存，土著必须学会逐一识别数千种植物和不同动物的斑纹特征。人类学教授Firth曾这样描述：
Australian tribes … know the habits, markings, breeding grounds and seasonal fluctuations of all the edible animals, fish and birds of their hunting grounds. They know the external and some of the less obvious properties of rocks, stones, waxes, gums, plants, fibres and barks; they know how to make fire; they know how to apply heat to relieve pain, stop bleeding and delay the putrefaction of fresh food; and they also use fire and heat to harden some woods and soften others … They know something at least of the phases of the moon, the movement of the tides, the planetary cycles, and the sequence and duration of the seasons; they have correlated together such climactic fluctuations as wind systems, annual patterns of humidity and temperature and fluxes in the growth and presence of natural species … In addition they make intelligent and economical use of the by-products of animals killed for food; the flesh of the kangaroo is eaten; the leg bones are used as fabricators for stone tools and as pins; the sinews become spear bindings; the claws are set into necklaces with wax and fibre; the fat is combined with red ochre as a cosmetic, and blood is mixed with charcoal as paint... They have some knowledge of simple mechanical principles and will trim a boomerang again and again to give it the correct curve...
澳洲部族……知道猎场中所有可食用动物、鱼和鸟的习性、斑纹、滋生地和季节性变迁。他们知道岩块、石头、蜂蜡、橡胶、植物、根须与树皮的外观和一些明显特性；他们知道如何生火；他们知道如何运用热量来解除疼痛，止血，延缓新鲜食物的腐烂；他们还用火与热来硬化某些木材，软化别的东西……他们至少知道月亮盈亏的某些情形，潮汐的运动，行星周期，季节的次序和期限；他们把诸如风系、每年温湿特点、自然界物种的生长和出现的变迁等等的高潮波动联系起来……此外，对于被宰杀来食用的动物的副产品，他们也派予聪明而经济的用途；袋鼠肉供食用；腿骨用来装配石器或当作陶瓷的脚；肌腱用来捆绑矛枪；脚爪用蜡和纤维制作成项链；脂肪跟红赭调和为化妆品，血跟木炭混制成油漆……他们拥有一些简单的机械原理的知识，并用以制作一种反复的来去镖③，赋予正确的弯度……
They were much more ‘clever’ than us in dealing with the problems of surviving in the Australian desert. What they had not learnt was to plant seeds and grow their own food – something our own ancestors learnt only about 5,000 years ago, after being on the Earth for 100 times that period.
在对付澳大利亚沙漠里的生存问题时，他们比我们“机灵”得多。他们只是没学会播种，栽培自己的食物——我们自己的祖先大约只是在五千年前学会了它，那时至今才过了100个世代。
The development of new techniques of producing wealth – the means of human life – has always given birth to new forms of cooperation between humans, to new social relations.
生产财富——人类生存的手段——的新技术的发展总是带来人类协作的新的方式，新的社会关系。
For example, when people first learnt to grow their own food (by planting seeds and domesticating animals) and to store it (in earthenware pots) there was a complete revolution in social life – called by archaeologists ‘the neolithic revolution’. Humans had to cooperate together now to clear the land and to harvest food, as well as to hunt animals. They could live together in much greater numbers than before, they could store food and they could begin to exchange goods with other settlements.
例如，当人们第一次学会培育自己的食物（通过播种和驯养动物）并加以贮存（在陶罐里），社会生活中便有了一场彻底的革命——考古学家称之为“新石器时代的革命”。人类现在必须彼此协作来清理土壤和收割粮食，就像猎取野兽一样。他们能够比以前更大量地聚居在一起，能够贮藏食物，并且开始能够跟别的部落交换产品。
The first towns could develop. For the first time there was the possibility of some people leading lives that did not involve them just in providing food: some would specialise in making pots, some in mining flints and later metal for tools and weapons, some in carrying through elementary administrative tasks for the settlement as a whole. More ominously, the stored surplus of food provided a motive for war.
最早的城镇得以发展。第一次出现了一种可能性：某些人的生活不必只投入到提供食物上面：有的专门制作陶罐，有的开采燧石矿，后来是金属，用以制作工具和武器，有的从事为整个部落维持基本的行政管理的工作。越来越不祥的是，剩余食物的贮存产生了战争的动机。
People had begun by discovering new ways of dealing with the world around them, or harnessing nature to their needs. But in the process, without intending it, they had transformed the society in which they lived and with it their own lives. Marx summed up this process: a development of the ‘forces of production’ changed the ‘relations of production’ and, through them, society.
人们已开始借发现新方法来应对他们周围的世界，或根据他们的利益来利用自然界。但在此过程中，意想不到地，他们已改变了他们生存的社会，以及他们自己的生活。马克思总结了这个过程：“生产力”的发展改变了“生产关系”，并由此改变了社会。
There are many more recent examples. Some 300 years ago the vast majority of people in this country still lived on the land, producing food by techniques that had not changed for centuries. Their mental horizon was bounded by the local village and their ideas very much influenced by the local church. The vast majority did not need to read and write, and never learned to.
还有许多新近的例子。大约300年前，本国的大多数人仍靠土地生活，靠着数世纪来不变的技术生产粮食。他们的精神范围局限于当地村庄，意识则深受当地教堂的影响。大多数人无需读和写，也从不学习。
Then, 200 years ago, industry began to develop. Tens of thousands of people were drawn into the factories. Their lives underwent a complete transformation. Now they lived in great towns, not small villages. They needed to learn skills undreamt of by their ancestors, including eventually the ability to read and write. Railways and steamships made it possible to travel across half the Earth. The old ideas hammered into their heads by the priests no longer fitted at all. The material revolution in production was also a revolution in the way they lived and in the ideas they had.
之后，200年前，工业开始发展。数万人被拖进工厂。他们的生活遭遇到根本的转变。现在他们生存在大城市而非小村落里。他们需要学习祖先们梦想不到的技巧，乃至读和写的能力。铁路和轮船使环球旅行变为可能。由牧师敲进他们头脑里的旧观念已根本不再适用。生产上的物质革命同时也是他们的生活方式和持有的观念的革命。
Similar changes are still affecting vast numbers of people. Look at the way people from villages in Bangladesh or Turkey have been drawn to the factories of England or Germany seeking work. Look at the way many find that their old customs and religious attitudes no longer fit.
类似变化仍在影响大量的人群。可以看看从孟加拉或土耳其乡村被带到英国或德国工厂里的人们是怎样在寻求工作。看看许多人怎样发现他们的旧习惯和宗教观已不合时宜。
Or look at the way in the past 50 years the majority of women have got used to working outside the home and how this has led them to challenge the old attitude that they were virtually the property of their husbands.
或者看看在过去50年里多数妇女已怎样习惯了家庭外的工作，以及这怎样导致了她们向把她们事实上视为丈夫财产的守旧态度发起挑战。
Changes in the way humans work together to produce the things that feed, clothe and shelter them cause changes in the way in which society is organised and the attitude of people in it. This is the secret of social change – of history – that the thinkers before Marx (and many since), the idealists and the mechanical materialists, could not understand.
人类为了制造衣食和庇护所而共同工作的方式的改变，导致社会组织方式以及生活在其中的人们的态度的改变。这是——历史的——社会改造的秘密，马克思以前（及以后）的思想家们，包括唯心主义者和机械唯物主义者，都不能理解它。
The idealists saw there was change – but said it must come out of the skies. The mechanical materialists saw that humans were conditioned by the material world but could not understand how things could ever change. What Marx saw was that human beings are conditioned by the world around them, but that they react back upon the world, working on it so as to make it more habitable. But in doing so they change the conditions under which they live and therefore themselves as well.
唯心主义者看到了改变——但声称它一定源自上天。机械唯物主义者看到人类受到物质世界的限制，但不能理解事情如何能够改变。马克思则看到，人类受到他们周围世界的制约，但他们也反作用于世界，影响它，乃至于将它变得更适于居住。而在这么做时，他们改变了生存的环境，也因此改变了自身。
The key to understanding change in society lies in understanding how human beings cope with the problem of creating their food, shelter and clothing. That was Marx’s starting point. But that does not mean Marxists believe that improvements in technology automatically produce a better society, or even that inventions automatically lead to changes in society. Marx rejected this view (sometimes called technological determinism). Again and again in history, people have rejected ideas for advancing the production of food, shelter or clothing because these clash with the attitudes or the forms of society that already exist.
要理解社会的改变，关键在于理解人类如何解决他们衣、食、住的问题。这是马克思的出发点。但这并不意味着马克思主义者相信技术进步会自动产生出一个更好的社会，乃至于发明创造会自动导向社会变革。马克思拒绝这种观点（有时被称为技术决定论）。历史上曾经不只一次，人们拒绝衣、食、住的生产的进步，因为它们与既存社会的观念和形态相冲突。
For example, under the Roman Empire there were many ideas about how to produce more crops from a given amount of ground, but people didn’t put them into effect because they required more devotion to work than you could get from slaves working under fear of the whip. When the British ruled Ireland in the 18th century they tried to stop the development of industry there because it clashed with the interests of businessmen in London.
例如，在罗马帝国时期，有许多如何从一定数量的土地上生产出更多农作物的主张，但人们并不将之付诸实现，因为它们要求对工作更多的投入，超过了他们从处在鞭挞恐惧下的奴隶劳动所能榨取的。18世纪英国统治爱尔兰时，他们设法阻止那里的工业发展，因为它跟伦敦商人的利益相抵触。
If someone produced a method of solving the food problem of India by slaughtering the sacred cows or providing everyone in Britain with succulent steaks by processing rat meat, they would be ignored because of established prejudices.
如果有人提出一个通过屠宰圣牛来解决印度粮食问题的方法，或者把老鼠肉加工成肉片供应给英国的每个人，没人会加以理睬，因为既有的成见之故。
Developments in production challenge old prejudices and old ways of organising society, but they do not automatically overthrow those old prejudices and social forms. Many human beings fight to prevent change – and those wanting to use new methods of production have to fight/or change. If those who oppose change win, then the new forms of production cannot come into operation and production stagnates or even goes backwards.
生产的发展挑战旧的成见和旧的社会组织方式，但它们并不自动推翻那些旧的成见和社会形态。很多人奋力阻止改变——那些使用新的生产方式的人不得不为了改变而奋战。假如反对改变的人获胜了，那么新的生产方式便不能生效，生产将会停滞甚至倒退。
In Marxist terminology: as the forces of production develop they clash with the pre-existing social relations and ideas that grew up on the basis of old forces of production. Either people identified with the new forces of production win this clash, or those identified with the old system do. In the one case, society moves forward, in the other it remains stuck in a rut, or even goes backwards.
用马克思的术语来说：当生产力发展了，他们就跟以旧生产力为基础成长起来的既存的社会关系及观念起冲突。不是认同新生产力的人在冲突中获胜，就是认同旧生产力的人获胜。如果是前一种情形，社会将前进，否则它将停留在旧的轨道上，或是倒退。
发帖
雷达卡
提升卡
置顶卡
沉默卡
变色卡
抢沙发
千斤顶
显身卡
京公网安备 11010802022788号
