逻辑方法和历史方法

【导读】

本文摘自恩格斯写的书评《卡尔·马克思〈政治经济学批判〉》。这篇著作不仅是应马克思的请求。而且是按马克思的要求写的。1859 年7 月19 日马克思在给恩格斯的信中讲了书评的主要内容应该是：“简短地谈一下方法问题和内容上的新东西”。

【箴言】

历史从哪里开始，思想进程也应当从哪里开始，而思想进程的进一步发展不过是历史过程在抽象的、理论上前后一贯的形式上的反映；这种反映是经过修正的，然而是按照现实的历史过程本身的规律修正的，这时，每一个要素可以在它完全成熟而具有典型性的发展点上加以考察。

【正文】

对经济学的批判，即使按照已经得到的方法，也可以采用两种方式：按照历史或者按照逻辑。既然在历史上也像在它的文献的反映上一样，大体说来，发展也是从最简单的关系进到比较复杂的关系，那么，政治经济学文献的历史发展就提供了批判所能遵循的自然线索，而且，大体说来，经济范畴出现的顺序同它们在逻辑发展中的顺序也是一样的。这种形式看来有好处，就是比较明确，因为这正是跟随着现实的发展，但是实际上这种形式至多只是比较通俗而已。历史常常是跳跃式地和曲折地前进的，如果必须处处跟随着它，那就势必不仅会注意许多无关紧要的材料，而且也会常常打断思想进程；并且，写经济学史又不能撇开资产阶级社会的历史，这就会使工作漫无止境，因为一切准备工作都还没有做。

因此，逻辑的方式是唯一适用的方式。但是，实际上这种方式无非是历史的方式，不过摆脱了历史的形式以及起扰乱作用的偶然性而已。历史从哪里开始，思想进程也应当从哪里开始，而思想进程的进一步发展不过是历史过程在抽象的、理论上前后一贯的形式上的反映；这种反映是经过修正的，然而是按照现实的历史过程本身的规律修正的，这时，每一个要素可以在它完全成熟而具有典型性的发展点上加以考察。

英文鉴赏

Even after the determination of the method, the critique of economics could still be arranged in two ways — historically or logically. Since in the course of history, as in its literary reflection, the evolution proceeds by and large from the simplest to the more complex relations, the historical development of political economy constituted a natural clue, which the critique could take as a point of departure, and then the economic categories would appear on the whole in the same order as in the logical exposition. This form seems to have the advantage of greater lucidity, for it traces the actual development, but in fact it would thus become, at most, more popular. History moves often in leaps and bounds and in a zigzag line, and as this would have to be followed throughout, it would mean not only that a considerable amount of material of slight importance would have to be included, but also that the train of thought would frequently have to be interrupted; it would, moreover, be impossible to write the history of economy without that of bourgeois society, and the task would thus become immense, because of the absence of all preliminary studies.

The logical method of approach was therefore the only suitable one. This, however, is indeed nothing but the historical method, only stripped of the historical form and diverting chance occurrences. The point where this history begins must also be the starting point of the train of thought, and its further progress will be simply the reflection, in abstract and theoretically consistent form, of the historical course. Though the reflection is corrected, it is corrected in accordance with laws provided by the actual historical course, since each factor can be examined at the stage of development where it reaches its full maturity, its classical form.