文献学与马克思主义基本理论研究的科学立场——答鲁克俭和日本学者大村泉等人

2005年以来,广松涉《文献学语境中的<德意志意识形态>》一书引发了国内外学者的高度关注。其中,鲁克俭依据西方马克思学的“最新成果”批评了该书“代译序”作者所持观点的历史“陈旧性”。其实,作者并非没有注意到陶伯特等人的这些新资料,只是坚持认为,中国马克思主义的文本研究不能简单地建基于马克思学之上。对于马克思主义者来说,经典文本的理解和基本编排方式,不仅仅是文献的结构问题,还涉及马克思、恩格斯思想发展的内在逻辑问题。至于日本学者大村泉等人认为的广松涉没有理解20世纪70年代以来的最新成果,并且审订者对广松涉版《德意志意识形态》的评价过高等问题,必须指出,译介广松涉是因其在国外马克思主义学术史上具有里程碑式的意义,更是由于他是一位自觉进行东西方对话的思想大师。中外学者的这些不同意见表明:必须认真谨慎处理西方马克思学的文献学研究与马克思主义的文本学研究之间的复杂关系,重要的是深化对马克思主义内在理论逻辑的认识,并用当代中国最重要的实践成果推进这一科学思想运动。

Textology and the Scientific Standpoint of Marxist Studies A Reply to Mr Lu Kejian and Japanese Scholars

Since 2005, The Chinese version of Wataru Hiromatsu's DOITSU IDEOROGI has drawn a lot of attraction. Based on the recent studies of Marxology, Mr. Lu Kejian criticized the opinions of the preface written by me. But the reason for my rejecting their conclusion is that I insist that the Marxist textology in China do not have to rely on the West Marxology. For the edit and interpretation of classic texts is not only a techical problem but also concerning the inner logic of Marx and Engels' theorical develpoment. And the critique posed by Japanese scholars were on both Hiromatsu' s neglet of the rencent editing development after 1970s and the immoderate compliment supplied by me to him. I think that Hiromatsu's edition is of great importance in the academic history, furthermore, he was a great thinker basing himself on the Japanese and Marxist tranditions. The discussions remind us that we should take the relationship between Marxology and Marxism seriously and the object of Chinese Marxists is the full comprehension of Marx and Engel's philosophy and the advancement of Marxism in the context of contemporary China.