【作者】 赵学昌；

【导师】 杨谦；

【作者基本信息】 南开大学 ， 马克思主义基本原理， 2013， 博士

【摘要】 面对当代中国社会诸多的社会问题和社会矛盾,面对学术界对马克思主义阶级理论的诸多质疑或诟病,重新审视马克思主义阶级划分理论及其在当代中国社会的适用,具有重要的理论和现实意义。在马克思恩格斯阶级划分理论生成之前,西欧资产阶级历史编撰学家、经济学家和空想社会主义学者对阶级的认识为马克思恩格斯研究阶级划分提供了思想素材。马克思恩格斯阶级划分理论是马克思恩格斯阶级学说的基石,是实现阶级学说理论旨趣的重要依托。探寻马克思恩格斯科学的阶级划分理论也是增强阶级学说现实适应性的客观要求。马克思恩格斯创立了内容博大、思想深邃的阶级分析学说,但他们从没有对阶级划分进行过直接和明确的理论阐述。他们的阶级划分理论主要孕育在对阶级形成和消灭、阶级关系的认识之中,而对阶级形成与消灭、阶级关系的认识又与他们的哲学存在着紧密的联系。马克思恩格斯阶级划分理论的内在生成经历了奠基、交错发展和理论标准的萌发三个大的历史时期。马克思恩格斯是从两条思维轨道上来思考阶级划分的。一个是理论思维的轨道,一个是实践分析的轨道。在理论思维的轨道上,他们运用抽象思维方法,在对人类社会发展动力和生产力、社会分工、生产资料所有制发展历程的分析中,形成了阶级划分的理论标准和理论模式。理论标准即是生产资料支配权和剩余劳动支配权标准。理论模式即是两极阶级和中间阶级三元的划分模式。在实践分析的轨道上,他们在对私有制社会的阶级划分中,形成了阶级划分的实践分析标准,即生产资料占有和剥削标准；但由于特定社会形态特定国家阶级结构的复杂性,他们没有形成、在实践中也并不存在阶级划分的实践模式。在阶级划分的实践分析标准中,马克思恩格斯也并未把生产资料占有简单或仅仅理解成生产资料所有。他们虽然较多使用了“占有”字眼,但除此之外,还大量使用了“支配”、“垄断”、“领导权”等语言表述。并且在对资本主义信用体系的分析时,他们还注意并描述了生产资料所有权与支配权分离的现象。马克思恩格斯之后,列宁、毛泽东等无产阶级革命领袖继承了马克思恩格斯阶级划分的实践分析标准,并取得了巨大成功。正由于此,后世的人们大都把该标准作为马克思主义的阶级划分标准。但此标准给现当代社会主义社会的阶级划分带来了诸多理论和实践上的尴尬、困惑,乃至灾难。在理论上,不是割裂此标准,就是宣称此标准的过时。在实践上,不是搞阶级斗争熄灭论,就是搞阶级斗争扩大化,最终导致第一个社会主义国家,即苏联的解体。现当代学术界,还有诸多学者背离了马克思恩格斯的经济地位划分标准,背离了历史唯物主义,混淆了阶级划分、阶级成长、阶级转化、阶级意识、阶级行动等范畴之间的关系,提出了从政治、文化等角度划分阶级的不同观点。马克思恩格斯之后,列宁、毛泽东等无产阶级革命领袖继承或丰富了马克思恩格斯三元的阶级划分理论模式,并依此制定了正确的政治策略。在无产阶级革命和专政时期,列宁提出了阶级妥协、阶级合作的政治策略,丰富了马克思恩格斯的阶级斗争思想。十月革命后,列宁在对无产阶级地位变化思考的基础上第一次界定了阶级的定义,表明了生产资料所有和剥削标准的狄隘性,开启了对马克思恩格斯阶级划分理论标准的探索。在现当代中西方学术界,美国学者埃里克·奥林·赖特、意大利学者卡切迪分析了中间阶级的矛盾地位,初步揭示了生产要素支配权的权利内容和权利地位,我国学者黄立茀、仇立平等人也强调了生产要素支配权在社会分层中的重要作用,一定程度上发展了马克思恩格斯的阶级划分理论。为了与马克思恩格斯阶级划分的实践分析标准、即传统的马克思主义阶级划分标准相区别,我们可以把马克思恩格斯阶级划分的理论标准称为科学的马克思主义阶级划分标准。科学的马克思主义阶级划分标准是正确划分共产主义社会第一阶段,即社会主义社会阶级的科学工具,是正确认识阶级斗争现象的一把钥匙。按照科学的马克思主义阶级划分标准,马克思所描述的社会主义社会可划分为国家和社会管理者阶级、普通劳动者阶级。这两个阶级的前身都是无产阶级。它们之间的关系并非必然是剥削关系。是否是剥削关系关键是看对集体劳动所得扣除部分使用的合理性、按劳分配的合理性。这两个阶级的存在符合社会形态更替下阶级转化的规律,也是社会主义社会走向更高历史阶段的必然要求。按照科学的马克思主义阶级划分标准,阶级斗争并非皆是基于剥削关系的阶级矛盾,并非皆是你死我活的社会革命,而是具有不同发展阶段、展现形式和转化结果的阶级矛盾。对当代中国社会的阶级问题,我国领导人和学术界既有共识,又有分歧。形成共识的是,皆认为在当代中国社会主义社会初级阶段存在阶级,虽然较大部分学者对政治或身份分层结果不予认可。分歧在于存在什么样的阶级,这些阶级的关系如何?一方面观点认为,仅存在工人阶级和农民阶级,其他无论原有阶层还是新产生的阶层都是社会阶层,不属于阶级；在两大阶级和各个阶层之间虽然存在着各种各样的社会矛盾,但不存在剥削和被剥削的关系。另一方面观点认为,在当代中国社会不仅存在着工、农阶级,而且还新产生了资产阶级或资产者阶级,并且后者与前者存在着剥削与被剥削关系。之所以产生分歧,原因至少有三个方面：一是对阶级斗争的惧怕,二是对是否影响中国特色社会主义建设事业的顾虑,三是对马克思主义阶级划分标准的错误认识。从阶级存在和消灭的条件看,当代中国社会显然不具备阶级消灭的经济基础。按照科学的马克思主义阶级划分标准,当代中国社会可划分分为国家和社会管理者阶级、私营企业主阶级、农民阶级、小工商业者阶级、普通劳动者阶级。各阶级之间的依赖、合作、团结和统一处于矛盾的主要地位,差距、分歧、侵害或对立处于矛盾的非主要地位。中国共产党在统筹各阶级关系、协调各阶级利益上发挥了中流砥柱作用。当前以致于社会主义初级阶段,我们党既要坚持和运用矛盾的同一性原理,又要坚持和运用矛盾的斗争性原理,采取科学的经济、政治、社会和文化政策,统筹协调各阶级之间的关系。更多还原

【Abstract】 Marx and Engels’s class division theory is the foundation stone of their class theory. It is very important that exploring Marx and Engels’s class division theory. The basis of this theory is the ideology of bourgeois economists, historian and utopian socialism scholars. The breeding of Marx and Engels’s class division theory experienced three periods.It was through two thinking routes that Marx and Engels considered class division. One was the theoretical thinking route, the other was practical analyzing route. Through the theoretical thinking route, they analyzed the developed process of the human society, the production capacity, the social division of labor, the ownership of the means of production, and formed the theoretical criterion and mode of class division. The theoretical criterion is that dividing classes according to the controlling right of the means of production and surplus labor. The theoretical mode is that dividing classes into polar and middle classes. Through the practical analyzing route, they divided the classes in the society of private ownership, and formed the practical analyzing criterion. The practical analyzing criterion is that dividing classes according to the possession of the means of production and exploitation. They described the separating phenomenon between the ownership and the controlling right of the means of production. Although they frequently used the word of " possess ", but in addition, they also used a large number of " control"," monopoly "," leadership" or other terms.Lenin, Mao Zedong and other proletarian revolutionary leaders inherited the practical analyzing criterion of class division and achieved great success. Because of this, later generations thought of the criterion as Marxist criterion of class division. But this criterion brought embarrassment and even disaster to the contemporary socialist society. Some people looked it in isolation, other people thought it was out-of-date. Some people extended the struggle between classes, other people put out the struggle between classes. Based on the change of proletarian position after the victory of the proletarian revolution, Lenin firstly defined the class definition and indicated the narrowness of the practical analyzing criterion of class division. In contemporary academic circles, some scholars pointed out the importance of the controlling right of the means of production in class division.In order to make a distinction between the theoretical criterion and the practical analyzing criterion of class division, we may name the theoretical criterion as scientific Marxist criterion of class division. It is a scientific tool to understand the struggle between classes and the classes of the socialist society. According to the scientific Marxist criterion of class division, the socialist society can be divided into the state and society management class and ordinary working class. The relationship between them is not necessarily exploitative. Whether exploitative or not mainly depends on the use of the surplus labor. Class struggle isn’t all based on exploitation, and it has different developing stages, performing and transforming forms.There are economic conditions in contemporary China which class exists based on. China’s leaders and scholars have different opinion on what classes are there in our country. A lot of people always fear class struggle and fear it will affect modernization construction. It isn’t necessary. The wrong class struggle may destroy a country, abolishing class struggle also can ruin the state. According to the scientific Marxist criterion of class division, contemporary Chinese society can be divided into five classes. They are the state and society management class, the private enterprise owner class, the peasant class, small businessmen class and ordinary working class. There are not only cooperation but also gaps among these classes. The Communist Party of China has played an important role in the overall coordination of class relationship. In the primary stage of socialism, our party should adopt continuous scientific policies to safeguard the interests of the weak classes against the infringement of the strong classes.更多还原