郭沫若亚细亚生产方式观点的形成与反响辨析  

Analysis on the Formation and Response of Guo Moruo’s View on the Asiatic Mode of Production

作　　者：刘超燕 Liu Chaoyan

机构地区：[1]北京师范大学历史学院

出　　处：《江海学刊》2023年第6期202-211,256,共11页Jianghai Academic Journal

摘　　要：在郭沫若的认知中,亚细亚生产方式不成其为“问题”。他在实际处理中的化约思维和做法存在明显二重性。有消解亚细亚生产方式概念、忽视中国社会特殊性、论据单一等不足。郭沫若的观点招致中国社会史论战各方的贬损、曲解。托派借助亚细亚生产方式否定中国存在奴隶社会,进而否定社会形态理论的普适性。其他马克思主义史家与郭沫若观点的主要分歧基本限定在学术层面。郭沫若“沉默”应对外界批评,并非认同他者观点,亦非外部条件干预下的被动选择。亚细亚生产方式问题论辩中充斥的盲从域外学者、宣扬国情特殊论等倾向,与郭沫若治唯物史观史学的旨趣相悖,应是他“回避”对话的主要原因。The Asiatic mode of production is not a “problem” in Guo Moruo’s cognition, which leads to the derogation and distortion of all sides in the debate of Chinese social history. By means of the Asiatic mode of production, the Trotskyist deny the existence of slave society in China, and then deny the universality of the theory of social formation. The main differences between the views of other Marxist historians and Guo Moruo are limited to the academic level. Guo Moruo’s “silent” response to external criticism is not an endorsement of the views of others, nor is it a passive choice under external intervention. The tendency to blindly follow foreign scholars and propagate national particularity in this debate is contrary to the purport of Guo Moruo’s materialist historiography, which is the main reason for his “shunning” conversation.

关 键 词：郭沫若 亚细亚生产方式 托派 马克思主义史家 

分 类 号：K092[历史地理—历史学]