“马克思主义的自然观”重新受到学界重视

The Marxist view of nature has received renewed attention in academic circles

到目前为止，已有的科学证据表明在宇宙的星球中只有地球上才有生命和人类的存在。
与地球起源和演化历史的时间尺度来看，人类起源和人类文明演化的历史是非常短暂的，
我们熟知的文字记载的历史更是如此短暂！然而，浩如烟海的历史著作，包括极为著名的
历史著作无非都是政治史、经济史、思想史、文化史、战争史和科技史等，无一例外的是以
“人类为中心”的历史，即使路易斯•亨利•摩尔根（Lewis Heng Morgan)的《古代社会》和
阿诺德•约瑟夫.汤因比（Arnold Joseph Toynbee)的《历史研究》等巨著也难以摆脱这种历史
观的局限。尽管在任何一种早期文明形态与其发展的历史中，都有人与自然相互关系的种
种认识，但是从来没有成为历史学家研究的严肃命题！
So far, scientific evidence has shown that the Earth is the only planet in the universe with the
existence of life and human beings. Compared with the time scale of the origin and evolution of
the Earth, the history of human origins and the development of human civilization are pretty short,
and the written history we’re acquainted with is even much shorter. However, voluminous
historical works, including exceptionally well-known ones, are nothing but the specific history of
politics, economy, ideology, culture wars, and science and technology. They are, without
exception, anthropocentric histories. Even monumental works like Ancient Society by Lewis Heng
Morgan, A Study of History by Arnold Joseph Toynbee, and other great works can hardly escape
the limitations of such conception of history. Although in the form of any early civilization and the
history of its development, there are various reflections upon the interrelationship between man
and nature, they have never become a serious topic for historians to study!

事实上，在 19 世纪中叶，马克思主义的各种重要著作，特别是在马克思的《1844 年经
济学一哲学手稿》、恩格斯的《自然辩证法》和《劳动在从猿到人的转变过程中的作用》中，出
现了很多关于人与自然关系的论述。但是，这些重要论述没有引起学界足够的重视，更谈
不上将其看作为马克思主义理论体系的重要组成部分，而通常认为马克思主义理论体系包
括三部分，即马克思主义哲学、马克思主义政治经济学和科学社会主义。随着 1989 年 11 月
9 日柏林墙轰然坍塌，1991 年 12 月苏联解体后分裂出 15 个国家，由于马克思主义常常被
误解为“革命者的理论武器”而越来越被大多数人所抛弃。
In fact, in the mid-1800s, a lot of remarks on the relationship between man and nature
appeared in various Marxist works of importance, especially in Marx’s Economic and Philosophic
Manuscripts of 1844 and Engels’s Dialectics of Nature and The Part Played by Labour in the
Transition from Ape to Man. Unfortunately, however, not enough attention has been paid in the
academic community to these critical remarks, let alone regards them as an essential part of the
Marxist theoretical system. Usually, Marxism consists of three parts: Marxist philosophy, political
economy, and scientific socialism. But with the collapse of the Berlin Wall on November 9, 1989,
and the breakup of the Soviet Union into 15 states in December 1991, the majority increasingly
abandoned Marxism because people often misunderstood it as “the theoretical weapon of
revolutionaries.”

有趣的是从 20 世纪 60 年代起，随着环境问题的凸显，在西方，一些马克思主义研究
者发现了马克思和恩格斯的著作中大量关于马克思主义自然观的重要论述，并在此基础上
提出了生态学马克思主义。在 19 世纪下半叶，马克思和恩格斯已经认识到：人类历史和自
然界历史无疑是处在一种辩证的相互作用关系之中的。他们的理论把全部社会发展史归结
为劳动发展史，但是认识劳动史必须联系自然史，劳动史和自然史是相辅相成的。尽管马
克思和恩格斯是研究资本主义的发展所导致的社会动荡问题的重要理论家，尽管他们没能
也不可能准确地预见工业文明时代的生产方式和生活方式会造成极为严重的生态环境问题
但是，他们已经意识到了人类与自然之间必然发生的矛盾冲突，并提出警告：“我们不要
过分陶醉于我们人类对自然界的胜利。对于每一次这样的胜利，自然界都对我们进行报复。
每一次胜利，起初确实取得了我们预期的结果，但是往后和再往后却发生完全不同的、出
乎预料的影响，常常把最初的结果又消除了。（①.《马克思恩格斯选集》第 4 卷，人民出版
社，1995 年版，第 383 页。）
Interestingly, since the 1960s, with the prominence of environmental issues, some Marxist
researchers in the west have found many essential remarks on the Marxist view of nature in the
works of Marx and Engels and put forward ecological Marxism on this basis. In the latter half of
the 1800s, Marx and Engels realized the dialectical interrelationship between human and natural
history. Their theory reduces the entire history of social development to the history of labor
development, but understanding the history of labor must be linked to the history of nature, and
the history of labor and the history of nature are mutually reinforcing. Marx and Engels are
influential theorists studying social unrest problems resulting from capitalist development.
Although they failed to and could not accurately predict that the production mode and lifestyle in
the era of industrial civilization could cause severe ecological environment problems, they
recognized the inevitable conflicts between man and nature. Engels issued the following warning:
“Let us not, however, flatter ourselves overmuch on account of our human victories over nature.
For each such victory, nature takes its revenge on us. Each victory, it is true, in the first place
brings about the results we expected, but in the second and third places, it has quite different,
unforeseen effects which only too often cancel the first.”*
* Engels, Dialectics of Nature, Karl Marx & Frederick Engles Collected Works, v25,
Lawrence & Wishart, 2010, pp460-461

几乎同时，德国的自然科学家也在思考生物与环境的关系，于 1866 年在德国诞生了

“生态学”，但生态学真正迅速发展起来要从 1935 年“生态系统”概念提出后算起。因此，
马克思主义的自然观还缺少自然科学的基础。生态环境的恶化更是在他们去世后半个世纪
才发生的重要事件，马克思和恩格斯也不可能是完全的先知先觉者。
At about the same time, German natural scientists were thinking about the relationship
between organisms and the environment. Ecology was born in Germany in 1866, but it developed
rapidly after the concept of the ecosystem was introduced in 1935. The deterioration of the
ecological environment was an important event that took place only half a century after the death
of Marx and Engels, and they could not have been complete prophets. Therefore, the Marxist view
of nature still lacks the foundation of natural sciences.

美国新马克思主义经济学家詹姆士•奥康纳（James O'Connor)努力将生态学与马克思主
义进行融合，提出了“生态学马克思主义”，这是当代西方马克思主义中最有影响的思潮
之一。最近十几年，这一思潮不断地繁荣起来。詹姆斯•奥康纳在其力作《自然的理由：生态
学马克思主义研究》一书中提出了自己独特的生态学马克思主义理论。从总体上看，他是坚
持马克思主义的，坚信“当今世界经济的主要轮廓几乎都可以从马克思的经典文本所凸显
出来的理论视域中被解读出来”，认为马克思主义的可信度必须尽快建立起来。但是，他
同时又认为马克思主义的理论必然由于时代的局限性而表现出某种片面性，他坚信生态学
马克思主义在当代亟须建立，其理论必要性首先在于马克思主义本身存在着“理论空场”，
即对自然作为生产条件和界限的忽视。在他看来，马克思和恩格斯的确有时也强调自然对
人类的影响，但他们强调的是自然作为一种资源、一种使用价值对人类来说是重要的，他
们对于人类自身实践活动所推动的自然的变化反过来对人类历史发展可能性的限定却关注
极少。因此，他要通过对自然概念的重写，将马克思历史唯物主义的基础建立在自然之上
从而重建了“新的历史唯物主义”，试图填补马克思主义的“理论空场”。
James O’Connor, an American neo-Marxist economist, tried to integrate ecology with
Marxism and put forward “Ecological Marxism,” one of the most influential trends of thought in
contemporary Western Marxism. Over the last decade or so, this trend of thought has flourished.
James O'Connor puts forward his unique ecological Marxist theory in his masterpiece, Natural
Causes: Essays in Ecological Marxism. On the whole, he insists on Marxism, firmly believes “the
main contours of world economy today can be practically read off the theoretical lines found in
Marx’s classic text,”* and suggests that the credibility of Marxism should be established as soon
as possible. However, at the same time, he believes that the Marxist theory inevitably shows some
one-sidedness due to the limitations of the times. Accordingly, ecological Marxism must be
established urgently in the contemporary era. The theoretical necessity of ecological Marxism lies
first in “the theoretical lacuna” of Marxism itself, that is, the neglect of nature as the condition and
limit of production. Marx and Engels, in his opinion, sometimes really emphasize the natural
influence on humans. Still, they stress that nature is essential for humans as a kind of resource
with a specific use-value. On the other hand, little attention is given to the limitation of the
possibility of human history development due to changes in nature driven by human practices.
Therefore, by rewriting the concept of nature, he wanted to build the foundation of Marx's
historical materialism on nature, thus reconstructing a "new historical materialism" and trying to
fill the "theoretical lacuna" of Marxism.
* James O’Connor, Natural Causes: Essays in Ecological Marxism, The Guilford Press, 12,
1997, p1

尽管詹姆士•奥康纳著作里的观点与经典马克思主义的观点不尽相同，至少他力图让我
们相信马克思主义对于解决当代生态问题是有理论价值的，还力图促成生态学与马克思主
义的联姻。正如中国科学院自然科学史研究所研究员董光璧指出的那样，马克思的生态观
被重新发掘并加以发展而将成为解决生态危机的重要指导思想。我们认为：学术界对马克
思主义自然观的认识还刚刚开始。虽然，马克思主义的自然观亟须发展和完善，但它的价
值可能不亚于马克思主义哲学、马克思主义政治经济学及科学社会主义对人类思想宝库的
巨大贡献。在思想史、文化史和科学技术史中，被长期忽视而又被重新发现的例子并不少见。
Although the ideas in James O’Connor’s works are different from those of classical Marxism,
at least he tries to convince us of the theoretical value of Marxism in solving contemporary
ecological problems and promoting the integration between ecology and Marxism. As Dong
Guangbi, a researcher at the Institute of Natural Science History of the Chinese Academy of
Sciences, points out, Marx's ecological view has been rediscovered and developed to become an
important guiding principle in solving the ecological crisis. We believe that academic
understanding of the Marxist view of nature has just begun. Although the Marxist view of nature
needs to be developed and improved, its value may be no less than the outstanding contribution of
Marxist philosophy, Marxist political economy, and scientific socialism to the treasure-house of
human thoughts. In the history of ideas, culture, science, and technology, it is not uncommon to
find long-neglected and rediscovered examples.