Deepen, expand and innovate the study of Chinese Marxist historiography

　 As an academic and cultural form that has played an important role in the history of modern and modern China, the history of the Chinese revolution and the history of the Communist Party of China, the study of Chinese Marxist historiography is facing the problem of how to deepen, expand and innovate today. Around the 1930s and 1940s, Chinese Marxist historiography began to take shape and gradually developed, and after the founding of New China, Chinese Marxist historiography dominated, and has so far formed a research pattern of Chinese history guided by the materialist view of history, with a relatively sound and systematic discipline system. Under the background of the more complete discipline construction of Chinese Marxist historiography and the increasingly substantial academic connotation, how to give play to the social function of historiography and provide theoretical support and historical explanation for the development path of socialism with Chinese characteristics in the new era is an urgent topic in the study of Chinese Marxist historiography. Re-exploring the major historical theoretical issues of Chinese Marxist historiography, in-depth study of the development process of Chinese Marxist historiography in the past hundred years, and striving to build a historical system with Chinese characteristics under the guidance of the materialist view of history are the main directions for the continued development of Chinese Marxist historiography.

　　The nature of society is the core theoretical issue of Chinese Marxist historiographical discourse

　　The nature of society is not only the primary practical problem faced by Chinese Marxist historiography, but also the core theoretical problem; it is not only a conclusion drawn from the investigation of social reality, but also a theoretical achievement of the sinification of Marxism. The judgment of the nature of society in different periods of ancient Chinese history and the determination of the "two halves" theory of modern history constitute the theoretical framework for the penetrating interpretation of ancient and modern Chinese history by Chinese Marxist historiography. This theoretical achievement was put forward and demonstrated by Marxist historians in the revolutionary practice of the period of the new democratic revolution, and has been more deeply explored and perfected from the academic and theoretical level at different stages of socialist revolution and construction.

　　After the reform and opening up, the "non-slave theory" in the issue of the periodization of ancient Chinese history has risen again, the "new theory" of the periodization of ancient Chinese history has emerged, and the discussion of the issue of "feudalism" in name was once very enthusiastic, and its core issue still points to the nature of society. Some scholars combine archaeological, ethnological, and anthropological materials to argue about the formation mode and development characteristics of ancient Chinese society, and reflect on how to break the formulaic problems in Marxist historiography. Although some scholars have no shortage of extreme views when discussing these issues, the "non-slave theory" has had a greater impact. Some scholars have responded to the "non-slave theory", arguing that Marx had already put forward the four modes of production of Asia Minor, ancient, feudal and bourgeois in history when he was alive, and that the theory of the succession of social and economic forms was an important part of Marx and Engels's materialist view of history. Slave society is not necessarily the majority of the slave population, but the slave production mode has become the dominant form as the basic feature, the important feature of ancient Chinese slavery is that family slavery has been fully developed, and there is a stage of slave society in China's history. Although it is difficult to say which understanding has achieved "consensus", the discussion of the social nature of slavery has prompted scholars to explore the theoretical connotation of the materialist historical concept of social form in more depth, and promoted the study of Chinese Marxist historiography combining the materialist view of history with Chinese history.

　　The discussion of the issue of "feudalism" in name and truth directly involves the issue of distinguishing the nature of ancient Chinese feudal society. Some scholars believe that the use of the word "feudal" for "feudal society" is not in line with the ancient meaning, and the name is misplaced, which led to the "pan-feudal view" after the Qin and Han Dynasties, which is a misuse of "feudal". Another scholar believes that it is not uncommon for many concepts to be used in name only in modern times, that the ancient and modern evolution of the use of concepts has its rationality, that historical research should not one-sidedly adhere to the ancient righteousness and deny the present meaning, and that the "feudal society" in Chinese Marxist historiography does not deviate from the original meaning of the materialist view of history and social morphology, but is an innovative result of the combination of the materialist view of history and Chinese history. What is different from the research characteristics of the "theory of no slavery" and the "theory of slavery" is that the research characteristics of examining whether there was a "slave society" in ancient China from historical facts are that the name-based responsibility for the word "feudal" is analyzed from the academic level of conceptual history, while less consideration is given to the realistic field of the historical narrative of Chinese Marxist historiography, but objectively there is a suspicion of whether "feudal society" exists in the name of "feudalism".

　　Further, the "non-slave theory" only denies the existence of a "slave society" in ancient China, and tries to summarize the social nature of this period from the historical facts of the more Historical Characteristics of China, such as clans, patriarchs, personal dependencies, land systems, and forms of political power, and believes that ancient China could also become a "special case" of directly entering feudal society without slave society. This theory does not go beyond the general theoretical framework of the materialist theory of social morphology. Comparatively speaking, the impact on the periodization of China's ancient Chinese history in Chinese Marxist historiography may be more worthy of attention because of the torture and questioning of China's "feudal society" brought about by the word "feudal" in name and responsibility. The reason is that China's "feudal society" spanning more than two thousand years constitutes the main body of the narrative of Ancient Chinese history in Marxist historiography, and the problems of China's feudal land ownership system, the budding of Chinese capitalism, why China's feudal society has continued for a long time, and some periods within China's feudal society have all arisen from this. At the same time, the nature of modern Chinese society has been determined to be a semi-colonial and semi-feudal society, and its academic basis is to a large extent connected with the nature of ancient Chinese feudal society that was previously based on the theory of materialistic historical social form, and if the feudal social stage in ancient Chinese history is denied, the narrative chain of the social nature of different social forms in the process of Chinese historical development will be interrupted.

　　It should also be mentioned that there is a continuous question about the problem of staging ancient history, that is, why has the problem of staging ancient history not been solved for a long time? Is there something inherently wrong with this historical theory or model of research? In fact, the question itself has a distinctly non-humanities overtones. In the academic history of ancient and modern China and foreign countries, there have been a variety of historical philosophies and theories with different influences aimed at summarizing the motives of historical development, summarizing the laws of historical changes, constructing a model of civilization, and looking forward to the future of historical development, but none of them have obtained the so-called ultimate answer. To seek conclusions that can solve all historical problems or to draw "scientific laws", as in the natural sciences, is contrary to the fundamental attributes of history as a humanities.

　　The nature of China's semi-colonial and semi-feudal society in modern times is a theoretical construction made by the Communist Party of China in the practice of long-term and arduous revolutionary struggle, and a theoretical creation of the sinification of Marxism. After the 1980s, some scholars questioned the "two halves" theory, arguing that semi-colonial and semi-feudal refer to the status and socio-economic form of the state respectively, the process of developing from an independent country to a semi-colony and continuing to a colony is a process of "sinking down", and the process of changing from feudal society to a semi-feudal society and evolving from capitalism is the trend of "upward development", and the two should not be juxtaposed or confused. This understanding has also become one of the causes of the dispute between the "revolutionary history paradigm" and the "modernization paradigm" in the field of modern history research. The essence of the "two halves" theory is that the semi-colonization and semi-feudalization of modern Chinese society are the fundamental reasons for China's sinking, and the corresponding Chinese people's anti-imperialist and anti-feudal struggle is the main line of the upward process in modern China. Only by completing the historical task of anti-imperialism and anti-feudalism on the basis of the "two halves" theory can we combine the narrative of China's modern history of the two paradigms of "revolutionary history" and "modernization" and make a more comprehensive interpretation of China's modern history, which should be the consensus formed by more scholars after research and discussion in recent years.

　　It should be pointed out that the tasks, principles, and policies of the new-democratic revolution determined by the Communist Party of China on the basis of a correct understanding of the semi-colonial and semi-feudal nature of modern Chinese society are the basic guarantee for the victory of the new-democratic revolution. Although the internal logic of historical development is not necessarily as direct as a single-line reasoning due to changes in the situation of the times, the historical fact of the victory of the Chinese revolution should become an important weight in examining the "adaptability" of the materialist theory of social form in the process of China's historical development, which should not be ignored. In this regard, the significance of the research conclusions made by Chinese Marxist historiography on the nature of ancient and modern Chinese society is self-evident.

　　Gradually, objective evaluation and research horizons are expanding

　　Since the advent of The Controversy over the Nature of Chinese Society and the Problem of Social History in the 1920s and 1930s and Guo Moruo's Studies on Ancient Chinese Society, Chinese Marxist historiography has gone through nearly a hundred years of historiography from its formation and development to its dominant position in Chinese historiography, which is unique in modern and contemporary Chinese historiography, where a variety of historical trends and genres have emerged. After the 1990s, the study of Chinese academic history in the 20th century continued to become a hot topic in academic circles, but for a period of time, the study of Chinese Marxist historiography was lower than the study of non-Marxist historiography in terms of both importance and number of achievements. The difference between the research intensity and evaluation of Marxist historians such as Guo Moruo and Fan Wenlan and those of Historians such as Hu Shi, Fu Sinian, and Chen Yinke is obvious. In recent years, this situation has changed significantly, the study of Chinese Marxist historiography has obviously received more attention from more scholars, on the basis of in-depth excavation of materials to explore the development trend of Chinese Marxist historiography in different periods, more comprehensive research and evaluation of Marxist historians Academic thought and social influence has increased significantly. The accumulation of quantity will inevitably lead to new requirements for quality, and the improvement of attention will bring more dimensions of problem awareness.

　　Before the founding of New China, Chinese Marxist historiography was formed and developed in multiple practical needs, such as demonstrating the path of the Chinese revolution, exploring the sinification of Marxism, and mastering the discourse power of history in the field of ideology and culture. Exploring the different social forms and social natures in Chinese history to clarify the practical purpose of the Chinese revolution, and constructing a research model that combines the materialist view of history with Chinese history to show the academic pursuit of the grand narrative of Chinese historiography, Chinese Marxist historiography has dual characteristics from the beginning of its establishment, and it is also the main difference between the Marxist historiography school and other historical schools in the Republic of China period. Due to its multiple characteristics, the evaluation of Chinese Marxist historiography is quite divergent. The study of Chinese Marxist historiography needs to observe the interaction between historical materials and theory, scholarship and reality, and cannot only highlight its practical needs and weaken its academic connotation, nor can it only focus on its academic weight and ignore its actual purpose.

　　There have been two tendencies in existing research: first, departing from the times and academic context, viewing Marxist historiography with the single criterion of so-called "academic independence", blindly highlighting its practical function while ignoring the internal academic logic of Marxist historiography, and criticizing some important topics in Marxist historiography as "false problems" and "pseudo-problems"; second, failing to face up to the actual situation that Chinese Marxist historiography served reality with historiography for revolutionary goals and political needs in a specific period. Consciously or unconsciously avoiding the negative impact of such an approach on historiography itself, we cannot accept academic criticism of the problems and shortcomings of Marxist historiography. Especially after the 1980s and 1990s, historians have a tendency to attach importance to the examination of historical materials and weaken the grand narrative, supplemented by the affirmation of empirical historical research in the late Qing Dynasty and the Republic of China, the pursuit of concepts such as "historiography is historiography", and the evaluation system is more inclined to specific research and historical materials, and Marxist historiography is constantly marginalized. Both of these phenomena hinder the normal development and evaluation of Chinese Marxist historical research.

　　In fact, under the premise of taking the materialist view of history as the guide, subject to different realistic atmospheres or specific era contexts, Chinese Marxist historians often summarize lessons and make self-adjustments. For example, the formulaic tendency that emerged during the social history controversy was summed up in a timely manner by scholars such as He Ganzhi and Zhai Bozan; the innuendo historiography tendency that appeared in the 1940s was criticized and self-criticized by scholars such as Guo Moruo and Fan Wenlan in the 1950s. After the founding of New China, the heated discussion on a series of major historical theoretical issues that emerged in the field of Marxist historiography was actually a large-scale discussion and correction of various problems that arose or accumulated in the past under the new condition that Chinese Marxist historiography was dominant, and objectively achieved the practical effect of enriching the academic connotation of Chinese Marxist historiography.

　　With the strengthening of the study of Chinese Marxist historiography in recent years, the existing problems in the existing research have prompted researchers to think more deeply. In the past, the study of Marxist historiography was more about the writings of historians, ignoring the various research motivations and realistic contexts behind the writings of historians, and Marxist historical research has begun to change the qualitative mode of a single text, combining the presentation of texts with the context of the times. There has always been a tension between historical materials and theory in Marxist historiography, and the biased view that Marxist historians do not attach importance to historical materials at all has been corrected to a certain extent, and exploring how Marxist historians deal with the relationship between historical materials and theory has become the subject of further study, but leaving the political background of different periods and studying this issue only from the academic level cannot expound the problem clearly. Therefore, the study of Marxist historiography needs to take into account the three dimensions of historical materials, theories and eras.

　　As far as the Chinese Marxist historiography research group is concerned, the background of the personnel who used the materialist view of history to discuss The problems of Chinese history before and after the period of the social history controversy is more complicated, and some of them are non-CCP scholars with high theoretical attainments, and their introduction, translation, and research combined with Chinese history should not be completely excluded from the scope of Chinese Marxist historiography, and their views also need to be regarded as academic resources for the study of Chinese Marxist historiography. From Li Dazhao to Guo Moruo, from the Marxist historian "Five Elders" to the vast majority of historians after the founding of New China, the vast majority of historians turned to Marxist historical research, and in this process, the intergenerational genealogy of Marxist historians and the succession of their academic views also need to be taken seriously. In fact, there are many different views among Marxist historians on many academic issues, and there have been many fierce debates, and clarifying the formation and controversy of different academic views within Marxist historiography will be of great help to a deeper understanding of Marxist historiography. The laws of social and historical development, the social economy, the land system, the budding of capitalism, the peasant wars, class analysis, historicism, intellectual history, Zhuzi Studies, and other research fields, research topics, and research methods that were once valued in the study of Chinese Marxist historiography, how to summarize and evaluate them in today's historical research, and how to integrate the existing research results of Chinese Marxist historiography into the problem consciousness and research discourse that have been developed or renewed, are all issues worthy of in-depth consideration.

　　Constructing the "Three Major Systems" of Chinese Historiography

　　The construction of a discipline system, academic system and discourse system of history with Chinese characteristics has become the consensus of the current Chinese historians, which is an understanding based on summarizing the lessons learned from the tortuous development of Chinese historiography in the past hundred years. The construction of the "three major systems" of Chinese historiography, although it is necessary to absorb the elements of traditional Chinese historiography that have accumulated deeply, it is also necessary to actively learn from foreign historical theories and research methods, and Chinese Marxist historiography is the most important academic resource for the construction of the "three major systems" of Chinese historiography. On the one hand, after the development of Chinese Marxist historiography in the first half of the 20th century, it has formed a preliminary research system and the scale of basic disciplines, and the dominant Chinese Marxist historiography after the founding of New China has gained new opportunities for development, and the marxist historiography research concept has been integrated into various research fields of Chinese historiography, and contemporary Chinese historiography and Chinese Marxist historiography are seamlessly integrated. On the other hand, Chinese Marxist historiography has provided rich ideological resources for China's revolution and construction, with distinct practical characteristics and outstanding academic creativity, and facts have proved that it has the ability to assume the historical responsibility of continuing to develop and innovate Chinese historiography under new historical conditions.

　　The existing discipline system of Chinese historiography, whether it is the three first-level disciplines of Chinese history, world history and archaeology in the category of history, or the sub-disciplines of history such as general history, history of dynasties, and special history, a considerable part of them have been continuously enriched or created after Marxist historiography has become the mainstream. Continuing to improve the discipline system of Marxist historiography and exploring the path of new liberal arts construction should be the main ideas for building the discipline system of Chinese historiography. The discipline system is the support of the academic system, the formation of the academic system needs the support of historical theory and historical theory, the theory of historiography with Chinese characteristics is the main content of the construction of the academic system of Chinese historiography, and the construction of the academic system of Chinese historiography is inseparable from the theoretical innovation under the guidance of the materialist view of history. At the same time, the process of combining the exploration theory of Chinese Marxist historiography with historical practice, as well as its achievements and experiences, are the main resources for building the academic system of Chinese historiography. The discourse system is the display system of the discipline system and academic system of Chinese historiography, and is an effective expression of history with Chinese characteristics, covering a variety of functions such as Chinese historiography grasping academic discourse power, displaying the academic frontier and academic characteristics of Chinese historical research, disseminating historical knowledge and popularizing historical education, and the Discourse System of Chinese Marxist Historiography has become more and more prominent in its important significance after Marxist historiography has taken the lead.

　　(The author is a professor at the School of History, Beijing Normal University, and a researcher at the Research Center for Historical Theory and Historiography)

Source: China Social Science Network - China Social Science Daily Author: Zhang Yue