在关于当代中国的社会科学的性质、功能和发展方向的研讨会上,听了专家、学者们发表的高论,获益不浅,启发甚深。这里谈的一点感想,便是在获益、启发之下产生的,不敢说有什么新鲜的东西,谨以之作为参加讨论的门外汉的敲门砖而已。胡绳同志关于社会科学是不是生产力的意见,我看是有马克思主义经典依据的。比如马克思在《〈政治经济学批判〉导言》中,就毫不含糊地把“社会意识形式”(即法律、政治、宗教、艺术、哲学等)和“社会的经济结构”(即物质生产力和与之相适应的生产关系)区别开来。当然,我们不应忘记,马克思在这里是为阐述其新的历史观,即与以往形形式式唯心史观相对立的唯物主义历史观,因此,这既是“简要地”,同时也是有针对地表述的。在我看来,马克思在这里特意强调了为唯心主义历史观完全忽略了的人类的物质生产这个最终起着决定作用的因素,并以此对抗各种归根结底是以精神为最终决定因 At the seminar on the nature, function and development direction of contemporary Chinese social sciences, listening to the expositions by experts and scholars has benefited greatly and has great inspiration. The little feeling we talked about here was generated by the benefit and inspiration and did not dare to say anything new. I would like to take it as a stepping stone to the lay people who participated in the discussion. Comrade Hu Jin's opinion on whether social sciences are not productive forces is based on Marxist classics. For example, in his Introduction to Critique of Political Economy, Marx unequivocally classified “social ideology” (ie law, politics, religion, art, philosophy, etc.) and “the economic structure of society” With the corresponding production relations) to distinguish. Of course, we should not forget that Marx was here to elaborate on his new conception of history, that is, the materialist conception of history contrary to the formal and historical idealist ideal of history. Therefore, it is both “brief” and targeted Expressed. It seems to me that Marx specifically emphasized here the ultimate decisive factor in the material production of mankind, completely neglected by the idealist conception of history, as a definitive factor in the final determination of spirit