Wang Xiangqing and Liang Yanli: A Study on the Evolution of the Theory of Social Formations Among Early Chinese Marxists
As an important category of the historical materialist perspective, social formation manifests as the concrete and historical unity of the economic base and the superstructure, which corresponds to the productive forces at a given stage of development. Before Marxism was introduced to China, Chinese scholars largely adhered to idealist conceptions regarding the essence and driving forces of social history. Following the introduction of Marxism, a group of early Chinese Marxists—drawing on their understanding of historical materialism—successively conducted highly individualized research into the evolution of social formations. These efforts constitute a vital component of the Chinese academic community's theoretical achievements regarding social formation evolution.
I. The Temporal Background and Intellectual Origins of Early Chinese Marxists’ Exploration of Social Formation Evolution Theory
The exploration of social formation evolution theory by early Chinese Marxists possessed specific temporal backgrounds and intellectual origins. The temporal background was primarily manifested in the development of social reform and revolutionary movements aimed at "saving the nation and its people" [1]; reflections on China's future led to the emergence of the debate between "the Ancient and the Modern, the Chinese and the Western" and the debate over "Problems versus Isms" [2] within the ideological and cultural spheres. The intellectual origins primarily involved the dissemination of Marxist philosophy—especially research findings in historical materialism—within China, alongside the influence of traditional Chinese philosophical culture.
(A) Temporal Background
First was the deepening of the debate between "the Ancient and the Modern, the Chinese and the Western." This debate permeated the entire course of China’s modern philosophical revolution. Resolving this issue required "recognizing the regularity of how human history and Chinese history evolved from the past to the present, and how they will develop toward the future." In the complex social trends of modern China, various intellectual schools attempted to answer this question from their own theoretical positions, among which Social Darwinism [3] exerted the most extensive and profound influence. As the primary explanatory paradigm for social development laws before historical materialism became the dominant discourse, Social Darwinism innovated people’s concepts of natural and social development, adapting to the needs of social change. Both the bourgeois reformers and the revolutionaries actively propagated and applied this theory, yet neither could transcend the framework of historical idealism. Furthermore, from the perspective of the theory itself, although natural evolution and the evolution of human society share certain commonalities, Social Darwinism—as a doctrine elucidating the laws of biological development—possessed obvious flaws when explaining the development of human social history. Because it could neither correctly explain historical evolution nor provide a rational answer to the "Ancient/Modern, Chinese/Western" debate, it was unable to offer a correct philosophical or political response to the question of "whither China." It was against this background that historical materialism gradually became the primary discourse for explaining the processes and laws of human historical development.
Second was the progression of the "Problems versus Isms" debate. This debate also influenced the choice of China's social development path. Pragmatists, represented by Hu Shih, advocated for "studying more problems and talking less about 'isms.'" They emphasized that empty talk of "isms" was dangerous and detrimental to solving practical social problems, advocating instead for starting with the study of specific social issues. While the representatives of this school recognized the dangers of empty talk, their subsequent denial of the positive significance of discussing and propagating "isms" can be described as the error of "stopping eating for fear of choking" [4]; it was a severance of theory from reality. Furthermore, this school denied that social problems could be fundamentally resolved, advocating instead for institutionalizing social transformation through continuous reform—a manifestation of bourgeois reformism. Conversely, Marxists represented by Li Dazhao pointed out from a dialectical perspective that "studying problems" and "talking of isms" are mutually reinforcing. As a theoretical tool, an "ism" can promote collective action among the majority in the process of adapting to time and circumstance to guide practical movements, thereby advancing the resolution of real-world problems and the transformation of society. Marxists also emphasized seeking a fundamental solution to social problems through class struggle and economic revolution. In reality, the "Problems versus Isms" debate was a political dispute over whether China should take the path of bourgeois reform or proletarian revolution. Through this debate, Marxism was to a certain extent demarcated from various other socialist trends, clearing the obstacles for the dissemination of historical materialism—the philosophical foundation of social formation evolution theory—in China, and helping the Marxist theory of social formation evolution become better accepted by the masses.
(B) Intellectual Origins
The research into and mastery of social formation evolution theory by early Chinese Marxists was not only profoundly influenced by the thoughts of classical Marxist authors but also inspired by Marxist scholars from countries such as France, Soviet Russia, and Japan, while also reflecting a critical inheritance of China’s traditional culture.
First, classical Marxist works provided the fundamental basis for early Chinese Marxists to master the theory of social formation evolution. Cai Hesen's research on the stages of human social development was based on original works such as Engels' The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State. For instance, his view on the driving forces of social formation evolution was consistent with Engels' emphasis that "according to the materialist conception, the determining factor in history is, electricity in the last resort, the production and reproduction of immediate life." Fan Shoukang elucidated Marxist historical materialism in the form of section-by-section annotations of Marx's Preface to A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy. In that text, Marx provided a brief explanation of the evolution of social formations: "In broad outline, the Asiatic, ancient, feudal and modern bourgeois modes of production may be designated as epochs marking progress in the economic development of society." During his time in Japan, the Marxist theorist Li Da also assiduously studied original Marxist works such as The Communist Manifesto, Capital (Vol. 1), and The State and Revolution. The emphasis therein on the foundational role of economic production in social structural changes and the importance of class struggle in social development, as well as Lenin's detailed investigation of Marx and Engels' theory of the state, undoubtedly exerted a profound influence on Li Da's research into social formation evolution. Additionally, the translation and dissemination of classical Marxist works in China assisted early Marxists in their research. For example, Chen Wangdao’s translation of The Communist Manifesto received Mao Zedong’s affirmation and recommendation, leading Mao to recognize class struggle as the primary motive force of social development.
Second, the introduction of Japanese Marxism and Soviet Russian Marxism also exerted an important influence on early Chinese Marxists. While studying at the Communist University of the Toilers of the East in Moscow, Zhang Bojian studied the course "History of the Development of Social Formations"; consequently, his theoretical views carried a distinct Soviet color. For example, his understanding that slavery appeared after feudal society drew upon the views in Alexander Bogdanov's A Short Course of Economic Science. Fan Shoukang and Li Da, during their studies in Japan, were influenced by the Japanese Marxist school. Fan Shoukang once candidly admitted that the compilation of his General Treatise on the History of Chinese Philosophy (中国哲学史通论) was influenced by Japanese scholars such as Yoshio Takeuchi and Hajime Kawakami. Li Da also stated: "Hajime Kawakami was my teacher; it was from him that I learned economics." Furthermore, while in Japan, he translated A General Survey of Social Problems (社会问题总览) by Motoyuki Takabatake and translated Gorter's An Explanation of the Materialist Conception of History based on Japanese and German editions.
Finally, the exploration of the laws of social formation evolution by early Chinese Marxists cannot be separated from the influence of Chinese philosophy. The study of the causes and driving forces of social evolution involves a dialectical understanding of the relationship between social existence and social consciousness. As a manifestation of the problem of the relationship between thinking and being in the historical field, modern Chinese scholars were inevitably influenced by philosophical disputes in traditional philosophy related to this issue, including the "debate between Dao and Qi" [5] and the "debate between Mind and Matter" [6]. On one hand, the Dao-Qi debate during the Song and Ming dynasties involved views on history. Wang Fuzhi believed that history is developing and changing, and that history should be explained through history itself, rather than explaining social order or chaos through "Heavenly Mandate" or variations in natural phenomena. By the modern era, faced with the practical question of "whither China," the Dao-Qi debate gradually evolved into the "Ancient/Modern, Chinese/Western" debate. On the other hand, as the philosophical foundation of social formation evolution theory, historical materialism shares commonalities with the "Mind-Matter" debate in traditional Chinese philosophy. As one of the centers of Chinese philosophical dispute since the Tang and Song dynasties, the Mind-Matter debate gradually merged with the question of the relationship between social existence and social consciousness in the modern era. Ancient Chinese philosophers were already able to proceed from a materialist standpoint, viewing the cognitive process as the unity of "Knowledge and Action" [7]; Wang Fuzhi’s "Investigating things to extend knowledge" (gewu zhizhi) was a key manifestation of this. However, the epistemology of ancient Chinese philosophers was not empirical or scientific, but rather possessed a certain primitivity. Since the dawn of the modern era, the discussion and reflection on the relationship between knowledge and action gradually linked up with the "Question of the Times" regarding China's future.
II. The Logical Unfolding of Early Chinese Marxists’ Theory of Social Formation Evolution
The discussion of social formation evolution theory by early Chinese Marxists followed a process of logical unfolding. Generally speaking, their exploration underwent five major stages: foundation-laying, advancement, innovation, deepening, and refinement.
(A) Cai Hesen's Laying of the Foundation for Social Formation Evolution Theory
Cai Hesen's The History of Social Evolution (社会进化史), published in May 1924, was the earliest work on the history of social development written in China under the guidance of historical materialism. Formally, The History of Social Evolution primarily utilized Lewis H. Morgan's classification methods in Ancient Society to periodize human social development. Specifically, following Morgan, Cai Hesen divided human society into three distinct formations: the Age of Savagery, the Age of Barbarism, and the Age of Civilization. Regarding the criteria for division, Cai Hesen relied on Marxist historical materialism. Influenced by Engels' The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State, Cai noted the key role of the mode of production in the evolution of social formations, pointing out that "every change in an era has its own new characteristics, and these new characteristics are directly caused by changes in the methods of production." The change in social formations is the process by which humanity moves from "natural production" toward "social production."
While The History of Social Evolution provided a relatively reasonable division and discussion of social formations based on the evolution of the mode of production, deficiencies remained. First, it focused heavily on the origins of family, property, and the state, while revealing less about the specific evolutionary processes of social formations. Cai Hesen devoted significant space to describing the clan-based social formations under primitive communism, while providing less discussion on feudal and bourgeois social formations, and even less on the already emergent Soviet socialist society. Second, it contained many expressions of evolutionary perspectives but lacked sufficient discussion on the role of revolution in the process of social development. Cai emphasized how the family, property, and the state achieved different formal changes alongside economic evolution, but did not sufficiently explore the revolutionary leaps existing within that evolutionary process. Third, although Cai studied social formations under the guidance of historical materialism, his use of Morgan’s tripartite division to categorize complex social formations appeared insufficiently specific and clear. Although he explored the matriarchy, patriarchy, slavery, feudalism, and the capitalist system from the perspective of institutional change, and mentioned the communist social formation, he did not use the "five social formations" [8] as the basis for analyzing the evolution of family, property, and the state, but rather structured his discourse around Morgan’s tripartite division. Although Cai Hesen's understanding of the development stages of human social formations was still hazy, his attempt to classify them laid the foundation for Chinese Marxists to conduct systematic research into the processes and laws of social formation evolution.
(B) Zhang Bojian's Advancement of the Investigation of Social Formation Evolution Theory
Zhang Bojian was one of the early pioneers of Communism among China's ethnic minority intellectuals. In 1925, he published A Brief History of Social Evolution (社会进化简史) in Shanghai and Guangzhou, using historical materialism as a theoretical guide to study the transformation of social forms. This book was expanded from his article "From Primitive Communist Society to Scientific Communist Society," published in November 1924, and went through multiple editions. Regarding the criteria for classifying human society, Zhang Bojian pointed out that the study of social forms must begin with the economy. He emphasized: "Whenever there is a transition from one society to another, it must be because its economic base has changed; that is, the driving force of progress in production techniques pushes it forward." On this basis, Zhang divided the development of human society into eight forms: primitive communist society, patriarchal blood-line communes [9], feudal society, slavery and agricultural systems, urban handicraft systems, commercial capital society/manufactory systems, industrial capital society, and communist society. For each type of social form, Zhang analyzed the state and characteristics of economic development as a prerequisite for explaining the corresponding classes, politics, and culture built upon that base.
Compared to Cai Hesen’s tripartite division, Zhang Bojian’s classification of social forms was more specific. His eight-part division contributed to the theory of social form evolution in three main ways. First, the classification of social forms was more rational. He devoted considerable space to a detailed explanation of each form, enabling readers to accurately grasp the types and evolutionary sequence of social forms and develop a systematic understanding of the economic base and superstructure of each. Second, his understanding and discussion of social forms were more comprehensive. Although Cai Hesen’s History of Social Evolution touched upon various social forms, it offered only a brief outlook on the communist social form without systematic discussion; Zhang Bojian’s Brief History filled this gap. Third, his exposition of the process and laws of social evolution was more concise and accessible. Compared to the somewhat obscure language in Cai Hesen’s work, Zhang’s theoretical expressions were easier to understand, with a clear logical structure and a more complete system.
Distinct from the views of average scholars, Zhang Bojian’s understanding of social form evolution was quite unique and thus prone to controversy. First, he separated the patriarchal blood-line commune from primitive communist society. The general view holds that although productive forces advanced during the period of patriarchal blood-line communes, the nature of production remained collectivist and should therefore be categorized under primitive communist society. Second, Zhang viewed slavery and serfdom as two different tendencies within the development of feudal society, a view that contradicts the general understanding that human society passes through slave society before entering feudal society. Rather than analyzing serfdom within feudal society, Zhang separated serfdom from the feudal social form. Finally, regarding the capitalist social form, Zhang subdivided it into two distinct forms: commercial capitalist society and industrial capitalist society.
(3) Fan Shoukang’s Innovations in the Exploration of Social Form Evolution Theory
As a scholar who took Marxism as his principle and standpoint for academic research, Fan Shoukang provided a unique classification of social development based on historical materialism in his 1937 book A General Treatise on the History of Chinese Philosophy (中国哲学史通论). He emphasized that "the essential stages of the transition of social forms" is one of the fundamental questions of the conception of history. He specified that "society changes along with changes in the economy" and argued that a thorough understanding of social development can only be obtained by viewing it as a process of struggle between the forces of production and the relations of production.
Regarding the general stages of social development, Fan divided them into five systems: primitive communism, slavery, feudalism, the wage-labor system, and the capitalist system. Building on his exposition of the general evolutionary process, Fan also explained the periodization of Chinese social history. He divided the evolution of Chinese society into: the era of primitive communism prior to the Yin Dynasty; the era of slavery from the Yin to the Zhou Dynasty; the era of feudalism from the Zhou to the Qin Dynasty; the era of a simple commodity economy from the early Qin to the Opium War in the late Qing Dynasty; and the era of the capitalist system from the Opium War to the present.
Fan Shoukang’s research on the evolution of social forms possessed distinct characteristics. First, it embodied the innovation of interdisciplinary research. As "the first general history of Chinese philosophy written under the guidance of Marxist historical materialism," the General Treatise applied the theory of social form evolution to the study of the history of philosophical development, explaining changes in thought and culture through transitions in economic relations, thus expanding new avenues for researching Chinese philosophy. Second, he recognized the particularity within the evolution of social forms. Fan noted that "the political structure changes entirely according to changes in the economic base," while also revealing that "the occurrence of social revolution is sometimes earlier in backward countries than in advanced countries." Clearly, his understanding of social evolution was not abstract or rigid, but concrete and dialectical. Finally, he emphasized the importance of social revolution. Although Fan failed to explicitly include socialist society in his detailed examination of the structure of social evolution, he emphasized that the various malaises of capitalist society could only be eliminated through socialism, clearly stating that "a fifth great upheaval may already be in the making." However, Fan’s theory also had deficiencies. First, he failed to recognize that the wage-labor system does not constitute an independent social form. Second, he gave no attention or summary to the socialist social form that had already been established for many years in the Soviet Union. Third, because the primary object of the General Treatise was the evolution of ancient Chinese philosophical thought, his exploration of the laws and processes of social form evolution was not sufficiently detailed or profound.
(4) Li Da’s Deepening of the Exploration of Social Form Evolution Theory
As an outstanding Marxist theorist, propagandist, and educator, Li Da’s exploration of social form evolution permeated his research in economics and philosophy. In 1935, while teaching at Beiping University, Li Da wrote and printed An Outline of Sociology (社会学大纲) as a textbook. In the section "The Economic Structure of Society," the book divided the historical forms of social-economic development into five major sequential stages: pre-class society, slave society, feudal society, modern society, and transition-period society. Li Da explicitly stated: "The above five historical forms of economic structure are the progressive stages of society from lower to higher levels. The development from lower to higher forms creates the unity of the historical process." In 1937, the Shanghai Bigentang Bookstore published a revised edition of An Outline of Sociology, which corrected and supplemented the relevant content. Although the revised edition used the more precise term "primitive society" to replace "pre-class society," there was no essential difference in the understanding of social stages. Furthermore, the "modern society" Li Da referred to was the capitalist social form. Regarding "transition-period society," he described the economy of the transition period, pointing out that "the transition-period economy is neither capitalism nor complete socialism," but a triad of three socio-economic forms—capitalism, small commodity production, and socialism. He described it as "the era of the development, construction, and generation of socialism," briefly explaining the basic characteristics of this social form. It is worth noting that the "socialism" Li Da mentioned was actually synonymous with communism, representing the high-level stage of socialist development.
The scientific nature of Li Da’s research is reflected in: First, his attention to particularity in social evolution. This is shown in his discussion of feudal society, where Li Da specifically explained the "Asiatic" social form [10] as a variant of feudalism. In analyzing the capitalist economic system, he conducted an in-depth discussion of the stage of imperialism. Furthermore, he emphasized that the development of relations of production in different social forms has different characteristics. Scholars at the time, when discussing the transition between old and new social forms, often only explained that new relations of production were already generated within the womb of the old society. Li Da not only recognized this general law but also noted the particularity of socialist relations of production. He pointed out that in capitalist society, socialist relations of production are neither generated nor matured; capitalism creates only the material prerequisites for socialism. The development of socialist relations of production can only move forward under the "impetus of economic policies consciously implemented" by the proletariat. Second, his clarification and critique of erroneous views. For example, when expounding on feudal society, Li Da refuted the view then prevalent in academic circles that feudalism and serfdom were not the same economic structure. When explaining the fundamental laws of the transition-period economy, he exposed the roots of the erroneous views held by Bukharin [11] and others.
(5) Mao Zedong’s Improvement of the Study of Social Form Evolution Theory
As a Marxist dedicated to transforming Chinese society, Mao Zedong used historical materialism as a guide to provide a scientific classification of social forms, enriching and improving the theory of social form evolution.
Mao Zedong’s attention to the development of social forms can be traced back to the period of the Great Revolution [12]. In 1926, while discussing class struggle, Mao explained the transformation of social forms from the perspective of the history of human evolution. He pointed out: "From primitive society’s evolution into patriarchal society, feudal society, and down to the state of today, the evolution of human beings has been nothing but the class struggle between the ruling class and the ruled class." Although Mao only briefly touched upon a few social forms and did not focus on specific research into the stages of social development, he had already accurately grasped that the direct driving force for social transformation lies in class struggle. Mao’s research on social evolution is primarily presented theoretically in The Chinese Revolution and the Chinese Communist Party and On New Democracy. In the former, Mao analyzed the evolution of Chinese social forms based on clarifying the general laws of social transformation. He pointed out that the Chinese nation, like other nations in the world, first passed through classless primitive communes, and after the emergence of class life, sequentially passed through slave society and feudal society. Since the Opium War, however, China gradually fell into a semi-colonial and semi-feudal society; after the September 18th Incident [13], "China became a colonial, semi-colonial, and semi-feudal society." Given that the Chinese revolution is a "special, new-style democratic revolution," the future of China’s social evolution will be the socialist and communist forms. In On New Democracy, Mao inherited the spiritual essence of the Marxist theory of social forms and enriched it. This inheritance is shown in his adherence to historical materialism to explain the social nature of China, clearly indicating the decisive significance of the economic base, while specific political and cultural forms are merely the concentrated expression of the economic form. His development of the theory is reflected in his comprehensive and detailed explanation of the special social form of the colonial, semi-colonial, and semi-feudal society China was in at the time, deeply analyzing its economic, political, and cultural forms, thus embodying a dialectical grasp of universality and particularity.
Mao Zedong’s exploration of social form evolution theory possessed several prominent features. First, he stood firmly on the standpoint of historical materialism, analyzing realistic social forms with a scientific eye. He emphasized: "To understand what the nature of contemporary Chinese society is, one must conduct a scientific and concrete analysis of the past and present conditions of Chinese society." It was on the basis of researching the past and present developmental forms of our society that Mao reached a comprehensive conclusion, revealing the unique colonial, semi-colonial, and semi-feudal social form in which China was situated. Second, his emphasis on class struggle. Unlike other Marxist scholars who focused on elucidating the economic roots of social transformation, Mao emphasized the disclosure of class struggle as the driving force of social development, expanding the approach to social form research. In emphasizing class struggle, he also highlighted the necessity of maintaining proletarian leadership and mobilizing the masses. This reflects the Marxist view that human beings can fully exert subjective initiative based on following objective laws, emphasizing the force of consciousness. Third, his correct prediction and judgment of the developmental trends of social forms. Starting from the Marxist worldview and employing the method of unifying logic and history, Mao pointed out that capitalist society and socialist society have appeared in human history, and in the future, it must inevitably progress to a perfect communist society.
III. Characteristics of Early Chinese Marxists' Exploration of Social Form Evolution Theory
The research conducted by early Chinese Marxists effectively advanced the adaptation, development, and refinement of the Marxist theory of social-formational evolution in our country. Using historical materialism as their theoretical basis, their exploration of the theory of social-formational evolution exhibited several distinct characteristics.
(1) Critiquing Historical Evolutionism via Historical Materialism
Against the historical backdrop of the continuous development of the "Ancient-Modern, Chinese-Western" [14] debate, modern Western science was introduced to China in succession. Among these ideas, the theory of evolution exerted a particularly massive influence, becoming a vital theoretical framework for researching the development of human history and exploring the processes of social-formational change. Because evolutionary thought met the practical needs of the Chinese people to "seek national salvation and ensure survival" [15], many early Chinese Marxists were initially influenced by social evolutionism. However, although evolutionism was once treated as the philosophical basis for the eventual realization of a "Great Harmony" [16] (i.e., the entry into a communist society)—and to a certain extent cleared the ideological obstacles for the spread of historical materialism—it nonetheless possessed inherent flaws. Consequently, as the understanding of Marxism deepened and the truth of historical materialism was confirmed by the success of the Russian October Revolution, historical materialism demonstrated immense superiority in its contention with other Chinese intellectual schools, gradually becoming a powerful intellectual weapon and a brand-new discursive paradigm for studying the laws of social-formational evolution.
The sublation [17] of evolutionism by early Chinese Marxists was manifested primarily in three aspects. First, there was a change in academic terminology. Some scholars, proceeding from the perspective of Marxist philosophy, periodized the explanatory paradigms of evolutionism, noting that the period from the May Fourth Movement to the late 1920s was a phase where historical materialism and evolutionary paradigms coexisted. During this time, "people strove to unify the two explanatory paradigms, yet conflicts constantly emerged." Cai Hesen’s History of Social Evolution and Zhang Bojian’s A Brief History of Social Evolution are precisely works from this period; their discussions of social-formational evolution still contain terms colored by evolutionism, such as "evolution" (jìnhuà) and "evaluation" (yǎnhuà). In contrast, Li Da’s Outline of Sociology had transitioned entirely to the explanatory paradigm of dialectical and historical materialism. Second, there was a focus on and emphasis further placed on class struggle. Although evolutionism also emphasized competition, the competition it referred to proceeded from individual and biological qualities, failing to explain matters from the level of class oppression and class struggle. Marx and Engels, however, utilized evolution as a natural-scientific foundation while introducing the doctrine of class struggle into historical materialism. It was precisely under the guidance of historical materialism that early Chinese Marxists recognized the vital driving role of class struggle in the development of social formations and discussed the movement of basic social contradictions that lead to class antagonism. Third, there was a correct elucidation of the relationship between evolution and revolution. Some scholars believed the relationship between evolution and revolution was one of conflict and irreconcilability, arguing that since historical materialism promoted revolution, it therefore denied evolution. This understanding was undoubtedly a misreading of historical materialism. Marxists represented by Cai Hesen pointed out that historical materialism is a synthesis of evolutionary and revolutionary doctrines; the two are unified within the process of socio-historical development and represent a dialectical understanding of the relationship and status of economic revolution and political revolution.
(2) Shifting from Theoretical Concern to Emphasizing the Integration of Theory with Chinese Reality
In exploring the evolutionary process of social formations, early Chinese Marxists also achieved a transformation from prioritizing theoretical elucidation to focusing on Chinese reality. First, they moved from elucidating the general laws of social-formational evolution to a practical focus on specific social formations. Before historical materialism became the primary explanatory mode for social-formational theory, although Chinese scholars started from the practical question of "whither China," their analysis and elucidation of Chinese social formations appeared relatively thin. They tended to seek universal truths of social-formational change while paying less attention to the particularity of China's social development. For instance, Cai Hesen’s work was mainly based on the study of prehistoric societies to demonstrate that "the evolution of every era or every stage possesses the commonality of all nations in the world; there are only distances in the timing of evolution, and no fundamentally different special paths arise due to the different locations of various peoples." Zhang Bojian’s A Brief History of Social Evolution also primarily provided a general revelation of the conditions for the emergence of various social formations and their economic, political, and cultural characteristics. It was not until the late 1920s and early 1930s, following the eruption of the "Controversy on the Nature of Chinese Society and Social History" [18], that the focus of social-formational research truly shifted to Chinese society itself. For example, Fan Shoukang and Li Da classified and explained China’s specific forms of social development. Mao Zedong, premised on mastering the general laws of social-formational evolution, focused emphatically on analyzing and researching the changes in Chinese social formations.
Second, the focus of early Chinese Marxists' understanding of the evolution of social formations underwent a shift: they moved from conceptions of a future society to a backward look at ancient society, and finally to a focus on current, contemporary society. Figures like Li Dazhao, Chen Duxiu, and Cai Hesen attempted to deduce the ideal form of a future society based on revealing the general laws and basic processes of human social development. With the rise of the debates on Chinese social history, researchers shifted their gaze to ancient Chinese society. These researchers believed that to understand China today, one must understand China yesterday. It was precisely while looking back at ancient Chinese society under the guidance of historical materialism that early Chinese Marxists proved the truth of the doctrine. Following the practical needs of the development of the Chinese Revolution, early Marxists shifted their focus back to the recognition and study of China’s contemporary social formations, with Mao Zedong being the most representative figure. Although Mao did not write a specialized treatise on the general laws and processes of social-formational evolution, he provided a profound elucidation of China’s specific "semi-colonial and semi-feudal" [19] social formation. In his 1939 work The Chinese Revolution and the Communist Party of China, he briefly explained that the development of the Chinese nation had passed through stages from primitive communes to slave society, feudal society, and then to the modern semi-colonial and semi-feudal society. Subsequently, he provided a detailed explanation of the formation process and characteristics of this special semi-colonial and semi-feudal social formation in which China found itself. By exposing the extreme imbalance in economic, political, and cultural development and the ruthlessness of exploitation and oppression within this specific social formation, Mao pointed the way forward for the development of Chinese society.
(3) Shifting from a Diversity of Contending Viewpoints to Theoretical Consistency
The theoretical research of early Chinese Marxists regarding social-formational evolution, on the one hand, propelled the theory from a state where multiple explanatory paradigms coexisted (a "contention of many schools") toward a single school of thought using historical materialism as the primary explanatory method. On the other hand, through mutual comparison and theoretical inspiration, their classification of social formations achieved a shift from a diversity of viewpoints to an affirmation of the "Five-Stage Theory" of social development.
Ever since the Chinese people "opened their eyes to see the world" [20], ideas concerning social evolution and development began to sprout. As a representative figure of this period, Wei Yuan held a "view of history as change" (biànyì shìguān). It was not until Kang Youwei unified the Gongyang "Three Ages" doctrine [21], the ideas of "Great Harmony" (dàtóng) and "Lesser Prosperity" (xiǎokāng) from the Book of Rites, and modern evolutionary thought that this view of history developed further into historical evolutionism. Kang Youwei believed human history was a process of sequential evolution along the stages of the Age of Disorder, the Age of Approaching Peace, and the Age of Universal Peace. Building on the "Three Ages" doctrine, Tan Sitong proposed a "double Three Ages" theory—meaning human society moves from the Age of Universal Peace of high antiquity down to the Age of Disorder, and then develops back from Disorder to Peace, representing a circuitous evolutionary process from "reverse" back to "ordered." Distinct from the views of the Reformists, Sun Yat-sen adhered to a "revolutionary evolutionism," believing human society evolved according to the law of moving from theocracy to monarchy and then to democracy. Chen Duxiu, once influenced by positivism, pointed out that Auguste Comte’s Law of Three Stages (theological, metaphysical, and scientific) was a law of social science. As seen above, discussions in academic circles regarding social-formational evolution were characterized by the coexistence of multiple theories and a lack of consensus. It was only after the May Fourth Movement that historical materialism gradually took a dominant position in the study of human social-formational development.
The theoretical research of early Chinese Marxists also provided intellectual threads for mastering the process of social-formational research as it moved from burgeoning to maturity. The maturity of the theory of social-formational evolution in China should be marked by the establishment of the orthodox status of the "Five-Stage Theory" of social development. However, the establishment of its orthodox status in Chinese theoretical circles underwent a tortuous process of exploration. Although the intellectual research of early Chinese Marxists more or less reflected the ideas of the Marxist Five-Stage Theory, their understanding was not yet self-conscious, and they had not formed a consistent affirmation of the model. It was not until 1938, after Stalin oversaw the compilation of The History of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (Bolsheviks): Short Course, that an evolutionary schema for the development of human history gained a general form. Stalin pointed out: "History knows five main types of relations of production: primitive communal, slave, feudal, capitalist, and socialist." After its publication, this book exerted a significant influence in China, and four different Chinese translations appeared shortly thereafter. Mao Zedong gave the book extremely high praise, stating: "The History of the CPSU (B) Short Course is the highest synthesis and summary of the world communist movement in the last hundred years, a model of the integration of theory and practice, and the only such perfect model in the whole world." From then on, the Five-Stage Theory of social development became the mainstream theoretical framework for research on social-formational evolution in Chinese academic circles.
Conclusion
The theoretical research of early Chinese Marxists on social-formational evolution was guided by historical materialism. By investigating the fundamental causes of social-formational change and revealing the origins of class antagonism from the contradictory movements of economic production and life, they scientifically elucidated the laws by which social history evolved from the past to the present and toward the future. Through their research, the Marxist theory of social-formational evolution was widely disseminated and developed in China, producing positive theoretical value and practical influence. From an ideological perspective, using historical materialism to guide the study of social-formational development helped promote a transformation in people’s view of history, achieving the shift from an idealist "heroic view of history" to a materialist "mass view of history." From a political level, the dissemination and acceptance of social-formational theory under the guidance of historical materialism helped further consolidate the leading status of the Communist Party of China and gathered a more powerful mass force to struggle together for the realization of socialist goals. In short, when early Chinese Marxists used historical materialism to study the development and evolution of social formations, they achieved a transformation from spontaneity to self-consciousness, from individuals to groups, and from theory to practice, pointing toward the correct direction for the Chinese nation to achieve salvation and survival, and verifying the scientific nature and correctness of the Marxist theory of social-formational evolution through revolutionary practice.