First of all, Marx's theory of five forms is an essential abstraction of the stages of social and historical development. In "German Ideology", Marx divided the forms of ownership in pre-capitalist society into tribal ownership, ancient commune ownership and state ownership, feudal or hierarchical ownership, plus the capitalist ownership that existed at that time and the capitalist ownership that will replace capitalist ownership. These are five forms of ownership. This is the embryonic form of the theory of five social forms. Then, in Poverty of Philosophy, Marx clearly put forward two social forms: feudal society and capitalist society according to the changes of social productive forces and relations of production. In the preface of 1859 (Critique of Political Economy), after comprehensively explaining and analyzing the interaction of social basic contradictions and the law of how to promote social development, Marx put forward the orderly evolution of five social forms for the first time completely and accurately. Indeed, the "five-form theory" can be found in Marx's works, but it cannot be used to set the specific development situation of each country in the form of mechanical correspondence of this theory. Marx's theory of social formation is an essential abstraction of the stages of social and historical development. Compared with the reflected object, the theory is generally abstract, abandoning the non-essential and secondary things of the object and refining the essential things of the object. When analyzing Marx's theory of social formation, we should put our foothold on the development process of the whole human society, instead of judging abstract, holistic and general theories by the special development path of a country or some countries.
Secondly, the complexity of social form replacement and the universality of toddler and "five-form theory" are not mutually exclusive. Marx's "five-form theory" reveals the general law of world historical development, but as far as the social development process of a country or a nation is concerned, the situation is complex and changeable. Some countries have experienced the typical process of several social forms changing in turn; In the process of historical development, some countries have surpassed one or even several social forms and achieved leap-forward development; In some countries, the nature of social form is not typical in a certain historical development stage, and even a variety of social form characteristics cross-infiltrate; In some countries, the backward social form has rapidly changed to the advanced social form in a certain period of time, while in some countries, the social form has been stagnant for a long time, or even changed from advanced to long-term backwardness. Even the same social form will show different characteristics in different countries; Wait a minute. On the surface, the complexity of social form replacement and the universality of Fielding and Marx's "five-form theory" are mutually exclusive. In fact, if we go deep into the essence of the problem, we can see that the two are not mutually negative.
First, judging from the overall historical process of mankind, most countries are developing forward, not backward. The emergence of feudal society cannot be later than that of capitalist society, while the emergence of capitalist society must be earlier than that of socialist society, and the replacement of social forms has a strict order. According to the practical experience of Russian social reform, Lenin once profoundly pointed out: "The general law of world historical development not only does not exclude the particularity of individual development stages in development form or development order, but also is based on it." (Selected Works of Lenin, Volume 4, People's Publishing House, 1995, p. 776)
Secondly, Marx himself has repeatedly affirmed that the development of social forms is the unity of unity and diversity. Marx believes that the objective law of social development is independent of human will. However, on the basis of understanding the law, people can make a difference, can use the law to promote social development, and can "shorten and alleviate the pain of childbirth." Marx explicitly talked about this issue in his letter 1877 to the editorial department of the magazine. In his letter, he resolutely opposed Mihailovski's historical philosophy theory that turned his historical overview of the origin of western European sauce into a beautiful development path, which actually involved the universality of social development laws and the particularity of each country's development path.
Finally, the standard of social form division is not single, but multi-dimensional. When Marx divided the stages of social development and expounded the characteristics of specific social forms, he often studied and divided them from different angles and with different standards according to the different needs of theory. Marx divided human society into Stone Age, Bronze Age, Handmade Workshop Age and Steam Workshop Age by taking labor materials, which are mainly production tools, as an objective measure to divide social forms. Based on the relationship between man and nature, man and man, in the economic manuscript of 1857- 1858, Marx divided the development process of human society into three forms: "Man's dependence (which is completely natural at first) is the initial social form, in which man's productivity only develops in a narrow range and an isolated place. People's independence is based on dependence on things, which is the second largest form. In this form, a universal system of social transformation, comprehensive relationship, multiple needs and comprehensive ability has been formed. The third stage is a free personality based on the all-round development of individuals and their social productivity becoming their social wealth. " (The Complete Works of Marx and Engels, Volume 46, People's Publishing House, 1979, p. 104) From Marx's view that various standards for dividing social forms coexist with the evolution modes of various social forms, Marx's understanding of the essence of social existence and the essence and symbol of social progress is comprehensive. He does not simply regard the change of ownership form and the victory of some people over others in society as the only signs of social progress, but at the same time regards the development of productive forces, the freedom of people in nature and the growth of social relations as important signs of social progress.
In a word, we should look at this theory with the holistic view and dialectical thinking of Marx's "Five Forms Theory", and at the same time we should not look at Marx's criteria for dividing social forms mechanically. The diversity of the concrete development of social forms does not deny the universality of the development law of social forms, and the dividing standard of "Five Forms Theory" is not the only dividing standard of social forms. Only by looking at Marx's theory of social formation in an all-round way can we make an objective answer to whether the "five-form theory" is universal.