馬克思主義者向來對歷史唯物論持有不同見解，並且發展出幾種對資本主義起源的不同詮釋方式，至今仍然沒有定論。本文試圖在有限的字數內，以後者的相關討論為例，來勾勒一種比較靈活的歷史唯物論模型。本文首先追溯了第二國際以降馬克思主義歷史理論（尤其是G. A. Cohen）的發展（偏向結構決定論或某種版本的演化論），接著討論「政治馬克思主義」論者的作品（偏向唯意志論，強調資本主義純粹是階級鬥爭下的非意圖後果），最後本文引介了Alan Carling 的作品，以他對資本主義的起源（封建分裂命題）與資本主義的勝利（競爭首要性命題）的分析為例，說明歷史唯物論有可能適當地將結構與行動因素整合進解釋架構之中，而不致偏廢任何一方。

Marxists have developed different interpretations of historical materialism, which in turn have informed the debates among Marxists over the origins of capitalism. This paper is an attempt to outline a more flexible version of historical materialism by taking stock of the related discussion on the origins of capitalism. I first trace the development of Marxist theory of history from the Second International to G. A. Cohen (which accepted a relatively more deterministic reading of Marxism and encouraged a certain variant of evolutionism), and then discuss works by “political Marxists” on the agrarian capitalism in England (prone to voluntarism with their emphasis upon capitalism as an unintended consequence of class struggle). Finally, Alan Carling’s works, which account for the rise and victory of capitalism on the basis of “feudal fission thesis” and “competitive primacy thesis”, are introduced to illustrate the possibility of incorporating both structure and agency into the explanatory framework of historical materialism.