The Origin of the “Revolution Discourse” in Modern China: Early Explorations in the Sinicization of the Marxist “Revolution Discourse”

In recent years, academic circles have placed increasing importance on the study of the “revolution discourse” in modern China. This holds significant academic value for revealing the characteristics and external manifestations of modern thought. However, the question of the origin of the “revolution discourse” within modern thought has rarely been addressed. Theoretically speaking, any influential ideological discourse in modern China is an external manifestation of a related theory and possesses its own inherent theoretical foundation; the formation, development, and systematization of discourse rely on the society in which it exists. From the perspective of social history, the discourse system, as an expression of people’s ideological demands in society and a reflection of social change, is, on the one hand, constrained by the actual conditions of social operation and the relevant elements involved, and, on the other hand, exerts a significant influence on social change, thereby constituting the ideological resources of society through this influence. Based on the above considerations, this article, on the foundation of sorting out the basic connotations of the Marxist “revolution discourse,” takes the evolution of Chinese thought from 1919 to 1927 as the object of investigation. Within the perspective of social history, it explores the relevant elements involved in the origin of the modern Chinese “revolution discourse” and its initial form, aiming to provide new insights for understanding the logical genealogy of modern Chinese thought.

近年来学术界对于现代中国“革命话语”的研究越来越重视，这对于揭示现代思想特质及外在表征有着极为重要的学术意义，但对于现代思想中“革命话语”的起源问题，却鲜有涉及。学理上说，现代中国任何具有影响力的思想话语，乃是相关理论的外在表现形态，并有着其固有的理论基础；而话语得以形成和发展并形成其体系性的结构，乃是依托于其所生存的社会。从社会史视角来看，话语体系作为社会中人们思想诉求的表达、社会变迁的反映，一方面受制于社会运行的实况及所关涉的相关要素，另一方面也对社会变迁产生重要影响，并在这种影响中构成社会的思想资源。基于以上的思考，本文在梳理马克思主义“革命话语”基本内涵的基础上，以1919-1927年间的中国思想演进为考察文本，在社会史视域中探讨现代中国“革命话语”起源所关涉的相关要素及“革命话语”的最初形态，力图为认识现代中国思想的逻辑谱系提供新的看法。

I. The Basic Connotations of the Classical Marxist “Revolution Discourse”

一、经典马克思主义“革命话语”的基本内涵

To study the origin of the modern Chinese “revolution discourse,” one must first sort out the basic connotations of the Marxist “revolution discourse,” particularly recognizing the theoretical guiding role and foundational theoretical status of historical materialism and class theory. Theoretically speaking, the classical Marxist writers’ expositions on social revolution constitute a distinct theme and important content of scientific socialism. Marx and Engels, adhering to historical materialism, studied the phenomenon of social revolution, which was systematically expounded in classic works such as *On the Jewish Question*, *The German Ideology*, and especially the later *Communist Manifesto*, *Capital*, and *Critique of the Gotha Programme*. The Marxist “revolution discourse,” centered on the category of “class,” formed a system of categories including “political party,” “people,” “state,” “nation,” “liberation,” and others, and then, following the discursive path of “criticizing the old world to discover the new world,” clearly pointed toward the proletarian revolution.

研究现代中国“革命话语”的起源，首先要梳理马克思主义“革命话语”的基本内涵，特别是要看到唯物史观及阶级论所起到的理论指导作用及其所具有的理论基础地位。从学理上讲，马克思主义经典作家关于社会革命的论述，是科学社会主义理论的鲜明主题和重要内容。马克思恩格斯秉承唯物史观研究社会革命现象，在《论犹太人问题》《德意志意识形态》，特别是之后的《共产党宣言》《资本论》，以及《哥达纲领批判》等经典文献中得到集中系统阐释。马克思主义“革命话语”以“阶级”范畴为核心，形成了包括“政党”“人民”“国家”“民族”“解放”等话语范畴在内的范畴体系，进而循着“批判旧世界发现新世界”的话语进路，明确地指向了无产阶级革命。

First, the root of revolution is the need for the development of productive forces. Marx, based on historical materialism, examined the root causes of social revolution, arguing that “at a certain stage of development, the material productive forces of society come into conflict with the existing relations of production or—this merely expresses the same thing in legal terms—with the property relations within the framework of which they have operated hitherto. From forms of development of the productive forces these relations turn into their fetters. Then begins an era of social revolution.” [1]1 Karl Marx, “Preface to *A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy*,” in Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, *Selected Works* (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1969), vol. 1, p. 503. Although Marx analyzed the root of social revolution from the perspective of productive forces, this does not indicate that Marx was a productive forces determinist who passively awaited social revolution. In Marx’s view, productive forces, as an objective material force independent of human will, also possess a distinct character of social practice, because “of all the instruments of production, the greatest productive power is the revolutionary class itself. The organization of revolutionary elements as a class presupposes the existence of all the productive forces which could be engendered in the bosom of the old society.” [2]2 Karl Marx, “The Poverty of Philosophy,” in Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, *Collected Works* (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1976), vol. 6, p. 211. Therefore, social revolution in the classical Marxist “revolution discourse” is not a certain established state to be passively awaited; on the contrary, it must continuously promote the revolutionizing of the existing world through “the real movement which abolishes the present state of things.” [3]3 Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, “The German Ideology,” in *Collected Works*, vol. 5, p. 49.

其一，革命的根源是生产力发展的需要。马克思依据唯物史观考察社会革命发生的根源，认为“社会的物质生产力发展到一定阶段，便同它们一直在其中运动的现存生产关系或财产关系（这只是生产关系的法律用语）发生矛盾。于是这些关系便由生产力的发展形式变成生产力的桎梏。那时社会革命的时代就到来了”。马克思虽然从生产力角度分析社会革命的根源，但是这并不表明马克思是消极等待社会革命的生产力决定论者。在马克思看来，生产力作为不以人的意志为转移的客观物质力量，还具有其鲜明的社会实践性特征，这是因为“在一切生产工具中，最强大的一种生产力是革命阶级本身。革命因素之组成为阶级，是以旧社会的怀抱中所能产生的全部生产力的存在为前提的”。所以，经典马克思主义“革命话语”中的社会革命不是消极等待的某种确立状况，相反，要通过“消灭现存状况的现实的运动”而持续推动现存世界的革命化。

Second, the essence of revolution is the transformation of the social system. Marxism holds that social revolution is the product of irreconcilable contradictions between productive forces and relations of production. From the perspective of relations of production, the essence of revolution is to achieve a fundamental transformation of the social system. Within the discursive system of the classical Marxist “revolution discourse,” the essence of social revolution lies in opposing “old, outmoded social relations” [4]4 Karl Marx, “The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte,” in *Selected Works*, vol. 1, p. 398. and realizing the transformation of the social system centered on relations of ownership. Marx used the transformation of the social system to explain the essence of the bourgeois revolutions in England and France, arguing that “the victory of the bourgeoisie was at that time the victory of a new social system,” [5]5 Karl Marx, “The Bourgeoisie and the Counter-Revolution,” in *Collected Works*, vol. 8, p. 161. that is, “the victory of bourgeois property over feudal property.” [6]6 Ibid. As Engels stated, “all revolutions that have taken place up to now have been revolutions for the protection of one kind of property against another kind of property.” [7]7 Frederick Engels, “The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State,” in *Selected Works*, vol. 3, p. 328. Clearly, the essence of revolution lies not in reforming the existing society, but in achieving a fundamental transformation of the social system, because this is the crux of thoroughly resolving the incompatibility between the existing productive forces and the existing social relations. Therefore, viewing the historical role and political influence of revolution at the level of the social system is precisely an understanding of revolution’s effect on relations of production from the perspective of historical materialism.

其二，革命的实质是社会制度的变革。马克思主义认为，社会革命是生产力与生产关系发生矛盾难以调和的产物，而从生产关系的角度看，革命的实质就是要实现社会制度的根本性变革。在经典马克思主义“革命话语”的言说体系中，社会革命的实质在于反对“旧的、过时了的社会关系”，实现以所有制关系为核心的社会制度变革。马克思运用社会制度变革说明英法资产阶级革命的实质，认为“当时资产阶级的胜利意味着新社会制度的胜利”，即“资产阶级所有制对封建所有制的胜利”。正如恩格斯所讲，“迄今的一切革命，都是为了保护一种所有制而反对另一种所有制的革命”。显然，革命的实质不在于改良现存社会，而在于实现社会制度的根本性变革，因为这是彻底解决既得生产力和现存社会关系不能存续的要害所在。所以，在社会制度层面看待革命的历史作用和政治影响，正是在唯物史观视域中对革命作用于生产关系的理解。

Third, the subject of revolution is the oppressed proletarian laborers. From the perspective of Marxist class viewpoint and class struggle theory, oppressors and the oppressed exist in class society. Marx and Engels used terms such as “servant,” “cattle,” “puppet,” “appendage,” and “wage slave” to refer to the proletarian laborers under capitalist雇佣关系, and words like “poverty,” “enslavement,” “degradation,” “exploitation,” and “torment of labor” to express the actual plight of the oppressed proletariat, while never neglecting “the fact of national oppression.” [8]8 Karl Marx, “The National Question,” in *Collected Works*, vol. 6, p. 527. “Either starve or revolt” [9]9 Karl Marx, “Wage Labour and Capital,” in *Selected Works*, vol. 1, p. 249. — the proletariat, as a product of large-scale industry, had become the “truly revolutionary class” [10]10 Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, “Manifesto of the Communist Party,” in *Selected Works*, vol. 1, p. 112. opposing the bourgeoisie. As the discontent of the proletarian laborers grew and their strength expanded, revolutionary movements “carried on in the interests of the great mass of the people, i.e., the producers” [11]11 Frederick Engels, “Socialism: Utopian and Scientific,” in *Selected Works*, vol. 3, p. 147. became irresistible. As Marx stated, “the proletarian movement is the self-conscious, independent movement of the immense majority, in the interests of the immense majority,” [12]12 Marx and Engels, “Manifesto of the Communist Party,” p. 118. a mass social revolutionary movement with the proletarian laborers as its subject. This is the concrete application of Marxist class and class struggle theory in socio-political transformation.

其三，革命的主体是被压迫的无产阶级劳动者。从马克思主义阶级观点及阶级斗争的理论来看，阶级社会中存在着压迫者和被压迫者。马克思恩格斯借用“仆人”“牲畜”“傀儡”“附庸”“劳动奴隶”等词汇指代资本主义雇佣关系下的无产阶级劳动者，更用“贫困”“奴役”“退化”“剥削”“劳动折磨”类语词表达被压迫无产阶级的现实境遇，当然也从未忽略“民族压迫的事实”。“或者饿死，或者革命”，作为大工业产物的无产阶级已经成为对抗资产阶级的“真正革命的阶级”。随着无产阶级劳动者不满情绪的增长及其力量的壮大，“公开为人民群众即生产者群众的利益而进行”的革命运动势不可挡。正如马克思所讲，“无产阶级的运动是绝大多数人的”，是以无产阶级劳动者为革命主体的群众性社会革命运动，这是马克思主义阶级及阶级斗争理论在社会政治变革中的具体运用。

Fourth, the leader of the revolution is the proletarian political party. Marx and Engels’ attention to the issue of revolution mainly focused on how the proletariat should lead the revolution, and they particularly emphasized the extreme importance of organizing the Communist Party. In the view of Marx and Engels, “the Communists do not form a separate party opposed to the other working-class parties. They have no interests separate and apart from those of the proletariat as a whole. They do not set up any sectarian principles of their own, by which to shape and mould the proletarian movement.” [13]13 Ibid., p. 120. Clearly, the reason the classical Marxist writers entrusted the leadership of social revolution to the proletarian political party is that only the proletarian political party can truly strive “in the name of the people,” [14]14 Karl Marx, “The Civil War in France,” in *Selected Works*, vol. 2, p. 220. a unique advantage incomparable to other party organizations. As Marx stated, “to ensure the victory of the social revolution and to achieve its supreme goal—the abolition of classes—the proletariat must be organized as a political party.” [15]15 Karl Marx, “The General Council of the International Working Men’s Association to the Central Committee of the Social Democratic Party of Germany,” in *Collected Works*, vol. 22, p. 335. The position of the classical Marxist writers is clear: to continuously advance the social revolution, build a new society, and ultimately establish a communist society, the strong leadership of the proletarian political party must be upheld. Within the cognitive horizon of the classical Marxist writers, revolution was not only concentrated on the question of how the proletariat should carry out revolution, but revolution was also closely linked to the historical mission and practical tasks of the proletarian political party.

其四，革命的领导者是无产阶级政党。马克思恩格斯对革命问题的关注，主要集中于无产阶级如何领导革命的问题，并特别强调组织共产党的极端重要性。在马克思恩格斯看来，“共产党人不是同其他工人政党相对立的特殊政党。他们没有任何同整个无产阶级的利益不同的利益。他们不提出任何特殊的原则，用以塑造无产阶级的运动。”显然，马克思主义经典作家之所以将社会革命的领导权交给无产阶级政党，乃是因为只有无产阶级政党才能真正做到“以人民群众的名义”而奋斗，这是其他政党组织所不可比拟的独特优势。正如马克思所讲，“为保证社会革命获得胜利和实现革命的最高目标——消灭阶级，无产阶级这样组织成为政党是必要的。”马克思主义经典作家的主张很明确，为持续推进社会革命、建设新社会，直到建成共产主义社会，必须坚持坚强有力的无产阶级政党的领导。在马克思主义经典作家的认识视域中，革命不仅集中在无产阶级如何进行革命的问题上，而且革命也是与无产阶级政党的历史使命和现实任务紧密联系在一起的。

Fifth, the path of revolution is violent armed struggle. The Marxist “revolutionary discourse” emphasizes that the proletarian revolution “consists not in changing private property but in abolishing it, not in concealing class antagonisms but in abolishing classes.” Marx and Engels had a clear prediction of the future of revolution, namely that “the fall of the bourgeoisie and the victory of the proletariat are equally inevitable.” However, all reactionary exploiting classes will not voluntarily withdraw from the stage of history, and the social revolution of the proletariat can never “take the so-called path of peaceful development.” This is because the proposition of thoroughly breaking the ruling order of the bourgeoisie causes “the development of the proletariat in almost all civilized countries to be violently suppressed,” and “not to fight is to die; not to shed blood is to perish.” This is the fundamental reason why the proletarian social revolution must inevitably choose the path of violent armed struggle. From this perspective, within the Marxist “revolutionary discourse,” so-called “revolution means one part of the people using rifles, bayonets, and cannons—that is, using highly authoritative means—to force another part of the people to accept their will.” As the *Communist Manifesto* states, the proletarian social revolution “can be achieved only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions.”

其五，革命的途径是暴力的武装斗争。马克思主义“革命话语”强调，无产阶级革命“不在于改变私有制，而只在于消灭私有制，不在于掩盖阶级对立，而在于消灭阶级”。马克思恩格斯对革命前途有清晰预判，那就是“资产阶级的灭亡和无产阶级的胜利是同样不可避免的”。但是，一切反动的剥削阶级都不会自动退出历史舞台，无产阶级的社会革命绝不可能“走上所谓和平发展的道路”。这是因为，彻底打破资产阶级统治秩序的主张，使得“几乎所有文明国家的无产阶级的发展都受到暴力压制”，“不是战斗，就是死亡；不是血战，就是毁灭”，这是无产阶级社会革命必然选择暴力武装斗争途径的根本原因。由此而言，在马克思主义的“革命话语”体系中，所谓“革命就是一部分人用枪杆、刺刀、大炮，即用非常权威的手段强迫另一部分人接受自己的意志”。正如《共产党宣言》所讲，无产阶级社会革命“只有用暴力推翻全部现存的社会制度才能达到”。

Sixth, the goal of revolution is to establish a new communist society. Classical Marxist “revolutionary discourse” holds that the goal of social revolution is to realize “the free and full development of every individual” and to establish a new communist society. However, Marx resolutely opposed treating communism as a final, perfect endpoint of social revolution, because “what we call communism is the real movement which abolishes the present state of things,” and “the conditions of this movement result from the premises now in existence.” That is, communism is understood as “the doctrine of the conditions for the liberation of the proletariat.” In the view of the classical writers, “every real revolution is a social revolution, in that it brings a new class to power and allows this class to reshape society in its own image.” Following this, Lenin regarded the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat as the “primary and basic sign” of social revolution, the purpose of which is to consolidate the achievements gained by the proletariat in the revolutionary struggle, thereby laying the political foundation for building socialism and for the transition to a classless communist society.

其六，革命的目标是建立共产主义新社会。经典马克思主义“革命话语”认为，社会革命的目标在于实现“每一个个人的全面而自由地发展”，建立共产主义的新社会。但是，马克思坚决反对将共产主义作为社会革命最终的一个完美终点，因为“我们所称为共产主义的是那种消灭现存状况的现实的运动”，并且“这个运动的条件是由现有的前提产生的”，即将共产主义作为“关于无产阶级解放的条件的学说”。在经典作家看来，“任何一次真正的革命都是社会革命，因为它使新阶级占据统治地位并且让这个阶级有可能按照自己的面貌来改造社会。”列宁循此将建立无产阶级专政作为社会革命“首要的基本的标志”，其目的在于巩固无产阶级在革命斗争中所取得的成果，从而为建设社会主义及向无阶级的共产主义社会的过渡打下政治的基础。

The Marxist “revolutionary discourse,” adhering to historical materialism and historical dialectics, exhibits systematic dimensional characteristics: in the historical dimension, social revolution is not a final qualitative change achieved overnight, but a historical process that is “far longer, far more arduous, and far more difficult”; in the national dimension, it pursues national liberation, holding that the proletarian revolution “can in any case only take place within the framework of independent nations”; in the practical dimension, it advocates that social revolution should transform “real private property” through “real communist action”; in the world dimension, it reveals the intrinsic connection between the “spark” of the Chinese revolution and the “political revolution on the European continent,” calling on “workers of the world, unite!”; in the practical dimension, it holds that the proletariat, in the practice of social revolution, becomes “competent to undertake the work of reconstructing society,” thus preparing to bridge the practical link from “revolution” to “construction.” It was precisely on the basis of the Marxist “revolutionary discourse” that early Chinese Marxists interpreted the phenomenon of revolution. While integrating historical materialism with the theory of class struggle, they focused on the question of how the proletariat should carry out revolution, regarding Party leadership, the conduct of armed struggle, and the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat as key elements. Thereby, they established a system of “revolutionary theory” centered on social revolution, based on class struggle, and possessing distinct dimensional characteristics.

马克思主义“革命话语”秉承唯物史观与历史辩证法，呈现出系统性的维度特征：在历史维度方面，社会革命不是一蹴而就的最终质变，而是“一个长久得多、艰苦得多、困难得多”的历史过程；在民族维度方面，追求民族解放，认为无产阶级革命“无论如何只有在独立民族的范围内才有可能”；在现实维度方面，主张社会革命应该以“现实的共产主义行动”变革“现实的私有财产”；在世界维度方面，揭示中国革命的“火星”与“欧洲大陆的政治革命”之间的内在联系，号召“全世界无产者，联合起来”；在实践维度方面，认为无产阶级在社会革命实践中得以“胜任重建社会的工作”，为打通“革命”到“建设”的实践环节做好了准备。中国早期马克思主义者正是依据马克思主义“革命话语”解读革命现象，在统合唯物史观与阶级斗争理论的前提下，对无产阶级如何进行革命的问题给予了重点关注，并将共产党领导、开展武装斗争及建立无产阶级专政视为其中的关键性要素，进而建立了以阶级斗争为基础、以社会革命为中心的具有鲜明维度特征的“革命论”体系。

II. The Social and Historical Conditions for the Formation of Modern China’s “Revolutionary Discourse”

二、现代中国“革命话语”形成的社会历史条件

Modern China’s “revolutionary discourse” originated in Chinese society during the May Fourth period. Therefore, studying the origins and generative logic of the “revolutionary discourse” naturally requires grounding it in the study of Chinese society during the May Fourth period. From the perspective of social change and intellectual interaction, three aspects deserve attention: first, the republican society established through the Xinhai Revolution and its intellectual trends; second, the immense influence of the Russian October Revolution; third, the radicalization of the choice of path for social transformation during the May Fourth period. These three factors all provided the social and historical conditions for the formation of modern China’s “revolutionary discourse.”

近代中国“革命话语”起源于五四时期的中国社会。故而，研究“革命话语”起源及生成逻辑，自然需要立足于五四时期中国社会的研究。从社会变迁与思想互动的角度来看，有三个方面值得关注：一是经过辛亥革命所建立的民国社会及其思想走向；二是俄国十月革命所形成的巨大影响；三是五四时期社会改造在道路选择上的激进化走向。这三者，皆为现代中国“革命话语”的形成提供了社会历史条件。

(I) The “Revolutionary” Discursive Environment Provided by the Bourgeois Revolution

（一）资产阶级革命所提供的“革命”话语环境

In studying the origins of modern China’s “revolutionary discourse,” one cannot ignore the pre-existing intellectual reality of the “concept of revolution” held by China’s bourgeois democrats. Although, theoretically, the “revolutionary” propositions formed during China’s modern bourgeois revolution fundamentally differ from Marxist revolutionary theory in terms of ideological content, class essence, logical genealogy, and direction of advance, the bourgeois concept of revolution in China was nonetheless formed in the class struggles of modern China. For the formation of a Marxist-guided “revolutionary discourse,” this had an influence that cannot be overlooked, at least in terms of the discursive environment.

研究现代中国“革命话语”的起源，不能不看到中国资产阶级民主主义者的“革命观”这种既定的思想存在。尽管从理论上说，中国近代资产阶级革命中所形成的“革命”主张，无论是从思想内容、阶级本质、逻辑谱系、行进方向等方面，皆与马克思主义的革命论有着根本的不同，但中国资产阶级的革命观毕竟是在近代中国的阶级斗争中形成的，这对于以马克思主义为指导的“革命话语”的形成来说，至少在话语环境上有着不可忽视的影响。

The bourgeois revolutionary faction represented by Sun Yat-sen had already formed a bourgeois revolutionary ideology before the Xinhai Revolution, namely the systematized “Three Principles of the People.” After the Xinhai Revolution, the Chinese bourgeois revolutionary ideology centered on the “Three Principles of the People” was inherited and developed, continuing to exert considerable influence. In the early years of the Republic of China, Sun Yat-sen further elaborated on the causes and purposes of revolution. He said: “The sole product of a villainous government is called revolution,” and “the intention of our revolutionary party is to unite the four hundred million people of China,

以孙中山为代表的资产阶级革命派在辛亥革命前业已形成资产阶级革命思想，这就是体系化的“三民主义”。辛亥革命之后，以“三民主义”为核心的中国资产阶级革命思想得到承继和发展，并仍然产生很大的影响。孙中山在民国初年，对于革命的原因与目的加以进一步阐发。他说：“万恶政府之唯一产物，是曰革命”，“吾辈革命党之用心，以连合中国四万万人，推倒恶劣政府，造成国利民福为宗旨”。其后，孙中山为了适应民国建立后社会建设的需要，将“革命”与“建设”联系起来，提出“革命之建设”的主张，认为革命的意义就在于“先有了一种建设的计划，然后去做破坏的事”。资产阶级革命家朱执信、章太炎等积极宣传孙中山的革命与建设思想，提出“社会革命与政治革命当并行”的主张，希望资产阶级能葆有其革命的精神，在巩固资产阶级革命政治成果的同时，开启资产阶级国家的建设事业。中国早期马克思主义者在没有接受马克思主义之前，其所具有的革命思想大致还是承继于中国的资产阶级思想家，这自然也是与民国所建立的政治制度有着密切关联的。

The ideology of the early Republic of China was relatively complex, with old and new ideas coexisting, and society in a period of transition. During this period, there were not only the ideas of the bourgeois revolutionary faction represented by Sun Yat-sen, but also the ideas of the bourgeois reformist faction represented by Liang Qichao, as well as feudalist ideas, which still held considerable influence. However, overall, the ideas of the Chinese bourgeois revolution occupied a dominant position from the early Republic of China to the May Fourth period [16]16 The May Fourth period refers to the era surrounding the May Fourth Movement of 1919, a pivotal anti-imperialist, anti-feudal cultural and political movement led by Chinese intellectuals and students. and exerted great influence on society. "Revolution" can be said to have become an important tradition newly formed in the intellectual circles, which also provided one of the highly favorable ideological conditions for the subsequent dissemination of the Marxist theory of revolution.

民国初年的意识形态比较复杂，新旧思想并存，社会处于转型时期。这一时期，不仅有以孙中山为代表的资产阶级革命派的思想，也有以梁启超为代表的资产阶级改良思想，同时也有封建主义的思想，并且还具有很大的势力。但是，总的来看，中国资产阶级革命的思想在民国初年至五四时期乃是居于主导性地位，并在社会上有很大的影响。“革命”亦可以说是思想界新近形成的重要传统，这对于此后马克思主义革命论的传播也是极为有利的思想条件之一。

(2) The Revolutionary Blueprint Provided by the October Revolution

（二）十月革命所提供的革命图景

In studying the origins of the "revolutionary discourse" in modern China, one must recognize the significant impact of the revolutionary ideas transmitted by the Russian October Revolution on China's intellectual and academic circles. It was precisely under the influence of the October Revolution that early Chinese Marxists embarked on the path of "taking Russia as a teacher" [17]17 "Taking Russia as a teacher" (以俄为师) was a slogan adopted by early Chinese Marxists after the October Revolution, indicating their decision to model China's revolutionary path on the Bolshevik example. and creatively "used its theory and practice to interpret and explain the Chinese revolution," thereby accelerating the process of constructing a modern Chinese "revolutionary discourse."

研究现代中国“革命话语”的起源，要看到俄国十月革命所传输的革命思想，给予中国思想学术界的重大影响。因为中国早期马克思主义者正是在十月革命的影响下开启了“以俄为师”的道路，并创造性地“借助其理论和实践来诠释和说明中国革命”，由此加快了建构现代中国“革命话语”的历程。

As early as 1918, Li Dazhao published articles such as “A Comparative View of the French and Russian Revolutions,” “The Victory of the Common People,” and “The Victory of Bolshevism,” interpreting the October Revolution in terms of social transformation and transmitting the idea of “social revolution.” From the October Revolution, Li Dazhao recognized that its guiding theory was the Marxist theory of social revolution, pointing out that the Bolsheviks “take Marx, the German socialist economist, as their master.” [18]18 Zhang Jingyao (1881–1933) was a warlord governor of Hunan province whose brutal rule sparked widespread opposition, including the "movement to oust Zhang Jingyao" led by Mao Zedong in 1919–1920. Comparing the October Revolution with the French Revolution, Li Dazhao argued that the October Revolution was “a revolution based on socialism” and was in essence a revolution against “capitalism,” something the French Revolution lacked. Therefore, “the French Revolution of 1789 was the herald of revolutions in various countries in the nineteenth century. The Russian Revolution of 1917 is the herald of world revolution in the twentieth century.” Li Dazhao fully affirmed the “revolutionary” impact of the October Revolution, pointing out that the Russian Revolution was the fuse for world revolution, and that the Hungarian-Austrian Revolution and the German Revolution “can be said to be entirely revolutions of the Russian type, revolutions of the twentieth-century type.” Although Li Dazhao was still in the process of transitioning from a democrat to a Marxist at this time, his support for the October Revolution was sincere and resolute, and he sought to draw on the experience of the October Revolution in carrying out “mass movements” and “social revolution,” thereby providing a powerful reference for China’s “social transformation.”

李大钊早在1918年就发表了《法俄革命之比较观》《庶民的胜利》《Bolshevism的胜利》等文章，对十月革命进行社会变革意义上的解读，传输了“社会革命”的思想。从十月革命中，李大钊认识到十月革命的指导理论是马克思主义的社会革命论，指出布尔什维克是“奉德国社会主义经济学家马克思（Marx）为宗主的”。李大钊将十月革命与法国大革命进行比较，认为十月革命是“立于社会主义上之革命”，在本质上是反对“资本主义”的革命，这是法国大革命所没有的。因此，“一七八九年的法国革命，是十九世纪中各国革命的先声。一九一七年的俄国革命，是二十世纪中世界革命的先声。”李大钊对十月革命所产生的“革命”影响予以充分肯定，指出俄国革命是世界革命的导火线，匈奥革命、德国革命“可以说完全是俄罗斯式的革命，可以说是二十世纪式的革命”。李大钊尽管此时还处于由民主主义者向马克思主义者转变过程中，但他对十月革命的拥护是真诚而坚决的，并力图汲取十月革命开展“群众运动”、进行“社会革命”的经验，借以为中国的“社会改造”提供有力借鉴。

The revolutionary consciousness of the October Revolution initially influenced progressive youth groups in China. The Shanghai political journal *Zhengheng* published an article titled “A Discussion on China’s Recognition of the New Russia,” arguing that Soviet Russia “adheres to policies that uphold international peace and respect the dignity of other nations,” and therefore China should quickly diplomatically recognize the newborn Russia and establish friendly diplomatic relations with it. In his article “The Great Union of the Popular Masses,” Mao Zedong argued that the October Revolution had a major impact worldwide, “with major strikes in England, France, Italy, and the United States, and great revolutions in India and Korea,” while in China it “gave rise to the May Fourth Movement. The banners pointed south, crossed the Yellow River to the Yangtze, and at Huangpu and Hanyang, dramas were repeatedly staged; from Dongting Lake to the Min River, even higher tides arose, heaven and earth were revived, and the treacherous and evil were routed.” Here, Mao Zedong not only saw the intrinsic connection between the October Revolution and the “May Fourth Movement,” but also explicitly advocated adopting the means of the Russian October Revolution and taking the revolutionary path of “learning from Russia.”

十月革命的革命意识在中国最初影响的是进步青年群体。上海的政治类刊物《政衡》发表《关于我国承认新俄罗斯的商榷》文章，认为苏俄“抱行的政策是恪守国际的和平，是尊重别国的人格”，因而中国应该尽快在外交上承认新生的俄罗斯，并与俄国建立友好外交关系。毛泽东在《民众的大联合》文章中认为，十月革命在世界范围内产生了重大影响，“英法意美既演了多少的大罢工，印度朝鲜，又起了若干的大革命”，而在中国则“发生了五四运动。旌旗南向，过黄河而到长江，黄埔汉皋，屡演活剧，洞庭闽水，更起高潮，天地为之昭苏，奸邪为之辟易”。这里，毛泽东不仅看到十月革命与“五四运动”的内在关联，而且明确主张采取俄国十月革命的手段，走“以俄为师”的革命道路。

The revolutionary concepts transmitted by the October Revolution had a tremendous impact on the May Fourth period, with intellectual circles continuously citing the example of the October Revolution to criticize the existing government. An article in *Nankai Daily* used the October Revolution to warn the government: “Think of the situation of the military officers and aristocrats during the Russian Revolution, and then look at China; I truly worry for

十月革命所传输的革命观念对于五四时期的影响是巨大的，思想界持续地援引十月革命事例来批评现行政府。《南开日刊》有文章以十月革命警告政府，“想一想俄国革命时军官贵族的情形，再看一看中国，我实在替政府诸位担忧。又可怜，又可怕”。河南开封《青年》半月刊上有篇题为《胡思乱想》的文章说：“我若是一个土匪，我竖起一杆‘德谟克拉西’的大旗，号召些绿林健儿，编些Bolshevism的教科书，实行Bolshevism的教育。叫他们与那贵族官僚奋斗！破除不平等的阶级！做公产社会先锋队！为二十世纪的世界史上开个实行公产的新纪元！”作者是以所谓“土匪”自居，依据十月革命采取的Bolshevism的方式，提出了激烈的反抗现行贵族官僚政府的俄式革命主张。五四时期的思想界通过援引十月革命的事例来抨击政府，足以说明十月革命业已成为中国思想界革命思想的重要资源。

(3) The Revolutionary Turn of "Social Transformation" during the May Fourth Period

（三）五四时期“社会改造”的革命化走向

To study the origins of "revolutionary discourse" in modern China, one must recognize the pivotal role of the May Fourth Movement in China's social transformation and its significant impact on the discourse of "social transformation." Chinese intellectual circles formed a trend of thought on "social transformation" at the juncture of the May Fourth Movement. Although this trend included both revolutionary and reformist currents, within the overall radicalization of society, it ultimately took the path of revolution. Thus, the concept of revolution was a product of the choice for "social transformation" during the May Fourth period, adapting to the urgent needs of social transformation at that time.

研究现代中国“革命话语”的起源，要看到“五四运动”在中国社会变革中的转折性地位及其对于“社会改造”话语的重要影响。中国思想界在“五四”这个节点上形成“社会改造”思潮，尽管这种“社会改造”思潮有革命和改良之分，但在整个社会的激进化态势中，最终走上了革命化道路。可见，革命观乃是五四时期“社会改造”选择的产物，适应了当时社会改造的迫切需要。

The thought of "social transformation" during the May Fourth period grew increasingly radical, ultimately moving toward the path of "fundamental transformation" aimed at changing the existing socioeconomic system—that is, adopting the means of political revolution to carry out fundamental changes in the socioeconomic system. Taking Hunan as an example, Mao Zedong not only gradually directed the spearhead of the Hunan May Fourth Movement toward the movement to oust Zhang Jingyao [18]18 Zhang Jingyao (1881–1933) was a warlord governor of Hunan province whose brutal rule sparked widespread opposition, including the "movement to oust Zhang Jingyao" led by Mao Zedong in 1919–1920., but also, after that movement, initiated the Hunan self-government movement. Examining both movements with the goal of fundamental "social transformation," he considered the movement to oust Zhang Jingyao and the subsequent self-government movement "merely expedient measures to cope with the current environment... a means to achieve fundamental transformation." On the issue of "fundamental transformation," Shi Cuntong published an article titled "Why Engage in Fundamental Transformation" in the supplement "Awakening" of the Republic Daily in May 1920, arguing that "social transformation" must take the path of "fundamental transformation," and that any discussion of social issues "must lead to the path of fundamental transformation," directly expressing his advocacy for "fundamental transformation." Progressive youth, tempered by the May Fourth Movement, opposed piecemeal reform of existing society and instead advocated using revolutionary methods for a fundamental solution.

五四时期的“社会改造”思想不断激进，最终走向以变革现行社会经济制度为目标的“根本改造”道路，亦即采取政治革命的手段来进行社会经济制度的根本性变革。以湖南为例，毛泽东不仅将湖南“五四运动”的锋芒逐渐引向驱张运动，又在驱张运动后发起湖南自治运动，并以根本性的“社会改造”为目标考察此两种运动，认为驱张运动和之后的自治运动“都只是应付目前环境的一种权宜之计，……是达到根本改造的一种手段”。关于“根本改造”问题，施存统在1920年5月的《民国日报》副刊《觉悟》上发表《为什么要从事根本改造》文章，认为“社会改造”是要走“根本改造”的道路，讨论任何社会问题也“都要引到根本改造底路上去”，并直接地表达了自己的“根本改造”主张。进步青年在“五四运动”的洗礼中，反对就现行社会进行一点一滴地改造，而是主张运用革命的方法进行根本解决。

During the May Fourth period, as "social transformation" advanced to the stage of "fundamental solution," public opinion's recognition of "revolution" continuously increased. An article in the supplement "Awakening" of the Republic Daily stated: "From this I have awakened: It is impossible to use the work-study mutual aid corps as a means to transform society... So what is to be done? It is: To transform society, use a drastic and intense method, penetrate into society, and fundamentally seek the transformation of the whole." It was precisely because of the drastic changes in social psychology and the trend toward revolution that the concept of "revolution" gained prospects for further development. Tempered by the May Fourth Movement, the populace showed clear distrust toward the government, and subsequently raised demands to overthrow the ruling authorities. Young students, through the May Fourth Movement, came to realize that "the means to be taken toward the warlord government cannot be peaceful resolution; there is only one intense method, and that is revolution," that is, "to reform society's system and economic organization anew, so that the dictatorship of the proletariat is realized." Thus, during the May Fourth period, "revolution," as a radical means of transforming society, was endowed with the clear requirement of changing the social "system."

五四时期“社会改造”进至“根本解决”阶段，社会舆论对“革命”的认同度在不断提升。《民国日报》副刊《觉悟》有文章说：“我从此觉悟：要拿工读互助团为改造社会的手段，是不可能的。……那么要怎么样呢？就是：改造社会要用急进的激烈的方法，钻进社会里去，从根本上谋全体的改造。”正是因为社会心理的急剧变动及革命化的趋势，“革命”的观念才具有进一步发展的前景。经过“五四运动”的洗礼，民众对于政府表现出明显不信任，进而提出了推翻当局政府的要求。青年学生经过“五四运动”认识到，对军阀政府“所取的手段，不能和平解决，只有激烈的一个法子，就是革命”，即“从新改革社会上的制度和经济的组织使劳工专政实现”。这样，“革命”在五四时期作为改造社会的激进手段，被赋予了社会“制度”变革的明确要求。

III. The Main Content of Modern China's "Revolutionary Discourse"

三、现代中国“革命话语”的主要内容

The origin and development of Marxist "revolutionary discourse" in China represent the concrete application of Marxist "revolutionary discourse" by early Chinese Marxists and early Chinese Communists. It follows the positions, viewpoints, and methods of Marxism, but is premised on the understanding of China's basic national conditions and the recognition of the nature of its semi-colonial and semi-feudal society. That is to say, what was carried out in China was not a proletarian revolution in the general sense, but a new-democratic revolution led by the Chinese proletariat (through the Communist Party). Hence, it was necessary to study issues concerning "revolution" under Chinese conditions, such as the nature of revolution, the revolutionary leadership, the revolutionary forces, the revolutionary united front, and the revolutionary tasks. This gave rise to a "revolutionary discourse" with Chinese characteristics, reflecting the laws of China's new-democratic revolution. Specifically, it is embodied in the following eight aspects:

马克思主义“革命话语”在中国的起源和发展，是中国早期马克思主义者和早期中国共产党人对于马克思主义“革命话语”的具体运用，遵循马克思主义的立场、观点和方法，但又是以中国基本国情的认知和半殖民地半封建社会性质的认定为前提的。这就是说，在中国所进行的不是一般意义上的无产阶级革命，而是中国无产阶级（通过共产党）领导的新民主主义革命，故而也就需要研究中国条件下的革命性质、革命领导者、革命动力、革命统一战线、革命任务等关涉“革命”的问题，由此也就形成具有中国特色、反映中国新民主主义革命规律的“革命话语”。具体而言，体现在以下八个方面：

(1) On the Nature of Modern Chinese Society and the Course of Revolution

（一）关于近代中国的社会性质及革命历程

The integration of Marxist revolutionary theory with Chinese realities by early Chinese Marxists was premised on an understanding of the nature of modern Chinese society, and at the same time, based on the Marxist theory of class struggle, they provided a revolutionary interpretation of the evolution of modern Chinese society. The conclusion that modern China was a semi-colonial and semi-feudal society was established during the debate on the nature of Chinese society in the 1930s, but early Chinese Marxists had already explored this issue before that. In a speech at Guangdong Higher Normal School in June 1923, Chen Duxiu clearly stated that China was in a “semi-colonial” position. Chen Duxiu pointed out, “Although China is ostensibly an independent country, it is in fact a semi-colony. … Only because the name of the Beijing government still exists is it not considered a complete colony.” [19]19 Chen Duxiu, “The Question of the National Revolution and the Class Revolution” (June 1923), in *Selected Works of Chen Duxiu*, vol. 2 (Shanghai: Shanghai People’s Publishing House, 1993), p. 557. Li Dazhao, guided by historical materialism, interpreted modern Chinese history, believing that modern China was “the semi-colonial China of the great powers.” [20]20 Li Dazhao, “The Chinese People’s Aspiration for the Abolition of Unequal Treaties” (1925), in *Complete Works of Li Dazhao*, vol. 4 (Shijiazhuang: Hebei Education Publishing House, 1999), p. 387. In his speech at the First National Congress of the Kuomintang, Li Dazhao mentioned twice that modern Chinese society was a “semi-colony.” [21]21 Li Dazhao, “Speech at the First National Congress of the Kuomintang” (January 1924), in *Complete Works of Li Dazhao*, vol. 4, p. 370. It can be seen that the concept of “semi-colony” was not mentioned casually but was a relatively mature understanding in Li Dazhao’s thought. Interpreting modern Chinese history from the perspective of revolutionary history was also a major effort by early Chinese Marxists. Through his investigation of modern Chinese history, especially his unique analysis of major national revolutionary events—from the Sanyuanli Anti-British Uprising to the Taiping Heavenly Kingdom Movement, from the constitutional movements of the Society for the Study of Self-Strengthening and the Protect the Emperor Society to the revolutionary movements of the Revive China Society and the Tongmenghui, and up to the anti-imperialist patriotic movements that swept the nation from the May Fourth Movement to the May Thirtieth Movement—Li Dazhao believed that modern Chinese history was “a thoroughgoing history of imperialist oppression of the Chinese nation” and at the same time “a thoroughgoing history of the Chinese people’s national revolution against imperialism.” [22]22 Li Dazhao, “The Chinese People’s Aspiration for the Abolition of Unequal Treaties,” p. 387. In 1926, Yun Daiying completed *The History of the Chinese National Revolutionary Movement*, which used Marxist viewpoints to narrate the history of the past eighty-plus years in a popularized manner, eulogizing the revolutionary struggle spirit of the masses in resisting foreign aggression and safeguarding national independence, making a pioneering contribution to the later construction of a more complete revolutionary history system. Guided by the Marxist theory of class struggle, early Chinese Marxists used the category of “revolution” to interpret the evolution of modern Chinese history, providing a historical and theoretical basis for the New Democratic Revolution led by the Communist Party of China.

中国早期马克思主义者将马克思主义革命理论与中国实际的结合，是以对近代中国社会性质的认识为前提的，同时亦依据马克思主义的阶级斗争理论，对近代中国社会的演变给予革命的解读。近代中国是半殖民地半封建社会的论断是在20世纪30年代的中国社会性质问题论战中确立的，但中国早期马克思主义者在这之前对此就曾有所探讨。陈独秀在1923年6月广东高师的演讲中明确认为，中国处于“半殖民地”的地位。陈独秀指出，“中国表面上虽说是一个独立的国家，其实是个半殖民地。……只因有北京市政府的名义存在，还不算是完全殖民地。”李大钊以唯物史观为指导解读近代中国的历史，认为近代以来的中国是“列强的半殖民地的中国”。李大钊在国民党第一次代表大会上的发言中，有两处讲到近代中国社会是“半殖民地”。可见，“半殖民地”这一概念并不是偶然提及的，而是李大钊思想中比较成型的认识。对近代中国历史进行革命史的解读，也是中国早期马克思主义者的重大努力。李大钊通过对中国近代史的考察，特别是从三元里平英团到太平天国运动，从强学会、保国会的立宪运动，到兴中会、同盟会的革命运动，一直到由“五四”至“五卅”弥漫全国的反帝爱国运动等重大民族革命事件的独到分析，认为中国近代史是“一部彻头彻尾的帝国主义压迫中华民族史”，同时又是“一部彻头彻尾的中国民众反抗帝国主义的民族革命史”。恽代英在1926年写成了《中华民族革命运动史》，该著以马克思主义观点对近代以来八十多年的历史作了通俗化的叙述，讴歌了人民大众反抗外来侵略、维护民族独立的革命斗争精神，为后来比较完善的革命史体系的建构作出了先驱者的贡献。中国早期马克思主义者以阶级斗争理论为指导，用“革命”范畴来解读近代中国历史的演变，为中国共产党领导新民主主义革命提供了历史和学理的依据。

(II) On the Purpose and Tasks of the Chinese Revolution

（二）关于中国革命的目的与任务

The Chinese revolution was the main issue explored by early Chinese Marxists, characterizing the historical features of China’s New Democratic Revolution. Cai Hesen believed that the essence of China’s political problem was “how to overthrow the warlords,” that is, “how to make revolution,” which could not be solved by “provincial federation and self-government.” Therefore, China’s “only way out was to carry out a democratic revolution thoroughly.” [23]23 Cai Hesen, “The Political Situation and the National Revolution” (1923), in *Selected Works of Cai Hesen* (Beijing: People’s Publishing House, 1980), p. 74. Applying the Marxist theory of revolution to China, early Marxists clearly pointed out that the Chinese revolution was a “national revolution.” Regarding the necessity of China’s “national revolution,” Qu Qiubai provided a classic exposition in 1923: “Under the current conditions in China, the bourgeoisie cannot fully develop, and therefore the proletariat cannot fully develop either. The entire people, with incomplete class differentiation, are all under the oppression of imperialism and the domestic warlords, and cannot but seek economic development and thus move toward a national revolution.” [24]24 Qu Qiubai, “The Meaning of the National Revolution” (1923), in *Selected Works of Qu Qiubai* (Beijing: People’s Publishing House, 1985), p. 72. Therefore, the purpose of China’s “national revolution” still differed somewhat from that of the world proletarian revolution. Zhao Shiyan compared the Chinese revolution with the world proletarian revolution, focusing on the particularities of the Chinese revolution. Zhao Shiyan pointed out: “The immediate goal of the world workers’ revolution is to overthrow the rule of the imperialist bourgeoisie and establish a state governed by the working class; the immediate goal of the Chinese working class is to overthrow the government of warlords and bureaucrats, while its more distant goal is the same as that of the world workers. … The sole party leading the Chinese workers to join this long-term struggle is the Chinese workers’ own party—the Communist Party of China.” [25]25 Zhao Shiyan, “The Political Situation and the Tasks of the Working Class” (1924), in *Selected Works of Zhao Shiyan* (Beijing: People’s Publishing House, 1984), p. 78. Early Chinese Marxists not only clarified the “national revolution” character of the Chinese revolution but also linked the Chinese revolution with the leadership and historical activities of the Communist Party of China, making valuable explorations for uncovering the laws of the Chinese revolution.

中国革命乃是中国早期马克思主义者探讨的主要问题，表征了中国新民主主义革命的历史特点。蔡和森认为，中国的政治问题实质上是“怎样推翻军阀”的问题，也就是“怎样革命”的问题，这不是“联省自治所能解决”的，故而中国“唯一的出路，只有贯彻民主革命”。早期马克思主义者将马克思主义的革命论运用到中国，明确指出中国革命是“国民革命”。对于中国“国民革命”的必要性，瞿秋白在1923年有一段经典性的论述：“中国处于现时这种状况之下，资产阶级不能充分发展，因之无产阶级也不能充分发展，阶级分化不充分的全国人民，皆受制在资本主义及本国军阀之下，不能不要经济发展而行向国民革命”。故而，中国的“国民革命”目的与世界无产阶级革命的目的，还是有所差别的。赵世炎将中国革命与世界无产阶级革命相比较，重点论述中国革命的特别之处。赵世炎指出：“世界工人革命的最近目的是在推翻帝国主义资产阶级的统治，建立劳动者执政的国家；中国工人阶级最近的目的是在打倒军阀官僚的政府，而较远的目的亦与世界工人相同。……领导中国工人加入这个长远争斗的，也就是中国工人自己的唯一的政党——中国共产党。”中国早期马克思主义者不仅明示中国革命的“国民革命”特征，而且将中国革命与中国共产党的领导及历史活动联系起来，为探求中国革命的规律做出了可贵的探索。

(III) On the Guiding Ideology of the Chinese Revolution

（三）关于中国革命的指导思想

Early Chinese Marxists emerged during the process of the dissemination of Marxism in China. They not only made important contributions to the further spread of Marxism but also, in the course of studying the Chinese revolution, actively promoted the integration of Marxism with Chinese realities and emphasized the guiding role of Marxism for the Chinese revolution. The Chinese Marxist pioneer Li Dazhao believed that China’s social transformation must be based on the Marxist materialist conception of history for a “fundamental solution,” because “once the economic organization changes, everything else changes accordingly. In other words, the solution to the economic problem is the fundamental solution. Once the economic problem is solved, any political problem, legal problem, family system problem, women’s liberation problem, and workers’ liberation problem can all be solved.” [26]26 Li Dazhao, “Another Discussion on Problems and Doctrines” (1919), in *Complete Works of Li Dazhao*, vol. 3, p. 6. Li Dazhao also pointed out that to carry out a national democratic revolution in China, one “should carefully study Marx’s historical materialism and how to apply it to China’s current political and economic conditions. To put it more specifically, it is to study, according to Marx’s historical materialism, how China’s current political and economic conditions came to be, and how we should carry out the movement for national independence to rescue China from the oppression of the great powers.” [27]27 Li Dazhao, “The Application of Marx’s Historical Materialism in Modern Chinese History” (1920), in *Complete Works of Li Dazhao*, vol. 3, p. 150. Qu Qiubai, from the essence of Marxist theory and the historical process of the Chinese revolution since the May Fourth Movement, demonstrated the inevitability of Marxism guiding the Chinese revolution. Qu Qiubai pointed out: In the few years from the May Fourth Movement to the May Thirtieth Movement, “it has already been confirmed that Marxism can indeed explain the development situation of the Chinese revolution and indicate the future of the Chinese revolution,” and “it proves the Marxist theories of history, economics, philosophy, and politics, and proves that Marxism is guiding the Chinese revolution on the path to victory.” [28]28 Qu Qiubai, “The Victory of the National Revolution” (1926), in *Selected Works of Qu Qiubai*, p. 132. The guidance of the Chinese revolution by Marxism not only laid the theoretical foundation for the “revolutionary discourse” but also embodied the basic Marxist spirit of the “revolutionary discourse.”

中国早期马克思主义者产生于马克思主义在中国传播的过程中，他们不仅对进一步传播马克思主义做出了重要贡献，而且在研究中国革命的过程中，积极推进马克思主义与中国实际的结合，并且强调马克思主义对于中国革命的指导地位。中国马克思主义先驱李大钊认为，中国的社会变革必须依据马克思主义唯物史观进行“根本解决”，因为“经济组织一有变动，他们都跟着变动。换一句话说，就是经济问题的解决，是根本解决。经济问题一旦解决，什么政治问题、法律问题、家族制度问题、女子解放问题、工人解放问题，都可以解决”。李大钊还指出，在中国开展民族民主革命，就“应该细细地研考马克思的唯物史观，怎样应用于中国今日的政治经济情形。详细一点说，就是依马克思的唯物史观以研究怎样成了中国今日政治经济的情状，我们应该怎样去作民族独立的运动，把中国从列强压迫之下救济出来。”瞿秋白从马克思主义理论的本质及五四以来中国革命的历史进程，论证马克思主义指导中国革命的必然性。瞿秋白指出：从“五四”到“五卅”的几年里，“已经证实马克思主义的确能够解释中国革命发展的形势，并指示中国革命的前途”，“证明马克思主义的历史、经济、哲学及政治学说，证明马克思主义正在指导着中国革命行向胜利的道路”。中国革命以马克思主义为指导，不仅奠定了“革命话语”的理论基础，而且体现了“革命话语”的马克思主义基本精神。

(IV) On the Leadership of the Chinese Revolution by the Communist Party

（四）关于共产党对于中国革命的领导权

Early Chinese Marxists studied the class conditions of Chinese society and the uniqueness of the Chinese revolution, believing that “Party organization is very important.” The reason was: “Which of the problems arising in China today can be solved under the current society and system? Therefore, China’s social revolution is certainly inevitable. If we do not carry out a thorough organization now, the future bloodshed and terror will naturally be more severe than if we are organized. With a strong organization, it might even be avoided. Therefore, I think Party organization is very important.” [29]29 Yun Daiying, “On Organization” (1924), in *Selected Works of Yun Daiying* (Beijing: People’s Publishing House, 1984), p. 89. With the founding of the Communist Party of China, early Chinese Marxists became more aware of the extreme importance of proletarian leadership, emphasizing that the leadership of the Chinese revolution could only belong to the Chinese proletariat, specifically led by the political party of the Chinese proletariat—the Communist Party of China. As early as 1923 to 1924, Deng Zhongxia identified “the three main forces of the revolution—workers, peasants, and soldiers,” believing that “only the proletariat has a large and concentrated mass and a spirit of revolution to the end; only it is worthy of being the leader of the national revolution.” [30]30 Deng Zhongxia, “Our Strength” (1924), in *Selected Works of Deng Zhongxia* (Beijing: People’s Publishing House, 1983), p. 101. Qu Qiubai, from the perspectives of the anti-imperialist and anti-feudal tasks to be accomplished by the national revolution, the thoroughness of class struggle, and the united front, demonstrated the extreme importance of the Communist Party leading China’s democratic revolution. In Qu Qiubai’s view, only by adhering to “Bolshevik leadership” could one “overthrow the rule of the gentry and bourgeoisie, eliminate feudal exploitation, and confiscate the land of the landlord class,” [31]31 Qu Qiubai, “The Question of the Leadership of the Chinese Revolution” (1927), in *Selected Works of Qu Qiubai*, p. 156. thoroughly completing the tasks of the Chinese bourgeois revolution. The exploration of the leading position of the Chinese proletariat in China’s democratic revolution was a fundamental element of the theory of the New Democratic Revolution and also the core essence of the “revolutionary discourse” constructed by early Chinese Marxists and members of the Communist Party of China.

中国早期马克思主义者研究中国社会的阶级状况和中国革命的独特性，认为“党的组织是很重要的”，其理由是：“中国今日所发生的问题，哪一种能在现社会现制度之下解决？所以中国的社会革命，一定不能免的。不趁此时加一番彻底的组织，将来流血恐怖自然比有组织要狠些。有了强有力的组织，或者还可以免掉。所以我认为党的组织是很重要的。”随着中国共产党的成立，中国早期马克思主义者更加认识到无产阶级领导权的极端重要性，强调中国革命的领导权只能是中国无产阶级，具体的就是由中国无产阶级政党——中国共产党领导中国革命。邓中夏在1923年至1924年间就认定“革命主力的三个群众——工人、农民、士兵”，认为“只有无产阶级有伟大集中的群众，有革命到底的精神，只有它配做国民革命的领袖”。瞿秋白从国民革命所要完成的反帝反封建任务、阶级斗争的彻底性以及统一战线等方面，论证了共产党领导中国民主革命的极端重要性。在瞿秋白看来，只有坚持“布尔塞维克的领导”，才能“推翻豪绅资产阶级的统治，消灭封建式的剥削，没收地主阶级的土地”，彻底地完成中国资产阶级革命的任务。中国无产阶级在中国民主革命中领导地位的探索，是新民主主义革命理论的根本性内容，同时也是早期中国马克思主义者和中国共产党人所构建的“革命话语”的核心要义。

(V) On the Mass Character of the Chinese Revolution

（五）关于中国革命的群众性

The early Chinese Marxists adhered to the Marxist view of the masses, holding that the Chinese revolution possessed broad mass character and that it was necessary to mobilize and unite the broad masses of the people to participate in the Chinese revolution. Yun Daiying believed that the revolution occurring in China had a popular character: “China’s revolution must be able to guarantee the interests of the workers, soldiers, peasants, and even the generally oppressed classes, in order to win their support and endorsement; moreover, after the revolution, it must first seek to provide them with opportunities for a settled life and work.” Li Dazhao believed that the Chinese revolution could not do without the participation of the peasants: “If China’s vast peasant masses can be organized to participate in the national revolution, the success of China’s national revolution will not be far off.” To this end, first, it was necessary to help peasants organize “peasant associations,” because “only peasant associations organized by the peasants themselves can safeguard their class interests”; second, it was necessary to raise the peasants’ class consciousness and cultural level, conducting “propaganda on general common knowledge and national revolutionary education” among them, “so that the general peasantry may understand their class position, gradually developing their localist mentality into a manifestation of class consciousness.” Based on the nature of China’s new-democratic revolution, the early Chinese Marxists and early Chinese Communists formed a recognition that the Chinese revolution possessed mass character. This not only conformed to the conditions of the various revolutionary classes in Chinese society and the basic requirements of the Chinese nation’s democratic revolution, but also became the precursor to the subsequent thought on “the motive forces of the Chinese revolution.” At the same time, it signified the people-oriented concept inherent in the “revolutionary discourse.”

中国早期马克思主义者坚持马克思主义群众观，认为中国革命具有广泛的群众性，必须动员和团结广大民众参加中国革命。恽代英认为，中国所发生的革命具有大众性，“中国的革命，必须能保证劳兵农乃至一般被压迫阶级的利益，乃能得着他们的赞助拥护，而且革命以后，亦必须首先为他们谋得安居乐业的机会”。李大钊认为，中国革命离不开农民的参加，“中国的浩大的农民群众，如果能够组织起来，参加国民革命，中国国民革命的成功就不远了”。为此，一是需要帮助农民组织“农民协会”，因为“只有农民自己组织的农民协会才能保障其阶级的利益”；二是需要提高农民的阶级意识与文化水平，对他们“作种种普通常识及国民革命之教育的宣传”，“使一般农民明了其阶级的地位，把他们的乡土观念，渐渐发展而显出阶级的觉悟”。中国共产党早期马克思主义者和早期中国共产党人基于中国新民主主义革命的性质，形成了关于中国革命具有群众性的认知，不仅切合中国社会各革命阶级的状况和中华民族民主革命的基本要求，而且成为此后“中国革命动力”思想的先导，同时也表征了“革命话语”中所内蕴着的民众本位理念。

(6) On the Form of Armed Struggle in the Chinese Revolution

（六）关于中国革命的武装斗争形式

After the founding of the Communist Party of China, the early Chinese Communists explored the forms of the Chinese revolution and advocated the method of violent revolution. Zhao Shiyan believed that “armed force itself is one of the actions of the revolutionary masses,” and therefore “the national revolution (i.e., the national revolution) in colonies and semi-colonies is a mass insurrection directed against the economic aggression of the imperialist宗主国 and the oppression of the domestic ruling class”; “this insurrection naturally requires arming” and “becoming armed force.” Qu Qiubai believed that “the experience of the Chinese revolutionary struggle has already created the necessary conditions for armed revolution,” and therefore “the central issue of the current revolutionary movement is already to prepare for and carry out revolutionary war, seeking to overthrow China’s current rule—the warlord system, which is the political rule of imperialism in China—in the shortest possible time.” To develop this “armed revolution,” it was necessary to pay attention to arming the peasants, because “this peasant insurrectionary movement is truly an extremely significant event in Chinese history—the peasants are already holding weapons in their hands, demanding a solution to the peasant problem.” Li Dazhao also believed that in carrying out armed struggle, great importance must be attached to the strength of the peasants, especially developing their armed organizations, “transforming the old-style Red Spear Society into a dignified and proper modern armed peasant self-defense corps.” The explorations and conclusions of the early Chinese Marxists and early Chinese Communists regarding the form of armed struggle that the Chinese revolution should take thus became an indispensable component of the “revolutionary discourse.”

中国共产党创立之后，早期中国共产党人就中国革命的形式进行探讨，主张暴力革命的方式。赵世炎认为“武力的本身就是革命群众行动之一”，故而“殖民地与半殖民地之民族革命（即国民革命）是准对着宗主国的帝国主义之经济侵略及本国统治阶级之压迫而施行的民众暴动”，“这个暴动自然要武装”并“成为武力”。瞿秋白认为，“中国革命斗争的经验已经造成武装革命的必要条件”，故而“现时革命运动的中心问题，已经是实行准备革命战争、求于最短期间推翻中国现在的统治，帝国主义在中国的政治统治军阀制度”。而发展这个“武装革命”就必须重视对农民的武装，因为“农民的这种暴动运动，实在是中国历史上非常重大的事件——农民已经手里拿着武器要求农民问题的解决”。李大钊也认为，进行武装斗争必须高度重视农民的力量，尤其是要发展农民的武装组织，“变旧式的红枪会而为堂堂正正的现代的武装农民自卫团”。中国早期马克思主义者和早期中国共产党人关于中国革命所应有的武装斗争形式的探讨及其结论，也就成为“革命话语”中不可或缺的组成部分。

(7) On the “United Front” in the Chinese Revolution

（七）关于中国革命中的“联合战线”

The Second National Congress of the Party established the revolutionary program of opposing imperialism and feudalism, and the Third National Congress of the Party adopted the “Resolution on the National Movement and the Question of the Kuomintang,” which held that “among the existing parties in China, only the Kuomintang is relatively a party of the national revolution” and decided to “strive to expand the Kuomintang’s organization throughout China, so that all revolutionary elements in China may concentrate within the Kuomintang, in order to meet the needs of the current Chinese national revolution.” Consequently, the early Chinese Marxists argued that China could not immediately carry out a proletarian socialist revolution but should instead conduct an anti-imperialist and anti-feudal bourgeois democratic revolution, i.e., a “national revolution,” and that to defeat imperialism and feudalism, it was necessary to carry out “class cooperation” among the revolutionary classes within this “national revolution.” Chen Duxiu, in view of the need for Kuomintang-Communist cooperation, believed that the proletariat in the “national revolution” must “act as a supervisor,” that is, “supervise all compromising allied forces—peasants, handicraft workers, revolutionary intellectuals, lumpenproletarians (soldiers and bandits), and petty merchants—to achieve the true goal of the national revolution.” Zhou Enlai pointed out that communists advocate “class revolution” and also recognize that after the “national revolution,” there will still be a “class revolution” of the proletariat against the bourgeoisie, “but the national revolution we are now carrying out is a Three People’s Principles revolution, a ‘class revolution’ in which the proletariat and the bourgeoisie cooperate to overthrow the current feudal class in power.” Thereafter, the Chinese Communists used the term “united front” to express this “class cooperation” in the national revolution. For instance, Qu Qiubai emphasized the extreme importance of the “united front” in the “national revolution,” arguing that it was precisely “the realization of the united front of the national revolution that caused all classes across the country to rise up individually and converge into an unprecedented revolutionary mass movement,” and that “within the united front of the national revolution, the proletariat’s leadership position and political guidance were not only realized in practical action” but also signified that “the proletariat is the main force for liberating the Chinese nation” and its “most courageous and self-sacrificing revolutionary spirit.”

党的二大确立了反帝反封建的革命纲领，党的三大作出了《关于国民运动及国民党问题的议决案》，认为“中国现有的党，只有国民党比较是一个国民革命的党”，并决定“努力扩大国民党的组织于全中国，使全中国革命分子集中于国民党，以应目前中国国民革命之需要”。由此，中国早期马克思主义者主张，在中国不能立即进行无产阶级的社会主义革命，而是要开展反帝反封建的资产阶级民主革命亦即“国民革命”，并认为为了战胜帝国主义和封建主义，就有必要在“国民革命”中开展革命阶级的“阶级合作”。陈独秀鉴于开展国共合作的需要，认为无产阶级在“国民革命”中，必须“做一个督战者”，就是“督促一切带有妥协性的友军——农民、手工业者、革命的知识阶级、游民无产者（兵与会匪）及小商人……达到国民革命之真正目的”。周恩来指出，共产主义者是主张“阶级革命”的，并且也认定在“国民革命”后还有无产阶级向着有产阶级的“阶级革命”事实的存在，“但我们现在做的国民革命，却是三民主义革命，是无产阶级和有产阶级合作，以推翻当权的封建阶级的‘阶级革命’”。此后，中国共产党人以“联合战线”来表示国民革命中的这种“阶级合作”。譬如，瞿秋白就强调“国民革命”中“联合战线”的极端重要性，认为正是“国民革命的联合战线实现，全国各阶级各自奋起而汇合成一空前的革命的群众运动”，并且在“国民革命的联合战线里无产阶级的领袖地位和政治指导，不但实现于实际行动”，而且表征了“无产阶级是解放中华民族的主要力量”及其“最勇敢牺牲的革命精神”。

(8) On the Chinese Revolution as Part of the World Revolution

（八）关于中国革命是世界革命的一部分

In light of the new situation of Kuomintang-Communist cooperation, the early Chinese Marxists and Communists studied the world position of the Chinese revolution and put forward the proposition that “the Chinese revolution is part of the world revolution.” Cai Hesen placed the Chinese revolution within a global perspective, arguing that “the Chinese revolution must merge with the world revolutionary movement; only then can the Chinese revolution succeed, and only then can the Chinese revolutionary problem be truly resolved.” Subsequently, the Chinese Communists further elaborated the view that “the Chinese revolution is part of the world revolution.” Li Dazhao pointed out that “the Chinese national revolutionary movement has, from its inception, been part of the world revolution. The success of the Chinese revolution will greatly influence Europe, and even the entire world.” In Qu Qiubai’s view, “not only the ultimate liberation of the Chinese proletariat necessarily requires the implementation of a world social revolution, but even the national revolution of the Chinese nation must unite with the international proletariat before it can achieve final victory.” Xie Juezai emphasized that “the Chinese revolution is part of the world revolution,” meaning that “apart from the world revolution, the Chinese revolution can never succeed,” which is determined by the relationship between the world revolution and the Chinese revolution. It was through the active explorations of the Chinese Communists that Deng Zhongxia, in 1927, reached a concluding summary: “The proletarian revolution and the national revolution are important strategies for overthrowing the world revolution of capital-imperialism. The proletarian revolution certainly aids the national revolution, and the national revolution also aids the proletarian revolution. Their ultimate goal is to fundamentally overthrow capital-imperialism and achieve the complete liberation of the oppressed classes and nations. Hence, we all say, ‘The Chinese revolution is part of the world revolution.’” This consensus in ideological understanding and its influence, as Mao Zedong later stated in “On New Democracy,” was that “the Chinese revolution is part of the world revolution”—a “correct proposition” put forward by the Chinese Communists “during the period of China’s First Great Revolution from 1924 to 1927,” which was “endorsed by all those who participated in the anti-imperialist and anti-feudal struggle at that time.” Linking the Chinese revolution with the world proletarian revolution and elucidating the view that the Chinese revolution is part of the world revolution constitutes an extremely important content of the “revolutionary discourse.”

中国早期马克思主义者和共产党人鉴于国共合作的新局面，就中国革命的世界地位进行研究，提出了“中国革命是世界革命的一部分”的命题。蔡和森将中国革命置于世界视域之中，认为“必须使中国革命运动与世界革命运动汇合，中国革命才能成功，中国革命问题才能真正解决”。这之后，中国共产党人进一步阐发“中国革命是世界革命一部分”的主张。李大钊指出，“中国的国民革命运动，自始即世界的一部。中国革命的成功，将伟大地影响于欧洲，乃至全世界。”在瞿秋白看来，“不但中国无产阶级的最终解放，必然要实行世界社会革命，就是中华民族的国民革命，都必须联合国际无产阶级，然后才能得到最后的胜利。”谢觉哉强调，“中国革命是世界革命的一部”，说的是“离开了世界革命，中国革命决不能成功”，这是由世界革命与中国革命的关系所决定的。正是中国共产党人的积极探索，邓中夏在1927年就有个总结性的结论：“无产阶级革命与民族革命是推翻资本帝国主义的世界革命之重要策略，无产阶级革命固有助于民族革命，民族革命亦有助于无产阶级革命，其最终目的是根本推翻资本帝国主义而使被压迫之阶级与民族得到完全解放。所以我们大家都说‘中国革命是世界革命之一部分’。”此种思想认识上的共识和影响，诚如毛泽东后来在《新民主主义论》中所说，“中国革命是世界革命的一部分”，是中国共产党人在“一九二四年至一九二七年的中国第一次大革命时期”所提出的“正确的命题”，这是“为当时一切参加反帝反封建斗争的人们所赞成的”。将中国革命与世界无产阶级革命联系起来，阐明中国革命是世界革命一部分的观点，是“革命话语”中极为重要的内容。

The basic conclusion of this study is that modern China’s “revolutionary discourse” originated in the spread of Marxism during the May Fourth period, and is the intellectual crystallization of early Chinese Marxists’ interpretation of revolutionary phenomena on the basis of classical Marxist “revolutionary discourse” and their creative application of the theory of class struggle to social revolution in the Chinese context. In the process of its formation, the “revolutionary discourse” naturally had the context created by social changes and ideological developments during the May Fourth period, but what was more important was the effort of early Chinese Marxists and early Chinese Communists to promote the “sinicization” of Marxist revolutionary theory, and this effort was in turn built on the political practice of the Chinese Communist Party in transforming Chinese society. The construction of modern China’s “revolutionary discourse” is an important manifestation of the development of modern Chinese thought. It not only provided a logical starting point and discursive conditions for the formation and development of the theory of New Democratic Revolution, but also made Marxist revolutionary theory an important component of the Chinese Marxist political science system.

本文研究的基本结论是，现代中国“革命话语”起源于马克思主义在五四时期的传播，是中国早期马克思主义者依据经典马克思主义“革命话语”解读革命现象，在中国环境下创造性地运用阶级斗争理论进行社会革命探索的思想结晶。“革命话语”在形成过程中，自然是有着五四时期社会变动及思想发展所形成的语境，但更为重要的乃是中国早期马克思主义者和早期中国共产党人推进马克思主义革命理论“中国化”的努力，而这种努力又是建立在中国共产党变革中国社会的政治实践基础上。现代中国“革命话语”的构建是现代中国思想发展的重要表征，不仅为新民主主义革命理论的形成和发展提供了逻辑起点和话语条件，而且也使得马克思主义革命理论成为中国马克思主义政治学体系的重要组成部分。

(The authors are, respectively, Associate Professor of the Party School of the CPC Shanghai Xuhui District Committee and the Xuhui District Urban Governance Academy; and Second-Level Professor and Doctoral Supervisor of the School of Marxism, Hangzhou Normal University.)

（作者系中共上海市徐汇区委党校、徐汇区城市治理学院副教授；杭州师范大学马克思主义学院二级教授、博士生导师）

Online Editor: Ma Jingren

网络编辑：马京仁