The CPC’s European Organization’s Struggle for and against Anarchists from the Perspective of the International Communist Movement

After the establishment of the CPC’s European organization in 1922, it engaged in an ideological contest lasting over a year and a half with anarchists among Chinese students in France. In previous historical narratives, this struggle has generally been treated as an aftershock in Europe of the May Fourth-era debate between Marxism and anarchism, with the outcome being that Marxist theorists in Europe defeated the anarchists theoretically and purged anarchist influence among the Chinese student community in France. The importance of this debate for the ideological formation of the CPC’s European organization is self-evident; however, whether it was merely a conflict that naturally arose between two Chinese student groups in France during the process of spreading Marxism still warrants further exploration. Many researchers have already realized that, compared with the debates between Chen Duxiu and Ou Shengbai on the eve of the Party’s founding, the polemics during the European period shifted from broad theoretical disputes to focusing on actual revolutionary movements and issues concerning Soviet Russia, with both the depth of content and the level of theory having improved. In fact, this shift in subject matter well illustrates an extremely important dimension of the early period of the Party’s founding, namely, the interaction between the CPC and international socialist currents, and existing research in this area still requires further deepening.

1922年中共旅欧组织建立后，与留法无政府主义者展开了一场持续一年半之久的思想较量。在以往的历史叙述中，这场斗争一般被当作五四时期马克思主义与无政府主义论战在欧洲的余波，结果则是旅欧马克思主义者在理论上战胜无政府主义者，肃清了无政府主义在留法群体中的影响。对于中共旅欧组织的思想塑造而言，此次论争的重要性不言而喻，然而，它是否仅仅是两个留法中国学生团体在马克思主义传播过程中自然而然产生的冲突，仍值得进一步探讨。不少研究者已经意识到，相比于建党前夕陈独秀、区声白等人的论争，旅欧期间的论战已由宽泛的理论争执转向聚焦实际的革命运动和苏俄问题，内容深度和理论水平皆有增进。实际上，这种论题变化很好地展现了建党初期一个极为重要的维度，即中共与国际社会主义思潮的互动，而现有研究在这方面的挖掘尚且有待深入。

The struggle between the Third International (the Communist International) and the Second International serves as a coordinate axis for analyzing early CPC thought, but the complex relationship between the Third International and the anarchist camp, and its influence on the CPC, has not received sufficient attention. American scholar Arif Dirlik analyzed the relationship between Chinese Marxists and anarchists in the early 1920s. He pointed out that “in 1922, when the split between the two groups became public, the anarchists’ criticism became much more intense”; furthermore, it was precisely the “disillusionment of Western anarchists with the Soviet Union that prompted Chinese anarchists to become increasingly uncompromising in their rejection of Bolshevism.” This view is highly illuminating for understanding the divergence between the two factions, but it does not examine the other party that cannot be ignored behind the divergence, namely, the influence of the Communist International. Whether the term “split” can be used to summarize the dynamics of the two factions after 1922 is also open to question.

第三国际（共产国际）与第二国际的斗争是分析中共早期思想的一个坐标轴，但第三国际与无政府主义阵营的复杂联系及其对中共的影响却没有得到足够重视。美国学者阿里夫·德里克（Arif Dirlik）分析了20世纪20年代初中国马克思主义者与无政府主义者的关系。他指出，“1922年，当两个团体的分裂公开化时，无政府主义者的批评就激烈得多了”，进而言之，正是西方无政府主义者“对苏维埃联盟理想的破灭，才促使了中国无政府主义者越来越不妥协地否定布尔什维主义”。此说对于理解两派的分歧极具启发性，但没有考察分歧背后不容忽视的另一方，即共产国际方面的影响。能否以“分裂”来概括1922年以后两派的动向，同样有待商榷。

In the historical context of the early years of the Communist International, anarchism was not a “reactionary trend of thought” but a revolutionary ideology. In 1919, the First Congress of the Communist International established uniting with anarchists as one of the prerequisites for the “road to victory” of the revolution. The Second Congress of the Communist International, held in 1920, further specified that winning over anarchists was “one of the indicators for measuring the achievements of the work of every genuine communist party.” However, after the Kronstadt rebellion in March 1921, the Tenth Congress of the Russian Communist Party (Bolsheviks) decided to purge the Party, making anarchists one of the main targets of struggle; correspondingly, anti-communist currents also rose within the international anarchist movement, and the contradictions between the two sides became increasingly acute. For the CPC, which possessed a global perspective, this series of events directly constituted an intellectual resource for understanding the proletarian revolution. This article attempts to trace, within the broader context of the international communist movement, the intellectual origins and evolutionary trajectory of the polemics between the CPC’s European organization and the Chinese anarchist organization in France, the Gongyu Society (工余社), with particular emphasis on clarifying the textual sources of the views of both sides and examining how the Communist International’s positioning of anarchists influenced the understanding of CPC members in Europe, in order to enhance the understanding of the history of the founding of the CPC’s European organization.

在共产国际成立初期的历史语境中，无政府主义并非“反动思潮”，而是一种革命的意识形态。1919年，共产国际一大将联合无政府主义者确立为革命“胜利之路”的先决条件之一。1920年召开的共产国际二大进一步指明，争取无政府主义者是“衡量各个真正的共产主义政党的工作成就的标志之一”。但是，1921年3月喀琅施塔得事件（Kronstadt rebellion）后，俄共（布）十大决定清党，无政府主义者成为主要斗争对象之一，反共思潮也相应地在国际无政府主义运动中抬头，双方矛盾愈发尖锐。对于具有世界眼光的中共而言，这一系列事件直接构成了认识无产阶级革命的思想资源。本文尝试在国际共产主义运动的大背景中追溯中共旅欧组织与旅法华人无政府主义者组织——工余社论争的思想源起和演进脉络，尤其注重厘清双方观点的文本源流，考察共产国际对无政府主义者的定位如何影响了旅欧中共党员的认识，以期增进对中共旅欧组织创建史的理解。

The CPC’s European organization successively used names such as the Chinese Communist Youth League in Europe, the Chinese Communist Youth League in Europe, the European General Branch of the Chinese Socialist Youth League, and the European General Branch of the Chinese Communist Party. For ease of expression, this article collectively refers to it as the “CPC’s European organization,” and its members are referred to simply as “CPC members in Europe.”

中共旅欧组织先后使用了旅欧中国少年共产党、旅欧中国共产主义青年团、中国社会主义青年团旅欧总支部、中国共产党旅欧总支部等名称。为方便表述，本文统称“中共旅欧组织”，其成员则简称“旅欧中共党员”。

I. The Debate on the Situation in Soviet Russia: “The Theory of the Failure of the Russian Revolution” and “The Theory of Party Dictatorship”

一、苏俄时局之辩：“俄国革命失败论”和“政党专政论”

In September 1922, Ou Shengbai, then in France, published an article in Gongyu titled “The Reasons for the Failure of Russian Communism and the Methods for Its Remedy,” declaring that “after several years of experimentation, the Russian government realized that communism could not be realized through force; if it persisted, Russia would inevitably perish, so it recently implemented the New Economic Policy, permitting freedom of trade, which is not very different from the current capitalist countries.” Here, Ou Shengbai directly equated the economic and political crises in Soviet Russia, the Tenth Congress of the Russian Communist Party (Bolsheviks) abolishing war communism, and the implementation of the New Economic Policy with the failure of the revolutionary cause. Subsequently, he wrote to Chen Duxiu, responding to previous queries regarding contract and law, freedom and association, human nature and education, and particularly elaborated on his “many dissatisfactions with the Russian system.” Besides the rhetoric of “party dictatorship,” Ou Shengbai argued that the New Economic Policy “puts all property into the hands of the central government, so what is called state socialism is simply state capitalism.” He also, regarding the Russian Communist Party (Bolsheviks)’s suppression of the anarchist and Socialist Revolutionary parties, advised Chen Duxiu not to imitate its “one-party monopoly of the revolution,” saying that “whether it is the Marx party or the Kropotkin party, they should join forces to overthrow the forces of the old society, and then solve the problem of social organization.”

1922年9月，留法的区声白在《工余》发表文章《俄国共产主义失败之原因及其补救的方法》，宣称“经过数年之试验，俄国政府便知共产主义是不能以强力实现的，如果勉强干下去，俄国必致于灭亡，于是最近乃施行新经济政策，准许贸易自由，与现在各资本主义的国家没有十分大区别”。在此，区声白将苏俄的经济和政治危机、俄共（布）十大废止战时共产主义以及实施新经济政策直接等同于革命事业的失败。随后，他致信陈独秀，答复此前关于契约与法律、自由与联合、性恶与教育等方面的质疑，并特别阐述了“对于俄国制度……很多不满意之地方”。除了“政党专政”的论调以外，区声白认为，新经济政策“把一切财产送给中央政府的手里，那么所谓国家社会主义，简直是国家资本主义”。他还针对俄共（布）取缔无政府党和社会革命党的行动，劝陈独秀不要学其“一党包办革命”，“无论马克斯党也好，克鲁泡特金党也好，应该合力推翻旧社会的势力，然后再去解决社会组织问题”。

It is worth noting that when Ou Shengbai put forward the above views, the New Economic Policy had already been implemented for over a year. The reason he delayed his criticism until this time is not unrelated to the influence of European anarchists. At the end of 1921, in accordance with the agreement reached between French and Spanish syndicalist representatives and the Central Committee of the Russian Communist Party (Bolsheviks) during the Third Congress of the Communist International, Russian anarchists were expelled. Afterwards, they wrote articles in major European anarchist newspapers about the Russian Revolution and the Soviet regime, on the one hand attempting to rescue anarchists still in prison, and on the other hand spreading the so-called truth about Soviet Russia. The London magazine Freedom, which Liu Shifu called “the most important English-language anarchist newspaper,” began publishing a large number of articles on the “failure” of the Russian Revolution from June 1922. Among them, an article directly titled “The Failure of Russia and Its Lessons” lamented: “A country with abundant natural resources and a population of over one hundred million actually has to survive by peddling itself to international capital.” From June to August, Freedom serialized Emma Goldman’s “The Bolshevik Tyranny” in three installments, recording her experiences and impressions during her two years in Soviet Russia. Goldman pointed out: “The Russian Revolution may have been doomed to failure from the start. Four years of civil war exhausted Russia’s best manhood, drained her blood, and devastated her land; the revolution may not have had enough strength to withstand the mad attacks of the capitalist world.” However, “it was not so much the attacks from outside as the stupidity and cruel methods within Soviet Russia that strangled the revolution.” In July, Alexander Berkman’s translation of The Russian Revolution and the Communist Party was published by the London Freedom Press; this pamphlet was called “the authoritative expression of the Russian anarchist movement” and “a powerful and detailed analysis of the Russian Revolution and the reasons for its failure.” The book condemned the Russian Communist Party (Bolsheviks) for betraying Lenin’s promise of “contact and closeness with the proletarian working masses, but also with the non-proletarian working masses,” arguing that its “basic psychological characteristic is distrust of the masses and the proletariat,” thereby eliminating the path for the working class to spontaneously build a new society. Ou Shengbai absorbed many views and materials from these writings. The author’s comparison reveals that Ou Shengbai’s assertions about “party dictatorship” are essentially consistent with The Russian Revolution and the Communist Party, and most of the examples he used came from “The Bolshevik Tyranny.”

值得注意的是，区声白提出上述观点时，新经济政策已实行一载有余，他之所以迟至此时才提出批评，与欧洲无政府主义者的影响不无关系。1921年底，按照共产国际三大期间法国、西班牙工团主义代表同俄共（布）中央达成的协议，俄国无政府主义者被驱逐出境。之后，他们在欧洲各大无政府主义报刊上撰写关于俄国革命和苏俄政权的文章，一方面试图营救仍在狱中的无政府党人，另一方面传播所谓的苏俄真相。被刘师复称为“英文无政府报最要者”的伦敦《自由》（Freedom）杂志，自1922年6月起大量刊发有关俄国革命“失败”的言论。其中，一篇直接题为《俄国的失败及其教训》的文章慨叹：“一个拥有丰富自然资源、居住着一亿多人口的国家，居然要靠向国际资本兜售自己来维生。”6月至8月，《自由》分三期连载爱玛·高德曼（Emma Goldman）的《布尔什维克暴政》，记述她在苏俄两年的见闻和感想。高德曼指出：“俄国革命或许一开始就注定要失败。四年内战耗尽俄国最好的男子气概，也吸干了她的鲜血，摧毁了她的土地，革命也许没有足够的力量抵挡资本世界的疯狂攻击。”但是，“与其说是来自外界的进攻，不如说是苏俄内部的愚蠢和残酷手段扼杀了革命”。7月，亚历山大·伯克曼（Alexander Berkman）翻译的《俄国革命与共产党》由伦敦自由社发售，这本册子被称为“俄国无政府主义运动的权威性表达”，“有力而详尽地分析了俄国革命及其失败的原因”。书中谴责俄共（布）背弃列宁承诺的“同无产阶级劳动群众，但同样也同非无产阶级劳动群众联系、接近”，认为其“基本心理特征就是不信任群众和无产阶级”，从而取消了工人阶级自发建设新社会的道路。从这些论述中，区声白吸收了不少观点和素材。笔者对比发现，区声白关于“政党专政”的论断与《俄国革命与共产党》基本一致，而他使用的例证大多出自《布尔什维克暴政》。

After Ou Shengbai’s article was published, the Chinese Communist organization in Europe did not respond immediately. In December 1922, Zhou Enlai published an article in issue No. 6 of *Youth* titled “Has the Russian Revolution Failed? — A Query to Mr. Sanbo of the Workers’ Mutual Aid Society,” questioning Ou Shengbai’s views, but after this issue *Youth* temporarily ceased publication. From the extant issues No. 2 through No. 6 of *Youth*, the content discussing anarchism was very limited. In issue No. 2, Zhou Enlai published the article “Communism and China,” briefly criticizing anarchism, arguing that it “can only prattle about utopian art, prattle about a few terms like ‘truth,’ ‘goodness,’ and ‘beauty,’ but when it comes to concrete methods for developing industry, it has virtually no specific proposals except to destroy large-scale production and oppose the system of centralization,” and that it could hardly contend with wealthy and powerful capitalists. This understanding was broadly consistent with the economic analysis of anarchism by Chen Duxiu, Li Da, and others on the eve of the Party’s founding, while the *Collected Discussions on Socialism* compiled and published in the same period may have been an important source of his ideas. The remaining articles only sporadically mentioned news of the anarchist movement or responded to anarchist accusations that “Marxism is a religion,” lacking systematic critical exposition.

区声白的文章刊出以后，中共旅欧组织并未立即作出回应。1922年12月，周恩来在《少年》第6期发表《俄国革命是失败了么？——质工余社三泊君》一文，对区声白的观点提出质疑，而这一期之后《少年》便暂时停刊了。从现存《少年》第2期至第6期来看，讨论无政府主义的内容十分有限。周恩来在第2期发表文章《共产主义与中国》，简略地批评了无政府主义，认为其“只会高谈那空想的艺术，高谈几个‘真’‘善’‘美’的名词，论到实在的开发实业的方法，恐怕除掉毁坏大规模生产，反对集中制度外竟无什么具体主张”，断难与有钱有势的资本家相抗。这种认识与建党前夕陈独秀、李达等人对无政府主义的经济分析大体一致，而同期整理发行的《社会主义讨论集》可能是其思想的重要来源。其余文章也仅零散提及无政府主义运动的消息，或者回应无政府主义者关于“马克思主义是宗教”的诘难，缺乏系统的批判论述。

“Has the Russian Revolution Failed? — A Query to Mr. Sanbo of the Workers’ Mutual Aid Society” also did not engage in theoretical criticism of anarchism but instead focused on clarifying the political and economic facts of Soviet Russia and the reasons for implementing the New Economic Policy. This article was written precisely on the fifth anniversary of the Russian Revolution, so Zhou Enlai particularly emphasized the achievements of the revolution, stressing: “If we are willing to calmly and dispassionately study the five-year record of the Russian Revolution, we will see that they were not opposed to construction, nor did they fail to carry out construction.” Before this article was published, *Youth* had specially released a “Fifth Anniversary of the Russian Revolution” issue. Besides Zhou Enlai’s own “The October Revolution” and another article of unknown authorship titled “The Lessons of the Russian Revolution,” the remaining three articles, as the author has verified, were all translated from the English edition of the Comintern’s organ *International Press Correspondence*, Vol. 2, Nos. 95 and 96. These were, respectively, Victor Serge’s “Five Years of Struggle,” Zinoviev’s “The Immortal in the Russian Revolution,” and Trotsky’s “The October Revolution and the Fourth World Congress of the Communist International.” These articles provided important supporting perspectives for Chinese Communist members in Europe to understand the situation in Soviet Russia.

《俄国革命是失败了么？——质工余社三泊君》亦未对无政府主义展开理论批评，而是着力澄清苏俄的政治经济事实以及实行新经济政策的缘由。此文的写作恰逢俄国革命五周年，因此周恩来特别注重从革命的成就立论，强调：“我们若肯平心静气地研究研究俄罗斯五年革命的记录，则知他们并不是不图建设的，也不是没有建设的”。在这篇文章发表之前，《少年》专门推出了“俄罗斯革命五周（年）纪念”号，除了周恩来自撰的《十月革命》和另一篇作者不详的《俄罗斯革命的教训》，经笔者考察，其余三篇文章均译自共产国际机关刊物《国际新闻通讯》英文版（International Press Correspondence）第2卷第95、96期，分别是维克托·塞尔日（Victor Serge）的《五年的奋斗》、季诺维也夫的《俄罗斯革命中的不朽》以及托洛茨基的《十月革命和共产国际第四次世界会议》。这些文章为旅欧中共党员理解苏俄时局提供了重要的观点支撑。

Among the authors of the above translations, Serge was originally a Belgian anarchist who later joined the Russian Communist Party (Bolsheviks). Regarding the economic and political crisis in Soviet Russia in 1921, Serge explained: “When the guns of Kronstadt sounded, sailors and peasants came out to oppose the communist revolution, because they could gain nothing more from it, nor understand it any better; after so much suffering, they could only demand one thing: to till their land, sell their produce, and relieve their hunger.” He lamented, “The peasants need a rest. They have shed too much blood.” Serge was keen to interpret the Soviet famine, publishing over a dozen commentary articles since the founding of *International Press Correspondence* in September 1921. He analyzed it from multiple dimensions, including the corruption of the pre-war tsarist system, the blockade by the Entente, civil war and the White Terror, counterrevolutionary sabotage, and urban-rural antagonism, particularly pointing out: “The evil legacy of the old regime still exerts a pernicious influence on the land. The ignorance of the peasants and their primitive farming methods are enough to cause a veritable catastrophe in a year of drought.” The economist Eugen Varga was also a contributor to *International Press Correspondence*, and his writings were cited by *Youth* as well. Varga’s views were broadly similar to Serge’s, and he added “the concomitant effects of the dictatorship of the proletariat,” arguing that when establishing a work discipline under the dictatorship of the proletariat for the first time, “because old ideas still linger in people’s minds, the majority of the people cannot immediately understand the difference between capitalist interests and the interests of society as a whole,” so “there often arises a slackening of work discipline, leading to a reduction in production.” This view clearly carried a tendency toward the militarization of labor under the mindset of War Communism.

上述译文的作者中，塞尔日原本是一名比利时无政府主义者，后来加入俄共（布）。对于1921年苏俄的经济和政治危机，塞尔日解释说：“克隆斯台（Cronstadt）炮声响，水手和农夫跑出来反对共产革命，因为他们在这上本不能再多一点，也不能多懂一点，他们在如此很多的忍受之后，仅会要求一事：种他们的地，卖他们的出产，救他们的饥饿。”他慨叹，“农民需要一个休息。他们流的血太多了”。塞尔日热衷于解读苏俄饥荒，自1921年9月《国际新闻通讯》创刊以来发表了十余篇评论文章，从战前旧俄制度的腐败、协约国的封锁、内战与白色恐怖、反革命捣乱、城乡对立等多个维度展开分析，尤其指出：“旧政权的邪恶遗产仍然在土地上发挥着恶劣的影响。农民的愚昧无知及其原始的耕种方式，足以在干旱之年造成一场名副其实的大灾难。”经济学家尤金·瓦尔加（Eugen Varga）同为《国际新闻通讯》撰稿人，他的著述也被《少年》引述。瓦尔加的观点与塞尔日大致相仿，他补充了“无产阶级专政联带所及的影响”，认为初创一种无产阶级专政的工作纪律时，“因旧观念尚还存在人心，大多数人民不能即时懂得资本主义利益和全社会利益的分别”，故“常生出工作纪律上的怠弛以致减少生产”。这一看法明显带有战时共产主义思维下的劳动军事化倾向。

Zhou Enlai’s reply to Ou Shengbai synthesized the above views. He listed seven reasons for the economic crisis in Soviet Russia: besides the corruption of production conditions under the old tsarist regime, the destruction of production and population by the Great War, counterrevolutionary disturbances, and oppression by foreign capitalist governments, there were also the following: “The slackening of work discipline among ignorant workers.” “The government, due to economic panic, was unable to supply peasants with industrial goods.” “Ignorant and self-interested peasants not only refused to supply grain but, incited by counterrevolutionaries, even sought to resist.” Zhou Enlai pointed out: “All these causes together made the production situation extremely unstable, and finally even triggered the Kronstadt and Tambov province peasant uprisings, so the New Economic Policy was inevitably produced under the pressure of these facts.” Regarding Ou Shengbai’s claim that the New Economic Policy was no different from capitalism, Zhou Enlai, citing Lenin’s interview with a reporter from *The Manchester Guardian*, pointed out that the New Economic Policy “is only using state capitalism to lead the way toward communism,” because “political power still remains in the hands of the working class,” small traders “are still far from politics,” and taxes on agriculture and light industry can increase the state’s wealth, “and will certainly not hinder the progress of the communist revolution.”

周恩来对区声白的答复综合了以上观点。他罗列了七条苏俄出现经济危机的原因，除了旧俄的生产条件腐败、大战对生产和人口的破坏、反革命骚乱、国外资本主义政府压迫，还有以下几点：“愚昧工人在工作纪律上的怠弛。”“政府因经济的恐慌，无法供给农民以工业品。”“无知识而只图私利的农民不仅不肯供给麦子并且还因受反革命派的煽动要图反抗。”周恩来指出：“总此诸因，生产状况遂呈现出一个极大的不稳，最后且更激出皇冠城（Kronstadt）和大包夫（Tambov）省的农军暴动，于是新经济政策乃在这种事实的要求上势所必至地产生出来。”对于区声白所称新经济政策与资本主义无异，周恩来根据列宁答《曼彻斯特卫报》（The Manchester Guardian）记者的报道指出，新经济政策“只是要以国家资本主义来领路好走向共产主义”，因为“政权尚握在工人阶级的手中”，小商贩“究离着政治很远”，农业、轻工业的税收可以增加国家的财富，“决不会妨害共产革命进行”。

By summarizing the reports of the Comintern, Zhou Enlai comprehensively expounded the origins of the New Economic Policy and its positive significance for socialist construction. From these discussions, it is not difficult to discern the propaganda orientation of the Comintern, namely, downplaying the defects of the War Communism policy itself and focusing mainly on the class narrowness of the peasants and the still-immature communist consciousness of the workers. The article by Trotsky that Zhou Enlai translated held that the retreat of War Communism was “a big concession” to the peasants and the petty bourgeoisie. It must be said that it was precisely this class understanding of the Russian Communist Party (Bolsheviks) and its corresponding coercive measures that were criticized by anarchists as disrespecting the masses. Ou Shengbai later questioned: “How can one blame the workers and peasants for the defects of the system?” “The great famine in Russia was the result of the peasants’ strike-farming in response to the government’s seizure of grain.”

通过综述共产国际的报道，周恩来较为全面地阐述了新经济政策的缘起及其对社会主义建设的积极意义。从这些论述中不难看出共产国际的宣传导向，即淡化战时共产主义政策本身的弊病，主要关注农民的阶级狭隘性和工人尚不成熟的共产主义意识。周恩来翻译的托洛茨基的文章就认为，战时共产主义的退却是对农民和小资产阶级“一个大的让步”。不得不说，正是俄共（布）的这种阶级认识和相应的强制手段，被无政府主义者指责为不尊重群众。区声白后来质问道：“怎能够以制度之不善，而反归罪于工人和农人呢？”“俄国之大饥荒，就是农人因政府夺取粮食举行罢耕的结果。”

Such ideological tendencies were not unique to anarchists. In fact, around 1920, during the debate on the role of trade unions within the Russian Communist Party (Bolsheviks), groups such as the “Workers’ Opposition” and the “Democratic Centralists” emerged, sharing roughly the same understanding. In response, Lenin issued a very severe criticism: “Now raising the slogan ‘Trust more in the strength of the working class’ is actually strengthening the influence of the Mensheviks and anarchists,” and “these windbags are actually the accomplices of the bourgeoisie and the landlords.” In the official formulations of the Russian Communist Party (Bolsheviks), worker and peasant strikes were largely attributed to anarchist agitation. At the Tenth Congress of the Russian Communist Party (Bolsheviks) in March 1921, Lenin clearly stated that anarchism was “a major political error, a direct political danger threatening the very existence of the dictatorship of the proletariat,” and said that “a relentless ideological struggle must be waged against these views.”

此类思想倾向并非无政府主义者独有，事实上，在1920年前后俄共（布）党内的工会问题论战中就形成了“工人反对派”“民主集中派”等团体，他们分享了大致相同的认识。对此，列宁提出极严厉的批评：“现在提出‘多多相信工人阶级的力量’这个口号，实际上是在加强孟什维克和无政府主义者的影响”，“这些空喊家实际上是资产阶级和地主的帮凶”。在俄共（布）的官方表述中，工农罢工很大程度上是由无政府主义煽动所致。列宁在1921年3月俄共（布）十大上明确指出，无政府主义是“重大的政治错误，是一种威胁无产阶级专政本身的存在的直接的政治危险”，并称“必须同这些主张进行坚持不懈的思想斗争”。

Strangely, the Communist International almost entirely avoided discussing the connection between the internal crisis in Soviet Russia and anarchism. Zhou Enlai’s article mentioned “agitation by counter-revolutionary cliques,” but in the Comintern’s context at the time, “counter-revolution” referred more to the Mensheviks, the Socialist Revolutionaries, or the Yellow Trade Union International. *Inprecorr* [International Press Correspondence] set up columns such as “In the Camp of Our Enemies” and “The Counter Revolution,” and anarchists were rarely included in them. One exception was when Berkman published an article in *Le Libertaire*, the organ of the French Anarchist Union (Union anarchiste), whitewashing the Makhno forces, which the Russian Communist Party (Bolsheviks) had denounced as a “bandit gang.” *Inprecorr* retorted: “If Makhno and his army were truly supporters of revolutionary anarchism, would the Romanian bourgeois and bandit government offer them refuge?” It can be seen that, despite the deep contradictions between the Russian Communist Party (Bolsheviks) and Russian anarchists, the Comintern still tried to shape an image of supporting anarchism by denying Makhno’s identity as an anarchist.

奇怪的是，对于苏俄内部危机与无政府主义的关联，共产国际几乎避而不谈。周恩来的文章提到了“反革命派的煽动”，但在当时共产国际的语境中，“反革命”更多指向孟什维克、社会革命党或黄色工会国际。《国际新闻通讯》设置了“我们的敌对阵营”（In the Camp of Our Enemies）、“反革命”（The Counter Revolution）等栏目，无政府主义者很少被列入其中，一次特例是伯克曼在法国无政府主义联盟（Union anarchiste）机关报《自由人》（Le Libertaire）发表文章，粉饰被俄共（布）批为“匪帮”的马赫诺部队。《国际新闻通讯》反问：“如果马赫诺和他的军队真是革命无政府主义的拥护者，罗马尼亚资产阶级和强盗政府会给他们提供庇护吗？”可以看到，尽管俄共（布）与俄国无政府主义者矛盾重重，共产国际仍试图通过否认马赫诺的无政府主义者身份，来塑造支持无政府主义的形象。

Considering that the combined forces of international capital were powerful while the communist parties of various countries were still weak, in January 1922 the Comintern called for the establishment of a United Front of the Proletariat, urging anarchists and syndicalists to “break down the barriers among you, join the ranks, and fight for urgent needs.” The Executive Committee of the Comintern emphasized: “Since its founding, the Communist International has adopted a friendly policy toward these workers, who are now gradually overcoming their prejudices and drawing closer to communism. Today, when the united front of workers against capitalists is being realized, communists must pay even more attention to them.” As for the “dictatorship of the party” theory advocated by anarchists, the Comintern had no intention of debating it at all. In May of the same year, *Inprecorr* wrote to Berkman in a comradely tone, stating that he had “erroneously assessed the revolution.” The letter explained that the world had already been divided into two parts, and Bolshevism represented the revolution: “From now on, there is only the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie or the dictatorship of the proletariat, until the bourgeoisie is eliminated as a class. You may call it whatever you like—‘dictatorship of communist politicians’—but it will not change the facts in the slightest.” The letter also said: “If the Kronstadt incident had not been suppressed, Soviet power would have collapsed. Many participants who called themselves anarchists or Socialist Revolutionaries were indeed sincere; subjectively they were revolutionaries with a strong moral sense, but objectively speaking, this was a dirty counter-revolutionary movement.” Zinoviev’s article published in *La Jeunesse* [The Youth] simply stated that the “dictatorship of the party” rhetoric was “shouted by a minority and the hirelings of the propertied class on street corners,” without even mentioning anarchists. From the Comintern’s position, it is not difficult to understand why the first six issues of *La Jeunesse* magazine adopted a defensive strategy in their attacks on the Gongyu Society [Workers’ Leisure Association], focusing on explaining the economic and political crises in Soviet Russia rather than directly criticizing the anarchists.

考虑到国际资本的联合势力强大，但各国共产党力量尚且弱小，1922年1月，共产国际号召建立工人统一战线（United Front of the Proletariat），呼吁无政府主义者和工团主义者“摧毁你们中间的障碍物，站到队伍里来，并为迫切的需要而斗争”。共产国际执委会强调：“共产国际自成立之日起，就对这些工人采取友好的方针，他们现在已经逐渐克服自己的偏见，越来越靠拢共产主义了。在工人反对资本家的统一战线正在实现的今天，共产党人对他们就更加需要加以重视了。”至于无政府主义者鼓吹的“政党专政论”，共产国际根本无意争论。同年5月，《国际新闻通讯》以同志的口吻致信伯克曼，称其“错误地评估了革命”。信中解释，全世界已经划分为两部分，布尔什维主义即代表着革命，“从现在起，只有资产阶级专政或无产阶级专政，直到资产阶级作为一个阶级被消灭。你可以随便称它为‘共产党政客专政’，但丝毫不会改变事实”。信中还说：“如果喀琅施塔得事件没有被消灭，苏维埃政权就会倾覆。许多自诩无政府主义者或社会革命党人的参与者诚然是真诚的，他们主观上是极富道德感的革命者，但客观地说，这是一场肮脏的反革命运动。”《少年》刊载的季诺维也夫的文章干脆说，“政党专政”的论调是“少数派和有产阶级的属员在大街角上这样嚷着”，全然不提无政府主义者。由共产国际的立场不难理解，为何前六期《少年》杂志对工余社的攻击多采取防御策略，重在解释苏俄的经济和政治危机，而非直接批评无政府主义者。

II. The Debate on Revolutionary Organization: Trade Union Autonomy or the Vanguard Party of the Proletariat

二、革命组织之辩：工会自治抑或无产阶级先锋队政党

The Comintern’s workers’ united front was mainly based on the platform of the Red International of Labour Unions (RILU). However, anarchists and syndicalists in various countries were divided on whether to join the RILU. In France, syndicalists and the Communist Party jointly established the Unified General Confederation of Labour (CGTU) in June 1922, but the former insisted, in accordance with the provisions of the Charter of Amiens, that the RILU should be independent of the Comintern. The anarchists’ views were more extreme. Influenced by the propaganda of Berkman and others, they concluded that “the dictatorship of labor is not only an impossible fact but also a tool used by a minority of ambitious people to do evil,” thereby denying any form of political party organization, declaring that “the emancipation of labor is the workers’ own affair; all party-style revolutions are not only useless to the workers themselves but actually harmful.” This divergence also spread to the organizations of Chinese workers in France. In early 1923, the Chinese Communist Party’s European organization, following the Comintern’s call for a workers’ united front, promoted the establishment of the General Association of Chinese Workers in France, aiming to “train the organizational capacity of the workers,” “arouse the class consciousness of the workers, teach them the strategies of class struggle,” and “unite the entire class of the proletariat.” The Gongyu Society, on the other hand, advocated that “trade unions should be independent and not be mixed with—or contaminated by—the stench of politics,” opposing “dictatorial secretaries.” Thus, the theoretical dispute over the party and the class had evolved into a real conflict.

共产国际的工人统一战线主要以红色工会国际为平台，然而，各国无政府主义者与工团主义者对于应否加入红色工会国际意见不一。在法国，工团主义者与共产党于1922年6月共同组建了统一总工会（CGTU），但前者坚持依照《亚眠宪章》的规定，要求红色工会国际独立于共产国际之外。无政府主义者的观点更为偏激，他们受伯克曼等人宣传的影响，认定“劳工专政非但是一种做不到的事实，并且是少数野心家用以作恶的利器”，进而以此否认任何形式的政党组织，宣称“劳工解放是劳工者自己的事业，一切政党式的革命对劳工者自身非但无益，实又害之”。这种分歧亦蔓延到旅法华工组织中。1923年初，旅欧中共党员根据共产国际的工人统一战线主张推动建立了旅法华工总会，旨在“训练工友的组织力”，“引起工友的阶级觉悟，学得阶级战斗的方略”，“团成无产者的整个阶级”。工余社则鼓吹“工会应自立，不归于——或混合于政治的臭味中”，反对“独裁式书记”。由此，关于党与阶级的理论纷争已演变为现实冲突。

When *La Jeunesse* resumed publication in March 1923, it immediately carried an excerpt from an article titled “Anarcho-Syndicalists and the Red International of Labour Unions” by Solomon Lozovsky, secretary of the RILU. The original article was published in the July 1922 issue of *The Communist International* magazine, and Yin Kuan translated excerpts covering the parts related to France. The translation began by pointing out: “There is one question that has always been a stumbling block for revolutionary syndicalists and prevents them from joining the Red International of Labour Unions, and that is the dictatorship of the proletariat.” Lozovsky explained the functions of the dictatorship of the proletariat from three aspects: attacking counter-revolution, external defense, and organizing production. He then raised another question: “The syndicalists tell us: ‘We have no objection to the dictatorship of workers’ organizations; we only object to the dictatorship of the party.’” In response, Lozovsky emphasized the function of the party: the party is “a group of people who share a common idea, recognize the same program of action, understand the work of the working class in the same way, and have a common strategy.” Its role lies in “being able to achieve the highest degree of unity in action, to have a unified will to command the whole country.” “Even if this party is called a syndicalist party, we see nothing wrong with it.” The implication was that anarcho-syndicalist groups themselves were a form of political party, and the position of refusing to join the RILU on the grounds of opposing political parties was untenable.

1923年3月《少年》复刊，随即刊载了红色工会国际书记洛佐夫斯基（Solomon Lozovsky）所著《无政府工团主义者与红色工会国际》一文的节选。原文发表于1922年7月的《共产国际》（The Communist International）杂志，尹宽摘译了其中涉及法国的部分内容。译文开篇即指出：“有一个问题时时为革命工团主义者底弊端，并阻止他们加入红工团国际，这个问题就是无产阶级专政”。洛佐夫斯基从攻击反革命、对外防卫及组织生产三个方面阐明了无产阶级专政的功能，接着提及另一个问题：“工团主义者告诉我们：‘我们毫不反对工人团体底专政，我们只反对党底专政’。”对此，洛佐夫斯基强调了政党的功能：党是“一群有一个共同思想，承认同样的行动纲领，同样的了解工人阶级底工作，有共同的战略的人”，它的作用在于“能够在行动中实现最高度的统一，能够有一个统一的意志执全国底指挥权”，“纵使这个党号为工团主义的党，我们看也没有什么不妥”。言下之意，无政府工团主义团体本身是一种政党形态，以反对政党为由而拒绝加入红色工会国际的立场站不住脚。

Early Chinese Communist Party members were very familiar with the differences between Marxism and anarchism on the position of the dictatorship of the proletariat. However, they had relatively little exposure to the disagreements concerning the proletarian party. Lozovsky’s exposition was undoubtedly highly suggestive. Yin Kuan’s article “A Conversation Between an Anarchist Party and a Communist Party” (hereinafter referred to as “The Conversation”) basically continued Lozovsky’s problematique. He said: “What you anarchist parties are most unclear about is almost precisely the dictatorship of the proletariat and the Communist Party.” This article adopted a very lively dialogue form and, including a “supplementary note,” was serialized in five issues of *La Jeunesse*. It is worth noting that this article was not completed all at once; the content of different issues reflected the deepening process of the Chinese Communist Party’s European organization’s understanding of its own role.

对于马克思主义与无政府主义在无产阶级专政立场上的差异，早期中共党员十分熟悉，然而有关无产阶级政党的分歧，他们则接触得不多，洛佐夫斯基的论述无疑极具提示性。尹宽的文章《一个无政府党和一个共产党的谈话》（以下简称《谈话》）基本延续了洛佐夫斯基的问题意识。他说：“和你们无政府党人所最闹不清楚的，差不多就是无产阶级专政和共产党。”这篇文章采用了非常活泼的对话体形式，算上“补记”一共分五期在《少年》连载。值得注意的是，此文并非一次性完成，不同期的内容反映了中共旅欧组织对自身角色认识不断深入的过程。

The “Conversation” in issue No. 7 of *The Youth* [少年] emphatically argues for the necessity of the principle of “centralization” in revolution. Following Lozovsky’s meaning, Yin Kuan pointed out that the “Revolutionary Defense Committee” advocated by *Le Travail* [工余] was also a “revolutionary centralized military organization,” essentially the same as a workers’ state. He also quoted passages from Engels’s *On Authority*, criticizing anarchists for reducing necessary concentration of power to a “simple, very clear mandate,” thinking that “to change a thing, one only needs to change its name,” and that this was “violently rebelling against words.” As for their repeated assertions that the Russian Communist Party (Bolsheviks) “deprived” and “coerced” the masses, Yin Kuan again appealed to the unevenness of class development and the necessity of “centralizing” revolutionary forces. He said: You have never seen the organization of the masses; you think that in the world today there are only some ruling classes—bureaucrats and capitalists—who are bad people, and the rest are all commoners, all good people. These bad people are like a band of pirates who happen to pass through our land; while the rest of the commoners have returned to simplicity and innocence… So the commoners are very easy to unify; there is no need for any elite elements to organize a staff organ to guide their direction and employ strategy, and they will beat these few bad people to a rout, never to return… Do you know that among the masses, besides the bourgeoisie and its hirelings, there are also the petty bourgeoisie, the “labor aristocracy”—they are not “economic rulers” nor “political rulers,” but they are counter-revolutionaries!—the peasants, the poor peasants, the semi-proletarians, and the proletarians?

《少年》第7期的《谈话》着重论证“集中”原则在革命中的必要性。尹宽依照洛佐夫斯基的意思指出，《工余》鼓吹的“革命防卫委员会”也是“革命的集中的军事的组织”，本质上与工人国家一样。他还转述恩格斯《论权威》中的段落，批评无政府主义者把必要的权力集中说成“简单的极清楚的委任状”，以为“换一件东西，只须换他的名称”，这是在“火烈地反抗文字”。至于他们反复申说的俄共（布）“剥夺”“强迫”群众，尹宽同样诉诸阶级发展的不平衡以及“集中”革命力量的必要性。他说：你曾未看过人群的组织，你以为于今全世界上的人只有一些治人阶级——官僚资本家——是坏人，其余的都是平民，都是好人。这些坏人都彷彿是一些海贼偶然打我们地上经过；而其余的平民都是归真返朴的……所以平民很容易一致，不须有什么优秀分子组织一个参谋机关为他指导方向，运用战略，即将这几个坏人打得一溃而散，永不回头……你知道人群中除开有产阶级和他的雇用人外，还有小资产阶级，“工人贵族”——他们不是“经济上治人者”，也不是“政治上治人者”，但他们是反革命者！——农民、穷农、半无产者和无产者么？

This passage lays bare the confused class understanding behind the “theory of party dictatorship,” and the “labor aristocracy” mentioned here was described in Bukharin’s “Draft Program of the Communist International,” which Yin Kuan translated around the same time for submission to the Fourth Congress of the Comintern, as “servants loyal to the imperialist ‘fatherland’” and “instruments of the bourgeoisie.” Based on this understanding, waging struggle against counter-revolutionaries within the “masses” was naturally in line with revolutionary interests.

这段话一语道破“政党专政论”背后混乱的阶级认识，而此处提及的“工人贵族”，在尹宽同一时期翻译的布哈林呈递给共产国际四大的《国际共产党党纲底草案》中，被描述成“为帝国主义‘祖国’效忠的奴仆”“有产阶级用具”。基于这样的理解，对“群众”中的反革命者展开斗争自然就是合乎革命利益的。

Xue Shilun’s understanding was largely similar. In April 1923, he published an article “Workers and Politics” in *Workers’ Ten-Day Journal* [工人旬报], the organ of the General Union of Chinese Workers in France. After rebuttals from Qu Shengbo and others, he continued serializing the article in *The Youth*. Xue Shilun pieced together a conclusion from Lenin’s *State and Revolution* and *The Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade Kautsky*: “Revolution is an action that uses all available force—because only force can subdue force, and force is the midwife of the new society—the revolutionary party emerging from victory has the necessity to use terroristic methods to coerce its reactionary party with strong authority in order to maintain its rule.” Regarding the anarchists’ claim that “the sailors of Kronstadt were killed in countless numbers by the Red Army for going on strike,” Xue Shilun thought that “whether this is true or not is impossible to verify,” but “the workers’ masses are extremely complex; among them, a part has backward thinking, hesitant attitudes, even retrograde ones,” and they either “violate the interests of the labor class by engaging in sabotage in the workers’ movement” or “collaborate with counter-revolutionaries to serve the bourgeoisie.” Therefore, “such labor elements, even in a proletarian state, are not allowed to act freely; they must be punished, not for their interests, but for their ignorance.” These two points happened to coincide with the functions of the Cheka (the All-Russian Extraordinary Commission for Combating Counter-Revolution and Sabotage).

薛世纶的认识也大抵如此。他于1923年4月在旅法华工总会机关报《工人旬报》发表《工人与政治》一文，后因区声白等人的反驳，转而继续在《少年》上连载该文。薛世纶从列宁的《国家与革命》《无产阶级革命与叛徒考茨基》等论著中拼凑出一个结论：“革命是使用应有尽有的强权的行动——因为惟有力乃能制服力，势力是新社会的接生婆——从胜利中出来的革命党，有借恐怖方法以强权威服其反动党，以维持其统治权的必要”。对于无政府主义者宣扬的“克龙斯大特Cronstats的水手，为罢工的事情，被红军杀了无数”，薛世纶认为“是否属实，兹亦无从稽考”，但“工人的群众，是极为复杂的，其中一部分，思想是落后的，态度是犹疑的，甚至于复古的”，他们或“违反劳动阶级的利益在工人运动中作怠工（Sabotage）”，或“与反革命合作，以服务于有产阶级”，因此“像这样的劳动分子，即在无产阶级的国家中，也是不容他们自由行动的，是要处罚他的，不是处罚他的利益，是处罚他的愚顽”。这两点理由恰好与契卡（全俄肃清反革命及怠工非常委员会）的职能相吻合。

Whether it was Yin Kuan’s emphasis on the “labor aristocracy” or Xue Shilun’s assertion of the violent nature of revolution, both were arguments of the Comintern against the Second International. And precisely on these issues, the anarchist camp reached consensus with the Comintern. In fact, a major reason anarchists so opposed political parties controlling trade unions was their fear that workers would be lured by the “labor aristocracy” and parliamentary politics. As for the leadership of the Communist Party, anarchists were wary that “centralization” might evolve into the Party committee “monopolizing the revolution.” They even believed that there was no need for the Communist Party at all; the workers and peasants could “initiate a social revolution,” “organize their production and distribution on the basis of voluntary communism,” and “become strong enough to sweep away all internal and external counter-revolutionary movements.”

无论是尹宽强调的“工人贵族”，还是薛世纶申明的革命的暴力属性，均为共产国际针对第二国际的论点，而恰恰在这些问题上，无政府主义阵营与共产国际达成了共识。事实上，无政府主义者之所以如此反对政党主持工会，一个很大的原因即是担心工人被“工人贵族”和议会政治所利诱。而对于共产党的领导，无政府主义者警惕的是“集中”可能会演变为党的委员会“包办革命”。他们甚至认为，根本无需共产党，工农群众就“能够发难作社会革命”，并“建基于志愿的共产主义上以组织其生产及分配事业”，“强盛至于扫清一切内外的反革命运动”。

Yin Kuan and Xue Shilun clearly recognized the problem of “spontaneism,” but when arguing why the spontaneity of the workers’ movement needed to be overcome, their starting point was preventing counter-revolution. This confused the repressive function of the dictatorship of the proletariat with the vanguard nature of the Communist Party. In the “Conversation” in issue No. 8 of *The Youth*, Yin Kuan further excerpted Lenin’s *State and Revolution* to strengthen this argument. He wrote: “The construction of a public power, not assembled from the spontaneous arming of the masses, this special public power is unavoidable, because since society has been divided into classes, the ‘spontaneous organization’ of the masses has become impossible.” This sentence comes from Engels, and Yin Kuan’s intention was undoubtedly to refute the anarchists’ view of “using workers’ spontaneous organization to abolish the Communist Party.” But he seemed not to notice that Lenin cited this passage not to discuss the problem of spontaneity, but to explain that the proletarian revolution must smash the “special public power” and replace it with the people’s own armed force, which possesses the attributes of both direct democracy and state power. Yin Kuan’s excerpting this sentence out of context was indeed inappropriate. The *Le Travail* group commented: “This is not describing the origin of the state at all; it is completely describing the true image of the Communist Party’s desire to build a new despotic state, conveying an unreasonable air of praise for the state. The construction of the state is not from the spontaneous action of the people; indeed, it is controlled by a few bandits of power.”

尹宽、薛世纶二人显然意识到“自发论”存在问题，然而在论证为什么需要克服工人运动的自发性时，他们的出发点是防范反革命，这就把无产阶级专政的镇压职能和共产党的先锋队性质混淆了。在《少年》第8期的《谈话》中，尹宽进一步摘译列宁的《国家与革命》来加强这一论点。他写道：“一个公共的权力（pouvoir public）之建设，不是用民众自动的武装汇合起来的，这种特别的公共权力是不可免的，因为自社会划分为阶级以来，民众‘自动的组织’已经不可能了。”这句话出自恩格斯，尹宽的用意无疑是借此反驳无政府主义者“用工人自发组织取消共产党”的观点。但他似乎没注意到，列宁引述这段话并非为了讨论自发性问题，而是说明无产阶级革命要打碎“特别的公共权力”，代之以人民自己的武装，这种武装兼具直接民主和国家政权的属性。尹宽掐头去尾把这句话单独译出，确有不妥之处。工余社方面评论说：“这简直不是说国家之来历，乃完全描述共产党要建造新专制国家的真像，传出一笔无理的对国家之赞扬的神气。国家之建设，非由民众自（动）的，不错他实在是由少数权匪把持。”

According to Lenin’s view, the dictatorship of the proletariat should be realized by “the Party absorbing the vanguard of the proletariat, and this vanguard realizing it.” The key question was “how to treat the masses, how to win over the masses, how to connect with the masses.” He undoubtedly placed great importance on the struggle against hostile forces, but he also always emphasized that this struggle should be the common action of “the entire organized proletariat,” not merely a party act. If one does not distinguish the complex relationship between the dictatorship of the proletariat and the Communist Party, it is easy to fall into the anarchists’ attacks. Of course, the theoretical mixing among Chinese Communist Party members in Europe was entirely understandable, since the Comintern’s theoretical analysis of the proletarian revolution at that time was mostly directed against social democracy, while it offered more persuasion and less refutation toward anarchists.

按照列宁的观点，无产阶级专政应该由“党吸收了无产阶级的先锋队，由这个先锋队来实现”，关键的问题是“怎样对待群众，掌握群众，联系群众”。他无疑非常重视对敌对势力的斗争，但也一直强调，这种斗争应当是“组织起来的全体无产阶级”的共同行动，而非单纯的政党行为。如果不分清无产阶级专政和共产党的复杂关系，就很容易正中无政府主义者的攻击。当然，旅欧中共党员的理论混用是完全可以理解的，毕竟共产国际当时对无产阶级革命的理论分析多针对社会民主主义而展开，对于无政府主义者则劝导多、批驳少。

This theoretical dilemma began to improve with the polemics between the Comintern and French syndicalists in mid-1923. Although the Comintern believed that the opposition between trade unions and political parties advocated by anarcho-syndicalists did not constitute a real problem, the Fourth Congress of the Comintern in December 1922, in deference to the syndicalists’ wishes, abolished the Third Congress’s provision that “the Comintern and the Red International of Labor Unions each send three representatives to sit on the other’s Executive Committee,” replacing it with the Comintern entrusting its Executive Committee to “establish a representative office within the Red International of Labor Unions.” The syndicalists were undoubtedly very excited about this. Robert Louzon, a syndicalist who was also a member of the French Communist Party, published an article “Back to Marx and Joining the Revolutionary Trade Union International” in *La Vie Ouvrière*, happily declaring that “the independence of the trade unions has now been achieved,” and that the Comintern had shed its social-democratic prejudices and “returned to Marx.” Louzon said, “The trade union represents the working class itself, while the Communist Party is only one party of the working class,” and “the working class has its own goals”; it does not have to realize the Communist Party’s goals; on the contrary, the Communist Party should become the “faithful servant” of the working class.

这种理论困境随着1923年中期共产国际与法国工团主义者的论战而有所改观。尽管共产国际认为，无政府工团主义宣扬的工会和政党的对立根本不足以构成一个问题，不过，1922年12月共产国际四大还是遵照工团主义者的意愿，取消了三大关于“共产国际和红色工会国际双方互派委员三人作为代表，常驻对方执行委员会”的规定，改由共产国际委托执行委员会“在红色工会国际中设立代表处”。对此，工团主义者无疑非常兴奋。兼具法共党员身份的工团主义者罗伯特·卢宗（Robert Louzon）在《工人生活》（La Vie Ouvrière）发表文章《回到马克思与加入革命工会国际》，高兴地宣称，“工会的独立现在已经实现”，共产国际摆脱了社会民主主义的偏见，“回到马克思身边”。卢宗说，“工会代表工人阶级本身，而共产党只不过是工人阶级的一个党”，“工人阶级有自己的目标”，它不必实现共产党的目标，相反，应该由共产党来做工人阶级的“忠实仆人”。

Trotsky immediately wrote back, pointing out that whether the party and the trade unions sent representatives to each other’s committees was not a decisive issue: “Organizational forms can change, but the fundamental role of the party remains unchanged.” Like Lozovsky, Trotsky emphasized that the syndicalists active in the trade unions themselves constituted a party. Going further, he argued that revolutionary syndicalism was “the precursor of communism in France.” They agreed that a “conscious minority” should lead the revolution, but feared that the French working class was averse to political parties, so they did not call themselves a party but tried to merge into the trade unions or provide support from behind them, with the result that the trade unions fell under the control of small groups and factions. Out of consideration for uniting the syndicalists, this article was not published until April 1923, appearing simultaneously in the French edition of *La Correspondance Internationale* and the French Communist Party organ *Bulletin Communiste*, and the following month in the English edition of *La Correspondance Internationale*.

托洛茨基随即去信指出，党和工会是否在各自的委员会中互派代表并非一个决定性问题，“组织形式可以改变，但党的基本作用是不变的”。同洛佐夫斯基一样，托洛茨基强调，在工会中活动的工团主义者本身构成一个党。更进一步的是，他认为革命工团主义是“共产主义在法国的前身”，他们赞同由“积极的少数”来领导革命，但又担心法国工人阶级对政党反感，因此未以党自称，而是试图融入工会或在其背后提供支持，结果却使工会受控于小集团和派别。出于团结工团主义者的考虑，这篇文章直至1923年4月才在《国际新闻通讯》法文版（La Correspondance Internationale）和法共机关报《共产党公报》（Bulletin Communiste）同步发表，次月又刊登于《国际新闻通讯》英文版。

Luzong’s subsequent reply provoked an even greater uproar. He acknowledged that “the working class needs an organized, class-conscious minority,” but declared that this minority should be organized in the form of trade unions rather than political parties. Luzong emphasized that in France, “the trade union is a much purer class organization than the party,” while the leaders of the Communist Party were often “petty bourgeoisie, intellectuals, artisans, merchants, peasants, and officials.” This view was also vigorously promoted by *La Réveil*. An article translated by Bi Xiushuo from *L’Homme Libre* claimed: “A ‘party’ is by no means an organization of friendly comrades… still less a combination of all proletarians”; both the Russian Communist Party (Bolsheviks) and the fascist party originated in the “universal impoverishment of the intellectual class” after the war, being “activities carried out helter-skelter by a bunch of nondescript people.” Another article in *La Réveil* stated that Soviet Russia’s “grip on the political situation is entirely in the hands of a bunch of intellectual overlords,” and that “so-called labor dictatorship is nothing but using our name to hire those political experts, economic scholars, and legal talents to dictate for us.” These remarks, on top of the tone of “party dictatorship,” added a layer of meaning about “intellectual dictatorship.”

卢宗后来的答复引发了更大的风波。他承认“工人阶级需要一个有组织的、有阶级觉悟的少数人”，但宣称这部分人应该以工会而非政党的形式组织起来。卢宗强调，在法国，“工会是一个比党纯洁得多的阶级组织”，而共产党的领导者常常是“小资产阶级、知识分子、匠人、商人、农民、官员”。这种观点亦被《工余》大肆鼓吹。一篇由毕修勺译自《自由人》的文章称，“‘党’并不是什么友爱的朋友的组织……更不是一般无产者的组合体”；俄共（布）和法西斯党都源于战后“智识阶级普遍之穷困中”，是“一般不三不四的人七手八脚在那边活动”。《工余》上的另一篇文章称，苏俄“把持政局的尽是一般智识界的枭雄”，“所谓劳工专政，不过用我们底名义去雇用那些政治专家，经济博学，法律宏才来替我们专政”。这些言论在“政党专政”的基调之上又渲染了一层“智识阶级专政”的意涵。

The anarchists and syndicalists were consistent in their questioning of the class composition of Communist Party members, the difference being that the former did so under the banner of opposing Marxism, while the latter attempted to revise Marxism. Luzong even put forward the concept of “syndicalist communism” (le Communisme syndicaliste) to rival the Communist International, claiming that it was consistent with the idea in the *Communist Manifesto* of “forming the proletariat into a class” and was “the form of expression and inevitable result of communism.” Subsequently, Lozovsky, Riazanov, and French Communist Party members joined the debate one after another, with related articles published from May to October 1923 in *L’Humanité*, *Bulletin Communiste*, *La Correspondance Internationale*, and other periodicals. To refute Luzong’s distortion of Marxism into syndicalism, *Bulletin Communiste* even published the full texts of Marx’s “Political Indifferentism” and Engels’s “On Authority.”

无政府主义和工团主义对于共产党党员成分的质疑是一致的，区别在于前者打着反对马克思主义的旗号，后者则试图修正马克思主义。卢宗甚至提出了“工团共产主义”（le Communisme syndicaliste）的概念来与共产国际分庭抗礼，声称这同《共产党宣言》中“使无产阶级形成为阶级”的理念一致，是“共产主义的表现形式和必然结果”。接着，洛佐夫斯基、梁赞诺夫（Riazanov）以及法共党员纷纷加入论战，相关文章陆续刊登在1923年5月至10月的《人道报》《共产党公报》《国际新闻通讯》等报刊。为了反驳卢宗歪曲马克思主义为工团主义的论调，《共产党公报》还特地全文刊登了马克思的《政治冷淡主义》及恩格斯的《论权威》。

The Chinese Communist Party members in Europe paid close attention to this debate. They not only fully translated the two articles by Marx and Engels, publishing them in issues 10 and 13 of *La Jeunesse*, but also directly used the Communist International’s criticism of Luzong to respond to *La Réveil*’s remarks on “party dictatorship.” Xue Shilun’s “Workers and Politics” quoted Trotsky’s view: “The emancipation of the proletariat must be led by a conscious, active minority of the proletariat, united resolutely, with a program and a plan, to guide the majority onto the path of consciousness and action”; “from the perspective of revolutionary syndicalists, it is the same. Only this ‘minority’ is called by us the ‘vanguard’ (L’avant-garde) of the proletariat, and by them the ‘active minority’ (Minorité agissante).” He used this to criticize *La Réveil* for claiming that “the ‘minority’ advocated by syndicalists conforms to ‘justice,’ while the ‘minority’ advocated by Communists is ‘chieftains,’ ‘issuing orders,’ ‘monopolizing and ruling’”—a self-contradiction. Yin Kuan’s “Conversation” went even further, translating a large portion of Trotsky’s reply to refute the view that “the party is nothing but bureaucrats and politicians,” and using it as the concluding passage of this long article. Besides emphasizing the necessity of the “vanguard of the proletariat,” the translation also distinguished that the party “winning” the working class does not mean “occupying” or “subordinating” them: “Neither the party nor the trade union means to ‘subordinate’ the proletariat; it means to win its trust.”

旅欧中共党员对此次论战高度关注，不仅完整翻译了马克思、恩格斯的两篇文章，刊于《少年》第10、13期，而且直接用共产国际批评卢宗的观点来回应工余社的“政党专政”言论。薛世纶的《工人与政治》即引述托洛茨基的观点：“无产阶级的解放，当由无产中的觉悟的活动的少数集中的、坚决的团结起来，有纲领有计画的引着大多数来到觉悟、行动的路上”，“在革命的工团主义者的见地上，也是如此。不过这个‘少数’，在我们则称之为无产者的‘前锋队’（L’avant-garde），在他们则称之为‘行动的少数’（Minorité agissante）”。他以此批评工余社“谓工团主义者所主张的‘少数’则是合乎‘正义’的，共产党人所主张的‘少数’便是‘头领’‘发号令’‘包办’‘垄断与统治’”，这是自相矛盾的。尹宽的《谈话》更是通过大篇幅翻译托洛茨基的回信来反驳“政党即是官僚政客”的观点，并将其作为这篇长文的结束语。译文除了强调“无产阶级底前驱”的必要性，还辨析称，党“取得”工人阶级并不是要“占领”或“隶属”他们，“无论是党或是工团，都不是说要‘隶属’无产阶级，是说要得他的信任”。

Yin Kuan further made a metaphor for the relationship between the party and the working class, a point not found in Trotsky’s article. He said: You must understand that the Communist Party is the working class itself. In its struggle with the propertied class, the working class gradually creates its various organs. It has trade unions, cooperatives, factory committees…—its limbs, ears, eyes, mouth, and nose; and it has its political party—its brain. A human body with only limbs, ears, eyes, mouth, and nose but no brain cannot act; a body with only a brain but no limbs, ears, eyes, mouth, and nose likewise cannot act. We absolutely cannot say that a person with limbs, ears, and eyes is sufficient, and then curse the brain for being autocratic and despotic.

尹宽进一步对党与工人阶级的关系作了一个比喻，这是托洛茨基的文章所没有的论述。他说：要知道共产党即是工人阶级本身。工人阶级与有产阶级争斗，渐次创立他的种种机关。他有工团、合作社、工厂委员……——他的四肢和耳目口鼻；他又有他的政党——他的头脑。人身徒有四肢和耳目口鼻而无大脑，则不能发生行动；徒有大脑而无四肢和耳目口鼻亦同样地不能发生行动。我们断不能谓人有四肢和耳目已足，而责骂大脑之独断专横。

In the same period of the debate between the Communist International and the French syndicalists, I discovered that French Communist Party member Amédée Dunois’s article “Trade Unions, Revolutionary Syndical Committees, or the Party?” mentioned a similar formulation. Dunois also emphasized that “the party is the working class itself,” comparing it to the “flesh and blood” of the working class, and argued that the party is the “full and living expression” of the class, “nourished by the class’s matter and juices.” Compared to Dunois’s understanding of the relationship between party and class as that between an organism and the inorganic world, Yin Kuan’s metaphor of the brain and the body perhaps better conveys the meaning of “the party is the vanguard of the proletariat.”

在同期共产国际与法国工团主义者的论战中，笔者发现法共党员阿梅代·迪努瓦（Amédée Dunois）的文章《工会、革命工团委员会还是党？》提到了一个类似的说法。迪努瓦也强调“党就是工人阶级本身”，并将其比作工人阶级的“血肉之躯”，认为党是工人阶级“充分而生动的表达”，“它得到阶级的物质和汁液滋养”。相比于迪努瓦把党与阶级理解为有机体与无机界的关系，尹宽用头脑与躯体作比，或许更能体现“党是无产阶级先锋队”的意涵。

Another article by Dunois, “The Necessity of the Communist Party,” was also, as I confirmed through comparison, referenced by “Conversation.” This article aimed to respond to Luzong’s complaints about the excessive number of petty-bourgeois intellectuals within the French Communist Party. Yin Kuan did not directly translate the original text in large passages but reorganized it through excerpts, thereby refuting *La Réveil*’s rhetoric about “intellectual dictatorship.” He pointed out: “‘Members of the working class’ do not necessarily mean workers; other individuals who become working-class in character are also members of the working class.” Then, “the Communist Party cannot be absolutely proletarian in its composition; as long as its basis of recruitment or its ideological basis is proletarian, as long as proletarians constitute the majority at all levels of the organization, as long as its camp is solid and it is vigilant against petty-bourgeois elements who may take advantage at any time to sneak in.” As for the “intellectual” problem within the party, it was merely a matter of vigilance and discipline. These views all came from Dunois’s article. But it is worth noting that Dunois, like Luzong, had a syndicalist ideological background. Although he later turned to embrace the ideas of the Communist International, he often published contradictory articles on the issue of the party and the class, sometimes saying the party and the class were one, and at other times separating them sharply. Yin Kuan extensively absorbed Dunois’s insights, but did not indiscriminately copy all his statements. While referencing Dunois, he also integrated the view from the *Communist Manifesto* that a small part of the ruling class goes over to the revolutionary class, providing a more comprehensive argument.

迪努瓦的另一篇文章《共产党的必要性》，经笔者对比确认，亦被《谈话》所参考。该文旨在回应卢宗关于法共党内小资产阶级知识分子过多的抱怨。尹宽并未直接大段地译述原文，而是以摘编的方式对原文进行了重组，进而反驳工余社的“智识阶级专政”论调。他指出，“‘工人阶级中的分子’不一定是指工人分子，别的分子是工人阶级化的也是工人阶级中的分子”，那么“共产党在他的组成上不能绝对是无产阶级的，只要他的征收的基础或他的思想底基础是无产阶级的，只要无产者在组织底各层上占多数，只要他营垒坚固，谨防时时有乘机利用的小有产阶级分子闯进来”。至于党内的“知识分子”问题，只是防范和纪律的问题。这些观点全部出自迪努瓦的文章。但值得提及的是，迪努瓦与卢宗一样具有工团主义的思想背景，尽管他后来转向认同共产国际的理念，却常常在党与阶级议题上发表一些前后矛盾的文章，时而说党与阶级是一体的，时而又将两者截然分开。尹宽广泛吸纳了迪努瓦的见解，但并非不加甄别地照搬其所有言论。在参考迪努瓦的同时，他还融合《共产党宣言》关于统治阶级中小部分人归附革命阶级的观点，提供了更综合性的论证。

In sum, the Chinese Communist Party’s European organization’s debates on the relationship between the party and the class unfolded amid a complex array of international socialist currents. The problem they faced at the time was that, on the one hand, it was necessary to establish the Communist Party’s leadership over the workers’ movement, while on the other hand, a broad united front had to be formed with all workers’ parties. Under these historical circumstances, whether the party’s vanguard role could be accurately understood and the relationship between the party and the masses grasped not only directly affected whether the Communist Party could be solidly and effectively built, and the manner in which the party would establish close ties with the masses, but also determined the legitimacy and justification of the party’s leadership of the proletarian revolutionary cause. This issue constituted a major dividing line between Marxism and anarchism, and also influenced the direction of the international workers’ movement.

总的来说，中共旅欧组织对政党与阶级关系的论辩是在错综复杂的国际社会主义思潮中展开的。当时面临的问题是，一方面需要确立共产党对工人运动的领导，另一方面必须与各个工人党派建立广泛的统一战线。在这样的历史情景之下，能否准确地认识党的先锋队角色并理解党与群众之间的关系，不仅直接关涉共产党能否稳固有效地建立起来，关乎党将以何种方式与群众建立紧密联系，更决定了党领导无产阶级革命事业的正当性与合法性。这一问题构成马克思主义与无政府主义之间的重大分野，也影响了国际工人运动的走向。

III. Behind the Debate: The Repositioning of Anarchists within the United Front

三、论争背后：无政府主义者在统一战线中的定位调整

The Chinese Communist Party’s European organization’s initial response to the Gongyu Society [16]16 The Gongyu Society (工余社) was a Chinese anarchist organization active in Europe in the early 1920s, which published the journal *Gongyu* (工余, “Leisure”). focused on explaining the economic and political crises in Soviet Russia, then shifted to clarifying the relationship between the party and the class. This shift in perspective was closely linked to the propaganda orientation of the Communist International, and was also a flexible response based on the practical problems facing the united front. The emergence of differences clearly showed that anarchism had deviated from the Communist International’s original positioning; how to view and respond to the anarchists’ tendency toward splitting became an unavoidable issue.

中共旅欧组织对工余社的回应起初侧重于解释苏俄的经济和政治危机，随后转向澄清政党与阶级的关系，这种视角转换与共产国际的宣传导向紧密相连，也是基于统一战线面临的实际问题而作出的灵活应对。分歧的出现清楚地表明，无政府主义已经偏离了共产国际最初的定位，如何看待和应对无政府主义者的分裂倾向成为无法回避的问题。

In fact, after the Red International of Labour Unions was founded in July 1921, the Free Workers’ Union of Germany (FAUD) held a small-scale “international” conference in October of the same year, planning to form another new trade union international. This idea initially had little impact, but driven by the anti-Bolshevik activities of Russian exiles in 1922, its followers grew day by day, and Chinese anarchists also joined in. In September 1922, a conference commemorating the 50th anniversary of the founding of the anarchist International by Bakunin was held in Saint-Imier, Switzerland, and the Gongyu Society also sent representatives. The account published in *Gongyu* stated that the participants “discussed the harm of the so-called ‘dictatorship of the proletariat,’ saying that when Marx and others advocated this theory, Bakunin and all anarchists denounced it as a delusion harmful to social revolution, and further denounced it as a new fraud and a new danger,” and “look at the poison of the Bolshevik dictatorship today, which has already given us proof.” This conference decided to convene a world anarchist congress; *Gongyu* and the domestic journals *Minzhong* and *Xuehui* subsequently issued multiple advance notices, stating that “we in China also plan to send representatives to attend.”

事实上，1921年7月红色工会国际成立后，德国自由工人联盟（FAUD）于同年10月举行了一次小规模的“国际”会议，计划另组一个新的工会国际。这种观念起初影响不大，然而在1922年俄国流亡者的反布尔什维克活动推动下，其追随者与日俱增，中国无政府主义者也投身其中。1922年9月，纪念巴枯宁创办的无政府主义国际成立50周年大会在瑞士圣伊米耶召开，工余社亦有代表参会。《工余》刊载的纪要说，与会者“既论假名‘劳工专政’的害处，谓当马克思等提倡此说时，巴枯宁及一切无政府党即斥其为危害社会革命的妄说，更斥其为新骗术、新危险”，“请看今日波尔雪维克专政的毒害，便已给了我们一个证明”。这次会议决定召开世界无政府主义者大会，《工余》和国内的《民钟》《学汇》等杂志随后进行过多次预告，并称“我们中国亦预备派代表前去赴会”。

In response to a series of anarchist actions, Lozovsky [17]17 Alexander Lozovsky (1878–1952) was a Soviet Bolshevik revolutionary and leader of the Red International of Labour Unions (Profintern). put forward the concept of an “Anarcho-Reformist Front” in a short article in October 1922. This was a vivid formulation: Lozovsky linked the 50th anniversary conference of the anarchist International with the Amsterdam Yellow Trade Union International conference held in Switzerland at the same time, pointing out: “Both conferences opened with a majority vote passing a protest resolution against the ‘persecution of Russian socialists,’” showing that “reformists and anarcho-syndicalists have formed a united front against Moscow.” As for whether the anarchists’ “new International would be born, it was still uncertain.” The Amsterdam International had always been hostile to the anarchists, but the two factions did show a consistent stance in attacking the Communist International. Of course, Lozovsky’s criticism at this time was more his personal opinion and had not yet attracted the attention of Chinese Communist Party members in Europe.

针对无政府主义者的一系列行径，洛佐夫斯基在1922年10月的一篇小文章中提出“无政府主义—改良主义阵线”（Anarcho-Reformist Front）的概念。这是一个形象的说法，洛佐夫斯基将无政府主义国际50周年大会与同一时期在瑞士召开的阿姆斯特丹黄色工会国际大会联系起来，指出：“两次大会开场都以多票数通过了反对‘迫害俄国社会主义者’的抗议案”，表明“改良主义者和无政府工团主义者结成了反对莫斯科的统一战线”，至于无政府主义者的“新国际是否会诞生还无法确定”。阿姆斯特丹国际素来与无政府主义者相敌对，但两派在攻击共产国际方面的确表现出一致的立场。当然，洛佐夫斯基这时的批评更多的是他个人的见解，尚未引起旅欧中共党员注意。

In his report to the Fourth Congress of the Communist International in November 1922, Lozovsky further elaborated on the “Anarcho-Reformist Front.” He emphasized that although anarchists were “full of revolutionary phrases,” they were “always disseminators of petty-bourgeois ideology.” The most serious issue was not their words, but their actions: at a time when the state apparatus, international capital, and old trade unions were brutally suppressing the communist movement, they put forward an “anti-communist program” and “began the struggle for the so-called independence of the trade union movement.” In short, “the anti-communist front was realized through the petty-bourgeois deceptive propaganda of the anarchists.” Lozovsky pointed out that “it is necessary to wage a systematic, persistent, and planned ideological struggle against all anarchist factions still existing in the workers’ movement.” However, considering the implementation of the workers’ united front tactic, he added that the struggle against anarchism “must in no way hinder communists from achieving practical rapprochement with syndicalists, not only in the struggle against the offensive of capital, but also in the struggle against reformism.”

在1922年11月共产国际四大的报告中，洛佐夫斯基进一步论证了“无政府主义—改良主义阵线”。他强调，无政府主义者尽管“满嘴革命词句”，却“始终是小资产阶级思想的传播者”。最严重的不在于他们的言论，而是其行动，即在国家机器、国际资本和旧工会野蛮打压共产主义运动之际抛出“反共纲领”，“并开始了争取所谓工会运动独立的斗争”。总之，“反共阵线通过无政府主义者的小资产阶级的欺骗宣传实现了”。洛佐夫斯基指出，“有必要同目前在工人运动中仍然存在的一切无政府主义派别进行系统的、顽强的和有计划的思想斗争”。但考虑到工人统一战线策略的执行，他补充说，对无政府主义的斗争“决不容许妨碍共产党人同工团主义者不仅在反对资本的进攻，而且在反对改良主义的斗争中实现实际的接近”。

However, what the Communist International feared soon happened. Although Lozovsky tried hard to distinguish anarchism from syndicalism in order to win the latter’s support, the trend toward their merger seemed unstoppable. Shortly after the Fourth Congress of the Communist International, the World Anarchist Congress was held in Berlin at the end of 1922 and announced the formal establishment of a new International. It adopted the name of the First International, the “International Workers’ Association,” with the German syndicalist Rudolf Rocker as its first secretary. Its manifesto stated: “Revolutionary syndicalism resolutely opposes all forms of economic and social monopoly; it strives for a workers’ movement completely independent of political parties and governments, and aims to establish workers’ free organizations and self-management bodies on the basis of a system of free labor councils.” The French General Confederation of Unified Labor had already applied to join the Red International of Labour Unions, so it did not participate in the Berlin congress. Chinese anarchists were present, but not as representatives of any trade union; therefore, afterward they proposed organizing an “Oriental Anarchist Congress” and a “National Congress” in imitation.

可是，令共产国际担忧的事情还是很快发生了。虽然洛佐夫斯基极力将无政府主义和工团主义区分开来，以争取后者的支持，但两者的合流之势似乎无法遏制。共产国际四大结束后不久，世界无政府主义者大会于1922年底在柏林举行，并宣布新的国际正式成立。它沿用第一国际的名称“国际工人协会”（International Workers’ Association），由德国工团主义者鲁多夫·洛克尔（Rudolf Rocker）担任第一任书记。其宣言写道：“革命工团主义坚决反对一切形式的经济和社会垄断，它致力完全独立于政党和政府的工人运动，要在自由的劳工委员会制度基础上建立工人的自由组织和自我管理机构。”法国统一总工会当时已申请加入红色工会国际，故未参与柏林大会。中国方面有无政府主义者出席，但并未作为任何工会的代表，因此事后他们提出，应仿照着组织一个“东方无政府党大会”和“全国大会”。

Chinese Communist Party members in Europe may not have learned of the founding of the anarcho-syndicalist “International Workers’ Association” in a timely manner, but through reading reports in the *International Press Correspondence*, they should have easily understood the discussions on anarchism at the Fourth Congress of the Communist International. After their reorganization in early 1923, they quickly accepted Lozovsky’s views. In the first issue of *La Jeunesse* [18]18 *La Jeunesse* (少年) was the organ of the Chinese Communist Party’s European branch, published in Paris from 1922 to 1924. after its resumption, Zhao Shiyan published an article titled “The Chinese Youth in France Should Awaken: Opportunism, Reformism, and Revolution.” It is not difficult to see that the terms “opportunism” and “reformism” in the title correspond exactly to Lozovsky’s criticism: anarchists had formed a united front with the opportunism and reformism of the Amsterdam International. The article began by stating, “The renegades of the proletariat, their reactionary behavior is not seen outside the proletariat’s impregnable fortress, but occurs within the ranks of the masses; perverting their nature and blinding their conscience, they are infected with petty-bourgeois ideology and become opportunists and reformists.” However, the entire article did not directly denounce anarchists as opportunists, reformists, or counter-revolutionaries. Zhao Shiyan was very cautious in his wording; he acknowledged that they had “become enemies in form” with the anarchists, and that “the so-called anarchists only know how to loudly proclaim freedom, ignoring the mass consciousness determined by modern social life, occupying themselves solely with abstract concepts and issuing empty theories to confuse the masses,” but he was still willing to engage in theoretical analysis and discussion regarding their “random nonsense.”

旅欧中共党员对于无政府工团主义“国际工人协会”的成立不一定能及时获悉，但通过阅读《国际新闻通讯》的报道，他们应该不难了解共产国际四大关于无政府主义的讨论。1923年初改组以后，他们很快接受了洛佐夫斯基的主张。《少年》复刊当期，赵世炎发表文章《旅法的中国青年应该觉醒了——投机、改良与革命》。不难看出，文题中“投机”“改良”二词正好对应洛佐夫斯基的批评：无政府主义者与阿姆斯特丹国际的机会主义和改良主义结成了同一阵线。文章开篇指出，“无产阶级之叛徒，其反动的行为不见于无产阶级壁垒森严之外，而反发生在群众的队伍以内，矫其性情昧其良心，染受小资产阶级的思想而变为投机者，改良者”。不过，整篇文章并未直接指斥无政府主义者为投机、改良之流或反革命派。赵世炎措辞十分谨慎，他承认同无政府主义者已经“在形势上成为对敌”，“所谓的无政府主义者，只知高唱自由，忽视了现代社会生活所决定的群众意识，专门占据在抽象的观念上，发些空论，以迷惑群众”，但对于他们的“随便乱说”，还是愿意在学理上辨析讨论。

Yin Kuan, through his translation of Lozovsky’s “Anarcho-Syndicalists and the Red International of Labour Unions,” further defined the counter-revolutionary tendency of anarchism. When Lozovsky wrote this article, he still used the concept of “revolutionary anarchism” and had not yet defined it as petty-bourgeois reformism, but his criticism was already quite severe. The translation pointed out that anarchists “deny ‘any’ dictatorship, which in practice means opposing the workers’ right to violently overthrow the power of the bourgeoisie; in other words, it means opposing the workers’ right to carry out social revolution.” At the same time, the article added that the anarchists’ counter-revolutionary behavior was unconscious, because they “completely failed to understand the reality of social struggle and had only an abstract (and metaphysical) concept of the fact of class struggle.”

尹宽则通过翻译洛佐夫斯基的《无政府工团主义者与红色工会国际》，进一步界说无政府主义的反革命倾向。洛佐夫斯基撰写该文时仍在使用“革命无政府主义”的概念，尚未将其界定为小资产阶级的改良主义，但批评已相当严厉。译文指出，无政府主义者“否认‘任何’专政，实际上即是反对工人用暴力推翻有产阶级底权利，换言之，即是反对工人阶级做社会革命底权利”。同时，文章补充说，无政府主义者的反革命行为是不自觉的，这是由于他们“完全不明了社会争斗底实在性所致和对于阶级争斗这个事实只有一点抽象的（并带有玄学的）概念”。

However, at the Fourth Congress of the Communist International, there was not a single voice regarding anarchists. Compared with Lozovsky, Zinoviev, Chairman of the Executive Committee of the Communist International, took a more moderate stance. He did not advocate drawing a sharp dichotomy between syndicalism and anarchism, believing that efforts should continue to win over anarchists. In his report on the French question, Zinoviev pointed out that “adopting a completely different attitude toward syndicalists and anarchists” was a major distinction between the Communist International and the Second International. “In the face of a series of hostile actions by anarchists and syndicalists, we must not lose our balance, nor should we change our attitude toward anarchists and syndicalists. We must adhere to the position of the First Congress of the Communist International.” The full text of Zinoviev’s speech was published in the *Communist Bulletin* in January 1923. The author notes that Yin Kuan, when explaining the Communist International’s united front strategy to the Gongyu Society [19]19 The Gongyu Society (工余社) was an anarchist organization among Chinese students and workers in France during the early 1920s. It published the journal *Gongyu* (工余, “Leisure after Work”), which served as a platform for anarchist critiques of the Communist International and the Chinese Communist Party., cited this report, stating: “We regard all anarchists and communists who genuinely endorse class struggle as our brothers.” It can be seen that, on the question of how to understand and respond to the splitting behavior of anarchists, the understanding within the Communist International was not without self-contradiction and vacillation.

然而，共产国际四大上，关于无政府主义者并非只有一种声音。相较于洛佐夫斯基，共产国际执委会主席季诺维也夫的态度更温和一些，他不主张将工团主义和无政府主义截然二分，认为应当继续争取无政府主义者。季诺维也夫在关于法国问题的报告中指出，“对工团主义者和无政府主义者采取完全不同的态度”是共产国际与第二国际的重大区别。“面对无政府主义者和工团主义者的一系列敌对行动，我们不能失去平衡，不应改变对无政府主义者和工团主义者的态度。我们必须坚持共产国际第一次代表大会的立场。”季诺维也夫的讲话全文刊登于1923年1月的《共产党公报》，笔者注意到，尹宽向工余社解释共产国际的统一战线策略时引述了该报告，他表示：“我们认定所有切实赞成阶级争斗的无政府主义者和共产党人都是我们的兄弟。”可见，在如何理解及应对无政府主义者分裂行为的问题上，共产国际内部的认识不乏自相矛盾和摇摆不定之处。

At first, Chinese Communist Party members in Europe were more inclined toward Lozovsky’s style of criticism, that is, directly pointing out the class nature of anarchists and their actions. This appeared to differ from the earlier approach of “arguing against the principle, not the person.” Since its founding, the CPC had engaged in ideological struggle with anarchists, but the discussions mostly focused on the limitations of anarchism as an organizational method or social ideal. To directly call anarchists counter-revolutionaries would inevitably provoke their counterattack. In April 1923, *Gongyu* published an article titled “I Really Want to Ask Those Communists: Is It Opportunism and Reform or Revolution?” The author clearly could not accept or understand the claim that anarchists “confuse the masses,” calling it “too broad” and “using all vague and unfounded terms to talk nonsense,” while defending himself: “Revolution should be thorough propaganda and thorough movement. On the morrow of the revolution, in an anarchist society there will be no representatives, committee members, leaders, chiefs, or superior wages, special status, etc. What would we have to confuse people with!” In May, *Gongyu* continued to refute Lozovsky’s remarks, calling them “groundless assertions,” and citing the anarchists’ joint resistance with the Russian Communist Party (Bolsheviks) against the White Army during the Russian Civil War as evidence, accusing the communists of being “far-fetched and deceitful.”

旅欧中共党员起初更倾向于洛佐夫斯基式的批评，即直接指出无政府主义者及其行为的阶级性质。这与此前“对理不对人”的思路显得不同。中共自创建以来便与无政府主义者展开思想斗争，但讨论多集中于无政府主义作为一种组织方法或社会理想的局限性，直言无政府主义者是反革命，必然引起他们的反击。1923年4月，《工余》刊登题为《我真要问那些共产党人：究竟投机与改良抑或革命？》的文章。作者显然不能认同也无法理解关于无政府主义者“迷惑群众”的说法，称其“说得宽泛已极”，“假用一切笼统不着边际的名词来含混吞吐的瞎说”，又自辩道：“革命当作全醒的宣传，澈底的运动”，“到了革命底明日，无政府社会上又没有代表、委员、领袖、首长及优等的工资、特殊的地位等等，我们何所用其迷惑！”5月，《工余》继续反驳洛佐夫斯基的言论，称其是“毫无根据的断语”，并以无政府主义者在苏俄内战中与俄共（布）共同抵御白卫军为证，指责共产党人“牵强、欺假”。

Regarding the workers’ united front proposed by the Communist International, the anarchists in France mocked it as “playing tricks,” arguing that “uniting the front against the enemy is already a stale phrase of the Russian Communist Party (the Third International)” and “we hope you will still wake up to the fraud of fifty years of parliamentary socialism and the fraud of the Russian Third ‘Communist’ International’s communist government.” In response, Yin Kuan commented: “Others organize the Third International in Moscow, while you organize the Anarchist International in Berlin—others’ ideas all carry the stench of politics, and yours? Do they carry the fragrance of politics?” *Gongyu* even published an article questioning “whether there is any value in the existence” of the General Association of Chinese Workers in France, organized according to the united front strategy, claiming that “it might as well be fundamentally abolished, because this kind of omnipotent general unity is really no longer applicable,” and suggesting that it would be better to “first organize countless small groups” according to the anarchist principle of free association.

对于共产国际提出的工人统一战线，留法无政府主义者嘲讽为“玩手段”，认为“统一前敌已经是俄国共产党（是第三国际）底一句陈话”，“希望诸位还要觉悟五十年来议院社会主义之欺诈；和俄国第三‘共产’国际的共产党政府之欺诈”。对此，尹宽评论说：“别人在莫斯科组织第三国际，你们也在柏林组织无政府国际——别人的主张都是带政治的臭味，你们的呢？带政治的香味？”《工余》甚至刊登文章，质疑依据统一战线策略组织的旅法华工总会“有无存在的价值”，声称“无妨把他从根本取消，因这种万能式的总团结，实在不通用了”，不如按照无政府主义的自由联合原则“先组织无数的小团体”。

The words and actions of the Gongyu Society to some extent confirmed Lozovsky’s judgment. Thus, guided by the concept of counter-revolution, some CPC members in Europe began to integrate class analysis into their criticism. Issues 11 and 12 of *The Youth* serialized an article by Ren Zhuoxuan titled “What Is the Morality of Anarchists?” which sharply pointed out numerous contradictions between the words and deeds of anarchists, with its fundamental argument being the “petty-bourgeoisification” of anarchists. However, the article also contained many exaggerated claims. For example, Huang Lingshuang, in a letter to the Gongyu Society, mentioned that during his visit to Russia, he and Jiang Kanghu agreed that after returning to China they would “fully publish” their criticisms of the Russian Communist Party (Bolsheviks). Ren Zhuoxuan elevated this to the claim that anarchists were colluding with the Chinese Socialist Party to join the Beiyang government for their own “counter-revolutionary strategy.” In fact, Huang Lingshuang admitted in the letter that after returning to China he had “been busy and achieved nothing,” and he spoke quite approvingly of Lenin’s reflection on Russia’s development path: “His sincerity in daring to change deserves deep respect, and before the great war ended, the banner of social revolution was raised in Northern Europe. Although the matter was not accomplished, his merits are many.” Ren Zhuoxuan’s criticism failed to correctly distinguish between individual behavior and class action, and his eagerness to prove the thesis that “anarchism equals counter-revolution” reflected the relative immaturity of CPC members in Europe in terms of theoretical understanding and political struggle.

工余社的言行某种意义上印证了洛佐夫斯基的判断，于是在反革命概念的指引下，一些旅欧中共党员开始将阶级分析融入批判之中。《少年》第11、12期连载任卓宣的文章《甚么是无政府党人底道德？》，尖锐地指出无政府主义者诸多言行相悖之处，而其根本的立论依据则是无政府主义者的“小资产阶级化”。不过，文中亦有不少言过其实的论断。例如，黄凌霜在致工余社的信中提及游俄期间，他与江亢虎约定回国后“尽量发表”对俄共（布）的批评。这被任卓宣上升为无政府党人为了自己的“反革命战略”而联合中国社会党，进而投靠北洋政府。实际上，黄凌霜在信中坦承，他回国后“碌碌无所表见”，并颇为称道列宁对俄国发展道路的反思：“其勇于改变之诚，当深致敬意，且大战未终，而社会革命之旗，遂扬于北欧”，“事虽未就，其功有足多者”。任卓宣的批评没有正确区分个人行为和阶级行动，急于证明“无政府主义即反革命”的论点，反映出旅欧中共党员在理论认识和政治斗争方面尚且不够成熟。

As the debate progressed, *Gongyu*, due to funding issues, was transferred to China for printing, while another anarchist publication, *The Work-Study Student Weekly*, also ceased publication because of its struggle with CPC members in Europe. The CPC organization in Europe adjusted its struggle strategy in a timely manner. The final issue of *The Youth* wrote: “We invite our anarchist comrades to carefully examine the following articles, which concisely summarize our views and are the result of six years on the greatest revolutionary front line.” Unfortunately, due to severe damage to the surviving copy of that issue, this manifesto has only one page remaining, with its title and author unknown; only the first item’s heading, “The Philosophy and Essence of Anarchists,” is visible. However, from phrases in the text such as “we ask them to study the experience of the Russian Revolution,” “stop dispersing revolutionary forces,” and “gather here under the Communist International and the Red International of Labor Unions,” the author speculates that this article may have been an appeal from the Communist International and the Red International of Labor Unions to anarchists on the sixth anniversary of the Russian Revolution.

随着论战的推进，《工余》因资金问题转至国内印行，另一本无政府主义者的刊物《勤工俭学学生周刊》也因为与旅欧中共党员的斗争而停刊。中共旅欧组织则及时调整斗争策略，《少年》最后一期写道，“我们邀请我们无政府主义的同志们留心考察我们以下的条文，这些简括的摘集了我们的意见，并且是由在最大革命火线上六年的结果而成”。遗憾的是，由于当期杂志存稿严重缺损，这篇宣言仅残存一页，标题、作者均不详，仅见第一条的要目为“无政府主义者的哲学及其实质”。不过，由文中“我们请求他们研究俄国革命的经验”“停止分散革命的势力”“群集到共产国际与赤色工联这边来”等措辞，笔者推测，该文可能是俄国革命六周年之际共产国际和红色工会国际给无政府主义者的呼吁书。

After *The Youth* was reorganized into *Red Light* in February 1924, it adjusted its propaganda line and no longer focused on discussing anarchism. However, the conflict between the two sides did not subside. As students who had studied in France and Russia returned to China around 1924, the debate was introduced into the domestic intellectual scene and expanded to larger newspaper platforms, evolving into a long-term ideological struggle. Someone published an article in the supplement *Awakening* of the *Republic Daily*, lamenting: “Among the Chinese anarchists in France, they ran a *Gongyu*, which specialized in spreading rumors about Soviet Russia and opposing the Chinese Socialist Youth League in France. In China, Mr. Baopu worked especially hard! In the *Xuedeng* supplement of the extremely reactionary Research Clique’s newspaper, almost every day we saw Mr. Baopu’s big articles spreading rumors about Soviet Russia and opposing the Kuomintang and the Communist Party.” The Baopu mentioned here was a student who returned from studying at the Moscow Eastern University in the autumn of 1923 and was originally a member of the CPC branch in Moscow. During his stay in Russia, he had corresponded many times with the Gongyu Society, and after returning to China, he vigorously advocated anti-Russian views in the Research Clique’s newspapers *Current Affairs News* and *Morning Post Supplement*. It can be said that the “anarchist-reformist front” proposed by Lozovsky indeed became concretized in China.

1924年2月《少年》改组为《赤光》后调整了宣传路线，不再以讨论无政府主义为重心。然而，双方的纷争并未就此平息。随着1924年前后留法、留俄学生陆续回国，论争被引入国内思想界并扩展至更大型的报刊平台，演变为长期的思想斗争。有人在《民国日报》副刊《觉悟》上发文感慨：“在留法的中国无政府党人办了一个《工余》，专门就是对苏俄造谣，反对旅法中国社会主义青年团。在中国国内，抱朴先生更是特别努力！在极反动派研究系的报纸《学灯》上，差不多天天看见抱朴先生对苏俄造谣，反对国民党和共产党的大文章。”这里提到的抱朴，是1923年秋自莫斯科东方大学留学归来的学生，原为中共旅莫支部党员。他留俄期间曾多次与工余社通信，回国后在研究系的报刊《时事新报》《晨报副刊》上大力鼓吹反俄。可以说，洛佐夫斯基提出的“无政府主义—改良主义阵线”的确在中国具象化了。

In June 1924, Chen Duxiu published an article in *The Guide* titled “Anarcho-Syndicalism and the Dark Forces,” criticizing the behavior of anarchists. In terms of content, he directly referenced Lozovsky’s report at the Fourth Congress of the Communist International. The “dark forces” in the title referred to capitalist imperialism, while “the Second International and the Yellow Trade Union International of Amsterdam are the most powerful tools.” Chen Duxiu said, “Some revolutionary syndicalists, on the united front against the dark forces, should be our closest friends,” but regarding anarcho-syndicalism, “it is not that we are unwilling to endorse it, but that we truly cannot bear to endorse it.” He advised: “Comrades of the world’s anarcho-syndicalists, your words and actions should be carefully considered. Do not, while attacking us, objectively help the dark forces without even realizing it. In Europe, you have taken the same steps as the reformists; in China, you have even more honestly cooperated with the Research Clique, which has always opposed revolution. How can you justify yourselves?”

1924年6月，陈独秀在《向导》发表文章《无政府工团主义与黑暗势力》，批评无政府主义者的行为。从内容上看，他直接参考了洛佐夫斯基在共产国际四大上的报告，文题中“黑暗势力”即资本帝国主义，而“第二国际及亚姆斯德丹之黄色职工国际为最有力的工具”。陈独秀说，“有些革命的工团主义者，在反抗黑暗势力之联合战线上，应该是我们最亲近的好友”，但对无政府工团主义，“我们非是不肯赞成，真是不忍赞成”。他劝说道，“全世界无政府工团主义的同志们，你们的言论行动都应该加意考虑，万勿只顾攻击我们客观上正帮助了黑暗势力而自己还不觉察”，“你们在欧洲取了和改良派同样的步调，在中国更老实和一向反对革命的研究系合作起来，你们果何以自解？”

One month after this article was published, Lozovsky put forward an even bolder assertion at the Fifth Congress of the Communist International: in France and Spain, “anarchist groups are colluding with fascist groups.” The congress’s “Theses on the Tactics of the Trade Union Movement” pointed out that “in those countries where the trade unions, under the banner of independence and autonomy, pursue a policy hostile to the Communist Party and communism,” “combating the demagogy and disorder of the anarcho-syndicalists is the most important task of the Communist Parties in these countries.” Although the Theses declared that it would continue “to strengthen cooperation with those syndicalists who stand on the basis of the decisions of the (Red) Trade Union International Congress,” the anarchists had clearly ceased to be objects of the united front.

此文发表一个月后，洛佐夫斯基在共产国际五大提出了一个更为大胆的论断：在法国和西班牙，“无政府主义者集团与法西斯主义集团相互勾结”。大会《关于工会运动策略的提纲》指出，“在那些打着工会独立和自治旗号执行同共产党和共产主义相敌对的政策的国家”，“反对无政府主义—工团主义分子的蛊惑和杂乱无章，是这些国家共产党最重要的任务”。尽管《提纲》声明要继续“加强同那些站在（红色）工会国际代表大会决定基础上的工团主义分子的合作”，但无政府主义者显然已不再属于统战对象。

IV. Conclusion

四、结语

From the First Congress of the Communist International in 1919, which made uniting with anarchists a precondition for the “path to victory,” to the Fifth Congress in 1924, which established the struggle against anarchist elements as “the most important task of the Communist Party” in the workers’ movement, the original alliance between the two sides gradually disintegrated, ultimately moving toward opposition and competition. Whether in alliance or hostility, this was inseparable from the situation in Soviet Russia (the Soviet Union) and the development of the international workers’ movement, and it can also be traced to ideological sources in the revolutionary consensus or principled differences between the two sides. This relationship and its changes constituted a structural feature of the international communist movement in the 1920s. It can be said that the purification of Party organizations and the uniting with anarchists were common experiences during the founding period of communist parties in various countries. With the rupture of the united front, anarchism increasingly became a “negative memory” in the history of the international communist movement.

自1919年共产国际一大把联合无政府主义者作为“胜利之路”的先决条件，到1924年共产国际五大将反对无政府主义分子确立为工人运动中“共产党最重要的任务”，双方原本的联盟关系逐渐瓦解，最终走向对立与竞争。无论是联合还是敌对，皆与苏俄（苏联）局势和国际工人运动的发展密不可分，同时也能在双方的革命共识或原则分歧中找到思想源头。这种关系及其变化构成了20世纪20年代国际共产主义运动的结构性特征。可以说，党组织的净化与对无政府主义者的联合是各国共产党创建时期普遍的经历。随着统一战线破裂，无政府主义在国际共运史上愈发成为一段“负面记忆”。

Thus it can be seen that the relationship between the early CPC and the anarchists should be examined from the perspective of the international communist movement. Or rather, the interaction between the two was itself a facet of the international communist movement. On the eve of the Party’s founding, the debate between Chen Duxiu and Qu Shengbo [20]20 Qu Shengbo (区声白, 1892-?) was a Chinese anarchist who debated Chen Duxiu in 1920-1921 in the journal *New Youth* on issues such as the dictatorship of the proletariat and free association. and others over the dictatorship of the proletariat and free association largely resolved the issue of the Party’s ideological unity. The ideological confusion caused by the Comintern representatives in China who brought the two factions together was the direct trigger for this debate. In comparison, the dispute between the CPC’s European organization and the Gongyu Society [21]21 The Gongyu Society (工余社, literally “Workers’ Leisure Society”) was a Chinese anarchist organization active in France in the early 1920s, which published the journal *Gongyu* (Workers’ Leisure). occurred after the organizational boundaries between the two had already been drawn. Although the international anarchist and syndicalist camp had generally shifted to an anti-communist stance, the Comintern had not given up on winning them over into the united front. Against this background, the initial intention of the CPC members in Europe in criticizing anarchism was not to purge it, but to form a consensus on jointly opposing international capitalism and the yellow trade union international [22]22 The “yellow trade union international” refers to the International Federation of Trade Unions (IFTU, also known as the Amsterdam International), founded in 1919, which the Comintern and the Red International of Labour Unions (RILU) denounced as reformist and class-collaborationist. while acknowledging principled differences. However, this effort achieved little. Amid the clamor for trade union autonomy and opposition to political parties, anarchism increasingly shed its revolutionary character, instead taking on the task of attacking Soviet Russia and the Communist Party, ultimately becoming an “ideological weapon” used by the Kuomintang to suppress communists after 1927.

由此可见，早期中共与无政府主义者的关系应该置于国际共运的视域中进行考察。或者说，两者之间的互动本身就是国际共运的一个侧面。建党前夕陈独秀与区声白等人围绕无产阶级专政和自由联合的论战，大体上解决的是党的思想统一问题。共产国际来华代表将两派组合后产生的思想混乱，是触发这场论战的直接原因。相较而言，中共旅欧组织与工余社的争论则发生在两者的组织界限已划清以后。尽管国际无政府主义、工团主义阵营已经普遍转向反共立场，但共产国际并没有放弃争取他们进入统一战线。在此背景之下，旅欧中共党员批评无政府主义的初衷不在于将其肃清，而是在正视原则分歧的前提下，形成一致对抗国际资本主义和黄色工会国际的共识。不过，这种努力收效甚微。在要求工会自治和反对政党的声浪中，无政府主义越来越褪去革命的性质，转而以攻击苏俄和共产党为己任，最终成为1927年后国民党镇压共产党人的“思想利器”。

For the CPC members in Europe, the struggle against the anarchists deepened their understanding of the Party’s emergence, composition, and historical mission as the vanguard of the proletariat, while also enabling them to see clearly the class nature of anarchism and its dual character in revolution. It is undeniable that the spark that ignited the anarchists’ discontent was precisely the mistakes made by Soviet Russia during the civil war period due to inexperience in handling the relationship between the vanguard and the masses, and between the Communist Party and other parties. They had not foreseen that the internal conflicts within Soviet Russia would sow the seeds of division throughout the entire international workers’ movement. On the question of how to win over the masses, establish leadership over them, and handle the relationship between the Party and non-Party elements, the CPC, through long-term practice, ultimately explored a path different from that of Soviet Russia.

对于旅欧中共党员而言，与无政府主义者的斗争深化了他们对共产党的产生、组成及其作为无产阶级先锋队历史使命的理解，同时也让他们看清了无政府主义的阶级本质和它在革命中的两面性。不可否认的是，激起无政府主义者不满的导火索，正是苏俄在内战时期处理先锋队与群众、共产党与其他党派关系时由于缺乏经验而出现的失误。他们未曾预见到，苏俄内部的冲突竟会给整个国际工人运动埋下分裂的种子。在如何掌握群众、建立对群众的领导以及处理党与非党关系的问题上，中共经过长期实践，最终探索出了一条不同于苏俄的道路。

Online editor: Jing Mu

网络编辑：静穆