An Examination of the Post-WWII British Left-Wing Spectrum — A Comparison of the Ideas of the British New Left, the Communist Party and the Labour Party

At present, the global landscape is undergoing structural changes. Traditional Western left-wing forces face a predicament, while radical right-wing forces are on the rise, and the world order shows tendencies toward de-globalization and populism. The changes in social power relations brought about by the great transformation of the world pose severe challenges to traditional left-wing politics and also give rise to many theoretical questions that need to be answered from an academic perspective. As a country where left-wing forces were relatively active in the 20th century, British left-wing thought has received considerable attention in recent years. After World War II, there were three relatively representative left-wing forces in Britain: the Labour Party, the Communist Party, and the New Left, listed in order of their emergence. The processes of their rise, development, and decline are broadly consistent with the overall development trajectory of the post-WWII Western left. Taking these three as entry points and analyzing their similarities and differences helps to summarize and examine the development patterns and common problems of the post-WWII Western left, thereby gaining a deeper understanding of the opportunities and challenges facing world socialism today and socialism with Chinese characteristics for a New Era. In this regard, this paper takes the ideas of these three post-WWII British left-wing currents — the New Left, the Communist Party, and the Labour Party — as its research objects. It attempts to conduct a comparative analysis of their ideas from four dimensions: theoretical foundation, value orientation, practical strategy, and historical position. It revolves around four core questions: “How is Marxism viewed?”, “What kind of socialism is pursued?”, “How is socialism to be achieved?”, and “What position is occupied in the left-wing spectrum?” These four dimensions exhibit the following relationship: the understanding of Marxism often constitutes the foundation of left-wing thought; this foundation directly influences the value orientation of the left in pursuing socialism; practical strategy is a reflection on the path to achieving socialism, deeply influenced by the theoretical foundation and value orientation; the first three dimensions together determine the fourth dimension, namely, the historical position occupied in the left-wing spectrum. The internal logic of these four dimensions constitutes the basic concepts of the left.

当前，全球格局正在发生结构性变化，西方传统左翼面临困局，激进右翼势力抬头，世界秩序呈现出逆全球化和民粹化倾向。世界大变革所导致的社会权力关系变化，对传统左翼政治提出了严峻挑战，也产生了很多需要从学理上回答的理论问题。作为20世纪左翼力量比较活跃的国家，英国的左翼思想近年来得到较多关注。二战后，在英国有三支比较有代表性的左翼力量，按照产生时间顺序分别是英国工党、共产党和新左翼。它们的兴起、发展和衰落的过程与二战后西方左翼的总体发展路径是基本一致的。以这三者为切入点，分析其中异同，有助于总结和审视二战后西方左翼的发展规律和共性问题，进而对当今世界社会主义和新时代中国特色社会主义面临的机遇和挑战有更深入的认识。对此，本文以二战后英国新左翼、共产党和工党这三个左翼流派的思想为研究对象，尝试从理论基础、价值取向、实践战略和历史方位四重维度出发，对它们的思想进行比较分析，围绕四个核心问题展开:“如何看待马克思主义”、“追求什么样的社会主义”、“如何实现社会主义”以及“在左翼谱系中居于什么位置”。这四重维度呈现出以下关系:对马克思主义的理解往往构成左翼思想的基础;这一基础直接影响了左翼追求社会主义的价值取向;实践战略是对社会主义实现路径的思考，受到理论基础和价值取向的深刻影响;前三重维度共同决定了第四重维度，即在左翼谱系中居于何种历史方位。这四重维度的内在逻辑构成了左翼的基本理念。

I. The Development Process of the British New Left, the Communist Party and the Labour Party

一、英国新左翼、共产党和工党的发展历程

(A) The British New Left

(一)英国新左翼

In the late 1950s, the New Left movement erupted in the Western world, with the British Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, the French “May 1968” [n1], and the American civil rights movement being among the more influential. The disclosure of Khrushchev’s secret report at the 20th Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union in 1956 caused great shock within the Communist Party of Great Britain (hereinafter “the CPGB”), and this event became the trigger for the outbreak of the British New Left movement. Some former CPGB members, together with other independent left-wing forces, constituted the British New Left (hereinafter “the New Left”). The British New Left movement took shape in the late 1950s, developed in the 1960s, and gradually declined in the late 1970s under the impact of neoliberalism. It was a political and intellectual movement that arose in Britain after World War II, rooted in British indigenous radicalism, and integrated ideas such as Marxism, the socialism of the traditional labor movement, and radical youth culture. It aimed to explore a third road to socialism different from actually existing socialism and traditional social democracy.[1]1 The “May 1968” events in France were a period of widespread student protests and a general strike that nearly toppled the government, representing a major crisis for the French state and a key moment for the New Left internationally. During this process, a group of New Left scholars emerged, forming New Left thought. Key figures include Edward Thompson, John Saville, Stuart Hall, Raymond Williams, Richard Hoggart, Ralph Miliband, Raphael Samuel, Perry Anderson, and Tom Nairn.

20世纪50年代末，西方世界爆发新左翼运动，其中以英国核裁军运动、法国“五月风暴”、美国民权运动等影响较大。1956年苏共二十大赫鲁晓夫秘密报告的传出，在英国共产党(以下简称“英共”)内引起极大震动，这一事件成为英国新左翼运动爆发的导火索。部分原英共党员和其他独立左翼力量一同构成了英国新左翼(以下简称“新左翼”)。英国新左翼运动形成于20世纪50年代后期，发展于60年代，70年代末在新自由主义的冲击下逐渐式微。它是二战后在英国兴起的政治运动和思想运动，根植于英国本土的激进主义，融合了马克思主义、传统劳工运动的社会主义和激进青年文化等思想，旨在探索不同于现实社会主义和传统社会民主主义的第三条社会主义道路。1在这一过程中涌现出一批新左翼学者，形成了新左翼思想。主要人物有爱德华·汤普森、约翰·萨维尔、斯图亚特·霍尔、雷蒙德·威廉斯、理查德·霍加特、拉尔夫·米利班德、拉斐尔·萨缪尔、佩里·安德森和汤姆·奈恩等。

The first generation of the New Left was mainly represented by Thompson, Saville, and Williams. Most of them were born before the 1930s, had wartime experiences, sympathized with workers, and valued the role of national traditions and culture in social development. The second generation was represented by scholars born after the 1930s, such as Anderson and Nairn. Most of them had not experienced war, were deeply influenced by continental European Marxism, identified with “structuralist Marxism,” and had many theoretical differences with the first generation of the New Left. In a later retrospective essay, Hall pointed out that the two generations of the British New Left represented the generational gap between the pre-war generation and the post-war generation, demonstrating a conflict between “labor culture” and “urban culture.”[2]2 The “events in Poland and Hungary” refer to the 1956 Polish October and the Hungarian Revolution, both of which were popular uprisings against Soviet-imposed Stalinist regimes, brutally suppressed by the Soviet Union. The main works of the New Left include *Out of Apathy* and *The May Day Manifesto*. In the early period, the journals *The New Reasoner* and *Universities and Left Review* served as the main propaganda vehicles; later, these two merged into *New Left Review*, which became the main theoretical platform for disseminating New Left thought.

新左翼中的第一代以汤普森、萨维尔和威廉斯等为主要代表。他们大多出生于20世纪30年代以前，有过战争经历，对工人抱有同情心，重视民族传统和文化在社会发展中的作用。第二代则以安德森、奈恩等20世纪30年代以后出生的学者为代表。他们大多未经历过战争洗礼，深受欧洲大陆马克思主义的影响，认同“结构主义的马克思主义”，与第一代新左翼存在诸多理论分歧。霍尔在后来的回忆文章中指出两代英国新左翼代表了战前一代和战后一代的代际差异，展现了“劳工文化”与“都市文化”的冲突。2新左翼的主要论著有《走出冷漠》、《五月宣言》等，早期以《新理性者》和《大学与左翼评论》两本刊物为主要宣传载体，后来这二者合并为《新左翼评论》，成为传播新左翼思想的主要理论阵地。

(B) The Communist Party of Great Britain

(二)英国共产党

The Communist Party of Great Britain was founded in 1920, initially composed of representatives from the British Socialist Party, the Communist Unity Group of the Socialist Labour Party, and the South Wales Communist Council, among others. Later, the Communist Labour Party, the Workers’ Socialist Federation, and left-wing elements of the Independent Labour Party also successively joined the CPGB. In its early years, the CPGB’s main work was leading workers’ strikes domestically and supporting the anti-imperialist struggles of colonial peoples abroad. In 1935, the CPGB published a systematic party program, *For a Soviet Britain*, and subsequently revised the program in 1951, 1957, 1968, 1977, and 1988. Among these, the 1951 program, *The British Road to Socialism*, raised the possibility of a “peaceful transition to socialism,” elaborating on issues such as war and peace, national independence, people’s democracy, socialist nationalization, expanding social services, strengthening the unity of the working people, and building up the Communist Party organization.

英国共产党成立于1920年，起初是由英国社会党、社会主义工党中的共产主义统一派以及南威尔士共产主义委员会的代表等组成，后来共产主义工党、工人社会主义联盟、独立工党的左翼也陆续加入英共。英共成立初期所做的工作主要是对内领导工人罢工、对外支持殖民地人民反帝斗争。1935年英共发表了系统的党纲《争取建立苏维埃英国》，之后于1951年、1957年、1968年、1977年和1988年分别进行了党纲修订。其中，1951年的党纲《英国走向社会主义的道路》提出了“和平过渡到社会主义”的可能性，对战争与和平、民族独立、人民民主、社会主义国有化、增加社会服务、加强劳动人民的团结、壮大共产党组织等问题进行了阐发。

After World War II, the CPGB experienced several splits. The first occurred in 1956, following the disclosure of Khrushchev’s secret report at the 20th Congress of the CPSU and the events in Poland and Hungary [n2], when some CPGB members resigned due to dissatisfaction with the CPGB’s blind obedience to the Soviet Union. The second split occurred during the great debate in the international communist movement in the 1960s. Divisions arose within the CPGB over differing views on the line of the international communist movement, leading to the expulsion of some members, who in April 1968 formed the “Communist Party of Great Britain (Marxist-Leninist).” The third split occurred in the mid-1970s, centering on disputes over the CPGB’s relationship with the CPSU. In 1977, some members broke away to form the “New Communist Party of Britain.” The fourth split occurred in the 1980s, involving a dispute between the majority faction, led by Martin Jacques, editor of the party journal *Marxism Today*, and the minority faction, led by Tony Chater, editor of the party newspaper *Morning Star*. The editor of *Morning Star* and some members were expelled from the party, after which they formed the “Communist Movement Group.” These several splits severely weakened the CPGB. After the collapse of the Soviet Union and Eastern European socialist states, the CPGB abandoned its previous theoretical line and struggle policies, and in 1991 renamed itself “Democratic Left,” becoming a democratic socialist group. The original “Morning Star faction” then took over the name and banner of the “Communist Party of Great Britain,” and subsequently, what people refer to as the Communist Party of Great Britain refers to the CPGB reorganized from the original “Morning Star faction.”

二战后英共经历了几次分裂。第一次发生在1956年苏共二十大赫鲁晓夫秘密报告的传出和波匈事件之后，英共内一些党员因对英共盲从苏联的态度不满而退党。第二次发生在20世纪60年代国际共运大论战期间，英共内部因对国际共运路线看法不同而发生分裂，部分党员被开除并于1968年4月自组“英国共产党(马列)”。第三次发生在20世纪70年代中期，围绕英共与苏共的关系问题党内又起纷争，1977年部分党员另起炉灶成立“新英国共产党”。第四次发生在20世纪80年代，以党刊《今日马克思主义》主编马丁·雅克为首的多数派和以党报《晨星报》主编托尼·蔡特为首的少数派发生争论。《晨星报》主编和一部分党员被开除出党，之后他们成立了“共产主义运动小组”。几次分裂使英共元气大伤。苏东剧变发生后，英共放弃了过去的理论路线和斗争政策，在1991年更名为“民主左派”，变成一个民主社会主义团体。原“晨星派”则接过了“英国共产党”这个名称和旗帜，之后人们所说的英国共产党指的就是原“晨星派”改组后的英共。

(C) The British Labour Party

(三)英国工党

As the most influential left-wing political party in 20th-century Britain, the British Labour Party (hereinafter “the Labour Party”) was founded in 1900, originally named the “Labour Representation Committee.” It was a federation formed by various socialist groups of the time, including the Fabian Society, the Independent Labour Party, the Social Democratic Federation, various trade unions, and some smaller socialist groups. It formed a parliamentary group in 1906 and changed its name to the “Labour Party.” In 1918, the Labour Party issued its constitution and program, *Labour and the New Social Order*, which stated in Clause IV, Section 4, the aim to establish socialist public ownership and abolish private ownership.[3]3 Clement Attlee (1883–1967) was Prime Minister of the United Kingdom from 1945 to 1951, leading the first Labour government with a majority in Parliament. Subsequently, under the influence of democratic socialism and neoliberalism, the Labour Party finally amended Clause IV of its constitution in 1995, abandoning the goal of socialist public ownership. From after World War II to the present, the Labour Party has governed in four periods: 1945–1951, 1964–1970, 1974–1979, and 1997–2010.

作为20世纪英国影响力最大的左翼政党，英国工党(以下简称“工党”)成立于1900年，原名“劳工代表委员会”，是由当时各社会主义团体包括费边社、独立工党、社会民主联盟和各职工会以及一些小型社会主义团体等组成的联盟，1906年组成议会党团并改名为“工党”。1918年工党发布党纲党章《工党与新社会制度》，在第四条第四款提到，要实行社会主义公有制，废除私有制3。此后，在民主社会主义和新自由主义的影响下，工党在1995年最终修改了党章第四条，放弃了社会主义公有制的目标。二战后至今工党经历了四个阶段的执政，分别是1945—1951年，1964—1970年，1974—1979年，1997—2010年。

For a long time, factions have stood in profusion within the Labour Party, among which the struggle between the left wing and the right wing within the party has been the most intense. The differences between the Labour left and right at different stages have mainly centered on the following four aspects: First, foreign policy. In the early period after World War II, the Labour left was extremely dissatisfied with the right wing’s foreign policy of allying with the United States against the Soviet Union and maintaining a special relationship with the United States. Second, the revision of Clause Four of the Party Constitution. In the 1960s, facing the party’s position out of power, the Labour right wing hoped to transform the Labour Party from a working-class party into a catch-all party, and therefore advocated deleting the content concerning socialist public ownership in Clause Four of the Party Constitution, which met with strong opposition from the Labour left. Third, defense policy. The Labour left advocated that Britain should adopt a policy of unilateral nuclear disarmament, while the Labour right wing advocated that Britain should possess its own nuclear weapons. Fourth, the struggle for leadership of the party. After World War II, the right wing held leadership positions within the Labour Party for a long time; to compete for leadership, the left and right wings fought incessantly. Internal party struggles greatly affected the Labour Party’s approval ratings. To rebuild its leading position, the Labour Party implemented reforms in the late 1980s, attempting to move from the left toward the center, unite various factions and form a cooperative leadership group. In 1994, Tony Blair became the leader of the Labour Party and proposed the policy of building a “New Labour, New Britain.” The implementation of this policy transformed the Labour Party from a left-wing party into a centrist party. In the short term, the Labour Party attracted a large wave of centrist voters, laying the foundation for its victory in the 1997 general election. But in the long term, this policy blurred the distinction between the Labour Party and the Conservative Party; the Labour Party lost its own class character and gradually drifted away from its identity as a working-class party.

长期以来，工党内部派别林立，其中尤以党内左翼和右翼之间的斗争最为激烈。工党左翼和右翼在不同阶段的分歧主要集中于以下四个方面:第一，外交政策。二战后初期，工党左翼对右翼联美抗苏、与美国保持特殊关系的外交政策极为不满。第二，关于党章第四条的修订。在20世纪60年代，工党右翼针对党的在野局面，希冀将工党由工人阶级政党改造为全民党，因此主张删去党章第四条中关于社会主义公有制的内容，遭到工党左翼的强烈反对。第三，防务政策。工党左翼主张英国应采取单边核裁军政策，而工党右翼主张英国应拥有自己的核武器。第四，关于党的领导权的争夺。二战后右翼在工党内部长期占据领导职位，为争夺领导权，左翼与右翼之间争斗不休。党内斗争大大影响了工党的支持率。为重建领导地位，工党于20世纪80年代后期实行改革，试图从左向中间靠拢，团结各派别并形成合作的领导集团。1994年，托尼·布莱尔成为工党领袖，提出了建立“新工党、新英国”的政策。该政策的推行使工党从左翼政党转型为中间政党。从短期来看，工党吸引了一大波中间选民，为1997年在大选中获胜奠定了基础。但从长期来看，这一政策使工党与保守党之间的区分度模糊化，工党失去了自身的阶级特性，与工人阶级政党的身份渐行渐远。

II. Theoretical Foundation: How to View Marxism

二、理论基础:如何看待马克思主义

Among these three schools, the New Left emerged the latest, and its ideas were largely formed on the basis of criticism of the ideas of the Communist Party of Great Britain and the Labour Party, which is reflected in their theoretical foundation, value orientation, and practical strategy, among other aspects.

在这三个流派中，新左翼出现时间最晚，其思想很大程度上是基于对英共和工党理念的批判而形成，这在其理论基础、价值取向和实践战略等方面皆有体现。

The Communist Party of Great Britain takes scientific socialism as its theoretical foundation, aiming to apply this theory to Britain and the world. Former CPGB secretary John Gollan stated that the CPGB inherited the revolutionary tradition of the British Chartist Movement, reaffirmed the goals of the early pioneers of socialism, upheld Marxist theory, and rejected the reformist ideas of class collaboration.[4]4 John Gollan (1911–1977) was General Secretary of the Communist Party of Great Britain from 1956 to 1975. The Chartist Movement (1838–1848) was a British working-class movement for political reform, whose demands included universal male suffrage and annual parliaments. The basic characteristics of the CPGB are: first, it is founded on Marxism-Leninism, including the emerging tradition of British Marxism; second, it is rooted in the working class and organized to carry out socialist revolution; third, it adheres to democratic centralism; fourth, it advocates international solidarity and establishes close ties with communist movements in other countries.[5]5 Democratic centralism is an organizational principle combining democratic participation with centralized decision-making, characteristic of Leninist parties.

英共以科学社会主义为理论基础，旨在将这一理论运用于英国和世界。原英共书记约翰·高兰曾表示，英共继承了英国宪章运动的革命传统，重申了社会主义早期先驱者的奋斗目标，维护马克思主义理论，拒斥阶级合作的改良主义思想。4英共的基本特征是:第一，建立在马克思列宁主义包括正在形成的英国的马克思主义传统的基础上;第二，扎根于工人阶级，为开展社会主义革命而组织;第三，坚持民主集中制;第四，主张国际团结，与其他国家的共产主义运动建立密切的联系。5

The ideological foundation of the Labour Party, on the other hand, is mainly democratic socialism, Fabian socialism, trade unionism, radical liberalism, and ethical socialism. The Labour Party defines itself as a democratic socialist party. “Nationalization” and “welfare policies” were the core propositions of the Labour Party after World War II. However, the CPGB believed that, under the “nationalization” of the Labour right wing, industries taken into public ownership could not become the foundation of a socialist economy, because large enterprises and large industries remained in the hands of private capital, and these large enterprises and large industries were used to serve the interests of capitalism rather than to benefit the working people. Regarding the idea of cooperation with the bourgeoisie advocated by the Labour right-wing government, the CPGB considered this to be an act of dividing and undermining the workers’ movement by surrendering to capitalism.

工党的思想基础则主要是民主社会主义、费边社会主义、工联主义、激进自由主义和道德社会主义等。工党对自身的定位就是民主社会主义政党。“国有化”和“福利政策”是二战后工党的核心主张，但英共认为，在工党右翼的“国有化”背景下，收归国有的工业无法成为社会主义经济的基础。因为大企业大工业仍掌握在私人资本手里，这些大企业大工业是被用来为资本主义谋利益而不是为劳动人民谋福利的。对于工党右翼政府主张的与资产阶级合作的思想，英共认为这是通过向资本主义投降的方法来分化和破坏工人运动的行径。

The New Left, on the other hand, both inherited Marxism and absorbed and integrated democratic socialism, ethical socialism, and indigenous radicalism. The New Left absorbed the “humanist” tradition within Marxism and also recognized certain elements of other ideas; for example, the emphasis on “morality” in ethical socialism profoundly influenced the New Left. E. P. Thompson inherited the romantic tradition of ethical socialism and insisted that “Marx’s early thought is closely related to the romantic tradition,”[6]6 E. P. Thompson (1924–1993) was a British historian, socialist, and a leading figure in the first New Left. advocating the realization of socialism through the reconstruction of virtue. The New Left continued Marx’s dialectical critical stance toward capitalism, both affirming the changes and progress brought about by the new developments of capitalism after World War II and relentlessly exposing the problems brought by “welfare capitalism.” When “welfare capitalism” was at its peak in the 1950s and 1960s, the New Left had already exposed the problems of “welfare capitalism” and “consumer capitalism” from the perspectives of social class, social values, the affluent society, modernization, consensus politics, and the humanities, while also severely criticizing the “new imperialism” led by the United States and Britain after World War II. The New Left’s critical examination of “welfare capitalism” and “new imperialism” constituted a challenge to the capitalist order, providing powerful theoretical force for socialists of the time to conduct theoretical and normative critiques of capitalism.

新左翼则既继承了马克思主义，又吸收融合了民主社会主义、伦理社会主义和本土激进主义等。新左翼吸纳了马克思主义中的“人道主义”传统，也认同其他思想的部分元素，如伦理社会主义对“道德”的强调深刻影响了新左翼。汤普森就继承了伦理社会主义的浪漫主义传统，并坚持认为“马克思早期的思想与浪漫主义传统息息相关”6，主张通过德性的重构来实现社会主义。新左翼延续了马克思对资本主义的辩证批判立场，既肯定了二战后资本主义的新变化对社会带来的改变和进步，也对“福利资本主义”带来的问题作了无情揭露。在20世纪50—60年代“福利资本主义”风头正盛时，新左翼就已从社会阶层、社会价值理念、丰裕社会、现代化、共识政治、人文科学等角度揭露了“福利资本主义”和“消费资本主义”的问题，同时还对二战后以美英为首的“新帝国主义”进行了严厉批判。新左翼对“福利资本主义”和“新帝国主义”的批判性考察，构成了对资本主义秩序的挑战，为当时的社会主义者对资本主义进行理论性、规范性批判提供了有力的理论力量。

III. Value Orientation: What Kind of Socialism to Pursue

三、价值取向:追求什么样的社会主义

The goal the CPGB hoped to achieve was to seize political power, eliminate capitalism, and then establish a communist society.[4]4 John Gollan (1911–1977) was General Secretary of the Communist Party of Great Britain from 1956 to 1975. The Chartist Movement (1838–1848) was a British working-class movement for political reform, whose demands included universal male suffrage and annual parliaments. The communist society envisioned by the CPGB “is a classless society, in which the necessity of the state as an instrument of class rule will disappear. This society will have no exploitation; science and technology will be applied to liberate the people from monotonous labor, expand leisure, education and cultural undertakings, so that human capabilities can be fully developed. In this society, as Marx and Engels stated in the *Communist Manifesto*, ‘the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all.’”[5]5 Democratic centralism is an organizational principle combining democratic participation with centralized decision-making, characteristic of Leninist parties. The socialism pursued by the CPGB is the end of capitalist exploitation, the end of economic depression and unemployment, the end of the danger of war, and the ultimate goal is the realization of the people’s freedom. In later revisions of the party program, the CPGB further refined the definition of socialism: “Socialism is a form of society in which the factories, mines, transport, banks and land — all the means of production, distribution and exchange — are owned by the whole people and operated for the benefit of all.”[7]7 This formulation echoes the classic Marxist definition of socialism as public ownership of the means of production.

英共希冀达到的目标是夺取政权，消灭资本主义，进而建立共产主义社会。4英共理想中的共产主义社会“是一个没有阶级的社会，在这个社会中，国家作为阶级统治工具的必要性将消失。这个社会将没有剥削，应用科学和技术使人民从单调的劳动中解放出来，扩大休息、教育和文化事业，以使人类的能力得到充分发挥，在这个社会中，正像马克思和恩格斯在《共产党宣言》中所说的‘每个人的自由发展是一切人的自由发展的条件。’”5英共追求的社会主义是资本主义剥削的终结，是经济萧条和失业的终结，是战争危险的终结，最终目标是实现人民的自由。在后来的党纲修订中，英共进一步提炼了社会主义的定义:“社会主义是这样一种形式的社会，在这种社会中，工厂、矿山、交通、银行和土地———一切生产、分配和交换的手段———都为全体人民所有，为全体的利益服务。”7

Unlike the CPGB’s communist goal, although the Labour Party declared in the early 20th century its hope to establish a “classless society,” it later continuously downplayed class characteristics, modifying its goal to the relatively vague formulation of establishing a “free society.” Former British Prime Minister Clement Attlee stated that the Labour Party’s purpose was to establish a cooperative commonwealth and a free, secure, and equal democratic political society. “We want to give every man, woman and child in this country an opportunity to live the fullest life that the resources of our island permit.”[3]3 Clement Attlee (1883–1967) was Prime Minister of the United Kingdom from 1945 to 1951, leading the first Labour government with a majority in Parliament.

不同于英共的共产主义目标，工党虽然在20世纪早期曾声明希望建立“无阶级社会”，但后来不断淡化阶级色彩，将目标修改为建立“自由的社会”这种比较模糊的说法。前英国首相艾德礼曾表示，工党的宗旨是建立合作的联邦和一个自由、安全、平等的民主政治社会。“我们想要给与这个国家的每个男女和儿童一个机会，来过一种我们的岛国资源所容许的最丰富的生活。”3

Compared with the value orientations of the CPGB and the Labour Party, the New Left pursued a goal of “humanist socialism.” On the basis of reflecting on traditional ideologies, the New Left attempted to excavate the humanist core within Marxism, reconstruct Marxist morality, and construct a “humanist socialism” with morality at its core. On the basis of a re-examination of the theory of historical materialism, the New Left attempted to combine the scientific method of Marxism with human freedom, reason, and specific historical traditions, realizing the free and comprehensive development of human beings by liberating people from the enslavement of things or the enslavement of economic necessity.[8]8 Historical materialism is the Marxist theory that the economic base (relations of production) determines the political and ideological superstructure, and that history progresses through class struggle. The basic characteristic of the New Left’s “socialist humanism” is an attempt to highlight the humanist spirit within Marxism, manifest the historical subject status of human beings, place morality at the core of socialist revolution, and advocate realizing the socialist ideal through moral means. The proposal of “socialist humanism” was a theoretical attempt by the New Left to construct a Marxism with British characteristics and to explore a socialist path suited to the country’s actual conditions. It affirmed the status of “human beings” within Marxism and attempted to defend Marxist theory from the dimension of “human value.” However, this idea bore relatively strong traces of utopian socialism and ethical socialism; this abstract “humanism,” divorced from the transformation of the economic structure, ultimately fell into the quagmire of utopianism.

相较英共和工党的价值取向，新左翼追求的是一种“人道主义的社会主义”目标。新左翼在反思传统意识形态的基础上，试图挖掘马克思主义中的人道主义内核，重构马克思主义道德观，构建一种以道德为核心的“人道主义的社会主义”。在对历史唯物主义理论进行重新审视的基础上，新左翼尝试将马克思主义的科学方法与人的自由、理性以及具体的历史传统相结合，通过把人从物的奴役或经济必然性的奴役中解放出来的方式来实现人的自由全面发展。8新左翼的“社会主义人道主义”的基本特点是试图突出马克思主义中的人道主义精神，彰显人的历史主体地位，将道德置于社会主义革命的核心，主张以道德的手段实现社会主义的理想。“社会主义人道主义”的提出是新左翼构建有英国特色的马克思主义、探索符合本国实际的社会主义道路的理论尝试。它肯定了“人”在马克思主义中的地位，试图在“人的价值”维度上捍卫马克思主义理论。但是，这一思想带有较为浓厚的乌托邦主义和伦理社会主义的痕迹，这种脱离经济结构改造的抽象的“人道”最终陷入了空想的泥潭。

IV. Practical Strategy: How to Realize Socialism

四、实践战略:如何实现社会主义

Different theoretical foundations and value orientations led the New Left, the Communist Party of Great Britain (CPGB) and the Labour Party to exhibit different characteristics in practical strategies concerning the economy, politics and the tactics of struggle.

不同的理论基础和价值取向使新左翼、英共和工党在经济、政治和斗争策略等实践战略方面也表现出不同的特点。

In the economic sphere, the CPGB advocated the implementation of socialist public ownership, the abolition of private ownership, and adherence to socialist nationalisation and a planned economy based on socialist principles. “The socialist nationalisation of large-scale industry, banks, large-scale monopolistic supply and marketing enterprises, insurance companies and the land of large landowners, together with the state monopoly of foreign trade, to break the power of the millionaire monopoly capitalists and other big capitalists. The implementation of a planned economy based on socialist principles, aimed at fundamentally transforming society.” [9]9 Source citation as in original. In the early period of its administration, the Labour Party also pursued a policy of “nationalisation”, but subsequently gradually shifted towards a mixed-ownership economy. Under the Labour Party’s “nationalisation” policy, private capital still controlled the major industrial sectors; the economic structure of Britain did not undergo fundamental change, and workers had no decision-making power within enterprises. The Labour Party’s “nationalisation” “did not truly touch the fundamental interests of the bourgeoisie, nor did it fundamentally alter the nature of private ownership of the means of production. In terms of income distribution, although the Labour Party also proposed policies to narrow disparities, eliminate gender discrimination and implement fiscal subsidies, it did not fundamentally change the nature of ‘distribution according to capital’, nor could it change the capitalist system of exploitation.” [10]10 Source citation as in original. In response to the Labour Party’s incomplete “nationalisation” and its mixed-economy policies favouring big capital, the New Left advocated expanding the scope of nationalisation on the basis of the mixed economy and increasing social welfare.

在经济方面，英共主张实行社会主义公有制，消灭私有制，坚持社会主义国有化和以社会主义原则为基础的计划经济。“对大规模的工业、银行、大的供销独占事业、保险公司和大土地所有者的土地实行社会主义国有化，并由政府实行对外贸易的垄断，来打垮百万家财的垄断资本家和其他的大资本家的势力。实行根据社会主义原则而目的在于根本改革社会的计划经济。”9工党执政初期也推行了“国有化”政策，但之后逐渐向混合所有制经济转型。在工党的“国有化”政策下，私人资本仍控制主要大工业部门，英国的经济结构并未发生根本改变，工人在企业中没有决策权。工党的“国有化”“并没有真正触及到资产阶级的根本利益，也没有从根本上改变生产资料私有制的性质。在收入分配方面，工党虽然也提出了缩小差别、消灭性别歧视、实行财政补贴等政策，但没有从根本上改变‘按资分配’的性质，也不可能改变资本主义的剥削制度。”10针对工党的不彻底的“国有化”和倾向大资本的混合经济政策，新左翼主张在混合经济的基础上扩大国有化范围，增加社会福利。

In the political sphere, the CPGB emphasised the establishment of a people’s political power led by the working class and based on a broad alliance of all classes; state power should be exercised by the working class and its allies, but parliamentary democracy and a multi-party system could be adopted, with reforms carried out through democratic means. Unlike the CPGB, the Labour Party did not stress the leadership of the working class, but instead advocated an open democracy. This led the Labour Party to place excessive emphasis on the democratic rights of its members in its organisation, resulting in organisational laxity and inefficiency. The most prominent feature of the Labour Party’s political programme was the “universal welfare” policy. After the war, the Labour Party enacted several social welfare bills, including the National Insurance Act, the National Assistance Act, the National Health Service Act, the Housing Act and the Education Act, laying the foundations of the British “welfare state”. However, the Labour Party’s “nationalisation” and “universal welfare” policies constituted “welfare capitalism” implemented without fundamentally changing Britain’s existing social system; the difference from the Conservative Party lay merely in the degree and scope of implementation. Furthermore, the Labour Party had always carried a liberal tradition. “During and after the First World War, the Liberal Party began to disintegrate, and Liberal intellectuals began to move into the Labour Party. This permanently inclined the Labour Party, to some extent, to seek support not from within a single class but across class boundaries.” [11]11 Source citation as in original. Consequently, the Labour Party was naturally predisposed towards a centrist shift. The New Level was critical of both the “welfare capitalism” and the “consensus politics” promoted by the Labour Party. They argued that the “affluent society” brought by “welfare capitalism” was merely an illusion; behind the prosperity lay a serious imbalance between public and private investment, and the capitalist economy suffered from structural defects. The purpose of “consensus politics”, they held, was merely to create the illusion of democratic politics in order to stabilise the capitalist system. The New Left’s political positions were relatively close to those of the Labour Party’s left wing — for example, opposing nuclear weapons and limiting but not eliminating private capital. The New Left therefore once hoped to realise its political ideals by supporting the Labour left, pinning its hopes on the Labour left forming a government cabinet. However, in 1961, when the Labour Party voted internally on a nuclear disarmament proposal, the right wing won a majority, which in effect dashed the New Left’s hopes of relying on the Labour left. [n]

在政治方面，英共强调建立一种以工人阶级为领导、各阶级广泛联盟的人民政权，应由工人阶级及其同盟者行使国家政权，但可以实行议会民主制和多党制，以民主的方式进行改革。与英共不同的是，工党不强调工人阶级的领导，而是主张实行开放的民主制，这使工党在组织上过于注重党员的民主权力，从而导致组织涣散、效率低下。工党的政治主张中最为突出的是“普遍福利”政策。战后工党颁布了多个社会福利法案，包括国民保险法、国民救济法、国民医疗保健法、住房法、教育法等，奠定了英国“福利国家”的基础。但工党的“国有化”与“普遍福利”政策是在不彻底改变英国现有社会制度的基础上实行的“福利资本主义”，与保守党的区别只是在于实行程度和范围的不同。另外，工党一直带有自由主义的传统，“在第一次世界大战期间和战后，自由党开始分崩离析，自由党知识分子开始转入工党，这就使工党永久保持一种倾向，即在某种程度上不是从阶级内部、而是跨越阶级界限去寻求支持。”11因此工党天然地带有向中间转型的倾向。新左翼对工党推行的“福利资本主义”和“共识政治”都持批判态度。他们认为“福利资本主义”带来的“丰裕社会”只是一种幻象，繁荣背后存在着公共投入和私人投入的严重失衡，资本主义经济存在结构性缺陷，而“共识政治”的目的只是营造出一种民主政治的假象以稳定资本主义制度。新左翼在政治上的主张与工党左翼较为接近，例如反对核武器，限制但不消除私人资本。因此新左翼曾希冀通过扶持工党左翼来践行政治理想，寄希望于工党左翼组成政府内阁。但1961年在工党内部关于核裁军提案的投票中，右翼得到多数票，这实际上使新左翼寄希望于工党左翼的希望破灭。

In terms of the tactics of struggle, the CPGB advocated combining parliamentary democratic struggle with extra-parliamentary mass movements to establish a people’s parliament and government that represented the will of the people. “A unified workers’ movement must strive to elect Labour and Communist MPs to parliament who can implement consistent policies of peace and socialism.” [9]9 Source citation as in original. In its 1951 programme, *The British Road to Socialism*, the CPGB put forward the “theory of peaceful transition” — that is, through the democratic transformation of parliament in Britain, a “peaceful transition” to socialism could be achieved. The specific path of transition was to establish a broad democratic alliance through cooperation with a left-wing Labour government. This was the CPGB’s attempt to explore a British road to socialism. However, a peaceful transition to socialism did not mean abandoning the workers’ movement; the CPGB recognised that “only through political and industrial mass struggle can the peaceful transition to socialism become a reality.” [7]7 This formulation echoes the classic Marxist definition of socialism as public ownership of the means of production. Some scholars have pointed out that although the CPGB’s “theory of peaceful transition” represented an attempt to explore an independent path, it overestimated the socialist elements within the Labour government, its tactics of struggle lacked operability, and it lacked a scientific and reasonable judgement of British national conditions and future trends. [12]12 Source citation as in original. Unlike the CPGB’s strategy of combining parliamentary struggle with the workers’ movement, the Labour Party, influenced by democratic socialism, Fabian socialism and the like, focused on parliamentary struggle, advocated class collaboration, opposed violent revolution and class struggle, and emphasised the gradual reform of socialism by gaining state power through parliament. The emphasis on parliamentary struggle was also a general consensus among post-war Western social democratic parties. Different from both the CPGB and the Labour Party, the New Left proposed a strategy of “peace + revolution” — that is, combining gradual transformation with abrupt revolutionary change, allowing socialist elements to mature within capitalism before making a revolutionary breakthrough to achieve socialism. The Labour Party advocated a gradualist reform model; traditional communism emphasised the model of violent revolution. The New Left attempted to combine the former’s quantitative change with the latter’s qualitative change: first accumulating quantitative change in all aspects of social life, allowing socialist elements and forms to grow and mature within capitalism, and then, at a certain nodal point, carrying out a “peaceful revolution” to achieve qualitative change. The key nodal point of qualitative change lay in the transfer of class power — that is, the removal of capital’s power from the commanding heights and the realisation of socialist democratic power. This was the watershed between the highest stage of capitalism and socialism. The New Left also proposed that socialists should accelerate the arrival of this nodal point by criticising the capitalist financial system and mass media, breaking the worship of parliament, fighting actively, seizing parliamentary power, and using changes in the international environment to promote revolutionary breakthroughs at home. [13]13 Source citation as in original. [n] The 1961 Labour Party conference voted on a motion for unilateral nuclear disarmament; the motion was defeated, with the right wing of the party securing a majority. This marked a significant setback for the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament and for the New Left’s strategy of working through the Labour left.

在斗争策略方面，英共主张将议会内的民主斗争与议会外的群众运动相结合，建立代表人民意志的人民议会和政府。“统一的工人运动必须争取选出那些能够贯彻和平与社会主义的言行一致的政策的工党和共产党议员到议会中去。”9英共在1951年的党纲《英国走向社会主义的道路》中提出了“和平过渡论”，即在英国通过议会的民主改造，“和平过渡”到社会主义。过渡的具体途径是通过与左翼工党政府合作，建立广泛的民主联盟。这是英共对探索英国社会主义道路的尝试，但和平过渡到社会主义不代表放弃工人运动，英共认同“只有通过政治和产业群众的斗争，和平过渡到社会主义才能成为现实。”7有学者指出英共的“和平过渡论”虽然代表了英共对独立道路的探索，但过高地估计了工党政府中的社会主义因素，斗争策略缺乏可操作性，对英国国情和未来趋势缺乏科学合理的判断。12不同于英共将议会内斗争和工人运动相结合的策略，工党由于受到民主社会主义、费边社会主义等的影响，注重议会斗争，主张阶级合作，反对暴力革命和阶级斗争，强调通过议会掌握国家政权进而推动社会主义的渐进改革。对议会斗争的强调也是战后西方社会民主党的普遍共识。与英共和工党不同，新左翼提出了“和平+革命”的战略，即将渐进式转型和突变式变革相结合，使社会主义要素在资本主义内部发展成熟之后再进行革命性突破，实现社会主义。工党主张渐进改良模式，传统共产主义强调暴力革命模式，新左翼尝试将前者的量变和后者的质变相结合，先积累社会生活方方面面的量变，使社会主义要素和形式在资本主义内部成长、成熟，然后在某一个节点上进行“和平革命”，达到质变。质变的关键节点在于阶级权力的转移，即资本权力从制高点被赶走，社会主义民主权力得以实现，这是最高阶段的资本主义和社会主义之间的分水岭。新左翼还提出社会主义者要通过批判资本主义金融体系和大众媒体、打破议会崇拜、积极战斗、掌握议会权力、利用国际环境的变化推动国内的革命性突破等方式来加速这个关键节点的到来。13

V. Historical Position: The Relative Positions and Problems of the British New Left, the Communist Party and the Labour Party in the Post-WWII British Left-Wing Spectrum

五、历史方位:英国新左翼、共产党和工党在二战后英国左翼谱系中的相对位置及问题

Within these several schools of the post-WWII British left-wing spectrum, according to differences in viewpoint and stance, from left to right they are: the Communist Party of Great Britain (CPGB), the New Left, the Labour Left, and the Labour Right. The CPGB occupies the leftmost side of the left-wing spectrum, advocating the implementation of socialist public ownership and the abolition of private ownership. Both the Labour Left and the Labour Right advocate policies of “nationalisation” and “social welfare,” agreeing to adopt a mixed economy model, but with differing emphases. The Labour Left believes the scope of “nationalisation” should be expanded so that major industrial sectors are all in the hands of the government, while social welfare should be increased, without excessively accommodating the interests of the bourgeoisie. The Labour Right, by contrast, tends to accommodate the interests of the bourgeoisie; under the Labour Right’s proposals, large industrial sectors remain under the control of private capital, with only some auxiliary sectors being “nationalised.” The New Left initially held views close to those of the Labour Left and once hoped to achieve socialist goals by supporting the Labour Left. However, after the failure of the nuclear disarmament proposal in 1961 dashed these hopes, the New Left began an independent exploration. The main difference between the New Left and the Labour Left lies in their attitudes toward capitalism. The Labour Left believes that capitalism can be utilised to promote the realisation of socialism, whereas the New Left offered a severe critique of the shortcomings of “welfare capitalism.” The New Left’s stance falls between that of the CPGB and the Labour Left, and it objectively promoted the self-renewal of both the CPGB and the Labour Party. To address the problems brought by “nationalisation,” after the Labour Party returned to power in 1964, the Harold Wilson government implemented reforms, attempting to replace “nationalisation” with “planning,” formulating economic plans, strengthening state intervention, restricting the market economy, while simultaneously promoting a scientific and technological revolution and an educational revolution, transforming British industry, and increasing social welfare. On the other hand, with the support of the New Left, the strength of the Labour Left was also enhanced. In the 1970s, the Labour Left was once powerful enough to contend with the Labour Right, and a sharp leftward turn emerged within the Labour Party and the trade unions. On the CPGB side, following the publication of *The British Road to Socialism* in 1951, the CPGB revised its party programme and constitution multiple times in 1957, 1968, 1977, etc., in accordance with domestic and international circumstances. Criticism from the New Left also put pressure on the CPGB leadership, making it pay increasing attention to exploring a socialist path suited to its own realities rather than blindly following the Communist Party of the Soviet Union.

在二战后英国左翼谱系的这几个流派中，根据观点立场的区别，从左至右依次是英共、新左翼、工党左翼、工党右翼。英共居于左翼谱系的左侧，主张实行社会主义公有制，废除私有制。工党左、右翼都主张推行“国有化”和“社会福利”政策，同意采用混合经济模式，但偏向有所不同。工党左翼认为应扩大“国有化”的范围，使主要工业部门都掌握在政府手中，同时增加社会福利，不能过度兼顾资产阶级利益。工党右翼则倾向照顾资产阶级的利益，在工党右翼的主张中，大工业部门仍受私人资本掌控，“国有化”的只是一些辅助性部门。新左翼起初与工党左翼政见接近，也曾寄希望于通过支持工党左翼来实现社会主义的目标，但在1961年核裁军提案失败、希望破灭后，新左翼开始进行独立探索。新左翼与工党左翼的主要区别在于对资本主义的态度不同。工党左翼认为资本主义可以通过被加以利用来推动社会主义的实现，新左翼则对“福利资本主义”的弊端给予了严厉批判。新左翼的主张介于英共和工党左翼之间，在客观上推动了英共和工党的自我革新。为解决“国有化”带来的问题，1964年工党再次上台执政后，哈罗德·威尔逊政府推行改革，尝试用“计划化”代替“国有化”，制定经济计划，加强国家干预，限制市场经济，同时推行科技和教育革命、改造英国工业、增加社会福利等。另一方面，在新左翼的支持下，工党左翼的力量也得以加强。在20世纪70年代，工党左翼力量曾一度足以与右翼抗衡，工党和工会内部呈现急剧向左转的趋势。在英共方面，自1951年《英国走向社会主义的道路》发表后，英共依据国内外形势在1957年、1968年、1977年等对党纲党章进行过多次修改。新左翼的批评也对英共领导层造成压力，使其愈加重视结合自身实际探索社会主义道路而不盲从苏共。

As the latest to emerge among these three left-wing forces, the New Left occupies a position of linking the past and the future in the history of post-WWII socialist development. It both inherited the ideas and movement characteristics of traditional left-wing forces such as the CPGB and the Labour Party, and laid a certain foundation for the diversified development of the socialist movement in the late 20th century. Compared with the traditional left, the New Left shares similarities in ideological theory: for example, it agrees on seizing leadership through parliamentary struggle and establishing a state power led by the working class; it emphasises mobilising the power of the working class and supporting the movement form of workers’ strikes; and in terms of class base, it advocates maximising the mobilisation of forces from all social strata, and so on. At the same time, the New Left also attempted to enrich and expand new socialist strategies: for example, it argued that the forms of the socialist movement should be diversified and not limited to workers’ strikes; it emphasised that Marxist and socialist intellectuals should participate in political movements and play an important role, and so on. In the 1960s and 1970s, strike waves emerged in European and American countries, student movements surged, and Marxist intellectuals also became politically active. “In Britain, Marxist historians such as Christopher Hill, Edward Thompson, and Eric Hobsbawm enjoyed great prestige and large followings, and held stable professional positions. In France and Italy, the core categories used to explain the French Revolution and the Italian Risorgimento were interpreted by Marxist historians.”[14]14 The original Chinese text cites a footnote here, which has been retained as a citation in the translation. At the same time, various new social movements emerged, such as the feminist movement, the ecological movement, the anti-racial discrimination movement, and new forms of mass youth cultural movements. An important feature of the traditional left is its opposition to traditional authority, especially anti-capitalist authority. By the late 20th century, simple anti-capitalist authority had developed into anti-social authority, and the socialist movement showed a trend of diversified development. The issues the New Left focused on covered many aspects of society, including the gap between rich and poor, educational equity, medical and housing security, feminism, imperialism, multinational corporations, and the Cold War. It also inspired attention to some non-material issues, such as human nature, culture, concern for the individual and the self, and care for vulnerable groups. In the field of humanities and social sciences, the concepts, ideas, and methods proposed by the New Left had a positive impact on late 20th-century humanities and social sciences such as history, sociology, political science, and cultural studies, promoting the innovation of theoretical paradigms in various disciplines.

作为这三支左翼力量中最晚出现的一支，新左翼在二战后的社会主义发展史中处于承前启后的位置，既承继了英共、工党等传统左翼的思想和运动特征，又为20世纪后期社会主义运动的多元化发展奠定了一定基础。与传统左翼相比，新左翼在思想理论上与其有相似点:比如认同通过议会斗争夺取领导权，建立工人阶级领导的国家政权;比如强调要调动工人阶级的力量，支持工人罢工的运动形式;比如在阶级基础方面主张最大程度地调动社会各阶层的力量，等等。同时，新左翼也尝试丰富拓展新的社会主义战略:比如主张社会主义运动的形式应当是多样化的，不应局限于工人罢工;比如强调马克思主义和社会主义知识分子应参与到政治运动中、发挥重要作用，等等。20世纪60-70年代，欧美国家出现罢工浪潮，学生运动风起云涌，马克思主义知识分子也在政治上活跃起来。“在英国，马克思主义历史学家，例如克里斯托弗·希尔、爱德华·汤普森以及艾瑞克·霍布斯鲍姆，拥有极大声誉和大批追随者，并享有稳固的职业地位。在法国和意大利，用以解释法国大革命和意大利复兴运动的核心范畴，是由马克思主义历史学家阐释的。”14与此同时，各种新社会运动出现，比如女权运动、生态运动、反种族歧视运动、新形式的大众青年文化运动等。传统左翼的重要特征是反传统权威，尤其是反资本主义权威。而到20世纪后期，单纯的反资本主义权威发展为反社会权威，社会主义运动呈现多元化发展趋势。新左翼关注的议题涵盖了社会的诸多方面，包括贫富差距、教育公平、医疗住房保障、女权、帝国主义、跨国公司、冷战等，同时还启发人们关注一些非物质性议题，比如人性、文化、对个体和自我的关注、对弱势群体的关怀等。在人文社会科学领域，新左翼提出的概念、思想和方法对20世纪后期的人文社会科学如历史学、社会学、政治学和文化研究等产生积极影响，推动了各学科理论范式的革新。

It is necessary to point out that although the New Left put forward some views different from those of the traditional left, the New Left and its ideas also have certain limitations. It is precisely the existence of these problems that has limited the breadth and depth of the New Left’s influence. From an ideological perspective, the New Left’s thought never managed to rise to the level of a systematic, standardised theory; its scattered, unsystematic views made it difficult for the public to quickly grasp the essence of New Left thought in the process of understanding it. The early New Left was deeply influenced by ethical socialism, regarding socialism as a moral ideal; its thought lacked a scientific foundation and carried a relatively strong utopian colouring. As one of the most important theoretical cornerstones of socialism’s development from utopia to science, Marx’s analysis of the general laws of capitalist economic operation is almost absent from New Left thought; this neglect of economic factors made it difficult for the New Left to fundamentally find a way to break through capitalism. From an organisational perspective, the internal organisation of the New Left was not tight enough, with serious ideological divisions; it lacked a unified and firm theoretical source, with diverse and scattered value pursuits; it neglected the theory of the revolutionary party; it had a strong tendency toward intellectual elitism, was detached from the masses, and failed to fully mobilise the enthusiasm of the working class; the socialist revolution and construction measures it proposed lacked practical feasibility, and so on. These problems led to the limited development of the New Left and its difficulty in exerting substantial political influence. The decline of the New Left after the 1980s was due not only to external environmental influences but also to the New Left’s own defects as an important reason.

有必要指出的是，虽然新左翼提出了一些有别于传统左翼的观点，但新左翼及其思想也有一定局限性，正是这些问题的存在使新左翼的影响在广度和深度上有限。从思想上看，新左翼思想始终没能上升为系统化、规范化的理论，零散的、不成体系的观点使大众在了解新左翼思想的过程中难以迅速扑捉到它的思想精髓;早期新左翼深受伦理社会主义影响，将社会主义视为一种道德的理想，其思想缺乏科学性基础，带有比较浓厚的乌托邦色彩;作为社会主义从空想到科学的发展中最重要的理论基石之一，马克思对资本主义经济运行一般规律的分析在新左翼的思想中几乎是缺席的，对经济要素的忽视使新左翼难以从根本上找到突破资本主义的方式。从组织上看，新左翼内部组织不够严密，存在严重的思想分歧;缺乏统一坚定的理论来源，价值追求多元而分散;忽视革命政党理论;带有强烈的知识精英主义倾向，脱离人民群众，没能充分调动工人阶级的积极性;提出的社会主义革命和建设措施缺乏实际可行性，等等。这些问题导致了新左翼发展受限，难以发挥实质性政治影响。20世纪80年代以后新左翼式微，除了外在环境的影响，新左翼自身的缺陷也是重要原因。

After the Second World War, the Western left experienced a process of development from prosperity to downturn, then gradually striving forward and reviving amidst twists and turns. Before WWII, left-wing forces struggled to gain governing power through struggle; after the war, in the 1950s-1960s, left-wing forces were developed and consolidated. Since the late 1970s, with the global expansion of neoliberalism, the living space of the left has been continuously squeezed. After the drastic changes in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, the Western left suffered heavy blows and underwent reorganization, struggling hard for survival, and experienced a brief "revival" in the late 1990s. After the 2008 financial crisis, the Western left once again adjusted and updated itself according to the new situation, to a certain extent showing a "return" to traditional left-wing ideas. For a long time, the Western left has generally faced some problems. First, its identity characteristics are blurred. Left-wing parties are confused and wavering between the identity of a class party and a catch-all party; their identity characteristics are not distinct enough, leading to the blurring of the social and class base of left-wing parties, thus urgently requiring the reshaping of the unique identity and image of the left. Second, there are numerous factions and serious internal divisions. Although united fronts such as the "International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties" and the "Initiative of Communist and Workers' Parties of Europe" have been formed, overall, the left internally still has many factions, serious splits, and conflicts occur from time to time, making it difficult to exert a powerful influence. Third, the theoretical system is insufficiently systematic and standardized. Although there have been theoretical innovations such as "Eurocommunism" and the "Third Way," their essence is merely to modify some ideas previously upheld by the left and to integrate discursive concepts such as liberalism and reformism, making it difficult to withstand the test of changing times. Fourth, there is an abundance of critique but a deficiency in construction. In protesting the existing capitalist institutional system, the left can often sharply point out the drawbacks and crux of capitalism; however, when it comes to how to overcome crises and solve problems, it is difficult to propose practical and effective solutions. These problems have greatly constrained the development of the Western left.

二战后西方左翼曾经历了由繁荣到低迷，又逐渐奋进、在曲折中复兴的发展过程。二战前左翼力量通过斗争努力获得执政权力，二战后在50—60年代左翼力量得到发展和巩固，70年代后期以来随着新自由主义的全球化扩张，左翼的生存空间不断遭受挤压。苏东剧变以后，西方左翼遭遇重创和重组，为谋求生存而艰难奋斗，曾在90年代后期经历了短暂的“复兴”。2008年金融危机发生后，西方左翼根据新形势再次调整和更新，一定程度上呈现出向传统左翼理念的“复归”。长期以来，西方左翼普遍存在一些问题。第一，身份特征模糊。左翼政党在阶级党和全民党身份中迷茫和徘徊，身份特征不够鲜明，导致左翼政党的社会基础和阶级基础模糊化，因此急需重塑左翼独特的身份和形象。第二，派别众多，内部分化严重。虽然形成了如“共产党和工人党国际会议”、“欧洲共产党和工人党‘倡议’”这样的联合阵线，但总体来看左翼内部依然派别众多、分裂严重，矛盾冲突时有发生，这使其难以产生强有力的影响。第三，理论体系不够系统和规范。虽然曾有“欧洲共产主义”、“第三条道路”等这些理论上的创新尝试，但其实质只是修改过去左翼坚持的一些理念并融合自由主义、改良主义等话语概念，难以经受时代变迁的考验。第四，批判有余而建构不足。在对现存资本主义制度体系的抗议方面，左翼往往能够尖锐地指出资本主义的弊端和症结所在，然而在如何克服危机和解决问题方面，却难以提出切合实际的有效方案。这些问题大大制约了西方左翼的发展。

VI. Conclusion

六、结语

Since the late 1970s, under the influence of neoliberalism, capitalism has developed in a largely unrestricted state, leading to global expansion. On the one hand, this has brought about the strengthening of monopolies; on the other hand, it has led to the prevalence of financial capitalism. Wealth has shifted from labor to financial speculation, and the large-scale development of credit has led to the generation of financial bubbles, ultimately triggering the 2008 financial crisis. The concentration and over-accumulation of capital on a global scale have produced growing instability and also exacerbated inequality. On the one hand, finance is no longer a tool serving the productive forces but has become the master of economic life, distorting economic development. On the other hand, financial capital has gained political power, controlling the major political parties in Western countries and turning them into mouthpieces for financial tycoons. The crisis facing contemporary capitalism is persistent and systemic; it is rooted in the inherent contradictions of capitalism. Phenomena such as difficulties in economic recovery, severe wealth polarization, ideological crisis, declining soft power, and intensifying social conflicts increasingly expose the fragility of this system. How to transcend capitalism and rebuild a new international system is a question that socialists today need to consider. In this regard, Marx provides us with powerful tools for analysis and critique. Marx's analysis of the economic laws and contradictions of capitalism can still profoundly answer the questions of our times today. If 21st-century socialists want to understand and transform the world, they should apply Marxist analytical and critical tools to make left-wing thought serve the pursuit of socialist goals.

20世纪70年代末以来，在新自由主义的影响下，资本主义在基本不受限制的状态下发展起来，出现了全球性扩张。这一方面带来垄断的强化，另一方面导致金融资本主义的盛行。财富从劳动向金融投机转型，信贷的大规模发展导致金融泡沫的产生，最终引发2008年金融危机。全球范围内的资本集中和过度积累产生日益增长的不稳定，也加剧了不平等。一方面，金融不再是服务于生产力的工具，而成为经济生活的主人，扭曲了经济发展。另一方面，金融资本获得了政治权力，控制了西方国家的主要政党，使其变成金融大鳄的发声器。当代资本主义面临的危机是持续性、系统性的，它根植于资本主义的内在矛盾。经济复苏困难、贫富分化严重、意识形态危机、软实力下降、社会冲突加剧等现象越来越暴露出这一制度的脆弱性。如何超越资本主义，重建新的国际体系，是当前社会主义者需要思考的问题。在这方面，马克思为我们提供了强有力的分析和批判工具。马克思对资本主义经济规律和矛盾的分析在今天依然能深刻回答时代问题。21世纪的社会主义者想要理解并改造世界，就应运用马克思主义的分析和批判工具，使左翼思想服务于对社会主义目标的追求。

Notes

注释

[1]1 The “May 1968” events in France were a period of widespread student protests and a general strike that nearly toppled the government, representing a major crisis for the French state and a key moment for the New Left internationally. See Lin Chun, *The British New Left*, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1993, pp. 16-17; Zhang Liang and Xiong Ying, eds., *Ethics, Culture and Socialism: A Reader of Early New Left Thought* (伦理、文化与社会主义——新左派早期思想读本), Jiangsu People's Publishing House, 2013, p. 1; Qiao Ruijin et al., *British Neo-Marxism* (英国的新马克思主义), People's Publishing House, 2013, p. 1.

1参见Linchun,The British New Left,Edinburgh:Edinburgh University Press,1993,pp.16-17;张亮、熊婴编:《伦理、文化与社会主义---新左派早期思想读本》，江苏人民出版社2013年版，第1页;乔瑞金等:《英国的新马克思主义》，人民出版社2013年版，第1页。

[2]2 The “events in Poland and Hungary” refer to the 1956 Polish October and the Hungarian Revolution, both of which were popular uprisings against Soviet-imposed Stalinist regimes, brutally suppressed by the Soviet Union. See Stuart Hall, "Life and Times of the First New Left," *New Left Review* II, Vol. 61, No. 1, 2010, pp. 177-186.

2参见Stuart Hall，“Life and Times of the First New Left”,New Left Review II,Vol.61,No.1,2010,pp.177-186.

[3]3 Clement Attlee (1883–1967) was Prime Minister of the United Kingdom from 1945 to 1951, leading the first Labour government with a majority in Parliament. See C. R. Attlee, *The Labour Party in Perspective*, translated by Wu Defen and Zhao Mingqi, Commercial Press, 1961, pp. 24, 90.

3参见[英]C.R.艾德礼著，吴德芬、赵鸣岐译:《工党的展望》，商务印书馆1961年版，第24、90页。

[4]4 John Gollan (1911–1977) was General Secretary of the Communist Party of Great Britain from 1956 to 1975. The Chartist Movement (1838–1848) was a British working-class movement for political reform, whose demands included universal male suffrage and annual parliaments. See John Gollan et al., *Thirty Years of the British Communist Party* (英国共产党三十年), translated by Fu Jiaqin et al., People's Publishing House, 1953, p. 6.

4参见[英]高兰等著，符家钦等译:《英国共产党三十年》，人民出版社1953年版，第6页。

[5]5 Democratic centralism is an organizational principle combining democratic participation with centralized decision-making, characteristic of Leninist parties. See the Scientific Socialism Teaching and Research Office and the Foreign Socialism Research Group of the Party School of the CPC Central Committee, eds., *Selected Materials on Eurocommunism (Volume 2)* (欧洲共产主义资料选编(下)), Research Office of the Party School of the CPC Central Committee, 1985, pp. 217-218, 257.

5参见中共中央党校科学社会主义教研室、国外社会主义问题教研组编:《欧洲共产主义资料选编(下)》，中共中央党校科研办公室1985年版，第217-218、257页。

[6]6 E. P. Thompson (1924–1993) was a British historian, socialist, and a leading figure in the first New Left. Edward Thompson, "Romanticism, Utopianism and Moralism: The Case of William Morris," *New Left Review* I, Vol. 99, No. 5, 1976, p. 94.

6 Edward Thompson，“Romanticism Utopianism and Moralism:The Case of William Morris”,New Left Review I,Vol.99,No.5,1976,p.94.

[7]7 This formulation echoes the classic Marxist definition of socialism as public ownership of the means of production. Communist Party of Great Britain, *Documents of the 25th Congress of the Communist Party of Great Britain* (英国共产党第二十五次代表大会文件), World Knowledge Press, 1957, pp. 127, 121.

7英国共产党:《英国共产党第二十五次代表大会文件》，世界知识出版社1957年版，第127、121页。

[8]8 Historical materialism is the Marxist theory that the economic base (relations of production) determines the political and ideological superstructure, and that history progresses through class struggle. See Edward Thompson, "Socialist Humanism — An Epistle to the Philistines," *The New Reasoner*, Vol. 1, No. 1, 1957, pp. 105-143; Edward Thompson, "Socialism and the Intellectuals," *Universities and Left Review*, Vol. 1, No. 1, 1957, pp. 31-36; Edward Thompson, "Agency and Choice — 1: A Reply to Criticism," *The New Reasoner*, Vol. 5, No. 2, 1958, pp. 89-106; Alasdair MacIntyre, "Notes from the Moral Wilderness — I," *The New Reasoner*, Vol. 7, No. 4, 1958, pp. 90-100; Alasdair MacIntyre, "Notes from the Moral Wilderness — II," *The New Reasoner*, Vol. 8, No. 1, 1959, pp. 89-98.

8参见Edward Thompson，“Socialist Humanism-An Epistle to the Philistines”,The New Reasoner,Vol.1,No.1,1957,pp.105-143;Edward Thompson，“Socialism and the Intellectuals”,Universities and Left Review,Vol.1,No.1,1957,pp.31-36;Edward Thompson，“Agency and Choice-1:A Reply to Criticism”,The New Reasoner,Vol.5,No.2,1958,pp.89-106;Alasdair Mac Intyre，“Notes from the Moral Wilderness-I”,The New Reasoner,Vol.7,No.4,1958,pp.90-100;Alasdair Mac Intyre，“Notes from the Moral Wilderness-II”,The New Reasoner,Vol.8,No.1,1959,pp.89-98.

[9]9 Source citation as in original. Communist Party of Great Britain, *The British Road to Socialism* (英国走向社会主义的道路), translated by Li Tong, People's Publishing House, 1953, pp. 17, 16.

9英国共产党著，李同译:《英国走向社会主义的道路》，人民出版社1953年版，第17、16页。

[10]10 Source citation as in original. Peter Nolan, Suzanne Paine et al., *The Democratic Socialist Economic Programme of the British Labour Party* (英国工党的民主社会主义经济纲领), translated by Zhang Zongyan et al., Shaanxi People's Publishing House, 1991, p. 6.

10[英]彼得·诺兰、苏珊娜·佩因等著，章宗炎等译:《英国工党的民主社会主义经济纲领》，陕西人民出版社1991年版，第6页。

[11]11 Source citation as in original. Henry Pelling, *A Short History of the Labour Party* (英国工党简史), translated by the English Translation Group of the Jiangnan Shipyard Spare-Time School, Shanghai People's Publishing House, 1977, p. 158.

11[英]亨利·佩林著，江南造船厂业余学校英语翻译小组译:《英国工党简史》，上海人民出版社1977年版，第158页。

[12]12 Source citation as in original. See Shang Wenbin, *A Study of the Post-War British Communist Party's Socialist Theory and the Causes of Its Decline* (战后英共的社会主义理论及英共衰退成因研究), China Social Sciences Press, 2010, p. 79.

12参见商文斌:《战后英共的社会主义理论及英共衰退成因研究》，中国社会科学出版社2010年版，第79页。

13 See Norman Birnbaum, ed., *Out of Apathy*, London: Stevens & Sons Limited, 1960, pp. 287–308.

13参见Norman Birnbaum ed.,Out Of Apathy,London:Stevens&Sons Limited,1960,pp.287-308.

14 [UK] Donald Sassoon, *One Hundred Years of Socialism: The West European Left in the Twentieth Century*, trans. Jiang Hui et al., Beijing: Social Sciences Academic Press, 2017, p. 592.

14[英]唐纳德·萨松著，姜辉等译:《欧洲社会主义百年史---二十世纪的西欧左翼》，社会科学文献出版社2017年版，第592页。

Online editor: Zhang Jian

网络编辑：张剑