A Major Historical Debate on the Concept of “Revolution” and Its Practical Implications

“Corresponding” to the October Revolution of 1917 in Russia in the East, a revolution also broke out in Germany in the West at the end of 1918, namely the “November Revolution.” In the past, academic circles paid relatively little attention to this revolution, and their focus was concentrated on lamenting the failure of the revolution and criticizing the betrayal of the revolution by the right wing of the German Social Democratic Party, while research on the understanding of the concept of “revolution” among various factions during the revolutionary process was even rarer. Overall, the German Revolution triggered a major historical debate within the German socialist camp surrounding the concept of “revolution,” and the ultimate failure of the revolution also produced many lessons, providing ideological inspiration for continuing to advance self-revolution and social revolution in socialist development a century later.

与东方的俄国1917年十月革命相“对应”，1918年底，西方的德国也爆发了革命，即“十一月革命”。以往学界对这次革命的关注相对较少，且集中在对革命失败的惋惜和对德国社会民主党右翼叛卖革命的批判，而对革命过程中各流派关于“革命”概念的理解的研究就更少了。总体上看，德国革命引发了德国社会主义阵营内部围绕“革命”概念的一次历史大争论，革命的最终失败也产生了诸多经验教训，为百年之后在社会主义发展中继续推进自我革命和社会革命提供了思想启示。

I. The Basic Process and Main Factions of the German “November Revolution”

一、德国“十一月革命”的基本过程与主要流派

The German “November Revolution” spanned a relatively long period and can be roughly divided into three stages.

德国“十一月革命”的时间跨度较长，大体上可以分为三个阶段。

The first was the period of revolutionary gestation (October–December 1918). On October 3, 1918, the German wartime government fell, and Prince Max of Baden became the new Chancellor. In October, the German Kiel mutiny began; in November, the revolution broke out, German Emperor Wilhelm II abdicated, and then Friedrich Ebert, leader of the majority faction of the German Social Democratic Party, became Chancellor and formed a government. During this period, there were significant disputes among the parties over the means and goals of the revolution. For example, the right-wing Ebert defended constitutional monarchy, while Philipp Scheidemann proclaimed the establishment of a republic; the left-wing Karl Liebknecht and others strongly advocated for a system of councils (Rat).

一是革命酝酿期(1918年10月—12月)。1918年10月3日，德国战时政府倒台，巴登亲王马克斯出任新首相。10月，德国基尔水兵开始暴动，11月，革命爆发，德国皇帝威廉二世退位，随后德国社会民主党多数派领袖艾伯特出任首相，组建政府。这一时期，各方对革命的手段和目标存有很大争论，如右翼的艾伯特维护君主立宪，谢德曼宣布成立共和国;左翼的李卜克内西等人则力主“代表会”(Rat)制度。

The second was the period of intensifying contradictions (December 1918–January 1919). During this period, the phenomenon of “socialists” killing socialists emerged. The majority faction, led by Ebert, believed the revolution was over; the Spartacus League and the left wing of the Independent Social Democratic Party believed the revolution was not yet over, emphasizing the thorough elimination of feudal remnants and the establishment of a “socialist republic.” The Spartacus League formed the Communist Party of Germany, demanding that the proletariat seize state power; the centrists continuously preached abstract peace. In January 1919, workers launched an armed uprising demanding the overthrow of the Ebert government. The majority faction of the Social Democratic Party, in alliance with the old army and reactionary landowners, formed the Noske “Freikorps,” which massacred revolutionaries, workers, and the masses. On the 13th, the fighting ended; on the 15th, Rosa Luxemburg, Karl Liebknecht, and others were killed.

二是矛盾激化期(1918年12月—1919年1月)。这一时期产生了“社会主义者”残杀社会主义者的现象。艾伯特等多数派认为革命已经结束;斯巴达克同盟和独立社会民主党左翼认为革命尚未结束，强调彻底扫清封建主义残渣，建立“社会主义共和国”，斯巴达克同盟组建德国共产党，要求无产阶级夺取政权;中派则不断宣扬抽象的和平。1919年1月，工人举行武装起义要求推翻艾伯特政府，社会民主党多数派联合旧军队和反动地主组成诺斯克“志愿军团”，屠杀革命者、工人和群众。13日，战斗结束，15日，卢森堡和李卜克内西等人牺牲。

The third was the period of mass uprisings (January–May 1919). This period was also the stage when the Social Democratic Party, in alliance with the reactionary army, suppressed workers’ movements across Germany. Industrial regions such as the Ruhr, Rhineland-Westphalia, and Saxony successively launched strikes and even general strikes, established “councils,” and put forward demands for socialization, the establishment of a workers’ dictatorship, and a socialist republic. Noske and the Social Democratic Party used various armed means to attack and shoot workers. Under the suppression of reactionary forces, the German workers’ movement gradually subsided. In April, the working class in Bavaria launched a final surge, establishing the Bavarian Soviet Republic led by the Communist Party, arming workers, and forming a Red Army. In response, the Social Democratic Party, in alliance with the reactionary army, formed government forces to suppress it. The Red Army was outnumbered and defeated on May 1, marking the end of the German “November Revolution.”

三是大众起义期(1919年1月—5月)。这一时期也是社会民主党与反动军队联合镇压德国各地工人运动的阶段。鲁尔、莱茵—威斯特伐利亚、萨克森等工业区先后开展罢工乃至总罢工，建立“代表会”，提出社会化和建立工人专政、社会主义共和国等主张。诺斯克与社会民主党通过各种武装手段打击、枪杀工人。在反动势力的镇压下，德国工人阶级运动逐渐转入低潮。4月，巴伐利亚地区的工人阶级掀起了最后一次高潮，成立了共产党领导的巴伐利亚苏维埃共和国，武装工人，建立红军。对此，社会民主党联合反动军队组成政府军进行镇压。红军寡不敌众，5月1日失败，标志着德国“十一月革命”的结束。

Looking at the revolutionary process, it is not difficult to see that many issues in socialist theory and practice were highlighted in various ways, forming differentiation among the right wing, centrists, and left wing, as well as within their respective factions. More importantly, why did the German Social Democratic Party produce the phenomenon of “socialists” suppressing or even massacring socialists and the working class; what was the purpose of socialist revolution and why was revolution necessary; what was the relationship between revolution and social development—these questions all deserve further clarification and exploration.

纵观革命进程不难看到，社会主义理论与实践中的诸多问题以各种各样的方式凸显出来，形成了右翼、中派和左翼以及各自派别内部的分化。更重要的是，德国社会民主党为何会出现“社会主义者”镇压甚至屠杀社会主义者和工人阶级的现象;社会主义革命的目的何在，缘何要进行革命;革命和社会发展的关系是什么，等等，这些问题都值得进一步加以理清和探讨。

II. How to “Revolutionize”: The Dispute over the Means of “Democracy” and “Violence”

二、如何“革命”:“民主”与“暴力”的手段之争

Before the outbreak of World War I, the German socialist camp had already formed a differentiation into left wing, right wing, and centrists. Therefore, when the revolution broke out, the attitudes held by each side differed, and there were clear differences in their views on the means of “revolution.” From this, it can be seen that the right wing betrayed the revolution, while the left wing continuously pushed the revolution forward.

一战爆发前，德国社会主义阵营就形成了左翼、右翼和中派的分化。因而，在革命爆发时，各方所持的态度各不相同，对于“革命”手段的看法存在明显差异。从中看到，右翼背叛了革命，左翼则不断推动革命向前发展。

(A) The Right Wing’s View of “Passive Application of Democracy”

(一)右翼的“消极运用民主”观

After the outbreak of World War I, the German Social Democratic Party split over the war issue. The right wing, represented by Ebert and Scheidemann, supported the war, while the centrists and left wing, such as Hugo Haase, Karl Kautsky, Rosa Luxemburg, and Karl Liebknecht, opposed the war and broke away from the German Social Democratic Party to form the Independent Social Democratic Party. As Germany was defeated, Wilhelm II’s rule was tottering, and the broad masses of soldiers and the working class sought to overthrow the reactionary regime. But the right wing did not want any connection with violent revolution. Under the leadership of the left wing, the revolutionary fervor of soldiers and the working class ran high, pushing the right wing to support revolutionary actions. After the establishment of the Weimar Republic and the German Social Democratic Party coming to power, the right wing was even less inclined to carry out any violent revolution, instead believing that “democracy” had already been established and that normal order should be gradually restored through peaceful means to maintain social stability. As a representative figure of revisionism and reformism, Eduard Bernstein provided a theoretical elaboration of this, still maintaining his basic attitude of deconstructing and opposing Marxism and scientific socialism.

一战爆发后，德国社会民主党因战争问题而分裂，以艾伯特和谢德曼为代表的右翼支持战争，哈阿兹、考茨基、卢森堡、李卜克内西等中派和左翼则反对战争，脱离德国社会民主党另立独立社会民主党。随着德国战败，威廉二世的统治摇摇欲坠，广大士兵和工人阶级力图推翻反动政权。但右翼并不想跟暴力革命有任何关系。在左翼领导下，士兵和工人阶级革命热情高涨，推动着右翼支持革命行动。在魏玛共和国成立、德国社会民主党执政后，右翼更加不想进行任何暴力革命，而是认为“民主”已经建立，应通过和平手段逐步恢复正常秩序，维护社会安定。作为修正主义和改良主义的代表人物，伯恩施坦对此进行了理论阐发，他仍然坚持解构、反对马克思主义和科学社会主义的基本态度。

Based on revisionist philosophical views, Bernstein continuously defended the right wing. He believed that changes in political organisms do not depend on a single instance of “violence” or “external interference,” and that every “progress” should be premised on human society as a complex organism and its laws of development. His basic logic was: the “German Revolution” was the consequence of a dual logic of reality and history. On the historical level, the “Republic” was an important link in the linear development of history, and socialists should “build the republic”; on the realistic level, the “revolution” was the result of Wilhelm II’s internal postponement of electoral reform and external refusal to reach a peace treaty, and was not socialist in nature. At the same time, Germany already had the foundation for establishing and developing a “republic”: internal political unity had been formed, industry and trade had greatly developed, and it had become a wealthy and powerful country, etc. Therefore, socialists could not violently overthrow the republic but should promote the development of “constructive politics,” that is, peaceful reform. In this way, “revolution” could only take the form of “democratic parliament” and “gradual development.” In Bernstein’s context, only the “Republic” could guarantee “democracy,” and only “democracy” could ensure the influence of the working class and continuously raise its cultural level.

基于修正主义的哲学观点，伯恩施坦不断为右翼辩护。他认为，政治机体的变化不依赖某一次“暴力”或“外部干涉”，每一次“进步”都应以人类社会是一个复杂的有机体及其发展规律为前提。他的基本逻辑是:“德国革命”是现实和历史两重逻辑的后果。在历史层面，“共和国”是历史线性发展中的重要环节，社会主义者应“建设共和国”;在现实层面，“革命”是威廉二世对内推迟选举改革，对外拒绝达成和平条约的结果，并非社会主义性质。同时，德国已经有了建立、发展“共和国”的基础:内部形成政治统一，工业和贸易大大发展，已成为富裕强国等。因而，社会主义者不能暴力推翻共和国，而应推动发展“建设性的政治”，也即和平改良，这样一来，“革命”也就只能以“民主议会”和“渐进发展”为形式。在伯恩施坦的语境中，只有“共和国”才能保障“民主”，只有“民主”才能确保工人阶级的影响力，不断提升工人阶级的文化水平。

(B) The Centrists’ View of “Active Transformation of Democracy”

(二)中派的“积极改造民主”观

In their views on the means of “revolution,” the centrists differed markedly from the right wing, but the gap between theory and practice and their vacillating attitude meant that their opposition to the right wing’s actions remained only “verbal,” and they ultimately slid toward the right wing. A representative figure here was Karl Kautsky. In the midst of the raging revolution, on the one hand, he believed that the working class should establish its own “socialist republic”; on the other hand, he opposed the workers’ and soldiers’ “councils” established across Germany and opposed the proletariat seizing state power through this vehicle. In this regard, Kautsky further deepened the idea of “democratic methods of proletarian struggle.”

在对“革命”手段的看法上，中派与右翼具有明显差别，但是理论与实践的落差及其摇摆不定的态度，使之反对右翼的行动只停留在“口头”上，最终也滑向右翼。其中具有代表性的是考茨基。在如火如荼的革命中，他一方面认为工人阶级要建立属于自己的“社会主义共和国”;另一方面又反对德国各地建立起来的工人士兵“代表会”，反对无产阶级通过这一载体夺取政权。对此，考茨基进一步深化了“无产阶级斗争的民主方法”思想。

In Kautsky’s context, the working class should construct a more equal new society through “democracy,” and “democracy” was the main or even the sole tool for social change. Theoretically, the biggest difference between Kautsky and Bernstein was that the latter believed that after the establishment of the republic, general democratic tools already existed and did not require major or fundamental transformation; the former believed that democratic tools could not be used by the proletariat without transformation. The premise of Kautsky’s proposal of this method was that without actively transforming modern political institutions, such as the parliamentary system, it would be impossible to make democratic tools socialist in nature, let alone construct new social relations. Therefore, compared to Bernstein, Kautsky’s discourse still contained class analysis methods, but his “transformation of democracy” always remained verbal and abstract. When the proletariat launched a revolution and demanded the establishment of its own political organs, he again stood on the right-wing position on the grounds that it did not conform to “democracy.”

在考茨基的语境中，工人阶级应通过“民主”建构更为平等的新社会，“民主”是社会变革的主要甚至是唯一工具。在理论上，考茨基和伯恩施坦的最大不同是，后者认为共和国成立后就具备了一般意义上的民主工具，不需要较大或根本的改造;前者则认为民主工具不经过改造就无法为无产阶级所用。考茨基提出这一方法的前提是，不积极改造现代政治制度，如议会制度，就没办法使民主工具具有社会主义性质，更无法建构新的社会关系。因此，相比伯恩施坦，考茨基的话语中还带有阶级分析方法，但其“改造民主”始终停留在口头上、抽象中。当无产阶级发起革命，要求建立属于自身的政治机构时，他又以不符合“民主”为由站到了右翼立场上。

(C) The Left Wing’s View of “Violently Breaking Democracy”

(三)左翼的“暴力打破民主”观

Not entering the government, not joining the cabinet, but promoting the violent revolution of the proletariat to overthrow the existing political system, has always been the principle and policy upheld by the Left. Luxemburg clearly stated in her article "What Does the Spartacus League Want?" that the capitalists will not submit to the National Assembly or the so-called "socialist parliament"; the Left must thoroughly transform the state and change society, must use violence to crush the resistance of the capitalists, counter the counter-revolutionary violence of the bourgeoisie with the violent revolution of the proletariat, and arm the united working people. However, it cannot be concluded from this that the Left's opposition to existing democratic instruments or democratic forms is opposition to democracy itself. In fact, Luxemburg and others placed greater emphasis on the class character of democracy, arguing that only by overthrowing the rule of the bourgeoisie can there be genuine people's democracy, that democracy is indispensable for the dictatorship of the proletariat, and advocating for the election of workers' and soldiers' "councils" based on universal suffrage.

不进入政府、不参加内阁，而推动无产阶级暴力革命以推翻现存政治制度，始终是左翼坚持的原则和政策。卢森堡在《斯巴达克同盟想要什么》一文中明确指出:资本家不会服从国民会议和所谓的“社会主义议会”，左翼要彻底改造国家和变革社会，要用暴力粉碎资本家的反抗，以无产阶级的暴力革命对付资产阶级的反革命暴力，将团结一致的劳动人民武装起来。但不能据此认为，左翼反对现存的民主工具或民主形式就是反对民主。实际上，卢森堡等人更多地强调民主的阶级特征，认为只有推翻资产阶级的统治才有真正的人民民主，民主对无产阶级专政来说是不可缺少的，主张根据普选权选举工人士兵“代表会”。

Luxemburg and others admired the workers' and soldiers' "councils" that emerged from the Russian October Revolution, but they also had a different understanding of the dictatorship of the proletariat from that of Russia. In the discourse of Luxemburg and others, the dictatorship of the proletariat meant a transfer of political power, in which the working class should use democracy to advance toward socialism, opposing and replacing the bourgeoisie's use of "democracy" to preserve capitalism. On this basis, Luxemburg considered Bernstein to be an advocate of bourgeois democracy, and while Kautsky differed from Bernstein, he also, on the issue of "democracy," effectively upheld the political rule of the bourgeoisie. Taking the overthrow of "democracy" as a starting point, Luxemburg defined the connotation of "violent revolution," mainly reflected in the application of the "dialectics of revolution": first, endorsing the slogan of the Russian Revolution, namely "all power to the workers and peasants," to ensure the revolution moves forward and solve the problem of "winning the majority"; second, opposing the so-called "wisdom of parliamentary struggle," not adopting revolutionary tactics only after winning a parliamentary majority, but winning the majority in the course of revolutionary struggle. This was an "inversion" of the view of the Center and the Right, who held that "a majority must be won before revolution can be carried out." In the view of Luxemburg and other Leftists, the rule of the working class can only be truly realized by seizing political power through revolutionary struggle.

卢森堡等人推崇俄国十月革命中产生的工人士兵“代表会”，但又对无产阶级专政有着不同于俄国的认识。在卢森堡等人的话语中，无产阶级专政意味着政治权力的转换，在这一过程中，工人阶级应运用民主向社会主义前进，反对并取代资产阶级运用“民主”保存资本主义。在此基础上，卢森堡认为伯恩施坦就是资产阶级民主的鼓吹者，考茨基尽管与伯恩施坦不同，但也在“民主”问题上等同于维护了资产阶级的政治统治。以推翻“民主”为基点，卢森堡界定了“暴力革命”的内涵，主要体现为“革命辩证法”的运用:一是认同俄国革命的口号，即“工人和农民掌握一切权力”，以此确保革命向前发展，解决“赢得多数”的问题;二是反对所谓的“议会斗争的智慧”，不是通过赢得议会多数才能采取革命策略，而是在革命斗争中赢得多数。这是对中派和右派所谓“赢得多数才能进行革命”的“颠倒”。在卢森堡等左翼看来，工人阶级的统治通过革命斗争夺取政权才能真正实现。

III. What is "Revolution" For: The Dispute over the Goals of "Republic" versus "Councils"

三、“革命”何为:“共和国”与“代表会”的目标之争

The reason for the divergence in means lies mainly in different understandings of "socialism." Taking "democracy" as the standard, the Right and the Center tended to "realize" and "materialize" socialism, believing that the revolution must first establish a "republic" and then gradually grow into socialism; the Left believed that socialism should establish entirely new social relations and social forms, and therefore the revolution must first establish a new "political form."

之所以会产生手段上的分野，主要在于对“社会主义”的理解不同。以“民主”为标准，右翼和中派更多地将社会主义“现实化”“物质化”，认为革命首先要建立“共和国”，渐进长入社会主义;左翼则认为社会主义要建立的是全新的社会关系和社会形态，因而革命首先要建立新的“政治形态”。

(I) The Goal of the Right Was to Establish and Defend the "Democratic Republic"

(一)右翼的目标是建立和维护“民主共和国”

The Right, such as Ebert and Scheidemann, believed that socialism was "expanding public administration and achieving universal happiness." Based on this traditional German-style socialism, the Right placed great emphasis on order and stability, and shared similar views with the Junkers, capitalists, and old military officers, regarding the Left as the greatest enemy. They were particularly fearful of the Left imitating the Russian Bolsheviks, opposed having armed forces belonging to the republic, opposed the Left's arming and military actions, and only emphasized social reform within the framework of constitutional democracy. Thus, establishing and defending the "democratic republic" became synonymous with the revolution itself and the goal of the vast majority of Rightists. In this regard, the "theorist" Bernstein provided an exposition.

艾伯特和谢德曼等右翼认为，社会主义是“扩展公共管理，实现普遍幸福”。基于这种传统德意志式的社会主义，右翼十分强调秩序和安定，且与容克、资本家和旧军官等阶层有着相似认识，将左翼视为最大的敌人。他们尤其畏惧左翼模仿俄国的布尔什维克，反对拥有属于共和国的武装力量，反对左翼的武装和军事行动，只强调在立宪民主框架内进行社会改良。因而，建立和维护“民主共和国”就等同于革命本身，成为广大右翼分子的目标。对此，“理论家”伯恩施坦进行了阐发。

In Bernstein's context, there were three main reasons for establishing and protecting the "democratic republic": First, his understanding of Marxism and socialism. Bernstein believed that the Left had departed from German national conditions and therefore were not Marxists. At the same time, he insisted that the "dictatorship of the proletariat" was equivalent to "a coup d'état and usurpation of power," equivalent to "the rule of a selective class representative," and that "violent revolution" was "uncivilized political violence." This distorted the political principles and revolutionary practice of Marxism into an "illegitimate revolution." On this basis, Bernstein believed that socialism meant improving the material living conditions of the working class, promoting continuous social progress, and building an equal and united society. This goal could only be achieved by defending and developing the "republic," not by the Left's so-called "believing in and promoting world revolution to build a new society." Second, his understanding of "socialist political revolution." Bernstein believed that "revolution" depended subjectively on politicians with a democratic outlook and a strong sense of responsibility; objectively, it required democratic institutions such as a well-functioning representative system tested in practice. In this regard, he considered the newly founded republic to be a mixture of a "bourgeois republic" and a "workers' republic," a fragile "citizens' republic." Socialists should first be republicans, protecting and developing the existing democratic system. Third, his understanding of Left revolutionaries. Bernstein constantly undermined the Left's revolutionary narrative, considering their propositions to be myths and fantasies. He explicitly stated that the "orthodox Marxist" revolutionary view within the German Social Democratic Party had an ideological rupture, that there was a contradiction between Marxism and reality, and therefore he chose to reconstruct Marxist ideology and strongly advocated reformism.

在伯恩施坦的语境中，之所以要建立、保护“民主共和国”，主要有三方面原因:一是对马克思主义和社会主义的认识。伯恩施坦认为，左翼脱离了德国国情，因而不是马克思主义者。同时，他坚持认为，“无产阶级专政”等同于“政变和篡夺权力”，等同于“有选择性的阶级代表的统治”，“暴力革命”是“非文明的政治暴力”。这就将马克思主义的政治原则和革命实践曲解成“非法的革命”。在此基础上，伯恩施坦认为，社会主义就是要改善工人阶级的物质生活条件，推动社会不断进步，建设平等团结的社会，要实现这一目标就只能通过捍卫、发展“共和国”，而非左翼所谓的“相信、推动世界革命，建设一个新社会”。二是对“社会主义政治革命”的认识。伯恩施坦认为，“革命”在主观层面有赖于具有民主观和很强责任能力的政治家;在客观层面需要经过实践检验运转良好的代议制等民主制度。对此，他认为初创的共和国是“资产阶级共和国”和“工人共和国”的混合体，是脆弱的“公民共和国”，社会主义者首先应是共和主义者，保护并发展现有民主制度。三是对左翼革命者的认识。伯恩施坦不断消解左翼革命叙事，认为左翼的主张是神话和幻想。他明确指出，德国社会民主党内的“正统马克思主义”革命观存在意识形态断裂，马克思主义和现实存在矛盾，因而他选择重构马克思主义的意识形态，极力推崇改良主义。

(II) The Goal of the Center Was a "Socialist Republic" That Remained in Discourse

(二)中派的目标是停留在话语中的“社会主义共和国”

Kautsky agreed with Bernstein on principled issues such as the understanding of "councils," whether to endorse the Russian October Revolution, and whether to destroy or transform the state, but he differed markedly on the issue of the republic. Bernstein placed greater emphasis on parliamentary democracy, while Kautsky always defended the "socialist republic," emphasizing "the central position of the working class in democratic politics," rather than simply promoting the development of the Weimar Republic. Consequently, Kautsky put forward more ideas and propositions concerning the "republic," which were also more systematic and theoretical than Bernstein's.

考茨基在对“代表会”的认识、赞同俄国十月革命与否、消灭还是改造国家等原则问题上，与伯恩施坦是一致的，但在共和国问题上有着明显不同。伯恩施坦更加强调议会民主，考茨基则始终捍卫“社会主义共和国”，强调“工人阶级在民主政治中的中心地位”，而非简单推动魏玛共和国的发展。因而，考茨基提出了更多有关“共和国”的想法与主张，相比伯恩施坦也更加系统和理论化。

First, the principle was "socialist republicanism." Its connotation had two main points: one was autonomous "republicanism," where members of the political community should adhere to the principle of autonomy to shape the interests of the community and their own interests; the other was "socialism," where members of the community should free themselves from being dominated by others and from social relations such as exploitation, dependence, and subordination. Kautsky envisioned defending a mature system that embodied "socialist democracy," thereby being able to develop "democracy" on the basis of republicanism and the Western Enlightenment, and to stimulate the potential of socialist democratic politics.

第一，原则是“社会主义的共和主义”。其内涵主要有两点:一是自治式的“共和”，政治共同体成员应坚持自治原则，以此塑造共同体利益和自身利益;二是“社会主义”，共同体成员应摆脱被他人支配的地位，摆脱剥削、依附、从属等社会关系。考茨基设想的是捍卫一种成熟的、体现出“社会主义民主”的制度，从而能够在共和主义和西方启蒙运动的基础上发展“民主”，激发社会主义民主政治的可能性。

Second, the core was "establishing a just social order under the socialist system." Like Bernstein, Kautsky was first and foremost a republican. The core of his theory was the basic idea of "republicanism": humanity is a common, united species; common life constitutes common interests; the "republic" is an institution for organizing social relations according to the needs of public affairs; political tools and institutional mechanisms must be constructed on this basis.

第二，核心是“确立社会主义制度下公正的社会秩序”。与伯恩施坦一样，考茨基首先也是一名共和主义者，其理论核心是“共和”的基本理念:人类是共同的、联合的物种，共同的生活构成了共同的利益，“共和国”是根据公共事务的需要组织社会关系的机构，必须基于此建构政治工具和制度机制。

Third, the agenda was to establish a "socialist republic." In Kautsky's context, social transformation should involve two basic issues: one was establishing the democratic legitimacy of socialism on a cross-class basis; the other was socialization. The former led to "democratic control," dissolving the state based on private ownership; the latter led to producing goods and creating wealth according to the common purposes and needs of society. This reflected the difference in goals between Kautsky and Bernstein. He believed that "the German Republic must be a democratic republic. But it must go further: a socialist republic, a collective in which the exploitation of man by man will no longer have any civil rights." That is, Kautsky's goal was not a "democratic republic," but to continuously advance the transformation toward a "socialist republic": from a state that protects capital, exploitation, and inequality, to a state that protects the community, through "democracy."

第三，议题是建立“社会主义共和国”。在考茨基的语境中，社会改造应涉及两个基本议题:一是在跨阶级基础上建立社会主义的民主合法性;二是社会化。前者导向“民主控制”，消解私有制基础上的国家;后者导向根据社会的共同目的和需要生产商品、创造财富。这体现出考茨基与伯恩施坦的目标差异，他认为，“德意志共和国必须是一个民主共和国。但是它必须更进一步:一个社会主义共和国，一个人剥削人的集体将不再拥有任何公民权。”也就是说，考茨基的目标不是“民主共和国”，而是不断推进向“社会主义共和国”转变:要从一个保护资本、剥削和不平等的国家，通过“民主”转变为一个保护共同体的国家。

(III) The Goal of the Left Was to Replace the "Republic" with "Dictatorship" or "Councils" Through Mass Revolution

(三)左翼的目标是通过群众革命，以“专政”或“代表会”替代“共和国”

At the level of goals, the Left had two representative propositions.

在目标层面，左翼有两个代表性主张。

First, Luxemburg’s “socialist democracy.” In the practice of “democracy,” Luxemburg was committed to advancing revolution through a popular democratic movement supported by the majority. In her view, without democratic rights, the rule of the broad masses was unimaginable. She regarded the “democratic republic” as a political institution of the bourgeoisie and opposed “representative government.” Within this discourse, Luxemburg was closer to Rousseau’s radicalism, believing that a great revolution should be designed, implemented, and held accountable by the majority of citizens; “democracy” was not merely “rule of law” and “competitive elections,” but required further advancing the revolution of democracy itself. In Luxemburg’s concept of “dictatorship,” the party could not merely be a “vanguard”; it should also grant the people the right to directly participate in political life. She championed the democratic politics of the proletariat, striving to enable the masses to engage in the revolutionary process. Thus, in her context, “democracy and dictatorship” were not dichotomous; “dictatorship is a way of implementing democracy.” The revolutionary goal was first and foremost to give the masses, especially the proletariat, sufficient space to implement their own strategies.

一是卢森堡的“社会主义民主”。在“民主”实践中，卢森堡致力于通过得到大多数人支持的民众性的民主运动推动革命。在她眼中，没有民主权利，广大人民的统治是不可想象的。她将“民主共和国”视为资产阶级的政治机构，反对“代议制”。在这一话语中，卢森堡更接近卢梭的激进主义，认为一场伟大的革命应当由大多数公民设计、实施和负责，“民主”不仅是“法治”和“竞争性选举”，更要进一步推进民主本身的革命。在卢森堡的“专政”概念中，党不能仅是“先锋队”，更应当使人民具有直接参与政治生活的权利。她推崇无产阶级的民主政治，致力于让人民群众参与革命进程。因而，在其语境中，“民主与专政”不是二分，“专政是实施民主的一种方式”。革命目标首先在于，使大众尤其是无产阶级具有足够空间实施自己的战略。

Second, the “council” position represented by Richard Müller and others, who can be regarded as early practitioners of the idea of “council communism.” They believed that, because workers and soldiers had distinguished themselves in the German Revolution, revolution could bypass the leadership of the party and the vehicles of parliamentarism and trade unions, and instead construct a “dictatorship” belonging to the proletariat itself through the self-awareness of the working class’s class consciousness, with the “council” serving as an important intermediary. They sought to explore a middle path between anarchism and “centralization,” believing that the working class had the capacity to change its own situation and should be liberated from all forms of oppression; for the proletariat, what mattered was not “seizing power,” but breaking all existing power. In this regard, Richard Müller and Ernst Däumig and others held that the goal of revolution was to establish a “council republic.”

二是以理查德·米勒等为代表的“代表会”主张，他们可以被视为“委员会共产主义”思想的早期实践者。他们认为，由于工人和士兵在德国革命中表现突出，革命可以不经过党的领导以及议会制和工会等载体，而通过工人阶级阶级意识的自觉，建构一种属于无产阶级自身的“专政”，“代表会”就是其中的重要中介。他们试图在无政府主义和“集权”之间探寻中间道路，相信工人阶级具有改变自身处境的能力，且应当从各方面的压抑中解放出来，对无产阶级而言，重要的不是“夺取权力”，而是打破一切现存权力。对此，理查德·米勒和恩斯特·德米格等人认为革命的目标在于建立“代表会共和国”。

IV. Why “Revolution”: The Essential Dispute over the “View of Civilization”

四、缘何“革命”:关于“文明观”的本质之争

Behind the means-ends divergence lay fundamentally different understandings of the essence of “revolution” among different factions, especially the understanding of the question “why revolution,” which was directly expressed as different interpretations and elaborations of “civilization.” The Right believed that Germany could only establish a “democratic republic,” behind which lay a view of civilization that de-ideologized and neutralized capitalism; the Center believed that a “socialist republic” should be established, because Germany did not yet possess a certain civilizational foundation and should move toward a “higher civilization”; the Left believed that a “dictatorship of the proletariat” should be established, because this was the foundation for building a newer and higher “civilization.”

在手段—目标分野的背后，实际上是不同派别对“革命”本质的不同理解，尤其是对“为什么要革命”这一问题的认识，直接表现为对“文明”的不同理解和阐发。右翼认为德国只能建立“民主共和国”，其背后存有的是一种将资本主义去意识形态化和中立化的文明观;中派认为要建立“社会主义共和国”，因为德国尚不具备一定文明基础，应朝向“更高文明”迈进;左翼认为应建立“无产阶级专政”，因为这是建立更新更高“文明”的基础。

(I) The Right’s “Superior” View of Civilization

(一)右翼的“优越”文明观

Whether Ebert, Scheidemann, or Bernstein, all harbored varying degrees of a “theory of civilizational superiority,” especially manifested in such claims as “linear development of civilization” and “civilizational centrism.” Ebert, Scheidemann, and other Rightists supported the government’s participation in World War I for three main reasons: first, opposition to the “barbaric Russians.” They believed Germany was waging a “defensive war” and had not deviated from the positions of the Stuttgart Congress of the Second International. Second, they believed in the superiority of German civilization. They held that German expansionism, rather than British liberalism, was a “progressive” cause. German culture could enable it to lead Europe toward socialism, so opposing Germany’s war was detrimental to socialism; Germany’s victory would destroy the imperialism of the Entente, allowing the German Social Democratic Party to lead the European proletariat toward democracy and socialism. Third, they insisted on the superiority of the German Social Democratic Party. The Right had long regarded itself as the leader and pioneer of European socialism, the guide and philosopher of the Second International, while socialist parties in other countries could only “imitate and catch up with it with a respectful attitude that was unattainable.” Threats to Germany’s military and diplomatic position were effectively equivalent to threats to the German Social Democratic Party’s dominant position in the international socialist movement; therefore, they found it difficult to accept the Left within and outside the party emulating the Russian October Revolution and submitting to the command of the “barbaric Russians.”

无论是艾伯特、谢德曼，还是伯恩施坦，都存在或多或少的“文明优越论”，尤其体现为“文明线性发展”和“文明中心论”等主张。艾伯特、谢德曼等右翼支持政府参加一战，理由主要有三:一是反对“野蛮的俄国人”。他们认为德国进行的是“防御性战争”，并没有背离第二国际斯图加特代表大会的主张。二是认为德意志文明具有优越性。他们认为，德国的扩张主义而非英国的自由主义才是“进步”事业。德国的文化能使其领导欧洲走向社会主义，因而反对德国进行战争不利于社会主义;德国的胜利将摧毁协约国的帝国主义，使德国社会民主党带领欧洲无产阶级向民主和社会主义前进。三是坚持德国社会民主党具有优越性。右翼一向自视为欧洲社会主义的首领和先驱，是第二国际的向导和哲学家，其他国家的社会主义政党只能“以可望而不可及的尊敬态度来效法和追赶它”。对德国的军事外交威胁，实际上等同于对德国社会民主党在国际社会主义运动中优势地位的威胁，因此他们难以接受党内外左翼效仿俄国十月革命，听任“野蛮的俄国人”指挥。

After the war, Bernstein developed a “hierarchy of civilizations” and “civilizational centrism,” using a neutral concept of civilization to measure socialist theory and revolutionary practice. Bernstein explicitly stated that socialists should consider the complexity of society and the deep-seated differences between countries, recognizing the “differences in civilizational hierarchy” among nations: countries with a lower degree of civilization should learn theories and revolutionary strategies from countries with a higher degree of civilization. At the same time, he also explicitly stated that learning from the dictatorship of the Russian type, which was still an agricultural country, would likely bring disaster to Germany, which was already an industrial country. In this regard, Bernstein violated his own advocated empirical method, fundamentally revealing his own “civilizational centrism.” Without understanding the actual conditions of Russia, he believed that Bolshevism violated the general laws of socioeconomic development, opposed any Western European country or socialist party learning from Russia, and considered it wrong for a backward country not to learn from an advanced country, but rather for an advanced country to learn from a backward one. To a large extent, Bernstein’s thought contained a kind of dogmatism of civilizational theory, holding that countries that had not yet industrialized or modernized should unconditionally learn all the theories and practices of advanced countries.

战后，伯恩施坦发展了“文明等级观”和“文明中心论”，用中性的文明概念衡量社会主义理论与革命实践。伯恩施坦明确指出，社会主义者应考虑到社会的复杂性和不同国家间根深蒂固的差异，认识到不同国家间的“文明等级差异”:文明化程度较低的国家应向文明化程度较高的国家学习理论和革命战略。同时他也明确提出，学习还是农业国的俄国式的专政很有可能会给已是工业国的德国带来灾难。对此，伯恩施坦违背了自己主张的实证方法，从根本上暴露出自身“文明中心论”的主张。在不了解俄国国情的情况下，他认为布尔什维主义违背了社会经济发展一般规律，反对西欧任何国家和社会主义政党向俄国学习，认为一个落后国家不向先进国家学习，反而先进国家向落后国家学习，这是错误的。甚至在很大程度上，伯恩施坦思想中存在一种文明论的教条主义，认为尚未工业化、现代化的国家，应无条件学习先进国家的一切理论与实践。

(II) The Center’s “Enlightenment” View of Civilization

(二)中派的“启蒙”文明观

The Center and the Right ultimately converged precisely because their essence was to defend the “civilizational” achievements since the Western European Enlightenment. However, a major difference between the Center, represented by Kautsky, and the Right lay in their understanding of war and their view of government. They opposed both violent revolution to overthrow the government and advocated for a peace that neither the Right nor the Left had achieved, thereby discrediting militarist and imperialist governments and securing victory for “democracy.” Thus, “peace,” “reason,” and “democracy” were always the main concepts of the Center.

中派和右翼最后合流，正是因为其本质都是维护西欧启蒙运动以来的“文明”成果。但以考茨基为代表的中派与右翼的一个很大不同在于对战争的理解和对政府的认识。他们既反对暴力革命推翻政府，又主张实现右翼和左翼都未争取到的和平，从而使军国主义和帝国主义政府名声扫地，使“民主”获得胜利。因而，“和平”“理性”“民主”等始终是中派的主要概念。

In Kautsky’s thought, an “advanced socialist civilization” should have two basic elements: first, an objective foundation, namely the parliamentary system based on an advanced industrial society; second, a subjective foundation, namely the realization of socialism through democratization to promote the organization and political maturity of the working class. Therefore, on the objective level, Kautsky believed that modern industrial production was the material basis for constructing a “new civilization,” especially the cooperative forms shaped by industrial society. On the subjective level, Kautsky adhered to the principles of the Enlightenment and modern forms of democracy, which was the core of his thought: “democracy” could develop only by including the working class, thereby becoming a tool for shaping a new society centered on common interests, solidarity, and equality, and continuously driving the democratization of the whole society through the democratization of workers. On the conceptual level, Kautsky proposed the concept of “social freedom.” He believed that the development of industrial capitalism laid the foundation for a higher level of the concept of “freedom,” which was not individualistic liberalism, but a social freedom adapted to the modern social economy: it opposed hierarchical and dominating social relations while placing greater emphasis on rich individuality, etc. Therefore, Kautsky was more about adhering to and upholding ideals and principles. In his context, “revolution” and “dictatorship of the proletariat” were built on the basis of the achievements of modern Western European civilization, with “democracy” as the core and the “socialist republic” as the vehicle.

在考茨基的思想中，“先进的社会主义文明”应当有两个基本要素:一是客观基础，即先进工业社会基础上的议会制度;二是主观基础，即社会主义的实现需要通过民主化推动工人阶级的组织化和政治成熟。因此，在客观层面，考茨基认为现代工业生产是建构“新文明”的物质基础，尤其是工业社会塑造了合作形式。在主观层面，考茨基坚持启蒙运动原则和现代形式的民主，这是其思想核心:“民主”因包含工人阶级才能发展，从而成为塑造以共同利益、团结平等为中心的新社会的工具，并不断通过劳动者的民主化带动全社会的民主化。在理念层面，考茨基提出了“社会自由”的概念。他认为工业资本主义的发展为更高层级的“自由”概念奠定了基础，这不是个人主义的自由主义，而是与现代社会经济相适应的社会自由:既反对等级性、支配性的社会关系，又更加强调丰富的个性等。因此，考茨基更多的是固守、坚持理想和原则。其语境中的“革命”和“无产阶级专政”，是建立在西欧近现代化文明成就的基础上，以“民主”为核心，以“社会主义共和国”为载体。

(III) The Left’s “New View of Civilization”

(三)左翼的“新型文明观”

One of the basic positions of the Left was to establish friendly relations and comradely solidarity with Soviet Russia. Behind this position lay a reflection on and even critique of the development of modern Western European civilization: they believed that World War I had proven the imperialist nature of the governments of various countries, and therefore opposed any “capitalist democratic system.” Fundamentally, the Left sought to build a new system, new relations, a new society, or a new civilization. In this regard, Luxemburg provided an elaboration.

左翼的基本主张之一就是建立与苏维埃俄国的友好关系和同志友情。这一主张的背后是对西欧近现代文明发展的反思乃至批判:他们认为一战已经证明了各国政府的帝国主义性质，因而反对任何“资本主义民主制度”。从根本上看，左翼试图建设一个新制度、新关系、新社会或曰新文明。对此，卢森堡做了阐释。

On the one hand, Luxemburg believed that socialist revolution was not merely about seizing institutional power, but more importantly about establishing a new way of life, social relations, and cultural relations. To create a new society, it was necessary to fundamentally transform people’s thinking and way of life, thereby ensuring their free spirit; revolution was not a single coup, but a long-term, permanent process of transformation involving the thorough overhaul of social relations. During the German Revolution, Luxemburg consistently strove to create the foundations of a new society through a mass democratic movement supported by the majority of the people, adopting strong socialist measures.

一方面，卢森堡认为，社会主义革命不仅是争夺制度权力，更在于建立一种新的生活方式、社会关系和文化关系，要创造新社会，就要使人们的思维和生活方式发生根本转变，从而保证人们的自由精神;革命不是单一的政变，而是一个长期、永久的转型过程，涉及社会关系的彻底变革。在德国革命期间，卢森堡始终致力于通过一场得到大多数人支持的群众民主运动，采取强有力的社会主义措施，创造新社会的基础。

On the other hand, the “new civilization” that Luxemburg sought to construct was also a new form of democracy capable of motivating “all people.” She repeatedly emphasized democracy and the theoretical construction of a method enabling “all people” to participate in politics, attempting to excavate and elevate the capacity of the proletarian masses to forge a path toward a new society and a non-exploitative mode of production. On this basis, Luxemburg argued that the proletarian revolution “has the historical mission of transforming historical necessity into the actual actions of the vast millions of the people.” [13]13 Rosa Luxemburg, “The Russian Revolution,” in *The Rosa Luxemburg Reader*, ed. Kevin B. Anderson (New York: Monthly Review Press, 2004), p. 281. [Translator’s note: The Chinese text cites a Chinese edition; the English equivalent is provided for reference.] To this end, she proposed a relevant agenda, stressing the importance of building a “socialist democracy”: “dictatorship is the cause of the class,” [14]14 Ibid., p. 282. and “should create socialist democracy to replace bourgeois democracy”; dictatorship “applies democratic methods,” [15]15 Ibid., p. 283. promotes the active participation of the masses in socialist construction, subjects leaders to the supervision of the entire public, and continuously advances the political education of the people. Thus, in Luxemburg’s context, “revolution” was equivalent to a long process of realizing democracy: building a new “class dictatorship that is maximally open, actively and unimpededly participated in by the masses of the people, and exercises unrestricted democracy.” [16]16 Ibid., p. 284. This can also be understood as the process of establishing a new “democratic civilization.”

另一方面，卢森堡想要建构的“新文明”，还是一种能够激发“所有人”动力的新型民主形态，她反复强调民主以及从理论上构建一种让“所有人”都参与政治的方法，试图挖掘、提升无产阶级群众建构一条走向新社会和非剥削性生产方式道路的能力。在此基础上，卢森堡认为，无产阶级革命“负有历史使命，要把历史的必然性变成现实的广大的亿万人民群众的行动”。为此，她提出了相关议程，强调建设“社会主义民主制”的重要性:“专政是阶级的事业”，“应当创造社会主义民主制去代替资产阶级民主制”，专政“运用民主的方式”，推动群众积极参与社会主义建设事业、使领导人接受全体公众的监督，并且不断推动人民群众的政治教育。因而，在卢森堡的语境中，“革命”等同于一个漫长的、实现民主的过程:建设新的“最大限度公开的、由人民群众最积极地、不受阻碍地参加的、实行不受限制的民主的阶级专政”。这同样可以理解为建立新的“民主文明”的过程。

V. Conclusion: Understanding “Revolution” from a Holistic Perspective

五、结语:从整体出发理解“革命”

The above debate shows that different factions, and even different groups within the same faction, had vastly different understandings of the concept of revolution. A partial and narrow understanding of the concept of revolution was, to some extent, an important reason why the practices of each faction failed to succeed. In the current historical process of promoting socialist development and advancing self-revolution and social revolution, it is necessary to draw lessons from historical experience and understand the concept of “revolution” and advance revolutionary practice from a holistic perspective.

上述争论显示，不同派别甚至同一派别内部，对革命概念的理解都有很大不同，而对革命概念的局部、偏狭理解，在某种程度上又是导致各个派别的实践都未能成功的一个重要原因。在现今推动社会主义发展、推进自我革命和社会革命的历史进程中，需要汲取历史经验教训，从整体出发理解“革命”概念、推进革命实践。

(I) Drawing Lessons from the Structural Imbalance in Understanding the Concept of “Revolution”

(一)汲取对“革命”概念的理解结构性失衡的经验教训

The structural imbalance in understanding the concept of “revolution” was an important cause of the splits and antagonisms among the various parties, and ultimately of the failure of the revolution itself.

对“革命”概念理解的结构性失衡是导致各方分裂对立乃至革命最后失败的重要原因。

For the right wing and even the centrists, although they retained the term “socialism” in their discourse, in practice they had already distanced themselves from socialism. They effectively replaced the essence and goal of revolution with a linear, neutral view of civilization and the “republic” based on the Enlightenment, transforming the concept of “revolution” into a synonym for the concept of “democracy.” In this way, from the perspective of the right wing and centrists, the “democracy” of modern Western Europe was the greatest achievement of “civilizational” progress, and socialist revolution merely replicated and promoted this logic of progress. This logic was largely equivalent to “copying” the historical development of capitalism and promoting the continuous maturation of capitalism. It actually stood on the side of capitalism, turning socialists into fellow travelers of capitalism. The German Social Democratic Party also transformed from an “anti-system” party into a participant in the capitalist system, ultimately regarding capitalism as the absolute civilizational foundation of socialism, adopting a passive attitude of “waiting, relying, and demanding” toward capitalism, rather than actively shaping a new modern civilization. Although Bernstein and others clearly recognized that Germany contained many feudal elements that needed to be eliminated in order to gradually transition to “socialism,” in practice, their logic of social development fell into utopianism precisely because of their adherence to abstract “democratic” means: the theoretical logic of eliminating feudal elements to promote social progress and development was transformed in reality into a practical logic of compromising with feudal elements, turning the “democratic republic” into a tool of rule for the old forces. After the sacrifice of Liebknecht and others, Bernstein even strongly condemned them, arguing that they had led the working class astray. [17]17 This refers to Eduard Bernstein’s criticism of Karl Liebknecht and Rosa Luxemburg after their deaths during the German Revolution of 1918–1919, in which Bernstein, a leading revisionist in the Social Democratic Party, condemned their revolutionary tactics as adventurist. Therefore, among the right wing and centrists, the “means” and the “goal-essence” of the concept of revolution became unbalanced. “Democracy” not only failed to become the support for the progress and development of the “republic” and “civilization,” but instead became an abstract standard of revolution, and socialism gradually became de-ideologized and de-realized in practice.

对右翼乃至中派而言，尽管在话语上还保留着“社会主义”，但在实践中已经远离社会主义，他们实际上将革命本质和目标替换为线性、中立的文明观和启蒙运动基础上的“共和国”，将“革命”概念转变为“民主”概念的同义语。这样一来，在右翼和中派视域中，西欧近现代以来的“民主”才是“文明”进步的最大成就，社会主义革命只是复制推广这一进步逻辑。这一逻辑在很大程度上等同于“照抄照搬”资本主义的历史发展与推动资本主义的不断成熟，实际上站在了资本主义一面，使社会主义者转变成为资本主义的同路人，德国社会民主党也从“反体制”政党转变为资本主义制度的参与者，最终将资本主义视为社会主义绝对的文明基础，对资本主义采取了“等靠要”的被动态度，而非积极主动塑造新的现代文明。尽管伯恩施坦等人清晰认识到德国存在很多封建因素，需要消除这些因素才能逐步向“社会主义”过渡，但在实践中，其社会发展逻辑反而因坚持抽象的“民主”手段而陷入空想:消除封建因素推动社会进步发展的理论逻辑在现实中转变成了与封建因素相妥协的实践逻辑，使“民主共和国”成为旧势力的统治工具。在李卜克内西等人牺牲后，伯恩施坦甚至还对其大加谴责，认为其将工人阶级引上“歧途”。因此，在右翼和中派中间，革命概念的“手段”与“目标—本质”失衡了，“民主”非但没能成为“共和国”和“文明”进步发展的支撑，反而成为抽象化的革命标准，社会主义也在实践中逐渐去意识形态化、非现实化。

For the left wing, although they understood the essence of revolution as shaping a new civilization and did not lower the level of emancipation inherent in the concept of revolution, there were greater divergences at the level of “means-goals,” lacking unity in theory, organization, and action. They largely believed that the spontaneity of the working class and the masses could generate unified means and goals. However, in practice, “spontaneity” generated many fragmented “means-goals,” with different groups using their own advocated “means-goals” to represent the “essence.” In the subsequent revolutionary practice in Germany, different subjects infinitely extended their own advocated “means,” equating them with the new society and new civilization to be shaped by revolution, infinitely elevating their own revolutionary character, generating conflicts among many different objects, goals, and even motivational principles, thereby obscuring the real means and many phased goals for truly realizing the “essence.” Therefore, among the left wing, the “essence” and the “means-goals” of the concept of revolution became unbalanced. The unity that the new society and new civilization should have possessed disappeared, instead becoming a symbol for different factions to justify their own positions, an abstract standard of revolution, and socialism gradually became fragmented and dispersed in practice.

对左翼而言，虽然将革命的本质理解为塑造一种新文明，并没有降低革命概念的解放层次，但在“手段—目标”层面却存有更大分歧，缺乏理论、组织和行动层面的统一。他们在很大程度上相信工人阶级和群众的自发性能够形成统一的手段和目标，但在实践中，“自发性”却生成了诸多碎片化的“手段—目标”，不同群体都用自身主张的“手段—目标”代表了“本质”。在此后德国的革命实践中，不同主体都将自身主张的“手段”无限延伸，进而将其等同于革命所要塑造的新社会和新文明，无限拔高自身的革命性，产生了诸多不同对象目标乃至动机原则的冲突，掩盖了真正实现“本质”的现实手段和诸多阶段性目标。因此，在左翼中间，革命概念的“本质”与“手段—目标”失衡了，新社会和新文明本应具有的统一性消失了，反而成为不同派别论证自身主张的象征物，成为抽象化的革命标准，社会主义在实践中逐渐碎片化、分散化。

(II) Comprehensively Understanding the Concept of “Revolution” from a Holistic Perspective

(二)从整体出发全面理解“革命”概念

Historical experience shows that a structural imbalance in understanding the concept of “revolution” is highly detrimental to the socialist movement. Therefore, it is necessary to avoid both the abstraction of revolutionary means by the right wing and centrists and the abstraction of revolutionary essence by the left wing. This requires understanding the concept of revolution from a holistic perspective. Returning to Marx and Engels, the concept of “revolution” is holistic, with its multiple internal elements interconnected and mutually supportive.

历史经验表明，对“革命”概念理解的结构性失衡对社会主义运动具有很大危害。因此，既要避免右翼和中派将革命手段抽象化，也要避免左翼将革命本质抽象化，这就需要从整体出发理解革命概念。回到马克思恩格斯那里，“革命”概念是整体的，内部多重元素是相互联系、互相支撑的。

Regarding the “means” of revolution, this involves more the dimension of the subject. In the view of Marx and Engels, the proletariat as the revolutionary subject should possess a dual advanced nature: first, subjective advanced nature, mainly reflected in the proletariat’s need to master “advanced philosophy,” [18]18 This phrase alludes to Marx’s dictum that philosophy is the “head” of the proletariat and the proletariat is the “heart” of philosophy, as expressed in his early writings such as the *Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right: Introduction*. form class consciousness, understand the laws of historical development and its own tasks, and thereby construct new social relations different from the personal dependency relations based on feudal land ownership and the “dependency on things” relations based on the capitalist mode of production; second, objective advanced nature, mainly reflected in the fact that the working class within the new forms of industrial organization is not simply equivalent to any group that has lost the means of production, but specifically refers to the laborers combined with the industrial revolution. Historically, to maintain this dual advanced nature, it is undoubtedly necessary to exert the leadership role of the proletarian political party. On the basis of uniting the broad proletariat, it is necessary to avoid both the abstraction of means, using so-called “democratic” “mediating education” [19]19 The term “mediating education” (中介性教化) here refers to the idea that democratic institutions and processes serve as a medium to politically educate and elevate the proletariat, a concept critiqued by the author as potentially abstract and detached from concrete revolutionary practice. to elevate the advanced nature of the proletariat, and the fragmentation of means, overemphasizing the autonomy of the proletariat. The former easily leads to the de-ideologization of the proletariat itself, while the latter is not conducive to forming unity among the proletariat.

在革命“手段”上，更多涉及主体维度。在马克思恩格斯看来，无产阶级这一革命主体应具有双重先进性:一是主观先进性，主要体现在无产阶级应掌握“先进的哲学”，形成阶级自觉，认识历史发展规律和自身任务，进而建构一种不同于封建土地所有制基础上的人身依附关系和资本主义生产方式基础上“物的依赖”关系的新的社会关系;二是客观先进性，主要体现在新的工业产业组织形式中的工人阶级并不是简单地等同于失去生产资料的任何群体，而是特指与工业革命相结合的劳动者。历史上看，要保持这两重先进性，无疑需要发挥无产阶级政党的领导作用，在团结广大无产阶级的基础上，既要避免将手段抽象化，以所谓的“民主”的“中介性教化”来提升无产阶级的先进性，也要避免将手段碎片化，过于强调无产阶级的自治。前者容易导致无产阶级本身的去意识形态化，后者不利于形成无产阶级之间的团结。

Regarding the “goal” of revolution, this pertains more to the dimension of the object. In the context of Marx and Engels, the object of socialist revolution is not directed at specific individuals, but at the capitalist mode of production and the various “relations” it shapes, as Marx and Engels repeatedly elaborated in their discussions of “social revolution.” Revolution involves multiple spheres including the political, economic, cultural, and social, and its temporal span is not concluded by a “single event.” Historically, when the goal of revolution is lowered, the object of revolution changes; when the goal of revolution is torn apart, the object of revolution easily becomes divorced from reality. Therefore, for socialist practice, it is necessary neither to detach from reality, causing a split between the highest goal and the minimum program, nor to dissolve one’s own defining characteristics, substituting the minimum program for the highest goal. This is especially true for socialist revolution: before the goal is fully realized, it cannot be considered that the revolution has ended.

在革命“目标”上，更多涉及对象维度。在马克思恩格斯的语境中，社会主义的革命对象并非针对具体的人，而是资本主义生产方式及其塑造的各种“关系”，正如马克思恩格斯反复阐释的“社会革命”。革命涉及政治、经济、文化、社会等多个领域，在时间跨度上也并非以“一次事件”为终结。历史上看，当革命目标降低时，革命对象就会发生改变;当革命目标撕裂时，革命对象就容易脱离实际。因此，对社会主义实践而言，既不能脱离实际，使最高目标和最低纲领分裂，也不能消解自身规定性，用最低纲领替代最高目标，尤其对于社会主义革命来说，在没有完全实现目标之前，都不能认为革命已经结束。

Regarding the “essence” of revolution, this pertains more to the dimension of motivation. The “ultimate” motivation of revolution should be to construct a new subject, a new goal, and a “new civilization.” As the *Communist Manifesto* points out, the proletariat and its party have no private interests; the liberation they demand is not merely a process of “from self to non-self” at the level of “interests,” but also a struggle to establish a new mode of production and a new society that conforms to the laws of social development, striving for the free and comprehensive development of the individual. Historically, when the essence of revolution is dissolved, the motivation of the proletariat and its party easily degenerates into “the bourgeois or liberal generality,” becoming narrow factions and groups within civil society that contend for their own interests; when the essence of revolution is abstracted, the motivation of the proletariat and its party easily veers toward utopianism, neglecting the combination of the proletariat’s real interests with subjective vanguard character, and neglecting objective vanguard character itself, making it difficult to shape a new socialist modern civilization in reality and to continuously lay the foundation for communist society.

在革命“本质”上，更多涉及动机维度。革命的“终极”动机，应是为了建构一个新主体、新目标和“新文明”。正如《共产党宣言》指出，无产阶级及其政党没有任何私利，他们要求的解放不仅是“利益”层面“从自我到无我”的过程，更是要通过建立符合社会发展规律的新生产方式和新社会，为实现人的自由全面发展而奋斗。历史上看，当革命本质被消解时，无产阶级及其政党的动机就容易蜕化为“资产阶级或自由主义一般”，成为市民社会中争夺自我利益的狭隘党派和群体;当革命本质被抽象化时，无产阶级及其政党的动机就容易走向空想，忽视无产阶级的现实利益与主观先进性的结合;忽视客观先进性本身，难以在现实中塑造新的社会主义现代文明，不断为共产主义社会奠定基础。

(3) Promoting Social Development by Maintaining an Overall Balance in Understanding the Concept of “Revolution”

(三)在保持“革命”概念理解的整体平衡中推动社会发展

Based on the above, the concept of “revolution” should be understood holistically, maintaining a balance among the internal elements of the concept.

基于上述，应从整体上理解“革命”概念，保持概念内部诸要素的平衡。

On the one hand, it is necessary to maintain a balance between “means” and “goal–essence,” so that the revolutionary subject can always confirm its own revolutionary object and adhere to its own revolutionary motivation, without dissolving the revolutionary “essence” under the pretext of “democracy” as a means, as the right wing and the centrists do, thereby discarding the revolutionary subject. Consequently, the means of developing capitalism cannot be used to replace the revolutionary means of socialism; the revolutionary subject cannot be transformed into a subject that promotes and sustains the development of capitalism; revolutionary motivation cannot be transformed into a dogmatic laissez-faire promotion of the “maturation” of capitalism, neutralizing capitalism itself as “civilization” and modern social development; and the development of capitalism cannot be equated with socialism itself. The relationship between socialism and capitalism is not a sequential one of “civilization,” but a relationship of negation of negation, and also an interactive relationship. The proletariat and its party can and should, before capitalism has perished, construct a path of modern social development that better embodies the free and comprehensive development of the individual and better serves the interests of the broad masses of laborers who do not own the means of production, building upon the existing picture of industrialization and modernization.

一方面要保持“手段”与“目标—本质”的平衡，使革命主体能够始终确证自身的革命对象，坚守自身革命动机，而不能像右翼和中派那样，借由手段的“民主”之名消解革命“本质”，进而抛弃革命主体。因而，不能用发展资本主义的手段替代社会主义的革命手段，不能将革命主体转变为推动和维系资本主义发展的主体，不能使革命动机转变为教条式地放任推动资本主义的“成熟”，将资本主义本身中立化为“文明”、现代社会发展，不能将资本主义的发展等同于社会主义本身。社会主义和资本主义之间不是“文明”的先后关系，而是否定之否定关系，也是交互关系。无产阶级及其政党能够且应当在资本主义尚未灭亡之时，在已有工业化现代化图景之上，建构一种更体现人的自由全面发展、更符合不占有生产资料的广大劳动者利益的现代社会发展道路。

On the other hand, it is necessary to maintain a balance between “essence” and “means–goal,” sustaining the unity of the revolutionary object and the revolutionary subject at the level of motivation, and drawing the historical lesson of the split of the revolutionary subject caused by the left wing: using the name of revolutionary “essence” to “recklessly implement” means. In revolution, the left wing largely overlooked the role of the new-type political party of the proletariat, and different factions of the left wing each believed that the “means–goal” they advocated represented the “essence.” Therefore, socialist revolution should be led by a unified, advanced new-type political party of the proletariat. The proletariat and its party should base themselves on “subjective and objective vanguard character,” grasp the real logic of social development on the basis of objective vanguard character, master the general laws of industrialization and modernization, and construct unified and effective strategic tactics and a path of social development that are integrated with reality. On the basis of subjective vanguard character, they should be able to “take themselves as the principal,” always keep in mind their own “ultimate” motivation and revolutionary object, unite and lead the broad proletariat and other masses to continuously promote social development and progress, and continuously construct new social relations.

另一方面要保持“本质”和“手段—目标”的平衡，在动机层面维系革命对象和革命主体的统一，汲取左翼所造成的革命主体分裂的历史教训:借革命“本质”之名“乱行”手段之实。在革命中，左翼在很大程度上忽视了无产阶级新型政党的作用，且不同派别的左翼均认为自己所主张“手段—目标”代表了“本质”。因此，社会主义革命应由一个统一、先进的新型无产阶级政党领导。无产阶级及其政党应立足“主客观先进性”，在客观先进性基础上把握社会发展的现实逻辑，掌握工业化现代化一般发展规律，建构与实际相结合的统一、有效的战略策略和社会发展道路。在主观先进性基础上能够“以我为主”，始终牢记自身的“终极”动机和革命对象，团结、带领广大无产阶级和其他群众不断推动社会发展进步，不断建构新的社会关系。

Today, looking back at the historical lessons of the German “November Revolution,” [20]20 The German November Revolution refers to the mass movement in Germany from November 1918 to August 1919 that overthrew the German Empire and established the Weimar Republic, during which the Communist Party of Germany (KPD) attempted to lead a socialist revolution but was ultimately suppressed. it undoubtedly makes us understand more clearly that socialist revolution is always ongoing: one cannot use the name of “means” to alter the revolutionary “essence” and abandon the revolutionary “goal”; nor can one use the name of “essence” to distort revolutionary “means” and abstract the revolutionary “goal.” The understanding and cognition of the concept of “revolution” should always proceed from the whole; stubbornly clinging to any single element will dissolve socialist revolution itself. Only in this way can the requirements of socialist revolution be met, and can the “means” and “goal–essence” of revolution be unified. In this sense, self-revolution and social revolution are always the eternal themes of the proletarian party.

今天，回望德国“十一月革命”的历史教训，无疑使我们更为明白，社会主义革命一直在路上，不能以“手段”之名更改革命“本质”、放弃革命“目标”;也不能以“本质”之名曲解革命“手段”、抽象革命“目标”。对“革命”概念的理解和认识始终应当从整体出发，偏狭地固守其中任何一个元素，都会消解社会主义革命本身。唯有如此，才符合社会主义革命的要求，才能使革命的“手段”和“目标—本质”统一起来。在这一意义上，自我革命和社会革命也始终是无产阶级政党的永恒主题。

(The author is an Associate Researcher at the Foreign Marxism Research Office of the China Institute of Marxism, Shanghai Academy of Social Sciences, and Deputy Director of the Editorial Department of the journal *Mao Zedong Deng Xiaoping Theory Research*.)

（作者系上海社会科学院中国马克思主义研究所国外马克思主义研究室副研究员，《毛泽东邓小平理论研究》杂志编辑部副主任）

Online Editor: Tongxin

网络编辑：同心