Hobsbawm on the Triple Logic of the October Revolution

Eric Hobsbawm (1917–2012) was a renowned British left-wing historian. As a contemporary of the Russian October Revolution, Hobsbawm spent his entire life exploring the developmental logic, historical experience, and contemporary effects of this revolution, and waged a resolute struggle against various ideologies that negate the October Revolution.

艾瑞克·霍布斯鲍姆（Eric Hobsbawm，1917—2012）是英国著名左翼历史学家。作为俄国十月革命的同龄人，霍布斯鲍姆终其一生都在探寻这场革命的发展逻辑、历史经验和当代效应，并同形形色色的否定十月革命的意识形态进行了坚决的斗争。

In fact, ever since the outbreak of the October Revolution, there has always been a trend of criticism or negation within Western theoretical circles. Some scholars question the historical inevitability of the revolution, arguing that war and revolution interrupted Russia's normal path of capitalist development; some scholars maintain that the October Revolution was merely a "Blanquist political conspiracy," and that the political path it set was "premature"; still other scholars believe the October Revolution was an accidental event "not in conformity with the laws of history," and that with the end of the Cold War, it has become a historical relic.

实际上，自从十月革命爆发后，在西方理论界就始终存在着批评或否定的潮流。有的学者对革命的历史必然性提出质疑，认为是战争和革命打断了俄国正常的资本主义发展道路；有的学者主张十月革命不过是一场“布朗基式的政治阴谋”，其所设定的政治道路是“早产的”；还有的学者认为十月革命是“不合乎历史规律”的偶然事件，随着冷战的终结，它已经成为历史遗迹。

In response to the various doubts and attacks mentioned above, Hobsbawm, with the theoretical consciousness of a Marxist historian, employed the methodology of historical materialism to mount a powerful counterattack and a critique of premises. In his view, the fatal problem in Western academia is the confusion of factual judgment with value judgment, because the October Revolution is first and foremost a sum total of a series of historical events, and only then a choice between two political paths. The former involves concrete historical circumstances and the actions of historical agents; the latter involves the interactive relationship between revolutionary theory, political goals, and actual conditions. Therefore, we should conditionally distinguish between the historical logic of the revolution and its theoretical (political) logic. Only on this premise can we further correctly understand the practical logic and contemporary value of the October Revolution. A detailed examination of Hobsbawm's study of the October Revolution and its triple logic offers important insights for deepening our understanding of Marxism and further elucidating the historical significance and contemporary value of the October Revolution.

针对上述种种质疑和抨击，霍布斯鲍姆以马克思主义历史学家的理论自觉，运用历史唯物主义的方法论进行了有力的回击和前提性批判。在他看来，西方学界的致命问题是混淆了事实判断与价值判断，因为十月革命首先是一系列历史事件的总和，而后才是两种政治道路之间的抉择。前者涉及具体的历史情景和历史能动者的行为；后者则涉及革命理论、政治目标与现实条件之间的互动关系。因此，我们应当有条件地区分革命的历史逻辑与理论（政治）逻辑，在此前提下才能进一步正确理解十月革命的现实逻辑和当代价值。详细考察霍布斯鲍姆对十月革命的研究及其三重逻辑，对于我们深化对马克思主义的理解、进一步阐发十月革命的历史意义和当代价值具有重要的启示。

I. The Historical Logic of the October Revolution

一、十月革命的历史逻辑

Hobsbawm believed that exploring the historical logic of the October Revolution requires restoring the historical context in which it occurred, and within that context, examining the subjective and objective reasons for the outbreak and success of the revolution. On this point, there are two completely different views in Western academia. One view holds that the revolution was an inevitable result of the long-term accumulation of structural contradictions in Russia's economy and society. For example, Leopold Haimson pointed out that even without the First World War, Russia's class conflicts and the corruption and incompetence of the tsarist government would have been sufficient to bring about revolution in Russia. The other view emphasizes that the accidental event of war interrupted Russia's capitalist development, weakened Russia's state capacity, and thus led to the outbreak of revolution. Based on these two different tendencies, there are also sharp disagreements in Western academia regarding the judgment of the dominant factors in the revolution's success. Theda Skocpol emphasizes the decisive role of the peasantry while downplaying the role of the working class. Walter Goldfrank explains the causes of the revolution from the perspective of external geopolitical pressure. Jack Goldstone places state power above other factors, arguing that political splits within the ruling class and the collapse of government capacity were the main conditions for the revolution's success. Marxist theorists, on the whole, explain the revolution as the inevitable result of class struggle, holding that its leading force was the working class.

霍布斯鲍姆认为，探寻十月革命的历史逻辑需要还原其发生的历史情境，并在这种情境中研判革命爆发及取得成功的主客观原因。关于这一点，西方学界有两种截然不同的观点。一种观点认为，革命是俄国经济社会的结构性矛盾长期积累的必然结果。例如，列奥波德·海姆松（Leopold Haimson）指出，即使没有第一次世界大战，俄国的阶级冲突、沙皇政府的腐败无能也足以给俄国带来革命。另一种观点则强调战争这一偶发事件打断了俄国资本主义的发展，削弱了俄国的国家能力，从而导致了革命的爆发。基于这两种不同倾向，西方学界对于革命取得成功的主导因素的判断也存在尖锐分歧。西达·斯考切波（Theda Skocpol）强调农民阶级的决定性地位，弱化工人阶级的作用。沃尔特·戈德弗兰克（Walter Goldfrank）从外部地缘政治压力的角度解释革命的成因。杰克·戈德斯通（Jack Goldstone）将国家政权置于其他因素之上，主张统治阶级内部的政治分裂和政府能力的崩溃是革命得以成功的主要条件。马克思主义理论家则总体上将革命解释为阶级斗争的必然结果，认为其主导力量是工人阶级。

Faced with the above theoretical disputes, Hobsbawm believed that no historical event is determined by a single factor; the key lies in identifying the causal connections and the primary-secondary relationships among them. The advantage of Marxism lies in its long-term perspective, its ability to organically combine structural analysis with conjunctural analysis, and economic/social analysis with political analysis. In *The Age of Empire* and *The Age of Extremes*, from his "The Long 19th Century" and "The Short 20th Century" tetralogies [1]1 V. I. Lenin, “The Economic Content of Narodism and the Criticism of It in Mr. Struve’s Book” (1895), *Collected Works*, Vol. 1., Hobsbawm employed the Marxist method of class analysis to elucidate the class structure of Russia before the revolution. He argued that the complex class contradictions in Russia at the beginning of the 20th century, especially the simultaneous emergence of class conflicts in both urban and rural areas, provided the fundamental driving force for the revolution. He analyzed Russia's class situation from four aspects. First, compared with other countries, the Russian peasantry was more likely to trigger serious unrest. This was because, from the Emancipation Reform of 1861 to the Stolypin land reform of 1907, Russia had never achieved agricultural modernization, nor had it formed a mature class of agricultural capitalists. Instead, it produced an absentee landlord class with a strongly exploitative character, while the power of the village commune (obshchina) was also strengthened. Coupled with the exacerbating effects of old and new agricultural crises, such as fluctuations in international wheat prices and the famine of 1891, peasant discontent grew day by day. Second, although the Russian working class was small in number, it was exceptionally concentrated, mainly in the large industrial areas and mining districts of St. Petersburg and Moscow. This was conducive to the formation of a unified working-class organization and class consciousness. Moreover, because much of the ownership of these industries was in foreign hands, the contradictions were further sharpened. Third, the Russian bourgeoisie had a dual character: on the one hand, it was weak, lacking public support and political organization; on the other hand, it was dissatisfied with the tsarist autocracy and possessed a subjective revolutionary will. Fourth, the tsarist government, as the representative of the ruling class, due to its corruption, incompetence, and fear of the 1905 Revolution, made the political elasticity between the old system and its opponents extremely small, greatly squeezing the space for reformism and making it highly likely for the opposition to form a political alliance. Synthesizing these four types of class conditions, Hobsbawm believed that, from the perspective of the structural contradictions of Russian social classes, revolution was destined to break out; the question was only when and where it would break out and which force would lead it. The view that "without the First World War, Russia would have become a prosperous bourgeois society" is a myth and does not conform to the actual historical situation.

面对上述理论纷争，霍布斯鲍姆认为，任何一个历史事件都不是由单一因素决定的，关键在于判明其中的因果联系和主次关系。马克思主义的优势在于具有长远的眼光，能够将结构性分析与事态性分析、经济/社会分析与政治分析有机地结合起来。在其“年代四部曲”中的《帝国的年代》和《极端的年代》中，霍布斯鲍姆运用马克思主义的阶级分析方法阐释了革命前俄国的阶级结构，认为20世纪初俄国复杂的阶级矛盾，特别是城市与农村同时出现的阶级冲突，为革命提供了根本动力。他从四个方面分析了俄国的阶级状况。第一，与其他国家相比，俄国的农民阶级更有可能引发严重的动乱，这是因为从1861年农奴制改革到1907年斯托雷平土地改革，俄国始终未能实现农业现代化，也没有形成一个成熟的农业资本家阶层，相反却产生了具有强烈剥削性质的外居收租地主，村社的力量也得到增强，再加上国际小麦价格波动和1891年饥荒等新旧农业危机的推波助澜，使得农民的不满与日俱增。第二，俄国的工人阶级虽然人数较少，却异常集中，主要分布在圣彼得堡和莫斯科的大型工业区和矿区，有利于形成统一的工人阶级组织和阶级意识，并且由于这些工业的所有权很多属于外国人，使得矛盾进一步尖锐化。第三，俄国的资产阶级具有两重性：一方面，它力量弱小，缺乏公共支持和政治组织；另一方面，它又不满于沙皇专制制度，拥有主观的革命意愿。第四，作为统治阶级代表的沙皇政府因腐败无能以及对1905年革命的恐惧，使得旧制度与反对者之间的政治弹性变得极小，大大挤压了改良主义的生存空间，导致反对派有了结成政治同盟的很大可能。综合以上四种阶级状况，霍布斯鲍姆认为，从俄国社会阶级的结构性矛盾来看，革命注定会爆发，问题只在于何时何地爆发以及由什么力量主导。那种主张“如果没有第一次世界大战，俄国将会成为一个繁荣的资产阶级社会”的看法，乃是一种迷思，不符合历史的真实情况。

Of course, Hobsbawm pointed out that one cannot directly deduce the specific events of class struggle from the above structural contradictions of the various classes. In the process of the explosive potential of the class structure transforming into actual class struggle, or in the process of the revolutionary classes moving from division to unity, the First World War played a catalytic role. Hobsbawm believed that the First World War, as a "total war," placed immense pressure on Russia, exceeding the limits of what its economic and social conditions could bear. By 1917, Russia was already facing multiple crises, including economic collapse, social disorder, and national disintegration. Under these circumstances, the February Revolution broke out. However, the bourgeois Provisional Government could neither control the political situation nor was it willing to stop the unpopular war. As the crisis continued to escalate, the objective conditions for the October Revolution rapidly matured.

当然，霍布斯鲍姆指出，不能从上述各阶级的结构性矛盾中直接演绎出阶级斗争的具体事态。在阶级结构的潜在爆炸力转变为实际的阶级斗争的过程中，或者说在革命阶级由分裂走向联合的过程中，第一次世界大战起到了激化作用。霍布斯鲍姆认为，第一次世界大战作为一场“总体战”（Total War）给俄国施加了巨大的压力，超过了其经济社会条件所能承受的极限。到1917年，俄国已经面临经济崩溃、社会失序、民族分裂等多重危机。在这一形势下，二月革命爆发了。但是，资产阶级临时政府既无法控制政治局面，也不愿停止不得人心的战争。随着危机的不断升温，十月革命的客观条件迅速成熟。

Hobsbawm summarizes these conditions into four aspects: class basis, external pressure, military preparation, and national movements. First, the working class, the peasant class, and even the middle class formed a close anti-war alliance, jointly opposing the Provisional Government's continued participation in the war. Among them, the working class played a decisive role in the transformation from an initially uncertain, spontaneous urban movement into a revolutionary struggle led by the Bolsheviks. Although the peasants were not the main initiators of the revolution, their struggles undermined the local foundations of the Tsar and the Provisional Government. At the critical moment of the revolution, the peasants did not side with the government, thereby avoiding a tragedy like the Paris Commune and providing an important condition for the victory of the October Revolution. Second, the defeat in the war and immense external pressure led to the loss of Russia's state capacity, especially effective control over military forces. The huge casualties of the Russian army in the war and the inefficiency of the government's supply capacity meant the army no longer maintained loyalty to the ruling class. Third, the establishment of soldiers' soviets broke the government's monopoly on the military, enabling revolutionaries to possess armed force. The army became a site for workers and peasants to receive ideological propaganda and organizational training, and their alliance with soldiers was the fundamental guarantee of the revolution's victory. Fourth, the independence movements of minority nationalities triggered a powerful wave of nationalism, which both weakened the power of the Provisional Government and brought the real danger of national disintegration. In summary, Hobsbawm believes that by the autumn of 1917, the Provisional Government was already untenable. The objective situation of internal and external troubles prompted the deepening of the Bolshevik revolution. The extraordinary quality of the Bolsheviks, especially their leader Lenin, lay in this: they seized the historical opportunity and knew how to lead the masses by satisfying their needs, organizing the blind currents under anarchy, and transforming uncontrollable social turmoil into the revolutionary movement they led.

霍布斯鲍姆把这些条件归纳为阶级基础、外部压力、军事准备和民族运动四个方面。第一，工人阶级、农民阶级、甚至中产阶级结成了紧密的反战同盟，共同反对继续参战的临时政府。其中，工人阶级在从开始不确定的、自发的城市运动向由布尔什维克领导的革命斗争转化的过程中起到了决定性作用。而农民虽然不是革命的主要发动者，但他们的斗争破坏了沙皇和临时政府的地方基础。在革命的关键时刻，农民没有倒向政府一方，从而避免了巴黎公社式的悲剧，为十月革命取得胜利提供了重要条件。第二，战争的失利和巨大的外部压力导致了俄国国家能力的丧失，尤其是失去了对军事力量的有效控制。俄军在战争中的巨大伤亡以及政府供给能力的低效使得军队不再保持对统治阶级的忠诚。第三，士兵苏维埃的建立打破了政府对军队的垄断，使革命者拥有了武装力量，军队成为工人和农民接受思想宣传和组织锻炼的场所，他们与军人的联合是革命胜利的根本保障。第四，少数民族独立运动引发了强烈的民族主义浪潮，既削弱了临时政府的权力，又带来了国家分裂的现实危险。总而言之，霍布斯鲍姆认为，到1917年秋，临时政府已经无以为继，内忧外患的客观形势促使布尔什维克革命不断深入。而布尔什维克、尤其是其领导者列宁的不同凡响之处在于：他们抓住了历史的机遇，并且知道如何通过满足群众的需要来领导群众，将无政府状态下的盲流组织起来，将无法控制的社会动荡转化为其领导的革命运动。

Hobsbawm points out that, as the subjective conditions of the revolution, the Bolsheviks possessed the following advantages: First, they had a centralized and strictly disciplined organization, which formed an iron Party discipline under secret conditions, conducive to maintaining cohesion among its members in harsh environments and using flexible strategies to seize final victory. Second, their belief in the inevitable victory of socialism gave them a high degree of ideological cohesion, enabling them to unite closely and form a tight and combat-ready fortress. Third, they could correctly handle the relationship between ends and means, adopting flexible tactics to satisfy the peasants' demand for land, thus successfully avoiding the oversight on the peasant issue that had plagued the Paris Commune. Fourth, they had the ability to recognize the needs of the masses and adopted realistic policies, namely "Bread, Peace, Land," thereby gaining widespread support. In short, because subjective strategies aligned with objective conditions, the Bolsheviks' seizure of power became a matter of course.

霍布斯鲍姆指出，作为革命的主观条件，布尔什维克具有如下优势：第一，它拥有一个中央集权且纪律严明的组织，并于秘密条件下形成了钢铁般的党纪，有利于其成员在严酷的环境中保持凝聚力，并利用灵活战略去夺取最后的胜利；第二，它对社会主义必胜的信念使它在意识形态上拥有高度的凝聚力，能够团结一致，形成严密而富有战斗力的堡垒；第三，它能够正确地处理目标与手段的关系，采取灵活的策略来满足农民对土地的要求，从而成功地避免了当年巴黎公社在农民问题上的疏漏；第四，它具有认识群众需求的能力，并采取现实主义的政策，即“面包、和平、土地”，从而获得了普遍支持。总之，由于主观策略与客观条件相契合，布尔什维克掌权便成为顺理成章之事。

Through the analysis of the subjective and objective conditions of the revolution, Hobsbawm reconstructs the historical situation of 1917. Within this situation, we can discover that the revolution itself involves two different but interconnected causal chains: one causal chain is the structural social contradictions and state policies of the autocratic dynasty, which were strongly supported and contained capitalist elements, leading to sustained and severe class conflict. The other causal chain is the military disaster triggered by geopolitical conflict and militarism, which weakened the state's despotic power (especially control over the military) and its infrastructural power (especially control over the countryside). The former determined the inevitability of the revolution and the aspirations of the revolutionary subject, while the latter provided the specific circumstances and unifying forces for the revolution's victory. These two causal chains together constituted the historical situation of 1917, and in the process of deepening crisis, they provided the revolutionary subject, objective conditions, and historical opportunity for the transition from the February Revolution to the October Revolution.

通过对革命的主客观条件的分析，霍布斯鲍姆还原了1917年的历史情境。在此情境中，我们可以发现革命本身涉及两条不同的、但又彼此相连的因果链：一条因果链是得到强力支持的、带有资本主义因素的专制王朝的结构性社会矛盾和国家政策导致了持续而严重的阶级冲突；另一条因果链是由地缘政治冲突和军国主义引发的军事灾难削弱了国家的专制性权力（尤其是对军队的控制）和基础性权力（尤其是对农村的控制）。前者决定了革命的必然性和革命主体的愿望，后者则提供了革命胜利的特殊形势和团结力量。两条因果链共同构成了1917年的历史情境，并在危机的日益加深过程中为二月革命转向十月革命提供了革命主体、客观条件和历史机遇。

Accordingly, Hobsbawm points out that the idea that a revolution can skip a certain stage is anti-historical, and the greatest error of the view that the revolution should have stopped at February lies precisely in severing the continuity of the historical situation, because the process of revolution does not change according to individual will. "In the final analysis, the historical choice of 1917 was not a choice between liberalism and non-liberalism, but a choice between the unity of Russia and the inevitable disintegration of an ancient defeated empire (like the Austro-Hungarian Empire and the Ottoman Empire shortly thereafter)." The danger for Russia lay in this: "In the situation of powerful enemies pressing on the border, there was a lack of a strong political group capable of controlling the mass movement and the national separatist movement; nor was a lasting bourgeois revolution possible, because the bourgeoisie lacked mass support and the ability to identify and satisfy the needs of the masses. The Bolsheviks were the only political force at that time capable of unifying Russia as a state and enjoying broad support (especially from the military). The objective situation urged the Bolsheviks to undertake the historical task, and they successfully maintained the unity of most of the territory of the ancient Russia for another 74 years."

据此，霍布斯鲍姆指出，那种认为革命可以跳过某个阶段的设想是反历史的，那种认为革命应该止于二月的观点的最大错误就在于割裂了历史情境的连续性，因为革命的进程是不以个人意志为转移的。“归根到底，1917年的历史抉择不是自由主义同非自由主义之间的抉择，而是俄国统一与作为古老的战败帝国不可避免的分崩离析（如同不久之后的奥匈帝国和奥斯曼帝国）之间的抉择。”而俄国的危险性在于：“在强敌压境的情况下，缺少强有力的政治集团控制住群众运动和民族分裂运动；也不可能出现持久的资产阶级革命，因为资产阶级缺少群众的支持以及识别和满足群众需要的能力。布尔什维克是当时唯一能够将俄国统一为一个国家并且享有广泛支持（特别是军队）的政治力量，客观形势催促着布尔什维克承担历史任务，而它也成功维系了古老俄国大部分疆域的统一达到又一个74年。”

It is in this sense that Hobsbawm believes the October Revolution was essentially not a coup d'état imposed on Russia by a handful of conspirators. Its outbreak had both profound social structural causes and was also an emergency response to the crisis at the time. The success of the revolution was both the result of popular support and a manifestation of the political capability of Lenin and the Bolsheviks. Therefore, as a historical event, the rationality of the October Revolution is beyond doubt.

正是在这个意义上，霍布斯鲍姆认为，十月革命本质上不是一场强加于俄国的、由少数革命者密谋的政变，其爆发既有着深刻的社会结构原因，也是当时面对危机的应急反应。革命的成功既是民众拥护的结果，也是列宁和布尔什维克政治能力的体现。因此，作为历史事件，十月革命的合理性是毋庸置疑的。

II. The Theoretical Logic of the October Revolution

二、十月革命的理论逻辑

Although the rationality of a historical event can be defended within a specific historical situation, it cannot naturally constitute a sufficient explanation for the establishment of a new social system. Therefore, Hobsbawm believes that a complete explanation of the October Revolution must also explore its theoretical logic, that is, to clarify the theoretical basis, goals, and the interactive relationship between them and the actual conditions. On this point, there are also many criticisms in Western academia. For example, some scholars argue that the political goals of the October Revolution did not conform to the historical materialist principle that the economic base determines the superstructure, or that the political path of the October Revolution did not fit the actual conditions of Russia. Some scholars even assert that the socialist nature of the revolution was only "added" after the revolution. Faced with these challenges, Hobsbawm advocates examining the development process of the interpretation of the nature of the Russian revolution from Marx to Lenin, and then reflecting on the roots of this transformation in the two-way interaction between theory and practice.

历史事件的合理性虽然可以在具体的历史情境中得到辩护，却不能天然地构成对建立一种新的社会制度的充分解释。因此，霍布斯鲍姆认为，对十月革命的完整解释还必须探寻其理论逻辑，即澄清革命的理论基础、目标以及与现实条件之间的互动关系。关于这一点，在西方学界也存在诸多非议，比如，有学者认为十月革命的政治目标不符合经济基础决定上层建筑的历史唯物主义原理，抑或十月革命的政治道路不符合俄国的现实条件；甚至还有学者主张，社会主义的性质是革命后才被“添加”上去的。面对这些质疑，霍布斯鲍姆主张考察从马克思到列宁对俄国革命性质进行阐释的发展过程，进而在理论与实践的双向互动中反思这种嬗变的根源。

Hobsbawm first divides the interpretation of the Russian revolution from Marx to Lenin into three stages. In the first stage, the late Marx and Engels, when considering the Russian question, once envisioned a model of revolutionary interconnectedness. Its general line of thought was: communism is a "world-historical" undertaking unfolding on the basis of highly developed productive forces and universal intercourse, and it can only be realized if all nations advance simultaneously "at once." Based on this line of thought, Marx pointed out in the 1882 Preface to the Russian edition of the *Communist Manifesto*: "If the Russian Revolution becomes the signal for a proletarian revolution in the West, so that both complement each other, then the present Russian common ownership of land can serve as the starting point for communist development." [1]1 V. I. Lenin, “The Economic Content of Narodism and the Criticism of It in Mr. Struve’s Book” (1895), *Collected Works*, Vol. 1. In the view of Marx and Engels, on the one hand, for Russia as a backward country, a revolution launched by its proletariat could only, if it occurred at the right time and served as the precursor (detonator) for a West European revolution, "pass through the Caudine Forks of the capitalist system" [2]2 Karl Marx, *The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte* (1852). and "appropriate all the positive achievements of the capitalist system." On the other hand, the possibility of the Russian revolution triggering a West European revolution through a transmission effect also endowed it with a kind of historical significance, just as Engels said: "As soon as Russia makes a revolution, the whole face of Europe will be changed." [3]3 Karl Marx, “Preface” to *A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy* (1859). In short, Marx and Engels regarded the "mutual complementation" of the Russian revolution and the European revolution as a prerequisite for the success of the former.

霍布斯鲍姆首先将从马克思到列宁关于俄国革命的阐释分为三个阶段。第一阶段，晚年的马克思恩格斯在思考俄国问题时曾经设想过一种革命的关联性模式，其总体思路是：共产主义是在生产力和普遍交往高度发展的基础上展开的“世界历史性的”事业，只有在各民族“一下子”同时推进，才有可能实现。基于这一思路，马克思在《共产党宣言》1882年俄文版序言中指出：“假如俄国革命将成为西方无产阶级革命的信号而双方互相补充的话，那么现今的俄国土地公有制便能成为共产主义发展的起点。”在马克思恩格斯看来，一方面，俄国作为落后国家，其无产阶级发动的革命只有适时发生并作为西欧革命的先导（引爆物），才能“不通过资本主义制度的卡夫丁峡谷，而占有资本主义制度所创造的一切积极的成果”。另一方面，俄国革命通过传导作用引发西欧革命的可能性也赋予了它一种历史意义，正如恩格斯所说：“只要俄国一发生革命，整个欧洲的面貌就要改变。”总之，马克思恩格斯将俄国革命与欧洲革命的“互相补充”作为前者成功的前置条件。

In the second stage, Lenin, sizing up the situation before the October Revolution, put forward a systematic exposition on the Russian socialist revolution. In Hobsbawm’s view, Lenin inherited and strengthened Marx’s idea of “mutual supplementation,” while at the same time downplaying the requirements of the socialist revolution for the level of productive forces and universal intercourse. On the one hand, Lenin believed that the elimination of global capitalism could only be achieved through a global revolution. Russia, as the weak link in the imperialist chain, once revolution broke out there, would inevitably spread westward; the center of revolution would rapidly shift from Russia to Germany and diffuse into Western Europe. On the other hand, whether the conditions for revolution were ripe could only be judged on the basis of the integrated global mode of production, not the specific situation of productive forces in any one country. In fact, the widespread occurrence of revolution in Europe gave the Bolsheviks faith and strength, and after the October Revolution succeeded, the Bolsheviks indeed did not regard Russia as the sole subject of the socialist revolution, but continuously exerted efforts to push the revolution to expand from East to West. Therefore, around the time of the October Revolution, the theoretical explanation Lenin and the Bolsheviks gave to this revolution was: the historical significance and destiny of the revolution were both part of the world socialist revolution, and Russia’s socialist path likewise required the powerful supplementation of the European socialist countries. However, historical facts ultimately showed that although proletarian revolutions broke out in both Germany and Hungary, the world revolution the Bolsheviks had hoped for did not occur. By 1923, the situation in Europe had stabilized, and Soviet Russia became an isolated island in the capitalist world. On this, Hobsbawm pointed out: “When the possibility of world revolution disappeared, the justification for the Russian socialist revolution from Marx to Lenin also faced reconstruction.” The vision of “mutual supplementation” was not realized, and productive forces and universal intercourse changed from the prerequisites of socialism into its goals. He wrote: “The only plan the Bolsheviks could adopt was to transform their backward economic society into an advanced economic society, thereby proving the superiority of socialism and the meaning of their own existence. Its progressiveness under the conditions of the time depended on whether it could liberate that technological innovation suppressed by capitalist monopoly, while simultaneously eliminating the duplication of production capacity, the gap between consumption and production, periodic economic crises, waste of resources, and unemployment.”

第二阶段，列宁在十月革命前审时度势地提出了关于俄国社会主义革命的系统论述。在霍布斯鲍姆看来，列宁继承并强化了马克思关于“互相补充”的思想，同时淡化了社会主义革命对生产力和普遍交往水平的要求。一方面，列宁认为消灭全球资本主义只有通过全球革命，俄国作为帝国主义链条的薄弱环节，一旦爆发革命，必将向西蔓延，革命的中心将迅速由俄国转向德国并扩散至西欧。另一方面，判断革命条件是否成熟，只能根据一体化的全球生产方式，而不是某一国家生产力的具体情况。实际上，革命在欧洲的普遍发生给了布尔什维克以信念和力量，而在十月革命取得成功后，布尔什维克也确实没有把俄国视为社会主义革命的唯一主体，而是不断付出努力，推动革命从东向西扩展。所以，在十月革命前后，列宁和布尔什维克对这场革命的理论阐释是：革命的历史意义和命运都是世界社会主义革命的一部分，俄国的社会主义道路同样需要欧洲社会主义国家的强有力补充。不过，历史事实最终表明，尽管在德国和匈牙利都爆发了无产阶级革命，但布尔什维克所期待的世界革命并没有发生。到1923年，欧洲的局势已经稳定下来，苏俄成为资本主义世界中的孤岛。对此，霍布斯鲍姆指出：“当世界革命的可能性消失时，从马克思到列宁为俄国社会主义革命所做的论证也就面临重构。”“互相补充”的设想没有实现，而生产力与普遍交往则由社会主义的前提变成目标。他写道：“布尔什维克能采取的唯一的方案就是将其落后的经济社会改造为先进的经济社会，以此证明社会主义的优越性及其自身存在的意义。其进步性在当时的条件下取决于是否能够解放那种遭到资本主义垄断压抑的技术革新，同时消除生产能力的重复、消费与生产之间的鸿沟、周期性的经济危机、资源浪费和失业。”

Therefore, in the third stage, the theoretical foundation of the October Revolution was ultimately determined to be the “theory of victory in one country” and the “theory of building socialism in one country.” Hobsbawm believes that whether it is the “theory of victory in one country” or the “theory of building socialism in one country,” both differ significantly from Marx’s original conception, and this is related to an important adjustment in the Bolsheviks’ self-positioning before the October Revolution. This process of transformation was not only the product of the Bolsheviks led by Lenin continuously exploring practical paths under the revolutionary situation of the capitalist world system heading towards collapse, but also a breakthrough in the theoretical predicament of Marx and Engels in their later years.

因此，在第三阶段，十月革命的理论基础最终被确定为“一国胜利论”和“一国建成论”。霍布斯鲍姆认为，无论是“一国胜利论”还是“一国建成论”，都同马克思的原初设想有着显著的不同，这与十月革命前布尔什维克的自我定位发生了重要调整有关。这一转变过程既是列宁领导的布尔什维克在资本主义世界体系走向崩溃的革命形势下不断探索实践道路的产物，也是对马克思恩格斯晚年理论困境的一种突破。

Hobsbawm points out that in Marx’s conception of the proletarian revolution, there were always three inherent tensions. First, after the failure of the 1848 revolutions, Marx never gave up his long-cherished wish to launch a pan-European revolution; however, according to the principles of historical materialism, the proletarian revolution could only occur and succeed when productive forces came into sharp contradiction with capitalist relations of production, and “history clearly shows that the state of economic development on the European continent at that time was far from mature enough to eliminate capitalist production.” This is the tension between the subjective desire for revolution and the objective conditions. Second, Marx firmly believed in the historical prospect of the proletariat inevitably replacing the bourgeoisie, but he refused to speculate on the details of the future socialist society and its institutional arrangements. This is the tension between the conviction of historical inevitability and the lack of political system design. Third, after the mid-19th century, the historical trends of overall capitalist economic prosperity and the rise of nationalism made Marx’s ideas of “simultaneous revolution” and “mutual supplementation” difficult to realize. This is the tension between idealism at the level of value norms and realism at the level of political operation.

霍布斯鲍姆指出，在马克思对无产阶级革命的设想中，始终存在着三个内在张力。第一，1848年革命失败后，马克思始终没有放弃发动全欧革命的夙愿；但是，根据历史唯物主义原理，无产阶级革命只有在生产力同资本主义生产关系发生尖锐矛盾时才能发生并取得成功，而“历史清楚地表明，当时欧洲大陆经济发展的状况还远没有成熟到可以铲除资本主义生产的程度”。这是革命的主观愿望与客观条件之间的张力。第二，马克思坚信无产阶级必然取代资产阶级的历史前景，但又拒绝猜测未来的社会主义社会及其制度安排的细节。这是历史必然性的信念与政治制度设计的缺失之间的张力。第三，19世纪中叶以后，资本主义经济整体繁荣和民族主义兴盛的历史趋势，使马克思的“同时革命”和“互相补充”的思路难以实现。这是价值规范层面的理想主义与政治运行层面的现实主义之间的张力。

Around the time of the October Revolution, what Lenin attempted to resolve were precisely the three contradictions mentioned above. He replaced the insufficiently developed social class with a consciously created and constructed political organization as the core force of the revolution, thereby transforming the decisive factor for revolutionary success from the level of social productive forces to the nature of the political organization. By emphasizing the primacy of politics and establishing a broadly united revolutionary organization, Lenin answered the question of how the proletariat could seize power in regions where the level of development of productive forces was backward, breaking through the practical predicament of the European revolution having died down in the later years of Marx and Engels. Therefore, in terms of revolutionary theory, Lenin effectively made up for the theoretical deficiencies of Marx and Engels on issues of party structure, political organization, and sociology; in terms of revolutionary effect, the Bolsheviks led by Lenin demonstrated powerful strength, achieving great success in Russia and the national liberation movements of the Third World.

十月革命前后，列宁试图解决的正是上述三个矛盾。他用一个有意识地创立和建构起来的政治组织代替了发育尚不充分的社会阶级，作为革命的核心力量，从而使革命成功的决定性因素由社会生产力的水平转变为政治组织的性质。通过强调政治的优先地位，建立一个广泛联合的革命组织，列宁回答了无产阶级如何在生产力发展水平落后的地区夺取政权的问题，突破了欧洲革命在马克思恩格斯晚年时期偃旗息鼓的实践困境。因此，就革命的理论而言，列宁有效地弥补了马克思恩格斯在政党结构、政治组织和社会学问题上的理论缺失；就革命的效果而言，列宁领导的布尔什维克体现出强大的力量，在俄国和第三世界的民族解放运动中取得了巨大的成功。

The fact that the revolutionary process was inconsistent with Marx’s original conception cannot serve as evidence to negate the theoretical foundation of the revolution. In Hobsbawm’s view, those attempts to deny the theoretical foundation of the October Revolution either stem from ideological distortion or fall into intellectual thinking and representational thinking. In fact, the most prominent feature of Marxism when considering problems is its adherence to historical dialectical thinking. The dialectical nature of this thinking is embodied in: Marxism both emphasizes the limiting factors of historical development and gives sufficient space for the historical subject to exercise its agency. Examining the October Revolution on this basis, Hobsbawm emphasizes the dialectical nature of the revolution itself: on the one hand, it was carried out under historical conditions completely different from Marx’s conception, and therefore individual conclusions or viewpoints of Marx cannot be copied mechanically; on the other hand, after the revolution achieved victory, the establishment of a new system had become a reality, and therefore initiative must be exerted to create corresponding conditions so that it could demonstrate institutional advantages. Therefore, for Lenin, the crux of the issue was how to build socialism under Russia’s backward economic, social, and cultural conditions. Hobsbawm points out that this issue in turn contains two aspects: first, how to establish, under backward conditions, relations of production that conform to the level of productive forces and can promote the development of productive forces? Second, how are the development of productive forces and the establishment of relations of production reflected in the political goals and value appeals of socialism? The former indicates the essential requirement of socialist construction, while the latter embodies the value orientation of socialist construction. In this sense, the path pioneered by the October Revolution itself had an experimental character, opening up a space for multiple possibilities. Whichever path of socialism is taken, its success or failure ultimately depends on whether it can correctly handle the relationship between subjective capability and objective conditions, and between realistic constraints and value appeals.

革命进程与马克思的原初设想不一致这一事实，并不能成为否定革命的理论基础的证据。在霍布斯鲍姆看来，那些试图否定十月革命的理论基础的看法，要么是出于意识形态的歪曲，要么是陷入了知性思维和表象思维。实际上，马克思主义在思考问题时的最显著特征就是坚持历史的辩证思维，这种思维的辩证性体现在：马克思主义既强调历史发展的限定性因素，又给予了历史中的主体发挥其能动性的足够空间。以此为基础考察十月革命，霍布斯鲍姆强调革命本身所具有的辩证性质：一方面，它是在与马克思的设想完全不同的历史条件下进行的，因而不能照抄照搬马克思的个别结论或观点；另一方面，革命取得胜利后，新制度的建立已经成为现实，因而必须发挥主动性去创造相应的条件，使之展现出制度优势。因此，对于列宁而言，问题的关键在于如何在俄国落后的经济、社会和文化条件下建设社会主义。霍布斯鲍姆指出，这一问题又包含两个方面：第一，如何在落后的条件下建立一种符合生产力水平且能够推动生产力发展的生产关系？第二，生产力的发展和生产关系的建立如何体现在社会主义的政治目标和价值诉求上？前者表明了社会主义建设的本质要求，后者则体现了社会主义建设的价值指向。在这个意义上，十月革命所开创的道路本身具有试验性，敞开了多种可能的空间。无论哪一条社会主义道路，其成败最终都取决于能否正确处理主观能力与客观条件、现实制约与价值诉求之间的关系。

III. The Realist Logic of the October Revolution

三、十月革命的现实逻辑

As discussed above, Hobsbawm’s study of the October Revolution constitutes an organic whole with an internal logic. By distinguishing the historical logic from the theoretical logic of the October Revolution, Hobsbawm is able to clear up and transcend many of the misunderstandings present in previous research. It can be seen that opponents of the revolution often use the shortcomings of the later Soviet model as a pretext to deny the inevitability of the revolution’s occurrence, resorting to a kind of unhistorical “hindsight.” In Hobsbawm’s view, this is an anti-historical argument. Conversely, defenders sometimes rely on the revolution’s rationality within its historical context as a direct basis for arguing for the Soviet socialist path, resorting to the name of a certain historical choice, which also has the drawback of being overly simplistic. In fact, the October Revolution as a historical event and as a political path are neither mutually separate nor directly equivalent. Mutual separation would ignore the continuity of history and the subjectivity of political actors, while direct equivalence would overlook the objectivity of historical conditions and historical logic. To overcome these drawbacks, Hobsbawm’s research is dedicated to the dialectical application and dynamic development of Marxist thought and methods, attempting to truly grasp the core content and main tasks of the socialist revolution and construction path inaugurated by the October Revolution as it transforms from theoretical logic to practical logic, and from historical logic to realistic logic.

如上文所述，霍布斯鲍姆对十月革命的研究构成一个具有内在逻辑的有机整体，通过区分十月革命的历史逻辑与理论逻辑，霍布斯鲍姆得以对以往研究中存在的诸多误区加以清理和超越。可以看到，革命的反对者常常以后来苏联模式存在弊端为借口，否定革命发生的必然性，诉诸于某种非历史的“后见之明”。在霍布斯鲍姆看来，这是反历史的论证。相反，辩护者有时以革命在历史情境中的合理性为依据，直接作为论证苏联社会主义道路的基础，诉诸于某种历史选择的名义，这也具有过分简单化的弊端。事实上，作为历史事件与作为政治道路的十月革命既不是相互割裂的，也不能直接等同。相互割裂将无视历史的连续性和政治行动者的主体性，直接等同则忽视了历史条件和历史逻辑的客观性。为了克服上述弊端，霍布斯鲍姆的研究致力于对马克思主义的思想和方法的辩证运用和动态发展，试图真正把握十月革命开创的社会主义革命和建设道路由理论逻辑向实践逻辑、由历史逻辑向现实逻辑转换的核心内容和主要任务。

The value of thought often lies in observing reality from the heights of history and discerning clues from the circumstances of reality. Hobsbawm’s research proposes two criteria for measuring the socialist path inaugurated by the October Revolution — the “criterion of productive forces” and the “criterion of value” — and takes these as the fundamental foothold for exploring new paths of socialist development in the 21st century. The so-called “criterion of productive forces” refers to the fundamental stipulations made, based on the principles of historical materialism, regarding the essential requirements and limiting conditions of the socialist path. On the one hand, as Lenin said, the development of productive forces is “the main criterion for the whole of social development” [1]1 V. I. Lenin, “The Economic Content of Narodism and the Criticism of It in Mr. Struve’s Book” (1895), *Collected Works*, Vol. 1., that is, the prerequisite for achieving thorough social transformation, the primary manifestation of social progress, and the objective indicator of social development. On the other hand, the level of productive forces constitutes the most fundamental limiting condition of history. As Marx said: “Men make their own history, but they do not make it as they please; they do not make it under self-selected circumstances, but under circumstances existing already, given and transmitted from the past.” [2]2 Karl Marx, *The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte* (1852). Therefore, new relations of production cannot be artificially established in isolation from the limitations of productive forces; otherwise, they would transcend the historical stage and exceed objective capacity. Regarding this limiting nature of history, Marx provided the most incisive summary: “No social order is ever destroyed before all the productive forces for which it is sufficient have been developed, and new superior relations of production never replace older ones before the material conditions for their existence have matured within the framework of the old society.” [3]3 Karl Marx, “Preface” to *A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy* (1859). The so-called “criterion of value” is based on the political stance and value goals established according to the nature and fundamental purpose of socialism. On the one hand, historical materialism’s emphasis on limitation is not mechanical determinism; on the contrary, it fully respects human subjective initiative. As Hobsbawm states, “Marx did not rely on the spontaneous action of historical forces, but on political action within the possibilities provided by history.” Marx and Engels always believed that “the prospect after the revolution is a long, complex, by no means necessarily linear, and in fact currently unpredictable process of development.” “What form will the actual transfer of power and subsequent social transformation take? This depends on the degree of development of the proletariat and its movement. This development reflects both the level the proletariat has reached within the development of capitalism and the process by which the proletariat itself learns and matures through practice.” [4]4 Eric Hobsbawm, *How to Change the World: Marx and Marxism, 1840-2011* (2011). On the other hand, historical materialism holds that all the results of social development must ultimately be reflected through human development, and their success or failure can ultimately only be tested by the state of human development. The superiority of the socialist system is manifested not only in the high degree of progress of productive forces but also, and more importantly, in the comprehensive development of human beings; that is, constantly moving towards the association which, as Marx and Engels pointed out in the *Communist Manifesto*, will replace the old bourgeois society with its classes and class antagonisms, “in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all.” [5]5 Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, *The Communist Manifesto* (1848).

思想的价值往往在于从历史的高度关照现实，从现实的境遇中发现端倪。霍布斯鲍姆的研究提出了衡量十月革命开创的社会主义道路的两种尺度——“生产力尺度”和“价值尺度”，并将其作为探索21世纪社会主义新发展道路的根本立足点。所谓“生产力尺度”，是指基于历史唯物主义原理而对社会主义道路的本质要求和限定性条件做出的根本规定。一方面，正如列宁所说，生产力的发展是“整个社会发展的主要标准”，即实现社会彻底变革的前提条件、社会进步的最主要体现和社会发展的客观标志。另一方面，生产力水平又构成了历史最根本的限定性条件。正如马克思所说：“人们自己创造自己的历史，但是他们并不是随心所欲地创造，并不是在他们自己选定的条件下创造，而是在直接碰到的、既定的、从过去承继下来的条件下创造。”因此，新的生产关系不能脱离生产力的限定而人为地建立起来，否则便会超越历史阶段，超出客观能力。对于历史的这种限定性，马克思曾做过最为精辟的总结：“无论哪一个社会形态，在它所能容纳的全部生产力发挥出来以前，是决不会灭亡的；而新的更高的生产关系，在它的物质存在条件在旧社会的胎胞里成熟以前，是决不会出现的。”所谓“价值尺度”，则是基于社会主义的性质和根本宗旨而确立的政治立场和价值目标。一方面，历史唯物主义对于限定性的强调并非机械决定论，相反，它充分尊重人的主观能动性。正如霍布斯鲍姆所言，“马克思所依靠的不是历史力量的自发作用，而是在历史提供的可能范围内的政治行动”，马克思恩格斯始终认为“革命后的前景是一个漫长、复杂、绝不必然是线性的且实际上目前无法预测的发展过程”，“实际的权力转移和随后的社会改造将采取何种形式？这取决于无产阶级及其运动的发展程度。这种发展既反映了无产阶级在资本主义的发展中所达到的程度，又反映了无产阶级本身通过实践来学习和成熟的过程”。另一方面，历史唯物主义认为，社会发展的所有成果最终都要通过人的发展来反映，其成败得失最后也只能由人的发展状况来检验。社会主义制度的优越性不仅体现为生产力的高度进步，更应体现为人的全面发展，即不断趋向马克思恩格斯在《共产党宣言》中所指出的能够代替存在着阶级和阶级对立的资产阶级旧社会的联合体，“在那里，每个人的自由发展是一切人的自由发展的条件”。

In summary, under the above two criteria, the real question posed by the October Revolution and the socialist path it inaugurated is: How to understand and handle the relationship between human initiative and the limitations of historical conditions, between the insurmountable historical stage and the value orientation of socialism? On the one hand, as Marx’s above-mentioned “two inevitables” [6]6 A reference to Marx’s formulation in the “Preface” to *A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy* (1859), often summarized as “no social order ever perishes before all the productive forces for which it is sufficient have been developed, and new, higher relations of production never appear before the material conditions for their existence have matured in the womb of the old society.” indicate, when the “second form” of human history identified by Marx (“personal independence founded on objective [sachlicher] dependence”) has not been fully developed — that is, when “the system of universal social metabolism, universal relations, all-round needs and universal capacities” has not been fully developed (which itself is based on the high development of productive forces centered on the modern commodity economy) — a direct transition to a higher stage is impossible. On the other hand, when Marx emphasizes that “the second stage creates the conditions for the third stage,” his criteria for evaluating social action include not only objective conditions but also value orientation. In socialist practice, the “common, social productive capacity” nurtured in the historical process should take the initiative to create conditions for the “comprehensive development of individuals.” Therefore, Hobsbawm emphasizes that only by unifying the insurmountable task of the era (developing productive forces) with the value orientation of socialism (maintaining social fairness and justice and promoting the comprehensive development of human beings) can socialist practice maintain its vitality.

总而言之，在上述两种尺度之下，十月革命及其开创的社会主义道路提出的真正问题是：如何认识和处理人的主动性与历史条件的限定性、不可跨越的历史阶段与社会主义的价值取向之间的关系？一方面，正如马克思的上述“两个绝不会”所指明的，当马克思所说的人类历史的“第二大形式”（“以物的依赖性为基础的人的独立性”）没有得到充分发展时，即“普遍的社会物质变换、全面的关系、多方面的需求以及全面的能力的体系”没有得到充分发展时（而这又建立在以现代商品经济为核心的生产力高度发展的基础之上），是不能直接过渡到更高阶段的。另一方面，当马克思强调“第二阶段为第三阶段创造条件”时，他对社会行动的评价标准不仅包含着客观条件，而且包含着价值指向。在社会主义实践中，在历史过程中孕育的“共同的、社会的生产能力”应该发挥主动性，为“个人全面发展”创造条件。因此，霍布斯鲍姆强调，唯有将不可跨越的时代任务（发展生产力）与社会主义的价值定位（维护社会的公平正义和促进人的全面发展）相统一，社会主义实践才能保持活力。

(This article is a phased result of the National Social Science Fund Youth Project “Research on the Paradigm Shift in Marx’s Interpretation of the Origins of Capitalism and Its Contemporary Value” (21CKS012).)

（本文系国家社会科学基金青年项目“马克思对资本主义起源的解释范式转换及其当代价值研究”（21CKS012）的阶段性成果。）

(Author: Lan Yang, School of Marxism Studies, Renmin University of China; Research Platform for Contemporary Political Parties, Renmin University of China)

（作者：兰洋，中国人民大学马克思主义学院，中国人民大学当代政党研究平台）

Online Editor: Tongxin

网络编辑：同心