Engels’s Preliminary Exposition on the Particularity of the Path of Social Development in Russia

In the mid-1870s, “the torrent of Russian populism finally burst through the sluice gates of history,” and an inevitable “all-round encounter” with Marxism erupted. Pyotr Tkachev was a typical representative of the “insurrectionist” faction within the nineteenth-century Russian populists. His open polemic with Engels is a classic case of the full-scale confrontation between Russian populism and Marxism. The imminent Russian social revolution in Tkachev’s discourse was in essence a socialist revolution; that is, what Tkachev truly intended to express was that Russian society was moving toward revolution, toward socialist revolution, and that this revolution would break out earlier than the socialist revolution about to occur in Western European countries, and would therefore advance earlier than Western Europe to the state of social development long indicated by Western European socialist thought. The key question here is: given that the level of social development in Western Europe at the time was far more advanced than in Russian society after the emancipation of the serfs, and given that capitalist forms of social production in Russian society had only just begun to appear, and even then only sporadically and in a scattered manner—in a word, precisely when Russia’s capitalist development was at a low-level initial stage, and precisely when Russia’s bourgeoisie and proletariat were far from fully developed—why did Tkachev, a representative of the Russian populists, firmly believe in the 1870s that Russian society could achieve socialism earlier than Western European society? In the polemic between Friedrich Engels and Tkachev, the work *On the Social Question in Russia* and its introduction, from a critical perspective, forcefully refuted the conception of socialism held by Tkachev. At the same time, in the process of discovering the dawn of a new world within the critique of the old world, they offered a preliminary positive exposition of the particularity of the path of social development in Russia.

19世纪70年代中期，“俄国民粹主义的洪流终于冲开了历史的闸门”，与马克思主义的“全方位的遭遇”不可避免地爆发了。彼·特卡乔夫是19世纪俄国民粹派之“夺权派”的典型代表者。他与恩格斯的公开论战是俄国民粹主义与马克思主义全面交锋的经典案例。特卡乔夫话语中的即将到来的俄国社会革命实质上是一场社会主义革命，也就是说，特卡乔夫所欲真正表达的是俄国社会正在走向革命，正在走向社会主义革命，这场革命将会比西欧国家将要发生的社会主义革命爆发得早，进而会比西欧国家更早地前进到西欧社会主义思想早已指出的社会发展状态。那么，此处的关键问题是在当时西欧社会发展程度远比农奴制改革后的俄国社会更为先进的情况下，在俄国社会只是刚刚开始出现资本主义的社会生产形式而且还是零零星星地、分散地出现的情况下，一句话，正是在俄国社会的资本主义发展刚刚处于低层次的初始阶段时，正是在俄国的资产阶级和无产阶级还远未得到充分发展时，为什么俄国民粹派的代表人物特卡乔夫在19世纪的70年代就坚定地认为俄国社会能比西欧社会更早地实现社会主义呢？在弗里德里希·恩格斯与特卡乔夫论战中形成的《论俄国的社会问题》及其导言基于批判视角对特卡乔夫所持的社会主义观进行了有力驳斥，与此同时又在批判旧世界中发现新世界之曙光，对俄国社会发展道路的特殊性问题进行了初步的正面阐述。

I. Critique of Tkachev’s Conception of Socialism

一、批判特卡乔夫所持的社会主义观

The core of Tkachev’s conception of socialism was: “It is true that we have no urban proletariat; but neither do we have a bourgeoisie.” Consequently, Russian workers need not struggle against a capital power that does not exist, or against a capital power still in its embryonic, weak state; they need only struggle against political power. Compared with a power built on capital, the struggle against political power would be far smoother and easier. Therefore, Russia would achieve social revolution and reach a socialist state far more smoothly and easily than Western Europe.

特卡乔夫所持的社会主义观，其核心是“我们这里没有城市无产阶级，这的确是事实；然而我们这里也没有资产阶级”，因而俄国工人不必去同根本不存在的资本权力，或仍处于萌芽状态的、微弱的资本权力进行斗争，只需要同政治权力进行斗争即可；与建筑在资本上的权力相比较，同政治权力的斗争会顺利得多、容易得多，因此，俄国也就会比西欧顺利得多地、容易得多地实现社会革命，达到社会主义状态。

1. Social Revolution in the Proper Sense. In “the first important document in the history of scientific socialism to discuss the Russian social question,” Engels criticized Tkachev’s conception of socialism from the perspective of tracing it to its source. He argued that the social revolution—that is, social transformation—pursued by socialism in the proper sense is in essence “the victory of the proletariat over the bourgeoisie and the establishment of a new social organization through the abolition of all class distinctions.” Engels’s definition of the social revolution or transformation desired by socialism implies that the genuine realization of socialism must first of all have a fundamental prerequisite: the proletariat and the bourgeoisie must be real entities, and by no means merely illusory entities in the mind. Secondly, a basic condition that must be met is that the state of existence of the proletariat and the bourgeoisie themselves is, in world history, in a state of forward motion. Thirdly, this state of forward motion should gradually approach or reach a certain level of development; in other words, the development of the proletariat itself must have reached or be approaching a level where it has the real capacity to defeat the bourgeoisie and assume the world-historical mission of replacing the bourgeoisie. At the same time, the development of the bourgeoisie itself must have driven the overall level of social productive forces to a degree sufficient to realize social revolution.

1.本来意义上的社会革命。恩格斯在“科学社会主义史上论述俄国社会问题的首篇重要文献”中从正本清源的视角对特卡乔夫所持的社会主义观进行了批判，认为本来意义上的社会主义所追求的社会革命，也就是社会变革，其实质是“无产阶级战胜资产阶级，以及通过消灭一切阶级差别来建立新的社会组织”。恩格斯对社会主义所欲求之社会革命或变革的界定意味着社会主义之真正实现必须首先具备一个根本前提，即无产阶级和资产阶级必须是一种真实存在物，而绝不应当仅仅是一种头脑中的虚幻存在物；其次，需要具备的一个基本条件是无产阶级和资产阶级自身的存在状态在世界历史中都是正处于向前运动之状态；再次，这一向前运动之状态应逐步地接近或达到这样一种发展程度，换言之，无产阶级自身的发展已发展到或接近发展到有现实的能力来战胜资产阶级，取代资产阶级的世界历史使命，与此同时，资产阶级自身的发展已把社会生产力的总体水平推动到能足以实现社会革命的程度。

2. The True Pursuit of Modern Socialism. The reason this is necessary is that modern socialism pursues a social state in which class distinctions have been abolished. The information conveyed by the phrase “have been abolished” is that human society in the past once existed, at a certain stage of development, in a state without class distinctions. For example, every nation, in its earliest period of development, passed through a stage of social development that, while lacking class distinctions, was overall in a barbaric or semi-barbaric state. Although such a stage of social development, because it lacked class distinctions, is infinitely yearned for by modern people, the modern proletariat does not seek to return to this stage of social development. This is because in such a society, social production and the social productive forces it contains either do not exist at all, or, if they do exist, are in an embryonic state of development at an extremely low overall level, and therefore are almost entirely incapable of satisfying even the most basic human needs. At the same time, it is also because such a social state either stagnates, remaining in a primitive state and maintaining the status quo; or it regresses to a purely natural state without sociologically meaningful human existence; or it continues to develop forward on its original basis. And as long as the social state continues to develop forward, this indicates that the social productive forces, which continuously provide the fundamental driving force for this forward development, are constantly growing. This sustained growth, whether slow or fast, will inevitably cause class distinctions to emerge from within the classless human society itself.

2.现代社会主义的真实追求。之所以必须如此，这是因为，现代社会主义所追求的是一种消灭了阶级差别的社会状态，此处的“消灭了”透露出的信息是以前的人类社会曾经在某一发展阶段上存在过无阶级差别的状态，例如，每一民族在其发展的最初时期都曾有过虽然不存在阶级差别但却整体上处于野蛮、半野蛮状态的社会发展阶段。这样的社会发展阶段虽然因其不存在阶级差别而令现代人无限向往，但是现代无产阶级却并不是要重新走上这一社会发展阶段，因为这样的社会，其社会生产及其蕴含着的社会生产力根本不存在，即使存在，也是处于总体水平极为低下的萌芽式发展状态，因而几乎完全不能满足人的哪怕是最基本的需要。同时，也是因为这样的社会状态要么徘徊不前，一直处于原始状态，维持现状；要么就倒退到并不存在任何社会状态的没有社会学意义上的人存在的纯粹自然状态；要么就在原有基础上继续向前发展，而社会状态只要继续向前发展，也就表明为这种继续向前发展不断提供根本动力的社会生产力在不断地增长，这个持续的增长或慢或快地必然要使无阶级差别的人类社会自身生成出阶级差别来。

3. Human Society Should Continue to Evolve Forward. Once human society itself has advanced from a state entirely without class distinctions to a state where class distinctions exist, it cannot, solely by the power of human subjective will, or solely by human subjective feelings of liking the absence of class distinctions and disliking their existence, retreat back to the previous classless state. Socialism as defined by Engels holds that human society should not turn back and retreat to a classless state, because such a retreat is detrimental to the fundamental interests of humanity itself. Only by continuing to advance, to develop forward, and thereby gradually reaching or approaching a communist society without classes, is it most beneficial to the existence of humanity itself. To reach or approach such a social state, it is necessary to investigate the fundamental cause, or fundamental driving force, of human society’s transition from a classless state to a state where classes exist. This fundamental driving force, as discussed above, is social productive forces themselves; more precisely, it is the existence of social productive forces and their sustained growth. In other words, there is a profound correspondence between social productive forces and the state of existence of human society: when social productive forces do not exist or are at an extremely low level, human society correspondingly either does not exist at all or is in a classless state; when social productive forces have developed to a certain extent, but the overall level is still relatively low, class divisions appear in human society, and class distinctions emerge; when social productive forces continue to grow, to a very high level, even to a level far higher than the productive forces of the most developed modern capitalist society, then it becomes possible for human society, and it acquires the capacity, to push social production to a particularly high level. Only then can it truly, and in a way that meets humanity’s fundamental needs, abolish classes and their distinctions; only then can it transform the lofty ideal of abolishing classes and their distinctions into a genuine reality; only then can it make this abolition an abolition that promotes social progress, and provide it with a real material basis for its sustainability. However, the living reality of world historical development tells us that the highly developed social productive forces that provide the real material basis for this abolition and its sustainability have only been developed to such a high degree within the bourgeoisie; only within bourgeois society has the real and genuine need for social revolution gradually emerged. Yet, ironically, the bourgeoisie itself cannot truly bear this real and genuine need; therefore, the burden of world-historical social revolution naturally falls upon the proletariat. Thus, it can be seen that both the bourgeoisie and the proletariat are necessary fundamental conditions for the realization of socialist revolution; they are “a necessary precondition.”

3.人类社会应继续向前演进。人类社会自身一旦从毫无阶级差别的状态前进到具有阶级差别存在的状态，就不能再仅凭人的主观意志力量，不能再仅凭人的喜好无阶级差别而厌恶阶级差别的主观感情，重新退回到以前的无阶级状态。恩格斯界定的社会主义认为，人类社会不应是要重新转身后退，退回到无阶级状态，因为这个后退是不利于人类自身根本利益的；只有继续前进，向前发展，进而逐步达到或接近达到无阶级存在的共产主义才是最有利于人类自身之存在的；而要达到或接近达到这样的社会状态，就需要探究人类社会从无阶级状态进入到阶级存在状态的根本原因，或根本推动力。这个根本推动力，上面已谈到，就是社会生产力自身，准确地说，就是社会生产力的存在及其持续的增长。换言之，社会生产力与人类社会的存在状态存在着深刻的对应关系，即社会生产力不存在或水平极为低下时，相应地，人类社会根本不存在或处于无阶级状态；社会生产力得到一定程度的发展，然而总体水平仍然较低时，人类社会出现了阶级分野，产生了阶级差别；社会生产力继续增长，增长到很高的程度，增长到甚至比现代最发达的资本主义社会的生产力还高得多的程度时，人类社会才有可能，也才有能力把社会生产推进到特别高的水平，进而才能真正地、符合人类根本需要地消灭阶级及其差别之存在，才能变消灭阶级及其差别的远大理想为真实的现实，才能使得这一消灭成为推动社会进步的消灭，使得这一消灭能够具有维持其可持续性的现实的物质基础。但是，世界历史发展的活生生的现实告诉我们，为这一消灭及其可持续性提供现实物质基础的高度发达的社会生产力只有在资产阶级那里才增长到了这样高的程度，只有在资产阶级那里社会自身才逐步产生出来实现社会革命的现实且真实之需要。然而，具有讽刺意味的是，这样的现实且真实之需要，资产阶级自己并不能真正承担起来，因而，世界历史的社会革命之重担就自然而然地需要由无产阶级承担起来。可见，资产阶级和无产阶级都是实现社会主义革命所必需的根本条件，是“一个必要的先决条件”。

II. The Prospect of the Path of Social Development in Russia Has Already Shown a Clear Revolutionary Tendency

二、俄国社会发展道路的前景已呈现出明朗的革命趋势

*On the Social Question in Russia* and its Introduction adopt the form of positive exposition within theoretical critique. In the process of criticizing Tkachev’s conception of socialism and his idea that Russia possesses a unique advantage enabling it to realize socialism before Western Europe, Engels positively expounds his own understanding of the prospects for Russia’s social development. Engels argues that under the conditions where, during Russia’s 1861 serfdom reform, the peasants’ interests were fundamentally damaged and their existential predicament increasingly worsened, where Russia’s state finances were deteriorating day by day, the foundation of agricultural production was shaken, and the state’s political power organs were increasingly corrupt, the prospects for Russia’s social development path had already revealed an obvious and clear trend: “the Russian revolution is drawing ever nearer.”

《论俄国的社会问题》及其导言采取在理论批判中正面阐述的形式，在对特卡乔夫所持社会主义观、俄国具有能先于西欧实现社会主义的独特优势思想进行批判的过程中正面阐述了恩格斯关于俄国社会发展前景问题的认识。恩格斯认为在俄国1861年农奴制改革过程中农民利益根本受损、生存困境日益加重的情况下，在俄国国家财政日益恶化、农业生产的基础遭到动摇、国家政治权力机构日益腐化的情况下，俄国社会发展道路的前景已呈现出显而易见的明朗趋势，“俄国革命正在日益迫近”。

1. Analysis of the Causes of the Clear Revolutionary Trend. The theoretical analysis of the fundamental causes of the already clear revolutionary trend in Russia’s social development is precisely embodied in Engels’s critique of Tkachev’s populist conception of socialism, which bears Russian characteristics.

1.明朗革命趋势的原因分析。对俄国社会发展已呈现出明朗革命趋势的根本原因之理论分析正是体现在恩格斯批判特卡乔夫所持的具有俄国特点的民粹的社会主义观之中。

First, as the Tsarist government forcefully pushed forward the serfdom reform aimed at developing the capitalist mode of production, backward Russia was gradually giving birth to a modern bourgeoisie and, correspondingly, a modern proletariat. A particularly obvious fact is that the modern proletariat was bound to come primarily from the new-style serfs who, having just obtained liberation from the Tsarist government from the bondage of serfdom, immediately fell into the miserable situation of being unable to survive. The old-style serfs, who had long survived under Tsarist autocratic power, were declared liberated by their rulers, and then gradually and increasingly fell into a difficult situation where they could not obtain basic means of subsistence, becoming proletarians, becoming new-style serfs subjected to the joint oppression of the Tsarist government and the nascent modern capital and its power, and thus gradually and increasingly “transformed” into modern proletarians, into a modern proletariat. Tkachev’s declaration in his open letter that “it is indeed a fact that we have no urban proletariat here; however, we also have no bourgeoisie here” is undoubtedly a denial of the basic historical trend and historical facts unfolding right before his eyes.

第一，随着沙皇政府强力推行旨在发展资本主义生产方式的农奴制改革，落后的俄国正逐步地孕育出现代资产阶级以及与之相对应的现代无产阶级。一个特别明显的事实是现代无产阶级必定是主要来自刚从农奴制的奴役中获得来自沙皇政府的解放又旋即陷入到无法生存之悲惨境地的新式农奴之中。长期在沙皇专制权力下生存的旧式农奴由他们的统治者宣布解放，进而逐步加速地陷入到无法获取基本生存资料的艰难境地，成为无产者，成为受到沙皇政府和正在孕育中的现代资本及其权力联合压迫的新式农奴，进而逐步加速地“变形”为现代无产者、现代无产阶级。特卡乔夫在公开信中宣称的“我们这里没有城市无产者，这的确是事实；然而我们这里也没有资产阶级”，毫无疑问地是违背正在他眼皮底下发生的基本历史趋势和历史事实的。

Second, in the 1860s and 1870s, with the forceful implementation of the serfdom reform, capitalist industry began to gestate and develop in certain specific regions and specific sectors, and this meant the gestation and development of the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. There is no doubt that the ongoing gestation of the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, their accelerated gestation, had already become a most basic historical fact, a most basic historical existence, and was increasingly displaying particularly vigorous potential for forward development on Russian soil.

第二，19世纪60、70年代，随着农奴制改革的强力推行，资本主义性质的工业开始在一些特定地区、特定部门孕育和发展起来，而这也就意味着资产阶级和无产阶级的孕育和发展。毋庸置疑，资产阶级和无产阶级的正在孕育，加速地孕育，已经成为一个最基本的历史事实，一个最基本的历史存在，并且正在俄国的大地上日益展现出特别旺盛的向前发展之潜力。

Third, the bourgeoisie, as the transformer and metamorphosis of previous exploiting classes, always steps onto the historical stage earlier than the proletariat, takes the lead in grasping the advanced productive forces of an era, and becomes more powerful than the proletariat. Therefore, the awakening of the proletariat and its conscious organization into a class, and then its victory over the bourgeoisie, is a long historical process requiring arduous struggle. The same applies to the gestating and developing proletariat in Russia. At the same time, special attention must be paid to the fact that the gestation and development of the Russian bourgeoisie at that time was in a historical period of ascent, still possessing ample space and time for growth.

第三，资产阶级作为以往各类剥削阶级的转化者和变形者，总是比无产阶级更早地登上历史舞台，率先掌握住一个时代的先进生产力，变得比无产阶级更有力量，因此，无产阶级的觉醒并自觉地组织为阶级，进而战胜资产阶级，是一个长期的需要历经艰苦奋斗的历史过程。俄国正在孕育和发展的无产阶级亦是如此。同时，需要特别留意的是，当时俄国的资产阶级的孕育及其发展正处于历史上升期，还具有旺盛的生长空间和时间。

Furthermore, as a backward Eastern country, Russia’s historical traditions, cultural customs, stage of social development, etc., exhibited clear differences from Western society. These factors already contained a basic fact: that Russia’s social development path must possess particularities distinguishing it from the West. In short, at this time in Russia, the prospects for its social development path had already become clear, accelerating its evolution in the direction of social revolution.

此外，俄国作为一个东方落后国家，其历史传统、文化习俗、社会发展阶段等等与西方社会存在明显的差异。这些因素已经蕴藏着一个基本事实，即俄国社会发展道路必定有其区别于西方的特殊性。简言之，此时的俄国，其社会发展道路的前景已明朗化，正在朝着社会革命的方向加速演进。

2. Multi-Dimensional Predictions of the Clear Revolutionary Trend. In the polemic surrounding the “particularity of the Russian revolution,” Engels criticized Tkachev’s conception of socialism and his view of social revolution, while simultaneously conducting a multi-dimensional analysis of the nascent Russian social revolution in accordance with the historical conditions of the time. He dismissed Tkachev’s claim that the Russian revolution would be a social revolution as a tautology devoid of any practical significance, emphatically pointing out that the crux of the matter was to seriously investigate what social results this impending Russian revolution might bring about, and other such practical questions. Engels argued that every genuine revolution is, in essence, necessarily a social revolution of great social significance, because every genuine revolution with historical impetus pushes new social forces, new social classes, onto the central position of the historical stage of social structure, placing them in a dominant and key position. This enables these new social forces, manifested in class form, to fully utilize their potential or actual social conditions to reshape society according to the image of their own class, prompting society to adapt, faster or slower, to the fundamental interests of their class and to meet the fundamental needs of their class. Such a genuine social revolution with historical impetus must be a comprehensive, multi-dimensional, and holistic revolution encompassing economic revolution, political revolution, and so on, and absolutely not a one-sided, single-dimensional, or partial revolution including only economic revolution or political revolution.

2.明朗革命趋势的多维度预想。在围绕“俄国革命特殊性”展开的论战中，恩格斯批判了特卡乔夫的社会主义观及其社会革命观，同时对正在孕育中的俄国社会革命进行了符合当时历史条件的多维度分析。他把特卡乔夫所称俄国革命将是社会革命的说法斥之为毫无任何实际意义的同义反复，着重指出问题的实质是认真探究这场正在到来的俄国革命可能会引起何种社会结果等等现实问题，认为每一次真正的革命实质上都将必然是一次具有重大社会意义的社会革命，这是因为每一次真正的具有历史推动意义的革命都会把新的社会力量，新的社会阶级，推上社会结构这个历史大舞台的中心位置，使之处于占统治的关键地位，进而使这个新的表现为阶级形式的社会力量充分运用自己手中的或可能或现实的社会条件依据自己阶级的面貌来改造社会，促使社会或快或慢地适合自己阶级的根本利益和满足自己阶级的根本需要。这样的真正的具有历史推动意义的社会革命必将是一个包括经济革命、政治革命在内的全面的、多维度的、整体性革命，而绝不是一个仅仅包括经济革命或政治革命在内的片面的、单一维度的、局部性革命。

3. One Economic Dimension of the Russian Revolutionary Trend: The Artel

三、俄国革命趋势的经济维度之一：劳动组合

Engels’s assessment of the prospects for Russia’s social development had an overall judgment: Russia was moving towards revolution. As for the basic features of the revolution and the results it might bring, further observation was needed. The economic aspect of this impending Russian revolution, that is, the economic revolution, first involved the mysterious artel, which Tkachev claimed existed universally in both the non-agricultural and agricultural sectors in Russia.

恩格斯对俄国社会发展前景的估计有一个总体判断，即俄国正在走向革命，至于革命的基本样貌，革命可能引起的结果，需要继续进行进一步的观察。这个即将出现的俄国革命，其经济方面，也就是经济革命，首先涉及到特卡乔夫所说的在俄国普遍存在着的非农业领域和农业领域共同存在着的具有神秘性的劳动组合。

1. The So-Called Mystery of the Artel in Tkachev’s Discourse and Its Demystification. Tkachev believed that the artel was a unique advantage enabling Russia to realize socialism before Western Europe, and moreover, a unique advantage possessing a certain mysterious quality. However, he only briefly touched upon this mysterious unique advantage for the Western European working class, especially the German working class, without discussing in detail what the mystery of this unique advantage actually was. To clarify the mystery of the artel, and thereby effectively criticize Tkachev’s idea that the artel was a unique advantage possessed by Russia but not by Western Europe, and further criticize his idea that Russia could realize socialism before Western Europe, Engels, through his own research on the artel itself, fully demystified the notion, long held in the minds of many Russians, that the artel possessed a certain unique mystery. The artel had long become a universal form of cooperation in Russia. (Public account: Marxist Theory Research) This form of cooperation, due to its inherent nature of free association and its simple external structural form, appeared quite similar to the free cooperative form, sometimes dispersed and sometimes concentrated, typically adopted by hunting peoples when hunting. In the eyes of many Russians, such an artel undoubtedly must have originated from the Slavic peoples and was then brought to other parts of Russia along with the Slavic peoples’ eastward and westward expeditions. However, this understanding is not definitive; even if it were definitive, it would not necessarily be historical fact, because there are other powerful explanations for the origin of the artel. The artel was not unique to the Slavic people within Russia, nor was it unique to Russia from a global perspective. The inherent free nature and simple composition of the artel are a full expression of its internal spontaneity, which implies that the level of development of the artel itself was still very low and required further development. It also implies that it was precisely this innate spontaneity that made it easier for the artel, in its still very underdeveloped stage, to manifest its universality of existence.

1.劳动组合在特卡乔夫话语中的所谓神秘性及其解密。特卡乔夫认为劳动组合是俄国能先于西欧实现社会主义的一个独特优势，而且是一个具有某种神秘性的独特优势。然而，他只是向西欧工人阶级，特别是向德国工人阶级稍微涉及到这个带有神秘感的独特优势，并未详细地去谈这个独特优势的神秘性到底为何的问题。为了弄清劳动组合的神秘性之所在，进而能有力地批判特卡乔夫所持的劳动组合是西欧所不具有但却为俄国所独有的独特优势思想，再进而批判他所持的俄国能先于西欧实现社会主义思想，恩格斯通过对劳动组合本身进行的研究，充分解密了长期以来在很多俄国人的思想中存在着的劳动组合具有某种独特神秘性的观念。劳动组合早已成为俄国的一种具有普遍性的合作形式，（公众号：马克思主义理论研究）这种合作形式因其具有自由组合的内在本性和简单的外在结构形式，因而看起来与狩猎民族通常在打猎时所采取的那种时而分散时而集中的自由合作形式十分类似。这样的劳动组合在许多俄国人看来，毋庸置疑地必然是从斯拉夫民族中产生出来的，然后伴随着斯拉夫民族的东征西讨被带到了俄罗斯的其他地方。然而，这样的认识并非定论，即使是定论也不一定就是历史事实，因为还有其他的关于劳动组合之起源的有力说明。劳动组合不仅在俄国国内不是为斯拉夫族所独有，而且从世界范围看，也不是为俄国所独有的。劳动组合本身具有的自由本性和简单的构成方式是对其内在自发性的充分表达，这也就意味着组合本身的发展程度还很低，还需要继续发展，同时也意味着正是这种与生俱来的自发性推动着组合在其所处的还很不发展的阶段上更容易呈现出其存在的普遍性。

2. The *artel*[5]5 匈牙利革命 — the Hungarian Revolution of 1848-1849: a revolt of the Hungarian nation against Habsburg rule, which was crushed with the military intervention of tsarist Russia in 1849. must continue to develop forward. In his critique, Engels exposes the mystification surrounding the *artel* in such matters as its discovery, its uniqueness, and its advanced nature, and thereby holds that this still very underdeveloped form of cooperative does possess a factual universality and predominance in Russia, and that it can indeed indicate the existence among the Russian people, and especially among the emerging working class, of a good will aspiring to association. Nevertheless, this does not simply or directly mean that, relying on such subjective forces alone, they can “leap directly” on the basis of the *artel* into the socialist society for which the West European working class is still striving and which has not yet been realized. What is needed here is not a direct leap, not a direct leap on the existing basis of the *artel*, but a gradual transition, a gradual transition on the basis of a transformed, developed new *artel*. That is to say, the *artel* itself must first of all not regress, not regress to the dispersed, each-fending-for-itself state that preceded the *artel*; with this fundamental precondition in place, the *artel* must hold fast to the trend of its own continued forward development. To truly achieve this, the *artel* must gradually and consciously overcome its own constantly generated spontaneous nature, overcome the form it has adopted which ostensibly serves the workers but in fact benefits the capitalists more; furthermore, the Russian *artel* must develop at least to the same level as the existing cooperatives in Western Europe. Compared with the cooperatives already existing in Western Europe, the Russian *artel* was still very backward until the 1870s, and had not yet generated the consciousness and capacity suited to organizing large-scale industry. Therefore, under the circumstances where large-scale industry in Russia—the capitalist large-scale industry vigorously fostered by the tsarist government—had only just begun to develop but was nonetheless developing rapidly and forcefully, the survival and development of the *artel* faced an increasingly severe situation. If it did not continue to develop, continue to improve, continue to perfect, it would very likely, even inevitably, be swallowed up by capitalist large-scale industry.

2.劳动组合需要继续向前发展。恩格斯在批判中揭露了劳动组合在诸如发现问题、独有问题、先进性问题等方面的神秘性，进而认为劳动组合这种还很不发展的合作社形式在俄国具有事实存在上的普遍性优势，确实能够表明俄国人民、尤其是正在出现的工人阶级的思想中存在着渴望联合的良好愿望，然而，这并不简单地、直接地意味着他们只依赖这样的主观力量就可以在劳动组合的基础上“直接跳入”西欧工人阶级正在为之努力的也还未实现的社会主义社会。这里需要的不是直接跳入，不是在劳动组合的现有基础上直接跳入，而是逐步地过渡，在经过改造、经过发展的新的劳动组合的基础上逐步地过渡，也就是说，劳动组合本身首先应不至于后退，后退到劳动组合产生之前的分散的、各自为战状态；在这个根本前提条件具备的情况下，劳动组合应坚守住自身能够继续向前发展的趋势，而要真正做到这一点，劳动组合就应逐步地、有意识地克服它自身不断产生着的自发本性，克服所采取的那种形式上服务于工人、事实上却更有利于资本家的形式；进而，俄国的劳动组合应至少发展到与西欧现有的合作社同样的程度。与西欧已有的合作社相比，俄国的劳动组合直到19世纪70时代还是很落后的，还没有产生出与组织大工业相适应的意识和能力，因此，在俄国的大工业，沙皇政府大力扶植的资本主义大工业，刚开始发展然而毕竟是正在快速有力发展的情况下，劳动组合的生存和发展面临着愈益严峻的形势，如果不继续发展、继续提高、继续完善的话，很可能要甚至必然要被资本主义大工业所吞没。

IV. The Second Economic Dimension of the Russian Revolutionary Trend: The Russian Commune

四、俄国革命趋势的经济维度之二：俄国公社

Concerning the economic aspect of the impending Russian revolution, there is also the commune widespread in the Russian countryside mentioned by Tkachev, and the mysterious communal land ownership it embodies. Engels adopts the same line of reasoning as in his analysis of the *artel*: through critique, he exposes the mystification surrounding this Russian rural communal land ownership in such matters as its origin, its uniqueness to Russia, and its advanced nature—mystifications of the kind Tkachev propagated—and then points out two possible but mutually opposing prospects for development that this communal land ownership itself is facing.

关于即将发生的俄国革命之经济方面，还涉及到特卡乔夫所说的在俄国农村普遍存在着的公社及其采取的具有神秘性的土地公社所有制。恩格斯采取了与分析劳动组合相同的思路，在批判中揭露了俄国农村土地公社所有制在诸如由来问题、俄国独有问题、先进性问题等方面所具有的如特卡乔夫所宣扬的那样的神秘性，进而指出了这一土地公社所有制自身正面临着的两个可能然而却是相互对立的发展前景。

1. The Prospect of a Tendency toward Disintegration. Tkachev believed that the spirit of collective ownership embodied in Russian communal land ownership was intimately bound up with the spiritual world of the Russian peasant, and therefore the Russian government could only eradicate the spirit of collective ownership from the spiritual world of the Russian peasant by employing political coercive means such as bayonets and the knout, and thereby gradually eliminate communal land ownership entirely. Engels holds that this land system does possess the possibility of tending toward disintegration, based mainly on two factors: first, internal factors within the land system itself; second, external factors outside this land system.

1.趋向解体之可能性发展前景。特卡乔夫认为俄国土地公社所有制体现出来的集体所有制精神是与俄国农民的精神世界紧密结合在一起的，因而俄国政府只有运用诸如刺刀和皮鞭等的政治强制手段才能使俄国农民从他们的精神世界中祛除集体所有制精神，进而逐渐把土地公社所有制消灭干净。恩格斯认为这一土地制度存在着趋向解体之可能，主要基于两方面因素：一是这一土地制度自身的内部因素，二是该土地制度之外的外部因素。

Concerning the former: “Russia continues to develop in the direction of the bourgeoisie.”[6]6 德意志第一帝国 — the First German Empire: the German nation-state established under Prussian leadership in 1871, also known as the German Reich or the Kaiserreich. Even without coercive government intervention, the fate of the rural commune’s land system is precarious. Here, the trend of Russian society continuing to develop in the direction of capitalism manifests itself within the rural commune mainly as follows: although the land is still owned by the commune, it is periodically redistributed among the families composing the commune, and each family then cultivates the land allotted to it; correspondingly, in line with this practice of separate cultivation, the fruits of cultivation also belong to each family. Such a practice of agricultural production provides the possibility for different families and members within the commune to produce different, even vastly different, results of labor based on their own differing conditions, and thereby provides the possibility for the emergence of serious differentiation in wealth within the commune. In fact, the situation of serious differentiation in wealth among members within the commune does indeed exist. “Almost everywhere,” there are indeed, generally, a few very wealthy members within the commune who are on the path to rapidly accumulating wealth by usury to other members.

关于前者，“俄国向资产阶级的方向继续发展”，即使没有政府的强制干预，农村公社的土地制度也是命运堪忧。这里，俄国社会继续向资本主义方向发展的趋势，在农村公社内部主要体现为：土地虽然仍为公社所有，可是却会不定期地在组成公社的各个家庭间进行分配，然后各家庭各自耕种分配到自己手中的土地，相应地，与这种各自耕种的做法相匹配，耕种所得的劳动成果亦为各家庭所有。农业生产的这样的做法为公社内部各家庭、各成员基于自身不同条件产生出不同的、甚至是很大不同的劳动成果提供了可能性空间，进而为公社内部产生出富裕程度上的严重分化提供了可能性空间。事实上，公社内部成员间富裕程度严重分化的情形也的确存在。“几乎在一切地方”，公社内部确实普遍性地存在着几个十分富裕的社员，他们正在走向通过向其他社员放高利贷的方式以快速积累财富的道路。

Concerning the latter: the most important influencing factor is the policy of redemption of quit-rent and land allocation adopted by the Russian tsarist government since 1861, which was highly unfavorable to the rural commune system.[7]7 三次共同瓜分波兰 — the three partitions of Poland: the successive annexations of Polish territory by Russia, Prussia, and Austria in 1772, 1793, and 1795, which eliminated the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth from the map of Europe. This series of reform policies, with a very clear tendency, is bringing increasingly severe consequences for the peasants: with respect to land, the landlords have gained a clear advantage over the peasants in both quantity and quality, while the peasants can only obtain land that is barely sufficient—and often not truly sufficient—to support their families; with respect to forests, ownership of this resource has been completely handed over to the landlords, and the peasants have lost their former natural right to free access to timber, and must now pay a fee they never had to pay before. Thus, squeezed by the tsarist government in terms of the resources essential for their livelihood—land, forests, etc.—the peasants have fallen into a difficult situation where their basic subsistence is hard to maintain. Moreover, they must also bear the economic exploitation of taxes from local administrative organs and interest from speculative usurious moneylenders. In short, under multiple oppressions, they can no longer easily regard the small plots of land in their hands as a gift of grace from the 1861 reform; instead, they are increasingly seeing them as the root cause of their particularly harsh existence. Therefore, abandoning this source of hardship, trying to escape the rural commune, and “earning a living as day laborers” are increasingly becoming the common means for peasants to escape their difficult life.

关于后者，最主要的影响因素是俄国沙皇政府自1861年以来采取的十分不利于农村公社所有制的赎免徭役和土地分配政策。这一系列倾向性十分明显的改革政策给农民正在带来日益严重的后果：土地方面，地主无论是在数量上还是质量上都获得了明显优于农民的优势，农民只能得到仅仅够、通常是并不能真正赖以养家糊口的土地；森林方面，这一资源的所有权被完全交到了地主那里，农民则失去了像以往那样免费取用林木的天然权利，只得再付出一笔以前不曾付出过的费用。这样，农民就在土地、森林等赖以为生的资源方面遭到沙皇政府压榨的情况下，陷入到了基本生活难以为继的艰难境地。此外，他们还不得不承受着来自地方管理机关之捐税、投机的高利贷商人之利息的经济盘剥。简言之，在重重压迫之下，他们已很难再把手中的小块土地看作1861年改革带来的恩赐之宝，而是正在越来越把它看作造成他们生活特别困苦的根源。所以，舍弃这个生活困苦之源泉，设法逃离农村公社，“靠做短工谋生”，日益成为农民摆脱生活困苦的常用方式。

2. The Prospect of a Tendency toward Continued Development and Transformation into a Higher Form of Social Organization. While recognizing that the Russian communal land ownership system faces the possible prospect of tending toward disintegration, Engels does not absolutize this one possibility, treating it as something absolutely bound to happen. Instead, he adopts a dialectical attitude, holding that the Russian communal land ownership system also possesses another possible prospect: it may continue to develop forward and thereby transform into a higher form of social organization.

2.趋向继续发展进而转变为高级社会组织之可能性发展前景。恩格斯在认识到俄国的土地公社所有制存在着趋向解体之可能前景的同时，并没有把这一种可能前景绝对化，看成是绝对要发生的事，而是采取了一种辩证的态度，认为俄国土地公社公有制还存在着另一种可能前景，即它可能会继续向前发展，进而转变为一种高级形式的社会组织。

Here, he uses two conditional clauses of the “as long as” type, that is, “as long as” the communal ownership of land can continue to exist, until the moment when sufficient conditions permit it to transform from a lower form to a higher form; “as long as” the communal ownership of land can change the mode of land cultivation, from individual cultivation to collective cultivation, joint cultivation, and then continue to develop forward under the latter mode of cultivation. In other words, once these conditions are in place, it is possible that Russia’s communal ownership of land will not disintegrate, and thereby regress to an intermediate stage of development such as a dispersed, small-scale capitalist form of land ownership, but instead, on the basis of communal ownership of land and joint land cultivation, continue to develop and transform into a higher form of social organization. In a word, if these conditions are met, the developmental prospect of Russia’s communal ownership of land will obtain a possibility of transformation from a lower form to a higher form, and thereby realize this transformation. However, it must be noted that the occurrence of such a possible prospect still requires conditions, a fundamental and prerequisite basic condition. Here, Engels uses the word “only” and the word “then” to emphasize the extreme importance of this condition, holding that “only” when this condition is met “then” will the above possible prospect arise. This condition, in brief, is the proletarian revolution in Western Europe; more specifically, the proletarian revolution in Western Europe and Russia’s communal ownership of land are closely linked. Under the circumstances where Russia’s communal ownership of land is tending toward disintegration, the Western European proletariat should achieve revolutionary victory before Russia’s communal ownership of land completely disintegrates, and then, on this premise, promptly provide the Russian peasants with the conditions necessary for developing communal ownership of land into a higher form, especially those material conditions urgently needed for the agricultural and institutional changes that must be implemented in the course of such development and transformation.

在这里，他连用了两个“只要”式的条件句，也就是，“只要”土地公社所有制能够继续存在下去，存在到有充分的条件允许它从低级形式向高级形式转变的时刻；“只要”土地公社所有制能够转换土地耕作方式，从各自耕种转换到集体耕作，联合耕作，进而在后一种耕作方式下继续向前发展。换言之，在这些条件具备了的情况下，俄国的土地公社所有制就有可能不用瓦解，进而倒退到分散的、小块的资本主义形式的土地所有制这样的呈现为中间状态的发展阶段，而是有可能在土地公社所有制的基础上，在土地联合耕种的基础上，继续发展进而转变为高级形式的社会组织。一句话，如果这些条件具备了，俄国土地公社所有制的发展前景就会获得一种从低级形式向高级形式的转变，进而实现这种转变的可能。不过，需要注意的是，这样一种可能前景的发生仍然还需要条件，一个具有根本前提性的基础性条件。这里，恩格斯用了“只有”一词和一个“才”字突出强调了这样一个条件的极端重要性，认为“只有”具备了这个条件“才”会产生出上述可能前景。这个条件，简言之，就是西欧无产阶级革命；具体言之，西欧的无产阶级革命和俄国土地公社所有制是紧密地联系在一起的，在俄国的土地公社所有制正在趋向瓦解的情况下，西欧无产阶级应赶在俄国土地公社所有制完全瓦解之前取得革命胜利，进而在此前提下，及时地向俄国农民提供把土地公社所有制发展为高级形式所必需的条件，尤其是那些在实现这样的发展、这样的转变过程中，为必然要实施的农业及其制度变革所必需的、亟待支援的物质条件。

V. The Political Dimension of the Russian Revolutionary Trend and Its Great Significance

五、俄国革命趋势的政治维度及其重大意义

Regarding the impending Russian revolution, its political aspect, that is, the political revolution, will be a complex composite with layers and stages, formed by the interaction of multiple classes, especially the interaction between the government and the tsarist autocracy on the one hand and the peasant class on the other. This emerging political revolution, due to its inherent complexity, layering, and staging, will have unpredictable and significant impacts on the development of Russian and Western European society.

关于即将出现的俄国革命，其政治方面，也就是政治革命，将是一个由多个阶级相互作用、特别是由政府和沙皇专制制度与农民阶级相互作用形成的具有层次性、阶段性的复杂综合体。这一正在出现的政治革命将会因其自身具有的复杂性、层次性、阶段性而对俄国和西欧社会的发展产生出不可预料的重大影响。

1. Complexity. The impending Russian political revolution has complexity; although it will prominently manifest as a political revolution, it is by no means merely a political revolution. This is because this political revolution is caused by a historical resultant force formed by the interaction of multiple factors; economic factors, political factors, and ideological factors have all participated in the brewing of this political revolution. The economic factors leading to this political revolution mainly include: state finances are in chaos, making it difficult to sustain the government’s massive expenditures; land taxes and various levies have been increased to a burdensome level that cannot be further increased; the borrowing of national debt, repayment of interest, and further borrowing have fallen into a continuous vicious cycle, making it very difficult to escape this vicious spiral; agricultural production, the most important component of Russian production, was severely weakened by the extremely exploitative redemption policy [1]1 The 1861 reform refers to the emancipation of the serfs in Russia, a major social reform initiated by Tsar Alexander II. adopted by the tsarist government towards the peasants in the 1861 reform, plunging classes directly related to land interests into an awkward contradictory situation, etc. The political factors leading to this political revolution mainly include: the classes constituting society, compelled by the political and economic situation, are increasingly forced to become involved in political activities and increasingly forced to become involved in the impending political revolution; state government institutions are increasingly falling into severe political corruption and decay, etc. The ideological factors leading to this political revolution mainly include: influenced by Russian historical traditions, especially the rapidly forming economic and political conditions since the 1861 reform, the dissatisfaction of various social classes with the tsarist government and its autocratic system is growing day by day; the ideas of the bourgeoisie and the proletariat are beginning to spread; the peasants are beginning to be influenced by the ideas of the Russian Narodniks [2]2 Pyotr Nikitich Tkachev (1844–1886) was a Russian revolutionary and theorist of the Narodnik (populist) movement, with whom Engels engaged in a polemic over the prospects for socialism in Russia., etc.

1.复杂性。即将出现的俄国政治革命具有复杂性，虽将突出表现为政治革命却并非仅仅是政治革命。这是因为这场政治革命是由多方面因素相互作用形成的历史合力引致的，经济因素、政治因素、思想因素都参与了这一政治革命的酝酿。引致这一政治革命的经济因素主要包括：国家财政混乱不堪，难以继续支撑政府的庞大支出；土地税，各级捐税，已经增加到了不能继续增加的沉重程度；国债的举借、偿还利息、再举借已陷入不断的恶性循环之中，很难再跳出此一恶性怪圈；作为俄国生产之最重要构成部分的农业生产，在1861年改革中因沙皇政府采取的对农民的极具压榨性的赎免政策而遭到严重削弱，与土地利益直接相关的阶级陷入到尴尬的矛盾境地，等等。引致这一政治革命的政治因素主要包括：构成社会的各阶级受政治经济形势所迫，日益不得不卷入到政治活动中，日益不得不卷入到即将到来的政治革命中；国家政府机构日益陷入到严重贪腐的政治腐化之中，等等。引致这一政治革命的思想因素主要包括：受俄国历史传统的影响，特别是受1861年改革以来迅速形成的经济状况、政治状况之影响，社会各阶级对沙皇政府及其专制制度的不满日甚一日；资产阶级、无产阶级的思想逐渐开始传播开来；农民开始受到俄国民粹派思想的影响；等等。

2. Layering. The impending Russian political revolution has layering; it will be the result of the interaction between the government and the tsarist autocracy, the peasantry, the bourgeoisie, and the proletariat, jointly forming a new political configuration. Russian society is a typical pyramid structure. The classes at the upper level are the tsar and his family, government officials at all levels, and large landowners. The classes at the middle level are mainly the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, which have just emerged and are in rapid development. The classes at the lower level are mainly the working masses, with the peasantry as the main body. Due to the inertial influence of Russian history, especially the practical influence of the economic, political, and ideological conditions taking shape since the 1861 reform, the upper, middle, and lower classes of Russian society are being forced to become involved in political struggles concerning their own multifaceted interests. Therefore, the impending Russian revolution is very likely to be the result of a historical resultant force produced by the interaction of the forces of various classes, and thus very likely to generate a new political configuration through the mutual influence of the forces of these classes. Among them, because capitalist production in Russia has only just begun to develop, the bourgeoisie and the proletariat that arise with it are still very weak in both numbers and actual strength. Because the tsarist government, officials at all levels, and the nobility have historically and in the reality since the 1861 reform and thereafter engaged in severe struggle with the peasant class, it can be foreseen that in the impending Russian political revolution, the political struggle will be mainly between the tsarist autocracy and the peasant class, while other classes will also play their historical roles in this struggle.

2.层次性。即将出现的俄国政治革命具有层次性，将会是政府和沙皇专制制度、农民、资产阶级、无产阶级间相互作用，共同形成新的政治格局。俄国社会是一个典型的金字塔结构，处于上层的阶级是沙皇及其家族、各级政府官吏、大土地所有者，处于中层的阶级主要是刚开始出现、正处在快速发展中的资产阶级和无产阶级，处于下层的阶级主要是以农民为主体的劳苦大众。由于俄国历史的惯性影响，特别是由于1861年改革以来正在形成的经济、政治、思想状况之现实影响，俄国社会上中下三层的阶级正在不得不被卷入到涉及自身多方面利益的政治斗争中，因而，即将到来的俄国革命很可能会是各阶级之力量相互作用产生出的历史合力之结果，进而也很可能会是各阶级之力量在相互影响中生成出新的政治格局。其中，由于俄国的资本主义生产刚开始发展，因而资产阶级和随之一起产生的无产阶级无论在人数上还是在实际力量上都还很薄弱，由于沙皇政府和各级官吏、贵族与农民阶级无论在历史上还是在1861年改革及以后的现实中都存在着严重斗争，可以预见，在即将到来的俄国政治革命中将会主要是沙皇专制制度与农民阶级之间的政治斗争，其他阶级也将会在这一斗争中发挥出自己的历史作用。

3. Staging. The impending Russian political revolution has staging; it may first manifest as a political reform envisioned by the enlightened upper classes of the capital, possibly even including the tsarist government itself. The reformers envision that this impending reform, like the 1861 reform, can be “steered into the quiet channels of constitutionalism” [3]3 Engels’s *On the Social Question in Russia* (1875) and its introduction (1894) were written as a critique of Tkachev’s views and an analysis of Russian social development., becoming a political tool to realize the fundamental interests of the upper classes. However, once the political revolution, which initially manifests as political reform, begins to be implemented, it is very likely to continue to develop forward under the impetus of the peasant class, thereby exceeding the scope permitted by the quiet constitutional model envisioned by the upper classes, and developing into a massive political revolution. So, what will the political revolution, transformed from the initial political reform and driven mainly by the interaction between the government and the tsarist autocracy on the one hand and the peasantry on the other, be like? What will happen next? Engels does not explicitly mention this. However, one thing is certain: thereafter, as long as the contradiction between the tsarist government and the peasants is not resolved, and as long as the emerging bourgeoisie and proletariat gradually participate in Russia’s political struggle with the development of Russian society, then the Russian political revolution will continue, displaying new forms and developing new stages. Furthermore, with the emergence of new forms and stages of the revolution, the nature of the revolution itself will undergo new changes. Besides the overall judgment that the Russian political revolution is inevitable and some predictions about this revolution, Engels also fully notes that under certain conditions, for example, mainly under the two conditions where the tsarist government wins a foreign war and thus continues to receive firm support from its allies, and where the peasants’ uprising attempt occurs prematurely, causing “the propertied classes to be driven back into the arms of the government” [4]4 1848年欧洲革命 — the European Revolutions of 1848: a series of republican revolts against European monarchies that swept across much of the continent in 1848, which were ultimately suppressed, with tsarist Russia playing a key counter-revolutionary role., this political revolution may be prolonged for a long time.

3.阶段性。即将出现的俄国政治革命具有阶段性，将可能会首先表现为包括首都的开明的上层阶级，甚至可能还包括沙皇政府在内的改革派所设想的政治改革。改革派设想这场即将到来的改革会如同1861年改革那样能“纳入安静的立宪的轨道”，成为实现上层阶级之根本利益的政治工具。然而，开始时表现为政治改革的政治革命一旦开始实施，将很可能会在农民阶级的推动下继续向前发展，以致越出上层阶级所设想的安静的立宪模式允许的范围，发展为一场声势浩大的政治革命。那么，在主要由政府和沙皇专制制度与农民间的相互作用来推动的从最初的政治改革转变而来的政治革命将会是什么样的呢？接下来，又将会发生什么呢？对此，恩格斯没有明确提到。不过，有一点是毫无疑问的，即在此之后，只要沙皇政府与农民的矛盾没有得到解决，只要随着俄国社会之发展，新兴的资产阶级和无产阶级逐步地参与到俄国的政治斗争中，那么，俄国政治革命就将会继续下去，展现出新的形式，发展出新的阶段，进而随着革命之新形式、新阶段的出现，革命自身的性质将会出现新的变化。除了俄国政治革命必将到来这个总体判断和对这一革命的一些预想，恩格斯也充分注意到，在一定条件下，例如主要是在沙皇政府取得对外战争的胜利而继续得到同盟者的牢固支持和农民的起义尝试过早地发生以致“把有产阶级再次赶入政府的怀抱”两个条件下，这个政治革命可能会长期拖延下去。

4. Major significance. The impending Russian political revolution will exert a major influence on the development of West European society. Since the 17th century, the development of West European society has been increasingly and evidently closely linked with the condition of Russian society, the concentrated expression of which is that the Russian tsarist government has increasingly intervened in West European affairs, directly or indirectly interfering in them, and has increasingly become a pivotal external force affecting the development of West European society. In particular, because tsarist Russia has increasingly allied itself with the backward reactionary forces within West European countries, becoming an extremely important external pillar of these reactionary forces, it has thus increasingly become a major external factor that the progressive forces of West European society must seriously consider whenever they take any measure to promote social progress. By the middle of the 19th century, as the feudal reactionary forces of West European society were gradually forced to withdraw from the historical stage under the sustained blows of social productive forces, political revolutions, progressive ideas, and other factors, and as capitalist society led by the bourgeoisie developed universally and, in this historical process, the proletariat universally grew, strengthened, and united rapidly, tsarist Russia had completely transformed into the most significant and also the last external threat force hindering the development of West European society. It is precisely based on this international perspective of mutual influence between Western Europe and Russia, their closely linked fates, and “the complementarity of East and West” [1]1 The 1861 reform refers to the emancipation of the serfs in Russia, a major social reform initiated by Tsar Alexander II. that Engels emphatically pointed out that the impending Russian revolution, as long as it can at one stroke destroy the tsarist autocratic system and all the reactionary forces supporting this autocratic system, will thereby completely remove the major external threat that tsarist Russia, as the last reserve force of the West European reactionary alliance, poses to the development of West European society, and will thus have an extremely important international impact on all of Western Europe.

4.重大意义。即将出现的俄国政治革命将会对西欧社会发展带来重大影响。自17世纪以来，西欧社会的发展一直与俄国社会状况之间存在着日益明显的紧密联系，其集中表现是俄国沙皇政府日益介入到西欧事务中，直接或间接地干预西欧事务，日益成为影响西欧社会发展的举足轻重的外部力量。特别是由于沙皇俄国日益与西欧国家内部的落后的反动力量走向联合，成为这些反动力量的极为重要的外部支柱，因而日益成为西欧社会之进步力量在做出推动社会进步的任何举措时都不得不认真地加以考虑的重要外部因素。到19世纪中叶，随着西欧社会的封建反动势力在社会生产力、政治革命、进步思想等因素的持续打击下逐渐地被迫退出历史舞台，随着资产阶级主导的资本主义社会普遍地发展起来和在此一历史过程中无产阶级的普遍的快速成长、壮大、联合，沙皇俄国已完全转变为阻碍西欧社会发展的最重大的同时也是最后的外部威胁势力。正是基于西欧与俄国相互影响、命运紧密相连、“东西互补”之国际视野，恩格斯着重强调指出正在到来的俄国革命，只要能一举摧毁沙皇专制制度以及支持这一专制制度的一切反动力量，也就彻底解除了沙皇俄国作为西欧反动势力联盟的最后之后备力量对西欧社会发展的重大外部威胁，就具有对整个西欧而言的极其重要之国际影响。

VI. The Major Impact of New Changes in Russia’s Social Development and Its Revolutionary Tendency on European Society

六、俄国社会发展新变化及其革命趋势对欧洲社会的重大影响

The “Introduction” to *On the Social Question in Russia* [2]2 Pyotr Nikitich Tkachev (1844–1886) was a Russian revolutionary and theorist of the Narodnik (populist) movement, with whom Engels engaged in a polemic over the prospects for socialism in Russia. is an introduction Engels wrote in May 1875 for the forthcoming single-volume edition of *On the Social Question in Russia*. It provides important supplements and explanations to the book *On the Social Question in Russia*, in which it emphatically points out the very significant impact that new changes in Russia’s social development, especially the impending Russian revolution, will have on the development of European society.

《〈论俄国的社会问题〉一书导言》是恩格斯于1875年5月为即将出版单行本的《论俄国的社会问题》写的导言，对《论俄国的社会问题》一书作出了重要补充和说明，其中，强调指出了俄国社会发展新变化，尤其是即将到来的俄国革命，对欧洲社会发展所具有的十分重大之影响。

1. It will have a major impact on Western Europe, especially Germany. Since the implementation of the so-called emancipation of the serfs reform led by the Russian tsarist government in 1861, all aspects of Russian social conditions have been undergoing major changes, and the previous stagnant state of Russian society is becoming increasingly impossible. By analyzing the multifaceted major changes taking place in Russian society, Engels pointed out that this will have a major and far-reaching impact on the development of West European society and on the movement of the German working class.

1.将会对西欧特别是德国产生重大影响。自1861年俄国沙皇政府主导的所谓解放农民的改革实施以来，俄国社会状况的方方面面都正在发生着重大的变化，俄国社会以前的一潭死水之状况正在变得日益不可能。恩格斯通过分析俄国社会中正在发生着的多方面的重大变化，指出这将会对西欧社会发展、对德国工人阶级的运动具有重大的深远影响。

First, from the perspective of Russia’s existing foreign policy, the mutual influence between Russia and West European society is deepening day by day, and Russia is increasingly becoming “the last strong pillar of the entire West European reactionary forces.” [3]3 Engels’s *On the Social Question in Russia* (1875) and its introduction (1894) were written as a critique of Tkachev’s views and an analysis of Russian social development. Since the 17th century, and especially from the European revolutions of 1848 [4]4 1848年欧洲革命 — the European Revolutions of 1848: a series of republican revolts against European monarchies that swept across much of the continent in 1848, which were ultimately suppressed, with tsarist Russia playing a key counter-revolutionary role. up to the time Engels was writing the “Introduction” to *On the Social Question in Russia*, this reactionary pillar has played a very prominent role in European affairs, becoming the de facto final arbiter of European affairs. For example, tsarist Russia played a very reactionary but very powerful arbiter role in the European revolutions of 1848. The main manifestations are: at the critical final moment when the Hungarian Revolution [5]5 匈牙利革命 — the Hungarian Revolution of 1848-1849: a revolt of the Hungarian nation against Habsburg rule, which was crushed with the military intervention of tsarist Russia in 1849. was about to achieve victory in 1849, the tsar’s army appeared in time and pronounced a verdict of suppression on the fate of the Hungarian Revolution; in Warsaw, Poland, in 1850, it pronounced a verdict on the internal affairs of the German nation, maintaining the status quo of Germany’s fragmentation and restoring the old forces; just before Engels was writing the “Introduction” to *On the Social Question in Russia*, tsarist Russia once again reenacted the role it had played in the European revolutions of 1848, once again becoming the arbiter in Berlin for the newly established German Empire [6]6 德意志第一帝国 — the First German Empire: the German nation-state established under Prussian leadership in 1871, also known as the German Reich or the Kaiserreich. after the unification of the German nation, and thereby becoming the most important balancer of all West European affairs.

一者，从现存之俄国的对外政策方面看，俄国与西欧社会的相互影响日益深入，俄国正日益成为“整个西欧反动势力的最后一根有力支柱”。这根反动的支柱从17世纪以来，特别是从1848年欧洲革命到恩格斯写作《〈论俄国的社会问题〉一书导言》时为止，一直是在欧洲事务中发挥着非常突出的作用，成为欧洲事务的事实上的最终裁判者。例如，沙皇俄国在欧洲的1848年革命中扮演了非常反动的但又是非常有力量的裁判者角色，主要表现有，在匈牙利革命于1849年将要取得胜利的最后之关键时刻，沙皇的军队及时地出现并对匈牙利革命的命运进行了镇压之裁决；在波兰的华沙，于1850年对德意志民族的内部事务进行了维持德意志的四分五裂之现状和重新恢复旧势力的裁决；就在恩格斯写作《〈论俄国的社会问题〉一书导言》之前，沙皇俄国再次重演了它在1848年欧洲革命中所扮演的角色，在柏林再次成为德意志民族统一后新建立的德意志帝国的裁决者，进而成为整个西欧事务的最重要的平衡者。

Second, from the perspective of the geographical positions of Western Europe, Germany, and Russia, Western Europe and Russia are neighboring countries with contiguous territorial borders. Here, attention must be paid to the actual referents of the three terms “Western Europe,” “Russia,” and “Germany” in Engels’s discourse. Here, “Western Europe” does not refer to Western Europe in the geographical sense, but rather to the whole of Europe west of Russia in comparison with Russia, encompassing the European parts of Eastern Europe, Central Europe, and Western Europe in the geographical sense from east to west. “Russia” refers to the tsarist autocratic empire that annexed most of Poland’s territory after three joint partitions of Poland with Prussia and Austria. [7]7 三次共同瓜分波兰 — the three partitions of Poland: the successive annexations of Polish territory by Russia, Prussia, and Austria in 1772, 1793, and 1795, which eliminated the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth from the map of Europe. “Germany” is used in a dual sense, referring both to the various German states before the unification of the German nation and to the newly established First German Empire [8]8 德意志第一帝国 — the First German Empire: see note [6]. under the leadership of Prussia after the unification of the German nation. That Western Europe borders Russia, and first and foremost Germany borders Russia, has obvious and significant implications for Western Europe and Germany. First, the existence of the Russian tsarist autocratic system itself implies firm support for West European reactionary forces, objectively contributing to the consolidation of West European reactionary forces. Second, this means that any progressive move in West European society, especially any progressive move arising from a social revolution by the working class, will inevitably face suppression from the combined reactionary forces both inside and outside Western Europe, making it very difficult to achieve a thorough and final victory. Third, once a social revolution led by the working class occurs in West European society, tsarist Russia, relying on its geographical advantage, will first unite with Germany’s reactionary forces to intervene in the German revolution, and then through Germany intervene in the working-class revolution of the whole of Western Europe. At that time, the future of the West European proletarian revolution will become uncertain. Therefore, if the revolutionary prospect gradually emerging within Russian society after the 1861 reform becomes a real revolution against the tsarist autocratic system, a revolution that can truly bury the tsarist autocratic system and the tsarist empire, then the final victory of the West European proletarian revolution will have a very favorable external condition, and the final victory of the German proletarian revolution will have a very favorable “primary condition.” [9]9 “首要条件” — “primary condition”: a term used by Engels in the text to denote the most important prerequisite for the victory of the German proletarian revolution.

二者，从西欧、德国与俄国所处的地理位置来看，西欧与俄国在领土边界方面是相互接壤的近邻。此处需要注意的是恩格斯话语中“西欧”“俄国”“德国”这三个词语的实际所指问题。这里，“西欧”并不是指地理学意义上的西欧，而是指与俄国相比较而言的、在俄国之西的整个欧洲，涵盖了地理学意义上的自东向西存在着的东欧、中欧、西欧的欧洲部分。“俄国”指的是经过与普鲁士、奥地利三次共同瓜分波兰之后兼并了波兰之大部分领土的沙皇专制帝国。“德国”是在双重意义上使用的，既指德意志民族统一之前的德意志诸邦国，又指德意志民族在普鲁士主导下新近建立的德意志第一帝国。西欧与俄国相邻，首先是德国与俄国相邻，这样的地理位置对西欧、德国而言具有显而易见的重大影响，其一，俄国沙皇专制制度的存在本身就意味着是对西欧反动力量的坚定支持，客观上有助于西欧反动势力之巩固；其二，这意味着西欧社会的任何进步举动，特别是工人阶级通过社会革命产生的任何进步举动，都将不得不面临着来自西欧内部和外部之反动的联合力量的压制，因而很难取得彻底的、最后的胜利；其三，西欧社会一旦发生工人阶级领导的社会革命，沙皇俄国就会依托地利之便，首先与德国的反动力量联合起来干预德国的革命，进而通过德国干预整个西欧的工人阶级革命，那时，西欧的无产阶级革命将会变得前途未卜起来。所以，俄国社会内部自1861年改革之后正在逐步呈现出的革命前景，如果成为现实的反对沙皇专制制度的革命，成为真正能把沙皇专制制度和沙皇帝国埋葬掉的革命，则西欧的无产阶级革命之取得最后的胜利就有了一个十分有利的外部条件，德国无产阶级革命的最终胜利就具备了一个十分有利的“首要条件”。

2. It will have a major impact on Poland. If the Russian tsarist system and the Russian empire built on this autocratic system were to be destroyed, it would undoubtedly be very favorable for the development of Western European society. At that time, the progressive forces in Western Europe, especially the working class, could focus on fighting the reactionary forces within Western Europe itself. However, the destruction of tsarist Russia does not depend solely on the impetus of external factors, such as the attrition and blows of external wars, to be truly effective, although external factors may unexpectedly accelerate its demise. Engels here discusses the important foundational role of internal Russian factors in the process of disintegrating the tsarist autocratic system, emphatically pointing out that the social development and changes in Poland, as one part of the Russian empire, and in Great Russia, as the main body of the Russian empire, were precisely the two major factors disintegrating the tsarist autocratic system and the Russian empire from within. Since most of Poland was annexed by Russia, the Polish people have long been under the heavy oppression of the tsarist system, and their situation has reached a perilous moment where they must either choose resistance to survive or succumb to passivity and await death. To win liberation and survival through resistance, their own strength alone is far from sufficient, so they must strive to win genuine allies. Their nearly century-long history of resistance to Russia has fully demonstrated that the bourgeois forces of Western Europe are by no means their true allies. This is because the bourgeois forces of Western Europe, based on their own interests, have always treated Poland as a bargaining chip to maximize their own interests, and their policies toward Poland have always revolved solely around their own interests. A typical manifestation of this is that they sometimes ally with Poland and sometimes abandon Poland, making Poland a true victim of great-power games. The history of interactions between Poland and the two great powers closest to it, namely Germany and France, fully illustrates this point. Take Germany first: Prussia and Austria, as two monarchical states of the German nation, participated in the aggressive partition of Poland; the German bourgeoisie, since it began to play a historical role in practice during the European revolution of 1848, has consistently pursued a policy hostile to Poland; the German Empire under Bismarck’s leadership was skillfully attempting to safeguard its own practical interests by establishing friendly diplomatic relations with the tsar. Look at France: during the period of Napoleon I, the bourgeois kingdom, the bourgeois Second Republic, and the bourgeois Second Empire, France consistently engaged in the shameful act of betraying Polish interests; thereafter, in order to confront the German Empire, the French bourgeois government planned to betray Poland again in exchange for forming an alliance with the tsar to encircle Germany.

2.将会对波兰产生重大影响。如果俄国沙皇制度以及建立在这一专制制度上的俄帝国归于消灭，那么对西欧社会的发展无疑是十分有利的，那时西欧的进步势力，尤其是工人阶级就可以专注于同西欧内部的反动势力作斗争了。然而，沙皇俄国的消灭并不是只依赖于外部因素的推动，例如外部战争的消耗、打击就能真正奏效的，虽然外部因素可能会出人意料地加速它的灭亡。恩格斯在这里谈到了俄国内部因素在瓦解沙皇专制制度过程中的重要基础性作用，着重强调了当时作为俄帝国之一部分的波兰和作为俄帝国之主体的大俄罗斯的社会发展变化正是从俄国内部瓦解沙皇专制制度和俄罗斯帝国的两大重要因素。自波兰大部被俄国兼并以来，波兰人长期处于沙皇制度的沉重压迫下，其生存处境已经到了不是选择反抗以求生存，就是选择消沉以致坐以待毙之凶险时刻。而要在反抗中争得解放，争得生存，仅靠他们自己的力量是远远不够的，所以他们必须要争取到真正的同盟者。他们反抗俄国的近百年的历史已经充分表明，西欧的资产阶级力量绝不是他们的真正同盟者，因为西欧的资产阶级力量基于自己的利益需求一直是把波兰当作追求自己利益最大化的筹码，对波兰采取的政策总是仅仅只是围绕着自身利益而旋转的，其典型表现就是时而联合波兰，时而抛弃波兰，波兰成为真正的大国博弈之牺牲品。特别是离波兰最近的两个大国，也就是德国和法国，与波兰的交往史充分说明了这一点。先看德国，作为德意志民族的两大君主制邦国的普鲁士和奥地利曾参与了瓜分波兰的侵略行动；德国的资产阶级自从在1848年欧洲革命中开始事实上发挥历史作用以来，一直是采取敌视波兰之政策的；俾斯麦领导的德意志帝国正在巧妙地力图通过与沙皇建立友好的外交关系以维护自身的切实利益。再看法国，法国在拿破仑一世时期、资产阶级王国时期、资产阶级第二共和国时期和资产阶级第二帝国时期，一直存在着出卖波兰利益的可耻行为；此后，为了对付德意志帝国，法国资产阶级政府又打算通过背叛波兰来换取与沙皇建立一个包围德国的联盟。

The above analysis shows that, in Western Europe, the path of Poland allying with the bourgeois forces of Western Europe to oppose Russia is a dead end that leads nowhere. In Western Europe, only the proletariat is the true ally of the oppressed Polish people. This is because the Western European proletariat is a growing political force that truly insists on the complete liberation of all the oppressed, and also because they, like the Polish people, face the common enemy of tsarist Russia, and share a fundamental consistency on the issue of eliminating the Russian threat. In other words, an alliance between the Polish people and the Western European proletariat serves the common interests of both sides. On the one hand, it strengthens the power of the Polish resistance to tsarist rule, weakens Russia’s rule, and thereby, from within, causes new changes in Russian society to a certain extent, pushing Russia toward internal disintegration. On the other hand, as Russia moves toward internal disintegration and its power weakens, Poland will be liberated from within Russia, which in turn will also benefit the development of the Western European proletarian movement. However, the Polish resistance activities have geographical limitations, and thus their effect on pushing Russia toward internal disintegration is limited. Based on this, Engels believed that if Great Russia, as the main body of Russia, were to give birth to a revolution overthrowing the tsarist system amid the new social changes after the 1861 reform, [1]1 The 1861 reform refers to the emancipation of the serfs in Russia, a major social reform initiated by Tsar Alexander II. this would play a crucial and truly historically significant role in solving the problem, that is, in the internal disintegration of the tsarist empire.

上述分析表明，在西欧，波兰通过与西欧的资产阶级力量结盟以对抗俄国的路径是一条行不通的死路。在西欧，只有无产阶级才是作为被压迫者的波兰人的真正盟友，这是因为西欧无产阶级是真正坚持一切被压迫者获得彻底解放的正在走向壮大的政治力量，也是因为他们与波兰人一样都面临着沙皇俄国这个共同的敌人，在消除俄国之威胁这个问题上具有根本一致性。换言之，波兰人与西欧无产阶级结盟符合双方的共同利益，一方面，增强了波兰反抗沙皇统治的力量，削弱了俄国的统治，进而从内部在一定程度上引起了俄国社会的新变化，促使俄国走向内部瓦解；另一方面，俄国走向内部瓦解，力量削弱，波兰就会从俄国内部解放出来，进而也有利于西欧无产阶级运动的发展。但是，波兰的反抗活动存在着地域上的局限性，因而对俄国走向内部瓦解产生的作用是有限的。基于此，恩格斯认为作为俄国之主体的大俄罗斯如果在1861年改革后的社会新变化中孕育出推翻沙皇制度的革命，才会对问题的解决，也就是沙皇帝国走向内部瓦解，产生出至关重要的、真正具有历史意义的作用。

In summary, in the polemic between Frederick Engels and Pyotr Tkachev, [2]2 Pyotr Nikitich Tkachev (1844–1886) was a Russian revolutionary and theorist of the Narodnik (populist) movement, with whom Engels engaged in a polemic over the prospects for socialism in Russia. the work *On the Social Question in Russia* and its introduction [3]3 Engels’s *On the Social Question in Russia* (1875) and its introduction (1894) were written as a critique of Tkachev’s views and an analysis of Russian social development. powerfully refuted Tkachev’s view of socialism from a theoretical critical perspective. At the same time, while criticizing the old world, they discovered the dawn of a new world, and made a preliminary positive elaboration on the issue of the particularity of Russia’s social development path. In the 1860s and 1870s, Engels positively elaborated that the prospect of Russia’s social development path had already shown a clear revolutionary trend, and conducted a causal analysis and multi-dimensional anticipation of this already clear revolutionary trend; he positively elaborated on the economic and political dimensions of this already clear revolutionary trend, and elaborated that the impending Russian revolution would inevitably be a holistic revolution encompassing multiple dimensions, that is, not merely an economic revolution or a political revolution, but a multi-dimensional social revolution with holism; he positively elaborated that this already clear revolutionary trend would inevitably have a major international impact on the development situation of European society, especially on the development situation of Germany and Poland.

综上言之，在弗·恩格斯与彼·特卡乔夫论战中形成的《论俄国的社会问题》及其导言基于理论批判视角对特卡乔夫所持的社会主义观进行了有力驳斥，与此同时又在批判旧世界中发现新世界之曙光，对俄国社会发展道路的特殊性问题进行了初步的正面阐述。19世纪60、70年代，恩格斯正面阐述了俄国社会发展道路的前景已呈现出明朗的革命趋势，并对此已明朗的革命趋势进行了原因分析和多维度预想；正面阐述了此已明朗革命趋势的经济维度和政治维度，阐述了即将到来的俄国革命必将是一个包含多种维度的整体性革命，即不仅仅是经济革命或政治革命，而是一个具有整体性的多维度社会革命；正面阐述了此已明朗的革命趋势必将对欧洲社会发展形势、尤其是德国和波兰的社会发展形势产生重大国际影响。

(Author’s bio: Yang Zhichen, Associate Professor, School of Marxism, Party School of the Guangdong Provincial Committee of the CPC [Guangdong Academy of Governance].)

（作者简介：杨志臣，中共广东省委党校马克思主义学院副教授）

Online editor: Tongxin

网络编辑：同心