The Centennial Evolution of American Marxist Historiography and Its Influence

Academia generally holds that Marxist historiography in the strict sense emerged in the United States in the 1920s, after the founding of the American Communist Party in 1919, making it exactly a century old. Over the past hundred years, influenced by both domestic and international environments, American Marxist historiography has traversed a tortuous course of development, exerting a significant impact on both American historiography and American society.

学术界通常认为，严格意义上的马克思主义史学在美国出现是在1919年美国共产党成立之后的20世纪20年代，距今恰好百年。百年来，受国内和国际双重环境的影响，美国马克思主义史学走过了一段曲折的发展历程，对美国史学和美国社会都产生了重要影响。

I. The Emergence and Early Development of American Marxist Historiography

一 美国马克思主义史学的产生和初期发展

As a school of historiography, the emergence of American Marxist historiography was grounded in the widespread dissemination of socialist theory. Before 1848, many European utopian socialists, represented by Robert Owen and others, came to the newly founded United States one after another, establishing various communist experimental sites. The relevant theories of utopian socialism became more or less prevalent, and the United States became a second home for utopian socialism. In February 1848, the publication of the *Communist Manifesto* marked the birth of scientific socialism. In the same year, the revolutionary wave known as the "Spring of Nations" swept across Europe, severely impacting the European sociopolitical order. After the revolution failed, the "Forty-Eighters" [1]1 "Forty-Eighters" (48年人): Refers to the German-speaking political refugees who fled to the United States after the failure of the 1848 revolutions in Europe. Many were intellectuals, artisans, and political activists, and some, like Joseph Weydemeyer, became early organizers of the Marxist movement in America. (referring to the group of refugees who fled to the United States after the defeat of the 1848 revolutions), represented by Joseph Weydemeyer and Friedrich Adolph Sorge, continuously propagated Marxism by founding journals and other means. By the late 19th century, the intensification of labor-capital contradictions brought about by industrialization gave rise to surging waves of workers' movements in American society. A number of works on the history of socialism and labor history began to appear, laying, in a certain sense, the academic foundation for the emergence of American Marxist historiography.

作为一种史学流派，美国马克思主义史学的产生是以社会主义理论的广泛传播为基础的。1848年之前，以罗伯特·欧文等为代表的许多欧洲空想社会主义者纷纷来到刚刚建国不久的美国，建立各种共产主义的实验场，空想社会主义的相关理论或多或少地流行开来，美国成了空想社会主义的第二故乡。1848年2月，《共产党宣言》的发表，标志着科学社会主义的诞生。同年，被称为“人民之春”的革命浪潮席卷全欧，对欧洲的社会政治秩序构成了严重冲击。革命失败后，以约瑟夫·魏德迈和弗·阿·左尔格等为代表的“48年人”(指1848年革命失败后逃到美国的避难者群体)通过创办刊物等方式，不断宣传马克思主义。至19世纪晚期，工业化所带来的劳资矛盾不断激化，美国社会出现了风起云涌的工人运动浪潮，一批关于社会主义史、劳工史的作品开始出现，在某种意义上为美国马克思主义史学的产生奠定了学术基础。

After the October Revolution in Russia in 1917, the dissemination of Marxist theory in the United States deepened further. On September 1, 1919, the American Communist Party was formally established, marking a new stage in the development of Marxism in the United States. A group of Marxist theorists, through writing books and articles, applied Marxist theory and methods to the examination of American historical issues, thereby promoting the emergence of American Marxist historiography in the 1920s and its rapid development in the 1930s and 1940s.

1917年俄国十月革命后，马克思主义理论在美国的传播进一步深化。1919年9月1日，美国共产党正式成立，标志着美国马克思主义的发展进入新阶段。一批马克思主义理论家通过著书立说，把马克思主义的理论和方法应用到对美国历史问题的考察中，从而推动了美国马克思主义史学在20世纪20年代的产生和三四十年代的快速发展。

As a senior leader of the American Communist Party and a representative figure of the American communist movement, William Z. Foster published many works from the 1920s onward reflecting on the American workers' movement and criticizing the capitalist system, such as *The Great Steel Strike and Its Lessons* (1920), *Strike Strategy* (1926), *Toward Soviet America* (1932), and *The Twilight of World Capitalism* (1949). As the "soul of the American Communist Party," Foster sharply criticized the "American exceptionalism" thesis regarding socialism proposed by the German scholar Werner Sombart in his 1906 book *Why Is There No Socialism in the United States?*, and waged a resolute struggle within the American Communist Party against supporters of "American exceptionalism," represented by Jay Lovestone. In Foster's view, the crisis of capitalism had arrived, and the American Communist Party should adopt a strategy of class confrontation to lead the impending proletarian revolution, while the "American exceptionalism" of Lovestone and others was a misjudgment of American conditions and a betrayal of the American communist cause. Philip S. Foner was a representative figure of the American Marxist historiographical school in the 1930s and 1940s, who in his early years suffered long-term political persecution for participating in left-wing activities. He devoted his life to the study of the American workers' movement and African American history. His representative works include *Business and Slavery: The New York Merchants and the Irrepressible Conflict* (1941) and *History of the Labor Movement in the United States* (Volume I published in 1947, the final Volume VI in 1982, spanning 35 years). He argued that, like Europe, the United States possessed working-class class consciousness and class struggle, and that the American working class played an important role in every major historical event in American history, struggling to establish a new and better society. Herbert Aptheker, a renowned 20th-century Marxist historian of equal stature to Philip S. Foner, long focused on the living conditions of ordinary Black people and their struggles for equal rights. He successively produced a series of works on African American history, including *The Negro in the Civil War* (1938), *The Negro in the American Revolution* (1940), *The Negro in the Abolitionist Movement* (1941), and *To Be Free: Studies in American Negro History* (1948). In his view, studying African American history to prove that Black people possess the same qualities and aspirations as white people was an important ideological weapon against racism; presenting the true image of Black people in American history was a crucial part of Americans understanding their own past. (Wang Jiafeng, "Herbert Aptheker: An Outstanding American Marxist Historian of the 20th Century," *Historiography Quarterly* 2010, no. 4, p. 16.)

作为美国共产党的资深领袖和美国共产主义运动的代表性人物，威廉·福斯特(William Z.Foster)自20年代起先后出版了许多反思美国工人运动及批判资本主义制度的作品，如《钢铁工人大罢工及其教训》(1920年)、《罢工的策略》(1926年)、《走向美国苏维埃》(1932年)、《世界资本主义的末日》(1949年)等。作为“美国共产党的灵魂”,福斯特尖锐地批判了德国学者维尔纳·桑巴特在其于1906年出版的《为什么美国没有社会主义》一书中所提出的“美国社会主义例外论”,并与美国共产党内部以洛夫斯顿为代表的“美国社会主义例外论”的支持者进行了坚决斗争。在福斯特看来，资本主义的危机已经到来，美国共产党应该采取阶级对抗的策略，引领即将到来的无产阶级革命，而洛夫斯顿等人的“美国例外论”则是对美国国情的误判，是对美国共产主义事业的背叛。菲力普·方纳(Philip S.Foner)是20世纪三四十年代美国马克思主义史学派的代表人物，早期曾因参加左翼活动长期受到政治迫害。他毕生致力于美国工人运动史和黑人史的研究。其代表作品包括《商业与奴隶制：纽约商人与不可抑制的冲突》(1941年)、《美国工人运动史》(1947年出版第I卷，最后一卷第Ⅵ卷于1982年出版，历时35年)等。他认为，美国和欧洲一样，存在着工人阶级的阶级意识和阶级斗争，美国工人阶级在美国历史上的历次重大历史事件中都发挥了重要作用，他们在为建立一个新的、更加美好的社会而斗争。赫伯特·阿普特克(Herbert Aptheker)是与菲力普·方纳齐名的20世纪著名的马克思主义史学家。他长期关注普通黑人的生存状况和他们为争取平等权利而进行的斗争，先后写出了《内战中的黑人》(1938年)、《美国革命中的黑人》(1940年)、《废奴运动中的黑人》(1941年)、《为了自由：美国黑人史研究》(1948年)等黑人史系列作品。在他看来，研究美国黑人史，证明黑人与白人有着同样的品质和追求，是反对种族主义的重要思想武器；展示美国历史上真正的黑人形象，是美国人理解自己的过去的重要一环。(王加丰：《20世纪美国杰出的马克思主义史学家赫伯特·阿普特克》,《史学理论研究》2010年第4期，第16页。)

It can be said that Foster, Foner, Aptheker, and others together constituted the first community of Marxist historians in the United States. Most of them were Marxists or Communists, holding the dual identity of politicians and historians. The greatest strength of their historical research lay in focusing on the working masses, Black people, women, and oppressed peoples, serving the practical political struggles of these grassroots populations. This group of Marxist historians almost all held a reverent attitude toward Marxism, and for this reason, they are often referred to by later historians as the "Old Left" among American Marxist historians. Although Marxist historiography formed its own school in the American historical arena in the first half of the 20th century, fundamentally it could by no means be considered mainstream in the development of American historiography at that time. In the historical writing of major issues such as the American Revolution, the Civil War, and Reconstruction, Marxist historiography was almost entirely overshadowed by the brilliance of Progressive historiography. By the 1950s, with the onset of the Cold War and the rise of McCarthyism, the American Communist Party was suppressed, and "consensus" historiography flourished in the American historical arena, becoming mainstream for a time, thereby inhibiting the development of Marxist historiography. Nevertheless, Foster, Foner, Aptheker, and others continued to write tirelessly, persisting in struggle through their historical writing and sustaining the lineage of American Marxist historiography.

可以说，福斯特、方纳、阿普特克等人共同构成了美国第一个马克思主义史家共同体，他们中的大多数人都是马克思主义者或共产党人，身兼政治家和史学家的双重身份，其历史研究的最大优点就是将研究重点放在工人群众、黑人、妇女和受排斥的人民身上，为这些底层民众的现实政治斗争服务。这批马克思主义史学家几乎都对马克思主义报以虔敬之情，因此，往往被后世史学家们称为美国马克思主义史学家中的“老左派”。尽管马克思主义史学在20世纪上半叶的美国史坛自成一派，但从根本上看，无论如何都不能称得上彼时美国史学发展中的主流，在诸如美国革命史、内战史和南部重建史等重大问题的历史书写方面，马克思主义史学几乎完全被进步主义史学的光辉所掩盖。至50年代，伴随着“冷战”的开始和麦卡锡主义的出现，美国共产党受到打压，“和谐一致论”史学在美国史坛勃兴，一时成为主流，马克思主义史学的发展受到抑制。尽管如此，福斯特、方纳和阿普特克等人依然笔耕不辍，用自己的历史书写坚持战斗，延续着美国马克思主义史学的血脉。

II. The Flourishing and Prosperity of American Marxist Historiography

二 美国马克思主义史学的兴盛和繁荣

In the 1960s and 1970s, the national liberation movements in Asia, Africa, and Latin America developed in depth, the anti-imperialist and anti-colonial struggles of the Third World achieved major victories, and Marxism was at its peak internationally. In the United States, the civil rights movement, the feminist movement, the anti-Vietnam War movement, and the youth counterculture movement rose one after another, providing favorable conditions for the revival and flourishing of Marxist historiography. By the 1970s, Marxist historiography had formed a wave in the American historical arena. On the one hand, a younger generation of "New Left" historians emerged, who, to some extent based on Marxist theory, launched fierce critiques of American domestic and foreign policy. On the other hand, the older generation of Marxist historians labeled the "Old Left"—Foster, Foner, Aptheker, and others—radiated new vitality and vigor under the new historical circumstances, publishing many important works and achieving fruitful results. For a time, American Marxist historiography in the 1960s and 1970s presented a unique landscape where the "New Left" and the "Old Left" coexisted simultaneously, gradually establishing its dominant position in the American historical arena, with the "New Left" clearly playing the role of the main force.

60至70年代，亚非拉地区的民族解放运动深入发展，第三世界的反帝反殖斗争取得重大胜利，马克思主义在国际上盛极一时。在美国，民权运动、女权运动、反越战运动和青年反主流文化运动等此起彼伏，为马克思主义史学的复兴与繁荣提供了有利条件。至70年代，马克思主义史学在美国史坛形成了一股热潮。一方面，年青的“新左派”史学家群体崛起，他们在某种程度上以马克思主义理论为基础，对美国内政与外交提出了激烈的批判，另一方面，被人们贴上“老左派”标签的福斯特、方纳和阿普特克等老一辈马克思主义史学家们在新的时代背景下，焕发出新的生机与活力，出版了众多重要作品，取得了丰硕的成果。一时间，美国马克思主义史学在60、70年代呈现出“新左派”和“老左派”同时并存的独特景观，逐步在美国史坛确立起自己的主导地位，而“新左派”显然又在其中扮演着主力军的角色。

William A. Williams was the founder and pioneer of the “New Left” historiography in the United States, regarded by most in the American historical profession as the most persistent dissident to launch an attack on traditional historiography after the war. His historical thought profoundly influenced the post-war cohort of young American historians, and he was revered by many followers as “a great man in the American intellectual world.” He was a prolific writer, producing numerous outstanding works such as *The Tragedy of American Diplomacy* (1959), *The United States, Cuba, and Castro* (1962), and *The Great Evasion* (1964). Against the backdrop of the Cold War between the United States and the Soviet Union, Williams and his protégé Walter LaFeber sharply criticized American foreign policy. They pointed out incisively that the United States was a country with a tradition of expansionism and imperialism from its very beginning, and that its hegemonic diplomatic behavior had created a series of diplomatic crises, sowing the seeds of tragedy in American diplomacy. They hoped that the United States would abandon its expansionist foreign policy, reform its domestic politics and economy, restructure national life, establish a “balanced” domestic system, and create “a vibrant, democratic, and prosperous, the world’s first true democratic socialism.”

威廉·阿·威廉斯(William A.Williams)是美国“新左派”史学的奠基者和开创者，被美国史学界大多数人视为战后对传统史学发起进攻的最执着的持异议者。他的史学思想深深地影响了战后美国的青年史学家群体，被众多追随者奉为“美国思想界的一位伟人”。他一生著述颇丰，写下了《美国外交的悲剧》(1959年)、《美国、古巴和卡斯特罗》(1962年)和《大回避》(1964年)等众多杰出的作品。在美苏冷战的大背景下，威廉斯和他的得意门生沃尔特·拉菲伯(Walter LaFeber)对美国的外交政策进行了激烈批评。他们一针见血地指出，美国是一个从一开始就有着扩张主义和帝国主义传统的国家，其霸权主义外交行为制造了一系列外交危机，埋下了美国外交悲剧的种子。他们希望美国能够放弃扩张主义的外交政策，改革国内政治经济，重组国家生活，建立一个“均衡”的国内体系，创造一个“具有活力的、民主而繁荣的、世界上第一个真正的民主社会主义”。

Beyond foreign policy, New Left historians also criticized numerous issues in American national development from various perspectives. On the issues of the Civil War and slavery, Eugene Genovese can be considered the most important representative of the New Left. Deeply influenced by Marxism, he wrote important works such as *The Political Economy of Slavery* (1965), *The World the Slaveholders Made* (1969), and *Roll, Jordan, Roll: The World the Slaves Made* (1974). He opposed the research methods of traditional Marxist historians who overemphasized slave resistance struggles, advocating instead for a new approach to moral evaluation that paid attention both to studying slaves “from below” and to studying slaveholders “from above.” In his view, Black slaves, as an objectively existing social class, made tremendous contributions to the United States, and the independent Black national culture they established greatly enriched the entirety of American culture. Howard Zinn was a standard-bearer in New Left labor history research and also a renowned social activist. In his famous work *A People’s History of the United States*, he took periodic economic crises and major historical events such as the Civil War, World War I, and World War II as the warp, and the workers’ struggle movements in places like New York and Philadelphia as the woof, vividly sketching a magnificent and sweeping picture of American class struggle. In his view, the problems existing in American society and its institutions could not be merely patched up but required radical transformation, thereby building a completely different new world.

除外交方面外，“新左派”史学家们还从不同的侧面，对美国国家发展中的众多问题提出了批评。在内战和奴隶制问题上，尤金·吉诺维斯可以说是“新左派”最重要的代表人物。他深受马克思主义的影响，写出了《奴隶制的政治经济》(1965年)、《奴隶主们创造的世界》(1969年)、《奔腾吧，约旦河；奔腾吧，奴隶们创造的世界》(1974年)等重要作品。他反对传统马克思主义史学家过度夸大奴隶反抗斗争的研究方法，主张从新的角度进行道德评价，既要注意“自下而上”地研究奴隶，也要“自上而下”地研究奴隶主。在他看来，黑人奴隶作为一个客观存在的社会阶级为美国做出了巨大贡献，他们建立的独立的黑人民族文化大大丰富了整个美国文化。霍华德·津恩是“新左派”劳工史研究的一位旗手，同时也是著名的社会活动家。在其著名的《美国人民的历史》一书中，他以周期性的经济危机和内战、一战、二战等重大历史事件的发展为经，以纽约、费城等地的工人斗争运动为纬，生动勾画了一幅波澜壮阔的美国阶级斗争的宏大图景。在他看来，美国社会和制度中存在的问题，不能只是进行修修补补，而是要进行激进的变革，从而建设一个迥然不同的新世界。

During this period, older-generation Marxist historians, influenced by the zeitgeist and driven by the wave of social protest, continued to produce a number of important works, making significant contributions to exposing and criticizing U.S. domestic and foreign policies. Examples include Foster’s *The Historic Advance of World Socialism* (1960), Aptheker’s *American Foreign Policy and the Cold War* (1962) and *Afro-American History: The Modern Period* (1971), and Philip Foner’s *American Labor and the Indochina War* (1971) and *Organized Labor and the Black Worker* (1974).

这一时期，老一代马克思主义史学家们受到时代背景的感染和社会抗议浪潮的推动，继续撰写了一批重要作品，在揭露和批判美国内外政策方面，同样做出了重要贡献。如：福斯特的《世界社会主义的历史性进展》(1960年)、阿普特克的《美国对外政策和冷战》(1962年)和《美国黑人史：现代时期》(1971年)、菲力普·方纳的《美国劳工与印度支那战争》(1971年)和《有组织的劳工与黑人劳工》(1974年)等。

Compared with the solitary struggles of Marxist historiography in the American historical arena during the first half of the 20th century, the development of American Marxist historiography in the 1960s and 1970s displayed a high-spirited and impassioned momentum. At this time, there was both the innovative development of new Marxist historiography and the continued transmission of traditional Marxist historiography. Professing belief in Marxism or attempting to use Marxist theory for historical research briefly became an academic fashion. Although they sometimes had different understandings of the concept of “Marxism,” they all recognized that Marxism was both a general theory for explaining the world and a method for changing it. Adhering to a “from below” historical perspective, they insisted on speaking for “ordinary people” and “the silent,” represented by the working class, and wrote a large number of “grassroots histories” [n1]. Although some believed that Marxist historiography still belonged to the minority within the American historical profession at the time, it is undeniable that the historical writings of both new and old Marxist historians sounded the strongest notes in American historiography of the 1960s and 1970s. Together, they created a heroic era in the history of American Marxist historiography. For them, this period was undoubtedly a time of memorable, lingering, and passionate years.

与20世纪上半叶马克思主义史学在美国史坛单打独斗相比，六七十年代美国马克思主义史学的发展显现出一种高亢激昂的气势。此时，既有新马克思主义史学的创新发展，又有传统马克思主义史学的赓续传承，标榜信奉马克思主义或试图运用马克思主义理论进行历史研究一时成为学术时尚。尽管他们有时对“马克思主义”这个概念有不同的理解，但都认可马克思主义既是解释这个世界的一般理论，又是改变这个世界的一种方法。他们秉承“自下而上”的历史观，坚持为以工人阶级为代表的“普通人”“沉默者”代言，书写了大量的“草根历史”[迈克尔·卡门编：《我们的过去：美国当代历史书写》(Michael Kammen, ed.,The Past Before Us:Contemporary Historical Writing in the U.S),伊萨卡、伦敦：康奈尔大学出版社1980年版，第24～25]。尽管有人认为马克思主义史学仍然属于当时美国史学界的少数派，但不可置疑的是，新、老马克思主义史学家们的历史书写还是奏响了60、70年代美国史学的最强音，他们共同缔造了美国马克思主义史学史上的一个英雄主义的时代。对他们来说，这一时期无疑是一段让人回味悠长而又激情燃烧的岁月。

III. New Challenges and New Developments for American Marxist Historiography in the Post-Cold War Era

三 后冷战时代美国马克思主义史学面临的新挑战和新发展

With the drastic changes in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe at the turn of the 1980s and 1990s and the final end of the Cold War, Marxism faced unprecedented severe blows and challenges. The “thesis of the failure of Marxism” and the “end of history” thesis, which proclaimed the ultimate victory of Western democracy, were rampant. The Marxist historiography boom that had flourished in the American historical arena in the 1960s and 1970s came to an abrupt halt, falling into unprecedented decline along with the American socialist movement. As Hobsbawm stated: “The quarter-century after the centenary of Marx’s death was the darkest period for his legacy.” [n2] The dominant position that Marxism had held in the 1960s and 1970s in various fields of social science, including history, gradually disappeared. Similarly, in 2011, a French scholar pointed out that for the vast majority of young historians, Marx was a stranger, while for their predecessors, Marx had already become a forgotten, even abandoned figure. Although a new radical trend of “back to Marx” has emerged in the West in recent years, most Marxist textbooks and important dictionaries published in the past decade contain almost no specialized historical works. Therefore, overall, the historical profession has not yet overcome the “crisis of Marxism” [n3].

伴随着80年代末90年代初的苏东剧变和“冷战”的最终结束，马克思主义面临空前严重的打击和挑战，“马克思主义失败论”和鼓吹西方民主取得最终胜利的“历史终结论”甚嚣尘上，六七十年代在美国史坛兴盛一时的马克思主义史学热潮戛然而止，与美国的社会主义运动一起陷入空前衰落。正如霍布斯鲍姆所言：“马克思逝世100周年后的25年，是其遗产所经历的最黑暗的时期。”[埃里克·霍布斯鲍姆：《如何改变世界：马克思和马克思主义的传奇》(Eric Hobsbawm, How to Change the World:Tales of Marx and Marxism),牛津：牛津大学出版社2011年版，第384页]马克思主义于60、70年代在包括历史学在内的社会科学诸领域所拥有的统治地位逐渐消失。同样是在2011年，有法国学者指出，对绝大多数年轻的史学家们来说，马克思是陌生的，而对他们的前辈来说，马克思已经是一位被遗忘的，甚至被抛弃的人物。尽管近年来在西方已经出现“回到马克思去”的新激进主义思潮，但在过去10年里出版的大多数马克思主义的教科书及重要词典中，几乎看不到专门的历史作品。因此，从整体上看，史学界还没有度过“马克思主义危机”[恩佐·特拉沃：“马克思、历史和历史学家：需要重塑的关系”(Enzo Traverso, “Marx, History, and Historians: A Relationship in Need of Reinvention”),《当代马克思》(Actuel Marx),第50卷第2期(2011年),第153页]。

Nevertheless, influenced by interdisciplinary research methods, American Marxist historiography, like American historiography as a whole, has exhibited a pluralistic development trend with social-scientization as its core feature. In the process of cross-fertilization with philosophy, political science, sociology, economics and other disciplines, Marxist historiography has taken on complex and diverse forms of cross-cultural research, but reaffirming the importance of Marxism and using Marxist theory to analyze the new changes and new problems of Western society in the post-Cold War era remain its core concern. Erik Olin Wright and others, confronting the impact of the drastic changes in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, published *Reconstructing Marxism* in 1992, raising the slogan of “reconstructing Marxism” in an effort to salvage the collapse of the old Marxist theoretical system. Ellen Wood published *Democracy Against Capitalism: Renewing Historical Materialism* in 1995 and the article “Back to Marx” in 1997. In her view, globalization is the result of the development of the logic of capital that Marx and Engels described, a logic of accumulation, commodification, profit maximization and competition. James Glassman, in his 1998 article “Karl Marx’s Invisible Hand,” also pointed out that since 1989 the world has indeed changed, but Marxism is far from dead. The basic ideas of Marx in the *Communist Manifesto* still exert a profound influence in countries around the world. In addition, some scholars, in cross-cultural research, have linked class struggle with racial conflict, thereby exposing economic inequality in American society, injecting new vitality into the development of Marxism and socialism in the United States. Other scholars have proposed new theories of Marxist development. For instance, Nathan Rosenberg of Stanford University pointed out that the leading position of the United States in technological development has prepared the most ideal conditions for realizing socialist principles. The failure of the Soviet socialist economy does not prove Marx wrong; on the contrary, it proves him completely correct. The Soviet Union failed to adapt its scientific and technological progress and research results to the needs of its own industrial and agricultural development. In comparison, the United States is in a much more favorable position, more suitable for realizing socialist transformation. David Schweickart of Loyola University and James Lawler of the University at Buffalo put forward the concept of market socialism, arguing that only through the market can socialism be realized. They pointed out that market socialism is not equivalent to capitalism; it is the only feasible path for developed capitalist countries to move toward socialism.

尽管如此，受跨学科研究方法的影响，美国马克思主义史学与整个美国史学一样出现了以社会科学化为核心特征的多元化发展趋势。马克思主义史学在与哲学、政治学、社会学、经济学等学科交叉融合的过程中，呈现出复杂多样的跨文化研究形态，但重申马克思主义的重要性，并利用马克思主义的理论去剖析后冷战时代西方社会的新变化、新问题依然是其核心关切。埃里克·赖特(Erik Olin Wright)等人面对苏东剧变所造成的影响，于1992年出版的《重建马克思主义形象》一书中喊出了“重建马克思主义”的口号，力图挽救马克思主义旧理论体系的崩塌。埃伦·伍德于1995年出版了《民主反对资本主义：重申历史唯物主义》,并于1997年发表了《回到马克思》一文。在她看来，全球化是马克思和恩格斯所说的资本逻辑发展的结果，这个逻辑就是积累、商品化、利润最大化和竞争的逻辑。詹姆斯·格拉斯曼在其于1998年发表的《卡尔·马克思无形的手》一文中也指出，自1989年以来，世界确实发生了变化，但马克思主义远没有寿终正寝。马克思在《共产党宣言》中的基本思想在世界各国依然影响深远。此外，有学者在跨文化研究中，把阶级斗争和种族冲突联系在一起，进而揭露美国社会的经济不平等，为马克思主义和社会主义在美国的发展注入了新的活力。有的学者则提出了马克思主义发展的新理论，如斯坦福大学的纳坦·罗森堡就指出，科技发展的领先地位为美国准备了实现社会主义原则最理想的条件。苏联社会主义经济的失败并不证明马克思错了，相反却证明他是完全正确的。苏联未能使科技进步和研究成果适应本国工农业发展的需要，相比之下，美国所处的地位要有利得多，更加适宜于实现社会主义的变革。罗耀拉大学的大卫·施威卡特和布法罗大学的詹姆斯·劳勒提出了市场社会主义的概念，论证了只有通过市场才能实现社会主义的主张。他们指出，市场社会主义并不等于资本主义，它是发达资本主义国家走向社会主义的唯一可行的方案。

On the whole, under the dominance of interdisciplinary research methods, post-Cold War American Marxist historiography has strengthened its reflective consciousness, focusing on reflecting on the essence, characteristics and fate of socialism and capitalism, as well as the theoretical function of Marxism, and thus possesses a strong speculative character. At the same time, it also pays great attention to analyzing and solving the problems facing contemporary capitalism, especially issues such as the knowledge economy, globalization, ecological crisis and market socialism, and thus possesses a profound realistic character (Nie Zilu, “American Marxist Research in the 1990s,” *Marxist Studies* 2000, no. 6, pp. 61–71; Peter Kickpatrick, trans. Shan Feng, “American Scholars on the Current State and Prospects of Marxism in the United States,” *Foreign Theoretical Trends* 1996, no. 14, pp. 105–110; Duan Zhongqiao, “Marxist Studies in Britain and the United States Since the 1970s,” *Social Sciences in China* 2005, no. 5, pp. 47–56).

从总体上看，后冷战时代的美国马克思主义史学研究在跨学科研究方法的主导下，强化反思意识，注重思考社会主义与资本主义的本质、特征和命运，以及马克思主义的理论功能，具有浓厚的思辨性。同时，又非常注重分析、解决当代资本主义面临的问题，尤其是知识经济、全球化、生态危机及市场社会主义等问题，具有深刻的现实性(聂资鲁：《九十年代美国的马克思主义研究》,《马克思主义研究》2000年第6期，第61～71页；彼得·基克派特里克著，山风摘译：《美国学者谈马克思主义在美国的现状和前景》,《国外理论动态》1996年第14期，第105～110页；段忠桥：《20世纪70年代以来英美的马克思主义研究》,《中国社会科学》2005年第5期，第47～56页)。

IV. The Influence of American Marxist Historiography

四 美国马克思主义史学的影响

In the United States, a country that many consider to have no tradition of socialist thought, the centennial development of Marxist historiography, though full of ups and downs, has also been marked by brilliant achievements, exerting a profound and extensive influence on both American historiography and society.

在美国这样一个被很多人认为没有社会主义思想传统的国家，马克思主义史学的百年发展尽管起伏跌宕，但亦精彩迭现，对美国史学和社会均产生了深远而广泛的影响。

First, its influence on American historiography. It has cultivated and produced a large number of outstanding radical historians, broken the stifling monopoly of conservative historiography in the United States, opened up new fields of American historical research, enriched the theories and methods of American historical research, and effectively promoted the transformation and development of American historiography. Since the founding of the nation, the development of American historiography has always had a conservative paradigm of historical writing. Conservative historians of different eras have all taken it as their mission to promote American nationalism and patriotism and to beautify the harmony and unity of all strata of American society. In their writings, American society has never had class contradictions or class struggle; fairness, justice, freedom and democracy have become the basic characteristics of American social development; and the American federation represents the future and hope of humanity. This was true of the romantic historiography of the 19th century, the “consensus” historiography of the mid-20th century, and the “end of history” thesis that rejoiced in the final victory of so-called Western democracy after the end of the Cold War. Correspondingly, there has existed another paradigm of historical writing in the development of American historiography, namely the radical paradigm. Before Marxist theory emerged and spread to the United States, this paradigm had very little influence on American historiography, but the appearance of Marxist historiography greatly changed this situation.

其一，对美国史学的影响。培养造就了一大批杰出的激进主义史学家，打破了美国保守主义史学一统天下的沉闷气氛，开拓了美国史学研究的新领域，丰富了美国史学研究的理论与方法，有力地促进了美国史学的变革与发展。自建国以来的美国史学发展始终存在着一种保守主义的历史书写范式，不同时代的保守主义史学家们均以宣扬美利坚民族主义和爱国主义、美化美国社会各阶层的协调一致为己任。在他们的笔下，美国社会从来不存在阶级矛盾和阶级斗争，公平、正义、自由、民主成为美国社会发展的基本特征，美利坚联邦代表着人类的未来和希望。19世纪的浪漫主义史学如此，20世纪中期的“和谐一致论”史学如此，冷战结束后，为所谓西方民主的最终胜利而欢欣鼓舞的“历史终结论”亦如此。与此相对应，美国史学在发展过程中还存在着另一种书写范式，即激进主义范式。这种范式在马克思主义理论产生并传到美国之前对美国史学的影响是微乎其微的，但马克思主义史学的出现极大地改变了这种状况。

As the most important representative of the radical tradition in American historiography, American Marxist historiography, since its emergence, has consistently and resolutely struggled against the conservative historiographical tradition in different historical periods, using a completely different writing paradigm to greatly change the face of American historiography. Marxist historians have drawn on historical materialism’s theories about the people creating history and class struggle driving historical progress, using economic analysis methods and a “history from below” perspective to conduct in-depth analysis and sharp criticism of the American capitalist system and society, sparking a huge historiographical revolution. With a realistic concern for taking the world as their own responsibility, they focus on promoting social fairness and justice, insist on speaking for workers, black slaves, women and other oppressed people at the bottom of society, and have gradually opened up many new fields of historical research, such as American labor history, black history, women’s history, children’s history, new social history and new political history, broadening the horizons of historical research. Their research results and ideas have provided new directions for other historians, broken the stifling situation of the monopoly of conservative historiography, and continuously promoted the development of American historiography. In a certain sense, the confrontation and struggle between radicalism and conservatism can be said to be a main line in the development of American historiography since the founding of the nation; together they have created the complete form of American historiography. Without the continuous development of Marxist historiography, the absence of radical historiography would have deprived American historiography of much of its dynamism and color. In 1981, Bernard Bailyn once pointed out in his presidential address: “Whatever approach we take to the study of history, the Marxist perspective remains a powerful force in our understanding of the past. To the extent that history is profoundly conditioned by basic economic or ‘material’ structures and by people’s responses to them, we are all Marxists” (Chinese Association for American History Studies, ed., trans. Wang Jianhua et al., *The Challenge of Modern Historiography: Collected Presidential Addresses of the American Historical Association (1961–1988)*, Shanghai: Shanghai People’s Publishing House, 1990, p. 393). From this, one can see the enormous influence of Marxist historiography on American historiography.

作为美国史学激进主义传统最重要的代表，美国马克思主义史学自产生之后，在不同的历史时期始终坚持与保守主义史学传统做坚决的斗争，用一种完全不同的书写范式极大地改变了美国史学的面貌。马克思主义史学家们借鉴唯物史观关于人民创造历史、阶级斗争推动社会历史进步等理论，以经济分析方法和“自下而上”的历史观对美国资本主义制度和社会进行了深入的剖析和尖锐的批判，引起了一场巨大的史学革命。他们胸怀以天下为己任的现实情怀，专注于促进社会的公平与正义，坚持为工人、黑奴、妇女及其他受压迫的社会底层民众发声，逐步开拓了美国劳工史、黑人史、妇女史、儿童史及新社会史和新政治史等诸多史学新领域，拓宽了史学研究的视野。他们的研究成果与观念为其他史学家提供了新的思考方向，改变了保守主义史学一统天下的沉闷局面，不断推动着美国史学向前发展。从某种意义上看，激进主义与保守主义的交锋与斗争可以说是建国以来美国史学发展的一条主线，它们共同缔造了美国史学的完整形态。如果没有马克思主义史学的赓续发展，那么，激进主义史学的缺席将使美国史学的发展失去很多动力和色彩。1981年，伯纳德·贝林曾经在其主席演说中指出：“无论我们采取何种历史研究方法，马克思主义观点对于我们认识历史仍然是一种强大的力量。历史极大地受到基本经济结构或‘物质’结构以及人们对此所做出的反应的制约，从这个意义上说，我们都是马克思主义者。”(中国美国史研究会编，王建华等译：《现代史学的挑战：美国历史协会主席演说集(1961—1988)》,上海：上海人民出版社1990年版，第393页)由此可以看出马克思主义史学对美国史学的巨大影响力。

Second, its influence on American society. The historical writings of Marxist historians have continuously deepened people’s understanding of capitalism and promoted fairness and justice in American society. As is well known, Marxism emerged in the context of the development of Western industrial society, taking the critique of capitalist society as its academic gene and the establishment of a fair and just ideal society as its lofty goal. For this reason, American Marxist historians have always played the role of physicians diagnosing and prescribing remedies for the various problems of capitalist society in the development of national history. In different historical periods, they have focused on the suffering of the底层民众 [n] and, using their pens as weapons, fiercely attacked various phenomena of injustice and inequality in American society, striving to build a more just, equal, free, and democratic America. Through their historical writings, they have often not only exposed the lies of conservative historians who beautify American society and history, stripping away the “emperor’s new clothes” [n] of moral glory they have fabricated for the United States, and enabling people to see the cruel social realities that have existed since the founding of the nation, such as class oppression, racial discrimination, and the huge gap between rich and poor, but also, in different eras, through their books and writings, continuously mobilized the people to launch large-scale social protest movements, constantly driving change and development in American society. It can be said that in the century since the beginning of the 20th century, among the many social movements that have appeared in American history, including the Progressive reform, the New Deal reform, the social equality movements of the 1960s–70s, and the social innovations of the post-Cold War era, American Marxist historians have been present, making important contributions to the construction of the American welfare state and social progress.

其二，对美国社会的影响。马克思主义史学家们的历史书写不断深化着人们对资本主义的认知，促进了美国社会的公平与正义。众所周知，马克思主义产生于西方工业化社会发展的语境之下，以批判资本主义社会为自己的学术基因，以建立公平、公正的理想社会为崇高目标。正因为此，美国马克思主义史学家在国家历史的发展中一直扮演着为资本主义社会各种问题把脉、开方的医者角色。他们在不同的历史时期，关注底层民众的疾苦，以自己手中的笔为武器，对美国社会中存在的各种不公平、不公正现象进行了猛烈抨击，为寻求建立一个更加公正、平等、自由、民主的美国而奋斗。他们通过自己的历史书写在很多时候不仅揭穿了保守主义史学家们对美国社会及历史进行美化的谎言，剥去了他们为美利坚合众国制造的充满道义光辉的“皇帝的新衣”,让人们看清了美国自立国以来便存在的诸如阶级压迫、种族歧视、贫富悬殊等残酷的社会现实，而且在不同时代通过自己的著书立说，不断发动民众进行规模宏大的社会抗议行动，不断推动着美国社会的变革与发展。可以说，在进入20世纪以来的百年时段里，美国历史上出现的包括进步主义改革、“新政”改革、60—70年代的社会平等运动及后冷战时代的社会革新在内的众多社会运动中，都有着美国马克思主义史学家的身影，他们对美国福利国家的构建和社会进步都做出了重要贡献。

To this day, although the most radical social promise made at the founding of the United States — “all men are created equal” — has still not been fully realized, overall, it is precisely because of the fierce critiques of American society by generations of Marxist historians that the social ideal of “all men are created equal” has always been able to remain on the path forward, possessing an inexhaustible driving force. It can be said that their reflections and critiques have left people with much space for thought, continuously deepening people’s understanding of capitalism, enhancing their capacity for reflection and self-examination, and greatly changing the views of tens of thousands of Americans, enabling them to repeatedly recover their sense of self from the false propaganda of conservative schools and politicians, and to seriously consider the direction and good policies for American social innovation and development.

时至今日，尽管美国建国时最激进的社会承诺——“人人生而平等”依然没有完全实现，但从总体上看，正是因为有了一代代马克思主义史学家们对美国社会的激烈批判，“人人生而平等”的社会理想才能够始终行进在路上，拥有了不竭的前进动力。可以说，他们的反思和批判给人们留下了许多思考的空间，不断深化着人们对资本主义的认知，提高了人们的反思与自省能力，极大地改变了成千上万美国人的观点，使他们不断从保守主义学派和政治家们的虚假宣传中找回自我，认真思考美国社会革新与发展的方向与良策。

(The author is a professor at the School of History, Culture and Tourism, Jiangxi Normal University)

（作者系江西师范大学历史文化与旅游学院教授）

Online editor: Zhang Jian

网络编辑：张剑