On Rosa Luxemburg’s Socialist Cultural Outlook

In the history of the development of Marxist philosophy, the study of historical materialism has undergone a process of transformation from constructing theories of social formation change in the macro domain to constructing theories of cultural critique in the micro domain. Marxist theories of the critique of modernity, reflections on the dialectic of enlightenment, studies of consumer society, as well as Marxist cultural philosophy, ecological philosophy, political philosophy, and so on, have all developed in the course of this transformation. How, then, did this transformation in the study of historical materialism occur? What is the relationship between theories of cultural critique in the micro domain and theories of social formation change in the macro domain? Can the theoretical innovations of the two be organically integrated, enabling the study of historical materialism to escape the predicament currently faced by micro-level cultural critique? These are undoubtedly major theoretical issues confronting the current study of historical materialism. To answer these questions, it is insufficient merely to study the various specific theories of cultural critique that have emerged since the 20th century. One must return to the origins of the shift in the horizon of historical materialism, explore the internal mechanisms that gave rise to this shift, discover the points of articulation between theories of social formation change in the macro domain and theories of cultural critique in the micro domain, and construct a theoretical framework capable of integrating macro-domain and micro-domain research within historical materialism, thereby achieving innovation in the theoretical study of historical materialism. With this in mind, this article selects Rosa Luxemburg’s socialist cultural outlook as a typical case for reflecting on this problem.

在马克思主义哲学发展史上，唯物史观研究经历了从在宏观领域建构社会形态变革理论到在微观领域建构文化批判理论的转变过程。马克思主义的现代性批判理论、启蒙辩证法的反思、消费社会的研究，以及马克思主义的文化哲学、生态哲学、政治哲学，等等，都是在这一转变过程中发展起来的。那么，唯物史观研究的这一转变过程是如何发生的？微观领域的文化批判理论与宏观领域的社会形态变革理论有着怎样的关系？两者的理论创新能否有机地结合在一起，使唯物史观研究走出当下微观文化批判面临的困境？这些无疑是当前唯物史观研究面临的重大理论课题。要回答这些问题，仅仅研究20世纪以来出现的各种具体的文化批判理论是不够的，必须返回到唯物史观研究视域发生转变的源头，探寻这种转变发生的内在机制，发现宏观领域的社会形态变革理论与微观领域的文化批判理论的接合点，建构能够将唯物史观的宏观领域研究与微观领域研究融为一体的理论框架，实现唯物史观理论研究的创新。鉴于此，本文选择以罗莎·卢森堡的社会主义文化观为典型案例来思考这一问题。

I. The Critique of Millerandism and the Formulation of a Socialist Cultural Outlook

一、对米勒兰主义的批判与社会主义文化观的提出

The reason this article selects Luxemburg’s socialist cultural outlook as a typical case is that her socialist cultural outlook constitutes an important nodal point in the transformation of the study of historical materialism from a macro perspective to a micro perspective, and the occasion that gave rise to this nodal point was the emergence of Millerandism. Therefore, to understand the content and significance of Luxemburg’s socialist cultural outlook, it is necessary to grasp the nature and characteristics of Millerandism, to study how Luxemburg viewed Millerandism, and to examine how she formulated a socialist cultural outlook in the process of criticizing Millerandism.

本文之所以选择卢森堡的社会主义文化观作为典型案例，是因为卢森堡的社会主义文化观是唯物史观研究从宏观视域向微观视域转变的一个重要节点，而引发这个节点的产生契机就是米勒兰主义的出现。因此，要了解卢森堡的社会主义文化观的内容及其意义，就需要了解米勒兰主义的性质和特点，研究卢森堡是如何看待米勒兰主义的，又是如何在批判米勒兰主义的过程中提出社会主义文化观的。

Millerandism took the Millerand ministerial incident as its starting point and was named after this incident. The so-called Millerand ministerial incident refers to the act of the French socialist Alexandre Millerand in June 1899, who, without the consent of his organization, joined the cabinet led by the bourgeois republican Pierre Waldeck-Rousseau in a personal capacity and served as Minister of Commerce and Industry. This event sparked fierce debate within the French socialist party. The Guesdist Workers’ Party and the Blanquist Revolutionary Socialist Party severely condemned Millerand, arguing that his actions violated the principles of the French Socialist Party and constituted a betrayal of the workers’ movement. In contrast, the revisionist faction led by Jean Jaurès defended Millerand’s actions, viewing his entry into the cabinet as an exceptional measure taken during a crisis and a socialist tactic. This raised a fundamental question concerning the proletarian struggle of the Second International: What is socialist tactics? Where are its limits? It was precisely this question that triggered the great debate within the Second International between the Marxist faction and the revisionist faction. In this debate, revisionists represented by Eduard Bernstein, Georg von Vollmar, and Jaurès argued that Millerand’s entry into the cabinet was a great experiment in socialism, an action conducive to the proletariat’s seizure of political power, and capable of yielding good results for socialism. They claimed it demonstrated that socialist principles could only harm the proletariat’s struggle for political power, whereas the effective implementation of socialist tactics could remove the numerous obstacles posed by principles, forcing those who emphasized principles to recognize that their thinking lagged behind the tactics of reality. This was essentially a method of exaggerating socialist tactics and blurring the boundaries between socialist tactics and socialist principles in order to justify the legitimacy of Millerand’s entry into the cabinet, thereby achieving the goal of negating socialist principles. Under these circumstances, clarifying the factual truth of the Millerand ministerial incident and explaining the forms and limits of legal reform became the key for social democrats to resolve the problem of socialist principles and tactics. It was precisely in the process of resolving these two issues that Luxemburg exposed the bourgeois essence of the Millerand ministerial incident and put forward the view of creating a socialist culture.

米勒兰主义以米勒兰入阁事件为起点，也因该事件而得名。所谓米勒兰入阁事件，是指1899年6月法国社会党人亚历山大·米勒兰不经组织同意而以个人名义加入资产阶级共和党人皮埃尔·瓦尔德克-卢梭领导的内阁并担任商业和工业部长的行为。此事在法国社会主义政党内引发了激烈的争论。盖得派的工人党和布朗基派的革命社会主义党严厉谴责米勒兰，认为其行为违背了法国社会党的原则，是对工人运动的背叛。而以让·饶勒斯为首的修正主义派则为米勒兰的行为辩护，将米勒兰入阁视为危机时期采取的非常措施，是一种社会主义的策略。这就提出了第二国际无产阶级斗争的一个根本性问题：什么是社会主义的策略？它的界限在哪里？正是这个问题引发了第二国际内部马克思主义派与修正主义派的大争论。在这场争论中，以爱德华·伯恩施坦、格奥尔格·福尔马尔和饶勒斯为代表的修正主义者认为，米勒兰入阁是社会主义的一次伟大实验，是有利于工人阶级夺取政治权力的行动，能给社会主义带来良好的结果，它证明了社会主义的原则只能损害工人阶级夺取政治权力的斗争，而只有社会主义策略的有效实施可以消除原则带来的重重障碍，让那些强调原则的人认识到自己的思想跟不上现实的策略。这实际上是用夸大社会主义策略、模糊社会主义策略与社会主义原则之间界限的手法来论证米勒兰入阁行为的合法性，达到否定社会主义原则的目的。在这种情况下，澄清米勒兰入阁的事实真相，说明合法改良的形式和界限，就成为社会民主党人解决社会主义的原则与策略问题的关键。正是在解决这两个问题的过程中，卢森堡揭露了米勒兰入阁事件的资产阶级本质，提出了创造社会主义文化的观点。

In July 1899, shortly after the Millerand ministerial incident occurred, Luxemburg published the article “A Question of Tactics,” exposing the truth that Millerand’s entry into the cabinet served the bourgeoisie from two aspects. On the one hand, by analyzing the nature of the state apparatus of bourgeois government, Luxemburg demonstrated that Millerand’s entry into the cabinet could not become part of the proletarian cause. She pointed out that in a bourgeois state, the government apparatus differs from the parliamentary apparatus: parliament is a legislative body that allows the existence of an opposition and the expression of its views; the government is an executive body whose “task is to implement laws, to act; it absolutely cannot tolerate within itself an opposition in principle; it must keep all its organs in constant action. Therefore, even if the government is composed of representatives of different parties, as has been the case for several years in the mixed cabinets in France, it always stands on a basis that is in principle common, a basis that enables it to act.” Consequently, socialists enter parliament out of tactical necessity, participating in parliamentary activities as an opposition to fight for workers’ rights and to carry out the struggle against the bourgeoisie and its state. In this situation, parliamentary struggle becomes “a reasonable and appropriate way for socialists to serve the proletarian cause.” However, socialists who join the government apparatus face two choices: either to oppose the government as an opposition until expelled from it, or to actively participate in government activities as collaborators, becoming members of the government and fulfilling the functions of government departments. In either of these two choices, they can only serve the bourgeoisie, not the proletariat. This shows that socialists joining the government apparatus has already exceeded the “normal mode of socialist activity” and therefore is no longer a question of tactics but a question of principle—namely, whether to uphold socialist principles or to abandon them. Measured by this principle, Millerand’s entry into the cabinet was by no means the implementation of socialist tactics, but rather “an experiment that can only harm the class struggle.” On the other hand, by analyzing the various policies Millerand adopted after entering the cabinet, Luxemburg exposed the anti-socialist essence of Millerand’s reformist measures. Luxemburg provided a detailed analysis of three important reformist measures implemented by Millerand after taking office (the law on the working day, the bill on trade unions, and the draft on compulsory strike arbitration), exposing his two-faced tactic of linking concessions to workers with concessions to employers. That is, on the one hand, he formulated measures ostensibly favorable to workers on paper, forcing employers to make some material concessions to workers; on the other hand, he enacted various bills to restrict the trade union movement and prevent workers from striking, thereby achieving the goal of protecting capital. Luxemburg pointed out that this two-faced tactic proved that Millerand’s social reforms were merely a faithful transposition of the general guiding principles of governmental political activity into the field of social policy. These were by no means social reforms beneficial to workers, nor were they socialist tactics at all; on the contrary, they came at the expense of the interests of the working class and constituted a trampling upon socialist principles and tactics. Through the analysis and critique of these two aspects, Luxemburg exposed the factual truth of the Millerand ministerial incident: Millerand’s entry into the cabinet was not the implementation of legal socialist reforms, but rather the implementation of legal bourgeois reforms.

在米勒兰入阁事件刚刚发生的1899年7月，卢森堡就发表了《一个策略问题》一文，从两个方面揭露了米勒兰入阁是为资产阶级服务的真相。一方面，卢森堡通过分析资产阶级国家政府机构的性质，论证了米勒兰入阁不可能成为无产阶级事业的一部分。她指出，在资产阶级国家，政府机构不同于议会机构：议会是立法机构，允许反对派存在并发表自己的观点；政府是执法机构，“任务是贯彻法律、是行动，它决不容许在自己内部有一个原则上的反对派，它必须使自己的所有机构不断地行动，因此，即使政府是由不同党派的代表组成的，就像几年来在法国的混合内阁中那样，它始终立足于一个原则上是共同的基础，这个基础使它能够采取行动”。因此，社会党人是出于策略的需要进入议会，以反对派的身份参加议会活动，为工人争取权利，并进行反对资产阶级及其国家的斗争。在这种情况下，议会斗争就成为社会党人“为无产阶级事业服务的一种合理的、适宜的方式”。但是，参加政府机构的社会党人却面临着两种抉择：或者以反对派的身份与政府对立，直至被逐出政府；或者以合作者的身份积极参加政府的活动，成为政府中的一员，履行政府部门的职能。在这两种抉择中，无论选择哪一种，都只能为资产阶级而不能为无产阶级服务。这说明，社会党人参加政府机构已经超出了“社会主义常规活动方式”，因此也就不再是一个策略问题，而是一个原则问题，即究竟是坚持社会主义原则还是放弃社会主义原则的问题。以该原则来衡量，米勒兰入阁绝非实行社会主义策略，而是“一种只会损害阶级斗争的试验”。另一方面，卢森堡通过分析米勒兰入阁之后采取的各项政策，揭露了米勒兰改良措施的反社会主义实质。卢森堡详尽地分析了米勒兰入阁后所实施的三项重要改良措施（关于工作日的法律、关于工会的法案、关于强制罢工的草案），戳穿了其将对工人的让步与对企业主的让步挂钩的两面手法，即一方面在纸面上制定有利于工人的措施，让企业主对工人作出一些物质让步，另一方面制定各种法案来限制工会运动，阻止工人罢工，从而达到保护资本的目的。卢森堡指出，这种两面手法证明，米勒兰的社会改良不过是把政府政治活动的普遍指导原则忠实地照搬到社会政策领域，这绝不是有利于工人的社会改良，也根本不是社会主义的策略，恰恰相反，它是以损害工人阶级的利益为代价的，是对社会主义原则和策略的践踏。通过上述两个方面的分析和批判，卢森堡揭露了米勒兰入阁的事实真相，即米勒兰入阁不是进行社会主义的合法改良，而是进行资产阶级的合法改良。

The exposure of the truth behind Millerand’s entry into the cabinet once again raised the question of the forms and limits of legal reform. As early as her systematic critique of Bernstein’s revisionist theory, Luxemburg had already raised and begun to study the question of the forms and limits of legal reform. At that time, however, the core question was: through what mode of activity should the proletariat realize the transformation from the capitalist social formation to the socialist social formation — through the mode of legal reform, or through the mode of social revolution? Bernstein affirmed the former and negated the latter. To resolve this question, Luxemburg placed legal reform within the macroscopic perspective of the entire historical process of humanity, using the dialectical relationship between social reform and social revolution as the theoretical framework to demonstrate the forms and limits of legal reform. Within this theoretical framework, legal reform was defined as a mode of activity opposed to social revolution: social revolution occurs at the stage of the replacement of social formations and the transformation of social systems, and is a force that drives society to undergo qualitative change; legal reform, by contrast, operates only within the bounds of a given social formation and social system, and is a process of the quantitative accumulation of social change. However, the Millerand affair and the fierce debates it provoked within the Second International between the Marxist faction and the revisionist faction sharpened the opposition between capitalist culture and socialist culture hidden within legal reform. Under these circumstances, studying the cultural character of legal reform and exposing the opposition between socialist culture and capitalist culture within legal reform became a question that the Marxist faction of the Second International had to face and resolve. To resolve this question, Luxemburg delved into the micro-level of the study of historical materialism, using the dialectical relationship between the whole and the parts of socialist culture as the theoretical framework to rethink the question of the forms and limits of legal reform.

对米勒兰入阁真相的揭露，将合法改良的形式和界限问题再度提了出来。卢森堡早在系统地批判伯恩施坦的修正主义理论时，就已经提出并开始研究合法改良的形式和界限问题，不过当时的核心问题是：无产阶级应该通过何种活动方式实现从资本主义社会形态向社会主义社会形态的转变，是通过合法改良的方式，还是通过社会革命的方式？伯恩施坦肯定前者，而否定后者。为了解决这个问题，卢森堡将合法改良置于人类历史进程的宏观视域中，以社会改良与社会革命的辩证关系为理论框架来论证合法改良的形式和界限。在这个理论框架下，合法改良被定义为与社会革命相对的一种活动方式：社会革命发生在社会形态更替、社会制度变革的阶段，是推动社会发生质变的力量；合法改良则只是在一定社会形态、社会制度的范围内起作用，是社会变化的量的积累过程。然而，米勒兰入阁事件及其所引发的第二国际内部马克思主义派与修正主义派的激烈争论，使合法改良中隐藏的资本主义文化与社会主义文化的对立尖锐化了。在这种情况下，研究合法改良的文化性质，揭露合法改良中社会主义文化与资本主义文化的对立，就成为第二国际马克思主义派必须面对和解决的问题。为了解决这个问题，卢森堡深入到唯物史观研究的微观层面，以社会主义文化整体与部分的辩证关系为理论框架，重新思考了合法改良的形式和界限问题。

The dialectical relationship between the whole and the parts of socialist culture is the theoretical framework through which Luxemburg examined legal reform, and it is also Luxemburg’s view of socialist culture. Luxemburg put forward this view of culture based on her understanding of legal reform during the period when the Social Democratic Party participated in parliament: legal reform is a struggle conducted by the Social Democratic Party “on the soil of the bourgeois social system,” but this struggle is neither the ultimate goal nor the entire content of the proletarian struggle; it is merely one stage and one part of the proletariat’s overall struggle “to completely eradicate exploitation and the entire bourgeois society.” At this stage, what the Social Democrats must do is to incorporate legal reform into the overall struggle of the proletariat, to carry out the struggle against the bourgeoisie under the guidance of the socialist view of culture, to strive for the political and economic power of the working class, and to prepare for the proletariat’s seizure of state power. In this way, the overall struggle of the proletariat becomes the limit of legal reform during the period of parliamentary struggle. The precise meaning of this limit is: only that legal reform which takes the overall struggle of the proletariat as its goal and becomes one stage and one part of the proletariat’s overall struggle possesses the character of socialist culture; conversely, that legal reform which abandons the goal of the overall struggle of the proletariat, confines itself within the bounds of the capitalist system, and serves the rule of the bourgeoisie possesses only the character of capitalist culture. This limit is the principle Luxemburg used to measure whether legal reform possesses the character of socialist culture or the character of capitalist culture.

社会主义文化整体与部分的辩证法关系是卢森堡考察合法改良的理论框架，也是卢森堡的社会主义文化观。卢森堡提出这一文化观，是基于她对社会民主党加入议会时期合法改良的认识，即合法改良是社会民主党“在资产阶级社会制度的土壤上进行的一种斗争”，但这种斗争不是无产阶级斗争的最终目的和全部内容，而仅仅是无产阶级“为了彻底铲除剥削和整个资产阶级社会”的整体斗争的一个阶段和一个部分。在这个阶段，社会民主党人要做的就是，把合法改良纳入到无产阶级的整体斗争之中，在社会主义文化观的主导下开展反对资产阶级的斗争，努力争取工人阶级的政治权力和经济权力，为无产阶级夺取政权作准备。这样一来，无产阶级的整体斗争就成为议会斗争时期合法改良的界限。这个界限的确切含义是：只有以无产阶级的整体斗争为目标、成为无产阶级整体斗争的一个阶段和一个部分的合法改良，才具有社会主义文化的性质；反之，那种放弃了无产阶级整体斗争的目标、局限在资本主义制度的范围内、服务于资产阶级统治的合法改良，只具有资本主义文化的性质。这个界限就是卢森堡用来衡量合法改良是具有社会主义文化性质还是具有资本主义文化性质的原则。

On the basis of this principle, Luxemburg studied the relationship between socialist culture and legal reform. She held that socialist culture is a totality, encompassing the economy, politics, and ideology of socialism; therefore, the construction of socialist culture necessarily includes the struggle against the economy, politics, and ideology of capitalism. During the parliamentary period, this struggle was divided into two forms: parliamentary struggle and trade-union struggle. Because the fields in which these two forms of struggle occur are different, this also determined that the Social Democratic Party must adopt two different modes of struggle: the field in which parliamentary struggle occurs is the parliamentary institutions of the bourgeois government; in this field, the Social Democratic Party confronts the institutional culture of capitalism, and its task is to participate in parliamentary activities as an opposition force, striving for political and economic power for the working class — Luxemburg called this mode of struggle “political reform work”; the field in which trade-union struggle occurs is the trade-union organization; in this field, the Social Democratic Party confronts the ideological culture of the bourgeoisie, and its task is to educate the masses of workers with socialist culture, guiding the trade-union struggle from a focus on the immediate economic interests of the working class toward a focus on the long-term political interests of the working class — Luxemburg called this mode of struggle “economic reform work.” Luxemburg emphasized that these two forms of struggle “are not two parallel developments of action,” nor are they the entire content of the proletarian struggle; they are merely the current work, one period, and one stage of development of the entire proletarian struggle. The task of the Social Democratic Party is to make the class struggle of the proletariat transcend the limits of both parliamentary struggle and trade-union struggle, thereby realizing its ultimate goal — the complete emancipation of the working class. It is in this sense that Luxemburg said: “The relationship of parliamentary struggle to the policy of the Social Democratic Party is that of the part to the whole, just as is the relationship of trade-union work to the policy of the Social Democratic Party. The Social Democratic Party [itself] is precisely the synthesis of parliamentary struggle and trade-union struggle — that is, the synthesis of the two into a class struggle aimed at abolishing the bourgeois social system.” In this way, Luxemburg raised the question of the cultural leadership of the Social Democratic Party within legal reform.

根据这个原则，卢森堡研究了社会主义文化与合法改良之间的关系。她认为，社会主义文化是一个总体，包含了社会主义的经济、政治和意识形态，因此社会主义文化的建设必然包括反对资本主义的经济、政治和意识形态的斗争。在议会时期，这种斗争被分为两种形式：议会斗争和工会斗争。由于这两种斗争形式发生的场域不同，又决定了社会民主党要采取两种不同的斗争方式：议会斗争发生的场域是资产阶级政府的议会机构，在这个场域中，社会民主党面对的是资本主义的制度文化，任务是以反对派的身份参与议会活动，为工人阶级争取政治和经济权力，卢森堡将这种斗争方式称为“政治上的改良工作”；工会斗争发生的场域是工会组织，在这个场域中，社会民主党面对的是资产阶级的意识形态文化，任务是用社会主义文化教育工人群众，把工会斗争从关注工人阶级当前的经济利益导向关注工人阶级长远的政治利益，卢森堡将这种斗争方式称为“经济上的改良工作”。卢森堡强调，这两种斗争形式“不是两种平行发展的行动”，也不是无产阶级斗争的全部内容，而只是整个无产阶级斗争的当前工作、一个时期和一个发展阶段，社会民主党的任务就是使无产阶级的阶级斗争既超越议会斗争也超越工会斗争的界限，从而实现其最终目标——工人阶级的彻底解放。正是在这个意义上，卢森堡说：“议会斗争同社会民主党的政策的关系是局部与整体的关系，这也和工会工作与社会民主党的政策的关系一样。社会民主党〔本身〕正是议会斗争与工会斗争的综合，即把二者综合为一个旨在消灭资产阶级社会制度的阶级斗争。”这样，卢森堡就提出了社会民主党在合法改良中的文化领导权问题。

Luxemburg believed that if the Social Democratic Party was to seize cultural leadership within legal reform, it must understand Marx and Engels’ scientific socialist viewpoint from the perspective of a worldview, regarding them as the culture of the proletariat, as a new rationality and a new faith. On April 30, 1902, Luxemburg published an article titled “The New Faith” in the *Leipziger Volkszeitung*, elucidating the significance of Marx and Engels’ founding of scientific socialism from the height of human cultural transformation. She wrote: “On May 1, the proletariat of the whole world steps out of the narrow, defensive national walls (behind which, for an entire year, each nation has been waging its world-historical struggle in its own place and in its own way) onto the broad highway of international brotherhood. But this day is also meant to lead the proletariat to the higher foundation of a comprehensive worldview, from which the proletariat as a class can not only view its past and future path with the eyes of historical necessity, but also cast an excited and fervent gaze into the distance, at the end of which the demands of thought and the poetic imagination of the human spirit of all ages have already spread widely, and from the origins of humanity to the present day have become mutually contradictory disciplines. On this day, the proletariat is to be made clearly aware that it bears not only a political mission, not only a social mission, but also an intellectual mission; the working class, in the words of its great forerunner, is the heir of German philosophy; it is the bearer of a new, worldwide faith; socialism is not only committed to a new world order, but it raises this demand on the basis of a new worldview; long before the current social transformation, various scientific thoughts had already undergone an intellectual transformation, an intellectual transformation that signifies a change in worldview, a change far more thorough and powerful than the change from the Ptolemaic to the Copernican system of the sun; today’s proletariat, on this great world festival, must remember this fact all the more; for daily political and economic struggles often cause the proletariat to forget this great spiritual heritage accumulated for the working class by its spiritual fathers, a heritage that this class must win anew generation after generation in order to possess it.” This passage shows that, for Luxemburg, the intellectual and spiritual construction of socialist culture is higher than its political and social construction. Only under the guidance of the thought and spirit of socialist culture can the proletariat’s struggle transcend the framework of parliamentarism and trade unionism, embark on the path of scientific socialism, and only then can the proletariat seize state power and obtain its own political and social power. It is precisely based on this understanding that Luxemburg regarded upholding and developing Marx’s historical materialism as the primary task of socialist cultural construction.

卢森堡认为，社会民主党要掌握合法改良中的文化领导权，就必须从世界观的高度理解马克思和恩格斯的科学社会主义观点，把它们视为无产阶级的文化，视为新的理性和新的信仰。1902年4月30日，卢森堡在《莱比锡人民报》上发表《新信仰》一文，从人类文化变革的高度阐发了马克思和恩格斯创立科学社会主义的意义。她写道：“5月1日，全世界的无产阶级走出防御性的狭隘的民族性围墙（在这堵围墙的后面，每一个民族整整一年都在自己的地方依照各自的方式进行世界历史性的斗争），来到国际博爱的康庄大道。但是，这一天同时还要把无产阶级引向包罗万象的世界观的高级基础，从这里出发，无产阶级作为阶级不仅要用历史必然性的眼光看待自己过去和未来的道路，而且还要将兴奋狂热的目光投向远方，在远方的尽头，有思想的研究要求和各个时代的人类精神的诗一般的想象已经广泛流传，并且从人类的起源到今天已经成为互相矛盾的学科。在这一天，要使无产阶级明确意识到，它不仅肩负政治使命，不仅肩负社会使命，而且还肩负思想使命；工人阶级，用它的伟大先驱的话说，是德国哲学的继承人；它是一种新的遍及全世界的信仰的载体；社会主义不仅致力于新的世界秩序，而且它在新的世界观的基础上提出这个要求；早在目前发生的社会变革以前，各种科学思想已经发生了思想变革，这种思想变革意味着世界观的一种改变，而这种改变比哥白尼的太阳系较之托勒密的旧太阳系的改变还要彻底得多，有力得多；今天的无产阶级，在这个伟大的世界节日更要记住这一事实；因为日常的政治和经济斗争常常使无产阶级忘记它的精神之父为工人阶级积累的这份伟大的精神遗产，这个阶级需要一代接一代地重新争取才能拥有这份遗产。”这段话表明，在卢森堡那里，社会主义文化的思想建构和精神建构高于社会主义文化的政治建构和社会建构，只有在社会主义文化的思想和精神的指引下，无产阶级的斗争才能超越议会主义和工联主义的框架，走上科学社会主义的道路，无产阶级才能夺取政权，获得自身的政治权力和社会权力。正是基于这一认识，卢森堡把坚持和发展马克思的唯物史观作为社会主义文化建设的首要任务。

From criticizing Millerandism to proposing the dialectical relationship between the whole and the parts of socialist culture, from studying the forms and limits of legal reform to proposing the task of upholding and developing Marx’s historical materialism, Luxemburg organically combined the critique of the capitalist system with the critique of bourgeois thought, outlining a picture of socialist cultural creation. In this picture, the study of the forms and limits of legal reform constitutes a realistic political critique of Millerandism, while upholding and developing Marx’s historical materialism constitutes an intellectual critique of Millerandism. Luxemburg’s socialist cultural outlook was constructed precisely in the process of carrying out political and intellectual critiques of Millerandism.

从批判米勒兰主义到提出社会主义文化整体与部分的辩证关系，从研究合法改良的形式和界限到提出坚持和发展马克思的唯物史观的任务，卢森堡把对资本主义制度的批判与对资产阶级思想的批判有机地结合起来，勾勒出社会主义文化创造的图景。在这幅图景中，对合法改良的形式和界限的研究是对米勒兰主义进行现实的政治批判，坚持和发展马克思的唯物史观是对米勒兰主义进行思想批判。卢森堡的社会主义文化观就是在对米勒兰主义进行政治批判和思想批判的过程中建构起来的。

II. The Rational Construction of Socialist Culture

二、社会主义文化的理性建构

In the study of historical materialism, Luxemburg followed a different academic path from other Marxist theorists of her time. Theorists such as Antonio Labriola, Paul Lafargue, and Georgi Plekhanov all elucidated Marx’s basic principle that the economic base determines the superstructure with the theme of the transformation of social formations, whereas Luxemburg elucidated the rational spirit and cultural character of historical materialism with the theme of the struggle between socialist culture and capitalist culture within legal reform. The former constitutes the macro-perspective of the study of historical materialism in this period, while the latter constitutes its micro-perspective. Therefore, to understand the issues and academic path of historical materialism research from the micro-perspective, it is necessary to examine how Luxemburg elucidated the rational spirit and cultural character of historical materialism.

在唯物史观研究方面，卢森堡与她同时代的其他马克思主义理论家有着不同的学术理路。安东尼奥·拉布里奥拉、保尔·拉法格、格奥尔基·普列汉诺夫等理论家都是以社会形态的变革为主题来阐发马克思关于经济基础决定上层建筑的基本原理，而卢森堡则以合法改良中的社会主义文化与资本主义文化的斗争为主题来阐发唯物史观的理性精神和文化品格。前者构成了这一时期唯物史观研究的宏观视域，后者构成了这一时期唯物史观研究的微观视域。因此，要了解唯物史观在微观视域研究方面的问题和学术理路，就需要考察卢森堡是如何阐发唯物史观的理性精神及其文化品格的。

In Luxemburg’s view, Marx’s doctrine is scientific socialism. However, Marx’s thought on scientific socialism did not arise from empirical observations of the phenomenon of exploitation; rather, it took shape and developed in the process of founding historical materialism. That is to say, the process by which Marx founded historical materialism was also the process of forming the viewpoint of scientific socialism, and likewise the process of the rational construction of socialist culture. Proceeding from this viewpoint, Luxemburg, taking as her text the first volume of *The Posthumous Works of Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels and Ferdinand Lassalle* edited by Franz Mehring, namely *The Collected Works of Marx and Engels (March 1841 – March 1844)*, conducted a systematic and in-depth study of Marx’s early writings. Luxemburg argues that the period from the beginning of his study of the philosophy of law in the late 1830s to the publication of the *Deutsch-Französische Jahrbücher* in the 1840s constitutes the first stage of Marx’s intellectual development, that is, the stage in which Marx transformed from a Hegelian into a socialist, and also the stage in which his thought on scientific socialism took shape. In this stage, two independent main threads ran simultaneously through Marx’s intellectual development: one main thread was the process of Marx’s inner crisis as he struggled to resolve the contradiction between thought and being, between the material world and the process of thought; the other main thread was the political and economic issues Marx encountered through his extensive contact with the real world. These two threads have a dual significance for Marx’s intellectual development: first, Marx, in coming into contact with the real world of Germany, came to recognize the fact of exploitation and to become aware of the injustice of this fact; second, Marx recognized the defects of the idealist worldview, turned back to study the problem of the unity of thought and being, of the material world and the process of thought, and, on the basis of forming new concepts, “provided a coherent explanation and a unified method of resolution for all partial problems in practical life and spiritual life.” Both threads vividly embody the characteristics of Marx’s intellectual creation: in the continuous process of exploring and answering fundamental philosophical questions, he moved toward the empirical world, then, taking historical materialism as his overarching conception, analyzed capitalist economy, demonstrated the objective necessity of historical development, and on this basis founded critical political economy and scientific socialism. Marx’s doctrine is a theoretical system composed of historical materialism, political economy, and scientific socialism. Within it, historical materialism is “a generally summarizing and fruitful viewpoint,” “the rock-solid foundation used to build the edifice of scientific socialism.” Therefore, to grasp Marx’s doctrine, to understand Marx’s political economy and scientific socialism, one must understand Marx’s historical materialism; and to understand Marx’s historical materialism, one must study the three important landmarks of the inner crisis Marx experienced before founding historical materialism. The first landmark is Marx’s letter to his father on November 10, 1837. In this long letter, Marx confided to his father the difficulties he encountered in attempting to critique jurisprudence philosophically, namely, that idealist philosophy “made it impossible to unite material jurisprudence with formal jurisprudence.” This was the first time Marx touched upon the problem of the unity of thought and being. In the process of thinking through this problem, Marx, unlike other Young Hegelians who “stubbornly remained within the speculative domain of theology, that is, stubbornly clung to the abstract forms of ideology,” instead, through his study of jurisprudence and the philosophy of history, “came into contact with the nearest and most direct ideological form of material social life, namely, law.” This constituted the earliest form of Marx’s founding of historical materialism—exploring the problem of the unity of thought and being in the form of law. The second landmark is Marx’s doctoral dissertation. In this dissertation, Marx sought to resolve the problem of the unity of consciousness and being in the philosophy of nature. This was a study in a purely philosophical form. It was precisely in this study that Marx constructed the worldview and methodology of historical materialism. The third landmark is Marx’s article “A Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right: Introduction,” published in the *Deutsch-Französische Jahrbücher*. In this article, Marx raised the problem of the emancipation of the proletariat, discovered the class basis of materialism, and expounded the revolutionary and practical character of historical materialism. This was an exploration of the problem of the unity of thought and being in a social form. At this point, although Marx had not yet completed the monistic demonstration of the unity of consciousness and being, he had already established the class standpoint of the proletariat and, proceeding from this standpoint, raised a question that only scientific socialism could answer, namely, “how should human beings, as the oppressed and maltreated members of society, be emancipated?” To this question, Marx “deduced a schema of deduction for the class struggle and victory of the proletariat from countless dazzling, successive, roaring dialectical conclusions.” Thus, by examining the inner crisis Marx experienced in the process of exploring the problem of the unity of thought and being, Luxemburg revealed the inner developmental process by which Marx transformed from a Hegelian into a socialist, and also revealed how Marx’s thought on scientific socialism emerged from the philosophical critique of the late 1830s to the early 1840s. This thereby demonstrated that the thought of scientific socialism did not arise, as the “critical socialists” claimed, from Marx’s recognition of the fact of exploitation and his awareness of the injustice of this fact; on the contrary, it arose from Marx’s philosophical critique. It was philosophical critique that drove Marx into the empirical world, where he saw the fact of exploitation and recognized its injustice; and it was precisely in philosophical critique that Marx founded historical materialism, obtained the “deduction of socialism,” and thereby gained a new understanding of the facts of exploitation and injustice he had seen during his work on the *Rheinische Zeitung* in the 1840s, and subsequently “found a unique path through the labyrinth of everyday facts of existing society, discovering the scientific laws of its development and demise. This is scientific socialism.” It can thus be seen that Marx’s founding of the doctrine of scientific socialism was inseparable from historical materialism. More precisely, Marx formed his view of scientific socialism in the process of founding historical materialism. Chronologically, the founding of historical materialism came first, and the formation of the concept of scientific socialism came later; logically, historical materialism is the philosophical foundation of scientific socialism, and also an intrinsic component part of scientific socialism. It is precisely because of this philosophical foundation of historical materialism that scientific socialism acquired the significance of a worldview and became a scientific theory.

在卢森堡看来，马克思的学说是科学社会主义。但是，马克思的科学社会主义思想不是从观察剥削现象的经验事实中产生的，而是在创立唯物史观的过程中形成和发展起来的。这就是说，马克思创立唯物史观的过程，也是科学社会主义观点形成的过程，亦是社会主义文化的理性建构过程。从这一观点出发，卢森堡以弗兰茨·梅林编辑的《卡尔·马克思、弗里德里希·恩格斯和斐迪南·拉萨尔遗著》第1卷《马克思恩格斯文集（1841年3月—1844年3月）》为文本，对马克思的早期著作进行了系统的、深入的研究。卢森堡认为，从1830年代末开始研究法哲学到1840年代出版《德法年鉴》，是马克思思想发展的第一阶段，即马克思从黑格尔派转变为社会主义者的阶段，也是其科学社会主义思想形成的阶段。在这个阶段，马克思的思想发展同时存在着两条彼此独立的主线：一条主线是马克思为解决思维与存在、物质世界与思维过程之间的矛盾而经历的内心危机过程；另一条主线是马克思在大量接触现实世界的情况下所涉及的政治和经济问题。这两条主线对于马克思的思想发展具有双重意义：一是马克思在接触德国现实世界的过程中认识到剥削的事实并意识到这一事实的不公正；二是马克思认识到唯心主义世界观的缺陷，转而重新研究思维与存在、物质世界与思维过程的统一问题，并在形成新的观念的基础上“对实际生活和精神生活中的一切局部问题提出协调一致的解释和统一的解决方法”。两条主线均鲜明地体现了马克思思想创造的特点：在不断探索和解答哲学基本问题的过程中走向经验世界，继而以历史唯物主义为总观念去分析资本主义经济，论证历史发展的客观必然性，在此基础上创立了批判的政治经济学和科学社会主义。马克思的学说就是由历史唯物主义、政治经济学和科学社会主义构成的理论体系，其中，历史唯物主义是“一般概括性的、能取得成效的观点”，是“用来建设作为科学社会主义大厦的坚如磐石的基础”。因此，要把握马克思的学说，要理解马克思的政治经济学和科学社会主义，就必须了解马克思的历史唯物主义，而要了解马克思的历史唯物主义，就必须研究马克思在创立历史唯物主义之前所经历的内心危机的三个重要界标。第一个界标是马克思于1837年11月10日写给他父亲的信。在这封长信中，马克思向父亲倾诉了他力图从哲学上批判法学所遇到的困难，即唯心主义哲学“不可能使物质的法学和形式的法学结合起来”。这是马克思第一次触及思维与存在的统一问题，而在思考这个问题的过程中，马克思并不像其他青年黑格尔分子那样“一味死守在神学的思辨领域里，也就是说死守住意识形态的抽象形式”，而是通过对法学和历史哲学的研究“接触到物质的社会生活的最近、最直接的意识形态形式，即法”。这就构成了马克思创立历史唯物主义的最初形式——以法的形式来探寻思维与存在的统一问题。第二个界标是马克思的博士论文。在这篇论文中，马克思力图解决自然哲学中意识与存在的统一问题。这是一种纯哲学形式的研究。正是在这一研究中，马克思建构了历史唯物主义的世界观和方法论。第三个界标是马克思在《德法年鉴》上发表的《〈黑格尔法哲学批判〉导言》。在这篇文章中，马克思提出了无产阶级解放的问题，发现了唯物主义的阶级基础，阐发了历史唯物主义的革命性和实践性。这是以社会的形式来探寻思维与存在的统一问题。此时，马克思虽然还没有完成对意识与存在统一的一元论论证，但已经确立了无产阶级的阶级立场，并从这一立场出发提出了只有科学的社会主义才能回答的问题，即“应该如何解放作为社会的受压迫和受虐待的成员的人”，对于这个问题，马克思“从无数光彩夺目的、接二连三咆哮奔腾而来的辩证的结论中，推断出无产阶级阶级斗争和无产阶级胜利的一个演绎法图式”。这样，卢森堡就通过考察马克思早期在探寻思维与存在的统一问题时所经历的内在危机，揭示了马克思从黑格尔派到社会主义者的内在发展过程，也揭示了马克思的科学社会主义思想是如何从1830年代末至1840年代初的哲学批判中产生的，从而证明了科学社会主义思想并非如“批判的社会主义者”所说的那样，是从马克思认识到剥削事实并意识到这一事实的不公正中产生的，恰恰相反，它是从马克思的哲学批判中产生的，是哲学批判推动马克思走进经验世界，看到了剥削的事实，认识到剥削的不公正；也正是在哲学批判中，马克思创立了唯物史观，获得了“社会主义的演绎法”，从而对他在1840年代《莱茵报》工作期间看到的剥削事实和不公正现象有了新的认识，进而“在现存社会日常事实的迷宫中独辟蹊径，找到了这一社会的发展和灭亡的科学规律。这就是科学的社会主义”。由此可见，马克思创立科学社会主义学说离不开唯物史观，确切地说，马克思是在创立唯物史观的过程中形成了科学社会主义观。从时间上看，唯物史观的创立在先，科学社会主义观念的形成在后；从逻辑上看，唯物史观是科学社会主义的哲学基础，亦是科学社会主义的内在构成部分，正因为有了唯物史观这个哲学基础，科学社会主义才获得了世界观的意义，成为一门科学理论。

Luxemburg argues that the reason scientific socialism can become the worldview of the proletariat lies in the fact that the basic principles of historical materialism contain the cultural spirit of scientific socialism. The basic principle of historical materialism as Luxemburg understands it is the relationship between Marx’s theory and the practice of the proletariat’s class struggle. In Luxemburg’s view, the relationship between the two is not an external relationship in the sense of applying theory to practice, but rather an intrinsic constitution of historical materialism. This intrinsic constitution is contained within Marx’s philosophy, political economy, and scientific socialism. Among these, philosophy is the dialectic of history, which is the most valuable part of Marx’s theory. It is not a complete theoretical system, but rather “a method of research, a set of brilliant guiding ideas, which enable one to look forward to a new world, open up infinite vistas for independent activity, and inspire our thought to boldly fly into yet-unstudied fields.” Here, Luxemburg understands Marx’s dialectic of history as a weapon for emancipating thought, a method of thought that guides Marxist theorists to bravely face reality and create new Marxist theory in accordance with the changes of the times. This method of thought is both totalizing and critical.

卢森堡认为，科学社会主义之所以能够成为无产阶级的世界观，就在于唯物史观的基本原理中包含了科学社会主义的文化精神。卢森堡所理解的唯物史观的基本原理就是马克思的理论与无产阶级的阶级斗争实践之间的关系。在卢森堡看来，两者之间的关系，不是把理论应用于实践这一意义上的外在关系，而是唯物史观的内在构成，这种内在构成包含在马克思的哲学、政治经济学和科学社会主义之中。其中，哲学是历史辩证法，这是马克思的理论中最有价值的部分，它不是一个完整的理论体系，而“是一种研究方法、一些天才的指导思想，它们使人有可能展望一个崭新的世界，开辟独立活动的无限远景，激励我们的思想大胆地飞进尚未研究的领域”。在此，卢森堡将马克思的历史辩证法理解为解放思想的武器，是引导马克思主义理论家勇敢地面对现实、根据时代变化创造新的马克思主义理论的思想方法。这个思想方法既是总体性的，又是批判性的。

Totality enables historical dialectics to acquire its real content in the field of political economy, namely, the objective basis and ultimate goal of the proletariat’s class struggle. In this field, Luxemburg criticized those dogmatic theorists who treated Volume 1 of *Capital* as the entire content of Marx’s scientific theory of value, pointing out that this understanding was incomplete both in material and in theory, because the fundamental problem of Marx’s theory of surplus value was not truly unfolded in Volume 1 of *Capital*; it was only unfolded and fully demonstrated when Volume 3 of *Capital* discussed the issue of the profit rate. Therefore, if the issue of the profit rate discussed in Volume 3 of *Capital* is not incorporated into Marx’s theory of surplus value, this theory cannot be completely and scientifically explained. This was a major defect in Marxist economic theory at the time, and it was precisely this theoretical defect that bourgeois thinkers seized upon to “mock the entire socialist movement founded by Marx.” [9]9 The phrase “mock the entire socialist movement founded by Marx” is a reference to the debates among German Social Democrats in the late 19th and early 20th centuries over the interpretation of Marx’s *Capital*, particularly the relationship between its first and third volumes. Bourgeois economists like Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk argued that the two volumes were contradictory, a charge Luxemburg sought to refute. This required Marxists to pay attention to and study Volume 3 of *Capital*, taking Marx’s theory of the profit rate as the fundamental problem of his political economy theory. From this viewpoint, Luxemburg elucidated the theory of the profit rate in Volume 3 of *Capital* and its significance for the struggle of the working class. She pointed out that Marx’s theory of the profit rate deals with the distribution of surplus value among various exploiting groups and the changes in production caused by competition during this distribution. This issue appears to have no direct bearing on the class struggle of the proletariat, but it reveals the tendency toward socialization of the capitalist production process, indicates the objective basis for socialist revolution, and enables people to see that the fundamental problem of the proletarian struggle is the liberation of all humanity. Thus, the significance of Marx’s theory of the profit rate for the proletarian struggle lies in its revelation of the long-term needs of the proletarian struggle and its establishment of the ultimate goal. In this way, by elucidating the totality of historical dialectics, Luxemburg opened up the internal connection between Marx’s philosophy and political economy, making the class struggle of the proletariat an organic component of Marxist theory, and providing a theoretical basis for organically combining the immediate needs of struggle with its long-term needs in practice, breaking out of the framework of parliamentarism, and carrying out the struggle for state power.

总体性使历史辩证法能够在政治经济学领域获得它的现实内容，即无产阶级进行阶级斗争的客观基础和最终目标。在这个领域，卢森堡批评那些教条主义的理论家把《资本论》第1卷当作马克思的科学价值理论的全部内容，指出这种理解无论在材料上还是理论上都是不完整的，因为马克思的剩余价值理论的根本问题在《资本论》第1卷中并未真正展开，直到《资本论》第3卷论述利润率的问题时才得以展开并得到充分论证。因此，如果不把《资本论》第3卷中论述的利润率问题纳入到马克思的剩余价值理论中，就无法完整地、科学地说明这一理论。这是当时马克思主义经济学理论的一个重大缺陷，而资产阶级思想家正是抓住了这一理论缺陷来“取笑由马克思奠基的整个社会主义运动”。这就要求马克思主义者重视和研究《资本论》第3卷，把马克思的利润率理论作为其政治经济学理论的根本问题。从这一观点出发，卢森堡阐发了《资本论》第3卷中的利润率理论及其对于工人阶级斗争的意义。她指出，马克思的利润率理论讲的是剩余价值在各个剥削集团之间的分配以及分配时的竞争在生产中引起的变动，这个问题看似与无产阶级的阶级斗争没有直接的利害关系，但却揭示了资本主义生产过程的社会化趋势，指出了社会主义革命的客观基础，使人们看到无产阶级斗争的根本问题是解放全人类。可见，马克思的利润率理论对于无产阶级斗争的意义就在于，它揭示了无产阶级斗争的长远需要，确立了其最终目标。这样，卢森堡就通过阐发历史辩证法的总体性打通了马克思的哲学与政治经济学的内在联系，把无产阶级的阶级斗争作为马克思主义理论的一个有机构成部分，为在实践上将斗争的直接需要与长远需要有机结合起来、突破议会主义的框架、开展夺取政权的斗争提供了理论依据。

Criticality enables historical dialectics to construct a proletarian culture in the field of scientific socialism. Luxemburg emphasized that the proletariat, as a class possessing nothing, lives under the capitalist system and “cannot automatically create its own spiritual culture in the process of striving upward.” Only by accepting the guidance of Marx’s doctrine, by “exploring, perfecting, and utilizing one new unfinished work after another of his doctrine in Marx’s ideological arsenal,” can the proletariat create its own spiritual culture in its movement. Luxemburg put forward this view based on a critique of the theory of the reformist workers’ movement. In her view, the reformist theory of the workers’ movement only concerns itself with the immediate needs of the working class, striving to confine the class struggle of the proletariat within the framework of parliamentary struggle, “imagining that the rising working class, through the content of their class struggle, can automatically and endlessly exert creativity in the theoretical field,” and “automatically create its own spiritual culture in the process of striving upward.” This theory completely deviates from Marx’s theory of the workers’ movement. Scientific socialist theory does not focus on the immediate needs of the proletariat, but on its long-term needs; its foundation is the laws of social development and the historical inevitability of the demise of capitalism. According to this theory, the class struggle of the proletariat must go beyond the framework of the capitalist system, because within this framework, the proletariat cannot create a culture beyond bourgeois culture. Accordingly, Luxemburg put forward her own view of proletarian culture, emphasizing that Marx’s doctrine is precisely the spiritual culture of the proletariat. However, this spiritual culture does not arise spontaneously within the framework of bourgeois culture, but is produced at the point of rupture between proletarian culture and bourgeois culture; it is a negation of bourgeois culture, a brand-new spiritual culture, and also the guiding ideology that leads the class struggle of the proletariat beyond the framework of the capitalist system and completes the political and social mission of the proletariat. However, the workers’ movement at that time had departed from the guidance of this ideology. This was not because Marx’s doctrine was outdated, not because scientific socialist theory could no longer guide the class struggle of the proletariat, but because the struggle at that time had not reached the theoretical height of Marx’s doctrine. Luxemburg pointed out: “The incomparable tool of spiritual culture is laid aside, because it is unsuitable for the class culture of the bourgeoisie, and yet far exceeds the working class’s need for weapons of struggle. Only with the liberation of the working class from their present conditions of existence will Marx’s research method, together with other means of production, be socialized, fully utilized for the well-being of all humanity, and its full energy brought into play.” Here, by elucidating the criticality of historical dialectics, Luxemburg opened up the internal connection between Marx’s philosophy and scientific socialism, closely combining the ideal and reality of the proletarian struggle, and putting forward the historical mission of building a socialist culture.

批判性使历史辩证法能够在科学社会主义领域建构起无产阶级的文化。卢森堡强调，无产阶级作为一无所有的阶级生活在资本主义制度下，“不可能在力争向上的过程中自动地创造自己的精神文化”，只有接受马克思学说的指导，到“马克思的思想武库中去探索、完善和利用他的学说的一个个新的未完成的作品”，无产阶级才能在自己的运动中创造出自己的精神文化。卢森堡提出这一观点是基于对改良主义工人运动理论的批判。在她看来，改良主义的工人运动理论只关心工人阶级的直接需要，竭力把无产阶级的阶级斗争限制在议会斗争的框架内，“设想上升的工人阶级通过他们阶级斗争的内容就能够自动地在理论领域无休止地发挥创造性”，在“力争向上的过程中自动地创造自己的精神文化”，这种理论完全背离了马克思的工人运动理论。科学社会主义理论关注的不是无产阶级的直接需要，而是其长远需要，它的基础是社会发展的规律和资本主义灭亡的历史必然性。根据这一理论，无产阶级的阶级斗争必须超出资本主义制度的框架，因为在这一框架下，无产阶级是不可能创造出资产阶级文化之外的文化的。据此，卢森堡提出了自己的无产阶级文化观，强调马克思的学说就是无产阶级的精神文化，但这种精神文化不是从资产阶级文化的框架下自发地产生的，而是在无产阶级文化与资产阶级文化的断裂点上产生的，是对资产阶级文化的否定，是一种崭新的精神文化，亦是引导无产阶级的阶级斗争超出资本主义制度的框架、完成无产阶级的政治使命和社会使命的指导思想。然而，当时的工人运动却脱离了这一思想的指导，这不是因为马克思的学说过时了，不是因为科学社会主义理论不再能指导无产阶级的阶级斗争，而是因为当时的斗争没有达到马克思学说的理论高度。卢森堡指出：“无与伦比的精神文化的工具被束之高阁，因为它不适合于资产阶级的阶级文化，而又远远超出工人阶级对斗争武器的需求。只有随着工人阶级从他们今天的生存条件下解放出来，马克思的研究方法才能和其他生产手段一起社会化，为了全人类的福祉得到充分的利用并且使它的全部能量得到发挥。”在这里，卢森堡通过阐发历史辩证法的批判性打通了马克思的哲学与科学社会主义的内在联系，把无产阶级斗争的理想与现实紧密地结合起来，提出了建设社会主义文化的历史使命。

Luxemburg’s elucidation of the inner spirit of Marx’s philosophy, political economy, and scientific socialism possesses a dual criticality. First, Luxemburg carried out a theoretical critique of the stagnation of Marxist theory, pointing out that the “outdated theory” of Marx’s doctrine preached by revisionism and dogmatic theory were fundamentally wrong; they hindered the development of Marxist theory, causing the workers’ movement to “continue to use the old, already invalid guiding ideology, so that the application of Marx’s revelations in theory progressed extremely slowly.” [10]10 The “Social Democratic Party” refers to the Social Democratic Party of Germany (SPD), the main Marxist party in Europe during Luxemburg’s lifetime. The “old, already invalid guiding ideology” alludes to the Erfurt Program (1891), which Luxemburg and other left-wing Marxists saw as increasingly compromised by reformist and revisionist tendencies. For the Social Democratic Party to change the stagnation of Marxist theory, it must base itself on the new developments of the workers’ movement and create new Marxist theory. This was a demand for the development of Marxist theory. Second, Luxemburg carried out a practical critique of the crisis of the workers’ movement, pointing out that the root of the crisis in the workers’ movement lay in the long-term confinement of the proletariat’s class struggle to satisfying the immediate needs of the working class, without organically combining the immediate needs of the working class with its long-term needs and establishing the class mission of the proletariat. This prevented the class struggle of the proletariat from reaching the historical height required by Marx. To free the workers’ movement from parliamentarism and escape the crisis, the Social Democratic Party must use Marx’s doctrine to guide the workers’ movement and raise the level of the proletarian struggle, because “only as our movement gradually enters a stage of forward development and raises new practical problems do we once again explore, perfect, and utilize one new unfinished work after another of his doctrine in Marx’s ideological arsenal.” This was a demand for the political struggle of the proletariat. It was precisely in this dual critique that Luxemburg constructed the inner rationality of socialist culture.

卢森堡对马克思的哲学、政治经济学和科学社会主义内在精神的阐发具有双重批判性。首先，卢森堡针对马克思主义理论的停滞状况进行了理论批判，指出修正主义鼓吹的马克思学说“过时论”和教条主义理论是根本错误的，它们阻碍了马克思主义理论的发展，使得工人运动“还在继续沿用旧的早已失效的指导思想，所以在理论上应用马克思的启示方面进展极为缓慢”，社会民主党要改变马克思主义理论出现的停滞状况，就要立足于工人运动的新发展，创造新的马克思主义理论。这是对马克思主义理论发展的要求。其次，卢森堡针对工人运动的危机进行了实践批判，指出工人运动陷入危机的根源就在于无产阶级的阶级斗争长期停留于满足工人阶级的直接需求，没有把工人阶级的直接需求与长远需求有机地结合起来，确立无产阶级的阶级使命，这就使无产阶级的阶级斗争无法达到马克思所要求的历史高度。而要使工人运动摆脱议会主义，走出危机，社会民主党必须用马克思的学说指导工人运动，提高无产阶级的斗争水平，因为“只有随着我们的运动逐步进入向前发展的阶段并提出新的实际问题，我们才重新到马克思的思想武库中去探索，完善和利用他的学说的一个个新的未完成的作品”。这是对无产阶级政治斗争的要求。卢森堡正是在这种双重批判中建构了社会主义文化的内在理性。

III. The Ideological Construction of Socialist Culture

三、社会主义文化的意识形态建构

Luxemburg believed that for the Social Democratic Party to achieve cultural leadership in parliamentary struggle, it must construct the ideology of socialist culture. This was undoubtedly an arduous task for the Social Democratic Party: first, it needed to establish Marx’s philosophical worldview in thought; second, it needed to critically reject bourgeois cultural consciousness in spirit and establish proletarian cultural consciousness; third, it needed to establish the Social Democratic Party’s cultural leadership in the trade union movement in practice. In Luxemburg’s view, for the Social Democratic Party to construct the ideology of socialist culture in these three aspects, it needed to distinguish the various ideological factions within the Social Democratic Party during the period of parliamentary struggle and elucidate the cultural spirit of Marx’s historical materialism.

卢森堡认为，社会民主党要在议会斗争中取得文化领导权，就必须建构社会主义文化的意识形态。这对于社会民主党来说无疑是一项艰巨的任务：首先，它需要在思想上确立马克思的哲学世界观；其次，它需要在精神上批判资产阶级的文化意识，确立无产阶级的文化意识；再次，它需要在实践上确立社会民主党在工会运动中的文化领导权。在卢森堡看来，社会民主党要在这三个方面建构社会主义文化的意识形态，就需要辨析社会民主党在议会斗争时期的各种思想派别，阐明马克思唯物史观的文化精神。

In establishing Marx’s philosophical worldview, Luxemburg placed particular emphasis on elaborating Marx’s concept of the working class. She held that the historical mission of the proletariat includes a political mission, a social mission, and an intellectual mission. For the proletariat to recognize its historical mission, it must first possess a concept of the working class, a concept first put forward by Marx. Before Marx, the working class existed in capitalist countries in the capacity of wage laborers, and the only factor that could unite them was the conditions of their common life. From the moment Marx proposed the concept of the working class, the working class no longer existed as wage laborers but appeared on the stage of history as a class bearing the historical mission of liberating all humanity. The factor that unites this class is the political struggle for seizing state power and achieving socialist transformation, the awakened class consciousness of the proletariat. Luxemburg’s above explanation of Marx’s concept of the working class was, theoretically, intended to criticize the attacks of contemporary bourgeois thinkers on Marx’s doctrine, to demonstrate the scientific character of Marx’s doctrine, and to prove that the emergence of Marx’s doctrine and its application in the workers’ movement had put an end to bourgeois philosophy, historiography, and economics. In practice, it was intended to criticize the opportunist and reformist currents spreading in the workers’ movement, to shatter the illusion of “replacing class struggle with democratic alliances of all classes and reformed social peace,” and to make clear that the strategy and ideological foundation of the Social Democratic Party could only be historical materialism. In Luxemburg’s view, this theoretical critique and practical struggle were two interacting aspects of the development of Marxist theory at that stage. For at that time, the workers’ movement was theoretically influenced by the works of bourgeois professors, which were “devoid of independent intellectual innovation, far-sighted vision, and vigorous reasoning” and were dumped in large quantities onto the market; in practice, it was bound by immediate interests and daily needs. Under these circumstances, “only Marx’s method” could answer the “series of new unresolved scientific problems” posed by social progress, while the upsurge of the workers’ movement also raised the demand for developing Marx’s doctrine. On this basis, Luxemburg regarded the development of Marx’s theoretical doctrine and the construction of the proletariat’s class consciousness as two inseparable parts of the development of Marxist theory. In the article “Karl Marx,” Luxemburg explicitly stated: “Marx’s doctrine (like the classical theory of national economy in the past) is first of all an intellectual reflection of a specific stage of economic and political development, namely the stage of transition from the capitalist historical epoch to the socialist historical epoch. Yet it is not merely a reflection. For this historical transition, as recognized by Marx, will by no means be completed unless Marx’s recognition becomes the recognition of society, the recognition of a specific social class, namely the modern proletariat. The historical transformation expounded by Marx’s theory presupposes the following condition: Marx’s theory becomes the ideology of the working class, and as such an ideology, it becomes an element of history itself. Thus, Marx’s doctrine is verified anew with every new proletarian who takes up the class struggle. Hence, Marx’s doctrine is at the same time a part of the historical process, and as such it is itself a process; the social revolution will be the final chapter of the Communist Manifesto.” Here, Luxemburg viewed Marx’s doctrine and its development from the height of social transformation, holding that Marx’s doctrine is precisely the spiritual culture of the proletariat, and that constructing the spiritual culture of the proletariat is the cultural mission of the Social Democratic Party. In the article “The Crumbling of Hope,” Luxemburg explicitly raised this cultural mission of the Social Democratic Party. She pointed out that the fierce quarrels within the Social Democratic Party over “trivial trifles,” and the infiltration of the reformist policies of the French Jaurès faction and the Italian Turati faction into the “free criticism,” “free expression of opinion,” and “free writing” advocated by revisionism, had allowed “the poison produced by bourgeois decay to penetrate unimpeded through this infiltration into the bloodstream of the proletarian party organism.” This required the Social Democratic Party to recognize the essential difference between the proletarian culture created by Marx and bourgeois culture, and to realize that the close connection between the Social Democratic Party and spiritual culture “is not based on those individuals who have come over to our side from the bourgeoisie, but on the broad masses of the rising proletariat. This connection does not derive from the similarities between our movement and bourgeois society, but from its opposition to this society. Its source is the ultimate goal of socialism, and this ultimate goal means returning the whole of human culture to all of humanity.” Thus, constructing the ideology of proletarian culture was not only an important part of Luxemburg’s development of Marxist theory but also the intellectual platform from which she criticized the various non-Marxist doctrines of her time.

在确立马克思的哲学世界观方面，卢森堡着重阐发了马克思的工人阶级概念。她认为，无产阶级的历史使命包括政治使命、社会使命和思想使命。无产阶级要认识到自己的历史使命，首先要有一个工人阶级的概念，这个概念是由马克思最早提出的。在马克思之前，工人阶级是以雇佣工人的身份生活在资本主义国家，能够使他们团结起来的要素只是他们共同生活的条件。自马克思提出工人阶级概念的那一刻起，工人阶级就不再以雇佣工人的身份存在，而是以一个肩负着解放全人类的历史使命的阶级的身份出现在历史舞台上，使得这个阶级团结起来的因素是为夺取政权、实现社会主义变革进行的政治斗争，是被唤起的无产阶级的阶级意识。卢森堡对马克思的工人阶级概念的上述说明，在理论上是为了批判当时资产阶级思想家对马克思学说的攻击，论证马克思学说的科学性，证明马克思学说的产生及其在工人运动中的运用终结了资产阶级的哲学、历史学和经济学；在实践上是为了批判工人运动中蔓延的机会主义、改良主义思潮，破除那种“用各阶级的民主联合和改良的社会和平来取代阶级斗争”的幻想，明确社会民主党的策略和思想的基础只能是历史唯物主义。在卢森堡看来，这种理论上的批判和实践上的斗争是现阶段马克思主义理论发展相互作用的两个方面，因为当时的工人运动在理论上受到资产阶级教授们大量投放到市场上的那些“看不到独立的思想创新、高瞻远瞩的眼光和生气勃勃的推理”的著作的影响，在实践上受到直接利益和日常需要的束缚，在这种情况下，“只有马克思的方法”能够解答社会进步提出的“一系列新的有待解决的科学问题”，而工人运动的高涨也提出了发展马克思学说的要求。基于此，卢森堡把发展马克思的理论学说与建设无产阶级的阶级意识作为马克思主义理论发展不可分割的两个部分。在《卡尔·马克思》一文中，卢森堡明确提出：“马克思的学说（过去国民经济学的经典理论也是如此）首先是对经济发展和政治发展的某一特定阶段，即从资本主义历史阶段向社会主义历史阶段过渡的时期在思想上的反映。然而它又不仅仅是一种反映。要知道，马克思所认识到的这一历史过渡绝对不会完成，除非马克思的这种认识成为社会的认识，成为某一特定的社会阶级即现代无产阶级的认识。马克思的理论所阐述的历史变革需要以下列条件为前提：马克思的理论成为工人阶级的意识形态，并且作为这种意识形式成为历史本身的要素。于是，马克思的学说随着每个新的肩负起阶级斗争的无产者的出现而不断得到验证。可见，马克思的学说同时又是历史过程的一部分，因而它本身也是一个过程，社会革命将是《共产党宣言》的最后一个篇章。”在这里，卢森堡从社会变革的高度来看待马克思的学说及其发展问题，认为马克思的学说就是无产阶级的精神文化，而建设无产阶级的精神文化是社会民主党的文化使命。在《破灭的希望》一文中，卢森堡明确提出了社会民主党的这一文化使命。她指出，社会民主党内为“无谓的琐事”发生的激烈争吵，以及法国饶勒斯派和意大利屠拉梯派的改良主义政策在修正主义所主张的“自由批评”“自由发表意见”和“自由撰稿”中产生的内渗，使“资产阶级的腐败产生的毒素可以通过这种内渗畅行无阻地侵入无产阶级政党机体的血液循环”，这就要求社会民主党认清马克思创造的无产阶级文化与资产阶级文化的本质区别，意识到社会民主党与精神文化的密切联系“不是以资产阶级转到我们这边来的那些人为基础，而是以处于上升时期的无产阶级大众为基础。这种联系不是来自我们的运动同资产阶级社会的相似之处，而是来自它同这个社会的对立。它的源泉是社会主义的最终目标，而这一最终目标意味着把整个人类文化交还给全体人类。”由此可见，建设无产阶级文化的意识形态既是卢森堡发展马克思主义理论的重要部分，也是她批判当时各种非马克思主义学说的思想平台。

In terms of spiritually criticizing bourgeois cultural consciousness and establishing proletarian cultural consciousness, Luxemburg elaborated on Marx’s critique of religion and discussed the relationship between the proletariat and religion. She believed that in capitalist society, so-called Christian civilization is the political fetishism of the bourgeoisie, and bourgeois ideologues vigorously use this political fetishism to pave the way for capitalist states to implement their “world policy,” “disastrously and chaotically producing peace, international conflicts, and war,” while spreading bourgeois class consciousness among the proletarian masses and undermining the political struggle objectives of socialist parties. Meanwhile, those German Social Democratic Party members who were immersed in daily political and economic struggles failed to see the severity of cultural struggle in the spiritual sphere; instead, on the pretext that religion is a private matter, they allowed Christianity to spread among the proletarian masses, and even used the Christian worldview to incite the workers, believing this to be a masterstroke for achieving a psychological reconciliation between socialism and Christianity. All of this caused confusion in the ideological realm of the workers’ movement. In response to this situation, Luxemburg pointed out that the ideological issue within the workers’ movement is a question of understanding the existing world order and the future world order, which directly affects the political struggle of the proletariat, and is therefore a problem that the Social Democratic Party must confront and resolve. However, problems in the spiritual sphere can only be resolved through struggle in the spiritual sphere, and the political fetishism of Christianity can only be resolved through the critique of religion. To this end, Luxemburg wrote articles such as “Political Fetishism,” “The New Faith,” and “The Proletariat and Religion,” taking Marx’s critique of religion as her theoretical basis and historically examining the antagonistic relationship between the proletariat and religion. In “The New Faith,” Luxemburg comprehensively expounded Marx’s critique of religion, viewing it as a negation of positive religion or philosophy, including Feuerbach’s critique of religion. In her view, positive religion or philosophy, whether idealist or materialist, made a fundamental error in discussing religious issues, namely, “either wanting to conceive the world on the basis of the individual, or wanting to deduce the individual from the world, ‘substance,’ ‘the absolute,’ ‘will,’ or a personified god.” Marx and Engels, by contrast, took society as their center and, through their socialist doctrine, unveiled the mystery of society: “Society is not merely formed by the simple addition of individuals; it also has a vibrant, pulsating independent life, with extremely fine and precious blood constantly flowing to various systems, whose forms have been described by masters of research and thought in every era. The philosophical and religious systems that once formed the center of worldviews have been thrown into space by the modern Copernicuses, revolving like planets around a newly discovered center—the sun that bestows light, warmth, and life upon human society, constantly renewing itself, eternally youthful, its radiance and occasional separation of force and matter forming the planetary system of the history of philosophy and religion.” The “modern Copernicuses” Luxemburg refers to here are Marx and Engels, and the “newly discovered center” is the scientific socialist doctrine they founded. In Luxemburg’s view, the scientific socialist doctrine founded by Marx and Engels overturned the religious world from the perspective of worldview; when they used this new worldview to examine the world and human history, and thereby understood the historical mission of the proletariat, they established the class consciousness of the proletariat. This idea was first proposed by Marx in “A Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right: Introduction” and “On the Jewish Question,” later expounded to the working class of the world in the *Communist Manifesto*, and after half a century of dissemination in the workers’ movement, became “a world spiritual force.” Luxemburg used this Marxist critique of religion to distinguish the relationship between the proletariat and religion, discussing the issue of the proletariat’s class emancipation, and pointing out that the relationship between the proletariat and religion is the relationship between scientific socialist culture and religious culture. Scientific socialist culture enables the proletariat to “understand, control, and dominate the capitalist production process,” “become familiar with its own world-historical mission,” and establish proletarian class consciousness; religious culture, on the other hand, uses illusions and commodity fetishism to bind and imprison the proletariat’s thinking, preventing it from understanding its own historical mission. Thus, scientific socialist culture and religious culture are fundamentally opposed, and this opposition determines that there is inevitably a “profound, irreconcilable contradiction” between the proletariat and religion. Therefore, for the proletariat to achieve liberation, it must cast off religious illusions. In the article “The Proletariat and Religion,” Luxemburg regarded casting off religious illusions as a mark of the proletariat’s maturity, believing that “the more the modern working class becomes familiar with its own world-historical mission, the more mature it becomes in fulfilling these missions, the more it will cast off religion.” Conversely, “if the working class still wants to inscribe this sentence—declaring religion a private matter—into its program, then this means: first, not to let the state concern itself with religious illusions; second, not to prevent individuals from maintaining these illusions.” The result of these two points “is nothing more than turning the proletariat’s liberation struggle into a playground for arbitrarily playing with religious games.” Based on this analysis, Luxemburg proposed the task of the Social Democratic Party in the cultural sphere: to use scientific socialist culture to critique bourgeois religious culture, to explain that the international socialist worldview is fundamentally opposed to the Christian worldview, and to make clear that “the Christian worldview as the faith of the masses is our mortal enemy.”

在从精神上批判资产阶级文化意识、确立无产阶级文化意识方面，卢森堡阐发了马克思的宗教批判思想，论述了无产阶级与宗教的关系。她认为，在资本主义社会，所谓的基督教文明就是资产阶级的政治拜物教，资产阶级思想家们极力用这种政治拜物教来为资本主义国家实施其“世界政策”开道，“灾难性地、混乱地制造和平、国际冲突和战争”，并在无产阶级群众中传播资产阶级的阶级意识，瓦解社会主义政党的政治斗争目标。而那些沉溺于日常的政治和经济斗争的德国社会民主党党员没有看到精神领域文化斗争的严酷性，反而以宗教是私人事务为由，放任基督教在无产阶级群众中传播，甚至用基督教的世界观鼓动工人群众，以为这是使社会主义与基督教在心理上达到和解的绝招。这些都造成了工人运动在意识形态领域的混乱。针对这一状况，卢森堡指出，工人运动中的意识形态问题，是一个有关现有的世界秩序和未来的世界秩序的认识问题，它会直接影响到无产阶级的政治斗争，因而是社会民主党必须面对和解决的问题。然而，精神领域的问题只能通过精神领域的斗争来解决，基督教的政治拜物教也只能通过宗教批判来解决。为此，卢森堡撰写了《政治拜物教》《新信仰》《无产阶级与宗教》等文章，以马克思的宗教批判观为理论根据，历史地考察了宗教与无产阶级的对立关系。在《新信仰》中，卢森堡完整地论述了马克思的宗教批判观，将其视为对包括费尔巴哈的宗教批判在内的实证宗教或哲学的否定。在她看来，实证宗教或哲学，无论是唯心主义的，还是唯物主义的，在论述宗教问题时都犯了一个根本错误，即“要么想根据个体设想世界，要么想根据世界、‘实体’、‘绝对’、‘意志’或者人格化的神演绎出人”，而马克思和恩格斯则以社会为中心，通过他们的社会主义学说揭开了社会的谜底：“社会不只是由个人的简单相加而形成的，它还有充满生机地搏动着的独立生命，它有极为精细和宝贵的血液不断流向各个系统，各个时代的研究和思想大师都描述过这些系统的形态。以前构成世界观中心的哲学和宗教体系，都被现代哥白尼们扔到了空间，像行星一样围绕着新发现的中心——给人类社会捐献光明、温暖和生命的太阳，它不断自我更新，永葆青春，它的辐射和偶尔的力量、物质分离形成哲学和宗教历史的行星系。”卢森堡在这里所说的“现代哥白尼们”就是马克思和恩格斯，“新发现的中心”就是他们创立的科学社会主义学说。在卢森堡看来，马克思和恩格斯创立的科学社会主义学说从世界观上颠倒了宗教世界，当他们用这个新世界观去考察世界和人类历史、进而理解无产阶级的历史使命时，就确立了无产阶级的阶级意识。这一思想是马克思在《〈黑格尔法哲学批判〉导言》和《论犹太人问题》中首先提出的，之后又在《共产党宣言》中向全世界的工人阶级进行了阐述，并经过半个世纪在工人运动中的传播而成为“一种世界的精神力量”。卢森堡就是运用马克思的这一宗教批判观来辨析无产阶级与宗教的关系，论述无产阶级的阶级解放问题，指出无产阶级与宗教的关系就是科学社会主义文化与宗教文化的关系。科学社会主义文化是让无产阶级“认识、控制和支配资本主义的生产过程”，“熟悉自己的世界历史使命”，建立无产阶级的阶级意识；而宗教文化则是用幻想和商品拜物教去束缚和禁锢无产阶级的思想，使其无法了解自己的历史使命。可见，科学社会主义文化与宗教文化是根本对立的，这种对立决定了无产阶级与宗教之间必然存在着“深刻的、不可调和的矛盾”，因此，无产阶级要获得解放，就必须摆脱宗教幻想。在《无产阶级与宗教》一文中，卢森堡把摆脱宗教幻想作为无产阶级成熟的标志，认为“现代工人阶级越是熟悉自己的世界历史使命，越是成熟地去完成这些使命，就越能摆脱宗教”，相反，“如果工人阶级还要把这句话——将宗教宣布为私人的事情——写入自己的纲领，那么，这就意味着，一、不要国家关心宗教幻想，二、不能阻止个人去维护这些幻想”，而这两点的结果“无非是使无产阶级的解放斗争成为任意玩弄宗教游戏的游乐场”。基于这一分析，卢森堡提出了社会民主党在文化领域的任务：用科学社会主义的文化批判资产阶级的宗教文化，说明国际社会主义的世界观与基督教的世界观是根本对立的，明确“基督教世界观作为群众的信仰是我们的死敌”。

In terms of practically establishing the cultural leadership of the Social Democratic Party within the trade union movement, Luxemburg elaborated the dialectical relationship between the Social Democratic Party and the trade union movement. She believed that the Social Democratic Party and the trade union movement are distinct: the former concerns itself with the long-term interests of the proletariat, while the latter concerns itself with the immediate interests of the proletariat. However, this does not mean that the Social Democratic Party and the trade union movement are absolutely opposed; on the contrary, the two will become increasingly closely integrated in the actual socialist movement. This is, first of all, because the Social Democratic Party is both the representative of the entire class interests of the proletariat and the representative of the entire immediate workers’ movement. As the representative of class interests, the Social Democratic Party must wage political struggles to improve the conditions of the proletariat in each country; as the representative of the entire movement, the Social Democratic Party must strive to make its own goals consistent with the principles of the socialist movement. Therefore, the Social Democratic Party must concern itself with the trade union movement and actively guide it. Secondly, it is also because, in fighting for the immediate interests of the working class, the trade union movement inevitably takes two paths: one path is “to make the gains achieved in each country increasingly universal in nature through legal standards, while internationally integrating the forces of the trade unions,” and the other path is that all its policies (including attitudes toward strikes, the issue of minimum wages, etc.) “are increasingly based on universal social connections and take into account the problems of social development.” These two paths show that “the trade unions will, out of their own interests, inevitably and naturally take the path that the Social Democratic Party consciously takes.” It is precisely for these two reasons that the German Social Democratic Party established close ties with the trade unions, and the German trade unions carried out all their work from the very beginning in accordance with socialist principles. Luxemburg used this view to criticize Bernstein’s views on the trade union movement. An important piece of evidence Bernstein put forward for his revisionist views was his belief that the British trade union movement was advanced and that the German trade union movement should take the British trade union movement as its model. To refute this argument of Bernstein’s, Luxemburg historically examined the history of the British trade union movement, pointing out that since the early 1850s it had completely abandoned socialist goals and taken the path of trade unionism, thus lacking a socialist character; whereas “in Germany and on the entire continent, trade unions were formed from the very beginning on the basis of class struggle, that is, on the basis of socialist struggle, and can be said to be the product of the Social Democratic Party.” This shows that the German trade union movement was more advanced than the British trade union movement, and Bernstein’s recommendation of the British example “is equivalent to advising the German trade unions to abandon the basis of socialist class struggle and to stand on the basis of the bourgeoisie.” Accordingly, Luxemburg put forward a proposition opposite to Bernstein’s: “For the sake of the socialist cause, it is not the German trade unions that should imitate the British trade unions, but on the contrary, the British trade unions should imitate the German trade unions.” “The British spectacles are unsuitable for Germany not because the British situation is more advanced than Germany’s, but because from the perspective of class struggle it lags behind Germany.” Luxemburg also used this view to criticize reformist economics, namely the vulgar economics represented by Werner Sombart. This school denied Marx’s theory of capitalist crisis, claiming that the emergence of cartels and the establishment of trade unions could prevent capitalist economic crises. Luxemburg believed that this view of reformist economics was nothing new, but merely a repetition of Bernstein’s revisionist views. Its real purpose was to oppose the Social Democratic Party’s leadership of the trade union movement and to vigorously prevent the trade union movement from taking the socialist road. Its representative figure, Sombart, believed that the trade union movement had supreme economic power, but on the condition that it “get rid of the ‘guardianship’ of the Social Democratic Party.” This shows that he had already seen the difference between the trade union movement and the political party, and had seen the nature of the economic struggle of the trade union movement. That is why he demanded that the trade union movement get rid of the “guardianship” of the Social Democratic Party in order to always maintain the nature of economic struggle and serve the movement of capital. This is sheer “Prussian royal political science.” [17]17 “Prussian royal political science” (普鲁士王室的政治学) is a derogatory term used by Luxemburg to characterize Sombart’s views as serving the interests of the authoritarian Prussian state and the capitalist class, rather than the working class. Luxemburg’s critique of Bernstein’s revisionism and reformist economics highlighted the ideological conflict within the trade union movement: the revisionist faction denied the Social Democratic Party’s leadership over the trade union movement, aiming to make the trade union movement serve the rule of capital; while the Social Democratic Party emphasized its leadership over the trade union movement, aiming to guide the trade union movement onto the socialist road, to free the trade union movement from the rule of capital, and to make it a form of struggle for the liberation of the working class.

在从实践上确立社会民主党在工会运动中的文化领导权方面，卢森堡阐发了社会民主党与工会运动的辩证关系。她认为，社会民主党与工会运动是有区别的，前者关心的是无产阶级的长远利益，后者关心的是无产阶级的当前利益。但是，这并不意味着社会民主党与工会运动是绝对对立的，恰恰相反，两者在现实的社会主义运动中会日益紧密地结合在一起。这首先是因为，社会民主党既是无产阶级整个阶级利益的代表，也是眼前的整个工人运动的代表。作为阶级利益的代表，社会民主党要为改善各国的无产阶级状况进行政治斗争；作为整个运动的代表，社会民主党要努力使自己追求的目标与社会主义运动的准则相一致。因此，社会民主党要关心工会运动，积极地指导工会运动。其次还因为，工会运动在争取工人阶级的当前利益时必然走上两条道路：一条道路是“通过法定的标准使每个国家所获得的成果日益具有普遍适用的性质，同时国际地整合工会的力量”，另一条道路是它的全部政策（包括罢工的态度、最低工资问题等等）“日益以普遍的社会联系为依据，并且考虑到社会的发展问题”，这两条道路表明“工会将由于自身的利益势必自然而然地走上社会民主党自觉地走上的道路”。正是由于上述两个原因，德国社会民主党才与工会建立了紧密的联系，德国工会一开始就按照社会主义的方针来开展自己的全部工作。卢森堡用这个观点批判过伯恩施坦有关工会运动的观点。伯恩施坦提出他的修正主义观点的一个重要证据就是他认为，英国的工会运动具有先进性，德国的工会运动应该以英国的工会运动为榜样。为了驳斥伯恩施坦的这一论据，卢森堡历史地考察了英国工会运动的历史，指出它自1850年代初开始就完全放弃了社会主义的目标，走上了工联主义道路，因而不具有社会主义的性质；而“在德国和整个大陆，工会一开始就是在阶级斗争，也就是在社会主义斗争的基础上形成的，简直可以说是社会民主党的产物”，这说明德国的工会运动比英国的工会运动更先进，伯恩施坦推荐英国的例子“等于建议德国工会放弃社会主义阶级斗争的基础，而立足于资产阶级的基础”。据此，卢森堡提出了与伯恩施坦相反的主张：“为了有助于社会主义事业，不是德国工会应当效法英国工会，而是相反，英国工会应当效法德国工会。”“英国眼镜之所以不适合德国，并不是因为英国的情况比德国先进，而是因为从阶级斗争的角度看它落后于德国。”卢森堡还运用这一观点批判了改良派经济学，即以韦纳德·桑巴特为代表的庸俗经济学。该派别否定马克思的资本主义危机理论，声称卡特尔的出现和工会的建立可以防止资本主义经济危机。卢森堡认为，改良派经济学的这个观点并非新东西，不过是伯恩施坦修正主义观点的重复，其真实目的是反对社会民主党领导工会运动，极力阻止工会运动走上社会主义道路，其代表人物桑巴特认为工会运动在经济上有无上的权力，但前提是要“摆脱社会民主党的‘监护’”，这表明他已经看到了工会运动与政党的区别，看到了工会运动的经济斗争性质，所以才要求工会运动摆脱社会民主党的“监护”，以便始终保持经济斗争的性质，服务于资本的运动。这是十足的“普鲁士王室的政治学”。卢森堡对伯恩施坦修正主义和改良派经济学的批判突显了工会运动中的意识形态冲突：修正主义派否定社会民主党对工会运动的领导权，目的是使工会运动服务于资本的统治；而社会民主党强调其对工会运动的领导权，目的是把工会运动引导到社会主义道路上去，使工会运动摆脱资本的统治，成为争取工人阶级解放的一种斗争方式。

How to view the relationship between the Social Democratic Party and the trade union movement was both a practical issue and an extremely important theoretical issue for the proletarian struggle of the Second International. As a practical issue, it was a matter of formulating the principles and strategies of the Social Democratic Party’s struggle; as a theoretical issue, it was a matter of constructing the theory of historical materialism. Luxemburg, by studying Marxist party theory, bridged the relationship between Marx’s theory of historical materialism and the practice of the workers’ movement, thereby proving that the ideological construction of socialist culture is a unique part of the theory of historical materialism. The uniqueness of this theory lies in its strong practical character, but this character does not originate from the practical application of the general principles of historical materialism; rather, it is a construction of practical reason, which includes the construction of a philosophical worldview and the construction of spiritual culture adapted to the needs of the revolutionary practice of the proletariat. From this perspective, Luxemburg’s multi-level construction of the ideology of socialist culture is an important intellectual resource for us today to think about the issue of socialist ideology and to create an ideological theory of socialist culture.

如何看待社会民主党与工会运动的关系，对于第二国际的无产阶级斗争来说既是一个实践问题，也是一个极其重要的理论问题。作为实践问题，它是一个有关制定社会民主党斗争的原则和策略的问题；作为理论问题，它是唯物史观理论的建构问题。卢森堡是通过研究马克思主义政党理论打通了马克思的唯物史观理论与工人运动实践的关系，从而证明了社会主义文化的意识形态建构是唯物史观理论的一个独特部分。这一理论的独特之处在于，它有着强烈的实践性特征，但这种特征不是来源于唯物史观一般原理的实际应用，而是一种实践理性的建构，其中包括了与无产阶级革命实践需要相适应的哲学世界观的建构和精神文化的建构。从这个角度看，卢森堡对社会主义文化的意识形态的多层面建构，是我们今天思考社会主义意识形态问题、创造社会主义文化的意识形态理论的重要思想资源。

IV. Several Insights

四、几点启示

Luxemburg’s socialist cultural view was put forward in the ideological polemic against Millerandism. [18]18 Millerandism refers to the political strategy, named after the French socialist Alexandre Millerand, of socialists participating in bourgeois governments. It was a major point of contention within the Second International, with Luxemburg and others opposing it as a form of class collaboration that would undermine the socialist movement. In this polemic, Luxemburg recognized the deep crisis of the workers’ movement during the period of parliamentary struggle, and her conception of constructing socialist culture was an attempt to demonstrate, from the highest vantage point of Marxist theory, the political mission, social mission, and ideological mission shouldered by the working class, hoping to use socialist culture to guide the workers’ movement, to free it from crisis, and to set it on the socialist road. From this perspective, the formulation of Luxemburg’s socialist cultural view was a diagnosis of the crisis of the socialist movement of the Second International, condensing her reflections on the issue of socialist modernity. This reflection offers important insights for our innovation in the theory of historical materialism today.

卢森堡的社会主义文化观是在批判米勒兰主义的思想论战中提出来的。在论战中，卢森堡认识到议会斗争时期工人运动的深层危机，而她提出社会主义文化建设的构想就是力图在马克思主义理论的至高点上论证工人阶级肩负的政治使命、社会使命和思想使命，希望用社会主义文化引导工人运动，使其摆脱危机，走上社会主义道路。从这个角度看，卢森堡的社会主义文化观的提出是对第二国际社会主义运动危机的一种诊断，凝结了她对社会主义现代性问题的思考。这一思考对于我们今天的唯物史观理论创新有着重要的启示。

The first revelation: socialist modernity should become an important topic in the study of contemporary historical materialism. The study of modernity is a significant subject in Western Marxist philosophy. The Frankfurt School’s social critical theory and Henri Lefebvre’s critique of everyday life both revolve around the critique of modernity. The emergence of these theories has greatly enriched the study of historical materialism, yet they have always suffered from a serious theoretical defect: they have not distinguished between capitalist modernity and socialist modernity within the concept of modernity, and consequently have not carried out research on socialist modernity. This serious theoretical defect is not obvious in the Frankfurt School’s social critical theory or Lefebvre’s critique of everyday life, which aim to critique capitalist modernity, but it reveals all its shortcomings in the Eastern European neo-Marxism that aims to critique socialist alienation. Eastern European neo-Marxist philosophers, especially those of the Budapest School, when drawing on the intellectual resources of the Frankfurt School and Lefebvre, failed to distinguish between capitalist modernity and socialist modernity. They did not root Marxist critical theory of modernity in the practice of Eastern European socialism to construct a critical theory of socialist modernity suited to Eastern European socialist practice. Instead, they mechanically copied the Frankfurt School and Lefebvre’s critical theories of modernity. Consequently, they could not propose effective solutions for diagnosing the phenomena of alienation in Eastern European socialism. The result was the collapse of the Eastern European socialist system and the decline of socialist ideology and culture. This is a profound lesson from the study of Marxist modernity theory in the 20th century. This lesson shows that the study of socialist modernity is an indispensable topic in contemporary Marxist research on modernity. For Marxism to overcome its own theoretical and practical crises, it must study socialist modernity and construct the internal rationality and ideology of socialist culture at the point of rupture between socialist culture and capitalist culture. This idea was already raised by Luxemburg, and Lukács, in his early literary criticism and in *History and Class Consciousness*, inherited and developed Luxemburg’s idea. Regrettably, both were neglected by later Marxist philosophers, resulting in the absence of research on socialist modernity within the theoretical study of historical materialism. Therefore, to make historical materialism a new culture and new concept guiding the development of human thought today, we should fully draw on the intellectual resources of Luxemburg and Lukács, and conduct research on socialist modernity in connection with the new changes in contemporary world history.

启示之一，社会主义现代性应当成为当代唯物史观研究的重要课题。现代性研究是西方马克思主义哲学研究的一个重要课题，法兰克福学派的社会批判理论、亨利·列斐伏尔的日常生活批判理论都是围绕着现代性批判展开的。这些理论的出现极大地丰富了唯物史观研究，但也始终存在着严重的理论缺陷，既没有在现代性概念中区分出资本主义现代性与社会主义现代性，当然也没能开展社会主义现代性研究。这一严重的理论缺陷，在以批判资本主义现代性为宗旨的法兰克福学派的社会批判理论和列斐伏尔的日常生活批判理论中是不明显的，但在以批判社会主义异化现象为宗旨的东欧新马克思主义那里就暴露出它的全部弊端。东欧新马克思主义哲学家，尤其是布达佩斯学派的马克思主义哲学家，在汲取法兰克福学派和列斐伏尔的思想资源时，由于没有区分资本主义现代性与社会主义现代性，没能将马克思主义的现代性批判理论植根于东欧社会主义的实践中，建构与东欧社会主义实践相适应的社会主义现代性批判理论，而是机械地照搬法兰克福学派和列斐伏尔的现代性批判理论，因而没能提出诊断东欧社会主义异化现象的行之有效的方案，其结果是东欧社会主义制度的崩溃和社会主义思想文化的衰落。这是20世纪马克思主义现代性理论研究的一个深刻教训。这个教训表明，社会主义现代性研究是当代马克思主义现代性研究中不可缺少的课题。马克思主义要走出自身的理论危机和实践危机，就必须研究社会主义现代性，在社会主义文化与资本主义文化的断裂点上建构社会主义文化的内在理性和意识形态。这个思想早在卢森堡那里就提了出来，而卢卡奇在他早期的文学批判以及《历史与阶级意识》中继承并发展了卢森堡的这一思想。遗憾的是，两者都被后来的马克思主义哲学家所忽视，从而造成了社会主义现代性研究在唯物史观理论研究中的缺失。因此，要使唯物史观成为引领当今人类思想发展的新文化、新理念，就应该充分汲取卢森堡和卢卡奇的思想资源，联系当代世界历史的新变化开展社会主义现代性研究。

The second revelation: the study of historical materialism must consider the question of the juncture between the macro perspective and the micro perspective. By placing socialist culture within the grand historical framework of the liberation of the proletariat, Luxemburg not only suggests an academic path for the study of the micro perspective of historical materialism but also reveals the logical structure between the macro revolutionary theory and the micro critical theory of culture within historical materialism. This research approach inspires us to construct new thinking in the study of historical materialism at the juncture of the micro critical theory of culture and the macro social revolutionary theory, thereby achieving innovation in the theoretical study of historical materialism.

启示之二，唯物史观研究要思考宏观视域与微观视域的接合点问题。卢森堡将社会主义文化置于无产阶级解放的宏大历史框架中来探讨，不仅提示了唯物史观的微观视域研究的学术理路，而且展示了唯物史观的宏观革命理论与微观文化批判理论之间的逻辑结构。这一研究思路启示我们应在微观的文化批判理论与宏观的社会革命理论的接合点上建构唯物史观研究的新思维，实现唯物史观理论研究的创新。

The third revelation: developing China’s theory of socialist modernity in connection with the reality of China’s socialist modernization is the academic path for reflecting on the path of Chinese-path modernization. The Communist Party of China has created a new path of Chinese-path modernization. So, how should we study Chinese-path modernization from an academic perspective? Should we describe the characteristics of China’s modernization at the sociological level? Or should we reveal the socialist cultural spirit of Chinese-path modernization at the philosophical level? If we choose the latter academic path, how should we conduct this research? On this issue, the revelation from Luxemburg’s socialist cultural view is: the socialist cultural spirit is not an abstract concept but is of the times and of the nation, and therefore has very concrete content. Luxemburg’s proposal of a socialist cultural view was based on her reflection on the struggle between socialist culture and capitalist culture during the period when Western European socialist parties joined parliament. She created a theory of socialist modernity under the background of parliamentary struggle. This theory was undoubtedly revolutionary, critical, and advanced for the workers’ movement of the Second International, but we cannot simply transplant it to China. Instead, we must develop China’s theory of socialist modernity in connection with the reality of China’s socialist modernization.

启示之三，结合中国社会主义现代化建设的实际发展中国的社会主义现代性理论，这是思考中国式现代化道路的学术理路。中国共产党创造了中国式现代化新道路。那么，我们应该如何从学理上研究中国式现代化？是在社会学层面描述中国现代化的特征？还是在哲学层面揭示中国式现代化的社会主义文化精神？如果选择后一种学术理路，我们又应该如何开展这一研究？在这个问题上，卢森堡的社会主义文化观给我们的启示是：社会主义文化精神不是抽象的概念，而是时代的、民族的，因而有着十分现实的内容。卢森堡提出社会主义文化观是基于对当时西欧社会主义政党加入议会时期社会主义文化与资本主义文化之间的斗争的思考，创造的是议会斗争背景下的社会主义现代性理论。这个理论对于第二国际的工人运动来说无疑具有革命性、批判性和先进性，但我们不能把它简单地搬到中国来，而要联系中国社会主义现代化建设的实际发展中国的社会主义现代性理论。

(Author: He Ping, School of Philosophy, Wuhan University; Hubei Provincial Collaborative Innovation Center for Marxist Theory and Chinese Practice)

（作者：何萍，武汉大学哲学学院，马克思主义理论与中国实践湖北省协同创新中心）

(This article is a phased result of the National Social Science Fund Major Bidding Project “Compilation, Translation, and Research of Rosa Luxemburg’s Works”)

（本文系国家社会科学基金重大招标项目“罗莎·卢森堡著作的整理、翻译与研究”的阶段性成果）

Online Editor: Tongxin

网络编辑：同心