Korsch and the Question of Workers’ Education

In early 1922, the German Communist Party Press (Viva) published a 24-page pamphlet titled *The Essence of Marxism*, authored by Karl Korsch. As an introductory guide to Marxism, this pamphlet was primarily intended for small reading groups and workers seeking self-education. Its main content is divided into 37 questions with brief answers.

1922年初，德国共产党出版社（Viva）发行了一本共计24页的小册子《马克思主义的精髓》，作者为卡尔·柯尔施。作为马克思主义的入门指南，这本小册子主要供小型阅读小组和寻求自学的工人参阅。它的主要内容分为37个问题及其简答。

After clarifying the political goals of Marxism, the pamphlet poses the sixth question: “According to the materialist conception of society, how do the various components of human society operate in coordination?” The chart in the book states, as an answer, the view that the “economic base” or economic order is the fundamental precondition for various forms of “superstructure”—from institutions such as the family and the state, to educational organizations like churches and schools, as well as voluntary associations. These organizations in turn influence law, customs, and habits. “Ideas in the human mind” occupy the highest level of this order, although their importance and influence may not be prominent.

在阐明马克思主义的政治目标后，小册子提出了第六个问题：“根据唯物主义的社会观，人类社会的各个组成部分是如何协同运作的？”书中的图表作为答案陈述了这样一个观点，即“经济基础”或经济秩序是各种形式的“上层建筑”——从家庭和国家等机构，到教会、学校等教育组织以及志愿团体——的根本前提。这些组织机构又对法律、风俗和习惯产生影响。“人类头脑中的思想”处在这一秩序的最高层级，尽管其重要性和影响力可能并不突出。

This chart is the only one in *The Essence of Marxism* and holds an important position in the argumentative structure of the entire work, serving as an extended section that supplements the reason, stated at the beginning of the pamphlet, why “political goals cannot be regarded as utopian dreams, but are built on the objective development of society.” By distinguishing between the economic base and the superstructure, the chart demonstrates the rationality of emphasizing the economic base. The economic order can clarify the core problem of capitalist society—exploitation, which is the source of the social contradictions leading to the “inevitable” collapse of capitalism. Notably, Korsch does not discuss the elements of the “superstructure” further in the subsequent parts of this pamphlet.

该图表是《马克思主义的精髓》中的唯一图表，在全书的论证结构中占有重要地位，并作为扩展部分，补充说明了该书开篇提出的“政治目标不能被视作乌托邦式的梦想，而是建立在社会客观发展基础上”的原因。通过划分经济基础与上层建筑，该图表论证了强调经济基础的合理性。经济秩序可以阐明资本主义社会的核心问题——剥削，它是导致资本主义“必然”崩溃的社会矛盾的根源。值得注意的是，柯尔施在这本小册子接下来的部分没有再讨论“上层建筑”的要素。

The approach of *The Essence of Marxism*, which prioritizes the determining role of the economy while neglecting the “superstructure,” may evoke the “vulgar Marxism” scorned by Western Marxists such as Georg Lukács, Korsch, and Antonio Gramsci. In fact, the details of this chart recall Korsch’s sharpest critique of such ideas in his subsequently published *Marxism and Philosophy* (1923). Korsch points out: “For vulgar Marxism, there are three levels of reality: (1) the economy, which in the final instance is the only objective and non-ideational reality; (2) law and the state, which are already somewhat less real due to their ideational character; (3) pure ideology, which is entirely non-objective and unreal (‘pure useless stuff’).” However, if we take the time to read the introduction carefully, we may question this judgment, because the author of *The Essence of Marxism* is not some anonymous politician, but Korsch himself.

《马克思主义的精髓》优先考虑经济的决定作用而忽视“上层建筑”的做法，可能会让人联想起格奥尔格·卢卡奇、柯尔施以及安东尼奥·葛兰西等西方马克思主义者所嗤之以鼻的“庸俗马克思主义”。事实上，这张图表的细节让人想起，柯尔施在随后出版的《马克思主义和哲学》（1923年）中对这类思想进行了最尖锐的批评。柯尔施指出：“对于庸俗马克思主义来说，现实有三个等级：（1）经济，在最终意义上讲是唯一客观的和非观念性的现实；（2）法和国家，已经由于带有观念形态的特征而稍微较不现实一些；（3）纯粹意识形态，全然是非客观和不现实的（‘纯粹的无用之物’）。”然而，如果我们花点时间仔细阅读引言部分，就会对上述判断产生质疑，因为《马克思主义的精髓》的作者并非某个匿名政客，而是柯尔施本人。

Historians of ideas usually pay little attention to pamphlets like *The Essence of Marxism*, preferring works written by intellectuals for communication with other intellectuals, rather than texts aimed at students with educational intent. This is because the latter merely repeat old ideas in an accessible form for students, rather than expounding new viewpoints, and thus seem relatively dull. However, this view is mistaken.

思想史学家通常不太关注《马克思主义的精髓》这样的小册子，而是更偏好由知识分子撰写、旨在与其他知识分子交流的作品，而非面向学生且带有教育意图的文本。因为，后者只是以通俗易懂的形式对学生老调重弹，而非阐述新观点，因此似乎相对乏味。然而，这种看法是错误的。

First, for most figures studied by historians of ideas, education is an important endeavor. But for radical thinkers, especially Marxists, education is particularly important. For most Marxists in the early twentieth century, the enlightenment of the working class opened the broad road to revolution. This is why Marxist parties often invested substantial resources in workers’ education. During the period between the two world wars, tens of thousands of mental workers engaged in workers’ education, using various media such as publishing houses, educational institutions, and local reading circles spread across Europe for propaganda. In terms of scale and resources, workers’ education surpassed other undertakings that historians of ideas focus on.

首先，对于思想史学家所研究的大多数人物来说，教育是一项重要的工作。但对于激进的思想家、特别是马克思主义者而言，教育尤为重要。对于20世纪初的大多数马克思主义者来说，工人阶级的启蒙开辟了通往革命的康庄大道。这就是马克思主义政党往往在工人教育事业上投入大量资源的原因。在两次世界大战时期，成千上万的脑力劳动者从事工人教育事业，并利用遍布欧洲的出版社、教育机构和地方读书会等多种媒介进行宣传。就规模和资源而言，工人教育超过了思想史学家所关注的其他事业。

At the time, *The Essence of Marxism* was the most widely circulated of Korsch’s works. Although sales figures are difficult to verify, given its publisher and price, its sales may have reached tens of thousands of copies, an order of magnitude higher than those of his classic work *Marxism and Philosophy*. *Marxism and Philosophy* first appeared in the *Archive for the History of Socialism and the Workers’ Movement* edited by Carl Grünberg, while *The Essence of Marxism*, besides circulating among the German working class, was quickly translated into other languages—for example, twice into Russian in December 1922 and 1923, and into English, Greek, and Norwegian in 1924. In the same year, Gramsci even proposed translating it into Italian. To my knowledge, this is the only time Gramsci mentions Korsch’s work. In contrast, *Marxism and Philosophy* was not widely translated into multiple languages until the 1960s.

当时，《马克思主义的精髓》是柯尔施著作中传阅最广的作品，虽然销售数据难以考证，但考虑到它的出版商和价格，其销量可能高达数万册，比他的经典著作《马克思主义和哲学》的销量要高出一个数量级。《马克思主义和哲学》首次出现在卡尔·格律恩贝尔格主编的《社会主义和工人运动历史文库》中，而《马克思主义的精髓》除了在德国工人阶级中传阅外，还被迅速翻译成其他语言，例如，1922年12月和1923年曾两次被翻译成俄语，1924年被翻译成英语、希腊语和挪威语。同年，葛兰西甚至提议将其翻译成意大利语。据我所知，这是葛兰西唯一一次提及柯尔施的著作。相比之下，《马克思主义和哲学》直到1960年代才被广泛翻译成多种语言。

Second, although there are obvious differences between pedagogical texts and classical Marxist works, the two are closely related. Workers’ education raised a series of the most pressing questions that Marxist intellectuals had to address: What are the thoughts and beliefs of the working class? What kind of knowledge do they need to acquire in order to possess class consciousness? How does this knowledge relate to their experience and life background? Who is best suited to impart this knowledge? What is the most effective way to cultivate this knowledge among workers? Debates among Marxist intellectuals were often inspired and influenced by the practical and theoretical needs of workers’ education.

其次，尽管教学类文本与马克思主义经典著作之间存在明显差异，但二者息息相关。工人教育引发了马克思主义知识分子所要解决的一系列最紧迫的问题：工人阶级的思想和信念是什么？他们需要习得何种知识才能拥有阶级意识？这种知识与他们的经历和生活背景有何关系？最好由谁来传授这种知识？在工人中培育这种知识的最有效方式是什么？马克思主义知识分子之间的争论往往受到工人教育中实践和理论需求的启发和影响。

This article elaborates, by focusing on Korsch, how reflecting on workers’ education transforms our understanding of Marxist theory. First, I will detail Korsch’s involvement in and contribution to the cause of workers’ education, especially his writing of *The Essence of Marxism*. Second, I will discuss how the needs of workers’ education influenced the arguments in *Marxism and Philosophy*, thereby clarifying its role in Korsch’s broader theoretical and practical work. Although scholars tend to interpret *Marxism and Philosophy* as an attempt to restore the philosophical complexity of Marxist theory, focusing on high-level intellectuals keen on party debates, I argue that the motivation for writing this book was first and foremost Korsch’s concern for the spiritual life of workers. Finally, I will trace Korsch’s theoretical development in the late 1920s and throughout the 1930s, explaining how his attitude toward workers’ education influenced changes in his political stance and ultimately led to his break with Soviet communism. Korsch was not an intellectual who happened to be involved in workers’ education, but a teacher who used his theoretical writings to solve the problem of transmitting Marxist theory to the working masses.

本文通过聚焦柯尔施来阐述对工人教育的思考如何转变我们对马克思主义理论的理解。首先，我将详细介绍柯尔施参与工人教育事业的过程及其对工人教育事业的贡献，特别是他撰写了《马克思主义的精髓》。其次，我将论述工人教育的需求如何影响了《马克思主义和哲学》中的论点，并由此阐明它在柯尔施更广泛的理论和实践工作中的作用。尽管学者们倾向于将《马克思主义和哲学》解读为试图还原马克思主义理论的哲学复杂性，认为其关注的重点是热衷于党派辩论的高级知识分子，但我认为该书的写作动机首先是柯尔施对工人精神生活的关注。最后，我将追溯柯尔施在1920年代末和整个1930年代的理论发展，解释他对工人教育的态度如何影响了其政治立场的变化，并最终导致其与苏联共产主义决裂。柯尔施并非一个碰巧参与工人教育事业的知识分子，而是一位用自己的理论著作来解决向工人群众传授马克思主义理论的教员。

I. Democracy, Socialism, and Revolution

一、民主、社会主义和革命

Korsch was born in 1886 into a middle-class family in Germany. Although his early educational experiences clearly showed sympathy for social reform, he was not yet a Marxist at that time, nor a true revolutionary. During his studies in Jena, Korsch was a leading figure in the free student movement, mainly committed to alleviating the harms of capitalism by promoting redistributive policies. On the eve of World War I, Korsch spent two and a half years in England, where he was deeply attracted by Fabian ideas and eventually became a member of the Fabian Society. What Korsch most admired was the Fabians’ program of “democratic socialism,” which supported democratic forms of government and the socialization of land and industry. This was also the driving force behind their educational plan. The Fabians refused to become a political party in the traditional sense, believing that such an approach could only attract a small portion of society; instead, they sought to win the support of the entire nation for socialism. Through inexpensive pamphlets, public lectures, and a series of summer schools, the Fabians created a “socio-cultural knowledge center,” promoting collectivism as the “ultimate ideal of human cultural will.”

1886年，柯尔施出生在德国一个中产阶级家庭。尽管他在早年的教育经历中明显表现出对社会改革的同情，但当时的他还不是马克思主义者，也不是真正的革命家。在耶拿学习期间，柯尔施是自由学生运动的领军人物，主要致力于通过推动再分配政策来缓解资本主义的危害。一战前夕，柯尔施在英国待了两年半，其间深受费边主义思想的吸引，并最终成为费边社的一员。柯尔施最为赞赏的是费边主义者的“民主社会主义”纲领，即支持民主形式的政府以及土地和工业的社会化。这也是其教育计划背后的驱动力。费边主义者拒绝成为传统意义上的政治党派，认为这种方式只能吸引社会中的一小部分人；相反，他们力图赢得整个国家对社会主义的支持。通过价格低廉的小册子、公开演讲和一系列暑期学校等方式，费边主义者创建了一个“社会文化知识中心”，将集体主义视作“人类文化意志的终极理想”来推广。

Germany’s defeat in 1918 provided Korsch with the opportunity to put these ideas into practice. The Social Democratic Party [SPD] had seized power in the “November Revolution.” [1]1 The November Revolution was a series of uprisings in Germany in November 1918 that led to the abdication of the Kaiser and the establishment of the Weimar Republic, with the SPD taking power. Although the new regime was slow to implement reforms, change had quietly arrived. In 1919, Korsch joyfully declared: “The era of socialism has arrived.” At the time, Korsch served as an assistant to the socialist-leaning Professor Robert Wilbrandt and participated in the work of the industrial “socialization” commission initiated by the new SPD government. In a pamphlet published in March 1919, Korsch elaborated his position, proposing a comprehensive system of nested semi-autonomous organizations extending from factory councils to the national level, arguing that such an organizational structure would realize “industrial self-government” and grant genuine power to workers and consumers.

德国在1918年的战败为柯尔施提供了将这些想法付诸实践的机会。社会民主党在“十一月革命”中取得了政权。虽然在实施改革方面新政权的进展缓慢，但变革已悄然来临。1919年，柯尔施欣喜地宣称：“社会主义的时代已经到来。”当时，柯尔施担任具有社会主义倾向的罗伯特·维尔布兰特（Robert Wilbrandt）教授的助手，参与了社会民主党的新政权发起的工业“社会化”委员会的相关工作。在1919年3月发行的一本小册子中，柯尔施阐述了自己的立场，提出了一整套从工厂委员会延伸至国家层面的嵌套式半独立组织的构想，认为这样的组织结构将实现“工业自治”，并赋予工人和消费者真正的权力。

However, such reforms could only provide a rudimentary sketch of socialism. To construct a socialized society on the material foundation eroded by capitalism, the principle of “equal pay for equal work” must first be followed, meaning that workers retain ownership of their labor and are compensated according to their labor. Korsch believed that “mental workers” [2]2 “Mental workers” (Kopfarbeiter) refers to intellectuals and professionals engaged in non-manual labor, as distinct from manual workers. must be respected and paid higher wages to secure their political support. Only after the victory of class struggle and the realization of socialized labor would conditions be ripe for cultivating “public consciousness” or genuine “comradeship.” When these conditions were sufficiently developed, it would then be possible to construct a fully socialist society according to the principle “from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.”

然而，这种改革只能提供一种不健全的社会主义雏形。要想在被资本主义侵蚀的物质层面建构一个社会化的社会，首先必须遵循“同工同酬”原则，即工人保持对自己劳动的所有权，并按劳取酬。柯尔施认为，必须尊重“脑力劳动者”并支付更高的工资，以获得他们的政治支持。只有在阶级斗争取得胜利、社会化劳动成为现实之后，才有条件培养“公共意识”或真正的“同志精神”。当这些条件得到充分的发展后，才有可能按照“各尽所能，各取所需”的原则建构一个完全社会主义的社会。

This is why Korsch prioritized “cultural-political measures” alongside institutional and economic changes. The final section of this pamphlet on socialization was titled: “What Should We Do Now? — Carry Out Socialist Education.” Korsch argued that on the path forward, “unremitting educational work toward the rising generation” was necessary, and that any impatient revolutionary despairing at the slow pace of change should devote themselves to instilling the socialist spirit in the masses. In an article written the month after the socialization pamphlet was published, “On the Possibility of Socialist Educational Work,” Korsch outlined the urgent tasks: (1) “Work associations” and their affiliated groups should organize dialogues, discussions, and related courses aimed at discussing socialist issues; (2) compile a suitable educational propaganda textbook; (3) association members must consistently support one another in order to fully master and implement socialist theory, especially through independent research work carried out collaboratively by the groups; (4) association members should actively participate in all public activities related to socialism and socialization conducted by authorities, organizations, and parties.

这就是柯尔施除了制度和经济变革之外要优先考虑“文化—政治措施”的原因。这本关于社会化的小册子的最后一部分的标题是：“我们现在应该做什么？——开展社会主义教育”。柯尔施认为，在前进的道路上要“对正在崛起的一代开展不懈的教育工作”，任何对缓慢的变革感到绝望的急躁革命者都应该致力于向群众灌输社会主义精神。在这本关于社会化的小册子出版后的次月撰写的文章《论社会主义教育工作的可能性》中，柯尔施阐述了当务之急的工作：（1）“工作协会”及其附属小组需以讨论社会主义问题为目的组织对话、讨论及相关课程；（2）编写一本合适的教育宣传教材；（3）协会成员需始终如一地互相支持，以便全面掌握和贯彻社会主义理论，特别是各小组合作开展的独立研究工作；（4）协会成员应积极参与当局、组织和政党开展的与社会主义和社会化问题相关的所有公共活动。

Korsch then explicitly stated that propaganda pamphlets should be no more than 40 pages long, printed on “good paper,” and sold at cost. The pamphlets might contain parts that are difficult to understand (this is the nature of thought), but their wording should be accessible and popular, rather than relying on specialized terminology. At the same time, Korsch also believed that propaganda materials should be “neutral,” that is, free from “the strict dogmas of party programs,” opening the door to those who are already socialists and those who might yet become socialists. Korsch considered Fabianism [3]3 Fabianism is a gradualist, reformist socialist tradition originating in the British Fabian Society, which advocates for the slow, democratic transformation of capitalism into socialism through education and institutional change. to meet these criteria and to serve as a model.

柯尔施接着明确指出，宣传类小册子的篇幅应不超过40页，用“好纸”印刷，并以成本价出售。小册子可能会有部分内容难以理解（这是思想的本质），但其遣词造句应通俗易懂，而非依赖专业术语。同时，柯尔施还认为，宣传教材应是“中立的”，即摆脱“党纲的严格信条”，为那些已经是和仍有可能成为社会主义者的人敞开大门。柯尔施认为费边主义符合上述标准，应当成为榜样。

In 1919, Korsch believed that a socialist society could be established by socializing the means of production to transform the material foundation eroded by capitalism, and by fostering socialist sentiments through education. However, Korsch’s hopes for top-down change were soon dashed. As he later put it, the signs of missed opportunities were everywhere and could not be ignored: the new Weimar Constitution of August 11, 1919, enshrined economic freedom; the SPD abandoned revolutionary action, especially evident in the 1921 Görlitz Program; [4]4 The Görlitz Program was the SPD’s 1921 party program, which abandoned revolutionary rhetoric and emphasized gradual reform within the existing capitalist system. and the socialization commission also sputtered to an end. Korsch lamented that the SPD leadership had concluded that capitalism must first be rebuilt and reformed before socialism could be achieved. Yet Korsch was deeply skeptical that socialism could emerge from internal reform. In January 1920, Korsch declared that there was a stark choice between socialism and capitalism, with no third path, and that socialists therefore had no alternative. In his disappointment, Korsch began to turn left, first joining the Independent Social Democratic Party of Germany [USPD], and then in 1920 joining the Communist Party of Germany [KPD].

柯尔施在1919年时认为,可以通过生产资料的社会化改造被资本主义侵蚀的物质基础，通过教育增进社会主义情感，从而建立一个社会主义社会。然而，柯尔施对自上而下的变革的希望很快就破灭了。正如他后来所言，错失良机的迹象无处不在，不容忽视：1919年8月11日的新《魏玛宪法》确立了经济自由；社会民主党放弃了革命行动，尤其表现在1921年的《格尔利茨纲领》中；社会化委员会也在磕磕绊绊中终结了。柯尔施痛心疾首地指出，社会民主党领导人已经得出了结论，即首先必须重建和改良资本主义，然后才有可能实现社会主义。然而，柯尔施对社会主义能否从内部改良中产生持极大的怀疑态度。1920年1月，柯尔施宣称，在社会主义与资本主义之间存在着残酷的抉择，没有第三条道路，因此社会主义者已经别无选择。柯尔施在失望之余开始转向左翼，先是加入了德国独立社会民主党，然后在1920年加入了德国共产党。

Korsch’s disappointment with the socialization process and the SPD-led government is significant not only for understanding his turn to the KPD and his deeper engagement with Marxist theory, but also helps explain the focus and problems of his later writings. Due to the failure of the socialization process, Korsch no longer believed that social change could be achieved through the mutual reinforcement of institutional reform and education. First, education had to become the Party’s top priority; the formation of socialist consciousness was a necessary prerequisite for revolution. Second, the Party could not rely on the socialization process to provide the economic conditions Korsch deemed necessary for fostering such consciousness. Korsch had to explain how this consciousness could arise within capitalist society. To solve this problem, he began to recognize that socialism is not an objective theory that workers need to accept, a non-historical ideal; on the contrary, socialism is the expression of workers’ experience and aspirations as a class.

柯尔施对社会化进程和社会民主党领导的政府感到失望，这不仅对于理解他转向德国共产党并因此更深入地接触马克思主义理论具有重要意义，同时也有助于解释他后期著作关注的重点和问题。由于社会化进程的失败，柯尔施不再认为社会变革能够通过制度改良与教育的相互促进而产生。首先，教育必须成为党的重中之重，社会主义意识的形成是革命的必要前提。其次，党不能依靠社会化进程来提供柯尔施所认为的促进这种意识必需的经济条件。柯尔施必须解释如何在资本主义社会中产生这种意识。为了解决这个问题，他开始认识到，社会主义不是工人需要接受的一种客观的理论，一种非历史的理想，相反，社会主义是工人作为一个阶级的经验和愿望的表现。

The above is the relevant background to Korsch’s compilation of the textbook *The Essence of Marxism*. [5]5 *The Essence of Marxism* (Der Marxismus: Wesen und Lehre) is a 1922 textbook by Karl Korsch intended for workers’ education. Based on courses Korsch was teaching at the time, it aimed to show workers that their interests meant revolutionary struggle. Writing *The Essence of Marxism* was only part of Korsch’s broader involvement in workers’ education. After 1920, Korsch regularly gave lectures at trade unions and community colleges, interpreting labor law using Marxist methods. The content of these lectures was published as a book in 1922, *The Labor Law of the Factory Councils*. He also wrote a series of other pamphlets, including an abridged edition of Marx’s *Critique of the Gotha Programme*, which he edited and published the same year. In the introduction to the *Critique of the Gotha Programme*, Korsch stated that it was Marx’s 1875 critique of the German Socialist Workers’ Party’s Gotha Program that inspired his own critique of the SPD’s 1921 Görlitz Program. The Gotha Program supported the Lassallean position and invoked bourgeois ideas about ethics, rights, and the state. Marx argued that the Gotha Program lacked an adequate materialist understanding of history, which would have explained how these ideas arose from capitalism and were inseparable from it. Ferdinand Lassalle [6]6 Ferdinand Lassalle (1825–1864) was a German socialist politician and founder of the General German Workers’ Association, a precursor to the SPD, whose ideas Marx criticized in the *Critique of the Gotha Programme*. tied socialism to the superstructure of capitalism, making socialism a utopian dream. Korsch believed that the SPD of his time was doing the same, abandoning the revolutionary force of Marxism in order to insist on the “moral demands” of change. Korsch concluded by admonishing that “every worker must ultimately become a materialist,” that is, they should understand that communist theory arises from the conditions of their own lives and struggles. In practice, they should abandon the SPD and join the KPD.

以上就是柯尔施编写《马克思主义的精髓》这本教材的相关背景。它以柯尔施当时教授的课程为基础，旨在向工人表明：他们的利益意味着革命斗争。撰写《马克思主义的精髓》只是柯尔施更广泛地参与工人教育事业的一部分。1920年后，柯尔施定期在工会和社区大学举办讲座，用马克思主义的方法解读劳动法。这些讲座的内容于1922年成书出版，即《工厂委员会的劳动法》。他还编写了一系列其他小册子，包括在同年编辑出版的马克思的《哥达纲领批判》简装版。在为《哥达纲领批判》所写的导言中，柯尔施表示，正是马克思1875年对德国社会主义工人党的《哥达纲领》的批判启发了他对1921年德国社会民主党的《格尔利茨纲领》进行批判。《哥达纲领》支持拉萨尔派的立场，并调用了资产阶级关于伦理、权利和国家的思想。马克思认为，《哥达纲领》对历史缺乏充分的唯物主义理解，而这种唯物主义理解本可以说明这些思想是如何从资本主义中产生并与之密不可分的。斐迪南·拉萨尔将社会主义与资本主义的上层建筑捆绑在一起，使社会主义成为乌托邦式的梦想。柯尔施认为，当时的社会民主党人也是如此，为了坚持变革的“道德的要求”而放弃了马克思主义的革命力量。柯尔施最后叮嘱道，“每一个工人最终都必须成为一个唯物主义者”，也就是说，他们应该理解共产主义理论是从他们自身的生活和斗争条件中产生的。在实践中，他们应放弃社会民主党，转而加入德国共产党。

II. The Revolutionary Movement

二、革命运动

Although Korsch, in his educational work, was committed to showing workers how Marxist theory responded to their most fundamental interests and regarded them as active participants in the revolutionary movement, this was not the main task of Korsch’s academic writing. Nevertheless, there is a close connection between the two. To clarify this, we need to situate Korsch’s work within the broader tradition of Marxist pedagogy. Although Korsch strongly opposed the theories of the Second International, especially those in the relevant works of Karl Kautsky, the center of his work closely followed the plan laid out by this predecessor in the *Erfurt Program* (1892). In this program, Kautsky provided a framework for understanding the generation of “class consciousness.” He argued that in daily life, workers become aware of their conflicts with employers and of their solidarity with employees in other factories and trades, but this “class instinct” is not yet sufficient to bring about revolution. In most cases, this class instinct unites workers to demand improved working conditions and wages, but it can also lead workers astray into anarchist fantasies.

虽然柯尔施在其教育事业中致力于向工人们展示马克思主义理论如何回应他们最根本的利益，并将他们视作革命运动的积极参与者，但这并非柯尔施学术写作的主要任务。然而，上述两者之间有着密切的联系。为了澄清这一点，我们需要将柯尔施的工作放置于更广泛的马克思主义教育学传统中。尽管柯尔施强烈反对第二国际理论，尤其是卡尔·考茨基的相关著作中的观点，但其工作的中心却紧紧围绕这位前辈在《爱尔福特纲领》（1892年）中制定的计划。在这份纲领中，考茨基为理解“阶级意识”的产生提供了一种框架。他认为，在日常生活中，工人意识到他们与雇主之间的冲突，以及与其他工厂和行业雇员之间的团结，但这种“阶级本能”还不足以促成革命。在大多数情况下，这种阶级本能会使工人团结起来，要求改善工作条件和薪资待遇，但也有可能使工人迷失在无政府主义的幻想中。

Kautsky therefore asserted that social democracy requires the participation of intellectuals, who can use the tools of science to show workers that defending their own interests requires not only reforms but also a thoroughgoing economic transformation—that is, the “ultimate goal” of the workers’ movement is socialism. Kautsky also showed workers that economic forces are driving society toward this ultimate goal with “natural necessity.” When the Party brings these conclusions to workers in its propaganda and agitation, it can transform their “class instinct” into revolutionary “class consciousness.” This is precisely what Korsch was concerned with in *The Essence of Marxism*. Korsch pointed out to workers the “ultimate goals” of the revolutionary movement and the economic forces that would realize them.

考茨基因此断言，社会民主需要知识分子的参与，他们能够利用科学工具向工人指出，维护自身的利益不仅需要改良，还需要彻底的经济变革才能实现，即工人运动的“最终目标”是社会主义。考茨基还像工人们展示了经济力量正按照“自然的必然性”推动社会实现这一最终目标。当党在其宣传和鼓动中把这些结论带给工人时，就能够将他们的“阶级本能”转化为革命的“阶级意识”。这正是柯尔施在《马克思主义的精髓》中一直关注的事情。柯尔施向工人们指明了革命运动的“最终目标”，以及实现这些目标的经济力量。

Kautsky not only believed that socialist propaganda and education should transmit scientific socialism to the workers’ movement, but also analyzed how scientific socialism was born. In Kautsky’s view, Marx did not develop his ideas solely through traditional academic research. He immersed himself in the workers’ movement, paying attention to its needs and practices. As mentioned above, Kautsky believed that workers developed a “class instinct” from capitalist exploitation. Starting from this foundation, Marx elaborated on it using the tools of modern science, especially political economy. Marx’s theory of scientific socialism drew the latent truth from the workers’ “class instinct.” Kautsky extended this argument to other intellectuals, arguing that social democracy requires “thinkers who arm themselves with the tools of all bourgeois science and, standing on the standpoint of the proletariat, develop from it a new proletarian worldview.”

考茨基不仅认为社会主义的宣传和教育应该向工人运动传递科学社会主义的理念，而且还分析了科学社会主义是如何诞生的。在考茨基看来，马克思并非只是通过传统的学术研究来发展自己的观点。他深入到工人运动之中，关注工人运动的需求和实践。如前文所述，考茨基认为，工人在资本主义的剥削中产生了“阶级本能”。马克思从这一基础出发，运用现代科学的工具，特别是政治经济学，对此进行了阐述。马克思的科学社会主义理论从工人的“阶级本能”中汲取了潜在的真理。考茨基将这一论点延伸至其他知识分子，认为社会民主需要“思想家们用资产阶级所有科学的工具武装自身，并站在无产阶级的立场上，从中发展出新的无产阶级社会观”。

Kautsky believed that, given the inequality of educational opportunity, most intellectuals capable of playing this role might come from the bourgeoisie, but this was not inevitable. Rather, Kautsky focused on a particular kind of mental labor that, in principle, anyone could perform. Moreover, although workers often lacked the necessary training, they were not bound by the bourgeois worldview, which gave them a certain advantage. This mental labor was applicable to workers’ lives and experiences, and therefore was not alien to them. At the very least, workers could quickly understand and accept Marx’s theory.

考茨基认为，在教育机会不平等的情况下，能够担当这一角色的大部分知识分子可能来自资产阶级，但这并非必然。相反，考茨基关注的是一种原则上任何人都可以从事的特殊脑力劳动。此外，尽管工人往往缺乏必要的培训，但他们不受资产阶级世界观的束缚，从而具备一定的优势。这种脑力劳动适用于工人的生活和经验，因此对于工人来说并不陌生。至少，工人能够很快理解并接受马克思的理论。

Korsch’s more academic writings followed these arguments of Kautsky, explaining how Party intellectuals (including those from both the working class and the bourgeoisie) should develop theory and then transmit its conclusions more broadly to workers. In his 1923 article “The Dialectic of Marx,” Korsch stated at the outset: “The great significance of Karl Marx’s theoretical achievement for the practical struggle of the proletariat lies in this: Marx was the first to formally integrate the entire content of those new viewpoints that necessarily arise from the social situation of the proletariat and enter into the consciousness of this class—viewpoints that transcend the horizon of the bourgeoisie—into a solid unity, constructing a living totality of a scientific system.”

柯尔施的更多学术著述沿袭了考茨基的这些论点，解释了党的知识分子（包括来自工人阶级和资产阶级的知识分子）应该如何发展理论，然后将其结论更广泛地传授给工人。在发表于1923年的文章《马克思的辩证法》中，柯尔施开宗明义地指出：“卡尔·马克思的理论成就对于无产阶级斗争实践的重大意义在于：马克思首次正式地将那些超越资产阶级视界的新观点的全部内容在形式上整合成一个坚实的统一体，建构出一个科学体系的活的总体，而这些新观点必然是从无产阶级的社会状况中产生的，并进入这个阶级的意识之中。”

Korsch further pointed out that Marx organized the “proletariat’s ‘natural’ class viewpoint”—including fragmentary or formless feelings—and transformed it into “theoretical concepts and propositions.” These theoretical concepts and propositions, as a systematic whole, constituted scientific socialism. Marx did not create the proletarian movement or proletarian consciousness, but elevated proletarian consciousness to a higher level. In Korsch’s view, Marx demonstrated how to construct a theory that directly responds to workers’ interests and living conditions. In other words, Marx showed how to adequately and scientifically *express* the workers’ movement.

柯尔施进一步指出，马克思将“无产阶级的‘自然的’阶级观点”——包括零散的或无形的情感——组织起来，转化成“理论概念和命题”。这些理论概念和命题作为一个系统的整体，构成了科学社会主义。马克思并没有创造无产阶级运动或无产阶级意识，而是将无产阶级意识提升至更高层面。在柯尔施看来，马克思阐明了如何建构一种直接回应工人利益和生活条件的理论。换言之，马克思展示了如何用恰当的、科学的理论表现工人运动。

The concept of “expression” is the cornerstone of Korsch’s thought in this period, running through his more academic writings and is crucial for understanding the connection between these writings and his educational work. “Expression” clarifies what Korsch saw as the necessary relationship between the working class and theory, the content of which the Party needed to transmit to the working class through pamphlets, lectures, and reading groups. However, this concept has long been misunderstood. Louis Althusser bears some responsibility for this. In the 1960s, Althusser opposed a Hegelian reading of Marx’s relevant theories; in the polemics of the time, he feared that a Hegelian reading would reduce the complexity of history to the unfolding of a so-called fundamental “core.” He understood Korsch’s concept of “expression” as theory being the “direct” product of the working class: “Thus the proletariat becomes philosophy in action, and the political practice of the proletariat becomes philosophy itself. In this case, Marx’s role is reduced to giving this philosophy, which lives and acts in its birthplace, the simple form of self-consciousness.” The key word here is “mere.” Althusser believed that if one held such an idea, Marx’s contribution became insignificant, and ultimately the proletariat became the “sole historical actor” of theory. Martin Jay, in *Marxism and Totality*, followed Althusser’s view. According to Jay’s reading of “The Dialectic of Marx,” Korsch believed that Marxist theory necessarily arises from the practice of the working class, from which it follows that the practice of the revolutionary proletariat is the “sole source of radical theory.”

“表现”（expression）概念是柯尔施这一时期思想的基石，贯穿于其更多的学术著作中，对于理解这些著作与其教育事业之间的联系至关重要。“表现”阐明了柯尔施所认为的工人阶级与理论之间的必要关系，党需要通过小册子、讲座和读书小组向工人阶级传播这些关系的内涵。然而，这个概念长期以来一直被误解。路易·阿尔都塞对此负有一定的责任。1960年代，阿尔都塞反对黑格尔式地解读马克思的相关理论，在当时的论战中，他担心黑格尔式的解读会将历史的复杂性简化成对一个所谓的基本“核心”的展开。他将柯尔施的“表现”概念理解为理论是工人阶级的“直接”产物：“因此无产阶级就成了行动中的哲学，无产阶级的政治实践就成了哲学本身。在这种情况下，马克思的作用也就被归结为赋予这种在自己的诞生地活动和存在的哲学以简单的自我意识的形式。”这里的关键词是“简单的”（mere）。阿尔都塞认为，如果抱有这样的想法，马克思的贡献就变得无足轻重，最终无产阶级才是理论的“唯一历史行动者”。马丁·杰伊在《马克思主义与总体性》一书中秉承了阿尔都塞的观点。根据杰伊对《马克思的辩证法》的解读，柯尔施认为马克思主义理论必然产生于工人阶级的实践，由此可以得出革命无产阶级的实践是“激进理论的唯一来源”的结论。

This misunderstanding may be excusable. After all, the core and longest section of *Marxism and Philosophy* is socialist theory, which is expounded as a historical thread running parallel to the “proletarian revolutionary movement.” As Korsch puts it, the proletarian revolutionary movement is the “other aspect” of socialist theory. In the revolutionary period of the 1840s, Marx’s writings possessed a revolutionary character, best represented, according to Korsch, by the *Communist Manifesto* of 1848. The stagnant revolutionary movement after 1848 changed the situation. In the absence of the possibility of total transformation, the workers’ movement, in the form of trade unions and political parties, began to push for small-scale reforms. At the end of the nineteenth century, Second International theorists, including Rudolf Hilferding and Karl Kautsky, regarded Marxism as “a set of purely scientific observations, without any direct connection to political or other forms of class struggle.” Korsch’s view is that, before the arrival of genuine transformation, revolutionary theory can only exist separated from social conditions. It is for this reason that, no matter how much the Social Democrats talked on paper, they in fact only supported small-scale change. He argues that Bernstein’s revisionism, emphasizing reform over revolution, ran counter to orthodox Marxism, yet its political declarations were consistent with the slogans of the workers’ movement. After 1900, a new revolutionary moment emerged, expressed in the relevant writings of Rosa Luxemburg and Vladimir Lenin. On this point, Korsch went to great lengths to deny that Lenin had merely presented a simplified “true Marx.” For scientific socialism is the expression of the experience of the workers’ movement, and Lenin further developed Marx’s relevant theories in response to the concerns of this new revolutionary moment.

这种误解或许情有可原。毕竟，《马克思主义和哲学》最核心的、篇幅最长的部分是社会主义理论，它与“无产阶级革命运动”是作为两条平行的历史线索展开论述的。正如柯尔施所言，无产阶级革命运动是社会主义理论的“另一个方面”。在1840年代的革命时期，马克思的著作具有革命的性质，按照柯尔施的说法，1848年的《共产党宣言》就是最好的代表。1848年后停滞的革命运动改变了事态。在无法实现全面变革的情况下，以工会和政党为形式的工人运动开始推动小规模的改良。19世纪末，包括鲁道夫·希法亭和考茨基在内的第二国际理论家将马克思主义视作“一些纯粹的科学观察，与政治的或其他阶级斗争实践没有任何直接的联系”。柯尔施的观点是，在真正的变革尚未到来之际，革命理论只有与社会条件分离才能存在。正因为如此，无论社会民主党如何纸上谈兵，它实际上却只是支持小规模的变革（change）。他认为，伯恩施坦的修正主义强调改良而非革命，与正统的马克思主义背道而驰，但其政治宣言与工人运动的口号是一致的。1900年后，新的革命时刻出现了，这在罗莎·卢森堡和弗拉基米尔·列宁的相关著作中得到了表现。在这一点上，柯尔施不遗余力地否认了列宁呈现的只是简单还原了的“真正的马克思”。因为，科学社会主义是工人运动经验的表现，而列宁进一步发展了马克思的相关理论，以回应对新的革命时刻的关切。

Here, although Korsch appears to describe scientific socialism as the necessary and direct product of the proletarian movement, a moment’s reflection shows this is not the case. Taking Korsch’s *The Dialectic of Marx* as an example, contrary to Jay’s view, Korsch argues that Marxist theory does not necessarily arise from the social conditions of the working class, but rather from the unscientific standpoint of the proletariat. Following Kautsky, Korsch points out that intellectuals must work on these disordered materials to produce scientific socialism. Korsch explicitly denies understanding this “remolding” as a “simple passive ‘reflection.’” For Korsch, the concept of “expression” is not a simple, direct operation, but a transformation.

在此，尽管柯尔施似乎将科学社会主义描述成无产阶级运动必然的直接产物，但稍加思索就会发现事实并非如此。以柯尔施的《马克思的辩证法》为例，与杰伊的观点相反，柯尔施认为马克思主义理论并非必然从工人阶级的社会条件中产生，而是从非科学的无产阶级的观点中产生。继考茨基之后，柯尔施指出，知识分子必须在这些无序的材料上下功夫，才能产生科学的社会主义。柯尔施明确否认将这种“重塑”理解为“简单被动的‘反映’”。对于柯尔施来说，“表现”这个概念并不是一种简单直接的操作，而是一种变革。

In several works, Korsch uses the terms “form” and “content” to describe the construction of Marxist theory. He argues that Marx provided a form that systematized the content of the “proletariat’s ‘autonomous drive,’” thereby enabling the proletariat to “recognize its historical calling,” and thus Marxist theory was born. Korsch is well aware that this form originates from the tradition of bourgeois thought; therefore, the source of scientific socialism is not singular but dual: the practice of the proletariat and the philosophy inherited from the bourgeoisie. This dual source explains why education is necessary. If scientific socialism arose directly from the revolutionary practice of the workers, the party would not need to transmit this theory to them. Although scientific socialism is deeply rooted in the life and experience of the workers, it differs greatly from the workers’ own ideas and beliefs; hence, workers’ education is both necessary and difficult.

柯尔施在多部著作中以“形式”与“内容”这两个术语来描述马克思主义理论的建构。他认为，马克思提供了一种形式，这种形式将“无产阶级的‘自主驱动力’”的内容系统化，从而使无产阶级“认识到自己所受到的历史召唤”，至此，马克思主义理论就诞生了。柯尔施很清楚，这种形式来源于资产阶级思想的传统，因此，科学社会主义的来源不是单一的，而是双重的，即无产阶级的实践和从资产阶级那里继承下来的哲学。这样的双重来源解释了为什么教育是必需的。如果科学社会主义直接从工人的革命实践中产生，党就不必向他们传授这一理论。科学社会主义虽然深深扎根于工人的生活和经验，但与工人自己的想法和信仰有很大的不同，因此工人教育既是必要的，也是困难的。

III. Science and Philosophy

三、科学与哲学

Korsch’s view that scientific socialism does not necessarily arise from the practice of the workers’ movement but requires elucidation and systematization by intellectuals is very close to Kautsky’s position. However, Korsch and Kautsky diverge on a key issue. Kautsky believed that intellectuals, whether from the bourgeoisie or the proletariat, should use the tools of bourgeois science to elucidate class instincts; Korsch, by contrast, believed that intellectuals need the legacy of bourgeois philosophy. Now, philosophy seems to face a strange choice. Korsch recognized that Marx and Engels saw their task as “not only to replace bourgeois idealist philosophy, but at the same time to replace all philosophy.” This task was further reinforced as their focus shifted to political economy in the 1850s. For this reason, Kautsky and other philosophers believed that socialist theory needed to appeal more broadly to science. But Korsch argued that Marx’s turn to political economy was the result of his reflection and exploration of philosophical problems; that is, Marx’s “abolition of philosophy” was a process with both subjective motives and objective outcomes. It was a philosophical abolition, arising from and deeply rooted in philosophical problems. Therefore, philosophy did not completely disappear from Marx’s political economy. Korsch believed that it is only bourgeois prejudice that leads thinkers to confine philosophy within “purely philosophical” ideas, failing to see that the ideas contained within philosophy can “just as well survive in positive science and social practice.”

柯尔施认为，科学社会主义并非必然从工人运动的实践中产生，而是需要知识分子加以阐明并使之系统化，这一点与考茨基的观点十分接近。然而，柯尔施与考茨基在一个关键问题上存在分歧。考茨基认为，知识分子无论来自资产阶级还是无产阶级，都应该使用资产阶级科学的工具来阐明阶级本能；而柯尔施认为，知识分子需要资产阶级哲学的遗产。现在，哲学似乎面临着奇怪的抉择。柯尔施认识到，马克思恩格斯认为他们的任务是“不仅要取代资产阶级唯心主义哲学，而且同时要取代全部哲学”。而随着他们的关注点在1850年代转向政治经济学，这一任务被进一步强化。正因为如此，考茨基和其他哲学家认为，社会主义理论需要更广泛地诉诸科学。但柯尔施却认为，马克思转向政治经济学是他对哲学问题思考和探索的结果，也就是说，马克思的“废除哲学”是一个既有主观动因又有客观结果的过程。这是一种哲学意义上的废除，产生并深深根植于哲学问题。因此，哲学并没有完全从马克思的政治经济学中消失。柯尔施认为，只有资产阶级的偏见才会导致思想家们将哲学局限在“纯粹哲学的”观念中，而没有看到哲学中包含的观念可以“同样好地存活在实证科学和社会实践之中”。

For Korsch, appealing to philosophy had three important reasons. First (and most importantly), philosophy enabled Korsch to articulate more clearly the core premise of Kautsky’s theory, which he felt Kautsky had not sufficiently elaborated. Kautsky believed that the economy develops according to “natural necessity,” while simultaneously committing himself to developing and raising class consciousness. This implies that ideological education among the workers is very important, possibly even involving some form of voluntarism. For Korsch, philosophy explains the importance of ideological forces and the reasons for it.

对于柯尔施来说，诉诸哲学有三个重要原因。首先（也是最重要的原因），哲学使柯尔施能够更清晰地阐述考茨基理论的核心前提，这个前提在他看来阐述得还不够充分。考茨基认为，经济是根据“自然的必然性”发展起来的，同时考茨基还致力于发展和提高阶级意识，这就意味着在工人中开展意识形态教育十分重要，甚至可能涉及某种形式的唯意志论。对于柯尔施来说，哲学解释了意识形态力量的重要性及原因。

Such an argument makes *Marxism and Philosophy* questionable in certain respects. Both in this book and in his later works, Korsch believed he was primarily concerned with a relatively narrow question: “How is philosophy related to the social revolution of the proletariat, and how is the social revolution of the proletariat related to philosophy?” However, as the content of the book progresses, it becomes clear that this question is important largely because it draws attention to the broader significance of ideology, especially the ideology of the working class. Korsch argues: “What we must solve in a dialectical materialist way is not only ‘the question of the relation of the state to social revolution and of social revolution to the state’ (Lenin’s words), but also ‘the question of ideology to social revolution and of social revolution to ideology.’”

这样的论证使得《马克思主义和哲学》一书在某些方面让人产生了质疑。无论是在这本书中还是在之后的著作中，柯尔施都认为他主要关注的是一个相对狭隘的问题：“哲学是如何关联于无产阶级的社会革命的，无产阶级的社会革命是如何关联于哲学的？”然而，随着该书内容的进展，我们可以清楚地看到，这个问题之所以重要，在很大程度上是因为其引起了人们对更广泛的意识形态、尤其是工人阶级意识形态重要性的关注。柯尔施认为：“我们以辩证唯物主义的方式必须解决的不仅是‘国家对于社会革命和社会革命对于国家的关系问题’（列宁语），而且还有‘意识形态对于社会革命和社会革命对于意识形态的问题’。”

Philosophy can draw attention to broader ideological questions because it is the source of dialectical thinking, which negates the separation between consciousness and reality—a separation characteristic of a dualistic metaphysical worldview. As parts of a totality, both consciousness and reality are essential elements of revolutionary struggle. Korsch particularly emphasizes the importance of the forms of social consciousness associated with capitalism, which help maintain it. Besides political economy, Korsch mentions aesthetic and religious ideas. In capitalist society, relations of production depend on “pre-scientific and bourgeois-scientific consciousness”; without these forms of consciousness, capitalism could not survive. In short, Korsch argues that philosophical questions “led Marx and Engels to pay attention to ideological questions.”

哲学之所以能够引起人们对更广泛的意识形态问题的关注，是因为哲学是辩证思维的源泉，辩证思维否定了意识与现实之间的分离，这种分离是二元论形而上学观的表现。作为总体的一部分，意识与现实都是革命斗争的基本要素。柯尔施特别强调了与资本主义相关的社会意识形式的重要性，这些形式有助于维护资本主义。除了政治经济学外，柯尔施还提到了审美和宗教观念。在资本主义社会中，生产关系依赖于“前科学的和资产阶级科学的意识”，没有这些意识形式，资本主义就无法生存。简而言之，柯尔施认为，哲学问题将“引导马克思和恩格斯注意意识形态问题”。

This view has an important influence on the present. The theoretician “must grasp philosophy and other ideological systems theoretically as reality and treat them practically as such.” For intellectuals, this is not merely participation in technical academic debates. Korsch believed that focusing on ideological struggle was as crucial to revolutionary success as focusing on politics and economics. He explicitly stated that, besides “revolutionary, scientific critique” (which may concern issues relevant to intellectuals), one should also attend to “agitation work” prior to the seizure of state power, and that the latter could not be achieved by intellectuals. Korsch held that a philosophically grounded Marxism would direct intellectuals’ attention to the ideological commitments of broader masses and require them to engage in the cause of workers’ education.

这种主张对当下产生了重要影响。理论家“在理论上要把哲学和其他意识形态体系当作现实来把握，并且在实践上这样对待它们”。对于知识分子而言，这不只是参与技术性的学术辩论。柯尔施认为，关注意识形态斗争与关注政治和经济一样，都是革命成功的关键所在。他曾明确指出，除了“革命的、科学的批判”（这可能与知识分子关注的问题相关）之外，还应关注夺取国家政权之前的“鼓动工作”，而后者并不是知识分子可以实现的。柯尔施认为，有哲学依据的马克思主义将使知识分子关注更广泛人群的意识形态承诺，并要求他们参与工人教育的事业。

Secondly, philosophy clarifies why workers’ educational work can contribute to revolution. This resolves a question that had troubled Korsch since the First World War: how can the working class, eroded by capitalism, transition to socialism? This question became more acute after he came to believe that Marxism is an expression of the revolutionary working class’s life and experience. As always, Korsch framed this issue in terms of working-class consciousness. In *The Dialectic of Marx*, Korsch complained that “the complex class standpoint of the proletariat” was distorted by “the bourgeois standpoint”; “initially, due to the character of their formation process, they interpenetrate.” “Science” is of no help in solving this problem, because it is constrained by the bourgeois illusion of “disinterested” research. Philosophy also seems useless, since it is rooted in bourgeois tradition. However, Korsch argued that philosophy can “purify” the bourgeois contamination of the proletarian standpoint. In other words, if philosophy is brought into the proletariat’s class instincts, it can produce a theory capable of transcending the limits of capitalism; when this theory is imparted to workers, it can guide them toward a socialist society.

其次，哲学阐明了工人教育工作可能促成革命的原因。这解决了自一战以来一直困扰着柯尔施的问题：被资本主义侵蚀的工人阶级如何才能向社会主义过渡？在他相信马克思主义是革命的工人阶级生活和经验的表现之后，这个问题变得更加尖锐。柯尔施一如既往地从工人阶级意识的角度来阐述这一问题。在《马克思的辩证法》中，柯尔施抱怨“复杂的无产阶级的阶级观点”被“资产阶级的观点”扭曲了，“起初，它们由于形成过程的特性而相通”。“科学”对解决这个问题毫无帮助，因为它受制于资产阶级“无私的”（disinterested）研究的幻想。哲学似乎也一无是处，因为它根植于资产阶级的传统。不过，柯尔施认为，哲学能够“净化”（reinigen）资产阶级对无产阶级观点的污染。换句话说，如果将哲学带入到无产阶级的阶级本能中，就会产生一种可以超越资本主义局限的理论，当把这些理论传授给工人时，就能引导他们走向社会主义社会。

In his writings from this period, Korsch insisted that philosophy is less tightly bound to the social and economic base than other forms of thought. Some forms of thought are directly related to material production, while others are directly related only to relations of production. Philosophy, unlike the humanities, is related only to “knowledge production.” For this reason, Korsch argued in *Marxism and Philosophy* that the relationship between philosophers and the classes they represent is complex, and that philosophy is especially distant from its “material and economic base.”

柯尔施在这一时期的著作中坚持认为，相较于其他思维形式，哲学与社会和经济基础的联系并不那么紧密。有些思维形式与物质生产直接相关，而其他思维形式则仅仅与生产关系直接相关。哲学与人文科学不同，只与“知识生产”相关。正因为如此，柯尔施在《马克思主义和哲学》中指出，哲学家与其所代表的阶级之间的关系是复杂的，哲学尤其远离其“物质和经济基础”。

In fact, in idealist philosophy, especially in Hegel, the logical movement of thought advances in a revolutionary direction; it was only the “bourgeois standpoint” of philosophers in the mid-nineteenth century that made them blind to this. When Korsch states that “the bourgeois standpoint must theoretically stop where it must practically stop—so long as it does not intend to cease being a ‘bourgeois’ standpoint,” we should note his discussion of the limitations of the bourgeois standpoint, as well as the way philosophy transcends these limitations. “The revolutionary movement in the realm of ideas” can “transform” the ideological expression of the bourgeois revolutionary movement into an expression of “the proletarian revolutionary movement.” Philosophy provides communists with a means to transcend the ideological limits of capitalism, thereby opening a path to socialism.

实际上，在唯心主义哲学中，尤其在黑格尔那里，其思维逻辑是朝着革命的方向推进的，只是19世纪中期哲学家们的“资产阶级立场”使他们对此视而不见。当柯尔施认为“资产阶级的观点在理论上不得不停留在它在社会实践中不得不停止下来的地方——只要它还没有打算不再作为‘资产阶级’的观点”时，我们应该注意他关于资产阶级立场局限性的论述，同时也要注意哲学突破这些局限的方式。“观念领域的革命运动”可以使资产阶级革命运动的意识形态表现“转变”为“无产阶级革命运动”的表现。哲学为共产主义者提供了一种超越资本主义意识形态局限的手段，从而开辟了一条通往社会主义的道路。

These two advantages of philosophy clarify the conditions for the possibility of revolutionary education. In contrast, the third advantage of philosophy lies in providing guidelines for the content of revolutionary education. Korsch argued that philosophy demonstrates the necessity for Marxism to adapt to the historical moment. Historical forms, the experience of the workers’ movement, and its practice change over time. Marxism, as their expression, must likewise change. In *Marxism and Philosophy*, we find that Korsch does not simply describe Marxism as emerging from the experience of the working class; he also endows it with historicity. However, the close connection between theory and movement is unreliable. When Korsch speaks of a “necessary” relationship between the revolutionary movement and its expression, this relationship is normative, not descriptive. That is, this relationship *ought* to exist, but in fact does not always exist. This is why Korsch’s view of theory as “another aspect” of the revolutionary movement can cause misunderstanding; at certain moments, theory is separated from the revolutionary movement. Indeed, this is precisely what happened in the first decade of the twentieth century.

哲学的上述两个优势阐明了革命教育可能性的条件。相比之下，哲学的第三个优势在于为革命教育的内容提供指导方针。柯尔施认为，哲学证明了马克思主义顺应历史时刻的必要性。历史形态、工人运动的经验及其实践随着时间的推移而发生了变化。马克思主义作为其表现形式同样必须改变。我们在《马克思主义和哲学》中可以发现，柯尔施并非简单地描述了马克思主义从工人阶级的经验中产生的过程，还赋予了其历史性。然而，理论与运动之间的紧密联系是不可靠的。当柯尔施谈论革命运动与表现之间的“必然”关系时，这种关系是规范性的，而非描述性的。也就是说，这种关系应该存在，但实际上并非总是存在。这就是柯尔施将理论视为革命运动的“另一个方面”会造成误解的原因；在某些时刻，理论与革命运动是分离的。事实上，这正是20世纪前十年发生的事情。

Around 1900, on the eve of a new revolutionary era, a gap opened between theory and the workers’ movement. Consequently, the theories of the Second International, whether weakened orthodoxy or its opposite, revisionism, had become outdated “traditions.” Borrowing Marx’s metaphor from *The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte*, Korsch condemned the specter of the previous era as “‘weighing like a nightmare’ on the brains of the laboring masses whose objective revolutionary socio-economic position no longer corresponded to these evolutionary doctrines.” Korsch argued that orthodox Marxism was a legacy of the previous era and therefore incapable of expressing the workers’ movement of the present stage. In contrast, Korsch praised Lenin’s view in *State and Revolution* (1917) of “consciously re-establishing” the intrinsic connection between theory and practice.

1900年左右，在新革命时代来临之际，理论与工人运动之间出现了一条鸿沟。因此，第二国际的理论，无论是被削弱的正统理论，还是作为其对立面的修正主义，都已成为过时的“传统”。柯尔施借用马克思在《路易·波拿巴的雾月十八日》中的比喻，谴责了前一时代的这个幽灵“‘像梦魇一样’压在那些在客观上其革命的社会—经济地位不再与这些进化学说相适应的劳动群众的头上”。柯尔施认为，正统马克思主义是上一时代的遗产，因此无法表现现阶段的工人运动。相反，柯尔施赞扬列宁在1917年的《国家与革命》中的观点，即“有意识地重建”理论与实践之间的内在联系。

In Korsch’s view, the criterion governing the relationship of expression between theory and movement comes from philosophy, not science. He explicitly stated that Marx’s understanding of totality, and consequently of “expression,” however much it corresponded to the revolutionary dynamic of the proletariat, was to a certain extent a philosophical inheritance. As Hegel’s famous saying goes, philosophy is “its own time comprehended in thoughts.” This means that thought is neither autonomous nor free-floating, but rooted in its historical moment. Hegel’s dialectic has an “idealist” character because it ultimately understands history as the unfolding of the “Idea.” For this reason, Marx had to reshape the dialectic from a materialist perspective by emphasizing economic transformation. Korsch argued that the statement in the *Communist Manifesto* by Marx and Engels—“the theoretical principles of the communists … are merely a general expression of the actual relations of the existing class struggle, of the historical movement going on before our eyes”—should be understood as a materialist reading of Hegel’s “owl of Minerva.” In Korsch’s view, the dialectical method provided by philosophy alerts socialist theorists to the contingent and fragile connection between theory and movement, thereby helping them maintain the vitality of this connection. This dialectical method shows that scientific socialism first arises from the proletarian masses, so intellectuals must pay close attention to their ideas and interests.

在柯尔施看来，控制理论与运动之间的表现关系的准则来自哲学，而非科学。他曾明确指出，马克思对总体性的理解，进而对“表现”的理解，无论与无产阶级的革命动力多么相符，在一定程度上还是一种哲学的继承。正如黑格尔的那句名言所说，哲学是“被把握在思想中的它的时代”。这意味着思想并非独立自主的或飘忽不定的，而是根植于其历史时刻之中。黑格尔的辩证法具有“唯心主义”色彩，因其将历史最终理解成“观念”的展开。正因为如此，马克思不得不从唯物主义的视角出发，通过强调经济变革来重塑辩证法。柯尔施认为，马克思恩格斯在《共产党宣言》中所说的一句话，即“共产党人的理论原理……不过是现存的阶级斗争、我们眼前的历史运动的真实关系的一般表述”，应该被理解为以唯物主义的方式解读黑格尔的“密涅瓦的猫头鹰”。在柯尔施看来，哲学提供的辩证方法使社会主义理论家们注意到了理论与运动之间偶然而脆弱的联系，从而有助于他们保持这种联系的活力。这种辩证方法表明，科学社会主义首先是从无产阶级群众中产生的，因此知识分子必须密切关注他们的想法和利益。

Now we can understand why Kautsky’s neglect of philosophy had such serious consequences. Kautsky separated theory from practice, allowing “the living principles of dialectical materialism” to be lost, which was the “general expression” of a non-revolutionary moment. What Kautsky articulated was the then-current condition and prospects of the workers’ movement; yet in doing so, he abandoned philosophy and thereby the tool needed to maintain this relationship of expression over the long term. In Korsch’s view, the “betrayal” of the war and the Russian Revolution by Social Democrats in 1914 and 1917 was the result of a lack of attention to philosophical questions—a failure to realize that Marxism must constantly renew itself to remain relevant to the workers’ movement. Therefore, Kautsky’s problem was not the pseudo-revolutionary theory he proposed in the 1890s, but his continued adherence to it after 1900. More precisely, Korsch argued that Party intellectuals cannot reprint old textbooks year after year or rely on the same yellowed lecture notes. They must rewrite their teaching materials to adapt to the changing times.

现在我们就可以明白，为什么考茨基忽视哲学会造成如此严重的后果。考茨基将理论与实践分离，任由“辩证唯物主义的生动原则”丧失，这种丧失是非革命时刻的“一般表现”。考茨基所阐述的是工人运动当时的状况和前景，然而他却因此放弃了哲学，也放弃了长期保持这种表现关系所需的工具。在柯尔施看来，1914年和1917年社会民主党人对战争和俄国革命的“背叛”，是对哲学问题缺乏关注的结果，他们没有意识到，马克思主义必须不断更新，才能与工人运动保持相关性。因此，考茨基的问题并不在于他在1890年代提出的伪革命理论，而在于1900年之后他仍然坚持这一主张。更确切地说，柯尔施认为，党的知识分子不能年复一年地重印旧教科书或依赖同样泛黄的讲义。他们必须重新编写教材，以适应不断变化的时代。

IV. Popularized Marxism and Vulgar Marxism

四、大众化马克思主义与庸俗马克思主义

Korsch’s view indicates that, no matter how close the connection between the Marxism of the laboring masses and the Marxism of the intellectuals, there remains a clear distinction between the two. This distinction involves three levels. As *Marxism and Philosophy* sets forth, the Party intellectuals (the first level) need to employ philosophy and dialectical analysis to break free from the shackles of bourgeois thought. They will thereby recognize the importance of ideological struggle (especially among the workers) and commit themselves to renewing Marxist theory so as to most effectively represent the ever-changing workers’ movement.

柯尔施的观点表明，无论劳动群众的马克思主义与知识分子的马克思主义的联系有多么紧密，两者之间仍然存在明显的区别。这种区别涉及三个层次。正如《马克思主义和哲学》所述，党内知识分子（第一层次）需要运用哲学和辩证分析来打破资产阶级思想的束缚。他们将由此认识到意识形态斗争的重要性（尤其是在工人中），并致力于更新马克思主义理论，以便最有效地表现不断变化的工人运动。

Transmitting Marxist theory to the working class is the task of theoretically minded workers (the second level). They may be able to lead Marxist study groups, but they will not write study materials. In 1922, Korsch wrote another pamphlet for these people—*The Essentials of the Materialist Conception of History*, likewise published by the German Communist Party press. Although *The Essentials of the Materialist Conception of History* does discuss philosophy as part of the history of Marxist thought, it does not explicitly demand the use of philosophy to renew Marxist theory, nor does it engage in any extended discussion of “dialectics.” Nonetheless, the book still highlights ideological struggle. After all, the group at this intermediate level stands at the forefront of the struggle. Korsch held that Marxism is not a presuppositionless and traditional “science” in the bourgeois sense, even though this designation “for decades brought indescribable benefits to the honest vulgar souls of countless German Social Democrats.” [17]17 Karl Korsch, *Die materialistische Geschichtsauffassung* (Leipzig: C. L. Hirschfeld, 1922), p. 5. On the contrary, Marx’s thought is a “critique” of bourgeois ideology, especially bourgeois political economy, from the standpoint of the working class. Marx pointed out that, although bourgeois thought claims universality, it is in fact rooted in, and thereby protects, the economic position of the bourgeoisie. Accordingly, the book discusses the “superstructure” in detail and emphasizes the importance of overcoming religious belief. Korsch urged readers to practice “active atheism” and encouraged the broad proletariat to do the same. He also criticized the Social Democrats for treating religion as a “private matter.”

将马克思主义理论传授给工人阶级是有理论头脑的工人（第二层次）的任务。他们或许可以领导马克思主义学习小组，但不会编写学习材料。1922年，柯尔施为这些人撰写了另一本小册子——《唯物史观的要点》，同样由德国共产党出版社发行。尽管《唯物史观的要点》的确将哲学作为马克思主义思想史的一部分进行了讨论，但并未明确要求运用哲学来更新马克思主义理论，也未对“辩证法”进行任何扩展性的讨论。尽管如此，该书还是突出了意识形态斗争。毕竟，位于中间层次的这个群体站在了斗争的最前列。柯尔施认为，马克思主义并非资产阶级意义上的一种无前提的和传统的“科学”，尽管这种指认“几十年来给无数德国社会民主党人诚实的庸俗灵魂带来了无法形容的好处”。相反，马克思的思想是站在工人阶级的立场上对资产阶级意识形态、特别是资产阶级政治经济学的“批判”。马克思指出，尽管资产阶级的思想自诩普世，但实际上却根植于、进而保护资产阶级的经济地位。因此，该书详细讨论了“上层建筑”，并强调了克服宗教信仰的重要性。柯尔施敦促读者奉行“积极的无神论”，并鼓励广大无产阶级同样如此。他还批评了社会民主党人将宗教视作“私事”。

Korsch made it clear that this understanding of ideology and Marxist theory would exceed the cognition of most other workers. Only after the revolution can the masses attain “a fully immanent consciousness of the world.” [18]18 Karl Korsch, *Marxism and Philosophy*, trans. Fred Halliday (New York: Monthly Review Press, 1970), p. 133. Until then, in the struggle against capitalism, popular Marxism will be indelibly marked by the society it seeks to escape. Korsch believed that most workers cannot transcend bourgeois and contemplative (*anschauenden*) naturalism and thus recognize the close connection between communist theory and practice. They will continue to believe in “the supramundane validity of certain theoretical or practical ‘ideas’” [19]19 Ibid., p. 134. and regard Marxist theory as an eternal objective truth rather than a truth of the proletariat. In this way, communism remains a “religion” for the masses, albeit an “immanent religion” (*Religion des Diesseits*). [20]20 Ibid., p. 133. In *The Essentials of the Materialist Conception of History*, Korsch presented his readers with profound insights that most students could not attain.

柯尔施明确指出，这种对意识形态和马克思主义理论的理解会超出大多数其他工人的认知。只有在革命之后，群众才能获得“对世界的完全内在的意识”。在此之前，在反对资本主义的斗争中，大众化马克思主义将会被其试图摆脱的社会打上鲜明的烙印。柯尔施认为，大多数工人无法超越资产阶级和超然的（anschauenden）自然主义，从而认识到共产主义理论与实践的密切联系。他们会继续相信“某些理论或实践‘思想’的超凡有效性”，并将马克思主义理论视为永恒的客观真理，而不是无产阶级的真理。这样一来，共产主义对大众而言仍然是一种“宗教”，尽管是一种“内在的宗教” (Religion des Diesseits)。在《唯物史观的要点》中，柯尔施向读者展现了他的深刻见解，这些洞见是大多数学生无法达到的。

By contrast, *The Essence of Marxism* is directly aimed at the broader masses, in order to cultivate the class consciousness of the grassroots group (the third level). In the terms of *The Essentials of the Materialist Conception of History*, *The Essence of Marxism* provides the doctrine of the Marxist faith. Like *The Essentials of the Materialist Conception of History*, *The Essence of Marxism* does not raise the necessity of renewing Marxist theory. But in this book, Korsch abandons the discussion of the superstructure and chooses instead to expound Marx’s economic theory as objective truth. However, if dialectical thinking means recognizing the importance of ideological struggle and responsiveness to the current needs of the working class, then this book is not entirely devoid of superstructural content.

相比之下，《马克思主义的精髓》直接面向更广泛的大众，以培养基层群体（第三层次）的阶级意识。按照《唯物史观的要点》的说法，《马克思主义的精髓》提供了马克思主义信仰的教义。与《唯物史观的要点》一样，《马克思主义的精髓》也没有提出更新马克思主义理论的必要性。但在这本书中，柯尔施放弃了对上层建筑的讨论，选择将马克思的经济理论作为客观真理加以阐述。然而，如果说辩证思维意味着承认意识形态斗争的重要性以及对工人阶级当前需求的回应，那么这本书也并非完全没有上层建筑的内容。

In *The Essentials of the Materialist Conception of History*, Korsch argued that Marx did not overly emphasize his philosophical views in *Capital*, nor did he provide a theoretical exposition of his concepts of history and society. On the contrary, *Capital* is a “live presentation,” more a practice than a sermon. We can interpret *The Essence of Marxism* in the same way. First, although Korsch emphasizes economic processes and “necessity” in this pamphlet, he ensures that he does not contradict his own arguments in other works about the importance of the proletariat’s conscious action. For example, in answering the first question, Korsch mentions that Marxism proves a certain necessity; here, what he refers to is not the historical process but the goals and means of communism. He immediately adds: “This also involves acting according to this doctrine (practice).” [21]21 Karl Korsch, *Kernpunkte des Marxismus* (Leipzig: C. L. Hirschfeld, 1922), p. 4. When discussing the splits among the left at the time, Korsch points out that recognition of this necessity is what distinguishes the Communist Party from other Marxist parties. That is, Korsch’s necessity does not describe an inevitability, but rather the principles that the working class must follow in seeking revolution. Therefore, when later discussing the “necessity” of capitalism’s collapse, Korsch focuses first not on economic forces but on the communist’s “conviction” that the capitalist system is doomed. The evidence he provides is not the necessary development of internal contradictions, but “historical facts” and developments over the past hundred years, which convince revolutionaries that economic forces are on their side. Thus, Korsch’s main goal is not to objectively describe economic reality, but to shape the way workers understand that reality.

柯尔施在《唯物史观的要点》中认为，马克思并未在《资本论》中过多强调自己的哲学观点，也未对他的历史和社会概念进行理论阐释。相反，《资本论》是一种“现场呈现”，更多的是一种实践而非说教。我们可以用同样的方式解读《马克思主义的精髓》。首先，尽管柯尔施在这本小册子中强调经济进程和“必然性”，但他确保了不违背自己在其他著作中关于无产阶级自觉行动的重要性的论点。例如，在回答第一个问题时，柯尔施提到马克思主义证明了某种必然性，在这里，他所指的并非历史进程，而是共产主义的目标和手段。随后，他立即补充说：“这还涉及根据这一学说（实践）采取行动。”在谈及当时左派的分裂时，柯尔施指出，对这种必然性的认识是共产党与其他马克思主义政党的区别所在。也就是说，柯尔施的必然性并不是在描述一种不可避免性，而是指工人阶级在寻求革命时所必须遵循的原则。因此，在后来讨论资本主义崩溃的“必然性”时，柯尔施首先关注的不是经济力量，而是共产主义者的“信念”，即资本主义制度注定要灭亡。他所提供的证据不是内在矛盾的必然发展，而是“历史事实”和过去一百年的发展，这些事实让革命者确信，经济力量是站在他们这一边的。因此，柯尔施的主要目标不是客观地描述经济现实，而是塑造工人理解这一现实的方式。

Second, at the end of the text, Korsch links *The Essence of Marxism* to the new communist theory proposed the following year in *Marxism and Philosophy*, viewing it as an expression of the revolutionary moment of the time. Korsch believed that the economic forces of the time did not clearly indicate the way forward. He assured readers that, in the long run, economic contradictions would lead to the collapse of capitalist society. But, given that capitalism had not yet been fully realized on a global scale, the moment of collapse was still far in the future. The economic conditions of the time might not make socialist revolution inevitable in the short term, but they did make its realization possible. To realize this possibility, “what we lack … is the organization of the proletariat into a class capable of political and social action,” [22]22 Ibid., p. 30. which would show that the proletariat has already prepared itself for revolution in and through revolutionary action. Here, Korsch raises a question: Can we ensure the victory of the proletariat? His answer is that historical struggle ends either in revolutionary transformation or in the common “ruin” of the contending classes. [23]23 Ibid., p. 31. But we must not despair over this; on the contrary, it should become a call to action.

其次，在文末，柯尔施将《马克思主义的精髓》与次年出版的《马克思主义和哲学》中提出的新共产主义理论联系起来，视其为当时革命时刻的表现。柯尔施认为，当时的经济力量没有明确指出前进的方向。他向读者保证，从长远来看，经济矛盾将导致资本主义社会的崩溃。但是，鉴于资本主义尚未在全球范围内完全实现，崩溃的那一刻还在遥远的未来。当时的经济条件可能不会在短期内使社会主义革命成为必然，但确实使革命的实现成为可能。为了实现这种可能，“我们所欠缺的……是将无产阶级组织成为一个有能力采取政治和社会行动的阶级”，这将表明无产阶级已经在革命行动中并通过革命行动为革命做好了准备。在此，柯尔施提出了一个问题：我们能否确保无产阶级的胜利？他的回答是：历史斗争要么以革命性的变革告终，要么以斗争阶级的共同“垮台”而结束。但是，我们不能因此而绝望，相反，这应该成为行动的号召。

Korsch believed that *The Essence of Marxism* embodied the most modern and most advanced Marxism, a Marxism that had been transformed from old dogmas in response to a new revolutionary era. This can be seen from his response to a hostile and nitpicking review written by Hermann Duncker for the Communist Party publication *Die Internationale*. Before the First World War, Duncker had been a traveling instructor for the Social Democratic Party and entered the Party’s Berlin Party School to teach in 1912. In 1925, Duncker, together with others, founded the Berlin Marxist Workers’ School for the German Communist Party. He was thus a leading figure in the Communist educational enterprise. But for Korsch, Duncker represented the past, and his critique of *The Essence of Marxism* was merely one link in a chain of Korsch’s deviations from the version of Marxist theory that this elder had “for decades presented to his audience orally and in writing.” However, merely pointing out this difference was insufficient, because, as the title of Korsch’s response to Duncker indicated, Duncker and his generation had only “leased” (Erbpacht) Marxist theory. The time had now come to return it; the working masses needed a new generation to take over the Party’s educational work and to continuously renew Marxist theory in the New Era.

柯尔施认为，《马克思主义的精髓》体现了最现代、最先进的马克思主义，这种马克思主义是为回应新的革命时代而从旧教条中转变而来的。这一点可以从他对赫尔曼·敦克尔为共产党的刊物《国际》撰写的一篇充满敌意且吹毛求疵的评论的回应中看出。一战前，敦克尔曾是社会民主党的巡回教员，并于1912年进入柏林的党校任教。1925年，敦克尔与他人一起为德国共产党创建了柏林马克思主义工人学校。因此，他是共产党人教育事业的领军人物。但对于柯尔施来说，敦克尔代表着过去，他对《马克思主义的精髓》的批判只不过是柯尔施偏离这位长者“几十年来一直以口头和书面形式向其听众介绍”的那种马克思主义理论版本的一系列环节之一。然而，仅仅指出这种差异是远远不够的，因为正如柯尔施回应敦克尔的标题所言，敦克尔与他那一代人只是“租借”（Erbpacht）了马克思主义理论。现在已经到了归还的时刻，劳动群众需要新一代人来接管党的教育工作，并在新时代不断更新马克思主义理论。

Therefore, the popularized Marxism presented in *The Essence of Marxism* differs from what Korsch called “vulgar Marxism.” While the two may share similarities in regarding Marxism as an objective and eternal science and in its overwhelming focus on the economic base, popularized Marxism avoids the fatal defects of vulgar Marxism because it is inspired by the educational concepts Korsch elaborated in *Marxism and Philosophy*. Although workers might regard *The Essence of Marxism* as a compendium of ahistorical truths about society, this pamphlet presented a latest, historically specific form of Marxism to meet the needs of the time. No matter how much it appeared to focus on economic processes, it did not neglect the importance of consciousness; rather, it treated workers’ understanding of the economy as the most important battlefield in the ideological struggle. As a contribution to the cause of workers’ education, the very existence of *The Essence of Marxism* was itself a refutation of vulgar Marxism.

因此，《马克思主义的精髓》中所呈现的大众化马克思主义有别于柯尔施所说的“庸俗马克思主义”，就马克思主义是一门客观且永恒的科学以及它对经济基础压倒一切的关注而言，二者可能存在相似之处，但大众化马克思主义之所以能避免庸俗马克思主义存在的致命缺陷，是因为受到了柯尔施在《马克思主义和哲学》中阐述的教育理念的启发。尽管工人们可能会将《马克思主义的精髓》视作关于社会的非历史性真理（ahistorical truths）的概要，但这本小册子呈现了一种最新的、具有历史特色的马克思主义形式，以满足当时的需求。无论它看起来多么关注经济进程，但并未忽视意识的重要性，只是将工人对经济的理解视为意识形态斗争中最重要的战场。作为对工人教育事业的贡献，《马克思主义的精髓》的存在本身就是对庸俗马克思主义的驳斥。

V. Between the Party and the Masses

五、在党与群众之间

From the perspective of *The Essence of Marxism*, *Marxism and Philosophy* highlights some contradictions in Korsch’s thought: Marxist intellectuals realize that they must forge a genuinely proletarian science through contact with bourgeois philosophy; after recognizing the crucial role of culture and ideology in revolution, intellectuals should devote themselves to workers’ education—an education not about philosophy, art, and literature, but about the operation of the economic system. Here, philosophy brings intellectuals into close contact with the working masses while simultaneously drawing a line of demarcation between them. Thus, Korsch’s answer to the question of workers’ education establishes an unstable relationship between the mass of workers who hope to gain power and the Party elite responsible for empowering them.

从《马克思主义的精髓》的视角来看，《马克思主义和哲学》凸显了柯尔施思想中的一些矛盾之处：马克思主义知识分子意识到，他们必须通过与资产阶级哲学的接触来锻造一种真正无产阶级的科学；知识分子在认识到文化和意识形态在革命中的关键作用后，应该致力于工人教育事业，这种教育并非关于哲学、艺术和文学的教育，而是关于经济体系运作的教育。在这里，哲学使知识分子与劳动群众密切接触，同时又在两者之间划清了界线。因此，柯尔施对工人教育问题的回答，在希望获得权力的工人大众与负责赋予权力的党内精英之间，建立了一种不稳定的关系。

First, Korsch emphasized the necessity for the Party, as the bearer of advanced and dialectical consciousness, to guide the working class, which was deprived of this consciousness. In two reviews published in the first half of 1924 in *Die Internationale*, Korsch cited Lenin’s 1922 exhortation for Communists to study Hegel’s dialectics, defending Lukács against attacks from Communist critics. This was particularly important in the context of the Comintern’s “united front” policy, according to which the proletariat had to form alliances with other classes (including peasants and colonial subjects) and exercise “hegemony” over them. For this reason, Korsch endorsed Lukács’s view of the Party as the “conscious leadership of the proletariat” and criticized Luxemburg’s marginalization of the Party as one-sided and unfounded. Korsch’s theoretical work earned him a place in political life. In January 1923, France invaded Germany’s Ruhr and Rhineland regions, causing severe economic and political turmoil, weakening the Social Democratic Party, and raising the status of the German Communist Party. In October of the same year, Korsch was elected Minister of Justice of the Thuringian state government. However, his political performance proved unsatisfactory; by November, he had to go into hiding, as the government, in order to curb the rise of radicalism, banned both the German Communist Party and the Nazi Party simultaneously.

首先，柯尔施强调，党作为先进的和辩证的意识的载体，有必要引导被剥夺了这种意识的工人阶级。在1924年上半年发表在《国际》上的两篇评论中，柯尔施引用列宁在1922年敦促共产党人学习黑格尔辩证法时的劝告，为受到共产主义批评家攻击的卢卡奇辩护。这在共产国际“统一战线”政策的背景下显得尤为重要，根据这一政策，无产阶级必须与其他阶级（包括农民和殖民主体）建立联盟，并对他们行使“领导权”。正因为如此，柯尔施赞同卢卡奇关于党是“无产阶级的有意识的领导”的观点，并批评卢森堡将党边缘化是片面的和缺乏根据的。柯尔施的理论创作为其政治生涯赢得了一席之地。1923年1月，法国入侵德国的鲁尔和莱茵地区，造成了严重的经济和政治动荡，削弱了社会民主党的力量，并提高了德国共产党的地位。同年10月，柯尔施被选为图林根州政府的司法部长。然而，他在政治上表现得不尽如人意，11月，他就不得不躲藏起来，因为政府为了阻止激进主义抬头，将德国共产党和纳粹党一同取缔了。

Although Korsch explicitly stood with Lenin in his advocacy of the Communist Party, this failed to prevent his conflict with the Comintern. At the Fifth Congress of the Comintern, Grigory Zinoviev and Lukács jointly attacked Korsch’s interpretation of Marxist theory as “revisionist” and “professorial.” After Korsch returned to Germany, Zinoviev wrote an open letter in 1924 opposing the ultra-left, fiercely criticizing Korsch. Korsch regarded Zinoviev’s criticism as an attack on the dialectical form of Marxism, which was also the reason leading to his reassessment of the status of the Soviet Union and the Communist Party. Korsch believed that perhaps the Party’s leaders had failed to empower the proletariat by providing them with appropriate theory, but instead used education to control the workers. The dialectic was not something imposed on workers by the bourgeoisie; it was the only way to maintain the close connection between Marxist theory and the workers’ movement. On September 9, 1925, Korsch publicly denounced the Comintern as “red imperialism,” for which he was forced to give up his editorial work on the Party journal. The following year, he was expelled from the German Communist Party.

尽管柯尔施在拥护共产党的过程中明确表示与列宁站在一起，但这未能阻止他与共产国际的冲突。在共产国际第五次代表大会上，格里戈里·季诺维也夫和卢卡奇共同抨击柯尔施对马克思主义理论做了“修正主义的”和“教授派头的”（professorial）的解读。柯尔施回到德国后，季诺维也夫于1924年写了一封反对极左派的公开信，对柯尔施进行了猛烈抨击。柯尔施将季诺维也夫的批评视为对马克思主义辩证形式的攻击，这也是导致其重新评估苏联理论和共产党的地位的原因。柯尔施认为，也许党的领导者未能通过向无产阶级提供适当的理论来增强他们的能力，而是利用教育来控制工人。辩证法并不是资产阶级强加于工人的，而是保持马克思主义理论与工人运动之间紧密联系的唯一途径。1925年9月9日，柯尔施公开指责共产国际是“红色帝国主义”，为此他被迫放弃了党刊的编辑工作。次年，他被德国共产党开除党籍。

Korsch’s changed view of the Soviet Union prompted him to reassess the main defects in the development of Marxist theory. In the 1930 reprint of *Marxism and Philosophy*, Korsch wrote a new introduction as an “anti-critique,” equating Lenin with “vulgar” Kautsky. At this point, Korsch believed that both Lenin and Kautsky had abandoned the “dialectical” part of Marxism, which was crucial for encouraging theorists to continue paying attention to the specific perspectives and conditions of workers.

柯尔施对苏联看法的改变，促使其重新评估马克思主义理论发展存在的主要缺陷。在1930年再版的《马克思主义和哲学》中，柯尔施撰写了一个新导言，作为“反批判”（anti-critique），将列宁与“庸俗”的考茨基划上等号。此时的柯尔施认为，列宁和考茨基都放弃了马克思主义中的“辩证”部分，而这些辩证部分对于鼓励理论家继续关注工人的特殊视角和状况至关重要。

Under these circumstances, Korsch began to rethink his argument about the necessity of Party leadership. He opposed Luxemburg’s position that “only in socialist society will the Marxist method of analysis become the complete property of the proletariat,” because this implied that Marxist theory stood above revolutionary practice and the Party stood above the people. Unlike in 1923, Korsch now believed that workers could acquire a genuinely dialectical understanding of Marxism on their own (thus no longer needing to be “inculcated from without”) and no longer needed to adopt the simplified theoretical approach of *The Essence of Marxism*.

在这样的情况下，柯尔施开始重新思考关于党的领导的必要性的论点。他反对卢森堡的立场，即“只有在社会主义社会，马克思主义的分析方法才会成为无产阶级的完整的财富”，因为这意味着马克思主义理论凌驾于革命实践之上，党凌驾于人民之上。与1923年不同的是，此时柯尔施认为，工人能够自己获得对马克思主义的真正辩证的理解（因此不再需要“从外部”灌输），不再需要采用《马克思主义的精髓》中的简单化的理论方法。

We can see the result of this shift in Korsch’s approach to workers’ education. Instead of writing new textbooks, Korsch set about preparing an edition of Marx’s *Capital*, Volume 1. In 1932, Korsch published a paperback edition of *Capital*, printing 50,000 copies for workers to read on their own. Of course, many readers might need some help when encountering these texts. In the introduction, Korsch offered suggestions on how best to read *Capital*, Volume 1. He advised readers to skip the more difficult opening pages and start reading from Chapter 5, then proceed to Chapter 8, Chapters 11 through 13, and Chapter 24. He believed that the most challenging parts of the book, such as the form of value in Chapter 1 and money in Chapter 3, were the result of Marx’s use of the “dialectical method” and were crucial for understanding the whole work. Korsch thought that, overall, the content of the book was sufficient to prompt “uneducated” readers to overcome these difficulties and fully grasp the complexity of Marx’s theory. Of course, Korsch had once believed that some workers could read *Capital* on their own and had regarded his own *The Essence of Marxism* as preparatory material for accomplishing this task. But now, he saw workers reading *Capital* on their own not as a natural extension of Party education, but as a necessary act of resistance. In response to another critical comment by Dunker, Korsch pointed out in a defensive article published later that same year that his edition of *Capital* had transferred power away from the Party leaders, making them no longer the “monopolists of Marxist theory.”

我们可以从柯尔施的工人教育方法中看到这种转变的结果。柯尔施不再编写新教材，而是着手准备编辑马克思《资本论》第1卷。1932年，柯尔施出版了简装版《资本论》，印刷了5万册，供工人们自行阅读。当然，很多读者在接触这些文献时可能需要一些帮助。在导言中，柯尔施就如何更好地阅读《资本论》第1卷提出了建议。他建议读者先跳过较难理解的开头几页，从第五章开始阅读，然后再阅读第八章、第十一至十三章和第二十四章。他认为，书中最具挑战性的部分，比如第一章中的价值形式和第三章中的货币，是马克思运用“辩证方法”的结果，对于理解全书至关重要。柯尔施认为，总体而言，这本书的内容足以促使“未受过教育”的读者克服这些困难，全面掌握马克思理论的复杂性。当然，柯尔施曾认为一些工人能够自行读懂《资本论》，并将自己的《马克思主义的精髓》作为完成这一任务的准备材料。但现在，他认为工人自行阅读《资本论》并非党的教育的自然延伸，而是一种必然的抗衡行为。针对敦克尔的另一篇批评性评论，柯尔施在同年晚些时候发表的辩护性文章中指出，他编辑的《资本论》版本转移了党的领导人的权力，使他们不再是“马克思主义理论的垄断者”。

In 1937, Korsch, now writing in English, went a step further. Criticizing Kautsky’s application of bourgeois science to the problems of the workers’ movement, he noted: “According to Rosa Luxemburg, the ‘ultimate goal’ should be everything, and through this goal the social-democratic movement of the time distinguished itself from bourgeois reformist politics, but this goal was never realized in subsequent actual history, a point that coincides with Bernstein’s sober observation of reality.” Korsch still opposed reformism, but he equally opposed the proletariat discovering the motive force of revolution by accepting some theory, especially one bearing the stamp of bourgeois tradition. Using Marx’s own words, Korsch stated: “The emancipation of the working class must be achieved by the working class itself.” In his final article, “Ten Theses on Marxism Today,” published in 1950, Korsch reached the ultimate conclusion of his theoretical development: revolutionaries should break free from the constraints of Marxist theory and instead strive for the direct control of their own lives by all oppressed classes.

1937年，开始用英语写作的柯尔施更进一步。他在批判考茨基将资产阶级科学应用于工人运动问题的做法时指出：“根据罗莎·卢森堡的说法，‘终极目标’应该是一切，当时的社会民主主义运动通过这一目标与资产阶级改良政治区别开来，但这一目标在随后的实际历史中却从未实现过，这一点与伯恩施坦对现实的清醒观察相吻合。”柯尔施仍然反对改良主义，但他同样反对无产阶级通过接受某种理论（尤其是带有资产阶级传统烙印的理论）来发现革命的动力。柯尔施用马克思本人的话指出：“工人阶级的解放应该由工人阶级自己去争取。”在1950年发表的最后一篇文章《今日马克思主义的十个论题》中，柯尔施得出了他的理论发展的最终结论：革命者应摆脱马克思主义理论的束缚，转而为所有被压迫阶级直接控制自己的生活而努力。

VI. Western Marxism and Workers’ Education

六、西方马克思主义与工人教育

Korsch was not the only Western Marxist involved in the cause of workers’ education. In 1919, Lukács served as Deputy People’s Commissar for Culture and Education in the Hungarian Soviet Republic, responsible for organizing school curricula, establishing cultural “red vanguards,” and promoting the further development of historical materialism. Education was equally crucial to Gramsci’s political career. In 1924, Gramsci became the leader of the Italian Communist Party and personally participated in organizing correspondence courses in Marxist theory, enrolling 600 students. Like Korsch, their involvement in workers’ education also prompted many of their reflections. Lukács believed that “class consciousness” needed to be understood in conjunction with the institutions and practices through which communists sought to awaken the class consciousness of the workers. Meanwhile, Gramsci’s exploration of the concept of “hegemony” in the *Prison Notebooks* was, to a large extent, a reflection on the successes and failures of the early Italian Communist Party’s attempts to transmit Marxist theory to the masses. Furthermore, as Charles Clavey has recently pointed out, debates over the best methods of workers’ education formed the basic background for much of the empirical research conducted by the Frankfurt School in the 1930s and 1940s, and this research in turn shaped the continuous development of its theory.

柯尔施并非唯一参与工人教育事业的西方马克思主义者。1919年，卢卡奇担任了匈牙利苏维埃共和国主管文化和教育事务的副人民委员，负责组织学校课程，建立文化“红色先锋队”，促进历史唯物主义的进一步发展。教育对葛兰西的政治事业同样至关重要。1924年，葛兰西成为意大利共产党领导人，他亲自参与组织马克思主义理论函授课程，招收了600名学生。与柯尔施一样，跻身工人教育事业同样引发了他们的许多思考。卢卡奇认为，“阶级意识”需要结合共产主义者试图唤醒工人阶级意识的制度和实践来理解。而葛兰西在《狱中札记》中对“领导权”概念的探讨，很大程度上是在反思意大利共产党早期试图将马克思主义理论传授给大众的成败得失。此外，正如查尔斯·克莱维最近指出的那样，关于工人教育最佳方法的争论构成了法兰克福学派在1930年代和1940年代开展的许多实证研究的基本背景，而这些研究反过来又塑造了其理论的不断发展。

“Western Marxism” as an academic subject is outdated. During its heyday in the 1970s and 1980s, intellectual historians and other scholars regarded it as a source of profound critique of capitalism. However, later scholars began to doubt whether the works of early Western Marxists possessed a uniquely “Western” character, given their adherence to Lenin. If this were the case, it seemed to reinforce the broader Eurocentrism within the Marxist tradition, since its historical narrative was based on the experiences of a few European countries. Consequently, many historians have understandably turned their attention to non-Western forms of Marxism, seeking to understand how these different forms subverted Marxist narratives and applied them to new situations. Although Korsch may have initially been enthusiastic about Lenin’s revolution, the ideal of workers’ education led him to distinguish his work from Soviet-style communism.

作为学术研究主题的“西方马克思主义”已经过时。在其1970年代和1980年代的鼎盛时期，思想史学家和其他学者将其视为对资本主义进行深刻批判的源泉。然而，后来学者们开始怀疑，鉴于早期西方马克思主义者对列宁的拥戴，他们的作品是否具有独特的“西方”色彩。如果确实如此，那么这似乎强化了马克思主义传统中更广泛的欧洲中心主义，因为其历史叙事的基础是少数欧洲国家的经验。因此，许多历史学家理所当然地将注意力转向了非西方形式的马克思主义，试图了解这些不同形式如何颠覆马克思主义的叙事方式，将其应用于新的形势。尽管柯尔施最初可能对列宁的革命充满热情，但工人教育的理想让他将自己的工作与苏联式共产主义区分开来。

Moreover, analyzing the relationship between Western Marxism and workers’ education offers another way to understand the specificity of this theory in Europe. As Korsch argued, intellectuals needed not only to adapt Marxism to local economic conditions but also to the different experiences and insights of the local working class. This was necessary both to ensure that Marxism was not a set of externally imposed doctrines and to promote the absorption of Marxism, thereby driving revolutionary action. Only in this way could Marxism realize its democratic vision. For similar reasons, Lukács emphasized the importance of a living connection between the Party and the masses and criticized “bureaucratization.” Gramsci also proposed the cultivation of “organic intellectuals,” who would develop a “philosophy of praxis” in dialogue with exploited groups. Workers’ education might be an international undertaking, but it focused on local people.

此外，分析西方马克思主义与工人教育的关系为理解该理论在欧洲的特殊性提供了另一种途径。正如柯尔施所言，知识分子不仅需要使马克思主义适应当地的经济条件，还需要使其适应当地工人阶级的不同经验和见解，这既是为了确保马克思主义不是一套外部强加的学说，也是为了促进对马克思主义的吸收，从而推动革命行动。只有这样，马克思主义才能实现其民主愿景。出于类似的考虑，卢卡奇强调党与群众之间生动联系的重要性，并批评了“官僚化”。葛兰西也提出了培养“有机知识分子”的构想，这些知识分子将在与被剥削群体的对话中发展“实践哲学”。工人教育可能是一项国际事业，但它关注的是当地民众。

Thus, the demands of workers’ education led intellectuals to consciously “provincialize” Marxist theory in different ways. For Marxists in countries without a large industrial working class, the task was even more arduous. They could no longer simply rely on the supposed compatibility of Marxist theory with the proletariat but had to adjust the theory to appeal to other potential revolutionary groups. It was along these lines that José Carlos Mariátegui sought to renew Marxist theory in the 1920s to engage with indigenous groups in Peru. He pointed out that these groups constituted “four-fifths of the population” of Peru, and that the goal was not to “copy or imitate” European ideas but to engage in “heroic creation. We must, in response to the actual situation, create Indo-American socialism in our own language.” In the 1950s and 1960s, Léopold Sédar Senghor, basing his African socialism on a mass party (not merely a proletarian party), attempted to combine this socialism with what he called the “African Negro” or “Berber Negro” mode of thought. Of course, such conceptualizations of political education could fall into their own illusions, namely the idealization of the “indigenous” or the “subaltern.” But as long as this initiated rather than prevented genuine dialogue, the marriage between Marxists and exploited groups treated the latter not merely as objects of analysis but also as interlocutors.

因此，工人教育的需求使得知识分子以不同的方式自觉地将马克思主义理论“本土化”（provincialize）。对于那些其国家没有庞大的工业工人阶级的马克思主义者来说，任务更为艰巨。他们不能再简单地依赖马克思主义理论与无产阶级的所谓兼容性，而必须调整理论，以吸引其他潜在的革命群体。正是基于这一思路，何塞·卡洛斯·马里亚特吉在1920年代试图更新马克思主义理论，以便与秘鲁的土著群体对话。他指出，这些群体占了秘鲁“人口的五分之四”，我们的目标不是“复制或模仿”欧洲思想，而是“英雄式的创造。我们必须针对现实情况，用自己的语言创造出印第安美洲社会主义”。1950年代和1960年代，列奥波尔德·塞达·桑戈尔以非洲社会主义作为其群众性政党（而不仅仅是无产阶级政党）的基础，试图将这种社会主义与他所谓的“非洲黑人”或“柏柏尔黑人”的思维方式结合起来。当然，这种概念化的政治教育可能会陷入其自身的幻象之中，即对“土著”或“庶民”的理想化。但是，只要这是在开启而非阻止真正的对话，马克思主义者与被剥削群体的联姻，就不仅是将后者作为分析对象，而且还将其作为对话者。

(Author: Edward Baring, Department of History, Princeton University, USA; Translator: Wang Ning, School of Marxism, Sun Yat-sen University)

（作者：爱德华·巴林（Edward Baring），美国普林斯顿大学历史系；译者：王宁，中山大学马克思主义学院）

Online Editor: Tongxin

网络编辑：同心