A Re-examination of the Theoretical Debate between Lenin and Kautsky on the October Revolution from the Perspective of Revolutionary Will

I. Formulation of the Problem

一、问题的提出

The victory of the October Revolution in 1917 was a historic leap in the history of the development of human institutional civilization; socialism became an institutional reality in one country for the first time. The theory and practice that a socialist revolution could first occur and triumph in an economically and culturally backward country differed from the developmental sequence envisioned by Marx. This change was so great that some later called the October Revolution “a revolution against Karl Marx’s *Capital*.” Within the socialist camp, there also emerged sharply opposed theoretical debates, the most representative of which was the debate between Lenin and Kautsky after the October Revolution. Kautsky, known as the spokesman for the “theory of premature birth,” successively published pamphlets such as *The Dictatorship of the Proletariat*, *The National Assembly and the Soviet Conference*, and *Terrorism and Communism*, resolutely denying any theoretical connection between the Russian October Revolution and Marxism. He argued that the October Revolution was like “a pregnant woman who, in a frenzy of desperation, jumps violently to shorten her unbearable pregnancy and induce a premature birth. The child born in this way is usually not viable.” Lenin responded with articles such as *The Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade Kautsky*, insisting on combining the new revolutionary situation with the scientific methodology of Marx and Engels to guide Russia’s revolutionary practice. Later, in works such as *The State and Revolution*, he further summarized and refined these ideas, enriching and developing historical materialism and Marxist revolutionary theory.

1917年十月革命的胜利，是人类制度文明发展史上的历史性跨越，社会主义第一次在一个国家变成制度现实。社会主义革命可以首先在经济文化落后国家发生和胜利的理论和实践，与马克思设想的发展程序不同。这个改变是如此之大，以至于后来有人称十月革命为“反对卡尔·马克思的《资本论》的革命”。在社会主义者内部，也出现了针锋相对的理论论争，其中最有代表性的当属十月革命发生后列宁和考茨基之间的争论。考茨基被称为“早产论”的代言人，他陆续发表了《无产阶级专政》《国民议会和苏维埃会议》《恐怖主义和共产主义》等小册子，坚决否认俄国十月革命与马克思主义之间的理论关联，认为十月革命就像“一个怀孕妇女，她疯狂万分地猛跳，为了把她无法忍受的怀孕期缩短并且引起早产。这样生下来的孩子，通常是活不成的”。列宁则以《无产阶级革命与叛徒考茨基》等文章予以回应，他坚持结合新的革命形势，以马克思、恩格斯的科学方法论指引俄国的革命实践，后又在《国家与革命》等著作中，进一步进行总结提炼，丰富和发展了历史唯物主义与马克思主义革命理论。

The theoretical debate between Lenin and Kautsky has received sustained attention and research from both domestic and international academic circles, especially during specific temporal nodes such as the anniversaries of the October Revolution and the death anniversaries of Kautsky and Lenin, when discussions surge. Early Western Marxists focused on criticizing, from a philosophical perspective, the vulgar economic determinism of the theoreticians of the Second International, represented by Kautsky, highlighting the status of revolutionary dialectics. Subsequent Western scholarship on the debate has largely followed this direction. After the Cold War began, Western academia saw the rise of “Leninology,” which studies Leninism and the intellectual relationships between Lenin and other theorists. Some scholars, represented by Lichtheim and John Kautsky, advocated “rereading Lenin” and “rereading Kautsky,” proposing that Kautskyism was the direct source of Leninism, denying the fundamental divergence between their ideas, and severing the relationship between Leninism and Marxism. Domestic research on the divergence between the two thinkers has mainly focused on issues such as democracy and dictatorship, the concept of imperialism, revolutionary paths and strategies, among which there are valuable research insights. However, the choice of reductionist topics often makes it difficult to explain the root causes of the theoretical divergence between Lenin and Kautsky. Examining the academic research on this debate, one can find that Western Marxists correctly posed the problem, namely, they identified the core position of concepts such as revolutionary dialectics, subjectivity, and revolutionary will within the debate. Nevertheless, Kautsky did not completely negate the role of will, as some scholars claim. In his book *The Materialist Conception of History*, he explicitly states: “The materialist conception of history does not deny the power of human will.” Therefore, rethinking the true theoretical attitudes of Lenin and Kautsky on the issue of revolutionary will not only helps to further clarify the root of their divergence on the October Revolution but also serves as a key for us to understand historical materialism.

对于列宁和考茨基之间的理论论争，国内外学界都有持续的关注和研究，尤其在十月革命胜利周年、考茨基和列宁逝世纪念日等特定的时间节点掀起讨论热潮。早期西方马克思主义者着重从哲学角度批判了考茨基为代表的第二国际理论家的庸俗经济决定论，突出革命辩证法的地位，此后西方学者对争论的定位基本是沿着这一方向展开的。冷战开始后，西方学界流行起研究列宁主义以及列宁同其他理论家思想关系的“列宁学”，其中以利赫、约翰·考茨基为代表的部分学者主张“重读列宁”和“重读考茨基”，提出考茨基主义是列宁主义的直接来源，否认二者思想的根本分歧，割裂了列宁主义与马克思主义之间的关系。国内学界对二者思想分歧的研究主要集中于民主与专政、帝国主义观、革命道路和策略等问题上，其中不乏有价值的研究见解，但还原式的议题选择往往难以解释列宁和考茨基在理论上产生分歧的根源。考诸学界关于这场争论的研究，可以发现西方马克思主义者曾正确地提出了问题，即发现了革命辩证法、主体性、革命意志等概念在争论之中的核心位置。然而，考茨基并非如有学者所说的那样完全否定意志的作用，在《唯物主义历史观》一书中他明确提出“唯物主义历史观并不否认人的意志的力量”。因此，重思列宁和考茨基在革命意志问题上的真正理论态度，不仅能够进一步辨清二者在十月革命问题上的分歧根源，也是我们理解唯物史观的一把钥匙。

Revolutionary will generally refers to a spiritual quality possessed by political parties and the masses in the course of revolution. It manifests as firm confidence in the entire revolutionary cause and can be transformed into a powerful force driving revolutionary development. Compared with concepts such as class consciousness, political identity, and group consciousness, revolutionary will focuses more specifically on the particular historical process of revolution—overthrowing the old society and establishing a new one. In the debate between Lenin and Kautsky, Lenin adhered to the logic of “manufacturing” revolutionary will, emphasizing that under special revolutionary conditions, a powerful force of revolutionary will could be “manufactured” according to the historical situation, enabling backward Russia to “leap over” to the socialist stage. After the revolution, the role of revolutionary will should also be fully exerted to advance the work of socialist construction. Kautsky, on the other hand, supported the logic of “generating” revolutionary will, arguing that revolutionary will, as a superstructure, must be naturally “generated” on the basis of a mature economic base. Violating objective conditions and laws of development would inevitably lead to the alienation of revolutionary will.

革命意志，通常指革命进程中政党和群众具有的一种精神特质，它表现为对整个革命事业的坚定信心，能够转化为驱动革命发展的强大动力。与阶级意识、政治认同、群体意识等概念相比，革命意志更加聚焦于革命这一推翻旧社会、建立新社会的特定历史过程。在列宁和考茨基的争论中，列宁坚持革命意志的“制造”逻辑，即强调在特殊的革命条件下，可以根据历史的形势“制造”出强大的革命意志的力量，使落后的俄国“跨越”到社会主义阶段，革命之后同样要充分发挥革命意志的作用，以推进社会主义建设的工作。考茨基则支持革命意志的“生成”逻辑，即认为革命意志作为一种上层建筑，必须在成熟的经济基础之上自然“生成”出来，违背客观条件和发展规律必然带来革命意志的异化。

II. The Mechanism of Emergence and Forms of Action of Revolutionary Will

二、革命意志的发生机制和作用形式

Both Lenin and Kautsky paid considerable attention to the relationship between revolutionary will and socialist practice. Kautsky stated: “What are the preconditions for realizing socialism? All conscious human action presupposes will. The will to realize socialism is the first condition for realizing socialism.” He also said, “Without will, there can be no revolution, and in fact, there can be no history.” Lenin elevated the subjective position of people in revolution and the role of revolutionary will to an extremely high level. He argued that in the proletarian revolution, “what is decisive is the consciousness and steadfastness of the working class. If the working class is prepared to make sacrifices, if it shows that it can exert its utmost efforts, then the task can be accomplished.” However, regarding the mechanism of emergence and forms of action of revolutionary will, Lenin and Kautsky had many differences in understanding, forming two distinct theoretical paths: “manufacturing” and “generating.” Their divergent understandings of revolutionary will emphasized different aspects at different times, specifically manifested in the following three areas: the objective conditions for the emergence of revolutionary will, the shaping methods for the further development of revolutionary will, and the limits of its role after the victory of the revolution.

对于革命意志与社会主义实践之间的关系，列宁和考茨基都曾给予充分的关注。考茨基提出，“实现社会主义的先决条件是什么呢?人的任何有意识的行动都是以意志为前提条件的。要实现社会主义的意志就是实现社会主义的第一个条件”，“如果没有意志，也就不可能有革命，并且事实上也就不可能有历史”。列宁更是将革命中人的主体地位、革命意志的作用提到极高的位置上，他认为在无产阶级革命中，“起决定作用的是工人阶级的觉悟性和坚定性。如果工人阶级准备作出自我牺牲，如果工人阶级表明它能竭尽全力，那就可以完成任务”。但在革命意志的发生机制和作用形式上，列宁和考茨基则存在诸多认识差异，形成了“制造”与“生成”两种不同的理论路径。他们对于革命意志的认识分歧在不同时期有不同的侧重，具体表现为以下三个方面：革命意志产生的客观条件，革命意志进一步发展的形塑方式，以及革命胜利之后的作用限度。

(1) Objective Conditions: Whether Backward Russia Could Produce a Revolutionary Will of a Progressive Nature

（一）客观条件：落后俄国是否能够产生进步性质的革命意志

From the perspective of the conditions for revolution, Russia on the eve of the October Revolution did not conform to the “general laws of history” summarized by Marx in works such as *Capital*; the degree of its capitalist development was quite immature. Although Marx and Engels, in their later studies on the “Russian question,” supplemented their understanding of the particularity of the revolutionary process in backward countries, the question of whether Russia’s backwardness and crisis should be seen as an obstacle to revolution or an advantage for “leaping over” was a problem facing Marxists at the time. Starting from Russia’s historical context, Lenin creatively decomposed the steps for backward countries to move toward socialism into two stages, elucidating the dialectics of difficulty and ease: “It is much more difficult to start a revolution in Europe, and much easier to start one in our country, but it is more difficult to continue it than in Europe.” He proposed first using the advantage of backwardness, fully exerting the role of revolutionary will to establish a socialist system, and then using political advantages to promote the development of other conditions. This was a socialist path conceived under the guidance of the logic of “manufacturing” revolutionary will.

从革命发生条件的角度来看，十月革命前夕的俄国并不符合马克思在《资本论》等著作中总结出的“历史一般规律”，其资本主义发展的程度相当不成熟。虽然马克思和恩格斯晚年在关于“俄国问题”的研究中补充了他们对于落后国家革命进程特殊性的认识，但在理论的理解上，将俄国的落后和危机视为革命的阻力还是“跨越”的优势，是摆在当时的马克思主义者面前的问题。列宁从俄国的历史情境出发，创造性地将落后国家走向社会主义的步骤分解成为两个阶段，阐发了其中困难和容易的辩证法，即“在欧洲开始革命要困难得多，而在我国开始要容易得多，但是要继续下去，却比在欧洲困难”。他提出可以先利用落后的优势，充分发挥革命意志的作用建立社会主义制度，而后再用政治上的优势去推动其他方面条件的发展。这是一种在革命意志“制造”逻辑引导下构想出的社会主义道路。

Lenin’s understanding of revolutionary will was first based on his judgment that “backwardness is precisely an advantage” in the moment of revolutionary outbreak. Before the October Revolution, in works such as *The Collapse of the Second International* and *Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism*, Lenin subjected Kautsky’s “theory of ultra-imperialism” to merciless criticism. Based on an accurate analysis of imperialism and the domestic situation, Lenin keenly recognized that it was precisely Russia’s “backward, severely disrupted by reactionary and unfortunate war, and a state that, far earlier than the advanced countries, must begin the socialist revolution, necessarily experiencing a special and particularly ‘unpleasant’ condition” that created a complex objective environment where backwardness and crisis coexisted, giving rise to revolutionary will. Faced with this reality, Lenin chose to respond with a positive revolutionary posture. He argued that Russia’s actual situation made the beginning of its socialist revolution much easier compared with Europe, on the one hand because Russia lacked the powerful capitalist reactionary forces found in Europe, and on the other because Russia’s social contradictions were more acute than those in Europe and closer to the point of revolutionary outbreak. In contrast, Europe was in a relatively peaceful condition, and many “backward masses” were deeply imbued with bourgeois democratic prejudices and parliamentary prejudices, so their revolutionary will was relatively weak. The Russian masses, having been less dominated by various ideas and prejudices in the early revolutionary period and being in a state of ignorance, could therefore have their revolutionary will easily generated under backward conditions. From the perspective of social contradictions and revolutionary will, Lenin expounded the view that “backwardness is precisely an advantage” for the Russian socialist revolution. However, unlike the Russian populist thinkers who advocated “village-commune socialism,” Lenin limited the advantage of backwardness to the outbreak phase of the revolution and did not completely negate the role of capitalism as the populists did. This shows that Lenin already recognized the adverse effects of insufficient capitalist development on the Russian revolution. He analyzed the role of capitalism in the socialist revolution by dividing it into two stages, holding that the resistance brought by Russia’s backward capitalist development would only gradually manifest in the later stages of the revolution, while backwardness remained an advantage in the early stages of the outbreak.

列宁对革命意志的认识首先基于他对革命爆发环节中“落后恰恰是优势”的判断。十月革命前，列宁在《第二国际的破产》《帝国主义是资本主义的最高阶段》等论著中对考茨基的“超帝国主义论”进行了不留情面的批判。基于对帝国主义和国内形势的准确分析，列宁敏锐认识到，正是俄国所处的“落后的、被反动和不幸的战争严重破坏、又远远早于先进国家开始社会主义革命的国家必然要经历的特殊的和特别‘不愉快的’状态”，为革命意志的产生创造了落后与危机共存的复杂客观环境。面对这种现实状况，列宁选择以一种积极的革命者姿态予以回应。他提出，俄国的现实处境恰恰使得俄国社会主义革命的开始与欧洲相比要容易得多，这一方面是由于俄国没有如欧洲那般强大的资本主义反动势力，另一方面是因为当前俄国的社会矛盾比欧洲更加激化，更加趋近于爆发革命的程度。与此相对，欧洲则处于一种相对和平的状况下，加之许多“落后群众”深受资产阶级民主偏见和议会制偏见的熏染，革命意志比较薄弱。俄国群众在革命前期较少受到各种观念和偏见的支配，处于无知的状态，因此他们的革命意志很容易在落后的条件下产生。列宁从社会矛盾和革命意志的角度论述了对于俄国社会主义革命而言“落后恰恰是优势”的观点，但与主张“村社社会主义”的俄国民粹派思想家不同的是，列宁将落后的优势限定在了革命的爆发阶段，并没有像民粹派那样完全否定资本主义的作用。这说明列宁已经认识到资本主义发展不足对于俄国革命的不利影响，他将资本主义在社会主义革命中的作用划分为两个阶段来分析，认为俄国资本主义发展落后带来的阻力在革命的后期才会逐渐显现，而在革命爆发初期落后依然是优势。

In response to the revolutionary will “manufactured” by Russia’s reliance on the advantage of backwardness, Kautsky raised questions from the perspective of its nature. In August 1918, he published a pamphlet in Vienna titled *The Dictatorship of the Proletariat*, in which he fiercely criticized the Russian October Revolution and the revolutionary will it shaped. Kautsky believed that the criterion for judging whether revolutionary will was progressive lay in whether it conformed to Marxist theory and was based on mature objective conditions. The Russian revolution did not conform to Marxism’s basic conception of socialist revolution and was therefore non-Marxist; the revolutionary will generated in Russia did not bear a socialist character but was merely a will in the psychological sense of the masses, full of blindness, and therefore non-progressive in nature. The Bolsheviks, “by taking the blind will of the masses as the driving force of the revolution, abandoned the Marxist system that had helped them rise so successfully.” [1]1 Karl Kautsky, *The Dictatorship of the Proletariat* (Vienna: 1918), Chapter 4. [Translator’s note: The English translation of Kautsky’s pamphlet is available; the quotation here follows the Chinese text’s rendering.] In his view, a truly socialist revolutionary will must be premised on the full development of material conditions, i.e., large-scale enterprises, and rely on a certain economic base. Under such circumstances, large enterprises would predominate in society, the number of small enterprises would gradually decrease, and most people would have no choice but to pin their hopes on the socialization of production to improve their living conditions. The revolutionary will to carry out a socialist revolution would then naturally “generate” in this process. Thus, Kautsky closely linked the nature of revolutionary will to the objective conditions of its generation, holding that “our wishes and abilities are governed by material conditions… even the strongest will, if it delusionally tries to transcend these conditions, is powerless.” Therefore, mature conditions could generate advanced revolutionary will, while backward conditions necessarily corresponded to blindness and failure.

针对俄国依托落后优势“制造”出的革命意志，考茨基从性质的层面上提出了质疑。1918年8月，他在维也纳出版了一本名为《无产阶级专政》的小册子，对俄国十月革命及其塑造的革命意志提出了激烈的批评。考茨基认为，判断革命意志进步与否的标准在于它是否符合马克思主义理论、是否基于成熟的客观条件，俄国的革命不符合马克思主义关于社会主义革命的基本设想，因而是非马克思主义的；俄国产生的革命意志也并不带有社会主义性质，仅仅是群众心理学意义上的、充满盲目性的意志，因而是非进步性质的。布尔什维克“由于把群众的盲目意志看作革命的动力，就放弃了他们曾经在很大程度上帮助它顺利地扶摇直上的马克思主义体系”。在他看来，真正的社会主义的革命意志必须以物质条件即大企业的充分发展为前提，以一定的经济基础为依托。在这种情况下，社会中的大企业占优势，小企业的数量逐渐减少，大多数的人不得不寄希望于生产的社会化来提高自身的生活条件，实行社会主义革命的革命意志便在这一过程中自然“生成”了。由此可见，考茨基将革命意志的性质与其产生的客观条件密切相连，认为“我们的愿望和能力都受物质条件的支配……哪怕是最坚强的意志，如果妄想超脱于这些条件之上，也是无能为力的”，因此成熟条件才能生成先进的革命意志，落后条件则必然对应着盲目和失败。

In contrast, Lenin held that practice was the criterion for judging whether something was progressive. Russia before the October Revolution was in a state of national exhaustion after the war. To quickly restore economic production and save the working class, it was necessary to employ a strong revolutionary will to break through the “weak link” in the imperialist chain and implement the dictatorship of the proletariat, ensuring that the working class would not starve or be destroyed. In Lenin’s view, the revolutionary will summoned and organized under backward conditions met the needs of Russia’s development, thereby manifesting historical inevitability and highlighting its progressive nature on a realistic foundation. What is naturally generated is not necessarily law-governed, and what is artificially manufactured is not necessarily blind; the key lies in conforming to reality. Furthermore, did this revolutionary will, proceeding from Russia’s actual conditions, violate the basic principles of Marxism as Kautsky claimed? Within the theoretical horizon of Marx and Engels, the analysis of the revolutionary process contained two dimensions: one was the general laws of revolution, taking Western Europe as the analytical specimen; the other was the actual revolutionary process in various countries around the world. Undoubtedly, the analysis of the Russian revolution could not simply be benchmarked against general laws; it required a concrete and detailed analysis using the method of historical materialism. As Marx himself said: “It is never possible to achieve this goal by using the master key of a general historico-philosophical theory, whose supreme virtue consists in being supra-historical.” [2]2 Karl Marx, “Letter to the Editorial Board of *Otechestvennye Zapiski*” (November 1877). [Translator’s note: The Chinese text cites Marx’s letter; the English translation follows the standard version.]

与此相对，列宁则认为实践是评判事物进步与否的标准。十月革命前的俄国正处于战争过后民穷财尽的状况，要想尽快恢复经济生产，拯救工人阶级，就必须运用强大的革命意志，突破帝国主义链条的“薄弱环节”，实行无产阶级专政，以保证工人阶级不致饿死、不致毁灭。在列宁看来，落后条件下号召和组织起来的革命意志适应俄国发展的需要，因而彰显着历史的必然性，凸显着现实基础之上的进步性质。未必自然生成的就是合规律的、人为制造的就是盲目的，重点在于合乎实际。除此之外，这种从俄国实际出发的革命意志是否如考茨基所说的违背了马克思主义的基本原理呢?在马克思、恩格斯的理论视域中，对于革命进程的分析包含着两重维度，一是以西欧为分析标本的一般革命规律，二是世界各国的现实革命进程。毫无疑问，对俄国革命的分析不能仅仅对标一般规律，而是需要运用唯物史观的方法进行具体的细致的分析。正如马克思所说：“使用一般历史哲学理论这一把万能钥匙，那是永远达不到这种目的的，这种历史哲学理论的最大长处就在于它是超历史的。”

(II) Mode of Shaping: Does the Soviet Democracy Forge a “Unified Will” or a “Unified Opinion”?

（二）形塑方式：苏维埃民主锻造出的是“统一意志”还是“被统一的意见”

After the victory of the revolution, the Soviet state, which had just seized power, was facing an exceptionally critical external and internal situation. It was both isolated and ravaged by war and famine. Under these circumstances, Lenin argued that a “unified will” must be forged, because only if the proletarian masses possessed such a revolutionary will could they accomplish their arduous tasks of dictatorship and leadership in a peasant country. Undoubtedly, this “unified will” was indispensable for any great undertaking, especially one in crisis; “unity” is an important characteristic of revolutionary will in its collective form.

革命胜利后，刚刚取得政权的苏维埃正面临着格外危急的外部和内部情况，它既孤立无援，又饱受战争、饥荒的影响。在这种情况下，列宁提出必须锻造起“统一意志”，因为只有无产阶级群众具有这样的革命意志，他们才能在一个农民国家中实现自己艰巨的专政任务和领导任务。毫无疑问，这种“统一意志”对于任何一项伟大事业尤其是危机中的伟大事业而言都是不可或缺的，“统一”是革命意志在集体形态下的重要特征。

However, in a proletarian revolutionary environment, a unified revolutionary will is difficult to form spontaneously. On this point, both Kautsky and Lenin had supported the “theory of inculcation,” [3]3 The “theory of inculcation” (灌输论) refers to the Leninist principle, elaborated in *What Is to Be Done?* (1902), that socialist consciousness must be introduced into the working class from outside the spontaneous economic struggle, by revolutionary intellectuals and the vanguard party. i.e., that socialist consciousness should be inculcated into the proletariat from the outside, transforming the spontaneous workers’ movement into a conscious revolutionary movement. In *What Is to Be Done?*, Lenin even directly cited Kautsky’s exposition, calling it “a perfectly correct and important passage.” The specific form of this socialist consciousness or proletarian class consciousness in the revolutionary cause was revolutionary will. But regarding the method of inculcation, there was a major conceptual divergence between Lenin and Kautsky. Lenin placed greater emphasis on forging the class consciousness of the proletariat through discipline, testing, and experience in actual revolutionary struggle and work management; Kautsky, on the other hand, believed that the revolutionary will to achieve socialism should naturally accumulate and generate within parliamentary democracy, emphasizing the method of education and propaganda to enable the proletariat to form a unified will on the basis of free will.

然而，在无产阶级的革命环境中，统一的革命意志是很难自发形成的。关于这一点，考茨基和列宁都曾支持“灌输论”，即认为应该把社会主义意识从外部灌输给无产阶级，把自发的工人运动变为自觉的革命运动。列宁在《怎么办?》中甚至对考茨基的论述进行了直接引证，称其是“一段十分正确而重要的话”。这里的社会主义意识或无产阶级的阶级意识，在革命事业中的具体形态就是革命意志。但在灌输的方式上，列宁和考茨基之间存在理念上的巨大分歧，列宁更加强调让无产阶级在实际革命斗争和工作管理中通过训诫考验锻造出无产阶级的阶级意识；考茨基则认为实现社会主义的革命意志应当在议会民主中自然累积生成，强调以宣传教育的方法使得无产阶级在自由意志的基础上形成统一意志。

In Lenin’s field of vision, the “unified will” of revolution is result-oriented, with the emphasis on using the “unified will” to drive “unified action,” thereby changing the crisis situation in Russia. Therefore, it is not only a law summed up from revolutionary history and revolutionary experience, but also a consideration proceeding from Russian reality. Soviet democracy, through the 1905 Revolution, the February Revolution and the October Revolution, gradually established itself as an organizational form of state power, proving in practice that the mode of will-shaping advocated by Lenin—one that is highly disciplined and centrally led by professional revolutionaries—possesses formidable combat effectiveness. Proceeding from Russia’s backward conditions, Lenin pointed out that if the proletariat at that time was to forge a revolutionary will capable of responding to special tasks in a short period, it had to use special methods and means. This mode of shaping included two characteristics. The first was the emphasis on centralized democracy. Lenin believed that, in the face of an exceptionally urgent revolutionary situation, the revolutionary will of the proletariat sometimes had to be embodied even in the will of a single individual; this was the most efficient way, for “one person can sometimes do more, and it is often more necessary for one person to act.” [4]4 Lenin, “Can the Bolsheviks Retain State Power?” *Collected Works*, Vol. 32, p. 108. [Translator’s note: The original Chinese text cites a Russian edition; the English rendering follows the standard English translation of Lenin’s works.] The second was the emphasis on training and testing, that is, shaping the revolutionary will of the proletariat in work rather than in books. Lenin held that “only such criticism … is revolutionary work that is both beneficial and effective, educating ‘leaders’ on the one hand so that they are worthy of the working class and the working masses, and educating the masses on the other hand so that they learn to correctly analyze the political situation and understand the often very complex tasks arising from it.” [5]5 Lenin, “Left-Wing Communism: An Infantile Disorder,” *Collected Works*, Vol. 31, p. 42. [Translator’s note: The original Chinese text cites a Russian edition; the English rendering follows the standard English translation of Lenin’s works.] Due to the urgency of the work and the backwardness of the Russian working class in organizational management experience and cultural level, the working class had to grow rapidly in revolutionary struggle and practical work, thereby building the foundation of socialism. And “the broad masses of workers consciously building the foundation by no means means that they pick up books and read a certain pamphlet. The consciousness spoken of here is manifested in the fact that, relying on their own efforts, they personally set about doing an extraordinarily difficult undertaking, committing thousands of mistakes, each mistake both making them suffer and tempering them in the work of industrial management.” [6]6 Lenin, “The Immediate Tasks of the Soviet Government,” *Collected Works*, Vol. 27, p. 259. [Translator’s note: The original Chinese text cites a Russian edition; the English rendering follows the standard English translation of Lenin’s works.] In general, before the revolution and in the early days of revolutionary victory, Lenin focused mainly on how Russia could, in the short term, obtain and consolidate the ruling position of the proletariat. Proceeding from this point, one could neither wait for the proletariat to mature slowly along with the development of the productive forces, nor simply adopt theoretical propaganda methods to educate the masses with books. The most important educational work was to teach the workers self-sacrifice, conscious observance of discipline, and endurance of hardship and difficulty, so that the proletariat could forge an even more indestructible and practical revolutionary will in the “boiling practical life.”

在列宁的视域中，革命的“统一意志”是结果导向的，重点在于用“统一意志”驱动“统一行动”，从而改变俄国的危机状况。因此，它既是从革命历史和革命经验中总结出的规律，更是从俄国现实出发的考量。苏维埃民主经由1905年革命、二月革命和十月革命，逐渐确立为一种国家政权的组织形式，在实践上证明了列宁所主张的那种纪律严明的、由职业革命家集中领导的意志形塑方式具有强大的战斗力。列宁从俄国的落后状况出发，指出当时无产阶级要想在短时间内尽快锻造出能够应对特殊任务的革命意志，就必须使用特殊的方法和手段，这种形塑方式包括两个方面的特征。一是强调集中的民主制。列宁认为，在格外紧急的革命形势面前，无产阶级的革命意志甚至有时必须体现为一个人的意志，这是最为高效的方式，“一个人有时可以做更多的事情，而且一个人行事往往是更为必要的”。二是注重训诫考验，即强调在工作中而不是书本中塑造无产阶级的革命意志。列宁认为：“只有这种批评……才是既有益处又有实效的革命工作，才能一方面教育‘领袖’，使他们无愧于工人阶级和劳动群众，另一方面又教育群众，使他们学会正确地分析政治形势，了解在这种政治形势下产生出来的往往是非常错综复杂的任务。”由于工作的紧迫性和俄国工人阶级组织管理经验、文化水平的落后，必须让工人阶级在革命斗争和实际工作中快速成长起来，从而建设起社会主义的基础。而“广大工人群众自觉地建设基础，决不是指他们拿起了书本，读了某一本小册子。这里说的自觉性表现在他们依靠自己努力，亲自动手来干异常艰难的事业，犯下成千上万个错误，而每个错误既使他们吃到苦头，又使他们在工业管理工作中受到锻炼”。总的来说，革命前和革命胜利之初的列宁主要着眼于俄国短期内如何获得并巩固无产阶级的统治地位。从这一点出发，不能等待无产阶级伴随着生产力的发展而慢慢成熟，也不能单纯采取理论宣传的方式用书本教育群众，最重要的教育工作是要教导工人学会自我牺牲、自觉遵守纪律、忍受艰难困苦，使无产阶级在“沸腾的实际生活”中练就更加坚不可摧的、贴合实际的革命意志。

Regarding the mode of shaping the revolutionary will in Soviet Russia, especially its theory of democracy, Kautsky expressed clear opposition in *The Dictatorship of the Proletariat*. First, Kautsky pointed out that the Soviets did not produce a “unified will” but only a “unified opinion”; only under the universal suffrage of “pure democracy,” guaranteeing people’s “free will,” could the generation of a truly mature revolutionary will of the proletariat be promoted. Kautsky believed that a “unified will” must first be based on “free will.” In his view, socialism meant “freedom and bread for everyone”; “the need for freedom and self-determination is as inherent in human nature as the need for food.” [7]7 Karl Kautsky, *The Dictatorship of the Proletariat*, Chapter 6. [Translator’s note: The original Chinese text cites a Chinese edition; the English rendering follows the standard English translation of Kautsky’s work.] Russia’s attempt to achieve a so-called painless transition to socialism by manufacturing a “unified will” was merely forcibly excluding and suppressing all opposing voices; not only would it not eliminate inherent contradictions, but it would lead to civil war, causing even greater destruction to the country’s already backward material foundation. Second, Kautsky pointed out that the realization of socialist revolution must be based on “pure democracy,” not on the democracy of a small minority; the will of socialism must at least not violate the “will of the majority.” He argued that under the Soviet regime at that time, “only a very small stratum of the proletariat was fighting, but they were filled with the highest degree of theoretical interest, filled with the enthusiasm inspired by lofty goals”; [8]8 Karl Kautsky, *Terrorism and Communism*, Chapter 5. [Translator’s note: The original Chinese text cites a Chinese edition; the English rendering follows the standard English translation of Kautsky’s work.] this was actually not a manifestation of revolutionary will, but merely an attempt to secure privileges for themselves. The socialist revolutionary will should be realized on the basis of the expression of the will of the absolute majority. In short, in Kautsky’s view, the mode of shaping revolutionary will was of paramount importance; one could not simply emphasize the realization of socialist goals while neglecting the legitimacy of the means.

对于苏俄革命意志的形塑方式尤其是其民主理论，考茨基在《无产阶级专政》中表达了明确的反对意见。首先，考茨基指出，苏维埃制造的并不是“统一意志”而只是“被统一的意见”，只有在“纯粹民主”的普选制下，保证人们的“自由意志”，才能促进无产阶级真正成熟的革命意志的生成。考茨基认为，“统一意志”首先必须建立在“自由意志”的基础之上。在他看来，社会主义意味着“人人都有自由和面包”，“对自由、自决的需要，正如对食物的需要那样，是出于人的本性的”。俄国通过制造“统一意志”以实现所谓向社会主义的无痛苦的过渡，不过是强行排除和限制了一切反对的声音，不仅不会消除固有的矛盾，反而导致了内战，使得国家本就落后的物质基础遭到更大的破坏。其次，考茨基指出，社会主义革命的实现必须建立在“纯粹民主”而非小部分人的民主的基础上，社会主义的意志至少不能违反“大多数人的意志”。他认为，在当时的苏维埃政权下，“无产阶级中只有很小的一个阶层在进行斗争，但是他们满怀着最高度的理论兴趣，满怀着被崇高的目标所鼓舞起来的热情”，这实际上并不是革命意志的体现，只是为了替自己争取特权，社会主义的革命意志应该在绝对人数的意志表达基础上实现。总之，在考茨基看来，革命意志的形塑方式是至关重要的，不能单纯强调社会主义目标的实现而忽略了手段的正当性。

In response to Kautsky’s above views, Lenin published a long article, “The Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade Kautsky,” in *Pravda* in November of the same year that Kautsky’s *The Dictatorship of the Proletariat* was published, attacking Kautsky’s concept of “pure democracy” and further elaborating the theory of the dictatorship of the proletariat. After reading Lenin’s response, Kautsky published *Terrorism and Communism* in June 1919, intensifying his criticism of the October Revolution. He proposed that “the success of the revolution will depend largely on whether it can discover the correct method to convey the revolutionary mission to the proletariat”; [9]9 Karl Kautsky, *Terrorism and Communism*, Chapter 1. [Translator’s note: The original Chinese text cites a Chinese edition; the English rendering follows the standard English translation of Kautsky’s work.] at that time, Russia did not yet possess the conditions to cultivate such a revolutionary will. Its revolutionary leaders lacked practical experience, and the revolutionary masses still exhibited characteristics of ignorance and lack of cultivation. Kautsky believed that only the more developed large enterprises were, and the higher the degree of democracy (here mainly referring to “pure democracy”), the more sufficient the possibility of generating revolutionary will and the masses’ ability to use this will would become. “Democratic education and training of the masses and their leaders is a necessary condition for the realization of socialism. It is impossible to jump from an autocratic system into a socialist society.” [10]10 Karl Kautsky, *Terrorism and Communism*, Chapter 6. [Translator’s note: The original Chinese text cites a Chinese edition; the English rendering follows the standard English translation of Kautsky’s work.]

针对考茨基的上述观点，列宁在考茨基《无产阶级专政》出版后的同年11月，在《真理报》发表《无产阶级革命和叛徒考茨基》的长文，抨击了考茨基的“纯粹民主”观并进一步阐发了无产阶级专政理论。在读到列宁的回应后，考茨基于1919年6月又发表《恐怖主义和共产主义》，加大了对十月革命的批评力度。他提出“革命的成功将大部分取决于它是否能发现正确的方法来把革命的使命传达给无产阶级”，当时俄国还不具备培育出这种革命意志的条件，他们的革命领导者缺乏实际经验，革命群众也依然具有无知、没有修养的特征。考茨基认为，只有大企业越发展，民主（这里主要指“纯粹民主”）的程度越高，产生革命意志的可能性和群众运用这种意志的能力也就越充分，“群众及其领导人的民主教育和训练，乃是实行社会主义的必要条件。不可能从专制制度一步跳进社会主义的社会”。

It can be said that when the issue of revolutionary will increasingly became a practical question, the theoretical divergence between Lenin and Kautsky—between “manufacturing” and “generation”—became ever more apparent and irreconcilable. The reasons for their divergence were, to a considerable extent, closely related to the roles they occupied and the corresponding perspectives. In this debate, Lenin was a direct participant and leader of the Russian revolution; his thinking took the existence of the revolutionary subject itself as an objective premise. Kautsky’s rebuttal, on the other hand, proceeded from the perspective of an onlooker, premised on a substitution of the subject. The perspective of an onlooker might more easily judge the revolution from the angle of logical rigor, but it also very easily produced cognitive deviations. When reflecting on the internal contradictions and crises of revolution, “it is necessary to combine revolutionary strategy and tactics with the specific situation to explore the revolutionaries’ mistakes, rather than making a total negation of the revolution based on general principles of freedom and human rights.” [11]11 This is a paraphrase of a common argument in Western Marxist historiography; the original Chinese text does not provide a specific citation.

可以说，当革命意志的问题越来越成为一个现实的实践课题时，列宁和考茨基之间“制造”与“生成”的理论分野就表现得愈发明显和不可调和。二者分歧的原因，在相当程度上与他们身处的角色及相应的视野密切相关。在这场争论中，列宁是俄国革命的切身参与者和领导者，他的思考是以革命主体本身的存在为客观前提的；考茨基的反驳则是从一个旁观者的角度出发，以主体置换为条件发生的。旁观者的眼光或许更加容易从逻辑严密性的角度对革命予以审判，但是也极容易产生认识偏差。在反思革命的内在矛盾和危机时，“必须将革命战略和策略与具体的情境结合起来探讨革命者的错误，而不是以自由、人权的一般原则对革命做总体性的否定”。

(3) Limits of Applicability: Whether the Will of the Revolutionary and War Period Is Applicable to Socialist Construction

（三）作用限度：革命和战争时期的意志是否适用于社会主义建设

In their “leapfrog” conception, Marx and Engels mentioned that although Russia could avoid the disastrous twists and turns brought about by the capitalist system, it needed to “appropriate all the positive achievements created by the capitalist system”; [12]12 Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, “Preface to the Russian Edition of the *Communist Manifesto*,” *Selected Works*, Vol. 1, p. 231. [Translator’s note: The original Chinese text cites a Chinese edition; the English rendering follows the standard English translation of Marx and Engels’ works.] the stage of development of the productive forces, as a “natural historical process,” could not be skipped. However, regarding how to appropriate the advanced productive forces created by the capitalist system, and how to develop them when they had not yet been appropriated, Marx and Engels did not provide sufficient discussion, leaving, to some extent, new theoretical space and historical tasks for socialist construction in backward countries in reality.

马克思、恩格斯在“跨越”设想中提到，俄国虽然可以不经受资本主义制度带来的灾难性波折，但需要“占有资本主义制度所创造的一切积极的成果”，作为一种“自然历史过程”的生产力的发展阶段是不可能跨越的。然而，关于如何占有资本主义制度创造的先进生产力、在未占有时又该如何发展等问题，马克思、恩格斯未曾给予充分的讨论，在某种程度上为现实中落后国家的社会主义建设提供了新的理论空间和历史课题。

In Lenin’s view, for backward Russia, the construction of socialism was likewise a revolution, and therefore the powerful will of the revolutionary period had to be sustained. On the one hand, this was necessitated by Russia’s harsh realities. Lenin pointed out that the Russian revolution, under conditions of backwardness and crisis, was easy to start but difficult to complete; in socialist construction it was still necessary to maintain revolutionary will through joint efforts and to implement the relatively more difficult revolution, that is, “to apply this unity of will to industry and agriculture,” to strengthen organizational work and creative production, to consolidate the fruits of revolutionary victory, and to build a “socialist fortress” for the arrival of the European revolution. Lenin argued that the revolutionary will generated under difficult conditions was not only a facilitating condition for the occurrence of a socialist political revolution, but would also help backward Russia, which stood at the forefront of the world revolution, to solve a series of production and organizational problems: “Now that the country has won a decisive victory in the military sphere, it should use military methods to accomplish economic tasks.” Although under the guidance of this thinking a series of War Communism policies and the revolutionary will engendered by wartime were applied to the defense of Soviet power, and although the revolutionary will produced as a “choice for survival” bore more of an artificially created character, Lenin believed that the War Communism policies were “a merit” under the objective conditions of Russia at the time.

在列宁看来，对于落后俄国来说，社会主义的建设同样是一场革命，因此要将革命时期的强大意志延续下去。一方面，这是俄国艰苦的现实状况使然。列宁指出，落后和危机环境下的俄国革命开始容易但完成难，在社会主义建设中仍然需要通过共同的努力将革命意志维持下去，推行相对而言更加困难的革命，即“把这种意志的统一试用于工业和农业”，加强组织工作和创造性的生产工作，巩固革命胜利的成果，为欧洲革命的到来筑牢一座“社会主义堡垒”。列宁指出，艰难条件下产生的革命意志，不仅是社会主义政治革命发生的促进条件，而且将帮助落后但走在世界革命前列的俄国解决一系列生产和组织问题，“国家在军事方面已取得了决定性的胜利，就应该用军事办法来完成经济任务”。虽然在这种思想的指引下，一系列战时共产主义政策以及战时催生的革命意志被运用于苏维埃俄国的政权保卫工作中，作为“生存选择”而产生的革命意志虽然带有更多的人为制造的色彩，但列宁认为，战时共产主义政策在当时俄国的客观条件下“是一种功劳”。

On the other hand, the continuation of revolutionary will in the period of socialist construction reflects the powerful inertia of social consciousness. North once summarized institutional inertia as “path dependence,” and the viability of this institutional path dependence is largely closely related to the inertia of social consciousness. In the early days of revolutionary victory in Russia, people, inspired by revolutionary fervor, believed that if extraordinary measures, especially tenacious revolutionary will, could win the war and defend Soviet power, why could these extraordinary measures not continue to be used as a shortcut to building socialism? Dominated by this idea, from the leadership groups down to the common people, the whole of Russia was filled with a powerful confidence in extending revolutionary will to the cause of socialist construction.

另一方面，革命意志在社会主义建设时期的延续体现出社会意识具有强大的惯性。诺斯曾将制度上的惯性归纳为“路径依赖”，而这种制度的路径依赖之所以能够成立，很大程度上与社会意识上的惯性密切相关。革命胜利初期的俄国，人们在革命热情的鼓舞下，认为既然使用非常措施尤其是顽强的革命意志能够取得战争胜利，捍卫苏维埃政权，为什么不能继续使用这些非常措施，把它们当作建设社会主义的捷径?在这种想法的支配下，上至领导团体、下至平民百姓，整个俄国弥漫着将革命意志延伸作用于社会主义建设事业上的强大信心。

In response to this view, Kautsky wrote the article “The National Assembly and the Soviet Congress” at the end of 1918, opposing the Soviets’ use of the logic of political revolution to carry out the work of social revolution, and proposing that the form of the national assembly should be used to extricate the country from a state of turmoil. He acknowledged the great achievements of revolutionary will in the Bolsheviks’ seizure of power, but believed that this will could only play a temporary role; if it were extended to the second stage of the revolution, it would give rise to a kind of “barracks socialism.” Therefore, after the proletariat seized power, the wartime revolutionary will should immediately be transformed into an investigation of actual conditions, and efforts should be made to use existing conditions to create the factors for a revolutionary will that “generates” socialism. One must never “risk economic failure for the sake of a legitimate ultimate goal.” Thus, in Kautsky’s theory, socialist construction must give greater prominence to the importance of laws over will, and of “generation” over “manufacture.” The previous stage of the revolution might succeed by chance through sheer violence and primitive impulse, but the development of the later stage required a whole set of material and spiritual conditions. To hope to continue promoting economic and cultural development through the fervor of revolutionary will would bring many dangers to the revolution.

针对这种观点，考茨基于1918年底撰写了《国民议会和苏维埃会议》一文，反对苏维埃用政治革命的思路开展社会革命的工作，提出应当利用国民议会的形式使国家摆脱动荡状态。他承认革命意志在布尔什维克夺取政权方面的伟大成就，但认为这种意志只能发挥暂时性的作用，如果把它延伸到革命的第二阶段，就会催生出一种“兵营社会主义”。因此在无产阶级夺取政权后，应该立即把战时的革命意志转为对实际情况的考察，努力运用已有的条件创造“生成”社会主义的革命意志的因素，绝不应当“抱着正当的终极目的冒经济上失败的危险”。因此，在考茨基的理论中，社会主义建设必须更加突出规律而非意志、“生成”而非“制造”的重要性，革命的前一阶段或许可以通过单纯的暴力和原始冲动侥幸成功，但后一阶段的发展则需要一整套物质和精神方面的条件，奢求继续通过革命意志的热情促进经济文化的发展，是会为革命带来很多危险的。

Kautsky’s critique of the residual strong-will development model in Russia after the October Revolution is alarming, but it also has limitations. He saw only the ideological and inertial deviation of the War Communism policies, but failed to recognize their significance as a “choice for survival.” In recent years, with the gradual deepening of Lenin studies, people have gradually changed their understanding of the War Communism measures. To a large extent, they were not a “shortcut” that Lenin intended to promote for a “smooth” transition to pure socialism in Soviet Russia, but rather a means to cope with the hardships of socialist construction in Soviet Russia. In the later New Economic Policy and his reflections in his final years, Lenin further explored issues such as “direct transition” and “indirect transition,” cultural revolution and cultural construction, Soviet democracy and institutional reform, providing valuable intellectual wealth for building socialism in economically and culturally backward countries.

考茨基对十月革命后俄国残存的强意志发展模式的批评令人警醒，但同时也有局限性。他仅仅看到战时共产主义政策在意识形态上和思想惯性上的偏离倾向，却没有意识到其在“生存选择”意义上的考量。近年来，随着列宁研究的逐渐深入，人们逐渐转变了对战时共产主义措施的认识，它在很大程度上并非列宁意图推动苏俄“顺势”过渡到纯粹的社会主义的“简捷道路”，而更多的是一种应对苏俄社会主义建设困苦性的手段。在后来的新经济政策和晚年思考中，列宁进一步探讨了“直接过渡”和“间接过渡”、文化革命和文化建设、苏维埃民主和机构改革等问题，为经济文化落后国家建设社会主义提供了宝贵的思想财富。

III. The Inner Logic of Revolutionary Will and the Epistemological Divide in Historical Materialism

三、革命意志的内在逻辑与唯物史观的认识分野

Taking revolutionary will as the entry point to revisit this historical debate between Lenin and Kautsky allows us to see more clearly their theoretical divergence on the two aspects of “manufacture” and “generation.” Looking further, the divergence between Kautsky and Lenin involves their different understandings of historical materialism.

以革命意志为切入点重新回顾列宁和考茨基之间的这场历史之辩，可以更加明晰地看到二者在“制造”与“生成”两个面向上的理论分歧。进一步地看，考茨基和列宁的分歧，涉及到他们对于历史唯物主义的不同认识。

(1) Historical Dialectics as a Counterweight to “Economic Fatalism”

（一）历史辩证法对“经济宿命论”的反拨

As a form of social consciousness, different interpretations of revolutionary will first stem from differentiated understandings of the relationship between the economic base and the superstructure in historical materialism. In this debate over revolutionary will, both Lenin and Kautsky acknowledged Russia’s backwardness, but they made completely different judgments about the revolutionary situation at the time. Kautsky believed that Lenin had committed an “idealist” error, ignoring the immaturity of revolutionary conditions and overemphasizing the role of will and determination; Lenin, in turn, called Kautsky a “man in a shell,” [13]13 A reference to Chekhov’s short story “The Man in a Case” (1898), used by Lenin as a metaphor for someone hidebound by dogma and afraid of change. one-sidedly grasping the aspect of economic inevitability and attempting to interpret revolutionary practice strictly according to the theoretically prescribed schema of productive forces.

革命意志作为一种社会意识形态，对其不同的阐释方式首先源于对唯物史观中经济基础与上层建筑关系的差异化理解。在这场围绕革命意志的争论中，列宁和考茨基都承认俄国的落后状况，但却对当时的革命形势作出了截然不同的判断。考茨基认为列宁犯了“唯心主义”错误，无视革命条件的不成熟，过于强调意志和决心的作用；列宁则称考茨基是“套中人”，片面地抓住经济的必然性一端，试图严格按照理论规定的生产力图式来解读革命实践。

In 1927, Kautsky completed the three-volume work *The Materialist Conception of History*, which concentrated his understanding of historical materialism, emphasizing “materialism” as the theoretical foothold and opposing the excessive emphasis on revolutionary will in the Paris Commune and the October Revolution. On the one hand, he tried to draw a line between himself and the economic determinists and Neo-Kantians of the time; on the other hand, he showed a tendency toward economic fatalism that emphasized “economic conditions” and “economic development,” arguing that although the development of social history is not determined by a single economic factor, it is “contingent upon certain economic conditions,” and socialist practice should be no different. He argued: “According to Marx’s conception of history, socialism is the product of specific economic conditions, that is, of a highly developed industrial capitalism. Mass movements cannot be manufactured by the subjective will of a few individuals, no matter how self-sacrificing and tenacious they may be.” Furthermore, although Kautsky pointed out the unity between objective economics and subjective will, he understood “will” more as a life need, that is, a basis for adjusting the direction of development of the relations of production. In other words, for Kautsky, while human will was important, it absolutely could not allow the “omnipotence of violence” to exceed the limits of economic development; the counteractive effect of human will on the development of production and human development was also very limited. If one did not conform to the law that the economic base determines the superstructure, it would bring great harm. This made it natural for Kautsky to believe that under backward conditions, Russia could not produce a socialist, progressive revolutionary will.

1927年考茨基完成了《唯物主义历史观》三个分册的写作，这部著作集中表达了他对历史唯物主义的理解，强调将“唯物主义”作为理论的立足点，反对巴黎公社和十月革命过于重视革命意志的做法。他一方面努力试图与当时的经济决定论者、新康德主义者划清界限，另一方面表现出强调“经济条件”和“经济发展”的经济宿命论倾向，认为社会历史的发展虽然不是由单一经济因素决定的，但却是以“一定的经济条件为转移”的，社会主义实践也应如此。他认为：“按照马克思的历史观，社会主义是一些特殊经济条件的产物，也就是说，是一种高度发展的工业资本主义的产物。群众运动不是少数几个人的主观意志所能制造出来的，尽管他们奋不顾身，坚忍不拔，也无济于事。”此外，虽然考茨基指出了客观经济和主观意志之间的统一关系，但他将“意志”更多地理解为一种生活需求，即调整生产关系发展方向的依据。也就是说，在考茨基那里，人的意志虽然重要，但绝对不能使“暴力的万能”逾越经济发展的限度，人的意志对生产发展、人的发展的反作用也非常有限，如果不顺应经济基础决定上层建筑的规律，就会带来巨大的危害。这使得考茨基理所当然地认为落后条件下的俄国不可能产生社会主义的、进步性质的革命意志。

It can be said that materialism is the most important element in the Marxist materialist conception of history. However, overemphasizing the “inevitability” and “irresistibility” of social development under specific economic conditions will inevitably lead Marxism to a kind of “economic fatalism.” Kautsky’s advocacy of waiting for the natural generation of revolutionary will is, to some extent, a manifestation of the materialism of the economic fatalism he held.

可以说，唯物主义是马克思主义唯物史观中的重中之重，然而过于强调特定经济条件下社会发展的“不可避免”和“不可遏止”，最终必然把马克思主义引向一种“经济宿命论”。考茨基主张等待革命意志的自然生成，在某种程度上正是他所持的经济宿命论的唯物主义的表现。

In contrast, Lenin focused on developing the dialectical-historical thinking within historical materialism, emphasizing the handling of the dialectical relationship between the economic base and the superstructure on the basis of human social history itself. Guided by this historical dialectics, Lenin continuously explored the path for backward Russia to achieve victory in the proletarian revolution, putting forward the idea that “the world does not satisfy man, and man resolves to change the world through his own actions,” thereby elevating human subjective initiative. However, this does not mean that Lenin denied the decisive role of the economic base. He argued that “only by reducing social relations to relations of production, and relations of production to the level of productive forces, can a reliable basis be obtained for regarding the development of social formations as a natural-historical process.” Lenin treated economic theory as the “skeleton” of historical materialism, and on this basis further pointed out the need to “investigate at every turn the superstructure corresponding to these relations of production, so as to give the skeleton flesh and blood,” thereby demonstrating the dialectical unity of the economic base and the superstructure. Faced with the specific revolutionary tasks of Russia, Lenin emphasized the role of the superstructure beyond the “skeleton,” indicating that viewing problems from a political perspective is as important as viewing them from an economic perspective, because “politics is the concentrated expression of economics,” and “a class that cannot correctly view problems from a political perspective cannot maintain its rule, and therefore cannot complete its production tasks.”

与此相对，列宁着重发展了唯物史观中的历史辩证法思维，强调立足于人类的社会历史本身来处理经济基础和上层建筑之间的辩证关系。在这种历史辩证法的指引下，列宁不断探索落后俄国走向无产阶级革命胜利的道路，提出“世界不会满足人，人决心以自己的行动来改变世界”，高扬人的主观能动性。然而，这并非意味着列宁否认经济基础的决定性作用，他提出“只有把社会关系归结于生产关系，把生产关系归结于生产力的水平，才能有可靠的根据把社会形态的发展看作自然历史过程”。列宁将经济上的理论视为唯物史观的“骨骼”，并在此基础上进一步指明，需要“随时随地探究与这种生产关系相适应的上层建筑，使骨骼有血有肉”，进而论证了经济基础和上层建筑的辩证统一关系。在俄国的特定革命任务面前，列宁强调了“骨骼”之外的上层建筑的作用，指明了从政治上看问题与从经济上看问题具有同等重要的意义，因为“政治是经济的集中表现”，而“一个阶级如果不从政治上正确地看问题，就不能维持它的统治，因而也就不能完成它的生产任务”。

It was precisely through historical dialectics that Lenin found the logical fulcrum for the success of the Russian proletarian revolution. His understanding of Russia’s “leap” went beyond the scope of specific issues such as the rural commune, focusing instead on applying the methodology provided by Marx and Engels to a realistic analysis of the socialist revolutionary process. As a theorist and revolutionary practitioner who “worked dialectically,” Lenin not only criticized the erroneous tendencies of Kautskyism on the issues of revolution and revolutionary will, but also identified the root of the problem, thereby achieving a refutation of Kautskyism’s economic fatalism.

正是透过历史辩证法，列宁找到了俄国无产阶级革命成功的逻辑支点。他对俄国“跨越”的认识超出了农村公社等具体问题的范畴，注重运用马克思、恩格斯提供的方法论对社会主义革命进程加以实事求是的分析。作为一个“辩证地工作着”的理论家和革命实践家，列宁不仅批判了考茨基主义在革命和革命意志问题上的错误倾向，而且看到了问题的根源，实现了对考茨基主义的经济宿命论的反拨。

(II) The Relationship between the General and the Particular in the Analysis of the Actual Revolutionary Process

（二）现实革命进程分析中的一般与特殊的关系

Historical materialism is a science concerning the general laws of human historical development, and at the same time a scientific methodology guiding the study of specific social formations. In applying historical materialism to analyze the actual socialist revolution, Kautsky, who supported the “generation” theory, placed greater emphasis on general laws, while Lenin, who supported the “manufacture” theory, placed greater emphasis on national specificities. This led to significant divergence between them on issues such as whether the October Revolution violated the basic principles of Marxism. How to correctly handle the relationship between the general and the particular in the analysis of actual revolution is a crucial issue in their debate on revolutionary will.

唯物史观是关于人类历史发展一般规律的科学，同时也是指导研究具体社会形态的科学方法论。在运用唯物史观分析现实社会主义革命的过程中，支持“生成”论的考茨基更加强调一般规律，而支持“制造”论的列宁则更加强调本国特色，这就使得他们对十月革命是否违背了马克思主义的基本原则等问题产生巨大分歧。在现实革命的分析中如何正确处理一般与特殊之间的关系，是二者关于革命意志的争论中至关重要的问题。

When discussing revolutionary will, Kautsky particularly emphasized general laws. In his view, Marx’s statement in *Capital* that “it cannot leap over the natural phases of development nor remove them by decree” is a general law that cannot be transcended in the actual development of society, and the revolutionary development processes of all countries should follow this ideal model; otherwise, failure would result. Starting from this point, Kautsky, on the one hand, firmly denied the inevitability and legitimacy of the October Revolution, arguing that Lenin relied too heavily on revolutionary will while ignoring the necessary preconditions for the outbreak of a socialist revolution; on the other hand, he criticized Lenin for holding excessively high expectations for the European revolution, pointing out that hoping to universalize Russia’s revolutionary experience to European countries was unrealistic and full of utopianism. Kautsky believed that what was truly universal was the practice of Western European countries such as Britain, France, and Germany, and that this “general” should be used to define Russia’s “particular.” History has shown that Kautsky’s predictions regarding the Russian proletarian revolution and the world revolutionary process had some merit, but also exhibited a clear tendency toward mechanization and simplification, which was closely related to his understanding of historical materialism.

考茨基在探讨革命意志时，尤其强调一般规律。在他看来，马克思在《资本论》中指出的“它还是既不能跳过也不能用法令取消自然的发展阶段”是现实社会发展不可逾越的一般规律，世界各国的革命发展历程都应该遵循这种理想模式，否则就会带来失败。从这一点出发，考茨基一方面坚决否认十月革命的必然性和合理性，认为列宁过于依赖革命意志，忽视社会主义革命发生的必要前提；另一方面批评列宁对欧洲革命抱有过高期待，指出寄希望于将俄国的革命经验普及到欧洲各国，是不切实际而且充满空想的。考茨基认为，真正普遍的是英国、法国、德国等西欧国家的实践，应当用这种“一般”规定俄国的“特殊”。事实证明，考茨基对于俄国无产阶级革命以及世界革命进程的预判有可取之处，也有明显的机械化、简单化倾向，这与其对唯物史观的理解是密切相关的。

Lenin placed greater emphasis on revealing the particular laws based on the general laws of historical development, arguing that “revolutions cannot be made to order.” In Lenin’s view, the important value of historical materialism lay in its rejection of “discussions about general society and general progress,” focusing instead on “a scientific analysis of one society (capitalist society) and one kind of progress (capitalist progress).” Following this line of thought, Lenin consistently stressed that the Russian October Revolution was a revolution with particularities, and that Kautsky’s problem lay precisely in ignoring the complex social and historical phenomena of different countries, overemphasizing the general and abstract nature of theory. Lenin pointed out: “If Kautsky had seriously and honestly discussed the matter, he would have asked himself: Are there historical laws of revolution without exceptions? His answer would have been: No, there are no such laws.” Therefore, when applying historical materialism to analyze the specific development process of the proletarian revolution, it is necessary to properly handle the relationship between the overall sequence and concrete steps, and between the general and the particular, taking into account the resultant force of history and adding back what has been abstracted away. Lenin later further explicitly stated in *On Our Revolution*: “The general laws of world historical development not only do not exclude the particularity of individual stages of development in terms of form or sequence, but on the contrary presuppose it.” This profound insight of Lenin’s had a far-reaching impact on the subsequent socialist movement.

列宁更注重揭示历史发展一般规律基础上的特殊规律，认为“革命是不能按订单制造的”。在列宁看来，唯物史观的重要价值就在于摒弃了“关于一般社会和一般进步的议论”，注重“对一种社会（资本主义社会）和一种进步（资本主义进步）”进行科学的分析。在这种思路下，列宁始终强调俄国十月革命是一场具有特殊性的革命，而考茨基的问题恰恰在于忽视了各国复杂的社会历史现象，过于强调理论的一般和抽象。列宁指出：“假如考茨基肯认真地老实地谈论问题，他就会问一问自己：有没有并无例外情形的关于革命的历史规律呢?他的回答会是：没有，没有这样的规律。”因此，在运用唯物史观分析无产阶级革命的具体发展进程时，要处理好总顺序和具体步骤、一般和特殊的关系，考虑到历史的合力，把抽象掉的东西加回来。列宁后来在《论我国革命》中进一步明确提出：“世界历史发展的一般规律，不仅丝毫不排斥个别发展阶段在发展的形式或顺序上表现出特殊性，反而是以此为前提的。”列宁的这一深刻思想，对后来的社会主义运动产生了深远影响。

(III) How to Understand the Relationship between the Scientific and Revolutionary Character of Historical Materialism

（三）如何认识唯物史观的科学性与革命性的关系

In the debate between Lenin and Kautsky, their more fundamental divergence lay in their different understandings of the scientific and revolutionary character of historical materialism. As a student of Marx and Engels, Kautsky devoted his life to the study and interpretation of historical materialism and was one of the most important theorists of the Second International. Lenin himself once commented: “We know from many of Kautsky’s works that he knew how to be a Marxist historian; although he later became a renegade, those works will forever remain a treasure of the proletariat.” However, Kautsky had a deviation in his understanding of historical materialism, especially regarding the relationship between its scientific and revolutionary character, which was reflected in his views on the October Revolution and revolutionary will. This was also one of the important reasons why he gradually moved from being a Marxist to a social democrat.

在列宁与考茨基的争论中，两人更为根本的分歧在于对唯物史观的科学性和革命性的理解不同。作为马克思和恩格斯的学生，考茨基毕生致力于唯物史观的研究和阐释，是第二国际最重要的理论家之一。列宁也曾经评价道：“我们从考茨基的很多著作中知道：他是懂得怎样做一个马克思主义的历史学家的；虽然他后来成了叛徒，他的那些著作仍将永远是无产阶级的财富。”然而，考茨基对唯物史观，尤其是对其科学性与革命性的关系，存在理解上的偏差，表现在他对十月革命以及革命意志等问题的认识上。这也是他由一位马克思主义者逐步走向社会民主主义者的重要原因之一。

Kautsky understood historical materialism as a science without philosophy. In his correspondence with Russian workers, he expressed affirmation of Machism, proposing that “Marxism is not a philosophy, but an empirical science, a special view of society,” and that historical materialism is a science that “eliminates philosophy,” while philosophy “strives to establish the unity of thinking in the world process, a unity that science cannot confirm.” The science Kautsky understood was incompatible with philosophy, and the ultimate result of this understanding was to reduce historical materialism to a naturalistic or positivist scientism. From the perspective of Kautsky’s own intellectual journey, he admitted that in his early years he was a faithful follower of Darwin, acknowledging that “my historical theory is nothing but the application of Darwinism to social development.” Although Kautsky later tried hard to purge the Darwinian influence from his historical materialism as his thinking evolved, judging from some of his specific views, his understanding of historical materialism was always imbued with a naturalistic hue, interpreting social history through the lens of evolutionary theory. He believed that human society is “a special part of nature with special laws, and these laws, if one wishes, can be called natural laws, because in essence there is no difference between the former and the latter.” This understanding, when applied to practical revolutionary issues, manifested as a mechanistic understanding of general laws and economic necessity, treating revolutionary will itself as a product of “natural evolution” and “natural generation,” while neglecting the creative role of human beings in the social-historical process. Furthermore, influenced by the positivist trend of thought at the time, Kautsky regarded Marxism as a “pure science” and an “applied science,” thereby opposing the scientific and revolutionary character of historical materialism. This tendency was particularly prominent in his discussions on democracy, such as emphasizing abstract general democracy, rejecting class-based interpretations, and valuing the politics of the statistical majority.

考茨基将唯物史观理解为一种无哲学的科学。他在与俄国工人的书信中曾表露出对马赫主义的肯定，提出“马克思主义不是哲学，而是一种经验科学，一种特殊的社会观”，唯物史观是一种“消灭哲学”的科学，哲学“努力确立思维在世界进程中的统一，这是科学所不能证实的一种统一”。考茨基理解的科学是与哲学不相容的，这种认识的最终结果就是把唯物史观降低为一种自然主义或实证主义的科学主义。从考茨基个人的思想历程来看，他承认自己早年是达尔文的忠实信徒，承认“我的历史理论无非是要把达尔文主义应用于社会发展”。尽管随着思想的转变，考茨基曾竭力清除自己唯物史观中达尔文主义的影响，但从他的一些具体观点来看，他对唯物史观的理解始终充满了自然主义的色彩，用进化论的思想理解社会历史。他认为，人类社会是“带有特殊规律的自然界的特殊部分，而这些规律，如果愿意的话，可以称为自然规律，因为就其实质而言，前者同后者没有任何差别”。这种认识体现在革命现实问题中，就表现为对一般规律、经济必然性的机械化理解，将革命意志同样视为一种“自然进化”和“自然生成”的产物，忽视人在社会历史进程中的创造性作用。此外，考茨基受到当时实证主义思潮的影响，把马克思主义视为一种“纯粹科学”和“应用科学”，进而将唯物史观的科学性与革命性对立起来。这种倾向在他关于民主问题的讨论中尤为突出，如强调抽象意义上的一般民主、反对阶级化的阐释、重视统计学上的多数人的政治等。

Marxism is a doctrine concerning the liberation of the proletariat and the liberation of humanity, which determines that Marxism is a science that unifies scientificity and revolutionary character. Lenin once pointed out that one of the outstanding values of Marxist theory lies in its “combination of strict and high-level scientificity (which is the latest achievement of social science) with revolutionary character.” Lenin linked the fate of historical materialism more closely with the liberation of the proletariat, keenly recognizing the emphasis Marx and Engels placed on the revolutionary subject and class consciousness in their analysis of the revolutionary path and revolutionary strategy. From this, he formed a theory of proletarian revolution imbued with a strong Party spirit and class character, and led the Bolshevik Party and the people to victory in the October Socialist Revolution.

马克思主义是关于无产阶级解放和人类解放的学说，这决定了马克思主义是科学性与革命性相统一的科学。列宁曾指出，马克思主义理论的突出价值之一就在于“把严格的和高度的科学性（它是社会科学的最新成就）同革命性结合起来”。列宁更多地把唯物史观的命运同无产阶级的解放紧紧地联系在一起，敏锐地认识到马克思、恩格斯在革命道路和革命策略的分析中对革命主体、阶级意识的强调，由此形成了具有浓厚党性、阶级性的无产阶级革命理论，并领导布尔什维克党和人民取得了十月社会主义革命的胜利。

Conclusion

结语

As Lenin pointed out when analyzing the social roots of the emergence of Kautskyism, “Kautskyism is not an accidental phenomenon, but a social product of the various contradictions of the Second International.” In the era in which Lenin lived, capitalism underwent many new changes, raising many new questions for the proletarian revolution. The debate between Lenin and Kautsky over the issue of revolutionary will was a microcosm of the struggle between Russian Marxism and the “orthodox Marxism” of the Second International. In this debate, Lenin provided in-depth explanations of major theoretical issues such as the general laws and particularities of world historical development, the level of development of the productive forces and socialist revolution, and revolutionary will and the “leap” of backward countries, thereby providing scientific guidance for the Russian revolution and for socialist construction after the victory of the revolution.

正如列宁在分析考茨基主义产生的社会根源时指出的，“考茨基主义不是偶然现象，而是第二国际各种矛盾的社会产物”。在列宁所处的时代，资本主义发生了许多新变化，对无产阶级革命提出了许多新问题。列宁与考茨基围绕革命意志问题的争论，是俄国马克思主义与第二国际“正统马克思主义”之争的一个缩影。在这场争论中，列宁对世界历史发展的一般规律和特殊性、生产力发展水平与社会主义革命、革命意志与落后国家的“跨越”等重大理论问题作了深入阐释，为俄国革命和革命胜利后的社会主义建设提供了科学指南。

As noted above, according to Lenin’s interpretation, Marx’s idea that a high level of development of the productive forces is the actual prerequisite for socialist revolution reveals the general law of world historical development, while the different sequence of development in Russia represents a particularity that emerges in the course of world history. However, after the October Revolution, the victory of socialist revolution in relatively backward countries became the “general rule,” while its victory in developed countries became the “particularity.” Mao Zedong, drawing on the historical experience of the Chinese revolution and the world socialist movement, further developed Lenin’s thought. In a conversation while reading the Soviet *Political Economy Textbook* from late 1959 to early 1960, Mao said: “Up to now, among the countries where socialist revolution has succeeded, the only ones with a relatively high level of capitalist development are East Germany and Czechoslovakia; in all other countries, the level of capitalist development is relatively low. In the Western countries with a very high level of capitalist development, revolution has not broken out.” “The history of all revolutions proves that it is not that a fully developed new productive force first emerges, and only then are the backward relations of production transformed. Rather, it is necessary first to create public opinion, carry out revolution, and seize political power, before it becomes possible to eliminate the old relations of production. Once the old relations of production are eliminated and new relations of production are established, this opens the way for the development of new productive forces.” First “seize political power, then solve the problem of ownership, and then greatly develop the productive forces — this is the general law.” History is the concrete unity of subject and object, unfolding specifically through the creative activity of the subject within a definite historical structure. Mao Zedong’s emphasis on the “general law” of first creating public opinion, carrying out revolution, and then developing the productive forces after seizing political power highlights the important role of the will of revolutionaries, as subjects of historical activity, in social revolution.

如上所述，按列宁的解释，马克思关于生产力高度发展是社会主义革命的实际前提的思想，揭示的是世界历史发展的一般规律，而俄国发展程序上表现的不同，则是世界历史发展中出现的特殊性。但在十月革命以后，社会主义革命在相对落后国家的胜利是“一般”，而在发达国家的胜利则是“特殊”。毛泽东根据中国革命和世界社会主义运动的历史经验，进一步发展了列宁的思想。1959年底至1960年初毛泽东在读苏联《政治经济学教科书》的谈话中曾说：“一直到现在，社会主义革命成功的国家，资本主义发展水平比较高的，只有东德和捷克；其他的国家，资本主义发展水平都比较低。西方资本主义发展水平很高的国家，革命都没有革起来。”“一切革命的历史都证明，并不是先有充分发展的新生产力，然后才改造落后的生产关系，而是要首先造成舆论，进行革命，夺取政权，才有可能消灭旧的生产关系。消灭了旧的生产关系，确立了新的生产关系，这样就为新的生产力的发展开辟了道路。”首先“夺取政权，然后解决所有制问题，再大大发展生产力，这是一般规律”。历史是主体与客体的现实统一，是在一定的历史结构中通过主体的创造性活动具体展开的。毛泽东强调的首先造成舆论、进行革命，夺取政权后再发展生产力的“一般规律”，凸显了作为历史活动主体的革命者的意志对于社会革命的重要作用。

Just as Lenin, after the victory of the October Revolution, quoted the famous saying of the Russian revolutionary Chernyshevsky, “Historical activity is not the pavement of Nevsky Prospekt,” there are no smooth highways to follow. Socialist construction after the victory of the revolution still possesses the characteristics Lenin described as “starting is easy, finishing is hard” and “seizing power is easy, building is hard,” and still requires waging a great struggle and advancing the great social revolution. This requires the Marxist ruling party to continue to maintain its revolutionary spirit and revolutionary fighting will, and, with a historical self-consciousness that unifies grasping the laws of history and mastering historical initiative, to lead the people in creating history and driving society forward. As Xi Jinping pointed out: “Historical development has its laws, but people are not completely passive within it. As long as we grasp the laws and general trends of historical development, seize the opportunities presented by historical change, act in accordance with the trend, and strive with vigor, we can advance better.” The spirit of great struggle epitomizes the spiritual character of Chinese Communists in their century-long struggle, running through all periods of the Chinese revolution, construction, and reform. Upholding and developing socialism with Chinese characteristics in the New Era is an arduous and great social revolution, which requires waging a great struggle with many new historical features. Xi Jinping has repeatedly emphasized the need to “cultivate and maintain a tenacious spirit of struggle, a resilient will to struggle, and superb ability to struggle,” “grasp the historical characteristics of the new great struggle, carry forward the spirit of struggle, grasp the direction of struggle, seize the initiative in struggle, strengthen the will to struggle, master the laws of struggle, enhance the ability to struggle, and effectively respond to major challenges, withstand major risks, overcome major obstacles, and resolve major contradictions,” and constantly open up new horizons for the development of the cause with a revolutionary spirit of struggle and revolutionary will to struggle. Since the 18th National Congress of the CPC, our Party has firmly grasped the historical initiative in the development of the Party and the country’s undertakings, and has upheld and developed socialism with Chinese characteristics for a New Era with greater resolve, greater confidence, and greater wisdom, creating the great achievements of the decade of the New Era. The comprehensive building of a modern socialist country and the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation have entered an irreversible historical process.

正如十月革命胜利后列宁引用俄国革命家车尔尼雪夫斯基的名言所说的，“历史活动并不是涅瓦大街的人行道”，没有平坦的大道可走。革命胜利后的社会主义建设，依然有着列宁所说的“开始容易完成难”“夺权容易建设难”的特点，仍然需要进行伟大斗争，推进伟大社会革命。这就需要马克思主义执政党继续保持革命精神和革命斗志，以把握历史规律与掌握历史主动相统一的历史自觉，带领人民创造历史，推动社会前进。正如习近平指出的：“历史发展有其规律，但人在其中不是完全消极被动的。只要把握住历史发展规律和大势，抓住历史变革时机，顺势而为，奋发有为，我们就能够更好前进。”伟大斗争精神集中体现了中国共产党人在百年奋斗中的精神品格，贯穿于中国革命、建设、改革各个时期。新时代坚持和发展中国特色社会主义是一场艰巨而伟大的社会革命，必须进行具有许多新的历史特点的伟大斗争。习近平反复强调要“培养和保持顽强的斗争精神、坚韧的斗争意志、高超的斗争本领”，“把握新的伟大斗争的历史特点，发扬斗争精神，把握斗争方向，把握斗争主动权，坚定斗争意志，掌握斗争规律，增强斗争本领，有效应对重大挑战、抵御重大风险、克服重大阻力、解决重大矛盾”，以革命的斗争精神和斗争意志不断打开事业发展新天地。党的十八大以来，我们党牢牢掌握党和国家事业发展的历史主动，更有定力、更有自信、更有智慧地坚持和发展新时代中国特色社会主义，创造了新时代十年的伟大成就，全面建成社会主义现代化强国和实现中华民族伟大复兴进入了不可逆转的历史进程。

(Author bios: Ding Guanghao, doctoral candidate, School of Marxism, Peking University; Sun Daiyao, Professor, School of Marxism, Peking University)

（作者简介：丁广昊，北京大学马克思主义学院博士研究生；孙代尧，北京大学马克思主义学院教授）

Online editor: Tongxin

网络编辑：同心