Marx’s Critique of Eurocentrism and Its Implications

With the development of world history and globalization, the issues of diversity of paths and cultural pluralism have gradually come to the fore. Consequently, various debates concerning “centers” and “centrism” have gradually surfaced and become a hot topic of discussion. As a matter of general principle, if paths are diverse, then people will naturally demand to guide their own construction and development with a culture suited to their own development (that is, a culture of “our own ethnocentrism”), and in this process oppose any thought of “other ethnocentrism.” Here we focus on and study a special kind of centrism — “Eurocentrism” — and its relationship with Marxism. Generally, people can understand and accept the reasoning that although Marxism originated in the West, Marxism is by no means Eurocentric. Yet in recent years, some Western scholars, especially left-wing scholars, have explicitly argued that Marxism is a typical form of Eurocentrism. For example, the renowned German-born scholar at the University of Toronto in Canada, Andre Gunder Frank, stated in his book *ReOrient: Global Economy in the Asian Age*: “Looking back at my previous research, what I and many of my readers were then interested in were concepts such as ‘development,’ ‘modernization,’ ‘capitalism,’ and ‘dependency.’ These concepts are all Procrustean empty concepts; for the fundamental defect of Marx, Weber, and their followers lies in the fact that they did not seek the ‘origin,’ ‘cause,’ ‘nature,’ ‘mechanism,’ and ‘essence’ of capitalism in the real world economy/system, but in the particularity of Europe. All these so-called essential particularities, whatever names they go by, derive from the same Eurocentric perspective, and according to the investigation in this book, this Eurocentric perspective finds absolutely no basis in historical reality — that is, in ‘universal history’ as it ‘actually was.’ They all derive from European/Western ethnocentrism, and this European/Western ethnocentrism was spread throughout the world as a component of Western colonialism and cultural imperialism.”

随着世界历史与全球化的发展，道路多样性与文化多元化问题渐渐凸显出来。于是，与此相关的种种关于“中心”与“中心主义”的争论也就逐步浮出水面并成为人们热议的话题。从一般道理来说，若道路是多样的，那么人们自然会要求以适合自身发展的文化（即“我族中心”的文化）指导自身的建设与发展，并在此过程中反对任何“他族中心主义”的思想。这里我们重点关注与研究的是一种特殊中心主义——“西方中心论”及其与马克思主义的关系。一般人们都可以理解并接受这样的道理：马克思主义虽然产生于西方，但马克思主义绝对不是西方中心主义。可近些年来一些西方学者特别是左翼学者就明确提出马克思主义是一种典型西方中心论的说法。如：加拿大多伦多大学著名德裔学者安德烈·贡德·弗兰克在《白银资本：重视经济全球化中的东方》一书中就这样说道：“回顾我过去的研究，当时我和我的许多读者感兴趣的是‘发展’、‘现代化’、‘资本主义’以及‘依附’等概念。这些概念都是普洛克路斯忒斯式的空洞概念；因为马克思、韦伯及其信徒们的根本缺陷就在于，他们不是在真正的世界经济/体系中，而是在欧洲的特殊性中寻找资本主义的‘起源’、‘原因’、‘性质’、‘机制’以及‘本质’。所有这些所谓本质上的特殊性，无论使用什么名称，都是出自同一种欧洲中心论视野，而根据本书的考察，这种欧洲中心论视野在历史真实中——即在‘如其实际’的‘普遍历史’中——绝对找不到任何依据。它们都出自欧洲/西方种族中心主义，而这种欧洲/西方种族主义作为西方殖民主义和文化帝国主义的一个组成部分而被传播到全世界。”

I. The Establishment of Historical Materialism Signifies a Fundamental Critique of Eurocentrism

一、历史唯物主义的创立意味着对西方中心论的根本批判

So-called Eurocentrism means using some Western existence as the standard to tailor or measure the development of other countries and regions, taking the Western model and standard as the only model and standard of social development, and providing it with theoretical justification. Eurocentrism has multiple forms of expression, such as: Eurocentrism as a view of history, Eurocentrism as a political and value view, and Eurocentrism as a mode of thinking and system of discourse.

所谓西方中心论，就是以西方某种存在作为标准裁剪或衡量其他国家与地区的发展，把西方模式与标准当成唯一社会发展模式与标准并进行学理化证明。西方中心论有多种表现形式，如：作为历史观的西方中心论、作为政治观与价值观的西方中心论和作为思维方式与话语系统的西方中心论等。

Objectively speaking, although Marx and Engels lived in the West, the historical materialism and their theory of world history that they established were not only not Eurocentric, but were in fact the most fundamental and most thorough critique of Eurocentrism. Like the establishment and development of countless new ideas, the establishment of Marx and Engels’ new worldview could not be water without a source or a tree without roots; it could only arise on the basis of taking root in the thought and culture of specific advanced nations and critically inheriting it. Although “taking root in the thought and culture of specific advanced nations and critically inheriting it” is an important method of intellectual innovation, it is not necessarily the sole guarantee of transcending the centrism of a particular nation. The development process of the Young Hegelians has already demonstrated this truth. Here, the key to the problem is how to “critically inherit.” In this regard, the thought and method proposed by Marx and Engels of critically examining German philosophy “from a standpoint outside Germany” is of great significance. As *The German Ideology* points out: “In order to correctly evaluate this philosophical peddling that even awakens a complacent national feeling in the respectable German burgher, in order to clearly expose the narrowness and provinciality of the entire Young Hegelian movement, and especially in order to reveal the ludicrously striking discrepancy between the true achievements of these heroes and the illusions about these achievements, it is necessary to examine this clamor from a standpoint outside Germany.” To critically examine German philosophy “from a standpoint outside Germany” in fact requires critically examining German philosophy from the standpoint of other countries and ultimately from the standpoint of all humanity. That is to say, a philosophy that suits only Germany or is temporarily recognized by the German people of the time is not necessarily a world philosophy in the true sense; only a philosophy that is also recognized by the peoples of other countries and conforms to the fundamental interests of all humanity is a scientific world philosophy. Of course, Marx and Engels’ critique of the obvious “centrist” tendency in German philosophy at the time was by no means limited to this kind of general principled critique and exposure; they further found concrete methods and approaches for criticizing and transcending “centrism.” For example, they advocated critically examining German philosophy in comparison with the thought and culture of other advanced nations (such as the thought and culture of Britain and France), and especially emphasized using new achievements in the concrete sciences to critically examine and transcend the narrow nationalism of German philosophy. The latter is precisely a manifestation of the deepening of historical materialism. The process of the formation of Marx and Engels’ thought clearly demonstrates such a fact: they formed their new worldview in the process of continuously criticizing Eurocentrism, and the formation of the new worldview in turn enabled them to launch a thorough and fundamental critique of Eurocentrism.

客观上讲，马克思恩格斯虽生活于西方，但他们创立的历史唯物主义及其世界历史理论不但不是西方中心论，反而是对西方中心论最根本和最彻底的批判。像无数新思想的创立与发展一样，马克思恩格斯新世界观的创立也不可能是无源之水、无本之木，它只能是在立足于特定先进民族思想文化并对其进行批判性继承的基础之上产生。“立足于特定先进民族思想文化并对其进行批判性继承”虽然是思想创新的一种重要方法，但它并不必然是超越特定民族中心主义的唯一保证。青年黑格尔派的发展过程已证明了这一道理。这里问题的关键是怎样“批判继承”。在此，马克思恩格斯提出的“站在德国以外的立场”批判考察德国哲学的思想与方法就有着十分重要的意义。正如《德意志意识形态》所指出的：“为了正确地评价这种甚至在可敬的德国市民心中唤起怡然自得的民族感情的哲学叫卖，为了清楚地表明整个青年黑格尔派运动的狭隘性、地域局限性，特别是为了揭示这些英雄们的真正业绩和关于这些业绩的幻想之间的令人啼笑皆非的显著差异，就必须站在德国以外的立场上来考察一下这些喧嚣吵嚷。”“站在德国以外的立场”批判考察德国哲学，实际上就要求站在他国并最终站在全人类立场批判考察德国哲学。也就是说，只适合德国或被当时德国人民一时认可的哲学并不一定是真正意义上的世界哲学，只有同时也被他国人民认可并符合全人类根本利益的哲学才是科学的世界哲学。当然，马克思恩格斯对当时德国哲学带有的明显“中心论”倾向的批判绝不限于这种一般原则性的批判与揭露，他们更是找到了具体批判以及超越“中心论”的思路与方法。比如，他们主张在与其他先进民族思想文化（如英法等国思想文化）的比较中批判考察德国哲学，特别是强调用具体科学新成果批判考察并超越德国哲学的狭隘的民族主义等。后者正是唯物史观深化的表现。马克思恩格斯的思想形成过程清楚地说明了这样一个事实：他们是在不断批判西方中心论的过程中形成新世界观的，而新世界观的形成又使他们对西方中心论展开了彻底与根本的批判。

Marx not only criticized Eurocentrism; his historical materialism and theory of world history also openly opposed and criticized all centrist viewpoints and opinions. This is determined by the nature of his historical materialism and theory of world history. The difference between Marx’s theory of world history and Hegel’s theory of world history lies in the fact that Marx’s theory of world history is based on historical materialism, while Hegel’s theory of world history is based on historical idealism. Because material mode of production is taken as the foundation of historical development, and because the modes of production of different countries and regions at the same stage are generally the same or similar, this avoids the Eurocentrism that Hegel fell into by taking spiritual factors as the foundation of historical development (because spiritual factors are often particular; although backward countries and regions can learn from advanced countries and regions, they can never be consistent with or fundamentally converge with the spiritual culture of advanced countries and regions). In Marx’s view, world history is a history in which all nation-states participate equally and interact with one another; no nation-state has any “eternal privilege” in the process of participating in the development of world history.

马克思不但批判西方中心论，他的历史唯物主义与世界历史理论还公开反对并批判一切中心主义的观点与看法，这是由他的历史唯物主义与世界历史理论的性质决定的。马克思世界历史理论与黑格尔世界历史理论的不同之处就在于，马克思的世界历史理论是以唯物史观为基础的，而黑格尔的世界历史理论则是以唯心史观为基础。由于把物质生产方式当成历史发展的基础，而同一阶段不同国家与地区的生产方式一般来说是相同或相近的，这样就避免了黑格尔因把精神因素当成历史发展基础而导致的西方中心论（因精神因素往往是特殊的，尽管落后国家与地区也可以向先进国家与地区学习，但永远不可能与先进国家与地区精神文化相一致或根本趋同）。在马克思看来，世界历史是由各民族国家平等参与并相互作用的历史，任何民族国家在参与世界历史发展过程中都没有“永恒的特权”。

It should be noted that to say the theory of world history founded by Marx opposes any “center” in the sense of centrism does not mean that Marx opposed the existence of a “center” in specific stages of the development of world history. This “center” is not the same as the “center” in the sense of “centrism.” The former refers to the entire process of world historical development, while the latter refers to specific stages of world historical development. Because the development of world history is uneven, in specific stages of world historical development certain countries and regions may stand at the forefront of world historical development, belonging to “advanced” countries and regions, and because of their “advancement” occupy the “center” position of this stage of world historical development, while other countries and regions lag behind in world historical development, belonging to “backward” countries and regions, and because of their “backwardness” occupy the “non-center” position of this stage of world historical development. The role of “advanced” countries and regions in specific stages of world historical development cannot be denied; on the contrary, it must be fully studied and affirmed. For they not only determine and influence the historical development of their own countries and regions, but also determine and influence the development of backward countries and regions in the same world historical process and even the development of world history as a whole. Although affirming the “center” role of advanced countries and regions has a certain connection with the “center” of centrism including Eurocentrism, in essence there are important differences between them. The former, while affirming the “center” and its role, holds that this “center” will change and shift with the continuous development of world history, whereas the latter freezes and eternalizes this temporarily formed “center.” In other words, various forms of centrism including Eurocentrism are often the special expression of the thought and culture of historically advanced or developed countries and regions, and it is difficult for them to find fertile soil for prevalence in backward countries and regions.

需要注意的是，说马克思创立的世界历史理论反对任何“中心”意义上的中心主义，并不等于说马克思反对特定世界历史发展的具体阶段中存在“中心”。这个“中心”与“中心主义”意义上的“中心”不是一个意义上的中心。前者是针对整个世界历史发展过程而言的，而后者则是针对特定世界历史发展具体阶段而言的。由于世界历史发展是不平衡的，因而在特定世界历史发展的具体阶段中某些国家与地区可能处于世界历史发展的前列，属于“先进”国家与地区，并因其“先进”而处于这一世界历史发展阶段的“中心”位置，而另一些国家与地区则处于世界历史发展的后列，属于“落后”国家与地区，并因其“落后”而处于这一世界历史发展阶段的“非中心”位置。特定世界历史发展阶段“先进”国家与地区的作用不仅不能被否定，而且还必须得到充分研究与肯定。因为它们不仅规定与影响着本国与本地区的历史发展，而且还规定与影响着处于同一世界历史进程中的后进国家与地区乃至整个世界历史的发展。尽管肯定先进国家与地区的“中心”作用与包括西方中心论在内的中心主义的“中心”也有一定联系，但它们从本质上看却有重要区别。前者虽然肯定了“中心”及其作用，但认为这个“中心”是会随着世界历史的不断发展而发生变化与转移的，而后者却把这个暂时形成的“中心”静止化与永恒化。换言之，包括西方中心论在内的种种中心主义往往是历史上先进或发达国家与地区的思想文化的特殊表现，在落后的国家与地区很难有其盛行的土壤。

II. The comprehensive critique of Eurocentrism by historical materialism is a continuously developing process

二、历史唯物主义对西方中心论的全面批判有一个不断发展的过程

Because historical materialism emphasizes the material foundation of historical development, it fundamentally critiques and transcends Eurocentrism, but this does not mean that Eurocentrism has since completely withdrawn from the historical stage. On the contrary, history is complex, and Eurocentrism will still manifest itself in altered forms. Indeed, historical development has a material foundation and objective laws, but how exactly this material foundation and objective laws manifest themselves — whether they are “the same” or “different,” or what the relationship between the “same” and the “different” is — answers to these questions concerning concrete practical issues such as the path of historical development still leave room for Eurocentrism, especially Eurocentrism as a mode of thinking and a system of discourse, to exploit.

由于历史唯物主义强调历史发展的物质基础因而从根本上批判与超越了西方中心论，但这并不意味着从此以后西方中心论就彻底退出历史舞台。相反，历史是复杂的，西方中心论还会以改头换面的形式表现出来。的确，历史发展是有物质基础与客观规律的，但这个物质基础与客观规律具体是怎样表现的，它们是“同”还是“异”，或者其中的“同”与“异”是什么关系，对于这些涉及历史发展道路等具体实践问题的回答仍然会为西方中心论特别是作为思维方式与话语系统的西方中心论留有可乘之机。

The founding of historical materialism fundamentally struck at Eurocentrism as a view of history, as well as Eurocentrism as a political view and a view of values. For this reason, Eurocentrism as a mode of thinking and a system of discourse has gradually become active and has progressively become the form of Eurocentrism with greater influence at present. Eurocentrism as a mode of thinking and a system of discourse differs from other forms of Eurocentrism in that it does not, like the latter, carry an obvious political and value stance, but after long-term promotion or use it will inevitably lead to a specific political and value stance. The best way to transcend Eurocentrism as a mode of thinking and a system of discourse is to construct a completely new mode of thinking and system of discourse, but because this work involves a wide scope and a complex process, its implementation is extremely difficult, which is also reflected in the course of Marx’s thought after the founding of historical materialism and the theory of world history.

历史唯物主义的创立从根本上打击了包括作为历史观的西方中心论以及作为政治观与价值观的西方中心论。正因为如此，作为思维方式与话语系统的西方中心论渐渐活跃起来，并逐步成为当前西方中心论影响较大的表现形式。作为思维方式与话语系统的西方中心论与其他西方中心论表现形式有所不同，它不像后者那样带有明显的政治与价值立场，但长期推进或使用后又必然会导向特定的政治与价值立场。超越作为思维方式与话语系统的西方中心论最好的办法就是建构全新的思维方式与话语系统，但因为这一工作涉及的面广且过程复杂，因而落实起来异常艰难，这也反映在唯物史观与世界历史理论创立后马克思思想发展的进程中。

At present, the academic community has different debates over the development of Marx’s thought in his later years. For example, some, based on Marx’s discussion in *Capital* (French edition), the “Letter to the Editorial Board of *Otechestvennye Zapiski*,” and the letter of reply to Vera Zasulich, in which the chapter on “primitive accumulation” in Volume 1 of *Capital* states that the origin of capitalism is limited to Western Europe,① conclude that Marx’s doctrine on the relationship between capitalism and socialism is only suitable for Europe, and that non-European countries took the capitalist path of development because of the creation of a “Western European environment” (Frank and others mentioned above hold this view②); others, based on Marx’s letter of reply to Zasulich and its drafts, the Russian edition preface to the *Communist Manifesto*, and related ideas, conclude that in his later years Marx opened up an “Eastern path”③ different from and unrelated to the West, and so on. In fact, these views all fail to grasp comprehensively Marx’s thought, especially the course of Marx’s transcendence of Eurocentrism as a mode of thinking and a system of discourse; they are merely conjectures made by taking Marx’s relevant statements out of context. Although the founding of historical materialism and the formation of the theory of world history had already created conditions for people to understand and utilize historical laws, exploring the specific development paths of different countries still requires a continuous process of research and reflection. In this process, theoretical rigor and a strict scientific attitude are crucial. A careful study of the history of Marx’s thought after the founding of historical materialism can divide it into two stages: first, from the founding of historical materialism to before the 1850s; second, from the early 1850s to Marx’s death. In the first stage, Marx’s main work was theoretical construction, namely founding historical materialism and the theory of world history; the object of practical research was mainly Western countries, with almost no specialized research on Eastern countries. In the second stage, Marx had begun to pay attention to and study Eastern countries, but depending on the degree of attention and research, it can be further divided into two sub-stages: the first sub-stage is from the early 1850s to the late 1860s; the second sub-stage is from the early 1870s to his death. In the first sub-stage, Marx’s attention to and research on issues including India and China often drew on materials already available in Western Europe at the time; in the second sub-stage, Marx’s research on Eastern countries including Russia relied on first-hand research materials. Because some Western European materials were all provided by Western scholars, they were inevitably stamped to varying degrees with the imprint of Eurocentrism. Although Marx had already carefully filtered and cautiously selected these materials when using them, because there was no support from research on first-hand materials, some of his statements still carried, to a greater or lesser extent, a certain imprint of Eurocentrism, such as Marx’s statement at this time about the “absence of private property” in Indian village communities and his discussion of the Asiatic mode of production. After the 1870s, however, Marx’s relevant statements had already undergone great changes, such as his analysis and discussion of the “dual character” of the Russian rural commune.

目前学界对马克思晚年思想发展有着不同争论，如：有的根据马克思在《资本论》（法文版）、《给〈祖国纪事〉杂志编辑部的信》以及给查苏利奇的复信中提到的《资本论》第1卷“原始积累”一章关于资本主义起源只限于西欧的论述①，就得出结论说马克思关于资本主义与社会主义关系的学说只适合于欧洲，非欧洲国家之所以走向资本主义发展道路是因为创造“西欧环境”的结果（上文提到的弗兰克等就持这样的观点②）；有的根据马克思给查苏利奇的复信及草稿、《共产党宣言》（俄文版序言）等相关思想，得出结论说马克思晚年开创了一条不同于西方且跟西方无关的“东方道路”③，等等。事实上，这些观点都没有全面把握马克思的思想特别是马克思超越作为思维方式与话语系统的西方中心论的发展历程，只是对马克思相关论述进行断章取义的理解而作出的推测。尽管历史唯物主义的创立与世界历史理论的形成已为人们认识与利用历史规律创造了条件，但探索不同国家具体发展道路还需要一个不断研究与思考的过程。在这一过程中，理论的彻底与严谨的科学态度是十分关键的。认真研究马克思唯物史观创立后的思想发展历史，可把它分成两个阶段：一是唯物史观创立到19世纪50年代前，二是19世纪50年代初到马克思去世。第一个阶段，马克思的主要工作是理论创建工作，即创立唯物史观与世界历史理论，实践研究的对象主要是西方国家，对东方国家几乎没有专门研究。第二个阶段，马克思已开始关注并研究东方国家，但根据关注与研究的程度不同，又可分成两个小阶段：第一个小阶段是19世纪50年代初至60年代末，第二个小阶段是19世纪70年代初到去世。在第一个小阶段，马克思对包括印度、中国等问题的关注与研究往往是借用当时西欧已有的资料；而第二个小阶段，马克思对包括俄国等东方国家的研究则是借助于第一手研究资料。由于西欧一些资料都是西方学者提供的，因而不同程度地都会打上西方中心论的烙印。尽管马克思在利用这些资料时已经进行过认真的过滤与谨慎的选择，但因为没有第一手材料的研究作支撑，一些论述多少不等地还会带有一定程度的西方中心论印记，如此时马克思关于印度村社“没有私有制”的说法以及亚细亚生产方式的论述等。而19世纪70年代以后马克思的相关论述已发生很大变化，如关于俄国农村公社“二重性”的分析与论述等。

The reason people perceive a Eurocentric tendency in Marx’s thought lies chiefly in his analysis and discussion of the “thesis of European uniqueness” and the “thesis of Eastern stagnation.” Indeed, if one relies solely on Marx’s relevant writings before the 1870s, Marx seems to have answered both affirmatively,[7]7 Marx’s pre-1870s writings, such as the *Communist Manifesto* and the 1853 articles on India, contain passages that appear to affirm European uniqueness and Eastern stagnation, which later critics have cited as evidence of Eurocentrism. but if one carefully studies Marx’s research and answers after the 1870s, the conclusions are both negative.[8]8 In his later years, Marx studied the Russian rural commune extensively, especially in drafts of letters to Vera Zasulich (1881), where he argued that the commune could serve as a starting point for socialist development under certain conditions. In Marx’s view at this time, although the East developed slowly, it had internal developmental momentum; although capitalism originated in Western Europe, it was by no means confined to Western Europe, and the East also had the possibility and potential impetus for generating capitalism. As for the discussion in the chapter on “so-called primitive accumulation” in Volume 1 of *Capital* that the origin of capitalism was limited to Western Europe and that Russia could “cross the Caudine Forks of capitalism,”[9]9 “Crossing the Caudine Forks of capitalism” refers to Marx’s suggestion, in his 1881 drafts of a letter to Vera Zasulich, that Russia might bypass the capitalist stage of development and move directly toward socialism, drawing on the ancient Roman yoke of the Caudine Forks as a metaphor for a narrow passage. this too requires comprehensive and scientific understanding. Although Marx proposed that historical development has two paths—one being the path of development from capitalism to socialism represented by Western capitalist countries, and the other being the path of bypassing capitalism represented by Russia—these two paths of development are not unrelated but closely connected. The former is the dominant path of social development, the latter the auxiliary path; the former directly determines and influences the development of the latter. In Marx’s view, although Russia could take a path different from that of Western Europe, it was by no means a path unrelated to the development of Western European capitalism. For this path to become possible and to succeed, it had to presuppose the development of Western European capitalism, especially the full exposure of its social contradictions, as well as the support and assistance of the Western European proletarian revolution for the Russian working-class revolution, and the full absorption of the advanced achievements of Western European capitalism after the revolution’s success. Engels gave a clearer explanation of this idea in his later years. In response to the Russian populists represented by Tkachev, who believed that Russia possessed the rural commune and could therefore directly carry out a socialist revolution, Engels criticized: “the belief that the rural commune itself possesses a miraculous power capable of bringing about and necessarily bringing about a social rebirth (we have seen that even Chernyshevsky could not entirely shake off this belief)… We do not argue with these people, although they regard the Russian people as the chosen people of God for social revolution. Hence we too have no need to share their illusions.” He emphasized that the indispensable condition for Russia to shorten the process of its development toward socialist society was: “the example and active support of the West, which is still capitalist. Only when capitalist economy has been overcome in its homeland and in the countries where it flourishes, only when the backward countries see from this example ‘how it is done,’ how the productive forces of modern industry are made social property for the service of society as a whole—only then can these backward countries begin this shortened process of development.” Although the wish of Marx and Engels that the Russian working class would join the Western European proletariat in revolution and jointly build socialism was not realized, this idea nevertheless provided important guidance and direction for relatively backward countries in productive forces to solve the problem of how to build socialism.

人们之所以觉得马克思思想中有西方中心论倾向，关键在于马克思对“欧洲独特说”与“东方停滞说”的分析与论述上。的确，如果仅仅立足于19世纪70年代之前马克思的相关论述，马克思似乎对这两者都作出了肯定性的回答④，但若认真研究马克思19世纪70年代之后的研究与回答，其结论则都是否定性的⑤。在此时的马克思看来，尽管东方发展很慢，但他们内部都有发展动力；资本主义虽然产生于西欧，但绝不限于西欧，东方也有产生资本主义的可能与潜在动力。至于说到《资本论》第1卷“原始积累”一章关于资本主义起源只限于西欧以及俄国可以“跨越资本主义卡夫丁峡谷”等问题的论述，也需要全面科学的理解。虽然马克思提出历史发展有两条道路，一条是以西方资本主义国家为代表的从资本主义到社会主义的发展道路，另一条是以俄国为代表的跨越资本主义的道路，但这两条发展道路不是毫无联系而是密切相关的。前者是社会发展的主导道路，后者是社会发展的辅助道路，前者直接规定并影响着后者的发展。在马克思看来，尽管俄国可以走一条不同于西欧的道路，但绝不是跟西欧资本主义发展没有关系的道路。这条道路之所以得以可能并能够走向成功，必须以西欧资本主义发展特别是其社会矛盾充分暴露为前提，以及俄国工人阶级革命要得到西欧无产阶级革命的支持与帮助并在革命成功后充分吸收西欧资本主义先进成果。这一思想恩格斯在晚年进行了更清晰的说明。针对当时俄国以特卡乔夫等为代表的民粹派认为俄国存在农村公社因而可以直接进行社会主义革命的想法，恩格斯批评道：“认为农民公社本身具有一种能够带来并且必定带来社会新生的神奇力量的信念（我们已经看到，车尔尼雪夫斯基也没有能完全摆脱这一信念）……我们不去同这些人争论，虽然他们把俄国人民看做社会革命的上帝选民。因此我们也没有必要跟他们抱同样的幻想。”他强调俄国要缩短向社会主义社会发展的过程，必不可少的条件是：“目前还是资本主义的西方作出榜样和积极支持。只有当资本主义经济在自己故乡和在它兴盛的国家里被克服的时候，只有当落后国家从这个榜样上看到‘这是怎么回事’，看到怎样把现代工业的生产力作为社会财产来为整个社会服务的时候——只有到那个时候，这些落后的国家才能开始这种缩短的发展过程。”尽管马克思恩格斯设想的俄国工人阶级与西欧无产阶级一起革命并共同建设社会主义的愿望没有实现，但这一思想却给生产力相对落后的国家解决如何建设社会主义的问题提供了重要的遵循与指导。

If, as some in the academic community have proposed, the two paths of social development above are regarded as “unrelated,” on the surface this seems to prove Marx’s critique of Eurocentrism (namely, because it emphasizes that Marx strictly confined the first path of social development to the West, it can logically also yield the conclusion that Marx opposed generalizing this path as a necessary stage of development for non-Western countries, i.e., Eurocentrism), but in reality it not only fails to scientifically reflect the full content and essence of Marx’s critique of Eurocentrism, it may also lead to another kind of centrism—a “Eurocentrism that is anti-Eurocentric.” If non-Western countries truly took a path of leapfrog development different from and unrelated to Western countries, on the surface it seems to avoid the interference of Eurocentrism, but in actual result it cannot escape the fate of being dominated by Eurocentrism. This is because it is a path that violates the laws of historical development; the possible consequences are either slow social development or social regression, and thus ultimately the ideas advocating Eurocentrism will gain the upper hand and force these countries onto a path related to the development of Western capitalism. Historical facts have clearly demonstrated this truth.

如果像学界有人提出的那样把上述两种社会发展道路看成是“无关”的，表面上看它似乎也证明了马克思对西方中心论的批判（即因强调马克思把上述第一条社会发展道路严格限定在西方，因而在逻辑上也能得出马克思反对将这条道路泛化为非西方国家发展必然要经过的西方中心论的结论），实际上它不仅不能科学反映马克思对西方中心论批判的全部思想与实质，还可能导致另一种中心主义——“反西方中心论的西方中心论”。若非西方国家真正走向了一条不同于西方国家且与西方国家无关的跨越式发展道路，表现上看它似乎避免了西方中心论的干扰，但其实际结果必然逃避不了被西方中心论宰制的命运。因为这是一条违背历史发展规律的道路，其可能引起的后果要么是社会发展缓慢，要么是社会发展出现倒退，因而最终必然会被倡导西方中心论的思想占了上风从而被迫走向跟西方资本主义发展相关的道路。历史事实已经清楚地证明了这一道理。

The reason Marx in his later years, on the one hand, confined the analysis of the origin of capitalism to Western Europe, and on the other hand, explored Russia’s path of leapfrog development, is an important manifestation of his historical materialism treating the development of world history as an indivisible whole for examination and research. In Marx’s thought, the two are not only not unrelated, but mutually influencing and mutually constraining. It is precisely because of the concrete analysis of the Russian question and the scientific exploration of Russia’s development path that Marx necessarily confined the analysis of the origin of capitalism; likewise, it is precisely because Marx had a profound analysis of the origin of capitalism and related questions that the proposal of Russia’s path of leapfrog development became possible. Although in terms of concrete content and mode of realization these two paths of social development differ, they are jointly governed by world history dominated by the capitalist mode of production. Of course, this world history is also the result of the interaction of different countries, but the roles of different countries in its concrete development are clearly different, among which the influence of developed capitalist countries occupies the dominant position. It can thus be seen that Marx’s theory of world history and his related thought on exploring paths of social development are not only not Eurocentric,[10]10 The term “Eurocentrism” (西方中心论) refers to the view that European history and values constitute the universal standard for understanding world history and development. nor are they the so-called “polycentrism” proposed by some in the academic community, nor will they lead to a “Eurocentrism that is anti-Eurocentric.”

马克思晚年之所以一方面把关于资本主义起源的分析仅限西欧，另一方面探索俄国跨越式发展道路，这是他的历史唯物主义把世界历史发展当成一个不可分割的整体来看待与研究的重要表现。在马克思的思想中，这两者之间不仅不是无关的，而且是相互影响与相互制约的。正是因为有了对俄国问题的具体分析和俄国发展道路的科学探索，才使马克思必然把关于资本主义起源的分析进行限定；同样，正是因为马克思有了对资本主义起源等问题的深刻分析，才使俄国跨越式发展道路的提出有了可能。尽管从具体内容与实现方式上看，这两条社会发展道路有所不同，但它们却共同受制于以资本主义生产方式主导的世界历史。当然，这一世界历史也是不同国家相互作用的结果，但不同国家在其具体发展中的作用是明显不同的，其中发达资本主义国家的影响占据主导。由此可见，马克思的世界历史理论及其相关社会发展道路探索的思想不仅不是西方中心论⑥，也不是学界有人提出的所谓的“多中心主义”，同时也不会导向“反西方中心论的西方中心论”。

In fact, the “theory of bypassing” is not, as some scholars have suggested, merely a conception of Marx’s later years; in fact, this idea existed from the very beginning in works of the founding period of historical materialism such as *The German Ideology*, as seen in Marx’s discussion at that time of the Germanic peoples bypassing slave society and the United States bypassing feudal society. The “theory of bypassing” is an important manifestation of the thoroughness of Marx’s theory of world history. This is because the historical theory Marx advocated is a theory of world history, and in world history a country’s development is related not only to its own foundations and conditions but also to the international environment it faces. If a country, under special historical circumstances, possesses the objective conditions to absorb the advanced productive forces of other countries or nations, then that country may successfully achieve bypassing. If it does not possess these objective conditions, bypassing cannot be achieved, or even if a so-called bypassing is achieved for various reasons, such bypassing will ultimately not endure or succeed—this is precisely the true meaning of the idea of the “two inevitables” mentioned in the Preface to *A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy*.[11]11 The “two inevitables” (两个决不会) refers to Marx’s statement in the 1859 Preface that “no social formation ever perishes before all the productive forces for which it has room have developed,” and that new higher relations of production never appear before the material conditions for their existence have matured in the womb of the old society. Of course, the “theory of bypassing” proposed by Marx in his later years also differs from the “theory of bypassing” mentioned during the founding period of historical materialism: the latter is a scientific analysis and scientific explanation of phenomena that have already occurred in history, while the former is a bold conjecture made by Marx on the basis of his historical materialism, his theory of world history, and his in-depth research into the concrete realities of Russia and other countries.

事实上，“跨越说”并不如有的学者提出的那样只是马克思晚年的设想，事实上，这一思想一开始就存在于《德意志意识形态》等唯物史观创立时期的著作中，如此时马克思关于日耳曼民族跨越奴隶社会以及美国跨越封建社会等问题的论述。“跨越说”是马克思世界历史理论彻底性的重要表现。因为马克思主张的历史理论是世界历史理论，而在世界历史中一个国家的发展不仅跟自身的基础与条件相关，也跟它所面对的国际环境相关。若一国在特殊的历史背景下具备吸纳其他国家或民族先进生产力的客观条件，那该国就有可能成功实现跨越。若不具备这些客观条件，就不可能实现跨越，或者即使因种种原因实现了所谓的跨越，这样的跨越最终也不会持久或成功，这也正是《〈政治经济学批判〉序言》中提到的“两个决不会”思想的真谛所在。当然，晚年马克思提出的“跨越说”跟唯物史观创立时期提到的“跨越说”也有区别，后者是就历史已发生的现象作出的科学分析与科学说明，而前者则是马克思根据其唯物史观与世界历史理论以及对俄国等具体实际的深入研究作出的大胆推测。

III. The Contemporary Significance and Implications of Marx’s Critique of Eurocentrism

三、马克思对西方中心论批判的当代意义与启示

Marx’s critique of Eurocentrism and its process tells people that thoroughly criticizing Eurocentrism requires both the guidance of scientific theory and a rigorous and serious attitude toward scientific research. This is because the formation of a new mode of thinking and a new discursive system is not achieved merely by brooding in the study, but is advanced slowly through the thoroughness of an advanced theory and a serious scientific research attitude. The establishment of Marx and Engels’ new worldview not only triggered a revolutionary change in the entire history of philosophy, but also signified the renovation of a series of academic terms and the formation of a new mode of thinking. It must be made clear here that the critique of Eurocentrism is not the end in itself; the real purpose is to find a theory that can successfully guide China’s construction and development. The historical materialism and the theory of world history established by Marx and Engels are precisely such a scientific theory.

马克思对西方中心论的批判及其过程告诉人们，彻底批判西方中心论既需要有科学理论的指导，也需要有严谨认真的科学研究态度。因为新的思维方式与话语系统的形成不是仅仅靠在书斋中苦思冥想打造出来的，而是靠先进理论的彻底性和科学认真的研究态度慢慢推进的。马克思恩格斯新世界观的创立不仅在整个哲学史上引发了一场革命性变革，而且还意味着一系列学术术语的革新和新思维方式的形成。这里必须明确，对西方中心论的批判并不是目的，真正的目的是要找到能够成功指导我国建设与我国发展的理论。马克思恩格斯创立的唯物史观及其世界历史理论就是这样的科学理论。

The historical materialism and the theory of world history established by Marx and Engels reveal to people that historical development has laws, and these laws are manifested both in the historical development of a single nation and country and in the process of world historical development in which all nations and countries interact and influence one another. The operation of this dual historical law, woven together from the vertical and the horizontal, tells us that in undertaking economic construction, we need to fully consider the international environment on the basis of our own realities, strive to shape a favorable international environment, do our best to avoid the occurrence of an adverse international environment, and use a favorable international environment to carry out extensive exchanges and cooperation, earnestly absorbing the advanced achievements of other countries, especially developed countries. This is because countries that achieve leapfrog development differ in an important respect from countries that develop through the successive progression of social formations: although the latter also need to advance their own development by shaping a favorable international environment and through exchanges and cooperation with different countries, this international condition is not an indispensable necessary condition for their development, whereas for countries achieving leapfrog development it is a necessary prerequisite and necessary foundation for success. The reason for saying this is that social institutions, including relations of production, can be directly leapfrogged, but productive forces cannot be directly leapfrogged; they can only achieve leapfrog development on the premise of respecting the laws of the development of productive forces. And in the process of achieving the leapfrog development of productive forces, learning, absorbing, and utilizing the most advanced scientific and technological achievements and managerial experience of developed capitalist countries is an indispensable and important link.

马克思恩格斯创立的唯物史观及其世界历史理论昭示人们，历史发展是有规律的，而这一规律既表现在一个民族和国家的历史发展之中，也表现在世界各民族和国家相互作用与相互影响的世界历史发展过程之中。这一由纵向与横向交织而成的双重历史规律的作用告诉我们，在从事经济建设时需要在立足自身实际的基础上，充分考虑到国际环境，努力塑造良好的国际环境，尽量避免恶劣国际环境的发生，并利用良好的国际环境开展广泛交流与合作，认真吸收他国特别是发达国家的先进成果。因为，实现跨越式发展的国家与依社会形态递进而发展的国家在这一问题上还有一个重要的不同：尽管后者也需要通过塑造良好的国际环境并在与不同国家交流合作中推进自身发展，但这一国际条件并非是其实现发展的不可或缺的必要条件，而它却是实现跨越式发展国家取得成功的必要前提和必要基础。之所以这样讲，是因为包括生产关系在内的社会制度可以直接跨越，但生产力却不能直接跨越，其只能在尊重生产力发展规律的前提下实现跨越式发展。而在实现生产力跨越式发展的过程中，学习、吸收并利用发达资本主义国家最先进的科技成果与管理经验是不可或缺的重要环节。

Historical development has its regularity, but human action also has its initiative. This initiative, when manifested in the question of social development, takes the form of the selectivity of the path, the autonomy of development, and the subjectivity of culture. However, in emphasizing the selectivity of the path, the autonomy of development, and the subjectivity of culture, one must still take the objective laws of history as the premise and foundation. For the selectivity, autonomy, and subjectivity here are not arbitrary, but have clear determinations. That is, people can only choose within a prescribed scope and advance social development in accordance with a certain direction of historical development. This is manifested in cultural subjectivity[12]12 Cultural subjectivity (文化主体性) refers to a people’s or nation’s self-awareness and self-determination in cultural matters, i.e., its capacity to be the agent rather than the passive object of cultural development. in that one should first of all not understand the cultural self (cultural subjectivity is precisely the cultural self) as an “active self,” but should first understand it as a “determined self,” and only then, in accordance with objective conditions and the direction of historical development, exercise subjective initiative to construct an “active self.” Therefore, the construction of cultural subjectivity should first consider the advanced nature of culture, not the national character of culture. Judging from the current state of China’s cultural construction, although China has also created and continuously developed an advanced culture, in terms of resources, a considerable portion of it originates from the West. If cultural subjectivity were understood merely as indigenous culture, how could we scientifically construct cultural subjectivity? In the view of many people, constructing cultural subjectivity is a matter of building an autonomous knowledge system; on the surface this seems not to be wrong, but in fact it does not deeply understand the connotation and essence of cultural subjectivity. Constructing an autonomous knowledge system is of course important, but it is only the form of cultural subjectivity, whereas the essence of cultural subjectivity is its content, and moreover content that should be active. The concrete manifestation of this active content is that it should be able to successfully guide China’s construction and development. Therefore, constructing cultural subjectivity requires stepping beyond narrow nationalism and boldly absorbing all outstanding achievements of humanity, including the advanced achievements of developed capitalist countries, and making them serve our own use.

历史发展有其规律性，但人的行为也有能动性。这一能动性表现在社会发展问题上就是道路选择性、发展自主性与文化主体性。只不过，在强调道路选择性、发展自主性与文化主体性问题上，仍然要以历史客观规律为前提和基础。因为这里的选择性、自主性与主体性不是随意的，而是有着明确的规定性。即人们只能在被规定的范围内进行选择并按一定历史发展方向推进社会发展。这表现在文化主体性上⑦就是首先不应该把文化上的自我（文化主体性就是文化上的自我）理解为一个“能动的自我”，而应该首先把它理解为一个“被规定的自我”，然后再按客观条件与历史发展方向发挥主观能动性建构“能动的自我”。因此，文化主体性的建构首先应该考虑的是文化先进性，而不是文化民族性。从当前我国文化建设的现状来看，尽管我国也创建了并不断发展着先进性文化，但若从资源上看，其中有相当一部分源自西方。如果仅仅把文化主体性理解为本土文化的话，我们怎能科学建构文化主体性呢？在不少人看来建设文化主体性就是建构自主知识体系的问题，这表面上看似乎并没有错，但实际上并没有深刻理解文化主体性的内涵与实质。建构自主知识体系当然重要，但它只是文化主体性的形式，而文化主体性的实质却是其内容，而且应该是有能动性的内容。这种能动性内容的具体表现就是应该能够成功指导我国的建设与发展。因此，建构文化主体性要走出狭隘民族主义，而大胆吸纳人类一切优秀文化成果包括发达资本主义国家先进成果并为我所用。

It cannot be denied that all nations and countries are equal, and in participating in the process of world historical development, all will contribute strength to the world’s advanced culture. At the same time, however, the culture of any nation will carry a national character or even a narrow national character[13]13 The phrase “giving up eating for fear of choking” (因噎废食) is a classical Chinese idiom meaning to refrain from doing something necessary because of a minor risk or past mishap., but one must absolutely not give up eating for fear of choking; rather, one should make use of it for one’s own purposes in the process of dialectical sublation. All forms of centrism, including Eurocentrism, are fundamentally erroneous, and must be subjected to a fundamental and thorough critique; but in the process of critique, one also needs to carry out selective absorption, transformation, and re-creation. After all, the system of human knowledge is vast, and it is difficult to achieve everything through re-creation. Eurocentrism as a conception of history and Eurocentrism as a political and value standpoint contain obvious errors and therefore must be vigorously criticized, but Eurocentrism as a mode of thinking and as a discursive system cannot be treated in the same way. For a particular mode of thinking and a particular discursive system are not directly related to a particular political and value standpoint; they are a certain degree of cognition of the internal regularity of some things in social existence, and hence many of their components or factors possess a certain degree of practical rationality. For these components or factors that possess a certain degree of practical rationality, after critique, transformation, and processing, they can be made to serve our own use (when a “discursive system,” in terms of specific discursive content and discursive form, forms a “discursive edifice,” it should be treated differently. For a distorted or exaggerated “discursive edifice” will naturally tend to slide toward a particular political and value standpoint). After all, humanity’s cognition of the laws of nature and the laws of history is condensed through scientific thinking and categories, terms, and the like; although different countries choose different paths of development, as long as they engage in modernization, there will be much in common. In this regard, Marx’s *Ethnological Notebooks* and *Historical Notebooks* are models of discursive utilization, discursive transformation, discursive critique, and discursive innovation, and are worthy of our serious study and absorption.

不可否认，任何民族和国家都是平等的，在参与世界历史发展的过程中都会为世界先进性文化贡献力量。但与此同时，任何民族的文化都会带有民族性甚至狭隘的民族性⑧，但绝不能因此因噎废食，而应该在辩证扬弃的过程中为我所用。包括西方中心论在内的一切中心主义从根本上讲都是错误的，必须对此进行根本与彻底的批判，但在批判的过程中也需要进行有选择性的吸收、改造与再创造。毕竟人类知识体系是广泛的，一切都想通过重新创造是难以做到的。作为历史观的西方中心论与作为政治观和价值观的西方中心论因存在明显错误故而要大力批判，但作为思维方式与话语系统的西方中心论就不能一概而论了。因为特定的思维方式与特定的话语系统跟特定的政治与价值立场并非直接相关，它们是对社会存在中一些事物内在规律性一定程度的认识，因而其中不少的成分或因素都有一定程度的现实合理性，对于这些具有一定程度现实合理性的成分或因素在批判的基础上经过转换和加工后可为我所用（当“话语系统”就特定的话语内容与话语形式形成一个“话语体系”时就应另当别论。因为，扭曲或夸大后的“话语体系”自然容易滑向特定的政治与价值立场）。毕竟人类对自然规律与历史规律的认识是通过科学思维和范畴、术语等形式凝结而成的，尽管不同国家选择的发展道路不同，但只要从事现代化建设就会有很多共同的地方。在这方面，马克思的《人类学笔记》与《历史学笔记》是进行话语利用、话语转换、话语批判与话语创新的典范，值得我们认真学习与汲取。

Since the construction of cultural subjectivity must confront the self as defined by reality and construct the self according to future expectations, it naturally cannot, in this process, forget the self as defined by the past and by history. The cultural self, like the self in life, must continually reconstruct itself in the face of the past, reality, and expectations of the future, re-"centering" the various demands and definitions placed upon the self from all sides into a dynamic, positive self according to a certain line of thought and method. Thus, cultural ethnicity⑨ is crucial to the construction of cultural subjectivity. Cultural ethnicity is not only an indispensable component of the construction of the "cultural self," but also an important force in building the dynamism of the "cultural self." This is because cultural ethnicity is not only the source of the formation and maintenance of national cohesion and centripetal force, but also the spiritual driving force for the healthy development of a nation. Any nation, especially one with a long history, inevitably accumulates and sediments rich experience and wisdom in governing the country and in social life (including daily life) at the cultural level; this experience and wisdom are valuable assets guiding a particular nation toward the future and ensuring its healthy development. Moreover, any existence in social history is extremely broad, and innovation and change in any era cannot be the total innovation and comprehensive transformation of all social-historical existents; hence, those social existents not directly altered by innovation and change will naturally survive and develop in the continuation of tradition. Even social existents touched by innovation and change cannot be completely unrelated to tradition; they are merely cases where, on the basis of people's critique, the relevant traditions have been reconstructed and creatively rebuilt. However, the construction of cultural ethnicity does not mean that all national cultures can be utilized and transformed; only excellent cultures can be utilized and transformed. There are multiple standards for evaluating cultural "excellence," among which the cultural standard itself is naturally an important consideration. This is because culture has its own unique laws of development; only a culture that conforms to the laws of cultural construction and cultural development and possesses a far-reaching future can be an excellent culture. But it is insufficient to view the problem solely from the standard of culture itself; measuring whether a culture is "excellent" also requires considering social standards outside culture: first, it must conform to China's reality of taking economic construction as the central task; second, it must conform to the current international situation and the trends of international development; third, it must conform to the direction of humanity's future development. Therefore, cultural ethnicity is not narrow ethnicity, but open and inclusive ethnicity, and this ethnicity must be continuously developed and reconstructed as the times advance. Here, Marx's thought and method of criticizing Germany's "narrow nationalism" and "false cosmopolitanism" "from a standpoint outside Germany" is of positive significance for our construction of cultural ethnicity. Although cultural ethnicity is a national culture, it must be a culture that conforms to the trends of world development and can be understood and even accepted by the peoples of other countries. Of course, the refinement and development of cultural ethnicity is not the ultimate goal of cultural construction; the ultimate goal of cultural construction is to integrate cultural advancedness and cultural ethnicity into an organically unified new cultural life-form under the guidance of "scientific theory."⑩ Once the new cultural life-form is formed, it will have the following distinct cultural characteristics: it is both an advanced culture and an ethnic culture, and is thus a cultural whole that truly integrates cultural advancedness and cultural ethnicity. In the new cultural life-form, the ethnic is the advanced, and the advanced is the ethnic. In short, cultural construction is a scientific undertaking; it must respect the laws of historical development and the laws of cultural construction itself, and must adopt a rigorous, earnest, and truth-seeking scientific attitude, while also opposing all erroneous cultural tendencies that arise in this process, including cultural determinism, cultural uselessness, and Western centrism. (References omitted)

文化主体性建构既然要面对现实对自我的设定，并按未来期许对自我进行构建，自然在此过程中也不能忘却过去和历史对自我的设定。文化上的自我与生活中的自我一样，它总是要在不断面对过去、现实并按未来的期许中重构自我，将各方面对自我的要求与设定按照一定的思路与方式重新“中心化”为一个能动、积极的自我。由此，文化民族性⑨对文化主体性的建构至关重要。文化民族性不仅是“文化自我”建构不可剥离的必要成分，同时也是建设“文化自我”能动性的重要力量。因为，文化民族性不仅是民族凝聚力与向心力形成与维系的源泉，同时也是推动一个民族健康发展的精神动力。任何民族特别是历史悠久的民族必然在文化上积累和积淀着丰富的治国理政和社会生活（包括日常生活）等方面的经验与智慧，这些经验与智慧都是指导特定民族面向未来并确保其健康发展的宝贵财富。更何况社会历史中的任何存在都是十分广泛的，任何时代的创新与变革都不可能是社会历史存在物的全部创新与全面变革，因而那些未被创新与变革直接引发变化的社会存在物都自然会在传统延续中生存与发展。即使创新与变革触发到的社会存在物也不可能跟传统彻底无关，只是它们已在人们批判的基础之上对相关传统进行了重构和创造性的重建。不过，文化民族性建设并不是说一切民族文化都可利用与转化，而只能是优秀文化的利用与转化。对于文化“优秀”的评价有多种标准，其中文化自身的衡量标准自然是重要考量。因为，文化是有其独特发展规律的，只有符合文化建设与文化发展规律并具有远大前途的文化才是优秀文化。但仅从文化自身标准来看问题还是不够的，衡量文化是否“优秀”还需同时考虑到文化之外的社会标准：一是要符合我国以经济建设为中心的实际；二是要符合国际现状与国际发展潮流；三是要符合人类未来发展方向。因此，文化的民族性不是狭隘的民族性，而是开放包容的民族性，并且这种民族性需要随着时代的发展而不断发展和重构。在此，马克思“站在德国以外的立场”对德国“狭隘的民族主义”与“虚假的世界主义”批判的思想与方法，对我们建设文化民族性是有积极意义的。文化民族性虽是一种民族文化，但它一定是符合世界发展潮流的文化，能够被他国人民理解甚至接受的文化。当然，文化民族性的提炼与发展也不是文化建设的最终目的，文化建设的最终目的是要在“科学理论”⑩指导下将文化先进性与文化民族性融合为一个有机统一的新的文化生命体。新的文化生命体一旦形成后便会有如下鲜明的文化特征：它既是先进性文化，又是民族性文化，因而是真正将文化先进性与文化民族性融为一体的文化整体。在新的文化生命体中，民族的就是先进的，先进的也是民族的。总之，文化建设是一项科学事业，既要尊重历史发展规律和文化自身建设规律，又要有严谨认真与实事求是的科学态度，同时需要反对在此过程中出现的包括文化决定论、文化无用论和西方中心论等一切错误文化倾向。（参考文献略）

Notes:

注释：

①For example, in the initial draft of his "Letter to Vera Zasulich," Marx explicitly stated: "In analyzing the origin of capitalist production, I said that it is in essence 'the complete separation of the producer from the means of production' (Capital, French edition, p. 315, col. 1), and that 'the basis of the whole process is the expropriation of the peasant. This expropriation was only completely accomplished in England... but all the other countries of Western Europe are undergoing the same movement'... Thus, I explicitly restricted the 'historical inevitability' of this movement to the countries of Western Europe." See: Collected Works of Marx and Engels (Vol. 3), People's Publishing House, 2009, p. 570.

①如马克思在《给维·伊·查苏利奇的信》初稿中曾明确指出：“在分析资本主义生产的起源时，我说过，它实质上是‘生产者和生产资料彻底分离’（《资本论》法文版第315页第1栏），并且说过，‘全部过程的基础是对农民的剥夺。这种剥夺只是在英国才彻底完成了……但是，西欧的其他一切国家都正在经历着同样的运动’……可见，我明确地把这一运动的‘历史必然性’限制在西欧各国的范围内”。参见：《马克思恩格斯文集》（第3卷），人民出版社，2009年版，第570页。

②Frank not only asserted that Marx's thought was a typical example of Western centrism, but also proposed overcoming it by "abandoning capitalism." He said: "It is best to thoroughly abandon the dead knot of 'capitalism'... not only the inquiry into the 'origin' of capitalism, but also the inquiry into its 'conditions of existence' and significance. Therefore, it is best to leave it behind and instead investigate the real conditions of world history." See: Andre Gunder Frank, ReOrient: Global Economy in the Asian Age, trans. Liu Beicheng, Central Compilation & Translation Press, 2000, p. 441.

②弗兰克不仅认定马克思思想是典型的西方中心论，还提出通过“抛弃资本主义”的方法克服它。他说：“最好是彻底抛弃‘资本主义’这个死结……不仅关于‘资本主义’起源的探讨，而且关于‘资本主义’的存在情况和意义的探讨也是如此。因此，最好是把它抛在脑后，而去探讨世界历史的真实情况”。参见安德烈·贡德·弗兰克：《白银资本：重视经济全球化中的东方》，刘北成译，中央编译出版社，2000年版，第441页。

③For example, in the Russian edition preface to the Manifesto of the Communist Party, Marx and Engels pointed out: "The task of the Manifesto of the Communist Party was to proclaim the inevitable impending destruction of modern bourgeois property. But in Russia we find, face to face with the rapidly developing capitalist fever and the bourgeois landed property just beginning to develop, more than half the land held in common ownership by the peasants. The question is: can the Russian commune, this admittedly already greatly destroyed form of primitive common ownership of land, pass directly to the higher form of communist common ownership? Or, on the contrary, must it first pass through the same process of dissolution as constitutes the historical development of the West? The only possible answer to this question today is this: if the Russian revolution becomes the signal for a proletarian revolution in the West, so that the two complement each other, then the present Russian common ownership of land may serve as the starting point for communist development." See: Selected Works of Marx and Engels (Vol. 1), People's Publishing House, 2012, p. 379.

③如马克思恩格斯在《共产党宣言》俄文版序言中指出：“《共产党宣言》的任务，是宣告现代资产阶级所有制必然灭亡。但是在俄国，我们看见，除了迅速盛行起来的资本主义狂热和刚开始发展的资产阶级土地所有制外，大半土地仍归农民公共占有。那么试问：俄国公社，这一固然已经大遭破坏的原始土地公共占有形式，是能够直接过渡到高级的共产主义的公共占有形式呢？或者相反，它还必须先经历西方的历史发展所经历的那个瓦解过程呢？对于这个问题，目前唯一可能的答复是：假如俄国革命将成为西方无产阶级革命的信号而双方互相补充的话，那么现今的俄国土地公有制便能成为共产主义发展的起点”。参见：《马克思恩格斯选集》（第1卷），人民出版社，2012年版，第379页。

④In his relevant discussions of the early 1850s, Marx held the following views on Eastern societies, including India and China: Oriental despotism, common ownership of land (i.e., the absence of private land ownership), and "stagnant social life." For example, he described China as follows: "Shortly before the tables began to dance, revolution began to stir in China, in this living fossil. This phenomenon is not in itself anything special, for in the Eastern countries we constantly see the social base remaining motionless while the persons and races who seize the political superstructure change in succession." See: Complete Works of Marx and Engels (Vol. 15), People's Publishing House, 1963, p. 545.

④马克思在19世纪50年代初的相关论述中有如下对包括印度和中国等东方社会的看法：东方专制主义、土地公有制（即不存在土地私有制）和“停滞的社会生活”等。如他曾这样描述中国：“在桌子开始跳舞以前不久，在中国，在这块活的化石上，就开始闹革命了。这种现象本身并不是什么特殊的东西，因为在东方各国，我们经常看到社会基础不动而夺取到政治上层建筑的人物和种族不断更迭的情形”。参见：《马克思恩格斯全集》（第15卷），人民出版社，1963年版，第545页。

⑤In addition to explicitly pointing out the "dual character" of the Russian rural commune, Marx at this time also pointed out that Eastern societies such as India had already possessed private ownership in ancient times. See: Complete Works of Marx and Engels (Vol. 45), People's Publishing House, 1963, p. 245. The "despotic" system did not exist from time immemorial. See: ibid., p. 636, etc.

⑤除了明确指出俄国农村公社具有“二重性”之外，此时马克思还指出印度等东方社会在古代就存在私有制。参见：《马克思恩格斯全集》（第45卷），人民出版社，1963年版，第245页。“专制”制度不是自古以来就有的。参见：同上，第636页，等等。

⑥Marx's emphasis on the influence of Western capitalist development on world historical development at that time (including the present) is not Western centrism, but rather, as stated above, an expression of the "center" thought that exists at specific stages of world historical development. Although Marx at this time still believed that capitalism originated in the West and exerted an important influence on world historical development, capitalism was not "exclusively" Western; Eastern countries also possessed the impetus and possibility for the emergence and development of capitalism. Although the West (including at present) "dominated" the world and served as the "center" of world history at this stage, with the development of world history, this "center" would inevitably shift and change.

⑥马克思强调西方资本主义发展对当时（包括现如今）世界历史发展的影响并不是西方中心论，而是如前文所说的世界历史发展具体阶段存在“中心”思想的表现。尽管此时的马克思仍然认为资本主义起源于西方并对世界历史发展产生了重要影响，但资本主义并不是西方“独有”的，东方国家也存在着资本主义产生与发展的动力与可能。尽管当时（包括现如今）西方“主导”着世界并成为这一阶段的世界历史的“中心”，但随着世界历史的发展，这个“中心”必然会发生转移和变化。

⑦As cultural subjectivity in the sense of cultural selfhood, its salient characteristic is naturally “selfhood” or “ethnocentrism”; a characteristic that is not internal to the self but external to it clearly fails to meet this definition. Yet this “selfhood” or “ethnocentrism” of cultural subjectivity does not refer to the cultural determinations that a particular nation has formed historically or accumulated through experience in life, but rather to cultural determinations that must be actively constructed. Therefore, a particular nation that starts from this “selfhood” or “ethnocentrism” from the outset cannot construct a scientific and rational cultural subjectivity. The construction of a scientific and rational cultural subjectivity can only be accomplished on the basis of respecting objective laws and under the guidance of correct theory. The cultural subjectivity thus completed naturally also manifests an evident “selfhood” or “ethnocentrism,” but the “selfhood” or “ethnocentrism” here is no longer the simple, original “selfhood” or “ethnocentrism” that contains only the self, but rather a “selfhood” or “ethnocentrism” that internally contains determinations external to the original self. Of course, once cultural subjectivity is completed and especially once it is implemented, these determinations of “selfhood” or “ethnocentrism” that were external to the original self gradually transform into determinations of “selfhood” or “ethnocentrism” internal to the new self. Thus, the construction of cultural subjectivity is not only a process of basing oneself on the self, but even more a process of transforming the self and reconstructing the self.

⑦作为文化自我的文化主体性，其显著特性自然是“我性”或“我族中心性”，一种不是内在于我而是外在于我的特性显然不符合这一规定性。但文化主体性的这种“我性”或“我族中心性”不是指特定民族在历史上已经形成或在生活中通过经验积累而形成的文化规定性，而是需要积极建构的文化规定性。因此，特定民族一开始就立足于这种“我性”或“我族中心性”是无法建构科学合理的文化主体性的。科学合理的文化主体性的建构只有在尊重客观规律基础上，按正确理论指导才有可能完成。建成后的文化主体性自然也表现为明显的“我性”或“我族中心性”，但这里的“我性”或“我族中心性”已不是简单的、原初意义上的只有自我的“我性”或“我族中心性”，而是内涵着丰富的外在于原初自我的“我性”或“我族中心性”的规定性。当然，随着文化主体性的建成特别是落实后，这种外在于原初自我的“我性”或“我族中心性”的规定性也就渐渐转化为内在于新自我的“我性”或“我族中心性”的规定性。由此，文化主体性的建构既是立足于自我的过程，更是改造自我与重构自我的过程。

⑧The statement here that “the culture of any nation will carry national character or even narrow national character” does not mean that no nation can produce an advanced culture that transcends national character, nor does it mean that a scientific culture or scientific theory that transcends all national character cannot emerge. These are two problems of a different nature: the former is directed at the social construction and social development of a particular nation and country, while the latter is directed at the question of whether a scientific culture or scientific theory can emerge and how it emerges. As to the former, it can naturally produce a culture that transcends particular national character, as well as a scientific culture or scientific theory, but even so, it still needs to be integrated with the realities of the nation itself. As to the latter, it can naturally emerge, but its characteristic must be a culture that transcends any national character. That a scientific culture or scientific theory transcends national character does not mean that its emergence does not rely on national character; on the contrary, its emergence likewise requires taking root in a particular national culture, but at the same time it must also critically examine the nation’s own culture “from a standpoint outside the nation” and ultimately “from the standpoint of the development of all humanity,” as well as draw on and absorb the cultures of other nations, especially other advanced nations. In other words, a scientific culture or scientific theory also emerges in one country or several countries, but it is not limited to one country or several countries; it is the crystallization of the collective wisdom of many nations and countries.

⑧这里说“任何民族的文化都会带有民族性甚至狭隘的民族性”，并不意味着所有民族都不可能产生超越民族性的先进文化，同时也不意味着超越一切民族性的科学文化或科学理论无法产生。这是两个不同性质的问题，前者是针对特定民族和国家的社会建设与社会发展而言的，而后者是针对科学文化或科学理论能否产生以及如何产生的问题。就前者而言，它自然可以产生超越特定民族性的文化以及科学文化或科学理论，但即使如此，它仍然需要与本民族实际相结合；就后者而言，它自然可以产生，但它的特点一定是超越任何民族性的文化，科学文化或科学理论超越民族性并不意味着它的产生不依靠于民族性，恰恰相反，它的产生同样需要扎根于特定的民族文化，只是与此同时还需要“站在本民族以外的立场”并最终“站在全人类发展的立场”批判考察本民族文化，以及借鉴与吸收其他民族特别是其他先进民族的文化。换言之，科学文化或科学理论也产生于一国或多国，但又不限于一国或多国，它是众多民族和国家集体智慧的结晶。

⑨Generally speaking, the national character of culture can abstractly refer to the advanced factors or advanced elements in the nation’s own culture, and more concretely refer to the culture formed by integrating advanced culture with the realities of the nation itself. The “realities” emphasized in the latter include two aspects: first, the “actual reality” centered on the development of the productive forces; second, the reality of historical development that is often expressed in cultural form (although historical development is not determined by culture, because of the transience of historical phenomena and the relevance of culture to all spheres of historical development, historical development is often expressed in or “condensed” into cultural form). The process of integrating advanced culture with the realities of the nation itself is in fact the process of the Two Integrations. Among these, the First Integration regulates and guides the Second Integration, while the Second Integration on the basis of the First Integration enables cultural subjectivity to take shape.

⑨一般来说，文化民族性既可抽象地指本民族文化中的先进因素或先进成分，更具体地指将先进性文化与本民族实际相结合而形成的文化。后者所强调的实际包括两个方面的内容：一是以生产力发展为核心的“现实实际”，二是往往以文化形式表现出来的历史发展实际（虽然历史发展不是由文化决定的，但因历史现象的瞬间性以及文化与历史发展所有领域都有相关性等原因，故而历史发展往往会以文化的形式表现出来或“凝结”下来）。将先进性文化与本民族实际相结合的过程，实际上就是“两个结合”的过程。其中，“第一个结合”规范并引领着“第二个结合”，在“第一个结合”基础之上的“第二个结合”则可使文化主体性得以形成。

⑩“Scientific theory” naturally belongs to advanced culture, but it is also different from generally advanced culture. Roughly speaking, any culture that embodies the characteristics of the times and conforms to the trend of historical development belongs to generally advanced culture, but an advanced culture such as Marxism that serves as a “scientific theory” possesses a particularity that goes beyond the commonality shared by generally advanced culture. This particularity is concretely expressed in the following: first, it is a truth that has been tested by history as scientific, possessing eternal value that transcends borders and surpasses time and space, and thus it will not, like generally advanced culture, change with the passage of time or even lose its cultural advancedness. Of course, Marxism will also advance with the times as the era changes, but this is not a problem of the same nature as the change that generally advanced culture undergoes with the passage of time. Second, it is both a worldview and a methodology. As a scientific theory, an advanced culture such as Marxism is not only the main content of our construction of cultural subjectivity, but also the concrete approach and scientific method of our construction of cultural subjectivity, and at the same time the important standard of measurement by which we determine and select whether the culture to be utilized and absorbed possesses advancedness. Therefore, when discussing advanced culture, one must not conflate “scientific theory” with generally advanced culture; while seeing the connection between them, one must even more see the distinction between them, otherwise it will bring all kinds of problems in theory and in practice.

⑩“科学理论”自然属于先进性文化，但它又不同于一般先进性文化。大致来说，只要体现时代特征并符合历史发展潮流的文化都属于一般先进性文化，但像马克思主义那样作为“科学理论”的先进性文化却有着超出一般先进性文化共同性之上的特殊性。这种特殊性具体表现在：其一，它是被历史检验为科学的真理，具有跨越国界与超越时空的永恒价值，因而不会像一般先进性文化那样随着时间的推移而发生变化甚至失去文化先进性。当然，马克思主义也会随着时代的变化而与时俱进，但这跟一般先进性文化随着时间推移而发生的变化不是同一性质的问题。其二，它既是世界观，又是方法论。作为一种科学理论，像马克思主义这样的先进性文化既是我们建设文化主体性的主要内容，又是我们建设文化主体性的具体思路和科学方法，同时也是我们确定和选择需要利用与吸收的文化是否具有先进性的重要衡量标准。因此，在讨论先进性文化时切不可将“科学理论”与一般先进性文化混同，在看到它们之间联系的同时更要看到它们之间的区别，否则就会在理论与实践中带来各种各样的问题。

(The author is a professor in the Department of Philosophy at Capital Normal University)

（作者系首都师范大学哲学系教授）

Online editor: Zhang Jian

网络编辑：张剑