Marx’s Political Philosophy and the Essence of the Communist Party Organization

I. Marx’s “Blank Space”

一、马克思的“留白”

The concept of the Communist Party constructed by Marx and Engels in the *Communist Manifesto* opened up the political-philosophical space in which the modern communist movement could establish itself, heralding a major turning point in the destiny of mankind. This is not because their writings inscribed political truth in advance, thereby pacifying conflicting political opinions; on the contrary, it is because the fundamental links constituting their doctrine began to reveal a new historical significance, establishing a theoretical form that no political philosophy can ignore—Marx’s party philosophy and his construction of political philosophy.

马克思、恩格斯在《共产党宣言》所构建的共产党概念开创了现代共产主义运动得以确立的政治哲学空间，昭示了人类命运的重大转折。这并不是因为他们的著作事先将政治真理铭刻在那里而使冲突的政治意见得以平复，恰恰相反，是因为那些构成他们学说的根本环节开始显露崭新的历史意义，建立起了任何政治哲学都无法忽视的一个理论形态——马克思的政党哲学及政治哲学建构。

However, from the perspective of the actual communist movement, an approach focused solely on political philosophy or ideology (such as class consciousness) cannot fully and correctly grasp the concept of the Communist Party, just as grasping consciousness cannot fully grasp human relations. In the political or philosophical discourse of the 1840s, the Communist Party was not simply the product of a pure political trend of thought. Nor was it merely an organization, or an organization with a special program different from other organizations. Grasping it through special interests or special beliefs, or understanding it through sectarianism, is bound to be incompatible with Marx’s concept of the Communist Party. Such an approach arbitrarily ignores certain important contents of this revolutionary movement, which has by now become actual and perceptible through the senses; or rather, it inevitably imposes meanings that are not at all communist onto the logic of collective action of the Communist Party. A proletarian philosophy, if it is not understood on the basis of a true interpretation of social, economic, and political reality and the correct practice consistent with such knowledge, but rather from fanciful beautiful ideals, from the outside (i.e., by excluding the essential nature of social history and all its substantive content determinations), can completely degenerate into philosophical chit-chat. Blanchot’s *The Unavowable Community* is a typical example. Blanchot portrays a broad European communist movement of the 19th century as originating from the prototype of “a secret community,” then reduces it to a phenomenon of small-clique communication, or a phenomenon of how individuals form a “community of love” through mutual relations, even equating it with the ecstatic experience of faith observed from “my finite solitude.” Such a view can never touch the essence of the organizational problem of the Marxist concept of the Communist Party. On the contrary, it signifies a degeneration in the understanding of real historical problems by the contemporary French radical philosophical alliance, and at the same time a reaction against the “Paris Commune” born 150 years ago. It is clear that for 20th-century French philosophers or intellectuals, the terms communism and the Communist Party represent a particular kind of “inner experience” related to historical contingencies and the catastrophic background of historical destruction. Those self-proclaimed “upright” intellectuals felt a religious experience of “deviating” from their mission. Thus, they sanctified or mystified the decisive experience of the modern fate of communism and the “community.” It is as if the Communist Party and communism could be judged in the name of the “specter.”

然而，从现实中的共产主义运动看，专注于政治哲学或意识形态（如阶级意识）的思路不能完全正确地把握共产党的概念，就像把握意识不能完全把握人的关系一样。在19世纪40年代的政治或哲学话语中，共产党并非一种单纯的政治思潮的产物。它也不是那么一个组织或一个拥有不同于其他组织的特殊纲领的组织。以特殊利益或特殊信仰元素去把握、以宗派主义来理解势必和马克思的共产党概念格格不入。它武断地忽视了这场迄今为止已经成为实际的、可以通过感觉直观的革命运动中的某些重要内容；或者说，它必定把一些根本不是共产主义的含义强加于共产党的集体行动逻辑中。一种无产阶级哲学，如果不是根据对社会、经济和政治现实的真正解释，以及符合这种知识的正确实践，而是从想入非非的美好理想、从外部（即，从排除社会—历史的本质性及其全部实体性内容规定）来认识，就完全可能变成哲学式闲谈。布朗肖《不可言明的共通体》即是一个典型的例子。布朗肖把19世纪一场广泛的欧洲共产主义运动说成源于“一个隐秘的共通体”原型，然后把它说成小团伙式的交流现象，或者个体如何通过相互关系形成“爱的共通体”现象，甚至等同于由“我的有限孤独”观察到的迷狂的信仰体验现象。这种观点根本不可能触及马克思主义的共产党概念之组织问题的本质。相反，这意味着当代法国激进哲学联盟针对现实历史问题理解的退化，同时也是对150年前诞生的“巴黎公社”的一次反动。清楚的是，对于二十世纪法国哲学家或知识分子而言，共产主义，共产党，这些术语，乃是表象着与历史突发事件、与历史毁灭的灾异背景相关的一种特别的“内在经验”。而那些自许“正直”的知识分子则感觉到，自己“偏离”使命的宗教式体验。由此，他们将共产主义、“共通体”之现代命运的决定性经验神圣化或神秘化了。仿佛共产党、共产主义能以“幽灵”的名义得到裁判。

As for Althusser, he somewhat naively assumed that, for Marx, the urgency of the problem of Party organization did not seem to pose “a special theoretical difficulty.” The primary reason is that, within the community of the proletariat, “the whole problem is solved in advance through the transparency of that voluntary community composed of free and equal members—through the foresight of a free communist community, a community beyond social relations.” That is, communism presupposes not a good society, but the principle of transparent human nature. According to their judgment, this principle exerts a great influence in Marx’s political philosophy. What appears here is a mode of the “common” as a ready-made state. We see that certain works by leading Western left-wing thinkers were all the rage in continental Europe in the second half of the 20th century and have had some influence on today’s Chinese academic circles. In their view, if the political principle of the modern liberal “public opinion party” is based on the freedom of each individual, each being different and irreducible, then the actual grasp of the concept of communism or the Communist Party depends on a radical alteration of this foundational principle. That is, the possibility of the proletariat pursuing its own goals depends on the Communist Party forming a completely total party. More precisely, the revolutionary Communist Party upholds democratic centralism. However, the possibility of centralization expressed here is not merely an organizational issue related to this; in essence, it must, in any case, focus on the subject of individual rights. Here, many formulations of Western left-wing thought still emphasize a radical critique of the political aspect of the concept of the Communist Party and the formation of a situation of monopolizing political manipulation. However, when Western left-wing thought engages in such radical critique, it does not know how to utilize Marx’s prestige without violating his thought. They have especially forgotten that political totality can only be achieved within ideas, while reality is forged according to the logic of reality. Conversely, for Marx, the problem does not lie in “ideas”; thus, “the question is not what goal is envisaged for the time being by this or that member of the proletariat, or even by the whole proletariat. The question is *what is the proletariat*, and what course of action will it be forced historically to take in conformity with its own nature. The goal and the historical action destined for it are clearly and irrevocably indicated in its own life situation as well as in the whole organization of modern bourgeois society. There is no need to dwell here upon the fact that a large part of the English and French proletariat is already conscious of its historical task and is constantly working to develop that consciousness into complete clarity.”

至于阿尔都塞还有些天真地假设，对于马克思，党组织问题的迫切性好像并没有给他提出“一个特殊的理论难题”。原因首先是，在无产者的共同体中，“整个难题都事先通过由自由平等的成员组成的那个自觉自愿的共同体所具有的透明性———通过对共产主义的自由共同体、一个超出社会关系的共同体的预见———而解决了。”也就是说，共产主义预设的不是美好社会，而是透明人性原则。依据他们的判断，这个原则在马克思政治哲学中发挥着极大的影响。在这里出现的是“共同”现成状态的方式。我们看到，西方左翼思想领袖的某些论著，在20世纪下半叶的欧洲大陆可谓风靡一时，并对我国今天学术界有所影响。在他们看来，如果说，现代自由主义“民意政党”政治原则是基于每个个人的自由，各自不同，不可还原，那么对共产主义或共产党的概念的实际把握而言，就取决于此奠基原则的激进变更。也就是说，无产阶级要追求自己的目标可能性，取决于共产党形成彻底总体的政党。更准确地说，革命的共产党拥护民主集中制。但是，集中化可能性在这里所表达的不单单是与此相关的组织方面的问题，而且无论怎样，它在本质上必须关注个人权利主体。在此，西方左翼思想的许多表述仍是强调所谓对共产党的概念的政治方面和形成操纵政治垄断的局面的激进批判。但是，西方左翼思想在进行如此激进批判的时候，不懂得怎样在不违背马克思的思想的情况下利用他的威望。他们尤其已经遗忘了只在诸理念中才能达到它们的政治总体性，现实则是按现实逻辑来打造。而反过来对于马克思来说，问题不在于“理念”，因而“问题不在于某个无产者或者甚至整个无产阶级暂时提出什么样的目标，问题在于无产阶级究竟是什么，无产阶级由于其身为无产阶级而不得不在历史上有什么作为。它的目标和它的历史使命已经在它自己的生活状况和现代资产阶级社会的整个组织中明显地、无可更改地预示出来了。英法两国的无产阶级中有很大一部分人已经意识到自己的历史任务，并且不断地努力使这种意识完全明确起来，关于这一点在这里没有必要多谈了。”

Of course, the content of Marx’s political thought also contains sufficient reasons for his unpopularity among Western Marxists. Marx’s political articles reveal too profound a contempt for bourgeois political opinions to generate utopian interest or appeal. Marx believed that, driven by the wheel of industry, the proletariat had gradually embarked on the path of action for its own historical creation. The reason the Young Hegelians refused to acknowledge this was their illusion that politics was an unattainable affair. The reason or spirit spoken of by philosophers was the sole creative factor of history. But Marx, on the contrary, saw the great power of the proletariat armed solely with dialectics. Marx saw the proletariat discarding the old theory of “special rights” and entering the factory. Here was determined a path capable of implementing human liberation, a path that certainly included the means to ascend to the center of the world-historical stage. However, all this should be regarded as the affirmation of the principle of labor itself by the spirit of the times. Of course, this is only the initial stage. From the decisive question posed by the study of Party history: if spontaneous history can become conscious history, then we should ask in what sense a proletarian party is required by the historical conjuncture? We can say that the study of Party history should not only pay attention to the dialectical relationship between the historical movement itself and its ends and means, but also focus on broader, more inclusive content. And in fact, we need to confront more issues. Perhaps this already exceeds the scope of Marx’s textual themes.

当然，在马克思的政治思想的内容中，也蕴含了他不受西方马克思主义欢迎的充足理由。马克思的政论文章表露的对资产阶级政见的鄙视太深刻，所以，不可能产生乌托邦式的兴趣和吸引力。马克思认为，在工业之轮推动下，无产阶级已经逐步走上了他自己历史创造之行动的道路。青年黑格尔派之所以不肯承认这一点，是因为他们有一种错觉，以为政治是高不可攀的事务。哲学家讲的理智或精神是历史唯一创造的因素。但马克思却相反看出了惟有辩证法武装起来的无产阶级的伟大力量。马克思看到，无产阶级丢下旧的“特殊的权利”理论，并进入工厂。这里决定一种可以实施人的解放的途径，即包含了一定能升到世界历史舞台中心的途径。但是，所有这一切都应该被视为时代精神对劳动原则本身的肯定。当然这只是开始阶段。从对党史研究提出的决定性问题看：如果自发的历史有可能成为自觉的历史，那么我们就应当问问是在什么意义上一个无产阶级的政党为历史时宜所需？我们可以说，党史的研究不仅仅应当注意历史运动本身及其目的和手段之间的辩证关系，还应当关注更广泛、更包容的内容。而实际上我们有必要面对更多的问题。或许这已经超出马克思的文本题旨范围了。

Here, Marx first encountered philosophical opponents. Marx entered into the “realization of philosophy” directly via Hegel, surpassing the tradition of German state philosophy and philosophy of right. This was, at the time, an entirely heterogeneous phenomenon. Heterogeneous means it was unlike the endeavor to pursue the cause of communism, nor like Marx’s attempt to bid farewell to philosophy. Only then can we see that Marx directly carried out a fruitful and thorough critique of English philosophy, especially of the development of French materialism’s real humanism and communist logic. But strictly speaking, the influence of Hegel’s philosophy of the state was so widespread that Marx too could not escape his era. Although some might still think that his political thought could thereby gain a new philosophical foothold. Hence, in *Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right* and subsequent works, following his intellectual habit before he had seriously studied economic reality, Marx did not consider the interesting question of how to distinguish the relationship between the proletariat and the Communist Party. As long as groups or collective personalities exist, Marx’s political philosophy has the responsibility to sort out, regulate, and develop applicable discipline or rules for the inner and outer life of the Communist Party. This view is especially evident in the statements of Althusser, Gramsci, Badiou, and others. All hope to accomplish here what they demand of Marx: to fill the so-called blank in Marx on the state, ideology, the party, and politics.

在这里，马克思首先碰到了哲学对手。马克思是直接经由黑格尔，超出德国国家哲学和法哲学传统而进入到“哲学的实现”之中的。这在当时完全是相异现象。相异意味着不像那个追求共产主义事务的努力，也不像马克思告别哲学的尝试。然后，我们才能看到，马克思对英国哲学，特别是对法国唯物主义现实的人道主义和共产主义逻辑的发展，直接进行了富有成果的彻底批判。但真正说来，黑格尔国家哲学所产生的影响如此广泛，以致于马克思也还是脱离不了时代。尽管人们还可能认为，他的政治思想能够因此获得其新的哲学立足点。所以，在《黑格尔法哲学批判》以及随后的著作中，按照他尚未认真研究经济现实以前的思想习惯，马克思并未思考如何能够区分无产阶级和共产党之间关系这样一个有趣的问题。只要存在集团或集体人格，马克思政治哲学就有责任为共产党的内在和外在生命去梳理、规制和发展适用的纪律或规则。这种观点尤其见诸阿尔都塞、葛兰西、巴迪欧等人的言论。所有人都希望能够在这儿完成他们对马克思苛求的事情。为填补所谓马克思关于国家、意识形态、党和政治的空白做出努力。

However, what we know should not leave us confused because of the aforementioned heterogeneous phenomenon. In any case, Marx’s most valuable critique of Hegel’s idea of the state and bureaucracy must be taken seriously. He pointed out, “The universal spirit of bureaucracy is the secret; it is mystery; keeping this secret is maintained internally within the bureaucracy by hierarchy, and externally by its closed guild-like character.” [4]4 Karl Marx, *Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right* (1843), referring to the bureaucratic state’s reliance on secrecy and hierarchy. For Marx, what was important was to establish the principle of the unity of opposites for exposing state politics: the expectation that a meritocratic politics could emerge from the transformation of old bureaucratic organizations is illusory. Therefore, what is involved here is a political party inserted between state and society and the objective material conditions for its healthy development. If we know that history has laws, then can the history of a political party win the conditions for its victory only through the formation and delimitation of content that reflects these historical laws? The answer is affirmative. But Marx did not elaborate on this, and many interpret this as a “blank left by Marx.” They take Marx’s thought too literally. Here we might instead ask a different question: Is there no decisive organizational form of political life that particularly conditions the arrival of historical laws on the scene? In terms of consciousness, Marx indeed left the study of this question to others. But this question remains before every Marxist party to this day. Here we must mention a view that has long been mainstream in the West and is still endorsed by those who oppose communism: that communists are determined by the friend-enemy distinction to endorse common life; they possess “the strongest will,” “the most ruthless, the most daring, the greatest ability to command subordinates, and the best judgment of the intensity of various forces in the directly relevant political sphere.” [5]5 This phrasing echoes Carl Schmitt’s friend-enemy distinction in *The Concept of the Political* (1927), though applied here to communist party characterizations by Western critics. And we know that in the political field today, these rigid metaphysical “persona settings” (or party ethics) are dissolved into the uncertain relationship between the ideal and the real. It is quite important to maintain a clear critical height of Marx’s political philosophy regarding the basis of these “persona settings.”

不过，我们知道的东西不能因为上述所谓相异现象使得我们不明就里。无论如何，马克思对黑格尔国家理念及官僚政治最有价值的批判应被重视。他指出，“官僚政治的普遍精神是秘密；是奥秘；保守这种秘密在官僚政治内部靠等级制，对于外界则靠它那种封闭的同业公会性质。”对马克思而言，重要的是确定揭露国家政治的对立统一原则：期望贤能政治能从旧官僚群体组织变革中产生的想法是虚幻的。所以，在这儿涉及到的是一个插入国家和社会之中的政党及健康发展的客观物质条件。如果我们知道历史是有规律的，那么一个政党的历史是否只有通过这种反映历史规律的内容的形成和限定才能赢得它胜利的条件？答案是肯定的。但是，马克思对此没有细谈，许多人将此解释为是马克思的“留白”做出的。他们太字面地看待马克思的思想了。我们在这里或许可以换一种问法：是否并不存在特别制约着历史规律到达现场的政治生活的决定性组织形式？从意识上讲，马克思将这种问题的研究的确留给了其他人。但是，这个问题直到今天依然摆在每个马克思主义政党面前。这里须提及一种长期以来占西方主流的、如今仍然由那些反对共产主义者所认同的观点是，共产党人是由敌友划分决断而赞成共同生活：他们有“最强大的意志”、“最无情、最大胆、最具有统帅部下的能力、能对直接相关政治领域中各种势力的强度做出最佳判断。”而我们知道，在今天政治领域，这些生硬的形而上“人设”（或政党伦理）被消解于理想的和现实的不确定关系之中。对这些“人设”的根据保持明确的马克思政治哲学的批判高度相当重要。

If we acknowledge that Marx’s *Communist Manifesto* did not complete this task, then the most important point is that the Communist Party must revolutionize according to historical laws. The novelty of this revolution lies in the fact that it is not under a supreme god, nor is it within the spontaneity of liberal individual freedom. In the transcendence of historical materialism, any principle “based on the ideas or principles invented or discovered by this or that world reformer” is false. [6]6 Paraphrase of *Communist Manifesto* (1848), Part II, where Marx and Engels reject “principles invented by world reformers.” Here, modern party politics further embeds communist doctrine into the paradox of the so-called legitimacy crisis: in the original meaning of the word “party” in both modern Chinese and Western contexts, people gather and separate largely because of particular interests or beliefs. Yet, if they do not gather for the sake of particular interests or beliefs, then would the Communist Party, which gathers only for common interests, be merely a collective name, a “specter”? Gramsci particularly emphasized this issue. He believed, “If it is admitted that everything one does always benefits someone’s interests, the most important thing is to succeed in achieving one’s own interests by every possible means — in other words, to obtain a decisive victory. In any case, one must despise the party’s self-satisfaction and replace it with concrete facts. Anyone who is more self-satisfied, or who replaces concrete facts with self-satisfaction, should not be taken seriously at all.” [7]7 Antonio Gramsci, *Selections from the Prison Notebooks* (1971), on the need for concrete facts over party self-satisfaction. Gramsci immediately saw this problem as the cyclical and persistent nature of distinguishing proletarian revolutionary consciousness. “Especially when the answer is beyond doubt — hence doubt always arises.” [8]8 Gramsci, on the persistent doubt in revolutionary consciousness. It can be seen that for Western Marxists, many interpretations are possible, and none may be absolutely correct. Lukács addressed this issue through the mediation of dialectics. What he considered was the perspective that the Communist Party must both be identical with the proletariat and simultaneously be distinguished from it.

如果承认马克思关于《共产党宣言》并未就此完成该任务，那么最重要的一点是，共产党要根据历史规律来革命。这种革命的新颖之处在于，不是在一个最高的神之下，但也不是在自由主义的个人自由自发性之中。在历史唯物主义的超越中，凡是“以这个或那个世界改革家所发明或发现的思想、原则为根据的”原理都是虚假的。在这里，现代政党政治进一步把共产主义学说嵌入所谓正当性危机的悖论：以现代中西语境中“党”这个词的本义来说，人的聚集和分开大致因为特殊利益或信仰，然而，如果不为特殊利益或信仰的原因聚集，那么只为共同利益而集合的共产党岂非徒具集合名称、成了“幽灵”？葛兰西特别强调这一问题。他认为，“如果承认某人所做的一切始终有利于某人的利益，最重要的一点就是要千方百计成功达成自己的利益———换言之，要获得决定性的胜利。无论如何，必须鄙弃党的自满，取而代之以具体的事实。任何更加自满、或者用自满取代具体事实的人都根本不必当真。”9葛兰西立即看出此问题作为无产阶级革命意识甑别的循环性、持久性。“尤其在答案不容置疑的时候———因此总是产生疑问。”可以看到，对于西方马克思主义者来说，许多解释都是可能的，也可能没有一个是绝对正确的。卢卡奇则以辩证中介的方式来言说这一问题。他所考虑的是，共产党既要与无产阶级同一，又要同时从无产阶级区分开来的视角。

The famous “transcendence” of Marxist party theory from the perspective of Hegelian philosophy and alienation is merely a joke and a dream of empty talk. It summons the highly problematic dream of political totality. The decisive criterion for the definition of the Communist Party (and, relatedly, the fate of humanity) here comes very close to the field of metaphysical research. But for us, we cannot actually measure the maturity of class consciousness. We cannot say it is like 1+1=2. Therefore, Lukács is the same as the Platonists. According to Lukács’s standard, the concept of the Communist Party should be defined in terms of “one of the most important spiritual problems of the revolution.” [9]9 Georg Lukács, *History and Class Consciousness* (1923), on the party as the spiritual problem of revolution. On the one hand, in Lukács’s view, bourgeois parties, as mere “parties of public opinion” lacking this organizational and totalizing capacity, risk being ground to dust in the mill of modern parties that achieve totality in themselves; on the other hand, for the Communist Party, “the question of maturity or immaturity can only be judged by whether a view of what should be done exists in the consciousness of the acting class and the party leading it in an abstract and immediate form, or in a concrete and mediated form. When an objective goal is still far out of reach, an observer with particularly keen insight will be able to see the goal itself, its nature, and its social necessity with a certain degree of clarity. However, they will not be able to clearly distinguish the concrete steps that would lead to that goal or the concrete means deduced from their undoubtedly correct insight.” [10]10 Lukács, *History and Class Consciousness*, on the mediation of concrete steps in revolutionary consciousness. As we see today, every Platonist still faces the difficulty of clearly distinguishing the connection between ideal and reality, will and action. And from the perspective of the ideological elements of a Marxist party’s existence, there are in fact far more norms than the correct elucidation of the total ideological elements of the revolutionary question: for example, justice, spiritual equality, freedom, loyalty, fraternity, etc. In Lukács’s view, in class consciousness, communists win the greatest possible approximation to the mode of existence of the highest grantor. Treat the organized Communist Party as a person! Does this not precisely show that politics does not at all contradict class consciousness, but rather conforms to it? Of course, here Lukács resembles a saint engaged in political preaching, and he falls back again: it is both an expression of skepticism and of dogmatic belief regarding the political problem of Communist Party dogmatism. In our view, this means that the logic of collective action enclosed within the order defined by class and historical subject once again falls into the dangerous terrain of subjectivism and activism.

著名的从黑格尔哲学和异化角度对马克思主义政党学说的“超越”只是一个笑话和空谈的梦。它呼唤那很成问题的政治总体性梦想。共产党定义（以及与此相关联的是人类的命运）的决定性标准在这里非常接近形而上研究领域。但是，对于我们而言，我们实际上无法测量出阶级意识的成熟度。我们不能说，它就像1+1=2一样。因此，卢卡奇跟柏拉图主义者是一样的。按照卢卡奇的标准，共产党的概念应按照“革命的最重要的精神问题之一”来定义。一方面，在卢卡奇看来，作为单纯“民意政党”而缺乏这种组织和总体能力的资产阶级政党，将陷入在自身达到总体的现代政党之磨中被磨成齑粉的危险；另一方面，对于共产党来说，“成熟还是不成熟的问题只能这样来判断，即看一种关于应做什么的见解在行动的阶级和领导它的党的意识中是以抽象和直接的形式存在呢，还是以具体和有中介的形式存在。当一个客观目标还在达不到的远处时，具有特别敏锐洞察力的观察者将能够在某种程度上清楚地看到目标本身、它的性质和它的社会必然性。然而，他们将不能够清楚地分辨会导致那个目标的具体步骤或是从他们无疑正确的洞察力中推断的具体手段。”就如我们今天所看到的，每个柏拉图主义者都还面临明确区分理想和现实、意志和行动之间连结的困难。而从一个马克思主义政党存在的意识形态要素来说，事实上存在比正确阐明革命问题意识形态总体要素还有多得多的规范：例如正义、精神平等、自由、忠诚、友爱等。以卢卡奇之见，在阶级意识中，共产党人赢获了对最高授予人的存在样式的最大可能的接近。将有组织的共产党视为人来对待！这不正是表明政治完全不会与阶级意识相矛盾，而恰恰是与阶级意识相符合吗？当然，卢卡奇在这里神似一个进行政治说教的圣人，他又重新堕落回来：既是对共产党教条主义政治问题的怀疑论也是信念论的表达。在我们看来，这意味着封闭在阶级和历史主体所定义秩序中的集体行动逻辑又陷入一个主观主义、行动主义之危险的境地。

All these explanations of the various reasons why the ontological foundation of Marx’s philosophy has been obscured easily lead to the situation that the study of the concept of the Communist Party has never again reached the height Marx once attained. Nevertheless, in the twentieth century Lenin once again became the “first” communist, albeit only for a very short historical period. First, what was Marx thinking about when he spoke of the “Communist Party”? In Marx’s view, “What opposition party has not been decried as communistic by its ruling opponents? And what opposition party has not hurled back the reproach of communism, both against the more progressive opposition parties and against its reactionary adversaries?” [11]11 The League of the Just (Bund der Gerechten) was a secret revolutionary organization founded in 1836, primarily composed of German émigré artisans. It was the direct predecessor of the Communist League, for which Marx and Engels wrote the *Communist Manifesto* in 1848. From this factual description, it suffices to regard Lenin as the greatest politician of the twentieth century: on the one hand, Lenin attached importance to developing Marx’s theory of the state. He saw that, between the state, the government, and the people, there exist various stable, organized, and pluralistic total parties; on the other hand, the Communist Party is organizationally independent, and it is precisely thus that it persists in the pursuit of the common universal interests of the people or in its faith. Everything the Communists do is always aimed at benefiting the interests of the people. The origin set by communist philosophy is not a particular being, but the embodiment of the dialectical spirit—the proletariat. Hence, Lenin could fully endorse Marx’s view: “It is high time that Communists should openly, in the face of the whole world, publish their views, their aims, their tendencies, and meet this nursery tale of the specter of communism with a manifesto of the Party itself.” [12]12 Marx, *Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right. Introduction*.

所有这些说明马克思哲学存在论基础被遮蔽的各种原因，很容易造成共产党这个概念研究再也没有达到过马克思曾经达到的高度。尽管如此，在二十世纪列宁再次成了“第一个”共产党人，虽然仅仅是很短的历史时间。首先，当马克思说“共产党”的时候所思考的是什么呢？在马克思看来，“有哪一个反对党不被它的当政的敌人骂为共产党呢？又有哪一个反对党不拿共产主义这个罪名去回敬更进步的反对党人和自己的反动敌人呢？”从这个事实描述中足以使我们把列宁看成20世纪最伟大的政治家：一方面，列宁重视发展马克思的国家理论。他看到，在国家、政府与人民之间，并列着各式各样的稳定的、有组织的、多元的总体政党；另一方面，共产党在组织上的独立，而且就是这样有人民的共同普遍利益追求或信仰坚持着。共产党人所做的一切始终以有利于人民的利益为目的。共产党人哲学所设定的本原不是一个特殊存在者，而是辩证法精神化身———无产阶级。由此，列宁尽可以赞成马克思的观点：“现在是共产党人向全世界公开说明自己的观点、自己的目的、自己的意图并且拿党自己的宣言来反驳关于共产主义幽灵的神话的时候了。”

Lenin made people realize that the definition of modern party politics is problematic, because a party that opposes particular interests within a liberal system is a false party, a party that, at best, can only use the pretext of voters’ interests to change certain budget items and provide some petty favors for the party’s clients. Today, in the Western political ecosystem, examples are legion. In fact, in modern party political life, a party without an opposition party is indeed a ghostly existence. The reason for this is that political possibilities are related to the form of small-group interests. Therefore, Marx’s earlier words can be expressed more acutely: the persistent

列宁让人们认识到，现代政党政治定义是成问题的，因为一个自由体制中的相互反对特殊利益的政党是一个虚假的政党，一个充其量只能借口选民的利益改变某些预算项目并为政党的被庇护人提供某些小恩小惠的政党。如今，在西方政治生态中，事例不胜枚举。事实上，在现代政党政治生活中，一个没有反对党的政党确实是幽灵般的存在。之所以如此，是因为，政治可能性跟小集团利益形式相关。因此，马克思前面的话，可以更敏锐地得到表达：对共产主义的持久反对就是共产主义在持续存在中的证明。旧阶级社会内部的所有反对党的产生或消灭与此不可同日而语。

However, it now becomes clear that this is also not a proposition of logical analysis, nor, from the nature of judgment, is it in any way a self-evident proposition. If the free association of individuals is the philosophical foundation of communism, then what will this association that replaces class antagonism look like? Can one name it by a single one of its stages? Can we see with our own eyes the whole of the Communist Party’s body (organism)? We see that, for analysis, the name is the point of contention, because what it signifies helps to define existence through the characteristics of practice (time). Dialectics teaches us that motion is the fundamental determination of the world. Hence, Weber did not believe that the *Communist Manifesto* could envision the totality of a free association of individual personalities. At this point, the *Communist Manifesto* “remained silent.” But, in Marx’s view, things possessing the character of association (things that can be associated) are not things that have already been attained and completed anywhere. They are non-ready-made. From this we can probably understand that from these opposing positions some truth of the future revolutionary community has already been discovered. Moreover, when Marx “refutes the myth of the specter of communism,” why he could no longer rely on the name of the “League of the Just” [11]11 The League of the Just (Bund der Gerechten) was a secret revolutionary organization founded in 1836, primarily composed of German émigré artisans. It was the direct predecessor of the Communist League, for which Marx and Engels wrote the *Communist Manifesto* in 1848. (even the actual organization for which Marx and Engels wrote the *Communist Manifesto*, the “Communist League,” does not appear in this text) is undoubtedly well-founded. We must turn back to grasp the entire historical process itself, and the only thing that can be grasped is historical existence.

但是，现在表明，这也不是一个逻辑分析的命题，从判断的本质来说也根本不是什么明白易懂的命题。如果说，个人自由联合是共产主义的哲学基础，那么，代替阶级对立的这种联合体将是什么样子？人们能否用它的一个单独的阶段来称呼它？我们能否亲眼看到共产党躯体（有机体）的整体？我们看到，对分析来说，名称就是争端，因为它所意味的东西是以实践（时间）特征帮助规定存在的。辩证法告诉我们，运动是世界的基本规定。所以，韦伯不相信，《共产党宣言》能够看得见有个性的个人自由联合体的全体。至此《共产党宣言》“保持了沉默。”但是，在马克思看来，具有联合特征的东西（可以联合起来的东西），不是在任何地方都已经达到和完成了的东西。它们是非现成的。由此我们大概就理解了，从这些相对立的立场中已经发现某种未来革命共同体的真实性。而且，当马克思在“反驳关于共产主义幽灵的神话”的时候，为什么他不能再依赖于“正义者同盟”名称（连马克思和恩格斯代表其写作《共产党宣言》的实际组织“共产主义者同盟”在这个文本里也并未出现）无疑是有根据的。我们须转回去把握整个历史过程自身，而唯一可以把握的东西是历史存在。

II. An Ontological Critique of the Differences in the Concept of the Communist Party

二、共产党概念的差异的本体论批判

Unlike natural history, the common life of humanity is a common life constituted by the intended and unintended actual results of the actions of people whose wills are in conflict. Within the scope of the modern state, all efforts to transform naturally existing interests into a structure of conflict with consistency are realized through the will of political parties. The will and actions of a party that realizes all leadership seek not only to control its own conditions of existence but also to control the conditions of existence of all members of society. Formally, this party will and action is always divided into part and whole, active and passive, leader and masses, individual and collective, periphery and center, and so on. However, according to historical materialism, this difference is not demarcated by us for each party will and action, but is demarcated by each party will and action itself among the various already existing factors, and it is demarcated not according to concepts but under the influence of conflicts in material conditions of life. Therefore, there is no doubt that this difference cannot be a phenomenon of formalization or subjective decision but a distinction in the ontological sense (concerning the essence of reality).

有别于自然历史，人类的共同生活是由存在着意志冲突的人的行动的目的预期和非预期的实际结果的共同生活。在现代国家范围内，一切将自然存在的利益转变为那冲突结构以一致性的做法都要经由政党意志得到实现。一切领导权得到实现的政党意志和行动除了希图控制自己的生存条件以外，还希图控制社会全体成员的生存条件。在形式上，这种政党意志和行动总是被划分为部分和整体、能动和被动、领袖和群众、个体和集体、边缘和中心等。然而，根据唯物史观，这种差别不是我们为每个政党意志和行动划定的，而是每个政党意志和行动本身在既存的各种不同的因素之间划定的，而且不是根据概念而是在物质生活条件冲突的影响下划定的。因此，毫无疑问，这种差别不可能是一种形式化或主观决断的现象而是一种本体论（关于现实之本质）意义上的区分。

From Marx’s point of view, before the emergence of the community of the proletariat, the political essence of humanity was, in its fundamental aspect, a relationship between domination and being dominated. The community that grew up on the basis of abstract utopian idealism and naturalism with the same foundation was a shaping of a human political power structure that was both united and separated. The strategic means by which traditional Western political parties form political will, act, and possess capacity for action is: this party attacks that party, all parties attack the state and government, until they lose their social content as organizational carriers, as if suspended in midair. However, the Communist Party has inaugurated a new era from the political spirit. Broadly speaking, this era is to move toward the future under the condition that the community of the proletariat “controls its own conditions of existence and the conditions of existence of all members of society”; that is, it is to continue until the disappearance of political society, the abolition of the instrumental view of democracy, and the birth of a society that coordinates the structure of conflict into consistency. In other words, the Communist Party begins to become aware of the various ontological differences cited above, and it will also become aware of the social conditions of existence that change these ontological differences. In this sense, the Communist Party in the context of Marx’s political philosophy can be called the “community of the revolutionary proletariat,” and this designation is indeed more precise.

从马克思观点看，在无产者的共同体绽出之前，人的政治本质在根本方面是支配和被支配之间的关系。在抽象的乌托邦理想主义和具有同样基础的自然主义之上成长起来的共同体，乃是形塑一种既联合又分离的人类政治权力结构。西方传统政党形成政治意志的方法、有行动和作为能力的策略性手段是：此一政党攻击另一政党，所有政党攻击国家和政府，直至丧失自己在作为组织载体的社会内涵，仿佛虚悬在半空。然而，共产党却从政治精神上开创了一个新的时代。大体说来，这个时代要在无产者共同体“控制了自己的生存条件和社会全体成员的生存条件”下走向未来，就是说，要一直持续到政治社会消失、工具性民主观的废除，以及协调冲突一致结构的社会诞生。换言之，共产党开始意识到前面引述的种种本体论的差别，它也将意识到改变这种本体论差别的社会存在状况。在这一意义上，马克思政治哲学语境中的共产党可以被称作“革命无产者的共同体”，而且这种叫法也确实更确切。

The significance of what Lukács called the organizational question for the real political form of the Communist Party is also contained in the problem just outlined. Of course, historically and realistically, this question is very complex. Hence, it is dangerous to think that we have discovered a formulaic “law” of the Communist Party’s political problem; it is equally dangerous to view the organizational concept of the Communist Party purely statically according to the unity of class consciousness. Now, we already have a more acute understanding of the unified revolutionary spirit of Communists than Western Marxism. In fact, the history of thought shows that the concept of the Communist Party as action should be understood from the perspective of revolutionary practical activity, not as an academic theoretical debate or according to the predetermined content description of the *Communist Manifesto*. But if we combine these two aspects, then we will be better able to solve practical problems with practical wisdom. Here we will proceed from the practice of the Communist Party and explore this question through the elucidation of basic concepts.

卢卡奇所谓的组织问题对于共产党的真实政治形式的意义也包含在刚刚所勾勒的问题中。当然，历史现实地看，这个问题十分复杂。因而，以为我们发现了共产党的政治问题的公式化的“规律”，是危险的；纯粹静止地按照阶级意识的统一来看待共产党的组织概念，也同样是危险的。现在，我们已经有了对共产党人的统一的革命精神比西方马克思主义更加敏锐的理解。事实上，思想史表明，作为行动的共产党概念应从革命实践活动上，而非作为学院式理论争论或依《共产党宣言》既定的内容说明书来理解。但是，如果我们将这两个方面结合起来，那么我们将有利于用实践智慧解决实践问题。我们在此将从共产党的实践出发，通过对基本概念的阐发来探讨这个问题。

First, the proletarian party can discern in the contemporary economic gap between rich and poor classes a basis for the action of thought. This is a confirmation of historical inevitability. Marx said that communists, because they “suffer universal suffering,” are prepared to act against the entire existing world system. That is, in order for all members of society to freely develop their individuality, or for individuality itself to open up in the historical state where the essence of human labor is unveiled, communists raise the slogan of the unity of the proletarians of all countries. However, the united community of class individuals becoming individuals with personality is not merely a matter of party organization. It is also wrong to regard it only as a political issue unrelated to social problems. We say that it is first and foremost a matter of correctly understanding the economic gap; as long as this issue has become a matter of conscious action for the communist party, then the modern social structure that transforms economic disparity into anthropological disparity must be abolished. From this arises the question: how can “individuals with personality” be won from historical inevitability? This is inseparable from the fact that the guiding principle of communism is the principle of historicity. On the one hand, “the abolition of previously existing relations of property is not a feature peculiar to communism.” All relations of property, including private property, undergo historical change. Extinction is merely a customary name for generation as generally understood. On the other hand, as long as property exists as a mode of production involving “the exploitation of some by others,” and as such, the historical task of the communist invention of the united free individual subject’s purposive property will certainly not be completely finished. Because, for private property, a right without a subject is a contradictory right, and the “purpose” of wealth will likewise shrink into a fictitious subject of right. Only in historical movement do they constantly generate new possibilities. This is the actual significance of the history of the communist movement. This significance has of course not yet been clearly highlighted. Marx only prospectively indicated where the actual possibility of human emancipation lies. The answer is: “the formation of a class with radical chains, a class of civil society which is not a class of civil society…” [12]12 Marx, *Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right. Introduction*.

首先，无产阶级政党可以从当代阶级之间的贫富经济差距中看到一种思想的行动的基础。这是一种关于历史必然性的确认。马克思说，共产党人为了“自己遭受普遍苦难”之故，做好了反对迄今整个世界制度的行动准备。也就是说，为了社会所有成员自由发展个性自身，或者，个性自身将在人的劳动本质被解蔽的历史状态中敞开来，共产党人提出全世界无产者的联合起来的口号。但是，作为阶级的个人而成为有个性的个人的联合共同体不仅仅是一个党的组织问题。只把它看作是一个与社会问题无关的政治问题也是错的。我们说，它首先是对经济差距的正确认识问题，只要这个问题已经成为共产党人有意识行动的问题，那么就应当消灭那种把经济差距变成人类学差距的现代性社会结构。由此，引出的问题是，怎样能够从历史必然性中赢获“有个性的个人”？这跟共产主义的主导原则是历史性的原则分不开的。一方面，“废除先前存在的所有制关系，并不是共产主义所独具的特征。”包括私有制在内的一切所有制关系都经历着历史的变更。消亡只是一般理解中的生成的一个习惯的名称。另一方面，只要所有制作为“一些人对另一些人的剥削”的生产方式存在着的，作为如此方式存在着的，共产党发明联合起来的自由个人主体的目的财产之历史任务无疑不会彻底完结。因为，对于私有财产而言，没有主体的权利是矛盾的权利，财富之“目的”同样会缩变成拟制的权利主体。只是在历史运动中，它们总是在产生新的可能性。这就是共产主义运动历史的实际意义。这个意义当然迄今还没有明确突出出来。马克思只是前瞻性地指明了，人类解放的实际可能性到底在哪里？答案就在于，“形成一个被彻底戴上锁链的阶级，一个并非市民社会阶级的市民社会阶级……”。

Why is it called “a class of civil society which is not a class of civil society”? The ontological difference is still the answer. Clearly, when the working class continuously struggles against the division of labor, or against private property, and when Christianity itself is daubed with the socialist color of opposing private property, what should we use to fill the “blank” connecting the division of labor and private property? On the one hand, Marx clearly and distinctly describes the objective condition of the split between the individual and their social role as manifested in the proletariat; on the other hand, Marx emphatically highlights the differentiated cognition of alienated experiences among different proletarians, semi-proletarians, the peasantry, and the petty bourgeoisie. And the proletariat will demonstrate “the total loss of humanity, and therefore can only recover itself through the total recovery of humanity.” It is noteworthy that this “recovery” is emphasized and understood in Marx’s philosophy as the foundation and basis of social existence. This implies a kind of philosophical communism, a kind of fiction of the concept of the communist party, and the meaning of fiction should merely be: the total recovery of humanity, returning to the original place is called recovery. In fact, it should be called the renewal of humanity, starting anew, starting again from that fundamental point. Seen in this light, there has traditionally been a mistaken view of Marx’s philosophy of the communist party, holding that Marx’s theory of the world-historical structure, like the hexagram names of the *Yijing* [13]13 *Yijing* (I Ching, *Book of Changes*), an ancient Chinese divination and philosophical text. or the “Return” hexagram (Di Lei Fu) [14]14 Di Lei Fu (地雷复) is the 24th hexagram of the *Yijing*, symbolizing return or revival., explains the principle of recovery. Its premise is a unified order of the whole driven by the Way of Nature.

为什么叫“非市民社会阶级的市民社会阶级”呢？存在论的差异，这依然是答案。很清楚，当工人阶级不断地进行反对分工，或反对私有制的斗争时，当基督教也涂抹上反对私有财产的社会主义色彩时，我们应当用什么填充分工和私有财产联系的“空白”？一方面，马克思把个体和他的社会角色之间的分裂所体现在无产阶级身上的客观状况描写得清楚分明，另一方面，马克思又突出强调对不同的无产阶级、半无产阶级、农民阶级和小资产阶级等之间异化经验的差别认知。而无产阶级将表明“人的完全丧失，并因而只有通过人的完全回复才能回复自己本身。”值得注意的是，这个“回复”在马克思哲学里作为社会存在基础、根据被强调和理解。这意味着对于一种哲学共产主义、对于共产党概念的一种拟制，而拟制的意思应该仅仅是，人的完全回复，回到本来那个地方谓之回复。实际上应当叫人的复新，重新来，重新从那个根本处来。这样看来，传统上有一种对马克思的共产党的哲学的错误看法，认为，马克思的世界历史结构理论，如同以《易经》的卦名或地雷复，阐释回复的原则。其前提是一个由自然之道推动的统一秩序整体。

If this were truly the case, could the naturalistic mode of thinking open up the ontological horizon of communist theory? Absolutely not! Marx believed that even in terms of writing, it is impossible to turn back and forth. I cannot elaborate in detail here, only mention it briefly.

果真如此的话，那么，自然主义思维方式，能开启共产主义学说的存在论境域吗？决然不能！马克思认为，即使在文字方面也不可能倒转来回转去。在此我无法进行详述，只能大略一提。

It is noteworthy that since the birth of the modern bourgeoisie, it has been accustomed to believing that only communities based on national culture can exist. Similarly, national communities also generate rights, but regarding rights, they are not a unified subject but a split and plurality of subjects. Political parties are similar to this situation. For bourgeois political philosophy, anthropological homogeneity is also linked to the foundation of political democracy through immutable bloodlines. However, for the community of the proletariat, the bourgeoisie merely appeals to democratic equality demands. In fact, equality in a barbaric state (what Marx called “prehistory”) is itself utterly insufficient to serve as the foundation of communism. So, what kind of ideological foundation can enable the proletariat to terminate the democratic equality of the ruling class? According to the interpretation of the word “communism” (communisme), it is “communalism.”

值得注意的是，现代资产阶级诞生以来，他就习惯地认为只有基于民族文化的共同体才有可能存在。同样地，民族共同体也会生成权利，只是对于权利，其并不是主体性统一体，而是主体性的分裂和多元。政党与此情况类似。对于资产阶级政治哲学而言，人类学的同质性也通过不可改变的血脉与政治民主的根据联系起来。然而，对于无产者的共同体而言，资产阶级只是诉诸民主平等要求。实际上，一个野蛮状态（马克思说的“史前史”）中的平等本身决不足以成为共产主义的基础。那么，是什么样的思想基础才能使无产阶级终结统治阶级的民主性平等呢？按照对共产主义（communisme）这个词的解释，那就是，“共同主义”。

What “communalism” refers to should not be thought of literally. If our basic understanding of Marxian “communalism” is correct, it must point to the general problem or horizon of historical materialism. From the perspective that any interpretation is a kind of translation: why the character “产” (property) in this “communalism” system is completely hidden in the Chinese translation is a noteworthy issue. Generally speaking, to explore the necessity of revolution and construction by the communist party organization is to point out the historical inevitability of abolishing private property. Some believe that Marxism as a philosophy and worldview is described through the sketch of a transformation of the property system. However, the original formulation of this question is: what must exist in order to “turn existing conditions into conditions of association”? [15]15 Marx and Engels, *The German Ideology*. People once devised a theory of property aimed at “sharing” to answer this, but it merely postponed the fiction. Because maintaining the “sharing” of something always seems to have already escaped the possibility of “sharing,” as if nominally “common” “sharing” is in reality “single” “vehicle.” [16]16 A Chinese pun: “common” (共, gong) and “single” (单, dan); “sharing” (享, xiang) and “vehicle” (车, che). The phrase “单车” (danche) means “bicycle” or “single vehicle,” contrasting with the idea of genuine commonality. Or, all “sharing” rights are at most the common rights of the majority. What is now certain is that the famous translator Xu Yuanchong, as early as the 1950s, pointed out that the original meaning of “communisme” does not contain “property” (产). [17]17 Xu Yuanchong (1921–2021), renowned Chinese translator, known for rendering classical Chinese poetry into English and French. Of course, here it simply becomes connected with a purposeless subject. French-style thinking also understands “communism” under the broader original grasp of the meaning of “common” (commun). That is, in terms of writing, “communism” “should rather be translated as ‘communalism’.” [18]18 Reference to a French etymological or philosophical interpretation of “communism.” However, the fact of textual translation seems to contradict the whole of history. Thus, another step is taken. If one can only assign each member of society their position and hierarchical structure in the whole based on the flesh and blood of natural persons and the distribution of wealth rights, then for understanding Marx’s own explanation of communist history, one must have the perspective of overthrowing power through revolution. [19]19 Reference to the necessity of revolutionary overthrow of existing power structures. The polysemy of the translation of basic concepts described here is at most a speculation based on the scope set by an idea, akin to struggling with the shadow cast by things.

“共同主义”所指是什么，对这个问题不应字面地思考。如果我们对马克思式的“共同主义”的基本理解是正确的，就必须指向一般的历史唯物主义问题或境域。从任何解释都是翻译意义看：这一“共同主义”体制中的“产”字为什么被汉语翻译完全隐藏了，这是值得注意的问题。通常说来，要探讨共产党组织的革命和建设的必要性问题，就是要指明消灭私有制的历史必然性问题。有人认为，马克思主义作为哲学和世界观都是通过一场财产制度的转变这个草图被描述的。不过，这个问题原本的问题提法是，为了“把现存的条件变成联合的条件”，6什么东西必须存在。人们曾经拟制以“共享”为目的财产理论予以解答，但只不过推迟了拟制。因为保持“共享”某种东西似乎总已经逃离了“共享”之可能性的东西，仿佛名义上“共”“享”实质上“单”“车”。或者说，所有的“共享”权利至多不过是多数人的共同权利。现在肯定的是：著名翻译家许渊冲早在20世纪50年代，就指出“communisme”本意当中并没有“产”。当然，在此也就简单地与无主体的目的发生了联系。法国式的思考同样将“共产主义”放在源初地更广泛把握“共同”（commun）的意义下来理解“共产主义”。也就是说，在文字上，“共产主义”“倒更应该译为‘共同主义’。”13但是，文字翻译这一事实看起来好像是同整个历史矛盾的。于是又走上一步。如果只能根据自然人的血肉和财富的权利分配给每个社会成员在整体的位置和上下级结构，那么对于理解马克思对共产主义历史本身的解释而言必须要有通过革命打倒权力的视野6。人们在这里描述的基本概念翻译的多义性至多不过是根据一个理念设定范围的推测，类似跟事物投射的影子斗争。

We can cite a most salient example: imagine the dialogue between Marx and Proudhon. Marx had to deal with Proudhon for many years, and the focus was property rights. Could two such influential interlocutors actually converse with one another? There appears to be a clear mutual incomprehension. Yet each accused the other of being a scientific charlatan. On Marx’s side, he charged that Proudhon did not even believe in his own socialist reform program, that Proudhon lacked Party spirit in the field of socialist theory, and that he merely attempted to oppose private property on the basis of private property. On Proudhon’s side, he denied Marx’s accusations and refused to admit that he harbored petty-bourgeois socialist ideas. On the contrary, “he persistently advised Marx not to fall into the same contradiction as his compatriot Martin Luther had fallen into, for after overthrowing Catholic theology, Martin Luther immediately and zealously raised the banner of Protestant theology and wantonly resorted to excommunication and anathema.” [20]20 This is a reference to Proudhon’s advice to Marx, as recorded in their polemical exchanges, comparing Marx’s alleged dogmatism to Martin Luther’s shift from Catholic reform to Protestant orthodoxy. In the end, Proudhon wished to clarify the facts of Marx’s accusations, to show that his views were “obviously entirely consistent with the will of the French working class.” But as the struggle with Marx continued, Proudhon gradually lost the courage he had boasted of for revolution. From this matter we can see that although both Marx and Proudhon expressed their own views on the abolition of private property, neither considered whether civil society and the civil class could understand them. From Marx’s standpoint, the error Proudhon committed was sectarianism and petty-bourgeois partisanship. But now all these views have become problematic. In Mehring’s view, when Proudhon applied some of the clichés against private property elsewhere, and whether in writing his works, forming his dreams, or in his moral critique of life, he was actually more influential than Marx.

我们可以举出一个最显著的例子：拟想一下马克思与蒲鲁东的对话。马克思一生在许多年中不得不同蒲鲁东打交道，其焦点是所有权。如此有影响的两位对话人能够相互交谈吗？看起来有明显的互不理解。但是他们都说对方是科学上的骗子。马克思一方，指控蒲鲁东连自己都不信社会主义改革方案，蒲鲁东在社会主义理论领域没有党性，他只是企图在私有财产的基础上反对私有财产。蒲鲁东一方，则否认马克思的指控，不承认自己有小资产阶级社会主义的想法。反过来，“他坚持劝告马克思不要堕入他的同胞马丁·路德所曾堕入的那种矛盾，因为马丁·路德在推翻了天主教神学以后马上就热心地举起了新教神学的旗帜，并且一味滥施革教和破门的手段。”最后，蒲鲁东希望就马克思指控的那些事实进行澄清，以表明他的观点与“法国工人阶级的意愿显然是完全一致的”，但是随着与马克思的斗争，蒲鲁东也渐渐失去了他自炫革命的勇气。从这件事上我们可以看出，虽然马克思和蒲鲁东每个人都说出了自己对消灭私有财产的看法，却没有考虑，市民社会及市民阶级是否能够理解。站在马克思一方，蒲鲁东犯的错误是宗派主义、小资产阶级拥趸。但现在所有这些看法都变得有问题了。在梅林看来，当蒲鲁东把反对私有财产的一些陈词滥调用在了别的地方，而且，无论是写成著作还是形成梦，还是在生活中的道德批判方面，反倒比马克思更有影响力。

In this regard, concerning communism, we must have a true understanding. But how must we grasp the communist movement itself? Now, in the word “communisme” we seem to find the same referential relation. We can briefly return from Marx’s critique of Proudhon to the following question, and immediately understand a more sober critical spirit: Is Marx’s “communisme” Marx’s own “communisme,” or is it a “communisme” for which Marx holds a patent and which distinguishes him from all others who use the word? Was it fabricated by him, or does it really exist? Could it be that it is only relevant to those who accept Marx’s analysis and his close friends, or even, as Proudhon charged, a kind of “new religious” view that, when transmitted to the world, “adds new troubles to humanity”? [21]21 This refers to Proudhon’s characterization of Marx’s communism as a new religion that would burden humanity, a charge found in their debates. For over a century, these ever-present latent voices have partly stimulated philosophy’s persistent heated contention over this concept. For the Communist Party of China, this concerns the establishment of the discipline of Marx’s political philosophy and the doctrine of communism. By the same token, it conversely concerns the organizational development of the Communist Party of China itself, demanding how the Communist Party must continuously carry out revolution.

对此，事关共产主义，我们必须有一个真实的看法。但是必须怎样把握共产主义运动自身？现在，我们在“communisme”这个词中似乎能够找到同样的参照关系。我们可以简略地从马克思对蒲鲁东的批判回到下面这个问题上去，立刻可以明白更清醒的批评精神：马克思的“communisme”究竟是马克思本人的“communisme”，还是马克思拥有专利、并同所有其他使用该词的人区别开来的“communisme”？是他编造出来的，还是真的存在？它会不会只和接受马克思分析的人以及他的好友有关，或者，甚至只是像蒲鲁东那样指控的一种“新宗教”观点，传给世人就“给人类增添新的麻烦”呢？15在一个多世纪里，这些始终潜在的声音部分刺激了哲学始终对这个概念保持争讼的热度。因为，对于中国共产党来说，它关系到马克思政治哲学学科和共产主义学说的建立。同理，它反过来也关系中国共产党自身的组织发展，要求共产党怎样不断进行革命。

Clearly, the issue is not one of refutation, but of returning to historical reality and firmly grasping the increasingly mentioned “common” and “commonality.” This “commonality,” in terms of its possibility, lies precisely in the grasp of the category of “communism.” Only the “common” makes “as what” (for example, interest or value, goal or means) different. Perhaps, when we grasp the connection between the word “communisme” and “communism” with a reserved attitude, it does not prevent people from using this historically transmitted name to fabricate various naming theories for this concept. Among these are Leninism, Stalinism, Maoism, etc. It is precisely here that we can see that the distinction of types is not a distinction of proper names in general, but a vivid individual expression of objective historical reality. Among these “communist” genera, the goal pursued is not to advance a process of constructing a completely ready-made, clear political name. But at the same time, it indeed indicates that an ontological distinction continuously entangles the historical process of naming this communist political field itself. At this point, it is particularly important that we should resolutely refuse, as Marx did: we cannot use the name of the Communist Party to deal with people like Bismarck, or rather, the Communist Party “should purge such scoundrels as Lassalle.” [22]22 This alludes to Marx’s rejection of using the Communist Party’s name to accommodate figures like the Prussian Chancellor Otto von Bismarck or the German socialist Ferdinand Lassalle, whom Marx criticized as a factionalist and opportunist.

显然，问题不在于驳难，而在于回到历史实在，牢牢把握日益被提到的“共同”及“共同性”。这个“共同性”就其可能性恰恰在“共同主义”范畴的把握中，只有“共同”才使得“作为什么”（例如，利益或价值、目标或手段）不同。也许，我们在以保留态度把握“communisme”这个词同“共产主义”关联时，并不妨碍人们用这属于历史流传的名称为这一概念制造出各种命名理论。其中有列宁主义、斯大林主义、毛主义等。也正是在这里，我们可以看到，类的区别，不是一般而言的专名的区别构想，而是客观历史现实的生动的个别表达。在这些“共产主义”类属中，所要追求的目的，不是朝向推行一个所谓完全现成的、清晰的政治名称构造过程。但是，与此同时，它也的确指明了一种本体论的区别不断地纠缠着这个共产主义政治领域本身的命名的历史过程。此时，特别重要的是，我们应该像马克思那样坚决拒绝：不能拿共产党的这个名称去对付俾斯麦那样的人，或者说，共产党“应该清除像拉萨尔这样的败类”。

A long-dominant view, still endorsed today by those who support individualist, romantic, and opportunist social conceptions, is that the Communist Party is a fiction created by communists for the purpose of communism. It is created out of nothing. Unfortunately, this cannot be regarded as self-evident. It is said that they were the first to awaken a new sense of community. It is also said that they were the first to discover that communists advocate that “the people” or “the nation” is a super-individual organic unity. However, there are also those who praise the Communist Party and communism as the foundation of objective historical thought. It is said that through the ever-existing fictional tool of the organ, communism is no longer a “specter,” but a visible “organizational person,” a “person” that can be perceived, judged, willed, and acted upon by people. Nevertheless, regarding the rules according to which coordination should be based concerning the organs of individuals or associations of individuals as institutional carriers, the acquisition and loss of the status of organs, and the relationship between the personality of the organ and the personality of its individual members, Marx was certainly not unaware of the differences in position between various kinds of “socialism” and communism. Here we can once again raise a connection with the “Paris Commune”: “the people” “organize their own forces to replace the organized force that oppresses them; this is the political form of the people’s social liberation, a political form that replaces the pretended social force (i.e., the force usurped by the oppressors of the people) used by the enemies of the people to oppress them (originally the people’s own force, but organized to oppose and strike them).” [23]23 This is a paraphrase of Marx’s analysis of the Paris Commune (1871), where he described it as the political form for the people’s social liberation, replacing the oppressive state machinery. This perspective brings the thinking about the new way the Communist Party engages in collective activity back to the “original,” back to the “original aspiration.”

一种长期以来占主流的、如今仍然由那些个人主义、浪漫主义、机会主义等的社会观念支持者所认同的观点是，共产党是共产党人由为了共产主义目的而创设出来的拟制。是从虚无中创造出来的。不幸的是，这不能被看作一目了然的事情。据说，他们最先唤醒了新的共同体感觉。也是他们最早发现，共产党人主张“人民”或“民族”是一个超个人的有机统一体。但是，也有人称赞共产党及共产主义是历史的客观思想的奠基。据说，借助于机关这样一直存在的拟制工具，共产主义不再是“幽灵”，而是可见的“团体人”，可为人感知的、可判断的、可意欲的和可行为的“人”。不过，针对应当基于何种规则协调有关通过作为机构载体的个人或个人联合体机构机关的问题，关于机关地位的获得及丧失问题，以及关于机关人格与成员个人人格之间的关系问题，马克思当然不是不了解各式各样的“社会主义”与共产主义的立场区别。这里便能够再次提出一种与“巴黎公社”的关联：“人民群众”“组成自己的力量去代替压迫他们的有组织的力量；这是人民群众获得社会解放的政治形式，这种政治形式代替了被人民群众的敌人用来压迫他们的假托的社会力量（即被人民群众的压迫者所篡夺的力量）（原为人民群众自己的力量，但被组织起来反对和打击他们）。”这个视角使得思考共产党从事集体活动的新方式回到“本来”、回到“初心”。

III. Conclusion

三、结语

People focus on the organizational question of the Communist Party. This is an old question. From the perspective of an old question, if a class is internally unified, then establishing the Communist Party means the Party, as well as the tight organizational ties linking the Party internally, externally, and with the masses. However, this is not a technical issue. People cannot use a rigid and outdated unified theory to explain a political reality that is not governed by a unified theory at all, but rather by practical wisdom. For over a century, discourse on the ethics of the traditional Marxist political party seems to have had to satisfy two opposing requirements: 1. the heterogeneity between the backward masses and the vanguard Party (by extension, the masses, class, Party, and leader); 2. the understanding of the question of power within a revolutionary organization is possible only if it is linked to the conditions of the class-like forms of human existence (such as the class-based political classification of landlords, rich peasants, counter-revolutionaries, bad elements, and rightists [24]24 “Landlords, rich peasants, counter-revolutionaries, bad elements, and rightists” (地富反坏右) refers to a class-based political classification system used in Mao-era China to designate targets of political campaigns.), otherwise it is impossible. In our view, the paradox of this understanding of the organizational question lies in the fact that particular truths must be transformed into class-like truths. However, because this kind of class-like truth is detached from individual life and thus abstract, the differences between people themselves cannot yet bear the character of existence. This can lead both to the loss of the differences in the autonomous activities of real individuals and to the elimination of the organic connection between the Party and the people, and even humanity. The defect of the traditional organizational concept lies in its erroneous relationship to the essence of human collectives: a non-practical assessment of the interaction between people and the social environment in which they live is often accompanied by a contempt for the people who can change this society in the future and for their political maturity. We will not judge it in a frivolous manner. But it does cause us to miss Marx’s political truth and “communalism.” People have forgotten Marx’s famous saying: “The coincidence of the changing of circumstances and of human activity or self-change can be conceived and rationally understood only as revolutionary practice.” [25]25 This quotation is from Marx’s “Theses on Feuerbach” (1845), Thesis III. Here, the question of organization or the spirit of revolution is of great significance for the form of the political truth of the Communist Party. This question cannot be exhausted. We must further consider in the next article such theses as: How, in general, can the political form of the Communist Party have a certain history and take on various different forms? For example, how has the Communist Party of China been able to develop to such a mature degree based on the existing different premises, as actually happens in today’s real life? And how has it been able to attract worldwide attention through economic development?

人们专注于共产党的组织问题。这是一个老问题。从老问题的角度看，如果一个阶级是内在统一的，那么建立共产党就是党以及党内、党外与群众在组织上的紧密的纽带连结。但是，这不是技术问题。人们无法用僵化和落伍统一的理论来说明压根就不是由统一的理论支配，而由实践的智慧支配的政治现实世界。百多年来，关于传统马克思主义政党伦理的言说似乎必须满足两个相反的要求：1.落后群众与先锋党（扩而言之，群众、阶级、政党、领袖）之间的相异性；2.对一个革命组织内部的权力问题的认识只有将其联系到人的生存具有的阶级类性形式（如地富反坏右的类政治划分）条件才有可能，否则便不可能。在我们看来，这种有关组织问题的认识的悖谬之处在于，特殊性真理必须被变为类性真理。但是由于此种类性真理具有脱离个体生命而带有抽象性，故而人与人之间的差异自身还不能带有存在的特征。这样就既可能导致现实的个人的自主活动的差异的丧失，也可能消除有关党与人民乃至人类的有机联系。传统组织观念的缺点在于它对人类集团的本质的错误关系：对人与他们所生活的社会环境相互作用的非实践估计，往往伴随着对未来能够改变这个社会的人及其政治成熟的轻视。我们不会以一种轻率的方式去评判它。但是它却与我们错失了马克思的政治真理以及“共同主义”有关。人们忘记了马克思所说的一句名言：“环境的改变和人的活动或自我改变的一致，只能被看做是并合理地理解为革命的实践。”在此，组织问题或革命精神问题对于共产党的政治真实的形式具有十分重要的意义。这个问题无法穷尽。我们必须在下一篇文章中进一步思考这样一些论题：例如，共产党的政治形式一般怎么能够具有某种历史，采取各种不同的形式，例如中国共产党怎么能够像今天实际生活中所发生的那样，根据现有的不同前提而发展到如此成熟的程度？又怎么能够通过经济发展而举世瞩目呢？

Online editor: Paul

网络编辑：保罗