On the Subject and Its Types in the Development of Marxism

The subject of the development of Marxism, in a general sense, refers to the figures who participate in the cause of Marxism, in the “Marxist movement” (as Lenin termed it), and who contribute to the development of Marxism. He (or she) may be a Marxist theoretician, or a Marxist practitioner or politician. Of course, the development of Marxism requires even more those figures who can combine Marxist theory with Marxist practice. For only such figures can actively promote the development of Marxism and make practical contributions. Here, we do not understand the concept of the development of Marxism in a general sense, but only as the development of Marxist theory. Therefore, what is called the subject of the development of Marxism is the subject of the development of Marxist theory. Subjects of the development of Marxism share common qualities or determinations, but they also differ from one another. These differences are generally not differences in the magnitude of contribution, but rather differences in the original form of existence of the subject itself, in the mode of its functioning, and so forth. These differences constitute certain types of the subject of the development of Marxism.

马克思主义发展主体，在一般意义上，是指参与马克思主义事业、“马克思主义运动”(列宁语)并对马克思主义发展有所贡献的人物。他(或她)可能是马克思主义的理论家，也可能是马克思主义实践家、政治家。当然，马克思主义发展更需要能够把马克思主义理论与马克思主义实践结合起来的人物。因为只有这样的人物才可能对马克思主义发展起积极推动的作用并作出实际的贡献。在这里，我们不在一般意义上理解马克思主义发展概念，而只把它理解为马克思主义理论发展。所以，所谓马克思主义发展主体，就是马克思主义理论发展主体。马克思主义发展主体有共同的性质或规定，但他们也有所差别，这些差别一般不是贡献大小的差别，而是主体本来的存在形式和发挥作用的方式等方面的差别，这些差别构成马克思主义发展主体的一定的类型。

I. The Basis and Significance of the Classification of Subjects

一、主体分类的根据与意义

The study of the history of the development of Marxism invariably encounters the question of the subject of the development of Marxism, because the development of Marxism and its history are both realized through the activity of its subjects. Whether or not Marxists have a conscious awareness of their own identity as subjects of the development of Marxism is one thing; the fact that they always express their significance for the development of Marxism through their own activity is another. The understanding of the types of subject of the development of Marxism is the result of further research. When confronting the history of the development of Marxism as an object, the initial consciousness formed in the researcher’s mind regarding its “creators” may not yet reach the level of “subject”; it may only reach the general level of “figure.” In terms of theory as a particular form of activity or spiritual phenomenon, a figure is the most general determination of an individual theoretician or what is given to consciousness. Any theoretician, regardless of their influence on the development of Marxism, is a certain figure in the history of the development of Marxism. “Figure” does not specifically refer to a particular individual in the history of the development of Marxism, but rather to any individual in that history. Once the question of the differences among these figures arises, the theoretical problem of the relationship between figure and subject and the classification of subjects emerges. In fact, according to the inherent logic of the problem, when the researcher becomes conscious of who the subject is in relation to a certain result of the activity of the object under study, it means that the problem of the classification of figures has already appeared; because “subject” is a more concrete concept than “figure,” a result of further reflection, and a concept with positive value significance. The identification of the subject status of a certain figure in the development of Marxism is the affirmation of the positive character of their role in the development of Marxism. The subject of the development of Marxism refers to certain figures who engage in the cause of Marxism as Marxists, participate in the “Marxist movement,” and promote the development of Marxism in theoretical form, not to all figures in the process of the development of Marxism. The subject of the development of Marxism is the Marxist; this is beyond doubt.

马克思主义发展史研究总会遇到马克思主义发展主体问题，因为马克思主义发展及其历史都是由它的主体的活动实现的。马克思主义者对于自己的马克思主义发展主体的身份是否具有自觉意识是一回事，而他总是通过自己的活动表现其对马克思主义发展的意义则是事实。关于马克思主义发展主体类型的认识是进一步研究的结果。面对作为对象的马克思主义发展史，对于它的“创造者”在研究者的脑海中形成的最初意识可能还达不到“主体”层次，达到的可能只是一般的“人物”层次。人物就理论这一特殊的活动形式或精神现象来说，他是关于理论家个人的最一般的规定或给予人的意识。任何理论家不管其对马克思主义发展有什么样的影响，他都是马克思主义发展史中的一定的人物。人物其实并不特指马克思主义发展史中的具体的个人，而是指马克思主义发展史中的任何个人。而一旦涉及这些人物的差异问题，理论上关于人物与主体的关系和主体分类的问题就出现了。其实，按照问题的本来的逻辑，当研究者对于作为对象的人的活动的一定结果有了谁是主体的意识的时候，意味着人物分类的问题已经出现了；因为主体是一个比人物较为具体的概念，是进一步思考的结果，主体是一个具有积极价值意义的概念。对于马克思主义发展中的一定人物的主体身份的认定，就是对他对于马克思主义发展的积极作用性质的认定。马克思主义发展主体是指以马克思主义者的身份从事马克思主义事业、参与“马克思主义运动”和以理论的形式推动马克思主义发展的一定的人物，而不是马克思主义发展过程中的一切人物。马克思主义发展的主体是马克思主义者，这是毋庸置疑的。

There is a classification of figures in the history of the development of Marxism, and there is also a classification of subjects of the development of Marxism. The basis for classification lies in the objective existence of subjects who promote the development of Marxism in different forms, and these forms often bring about differences and characteristics in the role of the subject. The purpose or significance of classifying subjects is not simply to rank the figures in the history of the development of Marxism, but to strengthen the subject consciousness of Marxists and Marxist theoreticians, to strengthen the conscious awareness of theoretical innovation in Marxism; it is to explore and discover the ideal-type subject of the development of Marxism and the experience of its formation, and to investigate the realistic path for cultivating and fostering such subjects of the development of Marxism. The so-called ideal-type subject of the development of Marxism is the innovative subject of Marxism. The formation of the innovative subject, especially the formation of its “group subject,” is of great significance for the development of Marxism.

马克思主义发展史的人物有分类，马克思主义发展主体也有分类。分类的根据在于，客观上存在着以不同的形式推动马克思主义发展的主体，而这种形式往往带来主体作用上的差异和特征。主体分类的目的或意义不是简单地给马克思主义发展史的人物排排序，而是强化马克思主义者、马克思主义理论家的主体意识，强化对于马克思主义理论创新的自觉意识；是为了探索和发现马克思主义发展的理想型主体及其成长经验，探究培养和造就这样的马克思主义发展主体的现实路径。所谓马克思主义发展的理想型主体，就是马克思主义的创新型主体。创新型主体的形成，特别是其“群体主体”的形成，对于马克思主义发展具有重大意义。

II. Individual Subject and Group Subject

二、个人主体与群体主体

In the general sense of the development of Marxism, the understanding of types of subject first encounters the problem of the division between the theoretical subject and the practical subject of the development of Marxism. And since we understand the development of Marxism as the development of Marxist theory, there is no need here to discuss the relationship between the theoretical subject and the practical subject of the development of Marxism. Thus, another problem encountered is merely a problem of the division of types of theoretical subject, first and foremost the division between the individual subject and the group subject. Opening any work on the history of the development of Marxism, we will see certain figures recorded in that work, especially the classical writers of Marxism and outstanding figures in the history of the development of Marxism. Since they generally belong to proletarian revolutionaries and theoreticians, and often belong to a certain proletarian political party or other specific political organization or academic school, readers may raise the following question: Is the subject of the development of Marxism the individual, or the group? Some may even doubt whether individuals, even those with outstanding contributions to the development of Marxism, can be regarded as subjects of the development of Marxism. Before answering this question, it should first be clarified that we only endow the concept of “subject” with the connotation of “certain figures who engage in the cause of Marxism as Marxists, participate in the ‘Marxist movement,’ and promote the development of Marxism in theoretical form,” and we do not endow it with the connotation of “the dominant figure of the subject” or “the dominant subject.” In this regard, the correct conclusion should be that any individual, as long as they conform to the above determinations or requirements regarding the subject, whether they are a political leader, a classical writer, or an ordinary theoretician, can be considered a subject of the development of Marxism. The identification of the subject status of a certain figure in the development of Marxism is an affirmation of their positive role in the development of Marxism. Furthermore, we never regard any individual subject as the sole and isolated individual in the development of Marxism, but rather as a member of the group subject. From a structural perspective, if there are individual subjects in the development of Marxism, there will be group subjects. The group subject is the aggregation of individual subjects. From the standpoint of totality, without the group subject there is no individual subject; the individual subject exists within the group subject and is subordinate to it. This group subject is the proletariat, it is the Marxist political party of the proletariat, it is the collective of Marxist theoreticians who are Marxists. The cause of Marxism has always been the cause of the proletariat as a whole, the collective cause of Marxists.

关于主体类型的认识，在马克思主义发展的一般意义上，首先遇到的可能是马克思主义发展的理论主体与实践主体的划分问题。而由于我们把马克思主义发展理解为马克思主义理论发展，所以在这里就没有必要去讨论马克思主义发展的理论主体与实践主体的关系问题了。这样，遇到的另一个问题就只是一个理论主体类型的划分问题，首先是个体主体与群体主体的划分。打开任何一部马克思主义发展史著作，我们都会见到被写入该著作的一定的人物，特别是马克思主义经典作家和马克思主义发展史中的杰出人物。由于他们一般都属于无产阶级革命家、理论家，并且往往从属于一定的无产阶级政党或者其他一定的政治组织或学术派别。对此读者可能会提出如下问题：马克思主义发展的主体究竟是个人，还是群体?他们对个人，即使是对马克思主义发展具有突出贡献的个人，是否能够被看作为马克思主义发展的主体甚至也持怀疑态度。在回答这个问题之前，首先应该明确的是，主体这个概念我们只是赋予它“以马克思主义者的身份从事马克思主义事业、参与‘马克思主义运动’和以理论的形式推动马克思主义发展的一定的人物”的内涵，而并未赋予它“主体的主导者”或“主导的主体”内涵。就此而言，正确的结论就应该是，任何个人只要符合上述关于主体的规定或要求，不管他是政治领袖、经典作家，还是普通的理论家，就可以被认为是马克思主义发展的主体。对于一定人物的马克思主义发展主体身份的认定，就是对他在马克思主义发展中发挥积极作用的一种肯定。另外，我们从不把任何个人主体看作为马克思主义发展中的唯一的和孤立的个人，而是把他看作为群体主体中的一员。从结构意义上说，马克思主义发展有个人主体，就会有群体主体。群体主体是个人主体的集合。而从总体性观点出发，则是没有群体主体就没有个人主体，个人主体存在于群体主体之中，从属于群体主体。这个群体主体就是无产阶级，就是无产阶级的马克思主义政党，就是作为马克思主义者的马克思主义理论家集体。马克思主义事业从来就是作为整体的无产阶级的事业，是马克思主义者集体的事业。

III. Types of Subject under Different Meanings of the Development of Marxism

三、马克思主义发展不同意义下的主体类型

The development of Marxism, the development of Marxist theory, and the innovative development of Marxist theory are three different meanings of the development of Marxism. The complete meaning of the development of Marxism lies in the unity of the development of Marxist theory and the development of practice, but at the beginning of this article we point out that here the development of Marxism refers to the development of Marxist theory. Thus, the difference between the above three concepts lies only in that between the development of Marxist theory and the innovative development of Marxist theory. With regard to the subject of Marxist development, the connotation of the subject of the innovative development of Marxist theory is more specific and more profound than that of the subject of the development of Marxist theory. This is determined by the difference between general development and innovative development. Development, as general development, includes both innovative development and non-innovative development. Innovation is a special form of development, a form of development of a higher degree and more fundamental significance. Not only must Marxist theory undergo innovative development, but the entire cause of Marxism, the "Marxist movement," and the cause of building socialism with Chinese characteristics must all undergo innovative development. In an era of innovation, not to develop is to fall behind, and not to develop innovatively is likewise to fall behind. For Marxism to keep pace with the times and lead the global trend, it must undergo innovative development. Innovation, as a necessary and special requirement of development, lies in the importance of its significance and also in the fact that it is a form of development that is more difficult to achieve and therefore requires special conditions. With regard to the subject, the innovative subject requires higher wisdom, fuller consciousness, deeper theoretical cultivation, and stronger creative ability than the general subject. The subject of the innovative development of Marxist theory is rarer and more precious than the general subject. The ideal-type subject of Marxist development is precisely the innovative subject of Marxist theory. The essence of the question of the subject of Marxist development lies in how to discover and cultivate more innovative Marxist theoretical talents.

马克思主义发展、马克思主义理论发展、马克思主义理论创新发展是马克思主义发展的三种不同意义。马克思主义发展的完整意义在于马克思主义理论发展和实践发展的统一，但是我们在本文一开始就指出，在这里马克思主义发展指的是马克思主义理论发展。这样，上述三个概念之间的差异就仅仅在于马克思主义理论发展与马克思主义理论创新发展之间。就马克思主义发展主体而言，马克思主义理论创新发展主体的内涵要比马克思主义理论发展主体的内涵更为具体、更为深刻。它是由一般发展与创新发展之间的差异决定的。发展，作为一般发展，既包括创新性的发展，也包括非创新性的发展。创新是发展的特殊形式，是程度更高和意义更根本的发展形式。不仅马克思主义理论要创新发展，整个马克思主义事业、“马克思主义运动”以及中国特色社会主义建设事业都要创新发展。在创新时代，不发展就会落后，不创新发展同样会落后。马克思主义要跟上时代的步伐，引领世界潮流，必须创新发展。创新作为发展的必要的和特殊的要求，在于其意义的重要，也在于其是一种较难实现因而需要特殊条件的发展形式。就主体而言，创新性主体要比一般主体具有更高的智慧、更充分的自觉、更深厚的理论修养和更强的创造能力。马克思主义理论创新发展主体比一般主体更加稀缺和宝贵。马克思主义发展的理想型主体就是马克思主义理论的创新性主体。马克思主义发展主体问题的实质，在于如何发现和造就更多的创新性的马克思主义理论人才。

IV. Types of Subjects from a Group Perspective

四、群体视角下的主体类型

The masses, the class, and the political party constitute three different levels and three different types of group subjects of Marxist development.

群众、阶级、政党构成三个不同层次、不同类型的马克思主义发展群体主体。

The masses, here referring to the general masses, i.e., the people as commonly understood, not the group of Marxist theorists. In the past, the significance of the masses for the development of Marxism was not specifically raised or discussed in theory, because the masses generally do not have a direct connection with the development of Marxist theory. But does this mean that the masses have no connection at all with the development of Marxism and therefore play no role in it? No. The absence of a direct connection does not mean there is no connection. The people are the creators of history, and their historical role is comprehensive. The material and spiritual wealth created by the people through material production and spiritual production constitutes a powerful material foundation and spiritual force driving the development of Marxism. The people are the social foundation of all progressive causes in human society; historically, they were the fundamental force opposing feudalism, imperialism, and bureaucratic capitalism, and today they are likewise the fundamental force for the cause of socialist revolution, construction, and reform. The creative historical activities of the people are not only a powerful driving force pushing Marxism forward but also the practical foundation and rich resource of the developed Marxist theory. The creative role of the people in historical development determines the Marxist historical view and value principle of "people-centered" and "the people as the subject." Compared with the subject of Marxist theorists, the subject role of the masses in the development of Marxism is mainly manifested in formal differences.

群众，这里指一般群众，即通常所说的人民群众，不是指马克思主义理论家群体。以往在理论上不特别提出和讨论群众对马克思主义发展的意义，原因在于群众与马克思主义理论发展一般不发生直接联系。但是，群众与马克思主义发展是否根本没有联系，因而对马克思主义发展不起任何作用呢?不是的。没有直接联系不等于没有联系。人民群众是历史的创造者，它的历史作用是全面的。人民群众通过物质生产和精神生产而创造的物质财富和精神财富是推动马克思主义发展的强大物质基础和精神力量。人民群众是人类社会一切进步事业的社会基础，历史上它曾经是反对封建主义、帝国主义和官僚资本主义的根本动力，今天它同样是社会主义革命、建设和改革事业的根本动力。人民群众创造性的历史活动不仅是推动马克思主义向前发展的强大动力，而且是发展了的马克思主义理论的实践基础和丰富资源。人民群众对于历史发展的创造性作用，决定了马克思主义的“人民主体论”“以人民为中心”的历史观和价值原则。人民群众是马克思主义存在与发展的最强大力量和最深厚社会基础。相较于马克思主义理论家主体，群众对于马克思主义发展的主体作用主要表现为形式上的差别。

The class, of course, refers to the proletariat. As early as the formative period of Marx's philosophy, Marx emphasized the view that the proletariat is the subject of the new philosophy, pointing out: "Philosophy finds its material weapons in the proletariat, just as the proletariat finds its spiritual weapons in philosophy." [1]1 Karl Marx, "Introduction to A Contribution to the Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right," in Marx and Engels Collected Works, Vol. 3, p. 187. Therefore, with regard to the complete emancipation of the proletariat and humanity, "philosophy cannot become reality without the abolition of the proletariat, and the proletariat cannot abolish itself without making philosophy a reality." [2]2 Ibid. The intrinsic connection between philosophy and the proletariat that Marx speaks of here is precisely the intrinsic connection between the mature Marxism and Marxist philosophy and the proletariat. The essence of Marxism determines that we cannot but understand Marxism and its subject of development from a class perspective, and the "scientific-methodological superiority" of the class perspective likewise compels us to understand the subject of Marxist development from a class perspective. This scientific-methodological superiority, in the words of Lukács, is: "Only a class can act to break through social reality and change it in its totality. Therefore, the 'critique' made from this perspective is an examination of the totality, and thus the unity of theory and practice." [3]3 Georg Lukács, History and Class Consciousness, trans. Rodney Livingstone (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1971), p. 39. "The proletariat, as the subject of social thought, at once breaks the predicament of impotence, the predicament created by the fatalism of pure laws and the ethics of pure intention." [4]4 Ibid., p. 41. Here, Lukács discusses the methodology of Marxists' examination of "socio-economic reality" from the opposition between the class perspective and "methodological individualism." He appeals to the method of totality, arguing that "reality can only be grasped and broken through as a totality, and only a subject that is itself a totality can achieve this breakthrough." [5]5 Ibid., p. 39. In his view, this "subject of totality" is the proletariat, and can only be the proletariat. Lukács also emphasizes that this method of examining and grasping reality he discusses here originates from "the method of Hegel and Marx," i.e., the method of totality. This method is equally applicable to our understanding of the subject of Marxist development. According to the method of totality, regarding the proletariat as the subject of Marxist development has both historical and logical rationality. However, it should be pointed out that the proletariat becoming the subject of Marxist development is not unconditional or absolute. The German Marxist revolutionary and theorist Rosa Luxemburg particularly emphasized this point when discussing the relationship between the proletariat and science and culture, and between the proletariat and Marx's thought. She pointed out: "In our movement, the attitude towards the entire theoretical research is the same as the attitude towards Marx's economic theory. It is an illusion to imagine that the rising proletariat, through the content of their class struggle, can automatically and endlessly exert creativity in the theoretical field." [6]6 Rosa Luxemburg, "The Stagnation and Progress of Marxism," in The Rosa Luxemburg Reader, ed. Peter Hudis and Kevin B. Anderson (New York: Monthly Review Press, 2004), p. 108. "For the proletarian struggle to play a positive role in scientific progress, extremely definite social conditions are necessary." [7]7 Ibid., p. 109. These conditions, specifically, are the complete liberation of the working class from their current class situation. "As long as they, as a propertyless class, still live under the bourgeois system, they cannot automatically create their own spiritual culture in the process of striving upward." [8]8 Ibid. Of course, the emergence of Marx's doctrine is an exception; the basis for this exception lies in its being "a specific part of science, namely, social science." [9]9 Ibid., p. 110. In a society ruled by the bourgeoisie, the intellectual activity of thinkers who play a guiding spiritual role for the proletariat is strictly limited from the outset, and the sphere in which they can play a creative role is only social science. The class struggle of the proletariat exerts a beneficial influence on social science, including its influence on Marx's doctrine as a "monument of the spiritual culture of the proletariat" within social science.

阶级，当然是指无产阶级。早在马克思哲学形成时期，马克思就强调无产阶级是新哲学的主体的观点，指出：“哲学把无产阶级当做自己的物质武器，同样，无产阶级也把哲学当做自己的精神武器”。因此，就无产阶级和人的彻底解放来说，“哲学不消灭无产阶级，就不能成为现实；无产阶级不把哲学变成现实，就不可能消灭自身。”马克思在这里所说的哲学与无产阶级之间的这种内在联系，就是后来成熟了的马克思主义和马克思主义哲学同无产阶级的内在联系。马克思主义的本质决定我们不能不从阶级的观点出发认识马克思主义及其发展主体，而阶级的观点“在科学-方法上的优越性”同样使我们不能不从阶级的观点认识马克思主义发展主体。这个科学-方法上的优越性，用卢卡奇的话说，就是：“只有阶级才能在行动中冲破社会现实，并在这种现实的总体中把它加以改变。因此，从这种观点作出的‘批判’是对总体的考察，从而是理论和实践的统一”,“无产阶级作为社会思想的主体，一下子打破了无所作为的困境，即由纯规律的宿命论和纯意向的伦理学造成的困境”。在这里，卢卡奇是从阶级的观点与“方法论的个人主义”的对立来谈马克思主义者对“社会-经济现实”考察的方法论的。他诉诸总体的方法，认为“现实只能作为总体来把握和冲破，而且只有本身是一总体的主体，才能做到这种冲破”。在他看来，这个“总体的主体”就是无产阶级，并且只能是无产阶级。卢卡奇还强调，他在这里谈到的这个关于现实的考察与把握的方法来源于“黑格尔和马克思的方法”,即总体性方法。这个方法其实同样适用于我们对马克思主义发展主体的认识。根据总体性方法，把无产阶级看作马克思主义发展的主体既具有历史的合理性，又具有逻辑的合理性。但是应该指出，无产阶级成为马克思主义发展的主体并不是无条件的、绝对的。德国马克思主义革命家、理论家罗莎·卢森堡在谈到无产阶级与科学文化的关系、与马克思思想的关系问题时特别强调了这一点。她指出：“在我们的运动中，对待整个理论研究的态度是和对待马克思经济学说的态度一样的。设想上升的工人阶级通过他们阶级斗争的内容就能够自动地在理论领域无尽无休地发挥创造性，只是一种幻想。” “无产阶级斗争要对科学进步起积极的作用，必须有极其确定的社会条件”。这个条件具体说来就是工人阶级从他们当前的阶级状况中完全解放出来。“只要他们作为一无所有的阶级仍然生活在资产阶级制度之下，他们就不可能在力争向上的过程中自动地创造自己的精神文化。”当然，马克思学说的产生是一个例外，发生这个意外的根据在于它是“科学的一个特定的部分，即社会科学”。在资产阶级统治的社会，无产阶级在精神上起指导作用的思想家的智力活动从一开始就受到严格的限制，而他们起创造性作用的天地就只有社会科学。无产阶级的阶级斗争对社会科学产生有益的影响，包括对社会科学中作为“无产阶级精神文化的纪念碑”的马克思学说的影响。

Regarding the relationship between Marxism and the proletariat, it can be said that without being armed with Marxism, the proletariat cannot become a class, a politically independent class, a class that develops from a class-in-itself to a class-for-itself. The emergence of Marxism and the acceptance of its guidance are necessary prerequisites for the proletariat to become an independent class and to mature politically. Therefore, the relationship between the two cannot be understood merely by explaining Marxism through the proletariat; Marxism must also be used to explain the proletariat. Regarding the subject of Marxist development, the direction of understanding it from the perspective of the proletariat is undoubtedly correct. However, if the question of the subject of Marxist development is further concretized—that is, if a deeper understanding and analysis of the proletariat as the “overall subject” is undertaken—then, from the perspective of the individual subject, what emerges is the subject of the Marxist; from the perspective of the group subject, what emerges is the subject of the proletarian party. The conclusion that the subject of Marxist development is the Marxist within the proletariat and the proletariat as Marxist is unquestionably reasonable.

关于马克思主义与无产阶级之间的关系，可以这样说，不能用马克思主义武装起来，无产阶级就不能成为一个阶级，一个政治上独立的阶级，一个由自在而发展为自为的阶级。产生马克思主义和接受马克思主义的指导，是无产阶级成为独立的阶级并在政治上成熟起来的必要前提。所以，二者之间的关系，不能仅仅停留于用无产阶级说明马克思主义，而且要用马克思主义说明无产阶级。关于马克思主义发展主体，从无产阶级来认识的方向无疑是正确的。但是，如果把马克思主义发展主体问题再进一步具体化，也就是对无产阶级这个“总体主体”做更深一步的理解和分析，那么从个人主体角度思考，出场的就是马克思主义者主体；而从群体主体角度思考，出场的就是无产阶级政党主体。关于马克思主义发展主体是无产阶级中的马克思主义者和作为马克思主义者的无产阶级的结论，其合理性毋庸置疑。

The party, here, naturally refers to the proletarian party. The relationship between the proletarian party and Marxism is the relationship between the proletariat and Marxism. By its nature, the proletarian party should also be a Marxist party, a party guided by Marxism in both theory and practice. To ensure the party’s nature as a proletarian revolutionary party, to ensure the consistency of the party’s actions with its purpose and goals, and to correctly implement the party’s line and fulfill its historical mission, the party must uphold Marxism and resolutely defend it in struggle, especially when encountering attacks from bourgeois ideology and interference from internal opportunism. With the guidance of Marxism, the party will advance in the correct direction, the proletarian revolutionary cause will continuously achieve victory, and the party will grow stronger in struggle; with the proletarian party, the existence and development of Marxism will have a reliable organizational foundation and political guarantee. If we acknowledge that the proletariat is the subject of Marxist development, then we must certainly acknowledge that the proletarian party is the core of this subject. However, this conclusion is drawn from the original relationship between the proletariat and its party on the one hand and Marxism on the other, and thus it remains merely a logical necessity. Proceeding from the actual history of the international communist movement, we find that not all proletarian parties at all times accept the guidance of Marxism or establish Marxism as their guiding ideology. Therefore, the understanding of the relationship between Marxism and the proletarian party must adhere to a historical and dialectical perspective. For example, taking the relationship between the German Social Democratic Party and Marxism as an example, the relationship between the German Social Democratic Party, as the party of the German working class, and Marxism underwent a complex and changeable process. When the Social Democratic Workers' Party of Germany (the Eisenach faction) was founded in 1869, only advanced elements of the German workers’ movement, represented by August Bebel and Wilhelm Liebknecht, accepted Marxism. It was not until after the unification of the “two factions” of the German workers’ movement—the Eisenach faction and the Lassallean faction—in 1875 that Marxism gradually gained a dominant position within it. In 1880, the Social Democratic Workers' Party of Germany was renamed the Social Democratic Party of Germany, marking the birth of a unified German proletarian party; thereafter, Marxism gradually achieved a dominant position within this party. However, after the First World War, the status of Marxism within this party underwent a turning point. That is, from the First World War to the so-called “Golden Age” of Western capitalism (1947–1973), the “revisionist model of the workers’ movement” occupied a dominant position within the party. “Its symbol was the formal abandonment of Marxism in the 1959 Godesberg Program of the German Social Democratic Party.” [10]10 The Godesberg Program, adopted by the Social Democratic Party of Germany (SPD) at a congress in Bad Godesberg in 1959, formally renounced Marxism as the party’s ideological foundation, replacing it with a reformist, market-oriented “people’s party” orientation. From the history of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, it can also be seen that whether a proletarian party bore the name Social Democratic Labor Party or the name Communist Party, its relationship with Marxism was never a natural, inherent, and integral one. The Russian Communist Party led by Lenin was a staunch Marxist party; the Communist Party of the Soviet Union led by Stalin was, broadly speaking, also a Marxist party. However, it is difficult to say that the Communist Party of the Soviet Union under Khrushchev, Brezhnev, and especially Gorbachev was still a Marxist party.

政党，在这里当然指无产阶级政党。无产阶级政党与马克思主义的关系就是无产阶级与马克思主义的关系。无产阶级政党，按其性质来说也应该是马克思主义政党，是在理论和实践上由马克思主义指导的政党。为了保证党的无产阶级革命政党的性质，为了保证党的行动同党的宗旨和目标的一致，正确执行党的路线和履行党的历史使命，党就必须坚持马克思主义，并在斗争中特别是在遇到资产阶级意识形态进攻和内部机会主义干扰时坚决地捍卫马克思主义。有马克思主义的指导，党才会沿着正确的方向前进，无产阶级革命事业才能不断取得胜利，才能在斗争中不断强大；有无产阶级政党，马克思主义的存在与发展才有可靠的组织基础和政治保障。如果我们承认无产阶级是马克思主义发展的主体，那么就一定会承认无产阶级政党是这个主体的核心。但是，这个结论我们是从无产阶级及其政党与马克思主义本来的关系出发得出的，因而还只是一种逻辑的必然性。而从国际共产主义运动实际出发，就会发现并不是所有的无产阶级政党在任何时候都能够接受马克思主义的指导，把马克思主义确立为自己的指导思想。所以，关于马克思主义与无产阶级政党的关系的认识必须坚持历史的辩证的观点。例如，以德国社会民主党与马克思主义的关系为例，作为德国工人阶级政党的德国社会民主党与马克思主义的关系经历了一个复杂多变的过程。1869年德国社会民主工党(爱森纳赫派)成立时，只是以倍倍尔、威廉·李卜克内西为代表的德国工人运动中的先进分子接受了马克思主义，直到1875年德国工人运动中的“两派”即爱森纳赫派与拉萨尔派联合后的一段时间内，马克思主义在其中还未取得主导地位。1880年德国社会民主工党改名为德国社会民主党，标志着德国统一的无产阶级政党的诞生，此后马克思主义在该党才逐渐取得主导地位。但在第一次世界大战后马克思主义在该党的地位则发生转折，即从第一次世界大战到西方资本主义的所谓“黄金时代”(1947—1973年),“工人运动的修正主义模式”在党内占据了主导地位，“它的象征是1959年德国社会民主党的《哥德斯堡纲领》正式放弃了马克思主义”。从苏联共产党的历史也能看到，无论在名称上是社会民主工党的无产阶级政党，还是在名称上是共产党的无产阶级政党，其同马克思主义的关系都不是一种天然的内在一体的关系。列宁领导的俄国共产党是坚强的马克思主义政党，斯大林领导的苏联共产党大体说来也是一个马克思主义政党，但是到了赫鲁晓夫、勃列日涅夫直到戈尔巴乔夫时期的苏联共产党就很难说是一个马克思主义的政党了。

History tells us that we should not hold a blind, naturalistic view of the relationship between the proletarian party and Marxism, but rather conduct a concrete historical analysis. General Secretary Xi Jinping’s assertion in his speech at the ceremony marking the centenary of the Communist Party of China, that “the reason why the Communist Party of China was able to succeed and why socialism with Chinese characteristics was able to work is, in the final analysis, that Marxism works,” [11]11 This is a direct quotation from Xi Jinping’s speech on July 1, 2021, at the ceremony marking the centenary of the founding of the Communist Party of China. is a scientific understanding of the relationship between the proletarian party and Marxism, based on the empirical foundation of the history of the Communist Party of China’s development, the history of Chinese socialism—especially socialism with Chinese characteristics—and the history of adapting Marxism to the Chinese context. This understanding has a general, universal significance, in that it also objectively reflects the experience and laws of the international communist movement, the world socialist movement, and the development of Marxism. Regarding the question of the subject of Marxist development, experience shows that when a proletarian party organization upholds and develops Marxism, it plays the role of the subject of Marxist development, and this subject is not an ordinary subject but a “core subject.” It should be clarified that this understanding and evaluation of the subject status of Marxist development is made with regard to the party as a “group subject,” and only with regard to the Marxist proletarian party. As for whether the specific members of this party qualify as subjects of Marxist development, a concrete analysis is required. This is because, although the requirement for every member of the proletarian party is not only to be a Communist but also to be a Marxist, in reality, not every Communist Party member has become a Marxist. For this reason, our Party has consistently demanded of its members that “having joined the Party organizationally, one must also join the Party ideologically.” [12]12 This is a classic formulation from Mao Zedong’s 1942 rectification speech “Rectify the Party’s Style of Work,” emphasizing that organizational membership alone is insufficient without genuine ideological conversion to Marxism. This demand to “join the Party ideologically” is consistent with the requirement that Communist Party members be Marxists and dialectical materialists.

历史告诉我们，对无产阶级政党同马克思主义的关系不要持盲目的自然主义的看法，而是要进行具体的历史的分析。习近平总书记在庆祝中国共产党成立100周年大会上的讲话作出的 “中国共产党为什么能，中国特色社会主义为什么好，归根到底是因为马克思主义行”的论断，是以中国共产党发展的历史、中国社会主义特别是中国特色社会主义发展的历史和马克思主义中国化的历史为经验基础的关于无产阶级政党与马克思主义的关系的科学认识。这个认识具有一般的、普遍的意义，即它也客观地反映了国际共产主义运动、世界社会主义运动和马克思主义发展的经验与规律。就马克思主义发展主体问题而言，经验表明，当一个无产阶级政党组织坚持和发展了马克思主义的时候，它是发挥了马克思主义发展主体作用的，并且这个主体不是一般主体，而是“核心主体”。应该说明的是，这个关于马克思主义发展主体地位的认识和评价是就政党这个“群体主体”而言的，并且只是就马克思主义的无产阶级政党而言的，至于这个党的具体成员是不是具有马克思主义发展主体的资格，则要做具体分析。因为虽然对每一位无产阶级政党成员的要求是不仅要做共产党人还要做马克思主义者，但实际情况则不是每一位共产党员都成为了马克思主义者。正因如此，我们党对党员才一贯要求“在组织上入了党，还要在思想上入党”。这个“在思想上入党”的要求同共产党员要做马克思主义者、做辩证唯物主义者的要求是一致的。

V. Classification of Subjects from the Individual Perspective

五、个体视角下的主体分类

Being a Marxist is the prerequisite for a person to become a subject of Marxist development. However, because we understand the essence of Marxist development here as the innovative development of Marxist theory, there are not only general requirements for this subject as a Marxist but also special requirements in terms of theory. That is, in addition to being proficient in Marxism, he should also be a Marxist with a certain capacity for Marxist theoretical research and innovation. We do not deny the contributions of Marxist practitioners and politicians to the development of Marxist theory, but such contributions are often empirical first and not directly theoretical. To give them theoretical significance, especially the significance of theoretical innovation, the empirical form of these contributions needs to be elevated to a theoretical form, which raises requirements for the subject’s theoretical reserves, research experience, and research capabilities. This goes beyond the general character and qualities required of a mere practitioner or politician. It is true that abroad, there are phenomena of non-Marxists or even anti-Marxists engaging in Marxist research. These individuals may put forward some enlightening insights or some valuable individual viewpoints in their understanding of Marxism, but overall, these insights and viewpoints cannot be said to have played any role in promoting the development of Marxism. Consequently, they do not qualify as subjects of Marxist development. Only Marxist theorists who are themselves Marxists, and Marxists with profound Marxist theoretical cultivation who have made contributions to the development of Marxist theory, can become subjects of Marxist development.

做马克思主义者是一个人成为马克思主义发展主体的前提。但是，因为我们在这里理解的马克思主义发展实质是马克思主义理论创新发展，因此对于这个主体不仅有马克思主义者的一般要求，还要有理论方面的特殊要求，也就是除精通马克思主义外，他还应该是一位具有一定的马克思主义理论研究能力和创新能力的马克思主义者。不否认马克思主义的实践家、政治家对于马克思主义理论发展的贡献，但是这种贡献往往首先是经验性的，并不直接是理论性的。要使之具有理论意义，特别是理论创新意义，这种贡献的经验形式需要上升到理论形式，这就产生对主体的理论储备、研究经验和研究能力等的要求。这超出了对单纯的实践家、政治家的一般品格和素质的要求。国外的确存在非马克思主义者甚至反马克思主义者从事马克思主义研究的现象。这些人在关于马克思主义的认识上可能会提出一些启发性见解、一些有价值的个别观点，但是总体说来这些见解、观点谈不上对马克思主义发展起到什么推动作用，因而他们也就不具有马克思主义发展主体的资格。只有作为马克思主义者的马克思主义理论家和具有深厚的马克思主义理论修养并对马克思主义理论发展具有贡献的马克思主义者，才可能成为马克思主义发展的主体。

From an individual perspective, there exist three different types of Marxist theorists in the development of Marxism. The first type is the professional Marxist theorist. The second type is the political (practice)-theorist type of Marxist theorist. This type is a theorist who primarily holds the identity of a politician while also possessing the identity and qualities of a theorist. The third type is the theorist-political (practice) type of Marxist theorist. This type is a Marxist theorist who primarily holds the identity of a theorist while also possessing the identity and qualities of a politician. Regarding the realization of Marxist theoretical innovation, the difference lies mainly not between the second and third types of theorists, but between them and the first type. The second and third types of theorists are figures capable of closely integrating Marxist theory with practice, with the difference only in the manner and degree of integration. Of course, this also determines, to a certain extent, the difference in their roles in the development of Marxism. In realizing theoretical innovation, the role of the political (practice)-theorist is somewhat more prominent than that of the theorist-political (practice) type, because the former possesses more direct and abundant practical and political experience, making it easier to stimulate awareness of theoretical innovation and to discover points of theoretical innovation. Practical experience is the foundational resource for realizing theoretical innovation, and a relatively deeper cultivation in Marxist theory makes it more possible to elevate experience into theory. The outstanding contributions of Marx, Engels, Lenin, Mao Zedong, Deng Xiaoping, Jiang Zemin, Hu Jintao, and Xi Jinping in the founding and development of Marxism are directly related to their experience and identity as, first and foremost, proletarian politicians and practitioners.

从个体视角来看，在马克思主义发展中存在着三种不同类型的马克思主义理论家。第一类是专业性马克思主义理论家。第二类是政治(实践)-理论家型马克思主义理论家。这是以政治家身份为主兼有理论家身份和品质的理论家。第三类是理论-政治(实践)家型马克思主义理论家。这是以理论家身份为主兼有政治家身份和品质的马克思主义理论家。就马克思主义理论创新的实现来说，差异主要不在第二类和第三类理论家之间，而在他们与第一类理论家之间。第二类和第三类理论家是能够把马克思主义的理论与实践紧密结合起来的人物，区别只在于结合的方式和程度。当然，这也在一定程度上决定了他们在马克思主义发展中的作用的差异。在实现理论创新方面，政治(实践)-理论家的作用要比理论-政治(实践)家的作用突出一些，因为前者具有更为直接的丰富的实践经验、政治经验，使之更容易激发理论创新意识并善于发现理论创新点。实践经验是实现理论创新的基础性资源，而较为深厚的马克思主义理论修养更有可能使之把经验上升为理论。马克思、恩格斯、列宁、毛泽东、邓小平、江泽民、胡锦涛和习近平在马克思主义创立和发展中的突出贡献，与他们首先是无产阶级政治家、实践家的经历和身份有着直接的关系。

The role of professional Marxist theorists in systematizing Marxist theory and in the interpretation and dissemination of the fundamental principles of Marxism cannot be denied. However, due to the limitations of their research methods and work environment, they are often unable to maintain a direct and close connection with the practice of the proletariat and the broad masses of the people. Their lack of in-depth understanding of actual conditions and the consequent deficiency in practical struggle experience affect the exertion of their theoretical innovation capacity. Marxism is both scientific and practical. This inherent nature of Marxism determines that people can only achieve a true understanding and scientific explanation of it in the unity of theory and practice. This nature of Marxism requires that Marxist theorists cannot be divorced from reality. Therefore, if professional Marxist theorists always limit themselves to treating Marxism "theoretically," and their research themes and theoretical achievements are divorced from reality or meaningless to reality, this violates the proper attitude towards Marxism and also violates the essence of Marxism and its laws of development.

不能否认专业性马克思主义理论家在把马克思主义理论系统化方面和在马克思主义基本原理的阐释与传播方面的作用。但是，由于其研究方式和工作环境的限制，使他们往往不能够与无产阶级和广大人民群众的实践保持直接的密切的联系，缺乏对实际情况的深入了解和由此造成的实际斗争经验不足，影响了其理论创新能力的发挥。马克思主义是科学的又是实践的，马克思主义的这一本来性质决定了人们只有在理论和实践的统一中才能达到对它的真正理解和作出科学的说明。马克思主义的这种性质要求马克思主义理论家不能够脱离实际。所以，专业性马克思主义理论家如果总是限于“理论地”对待马克思主义，其研究主题和理论成果脱离实际或对实际没有意义，是有违对待马克思主义的应有态度的，也是有违马克思主义的本质及其发展规律的。

Studying works on the history of the development of Marxism, some people form the impression that the subject of Marxist theoretical innovation is the "leader subject." The basis for this impression is the actual contribution of the "leader subject" to the development of Marxism and its actual influence in the development of Marxism, and of course, it is also related to the insufficient attention paid by some works on the history of Marxist development to the theoretical contributions of professional Marxist theorists. Proletarian leaders (who generally belong to the second and third types of Marxist theorists, mostly the second type), besides possessing rich political experience, leadership ability, and the qualities expected of a politician, generally also possess relatively profound theoretical cultivation and the ability to concentrate the wisdom of the masses, where "the masses" refers both to the broad masses of the people and to the group of professional Marxist theorists. Therefore, it is normal for the role of leaders in the development of Marxism to be more prominent than that of professional Marxist theorists. However, it is incorrect to understand the history of Marxist development merely as the intellectual history of proletarian leaders, or to understand the development history of a certain stage or a specific theoretical form of Marxism merely as the intellectual history of proletarian leaders. On the one hand, as outstanding subjects realizing the development of Marxism, the theoretical contributions of proletarian leaders in the process of realizing Marxist development are manifested both as the generalization and summation of the practical experience and practical wisdom of the masses, and as the absorption, condensation, elevation, and expression of the theoretical research achievements of the group of professional Marxist theorists. On the other hand, whether it is individual professional Marxist theorists or the group of professional Marxist theorists, they all have some unique theoretical research achievements that also play a role in promoting the development of Marxism that cannot be ignored. From these two aspects, professional Marxist theorists have their specific status in the history of Marxist development. In summary, regarding the understanding of the subject of Marxist development, the correct attitude that should be adhered to is: first, do not separate the individual leader subject from the collective leader subject. Neither deny the contribution of the individual leader subject nor deny the contribution of the collective leader subject. Second, do not separate the contribution of proletarian leaders to the development of Marxism from the contribution of the masses, including professional Marxist theorists. The subject of proletarian leaders, as the outstanding subject of Marxist development, reflects and represents the theoretical contributions of the mass subject, including professional Marxist theorists.

研读马克思主义发展史著作，有人产生一种马克思主义理论创新主体即为“领袖主体”的印象。产生这一印象的根据是“领袖主体”对于马克思主义发展的实际贡献和在马克思主义发展中的实际影响，当然也与一些马克思主义发展史著作对专业性马克思主义理论家的理论贡献关注不够有关。无产阶级领袖(他们一般属于第二类和第三类马克思主义理论家，多数是第二类马克思主义理论家)除了具有丰富的政治经验、领导能力和政治家应有的品格外，一般还具有较为深厚的理论修养和集中群众智慧的能力，这个群众既指广大人民群众，也指专业性马克思主义理论家群体。所以，在马克思主义发展中领袖的作用比起专业性马克思主义理论家更为突显是正常的。但是，据此而把马克思主义发展史仅仅理解为无产阶级领袖的思想史，或把马克思主义发展史的某个阶段、某种具体理论形态的发展史仅仅理解为无产阶级领袖的思想史，则是不正确的。一方面是无产阶级领袖作为实现马克思主义发展的杰出主体，在实现马克思主义发展的过程中其理论贡献既表现为对群众实践经验和实践智慧的概括和总结，又表现为对专业性马克思主义理论家群体的理论研究成果的吸收、凝练、提升和表达；另一方面，无论是专业性马克思主义理论家个人，还是专业性马克思主义理论家群体，都有一些对于推动马克思主义发展同样具有不可忽视作用的独特的理论研究成果。从这两个方面来说，专业性马克思主义理论家在马克思主义发展史上是有其特有地位的。总之，在关于马克思主义发展主体的认识上，应该坚持的正确态度：一是不要把领袖个人主体与领袖集体主体割裂开来。既不否认领袖个人主体的贡献，又不否认领袖集体主体的贡献。二是不要把无产阶级领袖对于马克思主义发展的贡献与包括专业性马克思主义理论家在内的群众的贡献割裂开来。无产阶级领袖主体作为马克思主义发展的杰出主体，反映和代表了包括专业性马克思主义理论家在内的群众主体的理论贡献。

(Author's brief introduction: Liang Shufa, Professor and Doctoral Supervisor at the School of Marxism Studies, Renmin University of China)

（作者简介：梁树发，中国人民大学马克思主义学院教授、博士生导师）

Online editor: Tongxin

网络编辑：同心