A Model of the Integration of General Principles and Historical Conditions

The *Communist Manifesto* is a great work that for the first time comprehensively expounds the principles of scientific socialism. It is a theoretical treasure trove rich in content, worthy of our repeated study and in-depth research, from which we can continuously draw ideological nourishment. In the process of the *Manifesto*’s dissemination, Marx and Engels left behind seven prefaces. The writing times, target audiences, and problematics of these seven prefaces are not entirely the same, but they collectively embody the great exploration by Marx and Engels of applying and innovating Marxist theory in practice, integrating the general principles and basic tenets of Marxism with historical conditions and concrete realities.

《共产党宣言》是第一次全面阐述科学社会主义原理的伟大著作，是一个内容丰富的理论宝库，值得我们反复学习、深入研究，不断从中汲取思想营养。在《共产党宣言》的传播过程中，马克思恩格斯留下了七篇序言。这七篇序言的写作时间、受众对象、问题意识不尽相同，但它们共同体现了马克思恩格斯在实践中运用、创新马克思主义理论，将马克思主义一般原理、基本原理同历史条件、具体实际相结合的伟大探索。

The Formation and Dissemination of the *Communist Manifesto*: The Unique Value of the Seven Prefaces

《共产党宣言》的形成与传播：七篇序言的独特价值

In a direct sense, the *Communist Manifesto* was a program drafted by Marx and Engels for the Communist League, publicly published in London, England, on the eve of the outbreak of the 1848 revolutions. Before the *Manifesto* appeared, Engels had also written the *Draft of a Communist Confession of Faith* during the First Congress of the Communist League and composed the *Principles of Communism* in preparation for the Second Congress of the Communist League. On the basis of these two documents, Marx and Engels collaboratively wrote the *Communist Manifesto*. The main body of the *Manifesto* consists of four parts closely integrating theory and practice: I. Bourgeois and Proletarians; II. Proletarians and Communists; III. Socialist and Communist Literature; IV. Position of the Communists in Relation to the Various Existing Opposition Parties.

在直接的意义上，《共产党宣言》是马克思和恩格斯为共产主义者同盟起草的纲领，于1848年革命爆发前夕在英国伦敦公开发表。在《共产党宣言》问世之前，恩格斯还曾在参加共产主义者同盟第一次代表大会期间撰写了《共产主义信条草案》，并为准备共产主义者同盟第二次代表大会撰写了《共产主义原理》。在这两份文件的基础上，马克思恩格斯合作撰写了《共产党宣言》。《共产党宣言》的正文由理论和实践紧密结合的四个部分组成：一、资产者和无产者；二、无产者和共产党人；三、社会主义的和共产主义的文献；四、共产党人对各种反对党派的态度。

In this work, Marx and Engels profoundly expounded the scientific world outlook of Marxism, the advanced character of the Marxist political party, the political stance of the Marxist political party, the lofty ideals of the Marxist political party, the revolutionary program of Marxism, and the internationalist spirit of the Marxist political party. As soon as the *Communist Manifesto* was published, it practically promoted the development of world socialism and profoundly changed the course of human history. Engels once called the *Communist Manifesto* “the most widespread and the most international product of all socialist literature, the common platform acknowledged by millions of workers from Siberia to California.” [1]1 Engels, “Preface to the English Edition of 1888,” in Marx and Engels, *Manifesto of the Communist Party*.

在这部著作中，马克思恩格斯深刻阐述了马克思主义的科学世界观，深刻阐述了马克思主义政党的先进品格，深刻阐述了马克思主义政党的政治立场，深刻阐述了马克思主义政党的崇高理想，深刻阐述了马克思主义的革命纲领，深刻阐述了马克思主义政党的国际主义精神。《共产党宣言》一经问世，就在实践上推动了世界社会主义发展，深刻改变了人类历史进程。恩格斯曾将《共产党宣言》称为“全部社会主义文献中传播最广和最具有国际性的著作，是从西伯利亚到加利福尼亚的千百万工人公认的共同纲领”。

From the beginning of the writing of the *Communist Manifesto* until Engels’s death, Marx and Engels successively wrote seven prefaces for its reprints. These seven prefaces are not only further elucidations of the ideas of the *Communist Manifesto* but also re-elaborations of the theory of scientific socialism in light of the historical developments of the time and the concrete realities of various countries, possessing unique theoretical value. The methodological core running through them, in the words of Marx and Engels, is: “the general principles of the *Manifesto* are, on the whole, as correct today as ever,” but “the practical application of the principles will depend, as the *Manifesto* itself states, everywhere and at all times, on the historical conditions for the time being.” [2]2 Marx and Engels, “Preface to the German Edition of 1872,” in *Manifesto of the Communist Party*. Reviewing the content of these seven prefaces, the exploration of integrating general principles with concrete realities and innovating Marxist theory in practice is concentratedly manifested in three aspects: the differentiation of the terms communism and socialism, the exploration of the path of development for Eastern societies, and the explanation of the intrinsic relationship between the unity of the proletariat and national independence.

从《共产党宣言》开始写作，一直到恩格斯逝世之前，马克思恩格斯先后为再版的《共产党宣言》撰写了七篇序言。这七篇序言不仅是对《共产党宣言》思想的进一步阐释，而且结合当时的历史发展和各国的具体实际，对科学社会主义理论进行了再阐发，具有独特的理论价值。贯穿其中的方法论内核，用马克思和恩格斯的话来说就是：“《宣言》中所阐述的一般原理整个来说直到现在还是完全正确的”，但是“这些原理的实际运用，正如《宣言》中所说的，随时随地都要以当时的历史条件为转移”。回顾这七篇序言的内容，将一般原理和具体实际相结合，在实践中创新马克思主义理论的探索，集中体现在共产主义和社会主义术语的辨析、东方社会发展道路的探索、无产者联合和民族独立内在关系的说明三个方面。

Communism or Socialism

共产主义还是社会主义

In the history of the dissemination of the *Communist Manifesto*, this immortal work also once bore another title, namely the *Communist Manifesto*. In fact, since the 1870s, most reprints of the *Communist Manifesto* were given the title *Communist Manifesto*. Considering that today we regard the publication of the *Communist Manifesto* as the public announcement of the birth of scientific socialism, the key issue is not the difference between “Manifesto of the Communist Party” and “Communist Manifesto,” but rather how to understand the relationship between socialism and communism. On this point, Engels gave specific explanations twice, in the *Preface to the English Edition of 1888* and the *Preface to the German Edition of 1890*. He said, “when we were writing this *Manifesto*, we could not have called it a socialist manifesto.” This is because “in 1847, socialism was a bourgeois movement, whereas communism was a working-class movement.” “Since we were convinced from the very beginning that ‘the emancipation of the working class must be the work of the working class itself,’ there could be no doubt as to which of the two names we must choose. Nor has it ever occurred to us to repudiate it.” [3]3 Engels, “Preface to the English Edition of 1888,” in Marx and Engels, *Manifesto of the Communist Party*.

在《共产党宣言》的传播史上，这篇不朽的著作还曾经使用过另外一个标题，这就是“共产主义宣言”。实际上，自19世纪70年代以来，《共产党宣言》再版的过程中大多被冠以《共产主义宣言》的标题。考虑到今天我们把《共产党宣言》的出版看作科学社会主义公开问世的标志，那么，关键的问题就不在于“共产党宣言”和“共产主义宣言”的区别，而是如何理解社会主义和共产主义之间的关系了。对此，恩格斯在《1888年英文版序言》和《1890年德文版序言》中两次给出了专门的说明。他说，“当我们写作这个《宣言》时，我们不能把它叫做社会主义宣言”。这是因为“在1847年，社会主义是资产阶级的运动，而共产主义则是工人阶级的运动”。“既然我们自始就认定‘工人阶级的解放应当是工人阶级自己的事情’，那么，在这两个名称中间我们应当选择哪一个，就是毫无疑义的了。而且后来我们也从没有想到要把这个名称抛弃”。

Returning to the process of the formation of Marxism, Engels’s explanation is very clear. In 1847, when the *Communist Manifesto* was being written, “socialists” were primarily the utopian socialists represented by the Owenites and Fourierists, as well as the “social quacks of every description” represented by Proudhon and the True Socialists; “socialism was a bourgeois movement.” Although at that time the working-class movement also contained crude communism such as that of Cabet and Weitling, communism was a working-class movement. Therefore, it was only natural for Marx and Engels to choose the titles “Manifesto of the Communist Party” and “Communist Manifesto.” Corroborating this is the fact that although Marx, while preparing the *Deutsch-Französische Jahrbücher* and writing the *Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844*, had criticized the existing dogmatic communism and crude communism, after moving towards historical materialism, Marx and Engels had clearly chosen the name “communism” and put this lofty ideal into practice by organizing the “Communist Correspondence Committee.”

回到马克思主义的形成过程中去，恩格斯的说明是十分清楚的。1847年也就是《共产党宣言》写作的时候，“社会主义者”主要是以欧文派和傅里叶派为代表的空想社会主义者，以及蒲鲁东和真正的社会主义者所代表的“形形色色的社会庸医”，“社会主义是资产阶级的运动”。尽管，当时工人阶级的运动中还存在着卡贝和魏特林这样的粗陋的共产主义，但是共产主义是工人阶级的运动。因此，马克思恩格斯选择“共产党宣言”以及“共产主义宣言”作为标题也就顺理成章了。可资佐证的是，虽然马克思在筹备《德法年鉴》，以及写作《1844年经济学哲学手稿》时，还批判了当时存在的教条主义的共产主义、粗陋的共产主义，但是在走向唯物史观之后，马克思恩格斯已经明确选择了“共产主义”这个名称，并通过组织“共产主义通讯委员会”来践行这一远大理想了。

At the same time, we should also note that Engels’s specific explanation of the work’s title at the end of the 19th century was also directly related to the historical conditions of social development and the concrete realities of the workers’ movement at that time. After all, in Western Europe at the time, especially in England, Germany, and France, with the development of the capitalist mode of production and the adjustment of the bourgeois mode of rule, various petty-bourgeois socialist trends of thought exerted an influence on the working class that could not be ignored, even posing a challenge to Marxism. Representative among these “socialist trends” were trade unionism, Fabian socialism, Lassalleanism, Proudhonism, Bakuninism, and others. [4]4 These are various socialist and anarchist currents that emerged in the European workers’ movement in the second half of the 19th century, often critiqued by Marx and Engels as reformist, statist, or anti-authoritarian deviations from scientific socialism. Combining Marx’s discussion in the *Critique of the Gotha Programme* of the dictatorship of the proletariat as the first phase of communism, and Engels’s defense of scientific socialism in *Socialism: Utopian and Scientific*, it can be seen that Marx and Engels’s choice of the title “Communist Manifesto” itself also contained the implication of criticizing the erroneous trends existing in the socialist practice of Europe at the time and pointing the direction for the workers’ movement. In this sense, the differentiation of the names communism and socialism is not merely an explanation of historical facts but also contains the theoretical orientation of defending, applying, and developing general principles in conjunction with specific social and historical conditions. This also lays an important methodological foundation for our deep understanding today of the intrinsic unity between the common ideal of socialism with Chinese characteristics and the lofty ideal of communism.

与此同时，我们还应注意到：恩格斯之所以在19世纪末专门对著作名称作出说明，还同当时的社会发展的历史条件和工人运动的具体实际直接相关。毕竟在当时的西欧，特别是英国、德国和法国，伴随资本主义生产方式的发展和资产阶级统治方式的调整，形形色色的小资产阶级社会主义思潮在工人阶级中产生了不容忽视的影响，甚至构成了对马克思主义的挑战。这些“社会主义思潮”中代表性的有工联主义、费边社会主义、拉萨尔主义、蒲鲁东主义、巴枯宁主义等。结合马克思在《哥达纲领批判》中有关无产阶级专政是共产主义第一个阶段的论述，以及恩格斯在《社会主义从空想到科学的发展》中对于科学社会主义的捍卫，可以看出：马克思恩格斯选择“共产主义宣言”这个标题，本身还蕴含着批判当时欧洲社会主义实践中存在的错误思潮，为工人运动指明方向的含义。在这个意义上，共产主义和社会主义名称的辨析，不仅是一个历史事实的说明，而且蕴含着结合具体的社会历史条件，捍卫、运用、发展一般原理的理论旨向。这也为我们今天深入理解中国特色社会主义共同理想与共产主义远大理想的内在统一，奠定了重要的方法论基础。

Crossing the “Caudine Forks” [5]5 “Crossing the Caudine Forks” is a metaphor derived from an ancient Roman military defeat (321 BCE), used by Marx in his later writings to refer to the possibility of a society bypassing the capitalist stage of development, specifically in relation to the Russian rural commune.

跨越“卡夫丁峡谷”

In February 1881, the Russian female revolutionary Vera Zasulich wrote to Marx, seeking his advice on the question of the Russian rural commune. A question of universal concern among Russian revolutionaries at the time was: from the perspective of Marx’s *Capital*, was the Russian rural commune “capable of developing in a socialist direction,” or was it “doomed to perish”? In his reply to Zasulich, dated March 8 of the same year, and in its drafts, Marx raised the famous question of “crossing the Caudine Forks” of the capitalist system. [6]6 “Crossing the Caudine Forks” (卡夫丁峡谷) is a metaphor derived from a Roman military defeat in 321 BCE at the Caudine Forks, a mountain pass; Marx used it to mean avoiding the full destructive experience of capitalism while still benefiting from its achievements. To use Marx’s words from the third draft of his reply to Zasulich, regarding the possible development of the Russian commune, “its situation is extremely special, without precedent in history. In the whole of Europe, it is the only form of organization that dominates rural life within a vast empire. The common ownership of land provides it with a natural basis for collective possession, while its historical environment (the simultaneous existence of capitalist production) gives it the ready-made material conditions for large-scale organized cooperative labor. Therefore, it can cross the Caudine Forks of the capitalist system without passing through it, while absorbing all the positive achievements that the capitalist system has attained.”

1881年2月，俄国女革命者查苏利奇曾经致信马克思，请教俄国农村公社问题。当时俄国的革命者普遍关心的一个问题是：从马克思《资本论》的观点出发，俄国的农村公社是“能够朝社会主义方向发展”，还是“注定要灭亡”？在同年3月8日，马克思给查苏利奇的复信及其草稿中，提到了著名的跨越资本主义制度的“卡夫丁峡谷”问题。用马克思在给查苏利奇的复信三稿中的话说，就俄国公社可能的发展来说，“它的情况非常特殊，在历史上没有先例。在整个欧洲，只有它是一个巨大的帝国内农村生活中占统治地位的组织形式。土地公有制赋予它以集体占有的自然基础，而它的历史环境（资本主义生产和它同时存在）又给予它以实现大规模组织起来的合作劳动的现成物质条件。因此，它可以不通过资本主义制度的卡夫丁峡谷，而吸取资本主义制度所取得的一切肯定成果”。

In the “Preface to the Russian Edition of 1882,” Marx and Engels gave a public response to this question. In their words, was the Russian commune “capable of directly transitioning to the higher form of communist common ownership”? Or must it “first undergo the same process of dissolution that Western historical development has experienced”? “The only possible answer to this question at present is: if the Russian revolution becomes the signal for a proletarian revolution in the West, so that the two complement each other, then the present Russian common ownership of land can serve as the starting point for communist development.” This means that, regarding the Russian land question and the rural commune question—which Zasulich saw as a “matter of life and death”—Marx and Engels, on the one hand, emphasized the particularity of its historical environment and the significance of this extremely special situation for its possible development; on the other hand, based on the scientific judgment of the expansion of the division of labor and the formation of world history, they pointed out the real conditions for Russian common ownership of land to serve as the starting point for communist development, namely, that the Russian revolution would become the signal for a proletarian revolution in the West, and that the Russian revolution and the Western proletarian revolution would complement each other.

在《1882年俄文版序言》中，马克思恩格斯对这一问题作出了公开的回应。用他们的话说，俄国公社“是能够直接过渡到高级的共产主义的公共占有形式呢”？还是“必须先经历西方的历史发展所经历的那个瓦解过程呢”？“对于这个问题，目前唯一可能的答复是：假如俄国革命将成为西方无产阶级革命的信号而双方互相补充的话，那么现今的俄国土地公有制便能成为共产主义发展的起点。”这就意味着：对于俄国土地问题和农村公社问题这个查苏利奇看来“生死攸关的问题”，马克思恩格斯一方面强调了它的历史环境的特殊性，以及这种非常特殊的情况对其可能的发展的意义；另一方面基于分工交往扩大、世界历史形成的科学判断，指出了俄国土地公有制作为共产主义发展的起点的现实条件，也就是俄国革命成为西方无产阶级革命的信号，而俄国革命与西方无产阶级革命又互相补充。

Marx and Engels clearly pointed out that the task of the *Communist Manifesto* was to “proclaim the inevitable doom of modern bourgeois property.” Although Marx, focusing primarily on the development of socio-economic formations in Western Europe, had distinguished in *The German Ideology* between four forms of ownership—tribal, ancient classical, feudal, and modern bourgeois—and had distinguished in the “Preface” to *A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy* between four stages in the evolution of economic social formations—the Asiatic, the ancient, the feudal, and the modern bourgeois modes of production—Marx and Engels did not simply apply these mechanically to the interpretation of all processes of social and historical development. Marx’s answer to the question of the Russian rural commune and his judgment on “crossing the Caudine Forks” both adhered to the stance and principles of historical materialism, emphasizing the objectivity of social and historical development, while at the same time, based on the particularity of Russian social development, providing a concrete analysis of the path of the Russian revolution. This analysis can be seen as a great exploration by Marx and Engels to expand the theoretical interpretation and practical influence of Marxism by integrating the general principles of historical materialism with the specific historical conditions of modern capitalist development and the Russian rural commune.

马克思恩格斯明确指出：《共产党宣言》的任务是，“宣告现代资产阶级所有制必然灭亡”。虽然马克思以西欧社会经济形态的发展为主要着眼点，曾在《德意志意识形态》中区分了部落的、古典古代的、封建的和现代资产阶级四种所有制形式，曾在《政治经济学批判》《序言》中区分了亚细亚的、古代的、封建的和现代资产阶级的生产方式四个经济的社会形态演进的阶段。但是马克思恩格斯并没有将其简单套用到对一切社会历史发展过程的解释上。马克思对于俄国农村公社问题的解答，对于“跨越卡夫丁峡谷”的判断，既坚持了唯物史观的立场和原则，强调社会历史发展的客观性，但同时又立足俄国社会发展的特殊性，对于俄国革命的道路给出具体的分析。这一分析可以被看作是马克思恩格斯将唯物史观的一般原理同现代资本主义发展、俄国农村公社的具体历史条件相结合，拓展马克思主义理论阐释和实践影响的伟大探索。

Workers of the World, Unite!

全世界无产者联合起来

At the First Congress of the Communist League, the slogan “Workers of the World, Unite!” was formally proposed. The *Communist Manifesto* also mentioned that the bourgeois era has a characteristic: “the whole of society is increasingly splitting into two great hostile camps, into two great classes directly confronting each other: the bourgeoisie and the proletariat.” So, how should Marxists approach the question of nations and states? How should the proletariat view the issue of national independence in the process of pursuing human liberation and social revolution? In the dissemination of Marxism and the reception of the *Communist Manifesto*, this was destined to be a focal question. In fact, the judgment of Marx and Engels on the future development of the Russian commune already contained an answer to this question. A clearer answer was given in the “Preface to the Polish Edition of 1892” and the “Preface to the Italian Edition of 1893.”

在共产主义者同盟第一次代表大会上，“全世界无产者，联合起来！”这一口号正式提出。《共产党宣言》中也曾提到：资产阶级时代有一个特点，“整个社会日益分裂为两大对立的阵营，分裂为两大相互直接对立的阶级：资产阶级和无产阶级”。那么，马克思主义者该怎样对待民族和国家问题呢？无产阶级在追求人的解放和社会革命的过程中该怎样看待民族独立这个问题呢？在马克思主义的传播过程中、《共产党宣言》的接受过程中，这注定是一个焦点问题。实际上，在马克思恩格斯关于俄国公社未来发展的判断中，已经蕴含着对这一问题的回答。更为鲜明的回答，则在《1892年波兰文版序言》和《1893年意大利文版序言》中被给出了。

Addressing Polish readers, Engels wrote: “It is noteworthy, first of all, that of late the *Manifesto* has become to a certain extent a measure of the development of large-scale industry on the European continent. The more large-scale industry develops in a given country, the stronger the desire of the workers in that country to understand their position as a working class in relation to the possessing classes, the more the socialist movement among the workers expands, and the greater the demand for the *Manifesto*.” “The revival of an independent and strong Poland is a matter of concern not only to the Poles but to all of us. The sincere international cooperation of the European nations is possible only when each nation is fully master in its own house.” Addressing Italian readers, Engels further emphasized: “Without restoring the independence and unity of each nation, it is impossible either for the proletariat to achieve international unity or for the nations to achieve the harmonious and conscious cooperation necessary for their common goals.”

面对波兰读者，恩格斯写道：“首先值得注意的是，近来《宣言》在某种程度上已经成为测量欧洲大陆大工业发展的一种尺度。某一国家的大工业越发展，该国工人想要弄清他们作为工人阶级在有产阶级面前所处地位的愿望也就越强烈，工人中间的社会主义运动也就越扩大，对《宣言》的需求也就越增长。”“一个独立强盛的波兰的复兴是一件不仅关系到波兰人而且关系到我们大家的事情。欧洲各民族的真诚的国际合作，只有当每个民族自己完全当家作主的时候才能实现。”面对意大利读者，恩格斯又进一步强调：“不恢复每个民族的独立和统一，那就既不可能有无产阶级的国际联合，也不可能有各民族为达到共同目的而必须实行的和睦的与自觉的合作。”

That is to say, Marx and Engels never abstractly set a rigid “law” or absolute “path” for the development of human social history. Instead, standing on the basis of the development of productive forces, especially large-scale industry, they emphasized the identity of the proletariat as the “grave-digger” of the bourgeois system itself and its position as the subject of history. Furthermore, standing on this theoretical high ground, Marx and Engels set the direction and devised strategies for the independence and revival of each nation, as well as for sincere international cooperation among nations and the international unity of the proletariat. In these analyses, the lofty revolutionary goal of “Workers of the World, Unite!” was intrinsically and organically integrated with the industrial development, modernization, and unfolding of the socialist movement in each country. This means that the actual application of the general principles of Marxism, the requirement that they “be applied everywhere and at all times in accordance with the prevailing historical conditions,” inherently includes a concern for the concrete realities and historical traditions of each nation. In this sense, the content of these prefaces, together with Engels’s judgment in the “Introduction” to the English edition of *Socialism: Utopian and Scientific*, written in the same period, that “it is precisely the English working class that preserves the best qualities of the English national character,” and his judgment in *Ludwig Feuerbach and the End of Classical German Philosophy* that “the German workers’ movement is the inheritor of German classical philosophy,” jointly embody a model of how classical theorists integrated the general principles of Marxism with the historical conditions of the times, with the concrete realities and national traditions of each country, and applied them in practice to achieve innovative development.

也就是说，马克思恩格斯从来没有为人类社会历史的发展抽象设定一条僵硬的“规律”和绝对的“道路”，而是站在生产力发展，特别是大工业发展的基础上，强调无产阶级作为资产阶级制度“自身的掘墓人”身份和历史主体地位。进而，站在这个理论高地上，马克思恩格斯为每个民族的独立和复兴，以及各民族之间真诚的国际合作、无产阶级的国际联合，举旗定向、出谋划策。在这些分析中，“全世界无产者联合起来”这一崇高的革命目标，同各个国家的工业发展、现代化实现、社会主义运动展开，内在有机结合起来了。这就意味着，马克思主义一般原理的实际运用，“随时随地都要以当时的历史条件为转移”这一要求内在包含着对各个民族的具体实际和历史传统的关切。在这个意义上，这些序言中的内容，与恩格斯同时期撰写《社会主义从空想到科学的发展》英文版导言时作出的“正是英国工人阶级保存着英国民族性格的最优秀的品质”的判断，撰写《路德维希·费尔巴哈和德国古典哲学的终结》时作出的“德国工人运动是德国古典哲学的继承者”的判断一道，共同体现了经典理论家将马克思主义一般原理，同时代的历史条件相结合，同各国的具体实际和民族传统相结合，加以实际运用进而创新发展的典范。

Online Editor: Paul

网络编辑：保罗