Plekhanov’s Critique of the “Religious Quest” and the Elaboration of Marxist Atheism

Plekhanov was a staunch Marxist, praised by Engels as one of the two people who understood or mastered Marxism. Over decades of revolutionary activity, he consistently adhered to Marxist positions, viewpoints, and methods in his theoretical research, especially in his exploration of philosophical questions. Plekhanov was hailed by Lenin as an outstanding Marxist philosopher, and all his philosophical writings should be considered compulsory reading in the communist textbook canon.

普列汉诺夫是坚定的马克思主义者，被恩格斯评价为理解或掌握了马克思主义的两个人之一。在长达几十年的革命生涯中，他在对理论研究尤其对哲学问题的探讨上，始终坚持马克思主义的立场、观点和方法。普列汉诺夫被列宁赞誉为杰出的马克思主义哲学家，他所写的全部哲学著作应当列为必读的共产主义教科书。

In 1905, the first bourgeois-democratic revolution in Russia failed. Under the reactionary rule of Stolypin, tsarist Russia brutally persecuted the proletariat and the broad masses. At this time, the revolution was in a period of low ebb and extreme difficulty. Some people, disillusioned and despairing of the revolution’s prospects, abandoned the revolutionary ranks; the majority of these were in a state of hesitation and confusion. In the ideological sphere, all manner of idealist trends proliferated, with mysticism as one of their main forms of expression. Bourgeois scholars attributed the failure of the revolution to “God’s punishment,” proclaiming that the task of the moment for Russians was to recover the “God they had lost.” Within the revolutionary Social Democratic Party, “God-building” [1]1 “God-building” (богостроительство) was a trend among some Russian Social Democrats after the 1905 Revolution that sought to create a new, socialist religion by imbuing Marxism with religious or quasi-religious elements, in contrast to “God-seeking” (богоискательство), which was a broader intellectual movement seeking religious faith outside of orthodox Christianity. also emerged, advocating the creation of a new “socialist religion.” This situation was extremely detrimental to the revolution. With a profound sense of responsibility toward the revolution, Plekhanov wrote articles and treatises to theoretically clear away the fog of the religious quest, elucidate its ideological harm, boost people’s revolutionary spirit, and guide them to continue the revolution. *On the So-Called Religious Quest in Russia* was born in this context. *On the So-Called Religious Quest in Russia* is over 90,000 characters long, divided into three parts. Its content is rich, its reasoning thorough, its explanations clear and penetrating, and its language witty and vivid, with a plain yet forceful tone. It is a rare theoretical masterpiece for criticizing erroneous trends of thought. Lenin stated that it played a great role in the philosophical “rectification” [2]2 “Rectification” (整顿) here refers to Lenin’s description of the philosophical clarification and purification of Marxist theory carried out by Plekhanov and others during the reactionary period, analogous to the critical and foundational role of the Encyclopedists in France or German classical philosophy. carried out by the advanced class in Russia during the Stolypin reactionary period, similar to the enlightening role played by the Encyclopedists in 18th-century France or by German classical philosophy, mainly represented by Kant and Hegel, in Germany. Carefully analyzing and studying this work by Plekhanov is of great practical significance and long-term historical importance for us in conducting sound research on religious theory, doing a good job in religious work under the current complex and volatile situation, unifying the thinking of the entire Party and the people of the whole country, and realizing the Chinese Dream of the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation.

1905年，俄国第一次资产阶级民主革命失败，沙皇俄国在斯托雷平的反动统治下，疯狂地迫害无产阶级和广大人民。这时革命处于低潮和极其困难时期，一些人由于对革命前途悲观失望而脱离革命队伍，其中大多数人处于彷徨和迷茫的状态。这时思想领域形形色色的唯心主义泛滥起来，神秘主义是其主要表现形式之一。资产阶级学者把革命的失败归结于“上帝的惩罚”，鼓吹俄国人要把“失去了的上帝”找回来是当前的任务。革命的社会民主党内也出现了“造神说”，主张创立新的“社会主义的宗教”。这种情况于革命极其不利。普列汉诺夫抱着对革命极端负责的态度，著述撰文，从理论上廓清宗教探寻的迷雾，阐明其思想危害，提振人们的革命精神，引导人们继续革命，《论俄国的所谓宗教探寻》就是在此背景下诞生的。《论俄国的所谓宗教探寻》全文9万多字，分为3个部分，内容丰富，说理充分，阐释透彻明了，语言诙谐生动，平实中透着铿锵之力，是不可多得的批判错误思潮的理论名篇。列宁称其在斯托雷平反动时期俄国先进阶级进行哲学“整顿”中起到伟大作用，类似于18世纪百科全书派在法国，或者像以康德、黑格尔等为主要代表的德国古典哲学在德国所起的那种启蒙作用。认真分析和研读普列汉诺夫此文，对于我们搞好宗教理论研究，做好当前复杂多变形势下的宗教工作，统一全党和全国人民思想，实现中华民族伟大复兴的中国梦，具有重要的现实意义和长远的历史意义。

I. Using Marxist Theory as a Guide to Elucidate Some Basic Questions Concerning Religion

一、以马克思主义理论为指导，对宗教方面的一些基本问题进行阐释

*On the So-Called Religious Quest in Russia* is actually a collection of articles. According to Plekhanov’s original plan, he intended to write a total of four articles, or perhaps more. The first article was introductory in nature, laying the groundwork for the others; the second, third, and fourth were to provide concrete analysis and critique of erroneous religious questions. In the end, he completed only three. The fourth article was originally intended to expose and criticize the idealism, religious gospel, and mysticism of the reactionary collection *Vekhi* [3]3 *Vekhi* (Landmarks) was a 1909 collection of essays by a group of Russian liberal intellectuals (the *Vekhi* group) that criticized the radical intelligentsia, including the revolutionary movement, and advocated a return to religious and idealist philosophy. by the *Vekhi* group, but for unknown reasons, it was not completed according to the original plan. According to textual research, an outline for the fourth article had already been drafted, which is reflected in the outline of his special report “Lectures on Religion.” Now, we will primarily analyze and study the three articles that Plekhanov published and which are included in Volume 3 of his *Selected Philosophical Works*.

《论俄国的所谓宗教探寻》实际上是一组文章的合集。按照普列汉诺夫原来的写作设想，总共要写4篇文章或更多一些。第一篇是具有导言性质的文章，为其他几篇行文作铺垫，第二、三、四篇针对宗教上的错误问题进行具体分析与批判。最后他只完成了3篇，第四篇本打算揭露和批判路标派的《路标》反动论文集的唯心主义、宗教福音和神秘主义，但不知何故没有按照原来的计划完成。据考证，第四篇的大纲已经拟好，这在他的专题报告《宗教讲座》的提纲中已经反映出来。现在，我们就以普列汉诺夫公开发表且收录在《普列汉诺夫哲学著作选集》第三卷中的3篇文章为主要文本依托进行分析学习。

The first article in *On the So-Called Religious Quest in Russia*, titled “On Religion,” is 44 pages long, over 30,000 characters, roughly the same length as the other two. Its content focuses on some basic theories concerning religion. Plekhanov invested a great deal of effort and time in this section. First, Plekhanov was himself a revolutionary, not a professional researcher. To reach a certain professional level, to make his critique hit the mark and play its due role, he had to put in hard work. Second, as an introduction to the subsequent articles—that is, as a tool and weapon for critique—it was necessary to sharpen it and make it invincible. From the content of the article, it is clear that Plekhanov extensively studied and researched the latest theoretical achievements in religious studies by first-rate experts and scholars in ethnology and religious theory at the time. On this basis, he conducted in-depth analysis and reflection, putting forward his own unique insights. From his citations and notes, one can see that Plekhanov was thoroughly familiar with these experts, scholars, and their numerous works. As for Marx and Engels’ discussions on religion, Plekhanov was even more intimately familiar with them, able to draw on them at will.

《论俄国的所谓宗教探寻》中的第一篇《论宗教》，篇幅有44页，3万多字，与其他两篇长短差不多，内容主要集中在关于宗教的一些基本理论。对于此部分内容，普列汉诺夫是花费了很多心血和时间的。其一，普列汉诺夫本身是革命家，并不是专业研究者，要想达到一定专业水平，使批判切中肯綮，起到应有作用，不下苦功夫是不行的；其二，作为后面文章的导言，也就是批判的工具和武器，不把其打磨锋利、使其攻无不克也是不行的。从文章内容来看，普列汉诺夫对当时一流的民族、宗教理论研究专家学者的最新宗教理论研究成果，进行了广泛学习和研究。他在此基础上进行了深入分析和思考，并提出了自己的独到见解。从其引文注释中，可以知晓普列汉诺夫熟知这些专家学者及其众多作品。至于马克思和恩格斯对宗教的论述，普列汉诺夫更是熟稔于心、信手拈来。

In “On Religion,” Plekhanov first briefly explains the reasons for studying the religious question. After the failure of the bourgeois February Revolution, all of Russia was under the white terror of Stolypin, and people generally felt depressed and oppressed. The religious quest became one of the most notable issues in Russia at the time. This situation was reflected in an article by Alexander Yablonovsky, who wrote: “Currently, our society’s attention seems to be divided into three parts, respectively focused on God-seeking, pornographic literature, and wrestling.” [4]4 This is a direct quotation from Alexander Yablonovsky, a Russian journalist and writer, illustrating the perceived public preoccupations of the time. Therefore, Plekhanov concentrated his attention on Russia’s “God-seeking.” However, some people in society displayed considerable ignorance regarding religious questions. Bulgakov [5]5 Sergei Bulgakov (1871–1944) was a Russian Orthodox theologian, philosopher, and economist. Initially a Marxist, he later abandoned Marxism for idealism and became a leading figure in the God-seeking movement, eventually becoming an Orthodox priest. (who had spiritually regressed “from Marxism to idealism”), one of Russia’s most famous God-seekers, stated in his article: “What is most astonishing in Russian atheism is its dogmatism, one might say its frivolous attitude toward religion… The ignorance of our intelligentsia on religious questions is astonishing… I say this to diagnose their state of mind. Our intelligentsia is still quite childish in its attitude toward religion; it has not yet seriously considered religion.” Plekhanov agreed with Bulgakov’s view on this point, but also pointed out that he had not told the whole truth, that he had overlooked that “in our country, not only those who preach atheism, but also those who, in one way or another, study ‘God-seeking’ or ‘God-building,’ also display ignorance of religious questions. Our ‘God-seekers’ or ‘God-builders’ have also not yet seriously considered religion; their religious propaganda is not as politically unrelated as it might appear at first glance.” Based on the above, Plekhanov clarified his own direction of effort and research task: on the basis of clarifying basic knowledge about religion, he should pay attention to and study the tendency “steadfastly inclined toward religious dogmatism,” and at the same time “find the social causes that give rise to this tendency.” Hence, the basic theories concerning religion discussed below arise from this.

在《论宗教》中，普列汉诺夫首先简要说明研究宗教问题的缘起。在资产阶级二月革命失败后，整个俄国处于斯托雷平白色恐怖之中，人们普遍感到沉闷和压抑。宗教探寻就成为当时俄国最受人注意的问题之一。这种情况在亚历山大·雅勃洛诺夫斯基文章中就给予了反映，他写道：“现在我国的社会注意力似乎分成了三个部分，分别注视着寻神说、色情文学和摔跤运动”因此，普列汉诺夫把注意力集中对俄国的“寻神说”上。然而，社会上一些人对宗教问题表现出相当的无知。俄国最著名的寻神派人物之一布尔加柯夫（在精神上从“马克思主义退到唯心主义”）在其文章中认为，“在俄国无神论中最令人惊异的是它的教条主义，也可以说是它对宗教所采取的轻率态度……我国知识分子在宗教问题上的无知是令人惊异的……我这样说是为了诊断他们的精神状态。我国知识分子在对待宗教的态度方面简直还很幼稚，对宗教还没有认真地考虑过”。普列汉诺夫认同布尔加柯夫的这个看法，同时指出他所说的并不是全部实情，他忽略了“在我国，不仅那些宣传无神论的人，而且那些这样或那样地研究‘寻神说’或‘造神说’的人，也表现出对宗教问题的无知。我们的‘寻神派’或‘造神派’也还没有对宗教加以认真的考虑，他们的宗教宣传根本不像乍看之下那样与政治无关”。基于上述情况，普列汉诺夫明确了自己的努力方向和研究任务，即在弄清楚有关宗教的基本知识基础上，对于“坚定不移地倾向于宗教教条主义”这种倾向应加注意并加以研究，同时“找出产生这种倾向的社会原因”。所以说，下面关于宗教方面的基本理论就是由此而来。

On the concept of religion. Plekhanov held that “religion is a fairly systematic system of ideas, emotions, and activities. Ideas constitute the mythological element of religion, emotions belong to the sphere of religious feeling, and activities pertain to the aspect of religious worship, in other words, to the aspect of religious ritual.” [6]6 G. V. Plekhanov, *On Religion* (Beijing: SDX Joint Publishing Company, 1961), p. 74. [Translator’s note: This is a reference to the Chinese edition of Plekhanov’s works on religion; the original Russian source is not specified in the text.] This definition is profound and comprehensive, revealing the essence of the phenomenon of religion, yet it remains somewhat simplistic, lacking a specialized systematic exposition. This stems mainly from the fact that Plekhanov was not a professional researcher of religion. Even so, this definition received affirmation and praise from both Russian and Chinese academic circles. The Soviet scholar Chagin pointed out, “Plekhanov considered that in religion there exist: (1) an ideological factor, (2) a psychological factor, and (3) an organizational factor. This division of the important aspects of religion cannot but be recognized as correct,” and that “he did not merely reduce religion to the sphere of ideology; he noted the psychological aspect of religion and the organizational form of believers’ activity—worship.” Another Soviet scholar, V. D. Parygin, believed that Plekhanov’s concept had great theoretical and practical significance. Theoretically, the past reduction of religion to an ideological system was incorrect, as it impoverished the content of religion and simplified its structure. From the perspective of the practice of atheist propaganda, it is difficult to overcome believers’ religious emotions by merely criticizing religious dogma theoretically without considering the socio-psychological aspect of religion. The late Chinese foundational researcher of religious theory, Lü Daji, compared Plekhanov’s achievements in the Marxist view of religion to those of Lenin, expressing sincere admiration. Over a hundred years ago, and at a time when religious studies as a scientific humanities discipline had existed for only about twenty years, Plekhanov, as a scholar not specializing in religious studies, was able to propose a profound, accurate, and complete concept of religion, despite lacking sufficient argumentation and the construction of a theoretical system—this was already quite rare. It also fully demonstrates Plekhanov’s deep erudition, solid theoretical foundation, profound insight, and outstanding capacity for theoretical creation and innovation.

关于宗教的概念。普列汉诺夫认为，“宗教是观念、情绪和活动的相当严整的体系。观念是宗教的神话因素，情绪属于宗教感情领域，而活动则属于宗教礼拜方面，换句话说，属于宗教仪式方面”。这个定义是深刻的、全面的，揭示了宗教这种现象的本质，但是还是略显简单，缺乏专业性的系统论述。这主要源于普列汉诺夫并非专业的宗教研究者。即便如此，该定义还是受到了俄国学界和我国学界的肯定和赞扬。苏联学者恰金指出，“普列汉诺夫认为宗教中存在着：（1）思想体系因素、（2）心理因素和（3）组织因素。对宗教各个重要环节的这种划分不能不承认是正确的”，“不是仅仅把宗教归结为思想体系的领域，他注意到宗教的心理方面以及信徒活动的组织形式——崇拜”。另一位苏联学者BД帕雷金认为，普列汉诺夫这个概念具有重大的理论意义和实践意义。从理论上讲，过去把宗教归结为思想体系是不正确的，这样会使宗教的内容变得贫乏，使宗教的结构简单化。而从无神论宣传的实践看，光从理论上批判宗教教条而不考虑宗教的社会心理方面，是很难克服信徒的宗教情绪的。我国已故宗教基础理论研究专家吕大吉先生把普列汉诺夫在马克思主义宗教观上取得的成就与列宁相提并论，表达了由衷的赞叹。在100多年前，且在宗教学作为一门具有科学意义上的人文学科产生仅仅20余年的时间里，普列汉诺夫作为一个非宗教学专业的学者，尽管缺乏充分的论证及理论体系的建构，但是能够提出深刻、准确和完整的宗教概念，已实属难得。这也充分说明了普列汉诺夫深厚的学养、扎实的理论功底、深刻的洞见及卓越的理论创造创新能力。

The mythological element occupies a core position in religion, and Plekhanov also gave it serious examination. In Greek, mythos means story. When people marvel at some phenomenon and seek to understand its process of occurrence, myths arise. Plekhanov briefly analyzed this using the example of the origin of the Greek mythological figure Athena, the ancient Jews’ questioning of the origin of the world, and the Australian aborigines’ speculation on the origin of the moon. These all constitute myths or mythological stories. From this, Plekhanov concluded: “Myth is a story that answers the questions ‘why’ and ‘how.’ Myth is the initial expression of humanity’s consciousness of the causal connection between phenomena.” Plekhanov further argued: “Believing in the existence of spirits is one thing; worshipping them is another. Myth is one thing; religious ritual is another. Primitive people believed in the existence of many spirits, but they worshipped only a few of them.” “Religious ritual arises from the combination of animistic ideas with certain religious activities.” These insights are the results of Plekhanov’s research on myth and possess their own unique theoretical value. Next, Plekhanov turned his attention to the origin of animism, delving deeper layer by layer to unveil the mysterious veil of religion.

神话因素是在宗教中占据核心地位的成分，普列汉诺夫对此也给予了认真探讨。在希腊语中神话就是故事的意思。人们对某种现象感到惊异并弄清楚它的发生过程，这样就会产生神话。普列汉诺夫以希腊神话人物雅典娜的产生、古犹太人对世界来源的发问、澳大利亚土著居民对月亮来源的猜想为例，进行了简要分析。这些都构成了神话或神话故事。由此，普列汉诺夫认为：“神话是回答为什么和怎么样这两个问题的故事。神话是人对现象之间的因果联系的意识的最初表现。”普列汉诺夫进一步认为：“相信精灵的存在是一回事，崇拜它们又是另一回事；神话是一回事，宗教仪式又是一回事。原始人相信有许多精灵存在，但是他们所崇拜的只是其中的几个”。“宗教仪式是由于万物有灵论的思想同一定宗教活动的结合而产生的”。上述认知是普列汉诺夫关于神话的研究所得，具有其独到的理论价值。接下来普列汉诺夫关注万物有灵论的来源，层层深入，揭开宗教的神秘面纱。

On how people in the savage state understood natural phenomena, Plekhanov stated: “The productive forces of primitive people were very underdeveloped; their ability to control nature was very low. In the development of human thought, practice at any time precedes theory: the broader the scope of humanity’s action on nature, the broader and more correct their understanding of nature becomes. Conversely, the narrower this scope, the poorer their theory. The poorer their theory, the more they resort to fantasy to explain phenomena that, for unknown reasons, attract their attention. Analogical judgment is the basis of all illusory explanations of natural life.” “The assumption that natural phenomena are caused by the will of beings imperceptible to the external senses, or perceptible only to a minimal degree—this hypothesis gradually developed and consolidated under the influence of the hunting mode of life.” Here, Plekhanov, using the viewpoint of historical materialism, pointed out that primitive people with low productive forces basically explained natural phenomena through analogy, and this is also the origin of the emergence of religion.

关于蒙昧时代如何认识自然现象，普列汉诺夫讲道：“原始人的生产力很不发达；他们控制自然的能力是很低的。而在人类思想发展中，实践在任何时候都先于理论：人作用于自然的范围愈广阔，他对自然的了解也就愈广阔，愈正确。反过来说，这一范围愈狭小，人的理论也就愈贫乏。他的理论愈贫乏，他就愈想用幻想来解释那些不知道因为什么引起他注意的现象。类比判断是对自然生活的一切虚幻解释的基础”。“认为自然现象是由人的外部感官所不能感触的或只能在最小程度上感触的存在物的意志所引起的，——这种假想在人的狩猎生活方式的影响下逐渐地发展并巩固起来”。在这里，普列汉诺夫利用历史唯物主义观点指出，生产力低下的原始人对自然现象的解释基本上都是采用类比的方法，这也是宗教产生的缘起。

On the mode of thought of savage people, Plekhanov believed that “hunting determined the entire mode of thought of ‘savage’ people.” The worldview of savage people, even their aesthetic views, were the worldview and aesthetic views of hunters. Plekhanov, citing the research of Stein, stated: “All their extraordinarily rich art is rooted in hunting life. All their mythology is also rooted in this life.” “When ‘savage people’ judged natural phenomena by analogy, they compared natural phenomena not only with themselves but also with the entire animal kingdom.” “The death of animals, like the death of humans, is due to their souls leaving their bodies… Gradually, the whole world became populated with spirits, and primitive people attributed every natural phenomenon that attracted their attention to ‘spirits.’” All this reflects that the entire mode of thought of primitive people was inseparable from their own hunting life; the concept of “spirit” and the formation of animism were both based on this foundation, thus also proving the scientific validity of the principle that “social being determines social consciousness.”

关于蒙昧人的思想方式，普列汉诺夫认为“打猎决定了‘蒙昧’人的整个思想方式”。蒙昧人的世界观，甚至他的审美观，就是猎人的世界观和审美观。普列汉诺夫援引施泰因的研究成果称，“他们的异常丰富的全部艺术都根源于狩猎生活。他们的全部神话也根源于这种生活”。“当‘蒙昧人’用类比法判断自然现象时，他们不仅把自然现象同自己比较，而且同整个动物界比较。”“动物的死亡，也和人的死亡一样，是由于它们的灵魂离开它们的身体……渐渐地整个世界都住满了精灵，原始人把引起他们注意的每一个自然现象都归因于‘精灵’。”这些都反映了原始人的整个思维方式离不开他自己的狩猎生活，“精灵”概念及万物有灵论的形成都是基于这样的基础，因而也证明了“社会存在决定社会意识”原理的科学性。

A differentiation and analysis of views on magic and science. According to the view of Frazer, author of *The Golden Bough*, the basic belief of magic is the foundation of modern science; its entire system is based on the belief in order and uniformity in nature. Of course, this belief is blind, but it is firm and real. From this, it might seem that magic, like science, is opposed to religion: religious people explain natural phenomena by the will of a subject (spirit, god), while those who resort to magic strive to discover the objective causes determining this will. However, the difference between science and magic is still very great. “Science strives to discover the causal relationships of phenomena, while magic is satisfied with simple association or simple symbolism, which itself can only be based on an insufficiently clear distinction between what arises in the mind and what is realized in reality.” In essence, magic commits the same error as modern empirio-monism, [7]7 Empirio-monism: a philosophical trend associated with Alexander Bogdanov, which sought to unify experience under a monistic framework and was criticized by Lenin in *Materialism and Empirio-criticism*. namely, confusing objective phenomena with subjective phenomena. It is for this reason that the thought process inherent in magic did not exclude the thought process inherent in animism.

对于魔法和科学的观点进行辨析。按照《金枝》作者弗雷泽的观点，魔法的基本信念是现代科学的基础，它的整个体系都以相信自然界中存在着秩序和统一性为基础。当然这种信仰是盲目的，但却是坚定的和实在的。由此似乎可以认为魔法和科学一样是同宗教对立的：信教的人用主体（精灵、神）的意志来说明自然现象，而求助于魔法的人则力求发现决定这种意志的客观原因。但是，科学与魔法之间的区别还是很大的。“科学力求发现现象的因果关系，而魔法则满足于简单的联想或简单的象征，这种简单的联想或象征本身，只能以不十分清楚地区别人脑中产生的东西与现实中实现的东西为基础。”实质上，魔法犯了现代经验一元论所犯的错误，即把客观现象与主观现象混淆起来了。也正是这种原因，魔法所具有的思想过程才没有排除万物有灵论所具有的思想过程。

In summary, in the worldview of “savage people,” there indeed existed no boundary between humans and animals. Initially, humans created gods in the image of animals. Human-shaped gods emerged later; they are a product of the development of productive forces to a certain stage.

总之，在“蒙昧人”的宇宙观中，确实不存在人和动物之间的界限。最初人是按照动物的样子创造神的。人形的神是后来产生的，它是生产力发展到一定阶段的产物。

What is a god? Based on the research of Payne, Plekhanov wrote: “A god is a ‘benevolent’ spirit, embodied in a certain material object, usually an idol, to whom people offer sacrifices such as food and wine, hoping for his protection in daily affairs.” The scope of application of this definition is within the stage of human civilization, and it is difficult to guarantee its correctness in the earliest stages of the development of human civilization. When humans imagined their gods as wild beasts, the god was not an abstract non-animality but was embodied in a specific kind of animal. Thus, the animals taken as totems should be the earliest gods; humans worshipped them.

什么是神？普列汉诺夫依据培恩的研究写道，“神是‘乐善好施的’精灵，体现在一定的物质对象，通常是神像中，人们用食物、酒等祭品来供奉他，希望在日常事务中得到他的保佑”。这个定义的应用范围是在人类文明阶段，而在人类文明发展的最初阶段，就难以保证正确了。当人把自己的神想象成野兽的时候，神不是抽象的非动物性，而是体现在一定种类的动物身上。由此，被当作图腾的动物，应该是最初的神，人类崇拜它们。

In the era of totem worship, what was worshipped as a god was not one or more individuals, but a species or a class of animals. Because at this time the human individual had not yet separated from the blood-based union, the process of individualization of gods had not yet begun. In this period, gods appeared in the form of a divine clan, not concerning themselves with human morality as modern religions do. The primitive divine clan only punished people when they offended it. At this stage of social development, morality existed independently of animistic concepts. It was only later, with the differentiation of society and the emergence of classes, that the use of “establishing teachings through the way of the gods” [8]8 “Establishing teachings through the way of the gods” (神道设教): a classical Chinese concept referring to the use of religious or spiritual beliefs to guide and regulate social behavior, often associated with the Confucian tradition of statecraft. to educate and constrain people led to the close integration of morality with animism.

在图腾崇拜时代，被奉为神的不是一个或多个个体，而是一种动物或一类动物。由于这时人的个体还没有脱离血缘联合体，所以神的个体化过程也没有开始。在这个时期，神是以神族的形式出现的，不像现在的宗教那样关心人的道德。原始神族只有当人们触犯它的时候才惩罚人们。在这一社会发展阶段上，道德是不依赖万物有灵论的观念独立存在的。只是后来随着社会的分化、阶级的出现，利用“神道设教”教化、约束人们，才有了道德与万物有灵论的紧密结合。

What led to the disintegration and disappearance of totem worship? Plekhanov believed that it was changes in the material conditions of human life. Changes in material conditions of life first lay in the development of productive forces in primitive society; that is, in the face of nature, the development of productive forces enhanced human capacity for control, thereby altering humanity’s attitude toward nature. As humanity’s attitude toward nature changed, people’s religious concepts also changed, faster or slower, to a greater or lesser extent. In the period when totem worship arose, humans regarded animals as superior to themselves, as higher beings. With the development of society, humans came to consider themselves superior to animals and set themselves in opposition to animals; this was precisely the time when totem worship disintegrated and disappeared. When humans domesticated animals and used them as means to satisfy their own needs, there emerged what Bogdanov called a relationship of “authority” of humans over animals, a period that also coincided with a high level of development in agricultural production. From worshipping animals, to domesticating animals, to using animals as labor—this path was both straight and long. Using animals as labor greatly raised labor productivity. In turn, the increase in productive forces promoted the development of socio-economic relations. Here a question arises: does this theory contradict the basic Marxist principle that “being determines consciousness”? Scholars unfamiliar with historical materialism and revisionists such as Bernstein harbored doubts about this, considering it a “defect” in the theory of the founders of scientific socialism. Plekhanov believed that, in fact, Marx and Engels always insisted: “Human consciousness, arising from a definite social being, reacts back upon that being, thereby promoting its further development, and this further development in turn gives rise to new changes in the sphere of ideology.” That is to say, the basic principles of Marxism do not deny the interaction between social being and social consciousness.

什么导致了图腾崇拜的瓦解与消失？普列汉诺夫认为，是人类生活的物质条件发生了变化。物质生活条件的变化，首先在于原始社会的生产力的发展，也就是说，面对自然，生产力的发展促使人类控制能力增强，这样就改变了人对自然的态度。随着人类对自然态度的改变，人们的宗教观念也会或快或慢、或多或少地发生变化。在图腾崇拜产生的时期，人把动物看得比自己优越，高人一等。随着社会的发展，人类认为自己比动物优越，并与动物对立起来，这时候也就是图腾崇拜瓦解和消失的时候。人驯养动物，并把动物用作满足自己需要的手段时，就出现了波格丹诺夫所说的人对动物的“权威”关系，这个时期也是社会发展到了农业生产很高水平的时期。从崇拜动物，到驯养动物，再到使役动物，这条路是笔直的也是漫长的。人使役动物，大大提高了劳动生产力。反过来，生产力的提高又推动社会经济关系的发展。这里出现了一个问题，这一理论是不是与马克思主义基本原理“存在决定意识”相矛盾呢？不了解历史唯物主义的学者与修正主义者如伯恩施坦对此持怀疑态度，认为这是科学社会主义奠基人理论上的“缺陷”。普列汉诺夫认为，实际上，马克思恩格斯始终坚持：“从一定的社会存在中产生的人的意识，会反过来影响这种存在，从而促进它的进一步发展，这种进一步发展又在思想体系领域引起新的变化”。这就是说，马克思主义基本原理不否认社会存在和社会意识之间的相互作用。

Social being determines social consciousness. With the development and progress of society, the forms of religion also change. Morgan believed that “the religious triumph of ancient Rome was at first more closely connected with the gens than with the family.” This was because the consanguineous gens union preceded the family. The Roman patriarchal family emerged only after a long period of human development, when the gens way of life disintegrated under the influence of agriculture and slavery. With the emergence of the family, household gods and household sacrifices also appeared, with the patriarch playing a leading role in household worship. The gods of the patriarchal family were ancestral gods, the result of family members transferring their feelings for the patriarch onto the spirits of ancestors. The emergence of the family and the disintegration of the consanguineous gens union indicated that society had advanced further. The appearance of the state as a form of organization became inevitable, replacing the original tribal form of organization. Once government arose, social relations between rulers and the ruled took shape. These relations were reflected in religion, where gods became rulers of heaven and judges in the celestial realm.

社会存在决定社会意识。随着社会的发展进步，宗教的形式也在发生变化。摩尔根认为，“古罗马的宗教胜利起初同氏族的关系要比同家庭的关系大些”。这是由于血缘氏族联合体先于家庭。罗马父权制家庭，是在人类经过漫长发展阶段，氏族生活方式受到农业和奴隶制的影响瓦解之后而产生的。随着家庭的出现，家神和家祭也就出现了，家长在家祭中起着主导作用。父权制家庭的神就是祖宗神，这是家庭成员把对家长的感情转移到祖宗神灵身上的结果。家庭的出现，氏族血缘联合体的瓦解，表明社会进一步向前发展。国家这种组织形式的出现成为必然，代替了原来既有的部落组织形式。政府一经产生，就形成了统治者与被统治者的社会关系。这种关系反映在宗教中，就是神变成了天国的统治者和天国的法官。

Plekhanov further analyzed how the concepts, emotions, and religious rituals in his definition of religion arise. Religious concepts have an animistic character; they arise from people’s lack of understanding of natural phenomena, and later combine with animistic ideas through which people personify the relations among natural phenomena and explain those relations. Religious emotions originate in the feelings and desires of people that grow on the basis of definite social relations, and they change as social relations change.

普列汉诺夫对其宗教定义中的观念、情绪和宗教仪式如何产生进行了进一步的分析。宗教观念具有万物有灵论性质，它是由于人们不了解自然现象而产生的，后来同人们借以把自然现象间的关系人格化、并借以说明这种关系的万物有灵论观念结合起来。宗教情绪根源于一定社会关系基础上生长起来的人们的感情和愿望，并随着社会关系的变化而变化。

When people worship gods, they perform a series of activities aimed at expecting certain help from the gods. The relationship between gods and humans initially resembles one established on the basis of mutual contract. With the development of social power relations, people increasingly came to see themselves as subordinate to the gods. This situation was especially pronounced in absolute monarchies. In modern civilized society, with people’s struggle for democratic rights, tendencies toward “natural religion” and “deism” emerged, using natural laws to restrict the power of gods from all sides.

人们对神礼拜时进行一系列的活动，目的是期待神的某些帮助。神与人之间的关系起初很像是在相互契约的基础上建立起来的关系。随着社会权力关系的发展，人们越来越认为自己隶属于神。这种情况在君主专制国家表现得尤为突出。在现代文明社会中，随着人们对民主权力的争取，形成了“自然宗教”和“自然神论”的倾向，用自然规律从各方面限制神的权力。

Overall, in this section Plekhanov explores many topics, including the definition of religion, mythological factors, animism, magic, animal totem worship, and belief in the transmigration of souls. Using the principles of historical materialism, he conducts a thorough and detailed analysis and study, clearly introducing to readers many things they originally did not understand or comprehend, enabling people to gain a comprehensive, complete, and correct understanding and grasp of this knowledge. This lays a solid foundation for the subsequent critique of erroneous religious views existing in Russian society.

总体来讲，普列汉诺夫在本部分内容当中对宗教的定义、神话因素、万物有灵论、魔法、动物图腾崇拜和灵魂转生信仰等诸多知识进行探讨，利用历史唯物主义原理进行了深入细致的分析和研究，把许多人们原来不了解、不明白的东西清晰明了地介绍给大家，使人们对这些知识有了全面、完整和正确的认识和把握，为接下来批判俄国社会上存在的宗教错误观点打下了坚实的基础。

II. Adhering to the Marxist View of Religion, Analyzing and Criticizing the Erroneous Religious Understandings of Famous Russian Writers

二、坚持马克思主义宗教观，对俄国著名作家的宗教错误认识进行分析和批判

The second article in *On the So-Called Religious Quest in Russia* is “More on Religion.” In this section, Plekhanov uses the basic theory constructed in the first article as a tool, adheres to the Marxist standpoint, viewpoint, and method, and exposes and criticizes the erroneous religious views of several representative figures with considerable influence, including famous Russian writers such as Tolstoy and Gorky.

《论俄国的所谓宗教探寻》的第二篇文章是《再论宗教》。在这部分内容中，普列汉诺夫利用第一篇文章中建构的基本理论作工具，坚持马克思主义的立场、观点和方法，对包括托尔斯泰、高尔基等俄国著名作家在内的具有较大影响的几个代表人物的错误的宗教观进行揭露和批判。

First, he analyzes and criticizes the erroneous understanding of religion held by the famous Russian writer Tolstoy. Tolstoy believed that his religion was one without any “supernatural” factors. Tolstoy defined religion as follows: “Religion determines the relationship of man to the origin of all things, and from this determines man’s mission and the norms of conduct arising from this mission.” Elsewhere, he also expressed: “True religion is a relationship established by man, in conformity with his reason and knowledge, to the infinite life surrounding him, a relationship that links his life to this infinity and guides his actions.”

首先，他对俄国著名作家托尔斯泰在宗教认识上的错误认知进行分析和批判。托尔斯泰认为，他的宗教是没有任何“超自然”因素的宗教。托尔斯泰对宗教作了这样的定义：“宗教确定人同万物本原的关系，确定由此出现的人的使命和由此使命而引起的行为准则。”在另一个地方，他还有如下表述：“真正的宗教，是人对其周围的无限生活所建立的、同人的理性和知识相一致的关系，这种关系把他的生活同这种无限性联系起来并指导他的行为。”

Where did the problem lie in Tolstoy’s view of religion? Plekhanov clearly indicated that it lay in the word “mission” in his definition. Tolstoy thought that “once man determines his relationship to the ‘origin of all things,’ he determines his ‘mission.’ But this ‘mission’ presupposes two things: first, the object and entity receiving the mission—in the case we are discussing, man—; second, the entity or power that proposes man’s ‘mission’ to him.” Plekhanov believed that Tolstoy disliked current religious concepts and their preaching. He was convinced that it would be much better if children were “instilled with and proven the idea that God is a spirit whose concrete manifestation exists within us, and that we can increase its power through our own lives”—that is, instilling a certain animism in children. From this it becomes perfectly clear: the conscious entity that proposes a mission to man turns out to be a spirit. This is Tolstoy’s view of religion. As for how to define “spirit,” Plekhanov further stated that a spirit is an entity that uses its will to cause natural phenomena. It stands above nature, that is, it is a supernatural entity. From this it can be seen that Tolstoy’s claim that his religion has no belief in the “supernatural” is false.

托尔斯泰的宗教观，问题出在了哪里？普列汉诺夫明确表示，在于他定义中的“使命”一词。托尔斯泰以为，“人一确定自己对‘万物本原’的关系，就确定了自己的‘使命’。但是，这个‘使命’，要有两个前提：第一，受命的对象和实体——在我们所说的情况下则是人——；第二，向人提出人的‘使命’的实体或力量”。普列汉诺夫认为，托尔斯泰不喜欢现在的宗教观念及其说教。他深信，如果向儿童“灌输和证明这样的思想，即：上帝是一种精灵，它的具体表现存在于我们当中，并且我们能够以自己的生活增加它的力量”，也就是向儿童灌输一定的万物有灵论，那将会好得多。由此就十分明了了：给人提出使命的有意识的实体原来就是精灵。这就是托尔斯泰的宗教观。至于“精灵”如何界定，普列汉诺夫还讲到，精灵是用它的意志引起自然现象的实体。它凌驾于自然之上，也就是超自然的实体。由此可知，托尔斯泰认为他的宗教没有对“超自然物”的信仰是假的。

Secondly, he analyzed and criticized in detail Lunacharsky’s so-called “religious quest.” Why did Plekhanov do this? This is because, first, his “religion” was far less famous than Tolstoy’s religion; second, he had once held a certain positive attitude toward Russian Marxism. Plekhanov stated that, comparing Lunacharsky’s claim that “animism has now been replaced by scientific energetics,” that is, “the sacralization of energy… sacralization is personification, and personification in this case is a tendency toward animism,” the comparison between the two constituted a logical contradiction. How to resolve it? Lunacharsky could only circle endlessly without finding a real answer. The value of the religion created by Lunacharsky lay in the fact that “it can produce a very pleasant mood in the serious reader. The more serious the reader, the more pleasant he will feel after reading our prophet’s books and articles.” “In fabricating his own religion, Mr. Lunacharsky is simply pandering to the social mood that now dominates our country. Now, due to many social reasons, there is a huge demand for ‘religion’ in our country. And where there is demand, there will also be supply.” Here, Plekhanov revealed the purpose of Lunacharsky’s creation of a new religion. “When there is a demand for religion, he plays the role of the prophet of the ‘fifth religion.’ If the reader shows a negative attitude toward religion, he conveniently recalls that his religion, according to the original plan, is a religion without God; and he promptly thinks that a religion without God is actually not a religion at all, but a simple play on words.”

其次，他详细分析和批判卢那察尔斯基的所谓“宗教探寻”。普列汉诺夫为什么要这样做呢？这是因为，第一，他的“宗教”远没有托尔斯泰的宗教出名；第二，他曾对俄国马克思主义有过某种积极的态度。普列汉诺夫表示，对照卢那察尔斯基提出的“万物有灵论现在已被科学的唯能论所代替了”，也就是“把能神圣化……神圣化就是人格化，而人格化在这种情况下就是倾向万物有灵论”。两相一比较就构成了逻辑矛盾，如何解决？卢那察尔斯基只会无休止地绕弯子，就是找不到真正的答案。卢那察尔斯基创造的宗教，其价值在于“它可以使严肃的读者产生很愉快的情绪。读者愈严肃，他读了我们先知的书和文章，就愈会感到愉快”。“卢那察尔斯基先生在杜撰自己的宗教时，简直是讨好现在在我国占统治地位的社会情绪。现在，由于许多社会性的原因，我国对‘宗教’有巨大的需求。而在有需求的地方，也就会有供应”。这里，普列汉诺夫道出了卢那察尔斯基创造新宗教的目的所在。“对宗教有需求的时候，他就扮演‘第五宗教’的先知的角色。如果读者表现出对宗教的否定态度，他就会很凑巧地想起，他的宗教按原来计划是无神的宗教；而且很及时地想到，无神的宗教实际上根本不是宗教，而是简单的文字游戏”。

Why could Lunacharsky play the role of the prophet of the “fifth religion,” that is, why was there a demand for religion in Russia at that time? Plekhanov wrote, “Among modern Russians, there is ‘anguish,’ and it is very strong. This is caused by the major events that Russia has experienced in recent years. Under the influence of these events, a great many ‘intellectuals’ have lost confidence in the imminent victory of any advanced social ideal. When people lose confidence in the victory of social ideals, ‘concern’ for their own precious individual selves moves to the forefront.” Regarding “concern” after personal death, Lunacharsky had already said that science gives a disappointing and frightening answer—the individual may cease to exist. In this situation, adopting a fence-sitting attitude is a good way out, neither abandoning science nor gaining comfort. Lunacharsky and his followers said: “Knowledge is one thing, faith is another; science is one thing, religion is another. Science does not guarantee my personal immortality, while religion gives me such a guarantee. Long live religion!” Social being determines social consciousness. People with weak revolutionary will, when revolution encounters setbacks, often show confusion such as doubting the revolution, deserting, or even betraying it. Lunacharsky, as a member of the Russian Social Democratic Labor Party, was a typical example of ideological confusion within the revolutionary ranks.

卢那察尔斯基为什么能扮演“第五宗教”的先知角色，即当时俄国为什么对宗教有需求呢？普列汉诺夫写道，“在现代俄国人中，‘有烦恼’而且很强烈。这是由近年来俄国所经历的重大事件所引起的。在这些事件的影响下，许许多多‘知识分子’失去了对任何先进社会理想即将胜利的信心。当人们失去对社会理想的胜利的信心时，他们对自己的宝贵个人的‘关怀’就提到了首位”。对个人死亡之后的“关怀”，卢那察尔斯基已经说过，科学说得令人失望、恐惧——个人可能会不存在。在这种情况下，采取骑墙态度是很好的解决之道，既不抛弃科学，又能得到安慰。卢那察尔斯基及其信徒说：“知识是一回事，信仰是另一回事；科学是一回事，宗教是另一回事。科学没有向我保证我的个人不死，而宗教则向我作了这种保证。宗教万岁！”社会存在决定社会意识。革命意志薄弱的人，在革命遭受挫折时往往就会出现怀疑革命、开小差甚至背叛革命等这些混乱情况。作为俄国社会民主工党党员的卢那察尔斯基就是革命队伍中思想犯浑的典型。

“All of Mr. Lunacharsky’s ‘colorful’ prophecies are aimed at healing the spiritual wounds of the all-Russian ‘intelligentsia’ suffering from anguish. This is the characteristic of his religious quest.” Here Plekhanov pinpointed the real intention of Lunacharsky’s religious quest. “Our prophet likes to talk about the proletariat, the proletarian viewpoint, the proletarian struggle, and so on. But he has not a single ‘point in common’ with the proletariat itself, with the proletariat as a class-for-itself, with the working class that has attained self-consciousness. He is a typical ‘intellectual’ among the most sensitive, most superficial, and therefore most unstable Russian intellectuals… He wants to clothe socialism in a religious garb, even to compose ridiculous hymns to the God-Man, only because the disheartened Russian ‘intelligentsia’ is immersed in religion.” In the above few sentences, Plekhanov summarized that this typical “intellectual” Lunacharsky lacked understanding of the proletariat, and pointed out that when the revolutionary movement encountered setbacks and failures, he became pessimistic, confused, and took the lead in seeking solace in religion.

“卢那察尔斯基先生的一切‘色彩鲜明’的预言，目的都在于医治患烦恼症的全俄‘知识界’的精神创伤。这就是他的宗教探寻的特点”。普列汉诺夫在这里点出卢那察尔斯基宗教探寻的真实意图。“我们的先知喜欢谈无产阶级、无产阶级观点、无产阶级斗争等等。但是，他同无产阶级本身，同自为的无产阶级，同达到自我意识的工人阶级，没有丝毫‘共同之点’。他是俄国最善感的、最肤浅的因而也最不稳定的知识分子中的典型‘知识分子’……他之所以想要给社会主义披上宗教外衣，甚至编写滑稽可笑的对神—人类的赞歌，只是因为灰心丧气的俄国‘知识界’沉溺于宗教”。普列汉诺夫在上述几句话中总结出了卢那察尔斯基这个典型的“知识分子”缺乏对无产阶级的了解，指出了他在革命运动出现挫折和失败时就悲观失望、一片迷茫，带头到宗教中寻求慰藉。

Lunacharsky’s view of religion and the Marxist view of religion are incompatible and diametrically opposed. Plekhanov wrote: Lunacharsky called on everyone to discard the old coat of gray materialism. What the proletariat needs is a harmonious synthesis. This synthesis marks out two opposites, dissolves them into itself and annihilates them. We all strive with all our might for this synthesis. This shows that, in order to tailor a religious garb for socialism, Lunacharsky retreated like a shrimp, retreating to the religious views of most utopian socialists. His attitude toward religion is fundamentally opposite to that of Marx and Engels toward religion. Lunacharsky—this prophet of the fifth religion—and certain German utopian socialists, and the Russian empiriomonists, all equally contemptuously dismiss materialism. Here he also indicated that the main problem with Lunacharsky’s view of religion was that, like the Machists, he despised materialism and threw himself into the embrace of clericalism.

卢那察尔斯基的宗教观和马克思主义宗教观是格格不入、截然相反的。普列汉诺夫写道：卢那察尔斯基呼吁大家要抛弃灰色唯物主义的旧外套。无产阶级需要的是和谐的综合。这种综合标志出两个对立面，把他们化为自身并加以消灭。我们大家都竭尽全力探寻这种综合。这说明，卢那察尔斯基为了给社会主义裁制宗教外衣，像虾一样向后退，退到大多数空想社会主义者的宗教观点上去了。他对待宗教的态度同马克思和恩格斯对待宗教的态度是根本相反的。卢那察尔斯基——这个第五宗教的先知和德国的某些空想社会主义者，和俄国经验一元论者同样神气活现地轻视唯物主义。这里他还指明了卢那察尔斯基宗教观的主要问题就是和马赫主义者一样轻视唯物主义，投入僧侣主义的怀抱。

Regarding the entire process of Lunacharsky’s religious quest, Plekhanov concluded: “Religious ideas at all times have an animistic character. Your (Lunacharsky’s—author’s note) religion is nothing but a fashionable game… Those who indulge in this game, although they lack the faith of the animists, involuntarily speak the language of the animists. The logic of religion compels them!” Here Plekhanov exposed the falsity and shallowness of Lunacharsky’s godless religion. No religion can do without “spirits.”

针对卢那察尔斯基的整个宗教探寻过程，普列汉诺夫总结道：“宗教观念任何时候都具有万物有灵论的性质。您（卢那察尔斯基——引者注）的宗教无非是时髦的游戏……醉心于这一游戏的人，尽管没有万物有灵论者所具有的信仰，却心不由己地用万物有灵论者的语言说话。宗教的逻辑迫使着他们！”普列汉诺夫在这里揭露了卢那察尔斯基无神宗教的虚假和浅薄。任何宗教都是少不了“神灵”的。

Finally, he criticized the erroneous religious views of the famous Russian writer Gorky. In Russia, even highly gifted artists showed limitations or weaknesses in theoretical thinking. This was the case with Gogol, Dostoevsky, and Tolstoy, and the outstanding artist Gorky was no exception. Belinsky once said that “the artist’s wisdom turns into artistic talent.” Comparing Gorky’s works with strong journalistic elements but unsuccessful outcomes, it can be said that Gorky’s wisdom also turned into artistic talent. He was not suited to playing the role of thinker and propagandist, and his work *Confession* provides clear proof.

最后，他对俄国著名文学家高尔基错误的宗教观进行了批判。在俄国，即便是极具天赋的艺术家也表现出理论思维上的局限性或弱点。果戈理、陀思妥耶夫斯基、托尔斯泰如此，卓越的艺术家高尔基同样也不例外。别林斯基曾经讲过“艺术家的智慧变为艺术才能”。对照高尔基的那些政论因素强烈但不成功的作品，可以说高尔基的智慧也变为艺术才能了。他不适合于扮演思想家和宣传家的角色，其作品《忏悔》就给出了明证。

Plekhanov analyzed and criticized Gorky’s propagation of Lunacharsky’s “fifth religion.” Lunacharsky, himself a member of the Russian Social Democratic Labor Party, after the failure of the bourgeois revolution, wrote a book titled *Religion and Socialism*, posing as the prophet of the “fifth religion.” Under his instigation and influence, Gorky played the role of a religious propagandist. Gorky’s propagation of the religion created by Lunacharsky was mainly reflected in his novella *Confession*, and was expressed through the book’s protagonists, the monk Matvey, the pilgrim Jonah, and the factory teacher Mikhailo. However, the role of religious propagandist was unsuitable for Gorky, carrying a somewhat comical flavor of “a sharp-toothed pike trying to do the cat’s job.” “The impression left by Gorky’s religious ideas is precisely that of cucumbers from someone else’s vegetable patch, cucumbers that did not grow at all on the soil where modern socialist ideas grow and mature. Gorky wanted to give us a religious philosophy, but what he actually gave us… was just an idea: how little he understood this philosophy!” Here, Plekhanov, with a feeling of both respect and regret for Gorky, uttered such an exclamation. From this, it can be seen that mastering Marxist theory was also very important for a great writer who sympathized with and supported the democratic revolution.

普列汉诺夫分析批判高尔基对卢那察尔斯基“第五宗教”的宣传。本身是俄国社会民主工党党员的卢那察尔斯基在资产阶级革命失败后，撰写了一本《宗教和社会主义》，俨然要做“第五宗教”的先知。受他的怂恿和影响，高尔基扮演起了宗教宣传家的角色。高尔基对卢那察尔斯基所创宗教的宣传主要体现在他的中篇小说《忏悔》中，而且是通过书中的主人公修士马特维、朝圣者伊奥那和工厂教员米海洛讲出来。但是，宗教宣传家的角色就高尔基来讲是不称职的，是有点“牙齿锋利的梭鱼想干猫的行业”的滑稽味道。“高尔基的宗教思想给人留下的印象正是别人菜园里的黄瓜，这种黄瓜根本不是在现代社会主义思想赖以生长和成熟的土壤上生长起来的。高尔基想给予我们宗教哲学，而实际上他给予我们的……只是一种想法：他多么不了解这一哲学啊！”在这里，普列汉诺夫怀着对高尔基既敬重又惋惜的心情才发出了如此的感叹。由此可知，掌握马克思主义理论对一个同情和支持民主革命的大文豪也是非常重要的。

Plekhanov criticized Gorky’s erroneous understanding of the concept of God. According to Gorky’s interpretation, “God arises in the flame of the joyful consciousness of the spiritual closeness of each person to all people.” Plekhanov had conducted in-depth research and held profound insights into the basic theory of religion, as already demonstrated in the first essay of *On the So-Called Religious Quest in Russia*, titled *On Religion*. Seeing Gorky’s erroneous understanding of God, he unequivocally negated it and provided his own explanation. Plekhanov wrote: “God arises when a certain blood alliance believes it is closely connected with a certain spirit. The members of this alliance gradually come to love and respect this spirit, that is, they begin to place upon this spirit the social feelings aroused and consolidated by their common struggle for existence.” This theoretical analysis by Plekhanov, grounded in the principles of historical materialism, very clearly elucidates the concept of “God,” stripping it of its figurative and emotional coloring, adding rational and profound theoretical analysis, and bringing people’s understanding of this concept closer to social reality.

普列汉诺夫批评高尔基对神概念的错误认知。按照高尔基的理解，“神是在每个人同所有人的精神亲近的愉快意识的火焰中产生的”。普列汉诺夫对宗教的基本理论是有过深入研究和深刻见解的，在《论俄国的所谓宗教探寻》第一篇《论宗教》中就已经有所展现。看到高尔基对神的错误认知，他毫不含糊地予以否定并加以阐释。普列汉诺夫写道：“神产生于某一血缘联盟认为它同某一精灵有紧密联系的时候。这一联盟的成员逐渐地热爱和尊敬这一精灵，也就是说，开始把他们的共同的生存斗争所引起并巩固起来的社会感情放在这一精灵身上。”普列汉诺夫这一基于历史唯物主义原理基础之上的学理分析非常清楚地把“神”这一概念给阐释出来了，去掉了形象化和感性化的色彩，加入了理性和深刻性的学理分析，使人对这一概念的认识贴近了社会实际。

Plekhanov conducted an in-depth analysis and critique of the “God of the future” as described by Gorky. According to Gorky’s view, the God of the future is “built” by the self-conscious proletariat in cooperation with the entire people. The people who create God are not the people of the distant future, but a group of ecstatic pilgrims in contemporary society carrying icons of the Virgin Mary—in plain terms, a bunch of religious believers. Gorky also believed that such “people” could even perform miracles of curing incurable diseases. The miracle of curing incurable diseases is a symbol of the future, and thus Gorky’s “journey of God-building” unfolds slowly.

普列汉诺夫对高尔基所描述的“未来之神”进行深入分析和批判。按照高尔基的见解，未来之神是由达到自我意识的无产阶级同全体人民合作而“建造”出来的。造神的人民不是相当遥远的未来的人民，而是当时社会中一群神魂颠倒地拿着圣母像行进的朝圣者，说白了就是一帮宗教信徒。高尔基还认为这样的“人民”甚至创造着医治绝症的奇迹。医治绝症的奇迹就是未来的象征，由此高尔基认为的“造神之旅”徐徐展开。

The “symbols of the future” described by Gorky may be more than one, but among these symbols there is nothing symbolic. “The masses of the people” unite not only in religious rituals into a “unified whole of will,” but also on other occasions into a “unified whole of will.” “To discover in this manifestation of collective life the image of a future religious creation, much good will is needed. Here the collective is artificially established, and the power of the collective is idolized in the eyes of its participants, but the collective is nevertheless established, and the power nevertheless exists.” Here, targeting Gorky’s description, Plekhanov analyzes it point by point, pointing out the errors implicit in his exposition.

高尔基所描述的“未来的象征”可能不止一个，但在这些象征中没有任何象征性的东西。“人民群众”不仅在举行宗教仪式时团结成为一个“意志统一的整体”，他们在其他场合也会团结成为“意志统一的整体”。“为了在集体生活的这种表现中发现未来的宗教创造的形象，还需要许多善良的意志。“在这里集体是人为地建立的，集体的力量在集体的参加者的心目中被偶像化，但是，集体毕竟已经建立起来，力量毕竟存在着”。这里，针对高尔基的描述，普列汉诺夫进行逐一分析，指出其阐述中隐含的错误。

Plekhanov tells us, “The conscious proletariat, in fulfilling its great historical task, has repeatedly demonstrated its ‘common mood’ and ‘common will,’ which is obvious without any explanation. But… it does not follow… that this ‘common mood’ and ‘common will’ will have a religious character… Only those who are satisfied with ‘etymological tricks’ and equate the word ‘religion’ with the word ‘connection’ will believe Mr. Lunacharsky.” Plekhanov continues: “‘The power of the collective is idolized in the eyes of its participants’… Lunacharsky and Gorky wish it to remain so forever.” Because “they see that the old idols are partly obsolete and partly about to become obsolete, so they intend to turn humanity itself into an idol.” To this end, they stamp humanity with the mark of God. “They begin by acknowledging that God is a fiction and end by acknowledging that humanity is God.” Humanity is not a fiction, so why call humanity God? To praise the greatness of humanity? Engels once said that to express human greatness and respect for humanity, we have no need to resort to the abstract concept of God or to stamp humanity with the mark of God.

普列汉诺夫告诉我们，“自觉的无产阶级在实现自己的伟大历史任务的时候，多次地表现出自己的‘共同情绪’和‘共同意志’，这是无需任何解释就一目了然的。但是……得不出……这种‘共同情绪’和‘共同意志’将具有宗教性质……只有那些满足于‘语源学上的把戏’把‘宗教’一词同‘联系’一词等同起来的人才会相信卢那察尔斯基先生”。普列汉诺夫接着说道：“‘集体的力量在集体的参加者的心目中被偶像化’……卢那察尔斯基和高尔基希望永远这样”。因为“他们看见旧的偶像有一部分已经过时，有一部分也快要过时，于是打算把人类本身变为偶像”。为此，他们给人类打上神的烙印。“他们从承认神是虚构开始，而以承认人类是神结束”。人类不是虚构的，为什么把人类称为神呢？为了赞颂人类的伟大？恩格斯曾经讲过，为了表示人的伟大和对人的尊敬，我们没有必要求助于神这个抽象概念，给人打上神的烙印。

The errors in Gorky’s view of religion do not end there; there is another aspect: he “divides people into two types, one type ‘eternally’ engaged in God-building, the other ‘always’ wanting to subject the eternal God-builders to themselves. It seems that this mutual relationship between the ‘two types’ can explain the origin of the concept of a God existing outside of humanity.” Plekhanov says bluntly, “This is in fact again erroneous. The concept of a God existing outside of humanity arises not from the division of people into two ‘types’ or two classes, but from primitive animism. Therefore, it is also erroneous to say that God is created ‘due to people’s surplus of strength.’ Finally, the claim that Christ’s doctrine ‘opposes the rule of one person over another’ is groundless.”

高尔基宗教观的错误不止于此，还有一个方面，那就是他将“人分为两种，一种人‘永恒地’从事造神，另一种人‘始终’想使永恒的造神者服从自己。似乎‘两种人’之间的这种相互关系，就可以说明存在于人以外的神这个概念的由来”。普列汉诺夫毫不客气地说，“这实际上又是错误的，存在于人之外的神这个概念的产生，不是由于人分为两‘种’或两个阶级，而是由于原始万物有灵论。因此，说神是‘由于人们的力量过剩’而被创造出来，也是错误的。最后，认为基督的教义‘反对人对别人的统治’，是毫无根据的”。

Gorky’s theoretical confusion stems from a lack of theoretical grounding in Marxist philosophy. Plekhanov believed that Gorky, through the words of the protagonist Matvei and Mikhailo in *Confession*, voiced the confusion: “Where are people after all?” How to escape this confusion? Where is the way out? “Only those who hold the viewpoint of the latest dialectical materialism can correctly understand this answer… while those inclined toward Kantian philosophy or generally indifferent to philosophy have no theoretical possibility of reconciling the concepts of freedom and necessity, and therefore, sooner or later, through one path or another, they return to the theoretical position of the subjectivists.” Here, Plekhanov clearly provides the solution to the problem: it is necessary to use dialectical materialism and historical materialism to analyze, think about, and solve problems, and this can be done correctly and thoroughly.

高尔基理论上的困惑源于缺乏马克思主义哲学理论素养。普列汉诺夫认为，高尔基通过《忏悔》中主人公马特维以及米海洛之口发出“人究竟在哪里呢？”的困惑。如何摆脱这种困惑，出路在哪里？“只有那些抱着最新的辩证唯物主义的观点的人才能正确地了解这个解答……而那些倾向于康德学说的人或一般地说不关心哲学的人，则在理论上没有任何可能使自由和必然这两个概念一致起来，因此，他们或迟或早地通过这样或那样的途径回到主观主义者的理论立场上去了”。在这里，普列汉诺夫明确地给出了问题解决之道，那就是要用辩证唯物主义和历史唯物主义分析问题、思考问题、解决问题，而且能够正确解决、彻底解决。

Plekhanov concludes, “It can be said with certainty that only those ‘Marxists’ who cannot cope with the most important theoretical principles of Marx and Engels’s doctrine will create and accept a ‘fifth religion.’” “In our contemporary God-building in Russia, there are some variants, each of which reflects a particular psychological mood and a particular social ‘quest.’” “They all share a common feature: a fundamental inability to resolve the antinomy between freedom and necessity.” Furthermore, “Dialectical materialism is completely inapplicable to God-building. Anyone who yields to the prevailing mood in our contemporary ‘intelligentsia’ and engages in God-building will inevitably betray dialectical materialism and commit some theoretical errors.” “Our current God-builders in Russia are still unaware of many extremely valuable achievements made by Western European thought in its historical development, including the achievements of Marx and Engels.” Plekhanov then says that great artistic geniuses like Gogol, Dostoevsky, Tolstoy, and Gorky were all stumped by religion, each in his own unique way. How was Gorky stumped? He enthusiastically praised people for performing feats, but he did not fully understand the historical conditions under which the advanced figures of modern Russia performed their feats. Theoretically, he lagged far behind the times. There was still room for mysticism in his soul. He praised the beauty of feats, while at the same time not opposing viewing feats from a religious perspective. This was his major weakness, very regrettable!

普列汉诺夫总结道，“可以肯定地说，只有那些对付不了马克思恩格斯学说的最主要理论原理的‘马克思主义者’，才会创造和接受‘第五宗教’”，“在我国现代造神说中有一些变种，其中每一变种都反映着特殊的心理情绪和特殊的社会‘探寻’”，“它们都具有一个共同的特征：这就是根本不能解决自由和必然之间的二律背反”。另外，“辩证唯物主义对造神说是完全不适用的。凡向我国现代‘知识界’中占统治地位的情绪让步而从事造神的人，必然会背弃辩证唯物主义，犯一些理论上的错误”。“我国现在的造神派还不知道西欧思想界在其历史发展过程中所取得的许多极宝贵的成就，包括马克思和恩格斯的成就在内”。普列汉诺夫接着讲，果戈理、陀思妥耶夫斯基、托尔斯泰和高尔基这些伟大的艺术天才都被宗教难住了，每个人都是按自己的独特方式被难住的。高尔基是怎么被难住的呢？他热情地歌颂人们建立功勋，但不大了解现代俄国的先进人士建立功勋的历史条件。在理论方面，他落后于时代太远了。他的心灵中还有神秘主义的地盘。他赞颂功勋的美，同时又不反对从宗教的角度来看功勋。这是他的重大弱点，非常令人遗憾！

In this essay, Plekhanov, utilizing the basic theoretical results obtained in the first essay and under the guidance of the fundamental principles of historical materialism, first refutes the claim that Buddhism is a religion without God, pointing out that no religion has ever departed from “God.” On this basis, he conducts a careful and detailed analysis and critique, one by one, of the typical representatives of the Russian religious quest who claimed to create a “godless” religion—Tolstoy, Lunacharsky, and Gorky—making clear to everyone the falsity and deceptiveness of a “godless” religion. The religion they created not only has a God, but also demands that people embrace the religion they have created, thereby losing the fighting spirit and resolute quality needed to seek happiness in real society, willingly submitting to the rule and manipulation of the real “God,” making the success of the revolution indefinitely postponed, until it becomes a bubble. Therefore, Plekhanov’s exposure and critique were timely and correct, a sobering injection on the revolutionary path, curbing decadence, boosting morale, and enabling revolutionaries to continue advancing bravely in the right direction.

普列汉诺夫在本篇文章中利用在第一篇中取得的基本理论成果，在历史唯物主义基本原理的指导下，首先对佛教是无神的宗教进行了批驳，指出凡是宗教没有离开“神的”。在此基础上，他对俄国宗教探寻过程中自称要创建“无神”宗教的典型代表托尔斯泰、卢那察尔斯基和高尔基逐一进行了认真细致的分析和批判，使大家真正明了“无神”宗教的虚假性和欺骗性。他们创建的宗教不但有神，而且还要大家投入他们创造的宗教的怀抱之中，从而失去在现实社会中寻求幸福的斗争精神和坚毅品质，甘愿受现实“神”的统治和摆布，使革命成功变得遥遥无期，直至成为泡影。所以说，普列汉诺夫的揭露和批判是及时的、正确的，是革命征途中的一剂清醒针，制止颓废，提振士气，使革命者沿着正确的方向继续奋勇前行。

III. Using Marxist Religious Theory to Analyze and Critique the Erroneous Religious Views of the Decadents

三、利用马克思主义宗教理论分析和批判颓废派的宗教错误认知

Since we are to analyze and critique “the gospel of the decadents,” it is first necessary here to explain the emergence of the decadent school. This school arose in France in the 1880s and was a decadent and reactionary faction in the bourgeois art of the imperialist era. It encompassed all manner of anti-realist schools and currents in every form of artistic creation. The Russian decadent school emerged in the 1890s; its main representatives included Merezhkovsky, Minsky, Berdyaev, Gippius, Balmont, Bely, Sologub, Vyacheslav, and Ivanov.

既然要分析和批判“颓废派的福音书”，在这里首先说明一下颓废派的产生是必要的。此流派19世纪80年代产生于法国，是帝国主义时代资产阶级艺术领域一个颓废的反动的派别。这个流派包括一切艺术创作中的形形色色的反现实主义的学派和流派。俄国的颓废派产生于19世纪90年代，其主要代表人物有梅列日柯夫斯基、明斯基、别尔嘉也夫、基比乌斯、巴尔蒙特、别雷、梭洛古勃、维亚切斯拉夫和伊万诺夫。

Plekhanov analyzed and criticized the erroneous understanding of the decadent representative Merezhkovsky, who bound together morality and belief in God. According to Merezhkovsky, because of the existence of human reason, man negates his absoluteness in God (absolute freedom and absolute being); yet man is also arbitrarily subject to the laws of nature, absolutely enslaved and absolutely null within the world order, thus becoming an unfree existence. To change this situation, man must flee from reason to the irrational, from the world order to “destruction and chaos.”

普列汉诺夫对于颓废派代表人物梅列日柯夫斯基捆绑道德和信神的错误认识进行分析批判。按照梅列日柯夫斯基的说法，由于人的理性的存在，否定了人在神之中的绝对性（绝对自由和绝对存在），但是人又受到自然规律的任意摆布，在世界秩序中绝对被奴役和绝对虚无，因而成为不自由的存在。要改变这种状况，人就需要从理性逃到非理性，从世界秩序逃到“破坏和混乱”。

In fact, in his understanding of the philosophical categories of “freedom” and “necessity,” Merezhkovsky had already fallen far behind the times. As early as over a hundred years earlier, the classical German philosopher Schelling had offered a brilliant exposition: “Man’s free activity presupposes necessity; necessity is the foundation of man’s actions.” On this point, Merezhkovsky knew nothing, as if he had discovered a new truth. In response, Plekhanov sarcastically remarked that, in dealing with the concepts of “freedom” and “necessity,” the self-proclaimed “erudite” Merezhkovsky had long since become obsolete.

事实上，在对“自由”和“必然”这对哲学范畴的认知上，梅列日柯夫斯基已经远远落后于时代了。早在100多年前，德国古典哲学家谢林就有过精彩的论述，即“人的自由的活动是以必然性为前提的，必然性是人的行为的基础”。而在这一点上，梅列日柯夫斯基一无所知，还像发现了新的真理一样。对此，普列汉诺夫讽刺道，在对待“自由”和“必然”这两个概念上，自称“博学”的梅列日柯夫斯基已经落伍很多。

According to Merezhkovsky’s view, the common metaphysical starting point of intellectuals and the rabble is the mechanistic worldview—that is, man is utterly powerless before the laws of nature, so that all adherents of the “mechanistic worldview” must inevitably regard man as the “keys of a piano” or “keys of an organ” played by blind natural forces. Plekhanov pointed out that the reason Merezhkovsky thought this way lay in his own “animism.”

按照梅列日柯夫斯基的观点，知识分子和流氓的共同的形而上学出发点是机械论的世界观，也就是人在自然规律面前毫无作为，即“机械论的世界观”的一切拥护者都一定会把人看成盲目的自然力所弹奏的“钢琴的键”或“风琴的键”。普列汉诺夫指出，梅列日柯夫斯基之所以这样想，就在于他自己存有的“万物有灵论”。

Merezhkovsky believed that materialists are immoral; the problem also lay in his “animist” notion that morality is based on belief in the existence of God, and that if this faith is lost, morality will also be lost—that is, if there is no God, one can do whatever one pleases. Plekhanov pointed out that this idealist view precisely matches the vulgar understanding of materialism that Engels criticized.

梅列日柯夫斯基认为唯物主义者不道德，其问题还在于他的“万物有灵论”观念，即认为道德是以相信神的存在为基础，如果这种信仰丧失，道德也会随之丧失，也就是说，如果没有上帝，那就可以为所欲为了。普列汉诺夫指出，这种唯心主义的观点正符合恩格斯所批评的那种庸人对唯物主义的认知。

Plekhanov wrote that none of the above could be understood by the likes of Merezhkovsky. They held the extremely naive view that people’s emotions and actions are determined by whether they believe in the existence of supernatural entities. “In his eyes, everything morally lofty, everything sublime, everything truly human, belongs not to man but to the otherworldly phantom created by man.” Therefore, he regarded the phantom as a necessary condition for the moral revival of mankind and for all social progress.

普列汉诺夫写道，上述的一切不能被梅列日柯夫斯基之流理解。他们抱着极端幼稚的观点，认为人们的情绪和行动决定于他们是否相信超自然实体的存在。“在他看来，一切道德高尚的东西，一切崇高的东西，一切真正人的东西，都不是属于人，而是属于人所创造的彼岸的幻影”。因此，他认为幻影是人类道德复兴和一切社会进步的必要条件。

Plekhanov also analyzed and criticized the hypocritical behavior of the two decadent figures, Merezhkovsky and Minsky, who slandered the proletariat’s revolutionary struggle for economic interests as “future vulgarity and baseness.”

普列汉诺夫又对梅列日柯夫斯基和明斯基这两个颓废派人物将无产者进行经济利益的革命斗争污蔑为“未来的庸俗习气和下流作风”的伪善行为进行分析和批判。

Merezhkovsky believed that the Russian intelligentsia, like Herzen, would face the problem of “future vulgarity and baseness.” To overcome this problem, strength could only be found in a “future Christianity.” Merezhkovsky said: “The limit of all modern European culture—positivism, or, as Herzen called it, ‘scientific realism’… after emerging in science and philosophy, develops from scientific and philosophical consciousness into an unconscious religion, and strives to eliminate and replace all previous religions.” Positivism affirms the real world and denies the supersensible world; it affirms the world’s beginningless and endless existence, affirms mediocrity and the commonplace, and affirms absolute vulgarity.

梅列日柯夫斯基认为，俄国知识界将和赫尔岑一样面临“未来的庸俗习气和下流作风”的问题。要克服这一问题只有在“未来的基督教”中才能找到力量。梅列日柯夫斯基说：“整个现代欧洲文化的极限——实证论，或像赫尔岑所说的‘科学实在论’……在科学和哲学中产生之后，就从科学的和哲学的意识发展为无意识的宗教，并力图取消和取代以前的一切宗教。”实证论肯定现实世界，否定超感觉的世界；肯定世界无始无终地存在，肯定中庸、平凡，肯定绝对的庸俗习气。

Plekhanov conducted a deep analysis of Merezhkovsky’s claims about Herzen’s god-seeking. Although Merezhkovsky said that Herzen was furious at the vulgarity prevalent in Western Europe, he offered no way to overcome it. This was because Herzen did not want to stand on a religious standpoint and feared “the abyss of religion more than the shallows of positivism,” so Herzen unconsciously sought God but consciously overthrew Him, thereby falling into “schism.” Here, Merezhkovsky’s logic was that Herzen hated “vulgarity” because it arose from the pursuit of happiness, and the pursuit of happiness is god-seeking. Thus, Herzen, consciously or unconsciously, became a god-seeker.

普列汉诺夫对于梅列日柯夫斯基关于赫尔岑寻神的说法进行了深入分析。虽然梅列日柯夫斯基说赫尔岑对流行于西欧的庸俗习气非常愤怒，但没有给出克服的办法。这是因为赫尔岑不想站在宗教的观点上，害怕“宗教的深渊甚于实证论的浅滩”，所以就有了赫尔岑无意识地探寻神，却有意识地推翻了它，从而使他陷于“分裂”。在这里，梅列日柯夫斯基的逻辑是，赫尔岑痛恨“庸俗习气”由追求幸福引起，而追求幸福就是寻神。这样，赫尔岑就自觉不自觉地成了寻神派。

Merezhkovsky believed that “absolute vulgarity” consists in the individual sacrificing himself for the future golden age of “the clan, the nation, and humanity.” In modern Europe, the bourgeoisie holds the dominant position and also pursues a future golden age. Where does this come from? Plekhanov pointed out that it is stolen from the socialists.

梅列日柯夫斯基认为，“绝对庸俗习气”就是个人为了未来的黄金时代为“氏族、民族和人类”而牺牲。在现代欧洲，资产阶级占据统治地位，也追求未来的黄金时代。这从何而来？普列汉诺夫指出，是从社会主义者那里盗用而来。

Plekhanov exposed and criticized the hypocritical behavior of the likes of Merezhkovsky and Minsky, who pursued economic interests themselves yet denounced the proletariat as coarse. Merezhkovsky believed that the proletarian could sacrifice his personal interests for the golden age, but why did he seek only food and clothing without moral interest? Plekhanov used Heine’s poem to satirize Merezhkovsky’s demands on the proletariat: “They drink wine in secret, yet loudly urge others to drink water.” The proletarian exists on the edge of survival; when he makes certain economic demands of the bourgeois, he is denounced as “crude materialism.” Plekhanov then pointed out that for the hungry proletarian, real economic demands are equivalent to guaranteeing the possibility of at least partially satisfying his “spiritual” needs, and “the struggle to realize these economic demands may arouse and cultivate in the hungry proletarian’s heart the most exalted feelings—courage, human dignity, selflessness, loyalty to the common cause, and so on.” Plekhanov noted that the bourgeois struggles every day for economic interests without ever mentioning moral revival, yet sneers at the proletarian who struggles for economic interests, denouncing him as “vulgar.” This view was fully endorsed by Merezhkovsky, and not only by him, but also by Mr. Minsky.

普列汉诺夫对梅列日柯夫斯基和明斯基之流追逐经济利益反而斥责无产者粗俗的伪善行为进行揭露和批判。梅列日柯夫斯基认为，无产者可以为了黄金时代牺牲自己的个人利益，但为什么只求温饱却没有道德兴趣呢？普列汉诺夫用海涅的诗反讽梅列日柯夫斯基对无产者的要求，即“他们悄悄地饮酒，却高声地劝人喝水”。无产者处在生存的边缘，当他们向资产者提出一定的经济要求时，被斥责为“粗俗的唯物主义”。普列汉诺夫接着指出，对饥饿的无产者来说，现实经济要求就等于保证有可能至少满足自己的几种“精神”需要，而且“为实现这些经济要求而进行的斗争，可能在饥饿的无产者的心灵中引起和养成勇敢、人的尊严、忘我精神、对共同事业忠诚等等极其高尚的感情”。普列汉诺夫指出，资产者每天都在为争取经济利益进行斗争，从不提道德复兴，而对争取经济利益的无产者却嗤之以鼻，斥之为“庸俗习气”。这一点得到梅列日柯夫斯基的完全赞同，而且不止他，还有明斯基先生。

Minsky believed that the worker socialist and the capitalist both pursue the same goal and both worship material interests, differing only in degree. The socialist’s ideal is the vulgar idea of continuing to reduce material welfare to the lowest level that everyone can enjoy. “If we Russian intellectuals forget our mission and our universal human ideal, and fully accept the doctrine of European social democracy along with all its philosophical arguments and psychological content, it would be spiritual suicide.” “European socialism, like European aristocratic manners and vulgarity, was conceived in the original sin of individualism.” Plekhanov pointed out that these people, who hated “vulgarity” and considered themselves “upright and lofty,” included the entire civilized humanity of their time in the category of vulgarity, and with truly ridiculous indignation denounced as utterly vulgar that great historical movement whose aim was to end the vulgar mode of production and thereby eradicate vulgarity from the moral sphere. Plekhanov then criticized that this ridiculous contempt for the so-called vulgarity of the proletariat’s liberation struggle was passed from the Parnassians to the decadents, first to the French decadents and later to the Russian decadents. Among the Russian decadents, Minsky and Merezhkovsky were typical representatives. In order to give the Russian intelligentsia a spiritual lesson, they coated this psychology with such truly vulgar colors.

明斯基认为，工人社会主义者和资本家都是怀有同样的目的，都崇拜物质利益，只是程度不同罢了。社会主义者的理想就是使物质福利继续降低到大家都能享受的最低水平的庸俗思想。“我们俄国知识分子如果忘记自己的使命和自己的全人类理想，完全接受欧洲社会民主党的学说及其全部哲学论据和心理内容，就是精神自杀”，“欧洲的社会主义，同欧洲贵族作风和庸俗习气一样，是在个人主义的原罪中受胎的”。普列汉诺夫指出，他们这些仇视“庸俗习气”而自以为“正直崇高”的人，把他们当时的整个文明人类都列入庸俗范围，以真正可笑的愤怒心情指责那个旨在结束庸俗的生产方式从而根除道德领域的庸俗习气的伟大历史运动，说它庸俗不堪。普列汉诺夫接着批判道，对无产阶级解放斗争的所谓庸俗习气所抱的这种可笑的轻视态度，从高蹈派传给了颓废派，先传给法国颓废派，后来又传给俄国颓废派。在俄国颓废派当中，明斯基和梅列日柯夫斯基又是典型代表。他们为了从精神上教训俄国知识分子，给这种心理涂上这样一些真正庸俗的色彩。

Plekhanov further exposed the hypocrisy of the decadents, clearly pointing out that the gospel of Merezhkovsky, Minsky and their ilk was merely a refurbished version of something long outmoded. The vulgarity they used to accuse the proletariat was itself thoroughly imbued with the spirit of capitalism. The French Parnassians and decadents accused the “hungry proletarians” struggling for survival of being vulgar, yet they themselves not only did not despise the enjoyments of life but, on the contrary, expressed indignation that modern bourgeois society did not guarantee them sufficient pleasures. They regarded the proletarian movement as a product of base feelings—envy—yet raised no objection whatsoever to the division of society into classes. It is no wonder that the Parnassians and decadents, despite their intense hatred of vulgarity, supported bourgeois society against the revolutionary intentions of the proletariat, and no wonder that all of them, before retreating into their “ivory towers,” did their utmost to arrange their own material life as comfortably as possible within bourgeois society.

普列汉诺夫进一步揭露颓废派的虚伪性，明确指出梅列日柯夫斯基和明斯基及其同道者的福音是老掉牙的东西的翻新版。他们用来指责无产者的庸俗习气原本就浸透了资本主义精神。法国高蹈派和颓废派指责那些为生存而斗争的“饥饿的无产者”庸俗，而他们自己不仅不鄙视生活享受，相反地，还因为现代资产阶级社会没有保证他们得到足够的享受而表现出愤慨。他们把无产阶级运动看成低级感情——嫉妒的产物，却丝毫不反对社会分为阶级的现象。无怪乎高蹈派和颓废派尽管十分仇恨庸俗习气，却拥护资产阶级社会反对无产者的革命意图，也无怪乎所有他们这些人在躲藏到自己的“象牙之塔”里之前，都力求尽可能地安排好自己在资产阶级社会中的物质生活。

As for the sympathy shown by decadents like Minsky for the modern social movement, Plekhanov held the following view. He believed that Minsky had briefly served as editor of the Bolshevik newspaper *New Life* in 1905. Many people found this behavior either amusing or incomprehensible. Minsky himself defended it, saying: “At least half of the surprise and reproach directed at me should be attributed to the fundamental misunderstanding created by our liberals in their criticism of symbolist and mystical poetry—the misunderstanding that poets imbued with the new mood are, if not directly enemies of political freedom, then at any rate people indifferent to politics.” “All the representatives of the new mood—I emphasize this word—Balmont, Sologub, Bryusov, Merezhkovsky, Andrei Bely, Blok, Ivan Ivanov, without exception, are singers of the Russian revolutionary camp.”

对于明斯基之类颓废派同情现代社会运动这种情况，普列汉诺夫是这样的看法。他认为，明斯基曾于1905年短时间内挂名布尔什维克的《新生活》报的编辑。对他的这种行为，好多人都感到好笑或不解。明斯基自己辩解道，“对我的惊异和指责，至少有一半应该归咎于我国自由派在对象征主义和神秘主义诗歌的批判中所造成的根本误会，这种误会就是相信怀有新情绪的诗人如果不直接是政治自由的敌人，无论如何也是对政治漠不关心的人”，“新情绪的所有——我强调指出这一个词——代表人物，巴尔蒙特、梭洛古勃、布留索夫、梅列日柯夫斯基、安·别雷、布洛克、伊·伊万诺夫，毫无例外地都是俄国革命阵营中的歌手”。

Plekhanov concluded that it was impossible for Minsky to make us believe that “an alliance between symbolism and revolution is a phenomenon with inner necessity.” Even if he cited one example after another, none possessed sufficient persuasive force to directly link symbolism with revolution. Plekhanov pointed out that Minsky, Merezhkovsky, Berdyaev, and other decadents (including the new schools), despite their fickleness, remained constant in one respect: they always despised the liberation movement of the working class.

普列汉诺夫总结道，明斯基想使我们相信“象征主义和革命之间的同盟是具有内在必然性的现象”是不可能的，即便他一会拿这个一会又拿那个作例子，都不具备较强的说服力将象征主义和革命直接联系起来。普列汉诺夫指出，明斯基、梅列日柯夫斯基、别尔嘉也夫等这些颓废派（包括新流派）尽管反复无常，但有一个方面是始终不变的：他们总是轻视工人阶级的解放运动。

Plekhanov conducted a deep analysis of the condition in which decadents like Merezhkovsky and Minsky used religion to dispel their depression and anxiety. Plekhanov wrote that Minsky commented on Merezhkovsky’s belief in Christ’s resurrection as arising from his fear of death and his consequent hope for immortality. Merezhkovsky believed in the existence of “the immortal,” but his arguments were meager and feeble, untenable and unable to withstand scrutiny. Nevertheless, Minsky followed the same path as Merezhkovsky, using the “future religion” he created to dispel the boredom and ennui caused by “nihilistic joy.” Here another question arises: why did “nihilistic joy” displease Minsky? Plekhanov half-jokingly said that it was probably because he considered solving eternal questions a serious matter, and joking about them was improper. In reality, when people solve serious problems, they adopt a serious attitude; only after solving the relevant problems do they feel relieved and experience a mood of “joy,” which is what is meant by the expression “laughter.” On this point, the founders of Marxism once made a classic statement: if I laugh at what is laughable, that shows I am treating it seriously. Often, Minsky lacked the necessary scientific knowledge and became angry and bored because he could not fully understand others’ answers. In the 1870s and 1880s, the unity of the universe, biological evolution, and the eternal succession of life forms had all been seriously explored and explained by advanced thinkers, greatly expanding people’s understanding of nature and further liberating their thought. Yet Minsky dismissed these answers with remarks such as “ape,” “that is everyone’s destination,” and “burdock,” showing utter disdain. The reason people felt “joy” was that modern civilized humans, looking back at the worldview of “savages” (such as animism), found it too shallow and thin. Plekhanov summarized Minsky’s shallow “boredom,” “disdain,” and “joy,” pointing out that this “boredom” was caused by the psychological characteristics of the modern “superman.” These characteristics were extremely closely related to vulgarity. He groundlessly disdained “joy,” yet joys differ. Voltaire’s “joy—ha ha” was used to denounce fanaticism and superstition; Feuerbach elevated “laughter” to the level of a characteristic distinguishing humans from animals. Conversely, it was extremely puzzling that religious seekers disliked laughter.

普列汉诺夫对于梅列日柯夫斯基和明斯基等颓废派利用宗教消解郁闷和烦恼的状况进行深层解析。普列汉诺夫写道，明斯基评述梅列日柯夫斯基之所以相信基督复活是因为他害怕死才希望不朽。梅列日柯夫斯基相信“不朽物”的存在，其论据是贫乏而无力的，难以成立，也经不起推敲。尽管如此，明斯基也走上了梅列日柯夫斯基的老路，用他创造的“未来的宗教”来驱散由“虚无主义的快乐”所引起的烦闷无聊。这里又有一个问题，“虚无主义的快乐”为何使明斯基感到不快呢？普列汉诺夫半开玩笑地说，大概是他觉得解决永恒问题是件严肃的事情，开玩笑是有失体统的。实际上，人们在解决严肃问题的时候，态度是认真的，只有在解决相关问题之后人们才如释重负，才会有“快乐”的心情，也就是所谓“嘲笑”的表述。对此，马克思主义创始人曾经有一句经典的表述：如果我嘲笑可笑的东西，这就表明我在严肃地对待它。很多时候，明斯基缺乏应有的科学知识，因对别人的回答理解不透而生气、烦闷。19世纪七八十年代，宇宙的统一性、生物的进化、生命形态的永恒的更替，都已被先进的人们给以认真探索解答，大大拓展了人们对大自然的了解，使人们的思想得到更进一步的解放。然而，明斯基却用“猿猴”“这是所有人的归宿”“牛蒡”等评述这些解答，显得不屑一顾。人们之所以心情“快乐”，是现代的文明人类回头看“蒙昧人”的世界观（万物有灵论等）感觉太浅显、单薄的缘故。普列汉诺夫对明斯基浅薄的“烦闷无聊”“轻视”“快乐”进行总结，指出他的这种“烦闷无聊”是由现代“超人”的心理特征引起的。这些特点同庸俗习气有极其密切的关系。他毫无根据地轻视“快乐”，而“快乐”各有不同。伏尔泰的“快乐—哈哈”用来痛斥狂信和迷信；费尔巴哈把“笑”上升到人与动物相区别的一个特征高度来讲。反过来，宗教探索者不喜欢笑，是令人极其不解的。

Plekhanov believed that religious seekers turned to otherworldly phantoms because, in their empty hearts, the exhilarating feeling of unity and intimacy between humans and nature was either entirely absent or extremely rare. For this reason, they sought comfort in religion. Was this comfort useful? Not at all. Plekhanov emphasized that Feuerbach regarded religious comfort as a mere illusion. When a child loses his father, or a poor child is ill for years, can the concept of a loving heavenly father comfort him? No. Comfort can come through humans, but not through religion.

普列汉诺夫认为，宗教探寻者之所以求助于彼岸的幻影，是因为在他们空虚的心灵中，人和自然统一和亲近的令人兴奋的感情根本没用或者是极少见的。为此，他们在宗教中寻求安慰。这种安慰有用吗？根本没用。普列汉诺夫强调，费尔巴哈把宗教安慰当作简单的幻觉。当儿童失去父亲，或者可怜的孩子连年生病，充满慈爱的天父观念能安慰人吗？不能。通过人是可以的，而宗教却不行。

How did Mr. Merezhkovsky understand “religious comfort”? Plekhanov pointed out that he commented with great contempt on “the immortality of the burdock.” Because he could not experience the exhilarating feeling of unity and intimacy between humans and nature, he believed that only so-called vulgar materialists were satisfied with “the immortality of the burdock,” and that his own so-called “immortality” was identical to “the immortality of the burdock.” Plekhanov cited Feuerbach’s language to refute this: the doctrine of supernatural, superhuman immortality is a doctrine of egoism; the doctrine of the continuation of human existence within humanity is a doctrine of love. Merezhkovsky and his ilk regarded the question of personal immortality as the fundamental question of existence because they were thoroughgoing individualists and also egoists. “Individualists tormented by spiritual loneliness, unable to use the real earthly life of our sinful humanity to escape loneliness, turn to heaven in search of a ‘common god.’” But this is of no avail. “Only when the mutual (earthly) relations between people no longer express the principle of ‘man is a wolf to man’ will the tragedy of people’s earthly life disappear.”

对于“宗教安慰”，梅列日柯夫斯基先生如何认识呢？普列汉诺夫指出，他十分轻蔑地评论“牛蒡的不朽”。因为他体会不到人和自然统一和亲近的令人兴奋的感情。他认为只有所谓粗俗的唯物主义者才满足“牛蒡的不朽”，而且他所谓的“不朽”与“牛蒡的不朽”相同。普列汉诺夫引用费尔巴哈的语言加以批驳，即关于超自然的超人的不朽的学说是利己主义的学说，关于人在人中继续存在的学说是爱的学说。梅列日柯夫斯基及其同道之所以把个人不朽问题看成存在的基本问题，因为他们是彻头彻尾的个人主义者，也是利己主义者。“被精神孤独折磨得痛苦不堪的个人主义者，由于不能使用有关于我们罪恶人类的现实人间生活的观念来摆脱孤独，就求助于天，寻找‘共同的神’”。但这不起任何作用。“只有当人们的相互（人世）关系不再用‘人对人如狼’的原则表现出来的时候，人们的人世生活的悲剧才会消失”。

Plekhanov analyzed that, from the psychology of the “God-builders” among the decadents, it was impossible for them to sympathize with the liberation movement of the working class. The decadents asserted that the hearts of hungry proletarians were filled with vulgarity. Although these people displayed some “contempt” for the capitalist economic system, it allowed them to live without working and to eat their fill all day. This essentially exposed their own genuine bourgeois vulgarity. Bourgeois vulgarity also manifested itself in another aspect: extreme individualism. They cherished their own selves, becoming monads in Leibniz’s sense, “without windows opening outward.” Because of the “boredom” of life and the fear of death, they turned into theistic monads. The revolutionary storm swept them into earthly life, changing their monadic state of art for art’s sake. But they were not content; they wanted to play their role: “sprinkling the holy water of their new religion on the economic aspirations of the struggling humanity of today, and lighting the incense of their ‘new’ mysticism.” They opposed the unity and self-sacrifice manifested in the working-class liberation movement, which threatened to make them “obscure.” They opposed the socialist ideal and sympathized with revolutionary syndicalism (claiming that the Marxist school was “power-hungry” and the anarchists too “self-respecting”).

普列汉诺夫分析认为，从颓废派中的“造神派”的心理来看，他们不可能同情工人阶级的解放运动。颓废派认定饥饿的无产者的心里充满庸俗习气。这些人虽然对资本主义经济制度表现出某些“鄙视”，但可以使他们不劳而获，饱食终日。这实质上暴露出了他们那些资产阶级的真正的庸俗习气。资产阶级的庸俗习气还表现在另一个方面，那就是极端的个人主义。他们珍惜自我，成为莱布尼茨所说的“没有向外开的窗户的”单子。由于生活“烦闷”和对死亡的恐惧，他们变成信神的单子。革命的风暴将其裹进尘世生活，改变了他们为艺术而艺术的单子状态。但他们并不安分，而是要发挥他们的作用。“把自己的新宗教的圣水洒在现代正在斗争的人类的经济愿望上，并点起自己‘新的’神秘主义的神香”。对于工人阶级解放运动中表现出的团结一致、自我牺牲，他们是反对的，有使他们变得“默默无闻”的危险。他们反对社会主义理想，赞同革命工团主义（认为马克思学派“好权”，无政府主义者太“自尊”）。

Minsky’s [21]21 Nikolai Minsky (1855–1937), Russian poet and critic associated with the Symbolist and decadent movements; he advocated a “mystical anarchism” and a “religion of the future.” greatest admiration was for “liberal” socialists, namely the Bakunin–Kropotkin anarchists, who were also called communist anarchists. These people denied private property, yet at the same time denied both organized political power and unorganized political power. From this, Minsky believed that liberal socialists had “eradicated the poison of vulgar views of life and vulgar ways of living.” Plekhanov pointed out that this was a simple paradox, because it is in fact impossible both to deny all restrictions on individual rights and to deny private property, that is, to deny the right of individuals to possess certain objects.

明斯基最心仪的是“自由主义的”社会主义者，即巴枯宁——克鲁泡特金派的无政府主义者，同时也被称为共产主义者的无政府主义者。这些人否认私有制，但又既否认有组织的政权，也不承认无组织的政权。由此，明斯基认为自由主义的社会主义者“根除了庸俗生活观和庸俗生活方式的毒素”。普列汉诺夫指出，这是简单的悖论，因为实际上不能既否认对个人权利的一切限制，同时又否认私有制，即否认个人占有某些物品的权利。

Plekhanov stated that the prominent feature of the modern philistine is the opposition of “love of humanity and selflessness” to the struggle for economic interests. Minsky was such a person, and that is why he felt an urgent need to cover them up with the black curtain of religious “mystery plays.”

普列汉诺夫讲道，现代庸人的突出特征是“将人类爱和忘我精神”同争取经济利益的斗争对立起来。明斯基就是这样的人，所以他才感到迫切需要用宗教“神秘剧”的黑幕来掩盖它们

Compared with Minsky, Merezhkovsky [22]22 Dmitry Merezhkovsky (1865–1941), Russian novelist, poet, and religious thinker; a leading figure of the Russian Symbolist movement and a proponent of a “new religious consciousness.” leaned more toward “infinite anarchy.” He believed that “this anarchy is the latent soul of the Russian revolution.” The decadents who held this view also included Gippius and Filosofov. [23]23 Zinaida Gippius (1869–1945), Russian poet and writer, wife of Merezhkovsky; Dmitry Filosofov (1872–1940), Russian literary critic and essayist. Both were associated with the Symbolist and religious-philosophical circles. Plekhanov issued a grave warning: this was to confuse the Russian revolution with anarchy. The respectability of Merezhkovsky and his fellow mystics lay in their admission that one of the characteristics of their mystical essence was that they did not walk, did not run, but flew, fell, and “flew” in an unusual way – headfirst. Because they were headfirst, their brains were congested, their thinking was abnormal, and decadent mysticism was thus produced.

与明斯基相比，梅列日柯夫斯基更倾向于“无限的无政府状态”。他认为“这种无政府状态乃是俄国革命的潜在的灵魂”。持有这种观点的颓废派人物还有基比乌斯、菲洛索佛夫。普列汉诺夫严重警告，这是把俄国革命同无政府状态混为一谈。梅列日柯夫斯基神秘论者之流的可尊敬之处在于，他们承认其神秘本质的特点之一是他们不是在走，不是在跑，而是在飞，在坠落，而且“飞”得不同寻常，是头朝下。由于头朝下，脑子充血，思维不正常，颓废派神秘论就产生出来了。

Plekhanov concluded that Lunacharsky’s [24]24 Anatoly Lunacharsky (1875–1933), Russian Marxist revolutionary and the first Soviet People’s Commissar of Education; he developed the concept of “god-building,” an attempt to create a socialist religion without God. “godless religion” and the decadents’ gospel were far from exhausting all the varieties of Russia’s modern religious “quest.” Yes, the Vekhi group [25]25 The Vekhi (Landmarks) group: a collection of Russian intellectuals who published the 1909 essay collection *Vekhi*, which criticized the revolutionary intelligentsia and argued for a return to religious and idealist philosophy, marking a turn away from Marxism. were not included; a separate special article would need to be written to analyze them, to explore how they regressed “from Marxism to idealism” and then further to the Vekhi group. Regrettably, Plekhanov never wrote another targeted critical article.

普列汉诺夫总结道，卢那察尔斯基的“无神的宗教”和颓废派的福音，远没有把俄国现代宗教“探寻”的一切变种包罗无遗。是的，路标派不在此列，还需要另写专文进行分析，探得他们如何从“马克思主义倒退到唯心主义”，然后又倒退到路标派。遗憾的是，普列汉诺夫没有再写出有针对性的批判文章。

IV. Concluding Remarks

四、余 论

*On the So-Called Religious Quest in Russia* is a famous work that played a significant role during the critical period of the Russian revolution and was highly praised by Lenin. By studying and carefully reading this work of Plekhanov’s, we can gain many lessons. Faced with today’s complex and volatile international situation and the endless social problems that must be confronted on the journey toward the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation, we must respond calmly, correctly, and effectively. This requires us to do the following two things well.

《论俄国的所谓宗教探寻》是一部名著，在俄国革命的关键时期发挥了很大作用，受到列宁的高度赞赏。通过学习和研读普列汉诺夫的这部作品，我们能够从中收获很多教益。面对当今复杂多变的国际风云和走在中华民族伟大复兴征程中要面对层出不穷的社会问题，我们要做到沉着应对、正确应对、有效应对，这要求我们必须做好以下两点。

First, we must uphold Marxism and be steadfast Marxists. Marxism is a science, a truth proven by time and history, and a scientific worldview and methodology that has important guiding significance for both revolution and construction. The Russian revolution upheld Marxism, and under Lenin’s correct leadership, won the October Revolution and established the world’s first socialist state – the Soviet Union. In the decades that followed, the Soviet Union continuously upheld Marxism, weathered countless difficulties and twists and turns, and became a socialist power that could rival and contend with the United States. However, after Gorbachev became General Secretary of the CPSU Central Committee, he abandoned the guiding position of Marxism and promoted ideological pluralism, which quickly threw the Soviet Union into chaos, until the entire country disintegrated and collapsed.

一是要坚持马克思主义，做坚定的马克思主义者。马克思主义是科学，是被时间和历史证明了的真理，是科学的世界观和方法论，对于革命和建设都具有重要的指导意义。俄国革命坚持马克思主义，在列宁的正确领导下取得了十月革命的胜利，建立了世界上第一个社会主义国家——苏联。在其后的几十年，苏联不断坚持马克思主义，扛过了无数困难和曲折，成为可以与美国比肩和抗衡的社会主义强国。然而，戈尔巴乔夫当了苏共中央总书记之后，放弃马克思主义的指导地位，推行意识形态多元化，很快造成苏联国内混乱一团，直至整个国家分崩离析、解体。

After the May Fourth Movement, [26]26 The May Fourth Movement (1919): a Chinese anti-imperialist, cultural, and political protest movement that spurred the spread of Marxism in China and the founding of the CPC in 1921. some advanced Chinese figures studied the Russian revolution and established the Communist Party of China, guided by Marxism, to direct the revolutionary movement to change the destiny of the Chinese nation and achieve the liberation of the Chinese people. Thereafter, our Party continuously upheld Marxism and integrated it with China’s actual conditions, advancing the adaptation of Marxism to the Chinese context and the needs of the times. At the same time, our Party overcame errors such as rigid dogmatism and narrow empiricism in implementation, enabling the revolution to move steadily toward victory, culminating in the successful founding of the People’s Republic of China, which completely changed China’s humiliating history of being plundered and oppressed since the Opium War. [27]27 The Opium War (1839–1842): the first of a series of military conflicts between Qing China and Western powers, leading to unequal treaties and a period of national humiliation. During the period of socialist revolution and construction, the new period of reform and opening up and socialist modernization, and the New Era of socialism with Chinese characteristics, our Party has consistently upheld Marxism, enabling China to achieve a great leap from standing up and growing prosperous to becoming strong. In the New Era of socialism with Chinese characteristics, the Party Central Committee with Comrade Xi Jinping at its core has further emphasized and upheld the guiding position of Marxism, comprehensively strengthened Party building, and propelled the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation into an irreversible historical process.

五四运动后，中国部分先进人士学习俄国革命，成立以马克思主义为指导的中国共产党，用来指导改变中华民族前途命运、改变中国人民翻身解放的革命运动。之后，我们党不断坚持马克思主义，并与中国国情相结合，推进马克思主义中国化时代化。与此同时，我们党克服执行过程中僵死的教条主义、狭隘的经验主义等错误，使革命不断走向胜利，最后成功成立中华人民共和国，彻底改变了中国自鸦片战争以后受掠夺、受欺压的屈辱历史。在社会主义革命和建设时期、改革开放和社会主义现代化建设新时期，以及中国特色社会主义新时代，我们党始终坚持马克思主义，使中国迎来了从站起来、富起来到强起来的伟大飞跃。中国特色社会主义新时代，以习近平同志为核心的党中央更是强调和坚持马克思主义的指导地位，全面加强党的建设，推动中华民族伟大复兴进入不可逆转的历史进程。

Throughout his revolutionary career, Plekhanov consistently upheld the Marxist stance, viewpoint, and method, and applied them in his theoretical research, achieving brilliant results and becoming an outstanding Marxist philosopher praised by Lenin. Plekhanov has set a shining example for us. As his successors, we must learn from his revolutionary spirit and his unwavering will and character, be steadfast Marxists, continuously advance the development of Marxism, and forever preserve its vitality and vigor.

普列汉诺夫在整个革命生涯中，始终坚持马克思主义的立场、观点和方法，并将其贯彻到其理论研究中，取得辉煌成就，成为被列宁赞誉的杰出马克思主义哲学家。普列汉诺夫为我们作出了光辉榜样，我们作为后来者，要学习他的革命精神和矢志不渝的意志品质，做坚定的马克思主义者，不断推动马克思主义向前发展，永葆其青春和活力。

Second, in the face of erroneous trends of thought, we must dare to struggle and be skilled at struggle. After the defeat of the Russian revolution, under the reactionary and terroristic rule of Stolypin, [28]28 Pyotr Stolypin (1862–1911): Russian Prime Minister under Tsar Nicholas II, known for his repressive policies after the 1905 Revolution, including the establishment of field courts-martial and the “Stolypin necktie” (the hangman’s noose). some people withdrew from the revolution, while most were in a state of panic and confusion. Some intellectuals, including famous writers like Tolstoy and Gorky, began to explore religion; “god-seeking” and “god-building” became fashionable, as they placed their hopes on finding relief and comfort in religion. This decadent state was extremely detrimental to the revolution, causing genuine revolutionaries like Lenin and Plekhanov great pain and worry. They saw this and were anxious about it. Holding a firm belief in the inevitable victory of the revolution and an extremely responsible attitude toward the revolution, they devoted great enthusiasm and poured in a great deal of time and effort, writing articles and books to theoretically clear away the fog of religious quest, elucidate its ideological harm, boost people’s revolutionary spirit, and guide people to continue the revolution and complete the unfinished great cause. Plekhanov’s spirit of baring his sword and his spirit of struggle in the face of erroneous trends of thought are worthy of our study. In recent years, with regard to erroneous trends of thought that once appeared in society, such as historical nihilism, constitutional democracy, “universal values,” neoliberalism, and the Western view of journalism, as well as abnormal religious phenomena in some parts of our country such as “Salafization,” “Arabization,” and “de-Sinicization,” [29]29 “Salafization” and “Arabization” refer to the spread of Salafi Islam and Arab cultural practices among Chinese Muslims, seen as undermining the indigenous character of Chinese Islam; “de-Sinicization” refers to the rejection of Chinese cultural and political identity in religious communities. some people turned a blind eye, and some dared to be angry but dared not speak out, causing considerable harm to our country’s ethnic unity, social harmony and stability, and the Sinicization of our country’s religions. Therefore, in the face of erroneous trends of thought, we need Plekhanov’s spirit of struggle and his sense of responsibility, to be bold in taking action and daring to bare our swords, so that our cause can develop healthily and move continuously from victory to greater victory.

二是面对错误思潮要敢于斗争、善于斗争。俄国革命失败以后，处在斯托雷平反动恐怖统治之下，部分人士脱离革命，大多数人处于恐慌和迷茫中，包括托尔斯泰、高尔基等著名作家在内的一部分知识分子开始探寻宗教，“寻神”和“造神”成风，寄希望于到宗教中寻求解脱和安慰。这样的颓废状况对革命极为不利，使得真正的革命家像列宁、普列汉诺夫非常痛心和担心。他们看在眼里，急在心里，抱着对革命必胜的坚定信念，抱着对革命极端负责的态度，以极大的热情，倾注大量的时间和心血，著述撰文，从理论上廓清宗教探寻的迷雾，阐明其思想危害，提振人们的革命精神，引导人们继续革命，完成未竟之大业。普列汉诺夫面对错误思潮的亮剑精神、斗争精神，值得我们学习。前些年，对于社会上一度出现的历史虚无主义、宪政民主、“普世价值”、新自由主义、西方新闻观等错误思潮，以及在我国部分地区出现的“沙化”“阿化”“逆中国化”等宗教反常现象，有些人视而不见，有些人敢怒不敢言，致使其对我国的民族团结、社会的和谐稳定，对我国宗教的中国化一度造成很大危害。所以说，面对错误思潮，需要有普列汉诺夫的那种斗争精神、那种负责态度，勇于出手，敢于亮剑，使我们的事业健康发展，不断从胜利走向更大胜利。

Web Editor: Paul

网络编辑：保罗