Marx’s Critique of Eurocentrism and Its Implications

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

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

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

一、历史唯物主义的创立意味着对西方中心论的根本批判

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

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

Objectively speaking, although Marx and Engels lived in the West, the historical materialism and world history theory they created are not only not Eurocentrism but are, on the contrary, the most fundamental and thorough critique of Eurocentrism. Like the creation and development of countless new ideas, the creation of Marx and Engels’ new worldview could not be water without a source or a tree without roots; it could only arise on the basis of taking root in the thought and culture of specific advanced nations and critically inheriting them. “Taking root in the thought and culture of specific advanced nations and critically inheriting them” is an important method of ideological innovation, but it is not necessarily the sole guarantee of transcending the centrism of a particular nation. The development process of the Young Hegelians has already demonstrated this truth. The crux of the issue here is how to “critically inherit.” In this regard, the idea and method proposed by Marx and Engels of “taking a standpoint outside Germany” to critically examine German philosophy are of great significance. As *The German Ideology* points out: “In order to correctly evaluate this philosophical hawking that even evoked smug national sentiments in the hearts of respectable German burghers, to clearly demonstrate the narrowness and regional limitations of the entire Young Hegelian movement, and especially to reveal the laughably striking discrepancy between the true achievements of these heroes and the fantasies about these achievements, it is necessary to take a standpoint outside Germany to examine this clamor.” “Taking a standpoint outside Germany” to critically examine German philosophy actually means taking a standpoint in other countries and ultimately in all of humanity to critically examine German philosophy. That is to say, a philosophy that is only suitable for Germany or was temporarily recognized by the German people at the time is not necessarily a world philosophy in the true sense; only a philosophy that is also recognized by the people of other countries and conforms to the fundamental interests of all humanity is a scientific world philosophy. Of course, Marx and Engels’ critique of the obvious “centrist” tendency in German philosophy at the time was not limited to this kind of general principled critique and exposure; they further found specific ideas and methods for critiquing and transcending “centrism.” For example, they advocated critically examining German philosophy in comparison with the thought and culture of other advanced nations (such as those of Britain and France), and especially emphasized using the new achievements of specific sciences to critically examine and transcend the narrow nationalism of German philosophy. The latter is precisely a manifestation of the deepening of the materialist conception of history. The process of the formation of Marx and Engels’ thought clearly illustrates the following fact: they formed their new worldview in the process of continuously critiquing Eurocentrism, and the formation of this new worldview in turn enabled them to launch a thorough and fundamental critique of Eurocentrism.

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

Marx not only critiqued Eurocentrism, but his historical materialism and world history theory also openly opposed and critiqued all centrist viewpoints and opinions, which is determined by the nature of his historical materialism and world history theory. The difference between Marx’s world history theory and Hegel’s world history theory lies in the fact that Marx’s world history theory is based on historical materialism, whereas Hegel’s world history theory is based on idealist conceptions of history. Because Marx took the mode of material production as the foundation of historical development, and since the modes of production in different countries and regions at the same stage are generally the same or similar, this avoids the Eurocentrism that arises from Hegel’s taking spiritual factors as the foundation of historical development (since spiritual factors are often particular, and although backward countries and regions can learn from advanced countries and regions, they can never be identical or fundamentally converge with the spiritual culture of advanced countries and regions). In Marx’s view, world history is a history in which all nation-states participate equally and interact with each other; no nation-state possesses “eternal privileges” in the process of participating in the development of world history.

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

It must be noted that to say Marx’s theory of world history opposes any “center” in the sense of centrism does not mean that Marx opposes the existence of a “center” in specific stages of world-historical development. This “center” and the “center” in the sense of “centrism” are not the same kind of center. The former refers to the entire process of world-historical development, while the latter refers to specific concrete stages of world-historical development. Because world-historical development is uneven, in specific concrete stages of world-historical development certain countries and regions may be at the forefront of world-historical development, belonging to “advanced” countries and regions, and because of their “advancement” they occupy a “central” position in that stage of world-historical development, while other countries and regions are at the rear of world-historical development, belonging to “backward” countries and regions, and because of their “backwardness” they occupy a “non-central” position in that stage of world-historical development. The role of “advanced” countries and regions in a specific stage of world-historical development cannot be denied; on the contrary, it must be fully studied and affirmed. Because they not only define and influence the historical development of their own country and region, but also define and influence the historical development of backward countries and regions in the same world-historical process, and even the development of world history as a whole. Although affirming the “central” role of advanced countries and regions has a certain connection with the “center” of centrism, including Eurocentrism, they are essentially different in important respects. The former, while affirming the “center” and its role, holds that this “center” will change and shift with the continuous development of world history, whereas the latter makes this temporarily formed “center” static and eternal. In other words, various kinds of centrism, including Eurocentrism, are often a special expression of the thought and culture of historically advanced or developed countries and regions, and it is difficult for them to find fertile soil in backward countries and regions.

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

II. Historical Materialism’s Comprehensive Critique of Eurocentrism Is a Process of Continuous Development

二、历史唯物主义对西方中心论的全面批判有一个不断发展的过程

Because historical materialism emphasizes the material foundation of historical development, it fundamentally criticizes and transcends Eurocentrism. But this does not mean that Eurocentrism has completely withdrawn from the historical stage from then on. On the contrary, history is complex, and Eurocentrism will still manifest itself in disguised forms. Indeed, historical development has a material foundation and objective laws, but how this material foundation and objective laws are specifically manifested—whether they are “the same” or “different,” or what the relationship between “sameness” and “difference” is—the answers to these questions concerning concrete practical issues such as the path of historical development can still leave an opening for Eurocentrism, especially Eurocentrism as a mode of thinking and a system of discourse.

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

The creation of historical materialism fundamentally struck a blow against Eurocentrism as a conception of history, as well as Eurocentrism as a political view and value view. For this reason, Eurocentrism as a mode of thinking and a system of discourse gradually became active and has progressively become the more influential form of Eurocentrism at present. Eurocentrism as a mode of thinking and a system of discourse differs from other forms of Eurocentrism; unlike the latter, it does not carry an obvious political and value stance, but its long-term promotion or use will inevitably lead to a specific political and value stance. The best way to transcend Eurocentrism as a mode of thinking and a system of discourse is to construct an entirely new mode of thinking and system of discourse. However, because this work involves a wide scope and a complex process, its implementation is exceptionally difficult, and this is also reflected in the development of Marx’s thought after the creation of historical materialism and the theory of world history.

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

Currently, there are different debates in academic circles about the development of Marx’s thought in his later years. For example, some, based on Marx’s discussion in *Capital* (French edition), his letter to the editorial board of *Otechestvennye Zapiski*, and his reply to Vera Zasulich, in which he stated that the chapter on “primitive accumulation” in Volume 1 of *Capital* concerning the origin of capitalism is limited to Western Europe, conclude that Marx’s theory of the relationship between capitalism and socialism is only applicable to Europe, and that non-European countries took the capitalist path of development only as a result of creating a “Western European environment” (Frank, mentioned above, holds this view). Others, based on Marx’s reply to Zasulich and its drafts, the preface to the Russian edition of the *Communist Manifesto*, and related ideas, conclude that in his later years Marx pioneered an “Eastern path” different from and unrelated to the West. In fact, these views do not fully grasp Marx’s thought, especially the development process of Marx’s transcendence of Eurocentrism as a mode of thinking and a system of discourse; they are merely conjectures based on a fragmented understanding of Marx’s relevant writings. Although the creation of historical materialism and the formation of the theory of world history have created conditions for people to understand and utilize historical laws, exploring the specific development paths of different countries still requires a continuous process of research and reflection. In this process, theoretical thoroughness and a rigorous scientific attitude are crucial. A careful study of the history of Marx’s thought after the creation of historical materialism can be divided into two stages: the first stage, from the creation of historical materialism to the 1850s; the second stage, from the early 1850s to Marx’s death. In the first stage, Marx’s main work was theoretical creation, i.e., creating historical materialism and the theory of world history; the object of practical research was mainly Western countries, with almost no specialized research on Eastern countries. In the second stage, Marx had begun to pay attention to and study Eastern countries, but depending on the degree of attention and research, it can be further divided into two sub-stages: the first sub-stage, from the early 1850s to the late 1860s; the second sub-stage, from the early 1870s to his death. In the first sub-stage, Marx’s attention to and research on issues including India and China often borrowed from existing Western European materials; in the second sub-stage, Marx’s research on Eastern countries including Russia relied on first-hand research materials. Because Western European materials were all provided by Western scholars, they were inevitably marked to varying degrees by Eurocentrism. Although Marx had already carefully filtered and cautiously selected these materials when using them, without the support of first-hand material research, some of his discussions still bore, to a greater or lesser extent, certain imprints of Eurocentrism—for example, Marx’s claim at that time about the “absence of private property” in Indian village communities and his discussion of the Asiatic mode of production. After the 1870s, Marx’s relevant discussions had already changed considerably, as seen in his analysis and discussion of the “dual character” of the Russian rural commune.

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

The reason people think there is a Eurocentric tendency in Marx’s thought lies primarily in his analysis and discussion of the “theory of European uniqueness” and the “theory of Oriental stagnation.” Indeed, if one relies solely on Marx’s relevant writings before the 1870s, Marx seems to have given an affirmative answer to both. But if one carefully studies Marx’s research and responses after the 1870s, the conclusions are all negative. In Marx’s view at that time, although the East developed very slowly, it had internal driving forces for development; although capitalism originated in Western Europe, it was by no means limited to Western Europe, and the East also had the possibility and potential driving force for generating capitalism. As for the discussion in the chapter on “primitive accumulation” in Volume 1 of *Capital*, which limits the origin of capitalism to Western Europe and the possibility for Russia to “leap over the Caudine Forks of capitalism,” [3]3 “Leap over the Caudine Forks of capitalism” (跨越资本主义卡夫丁峡谷) is a metaphor Marx used for a society bypassing the capitalist stage of development, drawing on the ancient Roman military defeat at the Caudine Forks. these also need to be understood comprehensively and scientifically. Although Marx proposed that there are two paths of historical development — one represented by Western capitalist countries, the path from capitalism to socialism, and the other represented by Russia, the path of leaping over capitalism — these two development paths are not unrelated but are closely connected. The former is the dominant path of social development, the latter is the auxiliary path; the former directly determines and influences the development of the latter. In Marx’s view, although Russia could take a path different from that of Western Europe, it was by no means a path unrelated to the development of Western European capitalism. For this path to be possible and to succeed, it must be premised on the full exposure of the development of Western European capitalism, especially its social contradictions, and on the Russian workers’ revolution receiving support and assistance from the Western European proletarian revolution, and after the revolution’s success, fully absorbing the advanced achievements of Western European capitalism. Engels clarified this idea more clearly in his later years. In response to the idea of the Russian populist faction represented by Tkachev and others, who believed that Russia’s rural commune could directly carry out a socialist revolution, Engels criticized: “The belief that the peasant commune itself possesses a magical power capable of bringing about and necessarily bringing about a social rebirth (we have seen that Chernyshevsky could not fully escape this belief either) … We do not argue with these people, although they regard the Russian people as the chosen people of God for social revolution. Therefore, we do not need to share their illusions.” He emphasized that the indispensable condition for Russia to shorten the process of developing toward a socialist society was: “the example and active support of the West, which is still capitalist. Only when capitalist economy is overcome in its own homeland and in the countries where it flourishes, only when the backward countries see from this example ‘what it is all about,’ see how to turn the productive forces of modern industry into social property to serve the whole society — only then can these backward countries begin this shortened process of development.” Although Marx and Engels’ vision of the Russian working class and the Western European proletariat jointly making revolution and building socialism was not realized, this idea provided important guidance and direction for countries with relatively backward productive forces on how to build socialism.

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

If, as some in academia have proposed, the two above-mentioned paths of social development are regarded as “unrelated,” on the surface this might seem to prove Marx’s critique of Eurocentrism (i.e., because it emphasizes that Marx strictly limited the first path of social development to the West, it could logically lead to the conclusion that Marx opposed generalizing this path as a necessary stage of development for non-Western countries, thus opposing Eurocentrism). In reality, this not only fails to scientifically reflect the full content and essence of Marx’s critique of Eurocentrism, but may also lead to another kind of centrism — “a Eurocentrism that opposes Eurocentrism.” [4]4 “A Eurocentrism that opposes Eurocentrism” (反西方中心论的西方中心论) refers to a position that, while rejecting Eurocentrism, implicitly relies on its categories or logic, thereby reproducing its dominance in a different form. If non-Western countries truly take a leapfrog development path that is different from Western countries and unrelated to them, on the surface it seems to avoid the interference of Eurocentrism, but in practice it will inevitably fail to escape the fate of being dominated by Eurocentrism. This is because it is a path that violates the laws of historical development; its possible consequences are either slow social development or social regression, and thus it will ultimately be overtaken by ideas advocating Eurocentrism, forcing it onto a path related to the development of Western capitalism. Historical facts have clearly demonstrated this truth.

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

The reason Marx in his later years, on the one hand, limited the analysis of the origin of capitalism to Western Europe, and on the other hand, explored Russia’s leapfrog development path, is an important manifestation of his historical materialism’s treatment of world historical development as an indivisible whole for study. In Marx’s thought, these two are not only not unrelated, but are mutually influencing and mutually constraining. Precisely because of the concrete analysis of the Russian question and the scientific exploration of Russia’s development path, Marx necessarily limited his analysis of the origin of capitalism; similarly, precisely because of Marx’s profound analysis of the origin of capitalism and other issues, the proposal of Russia’s leapfrog development path became possible. Although these two paths of social development differ in specific content and mode of realization, they are both subject to the world history dominated by the capitalist mode of production. Of course, this world history is also the result of the interaction of different countries, but the roles of different countries in their specific development are clearly different, with the influence of developed capitalist countries playing a dominant role. Thus it can be seen that Marx’s theory of world history and his exploration of related paths of social development are not only not Eurocentrism, nor the so-called “polycentrism” proposed by some in academia, nor will they lead to “a Eurocentrism that opposes Eurocentrism.”

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

In fact, the “leapfrog theory” is not, as some scholars have suggested, merely a conjecture of Marx’s later years. In reality, this idea existed from the very beginning in works from the period when historical materialism was established, such as *The German Ideology*, for example, Marx’s discussion of the Germanic tribes leaping over slave society and the United States leaping over feudal society. The “leapfrog theory” is an important manifestation of the thoroughness of Marx’s theory of world history. Because the historical theory Marx advocates is a theory of world history, and in world history, a country’s development is related not only to its own foundations and conditions but also to the international environment it faces. If a country, under special historical circumstances, possesses the objective conditions to absorb the advanced productive forces of other nations or peoples, then that country may successfully achieve a leap. If it does not possess these objective conditions, a leap is impossible, or even if a so-called leap is achieved for various reasons, such a leap will ultimately not be lasting or successful. This is precisely the true meaning of the idea of the “two inevitables” [5]5 The “two inevitables” (两个决不会) refers to Marx’s statement in the 1859 Preface that “no social order is ever destroyed before all the productive forces for which it is sufficient have been developed, and new superior relations of production never replace older ones before the material conditions for their existence have matured within the framework of the old society.” mentioned in the “Preface to *A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy*.” Of course, the “leapfrog theory” proposed by Marx in his later years also differs from the “leapfrog theory” mentioned during the period when historical materialism was established. The latter is a scientific analysis and scientific explanation of historical phenomena that have already occurred, while the former is a bold conjecture made by Marx based on his historical materialism, his theory of world history, and his in-depth study of the concrete realities of Russia and other countries.

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

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

三、马克思对西方中心论批判的当代意义与启示

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

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

The historical materialism and the theory of world history created by Marx and Engels reveal to people that historical development has laws, and these laws are manifested both in the historical development of a single nation and country and in the world-historical process of interaction and mutual influence among all nations and countries of the world. The operation of this dual historical law, woven together from vertical and horizontal dimensions, tells us that when engaging in economic construction, we must, on the basis of our own reality, fully consider the international environment, strive to shape a favorable international environment, try to avoid the occurrence of an adverse international environment, and use a favorable international environment to conduct extensive exchanges and cooperation, earnestly absorbing the advanced achievements of other countries, especially developed countries. This is because there is an important difference between countries that achieve leapfrog development and those that develop by sequentially advancing through social formations: although the latter also need to promote their own development by shaping a favorable international environment and through exchanges and cooperation with different countries, this international condition is not an indispensable necessary condition for their development, whereas it is a necessary prerequisite and necessary foundation for the success of countries that achieve leapfrog development. The reason for saying this is that social systems, including relations of production, can be directly leapfrogged, but productive forces cannot be directly leapfrogged; they can only achieve leapfrog development on the premise of respecting the laws of the development of productive forces. In the process of achieving leapfrog development of productive forces, learning, absorbing, and utilizing the most advanced scientific and technological achievements and management experience of developed capitalist countries is an indispensable and important link.

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

Historical development has its laws, but human behavior also has agency. This agency, when manifested in issues of social development, takes the form of selectivity of the path, autonomy of development, and cultural subjectivity. However, when emphasizing selectivity of the path, autonomy of development, and cultural subjectivity, one must still take the objective laws of history as the premise and foundation. This is because the selectivity, autonomy, and subjectivity here are not arbitrary but have clear stipulations. That is, people can only make choices within a stipulated scope and promote social development in a certain direction of historical development. Manifested in terms of cultural subjectivity, this means that, first, the cultural self (cultural subjectivity is precisely the cultural self) should not be understood as an “active self,” but should first be understood as a “stipulated self,” and then, according to objective conditions and the direction of historical development, exert subjective agency to construct an “active self.” Therefore, the construction of cultural subjectivity should first consider the advanced nature of culture, not the national character of culture. From the current situation of China’s cultural construction, although China has created and continuously develops an advanced culture, in terms of resources, a considerable part of it originates from the West. If cultural subjectivity is understood merely as native culture, how can we scientifically construct cultural subjectivity? In the view of many people, constructing cultural subjectivity is a matter of constructing an independent knowledge system. On the surface, this seems not to be wrong, but in fact it does not deeply understand the connotation and essence of cultural subjectivity. Constructing an independent knowledge system is certainly important, but it is only the form of cultural subjectivity, while the essence of cultural subjectivity is its content, and it should be content with agency. The concrete manifestation of this content with agency is that it should be able to successfully guide China’s construction and development. Therefore, constructing cultural subjectivity requires stepping out of narrow nationalism and boldly absorbing all outstanding cultural achievements of humanity, including the advanced achievements of developed capitalist countries, and making them serve our purposes.

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

It is undeniable that all nations and countries are equal, and in the process of participating in world historical development, they will all contribute to the world’s advanced culture. At the same time, however, the culture of any nation will carry national character, even narrow national character, but one must not give up eating for fear of choking [6]6 “Giving up eating for fear of choking” (因噎废食) is a Chinese idiom meaning to refrain from doing something necessary because of a minor risk.; rather, one should make use of them through dialectical sublation. All forms of centrism, including Eurocentrism, are fundamentally wrong and must be subjected to fundamental and thorough critique, but in the process of critique, selective absorption, transformation, and re-creation are also necessary. After all, the system of human knowledge is vast, and it is difficult to achieve everything through re-creation. Eurocentrism as a view of history and Eurocentrism as a political and value outlook contain obvious errors and therefore must be vigorously criticized, but Eurocentrism as a mode of thinking and a discursive system cannot be treated in a one-size-fits-all manner. This is because a specific mode of thinking and a specific discursive system are not directly related to a specific political and value stance; they represent a certain degree of understanding of the inherent laws of some things in social existence. Consequently, many of their components or factors possess a certain degree of practical rationality. For these components or factors that possess a certain degree of practical rationality, after critique, transformation, and processing, they can be made to serve our purposes (when a “discursive system” forms a “discursive system” [7]7 The author uses “话语系统” (discursive system) and “话语体系” (discursive system) as distinct terms; the latter implies a more systematic and potentially ideological formation. with specific discursive content and discursive form, it should be treated differently. Because a distorted or exaggerated “discursive system” can easily slide toward a specific political and value stance). After all, humanity’s understanding of the laws of nature and history is condensed through scientific thinking and categories, terms, and the like. Although different countries choose different development paths, as long as they engage in modernization, there will be many commonalities. In this regard, Marx’s *Ethnological Notebooks* and *Historical Notebooks* are models of discursive utilization, discursive transformation, discursive critique, and discursive innovation, and are worthy of our serious study and absorption.

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

Since the construction of cultural subjectivity must confront the self as defined by reality and construct the self according to future expectations, it naturally cannot, in this process, forget the self as defined by the past and by history. The cultural self, like the self in life, always reconstructs itself by constantly confronting the past and reality and according to future expectations, re-“centering” the various demands and definitions imposed on the self from all sides into an active, positive self, following a certain line of thought and method. Thus, cultural ethnicity is crucial to the construction of cultural subjectivity. Cultural ethnicity is not only an inseparable necessary component of the construction of the “cultural self,” but also an important force in building the agency of the “cultural self.” For cultural ethnicity is not only the source of the formation and maintenance of national cohesion and centripetal force, but also the spiritual driving force that promotes the healthy development of a nation. Any nation, especially one with a long history, inevitably accumulates and sediments in its culture rich experience and wisdom in governing the country, managing social affairs, and social life (including daily life). These experiences and wisdom are valuable assets that guide a specific nation in facing the future and ensuring its healthy development. Moreover, any existence in social history is extremely broad; innovation and change in any era cannot be the total innovation and comprehensive transformation of all social-historical existences. Therefore, those social existences not directly triggered by innovation and change will naturally survive and develop within the continuity of tradition. Even social existences touched by innovation and change cannot be completely unrelated to tradition; they are merely reconstructions and creative reestablishments of relevant traditions on the basis of people’s critique. However, the construction of cultural ethnicity does not mean that all national cultures can be utilized and transformed; only excellent cultures can be utilized and transformed. There are multiple criteria for evaluating cultural “excellence,” among which the culture’s own internal standards are naturally an important consideration. For culture has its own unique laws of development; only a culture that conforms to the laws of cultural construction and cultural development and has a promising future can be considered excellent. But it is insufficient to view the issue solely from the internal standards of culture. To judge whether a culture is “excellent,” one must also consider social standards external to culture: first, it must conform to the reality of our country’s focus on economic construction; second, it must conform to the current international situation and trends of international development; third, it must conform to the future direction of human development. Therefore, cultural ethnicity is not a narrow ethnicity, but an open and inclusive ethnicity, and this ethnicity must be continuously developed and reconstructed with the development of the times. Here, Marx’s thought and method of criticizing German “narrow nationalism” and “false cosmopolitanism” from a “standpoint outside Germany” [8]8 This refers to Marx’s critique of the Young Hegelians and German ideology, particularly in *The German Ideology* (1845-46), where he argued from a materialist standpoint that transcended the narrow national perspective of German philosophy. are of positive significance for our construction of cultural ethnicity. Although cultural ethnicity is a national culture, it must be a culture that conforms to the trends of world development, a culture that can be understood and even accepted by the people of other countries. Of course, the refinement and development of cultural ethnicity is not the ultimate goal of cultural construction. The ultimate goal of cultural construction is to integrate cultural advancedness and cultural ethnicity into an organic and unified new cultural life-form under the guidance of “scientific theory.” Once the new cultural life-form is formed, it will have the following distinct cultural characteristics: it is both an advanced culture and an ethnic culture, and thus it is a cultural whole that truly integrates cultural advancedness and cultural ethnicity into one. In the new cultural life-form, the ethnic is the advanced, and the advanced is also the ethnic. In short, cultural construction is a scientific undertaking. It must respect both the laws of historical development and the laws of cultural construction itself, and it requires a rigorous, earnest, and truth-seeking scientific attitude. At the same time, it is necessary to oppose all erroneous cultural tendencies that emerge in this process, including cultural determinism, cultural uselessness theory, and Western-centrism.

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

Online editor: Paul

网络编辑：保罗