天涯網友譯：美國革命共產黨宣言

美國革命共產黨網站：　　

http://www.revcom.us/socialistconstitution/index.html

http://www.revcom.us/socialistconstitution/index.html　　
　

美國革命共產黨簡介　　

目前美國有兩個共產黨：一個是美國共產黨，一個是美國革命共產黨。　　

“美國共產黨”、“美國革命共產黨”這兩個黨成立的背景以及路線、方針和政策都有明顯區別。　　

“美革共”被稱作美國國內目前最大的“毛主義”組織。它是受我國“文革”影響成立的，黨刊名為《革命》（周報）。該組織的前身是1968年由美國一些青年學生在加利福尼亞州建立的“灣區革命聯盟”(BARU)。1971年，“灣區革命聯盟”召開全國代表大會，改稱“革命聯盟”(RU)，1975年9月，“革命聯盟”又改稱“革命共產黨”(RCP)。該黨成立之初，有黨員近1000人，1977年最鼎盛時達到2000人左右。　　

 至今，該黨的指導思想一直沒有發生根本變化，仍然主張在美國發動由工人階級領導的暴力革命，通過武裝奪權來使美國走上社會主義道路。1978年前后，主要因為對中國問題看法上的分歧，“美革共”發生分裂，成員逐漸減少。到上世紀80年代末，黨員人數大約只有成立時的一半。根據有關資料，近年來，“美革共”的黨員有所增加，在20來個城市設有支部。該黨自建立后，總部一直設在芝加哥。現任領導人羅伯特·阿瓦基安，1943年出生，是該黨的創建人之一。 　　

容易與之相混淆的美國共產黨則是在俄國十月革命和共產國際的影響下，于1919年9月1日成立的，至今已有90年歷史。其總部現設于紐約曼哈頓，現任領導人是薩繆爾·韋伯。　　

美共成立初期曾被美國政府宣布為非法，1923年合法化。上世紀三四十年代，美共在鋼鐵、紡織、煤礦等工業部門和農業工人中領導大規模的群眾斗爭，積極支持黑人反對種族歧視的斗爭，大力動員群眾支持和參加反法西斯戰爭，其力量一度得到比較大的發展。　　

1943年，蘇、美、英三國首腦會晤德黑蘭會議，美共總書記白勞德認為世界已進入資本主義與社會主義“長期信任與合作”的時期，主張美共放棄自己的“成見”和“特殊利益”，實現包括大資產階級在內的團結，反對進行革命。1944年5月，美共召開十二大，根據白勞德的提議，通過了解散美共的決定。1945年4月，法國共產黨領導人雅克·杜克洛撰文批判白勞德的錯誤主張，在國際主義運動中產生很大影響。同年7月，美共召開緊急代表大會，重組美國共產黨，由威廉·福斯特任全國委員會主席。上世紀末，麥卡錫主義一度盛行，美共又被迫轉入“地下”。60年代后，美國政府放松了對美共的限制，美共活動逐漸增多。至1984年，時任美共總書記葛斯·霍爾曾四度以“人民高于利潤”的口號競選美國總統。　　

中國共產黨成立初期，美共就曾積極聲援。抗日戰爭時期，美共在國內發動了“不許干涉中國”的群眾運動，并派遣醫療隊援助中國革命根據地。國際共運大論中，美共與中共的關系一度中斷；1988年6月，美共總書記霍爾率代表團訪華，兩黨恢復交往。　　

“美革共”成立初期曾與中共關系非常密切，但兩黨在1978年斷絕往來。1979年初鄧小平訪美時，“美革共”還在黨主席阿瓦基安的帶領導下，在華盛頓等地舉行反對鄧小平訪美的示威游行，甚至還組織過試圖暗殺鄧小平的恐怖活動。阿瓦基安因此遭美國政府逮捕，后被驅逐出美國。前些年國內出版的小說《白宮突圍》曾提到此事，但作者也混淆了“美共”與“美革共”，錯把美共主席葛斯．霍爾當成暗殺鄧小平的策劃人。　　

當前，“美革共”和美共的國內政策有著明顯區別。比如，比如，在去年的美國總統選舉中，美共沒有提出自己的總統候選人，而是號召黨員及其支持者投奧巴馬一票；而“美革共”抵制總統選舉，在奧巴馬當選后，則極力反對政府和各種改革措施，仍然繼續鼓吹暴力革命    （王保賢）　　

本月10日，激進的美國革命共產黨想出解決美國困境的新方法：那就是推翻政府，推行新憲法。規模不大的革命共產黨主動聯系了媒體，公布了《北美新社會主義共和國憲章（草案）》。

同一天，革命共產黨在聲明中承諾，“新憲法”將扮演帶頭角色，“建立并帶領我們走向完全不同，更加美好的共產主義社會。”

美國極端保守的政治人物與媒體人士，常把民主黨總統奧巴馬的自由主義傾向，形容成社會主義或共產主義。但是，革命共產黨并不把奧巴馬視為革命同志。

“新憲法”稱：北美新社會主義共和國在是統一戰線在無產階級領導的戰略方向的延續，在新的社會，無產階級的利益相一致，作為一個階級，最根本和最大的意義，取消一切剝削，并通過遍布世界的革命斗爭實現這一目標，共產主義原則的完美體現。社會主義新共和國在北美，像所有的國家，一個獨裁，專政，無產階級的形式，這意味著，在其本質特征及其基本原理，結構，體制和政治進程中，它必須體現和服務其所有目標的無產階級，它的開發是對資本主義的財富和資本主義社會的運作積累的發動機，其解放的條件，只能通過共產主義革命帶來的根本利益關系消滅剝削和壓迫，實現全人類的解放。

美國革命共產黨被稱作美國國內目前最大的“毛主義”組織。它是受中國“文革”影響成立的。該組織的前身是1968年由美國一些青年學生在加利福尼亞州建立的“灣區革命聯盟“。1971年，”灣區革命聯盟“召開全國代表大會，改稱”革命聯盟“，1975年9月，”革命聯盟“又改稱”革命共產黨“。該黨成立之初，有黨員近1000人， 1977年最鼎盛時達到2000人左右。

至今，該黨的指導思想一直沒有發生根本變化，仍然主張在美國發動由工人階級領導的暴力革命，通過武裝奪權來使美國走上社會主義道路。1978年前后，主要因為對中國問題看法上的分歧，“美革共”發生分裂，成員逐漸減少。到上世紀80年代末，黨員人數大約只有成立時的一半。根據有關資料，近年來，“美革共”的黨員有所增加，在20來個城市設有支部。該黨自建立后，總部一直設在芝加哥。現任領導人羅伯特.阿瓦基安，1943年出生，是該黨的創建人之一。

據本博秦全耀回憶，早在上世紀文革時，中國的媒體就常常報道美國革命共產黨。但老秦要提示一句美國革命共產黨不是美國共產黨。美國共產黨當時被罵成是修正主義。蘇東劇變使美國共產黨跌入了低谷，但美共中央堅持不改黨名，不變黨性，從組織和思想上保全了黨。美國共產黨一直認為社會主義建設要基于美國民主傳統之上，把民主作為社會主義的核心和本質特征。在黨章修改前后美共圍繞“社會主義權利法案”的問題展開了非常活躍的討論。黨的主席韋伯提醒全黨不要把“社會主義權利法案”變成陳詞濫調，也不要把它變成新的頌歌。

美共究竟有多少黨員，美共沒有正式宣布，估計的數字很不相同，有的說有1.5萬人，有的說 7000人左右，有的說4000人左右，而有的則說1500人，但無論哪個數字較準確，對于美國共產黨來說，要想在美國社會中發揮重要作用并通過投票箱實現社會主義，目前黨的力量還是遠遠不夠的。

美國共產黨在上屆的美國總統選舉中，沒有提出自己的總統候選人，而是號召黨員及其支持者投奧巴馬一票，而美國革命共產黨抵制總統選舉，在奧巴馬當選后，則極力反對政府和各種改革措施，繼續鼓吹暴力革命。　　

美國革命共產黨宣言　　

  網友：線專川上 翻譯　　

 昨晚無聊，突然想看早就下載了的RCP Manifesto，看的時候便嘗試著邊翻譯了一些，今晚亦如此。俺非翻譯或英語科班出生，翻譯此文純屬興趣，也想借此提高下自己的英文能力，貼出來就當是鞭策自己。。。囧，話說這也是俺天涯第一帖。------------------------------------------------
　　Revolutionary Communist Party, USA (RCP)美國革命共產黨，是個比較左傾的馬克思主義政黨，網上能搜索到一點點相關信息。要注意的是RCP與美國共產黨（CPUSA）是兩個不同的政黨。
　　-----------------------如下開始------------------------
　　
　　共產主義：一個新時代的開端
　　——美國革命共產黨宣言
　　
　　2008年9月
　　
　　
　　 無論它向我們怎樣宣揚，這個我們身處的資本主義，這種絕大數人類的生活方式——生命在其中要么慢慢流逝，要么瞬間被吹散，并不代表最好的世界——也不代表唯一可能的世界。這些生命列車在其中行駛了數百年、數千年的生活方式——壓迫、痛苦、墮落、暴力、破壞、無知與迷信的神秘面紗，迫使絕大多數人類疲于奔命，身心遭受重創——絕不是這苦難人類的自身過錯，不是某些不存在的一神或眾神們的“意志”，也不是某些不變的、不可改變的“人性”的結果。所有這些都是人類社會在剝削者和壓迫者的統治下，這種方式發展的表現和結果…但是，恰恰是這種發展將人類帶到了這樣一個臨界點——在這兒，過往數千年來的陳規亂俗都已不再有效；在這兒，一種完全不同的生活方式將成為可能：在世界各地，人類無論是個體還是群體，在彼此的交流之中，能夠拋開傳統的沉重鎖鏈，窮盡其能，以一種前所未有的、甚至是無法完全想象的方式繁榮成長。
　　
　　【備注：此處the Revolutionary Communist Party, USA譯為美國革命共產黨，它與美國共產黨有區別，美國共產黨為：CPUSA，全稱：the Communist Party USA。中間的god or gods理解為一神信仰和多神信仰的區別，不然沒必要這樣表達，g大些God才是上帝的意思。】
　　---------------------此段原文----------------------------
　　COMMUNISM:
　　THE BEGINNING OF A NEW STAGE
　　A Manifesto from
　　the Revolutionary Communist Party, USA
　　September 2008
　　
　　Despite what is constantly preached at us, this capitalist system we live under, this way of life that constantly drains away—or in an instant blows away—life for the great majority of humanity, does not represent the best possible world—nor the only possible world. The ways in which the daily train of life has, for centuries and millennia, caused the great majority of humanity to be weighed down, broken in body and spirit, by oppression, agony, degradation, violence and destruction, and the dark veil of ignorance and superstition, is not the fault of this suffering humanity—nor is this the “will” of some non-existent god or gods, or the result of some unchanging and unchangeable “human nature.” All this is the expression, and the result, of the way human society has developed up to this point under the domination of exploiters and oppressors...but that very development has brought humanity to the point where what has been, for thousands of years, no longer has to be—where a whole different way of life is possible in which human beings, individually and above all in their mutual interaction with each other, in all parts of the world, can throw off the heavy chains of tradition and rise to their full height and thrive in ways never before experienced, or even fully imagined. 　　

　　I. 漫長的黑暗—和歷史性的突破
　　
　　 剝削性的經濟和社會關系，包括男人對女人成體系的統治，和將人類社會分割為彼此利益沖突的不同階級的分化行為，并不一直存在于人類之間。一直存在這樣種狀況：少數群體不僅壟斷了財富，而且也壟斷了生活資料，由此迫使更多的人以這種或那種方式成為自我需求的奴隸。同時，這些少數群體也壟斷了政治權利和施加剝削的工具，主宰了社會的智力和文化生活，迫使廣大的多數群體處于無知和順從的地位。這種狀況，并不一直是人類社會的一部分。只要人類繼續存在，這種人類間交互的方式也不可能注定保持下去。這些壓迫性的分化行為在數千年前產生，取代了公共社會的早期模式，早期的公共社會存在了數千年，是由相互有血緣關系的少數群體共同組成，他們共同擁有最重要的財產，相互協作，以滿足他們的生存需求并撫養后代。
　　
　　 早期公共社會的消亡，不是因為某些有“自然傾向”的人會去謀求高于他人的優越地位，犧牲他人為己謀利；也不是因為一些所謂的男人必定征服女人或一個種族必定征服和掠奪其它種族的“基因預設”。毫無疑問，在早期的公共社會中，有時不同社會間會發生遭遇并不能調和矛盾，從而爆發沖突，但是這些社會并沒有展現出制度化的社會壓迫分化現象，而后者在今天，我們已經不能再熟悉了。對于那些早期公共社會中的人來說，妄圖成為他人主人，通過迫使他人工作謀求財富和權力的行為，是奇怪的和令人不能容忍的。確切的說，社會分化和人們之間壓迫關系的出現，是由于人類與“外部”自然環境的交互方式發生了變化，以及尤其是維系人類生存的物質生產、再生產和撫養后代等方式的變化。
　　
　　【備注：means to live仿造means of production譯為生產資料的模式，譯為“生活資料”；communal society譯為公共社會，不知是否妥當，且將就如此。】
　　
　　------------------------如下原文---------------------
　　I.
　　The Long Darkness— and the Historic Breakthrough
　　
　　Exploitative economic and social relations, including the systematic domination of women by men and the division of human society into different classes with conflicting interests, have not always existed among human beings. A situation in which a small group monopolizes not only wealth but the very means to live, and thereby forces far greater numbers to slave under their command, in one form or another, while that small group also monopolizes political power and the means of enforcing this exploitation and dominates the intellectual and cultural life of society, condemning the vast majority to ignorance and subservience—this has not always been part of human society. Nor is this destined to remain the way human beings relate to each other, so long as human beings continue to exist. These oppressive divisions arose thousands of years ago, replacing early forms of communal society, which themselves had existed for thousands of years, and which were made up of relatively small groups of people holding in common their most important possessions and working cooperatively to meet their needs and to raise new generations.
　　
　　The break-up of these early communal societies was not due to some “natural inclination” of people to seek a superior position above others and to “get ahead” at the expense of others, nor to some supposed “genetic predisposition” of men to subjugate women or of one “race” of people to conquer and plunder other “races.” No doubt there were conflicts at times when people in early communal societies encountered each other and were not able to readily reconcile the differences between them, but these societies were not characterized by institutionalized oppressive divisions with which we are all too familiar today.
　　 To people in those communal societies the idea of some people within these societies establishing themselves as the masters over others, and seeking to acquire wealth and power by forcing others to work for them, would have seemed strange and outrageous. Rather, the emergence of class divisions and oppressive social relations among people was owing to changes in the ways human beings interacted with the “external” natural environment, and in particular changes in the ways these human beings carried out the production of the material requirements of life and the reproduction and rearing of new generations.
　　 　　　
 

　　3.
　　
　　 尤其是，一旦負責生產和再生產的組織開始以這樣一種方式進行運作：個人，而非社會整體，開始控制社會生產的盈余（盈余是指超出最低生存需要的那部分）；一旦人們或長或短的長期定居于某個地方，并在此土地上開始農業生產；漫長的黑暗便降臨了。從此，人類便被分化為主人與奴隸，有權者與無權者，治人者和被治者，社會命運的決策者和個人命運的被決策者，即使這些決策者并不能發揮有效作用。
　　
　　 在大多數人類都處于黑暗之中的這數千年里，人們一直夢想著一種不同的生活---在那兒，奴役、強奸、掠奪的戰爭、異化的一生、痛苦和絕望將不再構成“人的條件”。這種對不同生活的渴望在各種形式的宗教幻想中得到體現---超脫凡世，皈依一神或諸神，神控制著人類的命運，即使不是在此生，也會在來世獎勵那些今生忍受無窮痛苦的人們。但在俗世，也反復有想真正改變世界的企圖出現，一直以來，在社會中、不同社會之間，反抗和起義、大規模的叛亂、武裝沖突、甚至革命此起彼伏，并被演化成為實現這種企圖的主要方式。帝國消亡了，君主制被廢除了，奴隸主和封建領主被推翻了。然而，數百數千年來，雖然許多人，情愿也好不情愿也罷，為這些斗爭犧牲了自己的生命，但是結果卻始終如一：一個剝削者、壓迫者集團倒下了，另一個剝削者、壓迫者集團又站立了起來---以這種或那種方式，一個少數人群體繼續壟斷了財富、政治權利、社會的智力和文化生活，繼續統治和壓迫絕大多數人，繼續投入與敵對國家和帝國的戰爭之中。
　　
　　【注：a lifetime of alienation中的alienation譯為“異化”，因為記得馬克思爺爺好像經常提這個概念。】
　　
　　-------------------------原文----------------------
　　In particular, once the organization of this production and reproduction began to be carried out in such a way that individuals, instead of society as a whole, began to control the surplus produced by society, above and beyond what was necessary for mere survival, and especially once people settled more or less permanently on specific segments of land and began to carry out agricultural production on the land they settled, then the long night was ushered in, in which human beings have been divided into masters and slaves, the powerful and the powerless, those who rule and those who are ruled over, those whose role is decisive in determining the direction of society, and those whose destiny is shaped in this way, even while they have no effective role in determining that destiny.
　　
　　Throughout these thousands of years of darkness for the great majority of humanity, people have dreamed of a different life—where slavery, rape, wars of plunder, and a lifetime of alienation, agony, and despair would no longer constitute “the human condition.” This yearning for a different world has found expression in different forms of religious fantasy—looking beyond this world to a god or gods who supposedly control human destiny and who supposedly will, in some future existence, if not in this life, finally reward those who have endured endless suffering during their time on earth.
　　But there have also been repeated attempts to actually change things in this world. There have been revolts and uprisings, massive rebellions, armed conflicts, and even revolutions in which societies, and the relations between different societies, were transformed in major ways. Empires have fallen, monarchies have been abolished, slave owners and feudal lords have been overthrown. But for hundreds and thousands of years, while many people’s lives were sacrificed, willingly or unwillingly, in these struggles, the result was always that the rule of one group of exploiters and oppressors was replaced by that of another—in one form or another, a small part of society continued to monopolize wealth, political power, and intellectual and cultural life, dominating and oppressing the great majority and engaging repeatedly in wars with rival states and empires.
　　　　 　　
 

　　4.
　　
　　 所有這一切都沒有發生根本的變化---對于人類來說，新的曙光從未浮現，盡管他們為此一直在犧牲和斗爭著…直到稍稍一百多年前，一些全新的事物出現了：站立起來的人們不僅實現了渴望，還擁有結束一切剝削與壓迫關系，結束人類在世界各角落中一切對抗性沖突的可能。1871年，在普法戰爭期間，在法國首都巴黎，長期遭受剝削、貧苦不堪的勞動人民站立起來，奪取了政權并且在人民內部建立了一個全新的組織。這就是巴黎公社，雖然它僅僅只存在于法國的那一小塊土地，也只延續了短短的兩個月，但是它描繪了共產主義社會的雛形，在共產主義社會中，一切人民內部之間的階級分化和壓迫將被最終消除。巴黎公社最后還是被舊秩序的力量所鎮壓，成千上萬英勇的人們被屠殺，他們想要保存巴黎公社的努力最終化為泡影。但是，朝向新世界的第一步已經邁開了，道路已經敞開，方法業已顯現，只剩下飛馳的時間去實現。
　　
　　 即使在巴黎公社之前，一個沒有剝削和壓迫的全新世界的可能性，已經被卡爾.馬克思和他同時代的合作者，共產主義運動的創始人弗里德里希.恩格斯所科學的證明。馬克思在巴黎公社革命數年前就說過：
　　
　　 “一旦掌握了其內在的關系，所有認為現有狀況的存在是永恒必要的理論信仰，必將在實踐崩塌之前就已垮掉。”
　　
　　 這正是馬克思所做到的：他科學地挖掘和揭示的，不僅僅有資本主義制度的“內在聯系”，當時資本主義在歐洲已成為最重要的剝削形式并且逐漸殖民了世界上的大多數地方，還包括了資本主義與人類社會以前的所有制度之間的“內在聯系”---通過這種闡述，馬克思告訴我們，無論是對于資本主義的延續，還是對于任何建立在少數人剝削與壓迫多數人這個基礎之上的社會的存在，都不是“永恒必要”的。這在人類對現實理解的歷史上是一個影響深遠的突破，它為實踐一個世界范圍內的歷史性突破，為人類社會以及全世界人們之間關系的前所未有的革命化，提供了堅實的理論基礎。
　　
　　【注：俺水平有限，頭段最后一句if only fleetingly then比較糾結，暫且這么理解：if only為“要是…就好了”，then指the new world到來的那時，fleetingly表示時間飛快。如此理解的意思是：“要是能疾馳到這一天該多好”，似乎與前面不協調，因此全改意譯了。】
　　-----------------原文----------------------------------
　　
　　All this remained fundamentally unchanged—the light of a new day never appeared for the masses of humanity, despite all their sacrifice and struggle... Until, a little more than 100 years ago, something radically new emerged: people rising up who embodied not only the desire but the potential to put an end to all relations of exploitation and oppression and all destructive antagonistic conflicts among human beings, everywhere in the world. In 1871, amidst a war between “their” government and that of Germany, working people in the capital city of France, long exploited, impoverished, and degraded, rose up to seize power and established a new form of association among people. This was the Paris Commune, which existed only in that one part of France, and which lasted for only two short months, but which represented, in embryonic form, a communist society in which distinctions of class and oppressive divisions among people would be finally abolished. The Commune was crushed by the weight and force of the old order—with thousands slaughtered in a valiant but ultimately vain attempt to keep the Commune alive. But the first steps had been taken toward a new world, the path had been opened, the way shown, if only fleetingly then.
　　
　　Even before the events of the Paris Commune, the possibility of a radically new world, without exploitation and oppression, had been scientifically established through the work of Karl Marx, together with his contemporary and collaborator, Frederick Engels, the founders of the communist movement. As Marx himself put it, only a few years before the Commune:
　　
　　 "Once the inner connection is grasped, all theoretical belief in the permanent necessity of existing conditions breaks down before their collapse in practice.1 "
　　
　　And that is what Marx had done: He had scientifically excavated and brought to light not only the “inner connections” of the system of capitalism, which had become the dominant form of exploitation in Europe and was increasingly colonizing large parts of the world, but also the “inner connections” between capitalism and all previous forms of human society—and in so doing he had shown that there was no “permanent necessity” either for the continuation of capitalism or for the existence of any other society based on the exploitation and oppression of the many by the few. This was a profound breakthrough in human beings’ understanding of reality, which established the theoretical basis for a world-historic breakthrough in practice, for an unprecedented revolutionization of human society and the relations among people, all over the world.
　　 　　

　　5.
　　
　　 馬克思最根本的發現是，人類社會的性質和社會中人們的關系，并不是由個體的觀念或意志所決定，無論這種個體是人還是某些荒誕的鬼神——而是由人們生產和再生產物質資料以維持生活時所面臨的需求，以及人們借以群居在一起的方式，和人們滿足需求時所利用的生產資料所決定的。當今世界，在尖端技術的幫助下，一些人逐漸從生產基本生活所需的進程中剝離出來——這使得我們很容易忘記：如果生產活動并非以滿足這些基本需求（食物、住房、交通等）為目的，如果人類社會不能繁衍自己的人口，那么生活將很快癱瘓，社會中所有的事物——只要一切正常它們便或多或少的被認為是理所當然的，將不再是可能的。穿透人類歷史發展和社會組織的厚厚軀殼，直達人類社會功能的最底層和關鍵核心，是馬克思的一個偉大成就和寶貴貢獻。
　　
　　 但是馬克思也指出，任何時候，無論人們利用什么樣的生產工具生產和再生產生活必需品——無論是何種生產力內容（土地、原材料、技術——無論簡單或是復雜、人們自身的知識和能力）——它都將根本上最終性的決定人們的組織方式、生產關系，以便最好的利用生產力。同樣，馬克思指出，這些生產關系與意志或個人的喜好無關，不管它們有多么強大，但生產關系必須也是必要，在任何時候都要基本符合生產力的性質。舉例來說，如果將信息技術和相關的生產過程（它們在今天的現代經濟社會中是至關重要的）介紹到早期公共社會（由少數原始人群體組成，他們在與其人口規模相匹配的大片土地上四處覓食和狩獵借以謀生），將會給那些社會帶來戲劇性的變化：他們原有的生活方式將被打破，并且發生重大的轉折。又如，也不能將現代技術有效的利用于種植園農業，種植園農業，在種植園奴隸制期間，和1860年代南北戰爭結束后奴隸獲得自由的將近一百年內，一直都是美國南方式生活的主心骨。種植園農業的特點是技術含量低，屬于勞動異常密集型農業，起先是大量的奴隸，而后是眾多的佃農和雇農：工作極為辛苦，日出而作，日落而息。事實上，直到二戰后，尤其是新農業技術被引入到南部地區——特別是拖拉機、機械化種植和采棉機的逐漸增加——破壞了舊的種植園制度，驅使大量黑人（此前他們都被以這種或那種方式牢牢栓在土地上）離開土地，進入到北方和南方的城市中。而這又反過來構成了一場抗爭的重要物質基礎，這場抗爭最終結束了美國的種族隔離制度和3K黨及其他白人至上主義者的公開恐怖行為，通過巨大的犧牲和英雄主義，這張抗爭給美國社會，特別是黑人地位帶來了極大的變化，盡管它沒有，也不能完全消除對黑人的壓迫，而這種壓迫過去一直是，今天依然是美國資本主義-帝國主義體系中一個不可或缺的基本組成部分。
　　
　　------------------------原文-------------------------
　　The most fundamental discovery that Marx made was that the character of human society, and the relations among people in society, is not determined by the ideas and the wills of individuals—either individual human beings or fantastical supernatural beings—but by the necessity people face in producing and reproducing the material requirements of life and the way in which people come together, and the means they utilize, to meet that necessity. In today’s world, with the highly sophisticated technology that exists—and, in particular, for those who are more removed from the actual process of producing the basic requirements of life—it can be easy to forget that, if the productive activity is not carried out to meet these basic requirements (food, shelter, transportation, and so on), and if human societies are not capable of reproducing their own populations, then life will soon come to a standstill, and all the things that go on in society, whose functioning is more or less taken for granted so long as things are proceeding “normally,” will no longer be possible. To penetrate beneath all the complex layers of human historical development and social organization to this underlying foundation and essential core of human social functioning was a great achievement and invaluable contribution of Marx.
　　
　　But Marx also showed that, at any given time, whatever the means are with which people carry out the production and reproduction of the material requirements of life—whatever is the character of the forces of production (the land and raw materials, the technology, whether simple or more complex, and the people themselves with their knowledge and abilities)—will basically and ultimately determine the way in which people are organized, the relations of production into which people enter, in order to best utilize the productive forces. Again, Marx showed that these relations of production are not a matter of the will, or the whims, of individuals, no matter how powerful, but must, of necessity, basically conform to the character of the productive forces at any given time. For example, if the information technology and related processes of production that are pivotal in today’s modern economies were introduced into societies made up of small groups of people foraging and hunting over large areas (relative to the size of their populations), which was the way of life in early communal societies, the introduction of this technology would bring about dramatic changes in the character of those societies: their way of life would be disrupted and changed in significant ways. Nor, for example, could modern technology be efficiently utilized in the plantation agriculture that was the backbone of the way of life in the southern United States, during the period of slavery and for nearly a hundred years after literal slavery was abolished through the Civil War in the 1860s. That plantation agriculture was marked by a low level of technology but very labor-intensive work carried out, first, by large numbers of slaves and then by sharecroppers and farm laborers: back-breaking toil from “can’t see in the morning till can’t see at night.” And in fact, in the period after World War 2 in particular, the introduction of new technology into southern agriculture—especially tractors and mechanized planting and picking machines, on an increasing scale—undermined the old plantation system and was a major impetus in driving many Black people, who had been formerly chained to the land in one form or another, off the land and into the cities of the North as well as the South.And this, in turn, constituted an important part of the material basis on which the struggle was waged to end legal segregation and open terror by the Ku Klux Klan and other white supremacists—a struggle which, through tremendous sacrifice and heroism, brought about very significant changes in U.S. society, and in the position of Black people in particular, even while it did not, and could not, put an end to the oppression of Black people, which has been, and today remains, an integral and essential element of the capitalist-imperialist system in the U.S.
　　 　　

　　6.
　　
　　 這闡明了另外一個由馬克思揭露的事實：在任何時候，現有生產關系的基礎上必將出現一個政治和思想的上層建筑——政治結構、制度和程序，思維方式，以及文化——它們從根本上講，必須也將一定會，與現有生產關系保持一致，并且還會反過來維持和加強這種生產關系。馬克思進一步說明，自從生產力發生變化從而導致帶有征服和統治特性的生產關系出現之時，社會便已被分為不同的階級，不同階級在社會中的地位是由他們在生產過程中的角色所決定的。在階級分化的社會，是經濟上占主導地位的階級壟斷和控制了主要的生產資料（技術、土地和原材料等），它們同時也統治了政治和思想的上層建筑。這種經濟上的統治階級也必將壟斷政治權力。政治權力的壟斷體現在國家這個概念上——特別是政治鎮壓工具，包括警察和軍隊，司法制度和懲罰機構，以及行政權——它給所謂的“合法”武裝力量的壟斷提供了一個集中的表達詞。同樣，社會中占主導地位的思維方式，包括文化中體現此思維方式的內容，必將與統治階級的世界觀和利益保持一致（如同馬克思和恩格斯在《共產黨宣言》中所說的那樣：只要社會被分化為不同階級，任何時代，占統治地位的思想總必然是統治階級的思想）。
　　
　　【備注：此處superstructure of politics and ideology中的ideology不直接譯為“意識形態”，而是譯為“思想”。貌似上層建筑分為政治上層建筑和思想上層建筑，思想上層建筑一般便是指意識形態，所以不好再譯為 意識形態的上層建筑】
　　------------------------原文-----------------------------
　　
　　This illustrates another crucial fact brought to light by Marx: On the foundation of the existing production relations at any given time, there will arise a superstructure of politics and ideology—political structures, institutions and processes, ways of thinking, and culture—which in a fundamental sense must and will correspond to, and in turn serve to maintain and reinforce, the existing production relations. And Marx further demonstrated, since the time that changes in the productive forces led to the emergence of production relations characterized by subjugation and domination, society has been divided into different classes, whose position in society is grounded in their differing roles in the process of production. In class-divided society, it is the economically dominant class—that group in society which monopolizes ownership and control of the major means of production (technology, land and raw materials, etc.)—which will also dominate the superstructure of politics and ideology. This economically dominant class will exercise a monopoly of political power. This monopoly of political power is embodied in the state—particularly the instruments of political suppression, including the police as well as the army, the legal system and penal institutions, as well as the executive power—and it assumes a concentrated expression in the monopoly of “legitimate” armed force. So, too, the dominant ways of thinking that hold sway in society, including as this is expressed in the culture, will correspond to the outlook and interests of the dominant class (as Marx and Engels put it in the Communist Manifesto, so long as society is divided into classes, the ruling ideas of any age are ever the ideas of its ruling class).
　　
　　
　　7.
　　
　　 那么什么是根本基礎，什么又是社會變革的根本驅動力？馬克思分析了如何通過人類的活動與創新生產力進而得到持續的發展，當達到某一臨界點，新的生產力將與現存的生產關系，以及與生產關系相適應的政治、思想上層建筑發生沖突。在這一點上，正如馬克思描繪的，現有的生產關系已經在整體意義上成為新生產力的一種桎梏和枷鎖，當這種情況發生時，必須進行革命，從而徹底改變現有生產關系，使它與新生產力相一致，從而帶來一種新境況，在此中生產關系成為一種更適合生產力發展的形式。但是革命必須，也只能發生在上層建筑，通過推翻和瓦解舊政權獲取社會政治權利，建立新的國家政權，如此才能改變生產關系和上層建筑，使之與新統治階級的利益保持一致，從而能更充分的發揮和利用生產力。
　　
　　 當然，革命是個極其復雜的過程，涉及到許多有不同看法和目的的人和群體，進行這樣一場革命時他們或多或少會意識到生產力和生產關系之間存在的根本沖突，他們的認知和進步使得革命成為必要，并且積聚了使革命成為可能的動力。但最終，這些沖突和動力將影響到到底誰能，誰確實是采取了行動，遵從了變革生產關系的需要，使之與生產力的發展相一致。這正是，例如，18世紀后期19世紀初法國最激進的資產階級革命所發生的：眾多不同階級力量和社會團體都參與了此次革命，但歸根到底，只有那股后來建立了資本主義制度（它取代了舊的封建制）的政治力量能夠奪取權力，根本的原因是：經濟的變革和以經濟為基礎的整個社會的變革，必須代表那種能使生產關系與生產力發展相一致的必要手段。
　　
　　----------------------原文-------------------------------
　　Then what is the fundamental basis, and what are the underlying, driving forces, of change in society? Marx analyzed how, through the activity and innovation of human beings, the productive forces are being continually developed, and at a certain point the new productive forces that have been developed will come into antagonism with the existing relations of production (and the superstructure of politics and ideology that corresponds to those production relations). At that point, as Marx characterized it, the existing production relations have become, in an overall sense, a fetter, a chain, on the productive forces; and when this situation emerges, a revolution must be carried out whose fundamental aim is to revolutionize the production relations, to bring them into line with the productive forces, to bring about a situation where the production relations are now more an appropriate form for the development of the productive forces, rather than a fetter on that development. Such a revolution will be driven forward by forces representing a class which embodies the potential for carrying out this transformation of the production relations, to bring them into line, essentially, with the way in which the productive forces have developed. But this revolution must, and can only, take place in the superstructure—in the struggle for political power over society, through the overthrow and dismantling of the old state power and the establishment of a new state power—which then makes possible the transformation of the production relations, as well as the superstructure itself, in line with the interests of the new ruling class and its ability to more fully unleash and utilize the productive forces.
　　
　　Of course, revolution is an extremely complex process, involving many different people and groups with a diversity of views and aims, and those who carry out such a revolution may be more or less conscious of what are the underlying contradictions—between the forces of production and the relations of production—whose development has established the need and given rise to the dynamics that make such a revolution possible, and necessary. But ultimately the influence of these contradictions and dynamics will bring to the fore those who can and do act essentially in accordance with the need to transform the production relations to bring them into line with the development of the productive forces. This is what happened, for example, in the French revolution of the late 18th century and early 19th century, the most radical of all bourgeois revolutions: Many different class forces and social groups took part in that revolution, but in the final analysis it was political forces who proceeded to establish the capitalist system, in place of the old feudal system, who were able to entrench themselves in power, fundamentally because this transformation of the economy, and of the society as a whole on that foundation, represented the necessary means for bringing the relations of production into line with the way in which the productive forces had developed.
　　 　　　　
 

　　8.
　　
　　 美國的南北戰爭也為了馬克思的一些基本原則和方法提供了良好的闡述，馬克思發展出這些基本原則和方法用來解釋人類歷史發展的規律。這場內戰從根本上是由于兩種不同生產模式（分別代表了兩種不同的生產關系：資本主義和奴隸制）之間發生相互沖突，進而不能在同一個國家共存。內戰的結果是，伴隨著勝利，資產階級進入了南方，奴隸制被廢除，資本主義制度在全國范圍內的占據統治地位——即便如此，在經歷短暫的戰后重建后，南方原有土地貴族和興起中的資本家也重新被納入到這個國家的統治階級之中，并且實際上，它們還對統治階級產生了巨大的影響，先前解放了的奴隸們再次被統治，遭受到的剝削和壓迫并不比奴隸制時要低（在奴隸制被依法正式廢除后很長一段時間內，實際奴役還繼續以某種形式存在著，尤其是在南方）。
　　
　　 從這些歷史事例中，我們可以看到給社會帶來實質性變化的革命如何最終還是導致了一個新的剝削階級的產生，這種模式不斷重復，廣大被壓迫的人民在這些革命中犧牲（或者被犧牲）自己（例如，南北戰爭期間，由于北方允許他們入境，20萬農奴紛紛逃往北方，他們的死亡率要大大高于那些聯邦軍中農奴的死亡率），但歸根結底，還是由剝削者，舊的或新的，收割了這些犧牲換來的果實。自階級分化、剝削階級占據統治地位成為人類社會一種特性以來，這種現象便成為一個慣例。這一切都是可能的…直到現在。
　　
　　----------------------原文---------------------
　　
　　The American Civil War also provides an illustration of the basic principles and methods that Marx developed and applied to human historical development. This Civil War came about fundamentally as a result of the fact that two different modes of production—characterized by different systems of production relations: capitalism and slavery—had come into antagonistic conflict with each other, and could no longer co-exist within the same country. And the result of this Civil War was that, with the victory of the capitalist class, centered in the North, the slave system was abolished and the capitalist system became dominant in the country as a whole—even though, especially after a brief period of Reconstruction following the Civil War, the southern landowning aristocracy and developing capitalists in the South were re-integrated into the ruling class of the country as a whole, and in fact have had a major influence within that ruling class, while the former slaves were subjugated once again, in forms of exploitation and oppression hardly less onerous than slavery (and some forms of actual slavery continued to exist, particularly in the South, long after slavery was legally and formally abolished).
　　
　　From these historical examples, it can be seen how, in the revolutions that have brought about qualitative changes in society but have nevertheless only led to the establishment of a new exploiting class in the dominant position, the pattern has repeated itself that the masses of oppressed people sacrifice (or are sacrificed) in these revolutions (for example, 200,000 former slaves fought on the side of the North in the U.S. Civil War, once they were allowed to do so, and they died in much greater percentages than others in the Union army) yet, in the final analysis, exploiters of the masses, new or old, reap the fruits of this sacrifice. This is the way it has been since the time that class divisions, and domination by exploiting classes, have emerged in and have characterized human society. This was all that was possible...Until now. 　　

　　9.
　　
　　 馬克思揭示的最重要、最具有解放性的事情是：人類社會的發展，作為一種動力（由他揭示的）的結果，正一直導向一個可能存在的完全不同于如今的世界。我們已經到達這樣一種狀態，通過各種復雜的發展（我們可以利用最基本的術語勾畫出它），現存的生產力，有可能創造并不斷增加豐富的物質財富，使之在根本上為全人類所共享，以滿足世界各地人民的物質需要，同時它還可以不斷的為每一個人提供豐富的智力和文化生活。這不僅是因為技術已發展到使這一切都可實現的地步，也是由于這些技術能夠——實際上是必須——為大多數群體所共同利用。馬克思揭露了主導世界的資本主義制度的最基本的矛盾（它是人類社會的巨大成本和危險）：社會化生產方式與生產過程、產品都被少數資本家控制和私人占有的事實之間的矛盾。就像我們美國革命共產黨黨章所強調的：
　　
　　 “當今世界，物質的生產和產品的分配，完全由大量在高度協調化網絡中集體工作的勞動者所執行。這整個生產和分配過程的基礎是無產階級，一個不擁有任何東西的全球性階級，然而他們創造了大量的社會生產力。這些大量的生產力本可以使人類不僅僅能滿足每個人的基本需要，還能創建一個擁有全新社會關系和價值觀的新型社會…這樣的社會中，所有的人都能真正一起享受充分的繁榮。”
　　
　　----------------------------原文-------------------------
　　
　　The most significant, and liberating, thing that Marx brought to light is that the development of human society, as a result of the dynamics which he unearthed, has led to a situation where a radically different world is possible. We have reached the point where, through all the complex development that has only been sketched out here in very basic terms, the productive forces now exist which make it possible to create, and to continually expand, an abundance which, in fundamental terms, can be shared among humanity as a whole and utilized to meet the material needs of people everywhere, while also providing for an ever-enriched intellectual and cultural life for everyone. It is not only that the technology has developed which makes this possible in a general sense, but also that this technology can be—and in fact must be—used by large groups of people working cooperatively. Marx revealed the fundamental contradiction of the capitalist system which dominates the world today, at such great cost and with such great peril for humanity: the contradiction between the socialized way in which production is carried out, and the fact that this process of production, and what it produces, is controlled and appropriated privately, by a small number of capitalists. As the Constitution of our Party emphasizes:
　　
　　
　　 [I]n today’s world the production of things, and the distribution of the things produced, is overwhelmingly carried out by large numbers of people who work collectively and are organized in highly coordinated networks. At the foundation of this whole process is the proletariat, an international class which owns nothing, yet has created and works these massive socialized productive forces. These tremendous productive powers could enable humanity to not only meet the basic needs of every person on the planet, but to build a new society, with a whole different set of social relations and values...a society where all people could truly and fully flourish together.
　
　　10.
　　
　　 通過革命的手段消除資本主義的基本矛盾，消除將人類分割為剝削者和被剝削者、統治者和被統治者的社會分化現象，是共產主義革命的目的。這種革命與無產階級的根本利益是相一致的，它是在社會化生產中資產階級占據統治和剝削地位的條件下進行的，它將使生產關系與生產力再次保持一致，并進一步釋放生產力，包括人們自身。但是，不像以前那些通過革命實現自身利益的階級，無產階級革命的目的不是簡單地使自己或代表人在社會中取得執政地位，它的目的是消滅將社會分割為不同階級的社會分化現象，鏟除一切壓迫關系，進而消除所有使得一部分人借以統治和壓迫另一部分人的制度和制度工具。正如馬克思的簡潔概括，這種革命的目標是——只有當革命成功的那刻才可作結論——“四個全”：所有階級差別全部被廢除；所有產生階級差別的生產關系全部被廢除；所有與這些生產關系相一致的社會關系全部被廢除；所有反應這些社會關系的觀念全部被革命化。馬克思同樣簡潔卻有力的抓住了這種革命的本質：無產階級只有解放了全人類才能最后解放自己。
　　
　　 這也是為什么共產主義革命代表了人類社會最本質也是最有解放意義的革命。
　　
　　------------------------原文-------------------------
　　To achieve this—to resolve, through revolutionary means, the fundamental contradiction of capitalism, and to move beyond the division of human beings into exploiters and exploited, rulers and ruled—is the aim of the communist revolution. This is a revolution that corresponds to the most fundamental interests of the proletariat, which carries out, under conditions of capitalist domination and exploitation, socialized production and which embodies the potential to bring the relations of production into line with the productive forces, and to further unleash those productive forces, including the people themselves. But, unlike all previous classes which have carried out a revolution in their interests, the revolutionary proletariat does not aim simply to establish itself and its political representatives in the ruling position in society; it aims to move beyond the division of society into classes, to uproot all oppressive relations, and with that to eliminate all institutions and instruments through which one part of society dominates and suppresses others. As Marx succinctly summarized it, this revolution aims for—and will be concluded only once it has achieved—what have come to be called the “4 Alls”: the abolition of all class distinctions, of all the production relations on which those class distinctions rest, of all the social relations that correspond to those production relations, and the revolutionizing of all the ideas that correspond to those social relations. Marx also succinctly and powerfully captured the essence of this in emphasizing that the proletariat can emancipate itself only by emancipating all humanity.
　　
　　All this is why the communist revolution represents the most radical, and truly liberating, revolution in human history.
　　 　　

　　11.
　　
　　 在研究了大量歷史經驗后，馬克思得出了自己的結論，馬克思指出了他深刻認識到的一點：歷史的確是由人民創造的，但他們并沒能按照自己希望的方式創造。他們依照當時的物質條件基礎創造了歷史——尤其是最基本的經濟條件和經濟關系——這些都是他們從上一代那繼承而來的，變化的可能途徑就隱藏在這些條件的矛盾特性之中。正如美國革命共產黨主席鮑勃•艾沃肯在“革命起來，解放全人類”（Part 1）中說指出的：
　　
　　 “我們在此可以用自然界的進化論做個比喻。Ardea Skybreak在其關于進化論的書中反復強調的一點是，在進化過程中，進化只能給那些已經存在變化基礎的東西帶來變化…自然界中的進化通過現實和現有限制（或者換句話說，現有必要性）中已經出現的相關變化得以實現，而且也只能如此。”
　　
　　 這為一些人提出的某些問題提供了根本的答案，這些問題包括：你是誰啊，你憑什么說社會可以如此如此的組織起來？你們共產主義者有什么權力規定什么改變是可能的，并且按照某種方式進行？這些問題本質上是錯誤的，代表了對人類歷史發展動力和人類社會（廣泛意義上還包括物質世界）中變革的可能途徑的一個根本誤解。這相當于問為什么鳥類不能生鱷魚，或者問為什么人類不能繁衍可以飛翔的后代，他們可以在一瞬間，輕輕一跳便可飛躍高高的大樓，擁有可以穿透固體的X-光般的眼力——并且想知道：你是誰啊？憑什么規定繁衍要如此進行？你是誰啊，憑什么說人類后代擁有某種特質而不是另外一種？這其實不關“你是誰”什么事，而與物質現實和隱藏其中的矛盾的可變性有關。這里的問題是雙重的：
　　
　　-----------------------------原文--------------------------
　　In surveying the immense historical experience that went into the conclusions he drew, Marx pointed to the profound understanding that indeed people make history, but they do not make it in any way they wish. They make it on the basis of the material conditions—and in particular the underlying economic conditions and relations—which they have inherited from previous generations, and the possible pathways of change that reside within the contradictory nature of these conditions. As Bob Avakian, the Chairman of the Revolutionary Communist Party, USA, has pointed out in “Making Revolution and Emancipating Humanity” (Part 1):
　　
　　"We can make an analogy here to evolution in the natural world. One of the points that is repeatedly stressed in the book on evolution by Ardea Skybreak is that the process of evolution can only bring about changes on the basis of what already exists…. Evolution in the natural world comes about, and can only come about, through changes that arise on the basis of, and in relation to, the existing reality and the existing constraints (or, to put it another way, the existing necessity)."
　　
　　This provides the basic answer to those who raise: Who are you to say how society can be organized, what right do you communists have to dictate what change is possible and how it should come about? These questions are essentially misplaced and represent a fundamental misunderstanding of the dynamics of historical development—and the possible pathways of change—in human society as well as in the material world more generally. This is akin to asking why birds cannot give birth to crocodiles—or why human beings cannot produce offspring that are capable of flying around the earth, on their own, in an instant, leaping tall buildings in a single bound, and having x-ray vision that can see through solid objects—and demanding to know: Who are you to dictate what can come about through reproduction, who are you to say that human offspring will have particular characteristics and not others? It is not a matter of “who are you” but of what the material reality is and what possibilities for change actually lie within the—contradictory—character of that material reality. The point here is twofold:

　　12.
　　
　　 在人類歷史上，物質條件第一次達到這種階段，可以使統治關系、壓迫和剝削的最終廢除成為可能；指導完成這一斗爭目標的理論認識也已與物質現實基礎，和使此成為可能的歷史發展規律完成銜接。
　　
　　 同時，這個世界歷史性的人類社會關系變革，只能基于實際的物質條件和隱匿其中的矛盾向上出發，它打開了這個可能性，但同時也體現了實現這一根本性社會變革所將遭遇到的阻礙；它要求對這些矛盾動力和組織團體里的領導力有科學性的認識和解決方法，（組織團體是以這種科學方法和方式為基礎建立起來的）——以進行艱巨而復雜的斗爭，通過向全世界各地推行共產主義實現這一變革。
　　
　　---------------------原文----------------------------
　　For the first time in the history of humanity, the material conditions have come into being that make possible the final abolition of relations of domination, oppression, and exploitation; and the theoretical understanding to guide the struggle toward that goal has been brought into being on the basis of drawing from the material reality, and its historical development, that has brought this possibility into being.
　　
　　At the same time, this world-historic transformation of human social relations can only come about on the basis of proceeding from the actual material conditions and the contradictions that characterize them, which open up this possibility but which also embody obstacles to the achievement of this radical social transformation; and it requires a scientific understanding of and approach to these contradictory dynamics—and the leadership of an organized group of people that is grounded in this scientific method and approach—in order to carry through the complex and arduous struggle to achieve this transformation through the advance to communism throughout the world.

　　13.
　　
　　II.
　　共產主義革命的第一階段
　　
　　 巴黎公社是人類第一次嘗試去丈量人類解放的高度，它也是人類對未來的一個預示，但是它缺乏必要的領導，也沒有得到必要的科學指導以便抵御舊秩序不可避免的反革命沖擊，從而在社會的各個領域：經濟、社會、政治、文化和思想里進行徹底的變革。一些不是以科學觀點和科學方法，而是以浪漫主義觀點看待巴黎公社革命的人喜歡引述說，失敗的原因是有組織的先鋒隊缺乏強有力的領導，不能以科學的馬克思主義基本觀點團結在一起（這本來可以成為巴黎公社的一個優點）。但事實是，這只是巴黎公社眾多弱勢之一，也只是導致其短暫存在便最終失敗的眾多因素之一。領導力的缺失，和試圖立即實施那些會根本上消除任何制度化領導的措施的行為，是巴黎公社不能有效抵御舊有勢力反撲的主要原因，這些有組織的剝削者和壓迫者發誓要鏟除巴黎公社，并確保共產主義的幽靈永不再現。尤其如馬克思所指出的，巴黎公社的公社社員們沒有乘熱打鐵拿下凡爾賽城這個臨近的反革命據點，此后一旦反革命勢力積聚了力量，他們便反攻巴黎，將死亡風暴吹到了巴黎公社，導致成千上萬最堅定的革命戰士在戰斗中被屠殺。
　　
　　 但排除巴黎公社革命失敗后的直接后果，在相當大程度上，從它的缺點和局限上看，現實問題是：如果巴黎公社成功擊敗了反革命力量的反攻，并且存活了下來，那么它將隨即面對更為艱巨的挑戰：重組和改造整個社會，這不僅僅局限于首都巴黎（在這兒它輝煌的占據過權力，但持續時間太短）。它將不得不在這個仍主要由小農（農民）組成的國度里，建立一個全新不同的經濟：社會主義經濟；它將不得不克服深刻的、傳統思維里根深蒂固的不平等和壓迫，尤其是幾千年來一直套在婦女身上的鎖鏈。在這里，巴黎公社的弱點和局限再次被顯現：婦女在巴黎公社的創建和保衛過程中擔當了至關重要的角色，發揮了英勇的作用，但是盡管如此，她們還是在巴黎公社中處于從屬地位。
　　
　　---------------------------原文---------------------
　　II.
　　The First Stage of Communist Revolution
　　The Paris Commune was a first great attempt to scale the heights of human emancipation, and it was a harbinger of the future, but it lacked the necessary leadership and was not guided by the necessary scientific understanding to be able to withstand the inevitable counter-revolutionary onslaughts of the forces of the old order and then to carry out a thoroughgoing transformation of society, in all spheres: economic, social, political, cultural, and ideological. Some who approach the experience of the Commune with a romanticized, instead of a scientific, outlook and method like to cite the lack of an organized vanguard leadership, unified on the basis of a scientific, Marxist viewpoint, as one of the virtues of the Commune. But the fact is that this was one of its greatest weaknesses and one of the main factors contributing to its defeat, after only a very short period of existence. The lack of such a leadership—and the attempt to immediately implement measures which would essentially eliminate any institutionalized leadership—is one of the main reasons why the Commune did not sufficiently suppress organized forces which were determined to wipe out the Commune and to ensure that the specter of communist revolution—so terrible from the standpoint of exploiters and oppressors—would never rise again. In particular, as Marx pointed out, the Communards failed to march immediately on the stronghold of the counter-revolution, in the nearby city of Versailles; and so the counter-revolution was able to gather its strength, march on Paris, and deliver the death-blow to the Commune, slaughtering thousands of its most determined fighters in the process.
　　
　　But beyond the immediate consequences that flowed, to a significant degree, from the shortcomings and limitations of the Paris Commune, the reality is this: Had the Commune defeated the attacks of the counter-revolution and survived, it would then have faced the even greater challenge of reorganizing and transforming the whole society, and not just the capital of Paris, where it held power for a brilliant but all too brief period. It would have had to create a radically new and different economy, a socialist economy, in a country still made up largely of small farmers (peasants), and it would have had to overcome profound and tradition-steeped inequality and oppression, in particular the chains that have bound women for thousands of years. And here again the weaknesses and limitations of the Commune stand out: Women played a vital and heroic role in the creation of the Commune and the fight to defend it, but they were nonetheless maintained in a subordinate position within the Commune.
　　 　　　
 

　　14.
　　
　　 在巴黎公社失敗不到50年后，在帝國主義之間的第一次世界大戰期間，一場更猛烈、更深刻的革命變革在當時的俄羅斯帝國爆發。這場革命推翻了沙皇（俄羅斯帝國世襲君主）的統治，隨后又推翻了資產階級，他們試圖跨入沙皇被推翻后的“權力真空”，攫取社會的控制權。通過這場由列寧領導的革命，蘇聯成為世界上第一個社會主義國家，盡管列寧本人在1924年去世，但此后的數十年間，蘇聯一直在進行著社會主義改造，在此期間，蘇聯遭遇了國內外反革命勢力的殘酷威脅和反復攻擊，包括納粹德國在第二次世界大戰期間對它的大規模入侵，這場戰爭奪去了2000萬蘇聯公民的生命，并對它造成了巨大的破壞。
　　
　　 在領導俄國革命時，在踏出奪取和鞏固政權并走上社會主義變革之路的第一步時，列寧在馬克思取得科學突破的基礎上往前更進了一步，繼續發展鮮活的馬克思主義科學。他從巴黎公社，還有其它人類社會歷史經驗，乃至更廣闊范圍上的自然界那汲取教訓。非常重要的一點是，列寧系統化了如下的認識：為了使人民大眾不斷覺醒起來進而推翻資產階級統治，實施根本的社會變革，朝著在世界范圍內實現共產主義的終極目標前進，一個具有先鋒作用的共產主義政黨是非常必要的。
　　
　　 列寧也利用和發展了馬克思在總結巴黎公社慘痛教訓時所得出的認識：在進行共產主義革命之時，是不能去利用舊有的國家機器（它們是服務于資本主義制度的）；必須打破和摧毀這個國家并代之以一個新的國度：在現實中有資產階級專政的地方，有必要建立起屬于正日益上升的革命階級的政治統治，無產階級專政，作為一種完全不同的國家形態，將使越來越多的人民大眾進入到社會革命變革的進程之中。這種革命專政是必要的，列寧強調，他總結出兩個原因：
　　
　　 1）、防止剝削者——舊的和新的，國內的和國外的——破壞和淹沒人民大眾建立一個全新社會和世界，并實現馬克思所說的“四個全”成就的抗爭。
　　
　　-------------------原文——————————
　　In less than 50 years after the defeat of the Paris Commune, beginning in the midst of the first world war among imperialists, a much more sweeping and deep-going revolutionary transformation was carried out in what had been the Russian empire. This revolution overthrew the Tsar (Russian monarch) who was the hereditary ruler of this empire, and then overthrew the capitalist class which attempted to step into the “vacuum of power” and seize control of society once the Tsar had been toppled. Through this revolution, which was led by V.I. Lenin, the Soviet Union was brought into being as the world’s first socialist state; and although Lenin himself died in 1924, for several decades after that socialist transformation was carried out in the Soviet Union, even as it faced relentless threats and repeated attacks from counter-revolutionary forces, inside and outside the country, including the massive invasion of the Soviet Union by the imperialist Nazi Germany during World War 2, which cost the lives of more than 20 million Soviet citizens and brought great destruction to the country.
　　
　　In leading the Russian revolution, in its first great step of seizing and consolidating political power and embarking on the road of socialist transformation, Lenin proceeded on the basis of the scientific breakthroughs that Marx had achieved, and he continued to develop that living science of Marxism. He drew important lessons from the Paris Commune, as well as from the historical experience of human society, and the natural world, more broadly. Of great importance, Lenin systematized the understanding that a vanguard communist party was essential in order to enable the masses of people to wage an increasingly conscious struggle to overthrow the rule of the capitalists and then carry out the radical transformation of society toward the ultimate goal of communism, worldwide.
　　
　　Lenin also applied and developed the understanding forged by Marx, on the basis of summing up the bitter lessons of the Paris Commune, that in carrying out the communist revolution, it is not possible to lay hold of the ready-made machinery of the old state, which served the capitalist system; it is necessary to smash and dismantle that state and replace it with a new state: In place of what is in reality the dictatorship of the capitalist class (the bourgeoisie), it is necessary to establish the political rule of the rising, revolutionary class, the dictatorship of the proletariat, as a radically different kind of state, which will increasingly involve the masses of people in carrying forward the revolutionary transformation of society. This revolutionary dictatorship is necessary, Lenin emphasized, for two basic reasons:
　　
　　1) To prevent exploiters—old and new, within the country and in other parts of the world—from defeating and drowning in blood the struggle of masses of people to bring a radically new society, and world, into being, to advance toward the achievement of the “4 Alls.” 　　

　　15.
　　
　　 2）、保證人民的每一份權力，即使不平等現象在不同程度上，在社會主義向共產主義過渡的不同階段，依然存在于人民不同階層之間。與此同時，無產階級專政的目的是繼續鏟除，并最終超越這樣的社會不平等現象，進而在全世界范圍內達到這樣一點：那兒，壓迫性的社會分化將不再存在，國家，作為法律和權力實施的制度化工具，將不再是必要的，而國家本身也將被人民的自我管理所取代，沒有階級差別和社會對立。
　　
　　 再次引述我們美國革命共產黨黨章前沿所說的：
　　
　　 “人類社會以前所有的國家一直都在拓展和保護剝削關系：他們一直都是剝削階級占據統治地位，并且一直保護自己避免任何對這種關系的根本性改變。無產階級專政，相反，目的是國家本身的最終廢除，一切階級差別的廢除，一切導致剝削與壓迫，導致人們之間反復出現破壞性沖突的的對立社會關系的廢除。而且，為了繼續朝這一目標前進，無產階級專政必須越來越多的吸取社會不同階層中的民眾，讓他們有意義地加入將社會不斷往前推進，進而在全世界實現共產主義偉大目標的進程當中。”
　　
　　 在列寧領導這個新蘇維埃國家的短短數年間，他領導了經濟、包括整個社會的轉型，并且給世界各地的革命斗爭提供理論指導和積極的支持。但是，隨著他在1924年病逝，在那個被力量強大的帝國主義國家和其它反動國家占據統治地位的罪惡世界里，領導這一進程繼續往前的挑戰落到其它的蘇聯共產黨人頭上，尤其是約瑟夫.斯大林，他成為蘇共新的領導人。這是歷史上一個前所未有的經歷：幾十年來，經濟以及廣泛的社會關系——包括男女之間的社會關系、不同民族之間的關系，政治體制，社會文化和人民大眾的世界觀都發生了深刻的變化。在各個領域，人民的生活水平都有了顯著的改善，包括醫療、住房、教育和掃盲。但更為重要的是，剝削和古老傳統的重擔開始從人民大眾身上解除。生活和社會的各個領域都取得了巨大的成就，但同時可以預料的是，這兒也有許多很現實的局限、缺點和錯誤——其中一些歸因于數十年來蘇聯一直是世界上唯一的社會主義國家（直到二戰后），另外一些歸因于領導該進程的那些人的世界觀、方法和手段出現了問題，尤其是斯大林。依照必要的歷史論觀點，應用科學的、唯物的和辯證的方法和手段，并反對那種看起來毫無休止的對社會主義和共產主義的曲解和誹謗，社會主義在蘇聯的歷史經驗清晰的表明它依舊是非常積極的，盡管也有一些不容否認的消極影響——所有這一切我們都要深刻學習和吸取教訓。
　　
　　--------------------------原文---------------------
　　2) To guarantee the rights of the people at every point, even with the inequalities that will remain, to varying degrees, between different sections of the people during various phases of the socialist transition to communism, at the same time as the goal of the dictatorship of the proletariat is to continue to uproot and eventually move beyond such social inequalities and to reach the point, throughout the world, where oppressive social divisions can no longer arise, and the state, as an institutionalized instrument of enforcement of laws and of rights, will no longer be necessary, and the state itself will be replaced by the self-administration by the people, without class distinctions and social antagonisms.
　　
　　To quote once again from the Preamble to the Constitution of our Party:
　　
　　All previous states have served the extension and defense of relations of exploitation; they have enforced the domination of exploiting classes, and have fortified themselves against any fundamental changes in these relations. The dictatorship of the proletariat, by contrast, aims at the eventual abolition of the state itself, with the abolition of class distinctions and all antagonistic social relations leading to exploitation, oppression, and the constant regeneration of destructive conflicts among people. And, in order to continue advancing toward that objective, the dictatorship of the proletariat must increasingly draw the masses of people, from many different sections of society, into meaningful involvement in the process of running society and carrying forward the advance toward the ultimate goal of communism throughout the world.
　　
　　In the few short years during which Lenin headed the new Soviet state, he led it in embarking on the transformation of the economy, and the society as a whole, and in giving theoretical guidance and active support to the revolutionary struggle throughout the world. But, with the death of Lenin in 1924, the challenge of leading this process forward, in a hostile world dominated by powerful imperialist countries and other reactionary states, fell to others in the Soviet Communist Party, and in particular to Joseph Stalin, who emerged as the leader of the Soviet Communist Party. This was an unprecedented historical experience: For several decades, the economy as well as social relations broadly—including the relations between women and men, as well as between different nationalities—and the political institutions and the culture of the society and the worldview of masses of people underwent profound changes. The standard of living of the people improved greatly and in all spheres, including health care, housing, education, and literacy. But more than that, the burden of exploitation and the weight of age-old tradition began to be lifted from the masses of people. There were great achievements in all spheres of life and society, but not surprisingly also very real limitations, shortcomings, and errors—some of them owing to the situation the Soviet Union found itself in, as the world’s only socialist state for several decades (until after World War 2), and some of it owing to problems in the outlook, approach, and method of those leading this process, in particular Stalin. With the necessary historical perspective, and the application of a scientific, materialist and dialectical, approach and method—and in opposition to the seemingly endless emission of distortions and slanders spewed forth against socialism and communism—the conclusion can, and must, be clearly drawn that the historical experience of socialism in the Soviet Union (and even more so in China, after socialism was established there) was decidedly positive, even with undeniable negative aspects—all of which must be deeply learned from.
　
　　16.
　　
　　 毛~澤東領導了中國二十多年來的革命斗爭，在1949年中華人民共和國建立之時，這一革命的第一階段達到了高潮。理解這一點非常重要，必須要記住：傳統的觀點上，包括共產主義運動本身的觀點，在中國這樣一個國家，通過革命達到社會主義并成為世界范圍內為最終實現共產主義而進行的斗爭的一部分，是不可能的，可就是在毛澤東的領導下，中國采用了這樣的方式（并獲得了成功）。這不僅僅因為中國是一個落后的、擁有大量農民的國家（這點與1917年革命時的俄羅斯相像），還因為中國本身不是一個資本主義國家；它被其它資本主義-帝國主義國家所控制，中國的經濟和整個社會都屈從于外國帝國主義的統治和它們資本積累的需要。也因為如此，毛領導的中國革命并沒有立即走向社會主義，而是建立了一個廣泛的統一戰線，反對帝國主義和封建主義（和與帝國主義、封建主義都有聯系的官僚資本主義）；這場革命并非立足于城市，依靠那兒少量的工人階級，而是扎根于廣大農村地區的農民階層，通過打一場長期的革命戰爭，從農村包圍城市，并最終打敗了盤踞于城市之中的反動勢力，在全國內贏得了政權，進而完成了這場革命的第一個階段，并向社會主義道路敞開了懷抱。
　　
　　 然而，正如毛本人所強調的，雖然革命取得了重要的歷史性勝利，但這還只是漫漫征途的第一步。挑戰馬上就出現，是繼續向前走上社會主義道路，還是（停滯不前）甚至革命的初步勝利都可能失去——這個國家將再次處于剝削階級和外國帝國主義列強的統治之下。但這還不是全部的挑戰：在建設社會主義經濟的過程中，在社會其他領域也發生相應變化的過程中，在毛總結此初級階段經驗的過程中，他越來越意識到，有必要發展一種不同于“蘇聯模式”的新方法來進行社會主義改造。毛這樣的方法，給基層人民和各地方政府賦予了更多的主動權，首先，它對技術不夠重視——雖然毛認為先進技術的發展是非常重要的——但是，這種方法首先專注的（也是最專注的）是人民大眾的自覺行為。這些在“抓革命促生產”這條口號中得到了集中展現，它為經濟建設提供了基本的指導方針，在這種方式下經濟建設將促使社會繼續在社會主義道路上不斷前進，相互加強生產關系和政治、思想上層建筑的革命性變革。
　　
　　------------------------原文------------------
　　It was Mao Tsetung who led the revolutionary struggle in China over several decades, culminating in the victory of the first stage of this revolution with the establishment of the People’s Republic of China in 1949. To understand the immense importance of this, it is necessary to keep in mind that conventional wisdom, including within the communist movement, held that, in a country like China, a revolution could not be made that would lead to socialism and become part of the worldwide struggle aiming for the ultimate goal of communism, in the way this was actually done with Mao’s leadership. It was not only that China was a backward, largely peasant country (this had been true of Russia as well, at the time of the 1917 revolution there), but China was not a capitalist country itself; it was dominated by other, capitalist-imperialist countries, and the economy and the society overall in China were bent to the imperatives of foreign imperialist domination and capitalist accumulation serving those imperialists. Along with that, the revolution Mao led in China did not immediately aim for socialism but instead built a broad united front against imperialism and feudalism (and bureaucratic capital linked to imperialism and feudalism); and this revolution was carried out not by centering it in the cities, among the small working class there, but through waging a protracted revolutionary war, based among the peasantry in the vast countryside, surrounding the cities from the countryside and then finally defeating the reactionary forces in their strongholds in the cities and winning power throughout the country, completing the first stage of this revolution and opening the road to socialism.
　　
　　Yet, as Mao himself emphasized, as important and historic as this victory was, it was still only the first step in a long march. The challenge had to be immediately faced of moving forward on the socialist road, or even the initial victories of the revolution would be lost—the country would come under the domination of exploiting classes and of foreign imperialist powers once again. But that was not all: As the process of building a socialist economy and carrying out corresponding changes in the other spheres of society was undertaken, and as Mao summed up this initial experience, he increasingly came to the realization that it was necessary to develop a different approach to socialist transformation than the “model” of what had been done in the Soviet Union. Mao’s approach to this gave more initiative to people on the basic levels and to the local areas, and above all it put emphasis not so much on technology—although the development of more advanced technology was recognized by Mao as very important—but, first and foremost, on the conscious initiative of the masses of people. This became concentrated in the slogan grasp revolution and promote production, which provided the basic guideline for carrying out economic construction in a way that would strengthen the basis for the continued advance on the socialist road and would be mutually reinforcing with the revolutionary transformation of the production relations and the political and ideological superstructure.

　　
　　17.
　　
　　 所有的這些都與毛~澤東對共產主義革命事業所作的最重要和決定性的貢獻相關，或者本身就是這些貢獻發展進程中的一部分，這些貢獻包括：在無產階級專政下朝共產主義目標繼續革命的理論，以及領導了將此理論轉化為強大的人民大眾革命運動，這場革命運動始于1960年代中期，延續了十年，即“文化大革命”。毛再次打破了共產主義運動的“公認看法”，作出了個開創性的分析：在整個社會主義階段，始終有可以導致社會主義革命失敗的物質條件存在。經濟基礎內部的矛盾，上層建筑內部的矛盾，充當基礎和上層建筑的不同社會主義國家之間關系上的矛盾，還有任何時候來自于帝國主義和反動勢力國家的影響、壓力和赤裸裸的攻擊，都會在一個社會主義國家內部制造階級差別和階級斗爭；這些矛盾會不斷導致一個國家在社會主義道路與資本主義道路之間徘徊，更具體的說，就是這些矛盾會反復的在社會主義內部制造出一個有抱負的資產階級，他們會集中出現在共產黨內部，尤其是他們中最高級別的人，他們以共產主義之名采納修正主義路線和正常，在實際上擁抱帝國主義，并致使所有事物回到資本主義。毛將這些修正主義者稱為“走資本主義道路的當權派”，他將共產主義與修正主義之間的斗爭，確定為上層建筑中走社會主義道路派和走資派之間矛盾和斗爭的集中表現。毛認識到，并強調：只要這些物質條件和與之對應的思想依就存在，就不能保證革命不會倒退，資本主義不能復辟，沒有容易和簡單的手段可以阻止這些發生，也沒有其它解決方案，除了繼續革命，直到最終，隨著革命在全世界的推進，它會根除和消滅一切社會不平等和導致這種危險產生的資本主義殘余。
　　
　　 再次，很難夸大這個由毛提出的理論分析的重要性——對于是否，以及為什么在社會主義社會有資本主義復辟的危險這樣的問題，該理論清除了大量的混亂認識；在發動大眾繼續在社會主義道路上前行，反對修正主義勢力（它們的目的與行為正導致資本主義的復辟）的運動上，該理論提供了基本的理論指導。中國的文化大革命活生生的體現了這樣一個規模龐大的革命動員運動，數以億計的人一起辯論和爭斗著那些對社會發展方向和世界革命有決定性影響的問題。十年來，這種大規模的運動成功的阻擋了那些資本主義復辟勢力（包括一些中共高級官員，比如xxx），使之處于防守地位。但是在1976年毛去世后不久，----(敏感內容刪除)-------——并在中國恢復了資本主義制度。這一切都不幸地，活生生的演示了毛所指出的那種危險，而這種危險的根基毛也曾深刻的分析過。
　　
　　--------------------------原文---------------------------
　　All this was related to, and part of the process of development of, Mao’s most important and decisive contribution to the cause of communist revolution: the theory of continuing the revolution under the dictatorship of the proletariat, toward the final goal of communism, and Mao’s leadership in translating this theory into a powerful revolutionary movement of masses of people, during the course of the Cultural Revolution in China, for a decade beginning in the mid-1960s. Breaking once again with the “received wisdom” of the communist movement, Mao made the pathbreaking analysis that throughout the socialist period there would remain the material conditions that would pose the danger of defeat for the socialist revolution. Contradictions within the economic base, in the superstructure, and in the relation between base and superstructure of the socialist countries themselves, as well as the influence, pressure, and outright attacks from the remaining imperialist and reactionary states at any given time, would give rise to class differences and class struggle within a socialist country; these contradictions would constantly pose the possibility of society being led on either the socialist or the capitalist road, and more specifically would repeatedly regenerate an aspiring bourgeois class, within socialist society itself, which would find its most concentrated expression among those within the Communist Party, and particularly at its highest levels, who adopted revisionist lines and policies, which in the name of communism would actually accommodate to imperialism and lead things back to capitalism. Mao identified these revisionists as “people in authority taking the capitalist road,” and he pinpointed the struggle between communism and revisionism as the concentrated expression, in the superstructure, of the contradiction and struggle in socialist society between the socialist road and the capitalist road. Mao recognized, and emphasized, that so long as these material conditions and their ideological reflections existed, there could be no guarantee against the reversal of the revolution and the restoration of capitalism, no simple and easy means of preventing this, no solution other than to continue the revolution to restrict and finally, together with the advance of the revolution throughout the world, uproot and eliminate the social inequalities and other vestiges of capitalism that gave rise to this danger.
　　
　　Again, it is hard to overstate the importance of this theoretical analysis by Mao—which cleared up a great deal of confusion as to whether, and why, there was a danger of capitalist restoration in socialist society, and which provided fundamental guidance in mobilizing masses to advance on the socialist road in opposition to revisionist forces whose orientation and actions were leading precisely toward such a capitalist restoration. The Cultural Revolution in China was the living embodiment of such a mass revolutionary mobilization, in which tens and hundreds of millions of people debated and struggled over questions bearing decisively on the direction of society and of the world revolution. For ten years, this mass upsurge succeeded in holding back, and putting on the defensive, the forces of capitalist restoration, including high officials in the Chinese Communist Party such as xxx. But shortly after the death of Mao in 1976, -------------------. This was, unfortunately, a living demonstration of the very danger that Mao had so sharply pointed to, and whose basis he had so penetratingly analyzed.
　　 　　

　　18.
　　
　　III.
　　一個階段的終結——以及從這些歷史經驗中，我們要吸取什么，拋棄什么。
　　
　　
　　 隨著修~正主義在C~的政變和資本主義的復辟，以及20年前修正主義勢力在蘇聯的抬頭，共產主義革命的第一階段走向了終結。就像我們在美國革命共產黨的黨章中以一種基本且簡單的語言所說的：“自革命無產階級在一些國家取得政權以來，已經過去數十年了，但是今天，無論他們貼的是什么樣的標簽，這世界上已經沒有社會主義國家了。”
　　
　　 更嚴重的是，社會主義和共產主義事業的這種挫折和蘇聯（其實很久以前它就不再是個社會主義國家了）的滅亡，已經在發動勢力中激起了鯊魚般的狂喜和癲狂，這些反動勢力，一直以來對共產主義革命和對他們代表的那個社會的根本變革恨之入骨，他們不斷反復的，利用任何可能的手段，去打擊和破壞這種革命。他們變本加厲的使盡渾身解數栽贓共產主義和自由變革，以無情的意識形態上的攻擊去扭曲和誹謗這種革命，以企圖永遠壓制革命的爆發；他們宣傳資本主義制度的勝利是不可逆的；他們將那個實現完全不同的、更好的世界的夢想——具體指世界范圍內的共產主義革命，描述為一個噩夢；他們將這個真實的、無窮噩夢般的現行體制，粉飾為人類的最高可能形式。
　　
　　--------------------------原文---------------------- 　　

作者：線專川上　回復日期：2010-03-04　22:17:24　　　
 回復 　　
 

　　事實證明上段的原文貼不了~~~
　　
　　19.
　　
　　 想象一下，堅信神創論的基督教原教旨主義者攫取了政權，在科學學術機構里和整個社會中，持續打壓進化論的知識。想象一下，他們居然處死和監禁那些堅持向大眾教授進化論知識的最杰出的科學家和教育家，他們藐視和辱罵眾所周知的進化論知識，譴責和嘲弄后者是一個錯誤和危險的理論，這只是因為后者違背了圣經創始故事的所謂“真理”、（作為）“自然法”的宗教觀念和“神靈保佑的秩序”。繼續思考類似情況，想象一下，許多知識“當局”以及后頭的跟風者，像個小丑一樣蹦跳著：“相信進化論是一個證據充分的科學和迫使其他人相信與此的行為，不僅僅是幼稚的，也是種犯罪。”他們如此宣稱，“我們現在可以看到這是一個‘公理’，沒有人會質疑它（那我們為什么質問？），進化論只是代表了一種世界觀，它將給人類帶來災難性的后果。我們會被那些信誓旦旦宣傳此觀點的人卷入其中。我們可以認識到：一切現存事物，或者曾經存在過的事物，沒有（造物主這個）‘智能設計師’的指引，都不能存在。”最后，再想象在這種境況下，在投降和譴責的合奏下，甚至許多更有見識的人都最終迷失了方向，士氣低落，被迫限于沉默（本來無論是逆來順受還是大聲喊出，他們都不會沉陷于此）。
　　
　　【最后一大句翻譯比較糾結】
　　
　　Imagine a situation in which Christian fundamentalist creationists have seized power, in the academies of science and in society overall, and have proceeded to suppress knowledge of evolution. Imagine that they go so far as to execute and imprison the most prominent scientists and educators who had insisted on teaching evolution and bringing knowledge of this to the public, and they heap scorn and abuse on the well-established scientific fact of evolution, denouncing and ridiculing it as a flawed and dangerous theory which runs counter to well-known “truth” of the biblical creation story and to religious notions of “natural law” and the “divinely ordained order.” And, to continue the analogy, imagine that in this situation many intellectual “authorities,” and others following in their wake, jump on the bandwagon: “It was not only naïve but criminal to believe that evolution was a well-documented scientific theory, and to force that belief on people,” they declare. “Now we can see that it is ‘common wisdom,’ which no one questions (so why should we?), that evolution embodies a worldview and leads to actions that are disastrous for human beings. We were taken in by the arrogant assurance of those who propagated this notion. We can see that everything that exists, or has existed, could not have come into being without the guiding hand of an ‘intelligent designer.’” And, finally, imagine that in this situation, even many of those who once knew better become disoriented and demoralized, cowed into silence where they do not join in, meekly or loudly, in the chorus of capitulation and denunciation.
　　 　　

　　20.
　　
　　 社會主義暫時的失敗和共產主義革命第一階段的結束有其自身的表現特征，以及與其相對應的后果。與其它事情一道，它降低了人們的視野和理想：即使那些一度有希望看得更高、更遠的人，在短期內，都接受了這樣一種觀點——實際上或至少可預見的將來內——現行帝國主義和其他剝削者的統治都是不可替代的。人們所能達到的最大期盼和目標也只是在此種制度的框架內做一些次要的調整。另外的想法——尤其是引導一場打破現行體制，建立一個根本不同的共產主義世界的企圖——是不現實的，也必將招致災難性的后果。
　　
　　 同時，在由社會主義的傾覆和隨后共產主義的挫折所制造的“真空”中，伴隨著帝國主義持續并不斷加強的掠奪行為，伴隨著全世界數十億人民遭受到的動蕩、混亂和壓迫，宗教原教旨主義的勢力得到了極大的增強，他們在世界各地包括那些遭受壓迫最為嚴重的人群中，不斷有組織的出現。帝國主義強盜、民眾屠夫和狂熱的原教旨主義者——前者勢力更大，危害也更大，并對后者產生進一步刺激，都代表了（人類社會中）最黑暗的陰暗面和奴役與無知的枷鎖，它們即使相互對立，也會增加各自的罪惡。
　　
　　 但是所有這一切都沒有消除掉這樣一些現實：世界在這個資本主義-帝國主義制度統治下，大多數人都處于日常恐怖之中的現實——或者，共產主義實際能夠帶領人類實現突破，并在共產主義革命道路上繼續前行的現實。
　　
　　-----------------------原文-------------------------
　　The temporary defeat of socialism and the end of the first stage of the communist revolution has had many features and consequences that are analogous to such a situation. Among other things, it has led to lowered sights and low dreams: Even among many people who once would have known better and would have striven higher, it has led, in the short run, to acceptance of the idea that—in reality and at least for the foreseeable future—there can be no alternative to the world as it is, under the domination of imperialism and other exploiters. That the most one can hope for and work for are some secondary adjustments within the framework of accommodation to this system. That anything else—and especially the attempt to bring about a revolutionary rupture out of the confines of this system, aiming toward a radically different, communist world—is unrealistic and is bound to bring disaster.
　　At the same time, in the “vacuum” created by the reversal of socialism and accompanying setbacks for communism, and with the continuing, and even heightening, depredations carried out by imperialism—with all the upheaval, chaos, and oppression this means for literally billions of people throughout the world—there has been a significant growth of religious fundamentalism and its organized expression in many parts of the world, including among the desperately oppressed. Imperialist marauders and mass murderers, and fanatical religious fundamentalists—the former more powerful and doing greater harm, and in so doing giving further impetus to the latter, but both representing a dark veil, and very real chains, of enslavement and enforced ignorance, reinforcing each other even when they oppose each other.
　　But all this has not done away with reality: the reality of how the world is, under the domination of this capitalist-imperialist system and the daily horror this involves for the great majority of humanity—or the reality of what communism actually represents for humanity and the possibility of making new breakthroughs and advances on the road of communist revolution.
　　 　　

　　21.
　　
　　 當我們以科學的觀點和方法審視第一批社會主義國家和共產主義革命第一階段的豐富經驗時，我們可以發現，問題并不像我們一直以來所遭受的指責那樣：共產主義革命試圖推翻資本主義的行為，是一種尋求克服（人類本身）一些不變特質的徒勞行徑，這些不變特質導致人們把追求個人利益作為“底線”動機，而這種根本性的動機必然是推動人類社會發展的指導性原則。共產主義革命違背了這種“人性”，進而將人類社會拖入災難之中，使人們成為暴政的犧牲品。這種指責的問題在于——隨著采取共產主義觀點的人們的主動性越來越強，共產主義革命將會在社會環境和人民大眾中誘發出深刻的變化——革命不再是發生在真空之中，不再認為人民大眾是白板一塊而是條件的產物，人民已經脫離了舊社會，雖然留有舊社會的一些“胎記”（這些都是數千多年來的傳統和人與人間已理性化的壓迫關系的產物）。通過這些革命而建立的新的社會主義社會，會一直存在于這個依然由帝國主義占據統治地位的世界（帝國主義在經濟、政治和軍事上依舊擁有非常強大的力量）。
　　
　　 由于馬克思和列寧對這些（共產主義）基本術語的充分理解，已經毛對此更充分的挖掘和解釋，社會主義本身并不是終結，而是通向共產主義的過渡階段，共產主義不能單獨在這個或那個國家實現，它只能在世界范圍內統一實現，前提是世界各地所有的反動統治階級都被推翻，所有的剝削和壓迫關系都被消滅。在社會主義過渡的整個階段，由于反動國家依舊繼續存在，并隨時會包圍和威脅社會主義國家，由于在生產關系、社會關系、政治和思想的上層結構以及文化上的舊社會殘余在社會主義的繼續存在，甚至在社會主義最終通向共產主義的前進道路上，雖然會不斷限制和改變它們的屬性，這些殘余還會存在…由于這一切，過去的勢力依舊有可能沒有消亡，并仍然強大，可能會奪回社會的控制權并使之倒退到原來。簡而言之，因為這些因素，在整個社會主義過渡階段，資本主義復辟的危險會繼續存在，只有通過在社會主義內部繼續革命才能阻止這種危險的發生，同時，這種繼續革命作為共產主義革命在全世界興起的一部分，它也會積極支持和促進這個進程。
　　
　　-----------------------------原文----------------------
　　When we examine, with a scientific outlook and method, the rich experience of the first socialist countries and the first stage of the communist revolution overall, we can see that the problem is not, as has been constantly drummed at us, that the communist revolution, in attempting to do away with capitalism, was seeking in vain to overcome some unchangeable trait that causes people to pursue selfish ends as their “bottom line” motivation, a motivation which must be the guiding and driving principle of human society, lest it violate “human nature” and thereby plunge society into catastrophe and subject the people to tyranny. The problem has been that—while it has brought about profound changes, in circumstances and in people, as a result of the increasingly conscious initiative of people taking up the communist viewpoint—this revolution has taken place not in a vacuum, and with people as a “blank slate,” but as conditions and people have emerged out of the old society and with the “birthmarks” of that society (and of thousands of years of tradition embodying and rationalizing oppressive relations among people). And the new socialist societies that have been brought into being through these revolutions have existed in a world still dominated by imperialism, with its still very formidable power—economically, politically, and militarily.
　　As Marx and Lenin understood in basic terms—and as Mao discovered and explained much more fully—socialism is not an end in itself: it is not yet communism but is the transition to communism which can be achieved not in this or that country by itself, but only on a world scale, with the overthrow of all reactionary ruling classes and the abolition of all exploitative and oppressive relations everywhere. And during this entire period of socialist transition, because of the fact that reactionary states will continue to exist and for some time will encircle and threaten socialist states which are brought into being; and because of the vestiges of the old society—in the production relations, the social relations, and in the superstructure of politics, ideology, and culture—which still exist within socialist society itself, even as the advance on the socialist road leads to restricting these vestiges and transforming important aspects of them in the direction of the final goal of communism...because of all this, there remains the possibility that the hand of the past, not yet dead and still powerful, can seize hold of society and drag it back. In short, for these reasons, the danger of capitalist restoration continues to exist throughout the socialist transition period, and this can be combated and defeated only by continuing the revolution, within the socialist country itself, and doing so as part of and while actively supporting and promoting the communist revolution throughout the world.
　　 　　

　　22.
　　
　　 社會主義的傾覆和實際意義上資本主義在蘇聯和中國的復辟，并不代表“革命會虎毒食子”...并不代表一旦掌握權利后“陰謀的共產主義革命者將變成集權主義暴君”…并不代表“官僚主義的領導者，終身攬權，扼殺和窒息（資產階級式）民族”…它也不是“永遠等級森嚴的社會組織不可避免的結局”…也不屬于任何其它根本性錯誤的不科學的觀念（它們最近一直被用來反復攻擊共產主義）。那些直接導致蘇聯和中國革命失敗的人，實際上是那些在革命黨內和國家里擔任高職位的人，但他們不是一些為自身利益而瘋狂追逐權力的難辨認的、無階級的官僚權力集團。按照毛給他們的定性，他們是“走資本主義道路”的當權派。他們不是共產主義的代表，而是資本主義的代表，尤其是那些未被徹底清除和超越的資本主義殘余的代表——這些殘余既不能在短期內清除和超越，也不能只在這個或那個特別的社會主義國家內部清除和超越。
　　
　　-------------------------原文------------------------------
　　The reversal of socialism and what is in fact the restoration of capitalism in the Soviet Union and China was not a matter of “the revolution eating its own children”...of “conspiratorial communist revolutionists turning into totalitarian tyrants” once they have power...of “bureaucratic leaders, entrenched in power for life, stifling and suffocating (bourgeois) democracy”...it was not “the inevitable result of perpetuating hierarchal organization of society”...or any of the other fundamentally erroneous and unscientific notions which are so ceaselessly propagated these days in attacking communism. Those who directly brought about the defeat of the revolution in the Soviet Union and in China were in fact people with high positions in the revolutionary party and state, but they were not some group of faceless, and classless, bureaucrats, mad for power for its own sake. They were, as Mao characterized them, people in authority taking the capitalist road. They were representatives not of communism but of capitalism, and in particular the vestiges of capitalism that had not yet been thoroughly uprooted and surpassed—and could not be in the short term and within the confines of one or another particular socialist country.
　　 　　

　　23.
　　
　　 這些修正主義者往往是黨內和國家中高級別官員這一事實，并不是共產主義或者共產主義革命以及發展到現階段的社會主義的基本缺陷。它也不代表（我們）需要另一種完全不同的手段和模式來實現一個截然不同的世界。這些社會主義的傾覆有更深層次的原因，它們與對社會，尤其是對社會主義是通向共產主義的過渡階段這一事實的科學共產主義理解相一致：它們主要隱含在那些從舊社會中保留下來的矛盾之中，舊社會雖然已經被推翻，但是它的一些特質和影響依舊未被完全根除。這些矛盾，包括腦力勞動與體力勞動之間的矛盾（它與社會階級分化現象密切關聯，且本身已構成這種分化的一部分），和剝削階級統治下社會的深刻分化——一方面，這些矛盾使得組織一支共產主義先鋒隊成為必要，不僅用來推翻資本主義制度，而且繼續推進社會主義內部的變革；另一方面，這些矛盾同時又促發了革命被一些在先鋒隊中處于領導地位的人出賣和顛覆的危險。考慮到人類社會真實的歷史發展進程和變革的可能道路（這種變革已經發生，它相當于自然界中的進化，令人想到限制與改變之間的關系），（社會）實際替代的問題——在這個現實的世界中，如果實際上我們已經開始從根本上去改變這個世界，為的是根除和消滅一切剝削和壓迫——并不是有領導權與沒有領導權的問題，不是民主與不民主的問題，也不是獨裁與不獨裁的問題；而是社會主義道路與資本主義道路的問題，是將事物引導到某方向或另一方向上領導力本身的問題，是民主和集權本身的特性——它們服務并促進于某種或另一種（社會）制度，要么加強和延續剝削與壓迫，要么消除剝削與壓迫，由此，最終一旦隨著共產主義革命在全世界的勝利，物質和思想條件達到了那種狀態，對黨和國家而言，先鋒隊可以不再需要。
　　
　　------------------------原文------------------------
　　The fact that these revisionists were high-ranking officials in the party and state apparatus does not reveal some fundamental flaw in communism or in the communist revolution and socialist society as it has taken shape up to this point. It does not point to the need to find a whole other means and model for bringing about a radically different world. The causes of these reversals of socialism lie deeper, and they are consistent with a scientific communist understanding of society, and in particular of socialism as a transition from capitalism to communism: They reside in the contradictions that are, in significant aspects, carried forward from the old society which has been overthrown but whose features and influences have not yet been entirely transformed. These contradictions—including that between mental and manual labor, which is bound up with the division of society into classes and has itself constituted an integral and profound division in all societies ruled by exploiting classes—both give rise to the need for an organized communist vanguard to lead the revolution, not only in overthrowing the capitalist system but then in continuing the revolution in socialist society, and at the same time give rise to the danger of the revolution being betrayed and reversed by people who hold leadership positions within that vanguard. Given the actual historical development of human society and the possible pathways of change this has now opened up (recall the analogy to evolution in the natural world and the relation there between constraint and change), the question—the actual alternatives, in the real world, if we are in fact setting out to radically change this world, so as to uproot and abolish exploitation and oppression—is not leadership vs. no leadership, democracy vs. no democracy, dictatorship or no dictatorship; it is the socialist road or the capitalist road, leadership which takes things in one direction or the other, democracy—and dictatorship—which is in the service of and furthers one kind of system or the other, toward the reinforcement and perpetuation of exploitation and oppression or toward their eventual elimination, and with that, finally, the elimination of the need for a vanguard party or a state, once the material and ideological conditions that make that possible have been brought into being with the triumph of the communist revolution throughout the world.
　　 　　　
 

　　24.
　　
　　 在此總結一下：共產主義革命的第一階段往前邁出了一大步，并取得了難以置信的、鼓舞人心的成就，它克服了它所面對的諸多阻礙，它引導社會朝一個全新世界前行，在那兒，所有的剝削和壓迫關系都被最終消除，人們享有全新的自由，并且以一種人類歷史上前所未有的自覺、自愿精神，領導社會組織，繼續全世界范圍內的社會變革。但并不奇怪的是，無論是在那些革命領導者所采取的實際步驟中，還是在他們創建的新社會里，或是在他們的理念和方法上，這一階段都存在著許多重大缺陷和實際錯誤，有時甚至是非常嚴重。這些缺陷和錯誤并不是這共產主義革命初次嘗試失敗的根本原因，但是它們的確加速了這種失敗，甚至是失敗的次要因素；除去這些，第一階段的整個經歷，連同它鼓舞人心的成就和非常真實的，有時是非常嚴重的，甚至完全是次要因素的錯誤和缺陷，我們都要進行深刻而全面的總結，以便在我們必須面對的新形勢下繼續推進共產主義革命，并且這次做得更好。
　　
　　--------------------------原文----------------------
　　In sum on this point: The first stage of the communist revolution went a long way, and achieved incredibly inspiring things, in fighting to overcome the very real obstacles it faced and to advance toward a world where all relations of exploitation and oppression would be finally eliminated and people would enjoy a whole new dimension of freedom and would undertake the organization and continuing transformation of society, throughout the world, with a conscious and voluntary initiative unprecedented in human history. But, not surprisingly, there were also significant shortcomings and real errors, sometimes very serious ones, both in the practical steps that were taken by those leading these revolutions and the new societies they brought forth, and in their conceptions and methods. These shortcomings and errors were not the cause of the defeats of the initial attempts at communist revolution, but they did contribute, even if secondarily, to that defeat; and, beyond that, this whole experience of the first stage—with both its truly inspiring achievements and its very real, at times very serious, even if overall secondary, errors and shortcomings—must be learned from deeply and all-sidedly, in order to carry forward the communist revolution in the new situation that has to be confronted, and to do even better this time.
　　 　　

　　25.
　　
　　IV. 新的挑戰，和新的整合
　　
　　 1976年后修正主義勢力不僅繼續標榜為共產主義者，而且還更具體的自稱為毛澤東革命路線和革命遺產的繼承者。在這種形勢下，全世界共產主義者真正要做的是保持批判的精神和方法，對實際發生的事情極其原因做出客觀的、科學的分析，并且清晰地區分共產主義與資本主義、馬克思主義與修正主義，尤其是當這集中體現在那些具體而又復雜的情況下。在如今的情勢下，這點并不容易做到，世界上那些將毛領導下的中國視為一種革命模式和燈塔的共產主義者中的大多數人都做不到這點，并且他們還盲目的追隨中國那些新的修正主義統治者，從而使革命道路陷入泥沼之中，或以某些其它種形式放棄了共產主義革命的世界觀和目標。為了響應（革命的）偉大的需要，為了拒絕順應中國也已發生的一切（它以共產主義之名行資本主義之實，它劫持了革命中國和毛澤東在世界革命者和共產主義者中的偉大威望，它也造成了我們美國革命共產黨內部的大分裂），鮑勃•艾沃肯承擔了科學分析中國所發生的一切及此中原因的使命，并努力解釋（中國）修正主義政變和資本主義復辟發生的緣由。由此，他對毛進一步發展共產主義革命科學和戰略時所用的方法做了系統性的說明。在世界范圍內毛澤東主義者處于迷惘、士氣低落、混亂之際，在共產主義在中國陷落之后，以及在這種陷落對世界各地的革命和共產主義運動帶來破壞性影響的情況下，艾沃肯的工作具有重要的作用，它為重組現有共產主義者奠定了思想上和政治上的基礎。
　　
　　 但是現在需要更多的闡釋，在全面領導我們美國革命共產黨之外，鮑勃•艾沃肯在過去30多年中，一直在對國際共產主義運動本身和實現共產主義革命的戰略方針進行深入的科學分析。這項工作的結果是一個新的整合，是革命理論框架的進一步發展。
　　
　　-------------------原文----------------------
　　IV.
　　The New Challenges, and the New Synthesis
　　
　　When the revisionists seized power in China in 1976 and moved to restore capitalism, for a certain period of time they not only continued to pose as communists in a general sense but more specifically claimed to be the continuators of Mao’s revolutionary line and legacy. In this situation, what communists around the world really needed to do was to maintain a critical spirit and approach, make an objective, scientific analysis of what had actually happened, and why, and clearly distinguish communism from capitalism, Marxism from revisionism, as this found concentrated expression in those concrete and complex circumstances. This was not easy to do at the time, and the majority of the communists in the world who had looked to Mao’s China as a revolutionary model and beacon failed to do this, and so either themselves blindly tailed the new revisionist rulers of China and took the path into the swamp, or in some other form abandoned the outlook and objectives of the communist revolution. Responding to the great need, refusing to go along with what had happened in China simply because it was done in the name of communism and by hijacking the great prestige that revolutionary China and Mao rightly enjoyed among revolutionaries and communists throughout the world—and at the cost of a major split within our own Party—Bob Avakian undertook the task of making a scientific analysis of what had happened in China, and why, and then fought for the understanding that indeed a revisionist coup and restoration of capitalism had taken place. And along with that, he brought forward a systematic presentation of the ways in which Mao had further developed the science and strategy of communist revolution.9 In a time of great disorientation, demoralization, and disarray in the ranks of the “Maoists” around the world, this work of Avakian’s played a crucial role in establishing the ideological and political basis for the regrouping of the remaining communists after the loss of China and the devastating effects of this on the revolutionary and communist movement throughout the world.
　　
　　But even greater needs now presented themselves. While providing overall leadership to our Party, Bob Avakian has, over the past 30 years, continued to deepen a scientific analysis of the experience of the international communist movement and the strategic approach to communist revolution. The result of this work has been the emergence of a new synthesis, a further development of the theoretical framework for carrying forward this revolution.
　　 　　

　　26.
　　
　　 如我們美國革命共產黨黨章所指，世界今天的形勢——包括共產主義革命第一波風潮的失敗——實際上“再次表明共產主義的偉大需要。”如下：
　　
　　 “雖然目前世界上沒有一個社會主義國家，但存在著社會主義革命的經驗，并有豐富的經由社會主義革命第一波風潮發展起來的革命的科學理論。但是這些共產主義革命理論和實踐需要進一步發展，以滿足這種情況的挑戰——科學的解釋社會主義革命第一波風潮的整個經歷和正在發生巨大變化的世界所隱含的戰略意義，并從中汲取教訓。
　　
　　 鮑勃•艾沃肯已經承擔了這項責任，并且發展了一套共產主義工作、方式和方法體系，來響應這些偉大的需要和挑戰。”
　　
　　 這套共產主義工作、方式和方法體系以及這個由鮑勃•艾沃肯發展起來的新整合所做的，與馬克思在共產主義運動初始階段時所做的相類似——在新形勢下，在共產主義革命第一階段結束之后，為革命的進一步發展建立起一套理論框架。但是今天，這種新整合并不是強調要“回到繪圖板”，返回到最初點，仿佛既要拋棄共產主義運動的歷史經驗和社會主義，又要拋棄第一波共產主義革命風潮中發展起來的“豐富的革命科學理論內容”。這將是一個不科學的、實際上是反動的方法。相反，我們需要的——也是鮑勃•艾沃肯所做的¬——以過去所有的理論和實踐為基礎，吸取積極的和消極的教訓，將它們提高到一個新的、更高水平的整合狀態。
　　
　　-----------------------原文--------------------
　　As our Party’s Constitution points out, the situation in the world today—including the defeat of the initial wave of communist revolution—actually “poses, anew, the great need for communism.” And:
　　
　　“While there are no socialist states in the world, there is the experience of socialist revolutions and there is the rich body of revolutionary, scientific theory that developed through the first wave of socialist revolutions to build on. But the theory and practice of communist revolution requires advances to meet the challenges of this situation—to scientifically address, and draw the necessary lessons from, the overall experience of this first wave of socialist revolution and the strategic implications of the vast changes taking place in the world.
　　
　　Bob Avakian has taken on this responsibility, and has developed a communist body of work and method and approach that responds to these great needs and challenges.”
　　
　　In this body of work and method and approach, in the new synthesis brought forward by Bob Avakian, there is an analogy to what was done by Marx at the beginning of the communist movement—establishing in the new conditions that exist, after the end of the first stage of the communist revolution, a theoretical framework for the renewed advance of that revolution. But today, and with this new synthesis, it is most emphatically not a matter of “back to the drawing board,” as if what is called for is throwing out both the historical experience of the communist movement and the socialist societies it brought into being and “the rich body of revolutionary scientific theory” that developed through this first wave. That would represent an unscientific, and in fact a reactionary, approach. Rather, what is required—and what Avakian has undertaken—is building on all that has gone before, theoretically and practically, drawing the positive and the negative lessons from this, and raising this to a new, higher level of synthesis.
　　 　　

　　27.
　　
　　 對這個新的整合，我們黨其它的介紹文件及出版物提供了更廣泛、更系統化的討論。在此，我們只簡略的概括下它的一些主要要素。
　　
　　 從哲學和方法論的方面來說，這種新整合，在真正意義上從馬克思主義學說的科學根基上對它重新進行充分的打磨。這種整合也學習了自馬克思時代以來的豐富歷史經驗，堅持已被證明是根本性正確的共產主義的基本目的和根本原則，批評和拋棄那些已被證明是錯誤或不再適應的方面，將共產主義更加充分、更加堅固地建立在科學基礎之上。
　　
　　 在人類社會向共產主義歷史性發展的原始構想中，甚至包括馬克思的構想中，都有這樣一種趨勢——雖然這種趨勢肯定是非常次要的——朝著狹隘的、線性的觀點發展。舉例來說，在“否定之否定”這個概念中，就體現出這種趨勢，“否定之否定”的觀點認為事物總是按照這樣一種方式進行發展：一個特定的事物被另一事物否定，反過來，這另一事物又將導致進一步的否定和整合，這種否定和整合體現了以前（被否定）事物的要素，但這種體現是在更高層面上。這種“否定之否定”概念來源于黑格爾的哲學體系，而黑格爾的哲學對馬克思（包括恩格斯）產生了重大的影響，然而，從根本上說，他們修改了黑格爾的辯證法觀點并將唯物主義基礎覆蓋在其上面，黑格爾的辯證法本身就體現了哲學上的唯心主義，它認為歷史本質上是由一連串“（絕對）觀念”組成的。就像鮑勃.艾沃肯所指出的，“否定之否定”可以導致“不可避免主義”——仿佛一些事物注定要被另外的事物以一種特定的方式所否定，走向幾乎是預設的整合。當將此概念應用到人類歷史發展上去，它就以這樣一種方式瀕于簡單的公式化了——就像是在臆想：原始無階級（公共）社會被階級社會否定，反過來，階級社會又將被再次浮現的無階級社會所否定，只不過隨著共產主義在全世界的實現，它有了更高的基礎——“簡單化”本來極端復雜和多樣化的人類社會歷史發展的傾向，朝向“封閉系統”和“不可避免主義”的傾向，已經越來越明顯，也越來越成問題。
　　
　　---------------------原文-------------------------
　　Other presentations and publications by our Party have provided a more extensive and systematic discussion of this new synthesis.10 Here we will briefly characterize some of its main elements.
　　
　　» In terms of philosophy and method, this new synthesis is, in a meaningful sense, regrounding Marxism more fully in its scientific roots. It also involves learning from the rich historical experience since the time of Marx, upholding the fundamental objectives and principles of communism, which have been shown to be fundamentally correct, criticizing and discarding aspects that have been shown to be incorrect, or no longer applicable, and establishing communism even more fully and firmly on a scientific foundation.
　　
　　In the original conception of human society’s historical development toward communism, even as formulated by Marx, there was a tendency—although this tendency was definitely very secondary—toward a somewhat narrow and linear view. This was manifested, for example, in the concept of the “negation of the negation” (the view that things proceed in such a way that a particular thing is negated by another thing, which in turn leads to a further negation and a synthesis which embodies elements of the previous things, but now on a higher level). This concept was taken over from the philosophical system of Hegel, whose philosophy exerted a significant influence on Marx (and Engels), even while, in a fundamental sense, they recast and placed on a materialist foundation Hegel’s view of dialectics, which was itself marked by philosophical idealism (the view that history consists in essence of the unfolding of the Idea). As Bob Avakian has argued, the “negation of the negation” can tend in the direction of “inevitable-ism”—as if something is bound to be negated by another thing in a particular way, leading to what is almost a predetermined synthesis. And when applied to the historical sweep of human society, in such a way that it verges on being simplistically formulaic—as in the construct: primitive classless (communal) society was negated by class society, which in turn will be negated by the emergence once again of classless society, but now on a higher foundation, with the achievement of communism throughout the world—the tendency toward reductionism with regard to the extremely complex and variegated historical development of human society, the tendency toward a “closed system” and toward “inevitable-ism,” become more pronounced and more problematical.

　　28.
　　
　　 再次，這是馬克思主義在其基礎上的一個次要缺陷，就像鮑勃.艾沃肯所指出的：“馬克思主義、科學共產主義，并不體現，實際上是拒絕，任何形式的目的論——那樣一種觀念：有一些意愿或目的，由于其自身特性或歷史原因，是被（注定）賦予的。”但是，這種（目的論）傾向在共產主義運動的發展中被充分的自我宣揚出來了，尤其令人注意的是，它對斯大林的思想產生了負面的影響，反過來，通過斯大林它又影響到了毛澤東的哲學觀點，即使毛澤東以一些重要的方法拒絕和打破了斯大林這種朝向“粗魯的”和機械化的，有點形而上學的唯物主義傾向。鮑勃•艾沃肯新的整合是毛澤東觀點與斯大林決裂的延續，但同時更進一步剔除掉了一些毛本人依舊被影響（斯大林）到的部分方法，盡管與斯大林領導下的共產主義運動的一些主導思想相比，這些只是次要的。
　　
　　-----------------------原文---------------------------
　　Again, this was a secondary shortcoming in Marxism, at its foundation (as Bob Avakian has also argued: “Marxism, scientific communism, does not embody, but in fact rejects, any teleological...notion that there is some kind of will or purpose with which nature, or history, is endowed”11 ). But tendencies of this kind asserted themselves more fully with the development of the communist movement and were particularly noticeable, and exerted a negative effect, in the thinking of Stalin, who in turn influenced Mao’s philosophical views, even while Mao rejected and ruptured in significant ways with Stalin’s tendencies toward “woodenness” and mechanical, somewhat metaphysical, materialism. The new synthesis of Bob Avakian’s embodies a continuation of Mao’s ruptures with Stalin but also in some aspects a rupture beyond the ways in which Mao himself was influenced, even though secondarily, by what had become the dominant mode of thinking in the communist movement under the leadership of Stalin.

　　29.
　　
　　 國際主義。在上世紀80年代初，鮑勃.艾沃肯在其著作《征服世界》中對共產主義運動史上許多錯誤傾向提出了廣泛的批判，尤其是其中的民族主義傾向——將某特定國家的革命斗爭脫離出，甚至是超越出整個世界的共產主義革命斗爭。他研究了這種傾向在蘇聯和中國（當它們還是社會主義國家時）發生的方式，以及它們更廣泛意義上對共產主義運動的影響，包括對有時看起來非常明顯的那種舉動的影響，在這種舉動中，其它國家的革命斗爭依附于現存社會主義國家的需要，先是蘇聯，后是中國。伴隨這一點，鮑勃.艾沃肯進一步分析了國際主義的物質基礎——為什么在最終和整體意義上，即使是對于那些具體國家的革命來說，世界性的舞臺也是最具決定性的，尤其是在這個資本帝國主義充當全球性剝削體制的時代，以及該如何將這種認識嵌入到在某些國家（同時也是世界范圍內）實現革命的方法之中。
　　
　　 國際主義自共產主義觀點建立以來一直都是它的基本原則，鮑勃.艾沃肯總結了使這個基本原則在共產主義運動史上屢屢走向妥協的那些方式，他強化了一系列的理論基礎，從而克服了這種與國際主義分離的傾向，以一種更徹底的國際主義方式推進共產主義革命。
　　
　　-----------------原文----------------------
　　» Internationalism. In the early 1980s, in the work Conquer the World?,12 Bob Avakian made an extensive critique of erroneous tendencies in the history of the communist movement, and in particular the tendency toward nationalism—toward separating off the revolutionary struggle in a particular country from, and even raising it above, the overall world revolutionary struggle for communism. He examined ways in which this tendency had manifested itself in both the Soviet Union and China, when they were socialist countries, and the influence this exerted on the communist movement more broadly, including in the sometimes pronounced moves to subordinate the revolutionary struggle in other countries to the needs of the existing socialist state (first the Soviet Union, and then later China). Along with this, Avakian made a further analysis of the material basis for internationalism—why, in an ultimate and overall sense, the world arena is most decisive, even in terms of revolution in any particular country, especially in this era of capitalist imperialism as a world system of exploitation, and how this understanding must be incorporated into the approach to revolution, in particular countries as well as on a world scale.
　　
　　While internationalism has always been a fundamental principle of communism since its very founding, Avakian both summed up ways in which this principle had been incorrectly compromised in the history of the communist movement, and he strengthened the theoretical foundation for waging the struggle to overcome such departures from internationalism and to carry forward the communist revolution in a more thoroughly internationalist way.

　　30.
　　
　　 論無產階級專政與作為共產主義過渡階段的社會主義的性質。毛澤東對社會主義作為共產主義過渡階段這一見解的本質，和伴隨這種過渡的矛盾與斗爭，以及這種矛盾與斗爭的解決（在這個或那個方向上，它們決定著革命是朝向共產主義前進，還是被拖回到資本主義）都有著偉大的理解和認知，通過深刻學習、堅定支持和宣揚毛澤東這種見解，鮑勃.艾沃肯認識到并強調了異議的重要性，社會主義社會需要創造出更多的智慧火花，藝術上需要更多的積極性與創造性。他批評了走向“物化”無產階級和在社會中產生其它剝削（或者曾經是剝削）群體的傾向——它將這些群體中個別的人看作為“個人”，視為無產階級（將無產階級當為一種階級）更大利益的代表者，視為革命斗爭（它在最廣泛意義上符合了無產階級根本利益）的代表者。這種傾向經常伴隨著狹隘的、務實主義的和實證主義的世界觀與行為方式——它限定了什么是相關的，什么可以被確定（宣稱）為是真的，什么可以被確定為直接經驗和斗爭（通過此所有的民眾都涉入其中），什么可以被確定為是社會主義國家及其執政黨的短期目標（在任何時候）。這個反過來又與朝向“階級真理”的傾向走到一起，這種“階級真理”的傾向在蘇聯和中國（當他倆還是社會主義國家時）身上體現得清晰無疑，實際上，所謂的“階級真理”與以下的科學認識相違背：真理是客觀的，不隨不同階級的利益而變化，也不依靠于那些追求真理的階級的世界觀而存在。共產主義科學世界觀和方法論，如果作為一種有生命力的科學而不是教條被正確的采納和應用，必將在總體上，為真理的實現提供最符合的、最系統化的和最全面的手段，但這與說真理本身具有某種階級屬性不是一回事，同樣，認為共產主義者以其某種特質必定能實現真理，而其他不應用、甚至是反對共產主義世界觀和方法論的人肯定不能實現真理的觀點也是不科學的。“階級真理”這種觀點，在共產主義運動中以不同的形式不同程度的存在著，它屬于還原主義和庸俗唯物論，違背了實際上科學的辯證唯物主義世界觀和方法論。
　　
　　--------------------------原文--------------------------
　　» On the character of the dictatorship of the proletariat and socialist society as a transition to communism. While deeply immersing himself in, learning from, firmly upholding, and propagating Mao’s great insights into the nature of socialist society as a transition to communism—and the contradictions and struggles which mark this transition and whose resolution, in one or another direction, are decisive in terms of whether the advance is carried forward to communism, or things are dragged backward to capitalism—Bob Avakian has recognized and emphasized the need for a greater role for dissent, a greater fostering of intellectual ferment, and more scope for initiative and creativity in the arts in socialist society. He has criticized the tendency toward a “reification” of the proletariat and other exploited (or formerly exploited) groups in society—a tendency which regards particular people in these groups, as individuals, as representative of the larger interests of the proletariat as a class and the revolutionary struggle that corresponds to the fundamental interests of the proletariat, in the largest sense. This has often been accompanied by narrow, pragmatic, and positivist outlooks and approaches—which restrict what is relevant, or what can be determined (or is declared) to be true, to what relates to immediate experiences and struggles in which the masses of people are involved, and to the immediate objectives of the socialist state and its leading party, at any given time. This, in turn, has gone along with tendencies—which were a marked element in the Soviet Union but also in China when it was socialist—toward the notion of “class truth,” which in fact is opposed to the scientific understanding that truth is objective, does not vary in accordance with differing class interests, and is not dependent on which class outlook one brings to the pursuit of the truth. The scientific outlook and method of communism—if it is correctly taken up and applied, as a living science and not as a dogma—provides, in an overall sense, the most consistent, systematic, and comprehensive means for arriving at the truth, but that is not the same thing as saying that truth itself has a class character, or that communists are bound to arrive at the truth with regard to particular phenomena, while people who do not apply, or who even oppose, the communist outlook and method are not capable of arriving at important truths. Such views of “class truth,” which have existed to varying degrees and in various forms in the communist movement, are reductionist and vulgar materialist and run counter to the actual scientific viewpoint and method of dialectical materialism.
　　 　　

　　31.
　　
　　 作為新整合的一個相關部分，鮑勃.艾沃肯批評了共產主義運動中對知識分子片面的看法——將知識分子視為麻煩，并沒有充分認識到他們在實現共產主義進程中可能的重要作用，通過此，社會上所有的人將對現實有更深的了解，將獲得更強的能力，越來越主動的投入到改造現實以便實現共產主義的斗爭之中。
　　
　　 再次，就像我們美國革命共產黨黨章中所解釋的：
　　
　　 “這種新的整合也對知識分子和藝術家們在整個（共產主義）進程中的重要作用有了更深的理解，他們在追尋自己視野的同時，也貢獻了自己的意見以產生更廣泛的發酵作用——所有這些，再次，對更豐富（共產主義）進程的獲得都是必需的。”
　　
　　 “簡而言之，在這個由鮑勃.艾沃肯發展起來的新整合中，必須有一個充滿一定彈性、堅實的核心觀念。它首先是一種能以很廣泛方式得到應用的方法論和行為方式…清晰掌握這核心觀念的兩個方面（堅實的核心和一定的彈性）以及它們的內在關系，對在所有領域里理解和改造現實來說是非常必要的，對在人類社會中發起革命性變革是非常關鍵的…”
　　
　　---------------------原文----------------------
　　As a related part of the new synthesis, Bob Avakian has criticized a one-sided view in the communist movement toward intellectuals—toward seeing them only as a problem, and failing to give full recognition to the ways in which they can contribute to the rich process through which the people in society overall will come to a deeper understanding of reality and a heightened ability to carry out an increasingly conscious struggle to transform reality in the direction of communism.
　　
　　Again, as the Constitution of our Party explains:
　　
　　This new synthesis also involves a greater appreciation of the important role of intellectuals and artists in this whole process, both pursuing their own visions and contributing their ideas to this broader ferment—all, again, necessary to get a much richer process going....
　　
　　In short, in this new synthesis as developed by Bob Avakian, there must be a solid core, with a lot of elasticity. This is, first of all, a method and approach that applies in a very broad way.... A clear grasp of both aspects of this [both solid core and elasticity], and their inter-relation, is necessary in understanding and transforming reality, in all its spheres, and is crucial to making revolutionary transformations in human society....
　　 　　

　　32.
　　
　　 “應用到社會主義社會，這種包含一個堅實核心并帶有一定彈性的方法論，需要一個統籌性的并帶有延展性的核心，以便滿足無產階級專政和繼續社會主義革命（作為通向共產主義的世界性斗爭的一部分）的需要，并且它也決心克服所有挫折，繼續引導這個斗爭。同時，在社會主義中，一定會有許多不同的人和不同的傾向，他們將社會引向不同的方向——所有這些最終都會有助于獲得真相，和達到共產主義。這種情況總是一種激烈狀態存在的，包容這一切不同的人和不同的傾向（它們仍將在廣泛意義上引導社會朝向共產主義）時所遇到的困難，就像鮑勃.艾沃肯所說的，類似于反復的將某件東西拉到快肢解的邊緣而又不能使之肢解。所有這一切都是困難的，卻是必須的，也是我們要迎接的一個過程。”
　　
　　 作為這一切統一的主題，鮑勃.艾沃肯強調了“人類解放者”的方向：只有在人民大眾都自覺參與的情況下，革命才能被執行，革命不是報復，也不是某個狹隘框架里位置的變化（最后的成為最前的，最前的成為最后的），而是整個世界的變革，從此沒有誰是第一，誰是最后；推翻現行體制，建立無產階級專政和在這些條件下繼續革命，都是為了消除一切壓迫性的社會分化和人與人間的剝削關系，并向人類歷史上一個全新的時代積極前進。
　　
　　--------------------------原文----------------------
　　Applied to socialist society, this approach of solid core with a lot of elasticity includes the need for a leading, and expanding, core that is clear on the need for the dictatorship of the proletariat and the aim of continuing socialist revolution as part of the world struggle for communism, and is determined to continue carrying forward this struggle, through all the twists and turns. At the same time, there will necessarily be many different people and trends in socialist society pulling in many different directions—and all of this can ultimately contribute to the process of getting at the truth and getting to communism. This will be intense at times, and the difficulty of embracing all this—while still leading the whole process broadly in the direction of communism—will be something like going, as Avakian has put it, to the brink of being drawn and quartered—and repeatedly. All this is difficult, but necessary and a process to welcome.
　　
　　As a unifying theme in all this, Avakian has stressed the orientation of “emancipators of humanity”: the revolution that must be carried out, and in which the masses must be the conscious driving force, is not about revenge nor about changes of position within a narrow framework (“the last shall be first, and the first become last”) but is about transforming the entire world so that there will no longer be people who are “first” and others who are “last”; the overthrow of the present system, the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat, and the continuation of the revolution in those conditions is all for the purpose and toward the aim of abolishing all oppressive divisions and exploitative relations among human beings and advancing to a whole new era in human history.
　

　　33.
　　
　　 革命的戰略方針。鮑勃.艾沃肯新的整合優化了共產主義理論，豐富了列寧提出的人民大眾需要提高共產主義覺悟的基本認識，列寧認為人民大眾要提要共產主義覺悟，除了依靠自身的直接經驗和斗爭，還要全方位的揭露資本主義-帝國主義制度的本質和特性，明確確立共產主義的信念、目標、世界觀和方法論，所有這些，都是由一個有組織的先鋒隊以一種系統化的、全方位的方式引導給大眾，將任何時候發生的斗爭轉化為或引導為革命的戰略目標，同時也“在大眾面前說明”革命的一些基本事項和問題，并使大家都參與其中以找出合適的方法解決這些矛盾，繼續推動革命斗爭。在鮑勃.艾沃肯的領導下，在帝國主義國家進行革命的基本戰略方針已經制定下來，并正繼續往前得到進一步發展，在這種戰略方針的指導下，我們將加快（同時也在等待）革命形勢的發展，促使革命群眾數百萬數百萬的不斷出現，然后當這一天最終到來的時，我們有能力在那種情況下去斗爭并贏得革命，奪取政權。（關于這方面內容，請參閱《革命與共產主義：基礎與戰略方針》革命宣傳冊，2008）
　　
　　 這一切對于那些爭辯說革命不可能發生在帝國主義的人來說，對于那種堅持在革命目標和共產主義世界觀上，共產主義的理論與實踐只能專注于改革和“解決”群眾切身問題的觀點來說，都是鮮活的反駁。后一種觀點，在現實中，只要它影響到人民大眾，必將把他們引導到偏離（共產主義的）方向上去，使他們與現行剝削制度一道進入一團死氣的死胡同，走向滅亡。
　　
　　 對在如美國這樣的帝國主義國家里進行革命，新整合已經進一步發展出了革命的基本戰略方針，與此同時，鮑勃.艾沃肯呼吁要注意革命斗爭所面對的新挑戰，要進一步發展革命戰略，以便適應外國帝國主義國家革命的要求，這些外國帝國主義國家在近幾十年來，給世界及其中大多數國家帶來了巨大的變化。
　　
　　-------------------------------原文-----------------------
　　» Strategic approach to revolution. Avakian’s new synthesis has regrounded communist work in, and has enriched, Lenin’s basic understanding of the need for the masses of people to develop communist consciousness not only, or mainly, through their own immediate experience and struggles but through the all-around exposure of the nature and features of the capitalist-imperialist system and the clear setting forth of the convictions, aims, outlook and method of communism, which is brought to the masses, in a systematic and all-around way, by an organized vanguard party, linking the struggle at any given time with, and diverting and directing it toward, the strategic revolutionary goal, while also “setting before the masses” the essential questions and problems of the revolution and involving them in forging the means to resolve these contradictions and advance the revolutionary struggle. With the leadership of Bob Avakian, the basic strategic orientation necessary for carrying out revolutionary work in an imperialist country, to hasten while awaiting the development of a revolutionary situation and the emergence of a revolutionary people, in the millions and millions, and then to seize on such a situation when it does finally come into being—and to be able to fight and win in those circumstances—has been developed and is continuing to be further developed. (In this connection, see Revolution and Communism: A Foundation and Strategic Orientation, a Revolution pamphlet, 2008.)
　　
　　All this is a living refutation of those who argue that revolution is not possible in imperialist countries, or that the practical and theoretical work of communists there should center on fighting for reforms and “solutions” to the immediate problems of the masses, in a way that severs this from revolutionary objectives and the communist outlook—and which, in reality, will lead away from that and, insofar as it influences masses of people, will lead them into a demoralizing dead-end and ultimate accommodation with the present system of oppression.
　　
　　At the same time as this new synthesis has further developed the basic strategic orientation for revolution in imperialist countries such as the U.S., Avakian has also called attention to new challenges for the revolutionary struggle, and the need for further development of revolutionary strategy, in countries dominated by foreign imperialism, given the great changes in the world, and within most of these countries, in recent decades. 　　

　　34.
　　
　　
　　 這種新整合，在許多重大方面（在此我們只能簡單的談及下）為革命與共產主義打下了更堅實的科學（理論）基礎。正如鮑勃.艾沃肯自己所強調的：
　　
　　 “不低估這個新整合的重要性及潛在積極力量是非常重要的：對于國際共產主義運動和至今已存在過的社會
　　
　　主義國家的歷史經驗，批判和破除其中的重大錯誤和缺陷，同時繼續發揚和改造它積極的方面；在真正意義上恢復一個新的、更先進的基礎，恢復一個全新的、完全不同的世界的可行性和可取性，并將此目標倚靠在一個更堅實的唯物論和辯證法基礎之上。
　　
　　 因此，我們不應低估它作為一種希望源泉和一種基于堅實科學基礎的膽識的可能性。”
　　
　　------------------------原文--------------------
　　This new synthesis, in its many crucial dimensions (which we have only been able to briefly touch on here) has put revolution and communism on a more solid scientific foundation. As Avakian himself has emphasized:
　　
　　“[I]t is very important not to underestimate the significance and potential positive force of this new synthesis: criticizing and rupturing with significant errors and shortcomings while bringing forward and recasting what has been positive from the historical experience of the international communist movements and the socialist countries that have so far existed; in a real sense reviving
　　—on a new, more advanced basis—the viability and, yes, the desirability of a whole new and radically different world, and placing this on an ever firmer foundation of materialism and dialectics....
　　
　　So, we should not underestimate the potential of this as a source of hope and of daring on a solid scientific foundation.”
　　 　　

　　35.
　　
　　V. 十字路口的共產主義：未來的先鋒，還是過去的殘留？
　　
　　
　　 面對現階段持續的挑戰和困難，在共產主義革命在中國失敗以及共產主義革命第一階段結束之時，共產主義者們的初次重組便開始了，然而到最近，在很大程度上，這種重組讓位于內部尖銳的分歧：一方面，我們黨（基本路線集中體現在我們美國革命共產黨的黨章中）和另外一些黨派積極走向新的整合；而另一方面，又有兩種對立的傾向：要么是如宗教信仰般的全盤堅持過往所有的經驗以及與之相關的理論和方法論，要么就是（實質上，不是在口頭上就是在理論上）全盤否定所有這一切。
　　
　　 在某種意義上說，這是對《征服世界？》所造成反響的一種預示，此文在約30年前首次發表。一方面，國際共產主義運動中的一些人對《征服世界？》一文所講述的內容感到極度的不滿，他們聲稱它把共產主義運動的經驗縮減為“一面破旗”，他們這種觀念本身就是對“什么是共產主義”教條認識的一種反應，而不是尊重并堅持共產主義本來的面目：共產主義是一種鮮活的、發展的、決定性的革命科學，它本身的標志之一就是不斷的自我反省。在另一方面，因其正確的觀點，也有些人歡迎《征服世界？》，又有些人確實也歡迎它，但卻是抱著這樣一種觀點和希望：它將成為一個撬開房門的工具，借此達到擺脫和拋棄整個（共產主義革命）歷史經驗的目的，而這整個（共產主義革命）歷史經驗，正是《征服世界？》一文以一種完全不同的觀點進行審慎分析的，其中一個認識便是，客觀上說，這些（共產主義革命）歷史經驗主要內容都是積極的，是歷史上前所未有的人類進步，這點必須要認識到；但同時也要認識到，這兒還有很多真實的問題、缺陷和錯誤，有些還是十分令人痛心的，這些需要進一步挖掘、審慎研究，并從中汲取教訓。在當時，那些反對《征服世界？》觀點的人主要集中在新興國家和一個范圍寬廣的群體之間。只是隨著過去數十年中事情的進一步發展，和對新困難的經歷，包括革命斗爭所遭受到的挫折（在一段時間內，革命看起來象要有新的突破并體現了世界共產主義運動的復興），這些反對的觀點得到進一步發展和強化。
　　
　　----------------原文-------------------------------
　　V.
　　Communism at a Crossroads: Vanguard of the Future, or Residue of the Past?
　　
　　In the face of the continuing challenges and difficulties of the current period, the initial regrouping of communists which took place after the defeat in China and the end of the first stage of communist revolution has, to a significant extent, given way recently to sharp divergences: on the one hand, our Party, whose basic line is concentrated in our new Constitution, along with some others that are gravitating toward the new synthesis; and, on the other hand, two opposing tendencies—either to cling religiously to all of the previous experience and the theory and method associated with it or (in essence, if not in words) to throw that out altogether.
　　
　　In a certain sense, this was prefigured in the responses to Conquer the World? when it was originally published, nearly three decades ago now. On the one hand, there were those in the international communist movement who were extremely upset by what was said in Conquer the World?—claiming that it reduced the experience of the communist movement to “a tattered flag” (this was a response which itself was reflective of a dogmatic and brittle approach to what communism is, rather than regarding it and wielding it as what it really is: a living and developing critical revolutionary science, one of the hallmarks of which is its continual self-interrogation) —and, on the other hand, besides those who welcomed Conquer the World? for correct reasons, there were those who actually welcomed it but did so with the view, and the hope, that it would constitute a wedge opening the door to casting off and renouncing the whole historical experience which Conquer the World? was critically examining from a fundamentally different viewpoint, one of recognizing that objectively this experience was principally positive and involved historically unprecedented advances for humanity which must be firmly upheld, but also recognizing that there were real problems, shortcomings, and errors, some of them quite grievous, which needed to be further excavated, critically examined, and learned from as well. At that time, these opposing responses to Conquer the World? were in a more embryonic state and within an overall framework of broadly-defined unity. It was only with the further unfolding of things over the next few decades, and with the experience of further difficulties—including setbacks in struggles that seemed for a time to be breaking new ground and embodying a revitalization of the communist movement in the world—that these opposing views further developed and sharpened. 　　

　　36.
　　
　　 今天，在那些拒絕審慎研究共產主義運動歷史經驗的人那里，經常可以看到堅持“階級真理”和相應的物化無產階級現象，他們對共產主義理論和原則基本采取教條主義的方式，實質上類似于宗教中對待教義的態度：“我們都知道我們需要知道的，我們擁有所有所需的基本要素，唯一要做的只是去貫徹這些已告知的智慧。”
　　
　　 在相反一端是那樣一些人，他們對共產主義運動歷史經驗的理解，特別是它遭受到困難、挫折和失敗的原因的理解，是膚淺的和毫無根據的，他們忽視或索性拋棄對深刻矛盾的科學共產主義分析（這些深刻矛盾正是導致社會主義國家中發生資本主義復辟的原因），而試圖以基于資產階級式民主原則、標準和資產階級民主合法性概念的方法取而代之：正式的選舉程序和政黨競爭，這些在資本主義社會司空見慣，符合并有助于資產階級繼續占據政治權力。那些持這種觀點的人，即使還在繼續宣稱繼承共產主義的衣缽，都急于拋棄和保持與無產階級專政及其歷史經驗的距離，許多情況下，甚至是“無產階級專政”這個名詞。實際上，這些人正在尋求從這個人類歷史上迄今最具解放精神的經驗中“卸下身上的重擔”。他們宣稱要闊步往前，以適應時代新的形式…但是他們的車輛行駛在錯誤的方向上，并且是在迅速的倒轉——以加速度的步伐倒退回資產階級式民主和狹隘的資產階級式法權，從21世紀倒退到18世紀。
　　
　　 雖然我們在此已經確認的這些錯誤傾向之間有很大的差別，但有一個重要情況是，他們相互“鏡像對立”，他們實際上共享一些重要特征。事實上，值得注意的是，近年來出現了一些某個團體從一端“滑到”另一端的現象，尤其是從教條主義及相關傾向投入到資產階級式民主（如果他們仍然是在偽裝成共產主義）。以下是這些傾向所共有的一些重要特征。
　　
　　---------------------------原文-------------------------
　　Today, on the part of those who refuse to critically examine the historical experience of the communist movement, it is common to find the phenomena of insistence upon “class truth” and related reification of the proletariat, and generally an approach to communist theory and principles as some kind of dogma, akin to religious catechism—in essence: “We know all we need to know, we have all the fundamentals that are required, it’s just a matter of carrying out the handed-down wisdom.”
　　
　　At the opposite pole are those whose understanding of the historical experience of the communist movement—and in particular the causes of its difficulties, setbacks, and defeats—is also superficial and ill-founded, who ignore or dismiss scientific communist analysis of the profound contradictions that have given rise to the danger of capitalist restoration in socialist society, and who attempt to substitute in place of that analysis an approach based on bourgeois-democratic principles and criteria, and bourgeois-democratic notions of legitimacy—bound up with the formal process of elections, with competing political parties, so common in capitalist society and so compatible with and conducive to the exercise of political power by the capitalist class. Those who hold to these positions, even while continuing to claim the mantle of communism, are anxious to discard and distance themselves from the concept and the historical experience of the dictatorship of the proletariat—and in many cases the very term itself. In effect, such people are seeking to “unburden themselves” from the most liberating experience in human history so far! They claim to want to move rapidly ahead, to meet new conditions of the time...but they have their vehicles in the wrong gear, and they are moving rapidly in reverse—retreating at an accelerating pace into bourgeois democracy and the narrow confines of bourgeois right,14 traversing the centuries from the 21st back to the 18th.
　　
　　While the erroneous tendencies we have identified here involve real differences, there is also a significant aspect in which they are “mirror opposites,” and they actually share important characteristics in common. In fact, it is noteworthy that, in recent years, there has been a phenomenon of certain groups “flipping” from one pole to the other—and in particular from dogmatism and related tendencies to an embrace of bourgeois democracy (if still in the guise of communism). The following are some of the significant features these tendencies share in common.

　　
　　» Positivism, pragmatism, and empiricism. While again, this may take different expressions in accordance with different particular erroneous viewpoints and approaches, what is common to them is the vulgarization and degradation of theory—reducing it to a “guide to practice” only in the most narrow and immediate sense, treating theory as, in essence, a direct outgrowth of particular practice, and attempting to establish an equivalence between advanced practice (which itself, especially on these people’s part, involves an element of subjective and arbitrary evaluation) and supposedly advanced theory. A scientific communist, materialist and dialectical, viewpoint leads to the understanding that practice is the ultimate point of origin and point of verification of theory; but, in opposition to these narrow, empiricist distortions, this must be understood to mean practice in the broad sense, encompassing broad social and historical experience, and not simply the direct experience of a particular individual, group, party, or nation. The very founding, and the further development of, communist theory itself is a powerful demonstration of this: From the time of Marx, this theory has been forged and enriched by drawing from a broad array of experience, in a wide range of fields and over a broad expanse of historical development, in society and nature. Practice as the source of theory and the maxim that “practice is the criterion of truth” can be, and will be, turned into a profound untruth if this is interpreted and applied in a narrow, empiricist, and subjective manner.
　　 　　

　　38.
　　
　　 》很明顯，這些“鏡像對立”的錯誤傾向都共同的陷入到，或退回到過去的模式之中，以這樣或那樣的方式（即使特定模式可能會有所不同）：要么教條的抱著共產主義革命第一階段的老經驗不放；要么，相反的抱著一種不完整的、片面的、最終錯誤的理解；要么，索性退回到過去資產階級革命的時代和它相關的原則上：退回到本質上說是18世紀資產階級民主的理論上，打著“21世紀的共產主義”的幌子，或以此為名，實際上把這“21世紀的共產主義”等同于所謂的“純粹的”或者“無階級的”民主，這種民主，在現實中，只要階級依舊存在，它只可能意味著資產階級民主和資產階級專政。所有這一切，伴隨著忽視、認為過時和教條理解（或把對共產主義的理解訴諸于“共產主義基本知識”這種毫無意義的抽象的詞條，然后又將此與不相干的實際斗爭聯系起來），科學共產主義的根本內涵（是從巴黎公社革命以來，數以百萬計被壓迫者的鮮血中反復思考得來的）——舊的反動國家必須被推翻和搗毀，一個全新的國家必須被建立，并且在改造社會和解放全人類過程中，代表先前被剝削階級的革命利益——必須被理解，否則，革命斗爭的任何成果都將被浪費和破壞，革命力量將毀滅。
　　
　　 只有通過與這些錯誤傾向決裂，深入理解并越來越堅定共產主義的世界觀、方法論和原則，當它們發展到了這一點（同時也必須進一步往前發展）時，共產主義者便可站立起來，承擔起作為未來先鋒的重大責任和挑戰，而不是躑躅不前，或者墮落為過去的殘留，如此的話將會背叛全世界的人民大眾，對于他們來說，共產主義革命是能夠帶領他們逃離現行世界的瘋狂與恐怖，走向一個真正宜居世界的唯一一條道路。
　　
　　-----------------------原文----------------------------
　　» Very significantly, these “mirror opposite” erroneous tendencies have in common being mired in, or retreating into, models of the past, of one kind or another (even if the particular models may differ): either clinging dogmatically to the past experience of the first stage of the communist revolution—or, rather, to an incomplete, one-sided, and ultimately erroneous understanding of that—or retreating into the whole past era of bourgeois revolution and its principles: going back to what are in essence 18th century theories of (bourgeois) democracy, in the guise, or in the name, of “21st-century communism,” in effect equating this “21st-century communism” with a democracy that is supposedly “pure” or “classless”—a democracy which, in reality, as long as classes exist, can only mean bourgeois democracy, and bourgeois dictatorship.15 All this while ignoring, treating as outdated, or dismissing as dogma (or consigning to the meaningless category of the “ABCs of communism” which are acknowledged as an abstraction and then put to the side as irrelevant to the practical struggle) the fundamental, scientific communist understanding, paid for literally and repeatedly in the blood of millions of the oppressed from the time of the Paris Commune, that the old, reactionary state must be smashed and dismantled and a radically new state must be brought into being, representing the revolutionary interests of the formerly exploited in transforming all of society and emancipating all of humanity, or else any gains of the revolutionary struggle will be squandered and destroyed, and the revolutionary forces decimated.
　　
　　It is only by rupturing with these erroneous tendencies, and deeply engaging with and becoming more firmly grounded in the viewpoint, methods, and principles of communism, as they have been developed up to this point (and must be continually developed further), that communists can rise to the great responsibility and challenge of indeed being a vanguard of the future, and not consign themselves to remaining, or degenerating into, a residue of the past, and in so doing betray the masses of people throughout the world for whom the communist revolution represents the only road out of the madness and horror of the present world and toward a world truly worth living in.
　　 　　

　　
　　39.
　　
　　VI. 美國革命共產黨內部的文化革命
　　
　　 對于錯誤的、甚至公然的修正主義路線的影響，我們黨很難擺脫。事實上，我們在此所批判的修正主義路線和傾向不僅已經出現在我們黨內部，而且經過一些年的發展，到最近已經形成了一股強大的力量，給我黨成為革命共產主義先鋒隊的目標帶來了真正的危險，試圖使我們墮落為另一種亂七八糟的改革派，即使一段時間內還暫時保留共產主義的標簽。
　　
　　 在上世紀80年代到90年代期間，在我們黨內部，實際上存在兩個派別，代表了兩種根本對立的道路。一方面，有“官方的”黨的路線，以及該路線的進一步發展，這些新發展體現在鮑勃.艾沃肯新的整合理論，它們主要發表在黨的機關報（《革命勞動者》，現在為《革命》）以及其它一些黨的文件和出版物上。但同時，另一方面，隨著反對新整合理論及總體上的革命-共產主義路線的聲音的走強，修正主義觀點和路線在黨內各個級別中逐漸占據了上風，盡管他們并沒有對修正主義觀點和路線做出任何系統性的表達和討論，這些修正主義觀點和路線盡管在細節上有些不同，但客觀的說，它們有很大的一個共同點，那就是放棄共產主義革命世界觀與目標，力求融入帝國主義制度，并且充其量上只尋求一些這可怕制度內的改革。
　　
　　 這些修正主義路線的主要特征是什么，又是什么因素導致其實力的增長以及在黨內影響力的不斷提升？
　　
　　---------------------原文-------------------------------
　　VI.
　　A Cultural Revolution Within the RCP
　　
　　The influence of incorrect and even outright revisionist lines is hardly something to which our Party itself has been immune. In fact, the lines and tendencies we have criticized here have not only existed within our Party, but over a number of years, and until very recently, exerted a powerful pull and posed the real danger of our Party’s ceasing to be a revolutionary communist vanguard and instead degenerating into yet another motley collection of reformists, even if retaining, for a time at least, the label of communist.
　　
　　Over the period of the 1980s and 1990s, a situation had developed within our Party in which, in effect, there were two parties, representing two fundamentally opposed roads. On the one hand, there was the “official” line of the Party, and the ongoing development of that line, as embodied particularly in the new synthesis Bob Avakian was bringing forward and, in the main, expressed in the Party’s newspaper (the Revolutionary Worker, now Revolution) and other documents and publications of the Party. But at the same time, in increasing opposition to the new synthesis and the revolutionary-communist line overall, were revisionist views and orientations which, while not generally expressed and argued for in a systematic way, were becoming predominant on all levels of the Party—views and orientations which varied in certain particulars but had in common that, objectively, they amounted to abandoning the outlook and aims of the communist revolution, accommodating to the system of imperialism and settling for, at most, reforms within this horrific system.
　　
　　What were some of the main features of these revisionist lines, and main factors leading to their growth and increasing influence within our Party?
　　 　　

　　40.
　　
　　 » 共產主義在中國的失敗和共產主義革命第一階段的結束，以及上世紀60年代社會狂潮在美國和全球范圍內逐漸消退并進入70年代后，世界大多數帝國主義國家數十年內相對“穩定”，不僅使許多曾經立志為世界的根本變革而積極抗爭的人迷失方向、士氣低落，同樣也對共產主義者，包括我們美國革命共產黨造成了同樣的影響。共產主義政黨是由抱著同樣理想的人聚集起來的，他們對革命的必需性和可能性有著共同的先進的、科學的理解，他們都夢想著為人類帶來一個根本不同的、更好的未來。但是他們都生存在現行的體制之下，在這個體制下進行著他們的工作，他們不會，不能，也不應該與世界上其它的事物和那些對自己潛移默化的條件相隔離、相封閉。
　　
　　 與此同時，那些舊秩序的捍衛者和辯護者在過去的數十年中抓住共產主義革命的失敗和挫折不放，對共產主義進行無情的意識形態攻擊，在這種情況的影響下，試圖融入帝國主義，尤其是像美國這樣的國家的傾向變得愈發的強烈。
　　
　　 在許多年前的一次重要的黨內會議上，鮑勃.艾沃肯在他的發言中直面，并尖銳批判了黨內的修正主義路線，他的意見如下：
　　
　　--------------------------原文-------------------------
　　» The defeat in China and the end of the first stage of communist revolution—combined with decades of relative “stability” in the world’s most powerful imperialist country, after this defeat and the related ebbing of the great upsurge of the 1960s and into the early 1970s, in the U.S. as well as on a worldwide scale—not only had a disorienting and demoralizing effect on large numbers of people who had actively sought, and fought for, radical change in the world, as well as people more broadly, but this was also true among communists and within our Party. Communist parties are made up of people who come together on the basis of an advanced, scientific understanding of the necessity and possibility for revolution, aiming for a fundamentally different and far better future for humanity; but they exist and carry out their work within the present system—they are not, cannot be, and should not be separated, much less sealed off, from the rest of the world and the conditions it imposes and the pulls it exerts.
　　
　　At the same time, and seizing on the defeats and setbacks for the communist revolution, there has been the relentless ideological assault on communism carried out by the defenders and apologists of the old order over the past several decades, and the effect of this has been to make the pull toward accommodation with imperialism, especially in a country like the U.S., all the more powerful.
　　
　　Speaking to an important Party meeting several years ago—at which he directly confronted and sharply criticized the revisionist lines within the Party—Bob Avakian made the following observations:
　　 　　

　　41.
　　
　　 “讓我們再誠實的看下。我談到了我們將繼續品嘗中國的損失給我們帶來的苦果，我們決不能低估共產主義在中國的失敗，以及一切由此帶來的后果，一切帝國主義以此而進行的活動。中國，連同它對全世界無產者和世界無產階級革命所意味的一切，在文化大革命之后，在百萬、數百萬人經歷的動蕩（的確是一種改造他們世界觀的重要過程）之后，它的失去依然是我們要持續面對的，無論是從客觀現實，還是從我們自身的思想上。
　　
　　 如果你將此視為完全的“共產主義消亡”現象，視為反共產主義勢力的持續反抗和從各種方向上、以各種形式對中國文化大革命的詬病和誹謗，視為對中國革命和中國社會主義制度（實際上是對所有存在過的社會主義制度和無產階級專政）的詬病和誹謗；如果你思考過這些影響，而且你是個唯物主義者，使用辯證法，就不會認為它們不會影響到我們，只會影響到黨外人士。即使在我們的思想和靈魂中，在我們的內心深處，如果我們想要用“共產主義消亡”這個詞，難道對于這一切我們真的沒有問題么：為什么我們失敗了？如果我們是如此的合理，如果我們所追求的是如此的正確，那為什么最終會是這樣？我不認為有很多同志在內心里從未受到過這些問題的折磨，興許還不止一次。
　　
　　 對這些事情我們有答案，但是你必須去挖掘答案，不停的挖，而且你還需以科學的方法。你必須采取唯物論和辯證法的方法。”
　　
　　 然而問題是，雖然鮑勃.艾沃肯和黨內其他一些同志以這種方式進行“挖掘”，應用科學的世界觀和辯證唯物主義的方法，但黨內各個級別的多數同志，并不這樣做，反而是，在很大程度上，“購買了”對共產主義的誹謗，并且就如列寧所精辟闡述的那樣，自發的走到資產階級的羽翼之下，無論是在意識形態上還是在政治上：撤退到資產階級民主和法權的局限之中，緊隨改良主義運動的世界觀，這包括“認同政治”和相關的哲學意義上的相對主義（認為沒有客觀真理或者具有某種確定度的客觀真理，只有不同群體或個人的不同“敘事”，要么都是真的，要么都是假的），以改良替代革命作為根本的目標。
　　
　　----------------------------原文-------------------
　　“Let’s look again honestly at this. I talked about how we are still suffering from the effects of the loss of China. We should not underestimate this defeat in China, and everything it has brought forth, everything the imperialists have done on that basis, and have built on that. China, and everything it represented for the international proletariat and the world proletarian revolution—to lose that after the Cultural Revolution [in China], after millions and millions of people went through that upheaval, and yes, a significant process of remolding their world outlook—this is something we’re still coming to terms with, both in objective reality and in our own thinking.
　　
　　If you add to this the whole “death of communism” phenomenon, and the constant barrage of anti-communism and abuse and slander heaped from all directions and in all forms on the GPCR [the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution in China], on the Chinese revolution and socialism there, and in fact on all of the experience of socialist society and the dictatorship of the proletariat; if you think about the effect of all that, and you are a materialist and you apply dialectics, it is very difficult to think that we are immune from the effects of all that and that it only influences people outside the Party. Even in our thinking and our souls, if you want to use that term, in our heart of hearts, don’t we have questions about whether we were wrong about all this: Why did we lose? If we were so right, and if what we’re for is so correct, why did it end up this way? I don’t think there are very many comrades who can say they haven’t had those questions agonizing within them, probably more than once.
　　
　　We have an answer to those things, but you have to dig for that answer and you have to keep on digging—and you have to be scientific. You have to go to materialism and dialectics.”
　　
　　The problem was that, while Bob Avakian and a few others in the Party had been “digging” in this way, applying the scientific outlook and method of dialectical materialism, most of the Party, on all levels, was not doing so—and instead was, to a large degree, “buying into” the slanders of communism and becoming swept up in what Lenin so incisively identified as the spontaneous striving to come under the wing of the bourgeoisie, ideologically and politically: retreating into the confines of bourgeois democracy and bourgeois right, tailing after the outlooks characterizing the reformist movements—including “identity politics” and the related relativism philosophically (the idea that there is no objective truth, or that objective truth cannot be determined with any degree of certainty, and that there are merely different groups or individuals with different “narratives,” all equally true, or untrue)—and replacing revolution with reform as the basic objective.
　

　　42.
　　
　　 » 我們黨內的修正主義體現的正是共產主義運動中長期存在的修正主義特性，這一點已經被列寧揭示——它體現在這樣一種概念上：“（共產主義）運動本身就是一切，并無最終目的”，一切都被決定，必需的便是可能的，可能的便是業已做過的。這又使得在人民大眾中產生一種錯誤意義上的“挖掘”，偏離了革命和共產主義，充其量只是以一種毫無意義的、無生命力的方式導向改良主義，拋棄了本黨現行活動的真實意義，也割裂它們之間的聯系——結果是埋葬了革命和共產主義。黨員們總是很忙——被這事，被那事占據了時間，但革命與共產主義除外。
　　
　　 從本質上講，這是“經濟主義”的一種形式（備注：經濟主義是“以追求眼前經濟利益為特征的機會主義思潮。產生于19世紀末。認為無產階級的主要任務是進行經濟斗爭，反對進行推翻資產階級制度的斗爭，否認建立統一的馬克思主義政黨的必要性。”—百度百科）。在共產主義運動的歷史上，經濟主義意味著把工人階級的關心重點集中在眼前的經濟利益和斗爭之上，把它看作實現自身利益，并在某天實現社會主義和共產主義的“最普遍適用的方式”。列寧在其名著《怎么辦？》中對這種觀點進行了徹底的揭露和駁斥，他指出這種觀點永遠也不能發起一個志在共產主義的革命運動，它只會淪落在資本主義制度的體制內，限制了革命運動和其中的民眾。為了反對這種觀點，列寧強調，雖然對于共產主義者來說，親自參加或參與到重大的民眾斗爭之中，甚至努力去領導這些斗爭是非常重要的，但他們要做的是那些共產主義者應該去做的，他們的工作重點是：通過及時和令人信服的鼓動和宣傳，揭露資本主義制度的特性和本質，樹立我們的共產主義信念和目標，由此把這些斗爭和運動與革命和共產主義的目標聯系起來，使得這些斗爭和人民大眾不再是單純的自發行為，而是轉變為資本主義羽翼下的有目的行為，朝著革命目標前進。自列寧時代以將，經濟主義通過宣揚“最普遍適用的方式”這種概念，逐漸拓展了它的含義，它不再僅限于工人階級的經濟斗爭，還延伸至諸多階層之間斗爭的范疇——使得共產主義運動的根本重點集中在組織這種斗爭之上，而至少在口頭上，實際已將革命和共產主義的前景看作為某種抽象的東西，屬于遙遠的不確定未來，與現時的（社會）狀況、某個時間上的運動和斗爭毫無關聯。
　　
　　---------------------原文---------------------------------
　　» The revisionism within our Party was characterized by long-standing features of revisionism in the communist movement that Lenin had also exposed—which were embodied in the notion that “the movement is everything, the final aim is nothing,” and the determinist orientation that what is necessary is what is possible, and what is possible is what is already being done. This involved “digging in” among the masses in the wrong sense—on a narrow basis and with a narrow conception of struggle, with revolution and communism left to the side or at most “tacked on,” in a meaningless and lifeless way, to reformist work, and gutted of any real meaning and connection to the ongoing activity of the Party—in effect burying revolution and communism. Party members were often very busy—but occupied, or preoccupied, with everything but revolution and communism.
　　
　　In essence, this was a form of “economism.” Historically in the communist movement, economism has meant focusing the attention of the working class on its own immediate conditions and struggles as the “most widely applicable means” of winning them, some day, to socialism and communism—an approach which Lenin thoroughly exposed and refuted in his famous work What Is To Be Done?, where he showed that this approach will never lead to building a revolutionary movement aiming for communism but will only contribute to confining the movement, and the masses involved in it, within the framework of capitalism. In opposition to this, Lenin emphasized that, while it is important for communists to take part in and relate to significant struggles of the masses, and even to strive to lead many of these struggles, they must do so as communists, whose emphasis is on doing exposure of the features and nature of the capitalist system, through timely and compelling agitation and propaganda, setting before all our communist convictions and aims, and in this way linking the struggles and movements of the day with the goal of revolution and communism, diverting these struggles, and the masses of people, from the spontaneous striving to come under the wing of the bourgeoisie, and leading all this toward the revolutionary goal. Since the time of Lenin, economism has come to take on the broader meaning of applying the notion of “most widely applicable means” not only to economic struggles of workers but more generally to struggles among many different strata—making the essential focus of communist work organizing such struggles and in reality, if not always in words, treating the prospect of revolution and communism as something abstract and belonging to a far off realm in the indefinite future, with no living link to the present and the movements and struggles at any given time.

　　43.
　　
　　 本質上說，經濟主義以非革命替代革命，坐等革命形勢的主動來臨，經濟主義者的信條是：“以改革等待革命”——依照這種方法，革命永遠不會主動到來，也不能實際取得。經濟主義的基本特征表現為“跟隨民眾”，而不是爭做先鋒以便領導他們——向民眾學習，但在學習中加以領導，使他們的眼光得到提高進而認識到革命的可能性和必需性，與他們一起工作、抗爭，爭取他們信仰革命和堅持共產主義立場，為實現無產階級解放目標而斗爭。
　　
　　 經濟主義以及整體上的修正主義，在我們黨內的實際工作、生活和文化之中表現得越來越明顯，它們同時也體現出了共產主義運動中常見的實用主義和經驗主義特征（關于這一點，我們已經在上面討論過了），以及某種不可知論，對共產主義既定原則，甚至對革命和共產主義的可取性與可能性都提出了懷疑。對于目前的共產主義理論以及本黨主席鮑勃.艾沃肯所帶來的真正理論突破，大部分黨員所持的態度是忽視而不是反對，或者同樣毫無興趣的說“哇，真不賴”，然后束之高閣，獨染灰塵。這是因為這些共產主義理論以及它的理論突破，雖然對革命和共產主義目標來說是非常重要的，但對于那些深陷經濟主義和修正主義的人來說，卻是毫無價值沒有用的東西。
　　
　　 與上述相關的是，這種“修正主義繡包”里還有另外一個重要花樣，已經在我們黨內流行了起來，它并不將共產主義看作為一個真正的革命方向（我們必須堅持這種革命方向以改變世界，人民大眾能夠而且必須自覺主動的去為這種革命方向而奮斗），而是將共產主義減化為一種“可替代的生活方式”。根據這個觀點，我們黨正或多或少的走向自我證實的內在對立。有時這種“可替代的生活方式”令人忙著關注自己和其他人，不斷在不同的眼前利益間跳來跳去；有時又為自己是共產主義者而飄飄然、自我滿意，自認擁有了專門的歷史知識和倫理理論，然而縱使你擁有這些知識也努力嘗試過，你依舊可能永遠無法與別人溝通；有時它只意味著原地踏步，將重要思想扔到冷凍箱中不聞不問。我們黨的工作越來越多的采取向大眾灌輸枯燥思想理論的方法，將這些思想描述為“神秘知識的神殿”，進而將共產主義變成一種無生命力的、實質上宗教般的教條主義。
　　
　　--------------------------原文-----------------------------
　　In essence, in place of the orientation of revolutionary work in a non-revolutionary situation, hastening while awaiting the development of a revolutionary situation, the economist recipe is: reformist work pending revolution—a revolution which will never come and is never actually built for with this approach. What all manifestations of economism have as a fundamental characteristic is tailing the masses, instead of acting as a vanguard to lead the masses—learning from them, yes, but leading while learning—raising their sights to the possibility and necessity of revolution and working and struggling with them to win them to take up the revolutionary and communist standpoint and fight for its emancipating goals.
　　
　　» The economism and overall revisionism that was increasingly characterizing the actual work, life, and culture of our Party was also marked by the pragmatism and empiricism that has been so common in the communist movement (and which we have discussed above), as well as agnosticism about well-established principles of communism and even about the desirability as well as the possibility of revolution and communism. The ongoing theoretical work and real breakthroughs in communist theory that the Chairman of the Party, Bob Avakian, was carrying forward were not so much frontally opposed as largely ignored by most of the Party—or in some cases greeted with an equally uninterested “wow, heavy” and then put on the shelf to gather dust—because such theoretical work and the breakthroughs it produced, while crucial in relation to the goals of revolution and communism, were not of value and not “useful” to those mired in an economist and revisionist orientation.
　　
　　» Related to the above, another key element of the “revisionist package” that had gained such currency within our Party was the approach not of treating communism as a real, revolutionary orientation—which must be consistently applied to change the world, and which masses of people can and must be won to take up consciously and actively fight for—but instead reducing communism to an “alternative lifestyle.” With this viewpoint, the Party was becoming just one more self-validating oppositional niche, more or less trendy. Sometimes this “alternative lifestyle” meant busily preoccupying yourself, and everyone else, dashing from one immediate struggle to the next; sometimes it took the form of smug, dogmatic satisfaction at (supposedly) being a communist, with your special knowledge of history and set of ethics (that you could never connect with anyone, if you even still ever tried); sometimes it just meant marking time, putting critical thinking in the freezer. The work of the Party was increasingly marked by the approach of feeding the masses pablum while maintaining, as the special province of the “initiated,” what has been described as “a temple of secret knowledge”—turning communism into a lifeless, essentially religious, dogma.
　　 　　

    44.
　　
　　 在反對鮑勃.艾沃肯的著作、美國革命共產黨黨報、黨的其它出版物和官方文件，以及黨內主要公眾人物的運動中，書店也加入其中，比如，它們散發出舊時代的霉味（宣揚舊有的觀念），充當著忙碌的（非革命的）各色“運動中心”角色。這些反對運動有非常多的變化形式，但是它們的根源和結局是同樣的：修正主義。
　　
　　 伴隨與此的是明確的反感和刻意的避免在人民大眾之中進行意識形態上的斗爭，尤其是反對宗教觀念和概念以及其它落后觀點，而這些實際上正是束縛在人民大眾身上的枷鎖、精神鉸鏈。這種反感和刻意發展到了一定程度便成了不情愿甚至是直接的拒絕，進而成了反共產主義的偏見和成見，這種現象在今日非常普遍，但同時也非常膚淺。
　　
　　 總體而言，在最根本意義上，“修正主義派”代表了對革命的放棄：即使沒有明說或者以某種公開的態度表明，但他們的確采取了“我們已經看到了所有我們將要看到的革命”的態度。最多，革命只是遙遠將來的事情，或者是別人的事情，在其他地方，也許是第三世界，它能取得成功，但若遵照修正主義的觀點，革命成功與我們黨一直做的或應該做的基本無緣，當然我們也許可以去充當其它地方革命斗爭的拉拉隊。對我們黨以及它的文化來說，在這種修正主義的影響下，自由主義在黨內猖獗橫行，一種普遍的態度在本質上相當于說：“來吧，讓我們面對現實，你能指望什么？在這個國家你不可能擁有一個真正是革命先鋒隊的政黨，它的的確確配得上革命共產黨這個稱號。”
　　
　　 我們黨內的兩條路線在根本上相互對立，矛盾日益尖銳，其中一條是以鮑勃.艾沃肯新整合的方法論和觀點為基礎的新興勢力，另一條便是黨內所謂的“官方”路線、文件和黨刊，在另一方面說就是“修正主義派”，這兩者無論特征上，還是我們在此概述過的基本內容上都互不相同，在近幾年間它們已經發展到了如下的地步：這兩股對立的路線再也不能在黨內彼此共存下去了，或者這種共存將導致修正主義的勝利和真正充當了革命-共產主義先鋒隊角色的黨的滅亡。
　　
　　-------------------------原文------------------------
　　In opposition to the works of Bob Avakian and the Party’s newspaper and other publications and official documents, much of the public face of the Party—the bookstores associated with it, for instance—gave off the musty odor of relics of the past, or else the busy-ness of (non-revolutionary) “movement centers.” The variations in all this may have been many, but the source and result were the same: revisionism.
　　
　　» Along with all this was a definite aversion to, and a studied avoidance of, carrying out ideological struggle with masses of people, particularly in opposition to religious conceptions and notions as well as other backward viewpoints which are, in fact, shackles, mental chains, on the masses of people. This went so far as to include even a reluctance, or refusal, to take on the anti-communist prejudices and preconceptions that are now so widespread but at the same time so superficial.
　　
　　» Overall and most fundamentally, what this “revisionist package” represented was giving up on revolution: adopting—even if without saying so explicitly and in an open and aboveboard way—the attitude that “we’ve seen all the revolution we’re going to see.” At most, revolution was something for the distant future—or it was for others, somewhere else—perhaps it could succeed in the Third World but, with the revisionist viewpoint, that was seen as having very little in the way of a real, and living, relation to what our Party was doing or should do (other than, perhaps, to reduce itself to being vacuous “cheerleaders” of revolutionary struggles elsewhere). As for the Party and its culture, under the influence of this revisionism, liberalism ran rampant and a general attitude took hold that said in essence: “C’mon, let’s be realistic—what do you expect?—you can’t have a party in this country that is really a vanguard of revolution, that is actually worthy of the name Revolutionary Communist Party.”
　　
　　The fundamentally antagonistic and increasingly acute contradiction between these two lines—the developing body of work and method and approach of Bob Avakian and the “official” line, documents, and publications of the Party, on the one hand, and the “revisionist package,” with the various features and the essential content we have outlined here—came fully to a head in the last few years: These opposing lines could no longer coexist within the Party, or such “coexistence” would lead to the triumph of revisionism and the end of the Party as any kind of a real revolutionary-communist vanguard.
　　 　　

　　45.
　　
　　 誘發黨內因為這些分歧而爆發公開的、深刻的沖突的原因出現在這樣的背景下：黨內正準備發起一場運動，以便建立以鮑勃.艾沃肯同志為領導人的黨內新格局，創立以理解、提高認識以及普及他的研究成果、方法論與觀點為核心的黨內文化。創建這種文化如今已被視為我們黨全方位革命工作的兩個支柱之一（另一個支柱是我黨的報刊，所有這些在我們黨新的黨章中都有討論）。但在那時，也就幾年之前，黨內對此的討論比以往更清楚的揭露了一點：在黨內，就像最近一份黨內文件所提及的，“對黨主席鮑勃.艾沃肯的革命和共產主義再設想理論，即新整合（提出這些理論恰恰是黨主席的首要工作責任）缺乏深入的理解。”這份黨內文件如此說：
　　
　　 “這項新整合工作在這一點上已經持續了25年，但修正主義路線正在背棄這項工作，首先是不理解，然后隨著事情的發展，進而直接反對了。
　　
　　 一些新的事物曾經(現在依舊)努力的展現在世界的面前；它奮力向上，不僅反對常規的智慧，也反對教條主義，和共產主義中的改良主義。但是它要么遭受到黨內同志的反對…要么就被忽視，要么最多只是被視為“有趣的玩意”。它的內容普遍沒有被掌握，或者被折衷的反對。在實踐中它被看作無關緊要的東西。粗俗的經驗主義“理論不能先于實踐”…從未受到根本性的挑戰，大行其道。
　　
　　 自中國十年文化大革命之后，太多的人都不能將馬克思主義從修正主義中區分出來， 鮑勃.艾沃肯對這個難題進行了深入的研究。這個難題被許多同志忽視過，也有許多同志為此寢食不安過。他深入研究這些極端棘手的問題并尋找到了答案，然而卻再次遭遇反對，要么是直接的反對，要么通過“忽視”來達到這一目的。這種修正主義的反對行為在客觀上達到了“買斷”“共產主義之死”的目的，通過此，它用冰冷的、教條主義式的宗教般的信仰替代了鮮活的、發展著的共產主義，后者實際上正在努力解決（和提供答案）《我們為什么失去了中國》中所提到的痛苦問題。”
　　
　　 在這點上，我們黨內修正主義與共產主義之間的對立不僅表現得越來越明顯，而且已經尖銳的集中在這樣的問題上：對于在鮑勃.艾沃肯領導下能夠獲得的一切認識和他的新整合理論的核心，我們是否應該充分理解并將它們灌輸給人民大眾，或者干脆拋棄它們，拒絕按此行事。在這些情況下，前者代表了在革命和共產主義的道路上繼續前行，這是因為鮑勃.艾沃肯所提出的理論本身、方法論和觀點，在共產主義的發展過程中，表現為一種有生命力的科學和革命戰略方向；而我們黨內的另一派，則代表了向改良主義和帝國主義的后退，縱使它依舊保持著“共產主義”，把共產主義當做一種宗教教義和（或者）一類“可替換的生活方式”。
　　
　　 在充分認識到局勢的嚴重性、其中的利害關系和相關風險，以及克服危機只能依靠黨內核心層后，鮑勃.艾沃肯大膽的提出在美國革命共產黨進行一場文化大革命。同時他指出，這必須是一場發生在“革命長征”中間階段的文化大革命，通過這個比喻強調了我們黨的根本性變革和振興（即這場文化大革命的目的和宗旨），必須在對更大范圍內客觀世界改造的背景下進行，而且也必須從根本上服務于這種改造。這項工作的開展必須在共產主義原則和目標的指導下進行，以期成為一個革命的而非改良的運動。我們在此討論諸久的原因是，這場文化大革命的重點和關鍵問題在于我們是把根基建筑在鮑勃.艾沃肯所提出的理論本身、方法論和觀點上，并且遵循這種先進的新整合理論以及它所蘊含的革命戰略；還是轉身離開這種理論，代之以另一種修正主義或折衷主義。
　　
　　 在今年年初的一次對黨員談話中，鮑勃.艾沃肯闡述了文化大革命初始階段的方針：
　　
　　-----------------------原文----------------------------
　　The precipitating factor, leading to open and profound struggle over these fundamental differences, occurred in the context where the Party was preparing to carry out a campaign of building a culture of appreciation, promotion, and popularization of Bob Avakian’s role as a communist leader, as concentrated in his body of work and method and approach. Building this culture of appreciation, promotion, and popularization has now come to be recognized as one of the two mainstays of our Party’s all-around revolutionary work (the other mainstay is wielding our Party’s press—all this is discussed in our Party’s new Constitution). But at the time, only a few years ago, discussions about this within the Party revealed, more clearly than had been apparent before, that within the Party itself there was, as a recent internal Party document puts it, “an abysmal lack of appreciation for what had actually been the principal content of the Chair’s work—his re-envisioning of revolution and communism, the new synthesis.” As this internal document goes on to point out:
　　
　　The work of this new synthesis had been going on for 25 years at that point; but the revisionist line was turning away from that work, first in non-comprehension and then, as things developed, objective opposition.
　　Something new was—and is—struggling to be born into the world; it’s fighting uphill against both conventional wisdom and the dogmatism, along with reformism, of the communists. But this was either opposed by comrades...or else this was ignored, or at most treated as “interesting.” And almost universally its content was not grasped (or eclectically opposed). In practice it was treated as irrelevant. The vulgar empiricism that “theory cannot run ahead of practice”...went essentially unchallenged in the ranks.
　　
　　Bob Avakian had been confronting and going deeply into the real problems that had led to all too many people being unable to distinguish Marxism from revisionism after ten years of the GPCR in China. This was ignored by many comrades, and some became downright uncomfortable with this. The fact that he had gone deeply into this and begun to develop answers to these extremely vexing questions: again, opposed—either outright, or through “ignore-ance.” This [revisionist opposition] amounted, objectively, to “buying into” the “death of communism”—in that it replaced living, developing communist leadership, actually grappling with (and forging answers to) the agonizing questions of “why we lost China” with frozen, dogmatic religious faith.
　　At this point, the opposition between the revisionist and communist lines in our Party had not only become more fully expressed but had become clearly and sharply focused on the question of whether to grasp, and boldly take out to the masses of people, what is represented by the leadership of Bob Avakian and is concentrated in the new synthesis he is bringing forward—or whether to reject this and refuse to act on it. In these circumstances, the former represented advancing on the road of revolution and communism—because the role of Bob Avakian and his body of work and method and approach consists, above all, in the development of communism, as a living science and strategic revolutionary orientation—while the opposition to this within our Party represented, in a concentrated way, retreating into reformism and capitulation to imperialism, even if this was done while maintaining “communism” as some kind of religious catechism and/or an “alternative lifestyle.”
　　Fully recognizing the seriousness of the situation and the stakes, as well as the risks, involved—and able to rely at that point only on a very small core within the Party leadership—Bob Avakian boldly issued a call for a Cultural Revolution within the RCP. At the same time, he insisted that this must be a Cultural Revolution in the midst of a Long March—emphasizing through this metaphor that the radical transformation and revolutionary revitalization of the Party, which was the purpose and aim of this Cultural Revolution, must be carried out in the context of, and fundamentally to serve, the transformation of the larger objective world—the carrying out of work by the Party which would actually be guided by communist principles and objectives and would build a revolutionary, and not a reformist, movement. For the reasons that have been discussed here, the focal point and cardinal question of this Cultural Revolution was whether to base ourselves on and actively carry out the new synthesis and the overall body of work and method and approach of Bob Avakian, and the advance in communist theory and strategy that this concentrates, or whether to turn away from that and adopt instead one or another variation—or some eclectic stew—of revisionism.
　　
　　In a talk earlier this year to a group of Party members, Bob Avakian spoke about his orientation at the start of this Cultural Revolution:
　　 　　

　　46.
　　
　　 “大約5年前，我就發現和遭遇到了這些事情，在那時，盡管黨在“官方”路線上還堅持著革命-共產主義的方針，但實際上，黨內到處充斥著修正主義并且被修正主義所左右。對我而言，有三個選擇，這三個選擇是：
　　
　　1、接受既定事實，在本質上放棄一切我們黨本應該遵循的東西；
　　
　　2、退~黨，重新組建一個新黨；
　　
　　3、在黨內發起一場文化革命。
　　
　　 我當時相信，現在也依舊認為，就像我在別處和今早說過的那樣，最后一種選擇才是正確的、也是必須的方向。這是因為，首先一個已經存在的政黨是值得去珍惜的，此外倘若不成熟地、不正確地放棄這個黨再去創立一個新的政黨，那也是非常艱難的。但是，是的，這是真的，這世界沒有哪個黨是神圣不可侵的，如果美國革命共產黨不能真正成為革命的先鋒隊，那就甩了它——讓我們去做點別的事情，得到別的東西。但我當時相信，現在也如此認為，我們決不能放棄我們黨，除非在客觀上和科學上都明確表明，已經沒有任何希望將它改造為它本應該的面目。”
　　
　　 文化大革命不是黨內清洗，而是斗爭——意識形態上的斗爭，它的目的與方法不是針對個人，而是將革命主義路線和修正主義路線二者進行比較與對照，通過這種方式以革命主義路線來加深黨和黨員的基礎，同時揭露和批判修正主義路線，與之決裂，進而恢復和激勵各級別黨員堅定自己革命者和共產主義者的身份；堅定采取科學共產主義方法論和觀點；拯救和振興美國革命共產黨，使之成為一支真正的革命共產主義先鋒隊，有能力、有決心承擔起它應盡的責任。黨內的文化大革命，它的實質與進程在它發起后的5年間，經歷了各種各樣的復雜情況，有時甚至是非常激烈的情況。它經歷了許多的曲折，它要求我們進行不斷的、更深層次的意識形態上的斗爭，從而在部分黨員以及黨身上剔除掉修正主義的影響，再一次實現飛躍，成為更深意義上的共產主義者和共產主義先鋒隊，這是我們本該做的，也是我們現在決心去做的。它經歷了諸多不同階段，并在早期階段取得了決定性的進展，當時黨的路線在基本層面上處于革命路線上，并在鮑勃.艾沃肯的領導下朝著革命路線繼續發展和奮斗，在此基礎之上加強黨的決心與能力，貫徹文化大革命，從而擊敗修正主義，挽救和振興我黨作為革命共產主義先鋒隊的這一目標。
　　
　　-------------------原文-------------------------
　　“As I saw and confronted things at the time, more or less 5 years ago, there were three basic choices when it became clear that, despite the continuing revolutionary-communist character of the Party’s “official” line, the Party was in fact “saturated with” and even characterized by revisionism. The three choices were:
　　
　　accept this Party as it was, and in essence give up on what the Party is supposed to be all about;
　　
　　quit, and set out to start a new Party;
　　
　　or, launch the Cultural Revolution.
　　
　　I believed then, and still believe now, for reasons I’ve spoken to elsewhere and earlier today, that the latter course was the only correct course and the necessary course. This is for reasons having to do with how precious a party is, and how difficult it would be to create a new party if in fact prematurely and incorrectly this Party were given up on. But, yes, it is true, there is nothing holy about a party, and if it’s not going to be a revolutionary vanguard, then fuck it!—let’s do something else and get something else. But I believed then, and believe now, that we must not give up on this Party unless objectively and scientifically it is clearly indicated that there is no hope for actually transforming this Party into what it needs to be.”
　　
　　This Cultural Revolution was not a purge but a struggle—an ideological struggle whose purpose and method was not to target individuals but to compare and contrast the revolutionary line with the revisionist line and in this way to deepen the foundation of the Party, and its members, in the revolutionary line while exposing, criticizing, and rupturing with the revisionist line—to revive and give even greater impetus to the orientation of Party members, on all levels, as revolutionaries and communists, to ground this more firmly in a scientific communist method and approach, and to rescue and revitalize the Party as a whole as a real revolutionary-communist vanguard capable of and determined to take on its responsibilities as that, and nothing less. The course and nature of this Cultural Revolution, over the five or so years since its initiation, has been complex and at times intense. It has involved a number of twists and turns and has required repeated, and deepening, ideological struggles to bring about a basic rupture, on the part of members of the Party and the Party as a whole, with revisionism and a leap to becoming—once again, and on a more profound basis—communists and the communist vanguard we are required to be and are now determined to be. It has been marked by different stages, with a decisive advance taking place in its early stages, when the leadership of the Party collectively rallied, in fundamental terms, to the revolutionary line and the leadership of Bob Avakian in developing and fighting for that line, and on that basis deepened its determination and ability to carry this Cultural Revolution through to defeat revisionism and rescue and revitalize the Party as a revolutionary-communist vanguard.
　　 　　

　　47.
　　
　　 就像預計的那樣，這種規模的斗爭帶有很大的賭注，在黨內文化大革命的過程中，我們黨與那些愿意與帝國主義保持和平、容忍帝國帝國主義滔天罪行的人分道揚鑣了，盡管這些人有時仍然自稱為共產主義者，或者也會表達出對更好世界的期望，然而，他們不愿意擔負斗爭的職責，不愿意接受可能的犧牲，而犧牲正是實現這一期望所必須的。有些人拒絕，或者發現自己無法同修正主義決裂，所以退~黨（或者被人說服后退~黨）。那些退~黨的人，除了少數的例外，大多數人不相信革命是可能的，至少在這個國家、在任何有意義的時間框架內是不可能的，同時，甚至有一些人承認他們已不再把革命和共產主義視為可取的。實際上，這并不意味著革命是不可能的、共產主義是不可取的，而是意味著這些人的革命意志和共產主義理想已經退化了，意味著不像那些已經通過黨內文化大革命考驗并再次將自己與共產主義事業深深聯系在一起的黨員同志那樣，這些背棄黨的人認識到，革命和共產主義的目標要求他們承擔“艱辛的工作，危險的工作，經常不受歡迎的‘反潮流’工作，以實現革命和共產主義的目標。”但他們不愿意承擔。他們不再符合我們黨章中所提及的基本準則。（黨章第二部分：組織原則）：
　　
　　 “美國革命共產黨是由那些為幫助實現人類最偉大需要而走到一起的人組成的，這個偉大需要是：革命，朝著共產主義邁出第一步。他們嚴肅沉靜，飽含熱愛，激蕩決心與熱情，愿意為此獻出自己的生命。”
　　
　　 在其主要方面和本質上，我們黨內文化大革命的結果是黨的革命和共產主義世界觀、目標、精神和文化的真正振興，我們竭盡所能的為美國的革命而奮斗，為全世界同樣的革命事業（最終目標都是共產主義）提供最大的幫助，我們正視和科學對待一切由此造成的復雜性、困難、危險和可能后果。這個斗爭在黨內，將依靠新的基礎而繼續進行，進一步加強和深化它的革命性和基礎，以黨的革命共產主義路線為指引，繼續努力的、有創造性的推進革命事業。
　　
　　----------------------原文-------------------------
　　As should be expected in a struggle of this magnitude and with these stakes, the process of the Cultural Revolution in our Party has been one which has involved a dividing out with those who were willing to make their peace with imperialism and its monstrous crimes, even if sometimes they would still call themselves communists, or would express the wish that a better world could be brought into being, so long as they did not have to take responsibility for the struggle, and face the sacrifices that would be required to actually make this a reality. Some people refused, or found themselves unable, to rupture with revisionism and so resigned (or were prevailed upon to resign) from the Party. For the most part, and with a few exceptions,17 those who have left the Party have done so on the basis of insisting that they do not believe that revolution is possible—at least not in this country, not in any meaningful time frame—while some have even acknowledged that they no longer regard revolution and communism as desirable. In reality, what this means is not that revolution is not possible, and communism not desirable, but that these people’s revolutionary will and communist orientation have degenerated and—unlike those who have come forward through the course of the Cultural Revolution in our Party, and once again and more deeply have committed themselves to the cause of communism—those who have turned their back on the Party and on revolution recognize that this revolution and its goal of communism will require, but they are not willing to undertake, “the hard work, the risky work, the often unpopular and ‘going against the tide’ work, to make this a reality.”18 They no longer meet the basic criteria spelled out in our Party’s Constitution (Part II. Principles of Organization):
　　
　　The Revolutionary Communist Party, USA is made up of people who have come together to help fulfill the greatest need before humanity: making revolution, as the first step toward communism. They have fully dedicated their lives to this—with great seriousness and great love; with great determination and great passion.19
　　
　　In its principal aspect and most essentially, the outcome of the Cultural Revolution within our Party has been a real revitalization of the revolutionary and communist outlook, objectives, spirit, and culture of the Party—a Party facing squarely, and confronting scientifically, the complexities, the difficulties and the dangers, as well as the inspiration, of doing all it can to work for revolution in this country, and to contribute the most it can to this same cause throughout the world, all aiming for the final goal of communism. And the struggle continues, on a new basis, within the Party to further strengthen, and deepen, its revolutionary character and foundations, in the context of vigorously and creatively carrying out revolutionary work, based on what is in fact the revolutionary-communist line of this Party.
　　 　　

　　48.
　　
　　 在共產主義革命第一階段結束至今的整個時期內，我們黨，還有一直關心著我們的人民大眾，以及更廣泛意義上的那些客觀利益依附在共產主義革命上的人們，由于在我們黨內日漸得勢的修正主義的影響，一直為那些對共產主義革命第一階段采取錯誤的總結和分析方法的的潮流所苦。帝國主義，老的和新的，蠻橫的抓住這一形勢，更加無情的掠奪世界，發動了一場無情的意識形態戰爭和政治戰爭，企圖摧毀社會主義第一階段所取得的那些偉大成就，詆毀共產主義革命科學，這一革命科學揭示了現實世界斗爭的可能性并引導了這個斗爭，從而實現那些偉大的成就。通過黨內的文化大革命，我們變得更加強大，在更高的層次上團結一致，在思想上、政治上和組織上，更加堅定的立足于共產主義科學，同時由于鮑勃.艾沃肯提出的新整合理論以及對這個理論的理解，共產主義科學得到了進一步的發展，鮑勃.艾沃肯的新整合理論是一個鮮活的科學理論，我們必須通過不斷的斗爭，繼續遵循并進一步發展它。
　　
　　 我們始終堅持共產主義的原則和目標，拒絕為改良主義而拋棄革命路線，為此我們付出了很多代價，改良主義的車轍已爛，毫無未來，雖然有人聲稱改良主義更符合“現實”，某種程度上更有“效用”，但無數的痛苦經驗一次又一次的表明，改良主義只有在使人民深陷資產階級統治和資本主義壓迫痛苦深淵時，才有“效用”。但是在承受這個代價的同時，現在我們做好了更大的準備以承擔我們必須承當的重大責任，我們有更大的決心去滿足擺在我們面前的需要，以鮑勃.艾沃肯的新整合理論為基礎，為美國的革命而積極奮斗，為此目標我們做任何能做的事情，貢獻任何有意義的貢獻，同時，以同樣的態度，為世界范圍內的共產主義運動而奮斗。
　　
　　 我們充分意識到如此做可能面臨的問題和風險，由此我們正在總結自己的經驗，并且通過這個經驗我們更深刻也更牢固的掌握了諸多認識，這個經驗因其共產主義運動本身，以及給我們整個事業帶來的深刻教訓和影響，為外人所周知。我們的經驗，尤其通過黨內的文化大革命，極大的提升了我們對一些問題的理解：對全世界這兒那兒的被壓迫大眾而言這意味著什么，對人類的未來而言這意味著什么；這個理解便是這樣一個政黨從未被擊敗和摧毀，這個政黨不僅保存下來了，而且還取得了真正的復興，不斷在思想上、政治上，以及革命觀點、共產主義方向和以科學為基礎的決心上得到加強，不懈努力，獲得此種理解后，縱使在帝國主義們強大的淫威下，全世界的人民也能聯合起來，朝著共同的目標，不斷的自覺革命。正如我們黨主席鮑勃.艾沃肯最近所寫道：
　　
　　 “利用這種方式，倚仗這種科學基礎，通過這種科學方法論和觀點的應用，對于革命和共產主義，我們能夠，也必須擁有一種壓倒一切的精神力量和胸懷壯志的滿腔激情（借用了濟慈的一句詩句）。”
　　
　　-----------------------原文-----------------------------
　　Over a whole period of time, our Party has suffered—while masses of people who have looked to the Party, and the masses of people more broadly whose objective interests lie with communist revolution, have also suffered—as a result of the revisionism which had gained increasing influence within our Party, being fed by, and in turn strengthening, the tendency to adopt an incorrect summation and approach to the situation where the first stage of communist revolution had ended with the restoration of capitalism in China, and imperialists, old and new, were on a rampage to seize on this situation to even more ruthlessly plunder the world and to wage an unrelenting ideological and political war in the attempt to demolish any remaining respect for the great things that had actually been accomplished in that first stage of socialism and to discredit the revolutionary science of communism which brought to light the possibility and gave guidance to the real-world struggle that made possible those great achievements. Through the course of the Cultural Revolution in our Party, we have emerged much stronger, and unified on a much higher level, ideologically and politically as well as organizationally, more firmly grounded in the science of communism, as it has been further developed through the new synthesis brought forward by Bob Avakian, and with the understanding of this as a living science which we must continue to apply and to further develop, in an ongoing way and through continuing struggle.
　　
　　We have paid a price for sticking to communist principles and objectives and refusing to abandon the road of revolution for the well-worn ruts of reformism—which, it is claimed, is more “realistic” and will somehow “work”—when bitter experience has shown, over and over again, that this can only “work” to keep people contained within the killing confines of bourgeois rule and capitalist oppression. But having paid this price, we are now more prepared to take on the great responsibilities we must shoulder, more determined to rise to great needs before us—to actively work for revolution here, on the basis of the new synthesis brought forward by Bob Avakian, to make everything we do actively and meaningfully contribute to that revolutionary goal, and to fight for this same understanding and orientation in the communist movement in the world as a whole.
　　
　　Fully aware of very real problems and risks that may be involved in doing so, we are making our experience—and what we have come to grasp, more deeply and firmly, through this experience—known to others, in the communist movement and more broadly, because of its profound lessons and its great importance for our whole cause. Our experience, particularly through the Cultural Revolution in our Party, has greatly raised our understanding of what it means for the masses of oppressed, here and around the world, and for the future of humanity, that such a Party has not been defeated and destroyed—that it has not only persevered but has achieved a real revitalization and strengthening, ideologically, politically and in terms of strategic revolutionary approach and communist orientation and a scientifically grounded determination to work tirelessly to make this understanding a powerful, living reality of masses of people consciously fighting for revolution, yes in this mightiest of all imperialist powers, in unity with people doing the same throughout the world. As our Chairman, Bob Avakian, has recently written:
　　
　　“It is in this way, it is on this scientific foundation and through the application of this scientific method and approach, that we can, and should, have a conquering spirit—and an orientation of (to borrow a phrase from a poem by Yeats) passionate intensity—for revolution and communism.20”
　　 　　

　　49.
　　
　　VII. 結論：改變與號召
　　
　　 我們在此所說的，我們在美國革命共產黨黨章結論中所說的，都是我們所堅持的和信仰的：
　　
　　 “美國革命共產黨承擔著在美國這個帝國主義怪獸核心國家領導革命的使命，在全世界革命和共產主義最終目標的實現過程中也擔負著重要的責任。這是一個偉大的、歷史性的事業，所有渴望這種事業的人都應該團結起來，支持美國革命共產黨這個革命的先鋒隊，與它一起戰斗，相互扶持，并且以同樣的事業和共產主義世界觀為基礎，加入它。
　　
　　 全人類的解放是我們的最終目標，除此之外，別無它愿。這世界，沒有比此更偉大的事業，沒有比此更值得我們去獻身的目標。”
　　
　　 我們在此所說的一切，我們直接地、坦率地戳穿的一切，應該給予更大的意義和更多的強調，以便號召人民站立起來，分享或者尊重我們要創造一個沒有剝削與壓迫的全新世界的決心，為我們黨提供援助和支持。
　　
　　 全世界所有的革命者和共產黨人，所有渴望另一個完全不同的、更美好的世界的人們：我們決不能倒退回過去，無論是以哪種形式，讓我們朝著共產主義偉大目標勇敢前進，朝著將全人類從數千年傳統枷鎖中解放出來的偉大目標大膽前進！
　　
　　
　　 《完結》
　　
　　
　　------------------------原文------------------------
　　VII.
　　Conclusion: A Challenge and a Call
　　
　　We mean what we have said here, and we mean what we say in the Conclusion of our Party’s Constitution:
　　
　　“The Revolutionary Communist Party, USA has taken the responsibility to lead revolution in the U.S., the belly of the imperialist beast, as its principal share of the world revolution and the ultimate aim of communism. This is a great and historic undertaking—and all those who yearn to see this happen should rally to and support this vanguard, working together with the party, building support for it and, on the basis of taking up the cause and outlook of communism, joining it.
　　
　　The emancipation of all humanity: this, and nothing less than this, is our goal. There is no greater cause, no greater purpose to which to dedicate our lives.21”
　　
　　All that we have spoken to here, and what we have laid bare, in direct and unvarnished terms, should give even greater meaning and emphasis to the call for people who share, or respect, our determination to bring a new world into being, without exploitation and oppression, to rally to the aid and support of this Party.
　　
　　To the revolutionaries and communists everywhere, to all those who thirst for another, radically different and far better world: Let us not retreat into and retrench in the past, in whatever form—let us instead go forward boldly toward the goal of communism and the emancipation of humanity from thousands of years of tradition’s chains.
　　
　　 the End
　　 　　

× 烏有之鄉 WYZXWK.COM

您的打賞將用于網站日常運行與維護。
幫助我們辦好網站，宣傳紅色文化！

歡迎掃描下方二維碼，訂閱烏有之鄉網刊微信公眾號