天易网

 找回密码
 注册
查看: 533272|回复: 103

郭国汀:马克思恩格斯列宁之无产阶级专政辩

  [复制链接]
发表于 2/19/2013 20:16:29 | 显示全部楼层 |阅读模式
本帖最后由 郭国汀 于 4/10/2015 14:14 编辑

马克思恩格斯列宁之无产阶级专政辩析
郭国汀[1]

    20世纪末著名社会学家赫伯特史滨塞,是全世界第一个准确预言共产主义必定灭亡的大师。1898年当全球并无一个所谓社会主义国家存在时,他即宣称即将到来的社会主义是“奴役制”,但他坚信社会主义将取得胜利。1905年在接受采访后,他写了一信确认:“尽管来自各方所有的反对,社会主义将不可避免取得胜利;它的建立将是人类有史以来最大的灾难;迟早它将被军事暴政终结[2]。除了最后一点不太准确之外,其它各项均惊人地准确。苏联和东欧共产党政权的虽然并非被军事暴政终结,但是所有的共产党政权本身皆变成了实质的军事暴政。俄国马克思主义之父普列汉诺夫于1917年预言:“布尔什维克党之所以有力量,在于其消耗我们的人民和无视我国的社会经济条件。布党将持续多年,我们的人民唯有在蒙受巨大的教训后才会觉悟。然后布党将终结,但是布党灭亡之日仍相当遥远。”[3]美国著名历史学家史德华史密斯早在1964年即写了一部类似《共产主义黑皮书》的巨著指出:“共产主义仅是一种完全悖离整个人类进化史的政治意识形态,且由于其实质反人性,它必将在未来无法准确测定之日,被今天仍受其统治的人民抛弃”。[4]
多年法学翻译实践经验告诉我,中共控制下的政治法律领域所有的重要文献的翻译,克意误译比比皆是,仅举“无产阶级专政”一例。“The Dictatorship of The Proletariat",其中之“无产阶级”和“专政”均明显是错译。因为工薪阶级决不等同于无产阶级,1840年代美国熟练工人日薪高达1。25美元,可买上好土地一英亩(等于六亩)!因此工薪阶级决不等同于一文不名的流氓无产阶级!原文唯有“独裁”而没有“专政”之意,专政与专制同义,与独裁并不属同义词;独裁是一种源自古代罗马共和时代的宪政制度,有相当合法性,在法定范围内在既定期限内(六个月)由授权之公民为公共目的例如国家安全和秩序,行使绝对权力;而专制(专政)往往是暴政,没有任何法律依据,不受任何法律制约,纯为一党或少数人的私利,无限期对全社会全体人民实行专制,因而专政或专制完全非法。

    "The Dictatorship ofThe Proletariat"中共克意误译之为“无产阶级专政”经考查马克思原著语境,吾以为应当还原为“工薪阶级独裁”,因为马克思认为现代资本主义大生产将产生大量产业工人队级,其人数将占人口总数的绝大多数,马指的独裁是指这些占人口绝大多数的产业工人阶级,并非所谓“无产阶级”,因为工人阶级与无产阶级并非同一概念。是因为无论苏联还是中国革命夺权实质上皆非产业工人阶级的努力,苏联是极左权欲知识分子为主体的布尔什维克党,发动政变夺权;而中共则主要是利用农民,两者皆几乎没有产业工人阶级介入革命。“Proletariat”原意并非“无产者”而是领工薪者,包括工人,及所有领薪职业者,例如律师,教师。更值一提的是“专政”实质与“专制”同义,而“独裁”与“专制”有重大原则性区别:专制没有任合法性,不受任何法律限制制约,专制者法遵守法律宪法任意为私利统治;而独裁在某种意义上有相当合法性,独裁者必须在法定范围内经合法授权在法定期内为公共利益行使绝对的权力。因此,本文以“工薪阶级独裁”,取代中共译之“无产阶级专政”。

    ‘proletariat’(工薪阶级)术语的含义?早期,它从其产业工人扩展包括手工业工匠群众;后来,服务业阶级或商业工人亦包括时通常之工薪劳工群体,其利益与资本家冲突。因此工人阶级之社会群体,根据上下文,包括许多不同的成份。新出现的中产群体,及在法国和德国的农民。该词马克思的本意肯定不是所谓“无产阶级”而是产业工人阶级,特别是制造业工人阶级。尽管后来该词含义有所扩大,但无论如何并非指流氓无产者阶级,[5]而各国共产革命最主要的力量正是流氓无产者。毛泽东指出贫雇农最革命,而毛氏革命的含义,实质上即抢劫和杀害富人,这早已为中共的罪恶史实所证实。流氓无产者一无所有,唯有命有一条,拼死一博,或许还能荣华富贵,这正是所有的共产党政权均痛恨知识分子而亲流氓无赖的根源。无论在土地改革运动中,还是在所谓人民公社化运动中,农民中最活跃者大多是当地的地疲流氓无赖二流子之流演变成“贫下中农积极分子”,成为中共暴政的农村基础。

一、独裁一词的原始含义

    英语之独裁‘dictatorship’源于古代罗马共和国之“dictatura”是一种宪政制度,由元老院选举产生的两位执政官特别授权某公民(将军)在限制期间内(六个月)为限定目的行使紧急状况下的绝对权力,旨在为公共利益,外抗强敌,内平暴乱,以维护共和;但苏拉是第一个滥用该制度者,他于公元前89年令其同谋提议了一项法律,授权苏拉为“永久的独裁者”;随后公元前44年凯撒亦学样,利用权势通过立法宣布自已为永久的独裁者,最终毁灭了共和变成罗马帝国[6]。古代罗马的独裁制度与现代之诫严法制度相似。其有三项显著特征:基于宪政法制,不是暴政,是临时措施且是有限的。值得一提的是,独裁者一词在许多情况下甚至是中性词,因为其具有相当的合法性。例如,1862年在美国内战期间,国会授权总统范围极广的绝对权力,因此国会使得林肯几乎成为“独裁者”.[7] 而二战期间,罗斯福总统亦曾被称作“独裁者“。

二、1848年前后“独裁”术语的基本含义

    在1848年革命期间,“独裁”的基本含义,可以从临时政府左派布朗克的说法得以佐证,即便右派领导人拉曼提纳也自称他自已和其同僚为独裁者。布朗克为推迟选举,延长独裁期限辩护,以便有教育民众的期间;十年后他仍为临时政府应视他们自已作为革命指定的独裁者辩护;直至各方面条件准备完成后再行普选。他还主张应将巴黎独裁推广到全法国。[8]

    表了一篇令其闻名欧洲的论独裁的演说:基于智能权和剑权,(国家政府)权力属于资产阶级,至于(政权)合法性,“当合法性足够时,那么法制;当它不足时,独裁;”当然他承认”独裁“是个可怕的字眼,但是”革命是所有令人恐怖的词当中最可怕的“。既然都是独裁,问题在于是大众暴乱独裁还是政府独裁?因此,问题仅是选择下流社会的独裁还是上流社会的独裁?或是支持剑的统治还是匕首的统治?他宁愿选择上流社会和剑的统治,因为其高贵“。他说"全世界最大的独裁者在英国,因为英国议会有权决定任何事项,有谁的权力比它更大?他还说:“甚至上帝也是独裁者”。[9]其演说迅捷被译成各国文字广为人知。

    政治是实力的较量,政治与道德密切相关,人类历史上绝大多数时期,政治权力依赖国家暴力支持。但纯属依赖暴力支持的政治权力注定不可能长久;因为合法性是政治权力最牢靠的资源,一个非法政府随时处于风雨漂摇之中;正常社会总是首先依法治解决社会争议,政治问题政治解决,政治解决即公开争辩依道德、伦理、理性、知识的力量赢得民众,征服对手;政治争议法律解决,是政治文明发展的趋势。而政治争端战争解决,则是当权者彻底堵死一切合法合理理性解决政治争议,推行暴政的必然结果,记得一位哲人(应当是洛克)指出:国与国,民族与民族之间的争端,唯有通过合约和战争两途,若合约之途被堵死,唯有战争。因此,暴力政治权争,责任在当权集团而非归于反对派,因为当权者才撑控国家暴力,反对派唯有思想理论与理性,而且反对派选择暴力权争,是当局施行暴政的必然结果。

    1850年LorenzvonStein写了一本有关工人阶级斗争与独裁的专著社会独裁”成为工人阶级的口号,而“民众代表”则成为民主和财主的口号;布朗克的“社会民主”的追随者们可以决定推翻政府,代之以排他的社会民主,建立工人阶级的统治,大众主权的社会民主观念,变成临时政府应当坚持独裁直至其实施完成全部其认为必要的措施,为控制国家的阶级斗争在此得以构建”。[10]

    1848年至1850年前后欧洲革命时代各色人等对“独裁”各有主张,例如著名流亡德国工运活动家魏特林自称是弥赛亚式的独裁者,马克思则公开批评魏特林此种说法,巴古宁宣称其目标旨在建立一个“无限独裁权力的政府”,“所有的意志将服从于一个独裁的权威.”[11]巴氏一生中提出过多个版本的秘密的独裁。亦即工人阶级独裁(更不用说无产阶级专政)也非马克思首创,而是当时共产主义运动中相当普遍的说法。

    工人阶级独裁“的术语,不是马克思首创,而是1793年法国大革命失败后,巴贝夫的副手布纳罗缔最早提出,他写了一部雅格滨共产主义政治的小册子,引导共产主义运动的布朗基左派。布氏在书中讨论了夺权后过渡的革命政府,他明确主张革命政府应当由少数革命功臣独裁,其责任在于教育人民达到最终能够实行民主的层次。[12]亦即他首创“训政”概念。完全不涉及工人阶级专政的问题因为被推翻的剥削社会已污染之。因此必须由革命者实行理想的独裁,期限则不能确定,但至少需一代人。布朗基及布朗基主义者信奉的独裁概念。布氏主张应将巴黎公社的独裁推广到全国,亦即工人阶级应当对农民和手工业者实行专政。因为大革命期间,各省农民未示支持是否意味着他们反对革命?因此,以人民的名义,革命的救世主将为捍卫革命而专政人民。[13]西方学界迄今对马克思及恩格斯本人并无多少贬意,原因正在于他们并非始作俑者,且动机出发点良好,马恩确实出于同情劳动人民的悲惨处境立志消灭剥削而投身共产主义运动。然而,极度自私自利的中共暴政当权犯罪集团为一已之私长期克意隐匿,歪曲,误导真实的共运史,以便继续独占全部国家权力,达到以权谋利的根本目的。

三、马克思著作中通常使用“独裁”的语境

    马克思与上述人等使用“独裁”一词的概念相类,他甚至经常用“暴政”在“独裁”相似意义上形容某些现象。例如他用“阶级暴政”批判资产阶级民主共和,用“议会暴政”描述资产阶级政权,以“工业暴政”形容工厂,用“对财产权力的暴力进攻”称赞工人的国家。因此,1850年代马克思常用之“阶级暴政”实质上是“阶级独裁”的变种。[14] “despotism”是指不遵守法律违背宪法的独裁者,因而指暴政或暴君,不具有合法性;而‘dictatorship’仅指独裁者,并不一定违反法律,有时可能具有合法性。马克思混淆使用两词,可能他不了解该两词的性质区别,如果他明知暴政与独裁的性质不同,而克意滥用之,表明马并不是严肃认真负责的学者,而是怀个人偏见或为实现个人政治野心的政客。

    马克思和恩格斯在各种场合经常使用“独裁”或“独裁者”形容各种人物,机构。[15]马克思极少使用“军事独裁”一词,但“独裁”则被他用于贬损不少完全不具独裁性质的政治人物:在这些情况下,该术语仅是强调某种统治意味。罗斯福总统亦时常被称作“独裁者”。[16] 马克思或恩格斯抨击工人运动或社会主义运动中个人统治现象时,亦常指责其为独裁者,例如马恩指责巴古宁和拉萨尔为独裁者。马恩皆曾指责巴古宁试图成为欧洲工人运动的“秘密独裁者”。[17]拉萨尔并不隐瞒他想当工人运动的独裁者的强烈愿望,1862年他曾住在马克思的伦敦家中,表露出他的独裁观念,他敌视个人自由,欲成为未来工人运动的独裁者。马称之为“有见识的波拿巴”。[18]

    马克思1847年流亡瑞士期间,曾因资助德国流亡工人5000金法朗购买武器拟打回德国,被当瑞士警察当局拘捕起诉,法官经开庭审理后认为罪证不足当庭释放;随后马克思因燕妮被捕之事向议会告状,议长指定专人调查因查无马资助购买武器的实据,结果警察局局长因此掉丢掉了乌纱帽;然而,1868年燕妮在她的自传中承认了马克思资助购买武器的事实。此外,1848年马克思回德国科隆创办新莱茵报,因煽动暴力对抗政府罪被起诉,马克思出庭雄辩,法官经庭审后认为马克思不构成犯罪,而当庭释放。此外,众多犯有煽暴力颠覆合法政府罪的共产党各国领袖,在各资本主义国家的法庭中均享受充分自由的律师辩护,大多仅判处四个月到一年的有期徒刑。马克思本人在流亡海外四十余年期间,经常返回德国,包括在德国出版《资本论》这些事实表明,尽管马克思主张在从资本主义向共产主义过渡的短暂期间实行“工人阶级独裁”(苏共和中共误译为“无产阶级专政”),可以推论马克思决不至于主张专制暴政。

四、马克思之工人阶级独裁的真实含义

    共产主义废除私有财产的主张,最早源于伯拉图之《理想国》,因为他认为人的自私心理会使政府官员贪污腐败,而私有财产又源于婚姻继承,因此欲实现正义,必须废除婚姻取消私有财产[19]。不过,伯拉图的共产共妻的主张仅适用于上流社会,即哲学家国王和武士阶层,政治权力由社会精英独占,而排除下层民众,因为他认为鞋匠制学有其特长,而政治则是最高级的艺术,故需要最聪慧的人才能胜任。芦梭之《人类社会不平等的起源与基础》提出私有财产是人类罪恶之源,而法国人道共产主义者普鲁东更以“财产即盗贼”!而闻名,亦即古往今来,许多知识分子同情民众的苦难,往往主张社会主义追求平等。然而,耶稣指出:财产本身不是罪恶,对财产的贪婪才是罪恶之源。实际上,私有财产是人类自由和人权的基本保障,没有财产也就没有自由。废除私有财产的直接结果是使全体国民沦为共产党当权犯罪集团实质的奴隶。马克思由于逻辑思维存在某些缺陷,导致他自认为是真理的不少理论和主张,实质上皆是谬论。

    马克思和恩格斯于1847年在《共产党宣言》中尚未言及工人阶级独裁术语,马克思从未明确说明其具体概念。当时独裁一词,并不包含现在人们理解的内含。在《神圣家族》文中,马克思和恩格斯认为“如果工人阶级赢得胜利,并不意味着其取得社会的绝对主权,因为它的胜利仅是通过废除其自身和其对手,那么工人阶级,及其对立面的私有财产皆将消失”。[20]对于工人阶级独裁实施社会主义政策,马克思对其细节仅含糊其辞,对如何废除所有生产工具中的私有财产亦语渊不详。《共产党宣言》中列举的十项要求,仅适用于最发达的工业国家,基于发达的工业经济的全民普选制,共产主义的最终的目标在于废除私有财产。[21]

    当马克思首次写下工人阶级独裁术语时,它是‘一种特殊类型的形而上学的惯用语’。1844年初,马克思下结论道,取得共产主义过渡社会,工人阶级必须夺取政治权力。不仅夺取政治(或国家)权力,而且在特定意义上的工人阶级的统治;其结果是一个工人国家,意指工人阶级居于国家统治地位。马克思承认“工人阶级的政治统治”,完全不是他自已独特的理论;他强调所有其他真正的工人阶级运动均确立该目标。共产党人的直接目标与所有其他工人政党的目标一致:组织工人阶级推翻资产阶级的统治,由工人阶级夺取政治权力。[22]马克思使用“工人阶级独裁”术语,与他用“工人阶级的统治”,和其他“工人国家”的标签含义完全相同。[23]马、恩用“工人阶级独裁”术语集中于三个阶段;第一阶段:1850至52年;第二阶段:1871年至75年;第三阶段:1891至93年。马一生中仅使用过六次。恩格斯亦在极少数情况下使用工人阶级独裁的术语。原因在于他们更倾向于使用工人阶级的政治统治。因为独裁听起来总是不太好的词,容易受到攻击。马恩从未主张工人阶级的统治要比资产阶级共和民主的统治更专制,更不用说主张暴政。

    在1850年《法兰西阶级斗争》文中,马克思提及法国革命过程中,革命阶级提出口号:推翻资产阶级!工薪阶级独裁!马克思写道,革命的社会主义宣布永远革命,工人阶级独裁作为消灭阶级差别的必要过渡,进而全社会的革命化。这里马强调“阶级的独裁”。马言及布朗基的名字被反革命的政治家们作为一种“革命的恶灵”。[24]马克思时常随意用“资产阶级暴政”和“资产阶级独裁”自由置换资产阶级共和性质的“资产阶级统治”。在言及夺取革命的独裁时,马、恩始终反对布朗基主义模式的由少数人夺取政权后实行革命党或少数革命精英独裁的观念,明确主张在革命成功后的过渡短期内,应实行工薪阶级(与资产阶级对应的概念)的阶级独裁;而他们认为巴黎公社模式即是其所指之工人阶级独裁。[25]

    1851年魏德迈流亡美国后撰写“论工人独裁”一文,全文仅涉及《共产党宣言》提及之工人阶级的统治主题,提出任何革命均需要一个独裁的首脑,然后提及工人独裁的观念,显然他未能了解阶级独裁的观念。在此背景下,1852年3月5日马克思致函魏德迈:说明阶级斗争并非他的发明,而他的特殊贡献在于提出“阶级斗争必然导致工人阶级独裁”, 该独裁本身仅是“废除所有阶级建立无阶级社会的必要过渡”[26]马克思相信在工人阶级取得政权后必须有一段独裁过渡时期,伴随革命建立的每一政治过渡均需要独裁及一个充满活力的独裁。[27]马、恩青年时代皆主张暴力革命:“暴力是每一旧社会孕育新社会的助产婆”。但自1870年代后,他们认为在发达工业国家有可能通过议会民主普选途径赢得政权。早在1852年8月25日,马克思在纽约Tribune日报发文宣称,既然工人阶级代表人口的最大多数,经由英国工人阶级多数普选之工人阶级独裁,与政治权力同义。全民普选不可避免将实现工人阶级的政治统治。[28]

    工人阶级独裁的概念不是马克思首创,而是法国革命者巴贝夫及其信徒和追随者诸如布朗基特别主张的。布朗基主义者主张的是由革命党及其少数党魁独裁,马、恩主张的是工薪阶级的阶级独裁,工薪阶级在民主制度下对国家行使统治和管理。因为马克思认为随着资本主义大工业的进一步发展,产业工人的数量将占人口的绝大多数,因此,“通过民主的战争”工人阶级必定取得民主选举的胜利。进而建立工人阶级的政府实行工人阶级的统治。如果不是由于消灭阶级差别消灭财有私有制的误导,在工业发达国家单纯的工人阶级政府,未偿不可一试,若其不通,大可通过下届民主选举更换之。至于暴力的助产婆作用,在代议制自由民主宪政制度发明问世以前,无疑是真理。但在有和平方式进化改良社会的条件下,却坚持暴力争权,则肯定是文明的反动。

    马克思对过渡时期的说明首次出现于1850年:“工人阶级…革命的社会主义,共产主义…布朗基…宣称永远革命意在废除阶级差别,废除其赖以存在的生产关系,废除生产关系相关的所有的社会关系,及变革由这些社会联系产生的所有的观念”。恩格斯20年后指出:布朗基的革命概念是指由少数革命者在革命胜利后的独裁;他的独裁并非整个革命的工人阶级,而仅仅是少数发动攻击的革命者的独裁。[29]

    自1852年8月至1871年4月近二十年期间,马克思和恩格斯均从未言及“工人阶级独裁”;但一直继续使用‘工人统治’,‘夺取政治权力’,‘工人国家’及类似的表述,描述工人阶级取得国家权力的主题。这并非偶然,因为该期间马克思的写作与活动从未涉及布朗基,因而无需处理“独裁”的概念。

    马克思在1871年《法兰西内战》文中认为工人阶级独裁代表工人阶级民主;指出工人阶级独裁与巴黎公社极相象,由选举产生的议员同时行使立法和行政权,全民公投,公民军队取代常备军,选举产生的法官,警官和公共官员,他们均得随时由选举人撤职,且他们的工薪不得超过工人所得。渐渐废除生产资料私人所有制,普及全民教育等。[30]马克思称赞巴黎公社是“实质上的工人阶级政府”,及作为“政治形式,解决劳动的经济解放”[31],是工人国家,是基于真正民主制度的共和,是民治民有的政府,因而是工人阶级统治或独裁的范例。[32]恩格斯则直接称“巴黎公社即是工人阶级独裁”。因此,马克思有关工人阶级独裁的概念与布朗基左派革命共产主义者有重大区别。马、恩主张的是工人阶级作为一个阶级,而非由革命党,更非由党魁或少数党棍独裁。不过,有学者认为仅恩格斯认为巴黎公社是工人阶级独裁,而马克思则不然。但此种见解恐怕误解了马克思,因为马克思经常使用“工人阶级的政治统治”,“工人阶级政府”,而很少使用“工人阶级独裁”的术语。

    在马克思眼中,巴黎公社显然不具有独裁性质;巴黎公社中布朗基和亚格滨多数派建议设立一个“公共安全委员会”拥有任意决定权的独裁机构,该建议就“独裁”问题展开激烈争论后被通过,结果导致少数派退出巴黎公社,其中大多系第一国际成员及普鲁东派或与马克思关系密切者。[33]

    既然巴黎公社并无现代意义上的独裁意味,马克思确认它是“工人政府”,“工人统治”,“工人国家”,恩格斯于1891年更明确指称巴黎公社即是工人阶级独裁。因此,马克思和恩格斯均对主张工人阶级独裁没有任何负罪感。1871年巴黎公社失败后,布朗基派革命者流亡伦敦,开始与马克思主导的第一国际合作,相互都想影响和控制对方,讨论争辩相关问题顺理成章,于是在二十年后马克思重提“工人阶级独裁”。[34]

    1871年9月首届巴黎公社共产国际会议在伦敦召开,马克思当选大会主席并发表致词,被记者概要发表于纽约世界报。言及巴黎公社时,马克思重申“公社是工人阶级夺取政治权力”,其目标乃是取消阶级统治和压迫的基础;但在实现该目标之前,有必要实行“工人阶级独裁”[35]。这是自1852年始二十年来,马克思再次使用“工人阶级独裁”术语,记者称马克思使用该术语有“触电般的震憾效果”,马再次强调他与布朗基之工人政党少数精英独裁不同之阶级独裁。

    巴黎公社创立了国家的五种主要机构:首先,常备军由武装的公民取代;其次,解散教会,自由的世俗教育向公民开放;再次,普选产生公社议会,同时行使立法和行政权的机构;第四,公共服务的所有的代表,包括法官,警察,行政官员,政府首脑全部经选举产生且受制于随时监督撤职;第五,官员们的工资与工人相同。[36] 对马克思和恩格斯而言,工人阶级独裁意味着:第一,中央政府的暴力,军队和官僚被废除,警察被取消政治功能;第二,公共事务归经普选秘密公投产生的民选机构撑握,该机构行使立法权和行政权;第三,所有的代表及官员均受制于选民的监督的随时的撤换,领取不高于工人的工资。[37] 迈卡锡教授在他的《马克思与工人阶级》书中认为:“巴黎公社的革命的工人阶级,更多的是马克思的想象而非历史的现实”;巴古宁指责马克思与资产阶级和受尊重的工人阶层(指熟练工人)结盟,而冷落真正的革命者,诸如失地的农民,手工工匠,城市准工人阶级。[38]马克思仅是个革命理论家,而列宁则是革命家,而“理论之树常青,生活却总是灰色的”。列宁一切以夺权为目的,正如林彪的大实话一样:“有权才有一切”!而为达到夺取政权之目的不择手段。中国亦有“书生造反十年不成”之说,理想主义者往往瞻前顾后考虑过多,以致不能果断行动。而列宁则深谙政治斗争的历史经验,因而完全没有任何道德顾忌。他说“正因为他们是流氓,我们才要使用之!”毛泽东亦公然宣称:“流氓打战勇敢!”共产党之所以能夺权,重要的原因之一乃是它们奉行流氓原则。或许能呈一时之威,但其最终必定灭亡,因为没有道德的政治将导至人类本身毁灭。正因为全世界共产党无论夺权还是维持政权均奉行暴力恐怖流氓术,因此注定了其必定灭亡。

    马克思于1872年至73年间针对与普鲁东和无政府共产主义者巴古宁争论时,再次使用工薪阶级独裁术语。发表于1873年12月意大利社会主义年刊,题为:“Indifferenceto Politics.”论及批评工人独裁的观念时,他以同样的方式批评政治行动或政治权力的观念;普鲁东认为“如果工人阶级的政治斗争采用暴力方式,假如工人用其革命独裁取代资产阶级独裁,他们即犯下严重违反暴力原则的罪行,因为工人并不放下武器及废除国家,而是予之一个革命的过渡”。此处的“独裁”一词与马克思往常使用之工人政治权力同义[39]。马克思将资产阶级独裁与工人阶级的革命独裁并列,突显了他强调之阶级独裁之含义。因此,马克思使用阶级独裁术语,强调的是阶级之间政治斗争的阶级性质,而非指政府的特殊形式。而布朗基主义者使用的“工人阶级独裁”指夺取政权后,由少数革命者团伙独裁,而非工人阶级作为一个阶级的独裁。

    在马克思的语境中,工人独裁与工人国家同义。马强调不应混淆国家与政府机器,国家由工人独裁之说,对马克思而言,是指国家的社会属性及政治权力的阶级性质。它不是有关政府形式或政治结构的说明[40]前者指政权的性质,诸如谁是国家主权拥有者?后者指政府管理统治形式,例如是用自由选举的民主制度统治管理政府还是依专制独裁方式统治国家?

    1875年,由贝贝尔和拉萨尔主义者领导的两个德国社会主义政党准备联合通过《哥达纲领宣言》,为此马克思发表其《哥达纲领批判》,首先抨击拉萨尔主义之自由国家方案,‘我们不想使国家自由,而是要置之于民主的控制之下’;‘“在资本主义和共产主义社会之间,有一段从前者到后者的革命过渡时期,在该政治过渡期间的国家,只能是工人阶级的革命独裁’[41]。由于马克思未具体言明什么是工人阶级独裁,不同的人在不同的环境下的理解自然各异。布朗基派主张由革命者少数精英独裁,而右派共产主义者如普鲁东,巴古宁则反对任何独裁,马克思和恩格斯介于两者之间,马、恩之工人阶级独裁的含义,考查历史文献资料后,应当可以得出结论:类似巴黎公社的工人阶级政府即是马、恩所主张的工人阶级独裁。

    归纳言之,马克思有关工人阶级独裁的四个特点:第一,是一个阶级而非革命精英的独裁;由占人口多数的工人阶级,通过民主选举成为统治阶级,取代中产阶级独裁;其次,独裁将使用国家暴力,以便消灭私有财产奠定共产主义社会的基础;再次,独裁将实施社会主义政策,消除阶级差别,实现生产工具的集体所有;第四,独裁的实质是凭借国家暴力强制实施具有高度进攻性的政策,而非减轻阶级冲突,在集体化的政策取得成功之前,有必要实行工人阶级独裁。”[42]

五、政府的阶级性质与政府形式

    资产阶级独裁,工人阶级独裁,君主立宪,虚君共和等称谓是指一个政府或一个政权或国家的政治性质,即指国家主权属于谁?君主体制下,国家主权属皇帝,国王,君王;共和体制下(包括资产阶级共和民主及虚君共和体制),国家主权属于全体有公民权的公民;民主体制下,国家主权属于人民。共产党政权实质上全部是“党主”体制,亦即国家主权实质上皆成为共产党的私产。马克思和恩格斯指控资本主义国家实质上是资产阶级独裁,因而主张由工薪阶级独裁。然而,自由资本主义国家皆采用共和民主的政府形式;因此,马恩所主张的“工薪阶级独裁”实质上是类似于资本主义国家的政府形式,只不过是由工薪阶级当权。政府形式则指政府的组织形式,用何种方式行使该主权?依自由选举还是靠枪杆子?即民主还是专制?独裁在特定条件下在限定期间内有其合理性和必要性,但无限的专政/专制则肯定是反人性反社会反自然的暴政,而暴政根本没有任何合法性,当然也没有资格存续一日,这就是人民革命权利之政治哲学原则;西方最早提出该政治哲学原则的是18世纪英国的约翰络克之《政府论》;然而,吾国之孟子才是人民革命权利之父。他早在二千三百年前便已公开主张人民有权杀掉暴君!因为暴君已不是合法君王,而仅是人人得而诛之“一夫”。

    Chamberlin 教授指出:集体主义是一种虚假的乌托邦,最重要的问题在于文明乃是民主与专制的对抗;无论是共产主义的还是纳粹法西斯的集体主义,皆是一种虚假的乌托邦;自由政体拥有压倒专制方式短期虚幻的利益的实践价值。[43]他认为:实现工人阶级独裁的革命纲领,由工人阶级取得政治权力,与非工人阶级的劳工大众结盟,是马克思主义的顶点。[44]

    马克思总结1848年——1850年革命的经验后断言:工人阶级不能简单地接收既存的国家机器,必须粉碎之并创建一个新的国家体制。在《共产党宣言》中,马克思和恩格斯似乎认为国家是个中性的制度,但在《雾月十八》文中,马宣称革命使国家权力完善,以便集中所有的暴力摧毁旧的国家机器。工人阶级革命必须粉碎国家机器,而不是简单地易手。“因为奴役工人阶级的政治机器,不能成为解放工人阶级的政治制度”。[45]

    打碎国家机器重建之说,反映了马克思逻辑思维的断层。法律源于习惯,习惯源于长期就同一性质事项的重复做法,因此任何法律皆有其深厚的传统习俗社会伦理道德支持,而不可能一夜成就;而国家机器,亦即所谓社会上层建筑,包括政治、法律、经济、宗教、文化、艺术、教育、道德、伦理等各方面的具体制度,远比法律复杂更不可能一夜成就;废除既定的国家体制,另起炉灶结果必然是最反复无常的暴政,因为其完全依赖“革命当权者”的任意决定权。中共夺权后立即废除了国民党政府之六法全书,导致大陆中国长达三十年无法无天,毛语录因而被奉为“最高指示”,亦即最高法律,一切均以中共中央红头文件为依据。这就是中共暴政一系列荒唐致极的群众政治运动得以畅通无阻的根本原因之一。

    马克思虽然分别在波恩大学和伯林大学学法律,但由于他对哲学和历史的兴趣远胜于法律,其法学课程实际上仅读了五门课,自波恩大学转学伯林大学后的五年期间(有半年时间因精神崩溃而休学),他仅读了十三门课(包括三门法律学),其余皆是哲学历史艺术等。而该十三门课仅是一名勤奋的学生一年半的课程。换句话说,马克思主要靠自学,但他一生从未取得学士或硕士,而是直接取得哲学博士学位,既非波恩大学,也非伯林大学的,而是一家名不见经传JENA大学的博士学位。因为该大学的学位向社会开放,学生无需在该大学读书,也没有任何前提条件,仅需通过一篇博士论文即可。在伯林大学期间马克思参加了一个博士俱乐部,阅读面极广,由于其聪慧异常,思维敏捷,其水准当然够博士之格,但可能由于基础学识不够扎实,亦可解释为何马克思的理论存在不少逻辑漏洞。据马克思传记作者Robert Payne考证:中学时代马克思“希腊语、拉丁语和德语成绩极佳,但历史及数学相当差,甚至无法精确最基本的数字运算”[46]。而数学能力实质上是人的抽象思维能力的反映。数学能力突出者,其逻辑思维能力必定强,反之则必定弱。马颇有语言天赋,大学时代一度想成为诗人,狂热地写了不少情诗,悲剧诗,诗人虽然想象力突出,却往往缺严格的逻辑思维。

    据《马克思恩格斯全集》编撰专家论证:马克思和恩格斯晚年的思想有重大改变,认为工人运动有可能通过议会和平方式取得政治权力;马在世时认为英国和德国及荷兰三国工人阶级有可能以和平方式取得政权;恩格斯后来加上了法国。[47]马克思死前不久及随后恩格斯不至一次反复提及在工业发达国家工人阶级有可能通过议会宪法方式取得政权,而无须武装斗争。[48]马恩在共产党宣言的结尾主张“全世界工人阶级联合起来!”提出工人阶级无祖国的概念。然而,马恩死后,出现了一个马恩生前未曾预料的新现象:民族主义的兴起与强盛。一战爆发前,第二国际号召各国工人阶级抵制资本主义战争,结果各国共产党纷纷在各自议会中投票支持战争,使第二国际的政治信誉破产。也因此列宁后来组建了第三国际。列宁和托洛斯基终其一生始终信奉国际主义,而斯大林则是个标准的民族主义者。

    马克思传记作者罗伯特认为:阶级斗争观念并非老马的发明,在马之前已有不少学者主张和承认,包括圣西门,但马认为其原创贡献在于发现:阶级斗争必然导致工人阶级独裁,在资本主义与共产主义之间有一段工人阶级独裁的过渡时期。对于何谓工人阶级独裁马克思说:“统治权力将落入贫苦的农民,非熟练工人,和半熟练工人之手,但不包括熟练工人。亦即马克思认为占人口多数的穷人将继承地球。然后经一段期间,工人阶级独裁将让位于一个无阶级社会”[49]。不过,有关此种“贫苦的农民,非熟练工人,和半熟练工人之手,熟练工人将被排除在外。”此说似乎不是马克思的说法,而是无政府主义巴古宁的说法;因为马克思历来主张工人阶级代表最先进的社会生产力,视农民为小资产阶级而且是工人阶级的敌人。但二十世纪的共产主义革命证明巴古宁主张的革命力量基本正确,而马克思之社会主义革命将首先同时发生时最发达的工业国家之预言则完全落空。

六、恩格斯之“工人阶级独裁”的基本含意

    恩格斯1872年在其《房屋问题》文中使用“工人独裁”术语。他宣称“采纳德国科学社会主义观念,工人之必要的政治行动,及其作为消灭阶级及国家过渡的独裁,是已在共产党宣言中明确表述之观念”;然而该宣言根本没言及‘独裁’。因此,恩格斯显然将‘工人的政治统治’等同于‘工人独裁’。针对普鲁东质疑工人阶级政治权力及阶级统治的概念,恩格斯争辩道:“为何每个政党皆想在国家中建立其政治统治;社会主义工人党同样为工人阶级的统治而努力。每个真正的工人党,自英国之Chartists以降,经常提出阶级政策,组织工人阶级作为独立政党,作为(政治)斗争的首要条件,并将工人阶级独裁作为斗争的直接目标。亦即,恩格斯假定之‘工人阶级独裁’,实质上是指建立‘工人阶级的统治’。[50]
1874年,就布朗基主义者在其小册子《公社》中采用该工人阶级独裁术语,恩格斯在其“公社之布朗基政治难民的纲领”文中,清晰地表达了“工人阶级独裁”的含义:“布朗基认为所有的革命总是由少数革命者发起主导,成功后他们自已有必要实行独裁,请注意,不是由整个工人阶级,而是由该少数发起主导革命的小团伙中的一个人或几个人实行独裁。马克思之工人阶级独裁概念是指工人阶级的统治(独裁)或阶级运动;而传统的独裁概念,是指党的或革命小集团的独裁,因而后者对工人的独裁成为必要”。[51]由此恩格斯明确指出了布朗基主义者与马克思和恩格斯所主张的工人阶级独裁的本质区别。前者是指由革命党或少数精英夺权后独裁,其最终必将演变成少数党魁对全党,对工人阶级本身,对人民的独裁;而马恩坚持之工人独裁,实质上是指工人作为一个阶级的阶级独裁,其表现形式是工人阶级民主,因而排除了革命党对全社会独裁或党魁对全党及对全民的独裁的可能性。

    1890年10月27日,在讨论历史唯物主义的一封信中,恩格斯解释该概念并不代表经济要素在历史过程中伴演唯一角色。恩格斯写道:‘如果政治权力不具经济力量,为何我们还要为工人的政治独裁而奋斗?国家权力亦是一种经济权力’。[52]亦即,恩格斯再次确认“工人独裁”仅是工人阶级夺取政治权力的同义词。但是社会民主党的右翼照样谴责“工人的革命独裁”概念,同时,德国社会民主党整个领导层皆抵制恩格斯向全党公开马克思的观念,该党的右翼对马克思的敌意过去从未公开表达过。因此恩格斯在重新编发马克思之《法兰西内战》文时,再次剖析布朗基主义之革命观念:相对少数、坚定、组织良好的人将能够维持权力,直至他们成功地带领大众参加革命,团结在少数领导周围,严格集中所有权力于新革命政府手中的独裁。恩格斯回顾了巴黎公社实施的真正的民主,回敬攻击马克思的《哥达纲领批判》的社民党右翼:“社会民主的市侩再度对工人阶级独裁深感恐惧,绅士们,你们想知道这种独裁是什么样的吗?请看看巴黎公社,那就是工人阶级独裁”。[53]

    一位马恩专家指出:在称赞巴黎公社即为“工人阶级独裁”时,恩格斯参考了马克思1871年在共产国际会议上的致词,该致词实质上直到最近(1987年)一直不为“马克思主义圈”所知。故长期以来,人们一直以为视巴黎公社为工人阶级独裁是恩格斯自已的发明,为何巴黎公社能够成为一个‘工人阶级独裁’如果其并未采用实质的独裁步骤?这些马克思主义者们显然将争辩:马克思与恩格斯一样不理解‘马克思主义’!当然唯有实质上创立‘马克思主义’的人才能理解。事实上,马克思本人对‘马克思主义’不以为然:马克思说“我本人就不是一个马克思主义者”。三个月后,恩格斯为社民党右翼的市侩们准备了另一枚重镑炸弹:《Erfurt纲领草案批判》。“他正在利用此机会攻击党组织的和平机会主义及资产阶级社会本身将渐变成社会主义社会的改革派观念”。(作者认为此时“恩格斯已变成鼓吹和平渐进主义者的神话,被那些恩格斯攻击的人们在恩格斯死后发明出来”)恩格斯的纲领草案批判特别提出包括要求民主共和作为一种民主政策要点,并争辩在德国不可能通过和平方式夺取政权。恩格斯写道:“我们党和工人阶级唯有在民主共和制下能够取得权力。这甚至是工人独裁的特殊形式,正如伟大的法国革命(指巴黎公社)业已显示的那样”。他解释政府形式(指民主共和)与国家的阶级性质(工人独裁)之间的关系。巴黎公社业已显示一个工人国家(工人独裁)的革命实践,能够及或许将基于民主共和的形式。[54]

    恩格斯将‘工人阶级独裁’与‘民主共和’相联系,成为业已将‘工人阶级独裁’变成一种有关独裁的特殊口号的马克思主义运动的另一攻击目标。马恩皆未将民主一词限于资产阶级民主。主要难题在于假定‘工人阶级独裁’有独裁的现代含义,因此不能作为民主形式的直接包装。恩格斯建议“依我看应当做且能够做的是集中所有的政治权力于人民代表手中。”[55]亦即通过普选制选举产生政府议员,及所有的官员,法官等公共服务的行政官员。

    1893年,一个年青的俄国社会民主党员访问恩格斯,普列汉诺夫给他写了一封介绍信,三分之一世纪后,A. M.Voden 发表其回录,内含“与恩格斯的谈话”,他们讨论了俄国公众与俄国社会民主党之间的关系,包括普列汉诺夫的态度。Voden写道:“恩格斯问普列汉诺夫如何看待‘工人独裁’,V答“普氏对我说,‘当我们取得权力后,除了我们自已,我们当然将不予其他人自由。。。(独裁权将由)工人阶级当中正确理解马克思教导及从马之教导得出正确结论的同志们行使;而正确理解和正确结论的标准即是普列汉诺夫的著作”。[56]很清楚,俄国社会民主党的领袖和导师,也是孟什维克党的理论权威,指导俄国革命运动时明确:当我们夺取权力后,将不予反对派民主权利(自由),并将强制实行独裁政体,而独裁权力将撑握在胜利的党或党魁手中。此种正统布朗基主义和巴古宁主义的独裁概念长期培训着俄国革命者。

    恩格斯说适用普氏标准将要么导致俄国社民党变成一个宗派,时常陷于不可避免和不能预期之实践后果,要么它将使俄国社民党分裂,而普氏本人并无任何益处。恩格斯评论说普氏是俄国之H. M.Hyndman.  Voden在角注中写道:普列汉诺夫视恩格斯将他比作Hyndman为恭维。[57]H氏是英国马克思主义宗派领导人,马克思和恩格斯对其采用最强烈词语谴责:“宗派独裁者”,其独裁模式导致英国工人运动数次分裂。数年后,俄国社会民主工人党(即列宁之布尔什维克党)成为全世界第一个按其“工人独裁”方案的社会主义组织。虽然马克思和恩格斯曾经常否定此种方案。该术语由普列汉诺夫写入党章,他当时是除了德国社会民主党之外最权威的马克思主义理论家。因此,“工人独裁”的新世纪是以此种方式发动,不是由列宁,而是由未来孟什维克党领导人和权威理论家普列汉诺夫。因此,恩格斯否决的对“工人独裁”的反民主的解释在第二国际开花并广结恶果。(南郭注:该论文作者恐怕未必了解真实的普列汉诺夫,根据《列宁不为人知的故事》引证之原始证据表明,普氏明确反对列宁之布朗基式解读工人阶级独裁的概念,想必普氏更不会同意列宁之“无产阶级专政”的概念)

七、列宁主张之无产阶级专政是什么货色?

    马克思主义理论家,德国社会民主党领导人考茨基[58], 1918年夏在《论工人阶级独裁》书中公开批评列宁悖离马克思有关“工人阶级独裁”的原教旨:“两种社会主义运动…是两种基础不同的方法的冲突:民主和专制的冲突。两种运动看上去有相同的目标----通过社会主义和人道主义解放无产阶级,但是专制的方法是错误的,极可能导致(社会运动的)毁灭;通过充分的讨论争辩,我们坚定地选择民主。专制并不要求反驳对方相反的观点,而是强制压制令对方闭嘴。因此,民主与专制在讨论争辩的开初更不可调和。一方要求的,便是另一方压制的。”[59]他指出“少数人的专政,经常发现一支绝对服从的军队是其最强大的支持者;但是它越依赖武力取代多数人的支持,它就越走向反面,诉求暴力代替拒绝他们的投票;内战成为调整政治和社会争议的方法,在完全的政治冷漠或失望未占上风之所,少数人的专政经常会受到武装攻击或持续的游击战争…专制者就会陷入内战,生活在被推翻的持续危险之中…在内战中,各方均为生存而战,失败者面临被灭绝的威胁。这一事实的意识正是为何内战会如此残酷的原因”。[60]考先生认为“工人阶级斗争,有个民主的必要前提,而秘密政党必将导致个人独裁”;他说“确切地讲,我们的目标不是此种社会主义,废除每一种剥削和压迫,直接反对一个阶级,一个政党,某种性别,某个种族…如果我们证明…工薪阶级和人类的解放,唯有基于毁灭私有财产基础上才能取得,我们将抛弃社会主义而无损我们的目标。”[61]历史首肯了考先生的勇气亦证实了他的先见之明。

    列宁蛮不讲理地以《无产阶级革命和叛徒考茨基》作为回应而拒绝讨论争辩。列宁援引恩格斯的话说“在现实中,国家仅是一个阶级压迫另一个阶级的机器”,并无赖般地辩称“专政的本质乃是直接基于暴力和不受任何法律限制的统治。无产阶级的革命专政是通过使用暴力反对资产阶级赢得统治权并维护统治,该统治不受任何法律限制。”[62]并蛮横地辩称“苏维埃政府的无产阶级民主是一种形式,已经发展和扩大了史无前例的民主,确切地说,它是最广大的人民,被压迫的劳动的人民的民主”。[63]正是在“无产阶级民主”的美妙包装下,苏联共产党对工人农民和全社会各阶级轮流实行超级专制暴政,七十年来干下了无数恐怖罪恶勾当。


    共产主义区分为原始共产主义如伯拉图,基督教原教旨派;人道共产主义如社会民主派,包括普鲁东等;乌托邦共产主义,如付利叶、圣西门、欧文;科学共产主义,如马克思、恩格斯;修正主义如伯恩斯坦、考茨基等;无政府共产主义如巴古宁、克鲁波特金;极左共产主义如巴贝夫、布朗克、布朗基。国际共产主义运动分化为三大类,一是人道共产主义,如南斯拉夫;二是修正主义,如德国社会民主党[64],三是列宁斯大林毛泽东为代表的极左共产主义,不但歪曲而且强化了马克思作为愤青时期(1844-52年)的思想与主张,因而危害也最严重。按列宁的教导,共产主义可以描述为一种“用专制终结专制”的手段,即类似于用战争终结战争的方式。然而,无产阶级专政在实践中却演变成共产党对人民的专制,而且是党内一小撮当权者对全党的专制。[65]张伯林教授指出“无产阶级专政”从来仅仅是文字游戏而已,革命真实的受益者并非工人阶级或人民大众,而是军阀,警察,政客,经济及行政官僚等少数牢控政治权力者。[66]苏联共产党事实上对工人,农民,城市平民及各行各业的劳动人民实行专政,而不仅仅是对资产阶级。中共完全继承了苏联列宁党国体制所有的罪孽,而且有过之无不及,苏共严重歪曲串改马克思和恩格斯原教旨,美名其曰:“发展马克思主义”。

    俄国马克思主义之父、俄国社会民主党创始人[67]普列汉诺夫,流亡瑞士近三十七年,1883年成为马克思主义者,毕生致力于研究阶级斗争,无产阶级专政,工人阶级在构建新社会的先进作用,社会主义革命等。1906年普列汉诺夫辛辣地指出“一开始列宁是个布朗基主义者远盛于马克思主义者。他在挥舞着最严格的马克思主义正统旗帜的同时,却兜售着布朗基主义的私货。”[68] 1917年夏天,他发文称:“列宁号召与德国议和,为了推翻克伦斯基临时政府并夺取权力,将是在俄国的土地上疯狂和播种无政府骚乱绝对危险的事”;[69]并指出“1917年10月列宁的政策是精神错乱的产物。”[70] 在“十月革命”前夕,他大声呼吁:“即将到来的政权,不能建立在狭窄的无产阶级专政基础上,而应基于国家所有重要力量的联合”。他认为通过社会改革,社会主义与非社会主义因素可以实现有限协作。他在《俄国社会思想史》中写道:“任何社会的发展均取决于各阶级之间的相互关系的发展,首先,在国内社会结构方面他们的相互斗争;其次,就抵抗外部入侵而言,他们之间或多或少的友好合作”。[71]因此,他强烈反对社会主义革命的观念,谴责列宁强行在俄国不具备条件时强行推行社会主义革命,他坚信俄国仅适合资产阶级革命。[72]十月革命暴发三天后,他准确预言了苏俄革命的恶果。1917年10月28日普列汉诺夫和维拉及列夫共同致彼得堡工人公开信预言:“十月革命是历史上最严重的灾难,它将引发内战,并将国家倒退到远远超出1917年2月革命业已取得的成果。”[73]

    俄国贵族出身的无政府共产主义者巴古宁认为工人阶级专政相当危险,因为与任何专政一样,它侵害人权,“我很遗憾那些盲目相信他们能够通过除了自由以外的任何其他方式赢得经济平等和正义的人们;没有自由的平等是非常恐怖的想象,它是由骗子发明用于误导愚民的,平等而无自由意味着国家暴政”。巴古宁认为政府是所有的恶之源,因此必须由自由组建的公社和联邦取代,他质疑“工人阶级堀起成为统治阶级”的含义,并问道“工人阶级作为一个整体成为政府首脑?”若如此他宣称:此种国家“必将变成由新的少数权贵或假冒伪劣的科学家统治大众的暴政”。[74]国际共运史充分证明了巴氏的远见卓识!巴古宁担忧“工人阶级专政”会变成专农民的政。马克思后期注意到在农民国家的革命“不应通过宣布取消继承权或废除私有财产与农民敌对”。[75]自苏联共产党克意将“工薪阶级独裁”误译为“无产阶级专政”后,实质等于共产党政权公然主张对全社会各阶级人民实施专制暴政。马克思早期与巴古宁合作,后期成为竞争对手,马克思嘲讽巴氏是天真的理想主义者,巴古宁则称马是个“自负,狡诈之徒”。[76]马克思是书房内的革命家,而巴古宁则是个贵族出身的身体力行的革命者,时常投身最危险的第一线。巴氏重视道德,对穷人有真诚的同情,其主张大多为事后的实践证明更正确。事实上,19世纪中叶投身共产主义运动的活动家们,绝大多数出身贵族或资产阶级家庭,但都是左派知识分子。真正出身于工人阶级的革命家仅是极少数。如德国的魏特林,法国的普鲁东出身贫寒。共产主义的始祖伯拉图是贵族。马克思是富裕的律师之子,恩格斯之父是工纺织厂主。法国的圣西门是贵族,英国的欧文虽然出身贫寒但因天资聪慧且勤劳诚实最终成为巨富。共产主义观念仅是一种天真不切实际的幻想,古今中外不少思想家哲人为之梦想奋斗不已。问题在于共产主义完全背悖人类的天性,也与人类社会进化的全部历史相悖,根本违反自然规律,而凡是反人性反自然规律的的任何事物皆注定失败。

    列宁与马克思一样反传统道德。马克思无所谓道德,列宁则完全采用实用主义而根本无视道德,且为达目的不择手段。1919年列宁对年青的共产党员演讲时称:“我们不相信永恒的道德,我们正在披露有关道德的所有神话故事的虚伪。”[77]列宁在其《左翼共产主义》一书中公然宣称:“共产党人为达目的已作好欺诈,伪证和采取任何手段的一切准备”。[78]1870年备受列宁称赞的俄国疯狂的革命家内查也夫的继承者俄国革命者特卡契夫,建议“将25岁以上的俄国人全部消灭”,认为“他们已不能实践革命理想”。无政府共产主义者巴古宁明显比马克思列宁更注重道德,早在1870年他便指出即使革命行动也必须受基本道德规范的制约。他在一封致至内查也夫的信中谴责特卡契夫疯狂的妄想“我们的人民并不是一张白纸,得任由任何秘密社会,随心所欲在上面涂写,比如象你的共产主义计划”。[79]巴古宁在另一封至内查也夫的信中写道:“这种残忍的重组和绝对疯狂主义,如今你居然要将它作为一般原则适用于整个社会。你想要疯狂的东西,不可能的事情,完全否定自然、人和社会!”[80] 巴古宁指出:“在革命兄弟之间,我们行动的基础应当是真实,诚信和信任。撒谎,欺诈,神秘,必要的暴力只能用于反对我们的敌人…而你陷入了马基佛利的诡计,你用此种方法来营建组织。最终你用对付敌人的方式来对待你自已的朋友。”[81]亦即,长期受到中共恶意批判的巴古宁,普鲁东,考茨基,伯恩斯坦等“修正共产主义者”或“无政府共产主义者”实际上是尊重人类基本道德伦理规范富于人性的思想家和革命家。不幸的是,中国共产党完全继承了列宁斯大林最恶劣的毫无伦理道德充满流氓霸道的道德虚无主义。

    列宁与马克思一样虽然是学法律出身却对法治极端仇视,他说:“任何类型的专政,包括无产阶级专政,是不受任何限制的权力,不受法律,不受任何规则约束的,直接依赖强制的政权。” 他宣称“不受限制的基于暴力的非法权力,用最简单的话说,就是专政的准确含义。”[82]他明确“任何类型的专政,包括无产阶级专政,是不受任何限制的权力,不受法律,不受任何规则约束的,直接依赖强制的政权。”[83] “专政(包括无产阶级专政)即不受任何法律限制的权力,不受任何法规制约,直接基于使用暴力的绝对权力。”[84]他主张“革命人民应创设其自已的法庭和惩罚,适用暴力,创制新的革命法律。”[85] 列宁曾援引马基雅佛利(Machiavelli)的名言:“为了实现既定的政治目标,如果必须诉诸野蛮的暴力,必须以最高效的方式,在尽可能短的时间内进行,因为群众无法长期忍受野蛮。”按列宁的说法,暴力只要以无产阶级专政的名义就成为革命正义。列宁说:“民主是一种国家形式,其实质是有组织的系统使用强制。”

    从列宁上述有关专政与民主的说法足以证实列宁不仅践踏法治,而且公然耍流氓。列宁践踏法律正义废除所有的法律程序,将司法审判权授予未受任何法律训练,但阶级觉悟高的外行,负责革命法庭;并新建称做“契卡”(即克格勃的前身)的秘密政治警察组织。中国共产党较之苏共则有过之而无不及。列宁的残暴毫无人性可从他众多公开演说中得以证实:例如1918年8月列宁对工人演说:“富农疯狂地抵抗苏维埃政府,准备窒杀成千上万的工人…要么富农将致使无数工人饿死,要么工人将毫不留情地粉碎少数反抗苏维埃政府的窃贼的暴乱。富农是最野蛮,最粗暴,最残酷的剥削者…这些吸血鬼在针对人民的需要的战争中,积累了其财富。这些蜘蛛因剥削农民而自肥;这些蚂蝗喝辛苦劳动者的血,在城市和工厂的工人越饥饿,他们变得越富有。这些吸血鬼已经,而且还将把越来越多的土地,无论是地主的,还是奴工的,或是贫农的土地,集中到他们手中。展开对富农毫不留情的战争,杀死他们!”而布尔什维克制定的富农标准是年收入达89美元!亦即大量实质上几近赤贫的农民仅仅由于抗拒苏共之抢粮政策,被当作富农枪决。在“土地改革运动”中,中共抢劫杀害了数百万(约三百万至六百万)地主,其子孙后代历经几十年政治经济文化严重歧视和迫害。

列宁宣称“仅承认阶级斗争还不够,唯有同时承认无产阶级专政的人才是马克思主义者”。但列宁之‘无产阶级专政’与马恩之‘工薪阶级独裁’有实质区别。[86]列宁的主张实质与布朗基主义相同;而马恩之‘工薪阶级独裁’是指政权的阶级性质与工人阶级政府或工人阶级的政治统治同义。马恩均强调工人阶级独裁应象巴黎公社一样,通过普遍民主选举产生各极政府官员及议会的议员官等,他们同时应受选民监督弹劾的制约,官员和代表们的工资不应超过工人。亦即马恩主张之工人阶级独裁表现为政府形式实质即是工薪阶级作为一个阶级的民主政体,绝非由一个职业革命党(如共产党)或少数革命精英对全社会实行独裁,更非由他们对全社会各阶级人民实行专制暴政。

    列宁提出社会主义革命必须由一个有高度纪律的专业革命党领导的观念。自1916年始,暴力的专制工具变成其无产阶级专政概念的核心;[87]此种观念最初源于法国大革命时期的极左派巴贝夫,由布朗克和布朗基主义发展至列宁的布尔什维克,在反驳考茨基有关背离马克思之工人阶级独裁原教旨的批评时列宁公然宣称:“无产阶级专政是一种直接依赖暴力的且不受任何法律限制的统治”;[88] “必须推翻资产阶级的统治并镇压其反革命的企图”;“无产阶级专政作为一种不与任何人分享的权力直接依赖于群众的武装力量”。[89]对列宁而言,无产阶级专政意味着一个稳固和冷酷无情的革命政府;列宁抱怨布尔什维克党的统治仍然‘太过仁慈’;[90]列宁强调:“无产阶级专政,为了穷人及人民的民主,必须严厉限制压迫者,剥削者和资本家的自由…他们的抵抗必须用暴力粉碎…哪里有镇压,那里就有暴力,那里就不能有自由或民主”[91];列宁宣称“假设从资本主义向社会主义过渡无需暴力和专政,那是绝对愚蠢;既然若没有冷酷无情的镇压剥削者的反抗,无法击溃和消灭资本主义;资产阶级将经常企图推翻新政权,社会主义革命若不经内战是不可想象的;因此需要铁的手腕,无产阶级专政需要绝对严厉统一的意志”。[92]列宁指示“无产阶级专政意味着使用暴力迅速冷酷无情地粉碎剥削者,资本家,地主和他们的附庸的反抗。任何不理解此点的人不是革命者,必须从无产阶级领导岗位上或顾问位置上撤换”。[93]列宁明确,“无产阶级专政必须由党领导。既然无产阶级专政是一种血腥与不流血,暴力与和平,军事与经济,教育与行政与强制力和旧社会的传统之间持续的斗争。若没有党的铁腕缓冲,不可能成功地发起此种斗争。任何人对无产阶级党的铁的纪律哪怕有最轻微的软弱,实质上皆是帮助资产阶级对抗无产阶级”。[94] 列宁反复指出“无产阶级专政,是一个工人阶级作为劳工阶级先锋队与无数非工人阶级的劳工大众(诸如小资产阶级,小业主,农民和知识分子)之间的特殊形式的阶级联盟。”[95]列宁说“无产阶级专政的目的旨在唤起千百万受剥削的劳工大众,独立参与国家的行政管理和实现新民主”。[96]列宁强调“无产阶级专政是一段在被击败但仍未消灭的资本主义与刚诞生但仍非常脆弱的共产主义之间的斗争”。[97]列宁认为“在无产阶级专政存继的整个期间阶级将继续存在;在无产阶级专政下阶级斗争并未消失;它仅是以不同的方式呈现”。[98]列宁写道“如果我们将这科学的,历史的及哲学的术语无产阶级专政翻译成简单的语言,它仅指:唯有一个既定的阶级,亦即城市产业工人阶级,在推翻资本主义统治的斗争中,在该推翻整个过程中,在巩固和维护胜利的斗争中,在创建新的社会主义,社会制度的工作中,在完全废除阶级的斗争中,能够领导受压迫的全体大众”。[99]

    值得一提的是,毛泽东之“千万不要忘记阶级斗争”及“无产阶级专政下的继续革命”;“对人民实行民主,对敌人实行专政”和“工人阶级领导的,以工农联盟为基础的人民民主专政”之说,皆源于列宁原旨。因此“苏联的今天便是中国的明天”!归纳列宁之无产阶级专政主要有如下几大特征:其一,直接依暴力镇压一切反抗和异议(暴政);其二,共产党领导(党独裁);其三,不受任何法律限制(践踏法治);其四,工农和其他阶级联盟;其五,煽动阶级仇恨阶级斗争(对人民行民主,对敌人行专制);其六,不仅消灭私有财产,而且肉体消灭剥削阶级。质言之,列宁之无产阶级专政即共产党对全社会各阶级人民实行极权专制流氓暴政,因而完全违背马克思和恩格斯原教旨。

八、结论

    综上所述:马恩仅主张过‘工薪阶级独裁’,从未提及‘无产阶级专政’,而独裁与专政(即专制)并非同一概念。独裁源于古代罗马共和时代的一种宪政制度,由元老院选任之两位执政官,在国家紧急状态下,授权某位公民(将军)为公共利益(国家安全)在限定期限内(六个月)行使绝对权力;专政与专制同义,专制是不受法律制约的绝对权力,没有任何合法性。马克思和恩格斯仅使用“工人阶级独裁”术语,“无产阶级专政”是俄共和中共的克意误译;原因在于苏联和中共之所谓共产主义革命,几乎没有或极少产业工人阶级参与,而主要是马克思称之为“小资产阶级的”农民被胁迫或诱骗参与杀人抢劫式的“共产革命”。马、恩对此所持的原则立场,始终有别于源自法国大革命时期极左革命者巴贝夫,布朗克,布朗基的列宁斯大林主义之“无产阶级专政”。

    马克思盛赞巴黎公社是“工人阶级政治统治”的范例,恩格斯则直接认定巴黎公社就是“工人阶级独裁”。然而巴黎公社并非革命党专制独裁更不是党魁独裁专制,而是工人政府主导的民主普选制。特别值得一提的是:反右运动和文革期间成千上万研究马克思原教旨的中国青年学生和教师,被中共暴政以反革命集团罪名杀害。马克思和恩格斯皆预计工人阶级夺权后仅需短期时间便能现共产主义,因为马、恩主张在生产力及科技高度发达工业国家进行共产主义革命。因此,马、恩之“工人阶级独裁”仅仅是类似古代罗马共和时代之独裁制度的短期过渡。

    马克思和恩格斯主张之工人阶级独裁,目的在于实现消灭生产资料财产私有制,因而是短期内为特定目标采取的临时举措;列宁实质上是布朗基的信徒,对马克思主义采用实用主义任意歪曲串改唯我所用;其无产阶级专政理论的本质乃是凭借暴力公然耍流氓践踏法治,由共产党对全社会各阶级人民实行极权专制流氓暴政,而且党魁对全体党员专政。中共完全继承了列宁斯大林党国暴政体制,中共之“人民民主专政”实质即共产党对全中国各阶级人民实行无限期极权专制流氓暴政。因此列斯毛邓江胡之无产阶级专政,完全违背马恩之“工薪阶级独裁”由工人阶级作为一个阶级在特定期间(从资本主义到共产主义之间的过渡时期)为特定目的(消灭生产资料财产私有制)采用普选民主政府形式的本意。

    列宁曾反复在公开演说中予计在十到二十年内实现共产主义。1919年5月4日,列宁在红场演讲时称“你们当中现在不满30至35岁的绝大多数人,将看到共产主义的鲜花…我们已创建的社会主义宏伟大厦不再是乌托邦。”[100]1920年9月他又在第三届共青团代表大会上称“你们15岁这一代人,再过10年至20年将生活在共产主义下。[101]列宁天真地相信经过10到20年便能建成所谓共产主义,因此,列宁仅要求10至20年的“专政权”以便实现共产主义;值得一提的是:腐朽的晚清慈禧太后要求九年时间以便实现君主立宪;孙文和蒋介石提出在取得政权后将用六年时间‘训政’以便实现共和宪政民主;而中共暴政从未承诺任何宪政民主,因为所有共产党政权的目标乃是“无产阶级专政”亦即共产党对全社会各阶级人民之无限期的极权专制流氓暴政!毛泽东专权时代,周恩来保证在1980年以前实现“四个现代化”;极具讽刺意味的是,如今中共承诺2050年实现“社会主义初级阶段”!至于共产主义则是“需要十几代甚至几十代人共同努力的伟大事业”!按中共流氓暴政的逻辑,在这“十几代甚至几十代”人(一代人按20年计:200年至1800年)的过渡期间,必须由共产党专政!

    马克思和恩格斯虽然与布朗基对所谓工人阶级独裁的理解与解释有原则性的区别,但“独裁”极易被误解为“专政”,而任何专政都必然导致暴政,工人阶级作为一个阶级的独裁,姑且不论其极易被野心家阴谋家任意曲解,实务中也极难操作。因为作为阶级无法实运作一个政府,最终必然落实到实际撑权的少数人身上(即国会议员和各级政府官员),因此如何选任实际撑权的少数精英,才是问题的关健。实现阶级独裁即便按马恩强调主张的巴黎公社模式,经普选产生全部议员、官员和法官等,理论上似乎可行,而实践证明不具可操作性,全世界曾经当权的四十四个共产党政府没有一个实行真正意义上的自由公正的普选。唯有经自由竞选上台(因基督教民主党与之合作,但约法三章:必须尊守宪法,保留自由媒体,司法独立)的智利共产党阿连德政府,进行过民主制下的共产主义实验,但惨遭失败;因为在媒体自由和司法独立的宪政原则下,资产阶级和其他各阶级有机会组织有效的反击,共产主义政策(剥夺资本家生产资料私有财产)根本无法实施。[102]西方自由宪政民主国家从中央到地方,各级政府首脑及各级议会议员,早在数百年前或近几十年来全部实现了自由公正普选产生。中共政权下政府首脑各级政府官员及所谓人大代表完全受中共恶党全面操控。中共政权的本质迄今仍然是由共产党对全中国各阶级人民实行极权专制流氓暴政。证据充分证实:中共宪法中所谓坚持“马克思列宁主义毛泽东思想”纯属伙同列宁对马克思的野蛮轮流强暴。

2013年3月21日



[1]近月来认真研读了数十篇马克思原著,发现没有比“无产阶级专政”更混乱不堪的论题,特虽是中文世界有关此最重大的马列共产主义理论与实践的问题研究仍非常不到位。首先,我得承认,虽然被迫学和考马列毛几十年,但直到2013年1月以前,我仅通读过一遍《共产党宣言》,并未专研任何马克思原著。直到这学期必修课才有机会认真一阅老马原著。1975年以前,西方研究马克思最专业深刻者大多是德国的学者,而全球共产党对马恩原著最精通者,非德国社会民主党莫属,拉萨尔,考茨基,伯恩斯坦,李伯内克等该党领袖,皆是马恩专家,该党实践中完全采纳伯恩斯坦的修正主义,尽管表面上否定之;而伯恩斯坦是恩格斯最信任的后继者之一,也是恩格斯的三位遗嘱执行人之一,可见恩氏对伯氏的高度信任。考茨基和伯恩斯坦其实是真正的马克思主义专家,而列宁则任意歪曲马克思原教旨。当然马克思原教旨本身并非真理,而是有许多原则性重大错误的思想理论。我曾根据马的某些论断,推论马克思数学等自然科学基础知识不通,果然证实马克思的数学非常差。马的论著存在不少茅盾,是由于其抽象思维能力有限的必然结果。马克思迄今是全球几乎公认的伟大思想家和理论家,但他确犯有许多错误。

[2] John Spargo,Socialism A Summery and Interpretation of Socialist Principles,revised ed. NY,The Macmillan Co. 1909.p.6-7. quote the English translationform the LondonClarion, December 18, 1905.

[3] Quote fromD.G.Stewart-Smith, The Defeat of Communism, London Ludgate PressLimited. 1964,p.9.

[4]D.G.Stewart-Smith,The Defeat of Communism, London Ludgate Press Limited. 1964,p.9.

[5] Michael Evans, KarlMarx, London, George Allen & Unwin Led 1975. P.156。

[6] Hal Draper , TheDictatorshipof the Proletariat in Marx and Engels, Monthly Review Press,1987.422.

[7] James Bryce, 1890, The AmericanCommonwealth, Vol.I p.51

[8] Hal Draper , TheDictatorshipof the Proletariat in Marx and Engels, Monthly Review Press,1987.420.。

[9] Hal Draper , TheDictatorshipof the Proletariat in Marx and Engels, Monthly Review Press,1987.416.

[10] Hal Draper , TheDictatorshipof the Proletariat in Marx and Engels, Monthly Review Press,1987.401.

[11] Everyone hadhis ownidea of what the proper sort of ‘dictatorship’ should be. WilhelmWeitlinghad longadvocated a messianic dictatorship with himself asthe messiah, and in1848 he openly advocated a dictatorship witha“single head”;  Marx attacked and rejected Weitling’sproposal.[9] Bakuninrecounted that his aim was the establishmentof a“government with unlimited dictatorial power,” in which “all will besubjugated to a single dictatorial authority,”through three secret societiesbased on “strict hierarchy and unconditionaldiscipline.” This was only thefirst version ofBakunin’s lifelong fabrication of various forms of a “secretdictatorship”exercised by “Invisible Dictators.”

[12] Hal Draper , TheDictatorshipof the Proletariat in Marx and Engels, Monthly Review Press,1987.413

[13] This was also the entirecontent of the concept of dictatorshipheld by Auguste Blanqui andtheBlanquist bands of the thirties and forties. In addition, theBlanquists advocated the “dictatorship of Paris” over the provinces andthecountry as a whole – which meant, above all, over the peasants and theruralartisanry; for had not the provinces shown inthe Great Revolutionthat they tended toward counterrevolution? In the name ofThe People, therevolutionary saviors would defend the revolution against thepeople.

[14] Marx went overthe same ground, in his own way, but with muchthe same acceptance of thecurrent vocabulary. Like Stein, Guizot, and everyoneelse, he not infrequently used ‘despotism’ in much the same wayas‘dictatorship’: in combinations like “classdespotism” (applied tobourgeois-democratic regimes), “parliamentary despotism,” the industrial“despotism” of the factory, or the “despotic inroads on the rights of property”to bemade by a workers’ state. The term ‘class despotism’ which he used quiteoftenin the 1850s was virtually a variation on ‘classdictatorship.’

[15]Hal Draper , TheDictatorshipof the Proletariat in Marx and Engels, Monthly Review Press,1987.

[16] The term ‘militarydictator[ship]’ wasless elastic; in fact, as far as I know, Marx andEngels never used this termabout anyone or any regime toward which they feltkindly. I suspect this wastrue of the general usage too.But on the other hand, Marx applied the term‘dictator’pejoratively to a number of political figures who exercised nodictatorship atall: in these cases the termmerely stressed some sort ofdomination inanother form. Amongthese cases we find the Irish leader Parnell,Bismarck, Lord Palmerston, anda few others. This usage, fairly commonin the press, should remind us of howoftenFranklin D. Roosevelt wascalled a“dictator” long after the meaning of the term had hardened.

[17] Marx or Engelsattacked efforts toward personal domination insidethe working-class orsocialist movement; the word ‘dictatorship’ was indeedaptto crop up in the denunciation. The two best cases in point are those of Bakuninand Lassalle, both seekersafter personal dictatorship inside themovement, and both attacked for this reason by Marx or Engels.Bakunin’sschemes for a “Secret Dictatorship”of his coterie (in the name of anarchist“libertarianism, of course) were thebasis of the Bakuninists’ drive to takeover the International from about 1869on; and by that time Marx came tounderstand that “This Russian evidentlywants to become dictator of theEuropeanworking-class movement.” The International published a brochure writtenmainlyby Engels and Lafargue, exposing “the organization of a secret society withthesole aim of subjecting the European workers’ movement to the secretdictatorship of a few adventurers ...” Thisbrochure, for years derogated byunreliablehistorians, has been confirmed in all essential respects by theaccumulation ofevidence on Bakunin’s dictatorial aspirations.[21]

[18] Ferdinand Lassalle was for several years defendedby Marx against the Communist club in the Rhineland which rejectedLassalle’s bid for membership. It is now known that Lassalle did not bother toconceal his “hankerings (strong wish or longing) for dictatorship” oftheworkers’ movement, at least not from associates whom he regarded asinferiors.Marx found this out only in 1856. Then in an 1862 visit to Marx,Lassallerevealed more of his dictatorial ideas, hishostility to “individual liberty,”and his propensity for behaving “as if hewere the future workers’ dictator.” Marxtold him that they were polesapart, agreeing “on nothing except somefar-distant ultimate ends,” and chaffed him as an “enlightenedBonapartist.”Theaccuracy of this

[19] 郭国汀编译,“伯拉图论共产主义”,博讯郭国汀律师专栏2012年7月10日

[20] Robert Payne,The Unknown Marx,NY university Press 1971,p.17.

[21]The dictatorship of proletariatpursuesocialist policy. Marx only discuss vague detail of such policy, totheabolition of the private property in all means of production.Ten demandslisted in the manifesto,generally applicable in the most advanced countries,base on universal suffragein an advanced industrial economy. The ultimate aimis the abolition of privateproperty.

[22] But whenMarx first wrote down the term ‘dictatorship of theproletariat,’ it was a veryspecific sort of metaphorical usage.Quiteearly, by 1844, Marx came to the conclusion that, to achieve a communisttransformationof society, the proletariat first had to conquer political power.Thisidea played a basic role for him, and various terms expressing it dothiswritings: not only ‘conquest of political (orstate) power,’ but ‘ruleof the proletariat’ in particular; the outcome would be a ‘workers’state’; in termsof the British movement, this meant‘proletarianascendancy.’(position of power or control) We are going to seethat,under given circumstances, one of these terms was also goingto be‘dictatorship of the proletariat.’Marx recognized that this aim, thepolitical ‘ruleof the proletariat,’ was not at all unique to his own theory; onthe contrary,he liked to stress that all other realworking-class movements set thisas their goal. This is strongly stated inthe Communist Manifesto: The immediate aim of the Communists is thesame asthat of all the other proletarian parties: constitution of theproletariat intoa class, overthrow of bourgeois rule, conquest of politicalpower by theproletariat.

[23]We are going to see, then, that Marx used the term‘dictatorship of the proletariat’in exactly the same way as he used ‘rule ofthe proletariat’ and the other labels for a workers’ state. Butunder whatcircumstances did he tend to do so? A major clue is found in thefact that Marx’sand Engels’ use of the term‘dictatorship of the proletariat’ clustered in threeperiods and was in factnotably absent in between.

[24] Marx’s chapter goes on to say thatthis revolutionarysocialism “is the declarationof the permanence of the revolution, the classdictatorship of theproletariat as the necessary transit point tothe abolition of classdistinctions generally” and thence tothe revolutionizing of allsociety. Please note that Marx’s emphasis is ontheterm ‘class dictatorship.’

[25] In thefirst chapter of his ClassStruggles in France, Marxmentionedthat in the course of the revolution in France, “there appeared thebold sloganof revolutionary struggle: Overthrow of the bourgeoisie!Dictatorship ofthe working class!”Since there is absolutelyno record that “dictatorship ofthe proletariat” appeared as a slogan at all, Isuggest that Marx is not sayinghere that it appeared; he is onlyplacing it in apposition withthe slogan that did appear, the first-mentionedslogan, namely “Overthrow of thebourgeoisie!” In effect he is explaining whatthe first-mentioned slogan meant.In the same passage, by the way, Marx freely used “bourgeois terrorism”and “bourgeoisdictatorship” interchangeably with bourgeois “rule” tocharacterize the“bourgeois republic.  In the second chapter, Marxmentioned that the proletariat was not yetsufficiently developed to take poweritself. “the proletariat ... [was] not yetenabled through the development ofthe remaining classes to seize the revolutionary dictatorship ...”Inwriting this, Marx, as often, excluded the idea ofa seizure of power bya minority in the Blanquist fashion.

[26] Marx toWeydemeyer 5, March 1852, see Mclellan KMSW 2000.372..’

[27] Karl Marx, NRZ 12 Sept 1848. SeeMichael Evans, Karl Marx, London, George Allen& Unwin Led 1975. P. 148”.

[28] WolfgangLeonhard, Three Faces of Marxism : The Political Concepts of SovietIdeology,Maoism, and Humanist Marxism( translated by Ewall Osers) NY.Holt,Rinchart andWinston 1974. P.31.’

[29] Michael Evans,Karl Marx, London, George Allen & Unwin Led 1975. P. 148.MEW 7: 89-90. MEW18:529.

[30] See Marx, civilWar in France, KMSW II.498-99

[31] In1891, Engelsintroduce Marx’s The Civil War in France.But from Aug 1852 to April 1871,Marxand Engels never once mentioned either The Dictatorship of the Proletariatorthe rule of working class. Marx and Engels saw Paris Commune as thefirstexample of The Dictatorship of the Proletariat. Marx praised the communeas an‘essentially working class government’. And as ‘the political form, workoutthe economic emancipation of labour’. Engels declared ‘commune wasTheDictatorship of the Proletariat’

[32] In the two decadesbefore the Paris Commune, there wasnot a single case of Marx’s use of‘dictatorship of the proletariat. As always, he kept referring to the ‘rule oftheproletariat,’ ‘conquest of political power,’ ‘workers’ state,’ and similar expressions to denote the assumption of statepower by the working class.Accidental?It is entirely explainable interms of the thesis offered above. During thesetwo decades, in which the leftmovement was at a low ebb, Marx’s work andactivities did notinvolve him in any connection with Blanquist elements. Therewas no need for himto deal with their conception of dictatorship.Forthe same reason
the term ‘dictatorship oftheproletariat’ did not appear in TheCivil War in France, thedefenseand analysis of the Paris Commune that Marx wrote for the GeneralCouncil of theInternational. At this time, and until the Communard refugeesstarted tricklinginto London, the Blanquistshadrefused any ties with the International; it was not “revolutionary” enoughforthem.

[33]
It is clear that, in Marx’s eyes,the Commune took no “dictatorial”measures– ifthe present-daymeaning of the word is used. Indeed, there had been a proposalinside theCommune to do just that, as the military situation grew more andmore precarious before the military power of the Versailles government. The Blanquist-Jacobin majority of theCommune proposed toset up a dictatorial body to be called a Committee of PublicSafety, with special arbitrarypowers. The debate over“dictatorship” was acrimonious(bitterness asa manner); when the proposal wasadopted, the Minority walked out of theCommune. This split would have attractedmore attention from historiansthan it has if the final Versaillese assault onthe city had not commenced atvirtually the moment of the split, making itacademic as all pitched in to themilitary defense. But in hindsight it is importantto notethat the antidictatorial Minority represented most of the Internationalpeopleas well as the Proudhonists, and in particular it included all thefigures whohad any special connection with Marx or showed any tendency to lookto his ideas (for example, Serraillier, who waspractically Marx’spersonal representative; Frankel, Longuet, Varlin).

[34] Since the ParisCommune clearly had no “dictatorial”trappings in the modern sense, it has always represented a problem for thosewho maintainthat Marx’s ‘dictatorship of the proletariat’ meant somethingspecially“dictatorial” as compared with a mere workers’ state. When we find that Marx (not only Engels) had nocompunction(guiltfeeling) about calling it a “dictatorship of the proletariat,” this factitself speaks volumes aboutour basic thesis.After the fall of the Commune, Blanquist Communards among others found theirwayto London, where they began working with Marx, especially on refugeeaid;several were co-opted onto the General Council. No evidence is neededtounderstand that Marx naturally discussed his views with them, as withothers;but there is good evidence nevertheless. In other words, as in the1850s, Marxtried to “re-educate” them from his standpoint. The Blanquists justas naturally set out to turn the International into aBlanquist sect. With this two-wayinfluence, it is of the greatest interestthat now we find Marx – once again after twentyyears – usingthe term ‘dictatorship of the proletariat.’ Andwe willalso now find the Blanquist refugees using it too! – in their case, forthefirst time.

[35] A correspondent of the New YorkWorld sent in a longish dispatch aboutthe banquet (“The Reds in Session”)with a considerable summary of Marx’s talk.About the Commune, Marx reiterated his view that “the Commune was theconquest of the political power ofthe working classes.” Its aim wasto remove any “base for class rule andoppression”: “But before such a changecould be effected a proletariandictaturewould become necessary.” Thus Marx’s first use of the termsince 1852took place before an assemblage heavily weighted with BlanquistCommunards,where “the name that set the whole assembly in motion like an electric shock was Blanqui’s” . Apparently Marx even used the Frenchform of the term (dictature).He was once again confronting the Blanquistmind with his own conception of class dictatorship.

[36] Paris commune create five majororgansof the state:First, the standing army replaced bythe armed people;second, the church disestablished, and free and seculareducation made availableto all; third a commune had been elected by universalsuffrage, a body ofdelegate rather than representative; fourth, the delegatesand all publicservants, including police, administrators, magistrates, hadbeen elective,responsible and instantly revocable agents of the people; fifth,strictconstrain to prevent delegates become masters lower wages as a worker.Communalassembly as a working, not a parliamentary body, both legislative andexecutive;decentralisation and self-government.

[37] Wolfgang Leonhard, Three Faces of Marxism : ThePolitical Concepts of SovietIdeology, Maoism, and Humanist Marxism( translatedby Ewall Osers) NY.Holt,Rinchart and Winston 1974. P.32.

[38] Timothy McCarthy, Marx and theProletariat, London, Greenwood Press, 1978,p.xiii.  

[39] Marx’s next use of the term came in an articlewrittenaround the turn of the year 1872 into 1873, as a polemic againstProudhon andanarchism, not so much on anarchism itself as on the anarchiststance ofprincipled hostility to revolutionary political activity. It was published in December 1873 inan Italian socialistannual under the title “Indifference to Politics.” The article begins abruptly with a long section, all inquotation marks, which purports torepresent what an antipolitical Proudhonistor anarchist would say if he setdown his views frankly. The ‘dictatorship’ termoccurs in the course of thisfictitious speech; for the speaker is shownattacking the idea of the‘dictatorship of the proletariat’ inthe same way as heattacks any idea of political action or political power. In this way the Proudhonist is represented as asserting: “If the politicalstruggle of the working class assumesviolent forms, if the workers substitutetheir revolutionary dictatorship forthe dictatorship of the bourgeois class,they commit the terrible crime ofviolating principle, for” “the workers donotlay down arms and abolish the state but rather “give it a revolutionaryandtransitional form. Asusual, the ‘dictatorship’phrase is used here asonly another formulation for workers’ political power;but there is aspecial interest. Here Marx makes the thought plainby counterpoising two class “dictatorships”; the“dictatorship of the bourgeoisclass” is made coordinate with the “revolutionarydictatorship” of the workingclass. This usage underlines that Marxthinks of class dictatorships (either one) in termsof the class nature ofpolitical power, rather than in terms of specialgovernmental forms.

[40] The one thing this short statementmakes clear is thatMarx did not think in terms of more or less dictatorialforms of thetransitional period represented by the workers’ state.Especially in the twentieth century it was not uncommon to readthat, accordingto Marx, a workers’ state might or might not be a “dictatorship of theproletariat,” depending presumably onhow severely dictatorial it had to become.
This interpretation isexcluded byMarx’s words: the workers’ state “canbe nothing but” a dictatorship of theproletariat; in other words, thetwo terms are synonymous. Inthisconnection, it is worth noting that, soon after the passage quoted, Marxwarnedagainst confusing the “state” with the “government machine.” This has tobeapplied to the previous statement that in the transitional period the state will be the dictatorship of the proletariat. For Marx this was a statement about the societal content of the state, the class character ofthe political power. It was not a statementabout the formsof the government machine or other structural aspects ofgovernment or policies.


[41] David Mclellan,Karl Marx Selected Writings 2ed Oxford University Press.2000.p.331.

[42] Karl Mark andF. Engels CollectedWorks Vol.I NY International Publishers1975 Vol.I XV.NewYork World 15, Oct 1871. Michael Evans, Karl Marx, London, George Allen&Unwin Led 1975. P. 149.

[43] WilliamH.Chamberlin, Collectivism A False Utopia, NY, The Macmillan Co,1937.p.vi.William H.Chamberlin in his Collectivism A FalseUtopia[1]concludedthat the most important issue which confronts civilization in thepresentcentury is that of democracy versus dictatorship. (v)Collectivism, bothin itscommunist and its fascist forms, is a false utopia; free institutionspossess apragmatic value for outweighting the largely illusory advantages oftheshort-cut methods of dictatorship.

[44] therevolutionary programme of TheDictatorship of the Proletariat, the conquest ofpolitical power by the working class in alliance with thenon-proletariansections of the working people, was the culminating point ofMarxism.

[45] Marx asserted that theproletariatcannot merely take over the existing state machine, but must smashit andcreate a new one suited to the situation, from experience of 1848-1850revolution.In the Manifesto, Marx seems thought that state are a neutral instrument, but inthe Eighteenth Brumaire, he declared that the revolution‘perfects the statepower…in order to concentrate all its forces of destructionagainst it. Proletariat revolution must smash thestate machine, not simply to transfer itto new hand. The political machinewhich had enslaved the working class couldnot be ‘the political instrument oftheir emancipation’.

[46] RobertPayne, Marx, Simon and Shuster, NY 1968,p.23. "At age of twelve Karl entered theFriedrich Wilhelm Gymnasium, He received excellent marks in Greek, Latin, andGerman, but showed no great understanding of history, and was weak inmathematics and French. He was generally incapable of solving even the simplestproblem s accurately".

[47] Karl Mark and F. EngelsCollectedWorks Vol.50. 1892-1895. NY International Publishers 2004 p.XV. p.XVI. p.XX..

[48] Peter Calvert, Revolution andCounter-revolution. Open university Press 1990p.10. see Marx and Engels 1962, ISelected Works. Moscow, Foreign languagesPublishing House. P.21-65.Shortlybefore his death Marx andsubsequently Engels on more than one occasion statedthat it was possible thatthe proletariat would gain power in advancedindustries countries byconstitutional means, without the need for an armedstruggle. A furtherunforeseen factor was the rise and consolidation ofnationalism.

[49]Robert Payne, The Unknown Marx,NYuniversity Press 1971,p.6。 Marx’s proofs concerning The Dictatorship ofthe Proletariat were in fact prophecies state with great force andconviction. The class struggle must necessarily lead to the dictatorship of proletariat  was his most original contributionto the theory of class struggle, and he meant by The Dictatorship of theProletariat precisely what he said: The ruling power would fall into the handsof the poor farmers and the unskilled and semi-skilled workers. Thearistocrats, bourgeoisie, and the skilled workers would be dethroned, andmajority poor, would inherit the earth. Then in the course of time TheDictatorship of the Proletariat would give way to a classless society.

[50]  Hardon the heels of Marx’s Italian article, Engelsused the term in Part III of his workTheHousing Question. It occurred in two passages. In the first Engels discussed the Blanquist pamphlet of1872, which, he claimed,“adopted, and almost literally at that, the views ofGerman scientific socialismon the necessity ofpoliticalaction by the proletariat and of its dictatorship as the transitionto theabolition of classes and withthem of the state – views such ashad already been expressed in the Communist Manifesto and since then oninnumerableoccasions.” This shows strikingly that Engels saw nothing in the term ‘dictatorship of the proletariat’ which was not already in the Manifesto –which said nothing about any“dictatorship.” Thesecond passageis interesting for a similar reason. Here Engels was polemizingagainst aProudhonist, who attacked thevery notionof class political power, or “class rule.” Engels replies: why, every politicalparty wants to establishits rule in the state; a socialist workers’ partylikewise strives for the ruleof the working class.Moreover, every real proletarian party, from theEnglish Chartistsonward, hasalways put forward a class policy, theorganization of the proletariat as anindependent political party, as the firstcondition of the struggle, and thedictatorship of the proletariat as theimmediate aim of the struggle.What leapsto the eye is Engels’ assumptionthat ‘dictatorship of the proletariat’has no special meaning other than theestablishment of the “rule” of theworking class. “Every” real working-classparty stands for it: thisstatement can make no sense to anyone who believesthat there is some special“theory of proletarian dictatorship” in Marx andEngels, involving specialnotions about “dictatorial” measures.

[51] The clearestexplanation of the meaning of‘dictatorship of the proletariat’ came soon (1874)in an article by Engelsdevoted precisely to the Blanquists’ adoption of theterm, in their brochure Aux Communeux. This article,“Program of the Blanquist Refugees of the Commune,” is, far and away,the bestanalysis of the Blanquist tendency ever published, but this is not our presentsubject. Its statement onour subjectgoes as follows: From the fact that Blanquiconceivesof every revolution as the
coupde main of a smallrevolutionaryminority, whatfollows of itself is thenecessity of dictatorship after its success –the dictatorship, please note, not ofthe entire revolutionary class, theproletariat, but of the small number ofthose who made the coup demainand who themselves are organized beforehand under the dictatorship ofoneperson or a few. There could be no more instructive differentiation between – on the one hand – Marx’sconception of the ‘dictatorshipof the proletariat’ as the rule (‘dictatorship’)of a majority class or classmovement, and – onthe other – the traditionalconception of dictatorship, the idea of the“previous generation,” as thedictatorship of the party or revolutionary band,hence entailing thedictatorship of the latter over the proletariat.

[52] In October 1890, as he was pulling the critique outof thearchive, he sat down to write a letter to a comrade discussing the materialist conception of history. This is one of the letters in which Engelsexplainedthat this conception does not present economic factors asaloneoperative in history. Look at Marx’s Eighteenth Brumaire, he advised,“whichalmost exclusively concerns itself with the special role thatpolitical struggles andevents play, naturally within the framework of their general dependence on economicconditions.” Pointing to other analyses by Marx, headded: Or whythen do we fight for thepolitical dictatorship of the proletariat, if political power is economically powerless? Force (state power) is also aneconomic power. [Letter to C. Schmidt, October27, 1890] Once again, Engelsassumed that ‘dictatorship of the proletariat’ was a mere synonymfor theconquest of political power by the working class. Once again, if the term is assigned anarrower or morespecial meaning, this rather casual reference by Engels ceasesto make sense.When Marx’s “Critique” was published in the Neue Zeit,
it was a“bombshell” (as Engelssaid). The main reason for this was its criticism ofLassalleanism, but thereference to the “revolutionarydictatorshipof the proletariat” was equally denounced by the right wing of theparty. One leader of the parliamentary grouprepudiated it on the floorof the Reichstag. For a while the entire partyleadership boycottedEngels personally for daring to make Marx’s views known tothe party membershipand the public. Never before had the right wing’shostility to Marx come out inthe open as it did now.

[53] Meanwhile Engels was working on anew edition of Marx’s The Civil War in France. In Marchhe finished hisnew introduction to that analysis of the Paris Commune. This wasineffect an essay on the Commune: once more hedissected the Blanquist approach to revolution – the viewpoint thatarelatively small number of resolute, well-organized men would be able ...tomaintain power until they succeeded in sweeping the mass of people intotherevolution and ranging them round the small band of leaders. Thisinvolved,above all, the strictest, dictatorial centralization of all power inthe handsof the new revolutionary government. Like Marx, Engels reviewed the Commune’simplementation of real democracy.Andthen, at the very end,he paid his respects tothe right-wingers who wereattacking Marx’s “Critique”:Of late, theSocial-Democratic philistine has oncemore been
filledwith wholesometerror at the phrase: dictatorship of the proletariat.Well and good, gentlemen,do you want to know what thisdictatorship looks like? Look at the ParisCommune. That was the dictatorshipof the proletariat.

[54] In calling the Communea ‘dictatorship of theproletariat’Engels was echoing Marx’s banquet speech of 1871,which until quiterecently was virtually unknowntothe marxological industry. Hence for a very long time it was customaryforwriters to assert that this was Engels’ own invention – for how could the Commune be a‘dictatorship of theproletariat’. if it did not take some sturdily “dictatorial” steps?Plainly these marxologistswill have to argue that Marx – like Engels – did notunderstand “Marxism”; onlythey do, having virtually invented it. Three months later, Engels hadanother bombshell readyfor the “Social-Democratic philistine” wing of theparty: a critique of thedraft Erfurt Program. Hewastaking the opportunity “to strike at the peaceable opportunism of the Vorwärts[the party organ]” andat the reformist view that bourgeois society wouldof itself “grow” intosocialist society. (By the way, themyth that by this time Engels had become an advocateof “peaceable” gradualismwas invented, after his death, by the verypeople against whom this campaign wasdirected.)Engels’critique of the draft program especially raised the questionof including ademand for the democratic republic as one of the “democratic”planks, andargued that a peaceful assumption of power was not possible inGermany. Hewrote: If anything is established,it is that our party and the working class can cometo power only under theform of the democratic republic. This is even the specific form for thedictatorship ofthe proletariat, as the great French revolution [the ParisCommune] has alreadyshown. he was explaining the relationship between thegovernmentalform (democraticrepublic) andthe class content of the state (dictatorship of the proletariat).The Paris Commune  had showninrevolutionary practice that a workers’ state (dictatorship of theproletariat)could and probably would be based on the forms of the democraticrepublic.

[55] Engels’coupling(connect)of ‘dictatorship of the proletariat’ with the term ‘democraticrepublic’ hasbeen another target for the marxological campaign to turn‘dictatorship of theproletariat’ into a special slogan about dictatorship. Muchof this campaign depends, unwittingly, on the laterpatternaccording to which the term ‘democratic’ was used as a shorthandform for‘bourgeois-democratic,’ especially but not only in the Russianmovement. Butneither Marx nor Engels ever limitedthe word ‘democratic’ to themeaning of ‘bourgeois-democratic.’Indeed, no one has ever tried to show thatthey did; we are again dealing withan unthought-through assumption, based onthe naive belief that one’s ownpolitical jargon had arisen with Adam.But themain difficulty has not beeninability to see that ‘democratic republic,’ tomost people, meant a republicthat was democratic, and not some special termthat only the sophisticatedinitiates could understand. The maindifficulty, asbefore, is the assumption that a ‘dictatorship of theproletariat’ has tobe “dictatorial” in the modern sense, andtherefore could not be clothed instraightforward democratic forms.

[56] In 1893 a young Russian Social-Democratic emigrévisited Engels.Plekhanov, the leader andtheoretician of therelatively new Russian Marxist group, had given him aletter of recommendation. A third of a centurylater, A. M. Voden wrote up hismemoirs, including his“Talks with Engels.” Just why ‘dictatorship ofthe proletariat’ came into the conversation is not clear from Voden’s account.The two were discussing therelations between Narodniks (Russian Populists) andthe RussianSocial-Democrats, including Plekhanov’s attitude. Voden writes: Engels asked howPlekhanov himself stood on thequestion of the dictatorship of the proletariat. I was forced to admit that G.V Plekhanov had repeatedly expressedhisconviction to me that when“we” come topower, of course “we” would allow freedom to no one but “ourselves”...However, in response to myquestion who exactlyshould be taken to be the monopolists of freedom, Plekhanov answered: the working classheaded by comradeswho correctly understand Marx’s teachings and who draw thecorrect conclusionsfrom those teachings. And inresponse to myquestion on what comprises the objective criteria for a correctunderstandingof Marx’s teachings and the correct practical conclusions flowingthere from,G. V Plekhanov limited himself to the statement that it was all laidout“clearly enough, it seems” in his (Plekhanov’s) works. If Voden’s report was accurate (andthere is no reasonto doubt it), then it is clear what theleaderand teacher of Russian Social-Democracy –destined also to be the leadingtheoretician of Russian Menshevism–was teaching his movement. When “we” seize power, democraticrights (“freedom”) would be withdrawn from opponents, and adictatorial regimewould be imposed with the dictatorship in the hands of thevictorious party orjust its leadership. There is no mystery about wherePlekhanov – himself aNarodnik only a few years before – had gotten thesenotions: this conception of dictatorship hadlongbeen the unquestioned orthodoxy of the
Blanquistand Bakuninist elements who hadlong provided most ofthe training of Russian (and other) revolutionaries.He did not get it fromMarx’s old term; the relationship was the other way’round – this was thestandard conception which he imposed on Marx’s term whenhe heard it. And what did Engels think of this,whentold by Voden? We learn this inVoden’s memoirs, which continue asfollows:
[57] After inquiring whether I personallyon the other handwas satisfied with such an objective criterion [that is,Plekhanov’s],
Engels expressed the opinion thattheapplication of that sort of criterion would either lead to theRussianSocial-Democracy’s turning into a sect with its unavoidable and alwaysundesirablepractical consequences, or it would give rise in the RussianSocial-Democracy –at least among the emigré Russian Social-Democrats – to aseries of splits fromwhich Plekhanov himself would not benefit. In short, thought Engels, Plekhanov’s perspective would wreckthe movement, eitherby a split or (what amounts to the same thing) sectification.There isan indication in Voden’s memoirs that there was more to report aboutEngels’hostile reception to this account of the Russian leader’s views. Engels remarked that Plekhanov seemedto him a Russian analogue(similar) of H. M. Hyndman.Voden footnoted that Plekhanovtook this as acompliment, and it is likely that Voden had no idea of what itmeant.Hyndman, the leader of theBritish “Marxist” sect which Marxand Engels used to denounce in the mostcutting terms, was furthermore viewedby them as a sect dictator, whosedictatorial patterns had splitthe movement more than once. It is hard to exaggerate thesignificance of thislittle-known episode, as a symbol and as an educationalbeam of light on themeaning of the question. In just a few years the Russian Social-Democratic Workers Party was going tobecome the first socialist organization in the world to include the‘dictatorship of the proletariat’ inits program–though Marx and Engels had alwaysrefused to propose sucha step. Theterm was written into the partyprogram by Plekhanov, who by that time wasperhaps the mostprestigious theoretician of Marxism outside Germany.  Thus thenewera of the ‘dictatorship of the proletariat’ was launched on its way – notbyLenin but by the future leader and theoretician of Menshevism. Thus the antidemocratic interpretationof ‘dictatorshipof the proletariat,’ repudiated byEngels when it was reported to him,was going to blossom in the SecondInternational and particularly in the Russianmovement.

[58]恩格斯让他主编了资本论第四集《剩余价值论》,可见恩格斯对其高度信任。

[59] 郭国汀编译《列宁不为人知的故事》

[60] Karl Kautsky,The Dictatorship of the Proletariat (University of Michigan PressAnn Arber1964, 1919 ed) p.140.Karl Kautsky in 1918 wrote TheDictatorship of theProletariat, arguing that Lenin’s ‘revolutionarydictatorship’ was far fromremoved from what Marx had in mind. When he used thephrase ‘The Dictatorship ofthe Proletariat’. Marx has not meant by this ‘aform of government’.

[61] Kautskyinsisted that “The proletariatclass struggle, as a struggle of massespresupposes democracy…masses can not beorganised secretly and above all asecret organisation cannot be a democraticone. It always led to thedictatorship of a single man, or of a small knot ofleaders. The ordinarymembers can only become instruments for carrying outorders. Such a method maybe ended necessary for an oppressed class in theabsence of democracy, but itwould not be promote the self-government andindependence of the masses, ratherwould it farther the Messiah-consciousnessof leaders, and their dictatorshiphabits.

[62] Karl Kautsky,The Dictatorship of the Proletariat (University of Michigan PressAnn Arber1964, 1919 ed) p.19-20

[63] Peter Calvert,Revolution and Counter-revolution. Open university Press 1990p.12. Calvert isthe professor of Comparative and International politics at theuniversity ofSouthampton.The Dictatorship of the Proletariatwhich Marx envisaged asfollowing the revolution is not clear. In 1848 the term ‘dictatorship had notyet acquired the unrelievedly negative connotation ofour time- a dictator wasstill seen by many as an emergency office in the Romemould, whereby all powerswere granted to some person(s) acting in theinterests of the state as a whole.Marx never see it as the rule of one men,but as the collective will of a class.Engels likened it to the government ofthe Paris Commune. Lenin subordinatingthe will of the soviet to that of theparty.

[64]伯恩斯坦深得恩格斯信任,他是恩格斯遗嘱执行人,受遗赠恩格斯全部著作信函,理解恩格斯的真实想法与主张,因此德国社民党修正了马恩原著中含暴力的成份,淡化了阶级斗争及专制的色彩。

[65] WilliamH.Chamberlin, Collectivism A False Utopia, NY, The MacmillanCo,1937.177.Communism, on Lenin’steachings, might be described asa dictatorshipto end dictatorships. A soft of conception of a warto end of wars. The Dictatorship of the Proletariat, inpracticemeant the dictatorship of the communist party over the people, a smallrulinggroup over the party.

[66] WilliamH.Chamberlin, Collectivism A False Utopia, NY, The Macmillan Co,1937.245.TheDictatorshipof the Proletariat has never beenanything but a play with words, thetrue beneficiary of revolution is not theworking class or people as a whole,but the military, police, political,economic bureaucracy that firmly entrenchedin powers.

[67] 1903年俄国社会民主党分裂成孟什维克和布尔什维克,亦即少数派和多数派,普氏是孟什维克的领导人。

[68]Dmitri Vokogonov, Lenin A New Biography, translated and editedby Harold Shukman( The Free Press New York London, 1994)p.21.

[69]Plekhanov, G.V. God na Rodine, op. 21.

[70]Dmitri Vokogonov, Lenin A New Biography, translated and editedby Harold Shukman( The Free Press New York London, 1994)p.9.

[71]郭国汀编译《列宁不为人知的故事》

[72]Valentinov Tragediya Plekhanov, p.272.

[73]In Edinstvo, 28, Oct,1917.

[74] Michael Evans,Karl Marx, London, George Allen & Unwin Led 1975. P.150.Bakunin believethat state was thefount of all evil and had to be replaced by communes freelyorganised andfederalised, he raised that the meaning of ‘the proletariat raisedinto aruling class’ and asking ‘will the proletariat as a whole be at the headof theGovernment? Then he claimed that such a state ‘will be nothing else butdespoticrule over the masses by a new, numerically small aristocracy of genuineor shamscientist.

[75] MEW 18:633.Bakuninfear that The Dictatorship ofthe Proletariat would be a dictatorship over thepeasantry.  Marx later noted that the revolution in apeasant country‘must not contagonisic the peasant…by proclaiming the abolitionof the right of inheritance or the abolition of his property.

[76] H.F. Peters,Red Jenny, A lifewith Karl Marx,  London, Allen &Unwin 1986p.157.Marx fight with Mikhail Bakunin, who considered The Dictatorshipof theProletariat dangerous, because like any dictatorship, itviolated the humanrights of freedom. “ I regret the blindness of those whobelieve that they canachieve economic equality and justice in any other wayexcept by freedom.Equality without freedom is a terrible fiction, created byswindlers to misleadfools. Equality without freedom means statedespotism.

[77]PSS. Polnoe, Sobranie Sochinenii 5ed(Moscow, 1958-65)Vol.41.Pp.298-318

[78]PSS Polnoe, Sobranie Sochinenii 5ed(Moscow, 1958-65).Vol.33. In his book, "Left Wing Communism" (Vol. 30) Lenin counseled:"Communists are to be ready to cheat, lie, perjure and do everythingpossible to gain their ends."

[79]郭国汀编译《列宁不为人知的故事》

[80]郭国汀编译《列宁不为人知的故事》

[81] Quoted in  MichaelConfino, Violence dans la Violence, le debat Bakounine Netchaiev.( Paris:Maspero, 1973) 137.

[82] PSS.Vol. 41. P.376. The dictatorship means unrestrained powerbased on force and not on law.

[83] Lenin, Polnoe, Sobranie Sochinenii 5ed(Moscow, 1958-65).Vol.41. 383.

[84] PSS. Polnoe, Sobranie Sochinenii 5ed(Moscow,1958-65)Vol.41.p.380.

[85] PSS. Polnoe, Sobranie Sochinenii 5ed(Moscow, 1958-65)Vol.41.p.383.

[86] Lenin, The StateandRevolution,F.L.P.H.,1961,p.141.Lenin at beginning also claim similarconcept asMarx and Engels of dictatorship of the proletariat; later hedeclared that onlywho ‘recognition of The Dictatorship of the Proletariat is aMarxist’[1].

[87] Lenin, ACaricature of Marxism and Imperialist Economise, August-October 1916,23,69.Leninproceeded the idea of asocialist revolution must be led by an elite party.Dictatorial means of forcebecome the counter of his concept of ‘The Dictatorship of the Proletariat’ by1916, Lenin said that The Dictatorship ofthe Proletariat as a rule ‘restdirectly on coercion’, necessary ‘to overthrowthe bourgeoisie and repel itsattempts at counter-revolution.’

[88] Lenin, SixThese on the Immediate Tasks of the Soviet Government, April 30-May3, 1918, 27,316.The Dictatorship of the Proletariatpresupposes a ‘revolutionary governmentthat is really firm and ruthless’; hecomplained Bolshevik rule was still ‘toomild’.

[89] Lenin, The State and Revolution, F.L.P.H.,1961,p.133.Lenin declared thatThe Dictatorshipof the Proletariat as ‘an authority share with none else andrelying directlyon the armed force of the masses.

[90] Lenin, The ProletariatRevolution and the Renegade Kautsky, 28,236.The Dictatorship of the Proletariatis‘a rule that is unrestricted by any law’.

[91] Lenin, TheState and Revolution, F.L.P.H.,1961,p.193.The Dictatorship of theProletariat,while ‘democracy for the poor, for the people’, required ‘seriesrestriction ofliberty of the oppressors, exploiters, and capitalists, we mustcrashthem…their resistance must be broken by force…where there is suppressiontheremust be violence, and there cannot be liberty or democracy.

[92] Lenin, TheImmediate Tasks of the Soviet Government, 27, 263-8. Lenin claimed that it is‘extremelystupid’ to assume that ‘the transition from capitalism to socialismis possiblewithout coercion and without dictatorship. Since ‘capitalism cannotdefeated and eradicated without the ruthless suppression of the resistance oftheexploiters’, who will always try to overthrow the new power; asocialistrevolution is ‘inconceivable without internal war, civil war; thusneed ‘aniron hand’, The Dictatorship of the Proletariat demands ‘absolute andstrictunity of will’.

[93] Lenin,Greetings to the Hungarian Workers, 27 May 1919, 29, 391. This dictatorshippresupposes theruthlessly severe, swift and resolute use of force to crush theresistance ofthe exploiters, the capitalists, landowners and their underlings.Whoever doesnot understand this is not revolutionary, and must be removed fromthe post ofleader or advisor of the proletariat’.

[94] Lenin,Left-wing Communism-an Infantile Disorder, 31, 44-45.Lenin make it clear thatTheDictatorship of the Proletariat must be under the leadership of theparty.Since The Dictatorship of the Proletariat was ‘a persistent struggle,bloodyand bloodless, violent and peaceful, military and economic, educationalandadministrative-against the forces and traditions of the old society’.‘Withouta party of iron that has been tempered in the struggle’, it wasimpossible towage such a struggle successfully, ‘whoever brings even theslightest weakeningof the iron discipline of the party of the proletariat, isactually aiding thebourgeoisie against the proletariat’.

[95] Lenin,“Foreword to the Published Speech, ‘Deception of the People with SlogansofFreedom and Equality” 23 June 1919. 29, 381. Lenin repeatedly pointed out thatTheDictatorship of the Proletariat was a special form of class alliancebetweenthe proletariat, the vanguard of the working people, and thenumerousnon-proletariat working people (such as petty bourgeoisie, smallpropertyowners, peasantry, intelligentsia).

[96] Lenin,immediate Tasks of the Soviet Government.27, 265. The aim of The Dictatorshipof theProletariat was to raise ‘tens of millions of working and exploitedpeople’, toa ‘new democracy and independent participation in the administrationof thestate.’

[97] Lenin, Economies and Politics inthe Era of The Dictatorship of theProletariat, 30 October 1919, 30, 107. TheDictatorship of the Proletariatwas ‘a period of struggle between capitalismwhich defeated but not destroyedand communism which born but still very feeble.[1]

[98] Lenin,Economies and Politics in the Era of The Dictatorship of theProletariat, 30October 1919,115. Lenin believed that classes wouldcontinue to exist throughoutthe duration of The Dictatorship of theProletariat; the class struggle does notdisappear under The Dictatorship ofthe Proletariat; it merely assumes differentforms.

[99] Lenin, Collected Works, 4thRuss.ed., Vol 29,p.387. quoteFundamentals of Marxism and Leninism, Manualsecond ed, Foreign LanguagesPublishing House Moscow 1963, translated and editedby Clemens Dutt.p.509. Lenin wrote that “If we translate thisscientific,historical-philosophical term ‘dictatorship of the proletariat’into simplelanguage, it means just the following: only a definite class,namely, the of theurban and industrial workers in general, is able to lead thewhole mass of thetoilers and exploited in the struggle for the overthrow ofthe yoke of capital,in the process of this overthrow, in the struggle tomaintain and consolidatethe victory, in the work of creating the new,socialist, social system, in thewhole struggle for the complete abolition ofclasses.”

[100]PSS. Polnoe, Sobranie Sochinenii 5ed(Moscow, 1958-65)Vol.38.p.325.

[101]PSS. Polnoe, Sobranie Sochinenii 5ed(Moscow, 1958-65)Vol.41.p.318.

[102]郭国汀编译《西方国家的共产主义》博讯郭律师专栏






 楼主| 发表于 2/19/2013 20:49:49 | 显示全部楼层
本帖最后由 郭国汀 于 2/24/2013 17:58 编辑

实现工人阶级独裁的革命纲领,由工人阶级取得政治权力,与非工人阶级的劳工大众结盟,是马克思主义平顶点。
the revolutionary programme of TheDictatorship of the Proletariat, the
conquest of political power by the working class in alliance with thenon-proletarian sections of the working people, was the culminating point ofMarxism.
[1]


[1] Karl Mark and F. Engels CollectedWorks Vol.I NY International Publishers1975 Vol.I XV.


 楼主| 发表于 2/19/2013 20:17:33 | 显示全部楼层
本帖最后由 郭国汀 于 2/24/2013 17:46 编辑

马克思传记作者罗伯特认为:阶级斗争观念并非老马的发明,在马之前已有不少学者主张和承认,包括圣西门,但马认为其原创贡献在于发现:阶级斗争必然导致工人阶级独裁,在资本主义与共产主义之间有一段工人阶级独裁的过渡时期。对于何谓工人阶级独裁马克思说:”统治权力将落入贫苦的农民,非熟练工人,和半熟练工人之手,但不包括熟练工人。亦即马克思认为占人口多数的穷人将继承地球。然后经一段期间,工人阶级独裁将让位于一个无阶级社会“。不过,有关此种”贫苦的农民,非熟练工人,和半熟练工人之手,熟练工人将被排除在外。”此说似乎不是马克思的说法,而是无政府主义巴古宁的说法;因为马克思历来主张工人阶级代表最先进的社会生产力,视农民为小资产阶级而且是工人阶级的敌人。但二十世纪的共产主义革命证明巴古宁主张的革命力量基本正确,而马克思之社会主义革命将首先同时发生时最发达的工业国家之预言则完全落空。

Marx’s proofs concerning The Dictatorship of the Proletariat were in fact prophecies state with great force and conviction. The class struggle must necessarily lead to the dictatorship of proletariat  was his most original contribution to the theory of class struggle, and he meant by The Dictatorship of the Proletariat precisely what he said: The ruling power would fall into the hands of the poor farmers and the unskilled and semi-skilled workers. The aristocrats, bourgeoisie, and the skilled workers would be dethroned, and majority poor, would inherit the earth. Then in the course of time The Dictatorship of the Proletariat would give way to a classless society.[1]


[1] Robert Payne, The Unknown Marx,NY university Press 1971,p.6
 楼主| 发表于 2/19/2013 20:18:08 | 显示全部楼层
本帖最后由 郭国汀 于 2/24/2013 17:48 编辑

考茨基是著名的马克思主义理论家,恩格斯让他主编了资本论第四集《论剩余价值》;1918年他公开批评列宁背离马克思有关“工人阶级独裁”的原教旨, 1918年夏天,在苏共群体屠杀开始不久,考茨基在《论工人阶级独裁》书中预言“两种社会主义运动…是两种基础不同的方法的冲突:民主和专制的冲突。两种运动看上去有相同的目标:通过社会主义和人道主义解放无产阶级,但是其中之一采用的方法是错误的,极可能导致毁灭;通过充分的讨论争辩,我们坚定地选择民主。专制并不要求反驳对方相反的观点,而是强制压制令对方闭嘴。因此,民主与专制在讨论争辩的开初更不可调和。一方要求的,便是另一方压制的。”[1]他指出“少数人的专政,经常发现一支绝对服从的军队是其最强大的支持者;但是它越依赖武力取代多数人的支持,它就越走向反面,诉求暴力代替拒绝他们的投票;内战成为调整政治和社会争议的方法,在完全的政治冷漠或失望未占上风之所,少数人的专政经常会受到武装攻击或持续的游击战争…专制者就会陷入内战,生活在被推翻的持续危险之中…在内战中,各方均为生存而战,失败者面临被灭绝的威胁。这一事实的意识正是为何内战会如此残酷的原因”。[2]结果列宁以《马克思主义的叛徒考茨基》蛮不讲理地回应。

Karl Kautsky in 1918 wrote TheDictatorship of the Proletariat, arguing that Lenin’s ‘revolutionarydictatorship’ was far from removed from what Marx had in mind. When he used thephrase ‘The Dictatorship of the Proletariat’. Marx has not meant by this ‘aform of government’. [1]


[1]Karl Kautsky, The Dictatorship of the Proletariat (University of Michigan PressAnn Arber 1964, 1919 ed) p.140.
 楼主| 发表于 2/19/2013 20:18:59 | 显示全部楼层
本帖最后由 郭国汀 于 2/24/2013 17:49 编辑

历史首肯了考茨基的远见卓识,而列宁则必将遗臭万年!考先生认为工人阶级斗争,作为群众斗争有个民主的必要前提,而秘密政党必将导致个人独裁;考茨基 1918年勇敢而诚实地说“确切地讲,我们的目标不是此种社会主义,废除每一种剥削和压迫,直接反对一个阶级,一个政党,某种性别,某个种族…如果我们证明…无产阶级和人类的解放,唯有基于毁灭私有财产基础上才能取得,我们将抛弃社会主义而无损我们的目标。”[5]事实证实考氏之见完全正确。

列宁蛮不讲理地以《无产阶级革命和叛徒考斯基》作为回应而拒绝讨论争辩。列宁援引恩格斯的话说“在现实中,国家仅是一个阶级压迫另一个阶级的机器”,并狡辩称“专政的本质乃是:专政是直接基于暴力和不受任何法律限制的统治。无产阶级的革命专政是通过使用暴力反对资产阶级赢得统治权并维护统治,该统治不受任何法律限制。”[3]接着蛮横地狡辩“苏维埃政府的无产阶级民主是一种形式,已经发展和扩大了史无前例的民主,确切地说,它是最广大的人民,被压迫的劳动的人民的民主”。[4]正是在“无产阶级民主”的美妙包装下,苏联共产党几十年来干下了无数恐怖罪恶勾当。



Kautsky insisted that “The proletariatclass struggle, as a struggle of masses presupposes democracy…masses can not beorganised secretly and above all a secret organisation cannot be a democraticone. It always led to the dictatorship of a single man, or of a small knot ofleaders. The ordinary members can only become instruments for carrying outorders. Such a method may be ended necessary for an oppressed class in theabsence of democracy, but it would not be promote the self-government andindependence of the masses, rather would it farther the Messiah-consciousnessof leaders, and their dictatorship habits. [1]


[1]Karl Kautsky, The Dictatorship of the Proletariat (University of Michigan PressAnn Arber 1964, 1919 ed) p.19-20
 楼主| 发表于 2/19/2013 20:19:37 | 显示全部楼层
本帖最后由 郭国汀 于 2/24/2013 17:52 编辑

马克思和恩格斯于1847年在共产党宣言中尚未言及工人阶级独裁的概念,马克思从未明确说明其具体概念。当时独裁一词,并不包含现在人们理解的内含。而仍指在紧急状态下依法特别授权某公民在特定时期内为公共利(主要为国家安全和恢复秩序)益行使绝对权力。独裁权源于古代罗马共和时代的一种宪政制度,由元老院选举产生的两位执政官,在国家遇危机时按法定程序特别授权某位公民(一般皆是将军)在一定时期内(六个月)的绝对权力。时间届满该独裁权即行失效。1848年时,独裁权的含义仍指此意。

The Dictatorship of the Proletariatwhich Marx envisaged as following the revolution is not clear. In 1848 the term‘dictatorship’ had not yet acquired the unrelievedly negative connotation ofour time- a dictator was still seen by many as an emergency office in the Romemould, whereby all powers were granted to some person(s) acting in theinterests of the state as a whole. Marx never see it as the rule of one men,but as the collective will of a class. Engels likened it to the government ofthe Paris Commune. Lenin subordinating the will of the soviet to that of theparty. [1]


[1]Peter Calvert, Revolution and Counter-revolution. Open university Press 1990p.12. Calvert is the professor of Comparative and International politics at theuniversity of Southampton.
 楼主| 发表于 2/19/2013 20:20:13 | 显示全部楼层
本帖最后由 郭国汀 于 2/22/2013 19:27 编辑

马克思死前不久及随后恩格斯不至一次反复提及在工业发达国家工人阶级有可能通过宪法方式取得政权,而无须武装斗争。马恩在共产党宣言的结尾主张“全世界工人阶级联合起来!”提出工人阶级无祖国的概念。然而,马恩死后,出现了一个马恩生前未曾预料的新现象,民族主义的兴起与强盛。一战爆发前,第二国际号召各国工人阶级抵制资本主义战争,结果各国共产党纷纷在各自议会中投票支持战争,使第二国际的政治信誉破产。也因此列宁后来组建了第三国际。列宁和托洛斯基终其一生始终信奉国际主义,而斯大林则是个标准的民族主义者。

Shortly before his death Marx andsubsequently Engels on more than one occasion stated that it was possible thatthe proletariat would gain power in advanced industries countries byconstitutional means, without the need for an armed struggle. A furtherunforeseen factor was the rise and consolidation of nationalism.[1]


[1]Peter Calvert, Revolution and Counter-revolution. Open university Press 1990p.10. see Marx and Engels 1962, I Selected Works. Moscow, Foreign languagesPublishing House. P.21-65.
 楼主| 发表于 2/19/2013 20:29:17 | 显示全部楼层
本帖最后由 郭国汀 于 2/24/2013 17:55 编辑

马克思在《法兰西内战》文中认为工人阶级独裁代表工人阶级民主;指出工人阶级独裁与巴黎公社极相象,由选举产生的议员同时行使立法和行政权,全民公投,公民军队取代常备军,选举产生的法官,警官和公共官员,他们均得随时由选举人撤职,且他们的工薪不得超过工人所得。渐渐废除生产资料私人所有制,普及全民教育等。马克思有关工人阶级独裁的概念与布朗基左派革命共产主义者有重大区别。马恩主张的是工人阶级作为一个阶级,而非作为一个党,更非党魁或少数党棍独裁。中共在毛泽东专权至华国峰专权期间,以反革命罪名抢杀了无数真正的马克思主义研究者,其中大量是1957年被打成右派的青年教师和学生。因为真实的马克思恩格斯的主张确实很少有列宁式的党国极权专制体制的罪孽基因。

Marx in the “Civil War in France”pointed out that The dictatorship represents ‘proletariat democracy’. Much likethe commune of Paris, it will consist of elected councillors who functionsimultaneously as legislators and executives. There is to be universalsuffrage, a citizens army, elected judges, police and officials, equal pay asworkers, subject to recall at any time; seizure of all closed factories and theeventual abolition of private ownership of productive property, universaleducation.[1]


[1]See Marx, civil War in France, KMSW II.498-99; later in life Marx did not limitthe form of the proletariat state to that of Paris commune.


 楼主| 发表于 2/19/2013 20:32:40 | 显示全部楼层
本帖最后由 郭国汀 于 2/24/2013 17:56 编辑

1875年在《哥达纲领批判》文中,马克思写道:在资本主义与共产主义社会之间存在一段革命过渡时期,在此政治过渡期间的国家只能是革命的工人阶级独裁。由于马克思未具体言明什么是工人阶级独裁,不同的人在不同的环境下的理解自然各异。布朗基派主张由革命者少数精英独裁,而右派共产主义者则反对任何独裁,马克思和恩格斯介于两者之间,其工人阶级独裁的含义,考查历名文献资料后,应当可以得出结论:类似巴黎公社的工人阶级政府即是马恩所主张的工人阶级独裁。事实上,巴黎公社成立后,革命委员会曾讨论是否应设立一个独裁委员会,占多数的布朗基派主张成立该有绝对任意决定权的委员会,而反对派居少数,主要是第一国际成员及马克思的信徒,结果导致分裂。反对派退出巴黎公社。

In the Critique of the GothaProgramme, Marx wrote: “between capitalist and communist society lies theperiod of the revolutionary transformation of the one into the other.Corresponding to this also a political transformation period in which the statecan be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat”. [1]


[1]David Mclellan, Karl Marx Selected Writings 2ed Oxford University Press.2000.p.331.


 楼主| 发表于 2/19/2013 20:46:02 | 显示全部楼层
本帖最后由 郭国汀 于 2/24/2013 17:58 编辑

马克思有关工人阶级独裁的四个特点:第一,是一个阶级而非精英的独裁;占人口多数的工人阶级,赢得民主的战斗,堀起成为统治阶级,取代中产阶级独裁;马克思在一封信中言及,他主张的工人阶级统治,表明工人阶级独裁是取消阶级差别的必要过渡。其次,独裁将使用国家强制力,以便奠定共产主义社会的基础。再次,独裁员将实施社会主义政策,消除阶级差别,实现生产工具的集体所有。第四,独裁的实质是一种进攻性的现象,其政策具有高度进攻性而非减轻阶级冲突,马克思曾说在集体化的政策取得成功之前,有必要实行工人阶级独裁。”
Marx’s four major characteristics of aproletariat dictatorship: (1) a class not elite dictatorship. Majorityproletariat winning ‘the battle of democracy’ raised to ‘the position of rulingclass’, to replacing the dictatorship or class rule of the bourgeoisie.(MEW4:472,481) Marx’s in a letter said that he had advocated ‘the rule and thedictatorship of the working class’ to show that the dictatorship of workingclass was necessary stage antecedent to the abolition of class differences; (2)the dictatorship will use the coercive power of the state, in order to lay thefoundations of a communist society; (3) it will implement a socialist policylead to the abolition of class difference and the collectivisation of the meansof production; (4) it is essentially an aggressive phenomenon . its policiesare highly likely to aggravate rather than diminish class conflict, Marx toldone audience that before a policy of collectivisation could be successful, ‘aproletariat army’ would be necessary. [1]


[1]New York World 15, Oct 1871. Michael Evans, Karl Marx, London, George Allen& Unwin Led 1975. P. 149.


您需要登录后才可以回帖 登录 | 注册

本版积分规则


站内文章仅为网友提供更多信息,不代表本网站同意其说法或描述,也不构成任何建议。本网站仅为网友提供交流平台,对网友自由上传的文字和图片等,本网站
不为其版权和内容等负责。站内部分内容转载自其它社区、论坛或各种媒体,有些原作者未知。如您认为站内的某些内容属侵权,请及时与我们联络并进行处理。
关于我们|隐私政策|免责条款|版权声明|网站导航|帮助中心
道至大 道天成

小黑屋|手机版|Archiver|联系我们|天易综合网 (Twitter@wolfaxcom)

GMT-5, 11/23/2017 04:09 , Processed in 0.104127 second(s), 8 queries , Gzip On, Apc On.

Copyright 天易网 network. All Rights Reserved.

© 2009-2015 .

快速回复 返回顶部 返回列表