马自达6 燃油滤清器:天涯网友译：美国革命共产党宣言

美国革命共产党网站：　　

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

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

美国革命共产党简介　　

目前美国有两个共产党：一个是美国共产党，一个是美国革命共产党。　　

“美国共产党”、“美国革命共产党”这两个党成立的背景以及路线、方针和政策都有明显区别。　　

“美革共”被称作美国国内目前最大的“毛主义”组织。它是受我国“文革”影响成立的，党刊名为《革命》（周报）。该组织的前身是1968年由美国一些青年学生在加利福尼亚州建立的“湾区革命联盟”(BARU)。1971年，“湾区革命联盟”召开全国代表大会，改称“革命联盟”(RU)，1975年9月，“革命联盟”又改称“革命共产党”(RCP)。该党成立之初，有党员近1000人，1977年最鼎盛时达到2000人左右。　　

 至今，该党的指导思想一直没有发生根本变化，仍然主张在美国发动由工人阶级领导的暴力革命，通过武装夺权来使美国走上社会主义道路。1978年前后，主要因为对中国问题看法上的分歧，“美革共”发生分裂，成员逐渐减少。到上世纪80年代末，党员人数大约只有成立时的一半。根据有关资料，近年来，“美革共”的党员有所增加，在20来个城市设有支部。该党自建立后，总部一直设在芝加哥。现任领导人罗伯特·阿瓦基安，1943年出生，是该党的创建人之一。 　　

容易与之相混淆的美国共产党则是在俄国十月革命和共产国际的影响下，于1919年9月1日成立的，至今已有90年历史。其总部现设于纽约曼哈顿，现任领导人是萨缪尔·韦伯。　　

美共成立初期曾被美国政府宣布为非法，1923年合法化。上世纪三四十年代，美共在钢铁、纺织、煤矿等工业部门和农业工人中领导大规模的群众斗争，积极支持黑人反对种族歧视的斗争，大力动员群众支持和参加反法西斯战争，其力量一度得到比较大的发展。　　

1943年，苏、美、英三国首脑会晤德黑兰会议，美共总书记白劳德认为世界已进入资本主义与社会主义“长期信任与合作”的时期，主张美共放弃自己的“成见”和“特殊利益”，实现包括大资产阶级在内的团结，反对进行革命。1944年5月，美共召开十二大，根据白劳德的提议，通过了解散美共的决定。1945年4月，法国共产党领导人雅克·杜克洛撰文批判白劳德的错误主张，在国际主义运动中产生很大影响。同年7月，美共召开紧急代表大会，重组美国共产党，由威廉·福斯特任全国委员会主席。上世纪末，麦卡锡主义一度盛行，美共又被迫转入“地下”。60年代后，美国政府放松了对美共的限制，美共活动逐渐增多。至1984年，时任美共总书记葛斯·霍尔曾四度以“人民高于利润”的口号竞选美国总统。　　

中国共产党成立初期，美共就曾积极声援。抗日战争时期，美共在国内发动了“不许干涉中国”的群众运动，并派遣医疗队援助中国革命根据地。国际共运大论中，美共与中共的关系一度中断；1988年6月，美共总书记霍尔率代表团访华，两党恢复交往。　　

“美革共”成立初期曾与中共关系非常密切，但两党在1978年断绝往来。1979年初邓小平访美时，“美革共”还在党主席阿瓦基安的带领导下，在华盛顿等地举行反对邓小平访美的示威游行，甚至还组织过试图暗杀邓小平的恐怖活动。阿瓦基安因此遭美国政府逮捕，后被驱逐出美国。前些年国内出版的小说《白宫突围》曾提到此事，但作者也混淆了“美共”与“美革共”，错把美共主席葛斯．霍尔当成暗杀邓小平的策划人。　　

当前，“美革共”和美共的国内政策有着明显区别。比如，比如，在去年的美国总统选举中，美共没有提出自己的总统候选人，而是号召党员及其支持者投奥巴马一票；而“美革共”抵制总统选举，在奥巴马当选后，则极力反对政府和各种改革措施，仍然继续鼓吹暴力革命    （王保贤）　　

本月10日，激进的美国革命共产党想出解决美国困境的新方法：那就是推翻政府，推行新宪法。规模不大的革命共产党主动联系了媒体，公布了《北美新社会主义共和国宪章（草案）》。

同一天，革命共产党在声明中承诺，“新宪法”将扮演带头角色，“建立并带领我们走向完全不同，更加美好的共产主义社会。”

美国极端保守的政治人物与媒体人士，常把民主党总统奥巴马的自由主义倾向，形容成社会主义或共产主义。但是，革命共产党并不把奥巴马视为革命同志。

“新宪法”称：北美新社会主义共和国在是统一战线在无产阶级领导的战略方向的延续，在新的社会，无产阶级的利益相一致，作为一个阶级，最根本和最大的意义，取消一切剥削，并通过遍布世界的革命斗争实现这一目标，共产主义原则的完美体现。社会主义新共和国在北美，像所有的国家，一个独裁，专政，无产阶级的形式，这意味着，在其本质特征及其基本原理，结构，体制和政治进程中，它必须体现和服务其所有目标的无产阶级，它的开发是对资本主义的财富和资本主义社会的运作积累的发动机，其解放的条件，只能通过共产主义革命带来的根本利益关系消灭剥削和压迫，实现全人类的解放。

美国革命共产党被称作美国国内目前最大的“毛主义”组织。它是受中国“文革”影响成立的。该组织的前身是1968年由美国一些青年学生在加利福尼亚州建立的“湾区革命联盟“。1971年，”湾区革命联盟“召开全国代表大会，改称”革命联盟“，1975年9月，”革命联盟“又改称”革命共产党“。该党成立之初，有党员近1000人， 1977年最鼎盛时达到2000人左右。

至今，该党的指导思想一直没有发生根本变化，仍然主张在美国发动由工人阶级领导的暴力革命，通过武装夺权来使美国走上社会主义道路。1978年前后，主要因为对中国问题看法上的分歧，“美革共”发生分裂，成员逐渐减少。到上世纪80年代末，党员人数大约只有成立时的一半。根据有关资料，近年来，“美革共”的党员有所增加，在20来个城市设有支部。该党自建立后，总部一直设在芝加哥。现任领导人罗伯特.阿瓦基安，1943年出生，是该党的创建人之一。

据本博秦全耀回忆，早在上世纪文革时，中国的媒体就常常报道美国革命共产党。但老秦要提示一句美国革命共产党不是美国共产党。美国共产党当时被骂成是修正主义。苏东剧变使美国共产党跌入了低谷，但美共中央坚持不改党名，不变党性，从组织和思想上保全了党。美国共产党一直认为社会主义建设要基于美国民主传统之上，把民主作为社会主义的核心和本质特征。在党章修改前后美共围绕“社会主义权利法案”的问题展开了非常活跃的讨论。党的主席韦伯提醒全党不要把“社会主义权利法案”变成陈词滥调，也不要把它变成新的颂歌。

美共究竟有多少党员，美共没有正式宣布，估计的数字很不相同，有的说有1.5万人，有的说 7000人左右，有的说4000人左右，而有的则说1500人，但无论哪个数字较准确，对于美国共产党来说，要想在美国社会中发挥重要作用并通过投票箱实现社会主义，目前党的力量还是远远不够的。

美国共产党在上届的美国总统选举中，没有提出自己的总统候选人，而是号召党员及其支持者投奥巴马一票，而美国革命共产党抵制总统选举，在奥巴马当选后，则极力反对政府和各种改革措施，继续鼓吹暴力革命。　　

美国革命共产党宣言　　

  网友：线专川上 翻译　　

 昨晚无聊，突然想看早就下载了的RCP Manifesto，看的时候便尝试着边翻译了一些，今晚亦如此。俺非翻译或英语科班出生，翻译此文纯属兴趣，也想借此提高下自己的英文能力，贴出来就当是鞭策自己。。。囧，话说这也是俺天涯第一帖。------------------------------------------------
　　Revolutionary Communist Party, USA (RCP)美国革命共产党，是个比较左倾的马克思主义政党，网上能搜索到一点点相关信息。要注意的是RCP与美国共产党（CPUSA）是两个不同的政党。
　　-----------------------如下开始------------------------
　　
　　共产主义：一个新时代的开端
　　——美国革命共产党宣言
　　
　　2008年9月
　　
　　
　　 无论它向我们怎样宣扬，这个我们身处的资本主义，这种绝大数人类的生活方式——生命在其中要么慢慢流逝，要么瞬间被吹散，并不代表最好的世界——也不代表唯一可能的世界。这些生命列车在其中行驶了数百年、数千年的生活方式——压迫、痛苦、堕落、暴力、破坏、无知与迷信的神秘面纱，迫使绝大多数人类疲于奔命，身心遭受重创——绝不是这苦难人类的自身过错，不是某些不存在的一神或众神们的“意志”，也不是某些不变的、不可改变的“人性”的结果。所有这些都是人类社会在剥削者和压迫者的统治下，这种方式发展的表现和结果…但是，恰恰是这种发展将人类带到了这样一个临界点——在这儿，过往数千年来的陈规乱俗都已不再有效；在这儿，一种完全不同的生活方式将成为可能：在世界各地，人类无论是个体还是群体，在彼此的交流之中，能够抛开传统的沉重锁链，穷尽其能，以一种前所未有的、甚至是无法完全想象的方式繁荣成长。
　　
　　【备注：此处the Revolutionary Communist Party, USA译为美国革命共产党，它与美国共产党有区别，美国共产党为：CPUSA，全称：the Communist Party USA。中间的god or gods理解为一神信仰和多神信仰的区别，不然没必要这样表达，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. 漫长的黑暗—和历史性的突破
　　
　　 剥削性的经济和社会关系，包括男人对女人成体系的统治，和将人类社会分割为彼此利益冲突的不同阶级的分化行为，并不一直存在于人类之间。一直存在这样种状况：少数群体不仅垄断了财富，而且也垄断了生活资料，由此迫使更多的人以这种或那种方式成为自我需求的奴隶。同时，这些少数群体也垄断了政治权利和施加剥削的工具，主宰了社会的智力和文化生活，迫使广大的多数群体处于无知和顺从的地位。这种状况，并不一直是人类社会的一部分。只要人类继续存在，这种人类间交互的方式也不可能注定保持下去。这些压迫性的分化行为在数千年前产生，取代了公共社会的早期模式，早期的公共社会存在了数千年，是由相互有血缘关系的少数群体共同组成，他们共同拥有最重要的财产，相互协作，以满足他们的生存需求并抚养后代。
　　
　　 早期公共社会的消亡，不是因为某些有“自然倾向”的人会去谋求高于他人的优越地位，牺牲他人为己谋利；也不是因为一些所谓的男人必定征服女人或一个种族必定征服和掠夺其它种族的“基因预设”。毫无疑问，在早期的公共社会中，有时不同社会间会发生遭遇并不能调和矛盾，从而爆发冲突，但是这些社会并没有展现出制度化的社会压迫分化现象，而后者在今天，我们已经不能再熟悉了。对于那些早期公共社会中的人来说，妄图成为他人主人，通过迫使他人工作谋求财富和权力的行为，是奇怪的和令人不能容忍的。确切的说，社会分化和人们之间压迫关系的出现，是由于人类与“外部”自然环境的交互方式发生了变化，以及尤其是维系人类生存的物质生产、再生产和抚养后代等方式的变化。
　　
　　【备注：means to live仿造means of production译为生产资料的模式，译为“生活资料”；communal society译为公共社会，不知是否妥当，且将就如此。】
　　
　　------------------------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，一旦负责生产和再生产的组织开始以这样一种方式进行运作：个人，而非社会整体，开始控制社会生产的盈余（盈余是指超出最低生存需要的那部分）；一旦人们或长或短的长期定居于某个地方，并在此土地上开始农业生产；漫长的黑暗便降临了。从此，人类便被分化为主人与奴隶，有权者与无权者，治人者和被治者，社会命运的决策者和个人命运的被决策者，即使这些决策者并不能发挥有效作用。
　　
　　 在大多数人类都处于黑暗之中的这数千年里，人们一直梦想着一种不同的生活---在那儿，奴役、强奸、掠夺的战争、异化的一生、痛苦和绝望将不再构成“人的条件”。这种对不同生活的渴望在各种形式的宗教幻想中得到体现---超脱凡世，皈依一神或诸神，神控制着人类的命运，即使不是在此生，也会在来世奖励那些今生忍受无穷痛苦的人们。但在俗世，也反复有想真正改变世界的企图出现，一直以来，在社会中、不同社会之间，反抗和起义、大规模的叛乱、武装冲突、甚至革命此起彼伏，并被演化成为实现这种企图的主要方式。帝国消亡了，君主制被废除了，奴隶主和封建领主被推翻了。然而，数百数千年来，虽然许多人，情愿也好不情愿也罢，为这些斗争牺牲了自己的生命，但是结果却始终如一：一个剥削者、压迫者集团倒下了，另一个剥削者、压迫者集团又站立了起来---以这种或那种方式，一个少数人群体继续垄断了财富、政治权利、社会的智力和文化生活，继续统治和压迫绝大多数人，继续投入与敌对国家和帝国的战争之中。
　　
　　【注：a lifetime of alienation中的alienation译为“异化”，因为记得马克思爷爷好像经常提这个概念。】
　　
　　-------------------------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.
　　
　　 所有这一切都没有发生根本的变化---对于人类来说，新的曙光从未浮现，尽管他们为此一直在牺牲和斗争着…直到稍稍一百多年前，一些全新的事物出现了：站立起来的人们不仅实现了渴望，还拥有结束一切剥削与压迫关系，结束人类在世界各角落中一切对抗性冲突的可能。1871年，在普法战争期间，在法国首都巴黎，长期遭受剥削、贫苦不堪的劳动人民站立起来，夺取了政权并且在人民内部建立了一个全新的组织。这就是巴黎公社，虽然它仅仅只存在于法国的那一小块土地，也只延续了短短的两个月，但是它描绘了共产主义社会的雏形，在共产主义社会中，一切人民内部之间的阶级分化和压迫将被最终消除。巴黎公社最后还是被旧秩序的力量所镇压，成千上万英勇的人们被屠杀，他们想要保存巴黎公社的努力最终化为泡影。但是，朝向新世界的第一步已经迈开了，道路已经敞开，方法业已显现，只剩下飞驰的时间去实现。
　　
　　 即使在巴黎公社之前，一个没有剥削和压迫的全新世界的可能性，已经被卡尔.马克思和他同时代的合作者，共产主义运动的创始人弗里德里希.恩格斯所科学的证明。马克思在巴黎公社革命数年前就说过：
　　
　　 “一旦掌握了其内在的关系，所有认为现有状况的存在是永恒必要的理论信仰，必将在实践崩塌之前就已垮掉。”
　　
　　 这正是马克思所做到的：他科学地挖掘和揭示的，不仅仅有资本主义制度的“内在联系”，当时资本主义在欧洲已成为最重要的剥削形式并且逐渐殖民了世界上的大多数地方，还包括了资本主义与人类社会以前的所有制度之间的“内在联系”---通过这种阐述，马克思告诉我们，无论是对于资本主义的延续，还是对于任何建立在少数人剥削与压迫多数人这个基础之上的社会的存在，都不是“永恒必要”的。这在人类对现实理解的历史上是一个影响深远的突破，它为实践一个世界范围内的历史性突破，为人类社会以及全世界人们之间关系的前所未有的革命化，提供了坚实的理论基础。
　　
　　【注：俺水平有限，头段最后一句if only fleetingly then比较纠结，暂且这么理解：if only为“要是…就好了”，then指the new world到来的那时，fleetingly表示时间飞快。如此理解的意思是：“要是能疾驰到这一天该多好”，似乎与前面不协调，因此全改意译了。】
　　-----------------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.
　　
　　 马克思最根本的发现是，人类社会的性质和社会中人们的关系，并不是由个体的观念或意志所决定，无论这种个体是人还是某些荒诞的鬼神——而是由人们生产和再生产物质资料以维持生活时所面临的需求，以及人们借以群居在一起的方式，和人们满足需求时所利用的生产资料所决定的。当今世界，在尖端技术的帮助下，一些人逐渐从生产基本生活所需的进程中剥离出来——这使得我们很容易忘记：如果生产活动并非以满足这些基本需求（食物、住房、交通等）为目的，如果人类社会不能繁衍自己的人口，那么生活将很快瘫痪，社会中所有的事物——只要一切正常它们便或多或少的被认为是理所当然的，将不再是可能的。穿透人类历史发展和社会组织的厚厚躯壳，直达人类社会功能的最底层和关键核心，是马克思的一个伟大成就和宝贵贡献。
　　
　　 但是马克思也指出，任何时候，无论人们利用什么样的生产工具生产和再生产生活必需品——无论是何种生产力内容（土地、原材料、技术——无论简单或是复杂、人们自身的知识和能力）——它都将根本上最终性的决定人们的组织方式、生产关系，以便最好的利用生产力。同样，马克思指出，这些生产关系与意志或个人的喜好无关，不管它们有多么强大，但生产关系必须也是必要，在任何时候都要基本符合生产力的性质。举例来说，如果将信息技术和相关的生产过程（它们在今天的现代经济社会中是至关重要的）介绍到早期公共社会（由少数原始人群体组成，他们在与其人口规模相匹配的大片土地上四处觅食和狩猎借以谋生），将会给那些社会带来戏剧性的变化：他们原有的生活方式将被打破，并且发生重大的转折。又如，也不能将现代技术有效的利用于种植园农业，种植园农业，在种植园奴隶制期间，和1860年代南北战争结束后奴隶获得自由的将近一百年内，一直都是美国南方式生活的主心骨。种植园农业的特点是技术含量低，属于劳动异常密集型农业，起先是大量的奴隶，而后是众多的佃农和雇农：工作极为辛苦，日出而作，日落而息。事实上，直到二战后，尤其是新农业技术被引入到南部地区——特别是拖拉机、机械化种植和采棉机的逐渐增加——破坏了旧的种植园制度，驱使大量黑人（此前他们都被以这种或那种方式牢牢栓在土地上）离开土地，进入到北方和南方的城市中。而这又反过来构成了一场抗争的重要物质基础，这场抗争最终结束了美国的种族隔离制度和3K党及其他白人至上主义者的公开恐怖行为，通过巨大的牺牲和英雄主义，这张抗争给美国社会，特别是黑人地位带来了极大的变化，尽管它没有，也不能完全消除对黑人的压迫，而这种压迫过去一直是，今天依然是美国资本主义-帝国主义体系中一个不可或缺的基本组成部分。
　　
　　------------------------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.
　　
　　 这阐明了另外一个由马克思揭露的事实：在任何时候，现有生产关系的基础上必将出现一个政治和思想的上层建筑——政治结构、制度和程序，思维方式，以及文化——它们从根本上讲，必须也将一定会，与现有生产关系保持一致，并且还会反过来维持和加强这种生产关系。马克思进一步说明，自从生产力发生变化从而导致带有征服和统治特性的生产关系出现之时，社会便已被分为不同的阶级，不同阶级在社会中的地位是由他们在生产过程中的角色所决定的。在阶级分化的社会，是经济上占主导地位的阶级垄断和控制了主要的生产资料（技术、土地和原材料等），它们同时也统治了政治和思想的上层建筑。这种经济上的统治阶级也必将垄断政治权力。政治权力的垄断体现在国家这个概念上——特别是政治镇压工具，包括警察和军队，司法制度和惩罚机构，以及行政权——它给所谓的“合法”武装力量的垄断提供了一个集中的表达词。同样，社会中占主导地位的思维方式，包括文化中体现此思维方式的内容，必将与统治阶级的世界观和利益保持一致（如同马克思和恩格斯在《共产党宣言》中所说的那样：只要社会被分化为不同阶级，任何时代，占统治地位的思想总必然是统治阶级的思想）。
　　
　　【备注：此处superstructure of politics and ideology中的ideology不直接译为“意识形态”，而是译为“思想”。貌似上层建筑分为政治上层建筑和思想上层建筑，思想上层建筑一般便是指意识形态，所以不好再译为 意识形态的上层建筑】
　　------------------------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.
　　
　　 那么什么是根本基础，什么又是社会变革的根本驱动力？马克思分析了如何通过人类的活动与创新生产力进而得到持续的发展，当达到某一临界点，新的生产力将与现存的生产关系，以及与生产关系相适应的政治、思想上层建筑发生冲突。在这一点上，正如马克思描绘的，现有的生产关系已经在整体意义上成为新生产力的一种桎梏和枷锁，当这种情况发生时，必须进行革命，从而彻底改变现有生产关系，使它与新生产力相一致，从而带来一种新境况，在此中生产关系成为一种更适合生产力发展的形式。但是革命必须，也只能发生在上层建筑，通过推翻和瓦解旧政权获取社会政治权利，建立新的国家政权，如此才能改变生产关系和上层建筑，使之与新统治阶级的利益保持一致，从而能更充分的发挥和利用生产力。
　　
　　 当然，革命是个极其复杂的过程，涉及到许多有不同看法和目的的人和群体，进行这样一场革命时他们或多或少会意识到生产力和生产关系之间存在的根本冲突，他们的认知和进步使得革命成为必要，并且积聚了使革命成为可能的动力。但最终，这些冲突和动力将影响到到底谁能，谁确实是采取了行动，遵从了变革生产关系的需要，使之与生产力的发展相一致。这正是，例如，18世纪后期19世纪初法国最激进的资产阶级革命所发生的：众多不同阶级力量和社会团体都参与了此次革命，但归根到底，只有那股后来建立了资本主义制度（它取代了旧的封建制）的政治力量能够夺取权力，根本的原因是：经济的变革和以经济为基础的整个社会的变革，必须代表那种能使生产关系与生产力发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.
　　
　　 美国的南北战争也为了马克思的一些基本原则和方法提供了良好的阐述，马克思发展出这些基本原则和方法用来解释人类历史发展的规律。这场内战从根本上是由于两种不同生产模式（分别代表了两种不同的生产关系：资本主义和奴隶制）之间发生相互冲突，进而不能在同一个国家共存。内战的结果是，伴随着胜利，资产阶级进入了南方，奴隶制被废除，资本主义制度在全国范围内的占据统治地位——即便如此，在经历短暂的战后重建后，南方原有土地贵族和兴起中的资本家也重新被纳入到这个国家的统治阶级之中，并且实际上，它们还对统治阶级产生了巨大的影响，先前解放了的奴隶们再次被统治，遭受到的剥削和压迫并不比奴隶制时要低（在奴隶制被依法正式废除后很长一段时间内，实际奴役还继续以某种形式存在着，尤其是在南方）。
　　
　　 从这些历史事例中，我们可以看到给社会带来实质性变化的革命如何最终还是导致了一个新的剥削阶级的产生，这种模式不断重复，广大被压迫的人民在这些革命中牺牲（或者被牺牲）自己（例如，南北战争期间，由于北方允许他们入境，20万农奴纷纷逃往北方，他们的死亡率要大大高于那些联邦军中农奴的死亡率），但归根结底，还是由剥削者，旧的或新的，收割了这些牺牲换来的果实。自阶级分化、剥削阶级占据统治地位成为人类社会一种特性以来，这种现象便成为一个惯例。这一切都是可能的…直到现在。
　　
　　----------------------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.
　　
　　 马克思揭示的最重要、最具有解放性的事情是：人类社会的发展，作为一种动力（由他揭示的）的结果，正一直导向一个可能存在的完全不同于如今的世界。我们已经到达这样一种状态，通过各种复杂的发展（我们可以利用最基本的术语勾画出它），现存的生产力，有可能创造并不断增加丰富的物质财富，使之在根本上为全人类所共享，以满足世界各地人民的物质需要，同时它还可以不断的为每一个人提供丰富的智力和文化生活。这不仅是因为技术已发展到使这一切都可实现的地步，也是由于这些技术能够——实际上是必须——为大多数群体所共同利用。马克思揭露了主导世界的资本主义制度的最基本的矛盾（它是人类社会的巨大成本和危险）：社会化生产方式与生产过程、产品都被少数资本家控制和私人占有的事实之间的矛盾。就像我们美国革命共产党党章所强调的：
　　
　　 “当今世界，物质的生产和产品的分配，完全由大量在高度协调化网络中集体工作的劳动者所执行。这整个生产和分配过程的基础是无产阶级，一个不拥有任何东西的全球性阶级，然而他们创造了大量的社会生产力。这些大量的生产力本可以使人类不仅仅能满足每个人的基本需要，还能创建一个拥有全新社会关系和价值观的新型社会…这样的社会中，所有的人都能真正一起享受充分的繁荣。”
　　
　　----------------------------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.
　　
　　 通过革命的手段消除资本主义的基本矛盾，消除将人类分割为剥削者和被剥削者、统治者和被统治者的社会分化现象，是共产主义革命的目的。这种革命与无产阶级的根本利益是相一致的，它是在社会化生产中资产阶级占据统治和剥削地位的条件下进行的，它将使生产关系与生产力再次保持一致，并进一步释放生产力，包括人们自身。但是，不像以前那些通过革命实现自身利益的阶级，无产阶级革命的目的不是简单地使自己或代表人在社会中取得执政地位，它的目的是消灭将社会分割为不同阶级的社会分化现象，铲除一切压迫关系，进而消除所有使得一部分人借以统治和压迫另一部分人的制度和制度工具。正如马克思的简洁概括，这种革命的目标是——只有当革命成功的那刻才可作结论——“四个全”：所有阶级差别全部被废除；所有产生阶级差别的生产关系全部被废除；所有与这些生产关系相一致的社会关系全部被废除；所有反应这些社会关系的观念全部被革命化。马克思同样简洁却有力的抓住了这种革命的本质：无产阶级只有解放了全人类才能最后解放自己。
　　
　　 这也是为什么共产主义革命代表了人类社会最本质也是最有解放意义的革命。
　　
　　------------------------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.
　　
　　 在研究了大量历史经验后，马克思得出了自己的结论，马克思指出了他深刻认识到的一点：历史的确是由人民创造的，但他们并没能按照自己希望的方式创造。他们依照当时的物质条件基础创造了历史——尤其是最基本的经济条件和经济关系——这些都是他们从上一代那继承而来的，变化的可能途径就隐藏在这些条件的矛盾特性之中。正如美国革命共产党主席鲍勃•艾沃肯在“革命起来，解放全人类”（Part 1）中说指出的：
　　
　　 “我们在此可以用自然界的进化论做个比喻。Ardea Skybreak在其关于进化论的书中反复强调的一点是，在进化过程中，进化只能给那些已经存在变化基础的东西带来变化…自然界中的进化通过现实和现有限制（或者换句话说，现有必要性）中已经出现的相关变化得以实现，而且也只能如此。”
　　
　　 这为一些人提出的某些问题提供了根本的答案，这些问题包括：你是谁啊，你凭什么说社会可以如此如此的组织起来？你们共产主义者有什么权力规定什么改变是可能的，并且按照某种方式进行？这些问题本质上是错误的，代表了对人类历史发展动力和人类社会（广泛意义上还包括物质世界）中变革的可能途径的一个根本误解。这相当于问为什么鸟类不能生鳄鱼，或者问为什么人类不能繁衍可以飞翔的后代，他们可以在一瞬间，轻轻一跳便可飞跃高高的大楼，拥有可以穿透固体的X-光般的眼力——并且想知道：你是谁啊？凭什么规定繁衍要如此进行？你是谁啊，凭什么说人类后代拥有某种特质而不是另外一种？这其实不关“你是谁”什么事，而与物质现实和隐藏其中的矛盾的可变性有关。这里的问题是双重的：
　　
　　-----------------------------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.
　　
　　 在人类历史上，物质条件第一次达到这种阶段，可以使统治关系、压迫和剥削的最终废除成为可能；指导完成这一斗争目标的理论认识也已与物质现实基础，和使此成为可能的历史发展规律完成衔接。
　　
　　 同时，这个世界历史性的人类社会关系变革，只能基于实际的物质条件和隐匿其中的矛盾向上出发，它打开了这个可能性，但同时也体现了实现这一根本性社会变革所将遭遇到的阻碍；它要求对这些矛盾动力和组织团体里的领导力有科学性的认识和解决方法，（组织团体是以这种科学方法和方式为基础建立起来的）——以进行艰巨而复杂的斗争，通过向全世界各地推行共产主义实现这一变革。
　　
　　---------------------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.
　　共产主义革命的第一阶段
　　
　　 巴黎公社是人类第一次尝试去丈量人类解放的高度，它也是人类对未来的一个预示，但是它缺乏必要的领导，也没有得到必要的科学指导以便抵御旧秩序不可避免的反革命冲击，从而在社会的各个领域：经济、社会、政治、文化和思想里进行彻底的变革。一些不是以科学观点和科学方法，而是以浪漫主义观点看待巴黎公社革命的人喜欢引述说，失败的原因是有组织的先锋队缺乏强有力的领导，不能以科学的马克思主义基本观点团结在一起（这本来可以成为巴黎公社的一个优点）。但事实是，这只是巴黎公社众多弱势之一，也只是导致其短暂存在便最终失败的众多因素之一。领导力的缺失，和试图立即实施那些会根本上消除任何制度化领导的措施的行为，是巴黎公社不能有效抵御旧有势力反扑的主要原因，这些有组织的剥削者和压迫者发誓要铲除巴黎公社，并确保共产主义的幽灵永不再现。尤其如马克思所指出的，巴黎公社的公社社员们没有乘热打铁拿下凡尔赛城这个临近的反革命据点，此后一旦反革命势力积聚了力量，他们便反攻巴黎，将死亡风暴吹到了巴黎公社，导致成千上万最坚定的革命战士在战斗中被屠杀。
　　
　　 但排除巴黎公社革命失败后的直接后果，在相当大程度上，从它的缺点和局限上看，现实问题是：如果巴黎公社成功击败了反革命力量的反攻，并且存活了下来，那么它将随即面对更为艰巨的挑战：重组和改造整个社会，这不仅仅局限于首都巴黎（在这儿它辉煌的占据过权力，但持续时间太短）。它将不得不在这个仍主要由小农（农民）组成的国度里，建立一个全新不同的经济：社会主义经济；它将不得不克服深刻的、传统思维里根深蒂固的不平等和压迫，尤其是几千年来一直套在妇女身上的锁链。在这里，巴黎公社的弱点和局限再次被显现：妇女在巴黎公社的创建和保卫过程中担当了至关重要的角色，发挥了英勇的作用，但是尽管如此，她们还是在巴黎公社中处于从属地位。
　　
　　---------------------------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.
　　
　　 在巴黎公社失败不到50年后，在帝国主义之间的第一次世界大战期间，一场更猛烈、更深刻的革命变革在当时的俄罗斯帝国爆发。这场革命推翻了沙皇（俄罗斯帝国世袭君主）的统治，随后又推翻了资产阶级，他们试图跨入沙皇被推翻后的“权力真空”，攫取社会的控制权。通过这场由列宁领导的革命，苏联成为世界上第一个社会主义国家，尽管列宁本人在1924年去世，但此后的数十年间，苏联一直在进行着社会主义改造，在此期间，苏联遭遇了国内外反革命势力的残酷威胁和反复攻击，包括纳粹德国在第二次世界大战期间对它的大规模入侵，这场战争夺去了2000万苏联公民的生命，并对它造成了巨大的破坏。
　　
　　 在领导俄国革命时，在踏出夺取和巩固政权并走上社会主义变革之路的第一步时，列宁在马克思取得科学突破的基础上往前更进了一步，继续发展鲜活的马克思主义科学。他从巴黎公社，还有其它人类社会历史经验，乃至更广阔范围上的自然界那汲取教训。非常重要的一点是，列宁系统化了如下的认识：为了使人民大众不断觉醒起来进而推翻资产阶级统治，实施根本的社会变革，朝着在世界范围内实现共产主义的终极目标前进，一个具有先锋作用的共产主义政党是非常必要的。
　　
　　 列宁也利用和发展了马克思在总结巴黎公社惨痛教训时所得出的认识：在进行共产主义革命之时，是不能去利用旧有的国家机器（它们是服务于资本主义制度的）；必须打破和摧毁这个国家并代之以一个新的国度：在现实中有资产阶级专政的地方，有必要建立起属于正日益上升的革命阶级的政治统治，无产阶级专政，作为一种完全不同的国家形态，将使越来越多的人民大众进入到社会革命变革的进程之中。这种革命专政是必要的，列宁强调，他总结出两个原因：
　　
　　 1）、防止剥削者——旧的和新的，国内的和国外的——破坏和淹没人民大众建立一个全新社会和世界，并实现马克思所说的“四个全”成就的抗争。
　　
　　-------------------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）、保证人民的每一份权力，即使不平等现象在不同程度上，在社会主义向共产主义过渡的不同阶段，依然存在于人民不同阶层之间。与此同时，无产阶级专政的目的是继续铲除，并最终超越这样的社会不平等现象，进而在全世界范围内达到这样一点：那儿，压迫性的社会分化将不再存在，国家，作为法律和权力实施的制度化工具，将不再是必要的，而国家本身也将被人民的自我管理所取代，没有阶级差别和社会对立。
　　
　　 再次引述我们美国革命共产党党章前沿所说的：
　　
　　 “人类社会以前所有的国家一直都在拓展和保护剥削关系：他们一直都是剥削阶级占据统治地位，并且一直保护自己避免任何对这种关系的根本性改变。无产阶级专政，相反，目的是国家本身的最终废除，一切阶级差别的废除，一切导致剥削与压迫，导致人们之间反复出现破坏性冲突的的对立社会关系的废除。而且，为了继续朝这一目标前进，无产阶级专政必须越来越多的吸取社会不同阶层中的民众，让他们有意义地加入将社会不断往前推进，进而在全世界实现共产主义伟大目标的进程当中。”
　　
　　 在列宁领导这个新苏维埃国家的短短数年间，他领导了经济、包括整个社会的转型，并且给世界各地的革命斗争提供理论指导和积极的支持。但是，随着他在1924年病逝，在那个被力量强大的帝国主义国家和其它反动国家占据统治地位的罪恶世界里，领导这一进程继续往前的挑战落到其它的苏联共产党人头上，尤其是约瑟夫.斯大林，他成为苏共新的领导人。这是历史上一个前所未有的经历：几十年来，经济以及广泛的社会关系——包括男女之间的社会关系、不同民族之间的关系，政治体制，社会文化和人民大众的世界观都发生了深刻的变化。在各个领域，人民的生活水平都有了显著的改善，包括医疗、住房、教育和扫盲。但更为重要的是，剥削和古老传统的重担开始从人民大众身上解除。生活和社会的各个领域都取得了巨大的成就，但同时可以预料的是，这儿也有许多很现实的局限、缺点和错误——其中一些归因于数十年来苏联一直是世界上唯一的社会主义国家（直到二战后），另外一些归因于领导该进程的那些人的世界观、方法和手段出现了问题，尤其是斯大林。依照必要的历史论观点，应用科学的、唯物的和辩证的方法和手段，并反对那种看起来毫无休止的对社会主义和共产主义的曲解和诽谤，社会主义在苏联的历史经验清晰的表明它依旧是非常积极的，尽管也有一些不容否认的消极影响——所有这一切我们都要深刻学习和吸取教训。
　　
　　--------------------------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~泽东领导了中国二十多年来的革命斗争，在1949年中华人民共和国建立之时，这一革命的第一阶段达到了高潮。理解这一点非常重要，必须要记住：传统的观点上，包括共产主义运动本身的观点，在中国这样一个国家，通过革命达到社会主义并成为世界范围内为最终实现共产主义而进行的斗争的一部分，是不可能的，可就是在毛泽东的领导下，中国采用了这样的方式（并获得了成功）。这不仅仅因为中国是一个落后的、拥有大量农民的国家（这点与1917年革命时的俄罗斯相像），还因为中国本身不是一个资本主义国家；它被其它资本主义-帝国主义国家所控制，中国的经济和整个社会都屈从于外国帝国主义的统治和它们资本积累的需要。也因为如此，毛领导的中国革命并没有立即走向社会主义，而是建立了一个广泛的统一战线，反对帝国主义和封建主义（和与帝国主义、封建主义都有联系的官僚资本主义）；这场革命并非立足于城市，依靠那儿少量的工人阶级，而是扎根于广大农村地区的农民阶层，通过打一场长期的革命战争，从农村包围城市，并最终打败了盘踞于城市之中的反动势力，在全国内赢得了政权，进而完成了这场革命的第一个阶段，并向社会主义道路敞开了怀抱。
　　
　　 然而，正如毛本人所强调的，虽然革命取得了重要的历史性胜利，但这还只是漫漫征途的第一步。挑战马上就出现，是继续向前走上社会主义道路，还是（停滞不前）甚至革命的初步胜利都可能失去——这个国家将再次处于剥削阶级和外国帝国主义列强的统治之下。但这还不是全部的挑战：在建设社会主义经济的过程中，在社会其他领域也发生相应变化的过程中，在毛总结此初级阶段经验的过程中，他越来越意识到，有必要发展一种不同于“苏联模式”的新方法来进行社会主义改造。毛这样的方法，给基层人民和各地方政府赋予了更多的主动权，首先，它对技术不够重视——虽然毛认为先进技术的发展是非常重要的——但是，这种方法首先专注的（也是最专注的）是人民大众的自觉行为。这些在“抓革命促生产”这条口号中得到了集中展现，它为经济建设提供了基本的指导方针，在这种方式下经济建设将促使社会继续在社会主义道路上不断前进，相互加强生产关系和政治、思想上层建筑的革命性变革。
　　
　　------------------------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.
　　
　　 所有的这些都与毛~泽东对共产主义革命事业所作的最重要和决定性的贡献相关，或者本身就是这些贡献发展进程中的一部分，这些贡献包括：在无产阶级专政下朝共产主义目标继续革命的理论，以及领导了将此理论转化为强大的人民大众革命运动，这场革命运动始于1960年代中期，延续了十年，即“文化大革命”。毛再次打破了共产主义运动的“公认看法”，作出了个开创性的分析：在整个社会主义阶段，始终有可以导致社会主义革命失败的物质条件存在。经济基础内部的矛盾，上层建筑内部的矛盾，充当基础和上层建筑的不同社会主义国家之间关系上的矛盾，还有任何时候来自于帝国主义和反动势力国家的影响、压力和赤裸裸的攻击，都会在一个社会主义国家内部制造阶级差别和阶级斗争；这些矛盾会不断导致一个国家在社会主义道路与资本主义道路之间徘徊，更具体的说，就是这些矛盾会反复的在社会主义内部制造出一个有抱负的资产阶级，他们会集中出现在共产党内部，尤其是他们中最高级别的人，他们以共产主义之名采纳修正主义路线和正常，在实际上拥抱帝国主义，并致使所有事物回到资本主义。毛将这些修正主义者称为“走资本主义道路的当权派”，他将共产主义与修正主义之间的斗争，确定为上层建筑中走社会主义道路派和走资派之间矛盾和斗争的集中表现。毛认识到，并强调：只要这些物质条件和与之对应的思想依就存在，就不能保证革命不会倒退，资本主义不能复辟，没有容易和简单的手段可以阻止这些发生，也没有其它解决方案，除了继续革命，直到最终，随着革命在全世界的推进，它会根除和消灭一切社会不平等和导致这种危险产生的资本主义残余。
　　
　　 再次，很难夸大这个由毛提出的理论分析的重要性——对于是否，以及为什么在社会主义社会有资本主义复辟的危险这样的问题，该理论清除了大量的混乱认识；在发动大众继续在社会主义道路上前行，反对修正主义势力（它们的目的与行为正导致资本主义的复辟）的运动上，该理论提供了基本的理论指导。中国的文化大革命活生生的体现了这样一个规模庞大的革命动员运动，数以亿计的人一起辩论和争斗着那些对社会发展方向和世界革命有决定性影响的问题。十年来，这种大规模的运动成功的阻挡了那些资本主义复辟势力（包括一些中共高级官员，比如xxx），使之处于防守地位。但是在1976年毛去世后不久，----(敏感内容删除)-------——并在中国恢复了资本主义制度。这一切都不幸地，活生生的演示了毛所指出的那种危险，而这种危险的根基毛也曾深刻的分析过。
　　
　　--------------------------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.
　　一个阶段的终结——以及从这些历史经验中，我们要吸取什么，抛弃什么。
　　
　　
　　 随着修~正主义在C~的政变和资本主义的复辟，以及20年前修正主义势力在苏联的抬头，共产主义革命的第一阶段走向了终结。就像我们在美国革命共产党的党章中以一种基本且简单的语言所说的：“自革命无产阶级在一些国家取得政权以来，已经过去数十年了，但是今天，无论他们贴的是什么样的标签，这世界上已经没有社会主义国家了。”
　　
　　 更严重的是，社会主义和共产主义事业的这种挫折和苏联（其实很久以前它就不再是个社会主义国家了）的灭亡，已经在发动势力中激起了鲨鱼般的狂喜和癫狂，这些反动势力，一直以来对共产主义革命和对他们代表的那个社会的根本变革恨之入骨，他们不断反复的，利用任何可能的手段，去打击和破坏这种革命。他们变本加厉的使尽浑身解数栽赃共产主义和自由变革，以无情的意识形态上的攻击去扭曲和诽谤这种革命，以企图永远压制革命的爆发；他们宣传资本主义制度的胜利是不可逆的；他们将那个实现完全不同的、更好的世界的梦想——具体指世界范围内的共产主义革命，描述为一个噩梦；他们将这个真实的、无穷噩梦般的现行体制，粉饰为人类的最高可能形式。
　　
　　--------------------------原文---------------------- 　　

 
作者：线专川上　回复日期：2010-03-04　22:17:24　　　
 回复 　　
 

　　事实证明上段的原文贴不了~~~
　　
　　19.
　　
　　 想象一下，坚信神创论的基督教原教旨主义者攫取了政权，在科学学术机构里和整个社会中，持续打压进化论的知识。想象一下，他们居然处死和监禁那些坚持向大众教授进化论知识的最杰出的科学家和教育家，他们藐视和辱骂众所周知的进化论知识，谴责和嘲弄后者是一个错误和危险的理论，这只是因为后者违背了圣经创始故事的所谓“真理”、（作为）“自然法”的宗教观念和“神灵保佑的秩序”。继续思考类似情况，想象一下，许多知识“当局”以及后头的跟风者，像个小丑一样蹦跳着：“相信进化论是一个证据充分的科学和迫使其他人相信与此的行为，不仅仅是幼稚的，也是种犯罪。”他们如此宣称，“我们现在可以看到这是一个‘公理’，没有人会质疑它（那我们为什么质问？），进化论只是代表了一种世界观，它将给人类带来灾难性的后果。我们会被那些信誓旦旦宣传此观点的人卷入其中。我们可以认识到：一切现存事物，或者曾经存在过的事物，没有（造物主这个）‘智能设计师’的指引，都不能存在。”最后，再想象在这种境况下，在投降和谴责的合奏下，甚至许多更有见识的人都最终迷失了方向，士气低落，被迫限于沉默（本来无论是逆来顺受还是大声喊出，他们都不会沉陷于此）。
　　
　　【最后一大句翻译比较纠结】
　　
　　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.
　　
　　 社会主义暂时的失败和共产主义革命第一阶段的结束有其自身的表现特征，以及与其相对应的后果。与其它事情一道，它降低了人们的视野和理想：即使那些一度有希望看得更高、更远的人，在短期内，都接受了这样一种观点——实际上或至少可预见的将来内——现行帝国主义和其他剥削者的统治都是不可替代的。人们所能达到的最大期盼和目标也只是在此种制度的框架内做一些次要的调整。另外的想法——尤其是引导一场打破现行体制，建立一个根本不同的共产主义世界的企图——是不现实的，也必将招致灾难性的后果。
　　
　　 同时，在由社会主义的倾覆和随后共产主义的挫折所制造的“真空”中，伴随着帝国主义持续并不断加强的掠夺行为，伴随着全世界数十亿人民遭受到的动荡、混乱和压迫，宗教原教旨主义的势力得到了极大的增强，他们在世界各地包括那些遭受压迫最为严重的人群中，不断有组织的出现。帝国主义强盗、民众屠夫和狂热的原教旨主义者——前者势力更大，危害也更大，并对后者产生进一步刺激，都代表了（人类社会中）最黑暗的阴暗面和奴役与无知的枷锁，它们即使相互对立，也会增加各自的罪恶。
　　
　　 但是所有这一切都没有消除掉这样一些现实：世界在这个资本主义-帝国主义制度统治下，大多数人都处于日常恐怖之中的现实——或者，共产主义实际能够带领人类实现突破，并在共产主义革命道路上继续前行的现实。
　　
　　-----------------------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.
　　
　　 当我们以科学的观点和方法审视第一批社会主义国家和共产主义革命第一阶段的丰富经验时，我们可以发现，问题并不像我们一直以来所遭受的指责那样：共产主义革命试图推翻资本主义的行为，是一种寻求克服（人类本身）一些不变特质的徒劳行径，这些不变特质导致人们把追求个人利益作为“底线”动机，而这种根本性的动机必然是推动人类社会发展的指导性原则。共产主义革命违背了这种“人性”，进而将人类社会拖入灾难之中，使人们成为暴政的牺牲品。这种指责的问题在于——随着采取共产主义观点的人们的主动性越来越强，共产主义革命将会在社会环境和人民大众中诱发出深刻的变化——革命不再是发生在真空之中，不再认为人民大众是白板一块而是条件的产物，人民已经脱离了旧社会，虽然留有旧社会的一些“胎记”（这些都是数千多年来的传统和人与人间已理性化的压迫关系的产物）。通过这些革命而建立的新的社会主义社会，会一直存在于这个依然由帝国主义占据统治地位的世界（帝国主义在经济、政治和军事上依旧拥有非常强大的力量）。
　　
　　 由于马克思和列宁对这些（共产主义）基本术语的充分理解，已经毛对此更充分的挖掘和解释，社会主义本身并不是终结，而是通向共产主义的过渡阶段，共产主义不能单独在这个或那个国家实现，它只能在世界范围内统一实现，前提是世界各地所有的反动统治阶级都被推翻，所有的剥削和压迫关系都被消灭。在社会主义过渡的整个阶段，由于反动国家依旧继续存在，并随时会包围和威胁社会主义国家，由于在生产关系、社会关系、政治和思想的上层结构以及文化上的旧社会残余在社会主义的继续存在，甚至在社会主义最终通向共产主义的前进道路上，虽然会不断限制和改变它们的属性，这些残余还会存在…由于这一切，过去的势力依旧有可能没有消亡，并仍然强大，可能会夺回社会的控制权并使之倒退到原来。简而言之，因为这些因素，在整个社会主义过渡阶段，资本主义复辟的危险会继续存在，只有通过在社会主义内部继续革命才能阻止这种危险的发生，同时，这种继续革命作为共产主义革命在全世界兴起的一部分，它也会积极支持和促进这个进程。
　　
　　-----------------------------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.
　　
　　 社会主义的倾覆和实际意义上资本主义在苏联和中国的复辟，并不代表“革命会虎毒食子”...并不代表一旦掌握权利后“阴谋的共产主义革命者将变成集权主义暴君”…并不代表“官僚主义的领导者，终身揽权，扼杀和窒息（资产阶级式）民族”…它也不是“永远等级森严的社会组织不可避免的结局”…也不属于任何其它根本性错误的不科学的观念（它们最近一直被用来反复攻击共产主义）。那些直接导致苏联和中国革命失败的人，实际上是那些在革命党内和国家里担任高职位的人，但他们不是一些为自身利益而疯狂追逐权力的难辨认的、无阶级的官僚权力集团。按照毛给他们的定性，他们是“走资本主义道路”的当权派。他们不是共产主义的代表，而是资本主义的代表，尤其是那些未被彻底清除和超越的资本主义残余的代表——这些残余既不能在短期内清除和超越，也不能只在这个或那个特别的社会主义国家内部清除和超越。
　　
　　-------------------------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.
　　
　　 这些修正主义者往往是党内和国家中高级别官员这一事实，并不是共产主义或者共产主义革命以及发展到现阶段的社会主义的基本缺陷。它也不代表（我们）需要另一种完全不同的手段和模式来实现一个截然不同的世界。这些社会主义的倾覆有更深层次的原因，它们与对社会，尤其是对社会主义是通向共产主义的过渡阶段这一事实的科学共产主义理解相一致：它们主要隐含在那些从旧社会中保留下来的矛盾之中，旧社会虽然已经被推翻，但是它的一些特质和影响依旧未被完全根除。这些矛盾，包括脑力劳动与体力劳动之间的矛盾（它与社会阶级分化现象密切关联，且本身已构成这种分化的一部分），和剥削阶级统治下社会的深刻分化——一方面，这些矛盾使得组织一支共产主义先锋队成为必要，不仅用来推翻资本主义制度，而且继续推进社会主义内部的变革；另一方面，这些矛盾同时又促发了革命被一些在先锋队中处于领导地位的人出卖和颠覆的危险。考虑到人类社会真实的历史发展进程和变革的可能道路（这种变革已经发生，它相当于自然界中的进化，令人想到限制与改变之间的关系），（社会）实际替代的问题——在这个现实的世界中，如果实际上我们已经开始从根本上去改变这个世界，为的是根除和消灭一切剥削和压迫——并不是有领导权与没有领导权的问题，不是民主与不民主的问题，也不是独裁与不独裁的问题；而是社会主义道路与资本主义道路的问题，是将事物引导到某方向或另一方向上领导力本身的问题，是民主和集权本身的特性——它们服务并促进于某种或另一种（社会）制度，要么加强和延续剥削与压迫，要么消除剥削与压迫，由此，最终一旦随着共产主义革命在全世界的胜利，物质和思想条件达到了那种状态，对党和国家而言，先锋队可以不再需要。
　　
　　------------------------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.
　　
　　 在此总结一下：共产主义革命的第一阶段往前迈出了一大步，并取得了难以置信的、鼓舞人心的成就，它克服了它所面对的诸多阻碍，它引导社会朝一个全新世界前行，在那儿，所有的剥削和压迫关系都被最终消除，人们享有全新的自由，并且以一种人类历史上前所未有的自觉、自愿精神，领导社会组织，继续全世界范围内的社会变革。但并不奇怪的是，无论是在那些革命领导者所采取的实际步骤中，还是在他们创建的新社会里，或是在他们的理念和方法上，这一阶段都存在着许多重大缺陷和实际错误，有时甚至是非常严重。这些缺陷和错误并不是这共产主义革命初次尝试失败的根本原因，但是它们的确加速了这种失败，甚至是失败的次要因素；除去这些，第一阶段的整个经历，连同它鼓舞人心的成就和非常真实的，有时是非常严重的，甚至完全是次要因素的错误和缺陷，我们都要进行深刻而全面的总结，以便在我们必须面对的新形势下继续推进共产主义革命，并且这次做得更好。
　　
　　--------------------------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. 新的挑战，和新的整合
　　
　　 1976年后修正主义势力不仅继续标榜为共产主义者，而且还更具体的自称为毛泽东革命路线和革命遗产的继承者。在这种形势下，全世界共产主义者真正要做的是保持批判的精神和方法，对实际发生的事情极其原因做出客观的、科学的分析，并且清晰地区分共产主义与资本主义、马克思主义与修正主义，尤其是当这集中体现在那些具体而又复杂的情况下。在如今的情势下，这点并不容易做到，世界上那些将毛领导下的中国视为一种革命模式和灯塔的共产主义者中的大多数人都做不到这点，并且他们还盲目的追随中国那些新的修正主义统治者，从而使革命道路陷入泥沼之中，或以某些其它种形式放弃了共产主义革命的世界观和目标。为了响应（革命的）伟大的需要，为了拒绝顺应中国也已发生的一切（它以共产主义之名行资本主义之实，它劫持了革命中国和毛泽东在世界革命者和共产主义者中的伟大威望，它也造成了我们美国革命共产党内部的大分裂），鲍勃•艾沃肯承担了科学分析中国所发生的一切及此中原因的使命，并努力解释（中国）修正主义政变和资本主义复辟发生的缘由。由此，他对毛进一步发展共产主义革命科学和战略时所用的方法做了系统性的说明。在世界范围内毛泽东主义者处于迷惘、士气低落、混乱之际，在共产主义在中国陷落之后，以及在这种陷落对世界各地的革命和共产主义运动带来破坏性影响的情况下，艾沃肯的工作具有重要的作用，它为重组现有共产主义者奠定了思想上和政治上的基础。
　　
　　 但是现在需要更多的阐释，在全面领导我们美国革命共产党之外，鲍勃•艾沃肯在过去30多年中，一直在对国际共产主义运动本身和实现共产主义革命的战略方针进行深入的科学分析。这项工作的结果是一个新的整合，是革命理论框架的进一步发展。
　　
　　-------------------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.
　　
　　 如我们美国革命共产党党章所指，世界今天的形势——包括共产主义革命第一波风潮的失败——实际上“再次表明共产主义的伟大需要。”如下：
　　
　　 “虽然目前世界上没有一个社会主义国家，但存在着社会主义革命的经验，并有丰富的经由社会主义革命第一波风潮发展起来的革命的科学理论。但是这些共产主义革命理论和实践需要进一步发展，以满足这种情况的挑战——科学的解释社会主义革命第一波风潮的整个经历和正在发生巨大变化的世界所隐含的战略意义，并从中汲取教训。
　　
　　 鲍勃•艾沃肯已经承担了这项责任，并且发展了一套共产主义工作、方式和方法体系，来响应这些伟大的需要和挑战。”
　　
　　 这套共产主义工作、方式和方法体系以及这个由鲍勃•艾沃肯发展起来的新整合所做的，与马克思在共产主义运动初始阶段时所做的相类似——在新形势下，在共产主义革命第一阶段结束之后，为革命的进一步发展建立起一套理论框架。但是今天，这种新整合并不是强调要“回到绘图板”，返回到最初点，仿佛既要抛弃共产主义运动的历史经验和社会主义，又要抛弃第一波共产主义革命风潮中发展起来的“丰富的革命科学理论内容”。这将是一个不科学的、实际上是反动的方法。相反，我们需要的——也是鲍勃•艾沃肯所做的¬——以过去所有的理论和实践为基础，吸取积极的和消极的教训，将它们提高到一个新的、更高水平的整合状态。
　　
　　-----------------------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.
　　
　　 对这个新的整合，我们党其它的介绍文件及出版物提供了更广泛、更系统化的讨论。在此，我们只简略的概括下它的一些主要要素。
　　
　　 从哲学和方法论的方面来说，这种新整合，在真正意义上从马克思主义学说的科学根基上对它重新进行充分的打磨。这种整合也学习了自马克思时代以来的丰富历史经验，坚持已被证明是根本性正确的共产主义的基本目的和根本原则，批评和抛弃那些已被证明是错误或不再适应的方面，将共产主义更加充分、更加坚固地建立在科学基础之上。
　　
　　 在人类社会向共产主义历史性发展的原始构想中，甚至包括马克思的构想中，都有这样一种趋势——虽然这种趋势肯定是非常次要的——朝着狭隘的、线性的观点发展。举例来说，在“否定之否定”这个概念中，就体现出这种趋势，“否定之否定”的观点认为事物总是按照这样一种方式进行发展：一个特定的事物被另一事物否定，反过来，这另一事物又将导致进一步的否定和整合，这种否定和整合体现了以前（被否定）事物的要素，但这种体现是在更高层面上。这种“否定之否定”概念来源于黑格尔的哲学体系，而黑格尔的哲学对马克思（包括恩格斯）产生了重大的影响，然而，从根本上说，他们修改了黑格尔的辩证法观点并将唯物主义基础覆盖在其上面，黑格尔的辩证法本身就体现了哲学上的唯心主义，它认为历史本质上是由一连串“（绝对）观念”组成的。就像鲍勃.艾沃肯所指出的，“否定之否定”可以导致“不可避免主义”——仿佛一些事物注定要被另外的事物以一种特定的方式所否定，走向几乎是预设的整合。当将此概念应用到人类历史发展上去，它就以这样一种方式濒于简单的公式化了——就像是在臆想：原始无阶级（公共）社会被阶级社会否定，反过来，阶级社会又将被再次浮现的无阶级社会所否定，只不过随着共产主义在全世界的实现，它有了更高的基础——“简单化”本来极端复杂和多样化的人类社会历史发展的倾向，朝向“封闭系统”和“不可避免主义”的倾向，已经越来越明显，也越来越成问题。
　　
　　---------------------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，这是马克思主义在其基础上的一个次要缺陷，就像鲍勃.艾沃肯所指出的：“马克思主义、科学共产主义，并不体现，实际上是拒绝，任何形式的目的论——那样一种观念：有一些意愿或目的，由于其自身特性或历史原因，是被（注定）赋予的。”但是，这种（目的论）倾向在共产主义运动的发展中被充分的自我宣扬出来了，尤其令人注意的是，它对斯大林的思想产生了负面的影响，反过来，通过斯大林它又影响到了毛泽东的哲学观点，即使毛泽东以一些重要的方法拒绝和打破了斯大林这种朝向“粗鲁的”和机械化的，有点形而上学的唯物主义倾向。鲍勃•艾沃肯新的整合是毛泽东观点与斯大林决裂的延续，但同时更进一步剔除掉了一些毛本人依旧被影响（斯大林）到的部分方法，尽管与斯大林领导下的共产主义运动的一些主导思想相比，这些只是次要的。
　　
　　-----------------------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.
　　
　　 国际主义。在上世纪80年代初，鲍勃.艾沃肯在其著作《征服世界》中对共产主义运动史上许多错误倾向提出了广泛的批判，尤其是其中的民族主义倾向——将某特定国家的革命斗争脱离出，甚至是超越出整个世界的共产主义革命斗争。他研究了这种倾向在苏联和中国（当它们还是社会主义国家时）发生的方式，以及它们更广泛意义上对共产主义运动的影响，包括对有时看起来非常明显的那种举动的影响，在这种举动中，其它国家的革命斗争依附于现存社会主义国家的需要，先是苏联，后是中国。伴随这一点，鲍勃.艾沃肯进一步分析了国际主义的物质基础——为什么在最终和整体意义上，即使是对于那些具体国家的革命来说，世界性的舞台也是最具决定性的，尤其是在这个资本帝国主义充当全球性剥削体制的时代，以及该如何将这种认识嵌入到在某些国家（同时也是世界范围内）实现革命的方法之中。
　　
　　 国际主义自共产主义观点建立以来一直都是它的基本原则，鲍勃.艾沃肯总结了使这个基本原则在共产主义运动史上屡屡走向妥协的那些方式，他强化了一系列的理论基础，从而克服了这种与国际主义分离的倾向，以一种更彻底的国际主义方式推进共产主义革命。
　　
　　-----------------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.
　　
　　 论无产阶级专政与作为共产主义过渡阶段的社会主义的性质。毛泽东对社会主义作为共产主义过渡阶段这一见解的本质，和伴随这种过渡的矛盾与斗争，以及这种矛盾与斗争的解决（在这个或那个方向上，它们决定着革命是朝向共产主义前进，还是被拖回到资本主义）都有着伟大的理解和认知，通过深刻学习、坚定支持和宣扬毛泽东这种见解，鲍勃.艾沃肯认识到并强调了异议的重要性，社会主义社会需要创造出更多的智慧火花，艺术上需要更多的积极性与创造性。他批评了走向“物化”无产阶级和在社会中产生其它剥削（或者曾经是剥削）群体的倾向——它将这些群体中个别的人看作为“个人”，视为无产阶级（将无产阶级当为一种阶级）更大利益的代表者，视为革命斗争（它在最广泛意义上符合了无产阶级根本利益）的代表者。这种倾向经常伴随着狭隘的、务实主义的和实证主义的世界观与行为方式——它限定了什么是相关的，什么可以被确定（宣称）为是真的，什么可以被确定为直接经验和斗争（通过此所有的民众都涉入其中），什么可以被确定为是社会主义国家及其执政党的短期目标（在任何时候）。这个反过来又与朝向“阶级真理”的倾向走到一起，这种“阶级真理”的倾向在苏联和中国（当他俩还是社会主义国家时）身上体现得清晰无疑，实际上，所谓的“阶级真理”与以下的科学认识相违背：真理是客观的，不随不同阶级的利益而变化，也不依靠于那些追求真理的阶级的世界观而存在。共产主义科学世界观和方法论，如果作为一种有生命力的科学而不是教条被正确的采纳和应用，必将在总体上，为真理的实现提供最符合的、最系统化的和最全面的手段，但这与说真理本身具有某种阶级属性不是一回事，同样，认为共产主义者以其某种特质必定能实现真理，而其他不应用、甚至是反对共产主义世界观和方法论的人肯定不能实现真理的观点也是不科学的。“阶级真理”这种观点，在共产主义运动中以不同的形式不同程度的存在着，它属于还原主义和庸俗唯物论，违背了实际上科学的辩证唯物主义世界观和方法论。
　　
　　--------------------------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.
　　
　　 作为新整合的一个相关部分，鲍勃.艾沃肯批评了共产主义运动中对知识分子片面的看法——将知识分子视为麻烦，并没有充分认识到他们在实现共产主义进程中可能的重要作用，通过此，社会上所有的人将对现实有更深的了解，将获得更强的能力，越来越主动的投入到改造现实以便实现共产主义的斗争之中。
　　
　　 再次，就像我们美国革命共产党党章中所解释的：
　　
　　 “这种新的整合也对知识分子和艺术家们在整个（共产主义）进程中的重要作用有了更深的理解，他们在追寻自己视野的同时，也贡献了自己的意见以产生更广泛的发酵作用——所有这些，再次，对更丰富（共产主义）进程的获得都是必需的。”
　　
　　 “简而言之，在这个由鲍勃.艾沃肯发展起来的新整合中，必须有一个充满一定弹性、坚实的核心观念。它首先是一种能以很广泛方式得到应用的方法论和行为方式…清晰掌握这核心观念的两个方面（坚实的核心和一定的弹性）以及它们的内在关系，对在所有领域里理解和改造现实来说是非常必要的，对在人类社会中发起革命性变革是非常关键的…”
　　
　　---------------------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.
　　
　　 “应用到社会主义社会，这种包含一个坚实核心并带有一定弹性的方法论，需要一个统筹性的并带有延展性的核心，以便满足无产阶级专政和继续社会主义革命（作为通向共产主义的世界性斗争的一部分）的需要，并且它也决心克服所有挫折，继续引导这个斗争。同时，在社会主义中，一定会有许多不同的人和不同的倾向，他们将社会引向不同的方向——所有这些最终都会有助于获得真相，和达到共产主义。这种情况总是一种激烈状态存在的，包容这一切不同的人和不同的倾向（它们仍将在广泛意义上引导社会朝向共产主义）时所遇到的困难，就像鲍勃.艾沃肯所说的，类似于反复的将某件东西拉到快肢解的边缘而又不能使之肢解。所有这一切都是困难的，却是必须的，也是我们要迎接的一个过程。”
　　
　　 作为这一切统一的主题，鲍勃.艾沃肯强调了“人类解放者”的方向：只有在人民大众都自觉参与的情况下，革命才能被执行，革命不是报复，也不是某个狭隘框架里位置的变化（最后的成为最前的，最前的成为最后的），而是整个世界的变革，从此没有谁是第一，谁是最后；推翻现行体制，建立无产阶级专政和在这些条件下继续革命，都是为了消除一切压迫性的社会分化和人与人间的剥削关系，并向人类历史上一个全新的时代积极前进。
　　
　　--------------------------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.
　　
　　 革命的战略方针。鲍勃.艾沃肯新的整合优化了共产主义理论，丰富了列宁提出的人民大众需要提高共产主义觉悟的基本认识，列宁认为人民大众要提要共产主义觉悟，除了依靠自身的直接经验和斗争，还要全方位的揭露资本主义-帝国主义制度的本质和特性，明确确立共产主义的信念、目标、世界观和方法论，所有这些，都是由一个有组织的先锋队以一种系统化的、全方位的方式引导给大众，将任何时候发生的斗争转化为或引导为革命的战略目标，同时也“在大众面前说明”革命的一些基本事项和问题，并使大家都参与其中以找出合适的方法解决这些矛盾，继续推动革命斗争。在鲍勃.艾沃肯的领导下，在帝国主义国家进行革命的基本战略方针已经制定下来，并正继续往前得到进一步发展，在这种战略方针的指导下，我们将加快（同时也在等待）革命形势的发展，促使革命群众数百万数百万的不断出现，然后当这一天最终到来的时，我们有能力在那种情况下去斗争并赢得革命，夺取政权。（关于这方面内容，请参阅《革命与共产主义：基础与战略方针》革命宣传册，2008）
　　
　　 这一切对于那些争辩说革命不可能发生在帝国主义的人来说，对于那种坚持在革命目标和共产主义世界观上，共产主义的理论与实践只能专注于改革和“解决”群众切身问题的观点来说，都是鲜活的反驳。后一种观点，在现实中，只要它影响到人民大众，必将把他们引导到偏离（共产主义的）方向上去，使他们与现行剥削制度一道进入一团死气的死胡同，走向灭亡。
　　
　　 对在如美国这样的帝国主义国家里进行革命，新整合已经进一步发展出了革命的基本战略方针，与此同时，鲍勃.艾沃肯呼吁要注意革命斗争所面对的新挑战，要进一步发展革命战略，以便适应外国帝国主义国家革命的要求，这些外国帝国主义国家在近几十年来，给世界及其中大多数国家带来了巨大的变化。
　　
　　-------------------------------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.
　　
　　
　　 这种新整合，在许多重大方面（在此我们只能简单的谈及下）为革命与共产主义打下了更坚实的科学（理论）基础。正如鲍勃.艾沃肯自己所强调的：
　　
　　 “不低估这个新整合的重要性及潜在积极力量是非常重要的：对于国际共产主义运动和至今已存在过的社会
　　
　　主义国家的历史经验，批判和破除其中的重大错误和缺陷，同时继续发扬和改造它积极的方面；在真正意义上恢复一个新的、更先进的基础，恢复一个全新的、完全不同的世界的可行性和可取性，并将此目标倚靠在一个更坚实的唯物论和辩证法基础之上。
　　
　　 因此，我们不应低估它作为一种希望源泉和一种基于坚实科学基础的胆识的可能性。”
　　
　　------------------------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. 十字路口的共产主义：未来的先锋，还是过去的残留？
　　
　　
　　 面对现阶段持续的挑战和困难，在共产主义革命在中国失败以及共产主义革命第一阶段结束之时，共产主义者们的初次重组便开始了，然而到最近，在很大程度上，这种重组让位于内部尖锐的分歧：一方面，我们党（基本路线集中体现在我们美国革命共产党的党章中）和另外一些党派积极走向新的整合；而另一方面，又有两种对立的倾向：要么是如宗教信仰般的全盘坚持过往所有的经验以及与之相关的理论和方法论，要么就是（实质上，不是在口头上就是在理论上）全盘否定所有这一切。
　　
　　 在某种意义上说，这是对《征服世界？》所造成反响的一种预示，此文在约30年前首次发表。一方面，国际共产主义运动中的一些人对《征服世界？》一文所讲述的内容感到极度的不满，他们声称它把共产主义运动的经验缩减为“一面破旗”，他们这种观念本身就是对“什么是共产主义”教条认识的一种反应，而不是尊重并坚持共产主义本来的面目：共产主义是一种鲜活的、发展的、决定性的革命科学，它本身的标志之一就是不断的自我反省。在另一方面，因其正确的观点，也有些人欢迎《征服世界？》，又有些人确实也欢迎它，但却是抱着这样一种观点和希望：它将成为一个撬开房门的工具，借此达到摆脱和抛弃整个（共产主义革命）历史经验的目的，而这整个（共产主义革命）历史经验，正是《征服世界？》一文以一种完全不同的观点进行审慎分析的，其中一个认识便是，客观上说，这些（共产主义革命）历史经验主要内容都是积极的，是历史上前所未有的人类进步，这点必须要认识到；但同时也要认识到，这儿还有很多真实的问题、缺陷和错误，有些还是十分令人痛心的，这些需要进一步挖掘、审慎研究，并从中汲取教训。在当时，那些反对《征服世界？》观点的人主要集中在新兴国家和一个范围宽广的群体之间。只是随着过去数十年中事情的进一步发展，和对新困难的经历，包括革命斗争所遭受到的挫折（在一段时间内，革命看起来象要有新的突破并体现了世界共产主义运动的复兴），这些反对的观点得到进一步发展和强化。
　　
　　----------------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，在那些拒绝审慎研究共产主义运动历史经验的人那里，经常可以看到坚持“阶级真理”和相应的物化无产阶级现象，他们对共产主义理论和原则基本采取教条主义的方式，实质上类似于宗教中对待教义的态度：“我们都知道我们需要知道的，我们拥有所有所需的基本要素，唯一要做的只是去贯彻这些已告知的智慧。”
　　
　　 在相反一端是那样一些人，他们对共产主义运动历史经验的理解，特别是它遭受到困难、挫折和失败的原因的理解，是肤浅的和毫无根据的，他们忽视或索性抛弃对深刻矛盾的科学共产主义分析（这些深刻矛盾正是导致社会主义国家中发生资本主义复辟的原因），而试图以基于资产阶级式民主原则、标准和资产阶级民主合法性概念的方法取而代之：正式的选举程序和政党竞争，这些在资本主义社会司空见惯，符合并有助于资产阶级继续占据政治权力。那些持这种观点的人，即使还在继续宣称继承共产主义的衣钵，都急于抛弃和保持与无产阶级专政及其历史经验的距离，许多情况下，甚至是“无产阶级专政”这个名词。实际上，这些人正在寻求从这个人类历史上迄今最具解放精神的经验中“卸下身上的重担”。他们宣称要阔步往前，以适应时代新的形式…但是他们的车辆行驶在错误的方向上，并且是在迅速的倒转——以加速度的步伐倒退回资产阶级式民主和狭隘的资产阶级式法权，从21世纪倒退到18世纪。
　　
　　 虽然我们在此已经确认的这些错误倾向之间有很大的差别，但有一个重要情况是，他们相互“镜像对立”，他们实际上共享一些重要特征。事实上，值得注意的是，近年来出现了一些某个团体从一端“滑到”另一端的现象，尤其是从教条主义及相关倾向投入到资产阶级式民主（如果他们仍然是在伪装成共产主义）。以下是这些倾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.
　　
　　 》很明显，这些“镜像对立”的错误倾向都共同的陷入到，或退回到过去的模式之中，以这样或那样的方式（即使特定模式可能会有所不同）：要么教条的抱着共产主义革命第一阶段的老经验不放；要么，相反的抱着一种不完整的、片面的、最终错误的理解；要么，索性退回到过去资产阶级革命的时代和它相关的原则上：退回到本质上说是18世纪资产阶级民主的理论上，打着“21世纪的共产主义”的幌子，或以此为名，实际上把这“21世纪的共产主义”等同于所谓的“纯粹的”或者“无阶级的”民主，这种民主，在现实中，只要阶级依旧存在，它只可能意味着资产阶级民主和资产阶级专政。所有这一切，伴随着忽视、认为过时和教条理解（或把对共产主义的理解诉诸于“共产主义基本知识”这种毫无意义的抽象的词条，然后又将此与不相干的实际斗争联系起来），科学共产主义的根本内涵（是从巴黎公社革命以来，数以百万计被压迫者的鲜血中反复思考得来的）——旧的反动国家必须被推翻和捣毁，一个全新的国家必须被建立，并且在改造社会和解放全人类过程中，代表先前被剥削阶级的革命利益——必须被理解，否则，革命斗争的任何成果都将被浪费和破坏，革命力量将毁灭。
　　
　　 只有通过与这些错误倾向决裂，深入理解并越来越坚定共产主义的世界观、方法论和原则，当它们发展到了这一点（同时也必须进一步往前发展）时，共产主义者便可站立起来，承担起作为未来先锋的重大责任和挑战，而不是踯躅不前，或者堕落为过去的残留，如此的话将会背叛全世界的人民大众，对于他们来说，共产主义革命是能够带领他们逃离现行世界的疯狂与恐怖，走向一个真正宜居世界的唯一一条道路。
　　
　　-----------------------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. 美国革命共产党内部的文化革命
　　
　　 对于错误的、甚至公然的修正主义路线的影响，我们党很难摆脱。事实上，我们在此所批判的修正主义路线和倾向不仅已经出现在我们党内部，而且经过一些年的发展，到最近已经形成了一股强大的力量，给我党成为革命共产主义先锋队的目标带来了真正的危险，试图使我们堕落为另一种乱七八糟的改革派，即使一段时间内还暂时保留共产主义的标签。
　　
　　 在上世纪80年代到90年代期间，在我们党内部，实际上存在两个派别，代表了两种根本对立的道路。一方面，有“官方的”党的路线，以及该路线的进一步发展，这些新发展体现在鲍勃.艾沃肯新的整合理论，它们主要发表在党的机关报（《革命劳动者》，现在为《革命》）以及其它一些党的文件和出版物上。但同时，另一方面，随着反对新整合理论及总体上的革命-共产主义路线的声音的走强，修正主义观点和路线在党内各个级别中逐渐占据了上风，尽管他们并没有对修正主义观点和路线做出任何系统性的表达和讨论，这些修正主义观点和路线尽管在细节上有些不同，但客观的说，它们有很大的一个共同点，那就是放弃共产主义革命世界观与目标，力求融入帝国主义制度，并且充其量上只寻求一些这可怕制度内的改革。
　　
　　 这些修正主义路线的主要特征是什么，又是什么因素导致其实力的增长以及在党内影响力的不断提升？
　　
　　---------------------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.
　　
　　 » 共产主义在中国的失败和共产主义革命第一阶段的结束，以及上世纪60年代社会狂潮在美国和全球范围内逐渐消退并进入70年代后，世界大多数帝国主义国家数十年内相对“稳定”，不仅使许多曾经立志为世界的根本变革而积极抗争的人迷失方向、士气低落，同样也对共产主义者，包括我们美国革命共产党造成了同样的影响。共产主义政党是由抱着同样理想的人聚集起来的，他们对革命的必需性和可能性有着共同的先进的、科学的理解，他们都梦想着为人类带来一个根本不同的、更好的未来。但是他们都生存在现行的体制之下，在这个体制下进行着他们的工作，他们不会，不能，也不应该与世界上其它的事物和那些对自己潜移默化的条件相隔离、相封闭。
　　
　　 与此同时，那些旧秩序的捍卫者和辩护者在过去的数十年中抓住共产主义革命的失败和挫折不放，对共产主义进行无情的意识形态攻击，在这种情况的影响下，试图融入帝国主义，尤其是像美国这样的国家的倾向变得愈发的强烈。
　　
　　 在许多年前的一次重要的党内会议上，鲍勃.艾沃肯在他的发言中直面，并尖锐批判了党内的修正主义路线，他的意见如下：
　　
　　--------------------------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.
　　
　　 “让我们再诚实的看下。我谈到了我们将继续品尝中国的损失给我们带来的苦果，我们决不能低估共产主义在中国的失败，以及一切由此带来的后果，一切帝国主义以此而进行的活动。中国，连同它对全世界无产者和世界无产阶级革命所意味的一切，在文化大革命之后，在百万、数百万人经历的动荡（的确是一种改造他们世界观的重要过程）之后，它的失去依然是我们要持续面对的，无论是从客观现实，还是从我们自身的思想上。
　　
　　 如果你将此视为完全的“共产主义消亡”现象，视为反共产主义势力的持续反抗和从各种方向上、以各种形式对中国文化大革命的诟病和诽谤，视为对中国革命和中国社会主义制度（实际上是对所有存在过的社会主义制度和无产阶级专政）的诟病和诽谤；如果你思考过这些影响，而且你是个唯物主义者，使用辩证法，就不会认为它们不会影响到我们，只会影响到党外人士。即使在我们的思想和灵魂中，在我们的内心深处，如果我们想要用“共产主义消亡”这个词，难道对于这一切我们真的没有问题么：为什么我们失败了？如果我们是如此的合理，如果我们所追求的是如此的正确，那为什么最终会是这样？我不认为有很多同志在内心里从未受到过这些问题的折磨，兴许还不止一次。
　　
　　 对这些事情我们有答案，但是你必须去挖掘答案，不停的挖，而且你还需以科学的方法。你必须采取唯物论和辩证法的方法。”
　　
　　 然而问题是，虽然鲍勃.艾沃肯和党内其他一些同志以这种方式进行“挖掘”，应用科学的世界观和辩证唯物主义的方法，但党内各个级别的多数同志，并不这样做，反而是，在很大程度上，“购买了”对共产主义的诽谤，并且就如列宁所精辟阐述的那样，自发的走到资产阶级的羽翼之下，无论是在意识形态上还是在政治上：撤退到资产阶级民主和法权的局限之中，紧随改良主义运动的世界观，这包括“认同政治”和相关的哲学意义上的相对主义（认为没有客观真理或者具有某种确定度的客观真理，只有不同群体或个人的不同“叙事”，要么都是真的，要么都是假的），以改良替代革命作为根本的目标。
　　
　　----------------------------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.
　　
　　 » 我们党内的修正主义体现的正是共产主义运动中长期存在的修正主义特性，这一点已经被列宁揭示——它体现在这样一种概念上：“（共产主义）运动本身就是一切，并无最终目的”，一切都被决定，必需的便是可能的，可能的便是业已做过的。这又使得在人民大众中产生一种错误意义上的“挖掘”，偏离了革命和共产主义，充其量只是以一种毫无意义的、无生命力的方式导向改良主义，抛弃了本党现行活动的真实意义，也割裂它们之间的联系——结果是埋葬了革命和共产主义。党员们总是很忙——被这事，被那事占据了时间，但革命与共产主义除外。
　　
　　 从本质上讲，这是“经济主义”的一种形式（备注：经济主义是“以追求眼前经济利益为特征的机会主义思潮。产生于19世纪末。认为无产阶级的主要任务是进行经济斗争，反对进行推翻资产阶级制度的斗争，否认建立统一的马克思主义政党的必要性。”—百度百科）。在共产主义运动的历史上，经济主义意味着把工人阶级的关心重点集中在眼前的经济利益和斗争之上，把它看作实现自身利益，并在某天实现社会主义和共产主义的“最普遍适用的方式”。列宁在其名著《怎么办？》中对这种观点进行了彻底的揭露和驳斥，他指出这种观点永远也不能发起一个志在共产主义的革命运动，它只会沦落在资本主义制度的体制内，限制了革命运动和其中的民众。为了反对这种观点，列宁强调，虽然对于共产主义者来说，亲自参加或参与到重大的民众斗争之中，甚至努力去领导这些斗争是非常重要的，但他们要做的是那些共产主义者应该去做的，他们的工作重点是：通过及时和令人信服的鼓动和宣传，揭露资本主义制度的特性和本质，树立我们的共产主义信念和目标，由此把这些斗争和运动与革命和共产主义的目标联系起来，使得这些斗争和人民大众不再是单纯的自发行为，而是转变为资本主义羽翼下的有目的行为，朝着革命目标前进。自列宁时代以将，经济主义通过宣扬“最普遍适用的方式”这种概念，逐渐拓展了它的含义，它不再仅限于工人阶级的经济斗争，还延伸至诸多阶层之间斗争的范畴——使得共产主义运动的根本重点集中在组织这种斗争之上，而至少在口头上，实际已将革命和共产主义的前景看作为某种抽象的东西，属于遥远的不确定未来，与现时的（社会）状况、某个时间上的运动和斗争毫无关联。
　　
　　---------------------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.
　　
　　 本质上说，经济主义以非革命替代革命，坐等革命形势的主动来临，经济主义者的信条是：“以改革等待革命”——依照这种方法，革命永远不会主动到来，也不能实际取得。经济主义的基本特征表现为“跟随民众”，而不是争做先锋以便领导他们——向民众学习，但在学习中加以领导，使他们的眼光得到提高进而认识到革命的可能性和必需性，与他们一起工作、抗争，争取他们信仰革命和坚持共产主义立场，为实现无产阶级解放目标而斗争。
　　
　　 经济主义以及整体上的修正主义，在我们党内的实际工作、生活和文化之中表现得越来越明显，它们同时也体现出了共产主义运动中常见的实用主义和经验主义特征（关于这一点，我们已经在上面讨论过了），以及某种不可知论，对共产主义既定原则，甚至对革命和共产主义的可取性与可能性都提出了怀疑。对于目前的共产主义理论以及本党主席鲍勃.艾沃肯所带来的真正理论突破，大部分党员所持的态度是忽视而不是反对，或者同样毫无兴趣的说“哇，真不赖”，然后束之高阁，独染灰尘。这是因为这些共产主义理论以及它的理论突破，虽然对革命和共产主义目标来说是非常重要的，但对于那些深陷经济主义和修正主义的人来说，却是毫无价值没有用的东西。
　　
　　 与上述相关的是，这种“修正主义绣包”里还有另外一个重要花样，已经在我们党内流行了起来，它并不将共产主义看作为一个真正的革命方向（我们必须坚持这种革命方向以改变世界，人民大众能够而且必须自觉主动的去为这种革命方向而奋斗），而是将共产主义减化为一种“可替代的生活方式”。根据这个观点，我们党正或多或少的走向自我证实的内在对立。有时这种“可替代的生活方式”令人忙着关注自己和其他人，不断在不同的眼前利益间跳来跳去；有时又为自己是共产主义者而飘飘然、自我满意，自认拥有了专门的历史知识和伦理理论，然而纵使你拥有这些知识也努力尝试过，你依旧可能永远无法与别人沟通；有时它只意味着原地踏步，将重要思想扔到冷冻箱中不闻不问。我们党的工作越来越多的采取向大众灌输枯燥思想理论的方法，将这些思想描述为“神秘知识的神殿”，进而将共产主义变成一种无生命力的、实质上宗教般的教条主义。
　　
　　--------------------------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.
　　
　　 在反对鲍勃.艾沃肯的著作、美国革命共产党党报、党的其它出版物和官方文件，以及党内主要公众人物的运动中，书店也加入其中，比如，它们散发出旧时代的霉味（宣扬旧有的观念），充当着忙碌的（非革命的）各色“运动中心”角色。这些反对运动有非常多的变化形式，但是它们的根源和结局是同样的：修正主义。
　　
　　 伴随与此的是明确的反感和刻意的避免在人民大众之中进行意识形态上的斗争，尤其是反对宗教观念和概念以及其它落后观点，而这些实际上正是束缚在人民大众身上的枷锁、精神铰链。这种反感和刻意发展到了一定程度便成了不情愿甚至是直接的拒绝，进而成了反共产主义的偏见和成见，这种现象在今日非常普遍，但同时也非常肤浅。
　　
　　 总体而言，在最根本意义上，“修正主义派”代表了对革命的放弃：即使没有明说或者以某种公开的态度表明，但他们的确采取了“我们已经看到了所有我们将要看到的革命”的态度。最多，革命只是遥远将来的事情，或者是别人的事情，在其他地方，也许是第三世界，它能取得成功，但若遵照修正主义的观点，革命成功与我们党一直做的或应该做的基本无缘，当然我们也许可以去充当其它地方革命斗争的拉拉队。对我们党以及它的文化来说，在这种修正主义的影响下，自由主义在党内猖獗横行，一种普遍的态度在本质上相当于说：“来吧，让我们面对现实，你能指望什么？在这个国家你不可能拥有一个真正是革命先锋队的政党，它的的确确配得上革命共产党这个称号。”
　　
　　 我们党内的两条路线在根本上相互对立，矛盾日益尖锐，其中一条是以鲍勃.艾沃肯新整合的方法论和观点为基础的新兴势力，另一条便是党内所谓的“官方”路线、文件和党刊，在另一方面说就是“修正主义派”，这两者无论特征上，还是我们在此概述过的基本内容上都互不相同，在近几年间它们已经发展到了如下的地步：这两股对立的路线再也不能在党内彼此共存下去了，或者这种共存将导致修正主义的胜利和真正充当了革命-共产主义先锋队角色的党的灭亡。
　　
　　-------------------------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.
　　
　　 诱发党内因为这些分歧而爆发公开的、深刻的冲突的原因出现在这样的背景下：党内正准备发起一场运动，以便建立以鲍勃.艾沃肯同志为领导人的党内新格局，创立以理解、提高认识以及普及他的研究成果、方法论与观点为核心的党内文化。创建这种文化如今已被视为我们党全方位革命工作的两个支柱之一（另一个支柱是我党的报刊，所有这些在我们党新的党章中都有讨论）。但在那时，也就几年之前，党内对此的讨论比以往更清楚的揭露了一点：在党内，就像最近一份党内文件所提及的，“对党主席鲍勃.艾沃肯的革命和共产主义再设想理论，即新整合（提出这些理论恰恰是党主席的首要工作责任）缺乏深入的理解。”这份党内文件如此说：
　　
　　 “这项新整合工作在这一点上已经持续了25年，但修正主义路线正在背弃这项工作，首先是不理解，然后随着事情的发展，进而直接反对了。
　　
　　 一些新的事物曾经(现在依旧)努力的展现在世界的面前；它奋力向上，不仅反对常规的智慧，也反对教条主义，和共产主义中的改良主义。但是它要么遭受到党内同志的反对…要么就被忽视，要么最多只是被视为“有趣的玩意”。它的内容普遍没有被掌握，或者被折衷的反对。在实践中它被看作无关紧要的东西。粗俗的经验主义“理论不能先于实践”…从未受到根本性的挑战，大行其道。
　　
　　 自中国十年文化大革命之后，太多的人都不能将马克思主义从修正主义中区分出来， 鲍勃.艾沃肯对这个难题进行了深入的研究。这个难题被许多同志忽视过，也有许多同志为此寝食不安过。他深入研究这些极端棘手的问题并寻找到了答案，然而却再次遭遇反对，要么是直接的反对，要么通过“忽视”来达到这一目的。这种修正主义的反对行为在客观上达到了“买断”“共产主义之死”的目的，通过此，它用冰冷的、教条主义式的宗教般的信仰替代了鲜活的、发展着的共产主义，后者实际上正在努力解决（和提供答案）《我们为什么失去了中国》中所提到的痛苦问题。”
　　
　　 在这点上，我们党内修正主义与共产主义之间的对立不仅表现得越来越明显，而且已经尖锐的集中在这样的问题上：对于在鲍勃.艾沃肯领导下能够获得的一切认识和他的新整合理论的核心，我们是否应该充分理解并将它们灌输给人民大众，或者干脆抛弃它们，拒绝按此行事。在这些情况下，前者代表了在革命和共产主义的道路上继续前行，这是因为鲍勃.艾沃肯所提出的理论本身、方法论和观点，在共产主义的发展过程中，表现为一种有生命力的科学和革命战略方向；而我们党内的另一派，则代表了向改良主义和帝国主义的后退，纵使它依旧保持着“共产主义”，把共产主义当做一种宗教教义和（或者）一类“可替换的生活方式”。
　　
　　 在充分认识到局势的严重性、其中的利害关系和相关风险，以及克服危机只能依靠党内核心层后，鲍勃.艾沃肯大胆的提出在美国革命共产党进行一场文化大革命。同时他指出，这必须是一场发生在“革命长征”中间阶段的文化大革命，通过这个比喻强调了我们党的根本性变革和振兴（即这场文化大革命的目的和宗旨），必须在对更大范围内客观世界改造的背景下进行，而且也必须从根本上服务于这种改造。这项工作的开展必须在共产主义原则和目标的指导下进行，以期成为一个革命的而非改良的运动。我们在此讨论诸久的原因是，这场文化大革命的重点和关键问题在于我们是把根基建筑在鲍勃.艾沃肯所提出的理论本身、方法论和观点上，并且遵循这种先进的新整合理论以及它所蕴含的革命战略；还是转身离开这种理论，代之以另一种修正主义或折衷主义。
　　
　　 在今年年初的一次对党员谈话中，鲍勃.艾沃肯阐述了文化大革命初始阶段的方针：
　　
　　-----------------------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.
　　
　　 “大约5年前，我就发现和遭遇到了这些事情，在那时，尽管党在“官方”路线上还坚持着革命-共产主义的方针，但实际上，党内到处充斥着修正主义并且被修正主义所左右。对我而言，有三个选择，这三个选择是：
　　
　　1、接受既定事实，在本质上放弃一切我们党本应该遵循的东西；
　　
　　2、退~党，重新组建一个新党；
　　
　　3、在党内发起一场文化革命。
　　
　　 我当时相信，现在也依旧认为，就像我在别处和今早说过的那样，最后一种选择才是正确的、也是必须的方向。这是因为，首先一个已经存在的政党是值得去珍惜的，此外倘若不成熟地、不正确地放弃这个党再去创立一个新的政党，那也是非常艰难的。但是，是的，这是真的，这世界没有哪个党是神圣不可侵的，如果美国革命共产党不能真正成为革命的先锋队，那就甩了它——让我们去做点别的事情，得到别的东西。但我当时相信，现在也如此认为，我们决不能放弃我们党，除非在客观上和科学上都明确表明，已经没有任何希望将它改造为它本应该的面目。”
　　
　　 文化大革命不是党内清洗，而是斗争——意识形态上的斗争，它的目的与方法不是针对个人，而是将革命主义路线和修正主义路线二者进行比较与对照，通过这种方式以革命主义路线来加深党和党员的基础，同时揭露和批判修正主义路线，与之决裂，进而恢复和激励各级别党员坚定自己革命者和共产主义者的身份；坚定采取科学共产主义方法论和观点；拯救和振兴美国革命共产党，使之成为一支真正的革命共产主义先锋队，有能力、有决心承担起它应尽的责任。党内的文化大革命，它的实质与进程在它发起后的5年间，经历了各种各样的复杂情况，有时甚至是非常激烈的情况。它经历了许多的曲折，它要求我们进行不断的、更深层次的意识形态上的斗争，从而在部分党员以及党身上剔除掉修正主义的影响，再一次实现飞跃，成为更深意义上的共产主义者和共产主义先锋队，这是我们本该做的，也是我们现在决心去做的。它经历了诸多不同阶段，并在早期阶段取得了决定性的进展，当时党的路线在基本层面上处于革命路线上，并在鲍勃.艾沃肯的领导下朝着革命路线继续发展和奋斗，在此基础之上加强党的决心与能力，贯彻文化大革命，从而击败修正主义，挽救和振兴我党作为革命共产主义先锋队的这一目标。
　　
　　-------------------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.
　　
　　 就像预计的那样，这种规模的斗争带有很大的赌注，在党内文化大革命的过程中，我们党与那些愿意与帝国主义保持和平、容忍帝国帝国主义滔天罪行的人分道扬镳了，尽管这些人有时仍然自称为共产主义者，或者也会表达出对更好世界的期望，然而，他们不愿意担负斗争的职责，不愿意接受可能的牺牲，而牺牲正是实现这一期望所必须的。有些人拒绝，或者发现自己无法同修正主义决裂，所以退~党（或者被人说服后退~党）。那些退~党的人，除了少数的例外，大多数人不相信革命是可能的，至少在这个国家、在任何有意义的时间框架内是不可能的，同时，甚至有一些人承认他们已不再把革命和共产主义视为可取的。实际上，这并不意味着革命是不可能的、共产主义是不可取的，而是意味着这些人的革命意志和共产主义理想已经退化了，意味着不像那些已经通过党内文化大革命考验并再次将自己与共产主义事业深深联系在一起的党员同志那样，这些背弃党的人认识到，革命和共产主义的目标要求他们承担“艰辛的工作，危险的工作，经常不受欢迎的‘反潮流’工作，以实现革命和共产主义的目标。”但他们不愿意承担。他们不再符合我们党章中所提及的基本准则。（党章第二部分：组织原则）：
　　
　　 “美国革命共产党是由那些为帮助实现人类最伟大需要而走到一起的人组成的，这个伟大需要是：革命，朝着共产主义迈出第一步。他们严肃沉静，饱含热爱，激荡决心与热情，愿意为此献出自己的生命。”
　　
　　 在其主要方面和本质上，我们党内文化大革命的结果是党的革命和共产主义世界观、目标、精神和文化的真正振兴，我们竭尽所能的为美国的革命而奋斗，为全世界同样的革命事业（最终目标都是共产主义）提供最大的帮助，我们正视和科学对待一切由此造成的复杂性、困难、危险和可能后果。这个斗争在党内，将依靠新的基础而继续进行，进一步加强和深化它的革命性和基础，以党的革命共产主义路线为指引，继续努力的、有创造性的推进革命事业。
　　
　　----------------------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.
　　
　　 在共产主义革命第一阶段结束至今的整个时期内，我们党，还有一直关心着我们的人民大众，以及更广泛意义上的那些客观利益依附在共产主义革命上的人们，由于在我们党内日渐得势的修正主义的影响，一直为那些对共产主义革命第一阶段采取错误的总结和分析方法的的潮流所苦。帝国主义，老的和新的，蛮横的抓住这一形势，更加无情的掠夺世界，发动了一场无情的意识形态战争和政治战争，企图摧毁社会主义第一阶段所取得的那些伟大成就，诋毁共产主义革命科学，这一革命科学揭示了现实世界斗争的可能性并引导了这个斗争，从而实现那些伟大的成就。通过党内的文化大革命，我们变得更加强大，在更高的层次上团结一致，在思想上、政治上和组织上，更加坚定的立足于共产主义科学，同时由于鲍勃.艾沃肯提出的新整合理论以及对这个理论的理解，共产主义科学得到了进一步的发展，鲍勃.艾沃肯的新整合理论是一个鲜活的科学理论，我们必须通过不断的斗争，继续遵循并进一步发展它。
　　
　　 我们始终坚持共产主义的原则和目标，拒绝为改良主义而抛弃革命路线，为此我们付出了很多代价，改良主义的车辙已烂，毫无未来，虽然有人声称改良主义更符合“现实”，某种程度上更有“效用”，但无数的痛苦经验一次又一次的表明，改良主义只有在使人民深陷资产阶级统治和资本主义压迫痛苦深渊时，才有“效用”。但是在承受这个代价的同时，现在我们做好了更大的准备以承担我们必须承当的重大责任，我们有更大的决心去满足摆在我们面前的需要，以鲍勃.艾沃肯的新整合理论为基础，为美国的革命而积极奋斗，为此目标我们做任何能做的事情，贡献任何有意义的贡献，同时，以同样的态度，为世界范围内的共产主义运动而奋斗。
　　
　　 我们充分意识到如此做可能面临的问题和风险，由此我们正在总结自己的经验，并且通过这个经验我们更深刻也更牢固的掌握了诸多认识，这个经验因其共产主义运动本身，以及给我们整个事业带来的深刻教训和影响，为外人所周知。我们的经验，尤其通过党内的文化大革命，极大的提升了我们对一些问题的理解：对全世界这儿那儿的被压迫大众而言这意味着什么，对人类的未来而言这意味着什么；这个理解便是这样一个政党从未被击败和摧毁，这个政党不仅保存下来了，而且还取得了真正的复兴，不断在思想上、政治上，以及革命观点、共产主义方向和以科学为基础的决心上得到加强，不懈努力，获得此种理解后，纵使在帝国主义们强大的淫威下，全世界的人民也能联合起来，朝着共同的目标，不断的自觉革命。正如我们党主席鲍勃.艾沃肯最近所写道：
　　
　　 “利用这种方式，倚仗这种科学基础，通过这种科学方法论和观点的应用，对于革命和共产主义，我们能够，也必须拥有一种压倒一切的精神力量和胸怀壮志的满腔激情（借用了济慈的一句诗句）。”
　　
　　-----------------------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. 结论：改变与号召
　　
　　 我们在此所说的，我们在美国革命共产党党章结论中所说的，都是我们所坚持的和信仰的：
　　
　　 “美国革命共产党承担着在美国这个帝国主义怪兽核心国家领导革命的使命，在全世界革命和共产主义最终目标的实现过程中也担负着重要的责任。这是一个伟大的、历史性的事业，所有渴望这种事业的人都应该团结起来，支持美国革命共产党这个革命的先锋队，与它一起战斗，相互扶持，并且以同样的事业和共产主义世界观为基础，加入它。
　　
　　 全人类的解放是我们的最终目标，除此之外，别无它愿。这世界，没有比此更伟大的事业，没有比此更值得我们去献身的目标。”
　　
　　 我们在此所说的一切，我们直接地、坦率地戳穿的一切，应该给予更大的意义和更多的强调，以便号召人民站立起来，分享或者尊重我们要创造一个没有剥削与压迫的全新世界的决心，为我们党提供援助和支持。
　　
　　 全世界所有的革命者和共产党人，所有渴望另一个完全不同的、更美好的世界的人们：我们决不能倒退回过去，无论是以哪种形式，让我们朝着共产主义伟大目标勇敢前进，朝着将全人类从数千年传统枷锁中解放出来的伟大目标大胆前进！
　　
　　
　　 《完结》
　　
　　
　　------------------------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