五四时期吹响的社会主义“集结号”

【作者】 朱美荣；

【导师】 徐觉哉；

【作者基本信息】 上海社会科学院 ， 马克思主义中国化研究， 2014， 博士

【副题名】中国早期几大社会主义思潮研究

【摘要】 社会主义源于16世纪的英国。随着资本主义的发展及其所带来的周期性经济、政治危机不断显现,社会主义“幽灵”开始在欧洲徘徊,形成了各种社会主义思潮,如空想社会主义、无政府主义、基尔特主义、马克思主义,等等。鸦片战争后的中国,求存图变成为主旋律。虽历经洋务运动、百日维新、辛亥革命,但仍未改变中国外受列强掠夺、内有军阀割据的现状。到五四时期,中国人更热切地盼望彻底改变国家命运,也更为急切地寻找出路。在这样的历史背景下,西方各种政治思潮通过各种途径传到中国,而对近现代中国影响最为深远的莫过于源自欧洲的各种社会主义思潮。在某种程度上,这些社会主义思潮都曾被众多国人所信奉、传播、甚至实践。可以说,五四时期在中国大地上已吹响了社会主义的“集结号”。但是,到了20世纪20年代末、30年代初期,马克思主义逐渐成为影响最大的社会主义学说,而其他几派却渐渐式微。马克思主义缘何在百家争鸣中胜出,并成为我国人民谋求解放的根本指导思想?我们需要回到当时的语境。为此,本文主要以五四时期对中国影响最大的四大社会主义思潮——新村主义、基尔特主义、无政府主义、马克思主义——作为研究对象,以历史文献资料为依据,仔细梳理它们的传播历史和理论观点,再现当时不同思潮之间的理论交锋,以期探索它们或消亡或壮大的根本原因。回顾当时这段历史,各种社会主义思潮的理论观点是通过争论而逐步为人所了解的,其基本主张也在实践层面上逐步开展；作为传播、论战的载体,各种社团或期刊可能同时宣传或支持不同的“主义”；各思潮的拥护者也不是固定不变的,而是随着了解、比较、争论的展开而不断变化的,比如之后的马克思主义者很多就曾受过新村主义或无政府主义的吸引。总的来看,这几大社会主义思潮可以归纳为“温和”与“激进”两类。新村主义和基尔特主义主张渐进的改良,属于温和派；而无政府主义和马克思主义都主张暴力革命,属于激进派。具体而言,新村主义因周作人的推介而在五四时期的中国社会风行一时。它主张通过建设一个个按照“各尽所能,各取所需”为运行原则的新村,由点到面,由新村建设逐渐扩展到改造整个社会,从而达到“平和的造成新秩序”的目的。这种具有改良主义的温馨梦想,对于渴盼改变恶劣现实却又害怕激烈革命的小资产阶级来说,具有很大的吸引力。但是,在激进主义者看来,所谓的新村主义就像在“粪土上盖造花园”,是难以实现的。实际上,在根本制度没有得到解决的情况下,这种新村试验也终因资金困难、社会动荡和缺乏制度保障而夭折。如果说“争论”让民众逐渐看到了新村主义的空想性,那么“试验”的失败则更加证明了这种理论的不切实际。同样主张改良的基尔特主义,因为其主推者梁启超、张东荪在社会上的影响力颇大,加之国际知名学者罗素的助推,也曾在中国引起广泛关注,并引发了一场耗时一年多、参加者众的社会主义大讨论。这种思潮认为,中国贫穷落后,当务之急应是开发实业,兴办教育；中国不存在无产阶级,不应提倡阶级斗争,而应该走资产阶级的改良之路。这种主张遭到包括马克思主义在内的激进主义的批判。在后者看来,基尔特主义“理论上说得通,事实上做不到”,因为无论是开发实业还是兴办教育都只有在赶走帝国主义、推翻专制、拥有独立自主权的民主国家中才能实现。对于同属激进派的无政府主义和马克思主义来说,前者的影响一度远远超过后者。无政府主义传入中国较早,拥有较长的发展时间和较多的派别,它在各社会阶层中都拥有众多的追随者,尤其是激进青年。作为后起之秀的马克思主义要争取更多的青年,就必须在理论上战胜无政府主义。无政府主义主张激进革命,它在反对封建主义和北洋军阀的斗争中发挥过积极作用,但是它反政府、反强权、反专政并主张绝对自由,这显然脱离现实也不符合国情。在当时的中国,必须通过无产阶级革命和专政来推翻封建专制、赶走帝国主义,建立无产阶级的强权和政府,从而维护弱者的正义。同样赞同激进革命的马克思主义主张中国必须走十月革命的道路并在革命胜利后建立无产阶级专政。相比之下,马克思主义不仅与中国文化具有一定的契合性,而且其兼具革命性与科学性于一身的特征也满足了中国救亡图存的现实需求,再加上当时传播者的有效组织,使得马克思主义得以通过一场场的论战而不断扩大影响、赢得民众,至20世纪20年代末期,它已经成长为当时中国最流行的社会主义思潮。我们承认,“理论在一个国家的实践程度,决定于理论满足于这个国家的需要的程度。”面对救亡图存的现实需求,主张激进革命,兼具革命性与科学性的马克思主义最终在中国扎根,并最终成为中国革命和建设的指导思想。但是,也应该看到,其他的社会主义思潮及其传播者、倡导者、支持者在中国历史上曾发挥过不可磨灭的作用,他们的主张都抱有一个同样的目的,就是批判现存制度,提出改革方案,而在根本的道路问题上却大相径庭。相比马克思主义,其他形形色色的社会主义之所以在众声喧哗中逐渐淡出历史舞台,如果说次要原因可以归结于其传播的组织力量及其理论素养的低下,那么其主要原因则在于它们提供的具体道路和途径无法满足当时中国社会的政治需要。更多还原

【Abstract】 The theory of socialism originated in Britain of the16th century. At the beginning of20th century, due to economic and political crises of Europe, the theory of socialism flourished and various schools of socialism came into being in Europe.And in China, the Opium war opened China’s gate to the West, from then, China suffered exploitation of the imperialist and injury of warlordism, to save the nation became the primary duty of Chinese. China urgently needed a guiding theory to lead them to change the fate of China.To this aspiration, Chinese sought various schools of socialism through different routes, such as liberalism, socialism and pragmatism, etc. And among all these thoughts, socialism of several schools exerted the most significant influence on the route China took after that which included New Village Communism, guildism, anarchism and Marxism. These four schools of socialism once had a large number of followers and caused ardent debates, but later the former three became silent and almost died out, only Marxism survived the history and became the guiding theory of Chinese revolution and construction.What are the reasons behind the different fate of these four schools of socialism? To find the answer to this question, this dissertation tried to trace back to the beginning of these schools in China, to examine their writings, views and debates, in order to find the objective reasons why they failed or succeeded in the history.Roughly these four schools of socialism could be divided into two categories. New Village Communism and guildism belongs to the first category, i.e. the moderate socialism, while the later two belongs to the second, i.e. the revolutionary oneNew Village Communism is a product of utopian socialism, it came to China mainly through Zhou Zuoren. This school aimed to build up a village wherein each does his best and takes what he needs, and following the example, a society could be gradually innovated. So what this school desired was to innovate society peacefully. But without support on the level of institution, this desire had no possibility of fulfillment, the revolutionaries at that time pointed out that only bloody revolution could change China, the New Village Communism only was a rosy dream. So the experiment based on this school of socialism only last for a short period and failed. And similarly, the theory itself also became obscure by the end of May4th.Guildism, due to the significant influence of its supporters, that is, Liang Qichao and Zhang Dongsun, once won the belief of a large number of followers. And the famous Guildist Bertrand Russell who visited China at that time and gave lectures also contributed to the uprising of Guildism in China. And also due to the influence of Bertrand Russell, Guildism argued that China should put efforts in developing industry and education instead of socialism, this view ignited a most significant debate at the beginning of1920s. The Chinese Guildist denied class struggle and the need for proletarian dictatorship, like the New Village Communism, they tried to reform the nation gradually and peacefully. But without the building of an independent, sovereign and democratic nation, how could the industry and education be developed? So only revolution could reach the aim put up by the Guildism. So the guildism is not wrong in their aim, but wrong in the means they endorsed.For China at the beginning of the20th century, the primary duty was to save the nation. It could not be fulfilled through moderate route. Only revolution could. And that’s why anarchism and Marxism both had more impact than the former two schools.Buy why anarchism, which was revolutionary and had more followers at the beginning became obscure and almost deserted later? When we examined the historical material, we find anarchism diverted too far away from reality and practice. It argued against any kind of dictatorship, sovereignty and state, arguing for absolute freedom. These views lead it to failure, for without proletarian dictatorship, the fruit of revolution could not be guarded, the justice for the weak could not be guaranteed. After its debate with Marxism, Anarchism took on a downward development, which is contrary to the development of Marxism.Marxism argued for violent revolution and proletarian dictatorship, which was very practical and could lead Chinese revolution to the last victory. And in addition, the Marxists were good at disseminating their ideas to the youth and won their support. All these contributed to its uprising after several debates with other schools of socialism.We should admit that, a theory must meet the desire of a nation, then it could survive and took roots in that nation. And meanwhile, we also should admit the values of the former three schools of socialism, they had the positive aims, only failed due to the means they chose.更多还原