天涯网友译：美国革命共产党宣言

　　【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.

　　【译文】

　　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】

　　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.

　　【译文】

　　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】

　　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.

　　【译文】

　　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】

　　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.

　　【译文】

　　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】

　　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.

　　【译文】

　　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】

　　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.

　　【译文】

　　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】

　　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….

　　【译文】

　　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】

　　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.

　　【译文】

　　“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】

　　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.

　　【译文】

　　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】

　　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:

　　“It 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.”

　　【译文】

　　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】

　　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.

　　【译文】

　　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】

　　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.

　　【译文】

　　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】

　　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.

　　【译文】

　　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】

　　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?

　　【译文】

　　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】

　　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:

　　【译文】

　　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】

　　“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.

　　【译文】

　　“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】

　　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.

　　【译文】

　　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】

　　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.

　　【译文】

　　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 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.

　　【译文】

　　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】

　　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:

　　【译文】

　　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】

　　“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.

　　【译文】

　　“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 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.

　　【译文】

　　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】

　　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”

　　【译文】

　　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】

　　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）

　　【译文】

　　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）
 
线专川上/译　来源：天涯社区