约翰·波利（斯坦福大学）

（马克思主义）反基督，认为资产阶级是魔鬼的化身，是世界上一切罪恶之源。（它认为）资本主义是（人类社会的）原罪状态，它加大人的异化，使人和他的全知全能的上帝——科技——的正常关系发生背离。（它的）主要的先知是马克思和恩格斯，他们的著作，尤其是《资本论》，构成《圣经》。诸圣是后来的马克思主义者，尤其是列宁，斯大林，和毛泽东（当然，不同的地方对他们之中这个或那个人的权威性有争议）。（它认为）无产阶级有基督性，而圣灵是革命意识。在不断进步的科技帮助下，无产阶级最终会创立社会主义的太平盛世，并完成向至善——共产主义胜利转变的使命。

这是一种在现代世界深具影响的神学，它诞生于十九世纪，从它诞生之日起，它就带着基督教文化中的全部明显特征。和十九世纪的新教神学一样，马克思主义认为人是神圣事业的核心。人能够通过科技的进步而实现自己的太平盛世，由于科学技术的无限力量与潜力，上帝不再是必要的了。马克思赋予这种精神分析于一种世俗的形式，但保留了西方哲学思想中的最基本的核心即善和恶的斗争。他甚至利用“基督——无产阶级”的形像制造出一种耶稣用复活的奇迹拯救人类从而历经磨难和被钉十字架流血而死的过程。马克思只是改变了一下其中的核心人物：无产阶级运动的原动力来源于他们的大公无私。这种大公无私的品性随着资本主义的充分发展完全被异化了（指人性中善性的消亡）。而无产阶级做为精神上高度统一的革命阶级的死亡与再造最终会把恶从世界上消灭。（参照马克思的著作，１９６３年版第５８卷）

马克思主义的神学特征和它对基督教神学框架的继承已经被许多学者讨论过了（如Ｅｌｌｕｌ１９７５年的著作和Ｐａｒｓｏｎｓ１９７９年的著作）。做为一种宗教，马克思主义神学已经很大地影响了二十世纪的专著与政体。知识界被马克思主义拥有一个近乎理想的未来的乐观观点吸引住并尽可能保留建立在此观念上的社会分析，尽管从马克思所处的年代起，它的“预言失败”就一再发生。查斯－顿教授的文章基本上是沿袭了此分析传统的宗教专著，目的是通过对马克思主义的重新解释而保留其“原文”的意义。（正像查斯－顿自己给它们的命名那样，见第５０９页）。像苏联那样的政治体制接受马克思主义是因为两种主要社会力量——集体个人主义和科技进步，加上平等与公正的社会理想——微妙地结合。而我认为马克思主义的宗教特征可以解释查斯－顿在这方面的许多分析，更重要的，能说明他想解释的现像：苏联在十月革命六十年后建立一个真正社会主义体系的失败。

基于相互关联原理和世界系统分析推出的观点，查斯－顿的结论主要是：“社会主义在一国实现”是不可能的，因为理想型的社会主义体系占主导地位的国家还不能够独立发展。它们已经不断地被资本主义世界侵蚀而这种机制已经起到关键作用。（参照Ｂｅｒｇｅｓｅｎ１９７８年的著作）。主要资本主义国家所具有的侵略性的帝国主义已经使苏联和它的联盟产生了一个“独裁的政体机构”（第５１５－５１６页），它们将很大精力用于“防止资本和劳工外流”（第５１５页）和一个旨在“自卫”（第５１５，５２１页）的实际上无休止的军备竞争。

如果以上观点成立，愿罪状态的资本主义仍然难免其咎。如果让苏联独立存在，它应该已经建立起一种对经济活动进行“集体地理性地社会调控”的民主系统。这是一个理性推论抑或只是一个充满希望的宗教性断言？让我们考虑以下几点：

第一，苏联的反民主的，镇压性的政治体制和俄国过去没有什么两样。并且，布尔什维克继承的社会机构是旧沙皇时代的继续。实际上，俄国的统治者们比其它任何欧洲国家更喜欢集中政治权力于一人的个人独裁而更能有效镇压的精英政治。他们的主要工具之一，（夸张地说）只是一个庞大而相对有力的官僚机构。这种机构已被证明十分容易被新的苏联共产党进行教条式地宗教改造。——这就好像宗教改革后天主教教会组织被好战的路德派通过公用教会而改造一样。这种改造习惯上被用来集权，并消灭实际的和潜在的对手。

第二，苏联到底在多大程度上遭受了资本帝国主义的入侵？核心资本主义国家的大部分行动的目的是在于孤立苏联，而不是侵略它（如美国的政策是“遏制”）。第二次世界大战结束，入侵苏联的机会自然出现时，美国并没有表现出对用军事行动对付苏联感兴趣，尽管当时美国的军事和工业优势是压倒性的，并且唯一拥有核武器。实际上，这个世纪（译者按：指二十世纪）苏联并不比许多资本主义国家——法国，匈牙利，荷兰甚至英国更危险。但是，苏维埃的政治——宗教教旨坚持说苏联的敌人是独特的而且尤其阴险：敌人是邪恶的资本主义因素，它们会毫无预兆地想方设法地利用每一个机会来侵蚀和破坏社会主义的正义事业。

类似的，如果苏联的积极备战被称做“防御性的”，我们也应当用同样的术语于美国的军备。两个国家存在许多相同观点：我们必须不断地发展武器装备，否则就会被敌人消灭；我们的努力是为了威摄侵略者——资本主义（共产主义）。两国唯一真正不同的是苏联有一种完备的教旨来号召世界革命，推翻全世界的资产阶级，因此为那些惧怕核心资本主义国家的国家们提供一些军事基地。而资本主义也有与此相应的神学，它们把共产主义描绘成邪恶的危险力量，共产主义产生了世界上的所有原罪；但这种神学比起马克思主义来是弱的和不系统的，并且没有严密的教会组织——即各个共产主义政党——的支持。

最后，即便我们假设苏联声称的资本主义对它的生存威胁是对的，那么，有什么证据能说明政治迫害和中央决策的极端集权能对苏维埃的生存有利呢？查斯－顿提到，社会主义国家为了避免科技精英和知识分子的流失，关上国门寻找一个自力更生的发展道路是合理的。但是，真正有效的鼓动，如德国的纳粹上台那样，是通过赢得民心而获得的。我相信查斯－顿会认为一个真正民主的，理性的经济政治系统会比一个独裁的，压迫的，盲从政治组织和教条的经济政治系统更能赢得民心。苏联可能并不是这种情况，但问题尚没有答案——因为苏联那样的经济政治体系在其它任何地方都还没有被用过。不过，从实证主义的观点来看，如果认为只有一个对内专制独裁的王国可以有效地实现反侵略的社会动员，显然是不对的。

总而言之，苏联建设社会主义社会的失败，原因不在于防范资本帝国主义，而是在于苏维埃为了形成一个强大的社会力量而帮助实现世界革命，从而对传统的俄国政体的自然而然地继承。苏维埃的意识形态是一种一般意义上的宗教：它必会传播到世界各地。查斯－顿在他的关于苏维埃帝国主义的讨论中对此方面有所注意。显然他不想把“帝国主义”这个术语仅限于其经济领域，那样的限制减少了苏联的罪恶，而片面指责核心资本主义国家是主要的违规者。那样的分析忽略了帝国主义有多层含义的事实。而实际上，资本主义核心国家主要致力于经济上的侵略而苏联集中于政治意识形态上的侵略。这种特征和两种竞争体系的机理一致；前者集中于世俗物质上的经济扩张与剥削而后者致力于一种更可怕的任务：号召所有的宗教性的十字军扩大政教合一的专制独裁力量。两种结果都会意味帝国的建立。反抗资本主义的世界革命的努力解释了苏联的极端专制以便于维护其政治正统观念和教旨的纯洁性。这使政治迫害系统成为必需，不是为了反侵略而是为了消灭异端。

此文争论真正关注的不在于解释查斯－顿所关心的乌托邦的社会主义没有在苏联实现的现实；而是在于解释为什么那么多的马克思主义者不能够超越他们的理性信仰而容忍一些现代世界中非常令人不愉快的现像。在马克思主义中的神学特征从人们的理性分析和做为一种政治现像的社会主义运动中剔除之前，“社会主义”国家，或其它任何地方的社会主义都是没有希望的。

《社会问题》杂志（美国），第２８卷第５号，５１０－５１３页，１９８１年。

译者按：

它山之石，可以攻玉，所译之文距现在已经有二十多年，文中的最后预言——“在马克思主义中的神学特征从人们的理性分析和做为一种政治现像的社会主义运动中剔除之前，‘社会主义’国家，或其它任何地方的社会主义都是没有希望的”——不幸在十年前的苏联就已变成现实，随着苏维埃的解体，原苏联的“马克思主义者”们连“社会主义”的旗号也不要了。纵观世界，北韩的“马克思主义者”们固然还没有从马克思主义的神学特征中回味过来；自己的“社会主义”祖国也并未产生“真正民主的，理性的政治经济系统”，因此并没有产生什么“真正的社会主义”。共产党依旧执政的中国，其中的弱势劳工群体目前所受的资本主义经济剥削与压迫，甚至要超过他们曾经引经据典地批判的核心资本主义国家，无怪乎连美国新闻关于中共十六大的报导中都说，“中共已经在十六大后变成一个“ＣａｐｉｔａｌｉｓｔＰｏｗｅｒ”，这真是对拥有众多“马克思主义者”和“马列主义经典著作”的中国的绝妙讽刺：真个是“假做真时真亦假，无为有处有还无”。中国的学者们目前做社会分析时还侑于马克思主义神学特征的固然已经不多（这当然得力于新老“走资派”们的实用主义）；但是，既然善和恶的斗争是永恒的，只要有人类在，大多数人民的根本利益就不能被任何人打着任何旗号长期忽视和篡夺，唯一的原因这也正是因为人人心中都会产生善和恶。

另外，译者注意到另外一个有意思的社会现像是：东西方的学者们几乎同时——在马克思主义诞生约一百二十年后的二十世纪七十年代——系统分析了马克思主义中的神学特征，从而为真正的社会主义开出“民主”这个药方；所不同的是，西方是许多学者在争鸣（这一点从本译文的引文中可窥一斑），而中国当时能对马克思主义的神学特征进行理性分析的据说却只有顾准一人，此大概因为在庐山中识其真面目更难的原因吧。

译者系理工科出身，对社会科学中的术语并不熟悉，因此译文中恐怕难免绛错；为准确谨慎起见，附上英文原文供参考。——仅以此文奉献于仍然关心弱势劳动人民和什么是真正的社会主义的读者。

译于2002年

附原文：

Marxism as World Religion

John Boli

Stanford University

The anti-Christ, that human embodiment of devil responsible for all evil in the world, is the bourgeoisie.  The state of sin is capitalism, which heightens the alienation of man and leads him astray from a proper relationship with his omnipotent and all known God, technology.  The major prophets are Marx and Engels and their writings, especially Capital, constitute the Bible.  The saints are later Marxists, especially Lenin, Stalin, and Mao (though the various sects debate the authenticity of one or another of them).  The Christ figure is proletariat and the Holy Spirit is revolutionary consciousness. With the aid of technology's Progressive work, the Christ-proletariat will eventually bring about the millennium of socialism, setting the stage for the final, triumphant transition to the state of ultimate grace, communism.

Such is the dominant theology of the modern world, born in the nineteenth century and bearing all the marks of the Christian culture that prevailed when it was conceived.  Like nineteenth-century Protestant theology, man is the center of theological concern.  He is capable of creating the millennium himself through technological progress, and God is no longer necessary because of technology's unlimited powers and potential.  Marx gave this spiritual analysis a secular form but retained the basic struggle between good and evil that is so central analysis a secular form but retained the basic struggle between good and evil that is so central to Western thought.  He went so far as to use the image of the Christ-proletariat undergoing a kind of kenosis, the process of “pouring out “ or emptying of Jesus on the cross as he suffered the extreme trail of crucifixion and death in order to bring man salvation through the miracle of resurrection. Marx changed only the central character: the proletariat’s kenosis lies in its immiseration, which becomes complete alienation (the emptying out of every trace of humanity) with the full development of capitalism.  The death and rebirth of the proletariat as a spiritually integrated revolutionary class will finally drive the anti-Christ from the world (see Marx, 1963:58). [1]  The theological character of Marxism and its adoption of the structure of Christian theology have been discussed by numerous scholars (Ellul, 1975; Parsons, 1979).  As a religion, Marxist ideology has strongly influenced both intellectual discourse and political systems in the twentieth century.  Intellectuals are attracted by its optimistic vision of a nearly ideal future and go to great lengths to maintain the analyses underlying that vision despite the recurrent “failure of prophecy” that have occurred since Marx’s time. Professor Chase-Dunn’s article is essentially a theological discourse in this tradition, aimed at preserving the original “texts” (as Chase-Dunn himself calls them, p. 509) by reinterpreting them: Political systems, such as the of the USSR, adopt Marxism because of its neat and subtle blending of two major sociological forces, collective individualism and technological progress, coupled with the ideologies of equality and justice.  It is my view that the religiosity of Marxism accounts for much of Chase-Dunn’s analysis here and, more importantly, for the phenomenon he attempts to explain: the failure of the Soviet Union to build a truly socialist system in the six decades since the revolution. [2] Making use of ideas generated by dependency theory and word-system analysis, Chase-Dunn’s argument is essentially this: “socialism in one country” is not possible because the countries in which ideologically socialist regimes dominate have not been able to engage in autonomous development.  They have continued to be incorporated in the capitalist world system and have come to play a functional role in it (Bergesen, 1978). [3]  The aggressive imperialism of the core capitalist countries has forced the Soviet Union and its allies to create an “authoritarian political apparatus” (pp. 515-16), engage in vigorous efforts to “prevent the emigration of capital and labor” (p 515), and pursue a practically unlimited arms race “to defend themselves” (pp.515, 521).Sinful capitalism is still to blame, then.  Left to its own devices, the Soviet Union would have built a democratic system of “collectively rational social control” of economic activity.  Is this a reasonable claim or a hope-filled religious affirmation? Consider the following points.

First, the antidemocratic and repressive political system of the USSR is by no means a departure from the Russian past. Rather, it is a continuation of the structure inherited by the Bolsheviks from the old czarist regime.  Far more than in practically all other European nations, Russia’s rulers had managed to concentrate political power in the monarchy and effectively neutralize powerful (if bloated) bureaucracy.  This structure proved to be especially suitable for adaptation to the new, dogmatic state religion that was instituted by the CPSU-just as the Catholic Church organization was adapted by military Lutherans in establishing state churches after the Reformation.  It was used to consolidate power and eliminate both actual and potential opposition.

Second, to what degree has the Soviet Union in fact been threatened by capitalist imperialism?  Most of the action taken by the capitalist core has aimed at isolating the USSR, not invading it (the Use’s policy of “containment”).  When the opportunity presented itself at the end of World War II, the USA displayed no interest in military action against the USSR despite its overwhelming military and industrial capacity and its monopoly on atomic weapons.  In fact, the USSR has been no more imperiled in this century than have numerous capitalist nations—France, Austria, the Netherlands, even Britain.  But Soviet politico-religious doctrines insist that there is something unique and particularly sinister about the Soviet Union’s enemies, they are bourgeois agents of the devil, and they will take every opportunity to corrupt and destroy the righteous without warning.

Similarly, the USSR’s eager participation in the arms race can be called “defensive” only if we are also willing to apply the same term to the USA’s weapons development or the enemy will destroy us; our efforts are intended to deter the real aggressor in the struggle, the capitalists (communists).  The only real difference between the two is that the USSR has a developed doctrine urging word revolution to purge the world of the bourgeoisie, thus providing some basis for the capitalist core’s fears.  The capitalists have a corresponding theology depicting Communism as the evil menace that bears all sin; but this theology is weak and incoherent in comparison to its Marxist counterpart and is not supported by strongly organized churches, that is, the various Communist parties.

Finally, even if we were to assume that the Soviet Union has been justified in its claim that capitalism threatens its existence, what evidence is there that political repression and extreme concentration of decision-making power are beneficial to Soviet survival?  Closing the borders and seeking a path of autarchic development are reasonable actions, as Chase-Dunn says, in order to avoid the loss of technical elites and intellectuals.  But really effective mobilization, such as that of the German fascist revolution, is achieved through winning the souls of the people.  I believe that Chase-Dunn, for one, holds the view that a truly democratic, rational economic and political system would be more likely to capture the souls of the people than one based on power concentration, repression, and blind loyalty to political organizations and doctrines.  This may not be the case, but the question is still open—no such system has yet been tried anywhere.  But the functionalist argument that only a repressive, dictatorial regime is effective for achieving social mobilization for defense is clearly unsupportable.

In sum, the failure of the Soviet Union to build a socialist society is the result not of defensive reactions to imperialist capitalism but a natural adaptation of traditional Russian political structures within Soviet efforts to achieve a dominant position that will help ensure world revolution.  Theirs is a universal religion: it must be spread everywhere. Chase-Dunn gives some attention to this aspect in his discussion of Soviet imperialism.  He is understandably wont to limit the term “imperialism” to its economic connotation, as that restriction reduces the degree of sinfulness that can be imputed to the USSR and squarely pegs the capitalist core as the great transgressor.  Such an analysis overlooks the fact that imperialism has many faces.  The capitalist core has engaged primarily in economic imperialism while the USSR has specialized I political imperialism.  Such specialization is inherent in the nature of the two competing systems, the former concentrating on the profane matters of economic expansion and exploitation and the latter on the more sacred tasks requires for all religious crusades: the expansion and monopolization of political and ideological power. Both forms represent the building of the empires.  This striving for antibourgeois world revolution accounts for the highly accentuated drive to maintain political orthodoxy and doctrinal purity within the Soviet Union.  It makes the repressive apparatus necessary, not for defense but for the elimination of heresy.

The real issue in the debate lies not in explaining why Chase-Dunn rather utopian socialism did not materialize in the USSR; its lies in explaining why so many Marxists are unable to transcend the religiosity of their intellectual convictions and come to terms with some of the very unpleasant realities of the modern world system.  There is no hope for socialism in the “socialist countries, or anywhere else, until this religiosity is removed both from intellectual analysis and from the socialist movement as a political phenomenon.

Social Problems 28(5) pp510-513, 1981