約翰·波利（斯坦福大學）

（馬克思主義）反基督，認為資產階級是魔鬼的化身，是世界上一切罪惡之源。（它認為）資本主義是（人類社會的）原罪狀態，它加大人的異化，使人和他的全知全能的上帝——科技——的正常關係發生背離。（它的）主要的先知是馬克思和恩格斯，他們的著作，尤其是《資本論》，構成《聖經》。諸聖是後來的馬克思主義者，尤其是列寧，斯大林，和毛澤東（當然，不同的地方對他們之中這個或那個人的權威性有爭議）。（它認為）無產階級有基督性，而聖靈是革命意識。在不斷進步的科技幫助下，無產階級最終會創立社會主義的太平盛世，並完成向至善——共產主義勝利轉變的使命。

這是一種在現代世界深具影響的神學，它誕生於十九世紀，從它誕生之日起，它就帶着基督教文化中的全部明顯特徵。和十九世紀的新教神學一樣，馬克思主義認為人是神聖事業的核心。人能夠通過科技的進步而實現自己的太平盛世，由於科學技術的無限力量與潛力，上帝不再是必要的了。馬克思賦予這種精神分析於一種世俗的形式，但保留了西方哲學思想中的最基本的核心即善和惡的鬥爭。他甚至利用“基督——無產階級”的形像製造出一種耶穌用復活的奇蹟拯救人類從而歷經磨難和被釘十字架流血而死的過程。馬克思只是改變了一下其中的核心人物：無產階級運動的原動力來源於他們的大公無私。這種大公無私的品性隨着資本主義的充分發展完全被異化了（指人性中善性的消亡）。而無產階級做為精神上高度統一的革命階級的死亡與再造最終會把惡從世界上消滅。（參照馬克思的著作，１９６３年版第５８卷）

馬克思主義的神學特徵和它對基督教神學框架的繼承已經被許多學者討論過了（如Ｅｌｌｕｌ１９７５年的著作和Ｐａｒｓｏｎｓ１９７９年的著作）。做為一種宗教，馬克思主義神學已經很大地影響了二十世紀的專著與政體。知識界被馬克思主義擁有一個近乎理想的未來的樂觀觀點吸引住並儘可能保留建立在此觀念上的社會分析，儘管從馬克思所處的年代起，它的“預言失敗”就一再發生。查斯－頓教授的文章基本上是沿襲了此分析傳統的宗教專著，目的是通過對馬克思主義的重新解釋而保留其“原文”的意義。（正像查斯－頓自己給它們的命名那樣，見第５０９頁）。像蘇聯那樣的政治體制接受馬克思主義是因為兩種主要社會力量——集體個人主義和科技進步，加上平等與公正的社會理想——微妙地結合。而我認為馬克思主義的宗教特徵可以解釋查斯－頓在這方面的許多分析，更重要的，能說明他想解釋的現像：蘇聯在十月革命六十年後建立一個真正社會主義體系的失敗。

基於相互關聯原理和世界系統分析推出的觀點，查斯－頓的結論主要是：“社會主義在一國實現”是不可能的，因為理想型的社會主義體系占主導地位的國家還不能夠獨立發展。它們已經不斷地被資本主義世界侵蝕而這種機制已經起到關鍵作用。（參照Ｂｅｒｇｅｓｅｎ１９７８年的著作）。主要資本主義國家所具有的侵略性的帝國主義已經使蘇聯和它的聯盟產生了一個“獨裁的政體機構”（第５１５－５１６頁），它們將很大精力用於“防止資本和勞工外流”（第５１５頁）和一個旨在“自衛”（第５１５，５２１頁）的實際上無休止的軍備競爭。

如果以上觀點成立，願罪狀態的資本主義仍然難免其咎。如果讓蘇聯獨立存在，它應該已經建立起一種對經濟活動進行“集體地理性地社會調控”的民主系統。這是一個理性推論抑或只是一個充滿希望的宗教性斷言？讓我們考慮以下幾點：

第一，蘇聯的反民主的，鎮壓性的政治體制和俄國過去沒有什麼兩樣。並且，布爾什維克繼承的社會機構是舊沙皇時代的繼續。實際上，俄國的統治者們比其它任何歐洲國家更喜歡集中政治權力於一人的個人獨裁而更能有效鎮壓的精英政治。他們的主要工具之一，（誇張地說）只是一個龐大而相對有力的官僚機構。這種機構已被證明十分容易被新的蘇聯共產党進行教條式地宗教改造。——這就好像宗教改革後天主教教會組織被好戰的路德派通過公用教會而改造一樣。這種改造習慣上被用來集權，並消滅實際的和潛在的對手。

第二，蘇聯到底在多大程度上遭受了資本帝國主義的入侵？核心資本主義國家的大部分行動的目的是在於孤立蘇聯，而不是侵略它（如美國的政策是“遏制”）。第二次世界大戰結束，入侵蘇聯的機會自然出現時，美國並沒有表現出對用軍事行動對付蘇聯感興趣，儘管當時美國的軍事和工業優勢是壓倒性的，並且唯一擁有核武器。實際上，這個世紀（譯者按：指二十世紀）蘇聯並不比許多資本主義國家——法國，匈牙利，荷蘭甚至英國更危險。但是，蘇維埃的政治——宗教教旨堅持說蘇聯的敵人是獨特的而且尤其陰險：敵人是邪惡的資本主義因素，它們會毫無預兆地想方設法地利用每一個機會來侵蝕和破壞社會主義的正義事業。

類似的，如果蘇聯的積極備戰被稱做“防禦性的”，我們也應當用同樣的術語於美國的軍備。兩個國家存在許多相同觀點：我們必須不斷地發展武器裝備，否則就會被敵人消滅；我們的努力是為了威攝侵略者——資本主義（共產主義）。兩國唯一真正不同的是蘇聯有一種完備的教旨來號召世界革命，推翻全世界的資產階級，因此為那些懼怕核心資本主義國家的國家們提供一些軍事基地。而資本主義也有與此相應的神學，它們把共產主義描繪成邪惡的危險力量，共產主義產生了世界上的所有原罪；但這種神學比起馬克思主義來是弱的和不系統的，並且沒有嚴密的教會組織——即各個共產主義政黨——的支持。

最後，即便我們假設蘇聯聲稱的資本主義對它的生存威脅是對的，那麼，有什麼證據能說明政治迫害和中央決策的極端集權能對蘇維埃的生存有利呢？查斯－頓提到，社會主義國家為了避免科技精英和知識分子的流失，關上國門尋找一個自力更生的發展道路是合理的。但是，真正有效的鼓動，如德國的納粹上台那樣，是通過贏得民心而獲得的。我相信查斯－頓會認為一個真正民主的，理性的經濟政治系統會比一個獨裁的，壓迫的，盲從政治組織和教條的經濟政治系統更能贏得民心。蘇聯可能並不是這種情況，但問題尚沒有答案——因為蘇聯那樣的經濟政治體系在其它任何地方都還沒有被用過。不過，從實證主義的觀點來看，如果認為只有一個對內專制獨裁的王國可以有效地實現反侵略的社會動員，顯然是不對的。

總而言之，蘇聯建設社會主義社會的失敗，原因不在於防範資本帝國主義，而是在於蘇維埃為了形成一個強大的社會力量而幫助實現世界革命，從而對傳統的俄國政體的自然而然地繼承。蘇維埃的意識形態是一種一般意義上的宗教：它必會傳播到世界各地。查斯－頓在他的關於蘇維埃帝國主義的討論中對此方面有所注意。顯然他不想把“帝國主義”這個術語僅限於其經濟領域，那樣的限制減少了蘇聯的罪惡，而片面指責核心資本主義國家是主要的違規者。那樣的分析忽略了帝國主義有多層含義的事實。而實際上，資本主義核心國家主要致力於經濟上的侵略而蘇聯集中於政治意識形態上的侵略。這種特徵和兩種競爭體系的機理一致；前者集中於世俗物質上的經濟擴張與剝削而後者致力於一種更可怕的任務：號召所有的宗教性的十字軍擴大政教合一的專制獨裁力量。兩種結果都會意味帝國的建立。反抗資本主義的世界革命的努力解釋了蘇聯的極端專制以便於維護其政治正統觀念和教旨的純潔性。這使政治迫害系統成為必需，不是為了反侵略而是為了消滅異端。

此文爭論真正關注的不在於解釋查斯－頓所關心的烏托邦的社會主義沒有在蘇聯實現的現實；而是在於解釋為什麼那麼多的馬克思主義者不能夠超越他們的理性信仰而容忍一些現代世界中非常令人不愉快的現像。在馬克思主義中的神學特徵從人們的理性分析和做為一種政治現像的社會主義運動中剔除之前，“社會主義”國家，或其它任何地方的社會主義都是沒有希望的。

《社會問題》雜誌（美國），第２８卷第５號，５１０－５１３頁，１９８１年。

譯者按：

它山之石，可以攻玉，所譯之文距現在已經有二十多年，文中的最後預言——“在馬克思主義中的神學特徵從人們的理性分析和做為一種政治現像的社會主義運動中剔除之前，‘社會主義’國家，或其它任何地方的社會主義都是沒有希望的”——不幸在十年前的蘇聯就已變成現實，隨着蘇維埃的解體，原蘇聯的“馬克思主義者”們連“社會主義”的旗號也不要了。縱觀世界，北韓的“馬克思主義者”們固然還沒有從馬克思主義的神學特徵中回味過來；自己的“社會主義”祖國也並未產生“真正民主的，理性的政治經濟系統”，因此並沒有產生什麼“真正的社會主義”。共產黨依舊執政的中國，其中的弱勢勞工群體目前所受的資本主義經濟剝削與壓迫，甚至要超過他們曾經引經據典地批判的核心資本主義國家，無怪乎連美國新聞關於中共十六大的報導中都說，“中共已經在十六大後變成一個“ＣａｐｉｔａｌｉｓｔＰｏｗｅｒ”，這真是對擁有眾多“馬克思主義者”和“馬列主義經典著作”的中國的絕妙諷刺：真箇是“假做真時真亦假，無為有處有還無”。中國的學者們目前做社會分析時還侑於馬克思主義神學特徵的固然已經不多（這當然得力於新老“走資派”們的實用主義）；但是，既然善和惡的鬥爭是永恆的，只要有人類在，大多數人民的根本利益就不能被任何人打着任何旗號長期忽視和篡奪，唯一的原因這也正是因為人人心中都會產生善和惡。

另外，譯者注意到另外一個有意思的社會現像是：東西方的學者們幾乎同時——在馬克思主義誕生約一百二十年後的二十世紀七十年代——系統分析了馬克思主義中的神學特徵，從而為真正的社會主義開出“民主”這個藥方；所不同的是，西方是許多學者在爭鳴（這一點從本譯文的引文中可窺一斑），而中國當時能對馬克思主義的神學特徵進行理性分析的據說卻只有顧准一人，此大概因為在廬山中識其真面目更難的原因吧。

譯者系理工科出身，對社會科學中的術語並不熟悉，因此譯文中恐怕難免絳錯；為準確謹慎起見，附上英文原文供參考。——僅以此文奉獻於仍然關心弱勢勞動人民和什麼是真正的社會主義的讀者。

譯於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