本书坚持以习近平新时代中国特色社会主义思想为指导，紧扣新时代高校网络意识形态建设实际，从理论与实践、虚拟与现实的角度构建了加强和改进新时代高校网络意识形态工作的宏观思路和具体策略。作者在吸收学界现有研究成果的基础上，紧密结合新时代这一历史背景，探讨了高校网络意识形态建设的时代境遇、历史经验、建设理念和对策举措等问题，力争把高校网络意识形态建设的经验性、具象化做法上升到理论研究、系统展开层面，深化了新时代高校网络意识形态建设的规律性认识。

马克思主义大众化是一个伴随中国共产党百年奋斗史的思想理论发展历程，而马克思主义哲学大众化是这一思想事业的基础性工程。在中国共产党带领人民进行革命、建设、改革的伟大征程中，马克思主义哲学在培养人们科学的世界观和方法论方面发挥了极为重要的作用，堪称用科学理论“化大众”的成功范例。总结和反思马克思主义哲学大众化的成功经验和有效做法，有利于在新的历史条件下推进当代中国马克思主义、21世纪马克思主义大众化。

保尔·拉法格（1842—1911）是法国和国际工人共运史上著名的活动家和领袖，法国马克思主义者的先驱、法国社会党的创始人之一，对马克思主义学说在法国的传播和法国工人党的建立有重要的贡献。但是其马克思主义观的不彻底性也使他犯下了一些错误，增加了自身的复杂性。从蒲鲁东主义到布朗基主义、实证主义，人们对他的评价众说纷纭、莫衷一是。拉法格去世后，其马克思主义者的身份和形象被“污名化”，各种标签也蜂拥而至：“半马克思主义者”、“假马克思主义者”、“非马克思主义者”、“半无政府主义者”等，晚年甚至还被冠以“中派主义者”的面貌，拉法格的马克思主义观被涂画成各式各样的脸谱。

拉法格晚年由于身体原因过着深居简出的生活，参加的革命活动大幅度减少，很少在公开场合发表演说。他在法国革命的一些重要问题上也与长期同他并肩作战的革命好友盖得发生了分歧，其政治策略的左右摇摆及这样或那样的错误，增加了他的复杂性。

纵观拉法格的一生，革命的马克思主义者是他最为显著的标签。对他的马克思主义观进行研究，力争做到客观翔实、不带偏见，这既是一个充满趣味的时代话题，也是一个富有启发性的理论课题。鉴别拉法格思想中的是非曲直，不仅对于正确探讨时代变化与马克思主义之间的内在张力、准确判断时代形势，而且对正确回答“什么是马克思主义”以及“怎样科学对待马克思主义”等重要问题都具有参考价值。

拉法格马克思主义观的形成具有特定时代场景和思想资源。从法兰西第二帝国到19世纪末20世纪初自由资本主义向垄断资本主义过渡，构筑了拉法格两种生活年代的背景底色。资产阶级政党执政后各个党派的粉墨登场，造就了法国政局的独特特征。拉法格正是在这样一个阶级对立、文化丰厚和矛盾交织的封建专制和资本主义民主共和国国家中开启了他的思想之旅和革命之路。19世纪的法国成为世界革命的“暴风眼”，促使他思考如何推进马克思主义在法国的传播以及指导无产阶级革命运动；由于成长环境和优质教育的熏陶，受18世纪法国大革命遗产的影响，加上马克思恩格斯的指导与感染，拉法格逐渐学会运用马克思主义结合法国实际，分析具体问题；巴黎公社失败后，第一国际内部马克思主义同巴枯宁等机会主义流派的斗争以及19世纪末第二国际理论家关于马克思主义原则的论争，为拉法格马克思主义观的形成提供了国际视野。

可以说，拉法格的马克思主义观是连续性与阶段性的统一体。连续性是因为自从拉法格从蒲鲁东主义者和布朗基主义者转变为马克思主义者后，他一直秉承马克思主义；同时，不同的革命事件线索也造就了其革命实践活动的不同划分区间。具体而言，拉法格的马克思主义观从生发到确立，从成熟到晚年探索，一共历经了四个阶段：萌芽生发期（1865—1871）、跃迁确立期（1872—1882）、成熟发展期（1883—1901）、深入探索期（1902—1911）。这四个阶段唇齿相依，也囊括了拉法格马克思主义观的三元层次结构。正因为早期的萌芽导致了立场的转变，而晚年的主张中又恪守前期的原则。因此，以不同时期的革命活动和历史事件为坐标，对四个阶段特征做具体分析，才能在微观视阈中准确研判其理论贡献和内在缺陷。具体而言：

第一，拉法格马克思主义观历经了四个阶段。反对法兰西第三帝国的暴虐统治和法国工人运动的高涨坚定了他的革命倾向。从参加大学生团体运动到与马克思的伦敦情结，再到支援巴黎公社，拉法格逐渐脱离了蒲鲁东主义、布朗基主义、实证主义的窠臼，孕育了对马克思主义的渴望和追求。他开始在马克思主义中寻找关于法国经济发展进程和革命运动等迫切问题的指导方案，直接领导了法国工人党的建立，但这种历程并非一蹴而就，而是充满艰辛。流亡西班牙期间，积极宣传马克思主义，同莫拉、梅萨等无政府主义斗争，并严厉批判了以马隆、布鲁斯为首的可能派错误主张。马克思主义观进入成熟发展期，他举办理论讲座，推动无产阶级的国际联系，为捍卫共产主义观点同德莫连唇枪舌剑。拉法格晚年虽然革命活动减少，但他依旧批判唯心主义先验论和不可知论，在反对改良主义和无政府主义的两条战线上毫不妥协。事实上，从以马克思主义立场分析问题的“初学者”到认真研究、积极宣传马克思主义，拉法格的整个蜕变历程也是用新思想清理旧思想的过程。

第二，中观视阈下扫描拉法格马克思主义观三元层级结构，从本体论层面看，关于什么是马克思主义方面，他有着自己的话语体系。概括起来，包含三个方面：首先，马克思和恩格斯是“两个身体，一个大脑”，从缔造者的角度看，马克思是该学说的首要创立者，博学的恩格斯为马克思主义的创立做出了突出贡献。因此，马克思主义可谓是两人“共同的脑力劳动”。拉法格还以反讽的口吻不轻易炮制任何定义。其次，在拉法格看来，马克思主义是交给社会主义者的新的工具，它的根本方法是历史唯物主义。尽管他有时将历史唯物主义称为经济唯物主义，对专业术语有类似表达上的错误，但诸多证据表明拉法格坚持了唯物史观的基本思想。再次，他始终秉持为无产阶级利益服务的群众立场，为群众著述立言，号召革命唯物主义者要为无产阶级的物质利益服务，对农民和土地问题做出了思索。这都呈现出了他对马克思主义根本立场的承继关系。最后，按照拉法格的看法，马克思主义的核心是阶级斗争学说。拉法格分析了阶级对立的成因，并结合法国实际具体分析了法国阶级斗争的新阶段。他深入探讨了无产阶级在夺取政权后面临的主要任务、国家机器特征以及向共产主义过渡等问题。

第三，从实践论层面看，关于“怎样对待马克思主义”。其一，拉法格倡导刻苦学习和宣传马克思主义，他对经典著作的研读如饥似渴；拉法格夫妇所译介的马克思主义理论读物成为法国民众获取马克思主义的来源；拉法格积极创办无产阶级报刊，主张宣传鼓动家传播马克思主义学说，善于利用多种形式开展共产主义理论宣传工作，开辟了一条由英国向法国及由法国向西班牙、葡萄牙、瑞士传播马克思主义的欧洲路径。其二，拉法格主张“要很好地应用马克思的历史法则”。他将唯物辩证法的战斗因子植入文学评论领域；以语言为思想武器，追溯语言的起源，并运用马克思主义的观点揭示各种宗教观念的起源之谜。其三，捍卫马克思主义原则方面表现为：哲学问题域中，他努力廓清哲学疑难问题的迷雾，及时反击伯恩施坦修正主义等逆流思潮，驳斥饶勒斯的唯心史观；政治经济学理论方面，拉法格在资产阶级经济学者对马克思经济学说的“围剿”中主动迎敌，实现“突围”，捍卫革命导师的思想遗产。其四，他主张“在理论和实践方面勾画发展马克思主义的轮廓”，在革命实践中对马克思的伟大学说进行检验。通过分析卡特尔、托拉斯等垄断组织，对帝国主义论中的“五个基本特征”做出了独创性分析；分析了财产的起源及其在人类社会各个历史阶段的不同形态。

第四，从价值论层面看，拉法格关于“马克思主义的历史命运”的思考包含三个方面：其一，拉法格的一生命运多舛，由于领导和从事革命活动，他多次被政府通缉驱逐和流亡海外，还要承受丧子之痛，经济上拮据潦倒。即使面对革命的暂时失利或低潮，他仍坚信“社会主义会重露头角”，社会主义革命事业在不久定会胜利，恪守马克思主义信仰。其二，在他眼中，马克思主义“历险记”首先经历了蒲鲁东主义、巴枯宁主义、可能主义等几个阶段，走出各种错误思潮的迷宫，接着又与修正主义形成了两军对垒的局面，这折射了马克思主义的生长规律。其三，马克思主义在前进路上与各种错误思潮的较量以及和工人运动的结合是一个长期反复清除“余毒”的过程，对客观规律的认识呈现出一个螺旋式上升图谱。

第五，从认识论层面看，拉法格思想主张中的几个重要问题决定了其马克思主义观的真假和走向。拉法格在对待半无政府主义者爱尔威的立场和中派主义问题上，都构成了其马克思主义者身份的核心组件。为此，通过探究拉法格马克思主义观中的两个典型主题，即半无政府主义和中派主义非议，展开对拉法格是否为一个马克思主义者的蠡测，还原其作为革命马克思主义者的思想面貌。

拉法格晚年与盖得在一些原则问题上发生了激烈争论，双方的分歧点主要聚焦于议会斗争的重要性。从后来的法国无产阶级革命实践来看，拉法格的主张也有一定的合理之处和现实意义。所以他晚年的一些思想主张和革命斗争活动也值得予以关注。

综合来看，拉法格的错误主要表现在：对历史唯物主义的表述不够确切；对农民缺乏科学的阶级分析；对巴黎公社的评价具有片面性；低估了无产阶级取得政权后国家的作用，错误地认为无产阶级国家不应干预任何生产；等等。

因此，在拉法格的马克思主义观中，既有重要的成就，需要我们坚持发展，也有经验教训，值得我们甄别反思。在评析拉法格马克思主义观时，我们要坚持以历史视角和辩证方法为坐标的评价体系，既不能一概而论，也不能混为一谈。一言以蔽之，拉法格的马克思主义观构筑了国际工人运动史中独特的“拉法格阶段”，在马克思主义发展史上是“大写的贡献”与“小写的错误”并存。其中蕴含的独特的思想营养，为新时代中国共产党人树立科学马克思主义观提供了榜样示范。

关键词：拉法格；马克思主义观；理论贡献；内在缺陷

Abstract

Paul Lafargue（1842-1911）was a famous activist and leader in the history of France and international workers' movement.The pioneer of the France Marxist and one of the founders of the French Socialist Party has made important contributions to the spread of Marxist doctrine in France and the establishment of the French Workers'Party.However,the incompleteness of his view of Marxism also caused him to make some mistakes and increase his complexity.From Proudhonism to Blanquism and Positivism,people have different opinions on him,and there is no consensus.After the death of Lafargue,his Marxist identity and image were“stigmatized”and various labels also swarmed:“Semi-Marxist”,“Fake Marxist”,“Non-Marxist”,“Half-anarchist”,etc,even in his later years,he was even labeled as a“centralist”.Lafargue's view of Marxism was painted into a variety of faces.

In his later years,Lafargue lived a life of deep self-sufficiency due to physical reasons.The revolutionary activities he participated in were greatly reduced,and few public speeches were made.He also disagreed with the revolutionary buddy Gade who has been fighting with him for a long time on some important issues of the France revolution.The swaying of his political strategy and one or the other mistakes increased his complexity.

Throughout Lafargue's life,the revolutionary Marxist is his most prominent label.Studying his view of Marxism and striving to be objective and unbiased is not only an interesting topic of the times,but also an inspiring theoretical subject.To identify the right and wrong in Lafargue's thoughts,not only to correctly explore the inherent tension between the times and Marxism,but also to accurately judge the situation of the times,and to answer the important questions such as“What is Marxism”and“How to treat Marxism scientifically”has a reference value.

The formation of Lafargue's view of Marxism has specific time scenes and ideological resources.From the Second Empire of France to the transition from the capitalist to the monopoly capitalism in the late 19th and early 20th centuries,the background color of Lafargue's two life years were constructed.The appearance of various parties after the bourgeois political party took office has created the unique characteristics of the French political situation.Lafargue opened his journey of thought and revolution in such a feudal autocracy and a capitalist democratic republic with class opposition,rich culture and contradictions.In the 19th century,France became the“storm eye”of the world revolution,prompting him to think about how to promote the spread of Marxism in France and guide the proletarian revolutionary movement;due to the growth environment and the influence of quality education,influenced by the heritage of the French Revolution in the 18th century,In the guidance and infection of Marx and Engels,Lafargue gradually learned to use Marxism in combination with French reality to analyze specific problems; after the failure of the Paris Commune,the struggle between Marxism and the opportunistic schools such as Bakunin within the First International and the debate among the Second International theorists on the principles of Marxism in the late 19th century provides an international perspective for the formation of the Lafargue's view of Marxism.

It can be said that Lafargue's view of Marxism is a unity of continuity and stage.Continuity lies at he has been adhering to Marxism since Lafar gue changed from Proudhonism and Blanquism to Marxism.At the same time,different revolutionary events clues have created different divisions of his revolutionary practice activities.Specifically,Lafargue's view of Marxism from birth to establishment,from maturity to later years of exploration,has gone through four stages:sprouting period（1865-1871）,transition establishment period（1872-1882）,mature development period（1883-1901）,in-depth exploration period（1902-1911）.These four stages are closely related to each other,and also include the ternary hierarchy of Lafargue's view of Marxism.It is precisely because of the early germination that led to the change of position,and proposition in his later years adhered to the principles of the previous period.Therefore,taking the revolutionary activities and historical events in different periods as the coordinates and making a detailed analysis of the four stages of characteristics,we can in the microscopic perspective accurately judge its theoretical contribution and inherent defects.In particular：

Firstly,Lafargue's view of Marxism has gone through four stages.Opposing the tyrannical rule of the Third Reich of France and the rise of the French workers' movement reinforce his revolutionary tendencies.From participating in college student group movements to Marx's London complex,to supporting the Paris Commune,Lafargue gradually separated from the mortar of Proudhonism,Blanquism,and Positivism,gestating the desire and pursuit of Marxism.He began to seek guidance on the urgent issues of the French economic development process and the revolutionary movement in Marxism,and directly led the establishment of the French Workers' Party.However,this process is not a one-step process,but full of hardships.During his exile in Spain,he actively promoted Marxism,struggled with anarchism such as Mora and Mesa,and severely criticized the possible false claims led by Marlon and Brousse.Lafargue's view of Marxism entered a period of mature development.He held theoretical lec tures to promote the international relations of the proletariat and defended the communist views with Demolius.Although Lafargue's revolutionary activities were reduced in his later years,he still criticized the idealist transcendentalism and agnosticism,and did not compromise on the two fronts against reformism and anarchism.In fact,from the“beginners”who analyzed problems from the standpoint of Marxism to seriously study and actively promoted Marxism,the entire process of transformation of Lafargue is also the process of cleaning up old ideas with new ideas.

Secondly,in the Mesoscopic threshold view,the ternary hierarchy of Lafargue's view of Marxism is scanned.He has his own discourse system on what is Marxism from the perspective of ontology.To sum it up,there are three aspects:Firstly,Marx and Engels are“two bodies,one brain”.From the perspective of the founder,Marx is the primary founder of the doctrine.The learned Engels made outstanding contribution to the creation of Marxism.Therefore,Marxism can be described as their“common mental labor”.Lafargue also does not easily make any definition in an ironic tone.Secondly,in Lafargue's view,Marxism is a new tool for socialists,and its fundamental method is historical materialism.Although he sometimes referred to historical materialism as economic materialism and had similar expression errors in terminology,there is much evidence that Lafargue adheres to the basic idea of historical materialism.Thirdly,he always upheld the masses' position to serve the interests of the proletariat,writed for the masses,and called on the revolutionary materialists to serve the material interests of the proletariat and thought about the peasants and the land issue.This shows his inheritance of the fundamental position of Marxism.Finally,in Lafargue's opinion,the core of Marxism is the theory of class struggle.Lafargue analyzed the causes of class opposition and specifically analyzed the new stage of the French class struggle in light of the French reality.He delved into the main tasks faced by the proletariat after seizing power,the characteristics of the state machine and the transition to communism,etc.

Thirdly,from a practical perspective,Regarding“how to deal with Marxism”,Firstly,Lafargue advocated studying and propagating Marxism hard,and he was hungry for the study of classic works; the Marxist theoretical readings translated by the Lafargue couple became the source of the French to obtain Marxism; Lafargue actively established the proletarian newspapers,advocated propagandist to spread the Marxist doctrine,and was good at using various forms to carry out propaganda work of communism theory,and opened up a European path to spread Marxism from Britain to France and from France to Spain,Portugal and Switzerland.Secondly,Lafargue advocated“to apply Marx's historical rules well”.He implanted the combat factor of materialist dialectics into the field of literary criticism; using language as an ideological weapon,traced the origin of language,and used Marxist views to reveal the mystery of the origin of various religious ideas.Thirdly,defending the principles of Marxism is:in the field of philosophical problems,he strived to clarify the fog of philosophical problems,counterattacked Bernstein's revisionism and other counter-current thoughts,and refuted Jaures's idealistic view of history;In the“encirclement and suppression”of bourgeois economists' opinion on Marx's economics,Lafargue took the initiative to meet the enemy,realized“breakthrough”and defended the ideological heritage of the revolutionary mentor.Fourthly,he advocated“delineating the outline of developing Marxism in theory and practice”and testing Marx's great theory in the practice of revolution.Through the analysis of cartels,trusts and other monopoly organizations,He made an original analysis of the“five basic characteristics”of imperialism;analyzed the origin of property and its different forms in various historical stages of human society.

Fourthly,from the perspective of axiology,Lafargue's thinking on the“historical destiny of Marxism”consists of three aspects:Firstly,Lafargue's life was much more difficult.Because of leadership and revolutionary activities,he had been repeatedly expelled and exiled by the government.He had to suffer from the pain of losing children,the economy was struggling to stumble.Even in the face of the temporary loss or low tide of the revolution,he firmly believed that“socialism will reappear”,and the cause of socialist revolution will soon win and abide by Marxist beliefs.Secondly,in his eyes,“adventures of Marxism”first experienced several stages such as Proudhonism,Bakuninism,and Possibleism,and walked out of the labyrinth of various wrong thoughts,and then formed a confrontation with the revisionism.The situation reflects the law of growth of Marxism.Thirdly,the combination of Marxism on the way forward with various wrong thoughts and the movement of the workers is a long-term process of repetitively clearing the“drugs”,and the understanding of objective laws presents a spiral rising map.

Fifthly,from the epistemological perspective,several important issues in Lafargue's ideological proposition determine the true or false of the view of Marxism.Lafargue's position on the semi-anarchist Elway and the issue of centralism constitutes a core component of his Marxist identity.To this end,by exploring the two typical themes in the Lafargue's view of Marxism,criticism about semi-anarchism and the centristism,unfolding speculation of whether Lafargue is a Marxist and revert his appearance of thought as revolutionary Marxist.

In his later years,Lafargue and Gade had a heated debate on some issues of principle.The differences between the two sides focused on the importance of the parliamentary struggle.Judging from the later practice of the French proletarian revolution,Lafargue's proposition also has certain rationality and practical significance.Therefore,some of his ideas and revolutionary struggles in his later years deserve attention.

On the whole,Lafargue's mistakes are mainly manifested in:the expression of historical materialism is not precise;the lack of scientific class analysis for peasants; the evaluation of the Paris Commune is one-sided;the role of the state after the proletariat's political power is underestimated,wrongly believes that the proletarian state should not interfere with any production,and so on.

Therefore,in Lafargue's view of Marxism,there are important achievements,we need to persist in development,and we have lessons to learn.It is worthy of us to reflect on reflection.When evaluating Lafargue's view of Marxism,we must adhere to the evaluation system based on historical perspectives and dialectical methods,which cannot be generalized or confused.In a nutshell,Lafargue's view of Marxism constructed the unique“Lafargue stage”in the history of the international workers' movement.In the history of the development of Marxism,“the contribution of capitalization”and“the mistake of lowercase”coexist.The unique ideological nutrition contained therein provides an example for the Chinese Communists in the new era to establish a scientific view of Marxism.

Key Words:Paul Lafargue; View of Marxism; Theoretical Contribution; Intrinsic Defect

本书所搜集的文章整体上呈现了相关主题间的必然关联，同时预示着其中蕴涵的新的思想主题及其进一步发展的方向。这些主题大致包括心理学、现象学和形而上学。这些主题及其整体须在相互关联中系统把握：对自然主义心理学的批判，立足点是现象学；这个工作同时有助于推进对心理学和现象学及二者关系的理解；在此基础上，引申出关于形而上学的一种新的理解方向，消解关于形而上学的metaphysics（物理学之后）的传统理解，论证关于它的metapsychics（心理学之后）的思考路线。

本书收录20世纪80年代中期以来的西方马克思主义研究文章三十多篇。面对当今全球资本主义的危机，这些文章从各自视角论证马克思主义理论为什么比以往任何时候都更加有用和必要，呈现出马克思主义理论研究的一种面貌，同时反映了当今全球生态的紧迫感，批评了西方日益加剧的不平等。本文选为中国读者批判性地认识当代西方马克思主义提供了参考资料。

本书是对尼采解释学思想的阐述，从文本解释的角度来理解尼采解释学。这一解释学的独特之处在于将解释对象视为“症候”，即处于斗争关系中的力同时作为伪装、欺骗、自我掩蔽的表现，基于解释学视角，这意味着尼采将解释对象视为具有双重意义结构的现象，其真正的意义被掩蔽于表层意义之下。相应地，在尼采那里，解释成为通过揭露、破除表层伪装探求现象深层意义的独特认知活动。以类似方式规定和解释现象的重要思想家还有马克思与弗洛伊德，他们共同使得一种我们称之为“深层解释学”的新的解释学类型得以可能。

本书主要围绕古典实用主义奠基者皮尔士和詹姆斯的信念观展开研究。运用文献分析和比较研究的方法，论证得出二者信念观都由信念的界域、确立信念的规范力、信念为点探究至真、信念于内外力相交处确定是其所是此四部分构成。其中，前两部分是詹姆斯对皮尔士信念观的突破，也是二者信念观差异之处。后两部分是詹姆斯对皮尔士信念观的承袭，也是二者信念观相似之处。作为古典实用主义的奠基者，皮尔士和詹姆斯的信念观对后来实用主义者的信念思想产生了深远影响。