简介： 马克思，恩格斯，列宁，斯大林十分重视妇女问题，他们深入地研究了妇女及妇女解放的历史过程，革命作用，天然尺度，权利和义务，解放途径等若干问题，揭示了妇女解放的实质，特征，条件及其发展规律，创立了妇女及妇女解放理论，成为马克思主义理论的重要组成部分，为世界各国妇女解放运动提供了科学的世界观和方法论。本文研究和梳理了领袖人物关于妇女及妇女解放的相关经典，这一理论对妇女及妇女解放运动具有重要的理论价值和现实意义。

简介： 本书在界定“马克思热”概念和爬梳其相关历史的前提下，对21世纪以来国外“马克思热”的兴起范围、形成原因、主要热点论题进行了系统论述，深入分析了其本质和影响，并在对其理论意义作出理性反思的基础上，总结了它对中国特色社会主义新时代的镜鉴作用。

简介： 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。

简介： 艾伦·布坎南是美国当代马克思主义学者，西方马克思主义分析流派的杰出代表。本书将艾伦·布坎南对马克思正义理论的研究进行了全面梳理和解读，提出艾伦·布坎南否认马克思是从追求正义出发来建构一个理想的社会，认为马克思是从共产主义的非法权评价视角出发，追求“无正义的正义”的理想社会。

简介： 本书立足于俄国革命和建设的伟大历程，以列宁一系列经典著述为基础，全面阐述了列宁社会主义意识形态理论，彰显革命导师的深邃思想。通过论述列宁社会主义意识形态理论形成的社会历史条件、思想渊源和历史阶段，从科学无神论思想、社会主义文化理论和共产主义道德教育理论三个方面，有效阐明了列宁社会主义意识形态理论的内容。归纳了列宁社会主义意识形态理论的科学性、阶级性、批判性和实践性特征，阐述了有效的思想领导功能、全面的社会整合功能和多元的利益协调功能。把列宁社会主义意识形态理论置于东西方视域下进行比较，分析西方马克思主义者对列宁社会主义意识形态理论的解释和误读，列宁社会主义意识形态理论在中国的运用和发展，进而展现了列宁社会主义意识形态理论的全貌，对新时代做好意识形态工作，以及不断创新和发展列宁社会主义意识形态理论具有深刻的启发意义。

简介： 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AbstractPaul 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

简介： 本书基于马克思主义分工理论，从生产力和生产关系双重视角阐述了产品内国际分工的二重性。以此为基础，分析了中国制造业在产品内国际分工体系中的地位、发展困境以及产业升级的紧迫性，并为中国制造业产业升级提供了有效路径。

简介： 本书从东西方学者关于《帝国主义论》当代价值的争议入手，通过对《帝国主义论》文本的经济学理解和哲学反思，对比分析了“新帝国主义论”“后帝国主义论”与列宁帝国主义论的关系。从国家垄断资本主义、国际垄断资本主义到金融资本的全球化再到资本主义危机与矛盾，通过对列宁帝国主义论与当代资本主义的比较研究，我们不仅可以在垄断资本主义的历史性考察中对列宁的帝国主义本质进行现代性解读，在金融资本的全球化演变中对列宁帝国主义趋势进行经济学哲学透视，而且还可以在当代资本主义的危机和矛盾中对列宁帝国主义的规律进行辩证法的反思。列宁基于唯物史观对帝国主义研究的方法论和一般原则奠定了一百年来帝国主义研究的最基本范式。列宁帝国主义论向旧世界价值观、制度和实践宣战的历史使命，为我们深刻理解和反思当代资本主义的新变化提供了一种崭新的认知方法、哲学态度和价值理想，也为更好地认识和理解中国特色社会主义理论的科学性提供理论支撑。