卢卡奇与列宁关系再探讨——殊途同归的方法论

• 作者： 程恩慧 ¹
• 作者单位：
  1.  上海理工大学马克思主义学院
• 通讯作者： 程恩慧 
• 提交时间：2024-07-06

摘要: 国内外学界关于卢卡奇所开创的西方马克思主义与列宁主义是否对立的问题尚未达成共识。梅洛-庞蒂正确地理解了卢卡奇，却错误地将苏联理论界的机械自然主义理解为列宁主义，从而得出了两者的对立。梅洛-庞蒂的“认识论倒退论”源于其对《唯物主义和经验批判主义》的文本解读，却忽视了《共产主义运动中的“左派”幼稚病》、《国家与革命》中列宁对“抽象一般”与“杂多具体”辩证关系的把握。卢卡奇与列宁同时把握住了马克思主义的真精神即以无产阶级革命实践为旨归的辩证方法，这既体现为两者对无产阶级意识形态差异的澄清，更体现为不拘泥“抽象一般”的具体革命实践。历史唯物主义是无产阶级革命的实践哲学，抽象的理论对立唯有放到具体的革命实践中才能呈现出自身的真理性，彰显马克思主义的真精神。

Abstract: The academic circles at home and abroad have not yet reached a consensus on whether the Western Marxism initiated by Georg Lukacs and Leninism are opposed to each other. Merleau-Ponty correctly understood Lukacs, but mistakenly understood the mechanical naturalism of the Soviet theoretical circle as Leninism, thus drawing the opposition between the two. Merleau-Ponty’s regression theory of epistemology originated from his textual interpretation of Materialism and Empirio-criticism, but ignored the Left-Wing communism an infantile disorder and Lenin’s comments in State and Revolution. To grasp the dialectical relationship between abstract general and multiple concrete . Lukacs and Lenin simultaneously grasped the true spirit of Marxism, that is, the dialectical method based on the practice of the proletarian revolution. This is not only embodied in the clarification of the ideological differences of the proletariat, but also embodied in the concrete revolutionary practice that not limited to the abstract general . Historical materialism is the practical philosophy of the proletarian revolution. Only when abstract theoretical oppositions are put into concrete revolutionary practice can they present their own truth and demonstrate the true spirit of Marxism.

• 来自： 程恩慧
• 分类： 马克思主义理论 >> 马克思主义发展史
• 稿件状态： 未投稿
• 引用： PSSXiv:202405.00506 (或此版本 PSSXiv:202405.00506V2)
  DOI:10.12451/202405.00506
  CSTR:32012.36.PSSXiv.202405.00506
• 推荐引用方式： 程恩慧.卢卡奇与列宁关系再探讨——殊途同归的方法论.哲学社会科学预印本平台:https://zsyyb.cn/abs/202405.00506.[PSSXiv:202405.00506V2] (点此复制)