跨越“资本主义制度的卡夫丁峡谷”问题的再探讨——兼与俞良早教授商榷

A Probe into the Problem of Leaping over“the Capitalist Caudine Valley”——Also Discussing with Professor Yu Liangzao

2021年第5期《中国延安干部学院学报》发表的俞良早教授《评学术界对马克思东方社会理论的研究》的长篇文章,内容十分丰富,对了解我国学术界关于东方社会发展道路理论的研究状况有一定的参考价值。俞教授的这篇长文,论及的问题很多,不少观点与我的看法一致,我很赞同。但俞教授的核心观点是他“不认可马克思提出了东方社会可以跨越资本主义卡夫丁峡谷的观点”。我不赞同他的这个观点。我认为,俄国公社有可能“跨越”资本主义制度的卡夫丁峡谷直接过渡到社会主义社会的观点,是马克思、恩格斯关于俄国社会发展道路理论的根本观点。否定了马克思、恩格斯提出了这个观点,就很难准确地理解他们关于俄国社会发展道路的其他观点。本文根据马克思、恩格斯论述这个问题的著作和书信写作和出版的时间先后顺序,介绍马克思、恩格斯关于俄国社会发展道路的观点,肯定他们提出了俄国公社有可能“跨越”资本主义制度的卡夫丁峡谷的思想。俞教授认为俄国公社事实上没有实现“跨越”,是完全正确的。但是否提出了有“跨越”的可能性,与事实上是否实现了“跨越”,是两个不同的问题。不能因为事实上没有实现“跨越”而否认马克思、恩格斯提出过“跨越”思想。

The substantial article, A Review of the Academic Research on Marxist Theory on Oriental Society by Professor Yu Liangzao, published in issue 5 of the Journal of China Executive Leadership Academy Yan’an in2021 gives much insight into the studies on the theory about the path of Oriental society in China. Professor Yu touches upon many topics in his paper, and many of his ideas I cannot agree more with. However, I beg difference for his core idea that“he doesn’t buy Marx’s viewpoint that oriental countries can leap over the capitalist Caudine Valley ”. In my opinion, the theory that the Russian society could skip over the capitalist Caudine Valley and leap directly to a socialist society is a fundamental point in Marx and Engels’ theory on the development path of Russian society. To negate this viewpoint renders it difficult to accurately understand their other ideas on it. In combing through their related works and letters written or published chronologically, this paper introduces Marx and Engels’ viewpoints on the development path of the Russian society, confirming that they did hypothesize that Russian society may leap over the capitalist Caudine Valley. Professor Yu is absolutely right to point out the Russian society turned out to fail to skip over the Valley. But the proposition in theory and the failure in practice are two matters. We cannot deny the fact of the former merely because of the fact of the latter.