附录: Althusser关于ISAs的笔记摘要
路易.阿尔都塞 孟登迎译

‘… one can say that the particular aspect of the theory of ideology to be developed consists in maintaining the primacy of the class struggle over the functions and the mode of functioning of the state apparatus as well as of the ideological state apparatuses- a primacy which is naturally irreconcilable with any functionalism.//


? For it is clear that one cannot regard the system of the ideological 'control' of society by the ruling class, i.e. the consensus effects of the ruling class (which 'is the ideology of the ruling class' - Marx) as a simple given fact, as a system of exactly defined institutions which would automatically duplicate the violent rule of the same class or which would have been installed by the clear political consciousness of this class of particular purposes defined by its function. For the ruling ideology is never a fait accompli of the class struggle, and therefore immune to the influence of the class struggle itself.//////


?? The ruling ideology, which exists in the complex system of the ideological state apparatuses (ISAs), is for its part the result of a very long and hard class struggle, through which the bourgeoisie (to take just one example) can only achieve its goals, if it combats both the former ruling ideology, which lives on in the old apparatuses, and the ideology of the new exploited class which is seeking its own forms of organization and struggle. This ideology with which the bourgeoisie succeeds in establishing its hegemony over the former landed aristocracy and over the working class, is constituted, not simply through an external struggle against these two classes, but also and at the same time through an internal struggle to overcome the contradictions of the bourgeois class factions and to produce unity within the bourgeoisie as ruling class.


?? One has to understand the reproduction of the ruling ideology in this sense. Viewed formally, the ruling class has to reproduce its material, political and ideological conditions of existence (to exist means to reproduce). But the reproduction of the ruling ideology is no mere repetition, no simple reproduction and also no extended, automatic, mechanical reproduction of given institutions which would be defined once and for all by their function: rather it is the struggle for the unification and renewal of earlier, disparate and contradictory ideological elements within a unity which is achieved in and through the class struggle against the previous forms and the new tendencies. The struggle for the reproduction of the ruling ideology is a constantly incomplete struggle which has to be resumed constantly, being subject at all times to the class struggle.


There are several reasons for the fact that the unification of the ruling ideology is always 'incomplete' and always 'has to be resumed': not simply because of the survival of the ideological forms and the ideological state apparatuses of the former ruling class, which exert a terrible form of resistance (that which Lenin called 'habit'); not just because of the vital requirement of organizing the unity of the ruling class, which has emanated from the contradictory fusion of various class factions (trading capital, industrial capital, finance capital) and from the requirement to present their 'general (class) interests' as transcending the 'particular interests' of individual capitalists; not just because of the class struggle which has to be conducted against the emerging forms of the ideology of the dominated class; not just because of the historical transformation of the mode of production, which forces the 'adaption' of the ruling ideology to the class struggle (thus at present the juridical ideology of the classical bourgeoisie is being replaced by technocratic ideology); but also because of the materiality and variety of the practices, the 'spontaneous' ideology of which has to be rendered unitary. This enormous and contradictory task is never absolutely complete and one has to doubt whether there will ever be a model of that 'ethical state' from which Gramsci and Croce adopted the utopian ideal. Just as the class struggle never ceases, so too the struggle of the ruling class for the uniformity of the existing ideological elements and forms never ceases. This means that the ruling ideology -- even though it is its function -- can never completely solve its own contradictions, which are a reflection of the class struggle.//


Therefore one can derive from this thesis of the primacy of the class struggle over the ruling ideology and the ideological state apparatuses another thesis, which represents its direct consequence: The ideological state apparatuses are necessarily the location and the actual application of a class struggle, which in the apparatuses of the ruling ideology continues the general class struggle dominating the social formation. If the function of the ISAs consists in imposing the ruling ideology, it is such because there is resistance; if there is resistance, it is because there is struggle and this struggle is in the last analysis the direct or indirect, the close or (more frequently) the distant echo of the class struggle. The events of May 1968 illustrated this fact quite clearly and revealed a struggle which until then had been still muffled and suppressed. But in revealing a direct class struggle in the ideological state apparatuses in the form of a revolt (especially in the school apparatus, then in the medical apparatus, in the apparatus of architecture etc.) they have somewhat obscured the fundamental phenomenon, which determined these immediate events, namely the inherent class struggle character of the historical organization and the contradictory reproduction of the ruling ideology. May 1968 was 'experienced' without an historical or political perspective in the narrow sense. Therefore I thought it necessary to remind people that if one wishes to understand the facts of the class struggle in the ideological state apparatuses and to bring the revolt down to its proper size, one would have to adopt 'the standpoint of reproduction', which is the standpoint of the class struggle as a total process and is not to be understood as a sum of individual confrontations or confrontations limited to this or that 'sphere' (economy, politics, ideology); as a historical process and not as the result of episodes of repression or direct revolt. 因此,我们可以从阶级斗争优先于占统治地位的意识形态及意识形态国家机器这一论题中衍生出另一个论题,这就会展现出直接的推论:意识形态国家机器必然是阶级斗争的场所和实际的运用,那些决定社会结构的普遍的阶级斗争在占统治地位的意识形态国家机器当中仍然继续着。如果ISAs的功能是强加占统治地位的意识形态,那是因为存在着反抗;如果那儿有反抗,那是因为有斗争而且这种斗争归根到底都是阶级斗争的直接或间接、近的或(更多是)远的回音。1968年五月的事件相当清楚地显示了这种事实,并且揭示了一种直到那时还一直被压抑和禁止的斗争。但是当它们以一种反抗的形式来揭示意识形态国家机器当中(尤其是学校机器,随后包括医院机器和建筑机器等等)存在的直接的阶级斗争之时,有些模糊了一个决定眼前这些事件的根本事实,即历史组织内部所具有的阶级斗争特征和占统治地位的意识形态的充满矛盾的再生产。对于1968年五月的“体验”缺乏狭义上的历史和政治观点。因此,我认为有必要提醒人们,如果一个人希望理解在意识形态国家机器当中存在阶级斗争的真相,并且希望将反抗减低到适当的程度,他就必须采取“再生产的观点”,将阶级斗争看作一个整体的进程,而不是将它简单理解为个人对抗或者局限于这个或那个“领域”(经济、政治、意识形态)的各种对抗的总和;看作一个历史过程而不是由镇压或直接反抗的若干事件所产生的后果。 In reminding people of these perspectives I find it difficult to understand why I should be accused of a 'functionalist' or 'system-theoretical' interpretation of the superstructure and ideology which would rule our class struggle in favor of a mechanistic conception of the relevant state bodies.


?? Other objections relate to the character of the political parties and above all of the revolutionary party. Stated briefly, some people have tended to impute to me the view that I would regard every individual political party as an ideological state apparatus; this would result in every political party being included root and branch in the 'system' of the ideological state apparatuses, in its being subject to the laws of this 'system', and would exclude the possibility of a revolutionary party from this system.// //


?? However I have never written that a political party is an ideological state apparatus. I have even said something quite different (if only briefly, I admit), namely that the political parties are only 'components' of a specific ideological state apparatus: of the political ideological state apparatus, which realizes the political ideology of the ruling class, so to speak, in its 'constitutional regime' (the 'basic laws' under the monarchy of the ancient regime etc., the parliamentary-representative regime under the bourgeoisie in its 'liberal' phases.)


?? I fear that some people have not correctly grasped what I suggested should be understood by the term political ideological state apparatus. In order to grasp it better, one has to differentiate carefully between the political ideological state apparatus and the (repressive) state apparatus.//// 我担心有人没有正确地领会我的提议:即应该用政治的意识形态国家机器这一术语来理解。为了更好理解这一术语,我们必须谨慎地区分政治的意识形态国家机器与(镇压性)国家机器之间的差异。    What characterizes the (repressive) state apparatus, whose unity, even if it is contradictory, is still infinitely stronger than that of the totality of the ideological state apparatuses? The state apparatus comprises the head of state, the government and the administration (as instrument of the executive), the armed forces, the police, the judiciary, the courts and their subsidiary authorities (prisons etc.).... (镇压性)国家机器呈现的特征,它的一致性,尽管也存在矛盾,是不是仍然比意识形态国家机器的总体所呈现的特征要强烈得多?国家机器包含国家元首、政府、行政机构(作为执政工具)、军队、警察、司法系统、法院及其附属机构(监狱及其它)……    Within this ensemble one has to distinguish that which I will call the political state apparatus (Appareil politique d'Etat) and in which I include the head of state, the government, which the former leads, (the regime as it exists at present in France and in numerous other countries) as well as the administration (which carries out the policies of the government). The head of state represents the unity and the will of the ruling class, that authority which is capable of asserting the general interests of the ruling class against the particular interests of its members or groups of members.

   在这个整体里面,我们必须对我称之为政治的国家机器(Appareil politique d'Etat)和我将国家元首、政府、前任领导,(目前在法国和其他很多国家中存在的政体)和行政机构(执行政府政策)都包含在内的国家机器加以区分。国家元首代表统治阶级的一致性和意志,这种权威能够维护统治阶级的普遍利益,而不是统治阶级中的成员或群体成员的个人利益。

?? The government (which at present is led directly by the head of stare) carries out the policies of the ruling class, and the administration subordinate to this government implements them in detail. With this distinction, which shows the existence of the political state apparatus, it is important to observe that the administration is also part of it, even though it lives in the ideology (along with the whole bourgeois state,) of serving the 'common weal' and fulfilling the role of a 'public service’. But it is not a question of individual intentions or even exceptions: the function of the administration is in toto inseparably bound up with the implementation of the policies of the bourgeois government which are class policies. Entrusted with the duty of implementing policies in detail, the upper level of the state administration plays a directly political role, and the administration as a whole increasingly plays the role of supervision and 'quadrillage' (Foucault). It cannot implement the policies of the bourgeois government if it is not at the same time charged with the task of supervising their execution by individuals or groups and of indicting or handing over to the authorities of repression those who disregard them. Understood this way the political state apparatus (head of state, government, administration) is a part of the (repressive) state apparatus: it is possible to isolate it legitimately within the state apparatus.


?? We now get to the sensitive part: one must distinguish between the political state apparatus (head of state, government, administration) and the political ideological state apparatus. The former belongs to the (repressive) state apparatus, whereas the latter belongs to the ideological state apparatuses. What are we to understand by the term political ideological state apparatus? The 'political system' or the 'constitution' of a given social formation. Thus the French bourgeoisie, for example, like all contemporary bourgeoisies of capitalist countries, has generally recognized itself in the political system of parliamentary representation, which has realized bourgeois ideology in a political ideological state apparatus -- even if it has produced other regimes in difficult situations of class struggle (Bonapartism I and II, constitutional                                            monarchy, Pétain’s fascism. 我们现在触及到了敏感部位:一定要区分政治的国家机器(国家元首、政府、行政机构)与政治的意识形态国家机器之间的差别。前者属于(镇压性的)国家机器,而后者属于意识形态国家机器。我们凭借政治的意识形态国家机器这一术语能知道些什么呢?一个既定的社会结构的“政治制度”或“章程”。举例来说,和所有同时代资本主义国家的资产阶级一样,法国资产阶级即使在阶级斗争处于危难之时产生了其它的政体(如波拿巴主义一世和二世,君主立宪政体以及贝当[Pétain]的法西斯主义),但它通常也是在议会代表型的政治制度中确认自身的,从而在政治的意识形态国家机器中实现资产阶级的意识形态。    This ISA can be a particular (electoral) mode of representation of the 'people's will', through elected members of parliament (more or less universal and direct suffrage) towards whom the government, appointed by the head of state or by parliament itself, is answerable for its policies. However it is known that the government has at its disposal de facto (and therein lies the bourgeois advantage of this apparatus) an impressive array of means by which it can misrepresent and thus circumvent this responsibility; notably from the very outset, that is - apart from the appropriate forms of intimidation, the control of the mass media etc., -- by means of falsifying so-called universal and direct suffrage and then by means of current parliamentary rules (census system, exclusion of women and younger people from elections (differential levels of suffrage, two chamber system with different electoral bases, 'separation' of powers, proscription of revolutionary parties etc.) That is the reality of the facts. But the thing which allows us to talk of the 'political system' as an 'ideological state apparatus', is the fiction corresponding to a 'particular' reality, whereby the components of this system, as well as the principle of its mode of functioning, are based on the ideology of the 'freedom' and 'equality' of the voting individual, on the 'free choice' of the people's representatives by the individuals who 'make up' the people, notably by dint of the idea which each individual makes for himself of the politics to be pursued by the state. On the basis of this fiction (the politics of the state are ultimately determined by the interests of its ruling class in the class struggle) the 'political parties' have formed themselves, and these are supposed to represent and give expression to the various divergent (or convergent) electoral possibilities in relation to the nation's politics. Each individual can then express his opinion 'freely' by voting for the political party of his choice (assuming that it is not banned). 这种ISA 是代表“人民意志”的一种特定的(选举)方式,即由国家首脑或国会任命的政府将面对(或多或少具有普遍代表性和直接投票权)选举出来的国会成员而对自己的政策负责。然而,众所周知,政府事实上在随意支配(资产阶级在这个机器中占有优势地位)可以给人留下深刻印象的装饰方式,依赖这种方式政府可能会误传信息并因此逃避自己的职责;很明显从一开始,更确切地说――除了使用一些相应的胁迫方式,如对于大众传媒的控制等等,――就借助于伪造所谓的普遍代表性和直接投票权,再借助于现行的国会规则(人口普查系统排除女性和年轻人,两院制具有不同的选举基础,不同层次的投票,权力的“分离”,对于革命性政党的禁止及其它方式。)这就是事实的真相。但是,那些准许我们将“政治制度”当作“意识形态国家机器”的东西,是与某种“特定”相对应的虚构;与此相应,构成这一制度体系的那些要素及其发挥作用的方式原则,都建立在一种意识形态之上,即个体可以“自由”而“平等”地投票,可以通过各个个体“拼凑”的人民去“自由地选择”人民代表,尤其要借助于一种理念,即每位个体都是在为自身来构造国家所追求的政治。以这种虚构为基础(国家政治最终由阶级斗争中的统治阶级的利益所支配)“政党”完成自身的建构,而这些政党被认为代表和表达了国家政治所具有的各种不同的、分散的(或会聚的)选举可能性。因此每个个体都可以通过投给他所选择的政党(假定这是不会被取缔的)自由地表达他的意见。   It is important to note, that behind the political parties a certain reality can exist. Put bluntly, they can in general terms represent the interests of the antagonistic classes and class factions or the special interests of the social strata, which want to bring these to bear within the class conflicts. And because of this reality the antagonism of the basic classes can emerge ultimately - despite all the obstacles and duplicitous manoevres of the system. I say 'can', because there are bourgeois countries (the USA, Great Britain, West Germany etc.) in which the political development of the class struggles fail to go beyond the threshold of parliamentary representation: the parliamentary antagonisms are in these cases only very distant, even completely distorted indicators of the real class antagonisms. The bourgeoisie is here completely among its own kind, protected by a parliamentary system, which goes round in circles or simply marks time. However it can occur, that the economic and political class struggle of the working class gains such a degree of power, that the bourgeoisie has to fear 'the judgement of universal suffrage' (France, Italy), although even here it has considerable means at its disposal, whereby it can reverse or neutralise this judgement. One only has to think of the chamber of representatives during the popular front in France: the bourgeoisie needed only two years to break its majority, before handing it over with their own agreement to Petain. 注意到在各个政党背后可能存在着某种现实是非常重要的。坦率地讲,它们大体上能代表各个敌对阶级和阶级派别的利益,或某个社会阶层的特殊利益,在阶级冲突中他们会充分地利用这些利益。而且正因为存在这些现实,最低阶级的对抗性最终能够呈现出来――不论这一制度体系有多少干扰和两面派的手段。我之所以用“能够”,是因为在一些资产阶级国家(美国、英国、联邦德国等)中阶级斗争的政治发展无法超出议会代表制的极限:议会的对抗性在这些情况下是非常冷漠的,甚至完全扭曲了真实存在的阶级反抗性。资产阶级受议会制度的保护,完全是在它们自身内部绕圈子,只是在踏步不前。无论情况如何,工人阶级在经济上和政治上所开展的阶级斗争都会获得一定程度的权力,这样,资产阶级就必然会害怕“普选权的判断力”(如法国和意大利),即使它们有相当多的支配手段,借此可以颠倒这些判断或让这些判断失效。我们必须想一想法国人民阵线时期的代表议院:资产阶级在将议院移交给自己与贝当(Petain)签订的协定之前,仅用两年之间便拆散了议院中大多数代表。 I mean by this, that if one confronts the 'principles' of the parliamentary regime with the facts and the results, no-one can doubt its ideological character.


Every bourgeois ideology - from juridical ideology via the philosophical ideology which has been disseminated over centuries to moral ideology - asserts the following 'evidence' of 'human rights': that every individual has the freedom in politics to choose both his ideas and his camp (his party); above all it asserts the underlying idea of this 'evidence', which is ultimately only a delusion, namely that every society is composed of individuals (Marx: 'Society does not consist of individuals', but of classes which are involved in the class struggle) and that the general will (volonté générale) proceeds from the ballot boxes in a majority system of voting; finally that it is this general will, represented by the parties' members of parliament, which determines the politics of the nation, whereas the latter in reality only ever represents the politics of one class, namely the ruling class.

每一种资产阶级的意识形态――从司法意识形态经由几个世纪以来所传播的哲学意识形态再到道德意识形态――都声称具有下列各项拥有“人权”的“证据”:每个人在政治上都有选择他的意见和他的阵营(他的党派)的自由;尤其声称这种“证据”潜在的观念――这最终只是一种错觉,即每个社会是由许多个人构成的(马克思:“社会不是由单个的人所组成的”,而是由卷入阶级斗争的各个阶级构成的),而且普遍的意志(volonté générale) 来自有大多数人参与投票的投票箱;最后,正是这种由党派议员所代表的普遍意志决定着国家政治,尽管后者实际上只代表一个阶级,即统治阶级的政治。

It is all too obvious that this political ideology is an element of the ruling ideology and corresponds to it completely: it can be found everywhere in bourgeois ideology (even though the latter has been in the process of changing itself in the last ten years). And this is hardly surprising, if one knows that the 'matrix' of this ruling ideology is juridical ideology, which is indispensable for the mode of functioning of bourgeois law. If one is able to find one's way everywhere, this means that one is dealing with the ruling ideology. And from this constant reciprocal reference from one piece of 'evidence' to the next - from the 'evidence' of juridical ideology to the 'evidence' of moral ideology, from the latter to the 'evidence' of philosophical ideology, and from there to the 'evidence' of political ideology - each piece of ideological 'evidence' receives its direct confirmation, in order to force itself upon every single individual through the various practices of the ISAs. This ideology of the human rights of freedom and equality (the freedom to choose one's ideas and one's representatives, equality before the ballot box) has finally produced - and not because of the power of the 'ideas', but as a result of the class struggle - that ideological apparatus, in which the political ideology of human rights was able to assume a definite form. Consequently it has become for all but Marxist critics 'evidence' which is accepted by the electorate or at least a majority of the electorate without apparent coercion. We are definitely dealing with an apparatus here, since it presupposes a complete material and regimented set of devices - from the eIectoral roll, the ballot paper and the voting booth to the election campaigns and to the resulting parliaments. But we are also definitely dealing with an ideological apparatus, since it functions without force, 'quite on its own', 'on the basis of the ideology' of its actors, who accept the rules and practice them, in that they respect them; for they are convinced that one has to 'do one's duty as a voter' and that this is completely 'normal. Submission and consensus coincide here. This 'evidence', asserted by bourgeois ideology, is accepted by the voters as 'evidence': they regard themselves as voters and participate in the system. They 'keep to the rules of the game.

非常明显,这样的政治意识形态成了占统治地位的意识形态的构成要素,并且与后者完全一致:在资产阶级的意识形态中随处可见这种意识形态(尽管资产阶级的意识形态在最近十年一直处在变化过程当中)。如果人们知道这种占统治地位的意识形态的“母体”是司法意识形态,后者对于资产阶级法律发挥作用的方式是绝对必要的,就会对此一点也不感到惊讶。如果一个人在所到之处都可以找到自己的出路,这就意味着这个人在应付占统治地位的意识形态。从这种连续不断地从一条“证据”向另一条证据的相互参照――从司法意识形态的“证据”到道德意识形态的“证据”,再从后者到哲学意识形态的“证据”, 以及从那里到政治意识形态的“证据”――当中,每一条意识形态的“证据”都得到了直接的证实,以便通过各种各样的ISA实践将自身强加给每一位个体。拥有自由和平等的人权(自由选择自己的观点和代表,在投票箱前的平等权)这种意识形态最终会生产出――原因并不是“观念”的力量,而是阶级斗争产生的结果――各种意识形态机器,在这些意识形态机器当中,有于人权的政治意识形态可以呈现出一种明确的形式。因此,对于除马克思主义者之外的所有批评家来说,在没有明显强迫的情况下,它已经成为被选民接受或至少为大多数选民接受的“证据”。我们在此明确讨论的一种机器,预先拥有完善的材料和有组织的策略――从选举名单、选票、投票亭到竞选活动再到因此产生的国会。但我们也在明确地讨论意识形态机器,是由于不是以暴力、“相当独立地”、“依据”其参与者的“意识形态”来发挥作用,这些人接受规则并且实践这些规则,因为他们尊敬这些规则;因为他们确信一个人必须“履行自己作为一个选民的责任”,而且这是完全“正常的”。服从和同意在此是一致的。资产阶级意识形态声称的这种“证据”,被选民当作“证据”而接受:他们将他们自己视为选民而且参与这一制度。他们“遵循这些游戏规则”。

If this analysis is correct, it follows that one can in no way maintain - as some have done 'precipitously', in order to pin me down to a theory which would exclude any possibility of revolutionary action - that all parties, and that includes the parties of the working class, would each represent as parties ideological state apparatuses, which were integrated into the system and therefore incapable of conducting their class struggle.


If that which I have said is true, then the opposite follows, namely the existence of political parties does not only not exclude the class struggle, but is based upon it. And if the bourgeoisie is constantly trying to exercise its ideological and political hegemony over the parties of the working class, then this too is a form of the class struggle, and the bourgeoisie only succeeds in the degree to which the working class parties are taken in by it; this either occurs by their leaders being intimidated (the 'Burgfrieden' of 1914-1918)4 [See Pecheux (1982:165-70)]or simply being 'bought off', or by part of the mass base of the working class parties being diverted from its revolutionary task by material advantages (worker aristocracy) or yielding to the pressure of bourgeois ideology (revisionism).

如果我所说的是事实,那么就会推出相反的情况,即政党的存在不但不排除阶级斗争,而且依据阶级斗争而存在。如果资产阶级坚持不懈地试图行使他们在意识形态和政治上对于工人阶级政党的领导权,那么这也是一种阶级斗争的形式,资产阶级只有在工人阶级政党被它欺骗的条件下才能取得成功;这种情况要么发生在它们的领导被胁迫(如1914-1918 的“城堡和平”['Burgfrieden]') [i]或完全被“收买”的时候,或者通过提供物质利益使得构成工人阶级政党的一些群众基础偏离革命目标(工人贵族),或者屈服于资产阶级意识形态的压力(修正主义)。

?? These effects of the class struggle become even clearer, if one looks at the revolutionary working class parties themselves, e.g. the communist parties. Since these are organizations of the workers' class struggle they are totally opposed in principle to the interests of the bourgeois class and their political system (in principle; because even they can slide into reformism and revisionism. Their ideology (on the basis of which they recruit their members) stands in an antagonistic relationship to bourgeois ideology. Their organizational form (democratic centralism) differs from that of the bourgeois parties and even that of the social-democratic and socialist parties. Their aim is not to limit their action to parliamentary competition, but to extend the class struggle to the whole working class, from economics to politics and ideology, and in forms of action which are their own and naturally have nothing in common with placing a ballot paper in a ballot box every five years. Conducting the proletarian class struggle in all areas and far beyond parliament - that is the task of a communist party. Its actual task is not to 'participate' in government, but to overturn and destroy bourgeois state power.


?? One needs to stress this point particularly, since most western European communist parties describe themselves today as 'parties of government'. Even if they do occasionally participate in government (and it can be correct to do this under certain given conditions) a communist party can under no circumstances be defined as a 'party of government'-- whether one is dealing with a government under the dominant control of the bourgeois class or with a government under the dominant control of the proletarian class ('dictatorship of the proletariat').


?? This point is of decisive significance; for a communist party can never enter the government of a bourgeois state, in order to 'administer' the affairs of a bourgeois state (even if this government is a left-wing government of popular unity, and committed to carrying through democratic reforms). At most it enters government, in order to strengthen the class struggle and in order to prepare the overthrow of the bourgeois state. But it can also not enter a government of the dictatorship of the proletariat with the assumption, that it is its actual task to 'administer' the affairs of this state, even though it bas to prepare its withering away and its demise. For if it devotes all its powers to this 'administration', i.e. if in practical terms the party fuses with the state - as can be observed in the countries of Eastern Europe -- it will not be able to contribute to its destruction. A communist party can therefore under no circumstances behave as an ordinary 'party of government', since being a party of government would mean being a state party, which either means, that one serves the bourgeois state, or that one perpetuates the state of the dictatorship of the proletariat, even though the whole point is to contribute to its destruction.


?? It can be seen that if a revolutionary party lays claim to its firm place in the political ideological apparatus, in order to allow the echo of the class struggle to be heard in parliament, and even if it 'participates' in government, because the conditions are favorable for the furtherance of the class struggle, it is defined neither by its place in the elected parliament nor by the ideology realized in the bourgeois political ideological state apparatus. In truth a communist party has a completely different 'political praxis' from the bourgeois parties.


?? A bourgeois party has at its disposal the resources and the support of the respective bourgeoisie, of its economic domination, its exploitation, its state apparatus, its ideological state apparatus etc. In order to exist, it does not at first need to unite the masses in order to win them over to its ideas: it is above all the social order of the bourgeoisie itself which takes on this task of persuasion, of propaganda and advertising and which secures the mass base for the bourgeois parties. For the bourgeoisie, the political and ideological assault is so reliable and so long established, that 'normally' the electoral decisions follow virtually automatically apart from the variation relating to the parties and the various factions of the bourgeoisie. As a rule it is sufficient for the bourgeois parties to organize their electoral campaign well, by mobilising themselves effectively at short notice, in order to reap the benefits of that domination, which presents itself as a choice of convictions. For this reason a bourgeois party doesn't need a scientific theory at all or a firm doctrine, in order to survive: it is sufficient merely to have a few ideas which it derives from the fund of the ruling ideology, in order to win supporters, who from the outset - for reasons of interest or fear - are convinced. In contrast a workers' party can offer its members nothing: neither sinecures nor material benefits, such as the bourgeois parties employ simply to buy off their clients in case they should be hesitant in their support. A workers' party presents itself as that which it is: an organization of the proletarian class struggle, whose only strength is the class instinct of the exploited, a scientific theory and the voluntary status of its members, committed on the basis of their recognition of the party statutes. It organizes its members in order to conduct the class struggle in all its forms: economically (in conjunction with the trade union organizations), politically and ideologically. It defines its party line and its praxis not on the basis of the mere revolt of the exploited workers, but on the basis of the balance of power between the classes, which it analyses in a concrete way with the aid of the principles of its scientific theory which is enriched by the whole experience of the class struggle. Thus it considers in every respect the forms and the strength of the class struggle of the ruling class, not only on a national scale but also on a world scale. On the basis of this 'line' it can consider it both useful and 'correct' to enter a left-wing government at a particular juncture, in order to conduct its class struggle within it and with its own goals. In each case, however, it subordinates the immediate interests of the movement to the long term interests of the working class.//It subordinates its tactics to the strategy of communism, i.e. to the strategy of the classless society. These at least are the 'principles.


?? Under these conditions communists talk rightly of their party as 'a new type of party' which differs completely from the bourgeois parties, and of themselves as 'new types of fighters', who differ completely from bourgeois politicians. The political practice - whether illegal or legal, whether parliamentary or 'extra-parliamentary' - has nothing in common with bourgeois political practice.


?? One will naturally say now that the communist party too organizes itself - like all the parties - on the basis of an ideology, which it describes as proletarian ideology. This is certain. Even for the communist party, ideology plays the role of the 'cement' (Gramsci) of a certain social group, which unifies it in its thinking and in its practices. In its case as well, this ideology 'addresses the individuals as subjects', or more exactly as combatant-subjects: one only needs to have some concrete experience of a communist party to recognize this mechanism and this dynamic, which in principle seals the fate of the individual no less than any other ideology, if one considers the 'game' and the contradictions between the various ideologies. But that which one defines as the proletarian ideology, is not the purely 'spontaneous' ideology of the proletariat, within which the proletarian 'elements' (Lenin) are combined with bourgeois elements and are frequently subordinated to these. For in order to exist as a class which is conscious of its oneness and active in its fighting organizations, the proletariat doesn't just need experience (that of the class struggle which it has conducted for more than a century), but also objective knowledge, the principles of which are supplied by Marxist theory. On the double foundation of these experiences, illuminated by Marxist theory, the proletarian ideology constitutes itself as a mass ideology, which is able to unify the avantgarde of the working class in its organizations of class struggle. It is therefore a very particular ideology: it is definitely an ideology, since it functions on the level of the masses like any ideology (in that it addresses the individuals as subjects), but at the same time it is imbued with historical experiences which are illuminated by the scientific principles of analysis. As it presents itself, it is one of the forms of the fusion of the labor movement with Marxist theory, a fusion which does not proceed without tensions or contradictions; for a form of unity between proletarian ideology, as it exists at any given time, and the party, within which it is realized, can exist - but it is a form which is obscure to Marxist theory' itself, even though it itself is covered by this unity. Marxist theory is here employed in the sense of a mere textual authority, i.e. as a sign of recognition or as a dogma; in marginal instances it may even disappear quite simply in favor of a pragmatic and sectarian ideology which only serves party and state interests, even though it is proclaimed as the theory of the party. No extensive deliberations are necessary here to recognize the present situation of those parties characterized by the Stalin-period, and to draw the conclusion that 'proletarian ideology' is the application of a class struggle which concerns the proletariat in its own principles of unity and action, if ruling bourgeois ideology and bourgeois political practice insinuates itself into the organizations of the proletarian class struggle.

有人现在自然会说共产党也会像所有的政党一样,依据那种被描述为无产阶级意识形态的意识形态来组织它自身。这是肯定的。即使对于共产党来说,意识形态也扮演一种将某种社会团体凝聚在一起的“粘合剂”(Gramsci) 的角色,它在思想和实践上统一这个党。同样,在这种情况下,这种意识形态“将个人当作主体”或者更确切地说当作战斗的主体“来呼唤”:人们只需要拥有一些有关共产党的具体经验去认识这种机制和动力,后者大致上与其它的意识形态一样注定了个体的命运,如果人们考虑到这种“竞赛”以及各种意识形态之间存在的矛盾的话。但是被人们定义为无产阶级意识形态的东西,并不是纯粹“自发的”无产阶级意识形态,无产阶级的“因素”(列宁)在其中与资产阶级的因素是结合在一起的,而且是常常要服从后者的。为了作为一个意识到自己整体性并能在战斗组织中积极行动的阶级而存在,无产阶级不仅仅需要经验(阶级斗争在一百多年以来所从事过的),还需要客观的知识和马克思主义理论所提供的指导原则。依据马克思主义理论对这些经验所阐明的双重基础,无产阶级的意识形态将自身构造成大众的意识形态,后者能够在阶级斗争的组织当中将无产阶级的先锋队统一起来。因此它是一种非常特殊的意识形态:它无疑是一种意识形态,因为它和所有其它的意识形态相像(即将个体唤做主体),都是在群众层面上发挥作用,但同时又深受经由科学的分析原则所启示的历史经验的影响。它本身所展现出来的东西,是一种将马克思主义理论与工人运动相熔合的方式,而这种熔合在没有紧张冲突或矛盾的情况下就不能继续;目的在于让一种将无产阶级的意识形态(存在于任何假定的时刻)与党(在其内部这种意识形态被付诸实行)相统一的形式能够出现――但是即使这种形式自身被裹上了统一的外衣,对于马克思主义理论本身来说它依然是模糊不清的。马克思主义理论在此仅仅被作为一种文本权威,即作为一种常识的符号或一种教条来使用;在少数的例证中,为了支持一种只为党和国家利益而效忠的实用的和宗派主义的意识形态――即使它被宣称为政党的理论,马克思主义理论甚至完全消失了。并不需要太多的思考,就能看清那些有斯大林时代特征的政党当前的处境,并且就可以得出如下的结论,即,如果处于统治地位的资产阶级的意识形态和资产阶级的政治实践逐渐渗入无产阶级斗争的各种组织时,“无产阶级的意识形态”是阶级斗争的运用,后者关系到无产阶级坚持自身统一性和行动的诸种原则。

An ideology: certainly. But proletarian ideology is not just any ideology. For every class recognizes itself in a specific and by no means gratuitous ideology, namely in that which is anchored in its strategic practice and is capable of unifying and directing its class struggle. We know that the feudal class recognized itself, for reasons which one would have to analyse, in religious ideology in just this way, and that the bourgeois class in like manner recognized itself in juridical ideology - at least in the period of its classical dominion and before the latest developments of imperialism. The working class recognizes itself for its part -- even if it is susceptible to elements of religious, moral and juridical ideology -- above all in an ideology of a political character: not in bourgeois political ideology (of class domination), but in the proletarian political ideology of the class struggle which envisages the abolition of classes and the establishment of communism. It is precisely this ideology, which initially assumed spontaneous forms (utopian socialism) and later was further developed by the fusion of the labor movement and Marxist theory, which is the 'heart' of proletarian ideology.//////////


It is self-evident that such an ideology was not the result of instruction which individual 'intellectuals' (Marx and Engels) might have given the labor movement, whereby the latter would have accepted this ideology because it recognized itself in it: for then one would have to explain, how bourgeois intellectuals had been able to perform such a miracle: a finely tailored theory for the proletariat. It is also not something, as Kautsky thought, which was 'carried into' the working class, since Marx and Engels would not have been able to develop their theory, if they had not based it on theoretical class positions, which were a direct result of their organic relationship to the labor movement of their time. In reality Marxist theory may have been conceived by intellectuals with a colossal knowledge, but this occurred within the labor movement and from its innermost core. Machiavelli said that one 'needed to be the people to understand the prince.' An intellectual who is not born in the people, has to become the people, in order to understand the princes, and he can only do this if he participates in the people's struggles. This is what Marx did: he became 'the organic intellectual of the proletariat' (Gramsci), by fighting in their organizations, and it was only on the basis of the political and theoretical positions of the proletariat that he was able to 'grasp' what capital was. The false question of the external injection of Marxist theory thus becomes the question of the dissemination of a theory within the labor movement, which was conceived within the labor movement. Naturally this 'dissemination" is the result of a very long class struggle with numerous unforeseen events - and it continues today despite dramatic splits which are determined by the class struggle of imperialism.

显而易见,这种意识形态不是个别“知识分子”(马克思和恩格斯)对劳工运动的指示所带来的结果,劳工运动之所以会接受这种意识形态是因为它在这个运动当中认识到了自身的存在:为此人们必须解释为什么资产阶级的知识分子可以完成这样一个奇迹:即为无产阶级提供了如此精心裁制的理论。这种理论也不是像考茨基(Kautsky)所认为的那种被“带进”工人阶级当中的东西,因为马克思和恩格斯如果没有将自己的理论建基于理论的阶级立场之上,就不可能发展他们的理论,而这种阶级立场是他们与他们时代的劳工运动结成的有机联系所产生的直接结果。事实上,马克思主义理论可能是由知识分子通过大量的知识构想出来的,但这种构想是在劳工运动内部并且是从它最内在的核心部位发生的。马基雅维利说过,人们“为了理解君王需要成为人民。” 一个知识分子并不是生下来就是人民,为了理解君王,他必须变成人民,而且只有他参加了人民斗争他才能做到这一点。这就是马克思所做的事:通过在无产阶级的组织中进行斗争,他变成了“无产阶级的有机知识分子”(葛兰西),而且,只有以无产阶级的政治和理论立场作为基础,他才能“理解”资本是什么。马克思主义理论从外部注入劳工运动这样一个假问题因此变成了在劳工运动当中传播理论的问题,而且这一问题也是在劳工运动当中孕育成形的。这种“传播”当然是由许多偶然事件构成的长期的阶级斗争的结果――而且,尽管现在出现了由帝国主义的阶级斗争决定的显著的分裂,这种斗争还在依然继续。

?? To summarize the essential parts of this analysis of the character of the revolutionary party, one can take up again the thesis of the primacy of the class struggle concerning the state apparatus and the ideological state apparatuses. Formally a party like the communist parry can appear like any other party, as soon as it has the right to be represented in parliament by means of elections. Formally it can give the impression of adhering to the 'rules of play' of the political ideological state apparatus, if it appears in parliament or even 'participates' in a government of popular unity. Formally it can even give the impression of confirming these 'rules of play' and with them the whole ideological system which is realized in them: that is the bourgeois ideological system. The history of the labor movement presents us with enough examples of a revolutionary party 'playing and actually losing the game', and giving up the class struggle in favor of class collaboration under the pressure of ruling bourgeois ideology. The 'formal' can, under the influence of the class struggle, thus become the 'real.


?? This ever-present risk reminds us of the pre-condition to which the formation of the labor movement was bound: the supremacy of the bourgeois class struggle over the proletarian class struggle. One has the wrong idea of class struggle, if one thinks that it is only the result of the revolt of the working class against social injustice, inequality or even capitalist exploitation, in a word if one reduces the class struggle to the proletarian class struggle under given conditions of exploitation and then to the response of the bourgeoisie to this struggle. That would mean forgetting that the conditions of exploitation are primary and that the process of the formation of the conditions of exploitation of the proletariat is the basic form of the bourgeois class struggle, and thus that exploitation is itself already class struggle and that the bourgeois class struggle is primary. The whole history of primitive accumulation can be seen as the production of the working class by the bourgeois class - in a class struggle which produces capitalist conditions of exploitation.


?? If this thesis is correct, then one can quite clearly see why the bourgeois class struggle dominates the proletarian class struggle from the outset and why the proletarian class struggle has needed so long to take shape and to find its own forms of existence, why the class struggle is fundamentally unequal, why it is not conducted using the same practices on the part of the bourgeoisie and the proletariat and why the bourgeoise has engendered forms in the ideological state apparatuses, whose task it is to preempt the revolutionary action of the working class and to subordinate this class.


?? The great strategic demand of the working class for autonomy expresses this condition. By being subordinated to the rule of the bourgeois state and to the intimidatory effect and the 'evidence' of ruling ideology, the working class can only force through its demand for autonomy, if it frees itself from the ruling ideology, demarcates itself from it, in order to give itself forms of organization and action, which realize its own ideology -proletarian ideology. The particular thing about this break, about this radical demarcation is that it can only be achieved in a long drawn-out struggle, which is forced to take account of the forms of bourgeois rule and to combat the bourgeoisie within its own forms of rule, without ever being taken in by these forms, which are not just neutral 'forms', but apparatuses which realize the existence of the ruling ideology.//////


As I said in my postscript of 1970: 'For if it is true that the ISAs represent the form in which the ideology of the ruling class must necessarily be realized, and the form in which the ideology of the ruled class must necessarily be measured and confronted, ideologies are not "born" in the ISAs but from the social classes at grips in the class struggle: from their conditions of existence, their practices, their experience of the struggle etc. '//

就像我在1970年所写的(有关“意识形态与意识形态国家机器”的)后记中所说的:“因为,如果 ISAs真的代表了统治阶级的意识形态必然由以得到实现的形式,代表了被统治阶级的意识形态必然由以被调控和对抗的形式,那么,各种意识形态就不是从ISAs 当中“出生”的,而是来自在阶级斗争中搏斗着的各社会阶级:来自他们的生存条件、他们的实践、他们的斗争经验,等等。”

The conditions of existence, the (productive and political) practices and the forms of the proletarian class struggle have nothing in common with the conditions of existence, the (economic and political) practices and the forms of the capitalist and imperialist class struggle. From this antagonistic ideologies emerge, which, like the class struggles (of the bourgeoisie and the proletariat), are unequal and dissimilar. This means that proletarian ideology is not the direct opposite, the reverse, the inverse of bourgeois ideology, - but a quite different ideology with quite different 'values': 'critical and revolutionary. And, despite all the vicissitudes of its history, because it is already the bearer of these values, which are already realized in the organizations and practices of the workers' struggle, proletarian ideology prefigures part of that which the ideological state apparatuses of socialist transition will be, and thereby also prefigures something of the abolition of the state and of the abolition of the ideological state apparatuses under communism.////////



December 1976



??????? Translated from the German (Althusser,1977:154--68) by Jeremy Leaman.//


Jeremy Leaman 译自德语版(Althusser,1977:154--68)。

批判的知识 http://www.leftlibrary.com)收藏