Anti Fascists

"认识这种情形，极为重要。它使我们懂得，在阶级社会中，革命和革命战争是不可避免的，舍此不能完成社会发展的飞跃，不能推翻反动的统治阶级，而使人民获得政权。共产党人必须揭露反动派所谓社会革命是不必要的和不可能的等等欺骗的宣传，坚持马克思列宁主义的社会革命论，使人民懂得，这不但是完全必要的，而且是完全可能的，整个人类的历史和苏联的胜利，都证明了这个科学的真理。"

"一切矛盾着的东西，互相联系着，不但在一定条件之下共处于一个统一体中，而且在一定条件之下互相转化，这就是矛盾的同一性的全部意义。列宁所谓“怎样成为同一的（怎样变成同一的），——在怎样的条件之下它们互相转化，成为同一的”，就是这个意思。"

"当着某一件事情（任何事情都是一样）要做，但是还没有方针、方法、计划或政策的时候，确定方针、方法、计划或政策，也就是主要的决定的东西。当着政治文化等等上层建筑阻碍着经济基础的发展的时候，对于政治上和文化上的革新就成为主要的决定的东西了。我们这样说，是否违反了唯物论呢？没有。因为我们承认总的历史发展中是物质的东西决定精神的东西，是社会的存在决定社会的意识；但是同时又承认而且必须承认精神的东西的反作用，社会意识对于社会存在的反作用，上层建筑对于经济基础的反作用。这不是违反唯物论，正是避免了机械唯物论，坚持了辩证唯物论。"

"不能把过程中所有的矛盾平均看待，必须把它们区别为主要的和次要的两类，着重于捉住主要的矛盾，已如上述。但是在各种矛盾之中，不论是主要的或次要的，矛盾着的两个方面，又是否可以平均看待呢？也是不可以的。无论什么矛盾，矛盾的诸方面，其发展是不平衡的。有时候似乎势均力敌，然而这只是暂时的和相对的情形，基本的形态则是不平衡。矛盾着的两方面中，必有一方面是主要的，他方面是次要的。其主要的方面，即所谓矛盾起主导作用的方面。事物的性质，主要地是由取得支配地位的矛盾的主要方面所规定的。"

"由此可知，任何过程如果有多数矛盾存在的话，其中必定有一种是主要的，起着领导的、决定的作用，其它则处于次要和服从的地位。因此，研究任何过程，如果是存在着两个以上矛盾的复杂过程的话，就要用全力找出它的主要矛盾。捉住了这个主要矛盾，一切问题就迎刃而解了。这是马克思研究资本主义社会告诉我们的方法。列宁和斯大林研究帝国主义和资本主义总危机的时候，列宁和斯大林研究苏联经济的时候，也告诉了这种方法。万千的学问家和实行家，不懂得这种方法，结果如堕烟海，找不到中心，也就找不到解决矛盾的方法。"

"不同质的矛盾，只有用不同质的方法才能解决。"

"为要暴露事物发展过程中的矛盾在其总体上、在其相互联结上的特殊性，就是说暴露事物发展过程的本质，就必须暴露过程中矛盾各方面的特殊性，否则暴露过程的本质成为不可能，这也是我们作研究工作时必须十分注意的。"

"党内不同思想的对立和斗争是经常发生的，这是社会的阶级矛盾和新旧事物的矛盾在党内的反映。党内如果没有矛盾和解决矛盾的思想斗争，党的生命也就停止了。"

"人的概念的每一差异，都应把它看作是客观矛盾的反映。客观矛盾反映入主观的思想，组成了概念的矛盾运动，推动了思想的发展，不断地解决了人们的思想问题。"

"原来矛盾着的各方面，不能孤立地存在。假如没有和它作对的矛盾的一方，它自己这一方就失去了存在的条件。"

"按照唯物辩证法的观点，自然界的变化，主要地是由于自然界内部矛盾的发展。社会的变化，主要地是由于社会内部矛盾的发展，即生产力和生产关系的矛盾，阶级之间的矛盾，新旧之间的矛盾，由于这些矛盾的发展，推动了社会的前进，推动了新旧社会的代谢。唯物辩证法是否排除外部的原因呢？并不排除。唯物辩证法认为外因是变化的条件，内因是变化的根据，外因通过内因而起作用。鸡蛋因得适当的温度而变化为鸡子，但温度不能使石头变为鸡子，因为二者的根据是不同的。各国人民之间的互相影响是时常存在的。在资本主义时代，特别是在帝国主义和无产阶级革命的时代，各国在政治上、经济上和文化上的互相影响和互相激动，是极其巨大的。十月社会主义革命不只是开创了俄国历史的新纪元，而且开创了世界历史的新纪元，影响到世界各国内部的变化，同样地而且还特别深刻地影响到中国内部的变化，但是这种变化是通过了各国内部和中国内部自己的规律性而起的。两军相争，一胜一败，所以胜败，皆决于内因。"

"和形而上学的宇宙观相反，唯物辩证法的宇宙观主张从事物的内部、从一事物对他事物的关系去研究事物的发展，即把事物的发展看做是事物内部的必然的自己的运动，而每一事物的运动都和它的周围其它事物互相联系着和互相影响着。事物发展的根本原因，不是在事物的外部而是在事物的内部，在于事物内部的矛盾性。任何事物内部都有这种矛盾性，因此引起了事物的运动和发展。事物内部的这种矛盾性是事物发展的根本原因，一事物和他事物的互相联系和互相影响则是事物发展的第二位的原因。这样，唯物辩证法就有力地反对了形而上学的机械唯物论和庸俗进化论的外因论或被动论。这是清楚的，单纯的外部原因只能引起事物的机械的运动，即范围的大小，数量的增减，不能说明事物何以有性质上的千差万别及其互相变化。"

"通过实践而发现真理，又通过实践而证实真理和发展真理。从感性认识而能动地发展到理性认识，又从理性认识而能动地指导革命实践，改造主观世界和客观世界。实践、认识、再实践、再认识，这种形式，循环往复以至无穷，而实践和认识之每一循环的内容，都比较地进到了高一级的程度。这就是辩证唯物论的全部认识论，这就是辩证唯物论的知行统一观。"

"如果有了正确的理论，只是把它空谈一阵，束之高阁，并不实行，那末，这种理论再好也是没有意义的。认识从实践始，经过实践得到了理论的认识，还须再回到实践去。认识的能动作用，不但表现于从感性的认识到理性的认识之能动的飞跃，更重要的还须表现于从理性的认识到革命的实践这一个飞跃。抓着了世界的规律性的认识，必须把它再回到改造世界的实践中去，再用到生产的实践、革命的阶级斗争和民族斗争的实践以及科学实验的实践中去。"

"常常听到一些同志在不能勇敢接受工作任务时说出来的一句话：没有把握。为什么没有把握呢？因为他对于这项工作的内容和环境没有规律性的了解，或者他从来就没有接触过这类工作，或者接触得不多，因而无从谈到这类工作的规律性。及至把工作的情况和环境给以详细分析之后，他就觉得比较地有了把握，愿意去做这项工作。如果这个人在这项工作中经过了一个时期，他有了这项工作的经验了，而他又是一个肯虚心体察情况的人，不是一个主观地、片面地、表面地看问题的人，他就能够自己做出应该怎样进行工作的结论，他的工作勇气也就可以大大地提高了。只有那些主观地、片面地和表面地看问题的人，跑到一个地方，不问环境的情况，不看事情的全体（事情的历史和全部现状），也不触到事情的本质（事情的性质及此一事情和其他事情的内部联系），就自以为是地发号施令起来，这样的人是没有不跌交子的。"

"马克思列宁主义认为：认识过程中两个阶段的特性，在低级阶段，认识表现为感性的，在高级阶段，认识表现为论理的，但任何阶段，都是统一的认识过程中的阶段。感性和理性二者的性质不同，但又不是互相分离的，它们在实践的基础上统一起来了。我们的实践证明：感觉到了的东西，我们不能立刻理解它，只有理解了的东西才更深刻地感觉它。感觉只解决现象问题，理论才解决本质问题。这些问题的解决，一点也不能离开实践。无论何人要认识什么事物，除了同那个事物接触，即生活于（实践于）那个事物的环境中，是没有法子解决的。不能在封建社会就预先认识资本主义社会的规律，因为资本主义还未出现，还无这种实践。马克思主义只能是资本主义社会的产物。马克思不能在自由资本主义时代就预先具体地认识帝国主义时代的某些特异的规律，因为帝国主义这个资本主义最后阶段还未到来，还无这种实践，只有列宁和斯大林才能担当此项任务。马克思、恩格斯、列宁、斯大林之所以能够作出他们的理论，除了他们的天才条件之外，主要地是他们亲自参加了当时的阶级斗争和科学实验的实践，没有这后一个条件，任何天才也是不能成功的。"

"马克思主义的哲学辩证唯物论有两个最显著的特点：一个是它的阶级性，公然申明辩证唯物论是为无产阶级服务的；再一个是它的实践性，强调理论对于实践的依赖关系，理论的基础是实践，又转过来为实践服务。判定认识或理论之是否真理，不是依主观上觉得如何而定，而是依客观上社会实践的结果如何而定。真理的标准只能是社会的实践。实践的观点是辩证唯物论的认识论之第一的和基本的观点。"

"人们要想得到工作的胜利即得到预想的结果，一定要使自己的思想合于客观外界的规律性，如果不合，就会在实践中失败。人们经过失败之后，也就从失败取得教训，改正自己的思想使之适合于外界的规律性，人们就能变失败为胜利，所谓“失败者成功之母”，“吃一堑长一智”，就是这个道理。"

"人的社会实践，不限于生产活动一种形式，还有多种其他的形式，阶级斗争，政治生活，科学和艺术的活动，总之社会实际生活的一切领域都是社会的人所参加的。因此，人的认识，在物质生活以外，还从政治生活文化生活中（与物质生活密切联系），在各种不同程度上，知道人和人的各种关系。其中，尤以各种形式的阶级斗争，给予人的认识发展以深刻的影响。在阶级社会中，每一个人都在一定的阶级地位中生活，各种思想无不打上阶级的烙印。"

"马克思主义的道理千条万绪，归根结底就是一句话：“造反有理。”"

"Many people think it impossible for guerrillas to exist for long in the enemy's rear. Such a belief reveals lack of comprehension of the relationship that should exist between the people and the troops. The former may be likened to water the latter to the fish who inhabit it. How may it be said that these two cannot exist together?"

"现代战争，非军队可单独胜任之事，尤其是在游击战斗中，必须民众的力量，才能有利的把握。因为有了民众的帮助，则凡关于运输，救护，即不幸失败、也有方法逃脱或收容，因此，民众没有组织和联络的地方，不可轻易作战。不要侦探，扰乱等，有很大的便利，同时可陷敌于孤立的地方，则于我之便利特多。即不幸失败，也有方法逃脱或收容，因此，民众没有组织和联络的地方，不可轻易作战。"

"I knew the Classics, but disliked them. What I enjoyed were the romances of Old China, and especially stories of rebellions. I read the Yo Fei Chuan, Shui Hu Chuan, Fan T'ang, San Kuo, and Hsi Yu Chi, while still very young, and despite the vigilance of my old teacher, who hated these outlawed books and called them wicked. I used to read them in school, covering them up with a Classic when the teacher walked past. So also did most of my schoolmates. We learned many of the stories almost by heart, and discussed and re-discussed them many times. We knew more of them than the old men of the village, who also loved them and used to exchange stories with us. I believe that perhaps I was much influenced by such books, read at an impressionable age."

"鲁迅在中国的价值，据我看要算是中国的第一等圣人。孔夫子是封建社会的圣人，鲁迅则是现代中国的圣人。我们为了永久纪念他，在延安成立了鲁迅图书馆，在延长开办了鲁迅师范学校，使后来的人们可以想见他的伟大。"

"积极防御，又叫攻势防御，又叫决战防御。消极防御，又叫专守防御，又叫单纯防御。消极防御实际上是假防御，只有积极防御才是真防御，才是为了反攻和进攻的防御。据我所知，任何一本有价值的军事书，任何一个比较聪明的军事家，而且无论古今中外，无论战略战术，没有不反对消极防御的。只有最愚蠢的人，或者最狂妄的人，才捧了消极防御当法宝。然而世上偏有这样的人，做出这样的事。"

"我们需要的是热烈而镇定的情绪，紧张而有秩序的工作。"

"江山如此多娇，引无数英雄竞折腰。惜秦皇汉武，略输文采；唐宗宋祖，稍逊风骚。一代天骄，成吉思汗，只识弯弓射大雕。俱往矣，数风流人物，还看今朝。"

"自从帝国主义这个怪物出世之后，世界的事情就联成一气了，要想割开也不可能了。我们中华民族有同自己的敌人血战到底的气概，有在自力更生的基础上光复旧物的决心，有自立于世界民族之林的能力。但是这不是说我们可以不需要国际援助；不，国际援助对于现代一切国家一切民族的革命斗争都是必要的。古人说：“春秋无义战。”于今帝国主义则更加无义战，只有被压迫民族和被压迫阶级有义战。全世界一切由人民起来反对压迫者的战争，都是义战。"

"马克思主义者看问题，不但要看到部分，而且要看到全体。一个虾蟆坐在井里说：“天有一个井大。”这是不对的，因为天不止一个井大。如果它说：“天的某一部分有一个井大。”这是对的，因为合乎事实。我们说，红军在一个方面（保持原有阵地的方面）说来是失败了，在另一个方面（完成长征计划的方面）说来是胜利了。敌人在一个方面（占领我军原有阵地的方面）说来是胜利了，在另一个方面（实现“围剿”“追剿”计划的方面）说来是失败了。这样说才是恰当的，因为我们完成了长征。"

"Children are the masters of the new society."

"我们三年来从斗争中所得的战术，真是和古今中外的战术都不同。用我们的战术，群众斗争的发动是一天比一天扩大的，任何强大的敌人是奈何我们不得的。我们的战术就是游击的战术。大要说来是：‘分兵以发动群众，集中以应付敌人。’‘敌进我退，敌驻我扰，敌疲我打，敌退我追。’‘固定区域的割据，用波浪式的推进政策。强敌跟追，用盘旋式的打圈子政策。’‘很短的时间，很好的方法，发动很大的群众。’这种战术正如打网，要随时打开，又要随时收拢。打开以争取群众，收拢以应付敌人。三年以来，都是用的这种战术。"

"一九二七年革命失败以后，革命的主观力量确实大为削弱了。剩下的一点小小的力量，若仅依据某些现象来看，自然要使同志们（作这样看法的同志们）发生悲观的念头。但若从实质上看，便大大不然。这里用得着中国的一句老话：“星星之火，可以燎原。”这就是说，现在虽只有一点小小的力量，但是它的发展会是很快的。它在中国的环境里不仅是具备了发展的可能性，简直是具备了发展的必然性，这在五卅运动及其以后的大革命运动已经得了充分的证明。我们看事情必须要看它的实质，而把它的现象只看作入门的向导，一进了门就要抓住它的实质，这才是可靠的科学的分析方法。"

"茫茫九派流中国，沉沉一线穿南北。烟雨莽苍苍，龟蛇锁大江。黄鹤知何去？剩有游人处。把酒酹滔滔，心潮逐浪高！"

"独立寒秋，湘江北去，橘子洲头。看万山红遍，层林尽染；漫江碧透，百舸争流。鹰击长空，鱼翔浅底，万类霜天竞自由。怅寥廓，问苍茫大地，谁主沉浮？"

"中国政府的“阁议”，真是又敏捷又爽快，洋大人打一个屁都是好的“香气”，洋大人要拿棉花去，阁议就把禁棉出口令取消；洋大人要送纸烟来，阁议就“电令各该省停止征收纸烟税”。再请四万万同胞想一想，中国政府是洋大人的账房这句话到底对不对？"

"The strangest mores of the most of-the-way societies will, in spite of everything, be relatively comprehensible to the person who has a flesh-and-blood knowledge of man's needs, anxieties, and hopes. If, on the other hand, this experience is lacking, he will not even be able to understand the customs of those about him."

"Sartre, indeed, blames Christians for the origin of anti-Semitism because they talk of the Jews as the murderers of Jesus. (Yet he destroys the point that he had made by saying in a footnote that Jesus was really killed by the Roman soldiers as an agitator, for, in Sartre's terms, if it could be proved historically that the Jews not the Romans were the actual murderers of Jesus, then anti-Semitism by Christians might be justified.) In his anti-Christianity, Sartre himself appears as the frustrated anti-Semite and treats Christians in accordance with his idea of Christians in general, and not as they are."

"I could see clearly that this problem could only be solved on the individual and personal level; political revolt is irrelevant. Both Camus and Sartre had been neatly hog-tied by their earlier radicalism. Camus came to see that rebellion is a political roundabout that revolves back to the same old tyranny; too ashamed to admit that he had outgrown his leftism, he found himself in an intellectual cul-de-sac. Sartre accused Camus of being a reactionary; but he paid for his own refusal to reexamine his political convictions by congealing into a grotesque attitude of permanent indignation, shaking his fist at some abstract Authority. Where politics is concerned, he seemed determined to be guided by his emotions."

"Marcuse’s forte was as a philosopher. His preoccupation with epistemology and dialectics was typical of a growing trend among Marxist writers seeking to challenge the Marxism that had been customary since 1917. Jean-Paul Sartre, whose early philosophical work was constructed on the basis of ideas drawn from Edmund Husserl and Martin Heidegger, published his Critique of Dialectical Reason in 1964. This was an attempt to bring together Marxism and the existentialist school in philosophy, and – unlike any previous Marxist thinker – Sartre argued for the crucial importance of the ‘autonomous’ and ‘self-conscious’ individual in explaining and justifying social activity. Lucio Colletti in Italy went back to Marx and suggested that Immanuel Kant rather than Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel had exercised the deepest influence on his thought. Colletti’s work was admired by the French communist writer Louis Althusser. But Althusser placed his emphasis elsewhere, acknowledging that some bits of Marx’s work contradicted others. This was an extraordinary admission for a Marxist to make at that time. Althusser claimed that Marxism’s claim to analytical superiority lay in the scientific method and content of Marx’s later writings; he argued that the early corpus lacked the same rigour. Marcuse, Sartre, Colletti and Althusser were style-maestros of turgidity and never tried to rise to the flights of Marx and Engels in their inspired moments. Not one of them would choose a monosyllable if a longer word could be discovered or devised. Their Marxism, if not exactly pessimistic, was cramped and cautious. What is more, they were philosophers writing mainly for other philosophers. Only Marcuse became a genuine favourite of the thousands of students who rebelled in 1968 against ‘bourgeois society’ and university discipline, as well as the American war in Vietnam."

"The nature of Sartre and Beauvoir's partnership was never a secret to their friends, and it was not a secret to the public, either, after they were abruptly launched into celebrity, in 1945. They were famous as a couple with independent lives, who met in cafés, where they wrote their books and saw their friends at separate tables, and were free to enjoy other relationships, but who maintained a kind of soul marriage. Their liaison was part of the mystique of existentialism, and it was extensively documented and coolly defended in Beauvoir's four volumes of memoirs, all of them extremely popular in France: "Memoirs of a Dutiful Daughter" (1958), "The Prime of Life" (1960), "Force of Circumstance" (1963), and "All Said and Done" (1972). Beauvoir and Sartre had no interest in varnishing the facts out of respect for bourgeois notions of decency. Disrespect for bourgeois notions of decency was precisely the point."

"I like [his plays] better than his novels. I am not quite sure how I feel about Jean-Paul Sartre - He has something. But not perhaps enough. ??? WHO HAS? I never get with him that knock on the heart which means That is truth, that is final. That came from au delà. I expect one only gets that from the greatest."

"I also have a great intellectual respect for those who followed him (Husserl), Heidegger in particular, and among my countrymen, men like Paul Ricoeur (who, however, I am still far from trusting), and Mircea Eliade (a great explorer but one who does not want to be a guide, thank goodness. I have none for Jean-Paul Sartre, who seems to me too artful, and who besides (and here he pleases me) would be quite sorry to find himself respected. (Yet I like to imagine him elected to the Academie Fancaise, an honor which he certainly deserves.) But he has offered a testimony we would be quite wrong to neglect."

"The Frenchman Jean-Paul ... Sartre I remember now was — his last name had a dialectical — mind good as a machine for cybernetics, immense in its way, he could peel a nuance like an onion, but he had no sense of evil, the anguish of God, and the possible existence of Satan."

"I did read some Sartre. I probably was in the generation that would have read Sartre anyway. I saw one of his plays, Huis Clos, a good play. He was fashionable, and much talked about in the fifties in America. It was his high days. I realized gradually that I found him in too many ways detestable-the incredible negativity of some of his work... Of course he is out to shock and so on, but I was a very serious twenty-year-old, so I went into rebelling against Sartre, and others of that kind, so that's why I think I was making jokes about him, later on."

"One of the causes of the popularity of Marxism among educated people was the fact that in its simple form it was very easy; even Sartre noticed that Marxists are lazy. Indeed, they enjoyed having one key to open all doors, one universally applicable explanation for everything, an instrument that makes it possible to master all of history and economics without actually having to study either."

"Jean-Paul Sartre called fossil fuels "capital bequeathed to mankind by other living beings"; they are quite literally the decayed remnants of long-dead life-forms. It's not that these substances are evil; it's just that they belong where they are: in the ground, where they are performing valuable ecological functions."

"I don't think that Sartre's worst shortcoming was his failure to see straight in World War II. However, I do think that his political myopia during the occupation years should be understood in the light of his completely apolitical worldview hitherto. This is a man, after all, who managed to live through the 1930s with no apparent political engagement or response of any kind, notwithstanding a year spent in Germany and the remarkable upheaval of the Popular Front in France. There can be no doubt that, in retrospect, Sartre—like many of his friends—felt uneasy about all this. Some of his later moral writings, on the subject of good faith, bad faith, responsibility and the like, are perhaps best understood as retroactive projections of his own bad conscience. However, what has always troubled me about Sartre was his continuing failure to think straight, long after the ambiguities of the 1930s and 1940s had dissipated. Why, after all, did he so insistently refuse to discuss the crimes of communism, even to the extent of remaining conspicuously silent about anti-Semitism in Stalin's last years? The answer, of course, is that he made a deliberate decision not to think of those crimes in ethical terms, or at least in a language which would engage his own ethical commitment. In short, he found ways to avoid a difficult choice—while insistently claiming that avoiding hard choices was precisely the exercise of bad faith which he so famously defined and condemned. It was this unforgivable confusion—or, more bluntly, dissemblance—that I find unacceptable in precisely Sartre's own terms. It is not as though his generation was unusually confused or mystified: Jean-Paul Sartre was born within a year of not just Hannah Arendt but also Arthur Koestler and Raymond Aron. That generation, born around 1905, was without question the most influential intellectual cohort of the century. They reached maturity just as Hitler was coming to power and were drawn willy-nilly into the historical vortex, confronting all the tragic choices of the age with little option but to take sides or have their side chosen for them. After the war, young enough in most cases to avoid the discredit that fell upon their seniors, they exercised precocious intellectual and literary influence, dominating the European (and American) scene for decades to come."

"As a rule, philosophers found Sartre slippery; playwrights thought him didactic. But each supposed him a genius at the other activity."

"The impression I came away with was one of overwhelming nostalgia. Sartre was the Last Intellectual. True, France still has writers on philosophical questions who also march in demonstrations. (One of them, Luc Ferry, has even been made the nation's minister for education.) But there will never again be a combination of totalizing theoretician, literary colossus, and political engagé like Sartre. Today's French intellectuals look like puny technocrats by comparison. Luckily, they proved to be on the winning side of history, so they can afford to be gracious to him, to say, along with de Gaulle, Sartre, c'est aussi la France."

"are we willing to accept Jean-Paul Sartre's definition of Judaism, "anti-semitism makes Jews" (that is, he even denies us the right of self-definition)? Or are there also things about us that have nothing whatsoever to do with the acts and attitudes of others?"