An Analysis of the Limitations of Narrow Western Marxist Research

In the 1920s and 1930s, Lukács, Korsch, and Gramsci primarily defined and “created” Western Marxism from a narrow perspective. In the nearly hundred years since, the research tradition of Western Marxism has not only continued to employ the conceptual interpretation of narrow Western Marxism, but different schools or scholars have also had considerable disagreements over the connotation of the concept of narrow Western Marxism, with very obvious adverse consequences for Marxist theoretical research. For example, defining Western Marxism from a geographical-spatial perspective both distinguishes it from classical Marxism and the Marxism of the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, while also neglecting Marxist theoretical research in countries such as Britain, the United States, and Japan, thereby reinforcing the regional opposition within Marxism. Defining Western Marxism from a temporal-evolutionary perspective, with different appellations such as Neo-Marxism, Post-Marxism, and Marxology, which fundamentally differ from classical Marxism and Soviet orthodox Marxism, provides footnotes for views such as the theory of Marxist error, the theory of obsolescence, and the theory of extinction, and even becomes a “tool” for the decline of Western Marxism itself. Defining Western Marxism from the perspective of research stance, method, and viewpoint, some views explicitly hold non-Marxist or anti-Marxist stances, with a clear methodology of idealism and subjectivism, and the scientificity of their theoretical viewpoints is indeed open to question. Starting from specific research fields, such as equating Western Marxism with research in philosophy, history, literature, and aesthetics, this both violates the principle of the holistic nature of Marxism and increasingly divorces Marxist theoretical research from social reality, resulting in very weak theoretical explanatory power and practical persuasiveness. Based on this, the conceptual connotation of narrow Western Marxism urgently needs to be integrated and expanded. The author attempts in this article to analyze the limitations of narrow Western Marxist research one by one.

20世纪20—30年代，卢卡奇、科尔施和葛兰西等人主要是从狭义角度界定、“创建”了西方马克思主义。此后近百年西方马克思主义的研究传统，不仅继续沿用了狭义西方马克思主义的概念解读，而且不同流派或学者关于狭义西方马克思主义概念内涵的分歧较大，对马克思主义理论研究的不利后果非常明显。例如，从地理空间角度定义西方马克思主义，既与经典马克思主义和苏联东欧的马克思主义相区别，又忽视了英、美、日等国的马克思主义理论研究，强化了马克思主义的地域对立；从时间演化角度定义西方马克思主义，有关新马克思主义、后马克思主义和马克思学等不同的称谓，与经典马克思主义和苏联正统马克思主义存在根本差异，为所谓马克思主义错误论、过时论、消亡论等观点提供了注脚，甚至成为西方马克思主义自身走向衰落的“工具”；从研究立场、方法和观点角度定义西方马克思主义，有些观点明确持有非马克思主义或反马克思主义的立场，唯心主义和主观主义的方法论鲜明，其理论观点的科学性委实有待商榷；从具体研究领域出发，如将西方马克思主义等同于哲学、历史学、文学和美学等方面研究，既违反了马克思主义的整体性原则，又使马克思主义理论研究与社会现实日渐脱节，理论解释力和现实说服力十分薄弱。基于此，狭义西方马克思主义的概念内涵亟待整合与拓展，笔者尝试在本文中对狭义西方马克思主义研究的局限性一一进行剖析。

I. Western Marxism Defined by Geographical Space Reinforces the Regional Barriers of Marxist Research

一、根据地理空间定义的西方马克思主义强化了马克思主义研究的地域阻隔

Narrow Western Marxism, defined from the perspective of natural geographical space, first refers to Marxism in Western European countries, that is, equating Western Marxism with Western European Marxism. For instance, Korsch, who first proposed the concept of Western Marxism, consistently used “Western Marxism” as a synonym for “Western European Marxism.” Anderson, within the context of Western European Marxism, classified Marxist theoretical research achievements from Germany, France, and Italy as falling within the category of Western Marxism, arguing that since the early 1920s, Western Marxism had been mainly concentrated in Germany, France, and Italy, and that outside these countries, “due to the absence of one condition or another, the emergence of a mature Marxist culture was hindered.” He even emphasized that the most typical and prominent region of the Western Marxist tradition was located in southwestern Germany, because this was the birthplace of Adorno and Horkheimer, as well as the place where Lukács lived and grew up, and the influence of German cultural tradition on Lukács far exceeded that of his native Hungary. Anderson and others insisted on the regional characteristics of the concept of Western Marxism, even directly limiting Western Marxism specifically to Germany, France, and Italy. One important reason for this is that people often directly associate Marxism with socialism and communist parties, because “geographically, Marxist thought is concentrated in Germany, France, and Italy, countries with large communist parties.” The Yugoslav scholar Gërkoviq [1]1 A classical Chinese idiom meaning that without the foundation (the skin), the dependent part (the hair) cannot exist. once wrote in the 1980s, arguing that Marxism includes three categories: the Eastern Marxism of the Soviet Union, Eastern Europe, and China; the Third World Marxism of developing countries in Asia, Africa, and Latin America; and Western Marxism. According to his classification method, Western Marxism specifically refers to Marxism in developed capitalist countries of Europe and America. Compared with Korsch and Anderson, the Western Marxism defined by Gërkoviq broke through the geographical boundaries of Western Europe or the three countries of Germany, France, and Italy. However, as an important exploration to broaden Western Marxist research, Gërkoviq’s viewpoint has not yet attracted sufficient attention in academia.

从自然地理空间角度出发界定的狭义西方马克思主义，首先是指西欧国家的马克思主义，也就是把西方马克思主义等同于西欧马克思主义。如首次提出西方马克思主义概念的科尔施，一直把“西方马克思主义”作为“西欧马克思主义”的同义语来使用；安德森在西欧马克思主义语境下，把德国、法国和意大利的马克思主义理论研究成果均划归西方马克思主义范畴，认为自20世纪20年代初期以来，西方马克思主义主要集中在德、法、意三个国家，而在这些国家之外，“由于不具备这个或那个条件而妨碍了成熟的马克思主义文化的出现”。他甚至强调指出，西方马克思主义传统最为典型和突出的地区位于德国西南部，因为这里是阿多诺和霍克海姆的出生地，也是卢卡奇生活和成长的地方，德国文化传统给予卢卡奇的影响远远超过他的祖国匈牙利。安德森等人坚持西方马克思主义概念的地域性特点，甚至直接将西方马克思主义专门限定于德国、法国和意大利，其中一个重要原因在于，人们往往把马克思主义与社会主义和共产党直接联系在一起，因为“从地缘上讲，马克思主义的思想集中于德国、法国和意大利这几个存在共产主义大党的国家”。南斯拉夫学者格尔科奇科夫于20世纪80年代曾经撰文，认为马克思主义包括苏联东欧和中国的东方马克思主义、亚非拉发展中国家的第三世界马克思主义和西方马克思主义等三类。根据他的划分方法，西方马克思主义特指欧美发达资本主义国家的马克思主义。与科尔施和安德森等人相比，格尔科奇科夫定义的西方马克思主义，突破了西欧或德、法、意三国的地域。但是，作为拓宽西方马克思主义研究的一项重要探讨，格尔科奇科夫的观点在学术界尚未引起足够重视。

Western Marxism defined by geographical space excludes or negates the Marxist research achievements of Eastern countries and other European countries, while also reinforcing the opposition between Western Marxism and classical Marxism as well as the Marxism of the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe. For example, Korsch pointed out in *Marxism and Philosophy* that those “authoritative figures of contemporary official Marxism” or “old-line Marxists” had always jointly adhered to Marxist dogma, and that his pamphlet was precisely “a resolute rejection imbued with deep hatred for certain dogmas.” Therefore, the “accusations of orthodox Marxist critics against him were not only unreasonable but also futile and ineffective.” Anderson’s concept of Western Marxism is similarly distinct from classical Marxism and the Marxism of the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe. He believed that the unfavorable spread of socialist revolution outside of Russia, along with the corruption problems that emerged during the Soviet Union’s socialist construction, constituted the important historical background for the emergence of Western Marxism. “The major works of Western Marxism were, without exception, produced in an environment of political isolation and disappointment.” In his book *Considerations on Western Marxism*, Anderson, combining the changes at the Frankfurt Institute, the theoretical propositions of some representative figures, and the different views of Althusser in France and Gramsci in Italy, introduced the spread and development of Marxism in Germany, France, and Italy. He emphasized that Western Marxism was related to the absence of a high tide of socialist revolution, and that Germany, France, and Italy precisely fit this characteristic, thus giving rise to the aforementioned spatial definition of Western Marxism. Anderson’s assertion explicitly excluded Marxist theory and practice from “peripheral areas of European culture such as Spain, Yugoslavia, and Greece.”

根据地理空间定义的西方马克思主义，排除或否定了东方国家和欧洲其他国家的马克思主义研究成果，同时也强化了西方马克思主义与经典马克思主义及苏联东欧马克思主义的对立。如科尔施在《马克思主义和哲学》里指出，那些“当代官方马克思主义的权威人物”或“老牌马克思主义者”一直共同坚守着马克思主义教条，他的这本小册子正是“包含了对某些教条的深恶痛绝的抵制”。因此，反对他的“正统马克思主义批评家们的控告不仅是无理的，而且是徒劳和无效的”。安德森的西方马克思主义概念同样有别于经典马克思主义和苏联东欧马克思主义，他认为社会主义革命在俄国之外的传播不利，以及苏联在社会主义建设过程中出现的腐败问题，是西方马克思主义产生的重要历史背景，“西方马克思主义的重要著作都毫无例外地产生于政治上孤立和失望的环境之中”。在《西方马克思主义探讨》一书中，安德森结合法兰克福研究所的变迁、一些代表人物的理论主张以及法国阿尔都塞、意大利葛兰西等人的不同观点，介绍了马克思主义在德国、法国和意大利的传播和发展情况，强调西方马克思主义与社会主义革命高潮的缺失有关，而德、法、意三国恰恰符合这一特质，于是产生了西方马克思主义的上述空间定义。安德森的论断明确排除了“西班牙、南斯拉夫和希腊等欧洲文化的外围地区”的马克思主义理论与实践。

On the other hand, narrow Western Marxism defined by the spatial dimension also created segregation within the field of Marxist theoretical research in the Western world. For instance, according to the definition that equates Western Marxism with Western European Marxism or specifically refers to Marxism in the three countries of Germany, France, and Italy, Marxist theoretical research in the United States and Britain cannot be classified within the category of Western Marxism. Although Gërkoviq’s definition includes Britain and the United States in the camp of Western Marxist research, Marxist research in Japan faces the fate of being excluded from Western Marxism. In fact, as a typical Western country in the political sense, Japan has long been at the mainstream and forefront of Marxist research, producing many influential works, scholars, and schools worldwide. After World War II, many Japanese universities persisted in offering specialized courses in Marxist economics for undergraduate and graduate students, and many scholars also held lectures on *Capital* for ordinary people year-round. After the 2008 US subprime mortgage crisis, several Japanese publishers successively released different versions of the manga *Capital*, making outstanding contributions to the popularization and simplification of Marxist economics. In recent years, many Japanese researchers remain active in the process of editing, organizing, and publishing MEGA² [2]2 The "May 1968" events in France were a series of massive student and worker protests and general strikes that nearly toppled the government, representing a major crisis for the French state and a significant moment in the global New Left and workers' movements.. Therefore, Western Marxist research cannot ignore or deny Japan’s role. The author believes that narrowly defining Western Marxism from a geographical-spatial dimension, simply emphasizing the regional characteristics of Western Marxism, risks self-isolation, closure, and rigidity.

另一方面，根据空间维度定义的狭义西方马克思主义，也在西方世界马克思主义理论研究领域内部制造了隔离。如按照西方马克思主义等同于西欧马克思主义或者专门指代德国、法国和意大利等三个国家马克思主义的定义，美国和英国的马克思主义理论研究就不能归属于西方马克思主义范畴。格尔科奇科夫的定义虽然将英国和美国纳入西方马克思主义研究的阵营，但日本的马克思主义研究却面临被西方马克思主义排斥的命运。事实上，作为政治意义上典型的西方国家，日本长期位居马克思主义研究的主流和前沿，产生了很多有世界影响的著述、学者和流派。日本很多大学在二战后坚持为本科生和研究生开设马克思主义经济学专业课程，也有很多学者常年面向普通民众开办《资本论》讲座。2008年美国次贷危机发生后，日本多家出版社陆续推出不同版本的《资本论》漫画，为马克思主义经济学的大众化和通俗化作出了突出贡献。近些年来，在MEGA2编辑、整理和出版的过程中，仍然活跃着很多日本研究人员的身影。因此，西方马克思主义研究不能忽视或否认日本的作用。笔者认为，对西方马克思主义进行地理空间维度的狭义界定，简单强调西方马克思主义的地域性特征，有自我孤立、封闭和固化之嫌。

II. Western Marxism Defined by the Temporal Dimension Intensifies the Tendency of Marxist Nihilism

二、根据时间维度定义的西方马克思主义加剧了马克思主义虚无化的倾向

Some scholars distinguish Western Marxism from classical Marxism and Soviet and Eastern European Marxism in chronological order. They believe that classical Marxism refers to the theoretical system and doctrine personally founded by Marx and Engels, with its landmark work being the first volume of *Capital* published in the 1860s; Soviet Marxism, as an official Marxism, emerged from the October Revolution of 1918 and the subsequent 70-plus years of Soviet socialist construction practice; narrow Western Marxism, represented by figures such as Lukács and emerging in the 1920s–1930s, primarily refers to "Marxism after Marx," a Marxism that is distinct from or even opposed to classical Marxism or Soviet and Eastern European Marxism. Some scholars argue that the "deepest root of the emergence of Western Marxism lies in the fact that after 1920 there were no great revolutionary upsurges." [1]1 A classical Chinese idiom meaning that without the foundation (the skin), the dependent part (the hair) cannot exist. This is because, during the half-century from 1918 to 1968, influenced by multiple failures of the socialist movement in Western European countries and anti-Marxist authoritarian forces, the disappointment of some Western Marxists grew sharply, leading them to gradually abandon the effort to change the world and instead turn to attempting to interpret it. Additionally, fearing persecution from totalitarian forces such as Nazi Germany and American McCarthyism, some researchers were forced to retreat into their studies, immersing themselves in purely academic issues like philosophy, literature, art, and aesthetics, focusing on interpreting the world while forgetting or neglecting the historical mission of changing it. Consequently, Western Marxist studies gradually exhibited a tendency toward the separation of theory and practice. After the 1970s, various Marxist schools or currents emerging in the Western world, such as Neo-Marxism, Post-Marxism, and Marxology, can also be seen as a temporal division within narrow Western Marxism.

有些学者以时间的先后为顺序，把西方马克思主义与经典马克思主义和苏联东欧马克思主义相区分。他们认为，经典马克思主义是指马克思、恩格斯亲自创建的理论体系和学说，其诞生的标志性作品是19世纪60年代出版的《资本论》第一卷；苏联马克思主义作为一种官方的马克思主义，产生于1918年的十月革命及其后70余年苏联社会主义建设的实践；出现于20世纪20—30年代以卢卡奇等人为代表的狭义西方马克思主义，主要指“马克思以后的马克思主义”，是与经典马克思主义或苏联东欧马克思主义相区别甚至相对立的马克思主义。有学者认为，西方马克思主义产生的“最深刻的根源在于1920年以后没有发生任何大革命高潮”。这是因为，在1918年到1968年半个世纪的时间里，受到西欧国家社会主义运动多次失败以及反马克思主义集权势力的影响，部分西方马克思主义者的失望情绪激增，逐渐放弃了改造世界的努力，转而试图去解释世界。另外，由于担心遭受纳粹德国和美国麦卡锡主义等极权势力的迫害，一些研究者不得不遁于书斋，埋头于探讨哲学、文学、艺术和美学等纯学术问题，致力于解释世界、忘记或忽略了改造世界的历史使命。于是，西方马克思主义研究逐渐呈现出理论与实践脱离的态势。20世纪70年代后，西方世界兴起的新马克思主义、后马克思主义、马克思学等各种不同的马克思主义流派或思潮，也可视为狭义西方马克思主义在时间维度上的划分。

Narrow Western Marxism, defined using a temporal dimension, has a straightforward relationship with the classical Marxism founded by Marx and Engels and with official Soviet Marxism. Compared to so-called Post-Marxism, Neo-Marxism, Marxology, and other Marxisms under different names, it also has relatively clear temporal boundaries. However, this definition still faces limitations in terms of unclear conceptual connotations and ambiguous scope of extension. For instance, some scholars summarize Post-Marxism as various Marxisms after the death of Marx and Engels. According to this definition of Post-Marxism, Western Marxism represented by figures like Lukács and Korsch cannot be effectively distinguished from Post-Marxism, or one could directly conclude that Post-Marxism is equivalent to Western Marxism. Therefore, using different names to refer to the same or similar objects of study brings no benefit other than increasing confusion and difficulty in theoretical research. Other scholars specifically refer to Post-Marxism as the Marxist theoretical views and policy propositions of Laclau and Mouffe. Although this definition highlights the theoretical contributions of Laclau and Mouffe, it neglects the research achievements of scholars such as Foucault, Derrida, Baudrillard, Žižek, Habermas, and Jameson. In fact, as important representatives in the field of contemporary Western Marxist studies, the theoretical views of Foucault and others, to a certain extent, represent important directions in the development of Western Marxism and cannot be ignored under any circumstances.

运用时间维度定义的狭义西方马克思主义，与马克思、恩格斯创建的经典马克思主义和苏联官方马克思主义的关系简单明了，与所谓后马克思主义、新马克思主义、马克思学等不同名目的马克思主义相比，亦存在比较清晰的时间界限。但是，这一定义仍面临概念内涵不清、外延范围不明的局限。如有学者将后马克思主义概括为马克思、恩格斯逝世之后的各种马克思主义。根据后马克思主义这一定义，以卢卡奇、科尔施等人为代表的西方马克思主义就无法与后马克思主义进行有效区分，或者可以直接得出后马克思主义等同于西方马克思主义的结论。因此，采用不同名称指代同一或相近的研究对象，除了徒增理论研究的混乱与困难以外并无任何裨益。也有学者将后马克思主义专门指代拉克劳和墨菲的马克思主义理论观点和政策主张。这一定义虽然突出了拉克劳和墨菲的理论贡献，却忽略了福柯、德里达、鲍德里亚、齐泽克、哈贝马斯和詹姆逊等学者的研究成果。事实上，作为当今西方马克思主义研究领域的重要代表，福柯等人的理论观点在一定程度上代表了西方马克思主义发展的重要取向，无论如何不能被忽视。

Furthermore, narrow Western Marxism defined according to a temporal framework can support both the conclusion of the bankruptcy of classical Marxism and Soviet orthodox Marxism, as well as the view of the end of Western Marxism. For over 150 years since the publication of the first volume of *Capital*, some scholars have tirelessly promoted theories of its obsolescence, error, and harmfulness, attempting to demonstrate the demise of Marxism. After the drastic changes in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, classical Marxism and Soviet and Eastern European Marxism encountered an unprecedented crisis. Some took the opportunity to propose the "end of history" thesis, declaring the failure of Marxist theory and practice concerning socialism, once again sparking debates over whether "Marxism and socialism are dead or not." Since the emergence of Western Marxism, a series of major changes have occurred in the global political and economic situation, and Marxist theoretical research and the real-world socialist movement have also exhibited many new characteristics. With the arrival of a new stage in the world workers' movement following the French "May 1968" events, [2]2 The "May 1968" events in France were a series of massive student and worker protests and general strikes that nearly toppled the government, representing a major crisis for the French state and a significant moment in the global New Left and workers' movements. and facing the prospect of a possible reunification of Marxist theoretical research and practical exploration, some scholars believe that the decline and demise of Western Marxism are already irreversible. Some even argue that from the 1970s–1980s to the present, the so-called Post-Marxism, which focuses on criticizing post-industrial or late capitalist society, is itself a product of the decline of narrow Western Marxism. Some Post-Marxists emphasize that the basic principles, main viewpoints, and research methods of traditional Marxism are all outdated and can no longer explain or account for the developmental conditions of postmodern capitalist society. Therefore, they "strive to revitalize Marxism and activate its tradition by deconstructing its traditional theories." [3]3 This appears to be a quotation from a Chinese scholar's analysis of Post-Marxism, but the specific source is not identified in the provided text. The author believes that narrow Western Marxism defined based on a temporal dimension, especially the Marxism deconstructed, revitalized, or activated by Post-Marxism, clearly deviates from the theoretical essence and core tenets of classical Marxism and is a true portrayal of Marxism's trend toward weakening and nihilism.

另外，根据时间脉络界定的狭义西方马克思主义，既能够支持经典马克思主义和苏联正统马克思主义破产的结论，同样也可以证明西方马克思主义终结的观点。《资本论》第一卷出版150多年以来，一直有学者不遗余力地宣扬有关《资本论》的过时论、错误论和有害论，试图以此论证马克思主义的消亡。苏东剧变后，经典马克思主义和苏联东欧马克思主义遭遇前所未有的危机，有人趁势提出“历史终结论”，宣告马克思主义有关社会主义理论与实践的失败，又一次引发了所谓“马克思主义和社会主义灭亡与否”的争论。西方马克思主义产生以来，整个世界的政治经济形势发生了一系列重大变化，马克思主义理论研究与现实社会主义运动亦呈现出许多新特点。伴随着1968年法国“五月风暴”后世界工人运动新阶段的到来，面对马克思主义理论研究与实践探索有望再度统一的现状，有学者认为西方马克思主义的衰落和消亡已经无可挽回。甚至有观点指出，20世纪70—80年代至今，着力批判后工业社会或晚期资本主义社会的所谓后马克思主义，本身就是狭义西方马克思主义趋向没落的产物。一些后马克思主义者强调，传统马克思主义的基本原理、主要观点和研究方法均已过时，已经不能解释或说明后现代资本主义社会的发展状况。因此，他们“力图通过解构马克思主义的传统理论，来革新马克思主义，激活马克思主义的传统”。笔者认为，基于时间维度界定的狭义西方马克思主义，尤其是经后马克思主义解构、革新或激活的马克思主义，明显背离了经典马克思主义的理论实质和核心要义，是马克思主义走向弱势化和虚无化的真实写照。

III. Western Marxism Defined by Research Stance, Method, or Viewpoint Violates the Scientific Implications of Marxism

三、根据研究立场、方法或观点定义的西方马克思主义违背了马克思主义的科学意蕴

Western Marxism defined by some scholars according to different research stances, methods, or viewpoints still falls within the category of narrow Western Marxism. For example, so-called "Marxology," which emerged primarily in the Western world starting in the 1960s and specializes in studying Marx's life, career, writings, and thought, has put forward views such as the opposition between the young Marx and the mature Marx, the opposition between Engels and Marx, the opposition between Lenin and Marx, and even the opposition between Marx and Marxism. They either strongly advocate for the so-called humanist Marx of early works like the *Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844*, while vehemently opposing the Marx of *Capital* and its scientism; or, based on the basic fact that Engels edited and published the third volume of *Capital* after Marx's death, they propagate claims of abandoning the theory of average profit and price of production or negating the law of value, highlighting Engels's deviation from Marx; or, using the victory of the Russian October Socialist Revolution and the practice of socialist construction as examples, they emphasize Lenin's negation or revision of Marx's theory. The above research findings of Marxology set up strict boundaries between humanist Marxism and scientific Marxism, severing the dialectical relationship between the revolutionary and scientific nature of Marxism. Their research stance of opposing Marx and Marxism, and opposing socialism or communism, is self-evident.

一些学者根据不同研究立场、方法或观点界定的西方马克思主义，仍属于狭义西方马克思主义范畴。如主要始于20世纪60年代在西方世界兴起的专门研究马克思的生平、事业、著作和思想的所谓“马克思学”，提出了所谓青年时期的马克思与成熟时期的马克思相对立、恩格斯与马克思相对立、列宁与马克思相对立甚至马克思与马克思主义相对立等观点。他们或极力推崇如《1844年经济学哲学手稿》等早期著作中所谓人道主义的马克思，竭力反对《资本论》及其科学主义的马克思；或基于恩格斯在马克思去世后整理出版《资本论》第三卷的基本事实，宣扬放弃平均利润与生产价格理论或否定价值规律的说法，突出恩格斯对马克思的背离；或者以俄国十月社会主义革命胜利和社会主义建设的实践为例，强调列宁对马克思理论的否定或修正。马克思学的上述研究成果，在人道的马克思主义与科学的马克思主义之间设置了严格界限，割裂了马克思主义的革命性与科学性之间的辩证关系，其反对马克思和马克思主义，反对社会主义或共产主义的研究立场不言自明。

In his book *History and Class Consciousness*, Lukács greatly praised Marx’s research method, proposing the idea of retaining only Marx’s research method while discarding all of his views, and argued that this does not mean abandoning the orthodoxy of Marxism, because “orthodoxy in matters of Marxism refers solely to method.” Lukács’ emphasis on the importance of Marx’s methodology coincides with Engels’ view that Marxism is not a dogma but a method, and also points out the correct direction for developing and innovating Marxism. However, what the author finds puzzling is that if, exactly as Lukács says, one retains only Marx’s research method while completely discarding all of Marx’s theoretical propositions, then how does one respond to the doubt of “with the skin gone, what can the hair adhere to?”[1]1 A classical Chinese idiom meaning that without the foundation (the skin), the dependent part (the hair) cannot exist. How does one discern the origin, essence, and future development trends of Marxist theory? Furthermore, Lukács’ distinction between general class consciousness and true class consciousness, his call to awaken true class consciousness and emphasize its decisive role in the process of social change, in fact laid the groundwork for other Western Marxists to emphasize the role of human spiritual, psychological, desire, and need factors in the emergence, development, and succession of human society. For example, Lebowitz’s theory of the primacy of human needs holds that human needs, which continuously grow with social development, are an important force determining social change, thereby negating Marx’s law of the contradictory movement between productive forces and relations of production. Another example: according to Heilbroner’s analytical framework of the “essence” and “logic” of capitalism, the so-called “essence” of capitalism refers to its fundamental driving force, namely the “desire for capital accumulation” that unifies wealth and power. This desire originates from the capitalist’s motive of self-preservation and is “the strongest, most unrestrained instinctive reaction.” In summary, the categories of Lukács, Lebowitz, and Heilbroner concerning reification, totality, class consciousness, the primacy of human needs, and the desire for capital accumulation are actually “based on less materialism,” and the idealist character of their methodology needs no further elaboration.

卢卡奇在《历史与阶级意识》一书中对马克思的研究方法大加赞赏，提出了忽略马克思的全部观点而只保留其研究方法的主张，并认为这样做不意味着放弃马克思主义的正统，因为“马克思主义问题中的正统仅仅是指方法”。卢卡奇强调马克思方法论的重要性，与恩格斯关于马克思主义不是教义而是方法的观点相吻合，也指明了发展与创新马克思主义的正确方向。但令笔者不解的是，如果完全如卢卡奇所言，单单保留下马克思的研究方法，而将马克思的全部理论主张弃之不顾，那么如何应对“皮之不存，毛将附焉”的疑惑？如何辨别马克思主义理论的本源、实质和未来发展趋势？另外，卢卡奇关于一般阶级意识与真正阶级意识的划分，呼吁唤醒真正的阶级意识并重视其在社会变革过程中的决定性地位，事实上为其他一些西方马克思主义者强调人类的精神、心理、欲望和需求等因素在人类社会产生、发展和更替中的作用埋下了伏笔。如莱博维奇的人类需要首要性理论认为，随着社会发展而不断增长的人类需要是决定社会变革的重要力量，从而否定了马克思关于生产力与生产关系的矛盾运动规律。又如，依照海尔布隆纳关于资本主义“本质”与“逻辑”的分析框架，所谓资本主义的“本质”是指其根本推动力，即由财富与权利相统一的“资本积累的欲望”，这种欲望根源于资本家自我保护的动机，“是最强烈、最奔放的本能反应”。总而言之，卢卡奇、莱博维奇和海尔布隆纳等人有关物化、总体性、阶级意识、人类需要的首要性、资本积累的欲望等范畴，实际上是“以较少的唯物主义为基础”，其方法论的唯心主义特点无须多言。

As an important representative of analytical Marxism or rational choice Marxism, Roemer employs the individualistic and equilibrium analysis methods of neoclassical economics to construct mathematical models of Marx’s theories of labor value, surplus value, capital accumulation, and economic crisis. Roemer believes that the class struggle between workers and capitalists, together with the competitive conditions in the labor market, jointly determine the real wage level. He does not agree with Marx’s view that the value of labor power is determined by the value of means of subsistence, but he also recognizes that if “wages no longer remain at the level of subsistence, the value of labor power loses its perfect definition. Therefore, reconstructing a Marxist value theory without the concept of subsistence wages” is not only possible but also very necessary. Roemer’s demonstration of capitalist exploitation at the cost of abandoning the labor theory of value is essentially no different from the distribution-centered approach that Marx consistently opposed, constituting another version of vulgarized Marxism and socialist theory. Additionally, Hodgson proposes that exploitation in Marxist economics is based on the labor theory of value, while neoclassical economics denies capitalist exploitation based on assumptions such as market competitiveness, equilibrium, and social harmony. Hodgson attempts to avoid these two research approaches and “give the concept of exploitation a different substance.” However, Hodgson’s effort was unsuccessful because his definition of the concept of exploitation is either confined to the perspective of fairness and equality or remains at the level of legality and illegality. From his distinction between pre-contract exploitation and post-contract exploitation, it is not difficult to find that the relationship between exploiter and exploited exists not only between different classes but also within the same class, and even among members of the same family. While generalizing the concept of exploitation, Hodgson’s theory of exploitation renders Marx’s socialist theory and practice meaningless.

作为分析马克思主义或理性预期马克思主义的重要代表人物，罗默采用新古典经济学的个人主义和均衡分析方法，对马克思的劳动价值论、剩余价值论、资本积累和经济危机等理论进行数学模型化构建。罗默认为，工人与资本家之间的阶级斗争及劳动力市场的竞争状况共同决定了真实工资水平。他不赞同马克思关于劳动力价值由生活资料的价值决定的观点，但也认识到如果“工资不再停留于生存资料的水平，劳动力价值也就失去了其完善的界定。所以，重建一个没有生存性工资概念的马克思主义价值理论”，不仅是可能的，也是十分必要的。罗默以放弃劳动价值论为代价论证资本主义剥削，与马克思一贯反对的分配中心主义并没有本质区别，构成了庸俗化马克思主义和社会主义理论的又一版本。另外，霍奇森提出，马克思主义经济学中的剥削建立在劳动价值论的基础上，新古典经济学则以市场的竞争性、均衡性及社会和谐性等假设为前提否认资本主义剥削。霍奇森试图回避上述两条研究进路，并“赋予剥削概念一种不同的实质”。但是，霍奇森的努力并未成功，原因在于他对剥削概念的界定或局限于公平与平等的角度，或停留在合法与违法的层面。根据他关于契约前剥削与契约后剥削的划分不难发现，剥削与被剥削的关系不仅存在于不同阶级之间，还存在于同一阶级内部，甚至存在于同一家庭成员之中。霍奇森的剥削理论在泛化剥削概念的同时将马克思的社会主义理论与实践置于无意义的境地。

IV. Western Marxism Defined by Research Field Ignores the Overall Characteristics of Marxism

四、根据研究领域定义的西方马克思主义忽略了马克思主义的整体特征

Apart from understanding narrow Western Marxism from the dimensions of time and space, as well as different research standpoints, methods, or viewpoints, some scholars define the concept based on certain research fields. Among these, equating Western Marxism with Western Marxist philosophy is quite prevalent. As early as the 1920s-1930s, the philosophical tendency of Western Marxism was already very obvious, because the representatives of narrow Western Marxism, including Lukács, Korsch, and Gramsci, mostly had philosophical education backgrounds and academic expertise. After World War II, the situation where Western Marxism was mainly controlled by professional philosophers remained unchanged. Under the influence of this tradition, the research content, theme selection, argumentation logic, and discourse system of Western Marxism gradually converged with the discipline of philosophy. After China’s reform and opening up, with the introduction of Western Marxism and the emergence of a research boom, the philosophical coloring of related achievements was also very strong. For example, some scholars divide Western Marxism into six categories: Hegelian Marxism, Freudian Marxism, existential Marxism, neo-positivist Marxism, structural Marxism, and analytical Marxism, and Western philosophical schools can also be divided similarly accordingly.

除了从时间和空间的维度以及不同的研究立场、方法或观点理解狭义西方马克思主义以外，另有学者根据某些研究领域进行概念界定。其中，将西方马克思主义等同于西方马克思主义哲学的做法比较盛行。早在20世纪20—30年代，西方马克思主义的哲学化倾向就已经十分明显，因为包括卢卡奇、科尔施和葛兰西等人在内的狭义西方马克思主义的代表人物，大多具有哲学教育经历和学术专长。二战后，西方马克思主义主要由专业哲学家把持的局面仍然如故。在这一传统的影响之下，西方马克思主义的研究内容、主题选择、论证逻辑和话语体系等逐渐与哲学学科趋同。中国改革开放后，随着西方马克思主义的传入及研究热潮的涌现，相关成果的哲学色彩也非常浓厚。如有学者将西方马克思主义划分为黑格尔主义、弗洛伊德主义、存在主义、新实证主义、结构主义和分析的马克思主义等六个类别，西方哲学流派亦可据此进行同样的划分。

Besides the philosophical tendency, the research progress of Western Marxism in literature, aesthetics, art, and even gender is also unmatched by political economy. “Representatives of Western Marxism also typically pioneered the study of the development process of literature – penetrating into the higher realms of the superstructure – as if to compensate for their neglect of the structures and foundations of politics and economics with brilliant literary style.” For example, cultural Marxism opposes economic determinism and emphasizes the decisive role of cultural factors in the historical changes of human society. They delve their research perspective into aspects such as ethnicity, race, gender, and people’s daily lives, exerting a very significant influence on various social movements including nationalism, racism, and feminism. However, it is undeniable that cultural Marxism has “inherent defects of overemphasizing cultural factors while neglecting economic analysis; overemphasizing human subjectivity while neglecting the constraining role of the objective world and its laws on humans.”

除哲学化倾向以外，西方马克思主义在文学、美学、艺术甚至性别方面的研究进展也是政治经济学无法比拟的。“西方马克思主义的代表人物还很典型地率先研究文学的发展过程——深入到上层建筑的更高领域——仿佛要以灿烂的文采来补偿他们对政治学和经济学的结构和基础的忽视。”如文化马克思主义反对经济决定论，强调文化因素在人类社会历史变迁中的决定作用。他们将研究视角深入到民族、种族、性别和人们的日常生活等方面，对包括民族主义、种族主义和女权主义等在内的各种社会运动都产生了非常重要的影响。但不可否认的是，文化马克思主义存在“过于强调文化因素，忽视经济分析；过于强调人的主体性，忽视客观世界及其规律对人的制约作用的内在缺陷”。

Some research suggests that the tradition of Marxist political economy reached its end in *The Theory of Capitalist Development*, and the publication of *Monopoly Capital* “discarded most of the orthodox structure within the Marxist economic category.” Anderson regretfully called this phenomenon a “puzzling inversion,” meaning that after the publication of *Capital*, an innovative work of Marxist political economy, researchers increasingly deviated from the tradition of political economy. Bowles recognized the fact that Western Marxism lacks economics, emphatically pointing out: “The cultural and political analysis of the Western Marxist tradition and the economic theory in the classical Marxist tradition have developed in isolation from each other. Because the innovations of the Western Marxist tradition themselves did not extend to economic theory, the issues debated in the two trends did not involve much of the construction of economic theory itself…” Some foreign scholars even directly declare that Western Marxism, lacking economics, has gone bankrupt. In short, the “de-economization” of Western Marxism is an important reason for the depletion of its theoretical vitality and the shrinkage of its explanatory power for reality. This situation not only restricts the integrity of Marxist theory but also hinders the revival and development of Marxism on a global scale.

有研究认为，马克思主义的政治经济学传统在《资本主义发展理论》中走到了尽头，《垄断资本》的出版更是“将马克思主义经济学范畴内的正统结构丢弃得差不多了”。安德森不无遗憾地称这一现象为“令人困惑地倒转”，意指作为马克思主义政治经济学创新之作的《资本论》问世后，研究者却越来越背离政治经济学传统。鲍尔斯认识到西方马克思主义缺失经济学的事实，强调指出：“西方马克思主义传统的文化和政治分析与古典马克思主义传统中的经济理论各自孤立地发展。因为西方马克思主义传统的创新本身没有延伸到经济理论上去，两种趋势中争论的问题并没有涉及那么多的经济理论自身的建构……”甚至有国外学者直接宣称，缺失了经济学的西方马克思主义已经破产。总之，西方马克思主义的“去经济学化”是其理论活力枯竭和现实解释力萎缩的重要原因。这一现状既制约了马克思主义理论的整体性，又阻碍了马克思主义在世界范围内的复兴与发展。

Since the 1970s, in the face of global problems such as resource depletion, environmental pollution, and unbalanced and unequal development, a group of Western Marxists including Debord, Marcuse, and Gorz initiated an ecological turn. With the participation of scholars such as Aglietta, O’Connor, and Foster, ecological Marxism has shown signs of vigorous development. Researchers have discussed topics including whether historical materialism is compatible with ecological issues, the multiple crises of capitalism, and alternatives for a future society. The vast majority of studies hold that capitalism, plagued by multiple crises, can hardly sustain itself. Therefore, to ensure the dialectical unity of the human system and the natural system, the development path of ecological socialism is worth exploring. For example, O’Connor emphasizes that, by means of a marriage between ecology and Marxism, nature and culture should be integrated into the Marxist categories of material production or labor, thereby protecting or restoring resources, the environment, and the conditions of social production. His ecological socialism advocates building the state on the basis of democratic management, on the one hand achieving clarity in relations of production to eliminate market fetishism, commodity fetishism, and capitalist exploitation; on the other hand achieving clarity in productive forces to put an end to the destruction of the natural environment and production conditions. He believes that various new social movements emerging in Western countries, such as the ecological movement, the feminist movement, and the urban movement, can effectively prevent capital from utilizing or abusing nature, the environment, and production conditions, because once nature is regarded as “the historical result of labor, property, exploitation, and social struggle, our future is more likely to be sustainable, just, and socially equitable.” Ecological Marxism’s courage in facing social reality, and its practice of combining the effort to interpret the world with the action to change it, are worthy of praise. However, how to prevent ecological socialism from falling into the trap of an ecological utopia, and how to demonstrate the relationship between ecological socialism and Marx’s socialism, are major issues that require deep reflection and serious study. It is particularly important to note that the so-called “ecological socialism,” which simply applies Marxist standpoints, viewpoints, and methods to explain and solve ecological problems, with the aim and goal of maintaining the sustainable development of the ecological environment and natural resources, can hardly conceal its reformist coloration and cannot represent the overall characteristics and future development trends of Marxism.

20世纪70年代以来，面对资源耗竭、环境污染、不平衡和不平等发展等世界性难题，德波、马尔库塞、高兹等一批西方马克思主义者开启了生态学转向之旅。随着阿格尔、奥康纳、福斯特等学者加入，生态学马克思主义呈现出蓬勃发展的迹象。研究者们围绕着历史唯物主义与生态问题是否相容、资本主义的多重危机以及未来社会的替代等内容展开讨论。绝大多数研究认为，资本主义由于多重危机的困扰很难再持续下去。因此，为保证人类系统与自然系统的辩证统一，生态社会主义的发展路径值得探索。如奥康纳强调，通过生态学与马克思主义联姻的方式，将自然与文化整合到马克思主义的物质生产或劳动范畴中，从而保护或重建资源、环境和社会生产条件。他的生态学社会主义主张将国家建立在民主管理的基础上，一方面实现生产关系的清晰化，消除市场拜物教、商品拜物教和资本主义剥削；另一方面实现生产力的清晰化，终止对自然环境和生产条件的破坏。他认为，在西方国家兴起的生态运动、女权运动和城市运动等各种新社会运动，能够有效阻止资本对自然、环境和生产条件的利用或滥用，因为一旦把自然看成“劳动、财产、剥削及社会斗争的历史的结果，我们的未来就越有可能是可持续的、公正的及具有社会正义性的”。生态学马克思主义勇于正视社会现实，将解释世界的努力与改造世界的行动协同并举的做法值得推崇。但是，如何避免生态学社会主义陷入生态乌托邦的怪圈，如何论证生态社会主义与马克思社会主义的关系，都是需要深入思考和认真研究的重大课题。尤其需要注意的是，简单运用马克思主义的立场、观点和方法去解释和解决生态问题，以维护生态环境和自然资源可持续发展为宗旨和目标的所谓“生态社会主义”，难掩其改良主义色彩，亦无法代表马克思主义的整体特点和未来发展潮流。

Nearly a century of Western Marxist studies in domestic and international academia has been mainly constrained by four narrow definitions of Western Marxism, each with obvious limitations and shortcomings: the definition by geographical space has reinforced regional barriers in Marxist studies; the definition by temporal dimension has intensified the tendency toward Marxist nihilism; the definition by research standpoint, method, or viewpoint has weakened the scientific implications of Marxism; and the definition based on a particular research field has ignored the holistic character of Marxism. In summary, to improve the quality of research results on Western Marxism and to increase the theoretical persuasiveness and practical influence of Marxism, it is urgent to integrate and broaden the existing narrow category of Western Marxism. Hence, the author advocates an alternative plan of broad Western Marxist studies.

国内外学界近百年的西方马克思主义研究，主要受制于四种狭义西方马克思主义的概念界定，各自的局限与不足十分明显：地理空间的定义强化了马克思主义研究的地域阻隔；时间维度的定义加剧了马克思主义虚无论的倾向；按照研究立场、方法或观点的定义削弱了马克思主义的科学意蕴；依据某一研究领域的定义忽略了马克思主义的整体性特征。总而言之，为提升西方马克思主义研究成果的质量，增加马克思主义的理论说服力和现实影响力，亟待整合与拓宽现有狭义西方马克思主义的范畴。由此， 笔者倡导广义西方马克思主义研究的替代方案。

(Author: Executive Dean, Professor, and Doctoral Supervisor of the School of Marxism, China University of Political Science and Law.)

（作者：中国政法大学马克思主义学院执行院长，教授，博士生导师。）

Online Editor: Rainbow

网络编辑：彩虹