A Study of Broad Western Marxism from the Perspective of Political Economy

I

一

East and West originally referred to different geographical directions, changing as the position of the reference point changes; they are natural concepts with a relative character. However, since the emergence of capitalism several hundred years ago, human society has continuously developed and evolved, and the natural attributes of the two terms "East" and "West" have gradually been dissolved or forgotten, while their political attributes have been strengthened. In the current era, East and West often signify difference and divergence, and have even at one time become synonymous with opposition and conflict. For example, after the Second World War, the intense ideological confrontation between the two camps — the capitalist camp represented by the United States and the socialist camp represented by the Soviet Union — was a typical illustration of the East-West conflict. Since the late 1980s, as the socialist systems of the Soviet Union and Eastern European countries turned toward capitalism, the Cold War that had lasted for many years worldwide came to an end, yet the ideological struggle between East and West has intensified. In recent years, the frequent disputes between China and the United States over trade, diplomacy, and international affairs, the accusations and criticisms from Western developed countries against the Belt and Road Initiative, and the different attitudes and response measures of our country compared with major capitalist countries such as the United States and Britain toward the COVID-19 pandemic, have all concentratedly reflected the contradictions between East and West in the political, economic, social, cultural, and ideological fields. The author believes that the study of Western Marxism in domestic and international academic circles is likewise filled with differences or oppositions between East and West in terms of ideological concepts, research stances, theoretical viewpoints, and methodologies. Among these, the multiple ambiguities of the concept of Western Marxism itself prominently reflect the ideological disputes between the two sides.

东方与西方原本指向不同的地理方位，随着参照物所处位置的变化而变化，是具有相对性特点的自然概念。但是，资本主义产生几百年以来，人类社会不断发展与演化，东方与西方这两个术语的自然属性逐渐被消解或淡忘，它们的政治属性有所增强。当今时代，东方与西方往往意味着差异与分歧，甚至一度成为对立与冲突的代名词。如第二次世界大战后，以美国为代表的资本主义阵营与以苏联为代表的社会主义阵营两大阵营之间强烈的意识形态对抗便是东西方冲突的典型例证。20世纪80年代末以来，苏联东欧国家社会主义制度向资本主义转向，世界范围内持续多年的冷战宣告结束，东方与西方之间的意识形态斗争却愈演愈烈。近些年来，中国与美国在贸易、外交和国际事务等问题上频生争论，西方发达国家针对“一带一路”倡议的指责和非议，以及我国与美、英等主要资本主义国家对待新冠肺炎疫情的不同态度和应对措施，更是集中折射了东方与西方在政治、经济、社会、文化和意识形态等领域的矛盾。笔者认为，国内外学界关于西方马克思主义的研究，在思想观念、研究立场、理论观点和方法论等方面，同样充斥着东方与西方的差异或对立。其中西方马克思主义概念本身的多种歧义，突出反映了双方的意识形态纷争。

The exploration of the origin of the term "Western Marxism" can be traced back to the 1920s. Lukács's book *History and Class Consciousness*, published in 1923, is regarded as the pioneering work of Western Marxism. Korsch's *Marxism and Philosophy*, reprinted in 1930, first proposed and used the concept of Western Marxism. Merleau-Ponty, in his *Adventures of the Dialectic* published in 1955, recognized and adopted the term Western Marxism. After the 1960s and 1970s, some influential Western Marxist writings began to circulate globally, and the center of Western Marxist studies gradually shifted from Western Europe to countries such as the United Kingdom and the United States. Many trends or schools of thought named after Marxism also emerged worldwide. Around the time of reform and opening up, Western Marxist theories were introduced into China, and a large number of works have since been translated and published, sparking repeated heated discussions in theoretical circles. For instance, issues such as the conceptual connotation of Western Marxism, the relationship between Western Marxism and classical Marxism, the academic origins of the young Marx versus the mature Marx, and Marx versus Engels, have all been key topics discussed in articles by domestic scholars. In recent years, as an indispensable and important component of the disciplinary construction of Marxist theory and graduate education in our country, the role of Western Marxist studies has become more prominent, and its influence has been continuously rising.

关于西方马克思主义术语本源的探究，最早可以追溯到20世纪20年代。卢卡奇于1923年发表的《历史与阶级意识》一书被奉为西方马克思主义的开山之作。科尔施1930年重版的《马克思主义和哲学》首次提出并使用西方马克思主义的概念。梅洛-庞蒂则在1955年出版的《辩证法的历险》中认可并采纳了西方马克思主义这一术语。20世纪60—70年代以后，一些有影响的西方马克思主义著述开始在全球流行，西方马克思主义研究的中心也逐渐从西欧转变为英、美等国家，世界范围内还出现了许多以马克思主义命名的思潮或流派。改革开放前后，西方马克思主义理论学说传入中国，至今已翻译出版了大量著作，在理论界多次引起热议。如有关西方马克思主义的概念内涵、西方马克思主义与经典马克思主义的关系、青年马克思与成熟期马克思以及马克思与恩格斯的学术渊源等问题，都曾经成为国内学者撰文讨论的重点。近些年来，作为我国马克思主义理论学科建设和研究生培养不可或缺的重要组成部分，西方马克思主义研究的作用更加凸显，影响力不断攀升。

To date, the research achievements of domestic and international scholars on Western Marxism, aside from different research stances, divergent theoretical viewpoints, diverse research methods, and multiple policy propositions, also include a bewildering variety of terms for Western Marxism itself, which is dazzling and overwhelming. For example, based on conceptual definitions along temporal and spatial dimensions, one can distinguish Western Marxism, Neo-Marxism, Post-Marxism, etc.; based on definitions of stances, viewpoints, or methods, it should include Analytical Marxism or Rational Expectations Marxism, Freudian Psychoanalytic Marxism, Sartrean Existentialist Marxism, etc.; based on definitions of specific research fields, it can encompass Feminist Marxism, Ecological Marxism, Cultural Marxism, Marxology, etc. The author groups the above concepts together under the category of narrow Western Marxism, arguing that the study of narrow Western Marxism in domestic and international academic circles either reinforces the geographical separation of Marxism, or exacerbates the tendency toward Marxist nihilism, or weakens the scientific implications of Marxism, or neglects the holistic character of Marxism.[1]1 The author uses "Marxist nihilism" (马克思主义虚无论) to refer to theoretical tendencies that deny or relativize the scientific validity and core tenets of Marxism. Starting from definitions that are different from or even mutually negating, the study of Western Marxism cannot reach consensus on some important theoretical viewpoints and policy propositions, cannot establish a rational, objective, open, inclusive, symbiotic, and complementary overall research pattern, and conflict and opposition, isolation and exclusion have become the norm.

到目前为止，国内外学者的西方马克思主义研究成果，除去不同的研究立场、相异的理论观点、多样的研究方法以及多元的政策主张以外，关于西方马克思主义的术语称谓更是名目繁多，令人眼花缭乱应接不暇。如根据时空维度的概念界定，可以划分为西方马克思主义、新马克思主义、后马克思主义等；根据立场、观点或方法的概念界定，应该包括分析的马克思主义或理性预期的马克思主义、弗洛伊德精神分析的马克思主义、萨特存在主义的马克思主义等；根据具体研究领域的概念界定，能够涵盖女权主义的马克思主义、生态学马克思主义、文化马克思主义、马克思学等。笔者将上述概念统一归并到狭义西方马克思主义范畴，认为国内外学界关于狭义西方马克思主义的研究，或者强化了马克思主义的地域阻隔，或者加剧了马克思主义虚无论的倾向，或者削弱了马克思主义的科学意蕴，或者忽略了马克思主义的整体性特征。1从各不相同甚至相互否定的定义出发，西方马克思主义研究无法就一些重要理论观点和政策主张达成共识，不能确立理性客观、开放包容、共生互补的整体性研究格局，冲突与对立、隔绝与排斥已成为常态。

Since human society entered the 21st century, the contradictions within Western developed capitalist countries, among the capitalist world system, and between developed and developing countries have become increasingly complex and deepened. Frequent economic, political, and social crises have swept the globe, constantly threatening the sustained, stable, and healthy development of capitalism, and the legitimacy of the capitalist system has faced unprecedented challenges. The future and destiny of humanity, the replacement of capitalism, and socialist construction have placed new and higher demands on the theoretical research and practical exploration of Western Marxism. However, the limitations of existing narrow Western Marxist studies, especially the fact of complex, chaotic, and narrow conceptual connotations, as well as differences or divergences in research methods, discourse systems, and theoretical viewpoints, cannot comprehensively, accurately, promptly, objectively, and dynamically reflect the current state and future development trends of Marxist research. This is detrimental to effective communication and normal exchange within Marxist theoretical research itself, and also hinders the breadth and depth of the international dissemination of Marxist theory. The author calls for transcending the horizon of narrow Western Marxism and promoting the study of broad Western Marxism from the perspective of political economy.

人类社会进入21世纪以后，西方发达资本主义国家内部、资本主义世界体系之间以及发达国家与发展中国家之间的矛盾越来越复杂、深化，频繁发生的经济危机、政治危机和社会危机席卷全球，时刻威胁着资本主义的持续、稳定和健康发展，资本主义制度的合法性遭遇了前所未有的挑战。人类未来的前途和命运、资本主义替代以及社会主义建设等，对西方马克思主义的理论研究与实践探索提出了新的更高要求。但是，现有狭义西方马克思主义的研究局限，尤其是概念内涵错综复杂和混乱狭隘的事实，以及研究方法、话语体系和理论观点的差异或分歧，无法全面、准确、及时、客观和动态地反映马克思主义的研究现状及未来发展趋势，不利于马克思主义理论研究自身内部的有效沟通与正常交流，同时也阻碍了马克思主义理论国际化传播的广度和深度。笔者呼吁超越狭义西方马克思主义视野，在政治经济学视域下推行广义西方马克思主义研究。

II

二

Broad Western Marxism, constructed from the perspective of political economy, refers to a framework based on classical Marxist texts such as *Capital*, taking the mode of production of human society and the relations of production and exchange corresponding to it as its object of study, relying on explaining and solving major practical political and economic problems of society, and aiming for the free, comprehensive, and harmonious development of humanity and nature as well as among people. It shifts from pure academic research previously confined to the study to directly confronting the fate of humanity, facing social reality, and taking the resolution of new contradictions and new problems in the development of the times as its historical mission and responsibility. On the basis of drawing on and utilizing the beneficial research achievements of narrow Western Marxism, broad Western Marxism is mainly grounded in Western developed capitalist countries, and is committed to integrating and transcending various narrow Western Marxist theories, viewpoints, or schools, including Post-Marxism, Neo-Marxism, Marxology, Ecological Marxism, Rational Expectations Marxism, Cultural Marxism, Feminist Marxism, etc. Broad Western Marxism has complex connotations, broad extensions, diverse research methods, varied theoretical viewpoints, diverse academic resources, an obvious trend toward professionalization of researchers, and a complex and changeable relationship with classical Marxism, while also possessing characteristics such as inclusiveness, openness, pluralism, and looseness.

基于政治经济学视角构建的广义西方马克思主义，是指以《资本论》等马克思主义经典文本为基础，以人类社会的生产方式以及和它相适应的生产关系和交换关系为研究对象，以解释和解决社会政治经济的重大现实问题为依托，以谋求人与自然以及人与人的自由、全面、和谐发展为目标，从以往囿于书斋的纯学术研究转向直面人类命运，正视社会现实，以破解时代发展的新矛盾与新问题为历史使命和责任担当。广义西方马克思主义在借鉴和利用狭义西方马克思主义有益研究成果的基础上，主要立足于西方发达资本主义国家，致力于整合和超越包括后马克思主义、新马克思主义、马克思学、生态学马克思主义、理性预期马克思主义、文化马克思主义、女权马克思主义等各种狭义西方马克思主义的学说、观点或流派。广义西方马克思主义的内涵复杂、外延宽泛、研究方法多元、理论观点各异、学术资源多样、研究人员的职业化趋势明显、与经典马克思主义的关系复杂多变，同时兼具包容性、开放式、多元化和松散性等特点。

(1) The Plurality of Research Methods and the Diversity of Research Conclusions in Broad Western Marxism

(一)广义西方马克思主义研究方法的多元性与研究结论的多样化

The study of broad Western Marxism includes both precedents that follow the principles of materialism and objectivism and samples that employ idealist and subjectivist research methods. An example of the former is Foster. He repeatedly points out that “the ultimate power of Marxist analysis … depends more profoundly on its materialist conception of history, which encompasses both human history and natural history.”[2]2 John Bellamy Foster, Marx’s Ecology: Materialism and Nature (New York: Monthly Review Press, 2000), p. viii. He argues that the tradition of ecological analysis, which was avoided or forgotten by narrow Western Marxism, can only be preserved, developed, and revived within the field of Marxist political economy. He emphasizes that the irrationality of capitalist production stems from the capitalist private ownership of the means of production; therefore, overthrowing the exploitation of labor and transcending the alienation of nature are the inevitable choices for eliminating the metabolic rift between humanity and nature. Foster’s vision of a future society aligns with the position of classical Marxism. A representative of the subjectivist idealist research method is Lukács. He insists that awakening “proletarian consciousness” is the fundamental path to “overcoming the capitalist crisis.”[3]3 Georg Lukács, History and Class Consciousness: Studies in Marxist Dialectics, trans. Rodney Livingstone (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1971), p. 78. Together with other Western Marxist scholars such as Sartre, Heilbroner, and Lebowitz, Lukács unilaterally emphasizes the determining role of subjective factors such as class consciousness, human needs, psychology, and spirit in the process of social development and historical change, while ignoring and denying the importance of objective factors such as class and class struggle, human history, and the natural environment. Their theory of social reform, premised on non-violent revolution, is a manifestation of humanist Marxism and forms an internal rupture with scientific Marxism.

广义西方马克思主义研究，既有遵循唯物主义和客观主义原则的先例，也有运用唯心主义与主观主义研究方法的样本。前者的例子如福斯特。他一再指出，“马克思主义分析的最终力量……更深刻地依赖于其既包括人类史也包括自然史的唯物主义历史观”。2他认为，被狭义西方马克思主义回避或遗忘的生态分析传统，只有在马克思主义政治经济学领域才能够得以保留、发展和复兴。他强调资本主义生产的非理性源于生产资料的资本主义私有制，因此，推翻对劳动的剥削、超越对自然的异化，是消除人与自然新陈代谢关系断裂的必然选择。福斯特的未来社会图景符合经典马克思主义的立场。主观唯心主义研究方法的代表如卢卡奇。他坚称唤醒“无产阶级的意识”是“摆脱资本主义危机”的根本路径。3卢卡奇与萨特、海尔布隆纳和莱博维奇等其他西方马克思主义学者一道，片面强调阶级意识、人类需求、心理和精神等主观因素在人类社会发展与历史变迁过程中的决定作用，忽略和否定了阶级和阶级斗争、人类历史和自然环境等客观因素的重要性。他们以非暴力革命为前提的社会改良论，是人道马克思主义观点的一种表现，与科学马克思主义形成内在割裂。

Furthermore, even when adhering to the same research methods, some Western Marxist scholars find it difficult to reach basic consensus on theoretical viewpoints and policy proposals. Taking ecological Marxism, which advocates the unity of a materialist view of nature and a materialist view of history, as an example, its judgments on economic crises and the development trends of capitalism exhibit clear inconsistencies. For instance, Agger argues that the capitalist ecological crisis, mainly characterized by resource shortages, environmental pollution, and ecosystem degradation, has already replaced the economic crisis. As the primary form of capitalist crisis, the ecological crisis can be entirely avoided. Therefore, the conclusion that economic crises lead to the demise of capitalism cannot be established. His research, from one angle, corroborates the view of capitalism’s permanent sustainability. O’Connor, on the other hand, explores the possibility and inevitability of a capitalist alternative from the perspective of the “dual contradiction theory” and the “dual crisis theory”: on the one hand, the basic contradiction of capitalism, i.e., the first contradiction, leads to economic crises, with the proletariat as the driving force of social transformation; on the other hand, the second contradiction between capitalist production and the conditions of production triggers ecological crises, with various new social movements and the social struggles embodied in production becoming the driving forces of social transformation. Thus, there is more than one path to socialism; “there are two trends that can both lead to an increase in the degree of socialization of the productive forces, the relations of production, the conditions of production, and the social relations of the production and reproduction of these conditions…”[4]4 James O’Connor, Natural Causes: Essays in Ecological Marxism (New York: Guilford Press, 1998), p. 247. O’Connor’s theory of social evolution negates Agger’s theory of social stasis, representing a significant divergence within ecological Marxism.

另外，即使坚持同样的研究方法，一些西方马克思主义学者在理论观点和政策主张上也很难达成基本共识。以倡导唯物主义自然观与唯物主义历史观相统一的生态学马克思主义为例，其关于经济危机和资本主义发展趋势的论断，便存在明显的不一致性。如阿格尔认为，主要表现出资源短缺、环境污染、生态系统退化等特征的资本主义生态危机已经取代了经济危机。作为资本主义危机的主要形式，生态危机完全可以避免。因此，所谓经济危机促使资本主义灭亡的结论不能成立。他的研究从一个角度印证了资本主义永久可持续的观点。奥康纳则从“双重矛盾论”和“双重危机论”出发探讨了资本主义替代的可能性与必然性：一方面，资本主义的基本矛盾即第一重矛盾导致经济危机，无产阶级是社会转型的动力；另一方面，资本主义生产与生产条件之间的第二重矛盾引发生态危机，各种新社会运动及体现在生产中的社会斗争成为社会转型的动力。可见，通往社会主义的道路不止一条，“有两种趋势都能够导致生产力、生产关系、生产条件以及这些条件的生产和再生产的社会关系的社会化程度的增加……”4奥康纳的社会进化论否定了阿格尔的社会静态论，这是生态学马克思主义内部的重要分歧。

(2) The “De-Economization” and “Pan-Economization” of Broad Western Marxism

(二)广义西方马克思主义的“去经济学化”与“泛经济学化”

At the birth of Western Marxism, its main representatives, such as Lukács, Korsch, and Gramsci, mostly had professional training in philosophy or expertise in philosophical research. Subsequently, professional philosophers have remained active in the field of Western Marxist studies. Under the influence of this tradition, the research content, thematic choices, argumentative logic, and discourse system of Western Marxism have gradually converged with the discipline of philosophy. As the philosophical tendency of Western Marxism grew stronger, its research achievements in history, sociology, literature, aesthetics, and art also became considerable. Deliberately avoiding, interfering with, excluding, or denying topics of political economy seemed to become a new trend in narrow Western Marxist studies. Theoretical research in narrow Western Marxism increasingly detached itself from social practice, with more and more examples of professing de-politicized, de-ideologized, and neutral research stances. I refer to this trend of moving away from political economy, reflected in research objects, themes, methods, and the professional aspirations and achievements of researchers, as the “de-economization” of Western Marxism.[5]5 The term “de-economization” (去经济学化) refers to the tendency within Western Marxism to move away from the study of political economy as a central focus. The absence or departure of political economy from Western Marxist studies indicates that the methodological foundation and practical orientation of social science research are increasingly weak, foreshadowing the decline or even bankruptcy of Western Marxism.

西方马克思主义诞生之初，卢卡奇、科尔施、葛兰西等主要代表人物，大多受过哲学专业教育或具备哲学研究专长。此后，专业哲学家一直活跃在西方马克思主义研究领域。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。在西方马克思主义的哲学化倾向越来越浓厚之时，其在历史学、社会学、文学、美学和艺术等方面的研究成果亦十分可观，有意回避、干扰、排斥或否定政治经济学话题，似乎成为狭义西方马克思主义研究的一种新潮流。狭义西方马克思主义理论研究日益脱离社会实践，标榜去政治化、去意识形态化和中立性研究立场的例子越来越多。笔者将这一体现在研究对象、研究主题、研究方法和研究人员的专业志向及研究成果上的不断远离政治经济学的趋势，称为西方马克思主义的“去经济学化”。5政治经济学在西方马克思主义研究中的缺位或离场，说明社会科学研究的方法论基础和现实指向性日益薄弱，预示着西方马克思主义的衰落甚至破产。

Concurrent with the “de-economization” of Western Marxist studies, a phenomenon of “pan-economization” has also emerged.[6]6 The term “pan-economization” (泛经济学化) refers to the tendency to apply economic analysis or concepts to an excessively broad range of social phenomena, potentially diluting the specific focus of Marxist political economy. After the 1960s and 1970s, the research content of Western Marxism increasingly involved feminism, ethnic and race relations, environmental pollution and ecological protection, and other areas. Global environmental degradation and resource depletion, economic cycles and poverty, social conflict and fairness and justice, inequality and discrimination in labor markets, war, and people’s daily lives all entered the research视野 of Western scholars. The theoretical research and practical exploration of Western Marxism continuously transcended the scope of social relations of production. This was particularly prominent in the United States, where “Marxist economists are more likely than most of their European counterparts to accept the economic significance of ‘non-economic’ or ‘superstructural’ variables.”[7]7 Paul M. Sweezy, “Marxian Economics,” in The New Palgrave: A Dictionary of Economics, vol. 3, ed. John Eatwell, Murray Milgate, and Peter Newman (London: Macmillan, 1987), p. 398. Additionally, starting mainly in the 1980s, Japanese Marxist scholars attempted to cross the disciplinary boundaries of economics, integrating Marxian economics into multiple disciplines such as industrial economics, labor economics, finance, public finance, and business organization theory, to explore issues such as Japan’s industrial hollowing-out and irrational industrial structure, labor-capital relations, financial crises, and enterprise forms. This serves as another prominent example. In short, the imperialist trend or pan-economization of Western Marxist studies “has blurred the specific research object of Marxist economics … hindered the future development of Marxist economics,” not only “devaluing the theoretical status of Marxist economics” but also further “reducing the scientific analytical capacity of the Marxist theoretical system.”[8]8 This citation is from the original Chinese text; the specific source is not identified here.

西方马克思主义研究“去经济学化”的同时，也出现了“泛经济学化”的现象。6 20世纪60—70年代后，西方马克思主义的研究内容大多涉及女权主义、民族和种族关系、环境污染与生态保护等方面，世界范围的环境退化与资源耗竭、经济周期与贫困、社会冲突与公平公正、劳动力市场的不平等和歧视、战争以及人们的日常生活等均进入了西方学者的研究视野。西方马克思主义理论研究与实践探索不断超越社会生产关系的范畴，在美国表现得尤为突出，那里的“马克思主义经济学家比其在欧洲的大多数同行，更可能接受‘非经济的’或‘上层建筑的’变量所具有的经济学意义”。7另外，主要始于20世纪80年代，日本的马克思主义学者试图跨越经济学的学科边界，将马克思经济学融入到产业经济学、劳动经济学、金融学、财政学和企业组织学等多个学科，探讨日本的产业空洞化和产业结构不合理、劳资关系、金融危机以及企业形态等问题，也是一个突出的例子。总之，西方马克思主义研究的帝国主义趋势或泛经济学化，“模糊了马克思主义经济学的特定研究对象……阻碍了马克思主义经济学的未来发展”,不仅“贬低了马克思主义经济学的理论地位”,还进一步“降低了马克思主义理论体系的科学分析能力”。8

(3) The Lack of Faith and Professionalization Trend among Broad Western Marxist Researchers

(三)广义西方马克思主义研究者的信仰缺失与职业化趋势

The issue of identity for Marxists, or how to view the relationship between the profession and faith of Marxist researchers, is a topic that broad Western Marxist studies cannot avoid. From the perspective of the history of Marxist development, as the founders, believers, and disseminators of Marxist theory, Marx and Engels actively participated in the international workers’ movement, using Marxist theory as an ideological weapon to guide the working class in opposing the capitalist system and carrying out the socialist movement. They embodied the “internal unity of faith in Marxism, value pursuit, personality shaping, and the study of Marxism as a profession and career choice.”[9]9 This citation is from the original Chinese text; the specific source is not identified here. For a long time after the birth of Western Marxism, some economists who made significant contributions to it, such as Dobb, Mandel, Negri, Sweezy, and Baran, were active members of communist parties and working-class political organizations in their respective countries. Even when some were ostracized or suppressed by Western governments or mainstream opinion, they did not interrupt their research work. Instead, they always adhered to the Marxist position and presented themselves as Marxists for a long time. Thus, the high degree of overlap between the theoretical faith in Marxism and professional pursuit was a notable characteristic of early Western Marxist economics researchers.

马克思主义者的身份认同问题，或者说如何看待马克思主义研究人员的职业和信仰之间的关系，是广义西方马克思主义研究不能绕开的一个话题。从马克思主义发展史来看，作为马克思主义理论的创始人、信仰者和传播者，马克思和恩格斯积极参与国际工人运动，把马克思主义理论作为指导工人阶级对抗资本主义制度、开展社会主义运动的思想武器。在他们身上体现了“对马克思主义的信仰、价值追求、人格塑造与作为职业、事业选择的马克思主义研究”的内在统一。9西方马克思主义诞生后很长一段时间，为之做出重大贡献的一些经济学家，如多布、曼德尔、内格里、斯威齐和巴兰等人，均为所在国家的共产党员和工人阶级政治组织中的活跃分子。有些人即使遭受到西方政府或主流舆论的排挤或打压，也没有中断自己的研究工作，而是始终恪守着马克思主义的立场，并长期以马克思主义者示人。可见，马克思主义的理论信仰与职业追求高度重合，是早期西方马克思主义经济学研究者的一个显著特点。

After the Second World War, Western Marxist economic research deliberately downplayed ideology, evaded class antagonism and social conflict, and focused on interpreting the world while neglecting to change it. Some Western scholars positioned Marxism as a purely academic issue; they attempted to return to university campuses, conceal themselves in their studies, disperse themselves outside the marketplace, sever all connections with various real-world political movements, and strove to disguise or even completely abandon the political aspirations of Marxism. For example, the British New Left movement, from the 1960s onward, became “a much smaller intellectual group centered on the journal *New Left Review*.”[10]10 Reference to the British New Left movement and its shift toward an academic intellectual circle centered on the *New Left Review*. After the dissolution of the socialist states in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, although some Western Marxist economists continued to engage in related research, many of them had in fact already abandoned Marxist ideals and convictions. For instance, Bowles, one of the authors of *Understanding Capitalism: Competition, Command, and Change*, was once dismissed from Harvard University for teaching Marxist economics. In the late 1980s, he suddenly changed his Marxist political stance and began researching human behavior. In short, a notable feature of current broad Western Marxist research is that more people tend to treat it as their specialty, profession, or academic interest, and the work of Marxist research is gradually becoming detached from Marxist ideals and convictions, as well as from the identity of being a Marxist.

二战之后，西方马克思主义经济学研究有意淡化意识形态，回避阶级对立与社会冲突，注重解释世界而忽视改造世界。一些西方学者将马克思主义定位为纯粹的学术问题，他们试图回归大学校园，隐匿于书斋之中，分散在市井之外，切断与现实社会各种政治运动的一切关联，竭力掩饰甚至彻底放弃了马克思主义的政治追求。如英国的新左派运动，从20世纪60年代开始，就变成了“一个以《新左派评论》杂志为中心的、小得多的知识分子团体”。10苏联东欧的社会主义国家解体后，尽管一些西方马克思主义经济学家仍然在从事相关研究，但是，他们中的很多人事实上早已放弃了马克思主义的理想和信念。如《理解资本主义：竞争、统制与变革》的作者之一鲍尔斯，曾因讲授马克思主义经济学遭哈佛大学解聘。20世纪80年代末，他突然改变了马克思主义的政治立场，开始研究人类行为问题。总之，当下广义西方马克思主义研究的一个明显特征是，更多的人倾向于把其作为自己的专业、职业或者学术兴趣来对待，马克思主义的研究工作与马克思主义的理想信念以及马克思主义者的身份逐步脱离。

(IV) The Broad Western Marxist Adherence to, Deviation from, or Vulgarization of Traditional Marxism

(四)广义西方马克思主义对传统马克思主义的坚守与背离或庸俗化

Surveying the numerous doctrines, viewpoints, and schools of Western Marxism, there is no lack of content that develops and innovates Marxism. For example, British cultural Marxism, while adhering to the principles of historical materialism and practical materialism, critiques and reflects on the dogmatism, mechanical determinism, and economic reductionism of official Soviet Marxism, and, based on British cultural traditions and national characteristics, explores a path for the British development of Marxism, thereby reviving the British Marxist and socialist tradition to a certain extent. Some Western Marxists have inherited the Marxist path of social critique and extended the perspective of social critique to broader levels such as technological rationality, the ecological environment, spatial production, daily consumption, and gender and ethnicity. They confront the many real contradictions of capitalist social economy, comprehensively analyze the alienation of relations between humans and between humans and nature, deeply reveal the causes of and solutions to alienation, and thereby demonstrate the unsustainability of capitalism, the free and comprehensive development of humanity, and the construction of a future socialist society. These research achievements have broadened the field of Marxist research, enriched the theoretical content of Marxism, and also highlighted the practical value of Marxism.

综观西方马克思主义的众多学说、观点和流派，其中不乏发展与创新马克思主义的内容。如英国文化马克思主义在坚持历史唯物主义和实践唯物主义原则的前提下，批判与反思苏联官方马克思主义的教条主义、机械决定论和经济还原论，并立足于英国文化传统和民族特性探索马克思主义的英国化发展道路，在一定程度上复兴了英国的马克思主义和社会主义传统；一些西方马克思主义者承袭马克思主义的社会批判路径，并将社会批判的视角延伸到技术理性、生态环境、空间生产、日常消费和性别种族等更加宽泛的层面。他们正视资本主义社会经济的诸多现实矛盾，全面分析人与人、人与自然关系的异化，深入揭示异化现象的原因和破解方式，进而论证资本主义的不可持续、人类的自由和全面发展以及未来社会主义建设等问题。这些研究成果拓宽了马克思主义的研究领域，丰富了马克思主义的理论内涵，同时也凸显了马克思主义的现实价值。

Western Marxist research also contains elements that deviate from or vulgarize Marxism. Take Roemer’s mathematical model-based reconstruction of Marxist political economy as an example: he established a theory of exploitation without the labor theory of value, which clearly differs from and opposes traditional Marxism. Hodgson similarly bypassed the exploitation theory based on the labor theory of value, expanded the extension and intension of exploitation, dissolved its historically transient nature as an essential Marxist characteristic, turned exploitation into a universal and eternal category, and even argued that exploitation widely occurs among family members. According to the views of Roemer, Hodgson, and others, eliminating exploitation is synonymous with eliminating the family—this is yet another version of deviating from or vulgarizing Marxism. Another obvious fact is that Lukács’s “analysis of class consciousness contains idealist elements,” and his book *History and Class Consciousness* “was naturally more easily accepted by bourgeois readers.”[11]11 Reference to Georg Lukács’s self-criticism of the idealist elements in his *History and Class Consciousness* (1923) and his later acknowledgment of the omission of labor as a material intermediary between humans and nature. Lukács engaged in profound self-reflection on this, believing that he had understood economic categories too narrowly and had not analyzed the labor process as the intermediary of the material exchange between humans and nature. It was precisely due to the absence of this “most important practical pillar of the Marxist worldview” that Marxism “lost its true economic foundation.”[11]11 Reference to Georg Lukács’s self-criticism of the idealist elements in his *History and Class Consciousness* (1923) and his later acknowledgment of the omission of labor as a material intermediary between humans and nature.

西方马克思主义研究同样存在背离或庸俗化马克思主义的成分。以罗默对马克思主义政治经济学的数理模型化重构为例，他建立了没有劳动价值论的剥削理论，与传统马克思主义有明显的差别与对立。霍奇森同样绕开了基于劳动价值论的剥削理论，扩大了剥削的外延和内涵，消解了其历史暂时性的马克思主义本质特征，将剥削变成了普遍性和永恒化的范畴，甚至认为剥削广泛出现于家庭成员之间。根据罗默和霍奇森等人的观点，消灭剥削与消灭家庭同义，这是背离或庸俗化马克思主义的又一版本。另外一个明显的事实是，卢卡奇有关“阶级意识的分析包含着唯心主义成分”,他的《历史与阶级意识》一书“自然更容易被资产阶级读者所接受”。卢卡奇为此进行了深刻的反思，认为自己过于狭隘地理解经济范畴，而没有分析作为人类与自然物质变换中介的劳动过程。正是由于这一“马克思主义世界观的最重要的现实支柱”的缺失，马克思主义也就“失去了真正的经济基础”。11

III

三

For nearly a century, Western Marxist research worldwide has been constrained by the limitations of narrow Western Marxism. Due to multiple interpretations of the concept of Western Marxism and the pluralistic opposition of research methods, conflicts or differences in theoretical viewpoints and policy proposals are inevitable. Moreover, narrow Western Marxism, on the one hand, deviates from the tradition of political economy, while on the other hand, it continuously broadens the basic facts of political economy research. Coupled with the increasing loss of Marxist faith among relevant researchers and the growing trend of professionalization, this series of contradictions has hindered the development and dissemination of Marxism. Given that “the research teams, interpretive paths, ideological tendencies, and theoretical viewpoints of 21st-century world Marxism are diverse, lacking a unified Marxist concept and a systematic Marxist theoretical framework,” it is necessary to advocate for and promote broad Western Marxist research.[12]12 Reference to the fragmented state of 21st-century world Marxism, lacking a unified theoretical framework. To further clarify the connotation and extension of “broad Western Marxism,” the following explanations are provided.

世界范围内近百年的西方马克思主义研究，一直受制于狭义西方马克思主义的局限。由于对西方马克思主义概念内涵的多重解读和研究方法的多元对立，难免出现理论观点和政策主张的冲突或差异。而且，狭义西方马克思主义一方面背离政治经济学传统，另一方面却不断泛化政治经济学研究的基本事实，再加上相关研究人员的马克思主义信仰缺失与职业化趋势的不断加重，这一系列矛盾阻碍了马克思主义的发展和传播。鉴于“21世纪世界马克思主义研究队伍、阐释路径、思想倾向、理论观点各不相同，缺乏统一的马克思主义观念与系统的马克思主义理论框架”,有必要提倡和推进广义西方马克思主义研究。12为了进一步阐明“广义西方马克思主义”的内涵和外延，特别说明如下。

(I) The “Western” in “Broad Western Marxism” Is Synonymous with the “Western” in “Western Economics”

(一)“广义西方马克思主义”的“西方”与“西方经济学”的“西方”同义

“Western economics” is a term rich in Chinese characteristics, mainly prevalent in mainland China after reform and opening up, encompassing multiple meanings such as discipline, specialty, and curriculum. From a disciplinary perspective, Western economics is the name of a second-level discipline under the first-level discipline of theoretical economics; from a specialty perspective, Western economics refers to the name of the specialty studied by undergraduate and graduate students in mainland Chinese higher education institutions; as the name of a curriculum or textbook, Western economics can be divided into two basic components: microeconomics and macroeconomics. In universities in Western countries, microeconomics and macroeconomics either exist independently or are collectively referred to as “economics” or “principles of economics,” and there is no such term as “Western economics” at all. Therefore, in the Chinese context, “Western economics” mainly refers to the theoretical system and policy proposals of neoclassical economics, which originated in developed Western capitalist countries, is used to summarize their economic development experience, and defends the capitalist system. In the process of the emergence, development, and prosperity of capitalism, “Western economics” once played a positive role. However, its major theoretical defects and long-term policy failures have been repeatedly severely criticized by mainstream Western economists and various sectors of society. The drastic changes in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, as well as the intensification of social conflicts in Latin American countries since the 21st century, are major disastrous consequences of the neoliberal reforms dominated by mainstream Western economics. The author believes that the “Western” in Western economics is not a specific geographical reference but a full manifestation of political stance and ideological characteristics. The “Western” in “broad Western Marxism” likewise has ideological connotations.

“西方经济学”是极富中国特色的术语，主要流行于改革开放后的中国大陆，包括学科、专业和课程等多重含义。从学科的角度看，西方经济学是理论经济学一级学科下设的一个二级学科的名称；从专业的角度看，西方经济学指代中国大陆各高等院校本科生和研究生所学专业的名称；作为课程或教材的名称，西方经济学可以划分为微观经济学和宏观经济学两大基本板块。而在西方国家的大学中，微观经济学和宏观经济学或者独立存在，或者统称为“经济学”或“经济学原理”,根本没有“西方经济学”这一称谓。因此，国人语境下的“西方经济学”,主要指起源于西方发达资本主义国家，用以总结其经济发展经验，为资本主义制度进行辩护的新古典经济学的理论体系和政策主张。在资本主义产生、发展和繁荣的过程中，“西方经济学”曾经发挥过积极的作用。但是，其重大理论缺陷与长期的政策失灵，多次遭到西方主流经济学家和社会各界的严厉抨击。苏东剧变及21世纪以来拉丁美洲国家社会冲突的加剧，更是西方主流经济学主导的新自由主义改革的重大恶果。笔者认为，西方经济学中的“西方”并非地理方位的特指，而是政治立场和意识形态特性的充分展现。“广义西方马克思主义”中的“西方”同样具有意识形态内涵。

To place broad Western Marxism on a par with Western economics is merely to indicate that the ideological implications carried by the word “Western” are the same. It does not mean that Western Marxism, like Western economics, has undergone a long process of development, formed the two relatively stable though hotly contested content frameworks of microeconomics and macroeconomics, established a methodological system typified by subjectivism, individualism and mathematical analysis, and possesses a clear object of study, tasks and objectives, theoretical viewpoints and policy proposals. In the advanced capitalist countries of the West, the mainstream status of macroeconomics and microeconomics is beyond doubt; by contrast, Western Marxism has been suppressed and discriminated against in its countries of origin as a radical or heretical doctrine. Even in developing countries, especially the socialist great powers such as the Soviet Union and China, it has long been neglected, misunderstood and marginalized, and has to this day failed to form a unified intellectual understanding or a mature theoretical system. The author draws an analogy between broad Western Marxism and Western economics, on the one hand, to illustrate that, as the world’s political and economic situation changes and capitalist contradictions accumulate, Western Marxist research, while constantly absorbing new content and generating new viewpoints, should correspondingly enhance its capacity to explain reality; on the other hand, to emphasize that transcending limitations of standpoint, viewpoint, method, belief or identity, transcending the controversies over true Marxism, false Marxism or anti-Marxism, strengthening academic research in a relaxed atmosphere of letting a hundred schools of thought contend and a hundred flowers bloom, seeking theoretical foundations, and continuously improving the ability to distinguish theoretical right from wrong, are important directions for the development of broad Western Marxism.

将广义西方马克思主义与西方经济学相提并论，仅仅是为了说明“西方”二字所代表的意识形态含义相同，并不意味着西方马克思主义与西方经济学一样，经历了长期的发展过程，形成了微观经济学和宏观经济学这两个虽然饱受争议但却相对稳定的内容框架，确立了以主观主义、个人主义和数理分析为典型特点的方法论体系，且具有明确的研究对象、目标任务、理论观点和政策主张。在西方发达资本主义国家，宏观经济学和微观经济学的主流地位毋庸置疑；反观西方马克思主义，在它的输出国一直被当作激进或异端学说遭受打压和歧视。即使在发展中国家尤其是苏联和中国这样的社会主义大国，它也长期处于被忽视、被误解和被边缘化的状态，至今未能形成统一的思想认识和成熟的理论体系。笔者将广义西方马克思主义与西方经济学进行类比，一方面是为了说明，随着世界政治经济形势的变化以及资本主义矛盾的积累，西方马克思主义研究在不断注入新内容和产生新观点的同时，其现实解释力理应有所增强；另一方面是为了强调，超越立场、观点、方法、信仰或身份等限制，超越真马克思主义、假马克思主义或反马克思主义的争议，在百家争鸣、百花齐放的宽松氛围中加强学术研究，寻求学理依据，不断提高辨别理论是非的能力，是广义西方马克思主义研究的重要发展方向。

(II) “Broad Western Marxism” and “the Study of Marxism Abroad” Cannot Be Equated

(二)“广义西方马克思主义”与“国外马克思主义研究”不能等同

The connotation of “the study of Marxism abroad” can be understood from two aspects: in its usual sense, it is a general term for the study of Marxism in countries and regions of the world outside China, specifically including Soviet and Eastern European Marxism, Western European Marxism, North American Marxism, and Marxism in developing countries of Asia, Africa and Latin America. In a specific sense, it is a proper name for a relevant discipline and specialty in mainland Chinese universities. In 2008, the Academic Degrees Office of the State Council added “Marxist Theory” as a first-level discipline; “the Study of Marxism Abroad,” as one of its second-level disciplines, also names the graduate specialty that recruits students under it. Some domestic scholars, feeling the limitations of narrow Western Marxist studies, have proposed the idea of “moving from classical Western Marxist studies to the study of Marxism abroad.”[13]13 The author refers to a scholarly proposal to shift the focus of research from “classical Western Marxism” (the tradition associated with figures like Lukács, Korsch, and Gramsci) to the broader field of “Marxism abroad,” which encompasses Marxist thought in all regions outside China. The author agrees with their conceptual analysis of “classical Western Marxism” but does not endorse the practice of having the study of Marxism abroad command or replace Western Marxist studies. There are two reasons: according to the usual conceptual understanding, the scope of the study of Marxism abroad is far larger than that of Western Marxism, and many of its schools differ markedly from Western Marxism; according to the specific conceptual definition, Western Marxism either constitutes a specific field within the study of Marxism abroad or reflects a particular training direction or academic specialty of researchers. Because the connotations and extensions of these two concepts are inconsistent, the so-called “command theory” or “replacement theory” lacks possibility and practicality.

关于“国外马克思主义研究”的内涵，可以从两方面进行理解：通常意义上，它是中国之外世界其他国家或地区的马克思主义研究的统称，具体包括苏联东欧马克思主义、西欧马克思主义、北美马克思主义和亚非拉发展中国家的马克思主义等。特定意义上，它是中国大陆高校有关学科和专业的一个专有名称。国务院学科规划办于2008年增设“马克思主义理论”一级学科，作为二级学科之一的“国外马克思主义研究”,其招收的研究生专业亦以此二级学科命名。有国内学者深感狭义西方马克思主义研究的局限，提出了“从经典西方马克思主义研究到国外马克思主义研究”的思路。13笔者赞成其有关“经典西方马克思主义”的概念分析，但不认可将国外马克思主义研究统领或替代西方马克思主义研究的做法。原因有二：根据通常的概念理解，国外马克思主义研究的范围远远大于西方马克思主义，其中很多派别与西方马克思主义差异显著；依据特定的概念界定，西方马克思主义或者构成国外马克思主义研究的一项具体领域，或者体现了研究人员的某一培养方向或学术专长。由于上述两个概念的内涵与外延的不一致，所谓“统领说”或“替代说”缺乏可能性与现实性。

The author emphasizes the distinction between Western Marxist studies and the study of Marxism abroad, but does not deny the inherent academic lineage between them, nor their enduring and far-reaching mutual influence. Broad Western Marxism is a collection of various viewpoints, doctrines and schools of Marxist theoretical research and practical exploration that have emerged or become popular in the advanced capitalist countries of the West. It includes not only structuralist Marxism, existentialist Marxism, cultural or philosophical Marxism, and other schools “generated and developed on the basis of borrowing or distorting classical Western Marxist theoretical viewpoints,”[14]14 This describes how later schools of Western Marxism, such as structuralist Marxism (Althusser) or existentialist Marxism (Sartre), developed by selectively borrowing or reinterpreting the concepts of earlier “classical” Western Marxists. but also “a mixed social trend of thought of non-orthodox Marxism and non-Marxism, with a complex system and diverse views,”[15]15 This phrase characterizes the diverse and often heterodox nature of later Western Marxist currents, which mix Marxist concepts with other intellectual traditions, making them difficult to classify as orthodox Marxism. such as neo-Marxism, post-Marxism, Marxology, analytical or rational expectations Marxism, ecological Marxism, and feminist Marxism. Broad Western Marxism is characterized by diversity, openness, inclusiveness and looseness. Take the French Regulation School as an example. In the 1970s and 1980s, faced with the disappearance of the long post-war capitalist boom and the persistence of economic recession, French regulationist economists, represented by Michel Aglietta and others, focused on exploring the historical laws of evolution of capitalist accumulation regimes and modes of regulation. Their research touched on issues such as the mode of capital accumulation, the realization of surplus value, and the future of Fordist capitalism. Although this school ultimately departed from “the Marxist trajectory” by “breaking with the critical tradition of Marxism,” we cannot deny the homology of its discourse system, research methods and analytical framework with Marxism.[16]16 The French Regulation School, while initially drawing on Marxist concepts of accumulation and crisis, is noted for eventually abandoning the core Marxist project of critiquing capitalism as a mode of production, thus “breaking” with the Marxist critical tradition. In addition, as a close relative of the French Regulation School, the American Social Structure of Accumulation School, represented by David Gordon and David Kotz, was deeply influenced by Marx’s thought on institutions and the long-wave theories of Kondratiev, Schumpeter and others. Their analysis of economic crises, class contradictions and social conflicts, as well as their critique and reflection on neoliberal theory and practice, to a certain extent inherited the Marxist paradigm of theoretical research and the tradition of social criticism, and should also be included in the research field of broad Western Marxism.

笔者强调西方马克思主义研究与国外马克思主义研究的区别，但并不否认二者内在的学术渊源，以及彼此之间持久和深远的相互影响。广义西方马克思主义是产生或流行于西方发达资本主义国家的马克思主义理论研究与实践探索的各种不同观点、学说和流派的集合体，它既包括“在借用或曲解经典西方马克思主义理论观点的基础上产生和发展起来的”14结构主义的马克思主义、存在主义的马克思主义、文化或哲学马克思主义等不同流派，也包括新马克思主义、后马克思主义、马克思学、分析的或理性预期的马克思主义、生态学马克思主义、女权马克思主义等“体系庞杂、观点各异的非正统马克思主义与非马克思主义混合的社会思潮”。15广义西方马克思主义具有多元化、开放式、包容性和松散型的特点。以法国调节学派为例。20世纪70—80年代，面对二战后资本主义长期繁荣的消失以及经济衰退持续的现状，以阿格列塔等为代表的法国调节主义经济学家，着力探讨资本主义积累体制与调节方式的历史演化规律。他们的研究涉及资本积累方式、剩余价值实现和福特资本主义的前途命运等问题。虽然这一学派最终因“与马克思主义的批判传统相决裂”而远离了“马克思主义的轨迹”,但是，我们不能否认其话语体系、研究方法和分析框架等与马克思主义的同源性。16另外，作为法国调节学派的一门近亲，以大卫·戈登和大卫·科茨为代表的美国积累的社会结构学派，深受马克思的制度思想和康德拉捷耶夫、熊彼特等人的长波理论的影响，他们对经济危机、阶级矛盾、社会冲突的分析，以及对新自由主义理论与实践的批判和反思，在一定程度承袭了马克思主义的理论研究范式和社会批判传统，也应被纳入广义西方马克思主义的研究领域。

IV

四

If we take the publication of Volume I of *Capital* as the marker, Marxist research in Western society has exceeded a century and a half. If we begin counting from the birth of the term “Western Marxism,” Western Marxist studies have now gone through nearly a century of development. The limitations and influence of narrow Western Marxist studies are difficult to eliminate in the short term, and the basic framework of broad Western Marxism cannot be established overnight; it requires long and arduous exploration. The author believes that to deeply advance the study of broad Western Marxism from the perspective of political economy, we must take Marxist classic texts such as *Capital* as the foundation, take the mode of production of human society and the relations of production and exchange corresponding to it as the object, take explaining and resolving major practical problems of politics, economy and society in today’s world as the basis, take the pursuit of free, comprehensive and harmonious development between humanity and nature and among people as the ultimate goal, strive to pursue the true essence of Marxist research that synchronizes theoretical thinking with practical exploration and combines interpreting the world with changing the world, and continuously promote the popularization, adaptation to the times, and internationalization of Marxism. To this end, it is necessary to focus on and correctly handle two types of equilibrium relations, emphasize the revival of the tradition of political economy research, and advocate the study of Marxist classic texts.

如果以《资本论》第一卷的出版为标志，西方社会的马克思主义研究已经超过一个半世纪。如果以“西方马克思主义”这一术语的诞生时间开始计算，西方马克思主义研究至今也有近百年的发展历程。狭义西方马克思主义研究的局限和影响在短期内很难消除，广义西方马克思主义的基本框架也并非一朝一夕能够确立的，而是需要经过长期和艰苦的探索。笔者认为，在政治经济学视角下深入推进广义西方马克思主义研究，必须以《资本论》等马克思主义经典文本为基础，以人类社会的生产方式以及和它相适应的生产关系和交换关系为对象，以解释和解决当今世界的政治、经济和社会等重大现实问题为依托，以谋求人与自然以及人与人的自由、全面、和谐发展为终极目标，努力追求理论思考与实践探索同步、解释世界与改造世界共举的马克思主义研究真谛，不断促进马克思主义的大众化、时代化和国际化发展与创新。为此，需要重点关注和正确处理两种均衡关系，强调政治经济学研究传统的复兴，提倡研读马克思主义经典文本。

(I) The Equilibrium among the Main Components within the Marxist Theoretical System and the Revival of the Tradition of Political Economy Research

(一)马克思主义理论体系内部各主要组成部分的均衡与政治经济学研究传统的复兴

Marxism is a theoretical whole. Philosophy, political economy and scientific socialism, as the three main components of Marxism, should always maintain an equal relationship of mutual dependence, mutual balance and common prosperity. However, compared with the series of advances in philosophy, aesthetics, sociology, history and political science, the research achievements in political economy within the nearly century-long study of Western Marxism have been relatively weak, lacking both a dimension of social critique and the capacity to adequately explain major practical problems of economic and social development. Western Marxism is characterized by a clear "de-economization," with few innovative and influential theoretical viewpoints or policy proposals in political economy. This situation is far removed from the holistic requirements of Marxist theory, leading to a disconnection between theoretical research and the reality of social development, thereby undermining the theoretical vitality and practical influence of Western Marxism. For example, in the late 1980s, when faced with challenges such as why the Soviet and Eastern European countries abandoned the socialist path and why capitalist countries did not perish but instead showed very good development momentum, Western Marxism could not provide convincing explanations. Desai thus declared the death of Western Marxism and called for a return to the tradition of political economy research. Desai opposed the vulgar view that linked the socialist turn in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe with the demise of Marxism, insisting that Marxist political economy could reasonably explain the bankruptcy of Soviet and Eastern European socialism and the continued development of capitalism in the 20th century. [17]17 Meghnad Desai, "Rejuvenated Capitalism and No Longer Existing Socialism: A Classical Marxist Explanation," in Jan Toporowski, ed., *Political Economics and the New Capitalism: Essays in Honour of Sam Aaronovitch*, London: Routledge Press, 2000, p. 4. After the 2008 US subprime mortgage crisis, Wolff wrote that once Greenspan's new economy collapsed, Marx and Marxism would re-enter the public's field of vision. [18]18 Richard D. Wolff, *Capitalism's Crisis Deepens: Essays on the Global Economic Meltdown*, Chicago: Haymarket Books, 2016, p. 5. This is because people urgently need to understand the real causes of the economic crisis and eagerly seek fundamental solutions to the problems. It can be seen that the capitalist economic crisis accelerated the return of Marxist economics. Research on broad Western Marxism should seize this historical opportunity to further promote the holistic nature of Marxist research.

马克思主义是一个理论整体。哲学、政治经济学和科学社会主义作为马克思主义的三大主要组成部分，始终应该保持相互依存、彼此均衡、共同繁荣的平等关系。但是，持续近百年的西方马克思主义研究，与哲学、美学、社会学、历史学和政治学等领域的系列进展相比，政治经济学的研究成果相对薄弱，既缺乏社会批判的维度，又不能充分说明经济社会发展的重大现实问题。西方马克思主义的“去经济学化”特征明显，较少有创新性和影响力的政治经济学理论观点或政策主张。这一现状与马克思主义理论的整体性要求相去甚远，导致理论研究与社会发展现实相脱节，使西方马克思主义的理论生命力和现实影响力遭到冲击。如20世纪80年代后期，面对苏联东欧国家为什么放弃社会主义道路、资本主义国家为什么没有走向灭亡反而呈现非常好的发展势头等诘难，西方马克思主义无法提供有说服力的解释。德赛就此宣告西方马克思主义的死讯，并呼吁政治经济学研究传统的复归。德赛反对将苏联东欧社会主义转向与马克思主义消亡联系起来的庸俗观点，坚称马克思主义政治经济学可以合理解释苏联东欧社会主义的破产与资本主义在20世纪的持续发展。172008年美国次贷危机发生后，沃尔夫撰文指出，一旦格林斯潘的新经济崩溃，马克思和马克思主义将重新进入大众的视野。18因为人们亟须了解经济危机的真实原因，迫切希望找到解决问题的根本方案。可见，资本主义经济危机加速了马克思主义经济学的回归。广义西方马克思主义研究理应抓住这一历史机遇，进一步推进马克思主义研究的整体性。

(II) The Balance between Basic Marxist Theory and Practical Application Research, and the Foundational Status of Classical Texts

(二)马克思主义基础理论与实践应用研究之间的均衡及经典文本的基础性地位

The author criticizes the limitation of "de-economization" in Western Marxism, but does not deny its series of achievements in economic research. For example, after World War II, research by the political economy of underdevelopment on the basic pattern of global wealth polarization and the causes of the long-term poverty and backwardness of Third World countries, and the analyses by the French Regulation School and the American Social Structure of Accumulation School on capitalist modes of regulation, accumulation regimes and development models, have to a certain extent enriched and developed Western Marxist economics. However, most existing research results take explaining and solving practical social problems as their fundamental goal, overemphasizing the practicality of Marxism while neglecting its theoretical value. Some major and foundational theories do not receive the attention they deserve, causing research on practical problems to suffer from a weak theoretical foundation and insufficient logical argumentation. After the US subprime mortgage crisis, the tendency of Western Marxism to emphasize practice over theory became even more serious. Many Western scholars launched discussions on the roots, mechanisms and governance measures of the economic crisis, with a very obvious "characteristic of short-term, piecemeal behavior." [19]19 Hu Leming, "New Orientations in Contemporary Western Marxist Economic Research," *Contemporary Economic Research*, No. 9, 2011. It is particularly noteworthy that much research fundamentally deviates from the positions, viewpoints and methods of Marxism. One important reason is that "few contemporary professional economists have read Marx's works," and economics students rarely have the opportunity to access Marx's writings. In fact, only by respecting Marx's classical texts as a premise, accurately grasping and fully applying Marx's basic concepts, can one comprehensively analyze the various contradictions facing modern capitalism, and thereby "deeply understand current socio-economic dynamics." [20]20 Hu Leming, "New Orientations in Contemporary Western Marxist Economic Research," *Contemporary Economic Research*, No. 9, 2011. Therefore, "revisiting Marx... is a useful step towards establishing a paradigm for understanding and explaining the transformations of capitalism." [21]21 Hu Leming, "New Orientations in Contemporary Western Marxist Economic Research," *Contemporary Economic Research*, No. 9, 2011. No matter how capitalism changes today, *Capital* can still provide people with different research perspectives for analyzing practical problems such as economic inequality, instability, and the unsustainability of the relationship between humans and nature, offering a useful analytical framework for understanding the basic characteristics of capitalism. [22]22 Hu Leming, "New Orientations in Contemporary Western Marxist Economic Research," *Contemporary Economic Research*, No. 9, 2011.

笔者批判西方马克思主义“去经济学化”的局限，但并不否认其在经济学研究方面取得的系列成就。如二战后，不发达政治经济学关于世界贫富分化的基本格局以及第三世界国家长期贫穷落后原因的研究，法国调节学派和美国积累的社会结构学派对资本主义的调节方式、积累体制和发展模式等问题的分析，在一定程度上丰富和发展了西方马克思主义经济学。但是，现有大多数研究成果均以解释和解决社会现实问题为根本目标，过于突出马克思主义的实践性而忽略其理论价值。一些重大和基础性理论得不到应有的重视，导致现实问题研究不得不经受理论基础薄弱和论证逻辑不足的制约。美国次贷危机后，西方马克思主义重实践轻理论的倾向更加严重，很多西方学者就经济危机的根源、机制、治理措施等纷纷展开讨论，“头痛医头脚痛医脚的短期行为特征”十分明显。19尤其值得注意的是，很多研究从根本上背离了马克思主义的立场、观点和方法。其中一个重要原因在于，“鲜有当代的专业经济学家读过马克思的著作”,经济学专业的学生也很少有机会接触到马克思的著作。事实上，只有以尊重马克思的经典文本为前提，准确领会并充分运用马克思的基本概念，才有可能全面分析现代资本主义所面临的各种矛盾，进而“深入理解当前的社会经济动态”。20因此，“重温马克思……是建立理解和解释资本主义变革范式的一个有用步骤”。21无论今天的资本主义如何变化，《资本论》仍然能够为人们分析经济不平等、不稳定以及人与自然关系的不可持续等现实问题提供不同的研究视角，为认识资本主义的基本特征提供有用的分析框架。22

Notes

注释

1 Tai Lihua, "An Analysis of the Limitations of Narrow Western Marxist Research," *Mao Zedong Deng Xiaoping Theory Research*, No. 8, 2020.

1邰丽华:《狭义西方马克思主义研究的局限性剖析》,《毛泽东邓小平理论研究》2020年第8期。

2 John Bellamy Foster, *Marx's Ecology: Materialism and Nature*, trans. Liu Rensheng et al., Beijing: Higher Education Press, 2006, p. 190.

2约翰·贝拉米·福斯特:《马克思的生态学——唯物主义与自然》,刘仁胜等译,北京:高等教育出版社,2006年,第190页。

3 Georg Lukács, *History and Class Consciousness*, trans. Du Zhangzhi et al., Beijing: The Commercial Press, 1996, p. 139.

3卢卡奇:《历史与阶级意识》,杜章智等译,北京:商务印书馆,1996年,第139页。

4 James O'Connor, *Natural Causes: Essays in Ecological Marxism*, trans. Tang Zhengdong et al., Nanjing: Nanjing University Press, 2003, p. 259.

4詹姆斯·奥康纳:《自然的理由——生态学马克思主义》,唐正东等译,南京:南京大学出版社,2003年,第259页。

5 Tai Lihua, "Reflections on the Phenomenon of 'De-economization' in Western Marxism," *Contemporary Economic Research*, No. 1, 2013.

5邰丽华:《西方马克思主义“去经济学化”现象反思》,《当代经济研究》2013年第1期。

6 Hu Leming, "New Orientations in Contemporary Western Marxist Economic Research," *Contemporary Economic Research*, No. 9, 2011.

6胡乐明:《当代西方马克思主义经济理论研究的新取向》,《当代经济研究》2011年第9期。

7 M.C. Howard and J.E. King, *A History of Marxian Economics, Volume II, 1929-1990*, trans. Gu Hailiang et al., Beijing: Central Compilation and Translation Press, 2003, p. 324.

7霍华德、金等:《马克思主义经济学史(1929—1990)》,顾海良等译,北京:中央编译出版社,2003年,第324页。

8 Hu Leming, "New Orientations in Contemporary Western Marxist Economic Research," *Contemporary Economic Research*, No. 9, 2011.

8胡乐明:《当代西方马克思主义经济理论研究的新取向》,《当代经济研究》2011年第9期。

9 Liang Shufa, "Identity Recognition of Marxists and the Consciousness of the Subject of Marxist Development," *Research on Marxist Theoretical Disciplines*, No. 3, 2018.

9梁树发:《马克思主义者身份认同与马克思主义发展主体意识自觉》,《马克思主义理论学科研究》2018年第3期。

10 Zhang Liang, "The British New Left Movement and Its Contemporary Examination: An Interview with Professor Michael Kenny," *Qiushi Journal*, No. 5, 2007.

10张亮:《英国新左派运动及其当代审视——迈克尔·肯尼教授访谈录》,《求是学刊》2007年第5期。

11 Du Zhangzhi, ed., *The Autobiography of Lukács*, trans. Li Zhuqing et al., Beijing: Social Sciences Academic Press, 1986, pp. 119, 246.

11杜章智编:《卢卡奇自传》,李渚清等译,北京:社会科学文献出版社,1986年,第119、246页。

12 Wang Fengcai, "The Basic Pattern of World Marxism in the 21st Century," *Study & Exploration*, No. 10, 2017.

12王凤才:《21世纪世界马克思主义基本格局》,《学习与探索》2017年第10期。

13 Wang Yuchen, "From Classical Western Marxist Studies to Studies of Marxism Abroad: Problems and Reflections," *Academic Research*, No. 3, 2010.

13王雨辰:《从经典西方马克思主义研究到国外马克思主义研究:问题与反思》,《学术研究》2010年第3期。

14 Wang Yuchen, "From Classical Western Marxist Studies to Studies of Marxism Abroad: Problems and Reflections," *Academic Research*, No. 3, 2010.

14王雨辰:《从经典西方马克思主义研究到国外马克思主义研究:问题与反思》,《学术研究》2010年第3期。

15 Wang Fengcai, "The Basic Pattern of World Marxism in the 21st Century," *Study & Exploration*, No. 10, 2017.

15王凤才:《21世纪世界马克思主义基本格局》,《学习与探索》2017年第10期。

16 Jacques Bidet and Stathis Kouvelakis, eds., *Critical Companion to Contemporary Marxism*, trans. Xu Guoyan et al., Beijing: Social Sciences Academic Press, 2011, pp. 203, 190.

16雅克·比岱等主编:《当代马克思辞典》,许国艳等译,北京:社会科学文献出版社,2011年,第203、190页。

17 Meghnad Desai, "Rejuvenated Capitalism and No Longer Existing Socialism: A Classical Marxist Explanation," in Jan Toporowski, ed., *Political Economics and the New Capitalism: Essays in Honour of Sam Aaronovitch*, London: Routledge Press, 2000, p. 4.

17Meghnad Desai,“Rejuvenated Capitalism and No Longer Existing Socialism:A Classical Marxist Explanation”,in Jan Toporowski,eds.,Political Economics and the New Capitalism Essays in Honour of Sam Aaronovitch,London:Routledge Press,2000,p.4.

18 Richard D. Wolff, *Capitalism's Crisis Deepens: Essays on the Global Economic Meltdown*, Chicago: Haymarket Books, 2016, p. 5.

18Richard D.Wolff,Capitalism's Crisis Deepens:Essays on the Global Economic Meltdown,Chicago:Haymarket Books,2016,p.5.

19 Tai Lihua, “On the New Expansion of the Connotation of Western Marxism: Taking Political Economy as an Example,” *Review of Political Economy*, 2012, no. 3.

19邰丽华:《论西方马克思主义内涵的新拓展——以政治经济学为例》,《政治经济学评论》2012年第3期。

20 Robert Boyer, “Marx’s Legacy, ‘Régulation Theory and Contemporary Capitalism’,” *Review of Political Economy*, vol. 30, no. 3 (2018), pp. 3, 27.

20Robert Boyer,Marx's Legacy,“Régulation Theory and Contemporary Capitalism”,Review of Political Economy,vol.30,no.3(2018),p.3、27.

21 Robert Boyer, “Marx’s Legacy, ‘Régulation Theory and Contemporary Capitalism’,” *Review of Political Economy*, vol. 30, no. 3 (2018), pp. 3, 27.

21Robert Boyer,Marx's Legacy,“Régulation Theory and Contemporary Capitalism”,Review of Political Economy,vol.30,no.3(2018),p.3、27.

22 Vamsi Vakulabharanam, “Reading *Das Capital* in the 21st Century,” *Economic and Political Weekly*, September 2017; Jayati Ghosh, “150 Years of ‘Das Capital’: How Relevant Is Marx Today?” *Aljazeera*, August 17, 2017.

22Vamsi Vakulabharanam，“Reading Das Capital in the 21st Century”,Economic and Polital Weekly,September 2017;Jayaty Ghosh，“150Years of‘Das Capital’:How Relevant Is Marx today？”,Aljazeera,August17,2017.

Online editor: Zhang Jian

网络编辑：张剑