The Dimension of Reality in Eastern European Neo-Marxist Theory

Eastern European Neo-Marxist theory gradually took shape in the mid-20th century and developed into a significant tributary of Marxist theory. Among its currents, the Korčula Summer School, one of the main activity platforms of the Yugoslav Praxis School, once became an international academic exchange platform. It not only promoted academic discussions among different schools within Eastern European Neo-Marxism but also attracted the participation of representative figures of Western Marxism such as Mandel, Fromm, Habermas, and Bloch.

东欧新马克思主义理论在20世纪中叶逐渐形成并发展为一支不可忽视的马克思主义理论支脉。其中南斯拉夫实践派的主要活动阵地之一——科尔丘拉夏令学园，曾一度发展成为国际性的学术交流平台，不仅促进了东欧新马克思主义内部不同流派之间的学术讨论，更吸引了诸如曼德尔、弗洛姆、哈贝马斯、布洛赫等西方马克思主义代表性人物的参与。

However, entering the 21st century, Eastern European Neo-Marxism seems to have gradually faded from the field of theoretical research due to historical realities—except for the Budapest School, which continued in Australia, almost all other schools have fallen into silence and lost their theoretical creativity, becoming a thing of the past. Yet, it is precisely the former brilliance of Eastern European Neo-Marxism and the theoretical characteristics it manifested under specific historical circumstances that determine its important value in the study of Marxism abroad. In fact, as a result of the integration of Eastern Europe’s unique cultural traditions with Marxist theory, Eastern European Neo-Marxist theory reveals an inherent unity of cultural critique and critique of political economy. Its theoretical attention to the historical fate of socialism and its practical efforts to explore diverse paths of socialism open up a unique dimension of practical significance, constituting a possible direction for further research on Eastern European Neo-Marxism.

然而，进入21世纪，东欧新马克思主义似乎由于历史的现实开始逐渐淡出了理论研究的视野——除布达佩斯学派在澳大利亚得以延续外，其他流派几乎全部陷入了沉寂，丧失了理论创造——成了一种“过去时”。但是，恰恰是东欧新马克思主义一度的辉煌与在特定时代背景下所彰显出的理论特质决定了其在国外马克思主义研究中的重要价值。事实上，作为东欧独特的文化传统与马克思主义理论相交融的结果，东欧新马克思主义理论展现出文化批判与政治经济学批判的内在统一。他们对于社会主义历史命运的理论关注以及对社会主义道路多样化探索的现实努力，更是为其开出了独特的现实意义之维，并构成当前东欧新马克思主义进一步研究的可能性向度。

Critique and Construction: The Dimension of Theoretical Construction of Socialism

批判与建构：社会主义的理论构建之维

The theoretical traditions of Western Marxism and Eastern European Neo-Marxism can both be traced back, in terms of their origins, to the turn toward theoretical critique initiated by Lukács, positioning themselves as a social critique theory. However, Eastern European Neo-Marxism differs markedly from Western Marxism in its practical perspective, and on this basis, it has formed its own theoretical characteristic: a focus on the reality of socialism and its historical fate.

西方马克思主义与东欧新马克思主义的理论传统，从其开创的角度而言都可以追溯到卢卡奇所开启的理论批判转向，自我定位于一种社会批判理论。但是，东欧新马克思主义在现实视阈上与西方马克思主义迥然不同，并以此为基础形成了自身的理论特质，即对社会主义现实及其历史命运的关注。

Eastern European Neo-Marxism continues and develops the important thematic reflection on the European proletarian revolution initiated by early Western Marxist representatives such as Lukács and Gramsci. The actual situation of the European proletarian revolution was the practical basis and one of the key themes that gave rise to early Western Marxism. However, this theme gradually faded from the view of Western Marxism in subsequent theoretical development. In contrast, due to the practice of socialism, reflection on the European proletarian movement and even European socialism constituted an important theoretical dimension of Eastern European Neo-Marxism. In the process of reinterpreting Marx’s theory and striving to reveal the philosophical implications of Marx’s critique of political economy, Eastern European Neo-Marxism, within the context of socialism, attempted to use theoretical critique to promote deeper and more comprehensive changes in Eastern European societies, and carried out theoretical constructions of socialism itself in multiple fields such as economy, politics, and culture.

东欧新马克思主义延续和发展了卢卡奇、葛兰西等早期西方马克思主义代表人物关于欧洲无产阶级革命的反思这一重要思想主题。欧洲无产阶级革命的现实境遇是早期西方马克思主义得以产生的现实基础和重要主题之一，然而，这一主题却在后续的理论发展中逐渐淡出了西方马克思主义的视野。相反，由于社会主义的实践，对于欧洲的无产阶级运动乃至欧洲社会主义的反思则构成了东欧新马克思主义的重要理论维度。在对于马克思理论进行重新诠释并着力揭示马克思的政治经济学批判的哲学意蕴的过程中，东欧新马克思主义在社会主义的语境下，试图以理论批判推进东欧社会更加深刻和总体性的变革，并在经济、政治、文化等多个领域中对社会主义自身进行了理论构建。

For example, the Yugoslav Praxis School, on the one hand, criticized the economistic views of European socialism, and on the other hand, conducted an in-depth analysis of the actual situation of Yugoslav socialist reforms and its forced participation in the world market. On this basis, the Yugoslav Praxis School attempted a theoretical exploration of commodity production under socialism and proposed a socialist vision of “workers’ self-management.” Although this radical vision fundamentally departed from the actual economic base, it still formed a relatively independent Yugoslav socialist economic and political theory. In this regard, the socialist context of Eastern European Neo-Marxism endows its critical theory with a unique constructive character, namely, the theoretical exploration and construction of diverse paths of socialism, constituting an important component of Eastern European socialist theory.

例如，南斯拉夫实践派，一方面对欧洲社会主义的经济主义观点进行了批判，另一方面对南斯拉夫社会主义改革与被迫参与世界市场的现实境遇进行了深入分析。在此基础上，南斯拉夫实践派尝试对社会主义背景下的商品生产进行理论探讨，并提出了“工人自治”的社会主义设想。尽管这一激进设想从根本上脱离了现实的经济基础，但依然形成了相对独立的南斯拉夫社会主义经济和政治理论。就此而言，东欧新马克思主义所具有的社会主义语境赋予其批判理论以独特的建构性，即对社会主义道路多样化的理论探索与建构，并构成了东欧社会主义理论的重要组成部分。

Foundation and Path: The Dimension of a Typological Examination of Forms of Ownership

基础与道路：所有制形式类型学的考察之维

In a certain sense, the theoretical divergence and respective developmental trajectories of Eastern European Neo-Marxism and Western Marxism are a vivid theoretical reflection of the rise and fall of the European proletarian movement and socialism (setting aside the socialist reality of Eastern European Neo-Marxism, the discussions on related issues in French academia, especially French left-wing thought, in the mid-20th century are typical within the Western Marxist tradition). Therefore, from a global perspective, whether it is Western Marxism or Eastern European Neo-Marxism, whether their theoretical and practical experiences are successful or failures, they not only serve as theoretical mirrors but also possess a certain “typological” significance for socialist paths. It can be said that, from the perspective of diverse paths of socialism, the internal connection and historical fate between the failure of the Western European proletarian revolution and the failure of Eastern European socialist construction reveal the possibility of two “typological” paradigms of investigation: the cultural type and the type of forms of ownership.

某种意义上说，东欧新马克思主义与西方马克思主义之间的理论分野和各自的发展进路是欧洲无产阶级运动和社会主义兴衰命运的鲜明理论写照（暂且抛开东欧新马克思主义的社会主义现实背景，20世纪中叶的法国学界，尤其是法国左翼思想对于相关问题的探讨则在西方马克思主义传统中具有典型性）。因此，如果从世界范围内看，无论是西方马克思主义还是东欧新马克思主义，无论是其理论和实践的成功经验还是失败的教训，在具有理论的镜鉴意义的同时，也具有一定的社会主义进路“类型学”的意义。可以说，在社会主义道路多样化的视阈下，西欧无产阶级革命与东欧社会主义建设失败之间的内在联系和历史命运揭示了两种“类型学”考察范式，即文化类型与所有制形式类型的可能性。

In fact, in the *Grundrisse* (1857–1858), Marx examined various forms of production preceding capitalism, pointing out that “property initially (in its Asiatic, Slavic, ancient, Germanic forms) means that the subject of labor (the producing subject, or the subject reproducing itself) relates to its conditions of production or reproduction as its own,” and noted that “the Asiatic form necessarily persists most stubbornly and longest.” [1]1 Marx, *Grundrisse der Kritik der politischen Ökonomie* (1857–1858), referring to his analysis of pre-capitalist economic formations. It can be seen that Marx had already noted the differences and particularities among older communities. In *Capital*, Marx once again raised this issue in the form of a footnote. Therefore, Marx not only focused on the diachronic development of primitive forms of common ownership but also attempted to further reveal their synchronic relations formed by the divergence of historical processes. On this basis, in the 1882 Russian edition preface to the *Communist Manifesto*, Marx and Engels explicitly raised the issue of Russia’s socialist path, namely, whether it could directly transition to the higher communist form of common ownership or must undergo the dissolution process of Western historical development, and pointed out that “if the Russian Revolution becomes the signal for a proletarian revolution in the West, so that both complement each other, then the present Russian common ownership of land may serve as the starting point for a communist development.” [2]2 Marx and Engels, Preface to the 1882 Russian edition of the *Communist Manifesto*, discussing the possibility of a non-capitalist path to communism in Russia based on the peasant commune.

事实上，在《1857—1858年经济学手稿》中，马克思对资本主义以前的各种生产形式进行了探讨，指明“财产最初（在它的亚细亚的、斯拉夫的、古代的、日耳曼的形式中）意味着，劳动的（进行生产的）主体（或再生产自身的主体）把自己的生产或再生产的条件看做是自己的东西这样一种关系”，并指出“亚细亚形式必然保持得最顽强也最长久”。可见，马克思已经注意到了旧共同体之间的差异性与特殊性。在《资本论》中，马克思以注释的形式再一次提及了这一问题。因此，马克思不仅关注原始公有制形式的历时态发展过程，同时也在尝试进一步揭示其由于历史进程分野所形成的共时态关系。以此为基础，在《共产党宣言》1882年俄文版序言中，马克思恩格斯明确提出了俄国的社会主义进路问题，即直接过渡到高级的共产主义的公共占有形式，还是必须经历西方历史发展的瓦解过程，并指出“假如俄国革命将成为西方无产阶级革命的信号而双方相互补充的话，那么现今的俄国土地公有制便能成为共产主义发展的起点”。

In fact, Marx’s “typological” discussion of forms of ownership has not yet been incorporated into the research perspective of Western Marxism or Eastern European Neo-Marxism, and it is precisely this that could open up a deepened direction for the study of Eastern European Neo-Marxism. Of course, this research direction may rely on a comparative perspective formed and developed through the fusion of horizons among Western Marxism, Eastern European Neo-Marxism, and Marxism in the Chinese context (this perspective is gradually taking shape in Chinese academia). At the same time, the formation and development of this comparative perspective can also promote the further enrichment and development of Marx’s relevant ideas.

事实上，马克思关于所有制形式的具有“类型学”特征的论述尚未被纳入西方马克思主义以及东欧新马克思主义的研究视阈之内，而这恰恰能够为东欧新马克思主义的研究开拓出深化的方向。当然，此研究方向或可依赖一种在西方马克思主义、东欧新马克思主义乃至中国语境下的马克思主义之间视阈融合的比较视阈中形成与发展（这一视阈在我国学界正在逐步形成）。同时，这一比较视阈的形成与发展也能够推动马克思相关思想的进一步丰富和发展。

Experience and Lessons: The Dimension of Exploring Diverse Paths of Socialism

经验与教训：社会主义道路多样化的探索之维

The exploration of diverse paths of socialism should become one of the important dimensions of the aforementioned perspective, because the diversity of socialist paths inherently contains philosophical relations such as universality and particularity, possibility and reality, contingency and necessity. After Eastern European Neo-Marxism fell into silence and the socialist context gradually faded from the perspective of Western Marxism, the exploration of socialist paths has been fully manifested mainly through the practical form of the path of socialism with Chinese characteristics. However, this does not mean that the former attention of Eastern European Neo-Marxism to the theme of socialism has completely lost its practical significance. In the process of constructing a contemporary socialist theoretical system, both successful experiences and failed lessons should receive attention and be taken seriously.

对于社会主义道路多样化的探索应当成为上述视阈的重要维度之一，因为社会主义道路多样化本身就内蕴了普遍性与特殊性、可能性与现实性、偶然性与必然性等哲学关系。在东欧新马克思主义走向沉寂，社会主义语境逐渐淡出西方马克思主义的视阈之后，对于社会主义道路的探索主要以中国特色社会主义道路的实践形式得到了充分展现。但是，这并不意味着东欧新马克思主义曾经对社会主义这一主题的关注完全丧失了其现实意义。在当代社会主义理论体系的构建过程中，无论是成功的经验还是失败的教训都应当得到关注与重视。

In terms of its significance as a mirror, proceeding from Marx’s discussion of types of ownership, Eastern European neo-Marxism, in the process of its theoretical construction of socialism and its exploration of diverse paths to socialism, did not delve into or attempt to explore the multiple possibilities of socialist forms of ownership at a substantive level, with the result that its concern for the actual fate of socialism remained at an abstract theoretical level. In this sense, examining Eastern European neo-Marxist theory, especially its discussions on the socialist economy within the context of socialist practice, and revealing its theoretical contributions and biases in terms of Marx’s “typology” of ownership, not only enables us to “rediscover” its theoretical value, but also carries a certain academic significance for understanding the particularity of the ownership form “with public ownership as the mainstay and diverse forms of ownership developing together” [3]3 “以公有制为主体，多种所有制经济共同发展” (yǐ gōngyǒuzhì wéi zhǔtǐ, duōzhǒng suǒyǒuzhì jīngjì gòngtóng fāzhǎn) — “with public ownership as the mainstay and diverse forms of ownership developing together” is a fundamental element of China’s basic economic system under socialism with Chinese characteristics, formally established at the 15th National Congress of the CPC in 1997..

就其镜鉴意义而言，从马克思对于所有制类型的论述出发，东欧新马克思主义在对社会主义的理论构建以及社会主义道路多样化探索的过程中，并未深入和尝试在社会主义所有制形式的诸多可能性的层面上进行探讨，以至于使其对社会主义现实命运的关注停留在抽象的理论层面。在此意义上，对于东欧新马克思主义理论，尤其是其在社会主义实践背景下关于社会主义经济的论述进行探讨，揭示其在马克思所有制“类型学”意义上的理论贡献与偏颇，不仅能够使我们重新“发现”其理论价值，而且对于理解“以公有制为主体，多种所有制经济共同发展”这一所有制形式的特殊性具有一定的学理意义。

Online editor: Zhang Jian

网络编辑：张剑