On the Problematic Logic of Western Marxism and Its Contemporary Value

China’s study of Western Marxism has already accumulated a certain historical depth. How to shift from grasping the specific theoretical viewpoints of Western Marxist theorists to grasping the problematic logic of Western Marxism holds certain referential significance for us in more deeply grasping the theoretical essence of Western Marxism and in making it a genuine theoretical resource for advancing the adaptation of Marxism to the Chinese context.

我国对西方马克思主义的研究已经有了一定的历史积累，如何从对西方马克思主义理论家的具体理论观点的把握进一步转换到对西方马克思主义的问题逻辑的把握，对于我们更加深入地把握西方马克思主义的理论实质，并使之真正成为推进马克思主义中国化的理论资源，具有一定的借鉴意义。

I. The Theoretical Starting Point of the Problematic Logic of Western Marxism

一、西方马克思主义问题逻辑的理论起点

The British scholar Perry Anderson, in his book *Considerations on Western Marxism*, points out: “Western Marxism was the product of the failure of proletarian revolution in the advanced capitalist regions of Europe after the First World War, and it developed under conditions of increasing separation between socialist theory and working-class practice.” [1]1 Perry Anderson, *Considerations on Western Marxism* (London: New Left Books, 1976). The Chinese translation is cited here. After the Second World War, communist parties in Western countries, by copying and mechanically applying the Soviet model of socialism, encountered difficulties in their socialist explorations, which in turn triggered reflection among their Party theorists and progressive intellectuals. In their view, Western European society relied on a form of overall domination that included both the political-violence rule of political society and the cultural-ideological control of civil society. This meant that the Western socialist revolution should adopt a model of “total revolution” encompassing cultural-psychological revolution, economic revolution, and political revolution, among which cultural-psychological revolution was the foundation and prerequisite of the Western revolution. It was precisely because of their analysis of the structure of Western society and their differing views on the strategy and tactics of the Western revolution that fierce debates arose within the Marxist camp. These debates were inevitably reflected in the question of how to understand the philosophical essence of Marxism. In this regard, Karl Korsch, in his book *Marxism and Philosophy*, pointed out that at that time it was the Second International and the Communist International jointly opposing the “Western communism” and “Western Marxism” represented by Lukács, Gramsci, and himself. [2]2 The Second International (1889–1916) was an international socialist organization; the Communist International (Comintern, 1919–1943) was the international organization of communist parties led by the Soviet Union. “Western communism” refers to the current associated with Lukács, Korsch, and Gramsci that opposed the Comintern’s line. The content of the debate concerned the strategy and tactics of the Western revolution, and the outcome of the debate was the emergence of a Western form of Marxist philosophy distinct from that of Soviet Russia.

英国学者佩里·安德森在《西方马克思主义探讨》一书中指出：“西方马克思主义是第一次世界大战后欧洲资本主义先进地区无产阶级革命失败的产物，它是在社会主义理论和工人阶级实践之间愈益分离的情况下发展起来的。”二战后，西方国家共产党照搬照抄苏联社会主义模式，开展社会主义探索遭遇困境，由此引发了其党内理论家和进步知识分子的反思。在他们看来，西欧社会是依靠包括政治社会的政治暴力统治和市民社会的文化意识形态控制在内的总体统治，这就意味着西方社会主义革命应采取包括文化心理革命、经济革命和政治革命在内的“总体革命”模式，其中，文化心理革命是西方革命的基础和前提。正是由于对西方社会结构的分析和对西方革命战略和策略的不同看法，马克思主义阵营出现了激烈的争论，这种争论又必然反映在如何理解马克思主义的哲学本质问题上。对此，科尔施在《马克思主义和哲学》一书中指出，当时主要是第二国际和共产国际共同反对以卢卡奇、葛兰西和他自己为代表的“西方共产主义”“西方马克思主义”，争论的内容是西方革命的战略和策略问题，争论的结果是出现了不同于苏俄的西方形态的马克思主义哲学。

The interrogation of the essence of Marxist philosophy is expressed in the question of whether the essence of Marxist philosophy lies in its specific conclusions or in the dialectic of “the unity of theory and practice.” This constitutes the theoretical starting point of the problematic logic of Western Marxism. Early Western Marxists such as Lukács, Korsch, and Gramsci all emphasized that the essence of Marxist philosophy is the dialectic. The subtitle of Lukács’s *History and Class Consciousness* is “Studies in Marxist Dialectics.” Lukács opposed reducing the essence of Marxist philosophy to specific conclusions, emphasizing that its essence lies in the “totality dialectic” of the interaction between subject and object. The “totality dialectic” is both a critical and revolutionary subjective dialectic, which determines the critical value dimension of Marxist philosophy; at the same time, it is a historical dialectic based on human practice, which determines that the object of study of Marxist philosophy is human social history and nature as it enters the sphere of human practice. It is a doctrine of practical materialism concerning the relationship between human beings and between human beings and nature.

对马克思主义哲学本质的追问体现为马克思主义哲学的本质到底是其具体结论，还是“理论与实践相统一”的辩证法，这构成西方马克思主义问题逻辑的理论起点。卢卡奇、科尔施、葛兰西等早期西方马克思主义者都强调马克思主义哲学的本质是辩证法。卢卡奇《历史与阶级意识》一书的副标题就是“关于马克思主义辩证法的研究”。卢卡奇反对把马克思主义哲学的本质归结为具体结论，强调马克思主义哲学的本质在于主客体相互作用的“总体性辩证法”。“总体性辩证法”既是一种批判和革命的主体性辩证法，决定了马克思主义哲学的批判价值向度；同时又是以人类实践为基础的历史辩证法，决定了马克思主义哲学的研究对象是人类社会历史以及进入人类实践领域的自然界，是一种关于人与人、人与自然关系的实践唯物主义学说。

Korsch and Gramsci likewise opposed the economic-determinist interpretation of Marxist philosophy formed on the basis of the methods of natural science and the standpoint of modern rationalist philosophy. They demanded a return to the dialectical tradition of the “unity of theory and practice” found in classical German philosophy, to restore the philosophical consciousness of Marxism, and thereby to interpret Marxist philosophy as a “totality” theory based on human practice. Gramsci, grounded in the Western historicist cultural tradition and the Italian Marxist philosophical tradition, adhered to the principle of “the unity of philosophy, history, and politics,” explicitly calling Marxist philosophy “the philosophy of praxis.” He emphasized that the function and mission of the philosophy of praxis lie not in discovering some unchanging metaphysical laws or specific stages of historical development, but rather in studying the relationships between human beings and between human beings and nature, revealing the internal mechanisms and organic connections of the interaction among social elements, grasping the basic trends of historical development, and, through exerting the critical value function of the philosophy of praxis, disseminating the cultural ideology of the proletariat, winning the cultural-ideological hegemony of the proletariat, transforming people’s mentality, and forming a unified “collective consciousness” of the proletariat.

科尔施与葛兰西同样反对立足于自然科学的方法和近代理性主义哲学立场而形成的对马克思主义哲学的经济决定论解释，要求立足于德国古典哲学的“理论与实践相统一”的辩证法传统，恢复马克思主义的哲学意识，进而把马克思主义哲学解释为以人类实践为基础的“总体性”理论。葛兰西立足于西方历史主义文化传统和意大利马克思主义哲学传统，坚持“哲学、历史与政治三者一致”的原则，把马克思主义哲学明确称之为“实践哲学”，强调“实践哲学”的功能和使命不在于发现某种不变的形而上学规律和历史发展的具体阶段，而是要通过研究人与人、人与自然的关系，揭示社会诸要素之间相互作用的内在机理和有机联系，把握历史发展的基本趋势，并通过发挥实践哲学的批判价值功能，传播无产阶级的文化意识形态，夺取无产阶级的文化意识形态领导权，改变人们的心态并形成无产阶级统一的“集体意识”。

The commonality in the understanding of the essence of Marxist philosophy among the early Western Marxist theorists represented by Lukács, Korsch, and Gramsci lies in the following: they all opposed understanding and expounding Marx’s materialist philosophy from the standpoint of natural-scientific materialism and modern rationalist philosophy. What concerned them was not the commonalities between Marx’s materialism and old materialism, but rather the emphasis that one should interpret the particularity of Marxist philosophy by focusing on the point of rupture with modern philosophy and the specificity of old materialism. They stressed that, from the perspective of philosophical form, Marxist philosophy is not a modern epistemological philosophy, but a modern philosophy of subjective practical activity. They sought to regard the totality of the interaction between subjective and objective factors in the process of social development as the decisive factor determining the trend of social development. While affirming the determining role of objective factors in social-historical development, they emphasized the role of subjective factors in the historical development process and stressed the organic connection between Marxist philosophy and people’s life-world. This gave rise to the academic tradition within Western Marxism’s view of Marxist philosophy that emphasizes criticality and relevance to reality, and ultimately formed two major interpretive models of the essence of Marxist philosophy: the humanist and the scientistic.

以卢卡奇、科尔施、葛兰西为代表的早期西方马克思主义理论家对马克思主义哲学本质理解的共同点在于：都反对立足于自然科学唯物主义、近代理性主义哲学的立场来理解和阐发马克思唯物主义哲学。他们关注的不是马克思的唯物主义与旧唯物主义的共同点，而是强调应当立足于与近代哲学的断裂点、与旧唯物主义的特殊性阐释马克思主义哲学的特质，强调从哲学形态上看，马克思主义哲学不是近代知识论哲学，而是一种现代主体实践论哲学，并力图把社会发展进程中的主客观因素相互作用的总体看作决定社会发展趋势的决定因素，在肯定社会历史发展中的客观因素的决定作用的前提下，强调历史发展进程中主观因素的作用，强调马克思主义哲学与人们生活世界的有机联系，由此形成了西方马克思主义的马克思主义哲学观注重批判性和现实性的学术传统，并最终形成了对马克思主义哲学本质问题的人本主义和科学主义两大解读模式。

The main schools and figures representing the humanist interpretive model are the Frankfurt School, Henri Lefebvre, Jean-Paul Sartre, and ecological Marxism, among others. The main schools and figures representing the scientistic interpretive model are Louis Althusser, the Italian school represented by Galvano Della Volpe and Lucio Colletti, and analytical Marxism, among others. Although these two interpretive models differ in their specific theoretical viewpoints, they share the following commonalities. First, both advocate understanding and expounding the essence of Marxist philosophy at the point of rupture with modern Western philosophy, opposing the interpretation of Marxist philosophy as an epistemological philosophy or a positivist philosophy. The Frankfurt School opposed viewing Marxist philosophy as an ontology of materialism in the modern sense. Max Horkheimer regarded modern rationalist philosophy and modern positivist philosophy as “traditional theory” lacking a critical dimension, and called Marxist philosophy “critical theory.” He argued that “traditional theory” takes isolated individuals and facts existing outside history and real life as its objects of study, is based on Descartes’ methodology, and is a positivist theory aimed at acquiring knowledge. In contrast, Marx’s critical theory, distinct from economic determinism and liberalism, takes society as a whole and people’s social life as its objects of study, is “based on Marx’s critique of political economy,” and is a social-critical philosophy aimed at transforming reality and achieving human freedom and emancipation.

人本主义解读模式主要代表流派和人物是法兰克福学派、列斐伏尔、萨特、生态学马克思主义等，科学主义解读模式主要代表流派和人物是阿尔都塞、以德拉沃尔佩和科莱蒂为代表的意大利学派以及分析的马克思主义等。这两种解读模式虽然在具体理论观点上存在分歧，但却存在如下共同点。第一，都主张在同近代西方哲学的断裂点上理解和阐发马克思主义哲学的本质，反对把马克思主义哲学解释为一种知识论哲学和实证主义哲学。法兰克福学派反对把马克思主义哲学看作近代意义上的本体论的唯物主义。霍克海默将近代理性主义哲学和现代实证主义哲学看作缺乏批判向度的“传统理论”，把马克思主义哲学称为“批判理论”。他认为“传统理论”是以在历史和现实生活之外的孤立个体和事实为研究对象，以笛卡儿的方法论为基础，以获得知识为目的的实证理论。而马克思的批判理论则是有别于经济决定论和自由主义，以社会整体和人们的社会生活为研究对象，“以马克思的政治经济学批判为基础”，是以变革现实和实现人的自由和解放为目的的社会批判哲学。

Second, both emphasize the critical value function of Marxist philosophy. In the view of Western Marxist theorists, the reason for the failure of the Western revolution lay in the fact that the Marxist camp at that time had interpreted Marxist philosophy in terms of economic determinism, which blunted the critical value function of Marxist philosophy. This caused Western communist parties to neglect the cultivation of proletarian class consciousness, making them unable to resist the shackles of bourgeois ideology and the invasion of the reified consciousness of the market economy, thereby creating a crisis of proletarian class consciousness. Based on this understanding, Western Marxist theorists attached particular importance to expounding the critical value function of Marxist philosophy and sought to achieve the unity of the scientific nature and the critical value function of Marxist theory. In this regard, Ben Agger, in his book *Western Marxism: An Introduction*, points out: “The history of Western Marxism is a history of alternating between determinism triggered by crisis and revolution, and pessimism regarding socialist transformation formed during periods of political harmony and class reconciliation… Many Marxists either exaggerate the tendency toward determinism or exaggerate the tendency toward voluntarism.” [3]3 Ben Agger, *Western Marxism: An Introduction* (Santa Monica: Goodyear Publishing Company, 1979). The Chinese translation is cited here.

第二，强调马克思主义哲学的批判价值功能。在西方马克思主义理论家看来，西方革命失败的原因就在于当时马克思主义阵营对马克思主义哲学经济决定论的解释，钝化了马克思主义哲学的批判价值功能，使得西方共产党不注重对无产阶级阶级意识的培育，无法对抗资产阶级意识形态的束缚和市场经济物化意识的侵袭，造成了无产阶级阶级意识的危机。基于以上认识，西方马克思主义理论家特别重视对马克思主义哲学批判价值功能的阐发，并力图实现马克思主义理论的科学性和批判价值功能的统一。对此，本·阿格尔在《西方马克思主义概论》一书中指出：“西方马克思主义的历史是一部危机触发革命的决定论与政治和谐及阶级和解时期形成的社会主义变革的悲观论之间不断交替的历史……许多马克思主义者不是夸大决定论倾向，就是夸大意志论倾向。”

Third, all emphasize the connection between Marxist philosophy and the real-life world of human beings, focusing on the exploration of practical problems of capitalism, thereby generating numerous theoretical innovations. Because Western Marxist theorists oppose interpreting Marxist philosophy as a kind of modern rationalist epistemological philosophy, they demand the reconstruction of the organic connection between Marxist philosophy and the life-world of human beings, and explore the path to freedom and liberation for the Western proletariat as a whole and for individuals. This leads Western Marxist theorists to place great importance on reflecting on and exploring the practical problems of capitalist society, paying attention to the relationship between the development of Western capitalist modernization and the existential conditions of human beings. Consequently, they have formed theoretical topics such as the theory of alienation and critique of everyday life, critique of technological rationality, ecological critique theory, and political philosophy, greatly expanding the theoretical space of Marxist philosophy.

第三，都强调马克思主义哲学与人的现实生活世界的联系，注重对资本主义现实问题的探讨，形成了诸多理论创新。由于西方马克思主义理论家反对把马克思主义哲学解释为一种近代理性主义的知识论哲学，要求重建马克思主义哲学与人的生活世界的有机联系，探索实现作为整体的西方无产阶级和个人的自由解放之路，这使得西方马克思主义理论家非常重视对资本主义社会现实问题的反思与探讨，关注西方资本主义现代化发展与人的生存境遇，由此形成了异化与日常生活批判理论、技术理性批判、生态批判理论和政治哲学等理论论题，极大地扩展了马克思主义哲学的理论空间。

II. Western Marxism’s Cultural and Ideological Critique of Contemporary Capitalist Society

二、西方马克思主义对当代资本主义社会的文化意识形态批判

Western Marxism emphasizes exerting the value-critical function of Marxist philosophy to carry out a cultural and ideological critique of contemporary capitalist society. In their view, contemporary capitalism differs from classical capitalism, which mainly relied on political violence to maintain its political rule; it now relies on both political violence and cultural-ideological control, and increasingly depends on cultural-ideological control to make people identify with the cultural order and political rule of capitalism. This leads them, unlike Marx and Engels who continuously shifted from philosophical research to economic research, to turn their theoretical focus toward philosophical research, especially cultural research, forming a cultural research turn in Western Marxism. According to the purpose of Western Marxist theoretical exploration, we can divide Western Marxism into two major types: theories exploring the liberation of the proletariat as a whole and theories exploring the liberation of Western individuals. The former is mainly represented by Lukács, Korsch, Gramsci, Althusser, ecological Marxist theorists, and analytical Marxist theorists; the latter is mainly represented by the Frankfurt School, Sartre, and others.

西方马克思主义强调发挥马克思主义哲学的价值批判功能，对当代资本主义社会展开文化意识形态批判。在他们看来，当代资本主义已经与古典资本主义主要依靠政治暴力维系其政治统治不同，依靠政治暴力和文化意识形态控制，并且呈现出越来越依靠文化意识形态控制，使人们认同资本主义的文化秩序和政治统治，这使得他们不是像马克思、恩格斯那样不断从哲学研究转向经济学研究，而是将理论主题转向了哲学研究，特别是文化研究，形成了西方马克思主义的文化研究转向。根据西方马克思主义理论探索的目的，我们可以把西方马克思主义划分为探索作为整体的无产阶级自由解放的理论和作为西方个人自由解放的理论两大类型，前者主要以卢卡奇、科尔施、葛兰西、阿尔都塞、生态学马克思主义理论家和分析学马克思主义理论家为代表，后者主要以法兰克福学派、萨特等人为代表。

Theories exploring the liberation of the proletariat as a whole emphasize that the value-critical function of Marxist philosophy must be exerted to form the mature class consciousness and unified collective will of the proletariat. Lukács emphasizes that, compared with the bourgeoisie’s possession of state power and sophisticated political ruling techniques, the proletariat’s only advantage is its possession of a class consciousness capable of grasping the totality and essence of society, namely historical materialism. Therefore, “when the final economic crisis strikes capitalism, the fate of the revolution (and with it the fate of humanity) will depend on the ideological maturity of the proletariat, that is, on its class consciousness.” [4]4 Georg Lukács, *History and Class Consciousness: Studies in Marxist Dialectics*, trans. Rodney Livingstone (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1971), p. 70. He thus criticizes the economic determinist and vulgar materialist understanding of historical materialism among Marxists of his time, which divorced itself from the above advantage of proletarian class consciousness, did not focus on cultivating proletarian class consciousness, and separated the individual goals of the proletariat’s class struggle from its ultimate goal, thereby causing the proletariat to lose its strength. Lukács demands that Marxist philosophy should not be reduced to a kind of scientific cognition; instead, its ideological function should be exerted, and he puts forward his theory of “class consciousness.” In his book *Marxism and Philosophy*, Korsch criticizes understandings that negate the philosophical consciousness and dialectical content in Marxist philosophy, arguing that they are distortions of Marxist philosophy. Such understandings produce two quite serious consequences: first, bourgeois thinkers, using the pretext that Marxism lacks philosophical content, supplement Marxism with bourgeois philosophies such as Kantian thought and Machism, thereby achieving the goal of distorting Marxism; second, the revisionists and reformists of the Second International, by negating the philosophical content of Marxism, ignore the organic connection between Marxism and the dialectical tradition of German classical philosophy represented by Hegel, as well as the dialectical principle of “the unity of theory and practice, philosophy and reality,” reducing historical materialism to a kind of economic determinism and technological reductionism, thereby losing its critical value dimension. Based on the above understanding, Korsch emphasizes that the philosophical consciousness of Marxist theory should be restored, and then a “total revolution” model, encompassing economic revolution, political revolution, and cultural-ideological revolution, should be adopted in the West. Gramsci interprets Marxist philosophy as “philosophy of praxis,” emphasizing that the function and mission of the philosophy of praxis lie in disseminating the cultural ideology of the proletariat and forming a unified collective will of the proletariat. Based on this understanding, Gramsci particularly emphasizes that the philosophy of praxis must exert its cultural-ideological function, seize the cultural-ideological hegemony of the proletariat through a “war of position” [5]5 “War of position” (guerra di posizione) is a term used by Antonio Gramsci to describe a long-term, gradual struggle for cultural and ideological hegemony, as opposed to a direct frontal assault (“war of maneuver”) on the state. that breaks down the enemy piece by piece, and form a unified proletarian collective will.

探索作为整体的无产阶级的自由解放的理论强调必须发挥马克思主义哲学的价值批判功能，形成无产阶级成熟的阶级意识和统一的集体意志。卢卡奇强调，相对于资产阶级拥有国家权力和圆熟的政治统治技巧，无产阶级的唯一优势就是拥有能够把握社会总体和社会本质的阶级意识，即历史唯物主义。因此“当最后的经济危机冲击资本主义时，革命的命运（以及与此相关联的是人类的命运）要取决于无产阶级在意识形态上的成熟程度，即取决于它的阶级意识”。他由此批评当时的马克思主义者对历史唯物主义的经济决定论和庸俗唯物主义理解，脱离了无产阶级阶级意识的上述优势，不注重对无产阶级阶级意识的培育，把无产阶级的阶级斗争的个别目标与最终目标割裂开来，结果使无产阶级失去了力量。卢卡奇要求不应当把马克思主义哲学降低为一种科学认识，而应当发挥马克思主义哲学的意识形态功能，并提出了他的“阶级意识”理论。科尔施在《马克思主义和哲学》一书中批评那种否定马克思主义哲学中的哲学意识和辩证法内容的理解，认为它是对马克思主义哲学的曲解，上述理解造成了两个相当严重的后果：一是资产阶级的思想家借口马克思主义中没有哲学内容，进而用诸如康德思想、马赫主义等资产阶级哲学来补充马克思主义，达到篡改马克思主义的目的；二是第二国际的修正主义者、改良主义者由于否定了马克思主义的哲学内容，忽视马克思主义同以黑格尔为代表的德国古典哲学的辩证法传统和“理论和实践、哲学和现实的一致”的辩证法原则的有机联系，把历史唯物主义简化为一种经济决定论和技术还原论，丧失了批判价值向度。基于以上认识，科尔施强调应当恢复马克思主义理论的哲学意识，进而在西方采取包含经济革命、政治革命和文化意识形态革命在内的“总体革命”模式。葛兰西把马克思主义哲学解释为“实践哲学”，强调实践哲学的功能和使命在于传播无产阶级的文化意识形态，形成无产阶级统一的集体意志。基于以上认识，葛兰西特别强调实践哲学要通过发挥其文化意识形态功能，通过“阵地战”各个击破的方式夺取无产阶级的文化意识形态领导权，形成统一的无产阶级集体意志。

In order to exert the ideological function of Marxist theory while ensuring its scientific character, Althusser divides Marxist theory into “dialectical materialist philosophy” and “historical materialist science.” He emphasizes that historical materialist science is a theoretical anti-humanist “overdetermination,” existing in the form of scientific theory, bearing the function of providing scientific cognition, and having nothing to do with ideology. “Dialectical materialist philosophy,” on the other hand, exists in a practical state and requires theoretical elaboration from us; it does not provide scientific cognition but mainly bears an ideological function. Althusser also emphasizes that whether the content of dialectical materialist philosophy can be scientifically elaborated concerns whether the international workers’ movement at that time can have scientific theoretical guidance and concerns the success or failure of the workers’ movement. In his book *For Marx*, he defines “dialectical materialist philosophy” as “the theory of theoretical practice,” highlighting the general guiding role of dialectical materialist philosophy for theoretical practice. Because his above view was criticized for committing the “theoreticist” error of severing the internal connection between Marxist theory and the workers’ movement, he subsequently, in *Lenin and Philosophy*, on the one hand defines dialectical materialist philosophy as “class struggle in theory,” and on the other hand puts forward the theory of “ideological state apparatuses” concerning the reproduction of capitalist relations of production, creatively proposing the distinction between “repressive state apparatuses” and “ideological state apparatuses.” In his view, so-called “repressive state apparatuses” refer to the government, army, police, prisons, courts, etc., which exercise political rule functions in a repressive manner; so-called “ideological state apparatuses” refer to the family, school, church, etc., which exercise political rule functions in a non-repressive, ideological manner. The roles of the two are complementary, but the role of repressive state apparatuses mainly lies in maintaining the political conditions for the reproduction of capitalist relations of production, while the role of ideological state apparatuses mainly undertakes the reproduction of relations of production. Althusser argues that in contemporary capitalist society, it is mainly through ideological state apparatuses that cultural hegemony is exercised to ensure the reproduction of capitalist relations of production. He emphasizes that classical capitalist society mainly relied on the religious ideological apparatus to ensure the reproduction of capitalist relations of production, while contemporary capitalist society mainly relies on the educational ideological apparatus to ensure the reproduction of capitalist relations of production. This requires that revolution in the West must pay attention to ideological critique and the struggle for hegemony.

为了在保证马克思主义理论科学性的基础上发挥马克思主义理论的意识形态功能，阿尔都塞把马克思主义理论划分为“辩证唯物主义哲学”与“历史唯物主义科学”，强调历史唯物主义科学是一种理论上的反人道主义的“多元决定论”，它以科学理论的形态存在，承担的是提供科学认识的功能，与意识形态无关。“辩证唯物主义哲学”则以实践状态存在，需要我们从理论上进行阐发，它不提供科学认识，主要是承担意识形态职能，阿尔都塞还强调能否科学阐发辩证唯物主义哲学的内涵关系到当时国际工人运动能否具有科学的理论指导，关系到工人运动的成败。他在《保卫马克思》一书中把“辩证唯物主义哲学”规定为“关于理论实践的理论”，突出的是辩证唯物主义哲学对于理论实践的一般指导作用。由于他的上述观点被批评犯了割裂马克思主义理论与工人运动内在联系的“理论主义”错误，他由此在《列宁与哲学》一书中一方面把辩证唯物主义哲学规定为“理论领域的阶级斗争”，另一方面又提出了关于资本主义生产关系再生产的“意识形态国家机器”理论，创造性地提出了“镇压性国家机器”和“意识形态国家机器”的区别。在他那里，所谓“镇压性国家机器”是指以镇压性方式行使政治统治功能的政府、军队、警察、监狱和法庭等；所谓“意识形态国家机器”则是指以非镇压性的意识形态方式执行政治统治功能的家庭、学校和教会等，二者的作用是相辅相成的，只不过镇压性国家机器的作用主要在于维系资本主义生产关系再生产的政治条件，而意识形态国家机器的作用则主要承担生产关系的再生产。阿尔都塞认为在当代资本主义社会中，主要是依靠意识形态国家机器行使其文化领导权，保证资本主义生产关系再生产，并强调古典资本主义社会主要是依靠宗教意识形态机器保证资本主义生产关系的再生产，而当代资本主义社会则主要依靠教育意识形态国家机器保证资本主义生产关系的再生产，这就要求西方革命必须重视意识形态批判和领导权的争夺。

The theory of ecological Marxism puts forward the proposition that “capitalism is inherently anti-ecological,” identifying the capitalist system and mode of production as the root and basis of the ecological crisis, and launching a critique of the values carried by capital and the consumerist values that serve as capitalist ideology. Capital advocates consumerist values and a mode of existence throughout society, whose basic characteristic is “encouraging everyone to place consumption activities at the center of their daily concerns, while at the same time intensifying the experience of dissatisfaction at every level of consumption already attained.” [6]6 The quotation is from William Leiss, *The Limits to Satisfaction: An Essay on the Problem of Needs and Commodities* (1976), a key text in ecological Marxist critique of consumerism. The “consumption” advocated by this consumerist value system is not based on people’s genuine needs, but rather on the “false needs” deliberately manufactured by capital in order to pursue profit and maintain political rule. Ecological Marxist theory thus criticizes consumerist values and modes of existence for inverting the relationship between needs, commodities, satisfaction, and happiness, inevitably leading to the alienation of relations between people, between people and society, and between people and nature, as well as to ecological crisis. To resolve the ecological crisis and achieve the freedom and liberation of the proletariat, it is necessary to launch a critique of consumerist values, freeing people from domination by consumerist values and enabling them to seek satisfaction and happiness in creative labor. In their theoretical exploration of the future and destiny of socialism, analytical Marxists abandoned empirical and historical investigations of social development, instead turning to the discourse of morality and justice, defending socialism from a normative perspective, and consciously undertaking the task of upholding the value principles of socialism, responding to the liberal discourse of justice in the field of political philosophy and elaborating the value content of socialist egalitarianism.

生态学马克思主义理论提出了“资本主义在本质上是反生态的”命题，指认资本主义制度和生产方式是生态危机的根源和基础，并对资本所承载的价值观和作为资本主义意识形态的消费主义价值观展开了批判。资本在全社会倡导消费主义价值观和生存方式，其基本特点是“鼓励所有人把消费活动置于他们日常关注的中心位置，同时在每一个已获得消费水平上加强不满足的体验”。这种消费主义价值观所倡导的“消费”，不是建立在人的真实需要的基础上的，而是建立在资本为了追逐利润和维系政治统治的需要，故意制造出来的“虚假需要”的基础上的。生态学马克思主义理论由此批评消费主义价值观和生存方式颠倒了需要、商品、满足和幸福的关系，必然导致人与人、人与社会、人与自然关系的异化和生态危机。要解决生态危机，实现无产阶级的自由和解放，就必须展开对消费主义价值观的批判，使人们从消费主义价值观的支配下解放出来，在创造性的劳动中寻求满足和幸福。分析学马克思主义在思考社会主义的前途命运的理论探索中，放弃了对社会发展的实证性的、历史性的考察，转而选择道德和正义话语，从规范角度对社会主义作出辩护，并自觉承担起捍卫社会主义价值原则的任务，在政治哲学领域对自由主义正义话语作出回应，阐发了社会主义平等主义的价值内涵。

Unlike Western Marxist theories that explore the freedom and liberation of the proletariat as a whole, focusing on how to free the proletariat from the shackles of bourgeois ideology and form a mature class consciousness and general will, Western Marxist theorists who explore the freedom and liberation of the individual focus on how to free the individual from the total control of Western society, forming an autonomous consciousness and independent personality, thereby creating conditions for the individual’s freedom and liberation. The Frankfurt School emphasizes that the progress of science and technology has promoted the development of productive forces, greatly enriching society’s material wealth and raising the material living standards of the working class to a certain extent, leading capitalist society into a period of stable development. However, this neither means that capitalist society has eliminated social contradictions, nor does it mean that the working class has attained freedom and happiness. On the contrary, driven by the profit motive, capital has not used the growing social material wealth for the free and comprehensive development of the working class and Western individuals, but has instead imposed more comprehensive control and additional repression on the working class and individuals.

与探索作为整体的无产阶级的自由解放的西方马克思主义理论注重如何使无产阶级摆脱资产阶级意识形态的束缚，形成成熟的阶级意识和普遍意志不同，探索个人自由解放的西方马克思主义理论家注重的是如何使个人摆脱西方社会的总体控制，形成个人的自主意识和独立人格，为实现个人的自由解放创造条件。法兰克福学派强调，科学技术的进步推进了生产力的发展，使得社会物质财富极大丰富，工人阶级的物质生活水平得到了一定程度的提高，资本主义社会进入一个稳定发展的时期，但这既不意味着资本主义社会已经消除了社会矛盾，更不意味着工人阶级获得了自由和幸福。恰恰相反，资本在利润动机的支配下，没有将日益增长的社会物质财富运用于工人阶级和西方个人的自由全面发展，而是对工人阶级和个人进行了更全面的控制和额外的压抑。

In his book *Technology and Science as “Ideology”*, Habermas argues that science and technology perform an ideological function. Unlike traditional ideology, which operates “from above,” this function operates “from below”: Western capitalist societies use the social wealth brought by scientific and technological progress to establish extensive social welfare systems throughout society, thereby gaining people’s identification with and loyalty to the capitalist system. In a series of works such as *The Sane Society* and *Escape from Freedom*, Fromm reveals how technological progress, through the control of nature, cultivates a non-productive, market-oriented personality, locating the value of the self in the ability to achieve market exchange and external recognition, thereby losing an independent personality. This leads people to worship authoritarian morality and dare not pursue their own genuine interests, resulting in the alienation of people from themselves, from others, and from nature. How to cultivate an independent personality, unleash people’s productive potential, overcome alienation, and achieve human freedom and liberation became the core issues of Fromm’s theoretical inquiry.

哈贝马斯在《作为“意识形态”的技术与科学》一书中认为，科学技术行使的是一种意识形态功能，它有别于传统意识形态“自上而下”的方式，采取了“自下而上”的方式，西方资本主义社会利用科学技术进步带来的社会财富，在全社会建立广泛的社会福利制度，进而获得人们对资本主义制度的认同和忠诚。弗洛姆在《健全的社会》《追寻自我》等一系列著作中揭示了技术进步如何通过控制自然，培育非生产性的市场取向的人格，把自我的价值定位于能否实现市场交换和外界的认可而丧失自我独立的人格，使得人们崇拜权威主义道德而不敢追求自身真实的利益，由此导致人自身、人与人以及人与自然关系的异化。如何培育独立的人格，使人们的生产性潜能发挥出来，克服异化和实现人的自由与解放成为弗洛姆理论探讨的核心问题。

In works such as *Dialectic of Enlightenment*, Horkheimer and Adorno put forward the “culture industry thesis,” revealing how the culture industry, based on scientific and technological progress, outputs consumerist values aimed at controlling and dominating people’s inner worlds, thereby achieving total rule over people. In their view, the cultural products produced by the culture industry are essentially a form of cultural alienation. This is because, from the perspective of cultural production, genuine cultural production is characterized by individuality and creativity, but the culture industry produces cultural products through replication and mass production, resulting in cultural products that are standardized, massified, and homogenized. From the perspective of the essence and purpose of culture, the essence of culture is originally to elevate human nature and promote people’s free and comprehensive development, but the cultural products produced by the culture industry are special commodities aimed at pursuing profit. From the perspective of the consequences of consuming the cultural products produced by the culture industry, because the cultural products themselves are special commodities lacking intellectual depth, they primarily use advertising as a medium to guide people in chasing and consuming cultural products while forgetting the pains of life. This means that the culture industry inevitably causes people’s inner worlds to be dominated by society, losing rational thought and critical consciousness, thereby performing an ideological function. Through the above analysis, the Frankfurt School, on the one hand, argues that the progress of science and technology and the increase in social wealth have not brought people freedom and happiness; on the contrary, contemporary Western society is already a society of total domination and total alienation. On the other hand, it emphasizes that the increase in social wealth and the improvement in material living standards by no means indicate that contemporary Western society is a contradiction-free ideal society. On the contrary, the basic contradictions of capitalist society have not changed; the working class remains in a state of political oppression and economic exploitation. However, the form of expression of the basic contradictions of capitalist society has transformed into a contradiction between the trend toward totalization and integration of social production and life, on the one hand, and the demand for individualization and free development, on the other. How to free the individual from the state of being increasingly swallowed up by the social totality and restore people’s critical consciousness is the prerequisite and foundation for Western people to attain freedom and liberation. They thus propose that achieving the freedom and liberation of Western people should proceed through artistic aesthetics or the cultivation of love, forming people’s autonomous consciousness, independent personality, and restoring their critical consciousness.

霍克海默和阿多诺在《启蒙辩证法》等著作中提出“文化工业论”，揭示了以科学技术进步为基础的文化工业，输出以控制和支配人们内心世界为目的的消费主义价值观，进而实现对人们的总体统治。在他们看来，文化工业所生产的文化产品本质上是一种文化的异化。这是因为从文化的生产看，真正的文化生产是具有个性和创造性的，但文化工业生产文化产品却是采取复制和大规模生产的方式，其生产的文化产品具有标准化、大众化和同一化特征；从文化的本质和目的看，文化的本质原本是提升人性，促进人的自由全面发展，但文化工业所生产的文化产品却是以追求利润为目的的特殊商品；从文化工业所生产的文化产品消费的后果看，由于文化产品本身都是无思想深度的特殊商品，它主要以广告为中介，引导人们追逐和消费文化产品而忘却生活的痛苦，这意味着文化工业必然使人们的内心世界为社会所支配而丧失理性思考和批判意识，行使的是一种意识形态功能。法兰克福学派通过以上分析，一方面认为科学技术进步和社会财富的增加并没有给人们带来自由和幸福，恰恰相反，当代西方社会已经是一个总体统治和总体异化的社会，另一方面又强调社会财富的增加和物质生活水平的提高决不意味着当代西方社会是一个无矛盾的理想社会，恰恰相反，资本主义社会的基本矛盾并没有改变，工人阶级仍然处于政治上受压迫、经济上受剥削的生存状态，只不过资本主义社会基本矛盾的表现形式已经转化为社会生产生活总体化、一体化发展趋势与人的个性化、自由发展要求之间的矛盾，如何把个人从被社会总体日益吞没的状态下解放出来，恢复人们的批判意识，是西方人获得自由和解放的前提和基础。他们由此提出了实现西方人的自由解放应当通过艺术审美或爱的培育，形成人的自主意识、独立人格和恢复人们的批判意识。

Overall, emphasizing cultural and ideological critique is a common feature of Western Marxism. However, the focus of Western Marxist theories exploring the freedom and liberation of the proletariat as a whole is on how to form a mature class consciousness and general will of the proletariat through cultural and ideological critique, advocating a socialist political revolution centered on class politics. The focus of Western Marxist theories exploring the freedom and liberation of the Western individual is on how to form people’s autonomous consciousness and independent personality through cultural and ideological critique and artistic aesthetics, establishing a humanist socialist society.

总的来看，重视文化意识形态批判是西方马克思主义的共同点。但探索以作为整体的无产阶级自由解放的西方马克思主义理论的重点，是如何通过文化意识形态批判，形成无产阶级成熟的阶级意识和普遍意志，倡导的是以阶级政治为主体的社会主义政治革命；探索作为西方个体自由和解放的西方马克思主义理论的重点，是如何通过文化意识形态批判，通过艺术审美形成人们的自主意识和独立人格，建立人道主义社会主义社会。

III. Western Marxism’s Exploration of Contemporary Capitalist Realities and Theoretical Innovation

三、西方马克思主义对当代资本主义现实问题的探讨与理论创新

Emphasizing the exploration of the realities of capitalist modernization and contemporary Western society from the ontological dimension of human freedom and liberation is a prominent feature of Western Marxist theory. This has given rise to innovative theories such as the critique of alienation and everyday life, the critique of technological rationality, ecological critique, and the critique of political philosophy. These are important intellectual resources for advancing the Sinicization of Marxism and the theoretical construction of Chinese Marxist philosophy.

重视从人的自由和解放的本体论维度，探讨资本主义现代化发展和当代西方社会现实问题，是西方马克思主义理论的突出特点，并由此形成了诸如异化与日常生活批判理论、技术理性批判、生态批判理论和政治哲学批判理论等具有创新性的理论，它们是推进马克思主义中国化和中国马克思主义哲学理论建设的重要思想资源。

Influenced by Max Weber’s sociology, Georg Simmel’s philosophy of money, and Marx’s analysis of “commodity fetishism” in *Capital*, Lukács argued that a universal phenomenon of reification existed in capitalist society, and on this basis proposed his “theory of reification,” making the thesis of alienation an important theoretical tool for Western Marxism’s critique of capitalist society. Lukács defined reification as “a relation between people takes on the character of a thing and thus acquires a ‘phantom objectivity,’ an autonomy that seems so strictly rational and all-embracing as to conceal every trace of its fundamental nature: the relation between people.” [7]7 Georg Lukács, *History and Class Consciousness* (1923), trans. Rodney Livingstone (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1971), p. 83. The Chinese text paraphrases Lukács’s definition; this note provides the standard English translation. It is manifested not only in the way that objects produced by human labor turn around to dominate human existence, but also in the opposition between human labor and human beings themselves. Lukács believed that the emergence of the phenomenon of reification originated in the prevalence of technological rationality and the mechanized mass production of capitalism based on that rationality. The phenomenon of reification meant not only that capitalist modernization caused the value of things to rise and the value of people to fall, but also that it produced a positivist mode of thinking that “cannot see the forest for the trees,” preventing people from truly grasping the distinction between appearance and essence in capitalist society and causing them to lose their subjective position in historical development. Although Lukács’s theory of reification had the defect of conflating “alienation” with “objectification,” it was proposed before Marx’s *Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844* had been published, which demonstrates his keen theoretical insight. This theory was inherited and developed by later Western Marxist theorists, becoming an important theoretical tool for analyzing the existential conditions of people in capitalist society and for critiquing that society. It gave rise to Western Marxist theories such as “total alienation,” “alienation of everyday life,” and “alienation of consumption,” the core of which is the assertion that contemporary capitalist society is in essence a society of total alienation: not only are human beings themselves, relations between people, and the relationship between humanity and nature in a state of alienation, but alienation also pervades people’s consumption activities and daily life.

受马克斯·韦伯的社会学、齐美尔的货币哲学和马克思的《资本论》对“商品拜物教”的分析的影响，卢卡奇认为资本主义社会存在着普遍的物化现象，并由此提出了“物化理论”，并使异化论题成为西方马克思主义批判资本主义社会的重要理论工具。卢卡奇把物化规定为“人自己的活动，人自己的劳动，作为某种客观的东西，某种不依赖于人的东西，某种通过异于人的自律性来控制人的东西，同人相对立”。它不仅体现为由人们劳动所生产出的物反过来成为一种支配人的存在，而且体现为人的劳动与人自身相对立。卢卡奇认为物化现象的产生根源于技术理性的盛行和建立在技术理性基础上的资本主义机械化大生产，物化现象不仅意味着资本主义现代化造成物的价值的上升，人的价值的下降，而且造成了只见树木、不见森林的实证主义思维方式，使人们无法真正把握资本主义社会现象和本质的区别，丧失了历史发展中的主体地位。卢卡奇的物化理论虽然存在着把“异化”与“对象化”混同的缺陷，但他是在马克思的《1844年经济学哲学手稿》一书还未出版时提出的，这显示了他敏锐的理论洞察力。这一理论为后来的西方马克思主义理论家所继承和发展，成为他们分析资本主义社会中人的生存境遇和批判资本主义社会的重要理论工具，并形成了西方马克思主义的“总体异化论”“日常生活异化论”“消费异化论”等理论，其核心是指认当代资本主义社会本质上是一个总体异化的社会，不仅人自身、人与人以及人与自然的关系处于异化状态，而且异化也弥漫于人们的消费活动和日常生活中。

The value of the Western Marxist theory of alienation lies in its profound revelation that, although contemporary Western capitalist modernization has brought about the development of productive forces and an increase in material wealth, it has not brought people freedom and happiness. On the contrary, it has brought more comprehensive control and repression, the subordination of people to things, the fragmentation of the human body and mind, and the loss of self-consciousness and independent personality. However, it should also be noted that the Western Marxist theory of alienation has the following three defects: First, they did not explore the roots of alienation from the perspective of capitalist private property and the division of labor, but simply attributed it to the prevalence of technological rationality. This caused their theory to move toward philosophical-cultural critique, rather than toward the critique of political economy as Marx did, and made it difficult for them to find a realistic path to overcome alienation. Second, in the *Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844*, Marx not only held that alienation arises from capitalist private property and the division of labor, but also clearly defined the connotation and essence of alienation from four aspects: “the relation of the worker to his own labor,” “the relation of the worker to labor as the essence of the human being,” “the relation of the worker to his own product of labor,” and “the social relations of the worker.” Western Marxist theorists, however, used the concept of alienation in an overly broad manner, even detaching it from capitalist private property and economic relations and generalizing it into a subjective psychological experience, arguing that “alienation is a mode of experience in which the individual feels himself to be a stranger. Or, the individual in this experience becomes estranged from himself.” [8]8 This is a paraphrase of Erich Fromm’s definition of alienation in *The Sane Society* (1955). They then labeled all negative phenomena in social life as alienation, effectively subjectivizing it. Third, they conflated “objectification” and “alienation,” effectively ontologizing alienation. This not only reduced the entire history of human society to a history of alienation and resistance to alienation, but also reduced Marxist philosophy to an abstract philosophical anthropology aimed at resisting and overcoming alienation.

西方马克思主义的异化理论的价值在于深刻地揭示了当代西方资本主义现代化虽然带来了生产力的发展和物质财富的增加，但并没有给人们带来自由和幸福，相反带来的是更加全面的控制压抑，是人屈从于物，人的身心分裂、自我意识和独立人格的丧失。但也应该看到，西方马克思主义的异化理论存在着如下三个缺陷：一是他们没有从资本主义私有制和分工的角度探讨异化产生的根源，而是简单地把它归结为技术理性的盛行，由此使得他们的理论走向了哲学文化价值批判，而不是像马克思那样走向政治经济学批判，也难以找到克服异化的现实途径；二是马克思在《1844年经济学哲学手稿》中不仅认为异化产生于资本主义私有制和分工，而且明确地从“工人与自己的劳动本身的关系”、“工人同作为人的本质的劳动的关系”、“工人与自己的劳动产品的关系”以及“工人的社会关系”四个方面规定异化的内涵与本质。而西方马克思主义理论家则把异化概念泛化使用，甚至脱离资本主义私有制和经济关系把它泛化为一种主观心理体验，认为“异化是一种体验方式，在这种体验中，个人感到自己是陌生人。或者说，个人在这种体验中变得使自己疏远起来”，进而把社会生活中一切负面现象都称之为异化，实际上是把异化主观化；三是混淆“对象化”和“异化”，实际上是把异化本体论化，不仅将人类社会历史归结为异化和反抗异化的历史，而且将马克思主义哲学归结为以反抗异化和克服异化为目的的一种抽象的哲学人类学。

Western Marxism, through its reflection on the social effects of science and technology, developed its critique of technological rationality. This critique unfolded along two main dimensions: a critique at the level of philosophical worldview and a critique of the social basis that bears the use of technology. From the dimension of philosophical worldview critique, they proceeded along two sub-dimensions: revealing the inherent deficiencies of Enlightenment rationality and exposing the consequences of the prevalence of contemporary positivist philosophy. In their view, the fundamental purpose of Enlightenment rationality was to require people to establish reason, free themselves from fear of nature and worship of myth, and achieve autonomy. Enlightenment rationality thus fundamentally changed the pre-Enlightenment fascination with the mysteries of nature and reverence for it. People came to view nature from a utilitarian perspective, thereby reducing the relationship between humanity and nature to one of control and being controlled, use and being used. The problem lies in the fact that the standard by which Enlightenment rationality judged “science” was not knowledge of the ultimate causes and causal relations of the world, but rather whether it was “useful.” Consequently, anything that did not conform to the rules of calculation and utility was deemed suspect, and all inquiries into the causal relations and ultimate causes of things were rejected and discarded as metaphysical fantasies. The “science” of Enlightenment rationality excluded value factors, thereby severing the internal connection between “instrumental rationality” and “value rationality.” “Reason” was thus alienated into “technological rationality,” and “science” was reduced to “technology.” The prevalence of contemporary positivist philosophy further reinforced the worship of scientific-technological rationality and the ascendancy of scientism. From the perspective of the social basis that bears the use of technology, the nature of capital’s pursuit of profit means that capitalist production follows an “economic rationality” that prioritizes economic efficiency and growth. This determines that the use of technology is not aimed at realizing the free and comprehensive development of human beings, but rather serves and submits to capital’s need to pursue profit. As a result, under contemporary capitalist conditions, the application of technology can only further intensify the tense relations between humanity and nature, and between people. Regarding how to avoid the alienation of science and technology, Western Marxism proposed two approaches: first, the relationship between science and philosophy, and between science and value, should be reconstructed, establishing a “technological ethics” aimed at curbing people’s irrational desires, so as to ensure that the use of science and technology is conducive to the harmonious development of humanity and nature, and of humanity and society; second, the irrational capitalist system and mode of production should be transformed, and relations between people should be reconstructed.

西方马克思主义通过反思科学技术的社会效应，形成了他们的技术理性批判。西方马克思主义的技术理性批判主要是沿着哲学世界观批判和承载技术使用的社会基础批判两个维度展开。从哲学世界观批判的维度看，他们是从揭示启蒙理性的内在缺失和当代实证主义哲学盛行的后果两个维度展开。在他们看来，启蒙理性的根本目的就是要求人们树立理性，摆脱对自然的恐惧和对神话的崇拜，使人们走向自立，启蒙理性由此从根本上改变了启蒙运动之前人们对自然奥秘的迷恋和对自然的敬畏。他们从实用的角度看待自然，由此把人与自然的关系看作控制和被控制、利用和被利用的关系。问题在于，启蒙理性判断“科学”的标准并不是对世界终极原因和因果关系的知识，而是以是否“有用”作为标准，由此把凡是不符合计算与实用规则的东西都认为是值得怀疑的，把一切有关事物因果关系和极终原因的探讨都当作形而上学的幻想予以否定和抛弃。启蒙理性所谓的“科学”都是排斥价值因素的，实际上也就割裂了“工具理性”和“价值理性”的内在联系，“理性”由此异化为“技术理性”，“科学”由此被归结为“技术”。当代实证主义哲学的流行又进一步强化了对科学技术理性的崇拜和唯科学主义思潮的盛行。从承载技术使用的社会基础看，资本追逐利润的本性，使得资本主义生产对技术的使用遵循的是追求经济效率和经济增长的“经济理性”，这就决定了技术的运用不是为了实现人的自由全面发展，而是服从和服务于资本追求利润的需要，由此使得技术运用在当代资本主义条件下，只能进一步强化人与自然、人与人之间的紧张关系。对于如何才能避免科学技术的异化，西方马克思主义提出，一是应当重建科学技术与哲学、科学技术与价值的关系，建立一种旨在阻止人的非理性欲望的“技术伦理”，保证科学技术使用有利于人与自然、人与社会的和谐发展；二是应当变革不合理的资本主义制度和生产方式，重建人与人的关系。

Western Marxism has conducted in-depth explorations of how to resolve the increasingly severe ecological crisis in the contemporary world, forming a theory of ecological critique. It opposes the Western “dark green” ecological trend of thought based on ecocentrism and the Western “light green” ecological trend of thought based on anthropocentrism, both of which separate the view of nature from the view of history and only explore the roots and solutions of the ecological crisis from the dimension of ecological values. Instead, it advocates exploring the roots and solutions of the ecological crisis on the basis of the ecological community thought of historical materialism, which internally unifies the view of nature and the view of history. Unlike the “dark green” and “light green” ecological trends of thought, which are entangled in the debate between “ecocentric values” and “anthropocentric values,” ecological Marxism explicitly identifies the capitalist system and mode of production as the root of the ecological crisis. It refers to the contradiction in historical materialism between productive forces and relations of production, and between the economic base and the superstructure, as the “first contradiction” of capitalist society; the result of the movement of this contradiction is economic crisis caused by insufficient demand. It refers to the contradiction between capitalist production and its conditions of production as the “second contradiction” of capitalist society; the result of the movement of this contradiction is ecological crisis caused by the destruction of production conditions. It emphasizes that the economic crisis of contemporary capitalist society is mainly manifested as an ecological crisis. Based on the above understanding, Western Marxism focuses on analyzing the internal contradictory movement of capitalism, the characteristics of the capitalist mode of production, the nature of capital’s pursuit of profit, and the new ways in which capital uses consumerist values and lifestyles to maintain its political rule, thereby revealing the internal connection between the capitalist system and mode of production and the ecological crisis. On this basis, it carries out an ecological critique of capitalist society, an ecological critique of the capitalist use of technology, and a critique of the cultural values of capitalist society. It proposes that the ecological movement should be organically combined with the organized workers’ movement, leading the ecological movement toward a radical class movement, breaking down the capitalist system and the values of material desire supremacy carried by capital, either establishing an anthropocentric values system based on the true overall and long-term interests of humanity, or establishing a new type of ecocentric values system that overthrows the inverted use of use-value and exchange-value in capitalist society, and establishing an eco-socialist society based on the justice of production and ecological rationality. Only then can economic growth, technological application, and the harmonious development of nature and humanity be achieved together, and the ecological crisis be fundamentally resolved. Thus, it forms a theory of ecological critique based on the realization of the historical materialist ecological community, distinct from the Western “dark green” and “light green” ecological trends of thought.

西方马克思主义对于如何解决当代世界日益严重的生态危机展开了深入的探讨，形成了生态批判理论。他们反对以生态中心论为基础的西方“深绿”生态思潮和以人类中心论为基础的西方“浅绿”生态思潮将自然观与历史观割裂开来，仅仅从生态价值观的维度探讨生态危机的根源和解决途径的做法，主张以自然观和历史观内在统一的历史唯物主义的生态共同体思想为基础，探讨生态危机的根源与解决途径。与“深绿”和“浅绿”生态思潮纠缠于“生态中心主义价值观”和“人类中心主义价值观”的争论不同，生态学马克思主义明确指认资本主义制度和生产方式是生态危机的根源，把历史唯物主义关于生产力和生产关系、经济基础和上层建筑之间的矛盾称为资本主义社会的“第一重矛盾”，这一矛盾运动的结果是因需求不足而造成的经济危机。他们把资本主义生产与其生产条件之间的矛盾称为资本主义社会的“第二重矛盾”，这一矛盾运动的结果是因生产条件的破坏而造成的生态危机，强调当代资本主义社会的经济危机主要体现为生态危机。基于以上认识，西方马克思主义侧重从分析资本主义内在矛盾运动、资本主义生产方式的特点、资本追求利润的本性和资本借用消费主义价值观和生存方式维系其政治统治的新方式，揭示了资本主义制度和生产方式与生态危机的内在联系。在此基础上，展开了对资本主义社会的生态批判、技术的资本主义使用的生态批判、资本主义社会的文化价值观批判，提出了应当将生态运动与有组织的工人运动有机结合起来，把生态运动引向激进的阶级运动，破除资本主义制度和资本所承载的物欲至上的价值观，或者树立以人类真正整体利益和长远利益为基础的人类中心主义价值观，或者树立以破除资本主义社会颠倒使用价值和交换价值的新型生态中心主义价值观，建立以生产正义和以生态理性为基础的生态社会主义社会，才能使经济增长、技术运用与自然和人类共同和谐发展，生态危机才能真正从根本上得到解决，从而形成了以历史唯物主义生态共同体实现为基础，有别于西方“深绿”和“浅绿”生态思潮的生态批判理论。

Western Marxism asserts that capitalist society is an unjust society. How to realize human freedom, equality, and ensure social justice has become a practical issue of concern to them, and their exploration of this practical issue has formed their political philosophy. This is reflected in Western Marxism’s proposal of theories of class consciousness aimed at cultivating the class consciousness of the proletariat and the independent personality of individuals, theories of cultural hegemony, theories of ideological state apparatuses, theories of legitimacy crisis and the public sphere, theories of recognition, ecological political philosophy, and the justice theory of analytical Marxism. These explorations not only reveal changes in the mode of rule in the contemporary West and the existential predicament of contemporary Western people, but also respond to the challenges posed to historical materialism by the political philosophies of libertarianism represented by Nozick and left-liberalism represented by Rawls. They highlight the necessity and importance of excavating, organizing, and constructing a political philosophy of historical materialism in light of changes in the historical conditions of contemporary Western society, and of defending historical materialism and socialism from a normative dimension, providing theoretical resources for us to enrich and develop Marxist political philosophy.

西方马克思主义指认，资本主义社会是一个不正义的社会，如何实现人的自由、平等和保证社会的正义，成为他们关注的现实问题，对这一现实问题的探讨形成了他们的政治哲学。这体现在西方马克思主义提出了旨在培育无产阶级阶级意识和个体独立人格的阶级意识理论、文化领导权理论、意识形态国家机器理论、合法性危机与公共领域理论、承认理论、生态政治哲学以及分析学马克思主义的正义理论。他们的上述探索不仅揭示了当代西方统治方式的变化和当代西方人生存的困境，而且回答了以诺齐克和罗尔斯为代表的自由至上主义和左翼自由主义的政治哲学对历史唯物主义的诘难，突出了根据当代西方社会历史条件的变化，挖掘、整理和建构历史唯物主义的政治哲学，从规范性的维度为历史唯物主义和社会主义辩护的必要性和重要性，为我们丰富和发展马克思主义政治哲学提供了理论资源。

IV. The Contemporary Effects and Value of the Problematic Logic of Western Marxism

四、西方马克思主义理论问题的当代效应及价值

The questioning of the essence of Marxist philosophy is the theoretical starting point of the problematic logic of Western Marxism. It opposes economic determinist and technological reductionist interpretations of Marxist philosophy, arguing that Marxist philosophy is not a modern form of epistemological philosophy, but a modern materialist philosophy that explores the relationship between humans and nature and between humans and humans. This determines that the function and mission of Marxist philosophy should be how to realize human freedom and liberation, and thus forms an academic tradition that emphasizes the critical and practical nature of Marxist philosophy. The problematic logic of Western Marxism is not only of great value for understanding the essence, theoretical mission, and theoretical form of Marxist philosophy, for rebuilding the internal connection between Marxist philosophy and the life-world of human beings, and for expanding the theoretical space of Marxist philosophy, but also has produced broad theoretical and practical effects in the contemporary era. It is an important intellectual resource for advancing the theoretical construction of Chinese Marxist philosophy and for resolving the problems of modernity in the process of China’s modernization.

对马克思主义哲学本质的追问，是西方马克思主义问题逻辑的理论起点。他们反对对马克思主义哲学的经济决定论、技术还原论的解释，认为马克思主义哲学不是一种近代形态的知识论哲学，而是一种探讨人与自然、人与人关系的现代唯物主义哲学，这就决定了马克思主义哲学的功能和使命应当是如何实现人的自由解放问题，并由此形成了重视马克思主义哲学的批判性和现实性的学术传统。西方马克思主义的问题逻辑不仅对于如何理解马克思主义哲学的本质、理论使命、理论形态等问题，重建马克思主义哲学与人的生活世界的内在联系，拓展马克思主义哲学的理论空间具有重要的价值，而且在当代产生了广泛的理论和实践效应，是推进中国马克思主义哲学理论建设和解决中国现代化进程中的现代性问题的重要思想资源。

First, Western Marxism’s understanding and interpretation of the essence of Marxist philosophy highlights the fundamental distinction between Marxist philosophy and modern philosophy, as well as its modern character. It emphasizes that the function and mission of Marxist philosophy do not lie in revealing the absolute essence and universal laws of the world, but rather in how, on the basis of revealing how the totality constituted by the combined action of subjective and objective factors influences the process of social-historical development and the conditions of human existence, to realize the problem of human freedom and liberation. At the same time, it opposes and avoids interpretations of Marxist philosophy as natural-scientific materialism, economic determinism, or technological reductionism, and reconstructs the organic connection between Marxist philosophy and the life-world of human beings. This represents an understanding of Marxist philosophy under the social-historical conditions and cultural traditions of the West, and is an important component of the history of the development of Marxist philosophy in the twentieth century. The Soviet-Russian interpretive model of “dialectical and historical materialism” and the interpretive model of “practical materialism” represented by Western Marxism are two representative interpretive models of Marxist philosophy in the twentieth century. Western Marxism developed in the process of reflecting on and criticizing the Soviet-Russian interpretive model of “dialectical and historical materialism.” How we view the relationship between these two interpretive models not only concerns how we view the theoretical nature and theoretical value of Western Marxism, but also has important value and significance for our understanding and grasp of the essence of Marxist philosophy and for constructing a theoretical system of Marxist philosophy. According to the research of Chinese scholar Yang Geng, the term “dialectical materialism” first originated with Plekhanov. Plekhanov believed that “dialectical materialism” was the term that best represented Marxist philosophy, but since dialectical materialism involves the historical realm, it could also be called “historical materialism.” In fact, Plekhanov “called Marxist philosophy ‘dialectical materialism’ in order to highlight the essential characteristics of Marxist philosophy; he called Marxist philosophy ‘historical materialism’ in order to explain the field of study of Marxist philosophy.” [9]9 Yang Geng, “The Subject of Historical Materialism and Its Truth,” *Social Sciences in China* (Chinese edition), no. 8 (2022). While inheriting Plekhanov’s view that “dialectical materialism” is Marxist philosophy, Lenin also believed that “historical materialism” is the application and extension of “dialectical materialism” in the historical realm. Lenin’s view was ultimately inherited by Stalin in his essay “On Dialectical and Historical Materialism,” and finally established the textbook system of Marxist philosophy with the dichotomous structure of “dialectical materialism” and “historical materialism.” [10]10 Stalin’s 1938 essay systematized the “dialectical and historical materialism” framework that became the standard textbook model in the Soviet Union and later in China. The Soviet-Russian interpretive model of “dialectical and historical materialism” played a huge historical role in our grasp of historical laws and in promoting the popularization and dissemination of Marxist philosophy. However, the problem with this interpretive model is that, based on the standpoint of modern rationalist philosophy, it interprets Marx’s materialist philosophy as a philosophy in the form of a theory of knowledge, mainly emphasizing the commonalities between Marx’s materialist philosophy and old materialist philosophy, without highlighting the essence of the philosophical revolution Marx carried out and the particularity of Marx’s materialist philosophy. This is precisely the fundamental reason why Western Marxism criticizes this interpretive model. Western Marxism, on the other hand, advocates elucidating the connotation of Marxist philosophy at the point of rupture with modern materialist philosophy, taking human beings and their practice as the foundation and starting point of Marxist philosophy.

第一，西方马克思主义对马克思主义哲学本质的理解和阐释突出了马克思主义哲学与近代哲学的根本区别和现代性质，强调了马克思主义哲学的功能和使命并不在于揭示世界的绝对本质和普遍规律，而应当是在揭示主客观因素构成的总体共同作用如何影响社会历史发展进程和人的生存境遇的基础上，如何实现人的自由和解放问题，同时反对和避免对马克思主义哲学的自然科学唯物主义、经济决定论、技术还原论的解释，重建马克思主义哲学与人的生活世界的有机联系，这代表了西方社会历史条件和文化传统下对马克思主义哲学的理解，是20世纪马克思主义哲学发展史的重要组成部分。苏俄式的“辩证唯物主义与历史唯物主义”解释模式和西方马克思主义为代表的“实践唯物主义”解释模式是20世纪马克思主义哲学有代表性的两种解释模式，西方马克思主义就是在反思和批评苏俄式的“辩证唯物主义与历史唯物主义”解释模式中发展起来的，如何看待这两种解释模式的关系，不仅关系到我们如何看待西方马克思主义的理论性质和理论价值，而且对于我们理解和把握马克思主义哲学的实质，建构马克思主义哲学理论体系具有重要的价值与意义。按照我国学者杨耕先生的考证，“辩证唯物主义”一词最早来源于普列汉诺夫。普列汉诺夫认为“辩证唯物主义”是最能代表马克思主义哲学的术语，但由于辩证唯物主义涉及历史领域，因而又可称为“历史唯物主义”。实际上，普列汉诺夫“把马克思主义哲学称为‘辩证唯物主义’是为了凸显马克思主义哲学的本质特征；把马克思主义哲学称为‘历史唯物主义’，是为了说明马克思主义哲学的研究领域”。列宁在继承普列汉诺夫关于“辩证唯物主义”就是马克思主义哲学这一观点的同时，又认为“历史唯物主义”是“辩证唯物主义”在历史领域的应用和推广。列宁的这一观点最终为斯大林在《论辩证唯物主义与历史唯物主义》一文中所继承，并最终确立了“辩证唯物主义”与“历史唯物主义”二分结构的马克思主义哲学教科书体系。苏俄式的“辩证唯物主义与历史唯物主义”的解释模式对于我们把握历史规律和促进马克思主义哲学的大众化、普及化起到了巨大的历史作用，但是这种解释模式的问题在于它立足于近代理性主义哲学的立场，把马克思的唯物主义哲学解释为一种知识论形态的哲学，主要强调的是马克思的唯物主义哲学与旧唯物主义哲学的共同点，而没有凸显马克思实现哲学变革的实质与马克思的唯物主义哲学的特殊性，这也正是西方马克思主义批判这种解释模式的根本原因。西方马克思主义则主张在与近代唯物主义哲学的断裂点上，阐发马克思主义哲学的内涵，把人及其实践作为马克思主义哲学的基础和出发点。

Second, Western Marxism emphasizes the critical value dimension of Marxist philosophy, highlights the foundational position of human beings, practice, and dialectics in Marxist philosophy, takes the problem of culture and ideology as the theme of their theoretical research, and focuses on dealing with how the relationship between subjective and objective factors in historical development and the totality constituted by their interaction influence the development of human social history. They strive to resolve the dialectical relationship between the scientificity and value-orientation of Marxist theory, but in fact they have not resolved the above problem well, instead oscillating between the two. Their theoretical explorations and theoretical deficiencies have produced broad social effects and theoretical effects in the contemporary West. In terms of their social effects, the theoretical explorations of Western Marxism are not only closely linked to the Western socialist movement, but have also had a profound impact on contemporary Western social movements such as the urban movement, the ecological movement, and the feminist movement. In terms of their theoretical effects, the turn to cultural studies realized by Western Marxism has influenced the theoretical construction of post-Marxism, cultural studies currents, and late Marxism, and constitutes the second turn of Marxism outside China, that is, the turn from cultural studies to the study of political economy. [11]11 The “first turn” refers to the shift from classical Marxism’s focus on political economy to the cultural and ideological analysis characteristic of Western Marxism. Post-Marxism, using the pretext of changes in contemporary Western social-historical conditions, emphasizes that class politics based on historical inevitability is no longer achievable. By borrowing and extending Gramsci’s cultural hegemony, Althusser’s “overdetermination” and theory of ideology, and combining them with postmodernist philosophical and cultural currents, it constructs a post-Marxist theory that emphasizes “plural democracy,” “contingency,” and “articulation theory.” [12]12 “Articulation theory” refers to the post-Marxist concept, developed by Ernesto Laclau and Chantal Mouffe, of linking diverse social struggles into a political project without a necessary class basis. However, when they borrow the above ideas of Gramsci and Althusser, they treat their ideas emphasizing the determining role of economic factors as essentialist ideas that should be denied and discarded, moving toward a subjective idealism that completely denies the determining role of economic factors and one-sidedly emphasizes the role of culture and ideology, revealing the negative effects of the turn to cultural studies in Western Marxism. Late Marxism, represented by Eagleton, Jameson, and Harvey, combines the cultural studies of Western Marxism with the study of political economy, striving to explore how to realize the path of elevating the micro-politics of contemporary capitalist society into a total politics opposing capitalism, realizing the second turn of Marxism outside China, that is, the turn from cultural studies to the study of political economy. This both avoids an economic-determinist interpretation of Marxist philosophy and realizes the organic unity of cultural studies and the study of political economy, demonstrating the positive influence of the turn to cultural studies in Western Marxism.

第二，西方马克思主义强调马克思主义哲学的批判价值向度，突出了人、实践以及辩证法在马克思主义哲学中的基础地位，把文化意识形态问题作为他们理论研究的主题，注重处理历史发展中的主观因素和客观因素的相互关系及其相互作用所构成的总体如何影响人类社会历史的发展。他们力图解决马克思主义理论的科学性和价值性的辩证关系，但实际上并没有很好地解决上述问题，而是摇摆于二者之间，他们的理论探索和理论缺陷在当代西方产生了广泛的社会效应与理论效应。从其社会效应看，西方马克思主义的理论探索不仅与西方社会主义运动紧密联系在一起，而且对当代西方的诸如城市运动、生态运动、女权运动等社会运动产生了深远的影响；从其理论效应看，西方马克思主义所实现的文化研究的转向，影响了后马克思主义、文化研究思潮和晚期马克思主义的理论建构，并构成了国外马克思主义的第二次转向，即从文化研究的转向到政治经济学研究的转向。后马克思主义借口当代西方社会历史条件的变化，强调基于历史必然性的阶级政治已经不可能实现，通过借用和引申葛兰西的文化领导权、阿尔都塞的“多元决定论”和意识形态理论，与后现代主义哲学文化思潮相结合，建构了注重“多元民主”、“偶然性”、“接合理论”的后马克思主义理论。而他们在借用葛兰西和阿尔都塞上述思想的时候，把他们强调经济因素的决定作用的思想当作应当否定和抛弃的本质主义思想，走向了完全否定经济因素的决定作用，片面强调文化意识形态作用的主观唯心主义，显示了西方马克思主义文化研究转向的负面效应。以伊格尔顿、詹姆逊和哈维为代表的晚期马克思主义则把西方马克思主义文化研究与政治经济学研究结合起来，力图探索如何实现把当代资本主义社会的微观政治上升为反对资本主义的总体政治的途径，实现了国外马克思主义研究的第二次转向，即从文化研究的转向到政治经济学研究的转向，既避免了对马克思主义哲学的经济决定论解释，又实现了文化研究与政治经济学研究的有机统一，显示了西方马克思主义文化研究转向的积极影响。

Third, the theoretical explorations of Western Marxism have also exerted a profound influence on the study of Marxist philosophy in contemporary China. First, they have promoted the Chinese academic community’s reflection on the essence of Marxist philosophy and the exploration of its theoretical system. Before Western Marxism was introduced to the Chinese academic community, the Soviet-Russian explanatory model of “dialectical materialism and historical materialism” was prevalent and regarded as the only correct explanatory model of Marxist philosophy, serving as the standard for judging the correctness of philosophical theories, both Chinese and foreign. The introduction of Western Marxism into China’s academic circles coincided with the same historical process as China’s reform and opening up and the new period of socialist construction. It spurred the Chinese academic community to reflect on the textbook-system explanatory model of Marxist philosophy, prompting it to begin exploring the “true spirit” of Marxist philosophy based on the needs of modern philosophical and cultural trends and China’s modernization practice. Western Marxism thus became an important intellectual resource for advancing the theoretical construction of Marxist philosophy in China. Second, Western Marxism’s exploration of the relationship between the scientific and value dimensions of Marxist theory has influenced the Chinese academic community’s reflection on and debate over the essence of Marxist theory, manifested in discussions on the relationship between the academic and practical dimensions of Marxist theory. Although these discussions have the defect of using the pretext of strengthening the academic nature of Marxism to weaken or even negate its practical nature, they have emphasized that Marxist theory should both be liberated from the guiding ideology of political pragmatism to enhance its disciplinary character—that is, the scientific nature of the theory—and should fulfill the value function of Marxist philosophy in reflecting on reality, stressing that the theoretical nature of Marxism is the organic unity of the academic and the practical. Third, Western Marxism’s focus on exploring practical issues and the many theoretical topics it has thereby raised have not only promoted the opening up of fields such as cultural philosophy, the philosophy of everyday life, the study of technological rationality, ecological philosophy, and political philosophy within Chinese Marxist philosophy, thereby expanding its theoretical space, but have also brought Chinese Marxist philosophy into the life-world of contemporary Chinese people, establishing its organic connection with the real world. This has made it an important intellectual resource for Chinese Marxist philosophy to address the problems of modernity in China’s modernization process.

第三，西方马克思主义的理论探索对当代中国马克思主义哲学研究也产生了深远的影响。其一，促进了中国学术界对马克思主义哲学本质的思考和理论体系的探索。西方马克思主义传入中国学术界之前，苏俄式“辩证唯物主义与历史唯物主义”的解释模式是流行的和被认为是唯一正确的马克思主义哲学解释模式，并成为评判中外哲学理论正确与否的标准。西方马克思主义传入我国学术界与我国的改革开放和社会主义建设新时期是同一历史过程，它促进了中国学术界对教科书体系的马克思主义哲学解释模式的反思，促使其开始立足于现代哲学文化思潮和中国现代化实践的需要，探索马克思主义哲学的“真精神”，西方马克思主义由此成为推进中国马克思主义哲学理论建设重要的思想资源。其二，西方马克思主义关于马克思主义理论科学性和价值性关系的探讨，影响了中国学术界关于马克思主义理论本质的思考和争论，体现为对马克思主义理论的学术性和现实性关系问题的探讨。尽管上述探讨存在着借口强化马克思主义的学术性，弱化乃至否定马克思主义现实性的缺陷，但强调了马克思主义理论既应当从政治实用主义的指导思想下解放出来，增强其学科性质，即理论的科学性，又应当发挥马克思主义哲学观照现实的价值功能，强调了马克思主义的理论本性是学术性和现实性的有机统一。其三，西方马克思主义注重对现实性问题的探讨以及由此提出的诸多理论论题，不仅促进了中国马克思主义哲学开启诸如文化哲学研究、日常生活哲学、技术理性研究、生态哲学与政治哲学研究等领域，拓展了中国马克思主义哲学的理论空间，而且使中国马克思主义哲学走向当代中国人的生活世界，建立其与现实世界的有机联系，成为中国马克思主义哲学解决中国现代化进程中的现代性问题的重要思想资源。

Online editor: Tongxin

网络编辑：同心