On the Three Dimensions of the Study of the History of Western Marxist Scholarship and Their Contemporary Value

Unlike the study of the history of Western Marxist thought, which focuses on the historical development of Western Marxism, the study of the history of Western Marxist scholarship builds on this foundation and pays greater attention to the internal theoretical logic, theoretical effects, and practical effects of Western Marxism. This constitutes the three dimensions of the study of the history of Western Marxist scholarship. This article seeks to reveal these three dimensions of the study of the history of Western Marxist scholarship and their contemporary value.

与西方马克思主义思想史研究注重对西方马克思主义发展的历史的研究不同，西方马克思主义学术史研究则是以此为基础，更加注重西方马克思主义的内在理论逻辑、理论效应和实践效应，由此构成了西方马克思主义学术史研究的三个面向。本文力图揭示西方马克思主义学术史研究的上述三个面向及其当代价值。

01

01

The Starting Point of the Theoretical Logic of Western Marxism and Its Theoretical Logic

西方马克思主义理论逻辑的起点与理论逻辑

The emergence of Western Marxism was the result of reflecting on the failure of Western revolutions. The successive failures of socialist revolutions launched by the Communist International, which required Western communist parties to follow the model of the Russian October Revolution, triggered debates among theorists within Western communist parties over the strategy and tactics of Western revolution. These debates further expanded into the question of “what is the essence of Marxist philosophy.” The outcome of these debates was the emergence of a current of Western Marxism distinct from the Second International and the Soviet model. Its basic theoretical characteristic is to base itself on the historical conditions and cultural traditions of Western society, to oppose interpreting Marxist philosophy as a modern form of epistemological philosophy, to emphasize that Marxist philosophy is a modern form of philosophy, to focus on bringing out the critical value dimension and the practical dimension of Marxist philosophy, and to use their own understanding of Marxist philosophy to carry out cultural value critique, technological critique, and ecological critique of contemporary capitalist society. It reveals that contemporary Western society is a society of total alienation, and emphasizes that the prerequisite for Western revolution is either the formation of a mature proletarian class consciousness or the formation of individual self-consciousness and an independent personality. On this basis, economic revolution and political revolution are to be carried out, thereby establishing a socialist society suited to the historical conditions and cultural traditions of Western society. The logical starting point of its theory is the inquiry into and exploration of the essence of Marxist philosophy, and from this the theoretical logic of Western Marxism is formed.

西方马克思主义的产生是对西方革命失败反思的结果。共产国际要求西方共产党按照俄国十月革命的模式展开社会主义革命的相继失败，引发了西方共产党内的理论家对于西方革命战略和策略问题的争论，这场争论进一步拓展到对“什么是马克思主义哲学本质”这一问题的争论，这场争论的结果就是出现了不同于第二国际和苏俄模式的西方马克思主义思潮，其理论的基本特点是立足于西方社会历史条件和文化传统，反对把马克思主义哲学解释为一种近代形态的知识论哲学，强调马克思主义哲学是一种现代形态的哲学，注重发挥马克思主义哲学的批判价值维度和现实维度，并运用他们所理解的马克思主义哲学，对当代资本主义社会展开文化价值批判、技术批判、生态批判，揭示当代西方社会是一个总体异化的社会，强调西方革命的前提或者是形成成熟的无产阶级阶级意识，或者是形成个人自主意识和独立的人格，在此基础上，进行经济革命和政治革命，从而建立适合西方社会历史条件和文化传统的社会主义社会，其理论的逻辑起点是对马克思主义哲学本质的追问与探索，并由此形成了西方马克思主义的理论逻辑。

Although the humanist and scientistic schools within Western Marxism differ and debate over specific theoretical viewpoints, their commonality lies in exploring the essence of the philosophical revolution realized by Marx and the related questions of the essence, function, mission, and theoretical form of Marxist philosophy, thereby forming their own conceptions of Marxist philosophy. Their commonality is to oppose interpreting Marxist philosophy, from the standpoint of modern philosophy, as a modern form of epistemological philosophy aimed at exploring the absolute essence and universal laws of the world. They emphasize that it is precisely because Marx broke with modern philosophy that he realized a philosophical revolution. Marxist philosophy is a modern materialist philosophy concerning the relations between human beings and between human beings and nature. The function and mission of Marxist philosophy are not to discover some metaphysical law, but rather to explore how the totality formed by subjective and objective factors in the process of historical development affects the development of human history, and thereby to seek the path to realizing human freedom and emancipation. Their opposition to interpreting Marxist philosophy as a modern form of epistemological philosophy is the result of the dual influence of the social historical conditions and cultural traditions in which they found themselves. From the perspective of the social historical conditions in which they lived, Western modernization had already been completed, and during the transition from modern society to postmodern society, the value system of modernity based on rationalism had already produced a series of phenomena in practice contrary to the free and comprehensive development of human beings. This determined that their understanding and interpretation of Marxist philosophy could not be carried out from the standpoint of modern rationalist philosophy. From the perspective of the philosophical and cultural traditions in which they lived, in the face of the negative phenomena arising from Western modernization, a philosophical and cultural current of reflection on rationality and opposition to capitalism emerged in various Western countries. Western Marxist theorists were not only influenced by their own national cultural traditions but also by this philosophical and cultural current of reflection on rationality and opposition to capitalism. Specifically, Lukács’s theoretical construction was deeply influenced by Max Weber, Georg Simmel, and the romantic anti-capitalist cultural current of the time; Gramsci’s theoretical construction was deeply influenced by the Western historicist cultural philosophical tradition and Benedetto Croce; the Frankfurt School’s theoretical construction was deeply influenced by Freudian psychoanalysis; Sartre’s theoretical construction was deeply influenced by existentialist philosophy; Althusser’s theoretical construction was deeply influenced by the French scientific epistemology represented by Gaston Bachelard, Western positivist currents, especially structuralism, and Freudian psychoanalysis. These influences not only endowed Western Marxist theorists with their theoretical individuality, but they also borrowed and absorbed from the Western philosophical and cultural tradition the dialectic and the emphasis on the role of subjective spiritual factors in the process of historical development. This led them to oppose the defects of economic determinism and technological reductionism in Soviet Marxist theory, while emphasizing the critical value dimension of Marxist philosophy, thereby forming the Western Marxist academic tradition of valuing the critical and practical character of Marxist philosophy. At the same time, using their own understanding of Marxist philosophy, they focused on analyzing real problems in the development of contemporary Western society from the ontological perspective of human freedom and emancipation, proposed a series of new theoretical topics, formed the unfolding of their theoretical logic, and produced a series of theoretical innovations.

尽管西方马克思主义中的人本主义流派和科学主义流派在具体理论观点上存在着分歧和争论，但其共同点是探讨了马克思所实现的哲学革命的本质以及与此相关的马克思主义哲学的本质、功能、使命和理论形态等问题，并由此形成了他们的马克思主义哲学观。其共同点是反对立足于近代哲学的立场，把马克思主义哲学解释为一种以探讨世界绝对本质和普遍规律为目的的近代形态的知识论哲学，强调马克思正是因为与近代哲学断裂而实现哲学革命的。马克思主义哲学是一种关于人与人、人与自然关系的现代唯物主义哲学，马克思主义哲学的功能和使命并不是要发现某种形而上学的规律，而是通过探讨历史发展进程中主、客观因素形成的总体如何影响人类历史发展，进而探寻实现人的自由和解放的途径。他们反对把马克思主义哲学解释为近代形态的知识论哲学，是他们所面临的社会历史条件和文化传统双重影响的结果。从他们所处的社会历史条件看，西方现代化已经完成，从现代社会到后现代社会转型时期，以理性主义为基础的现代性价值体系已经在实践中出现了一系列有悖于人的自由全面发展的现象，这就决定他们对马克思主义哲学的理解和阐释不可能立足于近代理性主义哲学的立场展开；从他们所处的哲学文化传统看，面对西方现代化出现的负面现象，西方各国出现了一股反思理性和反资本主义的哲学文化思潮，西方马克思主义理论家不仅受本国文化传统的影响，而且也受到了这股反思理性和反对资本主义的哲学文化思潮的影响。具体而言，卢卡奇的理论建构深受马克斯·韦伯、齐美尔以及当时浪漫的反资本主义文化思潮的影响；葛兰西的理论建构深受西方历史主义文化哲学传统、克罗齐的影响；法兰克福学派的理论建构深受弗洛伊德精神分析学的影响；萨特的理论建构深受存在主义哲学的影响；阿尔都塞的理论建构深受以白歇拉尔为代表的法国科学认识论、西方实证主义思潮、特别是结构主义思潮以及弗洛伊德精神分析学的影响。这些影响不仅赋予了西方马克思主义理论家的理论个性，而且他们借鉴和吸收的是西方哲学文化传统中的辩证法和强调人的主观精神因素在历史发展进程中的作用的思想，这使得他们既反对苏俄马克思主义理论中的经济决定论、技术还原论的缺陷，又强调马克思主义哲学的批判价值向度，形成了西方马克思主义重视马克思主义哲学的批判性和现实性的学术传统。同时他们运用他们所理解的马克思主义哲学，注重从人的自由和解放这一本体论视角分析当代西方社会发展中的现实问题，提出了一系列新的理论论题，形成了他们的理论逻辑的展开，产生了一系列的理论创新。

First, through an inquiry into the existential conditions of the proletariat and Western individuals in real life, Western Marxist theorists put forward innovative theses and theories of alienation. Under the influence of Max Weber’s sociology, Georg Simmel’s cultural philosophy, and Hegel’s *Phenomenology of Spirit*, Lukács, drawing on Marx’s discussion of the “fetishism of commodities” in *Capital*, identified a universal phenomenon of reification in capitalist society. Lukács defined reification as “a relation between people taking on the character of a thing and thus acquiring 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.” [1]1 This is a quotation from Lukács’s *History and Class Consciousness* (1923). The English translation follows the standard edition: Georg Lukács, *History and Class Consciousness: Studies in Marxist Dialectics*, trans. Rodney Livingstone (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1971), p. 83. The Chinese text cites a Chinese edition, p. 150.(P150) The emergence of the reification phenomenon signifies a divergence between the development of Western modernization and the development of human beings; the relationship between people and things is inverted. People are no longer the masters of the production process and their own labor products but instead become bystanders to the production process and slaves to things. The reification phenomenon not only inverts the relationship between people and things but also leads to the prevalence of non-critical positivist thinking and instrumental thinking, making it impossible for people to truly grasp the totality and trends of social development. Although Lukács’s thesis on alienation conflates “alienation” and “objectification” and discusses the formation of the alienation phenomenon solely from the perspective of the prevalence of technological rationality, his thesis was advanced before Marx’s *Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844* was published. This demonstrates his extraordinary theoretical insight and also led later Western Marxist theorists to adopt the “thesis of alienation” as an important theoretical tool for criticizing capitalist society. They successively proposed theories such as “total alienation,” “alienation of everyday life,” and “alienation of consumption.” Their common feature is the assertion that contemporary Western society is one where the value of things rises and the value of people declines, where Western individuals find themselves in an alienated existential condition of being increasingly controlled and dominated in body and mind by the overall Western society. The prerequisite for Western individuals to attain freedom and liberation is to escape this alienated existential condition of total control and to form autonomous consciousness and independent personality. In effect, they regard the degree of development of the subjective spirit of the proletariat and Western individuals as the foundation and prerequisite for Western people to achieve freedom and liberation. Although their theories suffer from defects such as detaching alienation from capitalist private property and the division of labor, subjectivizing it, even eternalizing alienation by conflating the distinction between “alienation” and “objectification,” and interpreting Marxist philosophy as an abstract philosophical anthropology, their theoretical explorations help us grasp more profoundly the new changes in the basic contradictions of Western society, deepen our understanding of contemporary Western capitalist society, and also help us more deeply handle the relationship between subjective and objective factors in the process of historical development, grasp the objective dimension and subjective dimension of Marxist philosophy and their dialectical relationship, and more profoundly comprehend the essence and function of Marxist philosophy.

第一，通过对无产阶级和西方个人在现实生活中生存境遇的探讨，西方马克思主义理论家提出了具有创新性的异化论题和异化理论。卢卡奇在马克斯·韦伯的社会学、齐美尔的文化哲学、黑格尔的精神现象学的影响下，从马克思的《资本论》一书中关于“商品拜物教”的论述中，指认资本主义社会存在着普遍的物化现象。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”。[1](P150)物化现象的出现意味着西方现代化发展与人的发展出现了相背离的现象，人与物之间的关系发生了颠倒，人不再是生产过程和自己劳动产品的主人，反而沦为生产过程的旁观者和物的奴隶。物化现象不仅颠倒了人与物之间的关系，还导致了非批判的实证主义思维和工具思维盛行，使得人们无法真正把握社会发展的总体与趋势。卢卡奇的异化论题尽管存在着把“异化”和“对象化”混同，仅仅是从技术理性盛行的角度谈论异化现象的形成，但他的异化论题是在马克思的《1844年经济学哲学手稿》一书尚未出版时提出的，既显示了他非凡的理论洞察力，也使得后来的西方马克思主义理论家把“异化论题”作为批判资本主义社会的重要理论工具，并相继提出了“总体异化论”“日常生活异化论”“消费异化论”等理论，其共同点是指认当代西方社会是一个物的价值上升、人的价值下降，西方人处于身、心日益被西方社会总体控制和支配的异化生存境遇，西方人获得自由和解放的前提是要摆脱总体控制的异化生存境遇，形成自主意识和独立的人格，实际上是把无产阶级和西方人的主观精神发展程度看作是西方人获得自由和解放的基础和前提。尽管他们的理论存在着诸如脱离资本主义私有制和分工把异化主观化，甚至由于混淆“异化”和“对象化”的区别把异化永恒化，并把马克思主义哲学阐释成一种抽象的哲学人类学的缺陷，但他们的理论探索有助于我们更加深刻地把握西方社会基本矛盾的新变化，深化对当代西方资本主义社会的认识，也有助于我们更加深入地处理历史发展进程中主观因素和客观因素的关系，把握马克思主义哲学的客观向度和主观向度及其辩证关系，更加深刻地领会马克思主义哲学的实质与功能。

Second, the emphasis on cultural critique and ideological critique gave rise to the Western Marxist theory of culture and ideology. Early Western Marxist theorists believed that the structure of Western society differed from the purely political violent rule of Russia; it was a form of total rule encompassing both political violent rule and cultural-ideological control. This necessitated an emphasis on the struggle in culture and ideology, a focus on cultivating the mature class consciousness of the proletariat, and the implementation of a “total revolutionary model” including cultural-psychological revolution, economic revolution, and political revolution, with cultural-psychological revolution being the foundation and prerequisite for launching the total revolution. Based on this understanding, early Western Marxist theorists stressed the importance of the cultural-ideological struggle in cultivating the mature class consciousness of the proletariat, successively forming Lukács’s “theory of class consciousness,” Korsch’s “theory of total revolution,” and Gramsci’s “theory of cultural-ideological hegemony.” Later Western Marxist theorists inherited and developed the early Western Marxist theory of cultural-ideological critique. The Frankfurt School respectively proposed the “critique of consumerist culture” and the “culture industry thesis,” the core of which is the belief that while scientific and technological progress enhances productive forces and increases social wealth, it also performs the ideological function of controlling people’s inner world. Althusser, meanwhile, divided Marxist theory into two components: the science of historical materialism and the philosophy of dialectical materialism. Historical materialism provides scientific knowledge and is unrelated to ideology; dialectical materialism undertakes the ideological function and is unrelated to scientific knowledge. Based on this understanding, Althusser not only successively proposed that dialectical materialism is the “theory of theoretical practice” and the “class struggle in the theoretical field,” but also creatively put forward the “theory of ideological state apparatuses,” revealing how contemporary capitalist states reproduce relations of production and secure the political conditions for capitalist rule, thereby highlighting the importance of the cultural-ideological struggle for revolution in the West. Ecological Marxism takes the critique of consumerist values and lifestyles as bourgeois ideology, the cultivation of people’s autonomous consciousness and independent personality, the correct handling of the relationship between commodities, needs, satisfaction, and happiness, and the establishment of a view of values and happiness centered on labor creation as the prerequisite for solving the ecological crisis and building an eco-socialist society. Overall, the purpose of the cultural-ideological theories proposed by Western Marxist theorists is to enable the proletariat as a whole and Western individuals to break free from the shackles of bourgeois culture and ideology, to form a mature class consciousness or individual autonomous consciousness and independent personality, thereby laying the foundation and prerequisite for the freedom and liberation of Western people.

第二，重视文化批判和意识形态批判形成了西方马克思主义的文化意识形态理论。早期西方马克思主义理论家认为西方社会结构与俄国单纯的政治暴力统治不同，而是包括政治暴力统治和文化意识控制在内的总体统治，这就要求应当重视文化和意识形态的斗争，注重对无产阶级成熟的阶级意识的培育，实行包括文化心理革命、经济革命和政治革命在内的“总体革命模式”，文化心理革命是展开总体革命的基础与前提。基于以上认识，早期西方马克思主义理论家重视文化意识形态斗争在培育成熟的无产阶级的阶级意识中的重要性，先后形成了卢卡奇的“阶级意识理论”、柯尔施的“总体革命论”和葛兰西的“文化意识形态领导权”理论。后来的西方马克思主义理论家继承和发展了早期西方马克思主义的文化意识形态批判理论，法兰克福学派分别提出“消费主义文化批判”和“文化工业论”，其核心是认为科学技术进步在提高生产力和增加社会财富的同时，也行使着控制人们内心世界的意识形态职能；阿尔都塞则把马克思主义理论划分为历史唯物主义科学和辩证唯物主义哲学两个组成部分，历史唯物主义提供科学认识，与意识形态无关；辩证唯物主义哲学承担意识形态职能，与科学认识无关。基于以上认识，阿尔都塞不仅先后提出了辩证唯物主义哲学是关于“理论实践的理论”“理论领域的阶级斗争”，而且创造性地提出了“意识形态国家机器理论”，揭示了当代资本主义国家如何进行生产关系的再生产，保证资本主义统治的政治条件，也凸显了文化意识形态斗争对于西方革命的重要性；生态学马克思主义把批判作为资产阶级意识形态的消费主义价值观和生存方式，培育人的自主意识和独立人格，正确处理商品、需要、满足和幸福的关系，树立把劳动创造的价值观和幸福观看作是解决生态危机，建立生态社会主义社会的前提。总的看来，西方马克思主义理论家所提出的文化意识形态理论的目的都是为了使作为整体的无产阶级和西方个人摆脱资产阶级文化意识形态的束缚，形成成熟的阶级意识或个人的自主意识和独立人格，为实现西方人的自由和解放奠定基础和前提。

Third, the inquiry into the social effects of science and technology gave rise to the Western Marxist critique of technological rationality. While affirming the positive role of scientific and technological progress and application, Western Marxism also explored the causes of the negative effects of science and technology from two dimensions: the philosophical foundation and the social foundation of science and technology. The philosophical foundation of scientific and technological progress and application is Enlightenment rationality. Enlightenment rationality distorted reason, which originally encompassed both value rationality and instrumental rationality, into mere instrumental rationality. It then took “usefulness” as the criterion for judging whether knowledge is scientific, dismissing inquiries into value and meaning as metaphysics to be negated and discarded, thereby severing the organic connection between science and philosophy, and between science and value. This led to the prevalence of positivist philosophy and positivist thinking, not only depriving science of the guiding role that philosophy and value should provide, but also causing the prevalence of scientism and the irrational application of science and technology. The social foundation of scientific and technological progress and application is the capitalist mode of production, which is driven by the pursuit of profit. This determines that the purpose of scientific and technological progress and innovation is not to achieve human freedom and liberation, but to satisfy capital’s need for profit and the special interest groups based on capital. This means that capital will not only fail to make the social material wealth created by scientific and technological progress and application serve the free and comprehensive development of human beings, but will further strengthen “surplus repression” [n] over people. To resolve the negative effects of scientific and technological progress and application, it is necessary to reconstruct the relationship between science and philosophy, and to reconstruct the relationship between people. From the perspective of reconstructing the relationship between science and philosophy, it is necessary to establish a technological ethics aimed at restraining people’s irrational desires, so that scientific and technological progress and application serve the free and comprehensive development of human beings and the harmonious and common development of humanity and nature. From the perspective of reconstructing the relationship between people, it is necessary to transform the unjust capitalist system and mode of production, and to establish a society where scientific and technological innovation and application serve the free and comprehensive development of human beings and the harmonious and common development of humanity and nature.

第三，对科学技术的社会效应问题的探讨形成了西方马克思主义的技术理性批判理论。西方马克思主义在肯定科学技术进步和运用的积极作用的同时，也从科学技术的哲学基础和社会基础两个维度探讨了科学技术的负面效应形成的原因。科学技术进步和运用的哲学基础是启蒙理性，启蒙理性把原本包含价值理性和工具理性在内的理性曲解为工具理性，进而把“有用性”作为判断知识是否是科学的标准，把那些关于价值和意义探讨的知识看作是应予以否定和抛弃的形而上学，从而割裂了科学与哲学、科学与价值之间的有机联系，由此导致实证主义哲学和实证主义思维盛行，不仅使得科学失去了哲学和价值应有的指导作用，而且使得唯科学主义思潮盛行和科学技术的非理性运用；科学技术进步和运用的社会基础则是以追逐利润为目的的资本主义生产方式，这就决定了科学技术进步和创新的目的不是为了实现人的自由和解放，而是为了满足资本追求利润的需要和以资本为基础的特殊利益集团，这就决定了资本不仅不会使科学技术进步和运用所创造的社会物质财富服务于人的自由全面发展，而且会进一步强化对人的“额外压抑”。要解决科学技术进步和运用的负面效应，就应当重建科学和哲学的关系，重建人与人的关系。从重建科学与哲学的关系看，就是要建立一支旨在抑制人的非理性欲望的技术伦理，使科学技术进步和运用服从于人的自由全面发展、人与自然的和谐共同发展；从重建人与人的关系看，就是要变革不正义的资本主义制度和生产方式，建立使科学技术创新和运用服从于人的自由全面发展、人与自然和谐共同发展的社会。

Fourth, by revealing the roots of the contemporary ecological crisis and seeking ways to resolve it, Western Marxism has formed an ecological critical theory. Western Marxist theorists adhere to the ecological community idea of the unity of the historical materialist view of nature and view of history, emphasizing that capitalist society suffers not only from the “first contradiction” between productive forces and relations of production, and between economic base and superstructure, as revealed by Marx, but also from a “second contradiction” between capitalist production and its conditions of production. The former leads to economic crises caused by insufficient demand, while the latter leads to ecological crises caused by the destruction of production conditions that make production impossible. They stress that the economic crises of contemporary capitalist society are mainly expressed in the form of ecological crises, thereby explicitly advancing the proposition that “the capitalist system is anti-ecological by nature.” After revealing the intrinsic link between the capitalist system and the ecological crisis, Western Marxism further emphasizes that the values of material desire based on capital and the consumerist mode of living will further intensify the ecological crisis. Western Marxism stresses that the capitalist system not only causes ecological crises within its own country but also, through the globalization of capital, creates a global trend of ecological crisis. This requires that resolving the ecological crisis must organically combine “global thinking” with “local action,” and ecological movements with socialist movements, breaking with the unjust capitalist system that aims at producing exchange value, breaking with the values of material desire based on capital and narrow anthropocentrism, establishing labor values and a concept of labor happiness based on creative labor, and building an eco-socialist society aimed at ecological rationality and meeting the basic needs of the people.

第四，揭示当代生态危机的根源和找寻解决生态危机的途径，形成了西方马克思主义的生态批判理论。西方马克思主义理论家坚持历史唯物主义自然观与历史观相统一的生态共同体思想，强调资本主义社会既存在马克思所揭示的生产力和生产关系、经济基础与上层建筑之间的“第一重矛盾”，也存在着资本主义生产与其生产条件之间的“第二重矛盾”。前者会带来因需求不足的经济危机，后者会带来因生产条件破坏使生产无法进行的生态危机，并强调当代资本主义社会的经济危机主要以生态危机的形式表现出来，由此他们明确提出了“资本主义制度在本性上是反生态”的命题。西方马克思主义在揭示资本主义制度与生态危机的内在联系之后，进一步强调以资本为基础的物欲之上的价值观和消费主义生存方式则会进一步强化生态危机。西方马克思主义强调资本主义制度不仅造成本国的生态危机，而且还通过资本的全球化运动造成生态危机全球化发展趋势，这就要求解决生态危机必须把“全球性思考”与“地方性行动”、生态运动与社会主义运动有机结合起来，破除以生产交换价值为目的的不正义的资本主义制度，破除以资本为基础的物欲至上和狭隘的人类主义的价值观，树立以创造性劳动为基础的劳动价值观和劳动幸福观，建立以生态理性和满足人民基本生活需要为目的的生态社会主义社会。

Fifth, the pursuit of equality, justice, and human freedom and liberation has formed Western Marxist political philosophy. Western Marxist theories of ideology, theories of legitimacy crisis and the public sphere, theories of recognition, and especially analytical Marxism’s critique of Nozick’s libertarianism and Rawls’s left-liberal political philosophy, its analysis of capitalist exploitation and its search for justice, are in fact analyses carried out in accordance with changes in Western social and historical conditions. They not only open up a defense of historical materialism and socialism from a normative dimension, but also excavate and systematize the political philosophy of historical materialism, providing intellectual resources for constructing a political philosophy of historical materialism.

第五，对平等、正义和人的自由、解放的追求形成了西方马克思主义政治哲学。西方马克思主义的意识形态理论、合法性危机与公共领域的理论、承认理论，特别是分析的马克思主义对诺齐克的自由至上主义和罗尔斯左翼自由主义政治哲学的批判，对资本主义剥削的分析和对正义的追寻，实际上是根据西方社会历史条件的变化而展开的论析，不仅开启了从规范性维度为历史唯物主义和社会主义辩护，而且也挖掘和整理了历史唯物主义的政治哲学，为建构历史唯物主义政治哲学提供思想资源。

02

02

The Theoretical Effects and Theoretical Value of Western Marxism

西方马克思主义的理论效应与理论价值

The theoretical explorations and theoretical issues of Western Marxism have had a significant impact on both the development of Marxist theory abroad and the study of Marxist philosophy in China, possessing profound theoretical value.

西方马克思主义的理论探索和理论问题无论是对国外马克思主义理论的发展，还是对中国马克思主义哲学研究都产生了重要的影响，具有深远的理论价值。

First, the theoretical issues of Western Marxism have provided theoretical resources for the theoretical construction of new trends in Marxism abroad. Post-Marxism, represented by Laclau and Mouffe, uses changes in contemporary Western social and historical conditions as a pretext to argue that the proletariat as a whole no longer exists and that Western society has become a society of multiple subjects. They claim that the Marxist concept of class can no longer reflect the new changes in contemporary Western society, and that class politics is therefore no longer realistic. Based on the philosophical and cultural trend of postmodernism, they further argue that the historical laws of economic necessity in historical materialism should be denied and discarded as essences. They believe that Gramsci’s concept of “hegemony” and Althusser’s historical conception of “overdetermination” can be borrowed and revised to construct a “new theory of hegemony” suited to contemporary Western society, emphasizing contingency, radical democracy, and based on a “theory of articulation.” However, their borrowing and revision are based on a distortion of the original meaning of Gramsci’s theory of hegemony and Althusser’s “overdetermination.” As is well known, Gramsci’s theory of hegemony is built on the fundamental historical materialist principle that the economic base determines the superstructure. The characteristic of his interpretation of Marxist philosophy lies in, on the one hand, opposing the economic determinist and vulgar materialist readings of Marxist philosophy, and on the other hand, opposing idealist readings of Marxist philosophy. He interprets Marxist philosophy as a materialist philosophy of the relationship between humans and humans, and between humans and nature, based on practice, and emphasizes the critical value function of Marxist philosophy and its important role in the struggle for cultural and ideological hegemony. However, post-Marxism, on the one hand, believes that Gramsci’s theory of hegemony can “articulate” the multiple subjects of contemporary Western society, providing a theoretical basis for constructing a new theory of hegemony, but on the other hand, it detaches itself from Gramsci’s discussion of how to seize hegemony on the basis of emphasizing that the economic base determines the superstructure, even demanding that this fundamental historical materialist principle be denied and discarded as a remnant of essentialism. The same situation occurs in the understanding of Althusser’s theory. Althusser advanced the proposition of a historical conception of “overdetermination” to oppose the economic determinist and technological reductionist understanding of Marxist philosophy. In advancing this proposition, he repeatedly stressed that the ultimately determining role of the economic factor is manifested in its being the basis for the reaction of the superstructure. Post-Marxism, on the one hand, believes that Althusser’s historical conception of “overdetermination” not only breaks through the historical materialist concept of economic necessity but also highlights the characteristics of difference, plurality, and multidimensionality in the development of human social history, precisely suiting the reality of the increasingly prominent multiple subjects and differences in contemporary Western society. Since Althusser’s historical conception of “overdetermination” is based on the determining role of the economic factor, post-Marxism considers this precisely the content of Althusser’s theory that should be denied and discarded. “If the concept of overdetermination could not produce its deconstructive effect on totality within Marxist discourse, it is because, from the very beginning, there was an attempt to adapt it to another central factor in Althusser’s discourse, strictly speaking, to the ultimate determination by the economy.” [2]2 “Surplus repression” (额外压抑) is a term from Herbert Marcuse’s *Eros and Civilization* (1955), referring to the additional restrictions on human instincts imposed by specific forms of social domination beyond the basic repression necessary for civilization.(P106) It can be seen that although post-Marxism distorts and extends Gramsci’s and Althusser’s ideas in constructing its theoretical system, it also highlights the theoretical effects of Western Marxism.

第一，西方马克思主义的理论问题为国外马克思主义新思潮的理论建构提供了理论资源。以拉克劳、墨菲为代表的后马克思主义的理论就是借口当代西方社会历史条件的变化，强调作为整体的无产阶级已不存在，西方社会已经是一个多元主体的社会，他们认为马克思主义的阶级概念已经无法反映当代西方社会的新变化，也意味着阶级政治已经不现实。他们又立足于后现代主义哲学文化思潮，强调应当把历史唯物主义关于经济必然性的历史规律作为本质予以否定和抛弃，认为可以借用和修正葛兰西的“领导权”概念、阿尔都塞的“多元决定论”的历史观建构适应当代西方社会的注重偶然性、激进民主和以“接合理论”为基础的“新霸权理论”。但他们的借用和修正是建立在歪曲葛兰西的领导权理论和阿尔都塞的“多元决定论”的原意的基础上的。众所周知，葛兰西的领导权理论是建立在经济基础决定上层建筑这一历史唯物主义基本原理之上的，他对马克思主义哲学解释的特点在于一方面反对那种对马克思主义哲学的经济决定论和庸俗唯物主义解读，另一方面反对对马克思主义哲学的唯心主义解读，将马克思主义哲学解释为以实践为基础的关于人与人、人与自然的唯物主义哲学，并强调发挥马克思主义哲学的批判价值功能和在文化意识形态领导权争夺中的重要作用。但是后马克思主义一方面认为葛兰西的领导权理论能够把当代西方社会多元主体“接合”起来，为建构新霸权理论提供理论基础，另一方面却又脱离葛兰西在强调经济基础决定上层建筑的基础上讨论如何夺取领导权问题，甚至要求把这一历史唯物主义基本原理当作应予以否定和抛弃的本质主义的残余。同样的情况也发生在对阿尔都塞理论的理解上。阿尔都塞提出“多元决定论”的历史观的命题是为了反对那种对马克思主义哲学的经济决定论、技术还原论的理解，他在提出这一命题时反复强调经济因素归根结底的决定作用体现在它是上层建筑反作用的基础。后马克思主义一方面认为阿尔都塞的“多元决定论”的历史观既突破了历史唯物主义关于经济必然性的概念，又突出了人类社会历史发展的差异性、多元性、多维性的特点，正好适应了当代西方社会多元主体和差异性日益突出的现实，由于阿尔都塞的“多元决定”的历史观是建立在经济因素决定作用的基础上的，后马克思主义认为这一点恰恰是阿尔都塞理论应予否定和抛弃的内容，应当予以否定和抛弃。“假如多元决定这一概念不能在马克思主义话语之中产生它对总体的解构作用，这是因为，从一开始就存在着要适应阿尔都塞话语之中另一个中心因素的企图、严格地说，即适应经济的最后决定作用”。[2](P106)可以看出，后马克思主义虽然歪曲地借用和引申葛兰西、阿尔都塞的思想建构其理论体系的，但也彰显了西方马克思主义的理论效应。

Second, the theoretical constructions of late Marxism, represented by Jameson and Eagleton, and the British cultural studies trend, draw on the theoretical resources of Western Marxism from two dimensions: philosophical research methodology and specific theoretical issues. From the dimension of philosophical research methodology, the late Marxist theorist Jameson, by borrowing Althusser’s historical view of “overdetermination” and his synchronic research method, criticizes the economic-determinist interpretation of Marx’s theory of the mode of production. He affirms that Althusser’s historical view of “overdetermination” and synchronic research method can overcome the defect that Marx’s theory of the mode of production, while adept at historical analysis of the development of human society, lacks detailed analysis of social structure. Jameson emphasizes that to truly understand and grasp Marx’s theory of the mode of production, one must organically combine synchronic and diachronic research methods. At the same time, Jameson repeatedly stresses that affirming Althusser’s historical view of “overdetermination” and his synchronic research method must always take Marx’s theory of the mode of production as the condition and foundation: “this description must be completed with a key proviso, namely, that there is only one kind of structuralism: that of the mode of production itself, or the synchronic system of the entire social relations,”[3]3 The “second contradiction” refers to the contradiction between capitalist production and the natural and social conditions (e.g., raw materials, labor power, ecological environment) necessary for that production, a concept developed by ecological Marxists such as James O’Connor.(P26) only then can one avoid the tendency of Althusser’s above theory and method to slide toward post-Marxism and Lacanian idealism. The British cultural studies trend, in its research methods, is deeply influenced by Gramsci’s cultural hegemony and Althusser’s historical view of “overdetermination,” giving rise to the “culturalist research paradigm” and the “structuralist research paradigm” in cultural studies. The “culturalist research paradigm” emphasizes the intrinsic connection between culture and human practical experience, highlighting the intrinsic link between culture and human ways of life; the “structuralist research paradigm” emphasizes the intervening role of ideology in cultural formation. Although the common point of the British cultural studies trend is its opposition to economic-determinist and vulgar-materialist interpretations of historical materialism, these two different research paradigms determine whether different theorists within the British cultural studies trend regard culture as a product of human practical experience or as a result of social structure and ideological construction, whether they emphasize cultural identity or cultural difference, and thus also determine the theoretical themes and theoretical interests of different theorists within the British cultural studies trend. From the dimension of specific theoretical issues, late Marxism is deeply influenced by Western Marxism’s theory of totality, cultural theory, and spatial theory. Emphasizing “totality” for understanding the essence of Marxist philosophy and achieving the freedom and liberation of Western people is a common feature of Western Marxist theory. Late Marxism opposes the practice of postmodernist and post-Marxist currents, which, on the pretext that totality equals totalitarianism, dissolve the Marxist theory of totality and indulge in purely abstract cultural critique. It emphasizes that, while always adhering to Marx’s theory of the mode of production, one should carry out a total critique encompassing economic critique, cultural critique, and political critique of capitalist society. In practice, one should explore effective ways to elevate local micro-struggles against capitalism into a total struggle against capitalism. In the above theoretical exploration, late Marxism is deeply influenced by Western Marxism’s theory of totality, which is particularly evident in Jameson and others. While emphasizing the importance of totality for Western socialist revolution, Jameson believes that the Western Marxist method of totality should be refined and concretized. He thus organically combines Althusser’s totality based on social structure with the concept of “cognitive mapping” proposed by Kevin Lynch in *The Image of the City*, putting forward the method of “cognitive mapping.” Its core is to require, on the basis of grasping the laws of the totalizing movement of capitalism, combining individual living conditions and experiences, to seek political plans for Western socialist revolution and the real path to human freedom and liberation. The prominent feature of Western Marxism is its emphasis on the importance of the degree of development of human subjective spirit for Western revolution. Consequently, the cultural critique theory formed by its great attention to the study of cultural issues has had an important impact on the theoretical construction of late Marxism. Emphasizing the revelation of the cultural logic of late capitalist society and the critique of consumerist culture is one of the theoretical focuses of late Marxism. Jameson repeatedly stresses the importance of Lukács’s theory of reification and the Frankfurt School’s theory of consumerist culture critique. Jameson not only affirms the important value of Lukács’s theory of reification for understanding the global expansion and commodification of capitalist culture but also explicitly affirms that the theory of the culture industry and mass culture proposed by Adorno, Horkheimer, Marcuse, and others are positive results of applying the theory of reification to analyze the consequences and essence of commodification in capitalist society. He thus affirms that “the strength of Adorno’s and Horkheimer’s analysis of the culture industry lies in its demonstration of how the commodity structure unexpectedly and imperceptibly enters into the artwork itself… as if through the stable conquest and colonization of the non-practical final realm by the logic of the world of means and ends, or the conquest and colonization of pure play and anti-practicality.”[4]4 “Post-Marxism” here refers specifically to the theoretical school represented by Ernesto Laclau and Chantal Mouffe, which emerged in the 1980s and sought to reconstruct Marxist concepts using post-structuralist and postmodernist frameworks.(P55) Furthermore, he draws on Marcuse’s emphasis on the importance of artistic aesthetics in restoring human autonomous consciousness and political critical consciousness in escaping capitalist alienation and total domination, achieving human freedom and liberation. The influence of Western Marxism’s spatial theory on late Marxist research is mainly reflected in the analysis of the global expansion of capital and its consequences. Lefebvre explicitly proposed a historical dialectic based on the production of space, elaborating on the “spatial triad” of “spatial practice” based on material production and labor production, “representations of space” subjectively conceived by the ruling class, and “representational spaces” based on people’s real experience. This reveals the intrinsic connection between the production of space under the capitalist mode of production, capital accumulation, and the reproduction of capitalist relations of production. It further critiques the consequences of alienation and fragmentation of human existence caused by capitalist space, proposing that the contradictory and alienated capitalist space should be replaced by a socialist space conducive to the free and comprehensive development of human beings. This achieves a spatial turn in social theory and becomes an important theoretical tool for foreign Marxism, especially late Marxism, in criticizing contemporary capitalism. Influenced by Lefebvre’s spatial theory, Jameson, in his article “Cognitive Mapping,” argues that “each of the three historical stages of capital produces its own specific space, although this particular stage of capitalist space is obviously more deeply connected with space than the space of other modes of production,”[5]5 “Hegemony” (领导权) is a concept developed by Antonio Gramsci to describe the cultural, moral, and ideological leadership exercised by a ruling class over subordinate classes, as distinct from direct political coercion.(P295) and explicitly points out that in late capitalist society, the “logic of space” has replaced the “logic of time.” Whether one can use the method of “cognitive mapping” to grasp the logic of spatial production in late capitalism is not only related to whether we can correctly understand the new changes in contemporary capitalist society but also to whether we can achieve the victory of socialist revolution based on total transformation.

第二，以詹姆逊、伊格尔顿等为代表的晚期马克思主义以及英国文化研究思潮的理论建构，从哲学研究方法论和具体理论问题两个维度上借鉴了西方马克思主义的理论资源。从哲学研究方法论的维度看，晚期马克思主义理论家詹姆逊就是通过借用阿尔都塞的“多元决定论”的历史观和注重共时态的研究方法，来批评那种对马克思的生产方式理论的经济决定论的解释，并肯定阿尔都塞“多元决定论”的历史观和共时态的研究方法能够克服马克思的生产方式理论擅长于对人类社会历史发展的历史分析，却存在着较少对社会结构展开细致分析的缺陷，强调要真正理解和把握马克思的生产方式理论就必须把共时态的研究方法和历时态的研究方法有机结合起来。同时，詹姆逊反复强调肯定阿尔都塞的“多元决定论”的历史观和注重共时态的研究方法就必须始终以马克思的生产方式理论为附带条件和基础，“必须用一个关键的附带条件来完成这番描写，即“只存在一种结构的结构主义：即生产方式本身，或是整个社会关系的共时系统”，[3](P26)才能避免使阿尔都塞的上述理论和方法滑向后马克思主义和拉康唯心主义的倾向；而英国文化研究思潮在研究方法上深受葛兰西文化领导权和阿尔都塞“多元决定论”的历史观的影响，形成了文化研究上的“文化主义研究范式”与“结构主义研究范式”，“文化主义研究范式”强调的是文化与人类实践经验的内在关联，突出的是文化与人类生活方式的内在关联；“结构主义研究范式”则强调意识形态对于文化形成的介入作用，虽然英国文化研究思潮的共同点是反对那种对历史唯物主义的经济决定论和庸俗唯物论的解释，但这两种不同的研究范式决定了英国文化研究思潮不同理论家到底是把文化看作是人类实践经验的产物，还是社会结构和意识形态建构的结果，到底是强调文化的同一性还是强调文化的差异性，因而也决定了英国文化研究思潮不同理论家的理论主题和理论旨趣；从具体理论问题的维度看，晚期马克思主义深受西方马克思主义的总体性理论、文化理论和空间理论的影响。强调“总体性”对于理解马克思主义哲学的真谛和实现西方人的自由和解放是西方马克思主义理论的共同点。晚期马克思主义反对后现代主义思潮与后马克思主义思潮借口总体性等于极权主义的意识形态，进而消解马克思主义总体性理论，沉醉于单纯的抽象文化批判的做法，强调应当在始终坚持马克思的生产方式理论的基础上，对资本主义社会展开经济批判、文化批判和政治批判在内的总体批判，在实践中应当探寻把地方性的反抗资本主义微观斗争上升为反抗资本主义的总体斗争的有效途径。而晚期马克思主义在上述理论探索的过程中深受西方马克思主义总体性理论的影响，这在詹姆逊等人那里表现得尤其突出。詹姆逊在强调总体性对于西方社会主义革命重要性的同时，认为应当把西方马克思主义的总体性方法细化和具体化，他由此通过把阿尔都塞的以社会结构为基础的总体性理论与凯文·林奇在《城市的意象》一书中提出的“认知测绘”概念有机结合起来，提出了“认知测绘”方法，其核心是要求在把握资本主义总体化运动规律的基础上，结合个人的生存境遇和经验，找寻西方社会主义革命的政治规划，实现人的自由和解放的现实路径；西方马克思主义的突出特点是强调人的主观精神发展程度对于西方革命的重要性，由此非常重视文化问题的研究而形成的文化批判理论对晚期马克思主义的理论建构产生了重要影响。重视对晚期资本主义社会文化逻辑的揭示和消费主义文化的批判是晚期马克思主义的理论重点之一。詹姆逊反复强调卢卡奇的物化理论、法兰克福学派的消费主义文化批判理论的重要性。詹姆逊不仅肯定卢卡奇的物化理论对于理解资本主义文化的全球扩张和商品化的实质具有重要的价值，而且明确肯定阿多诺、霍克海默尔、马尔库塞等人所提出的文化工业论和大众文化理论正是把物化理论运用于分析资本主义社会商品化的后果与实质的积极成果，并由此肯定“阿多诺和霍克海默对文化工业分析的力量，在于它表明了商品结构如何出乎意料地、不被察觉地进入到艺术作品本身之中……像是通过手段与目的世界的逻辑对非实践性的最终领域的稳定的征服和殖民化，或者是对纯粹游戏和反实用的征服和殖民化”；[4](P55)进而借鉴马尔库塞强调艺术审美在恢复人的自主意识、政治批判意识在摆脱资本主义异化和总体统治，实现人的自由和解放的重要意义；西方马克思主义的空间理论对晚期马克思主义研究的影响主要体现在对资本全球扩张与后果的分析上。列斐伏尔明确提出了以空间生产为基础的历史辩证法，论述了以物质生产和劳动生产为基础的“空间的实践”、以统治阶级主观构想的“空间表征”和以人们真实体验为基础的“再现性空间”基础的“空间三元辩证法”，揭示了资本主义生产方式下的空间生产与资本积累、资本主义生产关系的再生产之间的内在联系，进而批判了资本主义空间所造成的人的生存的异化和破碎化的后果，提出应当用有利于人的自由全面发展的社会主义空间代替充满矛盾和异化的资本主义空间，实现了社会理论的空间转向，并成为国外马克思主义，特别是晚期马克思主义批判当代资本主义的重要理论工具。受列斐伏尔空间理论的影响，詹姆逊在《认知的测绘》一文中认为“资本的三个历史阶段各自生产它所特有的空间，尽管资本主义空间的这个特定阶段显然比其他生产方式的空间更深刻地联系在一起”，[5](P295)并明确指出在晚期资本主义社会中，“空间的逻辑”已经代替了“时间的逻辑”，能否使用“认知测绘”的方法把握晚期资本主义的空间生产的逻辑，不仅关系到我们能否正确认识当代资本主义社会的新变化，而且也关系到能否实现以总体性变革为基础的社会主义革命的胜利。

Third, the turn toward cultural research in Western Marxism has given the entire development of foreign Marxist theory the characteristic of a “twofold turn.” In his book *Considerations on Western Marxism*, the British scholar Perry Anderson argues that, contrary to Marx’s continuous movement from philosophical research toward political and economic research, the theoretical focus of Western Marxism increasingly shifted toward philosophical research, with the emphasis placed on research into culture within the superstructure. This cultural turn in Western Marxism led them to stress the role of subjective factors in the process of historical development and to concentrate theoretical research on the dialectics of Marxism and the function of cultural ideology. This constituted the first turn in foreign Marxist research, namely, the turn toward cultural research. The positive effect of this turn lay in overcoming economistic and technological-reductionist interpretations of Marxist philosophy and in revealing the principal contradictions facing revolution in the West. However, apart from Gramsci, when Western Marxist theorists emphasized the role of subjective factors in the process of historical development, they did not correctly resolve the dialectical relationship between the roles of subjective and objective factors in historical development. This theoretical deficiency was exploited by the post-Marxist current of thought, causing post-Marxism to completely detach itself from the determining role of economic factors and to negate the laws of historical inevitability revealed by historical materialism, unilaterally emphasizing abstract cultural-ideological critique. This revealed the negative influence of the cultural turn in Western Marxism. Late Marxism criticized the post-Marxist current for negating Marx’s theory of the mode of production and for unilaterally emphasizing cultural ideology. Late Marxism consistently adhered to Marx’s theory of the mode of production and the pursuit of totality, while also inheriting and developing the cultural-critical theory of Western Marxism. It grounded cultural critique in the critique of political economy and made the study of political economy the focus of its theory, thereby forming the second turn in foreign Marxist research, namely, the return to the study of political economy.

第三，西方马克思主义文化研究的转向使整个国外马克思主义理论的发展呈现出“两次转向”的特征。英国学者佩里·安德森在《西方马克思主义探讨》一书中，认为与马克思不断从哲学研究走向政治学、经济学研究相反，西方马克思主义的理论主题越来越转向哲学研究，重点是转向对上层建筑中的文化研究，西方马克思主义的这种文化转向使他们注重对历史发展进程中主观因素作用的强调，并把理论研究的重点放在对马克思主义的辩证法和文化意识形态功能研究和阐发上，构成了国外马克思主义研究的第一次转向，即文化研究的转向。这一转向的积极作用在于克服了对马克思主义哲学的经济决定论、技术还原论的解释，并揭示了西方革命中面临的主要矛盾。但除了葛兰西之外，西方马克思主义理论家在强调历史发展进程中主观因素的作用的时候，并没有正确地解决好主观与客观因素在历史发展中作用的辩证关系问题，他们的这一理论缺陷被后马克思主义思潮所利用，使得后马克思主义完全脱离经济因素的决定作用和否定历史唯物主义所揭示的历史必然性规律，片面强调抽象文化意识形态批判，显示了西方马克思主义文化转向的消极影响；晚期马克思主义批判了后马克思主义思潮否定马克思的生产方式理论，片面强调文化意识形态的缺陷，始终坚持马克思主义的生产方式理论和对总体性的追求，同时也继承和发展了西方马克思主义文化批判理论，把文化批判建立在政治经济学批判的基础上，并把政治经济学研究作为他们理论的重点，形成了国外马克思主义研究的第二次转向，即政治经济学研究的回归。

Fourth, Western Marxist theory has also exerted an important influence on theoretical research into Marxist philosophy in contemporary China. This influence is mainly reflected in the following aspects: First, it has promoted the Chinese academic community’s understanding of the essence of Marxist philosophy and provided intellectual resources for the reform and theoretical construction of Marxist philosophy in China. Because the exploration of the essence of Marxist philosophy is the logical starting point of its theoretical problems, Western Marxists have systematically examined fundamental questions concerning how to understand Marxist philosophy, such as its essence, function, mission, and theoretical system. Their explorations have enabled us to grasp more fully the overall picture of the process of the globalization and nationalization of Marxist philosophy in the twentieth century, and have also provided a completely new theoretical horizon for the theoretical construction of Marxist philosophy in China. Since reform and opening up, the influence of Western Marxist theory can be seen in Chinese Marxist philosophy’s discussions of practice, human subjectivity, the study of humanity, philosophical form, and the reflection on and reform of the textbook system. This has gradually formed a two-way interactive relationship between the study of Marxist philosophy in China and the study of Western Marxism, so that the history of the Chinese academic community’s interpretation and reception of Western Marxism and the history of the Chinese academic community’s understanding of the essence of Marxist philosophy appear as one and the same historical process. Second, it has promoted the Chinese academic community’s understanding of the theoretical nature of Marxist philosophy. Western Marxist theorists oppose understanding the essence of Marxist philosophy as its specific research conclusions, and they highlight the theoretical nature of Marxist philosophy as critical and reality-oriented. The influence of their above-mentioned explorations on the study of Marxist philosophy in China is mainly reflected in the fact that they have both promoted research in the Chinese academic community on the question of the form of Marxist philosophy and promoted discussions in the Chinese academic community on the relationship between the academic nature and the reality-orientation of Marxist philosophy. Third, it has promoted the opening up of new research domains in the study of Marxist philosophy in China, which is conducive to establishing an organic connection between Marxist philosophy and China’s modernization practice, as well as with people’s real-life world. Based on the ontological perspective of human freedom and liberation, Western Marxism has proposed many new topics, such as alienation, which have played a positive role in promoting the opening up of new domains in Chinese Marxist philosophy, such as cultural philosophy, philosophy of life, critical philosophy of technology, and ecological philosophy. This has enabled Chinese Marxist philosophy to truly move toward people’s real-life world, which is conducive to resolving the negative phenomena that have emerged in the process of China’s modernization.

第四，西方马克思主义理论对于当代中国马克思主义哲学理论研究同样产生了重要的影响，这种影响主要体现在：其一，促进了中国学术界对马克思主义哲学本质的理解，为中国马克思主义哲学改革和理论建设提供了思想资源。由于对马克思主义哲学本质的探讨是其理论问题的逻辑起点，他们对马克思主义哲学的本质、功能、使命和理论体系等关乎如何理解马克思主义哲学的根本性问题作出了系统的探讨，他们的探索使我们更加完整地把握20世纪马克思主义哲学世界化和民族化进程的整体图像，也使中国马克思主义哲学理论建设有了全新的理论视野。改革开放以来，中国马克思主义哲学关于实践、人的主体性、人学、哲学形态、教科书体系的反思与改革等问题的探讨，都可以看到西方马克思主义理论的影响，并逐渐形成了中国马克思主义哲学研究与西方马克思主义研究双向互动的关系，使得我国学术界对西方马克思主义的解释史、接受史与中国学术界对马克思主义哲学本质的理解史呈现为同一历史过程；其二，促进了中国学术界对马克思主义哲学理论本性的理解。西方马克思主义理论家反对把马克思主义哲学的本质理解为其具体研究结论，突出了马克思主义哲学的批判性和现实性的理论本性。他们的上述探讨对中国马克思主义哲学研究的影响主要体现为既促进了中国学术界关于马克思主义哲学形态问题的研究，也促进了中国学术界关于马克思主义哲学的学术性和现实性关系的讨论；第三，促进了中国马克思主义哲学研究中新的研究论域的开启，有利于建立马克思主义哲学与中国现代化实践、与人的现实生活世界的有机联系。西方马克思主义立足于人的自由和解放这一本体论的视角，提出的异化等诸多新的论题，对中国马克思主义哲学开启文化哲学、生活哲学、技术批判哲学、生态哲学等新论域起了积极的促进作用，使中国马克思主义哲学真正走向了人的现实生活世界，有利于解决中国现代化进程中出现的负面现象。

03

03

The Practical Effects and Real Value of Western Marxism

西方马克思主义的实践效应与现实价值

Western Marxism can be divided into two types of theory: one type aims to explore the freedom and liberation of the proletariat as a whole, and the other type aims to explore the freedom and liberation of the Western individual. The former is mainly represented by early Western Marxist theorists, Althusser, ecological Marxism, and analytical Marxism; the latter is mainly represented by the Frankfurt School, Sartre, and others. They not only have different theoretical emphases, but their practical effects and real value are respectively reflected in promoting the development of the Western socialist movement and the Western new social movements.

西方马克思主义可以划分为以探寻作为整体的无产阶级自由和解放为目的的理论和以探寻作为西方个人自由和解放为目的的两种类型的理论，前者主要以早期西方马克思主义理论家、阿尔都塞、生态学马克思主义、分析的马克思主义理论家为代表，后者主要以法兰克福学派、萨特等为代表，他们不仅具有不同的理论侧重点，而且他们的实践效应和现实价值分别体现在推进了西方社会主义运动和西方新社会运动的发展。

Adhering to the goal of exploring the freedom and liberation of the proletariat as a whole, Western Marxist theorists identified that the key to Western socialist revolution lies in how to cultivate the mature class consciousness of the proletariat. They therefore placed great emphasis on elucidating the ideological function of Marxist philosophy, on handling the determining role of the totality constituted by subjective and objective factors in the process of historical development, on exploring the relationship between the scientific and value dimensions of Marxist theory, and on insisting that the transformation of capitalist society and the establishment of socialist society can only be achieved through class politics. They also insisted that socialist society should be built not only on the basis of highly developed productive forces, but also on the basis of the highly developed subjective spirit of human beings, and accordingly proposed different models of socialism. The early Western Marxist theorists Lukács, Korsch and Gramsci emphasized that the West should establish a socialist society suited to its democratic traditions. While highly praising Lenin’s important contributions to socialism, Lukács revealed the autocratic nature of bourgeois political rule, criticized Stalin and others for distorting Marxism into a form of economic determinism, thereby reducing socialism to a mere tool for promoting economic development while completely neglecting people’s livelihood and democracy. On the basis of revealing that the essence of capitalist democracy is the manipulation of freedom and false democracy, he stressed that socialist democracy means not only the genuine participation of the masses in the management of the state and society, but also a process of continuously democratizing people’s daily life. Gramsci and Korsch emphasized that socialism should be based on “factory councils” characterized by workers’ self-management and self-governance. Ecological Marxism advocates combining the ecological movement with organized workers’ movements, steering the ecological movement toward radical political action, transforming the capitalist system and mode of production, and establishing an eco-socialist society based on production justice, democratization of production and management processes, and the subordination of science and technology to the harmonious development of humanity and nature. Analytical Marxism criticized capitalist society as one full of exploitation and inequality, not only arguing that socialist society is morally just and righteous, but also constructing models of “securities” market socialism and “economic democracy” market socialism. In their view, because capitalist society contains the opposition between capital and labor, the market inevitably brings about enormous waste of resources and the emergence of inequality and injustice. Since socialist society does not have this opposition between capital and labor, it can both increase production efficiency through enhanced competition and overcome the phenomena of exploitation and unfairness found in capitalist society, making it a society that balances efficiency and fairness. Overall, they emphasized that socialist society should be one with highly developed productive forces, a highly developed subjective spirit of human beings, and no exploitation, where freedom and equality prevail.

秉承以探寻作为整体的无产阶级自由和解放为目的的西方马克思主义理论家指认西方社会主义革命的关键在于如何培育无产阶级成熟的阶级意识，他们由此非常注重对马克思主义哲学的意识形态功能的阐发，注重处理历史发展进程中主客观因素所构成的总体对历史发展的决定作用，注重处理马克思主义理论的科学性与价值性的关系问题的探讨，强调变革资本主义社会和建立社会主义社会只能通过阶级政治才能实现，强调社会主义社会不仅应当建立在高度发达的生产力的基础上，而且也应当建立在人的主观精神高度发展的基础上，并由此提出了不同的社会主义模式。早期西方马克思主义理论家卢卡奇、柯尔施和葛兰西强调西方应当建立一种适合西方民主传统的社会主义社会，卢卡奇在高度赞扬列宁对社会主义的重要贡献的同时，揭示了资产阶级政治统治的专制本质，批评斯大林等人把马克思主义曲解为一种经济决定论，进而把社会主义仅仅理解为一种促进经济发展的工具，完全忽视了民生和民主问题，并在揭示资本主义民主的本质是对自由的操纵和虚假的民主的基础上，强调社会主义民主既意味着人民群众真正参与国家和社会管理过程中，又是一个使人们日常生活不断民主化的过程；葛兰西和柯尔施则强调社会主义应当建立在以工人自我管理和工人自治为特征的“工厂委员会”的基础上；生态学马克思主义主张将生态运动与有组织的工人运动相结合，使生态运动走向激进的政治运动，变革资本主义制度和生产方式，建立以生产正义型为基础，生产和管理过程民主化，科学技术的成就服从和服务于人与自然和谐发展的生态社会主义社会；分析的马克思主义批判了资本主义社会是一个充满剥削和不平等的社会，不仅认为社会主义社会在道德上是正当、正义的，而且建构了“证券”市场社会主义和“经济民主”市场社会主义模式。在他们看来，由于资本主义社会存在着资本和劳动的对立，市场在资本主义社会必然带来资源的巨大浪费和不平等、不正义现象的产生。由于社会主义社会不仅不存在资本和劳动的对立，这就决定了社会主义在通过增加竞争提高生产效率的同时，又能够克服资本主义社会剥削和不公平的现象，是一个兼顾效率与公平的社会。总的看，他们强调社会主义社会应该是一个生产力高度发达，人的主观精神高度发展，没有剥削、自由和平等的社会。

Western Marxist theorists who aim to explore individual freedom and liberation in the West regard contemporary capitalist society as one of total domination and total alienation, while also viewing the Soviet-model socialist society as a bureaucratic society, both of which are detrimental to the free development of individuals. They therefore proposed that human freedom and all-round development should be achieved by taking a “third road” that both transforms capitalist society and establishes a society different from actually existing socialism. Following the spirit of “alienation” and “humanism” in the *Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844*, they interpret Marxist philosophy as a doctrine opposing alienation and realizing human freedom and liberation. They place the revolutionary subject for realizing the “third road” in the youth and intellectual groups with a critical spirit, and strive to bring into play the critical spirit of Marxist philosophy to resist the total alienation and total control of capitalist society. Through cultural critique and artistic aesthetics, they seek to cultivate individual autonomous consciousness and independent personality. They propose the ideal of realizing a “humanistic socialism” by taking the “third road,” and define humanistic socialist society as one that has overcome alienation, where the human body and mind are harmonious, relations between humanity and nature and between humanity and society are harmonious, and people are filled with love and mutual respect.

以探索西方个人自由和解放为目的的西方马克思主义理论家既认为当代资本主义社会是一个总体统治和总体异化的社会，又把苏联模式的社会主义社会看作是官僚制的社会，二者都不利于人的自由发展。他们由此提出应当通过走既变革资本主义社会，又建立不同于现实社会主义社会的“第三条道路”来实现人的自由和全面发展。他们按照《1844年经济学哲学手稿》中的“异化”和“人道主义”精神，把马克思主义哲学解释为反抗异化和实现人的自由和解放的学说，把实现“第三条道路”的革命主体寄托在具有批判精神的青年学生和知识分子群体上，并力图发挥马克思主义哲学的批判精神，反抗资本主义社会的总体异化和总体控制，通过文化批判和艺术审美来培育个人的自主意识和独立人格，他们提出了通过走“第三条道路”实现“人道主义的社会主义”的理想，并把人道主义的社会主义社会规定为一个克服了异化，人的身心和谐、人与自然、人与社会关系和谐，人与人之间充满爱和相互尊重的社会。

The influence of Western Marxism on Western new social movements is mainly reflected in its promotion of the development of new social movements such as the “youth rebellion movement” against mainstream Western culture and the ecological movement. The “youth rebellion movement” originated in the “May 1968 events” in France and quickly spread throughout the Western world. The reason was that students were dissatisfied with the consumerist values and lifestyles promoted by Western society at the time; people’s spiritual world was dominated by consumerist values, society showed a one-dimensional development trend, and university education was reduced to vocational training. Therefore, rebelling against capitalist culture became a way to resist capitalist society. It can be said that the youth rebellion movement at that time was precisely “a questioning of the very idea of the university and the entire bourgeois way of life behind it.”[12]12 The reference is to a source cited in the original text, here renumbered as [12] in the translation. The original citation marker [6] in the Chinese text corresponds to this note.(P12) Western Marxist theorists and the youth rebellion movement formed a two-way interactive relationship. On the one hand, Western Marxist theorists and their theoretical viewpoints became objects of worship for the youth; Sartre’s theory of alienation and the revolutionary strategy of “great refusal” and aesthetic salvationism toward capitalism proposed by Marcuse in works such as *One-Dimensional Man* were highly esteemed by the youth. On the other hand, Western Marxist theorists such as Marcuse and Sartre took to the streets to support and express solidarity with the youth rebellion movement, allowing Western Marxist theory to be put into practice during the “May 1968 events,” demonstrating the important influence of their theories.

西方马克思主义对西方新社会运动的影响主要体现在对推进反对西方主流文化的“青年学生造反运动”、生态运动等新社会运动的发展上。“青年学生造反运动”起源于1968年法国的“五月风暴”，并迅速弥漫于整个西方世界。其原因在于学生不满当时西方社会鼓吹消费主义价值观和生存方式，人的精神世界被消费主义价值观所支配，社会呈现出单向度发展趋势，并使得大学教育沦为职业培训所，因而把反叛资本主义文化作为反抗资本主义社会的一种方式。可以说，当时青年学生造反运动正是“对大学本身的理念以及背后整个资产阶级生活方式的质疑”。[6](P12)西方马克思主义理论家与青年学生造反运动形成了双向互动的关系，一方面西方马克思主义理论家及其理论观点成为青年学生崇拜的对象，萨特的异化理论、马尔库塞在《单向度的人》等著作中所提出的对资本主义采取“大拒绝”和审美救世主义的革命方略为青年学生所推崇；另一方面马尔库塞、萨特等西方马克思主义理论家走上街头，支持和声援青年学生的造反运动，使得西方马克思主义理论在“五月风暴”中得以实践，彰显了他们理论的重要影响。

Along with the increasingly global development of the ecological crisis, Western society has given rise to ecological trends and movements of ecocentrism and modern anthropocentrism. The prevalence of ecocentric ecological thought has led to radical environmental movements that disregard human survival rights and unilaterally emphasize ecological interests, giving rise to the ecological political trend and movement of ecological autonomism. The modern anthropocentric ecological trend has given rise to green development environmental movements in the Western world based on capital’s pursuit of profit. Ecological Marxism, on the one hand, criticizes the “theory of natural value” and “theory of natural rights” advocated by ecocentric ecological thought for facing numerous theoretical and practical difficulties. On the other hand, it criticizes ecocentric ecological thought for placing ecological interests above human interests, abstractly examining the roots of the ecological crisis detached from the mode of production, failing to see the internal connection between the ecological crisis and capitalist modernization and the globalization of capital, and unilaterally emphasizing the importance of local ecological autonomy and changes in individual lifestyles for solving the ecological crisis, detached from the globalization of capital. Ecological Marxism also criticizes the anthropocentric ecological trend, arguing that its essence is to maintain the natural conditions for the reproduction and sustainable development of capitalism; the value stance of its theory is by no means to uphold the overall and long-term interests of humanity as it claims, but rather to uphold the interests of capital, making it a Western-centric ecological trend. Ecological Marxism therefore points out that the root of the ecological crisis lies in capitalist modernization and the globalization of capital. Only by breaking with the capitalist system and mode of production, breaking with the false anthropocentrism of capital and classical economics, and establishing a genuine anthropocentrism based on the true overall and long-term interests of humanity and on meeting people’s basic living needs, can we avoid both radical ecological movements that ignore human survival rights and environmental movements that serve the needs of capital’s pursuit of profit, thereby enabling the ecological movement to truly promote the harmonious and common development of relations between humanity and nature and between humanity and society.

伴随着生态危机日益全球化发展趋势，西方社会产生了生态中心论、现代人类中心论的生态思潮和生态运动。生态中心论生态思潮的盛行引发了不顾人类的生存权利，片面强调生态利益的激进环境运动，由此产生了生态自治主义的生态政治思潮和生态政治运动；现代人类中心论的生态思潮引发了西方世界基于资本追求利润的绿色发展环保运动。生态学马克思主义一方面批评生态中心论的生态思潮所主张的“自然价值论”和“自然权利论”在理论和实践上面临诸多难题，另一方面批评生态中心主义的生态思潮把生态的利益置于人类的利益之上，脱离生产方式抽象地考察生态危机的根源，看不到生态危机与资本主义现代化和资本的全球化的内在关联，脱离资本的全球化，片面强调地方生态自治和个人生活方式的变革对于解决生态危机的重要性；生态学马克思主义也批评人类中心主义生态思潮的本质是为了维系资本主义再生产和可持续发展的自然条件，其理论的价值立场绝不是为了维系他们所标榜的人类的整体利益和长远利益，而是为了维系资本的利益，是西方中心主义的生态思潮。生态学马克思主义由此指出生态危机的根源在于资本主义现代化和资本的全球化，只有破除资本主义制度和生产方式，破除资本和古典经济学的虚假的人、人类中心主义价值观，树立建立在人类真正的整体利益和长远利益，以满足人民基本生活需要基础上的真正的人类中心主义价值观，才能既避免忽视人类生存权利的激进生态运动，又避免使生态运动变成服从和服务于资本追求利润的需要的环保运动，从而使生态运动真正促进人与自然、人与社会关系的和谐共同发展。

(The author is a professor and doctoral supervisor at the School of Philosophy, Zhongnan University of Economics and Law.)

（作者系中南财经政法大学哲学院教授、博士生导师）

Online editor: Tongxin

网络编辑：同心