The Lost and Resurgent Path of Western Marxism

*Reconstructing Western Marxism: Its Birth, Death, and Rebirth* (Il marxismo occidentale Come nacque, come morì, come può rinascere, hereafter *Reconstructing Western Marxism*) is a highly illuminating work published in 2017 by Domenico Losurdo (1941–2018), a renowned European expert in the history of Marxist philosophy. The Chinese translation, as part of the “World Marxism and Left-Wing Studies Series” (edited by Jiang Hui) planned and published by the Institute of Marxism of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, was released by Contemporary China Publishing House in April 2022.

《西方马克思主义重构：诞生、死亡与重生》(Il marxismo occidentale Come nacque, come morì, come puó rinascere, 以下简称《西方马克思主义重构》),是欧洲著名马克思主义哲学史专家多米尼克·洛苏尔多(Domenico Losurdo, 1941～2018)在2017年出版的一部极具启发性的著作。中译本作为中国社会科学院马克思主义研究院策划出版的“世界马克思主义与左翼研究论丛”(姜辉主编)之一，由当代中国出版社于2022年4月出版。

In 2018, young Italian Marxist scholars, in articles commemorating the 200th anniversary of Marx’s birth, put forward a striking viewpoint: the rebirth of Marxism in the West depends not only on the practical explorations of Western communist parties but also on their ability to “draw lessons and learn from relevant historical experience in a comparison between Eastern and Western Marxism,” thereby achieving breakthrough theoretical innovation. In fact, this is precisely the theme explored by Losurdo in *Reconstructing Western Marxism*. In it, Losurdo reconstructs the developmental trajectory of Western Marxism, investigating how it fell into the myth of Western-centrism in its struggle against capitalism, how it moved from victory to decline by negating Eastern Marxism while being blinded by liberalism, and the possibility of its rebirth through collision with Eastern Marxism.

2018年，意大利青年马克思主义学者在纪念马克思诞辰200周年的文章中提出了一个颇引人瞩目的观点——马克思主义在西方的重生，不仅取决于西方共产党人的实践探索，还取决于他们能否“在东西方马克思主义的比较中，汲取教训并借鉴相关历史经验”,实现具有突破性的理论革新。事实上，这正是洛苏尔多在《西方马克思主义重构》中所探讨的主题。在其中，洛苏尔多重构了西方马克思主义的发展历程，探究其如何在反资本主义的斗争中陷入西方中心主义迷思，如何因被自由主义蒙蔽而在对东方马克思主义的否定中从胜利走向衰亡，及其在与东方马克思主义的碰撞中获得重生的可能。

Losurdo was a renowned Italian historical philosopher, an expert in Hegelian philosophy, and a specialist in the history of Marxist philosophy. He served as a professor of the history of philosophy and dean of the School of Education at the University of Urbino, and was president of the International Hegel-Marx Society for Dialectical Thought. He was an important European scholar studying themes of liberalism, Marxism, and communism, consistently dedicated to challenging the dominant ideology of capitalist society through the deconstruction of historical materials.

洛苏尔多是意大利著名历史哲学家、黑格尔哲学研究专家、马克思主义哲学史专家，曾任乌尔比诺大学哲学史教授、教育学院院长，国际黑格尔—马克思辩证思想学会主席。他是欧洲研究自由主义、马克思主义、共产主义主题的重要学者，一直致力于通过对史料的解构，来挑战在资本主义社会占据主导地位的意识形态。

In *Reconstructing Western Marxism*, Losurdo first clarifies the scope of Western Marxism. The first to use the concept of “Western Marxism” was the French philosopher Maurice Merleau-Ponty. In his 1955 work *Adventures of the Dialectic*, he compared Georg Lukács’s “Western” Marxism with the Eastern Marxism of Lenin, directing one toward the realm of dialectics and the other toward the realm of practical materialism. However, the concept became more famous through Perry Anderson, editor of *New Left Review*. In 1976, Anderson published a work titled *Considerations on Western Marxism*, which was soon released in Italy. In Anderson’s view, Western Marxism began with two great works—Lukács’s *History and Class Consciousness* and Karl Korsch’s *Marxism and Philosophy*—which focused on a unique way of using philosophy and interpreting Marxism. Thereafter, in the West, Marxism became a refined philosophy. But at the same time, Anderson proclaimed Western Marxism’s “outright independence and heterogeneity relative to the Eastern countries of genuine socialism and Marxism.” The Frankfurt School, French thinkers such as Jean-Paul Sartre, Henri Lefebvre, and Louis Althusser, Italians such as Galvano Della Volpe and Lucio Colletti, and even Antonio Gramsci, among others, were all classified within the scope of Western Marxism.

在《西方马克思主义重构》中，洛苏尔多首先廓清了西方马克思主义的范畴。第一个使用“西方马克思主义”这一概念的是法国哲学家梅洛-庞蒂(Maurice Merleau-Ponty)。在1955年的《辩证法的历险》中，他将卢卡奇(Georg Lukacs)的“西方的”马克思主义与东方列宁的马克思主义进行了比较，将其中一个指向辩证法领域，另一个指向实践唯物主义领域。但是，使这一概念更为出名的是《新左翼评论》的主编佩里·安德森(Perry Anderson)。他在1976年推出了一本题为《西方马克思主义探讨》的著作，并很快得以在意大利出版。在安德森看来，西方马克思主义始于两部伟大的作品——卢卡奇的《历史与阶级意识》和卡尔·柯尔施(Karl Korsch)的《马克思主义与哲学》,它们聚焦于哲学独特的使用方式和阐释马克思主义的方式。此后，在西方，马克思主义就成了一种精致的哲学。但同时，安德森宣告了西方马克思主义相对于“东方真正社会主义和马克思主义的国家彻头彻尾的独立性和异质性”。法兰克福学派，法国的萨特(Jean-Paul Sartre)、列斐伏尔(Henri Lefebvre)、阿尔都塞(Louis Althusser)等，意大利的德拉·沃尔佩(Galvano Della Volpe)和科莱蒂(Lucio Colletti),甚至葛兰西(Antonio Gramsci)等，都被归入西方马克思主义的范畴。

In this book, Losurdo’s reconstructed history of Western Marxism’s evolution begins with two epoch-making events of the 20th century—the outbreak of World War I in August 1914 and the victory of the October Revolution in Russia in November 1917. Accompanied by the historical currents triggered by these two events, Marxism crossed the boundaries of the West and began its global spread. The different cultural, geopolitical, and economic-social conditions of East and West sparked a process of differentiation within Marxism, unleashing unprecedented contradictions. In the West, the outbreak of World War I, along with the populace’s weariness, disgust, and indignation at endless slaughter, spurred the rapid development of the communist movement. In the East, the victory of the October Revolution in Russia gave immense hope to Eastern nations oppressed by imperialist powers for regaining independence. Thus, the first difference between Eastern and Western Marxism emerged: in the East, more people listened to Marxism’s critique of democracy and freedom within the capitalist system—a critique with a distinct class character—and more were dedicated to advancing the victory of anti-colonial revolution.

在该书中，洛苏尔多重构的西方马克思主义演变史，始于20世纪的两大划时代性事件——1914年8月第一次世界大战的爆发和1917年11月俄国十月革命的胜利。伴随着这两大历史事件所引发的历史潮流，马克思主义走出了西方的边界，开始了全球性传播。东西方不同的文化、地缘政治和经济社会条件激发了马克思主义内部的差异化进程，并爆发前所未有的矛盾。在西方，第一次世界大战的爆发，民众对无尽杀戮的厌倦、憎恶和愤慨，推动了共产主义运动的快速发展。在东方，俄国十月革命的胜利，给予备受帝国主义列强压迫的东方民族以重获独立的巨大希望。由此，东西方马克思主义的第一个差异形成了：东方比西方有更多的人倾听马克思主义对资本主义体系内民主自由的带有鲜明阶级属性的批判，有更多人致力于推动反殖民主义革命的胜利。

In the West, anti-war sentiment drove people toward revolution, and the critique of capitalism focused on the state and military institutions. The young Ernst Bloch believed that “the state has already revealed its inherent typical coerciveness, its barbaric and satanic essence,” and that it was necessary to eliminate this “monster.” In the East, amid the tide of the October Revolution, Marxism and the communist movement formed the position that achieving national independence from colonial oppression was the priority. This was the second difference between Eastern and Western Marxism.

在西方，反战情绪推动人们走向革命，对资本主义的批判集中于国家和军事机构方面。年轻时的布洛赫(Ernst Bloch)认为，“国家已经显示出其内在的典型强制性，野蛮和撒旦式的本质”,且有必要消灭这个“怪物”。在东方，十月革命浪潮中，马克思主义和共产主义运动形成了这样的立场——从殖民压迫中获得民族独立才是被优先考虑的。这是东西方马克思主义的第二个差异。

In Losurdo’s view, there were two other important differences between Eastern and Western Marxism. First, Western Marxism believed that the resolution of imperialist conflicts lay in ending private economy, currency, and their associated powers; but for Eastern Marxism, trade and the monetary economy represented the survival and continuation of the revolutionary cause. Second, in the West, the immense destructiveness of war led to concerns about the negative impacts of technological progress; whereas in the East, only through economic development and scientific-technological progress could nation-states win the foundation for independence and meet the needs of the people. In short, the experience of World War I led Europe to imagine a “future without capitalism,” while the underdeveloped countries of the East, before defeating capitalism, first had to develop the productive forces—a point also raised by Marx and Engels in the *Communist Manifesto*.

在洛苏尔多看来，东西方马克思主义还有两个重要差异。一是，西方马克思主义认为帝国主义冲突的解决在于终结私有经济、货币及其相关权力；但对东方马克思主义而言，贸易、货币经济代表着革命事业的生存与延续。二是，在西方，战争的巨大破坏性使人担心技术进步的负面影响；而在东方，只有经济发展与科技进步，民族国家才能赢得独立的基础，满足人民的需求。总之，第一次世界大战的经验使得欧洲开始想象一个“没有资本主义的未来”,而东方欠发达国家在战胜资本主义之前，要先发展生产力——这也是马克思恩格斯在《共产党宣言》中提出的观点。

Losurdo argues that the differences between Eastern and Western Marxism were shaped not only by historical and material conditions but also by the role of cultural traditions. In the West, World War I strengthened the influence of the Jewish-Christian messianic tradition, thereby viewing the transformation of the world as a redemption from negativity and sin. In the East, without these messianic images, traditional Eastern culture led to a more pragmatic reception of Marxism. Although Lenin and many Bolshevik leaders had lived in exile in the West, his slogan after World War I—“Workers and oppressed peoples of the world, unite!”—contained a dialectical relationship between the withering away of the state and the elimination of colonial rule to establish independent nation-states. Therefore, Losurdo points out that Lenin and his followers regarded the colonial question as a central issue of the proletarian revolution.

洛苏尔多认为，东西方马克思主义的差异不仅有历史和物质条件的因素，还有文化传统的作用。在西方，第一次世界大战使得犹太基督教弥赛亚派的影响增强，进而将对世界的改造视为从消极和罪恶中的救赎。而在东方，没有这些弥赛亚意象，东方传统文化使得马克思主义得到了更加务实的接受。尽管列宁同很多布尔什维克领导人都曾在西方流亡，但他在第一次世界大战后提出的“全世界无产者和被压迫民族联合起来”的口号，蕴含了国家消亡与消除殖民统治以建立独立民族国家间的辩证关系。因此，洛苏尔多指出，列宁及其追随者都将殖民地问题视为无产阶级革命的中心问题。

In Losurdo’s view, although differences existed between Eastern and Western Marxism, they should not have led to contradiction. For the protagonists of Eastern Marxism were oppressed nations striving for independence and freedom from colonial rule, while the protagonists of Western Marxism were the working class refusing to serve in elite wars. Yet, from the very beginning, Eastern and Western Marxism embarked on different paths. Lenin later developed more forward-looking thoughts on the colonial question and national independence, as weak and small nations have always faced the risk of being bullied, colonized, and manipulated by great powers. The crux of the issue lies in transcending the capitalist and imperialist world system.

在洛苏尔多看来，尽管东西方马克思主义存在差异，但不应该产生矛盾。因为东方马克思主义的主角是从殖民统治中争取独立自由的被压迫民族，而西方马克思主义的主角是拒绝为精英战争而服务的工人阶级。然而，从一开始，东西方马克思主义就走上了不同的道路。列宁后来对殖民地问题和民族独立问题也有了更为前瞻性的思考，弱小民族一直面临着被大国欺凌、殖民和摆布的风险。问题的关键在于，要超越资本主义和帝国主义世界体系。

Western Marxism declined precisely because it lost its connection with anti-colonial revolution. The renowned Italian philosopher Lucio Colletti mocked the unyielding Marxists’ interest in “underdeveloped” countries, “peasants,” and “rural masses”; Mario Tronti boasted that he had never fallen into the Chinese trap of “encircling the cities from the countryside” and the “Long March.” [1]1 The “Long March” (1934–1935) was the strategic retreat of the Chinese Red Army to evade the Nationalist forces, later celebrated as a foundational epic of the Chinese Communist Party. The respect that Louis Althusser expressed in his works for the world anti-colonial revolution was undermined by his pronounced theoretical anti-humanism. According to Max Horkheimer’s “critical theory,” the vast difference between the Soviet Union—which achieved industrial construction accomplishments and made outstanding contributions to the anti-fascist struggle—and the Nazi state, which carried out aggression, enslavement, and colonization, was not particularly significant in the face of the ideals of so-called “liberal democracy” and the “withering away of the state.” Herbert Marcuse recognized the core significance of the colonial issue but doubted the victory of the Vietnamese people and their choice of the socialist path. After the outbreak of the Cold War, Hannah Arendt shifted from a strong critique of Western racism and colonialism to beautifying liberal Western societies and downplaying their colonial traditions, tending to view communism as the twin of 20th-century Nazism. Michel Foucault’s detachment from colonialism hindered a proper interpretation of capitalism, weakening the effectiveness of his theoretical research on racism and biopolitics. Emmanuel Levinas and Giorgio Agamben injected political social Darwinism—which explains institutional genesis through biological principles—into historical materialism, aiming to prove continuity between the latter and biological racism. Antonio Negri and Michael Hardt loudly praised the American Revolution and democracy but overlooked their true meaning: for colonized peoples suffering racial discrimination and genocide, the establishment of the United States was counterrevolutionary, not revolutionary. Slavoj Žižek abstractly generalized the fate of colonized peoples, eliminating conceptual categories such as imperialism, anti-imperialism, and the Third World, and merely distinguished between authoritarian capitalism and non-authoritarian capitalism. Only Antonio Gramsci and György Lukács transcended these discourses. Gramsci understood that, for mainstream Western culture, communism was a form of humanism that resisted its arrogance and prejudice; Lukács did not focus on colonial issues in *History and Class Consciousness* or his mature works, but in a book dedicated specifically to Lenin in 1924, he described and analyzed the revolutionary role of nations oppressed and exploited by capitalism.

西方马克思主义正是因为丧失了与反殖民革命的连接而走向了衰落。意大利著名哲学家科莱蒂嘲笑不屈不挠的马克思主义者对“欠发达”国家、“农民”“农村群众”的兴趣，特隆蒂(Mario Tronti)炫耀自己从未跌入中国人的农村包围城市和万里长征的“陷阱”。阿尔都塞在其著作中对世界反殖民主义革命所表达的敬意，却被其鲜明的、理论上的反人道主义破坏了。根据霍克海默(Max Horkheimer)的“批判理论”,在所谓的“自由民主”和“国家消亡”的理想面前，取得工业化建设成就、为反法西斯斗争作出卓越贡献的苏联与实施侵略、奴役和殖民的纳粹国家之间的巨大差异，是不那么紧要的。赫伯特·马尔库塞(Herbert Marcuse)意识到了殖民问题的核心意义，但却怀疑越南人民取得的胜利及其社会主义道路选择。汉娜·阿伦特(Hannah Arendt)在冷战爆发后，开始由对西方种族主义和殖民主义的强烈批判转向美化自由主义西方、淡化其殖民传统的立场，并倾向于将共产主义视为20世纪纳粹主义的孪生兄弟。福柯(Michel Foucault)对殖民主义的剥离，阻碍了对资本主义的恰当解读，使得其种族主义和生命政治的历史理论研究效力减弱。列维纳斯(Emmanuel Levinas)和阿甘本(Giorgio Agamben)将以生物学概念原则解释制度生成的政治社会达尔文主义注入历史唯物主义，以证明后者与生物种族主义之间存在连续性。而奈格里(Antonio Negri)和哈特(Michael Hardt)高调赞扬了美国的革命与民主，却忽视了其真实含义——美利坚合众国的建立对遭遇种族歧视和种族灭绝的殖民地人民而言，是反革命而非革命。齐泽克(Slavoj Žižek)对殖民地人民的命运进行了抽象概括，清除了帝国主义、反帝国主义和第三世界等概念范畴，仅仅对威权资本主义和非威权资本主义作了区分。只有葛兰西和卢卡奇超越了这些论调。葛兰西明白，对于西方主流文化来说，共产主义就是一种对抗其傲慢和偏见的人道主义；卢卡奇并没有在《历史与阶级意识》及其成熟的著作中关注殖民地问题，而是在1924年专门写给列宁的一本书中描述和分析了受资本主义压迫和剥削的民族的革命作用。

On the basis of the above analysis, Domenico Losurdo pointed out that the decline of Western Marxism is attributable to its neglect of the true turning point in 20th-century history: the anti-colonial struggle. The immense casualties of World War I revealed the terror of the capitalist-imperialist system and the urgency of overthrowing it. The Bolsheviks acted immediately; the October Revolution was seen in Europe as a historical process that halted the war and exerted enormous attraction on the masses and intellectuals, and also as a process driving Asia’s transformation from colonies and semi-colonies into independent modern states. Yet in this process, the mission of the Western proletariat and Western Marxism seemed to disappear. At the same time, Western Marxism gradually completed a major shift from anti-liberalism to aligning with liberalism—a shift that heralded its death.

在上述分析的基础上，洛苏尔多指出，西方马克思主义的衰落，要归因于其对20世纪历史真正的转折点，即反殖民主义斗争的忽视上。第一次世界大战带来的巨大伤亡，让人们看到了资本主义—帝国主义制度的恐怖性，以及推翻这种制度的迫切性。布尔什维克立即采取了行动，十月革命被欧洲视为阻止了战争且对广大群众和知识分子产生了巨大吸引力的历史进程，也是推动亚洲由殖民地和半殖民地向独立的现代国家转型的进程。但在这一进程中，西方无产阶级和西方马克思主义的使命似乎消失了。同时，西方马克思主义逐渐完成了从反自由主义向靠拢自由主义的重大转变——这宣示了其死亡的到来。

Losurdo proposed three principles for the rebirth of Marxism in the West: first, the principle of “understanding the age” put forward by Hegel—that philosophy must strive to understand its own era, while enduring the difficulty of recognizing historical reality, contradictions, and conflicts; second, the principle of “changing the world” proposed by Marx—that no philosopher’s thought can be detached from its era, and its purpose is to change the world; third, the principle of “revolutionary transformation” advanced by Lenin—that those who harbor expectations of a paradise-like world should clearly understand that such visions are products of imagination, and only revolutionary transformation can create an ideal world.

洛苏尔多提出了马克思主义在西方重生的三大原则：一是黑格尔提出的“理解时代原则”,即哲学要尽力理解自己的时代，同时要承受认识历史现实、历史矛盾和冲突之艰难；二是马克思提出的“改造世界原则”,即任何哲学家的思想都不能脱离其所处的时代，而其目的是改造世界；三是列宁提出的“革命变革原则”,即谁对这种天堂般的世界充满期待，就应该清楚地了解到，它们都是想象的产物，只有革命变革，才能创造一个理想的世界。

Regarding the prospects for the rebirth of Marxism in the West, Losurdo offered the following analysis. Eastern and Western Marxism possess entirely different temporal characteristics: one is a future being realized, the other a future about to be realized or distant. In the East, the prospects of socialism are inseparable from the complete victory of the anti-colonial revolution; in the West, socialism is achieved through struggle against capitalism, which causes social polarization (and is increasingly tempted by militarism). Western Marxism is closely related to the post-capitalist future but has not yet properly addressed its own messianic utopian problem, nor how to build a bridge between the future being realized and the distant future. Only when Western Marxism truly becomes “philosophical” in the Marxist sense—understanding and transforming its own era, and rejecting dogmatism—can it achieve rebirth.

对于马克思主义在西方重生的前景，洛苏尔多进行了这样的分析。东西方马克思主义有着完全不同的时间特征：一个是正在实现的未来，一个是即将实现或遥远的未来。在东方，社会主义的前途离不开反殖民主义革命的全面胜利；而在西方，社会主义通过反对造成社会两极分化(以及日益受到军国主义诱惑)的资本主义的斗争来实现。西方马克思主义与后资本主义未来密切相关，但还没有处理好自身弥赛亚式的乌托邦问题，以及如何在正在实现的未来与遥远的未来之间搭建桥梁。西方马克思主义只有真正做到马克思主义意义上的“哲学化”,理解并改造自身所处的时代，拒绝教条主义，才能实现重生。

After the October Revolution, the international communist movement merged with the national liberation movements against imperialist oppression (as in China, Vietnam, and Cuba), thereby becoming a key driving force of the anti-colonial revolution and the historical transformation of the 20th century. Western Marxism was not oblivious to this. Of course, Western Marxism never abandoned the notion that, in the 20th century, the most developed capitalist world was what most needed to change. But it is not entirely unrelated to the fate of the anti-imperialist and anti-colonial struggle. Losurdo’s critique of Horkheimer, Ernst Bloch, Theodor W. Adorno, and Colletti is correct; however, his critique of Žižek and Alain Badiou may be excessive. Western Marxism is an important form of philosophical inquiry that began in the 20th century; even in the West, its significance is no less than that of bourgeois essentialism, phenomenology, logical empiricism, and pragmatism. Chinese scholars often explore the theoretical accumulation of Western Marxism from this perspective, excavating its potential to critique and transform the world.

十月革命后，国际共产主义运动与反帝国主义压迫的民族解放运动结合在一起(如中国、越南、古巴),并因此成为反殖民主义革命和20世纪历史转型的关键推动力。西方马克思主义对这一点并非无视。当然，西方马克思主义也从未放弃这一观念，即认为在20世纪，最应该改变的是最发达的资本主义世界。但是，如果说这与反帝反殖斗争的命运毫无关系，也不尽然。洛苏尔多对霍克海默、布洛赫、阿多诺(Theodor W. Adorno)以及科莱蒂等的批判是正确的，但是，他对齐泽克和巴迪欧(Alain Badiou)的批判却有过度之嫌。西方马克思主义是始于20世纪的一种重要的哲学探索形态，即使是在西方，其重要意义也丝毫不亚于资产阶级的本质主义、现象学、逻辑经验主义、实用主义等理论。中国的学者往往从这个意义上探讨西方马克思主义的理论积淀，挖掘其批判和改造世界的潜力。

The uniqueness of *The Reconstruction of Western Marxism* lies in its profound revelation, from the perspective of anti-colonialism, that Western Marxism—steeped in Western political-economic systems and socio-cultural traditions—has not only failed to adequately resist Western-centrism, liberalism, and conservatism but has increasingly lost its functions of “understanding the age,” “changing the world,” and “revolutionary transformation.” Western Marxism either holds that the anti-capitalist struggle exists only in the metropolises of developed capitalism and has nothing to do with the anti-colonial revolution of weaker nations; or, while sympathizing with and supporting the anti-colonial revolution, it believes that the socialism built by colonized peoples after gaining national independence is far from Marx’s conception and is “unfree.” As Stefano Petrucciani, professor of political philosophy at the University of Rome, argued in defense of Western Marxism in the left-wing newspaper *il manifesto* under the title “Revolution from the East”—the real crux lies in how to understand the freedom of socialism or communism. In the view of Western Marxists, the Eastern revolution actually does not conform to the principle of freedom that Marx had in mind (and that Western Marxism still believes in). For Losurdo, only one kind of revolution is real, historically verified, and victorious—but if they temporarily deviate from the Marxist framework, patience must be exercised toward them. And this issue has transcended the history of Marxism, becoming a broader theoretical-political problem.

《西方马克思主义重构》的独特之处在于，从反殖民主义的角度，深刻揭示了浸淫于西方政治经济制度和社会文化传统中的西方马克思主义，不仅未能对西方中心主义、自由主义、保守主义作出充分抵抗，而且愈加丧失其“理解时代”“改造世界”“革命变革”的功能。西方马克思主义要么认为反资本主义斗争只存在于发达资本主义大都市中，与弱小民族的反殖民主义革命无关；要么尽管同情和支持反殖民主义革命，但认为获得民族独立后的殖民地人民建设的社会主义与马克思的构想相差甚远，是“不自由的”。正如罗马大学政治哲学系教授斯特凡诺·佩特鲁贾尼(Stefano Petrucciani)在左翼报刊《宣言报》上以《来自东方的革命》为题为西方马克思主义所作出的辩护那样——真正的症结在于如何理解社会主义或共产主义的自由。在西方马克思主义者看来，东方的革命实际上不符合马克思头脑中(以及西方马克思主义仍相信)的自由原则。对洛苏尔多而言，只有一种革命是现实的，历史上已经验证的并获得胜利的——但如果它们暂时偏离了马克思主义的框架，也要对它们保持耐心。而这个问题已经超越了马克思主义的历史，成为一种更广泛意义上的政治理论难题。

What Lukács and Korsch raised was by no means a purely academic theoretical question, but rather the question of how to better interpret and transform reality. In his study of the philosophy of praxis, Gramsci also emphasized the bridging role of practice between subject and object. Although, judging from some of the theoretical issues they focused on, Western Marxist theorists in their studies did not actually evade the challenges of reality, the language and methods they used to reflect the times were too convoluted, and the thoughts laden with information on capitalist changes were too abstruse and difficult to understand. Therefore, the real problem of Western Marxism today lies in its confinement to the academic sphere, being completely or almost completely detached from any intense social movements, and more generally from the political context—such as global inequality. This renders it incapable of fulfilling the tasks of “understanding the era,” “transforming the world,” and “revolutionary change.” In this regard, the famous Italian left-wing commentator Oscar Oddi points out that drawing inspiration from the development and reform of Eastern socialist countries may become one of the sources of vitality for the revival of Western Marxism. (Notes omitted)

卢卡奇与柯尔施所提出的绝非纯粹的学术理论问题，而是如何更好地解释现实以及改造现实的问题。葛兰西在对实践哲学的研究中，也强调了实践在沟通主体与客体之间的桥梁作用。尽管从其所关注的一些理论问题来看，书斋里的西方马克思主义理论家实际上并没有回避现实的挑战，但他们反映时代的语言和方式过于曲折，负载资本主义变化信息的思想过于深奥难懂。因此，如今西方马克思主义的真正问题在于其局限于学术领域，完全或几乎完全脱离了任何剧烈的社会运动，以及更一般意义上的政治背景——如全球不平等。这导致其无法胜任“理解时代”“改造世界”“革命变革”的重任。就此，意大利著名左翼评论家奥斯卡·欧迪(Oscar Oddi)指出，从东方社会主义国家的发展与改革中获得启示，或将成为西方马克思主义获得重生的活力源之一。（注释略）

Online editor: Zhang Jian

网络编辑：张剑