A Review of Domestic and International Scholars’ Research on Western Marxism and Economics

Originating in the 1920s, Western Marxism is a vibrant and lively flower in the grand garden of twentieth-century Marxism. The term was first coined by Karl Korsch. In 1930, in his work *The Present State of the Problem of ‘Marxism and Philosophy’ – An Anti-Critique*, he depicted a Marxism diametrically opposed to the ideological line of the old and new “orthodox Marxism.” It was precisely dissatisfaction with the “orthodox” Marxism forcibly promoted by the Second International, the Third International, and especially Stalin that led Western Marxism to begin its tenacious exploration of “returning to Marx.” Due to its distinctive heterodox character, it attracted widespread attention from the very beginning. The figure of Western Marxism frequently appears in foreign Marxist theoretical research, with a continuous stream of monographs emerging, sparking a wave of exploration into Western Marxism. In 1981, the work *Considerations on Western Marxism* by the renowned contemporary British Marxist historian Perry Anderson was introduced to China, and domestic academia gradually began to engage with Western Marxism, with various works being published one after another. Regarding the attitude of Western Marxism towards Marx’s economic theory, many scholars both domestically and internationally have conducted in-depth discussions, tracing the trajectory of the transformation of Western Marxism’s research orientation.

肇始于20世纪20年代的西方马克思主义，是20世纪马克思主义大花园中一朵鲜艳而有生气的花朵。这一术语的首创者是卡尔·柯尔施(Karl Korsch)。1930年，他在《〈马克思主义和哲学〉问题的现状——一个反批判》中描绘了一种与新旧“马克思主义正统派”思想路线截然对立的马克思主义。正是对第二国际、第三国际，尤其是斯大林强制推行的“正统”马克思主义的不满，西方马克思主义开始了“回到马克思”的顽强探索。由于独树一帜的非正统性特征，它从一开始就吸引了众人的目光。西方马克思主义的身影频频闪现在国外的马克思主义理论研究中，各类研究专著层出不穷，掀起了探索西方马克思主义的热潮。1981年，当代英国著名的马克思主义史学家佩里·安德森(Perry Anderson)的著作《西方马克思主义探讨》引入中国，国内学术界开始逐渐接触西方马克思主义，各类著作陆续出版问世。围绕西方马克思主义看待马克思经济理论的态度，国内外许多学者进行了深入探讨，描摹出西方马克思主义研究取向的嬗变轨迹。

I. Foreign Scholars on Western Marxism and Economics

一、国外学者论西方马克思主义与经济学

Overall, as a leftist critical trend of thought, Western Marxism was born on the soil of Western Europe. Because it is grounded in the reality of Western society, directly confronts Western social problems, and concerns itself with the fate of Western society, Western Marxism has received widespread attention from Western scholars since its inception. It has gained the approval and belief of many, while also facing criticism and condemnation from some, including self-reflection from certain Western Marxists themselves. These scholars have the deepest understanding of the nature, stance, and methods of their own ideological systems, and their descriptions of the characteristics of Western Marxism are more persuasive than those of onlookers. Regarding the overall attitude of Western Marxism towards Marx’s economic theory, they have provided relatively accurate and profound descriptions and analyses: if we take the 1970s as a dividing line, before this period, Western Marxism raised the banner of restoring the philosophical nature of Marxism to oppose the object of capitalist reality, refusing to address it by starting from economic and political structures—that is, the “philosophical turn”; after this period, Western Marxism began to shift its focus towards the study of economic issues, striving to revive historical materialism—that is, the “economic turn.”

从总体上说，作为一种左派批判思潮，西方马克思主义是在西欧土壤上诞生的。因其立足于西方社会现实，直面西方社会问题，关注西方社会命运，西方马克思主义自诞生之日起就受到西方学者的广泛关注，既获得了许多人的赞同与信奉，也受到一些人的批判与指责，其中不乏一些西方马克思主义者的自我反思。这些学者对于自己思想体系的性质、立场、方法有着最深切的了解，对于西方马克思主义的特征描述也比旁观者更有说服力。围绕西方马克思主义对待马克思经济理论的总体态度，他们进行了较为准确和深刻的描述与分析：如果以20世纪70年代为分界线，在此之前，西方马克思主义举起恢复马克思主义哲学性的大旗反对资本主义现实这一客体，拒绝从经济和政治结构入手来加以解决，即哲学说；在此之后，西方马克思主义转而开始注重对经济问题的研究，致力于复兴历史唯物主义，即转向说。

(1) Research on the Relationship between Western Marxism and Economics before the 1970s

(一)关于20世纪70年代前西方马克思主义与经济学关系的研究

Due to their unique historical backgrounds and personal identities, the German scholars Korsch and Lukács blazed a theoretical path distinct from “orthodox” Marxism—Western Marxism. Korsch first coined the term “Western Marxism” and described its theoretical characteristics, which ran counter to the “orthodoxy” of the Second and Third Internationals. However, this term did not achieve consensus at the time; it was only gradually recognized after the French existentialist thinker Maurice Merleau-Ponty discussed it again in his 1955 work *Adventures of the Dialectic*. Merleau-Ponty inherited Korsch’s view, establishing the theoretical tone of Western Marxism as being in opposition to Leninism. Unlike Korsch and Merleau-Ponty, Anderson, in his 1976 work *Considerations on Western Marxism*, no longer defined Western Marxism from the perspective of its opposition to the Second and Third Internationals. Instead, using a bold, impressionistic approach, he outlined the overall features of Western Marxism from the angle of thematic shifts and changes in the issues of concern.

由于独特的历史背景和个人身份，德国学者柯尔施与卢卡奇(Lukács)开辟了一条有别于“正统”马克思主义的理论道路——西方马克思主义。柯尔施首创了“西方马克思主义”这一术语，并描述了它与第二国际、第三国际“正统”背道而驰的理论特征。但这一术语在当时没有成为共识，直到1955年法国存在主义思想家梅劳-庞蒂(Maurice Merleau-Ponty)在《辩证法的历险》一书中再次论述，才逐渐被认可。梅劳-庞蒂承袭了柯尔施的看法，将西方马克思主义的理论基调确立为与列宁主义的对立。与柯尔施、梅劳-庞蒂的做法不同，安德森在1976年出版的《西方马克思主义探讨》中不再从与第二国际、第三国际相对立的视角来划分西方马克思主义，而是以写意式的粗犷手法从主题转换和关切问题转移的角度勾画出西方马克思主义的整体面貌。

“As European Marxism increasingly ceased to make economic or political structures the central focus of its theoretical concern, its entire center of gravity shifted fundamentally towards philosophy.” In Anderson’s view, the primary objects of study for Western Marxism were no longer politics and economics, but culture and philosophy. This theory was not only a critique and transcendence of the “natural ontology” and “economic determinism” of the Second and Third Internationals but also a complete reversal of the trajectory of Marx’s own intellectual development: “Marx, the founder of historical materialism, continually moved from philosophy to politics and economics as the central part of his thought; whereas the inheritors of this tradition who emerged after 1920 continually moved back from economics and politics to philosophy.” [1]1 Anderson, Perry. *Considerations on Western Marxism*. London: Verso, 1976, p. 68.68 In Anderson’s view, it was precisely the dual influence of the crisis of twentieth-century Marxism and the cultural-historical predicament of Western society that led Western Marxism to lose interest in real economic issues, focusing their main energy on the field of philosophy.

“随着欧洲马克思主义越来越不把经济或政治结构作为其理论上关注的中心问题，它的整个中心从根本上转向了哲学。”在安德森看来，西方马克思主义的主要研究对象不再是政治和经济，而是文化和哲学。这一理论不仅是对第二国际、第三国际“自然本体论”“经济论定论”的批判与超越，也是对马克思思想转变过程的完全逆转：“马克思这位历史唯物主义的创始人，不断从哲学转向政治学和经济学，以此作为他的思想的中心部分；而1920年以后涌现的这个传统的继承者们，却不断地从经济学和政治学转回到哲学。”[1]68在安德森看来，正是20世纪马克思主义危机和西方社会文化—历史困境的双重影响，导致西方马克思主义不再对现实的经济问题感兴趣，他们把主要精力投放在哲学领域。

Anderson’s view has been inherited by many scholars. The renowned contemporary British Marxist scholar David McLellan noted this characteristic of Western Marxism: “Marx began with philosophy and then turned to economics, whereas the typical Western Marxist thinkers did the opposite.” The American left-wing writer Russell Jacoby, when defining the term “Western Marxism,” also described its theoretical features as “shifting the emphasis of Marxism from political economy and the state to culture, philosophy, and art.” [3]3 Jacoby, Russell. “Western Marxism.” In *A Dictionary of Marxist Thought*, edited by Tom Bottomore, 632-633. Oxford: Blackwell, 1983.632 Jacoby believed that since Western Marxism was primarily a philosophical trend, this dictated that its focus would inevitably be concentrated on the analysis of “subjective” structures, “with relatively little analysis of those ‘objective’ structures—imperialism or accumulation.” [3]3 Jacoby, Russell. “Western Marxism.” In *A Dictionary of Marxist Thought*, edited by Tom Bottomore, 632-633. Oxford: Blackwell, 1983.633 In his view, it was its members who were utopian, “actually regarding Marxism as aimed at abolishing political economy or liberating it from the shackles of economics, believing that the categories of political economy themselves reflected a state of economic domination that Marxism sought to overthrow.” The American scholar Robert A. Gorman gave Western Marxism a new designation—“Neo-Marxism”—and interpreted it as a philosophical thought, a “heterodox” Marxism that did not accept historical materialism. His edited *Biographical Dictionary of Neo-Marxism*, as a monograph on “non-materialist Marxists,” included 205 representative figures of “Neo-Marxism” from 27 countries, yet excluded a large number of influential Marxists in fields such as history, political science, economics, sociology, and anthropology.

安德森的观点在许多学者身上得到继承。当代英国著名马克思主义学者戴维·麦克莱伦(David Mclellan)注意到西方马克思主义的这一特征：“马克思是从哲学开始，然后转向经济学的，而典型的西方马克思主义思想家们却反其道而行之。”美国左翼作家拉塞尔·雅各比(Russell Jacoby)在释义“西方马克思主义”词条时，把它的理论特征也阐述为“把马克思主义所强调的重点从政治经济学和国家转向文化、哲学和艺术”[3]632。雅各比认为，既然西方马克思主义主要是一种哲学思潮，这就规定了它关注的焦点必然集中在对“主观的”结构分析上，“比较少地分析那些‘客观的’结构——帝国主义或积累”[3]633。在他看来，具有乌托邦色彩的是它的成员，“竟然把马克思主义看成是旨在取消政治经济学或从经济学的束缚中解放出来，认为政治经济学范畴本身反映了马克思主义所要推翻的一种经济统治状态”。美国学者罗伯特·A·戈尔曼(Robert A. Gorman)则赋予西方马克思主义一个新的称谓——“新马克思主义”,并把它解释为一种哲学思想，一种“非正统的”、不接受历史唯物主义的马克思主义。他主编的《新马克思主义传记辞典》作为一部研究“非唯物主义的马克思主义者”专著，囊括了27个国家的205位“新马克思主义”代表人物，却将一大批在历史学、政治学、经济学、社会学、人类学等领域颇具影响的马克思主义者排除在外。

Overall, the philosophical turn of Western Marxism became a consensus among some Western scholars. They firmly believed that the shift in Western Marxism’s research horizon from politics and economics back to culture and philosophy reflected a unique deviation in the spectrum of twentieth-century Marxist theory. However, evaluations of the effects of this spectral deviation varied among individuals. Some Western scholars, represented by Anderson, regarded this orientation as the main defect of Western Marxism and revealed the adverse consequences it brought: the separation of theory from practice; obscure and difficult language; excessive tracing of Marx’s Hegelian sources; and a lack of internationalism, with no connections among its members. In the view of some Western scholars, Anderson’s assessment was undoubtedly negative, a typical “pessimistic view.” Contrary to Anderson’s view, Jacoby did not see this reversal of Western Marxism’s horizon as a decline: “I do not view Western Marxism as an unfortunate detour from ‘classical’ Marxism.” He even believed that the return of Western Marxism’s research focus to philosophy was a re-examination of modern Marxism, and in this sense, undoubtedly a progress.

综合来看，西方马克思主义的哲学转向成为一部分西方学者的共识，他们坚信西方马克思主义的研究视域由政治学、经济学逆转回到文化和哲学，反映了20世纪马克思主义理论光谱上的独特偏移。但对于这种光谱偏移所产生的效应，各人的评价不尽相同。以安德森为代表的部分西方学者将这一取向视为西方马克思主义最主要的缺陷，并揭示这一缺陷带来的恶劣后果：理论与实践脱离；语言晦涩难懂；过度追溯马克思主义的黑格尔来源；缺乏国际主义，彼此之间没有联系。在一些西方学者看来，安德森的评价无疑是负面的，是一种典型的“悲观主义的观点”。与安德森的看法恰恰相反，雅各比并没有看衰西方马克思主义的这种视域逆转：“我并不将西方马克思主义看作是从‘经典’马克思主义倒退的不幸的弯路。”他甚至认为，西方马克思主义研究重心回归哲学，是对现代马克思主义的重新审视，在这个意义上无疑是一种进步。

(2) Research on the Relationship between Western Marxism and Economics after the 1970s

(二)关于20世纪70年代后西方马克思主义与经济学关系的研究

With the ebb and flow of the 1968 French “May Storm,” the traditional research paradigm of Western Marxism—cultural-philosophical critique—could no longer encompass the complex postmodern landscape that emerged from internal differentiation. Some Western scholars thus concluded that traditional Western Marxism, with its theoretical logic of totality, had reached its end. Accompanying the historical conclusion of the theoretical logic of totality was the end of the traditional research paradigm of Western Marxism, which emphasized cultural-philosophical critique while neglecting exploration of economic issues. In *Contemporary Western Marxism*, a companion piece to *Considerations on Western Marxism*, Anderson examined and reflected on the new changes in Western Marxism that had occurred in the nearly ten years since the former’s publication: “The actual results do not entirely coincide with my conclusions in *Considerations on Western Marxism*.” Traditional Western Marxism gradually faded from view, with the endpoint of this process roughly around the mid-1970s.

伴随着1968年法国“五月风暴”的潮起潮落，传统西方马克思主义的研究范式——文化哲学批判，再也无法统摄因内部分化而涌现的纷繁复杂的后现代景观。一些西方学者由此得出结论：以总体性为理论逻辑的传统西方马克思主义走到了尽头。与总体性理论逻辑历史终结相伴的是，西方马克思主义重文化哲学批判、轻经济问题探索的传统研究范式宣告结束。安德森在《西方马克思主义探讨》的姊妹篇《当代西方马克思主义》中考察、反思了前者发表近十年间西方马克思主义所发生的新变化：“实际结果并非完全吻合我在《西方马克思主义探讨》中的结论”,传统意义上的西方马克思主义逐渐淡出人们的视线，这段历程的终点大致是在20世纪70年代中期。

Although Anderson believed that the theoretical logic of traditional Western Marxism ended in the mid-1970s, he disagreed with the view that Western Marxism had completely withdrawn from the historical stage. In his view, the end of theoretical logic was not the end of practical struggle; a new paradigm of social critique theory emerged from within the old logical framework. He argued that Western Marxism had formed a new research paradigm in the contemporary era, with its critical edge “first and foremost aimed at those economic, social, or political institutional issues that its predecessors had neglected.” After the mid-1970s, “the absolute intensity of interest in economics, politics, sociology, and cultural studies among the Marxist left in Britain or North America, along with the resulting collections and discourses, overshadowed the degree of research within the original territory of the Western Marxist tradition itself.” Anderson termed this phenomenon the “revival of historical materialism in the 1970s.” McLellan was a firm supporter of the “turn thesis,” arguing that the resurgence of interest in Marxist economics within Western Marxism in the 1970s was influenced by the dual historical background of the late capitalist crisis and global inequality. The “turn thesis” gained recognition from a considerable number of Western scholars, marking Western Marxism’s departure from its tradition of rejecting the exploration of economic reality and taking a key step toward the revival of economic research within Western Marxism. However, this was not the whole picture; some scholars held different views on the timing of the turn. British economists M. C. Howard and J. E. King argued that the starting point of the turn should be set earlier: “Since the 1930s, the center of theoretical analysis (of Marxist economics) began to shift to the West, to the extent that Western Europe and North America became the centers of Marxist political economy after the war.” The renowned British female economist Joan Robinson even pushed the timing of the “revival” of Marxist economics in Western countries back to the October Revolution in Russia. In her view, although Marx’s economic theory was primarily illustrated with the example of Britain, by the early 20th century, Marxists in Britain and other Western European countries had achieved little in economic theory, devoting more energy to Marx’s political thought and historical theory, even treating Marx’s economic theory with “contemptuous silence.” But this state of “silence” soon reversed: the proletarian revolution bore fruit in Russia, proving through facts that Marxism is an irrefutable scientific truth with powerful practical vitality, and Marx’s economic doctrine once again attracted the attention of Western Marxists. American economist Herbert Gintis argued that scholars in Europe and the United States had always given sufficient attention to Marxist economic theory, and that Marxist economic theory “has existed in the Western world for at least a century.”

尽管安德森认为传统西方马克思主义的理论逻辑终结于20世纪70年代中期，但他不同意西方马克思主义完全退出历史舞台的观点。在他看来，理论逻辑的终结并非现实斗争的终结，崭新的社会批判理论范式在旧的逻辑框架中破土而出。他认为西方马克思主义在当代形成新的研究范式，它的批判之锋“首先对准的就是那些它的前辈所忽视的经济、社会或政治的制度问题”。20世纪70年代中期以后，“英国或北美的马克思主义左派对经济、政治、社会学和文化研究兴趣的绝对浓厚程度，以及其衍生出来的博物和论述，使西方马克思主义传统本身原有领地上的研究程度黯然失色”。安德森将这一现象称之为“70年代历史唯物主义的复兴”。麦克莱伦是“转向说”的坚定支持者，他认为1970年代西方马克思主义对马克思主义经济学的兴趣有所回升，是受到晚期资本主义危机和世界不平等问题双重历史背景的影响。“转向说”获得了相当一部分西方学者的认同，标志着西方马克思主义告别了拒斥探索经济现实的传统，迈出经济研究在西方马克思主义中复兴的关键一步。但这并非事实的全部，一些学者对于转向的时间节点持有不同看法。英国经济学家M.C.霍华德(Michael Charles Howard)和J.E.金(John Edward King)认为，转向的起点应该设置在更早的时期，“20世纪30年代以来，(马克思主义经济学)理论分析的重心开始转向西方，以至于西欧和北美在战后成为马克思主义政治经济学的中心”。英国著名女经济学家琼·罗宾逊(Joan Robinson)更是将马克思主义经济学在西方国家“复兴”的时间提早到俄国十月革命。在她看来，尽管马克思经济理论的阐述主要是以英国为例证，但到20世纪初，英国和西欧其他国家的马克思主义者在经济理论上的建树甚微，更多精力被马克思的政治思想、历史理论所吸引，甚至用“轻蔑的缄默”的态度对待马克思经济理论。但这种“缄默”的状态很快发生了扭转：无产阶级革命在俄国结出了硕果，用事实证明了马克思主义是颠扑不破的科学真理，具有强大的现实生命力，马克思的经济学说重新吸引了西方马克思主义者的目光。美国经济学家赫伯特·金蒂斯(Herbert Gintis)认为，欧美国家的学者始终对马克思主义经济理论给予了足够的重视，马克思主义经济理论在西方世界“已经存在了至少一个世纪”。

II. Domestic Scholars on Western Marxism and Economics

二、国内学者论西方马克思主义与经济学

Since reform and opening up, the dissemination and study of Western Marxism in China has undergone a process of development from nothing to something, from relative obscurity to continuous flourishing. In 1981, the Chinese edition of Anderson’s *Considerations on Western Marxism* was published, opening the prelude to the dissemination and study of Western Marxism in China, and giving rise to a large number of research results of considerable academic value. These research results include interpretations of the thought of individual theorists, grasps of the ideological systems of schools, and compilations of the history of Western Marxism’s development. Although it is difficult to find a clear logical thread to string together Western Marxism, some domestic scholars have still discerned from clues a dimension for holistically grasping the grand academic theory of Western Marxism. Focusing on Western Marxism’s attitude toward Marx’s economic theory, they have analyzed the trajectory of the transformation of Western Marxism’s research horizon: it has undergone a shift from “de-economization” to “pan-economization.”

改革开放以来，西方马克思主义在中国的传播与研究经历了从无到有、从相对寂寥到不断兴盛的发展过程。1981年，安德森的《西方马克思主义探讨》中文版问世，开启了西方马克思主义在中国传播、研究的序幕，涌现出一大批颇具学术价值的研究成果。这些研究成果既有对单个理论家思想的阐释，也有流派思想体系的把握，还有关于西方马克思主义发展史的梳理。尽管很难找到一条清晰的逻辑线索来串联西方马克思主义，但一些国内学者还是从蛛丝马迹中探寻到整体把握西方马克思主义宏大学术理论的一种向度。围绕西方马克思主义对待马克思经济理论的态度，他们剖析了西方马克思主义研究视域的嬗变轨迹：经历了从“去经济学化”到“泛经济学化”的转变。

(I) Research on the Phenomenon of “De-economization” in Western Marxism

(一)关于西方马克思主义“去经济学化”现象的研究

From the perspective of intellectual evolution, Western Marxism originated from a reflection on Western society, and the first act of this reflection was to criticize the economic determinism of the Second and Third Internationals, attempting to reinterpret Marxism with cultural philosophy as its theoretical orientation. In domestic academia, Chen Xueming was among the first to accurately describe this characteristic of Western Marxism: “‘Western Marxist’ theorists regarded Marxism merely as a philosophy, particularly belittling and even opposing Marxist economics.” In his view, the “orthodoxy” of the Second and Third Internationals, represented by the Stalinist philosophical framework, starting from a positivist natural ontology, mired Marxism in the quagmire of economic determinism, dogmatism, and positivist philosophy, unable to extricate itself. Western Marxism originally arose from a critique of this positivist tendency that stifled the development of Marxism, striving to re-place philosophy at the center of Marxism. Clearly, they went to the other extreme: while criticizing economic determinism, they also abandoned the economic dimension through which Marx analyzed modern society. In this regard, he analyzed that Western Marxism made indelible contributions in the theoretical movement to restore the philosophical nature of Marxism, but it placed Marx’s philosophical thought in opposition to economic theory, affirming the former while negating the latter, which is evidently a fragmentation of Marxism.

从思想演进看，西方马克思主义起源于对西方社会的反思，反思的第一个行动就是批判第二国际、第三国际的经济决定论，尝试以文化哲学为理论指向重新解释马克思主义。在国内学术界，陈学明较早准确地描述了西方马克思主义这一特征：“‘西方马克思主义’理论家把马克思主义仅仅看作是一种哲学，特别轻视以至反对马克思主义经济学。”在他看来，以斯大林哲学框架为代表的第二国际、第三国际“正统”从实证的自然本体论出发，使马克思主义陷入了经济决定论、教条主义、实证哲学的泥淖无法脱身。西方马克思主义最初起源于对这种窒息马克思主义发展的实证化倾向的批判，力图重新将哲学置于马克思主义的中心位置，显然他们走向了另一个极端：在批判经济决定论的同时，也放弃了马克思分析现代社会的经济维度。对此，他分析西方马克思主义在恢复马克思主义哲学性的理论运动中功不可没，但它将马克思的哲学思想置于经济理论的对立面，肯定前者而否定后者，显然是对马克思主义的肢解。

Zhang Yibing also discovered this basic characteristic of Western Marxism early on. He defined Western Marxism as a philosophical and cultural trend of thought in the 20th century. This judgment implies a theoretical premise: Western Marxists generally believed that the critical theory’s intellectual impetus could no longer be generated from the economic threads of contemporary capitalism. Although this research orientation filled the theoretical gap left by the “economic determinism” of the Second International, it likewise isolated the economic thread and the philosophical thread as independent domains, severing their dialectical connection, and was also a distorted interpretation of Marxist thought. Moreover, Zhang Yibing argued that Western Marxism, as a philosophical and cultural trend of thought, had already come to an end by the mid-1970s, and that this concept was insufficient to encompass the flourishing economic thought of European and American Marxism since the “May Storm.” In this sense, economics has always been an “empty space” in the history of Western Marxism’s development, or at least has not received sufficient attention.

张一兵也较早发现了西方马克思主义这一基本特征。他将西方马克思主义界定为20世纪的一种哲学文化思潮。这一判断潜藏着一个理论前提：西方马克思主义者普遍认为，从当代资本主义的经济线索中已经无法生成批判理论的思想动力。尽管这一研究取向弥补了第二国际“经济决定论”留下的理论空缺，但同样将经济线索与哲学线索作为独立的领域隔绝开来，切断了它们之间的辩证联系，也是对马克思主义思想的曲意诠释。且张一兵认为，西方马克思主义作为一股哲学文化思潮，在20世纪70年代中期已经走向终结，这个概念不足以涵盖“五月风暴”以来日益兴盛的欧美马克思主义经济思想。从这个意义说，经济学在西方马克思主义发展史中始终“空场”,至少是没有受到足够的重视。

Tai Lihua systematically expounded the phenomenon of Western Marxism abandoning the thread of economic critique. She analyzed this phenomenon in detail and gave it the professional term “de-economization.” So-called “de-economization” refers to “a trend in Western Marxism of gradually moving away from political economy in terms of research objects, research themes, research methods, and the professional aspirations and research outcomes of researchers.” Tai Lihua described this phenomenon from the perspectives of membership identity and fields of achievement, arguing that the emergence of this trend has profound social and historical roots, such as the failure of the Western proletarian revolution in the early 20th century and the drawbacks of the Soviet model. A mood of disappointment with socialist reality has persistently haunted Western Marxists, causing them to lose interest in exploring real social issues and instead bury themselves in philosophical research. The theoretical consequence of this is that Western Marxism neglects the dimension of economic critique, resulting in a loss of theoretical integrity; fragmented theoretical viewpoints lead to a rupture in the system of economic theory, ultimately affecting the breadth and depth of the dissemination of Marxism.

邰丽华系统阐述了西方马克思主义放弃经济批判线索的现象。她详细分析了这一现象，并赋予它一个专业术语“去经济学化”。所谓“去经济学化”是指“西方马克思主义在研究对象、研究主题、研究方法和研究人员的专业志向及研究成果等方面呈现出逐渐远离政治经济学的趋势”。邰丽华从成员身份、成果领域角度描述了这一现象，认为这一趋势的出现有着深刻的社会历史根源,如20世纪初西方无产阶级革命的失败、苏联模式的弊端等，对社会主义现实失望的情绪一直萦绕在西方马克思主义者的心头，使他们丧失了探索社会现实问题的兴趣，转而埋头于哲学研究。由此导致的理论后果是，西方马克思主义忽视经济批判维度，造成理论整体性丧失，碎片化的理论观点带来经济理论体系发生断裂，最终影响了马克思主义传播的广度和深度。

The views of Chen Xueming, Zhang Yibing, and Tai Lihua have gained recognition from some scholars. Han Yuli summarized the research orientation of Western Marxism as cultural critique and de-economization: “From the very beginning of Western Marxism, the philosophical nature of Marxism was emphasized, and economics was naturally alienated by Western Marxism.” This is essentially a historical regression of Marxism from a materialist stance back to idealism. Regarding the negative effects of the “de-economization” of Western Marxism, Sun Chengshu’s analysis hit the nail on the head: “Western Marxists share a common limitation, namely, neglecting the critique of capital. At a fundamental point, they deviate from Marx, and this is the root cause of their tendency toward subjective one-sidedness.”

陈学明、张一兵、邰丽华的观点得到了一些学者的认可。韩欲立将西方马克思主义的研究导向归纳为文化批判和去经济化：“从西方马克思主义开端，就强调马克思主义的哲学性，经济学自然被西方马克思主义所疏离。”这实质上是马克思主义从唯物主义立场退回到唯心主义的历史倒车。针对西方马克思主义“去经济学化”的负面效应，孙承叔的分析可谓切中要害：“西方马克思主义者都有一个共同的局限，那就是忽视资本的批判，他们在根本点上又背离了马克思，这是他们走向主观片面性的根本原因。”

(II) Research on the Phenomenon of “Pan-Economization” in Western Marxism

(二)关于西方马克思主义“泛经济学化”现象的研究

The emergence of postmodernism was one of the most influential events in Western academia in the last three decades of the 20th century—the bewildering postmodern trend of thought deconstructed various “centers” and “hegemonies” of the era by every possible means. This trend deeply influenced the theoretical trajectory of Western Marxism: contemporary Western Marxism entered an era of pluralism. When traditional economic theory proved powerless in the face of increasingly severe economic crises, contemporary Western Marxists turned their gaze to a dimension their predecessors had belittled or even opposed—Marxist political economy. Their enthusiasm for studying Marx’s economic theory grew day by day, and their research objects, methods, and outcomes became more diverse, presenting a grand spectacle of “a thousand faces of Marx.” This even gave rise to a “pan-economization” orientation in contemporary Western Marxist economic thought research, which, “in addition to the effort of economic specialization, also exhibits a tendency to cross disciplinary boundaries in economics and integrate multidisciplinary research.”

后现代主义的横空出世，是20世纪最后30年西方学术界最有影响的事件之一——扑朔迷离的后现代思潮极尽一切可能解构着时代的种种“中心”和“霸权”。这一思潮较深地影响了西方马克思主义的理论路向：当代西方马克思主义进入多元化时代。当传统经济理论在日益严峻的经济危机面前无能为力时，当代西方马克思主义者把目光投向了他们前辈轻视乃至反对的维度——马克思主义政治经济学。他们研究马克思经济理论的热情日渐高涨，研究对象、研究方法、研究成果也更加丰富多样，一时显现出“千面马克思”的盛大景观，甚至出现当代西方马克思主义的经济思想研究“除了经济学专业化的努力之外，还存在一种跨越经济学科边界、融合多学科研究的‘泛经济学化’取向”。

The first manifestation of “pan-economization” is the significant expansion of research objects. “After the mid-1960s, many Marxist economists in Europe and America greatly expanded the study of Marxist economics beyond the scope of ‘social relations of production,’ incorporating issues such as the feminist movement and ethnic minority problems into the research scope of Marxist economics.” Cheng Enfu and Zhu Kui were early to identify this trend in contemporary Western Marxist research on economic issues. They argue that the expansion of research objects adapts to the direction of interdisciplinary integration in the humanities and social sciences and has, to some extent, broadened the research horizon of Marxist economic theory, but it also carries the risk of blurring the specific research object of Marxist political economy.

“泛经济学化”的第一个表现是研究对象大大扩展。“60年代中期以后，欧美许多马克思主义经济学家对马克思主义经济学的研究，大大超越了‘社会生产关系’的研究范围，女权运动、少数民族问题等都被纳入马克思主义经济学的研究范围。”程恩富、朱奎较早发现当代西方马克思主义在经济问题研究中的这一趋势，认为研究对象的扩展适应了人文社会科学多学科交叉融合的发展方向，一定程度上拓展了马克思主义经济理论的研究视野，但存在模糊马克思主义政治经济学特定研究对象的风险。

The second manifestation of “pan-economization” is the “reshaping” of research methods. In reviewing new orientations in Marxist economic theory research after World War II, Hu Leming argues that contemporary Western Marxist economic thought “does not study ‘economics’ itself from the perspectives of technology, ownership, and exchange relations, but rather studies it as a political and cultural relation, thereby deviating from the theoretical tradition of Marx’s economic analysis and turning it into a philosophical critique, cultural critique, or even linguistic critique of ‘economics.’” In fact, the traditional research paradigm of Western Marxism reversed Marx’s intellectual trajectory, continuously retreating from economics and political science back to culture and philosophy. Although this theoretical orientation reached its end in the deconstruction of postmodernism, we can still see traces of it in the diverse contemporary Marxist currents. Hu Leming believes that the “pan-economization” orientation of contemporary Western Marxism is precisely an alternative continuation and reflection of this academic tradition. An indisputable fact is that although contemporary Western Marxism has been “spectacularized” by postmodernist academia, giving rise to various theoretical schools, they all share a common feature: a consistent emphasis on drawing theoretical support and innovative inspiration from philosophy and other social sciences. They are keen on “synthesis” and “interdisciplinarity,” striving to integrate Marxist political economy with disciplines such as philosophy, sociology, ecology, and even women’s studies. This is undoubtedly conducive to a comprehensive analysis of various real-world problems of contemporary capitalism. However, this “pan-economization” orientation not only makes the research object of Marxist economics tend toward breadth and ambiguity, often leading Marxist economics research astray, but also, through an excessive economistic interpretation of real problems, tends to confine Marxist economics to trivial, complex, and petty matters. This results in a fragmentation of research directions in Marxist economics, ultimately weakening Marxism’s capacity to dissect the reality of capitalist society and reveal the laws of human historical development.

“泛经济学化”的第二个表现是研究方法的“重新塑造”。胡乐明在梳理二战后马克思主义经济理论研究新取向时，认为当代西方马克思主义经济思想“不是从技术、所有制和交换关系等层面来研究‘经济’本身，而是把它作为一种政治的和文化的关系来加以研究，从而背离了马克思经济分析的理论传统，变成了一种‘经济’的哲学批判、文化批判甚至语言批判”。事实上，西方马克思主义传统研究范式倒转了马克思的思想轨迹，不断从经济学和政治学退回到文化、哲学。尽管这一理论指向在后现代主义的解构中走向了尽头，但我们仍能够在多元化的当代马克思主义思潮中看到它的迹象。胡乐明认为当代西方马克思主义“泛经济学化”取向正是这一学术传统的另类延续和反映。不争的事实是，尽管当代西方马克思主义被后现代主义学术景观化，由此派生出形形色色的理论派别，但它们都有一个共同特征，就是历来注重从哲学和其他社会科学获取理论支持与创新灵感。它们热衷于“综合化”和“跨学科化”,力图融合马克思主义政治经济学与哲学、社会学、生态学甚至女性学等学科，这无疑有利于综合分析当代资本主义的种种现实问题。但这种“泛经济学化”取向不仅使马克思主义经济学研究对象趋于广泛化、模糊化，往往导致马克思主义经济学研究偏离正途，而且对现实问题的过度经济化解读更容易使马克思主义经济学囿于琐碎、繁杂、细小的事物，导致马克思主义经济学研究方向分散化，最终削弱马克思主义剖析资本主义社会现实、揭示人类历史发展规律的能力。

III. Evaluation and Reflection

三、评价与反思

In recent years, both domestically and internationally, Western Marxism has become a hot research topic. Numerous research findings have pushed Western Marxism to the center of the academic stage, presenting it to the world in a robust posture. However, one difficulty still perplexes scholars at home and abroad: how to clarify the bewildering attitude of Western Marxists toward Marxist economic theory. Amid the complex and diverse theoretical forms, scholars at home and abroad have summarized the transformation of the thematic focus of Western Marxism and explored the overall logical thread of its economic theoretical development. This is consistent with the changing themes of the era in the history of Western Marxism’s evolution. Although some controversies remain, the periodization of Western Marxist history has basically become an academic consensus. That is, taking the “May Storm” [7]7 The “May Storm” refers to the massive student and worker protests and general strike that shook France in May–June 1968, a watershed event often used to mark the transition from classical to contemporary Western Marxism. as the boundary, traditional Western Marxism came to an end in history, and contemporary pluralistic Western Marxism opened the curtain on its academic performance. The two periods of Western Marxism hold diametrically opposed attitudes toward how to view Marx’s economic theory. Before the “May Storm,” Western Marxism belittled the status and role of Marxist economics while championing totality, using the pretext of changing times to negate and distort the basic principles of Marxist economics. After the “May Storm,” Western Marxism “integrated” Marxist economics with other economic theories to launch a comprehensive critique of capitalist society. In summary, the descriptions by domestic and international scholars of the transformation of research orientations are broadly consistent with the themes of the era encountered by Western Marxism in the course of historical change.

近年来，无论是在国内还是国外，西方马克思主义都已成为一个热门的研究课题，众多研究成果将西方马克思主义推向学术舞台的中央，以饱满的姿态呈现在世人面前。但有一个难题仍然困扰着国内外学者，即如何厘清西方马克思主义者对待马克思主义经济理论扑朔迷离的态度。在纷繁芜杂的理论样态中，国内外学者归纳出西方马克思主义理论主题的嬗变，探寻其经济理论发展的总体逻辑线索，这与西方马克思主义流变史中时代主题的变换一致。尽管尚存一些争议，但西方马克思主义历史时段的划分基本成为学界的共识，即以“五月风暴”为界，传统意义上西方马克思主义走向历史的终结，当代多元化的西方马克思主义拉开了学术演出的序幕，两个时期的西方马克思主义在如何看待马克思经济理论的问题上持有截然对立的态度。“五月风暴”前的西方马克思主义贬低马克思主义经济学的地位和作用而推崇总体性，以时代变迁为借口，否定、篡改马克思主义经济学的基本原理。“五月风暴”后的西方马克思主义则将马克思主义经济学与其他经济理论“融合”,展开对资本主义社会的全方位批判。概括起来，国内外学者关于研究取向嬗变的描述与西方马克思主义在历史变迁过程中所遭遇的时代主题基本一致。

Throughout the entire development of Western Marxism, cultural critique and economic critique have always been in a state of imbalance. Although contemporary Western Marxism has escaped the crisis of a political economy “vacuum,” it has not successfully absorbed sufficient intellectual nourishment from Marxist economic theory. On the contrary, it has even shown a tendency to deviate from Marxism. Overall, the contemporary Western Marxist critique of capitalism based on economic threads faces three shortcomings that cannot be ignored.

统揽西方马克思主义发展始终，文化批判与经济批判总是处于失衡状态。当代西方马克思主义虽然摆脱了政治经济学“空场”的危机，但它没能很好地从马克思主义经济理论中吸收足够的思想养料，相反，甚至出现了背离马克思主义的倾向。综合来说，当代西方马克思主义基于经济线索的资本主义批判理论面临着三个不容忽视的缺陷。

First, the fragmentation of economic theory.

第一，经济理论碎片化。

Some Western Marxists, for the purpose of updating and developing Marxist political economy, have sought to “re-study” and “re-shape” Marx’s main political economy categories, such as Paul Marlor Sweezy’s “underconsumption,” Paul Alexander Baran’s “economic surplus,” and John Roemer’s “general exploitation.” This has become a trend in Western Marxist economic theory research. Regardless of whether such reshaping deviates from the original meaning of Marxist theory, it is an undeniable fact that these reshapings have fragmented Marxist political economy into pieces, leaving it utterly lacking in integrity.

一些西方马克思主义者出于更新、发展马克思主义政治经济学的目的，力图“重新研究”“重新塑造”马克思的主要政治经济学范畴，如保罗·斯威齐(Paul Marlor Sweezy)的“消费不足”、保罗·巴兰(Paul Alexander Baran)的“经济剩余”、约翰·罗默(John Roemer)的“一般剥削”等，这成为西方马克思主义经济理论研究的一种潮流。且不论这种改造是否背离马克思主义理论的原意，但不可否认的事实是，这些改造将马克思主义政治经济学肢解得支离破碎，毫无整体性可言。

Second, the diversification of research methods makes it difficult to integrate viewpoints.

第二，研究方法的多元化导致观点难以融合。

Accompanying theoretical fragmentation is the combination of various analytical tools with Marxist economic theory, with research methods momentarily displaying a state of “a hundred flowers blooming, a hundred schools of thought contending.” [8]8 “A hundred flowers blooming, a hundred schools of thought contending” is a slogan from Mao Zedong’s 1956 “Hundred Flowers Campaign,” which encouraged open debate and diverse expression in intellectual and cultural fields, though it was later curtailed. The diversification of research methods has, to a certain extent, expanded the horizons of Marxist political economy, but it has also brought about the difficulty of integrating viewpoints. Due to differences in methodology, communication between different theoretical schools has become unattainable, degenerating into self-serving word games.

与理论碎片化相伴的是，各种各样的分析工具开始与马克思主义经济理论相结合，研究方法一时呈现“百花齐放、百家争鸣”之态。研究方法的多元化在一定程度上拓展了马克思主义政治经济学的视野，但也带来了观点的难以融合。由于方法论不同，不同理论派系之间的沟通变得遥不可及，沦为自说自话的文字游戏。

Third, the economic theory system is fractured.

第三，经济理论体系断裂化。

Under the slogan of “reshaping” Marxist political economy, some Western Marxists have crudely dismembered Marx’s foundational economic theories and abused various non-Marxist economic analytical tools. The direct consequence is that, lacking a mutually recognized discourse system, within contemporary Western Marxism neither an integrated understanding nor a consensus of views has been formed. Western Marxism still faces a severe crisis of integrity. If this situation is allowed to continue, it will trigger irreparable negative effects—let alone the difficulty of sustaining Western Marxist economic theory research, it may even lead to Western Marxism gradually fading from people’s view, heading toward decline and extinction. Therefore, Western Marxism must sound the clarion call to attack political economy.

在“重塑”马克思主义政治经济学的口号下，一些西方马克思主义者粗野地肢解着马克思的基础经济理论，滥用各种非马克思主义经济分析工具。造成的直接后果是，由于缺乏一套彼此认同的话语体系，在当代西方马克思主义内部既没有形成整体性的认识，也未达成共识性的见解，西方马克思主义仍然面临严峻的整体性危机。若任由这种状况延续，将会引发无法挽回的负面效应——遑论西方马克思主义经济理论研究难以为继，甚至最终导致西方马克思主义逐渐淡出人们的视野，走向没落和消亡。所以，西方马克思主义必须吹响主攻政治经济学的号角。

Stones from other hills may serve to polish the jade of this one. [9]9 “Stones from other hills may serve to polish the jade of this one” is a classical Chinese idiom from the *Book of Songs* (Shijing), meaning that advice or examples from others can be used to improve oneself. The shift in the stance of Western Marxist economics carries information about the rapidly changing capitalist world and pulses with the rhythm of a specific era. A profound interpretation and reflection on Western Marxism and the transformation of its economic stance are also of great referential significance for understanding a series of practical issues since the founding of New China, and for developing and perfecting the theoretical system of contemporary Chinese Marxist political economy. (Notes and references omitted)

他山之石，可以攻玉。西方马克思主义经济学立场的转变负载着急剧变化着的资本主义世界的信息，跳动着特定时代的脉搏。深刻解读与反思西方马克思主义及其经济学立场的转变，对于理解新中国成立以来的一系列现实问题，发展和完善当代中国马克思主义政治经济学理论体系，同样具有重大的借鉴意义。（注释、参考文献略）

Online editor: Zhang Jian

网络编辑：张剑