On the Theoretical Premise of the Study of Overseas Marxism

I. The Study of Marx’s Thought: The Foundation of the Study of Overseas Marxism

一、马克思思想研究：国外马克思主义研究的根基

No matter how diverse and varied the trends and schools of overseas Marxism may be, and no matter what differences exist in the issues they address, the fields they study, and their basic theoretical interests, as long as they can be included within the scope referred to by the concept of “overseas Marxism,” they must necessarily have an intrinsic intellectual relationship with Marx’s thought. This is fully reflected in the current academic definition of the research field of overseas Marxism.

无论国外马克思主义思潮及流派多么繁杂和多样，其所涉及的问题、研究的领域和基本的理论旨趣存在着何种不同，但只要其可以被纳入“国外马克思主义”这一概念所指涉的范围，那么其必然与马克思思想存在着内在的思想关系。这一点充分地体现在当前学术界对国外马克思主义这一研究领域的界定之中。

The document of the Academic Degrees Committee of the State Council on the establishment of the first-level discipline of Marxist theory and its subordinate second-level disciplines primarily defines the scope of the study of overseas Marxism from two aspects: first, a geographical demarcation, i.e., outside China; second, a qualitative demarcation, i.e., the basic nature belongs to Marxism. This mainly includes the Marxist theoretical research and socialist practice of foreign communist parties, the critique of contemporary capitalism by Western left-wing thinkers based on Marxist theoretical research, Western Marxist trends, and various Marxist schools formed on the basis of the study of Marxist texts. From the perspective of the objects of overseas Marxist theoretical research generally recognized by the current domestic academic community, whether this concept is used in a broad or a relatively narrow sense, the theoretical schools involved all have a direct or indirect intellectual relationship with Marx’s thought, and it is on this basis that the basic nature of various overseas Marxist trends is considered and judged. Therefore, the study of Marx’s thought has foundational significance for the study of overseas Marxism.

国务院学位委员会关于设立马克思主义理论一级学科及其所属的二级学科的文件主要是从两个方面来确定国外马克思主义研究的范围的：其一是地域划界，即在中国之外；其二是性质划界，即基本性质是属于马克思主义的，主要包括国外共产党的马克思主义理论研究和社会主义实践、西方左翼思想家基于马克思主义理论研究对当代资本主义的批判、西方马克思主义思潮和基于马克思主义文本研究而形成的各种马克思主义流派。就目前国内学术界普遍认同的国外马克思主义理论研究的对象来看，无论是在广义上使用这一概念，还是在相对狭义上使用这一概念，其所涉及的理论流派都与马克思思想之间存在着直接或间接的思想关系，并由此去思考和判定各种国外马克思主义思潮的基本性质。因此，马克思思想研究对于研究国外马克思主义来说具有根基性意义。

First, the study of Marx’s thought is the basis for understanding and grasping overseas Marxist trends. This is determined by the dual tasks undertaken by the study of overseas Marxism. Our study of overseas Marxism is not for the sake of studying overseas Marxism itself, but has clear theoretical and practical orientations. From a theoretical orientation, overseas Marxist trends, as contemporary forms of Marxism’s development abroad, necessarily draw theoretical resources from Marx, use the basic positions, theoretical principles, and methods of Marxism to confront major theoretical and practical issues arising in the development of contemporary capitalist society, and complete their own theoretical construction in the process of answering these questions. Therefore, their interpretation of Marx’s texts, their selection of theoretical resources, and the theoretical logic they follow in analyzing and answering major theoretical and practical issues can all provide intellectual resources and theoretical references for the construction of Marxist theory in China. Hence, it is necessary to base this on the study of Marx’s thought, make basic value judgments on various overseas Marxist trends, and, on the basis of clear value judgments, select from the relevant theoretical achievements of overseas Marxism.

第一，马克思思想研究是理解和把握国外马克思主义思潮的基础。这是由研究国外马克思主义所承担的双重任务决定的。我们研究国外马克思主义并不是为了研究国外马克思主义而研究国外马克思主义，而是有明确的理论和现实指向的。从理论指向来说，国外马克思主义思潮作为马克思主义在国外当代的发展形式，其必然是从马克思那里获取理论资源，以马克思主义的基本立场、理论原则和方法去面对当代资本主义社会发展过程中出现的重大的理论与现实问题，并在解答问题的过程中完成自己的理论建构的。因而，其对马克思思想文本的解读，对理论资源的选取、分析与解答重大理论和现实问题时所遵循的理论逻辑，都可以为我国的马克思主义理论建构提供思想资源和理论借鉴。因此需要以马克思思想研究为基础，对各种国外马克思主义思潮做出基本的价值判断，在明确的价值判断的基础上对国外马克思主义相关理论成果进行取舍。

From a practical orientation, the study of overseas Marxism is aimed at understanding the basic conditions of contemporary capitalist society and the real problems that exist within it, in order to provide intellectual resources and feasible practical paths for solving various problems faced in the process of building socialism with Chinese characteristics. Although, after more than forty years of reform and opening up, China has explored a path of modernization different from that of developed capitalist countries and achieved historic accomplishments that have attracted worldwide attention, in many fields such as promoting economic development and constructing a modern society, it still faces a series of problems that emerged during the construction of modern Western societies. Especially under the premise that China is gradually approaching the center of the world stage and increasingly integrating into the process of world history, the global and human problems that arise in the process of constructing modern society are also problems we must confront. Overseas Marxist trends have gradually developed alongside the changes in the mode of production and lifestyle of modern capitalist society. Their critique of modern capitalism, their reflections on real socialism, and their exploration of global and human problems not only provide first-hand materials for us to understand and grasp the development trends of modern capitalism, the problems it faces, and its global impact, but also offer intellectual resources for solving various problems faced in the process of building socialism with Chinese characteristics. Therefore, it is necessary to base this on the study of Marx’s thought, to discern the practical orientation of overseas Marxist trends, and to make careful choices.

从现实指向来说，研究国外马克思主义是为了了解当代资本主义社会的基本状况及其存在的现实问题，为解决中国特色社会主义建设进程中面临的各种问题提供思想资源和可资借鉴的现实路径。尽管经过四十余年的改革开放，我国已经探索出了一条不同于发达资本主义国家的现代化道路，并取得了举世瞩目的历史性成就，但推动经济发展、建构现代性社会等诸多领域依然面临着西方现代社会建构过程中出现的一系列问题。特别是在中国逐步接近世界舞台中央、日益融入世界历史进程的前提下，现代社会建构过程中出现的世界性、人类性问题同样是我们必须面对的。国外马克思主义思潮正是伴随着现代资本主义社会的生产方式和生活方式的变迁逐步发展起来的，它们对现代资本主义的批判、对现实社会主义的反思、对世界性和人类性问题的探索，不仅为我们理解和把握现代资本主义发展趋势、存在的问题及其世界性的影响提供了一手资料，也为解决中国特色社会主义建设进程中面临的各种问题提供了思想资源。因此，需要以马克思思想研究为基础，明辨国外马克思主义思潮的现实指向并进行审慎的选择。

Second, basing this on the study of Marx’s thought cannot stop at a simple understanding of Marx’s thought; rather, it is necessary to deeply understand and grasp Marx’s basic positions, viewpoints, and methods. As for overseas Marxist trends, this is not a theoretical whole with internal unity, but a complex of doctrines composed of ideological systems with different intellectual tendencies and theoretical interests. “Contemporary Marxism is like a multicolored board; it is composed of various and conflicting theories that constantly revise their assessments of the past and present, and look forward to and understand the future with hope.” [1]1 The original Chinese text attributes this quotation to an unspecified source; it is rendered here as a direct quotation. For these many trends that consider themselves or are considered Marxist, one cannot simply judge their basic nature based on whether they accept Marx’s concepts and specific theoretical viewpoints. Instead, one must deeply analyze the basic positions and viewpoints held by their theories, and the basic methods used in their theoretical construction and critique of capitalism, to determine in what sense they are Marxist, or in what sense they are non-Marxist or anti-Marxist. Raymond Aron, a French thinker contemporary with Sartre and Althusser, clearly pointed out that existentialist Marxism and structuralist Marxism are merely two holy families [2]2 A reference to Raymond Aron’s critique of two dominant French Marxist schools of the 1960s, which he polemically labeled “holy families” to suggest dogmatic and self-referential tendencies. which, due to their principled leftism, verbal revolutionism, and failure to study concrete reality, have abandoned the Marxist stance of political engagement. “Critique of Dialectical Reason and Reading Capital are not aimed at the masses; these works are not intended to mobilize and recruit activists or sympathizers, but to satisfy the needs of a minority.” [3]3 The original Chinese text attributes this quotation to Raymond Aron; it is rendered here as a direct quotation. Although we cannot completely negate the Marxist nature of these two schools on this basis, we can clarify their differences from Marx’s thought, and in the process of analyzing the roots of these differences, deepen our understanding and grasp of these two schools.

第二，以马克思思想研究为基础，不能停留于对马克思思想的简单了解，而是要深刻理解和把握马克思的基本立场、观点和方法。就国外马克思主义思潮来说，这并不是一个具有内在统一性的理论整体，而是由具有不同的思想倾向和理论旨趣的思想体系构成的学说综合体。“当代马克思主义就像一块五彩板，它是由不断修饰自己对过去和现在的评估，充满希望地审视和理解未来的各式各样的并且是彼此冲突的理论构成的。”对于这诸多自认为或被视为马克思主义的思潮，不能简单地根据其是否接受马克思的概念和具体的理论观点来判定其基本性质，而是要深入地分析其理论所持的基本立场和观点、其理论建构和批判资本主义过程中运用的基本方法来判定其在什么意义上是马克思主义的，或在什么意义上是非马克思主义的或反马克思主义的。与萨特和阿尔都塞同时代的法国思想家雷蒙·阿隆就明确指出，存在主义的马克思主义和结构主义的马克思主义不过是两个神圣家族，他们由于原则上的左倾、口头上的革命主义和不研究具体的现实，从而抛弃了马克思主义的政治介入立场。“《辩证理性批判》和《读〈资本论〉》都不是面向大众的；这些著作都不是为了动员和招募活动分子或同情分子，而是为了满足少数人的需要。”虽然我们不能据此彻底否定这两个流派的马克思主义性质，却可以明确其与马克思思想的差异，进而在分析这种差异产生的根源的过程中深化对这两个流派的理解和把握。

If many early schools of overseas Marxism still adhered to the positions, viewpoints, and methods of Marx’s thought to a certain extent, then overseas Marxism after the 1970s has more often merely drawn theoretical resources from Marx’s thought, while in fact having already deviated from it. “These theorists still consider themselves Marxists, but what is fundamentally heterogeneous with traditional Western Marxism is that they have already fundamentally negated the most important principles in Marx’s philosophical framework. For example, ecological Marxism opposes the view of raising the level of productive forces as the basis for historical development, because this is a non-ecological view of humanity’s compulsory enslavement of nature, which actually fundamentally rejects the foundation of historical materialism. Another example is feminist Marxism, which criticizes Marx’s social class viewpoint as equally patriarchal. They argue that when Marx focused on the relationship between labor and capital, he only identified labor realized in the exchange market, ignoring the position of women’s domestic labor in the conditions of existence of the labor force, which is also a form of labor that creates surplus value. This no longer belongs to the basic logic of Western Marxism.” [4]4 The original Chinese text attributes this quotation to an unspecified source; it is rendered here as a direct quotation. However, their critique of contemporary capitalism, drawing theoretical resources from Marx and using Marx’s analytical methods, still has important practical significance.

如果说国外马克思主义早期的诸多流派还在一定程度上坚守马克思思想的立场、观点和方法，那么20世纪70年代以后的国外马克思主义则更多地只是从马克思思想中获取理论资源，而实际上已经出现了对马克思思想的背离。“这些理论家固然还自认为是马克思主义者，但与传统西方马克思主义根本异质的是，他们已经从根本上否定了马克思哲学构架中最重要的原则，如生态学马克思主义反对提高生产力水平作为历史发展的基础的观点，因为这是人类主体强制性奴役自然的非生态观点，这实际上根本拒绝了历史唯物主义的基础。再如女权主义的马克思主义批判马克思的社会阶级观点同样是父权制的，她们提出，马克思在关注劳动与资本的关系时，只是指认了在交换市场之中实现的劳动，而无视妇女家务劳动在劳动力生存条件中的地位，这同样是一种创造剩余价值的劳动。这已经不再从属于西方马克思主义的基本逻辑。”但他们从马克思那里获取理论资源、借助马克思的分析方法对当代资本主义的批判仍具有重要的现实意义。

Third, it is necessary to establish a solid foundation for the study of overseas Marxism on the basis of grasping the internal theoretical logic of the development of Marx’s thought and his overall ideological system. Although overseas Marxist trends are numerous in schools and diverse in thought, the reason they can be included under this concept is that they are all directly or indirectly related to Marx’s thought. Revealing this intellectual connection is the prerequisite for understanding and grasping the various trends of overseas Marxism.

第三，需要在把握马克思思想发展的内在理论逻辑及其总体的思想体系的基础之上，为研究国外马克思主义确立坚实的根基。国外马克思主义思潮虽然流派众多、思想各异，但之所以能够被纳入这一概念之下，就在于其都直接或间接地与马克思思想存在关联，而对这一思想关联的揭示，是理解和把握国外马克思主义诸思潮的前提。

It is necessary to grasp as a whole the internal logic of the development of Marx’s thought and the general thread of its intellectual development, in order to clarify how each foreign Marxist trend and school took up the theoretical and practical questions raised by Marx, what theoretical resources they obtained from Marx to answer these questions, and the logical relationship between the basic theoretical principles they followed in the process of answering these questions and Marx’s system of thought, thereby elucidating their theoretical relationship with Marx’s thought and their position in the history of Marxist thought. For example, the founders of Western Marxism—Lukács, Korsch, Gramsci, and others—directly took up the questions of proletarian revolution and human emancipation. By drawing on Marx’s texts, they restored and reconstructed the orthodox tradition of Marxism through a holistic method of thought and a revolutionary practical consciousness, thereby opening a new direction for the development of Marxism. The humanist Marxism and scientific Marxism that followed merely shared two tendencies or two logics within Marx’s thought. In Marx’s system of thought, there are indeed two logics: one is the critique of capitalism carried out in his youth with human emancipation as its goal; the other is the critical analysis of the history and reality of capitalism centered on *Capital* and its manuscripts in his later period. But in the totality of Marx’s system of thought, this dual logic is unified. Human emancipation, as Marx’s “general problem,” was established on the basis of a critical analysis of bourgeois political emancipation and its consequences; the critical analysis of the history and reality of capitalism placed human emancipation on a scientific foundation, and human emancipation is the ultimate aim of the critique of capitalism. Only by combining the two can we truly understand Marx’s complete system of thought. However, humanist Marxism and scientific Marxism precisely separate the two, and therefore both believe it necessary to obtain theoretical resources from modern Western currents of thought to supplement Marxism’s deficiencies. “The characteristic of humanism is the contextualization and historicization of theory; this tendency easily dissolves the theoretical determinacy of Marxism, diluting it into a vague cultural critique. The problem with scientism is its excessive faith in the objective logic of history, often leaving it indifferent to changes in social reality.”

需要从总体上把握马克思思想发展的内在逻辑及其思想发展的总体脉络，以明确各个国外马克思主义思潮和流派如何承接马克思所提出的理论和现实问题，从马克思那里获取了哪些理论资源用于解答这些问题，以及在解答这些问题的过程中其所遵循的基本的理论原则与马克思思想体系之间的逻辑关系，从而阐明其与马克思思想的理论关系及其在马克思主义思想史中的位置。例如，西方马克思主义的奠基人卢卡奇、柯尔施、葛兰西等直接承接了无产阶级革命和人的解放问题。他们借助马克思思想文本，以总体性的思想方法和革命的实践意识恢复和重建了马克思主义的正统，从而为马克思主义的发展开辟新的路向。而此后的人本主义的马克思主义和科学主义马克思主义不过是分享了马克思思想中的两种倾向或两种逻辑。在马克思思想体系中，确实包含着两种逻辑：其一是青年时期以人的解放为目标而展开的对资本主义的批判，其二是晚期以《资本论》及其手稿为核心的对资本主义历史和现实的批判性分析。但在马克思思想体系的总体中，这双重逻辑是统一的。人的解放作为马克思的“总问题”是在批判地分析资产阶级政治解放及其后果的基础上确立的，对资本主义历史和现实的批判分析则使人的解放建立在科学的基础之上，人的解放是批判资本主义的最终目的。只有将二者结合起来，才能真正理解马克思的完整的思想体系。但人本主义的马克思主义和科学主义的马克思主义恰恰是将二者割裂开来，因而都认为需要从现代西方思潮获取理论资源以补充马克思主义的不足。“人本主义的特征是理论的情境化和历史化，这一倾向容易消解马克思主义的理论确定性，把它稀释为泛泛的文化批判。科学主义的问题是过分相信历史的客观逻辑，往往对社会现实的变化无动于衷。”

Therefore, it is necessary to grasp Marx’s system of thought as a whole, to truly understand and grasp the relationship between different foreign Marxist currents and Marx’s thought, to grasp the internal logic of their intellectual development through an analysis of the positions, viewpoints, and methods held by foreign Marxist currents, thereby distinguishing the basic nature, theoretical contributions, and intellectual limitations of their thought, to select from them as theoretical resources for the construction of contemporary Chinese Marxist theory, to rationally draw on their theoretical achievements to reflect on a series of problems arising in China’s socialist modernization, and to always uphold the dominant position of Marxism.

因此，需要从总体上把握马克思思想体系，真正理解和把握不同的国外马克思主义思潮与马克思思想的关系，通过对国外马克思主义思潮所持的立场、观点、方法的分析把握其思想发展的内在逻辑，从而辨明其思想的基本性质、理论贡献和思想局限，将其作为当代中国马克思主义理论构建的理论资源进行取舍，合理地借助其理论成果思考中国社会现代化建设中出现的一系列问题，并始终坚持马克思主义的主导地位。

II. The Study of Intellectual History: The Overall Horizon for Studying Foreign Marxism

二、思想史研究：研究国外马克思主义的总体视域

The study of any philosopher or philosophical school must always be placed within a definite background of intellectual history. This is both a basic principle that any theoretical research should follow and a prerequisite for deepening theoretical research. If the study of Marx’s thought lays the foundation for studying foreign Marxism, then the study of intellectual history constitutes the overall horizon for studying foreign Marxism. Only within the overall horizon of intellectual history can we achieve a holistic understanding and grasp of foreign Marxist currents, clarify the mutual intellectual relationships among them, determine their positions in intellectual history, and at the same time grasp the genealogy of the complex and diverse foreign Marxist currents.

对于任何一个哲学家或哲学流派的研究，总是要将其置于确定的思想史的背景之中进行，这既是任何理论研究所应遵循的基本的原则，同时也是深入开展理论研究的前提。如果说马克思思想研究为研究国外马克思主义奠定了根基，那么思想史研究则构成了研究国外马克思主义的总体视域。只有在思想史的总体视域之中，才能对国外马克思主义思潮进行总体性的理解和把握，在厘清它们之间相互的思想关系、明确其在思想史中的位置的同时，把握纷繁复杂的国外马克思主义思潮的谱系。

Viewed from the historical process of the development of foreign Marxism, its own development is closely related not only to Marx’s thought but also to modern Western thought. Therefore, it is necessary to place it within the overall framework of modern Western intellectual history and, in the interrelationship between Marx’s thought and modern Western thought, to form an overall horizon for understanding and grasping foreign Marxism.

从国外马克思主义发展的历史进程来看，其自身的发展不仅与马克思思想密切相关，同时与现代西方思想密切相关。因此需要将其纳入现代西方思想史的总体框架之中，在马克思思想与现代西方思想的相互关系之中，形成理解和把握国外马克思主义的总体视域。

So-called intellectual history is not merely a temporal process of thought but a three-dimensional intellectual landscape composed of the systems of thought of thinkers. Intellectual history is the starry sky of human thought. Each thinker, due to the theoretical depth and influence of their thought, occupies a different position and displays a different color in the starry sky of human thought. The study of intellectual history aims to reveal the intellectual connections between different thinkers through the study of their systems of thought, to clarify the relationships between different genealogies of thought, and thereby to construct a complete picture of human thought. Marx’s thought, however, is the most brilliant star in the modern starry sky of human thought. All foreign Marxist currents unfold around it and form different intellectual landscapes through fusion, collision, and conflict with various other currents of thought.

所谓思想史，不仅仅是一个以时间为线索的思想历程，而且是一个由思想家们的思想体系构成的立体思想图景。思想史就是人类思想的星空，每一位思想家因其思想的理论深度及影响不同，在人类思想的星空中占据不同的位置、显现出不同的色彩。思想史的研究就是要通过对不同思想家思想体系的研究，揭示他们之间的思想关联，阐明不同的思想谱系的关系，从而构建出一幅完整的人类思想图景。而马克思思想，则是现代人类思想星空最灿烂的明星，全部国外马克思主义思潮都围绕着它得以展开，并在与各种不同的思潮的交融、碰撞、冲突中形成不同的思想图景。

First, it is necessary to base the study on intellectual history, to enhance theoretical discernment, and to accurately position each foreign Marxist school and its thought by clarifying its place and influence in the intellectual history of humanity since the 20th century, so that in selecting research objects one does not become completely lost. Currently, there is a peculiar phenomenon in the study of foreign Marxism in China: on the one hand, middle-aged and elderly scholars constantly emphasize and call for deepening research through intensive textual plowing and a problem-centered approach; on the other hand, young scholars constantly chase after new concepts, new currents, and new figures abroad, striving for novelty and difference, as if only this can demonstrate the cutting-edge and innovative nature of their research. This difference between older and younger scholars is not merely a difference in intellectual acuity but a difference in theoretical vision, academic discernment, and the ability to grasp major theoretical issues. Middle-aged and elderly scholars, due to their deep academic accumulation, can understand and grasp foreign Marxist thinkers and the major theoretical questions they raise within the overall horizon of intellectual history; young scholars, while their pursuit of novelty and difference is reasonable, need to place the study of new concepts, new currents, and new figures within the overall perspective of intellectual history, select effective research objects and questions based on their theoretical positioning in intellectual history, and then grasp the intellectual relationships among various new currents and concepts and between them and existing theories, thereby avoiding the fragmentation of research and ensuring the historical depth and intellectual breadth of theoretical research.

第一，需要以思想史的研究为基础，提升理论的鉴赏力，通过明确国外马克思主义各流派及其思想在20世纪以来人类思想史中所处的位置及其影响，准确地对其予以定位，从而在选择研究对象的过程不至于如坠五里雾中。当前我国的国外马克思主义研究中存在一种奇怪的现象：一方面是中老年学者不断强调、呼吁要通过对文本的深度犁耕、以问题为中心将研究引向深入；另一方面则是青年学者不断追逐国外的新概念、新思潮、新人物，以做到求新、求异，似乎只有这样才能体现其研究的前沿性、创新性。新老学者之间的这种差异不仅是思想敏锐度的差异，而且是由于理论视野、学术鉴赏力和对重大理论问题的把握能力的差异。中老年学者由于其学术积淀深厚，能够在思想史的总体视域中理解和把握国外马克思主义思想家及其提出的重大的理论问题；而青年学者求新、求异虽符合常理，但需要将新概念、新思潮、新人物的研究置于思想史的总体视野之中，根据其在思想史中的理论定位选择有效的研究对象和问题，进而把握各种新思潮、新概念之间以及与原有理论的思想关系，从而避免研究的碎片化，以确保理论研究的历史深度和思想广度。

Second, it is necessary to base the study on intellectual history, to clarify the internal intellectual connections between different thinkers or schools, to obtain the logical path from one thinker to another and the basic approach from one theoretical problem to another, thereby endowing the study of foreign Marxism with a broad theoretical horizon. On the one hand, this can break free from the situation of studying figures and schools in isolation, and instead penetrate into the process of intellectual history to understand and grasp the thought of figures and schools, thereby clarifying that each thinker’s thought has its own historical process of formation and development, and that in different periods of its development it may actually have completely different theoretical natures. For example, Lukács’s thought went through three stages: Neo-Kantianism, Western Marxism, and self-reflection in his later years; Sartre also moved from existentialism to Marxism, and so on. More importantly, because foreign Marxism is complex and diverse, involving significant differences in the questions and fields it addresses, it is very difficult to grasp its overall development process with a single theoretical logic. Only by basing the study on intellectual history and grasping the theoretical logic of the development of specific thoughts and schools can we construct the overall intellectual genealogy of foreign Marxism.

第二，需要以思想史研究为基础，明确各个不同的思想家或流派之间内在的思想关联，获得由一位思想家通达另一位思想家的逻辑道路、由一个理论问题进入另一个理论问题的基本思路，从而赋予国外马克思主义研究一个广阔的理论视野。这一方面可以摆脱就人物、流派研究人物、流派的状况，深入到思想史的进程中去理解和把握人物、流派的思想，从而明确每一位思想家的思想都有其形成和发展的历史过程，在其思想发展的不同时期实际上可能具有完全不同的理论性质。如卢卡奇的思想就经历了新康德主义、西方马克思主义和晚年的自我反思三个阶段；萨特也是由存在主义走向马克思主义的等等。更为重要的是，由于国外马克思主义纷繁复杂，其所涉及的问题、领域存在着较大的差异，很难以单一的理论逻辑把握其总体发展历程。只有以思想史的研究为基础，在把握具体的思想和流派发展的理论逻辑的基础上，才能建构出国外马克思主义总体的思想谱系。

On the other hand, it helps to break down the barriers between the studies of different thinkers and theoretical schools, enabling dialogue and exchange. Although the various schools of Western Marxism differ considerably due to differences in the theoretical resources they drew upon during their formation, their research stances, and their theoretical interests, they nonetheless share common intellectual resources and epochal problems. Therefore, there are intellectual relationships among them in terms of the inheritance of problems, the borrowing of theories, and the extension of concepts. Hence, it is necessary to clarify the intellectual relationships among the different schools within the overall perspective of intellectual history, and to grasp the development of the Western Marxist trend of thought and the transformation of its internal logic as a whole. Only in this way can multiple dialogues and exchanges be realized in the research process—including both dialogues and exchanges with different schools and thinkers, and dialogues and exchanges among different researchers—thereby continuously deepening the study of Western Marxism. Under the conditions where the overall logic of the development of Western Marxism has dissolved, becoming increasingly pluralized, fragmented, and localized, and where theoretical estrangement is intensifying, this kind of dialogue and exchange based on the study of intellectual history holds crucial theoretical significance and practical value for understanding and grasping the intellectual genealogy of Western Marxism and for promoting the deepening of research.

另一方面，有助于消除各个不同的思想家和理论流派研究之间的壁垒，实现对话与交流。国外马克思主义诸流派虽然由于形成过程中获取的理论资源、研究的立场、理论旨趣等等的不同而存在着较大的差异，但它们毕竟拥有共同的思想资源、时代问题，因此在问题的承接、理论的借用、概念的引申等方面是存在着思想关系的。因此需要在思想史的整体视域之中厘清各个不同流派之间的思想关系，从总体上把握国外马克思主义思潮的发展及其内在逻辑的转换。只有如此，才能在研究的过程中实现多重的对话与交流——既包括与各个不同流派及思想家之间的对话与交流，也包括各个研究者之间的对话与交流，将国外马克思主义研究不断引向深入。在国外马克思主义发展总体逻辑消解，越来越多元化、碎片化、本土化，理论隔阂日益加剧的状况下，这种基于思想史研究而展开的对话与交流，对于理解和把握国外马克思主义的思想谱系、推动研究的深入就具有至关重要的理论意义和现实价值。

Third, the study of Western Marxism needs to be conducted in conjunction with the history of Chinese Marxist thought, especially the history of Marxist thought since reform and opening up. The unfolding of the study of Western Marxism in China has never been carried out independently; it has always been closely linked with the study of Marxist philosophy in China. On the one hand, the development of the study of Western Marxism promoted the internal transformation of the logic of Chinese Marxist philosophical research, gradually freeing it from the theoretical logic of the traditional textbook system and, through the interpretation of Marx’s texts, forming a uniquely Chinese understanding of Marx’s thought. On the other hand, the transformation of the logic of Chinese Marxist philosophical research also brought about a transformation in the attitudes and stances toward the study of Western Marxism. Specifically, the study of Western Marxism in China has undergone a dual logical transformation process: “from negative critique to affirmative reference; from indirect appropriation to direct dialogue.” [6]6 The author describes a dual transformation in Chinese scholarship on Western Marxism: first, a shift from rejecting it as non-Marxist to using it as a resource for reinterpreting Marx; second, a shift from indirectly applying its concepts to directly engaging with its thinkers on shared problems of modernity. Regarding the former, this refers to the process of moving from criticizing Western Marxism as revisionism, non-Marxism, or anti-Marxism, to acknowledging its Marxist character and, by drawing on its interpretations of Marx’s thought, reconstructing the theoretical logic and interpretive framework of Chinese Marxist research. Regarding the latter, it refers to the process of using the theoretical resources of Western Marxism to directly confront the practical problems emerging in the construction of modern Chinese society, and then, in the process of reflecting on and criticizing the problems of modernity, engaging in dialogue with Marx’s thought and Western Marxist trends. While promoting the theoretical construction of contemporary Chinese Marxism, this has also transformed the modes of thinking, theoretical logic, and basic frameworks for approaching Western Marxism.

第三，研究国外马克思主义需要结合中国马克思主义思想史、特别是改革开放以来的马克思主义思想史进行。国外马克思主义研究在中国的展开从来都不是独立进行的，始终是与中国马克思主义哲学的研究密切地联系在一起的。一方面，国外马克思主义研究的开展推动了中国马克思主义哲学研究逻辑的内在转换，使之逐步摆脱了传统教科书体系的理论逻辑，并借助对马克思思想文本的解读形成了中国人自己对马克思思想的独特理解；另一方面，中国马克思主义哲学研究逻辑的转换也带来了研究国外马克思主义的态度和立场的转换。确切地来说，中国的国外马克思主义研究经历了一个“从否定性批判到肯定性借鉴；从间接挪用到直接对话”双重逻辑转换过程。就前者来说，是从将国外马克思主义视为修正主义、非马克思主义或反马克思主义进行批判，到承认其马克思主义性质并借助其对马克思思想的解读重构中国马克思主义研究的理论逻辑和解读框架的过程；就后者来说，则是指借用国外马克思主义理论资源直面中国现代社会建构过程中出现的现实问题，进而在反思和批判现代性问题的过程中与马克思思想、国外马克思主义思潮进行对话。在推动当代中国马克思主义理论建构的同时，也变革了对待国外马克思主义的思维方式、理论逻辑和基本框架。

Therefore, it is necessary to situate the study of Western Marxism in China within the overall logical process of this dual transformation. Only then can the historical position of the study of Western Marxism be clarified, a clear theoretical orientation for the study of Western Marxism be provided, and the theoretical significance and practical value of the study of Western Marxism be illuminated.

因此，需要将中国的国外马克思主义研究置于这双重变革的总体逻辑进程之中，才能明确研究国外马克思主义的历史方位，才能给予研究国外马克思主义一个明确的理论定位，以澄明研究国外马克思主义的理论意义和现实价值。

III. World History of the 20th Century: The Real Foundation of the Study of Western Marxism

三、20世纪世界历史：国外马克思主义研究的现实基础

From the perspective of the relationship between theory and reality, any genuine, vital theory directly confronts reality itself; it is a theoretical expression of the logic of the development of actual social history. However, because different thinkers, in confronting social reality itself, draw upon different theoretical resources, hold different stances, and follow different lines of thought, different theories and schools are formed. Therefore, situating the thought of a philosopher or philosophical school within the social-historical perspective of its formation and development can not only deepen the understanding and grasp of philosophical theory but, more importantly, can reveal the profound practical dimension inherent in that theory.

从理论与现实的关系来看，任何真正的、有生命力的理论都是直面现实本身的，是对现实社会历史发展逻辑的理论表达。但是由于不同思想家在面对社会现实本身的过程中借以利用的理论资源、所持的立场和致思理路的不同，从而形成了不同的理论和流派。因此，将哲学家或哲学流派的思想置于其成功和发展的社会史视野中去理解，不但可以深化对哲学理论的理解和把握，更为重要的是能够揭示出其理论所具有的深刻的现实维度。

As a critical theory of contemporary capitalism, the formation and development of Western Marxism have always been closely linked with the global expansion of capitalism and the adjustments in its own mode of production since the 20th century. The rise and development of the various schools of Western Marxism are both a reflection on and a critique of the global and human problems brought about by the global expansion of capital. At the same time, because these problems manifest differently in different countries and regions, eliciting different theoretical responses, they exhibit different characteristics, thereby constituting the overall picture of Western Marxism since the 20th century. As Russell Jacoby pointed out: “Everywhere Marxism takes on the coloration of its particular environment. A single, homogeneous Marxism belongs to the past. Marxism often has the color and content brought by its background conditions. … Each Marxism is unique, with its own history, texts, leaders, achievements, and problems.” [7]7 Russell Jacoby, *Dialectic of Defeat: Contours of Western Marxism* (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981), p. 4. Therefore, studying Western Marxism requires not only grasping the theoretical resources relied upon during its formation and the internal theoretical logic of its development, but also paying attention to the practical problems it confronts and the theoretical transformations triggered by changes in actual society, so as to provide an accurate theoretical orientation. Reviewing the history of the development of Western Marxism, it can be seen that every major theoretical transformation in its development has been linked to major practical problems and the theoretical difficulties they have caused.

作为当代资本主义批判理论，国外马克思主义的形成和发展始终是与20世纪以来资本主义的全球扩张及其自身生产方式的调整密切联系在一起的。国外马克思主义诸流派的兴起和发展既是对资本全球性扩张带来的世界性、人类性问题的反思和批判，同时又因这些问题在不同的国家、地区的表现形式不同，所引起的理论回应不同而呈现出不同的特征，从而构成了20世纪以来国外马克思主义的总体图景。正如拉塞尔·雅柯比指出的:“在每一个地方，马克思主义都带有它特有的环境的特征。单一的、同质的马克思主义属于过去。马克思主义时常有着它的背景条件所带来的色彩和内容。……每一种马克思主义均是独特的，有其自身的历史、文本、领导人、成就和问题。”因此，研究国外马克思主义就不仅要把握其形成过程中所依赖的理论资源及其发展内在理论逻辑，同时需要关注其所直面的现实问题，以及由现实社会的变革所引发的理论变革，从而对其进行准确的理论定位。回顾国外马克思主义发展的历史可以看到，其发展的每一次重大的理论变革都是与重大的现实问题及其引发的理论困难联系在一起的。

First, looking at the initial rise of Western Marxism—that is, the Western Marxism pioneered by Lukács, Korsch, Gramsci, and others—it directly confronted the theoretical difficulties arising from the stark contrast between the victory of the October Revolution in Russia and the failure of the proletarian revolution in Europe. It was precisely this practical problem that prompted them to reflect on the theoretical predicament of orthodox Marxism, to seek to reconstruct Marxist orthodoxy by starting from the study of Marx’s thought, and, in the process of theoretically addressing practical problems, to open up a new path for the development of Marxism, thereby guiding the development of Western Marxism in the first half of the 20th century. The subsequent humanist and scientistic Marxisms were different paths for reconstructing Marxism by following Western intellectual and cultural traditions. If humanism, with practice, subjectivity, and the like at its core, revealed the critical dimension of Marxist philosophy in order to dissolve the deterministic interpretation of orthodox Marxism, then scientism, through structuralist overdetermination, criticized the single economic determinism to provide a theory for analyzing the reality of capitalism. Although there were differences between them in reinterpreting Marx’s thought, they both targeted the increasingly intensified cultural and ideological manipulation of the proletariat by capitalism, seeking a path for human freedom and liberation. This led to the unification of a single political revolution with a cultural revolution, and then to a process of comprehensively criticizing capitalist culture.

第一，从国外马克思主义的最初兴起，即由卢卡奇、柯尔施、葛兰西等开创西方马克思主义来看，其直接面对的是俄国十月革命胜利和欧洲无产阶级革命失败强烈对比而引发的理论困难。正是这个现实的问题促使他们去反思正统马克思主义的理论困境，从马克思思想研究入手力图重建马克思主义正统，在以理论解答现实问题的过程中开辟了马克思主义发展的新路向，并引导了20世纪上半叶的西方马克思主义的发展。而此后的人本主义和科学主义的马克思主义则是依循西方思想文化传统对马克思主义的重建的不同路向。如果说人本主义以实践、主体性等为核心揭示马克思主义哲学的批判维度，以消解正统马克思主义的决定论解释，那么科学主义则通过结构主义的多元决定论来批判单一的经济决定论，为分析资本主义的现实提供理论。尽管二者在重释马克思思想之间存在着差异，但共同指向资本主义对无产阶级越来越强化的文化和意识形态操控，以探寻人的自由和解放道路，从而使单一的政治革命走向文化革命与政治革命的统一，再到全面批判资本主义文化的过程。

Second, the radical cultural, political, and social critique triggered by the “May 1968” events in France [8]8 The “May 1968” events in France were a series of student and worker protests and general strikes that nearly toppled the French government, marking a major crisis of postwar capitalist society and a turning point in Western Marxist theory toward more fragmented, cultural, and post-structuralist approaches. posed a major challenge to classical Western Marxism and opened up a path of pluralistic development for Western Marxism. After experiencing the “golden thirty years” of capitalist development, on the one hand, the manipulation of capital had penetrated all areas of human social life, distorting and fragmenting human life while forming a comprehensive suppression of humanity. This made it inevitable that the critique of capitalism would go beyond the traditional economic, political, and cultural fields and construct a new theoretical logic. On the other hand, along with the globalization process promoted by capitalism, capital had transcended the boundaries of traditional nation-states, dissolving the power of nation-states while triggering a series of global problems. It was precisely these new problems brought about by these new changes in capitalist society that, under the influence of postmodern thought, led Western Marxism to abandon the pursuit of totality emphasized in its early period. By combining with various disciplinary fields and social trends of thought to address practical problems, it formed a pattern of pluralistic development for Western Marxism.

第二，1968年发生于法国的“五月风暴”所引发的激进的文化、政治和社会批判，对经典西方马克思主义理论提出了重大的挑战，开启了国外马克思主义多元发展道路。在经历了资本主义“黄金三十年”发展之后，一方面资本的操控已经侵入人的社会生活的一切领域，在将人的生活扭曲、碎片化的同时，形成了对人的全面压抑，从而使对资本主义的批判必然越出传统的经济、政治和文化领域，构建新的理论逻辑；另一方面，伴随着资本主义推动的全球化进程，资本已经超越了传统的民族国家的界限，在消解民族国家的权力的同时引发了一系列的全球性问题。正是资本主义社会的这种新变化带来的新问题，在后现代思潮的影响下，国外马克思主义放弃了对早期强调的总体性的追求，通过与各个不同的学科领域和社会思潮的结合解答现实问题，形成了国外马克思主义多元发展的格局。

Third, from the end of the 20th century to the present, capitalism has gradually shifted from controlling global production to controlling global capital and the high-tech sectors of production. By utilizing advanced scientific and technological means, financial capital has exerted a tremendous influence on both the mode of production and the mode of life in modern society, deepening the crisis of capitalism while simultaneously turning this crisis into a common crisis for all of humanity. On the one hand, this situation has allowed foreign Marxist currents that began after the 1970s—such as feminist Marxism, ecological Marxism, spatial critical theory, biopolitics, and multiculturalism—to continue and to exhibit new characteristics. On the other hand, the outbreak of the 2008 capitalist financial crisis fully exposed the nature of financial imperialism built on modern technological means. Foreign Marxist thinkers, combining their critique of new technological developments, have launched a comprehensive critique of capitalism, giving rise to a series of new research questions or fields. These include, for example, the critique of new political economy aimed at criticizing neoliberalism, the critique of digital capitalism targeting the global plunder of virtual capital formed by the combination of financial capital and new technology, and left-wing accelerationism, which takes the relationship between capitalism and technology as its object of critique.

第三，20世纪末至今，资本主义已经逐步由控制全球生产转向控制全球资本和生产的高端技术领域，通过利用先进的科学技术手段，金融资本对现代社会生产方式和生活方式都产生了巨大的影响，在加深资本主义危机的同时，使这种危机成了全球人类共同的危机。这种情况一方面使开始于20世纪70年代以后的女权主义的马克思主义、生态主义的马克思主义、空间批判理论、生命政治学、多元文化主义等国外马克思主义思潮得以延续，并呈现出新的特征；另一方面，2008年资本主义金融危机暴发使资本主义建立在现代技术手段之上的金融帝国主义的性质得到了充分暴露，国外马克思主义思想家结合着对新技术的发展批判展开了对资本主义全方位的批判，形成了一系列新的研究问题或研究领域，如以批判新自由主义为目标的新政治经济学批判、以金融资本与新技术结合形成的虚拟资本的全球掠夺为批判对象的数字资本主义批判、以资本主义与技术的关系为批判对象的左翼加速主义，等等。

Fourth, if the overall development of foreign Marxism has always been closely linked to the development of capitalism itself and its globalizing trends, then the development of East European neo-Marxism exhibits distinct regional characteristics that can only be truly grasped in connection with the reforms and practices of East European socialism and the world pattern shaped by the Cold War. Compared with thinkers of various schools of Western Marxism, East European neo-Marxist theorists have never stood outside real social practice to reflect on and critique real social life; they have always been participants in real social activities and social activists. East European neo-Marxist thinkers began their academic activities after the victory of the socialist revolution in their respective countries. Consequently, they directly faced the problem of how to promote structural social change to build socialism after the completion of the political revolution. This caused their reflections on Soviet-model socialism and their reinterpretation of Marx’s thought to be closely integrated with their social history and practical problems. Without an understanding of the social and historical conditions of Eastern Europe and the extremely complex Soviet-East European relations created by the Cold War, it is impossible to grasp their theories of socialist reform and the roots of their ultimate failure, let alone to understand the uniqueness of their theories.

第四，如果说国外马克思主义的总体发展始终是与资本主义自身的发展及其全球化趋势密切相联，那么东欧新马克思主义的发展则显现出显著的地域特色，需要联系东欧社会主义的改革与实践及冷战造成的世界格局才能真正予以把握。与西方马克思主义各个流派的思想家相比，东欧新马克思主义理论家从来没有置身于现实的社会实践活动之外去反思和批判现实的社会生活，始终是现实社会活动的参与者、社会活动家。东欧新马克思主义思想家是在东欧各国已经取得社会主义革命胜利后开始其学术活动的，因而他们直接面临着政治革命完成之后如何推动社会结构性变革以建设社会主义的问题。这就使他们对苏联模式社会主义的反思、对马克思思想的重新阐释与其社会历史及现实问题密切地结合在一起。不了解东欧社会历史状况及冷战造成的极其复杂的苏东关系，就难以把握其社会主义改革理论及最后失败的根源，更无法理解其理论的独特性。

Fifth, the ultimate purpose of studying foreign Marxism is to serve the resolution of China’s practical problems and to promote the construction of contemporary Chinese Marxist theory. Therefore, it is necessary to integrate the issues studied in foreign Marxism with the realities of contemporary China. To this end, one must grasp, from an overall perspective, China’s history, traditions, and culture, as well as the changes that may occur in the overall process of China’s modernization. This requires understanding the problems of modernity faced in China’s own development within the relationship between China and the world, as well as the new changes in capitalism triggered by China’s increasing proximity to the center of the world stage. A fact that must be noted is that, with the rise of a large number of emerging countries represented by China, the traditional world political and economic pattern is gradually changing. This has broken the pattern of unidirectional flow of capital profits under the dominance of financial capitalism, triggering profound changes in capitalism. The intensifying trends of deglobalization, anti-globalization, and the rise of conservative ideologies in the West are the clearest manifestations of this. Therefore, it is necessary, through a profound understanding and grasp of the “changes unseen in a century,” to truly understand and grasp the new changes in capitalist society, to realize a genuine dialogue between Chinese Marxism and foreign Marxism, to grasp the theoretical logic of foreign Marxism in the process of revealing its practical logic of development, and thereby to provide theoretical resources and clarify theoretical issues for solving major theoretical and practical problems in the development of the contemporary world and Chinese society, and for promoting the construction and development of contemporary Chinese Marxist theory.

第五，研究国外马克思主义最终是为了解决中国的现实问题、推动当代中国马克思主义理论建构服务的。因此，需要将国外马克思主义研究的问题与当代中国的现实结合起来。为此，就需要从总体上把握中国社会的历史、传统与文化，及其在当代中国现代化总体进程中可能发生的变化；这就需要在中国与世界的关系之中把握中国自身发展过程中面临的现代性问题，以及中国越来越接近世界舞台中央所引发的资本主义新变化。必须注意的一个事实是，随着以中国为代表的广大新兴国家的崛起，传统世界政治经济格局正在逐步改变，这打破了金融资本主义主导下的资本利润单向流动的格局，引发了资本主义深刻的变化。日益强化的逆全球化、反全球化和保守主义思潮在西方的兴起，就是其最明确的表现。因此，需要结合着对“百年未有之大变局”的深刻理解和把握，真正理解和把资本主义社会的新变化，实现中国马克思主义与国外马克思主义的真正对话，在揭示国外马克思主义发展的现实逻辑的过程中把握其理论逻辑，进而为解决当代世界和中国社会发展进程中的重大的理论问题和现实问题，推动当代中国马克思主义理论的建构和发展提供理论资源、明确理论问题。

In summary, only by building on a solid foundation of research into Marx’s thought, combining the epochal issues in the process of real socio-historical development with the internal theoretical logic of foreign Marxist theories, and placing them within the overall horizon of intellectual history, can one truly understand and grasp foreign Marxist currents from an overall perspective and conduct a correct and effective theoretical positioning of them. Through genuine dialogue and exchange with foreign Marxist thinkers and their researchers, while continuously deepening the study of foreign Marxism, it can become an important theoretical resource that can be absorbed and used for reference in solving China’s practical problems and constructing Chinese Marxist theory.

综上所述，只有建立在坚实的马克思思想研究的基础之上，将现实社会历史发展进程中的时代问题与国外马克思主义理论的内在理论逻辑结合起来，并将其置于思想史的总体视域之中，才能真正从总体上理解和把握国外马克思主义思潮，对其进行正确有效的理论定位；通过与国外马克思主义思想家及其研究者开展真正的对话与交流，在不断将国外马克思主义研究引向深入的同时，使之成为解决中国现实问题及建构中国马克思主义理论可以吸收和借鉴的重要的理论资源。

The study of foreign Marxism is an extremely important and highly influential field within the current study of Marxist theory in China. It not only involves a large number of researchers and yields abundant results, but also sees an endless stream of new problems, new viewpoints, and new fields. It has consistently played a driving role in enriching the content and expanding the scope of Chinese Marxist theoretical research. Particularly in the last 20 years, a large number of young scholars have entered this research field, further contributing to a flourishing scene in this area. However, there is also a problem that requires special attention: insufficient attention has been paid to the ideological premises of conducting research in this field, which has seriously affected its in-depth development. Some scholars have pointed out: “The long-standing prevalent research paradigm in China’s study of Western Marxism is the ‘data-introduction-and-evaluation’ paradigm. The characteristic of this paradigm is that it divorces the theorist from the socio-historical conditions and cultural traditions in which they lived, and from the process of the evolution of the theorist’s thought, making an abstract interpretation of the theorist’s ideas and theoretical texts. The result is not only that the theorist’s lifelong thought is treated as homogeneous, but also that it fails to reveal the real roots and internal logic of the theorist’s theoretical construction. While being very familiar with the specific theoretical viewpoints of the theorist, it is impossible to truly grasp the real intention and theoretical problems of the theorist’s theoretical construction. This not only prevents researchers of Western Marxism from grasping the deep logic of its internal development, but also causes the study of Western Marxism to become increasingly positivistic and fragmented. Not only is it impossible to grasp the internal logic of the development of Western Marxism as a whole, but it also fails to realize the organic interaction between the study of Western Marxism, the study of the history of Marxist development, the construction of Chinese Marxist philosophy, and China’s modernization practice. This results in a situation of studying Western Marxism for its own sake, failing to achieve the purpose of China’s study of Western Marxism.” [9]9 The original text includes a footnote here, which is omitted in the source provided. Fundamentally, this is because the premises of the study of foreign Marxist theory have not been truly understood and grasped. (Notes omitted)

国外马克思主义研究是当前我国马克思主义理论研究中的一个极为重要且影响巨大的领域，不仅人数众多、成果丰硕，而且新问题、新观点、新领域层出不穷，对于中国马克思主义理论研究内容的丰富和领域的扩展一直起着推动作用。特别是近20年，一大批青年学者进入该研究领域，更使这一研究领域呈现出一派繁荣的景象。但也存在着一个需要特别注意的问题，那就是该领域对开展研究的思想前提的关注不够，这已经严重地影响到了该领域的深入发展。有学者指出：“我国西方马克思主义研究长期流行的是‘资料评介式’的研究范式。这一研究范式的特点是脱离理论家所处的社会历史条件和文化传统，脱离理论家思想演变的过程，对理论家的思想和理论文本做抽象的解读。其结果是不仅把理论家一生的思想看作是同质性的，而且无法揭示理论家理论建构的现实根源和内在逻辑，对理论家的具体理论观点非常熟悉，却无法真正把握理论家理论建构的真实意图和理论问题，既使西方马克思主义研究者无法把握其内在发展的深层逻辑，也使西方马克思主义研究呈现出越来越实证化、碎片化的特征；不仅无法从整体上把握西方马克思主义发展的内在逻辑，也无法实现西方马克思主义研究与马克思主义发展史研究、中国马克思主义哲学建设和中国现代化实践的有机互动，呈现出就西方马克思主义研究西方马克思主义的结局，无法实现我国西方马克思主义研究的目的。”究其根本，是并没有真正理解和把握国外马克思主义理论研究的前提。（注释略）

(The author is a professor at the School of Marxism, Hainan University)

（作者系海南大学马克思主义学院教授）

Online editor: Zhang Jian

网络编辑：张剑