“Geyi” and “Reverse Geyi”

Around the 1980s, China ushered in an era of “ideological emancipation” in the environment of reform and opening up. The introduction of Western Marxism brought extensive and profound influence to domestic Marxist research. During this period, domestic research on various schools and currents of Western Marxism, whether comprehensive or thematic, shared a common feature: it was subordinate to judgments about the overall nature of Western Marxism and the overall relationship between these schools and currents and Marxism. Consequently, within domestic theoretical circles there always existed a “geyi” [n1] and “reverse geyi” between Marxism based on the Soviet textbook system and Western Marxism. It was precisely this forward or reverse “geyi” that enriched and developed Marxist research in China, opening up new theories, new ideas, and new scholarship in Marxism.

20世纪80年代前后，中国在改革开放的大环境中迎来“思想解放”的时代，西方马克思主义的传入给国内的马克思主义研究带来了广泛而深刻的影响。在这一时期，国内对西方马克思主义各思潮流派的研究，不论是综合性的还是专题性的，都有一个共同特征，即从属于对西方马克思主义的总体性质以及这些思潮流派与马克思主义的总体关系的判断。因而，在国内理论界始终存在着以苏联教科书体系为蓝本的马克思主义与西方马克思主义之间的“格义”与“反向格义”。正是这种正向或反向的“格义”,繁荣和发展了中国的马克思主义研究，开创了马克思主义的新理论、新思想和新学术。

I. The Historical Origins of the Spread of Western Marxism to China

一、西方马克思主义传播到中国的历史缘起

Before reform and opening up, Marxist research in New China was basically dominated by the Soviet textbook system. Domestic theoretical circles generally regarded the numerous Western Marxist currents of the 20th century as bourgeois ideological currents and subjected them to critical study. As early as the 1960s–1970s, works of Western Marxism such as Lukács’s *The Young Hegel* and *Existentialism or Marxism?*, Sartre’s *Critique of Dialectical Reason*, and Merleau-Ponty’s *Adventures of the Dialectic* were translated and introduced into China. However, domestic theoretical circles generally viewed Western Marxism as a revisionist ideological current that was “anti-Marxist,” holding that although this current was seemingly connected to Marxism in countless ways, its essence was a “bourgeois reactionary ideological current.”

在改革开放之前，新中国的马克思主义研究基本是苏联教科书体系一统天下的局面，国内理论界主要是将20世纪众多西方马克思主义思潮视为资产阶级思潮，加以批判性研究。早在20世纪60—70年代，就有诸如卢卡奇的《青年黑格尔》和《存在主义还是马克思主义》、萨特的《辩证理性批判》、梅洛-庞蒂的《辩证法的历险》等西方马克思主义著述被译介到国内。但是，国内理论界普遍将西方马克思主义视为“反马克思主义”的修正主义思潮，认为这一思潮表面上虽然与马克思主义有着千丝万缕的联系，但其实质是“资产阶级的反动思潮”。

The earliest domestic scholar to study Western Marxism was Professor Xu Chongwen. As early as the early 1960s, he introduced the American pragmatist Marxist Sidney Hook to China and translated Hook’s works *Towards the Understanding of Karl Marx*, parts of *From Hegel to Marx*, and parts of *Reason, Social Myths and Democracy*. In addition, Ma Qiaozhi, Ding Xianggong, Xu Maoyong, and others undertook translation, introduction, and research on the works and thought of the French existentialist Marxist Sartre. During this period, the ideas and works of some representative figures of Western Marxism, such as Lukács, also appeared in relevant translated and introductory articles in domestic theoretical circles.

国内最早研究西方马克思主义的学者是徐崇温教授。早在20世纪60年代初，他就将美国实用主义的马克思主义者悉尼·胡克介绍到国内，并翻译了他的《对卡尔·马克思的理解》、《从黑格尔到马克思》(部分)、《理性、社会神话和民主》(部分)等著作。此外，还有麻乔志、丁象恭、徐懋庸等人对法国存在主义的马克思主义者萨特的著作和思想展开译介和研究。在此期间，一些西方马克思主义代表人物如卢卡奇的思想及其著作也出现在国内理论界的相关译介性论文中。

Domestic theoretical circles truly began to research Western Marxism only after the 1978 discussion on the criterion of truth. However, in the preceding period of 1977–1978, Hu Qiaomu presided over the work of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences. Leading comrades of the Party Central Committee requested that the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences provide materials on Western Marxism. This task ultimately fell to Xu Chongwen, who spent several months producing “a set of materials that, after being approved by Qiaomu, was submitted to the Central Committee.” [n2] Subsequently, the West European Bureau of the International Liaison Department of the CPC Central Committee invited Xu Chongwen to lecture on Gramsci, and the Ministry of Education invited him to lecture on Western Marxism at universities in Shanghai, Harbin, and elsewhere. This activity then spread to many universities, Party schools, military academies, and social science research institutions.

国内理论界真正开始对西方马克思主义展开研究是在1978年关于真理标准问题的讨论之后。不过，在此之前的1977—1978年间，胡乔木主持中国社会科学院工作，中央领导同志要求中国社会科学院提供一份有关西方马克思主义的材料，这一任务最后落到徐崇温的肩上，他花了几个月的时间搞了“一份材料在经乔木的首肯后上报中央”。紧接着，中共中央对外联络部西欧局邀请徐崇温讲授葛兰西，教育部邀请他赴上海、哈尔滨等地高校讲授西方马克思主义，随后这一活动又在许多高校、党校、军队院校、社会科学研究机构相继展开。

After 1978, *Philosophical Translations* began to publish a large number of representative papers on Western Marxism. At the same time, domestic researchers began to translate, introduce, and study the currents, schools, representative figures, and writings of Western Marxism. In the late 1970s and early 1980s, a wave of research on Western Marxism arose in China. This research wave echoed the environment of reform and opening up; it was a manifestation of Chinese Marxist theoretical circles opening up to the international community, and a manifestation of Chinese Marxist research breaking free from an overly politicized logic and returning to a normal social and academic ecology.

1978年之后，《哲学译丛》开始大量刊登西方马克思主义的代表性论文。同时，国内研究者开始翻译、介绍和研究西方马克思主义的思潮、流派、代表人物及其著述思想。20世纪70年代末80年代初，国内兴起研究西方马克思主义的热潮，这一研究热潮与改革开放的大环境是相呼应的，是中国马克思主义理论界面向国际社会开放的体现，是中国马克思主义研究摆脱过度政治化的逻辑、向正常的社会和学术生态回归的体现。

II. The Basic Course of Domestic Research on Western Marxism Around the 1980s

二、20世纪80年代前后国内西方马克思主义研究的基本历程

In the late 1970s, when Western Marxism began to spread in China, it directly encountered the orthodox Marxism based on the Soviet textbook system that existed domestically. Therefore, how to grasp the relationship between this current and the Marxist textbook system became the dominant issue in the study of Western Marxism during this period. From this perspective, domestic research on Western Marxism during this period can be roughly divided into four stages.

20世纪70年代末，西方马克思主义开始在中国传播，与它直接发生关系的便是国内以苏联教科书体系为蓝本的正统马克思主义，因而，如何把握这一思潮与马克思主义教科书体系之间的关系，便成为该时期西方马克思主义研究中的主导性问题。所以，从这个视角看，该时期国内的西方马克思主义研究大致可以划分为四个阶段。

(A) The Stage of Textbook-Version Marxism Criticizing or “Geyi-ing” Western Marxism (1978–1982)

(一)教科书版本的马克思主义对西方马克思主义进行批判或“格义”的阶段(1978—1982)

When domestic research on Western Marxism first began, theoretical circles basically criticized it according to the textbook system, using the Soviet version of Marxism to “geyi” (understand and criticize) Western Marxism. At that time, theoretical circles generally regarded Western Marxism as “a bourgeois anti-Marxist revisionist ideological current that emerged in European and American capitalist countries after the October Revolution,” holding that Western Marxism “opposes both the neo-Kantianism of the Second International and the vulgar materialism of the Third International,” and that in analyzing modern capitalism and envisioning socialism, on issues of revolutionary strategy and tactics it put forward “an ideology that offers views differing from Leninism.” This current “confronts Leninism politically” and “opposes dialectical materialism and historical materialism philosophically.”

国内的西方马克思主义研究刚刚起步时，理论界基本上按照教科书体系对其展开批判，用苏联版本的马克思主义来“格义”(认识和批判)西方马克思主义。当时的理论界普遍将西方马克思主义视为“十月革命后，欧美资本主义国家出现的一股资产阶级反马克思主义的修正主义思潮”,认为西方马克思主义“既反对第二国际的新康德主义，又反对第三国际的庸俗唯物主义”,是在分析现代资本主义和展望社会主义时，在革命的战略和策略问题上“提出的不同于列宁主义的见解的意识形态”。这一思潮在“政治上同列宁主义相抗衡”,在“哲学上同辩证唯物主义和历史唯物主义立场相对立”。

At that time, the mainstream domestic view held that although the Western Marxist current “claims to be Marxist,” after the failure of Soviet revolutions in various European countries in the 20th century, it generally proclaimed a “crisis of revolutionary subjectivity,” a “crisis of ideology,” and a “crisis of Marxism,” and moreover held that Lenin’s philosophical thought “merely served to prove an ideology of a particularly crude socialist model developed in the political struggles of the Bolsheviks,” and was therefore a “non-Marxist ideological current.” In addition, Leninism advocates “the principle of partisanship in philosophy,” a theoretical principle Lenin put forward based on Engels’s summary of the basic question of philosophy, focusing on the characteristics of philosophical struggle. But this principle was unacceptable to Western Marxism, which advocated “pluralist Marxism.” The representatives of this current “never concealed their opposition to ‘orthodox’ or ‘classical’ Marxism,” holding that “there is no original, ‘pure’ Marxism, only Marxism that is constantly being created.” Therefore, they were “of course not genuine Marxism,” but an anti-Marxist ideological current.

当时国内的主流观点认为，西方马克思主义思潮虽然“以马克思主义自居”,但在20世纪欧洲各国苏维埃革命失败之后，普遍宣称“革命主观性的危机”“意识形态的危机”“马克思主义的危机”,并且认为列宁哲学思想“只是用来证明布尔什维克政治斗争中发展起来的一种特殊的粗陋的社会主义模式的意识形态”,因而是一种“非马克思主义的思潮”。此外，列宁主义主张“哲学的党性原则”,这一原则是列宁根据恩格斯概括的哲学基本问题，着眼于哲学斗争的特点而提出来的理论原则。但这一原则是西方马克思主义不能接受的，它们主张“多元的马克思主义”,这一思潮的代表人物“从不讳言同‘正统的’或‘经典的’马克思主义的对立”,认为“没有原始的、‘纯粹的’马克思主义，只有不断被创造的马克思主义”,因此，它们“当然不是真正的马克思主义”,而是反马克思主义思潮。

(B) The Stage of Western Marxist Research Breaking Through Textbook-Version Marxism (1982–1987)

(二)西方马克思主义研究突破教科书版本马克思主义的阶段(1982—1987)

In this stage, domestic research began to break through the evaluative system of Soviet textbooks, directly exploring how various representative figures, schools, and currents of Western Marxism understood and grasped Marxism, capitalism, socialism, and revolution.

在这一阶段，国内研究开始突破苏联教科书的评判体系，径直探讨西方马克思主义的诸代表性人物、流派、思潮对马克思主义、资本主义、社会主义以及革命的认识、理解和把握。

During this period, domestic understanding of Western Marxism became more comprehensive and evaluations more balanced. Theoretical circles generally held that Western Marxism is a current that emerged after World War I, developed after World War II, and exerted broad influence in the Western world after the 1960s. This current, “together with its own defects, is a product of the changed capitalist world of the 20th century.”

在这一时期，国内对西方马克思主义的认识更加全面、评价更加公允。理论界普遍认为，西方马克思主义是第一次世界大战后出现、第二次世界大战后获得发展、20世纪60年代后在西方世界产生广泛影响的一种思潮。这一思潮“连同它本身的缺陷，都是20世纪变化了的资本主义世界的产物”。

On the question of whether Western Marxism is Marxism, the domestic theoretical community at this time also began to adopt a cautious attitude. For example, some scholars pointed out that regarding the question of whether Western Marxism is “true Marxism or false Marxism; is it truly, as it claims to be, a Marxism advanced to suit modern industrial society, or is it an anti-Marxism flying the banner of Marxism,” it is temporarily better to “refrain from drawing a conclusion.” [3]3 The term *geyi* (格义) originally refers to a method used in early Chinese Buddhism of matching Buddhist concepts with pre-existing Daoist or Confucian terms to facilitate understanding. Here it is used metaphorically to describe the process of interpreting one theoretical system through the conceptual framework of another. “Reverse geyi” (反向格义) refers to using Western Marxism to critically examine and reinterpret Soviet-style orthodox Marxism. Of course, there were also more positive views, holding that Western Marxism “is not merely a philosophical school” but also “a socialist school,” and “a current of thought opposing capitalism.” The Western Marxist current’s analysis of capitalism, its criticism of the Soviet model, its longing and hope for socialism, and its “rediscovery” of Marxism, “although containing various errors, after all provides extremely valuable intellectual material for modern Western left-wing radical thinkers pondering solutions to the various pressing problems facing contemporary humanity.” Some even argued that “‘Western Marxism’ should occupy its own place in the entire history of the development of Marxism,” and that in a certain sense, Western Marxism could be recognized as “the Marxism of contemporary capitalist society.”

关于西方马克思主义是否是马克思主义的问题，此时国内理论界也开始持有一种审慎的态度。例如，有学者指出，对于西方马克思主义“是真的马克思主义，还是假的?它果真是像其自诩的那样适合现代工业社会的、向前推进了的马克思主义，还是打着马克思主义旗号的反马克思主义”这一问题，暂时还是“不下结论为好”。当然，还有更为积极的观点认为，西方马克思主义“不止是一个哲学流派”,同时“也是一个社会主义流派”,是“一种造资本主义反的思潮”。西方马克思主义思潮对资本主义的分析、对苏联模式的批评、对社会主义的憧憬和希望，以及对马克思主义的“重新发现”等内容，“虽然包含着种种错误，但它毕竟提供了西方现代左翼激进主义者思考解决有关当代人类面临的种种迫切问题的极其有价值的思想资料”。甚至有观点主张，“‘西方马克思主义’应该在整个马克思主义的发展史中占有自己的位置”,在某种意义上，可以承认西方马克思主义是“当代资本主义社会的马克思主义”。

(3) The Stage of Using Western Marxism to Conduct a Reverse “Geyi” of Textbook-version Marxism (1987–1989)

(三)用西方马克思主义对教科书版本马克思主义进行反向“格义”的阶段(1987—1989)

During this period, the domestic theoretical community engaged in a debate and contention over Western Marxist studies that lasted several years and extended to over a dozen newspapers and periodicals, including the *People’s Daily*, and even to the Taiwan region of China. The theoretical community’s understanding of Western Marxism not only began to break through the Soviet textbook system of Marxism, but also gave rise to a “reverse geyi” of Soviet Marxism—that is, a reverse examination, analysis, and criticism of it.

这段时期，国内理论界展开了一场历时数年、扩展到《人民日报》等十多家报刊乃至中国台湾地区的关于西方马克思主义研究的论战和争鸣。理论界对西方马克思主义的理解不仅开始突破马克思主义的苏联教科书体系，而且还出现对苏联马克思主义的“反向格义”,即对其展开反向检视、分析和批评。

The first manifestation of this process of “reverse geyi” was the separation of Western Marxism from Western bourgeois currents of thought and its attribution to the history of the development of Marxism. This view held that the history of the development of Marxism is not merely the history of the writings of “Marx, Engels, Lenin, and Stalin,” but must also reflect “the diversity of the development of Marxism.” “Although conditions for a comprehensive evaluation of ‘Western Marxism’ are not yet mature, it is one form among the manifold forms of modern Marxist development—this much can be affirmed.”

这一“反向格义”进程的第一个表现，就是将西方马克思主义从西方资产阶级思潮中剥离出来，将其归属于马克思主义发展史。这种观点认为，马克思主义发展史不只是“马恩列斯”的著作史，而且还要反映“马克思主义发展的多样性”,“尽管现在对‘西方马克思主义’作出全面评价的条件尚不成熟，但它是现代形形色色的马克思主义发展形式中的一种形式，这是可以肯定的”。

In light of this, some domestic scholars began to explore, from a philosophical height, the contributions Western Marxism had made to the development of Marxism. For example, they used “practice monism” or “practice ontology” to replace “matter monism” or “matter ontology,” so as to reinterpret Marx’s new materialism; again, they used “totality” and “subjectivity” to transform dialectics, or used a dialectics of the subject (or the totality of subject and object) to criticize, negate, and transform Soviet Marxism’s “dialectics of the object,” and so on. Although various schools and currents of Western Marxism attempted to use various schools of contemporary Western philosophy to interpret, develop, supplement, and “integrate” Marxism, thereby potentially deviating from Marxism itself, these domestic studies held that Western Marxism’s reflection on Soviet Marxism and its exploration of the original features of Marxism were highly beneficial for the Chinese theoretical community in liberating itself from the shackles of the Soviet textbook system, returning to the study of the classical Marxist writers, and promoting the transformation and reconstruction of Marxism on the premise of clarifying its foundations.

鉴于此，国内一些学者开始从哲学高度探讨西方马克思主义对马克思主义的发展作出的贡献。例如，用“实践一元论”或“实践本体论”来取代“物质一元论”或“物质本体论”,以重新解释马克思的新唯物主义；又如，用“总体性”和“主体性”来改造辩证法,或者用主体(或主客体的总体)辩证法来批判、否定和改造苏联马克思主义的“客体辩证法”,等等。虽然各种西方马克思主义思潮流派试图用当代西方哲学中的各流派去解释、发挥、补充和“结合”马克思主义，从而有可能背离马克思主义本身，但国内的这些研究认为，西方马克思主义对苏联马克思主义的反思、对马克思主义本来面貌的探索，对于中国理论界从苏联教科书体系的束缚中解放出来，重新回归马克思主义经典作家的研究，推动马克思主义在正本清源的前提下进行变革和重建是很有裨益的。

(4) The Stage of Hesitation, Reflection, and Advance toward “Bidirectional Geyi” in Western Marxist Studies (1989–1991)

(四)西方马克思主义研究的徘徊、反思和走向“双向格义”的前进阶段(1989—1991)

During this period, under the influence of the domestic political disturbance [4]4 This refers to the political unrest that culminated in the and the drastic changes in Eastern Europe and the dissolution of the Soviet Union, domestic Western Marxist studies entered a stage of hesitation, reflection, and advance. At that time, the traditional judgment of Western Marxism in the theoretical community re-emerged, namely, that Western Marxism is not Marxism.

这一时期，由于受到国内政治风波和东欧剧变、苏联解体的影响，国内的西方马克思主义研究处于徘徊、反思和前进的阶段。当时理论界对西方马克思主义的传统判断重新抬头，即认为西方马克思主义并非马克思主义。

This view held that Western Marxism, under the banner of “rediscovering and redesigning” Marxism, was in fact distorting Marxism; that Western Marxism created an opposition between “the early Marx and the late Marx” and between “Marx and Engels, Lenin,” which was in fact a dismemberment of Marxism, an attempt to separate Leninism from Marxism; that although Western Marxism’s critique of contemporary capitalist society was incisive and penetrating, because it fell into abstract theories of human nature, it could not touch the capitalist system, and the “humanized society” it meticulously depicted was nothing but an “idealized, abstracted, and universalized capitalist society”; that Western Marxism’s treatment of contemporary bourgeois intellectual currents as the “sources, supplements, and integrants” of Marxism could only show that it was a theoretical current belonging to the bourgeois category; that one “common feature” of Western Marxism was its separation from the proletariat’s revolution and socialist movement, and that “the focus of discussion also shifted from the political and economic spheres to a focus on the philosophical and cultural spheres,” so that it was “an abandonment of Marxism.” Therefore, Western Marxism was a betrayal and abandonment of Marxism, a “bourgeois ideological current that opposes Marxism under the banner of Marxism.”

这种观点认为，西方马克思主义打着“重新发现、设计”马克思主义的旗号，其实是曲解马克思主义；西方马克思主义制造“早期马克思与晚期马克思”和“马克思与恩格斯、列宁”之间的对立，其实是肢解马克思主义，企图将列宁主义从马克思主义中剥离出来；西方马克思主义对当代资本主义社会的批判虽然深入尖锐，但由于陷入抽象人性论，因而无法触动资本主义制度，他们精心绘制的“人道化社会”无非是“理想化、抽象化和普遍化的资本主义社会”而已；西方马克思主义将当代资产阶级思想流派视为马克思主义的“来源、补充和结合物”,这只能说明它是属于资产阶级范畴的理论思潮；西方马克思主义的一个“共同特征”,就是与无产阶级的革命和社会主义运动相脱离，“讨论的重心也由政治、经济领域转向侧重于哲学、文化领域”,因而它是“对马克思主义的背弃”。所以，西方马克思主义是对马克思主义的背叛和遗弃，是“打着马克思主义旗号，反对马克思主义的资产阶级思潮”。

It was precisely during this period that domestic studies, amid hesitation and reflection, advanced toward the stage of “bidirectional geyi” (the convergence and fusion of Western Marxism and traditional Marxism). Thus, whether it was the “left” judgment of Western Marxism made by the domestic theoretical community in the early 1980s, or the “right” judgment of traditional Marxism made in the mid-1980s, both were subjected to serious reflection during this period. This established the correct attitude and stance for later Western Marxist studies, namely, to study Western Marxism under the premise of “taking Marxism as the guide,” so as to serve the purpose of “our upholding and developing Marxism.”

正是在这一时期，国内研究在徘徊与反思中向着“双向格义”(西方马克思主义和传统马克思主义的汇通与交融)的阶段前进。所以，不论是80年代初期国内理论界对西方马克思主义做出的“左”的判断，还是80年代中期对传统马克思主义做出的“右”的判断，在这一时期都受到严肃的反思，这为后来的西方马克思主义研究确立了正确的态度和立场，这就是在“以马克思主义为指导”的前提下，研究西方马克思主义，以服务于“我们坚持和发展马克思主义”之目的。

III. Domestic Studies of Several Views of Western Marxism in the 1980s

三、20世纪80年代国内对西方马克思主义若干观点的研究

Around the 1980s, domestic studies of Western Marxism mainly placed it within the basic issues of Marxism—such as philosophical world outlook, analysis of contemporary capitalism, critique of Soviet socialism, and longing for or reflection on revolution—in order to grasp and understand this current of thought in its totality, and to attempt to give an overall judgment of it. The numerous domestic studies of various currents, schools, figures, and representative writings and theories of Western Marxism, whether consciously or unconsciously, were subordinate to this overall analysis or judgment.

20世纪80年代前后，国内理论界对西方马克思主义的研究主要是将其放置在哲学世界观、对当代资本主义的分析、对苏联社会主义的批判以及对革命的憧憬或反思等马克思主义的基本议题中，来总体性地把握和认识这一思潮，试图对这一思潮给出总体性的判断。国内关于西方马克思主义的各种思潮、流派、人物及其代表性著述和理论的众多研究，都自觉或不自觉地从属于这一总体性的分析或判断。

(1) Studies of Several Philosophical Issues in Western Marxism

(一)对西方马克思主义中若干哲学问题的研究

As is well known, materialism, dialectics, and the view of practice are the cornerstones of Marxist philosophy; Marxist philosophy is a practical and dialectical materialist philosophy. On issues such as the view of practice, dialectics, and materialism, Western Marxism put forward views different from those of Soviet Marxism, and therefore also had a different understanding and grasp of Marxist philosophy. It was under the inspiration and influence of Western Marxism that the domestic theoretical community re-reflected on the philosophical form of Marxism.

众所周知，唯物论、辩证法和实践观是马克思主义哲学的基石，马克思主义哲学乃是一种实践的、辩证的唯物论哲学。西方马克思主义在实践观、辩证法和唯物论等问题上，都提出了与苏联马克思主义不一样的见解，因而对马克思主义哲学也有着不一样的认识和把握。国内理论界正是在西方马克思主义的启发和影响下，重新反思马克思主义的哲学形态。

1. The Debate on the Western Marxist View of Practice

1.关于西方马克思主义实践观的辩论

One of the fundamental signs distinguishing Marxist philosophy from all previous philosophies is the Marxist principle of practice. Marx himself also called his philosophy “practical materialism.” Precisely because of this, all schools of Western Marxism showed a strong interest in the category of practice, discussing it at great length.

马克思主义哲学区别于以往一切哲学的根本标志之一，就是马克思主义的实践原则。马克思也曾将自己的哲学称为“实践的唯物主义”。正因如此，西方马克思主义的各个流派无不对实践范畴发生了强烈的兴趣，都用大量的篇幅谈论实践。

However, the Western Marxist understanding of the concept or principle of practice differed from that of Soviet Marxism. The most representative view was “practice monism” or “practice ontology,” used to replace “matter monism” or “matter ontology.” For the domestic theoretical community of the 1980s, this view had a strong impact and also triggered a prolonged debate among Marxist researchers.

但是，西方马克思主义对于实践的观念或原则的理解不同于苏联马克思主义，其中最具代表性的观点便是“实践一元论”或“实践本体论”,被用来取代“物质一元论”或“物质本体论”。对于20世纪80年代的国内理论界来说，这种观点是具有强烈冲击力的，也引发了马克思主义研究者的持久论战。

Some domestic scholars believe that Marxism “is able to grasp the unity of the natural world and the human world” because it “takes the viewpoint of social practice as the foundation of its world outlook.” Therefore, Marxist philosophy should be “practice ontology.” However, more scholars have raised objections and refutations to this view. They point out that elevating the principle of practice to the level of ontology and setting the viewpoint of practice in opposition to materialism is tantamount to “fundamentally abolishing the materialism of Marxism.” If “practice is abstractly substantialized, thereby using something like the correlation of subject-object principles to negate the objective existence that is independent of the external world,” and then “asserting that subject and object, matter and spirit are unified in practice, this is in fact merely another formulation of the Hegelian idealist conception of practice.” Therefore, “the Marxist conception of practice takes material monism as its basic premise”; only in this way does Marxism “clearly distinguish itself from all forms of idealism.” The “theoretical cornerstone of Marxism is material monism, not a ‘practice monism’ that transcends the opposition between materialism and idealism.”

国内部分学者认为，马克思主义“之所以能够把握自然世界与属人世界的统一”,关键在于它“把社会实践的观点作为世界观的基础”。所以，马克思主义哲学应当是“实践本体论”。但更多学者对这一观点提出异议与反驳。他们指出，将实践原则上升到本体论的高度，把实践观点和唯物主义对立起来，无异于“从根本上取消马克思主义的唯物主义”,如果“把实践抽象地实体化，从而用主体—客体原则同格之类的东西去否定外部自居的客观存在”,继而“主张主体与客体、物质与精神统一于实践，实际上不过是黑格尔唯心主义实践观的另一种说法而已”。所以，“马克思主义实践观是以物质一元论作为自己的基本前提”,唯其如此，马克思主义“才把自己和那些唯心主义明确区别了开来”。马克思主义的“理论基石是物质一元论，而不是超越唯物主义和唯心主义对立的‘实践一元论’”。

2. An Exploration of the Dialectics of Western Marxism

2.关于西方马克思主义辩证法的探讨

In the mainstream currents of Western Marxism, there is no dialectic of a pure object that lacks the principle of subjectivity; the inner basis of dialectics is subjectivity. Hegel’s dialectic or logic of pure concepts or categories of thought is essentially rooted in the dialectic of the “subject-object” as thought. In the context of Western Marxism, this kind of dialectic is an idealist speculative science; the fundamental contribution of Marxist philosophy lies in its grasping of dialectics within real social existence rather than within conceptual thought.

在西方马克思主义的主流思潮看来，不存在没有主体性原则的纯粹客体的辩证法，辩证法的内在根据就是主体性。黑格尔那种纯粹概念或思维范畴的辩证法或逻辑学在本质上植根于作为思维的“主体—客体”的辩证法。在西方马克思主义的语境中，这种辩证法是一种唯心主义的思辨学，马克思主义哲学的根本贡献就在于，它是在现实的社会存在中而非思维观念中把握辩证法。

The emphasis of Western Marxism on the principle of subjectivity in dialectics stands in opposition to the prominence given by Soviet Marxism to the dialectic of the object. This opposition directly concerns the basic understanding of Soviet Marxism regarding materialist dialectics (world outlook) or the dialectics of nature (view of nature), and it also concerns the basic understanding of Marxist dialectics within domestic theoretical circles.

西方马克思主义对辩证法的主体性原则的强调与苏联马克思主义对客体辩证法的凸显是相互对立的。这一对立直接关系到苏联马克思主义关于唯物辩证法(世界观)或自然辩证法(自然观)的基本理解，关系到国内理论界对于马克思主义辩证法的基本认识。

Influenced by Western Marxism, some domestic scholars believe that the object of dialectics should be “the dialectical relationship and general laws of movement and development between subject and object in practical activity,” rather than “the dialectical relationships among objective things themselves or between things.” Therefore, Marxist dialectics should be “practice dialectics” or “historical dialectics.” However, more domestic scholars believe that this kind of dialectics based on the relationship between subject and object is in fact the “principle of correlation” that Lenin once criticized; it “has a fundamental divergence from the materialist dialectics created by Marx.” Therefore, “Western Marxism’s treatment of the subject-object relationship as the sole factor of dialectics, and its consequent recognition only of the dialectics of social history, is erroneous.” “That kind of dialectics which, departing from the premise of the primacy of matter, elevates pure activity to the absolute and uses ‘predicates’ as the starting point and destination of subject and object, is not the method of Marx’s ‘practical materialism,’ but rather Hegel’s mode of expression.”

国内部分学者受到西方马克思主义的影响，认为辩证法的对象应当是“实践活动中主体与客体的辩证关系和运动发展的一般规律”,而不是“客体事物自身以及事物之间的辩证关系”。因而，马克思主义辩证法应当是“实践辩证法”或“历史辩证法”。但更多国内学者认为，这种以主客体之间关系为基础的辩证法其实是列宁曾经批判过的“原则同格论”,它“与马克思所创建的唯物主义辩证法有着根本的分歧”。所以，“西方马克思主义将主客体关系视为辩证法的唯一因素，并由此只承认社会历史的辩证法，这一思想是错误的”。“那种离开物质第一性的前提，把纯粹活动提升为绝对，用‘谓语’作为主客体出发点和归宿的辩证法，并不是马克思的‘实践唯物主义’的方法，而是黑格尔的表达方法。”

3. Contention over the Materialism of Western Marxism

3.对西方马克思主义唯物论的争鸣

Materialism is the fundamental philosophical stance of Marxism. However, for Western Marxists, Marx’s new materialism is unified under the principle of social or historical practice, not under the principle of objective or self-existent matter. Soviet Marxism, in direct opposition, holds that the primacy and unity of matter are the cornerstone of philosophical materialism, and that the “monism or ontology” of matter is an inherent requirement of philosophical materialism.

唯物论是马克思主义的根本哲学立场。不过，对于西方马克思主义者来说，马克思的新唯物论统一于社会的或历史的实践原则，而不是统一于客观的或自在的物质原则。苏联马克思主义则针锋相对，认为物质的第一性和统一性是哲学唯物论的基石，物质的“一元论或本体论”是哲学唯物论的题中应有之义。

The interpretation by Western Marxism of Marx’s new materialism as a practice ontology directly challenged the Soviet Marxist understanding of Marx’s new materialism as a matter ontology, thus sparking intense debate within domestic theoretical circles in the 1980s.

西方马克思主义对马克思新唯物论的实践本体论的解释直接冲击了苏联马克思主义对马克思新唯物论的物质本体论的理解，因而在20世纪80年代的国内理论界引起激烈的争论。

One domestic view holds that what distinguishes Marx’s new materialism from old materialism is that it realizes a shift from the principle of objectivity of old materialism to the principle of subjectivity of new materialism, “understanding objectivity from the perspective of the principle of subjectivity,” and is therefore a “practical” materialism. Some domestic scholars refute this, arguing: “Practice is always human practice; without humans, there is no human practice. Then humans become the ultimate origin of the world,” which “inevitably leads to idealism.” Western Marxism “extracts the essential part of practice as all objective material activity” and “tamper[s] with the concept of ‘practice,’ turning it into an ‘absolute’ that stands above materialism and idealism,” thereby “revising” Marx’s materialism “into idealism.” They argue that “all materialism asserts that the world is unified in matter,” and Marx’s new materialism cannot deny this in any sense; the “practice monism” or “practice ontology” of Western Marxism is a “‘overcoming’ of materialist monism that falls into idealist spiritual monism,” and is in fact “a modern restoration of Fichte’s subjective idealism.”

国内有一种观点认为，马克思的新唯物论区别于旧唯物论的地方在于，它实现了从旧唯物论的客观性原则向新唯物论的主体性原则的转换，“从主体性原则出发来理解客观性”,因而是一种“实践的”唯物论。有些国内学者对此反驳道，“实践总是人的实践，没有人就没有人的实践，那么，人就成了世界的最终本原”,由此“必然导致唯心主义”。西方马克思主义“抽去实践是一切客观物质性活动的精髓部分”,“把‘实践’概念篡改为凌驾于唯物主义和唯心主义的‘绝对者’”,这是把马克思的唯物主义“修正为唯心主义”。他们认为，“一切唯物主义都主张世界统一于物质”,马克思的新唯物论在任何意义上都不可能否认这一点；西方马克思主义的“实践一元论”或“实践本体论”是“‘克服’了唯物主义的一元论而陷入了唯心主义的精神一元论”,实际上是“费希特主观唯心主义思想在现代的复辟”。

(II) Research on Several Political Issues in Western Marxism

(二)对西方马克思主义中若干政治问题的研究

As we know, from its inception, Western Marxism put forward propositions on political issues that differed from Leninism. Consequently, in its subsequent development, whether in its analysis of Western capitalism, its critique of Soviet socialism, or its hopes or visions for socialism, Western Marxism has differed from Soviet Marxism. Such understandings of Western Marxism have a certain enlightening, referential, and comparative significance for research on such issues within domestic theoretical circles.

我们知道，西方马克思主义在形成之初，就在政治问题上提出了与列宁主义不同的主张。因而，在其后续的发展中，不论是对西方资本主义的分析、对苏联社会主义的批评，还是对社会主义的希望或憧憬，西方马克思主义都与苏联马克思主义存在不同。西方马克思主义的此类认识对于国内理论界关于此类问题的研究是有一定的启发、借鉴和对照意义的。

1. Research on Western Marxism’s Critique of Contemporary Capitalism

1.研究西方马克思主义对当代资本主义的批判

A central theme of Western Marxism is the critique of contemporary capitalist society. For this reason, around the 1980s, some domestic scholars objected to the view that considered the Western Marxist trend as a bourgeois trend, and argued that it was a branch of the broader history of Marxist development. These scholars proposed that the critical analysis of contemporary Western capitalism and industrial civilization by Western Marxism is meaningful and valuable, and pointed out that to develop Marxism, it is necessary to deeply understand contemporary Western society, and “referring to and analyzing the ‘ideological materials provided by Western Marxists’ is one of the necessary pathways.”

西方马克思主义的一项中心议题便是对当代资本主义社会的批判，正因如此，在20世纪80年代前后国内一些学者对于那种将西方马克思主义思潮视为资产阶级思潮的观点提出异议，并认为它是更为宏阔的马克思主义发展史的一个分支。这些学者提出，西方马克思主义对当代西方资本主义和工业文明的批判性分析是有意义和价值的，并且指出，要发展马克思主义，就必须深入认识当代西方社会，而“参考和分析‘西方马克思主义者’提供的思想资料，又是必由途径之一”。

However, the critique of contemporary capitalist society by Western Marxism is no longer based on Marxist political economy; instead, it shifts from political economy back to philosophy, moving toward philosophical critique and socio-cultural critique, and from a critique of the rule of capital to a critique of technological rule. This has been particularly evident in the development of Western Marxism since the late 1930s. Moreover, while criticizing advanced capitalist society, Western Marxism also criticizes the labor theory of value and the theory of surplus value of Marxist political economy, claiming that they are outdated and invalid. This naturally drew criticism from domestic theoretical circles at the time. Domestic scholars believed that such critiques by Western Marxism “replace the critique of the essence of capitalist society with a critique of the forms of expression of the capitalist state, concealing the deep roots of the various chronic ills of capitalist society.” Therefore, the general view in theoretical circles at the time was that many of the critiques of capitalism by Western Marxism were not critiques proceeding from Marxism, and thus could not be considered a strictly Marxist trend of thought.

但是，西方马克思主义对当代资本主义社会的批判不再以马克思主义政治经济学为基础，而是由政治经济学向哲学回归，走向哲学批判和社会文化批判，由资本统治批判走向技术统治批判。这一点在20世纪30年代末以来的西方马克思主义发展中表现得尤其明显。不仅如此，西方马克思主义在批判发达资本主义社会的同时，对马克思主义政治经济学的劳动价值理论和剩余价值理论进行批评，认为它过时和失效了。这一点自然受到当时国内理论界的批判。国内学者认为，西方马克思主义的此类批判其实是“用对资本主义国家表现形式的批判取代对资本主义社会本质的批判，掩盖资本主义社会各种痼疾产生的深刻根源”。所以，当时理论界一般认为，西方马克思主义对资本主义的诸多批判并不是从马克思主义出发进行的批判，因而也算不上严格意义上的马克思主义思潮。

2. Exploring Western Marxism’s Critique of Soviet Socialism

2.探讨西方马克思主义对苏联社会主义的批评

The contradictions and oppositions between Western Marxism and Soviet Marxism are manifested not only in theoretical forms but also in cognitive divergences over the Soviet model of socialism. Around the 1980s, when Western Marxism was introduced to China, it also triggered research within domestic theoretical circles on the analysis and critique of Soviet socialism by Western Marxism.

西方马克思主义与苏联马克思主义之间的矛盾和对立，不仅表现在理论形式上，而且还表现在对苏联社会主义模式的认知分歧上。20世纪80年代前后，西方马克思主义传播到国内，也触发国内理论界就西方马克思主义对苏联社会主义的分析和批判展开研究。

In the 1980s, the critique of Soviet socialism by Western Marxism echoed Gorbachev’s rebellion against the Soviet system, and naturally also impacted the domestic basic understanding of the Soviet Union at that time. Since the drastic changes in Eastern Europe and the disintegration of the Soviet Union had not yet occurred, it was difficult at that time to speak of a post-hoc reflection on the Soviet model. Nevertheless, the analysis and critique of the Soviet Union by Western Marxism did produce a certain impact and influence within domestic theoretical circles. Some domestic scholars offered a relatively positive assessment, arguing that the criticisms of the Soviet Union by Western Marxism “contained many pertinent, well-founded points that hit the mark,” and also raised a series of “issues worthy of discussion,” such as dictatorship and democracy, plan and market, centralization and decentralization, Party and government, leaders and masses, social liberation and human liberation. Other scholars pointed out that “the critique of the real socialism of the Soviet model” was one of the “three major themes” of Western Marxism; they “used speculative language as a weapon to study the new issues raised by the era and to answer the new challenges encountered by socialism,” thereby “bringing new vitality to the socialist movement in the Western world.” However, when Western Marxism habitually “equated ‘real socialism’ with capitalist society, and even with fascist society,” and “labeled it with the term ‘totalitarian society’,” one could only say that “their basic stance and viewpoint for observing socialist society” were fundamentally wrong.

20世纪80年代，西方马克思主义对苏联社会主义的批判与戈尔巴乔夫对苏联体制的反叛相呼应，自然也冲击了当时国内对苏联的基本认知。由于东欧剧变、苏联解体尚未发生，因而这时很难谈得上对苏联模式的事后反思，尽管如此，西方马克思主义对苏联的分析和批判在国内理论界还是产生了一定的冲击和影响。国内有学者对此做出较为积极的评价，认为西方马克思主义针对苏联的批评“有许多是中肯的、有根据的、击中要害的”,也提出了诸如专政与民主、计划与市场、集权与分权、党与政、领袖与群众、社会解放和人类解放等一系列“值得讨论的问题”。也有学者指出，“对苏联模式的现实社会主义的批判”是西方马克思主义的“三大主题”之一，他们“以思辨语言为武器，研究时代提出的新课题，回答社会主义遇到的新挑战”,“给西方世界的社会主义运动带来了新的生机”,然而，当西方马克思主义习惯性地将“‘现实社会主义’与资本主义社会，甚至与法西斯社会相提并论”,并且“冠之以‘极权主义社会’的称谓”时，只能说“它们观察社会主义社会”的基本立场和观点是根本错误的。

3. Understanding Western Marxist Theories on Revolution, Socialism, and Utopia

3.认识西方马克思主义关于革命、社会主义和乌托邦的理论

Another topic of Western Marxism was the prospect of revolution and the reflection on and longing for socialism or utopia. Around the 1980s, domestic discussions on the relevant theories of Western Marxism were also heated. At that time, the attitude within domestic theoretical circles was basically critical, holding that while Western Marxism’s total critique of developed capitalist countries might be philosophically successful, on the political question of “how to change the real world,” this current of thought was unsuccessful.

西方马克思主义的另一项议题就是对革命的展望以及对社会主义或乌托邦的反思和憧憬。20世纪80年代前后，国内对西方马克思主义的相关理论也展开了热烈的讨论。当时国内理论界的态度基本上是批判性的，认为西方马克思主义对发达资本主义国家的总体性批判在哲学上或许是成功的，但在“如何变革现实世界”的政治问题上，这一思潮却是不成功的。

As is well known, Western Marxism emerged in the 1920s on the basis of reflecting on the failure and setback of the spread of the Soviet revolution to Western European countries, and it had a different understanding and consideration of revolution from Leninism. This later gradually formed into the “theory of total revolution” within the Western Marxist camp. This conception of total revolution was once the guiding ideology of some left-wing movements in Western countries before the 1960s. However, with the ebb of the “May Storm” [6]6 The “May Storm” (五月风暴) refers to the widespread student and worker protests and general strike that paralyzed France in May-June 1968. that swept the Western world in 1968, this concept also declined in the political sphere of Western societies. Because Western Marxism moved from a critique of political economy to a critique of philosophy, from a critique of the abstract rule of capital to a critique of the abstract rule of technology, and this critique covered not only Euro-American capitalism but also Soviet socialism, and even scientific socialism itself, it left behind only a pure utopian longing. As some domestic viewpoints pointed out, because Western Marxism moved further and further away from scientific socialism, it could only express a “pessimistic mood of utopian disillusionment” regarding the future.

众所周知，西方马克思主义是20世纪20年代在反思苏维埃革命向西欧各国传播遭遇失败和挫折的基础上产生的，它对革命有着与列宁主义不一样的认识和思考。这就是后来在西方马克思主义阵营中逐渐形成的“总体革命论”。这种总体性的革命观曾经是20世纪60年代之前西方国家一些左翼运动的指导思想，然而，随着1968年席卷西方世界的“五月风暴”的退潮，这一观念在西方社会的政治领域也走向衰落。由于西方马克思主义由政治经济学批判走向了哲学批判，由资本的抽象统治批判走向了技术的抽象统治批判，并且这一批判不仅涵盖了欧美资本主义，而且涵盖了苏联社会主义，甚至包括科学社会主义本身，因而只留下了单纯的乌托邦憧憬。正如国内有的观点所指出的，由于西方马克思主义离科学社会主义越来越远，所以对未来也只能表现出一种“乌托邦幻灭的悲观情绪”。

IV. Several Debates in Domestic Theoretical Circles around the 1980s on the Overall Understanding of Western Marxism

四、20世纪80年代前后国内理论界关于西方马克思主义总体认识的若干争论

A basic feature of domestic Western Marxist studies around the 1980s was the attempt to make an overall judgment on Western Marxism, thereby clarifying in general terms the basic relationship between this current of thought and Marxism. Naturally, different researchers had different judgments on this, and debates and polemics ensued among them. In particular, the debate in 1988 within domestic theoretical circles on the nature of Western Marxism pushed domestic Western Marxist studies from being primarily introductory to primarily focusing on substantive issues.

20世纪80年代前后国内西方马克思主义研究的一个基本特征，就是试图对西方马克思主义做出总体性的判断，从而在总体上明确这一思潮与马克思主义的基本关系。当然，不同的研究者对此有着不同的判断，他们之间自然也就展开了争鸣和论战。尤其是，1988年国内理论界关于西方马克思主义性质问题的争论推动国内西方马克思主义研究由以介绍性研究为主转向以讨论实质性问题为主。

The origin of this discussion was that Du Zhangzhi published articles in journals such as *Modern Philosophy* and *Marxist Studies* criticizing previous domestic research on Western Marxism, and the *People’s Daily* reprinted his articles. Xu Chongwen subsequently published articles in the *People’s Daily*, *Marxist Studies*, and other newspapers and journals to debate with Du and offer a counter-criticism. Subsequently, other scholars successively published articles supporting one side. The *China Daily* (English edition) reported on the debate in detail on October 4 and December 5, 1988, attracting overseas attention, and the Taiwan region of China published *A Collection of Debates on Western Marxism in Mainland China* that year. This debate, which lasted several years, had significance and influence that should not be underestimated for the deepening and expansion of domestic Western Marxist studies.

这场讨论的缘起是，杜章智在《现代哲学》《马克思主义研究》等刊物发表文章，对国内以往的西方马克思主义研究提出批评，《人民日报》转载了他的文章。徐崇温随即在《人民日报》《马克思主义研究》等报刊发文与杜商榷，对之提出反批评。随后，其他一些学者陆续发表文章，对其中一方表示附议。《中国日报》英文版于1988年10月4日和12月5日两次详细报道论战的情况，引起海外关注，中国台湾地区于该年出版了《大陆西方马克思主义争论集》。这场历时数年的争论对国内西方马克思主义研究的深入和拓展有着不可低估的意义与影响。

(I) The Debate on the Question of the Existence of Western Marxism

(一)关于西方马克思主义之存在问题的争论

The direct origin of the debate between Xu and Du was precisely the question of whether the concept of “Western Marxism” was valid, and whether the current of thought of Western Marxism existed.

徐杜之间争论的直接缘起便是西方马克思主义这一概念是否成立的问题，以及西方马克思主义思潮是否存在的问题。

The concept of “Western Marxism” was first proposed by Karl Korsch in his 1930 book *Marxism and Philosophy: The State of the Problem and a Counter-Critique*, referring to another type of Marxism represented by himself and Georg Lukács. Later, Maurice Merleau-Ponty adopted this concept proposed by Korsch in his 1955 *Adventures of the Dialectic* and endowed it with a broader connotation. In 1976, Perry Anderson’s *Considerations on Western Marxism* used this concept in an even broader sense and provided an overall description of the Western Marxist current of thought.

“西方马克思主义”这一概念是由科尔施1930年在《〈马克思主义和哲学〉问题和现状——一个反批判》一书中首次提出来的，其含义是指以卢卡奇和他本人为代表的另一种类型的马克思主义。后来，梅洛-庞蒂在1955年的《辩证法的历险》中承袭了科尔施提出的这一概念，并且赋予其较为宽泛的内涵。1976年佩里·安德森的《西方马克思主义探讨》在更广泛的意义上使用了这一概念，并对西方马克思主义思潮进行了总体性的描述。

On this issue, Du Zhangzhi’s view was that “‘Western Marxism’ is not a concept with a universally accepted and definite meaning abroad”; not only does this concept “fail to reflect the current state of Marxist development abroad,” but it also “confuses Marxism with non-Marxism”; “those who accept this concept are only a very small minority in foreign Marxist studies.” Xu Chongwen, on the other hand, believed that Du Zhangzhi’s statement was somewhat biased. He pointed out that the concept of Western Marxism originated from Korsch, Merleau-Ponty, and Anderson, and already had a specific meaning and reference in Western theoretical circles, and therefore could not be easily dismissed.

对于这一问题，杜章智的观点是，“‘西方马克思主义’在国外并不是一个被人们普遍接受的、有确定涵义的概念”,这一概念不仅“不能反映国外马克思主义发展的现状”,而且还“把马克思主义与非马克思主义混为一谈”,“接受这一概念的人在国外马克思主义研究中只是占极少数”。徐崇温则认为，杜章智的说法有失偏颇。他指出，西方马克思主义的概念是从科尔施、梅洛-庞蒂、安德森那里而来，在西方理论界已经有着特定的含义和指称，因而不能轻易否定。

Du Zhangzhi argued that there simply was no current of thought called “Western Marxism” in Western intellectual circles, because “among those engaged in the study of Marxist theory or those who call themselves Marxists, there are genuine Marxists, some are merely radicals, some are knowledge seekers or fellow travelers of Marxism, and a few are anti-Marxists.” He therefore advocated that it might be better to view these currents of thought as a broader “contemporary Marxism abroad.” Some scholars in theoretical circles agreed with this view, arguing that Western Marxism was a reinterpretation of Marxism along some “unorthodox ideas” and a re-exploration along an “unorthodox line.” Therefore, one should not use a framework to characterize it a priori, but should start from the history of Marxism’s own development and differentiation, combined with the practice of international socialism, to conduct a concrete and comprehensive study of contemporary Western Marxism.

杜章智认为，在西方思想界根本就不存在一个叫作“西方马克思主义”的思潮，因为“在这些从事马克思主义理论研究或者自称马克思主义者的人们当中，有真正的马克思主义者，有的只是激进主义者，有知识的探求者或者马克思主义的同路人，还有少数反马克思主义者”。他因此主张，不妨将这些思潮视为更为宽泛的“当代国外的马克思主义”。理论界有部分学者赞同这一观点，认为西方马克思主义是对马克思主义进行某种“非正统观念”的重新诠释和“非正统路线”的重新探索，因此，不能先入为主地用框架对其定性，而应当从马克思主义自身发展和分化的历史出发，结合国际社会主义实践，对当代西方的马克思主义进行具体而全面的研究。

In response, Xu Chongwen pointed out that the existence of Western Marxism was an objective fact; whether one agreed with the current of thought of Western Marxism was another matter. He argued that whether Western Marxism was described as “anti-Marxist” or as “the modernization of Marxism,” both were somewhat biased. It should be regarded as “a left-wing radical current of thought in Western society that is distinct from Marxism.”

对此，徐崇温指出，西方马克思主义的存在是一个客观事实，至于是否赞同西方马克思主义这一思潮，那是另一回事。他认为，无论把西方马克思主义说成“反马克思主义的”,还是说成“马克思主义的现代化”,都有所偏颇，应当“把它看成一种和马克思主义有区别、西方社会中的左翼激进主义思潮”。

(II) The Debate on the Question of the Nature of Western Marxism

(二)关于西方马克思主义之性质问题的争论

The second issue involved in the Xu-Du debate was the question of the nature of Western Marxism, which was related to the question of the existence of Western Marxism.

徐杜之争涉及的第二个问题便是西方马克思主义的性质问题，这一问题与西方马克思主义的存在问题相关联。

On the question of the nature of Western Marxism, the domestic theoretical circles around the 1980s basically held two opposing views: one was the orthodox concept that believed in the Soviet and Eastern European ideological system, namely, that Western Marxism was a non-Marxist or anti-Marxist trend of thought “wearing the cloak of Marxism,” a revisionist trend of thought of a bourgeois nature; the other was the concept that agreed with some Western New Left thinkers, namely, that Western Marxism was regarded as “Marxism of advanced capitalism,” a form of Marxism manifested in the contemporary Western developed societies.

在西方马克思主义的性质问题上，20世纪80年代前后的国内理论界基本上存在两种相互对立的观点：一种是信奉苏联东欧思想体系的正统观念，即认为西方马克思主义是“披着马克思主义外衣”的非马克思主义或反马克思主义思潮，是资产阶级性质的修正主义思潮；另一种是赞同西方一些新左翼思想家的观念，即将西方马克思主义视为“发达资本主义的马克思主义”,是马克思主义在当代西方发达社会的表现形式。

In Du Zhangzhi’s view, the concept of Western Marxism inherited from Korsch, Merleau-Ponty and Anderson carried a serious Trotskyist tendency. Using this to summarize the full picture of Marxism abroad was obviously a partial generalization, making it difficult to truly present the development status of Marxism abroad. Moreover, he also believed that the so-called early theorists of Western Marxism, such as Lukács, Gramsci and Korsch, were in fact outstanding Marxists and should be separated from the usually so-called Western Marxist camp and classified into the camp of Marxist theorists. In response, Xu Chongwen raised objections. He pointed out that whether Western Marxism is an objective fact of existence and whether this trend of thought is Marxism are two separate questions; acknowledging the existence of Western Marxism does not contradict making a correct evaluation of this trend of thought.

在杜章智看来，传承自科尔施、梅洛-庞蒂和安德森的西方马克思主义概念带有严重的托洛茨基主义倾向，以此来概述国外马克思主义的全貌，显然是以偏概全，很难做到真实呈现国外马克思主义的发展现状。不仅如此，他还认为，卢卡奇、葛兰西和科尔施等所谓西方马克思主义的早期理论家，其实都是杰出的马克思主义者，应当将他们从通常所谓的西方马克思主义阵营中划分出来，归属于马克思主义理论家的阵营。对此，徐崇温提出反驳意见。他指出，西方马克思主义是否是客观的存在事实与这一思潮是否是马克思主义，是两个问题，承认西方马克思主义的存在与对这一思潮做出正确的评价并不矛盾。

Regarding the debate between Xu Chongwen and Du Zhangzhi on the nature of Western Marxism, some scholars pointed out that Du Zhangzhi and others proposed to “scientifically analyze the important representative figures of contemporary Marxism abroad, avoiding ‘self-exaltation’ and ‘only I am Marxist,’ etc., which is undoubtedly reasonable, but they only raised the question, did not solve it,” while Xu Chongwen seemed to have virtually “achieved or nearly achieved what his critics were pursuing.” These scholars partially agreed with Xu Chongwen’s view, believing that Western Marxism is an objectively existing trend of thought, and that this trend of thought is another form of Marxism developed in Western developed capitalist societies.

对于徐崇温和杜章智关于西方马克思主义性质问题的争论，有学者指出，杜章智等人提出要“科学分析当代国外马克思主义的重要代表人物，避免‘唯我独尊’‘唯我独马’等，这无疑是合理的，但他们只是提出了问题，并没有解决问题”,徐崇温则似乎在无形中“达到或者说接近达到其批评者所追求的东西”。这些学者部分赞同徐崇温的观点，认为西方马克思主义是一种客观存在的思潮，这一思潮是在西方发达资本主义社会发展起来的另一种形式的马克思主义。

Regarding this debate, some scholars summarized: “An important reason why the various parties in the current debate have different understandings and evaluations of ‘Western Marxism’ is that the criteria used to determine whether something is Marxism are not unified.” On the surface, this debate is about whether the concept of “Western Marxism” exists or is acceptable; in essence, the focus of the debate is how to characterize the various schools under the name of “Western Marxism” and other unorthodox Marxist schools.

对于这场争论，有学者总结道：“目前争论各方之所以对‘西方马克思主义’有不同的理解和评价，一个重要原因就是用以划分是否是马克思主义的标准不统一。”这场争论表面上是“西方马克思主义”概念是否存在、是否可取的问题，实质上争论的焦点是如何为“西方马克思主义”名下的各流派以及其他非正统的马克思主义流派定性的问题。

(III) The Debate on the Question of Monism and Pluralism in Marxist Research

(三)关于马克思主义研究的一元化和多元化问题的争论

The third issue involved in the Xu-Du debate is whether Marxist research is monistic or pluralistic.

徐杜之争涉及的第三个问题便是马克思主义研究究竟是一元化的还是多元化的问题。

As is well known, Western Marxism is rich in diverse schools, presenting a pluralistic pattern of Marxist research. Therefore, it is difficult to demand that the various schools of this trend of thought provide a consistent interpretation of Marxism. Hence, some viewpoints advocate studying Marxism from a diversity of perspectives. But if so, we inevitably face the following question: can we acknowledge the diversity or pluralistic character of interpretations of Marxism? Is the history of the development of Marxism “a process of ‘single-line transmission’ by a few classic writers and leading figures,” or a process of “one source with many streams” in which various left-wing figures “creatively applied and interpreted Marxism”?

众所周知，西方马克思主义是流派纷呈的，呈现出马克思主义研究的多元化格局，因而我们很难苛求这一思潮的各流派对马克思主义做出一致性的解释。因此，有观点主张，我们应以多样性的视角来研究马克思主义。但如此一来，我们就不得不面临如下问题，即能否承认对马克思主义的解释的多样性或多元化特征?马克思主义发展史到底是“几个经典作家、领袖人物的‘一线单传’的过程”,还是各种左翼人士“创造性地运用和阐释马克思主义的‘一源多流’的过程”?

Regarding such questions, some scholars explicitly advocated that “the plurality of Western Marxist research should be combined with the monism of Marxism itself as a research principle for correctly treating Marxism abroad.” Scholars holding this view believe that since its birth, Marxism has formed a pattern of pluralistic research, but the pluralism of Marxist research, interpretation and application does not mean the pluralism of Marxism itself. There is only one Marxism, which is the revolutionary and liberation theory of the proletariat founded by Marx and Engels and developed and enriched by later communist activists and thinkers. At the same time, the development of Marxism requires pluralistic interpretation, research and application; this is the internal dynamic mechanism of Marxist development. The diversified development of Marxism “is not only manifested in the socialist countries that have successfully seized political power, but also includes the diversified explorations within contemporary capitalist countries.” This requires bringing various research results of Marxism outside the international communist movement into view. Therefore, this view usually opposes using the specific concept of Western Marxism, because if the concept of Western Marxism is used in a pejorative sense, then “orthodoxy” will be regarded as truth, thereby excluding or even suppressing the pluralistic research, interpretation and application of Marxism; if the concept of Western Marxism is used as a commendatory term, then “orthodoxy” will be regarded as a shackle, which will lead to betraying the monism of Marxism.

对于此类问题，有学者明确主张，“应当将西方马克思主义研究的多元性与马克思主义本身的一元性相结合，作为正确对待国外马克思主义的研究原则”。持这种观点的学者认为，马克思主义自诞生之日起，就形成了多元研究的格局，但马克思主义的研究、解释和运用的多元化并不意味着马克思主义本身的多元化。马克思主义只有一个，这就是由马克思恩格斯创立并且为后世的共产主义活动家和思想家所发展、所丰富的无产阶级的革命和解放理论。同时，马克思主义的发展需要多元化的解释、研究和运用，这是马克思主义发展的内在动力机制。马克思主义的多样化发展“不仅体现于成功地夺取了政权的社会主义国家，而且包括当代资本主义国家内的多样化探索”,这就要求将国际共产主义运动之外的各种马克思主义研究成果纳入视野。所以，这种观点通常反对使用西方马克思主义这一特称概念，因为，如果贬义地使用西方马克思主义这一概念，那么就会视“正统”为真理，从而排斥甚至压制对马克思主义的多元化研究、解释和运用；如果将西方马克思主义这一概念作为褒义词使用，那么就会以“正统”为桎梏，从而会导致背叛马克思主义的一元性。

In response, Xu Chongwen raised a different opinion, arguing that on the question of what constitutes Marxism, monism and pluralism cannot coexist. The view that there is a unity between the pluralism of Marxist research and the monism of Marxism itself is itself self-contradictory and conflicting. If so, the monism of Marxism would only be “a false appearance in name only,” and under the test standard of diversity and pluralism, it would be impossible to uphold the unity and truth of Marxism itself.

对此，徐崇温提出不同意见，认为在对待何为马克思主义的问题上，一元论和多元论是不能并存的，那种关于马克思主义研究的多元化和马克思主义本身的一元性之间相统一的观点本身就是自相矛盾和相互冲突的。倘若如此，马克思主义的一元论也只是“一种名存实亡的假象”,而且在多样性和多元化的检验标准下，也无法坚持马克思主义自身的统一性和真理性。

V. Conclusion

五、结 语

In China in the 1980s, various Western trends of thought poured into the country, but only Western Marxism had such a profound connection with Marxism. An important sign of this is that after being introduced into China, Western Marxism indirectly or directly participated in almost all the major ideological discussions of this period, such as the discussions on humanitarianism and alienation, on subjectivity and enlightenment, and on practical materialism and the form of Marxist philosophy.

20世纪80年代的中国，各种西方思潮涌入国门，但其中只有西方马克思主义与马克思主义发生了如此深刻的关联。这一点的一个重要标志，就是西方马克思主义传入中国后，间接或直接参与了这一时期几乎所有的大的思想讨论，诸如人道主义与异化问题、主体性与启蒙问题、实践唯物论与马克思主义哲学形态问题的讨论。

The introduction of Western Marxism into China greatly promoted the ideological emancipation of domestic theoretical circles. On the one hand, its analysis and critique of Western capitalism provided indispensable intellectual resources for domestic theoretical circles at that time to cool down from the flashy “Western learning fever” and “Westernization fever” and to gain an in-depth understanding of the contemporary West. On the other hand, its analysis and critique of Soviet socialism provided reference viewpoints, perspectives and analytical methods for China at that time to reflect on the problems of the Soviet model and to think about the future and destiny of socialism. All this prompted domestic theoretical circles to better understand and reflect on the problems of the Soviet Union and the West, and then to liberate themselves from the dual dogmas of the Soviet model and the Western system, providing a theoretical opportunity for the successful opening up of the Chinese path. (Notes omitted)

西方马克思主义传入中国，极大推动了国内理论界的思想解放。一方面，它对西方资本主义的分析和批判，为当时国内理论界从华而不实的“西学热”和“西化热”中冷却下来，深入认识当代西方提供了必不可少的思想资源；另一方面，它对苏联社会主义的剖析和批评，为当时的中国反思苏联模式的问题和思考社会主义的前途命运提供了可资借鉴的观点、视角和分析方法。这都促使国内理论界更好地认识与反思苏联和西方的问题，继而从苏联模式和西方制度的双重教条中解放出来，为中国道路的成功开辟提供了理论契机。（注释略）

Online editor: Zhang Jian

网络编辑：张剑