Innovating the Research Paradigm of Overseas Marxism

Since the 1980s, the field of overseas Marxism research in China has achieved very fruitful results. As socialism with Chinese characteristics enters the New Era, contemporary overseas Marxism research in China has entered a transitional period, requiring a shift from merely translating, introducing, and analyzing the theories, thoughts, and systems of overseas Marxist scholars to reinterpreting overseas Marxism using the Chinese discourse system, thereby distilling ideas, adopting a problem-oriented approach to systematically elucidate overseas Marxism, and ultimately, with a broad and inclusive vision, presenting to the world research achievements in overseas Marxism based on constructing an independent Chinese knowledge system.

自20世纪80年代以降，我国国外马克思主义研究领域已经取得了非常丰硕的研究成果。随着中国特色社会主义进入新时代，中国当代国外马克思主义研究进入一个转折期，需要从单纯译介和分析国外马克思主义学者的理论、思想、体系，转向用中国话语体系来重新阐释国外马克思主义，从而凝练思想，以问题为导向，系统地阐释国外马克思主义，最终以海纳百川的胸怀，向全世界展现以建构中国自主知识体系为基础的国外马克思主义研究成果。

Bearing a Special Historical Mission

具有特殊历史使命

In the process of reform and opening up, when confronting factors of Western capitalism, translating, introducing, and researching overseas Marxism has had specific historical value. For a long time, while partially upholding the basic ideas of Marxism, overseas Marxism has also vigorously criticized capitalism after the Second World War from both theoretical and practical perspectives. Whether it is Lukács’s critique of reification, Gramsci’s critique of cultural hegemony, or the Frankfurt School’s critique of instrumental reason, these thinkers have in fact targeted the phenomena of inequality, alienation, injustice, and irrationality implicit in capitalism as it entered the stage of finance capitalism and state capitalism. They advocate constructing a more just and more humane social system within capitalist society. In this sense, the study of overseas Marxism possesses a certain historical rationality.

在改革开放进程中面对西方资本主义的因素时，译介和研究国外马克思主义就有着特定的历史价值。长期以来，国外马克思主义在部分秉承马克思主义基本思想的同时，也极力从思想和实践上对第二次世界大战之后的资本主义进行鞭辟入里的批判，无论是卢卡奇的物化批判，还是葛兰西的文化霸权批判，以及法兰克福学派的工具理性批判，实际上这些思想家针对的都是资本主义在进入金融资本主义和国家资本主义阶段之后，对隐含于其中的不平等、异化、不公正、非理性等现象的挞伐，他们宣扬在资本主义社会内部建构一个更为公正、更富有人性的社会体制。在这个意义上，国外马克思主义的研究具有一定的历史合理性。

Thus, for Chinese Marxist researchers at the beginning of reform and opening up, introducing and studying overseas Marxism had two aspects of value and function. On the one hand, theoretically, overseas Marxism research supplemented a very important link in the development of Marxism, namely, the critique of capitalism from within the capitalist mode of production during its contemporary development. This is a perspective that socialist countries external to Western capitalism lack, thereby enriching and expanding the perspectives and scope of Chinese Marxist research. On the other hand, practically, overseas Marxism research helped Chinese people understand the fundamental contradictions inherent in the capitalist mode of production and comprehend its many negative and adverse effects. This enabled people to objectively confront factors of Western capitalism, thereby maintaining a clear mind on how to correctly understand socialism and correctly develop socialism. We could both absorb foreign capital and advanced production experience and remain vigilant against some negative effects in the process of absorption, thus facing Western capitalism with an independent and self-reliant attitude, avoiding sliding toward the direction of wholesale Westernization. In this regard, the earliest scholars to introduce overseas Marxism, such as Xu Chongwen, Yu Wujin, Du Zhangzhi, Chen Xueming, Li Qingyi, and Ou Litong, translated and introduced to us the first generation of overseas Marxist scholars represented by Lukács, Korsch, and Gramsci and their works. They also gradually enabled us to understand and become acquainted with the Frankfurt School constellation represented by Horkheimer, Adorno, Marcuse, Benjamin, Fromm, and others, as well as French Marxist thinkers such as Sartre, Merleau-Ponty, Lefebvre, and Althusser, and analytical Marxist scholars such as Cohen, Roemer, and Elster. The introduction of these works greatly enriched Chinese scholars’ understanding of Marxism and also led us to refocus on some important concepts and ideas of Marx.

由此可见，对改革开放之初的中国马克思主义研究者而言，引介和研究国外马克思主义，具有两方面的价值和功能。一方面，在理论上，国外马克思主义研究补充了马克思主义发展中一个很重要的环节，即在当时资本主义发展过程中从资本主义生产方式内部对资本主义的批判，这是外在于西方资本主义的社会主义国家所不具备的角度，从而可以丰富和发展中国马克思主义研究的视角和范围。另一方面，在实践上，国外马克思主义研究可以帮助中国人理解资本主义生产方式所具有的基本矛盾，了解其带来的诸多消极和负面效应，这使人们客观面对西方资本主义因素，从而在如何正确认识社会主义、正确发展社会主义的问题上保持清醒的头脑。我们既可以吸收外来的资金和先进的生产经验，也可以在吸收的过程中对一些负面效应保持警醒，从而以独立自主的态度面对西方资本主义，避免滑向全盘西化的方向。在这方面，最早引进国外马克思主义的徐崇温、俞吾金、杜章智、陈学明、李青宜、欧力同等学者，向我们翻译和介绍了以卢卡奇、柯尔施、葛兰西为代表的第一代国外马克思主义学者及其著作，也逐渐让我们认识和了解了以霍克海默、阿多诺、马尔库塞、本雅明、弗洛姆等人为代表的法兰克福学派群星，还有萨特、梅洛-庞蒂、列斐伏尔、阿尔都塞等法国马克思主义思想家，以及柯亨、罗默、埃尔斯特等分析马克思主义学者。这些著作的引入，极大丰富了中国学者对马克思主义的理解，也让我们重新关注了马克思的一些重要概念和思想。

In the subsequent thirty years, overseas Marxism research achieved rapid development. More schools and scholars’ works were introduced, and more young scholars participated in overseas Marxism research. In this process, China’s overseas Marxism research exhibited new characteristics.

在随后的三十年里，国外马克思主义研究取得快速发展，更多流派和学者的著作被引介过来，更多青年学者参与到国外马克思主义研究中。在这个过程中，我国的国外马克思主义研究呈现出新的特点。

On the one hand, overseas Marxism research expanded from the study of individual figures to the study of lineages, countries, and schools. It can be said that overseas Marxism research was no longer limited to introducing the core concepts, major works, and ideological systems of single individuals, but rather examined the development of overseas Marxism from different schools and countries. From the most influential Frankfurt School to the Birmingham School of British cultural Marxism studies, from French Marxism to Italian Marxism, and even Marxist studies from other non-Western countries such as Eastern European Marxism and Japanese Marxism flourished during this period. Undoubtedly, these studies are very valuable. The translation, introduction, and interpretation of these overseas Marxisms allowed Chinese scholars to more comprehensively understand the development process of Marxism worldwide and also provided richer references for Marxist research under socialism with Chinese characteristics.

一方面，国外马克思主义研究从个别人物扩展到线索、国别、流派的研究。可以说，国外马克思主义研究不仅仅限于介绍单个人的核心概念、主要著作和思想体系，更是从不同的流派和国家来审视国外马克思主义发展。从最富有影响力的法兰克福学派，到英国文化马克思主义研究的伯明翰学派，从法国马克思主义到意大利马克思主义，甚至东欧马克思主义、日本马克思主义等其他非西方国家的马克思主义研究也在这个时期兴盛起来。毫无疑问，这些研究是非常具有价值的，对这些国外马克思主义的译介和阐释，让中国学者可以更为全面地理解马克思主义在全世界范围内的发展历程，也为中国特色社会主义下的马克思主义研究提供了更为丰富的参考。

On the other hand, overseas Marxism research increasingly focused on problems brought about by the development of Western capitalism, such as ecological issues, gender issues, colonial issues, and political issues. This gave rise to a series of new research fields in overseas Marxism, such as ecological Marxist studies, postcolonial Marxist studies, and feminist Marxist studies. These new fields of overseas Marxism, focusing on practical problems arising in the development of capitalism, also provided some reflections for China to avoid certain developmental risks in the process of reform and opening up.

另一方面，国外马克思主义研究越来越关注一些西方资本主义发展带来的问题，如生态问题、性别问题、殖民问题、政治问题等。由此也衍生出一系列国外马克思主义新的研究领域，如生态马克思主义研究、后殖民马克思主义研究、女性主义马克思主义研究等。这些国外马克思主义新的领域，聚焦于一些在资本主义发展中产生的实际问题，也为中国在改革开放进程中规避一些发展上的风险提供了一定思考。

Current Problems Faced

当前面临的问题

Of course, after more than thirty years of development, China’s overseas Marxism research has also exposed a series of problems. Today, in establishing a discourse system, a narrative system, and even constructing an independent Chinese knowledge system, we need to rethink many ideas and systems of overseas Marxism based on China’s specific realities, thereby opening up a new realm and a new situation for China’s overseas Marxism research.

当然，在经过三十余年的发展之后，我国的国外马克思主义研究也暴露出一系列问题。今天中国在建立话语体系、叙事体系乃至建构中国自主知识体系上，需要我们基于中国的具体实际来重新思考国外马克思主义诸多思想和体系，由此开辟我国国外马克思主义研究的新境界和新局面。

First, because early overseas Marxism research mostly focused on introduction and translation, it led to a phenomenon of emphasizing texts and ideas while neglecting their underlying historical dimension. However, as Marx emphasized in *The German Ideology*, social being determines social consciousness. The thinkers of overseas Marxism were not religious prophets or theoretical geniuses; the works they wrote and the ideas they proposed were all answers to problems arising at specific historical stages of capitalist development.

首先，由于早期的国外马克思主义研究大多以引介为主，导致重视文本和思想，忽视其背后历史维度的现象。然而，正如马克思在《德意志意识形态》中强调的那样，社会存在决定社会意识。国外马克思主义的思想家们并不是什么宗教先知，也不是理论上的天才，他们撰写的著作、提出的思想，都是针对资本主义发展到一定历史阶段上出现的问题而给出的解答。

For example, when the Frankfurt School’s Horkheimer and Adorno criticized capitalist instrumental reason, they were actually representing the tendency in Western capitalism of the 1950s and 1960s to instrumentalize the proletariat, thereby erasing the meaning of workers’ existence within the highly automated production system of Fordism. Similarly, in *One-Dimensional Man*, Marcuse examined the state of human existence under the technological governance of Western capitalism brought about by scientific and technological development. Because humans were integrated into a highly technical production system, ordinary people—whether workers on the production floor or white-collar workers in offices—could not reflect on or critique the capitalist industrial system, thus moving toward a one-dimensional dimension, allowing human laborers only to unidimensionally submit to the capitalist mode of production.

例如，当法兰克福学派的霍克海默和阿多诺在对资本主义的工具理性进行批判时，实际上代表了20世纪五六十年代西方资本主义存在着将无产阶级工具化的倾向，从而抹除了在福特制的高度自动化的生产体制中工人的存在意义。同样，在《单向度的人》中，马尔库塞考察了科技发展带来的西方资本主义技术治理下人的存在状况，由于人类被整合到高度技术化的生产体系之中，普通人（无论是生产车间的工人或办公室的白领）都无法对资本主义工业体系做出反思和批判，从而走向了单向度的维度，让人类劳动者只能单向度地服从资本主义的生产方式。

In other words, almost all overseas Marxist thinkers did not construct visions of a future society in their studies using their own speculation and utopian fantasies, but rather delved into the interior of the actual capitalist mode of production to provide their own answers. It was precisely because Baudrillard saw capitalism’s domination and control over ordinary people, shifting from the sphere of production to the sphere of consumption, that he wrote *The Consumer Society*. It was precisely because Foster saw capitalism’s exploitation of nature, breaking nature’s own process of material exchange, that he could write *Marx’s Ecology*. If, when introducing these overseas Marxisms, we neglect their specific historical backgrounds and only engage in literal analysis from text to text, it may be a case of buying the casket but returning the pearl. [1]1 “Buying the casket but returning the pearl” (买椟还珠) is a Chinese idiom from *Han Feizi*, referring to someone who, attracted by the ornate box, returns the valuable pearl inside—i.e., missing the essential point by focusing on superficial details.

换言之，几乎所有的国外马克思主义思想家都不是在书斋里用自己的思辨和空想来构想未来社会的大厦，而是深入到现实的资本主义生产方式内部，给出自己的解答。鲍德里亚正是看到了资本主义对普通人的支配和统治，从生产领域转向消费领域，才写下了《消费社会》。福斯特正是看到了资本主义生产对自然的盘剥，打破了自然本身的物质交换过程，才能写下《马克思的生态学》。如果我们在引介这些国外马克思主义的时候，忽略了其特定的历史背景，仅从文本到文本做字面上的解析，那可能只是一种买椟还珠式的行为。

Secondly, when we read the texts of foreign Marxism, we also need to see the limitations in their modes of discourse. Although most foreign Marxist scholars are very familiar with Marx’s works, especially Marx’s *Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844*, *Grundrisse*, *Capital*, and other works, most of them approach these texts through a Western ideological discourse, and can thus only express Marx as filtered through these discourses in the language they are familiar with.

其次，我们在阅读国外马克思主义的文本时，也需要看到他们在话语方式上的局限性。尽管大部分国外马克思主义学者都十分熟悉马克思的著作，尤其十分熟悉马克思的《1844年经济学哲学手稿》《政治经济学批判大纲》《资本论》等著作，但他们大多是以一种西方意识形态话语的方式来进入的，从而只能通过他们熟悉的话语来表述经过这些话语过滤后的马克思。

For example, Erich Fromm was a psychoanalyst. To a certain extent, he was simultaneously influenced by psychoanalytic discourse and Western humanitarian ideology. After reading Marx’s *Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844*, he wrote the book *Marx’s Concept of Man*. In this work, Fromm indeed offers a number of insightful views and ideas. However, when he understood the concept of man from a Western-style discourse, setting up the Marx of the *Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844* as “the young Marx of humanist anthropology” in opposition to the “old” Marx centered on *Capital*, he imported this Western humanist discourse into Marxism, thereby severing the internal connections within Marx’s thought and setting up an opposition between “two Marxes.”

例如，弗洛姆是一位精神分析师，在一定程度上，他同时受到精神分析话语和西方人道主义意识形态的影响，他在阅读了马克思的《1844年经济学哲学手稿》之后，撰写了《马克思关于人的概念》一书。在这本著作中，弗洛姆的确给出了不少富有洞见的观点和思想。但是当他从一种西方式话语来理解人的概念，将《1844年经济学哲学手稿》中的马克思树立为“青年时代的人学的马克思”，从而对立于以《资本论》为中心的“老年”马克思时，他就将这种西方人学话语带入马克思主义之中，从而割裂了马克思思想中的内在联系，将“两种马克思”对立起来。

The reason such a misreading arises is precisely that foreign Marxist scholars like Fromm adopted a humanist ideology that was mainstream in Western society at the time. They whitewashed Marx himself as a master of “humanist anthropology,” thereby creating distance from the Marx of historical materialism. If China’s foreign Marxist studies do not pay attention to this, neglecting the influence of Western ideological discourse on foreign Marxist studies, then it becomes very easy to accept all these ideas indiscriminately as correct, leading foreign Marxist studies astray.

之所以会产生这样的误读，恰恰在于弗洛姆等国外马克思主义学者采用的就是一种当时在西方社会中占据主流的人学意识形态，他们将马克思本人粉饰为一种“人学”大师，从而与历史唯物主义的马克思拉开了距离。如果我国的国外马克思主义研究对此不加注意，忽略了其中西方意识形态话语对国外马克思主义研究的影响，那么就很容易不加甄别地将这些思想全部当作正确的东西加以接受，使国外马克思主义研究走向歧途。

Vertical Research and Horizontal Research

纵向研究和横向研究

In fact, China’s foreign Marxist studies can be seen as composed of the vertical axis and horizontal axis of a Cartesian coordinate system, which constitutes the vertical research and horizontal research of China’s foreign Marxist studies.

实际上，我国的国外马克思主义研究可以看成是由一个直角坐标系的纵轴和横轴组成的，这构成了我国国外马克思主义研究的纵向研究和横向研究。

First, regarding vertical research: for Chinese Marxist scholars, what we need to understand is that previous research has more often thought about the theories and ideas of foreign Marxism from a vertical research perspective of a given period and country. We have introduced some thinkers and then placed them in different countries and schools, such as German Marxism, French Marxism, Italian Marxism, British Marxism, American Marxism, etc. The advantage of such research is that it facilitates a detailed analysis and differentiation of different types, different ethnicities, and different countries of Marxism from a genealogical perspective. However, it very easily severs the internal connections between different countries and regions, and also neglects the horizontal influence of some foreign Marxist thinkers.

首先，在纵向研究上，对中国的马克思主义学者而言，我们需要理解的是，之前的研究更多是从一个时期和国别的纵向研究来思考国外马克思主义的理论和思想，我们引介了一些思想家，然后将他们放在不同的国别和流派之中，如德国马克思主义、法国马克思主义、意大利马克思主义、英国马克思主义、美国马克思主义等。这样研究的优点在于，便于从谱系学的角度对不同类型、不同民族、不同国家的马克思主义做一个详细的分析和区别，但很容易割裂不同国家和区域之间的内在联系，也忽略了一些国外马克思主义思想家的横向影响力。

Secondly, although China’s foreign Marxist studies have already achieved very fruitful results in vertical research, in previous research we have overlooked the fact that foreign Marxism also possesses a horizontal dimension. Therefore, today we introduce a horizontal axis for foreign Marxist studies, that is, within the coordinate system of the Chinese discourse system, to construct Chinese-style questions, adopt Chinese conceptual systems and discourse systems, and thereby reconfigure the horizontal research of China’s foreign Marxist studies. In any case, China’s Marxist researchers stand on the soil of socialism with Chinese characteristics. The perspective from which we think about issues of foreign Marxism is a Chinese-style perspective; the discourse we use is also Chinese-style discourse; the concepts we employ are also Chinese-style concepts. Today, the theories and ideas displayed by foreign Marxism all need to be reinterpreted under the framework of constructing an independent Chinese knowledge system. We need to understand and think about the intellectual nourishment brought to us by foreign Marxism against the backdrop of today’s questions of China, questions of the world, questions of the people, and questions of the era, transforming their insights into the energy of adapting Marxism to the Chinese context, thereby contributing to the construction of socialism with Chinese characteristics for a New Era.

其次，尽管我国的国外马克思主义研究在纵向研究上已经取得了非常丰硕的成果，但在以往的研究中，我们忽视了国外马克思主义还存在着一个横向研究。所以，在今天为国外马克思主义研究引入一个横轴，即在中国话语体系的坐标系中，建构中国式的问题，采用中国的概念体系和话语体系，来重新架构我国国外马克思主义研究的横向研究。无论如何，我国的马克思主义研究者都是站在中国特色社会主义这片大地之上，我们思考国外马克思主义问题的视角就是中国式视角，我们言说的话语也是中国式话语，使用的概念也是中国式概念。今天，国外马克思主义所展现的理论和思想，都需要在建构中国自主的知识体系下进行重新解读，我们需要在今天的中国之问、世界之问、人民之问、时代之问的大背景下，来理解和思考国外马克思主义为我们带来的思想营养，将他们的洞见转化为中国化马克思主义的能量，从而为新时代中国特色社会主义建设作出贡献。

Constructing an independent Chinese knowledge system requires delving deeply into China’s concrete realities and deeply into fine traditional Chinese culture. This requires Chinese Marxist scholars to discover problems in China’s concrete realities, draw on the resources of fine traditional Chinese culture, and use our own problem consciousness and discourse methods to rethink the issues of foreign Marxism. For example, when we discuss the digital economy and digital empowerment, it is very easy to associate them with some critical achievements of foreign Marxism, such as the works of Marcuse, Stiegler, David Harvey, and others. But our study of them is not about blindly following their tone and uncritically condemning digital technology and the digital economy. Rather, it is based on China’s position and discourse, thinking about the enormous transformations brought by the digital economy, avoiding new inequalities and injustices brought by capital monopoly, and allowing the digital economy to bring more benefits to the economy, society, and all the people.

建构中国自主的知识体系需要深入我国的具体实际、深入中华优秀传统文化中。这就需要中国的马克思主义学者在我国的具体实际中发现问题，借用中华优秀传统文化的资源，运用我们自己的问题意识和话语方式重新思考国外马克思主义的问题。例如，当我们谈论数字经济和数字赋能时，很容易联系到国外马克思主义的一些批判性成果，如马尔库塞、斯蒂格勒、大卫·哈维等人的成果。但我们对他们的研究，并不是一味跟随他们的口吻不加辨别地批判数字技术和数字经济，而是基于中国的立场和话语，思考数字经济带来的巨大变革，避免资本垄断带来新的不平等和不公正，让数字经济为经济社会和全体人民带来更多的福利。

In this sense, starting from the height of constructing an independent Chinese knowledge system, we can re-understand and reinterpret foreign Marxism. On the one hand, this means transforming the former problems of foreign Marxism’s critique of capitalism into effective components for constructing an independent Chinese knowledge system, thereby providing richer intellectual material for research in fields such as philosophy, sociology, political science, and communication studies under an independent Chinese knowledge system. On the other hand, constructing an independent Chinese knowledge system also represents the academic confidence and intellectual confidence of Chinese scholars. At the same time, it means absorbing broad foreign Marxist thought, basing ourselves on China’s concrete realities, achieving high-quality and high-level intellectual transformation, providing effective intellectual impetus for advancing the development of China’s digital society and intelligent society, realizing a two-way cycle of human thought and social construction, and laying a creative foundation for the practice of building a community with a shared future for mankind.

在这个意义上，从建构中国自主的知识体系这个高度出发，重新理解和阐释国外马克思主义。一方面，是将曾经的国外马克思主义对资本主义批判的问题加以转化，成为建构中国自主知识体系中的有效组成部分，从而为建构中国自主知识体系下的哲学、社会学、政治学、传播学等领域研究提供更丰富的思想素材。另一方面，建构中国自主的知识体系也代表着中国学者的学术自信和思想自信，同时意味着通过吸收广博的国外马克思主义思想，立足于中国具体实际，实现高质量和高水平的思想转化，为推进中国数字社会和智能社会的发展提供有效的思想动力，实现人类思维和社会建设的双向循环，为构建人类命运共同体的实践奠定创造性的基础。

(The author is a professor at the Center for Studies of Marxist Social Theory, Nanjing University)

（作者系南京大学马克思主义社会理论研究中心教授）

Online editor: Tongxin

网络编辑：同心