The Paradigm Shift in Overseas Marxist Studies

Since the advent of the New Era, as a series of new achievements have been made in the theory and practice of contemporary Chinese Marxism, the study of contemporary Chinese Marxism has increasingly highlighted its world significance and human value, thereby greatly enhancing the theoretical confidence and academic sense of mission in theoretical research. In the study of overseas Marxism in contemporary China, the demarcation of a new historical orientation and the summons of the mission of the New Era urge and inspire scholars to comprehensively summarize and reflect on the experience and problems of overseas Marxist studies, trace the history of overseas Marxist studies, focus on the issue of paradigm shifts, and propose views including "the theory of contemporary significance," "the theory of problem orientation," "the theory of center shift," "the theory of role transformation," and "the theory of disciplinary boundary breaking." Although these views differ in emphasis and expression, the core consensus is to emphasize that overseas Marxist studies in the New Era must actively break through the limitations and bottlenecks of previous research paradigms, and while promoting the sustainable development of the discipline, better serve the development of contemporary Chinese Marxism through a new paradigm shift. The aforementioned paradigm shift has already moved from a call to reality, and is in a state of ongoing progress and generation as it shares the fate of the times and integrates with practice. It is mainly manifested in the following aspects: in terms of theoretical content, shifting from data translation and introduction research to genealogical research tracing logical threads; in terms of research methods, shifting from textual analysis and evaluation research to theoretical system construction research; in terms of value orientation, shifting from object-oriented research focused on drawing direct experience to subjective research that returns to Marxist classics and highlights Chinese significance.

新时代以来，随着当代中国马克思主义理论与实践取得一系列新成就，当代中国马克思主义研究愈发凸显世界意义与人类价值，由此，大大增强了理论研究的学理自信与学术使命感。在当代中国的国外马克思主义研究中，新历史方位的界划、新时代使命的召唤，鞭策与激励着学者们从整体上总结反思国外马克思主义研究的经验与问题，回溯国外马克思主义研究的历史，关注研究范式转换的问题，提出包括“当代意义论”“问题导向论”“中心转换论”“角色转变论”“学科破壁论”等观点。这些观点虽侧重点与表达方式不尽相同，但核心共识在于强调国外马克思主义研究在新时代要主动突破以往研究范式的局限与瓶颈，在推动学科可持续发展的同时，更好地为发展当代中国马克思主义服务的新范式转向。上述范式转向已然从呼吁成为事实，在与时代共命运、与实践相交融中处于进行时、生成阶段，主要表现为：在理论内容方面，从资料译介式研究转向追溯逻辑理路的谱系式研究；在研究方法方面，从文本评析式研究转向理论体系建构式研究；在价值旨归方面，从汲取直接经验为主的对象式研究转向回归马克思主义经典、凸显中国意义的主体性研究。

I. Shifting to Genealogical Research Tracing Logical Threads

一、转向追溯逻辑理路的谱系式研究

The attributes and characteristics of the object of overseas Marxist studies determine that a large amount of timely translation and introduction is a basic requirement for research. "To understand a thing is to objectify it, and only then is it possible to correctly understand it." [1]1 This is a paraphrase of a common epistemological principle in Marxist philosophy, emphasizing the need to objectify a thing for study before it can be correctly understood. The introductory translation of overseas Marxist trends of thought, their representative figures, and main viewpoints is a prerequisite for deepening research on theoretical logic, patterns of thought, ideological inspiration, and value significance, and runs through the entire history of overseas Marxist studies. The translation, introduction, and presentation of materials not only serve as knowledge preparation in the initial stage of research, but also, as the research object grows with the times and the level of research improves, this data translation and introduction research exhibits new features such as scale, precision, and timeliness. New works, new documents, and new viewpoints can be transmitted and exchanged more promptly and effectively through translation and introduction, and some classic texts can be refined and optimized in the process of retranslation and republication, laying a solid foundation for the in-depth development of research. For example, regarding the criticism by Western left-wing scholars of the maladies of the capitalist system involved in epidemic prevention and control, the academic community was able to quickly capture, translate, and introduce these views, and actively engage in theoretical dialogue, providing timely theoretical feedback around keywords and core issues such as "state of exception," "biopolitics," "ecological balance," and "digital society," offering theoretical perspectives for analyzing and solving real-world social problems, gradually deepening into systematic thinking on related issues and their theoretical foundations. Another example is the retranslation and republication of classic texts such as *Negative Dialectics* and *One-Dimensional Man*, and the translation and introduction of texts such as Srnicek's *Platform Capitalism* and Rosa's *The New Alienation: An Outline of the Critique of Social Acceleration Theory*, which help us grasp the latest developments in overseas Marxist trends of thought more accurately and promptly, providing translated materials for research, enabling research to keep pace with international frontiers, quickly focus on academic hotspots, and expand the space of theoretical discourse.

国外马克思主义研究对象的属性与特征决定了大量且及时的翻译引介是研究的基础要件。“要认识一个事物，就是要把这个事物对象化，然后才有可能正确地认识它”。国外马克思主义思潮及其代表人物、主要观点的资料性引介是深化理论逻辑、思维规律、思想启示、价值意义研究的前提，贯穿于国外马克思主义研究史全过程。资料性的引译、介绍不仅作为知识准备而充斥于研究的起步阶段，同时，这种资料译介式的研究也随着研究对象与时俱进的增长与研究水平的提升体现出规模化、精准化、及时性等新特征，相关新论著、新文献、新观点通过译介能够愈发及时且有效地得到信息传递与交流，也使一些经典文本在重译、再版的过程中得以精进优化，为研究的纵深发展奠定坚实的基础。比如关于西方左翼学者对疫情防控背后所涉资本主义制度弊病的批判，学界能够迅速捕捉、引译，并积极展开理论对话，围绕“例外状态”“生命政治”“生态平衡”“数字社会”等关键词与核心问题进行及时的理论反馈，为分析与解决现实社会问题提供可供借鉴的理论视角，逐渐由此深入到系统化思考相关问题及其学理依据当中；再如《否定辩证法》《单向度的人》等经典文本的重译再版，斯尔尼塞克《平台资本主义》、罗萨《新异化的诞生：社会加速理论批判大纲》等文本的翻译引介，帮助我们更加准确及时地把握国外马克思主义思潮的最新发展，为研究提供译介材料，使研究能够紧跟国际前沿、迅速聚焦学术热点、拓展理论话语空间。

However, data translation and introduction research remains primarily a form of knowledge transfer. Although the selection of materials and translation can reflect the researcher's subjective consciousness, because the core of translation lies in fidelity to the original text and meaning, it cannot directly achieve the research goal and value orientation of "taking me as the master and using it for my purposes." [2]2 "以我为主，为我所用" (yǐ wǒ wéi zhǔ, wèi wǒ suǒ yòng) is a Chinese idiom meaning "taking oneself as the master and using [things] for one's own purposes," often used to describe a proactive and selective approach to adopting foreign ideas or practices. At the same time, what has already raised alarm in the academic community is that behind the current flourishing development of overseas Marxist trends of thought, there is a tendency to deviate from the basic principles of Marxism, exhibiting characteristics such as instrumentalization, fragmentation, superficiality, atomization, and deconstructionism. Consequently, theoretical screening of the significance of translated objects has become an important issue that cannot be ignored at present. Furthermore, the enhancement of subjective consciousness has also made scholars increasingly aware of the importance of shifting research paradigms. Therefore, object-oriented data translation and introduction cannot meet the need for in-depth concern and theoretical judgment of the value and significance of research. Only by conducting historical and theoretical research that traces logical threads around core issues can the specific theoretical significance of the research object for the subject be judged. This has driven the shift in overseas Marxist studies from data translation and introduction research to genealogical research that traces logical thread relationships. Compared with the previous point-based research characteristic that focused on describing and interpreting a specific ideological content, the latter places greater emphasis on problem-oriented thinking and grasping the relevant theoretical genealogy and the internal logical threads of theoretical development. This shift can be understood from two aspects.

然而，资料译介式研究仍然主要以知识搬运为主，虽然在选择材料与翻译中能够体现出研究者的主体意识，但由于翻译的核心在于忠于原文原义，因而无法以此直接达到“以我为主，为我所用”的研究目标与价值旨归。同时，已引起学界警觉的是，国外马克思主义思潮在当下繁荣发展的景象背后有部分背离马克思主义基本原理的倾向，呈现工具化、分散化、表象化、碎片化、解构主义色彩等特征。于是，对译介对象展开研究意义的理论甄别成为当下不可忽视的一个重要问题。除此之外，主体意识的增强也使学者们越发意识到研究范式转向的重要性。因此，对象性的资料引译无法满足对研究价值意义的深入关切与理论研判的需要，只有围绕核心问题展开逻辑理路追溯的史论研究，才能判断研究对象之于主体的具体理论意义。由此，便推动了国外马克思主义研究从资料译介式研究向追溯逻辑理路关系的谱系式研究转向。比起以往注重对某一具体思想内容进行描述解读的点位式研究特征，后者更加注重以问题为导向，思考与把握相关理论谱系以及理论发展内在逻辑理路。这一转向可以从两个方面加以认识。

On the one hand, overseas Marxist studies increasingly emphasize comparative research that revolves around main issues, sorts out theoretical relationships, clarifies theoretical perspectives, and identifies the value and significance of research. As the research materials for overseas Marxist studies become increasingly abundant, and as real-world social issues become complex, intertwined, and rapidly changing, merely translating and introducing the works and viewpoints of overseas Marxism can no longer meet research needs or the requirement of integrating theory with practice. Guided by a problem-oriented theoretical self-awareness, scholars are paying more attention to critically understanding the frontier issues and contemporary value of overseas Marxist studies through the sorting out of internal theoretical relationships. For example, in the study of biopolitics, scholars conduct critical comparative analyses of the biopolitical critical theories of figures such as Foucault, Agamben, Virno, Hardt, and Esposito, revealing the theoretical relationships among them. Based on this, they propose the insights and theoretical limitations of the overseas Marxist trend of biopolitical criticism for thinking about the contemporary capitalist political crisis and the political condition and mode of political existence of people. In terms of theoretical genesis, some scholars have suggested that the biopolitical criticism of contemporary left-wing scholars is one of the products of criticism of neoliberalism, directly inheriting the intellectual legacy of the late Foucault and continuing his genealogical diagnosis of contemporary Western social governance techniques. In terms of theoretical direction, some scholars have pointed out that the two directions of power control and productive resistance are two ways in which contemporary left-wing scholars grasp the current state of biopolitics from pessimistic and optimistic attitudes. Among them, "the controlling biopolitical discourse represented by Foucault and Agamben reveals the control of power mechanisms over people in modern society, behind which is reflected the rule of capital logic over human society. The resistant biopolitical discourse represented by Hardt and Negri reveals the possibility of producing resistant subjects, behind which is reflected the possibility of production logic and breaking alienation to produce new subjects." [3]3 This is a direct quotation from a Chinese academic source on biopolitics, summarizing the two main directions in contemporary left-wing biopolitical theory. In terms of theoretical insights, through comparative research, scholars explore different entry perspectives for studying biopolitical theory, reflecting on the contemporary significance of this issue from different angles such as power mechanisms, philosophical ontology, the structure of modernity, and the mechanisms of economic operation. This contributes to a profound understanding of the contemporary capitalist crisis and "provides important insights for returning to the context of historical materialism to examine the biopolitical critical dimension of Marx's critique of political economy." [4]4 This is a direct quotation from a Chinese academic source, suggesting that studying biopolitical theory can help return to Marx's own critique of political economy in *Capital*.

一方面，国外马克思主义研究愈加重视围绕主旨问题、梳理理论关系、廓清理论视角、明晰研究价值与意义的比较研究。随着国外马克思主义研究资料的日趋丰富，以及社会现实问题的错综复杂、瞬息万变，仅仅引译国外马克思主义论著观点已经不能满足研究所需，不符合理论联系实际的要求。在以问题为导向的理论自觉意识指引下，学者们更加关注从内在理论关系的梳理中批判性认识国外马克思主义研究的前沿问题及其当代价值。比如，针对生命政治的研究，学者们对福柯、阿甘本、维尔诺、哈特、埃斯波西托等人物关于生命政治批判理论展开批判性对比分析，揭示彼此之间的理论关系，并基于此提出国外马克思主义关于生命政治批判思潮对思考当代资本主义政治危机及人的政治境况、政治存在方式的启示及其理论局限。从理论产生方面，有学者提出当代左翼学者的生命政治批判是对新自由主义批判的产物之一，直接继承了晚期福柯的思想遗产，延续了其对当代西方社会治理技术的谱系学式的诊断。从理论路向方面，有学者指出权力控制与生产反抗两条路向，是当代左翼学者从悲观和乐观两种态度认识生命政治现状的两种把握方向。其中，“以福柯、阿甘本为代表的控制性的生命政治话语揭示了现代社会中权力机制对人的控制，其背后所折射出的是资本逻辑对人类社会的统治。以哈特、奈格里为代表的反抗性生命政治话语揭示了生产反抗性主体的可能性，其背后所折射出的则是生产逻辑与打破异化、生产新主体的可能性”。从理论启示方面，学者们通过对比研究，发掘关于生命政治理论研究的不同切入视角，从权力机制、哲学本体论、现代性结构、经济运行机制等不同角度反思这一问题的当代意义，有助于对当代资本主义危机的深刻认识，“对回到历史唯物主义语境中考察马克思政治经济学批判的生命政治批判维度提供重要启示”等。

On the other hand, overseas Marxist studies increasingly emphasize interdisciplinary cross-research, linking and connecting the complementary advantages of disciplines, extending the multidisciplinary horizon of problem research, and forming a disciplinary genealogy of problem research. Interdisciplinary cross-research is not only a theoretical legacy of enduring vitality bequeathed to us by overseas Marxist currents, especially the Frankfurt School, but has also become one of the main ways to break through the previous emphasis on introductory descriptions and interpretations of individual thinkers’ ideas and viewpoints. Interdisciplinary interactive research helps to open up discursive space and expand research perspectives and approaches; the disciplinary genealogy thus formed opens new paths for reaching theoretical consensus on problem research. For example, regarding the urban-rural spatial issues of modernization, reflections on urban rights and urban justice are undertaken from the perspective of political-philosophical critique; in terms of political-economic critique, investigations extend toward capitalist spatial production and spatial appropriation; in philosophical-cultural terms, they radiate toward dimensions such as human spatiotemporal existence and spatial imagination, and so on. The focal points of these various theoretical radiations are all actively and consciously directed toward China’s practical problems, such as urban governance, population management, and cultural-ethical progress. [5]5 cultural-ethical progress: 精神文明建设, referring to the development of socialist spiritual civilization, including ideological, moral, and cultural dimensions. Another example: critical research on global financial capitalism is not only analyzed within the discursive framework or analytical framework of economics or political economy; interactive analytical models such as “political-economic philosophy” frequently emerge, pointing out the new characteristics of contemporary capitalist development and the various new problems it brings, such as “cultural hegemony,” “new imperialism,” “transnational monopoly,” and “new alienation.” [6]6 cultural hegemony: 文化霸权, a concept associated with Antonio Gramsci, referring to the domination of a culturally diverse society by the ruling class through cultural norms and values. The recently heated-up research on “moral economy” and “cultural economy,” primarily represented by British Marxist studies, likewise reflects the trend of interdisciplinary interactive research that blends ethics with economics, cultural studies with economics, and history with economics. The conclusion drawn from this is: although contemporary financial capitalism has undergone new changes in the operational system of capital and the mode of capital reproduction, it still belongs, in its essential characteristics, to a stage of capitalist development, meaning it has not fundamentally resolved the inherent contradictions of capitalism. This fully reflects that interactive research, by closely centering on core problems, can highlight the concentration of problems; while breaking down disciplinary barriers, it expands multidimensional perspectives and multi-directional lines of reasoning that integrate multiple disciplines, providing and opening up multiple possible theoretical spaces for confronting practical problems, achieving “fusion of horizons,” and forming theoretical consensus. [7]7 fusion of horizons: 视域融合, a hermeneutic concept from Hans-Georg Gadamer, describing the merging of the interpreter’s and the text’s horizons in understanding.

另一方面，国外马克思主义研究愈加重视跨学科交叉研究，联系联结学科互补优势，延伸问题研究的多学科视域，形成问题研究的学科谱系。跨学科交叉研究既是国外马克思主义思潮尤其是法兰克福学派给予我们的一个具有持久活力的理论遗产，也成为突破以往侧重于人物思想观点介绍性描述与解读的主要方式之一。跨学科交互研究有助于打开话语空间、拓展研究视角与思路，所形成的学科谱系为达成问题研究的理论共识开辟新的路径。比如，围绕现代化的城乡空间问题，在政治哲学批判视角下展开对城市权利与城市正义等的思考，在政治经济学批判方面向资本主义空间生产、空间占有等方面展开，在哲学文化方面向有关人的时空存在、空间想象等维度辐射，等等。而各个理论辐射的聚焦点都主动自觉地落向我国城市治理、人口管理、精神文明建设等现实问题。再如，对全球金融资本主义的批判研究，不只在经济学、政治经济学的话语范畴或分析框架内进行分析，而常常出现例如“政治—经济哲学”这样的交互性分析模式，指出当代资本主义发展新特征及其所带来的“文化霸权”“新帝国主义”“跨国垄断”“新异化”等各类新问题。近来热度渐升的以英国马克思主义研究为主要代表的“道德经济学”“文化经济学”研究同样反映了将伦理学与经济学、文化学与经济学、历史学与经济学交融等跨学科交互研究的趋势。由此得出的结论：当代金融资本主义虽在资本运行体系和资本再生产方式等方面发生新变化，但在本质特征上仍属于资本主义发展的一个阶段，意味着它并未根本上解决资本主义内在固有矛盾。这充分反映出交互性研究紧紧围绕核心问题，能够突出问题的集中性，在打破学科壁垒的同时，拓展出融跨多学科的多维视角、多向理路，为面向现实问题、达到“视域融合”、形成理论共识，提供与开辟多重可能的理论空间。

II. Turning toward Research on the Construction of Theoretical Systems Emphasizing the Principle of Totality

二、转向重视整体性原则的理论体系建构式研究

Research primarily based on the introduction of materials often employs the research methods of textual interpretation and textual commentary. Although these two methods are indispensable for overseas Marxist studies, gathering and accumulating a large amount of preliminary materials and providing analytical tools for research, as research deepens—especially with changes in the world economic and political landscape, new changes in the situation of world Marxist theoretical research, and the innovative development of contemporary Chinese Marxism—a single method of textual commentary research not only risks returning Marxist theoretical research to the study and academy, but its increasingly prominent characteristics of dispersion and fragmentation are also detrimental to providing systematic theoretical responses to practical problems and to offering well-grounded and effective theoretical strategies for analyzing and solving problems. Therefore, under the guidance of the thought of playing a positive role in advancing the adaptation of Marxism to the Chinese context and the needs of the times, developing Marxism for the 21st century, and contemporary Chinese Marxism, overseas Marxist studies increasingly emphasize the “principle of totality,” paying attention to the theoretical connections and developmental historical threads between historical narratives and current hot topics, and reflecting on methods for constructing theoretical systems and breaking through discursive innovation in critical research. “Only by proceeding from this principle of totality can we understand the unique ‘interpenetrability’ and ‘inclusiveness’ of Marxism as a theoretical whole that transcends disciplinary and sectoral boundaries.” [8]8 This quotation is from an unspecified Chinese source, likely a scholarly article on Marxist methodology. Based on this principle, contemporary overseas Marxist studies are gradually shifting from textual commentary research to system-construction research.

以资料引介为主的研究常常采用文本解读、文本评析的研究方法，虽然这两种方法对于国外马克思主义研究是必不可少的，为研究搜集汇聚了大量前期资料、提供分析工具。然而，随着研究的深入，尤其伴随世界经济政治格局的变化、世界马克思主义理论研究形势的新变化、当代中国马克思主义的创新发展，单一的文本评析式研究不仅有将马克思主义理论研究退回书斋学院的风险隐患，且日益凸显的分散化、碎片化特征更不利于对现实问题进行系统的理论回应，不利于为分析与解决问题提供理据充分、行之有效的理论方略。因此，在为推进马克思主义中国化时代化、发展21世纪马克思主义、当代中国马克思主义发挥积极作用的思想指导下，国外马克思主义研究愈发注重“整体性原则”，关注历史叙事与时代热点的理论关联与发展史脉络，在批判性研究中思考建构理论体系、突破话语创新的方法。“只有从这种整体性原则出发，我们才能理解马克思主义作为一种超越学科和板块限制的理论整体所独有的‘融通性’和‘包容性’。”基于这一原则，当代国外马克思主义研究正逐渐从文本评析式研究转向体系建构式研究。

First, through comparative analysis of the overall ideological characteristics of relevant schools of overseas Marxism, the advantages and world significance of the Chinese model and the Chinese approach are demonstrated from a holistic perspective. With the increasing maturity and perfection of the theoretical system of contemporary Chinese Marxism and the practical success of the Chinese-path modernization, [9]9 Chinese-path modernization: 中国式现代化, the official CPC term for China’s unique model of modernization, distinct from Western models. there is an urgent need, in terms of constructing the Chinese approach and Chinese discourse in response to the problems of modernity, to confirm and summarize the world significance of the Chinese model and the Chinese approach through academic reasoning, internal critique of thought and theory, and in-depth analysis of logical lines of reasoning. In this regard, overseas Marxist studies pay particular attention to demonstrating and disseminating the original contributions of contemporary Chinese Marxism to world and human problems. For example, regarding the ecological environment and the relationship between humans and nature faced by world modernization development, some scholars analyze the revolutionary significance of Xi Jinping Thought on Ecological Civilization for human ecological civilization from the dimensions of overall logical characteristics and theoretical system innovation. Through comparative analysis, they strive to explain how Xi Jinping Thought on Ecological Civilization, based on Marxist ecological thought, achieves a transcendence of Western ecological civilization theory and a creative transformation of the excellent traditional Chinese ecological wisdom, demonstrating the effective response of China’s ecological civilization construction theory and practice to the problems of ecological modernity, and highlighting the world and human practical significance and contemporary value of Xi Jinping Thought on Ecological Civilization in theoretical and practical innovation, as well as in building a beautiful global village where humanity coexists and shares. In contrast, the ecological Marxist critique in Europe and the United States has fallen into multiple predicaments, such as a break in theoretical inheritance, a lack of theoretical innovation, and difficulty in applying theory to practice. Some scholars argue that ecological Marxism criticizes the pathological mechanisms of modernity, such as technological rationality, economic rationality, the logic of capital, and consumerism, from different analytical paths, proposing solutions such as promoting ecological rationality, transforming consumption concepts, and constructing ecological socialism. However, fundamental limitations exist in both its mode of thinking and practical efficacy. In response, some scholars emphasize that research on Western Marxist ecological critique must more strongly return to the standpoint of Marxism, must seriously clean up existing ecological concepts, so that the study of Marxist ecological theory occupies a dominant position in ecological research, providing a certain reference for contemporary Chinese Marxist ecological research.

第一，通过与国外马克思主义相关流派整体思想特征的比较分析，从整体上论证中国模式与中国方案的优势与世界意义。随着当代中国马克思主义理论体系的日臻成熟与完善，中国式现代化道路的实践成功，在关于回应现代性问题的中国方案、中国话语建构上亟须通过学理性论证、思想理论的内在批判、逻辑理路的深入剖析，以确证并总结中国模式与中国方案的世界性意义。对此，国外马克思主义研究尤为关注论证与传播当代中国马克思主义对世界性、人类性问题的原创性贡献。比如，针对世界现代化发展所面临的生态环境及人与自然关系问题，有学者从整体的逻辑特征与理论体系创新维度论析习近平生态文明思想对人类生态文明的革命性意义，通过对比分析，着力说明习近平生态文明思想以马克思主义生态思想为基础所实现的对西方生态文明理论的超越和对中华优秀传统生态智慧的创造性转换，论证我国生态文明建设理论与实践对生态环境现代性问题的有效回应，彰显习近平生态文明思想在理论创新与实践创新，及其对建设人类共生共存美丽地球村所具有世界性、人类性的现实意义与当代价值。相比之下，欧美的生态学马克思主义理论批判却陷入理论传承断代、理论创新匮乏、理论难以作用于实践等多重困局。有学者认为，生态学马克思主义从不同分析路径批判技术理性、经济理性、资本逻辑、消费主义等现代性机理病症，提出发扬生态理性、转变消费观念、建构生态社会主义等方案，然而从思维模式和实践效能上均存在根本局限性。对此，有学者强调，对西方马克思主义生态批判研究要更加强调回归马克思主义的立场上，必须认真清理现有的生态观念，使马克思主义生态理论的研究在生态学研究中占主导地位，对当代中国的马克思主义生态研究提供了一定参照。

Second, looking at the developmental trends of world Marxism, we summarize and delineate the intellectual-historical position and logical trajectory of overseas Marxism, critically analyzing its constructive reference significance for the issues of the era and of China. Overseas Marxist research not only takes small issues as entry points to continuously deepen micro-level studies, but also regards reflecting on the major issues of the era as a mission and task, undertaking macro-narrative research. At present, increasing emphasis is placed on grasping the intellectual-historical position of overseas Marxism as a whole around core issues, drawing experience and inspiration from it, forming a dialogue between China and the West, and constructing a theoretical discourse with Chinese characteristics. For instance, regarding the major issue of the era—the critique of capitalism and the critique of modernity—on the one hand, scholars proceed from specific topics to continue deepening critical research on “digital capitalism,” “accelerationism,” “biopolitics,” “new imperialism,” and other matters concerning the modern condition of human beings and changes in modern modes of existence and production, reflecting from the resources of overseas Marxism on the inspiration and lessons in identifying and analyzing problems, thereby highlighting the important value of the Chinese-path modernization path. On the other hand, some scholars emphasize, through comparative analysis and relational study of Western Marxist philosophy, Marxist philosophy, and modern Western philosophy, reflecting on the uniqueness of Western Marxist theories of modernity and their beneficial inspirational value for China’s socialist modernization construction. Some scholars, through holistic research, summarize the intellectual characteristics of the Western Marxist critique of modernity—in terms of philosophical tone, shifting from the modern Western philosophical advocacy of “emerging from a state of ignorance” to a forceful exposure of “the degeneration of modernity”; in terms of critical themes, shifting from the Marxist “sublation of capital” to a “total critique of modern society”; in terms of value orientation, shifting from the postmodernist advocacy of “deconstructing metanarratives” to an unremitting pursuit of the “unfinished project.” They then propose that the Western Marxist critique of modernity, on the one hand, represents the human metaphysical spirit of the Western philosophical tradition, and on the other hand, manifests the dialectical, realistic, and open theoretical qualities of Marxist theories of modernity, exhibiting its own “integrative-creative” orientation, while criticizing its fundamental limitation of deviating from the principle of the unity of theory and practice. From this, they advocate a new explanatory model of the dialectics of the temporal dimension and the spatial dimension of modernity, attempting to construct a distinctive discourse of critical theories of modernity.

第二，放眼世界马克思主义发展趋向，总结归纳国外马克思主义的思想史方位及其逻辑理路，批判地分析其对时代问题与中国问题的建设性参考意义。国外马克思主义研究不仅以小问题为切入点不断深化微观研究，而且将反思时代大问题作为使命任务，展开宏大叙事研究。当下愈加重视围绕核心议题从整体上对国外马克思主义进行思想史方位的把脉，从中总结经验启示，形成中西对话，建构中国特色的理论话语。如针对资本主义批判与现代性批判这一时代大问题，一方面，学者们从具体议题入手，继续深化对“数字资本主义”“加速主义”“生命政治”“新帝国主义”等关于人的现代性境遇与现代生存生产生活方式变迁的批判性研究，从国外马克思主义的资源中反思其在发现问题与分析问题方面的启示与教训，从而凸显中国式现代化道路的重要价值。另一方面，有学者强调通过西方马克思主义哲学、马克思主义哲学、现代西方哲学三者的比较分析和关系研究，反思西方马克思主义现代性理论的独特性，及其对我国社会主义现代化建设的有益启示价值。有学者通过整体性研究，总结西方马克思主义现代性批判的思想特质——在哲学基调上，由近代西方哲学倡扬的“摆脱蒙昧状态”转为对“现代性的堕落”的有力批揭；在批判主题上，由马克思主义的“资本的扬弃”转为对“现代社会的总批判”；在价值取向上，由后现代主义主张的“解构元叙事”转为对“未竟事业”的不懈追求，进而提出西方马克思主义现代性批判一方面表征西方哲学传统的人类形而上精神，另一方面彰显马克思主义现代性理论的辩证性、现实性、开放性的理论品质，表现出自身的“融创性”取向，并批判其背离理论与实践相统一原则的根本局限性。由此主张关于现代性时间维度辩证法与空间维度辩证法的新解释模型，尝试建构现代性批判理论的特色话语。

Third, construct and perfect a uniquely characteristic paradigmatic system and apply it to overseas Marxist research. Constructing an analytical paradigm is more difficult than interpreting ideas, viewpoints, and theoretical systems; it requires a deep grasp of the internal evolutionary laws of theoretical logic, using a mature set of conceptual discourses to build a paradigmatic system that conforms to laws, possesses a certain universality, and is logically self-consistent. Overseas Marxism has provided numerous intellectual resources and methodological legacies in terms of conceptual categories, logical layout, system construction, and discursive paradigms. In particular, its “diagnosis and treatment” of the philosophical horizon and discourse of the modernity problem of capitalist industrial civilization has created conceptual categories such as “consumption alienation,” “character repression mechanism,” “technological ideology,” “spectacle society,” “production of space,” “hyperreality,” “post-truth,” “new imperialism,” and “biopolitics,” and constructed discursive systems and logical frameworks such as “theory of reification,” “social critical theory,” “theory of communicative action,” “theory of recognition,” and “historical-geographical materialism.” These provide certain inspiration for our contemporary Marxist research in terms of discourse construction and theoretical research. This constructive research is also an important direction emphasized by scholars in the current paradigmatic turn of overseas Marxist research toward self-construction and the construction of original discursive systems. Continuous efforts along this research trajectory are gradually forming representative and distinctive academic traditions, academic teams of considerable scale, and systematic academic achievements.

第三，建构并完善独具特色的范式体系，将之应用于国外马克思主义研究中。建构一个分析范式相比于解读思想观点与理论体系更为艰难，需要深入把握理论逻辑的内在演化规律，用一套成熟的概念话语建构起合规律、具有一定普适性且逻辑自洽的范式体系。国外马克思主义从概念范畴、逻辑布局、体系搭建、话语范式等方面提供了诸多思想资源与方法遗产，尤其是其对资本主义工业文明现代性问题进行哲学视界与话语的“切脉诊疗”，创设出“消费异化”“性格压抑机制”“技术意识形态”“景观社会”“空间生产”“超真实”“后真相”“新帝国主义”“生命政治”等概念范畴，建构起如“物化理论”“社会批判理论”“交往行为理论”“承认理论”“历史—地理唯物主义”等话语体系与逻辑架构，为我们当代马克思主义研究在话语建构、理论研究等方面提供一定的启发。这种建构式研究也是国外马克思主义研究行至当下，学者们所强调的研究范式转向自我建构、原创性话语体系建构的一个重要指向。在这一研究路向上的不断努力，也在逐渐形成有代表性的独具特色的学术传统、成规模的学术团队、系统性的学术成果。

III. Turning toward a Return to the Historical-Theoretical Study of Marxist Classics

三、转向回归马克思主义经典的史论研究

The assertion of the “end of Western Marxism” did not pronounce the disappearance of Marxism in Western capitalist society. On the contrary, with the proliferation of capitalist social problems and the intensification of contradictions in the economic structure, contemporary overseas Marxist trends continue to launch theoretical challenges against the capitalist system in novel and diverse forms; thus, they increasingly manifest a multi-dimensional pattern of theoretical development. The mixed situation of overseas Marxist theoretical development—partly encouraging, partly worrying—has aroused the vigilance of Chinese scholars in overseas Marxist research. Influenced by “post-” thinking, some contemporary so-called “new Marxism,” “post-Marxist currents,” and other schools have misread the basic principles of Marxism. Meanwhile, representatives of traditional Western Marxism, such as the Frankfurt School, have, with the evolution of the times and the turn toward political-philosophical critique, partially lost the theoretical purpose and value orientation established at the inception of Western Marxism. The interpretation of Marxism by contemporary overseas Marxist trends increasingly risks “distortion” from multiple value standpoints, making it particularly crucial to discern the essence of overseas Marxism. Some scholars have proposed: “At present, we should directly confront the end of Western Marxist schools and the contemporary changes in the Western Marxist tradition, accurately position the place of the Western Marxist tradition in the entire history of Marxist theory, reveal its limitations, overcome the various ‘superficial fever’ phenomena in research, and consciously serve the theoretical exploration and effective dissemination of the Chinese path and the construction of Chinese modernity.”

“西方马克思主义终结”的论断并未宣判马克思主义在西方资本主义社会的销声匿迹，相反，随着资本主义社会问题层出与经济结构矛盾的激化，当代国外马克思主义思潮以崭新多样的形态持续地向资本主义制度发起理论挑战；由此，也日益彰显出多重维度的理论发展格局。国外马克思主义理论发展喜忧参半的局面引发了我国国外马克思主义研究学者的警觉。受“后学”思维的影响，当代的一些所谓“新马克思主义”“后马克思思潮”等流派，对马克思主义基本原理存在误读。而法兰克福学派等传统西方马克思主义的代表，也随着时代的演进与理论的政治哲学批判转向，部分丢失了西方马克思主义创立之初的理论旨归与价值旨趣。当代国外马克思主义思潮对马克思主义的解读在多重价值立场上存在越来越“走样”的隐患，使得甄别国外马克思主义的本质变得尤为关键。有学者提出：“当前应直面西方马克思主义流派的终结及西方马克思主义传统的当代变化，准确定位西方马克思主义传统在整个马克思主义理论史的地位，揭示其局限性，克服研究中存在的种种‘虚热’现象，自觉地服务于中国道路及中国现代性建构的理论探讨与有效传播。”

Overseas Marxist research requires new theoretical scrutiny and presuppositional critique in conjunction with the development of theory and practice. This new theoretical demand poses a fundamental challenge to the previous object-oriented research that directly drew intellectual inspiration from textual resources, pushing the research focus to shift toward issues, emphasizing the importance of historical-theoretical analysis with subjective self-consciousness that combines the global and the specific, the universal and the particular, and the logical and the actual. Therefore, on the one hand, regarding the “chaos” of consensus difficulties and fragmentation dilemmas manifested by overseas Marxism in the contemporary era, and reflecting on why it increasingly falls into the trap of relativism and nihilism in the contemporary era, it is necessary to return to the classic texts of Marxism, through a retrospective of theoretical history, to reflect on the connection between the development of the times and theoretical change, critically examine the deviation of overseas Marxist currents from the basic principles of Marxism, and consolidate the foundation of Marxist theory for contemporary interpretation. On the other hand, the turn toward genealogical research tracing logical trajectories and toward constructive research paradigms of theoretical systems also requires taking the classic texts of Marxism as a coordinate system, combining the theoretical achievements of adapting Marxism to the Chinese context and the needs of the times, through comparative research on the development and characteristics of Marxist theory in China and abroad, exploring spaces for theoretical dialogue around core themes (such as the critique of capitalism and paths of social civilization development), and reflecting on the world significance of contemporary Chinese Marxism. In short, overseas Marxist research, guided by the aim of adapting Marxism to the Chinese context and the needs of the times and advancing the development of contemporary Chinese Marxism, emphasizes inheriting and developing the authentic meaning and spirit of Marxist theory based on a return to the classic texts of Marxism, exerting theoretical confidence and subjective self-consciousness, and highlighting the importance of excavating the contemporary value of classic theory, distinguishing overseas currents according to classic texts, and innovating Chinese doctrines. This thus initiates, following the “Return to Marx” upsurge at the turn of the century, a paradigmatic turn in the New Era toward the historical-theoretical study of “Returning to the Classics.”

国外马克思主义研究需要结合理论与实践的发展进行新的学理审视与前提性批判。这一新的理论需求向以往大量的从文本资源中直接得到思想启示的对象性研究提出根本挑战，推动研究重心转移到问题上来，强调将全局性与针对性、普遍性与特殊性、逻辑性与现实性相结合，具有主体自觉意识的史论分析的重要性。因此，一方面，对于国外马克思主义在当代体现出共识难题、碎片化困局的“乱象”，对于其为何在当代日趋走向相对主义、虚无主义窠臼的反思，必须回到马克思主义经典文本之中，通过理论史回溯，反思时代发展与理论变迁的关联，批判地审视国外马克思主义思潮对马克思主义基本原理的背离，为马克思主义理论的当代解读固本培元；另一方面，向追溯逻辑理路的谱系式研究与理论体系建构式研究范式转向，同样要求以马克思主义经典文本为坐标系，结合马克思主义中国化时代化理论成果，通过中外马克思主义理论发展及其特质的比较研究，探索围绕核心主题（如资本主义批判与社会文明发展道路等）的理论对话空间，思考当代中国马克思主义的世界意义。简言之，以推动马克思主义中国化时代化，推进当代中国马克思主义发展为指导思想与研究宗旨的国外马克思主义研究，强调基于回归马克思主义经典文本中传承发展马克思主义理论的本真意涵与精神，发挥理论自信与主体自觉意识，对挖掘经典理论的当代价值，依据经典文本勘别国外思潮，创新中国学说的重要性。由此也开启了继世纪之交“回到马克思”热潮之后，新时代“回归经典”的史论研究范式转向。

First, returning to the Marxist classics, continuously drawing nourishment from the basic principles of Marxism, analyzing the new changes in contemporary capitalism, and scientifically assessing the future path of capitalist modernity civilization. Critiquing the problems of capitalist modernity and transcending capitalist modernity civilization are among the shared historical backgrounds, logical dimensions, and value pursuits of both contemporary Chinese Marxist research and overseas Marxist research. The theory of capitalist modernity critique has logically become “a theoretical intersection shared by Western Marxist research and Chinese Marxist research.” This has built an important bridge for theoretical dialogue between Chinese and foreign Marxism. The more theoretical dialogue is needed, the more the important value and significance of returning to the classic texts are emphasized. Therefore, with the recurrence of cyclical capitalist crises in the 21st century and the emergence of widespread and far-reaching social crises, a theoretical wave of returning to Marxist classic texts has once again surged worldwide, sparking scholars’ sustained reflection on the scientificity and contemporaneity of Marxist critique of capitalism. The lingering negative impact of the 2008 global financial crisis on the world economy has persisted, giving rise in academia to a “Capital fever” that continues to this day. Not only have foreign scholars returned to the text of *Capital*, drawing insights from it, producing new works, and focusing on social issues such as the gap between rich and poor in Western contemporary capitalism and unbalanced geographical and spatial development, as well as conducting ideological critiques of neoliberalism; but also, with the gradual presentation of the editorial and publication results of the second historical-critical edition of the *Marx-Engels-Gesamtausgabe* (MEGA²) abroad, Chinese scholars have simultaneously engaged in theoretical research and practical critique by returning to *Capital* and to the Marxist classics, in response to the new situations and characteristics of global capitalist development. Especially on the theme of capitalist critique, Chinese scholars have generally returned to Marxist positions, viewpoints, and methods to examine it objectively. It can be said that returning to the Marxist classics is the main basis and core trend of contemporary world Marxist research. Only by returning to the Marxist texts themselves to seek the “true scripture” can we more accurately and effectively achieve the contemporization and localization of Marxist theory, and fundamentally discern and deeply investigate the various modern maladies affecting other countries in the world, such as financial crises, new forms of capital, refugee and migrant issues, populism and deglobalization, and ecological imbalances. Xi Jinping points out: “Marxism is a constantly developing and open theory, always standing at the forefront of the times. Marx repeatedly admonished people that Marxist theory is not a dogma but a guide to action, and must develop with changes in practice. The history of the development of Marxism is the history of Marx, Engels, and their successors continuously developing according to the development of the times, practice, and understanding; it is the history of continuously enriching itself by absorbing all excellent ideological and cultural achievements in human history. Therefore, Marxism can forever maintain its youthful vitality, constantly exploring new issues raised by the development of the times and responding to the new challenges faced by human society.” Following the thread of returning to Marx, finding the path of liberation from capitalist modernity civilization from the “origin” of Marxist theory, forming a dialogue between Chinese and Western theories, and contemplating the world significance of the socialist civilization form—this is the epochal task jointly faced by the current camp of world Marxist research, and therefore also an important research direction capable of converging theoretical consensus.

一是回归马克思主义经典，从马克思主义基本原理中持续汲取养分，分析当代资本主义新变化，科学研判资本主义现代性文明的未来出路。批判资本主义现代性问题与超越资本主义现代性文明是当代中国马克思主义研究与国外马克思主义研究共同的历史背景、逻辑向度、价值旨趣之一。资本主义现代性批判理论也顺理成章“成为西方马克思主义与中国马克思主义研究共同关注的理论交集”。这为中外马克思主义的理论对话架起了重要的沟通桥梁。越是需要理论对话，越是强调回归经典文本的重要价值与意义。因此，随着资本主义周期性危机在21世纪的再度降临以及其波及广泛而深远的社会危机层出不穷，在世界范围内再度掀起了回归马克思主义经典文本的理论热浪，引发学者们对马克思主义理论对资本主义批判之科学性与当代性的持久反思。2008年世界金融危机对世界经济态势负面影响的余波长期存在，在学界掀起了持续至今的“《资本论》热”。不仅国外学者重新回到《资本论》文本，从中拾慧，产出新作，聚焦西方当代资本主义贫富差距、地理空间发展不平衡等社会问题，对新自由主义展开意识形态批判等方面的研究；而且，随着国外关于《马克思恩格斯全集》历史考证版第二版（MEGA2）的编辑和出版成果的逐量呈现，我国学者针对全球资本主义发展新形势新特征，与国外同步开展回到《资本论》、回到马克思主义经典的理论研究与现实批判。尤其在关于资本主义批判主题上，我国学者普遍回归到马克思主义立场观点和方法上对其加以客观审视。可以说，回到马克思主义经典是当代世界马克思主义研究的主要依循与核心趋势，只有回到马克思主义文本本身探求“真经”，才能更准确有效地实现马克思主义理论的时代化、本土化解读，才能根本洞悉与深入考察当代波及世界其他国家的金融危机、资本新形态、难民与移民问题、民粹主义与逆全球化、生态失衡问题等各类现代性病症。习近平指出：“马克思主义是不断发展的开放的理论，始终站在时代前沿。马克思一再告诫人们，马克思主义理论不是教条，而是行动指南，必须随着实践的变化而发展。一部马克思主义发展史就是马克思、恩格斯以及他们的后继者们不断根据时代、实践、认识发展而发展的历史，是不断吸收人类历史上一切优秀思想文化成果丰富自己的历史。因此，马克思主义能够永葆其美妙之青春，不断探索时代发展提出的新课题、回应人类社会面临的新挑战。”沿着回到马克思的思路按图索骥，从马克思主义理论的“本源”中找到冲破资本主义现代性文明的解放道路，形成中西理论对话，思考社会主义文明形态的世界意义，这是当下世界马克思主义研究阵营共同面对的时代课题，因此也是能够汇聚理论共识的重要研究路向。

Second, deeply studying the classic texts of adapting Marxism to the Chinese context and the needs of the times, and summarizing experience and facing the future from the development process of Chinese Marxist theory and practice. In recent years, around major historical milestones, such as the 200th anniversary of Marx’s birth and the 170th anniversary of the publication of the *Communist Manifesto* in 2018, theoretical circles at home and abroad have paid tribute to the great revolutionary mentor of the proletariat by returning to Marxist classic texts and to the *Communist Manifesto* for contemporary interpretation; around important commemorative years such as the 100th anniversary of the “October Revolution” in 2017 and the 150th anniversary of Lenin’s birth in 2020, academia has similarly paid tribute to Lenin, the inheritor and developer of Marxism and the first proletarian revolutionary leader to lead the masses in practicing Marxism, through a series of academic achievements. These historical milestones, which hold special significance for those with Marxist faith, have radiated a particularly dazzling light of truth on Chinese soil. The 40th anniversary of reform and opening up, the 70th anniversary of the founding of the People’s Republic of China, and the 100th anniversary of the founding of the Communist Party of China—the brilliant achievements of socialist revolution, construction, reform, and development led by the Party and the people under the guidance of Marxist theory have attracted worldwide attention, irrefutably proving that Marxism and socialism have not failed China, and China has not failed Marxism and socialism. The success of Marxism adapted to the Chinese context and the needs of the times in both theory and practice, along with the rise of the Chinese nation and the prosperity and strength of the motherland, has continuously created one glory after another for Marxist truth on Chinese soil, demonstrating the powerful vitality of Marxism. At the same time, Western societies are sinking deeper into the predicament of capitalism. This objective fact has prompted foreign scholars to pay increasing attention to China’s success, to the ideological crystallization of the theory of adapting Marxism to the Chinese context and the needs of the times, and to the genes of fine traditional Chinese culture deeply embedded within it, as well as the Chinese spirit deeply ingrained in the marrow of the Chinese people. Chinese discourse is going global, providing an important opportunity to promote Sino-foreign exchanges and advance the development of world Marxist theory and practice. In this regard, overseas research on Marxism, on the one hand, focuses on returning to the classic texts of adapting Marxism to the Chinese context and the needs of the times, to clarify and explain the theoretical innovations of Chinese Marxism, and is committed to studying foreign trends of thought from a China-centered perspective, “incorporating the study of China and its relationship with the world as an important dimension into the theoretical horizon, and seeking solutions to human problems in the interactive relationship between China and the world.” On the other hand, it focuses on forming active dialogues with China studies abroad, deepening comparative studies of Chinese and Western Marxism. For example, engaging in academic dialogue with the research results of some contemporary Western left-wing scholars influenced by Mao Zedong Thought, or foreign scholars particularly concerned with China’s revolutionary, construction, and reform practices; through theoretical comparison and historical analysis, deepening the international dissemination of Chinese discourse, promoting the “going global” of Chinese Marxist theoretical discourse, telling China’s story well, enabling foreign scholars to receive the original meaning of Chinese Marxist theoretical innovation and the true intent of Chinese wisdom more accurately and directly, avoiding prejudice and misunderstanding, and achieving an equal exchange of ideas. Especially regarding global modernity issues, fully exchanging academic views and opinions, reaching a consensus on Marxist positions while seeking common ground and reserving differences, and jointly promoting the substantial development and common progress of 21st-century world Marxism—this has become an important direction for comparative studies of Chinese and foreign Marxism, possessing significant theoretical value.

二是深入研究马克思主义中国化时代化经典文本，从中国马克思主义理论与实践发展历程中总结经验、面向未来。近年来，围绕重大历史节点，如2018年马克思诞辰200周年和《共产党宣言》发表170周年，国内外理论界以回到马克思主义经典文本、回到《共产党宣言》展开当代解读的方式，致敬无产阶级伟大革命导师；2017年“十月革命”100周年、2020年列宁诞辰150周年等重要纪念年，学界同样以系列学术成果向马克思主义传承者与发展者、最早带领人民群众实践马克思主义的无产阶级革命领袖列宁致敬。这些对具有马克思主义信仰的人来说具有特别意义的重要历史节点，在中华大地上散发出别样耀眼的真理之光。改革开放40周年、中华人民共和国成立70周年、中国共产党成立100周年，党带领人民在马克思主义理论指导下取得的辉煌壮丽的社会主义革命建设改革发展成就，为世人所瞩目，以不可争辩的史实证明了马克思主义和社会主义没有辜负中国，中国也没有辜负马克思主义和社会主义。中国化时代化的马克思主义在理论与实践上的成功随着中华民族的崛起和祖国的繁荣强盛，不断创造马克思主义真理在中国大地上的一个又一个辉煌，展示了马克思主义的强大生命力。与此同时，西方社会却在资本主义困局中越陷越深。这一客观事实促使国外学者愈加关注中国的成功，关注马克思主义中国化时代化理论的思想结晶，以及关注深蕴其中的中华优秀传统文化基因、深嵌中国人骨髓的中国精神等。中国话语正在走向世界，这为促进中外交流，推动世界马克思主义理论与实践的发展，提供了重要的契机。对此，国外马克思主义研究一方面注重回归马克思主义中国化时代化经典文本中去，把中国马克思主义的理论创新弄清楚、讲明白，致力于以中国为中心研究国外思潮，“将中国及其与世界关系的研究作为一个重要的维度纳入理论视域，并在中国与世界的互动关系中寻求人类性问题的解答思路”。另一方面注重与国外的中国研究形成积极对话，深化中西马克思主义的比较研究。如：对部分当代西方左翼学者受到毛泽东思想影响的，或对中国革命建设改革实践尤为关注的国外学者的研究成果展开学术对话，通过学理比较与史论分析，深入中国话语的国际传播，推动中国马克思主义理论话语“走出去”，讲好中国故事，使国外学者更准确、更直接地接收中国马克思主义理论创新的原意和中国智慧的本意，避免偏见误解，形成思想的平等交互。尤其是围绕全球现代性问题，充分交换学术观点与意见，在求同存异中达成马克思主义立场共识，携手推动21世纪世界马克思主义的长足发展与共同进步，这成为中外马克思主义比较研究的重要方向，具有重要理论价值。

From the above it can be seen that overseas Marxist studies have now fully entered a period of paradigmatic transformation. Especially since the New Era, the autonomous consciousness and theoretical effectiveness of this paradigmatic turn have become more pronounced. Its overall characteristic is a shift from object-oriented translation and interpretive research to subject-oriented dialogical research. The former, centered on data compilation, interpretation of individual figures’ views, and introduction of schools of thought and currents, possesses an object-oriented character in which texts lead issues. The latter emphasizes closely centering on core issues to carry out historical-theoretical analyses from perspectives such as conceptual history, intellectual history, the history of ideas, and the history of civilization, delving into deep diagnosis and internal reflection on logical threads and patterns of thought. From this, research approaches are developed that help respond to Chinese issues, tell China’s story well, and innovate Chinese discourse. One core issue on which it focuses is the critique of capitalist modernity, reflecting a basic research approach guided by Marxism, centered on adapting Marxism to the Chinese context and the needs of the times, and drawing on overseas Marxism as a resource. In the New Era, under the requirement and guidance of the major proposition of the Two Integrations [14]14 The Two Integrations (两个结合) refers to the integration of the basic tenets of Marxism with China’s specific realities and with the best of traditional Chinese culture, a guiding principle for theoretical innovation in the New Era. for innovation in the disciplinary system, academic system, and discourse system of Marxist theoretical research, and based on the above paradigmatic turn and its basic characteristics and approaches, the theoretical path of overseas Marxist studies aims to continue focusing on: in terms of research themes, more closely centering on the critique of capitalist modernity, the path of human social liberation, and the exploration of civilizational forms; in terms of theoretical orientation, more prominently highlighting the grand narrative logic of historical-theoretical research, exploring the core themes of the era from the thread of historical theory with the perspective of a “grand view of history”; in terms of theoretical purpose, strengthening the innovative construction and global dissemination of Chinese discourse, enhancing the world influence of contemporary Chinese Marxism, and continuously issuing a powerful Chinese voice. (Notes omitted)

综上可见，国外马克思主义研究在当下已全面进入范式转型期，尤其是新时代以来，这一范式转向的自主意识和理论成效更为鲜明，其总体特征表现为由对象性翻译、阐释研究转向主体性对话研究。前者以资料汇编、人物观点解读、流派思潮介绍为主，具有文本引领问题的对象性特征；后者则强调紧密围绕核心问题展开诸如概念史、思想史、观念史、文明史等角度的史论分析，深入到逻辑理路、思维规律的深层把脉与内在反思，从中研思有助于回应中国问题、讲好中国故事、创新中国话语的研究思路。其中聚焦的一个核心问题是资本主义现代性批判，体现出以马克思主义为指导、以中国化时代化马克思主义为中心、以国外马克思主义为资源的基本研究思路。新时代在“两个结合”重大命题对马克思主义理论研究提出学科体系、学术体系、话语体系创新的要求与指导下，基于上述研究范式转向及其基本特征与思路，国外马克思主义研究的理论进路以期继续着力于：在研究主题上更加紧密地围绕资本主义现代性批判、人类社会解放道路与文明形态的探讨；在理论路向上更加突出史论研究的宏大叙事逻辑，以“大历史观”的视野从史论脉络中探思时代的核心主题；在理论旨归上强化中国话语的创新建构与世界传播，增强当代中国马克思主义的世界影响力，不断发出强有力的中国声音。（注释略）

(The author is a postdoctoral fellow in the Faculty of Marxism at Northeast Normal University)

（作者系东北师范大学马克思主义学部师资博士后）

Online editor: Zhang Jian

网络编辑：张剑