Research on Foreign Marxism from the Perspective of China’s Independent Knowledge System

As an important component of Marxist theoretical research, over the past 40-plus years, research on foreign Marxism has achieved rapid development and has yielded relatively abundant results in some important research fields, such as Marxist social critical theory, contemporary capitalism research, ecological Marxism, postcolonialism and its critique, and Marxist cultural studies. However, behind this unprecedented prosperity in research on foreign Marxism, there also exists a series of problems worthy of further reflection by contemporary Chinese Marxist researchers. For example, against the backdrop of building socialism with Chinese characteristics in the New Era, and at a time of momentous changes unseen in a century, why exactly do we need to study foreign Marxism? Is it merely because foreign Marxist scholars possess profound academic attainments worthy of study by their Chinese Marxist counterparts, or is research on foreign Marxism a purely introductory and translational task, where if foreign Marxist scholars—or even some relatively ordinary scholars—have studied Marx’s thought, their books and works need to be introduced into China? The answers to such questions, at least in the research on foreign Marxism over the past decade, have been vague. Furthermore, how exactly should we study foreign Marxism? Should we transplant it intact for use as reference material by Chinese Marxist scholars, or should we subject it to critical discrimination, distinguishing the good from the bad? And if so, what criteria should be chosen for this critique and discrimination? Finally, China is at a critical period for realizing the Two Centenary Goals [1]1 The “Birmingham School” refers to the Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies at the University of Birmingham, UK, known for its Marxist-influenced cultural studies approach., facing unprecedented domestic and international challenges. What kind of research on foreign Marxism is needed to help Chinese Marxist scholars, and indeed the entire construction of socialism with Chinese characteristics in the New Era, to unite their efforts, overcome difficulties together, and contribute to the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation and a community with a shared future for mankind?

作为马克思主义理论研究的一个重要组成部分，在过去40余年里，国外马克思主义研究实现了飞速发展，并在一些重要的研究领域，如马克思主义社会批判理论、当代资本主义研究、生态马克思主义、后殖民主义及其批判、马克思主义文化研究等领域都取得了比较丰硕的成果。然而，在这些国外马克思主义研究空前繁荣的背后，也存在着一系列的问题值得当代中国的马克思主义研究者继续深思。例如，在新时代中国特色社会主义建设的背景下，在百年未有之大变局的风云际会之时，我们究竟为什么需要研究国外马克思主义？仅仅是因为国外马克思主义学者拥有很深的学术造诣，值得中国的马克思主义同仁来学习，还是说国外马克思主义研究是一个单纯的引介和翻译工作，将国外的马克思主义学者，甚至只是一些比较普通的学者研读了马克思的思想，就需要将他们的书籍论著引进到中国来？对于这一类问题的回答，至少在近十年来的国外马克思主义研究中，是语焉不详的。另外，我们究竟应该如何研究国外马克思主义，是原封不动的移植过来，供中国的马克思主义学者作为参考资料，还是加以批判性的鉴别，分清其中的良莠，那么这个批判和鉴别的尺度又应当如何选择？最后，中国正值实现两个百年的奋斗目标的关键时期，面临的国内外的挑战都是空前的，究竟需要何种国外马克思主义研究，来帮助中国的马克思主义学者，乃至整个新时代中国特色社会主义建设，勠力同心，共克时艰，为实现中华民族的伟大复兴和全人类命运共同体做出贡献？

To understand these issues, we need to re-examine the value and significance of research on foreign Marxism within the Chinese context, based on China’s own problems, and using Chinese discourse. During the 43rd collective study session of the Political Bureau of the 18th CPC Central Committee, Xi Jinping spoke

为了理解这些问题，我们需要在中国的语境中，立足于中国的问题本身，使用中国的话语，来重新理解国外马克思主义研究的价值与意义。习近平在中共十八届中央政治局第四十三次集体学习时，对于国外马克思主义研究，曾语重心长地谈道：“当代世界马克思主义思潮，一个很重要的特点就是他们中很多人对资本主义结构性矛盾以及生产方式矛盾、阶级矛盾、社会矛盾等进行了批判性揭示，对资本主义危机、资本主义演进过程、资本主义新形态及本质进行了深入分析。这些观点有助于我们正确认识资本主义发展趋势和命运，准确把握当代资本主义新变化新特征，加深对当代资本主义变化趋势的理解。对国外马克思主义研究新成果，我们要密切关注和研究，有分析、有鉴别，既不能采取一概排斥的态度，也不能搞全盘照搬。同时，我们要坚持把自己的事情办好，不断发展中国特色社会主义，不断壮大我国综合国力，充分展示我国社会主义制度的优越性。”在这段谈话中，我们可以深刻地体会到，国外马克思主义研究绝不仅仅是一种将国外的马克思主义学者的理论和论断，不加甄别地简单挪植和套用，对于国外马克思主义研究，不能奉行单纯的拿来主义，因为我们今天中国特色社会主义建设的历史使命，与这些国外马克思主义学者面对的局势和问题都大相径庭。通过理解习近平的论断，我们可以看到，国外马克思主义研究的价值，正是在于对当今西方资本主义的最新发展，及其内在演进和矛盾进行鞭辟入里的揭示和批判，让全世界人民看到中国式现代化的历史进步意义，以及中国特色社会主义与全人类共同价值之间的密切联系。

Therefore, for today’s Chinese Marxist researchers, we need to re-examine the study of foreign Marxism from the perspective of China’s independent knowledge system. While the construction of China’s independent knowledge system combines the basic tenets of Marxism with China’s specific realities and with the best of traditional Chinese culture, it also needs to further accomplish the following tasks: (1) Oriented toward China’s problems, addressing the question “Why study foreign Marxism?” — this is the fundamental question of foreign Marxist studies, an ontological question; (2) Rooted in Chinese discourse, addressing the question “How to conduct Chinese research on foreign Marxism?” — that is, what methods and discourse do we use to critically employ the theoretical resources of foreign Marxism? This is the methodological question of foreign Marxist studies; (3) Serving China’s future, addressing the question “What kind of foreign Marxist studies do we need?” — this means that we need foreign Marxist studies to proceed from China’s specific realities, to face a more magnificent perspective of the times, and to realize the hope that Marxism places in the future of human society.

所以，对于今天的中国马克思主义研究者而言，我们需要在中国自主知识体系下重新审视国外马克思主义研究。中国自主知识体系建设，在把马克思主义基本原理同中国具体实际相结合、同中华优秀传统文化相结合的同时，还需要进一步做好如下工作：（1）面向中国问题，解决的是“为什么要研究国外马克思主义？”的问题，这是国外马克思主义研究的根本问题，这是本体论问题；（2）立足中国话语，解决的是“如何开展中国的国外马克思主义研究？”的问题，我们究竟用何种方法和话语来批判性地使用国外马克思主义的理论资源，这就是国外马克思主义研究的方法论问题；（3）服务中国未来，解决的是“我们需要什么样的国外马克思主义研究？”的问题，这意味着我们需要国外马克思主义研究从中国的具体实际出发，面向更波澜壮阔的时代视角，实现马克思主义寄予人类社会的未来希望。

Oriented toward China’s Problems: The Ontology of Foreign Marxist Studies

面向中国问题：国外马克思主义研究的本体论

For the study of foreign Marxism, the first issue to confront is: when did China’s study of foreign Marxism originate? Indeed, in the 1950s and 1960s, some works by scholars later called Western Marxists were already translated and introduced through certain channels. For example, in 1963, Mr. Wang Jiuxing of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences translated excerpts from *The Young Hegel* by Lukács, the founder of Western Marxism. In the preface, Mr. Wang Jiuxing did not use the appellation “Western Marxism” to refer to Lukács, but directly regarded Lukács as a “reviser of the history of Marxist philosophy.” That is, in Mr. Wang Jiuxing’s view, Lukács was not a tributary external to mainstream Marxist philosophy, but a revision and variation within Marxist philosophy itself. Similarly, the 1957 publication by Zhaohua Fine Arts Publishing House of *Aesthetics* by the French Marxist thinker Henri Lefebvre — neither the Chinese translator nor the preface of the Russian edition called Lefebvre “Western Marxism” or “foreign Marxism.” On the book’s title page, the editor referred to Lefebvre as a “French progressive writer,” while the Russian translator Smirnova introduced Lefebvre as: “The author of this book is a French progressive philosopher and economist.” The term “Western Marxism” was not used to refer to Lefebvre. Even in later compiled materials, such as the *Research Materials on Marxism-Leninism* series edited by the Central Compilation and Translation Bureau, the compilation of materials on Lukács, Althusser, Korsch, and others was collected under the heading “Western Explorations of Marxism” to include their documents and articles. This phenomenon indicates that for the study of Western Marxism or foreign Marxism, the study of Western Marxism or foreign Marxism did not emerge in China simply with the translation and introduction of the documents and works of Lukács, Lefebvre, Althusser, Korsch, Sartre, and others. In that era, the documents of these authors did not constitute an independent object of study. Their writings, like Mr. Wang Jiuxing’s annotations, were at that time merely a tributary and supplement to mainstream Marxist thought, serving only as a lens to refract the attitude of Western countries toward Marxist philosophy, rather than a specific field of research.

对于国外马克思主义研究而言，首先需要面对的是，中国的国外马克思主义研究滥觞于何时？的确，在20世纪五六十年代，一些后来被称之为西方马克思主义学者的著述已经通过某些方式，被翻译和引介过来。例如，1963年，中国社会科学院的王玖兴先生就曾节译了西方马克思主义奠基者卢卡奇的《青年黑格尔》一书，在序言中，王玖兴先生并没有使用“西方马克思主义”的称谓来称呼卢卡奇，而是直接将卢卡奇视为“马克思主义哲学史”的修正者，也就是说，在王玖兴先生看来，卢卡奇并不是外在于主流马克思主义哲学的一个支流，而是马克思主义哲学内部的修正和变异。与之类似，1957年由朝花美术出版社出版的法国马克思主义思想家亨利·列斐伏尔的著作《美学概论》，无论是中文译者，还是俄译本的序，都没有将列斐伏尔称为“西方马克思主义”或“国外马克思主义”，在书的扉页上，该书编辑对列斐伏尔的称呼是“法国进步作家”，而俄译者斯密尔诺娃对列斐伏尔的介绍是：“本书的作者是法国进步哲学家和经济学家。”里面并没有出现用“西方马克思主义”来称呼列斐伏尔。即便在后来的一些编译资料中，例如由中共中央编译局主编的《马列主义研究资料》系列，对卢卡奇、阿尔都塞、柯尔施等人的资料编译，也是以“西方对马克思主义探讨”为标题来收录他们的文献和文章的。这个现象表明，对于西方马克思主义或国外马克思主义研究来说，并不是随着卢卡奇、列斐伏尔、阿尔都塞、柯尔施、萨特等人的文献和著作的翻译和引入，在中国就诞生了西方马克思主义或国外马克思主义研究。在那个时代，这些作者的文献，并不构成一个独立的研究对象，他们的著述，犹如王玖兴先生的注解一样，在当时只是主流马克思主义思想的一个支流和补充，只能作为一个透镜折射出西方国家看待马克思主义哲学的态度，而不是特定的研究领域。

In studying Western Marxism or foreign Marxism—how it was born on Chinese soil and later gradually grew robustly and matured—we cannot simply take the time when these authors were translated and introduced into China as the standard. We cannot even take the emergence of the concept of “Western Marxism” in China as the main clue for exploring the genealogy of China’s foreign Marxism research. This is because neither the appearance of the concept of “Western Marxism” nor the establishment of China’s foreign Marxism research as an independent discipline was an event brewed in an ivory tower; rather, it is inseparable from the history of China’s own socialist construction and development. For example, in the 1980s, the birth of “Western Marxism” in China had two landmark works. One book was *Considerations on Western Marxism* by the British author Perry Anderson, which directly used “Western Marxism” as its title and introduced the trend of “Western Marxism” to Chinese scholars. The other book was *“Western Marxism”* by Mr. Xu Chongwen of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences; this was the first time a Chinese scholar used their own language and discourse to express the so-called “Western Marxism” trend.

我们对西方马克思主义或者国外马克思主义研究，探讨它如何在中国的大地上诞生，并在后来逐渐茁壮成长，发展成熟，不能仅仅以这些作者翻译和引入中国的时间为标准，我们甚至不能以“西方马克思主义”概念何时在中国出现为主要线索去探索中国国外马克思主义研究的谱系。因为，无论是“西方马克思主义”概念的出现，还是中国的国外马克思主义研究作为一个独立的学科的设立，都不是一个在象牙塔里酝酿的事件，而是与中国自身的社会主义建设和发展的历史密不可分。例如，在20世纪80年代，“西方马克思主义”在中国的诞生，有两个具有标志性的著作。一本书是英国作者佩里·安德森的《西方马克思主义探讨》，直接以“西方马克思主义”为标题，为中国学者介绍了“西方马克思主义”思潮。另一本书是中国社会科学院徐崇温先生的《“西方马克思主义”》，这是中国学者第一次用自己的语言和话语来表述所谓的“西方马克思主义”思潮。

Perry Anderson’s *Considerations on Western Marxism* is actually a work in which he critiques the so-called “Western Marxism” trend. Among the “Western Marxist” scholars Anderson lists, including Lukács, Korsch, Gramsci, Benjamin, Horkheimer, Della Volpe, Marcuse, Lefebvre, Adorno, Sartre, Goldmann, and Althusser, these names were later revered as authoritative thinkers in foreign Marxism research. Anderson believes that these so-called “Western Marxist” theories are fundamentally different from the ideas of major Marxist theorists such as Marx, Engels, and Lenin. He points out: “In this changed world, the theory of revolution has been completely transformed, and this transformation has produced what can today be called ‘Western Marxism.’ The works written by the authors we are about to discuss have, within the development of historical materialism, actually formed an entirely new academic structure. In their hands, Marxism, in certain critical aspects, has become a theory utterly distinct from any previous theory.” Anderson emphasizes the difference between “Western Marxism” and mainstream Marxism, while from a Marxist standpoint, he attacks the tendency of these “Western Marxist” scholars’ critical theories to separate themselves from real politics and economics. Anderson continues: “Western Marxism deliberately remains silent on the core issues of the classical tradition of historical materialism: such as a detailed study of the economic laws of motion of the capitalist mode of production, a serious analysis of the political machinery of the bourgeois state, and the class struggle strategies necessary to overthrow that state machinery.” In a certain sense, Anderson’s critique of Western Marxism is correct. When facing real capitalist problems, Western Marxism more often curled up under the concept of critical theory, replacing the critique of weapons with the critique of concepts, ultimately thriving only in the fields of literature, art, and concepts, unable to find effective solutions for truly confronting Western capitalism ravaged by state capitalism and neoliberal capitalism in the 1970s and 1980s. Thus, Anderson’s *Considerations on Western Marxism* is not merely a work that introduces and analyzes “Western Marxism” theoretically; it is a relentless lashing, based on post-war Western capitalist development, of Western Marxism’s enthusiasm for theoretical and conceptual critique and its indifference to capitalist problems.

佩里·安德森的《西方马克思主义探讨》实际上是他对所谓的“西方马克思主义”思潮进行批判的著作，在安德森列举的这些“西方马克思主义”学者中，包括卢卡奇、柯尔施、葛兰西、本雅明、霍克海默、德拉·沃尔佩、马尔库塞、列斐伏尔、阿多诺、萨特、戈德曼和阿尔都塞在内的这些名字，在后来的国外马克思主义研究中都是被人们奉若圭臬的思想家。安德森认为这些所谓的“西方马克思主义”理论，在根本上已经不同于马克思、恩格斯、列宁等主要的马克思主义理论家的思想，他指出：“在这个改变了的世界上，革命的理论完全起了变化，这种变化产生了今天可以称为‘西方马克思主义’的理论。我们现在将要谈到的作者们所撰写的著作，在历史唯物主义发展内部，实际上已经形成了一个完全崭新的学术结构。在他们手里，马克思主义在某些批判性方面，已经成为一种与以往任何理论截然不同的理论。”安德森强调了“西方马克思主义”与主流马克思主义的区别，同时从马克思主义的立场出发，对这些“西方马克思主义”学者的批判理论与现实的政治和经济分割开来的理论倾向给予了挞伐，安德森继续说道：“西方马克思主义故意闭口不谈那些历史唯物主义经典传统最核心的问题：如详尽研究资本主义生产方式的经济运动规律，认真分析资产阶级国家的政治机器以及推翻这种国家机器所必需的阶级斗争策略。”在一定意义上说，安德森对西方马克思主义的批判是正确的，西方马克思主义在面对现实的资本主义问题，更多的是蜷缩在批判理论的观念之下，用观念的批判代替了武器的批判，最终只能在文学艺术和观念领域茁壮成长，无法为真正面对西方资本主义在国家资本主义和新自由主义资本主义肆虐的七八十年代找到有效的解决途径。由此可见，安德森《西方马克思主义探讨》一书并不是仅从理论上介绍和剖析“西方马克思主义”的著作，而是立足于战后的西方资本主义发展，对“西方马克思主义”热衷于理论和观念批判，冷漠于资本主义的问题的一种无情鞭策。

Like Anderson, Mr. Xu Chongwen’s book *“Western Marxism”* also points out the aspect of these so-called “Western Marxist” trends being divorced from real politics. However, when writing *“Western Marxism”*, Mr. Xu Chongwen had a motive different from Anderson’s. Mr. Xu Chongwen points out: “In recent decades, modern Western society has indeed undergone many changes. Marxists living and fighting in the present era must obviously reflect these changes, must give correct explanations and answers to the new phenomena that have emerged and the new questions raised in these changes, and closely integrate the basic principles of Marxism-Leninism with these conditions of modern Western society. Only in this way can Marxism develop with practice, rather than stagnate. And in this regard, what ‘Western Marxism’ has contributed is an extremely valuable body of intellectual material. It provides us with information and inspires our thinking; it raises questions for us and offers lessons from their errors in thinking, prompting us to make correct answers; it also provides the gains from its explorations for us to draw on and refer to.” In Xu Chongwen’s interpretation, the reason “Western Marxism” is worth studying is not that these theories provide us with ways to understand the reality and changes of capitalism, or strategies and tactics to overcome the capitalist path, but rather that “it provides us with information and inspires our thinking; it raises questions for us and offers lessons from their errors in thinking, prompting us to make correct answers.” The “us” here has a clear purpose; it is not a general reference but a specific one, and a specific one within a certain historical era. At the beginning of the 1980s, when the relatively closed national door opened, it faced the enormous influence of the capitalist world. In the process of reform and opening up, it was indeed easy for Chinese people at that time to get lost in the spectacle of capitalist trends, and even to shake their faith in Marxism and socialist construction. However, the introduction of “Western Marxism” allowed those Chinese people at the beginning of reform and opening up to use the critical pens of these thinkers to more deeply understand the mystifying shell of capitalism, expose its unequal, inhumane, and unfair reality, and thus find the correct way to think about how to build socialism with Chinese characteristics. In this regard, the critique of “Western Marxism” had very important significance for the Chinese people of that era. In other words, the earliest group of Chinese Marxist scholars who introduced foreign Marxist thought, such as Xu Chongwen, Chen Xueming, Du Zhangzhi, and Yu Wujin, were actually basing themselves on China’s own problems. The reason “Western Marxism,” or foreign Marxism research, was important was not their theories or assertions, but rather that these thoughts opened a theoretical weapon for the Chinese people of that era to understand the new changes in contemporary capitalism, preventing them from blindly following neoliberal and capitalist values and trends in the early days of reform and opening up, thereby stabilizing the confidence of the Chinese people in realizing Chinese-path modernization.

与安德森一样，徐崇温先生的《“西方马克思主义”》一书也指出了这些所谓的“西方马克思主义”思潮与现实政治相脱节的一面，不过徐崇温先生在撰写《“西方马克思主义”》一书时，却有着一个不同于安德森的动机，徐崇温先生指出：“在最近几十年来，现代西方社会确实发生了许多变化，生活和战斗在现时代的马克思主义者显然必须反映这些变化，必须对在这些变化中出现的新现象、提出的新问题，给予正确的说明和回答，把马克思列宁主义的基本原理同现代西方社会的这些状况密切地结合起来，这样，才能使马克思主义随着实践的发展而发展，而不是停滞不前。而在这方面，‘西方马克思主义’所贡献出来的，就是一份极其有价值的思想资料，它给我们提供情况、启发我们思考；它向我们提出问题和他们在思维中导致错误的教训，促使我们作出正确的回答，它还提供了它在探索中的收获，供我们借鉴和参考。在徐崇温先生的阐释中，“西方马克思主义”之所以值得研究，并不在于这些理论给我们提供了如何理解资本主义现实和发展变化的思考，或者如何克服资本主义道路的方针策略，而是在于“它给我们提供情况、启发我们思考；它向我们提出问题和他们在思维中导致错误的教训，促使我们作出正确的回答”。这里的“我们”，具有明确的目的指向，它并不是一个泛指，而是特指，而且是在一定的历史时代中的特指。在80年代之初，相对封闭的国门敞开，迎来的是资本主义世界的巨大影响力，在改革开放的过程中，对于当时的中国人来说，的确很容易迷失在资本主义潮流的景观之中，甚至会动摇马克思主义和社会主义建设的信念。但“西方马克思主义”的引介，让那些处在改革开放之初的中国人，可以从这些思想家的批判的笔锋下更深刻地理解资本主义神秘化的外壳，揭露其中不平等、不人道、不公平的现实，从而找到正确思考如何建设中国特色社会主义的问题。在这一点上，“西方马克思主义”的批判对于那个时代的中国人来说，具有非常重要的意义。换言之，在最早的一批引介国外马克思主义思想的中国马克思主义学者，如徐崇温、陈学明、杜章智、俞吾金等学者，实际上就是以中国自己的问题为基础的，“西方马克思主义”或者说国外马克思主义研究之所以重要，并不在于他们的理论和论断，而是在于这些思想，为那个时代的中国人打开了一扇理解当代资本主义新变化的理论武器，不至于在改革开放初期盲从于新自由主义和资本主义的价值观和潮流，从而稳定中国人自己实现中国式现代化的信心。

After more than 30 years of development, the original “Western Marxism” research has developed into a comprehensive foreign Marxism research. From initially studying the narrow sense of Western Marxist thought of figures like Lukács, Gramsci, Korsch, Horkheimer, Adorno, Marcuse, Habermas, Sartre, and Althusser, to the broad sense of foreign Marxist schools (such as the Frankfurt School, the Budapest School, the Birmingham School, etc.), national or regional Marxist studies (French Marxism, British Marxism, Eastern European Neo-Marxism, Japanese Marxism, Latin American Marxism, etc.), and thematic fields of Marxist research (feminist Marxism, ecological Marxism, postcolonial Marxism, racial Marxism, etc.), these studies have, to a certain extent, enriched and developed the connotation and extension of contemporary foreign Marxism research, attracting more and more young scholars to devote themselves to foreign Marxism research. This is certainly a gratifying phenomenon.

经过30多年的发展，当初的“西方马克思主义”研究已经发展成为全面发展的国外马克思主义研究，从最开始研究卢卡奇、葛兰西、柯尔施、霍克海默、阿多诺、马尔库塞、哈贝马斯、萨特、阿尔都塞等人狭义上的西方马克思主义思想，到广义上的国外马克思主义流派研究（如法兰克福学派、布达佩斯学派、伯明翰学派等），国别或地域性马克思主义研究（法国马克思主义、英国马克思主义、东欧新马克思主义、日本马克思主义、拉美马克思主义等）、马克思主义的专题领域研究（女性主义的马克思主义、生态马克思主义、后殖民马克思主义、种族马克思主义等），这些研究在一定程度上丰富和发展了当代国外马克思主义研究的内涵和外延，让越来越多的年轻学者投身于国外马克思主义研究之中，这当然是值得欣喜的现象。

However, we must recognize that within the flourishing research on foreign Marxism, one core question has never been resolved: why do we study foreign Marxism? As noted earlier, for the older generation of scholars of foreign Marxism such as Xu Chongwen, Du Zhangzhi, and Chen Xueming, their research on “Western Marxism” and foreign Marxism in the 1980s had a clear problem-orientation: against the backdrop of China’s reform and opening up, they sought to explore the development and changes of contemporary capitalism, and to use the theories and critical concepts of Western Marxism to interpret the internal contradictions and modes of development of capitalism. However, in the research on foreign Marxism since the 21st century, when some scholars introduce certain foreign Marxist thinkers, they perhaps do not, like the older generation of thinkers, ask the question: for China, why is it necessary to introduce this thinker’s concepts and theories? Is it merely because Chinese people do not yet know this thinker’s theory? Clearly, for a minority of younger scholars, they indeed reveal a confusion in introducing and translating foreign Marxist theories. They study individual foreign Marxist thinkers solely to recommend these thinkers, who are not yet well-known to Chinese people, to them, thereby filling a gap in domestic research on a particular foreign Marxist thinker. There are also some researchers who, when introducing the works of foreign Marxist scholars, only introduce their ideas from the perspective of texts and concepts, lacking the dimension of historical materialism. They basically do not examine how these thinkers proposed such concepts and ideas within Western capitalist society. They blindly introduce these concepts and mechanically apply them to China’s socialist reality, thereby creating a theoretical misalignment, insisting that China must cut its feet to fit the shoes of various concepts and propositions put forward by Western Marxism. When we do not know the capitalist crisis and left-wing trends of thought in France in the 1960s, it is difficult to understand Guy Debord’s concept of the society of the spectacle, nor what the critique of everyday life by the Situationist International is actually criticizing. When we do not know the movement of capitalist economic globalization at the turn of the century, which enabled capitalist countries to use financial means to control global society, especially developing countries, we cannot understand the critical core of reality in Hardt and Negri’s *Empire* and David Harvey’s *The New Imperialism*.

不过，我们需要看到，在繁荣的国外马克思主义研究中，始终有一个核心问题没有解决：我们为什么要研究国外马克思主义？正如前文指出，对于徐崇温、杜章智、陈学明等老一代国外马克思主义研究学者而言，他们在20世纪80年代研究“西方马克思主义”和国外马克思主义有着明确的问题导向，即在中国改革开放的背景下，去探索当代资本主义发展和变化，去借助西方马克思主义的理论和批判观念，来解读资本主义的内在矛盾和发展方式。但是，在21世纪以来的国外马克思主义研究中，当一些学者再去引介某些国外的马克思主义学者时，或许并没有像老一辈思想家那样去垂问，对于中国而言，为什么需要引入这个思想家的观念和理论？仅仅是因为中国人还不知道这个思想家的理论吗？显然，对于少数年轻学者而言，他们的确暴露出在引介和翻译国外马克思主义理论上的迷惘，他们研究个别国外马克思主义思想家，仅仅是为了向中国人推荐这些尚不为中国人熟知的思想，从而解决某位国外马克思主义思想家在国内研究中的空白。还有一些研究者，在引介国外马克思主义学者的论著时，只是从文本和观念角度来引介他们的思想，缺乏历史唯物主义的向度，基本上不去考察这些思想家是如何在西方资本主义社会去提出这样的观念和思想的，盲目地引入这些概念，将之生搬硬套在中国的社会主义现实中，从而产生理论上的错位，强调中国必须削足适履地去适应各种西方马克思主义提出的观念和论断。当我们不知道法国60年代的资本主义危机和左翼思潮，我们就很难理解居伊·德波的景观社会概念，也不知道情境主义国际的日常生活批判究竟在批判什么，当我们不知道世纪之交的资本主义经济全球化的运动，造就了资本主义国家利用金融手段来控制全球社会，尤其是发展中国家，我们就无法理解哈特和奈格里的《帝国》以及大卫·哈维的《新帝国主义》的批判的现实内核。

Marx long ago warned us that this kind of research divorced from the real world, a critique that leaves history behind to discuss theory in the abstract, is a methodological idealism. Marx’s critique of the Young Hegelians, Feuerbach, and others in *The German Ideology* still has an enlightening effect on today’s research on foreign Marxism. Marx pointed out: “Where speculation ends—in real life—there real, positive science begins: the representation of the practical activity, of the practical process of development of men. Empty talk about consciousness ceases, and real knowledge has to take its place. When reality is depicted, philosophy as an independent branch of knowledge loses its medium of existence. At the best its place can only be taken by a summing-up of the most general results, abstractions which arise from the observation of the historical development of men. These abstractions in themselves, divorced from real history, have no value whatsoever. They can only serve to facilitate the arrangement of historical material, to indicate the sequence of its separate strata. But they by no means afford a recipe or schema, as does philosophy, for trimming the epochs of history. On the contrary, the difficulties begin only when one sets about the examination and arrangement of the material—whether of a past epoch or of the present—and its actual presentation. The removal of these difficulties is governed by premises which it is quite impossible to state here, but which can only be arrived at by the study of the real life-process and the activity of the individuals of each epoch. We shall select here some of these abstractions, which we use to refute the ideologists, and shall illustrate them by historical examples.” Marx saw that the research of the Young Hegelians and Feuerbach was satisfied with revolutions in words and abstract concepts, but did not care about the real world. Similarly, in today’s research on foreign Marxism, we should also adopt a historical materialist approach to think about the various ideas of foreign Marxism up to the present. For Chinese scholars, it is also necessary to proceed from China’s concrete reality, avoiding discussing a figure or idea solely in terms of a particular foreign Marxist figure, and avoiding empty talk about abstract concepts in certain texts. Therefore, we adhere to Marx’s historical materialism, studying foreign Marxism from the perspective of the real practical activities and actual development processes of human beings. For contemporary China, the greatest reality is the relationship between the new changes in contemporary world capitalism and the construction of socialism with Chinese characteristics. Only by insisting on proceeding from this perspective can research on foreign Marxism find the correct course, allowing the critical edge of foreign Marxism to truly confront China’s current problems. In a word, China’s research on foreign Marxism has never been a discipline that merely introduces Western or foreign Marxist scholars. From the moment “Western Marxism” or research on foreign Marxism appeared in China in the 1980s, it has been oriented by Chinese problems, used to help “us” Chinese people think about the development of world capitalism, expose the basic contradictions of capitalism, and ultimately pave the way for moving towards a communist society. If the fundamental dimension of Chinese problems is lost, research on foreign Marxism would instantly become water without a source, a tree without roots. From this perspective, being oriented by Chinese problems is the ontological foundation of China’s research on foreign Marxism. No matter how profound the theory, how cutting-edge the topic, it must ultimately be applied to Chinese problems, helping contemporary Chinese people think about the development of global society, how to position China’s role and status amidst changes unseen in a century, and how to realize the specific requirements of Chinese-path modernization with confidence in the path, confidence in the theory, confidence in the system, and confidence in the culture. [2]2 The four “Confidences” (四个自信) are a political slogan referring to confidence in the path, theory, system, and culture of socialism with Chinese characteristics.

马克思早就警告过我们，这种脱离于现实世界的研究，离开历史空谈理论的批判，就是一种方法上的唯心主义。马克思在《德意志意识形态》中对青年黑格尔派费尔巴哈等人的批判，对于今天的国外马克思主义研究来说，仍然具有醍醐灌顶的功效，马克思指出：“在思辨终止的地方，在现实生活面前，正是描述人们实践活动和实际发展过程的真正的实证科学开始的地方。关于意识的空话将终止，它们一定会被真正的知识所代替。对现实的描述会使独立的哲学失去生存环境，能够取而代之的充其量不过是从对人类历史发展的考察中抽象出来的最一般的结果的概括。这些抽象本身离开了现实的历史就没有任何价值。它们只能对整理历史资料提供某些方便，指出历史资料的各个层次的顺序。但是这些抽象与哲学不同，它们绝不提供可以适用于各个历史时代的药方或公式。相反，只是在人们着手考察和整理资料——不管是有关过去时代的还是有关当代的资料——的时候，在实际阐述资料的时候，困难才开始出现。这些困难的排除受到种种前提的制约，这些前提在这里是根本不可能提供出来的，而只能从对每个时代的个人的现实生活过程和活动的研究中产生。这里我们只举出几个我们用来与意识形态相对照的抽象，并用历史的实例来加以说明。”马克思看到了青年黑格尔派和费尔巴哈的研究只是满足于词语的革命和抽象的观念，却不关心真正的现实世界。同样，在今天的国外马克思主义研究中，我们也应该以一种历史唯物主义方式来思考迄今为止的国外马克思主义的各种思想。对于中国的学者而言，也需要从中国的具体现实出发，避免就某个国外马克思主义人物来谈人物或思想，避免空泛地谈一些文本中的抽象观念。因此，我们坚持马克思的历史唯物主义，从真正人类的实践活动和实际发展过程来研究国外马克思主义，对于当代的中国来说，最大的实际就是当代世界资本主义新变化和中国特色社会主义的建设之间的关系，只有坚持从这个视角出发，国外马克思主义研究才能找到正确的航向，让国外马克思主义的批判锋芒真正面对中国当下的问题。一言以蔽之，中国的国外马克思主义研究从来不是一种单纯引介西方或国外马克思主义学者的学科，从20世纪80年代“西方马克思主义”或国外马克思主义研究在中国出现那一刻起，它就是以中国问题为导向，用来帮助“我们”中国人去思考世界资本主义的发展，揭露资本主义的基本矛盾，最终为走向共产主义社会铺就道路的研究。如果丧失了中国问题的基本向度，国外马克思主义研究瞬间就会变成无源之水，无本之木。由是观之，以中国问题为导向，就是中国的国外马克思主义研究的本体论基础。无论多么深奥的理论，多么前沿和话题，最终都必然用之于中国问题，帮助当代的中国人去思考全球社会的发展，去定位中国如何在百年未有之大变局中奠定自己的角色和地位，去如何以道路自信、理论自信、制度自信、文化自信来实现中国式现代化的具体要求。

Rooted in Chinese Discourse: The Methodology of Research on Foreign Marxism

立足中国话语：国外马克思主义研究的方法论

Having clarified the ontology oriented by Chinese problems and integrated with the concrete reality of China’s social development and practice, research on foreign Marxism in China’s New Era clearly bears a different historical mission from the research on “Western Marxism” and foreign Marxism at the beginning of reform and opening up. After more than 40 years of research and development, research on foreign Marxism still introduces and analyzes the ideas, concepts, and problems of foreign Marxist scholars for today’s Chinese people. In this regard, many scholars of foreign Marxism have made outstanding contributions. However, in today’s China, we also need to understand and face the following problem: given that the general task of socialism with Chinese characteristics has become realizing socialist modernization and the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation, embarking on the new journey to achieve the “Two Centenary Goals” [3]3 The “Two Centenary Goals” (两个一百年) are the goals of building a moderately prosperous society in all respects by the centenary of the CPC in 2021 and building a modern socialist country that is prosperous, strong, democratic, culturally advanced, and harmonious by the centenary of the PRC in 2049., practicing the core socialist values, focusing on the historical development process of all humanity, and elaborating the rich connotations and great significance of the common values of all mankind, how exactly should we study the ideas and lineages of foreign Marxism? How should we narrate the ideas of foreign Marxism to today’s Chinese people?

在明确了面向中国问题，结合中国社会发展和实践的具体现实的本体论之后，新时代中国的国外马克思主义研究显然有着与改革开放之初的“西方马克思主义”和国外马克思主义研究有着不同的历史使命，经过40余年的研究和发展，国外马克思主义研究仍然在为今天的中国人引介和评析那些国外马克思主义学者的思想、观念和问题，在这一点上，许多国外马克思主义研究学者居厥功至伟。但是，在今天的中国，我们还需要理解面对这样一个问题，即在中国特色社会主义的总任务已经变成实现社会主义现代化和中华民族伟大复兴，实现“两个一百年”的奋斗目标的新征程，践行社会主义核心价值观，着眼于全人类历史发展进程，阐述全人类共同价值的丰富内涵和重大意义，我们究竟应该如何来研究国外马克思主义的思想和谱系，应该如何向今天的中国人来讲述国外马克思主义的思想？

Overall, the current methods in China for studying foreign Marxism can be roughly divided into the following situations:

总体来说，中国目前在研究国外马克思主义方法上，大致可以分成以下几种情况：

1. Translation of original texts, introduction and analysis of foreign Marxism

1. 原初文本的翻译，国外马克思主义的引介和评析

In the 1980s, when “Western Marxism” and research on foreign Marxism first entered China, in order to preserve the originality and authority of these thinkers, scholars basically followed the original texts (even the original English, German, French, Italian, and other languages) step by step to expound the ideas and concepts of these foreign Marxist thinkers. This was a path of “following along in speaking.” On this path, Chinese scholars had an urgent need for original materials on “Western Marxism” and foreign Marxist research, which also prompted the translation and introduction of the earliest batch of foreign Marxist literature in China. Works such as Lukács’s *History and Class Consciousness*, Sartre’s *Critique of Dialectical Reason*, Horkheimer and Adorno’s *Dialectic of Enlightenment*, Benjamin’s *The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction* and *The Lyric Poet in the Age of High Capitalism*, Marcuse’s *One-Dimensional Man*, and Althusser’s *For Marx* were basically introduced during this era. In the 1980s and 1990s, the most representative achievement in translating and introducing foreign Marxist research was the series “Foreign Marxism and Socialist Research,” edited by Xu Chongwen and published by Chongqing Publishing House. This series introduced a large number of the most influential representative works of “Western Marxism,” “Western Marxology,” and foreign Marxist thinkers of that period. Famous works such as Horkheimer’s *Critical Theory*, Korsch’s *Marxism and Philosophy*, Della Volpe’s *Rousseau and Marx*, Heller’s *Everyday Life*, Roemer’s *Social Democracy and the Future*, Gramsci’s *The Philosophy of Praxis*, Marcuse’s *Reason and Revolution*, Cohen’s *Karl Marx’s Theory of History: A Defence*, Lefebvre’s *On the State*, Habermas’s *The Theory of Communicative Action*, Lukács’s *The Ontology of Social Being*, and Adorno’s *Negative Dialectics* appeared in Chinese translation for the first time. This allowed Chinese readers, who were then hungry for original documents, to glimpse the diverse brilliance of various foreign Marxist thinkers through this series. Within this series, not only were these original documents translated and introduced, but more valuably, it also included the research achievements of Chinese scholars on foreign Marxist trends at that time, such as Xu Chongwen’s *An Appraisal of “Western Marxism”*, Ou Litong’s *A Study of the Frankfurt School*, Li Qingyi’s *The Theory of Contemporary Capitalism in “Western Marxism”*, and Yu Wenlie’s *Analytical Marxism*. These achievements represented the level of Chinese scholars’ research on foreign Marxism at the time and also laid a good foundation for the subsequent flourishing of foreign Marxist research in China.

在20世纪80年代，在“西方马克思主义”和国外马克思主义研究最初进入中国的时候，为了保持这些思想家的原始性和权威性，基本上都基于原始文本（甚至是英文、德文、法文、意大利文等原文），来亦步亦趋地阐述这些国外马克思主义思想家的思想观念。这是一个“跟着说”的路径，在这个路径上，中国学者对于“西方马克思主义”和国外马克思主义研究方面的原始材料的需求是非常迫切的，这也促成了最早的一批国外马克思主义文献在中国的翻译和推介，如卢卡奇的《历史与阶级意识》、萨特的《辩证理性批判》、霍克海默和阿多诺的《启蒙辩证法》、本雅明的《机械复制时代的艺术作品》和《发达资本主义时代的抒情诗人》、马尔库塞的《单向度的人》、阿尔都塞的《保卫马克思》等书籍，基本上都是在这个时代引入进来的。在20世纪八九十年代，作为翻译和介绍国外马克思主义研究的最具有代表性的成果，由徐崇温先生在重庆出版社主编的一套“国外马克思主义和社会主义研究丛书”，这套丛书大量引入了那个时期最富有影响力的“西方马克思主义”，“西方马克思学”和国外马克思主义思想家的代表性成果，霍克海默的《批判理论》、柯尔施的《马克思主义和哲学》、德拉·沃尔佩的《卢梭和马克思》、赫勒的《日常生活》、罗默的《社会民主与未来》、葛兰西的《实践哲学》、马尔库塞的《理性与革命》、柯亨的《卡尔·马克思的历史理论：一个辩护》、列斐伏尔的《论国家》、哈贝马斯的《交往行动理论》、卢卡奇的《关于社会存在的本体论》、阿多诺的《否定的辩证法》等名著第一次有了中译本，让当时对原始文献如饥似渴的中国读者，可以通过这套丛书管窥各个国外马克思主义思想家的纷呈风采。在这套从书中，不仅有这些原始文献的译介，更可贵的是，也收录了当时中国学者对国外马克思主义思潮的研究成果，如徐崇温的《“西方马克思主义”评价》、欧力同的《法兰克福学派研究》、李青宜的《“西方马克思主义”的当代资本主义理论》、余文列的《分析学派的马克思主义》等，这些成果代表了当时中国学者对国外马克思主义研究的水准，也为后来的中国国外马克思主义研究的繁荣奠基了良好的基础。

However, it can be seen that although Chinese scholars began to study and explore these foreign Marxist ideas and also conducted limited critiques of their thoughts and concepts from a Marxist perspective, overall they were still confined to the original context of these thinkers when discussing issues. To ensure they did not distort the ideas of foreign Marxist thinkers, many researchers even studied from the original context of various languages, striving not to tarnish the brilliance of these ideas when translating and evaluating them. During this period, insisting on studying from original documents and original concepts, and getting close to the context and historical background of these thinkers and texts, was a typical characteristic of the early stage of foreign Marxist research. But in this process, Chinese scholars were inevitably required to break away from their familiar linguistic environment and get as close as possible to the context of foreign scholars to understand the content of their texts. This could potentially create an effect of “learning the Handan walk,”[4]4 “Learning the Handan walk” (邯郸学步) is a Chinese idiom from the Zhuangzi, referring to someone who tries to imitate another’s mannerisms so slavishly that they forget their own, ending up unable to walk at all. meaning that we neither grasped the true essence of these thinkers, merely sticking to the words and expressions presented in their texts, nor did we adhere to abstract deductions of various concepts, forgetting that the historical background for our own interpretation and understanding of foreign Marxist thinkers is precisely the current reality of China. Although we cannot forget that at the beginning of foreign Marxist research, following step by step “along with” the pace of “Western Marxism” and foreign Marxist research had a certain historical rationality, over the more than forty years of building socialism with Chinese characteristics, China’s philosophical and social science research has long been closely linked with research from various countries around the world. Simple translation and introduction no longer meet the needs of our foreign Marxist research today. Therefore, there is indeed something anachronistic about this research method. Some scholars have keenly noted this point, proposing: “To study and research foreign Marxist trends, we must always adhere to the scientific and critical stance, viewpoint, and method of Marxism. On the one hand, we should earnestly absorb and draw on the theoretical achievements and beneficial experiences of foreign Marxism with an open mind and vision; on the other hand, we must always maintain a dialectical, critical, and analytical scientific attitude.” This is indeed a question worthy of deep reflection on the “following along” path of studying foreign Marxism based on translation and introduction.

不过，可以看出，尽管中国学者开始研究和探讨这些国外马克思主义的思想，也从马克思主义角度对他们的思想和观念进行了有限的批判，但总体而言，他们仍然囿于这些思想家的原始语境来谈问题，很多研究者为了保证不会歪曲国外马克思主义思想家的思想，甚至从各种语言的原始语境来研究，力求在翻译和评析这些思想时，不会玷污其中思想观念的光芒在这个时间段上，坚持从原始文献和原初观念，贴近这些思想家和文本的语境和历史背景来研究，是国外马克思主义研究初期的典型特色。但在这个过程中，势必要求中国学者能够从自己熟悉的语言环境中脱离出来，尽可能贴近国外学者的语境来理解其文本的内容，有可能会造成邯郸学步的效应，即我们既没有学会这些思想家的真谛，只是拘泥他们在文本中呈现出来的文字和表述，拘泥于各种观念的抽象演绎，忘记了我们自己在解释和理解国外马克思主义思想家时的历史背景，恰恰是当下的中国现实。尽管我们不能忘记在国外马克思主义研究之初，亦步亦趋地“跟着”“西方马克思主义”和国外马克思主义研究的步伐前进，具有一定的历史合理性。但是，在中国特色社会主义建设的四十余年中，中国的哲学社会科学研究早已与世界各国的研究密切衔接，简单地翻译和引介，已经不再满足我们今天国外马克思主义研究的需要，所以，对于这种研究方式，的确存在着某种不合时宜之处，因此一些学者已经敏锐地注意到这一点，他们提出：“学习和研究国外马克思主义思潮，必须始终坚持马克思主义的科学的批判的立场、观点和方法。一方面，我们应当以开放的胸襟和眼光认真地汲取和借鉴国外马克思主义的理论成就和有益经验；另一方面，必须始终坚持辩证的、批判的和分析的科学态度。”这的确是基于翻译引介来研究国外马克思主义的“跟着走”路径值得深入思考的问题。

2. The Introduction of Problem Awareness: The Genealogy and Research of Foreign Marxism

2. 问题意识的引入，国外马克思主义谱系和研究

With the translation and introduction of more and more works by foreign Marxist thinkers, Chinese scholars naturally formed deeper reflections. These thinkers are not isolated individual figures; how are they connected in specific historical backgrounds, and in what intellectual lineages and genealogies do they raise problems and concepts? Therefore, at this stage, it is no longer simply a matter of staying at the introductory level of “following along in speaking” step by step. Instead, it attempts to leap out of the original Western context and textual framework, using a new framework to link different thoughts, concepts, and problems together, allowing the ideas of foreign Marxist research to be expressed in a way that Chinese people can understand. In a certain sense, we can call this the path of “speaking on from where others left off.”

随着越来越多的国外马克思主义思想家的著作的翻译和引入，中国学者自然会形成一些更深入的思考，这些思想家并不是一个个孤立的人物形象，他们是如何在具体的历史背景中被联系在一起，又是在何种思想脉络和谱系中提出问题和观念的？因此，在这个阶段上，不再是简简单单停留在介绍性的亦步亦趋的“跟着说”，而是试图跳出原先的西方语境和文本的框架，用一种新的框架来将不同的思想、观念和问题衔接起来，让国外马克思主义研究的思想可以用被中国人所理解的方式来言说。在一定意义上我们可以将其称之为“接着说”的路径。

For example, the research in *A History of the Understanding of Capitalism*, edited by Professor Zhang Yibing of Nanjing University, is a typical case of proceeding from Marx’s historical materialist standpoint, fully synthesizing the main contributions of major foreign Marxist theorists, and thereby using one’s own discursive mode to explore the entire thread of the historical understanding of capitalism from Marx’s era to the contemporary development of Western capitalism. We know that the greatest contribution of contemporary foreign Marxist studies is the analysis and critique of various new changes in the contemporary development of capitalism, from Horkheimer and Adorno’s critique of instrumental reason and the myth of enlightenment in *Dialectic of Enlightenment*, to Marcuse’s exposure of ideological manipulation of workers under advanced capitalist society in *One-Dimensional Man*, to Debord’s *The Society of the Spectacle* pointing out capitalism’s shift from the pure sphere of production to the fetishism of urban and cultural spectacles, and then to Baudrillard’s critique of the symbolic exchange of consumer capitalism in *The Consumer Society* as a critique of the political economy of the sign. These all constitute the different analyses and critiques of capitalism by foreign Marxist thinkers since the twentieth century, forming a long and profound scroll. However, for a long time, foreign Marxist studies have achieved considerable success in research on individual figures, such as specialized analyses and expositions of Marcuse, Debord, Baudrillard, Adorno, and others. Yet the mapping of the overall thread of the development of post-war capitalism by foreign Marxist thinkers has remained absent. This requires Chinese scholars to summarize their own problem consciousness from reading these texts, linking these scattered texts and ideas together, and threading them into an overall thread that can be understood and critiqued. As Mr. Zhang Yibing points out in the preface, the research in *A History of the Understanding of Capitalism* “takes Marx and Engels’ understanding of the reality of capitalist society and the alien borrowing, creative generation, and developmental thread of their cognitive concepts as the axis of thought. This is a reconstruction of the scene of intellectual history, or rather an archaeological study of the conceptual genealogy of Marx and Engels. We cannot directly return to the scene of Marx and Engels’ thinking; we only reconstruct the possible historical process of the formation of the Marxist scientific understanding of capitalism based on subtle changes in the literature and numerous complex historical supporting backgrounds. It must be particularly pointed out that this research result is not directly equivalent to the thought of Marx and Engels, but only a specific historical subjective understanding obtained by us Chinese Marxist researchers in the twenty-first century. This point is precisely a methodological self-awareness.”

譬如，南京大学的张一兵教授主编的《资本主义理解史》的研究就是典型的从马克思历史唯物主义立场出发，在充分综合了主要的国外马克思主义理论家的主要贡献，从而用自己的话语方式，探讨从马克思时代到当代西方资本主义发展的整个对资本主义历史理解的脉络。我们知道，当代国外马克思主义研究最大的贡献就是对资本主义在当代发展的各种新变化的分析和批判，从霍克海默和阿多诺在《启蒙辩证法》中对工具理性和启蒙神话的批判，到马尔库塞《单向度的人》中对发达资本主义社会下对工人的意识形态操纵，以及德波《景观社会》指出资本主义从纯粹的生产领域转移到城市和文化景观的拜物教，再到鲍德里亚的《消费社会》中消费资本主义的象征交换的符号政治经济学批判，这些都构成了20世纪以来，国外马克思主义思想家对于资本主义的不同分析和批判，构成了一个漫长而有深度的长卷。然而，在很长一段时间里，国外马克思主义研究在个别人物的研究上，颇有建树，如对马尔库塞、德波、鲍德里亚、阿多诺等人有专门的分析和论述，但是从国外马克思主义思想家对战后资本主义发展的总体线索的谱绘，却一直付之阙如。这些需要中国学者对这些文本的阅读中总结自己的问题意识，将这些零散的文本和思想关联起来，贯穿成可以理解和批判的总体线索。正如张一兵先生在序言中指出，《资本主义理解史》的研究“以马克思恩格斯关于资本主义社会现实的理解和认识概念的他性借用、创造性生成和发展线索为思考中轴,这是一种思想史场景的重新建构，或者说叫马克思恩格斯的概念谱系的考古学研究。我们并不能直接回到马克思恩格斯的思考现场，只是根据文献中的细微变化和众多复杂的历史支援背景,拟建马克思主义资本主义科学认识形成的可能性历史进程。需要特别指出的是，这种研究结果并不直接等同于马克思恩格斯的思想，而只是我们中国马克思主义研究者在21世纪获得的特定的历史性主观认识。这一点，恰恰是一种方法论上的自觉”。

Indeed, in genealogical research, a methodological self-awareness has already begun to emerge, exploring the use of specific problems to link together the intellectual contributions of different thinkers. To a certain extent, this indeed requires the unique wisdom of Chinese scholars to creatively explore the distinctive problem consciousness of foreign Marxism. However, these genealogical and thread studies still state problems within the framework defined by Western theories and discursive systems; the discursive systems formed therein remain Western in nature. For example, in ecological Marxism, we still enumerate the expositions of Western scholars such as Ben Agger, O’Connor, and Foster; the issues of concern remain highly dependent on the reports of the Club of Rome in the twentieth century and recent discussions in Western discourse on the issue of global warming. Although Chinese scholars can manage to “speak further” [jiezhe shuo], overall, Chinese discourse remains absent; we still need to discuss the intellectual genealogy of foreign Marxism within the language of translation and the issues introduced.

的确，在谱系研究中，已经开始拥有一种方法论上的自觉，开始探索用特定的问题来将不同的思想家的思想贡献衔接起来，的确在一定程度上需要中国学者的独特智慧，开创性地探索国外马克思主义独到的问题意识，但是，这些谱系和线索研究，仍然是在西方理论和话语体系框定的范围内来陈述问题，其中形成的话语体系仍然是西方式的。例如，在生态马克思主义方面，我们仍然是列举本·阿格尔、奥康纳、福斯特等西方学者的论述，关注的问题依然高度依赖于20世纪的罗马俱乐部的报告，以及新近几年来西方话语中关于全球变暖问题的讨论，中国学者虽然能够做到接着说，但总体上中国话语仍然是缺位的，我们仍然需要在翻译的语言和引介的问题上来讨论国外马克思主义的思想谱系。

3. The Establishment of Chinese Discourse: The Chinese Voice in Foreign Marxist Studies

3.中国话语的建立，国外马克思主义研究的中国声音

The Chinese discourse in foreign Marxist studies is not achieved overnight; it is a product of the development of translation and introduction, and genealogical research to a certain stage. Once foreign Marxist studies have accumulated a large number of translations of original documents and clarified the developmental genealogy of foreign Marxism, a chemical reaction will inevitably occur, forming a unique discursive system within the study of philosophy and social sciences with Chinese characteristics. This means that foreign Marxist studies will develop a new path: we must not only “follow and speak” [genzhe shuo] and “speak further” [jiezhe shuo], but also “speak in opposition” [duizhe shuo] using the Chinese discursive system, gaining the ability to dialogue and interact with Marxist studies in countries around the world. Xi Jinping points out: “The characteristics, style, and manner of philosophy and social sciences are products of development to a certain stage, marks of maturity, symbols of strength, and embodiments of confidence.” [5]5 Xi Jinping, “Speech at a Symposium on Philosophy and Social Sciences,” May 17, 2016. Therefore, the establishment of a Chinese discursive system, using Chinese discourse to study various foreign Marxist thoughts, means shifting the discursive field originally defined by Western scholars to topics based on China’s concrete historical practice.

国外马克思主义研究的中国话语，并不是一蹴而就的，而是在翻译引介，谱系研究发展到一定阶段上的产物，而一旦国外马克思主义研究积累了大量的原始文献的翻译，澄清了国外马克思主义的发展谱系，就必然会产生化学反应，在中国特色的哲学社会科学的研究中形成独特的话语体系，这意味着国外马克思主义研究会形成一个新的路径，即我们不仅要“跟着说”和“接着说”，而且要用中国话语体系“对着说”，能够拥有与全世界各国马克思主义研究对话和交往的能力。习近平指出：“哲学社会科学的特色、风格、气派，是发展到一定阶段的产物，是成熟的标志，是实力的象征，也是自信的体现。”因此，中国话语体系的建立，用中国话语来研究国外马克思主义的各种思想，就是将原先由西方学者框定的话语场，转移到基于中国具体历史实践的话题中来。

The study of foreign Marxism today has clearly moved beyond the stage where it was necessary to continuously introduce the works of foreign Marxist thinkers into China. Today’s Chinese Marxist scholars should possess this theoretical confidence and cultural confidence, enabling them to engage in dialogue and discussion face-to-face with Marxist thinkers from major Western countries, to absorb the beneficial elements of their thought, and also to use the Chinese discourse system to analyze and critique the deficiencies in their discourse. For example, the emerging young Japanese Marxist scholar Kohei Saito gained international fame with his book *Karl Marx’s Ecosocialism*. More recently, his new work *Capital in the Anthropocene* was published in mainland China in 2023. However, when reading Saito’s works, we must not only understand what he advocates, what he proposes, and what he opposes; we also need to engage in dialogue with this new generation of foreign Marxist scholars from the foundation of the Chinese discourse system. In *Capital in the Anthropocene*, Saito clearly examines Marx’s issues from the perspective of the material exchange between humanity and nature and so-called global climate justice, arguing that Marx himself was an ecosocialist and that the very reason Marx criticized capitalism was precisely capitalism’s exploitation and plunder of nature. Let us set aside the fact that Saito one-sidedly exaggerates capitalism’s exploitation of nature while ignoring the inherent inequality and exploitation within capitalist relations of production. Even regarding the issues he raises, they are deeply influenced by the mainstream Western ideology since the 21st century. Climate warming and climate justice, advocating carbon emissions and carbon neutrality, are in themselves unproblematic in terms of value. But Saito shifts his argument, claiming that this climate injustice stems from the GDP growthism of various countries, and that the solution to climate justice lies in what he calls “degrowth communism,” which requires people’s “spontaneous self-restraint.” Saito argues: “To expand the ‘realm of freedom,’ we must destroy the system that pursues only infinite growth, drives people to work long hours, and encourages unrestrained consumption. To build a society that is overall happy, fair, and sustainable, we must spontaneously exercise ‘self-restraint,’ even if total production decreases compared to before.” Saito’s “degrowth communism,” although politically correct within the Western discourse system, is clearly unsuitable for China today. Moreover, Saito’s anti-capitalist growth, advocating a socialism of human self-restraint, is actually built on a Western eschatological relationship of struggle between humanity and nature, ignoring the immense potential of human society itself, thus reaching relatively extreme conclusions. For the study of Saito, merely introducing what he says is insufficient. We need to dare to engage in dialogue with him, based on China’s position and discourse system, to reveal the latent problems in his work. Saito is proficient in German and has his own unique perspective on interpreting Marx’s original texts, but once he touches on macro-historical issues, he falls into abstract ideological discourse. Criticizing Saito cannot be a simple matter of praise or blame; rather, it must be tested by restoring it to China’s own discourse system, so as to distinguish the good from the bad, discover the beneficial components, and discard the ideological ones.

今天的国外马克思主义研究，显然已经不再是需要将国外马克思主义思想家的作品源源不断地引介到中国来的阶段，在今天的中国马克思主义学者，应该具有这种理论自信和文化自信，能够面对面地与西方主要国家的马克思主义思想家进行对话和讨论，吸纳他们思想中优良的成分，也需要用中国话语体系来分析和批判他们在话语中的不足。例如，日本新锐的马克思主义学者斋藤幸平，曾以一本《卡尔·马克思的生态社会主义》而蜚声海外，最近，他的新著《人类世的“资本论”》也于2023年在中国大陆出版。不过，在阅读斋藤幸平的著作时，我们不仅要读到他主张什么，他提出了什么，他反对什么，我们也需要站在中国话语体系的基础上，来与这位新一代的国外马克思主义学者进行对话。在《人类世的“资本论”》，斋藤幸平显然是从人与自然的物质交换和所谓的全球气候正义的角度来思考马克思的问题，并认为马克思本身就是一个生态社会主义者，认为马克思之所以批判资本主义，恰恰在于资本主义对自然的剥削和掠夺。我们且不说斋藤幸平片面地夸大了资本主义对自然的剥削，忽略了资本主义生产关系的内在不平等和剥削，就从他提出的问题而言，其实也深受21世纪以来的西方主流意识形态的影响，因为气候变暖和气候正义，主张碳排放和碳中和，本身在价值上没有什么问题，但斋藤幸平笔锋一转，认为这种气候的非正义源于各个国家的GDP的增长主义，而解决气候正义的问题，在于他所谓的“去增长的共产主义”，而这种“去增长”需要的是人们的“自发地自我克制”。斋藤幸平认为：“为了扩大‘自由王国’，必须摧毁只追求无限增长，驱使人们长时间工作和无节制消费的制度。为了建立一个整体上幸福、公平和可持续的社会，我们必须自发地‘自我克制’，即便生产总量相比原来有所减少。”斋藤幸平的“去增长的共产主义”，尽管在西方话语体系里是一种政治正确，但对于今天的中国来说，显然是不适合的，而且，在斋藤幸平的反资本主义增长，主张人的自我克制的社会主义，实际上建立在西方末世论的人与自然的博弈关系之上，忽略了人类社会本身的巨大潜能，从而得出了相对偏激的结论。对于斋藤幸平的研究，仅仅去介绍他说了什么是不够的，我们需要敢于与之对话，基于中国的立场和话语体系，对他潜在的问题揭示出来。斋藤幸平精通德文，对马克思原始文献的解读有着他自己独到的一面，但一旦涉及宏观历史问题，就堕入到意识形态的抽象话语之中。而对斋藤幸平的批判，不能简单加以臧否，而是需要将其还原到中国自身的话语体系中来检验，才能分辨其良莠，发现其中有益的成分，摒弃其中的意识形态的成分。

The establishment of the Chinese discourse system and the articulation of China’s voice in the study of foreign Marxism are not a movement of working behind closed doors in an ivory tower, but rather the result of fully integrating with China’s concrete reality and fully integrating with the excellent traditional Chinese culture. Chinese history is long and continuous. Through the vicissitudes of time, the Chinese people have formed a unique practical wisdom. As Xi Jinping pointed out: “The great social transformation in contemporary China is not a simple continuation of our historical and cultural template, not a simple application of the template envisioned by Marxist classical writers, not a reprint of the socialist practices of other countries, and not a copy of foreign modernization development. It is impossible to find a ready-made textbook. China’s philosophy and social sciences should center on what we are doing, excavate new materials, discover new problems, propose new viewpoints, and construct new theories from the practice of China’s reform and development.” This is not only the responsibility of Chinese researchers of foreign Marxism but also the guiding principle for the construction of the entire discourse system of China’s philosophy and social sciences.

中国话语体系的建立，在国外马克思主义研究中发出中国声音，并不是一种在象牙塔里闭门造车的运动，而是充分结合中国具体实际，充分结合中华优秀传统文化的结果。中国历史源远流长，在沧海桑田的变迁中，中国人民形成了独特的实践智慧，正如习近平指出：“当代中国的伟大社会变革，不是简单延续我国历史文化的母版，不是简单套用马克思主义经典作家设想的模板，不是其他国家社会主义实践的再版，也不是国外现代化发展的翻版，不可能找到现成的教科书。我国哲学社会科学应该以我们正在做的事情为中心，从我国改革发展的实践中挖掘新材料、发现新问题、提出新观点、构建新理论。”这不仅是中国国外马克思主义研究者的责任，也是整个中国哲学社会科学话语体系建设的指针。

Serving China’s Future: The Teleology of the Study of Foreign Marxism

服务中国未来：国外马克思主义研究的目的论

Having understood “why study foreign Marxism?” and “how to study foreign Marxism?”, we now face the next question: where should the study of foreign Marxism go? In other words, for the future development of socialist construction with Chinese characteristics, in the face of changes unseen in a century, and to achieve the “Two Centenary Goals,” what kind of study of foreign Marxism do we need?

在理解了“为什么研究国外马克思主义？”“如何研究国外马克思主义？”之后，我们面对下一个问题是，国外马克思主义研究何去何从，换言之，对于未来的中国特色社会主义建设的发展，面对百年未有之大变局，实现“两个一百年”的奋斗目标，我们需要什么样的国外马克思主义研究？

The study of foreign Marxism, in its origins, is still rooted in Marxism. No matter how various trends of foreign Marxism change, they cannot escape one question: in transcending and overcoming capitalism, how to realize a more equal, just, and better social system? This social system will become the ultimate goal of all Marxist research. Communism is precisely the vision of a future society that Marx began exploring in his youth, and it constitutes the original aspiration of the entire Marxist lineage. In the *Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844*—a classic text later revered by “Western Marxism” and various trends of foreign Marxism—Marx analyzed private property and alienated labor, as well as their connection to Hegelian philosophy. But ultimately, Marx sought, in the name of communism, to transcend the alienation of the worker’s species-being under capitalist society, to transcend the social inequality brought about by private property and its property system, and finally to establish a communist society that actively sublates human alienation and returns to the true essence of humanity. Marx pointed out: “Communism is the positive sublation of private property, that is, of human self-alienation, and therefore the true appropriation of the human essence through and for humanity; therefore, it is the complete return of humanity to itself as a social, that is, human, being—a return accomplished consciously and embracing the entire wealth of previous development.” This return to the true essence of humanity became the root of establishing a communist society in the later *Communist Manifesto*, and it is also the basis for the ultimate goal of seeking human liberation pursued by many foreign Marxist scholars after criticizing capitalism.

国外马克思主义研究，从源头来说，仍然是源于马克思主义，无论国外马克思主义的各种思潮如何变化，他们都离不开一个问题，在超越和克服了资本主义之中，如何实现一个更为平等、公正、美好的社会制度，这个社会制度将成为所有马克思主义研究最终指向的目标。共产主义，正是马克思从青年时期就开始探索的未来社会的想象，也构成了整个马克思主义谱系的初心，在《1844年经济学哲学手稿》这部后来被“西方马克思主义”和各种国外马克思主义思潮推崇的经典文本中，马克思分析了私有财产和异化劳动，以及与黑格尔哲学之间的关联，但最终马克思试图在共产主义的名义下，超越资本主义社会对工人的类本质的异化，超越私有制及其财产制度带来的社会不平等，最终建立一个积极扬弃了人的异化，回归真正人的本质的共产主义社会，马克思指出：“共产主义是对私有财产即人的自我异化的积极的扬弃，因而是通过人并且为了人而对人的本质的真正占有；因此，它是人向自身、也就是向社会的即合乎人性的人的复归，这种复归是完全的复归，是自觉实现并在以往发展的全部财富的范围内实现的复归。”这种向真正的人的本质复归，成为后来《共产党宣言》中建立共产主义社会的根源，也是后来诸多国外马克思主义学者在批判资本主义之后，寻求人类解放的最终目的的根据。

For example, in *History and Class Consciousness* by Lukács, the founder of “Western Marxism,” he provides a very profound analysis of the phenomenon of reification under the capitalist system. Lukács believed that the reason for analyzing capitalist reification was in fact the need to realize a completely new social system, namely communist society. Under this society, the reification of human beings under capitalist production conditions is overcome, and there is a return toward a truly human existence. Lukács said: “In this concept, the value character and tendency of the problems caused by overcoming reified existence become very clear. At this point, nature means the truly human existence, means the essence of the true human being, freed from the errors of society and its mechanizing forms: the human being as a perfect totality, who internally overcomes or is overcoming the split between theory and practice, reason and sensibility, form and content; for him, to give himself form does not mean an abstract reason that casts aside concrete content; for him, freedom and necessity are identical.” [7]7 Lukács, *History and Class Consciousness*, trans. Rodney Livingstone (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1971), p. 137. The translation here follows the Chinese text provided. The era in which Lukács lived, the early 20th century, saw capitalism transition from industrial capitalism to finance capitalism and monopoly capitalism. Using the concepts of reification and class consciousness, Lukács re-pointed toward the totality concept of communism proposed by Marx and Engels in the 19th century, and the concept of totality was also a basic characteristic by which Lukács defined future communist society. By the 1960s, capitalism began to shift from the sphere of production to the sphere of consumption. During this period, the Lefebvre school, which analyzed daily life and space, emerged, as did Debord, who analyzed the capitalist spectacle, and later Baudrillard, who laid the foundation for the critique of consumer capitalism. But no matter how they changed, the original intention of these foreign Marxist thinkers did not change; they still adhered to the original ideal of Marxism, and on the basis of analyzing and criticizing the new changes in capitalism, they proposed a fairer, more harmonious, and more beautiful communist system. For example, Guy Debord’s *The Society of the Spectacle*, after criticizing the time of the capitalist spectacle, quickly provides a plan for how to realize the total time of a “classless society.” He points out: “The natural foundation of time, the sensible data of the passage of time, becomes something human and social through being-for-man. This is the limited state of human practice, labor at different stages, which both humanizes and dehumanizes time, making it cyclical time, the separated irreversible time of economic production. The revolutionary project of a classless society, the project of a universal historical life, is the project of the weakening of the social measure of time, in favor of the playful model of the irreversible time of individuals and groups, in which model there simultaneously appear some united independent times. This is the project of the total realization of communism in the time environment, and communism will eliminate ‘everything that exists independently of individuals.’” [8]8 Guy Debord, *The Society of the Spectacle*, trans. Donald Nicholson-Smith (New York: Zone Books, 1995), thesis 161. The translation here follows the Chinese text provided.

例如，在“西方马克思主义”的开创者卢卡奇的《历史与阶级意识》中，他对资本主义制度下的物化现象给予十分深刻的分析，卢卡奇认为，之所以要分析资本主义的物化，实际上也是需要实现一种全新的社会制度，即共产主义社会，在社会之下，克服了资本主义生产条件下的人的物化，向着一种真正的人的存在而复归，卢卡奇说：“在这种概念中，克服物化的存在造成的问题的价值性质和倾向表现得十分清楚。这时自然就意味着真正的人的存在，意味着人的真正的、摆脱了社会的错误的令人机械化的形式的本质：人作为自身完美的总体，他内在地克服了或正在克服着理论和实践、理性和感性、形式和内容的分裂；对他来说，他要赋予自己以形式，这种倾向并不意味着是一种抽象的、把具体内容扔在一边的理性；对他来说，自由和必然是同一的。”卢卡奇所处的时代，即20世纪初期，资本主义从产业资本主义转向金融资本主义和垄断资本主义，卢卡奇用物化和阶级意识的概念，重新指向了马克思、恩格斯在19世纪提出的共产主义的总体性理念，而总体性概念，也是卢卡奇界定未来共产主义社会的一个基本特征。到了20世纪60年代，资本主义开始从生产领域转向了消费领域，在这个时期，诞生了对日常生活和空间进行分析的列斐伏尔学派，也出现了分析资本主义景观的德波，以及后来奠定消费资本主义批判的鲍德里亚，但无论如何变化，这些国外马克思主义思想家的初衷没有变，他们仍然坚持着马克思主义的原初理想，在分析和批判资本主义新变化的基础上，提出一个更为公平、和谐、美好的共产主义制度。例如，居伊·德波的《景观社会》在批判了资本主义景观时间之后，迅速地给出了一个如何实现“无阶级社会”的总体时间的规划，他指出：“时间的自然基础，即时间流逝的感性资料，通过为人存在而变成人和社会的东西。这是人类实践的局限状态，是不同阶段的劳动，此时将时间既人性化又非人性化，使之成为循环的时间，经济生产的被分离的不可逆时间。无阶级社会的革命规划，普及的历史生活的革命规划，就是时间的社会尺度减弱的规划，这有利于个人和团体的不可逆时间的游戏模式，在这个模式中，同时出现了一些联合的独立时间。这是在时间环境中共产主义总体实现的规划，而共产主义将消除‘不依赖个人而存在的一切’。”

However, although foreign Marxist thinkers of various eras have given various interpretations and depictions of Marx’s conception of future society, it can be said that Lukács, Althusser, Guy Debord, Baudrillard, and even later Badiou, Agamben, Byung-Chul Han, and Kohei Saito have all, to a certain extent, combined the unique problems of their respective eras and countries to provide incisive critiques of the inequality between people under capitalism, the disharmony between humans and nature, and the inversion of the relationship between humans and civil society. But once it comes to how to escape the predicament of capitalism and realize the conception of a future socialist “communism” after capitalism, it more or less contains elements of utopianism. Although they carry the indignation of criticizing the injustice of capitalism and also bear the original aspiration of establishing a fairer and better future society, relying solely on some novel concepts and words is powerless to touch the foundations of capitalism. As Marx pointed out in the “Introduction” to *A Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right*: “The weapon of criticism cannot, of course, replace criticism by weapons, material force must be overthrown by material force; but theory also becomes a material force once it has gripped the masses.” [9]9 Karl Marx, “Introduction” to *A Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right*, in *Marx-Engels Collected Works*, vol. 3 (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1975), p. 182. Any Marxism, including foreign Marxist studies, can only become a truly powerful ideological weapon on a material basis, on the basis of the practical activity of the masses. That is to say, all foreign Marxist studies must serve a practical purpose, and in contemporary China, foreign Marxist studies must serve a future of socialism with Chinese characteristics.

不过，尽管各个时代的国外马克思主义思想家，对于马克思关于未来社会的设想，给出了各种各样解释和描绘。可以说，无论是卢卡奇、阿尔都塞、居伊·德波、鲍德里亚，甚至更晚一些的巴迪欧、阿甘本、韩炳哲、斋藤幸平，都在一定程度上，结合了他们各自时代，各自国家的独特问题，对于资本主义下的人与人的不平等，人与自然之间的不和谐，以及人与市民社会之间的关系的颠倒，都给予了入木三分的批判。但是，一旦涉及如何走出资本主义的困境，实现资本主义之后的未来社会主义的“共产主义”名义下的设想，或多或少都带有一些空想的成分，尽管他们带有批判资本主义的不公正的愤懑，也带有建立一个更为公平和美好的未来社会的初心，但是仅仅依赖于部分新颖的观念和词语，无力于触动资本主义的根基。正如马克思在《黑格尔法哲学批判导言》中指出：“批判的武器当然不能代替武器的批判，物质力量只能用物质力量来摧毁；但是理论一经掌握群众，也会变成物质力量。”任何马克思主义，包括国外马克思主义研究，只有在物质的基础上，只有在人民群众的实践基础上，才能成为真正有力的思想武器，也就是说，所有的国外马克思主义研究，必须服务于一个现实的目的，而在当下的中国，国外马克思主义研究必须服务于一个中国特色社会主义的未来。

So, how exactly can foreign Marxist studies serve China’s conception of future society? For the future of socialism with Chinese characteristics, we can examine it on two levels: one is the domestic level, and the other is the international level. First, on the domestic level, the blueprint for the conception of an ideal future society is embodied in more specific aspects. For example, the report of the 20th National Congress of the CPC points out: “We must realize, safeguard, and develop the fundamental interests of the vast majority of the people, firmly grasp the issues of most direct and practical concern to the people, adhere to doing our utmost and acting within our capabilities, go deep among the people and to the grassroots, adopt more measures to benefit the people’s wellbeing and warm their hearts, strive to solve the urgent, difficult, and anxious problems of the people, improve the basic public service system, raise the level of public services, enhance balance and accessibility, and solidly promote common prosperity.” [10]10 Xi Jinping, “Hold High the Great Banner of Socialism with Chinese Characteristics and Strive in Unity to Build a Modern Socialist Country in All Respects,” Report to the 20th National Congress of the Communist Party of China, October 16, 2022. The translation here follows the Chinese text provided. In terms of specific measures, the report of the 20th National Congress of the CPC proposed “improving the distribution system,” “implementing the employment-first strategy,” “improving the social security system,” and “advancing the Healthy China initiative.” In these areas, foreign Marxist studies have great potential to contribute. For example, in the achievements of Marxist political philosophy research in recent years, especially the results on distributive justice, they have a certain reference value for the “improving the distribution system” in the report of the 20th National Congress of the CPC. For instance, the research on distributive justice by the British analytical Marxist G.A. Cohen has certain implications for China today. In his book *Why Not Socialism?*, Cohen points out that the core of today’s capitalist political systems and their theories is built on inequality, and therefore: “The socialist aspiration is to extend the values of sharing and justice to our entire economic life. … The victory of sharing in some areas, such as healthcare and education, has already confirmed the feasible form of past production and distribution, and now there is an urgent need to defend sharing, because it is a value currently under threat of encroachment from the market principle.” [11]11 G.A. Cohen, *Why Not Socialism?* (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2009), p. 77. The translation here follows the Chinese text provided. For the research on Marxist distributive justice, the socialist security system, and the fair and equitable healthcare system by Cohen, Honneth, Nancy Fraser, and others, it can obviously provide us with stones from other hills that can be used to polish the jade of building socialism with Chinese characteristics. [12]12 “Stones from other hills can be used to polish jade” (他山之石，可以攻玉) is a Chinese idiom from the *Book of Songs* (《诗经》), meaning that advice or examples from others can help improve one’s own work.

那么，国外马克思主义研究究竟如何服务于中国的未来社会设想呢？对于中国特色社会主义的未来，我们可以分成两个层面来审视，一个是国内层面，一个是国际层面。首先，在国内层面上，对未来理想社会的构想蓝图，体现在更为具体的层面上，如党的二十大报告里指出：“我们要实现好、维护好、发展好最广大人民根本利益，紧紧抓住人民最关心最直接最现实的利益问题，坚持尽力而为、量力而行，深入群众、深入基层，采取更多惠民生、暖民心举措，着力解决好人民群众急难愁盼问题，健全基本公共服务体系，提高公共服务水平，增强均衡性和可及性，扎实推进共同富裕。”在具体举措上，党的二十大报告提出来“完善分配制度”，“实施就业优先战略”，“健全社会保障体系”，“推进健康中国建设”，在这些方面，国外马克思主义研究都是大有可为的。例如，在最近几年的马克思主义政治哲学研究方面的成就，尤其是分配正义方面的成果，对于党的二十大报告中的“完善分配制度”具有一定的参考作用。譬如，英国分析马克思主义科恩关于分配正义的研究，对今天的中国有一定的启示作用，科恩在他的《为什么不要社会主义？》一书中，他指出今天的资本主义政治制度及其理论，其核心都是建立在不平等基础上的，因此：“社会主义者的志向是将共享和正义扩展到我们整个经济生活。……共享在某些领域，例如在医疗保健和教育领域的胜利，已经证实了昔日生产和分配的切实可行的形式，现在迫切需要为共享做辩护，因为它是一种当前处于来自市场原则的侵犯威胁之下的价值。”那么对于科恩、霍耐特、南希·弗雷泽等人关于马克思主义的分配正义、社会主义保障体制，以及基于公平和平等健康医疗体制的研究，显然可以给我们提供有利于中国特色社会主义建设的他山之玉。

Secondly, at the international level, China is attempting to explore the reform and construction of the global governance system on the basis of a community with a shared future for mankind. The development of socialism with Chinese characteristics is not only China’s own construction and development but also an indispensable part of the global governance system. In order to unite just forces worldwide and create a world where “all countries follow the path of the world, live in harmony, cooperate and achieve win-win outcomes,” it is necessary to further advocate and promote the common values of all mankind. The report of the 20th National Congress of the CPC points out: “Countries should promote the common values of all mankind, namely, peace, development, fairness, justice, democracy, and freedom, enhance mutual understanding and affinity among the people of all countries, respect the diversity of world civilizations, transcend civilizational estrangement through civilizational exchange, transcend civilizational conflict through civilizational mutual learning, and transcend civilizational superiority through civilizational coexistence, and jointly address various global challenges.” To advance the initiative of the common values of all mankind and realize the future community with a shared future for mankind, it is necessary not only for Chinese Marxist scholars to reflect on issues of foreign Marxism in light of China’s specific realities but also to open up an international perspective and, together with Marxist researchers and thinkers from around the world, contemplate what the common values of all mankind are, reject hegemonism and unilateralism, and turn the world into one that truly “lives in harmony, cooperates and achieves win-win outcomes.” In this regard, many contemporary foreign Marxist thinkers have already made contributions. In addition to the relatively earlier “world-systems theory” proposed by Frank and Wallerstein, in more recent foreign Marxist studies, British Marxist Christian Fuchs and American Marxist Jodi Dean, among others, have revisited how to establish a future world social system in today’s digital society that aligns with the “common values of all mankind of peace, development, fairness, justice, democracy, and freedom.”

其次，在国际层面上，中国正在试图在全人类命运共同体的基础上，探索全球治理体系的改革和建设，中国特色社会主义的发展，不仅是中国自己的建设和发展，也是全球治理体系不可或缺的一环，为了团结全世界范围中正义的力量，创造一个“各国行天下之大道，和睦相处、合作共赢”的世界，就需要进一步呼吁与弘扬全人类共同价值，党的二十大报告指出：“世界各国弘扬和平、发展、公平、正义、民主、自由的全人类共同价值，促进各国人民相知相亲，尊重世界文明多样性，以文明交流超越文明隔阂、文明互鉴超越文明冲突、文明共存超越文明优越，共同应对各种全球性挑战。”为了推动全人类共同价值的倡议，实现未来的人类命运共同体，不仅需要中国的马克思主义学者结合中国的具体现实来思考国外马克思主义问题，而且需要打开国际视野，与全球各国的马克思主义研究者和思想家一道，思考什么是全人类共同价值，摒弃霸权主义和单边主义，让世界变成真正“和睦相处、合作共赢”的世界。在这个方面，许多当代国外马克思主义思想家已经做出了一些共享，除了相对早期的弗兰克、华勒斯坦提出的“世界体系论”，在晚近的国外马克思主义研究中，英国马克思主义者克里斯蒂安·福克斯、美国马克思主义者约迪·迪恩等人，均重新提到了在今天的数字社会，如何建立一个符合“和平、发展、公平、正义、民主、自由的全人类共同价值”的未来世界的社会体系。

Of course, whether it concerns how socialism with Chinese characteristics establishes a fair distribution system that serves the fundamental interests of the broadest majority of the people and promotes common prosperity, or the promotion of the common values of all mankind at the international level, the analysis and study of the ideas of foreign Marxist thinkers still cannot depart from taking China’s specific problems as ontology and the Chinese discourse system as the basic methodology. It needs to be elevated through reliance on the Chinese people and the teleology of the Chinese Dream of the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation. To consolidate scattered and fragmentary studies of foreign Marxism into research results with genuine theoretical power and intellectual influence, a completely new independent knowledge system of China is needed to structurally integrate these concrete and diverse foreign Marxist currents and ideas.

当然，无论对于中国特色社会主义如何建立符合最广大人民根本利益，推进共同富裕的公正的分配体制，还是对于国际层面上的全人类共同价值的推动，对于国外马克思主义思想家的思想分析和研究，仍然离不开以中国的具体问题为本体论，以中国话语体系为基本方法论，需要通过依赖于中国人民，为中华民族伟大复兴的中国梦的目的论加以升华。将各自零散和片段式的国外马克思主义研究，凝结成真正具有理论力量和思想影响的研究成果，还需要一个全新的中国自主的知识体系从整体上来架构这些具体而丰富的国外马克思主义的思潮和观念。

So, how can we structurally integrate a study of foreign Marxism that serves the Chinese Dream and the future global community with a shared future for mankind? In the early 17th century, the young French thinker Descartes proposed the concept of the coordinate system, thereby using analytic geometry to connect two fields of mathematics that had long been independent of each other—namely, number theory centered on algebra and graph theory represented by geometry—on a plane rectangular coordinate system. To a certain extent, the creation of the plane rectangular coordinate system and the groundbreaking contribution of analytic geometry solved the problem of mathematical unity that had long troubled ancient mathematicians. On this basis, later fields such as functions and calculus grew up on the foundation of the plane rectangular coordinate system, transforming mathematics from an ancient discipline with metaphysical tendencies into the mathematical foundation of modern science. Can we also imitate Descartes’ contribution to the plane rectangular coordinate system to establish a coordinate system for the study of foreign Marxism, allowing all scattered and separate studies of foreign Marxist figures and currents to find their respective positions within a unified coordinate system?

那么，如何在整体上来架构一个服务于中国梦，未来全球命运共同体的国外马克思主义研究。17世纪初，年轻的法国思想家笛卡尔提出了坐标系的概念，从而用解析几何，将长期以来数学中彼此独立的两个领域，即以代数学为核心的数论，和以几何学为代表的图论，在一个平面直角坐标系上联系起来，在一定程度上，平面直角坐标系的创立，以及解析几何的开创性贡献，解决了长期以来困扰着古代数学家的数学统一性的问题，在此基础上，后来的函数、微积分等领域，都在平面直角坐标系的基础上成长起来，让数学从一个古代带有形而上学倾向的学问，变成了现代科学的数学基础。我们是否也可以模仿笛卡尔的平面直角坐标系上的贡献，来建立一个国外马克思主义研究的坐标系，让所有的零散和分离的国外马克思主义人物研究和思潮研究，在一个统一的坐标系中找到各自的定位。

The vertical axis of this rectangular coordinate system for the study of foreign Marxism concerns the historical analysis of different countries, different schools, and different figures. Relative to the original isolated introductions of foreign Marxist figures and studies of schools, what runs through the vertical axis of this coordinate system is precisely Marx’s most fundamental vertical line of historical materialism. That is, we should not regard all foreign Marxist schools and figures as a history of concepts or ideas moving from text to text, from concept to concept, but rather need to connect the different ideological currents of foreign Marxism with their respective historical eras and geographical spaces, grounding foreign Marxism in the material base of social existence, rather than in the castles in the air of concepts and phrases. When we read Horkheimer and Adorno’s statement that “the whole world is passed through the filter of the culture industry. Because film always wants to create the world of conventional ideas… Since the rapid rise of sound film, this principle has been further strengthened through mechanical reproduction. Real life can no longer be separated from film,” we can think that Horkheimer and Adorno were actually criticizing the critique of American cultural capitalist society formed during their exile in the United States during World War II. Cultural capitalism relied on the post-war capitalist cultural prosperity created by Hollywood culture and popular music, and the culture industry ideologically dominated the minds and thoughts of the ordinary masses. Similarly, when we read Hardt and Negri’s *Empire*: “In the immaterial connections of language, communication, and symbolic production developed by the communication industry. The development of communication networks has an organic relationship with the emergence of the new world order—in other words, it is both effect and cause, product and producer. Communication not only expresses the movement of globalization but also organizes it. It organizes this movement by increasing and constructing interconnections through networks. It expresses movement and controls the feeling and direction of the imagination running through these communicative connections; in other words, the imagination is guided and channeled in the communication machine,” we can understand that Hardt and Negri were discussing, in the context of the rapid development of the internet and communication transmission technologies that emerged in the 1990s, how the scope of capitalist control has transcended the territorial boundaries of the former nation-state, becoming a truly globalized capitalist empire that crosses national borders and continents. For Chinese scholars today, our foreign Marxism needs to confront the latest development of capitalism, that is, to pay attention to the actual situation of digitalized and intelligent capitalism. We need to conduct our own research on the extension line of this historical vertical axis.

在这个国外马克思主义研究的直角坐标系的纵轴，是关于各个不同国别，不同流派，不同人物的历史分析。相对于原来的孤立的国外马克思主义的人物引介和流派研究，贯穿这个坐标系纵轴的，恰恰是马克思最基本的历史唯物主义的纵线。即我们不应该将所有国外马克思主义的流派和人物，看成从文本到文本，从观念到观念的概念史或思想史，而是需要将不同的国外马克思主义的思想潮流同他们各自所处的历史时代，地域空间相互联系起来，让国外马克思主义已经降临在社会存在的物质基底，而不是观念和词句的空中楼阁。当我们读到霍克海默和阿多诺的“整个世界都要通过文化工业的过滤。正因为电影总是想去制造常规观念的世界……自从有声电影迅速崛起以后，这种原则通过机械化再生产得到了进一步的增强。真实生活再也与电影分不开了”。我们可以想到，霍克海默和阿多诺实际上批判的是在二战时流亡美国期间形成的对美国文化资本主义社会的批判，文化资本主义倚靠好莱坞文化和流行音乐缔造起来的战后资本主义的文化繁荣，而文化工业从意识形态上支配着普通大众的头脑和思想。同样，当我们阅读哈特、奈格里的《帝国》中的“在由通信业发展起来的语言、通信和象征性生产的非物质联系中。通信网络的发展与新的世界秩序的出现有着有机的关系——换句话说，它是效果和原因，产品和生产者。通信不仅表达了全球化的运动，也组织了全球化的运动。它通过网络增加和构建相互之间的联系来组织这一运动。它表达了运动，并控制了贯穿这些交往联系的想象力的感觉和方向；换句话说，想象力在交往机器中被引导和疏导”。我们就可以理解，哈特和奈格里是针对在20世纪90年代兴起的互联网和通信传播技术的飞速发展下，讨论资本主义的控制范围超越了原先民族国家的领土范围，成为跨越国界和大洲的真正全球化的资本主义帝国。而对于今天的中国学者而言，我们的国外马克思主义则需要面对资本主义最新发展，即对数字化、智能化的资本主义的现实状况给予关注，我们需要在这个历史纵轴的延伸线上做出自己的研究。

On the horizontal axis of this coordinate system lies the specific Chinese problems and Chinese discourse. Any study of foreign Marxism must confront China’s specific problems and must use the Chinese discourse system formed in the practice of socialism with Chinese characteristics to re-understand the study of foreign Marxism. In this regard, we can step by step analyze and distinguish various foreign Marxist currents. For example, regarding ecological Marxist thought, in addition to retaining its concept of the material exchange between humans and nature (that is, Marx’s reading and excerpts of Liebig’s agricultural chemistry in his later years, borrowing Liebig’s concept of material exchange), it is even more necessary to consider how to develop ecological industries in the Chinese context and how to achieve the dual carbon emission reduction goals without affecting the daily living standards of the people. In this respect, American ecological Marxist John Bellamy Foster and the previously mentioned Kohei Saito are still quite lacking in this kind of thinking. This requires Chinese researchers of foreign Marxism to start from China’s specific realities and propose Chinese-style answers to ecological and emission reduction issues. Besides ecological issues, other foreign Marxist currents also involve fair distribution, gender equality, digital industry upgrading, and the regulation of financial capital, all of which need to be reshaped and reinterpreted on the horizontal axis of Chinese problems and Chinese discourse.

而在这个坐标横轴上，横亘的是具体的中国问题和中国话语，任何的国外马克思主义研究，都必须面对中国的具体问题，必须用在中国特色社会主义实践中形成的中国话语体系，来重新理解国外马克思主义研究，在这个方面，我们可以一步步地对各种国外马克思主义的思潮进行剖析和分辨，例如对于生态马克思主义思想，除了保留其中关于人与自然的物质交换关系（即对马克思晚年对李比希的农业化学的阅读和摘录，借用了李比希的物质交换的概念），更需要思考在中国语境下如何发展生态产业，如何在不影响人民群众的日常生活水平的情况下，实现双碳减排的目标。在这个方面，如美国生态马克思主义者福克斯特和前文提及的斋藤幸平，都还十分欠缺这方面的思考，这就需要中国的国外马克思主义研究者，从中国的具体实际出发，提出对生态和减排问题的中国式回答。除了生态问题，其他国外马克思主义思潮还涉及了公平分配、性别平等、数字产业升级、金融资本的监管等问题，都需要重新在中国问题和中国话语的坐标横轴上进行重新塑造和解读。

Whether it is the vertical axis of research on foreign Marxism (genealogical and school studies, historical research) or the horizontal axis (Chinese issues, Chinese discourse), only by combining them in an interwoven manner on a single plane can we unleash the greatest synergy and value of research on foreign Marxism. Such synergy aims to create a more beautiful and harmonious socialist society with Chinese characteristics, and to enable China to play its unique role and function in the future community with a shared future for mankind, offering useful references and lessons. This is the teleology of research on foreign Marxism. Research on foreign Marxism should not merely indulge in the labyrinth between the lines; it should also integrate texts with reality, pointing toward a more brilliant tomorrow.

无论是国外马克思主义研究的纵轴（谱系流派研究，历史研究），还是横轴（中国问题，中国话语），我们只有将他们在一个平面上纵横交错地结合起来，才能发挥国外马克思主义研究的最大的合力和价值，这样的合力，旨在创造一个更为美好和和谐的中国特色社会主义社会，以及在未来的全人类命运共同体中发挥中国特有的功能和作用，提出有益的借鉴和参考。这就是国外马克思主义研究的目的论，国外马克思主义研究不应该只沉湎于字里行间的迷宫，也应当将文本和现实融合起来，指向一个更为璀璨的明天。

Conclusion

结语

The 20th-century French psychoanalyst Lacan once viewed the structure of human cognition as a triple knot of the Real, the Symbolic, and the Imaginary, which together constitute the knowledge system. We may borrow this formulation here, because for China’s research on foreign Marxism: (1) Chinese issues are the Real, providing a solid practical foundation for China’s research on foreign Marxism; (2) China’s discourse system is the Symbolic, representing a self-generated chain of linguistic signifiers that does not entirely depend on external connections between other signifiers and signifieds. Chinese discourse uses China’s own language to articulate the various thoughts and concepts within foreign Marxist currents, allowing them to truly descend onto the horizon of China’s knowledge system; (3) China’s future dream is the Imaginary, unfolding a magnificent scroll of future society, enabling China’s researchers on foreign Marxism to clearly recognize their mission and tasks, to forge ahead with determination, to work together with one heart to realize the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation and the “Two Centenary Goals” [14]14 The “Two Centenary Goals” are the strategic objectives of the CPC: to finish building a moderately prosperous society in all respects by the centenary of the CPC (2021), and to build China into a modern socialist country that is prosperous, strong, democratic, culturally advanced, and harmonious by the centenary of the People’s Republic of China (2049)., and to further contribute to the realization of a community with a shared future for mankind. We should not view Chinese issues, Chinese discourse, and China’s future dream in isolation; they are interconnected and, when combined, constitute the complete blueprint for research on foreign Marxism from the perspective of China’s independent knowledge system. From now on, research on foreign Marxism will no longer be a nomadic or scattered cultivation, but a thousand-mile landscape painting [15]15 “Thousand-mile landscape painting” (千里江山图) is a classical Chinese idiom evoking a vast, continuous panorama, often used metaphorically to describe a grand vision or comprehensive plan. gradually unfolding on the real earth of socialism with Chinese characteristics, crisscrossed with paths and thoroughfares.

20世纪的法国精神分析学者拉康曾将人类的认知结构，看成实在界、象征界、想象界的三元扭结，它们共同构成了知识体系。我们可以在这里借用一下这种表述，因为对于中国的国外马克思主义研究来说：（1）中国问题是实在界，为中国的国外马克思主义研究提供坚实的现实基础；（2）中国的话语体系是象征界，其中代表着一种自主生成的语言能指链，不完全依赖于外在的其他能指和所指的关联，中国话语就是用中国自己的语言说出国外马克思主义思潮中的各种思想和观念，让其真正可以降临在中国知识体系的地平线上；（3）中国未来的梦想是想象界，它为我们展现了未来社会的美好长卷，让中国的国外马克思主义研究者可以清晰地认识到自己的使命和任务，砥砺前行，勠力同心地实现中华民族伟大复兴和“两个一百年”的奋斗目标，进一步为全人类命运共同体的实现做出自己的贡献。我们不应该孤立地看待中国问题、中国话语和中国未来梦想的方面，它们彼此衔接，结合在一起，才是中国自主知识体系视域下的国外马克思主义研究的完整蓝图，从今往后，国外马克思主义研究不再是游牧式或离散式的耕耘，而是在纵横交错、阡陌交通的中国特色社会主义的现实大地徐徐展开的千里江山图。

Online editor: Tongxin

网络编辑：同心