Analyzing the Theoretical Limitations of Western Marxism through the Problem of “Discourse”

Unlike the study of the problem of “discourse” in linguistics, which focuses on linguistic structure and function, Western Marxism examines discourse within the reality of social history, investigating its emergence, development, and application, and interpreting and deepening it from different angles. The understanding and development of discourse in different historical periods all reflect Western Marxism’s response to the challenges faced by classical Marxism and the strategies it proposes for the socialist movement under new conditions. To some extent, this is a positive attempt with a critical spirit, proceeding from contemporary problems, and it has broadened the research horizon of Marxist theory. However, it also inevitably reveals the limitations of Western Marxism, mainly manifested in its deviation from the basic viewpoints of Marxism and its idealist coloring.

不同于语言学界对“话语”问题在语言结构和功能等方面的研究，西方马克思主义将话语置于社会历史的现实中考察其产生、发展与应用，从不同角度对话语进行了解读与深化。不同历史时期对话语的认识和发展，都体现了西方马克思主义对经典马克思主义所受质疑的回应和对新形势下社会主义运动所提出的策略。在某种程度上，这是从当代问题出发具有批判精神的积极尝试，开拓了马克思主义理论的研究视野。但是，其中也不免反映出西方马克思主义存在的局限性，主要表现在其对马克思主义基本观点的背离和其呈现出的理想主义色彩。

On the one hand, Western Marxism’s exaggeration of the status of discourse deviates from the basic viewpoints of Marxism. In Althusser’s theory of ideology, discourse appears as the intermediary between the subject and ideology; the false subject passively accepts the inculcation of ideology through the discourse of the ruling class before becoming a true subject. Because Althusser overemphasizes the role of ideology while neglecting the subjective initiative of the subject, his constructed theory of ideology directly violates Marx’s basic view on the relationship between social being and social consciousness, thereby losing the scientific basis for the political struggle of the ruled class and leaving its outcome stuck in a utopian “class struggle.” In Habermas’s theory of communicative action, he attempts to establish an ideal “discursive democracy,” achieving democratic dialogue through the discursive argumentation of social members, so that public opinion can influence processes such as legislation, administration, and adjudication, thereby establishing a just and equal democratic procedure for the entire society. Habermas’s exaggeration of the role of discourse lies in his belief that the determining force of social history is not productive labor but social communication, and he bases social communication on discourse, neglecting the practical social foundation of communication. In Laclau and Mouffe’s theory of hegemony, they put forward the view that “discourse constitutes the subject,” denying Marx’s view that the economic base determines the superstructure, and instead proposing that those differentiated external discourses are the determining factor. Laclau and Mouffe base subject identification on external, contingent relations, acknowledging the instability and plurality of identity. Humans are no longer “the ensemble of social relations” but become the ensemble of discursive relations, thereby denying Marx’s view of the proletariat as the representative force of future society and eliminating binary class antagonism. Therefore, Laclau and Mouffe have already deviated from the basic viewpoints of dialectical materialism, adopting a metaphysical mode of thinking that regards Marxism as having fixed the essence of things, falling into the error of non-determinism.

一方面，西方马克思主义对话语地位的夸大背离了马克思主义的基本观点。在阿尔都塞的意识形态理论中，话语作为主体和意识形态的中介出现，虚假主体通过统治阶级的话语被动地接受了意识形态的灌输，才成为真正的主体。阿尔都塞由于过于强调意识形态的作用而忽略了主体的主观能动性，这就直接导致了其构建的意识形态理论违背了马克思对社会存在与社会意识关系的基本观点，也就丧失了被统治阶级进行政治斗争的科学依据，使其结果就停留在了乌托邦式的“阶级斗争”。在哈贝马斯的交往行为理论中，他试图通过建立一种理想的“话语民主”，通过社会成员的话语论证来实现民主对话，使公共意见影响立法、行政和司法等过程，从而建立整个社会的公正平等的民主程序。哈贝马斯对话语作用的夸大在于他认为社会历史的决定力量不是生产劳动，而是社会交往，并将社会交往建立在话语的基础上，忽略了交往的社会实践基础。在拉克劳和墨菲的霸权理论中，他们提出了“话语让主体生成”的观点，否定了马克思认为的经济基础对上层建筑的决定作用，反而提出那些具有差异性的外在话语才是决定性因素。拉克劳和墨菲将主体认同建立在外在的、偶然性的关系中，承认身份的不稳定和多元，人不再是“一切社会关系的总和”，而成为了话语关系的总和，由此否定了马克思将无产阶级作为未来社会代表力量的观点，消除了二元阶级对抗。因此，拉克劳和墨菲已经背离了辩证唯物主义的基本观点，以形而上学的思维方式认为马克思主义固化了事物的本质，进入了一种非决定论的误区。

“Does it require deep intuition to comprehend that man’s ideas, views and conceptions, in one word, man’s consciousness, changes with every change in the conditions of his material existence, in his social relations and in his social life?” [1]1 This is a paraphrase of a passage from Marx and Engels’ *The Communist Manifesto* (1848), which states that “man’s ideas, views and conceptions, in one word, man’s consciousness, changes with every change in the conditions of his material existence, in his social relations and in his social life.” Social being determines social consciousness; this is the theoretical foundation on which Marx dissected capitalist society and formed the theory of surplus value. Marx held that “language is practical, real consciousness that exists for other men as well, and only therefore does it also exist for me”; [2]2 This is a quotation from Marx and Engels’ *The German Ideology* (1845-1846). discourse is, in essence, also a part of social consciousness. Social consciousness occupies an important position in social life, but historical materialism does not regard social consciousness as the primary, determining element in social life. Productive practice is the most fundamental activity of human beings; only “real individuals” engaged in productive practice possess consciousness in the conceptual sense, and the relations of communication that people enter into during productive practice are the most fundamental social relations. Consciousness is from the very beginning a social product, neither a subject independent of social matter nor an intuition of nature divorced from social practice. Although it possesses a certain relative independence, it is ultimately determined by social being. The exaggeration of the status of discourse and the neglect of social practice ultimately lead to a deviation in understanding the class contradictions of capitalist society, thereby causing errors in judging revolutionary forces and revolutionary strategy. As Marx said when criticizing the basic ideological tendency of the Young Hegelians: “The Young Hegelian ideologists, in spite of their allegedly ‘world-shattering’ statements, are the staunchest conservatives. The most recent of them have found the correct expression for their activity when they declare they are only fighting against ‘phrases.’ They forget, however, that to these phrases they themselves are only opposing other phrases, and that they are in no way combating the real existing world when they are merely combating the phrases of this world.” [3]3 This is a quotation from Marx and Engels’ *The German Ideology* (1845-1846). Without the “material force” used in practice, “changing the world” becomes empty talk.

“人们的意识，随着人们的生活条件、人们的社会关系、人们的社会存在的改变而改变”，社会存在决定社会意识，是马克思剖析资本主义社会、形成剩余价值学说的理论基础。马克思认为，“语言是一种实践的、既为别人存在因而也为我自身而存在的、现实的意识”，话语从本质上来看也是社会意识的一部分，社会意识在社会生活中具有重要地位，但是唯物史观并不认为社会意识是社会生活中起决定作用的第一性元素。生产实践是人的最基本活动，只有进行生产实践的“现实的个人”才具有观念意义上的意识，人们在生产实践中所发生的交往关系才是最基本的社会关系。意识从一开始就是社会的产物，既不是独立于社会物质之外的主体，也不是脱离社会实践的对自然的直观，虽然存在一定的相对独立性，但归根结底还是由社会存在决定的。对话语地位的夸大和对社会实践的忽略最终导致的就是对资本主义社会阶级矛盾认识的偏差，从而对革命力量和革命策略的判断产生失误。正如马克思在指责青年黑格尔派的基本思想倾向时所说的那样： “青年黑格尔派的意识形态家们尽管满口讲的都是所谓‘震撼世界的’词句，却是最大的保守派。如果说，他们之中最年轻的人宣称只为反对‘词句’而斗争，那就确切地表达了他们的活动。不过他们忘记了：他们只是用词句来反对这些词句；既然他们仅仅反对这个世界的词句，那么他们就绝对不是反对现实的现存世界。”如果没有用于实践的“物质力量”，那么“改变世界”也就成为了空谈。

On the other hand, the theoretical “innovations” of Western Marxism, lacking a foundation in historical materialism, possess a certain idealist coloring. Althusser, lacking the necessary prerequisite of analyzing real social contradictions and detaching himself from the theory of class struggle, discusses ideology from a purely subjective perspective, and can thus only construct a utopian “class struggle” at the theoretical level. Habermas’s ideal “discursive democracy” procedure, on the surface, seeks a universalized, mass form of political participation, but in reality it imposes higher demands on citizens’ cultural literacy, willingness to participate, and institutional guarantees, lacking a certain degree of operability. Laclau and Mouffe hope to construct discursive hegemony to replace the proletarian revolution, but due to the lack of a concrete analysis of the nature of the state and social relations, the radical democracy they advocate also neglects the differentiated democratic needs of individuals, ultimately reducing the theory to a mere formality.

另一方面，西方马克思主义以缺乏唯物史观为基础的理论“创新”具有一定的理想主义色彩。阿尔都塞在缺乏对现实社会矛盾分析为必要前提的情况下，脱离了阶级斗争理论，以一种纯粹主体的角度谈论意识形态，也就只能在理论层面构建乌托邦式的“阶级斗争”。哈贝马斯理想性的“话语民主”程序表面上是在寻求一种普遍化、大众化的政治参与形式，但是在实际上对公民的文化素养、参与意愿和制度保障等方面都提出了更高的要求，缺乏一定的可操作性。拉克劳和墨菲希望能够建构话语领导权来替代无产阶级革命，但由于缺乏对国家性质和社会关系的具体分析，也使他们所倡导的激进民主忽略了个体的差异性民主需求，最终使理论流于形式。

In fact, idealism is not confined to the discourse theory of Western Marxism; looking across the many schools of Western Marxism, idealism with utopian characteristics is a common feature of Western Marxism. Although the goals pursued by Western Marxist theorists are the same as those of traditional Marxist theorists—both seek the path and direction for abolishing capitalism and realizing communism—the difference is that Western Marxism, from its inception and throughout its development, has involved a “revision” and “transformation” of Marxism. In basic theory, starting from the denial of Marx’s basic view that “the economic base determines the superstructure,” it denies the determining role of the economic base in social development, thereby denying class exploitation and obscuring the fact of the antagonism between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. Regarding the subject of revolution, the class attributes of the proletariat, the revolutionary subject in traditional Marxism, are gradually weakened; the main force of revolution is no longer limited to the proletariat, and the choice of revolutionary subject becomes more pluralistic and open. Regarding the mode of revolution, although Western Marxism hopes to construct an ideal society of equality, freedom, and democracy, it attempts to complete the revolution through a form of struggle centered on consciousness or cultural criticism, without overthrowing the capitalist mode of production. Regarding the choice of path, although Western Marxism theoretically criticizes and exposes the main roots of the crisis of capitalist society, it lacks a concrete and feasible strategy and method in the practical activity of transforming capitalism, turning all theories into “castles in the air.”

事实上，理想主义并不只存在于西方马克思主义的话语理论中，纵观西方马克思主义的诸多流派，带有空想特征的理想主义是西方马克思主义的共同特点。西方马克思主义理论家们在追求目标上跟传统马克思主义理论家们虽然是一样的，都是在寻求消灭资本主义、实现共产主义的道路和方向，但不同的是西方马克思主义在创立之始和发展之中都带有对马克思主义的“修正”和“改造”。在基本理论上，从否定马克思“经济基础决定上层建筑”的基本观点开始，否认经济基础对社会发展的决定作用，从而否认了阶级剥削、掩盖了无产阶级和资产阶级对立的事实。在革命主体上，传统马克思主义中的革命主体无产阶级的阶级属性逐渐弱化，革命的主要力量也不只限于无产阶级，革命主体的选择更为多元和开放。在革命方式上，虽然西方马克思主义希望构建一个平等、自由、民主的理想社会，但是他们试图在不推翻资本主义生产方式的前提下，以一种意识或者文化批判为主的斗争形式完成革命。在路径选择上，虽然西方马克思主义从理论上同样批判和揭露了资本主义社会危机的主要根源，但是在变革资本主义的实践活动中缺乏一种具体可行的策略和方法，使所有理论都成为“空中楼阁”。

Against the backdrop of drastic changes in the domestic and international environment, discourse is not only an important means of interpersonal communication but also an ideological symbol representing values. Changes in the times give rise to theoretical innovation, but to take the initiative in international competition, it is necessary to firmly uphold the basic positions and viewpoints of Marxism while innovating theory. The experience of historical development has already told us that abandoning Marxist theory is not the way to solve problems. On the contrary, the tests of the times should strengthen our understanding of the scientific nature of Marxism, thereby drawing on the practical power of Marxism to further respond to the complex challenges of the external world.

在国内外环境急剧变化的大背景下，话语不仅是一种人际交往的重要方式，也成为代表价值观念的意识形态符号。时代的变化催生理论的创新，但是想要在国际竞争中占据主动，就必须要在理论创新的同时坚定马克思主义的基本立场和观点。历史的发展经验已经告诉我们，放弃马克思主义理论并不是解决问题的方式，相反，时代的考验应该更能够强化我们对马克思主义的科学性质的理解，从而汲取马克思主义的实践力量，进一步应对外部世界的复杂挑战。

Online Editor: Paul

网络编辑：保罗