Tai Lihua: An Analysis of the Limitations of Narrow Western Marxist Research
In the 1920s and 30s, figures such as Lukács, Korsch, and Gramsci defined and "founded" Western Marxism primarily from a narrow perspective. In the nearly one hundred years of research tradition since, the study of Western Marxism has not only continued to use this narrow conceptual interpretation, but the divergence among various schools and scholars regarding the substantive connotation of this narrow concept has remained significant. The adverse consequences for the study of Marxist theory are quite evident. For example, defining Western Marxism from a geospatial perspective both distinguishes it from classical Marxism and Soviet/Eastern European Marxism, yet simultaneously overlooks Marxist theoretical research in countries such as the UK, the US, and Japan, thereby reinforcing regional antagonisms within Marxism. Defining Western Marxism from a temporal-evolutionary perspective—involving various designations such as Neo-Marxism, Post-Marxism, and Marxology [1]—creates fundamental differences with classical Marxism and Soviet orthodox Marxism. This has provided footnotes for arguments such as the "error," "obsolescence," or "demise" of Marxism, and has even become a "tool" for the decline of Western Marxism itself. Defining Western Marxism from the perspective of research positions, methods, and viewpoints reveals that some views explicitly hold non-Marxist or anti-Marxist stances, characterized by distinct idealist and subjectivist methodologies; the scientific nature of their theoretical propositions is indeed open to question. Starting from specific fields of research—such as equating Western Marxism with studies in philosophy, historiography, literature, and aesthetics—both violates the principle of the integrity of Marxism and causes Marxist theoretical research to become increasingly decoupled from social reality, leaving its theoretical explanatory power and practical persuasiveness extremely weak. Based on this, the conceptual connotation of Western Marxism in its narrow sense urgently needs integration and expansion. In this article, I attempt to analyze the limitations of research on Western Marxism in this narrow sense one by one.
I. Western Marxism defined by geospatial parameters reinforces regional barriers in Marxist research
Western Marxism in the narrow sense, defined from the perspective of physical geospatial parameters, refers first and foremost to Marxism in Western European countries—that is, equating Western Marxism with "West European Marxism." For instance, Korsch, who first proposed the concept of Western Marxism, consistently used "Western Marxism" as a synonym for "West European Marxism." Within the context of West European Marxism, Perry Anderson classified the Marxist theoretical research outputs of Germany, France, and Italy under the category of Western Marxism. He argued that since the early 1920s, Western Marxism had been primarily concentrated in these three countries, while outside of them, "the absence of one or another of these conditions... precluded the emergence of a mature Marxist culture." [2] He even emphasized that the most typical and prominent region of the Western Marxist tradition was located in southwestern Germany, as it was the birthplace of Adorno and Horkheimer and the place where Lukács lived and grew up; the influence of the German cultural tradition on Lukács far exceeded that of his motherland, Hungary. One important reason Anderson and others insisted on the regional characteristics of the Western Marxist concept—even directly limiting it to Germany, France, and Italy—is that people often directly link Marxism with socialism and Communist Parties, because "geopolitically, Marxist thought was concentrated in Germany, France, and Italy—countries with large Communist Parties." [3] In the 1980s, the Yugoslav scholar Grličkov wrote that Marxism consists of three categories: "Eastern Marxism" of the Soviet Union, Eastern Europe, and China; "Third World Marxism" of developing countries in Asia, Africa, and Latin America; and Western Marxism. According to his classification, Western Marxism specifically refers to the Marxism of developed capitalist countries in Europe and America. Compared to Korsch and Anderson, Grličkov’s definition of Western Marxism broke through the regional boundaries of Western Europe or the German-French-Italian triad. However, as an important exploration into broadening the study of Western Marxism, Grličkov’s view has yet to receive sufficient attention in academic circles.
Western Marxism defined by geospatial parameters excludes or denies the Marxist research achievements of Eastern countries and other European nations, while also reinforcing the opposition between Western Marxism and both classical Marxism and Soviet/Eastern European Marxism. For example, Korsch pointed out in Marxism and Philosophy that those "authoritative representatives of contemporary official Marxism" or "old-line Marxists" had collectively adhered to Marxist dogma; his pamphlet was precisely "intended to represent a total rejection of certain dogmas." Therefore, the accusations made by his "orthodox Marxist critics are not only groundless, but futile and ineffective." [4] Anderson’s concept of Western Marxism is similarly distinct from classical and Soviet/Eastern European Marxism. He believed that the poor spread of socialist revolution outside of Russia, along with the corruption appearing in the process of Soviet socialist construction, constituted the important historical background for the emergence of Western Marxism: "The major works of Western Marxism were without exception produced in an environment of political isolation and despair." [5] In Considerations on Western Marxism, Anderson combined the evolution of the Frankfurt Institute, the theoretical propositions of leading figures, and the differing views of Althusser in France and Gramsci in Italy to describe the dissemination and development of Marxism in Germany, France, and Italy. He emphasized that Western Marxism was related to the lack of a high tide of socialist revolution, and since Germany, France, and Italy happened to fit this trait, the aforementioned spatial definition of Western Marxism emerged. Anderson’s thesis explicitly excluded the Marxist theory and practice of "peripheral regions of European culture such as Spain, Yugoslavia, and Greece." [6]
On the other hand, the narrow Western Marxism defined by the spatial dimension also creates barriers within the internal field of Marxist theoretical research in the Western world. For instance, according to the definition that equates Western Marxism with West European Marxism or specifically designates the Marxism of Germany, France, and Italy, Marxist theoretical research in the United States and Britain cannot be classified within the scope of Western Marxism. Although Grličkov’s definition incorporates Britain and the United States into the camp of Western Marxist research, Japanese Marxist research faces the fate of being excluded from Western Marxism. In fact, as a typical Western country in a political sense, Japan has long been at the mainstream and forefront of Marxist research, producing many works, scholars, and schools with world influence. After World War II, many Japanese universities insisted on offering specialized courses in Marxist economics for undergraduates and postgraduates, and many scholars have held lectures on Capital for the general public year-round. After the 2008 US subprime mortgage crisis, several Japanese publishing houses successively launched various versions of Capital in manga format, making outstanding contributions to the popularization and mass appeal of Marxist economics. In recent years, during the editing, organizing, and publishing process of MEGA2 [2], many Japanese researchers have remained active. Therefore, the study of Western Marxism cannot ignore or deny the role of Japan. The author believes that defining Western Marxism narrowly by a geospatial dimension and simply emphasizing its regional characteristics carries the risk of self-isolation, closure, and ossification.
II. Western Marxism defined by the temporal dimension exacerbates the tendency toward Marxist nihilism
Some scholars distinguish Western Marxism from classical Marxism and Soviet/Eastern European Marxism based on chronological order. They believe that classical Marxism refers to the theoretical system and doctrines personally founded by Marx and Engels, with its landmark work being the first volume of Capital published in the 1860s. Soviet Marxism, as an "official Marxism," emerged from the October Revolution of 1917 and the subsequent 70-plus years of Soviet socialist construction. Western Marxism in the narrow sense, represented by Lukács and others in the 1920s and 30s, refers primarily to "Marxism after Marx" [3]—a Marxism that is distinct from or even opposed to classical or Soviet/Eastern European Marxism. Some scholars argue that the "deepest roots" of the emergence of Western Marxism "lie in the fact that no major revolutionary high tide occurred after 1920." [7] This is because, in the half-century from 1918 to 1968, influenced by repeated failures of socialist movements in Western European countries and the pressure of anti-Marxist authoritarian forces, the sense of disappointment among some Western Marxists surged. They gradually abandoned efforts to transform the world and instead turned toward attempting to explain the world. Furthermore, fearing persecution by totalitarian forces such as Nazi Germany or McCarthyism in the United States, some researchers were forced to retreat into their studies, immersing themselves in purely academic questions of philosophy, literature, art, and aesthetics. They dedicated themselves to explaining the world while forgetting or ignoring the historical mission of transforming the world. Consequently, Western Marxist research gradually took on a posture of decoupling theory from practice. [8] Various Marxist schools or trends of thought that emerged in the Western world after the 1970s, such as Neo-Marxism, Post-Marxism, and Marxology, can also be viewed as divisions of narrow Western Marxism along the temporal dimension.
The use of the temporal dimension to define Western Marxism in its narrow sense makes its relationship to the classical Marxism founded by Marx and Engels and to Soviet official Marxism simple and clear. Compared to various designated Marxisms such as Post-Marxism, Neo-Marxism, and Marxology, there is also a relatively clear temporal boundary. However, this definition still faces limitations regarding unclear conceptual connotations and ill-defined boundaries. For instance, some scholars summarize Post-Marxism as all forms of Marxism following the deaths of Marx and Engels. According to this definition of Post-Marxism, Western Marxism represented by Lukács and Korsch cannot be effectively distinguished from Post-Marxism, or one could directly conclude that Post-Marxism is equivalent to Western Marxism. Therefore, using different names to refer to the same or similar research objects provides no benefit other than increasing confusion and difficulty in theoretical research. Other scholars use "Post-Marxism" specifically to refer to the Marxist theoretical views and policy propositions of Laclau and Mouffe. Although this definition highlights their theoretical contributions, it ignores the research findings of scholars such as Foucault, Derrida, Baudrillard, Žižek, Habermas, and Jameson. In fact, as important representatives in the field of contemporary Western Marxist research, the theoretical perspectives of Foucault and others represent, to a certain extent, important orientations in the development of Western Marxism and should not be ignored under any circumstances.
Additionally, Western Marxism in the narrow sense, defined according to a temporal lineage, can support the conclusion that classical Marxism and Soviet orthodox Marxism are bankrupt, while simultaneously proving the "end" of Western Marxism. In the 150-plus years since the publication of the first volume of Capital, there have always been scholars who spare no effort in promoting theories about the "obsolescence," "error," or "harmfulness" of Capital, attempting thereby to demonstrate the demise of Marxism. After the drastic changes in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, classical Marxism and Soviet/Eastern European Marxism encountered an unprecedented crisis. Some took the opportunity to propose the "End of History" thesis, declaring the failure of Marxist theory and practice regarding socialism, which once again triggered the debate over the so-called "death of Marxism and socialism." Since the emergence of Western Marxism, the political and economic situation of the entire world has undergone a series of major changes, and Marxist theoretical research and real-world socialist movements have also displayed many new characteristics. Following the arrival of a new stage in the global workers' movement after the May 1968 "Storm" in France, and facing a reality where the reunification of Marxist theoretical research and practical exploration was once again possible, some scholars believed the decline and demise of Western Marxism were already irreversible. Some views even pointed out that in the 1970s and 80s...
Since the 1970s, so-called "Post-Marxism," which focuses on critiquing post-industrial society or late capitalist society, has itself been a product of the declining trend of Western Marxism in the narrow sense. Some Post-Marxists emphasize that the basic principles, primary viewpoints, and research methods of traditional Marxism are all obsolete and can no longer explain or clarify the developmental conditions of postmodern capitalist society. Consequently, they "seek to innovate Marxism and activate the Marxist tradition by deconstructing the traditional theories of Marxism." [8]
In the author's view, Western Marxism defined in the narrow sense based on the temporal dimension—especially the Marxism deconstructed, innovated, or activated by Post-Marxism—clearly deviates from the theoretical substance and core essentials of classical Marxism. It is a true portrayal of Marxism trending toward attenuation and nihilism.
III. Western Marxism defined by research stance, method, or viewpoint violates the scientific implications of Marxism
The definitions of Western Marxism provided by some scholars based on different research stances, methods, or viewpoints still fall within the category of Western Marxism in the narrow sense. For instance, so-called "Marxology" [4], which emerged in the Western world primarily beginning in the 1960s to specialize in the study of Marx’s life, career, works, and thought, proposed views such as the opposition between the "young Marx" and the "mature Marx," the opposition between Engels and Marx, between Lenin and Marx, and even between Marx and Marxism. They either vigorously extol the so-called "humanist Marx" in early works like the Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844 while strenuously opposing the "scientistic Marx" of Capital; or, based on the fact that Engels edited and published Volume III of Capital after Marx’s death, they propagate claims of abandoning the theories of average profit and prices of production or denying the law of value, highlighting Engels’s supposed "deviation" from Marx. Alternatively, using the victory of the Russian October Socialist Revolution and the practice of socialist construction as examples, they emphasize Lenin’s supposed negation or revision of Marx’s theory. These research outputs of Marxology set a rigid boundary between "Humanist Marxism" and "Scientific Marxism," severing the dialectical relationship between the revolutionary and scientific nature of Marxism. Their research stance—opposing Marx and Marxism, and opposing socialism or communism—is self-evident.
In his book History and Class Consciousness, György Lukács spoke highly of Marx’s research method, proposing the proposition of discarding all of Marx’s specific viewpoints while retaining only his research method. He argued that doing so did not imply an abandonment of Marxist orthodoxy, because "orthodoxy in questions of Marxism relates exclusively to method." [9] Lukács’s emphasis on the importance of Marxist methodology coincides with Engels’s view that Marxism is not a dogma but a method, and it also points toward a correct direction for developing and innovating Marxism. However, what puzzles the author is that if one follows Lukács entirely—retaining only Marx’s research method while disregarding all of Marx’s theoretical propositions—how is one to address the doubt expressed in the idiom "if the skin is gone, where can the hair attach itself?" [5] How can one discern the origin, substance, and future developmental trends of Marxist theory? Furthermore, Lukács’s distinction between "classed consciousness in general" and "true class consciousness," and his call to awaken true class consciousness and emphasize its decisive status in the process of social transformation, actually laid the groundwork for other Western Marxists to emphasize the role of factors such as the human spirit, psychology, desires, and needs in the emergence, development, and replacement of human societies. For example, Michael Lebowitz’s theory of the "primacy of human needs" argues that ever-growing human needs are the important force determining social change, thereby negating Marx’s law of the contradictory movement between productive forces and relations of production. Similarly, according to Robert Heilbroner’s analytical framework of the "nature" and "logic" of capitalism, the so-called "nature" of capitalism refers to its fundamental driving force—namely, the "desire for capital accumulation" that unifies wealth and power. This desire is rooted in the capitalist’s motive for self-preservation and is "the most intense and unbridled of instinctive responses." [10] In short, the categories of reification, totality, class consciousness, the primacy of human needs, and the desire for capital accumulation associated with figures like Lukács, Lebowitz, and Heilbroner are actually "based on less materialism," [11] and the idealistic character of their methodology requires no further elaboration.
As an important representative of "Analytical Marxism" or "Rational Choice Marxism," John Roemer adopted the individualism and equilibrium analysis methods of neoclassical economics to construct mathematical models of Marx’s theories of labor value, surplus value, capital accumulation, and economic crises. Roemer argues that the class struggle between workers and capitalists, together with the competitive conditions of the labor market, determines the level of real wages. He disagrees with Marx’s view that the value of labor-power is determined by the value of the means of subsistence, but he also recognizes that if "wages no longer remain at the level of subsistence, the value of labor-power loses its well-defined nature. Therefore, reconstructing a Marxist theory of value without the concept of a subsistence wage" [12] is not only possible but also quite necessary. Roemer’s attempt to argue for capitalist exploitation at the cost of abandoning the labor theory of value does not differ essentially from the "distribution-centrism" that Marx consistently opposed; it constitutes yet another version of the vulgarization of Marxist and socialist theory. Additionally, Geoff Hodgson proposed that while exploitation in Marxist economics is built on the foundation of the labor theory of value, neoclassical economics denies capitalist exploitation based on assumptions of market competitiveness, equilibrium, and social harmony. Hodgson attempted to avoid these two research paths and "endow the concept of exploitation with a different substance." [13] However, Hodgson’s efforts were unsuccessful because his definition of the concept of exploitation was either confined to the perspective of fairness and equality or remained at the level of legality versus illegality. Based on his division between "pre-contractual exploitation" and "post-contractual exploitation," it is not difficult to find that the relationship between exploiter and exploited exists not only between different classes but also within the same class, and even among members of the same family. Hodgson’s theory of exploitation, while generalizing the concept of exploitation, renders Marx’s socialist theory and practice meaningless.
IV. Western Marxism defined by research fields ignores the holistic characteristics of Marxism
In addition to understanding Western Marxism in the narrow sense through the dimensions of time and space or different research stances, methods, or viewpoints, other scholars define the concept according to specific research fields. Among these, the practice of equating Western Marxism with "Western Marxist Philosophy" is quite prevalent. As early as the 1920s and 1930s, the "philosophization" tendency of Western Marxism was already very apparent, because representative figures of narrow Western Marxism—including Lukács, Karl Korsch, and Antonio Gramsci—mostly had backgrounds in philosophical education and academic expertise. After World War II, the situation in which Western Marxism was primarily controlled by professional philosophers remained unchanged. Under the influence of this tradition, the research content, thematic selection, argumentative logic, and discourse system of Western Marxism gradually converged with the discipline of philosophy. After China's Reform and Opening Up, following the introduction of Western Marxism and the surge of research interest, the philosophical hue of related outputs has also been very thick. For example, some scholars categorize Western Marxism into six types: Hegelianism, Freudianism, Existentialism, Neo-Positivism, Structuralism, and Analytical Marxism—the same categories by which Western philosophical schools can be divided.
Beyond the philosophization tendency, Western Marxism’s research progress in literature, aesthetics, art, and even gender is incomparable to its work in political economy. "The representative figures of Western Marxism have also typically pioneered research into literary processes—delving into the higher reaches of the superstructure—as if to compensate with brilliant literary flair for their neglect of the structures and foundations of politics and economics." [14] For instance, Cultural Marxism opposes economic determinism and emphasizes the decisive role of cultural factors in the historical changes of human society. They have pushed their research perspectives deep into ethnicity, race, gender, and everyday life, exerting a very important influence on various social movements including nationalism, racism, and feminism. However, it is undeniable that Cultural Marxism possesses the "internal flaws of overemphasizing cultural factors while neglecting economic analysis, and overemphasizing human subjectivity while neglecting the constraints placed on humans by the objective world and its laws." [15] Some studies suggest that the tradition of Marxist political economy reached its end in The Theory of Capitalist Development, and that the publication of Monopoly Capital "nearly discarded the orthodox structure within the scope of Marxist economics." Perry Anderson referred to this phenomenon, not without regret, as a "puzzling reversal," [4] meaning that after the publication of Capital—the innovative work of Marxist political economy—researchers increasingly deviated from the political economy tradition. Samuel Bowles recognized the fact that Western Marxism lacked economics, pointing out: "the cultural and political analysis of the Western Marxist tradition and the economic theory in the classical Marxist tradition developed in isolation from each other. Because the innovations of the Western Marxist tradition did not themselves extend to economic theory, the issues debated in these two trends did not involve much construction of economic theory itself..." [16] Some foreign scholars have even directly declared that Western Marxism, lacking economics, has gone bankrupt. [17] In short, the "de-economization" [18] of Western Marxism is a major reason for the exhaustion of its theoretical vitality and the atrophy of its practical explanatory power. This state of affairs both restricts the integrity of Marxist theory and hinders the revival and development of Marxism on a global scale.
Since the 1970s, facing global problems such as resource depletion, environmental pollution, and imbalanced and unequal development, a group of Western Marxists including Guy Debord, Herbert Marcuse, and André Gorz embarked on an "ecological turn." With the addition of scholars like Ben Agger, James O'Connor, and John Bellamy Foster, Ecological Marxism has shown signs of vigorous development. Researchers have centered their discussions on whether historical materialism is compatible with ecological issues, the multiple crises of capitalism, and alternatives for future society. Most research suggests that capitalism can hardly continue due to being plagued by multiple crises. Therefore, to ensure the dialectical unity of the human system and the natural system, the developmental path of eco-socialism is worth exploring. For example, O'Connor emphasizes integrating nature and culture into the Marxist categories of material production or labor through a "marriage" of ecology and Marxism, thereby protecting or reconstructing resources, the environment, and social conditions of production. His eco-socialist proposition envisions establishing the state on the basis of democratic management: on one hand, achieving clarity in the relations of production to eliminate market fetishism, commodity fetishism, and capitalist exploitation; on the other hand, achieving clarity in the productive forces to terminate the destruction of the natural environment and production conditions. He believes that various new social movements arising in Western countries—such as the ecological movement, the feminist movement, and urban movements—can effectively stop the capital's utilization or abuse of nature, the environment, and production conditions because once we view nature as "the result of a history of labor, property, exploitation, and social struggle, our future is more likely to be sustainable, just, and socially equitable." [19] The courage of Ecological Marxism to face social reality and its practice of aligning the effort to explain the world with the action of transforming the world is worth extolling. However, how to prevent eco-socialism from falling into the trap of ecological utopia, and how to demonstrate the relationship between eco-socialism and Marxist socialism, are major topics requiring deep reflection and serious research. Of particular note is that so-called "eco-socialism"—which simply applies the Marxist stance, viewpoint, and method to explain and solve ecological problems with the aim of maintaining the sustainable development of the ecological environment and natural resources—cannot hide its reformist color, nor can it represent the holistic characteristics and future developmental trends of Marxism.
Over nearly a century, research on Western Marxism in both domestic and international academic circles has been primarily constrained by four narrow conceptual definitions of the field, each possessing distinct limitations and deficiencies. Definitions based on geographic space have reinforced regional barriers within Marxist studies; those based on the temporal dimension have exacerbated the tendency toward Marxist nihilism [6]; definitions based on research positions, methods, or viewpoints have weakened the scientific significance of Marxism; and those based on specific fields of research have ignored the holistic characteristics of Marxism. In summary, to improve the quality of research outcomes in Western Marxism and to increase the theoretical persuasiveness and practical influence of Marxism, there is an urgent need to integrate and broaden the existing narrow categories of Western Marxism. Accordingly, the author advocates for the alternative approach of "broad-sense Western Marxism" research.
References [6] [UK] Perry Anderson. Considerations on Western Marxism [M]. Translated by Gao Xian et al. Beijing: People’s Publishing House, 1981. [7] [UK] David McLellan. Marxism after Marx (3rd Edition) [M]. Translated by Li Zhi. Beijing: China Renmin University Press, 2008. [8] [GER] Karl Korsch. Marxism and Philosophy [M]. Translated by Wang Nanshi et al. Chongqing: Chongqing Publishing House, 1989. [9] Tai Lihua. "On the New Expansion of the Connotation of 'Western Marxism': Taking Political Economy as an Example" [J]. Review of Political Economy, 2012, (3). [10] Chen Binghui. "Post-Marxism and the Development of Contemporary Social Science" [J]. Marxism & Reality, 2012, (1). [11] [HUN] György Lukács. History and Class Consciousness [M]. Translated by Du Zhangzhi et al. Beijing: Commercial Press, 1996. [12] [USA] Robert L. Heilbroner. The Nature and Logic of Capitalism [M]. Translated by Ma Linmei. Beijing: Oriental Press, 2013. [13] [UK] David McLellan. "A Brief Commentary on the Main Schools of Western Marxism" [J]. Journal of Peking University (Philosophy and Social Sciences), 1993, (1). [14] [USA] John Roemer. Analytical Foundations of Marxian Economic Theory [M]. Translated by Wang Lixin et al. Shanghai: Shanghai People’s Publishing House, 2007. [15] [USA] Geoff Hodgson. Capitalism, Value and Exploitation [M]. Translated by Yu Shusheng. Beijing: Commercial Press, 2013. [16] [UK] Perry Anderson. In the Tracks of Historical Materialism [M]. Translated by Yu Wenlie. Beijing: Oriental Press, 1989. [17] Wang Yuchen, Sun Peiyun. "On the Cultural Turn of Western Marxism and Its Contemporary Effects" [J]. Journal of Guizhou Normal University, 2018, (6). [18] Zhou Fan et al. Post-Marxism [M]. Beijing: Central Compilation and Translation Press, 2007. [19] Alan Freeman. "Marxism without Marx: A Note towards a Critique" [J]. Capital and Class, 2010, (1). [20] Tai Lihua. "Reflections on the Phenomenon of 'De-economization' in Western Marxism" [J]. Contemporary Economic Research, 2013, (1). [21] [USA] James O'Connor. Natural Causes: Essays in Ecological Marxism [M]. Translated by Tang Zhengdong et al. Nanjing: Nanjing University Press, 2003.
(Author's Institution: School of Marxism, China University of Political Science and Law) Online Editor: Zhang Jian Source: Mao Zedong and Deng Xiaoping Theory Studies, No. 8, 2020.