Tai Lihua: An Analysis of the Limitations of Narrow Western Marxist Studies

In the 1920s and 30s, figures such as Lukács, Korsch, and Gramsci primarily defined and "founded" Western Marxism 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 between different schools or scholars regarding the essential connotation of this narrow concept has remained significant. The adverse consequences for the study of Marxist theory are manifest. For example, defining Western Marxism from a geospatial perspective both distinguishes it from classical Marxism and the Marxism of the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, while simultaneously neglecting Marxist theoretical research in countries such as the United Kingdom, the United States, and Japan, thereby reinforcing regional antagonisms within Marxism. Defining Western Marxism from the perspective of temporal evolution—involving various appellations such as Neo-Marxism, Post-Marxism, and Marxology ^[1]—presumes a fundamental difference from classical Marxism and Soviet orthodox Marxism. This provides a footnote for views such as the "error," "obsolescence," or "extinction" 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 rigor of their theoretical viewpoints is indeed open to question. Finally, proceeding from specific fields of research—such as equating Western Marxism with research in philosophy, historiography, literature, and aesthetics—both violates the principle of the integrity of Marxism and increasingly divorces Marxist theoretical research from social reality, resulting in very weak theoretical explanatory power and practical persuasiveness. Based on this, the conceptual connotation of Western Marxism in the narrow sense urgently needs to be integrated and expanded. This article attempts to analyze the limitations of the study of Western Marxism in the narrow sense one by one.

I. Western Marxism Defined by Geospatiality Reinforces Regional Barriers in Marxist Research

Western Marxism defined in the narrow sense from the perspective of physical geospatiality refers, first of all, to Marxism in Western European countries—that is, equating Western Marxism with Western European Marxism. For instance, Korsch, who first proposed the concept of Western Marxism, consistently used "Western Marxism" as a synonym for "Western European Marxism." Within the context of Western European Marxism, Perry Anderson classified the results of Marxist theoretical research in Germany, France, and Italy under the category of Western Marxism. He argued that since the early 1920s, Western Marxism was primarily concentrated in these three countries, while outside of them, "the absence of one or another condition... prevented the emergence of a mature Marxist culture." He even emphasized that the most typical and prominent region for the Western Marxist tradition was located in southwest Germany, as it was the birthplace of Adorno and Horkheimer and the place where Lukács lived and grew up. He argued that the influence of the German cultural tradition on Lukács far exceeded that of his motherland, Hungary. One important reason why Anderson and others insisted on the regional characteristics of the concept of Western Marxism—even directly limiting it to Germany, France, and Italy—is that people often directly associate Marxism with socialism and Communist Parties, because "geographically, Marxist thought was concentrated in Germany, France, and Italy, several countries with large Communist Parties." In the 1980s, the Yugoslav scholar Vjekoslav Mikecin ^[2] wrote that Marxism included 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 with Korsch and Anderson, Mikecin’s definition of Western Marxism broke through the regional boundaries of Western Europe or the three countries of Germany, France, and Italy. However, as an important exploration for broadening the study of Western Marxism, Mikecin's view has not yet received sufficient attention in academic circles.

Western Marxism defined by geospatiality excludes or denies the Marxist research achievements of Eastern countries and other European countries, 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 figures of contemporary official Marxism" or "old-line Marxists" had collectively adhered to Marxist dogma; his pamphlet, conversely, "contained a resentment-filled resistance to certain dogmas." Therefore, the accusations made by the "orthodox Marxist critics" against him were "not only unreasonable, but also futile and invalid." Anderson’s concept of Western Marxism is similarly distinct from classical Marxism and Soviet-Eastern European Marxism. He believed that the poor spread of socialist revolution outside Russia and the corruption problems that emerged in the Soviet Union during the process of socialist construction were important historical backgrounds for the emergence of Western Marxism. He wrote that "the important works of Western Marxism were without exception produced in an environment of political isolation and despair." In his book Considerations on Western Marxism, Anderson combined the evolution of the Frankfurt Institute, the theoretical claims of representative figures, and the differing views of Althusser in France and Gramsci in Italy to introduce 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 in the socialist revolution, and since Germany, France, and Italy fit this characteristic exactly, the aforementioned spatial definition of Western Marxism was produced. Anderson's judgment explicitly excluded the Marxist theory and practice of "peripheral regions of European culture such as Spain, Yugoslavia, and Greece."

On the other hand, the narrow definition of Western Marxism according to the spatial dimension also creates barriers within the field of Marxist theoretical research in the Western world itself. For example, according to the definition that equates Western Marxism with Western European Marxism or specifically designates the Marxism of Germany, France, and Italy, Marxist theoretical research in the United States and the United Kingdom could not be categorized under Western Marxism. Although Mikecin's definition included the UK and the US in the camp of Western Marxist research, Japanese Marxist research faced the fate of being excluded from Western Marxism. In fact, as a typical Western country in the political sense, Japan has long been at the mainstream and frontier of Marxist research, producing many works, scholars, and schools with world influence. After World War II, many Japanese universities insisted on offering Marxist economics majors for undergraduate and graduate students, and many scholars have held lectures on Das Kapital for the general public year-round. Since the occurrence of the US subprime mortgage crisis in 2008, several Japanese publishers have successively launched different versions of Das Kapital manga, making outstanding contributions to the popularization and simplification of Marxist economics. In recent years, many Japanese researchers have remained active in the process of editing, organizing, and publishing MEGA2 ^[3]. Therefore, Western Marxist research cannot ignore or deny the role of Japan. The author believes that defining Western Marxism narrowly by the geospatial dimension and simply emphasizing its regional characteristics carries the suspicion 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 doctrine personally created by Marx and Engels, the landmark work of whose birth was the first volume of Das Kapital published in the 1860s. Soviet Marxism, as an official Marxism, arose from the October Revolution of 1917 and the practice of Soviet socialist construction in the following 70-plus years. Western Marxism in the narrow sense, represented by Lukács and others who appeared in the 1920s and 30s, mainly refers to "Marxism after Marx," which is a Marxism that is distinct from or even opposed to classical Marxism or Soviet-Eastern European Marxism. Some scholars believe that the "deepest root" of the emergence of Western Marxism "lies in the fact that no great revolutionary high tide occurred after 1920." This is because, in the half-century from 1918 to 1968, influenced by the multiple failures of the socialist movement in Western European countries and the anti-Marxist totalitarian forces, the disappointment of some Western Marxists surged. They gradually abandoned efforts to transform the world and instead tried to explain the world. Furthermore, due to the fear of persecution by totalitarian forces such as Nazi Germany and McCarthyism in the United States, some researchers had to retreat to their studies and immerse themselves in purely academic issues like philosophy, literature, art, and aesthetics. They dedicated themselves to explaining the world and forgot or ignored the historical mission of transforming the world. Consequently, Western Marxist research gradually showed a trend of theory being divorced from practice. After the 1970s, various Marxist schools or trends of thought such as Neo-Marxism, Post-Marxism, and Marxology that emerged in the Western world can also be regarded as temporal divisions of Western Marxism in the narrow sense.

The relationship between Western Marxism in the narrow sense—as defined by the temporal dimension—and the classical Marxism created by Marx and Engels and official Soviet Marxism is simple and clear. Compared with various names like Post-Marxism, Neo-Marxism, and Marxology, there is also a relatively clear temporal boundary. However, this definition still faces the limitations of unclear conceptual connotations and undefined extensions. For example, some scholars summarize Post-Marxism as various types of Marxism after the death of Marx and Engels. According to this definition of Post-Marxism, Western Marxism represented by Lukács, Korsch, and others 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 brings no benefit other than increasing the confusion and difficulty of theoretical research. Other scholars specifically use Post-Marxism to refer to the Marxist theoretical views and policy propositions of Laclau and Mouffe. Although this definition highlights the theoretical contributions of Laclau and Mouffe, it ignores the research results 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 viewpoints of Foucault and others represent to a certain extent an important orientation in the development of Western Marxism and should not be ignored under any circumstances.

In addition, Western Marxism in the narrow sense, as defined according to the temporal thread, can both support the conclusion that classical Marxism and Soviet orthodox Marxism have gone bankrupt, and similarly prove the viewpoint that Western Marxism has ended. In the more than 150 years since the publication of the first volume of Das Kapital, there have always been scholars sparing no effort to promote theories regarding the obsolescence, erroneousness, and harmfulness of Das Kapital, attempting to use this to prove 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 people took the opportunity to propose the "End of History" thesis, declaring the failure of Marxist theories and practices concerning socialism, which once again triggered the so-called debate over "whether Marxism and socialism have perished." Since the emergence of Western Marxism, a series of major changes have taken place in the political and economic situation of the entire world, and Marxist theoretical research and real-world socialist movements have also displayed many new characteristics. Accompanied by the arrival of a new stage in the world workers' movement after the "May Storm" of 1968 in France, and facing a situation where Marxist theoretical research and practical exploration were expected to be reunified, some scholars believed that the decline and demise of Western Marxism were inevitable. Some views even pointed out that by the 1970s and 80s...

Since the late 1970s, the so-called post-Marxism that has focused on critiquing post-industrial society or late capitalist society is itself a product of the decline of narrow-sense Western Marxism. Some post-Marxists emphasize that the fundamental principles, primary viewpoints, and research methods of traditional Marxism are all obsolete and can no longer explain or account for the developmental conditions of postmodern capitalist society. Consequently, they "endeavor to innovate Marxism and activate the Marxist tradition by deconstructing its traditional theories." I believe that narrow-sense Western Marxism, defined by the dimension of time—especially that Marxism which has been deconstructed, innovated, or activated by post-Marxism—clearly departs from the theoretical substance and core essentials of classical Marxism. It is a true portrayal of Marxism trending toward weakening and nihilism.

III. Western Marxism defined by research standpoint, method, or viewpoint violates the scientific implications of Marxism

The definitions of Western Marxism provided by some scholars based on different research standpoints, methods, or viewpoints still fall within the category of narrow-sense Western Marxism. For instance, the so-called "Marxology" ^[4] that emerged in the Western world primarily starting in the 1960s—which specializes in studying Marx’s life, career, works, and thought—proposed such views as the opposition between the "young Marx" and the "mature Marx," between Engels and Marx, between Lenin and Marx, and even between Marx and Marxism. They either vigorously extol the so-called "humanist Marx" found in early works like the Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844 while vehemently opposing the "scientistic Marx" of Capital; or, based on the basic 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 production prices or denying the law of value, highlighting Engels’s supposed departure from Marx. Alternatively, they take the victory of the Russian October Socialist Revolution and the practice of socialist construction as examples to emphasize Lenin's negation or revision of Marx’s theory. These research results of "Marxology" set up strict boundaries between "humanist Marxism" and "scientific Marxism" and sever the dialectical relationship between the revolutionary and scientific nature of Marxism. Their research standpoint of opposing Marx, Marxism, socialism, or communism is self-evident.

In his book History and Class Consciousness, Lukács spoke highly of Marx’s research method and proposed the proposition of ignoring all of Marx’s viewpoints while retaining only his method. He argued that doing so does not mean abandoning Marxist orthodoxy, because "orthodoxy in questions of Marxism relates exclusively to method." Lukács’s emphasis on the importance of Marx’s methodology coincides with Engels’s view that Marxism is not a dogma but a method, and it also points out the correct direction for developing and innovating Marxism. However, what puzzles me is that if we were to follow Lukács entirely—retaining only the research method while discarding all of Marx’s theoretical propositions—how could we address the doubt of "if the skin is gone, what can the hair attach itself to" ^[5]? How could we discern the origin, substance, and future developmental trends of Marxist theory? Furthermore, Lukács’s distinction between "ascribed" class consciousness and "actual" class consciousness—calling for the awakening of true class consciousness and emphasizing its decisive role in the process of social transformation—in fact 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, Lebowitz’s theory of the primacy of human needs argues that the human needs that grow continuously with social development are the important force determining social change, thereby negating Marx’s law of the contradictory movement between the productive forces and the relations of production. Similarly, according to 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" characterized by the unity of wealth and power. This desire is rooted in the capitalist’s motive for self-preservation and is "the most intense and unbridled instinctive response." In short, the categories of reification, totality, class consciousness, the primacy of human needs, and the desire for capital accumulation used by Lukács, Lebowitz, Heilbroner, and others are actually "based on less materialism," and the idealistic characteristics of their methodology require no further elaboration.

As an important representative of Analytical Marxism or Rational Choice Marxism, Roemer utilizes the individualist and equilibrium analysis methods of neoclassical economics to construct mathematical models of Marxist theories such as the labor theory of value, surplus value, capital accumulation, and economic crisis. Roemer believes 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 boundary. Therefore, reconstructing a Marxist value theory without the concept of subsistence wages" is not only possible but highly necessary. Roemer’s attempt to argue for capitalist exploitation at the cost of abandoning the labor theory of value does not essentially differ from the "distribution-centrism" that Marx consistently opposed; it constitutes yet another version of the vulgarization of Marxism and socialist theory. Additionally, Hodgson suggested that exploitation in Marxist economics is built on the labor theory of value, while neoclassical economics denies capitalist exploitation based on assumptions of market competitiveness, equilibrium, and social harmony. Hodgson attempted to avoid both of these research paths and "give the concept of exploitation a different substance." However, Hodgson’s efforts were unsuccessful because his definition of exploitation was either confined to the perspective of fairness and equality or remained at the level of legality versus illegality. According to 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. While generalizing the concept of exploitation, Hodgson’s theory of exploitation places Marxist socialist theory and practice in a position of insignificance.

IV. Western Marxism defined by research fields ignores the holistic characteristics of Marxism

In addition to understanding narrow-sense Western Marxism through the dimensions of time and space or different research standpoints, methods, and 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 clear, as most representative figures of narrow-sense Western Marxism—including Lukács, Korsch, and Gramsci—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, selection of themes, logic of demonstration, and discourse system of Western Marxism gradually converged with the discipline of philosophy. After China's reform and opening up, with the introduction of Western Marxism and the surge in research interest, related achievements also possessed a very strong philosophical flavor. For instance, some scholars divide Western Marxism into six categories: Hegelianism, Freudianism, Existentialism, Neo-positivism, Structuralism, and Analytical Marxism—the same divisions could be applied to schools of Western philosophy.

Beyond the philosophization tendency, Western Marxism’s research progress in literature, aesthetics, art, and even gender is incomparable to its progress in political economy. "The representative figures of Western Marxism were also typically the first to study the processes of literature—delving into the higher realms of the superstructure—as if to compensate with brilliant literary flair for their neglect of the structure and base of politics and economics." For example, Cultural Marxism opposes economic determinism and emphasizes the decisive role of cultural factors in the historical changes of human society. They have extended their research perspectives into ethnicity, race, gender, and people's daily lives, exerting a very important influence on various social movements, including nationalism, racism, and feminism. However, it is undeniable that Cultural Marxism possesses inherent flaws, such as "overemphasizing cultural factors while neglecting economic analysis, and overemphasizing human subjectivity while neglecting the constraints imposed on humans by the objective world and its laws."

Some research suggests that the tradition of Marxist political economy reached its end in The Theory of Capitalist Development, and the publication of Monopoly Capital "nearly discarded the orthodox structure within the scope of Marxist economics." Perry Anderson called this phenomenon a "puzzling inversion," referring to the fact that after the publication of Capital—the innovative work of Marxist political economy—researchers increasingly departed from the political economy tradition. Bowles recognized the fact that Western Marxism lacks economics, emphasizing that: "The cultural and political analysis of the Western Marxist tradition and the economic theory in the classical Marxist tradition developed in isolation from one another. Because the innovations of the Western Marxist tradition did not themselves extend to economic theory, the issues debated in the two trends did not involve as much of the construction of economic theory itself..." Some foreign scholars have even directly declared that Western Marxism, lacking economics, is bankrupt. In short, the "de-economization" of Western Marxism is an important reason for the exhaustion of its theoretical vitality and the shrinking of its explanatory power regarding reality. This current state restricts the integrity of Marxist theory and hinders the revival and development of Marxism on a global scale.

Since the 1970s, faced with global problems such as resource exhaustion, environmental pollution, and imbalanced and unequal development, a group of Western Marxists including Debord, Marcuse, and Gorz embarked on an "ecological turn." As scholars like Agger, O'Connor, and Foster joined in, Ecological Marxism showed signs of vigorous development. Researchers have launched discussions centered on whether historical materialism is compatible with ecological issues, the multiple crises of capitalism, and alternatives for future society. The vast majority of studies believe that it is difficult for capitalism to continue due to the troubles caused by multiple crises. Therefore, to ensure the dialectical unity of human systems and natural systems, the developmental path of Eco-socialism is worth exploring. For instance, O'Connor emphasizes integrating nature and culture into the Marxist categories of material production or labor through a "marriage" between ecology and Marxism, thereby protecting or reconstructing resources, the environment, and social conditions of production. His Eco-socialist advocacy posits building the state on the basis of democratic management: on one hand, clarifying the relations of production to eliminate market fetishism, commodity fetishism, and capitalist exploitation; on the other hand, clarifying the productive forces to terminate the destruction of the natural environment and conditions of production. He believes that various new social movements emerging in Western countries—such as the ecological movement, the feminist movement, and urban movements—can effectively stop the utilization or abuse of nature, the environment, and production conditions by capital, because once nature is viewed as "the result of the history of labor, property, exploitation, and social struggle, our future is more likely to be sustainable, fair, and possess social justice." The approach of Ecological Marxism—daring to face social reality and combining the effort to explain the world with the action to transform the world—is worthy of praise. 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 subjects requiring in-depth reflection and serious research. It is particularly important to note that simply applying Marxist standpoints, viewpoints, and methods to explain and solve ecological problems with the aim of maintaining sustainable development of the environment and natural resources—the so-called "Eco-socialism"—cannot hide its reformist colors, nor can it represent the holistic characteristics and future developmental trends of Marxism.

Over the past century, research on Western Marxism within both domestic and international academic circles has primarily been constrained by four narrow conceptual definitions of Western Marxism, each possessing highly evident limitations and deficiencies. The definition based on geographical space has reinforced regional barriers within Marxist studies; the definition from a temporal dimension has intensified tendencies toward Marxist nihilism ^[6]; definitions based on research positions, methods, or perspectives have weakened the scientific significance of Marxism; and definitions based on specific fields of research have neglected 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. For these reasons, the author advocates for the alternative approach of "broadly-defined Western Marxism" research.

(Author: Executive Dean of the School of Marxism at the China University of Political Science and Law, Professor, and Doctoral Supervisor.) Web Editor: Cai Hong Source: Mao Zedong and Deng Xiaoping Theory Studies