Tai Lihua: A Study of Generalized Western Marxism from the Perspective of Political Economy
I
"East" and "West" originally pointed toward different geographical coordinates, changing as the observer’s position shifted; they are natural concepts characterized by relativity. However, across the centuries since the emergence of capitalism, as human society has continuously developed and evolved, the natural attributes of these two terms—East and West—have gradually been dissolved or forgotten, while their political attributes have strengthened. In the current era, East and West often signify differences and disagreements, and at one time even became synonyms for opposition and conflict. A typical example of East-West conflict was the intense ideological confrontation after the Second World War between the capitalist camp represented by the United States and the socialist camp represented by the Soviet Union.
Since the late 1980s, the socialist systems of the Soviet Union and Eastern European countries shifted toward capitalism, and the Cold War, which had persisted worldwide for many years, was declared over. Nevertheless, the ideological struggle between East and West has only grown more acute. In recent years, frequent disputes between China and the United States over trade, diplomacy, and international affairs; the criticisms and censures directed at the "Belt and Road" Initiative by Western developed nations; and the differing attitudes and countermeasures of our country versus major capitalist countries like the U.S. and the U.K. regarding the COVID-19 pandemic—all these centrally reflect the contradictions between East and West in the political, economic, social, cultural, and ideological spheres. I contend that research on Western Marxism, both in domestic and foreign academic circles, is likewise permeated by East-West differences or oppositions in terms of conceptual ideas, research stances, theoretical viewpoints, and methodology. Among these, the multi-layered ambiguity of the concept of Western Marxism itself prominently reflects the ideological disputes between the two sides.
Inquiry into the origins of the term "Western Marxism" can be traced back as far as the 1920s. Lukács’s History and Class Consciousness, published in 1923, is revered as the foundational work of Western Marxism. Korsch first proposed and used the concept of Western Marxism in the 1930 edition of Marxism and Philosophy. Merleau-Ponty then endorsed and adopted the term in Adventures of the Dialectic, published in 1955. After the 1960s and 70s, influential Western Marxist writings began to circulate globally, and the center of Western Marxist research gradually shifted from Western Europe to countries such as Britain and the United States. Many intellectual trends or schools named after Marxism appeared worldwide. Around the time of the Reform and Opening-up [1], Western Marxist theories and doctrines spread into China; to date, a vast number of works have been translated and published, triggering multiple heated discussions in theoretical circles. For instance, the conceptual connotations of Western Marxism, the relationship between Western Marxism and classical Marxism, the academic lineages of the "Young Marx" versus the "Mature Marx," and the relationship between Marx and Engels have all been focal points of discussion for domestic scholars. In recent years, as an indispensable and important component of the construction of the discipline of Marxist Theory and the training of graduate students in China, the role of Western Marxism research has become even more prominent, and its influence continues to rise.
To date, setting aside the different research stances, divergent theoretical views, diverse methodologies, and pluralistic policy proposals in the research outputs of domestic and foreign scholars, the various names and designations for Western Marxism are so numerous as to be dizzying. For example, according to definitions based on spatial-temporal dimensions, it can be divided into Western Marxism, Neo-Marxism, Post-Marxism, etc. According to definitions based on stance, viewpoint, or method, it includes Analytical Marxism or Rational Choice Marxism, Freudian Psychoanalytic Marxism, Sartrean Existentialist Marxism, etc. According to definitions based on specific research fields, it covers Feminist Marxism, Ecological Marxism, Cultural Marxism, Marxology, and so on. I group the aforementioned concepts into the category of "Western Marxism in the narrow sense." I believe that research on Western Marxism in the narrow sense in domestic and foreign academia has either reinforced regional barriers within Marxism, intensified the tendency toward Marxist nihilism, weakened the scientific meaning of Marxism, or ignored its holistic characteristics [2]. Starting from varied or even mutually exclusive definitions, Western Marxism research is unable to reach a consensus on important theoretical viewpoints and policy proposals. It cannot establish an integrated research framework that is rational, objective, open, inclusive, and symbiotically complementary. Conflict and opposition, isolation and exclusion, have become the norm.
Since human society entered the 21st century, the contradictions within Western developed capitalist countries, between systems in the capitalist world, and between developed and developing countries have become increasingly complex and profound. Frequent economic, political, and social crises have swept the globe, constantly threatening the sustained, stable, and healthy development of capitalism; the legitimacy of the capitalist system has encountered unprecedented challenges. The future and destiny of humanity, the replacement of capitalism, and the construction of socialism have placed new and higher demands on the theoretical research and practical exploration of Western Marxism. However, the existing limitations of research on Western Marxism in the narrow sense—especially the complex, confusing, and narrow nature of its conceptual connotations, as well as differences in research methods, discourse systems, and theoretical viewpoints—preclude it from reflecting the status and future trends of Marxist research in a comprehensive, accurate, timely, objective, and dynamic manner. This is detrimental to effective internal communication and normal exchange within Marxist theoretical research and also hinders the breadth and depth of the international dissemination of Marxist theory. I call for transcending the horizon of Western Marxism in the narrow sense and promoting research on "Western Marxism in the broad sense" from the perspective of political economy.
II
"Western Marxism in the broad sense," constructed from the perspective of political economy, refers to an approach that takes classical Marxist texts such as Capital as its foundation and the mode of production of human society—along with the relations of production and exchange corresponding to it—as its object of study. It relies on explaining and solving major realistic socio-political and economic problems, and aims for the free, comprehensive, and harmonious development of man and nature as well as man and man. It shifts from purely academic research previously confined to the study toward facing the fate of humanity and social reality, taking the resolution of new contradictions and problems in the development of the era as its historical mission and responsibility. Building on the beneficial research results of Western Marxism in the narrow sense, Western Marxism in the broad sense is primarily situated in Western developed capitalist countries. It is committed to integrating and transcending the various doctrines, viewpoints, or schools of Western Marxism in the narrow sense, including Post-Marxism, Neo-Marxism, Marxology, Ecological Marxism, Rational Choice Marxism, Cultural Marxism, and Feminist Marxism. Western Marxism in the broad sense is characterized by complex connotations, broad extensions, pluralistic research methods, diverse theoretical viewpoints, varied academic resources, a clear trend toward the professionalization of researchers, and a complex, changing relationship with classical Marxism. Simultaneously, it possesses features of inclusiveness, openness, diversity, and flexibility.
(1) Plurality of Research Methods and Diversity of Research Conclusions in Western Marxism in the Broad Sense
Research on Western Marxism in the broad sense includes both precedents following the principles of materialism and objectivism and models using research methods of idealism and subjectivism. An example of the former is John Bellamy Foster. He has repeatedly pointed out that "the ultimate strength of Marxist analysis... depends even more deeply on its materialistic conception of history, which encompasses both human history and natural history." [3] He believes that the tradition of ecological analysis, which was avoided or forgotten by Western Marxism in the narrow sense, can only be preserved, developed, and revived within the field of Marxist political economy. He emphasizes that the irrationality of capitalist production stems from the capitalist private ownership of the means of production. Therefore, overthrowing the exploitation of labor and transcending the alienation of nature is the inevitable choice to eliminate the "metabolic rift" between man and nature. Foster's vision of a future society conforms to the stance of classical Marxism.
A representative of subjective idealist research methods is Lukács. He insisted that awakening "proletarian consciousness" is the fundamental path to "escaping the capitalist crisis." [4] Lukács, along with other Western Marxist scholars such as Sartre, Heilbroner, and Lebowitz, emphasized one-sidedly the decisive role of subjective factors—such as class consciousness, human needs, psychology, and spirit—in the process of social development and historical change, while ignoring or denying the importance of objective factors such as class and class struggle, human history, and the natural environment. Their theory of social reformism, predicated on non-violent revolution, is a manifestation of the "Humanistic Marxist" viewpoint and forms an internal rupture with "Scientific Marxism."
Furthermore, even when adhering to the same research method, some Western Marxist scholars find it difficult to reach a basic consensus on theoretical viewpoints and policy proposals. Taking Ecological Marxism, which advocates for the unity of the materialist view of nature and the materialist view of history, as an example, its judgments on economic crises and the development trends of capitalism show obvious inconsistencies. For instance, Agger argues that the capitalist ecological crisis—characterized by resource scarcity, environmental pollution, and ecosystem degradation—has replaced the economic crisis. As the primary form of capitalist crisis, the ecological crisis is entirely avoidable. Therefore, the conclusion that the so-called economic crisis will cause the demise of capitalism is untenable. His research confirms, from one angle, the view that capitalism is permanently sustainable. O’Connor, however, explores the possibility and necessity of the replacement of capitalism from the perspective of "the theory of points of double contradiction" and "the theory of double crisis." On the one hand, the basic contradiction of capitalism—the first contradiction—leads to economic crises, with the proletariat acting as the engine of social transformation. On the other hand, the second contradiction between capitalist production and the conditions of production triggers ecological crises, with various new social movements and the social struggles embodied in production becoming the engine of social transformation. It can be seen that there is more than one road to socialism, and "there are two trends that can both lead to an increase in the degree of socialization of the productive forces, relations of production, conditions of production, and the social relations of the production and reproduction of these conditions..." [5] O’Connor’s social evolutionism denies Agger’s social stagnationism; this is a major divergence within Ecological Marxism.
(2) "De-economization" and "Pan-economization" of Western Marxism in the Broad Sense
When Western Marxism was first born, its major representative figures, such as Lukács, Korsch, and Gramsci, were mostly educated in philosophy or possessed expertise in philosophical research. Since then, professional philosophers have remained active in the field of Western Marxism research. Under the influence of this tradition, the research content, thematic selection, argumentative logic, and discourse system of Western Marxism have gradually converged with the discipline of philosophy. While the philosophical tendency of Western Marxism has grown stronger, its research outputs in history, sociology, literature, aesthetics, and art have also been significant. It seems to have become a new trend in "narrow-sense" Western Marxism research to intentionally avoid, interfere with, exclude, or deny political economy topics. Theoretical research in narrow Western Marxism is increasingly detached from social practice, and examples of flaunting a depoliticized, de-ideologized, and neutral research stance are growing more frequent. I refer to this trend of moving away from political economy—as reflected in the objects of study, research themes, research methods, and the professional aspirations and outputs of researchers—as the "de-economization" of Western Marxism. [6] The absence or departure of political economy from Western Marxism research indicates that the methodological foundation and practical orientation of social science research are growing increasingly weak, foreshadowing the decline or even bankruptcy of Western Marxism.
Parallel to the "de-economization" of Western Marxism research, the phenomenon of "pan-economization" has also appeared. [7] Since the 1960s and 70s, the content of Western Marxism research has mostly involved feminist issues, national and racial relations, environmental pollution, and ecological protection. Global environmental degradation and resource depletion, economic cycles and poverty, social conflict and equity, labor market inequality and discrimination, war, and people's daily lives have all entered the research horizon of Western scholars. Theoretical research and practical exploration in Western Marxism have continuously transcended the scope of social relations of production. This is particularly prominent in the United States, where "Marxist economists are more likely than their European counterparts to accept the economic significance of 'non-economic' or 'superstructural' variables." [8] Additionally, beginning mainly in the 1980s...
For instance, in the 1980s, Japanese Marxist scholars attempted to cross disciplinary boundaries by integrating Marxian economics into various fields such as industrial economics, labor economics, finance, public finance, and corporate organization. They utilized these frameworks to explore issues like the "hollowing out" of Japanese industry, irrational industrial structures, labor-capital relations, financial crises, and corporate forms. Collectively, the "imperialist" trend—or the "pan-economization"—of Western Marxist studies has "blurred the specific research objects of Marxist economics... hindering its future development." It has not only "degraded the theoretical status of Marxist economics" but has further "diminished the scientific analytical capacity of the Marxist theoretical system." [16]
(3) The lack of faith and the trend toward professionalization among generalized Western Marxist researchers
The question of Marxist identity—or how to view the relationship between the professional career and the personal faith of Marxist researchers—is a topic that generalized Western Marxist studies cannot circumvent. Looking at the history of Marxist development, as the founders, believers, and disseminators of Marxist theory, Marx and Engels actively participated in the international workers' movement. They used Marxist theory as an ideological weapon to guide the working class against the capitalist system and to carry out the socialist movement. In them, one finds an internal unity of "faith in Marxism, value pursuit, and character formation with the choice of Marxist research as a profession and career." [17]
For a long period after the birth of Western Marxism, economists who made significant contributions—such as Maurice Dobb, Ernest Mandel, Antonio Negri, Paul Sweezy, and Paul Baran—were all active members of communist parties or working-class political organizations in their respective countries. Even when faced with marginalization or suppression by Western governments or mainstream public opinion, they did not cease their research; rather, they consistently upheld a Marxist standpoint and presented themselves as Marxists over the long term. It is evident that a significant characteristic of early Western Marxist economic researchers was the high degree of overlap between theoretical faith and professional pursuit.
After World War II, Western Marxist economic research intentionally downplayed ideology, avoided class antagonism and social conflict, and focused on "interpreting the world" while neglecting "changing the world." Some Western scholars repositioned Marxism as a purely academic matter. They sought to return to university campuses, hiding in private studies and staying detached from the common populace, severing all connections with the various political movements of real-world society. They strove to disguise or even completely abandon Marxist political pursuits. The British New Left movement, for example, transformed starting in the 1960s into "a much smaller intellectual circle centered around the journal New Left Review." [18]
Following the collapse of socialist states in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, although some Western Marxist economists continued their research, many of them had, in fact, long since abandoned Marxist ideals and convictions. Samuel Bowles, co-author of Understanding Capitalism: Competition, Command, and Change, was once dismissed by Harvard University for teaching Marxist economics; however, by the late 1980s, he abruptly changed his Marxist political stance and began studying human behavior. In short, a prominent feature of contemporary generalized Western Marxist research is that more people tend to treat it as a specialty, a profession, or an academic interest. Marxist research work has gradually become decoupled from Marxist ideals, beliefs, and the identity of being a Marxist.
(4) The persistence of, departure from, or vulgarization of traditional Marxism in generalized Western Marxism
Summing up the numerous theories, viewpoints, and schools of Western Marxism, there is no shortage of content that develops and innovates upon Marxism. For instance, British Cultural Marxism—while upholding the principles of historical materialism and practical materialism—criticized and reflected upon the dogmatism, mechanical determinism, and economic reductionism of official Soviet Marxism. Drawing on British cultural traditions and national characteristics, it explored a path for the "British-ization" of Marxism, to some extent reviving the British Marxist and socialist traditions. Some Western Marxists inherited the Marxist path of social critique and extended its perspective to broader levels such as technical rationality, the ecological environment, the production of space, everyday consumption, gender, and race. They confront the many real contradictions of capitalist socio-economics, comprehensively analyze the alienation [9] of relations between humans and between humans and nature, and deeply reveal the causes and solutions to this alienation. Consequently, they argue regarding the unsustainability of capitalism, the free and well-rounded development of humanity, and the building of future socialism. These research results have broadened the fields of Marxist study, enriched its theoretical connotations, and highlighted its contemporary value.
However, Western Marxist research also contains elements that depart from or vulgarize Marxism. Taking John Roemer’s mathematical-model reconstruction of Marxist political economy as an example, he established a theory of exploitation without the labor theory of value, which stands in clear distinction and opposition to traditional Marxism. Geoffrey Hodgson similarly bypassed the theory of exploitation based on the labor theory of value, expanding the extension and connotation of "exploitation" until its essential Marxist characteristic of "historical transience" was dissolved. He turned exploitation into a universal and eternal category, even arguing that exploitation occurs extensively between family members. According to the views of Roemer, Hodgson, and others, the abolition of exploitation would be synonymous with the abolition of the family—yet another version of departing from or vulgarizing Marxism.
Another obvious fact is Lukács’s analysis of "class consciousness," which contained idealistic elements; his book History and Class Consciousness was "naturally more easily accepted by bourgeois readers." Lukács later reflected deeply on this, believing he had understood economic categories too narrowly and had failed to analyze the labor process as the mediator of the "metabolism" [10] (material exchange) between humanity and nature. Precisely because of the absence of this "most important realistic pillar of the Marxist worldview," Marxism "lost its true economic base." [19]
III
For nearly a century, Western Marxist research worldwide has been constrained by the limitations of "narrow Western Marxism." Due to multiple interpretations of the conceptual connotation of Western Marxism and the diverse opposition of research methods, conflicts or differences in theoretical viewpoints and policy proposals are inevitable. Furthermore, narrow Western Marxism departs from the tradition of political economy on one hand, while continuously "pan-generalizing" the basic facts of political economy research on the other. Combined with the lack of Marxist faith and the increasing trend of professionalization among researchers, this series of contradictions has hindered the development and dissemination of Marxism. Given that "in the 21st century, world Marxist research teams, interpretive paths, ideological tendencies, and theoretical viewpoints vary, and there is a lack of a unified concept of Marxism and a systematic theoretical framework," [20] it is necessary to advocate for and promote "generalized Western Marxist" research.
To further clarify the connotation and extension of "generalized Western Marxism," the following specific points are made:
(1) The "Western" in "generalized Western Marxism" is synonymous with the "Western" in "Western economics"
"Western economics" (西方经济学, xīfāng jīngjìxué) is a term rich in Chinese characteristics. It has been primarily popular in Mainland China since the reform and opening up period, carrying multiple meanings including a discipline, a specialized major, and a curriculum. From a disciplinary perspective, Western economics is the name of a sub-discipline under the first-level discipline of Theoretical Economics. From a professional perspective, it refers to the name of the major studied by undergraduates and postgraduates in Mainland Chinese higher education institutions. As a name for courses or textbooks, it can be divided into two basic blocks: microeconomics and macroeconomics. In universities in Western countries, however, microeconomics and macroeconomics either exist independently or are collectively referred to as "Economics" or "Principles of Economics"; the designation "Western economics" simply does not exist.
Therefore, "Western economics" in the Chinese context primarily refers to the theoretical system and policy proposals of neoclassical economics that originated in Western developed capitalist countries, used to summarize their economic development experience and defend the capitalist system. During the emergence, development, and prosperity of capitalism, "Western economics" played a positive role. However, its major theoretical defects and long-term policy failures have been severely criticized many times by mainstream Western economists and various sectors of society. The drastic changes in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, as well as the intensification of social conflicts in Latin American countries since the 21st century, are major bitter fruits of the neoliberal reforms dominated by mainstream Western economics. I contend that "Western" in "Western economics" is not a specific geographical designation but a full expression of political stance and ideological characteristics. The "Western" in "generalized Western Marxism" likewise carries an ideological connotation.
Equating generalized Western Marxism with Western economics is done solely to illustrate that the ideological meaning represented by the word "Western" is the same. It does not mean that Western Marxism, like Western economics, has undergone a long process of development to form a relatively stable framework of macro and micro content—however controversial—or established a methodological system characterized by subjectivism, individualism, and mathematical analysis, with clear research objects, goals, theoretical views, and policy proposals. In Western developed capitalist countries, the mainstream status of macroeconomics and microeconomics is beyond doubt. Conversely, Western Marxism has always been suppressed and discriminated against as a radical or heterodox theory in its countries of origin. Even in developing countries, especially in large socialist countries like the Soviet Union and China, it was long ignored, misunderstood, and marginalized, and to this day has failed to form a unified ideological understanding or a mature theoretical system.
I use the analogy between generalized Western Marxism and Western economics, on one hand, to show that as the world political and economic situation changes and capitalist contradictions accumulate, Western Marxist research should enhance its realistic explanatory power while continuously injecting new content and generating new viewpoints. On the other hand, I use it to emphasize that we must transcend the restrictions of stance, viewpoint, method, faith, or identity, and move beyond the controversies of "true," "false," or "anti-" Marxism. Strengthening academic research within a relaxed atmosphere of "letting a hundred schools of thought contend and a hundred flowers bloom," seeking academic evidence, and continuously improving the ability to distinguish theoretical right from wrong is an important developmental direction for generalized Western Marxist research.
(2) "Generalized Western Marxism" is not equivalent to "Overseas Marxist Studies"
The connotation of "Overseas Marxist Studies" (国外马克思主义研究, guówài mǎkèsī zhǔyì yánjiū) can be understood from two aspects. In a general sense, it is a collective term for Marxist research in countries or regions outside of China, specifically including Soviet and Eastern European Marxism, Western European Marxism, North American Marxism, and Marxism in developing countries in Asia, Africa, and Latin America. In a specific sense, it is the proprietary name of a specific discipline and major in Mainland Chinese universities. In 2008, the State Council's Academic Degrees Committee added "Marxist Theory" as a first-level discipline; "Overseas Marxist Studies," as one of its second-level disciplines, is also the name of the graduate specialty.
Some domestic scholars, feeling the limitations of narrow Western Marxist research, have proposed a shift "from classical Western Marxist research to Overseas Marxist studies." [21] I agree with their conceptual analysis of "classical Western Marxism," but I do not agree with the practice of subsuming or replacing Western Marxist research with Overseas Marxist studies. There are two reasons: First, according to general conceptual understanding, the scope of Overseas Marxist studies is far larger than that of Western Marxism, and many of its schools differ significantly from Western Marxism. Second, according to specific conceptual definitions, Western Marxism either constitutes a specific field within Overseas Marxist studies or represents a particular training direction or academic expertise of researchers. Due to the inconsistency in the connotation and extension of these two concepts, the so-called "subsumption theory" or "replacement theory" lacks possibility and reality.
While I emphasize the difference between Western Marxist research and Overseas Marxist studies, I do not deny their internal academic origins or their enduring and profound mutual influence. Generalized Western Marxism is a collection of various viewpoints, theories, and schools of Marxist theoretical research and practical exploration that originated or became popular in Western developed capitalist countries; it includes those "produced and developed on the basis of borrowing or distorting classical Western Marxist theoretical viewpoints." [22]
Structural Marxism, Existentialist Marxism, cultural or philosophical Marxism, and other various schools, as well as Neo-Marxism, Post-Marxism, Marxology, Analytical or Rational-Expectations Marxism, Ecological Marxism, and Feminist Marxism, constitute a "complex system of diverse non-orthodox Marxist and non-Marxist mixed social trends of thought." [25]
Broad Western Marxism is characterized by pluralism, openness, inclusiveness, and a loose structure. Take the French Regulation School as an example. In the 1970s and 1980s, facing the disappearance of long-term post-WWII capitalist prosperity and the reality of persistent economic recession, French regulationist economists—represented by Michel Aglietta and others—focused on exploring the laws of historical evolution regarding capitalist accumulation regimes and modes of regulation. Their research involved issues such as the modes of capital accumulation, the realization of surplus value, and the future of Fordist capitalism. Although this school eventually drifted away from the "Marxist trajectory" by "breaking with the critical tradition of Marxism," we cannot deny that its discourse system, research methods, and analytical frameworks share a common origin with Marxism. [26] In addition, as a close relative of the French Regulation School, the American Social Structure of Accumulation (SSA) school, represented by David Gordon and David Kotz, is deeply influenced by Marx's institutional thought as well as the long-wave theories of Kondratieff and Schumpeter. Their analysis of economic crises, class contradictions, and social conflicts, as well as their critique and reflection on neoliberal theory and practice, have to a certain extent inherited the theoretical research paradigm and social critical tradition of Marxism; thus, they should also be incorporated into the field of Broad Western Marxism.
IV. If we take the publication of the first volume of Capital as the starting point, Marxist research in Western society has spanned more than a century and a half. If we calculate from the birth of the term "Western Marxism," research in this field has a developmental history of nearly a hundred years. The limitations and influence of Narrow Western Marxism research are difficult to eliminate in the short term, and the basic framework of Broad Western Marxism cannot be established overnight; rather, it requires long-term and arduous exploration. The author believes that to deeply advance Broad Western Marxism research from the perspective of political economy, we must take the classic Marxist texts—such as Capital—as the foundation. We must take the mode of production in human society and its corresponding relations of production and exchange as the object, rely on explaining and solving the major realistic political, economic, and social problems of today's world, and take the pursuit of free, comprehensive, and harmonious development of man and nature and man and man as the ultimate goal. We must strive for the essence of Marxist research, where theoretical reflection and practical exploration proceed in tandem, and explaining the world and changing the world are pursued simultaneously, constantly promoting the popularization, modernization [11], and internationalization of Marxism through development and innovation. To this end, it is necessary to focus on and correctly handle two types of balanced relationships, emphasize the revival of the political economy research tradition, and advocate for the study of classic Marxist texts.
(1) The balance between the major components within the Marxist theoretical system and the revival of the political economy research tradition.
Marxism is a theoretical whole. Philosophy, political economy, and scientific socialism, as the three major components of Marxism, should always maintain an equal relationship of interdependence, mutual balance, and common prosperity. However, compared with the series of progress in fields such as philosophy, aesthetics, sociology, history, and political science, the results of political economy research in Western Marxism over the nearly past century have been relatively weak. It lacks a dimension of social critique and fails to fully explain major realistic issues of economic and social development. Western Marxism exhibits a clear "de-economization" characteristic, with few innovative and influential theoretical viewpoints or policy proposals in political economy. This current state is far from the requirement of the integrity of Marxist theory, leading to a disconnection between theoretical research and the reality of social development, which has impacted the theoretical vitality and practical influence of Western Marxism. For instance, in the late 1980s, when faced with challenges such as why the Soviet Union and Eastern European countries abandoned the socialist road and why capitalist countries did not move toward demise but instead showed strong developmental momentum, Western Marxism was unable to provide a persuasive explanation. In response, Meghnad Desai declared the death of Western Marxism and called for a return to the political economy research tradition. Desai opposed the vulgar view linking the socialist transition in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe to the death of Marxism, insisting that Marxist political economy could rationally explain both the collapse of socialism in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe and the sustained development of capitalism in the 20th century. [27] After the 2008 U.S. subprime mortgage crisis, Richard Wolff wrote that once Alan Greenspan's "New Economy" collapsed, Marx and Marxism would re-enter the public eye. [28] This is because people urgently needed to understand the true causes of the economic crisis and were eager to find a fundamental solution to the problem. It can be seen that capitalist economic crises have accelerated the return of Marxist economics. Broad Western Marxism research should seize this historical opportunity to further advance the integrity of Marxist research.
(2) The balance between Marxist fundamental theory and applied practical research, and the foundational status of classic texts.
The author critiques the limitations of the "de-economization" of Western Marxism but does not deny its series of achievements in economic research. For example, after WWII, the research of the political economy of underdevelopment on the basic pattern of world wealth polarization and the causes of long-term poverty and backwardness in Third World countries, and the analysis by the French Regulation School and the American Social Structure of Accumulation school on capitalist modes of regulation, accumulation regimes, and development models, have to a certain extent enriched and developed Western Marxist economics. However, most existing research results take the explanation and solution of social reality problems as the fundamental goal, overemphasizing the practicality of Marxism while neglecting its theoretical value. Some major and fundamental theories do not receive the attention they deserve, resulting in the study of realistic problems being constrained by thin theoretical foundations and insufficient logical demonstration. After the U.S. subprime mortgage crisis, the tendency of Western Marxism to favor practice over theory became more serious. Many Western scholars discussed the roots, mechanisms, and governance measures of the economic crisis, demonstrating a clear "short-term behavioral characteristic of treating only the symptoms rather than the disease." [29] It is particularly noteworthy that much research fundamentally deviates from Marxist stands, viewpoints, and methods. One important reason is that "few contemporary professional economists have read Marx's works," and students majoring in economics rarely have the opportunity to encounter Marx's writings. In fact, only on the premise of respecting Marx's classic texts and accurately grasping and fully applying Marx's basic concepts is it possible to comprehensively analyze the various contradictions faced by modern capitalism and thus "attain a deep understanding of current socioeconomic dynamics." [30] Therefore, "revisiting Marx... is a useful step in building a paradigm for understanding and explaining capitalist transformation." [31] No matter how capitalism changes today, Capital can still provide different research perspectives for analyzing realistic problems such as economic inequality, instability, and the unsustainability of the relationship between man and nature, and provide a useful analytical framework for understanding the basic characteristics of capitalism. [32]
In summary, placing "Western Marxism" [12] within the field of vision of a "broad political economy" is not only an inherent requirement for returning to the essence of Marxism, but also an objective necessity for scientifically diagnosing the "crises of the times" and the "logic of capital." From the perspective of the history of Marxist development, the birth of Capital marked the completion of the "first Sinicization" [13]—or rather, the first transformation—of Marxism, shifting it from a philosophical critique to a critique of political economy. Looking at the "New Era" of the 21st century, the research on "broad Western Marxism" should also follow this path of "returning to Capital." By analyzing the new changes in the relations of production and the new characteristics of the superstructure in contemporary capitalism through the lens of political economy, we can better promote the innovation of Marxist theory. This process requires us to uphold the fundamentals and break new ground, ensuring that while we draw upon the reasonable components of Western critical theory, we always maintain the dominant position of historical materialism. Only in this way can we provide a more profound theoretical explanation of Chinese-path modernization and high-quality development, and contribute "Chinese wisdom" to the community with a shared future for humanity.