Wang Qingchao: A Review of Research by Domestic and Foreign Scholars on Western Marxism and Economics
Western Marxism, which originated in the 1920s, is a vibrant and vigorous flower in the great garden of 20th-century Marxism. The term was first coined by Karl Korsch. In his 1930 work, The Present State of the Problem of "Marxism and Philosophy"—An Anti-Critique, he depicted a form of Marxism diametrically opposed to the ideological line of "Marxist Orthodoxy," both old and new. It was precisely out of dissatisfaction with the "orthodox" Marxism forcibly promoted by the Second and Third Internationals—particularly by Stalin—that Western Marxism began its persistent exploration of "returning to Marx." Due to its distinctive heterodox characteristics, it attracted widespread attention from its inception. The presence of Western Marxism has appeared frequently in foreign Marxist theoretical research, with a continuous stream of monographs sparking a craze for its exploration. In 1981, Considerations on Western Marxism by the renowned contemporary British Marxist historian Perry Anderson was introduced to China. Consequently, the Chinese academic community gradually came into contact with Western Marxism, and various works were published in succession. Centering on the attitude of Western Marxists toward Marx’s economic theory, many scholars at home and abroad have conducted in-depth discussions, tracing the metamorphic trajectory of research orientations within Western Marxism.
I. Foreign Scholars on Western Marxism and Economics
Generally speaking, as a trend of leftover critical thought, Western Marxism was born on West European soil. Because it was rooted in Western social reality, confronted Western social problems, and concerned itself with the fate of Western society, Western Marxism has enjoyed extensive attention from Western scholars since its birth. It has gained the approval and faith of many, while also facing the criticism and accusations of others—including self-reflections by Western Marxists themselves. These scholars possess the deepest understanding of the nature, positions, and methods of their own intellectual systems, and their descriptions of the characteristics of Western Marxism are more persuasive than those of outside observers. Regarding the general attitude of Western Marxists toward Marx’s economic theory, they have provided relatively accurate and profound descriptions and analyses. If the 1970s is taken as the dividing line, prior to this, Western Marxism held high the banner of restoring the philosophical nature of Marxism to oppose the object of capitalist reality, refusing to start from economic and political structures to resolve issues—this is known as the "Philosophy Thesis." Thereafter, Western Marxism turned to focus on the study of economic issues and committed itself to the revival of historical materialism—known as the "Shift Thesis."
(1) Research on the Relationship between Western Marxism and Economics before the 1970s
Due to their unique historical backgrounds and personal identities, the German scholar Korsch and Lukács opened a theoretical path distinct from "orthodox" Marxism—namely, Western Marxism. Korsch pioneered the term "Western Marxism" and described its theoretical features as running counter to the "orthodoxy" of the Second and Third Internationals. However, the term did not achieve consensus at the time; it was not until the French existentialist thinker Maurice Merleau-Ponty discussed it again in his 1955 book Adventures of the Dialectic that it gradually gained recognition. Merleau-Ponty followed Korsch's view, establishing the theoretical keynote of Western Marxism as being in opposition to Leninism. Differing from the approaches of Korsch and Merleau-Ponty, Anderson, in his 1976 publication Considerations on Western Marxism, no longer demarcated Western Marxism from the perspective of opposition to the Second and Third Internationals. Instead, using a bold, impressionistic stroke, he outlined the overall face of Western Marxism from the perspective of the transition of themes and the shift in central concerns.
"As European Marxism became increasingly less concerned with economic or political structures as central problems of its theory, its entire center of gravity shifted fundamentally toward philosophy." In Anderson's view, the primary objects of study for Western Marxism were no longer politics and economics, but culture and philosophy. This theory was not only a critique and transcendence of the "natural ontology" and "economic determinism" of the Second and Third Internationals but also a complete reversal of the process of Marx’s own intellectual development: "Marx, the founder of historical materialism, moved steadily from philosophy to politics and economics as the center of his thought; whereas the successors of the tradition that emerged after 1920 moved steadily from economics and politics back to philosophy." [1] In Anderson's view, it was precisely the dual influence of the crisis of 20th-century Marxism and the cultural-historical predicament of Western society that led Western Marxism to no longer be interested in actual economic problems, causing them to devote their primary energy to the field of philosophy.
Anderson's views were inherited by many scholars. The renowned contemporary British Marxist scholar David McLellan noted this characteristic of Western Marxism: "Marx began with philosophy and then moved to economics, whereas typical Western Marxist thinkers have done the opposite." The American leftist writer Russell Jacoby, when defining the entry for "Western Marxism," also explained its theoretical characteristic as "shifting the emphasis of Marxism from political economy and the state to culture, philosophy, and art." [3] Jacoby believed that since Western Marxism was primarily a philosophical trend, this dictated that its focus must necessarily concentrate on the analysis of "subjective" structures, with "relatively little analysis of 'objective' structures—imperialism or accumulation." [3] In his view, what was utopian was that its members "actually came to see Marxism as aimed at the abolition of political economy or liberation from economic constraints, believing that the categories of political economy itself reflected a state of economic domination that Marxism intended to overthrow." The American scholar Robert A. Gorman gave Western Marxism a new designation—"Neo-Marxism"—and explained it as a philosophical thought, a "non-orthodox" Marxism that does not accept historical materialism. His edited work, Biographical Dictionary of Neo-Marxism, as a monograph researching "non-materialist Marxists," included 205 representative figures of "Neo-Marxism" from 27 countries, yet excluded a large group of Marxists who were quite influential in the fields of history, politics, economics, sociology, and anthropology.
Taken together, the philosophical shift of Western Marxism has become a consensus among a portion of Western scholars. They firmly believe that the research horizon of Western Marxism reversed from politics and economics back to culture and philosophy, reflecting a unique shift in the 20th-century Marxist theoretical spectrum. However, evaluations of the effects produced by this spectral shift vary among individuals. A portion of Western scholars, represented by Anderson, view this orientation as the primary defect of Western Marxism and reveal the ill consequences brought by this defect: the divorce of theory from practice; obscure and difficult language; the excessive tracing of Marxism's Hegelian origins; and a lack of internationalism, with no connection between thinkers. In the eyes of some Western scholars, Anderson’s evaluation is undoubtedly negative—a typical "pessimistic view." Contrary to Anderson’s view, Jacoby did not look down upon this reversal of horizon in Western Marxism: "I do not see Western Marxism as an unfortunate detour or a retreat from 'classical' Marxism." He even argued that the return of the gravitational center of Western Marxism to philosophy was a re-examination of modern Marxism, and in this sense, it was undoubtedly a form of progress.
(2) Research on the Relationship between Western Marxism and Economics after the 1970s
With the ebb and flow of the May 1968 events [1] in France, the traditional research paradigm of Western Marxism—the critique of cultural philosophy—could no longer subsume the complex postmodern landscape emerging from internal fragmentation. Some Western scholars thus concluded that traditional Western Marxism, which took "totality" as its theoretical logic, had reached its end. Accompanying the historical end of the logic of totality was the declared conclusion of the traditional research paradigm of Western Marxism, which emphasized cultural-philosophical critique and neglected the exploration of economic issues. In In the Tracks of Historical Materialism—the sequel to Considerations on Western Marxism—Anderson investigated and reflected on the new changes that had occurred in Western Marxism in the nearly ten years since the publication of the former: "The actual results do not entirely coincide with my conclusions in Considerations on Western Marxism." Western Marxism in the traditional sense gradually faded from view, with the endpoint of this journey occurring roughly in the mid-1970s.
Although Anderson believed the theoretical logic of traditional Western Marxism ended in the mid-1970s, he disagreed with the view that Western Marxism had completely exited the stage of history. In his view, the end of a theoretical logic is not the end of actual struggle; a brand-new paradigm of social critical theory broke through the soil within the old logical framework. He argued that Western Marxism formed a new research paradigm in the contemporary era, whose critical edge was "first directed at those institutional problems of economy, society, or politics that its predecessors had neglected." After the mid-1970s, "the absolute intensity of interest in economic, political, sociological, and cultural studies among the Marxist left in Britain or North America, and the resulting profusion and discourse, eclipsed the degree of research on the original territory of the Western Marxist tradition itself." Anderson called this phenomenon the "revival of historical materialism in the 1970s." McLellan is a firm supporter of the "Shift Thesis," believing that the resurgence of interest in Marxist economics in Western Marxism during the 1970s was influenced by the dual historical context of the crisis of late capitalism and the problem of world inequality. The "Shift Thesis" gained the recognition of a considerable number of Western scholars, marking Western Marxism’s farewell to the tradition of rejecting the exploration of economic reality and taking a key step in the revival of economic research within Western Marxism. However, this is not the whole story; some scholars hold different views on the timing of this shift. British economists M.C. Howard and J.E. King argue that the starting point of the shift should be set earlier: "Since the 1930s, the center of gravity of theoretical analysis [in Marxist economics] began to shift to the West, such that Western Europe and North America became the centers of Marxist political economy in the post-war period." The famous British female economist Joan Robinson pushed the time of the "revival" of Marxist economics in Western countries back even further to the Russian October Revolution. In her view, although the exposition of Marx’s economic theory was mainly based on Britain as an example, by the beginning of the 20th century, Marxists in Britain and other Western European countries had made few achievements in economic theory. More energy was attracted by Marx’s political thought and historical theory, to the point of treating Marx’s economic theory with an attitude of "disdainful silence." But this state of "silence" was quickly reversed: the proletarian revolution bore fruit in Russia, proving with facts that Marxism is an unbreakable scientific truth with powerful practical vitality, and Marx’s economic doctrines once again attracted the attention of Western Marxists. The American economist Herbert Gintis believes that scholars in European and American countries have always given sufficient attention to Marxist economic theory, and that Marxist economic theory "has existed for at least a century" in the Western world.
II. Chinese Scholars on Western Marxism and Economics
Since the Reform and Opening-up, the dissemination and study of Western Marxism in China has undergone a developmental process from non-existence to existence, and from relative obscurity to continuous prosperity.
In 1981, the publication of the Chinese edition of Perry Anderson’s Considerations on Western Marxism marked the beginning of the dissemination and study of Western Marxism in China, leading to the emergence of a large body of academically valuable research. These research results include interpretations of individual theorists’ thoughts, grasps of the ideological systems of specific schools, and systematic reviews of the history of Western Marxism's development. Although it is difficult to find a single clear logical thread to link Western Marxism together, some domestic scholars have explored a dimension for a holistic grasp of the grand academic theories of Western Marxism by searching for subtle clues. Focusing on Western Marxism’s attitude toward Marx’s economic theory, they have analyzed the trajectory of the evolution of Western Marxism’s research horizons: it has experienced a transition from "de-economization" to "pan-economization."
(1) Research on the Phenomenon of "De-economization" in Western Marxism
From the perspective of ideological evolution, Western Marxism originated in reflections on Western society. The first act of this reflection was to critique the economic determinism of the Second and Third Internationals, attempting to re-interpret Marxism with cultural philosophy as the theoretical orientation. In domestic academic circles, Chen Xueming was among the first to accurately describe this characteristic of Western Marxism:
"'Western Marxist' theorists view Marxism merely as a kind of philosophy, and they particularly despise or even oppose Marxist economics." In his view, the "orthodoxy" of the Second and Third Internationals, represented by the Stalinist philosophical framework, proceeded from a positivist natural ontology, causing Marxism to fall into the quagmire of economic determinism, dogmatism, and positivist philosophy from which it could not escape. Western Marxism originally arose from a critique of this positivist tendency that was stifling the development of Marxism, striving to reposition philosophy at the center of Marxism. Clearly, they went to the other extreme: while critiquing economic determinism, they also abandoned the economic dimension of Marx’s analysis of modern society. Regarding this, he analyzed that while Western Marxism performed a great service in the theoretical movement to restore the philosophical nature of Marxism, it placed Marx’s philosophical thought in opposition to his economic theory, affirming the former while denying the latter, which was clearly a dismemberment of Marxism.
Zhang Yibing also identified this basic characteristic of Western Marxism early on. He defined Western Marxism as a philosophical and cultural trend of thought in the 20th century. This judgment conceals a theoretical premise: Western Marxists generally believed that it was no longer possible to generate the intellectual momentum for critical theory from the economic threads of contemporary capitalism. Although this research orientation filled the theoretical vacancy left by the "economic determinism" of the Second International, it similarly isolated the economic thread from the philosophical thread as independent domains, cutting off the dialectical connection between them, which also constituted a distorted interpretation of Marxist thought. Furthermore, Zhang Yibing believes that Western Marxism, as a philosophical and cultural trend, had already reached its end by the mid-1970s; this concept is insufficient to cover the Euro-American Marxist economic thought that has increasingly flourished since the "May Storm" [2]. In this sense, economics has always been an "empty space" in the history of the development of Western Marxism, or at least it has not received sufficient attention.
Tai Lihua systematically expounded on the phenomenon of Western Marxism abandoning the thread of economic critique. She analyzed this phenomenon in detail and gave it the technical term "de-economization." So-called "de-economization" refers to the "trend in Western Marxism where its research objects, research themes, research methods, the professional aspirations of researchers, and research results increasingly move away from political economy." Tai Lihua described this phenomenon from the perspective of member identities and fields of output, arguing that the emergence of this trend had profound socio-historical roots, such as the failure of the Western proletarian revolution in the early 20th century and the flaws of the Soviet model. Emotions of disappointment regarding socialist reality have constantly haunted the minds of Western Marxists, causing them to lose interest in exploring social reality issues and instead immerse themselves in philosophical research. The theoretical consequence of this is that Western Marxism ignores the dimension of economic critique, resulting in a loss of theoretical totality [3]. Fragmented theoretical viewpoints brought about a rupture in the economic theoretical system, which ultimately affected the breadth and depth of the dissemination of Marxism.
The views of Chen Xueming, Zhang Yibing, and Tai Lihua have been recognized by several scholars. Han Yuli summarized the research orientation of Western Marxism as cultural critique and de-economization: "From the beginning of Western Marxism, the philosophical nature of Marxism was emphasized, and economics was naturally distanced by Western Marxism." This was essentially a historical reversal in which Marxism retreated from a materialist standpoint back to an idealist one. Regarding the negative effects of Western Marxism’s "de-economization," Sun Chengshu’s analysis hit the mark: "Western Marxists all share a common limitation, which is the neglect of the critique of capital; they have once again deviated from Marx on a fundamental point, which is the root cause of their move toward subjective one-sidedness."
(2) Research on the Phenomenon of "Pan-economization" in Western Marxism
The sudden emergence of postmodernism was one of the most influential events in Western academic circles in the last thirty years of the 20th century—the blurred and confusing postmodern trend did everything possible to deconstruct the various "centers" and "hegemonies" of the era. This trend deeply influenced the theoretical direction of Western Marxism: contemporary Western Marxism entered an era of diversification. When traditional economic theories proved powerless in the face of increasingly severe economic crises, contemporary Western Marxists turned their gaze toward a dimension their predecessors had despised or even opposed—Marxist political economy. Their enthusiasm for studying Marx’s economic theory grew day by day; research objects, methods, and results became more diverse and abundant, briefly manifesting the grand spectacle of a "Marx of a Thousand Faces." There even emerged an orientation in the study of contemporary Western Marxist economic thought where, "in addition to efforts toward the professionalization of economics, there exists a ‘pan-economization’ orientation that crosses the boundaries of the discipline of economics and integrates multi-disciplinary research."
The first manifestation of "pan-economization" is the great expansion of research objects. "After the mid-1960s, the research of many Marxist economists in Europe and America on Marxist economics greatly transcended the scope of ‘social relations of production’; the feminist movement, minority issues, and others were all incorporated into the scope of Marxist economic research." Cheng Enfu and Zhu Kui were among the first to discover this trend in the study of economic issues within contemporary Western Marxism, arguing that while the expansion of research objects adapted to the developmental direction of multi-disciplinary cross-integration in the humanities and social sciences and to some extent broadened the research vision of Marxist economic theory, there remained a risk of blurring the specific research object of Marxist political economy.
The second manifestation of "pan-economization" is the "re-shaping" of research methods. In reviewing new orientations in Marxist economic theory research after World War II, Hu Leming argued that contemporary Western Marxist economic thought "does not study ‘the economy’ itself from the levels of technology, ownership, and exchange relations, but rather studies it as a political and cultural relationship, thereby deviating from the theoretical tradition of Marx’s economic analysis and becoming a philosophical, cultural, or even linguistic critique of ‘the economy.’" In fact, the traditional research paradigm of Western Marxism reversed Marx’s ideological trajectory, continuously retreating from economics and politics back into culture and philosophy. Although this theoretical orientation reached its end during the postmodernist deconstruction, we can still see traces of it in the diversified trends of contemporary Marxism. Hu Leming believes that the "pan-economization" orientation of contemporary Western Marxism is precisely an alternative continuation and reflection of this academic tradition. It is an indisputable fact that although contemporary Western Marxism has been "spectacularized" by postmodernist scholarship, resulting in the derivation of all sorts of theoretical factions, they all share a common characteristic: they have always focused on obtaining theoretical support and innovative inspiration from philosophy and other social sciences. They are keen on "synthesis" and "interdisciplinarity," striving to integrate Marxist political economy with disciplines such as philosophy, sociology, ecology, and even women’s studies. This is undoubtedly conducive to the comprehensive analysis of various realistic problems of contemporary capitalism. However, this "pan-economization" orientation not only causes the research object of Marxist economics to become generalized and blurred, often leading Marxist economic research away from the correct path, but the excessive economized interpretation of realistic problems also makes it easier for Marxist economics to become confined to trivial, complex, and minor matters. This leads to the fragmentation of the research direction of Marxist economics, ultimately weakening the ability of Marxist economics to analyze the reality of capitalist society and reveal the laws of human historical development.
III. Evaluation and Reflection
In recent years, both domestically and abroad, Western Marxism has become a popular research topic. Numerous research results have pushed Western Marxism to the center of the academic stage, presenting it to the world in a full-bodied posture. However, a difficult problem still troubles scholars at home and abroad: how to clarify the blurred and confusing attitudes of Western Marxists toward Marxist economic theory. Amid the intricate and complex theoretical forms, domestic and foreign scholars have summarized the evolution of the theoretical themes of Western Marxism and explored the overall logical thread of its economic theoretical development, which is consistent with the changing themes of the times in the history of Western Marxism’s shifts. Although some controversies remain, the division of historical periods of Western Marxism has basically become a consensus in the academic community: with the "May Storm" as the boundary, Western Marxism in the traditional sense reached its historical end, and contemporary, diversified Western Marxism performed its academic debut. Western Marxism in these two periods held diametrically opposed attitudes on the issue of how to view Marx’s economic theory. Western Marxism before the "May Storm" disparaged the status and role of Marxist economics while promoting totality, using changes in the times as an excuse to deny and distort the basic principles of Marxist economics. Western Marxism after the "May Storm" "integrated" Marxist economics with other economic theories, launching an all-around critique of capitalist society. In summary, the descriptions by domestic and foreign scholars regarding the evolution of research orientations are basically consistent with the themes of the times encountered by Western Marxism in the process of historical change.
Looking across the entire development of Western Marxism, cultural critique and economic critique have always been in a state of imbalance. Although contemporary Western Marxism has escaped the crisis of the "empty space" of political economy, it has not been able to absorb sufficient intellectual nourishment from Marxist economic theory; on the contrary, tendencies toward deviating from Marxism have even appeared. Broadly speaking, contemporary Western Marxist capitalist critique theory based on economic threads faces three defects that cannot be ignored.
First, the fragmentation of economic theory. Some Western Marxists, for the purpose of updating and developing Marxist political economy, have strived to "re-study" or "re-shape" Marx’s core categories of political economy—such as Paul Marlor Sweezy’s "underconsumption," Paul Alexander Baran’s "economic surplus," and John Roemer’s "general exploitation." This has become a trend in Western Marxist economic theoretical research. Leaving aside whether this transformation deviates from the original intent of Marxist theory, it is an undeniable fact that these transformations have dismembered Marxist political economy into fragments, leaving it with no totality to speak of.
Second, the diversification of research methods makes it difficult to integrate viewpoints. Accompanying theoretical fragmentation is the fact that a wide variety of analytical tools have begun to be combined with Marxist economic theory, and for a time, research methods displayed a state of "letting a hundred flowers bloom and a hundred schools of thought contend" [4]. To a certain extent, the diversification of research methods has expanded the vision of Marxist political economy, but it has also made it difficult to integrate viewpoints. Due to different methodologies, communication between different theoretical factions has become unreachable, degenerating into word games where each side talks only to itself.
Third, the rupture of the economic theoretical system. In...
Under the slogan of "reshaping" Marxist political economy, a number of Western Marxists are crudely dismembering Marx's fundamental economic theories and misusing various non-Marxist tools of economic analysis. The direct consequence of this is that, due to the lack of a mutually recognized discourse system, neither a holistic understanding nor a consensus-based insight has formed within contemporary Western Marxism; as such, Western Marxism still faces a severe crisis of integrity. If this situation is allowed to continue, it will trigger irreparable negative effects—to say nothing of the fact that Western Marxist economic theoretical research will become unsustainable, it may even ultimately lead to Western Marxism gradually fading from public view, moving toward decline and extinction. Therefore, Western Marxism must sound the horn for a major offensive on political economy.
Stones from other hills may serve to polish one's own jade [5]. The shift in the economic stance of Western Marxism carries information regarding the rapidly changing capitalist world and pulses with the heartbeat of a specific era. Deeply interpreting and reflecting upon Western Marxism and the shift in its economic stance holds significant reference value for understanding a series of practical problems since the founding of New China [6], as well as for developing and improving the theoretical system of contemporary Chinese Marxist political economy.
(Notes and references omitted)
(Author’s Affiliation: School of Marxism, Huaibei Normal University)
Web Editor: Zhang Jian Source: Journal of Chongqing Jiaotong University (Social Sciences Edition), Issue 5, 2021.