Juan Hongfei: On the Theoretical Premises of Foreign Marxist Studies
The study of foreign Marxism is currently an extremely important and immensely influential field within Marxist theoretical research in China. Not only does it boast a large number of researchers and prolific outputs, but new problems, viewpoints, and terrains are also emerging in an endless stream. It has consistently played a promotional role in enriching the content and expanding the scope of Marxist theoretical research in China. Over the past twenty years in particular, a large number of young scholars have entered this field, causing it to present a scene of great prosperity. However, there exists a problem requiring special attention: the sufficient lack of concern regarding the intellectual presuppositions for conducting research, which has already seriously hindered the in-depth development of the field.
Some scholars have pointed out: "A 'data-review' research paradigm has long been prevalent in China’s Western Marxism studies. The characteristic of this paradigm is its detachment from the socio-historical conditions and cultural traditions in which theorists were situated, its detachment from the evolutionary process of their thought, and its production of abstract interpretations of their ideas and theoretical texts. Consequently, not only is a theorist's lifelong thought viewed as homogeneous, but it also fails to reveal the realistic roots and internal logic of their theoretical construction. Researchers become very familiar with specific theoretical viewpoints but fail to truly grasp the theorist's genuine intentions and theoretical problems. This prevents researchers from grasping the deep logic of internal development and causes Western Marxism studies to exhibit increasingly positivist and fragmented characteristics. It not only fails to grasp the internal logic of Western Marxism's development as a whole, but also fails to achieve an organic interaction between Western Marxism studies and the study of the history of Marxist development, the construction of Chinese Marxist philosophy, and the practice of Chinese-path modernization. This results in studying Western Marxism for its own sake, failing to realize the purpose of our country's Western Marxism research." At its root, this issue stems from a failure to truly understand and grasp the presuppositions of foreign Marxist theoretical research.
I. The Study of Marx’s Thought: The Foundation of Foreign Marxism Research
No matter how complex and diverse the trends and schools of foreign Marxism may be, and regardless of the differences in the problems they involve, their fields of research, and their basic theoretical interests, as long as they can be included within the scope referred to by the concept of "foreign Marxism," they must possess an internal intellectual relationship with the thought of Marx. This point is fully reflected in the current academic definition of the field of foreign Marxism studies. The documents of the State Council Academic Degrees Committee concerning the establishment of Marxism as a first-level discipline and its subordinate second-level disciplines primarily define the scope of foreign Marxism research from two aspects: first, geographical delimitation, i.e., outside of China; second, qualitative delimitation, i.e., its basic nature belongs to Marxism. This mainly includes the Marxist theoretical research and socialist practices of foreign Communist Parties, the critiques of contemporary capitalism by Western left-wing thinkers based on Marxist theoretical research, Western Marxist trends of thought, and various Marxist schools formed based on the study of Marxist texts. Looking at the objects of foreign Marxist theoretical research generally recognized by the domestic academic community—whether the concept is used in a broad or relatively narrow sense—the theoretical schools involved all possess direct or indirect intellectual relationships with Marx's thought, which serves as the basis for contemplating and judging the fundamental nature of various foreign Marxist trends. Therefore, the study of Marx’s thought holds foundational significance for the study of foreign Marxism.
First, the study of Marx’s thought is the basis for understanding and grasping foreign Marxist trends of thought. This is determined by the dual task undertaken by the study of foreign Marxism. We do not study foreign Marxism for its own sake; rather, our research has clear theoretical and practical orientations.
From a theoretical orientation, as a contemporary form of the development of Marxism abroad, foreign Marxist trends necessarily draw theoretical resources from Marx. They confront major theoretical and practical problems arising in the development of contemporary capitalist society using the basic standpoint, theoretical principles, and methods of Marxism, completing their own theoretical construction in the process of answering these questions. Consequently, their interpretations of Marx’s theoretical texts, their selection of theoretical resources, and the theoretical logic they follow when analyzing and solving major theoretical and practical problems can all provide intellectual resources and theoretical references for the construction of Marxist theory in China. Therefore, it is necessary to use the study of Marx’s thought as a basis to make fundamental value judgments on various foreign Marxist trends and, based on these clear value judgments, to select or discard relevant theoretical achievements of foreign Marxism.
From a practical orientation, the study of foreign Marxism aims to understand the basic conditions and existing practical problems of contemporary capitalist society, providing intellectual resources and referable practical paths for solving various problems faced in the process of building socialism with Chinese characteristics. Although after more than forty years of reform and opening up, China has explored a path to modernization distinct from that of developed capitalist countries and has achieved historic accomplishments that have attracted worldwide attention, we still face a series of problems in fields such as promoting economic development and constructing a modern society that appeared during the construction of Western modern societies. Especially under the premise that China is gradually approaching the center of the world stage and increasingly integrating into the process of world history, the global and humanity-wide problems emerging in the construction of modern society are also ones we must face. Foreign Marxist trends have developed precisely alongside the changes in the modes of production and lifestyles of modern capitalist society. Their critiques of modern capitalism, reflections on actual socialism, and explorations of global and humanity-wide issues provide not only first-hand materials for our understanding of the trends, problems, and global impact of modern capitalism, but also intellectual resources for solving problems in the process of building socialism with Chinese characteristics. Therefore, it is necessary to use the study of Marx’s thought as a basis to discern the practical orientation of foreign Marxist trends and make prudent choices.
Second, basing research on the study of Marx’s thought does not mean stopping at a superficial understanding of his ideas; rather, it requires a profound understanding and grasp of Marx’s basic standpoint, viewpoints, and methods. Foreign Marxist trends of thought do not constitute an internally unified theoretical whole, but rather a complex of doctrines composed of systems of thought with different intellectual inclinations and theoretical interests. "Contemporary Marxism is like a colorful palette; it is composed of various and conflicting theories that constantly revise their assessments of the past and present, while hopefully examining and understanding the future." Regarding these many trends that consider themselves or are regarded as Marxist, one cannot determine their basic nature simply by whether they accept Marx's concepts and specific theoretical viewpoints. Rather, one must deeply analyze the basic standpoints and viewpoints held by their theories, and the basic methods used in their theoretical construction and critique of capitalism, to determine in what sense they are Marxist, or in what sense they are non-Marxist or anti-Marxist.
Raymond Aron, a French thinker contemporary with Sartre and Althusser, clearly pointed out that existentialist Marxism and structuralist Marxism were merely two "Holy Families" [1]; due to their principled leftism, verbal revolutionism, and failure to study concrete reality, they abandoned the position of Marxist political engagement. "Neither Critique of Dialectical Reason nor Reading Capital is oriented toward the masses; these works were not intended to mobilize or recruit activists or sympathizers, but to satisfy the needs of a minority." Although we cannot thoroughly deny the Marxist nature of these two schools based on this alone, we can clarify their differences from Marx’s thought, and subsequently deepen our understanding of these two schools by analyzing the roots of these differences.
If many early schools of foreign Marxism still upheld the standpoints, viewpoints, and methods of Marx’s thought to a certain extent, then foreign Marxism after the 1970s has mostly only drawn theoretical resources from Marx while actually departing from his thought. "While these theorists still consider themselves Marxists, they are fundamentally heterogeneous from traditional Western Marxism in that they have fundamentally negated the most important principles in Marx’s philosophical framework. For instance, Ecological Marxism opposes the view of improving the level of productive forces as the basis of historical development, arguing this is a non-ecological view of the human subject's forced enslavement of nature; this actually amounts to a fundamental rejection of the foundation of historical materialism. Similarly, Feminist Marxism criticizes Marx’s view of social class as likewise patriarchal; they propose that while Marx focused on the relationship between labor and capital, he only identified labor realized in the exchange market, ignoring the status of women’s domestic labor in the survival conditions of the labor force—which is also a type of labor that creates surplus value. This no longer belongs to the basic logic of Western Marxism." Nevertheless, their use of theoretical resources from Marx and their reliance on Marx’s analytical methods to critique contemporary capitalism still possess important practical significance.
Third, it is necessary to establish a solid foundation for the study of foreign Marxism based on grasping the internal theoretical logic and the overall intellectual system of the development of Marx's thought. Although foreign Marxist trends consist of numerous schools and diverse ideas, they can be categorized under this single concept precisely because they all possess a direct or indirect connection to Marx's thought. Revealing this intellectual connection is the prerequisite for understanding and grasping the various trends of foreign Marxism.
One must grasp the internal logic and overall trajectory of the development of Marx’s thought as a whole to clarify how various foreign Marxist trends and schools took up the theoretical and practical problems raised by Marx. It is necessary to identify which theoretical resources they obtained from Marx to answer these problems, and the logical relationship between the basic theoretical principles they followed and Marx’s intellectual system during that process, thereby elucidating their theoretical relationship with Marx and their position in the history of Marxist thought. For example, the founders of Western Marxism—Lukács, Korsch, and Gramsci—directly took up the problems of proletarian revolution and human liberation. Utilizing Marx's theoretical texts, they restored and reconstructed Marxist orthodoxy through a holistic [2] method of thought and a consciousness of revolutionary practice, thereby opening new directions for the development of Marxism.
The subsequent Humanist Marxism and Scientistic Marxism merely shared two tendencies or two logics found within Marx’s thought. Within Marx’s system of thought, there indeed exist two logics: first, the critique of capitalism developed in his youth with the goal of human liberation; second, the critical analysis of the history and reality of capitalism centered on Capital and its manuscripts in his later period. However, within the totality of Marx’s intellectual system, these dual logics are unified. Human liberation, as Marx’s "problematic," was established on the basis of a critical analysis of bourgeois political liberation and its consequences; the critical analysis of the history and reality of capitalism then placed human liberation on a scientific foundation. Human liberation is the ultimate goal of the critique of capitalism. Only by combining the two can one truly understand Marx’s complete system of thought. Yet Humanist Marxism and Scientistic Marxism precisely severed the two, leading both to believe it necessary to obtain theoretical resources from modern Western trends to supplement the deficiencies of Marxism. "The characteristic of Humanism is the contextualization and historicization of theory; this tendency easily dissolves the theoretical certainty of Marxism, diluting it into a general cultural critique. The problem with Scientism is an excessive belief in the objective logic of history, often remaining indifferent to changes in social reality."
Therefore, it is necessary to grasp Marx’s intellectual system as a whole, truly understand the relationship between different foreign Marxist trends and Marx's thought, and grasp the internal logic of their intellectual development through an analysis of their standpoints, viewpoints, and methods. This allows for the discernment of the basic nature, theoretical contributions, and intellectual limitations of these ideas, enabling their selection or rejection as theoretical resources for the construction of contemporary Chinese Marxist theory. This further allows for the rational use of their theoretical achievements to contemplate the series of problems arising in the construction of China's social modernization, while always adhering to the leading position of Marxism.
II. Intellectual History Research: The Holistic Horizon of Studying Foreign Marxism
The study of any philosopher or school of thought must always be situated within a specific background of the history of ideas. This is both a basic principle that all theoretical research should follow and the prerequisite for conducting in-depth theoretical inquiry. If we say that the study of Marx’s thought laid the foundation for researching foreign Marxism, then the study of the history of ideas constitutes the "totalizing horizon" for researching foreign Marxism. Only within the totalizing horizon of the history of ideas can we achieve a holistic understanding and grasp of foreign Marxist trends. This perspective allows us to clarify the mutual intellectual relations between them and determine their position within the history of ideas, while simultaneously identifying the genealogy of these complex and multifaceted foreign Marxist currents.
From the perspective of the historical process of foreign Marxism’s development, its evolution is closely related not only to Marx’s thought but also to modern Western thought. Therefore, it must be integrated into the general framework of the history of modern Western ideas. Within the reciprocal relationship between Marx’s thought and modern Western thought, we can form a totalizing horizon for understanding and grasping foreign Marxism.
The so-called history of ideas is not merely an intellectual progression followed along a chronological thread; it is a three-dimensional intellectual landscape composed of the theoretical systems of thinkers. The history of ideas is the starry sky of human thought. Every thinker, due to the theoretical depth and influence of their ideas, occupies a different position and radiates a different color in this firmament. Researching the history of ideas aims to reveal the intellectual connections between different thinkers by studying their theoretical systems, elucidating the relationships between different intellectual genealogies, and thereby constructing a complete picture of human thought. Marx’s thought is the most brilliant star in the firmament of modern human thought; all currents of foreign Marxism unfold around it, forming diverse intellectual landscapes through integration, collision, and conflict with various other trends.
First, it is necessary to use the study of the history of ideas as a basis to enhance theoretical discernment [3]. By clarifying the position and influence of various schools of foreign Marxism and their ideas within the history of human thought since the 20th century, we can accurately situate them. This prevents us from "falling into a five-mile fog" [4] when selecting research subjects. A strange phenomenon currently exists in Chinese research on foreign Marxism: on the one hand, middle-aged and senior scholars continuously emphasize and call for deepening research through the "deep plowing" [5] of texts and a problem-oriented approach; on the other hand, young scholars constantly chase new foreign concepts, trends, and figures in pursuit of novelty and difference, appearing to believe that only this can reflect the frontier and innovative nature of their research. This discrepancy between old and young scholars is not just a difference in intellectual sensitivity; it stems from differences in theoretical vision, academic discernment, and the ability to grasp major theoretical issues. Due to their profound academic accumulation, senior scholars are able to understand and grasp foreign Marxist thinkers and the major theoretical problems they raise within the totalizing horizon of the history of ideas. While it is natural for young scholars to seek novelty, they must situate the study of new concepts, trends, and figures within this same horizon. They must select effective research subjects and problems based on their theoretical positioning within the history of ideas, and subsequently grasp the intellectual relationships between various new trends and concepts as well as their links to existing theories. This avoids the fragmentation of research and ensures historical depth and intellectual breadth.
Second, it is necessary to use the study of the history of ideas as a basis to clarify the internal intellectual connections between different thinkers or schools. This provides the logical path to move from one thinker to another and the basic thinking process to transition from one theoretical problem to another, thereby granting foreign Marxist research a broad theoretical vision. On the one hand, this allows us to move beyond the state of "studying figures and schools for their own sake" and instead dive into the process of the history of ideas to understand them. This clarifies that every thinker’s ideas have a historical process of formation and development; at different periods of their intellectual evolution, they may actually possess entirely different theoretical characters. For instance, Georg Lukács’s thought underwent three stages: Neo-Kantianism, Western Marxism, and his late-period self-reflection. Jean-Paul Sartre likewise moved from existentialism toward Marxism. More importantly, because foreign Marxism is complex and multifaceted, with significant differences in the problems and fields it involves, it is difficult to grasp its overall developmental process through a single theoretical logic. Only by basing ourselves on the study of the history of ideas and grasping the theoretical logic governing the development of specific ideas and schools can we construct a general intellectual genealogy of foreign Marxism.
On the other hand, this helps to eliminate the barriers between the study of different thinkers and theoretical schools, realizing dialogue and exchange. Although various schools of foreign Marxism exhibit significant differences due to the theoretical resources acquired during their formation, their research positions, and their theoretical interests, they nonetheless share common intellectual resources and epochal problems. Consequently, intellectual relationships exist in terms of the succession of problems, the borrowing of theories, and the extension of concepts. Therefore, it is necessary to clarify the intellectual relations between different schools within the holistic horizon of the history of ideas, grasping the development of foreign Marxist trends and the transformation of their internal logic as a whole. Only in this way can we achieve multi-layered dialogue and exchange during the research process—including dialogue between different schools and thinkers, as well as dialogue among researchers themselves—thereby continuously deepening the study of foreign Marxism. In the current context where the general logic of foreign Marxist development is dissolving, becoming increasingly pluralistic, fragmented, and localized, and where theoretical estrangement is intensifying, this dialogue and exchange based on the history of ideas is of vital theoretical significance and practical value for understanding the genealogy of foreign Marxism.
Third, the study of foreign Marxism must be combined with the history of Chinese Marxist thought, especially the history of Marxist thought since the Reform and Opening-up [6]. The expansion of foreign Marxist research in China has never occurred in isolation; it has always been closely linked to the study of Chinese Marxist philosophy. On the one hand, foreign Marxist research has driven an internal logical transformation in Chinese Marxist philosophy, allowing it to gradually move away from the theoretical logic of the traditional "textbook system" [7] and, through the interpretation of Marx’s original texts, form a uniquely Chinese understanding of Marx’s thought. On the other hand, the transformation of the logic of Chinese Marxist philosophical research has also brought about a change in the attitude and position toward studying foreign Marxism. Specifically, China’s research on foreign Marxism has undergone a dual logical transformation: "from negative criticism to positive borrowing, and from indirect appropriation to direct dialogue." Regarding the former, it moved from criticizing foreign Marxism as revisionism, non-Marxism, or anti-Marxism to recognizing its Marxist nature and using its interpretations of Marx to reconstruct the theoretical logic and interpretive framework of Chinese Marxism. Regarding the latter, it refers to using the theoretical resources of foreign Marxism to directly confront the practical problems arising in the construction of modern Chinese society, thereby engaging in dialogue with Marx’s thought and foreign Marxist trends in the process of reflecting on and critiquing the problems of modernity. While promoting the theoretical construction of contemporary Chinese Marxism, this has also transformed the way of thinking, theoretical logic, and basic framework for approaching foreign Marxism.
Therefore, we must situate China's research on foreign Marxism within the totalizing logical process of this dual transformation. Only then can we clarify the "historical coordinates" [8] of foreign Marxist research and give it a clear theoretical positioning, thereby elucidating its theoretical significance and practical value.
III. 20th-Century World History: The Practical Foundation of Foreign Marxist Research
From the perspective of the relationship between theory and reality, any genuine and vital theory directly confronts reality itself and serves as a theoretical expression of the logic of social-historical development. However, because different thinkers utilize different theoretical resources, hold different positions, and follow different paths of thought when facing social reality, they form different theories and schools. Therefore, understanding the ideas of a philosopher or school within the vision of social history—where they succeeded and developed—not only deepens our grasp of philosophical theory but, more importantly, reveals the profound "reality dimension" [9] inherent in the theory.
As a critical theory of contemporary capitalism, the formation and development of foreign Marxism have always been closely linked to the global expansion of capitalism and the adjustment of its own mode of production since the 20th century. The rise and development of various schools of foreign Marxism represent a reflection on and critique of the global and human problems brought about by the global expansion of capital. At the same time, because these problems manifest differently in various countries and regions, the theoretical responses they trigger present different characteristics, thus constituting the overall picture of foreign Marxism since the 20th century. As Russell Jacoby pointed out: "In every place, Marxism bears the characteristics of its specific environment. A single, homogenous Marxism belongs to the past. Marxism always bears the color and content brought by its background conditions. ... Each Marxism is unique, with its own history, texts, leaders, achievements, and problems." Therefore, researching foreign Marxism requires not only grasping the theoretical resources it relied upon and its internal developmental logic, but also paying attention to the practical problems it confronts and the theoretical shifts triggered by social changes, so as to accurately position it theoretically. Reviewing the history of foreign Marxism, we see that every major theoretical transformation was linked to major practical problems and the theoretical difficulties they induced.
First, from the initial rise of foreign Marxism—namely the "Western Marxism" [10] pioneered by Lukács, Korsch, and Gramsci—we see it directly confronted the theoretical difficulties caused by the sharp contrast between the victory of the Russian October Revolution and the failure of the proletarian revolution in Europe. It was this practical problem that prompted them to reflect on the theoretical predicament of "Orthodox Marxism." Starting from the study of Marx’s thought, they sought to reconstruct Marxist orthodoxy, opening a new path for the development of Marxism through the theoretical resolution of practical problems and guiding the development of Western Marxism in the first half of the 20th century. Subsequent Humanist and Scientist Marxism followed different paths of reconstructing Marxism according to Western intellectual and cultural traditions. If Humanist Marxism used core concepts like praxis and subjectivity to reveal the critical dimension of Marxist philosophy and dissolve the deterministic interpretations of Orthodox Marxism, then Scientist Marxism used the "overdetermination" of structuralism to critique simple economic determinism, providing a theory for analyzing the reality of capitalism. Despite their differences in reinterpreting Marx, both pointed toward the increasing cultural and ideological control that capitalism exerted over the proletariat. They sought paths for human freedom and liberation, moving from a singular political revolution toward a union of cultural and political revolution, and ultimately to a comprehensive critique of capitalist culture.
Second, the radical cultural, political, and social critiques triggered by the "May Storm" [11] of 1968 in France posed a major challenge to classical Western Marxist theory and opened a path for the pluralistic development of foreign Marxism. After experiencing the "Golden Thirty Years" of capitalist development, on the one hand, the control of capital had invaded every sphere of human social life. While distorting and fragmenting human life, it formed a comprehensive repression of the person, such that the critique of capitalism necessarily moved beyond traditional economic, political, and cultural fields to construct a new theoretical logic. On the other hand, along with the process of globalization driven by capitalism, capital has transcended the boundaries of traditional nation-states. While dissolving the power of the nation-state, it has triggered a series of global problems. It was precisely these new problems brought by changes in capitalist society that, under the influence of postmodern thought, led foreign Marxism to abandon the pursuit of "totality" emphasized in its early stages. By integrating with various disciplinary fields and social trends to answer practical problems, a pattern of pluralistic development in foreign Marxism was formed.
Third, from the end of the 20th century to the present, capitalism has progressively shifted from controlling global production to controlling global capital and the high-end technological sectors of production. By utilizing advanced scientific and technological means, finance capital has exerted a profound influence on both the modes of production and the lifestyles of modern society. While deepening the crises of capitalism, this has simultaneously transformed such crises into a collective crisis for all of humanity. On one hand, this situation has allowed Western Marxist trends of thought that emerged after the 1970s—such as feminist Marxism, ecological Marxism, spatial critique theory, biopolitics, and multiculturalism—to persist and manifest new characteristics. On the other hand, the outbreak of the 2011 capitalist financial crisis [12] fully exposed the nature of financial imperialism, which capitalism had built upon modern technological means. Foreign Marxist thinkers have combined critiques of new technological developments with a comprehensive critique of capitalism, forming a series of new research problems or fields. Examples include the critique of new political economy aimed at neoliberalism, the critique of digital capitalism targeting the global plunder of virtual capital formed by the fusion of finance capital and new technologies, and Left-wing accelerationism, which takes the relationship between capitalism and technology as its object of critique.
Fourth, if the overall development of foreign Marxism has always been closely linked to the development of capitalism itself and its globalizing trends, then the development of Eastern European New Marxism exhibits distinct regional characteristics. To truly grasp it, one must connect it to the reforms and practices of Eastern European socialism and the world order created by the Cold War. Compared to the thinkers of various schools of Western Marxism, Eastern European New Marxist theorists never distanced themselves from actual social practice to reflect upon or critique real social life; they were always participants in real social activities and social activists. Eastern European New Marxist thinkers began their academic activities after the victory of the socialist revolution had already been secured in Eastern European countries; consequently, they directly faced the question of how to promote structural social transformation to build socialism after the completion of the political revolution. This led their reflections on Soviet-model socialism and their re-interpretations of Marx’s thought to be closely intertwined with their social history and practical problems. Without understanding the socio-historical conditions of Eastern Europe and the extremely complex relations between the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe caused by the Cold War, it is difficult to grasp their theories of socialist reform or the roots of their ultimate failure, and even more impossible to understand the uniqueness of their theory.
Fifth, the ultimate purpose of researching foreign Marxism is to serve the resolution of China’s practical problems and to promote the theoretical construction of contemporary Chinese Marxism. Therefore, it is necessary to integrate the problems researched by foreign Marxism with the reality of contemporary China. To this end, one must grasp the history, tradition, and culture of Chinese society in its totality, as well as the changes that may occur during the overall process of contemporary Chinese modernization. This requires grasping the problems of modernity faced by China in its own development process within the context of the relationship between China and the world, as well as the new changes in capitalism triggered by China’s increasing proximity to the center of the world stage. One must pay attention to the fact that with the rise of the vast number of emerging countries represented by China, the traditional world political and economic order is gradually changing. This has broken the pattern of the unidirectional flow of capital profits under the dominance of financial capitalism, triggering profound changes within capitalism. The rise of increasingly intensified trends of de-globalization, anti-globalization, and conservatism in the West is the most explicit manifestation of this. Therefore, it is necessary to combine a profound understanding and grasp of the "Great Changes Unseen in a Century" [13] to truly comprehend and master the new changes in capitalist society. This will enable a genuine dialogue between Chinese Marxism and foreign Marxism, allowing us to grasp the theoretical logic of foreign Marxism in the process of revealing its practical logic. This, in turn, will provide theoretical resources and clarify theoretical problems for resolving major theoretical and practical issues in the development process of the contemporary world and Chinese society, thereby promoting the construction and development of contemporary Chinese Marxist theory.
In summary, only by building upon a solid foundation of research into Marx's thought, integrating the epochal questions from the process of actual socio-historical development with the internal theoretical logic of foreign Marxist theory, and placing these within the totalizing horizon of the history of ideas, can we truly understand and grasp foreign Marxist trends of thought in their totality and provide them with an accurate and effective theoretical positioning. By conducting genuine dialogue and exchange with foreign Marxist thinkers and researchers, we can continuously deepen the study of foreign Marxism while simultaneously transforming it into an important theoretical resource that can be absorbed and utilized for solving China’s practical problems and constructing Chinese Marxist theory.